\section{Introduction}
Notwithstanding fifty years of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the spectrum of light quark mesons remains obscure.  This is especially true if one includes states with strangeness, \emph{e.g}., Refs.\,\cite{Ketzer:2019wmd} and \cite[Sec.\,63]{Workman:2022ynf}, and despite the claim, made long ago \cite{Godfrey:1985xj}, ``\ldots that all mesons -- from the pion to the upsilon -- can be described in a unified framework.''  The latter statement was made with reference to a quark model potential with one-gluon-like exchange plus linear confinement.  Some features of such potential models can be understood to have a qualitative connection with QCD.  For instance, regarding the lighter degrees-of-freedom, $g=u$, $d$, $s$ quarks, one might draw a link between a model's constituent quarks and QCD's dressed-quarks, insofar as dressed quarks are described by a momentum-dependent running-mass, $M_g(k^2)$, which is large at infrared momenta \cite[Fig.\,2.5]{Roberts:2021nhw}: $M_{u,d}(0)\simeq 0.41\,$GeV, $M_s(0) \simeq 0.53\,$GeV.

There are problems with the quark model position, however.
One issue is the quantum mechanics description of light-quark systems in terms of a potential.  Owing to the fact that light-particle annihilation and creation effects are essentially nonperturbative in QCD, it is impossible to calculate a quantum mechanical potential between two light quarks \cite{Bali:2005fu, Prkacin:2005dc, Chang:2009ae}.
Another recognises that whilst it might be possible to connect a linear potential with the Wilson area law applicable to infinitely heavy colour-sources and -sinks \cite{Wilson:1974sk}, the associated flux tube picture \cite{Isgur:1983wj} has neither a mathematical nor physical connection with the confinement of light quarks.  In this sector, at least, confinement is more subtle, arguably manifested in analytic properties of dressed-gluon and \mbox{-quark} propagators that are markedly different from those of asymptotic states
\cite{Krein:1990sf, Burden:1991gd, Roberts:2007ji, Brodsky:2012ku, Qin:2013ufa, Lucha:2016vte, Gao:2017uox, Binosi:2019ecz, Dudal:2019gvn, Fischer:2020xnb, Roberts:2020hiw}.
A third notes that even if these and many other problems could be overcome, there is the Gell-Mann--Oakes--Renner identity \cite{GellMann:1968rz}, which linearly relates the pion mass-squared, $m_\pi^2$, to Nature's explicit source of chiral symmetry breaking, $\hat m$, \emph{viz}.\ $m_\pi^2 \propto \hat m$.  Such behaviour is impossible in a potential model \cite{Roberts:2012sv, Horn:2016rip}.

Challenges like that can be surmounted by using continuum Schwinger function methods (CSMs) \cite{Eichmann:2016yit, Qin:2020rad}; yet, others arise.  The most notable relates to construction of a sound, symmetry preserving approximation to the quark+antiquark Bethe-Salpeter kernel.   A straightforward systematic approach \cite{Munczek:1994zz, Bender:1996bb} serves well for ground-state hadrons with little rest-frame orbital angular momentum between the dressed valence constituents \cite{Holl:2004fr, Holl:2005vu, Fischer:2009jm, Krassnigg:2009zh, Qin:2011dd, Qin:2011xq, Blank:2011ha, Hilger:2014nma, Fischer:2014cfa, Eichmann:2016hgl, Qin:2019hgk}.  It is limited, however, by a failure to express consequences of emergent hadron mass (EHM) \cite{Roberts:2020hiw, Roberts:2021nhw, Binosi:2022djx, Papavassiliou:2022wrb}.  Improved schemes are being developed \cite{Chang:2009zb, Chang:2011ei, Binosi:2014aea, Williams:2015cvx, Binosi:2016rxz, Qin:2020jig}; and in applications to mesons constituted from $u$, $d$ valence quarks and/or antiquarks, to which they have been limited, the new approaches have shown promise.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centerline{%
\includegraphics[clip, width=0.9\textwidth]{F1.pdf}}
\caption{\label{figAllstrange}
Gold six-pointed stars -- spectrum of low-lying $u$, $d$, $s$ mesons predicted by the Bethe-Salpeter kernel developed herein;
and black five-pointed stars -- same spectrum computed using rainbow-ladder truncation.
Comparison empirical spectrum \cite[Summary Tables]{Workman:2022ynf}:
blue circles (bars) -- $u$, $d$ systems; and green diamonds (bar) -- mesons with $s$ and/or $\bar s$ quarks.  The open red diamond is the $K(1460)$, about which little is known.
(All numerical values are listed in Supplemental Material, Table~\ref{TableMassPredictions}, along with an explanation of state selection and identification.)
}
\end{figure*}

Herein, we explore the capacity of a new kernel construction \cite{Qin:2020jig} to simultaneously treat ground- and first-excited-states of light-quark mesons plus those containing $s$ and/or $\bar s$ quarks.  As shown in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}, the empirical spectrum displays some curious features.  For instance:
whilst $m_\rho < m_{K^\ast}$, this ordering is reversed for the first excitations of these states;
the first excited state of the $\rho$ is heavier than that of the $\pi$, but this is reversed for $K^\ast$, $K$;
and there is a near degeneracy between axialvector mesons, with the heavier mass of the $s$ quarks seeming to have little or no impact.
In delivering the first Poincar\'e covariant, symmetry-preserving analysis of this collection of mesons to employ an EHM-improved kernel, we provide fresh insights into the physical foundations of the spectrum and structure of lighter-quark mesons.

\section{Rainbow-ladder truncation}
Mesons appear as poles in the quark+antiquark scattering matrix: the pole location reveals the mass (and width); and the residue of the pole is the Poincar\'e-covariant bound-state wave function.  The scattering matrix is the solution of an integral equation, whose driving term is the Bethe-Salpeter kernel and which features the dressed-propagators of the valence degrees-of-freedom that constitute the system.

The simplest symmetry-preserving approximation to the meson bound-state problem is provided by the rainbow-ladder (RL) truncation, which is leading-order in the scheme identified in Refs.\,\cite{Munczek:1994zz, Bender:1996bb}.  It is readily introduced by focusing on the gap equation for a quark with flavour $g$:
\begin{subequations}
\label{EqGap}
\begin{align}
S_g^{-1}(k) &= i\gamma\cdot k + m_g + \Sigma_g(k) \,,\\
\Sigma_g(k) & =\int_{dq}
4 \pi \alpha\, D_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\mu\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2} S(q) \Gamma_\nu^g(q,k)\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2}\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $l=k-q$,
$m_g$ is the Higgs-produced quark current-mass;
$\{\tfrac{1}{2}\lambda^a|a=1,\ldots,8\}$ are the generators of SU$(3)$-colour in the fundamental representation;
$\alpha$ is the QCD coupling; $D_{\mu\nu}$ is the dressed-gluon propagator; and $\Gamma_\nu^g$ is the relevant dressed-gluon-quark vertex.  The solution of Eq.\,\eqref{EqGap} is often written
$S_g(k) = 1/[i\gamma\cdot k\,A_g(k^2) + B_g(k^2)]$.

Following Refs.\,\cite{Munczek:1994zz, Bender:1996bb}, the Bethe-Salpeter kernel is determined once the diagrammatic content of the kernel in Eq.\,\eqref{EqGap} is specified.  The rainbow-truncation is obtained by writing:
$4 \pi \alpha D_{\mu\nu}(l) \Gamma_\nu^g(q,k) \to {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\nu$,
where ${\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}$ is a vector-boson exchange-interaction informed by analyses of QCD's gauge sector \cite{Qin:2011dd}.  In the associated ladder truncation, the Bethe-Salpeter kernel is $(y=l^2)$
\begin{subequations}
\label{EqRLInteraction}
\begin{align}
\label{KDinteraction}
\mathscr{K}_{tu}^{rs} & = {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l) [i\gamma_\mu\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2} ]_{ts} [i\gamma_\nu\frac{\lambda^{a}}{2} ]_{ru}\,,\\
 {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l)  & = \tilde{\mathpzc G}(y) T_{\mu\nu}(l)\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$l^2 T_{\mu\nu}(l) = l^2 \delta_{\mu\nu} - l_\mu l_\nu$.  This tensor structure specifies Landau gauge, which is used because \cite{Bashir:2009fv}: (\emph{i}) it is a fixed point of the renormalisation group; (\emph{ii}) that gauge for which corrections to RL truncation are least noticeable; and (\emph{iii}) most readily implemented in lattice-regularised QCD.
In Eq.\,\eqref{EqRLInteraction}, $r,s,t,u$ represent colour, spinor, and flavour matrix indices (as necessary).

The form of ${\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l)$ is explained elsewhere \cite{Qin:2011xq, Binosi:2014aea}:
\begin{align}
\label{defcalG}
 \tilde{\mathpzc G}(y) & =
 \frac{8\pi^2 D}{\omega^4} e^{-y/\omega^2} + \frac{8\pi^2 \gamma_m \mathcal{F}(y)}{\ln\big[ \tau+(1+y/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2)^2 \big]}\,,
\end{align}
where $\gamma_m=4/\beta_0$, $\beta_0=25/3$,
$\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=0.234\,$GeV,
$\ln(\tau+1)=2$,
and ${\cal F}(y) = \{1 - \exp(-y/[4 m_t^2])\}/y$, $m_t=0.5\,$GeV.
Regarding Eq.\,\eqref{defcalG}:
(\emph{i}) $0 < \tilde{\mathpzc G}(0) < \infty$ because a nonzero gluon mass-scale appears as a consequence of EHM in QCD \cite{Binosi:2014aea, Cui:2019dwv, Roberts:2021nhw, Binosi:2022djx, Papavassiliou:2022wrb};
and (\emph{ii}) the large-$y$ behaviour ensures that the one-loop renormalisation group flow of QCD is preserved.
Property (\emph{ii}) is crucial when considering, \emph{e.g}., hadron elastic and transition form factors at large momentum transfer \cite{Chen:2018rwz, Ding:2018xwy, Xu:2019ilh, Xu:2021mju} and the behaviour of parton distribution functions and amplitudes near the endpoints of their support domains \cite{Ding:2019qlr, Cui:2020dlm, Cui:2020tdf}.
It is less important when calculating masses, which are global, integrated properties.  Regarding masses, (\emph{i}) is critical: even a symmetry-preserving treatment of a momentum-independent interaction can deliver good results \cite{Yin:2021uom, Xu:2021iwv, Gutierrez-Guerrero:2021rsx}.  Hence, we follow Refs.\,\cite{Chang:2009zb, Chang:2010hb, Qin:2020jig}, hereafter retaining only the first term on the right-hand-side of Eq.\,\eqref{defcalG}.  By obviating the need for renormalisation, this simplifies analysis without materially affecting results.

A typical RL truncation result for the spectrum of $u$, $d$, $s$ mesons is depicted in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}.  It was  obtained by solving the coupled gap and Bethe-Salpeter equations with the interaction just described, using $\omega = 0.8\,$GeV, a value chosen because it matches results from analyses of QCD's gauge sector \cite{Binosi:2014aea, Cui:2019dwv}, $D=D_{\rm RL}$, with
\begin{equation}
\label{DRL}
 \omega D_{\rm RL} = (1.01\,{\rm GeV})^3\,,
\end{equation}
and current-quark masses
$m_u = m_d = 2.7\,$MeV, $m_s=72\,$MeV.
Since we have chosen to work with an interaction that eliminates the need for renormalisation, these current masses need not match those inferred from experiment.  Nevertheless, compared with such values \cite{Workman:2022ynf}: our mean $u$, $d$ current mass is not markedly different, \emph{cf}.\ $3.45_{-0.15}^{+0.35}\,$MeV; and our value for the ratio $2 m_s/(m_u+m_d) = 26.7$ is a good match, \emph{cf}.\ $27.3_{-0.8}^{+0.7}$.

The features and flaws of RL truncation are evident in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}.  Overall, the mean absolute relative difference between RL masses and central experimental values is $13(8)$\%.  Whilst this might appear to be fair agreement, there is substantial scatter; and there are many qualitative discrepancies.  For instance, labelling the first excited state with an apostrophe, then:
$m_{K^\prime} < m_{\pi^\prime}$ in RL truncation, whereas the empirical ordering is opposite, and
the same is true for $(m_{\rho^\prime},m_{\pi^\prime})$,  $(m_{\rho^\prime},m_{K^{\ast \prime}})$;
RL truncation $a_1$-$\rho$ and $b_1$-$\rho$ mass splittings are one-third of the empirical values because the $b_1$ and $a_1$ mesons are much too light;
$m_{\phi^\prime}-m_\phi$ is half the experimental value;
and the level ordering of the $K_1^{+-}$, $K_1^{++}$ states is incorrect.

Furthermore, RL truncation produces light quark+antiquark scalar mesons, which are not seen in Nature.  As explained elsewhere \cite[Sec.\,64]{Workman:2022ynf}, the lightest scalar mesons are now considered to be complicated systems with material meson+antimeson components.  Thus, the apparent agreement between experiment and the masses of the purely quark+antiquark $f_0$ and $K_0^\ast$ mesons generated by RL truncation is misleading.  Viewed from our perspective, the kernels described herein generate a hadron's dressed-quark core.  They do not include the resonant contributions which are typically associated with a meson-cloud.  Hence, the quark-core masses of any purely quark+antiquark $f_0$ and $K_0^\ast$ mesons should be significantly greater than the empirical value because adding resonant contributions to the bound-state kernels will generate a large amount of attraction.  This is illustrated, \emph{e.g}., in Refs.\,\cite{Holl:2005st, Santowsky:2020pwd}.

A technical remark is in order.
The Bethe-Salpeter equation can figuratively be written as an eigenvalue problem, \emph{viz}.\ $\lambda(m) \Gamma(m) = K(m) \Gamma(m)$, where $K$ is the kernel and $\Gamma$ is the bound-state amplitude.  The on-shell solution is obtained at that mass $m$ for which the eigenvalue is unity, \emph{i.e}., $d(m):=1-\lambda(m)=0$.
Using RL truncation, one must employ an artificially inflated value of $D$ in Eq.\,\eqref{DRL} in order to approach a realistic expression of EHM \cite{Binosi:2014aea}.
Consequently, poles in the dressed-quark propagators enter the complex-plane integration domain sampled by the Bethe-Salpeter equation at lower values of $m$ than might otherwise be the case \cite{Maris:1997tm, Windisch:2016iud}.
This limits the number of states for which the Bethe-Salpeter equation can be solved directly using simple numerical algorithms.
In our case, this is the set of all meson ground-states in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}.
For each excited-state meson, we develop a $[n,l]$ Pad\'e approximant to $d(m)$, $1\leq n\leq 4$, $l\leq n$, and determine the zero by extrapolation.  Using a one-point jackknife procedure, we select the result obtained with those values of $n$, $l$ for which the uncertainty in the zero's location is smallest, reporting the associated uncertainty.

\section{EHM improved kernel}
\label{SecEHM}
The key to a realistic expression of EHM in mesons lies in using gap equation kernels with a more direct connection to QCD.  Today, $\alpha D_{\mu \nu}$ is well understood \cite{Binosi:2014aea, Cui:2019dwv, Roberts:2021nhw, Binosi:2022djx, Papavassiliou:2022wrb}; and although much remains to be learnt about $\Gamma_\nu^g$, EHM is known to generate a large anomalous chromomagnetic moment (ACM) for the lighter quarks \cite{Chang:2010hb, Singh:1985sg, Bicudo:1998qb, Bashir:2011dp, Binosi:2016wcx, Kizilersu:2021jen} and, as illustrated elsewhere \cite{Chang:2011ei, Williams:2015cvx, Qin:2020jig}, this ACM has a marked impact on the $u$, $d$ meson spectrum.

To expand existing studies and expose ACM effects on mesons containing $s$ and/or $\bar s$ quarks, we write \cite{Qin:2020jig}
\begin{equation}
\label{EqVertexGap}
\Gamma_\nu^g(q,k)  = \gamma_\nu + \tau_\nu(l)\,,\; \tau_\nu(l) = \eta \kappa(l^2)\sigma_{l\nu} \,,
\end{equation}
$\sigma_{l\nu} = \sigma_{\rho\nu} l_\rho$, $\kappa(l^2) = (1/\omega)\exp{(-l^2/\omega^2)}$.
Here, $\tau_\nu(l)$ is the ACM term, with $\eta$ its strength.
In QCD, $\kappa(l^2)$ is power-law suppressed in the ultraviolet; but the Gaussian form, alike with the infrared-dominant term in Eq.\,\eqref{defcalG}, is sufficient for illustrative purposes.
Following RL truncation convention, any overall dressing factor $F_1$, as in $F_1(l^2)[\gamma_\nu + \tau_\nu(l)]$, is implicitly absorbed into $\tilde{\mathpzc G}(l^2)$.
Equation~\eqref{EqVertexGap} assumes the vertex is flavour-independent.  This is a good approximation for the lighter quarks \cite{Bhagwat:2004hn, Williams:2014iea}.

Having specified the gap equation kernel, without reference to its diagrammatic content, the method of Ref.\,\cite{Qin:2020jig} can be used to obtain a (continuous and discrete) symmetry-consistent closed-form for the Bethe-Salpeter kernel.  To proceed, consider the inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation, written figuratively ($g,h=u,d,s$):
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{H\alpha\beta}^{gh}(k;P) & = {\mathpzc g}_H + \int_{dq}K^{(2)}_{\alpha\alpha^\prime,\beta^\prime\beta}
\chi_{H\alpha^\prime \beta^\prime}^{gh} (q,P)\,, \label{BSequation}
\end{align}
where $P=k_+-k_-$ is the total momentum of the quark($k_+)$+antiquark$(k_-)$ system;
${\mathpzc g}_H$ is a Dirac matrix combination that specifies the $J^{P(C)}$ of the channel under consideration;
$K^{(2)}$ is the two-particle irreducible quark+antiquark scattering kernel, carrying one index for each of the four fermion legs;
$\int_{dq}$ denotes a four dimensional integral;
and $\chi_H^{gh} (k,P) = S_f(k_+)\Gamma_H^{gh}(k,P)S_g(k_-)$ is the unamputated vertex.  On an $H$-meson mass-shell, $\Gamma_H^{gh}$ is the bound-state amplitude, with $\chi_H^{gh}$ the associated Poincar\'e-covariant wave  function.

In systems that may include nondegenerate valence quarks, Ref.\,\cite[Eqs.\,(6)]{Qin:2020jig} must be generalised by considering the following forms for the Ward-Green-Takahashi (WGT) identities satisfied, respectively, by the unamputated inhomogeneous vector and axialvector vertices -- ${\mathpzc g}^H = i \gamma_\mu, \gamma_\mu\gamma_5$ in Eq.\,\eqref{BSequation}:
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:WTI}
\begin{align}
	P_\mu \chi_{\mu}^{gh}& (k_+,k_-) \nonumber \\
 & = i\Delta_{S_{gh}}^{\pm}(k) + i (m_g-m_h) \chi_{0}^{gh}(k_+,k_-) \,, \\
P_\mu \chi_{5\mu}^{gh}&(k_+,k_-) \nonumber \\
& =  i \Delta_{S5}^{\pm}(k) - i (m_g+m_h) \chi_{5}^{gh}(k_+,k_-)\,, \label{eqAVWTI}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where
$\Delta_{F_{gh}}^{\pm}(k) = F_g(k_+)-F_h(k_-)$,
$\Delta_{F5_{gh}}^{\pm}(k) = F_g(k_+)  \gamma_5 + \gamma_5 F_h(k_-)$,
and $\chi_{0/5}^{gh}$ are the unamputated scalar/pseudoscalar vertices (${\mathpzc g}^H = {\mathbb I}/ \gamma_5$).
}

Subsequently repeating the algebra that leads from Eqs.\,(7) to (10) in Ref.\,\cite{Qin:2020jig}, one arrives at analogues of the four entries in Ref.\,\cite[Eq.\,(S.6)]{Qin:2020jig}.  Importantly, when $m_g \neq m_h$, Ref.\,\cite[Eq.\,(S.6a)]{Qin:2020jig} is no longer related to \cite[Eq.\,(S.6d)]{Qin:2020jig} by charge conjugation; so, \cite[Eqs.\,(10)]{Qin:2020jig} become four independent constraint equations.  (The flavour labels are readily attached by following the connections $g\leftrightarrow k_+$, $h\leftrightarrow k_-$.)

Now introducing Eq.\,\eqref{EqVertexGap} into the gap equations, Eq.\,\eqref{EqGap}, and using the algebraic equations obtained thereby to construct explicit forms for the WGT identity constraints, Ref.\,\cite[Eqs.\,(S.6)]{Qin:2020jig}, one finds
\begin{align}
	{K}^{(2)} &= - \mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\mu\otimes\gamma_\nu  - \mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\mu \otimes \tau_\nu(l) \notag\\
	& + ~ \mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(l) \tau_\nu(l) \otimes \gamma_\mu +  {K}_{\rm ad} \,.
\end{align}
Ref.\,\cite[Eqs.\,(S.6c)]{Qin:2020jig} is blind to ${K}_{\rm ad}$, but that is not the case for the other entries in the block.  So, writing
\begin{align}
	{K}_{\rm ad} &= [ \mathbf{1} \otimes_+ \mathbf{1} ] f^{(+)}_{p0} + [ -\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\mu \otimes_+ \gamma_\nu ] f^{(-)}_{p1}  \notag\\
	& \quad + [ \mathbf{1} \otimes_- \mathbf{1} ] f^{(+)}_{n0} + [ -\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\sigma_{l\mu} \otimes_- \sigma_{l\nu} ] f^{(+)}_{n1}\,,
	\label{eq:kernel_Ad}
\end{align}
where $\otimes_\pm := \tfrac{1}{2}(\otimes \pm \gamma_5 \otimes \gamma_5)$ and
$f_{pj}^{(\pm)} = {\mathsf u}_{pj}^{(\pm)}(l^2,P^2) + i {\mathsf v}_{pj}^{(\pm)}(l^2,P^2)$,
$f_{nj}^{(+)} = {\mathsf u}_{nj}^{(+)}(l^2,P^2)$, $ j=0,1$, with ${\mathsf u}(l^2;P^2)$, ${\mathsf v}(l^2;P^2)\in \mathbb{R}$ for $\{l^2,P^2\}\in \mathbb{R}$,
one arrives at the following integral equations,
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{subequations}
\label{KernelCompletion}
\begin{align}
& \int_{dq} \, {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l) \gamma_\mu {\mathpzc s}_A^g(q_+) \tau_\nu(l) \nonumber\\
= & \int_{dq} \, [{\mathpzc s}_B^g(q_+) f_{p0}^{(+)} + {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\gamma_\mu {\mathpzc s}_B^h(q_-) \gamma_\nu f_{p1}^{(-)}]\,, \\
& \int_{dq} \, {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l) \gamma_\mu {\mathpzc s}_B^g(q_+) \tau_\nu(l) \nonumber\\
= & \int_{dq} \, [{\mathpzc s}_A^g(q_+) f_{n0}^{(+)} - {\mathpzc G}_{\mu\nu}(l)\sigma_{l\mu} {\mathpzc s}_A^h(q_+) \sigma_{l\nu} f_{n1}^{(+)}]\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $S_g(k) =: {\mathpzc s}_A^g(k) + {\mathpzc s}_B^g(k)$,
$\{{\mathpzc s}_A^g,\gamma_5\}=0=[{\mathpzc s}_B^g,\gamma_5]$.
}

Equations~\eqref{KernelCompletion} are a pair of complex-valued integral equations whose solutions complete $K_{\rm ad}$ and hence $K^{(2)}$.
In being determined by resolving WGT identities, Eqs.\,\eqref{eq:WTI}, the results are minimal \emph{Ans\"atze} for the kernels.
This is analogous to results obtained in analyses that attempt to determine a three-point function from similar identities, \emph{e.g}., Refs.\,\cite{Ball:1980ay, Curtis:1990zs, Maris:1997hd, Bashir:2011dp, Qin:2013mta, Qin:2014vya, Aguilar:2014lha, Aguilar:2019jsj}.
There and here, notwithstanding their minimal character, the \emph{Ans\"atze} deliver material improvements over leading-order results; in many cases, restoring crucial symmetries that would otherwise be broken.

In $u$, $d$ channels, assuming isospin symmetry, Eqs.\,\eqref{KernelCompletion} yield four real-valued functions because ${\mathsf v}_{pj}^{(\pm)}\equiv 0$.
Similarly, there are four solution functions for $s \bar s$ scattering.  In general, they are different from those associated with $u$, $d$ channels.
In $u \bar s$ and kindred channels, Eqs.\,\eqref{KernelCompletion} yield six real-valued scalar functions, the number  needed to complete the kernel in this case.
With these fourteen scalar functions in hand, then for an arbitrary vertex in the family specified by Eqs.\,\eqref{EqVertexGap}, one has symmetry-preserving EHM-improved Bethe-Salpeter kernels for use in calculating $u$, $d$, $s$ meson bound-state properties.
It should be remembered that the solutions of Eqs.\,\eqref{KernelCompletion} depend on $P^2$; hence, must be obtained anew at each value of the total quark+antiquark momentum.  Of course, they can be obtained on a $P^2$-grid and then interpolated.

To explore the impact of EHM-induced dressed-quark ACMs on meson properties, we solved for the spectrum of $u$, $d$, $s$ mesons as a function of $\eta$ in Eq.\,\eqref{EqVertexGap} whilst adjusting $D$ in Eq.\,\eqref{defcalG} so as to maintain $m_\rho = 0.77\,$GeV.
Given that $\eta > 0 $ adds EHM strength to the gap equation's kernel, then $D$ must decrease with increasing $\eta$ in order to achieve this outcome:
\begin{equation}
\label{RunD}
D(\eta) \stackrel{\eta \in [0, 1.6]}= D_{\rm RL} \frac{1 + 0.27 \eta }{1+1.47 \eta}\,.
\end{equation}

The spectrum obtained with $\eta = 1.2$ is displayed in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}.
(The masses and amplitudes of all meson ground-states in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange} can be computed directly.  Extrapolation is used for their lightest radial excitations.)
A demonstration that the EHM-improved kernels ensure preservation of QCD's Gell-Mann--Oakes--Renner and Goldberger-Treiman relations \cite{GellMann:1968rz, Maris:1997hd, Qin:2014vya} may be found elsewhere \cite[Supplemental Material]{Qin:2020jig}.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centerline{%
\includegraphics[clip, width=0.9\textwidth]{F2.pdf}}
\caption{\label{FigLeptonic}
Leptonic decay constants for all states considered herein: ground states, $n=0$; and lowest lying radial excitations, $n=1$.
For the excited states, we present two extrapolation results for each state, \emph{viz}.\ one obtained with Pad\'e approximants, as used for meson masses, and the other employing the Schlessinger point method \cite{Cui:2022fyr, Binosi:2018rht, Yao:2021pyf, Yao:2021pdy}.
Where available, \emph{i.e}., for some ground states, results inferred from data are also plotted \cite[PDG]{Workman:2022ynf}.
(Numerical values listed in Supplemental Material, Tables~\ref{TableDecayConstantPredictionsn0}, \ref{TableDecayConstantPredictionsn1}.)
}
\end{figure*}

Regarding the EHM-improved results in Fig.\,\ref{figAllstrange}, compared with central experimental values, the overall mean absolute relative difference is $2.9(2.7)$\%, \emph{i.e}., the EHM-improved kernels deliver a factor of $4.6$ improvement over the RL spectrum.
Further,
$m_{K^\prime} > m_{\pi^\prime}$,
$m_{\rho^\prime} > m_{\pi^\prime}$,
$m_{\rho^\prime} \approx m_{K^{\ast \prime}}$,
matching empirical results;
the $a_1$-$\rho$ and $b_1$-$\rho$ mass splittings are commensurate with empirical values because including EHM effects in the kernel has substantially increased the masses of the $b_1$ and $a_1$ mesons, whilst $m_\rho$ was deliberately kept unchanged -- Eq.\,\eqref{RunD};
$m_{\phi^\prime}-m_\phi$ matches experiment to within 2\%;
the level ordering of the $K_1^{+-}$, $K_1^{++}$ states is correct;
and quark+antiquark scalar mesons are heavy.

Given that our EHM-improved kernels deliver a realistic meson spectrum, their predictions for the masses of the as-yet unseen radial excitations of the $b_1$ and $K_1^{++}$ states should be reasonable (in GeV):
\begin{subequations}
\label{newmasses}
\begin{align}
m_{b_1^\prime} & = 1.67(3)\,, \;
m_{b_1^\prime} -m_{b_1} = 0.51(3)\,, \\
m_{K_1^{++ \prime}} & = 1.63(1)\,,\;
m_{K_1^{++ \prime}} - m_{K_1^{++}} = 0.33(1) \,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The mass splittings in the partner channels are:
$m_{a_1^\prime} -m_{a_1} = 0.47(4)$,
$m_{K_1^{+- \prime}} - m_{K_1^{+-}} = 0.39(3)$.
Another potentially useful observation is that the EHM-improved kernels predict $m_{b_1^\prime} \approx m_{a_1^\prime}$, $m_{K_1^{++\prime}}\approx m_{K_1^{+-\prime}}$.

Employing the Bethe-Salpeter equation solutions used to produce the spectrum, with the amplitudes canonically normalised in the standard fashion \cite[Sec.\,3]{Nakanishi:1969ph}, one can calculate the leptonic decay constant, $f_H$, associated with each state.
The definitions of these observables may be found, \emph{e.g}., in Refs.\,\cite[Eqs.\,(2)]{Yin:2021uom}, \cite[Eq.\,(6)]{Bhagwat:2006py}.  They reveal that such decay constants are identically zero for $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$ states constituted from mass-degenerate valence degrees-of-freedom.
Regarding radially excited states, we choose the phase by requiring that the zeroth Chebyshev moment of the leading term in the system's Bethe-Salpeter amplitude is positive in the ultraviolet.  This is opposite to the convention in Ref.\,\cite{Holl:2004fr, Holl:2005vu}.
Our results are collected in Fig.\,\ref{FigLeptonic}.

For ground states, the leptonic decay constants can be calculated directly.  However, as with meson masses, the decay constants for excited states must be obtained by extrapolation.  To achieve that we wrote $f_H(\lambda(m))$, where $\lambda(m)$ is the eigenvalue used to define the Bethe-Salpeter equation, computed $f_H(\lambda(m))$ on a set of equally distributed $m$-values within the domain on which the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude can be straightforwardly obtained, then extrapolated the result to $\lambda(m) = 1$.
Here we provide two sets of results.  One was obtained with the Pad\'e-approximant method used above to determine meson masses.  The other set was calculated using the Schlessinger point method (SPM), discussed in detail elsewhere \cite{Cui:2022fyr, Binosi:2018rht, Yao:2021pyf, Yao:2021pdy} and used herein as described briefly in the supplemental material.  Owing to its foundations in analytic function theory and the powerful statistical aspect introduced in modern applications, the SPM provides reliable extrapolations with a rigorously quantified uncertainty.  The important observation here is that both methods yield consistent results in all cases.

Given that we have simplified the interaction in Eq.\,\eqref{defcalG}, keeping only the first term, then the comparison between our results for ground-state meson decay constants and the few known empirical values is favourable, especially since decay constants are sensitive to ultraviolet physics, which we have omitted.  Further, there is a hint that the EHM-improved kernels deliver better agreement.

The results for radially excited states are especially interesting.  In quantum mechanics models of positronium-like systems, one typically finds that, owing to zeros in the associated radial wave functions, the decay constant of a first radial excitation is $(1/8)$-times that of the ground state.  Our Bethe-Salpeter equation predictions are broadly consistent with this pattern, except in the case of pseudoscalar mesons.  In $J^P=0^-$ channels, the leptonic decay constant must vanish in the chiral limit \cite{Holl:2004fr, Holl:2005vu, McNeile:2006qy, Ballon-Bayona:2014oma}.  Whilst our results are in accord with this prediction, quantum mechanics models cannot deliver such an outcome; thus, our values for unmeasured decay constants warrant testing.

\section{Perspectives}
\label{epilogue}
It is worth reiterating that the method employed herein to calculate Bethe-Salpeter kernels for meson bound-state problems is both flexible and certain to give results that are symmetry consistent with any realistic gluon-quark vertex, $\Gamma_\nu$.  This is true whether or not the diagrammatic content of $\Gamma_\nu$ is known.  Hence, the approach paves a way to new synergies between continuum and lattice approaches to strong interactions.

The kernels are not unique; but they are closed-form \emph{Ans\"atze} that enable one to reliably reveal and understand how key features of emergent hadron mass (EHM), contained in $\Gamma_\nu$, are expressed in the meson spectrum.  As an example, we highlighted the multifarious impacts on meson properties of the simple fact that EHM forces dressed-quarks to posses a large anomalous chromomagnetic moment [Sec.\,\ref{SecEHM}].  Extending these ideas to baryon bound-state problems would be valuable and attempts are underway.

This study delivers the first Poincar\'e-invariant treatment of the spectrum and decay constants of the ground- and first-excited states of $u$, $d$, $s$ mesons along with predictions for masses of as-yet unseen states and many unmeasured decay constants.  To expedite the analysis, we used a simplified treatment of quark-antiquark scattering.  It would therefore be natural to repeat the work using a more realistic interaction.  Also, having benchmarked the method against known lighter-quark states, extension of the approach to heavy+light mesons \cite{Binosi:2018rht, Chen:2019otg, Qin:2019oar}, hybrid mesons \cite{Burden:2002ps, Qin:2011xq, Hilger:2015hka, Xu:2018cor} and glueballs \cite{Meyers:2012ka, Souza:2019ylx, Kaptari:2020qlt, Huber:2021yfy} is  desirable, especially given world-wide investments in studies of and searches for such states \cite{Denisov:2018unj, BESIII:2020nme, Anderle:2021wcy, AbdulKhalek:2021gbh, Pauli:2021gde, Quintans:2022}.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful for constructive comments from \mbox{C.~Xu}.
Work supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos.\ 12135007, 11805024);
and
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (grant no.\ BK20220122).
\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} composition of materials can be analyzed in a destructive way using traditional chemical process;  nevertheless, we use an innovative material analysis system, based on PGNAA technology and machine learning classification algorithms. The composition of waste material could now be classified in a non-destructive way and with advanced speed.

Neutron activation analysis (NAA) utilizes neutron-induced reactions to examine the spectra of the emissions of a radioactive sample, which could determine the element concentrations or material compositions of the sample. The sample is firstly bombarded by neutrons, causing the elements to form radioactive isotopes. The new forming activation product can be characterized through their radioactive emissions and the energy spectrum is detected by a sensor. and radioactive decay chain; therefore, metal compositions could be found. This project utilizes PGNAA \cite{pgnaa1}, which is a subcategory of NAA. The additional prefix “PG” means prompt gamma-ray and hinted at state-of-the-art sensors which have a good resolution to detect the emission.

There is a strong marketing demand to apply PGNAA machines to production applications such as recycle factories or ore refineries \cite{pgnaa1,pgnaa2,pgnaa3}. If the necessary measurement time for PGNAA is a few hours, such measurements are only useful in a laboratory setting. The measuring time for production must be “heavily reduced”. However, cutting the measuring time of PGNAA means the output spectrum is incomplete and noisy \cite{noise}.

To deal with this incompleteness and noise, we devise Random Sampling Methods (RSMs) for generating the “down-sizing” training samples, by assuming the spectral data as probability distributions.
The result spectrum keep the intrinsic down-sized nature while the measurement time of the target sample is drastically cut.

An additional trick to downsize the samples - visualizing and indicating the importance of each energy level using Class Activation Map (CAM). We can then discard the less important energy range in order to reduce the necessary number of channels in detectors or to allow a finer resolution in the remaining energy ranged. We use these downsized samples to train Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models.
Since downsizing too much causes negative effects, we closely monitor loss, accuracy, training time, and prediction time throughout the training process. Visualization such as Confusion Matrix was done to ensure the prediction is accurate even the sampling time is minimized. Though other strategies may achieve better result in speed and accuracy \cite{helmand}, CNN is still an attractive tool for general classify purpose due to its interpretability of channel importance.

\section{Dataset}
We use totally three datasets for our experiments in Section \ref{sec:results}. At the beginning of calibration test, the first dataset, with \textit{10 species of substances (e.g. scrap metal powder, cement and stucco) and two species of soil}, was used for Experiment I. However, we also collected two data sets of samples in the “same species”. The second dataset is only with \textit{aluminium} (for Experiment II and IIIa) and the third is with \textit{copper alloys} from Wieland Electric GmbH (for Experiment IIIb). Each species creates a distinctive PGNAA spectrum. The kinetic energies of electron emission spread over a wide range of energy levels. An individual CSV file is dedicated to each species, which records “Energy (keV)” vs “Counts (intensities)”. The following characteristics can be learned from a PGNAA spectrum:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Each constituent material of a sample could be identified by the characteristic peaks of PGNAA spectrum output.
\item Classification with sufficient measure counts is more accurate than with fewer counts; however, the resultant spectrum contains more information than necessary need then the measurement time is too long. If the measurement time is too short, the accuracy of the peaks will be poor, and noise will appear in the spectrum. The minimum value of sample count rate to provide sufficient accuracy will be further discussed in Section \ref{count}.
\item The plottings of the substances having similar compounds are also close to each other because of the chemical similarity. These can be a challenge in this project.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Methods}
In order to construct a well-defined and modularized system architecture, we started our workflow with crucial procedures such as \textbf{designing Random Sampling Methods}, \textbf{constructing models architectures}, \textbf{training} and \textbf{optimizing the training set-up}. During this phase, we also have to foresee some of the future needs such as maintenance, revision, or expansion in the future.
\subsection{Random Sample Methods (RSMs)}\label{sec:rsm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{sampling.png}}
\caption{Sampling PGNAA spectrum with different sample count rates. Spectra show clearly visible characteristic peaks for high count rates. Those peaks vanish in noise for low count rates. }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Random Sample Methods (RSMs) is a novel idea that could fulfil our main goal of reducing the measurement time \cite{helmand}, which is corresponded to “counts”. The reason to conceive creating downsized samples with random methods is that their nature resembles the original PGNAA spectrum. Their similar nature help to identify the constituent substances and expedite the classification process. A complete data source can be collected all at once. The resulted sample spectrum is the skimmed version of its origin, and its measuring time is reduced tremendously. In other words, spectrum scanning of the target material takes originally few hours, and only a few seconds is allowed for our sample process. Hence, we generate down-sized samples for every training iteration. By applying RSM on the dataset, one detailed spectrum for each composition material is already enough train a model \cite{dl,cnn}, e.g. a CNN.

Let’s use an imaginative and distinctive energy level list = [1.3 keV, 2.6 keV, 3.9 keV, 5.2 keV]
, then we have an over-simplified spectrum from PGNAA equipment and treat as the full measuring sample data corresponding to a larger measuring time: [3.9 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 3.9 keV, 2.6 keV, 2.6 keV, 1.3 keV, 2.6 keV].

\begin{itemize}
\item For saving memory space, the data stored into a CSV file (in our data source) as two arrays: the above distinctive energy level list and its corresponding count list = [1, 10, 2, 0] are recorded.
\end{itemize}

For RSM, we randomly choose a smaller sample, corresponding to a shorter measuring time, for examples five samples (k = 5). The output of this sampling method is a downsized sample as a lengthy list of energy levels, and it might look like this: [2.6 keV, 1.3 keV, 2.6 keV, 3.9 keV, 2.6 keV]. Using the above distinctive energy level list = [1.3 keV, 2.6 keV, 3.9 keV, 5.2 keV] and counting the corresponding occurrence, the output of RSM is:
\begin{itemize}
\item Result of RSM = corresponding count list = [1, 3, 1, 0]
\end{itemize}
RMS can be repeated arbitrarily often, to lead arbitrarily many data points for training machine learning models.
\subsection{CNN design for one-dimensional data}
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) has been widely used in the field of supervised learning \cite{cnn} and especially with image classification. The filters (weights) are matrix values, which can be considered as feature extractor, are learned during the training phase of the model. A convolution between a filter and an image can induce effects such as sharpness, edge detection, and even the characteristic peaks of our spectrum.

After rounds of testing and comparisons, see Table \ref{tab2} and \cite{benchmark}, the Inception-ResNet-V2 model was usually significantly faster than their competitors and offer a better throughput-accuracy tradeoff. It also has relatively fewer model blocks, thus less work is needed for the modification in comparison with other complex architectures.

The following steps are taken to handle one-dimensional input data so that it can be compatible with our speedy RSM:
\begin{itemize}
\item Replace/ add an untrained convolution layer with custom variants \cite{replace} at the initial point of the pretrained network (“Stem” in Inception model), so that the dimension of input data can be fed.

\item Set desired output classes.

\item Reduce all 2D layers to 1D including the kernel dimension.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Training and Fine Tuning}
Besides optimizing the common training hyper-parameters, like batch size, optimizer, learning rate, etc., we also want to minimize our PGNAA data by (1) seeking the lowest count rate (i.e. live time) of PGNAA samples and (2) seeking energy channels that can be discarded for both CNN training and prediction.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{cam_detail.png}}
\caption{Visualize CNN prediction process with CAM. \textit{Class Activation Map (CAM) of a specific category illustrates how CNN recognizes the distinguished image regions of that category, by using Global Average Pooling (GAP) performed before the last convolutional network layer.}}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\begin{enumerate}
\item The measurement count of a sample corresponds linearly to the measurement time of a sample; the fewer the count of measurements, the shorter the measurement time, and the more difficult it is to classify the sample. In short, the reduction of the sampling time is essential for this project, but excessive reduction of measurement time could lead to very noisy data, see \figurename~\ref{fig1}.

\item Class Activation Map (CAM) can be used to illustrate the prediction decisions made by CNN, since Class Activation Map of a specific category indicates how CNN recognizes the distinguished image regions of that category \cite{cam}.

\end{enumerate}

As shown in \figurename~\ref{fig2}, CAM is applied to squeeze the data further in order to expedite the classification process. The program’s original setting for the CAM is two dimensions, the setting was changed to one dimension because our selected CNN Model requires one dimension; for instance, the input and the convolutions are one dimension. Base on the result graph, we discard Channel 8000 to Channel 16384 (5641.92 keV to 11552.48 keV) on the high energy band in the later setting for Experiment I.

The final decision is 0 to 103 on the lower energy band and C8000 to 16384 on the high energy band should be filtered out so that the accuracy and training time could be optimized.

Summarizing above, the final tuning of the best training for “10 species of substances and two species of soil” is shown as Table \ref{table}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Training Set-up for Experiment I}
\label{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{|p{95pt}|p{145pt}|}
\hline
Random Sampling Method & Random weighted selection in counts\\
CNN Model & CNN Inception-Resnet-V2 modified 1D\\
Batch size & 128 (hardware limit)\\
Optimizer & Adam \cite{adam}\\
Learning rate \cite{lr} & 0.01\\
Epoch & 150 (stop when the wish accuracy is reached)\\
Discarded energy range & 0 - 103 and 8000 - 16348 \\
Sample count rate & 19650 (live time $\approx 2.479 s$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
\section{Experimental results}\label{sec:results}

\subsection{Experiment I: Train CNN with Dataset of 10 species of substances and two species of soil (live time $\approx$ 2.479 sec)}
12 CSV files are used for training purposes which consists of 10 species of sample substances and two species of soil. These files fed into the RSM to be downsized and “smashed”. Totally 19,000 samples are generated and fed into the CNN model for training which requires 150 epochs of iterations.

As shown in Table \ref{cm-exp1}, the trained CNN model makes good prediction and achieve good results; the accuracy is averagely about 96.88\%. The prediction mostly matches with the true label. However, some misclassifications occurred ($\approx$ 68.5\%) that occurred between “Erdreich-11-15-30” and “Erdreich-HgS-inhomogen”. This “same species” classification problem will be handled in the next experiment.

\subsection{Experiment II: Dataset Aluminium with 20,000 as sample count rate (live time $\approx$ 1.11 sec)}
Using the same set-up as Experiment I, such as the same CNN model, same RSM, only the input dataset is using “Dataset Aluminium” and the discarded energy band of “0 - 103” for this new training. The result is schown in Table \ref{cm-exp2}

Even when the training is only focused on the substances with the same species, the performance remains about 65 \% and seems impossible to be raised. The problem can be caused by the setting of the sample count rate, in which the resulted sample data from RSM is too noisy and doesn’t provide enough information to distinguish from similar species.

\subsection{Experiment IIIa: Dataset Aluminium with increased sample count rate to 500,000 (live time $\approx$ 27.74 s)}\label{count}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{alu_setup.png}}
\caption{Optimizing sampling strategy for Dataset Aluminium. \textit{Cross Entropy Loss between input and target is computed during training a classification problem. The aim of training is to minimize the loss.}}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

Totally five different sample count rates were tested. The curve with the lowest loss function and the best convergence is chosen. We started with the count rate (20,000) suggested by the last experiment. At the end, we choose 500,000 as our sample count rate according \figurename~\ref{fig3}a, in which the loss function descents stably. The result is shown in Table \ref{cm-exp3a}.

In addition, we visualized in \figurename~\ref{fig3}b with CAM which energy ranges have more influence on classification and filtered out the irrelevant energy range to save training time.

\subsection{Experiment IIIb: Dataset Copper with increased sample count rate to 500,000 (live time $\approx$ 24.44 s)}
For Dataset from Wieland’s Copper, we repeated the same process as Experiment IIIa to choose the optimal sample count rate for training. The only difference is the CNN’s high energy discarded range is set to the range of 14,000 to 16,384 (base on the suggestion from CAM) in order to improve the training speed. The result is shown in Table \ref{cm-exp3b}

\section{Discussion}
All of our designed models, which equips with tested and chosen RSMs, can classify the PGNAA spectrum and find out the constituent materials speedily. The CNNs can classify the sampled PGNAA spectrum based on automated extracted aggregate features, which is different from common Machine Learning methods like Support Vector Machine (SVM) \cite{svm}. Other classical approaches such as Normalized Cross Correlation (NCC) \cite{ncc} and Chi-squared matching, perform the classification by comparing the input data with templates iteratively. In order to achieve better accuracy, the number of these templates must be increased since they are proportionally related.

\section{Conclusion}
The essence of this essay is to devise a suitable Random Sampling Method (RSM) to generate some downsized samples to train the CNN models instead of the cumbersome fully measured samples. The downsized samples are proven to be easier to handle and improving speed. Also, the downsized samples have a resemblance nature to the test spectrum reading from the PGNAA because both are heavily downsized data. These two reasons boost PGNAA’s reading speed so fast that it becomes a high-speed scanner.

In the end, reduced Model (CNN Inception-ResNet-V2modified 1D) using RSM (Random weighted selection in counts) to extract our data from CSV, was determined as our best matching pair after several test runs.

Besides tuning the model with different batch sizes, optimizers, and learning rates, the downsized training samples were also inspected with different sampling count rates so as to minimize our necessary sample live time for a prediction. In addition, to strengthen the downsizing process, some less important energy channels were filtered out according to the energy information provided by the Class Activation Map. For example, the highest energy range (Channel 8000 - 16384) and the lowest energy range are discarded.

\appendices
\section*{Data Availability}
The MetalClas project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with grant number 01IS20082B. The copper alloys were provided by Wieland-Werke AG. The PGNAA data used to support the findings of this study are available in a public repository for AI Challenge Days 2021.

\section*{Appendix}
\subsection{Comparing RSM and their best models}
Four RSM were designed, but in section \ref{sec:rsm} only RSM-3 was introduced. The other three RSM are implemented using Python as follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item RSM-1 is simply the lengthy measured energy value list.

\item RSM-2 applies a random binomial function to each row in the column ’Counts’ of the CSV files. Nevertheless, the sum of measurement counts within a sample remains similar for each material.

\item RSM-4a or RSM-4b is a scatter-plot format or a histogram format converted from the sampling result from RSM-1.
\end{itemize}
The four RSM methods have to test together with DL models. In this section, CNN and other DL models were tested together with RSM.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Comparing RSM and their best models}

\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{125pt}|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Combination of model and RSM & Accuracy & Sampling & Iteration\\
&&& time (s) & time (s)\\
\hline
1 & CNN ResNet-101 + RSM-1 & $\approx$ 65\% & 0.012 & -\\
2 & CNN custom 1D + RSM-3 & $\approx$ 65\% & 0.073 & -\\
3 & \scriptsize{CNN ResNet-101 (modified 1D) + RSM-2} & - & 1.488 & -\\
4 & \scriptsize{CNN ResNet-101 (modified 1D) + RSM-3} & $\approx$ 80\% & 0.073 & - \\
5 & \scriptsize{CNN Inception-ResNet-V2 \cite{incp}+ RSM-2} & - & 1.488 & - \\
\textbf{6} & \textbf{CNN Inception-ResNet-V2 + RSM-3} & $\approx$ 90\% & 0.073 & 2.1 \\
7 & CNN NasnetALarge \cite{nasnet} + RSM-4a & $<$ 80\% & 0.696 & -\\
8 & CNN PNasnet5Large \cite{pnas}+ RSM-4a & $<$ 80\% & 0.696 & -\\
9 & RNN \cite{transformer} custom + RSM-3 & $<$ 40\% & 0.073 & - \\
10 & Transformer \cite{transformer} (custom) + RSM-3 & $\approx$ 90\% & 0.073 &13.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab2}
\end{table}

\subsection{Confusion Matrices for Experiment I, II, III$a$ and III$b$}
\newcommand\items{12}
\arrayrulecolor{white}
\noindent
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Confusion Matrix for Experiment I}\label{cm-exp1}
\centering
\resizebox{9cm}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc*{\items}{|E}|}

\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{\items}{c}{Predicted} \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Scrap metal powder}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cement}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Stucco}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Melamine}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Asilikos}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{PVC}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Soil-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Soil Hgs inhomogeneous}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Battery NiCd}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Copper ore-A-prod}} \\
\hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
\multirow{\items}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Actual}}
&Scrap metal powder & 1 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Cement  & 0 &  1  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0   \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Stucco  & 0 &  0  &  1  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Al-AW7075  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  1  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Cu  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  1  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Melamine  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  1  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Asilikos  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  1  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&PVC  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  1 & 0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Soil-1  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 1  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Soil Hgs inhomogeneous  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0.28  &  0.72  &  0  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Battery NiCd  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  1  &  0  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
&Copper ore-A-prod  & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  & 0  &  0  &  0  &  1  \\ \hhline{~*\items{|-}|}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\newcommand\fouritems{4}
\noindent
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Confusion Matrix for Experiment II}\label{cm-exp2}
\centering
\resizebox{4.8cm}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc*{\fouritems}{|E}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{\fouritems}{c}{Predicted} \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-2}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-3}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-4}} \\
\hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\multirow{\fouritems}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Actual}}
&Al-1 & 0.97 &  0  &  0  &  0.03 \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-2  & 0.06 &  0.38  &  0.41  &  0.16    \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-3  & 0 &  0.12  &  0.88  &  0   \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-4  & 0.53 &  0.22  &  0.03  &  0.22 \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\noindent
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Confusion Matrix for Experiment III$a$}\label{cm-exp3a}
\centering
\resizebox{4.8cm}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc*{\fouritems}{|E}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{\fouritems}{c}{Predicted} \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-2}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-3}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Al-4}} \\
\hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\multirow{\fouritems}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Actual}}
&Al-1 & 0.98 &  0  &  0  &  0.02   \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-2  & 0 &  1  &  0 &  0    \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-3  & 0 &  0.1  &  0.9  &  0   \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
&Al-4  & 0.06 &  0.09  &  0  &  0.84   \\ \hhline{~*\fouritems{|-}|}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\newcommand\fiveitems{5}
\noindent
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Confusion Matrix for Experiment III$b$}\label{cm-exp3b}
\centering
\resizebox{6.0cm}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc*{\fiveitems}{|E}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\multicolumn{\fiveitems}{c}{Predicted} \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-1}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-2}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-3}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-4}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rot{Cu-5}}\\
\hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
\multirow{\fiveitems}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Actual}}
&Cu-1 & 0.97 &  0.03  &  0  &  0 & 0   \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
&Cu-2  & 0.09 &  0.91  &  0  &  0 & 0    \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
&Cu-3 & 0 &  0 & 1  &  0 &  0   \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
&Cu-4 & 0 &  0  &  0  & 1 & 0 \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
&Cu-5 & 0 &  0  &  0  &  0 & 1   \\ \hhline{~*\fiveitems{|-}|}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}