text
stringlengths 0
643k
⌀ | meta
stringlengths 137
151
⌀ |
|---|---|
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction {#sec:introduction}
Fission is a fundamental nuclear decay that is important in many areas of science, ranging from structure and stability of heavy and superheavy nuclei to studies devoted to physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and the synthesis of heavy elements . Theoretically, the nuclear fission process is an example of the nuclear large-amplitude collective motion originating from the single-particle motion of individual nucleons. Due to the complexity of this process, our understanding of nuclear fission is still incomplete. For the state of affairs in this field, we refer to the recent review. When it comes to realistic predictions, the self-consistent nuclear energy density functional (EDF) method has proven to be very successful in terms of quantitative reproduction of fission lifetimes and fragment yields. Unfortunately, realistic self-consistent fission calculations in a multidimensional collective space, based on the microscopic input, are computationally expensive when it comes to large-scale theoretical fission surveys. Given the computational cost of microscopic methods and the large number of fissioning nuclei that are, e.g., expected to contribute to the astrophysical r-process nucleosynthesis, calculations have mostly relied on simple parametrizations or highly phenomenological models. The new perspective is offered by state-of-the-art theoretical frameworks and modern computational techniques that promise to speed up the calculations to be able to carry out quantified global fission surveys for multiple inputs. This study is concerned with finding the optimal pathway during the tunneling motion phase of spontaneous fission (SF). Such a trajectory, dubbed the least-action path (LAP), is obtained by minimizing the collective action in a many-dimensional collective space. A number of techniques have been proposed to deal with this challenging task. In the early application, the trial pathways were assumed in a parametrized form and the LAP was obtained by minimizing the penetration integral with respect to the variational parameters. Grid-based techniques such as the dynamic-programming and Ritz methods have been used in numerous EDF calculations of LAPs. In Refs. LAPs were obtained by solving the eikonal equation by the method of characteristics. Effectively, this method can be related to a quantum mechanical propagation in imaginary time that amounts to solving the classical equations of motion in an inverted potential. Within this approach, only one trajectory, called the escape path, arrives at the outer turning surface with zero velocity. Other trajectories, corresponding to different initial conditions, cannot reach the outer turning surface. In this paper, we compare grid-based approaches to the LAPs with the nudged elastic band (NEB) method that was originally formulated in the context of molecular systems . In NEB, the minimum action path can be obtained iteratively by continuously shifting the pathway to the nearest minimum action path. A similar approach is a growing string method. To provide more insights, we also employ the Euler-Lagrange (EL) method to compute the stationary action path. In addition to the LAP, another characteristic trajectory in the collective space is the minimum-energy path (MEP), sometimes referred to as the static path. The MEP can serve as a first, rough approximation to the LAP. It is obtained by computing the steepest descent line on the potential energy surface, which passes through the local minima and saddle points. To find the MEP, a flooding, or watershed, algorithm has been applied. The NEB approach can also be adopted to find the MEP and saddle points. (For a review of modern optimization methods for finding MEPs, see.) This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. [11](#sec:EDF){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:EDF"} we define the basics concepts of the nuclear EDF approach as applied to nuclear fission. Section [12](#Sec: Methods algorithms){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec: Methods algorithms"} describes the path-optimization methods used. The results of our calculations and an analysis of trends are presented in Sec. [13](#sec:results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:results"}. Finally, Sec. [14](#sec:summary){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:summary"} contains the conclusions of this work.
# Nuclear EDF approach to spontaneous fission {#sec:EDF}
The main ingredients for a theoretical determination of SF lifetimes are the collective potential energy surface (PES) and the inertia tensor. To compute the PES, one solves the constrained Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) equations with the realistic energy density functional in the space of collective coordinates \(\vec{q} \equiv \{q_i\}\). These are usually represented by the expectation values of the quadrupole moment operator \(\hat{Q}_{20}\) (elongation), quadrupole moment operator \(\hat{Q}_{22}\) (triaxiality), octupole moment operator \(\hat{Q}_{30}\) (mass-asymmetry), and the particle-number dispersion term \(\lambda_{2\tau}(\hat{ N}^2_\tau-\langle \hat{ N}_\tau\rangle^2)\) (\(\tau=n,p)\) that controls dynamic pairing correlations. In some cases one also considers the hexadecapole moment \(Q_{40}\) (necking coordinate). That is, in practical applications, we consider 2-5 collective coordinates which describe the collective motion of the system. Figure [\[fig:PES\]](#fig:PES){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:PES"} shows a representative PES of \(^{256}\)Fm in the space of \(Q_{20}\equiv \langle \hat{Q}_{20}\rangle\) and \(Q_{30}\equiv \langle \hat{Q}_{30}\rangle\). The collective inertia (or mass) tensor \(\mathcal{M}_{ij}(\vec{q})\) is obtained from the self-consistent densities by employing the the adiabatic time-dependent HFB approximation (ATDHFB). In this study, we use the non-perturbative cranking approximation : \[\label{cranking-mass} \mathcal{M}_{ij}(\vec{q})=\frac{\hbar^2}{2\dot{q}_i\dot{q}_j}\sum_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\left(F^{i*}_{\alpha\beta}F^{j}_{\alpha\beta}+ F^{i}_{\alpha\beta}F^{j*}_{\alpha\beta}\right)}{E_{\alpha}+E_{\beta}},\] where \(q_i\) is the collective coordinate, \(\dot{q}_i\) represents the time derivative of \(q_i\), and \(E_{\alpha}\) are one-quasiparticle energies of HFB eigenstates \(|\alpha\rangle\). The matrices \(F^i\) are given by \[\label{equation-F} \frac{F^{i*}}{\dot{q}_i}= A^T\frac{\partial\kappa^*}{\partial q_i}A +A^T\frac{\partial\rho^*}{\partial q_i}B-B^T\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial q_i}A -B^T\frac{\partial\kappa}{\partial q_i}B,\] where \(A\) and \(B\) are the matrices of the Bogoliubov transformation, and \(\rho\) and \(\kappa\) are particle and pairing density matrices, respectively, determined in terms of \(A\) and \(B\). Derivatives of the density matrices with respect to collective coordinates are calculated by employing the three-point Lagrange formula. It is important to remark that rapid variations in \(\mathcal{M}_{ij}\) are expected in the regions of configuration changes (level crossings) due to strong variations of density derivatives in ([\[equation-F\]](#equation-F){reference-type="ref" reference="equation-F"}) associated with structural rearrangements. Since SF is a quantum-mechanical tunneling process and the fission barriers are usually both high and wide, the SF lifetime is obtained semi-classically as \(T_{1/2}=\ln2/(nP)\), where \(n\) is the number of assaults on the fission barrier per unit time and \(P\) is the penetration probability given by \[\label{penertration} P=\left(1+\exp{[2S(L_{\rm min})]}\right)^{-1},\] where \(L_{\rm min}\) is the path that minimizes the fission action integral calculated along the one-dimensional trajectory \(L(s)\) in the multidimensional collective space: \[\label{action-integral} S(L)=\frac{1}{\hbar} \int_{s_{\rm in}}^{s_{\rm out}} {\cal S}(s)\,ds,\] where \[\label{action-integrand} {\cal S}(s) =\sqrt{2\mathcal{M}_{\text{eff}}(s) \left(V_{\text{eff}}(s)-E_0\right)}\] with \(V_{\text{eff}}(s)\) and \(\mathcal{M}_{\text{eff}}(s)\) being the effective potential energy and inertia along the fission path \(L(s)\), respectively. \(V_{\text{eff}}\) can be obtained by subtracting the vibrational zero-point energy from the total HFB energy. (In the examples considered in this paper we assume the zero-point energy to be zero.) The integration limits \(s_{\rm in}\) and \(s_{\rm out}\) correspond to the classical inner and outer turning points, respectively, defined by \(V_{\text{eff}}(s)=E_0\) on the two extremes of the fission path, see Fig. [\[fig:PES\]](#fig:PES){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:PES"}. The collective ground state (g.s.) energy is \(E_0\), and \(ds\) is the element of length along \(L(s)\). A one-dimensional path \(L(s)\) can be defined in the multidimensional collective space by specifying the collective variables \(\vec{q}(s)\) as functions of path's length \(s\). The expression for \(\mathcal{M}_{\text{eff}}\) is : \[\label{eff-mass} \mathcal{M}_{\text{eff}}(s)=\sum_{ij}\mathcal{M}_{ij}(\vec{q})\frac{dq_{i}}{ds}\frac{dq_{j}}{ds}.\] The least-action path (LAP) \(L_{\rm min}\) is obtained by minimizing the action integral ([\[action-integral\]](#action-integral){reference-type="ref" reference="action-integral"}) with respect to all possible trajectories \(L\) that connect the lines/surfaces of inner turning points \(s_{\rm in}\) and outer turning points \(s_{\rm out}\). However, as discussed in Refs. and this paper, only the pathways related to the exit points are stationary. The MEP can instead be described as the union of steepest descent paths from the saddle point(s) to the minima. The corresponding trajectory \(\vec{q}(s)\) satisfies \[\begin{aligned}
\frac{d \vec{q}}{ds} \propto \vec{\nabla} V\big(\vec{q}(s)\big) \label{MEP-def} \end{aligned}\] which characterizes a path of steepest descent on a surface \(V(\vec{q})\). For the NEB, one finds the MEP by allowing the elements of the path to follow the gradient of the PES in their immediate vicinity. We shall assume that the PES in the tunneling region is free from discontinuities associated with rapid configuration changes . This assumption is usually valid because of non-vanishing pairing correlations inside the potential barrier. It is also to be noted that, as in any optimization/minimization approach, the stationary path determined numerically corresponds to a local action minimum, which is not guaranteed to be the global minimum. Moreover, there could be many stationary pathways representing different fission modes, see Fig. [\[Fig: Bifurcation\]](#Fig: Bifurcation){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig: Bifurcation"}. To simplify notation, we assume in the following discussions that the stationary action path found by our algorithms is indeed the LAP. Since \({\cal S}(s)=0\) on the outer turning surface \(V(\vec q) = E_{0}\), it follows that paths moving on the surface \(V(\vec{q}) = 0\) do not contribute to the action. This is illustrated in Fig. [\[Fig: Bifurcation\]](#Fig: Bifurcation){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig: Bifurcation"} by the path connecting the g.s. and, for example, the purple star labeled (3). Such a path consists of the cyan curve--the exit trajectory--and the green dashed line, connecting (1) with (3) through the OTL, which results in the same action integral as the exit trajectory.
# Methods/algorithms {#Sec: Methods algorithms}
All path-optimization methods described in the following subsections, bar the EL method, have a reference implementation included in the python package, PyNEB.
## Nudged Elastic Band {#Sec: NEB}
The NEB method was originally formulated to provide a smooth transition of a molecular system on a potential energy surface from the reactant to the product state . Upon application of this variant of the NEB method, one obtains the MEP as well as a series of "images" of the molecular system as it transitions along the path. The NEB technique has been subsequently refined, with improved numerical stability and a more accurate determination of a saddle point being two key advances towards a more widely applicable numerical approach for MEP determination. To obtain the LAP, the procedure must be modified such that the images move towards the minimum of the action which amounts to replacing the standard gradient of the PES with the gradient of the action \[\vec{g}_i=-\vec{\nabla}_i S\] with respect to the image \(\vec q_i\). With this prescription, the images will settle to the LAP in the collective space. While the NEB method will, by design, drive the line of images towards either the MEP or LAP, the iterative scheme chosen greatly impacts the total number of iterations required before the solution converges. In the early implementations, a simple velocity Verlet algorithm was used to adjust the position of the images step to step . This approach is robust and relatively stable, though the convergence can be slow for flatter surfaces where the images are not pulled strongly to their optimal positions. To aid this process, the Fast Inertial Relaxation Engine (FIRE) was proposed to accelerate convergence without sacrificing stability. The method was subsequently updated to further improve performance. Indeed, in our tests, the inertial algorithm regularly outperforms the velocity Verlet algorithm by an-order-of-magnitude reduction in iterations at the same convergence criteria. With this, our implementation of the NEB approach is defined. The algorithm itself is outlined in Algorithm 1 in SM. The force used in the optimization step for each image, \(\vec{F}_i^{\rm opt}\), is constructed by adding the perpendicular component of the action gradient to the spring force \(\vec{F}_i^{k}\) between the images, \[\vec{F}_i^{k} = k (|\vec{q}_{i+1}-\vec{q}_i|-|\vec{q}_i-\vec{q}_{i-1}|)\vec{\tau_i},\] where \(k\) is a tunable parameter that controls the strength of the spring force and \(\vec{\tau_i}\) is the unit vector tangent to the line of images from image \(i-1\) to image \(i+1\). The spring force on the endpoints is defined differently: \[\vec{F}_1^k=k|\vec{q}_2-\vec{q}_1|,\quad \vec{F}_N^k=k|\vec{q}_{N}-\vec{q}_{N-1}|.\] The total force acting on the interior images is then \[\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:ImagesForces} \vec{F}_{i}^{\rm opt} = \vec{F}^{k}_{i} + \vec{g}_{i}^{\perp}. \end{aligned}\] The NEB approach is illustrated in Fig. [\[Fig: Bifurcation\]](#Fig: Bifurcation){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig: Bifurcation"} for the case of bimodal tunneling from the g.s. minimum to the OTL on an analytic PES defined by: \[\begin{aligned}
\label{epsbimodal} V(\vec{q}) &= 3.17 + 2e^{-5\big((x-1)^{2} + (y-\frac{1}{2})^{2}\big)}-3 e^{-(x^{2} +y^{2})} \nonumber \\&-\frac{1}{2}(3x +y), \end{aligned}\] where \(\vec{q} = (x,y)\). The inset shows the forces on the images of the NEB grey path, which has not converged yet to the black path. The spring force \(\boldsymbol{F}^k_i\) keeps the images from drifting too much from each other, while the perpendicular part of the action gradient \(\boldsymbol{g}_i^\perp\) pushes them towards the nearest stationary action path. This example shows that the NEB algorithm, depending on the initial locations of the images, will converge to a local stationary path, not necessarily the least action path. For the endpoint, \(i=N\), one can choose to either fix the position of the image or to allow the image to move towards the outer turning surface. In the second case, a harmonic restraint term is added to the spring force to construct \(\vec{F}_{N}^{\rm opt}\), \[\label{eqn:endpoint} \Vec{F}_{N}^{\rm opt} = \Vec{F}_{N}^{k}-\left[\Vec{F}_{N}^{k} \cdot \vec{f}(\vec{q}_{N})-\eta (V(\vec{q})-E)\right]\vec{f}(\vec{q}_{N}),\] where \(\vec{f} =-\vec\nabla V / |\vec\nabla V|\) and \(\eta\) determines the strength of the harmonic restraint term . This force pulls the endpoint \(i=N\) very quickly to the outer turning surface and helps find the optimal outer turning point. The default iteration scheme used in our implementation is the inertial algorithm mentioned above, though a standard Verlet minimizer is also included in the PyNEB python package. The structure of the NEB solver is modular and allows for the simple replacement of components like the minimizer, allowing for easy checks on the convergence and parameters that describe the iterative scheme.
## Grid-Based Methods {#Section: grid-methods}
Some traditional methods to compute the LAP begin by computing the PES and the collective inertia on a grid of collective coordinates. The calculation of the LAP is then reduced to finding the path through the grid points that minimizes a discrete approximation of the action. Two methods that we have benchmarked are the dynamic programming method (DPM), and Dijkstra's algorithm (DA). Here, both will be described for two-dimensional (2D) grid, with points labelled by \(\vec{q}_{ij}=(x_i,y_j)\) (\(i=1,\ldots,N\), \(j=1,\ldots,M\)). Both methods can be straightforwardly extended to a higher-dimensional grid. Dynamic programming is a general mathematical technique for solving multi-decision problems by breaking the problem down into simpler overlapping sub-problems. It was first adapted to the action integral minimization in Ref. and used in to determine the LAP. This adaptation is what we refer to as the DPM. The DPM approximates the LAP between an initial point, \(\vec{q}_\textrm{in}\), and a final point, \(\vec{q}_\textrm{fin}\). This method finds paths that traverse diagonally from a given cell: from cell \(\vec{q}_{ij}\), only cells \(\vec{q}_{i+1,j}\) can be reached, for \(j=1,\ldots,M\). The allowed cells are highlighted in red in Fig. [\[grid_method\]](#grid_method){reference-type="ref" reference="grid_method"}. The LAP from \(\vec{q}_\textrm{in}\) to \(\vec{q}_\textrm{fin}\) is constructed iteratively as follows: for a cell \(\vec{q}_{ij}\), there are \(M\) possible paths, each passing through a cell at \(x_{i-1}\). The LAP from \(\vec{q}_\textrm{in}\) to \(\vec{q}_{ij}\) is selected and stored in memory. This is repeated for every cell with \(x=x_i\), for a total of \(M\) possible paths. Once \(\vec{q}_\textrm{fin}\) is reached, there are only \(MN\) paths (out of a total of \(M^N\) paths), and the LAP is selected from these. The DPM algorithm is detailed in Algorithm 2 in SM. Dijkstra's method is similar to DPM, in that it breaks down the large optimization problem into a set of smaller problems. Given a cell \(\vec{q}_{ij}\), the action to every neighbor \(\vec{q}_{i'j'}\) is calculated as if the path to \(\vec{q}_{i'j'}\) passes through \(\vec{q}_{ij}\). If this action integral is smaller than that along the current path to \(\vec{q}_{i'j'}\), \(\vec{q}_{i'j'}\) is said to come from \(\vec{q}_{ij}\). This is repeated, starting from \(\vec{q}_\textrm{in}\), until \(\vec{q}_\textrm{fin}\) is reached. Figure [\[grid_method\]](#grid_method){reference-type="ref" reference="grid_method"} shows the nearest-neighbors of \(\vec{q}_{ij}\) (the cell marked in green) in a blue square. Dijkstra's algorithm is described in Algorithm 3 in the SM. Dijkstra's algorithm can find paths that pass through multiple cells with the same \(x_i\) value, or even paths that backtrack. DPM cannot find such paths. However, DPM can find paths that jump from \(\vec{q}_{ij}\) to \(\vec{q}_{i+1,j'}\), for any \(j'\), while Dijkstra's algorithm is limited to \(j'=j-1,j,j+1\) (see Fig. [\[grid_method\]](#grid_method){reference-type="ref" reference="grid_method"}). For fission calculations, one frequently takes the \(x\) coordinate as the quadrupole moment \(Q_{20}\), and fission can be viewed as collective motion in which \(Q_{20}\) continuously increases towards scission. So, the paths that Dijkstra's algorithm can find, that DPM cannot, are rather unlikely. In general DPM tends to find paths with a smaller action than Dijkstra's algorithm, see Sec. [13](#sec:results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:results"}.
## Euler Lagrange Equations
In order to find the LAP for the functional [\[action-integral\]](#action-integral){reference-type="eqref" reference="action-integral"} using the EL equations, we first parametrize the trajectory \(\vec q\) by a time variable \(t\), i.e., \(\vec{q}=\vec q(t)\) with \(t \in [0,t_f]\). This is done in order to explicitly account for the arclength \(ds = (\sum dq_i^2)^{1/2}\). In terms of \(t\), the action integral [\[action-integral\]](#action-integral){reference-type="eqref" reference="action-integral"} reads: \[\label{Eq: ELE Action} \begin{split} &S(L) = \\ &\int_{0}^{t_f} \sqrt{2\big(V_\text{eff}[\vec q(t)]-E_0 \big)}\Big(\sum_{ij}^n\mathcal{M}_{ij}[\vec q(t)]\dot{q}_i\dot{q}_j\Big)^{1/2}dt \\ &= \int_{0}^{t_f} \mathcal{L}(\vec q,\dot{\vec q})dt, \end{split}\] where \(\dot{q}_i\equiv dq_i/dt\), and \(\mathcal{L}\) is the corresponding Lagrangian. The associated EL equation can be written as: \[\label{Eq: ELE} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q_i} = \frac{d}{dt} \Big( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}_i}\Big),\] with the boundary conditions: \(\vec q(t=0)=\vec q_\text{in}\) (the initial location) and \(\vec q(t=t_f)=\vec q_\text{\textrm{fin}}\) (the final location). In order to numerically solve Eq. [\[Eq: ELE\]](#Eq: ELE){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: ELE"} we use the shooting method. That is, we start at the initial position \(\vec q_\text{in}\) and vary the direction and orientation of the initial "velocity" \(\dot{\vec q}(t=0)\). We use a numerical differential equation solver to propagate the solution until we find an initial condition that satisfies \(\vec q(t_f)=\vec q_{\textrm{fin}}\). Finding such initial conditions can present some challenges, which we discuss in the SM. The EL approach is equivalent to what is done in Ref. where the eikonal equation is solved by the method of characteristics. Each different trajectory obtained by varying \(\dot{\vec q}(t=0)\) corresponds to one of the characteristics of the leading order (cf. Eqs.(2.8) and (4.3) of ). It is worth noting that if the imaginary part of the phase of the wave function \(W(\boldsymbol{q})\) is negligible, as is the case of the motion in the deep subbarrier region, then the eikonal equation for \(W\) is a valid approximation. The trajectories corresponding to the stationary functional [\[action-integral\]](#action-integral){reference-type="eqref" reference="action-integral"} are equivalent to the solutions of the eikonal equation for \(W\) (see Eqs. (11) and (13) of ). A connection between the eikonal equation, the dynamic programming approach, and a variational principle in the context of geometrical optics is discussed in Ref. .
# Results {#sec:results}
## Analytic surfaces: Illustrative examples {#Sec: Analytic Surfaces}
We benchmark the performance of the NEB method by comparing the LAP found using NEB (denoted as NEB-LAP) to the paths found using the DPM, DA, and EL approaches for analytic surfaces defined in terms of the position vector \(\vec{q}=(x,y)\). Throughout this section, we assume a constant inertia \({\cal M}_{ij}=\delta_{ij}\). Within the NEB framework, the action functional [\[action-integral\]](#action-integral){reference-type="eqref" reference="action-integral"} can develop some noise as the NEB algorithm approaches the final action. This noise is a function of the NEB hyperparameters and the optimization method used. All surfaces discussed in this section are released as example cases with PyNEB. In the analytic cases, the NEB is initialized by fixing an initial and final points \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\), respectively, and defining a linear trajectory connecting them. The NEB algorithm is then iterated until convergence is reached. Grid-based methods use a grid spacing of \(\Delta x = 0.1\) along the x-axis and \(\Delta y = 0.005\) along the y-axis for all analytic surfaces. Details of the numerical methods used for solving the EL equations for all surfaces are discussed in SM. The action values for each surface considered are included in Table [3](#analytic-table){reference-type="ref" reference="analytic-table"}. Action integrals in Table [3](#analytic-table){reference-type="ref" reference="analytic-table"} are evaluated using linearly interpolated trajectories over 500 uniformly-distributed points. We compute both LAP and MEP in the NEB framework. Since the MEP is a solution of Eq. ([\[MEP-def\]](#MEP-def){reference-type="ref" reference="MEP-def"}), images along the path converge to critical points on the surface depending on the position of the boundary images at \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\). Critical points on the surface \(V(\vec{q})\) contained in the MEP can be extracted by calculating \(\vec{\nabla}V\) along the path and are classified by computing the eigenvalues of the Hessian at those points.
E.F. and D.L. contributed equally to this work.
# Algorithms
E.F. and D.L. contributed equally to this work.
# Algorithms {#algorithms}
:::
# Supplemental videos
The supplemental videos (in.mp4 and .mov formats) show the evolution of the LAP as a function of the number of iteration steps in the NEB method.
- Supplementary video 1 ([.mov](https://pyneb.dev/assets/img/multi-modal.mov), [.mp4](https://pyneb.dev/assets/img/multi-modal.mp4))-This video shows the convergence behaviour of the LAP on the surface in Eq. (12), also shown in Fig. 2, as a function of iteration step. Circles indicate the positions of the NEB images. Multiple initial pathways are shown with one boundary image fixed to the global minimum while the remaining images are subject to gradient forces. The harmonic force is applied to the outer boundary image; it pushes the end point to the outer turning line, see Eq. (13). As the NEB algorithm iterates, the bands converge to two unique stationary paths with unique exit points. The computed action integral for each path is given in the legend. This example shows that the NEB is capable of identifying multiple stationary action paths.
- Supplementary video 2 ([.mov](https://pyneb.dev/assets/img/asymm-camelback.mov), [.mp4](https://pyneb.dev/assets/img/asymm-camelback.mp4))-This video shows the convergence behaviour of the minimum energy path (MEP), shown in red, and the least action path (LAP), shown in purple on the asymmetric camel-back surface of Fig. 5. Circles indicate the positions of the NEB images. A linear trajectory connecting two local minima with fixed endpoints is given as an initial guess. The MEP converges to a gradient curve that passes through critical points of the surface whilst the LAP bypasses two saddle points.
# MEP and LAP equivalence conditions {#LAP-MEP}
As discussed in Sec. I the MEP is obtained by computing the steepest descent line on the PES, and the LAP is determined by minimizing the collective action in the many-dimensional collective space. We want to address the necessary conditions for an MEP to be an LAP. Similar to and Eq. (7), we define the MEP as a gradient curve \(\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\) satisfying the differential equation \[\begin{aligned}
\dot{\vec{\gamma}} = \sigma(\tau) \vec{\nabla}V_\text{eff}(\vec{\gamma}(\tau)), \label{B1} \end{aligned}\] with boundary conditions \(\boldsymbol\gamma(0) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\vec{\gamma}(1) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\). \(\tau\) is an arbitrary monotonic parametrization of the curve, while \(\dot{\vec{\gamma}}\) represents the local velocity of the trajectory. \(\sigma(\tau)\) is a factor to account for the transformation of arc length \(s\) in Eq. (7) to the parameter \(\tau\) to be used in the EL Eq. (15). Solutions to Eq. [\[B1\]](#B1){reference-type="eqref" reference="B1"} define a trajectory made by a collection of steepest descents and ascents between \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\) in terms of the parameter \(\tau\).
On the other hand, the LAP trajectory \(\boldsymbol{q}(\tau)\) is derived by finding a stationary point of the action integral \[\begin{aligned}
S = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt{2\Big(V_\text{eff}(\vec{q})-E \Big)M_{\mu \nu}(\vec{q}) \dot{\vec{q}}^{\mu} \dot{\vec{q}}^{\nu}} d\tau, \label{B2} \end{aligned}\] where \(M_{\mu \nu}\) is the inertia tensor, and the boundary conditions are \(\boldsymbol{q}(0) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\boldsymbol{q}(1) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\). Here and in the following, Einstein summation convention is assumed. By Beltrami's theorem, one can show that finding stationary solutions to the functional \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S} &= \int_{0}^{1} \Big(V_\text{eff}(\vec{q})-E \Big)M_{\mu \nu}(\vec{q})\dot{\vec{q}}^{\mu} \dot{\vec{q}}^{\nu} d\tau \\ &= \int_{0}^{1} g_{\mu \nu} \dot{\vec{q}}^{\mu} \dot{\vec{q}}^{\nu} d\tau \label{B3} \end{aligned}\] yields solutions that also fulfill the Euler Lagrangian equations for the functional [\[B2\]](#B2){reference-type="eqref" reference="B2"}. The converse of this statement is not true. Eq. [\[B3\]](#B3){reference-type="eqref" reference="B3"} is recognized as being in the same form as the Lagrangian for a free particle in a curved space with the metric tensor \(g_{\mu \nu}\). By the stationary action principle, one can derive the geodesic equation: \[\begin{aligned}
\ddot{q}^{\lambda} + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} \dot{q}^{\mu} \dot{q}^{\nu} = 0, \end{aligned}\] where \(\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}\) are the Christoffel symbols: \[\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} g^{\lambda \alpha} \Big(g_{\nu \alpha,\mu} + g_{ \mu \alpha, \nu}-g_{\mu \nu, \alpha}\Big). \end{aligned}\] The solutions represent a stationary point of both action functionals \(\tilde{S}\) and \(S\). For the case with constant inertia, the metric tensor has the form: \[\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu \nu} = \begin{pmatrix} V_\text{eff}(\vec{q})-E & 0 \\ 0 & V_\text{eff}(\vec{q})-E \end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}\] where we have assumed that \(M_{\mu \nu}\propto \delta_{\mu\nu}\) and is \(\vec{q}\)-independent. The coordinates \(\vec q\) are re-scaled to be dimensionless. The geodesic equation in vector notation becomes \[\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq: Equations of Motion} (V_\text{eff}-E) \ddot{\vec{q}} = \frac{1}{2} |\dot{\vec{q}}|^{2} \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}-\big( \dot{\vec{q}} \cdot \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}\big) \dot{\vec{q}}, \end{aligned}\] with the boundary condition \(\vec{q}(0) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{in}}\) and \(\vec{q}(1) = \vec{q}_{\textrm{fin}}\). Suppose now that there exists a trajectory \(\vec{q}(\tau)\) satisfying \(\vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}\big[\vec{q}(\tau)\big] \propto \dot{\vec{q}}\), i.e, the tangent vectors of the solution \(\vec{q}(\tau)\) are parallel to the surface gradient \(\vec{\nabla}V_\text{eff}\) evaluated along the curve. Since \(\vec\nabla V_\text{eff}\) and \(\dot{\vec{ q}}\) are parallel, Eq. [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"} would imply that \(\ddot{\vec{q}} \propto \dot{\vec{q}}\) along the trajectory. This further implies that the tangent vectors of the solution \(\vec{q}(\tau)\) are always in the same direction as its acceleration. From this we conclude that in order for the MEP to also be a solution of Eq. \(\eqref{Eq: Equations of Motion}\), such trajectory \(\vec{q}(\tau)\) can only be composed of straight lines. Critical points of the PES where \(V_\text{eff}-E\) and \(\vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}\) both vanish are the only locations on the surface where the trajectory can bend non-smoothly and still obey Eq. [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"}.
These results significantly restrict the types of PESs for which an MEP can be an LAP. Such conditions on the surface can be obtained by the use of Eq. [\[B1\]](#B1){reference-type="eqref" reference="B1"} as an ansatz for the equation of motion [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"}. We first note that, if the trajectory solves Eq. [\[B1\]](#B1){reference-type="eqref" reference="B1"}, then: \[\begin{aligned}
&\ddot{\vec{\gamma}}(\tau) = \dot{\sigma} \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff} + \sigma \frac{\partial \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}}{\partial \vec{\gamma}} \frac{\partial \vec{\gamma}}{\partial \tau}, \\ &\frac{\partial \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}}{\partial \vec{\gamma}} \frac{\partial \vec{\gamma}}{\partial \tau} = H[\vec{\gamma}(\tau)] \dot{\vec{\gamma}}, \end{aligned}\] where \(H\) is the Hessian matrix of second derivatives of the PES evaluated along the gradient curve \(\vec{\gamma}\). For such a trajectory, the acceleration along the curve is \[\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\vec{\gamma}}(\tau) = \dot{\sigma} \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff} + \sigma^{2} H \vec{\nabla} V_{\rm eff}. \label{curve-acceleration} \end{aligned}\] Substituting this into the the geodesic equation we obtain \[\begin{aligned}
H \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff} &=-\Big(\frac{|\vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}|^{2}}{2(V_\text{eff}-E)} + \frac{\dot{\sigma}}{\sigma^{2}} \Big) \vec{\nabla} V_\text{eff}. \label{MEP_condition} \end{aligned}\] We see that the gradient \(\vec{\nabla}V_\text{eff}\big[\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\big]\) must be an eigenvector of the Hessian \(H\big[\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\big]\) for all \(\tau\). This shows that the eigenvectors of \(H\), or principal directions of the surface \(V_\text{eff}\), must also be parallel to the gradient curve tangents along the trajectory. Since we know that if \(\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\) is to be a solution of [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"}, then \(\dot{\vec{\gamma}}(\tau) \propto \ddot{\vec{\gamma}}(\tau)\); again showing that the curve \(\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\) must be a straight line. In regions where the gradient curve is not parallel to the Hessian eigenvectors, there will be an acceleration along the gradient curve perpendicular to its tangents. In this situation, the function \(\vec{\gamma}(\tau)\) cannot be a solution to [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"} since \(\ddot{\vec{q}}(\tau) \not\propto \dot{\vec{q}}(\tau)\) for all \(\tau\). Equation [\[MEP_condition\]](#MEP_condition){reference-type="eqref" reference="MEP_condition"} allows us to identify whether an MEP is an exact stationary path by checking if the gradient descent trajectory on the surface \(V_{\rm eff}\) misaligns at any point with the eigenvectors of the surface's Hessian \(H\). Figure [\[award_winning_plot\]](#award_winning_plot){reference-type="ref" reference="award_winning_plot"} shows the smallest angle between the gradient and the Hessian's eigenvectors for the CB-S surface. In the regions where the angle is small (stationary path can be approximated by straight lines) the MEP are LAP are close. From this analysis, we conclude that in many situations the MEP will not coincide with the LAP. However, in cases where a stationary path can be approximated by straight lines, such as in the CB-S surface for example shown in Fig. 4, the MEP might well approximate the LAP. Since the LAP is a stationary path, small deviations from the LAP could translate into very small errors in the action value.
# Details on the Euler-Lagrange method {#appendix c}
Numerically solving Eq. (15) (or Eq. [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"} for a constant mass case) for fixed initial conditions, \(\vec q(0)=\vec q_\text{in}\) and \(\dot{\vec q}(0)\), is straightforward. The main challenge lies in finding the correct initial speed and direction, \(|\dot{\vec q}(0)|\) and \(\hat{\dot{\vec q}}(0)\), that provides a trajectory that ends on the fixed final point \(\vec q(t_f)=\vec q_\text{fin}\). In practice, it is only necessary to obtain an upper value of the initial speed \(|\dot{\vec q}(0)|\) since the geometry of the trajectory would be the same with the "particle" arriving at an earlier time than \(t_f\) to \(\vec q_\text{fin}\). In the following, we discuss three important elements of the EL method implementation:
1. How to explore the initial velocity space;
2. How to deal with regions where the Lagrangian in Eq. (14) is close to \(0\);
3. How to deal with boundaries (non-holonomic constraints) of the form \(q_i\geq 0\).
With respect to (i), the main issue is that the map between \(\dot{\vec q}(0)\) and \(\vec q(t_f)\) is highly non-linear, and it is not trivial to create a cost function that can tell us how to improve an initial condition \(\dot{\vec q}(0)\) such that \(\vec q(t_f)\) gets closer to \(\vec q_\text{fin}\). An automatic algorithm, such as Mathematica's shooting method, is able to find the correct initial conditions for the analytic surfaces discussed in Sec. IV.1, but fails with the realistic cases of Sec. IV.2. For these realistic cases we resorted to a binary search for the initial angles of \(\hat{\dot{\vec q}}(0)\). This procedure worked well for the \(^{232}\)U case, but yielded non-optimal results (compared to the NEB and DP paths) for the 3D \(^{240}\)Pu case. The nonlinearity of \(\vec q(t_f)\) as a function of \(\dot{\vec q}(0)\) can get stronger in the regions where the effective potential and the inertia tensor in Eq. (5) undergo abrupt local variations. Such variations can arise due to numerical noise in the underlying DFT calculation, interpolation errors, or configuration changes due to level crossings. The local fluctuations can easily deflect trajectories being computed with the EL, even though their presence should not in principle impact much the actual path of minimum action. To remedy this situation for the EL approach, we "smoothed" (coarse-grained) \(V_\text{eff}\) and \(\mathcal{M}_{\text{eff}}\) by replacing their values at each location \(\vec q\) by their respective averages over a small area around \(\vec q\), see Fig. [\[Fig: averaged surface\]](#Fig: averaged surface){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig: averaged surface"}. This was done at the level of the grid points, before building the interpolator. The hope is that, by removing fine-grained details of the surface, the final optimal path would not change much, but the correct \(\dot{\vec q}(0)\) will be easier to find. This was not necessary for the analytic surfaces of Sec. IV.1Ȧs concerns (ii), the Lagrangian \(\mathcal{L}\) in Eq. (14) becoming close to zero is a problem since the numerical integrator for the differential equations becomes unstable; increasingly big steps in \(dt\) leave the action almost unchanged. This can happen if either \(\big(V_\text{eff}-E_0 \big)\) or \(\mathcal{M}_\text{eff}\) approach zero. In the case of a constant inertia tensor, such as in the analytical surfaces in Sec. IV.1, the equations of motion Eq. [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"} resemble a particle of "mass" \(\big(V_\text{eff}(\vec q)-E_0 \big)\) moving under non-conservative external forces proportional to \(\nabla V_\text{eff}\) (this equation produces the same trajectories as the equations of motion of a particle moving on a inverted potential as those shown in ). If \(V_\text{eff}\sim E_{0}\), the trajectory of the particle becomes very sensitive to any force, which is the reason why trajectories diverge near the outer turning line (see Figs. 3 and 4 in ), or near global minima such a those shown in Fig. 4. The fact that trajectories are unstable around the OTL is because the assumption of the eikonal approximation that the phase of the wave function is real and changes slowly breaks down. We refer the reader to for more details on higher order corrections to the eikonal approximation. To avoid the instabilities in regions where \(V_\text{eff}\sim E_0\), including a neighborhood around the OTL, we shifted the effective potential by a small constant \(\epsilon_{0}\), \(V_\text{eff}-E_0 + \epsilon_0\), and added a small diagonal term to the inertia tensor: \(\mathcal{M}_\text{eff} + I\epsilon_1\), where \(I\) is the identity matrix with the appropriate dimensions. For the analytic surfaces in Sec. IV.1, we solved the EL equations for several decreasing values of \(\epsilon_0\) and then extrapolated the collection of paths to obtain \(\vec q(t)\) when \(\epsilon_0 \to 0\). Fig. [\[Fig: fig-camel-symmetric paths\]](#Fig: fig-camel-symmetric paths){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig: fig-camel-symmetric paths"} shows trajectories obtained in such way for the CB-S surface. In the case of the realistic calculations we only worked with fixed values of \(\epsilon_0\) and \(\epsilon_1\). For the 2D cases we used \(\epsilon_0=1\) MeV and \(\epsilon_1=0.01\) (\(\epsilon_1\) being dimensionless since we rescaled \(Q_{20}\) and \(Q_{30}\) to be in the \([0,1]\) range from their original ranges). For the 3D case we used \(\epsilon_0=0.005\) MeV and \(\epsilon_1=10^{-5}\). With regard to (iii), the numerical integrator can be stopped when the trajectory arrives at such boundary. The main issue is on how to deal with trajectories which for an appreciable interval can lay extremely close to a boundary without crossing it, such as those in Fig. 7 for \(Q_{20}\in \sim[25,70]\) b. For a constant effective mass, it can be seen from Eq. [\[Eq: Equations of Motion\]](#Eq: Equations of Motion){reference-type="eqref" reference="Eq: Equations of Motion"} that unless \(\vec\nabla V_{\rm eff}\) has zero vertical component, the particle will either be pulled down close to the boundary and touch it, or be repelled from it in the upward direction and be driven away. To tackle this issue, we altered the effective potential and effective mass in a small vicinity around the line \(Q_{30}=0\) in such a way that the PES and effective mass values are not drastically changed, but we ensure that the vertical components of their gradients are zero along such line. This creates a "canal effect" with the particle traveling close to the boundary for a finite time. A similar "canal effect" was used to explore the behavior of trajectories near the OTL and improve stability of the solution in that region. This was done by replacing the effective potential by \((V_\text{eff}-E_0)\to \sqrt{(V_\text{eff}-E_0)^2+\epsilon_2^2}\), with \(\epsilon_2\) being a small constant. The gradient of this new function is zero at the OTL. In the realistic examples, we chose the value \(\epsilon_2=0.5\) MeV. We conclude this section by emphasising that, for the EL approach to work, many simplifications and approximations had to be made. On the other hand, the NEB approach is free from the difficulties (i)-(iii). By using local surface derivatives and global springs forces, the NEB is effectively less sensitive to the noise in the PES. The NEB also has the advantage that the end point does not have to be predefined. For the EL approach, an undefined ending point translates into a huge computational cost. Finally, constraints of the form \(q_i\geq0\) are easily implemented on the NEB, without causing any instability of the algorithm or requiring the surface to be altered in any way. | {'timestamp': '2022-03-07T02:01:31', 'yymm': '2203', 'arxiv_id': '2203.01975', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01975'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
In 2019 experts of Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel predicted that the maximum of the solar cycle 25 (SC25) will lie in the sunspot number range between 95 and 130, that is similar to SC24 with the maximal SN=116 (<https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle>). The opinion that SC25 will be equal or lower than SC24 is shared by many authors (; ; ; ; etc). If the odd SC25 is lower than the even SC24, it will violate the Gnevyshev-Ohl correlation rule. Many regard this as a sign that the Sun is entering to a Dalton-like global minimum. However, there is an alternative point of view that the forecast of the experts has been underestimated and the forecoming cycle will be higher (; ; ; etc). None of the two positions have prevailed so far. In the following we propose a simple method of solar maximums predictions based on linear relations between amplitudes of cycles and lengths of its phases. This method provides one more argument that SC25 will be higher that SC24 and comparable with SC23.
# Data and notation
Hereafter we will use for analysys and prediction the 13-month smoothed monthly averages of the recalibrated sunspot number SN for 1749--2021 (<https://wwwbis.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_ms_tot_V2.0.txt>). We will introduce the followig notation: \({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(i)\) is the sunspot index in the maximum of the \(i\)th cycle (i.e. its amplitude), \(T_{\rm min}(i)\) and \(T_{\rm Max}(i)\) are moments of its minimum and maximum, \(T_{\rm mm}(i) = T_{\rm min}(i+1)-T_{\rm min}(i)\) is its length (from minimum to minimum), \(T_{\rm mM}(i) = T_{\rm Max}(i)-T_{\rm min}(i)\) is the length of the ascending branch of the cycle (from minimum to maximum).
# The Waldmeiers rule
The well-known empirical Waldmeier rule (WR) states that the length of the ascending branch of the cycle anticorrelates with its amplitude (Fig. [\[figwr\]](#figwr){reference-type="ref" reference="figwr"}). One can find the linear regression equation \[\begin{aligned}
{\rm SN}_{\rm max}(i) &=& a_1 + b_1\,T_{\rm mM}(i)\,,\nonumber\\ a_1 &=&340.2 \pm 31.3\,,\nonumber\\ b_1 &=& (-36.76 \pm 6.90)\;{\rm yr}^{-1}\,, \label{eqwr} \end{aligned}\] and the correlation coefficient between the regression parameters is \[r(a_1,b_1) =-0.976\.\]
# The length-to-next-amplitude rule (LNAR)
Another empirical rule, similar to WR but less known (and still nameless, to the best of our knowledge), states that the length of a given cycle anticorrelates with the amplitude of the next one (Fig. [\[figlnar\]](#figlnar){reference-type="ref" reference="figlnar"}). The corresponding regression is \[\begin{aligned}
{\rm SN}_{\rm max}(i+1) &=& a_2 + b_2\,T_{\rm mm}(i)\,,\nonumber\\ a_2 &=& 544.5 \pm 86.6\,,\nonumber\\ b_2 &=& (-33.01 \pm 7.81)\;{\rm yr}^{-1}\,,\nonumber\\ r(a_2,b_2) &=&-0.994\. \label{eqlnar} \end{aligned}\]
# The length-to-ascending-length rule (LALR)
A direct consequence of the WR and LNAR is the third rule, that binds the length of the current cycle with the length of the ascending phase of the next one (Fig. [\[figlalr\]](#figlalr){reference-type="ref" reference="figlalr"}). These parameters correlate, and the regression is \[\begin{aligned}
{\rm T}_{\rm mM}(i+1) &=& a_3 + b_3\,T_{\rm mm}(i) \,,\nonumber\\ a_3 &=& (-1.98 \pm 1.81)\;{\rm yr}\,,\nonumber\\ b_3 &=& 0.570 \pm 0.163\,,\nonumber\\ r(a_3,b_3) &=&-0.994\. \label{eqlalr} \end{aligned}\]
# Prediction of SC25
The LNA and LAL rules stated above allow to estimate the time and magnitude of the maximum of the next cycle provided we know the length of the current one. Since the minimum between SC24 and SC25 in the 13-month smoothed index occurs in December 2019, the length of the SC24 is 11.0 yr, and it follows from and that \[{\rm SN}_{\rm max}(25)=181\pm46\,,\] \[{\rm T}_{\rm mM}(25)=(4.23\pm0.96)\;{\rm yr}\,,\] and \[T_{\rm max}(25)=(2024.24\pm0.96)\;{\rm yr}\] (see Figs. [\[figlnar\]](#figlnar){reference-type="ref" reference="figlnar"} and [\[figlalr\]](#figlalr){reference-type="ref" reference="figlalr"}). The errors of the predictions are large enough. Nevertheless, according to the prediction, with probability 0.92 SC25 will be higher than SC24 (\({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(24) = 116\)). Probably, it will be similar to SC23 (\({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(23)=176\)) or SC17 (\({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(17)=189\)) (Fig. [\[figscxx\]](#figscxx){reference-type="ref" reference="figscxx"}). It means that the odd SC25 will be higher than the even SC24, and the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule will keep valid. Earlier, using the same method, we have obtained for SC25 weaker estimates: the amplitude \(136\pm36\) and the moment of maximum \(2025.7\pm0.7\) (for the Gaussian smoothing of SN with \(\sigma=8\) months). This underestimate can be explained by the fact that in January 2021, when the mentioned article was being prepared, it was difficult to determine the moment of SC25 minimum in the smoothed index accurately, and we assumed it to occur too late, in October 2020, when the last local minimum of the index before its fast growth took place.
# Control of stability
To control the stability of the prediction method we will do the following procedure. Let's take the subseries of parameters from 1st to \((i-1)\)th cycle, construct the regressions for the LNAR and LALR using the truncated series and obtain the predictions for the moment and amplitude of the \(i\)th cycle. The results of the predictions compared with the observed values are plotted in Figs. [\[figcamp\]](#figcamp){reference-type="ref" reference="figcamp"} and [\[figctime\]](#figctime){reference-type="ref" reference="figctime"}. All predicted values are in \(1.5\sigma\) bands relative to the observed values. The number of predictions in the one sigma band is 8 out of 13 (62%) for amplitudes and 11 out of 13 (85%) for lengths, which does not contradict to the probability to be in the \(1\sigma\) band for the normal distribution (68%).
# Conclusions
The proposed method of prediction, despite its simplicity and rather large errors, provides an accuracy of about 15--30% for the moment of maximum and 25--50% in its magnitude, which is enough to distinguish between cycles of low, medium and high power. In particular, the method predicts SC25 of medium magnitude \({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(25) = 181\pm46\), which will be higher than the previous one (\({\rm SN}_{\rm max}(24) = 116\)) with probability 0.92, and with the same probability the Gnevyshev-Ohl correlation rule will be valid for SC25. | {'timestamp': '2022-03-07T02:03:57', 'yymm': '2203', 'arxiv_id': '2203.02028', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02028'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
Neural network pruning has become an essential tool to reduce the size of modern-day neural networks. Small-sized networks are important for faster inference and many real-world tasks, for example, deployment on edge devices. With scaling model parameters becoming a popular way to scale performance, model sizes are becoming huge and an increasing cost to the environment. Neural network compression and neural network pruning in particular, has therefore, seen a lot of new work in the last few years. This has also coincided with the insight by Han et al. in 2015, that neural networks can be pruned to a significantly large extent without a drop in accuracy. New methods have utilized a myriad of pruning techniques consisting of gradient-based methods, sensitivity to or feedback from an objective function, distance or similarity measures, regularization-based techniques, amongst others. The state-of-the-art (SOTA) pruning techniques use complex rules like iterative pruning and re-growth of weight parameters using heuristics rules every few hundred iterations for DSR. SM uses sparse momentum that uses exponentially smoothed gradients (momentum) to find layers and weights that reduce error and then redistribute the pruned weights across layers using the mean momentum magnitude of each layer. For each layer, sparse momentum grows the weights using the momentum magnitude of zero-valued weights. Another popular SOTA technique, RigL, also works by iteratively pruning and re-growing weights every few iterations. They use either uniform or Erdos-Renyi-Kernel (ERK) for pruning connections and re-grow connections based on the highest magnitude gradients. Among the most recent techniques, DPF uses dynamic allocation of the sparsity pattern and incorporates a feedback signal to re-activate prematurely pruned weights, while STR utilises Soft Threshold Reparameterization and uses back-propagation to find sparsity ratios for each layer. Despite the high number of new pruning algorithms proposed, the tangible benefits of many of them are still questionable. For instance, recently it has been shown that many pruning at initialization (PAI) schemes do not perform as well as expected. In that paper, it is shown through a number of experiments that these PAI schemes are actually no better than random pruning, which is one of the most naive pruning baselines with no complexity involved. Similarly, in this paper, we bring attention to the trend of proposing increasingly complex pruning algorithms and question whether such complexity is really required to achieve superior results. We benchmark popular state-of-the-art (SOTA) pruning techniques against a naive pruning baseline, namely, Global Magnitude Pruning (Global MP). Global MP ranks all the weights in a neural network by their magnitudes and then prunes off the smallest ones (Fig. [\[fig:workflow\]](#fig:workflow){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:workflow"}). Thus, in its vanilla form, it is a very simple pruning technique and contrasts sharply with the rest of the algorithms in the literature in terms of complexity. Despite its simplicity, Global MP has not been comprehensively analyzed and evaluated in the literature. Although, some prior works have used Global MP as a baseline, they missed out on conducting rigorous experiments with it; for example, in settings of both gradual and one-shot pruning or comparing it with SOTA. Similarly, many SOTA papers do not use Global MP for benchmarking and miss out on capturing its remarkable performance. We bridge this gap in evaluating the efficacy of Global MP under multiple experimental conditions and demonstrate its superior performance. In this paper, we show that naive Global MP surpasses the other pruning techniques and sets a new SOTA result for ImageNet experiments. This performance is also valid across different datasets, neural network models, and target sparsity levels. While achieving such performance, Global MP does not require any additional algorithm-specific hyper-parameters to be tuned. Unlike many pruning techniques in the literature, it is very straightforward to implement. We conduct experiments with Global MP in both one-shot and gradual settings, and find that Global MP in a gradual fashion helps to increase the FLOPs sparsity even further, without compromising accuracy. Aside to its benefits, we also shed light into a potential problem with Global MP, known as layer-collapse, whereby an entire layer is pruned away, leading to a drastic loss in accuracy. In fact, this is a long-standing issue for many pruning algorithms in the literature, but the fix for it in Global MP is rather simple through introducing a minimum threshold to retain a minimum number of weights in every layer, while it is likely to be more complicated in other algorithms. We conduct experiments on WRN-28-8, ResNet-32, ResNet-50, MobileNet-V1, and FastGRNN models, and on CIFAR-10, ImageNet, and HAR-2 datasets. We test Global MP for both unstructured and structured as well as one-shot and gradual settings, and share our findings.
# Related Work {#related_work}
Compression of neural networks has become an important research area due to the rapid increase in size of neural networks, the need for fast inference, application to real-world tasks and concerns about the carbon footprint of training large neural networks. Over the years, several compression techniques have emerged in the literature, such as quantisation, factorisation, attention, knowledge distillation, architecture search and pruning. Quantisation techniques which restrict the bitwidth of parameters and tensor factorisation and decomposition which aim to break large kernels into smaller components are popular methods. However, they need to be optimised for specific architectures. Attention networks have two separate networks to focus on only a small patch of the input image. Training smaller student networks in a process called knowledge distillation has also proved effective, although it can potentially require a large training budget. Architecture search techniques, such as new kernel design or whole architecture design have also become popular. Nevertheless, the large search space size requires ample computational resources to do the architecture search. Different from all these approaches, we focus on pruning deep neural networks in this work. As compared to other categories, pruning is more general in nature and has shown strong performance. Many pruning techniques have been developed over the years, which use first or second order derivatives, gradient based methods, sensitivity to or feedback from some objective function, distance or similarity measures, regularization-based techniques, and magnitude-based criterion. A key trick has been discovered in to iteratively prune and retrain a network, thereby preserving high accuracy. Runtime Neural Pruning attempts to use reinforcement learning (RL) for compression by training an RL agent to select smaller sub-networks during inference. design the first approach using RL for pruning. However, RL training approaches typically require additional RL training budgets and careful RL action and state space design. Global Magnitude Pruning (Global MP) on the other hand works by ranking all the parameters in a network by their absolute magnitudes and then pruning the smallest ones. It is therefore, quite intuitive, logical and straightforward to implement. It is also not to be confused with methods utilizing Global Pruning but not conducting magnitude pruning, for example, SNIP. Many methods can do Global Pruning but they cannot be called Global MP because they do not conduct magnitude-based pruning. Some prior works have utilised Global MP but have missed out on rigorously benchmarking it, for example in settings of both gradual and one-shot pruning, and have also not compared it to SOTA algorithms. Also, many SOTA algorithms miss out on benchmarking their algorithms against Global MP and hence are unable to capture its efficacy. We conduct systematic experiments to bridge this gap and demonstrate its superior performance by evaluating its efficacy under multiple experimental conditions.
# Method {#approach}
In this section, we explain how Global MP works by describing its key components. We shed light into its practical details and implementation. We present a pseudocode to explain the algorithmic flow of Global MP (Algorithm [\[algo1\]](#algo1){reference-type="ref" reference="algo1"} and Table [1](#table:func_list){reference-type="ref" reference="table:func_list"}). We also introduce a simple thresholding mechanism, called *Minimum Threshold (MT)*, to avoid the issue of layer-collapse at high sparsity levels.
## Global Magnitude Pruning (Global MP) {#algo:gp}
Global MP is a magnitude-based pruning approach, whereby weights larger than a certain threshold are kept, and weights smaller than the threshold are pruned across a neural network. The threshold is calculated based on the target sparsity rate and is not a hyper-parameter that needs to be tuned or learnt. Given a target sparsity rate \(\kappa_{target}\), the threshold \(t\) is simply calculated as the weight magnitude that serves as a separation point between the smallest \(\kappa_{target}\) percent of weights and the rest, once all weights are sorted into an array based on their magnitude. Formally, for a calculated threshold \(t\) and each individual weight \(w\) in any layer, the new weight \(w_{new}\) is defined as follows: \[w_{new} = \begin{cases} 0 & |w| < t, \\ w & otherwise. \\ \end{cases}\] In Global MP, a single threshold is set for the entire network based on the target sparsity for the network. This is in contrast to layer-wise pruning, in which different threshold values have to be searched for each layer individually. In the case of uniform pruning on the other hand, a threshold for each layer needs to be calculated based on the sparsity target assigned to the layers uniformly across the network. In this aspect, Global MP is more efficient than layer-wise or uniform pruning because the threshold does not need to be searched or calculated for every layer individually.
## Minimum Threshold (MT) {#algo:MT}
The Minimum Threshold (MT) refers to the fixed number of weights that are preserved in every layer of the neural network post pruning. The MT is a scalar value that is fixed before the start of the pruning cycle. The weights in a layer are sorted by their magnitude and the largest MT number of weights are preserved. For instance, an MT of 500 implies that 500 of the largest weights in every layer need to be preserved post pruning. If a layer originally has a smaller number of weights than the MT number, then all the weights of that layer will be preserved. Therefore, MT is simple to apply and also computationally inexpensive. This corresponds to: \[{\|W_l\|_0} \geq \begin{cases} \sigma & \text{if } m \geq \sigma_l, \\ m & \text{otherwise.} \\ \end{cases} \label{eq:MT}\] The term \(W_l \in \mathbb{R}^{m}\) denotes the weight vector for layer \(l\), \(\sigma\) is the MT value in terms of the number of weights and \({\|W_l\|_0}\) indicates the number of non-zero elements in \(W_l\). We explain in the below section how the actual pruning using MT is implemented.
## The Pruning Workflow
The pruning pipeline for Global MP is specified in Algorithm [\[algo1\]](#algo1){reference-type="ref" reference="algo1"}. It consists of taking a starting model, pruning it until the desired sparsity target is met and training or fine-tuning it for the specified number of epochs. It supports both one-shot and gradual pruning settings as well as with or without MT. The users may choose any pruning setting as per their use-case. The procedure starts by first taking a pre-trained model for the case of one-shot pruning or untrained model for the case of gradual pruning. Next, the sparsity of the model is checked and if the sparsity is lower than the target sparsity, then the model is pruned using either vanilla Global MP or Global MP with MT, as per the choice of the user. Once, the model is pruned then it is trained for the case of gradual pruning or fine-tuned for the case of one-shot pruning. The above procedure repeats until the final epoch is reached. For the case of one-shot pruning, the later epochs are just used for doing fine-tuning as the pruning happens in one-go in the first epoch itself. This finishes the procedure and the final result is a pruned and trained (or fine-tuned) model.
# Experiments {#Results}
Below we describe experiments related to Global Magnitude Pruning (Global MP) compared to state-of-the-art (SOTA) pruning algorithms. We conduct experiments on well-known image classification datasets, such as CIFAR-10 and ImageNet. We also include a human activity recognition dataset (HAR-2) to demonstrate generalization to other domains. We report hyper-parameters and training-related information for all the experiments in supplementary materials (Section A).
## Comparison with SOTA
We compare Global MP with various popular SOTA algorithms that are well known for pruning including SNIP, SM, DSR, DPF, GMP, DNW, RigL, and STR. These include a broad spectrum of methods involving iteratively pruning and re-growing weights every few iterations, pruning at initialization, using gradients and feedback signals for pruning and pruning using regularization. We report results from these algorithms whenever they report results for the specific dataset that is being experimented upon. We report performance on weight sparsity (i.e., the number of parameters pruned) vs. accuracy, the default metric reported by all pruning papers, for all our experiments.
### CIFAR-10 {#sota_cifar10}
We conduct experiments to compare Global MP to SOTA pruning algorithms on the CIFAR-10 dataset, which features 60,000 tiny, 32\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}32-sized RGB images with 10 classes. It is a commonly used dataset for benchmarking DNN pruning algorithms. We compare Global MP with various algorithms including SNIP, SM, DSR, and DPF. We report results on two popular and widely pruned network architectures, namely, WideResNet-28-8 (WRN-28-8) and ResNet-32. For both architectures, we start off with the original model having the same initial accuracy as the other algorithms to have a fair comparison. Table [\[table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10\]](#table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10){reference-type="ref" reference="table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10"} includes the results for WRN-28-8 experiments. As can be seen, Global MP performs better than the rest of the competitors at 90% and 95% sparsity levels. At 97.5% sparsity level, Global MP is the second-best algorithm with a very small margin after a strong competitor DPF, which takes the second-best place in other two target sparsity levels. As for ResNet-32, since it is a smaller network with less redundancy, we conduct experiments only up to 95% sparsity. Table [\[table:resnet32_cifar10\]](#table:resnet32_cifar10){reference-type="ref" reference="table:resnet32_cifar10"} depicts these results. Similar to the results in WRN-28-8, Global MP and DPF take the first two places at both 90% and 95% sparsity levels, while margins are being very small in between. This is an indication of the capabilities of Global MP as compared to the other algorithms, while featuring no added complexity.
[\[table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10\]]{#table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10 label="table:wrn-28-8_cifar_10"}
[\[table:resnet32_cifar10\]]{#table:resnet32_cifar10 label="table:resnet32_cifar10"}
### ImageNet {#sota_imagenet}
Following the favorable performance on CIFAR-10 dataset, we benchmark Global MP against other competitors in the literature over ImageNet dataset, also known as ILSVRC 2012 dataset. This is a highly compelling dataset as compared to CIFAR-10, featuring around 1.3 million RGB images with 1,000 classes. In the pruning context, it typically serves as an ultimate benchmark and has been utilized by many other papers during comparison. Using this dataset, we compare Global MP with SOTA algorithms like GMP, DSR, DNW, SM , RigL, DPF and STR. The two network architectures that we use for this comparison are ResNet-50 and MobileNet-V1, the two most popular architectures for benchmarking on ImageNet. We again start from the same initial accuracy for the non-pruned models for all algorithms, either by matching the results in their original papers or reproducing their results whenever their code is available. The remarkable performance of Global MP becomes clearly visible in ResNet-50 over ImageNet experiments. As can be seen from Table [\[table:resnet50_imagenet\]](#table:resnet50_imagenet){reference-type="ref" reference="table:resnet50_imagenet"}, Global MP outperforms all the other competitors in every weight sparsity level from 80% to 98%. The first two places at each of these target sparsity levels belong to either the gradual version or the one-shot version of Global MP. Different from CIFAR-10 results, the performance margins that Global MP surpasses the others are also fairly high in ImageNet experiments. For instance, Global MP (Gradual) yields about 2% higher accuracy at 95% target sparsity level, while this number goes up to about 5% at 98% target sparsity level. This is an important finding that such a simple algorithm like Global MP can highly outperform other competitors that incorporates very complex design choices or computationally demanding procedures.
[\[table:resnet50_imagenet\]]{#table:resnet50_imagenet label="table:resnet50_imagenet"}
We also test another architecture on ImageNet, MobileNet-V1, which is a much smaller and more efficient architecture than ResNet-50. In this case, strong competitors are limited in the literature; only two of the aforementioned algorithms are able to present competitive results due to the fact that this architecture has less redundancy. We benchmark Global MP with two other competitors at two target sparsity levels: 75% and 90%. As can be seen in Table [\[table:mobilenetv1_imagenet\]](#table:mobilenetv1_imagenet){reference-type="ref" reference="table:mobilenetv1_imagenet"}, Global MP outperforms SOTA algorithms by a margin of more than 2% at 75% sparsity, which is a significant result given how compact the MobileNet-V1 is. At 90% sparsity on the other hand, the same compactness causes Global MP to over-prune certain layers in the network, which result in a significant accuracy drop. This is the above-mentioned problem of layer-collapse, and it is easily rectified when MT is introduced to Global MP. We use an MT value of 0.2% which is determined using the same search procedure as any other hyper-parameter. The accuracy of Global MP at 90% sparsity goes beyond SOTA again with such a simple fix, and the accuracy margin to the next competitor gets higher than 2%. MT comes at the cost of a less FLOPs reduction, but it is useful especially for accuracy-critical applications where decreasing the size of the network is still important. All these findings clearly indicates that Global MP is a simple yet competitive pruning algorithm.
[\[table:mobilenetv1_imagenet\]]{#table:mobilenetv1_imagenet label="table:mobilenetv1_imagenet"}
## Generalizing to other domains and RNN architectures {#rnn}
We experiment with Global MP on other domains and non-convolutional networks as well to measure the generalizability of the algorithm on different domains and network types. We experiment on a FastGRNN model on the HAR-2 Human Activity Recognition dataset. HAR-2 dataset is a binarized version of the 6-class Human Activity Recognition dataset. From the full-rank model with \(r_W = 9\) and \(r_U = 80\) as suggested on the STR paper, we apply Global MP on the matrices \(W_1\) and \(W_2\). To do this, we find the weight mask by ranking the columns of \(W_1\) and \(W_2\) based on their absolute sum, then we prune the \(9-r_W^{new}\) lowest columns and \(80-r_U^{new}\) lowest columns from \(W_1\) and \(W_2\) respectively. In the end, we fine-tune this pruned model by retraining it with FastGRNN's trainer and applying the weight mask at every epoch. We test Global MP under different network configurations. We find that Global MP surpasses the other baselines on all the configurations (Table [\[table:fastgrnn_har2\]](#table:fastgrnn_har2){reference-type="ref" reference="table:fastgrnn_har2"}) and successfully prunes the model on a very different architecture and domain.
## Mitigating Layer-Collapse {#high_sparsity}
Layer-collapse is an issue that many pruning algorithms run into and occurs when an entire layer is pruned by the pruning algorithm, rendering the network untrainable. We investigate this phenomena and find that the performance of a pruning algorithm can be substantially affected by the architecture of the neural network being pruned, especially in the high sparsity domain. We conduct experiments on MobileNet-V2 and WRN-22-8 models over the CIFAR-10 dataset. We report results averaged over multiple runs where each run uses a different pre-trained model to provide more robustness. We first prune a WRN-22-8 model to 99.9% sparsity. We find that at 99.9% sparsity, the WRN is still able to get decent accuracy (Table [\[table:highsparsity_wrn\]](#table:highsparsity_wrn){reference-type="ref" reference="table:highsparsity_wrn"}). We then prune a MobileNet-V2 model to 98% sparsity. For the MobileNet, however, accuracy drops to 10% using only Global MP, and the model is not able to learn (Table [\[table:highsparsity_mnet\]](#table:highsparsity_mnet){reference-type="ref" reference="table:highsparsity_mnet"}). The reason for this wide discrepancy in learning behavior lies in the shortcut connections. Both WRN-22-8 and MobileNet-V2 use shortcut connections, however, their placement is different. Referring to Fig. [\[fig:highsparsity_archs\]](#fig:highsparsity_archs){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:highsparsity_archs"}, WRN uses identity shortcut connections from Layer 20 to Layer 23. This type of shortcut connections are simple identity mappings and do not require any extra parameters, and hence, they do not count towards the weights. However, MobileNet-V2 uses a convolutional shortcut mapping from Layer 52 to Layer 57 and hence, it adds to the model's weights, and thus, it is prunable layer for the pruning algorithm. Global MP completely prunes the two preceding layers before the last layer. However, because WRN uses identity mappings, it is still able to relay information to the last layer, and the model is still able to learn, whereas MobileNet-V2 faces catastrophic accuracy drop due to layer-collapse. Pruning algorithms can be susceptible to such catastrophic layer-collapse issues especially in the high sparsity domain. The MT rule can help overcome this issue. Retaining a small MT of 0.02% was sufficient for the MobileNet-V2 model to avoid layer-collapse and learn successfully. We provide layer-wise weight snapshot for the model, before and after applying MT, to illustrate what MT does (Fig. [\[fig:highsparsity_mnet\]](#fig:highsparsity_mnet){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:highsparsity_mnet"}). Hence, retaining a small amount of weights can help in the learning dynamics of models in high sparsity settings.
[\[table:fastgrnn_har2\]]{#table:fastgrnn_har2 label="table:fastgrnn_har2"}
[\[table:highsparsity_wrn\]]{#table:highsparsity_wrn label="table:highsparsity_wrn"}
[\[table:highsparsity_mnet\]]{#table:highsparsity_mnet label="table:highsparsity_mnet"}
# Discussion, Limitations and Future Work
We have seen that Global MP works very well and achieves superior performance on all the datasets and architectures tested. It can work as a one-shot pruning algorithm or as a gradual pruning algorithm. It is very stable and produces similar pruning results across multiple runs and pre-trained models (Fig. [\[fig:highsparsity_mnet_gp\]](#fig:highsparsity_mnet_gp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:highsparsity_mnet_gp"}). It also surpasses SOTA algorithms on ResNet-50 over ImageNet and sets the new SOTA results across many sparsity levels. At the same time, Global MP has very low algorithmic complexity and arguably is one of the simplest pruning algorithms. It is simpler than many other pruning algorithms like custom loss based regularization, RL-based procedures, heuristics-based layerwise pruning ratios, etc. It just ranks weights based on their magnitude and removes the smallest ones. This raises a key question on whether complexity is really required for pruning and if complex pruning algorithms have tangible advantages over naive baselines. According to our results, the advantages seem to be narrow. The only advantages maybe that while Global MP gets competitive FLOPs performance, some algorithms may have higher FLOPs sparsity, though at the cost of accuracy. Therefore, practitioners may opt for another algorithm to get SOTA FLOPs performance if the accuracy loss incurred is reasonable for their application. A limitation of Global MP is that the theoretical foundations for it have not been well-established yet. While empirically it gets superior performance, we still do not understand mathematically why this is the case. A richer understanding of the dynamics of Global MP can enable researchers to build upon it and further improve its performance, and it is an area for future work. Another area for future work is jointly optimizing both weights and FLOPs during the pruning process. Currently, Global MP is used to reach a certain parameter sparsity, and FLOPs reduction comes as a by-product. In the future, FLOPs can also be added to the optimization function to jointly sparsify both parameters and FLOPs. This can lead to further gains in the FLOPs performance of Global MP.
# Conclusions {#conclusion}
In this work, we raised the question of whether utilizing complex and computationally demanding algorithms are really required to achieve superior DNN pruning results. This stemmed from the hike in the number of new pruning algorithms proposed in the recent years, each with a marginal performance increment, though with complicated procedures, which makes it hard for a practitioner to select the correct algorithm and the best set of algorithm-specific hyper-parameters for their application. We benchmarked these algorithms against a naive baseline, namely, Global MP, which does not incorporate any complex procedure or any hard-to-tune hyper-parameter. Despite its simplicity, we found that Global MP outperforms many SOTA pruning algorithms over multiple datasets such as CIFAR-10, ImageNet and HAR-2; with different network architectures such as ResNet-50 and MobileNet-V1; and at various sparsity levels from 50% up to 99.9%. We also presented a few variants of Global MP, i.e., one-shot and gradual, together with a new, complementary technique, MT. We demonstrated that through the selection of an appropriate variant of Global MP, the performance at different metrics, i.e., accuracy vs. weight sparsity or accuracy vs. FLOPs sparsity, can be maximized. While our results serves as an empirical proof that a naive pruning algorithm like Global MP can achieve SOTA results, it remains as a promising future research direction to shed light into theoretical aspects of how such performance is possible with Global MP. Another future direction includes extending the capabilities of Global MP, such as jointly optimizing both FLOPs and the number of weights.
## Hyper-parameters and Experimental Setup {#hyperparams}
No data augmentation is done apart from standard data pre-processing. Difference in batch size for training and testing in some experiments is due to GPU RAM availability. Averaged results are reported over three runs. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:47', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14624', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14624'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
More than one hundred years ago, H. Weyl has advocated a new theory to unify all the interactions known at that time, namely gravitational interaction and electro-magnetic force, within the framework of a newly established geometry which is nowadays called "Weyl geometry". In Riemann geometry both length and angle are preserved under parallel transport while in Weyl geometry, only angle, but not length, is preserved by the Weyl gauge field. Soon after the advent of the Weyl's idea, A. Einstein has criticized that regarding the spacing of atomic spectral lines, the prediction obtained from Weyl's theory and the experimental observations were in contradiction (this problem is sometimes called the second clock problem ), thus Weyl theory has been buried in oblivion for a long time.[^1] However, in recent years a considerate interest has been developed for Weyl conformal geometry. This is because it was found that the Weyl gauge field acquires a huge mass around the Planck scale and decouples at low energies, thereby avoiding the second clock problem. In addition, we have noticed the importance of global scale invariance and also local scale invariance, which is also called Weyl invariance, in formulating a theory beyond the Standard Model (BSM) and quantum gravity. Hence, Weyl geometry provides us with a natural playground for describing Weyl symmetry. The study of Weyl conformal gravity in Weyl geometry has been mainly limited to a classical analysis thus far.[^2] One of motivations behind the present article is to present a quantum theory of Weyl conformal gravity. To this end, we construct a BRST formalism of the theory from which we can shed some light on important features of quantum aspects of Weyl conformal gravity in Weyl geometry. For instance, as been already shown in case of Weyl invariant scalar-tensor gravity, there is an extended \({I\kern-.06em O\kern-.11em S\kern-.04em p}(10|10)\) choral symmetry compared with the \({I\kern-.06em O\kern-.11em S\kern-.04em p}(8|8)\) choral symmetry in Einstein's gravity. This extended symmetry is not confined to the sector of the Nakanishi-Lautrup auxiliary fields and the Faddeev-Popov (FP) (anti-)ghosts but relevant to a classical theory. Moreover, it can be shown that we have a gravitational analog of conformal algebra as a subalgebra of the \({I\kern-.06em O\kern-.11em S\kern-.04em p}(10|10)\) choral symmetry. That algebra then gives rise to a spontaneous symmetry breakdown to the Poincaré symmetry, by which we can prove that the graviton and the dilaton are exactly massless since they are the Nambu-Goldstone particles. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a brief review of Weyl geometry. In Section 3, we consider a classical theory which is not only invariant under Weyl gauge transformation but also is free of ghosts, that generally exist in the higher-derivative gravities. Based on the classical theory in Section 3, we fix the gauge symmetries by the extended de Donder gauge and new scalar gauge conditions and construct a BRST invariant quantum Lagrangian in Section 4. In Section 5, we perform the canonical quantization of the quantum Lagrangian where we meet primary and secondary constraints associated with Weyl symmetry. They are the second-class constraints and hence are treated by applying the Dirac brackets. In Section 6, we prove the unitarity of the physical S-matrix on the basis of the BRST quartet mechanism. We find that physical modes are the two polarizations of the massless graviton and the three modes of the massive Weyl gauge fields. Furthermore, it is shown that the massless dilaton, which is eaten by the Weyl gauge field via the Higgs mechanism, belongs to the unphysical sector. In Section 7, we show that the quantum Lagrangian of Weyl conformal gravity possesses the huge global \({I\kern-.06em O\kern-.11em S\kern-.04em p}(10|10)\) choral symmetry. In Section 8, we point out that there exists a gravitational analog of conformal symmetry in quantum gravity and investigate the spontaneous symmetry breaking. We find that the graviton and the dilaton are massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons. The final section is devoted to discussion.
# Review of Weyl conformal geometry
In this section, we briefly review the basic concepts and definitions of Weyl conformal geometry.[^3] In Weyl geometry, the Weyl gauge transformation, which is the sum of a local scale transformation for a generic field \(\Phi (x)\) and a gauge transformation for the Weyl gauge field \(S_\mu(x)\), is defined as \[\begin{aligned}
\Phi (x) \rightarrow \Phi^\prime (x) = e^{w \Lambda(x)} \Phi (x), \qquad S_\mu (x) \rightarrow S^\prime_\mu (x) = S_\mu (x)-\frac{1}{f} \partial_\mu \Lambda (x), \label{Weyl transf} \end{aligned}\] where \(w\) is called the "Weyl weight", or simply "weight" henceforth, \(f\) is the coupling constant for the non-compact Abelian gauge group, and \(\Lambda(x)\) is a local parameter for the Weyl transformation. The Weyl gauge transformation for various fields is explicitly given by \[\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} (x) &\rightarrow& g_{\mu\nu}^\prime (x) = e^{2 \Lambda(x)} g_{\mu\nu}(x), \qquad \phi (x) \rightarrow \phi^\prime (x) = e^{-\Lambda(x)} \phi (x), \nonumber\\ \psi (x) &\rightarrow& \psi^\prime (x) = e^{-\frac{3}{2} \Lambda(x)} \psi (x), \qquad A_\mu (x) \rightarrow A^\prime_\mu (x) = A_\mu (x), \label{Weyl transf 2} \end{aligned}\] where \(g_{\mu\nu} (x)\), \(\phi (x)\), \(\psi (x)\) and \(A_\mu (x)\) are the metric tensor, scalar, spinor, and electromagnetic gauge fields, respectively. The covariant derivative \(D_\mu\) for the Weyl gauge transformation for a generic field \(\Phi (x)\) of weight \(w\) is defined as \[\begin{aligned}
D_\mu \Phi \equiv \partial_\mu \Phi + w f S_\mu \Phi, \label{W-cov-deriv} \end{aligned}\] which transforms covariantly under the Weyl transformation: \[\begin{aligned}
D_\mu \Phi \rightarrow (D_\mu \Phi)^\prime = e^{w \Lambda(x)} D_\mu \Phi. \label{S-cov-transf} \end{aligned}\] The Weyl geometry is defined as a geometry with a real symmetric metric tensor \(g_{\mu\nu} (= g_{\nu\mu})\) and a symmetric connection \(\tilde \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} (= \tilde \Gamma^\lambda_{\nu\mu})\) which is defined as[^4] \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{1}{2} g^{\lambda\rho} \left( D_\mu g_{\nu\rho} + D_\nu g_{\mu\rho}-D_\rho g_{\mu\nu} \right) \nonumber\\ &=& \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} + f \left( S_\mu \delta^\lambda_\nu + S_\nu \delta^\lambda_\mu-S^\lambda g_{\mu\nu} \right), \label{W-connection} \end{aligned}\] where \(\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}\) is the standard Christoffel symbol in Riemann geometry. The most important difference between Riemann geometry and Weyl geometry lies in the fact that in Riemann geometry the metric condition is satisfied: \[\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\lambda g_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}-\Gamma^\rho_{\lambda\mu} g_{\rho\nu}-\Gamma^\rho_{\lambda\nu} g_{\mu\rho} = 0, \label{Metric cond} \end{aligned}\] while in Weyl geometry we have: \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde \nabla_\lambda g_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}-\tilde \Gamma^\rho_{\lambda\mu} g_{\rho\nu}-\tilde \Gamma^\rho_{\lambda\nu} g_{\mu\rho} =-2 f S_\lambda g_{\mu\nu}, \label{W-metric cond} \end{aligned}\] where \(\nabla_\mu\) and \(\tilde \nabla_\mu\) are covariant derivatives for diffeomorphisms in Riemann and Weyl geometries, respectively. Since the metric condition ([\[Metric cond\]](#Metric cond){reference-type="ref" reference="Metric cond"}) implies that both length and angle are preserved under parallel transport, Eq. ([\[W-metric cond\]](#W-metric cond){reference-type="ref" reference="W-metric cond"}) shows that only angle, but not length, is preserved by the Weyl connection. The general covariant derivative for both diffeomorphisms and Weyl gauge transformation, for instance, for a covariant vector of weight \(w\), is defined as \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu V_\nu &\equiv& D_\mu V_\nu-\tilde \Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu} V_\rho \nonumber\\ &=& \tilde \nabla_\mu V_\nu + w f S_\mu V_\nu \nonumber\\ &=& \nabla_\mu V_\nu + w f S_\mu V_\nu-f ( S_\mu \delta^\rho _\nu + S_\nu \delta^\rho _\mu-S^\rho g_{\mu\nu} ) V_\rho \nonumber\\ &=& \partial_\mu V_\nu + w f S_\mu V_\nu-\Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu} V_\rho-f ( S_\mu \delta^\rho _\nu + S_\nu \delta^\rho _\mu-S^\rho g_{\mu\nu} ) V_\rho. \label{Gen-cov-deriv} \end{aligned}\] One can verify that using the general covariant derivative, the following metric condition is satisfied: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\lambda g_{\mu\nu} = 0. \label{Gen-metric cond} \end{aligned}\] Moreover, under Weyl gauge transformation the general covariant derivative for a generic field \(\Phi\) of weight \(w\) transforms in a covariant manner as desired: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu \Phi \rightarrow ({\cal D}_\mu \Phi)^\prime = e^{w \Lambda(x)} {\cal D}_\mu \Phi, \label{Gen-cov-transf} \end{aligned}\] because the Weyl connection is invariant under Weyl gauge transformation, i.e., \(\tilde \Gamma^{\prime \rho}_{\mu\nu} = \tilde \Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu}\). As in Riemann geometry, in Weyl geometry one can also construct a Weyl invariant curvature tensor \(\tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma\) via a commutator of the covariant derivative \(\tilde \nabla_\mu\): \[\begin{aligned}
V_\rho = \tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma V_\sigma. \label{Commutator} \end{aligned}\] Calculating this commutator, one finds that \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma &=& \partial_\nu \tilde \Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\rho}-\partial_\mu \tilde \Gamma^\sigma_{\nu\rho} + \tilde \Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\rho} \tilde \Gamma^\sigma_{\alpha\nu}-\tilde \Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\rho} \tilde \Gamma^\sigma_{\alpha\mu} \nonumber\\ &=& R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma + 2 f \left( \delta^\sigma_{[\mu} \nabla_{\nu]} S_\rho-\delta^\sigma_\rho \nabla_{[\mu} S_{\nu]}-g_{\rho [\mu} \nabla_{\nu]} S^\sigma \right) \nonumber\\ &+& 2 f^2 \left( S_{[\mu} \delta^\sigma_{\nu]} S_\rho-S_{[\mu} g_{\nu]\rho} S^\sigma + \delta^\sigma_{[\mu} g_{\nu]\rho} S_\alpha S^\alpha \right), \label{W-curv-tensor} \end{aligned}\] where \(R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma\) is the curvature tensor in Riemann geometry and we have defined the antisymmetrization by the square bracket, i.e., \(A_{[\mu} B_{\nu]} \equiv \frac{1}{2} ( A_\mu B_\nu-A_\nu B_\mu )\). Then, it is straightforward to prove the following identities: \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma =-\tilde R_{\nu\mu\rho} \, ^\sigma, \qquad \tilde R_{[\mu\nu\rho]} \, ^\sigma = 0, \qquad \tilde \nabla_{[\lambda} \tilde R_{\mu\nu]\rho} \, ^\sigma = 0. \label{W-curv-identity} \end{aligned}\] From \(\tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma\) one can define a Weyl invariant Ricci tensor: \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu} &\equiv& \tilde R_{\mu\rho\nu} \, ^\rho \nonumber\\ &=& R_{\mu\nu} + f \left(-2 \nabla_\mu S_\nu-H_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu} \nabla_{\alpha} S^\alpha \right) \nonumber\\ &+& 2 f^2 \left( S_\mu S_\nu-g_{\mu\nu} S_\alpha S^\alpha \right). \label{W-Ricci-tensor} \end{aligned}\] Let us note that \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde R_{[\mu\nu]} \equiv \frac{1}{2} ( \tilde R_{\mu\nu}-\tilde R_{\nu\mu} ) =-2 f H_{\mu\nu}. \label{W-Ricci-tensor 2} \end{aligned}\] Similarly, one can define not a Weyl invariant but a Weyl covariant scalar curvature: \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde R \equiv g^{\mu\nu} \tilde R_{\mu\nu} = R-6 f \nabla_\mu S^\mu-6 f^2 S_\mu S^\mu. \label{W-scalar-curv} \end{aligned}\] One finds that under Weyl gauge transformation, \(\tilde R \rightarrow \tilde R^\prime = e^{-2 \Lambda(x)} \tilde R\) while \(\tilde \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}, \tilde R_{\mu\nu\rho} \, ^\sigma\) and \(\tilde R_{\mu\nu}\) are all invariant. We close this section by discussing a spinor field as an example of matter fields in Weyl geometry. As is well known, to describe a spinor field it is necessary to introduce the vierbein \(e^a _\mu\), which is defined as \[\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{ab} e^a _\mu e^b _\nu, \label{Vierbein} \end{aligned}\] where \(a, b, \cdots\) are local Lorentz indices taking \(0, 1, 2, 3\) and \(\eta_{ab} = \rm{diag} (-1, 1, 1, 1)\). Now the metric condition ([\[Gen-metric cond\]](#Gen-metric cond){reference-type="ref" reference="Gen-metric cond"}) takes the form: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu e^a _\nu \equiv D_\mu e^a _\nu + \tilde \omega^a \, _{b \mu} e^b _\nu-\tilde \Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu} e^a _\rho = 0, \label{Gen-vierbein cond} \end{aligned}\] where the general covariant derivative is extended to include the local Lorentz transformation whose gauge connection is the spin connection \(\tilde \omega^a \, _{b \mu}\) of weight \(0\) in Weyl geometry, and \(D_\mu e^a _\nu = \partial_\mu e^a _\nu + f S_\mu e^a _\nu\) since the vierbein \(e^a _\mu\) has weight \(1\). Solving the metric condition ([\[Gen-vierbein cond\]](#Gen-vierbein cond){reference-type="ref" reference="Gen-vierbein cond"}) leads to the expression of the spin connection in Weyl geometry: \[\begin{aligned}
\tilde \omega_{a b \mu} = \omega_{a b \mu} + f e^c _\mu ( \eta_{ac} S_b-\eta_{bc} S_a ), \label{spin connection} \end{aligned}\] where \(\omega_{a b \mu}\) is the spin connection in Riemann geometry and we have defined \(S_a \equiv e^\mu _a S_\mu\). Then, the general covariant derivative for a spinor field \(\Psi\) of weight \(-\frac{3}{2}\) reads: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu \Psi = D_\mu \Psi + \frac{i}{2} \tilde \omega_{a b \mu} S^{a b} \Psi, \label{spinor CD} \end{aligned}\] where \(D_\mu \Psi = \partial_\mu \Psi-\frac{3}{2} f S_\mu \Psi\) and the Lorentz generator \(S^{a b}\) for a spinor field is defined as \(S^{a b} = \frac{i}{4} [ \gamma^a, \gamma^b ]\). Here we define the gamma matrices to satisfy the Clifford algebra \(\{ \gamma^a, \gamma^b \} =-2 \eta^{ab}\). Since the spin connection \(\tilde \omega^a \, _{b \mu}\) has weight \(0\), the covariant derivative \({\cal D}_\mu \Psi\) transforms covariantly under Weyl gauge transformation: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu \Psi \rightarrow ( {\cal D}_\mu \Psi )^\prime = e^{-\frac{3}{2} \Lambda(x)} {\cal D}_\mu \Psi. \label{spinor covariance} \end{aligned}\] Then, the Lagrangian density for a massless Dirac spinor field is of form: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} = \frac{i}{2} e \ e^\mu _a ( \bar \Psi \gamma^a {\cal D}_\mu \Psi-{\cal D}_\mu \bar \Psi \gamma^a \Psi ), \label{spinor Lag} \end{aligned}\] where \(e \equiv \sqrt{-g}, \bar \Psi \equiv \Psi^\dagger \gamma^0\), and \({\cal D}_\mu \bar \Psi\) is given by \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_\mu \bar \Psi = D_\mu \bar \Psi-\bar \Psi \frac{i}{2} \tilde \omega_{a b \mu} S^{a b}. \label{spinor CD2} \end{aligned}\] Inserting Eqs. ([\[spinor CD\]](#spinor CD){reference-type="ref" reference="spinor CD"}) and ([\[spinor CD2\]](#spinor CD2){reference-type="ref" reference="spinor CD2"}) to the Lagrangian density ([\[spinor Lag\]](#spinor Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="spinor Lag"}), we find that \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} &=& \frac{i}{2} e \Bigl[ e^\mu _a \left( \bar \Psi \gamma^a \partial_\mu \Psi-\partial_\mu \bar \Psi \gamma^a \Psi + \frac{i}{2} \omega_{b c \mu} \bar \Psi \{ \gamma^a, S^{bc} \} \Psi \right) \nonumber\\ &+& \frac{i}{2} f ( \eta_{ab} S_c-\eta_{ac} S_b ) \bar \Psi \{ \gamma^a, S^{bc} \} \Psi \Bigr]. \label{spinor Lag2} \end{aligned}\] The last term identically vanishes owing to the relation: \[\begin{aligned}
\{ \gamma^a, S^{bc} \} =-\varepsilon^{abcd} \gamma_5 \gamma_d, \label{gamma rel} \end{aligned}\] where we have defined as \(\gamma_5 = i \gamma^0 \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \gamma^3\) and \(\varepsilon^{0123} = +1\). Thus, as is well known, the Weyl gauge field \(S_\mu\) does not couple minimally to a spinor field \(\Psi\). Technically speaking, it is the absence of imaginary unit \(i\) in the covariant derivative \(D_\mu \Psi = \partial_\mu \Psi-\frac{3}{2} f S_\mu \Psi\) that induced this decoupling of the Weyl gauge field from the spinor field. Without the imaginary unit, the terms including the Weyl gauge field cancel out each other in Eq. ([\[spinor Lag\]](#spinor Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="spinor Lag"}). In a similar manner, we can prove that the Weyl gauge field does not couple to a gauge field, i.e., the electromagnetic potential \(A_\mu\) either. On the other hand, the Weyl gauge field can couple to a scalar field such as the Higgs field as well as a graviton.
# Classical theory
We wish to consider a model of Weyl conformal gravity in Weyl geometry. It is of interest to recall that without matter fields we have a unique classical Lagrangian which is invariant under the Weyl gauge transformation; the Lagrangian must be of form of quadratic gravity: \[\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{QG} = \sqrt{-g} \left (-\frac{1}{2 + \alpha \tilde R^2 \right), \label{L-QG} \end{aligned}\] where \(are a generalization of conformal tensor and scalar curvature in Weyl geometry, respectively. Note that the Lagrangian of the Einstein-Hilbert type or the higher-derivative terms involving more than quadratic terms are prohibited to be present by Weyl gauge symmetry. The fatal defect of the Lagrangian (\ref{L-QG}), however, is the existence of a massless ghost which breaks unitarity in quantum regime. Another unsatisfactory feature of the Lagrangian (\ref{L-QG}) is that it does not reduce to Einstein's general relativity at low energies which is known to be a good description of the physics relevant to gravitational phenomena at such long range scales. Provided that we are allowed to use matter fields\footnote{As explained in the previous section, fermions and the conventional gauge fields do not couple to the Weyl gauge field, but only the scalar field does.}, the situation changes and we can construct a scalar-tensor gravity of the Einstein-Hilbert type which includes at most the second-order derivatives of the metric tensor: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_{ST} = \sqrt{-g} \, \frac{1}{2} \label{L-ST} \end{eqnarray} where\[is a real scalar field.\footnote{The extension to a complex scalar field or multiple scalar fields is straightforward.} The most general classical Lagrangian, which is invariant under Weyl gauge transformation and is free of the massless ghost, reads: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_G &=& \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon g^{\mu\nu} D_\mu \phi D_\nu \phi-\frac{\lambda}{4 !} \phi^4 \nonumber\\ &+& \eta \left( \frac{1}{12} \phi^2 R + \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu \phi \right) \biggr], \label{L-G} \end{eqnarray} where\) a normal field \(\epsilon = 1\) or a ghost field \(\epsilon =-1\). In this article, we limit ourselves to the case \(6 as the last term with the constant\], which is called ``Weyl invariant scalar-tensor gravity'', when surface terms are ignored. Finally, the scalar field\[has the weight\)-1\(so the Weyl covariant derivative in (\ref{L-G}) takes the form:\footnote{In what follows, we will set \)f = 1\( for the coupling constant for the non-compact Abelian gauge group.} \begin{eqnarray} D_\mu \phi = \partial_\mu \phi-S_\mu \phi. \label{W-covd-S} \end{eqnarray} Since we have already analyzed the Weyl invariant scalar-tensor gravity in Riemann geometry and the quartic potential term has no essential role in the BRST formalism, we will put\)= = 0\(. Thus, the classical Lagrangian which is treated in this article reads: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_c &=& \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon g^{\mu\nu} D_\mu \phi D_\nu \phi \biggr] \nonumber\\ &=& \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu} H^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{1}{2} \epsilon g^{\mu\nu} ( \partial_\mu \phi-S_\mu \phi ) ( \partial_\nu \phi-S_\nu \phi ) \biggr]. \label{L-c} \end{eqnarray} \section{Quantum theory} The classical Lagrangian (\ref{L-c}) is invariant under both general coordinate transformation (GCT) and Weyl gauge transformation. For a quantum theory we have to fix such gauge symmetries by introducing suitable gauge-fixing conditions. After introducing the gauge-fixing conditions the quantum Lagrangian is not longer invariant under the gauge transformations, but as residual global symmetries the quantum Lagrangian is invariant under two BRST transformations, one of which is denoted as\)\_B\(, corresponding to the GCT is defined as \begin{eqnarray} \delta_B g_{\mu\nu} &=&-( \nabla_\mu c_\nu+ \nabla_\nu c_\mu) =-( c^\alpha\partial_\alpha g_{\mu\nu} + \partial_\mu c^\alpha g_{\alpha\nu} + \partial_\nu c^\alpha g_{\mu\alpha} ), \nonumber\\ \delta_B \phi &=&-c^\lambda \partial_\lambda \phi, \quad \delta_B S_\mu =-c^\lambda \nabla_\lambda S_\mu-\nabla_\mu c^\lambda S_\lambda, \nonumber\\ \delta_B c^\rho &=&-c^\lambda\partial_\lambda c^\rho, \quad \delta_B \bar c_\rho = i B_\rho, \quad \delta_B B_\rho = 0, \label{GCT-BRST} \end{eqnarray} where\)c\^\(and\)\|c\_\(are respectively the Faddeev-Popov (FP) ghost and anti-ghost,\)B\_\(is the Nakanishi-Lautrup (NL) field. For convenience, in place of the NL field\)B\_\(we will introduce a new NL field defined as \begin{eqnarray} b_\rho= B_\rho-i c^\lambda\partial_\lambda\bar c_\rho, \label{b-rho-field} \end{eqnarray} and its BRST transformation reads: \begin{eqnarray} \delta_B b_\rho=-c^\lambda\partial_\lambda b_\rho. \label{b-BRST} \end{eqnarray} The other BRST transformation, which is denoted as\)\|\_B\(, corresponding to the Weyl transformation is defined as \begin{eqnarray} \bar \delta_B g_{\mu\nu} &=& 2 c g_{\mu\nu}, \quad \bar \delta_B \phi =-c \phi, \quad \bar \delta_B S_\mu =-\partial_\mu c, \nonumber\\ \bar \delta_B \bar c &=& i B, \quad \bar \delta_B c = \bar \delta_B B = 0, \label{Weyl-BRST} \end{eqnarray} where\)c\(and\)\|c\(are respectively the FP ghost and FP anti-ghost,\)B\(is the NL field. Note that the two BRST transformations are nilpotent, i.e., \begin{eqnarray} \delta_B^2 = \bar \delta_B^2 = 0. \label{Nilpotent} \end{eqnarray} To complete the two BRST transformations, we have to fix not only the GCT BRST transformation\)\_B\(on\)c, \|c\(and\)B\(but also the Weyl BRST transformation\)\_B\(on\)c\^, \|c\_\(and\)b\_\(. The BRST transformations on these fields are fixed by requiring that the two BRST transformations anti-commute with each other, that is, \begin{eqnarray} \{ \delta_B, \bar \delta_B \} \equiv \delta_B \bar \delta_B + \bar \delta_B \delta_B = 0. \label{GCT-Weyl-BRST} \end{eqnarray} Then, the resultant BRST transformations take the form: \begin{eqnarray} \delta_B B &=&-c^\lambda\partial_\lambda B, \quad \delta_B c =-c^\lambda\partial_\lambda c, \quad \delta_B \bar c =-c^\lambda\partial_\lambda \bar c, \nonumber\\ \bar \delta_B b_\rho &=& \bar \delta_B c^\rho = \bar \delta_B \bar c_\rho = 0. \label{BRST2} \end{eqnarray} In this context, it is worthwhile to recall that the gauge condition for the GCT must be invariant under Weyl gauge transformation while the one for Weyl transformation must be invariant under GCT in order for the two BRST transformations to anti-commute. In that case we can consider the two BRST transformations separately. The suitable gauge condition for the GCT is almost unique and is called ``the extended de Donder gauge'' :\footnote{Let us note that this gauge condition breaks the general coordinate invariance, but it is invariant under the general linear transformation \)GL(4)\(. Thus, the quantum Lagrangian which is obtained shortly is also invaraint under the \)GL(4)\(.} \begin{eqnarray} \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 ) = 0, \label{Ext-de-Donder} \end{eqnarray} where we have defined\)g\^ g\^\(. On the other hand, we have a few candidates for the gauge-fixing condition for the Weyl transformation, which must be invariant under the GCT, i.e., a scalar quantity. The first one is the well-known ``unitary gauge'',\)= constant\(, which is taken to show that Weyl invariant scalar-tensor gravity is equivalent to the Einstein-Hilbert term. The other gauge condition is the Lorenz gauge,\)\_S\^= 0\(, which is usually adopted in quantum field theories. However, it turns out that these gauge conditions are not so interesting in the present context since they do not allow for conformal symmetry to remain. Hence, we shall choose, what we call, ``the scalar gauge condition'': \begin{eqnarray} \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\nu \phi ) = 0, \label{Scalar-gauge} \end{eqnarray} which can be alternatively written as \begin{eqnarray} \Box \, \phi^2 = 0. \label{Alt-Scalar-gauge} \end{eqnarray} After taking the extended de Donder gauge condition (\ref{Ext-de-Donder}) for the GCT and the scalar gauge condition (\ref{Scalar-gauge}) for the Weyl transformation, the gauge-fixed and BRST invariant quantum Lagrangian is given by \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_q &=& {\cal L}_c + {\cal L}_{GF+FP} + \bar {\cal L}_{GF+FP} \nonumber\\ &=& {\cal L}_c + i \delta_B ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c_\nu ) + i \bar \delta_B \left[ \bar c \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\nu \phi ) \right] \nonumber\\ &=& \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu} H^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon g^{\mu\nu} D_\mu \phi D_\nu \phi \biggr] \nonumber\\ &-& \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 ( \partial_\mu b_\nu + i \partial_\mu \bar c_\lambda \partial_\nu c^\lambda ) + \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\mu B \partial_\nu \phi-i \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c \partial_\nu c, \label{ST-q-Lag} \end{eqnarray} where surface terms are dropped. From the Lagrangian\)L\_q\(, it is straightforward to derive the field equations by taking the variation with respect to\)g\_, S\_, , b\_, B, c\^, \|c\_, c\(and\)\|c\(in order: \begin{eqnarray} &{}& \frac{1}{2}-3 \nonumber\\ &{}& + 3-\frac{1}{2} H_{\mu\alpha} H_\nu \, ^\alpha + \frac{1}{8} g_{\mu\nu} H_{\alpha\beta}^2 \nonumber\\ &{}&-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \left[ D_\mu \phi D_\nu \phi-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} ( D_\alpha \phi )^2 \right]-\frac{1}{2} ( E_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} E ) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& ( 6 \nonumber\\ &{}& \phi D_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi D_\nu \phi )-E \nonumber\\ &{}&-2 g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\mu B \partial_\nu \phi-\phi^2 \Box B = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 ) = 0, \qquad \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\nu \phi ) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu\bar c_\rho = g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu c^\rho = g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu\bar c = g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu c = 0. \label{q-field-eq} \end{eqnarray} where\)G\_ R\_- g\_ R\(denotes the Einstein tensor, while\)E\_\(and\)E\(are defined as \begin{eqnarray} E_{\mu\nu} &=& \phi^2 ( \partial_\mu b_\nu + i \partial_\mu \bar c_\lambda \partial_\nu c^\lambda )-\phi \partial_\mu B \partial_\nu \phi + i \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c \partial_\nu c + ( \mu \leftrightarrow \nu ), \nonumber\\ E &=& g^{\mu\nu} E_{\mu\nu}. \label{E} \end{eqnarray} Moreover, since\)g\^ D\_\(has the weight\)`<!-- -->`{=html}1\(, the Weyl covariant derivative is defined as \begin{eqnarray} D_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} D_\nu \phi ) = \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} D_\nu \phi ) + S_\mu \tilde g^{\mu\nu} D_\nu \phi. \label{W-cov-d} \end{eqnarray} When we introduce the dilaton\)(x)\(by defining \begin{eqnarray} \phi (x) \equiv e^{\sigma (x)}, \label{Dilaton} \end{eqnarray} the two gauge-fixing conditions in (\ref{q-field-eq}), or equivalently, Eqs. (\ref{Ext-de-Donder}) and (\ref{Scalar-gauge}) lead to a very simple d'Alembert-like equation for the dilaton: \begin{eqnarray} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \sigma = 0. \label{Dilaton-eq} \end{eqnarray} It is worthwhile to notice that it is not the scalar field\]but the dilaton\[that satisfies this type of equation. In order to show that the auxiliary field\)B\(also obeys the same type of equation, let us take account of the trace part of the Einstein equation, i.e., the first field equation in (\ref{q-field-eq}), which gives us the equation: \begin{eqnarray}-\epsilon ( D_\alpha \phi )^2-E = 0. \label{Trace-E-eq} \end{eqnarray} Next, we can rewrite the field equation for\], the third equation in (\ref{q-field-eq}), as \begin{eqnarray} &{}&-\epsilon ( D_\alpha \phi )^2-E \nonumber\\ &{}&-( 6-2 g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\mu B \partial_\nu \phi-\phi^2 \Box B = 0. \label{Phi-eq} \end{eqnarray} Using Eqs. (\ref{Trace-E-eq}) and (\ref{Phi-eq}), we can obtain the equation: \begin{eqnarray} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu B + ( 6 \label{Trace&Phi-eq} \end{eqnarray} Now we are ready to prove \begin{eqnarray} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu S_\nu = 0. \label{S-eq} \end{eqnarray} To do that, let us consider the field equation for\)S\_\(in (\ref{q-field-eq}), multiply by\[, and then operate the covariant derivative consequently leading to: \begin{eqnarray} \sqrt{-g} \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu H^{\mu\nu} = ( 6 ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi D_\nu \phi ). \label{d-S-eq} \end{eqnarray} The LHS of Eq. (\ref{d-S-eq}) is identically zero and\)`<!-- -->`{=html}6 by our assumption, we find that \]\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi D_\nu \phi ) = 0. \label{d-S-eq2} \end{aligned}\[ Using the formula: \]\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} A_\nu ) = \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} A_\nu ), \label{Math-formula} \end{aligned}\[ which holds for an arbitrary covariant vector \(A_\mu\), Eq. ([\[d-S-eq2\]](#d-S-eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="d-S-eq2"}) is reduced to the form: \]\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi \partial_\nu \phi-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 S_\nu ) = 0. \label{d-S-eq3} \end{aligned}\[ Then, using the gauge conditions ([\[Ext-de-Donder\]](#Ext-de-Donder){reference-type="ref" reference="Ext-de-Donder"}) and ([\[Scalar-gauge\]](#Scalar-gauge){reference-type="ref" reference="Scalar-gauge"}), we can reach the equation ([\[S-eq\]](#S-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="S-eq"}). Hence, Eq. ([\[Trace&Phi-eq\]](#Trace&Phi-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="Trace&Phi-eq"}) implies that the auxiliary field \(B\) obeys the equation: \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu B = 0. \label{B-eq} \end{aligned}\[ Surprisingly enough, using the Weyl BRST transformation, we can show this equation ([\[B-eq\]](#B-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="B-eq"}) in the simplest way. For this aim, let us start with the field equation for \(\bar c\) in ([\[q-field-eq\]](#q-field-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="q-field-eq"}): \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \bar c = 0. \label{Bar-c-eq} \end{aligned}\[ Operating \(\bar \delta_B\) on this equation leads to \]\begin{aligned}
-2 c g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \bar c + i g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu B = 0. \label{Bar-c-eq2} \end{aligned}\[ The first term on the LHS is vanishing owing to ([\[Bar-c-eq\]](#Bar-c-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="Bar-c-eq"}), so we can arrive at the equation ([\[B-eq\]](#B-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="B-eq"}). In a perfectly similar manner, we can show that the Nakanishi-Lautrup auxiliary field \(b_\rho\) satisfies the d'Alembert-like equation by either an explicit calculation or using the BRST transformation for the GCT. Here we present only the latter proof since the former one was given in our previous paper. Let us start with the field equation for \(\bar c_\rho\) in ([\[q-field-eq\]](#q-field-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="q-field-eq"}): \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \bar c_\rho = 0. \label{Bar-c-rho-eq} \end{aligned}\[ Taking the GCT BRST transformation of this equation yields: \]\begin{aligned}
(-\partial_\lambda g^{\mu\nu} c^\lambda + g^{\mu\alpha} \partial_\alpha c^\nu + g^{\nu\alpha} \partial_\alpha c^\mu ) \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \bar c_\rho + i g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu B_\rho = 0, \label{Bar-c-rho-eq2} \end{aligned}\[ where we have used the GCT BRST transformation ([\[GCT-BRST\]](#GCT-BRST){reference-type="ref" reference="GCT-BRST"}). Substituting the definition of \(b_\rho\) in Eq. ([\[b-rho-field\]](#b-rho-field){reference-type="ref" reference="b-rho-field"}) into ([\[Bar-c-rho-eq2\]](#Bar-c-rho-eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="Bar-c-rho-eq2"}), we have the equation for \(b_\rho\): \]\begin{aligned}
i g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu b_\rho = g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu ( c^\lambda \partial_\lambda \bar c_\rho )-(-\partial_\lambda g^{\mu\nu} c^\lambda + 2 g^{\mu\alpha} \partial_\alpha c^\nu ) \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \bar c_\rho. \label{Bar-c-rho-eq3} \end{aligned}\[ With the help of Eq. ([\[Bar-c-rho-eq\]](#Bar-c-rho-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="Bar-c-rho-eq"}) and the field equation for \(c^\rho\) in ([\[q-field-eq\]](#q-field-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="q-field-eq"}), the RHS is found to be vanishing so we have the desired equation: \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu b_\rho = 0. \label{b-rho-eq} \end{aligned}\[ In other words, setting \(X^M = \{ x^\mu, b_\mu, \sigma, B, c^\mu, \bar c_\mu, c, \bar c \}\), \(X^M\) turns out to obey the very simple equation: \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu X^M = 0. \label{X-M-eq} \end{aligned}\[ This fact, together with the gauge condition \(\partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 ) = 0\) produces the two kinds of conserved currents: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}^{\mu M} &\equiv& \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\nu X^M = \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \bigl( 1 \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu X^M \bigr) \nonumber\\ {\cal M}^{\mu M N} &\equiv& \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \bigl( X^M \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu Y^N \bigr), \label{Cons-currents} \end{aligned}\[ where we have defined \(X^M \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu Y^N \equiv X^M \partial_\mu Y^N-( \partial_\mu X^M ) Y^N\). These conserved currents constitute a Poincar\({\rm{\acute{e}}}\)-like \({I\kern-.06em O\kern-.11em S\kern-.04em p}(10|10)\) supersymmetry as will be shown later.
# Canonical quantization and equal-time commutation relations
In this section, after introducing the Poisson brackets, we will evaluate various equal-time commutation relations (ETCRs) among fundamental variables. To simplify various expressions, we will obey the following abbreviations adopted in the textbook of Nakanishi and Ojima: \]\begin{aligned}
&=& [ A(x), B(x^\prime) ] |_{x^0 = x^{\prime 0}}, \qquad \delta^3 = \delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime), \nonumber\\ \tilde f &=& \frac{1}{\tilde g^{00}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g} g^{00}}, \label{abbreviation} \end{aligned}\[ where we assume that \(\tilde g^{00}\) is invertible. Here the above brackets \([ A, B^\prime ]\) symbolically describe the Poisson brackets and the ETCRs. First of all, let us set up the Poisson brackets of canonical variables: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \{ g_{\mu\nu}, \pi_g^{\rho\lambda\prime} \}_P = \frac{1}{2} ( \delta_\mu^\rho\delta_\nu^\lambda + \delta_\mu^\lambda\delta_\nu^\rho) \delta^3, \quad \{ \phi, \pi_\phi^\prime \}_P = \delta^3, \quad \{ S_\mu, \pi_S^{\nu\prime} \}_P = \delta_\mu^\nu \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& \{ c^\sigma, \pi_{c \lambda}^\prime \}_P = \{ \bar c_\lambda, \pi_{\bar c}^{\sigma\prime} \}_P = \delta_\lambda^\sigma \delta^3, \quad \{ B, \pi_B^\prime \}_P = \{ c, \pi_c^\prime \}_P \nonumber\\ &{}& = \{ \bar c, \pi_{\bar c}^\prime \}_P = \delta^3, \label{CCRs} \end{aligned}\[ where the other Poisson brackets vanish. Here the canonical variables are \(g_{\mu\nu}, \phi, S_\mu, B, c^\rho, \bar c_\rho, c, \bar c\) and the corresponding canonical conjugate momenta are \(\pi_g^{\mu\nu}, \pi_\phi, \pi_S^\mu, \pi_B, \pi_{c \rho}, \pi_{\bar c}^\rho, \pi_c, \pi_{\bar c}\), respectively and the \(b_\mu\) field is regarded as not a canonical variable but a conjugate momentum of \(\tilde g^{0 \mu}\). To remove second order derivatives of the metric involved in \(R\), we perform the integration by parts once and rewrite the Lagrangian ([\[ST-q-Lag\]](#ST-q-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="ST-q-Lag"}) as \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_q &=&-\frac{1}{2}-\Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\alpha} \Gamma^\alpha_{\sigma\nu} + 6 S_\mu S_\nu )--\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\alpha} ) \nonumber\\ &+& 6-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \tilde g^{\mu\nu} D_\mu \phi D_\nu \phi + \partial_\mu ( \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 ) b_\nu \nonumber\\ &-& i \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c_\rho \partial_\nu c^\rho + \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu B \phi \partial_\nu \phi-i \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c \partial_\nu c + \partial_\mu {\cal{V}}^\mu, \label{Mod-ST-q-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ where we have also integrated by parts two terms with the linear \(S_\mu\) and \(b_\mu\), and a surface term \({\cal{V}}^\mu\) is thus given by \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal{V}}^\mu = \frac{1}{2}-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\alpha} )-3-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 b_\nu. \label{surface} \end{aligned}\[ Using this Lagrangian, the concrete expressions for canonical conjugate momenta become: \]\begin{aligned}
\pi_g^{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot g_{\mu\nu}} \nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{4} \sqrt{-g}-g^{0 \tau} g^{\mu\lambda} g^{\nu\sigma}-g^{0 \sigma} g^{\mu\tau} g^{\nu\lambda} + g^{0 \lambda} g^{\mu\tau} g^{\nu\sigma} \nonumber\\ &+& g^{0 \tau} g^{\mu\nu} g^{\lambda\sigma} + \frac{1}{2} ( g^{0 \mu} g^{\nu\lambda} + g^{0 \nu} g^{\mu\lambda} ) g^{\sigma\tau} \Bigr] \partial_\lambda g_{\sigma\tau} \nonumber\\ &-& \sqrt{-g} \Bigl[ \frac{1}{2} ( g^{0 \mu} g^{\rho\nu} + g^{0 \nu} g^{\rho\mu} )-g^{\mu\nu} g^{\rho 0} \Bigr] \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} ( g^{0 \mu} g^{\nu\rho} + g^{0 \nu} g^{\mu\rho}-g^{0 \rho} g^{\mu\nu} ) \phi^2 b_\rho, \nonumber\\ \pi_\phi &=& \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot \phi} =-\epsilon \tilde g^{0 \mu} D_\mu \phi + 2 \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi b_\mu + + \tilde g^{0 \alpha} \Gamma^\beta_{\alpha\beta} ) \nonumber\\ &+& 6 \nonumber\\ \pi_S^\mu &=& \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot S_\mu} =-\sqrt{-g} H^{0\mu}, \quad \pi_B = \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot B} = \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi \partial_\mu \phi, \nonumber\\ \pi_{c \sigma} &=& \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot c^\sigma} =-i \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c_\sigma, \quad \pi_{\bar c}^\sigma = \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot {\bar c}_\sigma} = i \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu c^\sigma, \nonumber\\ \pi_c &=& \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot c} =-i \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \bar c, \quad \pi_{\bar c} = \frac{\partial {\cal L}_q}{\partial \dot {\bar c}} = i \tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu c, \label{CCM} \end{aligned}\[ where we have defined the time derivative such as \(\dot g_{\mu\nu} \equiv \frac{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}{\partial t} \equiv \partial_0 g_{\mu\nu}\), and differentiation of ghosts is taken from the right. It can be easily seen that we have a primary constraint: \]\begin{aligned}
\Psi_1 \equiv \pi_S^0 \approx 0. \label{Primary} \end{aligned}\[ Let us recall that a secondary constraint comes from the consistency under time evolution of the primary contraint: \]\begin{aligned}
\Psi_2 \equiv \dot \pi_S^0 = \{ \pi_S^0, H_T \}_P \approx 0, \label{Second1} \end{aligned}\[ where \(H_T\) is the Hamiltonian of the system at hand, which is defined as \]\begin{aligned}
H_T &\equiv& \int d^3 x \, {\cal{H}}_T \nonumber\\ &=& \int d^3 x \, ( \pi_g^{\mu\nu} \dot g_{\mu\nu} + \pi_\phi \dot \phi + \pi_S^\mu \dot S_\mu + \pi_B \dot B + \pi_{c \mu} \dot c^\mu + \pi_{\bar c}^\mu \dot {\bar c}_\mu \nonumber\\ &+& \pi_c \dot c + \pi_{\bar c} \dot{\bar c}-{\cal L}_q ). \label{Hamil} \end{aligned}\[ In order to obtain the Hamiltonian, we have to express the time derivatives of the canonical variables in terms of the canonical conjugate momenta in ([\[CCM\]](#CCM){reference-type="ref" reference="CCM"}). To do that, let us first consider \(\pi_B\), which gives us the expression of \(\dot \phi\) as \]\begin{aligned}
\dot \phi = \tilde f \left( \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-\tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \phi \right). \label{dot-phi} \end{aligned}\[ Next, let us turn our attention to the \((kl)\)-components of \(\pi_g^{\mu\nu}\), which take the form: \]\begin{aligned}
\pi_g^{kl} = \hat A^{kl} + \hat B^{kl \rho} b_\rho + \hat C^{klmn} \dot g_{mn} + \hat D^{kl} \dot \phi, \label{dot-pi-kl} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\hat A^{kl}, \hat B^{kl \rho}, \hat C^{klmn}\) and \(\hat D^{kl}\) commute with \(g_{mn}\) and are defined as \]\begin{aligned}
\hat A^{kl} &=&-\frac{1}{4} \sqrt{-g} \phi^2 \Bigl[-g^{0m} g^{kl} g^{\sigma\tau}-g^{0\tau} g^{km} g^{l\sigma}-g^{0\sigma} g^{k\tau} g^{lm} + g^{0m} g^{k\tau} g^{l\sigma} + g^{0\tau} g^{kl} g^{m\sigma} \nonumber\\ &+& \frac{1}{2} ( g^{0k} g^{lm} + g^{0l} g^{km} ) g^{\sigma\tau} \Bigr] \partial_m g_{\sigma\tau}-\sqrt{-g} \nonumber\\ \hat B^{kl \rho} &=&-\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} \phi^2 ( g^{0k} g^{l\rho} + g^{0l} g^{k\rho}-g^{0\rho} g^{kl} ), \nonumber\\ \hat C^{klmn} &=&-\frac{1}{4} \sqrt{-g}-g^{0m} g^{kn} g^{0l} + g^{00} g^{kn} g^{lm} \nonumber\\ &+& g^{0n} g^{kl} g^{0m} + g^{0k} g^{0l} g^{mn} ), \nonumber\\ \hat D^{kl} &=& \sqrt{-g} \label{hat-ABCD} \end{aligned}\[ Solving ([\[dot-pi-kl\]](#dot-pi-kl){reference-type="ref" reference="dot-pi-kl"}) with respect to \(\dot g_{kl}\) together with Eq. ([\[dot-phi\]](#dot-phi){reference-type="ref" reference="dot-phi"}) leads to: \]\begin{aligned}
\dot g_{kl} = \hat C_{klmn}^{-1} \left[ \pi_g^{mn}-\hat A^{mn}-\hat B^{mn \rho} b_\rho-\hat D^{mn} \tilde f \left( \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-\tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \phi \right) \right], \label{dot-g-kl} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\hat C_{klmn}^{-1}\) is the inverse matrix of \(\hat C^{klmn}\) given by \]\begin{aligned}
\hat C_{klmn}^{-1} &=& \frac{2}{ \nonumber\\ \hat C^{klmn} \hat C_{mnij}^{-1} &=& \frac{1}{2} ( \delta_i^k \delta_j^l + \delta_i^l \delta_j^k ). \label{Inv-C} \end{aligned}\[ Using the extended de Donder gauge condition ([\[Ext-de-Donder\]](#Ext-de-Donder){reference-type="ref" reference="Ext-de-Donder"}), \(\dot g_{00}\) and \(\dot g_{0k}\) are described as \]\begin{aligned}
\dot g_{00} &=& \frac{1}{g^{00}} \left( g^{ij} \dot g_{ij}-2 g^{\alpha i} \partial_i g_{0 \alpha} + \frac{4}{\phi} \dot \phi \right) \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1}{g^{00}} \Biggl\{ g^{kl} \hat C_{klmn}^{-1} \left[ \pi_g^{mn}-\hat A^{mn}-\hat B^{mn \rho} b_\rho-\hat D^{mn} \tilde f \left( \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-\tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \phi \right) \right] \nonumber\\ &-& 2 g^{\alpha i} \partial_i g_{0 \alpha} + \frac{4}{\phi} \tilde f \left( \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-\tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \phi \right) \Biggr\}, \nonumber\\ \dot g_{0k} &=& \frac{1}{g^{00}} \left(-g^{0j} \dot g_{jk}-g^{\alpha i} \partial_i g_{\alpha k} + \frac{1}{2} g^{\alpha\beta} \partial_k g_{\alpha\beta} + \frac{2}{\phi} \partial_k \phi \right) \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1}{g^{00}} \Biggl\{-g^{0j} \hat C_{jkmn}^{-1} \left[ \pi_g^{mn}-\hat A^{mn}-\hat B^{mn \rho} b_\rho-\hat D^{mn} \tilde f \left( \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-\tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \phi \right) \right] \nonumber\\ &-& g^{\alpha i} \partial_i g_{\alpha k} + \frac{1}{2} g^{\alpha\beta} \partial_k g_{\alpha\beta} + \frac{2}{\phi} \partial_k \phi \Biggr\}. \label{dot-g-0mu} \end{aligned}\[ In a similar manner, based on \(\pi_\phi, \pi_S^\mu, \pi_{c \sigma}, \pi_{\bar c}^\sigma, \pi_c\) and \(\pi_{\bar c}\) in Eq. ([\[CCM\]](#CCM){reference-type="ref" reference="CCM"}), the time derivatives \(\dot B, \dot S_k, \dot S_0, \dot{\bar c}_\sigma, \dot c^\sigma, \dot{\bar c}\) and \(\dot c\) can be expressed in terms of the canonical conjugate momenta as follows: \]\begin{aligned}
\dot B &=& \tilde f \frac{1}{\phi} \Bigl[ \pi_\phi + \epsilon \frac{1}{\phi} \pi_B-( 6 \tilde g^{0\mu} \phi S_\mu-2 \tilde g^{0\mu} \phi b_\mu-\tilde g^{0i} \phi \partial_i B \Bigr] \nonumber\\ &-&-\hat A^{mn}-\hat B^{mn \rho} b_\rho-\nonumber\\ &-& \tilde g^{0m} g^{0n} ) ( \pi_B-\tilde g^{0k} \phi \partial_k \phi ) \Bigr] + ( \tilde g^{0i} g^{\alpha\beta}-\tilde g^{0\alpha} g^{i\beta} ) \partial_i g_{\alpha\beta} \Biggr\}, \nonumber\\ \dot S_k &=& \partial_k S_0 + \tilde f (-g_{kj} \pi_S^j + \tilde g^{0j} H_{kj} ), \nonumber\\ \dot S_0 &=&-\tilde f \left\{ \tilde g^{0i} \left[ 2 \partial_i S_0 + \tilde f (-g_{ij} \pi_S^j + \tilde g^{0j} H_{ij} ) \right] + \tilde g^{ij} \partial_i S_j \right\}, \nonumber\\ \dot {\bar c}_\sigma &=& i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \pi_{c \sigma}-\tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \bar c_\sigma, \nonumber\\ \dot c^\sigma &=&-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \pi_{\bar c}^\sigma-\tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i c^\sigma, \nonumber\\ \dot {\bar c} &=& i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \pi_c-\tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i \bar c, \nonumber\\ \dot c &=&-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \pi_{\bar c}-\tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i c, \label{dot-many} \end{aligned}\[ where we have used Eq. ([\[S-eq\]](#S-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="S-eq"}) in deriving \(\dot S_0\). Finally, we can also express the \(b_\mu\) field in terms of canonical conjugate momenta. Since the \(b_\mu\) field is regarded as a conjugate momentum of \(\tilde g^{0\mu}\), we begin with \(\pi_g^{\alpha0}\) which has a structure: \]\begin{aligned}
\pi_g^{\alpha0} = A^\alpha + B^{\alpha\beta} \partial_\beta \phi + C^{\alpha\beta} b_\beta, \label{pi-0alpha} \end{aligned}\[ where \(A^\alpha, B^{\alpha\beta}\) and \(C^{\alpha\beta} =-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{00} g^{\alpha\beta} \phi^2\) do not include \(\dot g_{\mu\nu}\), and \(B^{\alpha\beta} \partial_\beta \phi\) does not have \(\dot \phi\). Solving this equation with respect to \(b_\mu\) leads to: \]\begin{aligned}
b_\mu &=&-2 \tilde f \phi^{-2} g_{\mu\alpha} \pi_g^{\alpha0}-\frac{1}{2} \biggl[ \delta_\mu^0 \left( \tilde g^{0\tau} g^{\lambda\sigma}-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{0\lambda} g^{\sigma\tau} \right) \partial_\lambda g_{\sigma\tau} \nonumber\\ &-& \left( \tilde g^{0\tau} g^{0\sigma}-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{00} g^{\sigma\tau} \right) \partial_\mu g_{\sigma\tau} \biggr]-\label{b-mu} \end{aligned}\[ Note that the RHS of this equation does not involve \(\dot g_{\mu\nu}\) and \(\dot \phi\) as can be verified explicitly. Incidentally, the relation ([\[pi-0alpha\]](#pi-0alpha){reference-type="ref" reference="pi-0alpha"}) is utilized to derive some useful Poisson brackets such as \(\{ g_{\mu\nu}, b_\rho^\prime \}_P\) etc. Using the Hamiltonian \(H_T\), Eq. ([\[Second1\]](#Second1){reference-type="ref" reference="Second1"}) provides us with a secondary constraint: \]\begin{aligned}
\Psi_2 = \partial_i \pi_S^i + ( 6 ( \pi_B-\tilde g^{0 \mu} \phi^2 S_\mu ) \approx 0, \label{Second2} \end{aligned}\[ which is just the same as the \((0 \mu)\)-components of the field equation for \(S_\mu\) in ([\[q-field-eq\]](#q-field-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="q-field-eq"}) and there are no more constraints since we can show that[^5] \]\begin{aligned}
\dot \Psi_2 = \{ \Psi_2, H_T \}_P = 0. \label{Tert} \end{aligned}\[ The Poisson bracket between the constraints is evaluated to be: \]\begin{aligned}
\{ \Psi_1, \Psi_2^\prime \}_P = ( 6 = ( 6 \label{PB-12C} \end{aligned}\[ which implies that the constraints are the second-class constraint so that they can be treated by means of the Dirac bracket defined as \]\begin{aligned}
\{ A, B^\prime \}_D \equiv \{ A, B^\prime \}_P-\{ A, \Psi_a^{\prime\prime} \}_P C_{ab}^{-1} \{ \Psi_b^{\prime\prime}, B^\prime \}_P, \label{DB} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\Psi_a ( a = 1, 2 )\) are the second-class constraints and \(C_{ab}^{-1}\) is the inverse matrix of \(C_{ab} = \{ \Psi_a, \Psi_b^\prime \}_P\). Concretely, the matrix elements, \(C_{ab}^{-1}\), are given by \]\begin{aligned}
C_{12}^{-1} =-C_{21}^{-1} =-\frac{1}{6 C_{11}^{-1} = C_{22}^{-1} = 0. \label{C-1} \end{aligned}\[ As is well known, the canonical quantization can be carried out by replacing \(i \{ A, B^\prime \}_D\) with the equal-time commutation relation \([ A, B^\prime ]\). After some calculations, we can write down several important ETCRs, which are needed for later calculations: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ \dot g_{\rho\sigma}, g_{\mu\nu}^\prime ] =-\frac{2}{ [ g_{\rho\sigma} g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\rho\mu} g_{\sigma\nu}-g_{\rho\nu} g_{\sigma\mu} + \sqrt{-g} \tilde f ( \delta_\rho^0 \delta_\mu^0 g_{\sigma\nu} \nonumber\\ &{}& + \delta_\rho^0 \delta_\nu^0 g_{\sigma\mu} + \delta_\sigma^0 \delta_\mu^0 g_{\rho\nu} + \delta_\sigma^0 \delta_\nu^0 g_{\rho\mu} ) ] \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot g_{\rho\sigma}, \phi^\prime ] = 0, \qquad [ \dot g_{\rho\sigma}, B^\prime ] = 2 i \tilde f \phi^{-2} g_{\rho\sigma} \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \phi, b_\rho^\prime ] = [ B, b_\rho^\prime ] = [ B, \dot B^\prime ] = [ \dot \phi, \phi^\prime ] = [ \dot \phi, S_\mu^\prime ] = 0, \qquad [ \dot \phi, B^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-1} \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ S_0, S_k^\prime ] =-\frac{1}{6 [ S_k, S_l^\prime ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ S_0, \dot S_k^\prime ] =-i \tilde f g_{0k} \delta^3, \qquad [ S_k, \dot S_l^\prime ] =-i \tilde f g_{kl} \delta^3 + \frac{1}{ 6 \partial_k ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_l \delta^3 ), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ S_0, b_\mu^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} S_\mu \delta^3, \qquad [ S_0, B^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta^3, \qquad [ S_k, b_\rho^\prime ] = [ S_k, B^\prime ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot S_0, B^\prime ] = 2 i \tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta^3 ), \qquad [ \dot S_k, B^\prime ] =-i \partial_k ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta^3 ), \nonumber\\ &{}& \{ \dot{\bar c}_\lambda, c^{\sigma \prime} \} =-\{ \dot c^\sigma, \bar c_\lambda^\prime \} =-\tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta_\lambda^\sigma \delta^3, \qquad \{ \dot{\bar c}, c^\prime \} =-\{ \dot c, \bar c^\prime \} =-\tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ g_{\mu\nu}, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} ( \delta_\mu^0 g_{\rho\nu} + \delta_\nu^0 g_{\rho\mu} ) \delta^3, \quad [ \tilde g^{\mu\nu}, b_\rho^\prime ] = i \tilde f \phi^{-2} ( \tilde g^{\mu0} \delta_\rho^\nu + \tilde g^{\nu0} \delta_\rho^\mu-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \delta_\rho^0 ) \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ g_{\mu\nu}, \dot b_\rho^\prime ] = i \{ [ \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}-\partial_0 ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} ) ( \delta_\mu^0 g_{\rho\nu} + \delta_\nu^0 g_{\rho\mu} ) ] \delta^3 + [ ( \delta_\mu^k-2 \delta_\mu^0 \tilde f \tilde g^{0k} ) g_{\rho\nu} \nonumber\\ &{}& + ( \mu \leftrightarrow \nu ) ] \partial_k ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} \delta^3 ) \}, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot \phi, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho \phi \delta^3, \qquad [ \dot B, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho B \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot S_0, b_\mu^\prime ] =-i \tilde f^2 \phi^{-2} [ \tilde g^{0\nu} ( \partial_\mu S_\nu + \partial_\nu S_\mu )-\tilde g^{0i} H_{\mu i} ] \delta^3 + 2 i \tilde f \tilde g^{0i} \partial_i ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} S_\mu \delta^3 ), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot S_k, b_\mu^\prime ] = i \tilde f \phi^{-2} H_{k \mu} \delta^3-i \partial_k ( \tilde f \phi^{-2} S_\mu \delta^3 ), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ b_\mu, b_\nu^\prime ] = 0, \qquad [ b_\mu, \dot b_\nu^\prime ] = i \tilde f \phi^{-2} ( \partial_\mu b_\nu + \partial_\nu b_\mu ) \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ b_\rho, c^{\sigma\prime} ] = [ b_\rho, \bar c_\lambda^\prime ] = [ b_\rho, c^\prime ] = [ b_\rho, \bar c^\prime ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot{\bar c}_\lambda, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho \bar c_\lambda \delta^3, \qquad [ \dot c^\sigma, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho c^\sigma \delta^3, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \dot{\bar c}, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho \bar c \delta^3, \qquad [ \dot c, b_\rho^\prime ] =-i \tilde f \phi^{-2} \partial_\rho c \delta^3. \label{ETCRs} \end{aligned}\[ These ETCRs can be obtained from the explicit calculations and/or the BRST transformations. For instance, we will present a derivation of \([ B, \dot B^\prime ] = 0\) by the both methods. First, let us focus on the explicit calculation via the Dirac bracket: \]\begin{aligned}
\{ B, \dot B^\prime \}_D = \{ B, \dot B^\prime \}_P-\{ B, \Psi_2^{\prime\prime} \}_P C_{21}^{-1} \{ \Psi_1^{\prime\prime}, \dot B^\prime \}_P. \label{B-B'} \end{aligned}\[ Since we can easily evaluate each Poisson bracket whose result reads: \]\begin{aligned}
\{ B, \dot B^\prime \}_P &=& \{ B, ( 6 = ( 6 \nonumber\\ \{ B, \Psi_2^\prime \}_P &=& \{ B, ( 6 = ( 6 \nonumber\\ \{ \Psi_1, \dot B^\prime \}_P &=& \{ \pi_S^0,-( 6 = ( 6 \label{B-B'2} \end{aligned}\[ the Dirac bracket becomes: \]\begin{aligned}
\{ B, \dot B^\prime \}_D &=& ( 6-( 6 \nonumber\\ &=& 0. \label{B-B'3} \end{aligned}\[ Second, we will present a derivation by means of the BRST transformation which is more general and elegant than the above explicit calculation. The ETCR, \([ B, \pi_c^\prime ] = 0\), leads to \([ B, \dot{\bar{c}}^\prime ] = 0\). Taking the Weyl BRST transformation of this ETCR yields the equation: \]\begin{aligned}
\{ [ i \bar Q_B, B ], \dot{\bar{c}}^\prime \} + [ B, \{ i \bar Q_B, \dot{\bar{c}}^\prime \} ] = 0. \label{W-B-B'} \end{aligned}\[ Then, the Weyl BRST transformation ([\[Weyl-BRST\]](#Weyl-BRST){reference-type="ref" reference="Weyl-BRST"}) immediately leads to \([ B, \dot B^\prime ] = 0\).
# Unitarity analysis
As in the conventional BRST formalism, the physical state \(| \rm{phys} \rangle\) is defined by imposing two subsidiary conditions: \]\begin{aligned}
Q_B | \rm{phys} \rangle = \bar Q_B | \rm{phys} \rangle = 0. \label{Phys-state} \end{aligned}\[ It is then well known that the physical S-matrix is unitary under the assumption that all BRST singlet states have positive norm. In this section, we would like to prove the unitarity of the physical S-matrix in the present theory. From the classical analysis we know that the gauge field becomes massive via the Higgs mechanism. Thus, we wish to understand how the Higgs mechanism is described in terms of the BRST formalism. In analysing the unitarity, it is enough to take account of asymptotic fields of all the fundamental fields and the free part of the Lagrangian. Let us first assume the asymptotic fields as \]\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} &=& \eta_{\mu\nu} + \varphi_{\mu\nu}, \qquad \phi = \phi_0 + \tilde \phi, \qquad S_\mu = s_\mu, \qquad b_\mu = \beta_\mu, \qquad B = \beta, \nonumber\\ c^\mu &=& \gamma^\mu, \qquad \bar c_\mu = \bar \gamma_\mu, \qquad c = \gamma, \qquad \bar c = \bar \gamma, \label{Asmp-exp} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\eta_{\mu\nu} ( = \eta^{\mu\nu} )\) is the flat Minkowski metric with the mostly positive signature and \(\phi_0\) is a non-zero constant. In this section, the Minkowski metric is used to lower or raise the Lorentz indices. Using these asymptotic fields, the free part of the Lagrangian reads: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_q &=& \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4} \varphi \Box \varphi-\frac{1}{2} \varphi^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\rho \varphi_\nu{}^\rho + \frac{1}{2} \varphi^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \varphi \right) \nonumber\\ &+& + ( 6 \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{1}{4} h_{\mu\nu}^2-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \partial_\mu \tilde \phi \partial^\mu \tilde \phi-\left( 2 \eta^{\mu\nu} \phi_0 \tilde \phi-\phi_0^2 \varphi^{\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{2} \phi_0^2 \eta^{\mu\nu} \varphi \right) \partial_\mu \beta_\nu \nonumber\\ &-& i \phi_0^2 \partial_\mu \bar \gamma_\rho \partial^\mu \gamma^\rho + \phi_0 \partial_\mu \beta \partial^\mu \tilde \phi-i \phi_0^2 \partial_\mu \bar \gamma \partial^\mu \gamma, \label{Free-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\Box \equiv \eta^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu, \, \varphi \equiv \eta^{\mu\nu} \varphi_{\mu\nu}\) and \(h_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu s_\nu-\partial_\nu s_\mu\). Based on this Lagrangian, it is easy to derive the linearized field equations: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \frac{1}{2}-\partial_\rho \partial_{(\mu} \varphi_{\nu)}{}^\rho + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \varphi + \frac{1}{2} \eta_{\mu\nu} \partial_\rho \partial_\sigma \varphi^{\rho\sigma} \biggr) \nonumber\\ &{}& + +\phi_0^2 \partial_{(\mu} \beta_{\nu)}-\frac{1}{2} \phi_0^2 \eta_{\mu\nu} \partial_\rho \beta^\rho = 0. \label{Linear-Eq1} \\ &{}& \epsilon \Box \tilde \phi +-( 6 \nonumber\\ &{}&-\phi_0 \Box \beta = 0. \label{Linear-Eq2} \\ &{}& \partial^\nu h_{\mu\nu} + ( 6 \partial_\mu \tilde \phi \right) = 0. \label{Linear-Eq3} \\ &{}& \partial_\mu \tilde \phi-\frac{1}{2} \phi_0 \left( \partial^\nu \varphi_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \varphi \right) = 0. \label{Linear-Eq4} \\ &{}& \Box \tilde \phi = \Box \gamma^\mu = \Box \bar \gamma_\mu = \Box \gamma = \Box \bar \gamma = 0. \label{Linear-Eq5} \end{aligned}\[ Here we have introduced the symmetrization notation \(A_{(\mu} B_{\nu)} \equiv \frac{1}{2} ( A_\mu B_\nu + A_\nu B_\mu )\). Now, operating \(\partial^\mu\) on Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq4\]](#Linear-Eq4){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq4"}) and using Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq5\]](#Linear-Eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq5"}), we obtain: \]\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu \partial_\nu \varphi^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} \Box \varphi = 0. \label{Linear-Eq6} \end{aligned}\[ Next, taking the trace of Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq1\]](#Linear-Eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq1"}) with the help of Eqs. ([\[Linear-Eq5\]](#Linear-Eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq5"}) and ([\[Linear-Eq6\]](#Linear-Eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq6"}) leads to: \]\begin{aligned}
\Box \varphi + \frac{4}{ \label{Linear-Eq7} \end{aligned}\[ Moreover, operating \(\partial^\mu\) on Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq3\]](#Linear-Eq3){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq3"}), and using the identity \(\partial^\mu \partial^\nu h_{\mu\nu} = 0\) and Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq5\]](#Linear-Eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq5"}) yields the Lorenz condition: \]\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu s^\mu = 0. \label{Linear-Lorenz} \end{aligned}\[ As can been seen in Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq3\]](#Linear-Eq3){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq3"}), it is more convenient to introduce \(\hat s_\mu\) defined as \]\begin{aligned}
\hat s_\mu = s_\mu-\frac{1}{\phi_0} \partial_\mu \tilde \phi, \label{hat-s} \end{aligned}\[ which also obeys the Lorenz condition owing to Eqs. ([\[Linear-Eq5\]](#Linear-Eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq5"}) and ([\[Linear-Lorenz\]](#Linear-Lorenz){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Lorenz"}): \]\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu \hat s^\mu = 0. \label{Linear-Lorenz2} \end{aligned}\[ With the new gauge field \(\hat s_\mu\) and the corresponding field strength \(\hat h_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu \hat s_\nu-\partial_\nu \hat s_\mu\), the "Maxwell equation" ([\[Linear-Eq3\]](#Linear-Eq3){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq3"}) can be cast to the form: \]\begin{aligned}
\partial^\nu \hat h_{\mu\nu} + ( 6 \label{Mass-Max} \end{aligned}\[ which clearly shows that the Weyl gauge field absorbs the Nambu-Goldstone boson \(\tilde \phi\) associated with spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the Weyl gauge symmetry, thereby becoming massive with the mass squared \(( 6 which is consistent with the positive Newton constant\) after spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the Weyl gauge symmetry, the Weyl gauge field \(\hat s_\mu\) satisfies not only the Lorenz condition ([\[Linear-Lorenz2\]](#Linear-Lorenz2){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Lorenz2"}) but also the massive Klein-Gordon equation: \]\begin{aligned}
( \Box-m^2 ) \hat s_\mu = 0, \label{Mass-KG} \end{aligned}\[ where \(m^2\) is defined by \]\begin{aligned}
m^2 \equiv ( 6 \label{Mass-squared} \end{aligned}\[ Furthermore, with the help of Eqs. ([\[Linear-Eq5\]](#Linear-Eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq5"}), ([\[Linear-Eq6\]](#Linear-Eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq6"}), ([\[Linear-Eq7\]](#Linear-Eq7){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq7"}) and ([\[Linear-Lorenz\]](#Linear-Lorenz){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Lorenz"}), Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq2\]](#Linear-Eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq2"}) can be rewritten as \]\begin{aligned}
\Box \beta = 0. \label{Linear-Eq8} \end{aligned}\[ Moreover, acting \(\partial^\mu\) on Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq1\]](#Linear-Eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq1"}) yields: \]\begin{aligned}
\Box \beta_\mu = 0. \label{Linear-Eq9} \end{aligned}\[ Finally, using various equations obtained thus far, the "Einstein equation" ([\[Linear-Eq1\]](#Linear-Eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq1"}) is reduced to the form: \]\begin{aligned}
\Box \varphi_{\mu\nu} + \frac{4}{ \label{Linear-Eq10} \end{aligned}\[ which means that the field \(\varphi_{\mu\nu}\) is not a simple pole field but a dipole field: \]\begin{aligned}
\Box^2 \varphi_{\mu\nu} = 0. \label{Linear-Eq11} \end{aligned}\[ On the other hand, in addition to Eq. ([\[Mass-KG\]](#Mass-KG){reference-type="ref" reference="Mass-KG"}), the other fields are all simple pole fields: \]\begin{aligned}
\Box \tilde \phi = \Box \beta_\mu = \Box \beta =\Box \gamma^\mu = \Box \bar \gamma_\mu = \Box \gamma = \Box \bar \gamma = 0. \label{Linear-Eq12} \end{aligned}\[ Note that Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq12\]](#Linear-Eq12){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq12"}) corresponds to Eq. ([\[X-M-eq\]](#X-M-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="X-M-eq"}) in a curved space-time. Following the standard technique, we can calculate the four-dimensional (anti-)commutation relations (4D CRs) between asymptotic fields. The point is that the simple pole fields, for instance, the Nakanishi-Lautrup field \(\beta_\mu (x)\) can be expressed in terms of the invariant delta function \(D(x)\) as \]\begin{aligned}
\beta_\mu (x) =-\int d^3 z D(x-z) \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \beta_\mu (z), \label{D-beta} \end{aligned}\[ whereas the dipole field \(\varphi_{\mu\nu}(x)\) takes the form: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \varphi_{\mu\nu} (x) =-\int d^3 z \left[ D(x-z) \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \varphi_{\mu\nu} (z) + E(x-z) \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \Box \varphi_{\mu\nu} (z) \right] \nonumber\\ &{}& =-\int d^3 z \left[ D(x-z) \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \varphi_{\mu\nu} (z)-\frac{4}{ \label{E-varphi} \end{aligned}\[ where in the last equality we have used Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq10\]](#Linear-Eq10){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq10"}). Here the invariant delta function \(D(x)\) for massless simple pole fields and its properties are described as \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& D(x) =-\frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^4 k \, \epsilon (k_0) \delta (k^2) e^{i k x}, \qquad \Box D(x) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& D(-x) =-D(x), \qquad D(0, \vec{x}) = 0, \qquad \partial_0 D(0, \vec{x}) = \delta^3 (x), \label{D-function} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\epsilon (k_0) \equiv \frac{k_0}{|k_0|}\). Similarly, the invariant delta function \(E(x)\) for massless dipole fields and its properties are given by \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& E(x) =-\frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^4 k \, \epsilon (k_0) \delta^\prime (k^2) e^{i k x}, \qquad \Box E(x) = D(x), \nonumber\\ &{}& E(-x) =-E(x), \qquad E(0, \vec{x}) = \partial_0 E(0, \vec{x}) = \partial_0^2 E(0, \vec{x}) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& \partial_0^3 E(0, \vec{x}) =-\delta^3 (x), \label{E-function} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\delta^\prime (k^2) \equiv \frac{d \delta (k^2)}{d k^2}\). On the other hand, the Weyl gauge field \(\hat s(x)\) obeys the massive Klein-Gordon equation ([\[Mass-KG\]](#Mass-KG){reference-type="ref" reference="Mass-KG"}), so it needs to be described in terms of the invariant delta function \(\Delta(x; m^2)\) for massive simple pole fields as \]\begin{aligned}
\hat s_\mu (x) =-\int d^3 z \Delta (x-z; m^2) \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \hat s_\mu (z), \label{s-Delta} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\Delta(x; m^2)\) is defined as \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \Delta(x; m^2) =-\frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^4 k \, \epsilon (k_0) \delta (k^2 + m^2) e^{i k x}, \quad (\Box-m^2) \Delta(x; m^2) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& \Delta(-x; m^2) =-\Delta(x; m^2), \quad \Delta(0, \vec{x}; m^2) = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& \partial_0 \Delta(0, \vec{x}; m^2) = \delta^3 (x), \qquad \Delta(x; 0) = D(x). \label{Delta-function} \end{aligned}\[ It is easy to show that the RHS of Eqs. ([\[D-beta\]](#D-beta){reference-type="ref" reference="D-beta"}), ([\[E-varphi\]](#E-varphi){reference-type="ref" reference="E-varphi"}) and ([\[s-Delta\]](#s-Delta){reference-type="ref" reference="s-Delta"}) is independent of \(z^0\). Thus, for instance, when we evaluate the four-dimensional commutation relation \([ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (x), \varphi_{\sigma\tau} (y) ]\), we can put \(z^0 = y^0\) and use the three-dimensional commutation relations among asymptotic fields. After some manipulation, we find that the 4D CRs are given by \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (x), \varphi_{\sigma\tau} (y) ] =-\frac{2}{-\eta_{\mu\sigma} \eta_{\nu\tau}-\eta_{\mu\tau} \eta_{\nu\sigma} ) D(x-y) \nonumber\\ &{}& + ( \eta_{\mu\sigma} \partial_\nu \partial_\tau + \eta_{\nu\sigma} \partial_\mu \partial_\tau + \eta_{\mu\tau} \partial_\nu \partial_\sigma + \eta_{\nu\tau} \partial_\mu \partial_\sigma ) E(x-y) ], \label{4D-CR1} \\ &{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (x), \beta_\rho (y) ] =-i \phi_0^{-2} ( \eta_{\mu\rho} \partial_\nu + \eta_{\nu\rho} \partial_\mu ) D(x-y). \label{4D-CR2} \\ &{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (x), \beta (y) ] = 2 i \phi_0^{-1} \eta_{\mu\nu} D(x-y). \label{4D-CR3} \\ &{}& [ \tilde \phi (x), \beta (y) ] =-i \phi_0^{-1} D(x-y). \label{4D-CR4} \\ &{}& [ \hat s_\mu (x), \hat s_\nu (y) ] = i \left( \eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{m^2} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \right) \Delta (x-y; m^2). \label{4D-CRs1} \\ &{}& \{ \gamma^\sigma (x), \bar \gamma_\tau (y) \} = \phi_0^{-2} \delta_\tau^\sigma D(x-y). \label{4D-CR5} \\ &{}& \{ \gamma (x), \bar \gamma (y) \} = \phi_0^{-2} D(x-y). \label{4D-CR6} \end{aligned}\[ The other 4D CRs vanish identically. Now we would like to discuss the issue of the unitarity of the physical S-matrix. To do that, it is convenient to perform the Fourier transformation of Eqs. ([\[4D-CR1\]](#4D-CR1){reference-type="ref" reference="4D-CR1"})-([\[4D-CR6\]](#4D-CR6){reference-type="ref" reference="4D-CR6"}). However, for the dipole field we cannot use the three-dimensional Fourier expansion to define the creation and annihilation operators. We therefore make use of the four-dimensional Fourier expansion :[^6] \]\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\mu\nu} (x) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int d^4 p \, \theta (p_0) [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (p) e^{i p x} + \varphi_{\mu\nu}^\dagger (p) e^{-i p x} ], \label{FT-varphi} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\theta (p_0)\) is the step function. For any simple pole fields, we adopt the same Fourier expansion, for instance, \]\begin{aligned}
\beta_\mu (x) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int d^4 p \, \theta (p_0) [ \beta_\mu (p) e^{i p x} + \beta_\mu^\dagger (p) e^{-i p x} ]. \label{FT-beta} \end{aligned}\[ Thus, using Eqs. ([\[D-beta\]](#D-beta){reference-type="ref" reference="D-beta"}), ([\[E-varphi\]](#E-varphi){reference-type="ref" reference="E-varphi"}), ([\[FT-varphi\]](#FT-varphi){reference-type="ref" reference="FT-varphi"}) and ([\[FT-beta\]](#FT-beta){reference-type="ref" reference="FT-beta"}), for instance, the Fourier transforms of, e.g., \(\varphi_{\mu\nu} (x)\) and \(\beta_\mu (x)\) take the following expression: \]\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\mu\nu} (p) &=& \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \theta( p_0 ) \int d^3 z \, e^{-i p z} \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z [ \delta(p^2) \varphi_{\mu\nu} (z) + \delta^\prime (p^2) \Box \varphi_{\mu\nu} (z) ], \nonumber\\ \beta_\mu (p) &=& \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \theta( p_0 ) \delta(p^2) \int d^3 z \, e^{-i p z} \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_0^z \beta_\mu (z). \label{FT-fields} \end{aligned}\[ Incidentally, for a generic simple pole field \(\Phi\) with a mass \(m\), the three-dimensional Fourier expansion is defined as \]\begin{aligned}
\Phi (x) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int d^3 p \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \omega_p}} [ \Phi (\vec{p}) e^{i p x} + \Phi^\dagger (\vec{p}) e^{-i p x } ], \label{3D-FT} \end{aligned}\[ with being \(\omega_p = \sqrt{ \vec{p}^2 + m^2}\), whereas the four-dimensional Fourier expansion reads: \]\begin{aligned}
\Phi (x) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int d^4 p \, \theta (p_0) [ \Phi (p) e^{i p x} + \Phi^\dagger (p) (p) e^{-i p x} ]. \label{4D-FT} \end{aligned}\[ Thus, the annihilation operator \(\Phi (p)\) in the four-dimensional Fourier expansion has connection with the annihilation operator \(\Phi (\vec{p})\) in the three-dimensional Fourier expansion via \]\begin{aligned}
\Phi (p) = \theta (p_0) \delta (p^2 + m^2) \sqrt{2 \omega_p} \Phi (\vec{p}). \label{3D-4D} \end{aligned}\[ Based on these Fourier expansions, we can calculate the Fourier transform of Eqs. ([\[4D-CR1\]](#4D-CR1){reference-type="ref" reference="4D-CR1"})-([\[4D-CR6\]](#4D-CR6){reference-type="ref" reference="4D-CR6"}): \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (p), \varphi_{\sigma\tau}^\dagger (q) ] =-\frac{2}{ [ \delta(p^2) ( \eta_{\mu\nu} \eta_{\sigma\tau}-\eta_{\mu\sigma} \eta_{\nu\tau}-\eta_{\mu\tau} \eta_{\nu\sigma} ) \nonumber\\ &{}&-3 \delta^\prime (p^2) ( \eta_{\mu\sigma} p_\nu p_\tau + \eta_{\nu\sigma} p_\mu p_\tau + \eta_{\mu\tau} p_\nu p_\sigma + \eta_{\nu\tau} p_\mu p_\sigma ) ]. \label{FT-4D-CR1} \\ &{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (p), \beta_\rho^\dagger (q) ] =-i \phi_0^{-2} ( \eta_{\mu\rho} p_\nu + \eta_{\nu\rho} p_\mu ) \theta (p_0) \delta(p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CR2} \\ &{}& [ \varphi_{\mu\nu} (p), \beta^\dagger (q) ] = 2 \phi_0^{-1} \eta_{\mu\nu} \theta (p_0) \delta(p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CR3} \\ &{}& [ \tilde \phi (p), \beta^\dagger (q) ] =-\phi_0^{-1} \theta (p_0) \delta(p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CR4} \\ &{}& [ \hat s_\mu (p), \hat s_\nu^\dagger (q) ] = + \left( \eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{m^2} p_\mu p_\nu \right) \theta(p_0) \delta(p^2 + m^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CRs} \\ &{}& \{ \gamma^\sigma (p), \bar \gamma^\dagger_\tau (q) \} =-i \phi_0^{-2} \delta_\tau^\sigma \theta (p_0) \delta(p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CR5} \\ &{}& \{ \gamma (p), \bar \gamma^\dagger (q) \} =-i \phi_0^{-2} \theta (p_0) \delta(p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{FT-4D-CR6} \end{aligned}\[ Next, let us turn our attention to the linearized field equations. After Fourier transformation, Eq. ([\[Linear-Eq4\]](#Linear-Eq4){reference-type="ref" reference="Linear-Eq4"}) takes the form: \]\begin{aligned}
p^\nu \varphi_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} p_\mu \varphi = 2 \phi_0^{-1} p_\mu \tilde \phi. \label{FT-Linear-Eq3} \end{aligned}\[ If we fix the degree of freedom associated with \(\tilde \phi\), which will be discussed later, this equation gives us four independent relations on ten components of \(\varphi_{\mu\nu} (p)\), thereby reducing the independent components of \(\varphi_{\mu\nu} (p)\) to be six. To deal with six independent components of \(\varphi_{\mu\nu} (p)\), it is convenient to take a specific Lorentz frame such that \(p_1 = p_2 = 0\) and \(p_3 > 0\), and choose the six components as follows: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \varphi_1 (p) = \frac{1}{2} [ \varphi_{11} (p)-\varphi_{22} (p) ], \qquad \varphi_2 (p) = \varphi_{12} (p), \qquad \omega_0 (p) =-\frac{1}{2 p_0} \varphi_{00} (p), \nonumber\\ &{}& \omega_I (p) =-\frac{1}{p_0} \varphi_{0I} (p), \qquad \omega_3 (p) =-\frac{1}{2 p_3} \varphi_{33} (p), \label{Lorentz} \end{aligned}\[ where the index \(I\) takes the transverse components \(I = 1, 2\). In this respect, it is worthwhile to consider the GCT BRST transformation for these components. First, let us write down the GCT BRST transformation for the Fourier expansion of the asymptotic fields, which reads: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \delta_B \varphi_{\mu\nu} (p) =-i [ p_\mu \gamma_\nu (p) + p_\nu \gamma_\mu (p) ], \quad \delta_B \gamma^\mu (p) = 0, \quad \delta_B \bar \gamma_\mu (p) = i \beta_\mu (p), \nonumber\\ &{}& \delta_B \tilde \phi (p) = \delta_B \beta_\mu (p) = \delta_B \beta (p) = \delta_B \gamma (p) = \delta_B \bar \gamma (p) = 0. \label{Q_B-FT} \end{aligned}\[ Using this BRST transformation, the GCT BRST transformation for the components in ([\[Lorentz\]](#Lorentz){reference-type="ref" reference="Lorentz"}) takes the form: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \delta_B \varphi_I (p) = 0, \qquad \delta_B \omega_\mu (p) = i \gamma_\mu (p), \nonumber\\ &{}& \delta_B \bar \gamma_\mu (p) = i \beta_\mu (p), \qquad \delta_B \gamma_\mu (p) = \delta_B \beta_\mu (p) = 0, \label{Q_B-Comp} \end{aligned}\[ where \(p_1 = p_2 = 0\) was used. This BRST transformation implies that \(\varphi_I (p)\) could be the physical observable while a set of fields, \(\{ \omega_\mu (p), \beta_\mu (p), \gamma_\mu (p), \bar \gamma_\mu (p) \}\) might belong to the BRST quartet and thus are dropped from the physical state by the Kugo-Ojima subsidiary condition, \(Q_B | \rm{phys} \rangle = 0\) .[^7] Next, let us move on to the other BRST transformation, which is the BRST transformation for the Weyl transformation. The Weyl BRST transformation for the asymptotic fields is of form: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& \bar \delta_B \varphi_{\mu\nu} = 2 c \eta_{\mu\nu}, \quad \bar \delta_B \tilde \phi =-\phi_0 \gamma, \quad \bar \delta_B \gamma = 0, \quad \bar \delta_B \bar \gamma = i \beta, \nonumber\\ &{}& \bar \delta_B \beta = \bar \delta_B \beta_\mu = \bar \delta_B \gamma_\mu = \bar \delta_B \bar \gamma_\mu = 0. \label{W-Q_B-Asym} \end{aligned}\[ The Weyl BRST transformation of \(\varphi_I\) is vanishing: \]\begin{aligned}
\bar \delta_B \varphi_I = 0, \label{W-Q_B-Obs} \end{aligned}\[ which means that together with \(\delta_B \varphi_I = 0\), \(\varphi_I\) is truely the physical observable. The four-dimensional commutation relations among the fields \(\{ \tilde \phi, \beta, \gamma, \bar \gamma \}\) read: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ \tilde \phi (p), \tilde \phi^\dagger (q) ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ \tilde \phi (p), \beta^\dagger (q) ] =-\phi_0^{-1} \theta (p_0) \delta (p^2) \delta^4 (p-q), \nonumber\\ &{}& \{ \gamma (p), \bar \gamma^\dagger (q) ] =-i \phi_0^{-2} \theta (p_0) \delta (p^2) \delta^4 (p-q). \label{W-4D-CRs} \end{aligned}\[ As can be also seen in these 4D CRs, all the fields \(\{ \varphi_I, \tilde \phi, \beta, \gamma, \bar \gamma \}\) are massless simple pole fields. Via relation ([\[3D-4D\]](#3D-4D){reference-type="ref" reference="3D-4D"}) the three-dimensional commutation relations \([ \Phi (\vec{p}), \Phi^\dagger (\vec{q}) \}\) with \(\Phi (\vec{p}) \equiv \{ \varphi_I (\vec{p}), \tilde \phi (\vec{p}), \beta (\vec{p}), \gamma (\vec{p}), \bar \gamma (\vec{p}) \}\), are of form: \]\begin{aligned}
= \delta_{ij} \delta^3 ( \vec{p}-\vec{q} ). \label{3D-Rel} \end{aligned}\[ Together with the BRST invariance in Eq. ([\[Zero-BRST\]](#Zero-BRST){reference-type="ref" reference="Zero-BRST"}), this equation clearly shows that the spacial components \(\hat s_i (x)\) are really genuine physical massive modes belonging to BRST singlets with positive norm.
# Choral symmetry
In the previous article, we have clarified the existence of a huge global symmetry called "choral symmetry", which is the \(IOSp(10|10)\) symmetry, in Weyl invariant scalar-tensor gravity in Riemann geometry. We will show that the choral symmetry also exists in the theory at hand. The existence of the choral symmetry is expected from the fact that as shown in Section 4, a set of fields (including the space-time coordinates \(x^\mu\)) \(X^M \equiv \{ x^\mu, b_\mu, \sigma, B, c^\mu, \bar c_\mu, c, \bar c \}\) obeys a very simple equation: \]\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu X^M = 0. \label{d'Alemb-eq} \end{aligned}\[ It is worthwhile to note that this equation holds if and only if we adopt the extended de Donder gauge condition ([\[Ext-de-Donder\]](#Ext-de-Donder){reference-type="ref" reference="Ext-de-Donder"}) for the GCT and the scalar gauge condition ([\[Scalar-gauge\]](#Scalar-gauge){reference-type="ref" reference="Scalar-gauge"}) for the Weyl gauge transformation. Furthermore, Eq. ([\[d\'Alemb-eq\]](#d'Alemb-eq){reference-type="ref" reference="d'Alemb-eq"}) implies that there should be many conserved currents defined in Eq. ([\[Cons-currents\]](#Cons-currents){reference-type="ref" reference="Cons-currents"}) in the theory under consideration. In this section, along the same line of argument as that in the previous article, we will explicitly prove that there is the choral symmetry \(IOSp(10|10)\) in Weyl conformal gravity in Weyl geometry. Let us start with the Lagrangian ([\[ST-q-Lag\]](#ST-q-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="ST-q-Lag"}), which can be cast to the form: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_q &=& \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu} H^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon g^{\mu\nu} (-2 \phi \partial_\mu \phi S_\nu \nonumber\\ &+& S_\mu S_\nu \phi^2 ) \biggr]-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \hat E_{\mu\nu}, \label{Choral-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ where we have defined \(\hat E_{\mu\nu}\) as \]\begin{aligned}
\hat E_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon \partial_\mu \sigma \partial_\nu \sigma + \partial_\mu b_\nu + i \partial_\mu \bar c_\lambda \partial_\nu c^\lambda-\partial_\mu B \partial_\nu \sigma + i \partial_\mu \bar c \partial_\nu c + ( \mu \leftrightarrow \nu ), \label{hat-E} \end{aligned}\[ and used the relation ([\[Dilaton\]](#Dilaton){reference-type="ref" reference="Dilaton"}) between the scalar field \(\phi\) and the dilaton \(\sigma\). Next, let us focus our attention on the last term in Eq. ([\[Choral-Lag\]](#Choral-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="Choral-Lag"}) and rewrite it into a more compact form: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_q^{(E)} &\equiv&-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \hat E_{\mu\nu} =-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \eta_{NM} \partial_\mu X^M \partial_\nu X^N \nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu X^M \tilde \eta_{MN} \partial_\nu X^N. \label{E-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ Here we have introduced an \(IOSp(10|10)\) metric \(\eta_{NM} = \eta_{MN}^T \equiv \tilde \eta_{MN}\) defined as \]\begin{aligned}
\eta_{NM} = \tilde \eta_{MN} = \begin{array}{c} x^\nu \\ b_\nu \\ \sigma \\ B \\ c^\nu \\ \bar c_\nu \\ c \\ \bar c \end{array} & \left( \begin{array}{cc|cc|cc|cc} & \delta_\mu^\nu & & & & \\ \delta^\mu_\nu & & & & & \\ \hline & & \epsilon & -1 & & & \\ & & -1 & 0 & & & \\ \hline & & & & & -i\delta_\mu^\nu & & \\ & & & & i\delta^\mu_\nu & & & \\ \hline & & & & & & & -i \\ & & & & & & i & \\ \end{array} \right)_. \label{OSp-metric} \\ & \quad \begin{array}{cccccccc} x^\mu & b_\mu & \;\;\sigma & \; B & \;\;\, c^\mu & \;\;\, \bar c_\mu & \;\, c & \;\: \bar c \end{array} \nonumber \end{aligned}\[ Let us note that this \(IOSp(10|10)\) metric \(\eta_{NM}\), which is a c-number quantity, has the symmetry property such that \]\begin{aligned}
\eta_{MN}=(-)^{|M| \cdot |N|} \eta_{NM} = (-)^{|M|} \eta_{NM}=(-)^{|N|} \eta_{NM}, \label{Prop-OSp-metric} \end{aligned}\[ where the statistics index \(|M|\) is 0 or 1 when \(X^M\) is Grassmann-even or Grassmann-odd, respectively. This property comes from the fact that \(\eta_{MN}\) is 'diagonal' in the sense that its off-diagonal, Grassmann-even and Grassmann-odd, and vice versa, matrix elements vanish, i.e., \(\eta_{MN} = 0\) when \(|M| \neq |N|\), thereby being \(|M| = |N| = |M| \cdot| N|\) in front of \(\eta_{MN}\). Now that ([\[E-Lag\]](#E-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="E-Lag"}) is expressed in a manifestly \(IOSp(10|10)\) invariant form except for the Weyl invariant metric \(\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2\), which will be discussed later, there could exist an \(IOSp(10|10)\) as a global symmetry in our theory. Note that the infinitesimal \(OSp\) rotation is defined by \]\begin{aligned}
\delta X^M = \eta^{ML} \varepsilon_{LN} X^N \equiv \varepsilon^M{}_N X^N, \label{OSp-rot} \end{aligned}\[ where \(\eta^{MN}\) is the inverse matrix of \(\eta_{MN}\), and the infinitesimal parameter \(\varepsilon_{MN}\) has the following properties: \]\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{MN} = (-)^{1 + |M| \cdot |N|} \varepsilon_{NM}, \qquad \varepsilon_{MN} X^L = (-)^{|L| (|M| + |N|)} X^L \varepsilon_{MN}. \label{varepsilon} \end{aligned}\[ In order to find the conserved current, we assume that the infinitesimal parameter \(\varepsilon_{MN}\) depends on the space-time coordinates \(x^\mu\), i.e., \(\varepsilon_{MN} = \varepsilon_{MN} (x^\mu)\). Assuming for a while that the metric \(\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2\) is invariant under the \(OSp\) rotation ([\[OSp-rot\]](#OSp-rot){reference-type="ref" reference="OSp-rot"}), we find that ([\[E-Lag\]](#E-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="E-Lag"}) is transformed as \]\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal L}_q^{(E)} =-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \left( \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} X^M \partial_\nu X^N + \varepsilon_{NM} \partial_\mu X^M \partial_\nu X^N \right). \label{Var-E-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ It is easy to prove that the second term on the RHS vanishes owing to the first property in Eq. ([\[varepsilon\]](#varepsilon){reference-type="ref" reference="varepsilon"}). Thus, \({\cal L}_q^{(E)}\) is invariant under the infinitesimal \(OSp\) rotation. The conserved current is then calculated to be: \]\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal L}_q^{(E)} &=&-\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} X^M \partial_\nu X^N \nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} \left[ X^M \partial_\nu X^N-(-)^{|M| \cdot |N|} X^N \partial_\nu X^M \right] \nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} \left( X^M \partial_\nu X^N-\partial_\nu X^M X^N \right) \nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} X^M \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu X^N \nonumber\\ &\equiv&-\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} {\cal M}^{\mu MN}, \label{OSp-current} \end{aligned}\[ with the conserved current \({\cal M}^{\mu MN}\) for the \(OSp\) rotation taking the form: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}^{\mu MN} = \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 X^M \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu X^N. \label{OSp-current-M} \end{aligned}\[ The above proof makes sense only under the assumption that the metric \(\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2\) and the other terms except for the last term in ([\[Choral-Lag\]](#Choral-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="Choral-Lag"}) are invariant under the \(OSp\) rotation, but it is obviously not the case. However, this problem is cured by noticing that the \(OSp\) rotation includes a Weyl transformation on the dilaton: \]\begin{aligned}
\delta \sigma = \eta^{\sigma L} \varepsilon_{LN} X^N =-\varepsilon_{BN} X^N \equiv-\varepsilon(x), \label{Dilaton-OSp} \end{aligned}\[ where we have used ([\[OSp-metric\]](#OSp-metric){reference-type="ref" reference="OSp-metric"}) and \]\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} \epsilon &-1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 &-1 \\ -1 &-\epsilon \end{pmatrix}, \label{Matrix} \end{aligned}\[ where recall that the matrix \(\eta^{ML}\) is the inverse matrix of \(\eta_{ML}\). As for the scalar field \(\phi(x)\), this transformation for the dilaton can be interpreted as a Weyl transformation: \]\begin{aligned}
\phi \rightarrow \phi^\prime = e^{-\varepsilon (x)} \phi. \label{Weyl-phi} \end{aligned}\[ Thus, simultaneously with the \(OSp\) rotation, if we perform a Weyl transformation given by \]\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{\mu\nu} = 2 \varepsilon (x) g_{\mu\nu}, \qquad \delta S_\mu =-\partial_\mu \varepsilon (x), \label{Weyl-g&S} \end{aligned}\[ and a local shift for the Nakanishi-Lautrup field \(B\):[^8] \]\begin{aligned}
\delta B = \epsilon \, \varepsilon (x), \label{B-shift} \end{aligned}\[ it turns out that under the (local) \(OSp\) rotation ([\[OSp-rot\]](#OSp-rot){reference-type="ref" reference="OSp-rot"}), the quantum Lagrangian \({\cal{L}}_q\) is transformed as \]\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal L}_q =-\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \varepsilon_{NM} {\cal M}^{\mu MN}. \label{Var-q-Lag} \end{aligned}\[ As a result, the conserved current \({\cal M}^{\mu MN}\) for the \(OSp\) rotation takes the form ([\[OSp-current-M\]](#OSp-current-M){reference-type="ref" reference="OSp-current-M"}). In a similar way, we can derive the conserved current for the infinitesimal translation: \]\begin{aligned}
\delta X^M = \varepsilon^M, \label{transl} \end{aligned}\[ and it turns out that the conserved current \({\cal P}^{\mu M}\) for the translation reads: \]\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}^{\mu M} = \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \partial_\nu X^M = \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \phi^2 \left( 1 \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu X^M \right). \label{transl-current-P} \end{aligned}\[ From the conserved currents ([\[OSp-current-M\]](#OSp-current-M){reference-type="ref" reference="OSp-current-M"}) and ([\[transl-current-P\]](#transl-current-P){reference-type="ref" reference="transl-current-P"}), the corresponding conserved charges are given by \]\begin{aligned}
M^{MN} &\equiv& \int d^3 x \, {\cal M}^{0 MN} = \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 X^M \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu X^N, \nonumber\\ P^M &\equiv& \int d^3 x \, {\cal P}^{0 M} = \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 \partial_\nu X^M. \label{IOSp-charge} \end{aligned}\[ For instance, the BRST charges for the GCT and Weyl transformation are respectively expressed as \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& Q_B \equiv M (b_\rho, c^\rho) = \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 b_\rho \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu c^\rho, \nonumber\\ &{}& \bar Q_B \equiv M (B, c) = \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 B \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu c. \label{Choral-Symm} \end{aligned}\[ We can then verify that using various ETCRs obtained so far, the \(IOSp(10|10)\) generators \(\{ M^{MN}, P^M \}\) generate an \(IOSp(10|10)\) algebra: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ P^M, P^N \} = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ M^{MN}, P^R \} = i \bigl[ P^M \tilde \eta^{NR}-(-)^{|N| |R|} P^N \tilde \eta^{MR} \bigr], \nonumber\\ &{}& [ M^{MN}, M^{RS} \} = i \bigl[ M^{MS} \tilde \eta^{NR}-(-)^{|N| |R|} M^{MR} \tilde \eta^{NS}-(-)^{|N| |R|} M^{NS} \tilde \eta^{MR} \nonumber\\ &{}& + (-)^{|M| |R| + |N| |S|} M^{NR} \tilde \eta^{MS} \bigr]. \label{IOSp-algebra} \end{aligned}\[ Finally, it is useful to compare our extended choral symmetry \(IOSp(10|10)\) with the original choral symmetry \(IOSp(8|8)\) in Einstein's general relativity. In our case, the choral symmetry is extended in the sense that the GCT is replaced with a larger symmetry, which consists of both the GCT and the Weyl gauge transformation. Accordingly the dilaton \(\sigma\), the Nakanishi-Lautrup field \(B\), ghost \(c\) and anti-ghost \(\bar c\) are joined in the algebra. The choral symmetry \(IOSp(10|10)\) therefore includes the dilaton, or equivalently, the scalar field, which exists in the classical Lagrangian and is closely related to a classical theory. In contrast, the original \(IOSp(8|8)\) symmetry is purely a symmetry among quantum fields, which are the NL field and ghosts, so the symmetry is limited to the sector related to the gauge-fixing procedure. From this viewpoint, we expect that the extended \(IOSp(10|10)\) choral symmetry might play an important role in clarifying the dynamics peculiar to the classical theory.
# Gravitational conformal symmetry and spontaneous symmetry breakdown
One of the most interesting features in the formalism at hand is that as an analog of the well-known conformal symmetry in a flat Minkowski space-time, there is a gravitational conformal symmetry which is a subgroup of the choral symmetry, and its spontaneous symmetry breakdown down to the Poincaré symmetry guarantees that the graviton and the dilaton are exactly massless Nambu-Goldstone particles. This feature is so important for future developments of quantum gravity that we would like to explain the gravitational conformal symmetry and its spontaneous symmetry breakdown in detail. In particular, as already shown in Section 6, there is a \(\it{massive}\) Weyl gauge field in the spectrum, so at first sight it appears to be strange that there is a conformal symmetry in the present theory since it is usually thought that conformal or scale symmetry exists in the theories with only massless particles. With regard to this, it is worthwhile to recall that the massless Weyl gauge field acquires the mass via spontaneous symmetry breakdown (SSB) of Weyl gauge symmetry and the SSB is the breakdown of symmetry at the level of not field operators but the representation of field operators in the sense that the symmetry cannot be realized by a unitary transformation in the state vector space. Thus, it is not strange that there is a conformal symmetry in the present theory with the massive gauge field if the mass is generated through the SSB. Moreover, this physical situation is also supported by the Zumino theorem to some degree since the theorem insists that theories invariant under general coordinate transformation and Weyl transformation at the same time should possess conformal symmetry in a flat Minkowski background at least classically. As clarified in the previous paper, the extended de Donder gauge condition ([\[Ext-de-Donder\]](#Ext-de-Donder){reference-type="ref" reference="Ext-de-Donder"}) and the scalar gauge condition ([\[Scalar-gauge\]](#Scalar-gauge){reference-type="ref" reference="Scalar-gauge"}) have a residual symmetry which corresponds to the dilatation and the special conformal transformation in a flat Minkowski space-time. Indeed, the quantum Lagrangian ([\[ST-q-Lag\]](#ST-q-Lag){reference-type="ref" reference="ST-q-Lag"}) is still invariant under the restricted Weyl transformation: \]\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{\mu\nu} &=& 2 \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}, \qquad \delta \phi =-\Lambda \phi, \nonumber\\ \delta S_\mu &=&-\partial_\mu \Lambda, \qquad \delta b_\mu =-\partial_\mu \Lambda B, \label{R-Weyl} \end{aligned}\[ where the infinitesimal transformation parameter \(\Lambda\) takes the form: \]\begin{aligned}
\Lambda = \lambda-2 k_\mu x^\mu, \label{R-Weyl-Lam} \end{aligned}\[ with \(\lambda\) and \(k_\mu\) being infinitesimal constants corresponding to a global scale transformation and the special conformal transformation, respectively. Note that \(\Lambda\) obeys the equation \(g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu \Lambda = 0\), which is a characteristic feature of the restricted Weyl transformation. The whole global symmetry in the theory under consideration should be included in the extended \(IOSp(10|10)\) choral symmetry. Actually, we can construct the generators corresponding to the transformation parameters \(\lambda\) and \(k_\mu\) out of those of the choral symmetry as \]\begin{aligned}
D_0 &\equiv&-P(B) =-\int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 \partial_\nu B, \nonumber\\ K^\mu &\equiv& 2 M^\mu (x, B) = 2 \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 x^\mu \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\nu B. \label{Res-gen} \end{aligned}\[ It is easy to verify that these generators generate the symmetry ([\[R-Weyl\]](#R-Weyl){reference-type="ref" reference="R-Weyl"}) in terms of the ETCRs in ([\[ETCRs\]](#ETCRs){reference-type="ref" reference="ETCRs"}). Our theory is also invariant under the translation and the general linear transformation \(GL(4)\). Actually, we can make the translation generator \(P_\mu\) and \(GL(4)\) generator \(G^\mu{}_\nu\) from the choral symmetry as \]\begin{aligned}
P_\mu &\equiv& P_\mu (b) = \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \nu} \phi^2 \partial_\nu b_\mu, \nonumber\\ G^\mu{}_\nu &\equiv& M^\mu{}_\nu (x, b)-i M^\mu{}_\nu (c^\tau, \bar c_\tau) \nonumber\\ &=& \int d^3 x \, \tilde g^{0 \lambda} \phi^2 ( x^\mu \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\lambda b_\nu-i c^\mu \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\lambda \bar c_\nu ). \label{Trans-GL} \end{aligned}\[ For instance, based on the ETCRs in ([\[ETCRs\]](#ETCRs){reference-type="ref" reference="ETCRs"}), we can check that the \(GL(4)\) generator \(G^\mu{}_\nu\) correctly generates the \(GL(4)\) transformation on the fields \(\phi, S_\rho\) and \(g_{\sigma\tau}\): \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ i G^\mu{}_\nu, \phi ] = x^\mu \partial_\nu \phi, \qquad [ i G^\mu{}_\nu, S_\rho ] = x^\mu \partial_\nu S_\rho + \delta_\rho^\mu S_\nu, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ i G^\mu{}_\nu, g_{\sigma\tau} ] = x^\mu \partial_\nu g_{\sigma\tau} + \delta_\sigma^\mu g_{\nu\tau} + \delta_\tau^\mu g_{\nu\sigma}. \label{Ex-GL} \end{aligned}\[ Finally, we can build a generator corresponding to the dilatation in a flat Minkowski space-time, which is closely related to the generator \(D_0\) of the scale transformation in ([\[Res-gen\]](#Res-gen){reference-type="ref" reference="Res-gen"}). With this in mind, let us consider a set of generators, \(\{ P_\mu, G^\mu{}_\nu, K^\mu, D_0 \}\). From these generators we wish to construct the generator \(D\) for the dilatation. Let us recall that in conformal field theory in the four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, the dilatation generator obeys the following algebra for an local operator \(O_i (x)\) of conformal dimension \(\Delta_i\): \]\begin{aligned}
= x^\mu \partial_\mu O_i (x) + \Delta_i O_i (x). \label{D-com} \end{aligned}\[ The scalar field \(\phi (x)\), for example, has conformal dimension \(1\) and therefore satisfies the equation: \]\begin{aligned}
= x^\mu \partial_\mu \phi (x) + \phi (x). \label{D-phi-com} \end{aligned}\[ With this knowledge, let us construct a generator for the dilatation in such a way that the transformation law on the scalar field satisfies this equation ([\[D-phi-com\]](#D-phi-com){reference-type="ref" reference="D-phi-com"}). From Eq. ([\[Ex-GL\]](#Ex-GL){reference-type="ref" reference="Ex-GL"}) and the definition of \(D_0\) in ([\[Res-gen\]](#Res-gen){reference-type="ref" reference="Res-gen"}), we find that \]\begin{aligned}
= x^\mu \partial_\mu \phi (x), \qquad [ i D_0, \phi (x) ] =-\phi (x). \label{GD-phi-com} \end{aligned}\[ It therefore turns out that the following linear combination of \(G^\mu{}_\mu\) and \(D_0\) does the job: \]\begin{aligned}
D \equiv G^\mu{}_\mu-D_0. \label{D-def} \end{aligned}\[ As a consistency check, it is useful to see how this operator \(D\) acts on the metric field. The resulting expression is: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ i D, g_{\sigma\tau} ] = [ i G^\mu{}_\mu, g_{\sigma\tau} ]-[ i D_0, g_{\sigma\tau} ] \nonumber\\ &{}& = ( x^\mu \partial_\mu g_{\sigma\tau} + 2 g_{\sigma\tau} )-2 g_{\sigma\tau} = x^\mu \partial_\mu g_{\sigma\tau}, \label{D-g-com} \end{aligned}\[ which implies that the metric field has conformal dimension \(0\) as defined in conformal field theory. Further calculations reveal that the algebra among the generators \(\{ P_\mu, G^\mu{}_\nu, K^\mu, D \}\) closes and takes the form: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ P_\mu, P_\nu ] = 0, \quad [ P_\mu, G^\rho{}_\sigma ] = i P_\sigma \delta^\rho_\mu, \quad [ P_\mu, K^\nu ] =-2 i ( G^\rho{}_\rho-D ) \delta^\nu_\mu, \quad \nonumber\\ &{}& [ P_\mu, D ] = i P_\mu, \quad [ G^\mu{}_\nu, G^\rho{}_\sigma ] = i ( G^\mu{}_\sigma \delta^\rho_\nu-G^\rho{}_\nu \delta^\mu_\sigma), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ G^\mu{}_\nu, K^\rho ] = i K^\mu \delta^\rho_\nu, \quad [ G^\mu{}_\nu, D ] = [ K^\mu, K^\nu ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ K^\mu, D ] =-i K^\mu, \quad [ D, D] = 0. \label{Grav-conf0} \end{aligned}\[ To extract the gravitational conformal algebra in quantum gravity, it is necessary to introduce the "Lorentz" generator. It can be contructed from the \(GL(4)\) generator and the flat Minkowski metric to be: \]\begin{aligned}
M_{\mu\nu} \equiv-\eta_{\mu\rho} G^\rho{}_\nu + \eta_{\nu\rho} G^\rho{}_\mu. \label{Lor-gene} \end{aligned}\[ In terms of the generator \(M_{\mu\nu}\), the algebra ([\[Grav-conf0\]](#Grav-conf0){reference-type="ref" reference="Grav-conf0"}) can be cast to the form: \]\begin{aligned}
&{}& [ P_\mu, P_\nu ] = 0, \quad [ P_\mu, M_{\rho\sigma} ] = i ( P_\rho \eta_{\mu\sigma}-P_\sigma \eta_{\mu\rho} ), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ P_\mu, K^\nu ] =-2 i ( G^\rho{}_\rho-D ) \delta^\nu_\mu, \quad [ P_\mu, D ] = i P_\mu, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ M_{\mu\nu}, M_{\rho\sigma} ] =-i ( M_{\mu\sigma} \eta_{\nu\rho}-M_{\nu\sigma} \eta_{\mu\rho} + M_{\rho\mu} \eta_{\sigma\nu}-M_{\rho\nu} \eta_{\sigma\mu}), \nonumber\\ &{}& [ M_{\mu\nu}, K^\rho ] = i (-K_\mu \delta^\rho_\nu + K_\nu \delta^\rho_\mu ), \quad [ M_{\mu\nu}, D ] = [ K^\mu, K^\nu ] = 0, \nonumber\\ &{}& [ K^\mu, D ] =-i K^\mu, \quad [ D, D] = 0. \label{Grav-conf} \end{aligned}\[ where we have defined \(K_\mu \equiv \eta_{\mu\nu} K^\nu\). It is of interest that the the algebra ([\[Grav-conf\]](#Grav-conf){reference-type="ref" reference="Grav-conf"}) in quantum gravity, which we call "gravitational conformal algebra", formally resembles conformal algebra in the flat Minkowski space-time except for the expression of \([ P_\mu, K^\nu ]\).[^9] This difference stems from the difference of the definition of conformal dimension (or weight) in both gravity and conformal field theory, for which the metric tensor field \(g_{\mu\nu}\) has weight \(2\) in gravity while it has weight \(0\) in conformal field theory. Now, on the basis of the gravitational conformal symmetry, we are able to show that \(GL(4)\), special conformal symmetry and dilatation are spontaneously broken down to the Poincaré symmetry. To this end, we postulate the existence of a unique vacuum \(| 0 \rangle\), which is normalized to be the unity: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | 0 \rangle = 1. \label{Vac-norm} \end{aligned}\[ Furthermore, we assume that the vacuum is translation invariant: \]\begin{aligned}
P_\mu | 0 \rangle = 0, \label{Trans-Vac} \end{aligned}\[ and the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of the metric tensor \(g_{\mu\nu}\) and the scalar field \(\phi\) are respectively the Minkowski metric \(\eta_{\mu\nu}\) and a non-zero constant \(\phi_0 \neq 0\): \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | g_{\mu\nu} | 0 \rangle = \eta_{\mu\nu}, \qquad \langle 0 | \phi | 0 \rangle = \phi_0. \label{VEV-A} \end{aligned}\[ From ([\[Ex-GL\]](#Ex-GL){reference-type="ref" reference="Ex-GL"}), we find that the VEV of an equal-time commutator between the \(GL(4)\) generator and the metric field reads: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i G^\mu{}_\nu, g_{\sigma\tau} ] | 0 \rangle = \delta^\mu_\sigma \eta_{\nu\tau} + \delta^\mu_\tau \eta_{\nu\sigma}. \label{G-g-CM} \end{aligned}\[ Thus, the Lorentz generator defined in Eq. ([\[Lor-gene\]](#Lor-gene){reference-type="ref" reference="Lor-gene"}) has a vanishing VEV: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i M_{\mu\nu}, g_{\sigma\tau} ] | 0 \rangle = 0. \label{M-g-CM} \end{aligned}\[ On the other hand, the symmetric part defined as \(\bar M_{\mu\nu} \equiv \eta_{\mu\rho} G^\rho{}_\nu + \eta_{\nu\rho} G^\rho{}_\mu\) has the non-vanishing VEV: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i \bar M_{\mu\nu}, g_{\sigma\tau} ] | 0 \rangle = 2 ( \eta_{\mu\sigma} \eta_{\nu\tau} + \eta_{\mu\tau} \eta_{\nu\sigma} ). \label{BM-g-CM} \end{aligned}\[ Thus, the \(GL(4)\) symmetry is spontaneously broken to the Lorentz symmetry where the corresponding Nambu-Goldstone boson with ten independent components is nothing but the massless graviton. Here, it is interesting that in a sector of the scalar field, the \(GL(4)\) symmetry and of course the Lorentz symmetry as well do not give rise to a symmetry breaking. This can be seen in the following commutators: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i G^\mu{}_\nu, \phi ] | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | [ i M_{\mu\nu}, \phi ] | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | [ i \bar M_{\mu\nu}, \phi ] | 0 \rangle = 0. \label{G-phi-CM} \end{aligned}\[ Now we wish to clarify how the dilatation and special conformal symmetry are spontaneously broken and what the corresponding Nambu-Goldstone bosons are. As for the dilatation, we find that \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i D, \sigma ] | 0 \rangle = 1, \label{VEV-D-sigma} \end{aligned}\[ which elucidates the spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the dilatation whose Nambu-Goldstone boson is just the massless dilaton \(\sigma(x)\). Regarding the special conformal symmetry, we find: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ i K^\mu, \partial_\nu \sigma ] | 0 \rangle = 2 \delta^\mu_\nu. \label{VEV-K-phi} \end{aligned}\[ This equation means that the special conformal symmetry is certainly broken spontaneously and its Nambu-Goldstone boson is the derivative of the dilaton. This interpretation can be also verified from the gravitational conformal algebra as follows: In the algebra ([\[Grav-conf\]](#Grav-conf){reference-type="ref" reference="Grav-conf"}) we have a commutator between \(P_\mu\) and \(K^\nu\): \]\begin{aligned}
=-2 i ( G^\rho{}_\rho-D ) \delta^\nu_\mu. \label{P-K} \end{aligned}\[ Let us consider the Jacobi identity: \]\begin{aligned}
, \sigma ] + [ [ K^\nu, \sigma ], P_\mu ] + [ [ \sigma, P_\mu ], K^\nu ] = 0. \label{Jacobi} \end{aligned}\[ Using the translational invariance of the vacuum in Eq. ([\[Trans-Vac\]](#Trans-Vac){reference-type="ref" reference="Trans-Vac"}) and the equation: \]\begin{aligned}
=-i \partial_\mu \sigma, \label{Jacobi2} \end{aligned}\[ and taking the VEV of the Jacobi identity ([\[Jacobi\]](#Jacobi){reference-type="ref" reference="Jacobi"}), we can obtain the VEV: \]\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | [ K^\nu, \partial_\mu \sigma ] | 0 \rangle &=&-2 \delta^\nu_\mu \langle 0 | [ G^\rho{}_\rho-D, \sigma ] | 0 \rangle \nonumber\\ &=&-2 i \delta^\nu_\mu, \label{VEV-Jacobi} \end{aligned}\(\) which coincides with Eq. ([\[VEV-K-phi\]](#VEV-K-phi){reference-type="ref" reference="VEV-K-phi"}) as promised. In summary, the \(GL(4)\) symmetry is spontaneously broken to the Poincaré symmetry whose Nambu-Goldstone boson is the graviton. The dilatation symmetry and the special conformal symmetry are also spontaneously broken and the corresponding Nambu-Goldstone bosons are the dilaton and the derivative of the dilaton, respectively. Interest here is that the Nambu-Goldstone boson associated with the special conformal symmetry is not an independent field in quantum gravity as in conformal field theory.
# Conclusion
In this article, we have presented a BRST formalism of a Weyl conformal gravity in Weyl geometry. The essential ingredient in our formalism is choosing suitable gauge conditions for the general coordinate invariance and the Weyl invariance. To implement two independent BRST transformations \(\delta_B, \bar \delta_B\) corresponding to the GCT and the Weyl transformation, respectively, i.e., \(\{ \delta_B, \bar \delta_B \} = 0\), one has to select the gauge conditions in such a way that the gauge condition for the GCT must be invariant under the Weyl transformation and that for the Weyl transformation must be so under the GCT. In addition, both gauge conditions must give us a gauge invariant measure in place of the conventional measure \(\sqrt{-g}\) and ensure the masslessness of the dilaton. Interestingly enough, such the gauge conditions are almost uniquely determined by the extended de Donder gauge condition ([\[Ext-de-Donder\]](#Ext-de-Donder){reference-type="ref" reference="Ext-de-Donder"}) for the GCT and the scalar gauge condition ([\[Scalar-gauge\]](#Scalar-gauge){reference-type="ref" reference="Scalar-gauge"}) for the Weyl transformation. With the other gauge conditions, we cannot construct the conserved currents for the extended choral symmetry, and without the choral symmetry we cannot ensure the gravitational conformal algebra such that we cannot prove the masslessness of the graviton and the dilaton. It is usually said that the gauge conditions do not change the physical content of a theory, but it is true that the existence of global symmetries seems to critically depend on the gauge choice as seen in the present study of Weyl conformal gravity. As for the future works, we would like to present a BRST formalism of quadratic conformal gravity ([\[L-QG\]](#L-QG){reference-type="ref" reference="L-QG"}) since this theory is the unique theory which is invariant under Weyl gauge transformation without matter fields.[^10] However, it is known that higher-derivative gravities such as quadratic gravity generally suffer from the existence of a massless or massive ghost which prevents a lower bound of energy at the classical level and violates the unitarity at the quantum level. Thus, we have to provide a recipe for nullifying such a ghost. Since our choral symmetry is a huge global symmetry including the gravitational conformal symmetry, it might give us a useful tool for attacking various important problems such as the ghost and renormalizability. The work is currently in progress with partial affirmative results. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:09', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14533', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14533'} |
# Introduction
We have developed biped robots with a passive dynamic walking mechanism. Bipedal walking is generated through the dynamic interactions among the body, neural system, and environment. McGeer developed a simple robot with passive legs attached to the hip and demonstrated stable walking while descending a slope without any energy input other than gravity. This suggested that passive locomotion plays a significant role in locomotion. Many studies have clarified the gait generation mechanism by using a simple compass model consisting of a body mass and two rigid bars as legs . In addition to completely passive models, models with controls derived from physiological studies to imitate the neural system have also been proposed . For example, Aoi et al. applied control based on a central pattern generator (CPG), which involves a rhythm resetting (i.e., phase resetting) function of human neural systems, to the compass model, and revealed the mechanism through which stable limit cycles are generated. The dynamics of both the lower limbs and the upper body play an important role in walking. Therefore, many researchers have investigated the effect of the upper body on locomotion. For example, in modeling studies, a rigid upper body has been attached to simple models such as a compass model, and its effect on gait has been investigated . Notably, the upper body is not a single rigid body but consists of multiple soft tissues. Therefore, many researchers have focused on the active or passive wobbling mass of the upper body, the flexible spine, and the pendulum-like oscillation of the arms . These studies showed that such elements compensated for the torque generated by legs, reduced the peak ground reaction force, increased the energy efficiency, and increased or decreased the stability. In our previous study, we showed that a passive wobbling mass connected to the upper body and oscillating in the vertical direction generates human-like time profiles of the ground reaction force while running using a simple model and a running biped robot . While the vertical wobbling mass plays a significant role in running, as shown in our previous study, a horizontal wobbling mass is also expected to play an important role in walking. For example, the horizontal wobbling mass is assumed to affect acceleration and deceleration in the horizontal direction and thus impact the energy efficiency of gait. Moreover, the horizontal movement of the upper body is supposed to affect the stability. During walking, the zero moment point (ZMP) always exists inside the support polygon . If the ZMP moves outside the support polygon, the walker will fall down. The horizontal movement of the body is assumed to play a significant role in the dynamics of the ZMP. Therefore, in this study, we investigate the effect of the horizontal dynamics of the upper body on the walking performance in terms of the energy efficiency and stability. To clarify this effect, based on a compass model, we propose a simple walking model with a horizontally oscillating mass point (i.e., a wobbling mass). Furthermore, we discuss the relationship between our simple model and actual walking.
# Model
We proposed a model based on a compass model equipped with a wobbling mass, as shown in Fig. [\[fig:model\]](#fig:model){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:model"}. The model consists of a hip, swing leg, stance leg, and wobbling mass. The legs have length \(L\) and are connected at the hip. Each foot can detect the touchdown timing on the ground. The tip of the stance leg is constrained on the ground and it behaves as a frictionless pin joint. The body mass \(m_1\) and leg mass \(m_2\) are assumed to be concentrated at the hip and tip, respectively. The wobbling mass \(m_3\) is connected to the hip through a prismatic spring \(K\). It can move only in the horizontal direction, and its height always equals the hip height. The whole upper body mass is \(M = m_1 + m_3\), where \(m_3 = \alpha M\) and \(m_1 = (1-\alpha)M\). The model is constrained on the \(x\)-\(y\) plane, with the walking direction along the \(x\)-axis. The model has three degrees of freedom, \(\theta_1\), \(\theta_2\), and \(X\), where \(\theta_1\) is the angle of the stance leg with respect to the vertical direction, \(\theta_2\) is the angle between the swing leg and the stance leg, and \(X\) is the distance between the hip and the wobbling mass. In this model, \(\theta_1\) and \(X\) are not controlled directly, whereas \(\theta_2\) is controlled by the actuator torque \(U\). We derived the dimensionless governing equations using the characteristic length \(L\) and characteristic time scale \(\tau = \sqrt{L/g}\). The state variables of the model are defined as \(q = [\theta_1,\theta_2,y]^\top\), where \(x = X/L\). The dimensionless equations of motion for the swing phase are given by \[\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}(q)\ddot{q} + h(q,\dot{q}) + v(q) = Q, \end{aligned}\] where \(\mathcal{M}(q)\) is the inertia matrix, \(h(q,\dot{q})\) is the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, \(v(q)\) is the conservative force, and \(Q = [0,u = U/MgL,0]^\top\) is the input torque. \(\dot{*}\) and \(\ddot{*}\) respectively indicate the first and second derivatives of variable \(*\) with respect to \(t/\tau\). The swing leg touches the ground when \(2\theta_1 = \theta_2\) is satisfied, at which time the swing and stance legs are immediately switched. The impulsive force occurs at the tip and results in a discontinuous change in the velocities From the law of conservation of angular momentum, the relationship between the states immediately before and after touch down is given by \[\begin{aligned}
^\top = H(q^-,\dot{q}^-), \end{aligned}\] where \(*^-\) and \(*^+\) indicate the states immediately before and after touchdown, respectively. The input torque \(u\) is determined based on a rhythmic signal oscillator (CPG) \[\begin{aligned}
u =-K_{\rm p}(\theta_2-\theta_2^{\rm d}(\gamma,\phi))-K_{\rm d}(\dot{\theta}_2-\dot{\theta}_2^{\rm d}(\gamma,\phi)), \end{aligned}\] where the desired angle \(\theta_2^{\rm d}(\gamma,\phi))\) is defined as \[\begin{aligned}
\theta_2^{\rm d}(\gamma,\phi) = \gamma(1+ \cos \phi)-S, \end{aligned}\] where \(\gamma\) and \(\phi\) are respectively the amplitude and phase of the oscillator, which has constant angular velocity \(\omega\). Further, \(S\) is the stride angle.
## Searching limit cycles
We defined the Poincaré section at the touchdown moment. A Poincaré map \(P\) was defined as \[\begin{aligned}
z_{n+1} = P(z_n), \end{aligned}\] where \(z_n\) is the state variable at the \(n\)th intersection with the Poincaré section. For a periodic gait, \(z^* = P(z^*)\) is satisfied, where \(z^*\) is a fixed point on the Poincaré section. We numerically searched for fixed points for periodic walking by using the `fsolve` function in MATLAB.
## Stability and risk of accidental falling
We used the eigenvalues of the linearized Poincaré map around the fixed point on the Poincaré section. The limit cycle is stable when all of the eigenvalues are inside the unit cycle in the complex plane (these magnitudes are less than 1). The ZMP is also an important measure to determine whether walking is stable or not. Because the moment is zero around the ZMP, the horizontal position \(p\) of the ZMP is given by \[\begin{aligned}
p = x_g-\frac{\ddot{x}_g}{g+\ddot{y}_g}y_g, \end{aligned}\] where \((x_g, y_g)\) are respectively the horizontal and vertical positions of the center of mass of the whole body, including the wobbling mass. Although our model does not have a support polygon because it has point tips, we used the distance \(d\) between the ground point and the ZMP as a criterion of the risk of accidental falling while walking.
## Energy efficiency
To evaluate the energy efficiency, we defined the cost of transport (CoT) as \[\begin{aligned}
{\rm CoT} = \frac{W}{mg\bar{v}} \end{aligned}\] where \(W\) is the work generated by the hip actuator during one stride, and \(\bar{v}\) is the averaged horizontal velocity of the center of mass for one gait cycle. A smaller CoT indicates better energy efficiency because the actuator expends lesser energy in one stride.
# Results
## Obtained solution groups
The periodic solutions obtained for various \(k=KL/Mg\) and \(\alpha\) values using the CPG frequency \(\omega = 3\) are shown in Fig. [\[fig:soltuons_distribution\]](#fig:soltuons_distribution){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:soltuons_distribution"}. The obtained solutions are divided into several qualitatively different discrete groups; these are denoted as solution groups A, B, C, D, and E according to the value ranges of \(k\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:soltuons_distribution\]](#fig:soltuons_distribution){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:soltuons_distribution"}. Regardless of the \(\omega\) value, the obtained solutions were classified into similar groups. Figure [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"} shows the behaviors of typical solutions of groups A, B, and C. The solutions exhibited qualitatively different behaviors, particularly in \(x\) and \(\dot{\theta}_1\). In the solutions of group A (Fig. [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"}a), the position of the wobbling mass \(x\) moves backward (\(x < 0\)) in the first half of the stance phase and forward (\(x > 0\)) in the second half. By contrast, in the solutions of group B (Fig. [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"}b), \(x\) moves forward in the first half of the stance phase and backward in the second half. In the solutions of group C (Fig. [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"}c), \(x\) oscillates two times during one gait cycle; this is regarded as a doubling of the oscillation of \(x\) in the solutions of group B. Similarly, in the solutions of groups D and E, \(x\) oscillates three and four times, respectively. Furthermore, \(\dot{\theta}_1\) has one, two, and three peaks in the solutions of groups A, B, and C, respectively. The time responses of the state variables in limit cycles in the traditional compass model, which does not include a wobbling mass, applied with the same controller (\(\omega = 3\)) are shown in Fig. [\[fig:variables_compass\]](#fig:variables_compass){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables_compass"}. The behavior of the solution is similar to that of the solutions of group A of the proposed model because \(\dot{\theta}_1\) has only one peak in one gait cycle. The state variables \(\theta_i, \dot{\theta}_i\) (\(i = 1,2\)) show approximately the same trajectory as that of the solutions of group A. No other qualitatively different solutions were obtained for the compass model without the wobbling mass.
## Walking performances
We evaluated the walking performances of the obtained solutions for various \(k\), \(\alpha\), and \(\omega\) values. Figure [\[fig:eigenValues\]](#fig:eigenValues){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eigenValues"} shows the maximum eigenvalues of the obtained limit cycles for various parameters. In a single solution group, a smaller \(k\) results in higher stability (Fig. [\[fig:soltuons_distribution\]](#fig:soltuons_distribution){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:soltuons_distribution"}). Further, the solutions become unstable when \(\alpha\) is too large. When \(\omega\) is large, the range of stable \(k\) widens. In comparison with the stability of the traditional compass model, the maximum eigenvalues of all solutions of the proposed model are larger (Fig. [\[fig:eigenValues\]](#fig:eigenValues){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eigenValues"}), indicating that the stability of the limit cycles is reduced by the effect of the wobbling mass. Figure [\[fig:ZMP\]](#fig:ZMP){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ZMP"} shows the distance \(d\) between the toe and ZMP for various parameters. \(d\) is small for (\(k,\alpha\)), where the stability of the solutions is high (maximum eigenvalue is small). The minimum value of \(d\) in the solutions of group A is larger than that in the solutions of groups B and C. Furthermore, \(d\) is larger when \(\alpha\) and \(\omega\) are large. In the solutions of group A, \(d\) is always larger than that of the traditional compass model. However, in some stable solutions of groups B and C at \(\omega = 2\), \(d\) is smaller than that of the traditional compass model. In addition, \(d\) decreases rapidly with decreasing \(k\). Moreover, the time profiles of \(d\) for three typical stable solutions in groups A, B, and C with \(\alpha = 0.3\) and \(\omega = 3\) are shown in Fig. [\[fig:time-d\]](#fig:time-d){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:time-d"}. \(d\) becomes positive in the first half of the stance phase and then slowly becomes negative. Although there is no qualitative difference in the time profiles of \(d\) among the solution groups, the solution with \(k = 0.5\), which is a solution of group A, exhibits the largest fluctuation. The CoT for various parameters is shown in Fig. [\[fig:CoT\]](#fig:CoT){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:CoT"}. The smaller the CoT, the higher is the energy efficiency. The CoT is small for (\(k,\alpha\)), where the limit cycles show high stability. The minimum CoT value for solutions of group A is larger than that for solutions of groups B and C. Furthermore, for larger \(\alpha\) and \(\omega\), the CoT is larger, indicating that the energy efficiency is lower. Although the CoT of the proposed model is always larger than that of the compass model for solutions of group A, it is smaller than that of the compass model for some stable solutions of groups B and C. Further, the CoT decreases rapidly as \(k\) decreases.
# Discussion
## Parameter dependency of the model
The obtained results revealed that the body spring constant \(k\) plays an important role in determining the solution group of the proposed compass model equipped with a wobbling mass. Depending on the spring constant, the solutions were obtained as some discrete groups (A, B, C, D, and E). Solutions in different groups exhibit qualitatively different behaviors, particularly in the time profiles of the wobbling mass position \(x\). In usual walking, the body receives a deceleration force from the ground in the first half of the stance phase and an acceleration force in the second half of the stance phase. In the solutions of group A, the wobbling mass moves backward in the first half of the stance phase and forward in the second half, as shown in Fig. [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"}a. In other words, it decelerates the body in the first half of the stance phase and accelerates the body in the second half. By contrast, in the solutions of group B, the wobbling mass moves forward in the first half of the stance phase and backward in the second half, exerting force in a direction that cancels the acceleration/deceleration of the body. Therefore, the large change in acceleration and deceleration of the body is suppressed by the wobbling mass in the solutions of group B. The existence of solution groups is assumed to be associated with the natural frequencies of the body spring. The solutions of group C have double the oscillation of the body spring than the solutions of group B. When the spring constant is further increased, the solutions of groups D and E are seen to involve three-and four-fold oscillations, respectively. Because the solutions are distributed in the \(k\)-\(\alpha\) plane with a repetitive structure, solutions with \(n\)-fold period are assumed to exist when the spring constant is further increased. Within a single group of solutions, a spring constant dependence was also observed. The smaller the spring constant and the more stable the solution, the better is the energy efficiency and the closer is the ZMP to the toes. When the solution is unstable, the actuator consumes a large amount of energy and undergoes large acceleration and deceleration, resulting in large ZMP fluctuations, poor energy efficiency, and poor stability. The mass ratio \(\alpha\) was also shown to affect the walking performance. If \(\alpha\) is too large or too small, few stable solutions are found, and the optimal value is approximately \(0.4 < \alpha < 0.5\) (Fig. [\[fig:soltuons_distribution\]](#fig:soltuons_distribution){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:soltuons_distribution"}). By contrast, the larger the \(\alpha\) value, the larger is the distance \(d\) between the ZMP and the toes and CoT (Figs. [\[fig:ZMP\]](#fig:ZMP){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ZMP"} and [\[fig:CoT\]](#fig:CoT){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:CoT"}). The results indicate that \(\alpha\) should not be too large when designing a robot with a wobbling mass. Furthermore, as the phase angular velocity \(\omega\) of the CPG increases, stable solutions are obtained over a wider range of \(k\) and \(\alpha\) values (Fig. [\[fig:eigenValues\]](#fig:eigenValues){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eigenValues"}). However, CoT and \(d\) also increase as \(\omega\) increases (Figs. [\[fig:ZMP\]](#fig:ZMP){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ZMP"} and [\[fig:CoT\]](#fig:CoT){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:CoT"}). Walking at a fast pace requires large amounts of energy, resulting in large acceleration, deceleration, and \(d\).
## Effect of wobbling mass
We obtained several qualitatively different solutions for the proposed model with a wobbling mass. The state variables in the limit cycles of solutions of group A showed a behavior similar to that of the traditional compass model (Figs. [\[fig:variables\]](#fig:variables){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables"} and [\[fig:variables_compass\]](#fig:variables_compass){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:variables_compass"}). By contrast, solutions of groups B and C exhibited behaviors different from those of the traditional compass model, with \(\dot{\theta}_1\) having multiple peaks and the wobbling mass undergoing oscillations. This behavior arose owing to the effect of the body spring that supports the wobbling mass. Furthermore, solutions of groups B and C had lower stability but better energy efficiency and a shorter distance between the ZMP and toe position than those of the traditional compass model. The stability of a limit cycle is a measure of how quickly it converges when a perturbation is applied in the limit cycle. The distance between the ZMP and the toes is a measure of whether or not a walker falls. In solutions of groups B and C, the motion of the ZMP was suppressed by the motion of the wobbling mass. Therefore, the risk of accidental falling while walking is expected to be reduced by the wobbling mass. In addition, because the acceleration and deceleration of the body are suppressed to be small, the work exerted by the actuators is also small; this is thought to improve the energy efficiency. These results indicate that the solutions of groups B and C use the wobbling mass to increase the energy efficiency and reduce the risk of accidental falling while walking.
## Relationship between model and actual walking
In this study, we investigated the effect of the dynamics of a horizontally wobbling mass on the walking performance. The results showed that passively oscillating elements of the upper body could reduce the risk of accidental falling and improve the energy efficiency. Therefore, the walking performance can be improved by attaching a horizontal wobbling mass to an actual walking biped robot. In human walking, the soft tissues of the upper body may behave as a wobbling mass. In the model solution, the displacement of the horizontal wobbling mass was approximately \(|x| = 0.05\); in other words, this displacement was only approximately 5% of the leg length. Because even such a small oscillation can affect the gait, soft tissues in humans may play the same role as the wobbling mass in our model. Furthermore, the results suggested the possibility of a passive walking assist device that oscillates back and forth. Some birds tend to swing their heads forward and backward while walking. Although birds reportedly perform such movements to stabilize their vision, it may have dynamic effects similar to those of the wobbling mass in the proposed model. These movements may also have the effect of increasing the efficiency and stability of gait.
# Conclusion
This study proposes a compass model with a wobbling mass that oscillates in the horizontal direction to reveal the influence of the horizontal motion of the upper body on walking. We searched the limit cycles of the model and their stability, energy efficiency, and risk of falling were investigated. Several qualitatively different limit cycles were obtained depending mainly on the spring constant that supports the wobbling mass. Specific types of solutions reduced the risk of falling and improved the energy efficiency, although the stability was decreased compared to those of the traditional compass model. Such results were due to the wobbling mass moving in the opposite direction to the upper body, thereby preventing large changes in acceleration and deceleration while walking. The obtained results also suggest that humans can use the soft tissues of the upper body to improve the gait performance.
## Limitations and future works
The proposed wobbling mass can move only in the horizontal direction. However, the human body has wobbling parts, including arms and internal organs, that can move like a pendulum or move vertically. Future works will aim to clarify the relationship between these different oscillating parts and the actual human body. We used a controller using a CPG for the proposed model, however, its effect of it has not been investigated except for the frequency. We would like to investigate the effect of the neural system on the body with a wobbling mass. Furthermore, the gait of the proposed model will be compared with that of humans, and changes in gait when the walking support device is actually attached to the human body will be investigated. Finally, the relationship with the gait of birds will be investigated, and the similarities and differences in the bipedal gait of humans and birds will be clarified. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:33', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14515', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14515'} |
# Introduction
Quandles are algebraic structures modeled on the *three* Reidemeister moves in classical knot theory. They have been used extensively to construct invariants of knots and links, see for example [@EN; @Joyce; @Matveev]. A Topological quandle is a quandle with a topology such that the quandle binary operation is compatible with the topology. Precisely, the binary operation is continous and the right multiplications are *homeomorphisms*. Topological quandles were introduced in where it was shown that the set of homomorphisms from the fundamental quandle of the knot to a topological quandle (called also the set of colorings) is an invariant of the knot. Equipped with the compact-open topology, the set of colorings is a topological space. In a foundational account about topological quandles was given. More precisely, the notions of ideals, kernels, units, and inner automorphism group in the context of topological quandle were introduced. Furthermore, modules and quandle group bundles over topological quandles were introduced with the purpose of studying central extensions of topological quandles. Continuous cohomology of topological quandles was introduced in and compared to the algebraic theories. Extensions of topological quandles were studied with respect to continuous 2-cocycles, and used to show differences in second cohomology groups for some specific topological quandles. Nontriviality of continuous cohomology groups for some examples of topological quandles was shown. In in the problem of classification of topological Alexander quandle structures, up to isomorphism, on the real line and the unit circle was investigated. In the author investigated quandle objects internal to groups and topological spaces, extending the well-known classification of quandles internal to abelian groups. In quandle modules over quandles endowed with geometric structures were studied. The author also gave an infinitesimal description of certain modules in the case when the quandle is a regular s-manifold (smooth quandle with certain properties). Since any finite \(T_1\)-space is discrete, the category of finite \(T_0\)-spaces was considered in, where the point set topological properties of finite spaces were investigated. The homeomorphism classification of finite spaces was investigated and some representations of these spaces as certain classes of matrices was obtained. This article arose from a desire to better understand the analogy of the work given in in the context of *finite topological* quandles. It turned out that: there is no \(T_0\)-topology on any finite connected (meaning one orbit under the action of the Inner group) quandle \(X\) that makes \(X\) into a topological quandle (Theorem [\[noT0\]](#noT0){reference-type="ref" reference="noT0"}). Thus we were lead to consider topologies on quandles with more than *one* orbit. It is well known that the category of Alexandroff \(T_0\)-spaces is equivalent to the category of *partially ordered sets* (posets). In our context, we prove that for a quandle \(X\) with more than one orbit, there exists a unique non trivial topology which makes right multiplications of \(X\) continuous maps (Proposition [\[Prop\]](#Prop){reference-type="ref" reference="Prop"}). Furthermore, we prove that if \(X\) be a finite quandle with two orbits \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) then any continuous poset on \(X\) is biparatite with vertex set \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) (Proposition [\[Bipar\]](#Bipar){reference-type="ref" reference="Bipar"}). This article is organized as follows. In Section [7](#Review){reference-type="ref" reference="Review"} we review the basics of topological quandles. Section [8](#Poset){reference-type="ref" reference="Poset"} reviews some basics of posets, graphs and some hierarchy of separation axioms. In Section [9](#Main){reference-type="ref" reference="Main"} the main results of the article are given. Section [10](#Computations){reference-type="ref" reference="Computations"} gives some explicit computations based on some computer softwares (Maple and Python) of quandles up to order *five*.
# Review of Quandles and Topological Quandles {#Review}
A quandle is a set \(X\) with a binary operation \(*\) satisfying the following three axioms:
1. For all \(x\) in \(X\), \(x*x=x,\)
2. For all \(y,z \in X\), there exists a unique \(x\) such that \(x*y=z\),
3. For all \(x,y,z \in X\), \((x*y)*z=(x*z)*(y*z)\).
These three conditions come from the axiomatization of the three Reidemeister moves on knot diagrams. The typical examples of quandles are: (i) Any Group \(G\) with conjugation \(x*y=y^{-1}xy\), is a quandle called the *conjugation quandle* and (ii) Any group \(G\) with operation given by \(x*y=yx^{-1}y\), is a quandle called the *core quandle*.\
Let \(X\) be a quandle. For an element \(y \in X\), left multiplication \(L_y\) and right multiplication \(R_y\) by an element \(y\) are the maps from \(X\) to \(X\) given respectively by \(L_y(x):=y*x\) and \(R_y(x)=x*y\). A function \(f: (X,*) \rightarrow (X,*)\) is a quandle *homomorphism* if for all \(x,y \in X, f(x * y)=f(x) * f(y)\). If furthermore \(f\) is a bijection then it it is called an *automorphism* of the quandke \(X\). We will denote by Aut(X) the automorphism group of \(X\). The subgroup of Aut(X), generated by the automorphisms \(R_x\), is called the *inner* automorphism group of \(X\) and denoted by Inn\((X)\). If the group Inn\((X)\) acts *transitively* on \(X\), we then say that \(X\) is connected quandle meaning it has only one orbit. Since we do not consider topological connectedness in this article, then through the whole article, the word connected quandle will stand for algebraic connectedness. For more on quandles refer to. Topological quandles have been investigated in. Here we review some basics of topological quandles.
It is clear that any finite quandle is automatically a topological quandle with respect to the discrete topology.
# Review of topologies on finite sets, Posets and Graphs {#Poset}
Now we review some basics of directed graphs, posets and \(T_0\) and \(T_1\) topologies.
An edge from a vertex \(x\) to a vertex \(y\) will be denoted symbolically by \(x < y\) and we will say that \(x\) and \(y\) are *adjacent*. The following is an example of a directed graph.
Given an order \(\leq\) on a set \(X\), we will denote \(x<y\) whenever \(x \neq y\) and \(x \leq y\). Finite posets \((X,\leq)\) can be drawn as directed graphs where the vertex set is \(X\) and an arrow goes from \(x\) to \(y\) whenever \(x \leq y\). For simplicity, we will not draw loops which correspond to \(x \leq x\). We will then use the notation \((X,<)\) instead of \((X,\leq)\) whenever we want to ignore the reflexivity of the partial order
Now we recall some basics about topological spaces called \(T_0\) and \(T_1\) spaces.
Obviously the property \(T_1\) implies the property \(T_0\). Notice also that this definition is equivalent to saying singletons are closed in \(X\). Thus a \(T_1\)-topology on a *finite* set is a discrete topology. Since any finite \(T_1\)-space is discrete, we will focus on the category of finite \(T_0\)-spaces. First we need some notations. Let \(X\) be a finite topological space. For any \(x \in X\), we denote \[U_x:=\textit{the smallest open subset of \(X\) containing \(x\)}\] It is well known that the category of \(T_0\)-spaces is isomorphic to the category of posets. We have \(x \leq y\) if and only if \(U_y \subseteq U_x\) which is equivalent to \(C_x \subset C_y\), where \(C_v\) is the complelement \(U_v^{c}\) of \(U_v\) in \(X\). Thus one obtain that \(U_x=\{w \in X;\; x \leq w\}\) and \(C_x=\{v \in X; \;v < x\}\). Under this correspondence of categories, the subcategory of finite posets is equivalent to the category of finite \(T_0\)-spaces.\
Through the rest of this article we will use the notation of \(x<y\) in the poset whenever \(x\neq y\) and \(x \leq y\).
# Topologies on non-connected Quandles {#Main}
As we mentioned earlier, since \(T_1\)-topologies on a finite set are discrete, we will focus in this article on \(T_0\)-topologies on *finite quandles*. A map on finite spaces is continuous if and only if it preserves the order. It turned out that on a finite quandle with a \(T_0\)-topology, left multiplications can not be continuous as can be seen in the following theorem
We have the following Corollary
In other words, right topological quandle means that for all \(x,y,z \in X\), \[x<y \implies x*z < y*z.\] and, since left multiplications are not necessarly bijective maps, left topological quandle means that for all \(x,y,z \in X\), \[x<y \implies z*x \leq z*y.\]
Thus Theorem [\[noT0\]](#noT0){reference-type="ref" reference="noT0"} leads us to consider quandles \(X\) that are not connected, that is \(X=X_1 \cup X_2\cup \ldots X_k\) as orbit decomposition, search for \(T_0\)-topology on \(X\) and investigate the continuity of the binary operation.
The \(T_0\)-topology in Proposition [\[Prop\]](#Prop){reference-type="ref" reference="Prop"} is precisely given by \(x<a\) for all \(x \in X_1.\)
Notice that Proposition [\[biComp\]](#biComp){reference-type="ref" reference="biComp"} can be generalized to \(n\)-paratite complete graph. The following table gives the list of right continuous posets on some even dihedral quandles. In the table, the notation \((a,b)\) on the right column means \(a<b.\)
Moreover, in table [7](#TTable1){reference-type="ref" reference="TTable1"}, for \(R_8\) the bijection \(f\) given by \(f(k)=3k-2\) makes the two posets isomorphic. The same bijection gives isomorphism between the first two posets of \(R_{10}\). The following Theorem characterizes non complete biparatite posets on dihedral quandles.
# Some Computer Calculations {#Computations}
In this section we give non-trivial right and left continuous posets on the finite quandles of order up to \(5\) based on Maple and Python computations. In the following tables we have excluded the trivial and connected quandles
It is clear that any finite quandle is automatically a topological quandle with respect to the discrete topology.
# Review of topologies on finite sets, Posets and Graphs {#Poset}
Now we review some basics of directed graphs, posets and \(T_0\) and \(T_1\) topologies.
An edge from a vertex \(x\) to a vertex \(y\) will be denoted symbolically by \(x < y\) and we will say that \(x\) and \(y\) are *adjacent*. The following is an example of a directed graph.
Given an order \(\leq\) on a set \(X\), we will denote \(x<y\) whenever \(x \neq y\) and \(x \leq y\). Finite posets \((X,\leq)\) can be drawn as directed graphs where the vertex set is \(X\) and an arrow goes from \(x\) to \(y\) whenever \(x \leq y\). For simplicity, we will not draw loops which correspond to \(x \leq x\). We will then use the notation \((X,<)\) instead of \((X,\leq)\) whenever we want to ignore the reflexivity of the partial order
Now we recall some basics about topological spaces called \(T_0\) and \(T_1\) spaces.
Obviously the property \(T_1\) implies the property \(T_0\). Notice also that this definition is equivalent to saying singletons are closed in \(X\). Thus a \(T_1\)-topology on a *finite* set is a discrete topology. Since any finite \(T_1\)-space is discrete, we will focus on the category of finite \(T_0\)-spaces. First we need some notations. Let \(X\) be a finite topological space. For any \(x \in X\), we denote \[U_x:=\textit{the smallest open subset of \(X\) containing \(x\)}\] It is well known that the category of \(T_0\)-spaces is isomorphic to the category of posets. We have \(x \leq y\) if and only if \(U_y \subseteq U_x\) which is equivalent to \(C_x \subset C_y\), where \(C_v\) is the complelement \(U_v^{c}\) of \(U_v\) in \(X\). Thus one obtain that \(U_x=\{w \in X;\; x \leq w\}\) and \(C_x=\{v \in X; \;v < x\}\). Under this correspondence of categories, the subcategory of finite posets is equivalent to the category of finite \(T_0\)-spaces.\
Through the rest of this article we will use the notation of \(x<y\) in the poset whenever \(x\neq y\) and \(x \leq y\).
# Topologies on non-connected Quandles {#Main}
As we mentioned earlier, since \(T_1\)-topologies on a finite set are discrete, we will focus in this article on \(T_0\)-topologies on *finite quandles*. A map on finite spaces is continuous if and only if it preserves the order. It turned out that on a finite quandle with a \(T_0\)-topology, left multiplications can not be continuous as can be seen in the following theorem
We have the following Corollary
In other words, right topological quandle means that for all \(x,y,z \in X\), \[x<y \implies x*z < y*z.\] and, since left multiplications are not necessarly bijective maps, left topological quandle means that for all \(x,y,z \in X\), \[x<y \implies z*x \leq z*y.\]
Thus Theorem [\[noT0\]](#noT0){reference-type="ref" reference="noT0"} leads us to consider quandles \(X\) that are not connected, that is \(X=X_1 \cup X_2\cup \ldots X_k\) as orbit decomposition, search for \(T_0\)-topology on \(X\) and investigate the continuity of the binary operation.
The \(T_0\)-topology in Proposition [\[Prop\]](#Prop){reference-type="ref" reference="Prop"} is precisely given by \(x<a\) for all \(x \in X_1.\)
Notice that Proposition [\[biComp\]](#biComp){reference-type="ref" reference="biComp"} can be generalized to \(n\)-paratite complete graph. The following table gives the list of right continuous posets on some even dihedral quandles. In the table, the notation \((a,b)\) on the right column means \(a<b.\)
Moreover, in table [7](#TTable1){reference-type="ref" reference="TTable1"}, for \(R_8\) the bijection \(f\) given by \(f(k)=3k-2\) makes the two posets isomorphic. The same bijection gives isomorphism between the first two posets of \(R_{10}\). The following Theorem characterizes non complete biparatite posets on dihedral quandles.
# Some Computer Calculations {#Computations}
In this section we give non-trivial right and left continuous posets on the finite quandles of order up to \(5\) based on Maple and Python computations. In the following tables we have excluded the trivial and connected quandles
::: | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:46', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14518', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14518'} |
# Introduction {#S:intro}
A decomposition of a graph \(G\) is a set \(\mathcal{H}=\{H_{1}, H_{2}, \ldots, H_{k}\}\) of subgraphs of \(G\) such that \(\bigcup_{i=1}^{k} E\left(H_{i}\right)=E(G)\) and \(E(H_{i}) \cap E(H_{j})=\emptyset\) for \(i \neq j\). Such a decomposition is called an \(\{H_{1}, H_{2}, \ldots, H_{k}\}\)-decomposition of \(G\). A factor in a graph \(G\) is a spanning (not necessarily connected) subgraph of \(G\). If a graph \(G\) can be decomposed into \(r_{i}\) factors isomorphic to the factor \(F_{i}\) for \(i\in [1, t]\), then we say that \(G\) has a \(\left\{F_{1}^{r_{1}}, F_{2}^{r_{2}}, \ldots, F_{t}^{r_{t}}\right\}\)-factorization. When each \(F_{i}\) factor consists of only \(n_{i}\) cycles for \(i\in [1, t]\), then we will call the \(F_{i}\) factor as a \(C_{n_{i}}\)-factor and call this factorization as a \(\left\{C_{n_{1}}^{r_{1}}, C_{n_{2}}^{r_{2}}, \ldots, C_{n_{t}}^{r_{t}}\right\}\)-factorization where each \(r_i\) is the number of \(C_{n_{i}}\)-factors. Graph factorizations constitute an important part of graph decomposition problems, especially when each factor is of regular degree. A \(k\)-regular spanning subgraph of \(G\) is called a \(k\)-factor of \(G\). It is easy to see that a 1-factor is a perfect matching in a graph and a 2-factor is either an Hamilton cycle or union of cycles. When it comes to 2-factorizations, there are two well-known graph factorization problems. One problem is the Oberwolfach Problem, which is posed by Ringel (see ) as a seating arrangement problem at a meeting in Oberwolfach. Given a conference venue with \(k_{i}\) round tables, each of which has \(m_{i}\) seats for \(i \in [1, t]\), it asks whether it is possible that each participant of the conference (say \(v\) many for odd \(v\)) sits next to (left or right) each other participant exactly once at the end of \(\frac{v-1}{2}\) nights. In graph theory language, it asks whether the complete graph \(K_v\) (or \(K_v-I\) in the spouse avoiding version for even \(v\)) decomposes into isomorphic \(2\)-factors where each \(2\)-factor consists of \(k_{i}\) \(m_{i}\)-cycles for each \(i \in [1, t]\). This problem is denoted by OP\((m_{1}^{k_{1}}, m_{2}^{k_{2}}, \ldots, m_{t}^{k_{t}})\). If there is only one type of cycle, say of length \(m\), in the factor, it can be denoted as OP\((m^{k})\), and its solution gives a \(\{C_{m}^{\frac{v-1}{2}}\}\)-factorization (or in short, a \(C_m\)-factorization) of \(K_v\). The Hamilton-Waterloo Problem is a generalization of the Oberwolfach Problem where there are two conference venues (one in Hamilton and one in Waterloo as one may guess) with different seating arrangements. This time each \(2\)-factor can be isomorphic to one of the given two 2-factors, say \(F_1\) or \(F_2\). If \(F_1\) consists of only \(m\)-cycles and \(F_2\) consists of only \(n\)-cycles, then the corresponding Hamilton-Waterloo Problem is called as the uniform version, and it is denoted by HWP\((v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) where \(r\) and \(s\) are the number of \(C_m\) and \(C_n\)-factors where \(r+s= \frac{v-1}{2}\), respectively. Having a solution to HWP\((v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) means that \(K_v\) has a \(\left\{C_{m}^{r}, C_{n}^{s}\right\}\)-factorization for all possible \(r\) and \(s\) in the range. The uniform versions of both problems are well-studied. In articles, authors solved completely the uniform version of Oberwolfach Problem. But the general case of the Oberwolfach Problem is still open. It is known that OP\(\left(3^{2}\right)\), OP\(\left(3^{4}\right)\), OP\((4,5)\) and OP\(\left(3^{2}, 5\right)\) have no solution. In, it is shown that OP\((m_{1}^{k_{1}}, m_{2}^{k_{2}}, \ldots, m_{t}^{k_{t}})\) has a solution for all \(n \leq 40\) with the above exceptions. As the first results on the uniform Hamilton-Waterloo Problem, Adams et al. showed that HWP\((v; m^{r},n^{s})\) has a solution for all \(v\leq 16\) and gave solutions for the small cases where \((m, n)\in \{(4,6),(4,8)\),\((4,16),(8,16),(3,5),\) \((3,15),(5,15)\}\). Cycle sizes \((3,4)\) and in general \((4,m)\) for odd \(m\) has been studied by several authors (see, ,, ). When \(m\) and \(n\) are odd, problem is almost completely solved in for odd \(v\). In, the problem is solved in the case of both \(m\) and \(n\) are even and \(v \equiv 0\) \((\bmod 4)\) except possibly when \(r=s=1\). When \(m\) and \(n\) are both even and \(v \equiv 2\) \((\bmod 4)\), this problem is solved by R. Haggkvist in whenever \(r\) and \(s\) are both even. Also, if \(m\) is even and \(m\vert n\), the problem is completely solved in. One generalization of these problems may be to consider sitting on the right and sitting on the left of a participant as separate entities. To represent such a sitting, one has to use directed cycles which led us to work on directed graphs. There are studies on the directed Oberwolfach Problem, and here we work on the directed version of the Hamilton-Waterloo Problem. We will denote a digraph \(D\) as \(D=(V(D),E(D))\), where \(V(D)\) is the vertex set and \(E(D)\) is the arc set. For clarity, edges and arcs are denoted by using curly braces and parentheses, respectively. For a simple graph \(G\), we use \(G^*\) to denote symmetric digraph with vertex set \(V(G^*)=V(G)\) and arc set \(E(G^*)=\bigcup_{\{x,y\}\in E(G)} \{(x,y),(y,x)\}\). Hence, \(K_v^*\) and \(K_{(x:y)}^*\) respectively denote the complete symmetric digraph of order \(v\) and the complete symmetric equipartite digraph with \(y\) parts of size \(x\). Also, \(\vv{C}_n\) will denote the directed cycle of order \(n\). Similarly, a set \(\{H_{1}, H_{2}, \ldots, H_{k}\}\) of arc-disjoint subdigraphs of a digraph \(D\) is called a decomposition of \(D\) if \(\bigcup_{i=1}^{k} E\left(H_{i}\right)=E(D)\). If a symmetric digraph \(G^*\) has decomposition which consists of \(r_{i}\) factors having directed \(n_{i}\) cycles for \(i\in [1, t]\), then we say \(G^*\) has a \(\left\{\vv{C}_{n_{1}}^{r_{1}}, \vv{C}_{n_{2}}^{r_{2}}, \ldots, \vv{C}_{n_{t}}^{r_{t}}\right\}\)-factorization. In the Directed versions of the Oberwolfach and the Hamilton-Waterloo Problems, \(K_v^*\) is decomposed into factors of directed cycles. Hence, the seating arrangement is done over \(v-1\) nights. If the sizes of directed cycles are \(m_{1}, m_{2}, \ldots, m_{t}\) and the number of each directed cycle \(m_i\) is \(k_i\) for \(i\in [1, t]\) where \(\sum_{i=1}^{t} k_i m_{i}=v\), the Directed Oberwolfach Problem is denoted by OP\(^{*}(m_{1}^{k_1}, \ldots, m_{t}^{k_t})\). Similarly, HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) denotes the uniform directed Hamilton-Waterloo Problem with directed cycle sizes \(m\) and \(n\). Again, if HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) has a solution, it means that \(K_{v}^{*}\) has a \(\{\vv{C}_{m}^{r}, \vv{C}_{n}^{s}\}\)-factorization for all \(r\) and \(s\) with \(r+s = v-1\). So far, the Directed Oberwolfach Problem has only partial results, but the Directed Hamilton-Waterloo Problem has not been studied yet up to our knowledge. As the first result on the Directed Oberwolfach Problem, OP\(^{*}(3^k)\) with an exception \(v= 6\) is solved by Bermond et al.. In, Bennett and Zhang solved OP\(^{*}(4^k)\) except for \(v=12\), and Adams and Bryant solved the remaining case OP\(^{*}(4^3)\) (in an unpublished paper "Resolvable directed cycle systems of all indices for cycle length 3 and 4"). In, Alspach et al. showed that \(K_{v}^{*}\) can be decomposed into \(\vv{C}_{m}\) cycles with exceptions \((v, m) \neq(4,4),(6,3),(6,6)\) if and only if \(m\vert v(v-1)\). They studied the problem in cases where \(v\) and \(m\) are even or odd, separately. Burgess and Sajna investigated the necessary and sufficient conditions for the Directed Oberwolfach Problem with cycles of length \(m\). In case \(m\) is even, they obtained complete solution and presented a partial solution for odd cycle size. Also, they conjectured that \(K_{2 m}^{*}\) admits a directed \(m\)-cycle factorization for odd \(m\) if and only if \(m \geq 5\). In, Burgess et al. proved this conjecture for \(m \leq 49\). The following theorem summarizes the results of Bermond et al. and Burgess and Sajna.
In, Shabani and Sajna proved that \(K_{v}^{*}\) has a \(\{\vv{C}_{2}, \vv{C}_{v-2}\}\)-factorization for \(v \geq 5\) and obtained the necessary and sufficient conditions for \(K_{v}^{*}\) to admit a \(\{\vv{C}_{m}, \vv{C}_{v-m}\}\)-factorization for \(2 \leq m \leq v-2\) and for odd \(v\). Also they showed that if \(v \geq 5\) and \(v \equiv 1,3, \text{or} \, 7 \pmod 8\), then \(K_{v}^{*}\) has a \(\{\vv{C}_{2}, \vv{C}_{2}, \ldots, \vv{C}_{2}, \vv{C}_{3}\}\)-factorization. In this paper, we follow the lead of the first results on the undirected Hamilton-Waterloo Problem and give solutions to the cases with directed cycle sizes \(\{(4,6),(4,8),(4,12),\allowbreak(4,16),(6,12),(8,16),(3,5),(3,15),(5,15)\}\). We first give the necessary conditions for a solution to HWP\(^{*}(v;m^{r}, n^{s})\) to exist. Second, we make the observation that for any given solution to HWP\((v; m^{r}, n^{s})\), one can construct a solution to HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{2r}, n^{2s})\) for odd \(v\). Then, we give two different constructions depending on the parity of the cycle sizes. For even cycle sizes, using our construction in Lemma [\[mainlemma\]](#mainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="mainlemma"} and the preliminary Lemmata required in the construction, HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) is solved for \((m, n)\in \{(4,6),(4,8),(4,12),\allowbreak(4,16),(6,12),(8,16)\}\) with \(r+s=v-1\). For odd cycle sizes, we give new a construction in Lemma [\[oddmainlemma\]](#oddmainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="oddmainlemma"} when \(v\) is odd. Using this construction and the results required for this construction, we state that HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) has a solution for \((m, n)\in \{(3,5),(3,15),(5,15)\}\) for odd \(v\). Constructions given in Lemma [\[mainlemma\]](#mainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="mainlemma"} and Lemma [\[oddmainlemma\]](#oddmainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="oddmainlemma"} are general constructions and they can be used to solve the problem also for the other cycle sizes as long as the necessary small cases can be found. Let's first start with the necessary conditions and move to the preliminary results then.
# Preliminary Results
If \(G_{1}\) and \(G_{2}\) are two edge disjoint graphs with \(V(G_1)=V(G_2)\), then we use \(G_{1} \oplus G_{2}\) to denote the graph on the same vertex set with \(E\left(G_{1} \oplus G_{2}\right)=E\left(G_{1}\right) \cup E\left(G_{2}\right)\). We will denote the vertex disjoint union of \(\alpha\) copies of \(G\) by \(\alpha G\). Finally, \(\overline{K}_{n}\) denotes the empty graph on \(n\) vertices. Let \(G\) and \(H\) be graphs, the wreath product of \(G\) and \(H\), denoted by \(G \wr H\), is the graph obtained by replacing each vertex \(x\) of \(G\) with a copy of \(H\), say \(H_x\), and replacing each edge \(\{x, y\}\) of \(G\) with the edges joining every vertex of \(H_{x}\) to every vertex of \(H_{y}\). In case \(G\) and \(H\) are both digraphs, then the \(G \wr H\) is the digraph obtained by replacing each vertex \(x\) of \(G\) with a copy of \(H\), say \(H_x\), and replacing each arc \((x, y)\) of \(G\) by an arc pointing from every vertex of \(H_{x}\) to every vertex of \(H_{y}\). For example, \(K_x^* \wr \overline{K}_{y} \cong K_{(y:x)}^*\), \(\overline{K}_{x}\wr K_y^* \cong xK_y^*\) and \(\overline{K}_{x} \wr \overline{K}_{y} \cong \overline{K}_{xy}\). If \(G\) has a \(\{H_1, H_2, \dots, H_k\}\)-decomposition, then \(G\wr \overline{K}_{n}\) has a \(\{H_1\wr \overline{K}_{n}, H_2\wr \overline{K}_{n}, \dots, H_k\wr \overline{K}_{n}\}\)-decomposition (see ). Also, for given three graphs \(G\), \(H\), and \(J\), \((G\wr H) \wr J=G\wr (H \wr J)\), that is, the wreath product is associative (see *p.* 185 of ). Note that, the above properties of the wreath product extend to digraphs. Let \(A\) be a finite additive group and let \(S\) be a subset of \(A\), where \(S\) does not contain the identity of \(A\). The Directed Cayley graph \(\vv{X}(A; S)\) on \(A\) with connection set \(S\) is digraph with \(V(\vv{X}(A; S))=A\) and \(E(\vv{X}(A; S))=\{(x,y):x,y\in A, y-x\in S\}\). The following observation is useful to reduce the number of cases when \(v\) is odd.
A solution for HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{2r}, n^{2s})\) is obtained from a solution of HWP\((v;\allowbreak m^{r}, n^{s})\) by taking two copies of each 2-factor and replacing each edge \(\{x, y\}\) with the arcs \((x, y)\) and \((y, x)\) in the two 2-factors. Similarly, we get an \(H^{*}\)-factorization of \(G^{*}\) from an \(H\)-factorization of \(G\).
The following lemma and theorem will be used in the solutions of even and odd cases of HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\), respectively.
# Even Cycle Sizes
We will make use of the following lemma in the first main construction of this paper.
Here we give the main construction that is used to obtain solutions for the even cycle size cases.
For \(m\geq 2\), we can represent \((\vv{C}_{m} \wr \overline{K}_{2}) \oplus mK_{2}^{*}\) as the directed Cayley graph over \(\mathbb{Z}_2\mathbb{\times Z}_m\) with the connection set \(S_2=\{(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)\}\) where \(K_{2}^{*}\) consists of edges between \((0,i)\) and \((1,i)\) for \(0\leq i \leq m-1\). For brevity, we will denote \((\vv{C}_{m} \wr \overline{K}_{2}) \oplus mK_{2}^{*}\) by \(\Gamma_m\).
Following Lemmata give the base blocks of our main construction. The cases when \(r=0\) and \(s=0\) of the Lemmata are obtained by Theorem [\[OP\]](#OP){reference-type="ref" reference="OP"} and the remaining factorizations for Lemma [\[lemma4.8\]](#lemma4.8){reference-type="ref" reference="lemma4.8"} and [\[lemma3\]](#lemma3){reference-type="ref" reference="lemma3"} are given in the Appendix.
# Odd Cycle Sizes
Here we first give the following main construction, and using this construction we prove that HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) has a solution for \((m,n)\in \{(3,5),(3,15),\allowbreak(5,15)\}\) with \(r+s=v-1\), where \(v\) is odd.
Although there are missing cases in here, we can still find a solution of HWP\(^{*}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) for \((m,n)\in \{(3,5),(3,15),(5,15)\}\) with \(r+s=v-1\) and for odd \(v>15\), using the main construction.
According to our best knowledge, our results are the first findings for the directed version of the Hamilton-Waterloo Problem. We have first examined the cases \((m, n)\in \{(4,6),(4,8),(4,16),(8,16),(3,5),(3,15),(5,15)\}\), as done in the first paper on the undirected Hamilton-Waterloo Problem by Adams et al.. We have also solved the problem for the cases \((m, n)\in \{(4, 12), (6, 12)\}\). In addition to studying odd cycle cases \(\{(3,5),(3,15),\allowbreak(5,15)\}\), we have also observed that if \(\mathrm{HWP}(v; m^{r}, n^{s})\) has a solution for odd \(v\), then \(\mathrm{HWP}^{*}(v; m^{2r},n^{2s})\) has a solution for the same \(r\) and \(s\) as well. Since there is no \(2\)-factorizations of \(K_v\) for even \(v\), we cannot arrive the similar observation when \(v\) is even and \(m, n > 2\). Our constructions given in Lemma [\[mainlemma\]](#mainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="mainlemma"} and Lemma [\[oddmainlemma\]](#oddmainlemma){reference-type="ref" reference="oddmainlemma"} can also be used to solve the problem for the other cycle sizes as long as the necessary small cases can be found. Now we can combine our results in the following main theorem. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:40', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14588', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14588'} |
null | null |
# Introduction {#sec:intro}
Different from full reference image quality assessment (IQA) (e.g. PSNR, SSIM), blind IQA computes quality directly from the distorted image without a clean image, which makes it suitable to user generated content, communication and other scenarios where clean sources are inaccessible. Traditional blind IQA approach relies on the regularity of natural scene statistics. Hand-crafted features are designed to measure the distortion of image from natural ones. More recently, deep CNN based blind IQA approaches have shown promising results as learned features are more powerful. And a typical inference of such IQA approach involves several steps: (1). a CNN backbone (e.g. VGG16) is applied to extract deep features from distorted images. (2). the deep features are spatially average pooled (SAP). (3). the averaged features are passed through a regression head (e.g. fully connected layers) to predict image quality. In some works, the CNN backbone is pretrained on other tasks (e.g. ImageNet) and finetuned with regression head. While for other works auxiliary tasks such as predicting residual or noise type are added. Despite variation in the training methods, the inference procedures are similar. Formally, denote distorted image as \(x' \in R^{H \times W}\), the feature from CNN as \(f(x) \in R^{C \times H' \times W'}\), then the output of spatially average pooling \(SAP(f(x'))\) can be seen as spatial mean of feature map. And the pooled feature map is further processed by head \(g\) to obtain the predicted quality \(d(x')\). \[d(x') = g(SAP(f(x'))) = \\ g(E[f(x')]) \label{eq:1}\] On the other hand, CNN based full-reference IQA methods also show promising results. As a representative method, LPIPS has been widely adopted as perceptual loss. Similar to blind IQA, LPIPS first computes the feature maps of reference image \(x\) and distorted image \(x'\) from a CNN \(f\). Then the square difference of those feature maps are computed and spatially averaged. Finally, the averaged results are processed by head \(g\) to predict the distance metric \(d(x, x')\). \[\begin{array}{l} d(x, x') = g(SAP((f(x)-f(x'))^2)) \\ \hspace{3.5em} = g(Var[f(x)-f(x')]) \end{array} \label{eq:2}\] Though both Eq. [\[eq:1\]](#eq:1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:1"} and Eq. [\[eq:2\]](#eq:2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:2"} adopt SAP over features, the statistics computed are different (See Fig. 1). For blind IQA, the SAP is used to compute \(1^{st}\) moment (mean) of feature map. For LPIPS, by assuming the residual has \(0\) mean, the SAP computes the \(2^{nd}\) central moment (variance) of feature map difference. For long, variance has been an important part of texture feature. Higher moments (e.g. skewness, kurtosis) are also applied in texture analysis. So a natural question to ask is, is spatial variance and other moments more representative than mean alone for image quality? In this paper, we propose spatial moment pooling (SMP) as an extension of SAP for blind IQA. Our approach of adding higher moments absorbs the arts of full reference IQA methods and texture features. To be specific, for each channel of feature map, those higher central moments (e.g. variance) are also computed and concatenated with \(1^{st}\) moment. It can be seen as a generalization of SAP (\(1^{st}\) moment). Moreover, we also propose a normalization approach to avoid numeric issue when back-propagating through higher order moments. Experimental results show that by simply replacing SAP with SMP, the performance of many deep CNN based IQA methods is significantly improved. Our method outperforms previous CNN approaches.
# Related Works {#sec:rw}
## Poolings and Deep CNN based blind IQA
Despite the pioneer of CNN based blind IQA adopts min-max-pooling, the majority of subsequent works adopts SAP (include global average pooling) as it has become popular in CNN. adopts a mixture of SAP and ROI Pooling. and resize input images or patches to fixed size instead, and do not use pooling for final features. On the other hand, covariance pooling has been shown effective for high level vision tasks. And the \(i = 2\) moment is the diagonal elements of a covariance matrix. However, to the best of our knowledge, neither moment pooling with \(i \ge 3\) nor moment pooling with \(i \ge 2\) for CNN based blind IQA has been studied.
# spatial Moment Pooling
## Background
First, we will conduct a brief review of moments, spatial average pooling (SAP) and its relationship to convolution. Given a random variable \(X \in R\), the \(i^{th}\) moment is defined as \(E[X^i], i = {1,..., n}\), and the \(i^{th}\) central moment is defined as \(E[(X-E[X])^i], i = {2,..., n}\). When \(i = 1\), the moment is the mean \(\mu\) of \(X\). When \(i = 2\), the central moment is the variance \(\sigma^2\) of \(X\). When \(i = 3\), the central moment is the unnormalized skewness of \(X\), which is defined as \(E[(\frac{X-E[X]}{\sigma})^3]\). When \(i = 4\), the central moment is the unnormalized kurtosis of \(X\), which is defined as \(E[(\frac{X-E[X]}{\sigma})^4]\). In practice, higher order moments with \(i > 4\) are less commonly used. On the other hand, given a feature map \(f \in R^{C \times H \times W}\), the SAP is the operation of computing the \(i = 1\) moment of values inside a pooling window to output the pooled feature map \(f_{SAP} \in R^{C \times H' \times W'}\) (See Fig. 2). Identical to the standard convolution operation, the outputted \(H'\times W'\) are determined by kernel size, stride, dilation and padding. In fact, for any pooling, the pooling window is the same as convolution windows given same settings. Besides, it can also be implemented as *im2col*. The difference between pooling and convolution is after extracting windows to row vectors. In convolution, the extracted rows \(r_i^T\) is dot produced with the flattened kernel. In SAP, the mean of \(r_i^T\) is computed. This makes SAP a special form of convolution with box filter kernel. However, the spatial moment pooling-n in Section 3.2 can not be generalized by convolution when \(n \ge 2\), since the \(i \ge 2\) moments are non-linear and convolution is linear.
## Spatial Moment Pooling-n / SMP(n)
Similarly, we define the spatial moment pooling-n/SMP(n) as the operation of computing the \(i = {1,..., n}\) central moments of a pooling window, concatenating the moments in channel dimension and outputting the pooled feature map \(f_{SMP} \in R^{nC \times H' \times W'}\) (See Fig. 2). The outputted spatial dimensions \(H'\times W'\) are the same as SAP. However, the channel size increases from \(C\) to \(nC\). SMP(n) is a generalization of SAP. In fact, SMP(1) is exactly the same as SAP. To intuitively show why SMP(n) might represent image quality better, we provide a toy example in Fig. 3. Two \(3 \times 3\) feature maps with same mean are shown. One is checkerboard pattern, and the other is solid color. Despite the same means, the \(i>1\) central moments differ.
## Numerical Difficulties and Normalization
Simply elevating SMP(n) to \(n \ge 3\) cases can cause severe difficulties when optimizing the network with back-propagation. As shown in Tab. [1](#tab:ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:ablation"}, the training fails and produces NaN results without proper normalization. So we propose to add layer normalization after \(i \ge 3\) central moments (See Fig. 2). The rationale of normalizing only \(i \ge 3\) is: (1) \(SMP(n), n \le 2\) works well without normalization. (2). only the statistical skewness and kurtosis are normalized with \(\sigma\), the \(\mu\) and \(\sigma\) themselves are defined as unnormalized. The reason why to choose layer normalization over others is purely empirical. The comparison of normalization methods is detailed in Section 4.2.2. In the following sections, SMP(n) with \(n \ge 3\) implies that \(i \ge 3\) moments are layer normalized if no normalization method is specified.
# Experiments
## Experiment Setup
The SMP(n) is implemented in Pytorch 1.8, all the experiments are conducted on a computer equipped with Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 and 8 Nivida TitanXp GPU. Basically, there are two types of datasets for blind IQA. One is large scale, natural datasets without reference images (such as Koniq-10k ). The other is small scale synthetic datasets with reference images and distortion information (such as LIVE ). Usually the methods designed for small dataset use reference and distortion as auxiliary task, which makes them not applicable to large datasets. Consequently, the sota methods for large and small dataset are different. For large dataset, we choose Koniq-10k as dataset, and HyperIQA as current CNN-based sota method. For small dataset we choose LIVE and CSIQ as dataset, and NemgIQA as sota method. For ablation study we use Koniq-10k as dataset, and a variant of NIMA as base method. The dataset splits are the same as and.
## Ablation Study
For baseline, we use an contemporary variant of classical NIMA. As proposed and described in, this variant incorporates the multi-scale spatial average feature maps. To simplify notations in the tables below, we denote this variant as NIMA. We only conduct experiments on VGG16 backbone, as the selection of CNN backbone selection is beyond scope of this paper.
[\[tab:ablation\]]{#tab:ablation label="tab:ablation"}
### Effects of spatial moment pooling
Tab. [1](#tab:ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:ablation"} shows that NIMA-SMP(2) evidently improves both PLCC and SRCC over NIMA. NIMA-SMP(4)-LayerNorm outperforms SMP(2) despite the gain is not as significant as NIMA-SMP(2) over NIMA. Therefore, we stop at \(n=4\) considering that the moments higher than \(4^{th}\) are also uncommon in statistics.
### Effects of high moments normalization
Simply expanding NIMA-SMP(2) to NIMA-SMP(4)-w/o-Norm brings optimization difficulties. After several iterations of training, the network produces constant results regardless of input images. And such constant output has \(0\) variance, which further leads to NaN in PLCC and SRCC (See Tab. [1](#tab:ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:ablation"}). Although the NaNs can be eliminated by introducing batch normalization to \(3^{rd}, 4^{th}\) moments, it also brings performance decay. The NIMA-SMP(4)-BatchNorm is outperformed by NIMA-SMP(2), this confirms the observations that batch normalization negatively effects scale sensitive low level computer vision tasks. Empirically, we find that max and layer normalization enable NIMA-SMP(4) to produce a reasonably superior performance over NIMA-SMP(2). Moreover, NIMA-GMP(4)-LayerNorm outperforms all other methods.
### Effects of network parameter increment
The SMP's increment of parameters is of no significance. For NIMA-SMP(4)-LayerNorm, the parameter is increased by \(0.20\%\) compared with NIMA. And for NIMA-SMP(2), the parameter increase is only \(0.068\%\). Moreover, the increment of MACs is also minimal. The base model NIMA has a MAC of 635.23G Mac (multiply-accumulate) when input image size is 3x1920x1080. Replacing last pooling with SMP-(2) brings 1.02M extra Macs. And replacing last pooling with SMP-(4) brings 3.03M extra Macs. To fully verify the performance improvement comes from SMP instead of parameter increase, we build NIMA-Vanillia-Large with much wider and deeper regression head. NIMA-Vanillia-Large increases the parameter by as much as \(14.74\%\). However, Tab. [1](#tab:ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:ablation"} shows that the performance does not benefit from naïve model size increase.
## Results on Large Dataset
[\[tab:large\]]{#tab:large label="tab:large"}
For HyperIQA on large dataset, we replace the global average pooling in local distortion aware modules. Moreover, we set the learning rate to \(1 \times 10^{-5}\). The other settings are identical to original HyperIQA. Results in Tab. [2](#tab:large){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:large"} show that such modification effectively improves HyperIQA, and a new sota of deep CNN based approaches is made. Notably, our HyperIQA-SMP(2) and SMP(4) are superior to the transformer with single scale image patch input. Although the multi-scale transformer outperforms SMP methods, it is not quite fair to draw comparison as MUSIQ-Multiscale requires multi-scale image inputs. We also note that it is possible to train HyperIQA-SMP(n) with multi-scale image crops, but the effects of single-scale and multi-scale input is beyond the scope of this paper.
## Results on Small Dataset
[\[tab:my-table\]]{#tab:my-table label="tab:my-table"}
For NemgIQA on small dataset, it is not possible to directly replace last global average pooling with SMP. Unlike other works with regression performed after pooling, NemgIQA uses a single channel output point wise convolution as regression head followed by pooling. To make SMP usable, we swap the order of pooling and regression back. To be speficic, we change last layers to: point wise regression with output channels 4, pooling, and an affine layer to produce score. The other settings are the same as original NemgIQA. Due to such modifications NemgIQA-SMP(1) is not strictly equivalent to original NemgIQA. However, experimental results show that this does not effects its performance. Moreover, the NemgIQA-SMP(2) and NemgIQA-SMP(4) significantly improve PLCC and SRCC compared to both original NemgIQA and NemgIQA-SMP(1), and achieve sota performance on LIVE and CSIQ datasets.
# Conclusion
In this paper, we extend spatial average pooling (SAP) into spatial moment pooling (SMP) by adding higher order moments. Moreover, we propose an optimization friendly normalization trick that makes training of network with SMP stable. Experimental results show that replacing SAP with SMP significantly improves deep CNN-based blind IQA approaches. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:32', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14583', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14583'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
Regression analysis is a statistical method widely used in many research areas. It is often specified as the normal linear model, where coefficients are linear and the error term follows the normal distribution to simplify the analysis. This specification aims to approximate the state of nature and is often useful in prediction as well as discussing the causality. Among its specifications, variable selection is a central issue in the regression analysis. It is important to select an appropriate set of explanatory variables partly because of the cost of collecting variables. Many methods are proposed for the variable selection problem. In relation to the variable selection problem, this paper focuses on the superset model problem where the linear regression model selects a larger set of variables than the state of nature does (see the example provided in Section [2](#sec:Superset model problem){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Superset model problem"}). The linear regression model tends to choose smaller set of variables when the state of nature is linear in variables due to its least squares loss. However, the nonlinear relationship is more likely and this case may lead to select a larger set of variables, which will be a deficiency of the linear regression model in terms of the data collection cost. To evaluate the superset model problem, this paper utilizes the Bayesian approach, which provides a measure of uncertainty in the form of the posterior probability, and proposes an alternative model that will select the true set of variables when the sample size is large. This paper is organized as follows. Section [2](#sec:Superset model problem){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Superset model problem"} describes the superset model problem by providing an example. Bayes' Theorem is adopted to evaluate the problem in Section [3](#sec:Superset model probability){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Superset model probability"} and two regression models for specification is explained in Section [4](#sec:Two regression models){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Two regression models"}. Section [6](#sec:Illustrative examples){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Illustrative examples"} illustrates the proposed method and discusses its robustness.
# Superset model problem {#sec:Superset model problem}
Suppose the continuous response \(Y\) is associated with the set of explanatory variables \(\bm{x}_{T}\). We are interested in its mean response conditional on \(\bm{x}_{T}\). We often assume it to be linear in practice, although it is more likely to be nonlinear in reality. To this end, a regression model is specified as \[\begin{aligned}
Y = \phi (\bm{x}_{T}) + \epsilon, \end{aligned}\] where \(\epsilon\) is an additive error term with mean zero. The functional form \(\phi (\cdot)\), the distribution of the error term, and the true set of explanatory variables \(\bm{x}_{T}\) are all unknown. With this model, we make statistical inferences about the conditional mean response by estimating \(\phi (\cdot)\) and the set of explanatory variables. Among problems about how this regression model should be specified, the variable selection problem focuses on the set of explanatory variables, based on the dataset \(\{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}\). When the set of explanatory variables is known, the best fit is \(E (Y \mid \bm{x}_{T})\) as an estimator of \(\phi (\bm{x}_{T})\) when we use the squared loss. The linear regression model assumes \(E (Y \mid \bm{x}_{T}) = \bm{x}_{T}^{\prime} \bm{\beta}\), where \(\bm{\beta}\) is referred to as the regression coefficient vector. However, in general, \(E (Y \mid \bm{x}_{T}) \neq \bm{x}_{T}^{\prime} \bm{\beta}\), contrary to the linearity assumption. For example, suppose \[\begin{aligned}
E \left[ Y \mid x_{T} \right] = \alpha + \beta_{1} x_{T} + \beta_{2} x_{T}^{2}. \end{aligned}\] The linear regression with \((x_{T}, x_{U})\), where \(x_{U} = x_{T}^{2}\), is better than the one with \(x_{T}\), even though the latter selects the true explanatory variable. This is an example of the superset model problem. On the other hand, when \(x_{U}^{\prime}\) is independent of \(x_{T}\), \(x_{U}^{\prime}\) should not be included in the regression to improve the fit. Above example suggests that the knowledge about association among variables is helpful to examine the superset model problem, and hence the variable selection problem. One approach is to estimate the conditional expectation without linearity and compare it with the one implied by the normal linear model. If they are different and the latter contains more explanatory variables, there exists the superset model problem. Because the dataset at hand is limited, it is difficult to determine whether the superset model problem exists or not. Rather, it is evaluated in a probability form, which is explained in the next section.
# Superset model probability {#sec:Superset model probability}
Suppose \(\mathcal{M}^{\ast}\) is the set of explanatory variables in the state of nature, which is \(\bm{x}_{T}\) when vectorized, and is known for a moment. The current dataset \(\{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}\) is generated from this state of nature independently for each observation \(i\) and is observed. Depending on a context, the normal linear model with \(\mathcal{M}^{\ast}\) explanatory variables would be a choice if it approximates the state of nature well. In this case, we do not have the superset model problem. On the other hand, a normal linear model with a set of explanatory variables indexed by \(\mathcal{M} (\neq \mathcal{M}^{\ast})\) is chosen independent of the state of nature in terms of, say, prediction, where the superset model problem arises when \(\mathcal{M} \supset \mathcal{M}^{\ast}\). However, the state of nature is usually unknown and is inferred from the dataset. The uncertainty from inference is evaluated by the posterior probability over possible subsets of explanatory variables. This paper approximates it by assuming a flexible model (see Model [\[eq:alternative model\]](#eq:alternative model){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:alternative model"} in Section [4](#sec:Two regression models){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Two regression models"}), which is denoted by \(H_{0}\). Then, this posterior probability is calculated via Bayes' theorem, which is given by \[\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left( \mathcal{M}^{\ast} \mid \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}, H_{0} \right) = \frac{ \Pr \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n} \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}, H_{0}, \mathcal{M}^{\ast} \right) \Pr \left( \mathcal{M}^{\ast}, H_{0} \right) }{ \sum_{ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} } \Pr \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n} \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}, H_{0}, \tilde{\mathcal{M}} \right) \Pr \left( \tilde{\mathcal{M}}, H_{0} \right) }. \label{eq:conditional superset model probability} \end{aligned}\] The numerator is the cross product of the marginal likelihood and the prior belief about the set of explanatory variables. When the latter is uniform (which is assumed in the following empirical illustration), the posterior probability is proportional to the marginal likelihood under \(H_{0}\). When uncertainty from inference about the normal linear model is evaluated from its posterior probability as well, the overall superset model probability is calculated as \[\begin{aligned}
\sum_{ \mathcal{M} } \sum_{ \mathcal{M}^{\ast} } I \left( \mathcal{M} \supset \mathcal{M}^{\ast} \right) \Pr \left( \mathcal{M}^{\ast} \mid \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}, H_{0} \right) \Pr \left( \mathcal{M} \mid \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{n}, H_{1} \right), \label{eq:superset model probability} \end{aligned}\] where \(H_{1}\) denotes the normal linear model (see Model [\[eq:normal linear regression model\]](#eq:normal linear regression model){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:normal linear regression model"} in Section [4](#sec:Two regression models){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Two regression models"}). We note that the above expression is general enough to include variables (the response and explanatory variables) that are continuous or discrete. The next section specifies two regression models \(H_{0}\) and \(H_{1}\), where the response is assumed to be continuous for simplicity.
# Two regression models {#sec:Two regression models}
First, the linear regression model \(H_{1}\) is specified as \[\begin{aligned}
Y_{i} = \alpha + \bm{x}_{i}^{\prime} \bm{\beta} + \eta_{i}, \quad \eta_{i} \sim N \left( 0, \lambda^{2} \right), \label{eq:normal linear regression model} \end{aligned}\] where each of explanatory variables is standardized without loss of generality. To estimate model parameters \(( \bm{\beta}, \lambda^{2} )\), the hyper-\(g\) prior is assumed. Then, the marginal likelihood is analytically tractable (see for example). Second, the model \(H_{1}\) that is alternative to the normal linear regression model is specified as \[\begin{aligned}
Y_{i} = \theta_{x} + \epsilon_{x}, \quad \epsilon_{x} \sim N \left( 0, \sigma_{x}^{2} \right), \label{eq:alternative model} \end{aligned}\] given \(\bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}\). The normal error assumption is made because we have no other knowledge on it. Further, it makes the conditional mean estimation simpler, in terms of the number of parameters as well as the computational burden. The main purpose of this semiparametric model is to estimate conditional means of \(Y\) in a flexible manner, and to captures the association between \(Y\) and \(\bm{x}\) in the state of nature as the sample size increases, which can be viewed as as an extreme of the local constant estimation (see, e.g., for the local estimation). When the dataset is fixed, the covariate space becomes sparse as its dimension gets larger. Then, the marginal likelihood (hence, the superset model probability) under this alternative model is strongly dependent on the prior specification. To mitigate this influence, this paper takes the \(m\)-fold cross-validation approach, which is described in details below. The dataset is randomly divided into \(m\) groups. One of them is used as the test set, while the remainings belong to the training set. Explanatory variables in the training set are standardized, and those in the test set are standardized by the mean and standard deviation of those in the training set. Let \(\mathcal{D}_{0}\) and \(\mathcal{D}_{1}\) be the sets of identification numbers of observations which belongs to the training and test sets. More precisely, \(\mathcal{D}_{0} = \{ i \mid \text{the \)i\(-th observation is in the training set}, i = 1, \dots, n \}\) and \(\mathcal{D}_{1} = \{ i \mid \text{the \)i\(-th observation is in the test set}, i = 1, \dots, n \}\). Given a choice of \(\mathcal{D}_{0}\) and \(\mathcal{D}_{1}\), we construct the prior and conditional marginal likelihood in the following manner. The prior for \(\theta_{x}\) in the model [\[eq:alternative model\]](#eq:alternative model){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:alternative model"} given \(\bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}\) and \(i \in \mathcal{D}_{1}\) is assumed as \[\begin{aligned}
\theta_{x} &\sim N \left( \hat{y}_{x}, t_{x}^{2} \right), \intertext{where \(\hat{y}_{x} = \bar{y}_{0} + \bm{x}^{\prime} \hat{\bm{\beta}}\), \(\bar{y}_{0}\) is the sample average of the response in \(\mathcal{D}_{0}\),} \hat{\bm{\beta}} &= \left( \sum_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \bm{x}_{i} \bm{x}_{i}^{\prime} \right)^{-1} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \bm{x}_{i} y_{i}, \\ t_{x}^{2} &= s^{2} \left\{ \frac{1}{ | \mathcal{D}_{0} | } + \bm{x}^{\prime} \left( \sum_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \bm{x}_{i} \bm{x}_{i}^{\prime} \right)^{-1} \bm{x} \right\}, \\ \quad s^{2} &= \frac{1}{| \mathcal{D}_{0} |-k-1} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \left( y_{i}-\bar{y}_{0}-\bm{x}_{i}^{\prime} \hat{\bm{\beta}} \right)^{2}. \end{aligned}\] When \(\mathcal{A}\) is a set, \(| \mathcal{A} |\) is the number of elements in the set. This prior is constructed from classical OLS estimates of mean and standard deviation of \(Y_{i}\) at \(\bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}\). By using the prior that is obtained from the linear model and using the model that focuses on the local observation, we are able to combine local and global information. It is possible to use other estimates such as corresponding normal linear regression estimates under the hyper-g prior. However, to keep the methodology as simple as possible, we take the above prior specification. Then, we are able to derive the marginal likelihood conditional on the nuisance parameter \(\sigma_{x}^{2}\) for each \(\bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}\) and \(i \in \mathcal{D}_{1}\). Let \(\mathcal{M}_{x} = \{ i \mid \bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}, i \in \mathcal{D}_{1} \}\) and \(n_{x} = | \mathcal{M}_{x} |\). Then, this conditional marginal likelihood is given by \[\begin{aligned}
&m^{\ast} \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} } \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} }, \sigma_{x}^{2}, \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \right) \notag \\ &\hspace{100pt} = \frac{ \tau_{x} }{ \left( \sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_{x} \right)^{n_{x}} t_{x} } \exp \left\{-\frac{1}{2} \left(-\frac{\mu_{x}^{2}}{\tau_{x}^{2}} + \frac{ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x}} y_{i}^{2} }{\sigma_{x}^{2}} + \frac{ \hat{y}_{x}^{2} }{ t_{x}^{2} } \right) \right\}, \\ &\mu_{x} = \tau_{x}^{2} \left( \frac{ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x}} y_{i} }{\sigma_{x}^{2}} + \frac{\hat{y}_{x}}{t_{x}^{2}} \right), \quad \tau_{x}^{2} = \left( \frac{n_{x}}{\sigma_{x}^{2}} + \frac{1}{t_{x}^{2}} \right)^{-1}. \end{aligned}\] The full Bayes analysis specifies a prior on the nuisance parameter \(\sigma_{x}^{2}\) as well. However, because the data are sparse at \(\bm{x}\), how we specify it affects the (unconditional) marginal likelihood much. To mitigate this problem, this paper takes the empirical Bayes approach. The marginal likelihood for each \(\bm{x}_{i} = \bm{x}\) is the conditional marginal likelihood \(m^{\ast} ( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} } \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} }, \sigma_{x}^{2}, \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} )\) maximized over \(\sigma_{x}^{2}\). More precisely, \[\begin{aligned}
m \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} } \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} }, \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \right) \equiv \max_{\sigma_{x}^{2}} m^{\ast} \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} } \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} }, \sigma_{x}^{2}, \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \right). \end{aligned}\] See the next section for this maximization in details. By multiplying it over all distinct \(\bm{x}\) in \(\mathcal{D}_{1}\) and taking the geometric mean, we have the marginal likelihood for \(\mathcal{D}_{1}\) per one observation, which is given by \[\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \prod_{\bm{x}} m \left( \{ Y_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} } \mid \{ \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{M}_{x} }, \{ y_{i}, \bm{x}_{i} \}_{i \in \mathcal{D}_{0}} \right) \right\}^{1 / | \mathcal{D}_{1} |}. \end{aligned}\] The geometric mean is to take care of different sample sizes in different test sets. Finally, we repeat above process until all \(m\) groups are used as the test set and calculate above marginal likelihood for each test group selection. After averaging \(m\) marginal likelihoods, we raise it to the power of \(n\) to obtain the final marginal likelihood estimate for the model [\[eq:alternative model\]](#eq:alternative model){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:alternative model"}. The robustness of this approach is of interest. The approach will be more useful if we know the upper and lower bounds of the superset model probability under \(H_{0}\) when its specification changes. Two points are discussed regarding robustness. First, we consider the robustness to the number of folds in the cross-validation. In the following empirical analysis in Section [6](#sec:Illustrative examples){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Illustrative examples"}, we use the 10-fold cross-validation. When the number of folds changes from 2 to 15, we see the resulting probability does not change much with the diabetes dataset (see Figure [\[fig:Superset model probability change as the number of folds increases.\]](#fig:Superset model probability change as the number of folds increases.){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Superset model probability change as the number of folds increases."}). Second, it is important to check the robustness to the prior. One approach would be to use the \(\epsilon\)-contamination class prior (see Section 4.7.4 of ), and to show the sensitivity of the marginal likelihood, which will be our future analysis.
# Maximize the marginal likelihood {#sec:Maximize the marginal likelihood}
Letting \[\begin{aligned}
\bar{y}_{x} &= \frac{1}{n_{x}} \sum_{i \in G_{x}} y_{i}, \\ s_{y}^{2} &= \frac{1}{n_{x}} \sum_{i \in G_{x}} \left( y_{i}-\bar{y}_{x} \right)^{2} = \frac{1}{n_{x}} \sum_{i \in G_{x}} y_{i}^{2}-\bar{y}_{x}^{2}, \end{aligned}\] the local marginal likelihood function is characterized by Theorem [\[thm:maximization\]](#thm:maximization){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:maximization"}.
See Appendix [\[sec:Proof of Theorem\]](#sec:Proof of Theorem){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Proof of Theorem"} for its proof. Table [1](#table:Local marginal likelihood function){reference-type="ref" reference="table:Local marginal likelihood function"} summarizes the result.
By this theorem, we are able to set a value of \(\sigma_{x}^{2}\) to maximize the marginal likelihood, instead of placing a prior on it.
# Illustrative example {#sec:Illustrative examples}
The diabetes data (see ) are used to illustrate our method. This dataset contains 442 observations. For the analysis below, we use the logarithm of the diabetes progression measure as the response and use remaining 10 variables are used as exlanatory variables. The proposed method is applied, and the superset model probability for this dataset with 10-fold cross-validation is estimated to be 22.37%. As discussed by, the diabetes dataset seems to be collected from least two different sources. In particular, the precision of two explanatory variables (the blood pressure and fourth blood serum measurement) consists of a mix of finer and coarser observations. When the data are divided into two groups by this precision, suggests these two datasets have different characteristics. This conclusion is also confirmed in terms of the superset model probability. When the dataset for observations with finer variables is used, it is 22.19%. When, on the other hand, that for observations with coarser variables is used, it is 10.72%. The superset model problem is more likely to occur with the former dataset than the latter one, which would be due to the difference in characteristics of these two datasets. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:41', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14555', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14555'} |
null | null |
# [\[sec:Introduction\]]{#sec:Introduction label="sec:Introduction"}Introduction
Spin qubits in silicon QDs are a leading candidate for building a quantum processor due to their long coherence time , potential scalability , and compatibility with advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology . Nowadays, as an alternative to implementing electron spin resonance (ESR) , EDSR allows the single-qubit and two-qubit operation fidelities to achieve 99.9% and 99% , respectively, and the qubit operation temperature to be higher than one kelvin To implement EDSR in Si-MOS QDs, a rectangular micromagnet is deployed to generate an inhomogeneous magnetic field and an oscillating electric field resonant with the Larmor frequency is coupled to drive the spin states . During the conventional EDSR measurement, electrons in Si-MOS QD are confined in the quantum well, leading to a relatively small electric dipole . Driving single spin rotations in a DQD close to zero detuning where electron shuttles between two QDs, the \"flopping-mode\" EDSR increases the electric dipole in QDs . A longer coherent time with the same Rabi oscillation frequency (\(f_\text{Rabi}\)) has been achieved in Si/SiGe spin qubits by applying flopping-mode EDSR . However, the small size and complicated distribution of Si-MOS QDs make cavity readout of a flopping-mode spin qubit in Si-MOS QDs difficult . Here, we demonstrate a flopping-mode single spin qubit in a Si-MOS QD via the Elzerman single-shot readout . By setting gate voltages carefully, a DQD with appropriate tunneling rates of an electron from QD to reservoir is formed underneath adjacent electrodes. Then, we measure the EDSR spectra, Rabi oscillation, and Ramsey fringes. Due to the large \(2t_\text{c}\), an s-shape spin resonance frequency (\(f_\text{q}\)) as a function of the energy detuning (\(\varepsilon\)) is formed. We achieve an order of magnitude improvement in \(f_\text{Rabi}\) around \(\varepsilon=0\) with the spin dephasing times (\(T_2^*\)) virtually constant. Furthermore, we tune the gate voltage and reproduce the flopping-mode EDSR in another DQD.
# [\[sec:Results and discussion\]]{#sec:Results and discussion label="sec:Results and discussion"}Results and discussion
## [\[sec:experimental setup\]]{#sec:experimental setup label="sec:experimental setup"}Experimental setup
Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(a) shows a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a typical Si-MOS DQD device , nominally identical to the one measured in this paper. The device was fabricated on a natural silicon substrate with a 70 nm thick isotopically enriched \(^{28}\)Si epi layer which has a residual \(^{29}\)Si concentration of 60 ppm. The overlapping aluminum gate electrodes were fabricated using multi-layer gate stack technology . The electrons are confined in the potential wells under gates LP and BC by selectively tuning gates LP, LB, and BC, as shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(d). The DQD is formed under gates LP and BC, and the corresponding charge stability diagram is shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(b). Gate MC and BC create a channel under gate LL for electrons to tunnel between the electron reservoir and the DQD. The tunneling rate can be modified by \(V_\text{LB}\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(e). The energy difference induced by the external magnetic field, \(B_\text{ext}=605\ \text{mT}\), is the main component of the Zeeman splitting between spin states. The micromagnet is fully magnetized, leading to a transverse magnetic field gradient of \(\sim0.1\ \text{T}/\upmu\text{m}\) . The total magnetic field at the device \(B_\text{tot}\) is the sum of \(B_\text{ext}\) and the stray field from the micromagnet. As a result, \(\sim20\) GHz microwave pulses are applied to the LP gate via a cryogenic bias-tee to manipulate the qubit.The device is in a dilution refrigerator at an electron temperature of \(T_\text{e}=182.7\pm0.6\) mK (see Appendix [\[sec:lever arm and electron temperature\]](#sec:lever arm and electron temperature){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:lever arm and electron temperature"}); the energy gap between \(\ket{\uparrow}\) and \(\ket{\downarrow}\) allows us to read the electron spin state via the Elzerman readout.
## [\[sec:Elzerman readout\]]{#sec:Elzerman readout label="sec:Elzerman readout"}Elzerman readout
Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(b) is the charge stability diagram of the DQD underneath gate LP and BC, measured by differentiating \(I_\text{S}\). \((N_1, N_2)\) on the diagram labels the corresponding number of electrons. The black arrow illustrates the direction of \(\varepsilon\) between the DQD. Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(c) shows the charge stability diagram of the DQD as a function of \(V_\text{LP}\) and \(V_\text{LB}\). Here, we use gate LB to modify the tunneling rate of electrons from the DQD to the electron reservoir. Unfortunately, the bias-tee connected to gate LP doesn't work well, so we have to apply the two-step pulse sequence for the qubit operation to gate LB instead, as shown by points R (Read) and C (Control) in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(c). We confirm the transitions between points R and C are adiabatic, as discussed in Appendix [\[sec: adiabatic\]](#sec: adiabatic){reference-type="ref" reference="sec: adiabatic"}. The spin state is read out via state-to-charge conversion at point R, and a \(\ket{\downarrow}\) electron is selectively loaded for initialization in the next pulse sequence . By using sequences of selective EDSR pulses with microwave burst of frequency (\(f_\text{s}\)) at point C, we perform single-qubit operations on the electron. We then measure the single spin qubit along the charge transition line from (0, 0)--(0, 1) to (0, 0)--(1, 0); in the meanwhile, \(\varepsilon\) increases from--4.5 to 4.5 meV (see Appendix [\[sec: calculation\]](#sec: calculation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec: calculation"} for details).
## [\[sec:detection of EDSR\]]{#sec:detection of EDSR label="sec:detection of EDSR"}Detection of EDSR
By selectively setting \(V_\text{LP}\), \(V_\text{LB}\), and \(V_\text{BC}\), we perform the Elzerman readout with a fixed tunneling rate of around 150 Hz for the \(\ket{\downarrow}\) at the exact transition line from (0, 0)--(0, 1) to (0, 0)--(1, 0). Then, we apply the two-step pulse sequence to gate LB. A frequency-chirped microwave pulse (\(\pm2\) MHz around a microwave frequency (\(f_\text{s}\)) lasts \(100\ \upmu\)s) is applied to gate LP before the end of Control phase . If the frequency sweeps through \(f_\text{q}\), the electron spin will end up in the excited state \(\ket{\uparrow}\). So, it's convenient for us to identify \(f_\text{q}\). We measure the probability of electron in the excited state (\(P_\uparrow\)) as a function of \(f_\text{s}\) from 300 repeated single-shot readouts. For each \(\varepsilon\), we repeat the measurement ten times, as mentioned in Ref. . The EDSR spectra over \(\varepsilon\) from--4.5 to 4.5 meV are shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(b). There is an s-shape curve of increased \(P_\uparrow\) with a wide of 4 MHz of \(f_\text{s}\), where \(f_\text{q}\) is located. We calibrate the peak of \(P_\uparrow\) and extract \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). To explain this s-shape feature, we focus on the Hamiltonian \(H\) of a single-electron DQD system on the basis \((\ket{L\downarrow},\ \ket{L\uparrow},\ \ket{R\downarrow},\ \ket{R\uparrow})\) : \[H=\frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{matrix} -\varepsilon-E_\text{z1} &-2t_\text{SO} & 2t_\text{c} & 0\\ -2t_\text{SO} &-\varepsilon+E_\text{z1} & 0 & 2t_\text{c}\\ 2t_\text{c} & 0 & \varepsilon-E_\text{z2} & 2t_\text{SO}\\ 0 & 2t_\text{c} & 2t_\text{SO} & \varepsilon+E_\text{z2} \end{matrix} \right). \label{eq:1}\] Here, \(2t_\text{c}\) is the interdot tunnel coupling, \(E_\text{z}=(E_\text{z1}+E_\text{z2})/2\) is the averaged Zeeman energy, \(\delta E_\text{z}=(E_\text{z1}-E_\text{z2})/2=g\mu_\text{B} b_\text{z}\) is the Zeeman energy difference generated by longitudinal magnetic field difference (\(b_\text{z}\)) of the micromagnet, \(2t_\text{SO}=g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\) is the synthetic spin-orbit coupling induced by transverse magnetic field difference (\(b_\bot\)). The eigenenergies of this four-level system are shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(a). The avoided crossings at \(\varepsilon=0\) are generated by 2\(t_\text{c}\). By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in Eq. ([\[eq:1\]](#eq:1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:1"}), we calculate the energy splitting (\(E_\text{s}\)) between the lowest two energy levels as \(f_\text{q}\equiv E_\text{s}/h\). \(\delta f_\text{q}\equiv 2\delta E_\text{z}/h\) for far detuned limits is shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). For the limitation of a small inhomogeneous field, i.e., \(b_{\bot,z}\ll |\Omega-E_\text{z}|\), where \(\Omega=\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+4t_\text{c}^2}\), \(E_\text{s}\) is corrected by the transverse and longitude gradient to second and first order, respectively : \[E_\text{s}\simeq E_\text{z}-\frac{E_\text{z}^2-\varepsilon^2}{2E_\text{z}(\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2)}(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot)^2-\frac{\varepsilon}{\Omega}g\mu_\text{B}b_\text{z}. \label{eq:energy splitting}\] We plot \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) for \(B_\text{ext}=\) 605 and 604 mT in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). By fitting \(f_\text{q}\) with Eq [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"}, we obtain \(2t_\text{c}=914\pm167\) and \(705\pm40\) GHz for \(B_\text{ext}=\) 605 and 604 mT, respectively. The difference between the fitted splitting energy (\(\Delta E_\text{z}=19.790\pm0.002-19.760\pm0.001\) GHz) equals the difference between the external magnetic fields (\(g\mu_\text{B}\Delta B_\text{ext}/h=28\) MHz).
## [\[sec: Rabi oscillation\]]{#sec: Rabi oscillation label="sec: Rabi oscillation"}Rabi oscillation and Ramsey fringes
After calibrating \(f_\text{q}\), we now use a microwave burst with a specific burst time (\(\uptau_\text{B}\)) to manipulate the spin qubit. First, we measure \(P_\uparrow\) as an \(f_\text{s}\) function with a fixed \(\uptau_\text{B}\). Each point of \(P_\uparrow\) in the curve is averaged from 300 repeated single-shot readouts. Then, we repeat the measurement ten times and sum \(P_\uparrow\) with \(\uptau_\text{B}\) changing from 0 to 4 \(\upmu\)s. The Rabi chevron is plotted in Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(a). Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(b) illustrates \(f_\text{Rabi}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\). \(f_\text{Rabi}\) is symmetric about \(\varepsilon=0\) and is an order of magnitude larger at \(\varepsilon=0\) than the far detuned position. For every \(\varepsilon\), the corresponding \(f_\text{Rabi}\) are extracted by fitting Rabi oscillation with the function \(P_\uparrow(\uptau_\text{B})=A\cdot\text{exp}(-\uptau_\text{B}/T_2^\text{Rabi})\cdot\text{sin}(f_\text{Rabi}\uptau_\text{B})\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(c). For a typical flopping-mode EDSR process, Ref gives \(f_\text{Rabi}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) for small \(b_\bot\): \[f_\text{Rabi} = 4t_\text{c}^2g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\Omega_\text{c}/\Omega|\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2|. \label{eq:f_rabi}\] Here, \(\Omega_\text{c}=edE_\text{ac}/\hbar\) is the Rabi frequency in the standard EDSR regime, proportional to the distance between the two QDs \(d\), and the electric field with amplitude \(E_{ac}\). \(\Omega_\text{c}=15.8\pm0.8\) GHz can be obtained from the relevant result of \(f_\text{Rabi}\) with a \(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\) estimated as 0.232 \(\upmu\)eV . We estimate \(d\sim\) 0.02 \(\upmu\)m, thus \(b_\bot\sim0.1\) T/\(\upmu\)m\(\cdot 0.02\) \(\upmu\)m \(=2\) mT. Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(c) shows details of Rabi oscillations for different \(\varepsilon\). \(f_\text{Rabi}=1.262\pm0.002\) MHz is achieved in the top panel. When \(\varepsilon\) increases to 1.5 and 3 meV, the Rabi frequencies decrease to \(f_\text{Rabi}=0.429\pm0.003\) and \(f_\text{Rabi}=0.135\pm0.003\) MHz, respectively. By fitting Rabi oscillation to an exponentially decaying sinusoid, \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=6.46\pm0.39\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=0\), \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=5.53\pm0.57\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=1.5\ \text{meV}\) and \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=7.01\pm0.82\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=3\ \text{meV}\) are obtained. \(T_2^\text{Rabi}\) is stable when \(\varepsilon\) increases. We next measure \(T_2^*\) for different \(\varepsilon\) through Ramsey fringes. In Fig. [\[fig:4\]](#fig:4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:4"}(a), the Ramsey fringes are measured in the same way as the Rabi chevron. The averaged \(T_2^*=0.42\ \upmu\)s for \(\varepsilon=\) 0 and 1.5 meV is acquired as shown in Fig. [\[fig:4\]](#fig:4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:4"}(b). In Ref. , the lowest \(E_\text{s}\) occurs near \(\varepsilon=0\), leading to a sweet spot for spin dephasing. However, in our device \(2t_\text{c}\gg E_\text{z}\), the second-order item \(\frac{E_\text{z}^2-\varepsilon^2}{2E_\text{z}(\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2)}(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot)^2\) in Eq [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"} is suppressed, and there is no sweet spot around \(\varepsilon=0\). Here, we attribute the enhancement of the quality factor (\(Q\equiv2T_2^\text{Rabi}f_\text{Rabi}\)) to the improvement of the electric dipole, since \(b_\text{z}\) is constant during the measurement. As mentioned in Ref. , longitudinal magnetic field difference \(b_\text{z}\) is one of the most relevant sources for dephasing in our device.
## [\[sec:Reproduce\]]{#sec:Reproduce label="sec:Reproduce"}Reproduce the results
Finally, we try to reproduce the flopping-mode EDSR in another DQD. Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(a) shows the charge stability diagram of another DQD under gate LP and RP. We tune the tunneling rate of the electron from QDs to the reservoir under LL with gate LP and BC. By selectively tuning \(V_\text{LB}\), \(V_\text{LP}\) and \(V_\text{BC}\), we can change \(\varepsilon\) from--1 to 0.6 meV. Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(b) shows the corresponding EDSR spectra and \(2t_\text{c}=71\pm10\) GHz is obtained by fitting the solid curve to Eq. [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"}. As shown in Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(b), \(P_\uparrow\) background rises when \(\varepsilon<0\), and the peak of the increased \(P_\uparrow\) becomes invisible on the EDSR spectra. Here, we select \(f_\text{q}\) manually and mark them with the yellow triangles. Some points around \(\varepsilon=0\) deviate from the curve without affecting the overall s-shape feature. However, the weak visibility makes subsequent measurements around \(\varepsilon=0\) of Rabi oscillation and Ramsey fringes impossible.
# [\[sec:Conclusion\]]{#sec:Conclusion label="sec:Conclusion"}Conclusion
In summary, we demonstrate the flopping-mode EDSR in a Si-MOS quantum dot through the Elzerman single-shot readout. We construct a DQD with \(2t_\text{c}\sim800\) GHz under adjacent electrodes by selectively setting gate voltages. We extract an s-shape \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) from the EDSR spectra. Then, we improve \(f_\text{Rabi}\) an order of magnitude from \(0.135\pm0.003\) to \(1.262\pm0.002\) MHz by increasing the electric dipole. And \(T_2^*\) and \(T_2^\text{Rabi}\) remains around \(0.42\pm0.03\) \(\upmu\)s and \(6.46\pm0.39\) \(\upmu\)s, respectively. Moreover, we have shown that the s-shape EDSR spectra holds in another DQD with \(2t_\text{c}\sim70\) GHz. We anticipate that flopping-mode EDSR will have better performance in the heavy hole regime or phosphorus donor qubits , and will perform two-qubit operation in the future.
# [\[sec:Introduction\]]{#sec:Introduction label="sec:Introduction"}Introduction
Spin qubits in silicon QDs are a leading candidate for building a quantum processor due to their long coherence time , potential scalability , and compatibility with advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology . Nowadays, as an alternative to implementing electron spin resonance (ESR) , EDSR allows the single-qubit and two-qubit operation fidelities to achieve 99.9% and 99% , respectively, and the qubit operation temperature to be higher than one kelvin To implement EDSR in Si-MOS QDs, a rectangular micromagnet is deployed to generate an inhomogeneous magnetic field and an oscillating electric field resonant with the Larmor frequency is coupled to drive the spin states . During the conventional EDSR measurement, electrons in Si-MOS QD are confined in the quantum well, leading to a relatively small electric dipole . Driving single spin rotations in a DQD close to zero detuning where electron shuttles between two QDs, the \"flopping-mode\" EDSR increases the electric dipole in QDs . A longer coherent time with the same Rabi oscillation frequency (\(f_\text{Rabi}\)) has been achieved in Si/SiGe spin qubits by applying flopping-mode EDSR . However, the small size and complicated distribution of Si-MOS QDs make cavity readout of a flopping-mode spin qubit in Si-MOS QDs difficult . Here, we demonstrate a flopping-mode single spin qubit in a Si-MOS QD via the Elzerman single-shot readout . By setting gate voltages carefully, a DQD with appropriate tunneling rates of an electron from QD to reservoir is formed underneath adjacent electrodes. Then, we measure the EDSR spectra, Rabi oscillation, and Ramsey fringes. Due to the large \(2t_\text{c}\), an s-shape spin resonance frequency (\(f_\text{q}\)) as a function of the energy detuning (\(\varepsilon\)) is formed. We achieve an order of magnitude improvement in \(f_\text{Rabi}\) around \(\varepsilon=0\) with the spin dephasing times (\(T_2^*\)) virtually constant. Furthermore, we tune the gate voltage and reproduce the flopping-mode EDSR in another DQD.
# [\[sec:Results and discussion\]]{#sec:Results and discussion label="sec:Results and discussion"}Results and discussion
## [\[sec:experimental setup\]]{#sec:experimental setup label="sec:experimental setup"}Experimental setup
Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(a) shows a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a typical Si-MOS DQD device , nominally identical to the one measured in this paper. The device was fabricated on a natural silicon substrate with a 70 nm thick isotopically enriched \(^{28}\)Si epi layer which has a residual \(^{29}\)Si concentration of 60 ppm. The overlapping aluminum gate electrodes were fabricated using multi-layer gate stack technology . The electrons are confined in the potential wells under gates LP and BC by selectively tuning gates LP, LB, and BC, as shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(d). The DQD is formed under gates LP and BC, and the corresponding charge stability diagram is shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(b). Gate MC and BC create a channel under gate LL for electrons to tunnel between the electron reservoir and the DQD. The tunneling rate can be modified by \(V_\text{LB}\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(e). The energy difference induced by the external magnetic field, \(B_\text{ext}=605\ \text{mT}\), is the main component of the Zeeman splitting between spin states. The micromagnet is fully magnetized, leading to a transverse magnetic field gradient of \(\sim0.1\ \text{T}/\upmu\text{m}\) . The total magnetic field at the device \(B_\text{tot}\) is the sum of \(B_\text{ext}\) and the stray field from the micromagnet. As a result, \(\sim20\) GHz microwave pulses are applied to the LP gate via a cryogenic bias-tee to manipulate the qubit.The device is in a dilution refrigerator at an electron temperature of \(T_\text{e}=182.7\pm0.6\) mK (see Appendix [\[sec:lever arm and electron temperature\]](#sec:lever arm and electron temperature){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:lever arm and electron temperature"}); the energy gap between \(\ket{\uparrow}\) and \(\ket{\downarrow}\) allows us to read the electron spin state via the Elzerman readout.
## [\[sec:Elzerman readout\]]{#sec:Elzerman readout label="sec:Elzerman readout"}Elzerman readout
Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(b) is the charge stability diagram of the DQD underneath gate LP and BC, measured by differentiating \(I_\text{S}\). \((N_1, N_2)\) on the diagram labels the corresponding number of electrons. The black arrow illustrates the direction of \(\varepsilon\) between the DQD. Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(c) shows the charge stability diagram of the DQD as a function of \(V_\text{LP}\) and \(V_\text{LB}\). Here, we use gate LB to modify the tunneling rate of electrons from the DQD to the electron reservoir. Unfortunately, the bias-tee connected to gate LP doesn't work well, so we have to apply the two-step pulse sequence for the qubit operation to gate LB instead, as shown by points R (Read) and C (Control) in Fig. [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"}(c). We confirm the transitions between points R and C are adiabatic, as discussed in Appendix [\[sec: adiabatic\]](#sec: adiabatic){reference-type="ref" reference="sec: adiabatic"}. The spin state is read out via state-to-charge conversion at point R, and a \(\ket{\downarrow}\) electron is selectively loaded for initialization in the next pulse sequence . By using sequences of selective EDSR pulses with microwave burst of frequency (\(f_\text{s}\)) at point C, we perform single-qubit operations on the electron. We then measure the single spin qubit along the charge transition line from (0, 0)--(0, 1) to (0, 0)--(1, 0); in the meanwhile, \(\varepsilon\) increases from--4.5 to 4.5 meV (see Appendix [\[sec: calculation\]](#sec: calculation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec: calculation"} for details).
## [\[sec:detection of EDSR\]]{#sec:detection of EDSR label="sec:detection of EDSR"}Detection of EDSR
By selectively setting \(V_\text{LP}\), \(V_\text{LB}\), and \(V_\text{BC}\), we perform the Elzerman readout with a fixed tunneling rate of around 150 Hz for the \(\ket{\downarrow}\) at the exact transition line from (0, 0)--(0, 1) to (0, 0)--(1, 0). Then, we apply the two-step pulse sequence to gate LB. A frequency-chirped microwave pulse (\(\pm2\) MHz around a microwave frequency (\(f_\text{s}\)) lasts \(100\ \upmu\)s) is applied to gate LP before the end of Control phase . If the frequency sweeps through \(f_\text{q}\), the electron spin will end up in the excited state \(\ket{\uparrow}\). So, it's convenient for us to identify \(f_\text{q}\). We measure the probability of electron in the excited state (\(P_\uparrow\)) as a function of \(f_\text{s}\) from 300 repeated single-shot readouts. For each \(\varepsilon\), we repeat the measurement ten times, as mentioned in Ref. . The EDSR spectra over \(\varepsilon\) from--4.5 to 4.5 meV are shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(b). There is an s-shape curve of increased \(P_\uparrow\) with a wide of 4 MHz of \(f_\text{s}\), where \(f_\text{q}\) is located. We calibrate the peak of \(P_\uparrow\) and extract \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). To explain this s-shape feature, we focus on the Hamiltonian \(H\) of a single-electron DQD system on the basis \((\ket{L\downarrow},\ \ket{L\uparrow},\ \ket{R\downarrow},\ \ket{R\uparrow})\) : \[H=\frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{matrix} -\varepsilon-E_\text{z1} &-2t_\text{SO} & 2t_\text{c} & 0\\ -2t_\text{SO} &-\varepsilon+E_\text{z1} & 0 & 2t_\text{c}\\ 2t_\text{c} & 0 & \varepsilon-E_\text{z2} & 2t_\text{SO}\\ 0 & 2t_\text{c} & 2t_\text{SO} & \varepsilon+E_\text{z2} \end{matrix} \right). \label{eq:1}\] Here, \(2t_\text{c}\) is the interdot tunnel coupling, \(E_\text{z}=(E_\text{z1}+E_\text{z2})/2\) is the averaged Zeeman energy, \(\delta E_\text{z}=(E_\text{z1}-E_\text{z2})/2=g\mu_\text{B} b_\text{z}\) is the Zeeman energy difference generated by longitudinal magnetic field difference (\(b_\text{z}\)) of the micromagnet, \(2t_\text{SO}=g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\) is the synthetic spin-orbit coupling induced by transverse magnetic field difference (\(b_\bot\)). The eigenenergies of this four-level system are shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(a). The avoided crossings at \(\varepsilon=0\) are generated by 2\(t_\text{c}\). By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in Eq. ([\[eq:1\]](#eq:1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:1"}), we calculate the energy splitting (\(E_\text{s}\)) between the lowest two energy levels as \(f_\text{q}\equiv E_\text{s}/h\). \(\delta f_\text{q}\equiv 2\delta E_\text{z}/h\) for far detuned limits is shown in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). For the limitation of a small inhomogeneous field, i.e., \(b_{\bot,z}\ll |\Omega-E_\text{z}|\), where \(\Omega=\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+4t_\text{c}^2}\), \(E_\text{s}\) is corrected by the transverse and longitude gradient to second and first order, respectively : \[E_\text{s}\simeq E_\text{z}-\frac{E_\text{z}^2-\varepsilon^2}{2E_\text{z}(\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2)}(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot)^2-\frac{\varepsilon}{\Omega}g\mu_\text{B}b_\text{z}. \label{eq:energy splitting}\] We plot \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) for \(B_\text{ext}=\) 605 and 604 mT in Fig. [\[fig:2\]](#fig:2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2"}(c). By fitting \(f_\text{q}\) with Eq [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"}, we obtain \(2t_\text{c}=914\pm167\) and \(705\pm40\) GHz for \(B_\text{ext}=\) 605 and 604 mT, respectively. The difference between the fitted splitting energy (\(\Delta E_\text{z}=19.790\pm0.002-19.760\pm0.001\) GHz) equals the difference between the external magnetic fields (\(g\mu_\text{B}\Delta B_\text{ext}/h=28\) MHz).
## [\[sec: Rabi oscillation\]]{#sec: Rabi oscillation label="sec: Rabi oscillation"}Rabi oscillation and Ramsey fringes
After calibrating \(f_\text{q}\), we now use a microwave burst with a specific burst time (\(\uptau_\text{B}\)) to manipulate the spin qubit. First, we measure \(P_\uparrow\) as an \(f_\text{s}\) function with a fixed \(\uptau_\text{B}\). Each point of \(P_\uparrow\) in the curve is averaged from 300 repeated single-shot readouts. Then, we repeat the measurement ten times and sum \(P_\uparrow\) with \(\uptau_\text{B}\) changing from 0 to 4 \(\upmu\)s. The Rabi chevron is plotted in Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(a). Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(b) illustrates \(f_\text{Rabi}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\). \(f_\text{Rabi}\) is symmetric about \(\varepsilon=0\) and is an order of magnitude larger at \(\varepsilon=0\) than the far detuned position. For every \(\varepsilon\), the corresponding \(f_\text{Rabi}\) are extracted by fitting Rabi oscillation with the function \(P_\uparrow(\uptau_\text{B})=A\cdot\text{exp}(-\uptau_\text{B}/T_2^\text{Rabi})\cdot\text{sin}(f_\text{Rabi}\uptau_\text{B})\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(c). For a typical flopping-mode EDSR process, Ref gives \(f_\text{Rabi}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) for small \(b_\bot\): \[f_\text{Rabi} = 4t_\text{c}^2g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\Omega_\text{c}/\Omega|\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2|. \label{eq:f_rabi}\] Here, \(\Omega_\text{c}=edE_\text{ac}/\hbar\) is the Rabi frequency in the standard EDSR regime, proportional to the distance between the two QDs \(d\), and the electric field with amplitude \(E_{ac}\). \(\Omega_\text{c}=15.8\pm0.8\) GHz can be obtained from the relevant result of \(f_\text{Rabi}\) with a \(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot\) estimated as 0.232 \(\upmu\)eV . We estimate \(d\sim\) 0.02 \(\upmu\)m, thus \(b_\bot\sim0.1\) T/\(\upmu\)m\(\cdot 0.02\) \(\upmu\)m \(=2\) mT. Fig. [\[fig:3\]](#fig:3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:3"}(c) shows details of Rabi oscillations for different \(\varepsilon\). \(f_\text{Rabi}=1.262\pm0.002\) MHz is achieved in the top panel. When \(\varepsilon\) increases to 1.5 and 3 meV, the Rabi frequencies decrease to \(f_\text{Rabi}=0.429\pm0.003\) and \(f_\text{Rabi}=0.135\pm0.003\) MHz, respectively. By fitting Rabi oscillation to an exponentially decaying sinusoid, \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=6.46\pm0.39\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=0\), \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=5.53\pm0.57\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=1.5\ \text{meV}\) and \(T_2^\text{Rabi}=7.01\pm0.82\) \(\upmu\)s at \(\varepsilon=3\ \text{meV}\) are obtained. \(T_2^\text{Rabi}\) is stable when \(\varepsilon\) increases. We next measure \(T_2^*\) for different \(\varepsilon\) through Ramsey fringes. In Fig. [\[fig:4\]](#fig:4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:4"}(a), the Ramsey fringes are measured in the same way as the Rabi chevron. The averaged \(T_2^*=0.42\ \upmu\)s for \(\varepsilon=\) 0 and 1.5 meV is acquired as shown in Fig. [\[fig:4\]](#fig:4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:4"}(b). In Ref. , the lowest \(E_\text{s}\) occurs near \(\varepsilon=0\), leading to a sweet spot for spin dephasing. However, in our device \(2t_\text{c}\gg E_\text{z}\), the second-order item \(\frac{E_\text{z}^2-\varepsilon^2}{2E_\text{z}(\Omega^2-E_\text{z}^2)}(g\mu_\text{B}b_\bot)^2\) in Eq [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"} is suppressed, and there is no sweet spot around \(\varepsilon=0\). Here, we attribute the enhancement of the quality factor (\(Q\equiv2T_2^\text{Rabi}f_\text{Rabi}\)) to the improvement of the electric dipole, since \(b_\text{z}\) is constant during the measurement. As mentioned in Ref. , longitudinal magnetic field difference \(b_\text{z}\) is one of the most relevant sources for dephasing in our device.
## [\[sec:Reproduce\]]{#sec:Reproduce label="sec:Reproduce"}Reproduce the results
Finally, we try to reproduce the flopping-mode EDSR in another DQD. Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(a) shows the charge stability diagram of another DQD under gate LP and RP. We tune the tunneling rate of the electron from QDs to the reservoir under LL with gate LP and BC. By selectively tuning \(V_\text{LB}\), \(V_\text{LP}\) and \(V_\text{BC}\), we can change \(\varepsilon\) from--1 to 0.6 meV. Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(b) shows the corresponding EDSR spectra and \(2t_\text{c}=71\pm10\) GHz is obtained by fitting the solid curve to Eq. [\[eq:energy splitting\]](#eq:energy splitting){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:energy splitting"}. As shown in Fig. [\[fig:5\]](#fig:5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:5"}(b), \(P_\uparrow\) background rises when \(\varepsilon<0\), and the peak of the increased \(P_\uparrow\) becomes invisible on the EDSR spectra. Here, we select \(f_\text{q}\) manually and mark them with the yellow triangles. Some points around \(\varepsilon=0\) deviate from the curve without affecting the overall s-shape feature. However, the weak visibility makes subsequent measurements around \(\varepsilon=0\) of Rabi oscillation and Ramsey fringes impossible.
# [\[sec:Conclusion\]]{#sec:Conclusion label="sec:Conclusion"}Conclusion
In summary, we demonstrate the flopping-mode EDSR in a Si-MOS quantum dot through the Elzerman single-shot readout. We construct a DQD with \(2t_\text{c}\sim800\) GHz under adjacent electrodes by selectively setting gate voltages. We extract an s-shape \(f_\text{q}\) as a function of \(\varepsilon\) from the EDSR spectra. Then, we improve \(f_\text{Rabi}\) an order of magnitude from \(0.135\pm0.003\) to \(1.262\pm0.002\) MHz by increasing the electric dipole. And \(T_2^*\) and \(T_2^\text{Rabi}\) remains around \(0.42\pm0.03\) \(\upmu\)s and \(6.46\pm0.39\) \(\upmu\)s, respectively. Moreover, we have shown that the s-shape EDSR spectra holds in another DQD with \(2t_\text{c}\sim70\) GHz. We anticipate that flopping-mode EDSR will have better performance in the heavy hole regime or phosphorus donor qubits , and will perform two-qubit operation in the future. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:06', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14531', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14531'} |
# Related Work {#sec:related}
We give related works regarding direct volume rendering (DVR) of unstructured meshes, data-parallel rendering, and in situ visualization.
## Unstructured Volume Rendering
There are notable works proposed to render unstructured finite element meshes . Two predominant strategies to render unstructured volumes are *point-query sampling*, e.g., and *ray-marching* . In point-query sampling, zero-length rays are used to probe into an acceleration data structure, for example, a *bounding volume hierarchy* (BVH), that was built over the elements to sample the volumetric data adaptively. These structures are traditionally used to find ray-particle collisions per frame for all pixels. Rathke et al. propose a min/max BVH that speeds up the element look-up processes for samples and iso-surfaces. Wald et al. use point location queries on tetrahedral meshes by utilizing NVIDIA's ray-tracing (RT) cores. This work is later extended by Morrical et al. to include all unstructured elements. Due to the low number of samples taken per ray, these approaches can produce fast but noisy results, thus requiring many samples to be taken over time for a converged image. To further accelerate the process of convergence and sampling, empty space skipping or adaptive sampling strategies can be leveraged. The RTX hardware also can be exploited for empty space skipping and adaptive sampling . Standard ray-marching accumulates many samples while tracing rays without using external acceleration structures . Usually, *marching* is performed via visibility sorting or element connectivity. A well-known way to render tetrahedral meshes without connectivity information is by Shirley and Tuchmann . Since visibility sorting tends to be very costly, several researchers turned their attention to connectivity storage, eliminating the need for sorting. Aman et al. introduce a tetrahedra traversal algorithm that optimizes intersection tests by using 2D projection while still maintaining a connectivity list. However, most of these works are limited to pure tetrahedral meshes. Muigg et al. propose a ray-marching algorithm that can handle non-tetrahedral elements and non-convex bounding geometry by storing compact face-based connectivity lists and projecting vertices to a ray-centric coordinate system for intersections. When doing ray-marching, one also needs to find the first element where the ray first enters the volume; showed how this can be done with RTX hardware by building a BVH over the shell and tracing rays. Ray-marching techniques that utilize connectivity are particularly appealing to our purposes because many modern simulation systems already store connectivity data. Therefore they can be used to avoid worsening high memory pressure situations.
## Data-parallel Rendering
Parallel approaches should be exploited to visualize massive simulation data sets with proper timings. There are various means to partition the workload and data among many compute nodes. Distributing data pieces (clusters) between nodes (i.e., data-parallel rendering or *sort-last*) is a popular method employed by recent works . Some works also propose an image-order partitioning (*sort-first*) where work is distributed over pixel regions . There are also hybrid approaches , which aim to address load-balancing issues by leveraging both perspectives. Sort-last algorithms allow for a static geometry assignment at the cost of exchanging intermediate images. Because of the static geometry assignment, sort-last is the most popular rendering algorithm on distributed memory systems. However, correctly and efficiently compositing intermediate images that generally overlap is challenging. Image-based compositors, such as IceT, produce a single intermediate image per node, which is not suitable for clusters with non-convex domains. One of the recent works that tackle the sort-last compositing problem is by Grosset et al. , which reduces delays and communications by implementing a spatiotemporally-aware compositor. Their approach uses "chains" that determine the blending order of each strip of the image. Usher et al. introduce *Distributed FrameBuffers*, a method that breaks the image processing operations into tiles of ranks with independent dependency trees. The Galaxy framework displays the idea of an asynchronous frame buffer, which leverages independent pixel updates sent from a server while allowing incremental refinements to the final image over time. Many recent works are proposed for optimizing workloads minimizing communication costs while generating images with the highest possible accuracy. Ma introduces a data-parallel unstructured volume rendering method with the ability to handle non-convex data boundaries properly. Similar to our shells (see ), their technique makes use of a *hierarchical data structure* that allows accessing the boundary faces and ray-casting operations from these faces. This work also describes how to do compositing in the correct order. However, unlike our deep compositing (), they prefer sending smaller many messages between compute nodes during rendering. Some of these ideas are later extended to utilize asynchronous load balancing via object and image-order techniques . However, this work uses cell-projection techniques rather than ray-casting. Childs et al. layout a two-stage framework that first samples a \(m \times n\times k\) view-aligned grid---where m and n denote the pixel resolution and \(k\) is the sample per pixel---then composites these samples in the proper viewing order. In the sampling stage, first, they sample what they consider to be small-sized elements. Then, they distribute the large elements to processors, where they are sampled to balance the load. This work is later extended by Binyabib et al. by proposing a many-core hybrid scheme where they employ sampling over a similar view-aligned grid, but this scheme allows successive \(k\) samples in the same pixel and node to be partially composited, reducing the memory footprint. Our deep compositing algorithm is an extension of the algorithms by Childs and Binyabib et al. in the regard that ours can also handle jagged cluster boundaries. However, the view-aligned grid-based sampling is infeasible for our purposes as, in theory, it will waste precious memory resources for large framebuffers. In theory, the 3D rasterization process required by Childs et al. will also be sensitive to overdraw when millions of elements fall within the same grid cell. Finally, both of these works' image-order load balancing method requires large elements to be either replicated or moved to some other nodes, thus requesting additional memory, which may not always be present given an in situ scenario. We also acknowledge GPU architectures improve with new divergence handling methods and ray-tracing (RT) cores, so the adaptations we propose in this work are necessary. Unlike these prior works, our method is tailored for modern GPUs, which minimizes the costs of compositing and sorting operations. We also do not have to buffer every sample along the pixels since we ray-march through each segment to determine partial samples. Finally, unlike these works, our approach does not require re-distributing or replicating elements across nodes to render the data.
## In situ Visualization
File I/O has long been a bottleneck of high-performance computing. To overcome this hindrance, in situ visualization couples computation and visualization together, thus, enabling the users to tap into a running simulation. In situ visualization has many merits, such as examining the data, doing numerical queries, and generating graphical outputs while the simulation executes. Moreover, it allows verification so that the simulation may be stopped or modified, saving both time and computation resources . We find our approach in line with in situ applications because of our ability to generate correct images with little to no support from additional acceleration structures at interactive rates. There are notable in situ applications used in industry that render outputs generated by infrastructures like Strawman or Ascent . In addition to standard systems, various recent algorithmic novelties have been proposed to handle time-varying data generated by the simulations. Yamoka et al. illustrate a method that adapts the timestep sampling rate according to variations in the probability distribution function (PDF) estimation of the connected simulation. Aupy et al. give a model that allows them to analyze simulations, and then they use this model to formulate high-throughput scheduling. DeMarle and Bauer propose a temporal cache scheme that keeps much time-varying information produced from a running simulation, which can later be stored according to a pre-defined trigger. Marsaglia et al. introduce an error-bound in situ compression scheme that allows saving complete spatiotemporal simulation data. Our proposed method only requires a couple of lightweight structures alongside what is already being kept in simulations. Furthermore, observing recent trends from these approaches, we see no major issues that stop our method from being used alongside current in situ systems.
# Problem Statement {#sec:problem}
Modern simulation data is becoming more extensive and complex each day. With the unstructured volume data sets, like The Fun3D Mars Lander that contains many parts (i.e., *clusters*) with non-convex boundaries (see (b)), robust data-parallel solutions are needed. Moreover, the generation of such data sets require carefully tuned simulations. In situ visualization can be utilized to verify the correctness of simulations by allowing visuals to be taken in simulation-time. However, due to the different requirements of the simulation and visualization algorithms, the volume rendering at interactive rates can be challenging. One major problem of such simulations is that the data distribution is generally unbalanced for visualization purposes. Due to time and memory costs, re-distributing the data does not offer a feasible option. Besides, allocating solely visualization-related acceleration structures over all elements may not be possible since nodes may not have enough space. The data-parallel rendering requires each partition to be on a separate computer node, where each node renders a portion of the final image. These portions are called *fragments*, and in our approach, they are generated per *ray segment*. Ray segments are defined between an entry and exit position of a *shell* (faces defined by cluster boundaries), so for non-convex cluster boundaries, there might be more than one fragment since there might be more than one ray segment. Furthermore, these non-convex shells can be on different nodes and interleave each other, which makes the correct order compositing extremely difficult.
# Proposed Approach {#sec:method}
We tackle the given problem by introducing a framework that supports interactive visualization of large, unstructured, and non-convexly partitioned volumetric data sets, animation of fixed topology data sets, and compatibility with the given data partitioning and the number of nodes in the simulations; i.e., native data, without re-partitioning or simplifications, and proper compositing even in the presence of non-convex data. Assuming that the data is natively pre-partitioned and distributed to different ranks, the proposed approach for rendering consists of four steps:
1. Each node generates connectivity information, shell-BVH, and XOR-compacted geometry representation required by our ray-marcher ().
2. Rendering starts at each node by tracing two rays through each shell to create segments (). (a) illustrates the shell-to-shell traversal.
3. Each node performs volume integration (cf. (c)) via ray-marching, creating one RGBA-Z tuple; i.e., fragment per each segment, resulting in potentially multiple fragments for each pixel (). (d) depicts an integrated volume output using the shells from (b).
4. Finally, we apply a GPU-optimized "deep compositing" technique in which different ranks exchange their respective fragments and composite them in the proper order ().
In an offline rendering mode, each step is executed once in the given order; however, the last three steps are repeated repeatedly under interactive exploration. Besides, the first step's results can be cached for future use.
## Data Preparation {#sec:data-preparation}
We describe the connectivity information generation, shell-BVH construction and XOR-compacted geometry representation creation required by our ray-marcher.
### Connectivity Generation {#sec:connectivity-gen}
Our method needs to know the neighboring elements' indices to perform element marching. We generate the connectivity information by matching the element faces in the preprocessing step. We separate vertex and connectivity information and store the neighbor indices in an external buffer to keep the elements and neighbor indices aligned in memory. Although we picked this way of processing connectivity it should be noted that this buffer can be in any shape or form as long as one can access the next element from the current element using a face that is shared by both. Thus this part can be adapted to fit simulation or application's needs.
### Per-Node Shell Generation {#sec:per-node-shell-gen}
Our approach handles volumetric data that may contain convex and non-convex clusters. To this end, we identify boundary geometry for each cluster present per node by looking at elements which are missing a neighbour from the connectivity generation step. This boundary geometry comes in the form of triangles and quads, which we call *shell-faces*. We utilize a method similar to the one described in Sahistan et al. , where we identify each shell-face using connectivity. We mark the faces from elements with missing neighbors as shell-faces. We use triangles as provided and triangulate quadrilateral elements. We keep a list of triangle indices stored along the shell-BVH. We reserve four indices for each shell triangle: the first three are triangle indices, and the last one points to the volume element behind that triangle. The lower two bits of the fourth index signifies the element type (i.e., tetrahedron, pyramid, wedge, or hexahedron), and the remaining 30 bits is an index into the list of elements; this index is required to start marching. This encoding is similar to the BVH-node memory layout used by PBRT . We build our shell-BVH using OptiX to exploit NVIDIA GPU's RTX cores for hardware-accelerated shell-to-shell traversal.
### XOR-compaction {#sec:xor-comp}
Our compaction scheme exploits the following property of exclusive-or (XOR) operations: \((a \oplus b) \oplus a = b\). We can generalize this property to \(n\) numbers if we know the XOR of \(n-1\) numbers. Let \(X\) denote the XOR of \(n\) terms and \(Y\) denote the XOR of any subset with \(n-1\) terms. Then, we can simply XOR \(X\) and \(Y\) to find the remaining term. We can exploit this idea on connected volume elements in a ray's path during ray-marching. Since we know that some of the vertices are shared between neighboring elements, previously calculated XOR fields can be employed to reduce index information per element. This compaction requires the first face to be known to start ray-marching since all the other steps depend on the information obtained from the previous step. To handle this initial case, we use our shell faces that we store explicitly. After that, each step utilizes the march state to access the previous step's information. For each element except hexahedra, we store a different XOR-compacted structure, illustrated in . We apply the tetrahedron compaction method by Aman et al. . A tetrahedron shares three of its four vertices with any other neighboring element. For this reason, a single XOR field is enough to construct the unshared vertex. Given the entry face that contains vertex indices \(v_0, v_1, v_3\) and a compacted tetrahedron with \(vx = v_0 \oplus v_1 \oplus v_2 \oplus v_3\) one can XOR all four of the integers to get the missing vertex index \(v_2\). For the 16 byte pyramid, we store one field that is the XOR of and vertex indices (according to VTK ordering), two vertex indices which happens to be the other diagonal of the quad ( and vertices), and a top vertex index, which is always the vertex. During marching if the entry is from the quad face, the only missing index is the top vertex index, which is already explicitly stored. Otherwise, any triangle face should be composed of one of the explicitly stored diagonal vertices, the top vertex, and one vertex encoded in the field. Matching one of the vertices with one of the diagonal fields, we can decide which index to XOR with , thus obtaining one of the missing vertices. The other missing index for this case is the unmatched integer from . Our 16 byte wedge structure is composed of two and two fields. fields contain two XORs: the first one is the XOR of and vertex indices; the second one is the XOR of and vertex indices. explicitly stores and vertex indices. Like pyramids, ray-marcher's wedge construction has two high-level cases. If the entry is from a triangular face, any triangle face should be composed of one of the explicitly stored diagonal vertices and two vertices encoded in the different fields. By matching one of the diagonal vertex indices to one of the diagonal fields, we can construct two missing vertices from fields. The other missing index for this case is the unmatched integer from . If the ray enters from a quadrilateral, it must contain one or both of the indices stored in . By matching diagonal vertices, we can determine the entry quadrilateral. Then, we have two cases. The first case where two of the entry quadrilateral's indices match both of the indices is shown in . We can get the two missing indices by XOR'ing fields with unmatched indices of the entry quadrilateral separately. In the second case (either one of the diagonals match with one of the quadrilateral face indices), we can immediately get one of the missing vertices from unmatched . Finally, we can use one of the fields to get the other missing vertex. Hexahedra have the minimum shared vertices ratio (0.5) among all element types and demand that four vertices be obtained on entry. It is challenging to find an XOR-based hexahedra compaction scheme that reduces to the closest alignment of 16 bytes. Therefore, we store all hexahedra indices without compaction according to the VTK mesh ordering.
## Per-Node Segment Generation via Shell Traversal {#sec:shell-to-shell}
For each given shell-BVH per node, we initiate a step called *shell-to-shell* traversal. This process is done for every ray per cluster and is fundamentally similar to , which finds a *segment* between entry and exit faces. (a) illustrates this process, and the steps are as follows:
1. Trace the ray through the shell-BVH with front-face culling from the ray origin.
2. If a ray hits a shell face, we then mark that face as the exit face and create a backward ray with the origin at the hit position.
3. This backward ray is again traced using front-face culling to find an entry face.
4. The found entry face contains four index values (), and the last one encodes the ID and the type of the element from where we start our ray-marcher ().
Some real-life data sets might have degenerate volume boundaries where instead of tightly interlocking, two neighboring faces might be intersecting or slightly apart. If we were to naïvely to find the closest hits for these degenerate boundaries, this would create incorrect ray segments, which might cause sampling and compositing errors---casting two front-face culled rays to find an exit and entry point allows us to handle them robustly. Although we leverage the hardware acceleration of NVIDIA RTX GPUs in our work, this approach does not explicitly require the usage of OptiX/OWL frameworks or any specialized hardware. One can use any other framework or ray-tracing engine that supports these basic functionalities.
## Per-Segment Volume Integration {#sec:integrate-segments}
We use linear interpolation to sample elements at equidistant points in a segment. The coefficients to linear interpolation calculations are also utilized to check whether the current element contains the point that needs to be sampled. If not all of these coefficients are between 0 and 1, we keep marching until that becomes the case. When a sample is taken, a transfer function is used to look up its color and transparency, and then it is composited to that segment's color. Marching is terminated when a ray becomes opaque or the next sample position falls behind the exit face. Our marcher utilizes a method similar to "Projected Tetrahedra" to determine the exit face for a given element. We do not rasterize the elements directly to the screen, which is more in line with the methods described by Aman et al. and Sahistan et al. . However, we handle primitives other than tetrahedra as well. We employ XOR-based compaction schemes to reduce the memory footprint of the data while still allowing efficient traversal. Our compaction process reduces the vertex index storage per element, except hexahedra. We also address memory alignment with this scheme. We store connectivity information in a separate buffer to preserve memory alignment properties. Although reducing memory usage is usually helpful, this index removal may not be desirable for some in situ scenarios; our marcher can perform without compaction. Ray-marching processes start from a cluster's shell that contains pbrt-style encoded element information. We can construct the first element behind the shell face using this information. After entering the shell, the connectivity buffer and compacted element information are enough to fetch and construct the next elements along the given ray segment. However, our compaction requires elements to be traversed in sequential order without skipping. When an element is reconstructed from XOR-compacted form, the vertices cannot be in any order because this introduces sampling artifacts. Therefore, our scheme not only re-obtains vertex indices but also consistently places them according to VTK mesh ordering for each element . An exit face must be determined to select the next element on the ray segment. We project the element vertices to a ray-centric coordinate system to conduct 2D intersection tests to find the exit face. Finally, our method maintains a *march state*, which book keeps the last intersected face type (triangle or quad), current element's type, index, and vertex indices for every marching step. Moreover, we follow a general rule while traversing the volume: placing the entry face indices into the same positions in the march state during marching. This rearrangement of the vertices allows us to ignore the entry face during exit face selection(since we now know which vertices belong to entry face). When the marcher leaps to another element, we update march state old entry face indices with exit face indices. Since each volume element is unique in terms of its geometry and face arrangement, it is hard to make a *simple* algorithm that handles all possible combinations. For this reason, our element marching handles various elements in a case-by-case fashion. We handle tetrahedral elements similar to . However, unlike Sahistan et al, we also allow intermediate points inside the elements to be sampled. We transform the vertices to the previously mentioned ray-centric coordinate system to determine the exit face for tetrahedral elements. After each vertex is transformed, we apply a maximum of two 2D left tests to determine the face containing point \((0,0)\). The exit face can again be found via 2D left tests when inside a pyramid. Due to the quad face that the pyramids have, we utilize the last intersected face type field stored in march state to simplify our left test cases. Using projected vertices, if the entry face is a quad face, we find the exit face among four triangles (similar to the tetrahedron case). Otherwise, we first check if the quad face contains the point \((0, 0)\), then test the remaining three triangles for the same condition. Finally, we update the last intersected face type accordingly. In terms of finding the exit face, wedges are similar to pyramids. It should be noted that wedges contain three quad faces; hence even if the intersected face type is a quad, the exit face might be another quad face. Like other element types, we ignore the entry face to avoid extra left tests. After the exit face is determined, we update intersected face type once more. Hexahedra are uniform like tetrahedra; however, they have more faces. Therefore finding the exit intersection requires the highest number of left tests. In the worst case, hexahedra need 13 left tests, whereas wedges, pyramids, and tetrahedra require 7, 5, and 2 left tests, respectively.
## Deep Compositing {#sec:deep-compositing}
The techniques described in the previous sections allow any rank to efficiently find, for a given ray, all the segments that overlap with that rank's part of the data (); and to efficiently integrate each of these segments (). This integration step produces one RGB color and opacity value for each segment, plus the depth of the given segment. Borrowing terminology from triangle rasterization, we call each such tuple of color \(C\), opacity \(\alpha\), and depth \(z\), a *fragment* \(F=({F_C,\;F_\alpha,\;F_z})\). Given all of a given pixel \(P\)'s fragments \(F^{(P)}_{0},F^{(P)}_{1},\dots,F^{(P)}_{N^{(P)}}\), the correct final pixel color is the result of first sorting these fragments by their depth and compositing them usin \(\widehat{O}(A,B)\;\)/\(\;\widehat{U}(A,B)\) . The challenge is that any given pixel's fragments may get produced on many different ranks, requiring some merging of different ranks' results. Even worse, the irregular shape of the shells means that any ray can enter and leave the same shell multiple times at multiple distances, producing multiple---and in some cases, many---fragments for the same pixel. illustrates the distribution of the average and the total number of fragments for a view of the Huge Lander for increasing rank counts. As it can be observed from the case where the rank count is 16 (cf. ), each pixel may have multiple fragments generated from multiple ranks. The easiest approach to compositing this would be to first composite all ranks' fragments to a single fragment per pixel per rank and then use some optimized compositing library like IceT to produce the final image. However, as neither \(\widehat{O}\) nor \(\widehat{U}\) are commutative, this will give wrong results every time a ray enters the same shell more than once. Fragments need to be composited in visibility order, considering that \(N\) fragments along a ray are generally distributed unequally across the ranks. Let \(\otimes\) denote compositing operation given any ray that produces two fragments \(F^{(A)}_0\) and \(F^{(A)}_1\) on the same rank must also have had at least one other fragment \(F^{(B)}\) on at least one other rank. This requires compositing as \(F^{(A)}_0 \otimes F^{(B)} \otimes F^{(A)}_1\), which in general is different from both \(F^{(B)} \otimes (F^{(A)}_0 \otimes F^{(A)}_1)\) and \((F^{(A)}_0 \otimes F^{(A)}_1) \otimes F^{(B)}\).
### Compositing with More than One Fragment/Pixel
To solve this compositing problem, we developed a new compositing framework that explicitly allows each rank to have multiple fragments per pixel. At an abstract level, our method expects each pixel to store one counter that specifies the number of fragments, \(N\), plus an address (or offset) to a list of fragments, \(F_0, \; \ldots\;, F_{N-1}\). Similar to parallel-direct-send , we then split the frame buffer into \(R\) distinct *regions* of pixels (where \(R\) is the number of ranks); each rank will be responsible for receiving, compositing, and delivering the final composited results of one region of pixels. Compositing then works in the following steps:
**1) Generating a contiguous send buffer.** Given each pixel's fragment lists, each rank computes a GPU-parallel prefix sum over all its fragment counts, which also yields the total number of fragments on this rank. We then allocate a single contiguous memory region for these fragments and compact the individual fragments into this buffer (using the prefix sum result as offsets). By design, this buffer will contain all fragments going to all other ranks in order.
**2) Exchanging per-pixel fragment counts ranges.** Given the assigned range of pixels, each rank computes which range of per-pixel counters it needs to send to any other rank. To this end, each rank allocates a per-rank counter buffer with size \(R\) times the number of pixels in its region. Next, each rank computes the offsets to store the counters from other ranks. We then perform a collective on these buffers, after which each rank has, for its assigned region of pixels, the fragment counts from every other rank.
**3) Exchanging Fragment Lists.** Having received all other ranks' per-pixel fragment counts for its range of pixels, each rank then performs a GPU prefix sum over those counters, the result of which can once again be seen as offsets into a compact buffer of all fragments for its range of pixels. Looking up the prefix sums at the correct offsets specifies how many fragments each rank will receive from any other rank and how many fragments it will receive altogether. We then allocate a receiving buffer of the required size, look up where each other rank's fragments will go in this buffer, and issue a second that, in this case, collectively moves all fragments into the receive buffer of the rank assigned to that fragment's corresponding pixels.
**4) Local Compositing.** The result of the previous steps is that each rank now has two buffers containing all fragment lists for its assigned pixels. The first buffer---*fragment buffer*---stores all fragments for that rank's pixels received from all other ranks, ordered by ranks and pixels within each rank. Given a specific MPI rank, this buffer stores all fragments for that rank's first pixel from rank 0, then all those for its second pixel from rank 0, and so on, followed by all fragments from rank 1, then all fragments from rank 2, and so on. The second buffer---*offset buffer*---stores the results of prefix sum operations. It, by design, provides the offsets where the fragment lists start. For example, if \(P\) is the number of pixels that this rank is responsible for, then the fragments from rank \(r\) for pixel \(j\) start at offset . Using this, we can now launch a CUDA kernel that, for each pixel \(p\), looks up the \(R\) different lists of fragments and composites them in the visibility order.
**5) Sending final results to master.** The output of the previous CUDA kernel is, on each rank, a fully composited RGBA value for each pixel in that rank's range of pixels. We send these to the master using a ; the master sets up \(R\) matching s, each of which uses the appropriate part of the final frame buffer as receive buffer. Once these are completed, the master has the final assembled frame buffer, and compositing is complete. This method is a natural extension of the parallel direct-send technique as described by Grosset et al. and Favre et al. , with the main difference that we not only send one fragment per pixel but variable-sized lists of fragments. We term this method *deep compositing* because it merged the concepts of image-based compositing with the orthogonal concept of *deep frame buffers* .
### Fragment List Management
Though the compositing itself is easy to use from the host side, properly setting up the device-side inputs (fragment lists and counters) would require the renderer to handle what are akin to device-side dynamic memory allocations to manage those per-pixel variable-size fragment lists during rendering. To relieve the renderer of this low-level fragment list management, we also developed what we call a *device interface* for this library, through which a renderer can simply *write* new fragments into a pixel, with that interface then handling the proper storage of those fragments---which significantly simplifies the rendering code.
#### Two-Pass, Flexible-length Fragment Lists
The main challenge for developing this interface was that we could not simply allocate more device memory during rendering, so we needed *some* limit on how many fragments a renderer would be allowed to generate in any frame. We first developed a two-stage interface in which the renderer would be run twice: in the first stage, the interface would only count the fragments produced per pixel but not store any. After this stage, it would compute a prefix sum over those counters to allocate a big enough buffer, with the prefix sum values serving as offsets into this buffer. A second pass would then perform exactly the same rendering but store the fragments at the provided offsets.
#### Single-Pass, Fixed-Length Fragment Lists
The two-pass method allows for arbitrary-sized fragment lists (up to device memory, obviously); but requires running at least the shell traversal twice, which may or may not be acceptable. We, therefore, also developed a second, single-pass device interface in which the renderer---upon initialization---specifies a maximum allowed number of fragments per pixel, which can then be used to pre-allocate lists to add fragments. Having a single pass is straightforward but requires some form of *overflow*-handling if a render wants to submit fragments to a pixel whose list is already full. We currently implement two methods for this overflow handling: In the *drop* method, we perform insertion sort into the existing list and simply drop the latest fragment. In *merge*, we find the fragment with the lowest opacity and perform a *over* compositing of this element onto the one in front of it (i.e., using the depth from the previous one), then insert the new fragment into the list.
### Implementation Details
Though primarily developed for this particular application, we believe the method just described is also applicable to other, similar applications, and thus decided to implement this into a stand-alone *deep compositing* library that the rest of our renderer then uses. The compositing itself uses MPI, for which in our application, we use a CUDA-aware version of OpenMPI 4.1. Using CUDA-aware MPI allows the compositing code to directly operate on device buffers, which means that the same library can work with both host and device-side renderers. We use CUDA for the device interface, with a simply host-side interface to initialize and trigger compositing. The bandwidth required for compositing is often a bottleneck in data-parallel parallel rendering, even with only a single fragment per pixel. One step we use to reduce bandwidth is that we allow the user to specify whether to use full *float* precision for fragments (five floats total, for r, g, b, depth, and opacity); or to use a lower-precision encoding with 8-bit fixed-point for RGBA, and floats only for the depth value. The device interface in both cases is the same, but that interface encodes fragments as they get submitted. We also automatically discard fragments with zero opacity value, as these will not contribute to the image. Aside from the fragments, the per-pixel counters require a large bandwidth. To reduce that, we use specialized encodings with 2, 4, 8, or 32 bits for those counters, depending on the longest fragment list length. We use dedicated CUDA kernels for encoding and decoding the 32-bit counter arrays into this lower-precision representation before and after the counter exchange; otherwise, perform the algorithm exactly as described above.
# Experimental Results {#sec:evaluation}
We conducted our experiments on Frontera RTX nodes of Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC), where each of the 22 nodes had four NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 plugged into it. We utilize all four GPUs available per node for every data point of our experiments.
## Evaluation of the Framework
We evaluate our rendering framework on Small Mars Lander and Huge Mars Lander data sets. show images of the Small Mars Lander rendered using our framework. Since Small Mars Lander has 72 clusters, we evaluate our framework using 72 GPUs distributed over 18 compute nodes where each cluster is loaded on a separate GPU. For Small Mars Lander, we achieve our peak performance using 72 GPUs yielding the average fps of 14.35. Since the TACC supercomputer does not have more than 22 RTX nodes, we could not test one cluster per GPU scenario for the Huge Mars Lander data set. Therefore, we scale up to a maximum GPU count of 88, yielding 9.83 fps. However, we observe our average peak performance of 10.25 fps for the Huge Mars Lander at 80 GPUs. Moreover, we evaluate our deep compositing scheme's correctness compared to a single fragment compositing technique. shows an image rendered by single fragment compositing and a heatmap that compares the difference between single fragment compositing and our deep compositing. The single fragment compositing method depicted is similar to the image-based single image per node compositing techniques such as IceT .
## Memory Overhead
We examine data distribution and memory footprints. displays the minimum, maximum and average counts per rank of volume elements and shell faces for our two data sets. The MPI sizes (rank counts) in the table are the sizes that experience the highest level of changes in terms of rendering times presented in . illustrates average memory footprints of our large data structures that may not be present in a simulation environment. Although connectivity information will likely be in most of the simulation systems, we wanted to include connectivity here for the sake of simulation systems like .
[\[tab:element_shell_stats\]]{#tab:element_shell_stats label="tab:element_shell_stats"}
## Scalability
To assess the scalability, we test our approach for increasing the number of ranks (MPI sizes). We also measure sub-process timings, specifically the segment integration and compositing times. We compute them by using s before and after integration calls to synchronize the processes before starting and ending the timers. Since these barriers stall early terminating integration processes, it causes the total rendering time to increase. For this reason, we measure the total rendering time and integration time in different runs and derive the compositing time by subtracting the total time from the integration time. We calculate the timings reported in as follows: we take an average for 20 sequential timesteps of the selected scalar field over 30 runs. Then we take the mean of these 20 average values to form the data points for the given MPI sizes.
## Fragment Distribution
Since it is crucial to assess workload distribution across compute nodes for both compositing and integration steps, we measure fragment counts generated by each GPU during ray segment generation. To this end, we present a box plot in , which depicts the total and average fragment counts for specific MPI sizes on the Huge Mars Lander. We also visualize a series of "heat images" for the case where the rank count is equal to 16, which illustrates the fragments composited for a view of the Huge Mars Lander. Each small image shows given nodes generated fragment counts, and the final image accumulates them on top of each other.
# Discussion {#sec:discussion}
We evaluate our approach regarding memory consumption, rendering correctness, and scalability. Among the data we precompute and store, the connectivity information takes up the lion's share with ratios around \(\approx62.72\%\) for our test cases. We expect this since our approach stores one integer for all faces of a given volume element. XOR-compacted volume elements are the second-largest structure with ratios around \(\approx17.11\%\), closely followed by Shell-BVH sizes (\(\approx12.74\%\)) of the total memory consumption. We observe that the total memory footprint of XOR-compacted representations is \(\approx72.49\%\) smaller than their uncompacted versions. The presented framework is memory-wise compatible with in situ scenarios because many modern simulation systems already store connectivity information. Our XOR-compaction reduces the space required for geometry information, and our shell-BVH sizes stay relatively small despite the large counts of shell faces. We observe that simple image compositing is not an option for non-trivially partitioned data sets like we present. As the error metric in confirms, single image compositing gives inaccurate results. Moreover, we found our compositing process to create low overheads even with the GPU counts going up to 88. Although the communication cost for compositing created an increasing trend in terms of time, it never surpassed 22.68% of the total rendering time, which is an indication that our deep compositing method is highly scalable and generates correctly composited images interactively (see ). Although the proposed ray-marcher is suitable for the use-cases described, any other ray-marcher that can adequately handle non-convex boundaries can be utilized. For instance, point-query sampling techniques that can leverage adaptive sampling or space skipping may produce much faster results. However, such methods rely heavily on hierarchical data structures to sample the volume, which would create more additional memory overhead. One could claim point-query sampling techniques negate this memory over-head by not storing connectivity; however, as pointed out before, many simulation environments have that data out of the box. Furthermore, point-query sampling techniques usually produce a noisy image that requires some convergence time to be passed, whereas our marching method generates deterministic noise-free images. For these reasons, we consider our marching algorithm to be more pragmatic in the context of data-parallel rendering and deep compositing. Finally, examining data distributions from , we see that directly utilizing native partitioning of the data causes uneven load balancing for some MPI sizes. reveals this phenomenon where the average number of fragments per rank distribution varies. The effects of this phenomenon can also be observed in , where ranks 1, 4, and 14 have significantly fewer fragments than the others. Even though native partitioning causes uneven workloads, our timing experiments (cf. ) display decent scalability with the increasing number of GPUs we utilized. We smoothly achieve interactive rates with both of our data sets. For the small Mars Lander that has 72 clusters, we benchmark *14.35 fps* using 72 GPUs, and for the 552-cluster huge Mars Lander, we measure *10.27 fps* using 80 GPUs. We also observe an ongoing downwards trend for the timings with the increasing number of GPUs, so it is worth mentioning that our application can achieve even higher frame rates given a more extensive hardware setup. Furthermore, it is clear from that dominating term of rendering times is volume integration via ray-marching. Nevertheless, we observe a sharp increase in integration performance at \(n=24\) and \(n=32\) for Small and Huge Mars Lander, respectively. At the same time, it is expected for an embarrassingly parallel ray-casting algorithm to get faster with the increasing number of ranks; it is also likely for a compositing algorithm to slow down due to communication costs. We observe little to no increase in timings with our deep compositing, where it nearly behaves like a constant.
# Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
We introduce a GPU-based direct volume visualization framework that allows correct and interactive rendering even for non-convexly partitioned data. Our framework presents a mixed element ray-marching algorithm to integrate ray segments along the viewing direction. We achieved memory savings by exploiting XOR-based compaction schemes on our finite element data structures. Furthermore, we illustrate a deep compositing algorithm that allows proper order compositing of the RGBA-Z values obtained across multiple compute nodes. Our framework scales well for increasing GPU counts while using native partitioning of non-convex data sets. We consider our framework suitable for both in situ and post hoc applications. Possible areas for further research are as follows. While we allow visualizations of multiple scalar fields and timesteps, we do not use double/triple buffering techniques that can hide the buffer loading times. Our implementation naively takes one scalar set on request (i.e., does not pre-fetch anything). In order to improve the time steps loading performance, buffering and pre-fetching the time steps in GPU and main memory can be employed. Moreover, currently, we assume that the topology of the volumetric data does not change through time, yet this may not be the case. Furthermore, our sampling method does not support bilinear elements since determining vertex index order after element construction is difficult for them using our XOR-compaction. Also, we would utilize another compaction scheme over connectivity information as other works do. Image-based partitioning may further increase our method's efficiency; however, it can get challenging with the in situ emphasis. Finally, integrating our approach into existing frameworks is another future work, field testing our claims. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:15', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14537', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14537'} |
# Introduction
We assume that \(x = (x_1,x_2...,x_d)\) and \(y = (y_1,y_2...,y_d)\) are distributed according to \[p(x\mid\lambda)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^d p(x_i \mid \lambda_i) =\exp\{-r(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_d)\}\ffrac{(r\lambda_1)^{x_1}}{x_1!}\cdots\ffrac{(r\lambda_d)^{x_d}}{x_d!}\] and \[p(y\mid\lambda)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^d p(y_i \mid \lambda_i) =\exp\{-s(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_d)\}\ffrac{(s\lambda_1)^{y_1}}{y_1!}\cdots\ffrac{(s\lambda_d)^{y_d}}{y_d!},\] respectively, where \(r\) and \(s\) are known positive real numbers. Here, \(\lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_d)\) is an unknown parameter. We consider the problem of predicting independent Poisson random variables \(y = (y_1,y_2...,y_d)\) using independent observations \(x = (x_1,x_2...,x_d)\). We adopt the Kullback--Leibler loss of predictive distribution \(\hat{p}(y\mid x)\), which is \[D(p(y \mid \lambda),\hat{p}(y\mid x)) =\sum\limits_yp(y\mid\lambda) \log \ffrac{p(y\mid\lambda)}{\hat{p}(y\mid x)}.\]
There are numerous studies on the simultaneous estimation of Poisson parameters. proposed generalized Bayes estimators dominating the maximum likelihood estimator when \(d\ge2\) under standardized squared error loss \(\sum\lambda_i^{-1}(\hat\lambda_i-\lambda_i)^2.\) studied the estimation under the generalized loss function \(\sum(\hat\lambda_i-\lambda_i)^2/\lambda_i^{k},\) where \(k\) is a given positive integer. characterized admissible linear estimators of multiple Poisson parameters under Kullback--Leibler loss. Estimation of parameters under Kullback--Leibler loss can be generalized to a predictive distribution problem, which is important for several statistical scenarios. Predictive method has been shown to be preferable in. Noninformative prior distributions or vague distributions are often used for constructing Bayesian predictive distributions. The Jeffreys prior is widely used in various problems under Kullback--Leibler loss, see and. In contrast to the large number of estimation studies, decision theory regarding predictive distributions on the Poisson model has been developed relatively recently. A class of prior distributions, \[\pi_{\alpha,\beta}(\lambda)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\propto \ffrac{\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}} {(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_d)^\alpha}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\] was proposed by. The Bayesian predictive distribution based on \(\pi_{\alpha=d/2-1,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(\lambda)\) is shown to dominate that based on the Jeffreys prior when \(d\ge3\). considered the problem of independent Poisson processes with different durations and introduced a class of improper prior densities, which is a generalization of \(\pi_{\alpha,\beta}(\lambda)\). The corresponding Bayesian predictive distribution is shown to dominate that based on the Jeffreys prior. A class of proper priors was proposed and Bayesian predictive densities and estimators based on the priors were shown to dominate the Bayesian predictive density and estimator based on the Jeffreys prior under Kullback--Leibler loss. Recently, studied the Bayesian predictive distribution for a Poisson model with parametric restriction under Kullback--Leibler loss. presented a class of Bayes predictive densities that attain asymptotic minimaxity in sparse Poisson sequence models. From the viewpoint of a model manifold with Fisher metric, it is natural that similar results hold simultaneously for the multivariate normal model and the independent Poisson observables model. There are several counterparts for these two models. For a multivariate normal model \(N(\mu,\sigma^2I)\), the Bayesian predictive distribution based on Stein's harmonic prior, \[\pi(\mu)=\Vert\mu\Vert^{2-d},\] dominates that based on the Jeffreys prior, which is similar to the result reported in. studied the admissibility and recurrence in estimating a Poisson mean under standardized squared error loss, which is a counterpart to the diffusion characterization of admissibility in the estimation of a multivariate normal mean, introduced by.
For the multivariate normal model, generalized the result in and proved that Bayesian predictive densities based on superharmonic priors dominate those based on the Jeffreys prior. It is natural to speculate that there exists a similar result for independent Poisson observables model; this speculation is confirmed in this study. In Section 2, we show that Bayesian predictive densities based on priors constructed by superharmonic functions dominate those based on the Jeffreys prior. In Section 3, we show a similar result for independent Poisson processes with different durations. In Section 4 some examples are given, including point shrinkage priors and subspace shrinkage priors. We show that Bayesian predictive densities based on the example priors dominate those based on the Jeffreys prior. In Section 5, we conduct some numerical experiments. The lemmas used in Sections 2 and 3 are given in the appendix.
# Improved Bayesian prediction using superharmonic function
We consider a class of improper prior densities, \[\pi_{\beta}(\lambda)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\propto \lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\] with \(\beta_i>0, i=1,2,\dots,d.\) Our goal is to find function \(f(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)\) such that for prior \[\pi_{f,\beta}(\lambda)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\propto f(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d,\] the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)\) based on \(\pi_{f,\beta}(\lambda)\) dominates the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{\beta}(y\mid x)\) based on \(\pi_{\beta}(\lambda)\) under Kullback--Leibler loss. In this section, we denote \(\theta_i:=\sqrt{\lambda_i},\ i=1,\dots,d\). We also denote \(g(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d):=f(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)\) and \(p(x\mid\theta):=p(x\mid\lambda)\). We show that if \(g\) satisfies some conditions, then the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)\) dominates the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{\beta}(y\mid x)\). As a corollary, if \(g\) is a superharmonic function satisfying regularity conditions and the derivative of \(g\) on the boundary is nonpositive, then \(p_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(y\mid x)\) dominates \(p_{J}(y\mid x)\) based on the Jeffreys prior.\
**Theorem 1**.
The K-L risk of estimator \(\hat\lambda\) is defined as the K-L risk of plug-in density \(p(x\mid\hat\lambda)\), which is \[\sum_x \biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d \Bigl\{ r\lambda_i\log \Bigl(\ffrac{\lambda_i}{\hat\lambda_i} \Bigr)-r\lambda_i+r\hat\lambda_i \Bigr\} \biggr] \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(r\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-r\lambda_j)}{x_j!}.\] We know that the Bayesian estimator based on \(\pi_{\beta}(\lambda)\) is \(\displaystyle(\ffrac{x_1+\beta_1}{r},\ffrac{x_2+\beta_2}{r},\dots,\ffrac{x_d+\beta_d}{r})\) and the Bayesian estimator based on \(\pi_{f,\beta}(\lambda)\) is \(\displaystyle(\ffrac{x_1+\beta_1}{r}\ffrac{F(x+\delta_1,r)}{F(x,r)}, \ffrac{x_2+\beta_2}{r}\ffrac{F(x+\delta_2,r)}{F(x,r)},\dots,\ffrac{x_d+\beta_d}{r}\ffrac{F(x+\delta_d,r)}{F(x,r)})\). Therefore, the difference between the K-L risks of Bayesian estimators based on \(\pi_{\beta}(\lambda)\) and \(\pi_{f,\beta}(\lambda)\) has the same sign with [\[differential2\]](#differential2){reference-type="eqref" reference="differential2"}. Using the proof of Theorem 1, we have **Corollary 2**. The Bayesian estimator based on \(\pi_{f,\beta}\) dominates the Bayesian estimator based on \(\pi_{\beta}\) if, for every \(r>0\), the function \[F(x,r)=F(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_d,r):=\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d)\prod\limits_{i=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i} \bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\] is not a constant function of \(x\), there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x\Biggl[ \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\biggl\{ \bigl| \log F(x,t) \bigr| (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] <\infty, \end{aligned}\] and for every \(x\), \(r>0\), \[\sum\limits_{i=1}^dx_i \bigl\{ F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r) \bigr\} +\sum\limits_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i) \bigl\{ F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r) \bigr\} \ge 0,\] where \(F(x-\delta_i,r)\) is defined to be \(1\) if \(x_i=0\).
# Improved prediction for independent Poisson processes with different durations
We consider the case of independent Poisson processes with different durations. Suppose that \(x_i\) and \(y_i\ (i = 1,\dots,d)\) are independently distributed according to Poisson distributions with mean \(r_i\lambda_i\) and \(s_i\lambda_i\), respectively, which means \[p(x\mid\lambda)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{(r_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}}{x_i!}e^{-r_i\lambda_i},\] \[p(y\mid\lambda)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{(s_i\lambda_i)^{y_i}}{y_i!}e^{-s_i\lambda_i}.\] In this section, we denote \(\displaystyle\gamma_i:=\ffrac{1}{r_i}-\ffrac{1}{r_i+s_i},\ \theta_i:=\sqrt{\ffrac{\lambda_i}{\gamma_i}},\ i=1,\dots,d\) and \(g(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d):=f(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)\), \(p(x\mid\theta):=p(x\mid\lambda)\). We show that if \(g\) satisfies some conditions that are similar to the conditions in Section 2, then the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)\) dominates the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{\beta}(y\mid x)\).\
**Theorem 2.**
for every \(i\).
:::
**Proof**. 1) The proof is a generalization of that of Theorem 1.
For every \(i\) and \(\tau\in[0,1]\), let \(\displaystyle\ffrac{1}{t_i(\tau)}:=\ffrac{1}{r_i}(1-\tau)+\ffrac{1}{r_i+s_i}\tau\). Then \(t_i(\tau)\) is a smooth monotonically increasing function of \(\tau\in[0, 1]\) satisfying \(t_i(0) = r_i\), \(t_i(1) = r_i + s_i\) and \(\dot t_i/t_i=\gamma_it_i\). The difference between the K-L risks of Bayesian predictive distributions based on \(\pi_{f,\beta}\) and \(\pi_{\beta}\) is \[\begin{aligned}
&\text{E} \biggl( \log\ffrac{p_{\beta}(y\mid x)}{p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)} \, \bigg| \, \lambda \biggr) \notag\\ &= \text{E} \Bigl(\log\int p(x,y\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \, \Big| \, \lambda \Bigr)-\text{E} \Bigl( \log\int p(x\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \, \Big| \, \lambda \Bigr) \notag\\ &\quad-\text{E} \Bigl( \log\int p(x,y\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{f,\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \, \Big| \, \lambda \Bigr) + \text{E} \Bigl( \log\int p(x\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{f,\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \,\Big| \, \lambda \Bigr) \notag\\ &=\text{E} \Biggl( \log\ffrac{\int p(x\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{f,\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda}{\int p(x\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} \, \Bigg| \, \lambda \Biggr)-\text{E} \Biggl( \log\ffrac{\int p(x,y\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{f,\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda}{\int p(x,y\mid\bar\lambda)\pi_{\beta}(\bar\lambda) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} \, \Bigg| \, \lambda \Biggr) \notag\\ &=\text{E} \Biggl( \log \frac{\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d)\bar\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\bar\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1} \cdots\bar\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1} \exp(-\sum_{i=1}^dr_i\bar\lambda_i) (r_1\bar\lambda_1)^{x_1}\cdots(r_d\bar\lambda_d)^{x_d} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} {\int \bar\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\bar\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\bar\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1} \exp(-\sum_{i=1}^dr_i\bar\lambda_i)(r_1\bar\lambda_1)^{x_1}\cdots(r_d\bar\lambda_d)^{x_d} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} \, \Bigg| \, \lambda \Biggr) \notag\\ &\quad-\text{E} \Biggl( \log\frac{\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d)\bar\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\bar\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots \bar\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}\exp\{-\sum_{i=1}^d (r_i+s_i)\bar\lambda_i\} \{(r_1+s_1)\bar\lambda_1\}^{x_1+y_1} \cdots\{(r_d+s_d)\bar \lambda_d \}^{x_d+y_d} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} {\int \bar\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\bar\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\bar\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1} \exp\{-\sum_{i=1}^d(r_i+s_i)\bar\lambda_i\}\{(r_1+s_1)\bar\lambda_1\}^{x_1+y_1} \cdots\{(r_d+s_d)\bar\lambda_d\}^{x_d+y_d} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} \, \Bigg| \, \lambda \Biggr) \notag\\ &=\text{E} \biggl( \log\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d)\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{r_i^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1} \exp(-r_i\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \, \bigg| \, \lambda \biggr) \notag\\ & \quad-\text{E} \Biggl(\log\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d)\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{(r_i+s_i)^{x_i+y_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+y_i+\beta_i-1}\exp\{-(r_i+s_i)\bar\lambda_i\}}{\Gamma(x_i+y_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \, \Bigg| \, \lambda \Biggr) \notag\\ & = \text{E} \biggl( \log F(x,t(0)) \, \bigg| \, x_i\sim\text{Po}(t_i(0)\lambda_i),i=1,\dots,d \biggr)-\text{E} \biggl( \log F(x,t(1)) \, \bigg| \, x_i\sim\text{Po}(t_i(1)\lambda_i),i=1,\dots,d \biggr). \label{negativediff-2} \end{aligned}\] From [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"}, we have \[\text{E} \biggl( \Bigl| \log F(x,r) \Bigr| \, \bigg| \, x_i\sim\text{Po}(r_i\lambda_i),i=1,\dots,d \biggr)<\infty\] for every \(r\). Thus, the risk difference [\[negativediff-2\]](#negativediff-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="negativediff-2"} is finite. The risk difference [\[negativediff-2\]](#negativediff-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="negativediff-2"} is negative if \[\begin{aligned}
\text{E} \biggl( \log F(x,t(\tau)) \, \bigg| \, x_i\sim\text{Po}(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i),i=1,\dots,d \biggr) =\sum_x\Bigl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \Bigr\} \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \label{increasing-t2} \end{aligned}\] is an increasing function of \(\tau\). Using \(\dot t_i/t_i=\gamma_it_i\), we have \[\ffrac{\partial F}{\partial \tau}(x,t(\tau))=\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t_i(\tau)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggl\{ \sum_{j=1}^d (x_j+\beta_j)\gamma_jt_j(\tau)-\sum_{k=1}^d \bar\lambda_k\gamma_kt_k^2(\tau) \biggr\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda. \label{Fdiff-t2}\] From Lemma 2.1, we can exchange the integration and differentiation in \(\ffrac{\partial F}{\partial \tau}(x,t(\tau))\). Using \(\dot t_i/t_i=\gamma_it_i\) and [\[Fdiff-t2\]](#Fdiff-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fdiff-t2"}, the partial differential function of [\[increasing-t2\]](#increasing-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="increasing-t2"} with respect to \(\tau\) is \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \Bigl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \Bigr\} \Biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^d x_j\gamma_jt_j(\tau)-\sum_{k=1}^d \lambda_k\gamma_kt_k^2(\tau) \Bigr) \notag \notag\\ &\quad + \sum_x \Biggl[ \frac{ \displaystyle \int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t_i(\tau)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl\{ \sum_{j=1}^d (x_j+\beta_j)\gamma_jt_j(\tau)-\sum_{k=1}^d \bar\lambda_k\gamma_kt_k^2(\tau) \Bigr\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda} { F(x,t(\tau))} \Biggr] \notag\\ & ~~~~~ \Biggl\{ \prod_{l=1}^d \frac{(t_l(\tau)\lambda_l)^{x_l}\exp(-t_l(\tau)\lambda_l)}{x_l!} \Biggr\}. \label{differential-t2} \end{aligned}\] From Lemma 2.2, we can differentiate [\[increasing-t2\]](#increasing-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="increasing-t2"} by terms under conditions [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"}, [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"}. We notice that \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \biggl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \biggr\} \Biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d\ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \sum_{j=1}^d \lambda_j\gamma_jt_j^2(\tau) \notag \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d \sum_x \biggl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \biggr\} \Biggl\{ \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j} \exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \Biggr\} \lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \notag \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d \sum_x \biggl[ (x_i+1)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \Bigl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \Bigr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j+\delta_{ij}} \exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{(x_j+\delta_{ij})!} \biggr] \notag\\ &= \sum_{i=1}^d \sum_x \biggl[ x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \Bigl\{ \log F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau)) \Bigr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \biggr], \label{transform1-t2} \end{aligned}\] where \(\delta_{ij}\) is defined to be 1 if \(i = j\) and 0 if \(i\neq j\), \(\delta_i\) is defined to be the \(d\)-dimensional vector whose \(i\)-th element is 1 and all other elements are 0, and \(F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))\) is defined to be \(1\) if \(x_i=0\). Furthermore, we notice that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{t_j(\tau)^{x_j+\beta_j}\bar\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1} \exp(-t_j(\tau)\bar\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \bar\lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag\\ &= \int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{t_j(\tau)^{x_j+\delta_{ij}+\beta_j}\bar\lambda_j^{x_j+\delta_{ij}+\beta_j-1}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\bar\lambda_j)} {\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ij}+\beta_j)}(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag \\ &= F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \label{transform2-t2}. \end{aligned}\]
Thus, from [\[transform1-t2\]](#transform1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="transform1-t2"} and [\[transform2-t2\]](#transform2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="transform2-t2"}, the partial differential function [\[differential-t2\]](#differential-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="differential-t2"} of [\[increasing-t2\]](#increasing-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="increasing-t2"} with respect to \(\tau\) is \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x\sum_{i=1}^d \biggl[ x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \bigl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \bigr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \biggr] \notag\\ &~~~-\sum_x \sum_{i=1}^d \biggl[ x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \bigl\{ \log F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau)) \bigr\} \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j} \exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \biggr] \notag\\ &~~~+ \sum_x \Biggl\{ \frac{F(x,t(\tau)) \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau)) (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)}{F(x,t(\tau))} \Biggr\} \notag\\ &~~~~~~~ \biggl\{ \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!}\biggl\} \notag\\ &= \sum_x \Biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ \log \ffrac{F(x,t(\tau))}{F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))}\biggr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &~~~+\sum_x \Biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ 1-\ffrac{F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))}{F(x,t(\tau))} \biggr\} \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \Biggr]. \label{differential2-t2} \end{aligned}\] By assumption \(F(x,t(\tau))\) is not a constant function of \(x\), hence \(F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))\equiv F(x,t(\tau))\) does not hold. Therefore, from the inequality \(\log \epsilon >1-\ffrac{1}{\epsilon}\), \(\epsilon\neq1\), [\[differential2-t2\]](#differential2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="differential2-t2"} is strictly greater than \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \Biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ 1-\ffrac{F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))}{F(x,t(\tau))} \biggr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &~~~+\sum_x \Biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ 1-\ffrac{F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))}{F(x,t(\tau))} \biggr\} \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!} \Biggr] \notag\\ &=\sum_x \Biggl[ \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ 1-\ffrac{F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))}{F(x,t(\tau))} \biggr\} +\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl\{ 1-\ffrac{F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))}{F(x,t(\tau))} \biggr\}\Biggr] \notag\\ &~~~~~~~ \biggl\{ \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)^{x_j}\exp(-t_j(\tau)\lambda_j)}{x_j!}\biggl\}. \label{Fpositive-t2} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"}, we have \[\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\gamma_it_i(\tau)x_i\bigl\{F(x,t(\tau))-F(x-\delta_i,t(\tau))\bigr\}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\gamma_it_i(\tau)(x_i+\beta_i)\bigl\{F(x,t(\tau))-F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))\bigr\}\ge 0.\] Thus, [\[Fpositive-t2\]](#Fpositive-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fpositive-t2"} is not negative, and [\[differential2-t2\]](#differential2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="differential2-t2"} is positive. Therefore, [\[increasing-t2\]](#increasing-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="increasing-t2"} is an increasing function and the first half of Theorem 2 is proved. ) Next, we prove that if \(f\) satisfies the conditions of the second half of Theorem 2, then [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} is satisfied.
Let \(\displaystyle\sqrt{\ffrac{\lambda_j}{\gamma_j}}=:\theta_j,\ j=1,\dots,d\). Then, we have \(\lambda_j=\gamma_j\theta_j^2\), \(\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_j=2\theta_j\gamma_j\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\), \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x+\delta_i,r)-F(x,r) \notag\\ &=\int f(\lambda)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r_j^{x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j}\lambda_j^{x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j-1}\exp(-r_j\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda-\int f(\lambda)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r_j^{x_j+\beta_j}\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1}\exp(-r_j\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &=2^d\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\qquad-2^d\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=-2^{d-1}\int g(\theta)\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ &\qquad-2^{d-1}\int g(\theta)\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}) \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i. \notag \end{aligned}\] By integration by parts on \(\theta_i\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x+\delta_i,r)-F(x,r) \notag\\ &=\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \biggl[-2^{d-1}\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~-2^{d-1}\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i})\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i\biggl] \notag\\ &=\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl(2^{d-1}\int_u^v \biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~~~-2^{d-1} \Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\Biggl) \notag\\ &=\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl( 2^{d-1} \int_{[u,v]\times[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g }{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ & ~~~~-2^{d-1} \Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\Biggl). \label{F-diff-1-t2} \end{aligned}\] Here, we use auxiliary variables \(a,b,u,v\) and Lemma 2.3 to ensure the above equations hold.
Using Lemma 2.3, we have \[\int \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Because of Lemma 2.4, \[\displaystyle \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to\infty\). Thus, \[\lim_{\theta_i\to\infty} \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} = 0. \label{1st-partial-1-t2}\] Because \(g\in \mathbf{C}^2([0,\infty)^d)\), \(g\) is bounded on \([0,1]\times[a,b]^{d-1}\), then \[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\] is bounded for \(\theta_i\le1\). Thus, \[\lim_{\theta_i\to0} \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} = 0. \label{1st-partial-2-t2}\] Consequently, using [\[1st-partial-1-t2\]](#1st-partial-1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="1st-partial-1-t2"} and [\[1st-partial-2-t2\]](#1st-partial-2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="1st-partial-2-t2"}, we have \[\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty}-2^{d-1} \Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}=0. \label{1st-partial-3-t2}\] Thus, using [\[F-diff-1-t2\]](#F-diff-1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-diff-1-t2"}, Lemma 2.3, [\[1st-partial-3-t2\]](#1st-partial-3-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="1st-partial-3-t2"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x+\delta_i,r)-F(x,r) \notag\\ &=\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \biggl[2^{d-1} \int_{[u,v]\times[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\biggl] \notag\\ &= 2^{d-1}\int \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta. \label{F-1st-diff-t2} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[F-1st-diff-t2\]](#F-1st-diff-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-1st-diff-t2"} and integration by parts on each parameter again, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_ir_ix_i \{ F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r) \} +\sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_ir_i(x_i+\beta_i) \{F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r)\} \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-1} \int\biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \gamma_ir_ix_i \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j-\delta_{ji}}\theta_j^{2(x_j-\delta_{ji})+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \notag\\ & \qquad-\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i} (\theta) \gamma_ir_i(x_i+\beta_i) \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \biggr\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2} \int\biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) 2x_i \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j-\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \notag\\ & \qquad- \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i} (\theta) 2\gamma_ir_i \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \biggr\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2} \int\biggl[ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \notag\\ & \qquad+ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr] \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2} \mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl\{ \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & \qquad+ \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \Biggr\} \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2}\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl\{-\int_u^v\biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ &\qquad+ \biggl[ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr] ^{v}_{\theta_i = u} \Biggr\} \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2}\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl\{-\int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag \\ &\qquad+ \biggl[ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u} \Biggr\}. \label{F-diff-2-t2} \end{aligned}\] Here, we use auxiliary variables \(a,b,u,v\) to ensure the above equations hold. From [\[t2-condition-c\]](#t2-condition-c){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-c"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \Bigl\{ \frac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \Bigr\} \Bigl\rvert \,\prod_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int\Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \Bigl\{ \frac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \Bigr\} \Bigl\rvert \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta <\infty. \label{2nd-diff-finite-t2}\] From [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j<\infty. \label{1nd-diff-t2}\] From [\[1nd-diff-t2\]](#1nd-diff-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="1nd-diff-t2"}, we have \[\int \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty. \label{2st-partial-3-t2}\] Because of Lemma 2.5, \[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to0\) or \(\theta_i\to\infty\). Thus, using [\[2st-partial-3-t2\]](#2st-partial-3-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2st-partial-3-t2"}, we have \[\lim_{\theta_i\to\infty} \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} = 0. \label{2st-partial-1-t2}\] From [\[t2-condition-e\]](#t2-condition-e){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-e"}, we have \[\lim_{\theta_i\to0} \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\}\ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\le0 \label{2st-partial-2-t2}\] Using [\[2st-partial-1-t2\]](#2st-partial-1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2st-partial-1-t2"} and [\[2st-partial-2-t2\]](#2st-partial-2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2st-partial-2-t2"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u} \ge0. \label{2st-partial-4-t2} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[F-diff-2-t2\]](#F-diff-2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-diff-2-t2"}, [\[2nd-diff-finite-t2\]](#2nd-diff-finite-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2nd-diff-finite-t2"}, and [\[2st-partial-4-t2\]](#2st-partial-4-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2st-partial-4-t2"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_ir_ix_i \{ F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r) \} +\sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_ir_i(x_i+\beta_i) \{F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r)\} \notag\\ &\ge \sum_{i=1}^d 2^{d-2}\mathop{\lim}_{a\to0\atop b\to\infty}\mathop{\lim}_{u\to0\atop v\to\infty} \Biggl[-\int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \Biggl] \notag\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d-2^{d-2} \int \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \prod_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \biggr\} \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=-2^{d-2} \int \sum_{i=1}^d \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \prod_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \biggr\} \prod_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta, \label{F-2nd-diff-2} \end{aligned}\] From [\[F-2nd-diff-2\]](#F-2nd-diff-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-2nd-diff-2"}, we know that [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} holds if \(g\) satisfies the conditions of the second half of Theorem 2. 0◻
# Examples
We show some examples that satisfy the conditions in Sections 2 and 3. These include point shrinkage priors and subspace shrinkage priors.\
**Example 1**. We consider the class of prior in and, which is \[\pi_{\alpha,\beta}(\lambda)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\propto\ffrac{\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_d)^{\alpha}}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\] for prediction for independent Poisson processes with the same duration, and \[\pi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(\lambda)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\propto\ffrac{\lambda_1^{\beta_1-1}\lambda_2^{\beta_2-1}\cdots\lambda_d^{\beta_d-1}}{(\lambda_1/\gamma_1+\lambda_2/\gamma_2+\cdots+\lambda_d/\gamma_d)^{\alpha}}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_2\cdots \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_d\] for prediction for independent Poisson processes with different durations, where \(0<\alpha\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\beta_i-1\). The two priors are the same as \(\pi_{f, \beta}(\lambda)\) in this study, where \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2)^{-\alpha}\).\
**Proposition 1**. When \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\), \(\eta\ge0\), \(0<\alpha\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\beta_i-1\), the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)\) dominates the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{\beta}(y\mid x)\), for prediction of independent Poisson processes with the same or different durations. **Proof**.
Because independent Poisson processes with the same duration correspond to \(r_1=r_2=\cdots=r_d\) and \(s_1=s_2=\cdots=s_d\), we need only prove that \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\) satisfies the conditions in the first half of Theorem 2. We show this in three parts. **Part 1**. Condition [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} is satisfied.
We first show that \(g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\) satisfies the conditions in the second half of Theorem 2, when \(\eta>0,\,0<\alpha\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\beta_i-1\). Here, \(\displaystyle\theta_i=\sqrt{\ffrac{\lambda_i}{\gamma_i}},\ i=1,\dots,d\). [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"} is satisfied because \[\begin{aligned}
&\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &\le \int \eta^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &= 2^{-d}\eta^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int\ffrac{\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1}r_j^{x_j}}{\gamma_j^{\beta_j}x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_j\notag\\ &= 2^{-d}\eta^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}{(\gamma_jr_j)^{\beta_j}x_j!} \notag\\ &<\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"} is satisfied because \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \Bigr\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= \int 2\alpha(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-1}\theta_i\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &\le \int 2\alpha\eta^{-\alpha-1}\theta_i\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &= 2^{-d+1}\alpha\eta^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int\ffrac{\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ji}/2-1}r_j^{x_j}}{\gamma_j^{\beta_j+\delta_{ji}/2}x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_j\notag\\ &= 2^{-d+1}\alpha\eta^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ji}/2)}{(\gamma_jr_j)^{\beta_j+\delta_{ji}/2}x_j!} \notag\\ &<\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] [\[t2-condition-c\]](#t2-condition-c){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-c"} is satisfied because \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} \Bigl\{ \frac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \Bigr\} \Bigl\rvert p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\le \int 4\alpha(\alpha+1)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-2}\theta_i^2\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\qquad + \int 4\alpha\beta_i(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\le \int 4\alpha(\alpha+1)\eta^{-\alpha-2}\theta_i^2\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &\qquad + \int 4\alpha\beta_i\eta^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}(r_j\lambda_j)^{x_j}}{x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &= 2^{-d+2}\alpha(\alpha+1)\eta^{-\alpha-2}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int\ffrac{\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ji}-1}r_j^{x_j}}{\gamma_j^{\beta_j+\delta_{ji}}x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_j\notag\\ &\qquad +2^{-d+2}\alpha\beta_i\eta^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int\ffrac{\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1}r_j^{x_j}}{\gamma_j^{\beta_j}x_j!}e^{-r_j\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_j\notag\\ &= 2^{-d+2}\alpha(\alpha+1)\eta^{-\alpha-2}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ji})}{(\gamma_jr_j)^{\beta_j+\delta_{ji}}x_j!} \notag\\ &\qquad +2^{-d+2}\alpha\beta_i\eta^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}{(\gamma_jr_j)^{\beta_j}x_j!} \notag\\ &<\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] [\[t2-condition-d\]](#t2-condition-d){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-d"} is satisfied because \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i} \biggl( \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial \theta_i}(\theta) \prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1} \biggr) \notag\\ =& \sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i}\Bigl\{-2\alpha\theta_i(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\Bigr\} \notag\\ =&-2\alpha(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-2}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\Bigl\{2\beta_i(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)+2(-\alpha-1)\theta_i^2\Bigr\} \notag\\ =&-4\alpha(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-2}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\Bigl\{(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\beta_i-\alpha-1)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\beta_i\eta\Bigr\} \notag\\ \le& 0. \notag \end{aligned}\] [\[t2-condition-e\]](#t2-condition-e){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-e"} is satisfied because \[\lim_{\theta_i\to0}\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}=\lim_{\theta_i\to0}-2\alpha\theta_i^{2\beta_i}(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha-1}\le0.\]
Using the statements above, we know that \(g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\) satisfies the conditions of the second half of Theorem 2. Therefore, [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} holds when \(g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha},\,\eta>0,\, 0<\alpha\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\beta_i-1\).
Next, we prove that [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} still holds when \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2)^{-\alpha}\). The key is to consider \(\eta\to0\). Let \(\zeta:=\min\{\gamma_1r_1,\dots,\gamma_dr_d\}\) and \(\bar\lambda:=\theta^2\). Because \(-\alpha+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j)\ge1\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int(\sum\limits_{j=1}^d\theta_j^2)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r_j^{x_j+\beta_j}\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1}\exp(-r_j\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &= 2^{d} \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1+2x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\bar\lambda_j)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\bar\lambda_j^{\beta_j-1+x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\gamma_jr_j\bar\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag\\ &\le \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\bar\lambda_j)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\bar\lambda_j^{\beta_j-1+x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\zeta\bar\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag\\ &=\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\zeta^{x_j+\beta_j}}\int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\bar\lambda_j)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\bar\lambda_j^{\beta_j-1+x_j}\zeta^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\zeta\bar\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag\\ &=\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\zeta^{x_j+\beta_j}}\text{E}(\Lambda^{-\alpha}\mid\Lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j),\zeta)) \label{t3-finite-1}\\ &<\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] Therefore, using the dominated convergence theorem, we have \[\int (\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r_i^{x_i+\beta_i}\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_i\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \to \int (\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r_i^{x_i+\beta_i}\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_i\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda\] when \(\eta\to0\). From the definition of \(F\) in [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"}, we know that [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"} still holds when \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2)^{-\alpha}\). **Part 2**. \(F(x,r)\) is not a constant function of \(x\). \(F(x,r)\) is not a constant function of \(x\) because when \(x_1\to\infty\), \[\begin{aligned}
& F(x,r) \notag\\ &= \int (\lambda_1/\gamma_1+\lambda_2/\gamma_2+\cdots+\lambda_d/\gamma_d+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}r_i^{x_i+\beta_i}}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}e^{-r_i\lambda_i} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &< \int (\lambda_1/\gamma_1)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}r_i^{x_i+\beta_i}}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}e^{-r_i\lambda_i} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &= \int (\lambda_1/\gamma_1)^{-\alpha} \ffrac{\lambda_1^{x_1+\beta_1-1}r_1^{x_1+\beta_1}}{\Gamma(x_1+\beta_1)}e^{-r_1\lambda_1}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\notag\\ &= \int \gamma_1^{\alpha} \ffrac{\lambda_1^{x_1+\beta_1-1-\alpha}r_1^{x_1+\beta_1}}{\Gamma(x_1+\beta_1)}e^{-r_1\lambda_1}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_1\notag\\ &= \gamma_1^{\alpha}r_1^{\alpha} \ffrac{\Gamma(x_1+\beta_1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(x_1+\beta_1)}\to 0. \notag \end{aligned}\] **Part 3**. Condition [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"} is satisfied. Let \(\zeta:=\min\{\gamma_1r_1,\dots,\gamma_dr_d\}\) and \(\kappa:=\max\{\gamma_1r_1,\dots,\gamma_dr_d\}\). Using [\[t3-finite-1\]](#t3-finite-1){reference-type="eqref" reference="t3-finite-1"} and \(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j)-\alpha\ge1\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x,r) \notag\\ &\le\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\zeta^{x_j+\beta_j}}\text{E}(\Lambda^{-\alpha}\mid\Lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j),\zeta)) \notag \\ &=\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\zeta^{x_j+\beta_j}}\zeta^{\alpha}\ffrac{\Gamma(\sum_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j)-\alpha)}{\Gamma(\sum_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j))} \notag \\ &\le 2\zeta^{\alpha-\sum_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j)}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} (\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \label{t3-F-upper} \end{aligned}\] and \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x,r)\notag\\ &=\int(\sum\limits_{j=1}^d\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r_j^{x_j+\beta_j}\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1}\exp(-r_j\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &= 2^{d} \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1+2x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\bar\lambda_j+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\bar\lambda_j^{\beta_j-1+x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\gamma_jr_j\bar\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag\\ &\ge \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\bar\lambda_j+\eta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\ffrac{\bar\lambda_j^{\beta_j-1+x_j}(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}e^{-\kappa\bar\lambda_j}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag \\ &=\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\kappa^{x_j+\beta_j}}\text{E}((\Lambda+\eta)^{-\alpha}\mid\Lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j),\kappa)) \notag \end{aligned}\] It is simple to show that there exists a positive value \(C_1\) such that for every \(x\), \[\text{E}((\Lambda+\eta)^{-\alpha}\mid\Lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j),\kappa))\ge C_1(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j))^{-\alpha-1}.\] Thus, \[F(x,r)\ge \prod\limits_{j=1}^{d} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}}{\kappa^{x_j+\beta_j}}C_1(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}(\beta_j+x_j))^{-\alpha-1}. \label{t3-F-lower}\] Using [\[t3-F-upper\]](#t3-F-upper){reference-type="eqref" reference="t3-F-upper"} and [\[t3-F-lower\]](#t3-F-lower){reference-type="eqref" reference="t3-F-lower"}, for a given \(r\), there exists a constant \(C\) such that \[\max_{t\in \bar B(r,\epsilon)}\Bigl| \log F(x,t) \Bigr|\le C\sum_{j=1}^{d}x_j+C,\,\forall x,\] where \(\epsilon=\min\{r_1,\dots,r_d\}/2.\) Thus, \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x\Biggl[ \max_{t\in \bar B(r,\epsilon)}\biggl\{ \Bigl| \log F(x,t) \Bigr| (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] \notag\\ &\le\sum_x\biggl[ (C\sum_{j=1}^{d}x_j+C)(\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(2r_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}}{x_i!}\biggr] \notag \\ &=C\exp(2\sum_{i=1}^dr_i\lambda_i)\sum_x\biggl[ (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1)^2 \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(2r_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-2r_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!}\biggr] \notag\\ &=C\exp(2\sum_{i=1}^dr_i\lambda_i)\text{E}(\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1)^2\mid x_i\sim \text{Po}(2r_i\lambda_i)) <\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] Therefore, condition [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"} is satisfied.
Therefore, \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha},\ \eta\ge0,\ 0<\alpha\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\beta_i-1\) satisfies the conditions in the first half of Theorem 2. Thus, the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{f,\beta}(y\mid x)\) dominates the Bayesian predictive distribution \(p_{\beta}(y\mid x)\), for prediction of independent Poisson processes with the same or different durations. 0◻ **Example 2**. We consider the subspace shrinkage prior for prediction of independent Poisson processes with the same duration. We denote \(\theta_i:=\sqrt{\lambda_i},\ i=1,\dots,d\). In Example 1, the Bayesian predictions based on the prior with \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\theta_i^2+\eta)^{-\alpha}\) shrink \(\theta\) towards \(\vec{0}\). Therefore, it is natural to investigate the subspace shrinkage prior \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\), where \(s_V(\theta)\) is the squared distance from \(\theta\) to a linear subspace \(V\subset \mathbb{R}^d\).
We assume complementary space \(V^\perp=\text{span}(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{d-k})\), where \(\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{d-k}\}\) is a standard orthonormal basis and \(k\) is the dimension of \(V\). We have \[s_V(\theta)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_i \rangle ^2.\] Using Corollary 1, we have\
**Proposition 2.** When \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\), \(0<\alpha\le (d-k-2)/2\), and if \(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k}v_{i,j_1}v_{i,j_2}\ge0\) for every \(1\le j_1,j_2\le d\), then the Bayesian predictive density based on \(\pi_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(\lambda)\) dominates that based on the Jeffreys prior. **Proof.** We need only prove that \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\) satisfies the conditions in the first half of Corollary 1. We show this in three parts. **Part 1**. Condition [\[Fineq2\]](#Fineq2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq2"} is satisfied. We construct a \(\mathbf{C}^2\) prior \[f_{\epsilon}(\lambda)=g_{\epsilon}(\theta)=(s_V(\theta)+\epsilon)^{-\alpha},\ 0<\epsilon<1.\] We first show that \(g_{\epsilon}(\theta)\) satisfies the conditions of the second half of Corollary 1.
First, we have \[\begin{aligned}
\int g_{\epsilon}(\theta)p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta&\le\int \epsilon^{-\alpha}p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &=2^{-d}\epsilon^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{d}\int\ffrac{e^{-r\lambda_i}r^{x_i}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}}{x_i!}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_i \notag\\ &=2^{-d}\epsilon^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{d}r^{-1/2}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}{x_i!}<\infty, \notag \end{aligned}\] and \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \Bigl\lvert \ffrac{\partial g_{\epsilon}}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta) \Bigr\rvert p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag\\ &= \int (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\Bigl\lvert\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle\Bigr\rvert p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\le \epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\int2(d-k)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j)p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= 2\epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha(d-k)\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int \theta_j p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= 2\epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha(d-k)\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}2^{-d}r^{-(d+1)/2}\prod\limits_{h=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_h+1/2+\delta_{hj}/2)}{x_h!}<\infty, \notag \end{aligned}\] and \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \Bigl\lvert \ffrac{\partial^2 g_{\epsilon}}{\partial\theta_i^2}(\theta) \Bigr\rvert p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta\notag \\ &\le \int \biggl\{ (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha+1)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle)^2 +(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}^2 \biggr\} p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &\le \epsilon^{-\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha+1)4(d-k)^2\int(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2)p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta+\epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha2(d-k)\int p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= \epsilon^{-\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha+1)4(d-k)^2\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\int\theta_j^2p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta+\epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha2(d-k)\int p(x\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \notag\\ &= 4\epsilon^{-\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha+1)(d-k)^2\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}2^{-d}r^{-(d+2)/2}\prod\limits_{h=1}^{d}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_h+1/2+\delta_{hj})}{x_h!} \notag\\ & \qquad +2^{-d+1}\epsilon^{-\alpha-1}\alpha(d-k)\prod\limits_{h=1}^{d}r^{-1/2}\ffrac{\Gamma(x_h+1/2)}{x_h!}<\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\]
Second, \(g_{\epsilon}(\theta)\) is a superharmonic function because \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d} \ffrac{\partial^2 g_{\epsilon}}{\partial\theta_i^2}(\theta)\notag \\ &= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\biggl\{ (\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha+1)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle)^2-(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}^2 \biggr\} \notag\\ &= \alpha(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-2}\biggl\{ 4(\alpha+1)\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2-2(d-k)(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)\biggr\} \notag\\ &= \alpha(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-2}\biggl\{ (4(\alpha+1)-2(d-k))\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2-2(d-k)\epsilon\biggr\} \notag\\ &<0. \notag \end{aligned}\]
Third, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{\theta_i\to0}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i} g_{\epsilon}(\theta) \\ &=\lim_{\theta_i\to0}-(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\biggl\{ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle\biggl\} \\ &=\lim_{\theta_i\to0}-(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_j \rangle^2+\epsilon)^{-\alpha-1}\alpha\biggl\{ \sum\limits_{h=1}^{d}\theta_h( \sum\limits_{j=1}^{d-k}2v_{ji}v_{jh}) \biggl\}\\ &\le0. \end{aligned}\]
Therefore, using the second half of Corollary 1, we know that [\[Fineq2\]](#Fineq2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq2"} holds when \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta)+\epsilon)^{-\alpha}\). Next, we prove that [\[Fineq2\]](#Fineq2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq2"} still holds when \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\). The key is to consider \(\epsilon\to0\).
Because the rank of matrix \(\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{d-k}\}\) is \(d-k\), there exist \(1\le j_1<\cdots<j_{d-k}\le d\) such that \(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k}v_{i,j_{t}}^2>0,\ t=1,2,\dots,d-k.\) Without loss of generality, we assume \(j_t=t\), and \(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k}v_{it}^2\ge\zeta>0, \ t=1,2,\dots,d-k.\) Thus, we have \[\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_i \rangle^2 &=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2v_{ij}^2+2\sum\limits_{j_1<j_2}\theta_{j_1}\theta_{j_2}v_{ij_1}v_{ij_2}) \\ &=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^2(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}v_{ij}^2)+\sum\limits_{j_1<j_2}2\theta_{j_1}\theta_{j_2}(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}v_{ij_1}v_{ij_2}) \\ &\ge \sum\limits_{t=1}^{d-k}\theta_t^2\zeta. \end{aligned}\] Therefore, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &= \int(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_i \rangle^2)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &\le \int(\sum\limits_{t=1}^{d-k}\theta_t^2\zeta)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &=\zeta^{-\alpha}\text{E}\bigl( (\sum_{i=1}^{d-k}\lambda_i)^{-\alpha}\mid \lambda_i\sim\Gamma(x_i+1/2,r) \bigl) \notag\\ &=\zeta^{-\alpha}\text{E}\bigl( \lambda^{-\alpha}\mid \lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k} x_i+(d-k)/2,r) \bigl) \notag\\ &=\zeta^{-\alpha}r^{\alpha}\ffrac{\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k} x_i+(d-k)/2-\alpha)}{\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k} x_i+(d-k)/2)} <\infty. \label{p2-Fvalue} \end{aligned}\]
Therefore, using the dominated convergence theorem, for every \(x\) and \(r>0\), \[\int (s_V(\theta)+\epsilon)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \to \int (s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda\] when \(\epsilon\to0\). From the definition of \(F\) in [\[Fineq2\]](#Fineq2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq2"}, [\[Fineq2\]](#Fineq2){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq2"} still holds when \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(s_V(\theta))^{-\alpha}\). **Part 2**. Condition [\[F-differentiable-2\]](#F-differentiable-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-2"} is satisfied. From [\[p2-Fvalue\]](#p2-Fvalue){reference-type="eqref" reference="p2-Fvalue"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
F(x,r)<2\zeta^{-\alpha}r^{\alpha}. \label{p2-Fvalue-upper} \end{aligned}\] We denote \(\sum_{i=1}^{d-k}\Vert v_i \Vert^2=:\kappa\). Then, \[\begin{aligned}
&F(x,r) \notag\\ &= \int(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-k}\langle \theta,v_i \rangle^2)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &\ge \int(\sum\limits_{t=1}^{d}\theta_t^2\kappa)^{-\alpha}\prod\limits_{i=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_i+1/2}\lambda_i^{x_i-1/2}\exp(-r\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+1/2)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\lambda \notag\\ &=\kappa^{-\alpha}\text{E}\bigl( (\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)^{-\alpha}\mid \lambda_i\sim\Gamma(x_i+1/2,r) \bigl) \notag\\ &=\kappa^{-\alpha}\text{E}\bigl( \lambda^{-\alpha}\mid \lambda\sim\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i+d/2,r) \bigl) \notag\\ &=\kappa^{-\alpha}r^{\alpha}\ffrac{\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i+d/2-\alpha)}{\Gamma(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i+d/2)} \ge \kappa^{-\alpha}r^{\alpha}\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i+d/2)^{-\lceil\alpha\rceil}. \label{p2-Fvalue-lower} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[p2-Fvalue-upper\]](#p2-Fvalue-upper){reference-type="eqref" reference="p2-Fvalue-upper"} and [\[p2-Fvalue-lower\]](#p2-Fvalue-lower){reference-type="eqref" reference="p2-Fvalue-lower"}, for a given \(r\), there exists a constant \(C\) such that \[\max_{t\in [r/2,3r/2]}\Bigl| \log F(x,t) \Bigr|\le C\sum_{j=1}^{d}x_j+C,\,\forall x.\] Thus, \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x\Biggl[ \max_{t\in[r/2,3r/2]}\biggl\{ \bigl| \log F(x,t) \bigr| (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] \notag\\ &\le\sum_x\biggl[ (C\sum_{j=1}^{d}x_j+C)(\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(2r\lambda_i)^{x_i}}{x_i!} \biggr] \notag\\ &=C\exp(2r\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)\sum_x\biggl[ (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1)^2 \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(2r\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-2r\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr] \notag\\ &=C\exp(2r\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)\text{E}\bigl( (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1)^2 \mid x_i\sim\text{Po}(2r\lambda_i) \bigr) <\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] Therefore, condition [\[F-differentiable-2\]](#F-differentiable-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-2"} is satisfied. **Part 3**. \(F(x,r)\) is not a constant function of \(x\). From [\[p2-Fvalue\]](#p2-Fvalue){reference-type="eqref" reference="p2-Fvalue"}, we notice that \(F(x,r)\to0\) when \(x_1\to\infty\). Therefore, \(F\) is not a constant function of \(x\). Using the first half of Corollary 1, we know that the Bayesian predictive density based on \(\pi_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(\lambda)\) dominates that based on the Jeffreys prior. 0◻
# Numerical experiments
We use numerical experiments to show the difference between the risk of the Bayesian predictive density based on the Jeffreys prior and that of the Bayesian predictive density based on the priors in Section 4.\
**Experiment 1.** We set \(r=s=1\), \(d=3\) and \(\theta_i=\sqrt{\lambda_i},\ i=1,\dots,3\). The first prior is a point shrinkage prior with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\theta_i^2)^{-(3-2)/2}.\] The second prior is called the "shift point shrinkage prior" with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\theta_i^2+1)^{-(3-2)/2}.\] For each \(\lambda\), we sampled \(x\) and \(y\) \(10^5\) times and approximated the risk difference by the sample mean of \(\displaystyle\log\ffrac{p_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(y\mid x)}{p_{J}(y\mid x)}\). Figure 1 shows the difference between the risks of the Bayesian predictive densities based on the two priors and the Jeffreys prior when \(\lambda=\mu\times(1/3,1/3,1/3)\). When \(\mu\) is small, the Bayesian predictive density based on the point shrinkage prior performs better. When \(\mu\) is large, the Bayesian predictive density based on the shift point shrinkage prior performs better. **Experiment 2.** We set \(r=s=1\), \(d=4\) and \(\theta_i=\sqrt{\lambda_i},\ i=1,\dots,4\). The first prior is a point shrinkage prior with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}\theta_i^2)^{-(4-2)/2}.\] The second prior is called "subspace shrinkage prior 1" with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\theta_1^2+\theta_2^2+\theta_3^2)^{-(3-2)/2},\] which shrinks \(\theta\) towards subspace \(V=\text{span}((0,0,0,1))\). The third prior is called "subspace shrinkage prior 2" with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\theta_1^2+\theta_2^2+\theta_4^2)^{-(3-2)/2},\] which shrinks \(\theta\) towards subspace \(V=\text{span}((0,0,1,0))\). The fourth prior is called "subspace shrinkage prior 3" with \[f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\theta_1^2+\theta_2^2+(\theta_3+\theta_4)^2/2)^{-(3-2)/2},\] which shrinks \(\theta\) towards subspace \(V=\text{span}((0,0,1,-1))\). For each \(\lambda\), we sampled \(x\) and \(y\) \(10^5\) times and approximated the risk difference by the sample mean of \(\displaystyle\log\ffrac{p_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(y\mid x)}{p_{J}(y\mid x)}\). Figure 2 shows the difference between the risks of the Bayesian predictive densities based on the four priors and the Jeffreys prior when \(\lambda=\mu\times(1,1,1,100)/20\). When \(\mu\) is small, \(\lambda\) is close to \(\vec{0}\), and the Bayesian predictive densities based on point shrinkage prior and subspace shrinkage priors both perform well. Because \(\theta_4\) is much larger than the others, the Bayesian predictive density based on subspace shrinkage prior 1 performs far better than the others, and the Bayesian predictive density based on subspace shrinkage prior 3 is the second best. The last example shows that the condition \(\displaystyle\left.\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\right|_{\theta_i=0}\le0\) in Corollary 1 is important. We set \(r=s=1\), \(\lambda=(0.1,0.1,0.1)\). When \(f(\lambda)=g(\theta)=(\sum_{i=1}^3(\theta_i-1)^2+0.01)^{-1/2}\), \[\text{E}\Bigl[ D(p(y\mid\lambda),p_{J}(y\mid x))-D(p(y\mid\lambda),p_{f,\beta=(1/2,\dots,1/2)}(y\mid x))\,\Big|\,\lambda\Bigr] =-0.09.\] However, \(g\) satisfies all conditions in Corollary 1 except \(\displaystyle\left.\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\right|_{\theta_i=0}\le0\).
# Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
**Lemma 1.1** If the function \(F(x,r)\) defined in Theorem 1 is finite, then for any given \(r\) and \(x\), there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that \[\int \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\Biggl\{ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i \Bigr| \Biggl\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda<\infty.\] **Proof**\
We choose \(\epsilon=r/2\).\
Then we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\Biggl\{ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i \Bigr| \Biggl\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &\le\int \max_{t\in[r/2,2r]} \Biggl\{ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i \Bigr| \Biggl\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &\le\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(2r)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-\ffrac{r}{2}\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{2x_i+2\beta_i}{r} + \sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i \Bigr) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &=\frac{ \sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}{r}2^{2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(r/2)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-\ffrac{r}{2}\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &~~~~+\sum_{j=1}^{d}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(2r)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-\ffrac{r}{2}\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \bar\lambda_j \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &=\frac{ \sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}{r}2^{2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(r/2)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-\ffrac{r}{2}\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &~~~~+\ffrac{1}{r}2^{2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}\sum_{j=1}^{d}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(r/2)^{x_i+\beta_i+\delta_{ij}}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i+\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-\ffrac{r}{2}\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}{r}2^{2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}F(x,r/2)+\ffrac{1}{r}2^{2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}\sum_{j=1}^{d}F(x+\delta_j,r/2)(x_j+\beta_j). \end{aligned}\] Because \(F(x,r/2)\) and \(F(x+\delta_j,r/2)\) are finite, the proof is complete. 0◻ **Lemma 1.2** Under conditions [\[F-differentiable\]](#F-differentiable){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable"} and [\[Fineq\]](#Fineq){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq"}, for a given \(r\), there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \biggl| \log(F(x,t)) \biggr| \Bigl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Bigr\} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i \Bigr| \Biggr] \notag \\ &\quad + \sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \frac{ \displaystyle \Biggl| \int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i \Bigr) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \Biggl| } { F(x,t)} \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &<\infty. \end{aligned}\] **Proof**\
Using [\[transform2\]](#transform2){reference-type="eqref" reference="transform2"}, we know that \[\begin{aligned}
\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{t^{x_j+\beta_j}\bar\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1} \exp(-t\bar\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \bar\lambda_i \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \notag= F(x+\delta_i,t)\ffrac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}. \end{aligned}\] Therefore, the Lemma is equivalent to \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \Bigl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Bigr\} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i \Bigr| \Biggr] \notag \\ &\quad + \sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \frac{ \displaystyle \Biggl| F(x,t)\sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^dF(x+\delta_i,t)\ffrac{x_i+\beta_i}{t} \Biggl| } {F(x,t)} \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &<\infty. \label{finite-goal} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[F-differentiable\]](#F-differentiable){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable"}, we have \(\epsilon\in(0,r)\) such that \[\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr|(\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1)\biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] <\infty,\] thus, \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i \Bigr|\Biggl] \notag \\ &\le\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]}\Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\}\ffrac{ \sum_{i=1}^d x_i +1}{\min\{ r-\epsilon,1/\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i \}} \Biggl] <\infty. \label{L2-finite1} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[Fineq\]](#Fineq){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq"}, we have \[\sum\limits_{i=1}^dx_i(F(x,t)-F(x-\delta_i,t))+\sum\limits_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)(F(x,t)-F(x+\delta_i,t))\ge 0,\] thus, \[\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)F(x+\delta_i,t) <2\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)F(x,t).\] Therefore, \[\begin{aligned}
& \sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \ffrac{ \Biggl| F(x,t)\sum_{i=1}^d \ffrac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}-\sum_{i=1}^dF(x+\delta_i,t)\ffrac{x_i+\beta_i}{t} \Biggl| } { F(x,t)} \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &< \sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \Biggl[ \frac{ \displaystyle F(x,t)\sum_{i=1}^d \frac{x_i+\beta_i}{t}} { F(x,t)} \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr] \notag \\ &\le \ffrac{1}{r-\epsilon}\sum_x \max_{t\in[r-\epsilon,r+\epsilon]} \biggl\{ \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggl\} \notag \\ &\le \ffrac{\exp(2\epsilon\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)}{r-\epsilon}\sum_x \biggl\{ \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{((r+\epsilon)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-(r+\epsilon)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggl\} \notag \\ &= \ffrac{\exp(2\epsilon\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)}{r-\epsilon} \sum_{i=1}^d \biggl\{ (r+\epsilon)\lambda_i+\beta_i\biggl\} <\infty. \label{L2-finite2} \end{aligned}\] Therefore, using [\[L2-finite1\]](#L2-finite1){reference-type="eqref" reference="L2-finite1"} and [\[L2-finite2\]](#L2-finite2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L2-finite2"}, we obtain [\[finite-goal\]](#finite-goal){reference-type="eqref" reference="finite-goal"}. 0◻ **Lemma 1.3** Under conditions [\[t1-condition-a\]](#t1-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-a"} and [\[t1-condition-b\]](#t1-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-b"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~F(x,r)<\infty\\ &~~~~F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\\ \int \biggl\{& \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty\\ &\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta < \infty \end{aligned}\] **Proof**\
From [\[t1-condition-a\]](#t1-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-a"}, we have \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, we have \(F(x,r)<\infty\) and \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-1}\] From [\[t1-condition-a\]](#t1-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-a"}, we have \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x+\delta_i\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\delta_{ij}}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Hence we have \(F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\) and \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j+2\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-2}\] Using [\[L3-infty-1\]](#L3-infty-1){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-1"} and [\[L3-infty-2\]](#L3-infty-2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-2"}, we know that \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}(\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i-1}+\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i+1}) \exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] From [\[t1-condition-b\]](#t1-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-b"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-3}\] From [\[t1-condition-b\]](#t1-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-b"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x+\delta_i\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\delta_{ij}}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Hence \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j+2\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-4}\] Using [\[L3-infty-3\]](#L3-infty-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-3"} and [\[L3-infty-4\]](#L3-infty-4){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-4"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1} \exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta <\infty.\] 0◻ **Lemma 1.4** Under conditions [\[t1-condition-a\]](#t1-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-a"} and [\[t1-condition-b\]](#t1-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-b"}, \[\biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to\infty\).\
**Proof** By integration by parts on \(\theta_i\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~ +\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i})\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~ +\int_{[u,v]\times[a,b]^{d-1}} \biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \biggr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \label{L4}\\ &=\Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}. \notag \end{aligned}\] Using Lemma 1.3, we have \(F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\), thus \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Using Lemma 1.3, we have \(F(x,r)<\infty\), thus \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i})\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Using Lemma 1.3, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta < \infty.\] Thus, all three terms in [\[L4\]](#L4){reference-type="eqref" reference="L4"} converge as \(v\to\infty\). Hence \[\Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\] converges as \(v\to\infty\), which completes the proof. 0◻ **Lemma 1.5** If \(g\in\mathbf{C}^2([0,\infty)^d)\) and conditions [\[t1-condition-a\]](#t1-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-a"}, [\[t1-condition-b\]](#t1-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-b"}, and [\[t1-condition-c\]](#t1-condition-c){reference-type="eqref" reference="t1-condition-c"} are satisfied, then \[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to0\) or \(\theta_i\to\infty\). **Proof**\
By integration by parts on \(\theta_i\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
& \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & \qquad+ \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & \qquad+\int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \label{L5}\\ &= \biggl[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}. \notag \end{aligned}\] From [\[F-1st-diff\]](#F-1st-diff){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-1st-diff"} and \(x_i \{ F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r) \}<\infty\), we know that \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] From [\[F-1st-diff\]](#F-1st-diff){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-1st-diff"} and \((x_i+\beta_i) \{F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r)\}<\infty\), we know that \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] Using [\[2nd-diff-finite\]](#2nd-diff-finite){reference-type="eqref" reference="2nd-diff-finite"}, we have \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] Thus, all three terms in [\[L5\]](#L5){reference-type="eqref" reference="L5"} converge as \(u\to0\) or \(v\to\infty\). Hence \[\biggl[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{r^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-r\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{r^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-r\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\] converges as \(u\to0\) or \(v\to\infty\), which completes the proof. 0◻ **Lemma 2.1** If the function \(F(x,r)\) defined in Theorem 2 is finite, then for any given \(r=(r_1,\dots,r_d)\), \(s=(s_1,\dots,s_d)\) and \(x=(x_1,\dots,x_d)\), we have \[\int \max_{\tau\in[0,1]}\Biggl\{ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t_i(\tau)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \Bigr| \Biggl\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda<\infty.\] **Proof**\
We denote \(r_0=\min\{r_1,\dots,r_d\}\) and \(s_0=\max\{r_1+s_1,\dots,r_d+s_d\}\). Because \(t_i(\tau)\in[r_i,r_i+s_i]\), we have \(t_i(\tau)\in[r_0,s_0]\). Then we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int \max_{\tau\in[0,1]}\Biggl\{ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t_i(\tau)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl| \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \Bigr| \Biggl\} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &\le\int \Biggl[ f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{s_0^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_0\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl\{ \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0 + \sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i\gamma_is_0^2 \Bigr\} \Biggl] \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\Bigl( \ffrac{s_0}{r_0}\Bigr) ^{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{r_0^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_0\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &~~~~+\sum_{j=1}^{d}\gamma_js_0^2\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{s_0^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_0\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \bar\lambda_j \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\Bigl( \ffrac{s_0}{r_0}\Bigr) ^{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{r_0^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-r_0\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda\\ &~~~~+\sum_{j=1}^{d}\gamma_js_0\Bigl( \ffrac{s_0}{r_0}\Bigr) ^{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{r_0^{x_i+\beta_i+\delta_{ij}}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i+\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-r_0\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\Bigl( \ffrac{s_0}{r_0}\Bigr) ^{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)}F(x,(r_0,\dots,r_0)) +\sum_{j=1}^{d}\gamma_js_0\Bigl(\ffrac{s_0}{r_0}\Bigr)^{\sum_{i=1}^d(x_i+\beta_i)+1}F(x+\delta_j,(r_0,\dots,r_0))(x_j+\beta_j). \end{aligned}\] Because \(F(x,(r_0,\dots,r_0))\) and \(F(x+\delta_j,(r_0,\dots,r_0))\) are finite, the proof is complete. 0◻ **Lemma 2.2** Under conditions [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"} and [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"}, for a given \(\tau_0\), there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl[ \Biggl| \biggl\{ \log F(x,t(\tau)) \biggr\} \biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \Bigr) \Biggr| \Biggr] \notag \\ &\quad + \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl[ \frac{ \displaystyle \biggl| \int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{t_i(\tau)^{x_i+\beta_i}\bar\lambda_i^{x_i+\beta_i-1}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\bar\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \bar\lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \Bigr) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda \Biggr| } { F(x,t(\tau))} \notag\\ & ~~~~~ \biggl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] \notag \\ &<\infty. \end{aligned}\] **Proof**\
From [\[transform2-t2\]](#transform2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="transform2-t2"}, we know that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int f(\bar\lambda_1,\dots,\bar\lambda_d) \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{t_j(\tau)^{x_j+\beta_j}\bar\lambda_j^{x_j+\beta_j-1} \exp(-t_j(\tau)\bar\lambda_j)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \bar\lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\bar\lambda = F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau). \end{aligned}\] Therefore, the Lemma is equivalent to \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t(\tau)) \biggr| \Bigl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Bigr\} \biggl| \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \biggr| \Biggl] \notag \\ &\quad + \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl\{ \frac{ \biggl| F(x,t(\tau))\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^dF(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl| } {F(x,t(\tau))} \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag \\ &<\infty. \label{finite-goal-t2} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[F-differentiable-3\]](#F-differentiable-3){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-differentiable-3"}, when we set \(r=t(\tau_0)\), we know that there exists \(\delta>0\) such that \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x\Biggl[ \max_{t\in \bar B(t(\tau_0),\delta)}\biggl\{ \Bigl| \log F(x,t) \Bigr| (\sum_{i=1}^dx_i+1) \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \biggr\} \Biggr] <\infty. \notag \end{aligned}\] Because \(t(\tau)\) is continuous, there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that for any \(\tau\in[\tau_0-\epsilon,\tau_0+\epsilon]\), \(t(\tau)\in \bar B(t(\tau_0),\delta)\). Thus, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t(\tau)) \biggr| \Bigl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Bigr\} \biggl| \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2(\tau) \biggr| \Biggl] \notag \\ &\le \sum_x \max_{t\in \bar B(t(\tau_0),\delta)} \Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \Bigl\{ \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Bigr\} \biggl| \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\gamma_it_i-\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_it_i^2 \biggr| \Biggl] \notag \\ &\le\sum_x \max_{t\in \bar B(t(\tau_0),\delta)}\Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \Bigl\{\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!}\Bigr\}( \sum_{i=1}^d x_i +1)\Bigl\{ \sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_i(\Vert t(\tau_0)\Vert+\delta)+\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_i(\Vert t(\tau_0)\Vert+\delta)^2 \Bigr\} \Biggl] \notag\\ &=\sum_x \max_{t\in \bar B(t(\tau_0),\delta)}\Biggl[ \biggl| \log F(x,t) \biggr| \Bigl\{\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{(t_i\lambda_i)^{x_i}\exp(-t_i\lambda_i)}{x_i!}\Bigr\}( \sum_{i=1}^d x_i +1) \Biggl]\Bigl\{ \sum_{i=1}^d \gamma_i(\Vert t(\tau_0)\Vert+\delta)+\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\gamma_i(\Vert t(\tau_0)\Vert+\delta)^2 \Bigr\} \notag\\ &<\infty. \label{L2-finite1-t2} \end{aligned}\] Using [\[Fineq3\]](#Fineq3){reference-type="eqref" reference="Fineq3"}, we have \[\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\gamma_ir_ix_i(F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r))+\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\gamma_ir_i(x_i+\beta_i)(F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r))\ge 0,\] thus, when we set \(r=t(\tau)\), we get \[\sum_{i=1}^d\gamma_it_i(\tau)(x_i+\beta_i)F(x+\delta_i,t(\tau)) <2\sum_{i=1}^d\gamma_it_i(\tau)(x_i+\beta_i)F(x,t(\tau)).\] Therefore, \[\begin{aligned}
& \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl\{ \frac{ \biggl| F(x,t(\tau))\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^dF(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl| } {F(x,t(\tau))} \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~\prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag \\ &< \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl\{ \frac{ F(x,t(\tau))\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) } {F(x,t(\tau))}\prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\}. \notag \end{aligned}\] We denote \(r_0=\min\{r_1,\dots,r_d\}\) and \(s_0=\max\{r_1+s_1,\dots,r_d+s_d\}\). Because \(t_i(\tau)\in[r_i,r_i+s_i]\), we have \(t_i(\tau)\in[r_0,s_0]\). Therefore, \[\begin{aligned}
& \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl\{ \frac{ \biggl| F(x,t(\tau))\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau)-\sum_{i=1}^dF(x+\delta_i,t(\tau))(x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) \biggl| } {F(x,t(\tau))} \notag\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~\prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag \\ &< \sum_x \max_{|\tau-\tau_0|\le\epsilon} \Biggl\{ \frac{ F(x,t(\tau))\sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_it_i(\tau) } {F(x,t(\tau))}\prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-t_i(\tau)\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag\\ &\le \sum_x \Biggl\{ \biggl( \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\biggl) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(s_0\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-r_0\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag \\ &\le \exp((s_0-r_0)\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i)\sum_x \Biggl\{ \biggl( \sum_{i=1}^d (x_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\biggl) \prod_{i=1}^d \ffrac{(s_0\lambda_i)^{x_i} \exp(-s_0\lambda_i)}{x_i!} \Biggr\} \notag \\ &= \exp((s_0-r_0)\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i) \biggl( \sum_{i=1}^d (s_0\lambda_i+\beta_i)\gamma_is_0\biggl) \notag \\ &<\infty. \label{L2-finite2-t2} \end{aligned}\] Therefore, using [\[L2-finite1-t2\]](#L2-finite1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L2-finite1-t2"} and [\[L2-finite2-t2\]](#L2-finite2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L2-finite2-t2"}, we obtain [\[finite-goal-t2\]](#finite-goal-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="finite-goal-t2"}. 0◻ **Lemma 2.3** Under conditions [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"} and [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~F(x,r)<\infty\\ &~~~~F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\\ \int \biggl\{& \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty\\ &\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta < \infty \end{aligned}\] **Proof**\
From [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"}, we have \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, we have \(F(x,r)<\infty\) and \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-1-t2}\] From [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"}, we have \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x+\delta_i\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Hence \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\delta_{ij}}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, we have \(F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\) and \[\int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j+2\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-2-t2}\] From [\[L3-infty-1-t2\]](#L3-infty-1-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-1-t2"} and [\[L3-infty-2-t2\]](#L3-infty-2-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-2-t2"}, we know that \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}(\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i-1}+\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i+1}) \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] From [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-3-t2}\] From [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}p(x+\delta_i\mid\theta)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Thus, \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^{d}\theta_j^{2\beta_j-1}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\delta_{ij}}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty.\] Hence \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta)\Bigl\rvert\prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j+2\delta_{ij}-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j+\delta_{ij})}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta<\infty. \label{L3-infty-4-t2}\] Using [\[L3-infty-3-t2\]](#L3-infty-3-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-3-t2"} and [\[L3-infty-4-t2\]](#L3-infty-4-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L3-infty-4-t2"}, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1} \exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta <\infty.\] 0◻ **Lemma 2.4** Under conditions [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"} and [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, \[\displaystyle \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i} \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i} \exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to\infty\).\
**Proof** By integration by parts on \(\theta_i\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~ +\int_u^v \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i})\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & ~~ +\int_{[u,v]\times[a,b]^{d-1}} \biggl\{ \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \biggr\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^d\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta \label{L4-t2}\\ &=\Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}. \notag \end{aligned}\] Using Lemma 2.3, we have \(F(x+\delta_i,r)<\infty\), thus \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Using Lemma 2.3, we have \(F(x,r)<\infty\), thus \[\int \biggl\{ \int g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}(\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i})\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i <\infty.\] Using Lemma 2.3, we have \[\int \Bigl\lvert\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}g(\theta) \Bigl\rvert \prod\limits_{j=1}^d \ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j} \theta_j^{2x_j+\delta_{ji}+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\delta_{ji}+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta < \infty.\] Hence all three terms in [\[L4-t2\]](#L4-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L4-t2"} converge as \(v\to\infty\). Thus, \[\Biggl[ \biggl\{ \int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} g(\theta)\prod\limits_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i+2\beta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+1+\beta_i)} \Biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\] converges as \(v\to\infty\), which completes the proof. 0◻ **Lemma 2.5** If \(g\in\mathbf{C}^2([0,\infty)^d)\) and conditions [\[t2-condition-a\]](#t2-condition-a){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-a"}, [\[t2-condition-b\]](#t2-condition-b){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-b"}, and [\[t2-condition-c\]](#t2-condition-c){reference-type="eqref" reference="t2-condition-c"} are satisfied, then \[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\] converges as \(\theta_i\to0\) or \(\theta_i\to\infty\). **Proof**\
By integration by parts on \(\theta_i\), we have \[\begin{aligned}
& \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & \qquad+ \int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \notag\\ & \qquad+\int_u^v\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i \label{L5-t2}\\ &= \biggl[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}. \notag \end{aligned}\] Using [\[F-1st-diff-t2\]](#F-1st-diff-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-1st-diff-t2"} and \(\gamma_ir_ix_i \{ F(x,r)-F(x-\delta_i,r) \}<\infty\), we know that \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{\prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)} \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\ffrac{\partial\theta_i^{2x_i}}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] Using [\[F-1st-diff-t2\]](#F-1st-diff-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="F-1st-diff-t2"} and \(\gamma_ir_i(x_i+\beta_i) \{F(x,r)-F(x+\delta_i,r)\}<\infty\), we know that \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j\biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)} {\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] Using [\[2nd-diff-finite-t2\]](#2nd-diff-finite-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="2nd-diff-finite-t2"}, we have \[\int\int \ffrac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}\Bigl\{\ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1}\Bigr\} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)}{\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_i<\infty.\] Hence all three terms in [\[L5-t2\]](#L5-t2){reference-type="eqref" reference="L5-t2"} converge as \(u\to0\) or \(v\to\infty\). Thus, \[\biggl[\int_{[a,b]^{d-1}} \ffrac{\partial g}{\partial\theta_i}(\theta)\theta_i^{2\beta_i-1} \biggl\{ \prod_{j\neq i}\ffrac{(\gamma_jr_j)^{x_j+\beta_j}\theta_j^{2x_j+2\beta_j-1}\exp(-\gamma_jr_j\theta_j^2)} {\Gamma(x_j+\beta_j)}\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}\theta_j \biggr\} \ffrac{(\gamma_ir_i)^{x_i+\beta_i}\theta_i^{2x_i}\exp(-\gamma_ir_i\theta_i^2)}{\Gamma(x_i+\beta_i)} \biggr]^{v}_{\theta_i = u}\] converges as \(u\to0\) or \(v\to\infty\), which completes the proof. 0◻ | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:41', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14618', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14618'} |
# Introduction {#sec-int}
Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) is a booming field of research in machine learning with diverse real-world applications. In recent years, many *model-free* DRL algorithms achieved cutting-edge performance in tackling various continuous reinforcement learning (RL) problems, including complex control tasks with high-dimensional state and action spaces. These algorithms can effectively train *deep neural networks* (DNNs) to precisely model high-quality control policies and are the central focus of this paper. Despite of widely reported success, a majority of existing *actor-critic DRL algorithms*, such as DDPG, SAC and PPO, still suffer from some major limitations. Specifically, existing research works showed that the algorithm performance is highly sensitive to hyper-parameter settings and can vary substantially in different algorithm runs. *Ineffective exploration* is often considered as a major cause for the poor learning stability, often resulting in overfitting and premature convergence to poor local optima. Rather than relying on one learner (or DRL agent), an ensemble of base learners can be jointly utilized to boost exploration and stabilize the learning process. For example, the *ensemble deep deterministic policy gradient* (ED2) algorithm is a newly developed ensemble DRL method that trains multiple DNN policies simultaneously using a shared *experience replay buffer* (ERB), similar to several previously proposed parallel DRL algorithms. ED2 features a unique mixture of multiple well-studied tricks, including temporally-extended deep exploration, double Q-bias reduction, and target policy smoothing. It was reported to outperform state-of-the-art ensemble DRL algorithms such as SUNRISE on several difficult Mujoco benchmark control problems. As far as we know, most of the existing ensemble DRL algorithms are designed to train each base learner individually. For example, in ED2, every base learner trains its own DNN policy using its own critic, with the aim to improve its own performance without considering the impact of the trained policy on the ensemble. While sharing the same ERB, policy training is conducted largely independently by all base learners. This is shown to promote healthy exploration in. However, there is no guarantee that the base learners will collaborate effectively such that the ensemble as a whole can achieve desirable performance. To address this limitation, we propose a new *hierarchical approach* for training base learners in this paper. Specifically, we follow ED2 for *low-level training* of DNN policies, which will be performed concurrently by all base learners. In the meantime, we construct a *global critic*, which is trained constantly to predict the performance of the ensemble. Guided by the global critic, *high-level training* of DNN policies will be performed regularly to strengthen cooperation among all the base learners. Since the ensemble is not used directly to collect state-transition samples from the learning environment, we must make sure that high-level training of the ensemble is not performed on *out-of-distribution* data obtained by individual base learners. In view of this, it is important to encourage *inter-learner parameter sharing* so that the DNN policy trained by one base learner can contribute directly to (or influence) the training of DNN policies by other base learners. For this purpose, we develop a new technique in this paper for high-level training of policies based on the *multi-step integration methods* for solving *ordinary differential equations* (ODEs) in. Our high-level policy training technique is theoretically justified as it guarantees stability for a wide range of optimization problems. Meanwhile, it can be shown analytically that the trained linear parametric policies (a special and important technique for policy approximation) of all base learners are expected to behave more consistently as the ensemble through high-level policy training, encouraging inter-learner collaboration and alleviating the data distribution issue. Driven by the hierarchical policy training method, we develop a new ensemble DRL algorithm called *hierarchical ensemble deep deterministic policy gradient* (HED) in this paper. Experimental evaluation of HED has been conducted on a range of benchmark control problems, including the widely used Mujoco control tasks as well as the less popular and potentially more challenging PyBullet control problems. Our experiments clearly show that HED can outperform ED2, SUNRISE and several cutting-edge DRL algorithms on multiple benchmark problems. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We review the related research works in the recent literature in the subsequent section. Necessary technical background for developing the HED algorithm is presented next, followed by the detailed design of HED. The empirical performance of the new algorithm is further evaluated before the concluding remarks.
# Related Work {#sec-rw}
Similar to ED2, HED trains an ensemble of policies using an *off-policy* DRL algorithm to leverage on the algorithm's advantages in *sample efficiency*. Recently, several off-policy DRL algorithms have been developed successfully for RL in continuous spaces, including DDPG, SAC, TD3, and SOP. These algorithms introduce a variety of tricks to stabilize the learning process. For example, TD3 extends the idea of double Q-network to a new double-Q bias reduction technique, which can effectively prevent over-optimistic training of DNN policies. In addition, empirical evidence showed that the learning process becomes more stable when the actor and critic in TD3 are trained with different frequencies or in different phases. The base learners in our HED ensemble will adopt these tricks. The recent literature also provides some new tricks to stabilize learning. Specifically, various trust-region methods have been developed to prevent negative behavioral changes during policy training. Meanwhile, entropy regularization techniques prohibit immature convergence of the trained policies and ensure prolonged profitable exploration. However, these techniques are mainly applied to stochastic policies while we aim at learning an ensemble of deterministic policies. Previous research showed that deterministic policies can often be trained more efficiently than stochastic policies using the *reparameterization trick*. The stability of a DRL algorithm depends critically on how the learner explores its environment. Besides the entropy regularization methods, curiosity metrics are popularly employed to encourage a learner to explore rarely visited states during RL. Meanwhile, many previous studies embraced the *optimum in the face of uncertainty* (OFU) principle to design bonus rewards for actions with high potentials, thereby promoting exploration in promising areas of the learning environment. One good example is the UCB exploration technique developed in. However, in, this technique was shown to be less effective than the bootstrap with random initialization trick adopted in ED2. Temporally-extended exploration on RL problems with continuous actions can also be achieved by adding a small amount of noise to DNN weights. This is directly related to the posterior sampling methods that are often used to select the best actions among a statistically plausible set of sampled actions. Following the OFU principle, deep ensembles have been recently proposed to approximate Bayesian posteriors with high accuracy and efficiency. They are subsequently used to approach deep exploration for reliable RL. Several issues have been investigated under the context of ensemble DRL. For instance, the diversity of base learners is essential to the performance of the ensemble. To encourage diversity, either different DRL algorithms or the same algorithm with differed hyper-parameter settings have been adopted to train base learners. Meanwhile, proper aggregation of the action outputs from all base learners in an ensemble poses another challenge. Typical approaches to tackle this issue include taking the mean action as the output of the ensemble and choosing the action with highest predicted cumulative rewards. As far as we know, few existing ensemble DRL algorithms in the literature have ever studied the important issue on how to effectively train all base learners to jointly improve the ensemble performance. This issue will be explored in-depth with the newly developed HED algorithm in this paper.
# Background {#sec-back}
An RL problem is modeled as a *Markov Decision Process* (MDP) \((\mathcal{S},\mathcal{A},R,P,\gamma,p_0)\), where \(\mathcal{S}\) and \(\mathcal{A}\) refer respectively to the continuous multi-dimensional state space and action space. \(P\) stands for the state-transition model that governs the probability of reaching any state \(s_{t+1}\in\mathcal{S}\) at timestep \(t+1\) upon performing any action \(a_t\in\mathcal{A}\) in state \(s_t\in\mathcal{S}\) at timestep \(t\), with \(t\in\mathbb{Z}^+\). Additionally, \(\gamma\in[0,1)\) is the discount factor, \(R\) is the reward function, and \(p_0\) captures the initial state distribution. To solve any RL problem described above, we aim to learn an optimal *deterministic ensemble policy* \(\pi^e_*(s)\) that maps any state input \(s\in\mathcal{S}\) to an action vector \(a\in\mathcal{A}\) so as to maximize the *cumulative rewards* defined below \[\pi^e_*= \argmax_{\pi^e} J(\pi^e)=\argmax_{\pi^e}\mathbb{E}_{\tau\sim\pi^e} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\gamma^{t-1} R(s_t,a_t) \right],\] where \(\tau=[(s_t,a_t,r_t,s_{t+1})]_{t=1}^{\infty}\) contains a series of consecutive state-transition samples and is called a *episode*, which can be obtained by following the ensemble policy \(\pi^e\), and \(r_t=R(s_t,a_t)\) is the immediate reward received at timestep \(t\) in \(\tau\). For an ensemble with \(N\) base learners where each base learner \(L_i\), \(1\leq i\leq N\), maintains its own deterministic base policy \(\pi^i\), the action output of \(\pi^e\) is jointly determined by all the *base policies* according to \[\forall s\in\mathcal{S}, \pi^e(s)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i^N \pi^i(s). \label{equ-pe}\] In order to train an ensemble to maximize the cumulative rewards, our baseline algorithm ED2 uses randomly selected base learners to sample a series of episodes \(\{\tau_i\}\), which will be stored in the shared ERB. At regular time intervals, a mini-batch of state-transition samples will be retrieved from the ERB. Every base learner \(L_i\) will then use the retrieved mini-batch to train its own actor \(\pi^i\) and critic \(Q^i\) individually. In other words, a base learner manages two separate DNNs, one models the deterministic policy \(\pi^i\) and the other approximates the Q-function \(Q^i\) of \(\pi^i\). A base learner uses an existing actor-critic RL algorithm to train the two DNNs. In this paper, we choose TD3 for this purpose due to its proven effectiveness, high popularity and stable learning behavior.
# Hierarchical Ensemble Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient {#sec-algo}
The pseudo-code of the HED algorithm is presented in Algorithm [\[alg-code\]](#alg-code){reference-type="ref" reference="alg-code"}. HED follows many existing works including ED2 to achieve temporally-extended exploration through bootstrapping with random initialization of DNN policies. As clearly shown in, this exploration technique is more effective than UCB and parameter randomization methods. Different from ED2 which completely eliminates the necessity of adding small random noises to the deterministic action outputs from the DNN policies, we keep a small level of action noise[^1] while using any chosen policy to explore the learning environment. We found empirically that this ensures coherent exploration, similar to, while making the testing performance of the trained policies more stable. Different from ED2 and other ensemble algorithms for RL in continuous spaces, HED trains DNN policies at two separate levels. The low-level training of \(\pi^i\) and \(Q^i\) by each base learner \(L_i\) is essentially the same as ED2 and TD3. Specifically, for any base learner \(L_i\), \(i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}\), \(Q^i\) is trained by \(L_i\) to minimize \(MSE_i\) below \[MSE_i=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}|} \sum_{(s,a,r,s')\in\mathcal{B}}\left(Q^i_{\phi_i}(s,a)-r-\gamma\min_{k=1,2}\hat{Q}^i_{k}(s',\pi^i(s')+\epsilon) \right)^2, \label{equ-mse}\] where \(\phi_i\) represents the trainable parameters of the DNN that approximates \(Q^i\). \(\mathcal{B}\) is the random mini-batch retrieved from the ERB. \(\hat{Q}^i_{k}\) with \(k=1,2\) stands for the two target Q-networks of \(L_i\) that together implement the double-Q bias reduction mechanism proposed in. Additionally, \(\epsilon\) is a random noise sampled from a Normal distribution with zero mean and small variance[^2]. Using the trained \(Q^i\), the trainable parameters \(\theta_i\) of the DNN that models policy \(\pi^i\) is further updated by \(L_i\) along the *policy gradient* direction computed below \[\nabla_{\theta_i}J(\pi^i_{\theta_i})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}|}\sum_{s\in\mathcal{B}} \nabla_{a}Q^i(s,a)|_{a=\pi^i_{\theta_i}(s)}\nabla_{\theta_i}\pi^i_{\theta_i}(s). \label{equ-pg}\] Besides the above, HED constantly trains a separate high-level Q-function \(Q^e\) to predict the performance of the ensemble policy \(\pi^e\). Guided by the trained \(Q^e\), high-level policy training is conducted regularly to update policy \(\pi^i\) of all base learners so as to enhance their cooperation and performance. A new *multi-step technique* is developed in HED to enable inter-learner parameter sharing during high-level policy training. To implement this technique, we keep track of a list of bootstrap policy parameters for the multi-step training process. More details can be found in the subsequent subsection. Theoretical justifications regarding the usefulness of the multi-step approach are also provided below.
The proof of Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"} can be found in Appendix A. Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"} provides suitable parameter settings for [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} and justifies its stable use for high-level policy training. We next show that [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is also expected to make base learners behave more consistently with the ensemble, without affecting the behavior of the trained ensemble, when \(\rho_0\) is sufficiently small. Consider specifically that each base learner \(L_i\) trains a linear parametric policy of the form: \[\pi^i(s)=\Phi(s)^T\cdot \theta_i \label{equ-lin-pol}\] where \(\Phi(s)\) represents the *state feature vector* with respect to any input state \(s\). For simplicity, we study the special case of scalar actions. However, the analysis can be easily extended to high-dimensional action spaces. Meanwhile, we use \(Sin()\) and \(Mul()\) to represent respectively the action output of a policy trained for one iteration on the same state \(s\) by using either the single-step method or the multi-step method in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. The single-step method can be considered as a special case of the multi-step method with \(\rho_2=-1\) and \(\rho_0=\rho_1=0\). Using these notations, Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} is presented below.
Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} indicates that multi-step training in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is expected to reduce the difference between the action output of any base learner and that of the ensemble. Meanwhile the amount of action changes applied to \(\pi^e\) remains identical to the single-step method. Therefore, using the multi-step policy training method developed in this section helps to enhance consistent behaviors among all base learners of the ensemble.
# Experiment {#sec-exp}
This section presents the experimental evaluation of HED, in comparison to several state-of-the-art DRL algorithms. The experiment setup is discussed first. Detailed experiment results are further presented and analyzed.
## Experiment setting
We implement HED based on the high-quality implementation of TD3 provided by the publicly available OpenAI Spinning Up repository . We also follow closely the hyper-parameter settings of TD3 recommended in to build each base learner of HED. Specifically, based on , a fully connected MLP with two hidden layers of 64 ReLU units is adopted to model all policy networks and Q-networks. Similar to, HED employs \(5\) base learners, i.e., \(N=5\). Each base learner has its own policy network and Q-network. Meanwhile, HED maintains and trains a separate ensemble Q-network with the same network architecture design. Each base learner trains its Q-network and also conducts the low-level training of the policy network repeatedly whenever HED collects 50 consecutive state-transition samples from the learning environment. Meanwhile, high-level policy training as well as the training of the ensemble Q-network is performed immediately after HED samples a full episode. HED adopts a separate Adam optimizer with the fixed learning rate of \(5\mathrm{e}{-4}\) to train each Q-network and policy network. Furthermore, \(\rho_0\) in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is set to 0.0001 for the main experiment results reported in Figure [\[fig:training_perf\]](#fig:training_perf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:training_perf"}. The mini-batch size \(|\mathcal{B}|\) is set to 100, following existing research without any fine-tuning. HED is compared against four state-of-the-art DRL algorithms, including two Ensemble DRL algorithms, i.e., ED2 and SUNRISE ), and two widely used off-policy DRL algorithms, i.e., SAC and TD3. We evaluate their performance on 9 challenging continuous control benchmark problems, including four PyBullet benchmark problems (i.e., Hopper-v0, InvertedDoublePendulum-v0, InvertedPendulum-v0, and Reacher-v0), four Mujoco control tasks (i.e., Hopper-v3, Humanoid-v3, Swimmer-v3, and Walker2D-v3), and LunarLanderContinuous-v2 provided by OpenAI Gym . In the literature, PyBullet benchmarks are often considered to be more challenging than Mujoco benchmarks. Hence we decide to evaluate the performance of HED on both PyBullet and Mujoco benchmarks. The maximum episode length for each benchmark is fixed to 1000 timesteps. Each algorithm is run independently with 10 random seeds on all benchmarks. Besides the hyper-parameter settings of HED highlighted above, detailed hyper-parameter settings of all the competing algorithms have been summarized in Appendix C.
## Experiment result
### Performance comparison:
We compare HED against four cutting-edge DRL algorithms on 9 benchmark problems. Table [\[tab:final_perf_comp\]](#tab:final_perf_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:final_perf_comp"} presents the average cumulative rewards obtained by the policy networks (or policy ensembles for ensemble DRL algorithms) trained by all the competing algorithms across the same number of sampled episodes with respect to each benchmark. As evidenced in the table, HED achieved consistently the best performance[^3] on most of the benchmark problems except InvertedPendulum, Reacher, and LunarLander. Meanwhile, on InvertedPendulum, Reacher, and LunarLander, HED achieved very competitive performance with at least 98% of the maximum cumulative rewards reached by the highest performing competing algorithms. Furthermore, on some problems such as Hopper-v0 and Walker2D-v3, HED outperformed the lowest performing algorithm by up to 150% and the algorithm with the second highest performance by up to 18%. In addition to Table [\[tab:final_perf_comp\]](#tab:final_perf_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:final_perf_comp"}, we also compared the learning curves of all the competing algorithms in Figure [\[fig:training_perf\]](#fig:training_perf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:training_perf"}. As demonstrated in this figure, by explicitly strengthening inter-learner collaboration, HED converges clearly faster and is more stable during the learning process than other competing algorithms. Specifically, on several benchmark problems, such as Hopper-v0, InvertedDoublePendulum-v0, and Hopper-v3, HED achieved significantly lower variations in learning performance across 10 independent runs. In comparison to other ensemble DRL algorithms, the learning curves of HED also appear to be smoother on several benchmark problems, such as Walker2D-v3, suggesting that HED can achieve highly competitive stability during learning.
### Impact of \(\rho_0\):
To investigate the performance impact of \(\rho_0\), we tested 4 different settings of \(\rho_0\), ranging from \(5\mbox{e\)-\(}05\) to \(0.01\), on the InvertedPendulum-v0 and Hopper-v0 problems (similar observations can be found on other benchmark problems and are omitted in this paper). The learning curves are plotted in Figure [\[fig:rho_impact\]](#fig:rho_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:rho_impact"}. It is witnessed in the figure that HED can convergence faster under suitable settings of \(\rho_0\). However, the "best" \(\rho_0\) varies on different benchmark problems. For example, \(\rho_0=0.005\) (green curve) converges slightly faster than other settings on InvertedPendulum-v0 while \(\rho_0=5e-05\) (blue curve) converges slightly faster on Hopper-v0. Nevertheless, the impact of different \(\rho_0\) on the final performance appears to be small as long as \(\rho_0\) is reasonably small according to Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}.
### Ablation study on high-level policy training techniques:
High-level policy training can be conducted repeatedly whenever HED obtains either a new sampled episode or a fixed number of consecutive state-transition samples (e.g., samples collected from 50 consecutive timesteps). To understand which approach is more effective, experimental comparisons have been conducted in Appendix D with detailed performance results. According to the experiment results in Appendix D, on a majority of benchmark problems, episodic learning can produce more stable learning behavior and also makes HED converge faster. We also compared HED with its variation that performs high-level policy training by using the single-step method in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"} instead of the multi-step method in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. Detailed experiment results can be found in Appendix E. Our experiment results confirm that multi-step training in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} enables HED to achieve significantly higher performance and learning stability than using the conventional single-step training technique in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}. Hence, by explicitly sharing learned policy parameters among base learners in an ensemble through [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, HED can effectively enhance inter-learner collaboration and boost the learning process.
# Conclusions {#sec-con}
In this paper, we conducted in-depth study of ensemble DRL algorithms, which have achieved cutting-edge performance on many benchmark RL problems in the recent literature. Different from existing research works that rely mainly on each base learner of an ensemble to train its policy network individually, we developed a new HED algorithm to explore the potential of training all base learners in a hierarchical manner in order to promote inter-learner collaboration and improve the collective performance of an ensemble of trained base learners. Specifically, we adopted existing ensemble DRL algorithms such as ED2 to perform low-level policy training. Meanwhile, a new multi-step training technique was developed for high-level policy training in HED to facilitate direct inter-learner parameter sharing. Both theoretical and empirical analysis showed that the HED algorithm can achieve stable learning behavior. It also outperformed several state-of-the-art DRL algorithms on multiple benchmark RL problems.
# Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
This appendix presents a proof of Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}. According to, any multi-step integration methods including [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} must satisfy three conditions to ensure its stability. They together guarantee that \(x_k\) can converge to \(\theta_i^*\) as \(k\) approaches to \(\infty\). We check each condition one-by-one below to derive the main conclusions in Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}. **Consistency condition**: We can re-write [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} as below \[x_{k+3}+\rho_2 x_{k+2}+\rho_1 x_{k+1}+\rho_0 x_k= h\cdot g(x_{k+2}).\] Define the *shift operator* \(F\), which maps \(Fx_k\rightarrow x_{k+1}\). Furthermore, with \(g(x_k)\) being simplified to \(g_k\), \(F\) also maps \(Fg_k\rightarrow g_{k+1}\). Using \(F\), [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} can be further written as \[\rho(F)x_k=h\sigma(F)g_k, \forall k\geq 0,\] where \[\rho(F)=F^3+\rho_2 F^2+\rho_1 F+\rho_0, \sigma(F)=F^2.\] The consistency condition requires \[\rho(1)=0, \rho'(1)=\sigma(1).\] This implies that \[\begin{split} & 1+\rho_2+\rho_1+\rho_0=0, \\ & 3+2\rho_2+\rho_1=1. \end{split}\] Solving the above equations leads to \[\rho_1=-2\rho_0,\ \rho_2=\rho_0-1.\] Hence, [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} becomes \[x_{k+3}=(1-\rho_0)x_{k+2}+2\rho_0 x_{k+1}-\rho_0 x_k+h\cdot g(x_{k+2}).\] **Zero-stability condition**: This condition requires all roots of \(\rho(F)\) to be in the unit disk. Any roots on the unit circle must be simple. In other words, \[\left| Roots(\rho(F)) \right|\leq 1.\] In fact, \(\rho(F)\) has three roots. They are \[1, \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0 \pm \sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right).\] It is easy to verify that when \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}\), \[\left| \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0-\sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right) \right|<1.\] Meanwhile, when \(\rho_0>0\), \[\left| \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0 + \sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right) \right|<1.\] In summary, the zero-stability condition requires \[0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}.\] **Absolute stability condition**: Define \[\begin{split} \Pi_{\lambda h} & \overset{\Delta}{=}\rho(F)+\lambda h\sigma(F) \\ &=F^3+\rho_2 F^2+\rho_1 F+\rho_0+\lambda h F^2 \\ &=F^3+(\rho_0-1) F^2-2\rho_0 F+\rho_0 +\lambda h F^2 \\ &=F^3 + (\rho_0-1+\lambda h)F^2-2\rho_0 F+\rho_0. \end{split}\] Further define \[r_{max}=\max_{\lambda\in [L,U]} \max_{r\in Roots(\Pi_{\lambda h}(F))}|r|,\] where \(L\) and \(U\) in this appendix refer respectively to the smallest and the largest positive eigenvalues of matrix \(A\) in [\[equ-grad-linear\]](#equ-grad-linear){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-grad-linear"}. The absolute stability condition requires \[r_{max}<1. \label{equ-abs-con}\] Let \[\begin{split} & B=\rho_0-1+\lambda h, \\ & C=-2\rho_0, \\ & D=\rho_0. \end{split}\] Subsequently, define \[\begin{split} & A_0=1-B+C-D=2-\lambda h-4\rho_0, \\ & A_1=3-B-C-3D=4-\lambda h-2\rho_0, \\ & A_2=3+B-C-3D=2+\lambda h, \\ & A_3=1+B+C+D=\lambda h. \end{split}\] According to the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, the following two conditions jointly guarantee [\[equ-abs-con\]](#equ-abs-con){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-abs-con"}: \[\begin{split} A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4>0, \\ A_1 A_2 > A_0 A_3. \end{split}\] Specifically, the first condition above gives rise to the following: \[\lambda h >0,\ \lambda h+2\rho_0<4,\ \lambda h+4\rho_0<2.\] Following the second condition above, we can deduce the below: \[\lambda h>2-\frac{4}{\rho_0}.\] Given that \(\lambda h>0\), we have \[\begin{split} & \lambda h > \max\left\{ 0, 2-\frac{4}{\rho_0} \right\}, \\ & \lambda h < \min\left\{ 2-4\rho_0, 4-2\rho_0 \right\}. \end{split}\] Since \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}\), \[2-4\rho_0<4-2\rho_0,\ 2-\frac{4}{\rho_0}<0.\] Consequently \[0<\lambda h<2-4\rho_0.\] Clearly, with sufficiently small \(h\), the above condition on absolute stability can be easily satisfied. Hence, we can use [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} to perform high-level policy training stably in the HED algorithm.
# Appendix B {#appendix-b .unnumbered}
This appendix presents a proof of Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"}. Considering any specific state \(s\in\mathcal{S}\), let \[\nabla_a Q^e(s,a)|_{a=\pi^e(s)}=C,\] where \(C\) is an arbitrary scalar constant, in line with the assumption of scalar actions. Using [\[equ-pe\]](#equ-pe){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-pe"} and [\[equ-lin-pol\]](#equ-lin-pol){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-lin-pol"}, the ensemble policy gradient with respect to policy parameters \(\theta_i\) of policy \(\pi^i\), \(i\in[1,\ldots,N]\), is \[\nabla_{\theta_i} J(\pi^e)=\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] According to the multi-step learning rule in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, updating \(\theta_i\) for one iteration gives the updated \(\theta_i\) as \[(1-\rho_0)\theta_i+2\rho_0\theta_q-\rho_0\theta_p+h\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] Therefore, \[Mul(\pi^i(s))=(1-\rho_0)\pi^i(s)+2\rho_0\pi^q(s)-\rho_0\pi^p(s) +\frac{hC}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] Hence \[\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^i(s)) \right]=(1-\rho_0)\pi^i(s)+\rho_0\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s),\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right]=\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] In comparison, upon using the single-step method, the updated \(\theta_i\) becomes \[\theta_i+h\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] Subsequently, \[Sin(\pi^i(s))=\pi^i(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s),\] \[Sin(\pi^e(s))=\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] Clearly, \[Sin(\pi^e(s))=\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right].\] Hence, the expected action changes applied to \(\pi^e(s)\) are identical, regardless of whether single-step or multi-step method is used for high-level policy training[^4]. Define \[\Delta=\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s)).\] For the single-step method, after all base learners trained their respective policies for one iteration on state \(s\), it is easy to verify that \[\begin{split} & \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( Sin(\pi^i(s))-Sin(\pi^e(s)) \right)^2\\ =& \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( \pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s) \right)^2\\ =& \Delta. \end{split}\] Meanwhile, \[\begin{split} & \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \\ =&\left( (1-\rho_0) (\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s)) + 2\rho_0 (\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))-\rho_0(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s)) \right)^2\\ =&(1-\rho_0)^2(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))^2+4\rho_0^2(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))^2+\rho^2(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))^2\\ &+4(1-\rho_0)\rho_0(\pi^i-\pi^e(s))(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s)) \\ &-2(1-\rho_0)\rho_0(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\\ &-4\rho_0^2(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s)). \end{split}\] Since the base learner indices \(p\) and \(q\) are randomly and independently selected, \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0,\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0,\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0.\] Therefore \[\begin{split} & \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \right] \\ =&(1-\rho_0)^2\Delta+4\rho_0^2\Delta+\rho_0^2\Delta \\ =&(1-2\rho_0+6\rho_0^2)\Delta. \end{split}\] When \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{3}\), \[1-2\rho_0+6\rho_0^2<1.\] As a result, \[\begin{split} &\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \right] \\ <&\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( Sin(\pi^i(s))-Sin(\pi^e(s)) \right)^2. \end{split}\]
# Appendix C {#appendix-c .unnumbered}
Table [\[tab:hyper-para\]](#tab:hyper-para){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:hyper-para"} provides detailed hyper-parameter settings of all competing algorithms. Our hyper-parameter settings follow strictly the recommended settings in.
All experiments were run using a cluster of Linux computing nodes. Each node is equipped with 16 GB memory. The CPU specification is provided in Table [\[tab:cpu-para\]](#tab:cpu-para){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:cpu-para"}. Each experiment was run in a Python virtual environment managed by Anaconda with Python packages specified in Table [2](#tab:python-lib){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:python-lib"}.
# Appendix D {#appendix-d .unnumbered}
In this appendix, we study the effectiveness of conducting high-level policy training after HED obtains a full sampled episode. Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"} shows the performance comparison of HED with two different training frequencies: every 50 consecutive timesteps vs. every episode. It can be noticed that, on a majority benchmark problems (i.e., 5 out of 6), performing high-level policy training after every episode (orange curve) can significantly improve the HED algorithm in terms of both the final performance and convergence speed. For example, as shown in Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(e), the orange curve reaches 3500 after 1500 episodes while the blue curve converges to a lower cumulative reward (approx. 3000) after 2000 episodes. We also notice that episodic policy training is more robust to the randomness in the environment and less sensitive to the initialization of neural network weights. For example, in Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(e), episodic policy training produces a smaller confident interval (orange shaded area) compared to the fixed timestep training (blue shaded area) over 10 independent algorithm runs. Similar results can also be observed from Figures [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(a) and (f). Note that in each algorithm run, both policy networks and Q-networks are initialized with different weights. The environment initial states also vary.
# Appendix E {#appendix-e .unnumbered}
This appendix investigates the effectiveness of multi-step policy training by using [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. Specifically, we compare the performance of HED against its variant, which performs single-step high-level policy training by using [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}, on 6 problems that include both PyBullet and Mujoco benchmarks. As shown in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}, with the help of [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, significant performance improvement can be observed (orange curve) on most benchmark problems. In particular, HED behaves more stably during the learning process. For example, in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(c), the cumulative rewards obtained by the policy trained using [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} (orange curve) remain stable at 1000 after 300 episodes. In comparison, the blue curve stays below 1000 and fluctuates between 800 and 1000 over the entire learning period. Similar trends can also be noticed in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(b). The proposed multi-step policy training technique achieves clearly higher cumulative rewards. In the Hopper environment shown in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(e), the orange curve outperforms the blue curve by up to 75% after 2500 training episodes. Moreover, the orange curve converges to 3500 while the blue curve remains below 2000. The significant improvement in cumulative rewards can also be witnessed in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(a) and (f). The shaded areas in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(e) and (f) also show that the multi-step training technique is less sensitive to the environment randomness and neural network weight initialization, compared to using the conventional single-step training method in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}. Hence, our experiment results confirm the importance of inter-learner collaboration. By enabling base learners in an ensemble to explicitly share their learned policy parameters, HED can achieve high learning stability and effectively boost the learning process.
# Introduction {#sec-int}
Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) is a booming field of research in machine learning with diverse real-world applications. In recent years, many *model-free* DRL algorithms achieved cutting-edge performance in tackling various continuous reinforcement learning (RL) problems, including complex control tasks with high-dimensional state and action spaces. These algorithms can effectively train *deep neural networks* (DNNs) to precisely model high-quality control policies and are the central focus of this paper. Despite of widely reported success, a majority of existing *actor-critic DRL algorithms*, such as DDPG, SAC and PPO, still suffer from some major limitations. Specifically, existing research works showed that the algorithm performance is highly sensitive to hyper-parameter settings and can vary substantially in different algorithm runs. *Ineffective exploration* is often considered as a major cause for the poor learning stability, often resulting in overfitting and premature convergence to poor local optima. Rather than relying on one learner (or DRL agent), an ensemble of base learners can be jointly utilized to boost exploration and stabilize the learning process. For example, the *ensemble deep deterministic policy gradient* (ED2) algorithm is a newly developed ensemble DRL method that trains multiple DNN policies simultaneously using a shared *experience replay buffer* (ERB), similar to several previously proposed parallel DRL algorithms. ED2 features a unique mixture of multiple well-studied tricks, including temporally-extended deep exploration, double Q-bias reduction, and target policy smoothing. It was reported to outperform state-of-the-art ensemble DRL algorithms such as SUNRISE on several difficult Mujoco benchmark control problems. As far as we know, most of the existing ensemble DRL algorithms are designed to train each base learner individually. For example, in ED2, every base learner trains its own DNN policy using its own critic, with the aim to improve its own performance without considering the impact of the trained policy on the ensemble. While sharing the same ERB, policy training is conducted largely independently by all base learners. This is shown to promote healthy exploration in. However, there is no guarantee that the base learners will collaborate effectively such that the ensemble as a whole can achieve desirable performance. To address this limitation, we propose a new *hierarchical approach* for training base learners in this paper. Specifically, we follow ED2 for *low-level training* of DNN policies, which will be performed concurrently by all base learners. In the meantime, we construct a *global critic*, which is trained constantly to predict the performance of the ensemble. Guided by the global critic, *high-level training* of DNN policies will be performed regularly to strengthen cooperation among all the base learners. Since the ensemble is not used directly to collect state-transition samples from the learning environment, we must make sure that high-level training of the ensemble is not performed on *out-of-distribution* data obtained by individual base learners. In view of this, it is important to encourage *inter-learner parameter sharing* so that the DNN policy trained by one base learner can contribute directly to (or influence) the training of DNN policies by other base learners. For this purpose, we develop a new technique in this paper for high-level training of policies based on the *multi-step integration methods* for solving *ordinary differential equations* (ODEs) in. Our high-level policy training technique is theoretically justified as it guarantees stability for a wide range of optimization problems. Meanwhile, it can be shown analytically that the trained linear parametric policies (a special and important technique for policy approximation) of all base learners are expected to behave more consistently as the ensemble through high-level policy training, encouraging inter-learner collaboration and alleviating the data distribution issue. Driven by the hierarchical policy training method, we develop a new ensemble DRL algorithm called *hierarchical ensemble deep deterministic policy gradient* (HED) in this paper. Experimental evaluation of HED has been conducted on a range of benchmark control problems, including the widely used Mujoco control tasks as well as the less popular and potentially more challenging PyBullet control problems. Our experiments clearly show that HED can outperform ED2, SUNRISE and several cutting-edge DRL algorithms on multiple benchmark problems. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We review the related research works in the recent literature in the subsequent section. Necessary technical background for developing the HED algorithm is presented next, followed by the detailed design of HED. The empirical performance of the new algorithm is further evaluated before the concluding remarks.
# Related Work {#sec-rw}
Similar to ED2, HED trains an ensemble of policies using an *off-policy* DRL algorithm to leverage on the algorithm's advantages in *sample efficiency*. Recently, several off-policy DRL algorithms have been developed successfully for RL in continuous spaces, including DDPG, SAC, TD3, and SOP. These algorithms introduce a variety of tricks to stabilize the learning process. For example, TD3 extends the idea of double Q-network to a new double-Q bias reduction technique, which can effectively prevent over-optimistic training of DNN policies. In addition, empirical evidence showed that the learning process becomes more stable when the actor and critic in TD3 are trained with different frequencies or in different phases. The base learners in our HED ensemble will adopt these tricks. The recent literature also provides some new tricks to stabilize learning. Specifically, various trust-region methods have been developed to prevent negative behavioral changes during policy training. Meanwhile, entropy regularization techniques prohibit immature convergence of the trained policies and ensure prolonged profitable exploration. However, these techniques are mainly applied to stochastic policies while we aim at learning an ensemble of deterministic policies. Previous research showed that deterministic policies can often be trained more efficiently than stochastic policies using the *reparameterization trick*. The stability of a DRL algorithm depends critically on how the learner explores its environment. Besides the entropy regularization methods, curiosity metrics are popularly employed to encourage a learner to explore rarely visited states during RL. Meanwhile, many previous studies embraced the *optimum in the face of uncertainty* (OFU) principle to design bonus rewards for actions with high potentials, thereby promoting exploration in promising areas of the learning environment. One good example is the UCB exploration technique developed in. However, in, this technique was shown to be less effective than the bootstrap with random initialization trick adopted in ED2. Temporally-extended exploration on RL problems with continuous actions can also be achieved by adding a small amount of noise to DNN weights. This is directly related to the posterior sampling methods that are often used to select the best actions among a statistically plausible set of sampled actions. Following the OFU principle, deep ensembles have been recently proposed to approximate Bayesian posteriors with high accuracy and efficiency. They are subsequently used to approach deep exploration for reliable RL. Several issues have been investigated under the context of ensemble DRL. For instance, the diversity of base learners is essential to the performance of the ensemble. To encourage diversity, either different DRL algorithms or the same algorithm with differed hyper-parameter settings have been adopted to train base learners. Meanwhile, proper aggregation of the action outputs from all base learners in an ensemble poses another challenge. Typical approaches to tackle this issue include taking the mean action as the output of the ensemble and choosing the action with highest predicted cumulative rewards. As far as we know, few existing ensemble DRL algorithms in the literature have ever studied the important issue on how to effectively train all base learners to jointly improve the ensemble performance. This issue will be explored in-depth with the newly developed HED algorithm in this paper.
# Background {#sec-back}
An RL problem is modeled as a *Markov Decision Process* (MDP) \((\mathcal{S},\mathcal{A},R,P,\gamma,p_0)\), where \(\mathcal{S}\) and \(\mathcal{A}\) refer respectively to the continuous multi-dimensional state space and action space. \(P\) stands for the state-transition model that governs the probability of reaching any state \(s_{t+1}\in\mathcal{S}\) at timestep \(t+1\) upon performing any action \(a_t\in\mathcal{A}\) in state \(s_t\in\mathcal{S}\) at timestep \(t\), with \(t\in\mathbb{Z}^+\). Additionally, \(\gamma\in[0,1)\) is the discount factor, \(R\) is the reward function, and \(p_0\) captures the initial state distribution. To solve any RL problem described above, we aim to learn an optimal *deterministic ensemble policy* \(\pi^e_*(s)\) that maps any state input \(s\in\mathcal{S}\) to an action vector \(a\in\mathcal{A}\) so as to maximize the *cumulative rewards* defined below \[\pi^e_*= \argmax_{\pi^e} J(\pi^e)=\argmax_{\pi^e}\mathbb{E}_{\tau\sim\pi^e} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\gamma^{t-1} R(s_t,a_t) \right],\] where \(\tau=[(s_t,a_t,r_t,s_{t+1})]_{t=1}^{\infty}\) contains a series of consecutive state-transition samples and is called a *episode*, which can be obtained by following the ensemble policy \(\pi^e\), and \(r_t=R(s_t,a_t)\) is the immediate reward received at timestep \(t\) in \(\tau\). For an ensemble with \(N\) base learners where each base learner \(L_i\), \(1\leq i\leq N\), maintains its own deterministic base policy \(\pi^i\), the action output of \(\pi^e\) is jointly determined by all the *base policies* according to \[\forall s\in\mathcal{S}, \pi^e(s)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i^N \pi^i(s). \label{equ-pe}\] In order to train an ensemble to maximize the cumulative rewards, our baseline algorithm ED2 uses randomly selected base learners to sample a series of episodes \(\{\tau_i\}\), which will be stored in the shared ERB. At regular time intervals, a mini-batch of state-transition samples will be retrieved from the ERB. Every base learner \(L_i\) will then use the retrieved mini-batch to train its own actor \(\pi^i\) and critic \(Q^i\) individually. In other words, a base learner manages two separate DNNs, one models the deterministic policy \(\pi^i\) and the other approximates the Q-function \(Q^i\) of \(\pi^i\). A base learner uses an existing actor-critic RL algorithm to train the two DNNs. In this paper, we choose TD3 for this purpose due to its proven effectiveness, high popularity and stable learning behavior.
# Hierarchical Ensemble Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient {#sec-algo}
The pseudo-code of the HED algorithm is presented in Algorithm [\[alg-code\]](#alg-code){reference-type="ref" reference="alg-code"}. HED follows many existing works including ED2 to achieve temporally-extended exploration through bootstrapping with random initialization of DNN policies. As clearly shown in, this exploration technique is more effective than UCB and parameter randomization methods. Different from ED2 which completely eliminates the necessity of adding small random noises to the deterministic action outputs from the DNN policies, we keep a small level of action noise[^5] while using any chosen policy to explore the learning environment. We found empirically that this ensures coherent exploration, similar to, while making the testing performance of the trained policies more stable. Different from ED2 and other ensemble algorithms for RL in continuous spaces, HED trains DNN policies at two separate levels. The low-level training of \(\pi^i\) and \(Q^i\) by each base learner \(L_i\) is essentially the same as ED2 and TD3. Specifically, for any base learner \(L_i\), \(i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}\), \(Q^i\) is trained by \(L_i\) to minimize \(MSE_i\) below \[MSE_i=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}|} \sum_{(s,a,r,s')\in\mathcal{B}}\left(Q^i_{\phi_i}(s,a)-r-\gamma\min_{k=1,2}\hat{Q}^i_{k}(s',\pi^i(s')+\epsilon) \right)^2, \label{equ-mse}\] where \(\phi_i\) represents the trainable parameters of the DNN that approximates \(Q^i\). \(\mathcal{B}\) is the random mini-batch retrieved from the ERB. \(\hat{Q}^i_{k}\) with \(k=1,2\) stands for the two target Q-networks of \(L_i\) that together implement the double-Q bias reduction mechanism proposed in. Additionally, \(\epsilon\) is a random noise sampled from a Normal distribution with zero mean and small variance[^6]. Using the trained \(Q^i\), the trainable parameters \(\theta_i\) of the DNN that models policy \(\pi^i\) is further updated by \(L_i\) along the *policy gradient* direction computed below \[\nabla_{\theta_i}J(\pi^i_{\theta_i})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}|}\sum_{s\in\mathcal{B}} \nabla_{a}Q^i(s,a)|_{a=\pi^i_{\theta_i}(s)}\nabla_{\theta_i}\pi^i_{\theta_i}(s). \label{equ-pg}\] Besides the above, HED constantly trains a separate high-level Q-function \(Q^e\) to predict the performance of the ensemble policy \(\pi^e\). Guided by the trained \(Q^e\), high-level policy training is conducted regularly to update policy \(\pi^i\) of all base learners so as to enhance their cooperation and performance. A new *multi-step technique* is developed in HED to enable inter-learner parameter sharing during high-level policy training. To implement this technique, we keep track of a list of bootstrap policy parameters for the multi-step training process. More details can be found in the subsequent subsection. Theoretical justifications regarding the usefulness of the multi-step approach are also provided below.
The proof of Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"} can be found in Appendix A. Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"} provides suitable parameter settings for [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} and justifies its stable use for high-level policy training. We next show that [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is also expected to make base learners behave more consistently with the ensemble, without affecting the behavior of the trained ensemble, when \(\rho_0\) is sufficiently small. Consider specifically that each base learner \(L_i\) trains a linear parametric policy of the form: \[\pi^i(s)=\Phi(s)^T\cdot \theta_i \label{equ-lin-pol}\] where \(\Phi(s)\) represents the *state feature vector* with respect to any input state \(s\). For simplicity, we study the special case of scalar actions. However, the analysis can be easily extended to high-dimensional action spaces. Meanwhile, we use \(Sin()\) and \(Mul()\) to represent respectively the action output of a policy trained for one iteration on the same state \(s\) by using either the single-step method or the multi-step method in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. The single-step method can be considered as a special case of the multi-step method with \(\rho_2=-1\) and \(\rho_0=\rho_1=0\). Using these notations, Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} is presented below.
Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} indicates that multi-step training in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is expected to reduce the difference between the action output of any base learner and that of the ensemble. Meanwhile the amount of action changes applied to \(\pi^e\) remains identical to the single-step method. Therefore, using the multi-step policy training method developed in this section helps to enhance consistent behaviors among all base learners of the ensemble.
# Experiment {#sec-exp}
This section presents the experimental evaluation of HED, in comparison to several state-of-the-art DRL algorithms. The experiment setup is discussed first. Detailed experiment results are further presented and analyzed.
## Experiment setting
We implement HED based on the high-quality implementation of TD3 provided by the publicly available OpenAI Spinning Up repository . We also follow closely the hyper-parameter settings of TD3 recommended in to build each base learner of HED. Specifically, based on , a fully connected MLP with two hidden layers of 64 ReLU units is adopted to model all policy networks and Q-networks. Similar to, HED employs \(5\) base learners, i.e., \(N=5\). Each base learner has its own policy network and Q-network. Meanwhile, HED maintains and trains a separate ensemble Q-network with the same network architecture design. Each base learner trains its Q-network and also conducts the low-level training of the policy network repeatedly whenever HED collects 50 consecutive state-transition samples from the learning environment. Meanwhile, high-level policy training as well as the training of the ensemble Q-network is performed immediately after HED samples a full episode. HED adopts a separate Adam optimizer with the fixed learning rate of \(5\mathrm{e}{-4}\) to train each Q-network and policy network. Furthermore, \(\rho_0\) in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} is set to 0.0001 for the main experiment results reported in Figure [\[fig:training_perf\]](#fig:training_perf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:training_perf"}. The mini-batch size \(|\mathcal{B}|\) is set to 100, following existing research without any fine-tuning. HED is compared against four state-of-the-art DRL algorithms, including two Ensemble DRL algorithms, i.e., ED2 and SUNRISE ), and two widely used off-policy DRL algorithms, i.e., SAC and TD3. We evaluate their performance on 9 challenging continuous control benchmark problems, including four PyBullet benchmark problems (i.e., Hopper-v0, InvertedDoublePendulum-v0, InvertedPendulum-v0, and Reacher-v0), four Mujoco control tasks (i.e., Hopper-v3, Humanoid-v3, Swimmer-v3, and Walker2D-v3), and LunarLanderContinuous-v2 provided by OpenAI Gym . In the literature, PyBullet benchmarks are often considered to be more challenging than Mujoco benchmarks. Hence we decide to evaluate the performance of HED on both PyBullet and Mujoco benchmarks. The maximum episode length for each benchmark is fixed to 1000 timesteps. Each algorithm is run independently with 10 random seeds on all benchmarks. Besides the hyper-parameter settings of HED highlighted above, detailed hyper-parameter settings of all the competing algorithms have been summarized in Appendix C.
## Experiment result
### Performance comparison:
We compare HED against four cutting-edge DRL algorithms on 9 benchmark problems. Table [\[tab:final_perf_comp\]](#tab:final_perf_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:final_perf_comp"} presents the average cumulative rewards obtained by the policy networks (or policy ensembles for ensemble DRL algorithms) trained by all the competing algorithms across the same number of sampled episodes with respect to each benchmark. As evidenced in the table, HED achieved consistently the best performance[^7] on most of the benchmark problems except InvertedPendulum, Reacher, and LunarLander. Meanwhile, on InvertedPendulum, Reacher, and LunarLander, HED achieved very competitive performance with at least 98% of the maximum cumulative rewards reached by the highest performing competing algorithms. Furthermore, on some problems such as Hopper-v0 and Walker2D-v3, HED outperformed the lowest performing algorithm by up to 150% and the algorithm with the second highest performance by up to 18%. In addition to Table [\[tab:final_perf_comp\]](#tab:final_perf_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:final_perf_comp"}, we also compared the learning curves of all the competing algorithms in Figure [\[fig:training_perf\]](#fig:training_perf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:training_perf"}. As demonstrated in this figure, by explicitly strengthening inter-learner collaboration, HED converges clearly faster and is more stable during the learning process than other competing algorithms. Specifically, on several benchmark problems, such as Hopper-v0, InvertedDoublePendulum-v0, and Hopper-v3, HED achieved significantly lower variations in learning performance across 10 independent runs. In comparison to other ensemble DRL algorithms, the learning curves of HED also appear to be smoother on several benchmark problems, such as Walker2D-v3, suggesting that HED can achieve highly competitive stability during learning.
### Impact of \(\rho_0\):
To investigate the performance impact of \(\rho_0\), we tested 4 different settings of \(\rho_0\), ranging from \(5\mbox{e\)-\(}05\) to \(0.01\), on the InvertedPendulum-v0 and Hopper-v0 problems (similar observations can be found on other benchmark problems and are omitted in this paper). The learning curves are plotted in Figure [\[fig:rho_impact\]](#fig:rho_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:rho_impact"}. It is witnessed in the figure that HED can convergence faster under suitable settings of \(\rho_0\). However, the "best" \(\rho_0\) varies on different benchmark problems. For example, \(\rho_0=0.005\) (green curve) converges slightly faster than other settings on InvertedPendulum-v0 while \(\rho_0=5e-05\) (blue curve) converges slightly faster on Hopper-v0. Nevertheless, the impact of different \(\rho_0\) on the final performance appears to be small as long as \(\rho_0\) is reasonably small according to Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}.
### Ablation study on high-level policy training techniques:
High-level policy training can be conducted repeatedly whenever HED obtains either a new sampled episode or a fixed number of consecutive state-transition samples (e.g., samples collected from 50 consecutive timesteps). To understand which approach is more effective, experimental comparisons have been conducted in Appendix D with detailed performance results. According to the experiment results in Appendix D, on a majority of benchmark problems, episodic learning can produce more stable learning behavior and also makes HED converge faster. We also compared HED with its variation that performs high-level policy training by using the single-step method in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"} instead of the multi-step method in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. Detailed experiment results can be found in Appendix E. Our experiment results confirm that multi-step training in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} enables HED to achieve significantly higher performance and learning stability than using the conventional single-step training technique in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}. Hence, by explicitly sharing learned policy parameters among base learners in an ensemble through [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, HED can effectively enhance inter-learner collaboration and boost the learning process.
# Conclusions {#sec-con}
In this paper, we conducted in-depth study of ensemble DRL algorithms, which have achieved cutting-edge performance on many benchmark RL problems in the recent literature. Different from existing research works that rely mainly on each base learner of an ensemble to train its policy network individually, we developed a new HED algorithm to explore the potential of training all base learners in a hierarchical manner in order to promote inter-learner collaboration and improve the collective performance of an ensemble of trained base learners. Specifically, we adopted existing ensemble DRL algorithms such as ED2 to perform low-level policy training. Meanwhile, a new multi-step training technique was developed for high-level policy training in HED to facilitate direct inter-learner parameter sharing. Both theoretical and empirical analysis showed that the HED algorithm can achieve stable learning behavior. It also outperformed several state-of-the-art DRL algorithms on multiple benchmark RL problems.
# Appendix A {#appendix-a-1 .unnumbered}
This appendix presents a proof of Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}. According to, any multi-step integration methods including [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} must satisfy three conditions to ensure its stability. They together guarantee that \(x_k\) can converge to \(\theta_i^*\) as \(k\) approaches to \(\infty\). We check each condition one-by-one below to derive the main conclusions in Proposition [\[the-1\]](#the-1){reference-type="ref" reference="the-1"}. **Consistency condition**: We can re-write [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} as below \[x_{k+3}+\rho_2 x_{k+2}+\rho_1 x_{k+1}+\rho_0 x_k= h\cdot g(x_{k+2}).\] Define the *shift operator* \(F\), which maps \(Fx_k\rightarrow x_{k+1}\). Furthermore, with \(g(x_k)\) being simplified to \(g_k\), \(F\) also maps \(Fg_k\rightarrow g_{k+1}\). Using \(F\), [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} can be further written as \[\rho(F)x_k=h\sigma(F)g_k, \forall k\geq 0,\] where \[\rho(F)=F^3+\rho_2 F^2+\rho_1 F+\rho_0, \sigma(F)=F^2.\] The consistency condition requires \[\rho(1)=0, \rho'(1)=\sigma(1).\] This implies that \[\begin{split} & 1+\rho_2+\rho_1+\rho_0=0, \\ & 3+2\rho_2+\rho_1=1. \end{split}\] Solving the above equations leads to \[\rho_1=-2\rho_0,\ \rho_2=\rho_0-1.\] Hence, [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} becomes \[x_{k+3}=(1-\rho_0)x_{k+2}+2\rho_0 x_{k+1}-\rho_0 x_k+h\cdot g(x_{k+2}).\] **Zero-stability condition**: This condition requires all roots of \(\rho(F)\) to be in the unit disk. Any roots on the unit circle must be simple. In other words, \[\left| Roots(\rho(F)) \right|\leq 1.\] In fact, \(\rho(F)\) has three roots. They are \[1, \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0 \pm \sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right).\] It is easy to verify that when \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}\), \[\left| \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0-\sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right) \right|<1.\] Meanwhile, when \(\rho_0>0\), \[\left| \frac{1}{2}\left(-\rho_0 + \sqrt{\rho_0(\rho_0+4)} \right) \right|<1.\] In summary, the zero-stability condition requires \[0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}.\] **Absolute stability condition**: Define \[\begin{split} \Pi_{\lambda h} & \overset{\Delta}{=}\rho(F)+\lambda h\sigma(F) \\ &=F^3+\rho_2 F^2+\rho_1 F+\rho_0+\lambda h F^2 \\ &=F^3+(\rho_0-1) F^2-2\rho_0 F+\rho_0 +\lambda h F^2 \\ &=F^3 + (\rho_0-1+\lambda h)F^2-2\rho_0 F+\rho_0. \end{split}\] Further define \[r_{max}=\max_{\lambda\in [L,U]} \max_{r\in Roots(\Pi_{\lambda h}(F))}|r|,\] where \(L\) and \(U\) in this appendix refer respectively to the smallest and the largest positive eigenvalues of matrix \(A\) in [\[equ-grad-linear\]](#equ-grad-linear){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-grad-linear"}. The absolute stability condition requires \[r_{max}<1. \label{equ-abs-con}\] Let \[\begin{split} & B=\rho_0-1+\lambda h, \\ & C=-2\rho_0, \\ & D=\rho_0. \end{split}\] Subsequently, define \[\begin{split} & A_0=1-B+C-D=2-\lambda h-4\rho_0, \\ & A_1=3-B-C-3D=4-\lambda h-2\rho_0, \\ & A_2=3+B-C-3D=2+\lambda h, \\ & A_3=1+B+C+D=\lambda h. \end{split}\] According to the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, the following two conditions jointly guarantee [\[equ-abs-con\]](#equ-abs-con){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-abs-con"}: \[\begin{split} A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4>0, \\ A_1 A_2 > A_0 A_3. \end{split}\] Specifically, the first condition above gives rise to the following: \[\lambda h >0,\ \lambda h+2\rho_0<4,\ \lambda h+4\rho_0<2.\] Following the second condition above, we can deduce the below: \[\lambda h>2-\frac{4}{\rho_0}.\] Given that \(\lambda h>0\), we have \[\begin{split} & \lambda h > \max\left\{ 0, 2-\frac{4}{\rho_0} \right\}, \\ & \lambda h < \min\left\{ 2-4\rho_0, 4-2\rho_0 \right\}. \end{split}\] Since \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{2}\), \[2-4\rho_0<4-2\rho_0,\ 2-\frac{4}{\rho_0}<0.\] Consequently \[0<\lambda h<2-4\rho_0.\] Clearly, with sufficiently small \(h\), the above condition on absolute stability can be easily satisfied. Hence, we can use [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} to perform high-level policy training stably in the HED algorithm.
# Appendix B {#appendix-b-1 .unnumbered}
This appendix presents a proof of Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"}. Considering any specific state \(s\in\mathcal{S}\), let \[\nabla_a Q^e(s,a)|_{a=\pi^e(s)}=C,\] where \(C\) is an arbitrary scalar constant, in line with the assumption of scalar actions. Using [\[equ-pe\]](#equ-pe){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-pe"} and [\[equ-lin-pol\]](#equ-lin-pol){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-lin-pol"}, the ensemble policy gradient with respect to policy parameters \(\theta_i\) of policy \(\pi^i\), \(i\in[1,\ldots,N]\), is \[\nabla_{\theta_i} J(\pi^e)=\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] According to the multi-step learning rule in [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, updating \(\theta_i\) for one iteration gives the updated \(\theta_i\) as \[(1-\rho_0)\theta_i+2\rho_0\theta_q-\rho_0\theta_p+h\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] Therefore, \[Mul(\pi^i(s))=(1-\rho_0)\pi^i(s)+2\rho_0\pi^q(s)-\rho_0\pi^p(s) +\frac{hC}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] Hence \[\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^i(s)) \right]=(1-\rho_0)\pi^i(s)+\rho_0\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s),\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right]=\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] In comparison, upon using the single-step method, the updated \(\theta_i\) becomes \[\theta_i+h\frac{C\Phi(s)}{N}.\] Subsequently, \[Sin(\pi^i(s))=\pi^i(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s),\] \[Sin(\pi^e(s))=\pi^e(s)+\frac{h C}{N}\Phi(s)^T\Phi(s).\] Clearly, \[Sin(\pi^e(s))=\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right].\] Hence, the expected action changes applied to \(\pi^e(s)\) are identical, regardless of whether single-step or multi-step method is used for high-level policy training[^8]. Define \[\Delta=\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s)).\] For the single-step method, after all base learners trained their respective policies for one iteration on state \(s\), it is easy to verify that \[\begin{split} & \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( Sin(\pi^i(s))-Sin(\pi^e(s)) \right)^2\\ =& \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( \pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s) \right)^2\\ =& \Delta. \end{split}\] Meanwhile, \[\begin{split} & \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \\ =&\left( (1-\rho_0) (\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s)) + 2\rho_0 (\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))-\rho_0(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s)) \right)^2\\ =&(1-\rho_0)^2(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))^2+4\rho_0^2(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))^2+\rho^2(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))^2\\ &+4(1-\rho_0)\rho_0(\pi^i-\pi^e(s))(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s)) \\ &-2(1-\rho_0)\rho_0(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\\ &-4\rho_0^2(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s)). \end{split}\] Since the base learner indices \(p\) and \(q\) are randomly and independently selected, \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0,\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^i(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0,\] \[\mathbb{E}\left[(\pi^q(s)-\pi^e(s))(\pi^p(s)-\pi^e(s))\right]=0.\] Therefore \[\begin{split} & \sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \right] \\ =&(1-\rho_0)^2\Delta+4\rho_0^2\Delta+\rho_0^2\Delta \\ =&(1-2\rho_0+6\rho_0^2)\Delta. \end{split}\] When \(0<\rho_0<\frac{1}{3}\), \[1-2\rho_0+6\rho_0^2<1.\] As a result, \[\begin{split} &\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( Mul(\pi^i(s))-\mathbb{E}\left[ Mul(\pi^e(s)) \right] \right)^2 \right] \\ <&\sum_{i\in[1,\ldots,N]}\left( Sin(\pi^i(s))-Sin(\pi^e(s)) \right)^2. \end{split}\]
# Appendix C {#appendix-c-1 .unnumbered}
Table [\[tab:hyper-para\]](#tab:hyper-para){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:hyper-para"} provides detailed hyper-parameter settings of all competing algorithms. Our hyper-parameter settings follow strictly the recommended settings in.
All experiments were run using a cluster of Linux computing nodes. Each node is equipped with 16 GB memory. The CPU specification is provided in Table [\[tab:cpu-para\]](#tab:cpu-para){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:cpu-para"}. Each experiment was run in a Python virtual environment managed by Anaconda with Python packages specified in Table [2](#tab:python-lib){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:python-lib"}.
# Appendix D {#appendix-d-1 .unnumbered}
In this appendix, we study the effectiveness of conducting high-level policy training after HED obtains a full sampled episode. Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"} shows the performance comparison of HED with two different training frequencies: every 50 consecutive timesteps vs. every episode. It can be noticed that, on a majority benchmark problems (i.e., 5 out of 6), performing high-level policy training after every episode (orange curve) can significantly improve the HED algorithm in terms of both the final performance and convergence speed. For example, as shown in Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(e), the orange curve reaches 3500 after 1500 episodes while the blue curve converges to a lower cumulative reward (approx. 3000) after 2000 episodes. We also notice that episodic policy training is more robust to the randomness in the environment and less sensitive to the initialization of neural network weights. For example, in Figure [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(e), episodic policy training produces a smaller confident interval (orange shaded area) compared to the fixed timestep training (blue shaded area) over 10 independent algorithm runs. Similar results can also be observed from Figures [\[fig:when2HLtrain_impact\]](#fig:when2HLtrain_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:when2HLtrain_impact"}(a) and (f). Note that in each algorithm run, both policy networks and Q-networks are initialized with different weights. The environment initial states also vary.
# Appendix E {#appendix-e-1 .unnumbered}
This appendix investigates the effectiveness of multi-step policy training by using [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}. Specifically, we compare the performance of HED against its variant, which performs single-step high-level policy training by using [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}, on 6 problems that include both PyBullet and Mujoco benchmarks. As shown in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}, with the help of [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"}, significant performance improvement can be observed (orange curve) on most benchmark problems. In particular, HED behaves more stably during the learning process. For example, in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(c), the cumulative rewards obtained by the policy trained using [\[equ-mu-new\]](#equ-mu-new){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-mu-new"} (orange curve) remain stable at 1000 after 300 episodes. In comparison, the blue curve stays below 1000 and fluctuates between 800 and 1000 over the entire learning period. Similar trends can also be noticed in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(b). The proposed multi-step policy training technique achieves clearly higher cumulative rewards. In the Hopper environment shown in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(e), the orange curve outperforms the blue curve by up to 75% after 2500 training episodes. Moreover, the orange curve converges to 3500 while the blue curve remains below 2000. The significant improvement in cumulative rewards can also be witnessed in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(a) and (f). The shaded areas in Figure [\[fig:eq9_impact\]](#fig:eq9_impact){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:eq9_impact"}(e) and (f) also show that the multi-step training technique is less sensitive to the environment randomness and neural network weight initialization, compared to using the conventional single-step training method in [\[equ-e-pg\]](#equ-e-pg){reference-type="eqref" reference="equ-e-pg"}. Hence, our experiment results confirm the importance of inter-learner collaboration. By enabling base learners in an ensemble to explicitly share their learned policy parameters, HED can achieve high learning stability and effectively boost the learning process.
[^1]: The noise is sampled from the Normal distribution independently for each dimension of the action vector. The variance of the normal distribution is fixed at 0.01 during the learning process.
[^2]: The variance for sampling \(\epsilon\) is kept at a very small level of 0.01 in the experiments.
[^3]: HED significantly outperformed ED2 on most benchmark problems, thanks to its use of the proposed high-level policy training technique.
[^4]: We assume in Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} that high-level policy training is performed for one iteration on a specific state \(s\).
[^5]: The noise is sampled from the Normal distribution independently for each dimension of the action vector. The variance of the normal distribution is fixed at 0.01 during the learning process.
[^6]: The variance for sampling \(\epsilon\) is kept at a very small level of 0.01 in the experiments.
[^7]: HED significantly outperformed ED2 on most benchmark problems, thanks to its use of the proposed high-level policy training technique.
[^8]: We assume in Proposition [\[the-2\]](#the-2){reference-type="ref" reference="the-2"} that high-level policy training is performed for one iteration on a specific state \(s\). | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:37', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14488', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14488'} |
null | null |
# Introduction {#S:Introduction}
A 2D vortex patch is a solution to the 2D Euler equations for which the vorticity is a constant multiplied by the characteristic function of a domain. We investigate the behavior of vortex patches in an infinite strip periodic in one direction, topologically \(S^1 \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}\), and the corresponding behavior of the vortex patch or layer in the full plane. Our main results are the extension of the \(C^{1,\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\) global regularity theory for the boundary of the vortex patch to this case, developing and using the appropriate contour dynamics equation for this purpose. Here, and throughout, we fix \(\ensuremath{\varepsilon} \in (0, 1)\).
## The Euler equations
We can write the 2D incompressible Euler equations (without forcing) on a domain \(U\) in vorticity form as \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:EGen} \begin{cases} \ensuremath{\partial}_t \omega + \uu \cdot \ensuremath{\nabla} \omega = 0 &\text{in } {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \times U, \\ \uu = K[\omega] &\text{in } {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \times U, \\ \omega(0) = \omega^0 &\text{in } U. \end{cases} \end{aligned}\] Here, \(\omega\) is the vorticity---the scalar curl of the velocity field \(\uu\). The vorticity is transported by the velocity field as in [\[e:EGen\]](#e:EGen){reference-type="ref" reference="e:EGen"}\(_1\), and the velocity field is recovered from the vorticity field by the constitutive law in [\[e:EGen\]](#e:EGen){reference-type="ref" reference="e:EGen"}\(_2\) so as to be divergence-free and to satisfy any boundary conditions, decay at infinity, or periodicity that might be demanded based, in part, upon the nature of the domain \(U\). Classically, if \(U = {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) and the solution has sufficient decay, one uses the Biot-Savart law as the constitutive law: \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:BSR2} K[\omega] := K * \omega, \quad K({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}) := \ensuremath{\nabla}^\perp \brac{\frac{1}{2 \pi} \log \abs{{\bm{\mathrm{x}}}}} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \frac{{\bm{\mathrm{x}}}^\perp}{\abs{{\bm{\mathrm{x}}}}^2}. \end{aligned}\] Here, \(K\) is the Biot-Savart kernel, which we note lies in \(L^1_{loc}({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\), though \(K \notin L^p({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\) for any \(p \in [1, \ensuremath{\infty}]\). To handle solutions having insufficient spatial decay of the vorticity, we must either find an appropriate substitute for the Biot-Savart law or avoid it entirely by using a velocity, pressure formulation.
## The plane and the cylinder
In this paper, we will consider two domains: \(U = {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) and \(U = \Pi\), the infinite flat periodic strip, \(S^1 \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \cong {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2 / \ensuremath{\BB{Z}} \cong \C / \ensuremath{\BB{Z}}\), which we will most often treat in the form \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:Pi} \Pi := \brac{-\tfrac{1}{2}, \tfrac{1}{2}} \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \text{ with } \set{-\tfrac{1}{2}} \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \text{ identified with } \set{\tfrac{1}{2}} \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}. \end{aligned}\] We will also find use for the same set as a subset of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) or \(\C\) without identifying its sides: \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:PiR} {\Pi_p} := \pr{-\tfrac{1}{2}, \tfrac{1}{2}} \times {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}} \subseteq {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2. \end{aligned}\] Suppose we have an initial vorticity \(\omega^0 = \CharFunc_\Omega\) for \(\Omega\) a bounded domain in \(\Pi\). We can periodize it to obtain an initial vorticity in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) that is periodic in \(x_1\). What results may consist of an infinite number of disconnected domains repeated periodically, one connected, \(x_1\)-periodic domain, or a combination of each. displays an example of a simply connected bounded domain in \(\Pi\) yielding an infinite number of copies of the domain in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\). displays two examples of a non-simply connected domain in \(\Pi\) producing one domain in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) periodically repeating in \(x_1\), a so-called *vortex layer*. On the other hand, we could instead formulate the problem by starting with an initial vortex patch in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) and periodize it in \(x_1\). If we can translate the evolution of the patch in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) to the evolution in \(\Pi\) and back, we can use an understanding of patch behavior in \(\Pi\) to gain an understanding of the periodic behavior in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\). The translation back and forth between \(\Pi\) and \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) is best understood in the more general setting of weak solutions to the 2D Euler equations for bounded vorticity, which includes vortex patch data as a special case.
## Three types of solutions
Toward this end, we consider three types of solution to the 2D Euler equations. We summarize the three types of solution briefly now, giving more complete descriptions in later sections.
- Assume that \(\uu^0 \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\) is divergence-free with \(\omega^0 := \curl \uu^0 \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\) as well. Obtain a bounded vorticity, bounded velocity solution to the the 2D Euler equations on all of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) having initial velocity \(\uu^0\) as done by Serfati in.
- Assume \(\uu^0 \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}(\Pi)\) is divergence-free with \(\omega^0 := \curl \uu^0 \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}(\Pi)\) as well. Solve the 2D Euler equations in \(\Pi\), as done in.
- Let \(\omega^0 \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\) be compactly supported. Solve the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form in all of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) with initial vorticity \(\omega^0\), but recovering the velocity by applying the Biot-Savart law symmetrically to pairs of the periodically extended copies of \(\omega\). This leads to a replacement Biot-Savart kernel, \(K_\ensuremath{\infty}\).
Type 1 and Type 2 solutions are for (potentially) non-decaying velocity and vorticity, but for Type 3 we restrict our attention to vertically decaying solutions, since our primary application is to vortex patch data. Moreover, the convolution \(K_\ensuremath{\infty} * \omega\) cannot be easily defined without some decay assumption. We will find that all three types of solution are equivalent for a large class of initial data. Since our primary interest is in vortex patches and layers, we will keep things simple by assuming compact support in \(\Pi\). Assuming, then, that \(g \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}_c({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\)---the space of essentially bounded functions with compact support---we define \(\Cal{P}er(g)\) on \(\Pi\) by \[\begin{aligned}
\Cal{P}er(g)({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}) = \sum_{n \in \ensuremath{\BB{Z}}} g({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}-(n, 0)), \end{aligned}\] noting that for each \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}\) the sum has only finitely many nonzero terms. For any measurable function \(f\) on \(\Pi\) we define \(\Cal{R}ep(f)\) on \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) by \[\begin{aligned}
\Cal{R}ep(f)({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}) := f(x_1-\lfloor x_1 + \tfrac{1}{2} \rfloor, x_2). \end{aligned}\]
Suppose that \(g \in L^\ensuremath{\infty}_c({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\), and for purposes of illustration, let us treat it as the characteristic function of a bounded domain (our primary application), whose support is depicted as in either (a) or (b) of . Below, we construct an initial vorticity from \(g\) and depict the support of \(\omega^0\) for each type of solution (the time-evolved vorticity being of a similar nature).
- Let \(\omega^0 = \Cal{R}ep(\Cal{P}er(g))\).
- Let Let \(\omega^0 = \Cal{P}er(g)\).
- Let \(\omega^0 = g\). The vorticity \(\omega\) is transported by the flow from the single copy of \(g\), and so is no longer the curl of \(\uu\). There are, in effect, multiple phantom copies of \(g\) matching those of Type 1.
::: {.center}
or
:::
The vorticity \(\omega^0\) for Type 1 and 2 do not depend upon the representative for the equivalence class, though Type 3 does. We will find, nonetheless, that the velocity field for solutions of Type 3 is independent of the representative. It is mentioned in that a Type 2 solution is equivalent to a Type 1 solution with periodic velocity and pressure. Following up on this comment, we will show that all three types of solution are equivalent. The equivalence of Type 1 and Type 2 solutions, which applies to a larger class of initial data than we have so far discussed, will rely upon the properties of the pressure required for uniqueness for those two types of solution. The equivalence of Type 3 and Type 2 (and so of Type 1) will rest primarily on showing that solutions of Type 2 reduce to those of Type 3 when the vorticity has sufficient vertical decay. A side benefit of this approach is that it will give the well-posedness of Type 3 solutions. Such a well-posedness result could be obtained by adapting in a fairly straightforward way the approach Marchioro and Pulvirenti take in for the 2D Euler equations, except for subtle points regarding the periodicity of the pressure. It is thus more efficient to leverage the technology developed in, though it is more than is strictly needed to develop Type 3 solutions alone. Specializing to vortex patch data, we will then show how the contour dynamics equation (CDE) is adapted from the classical form, which allows the propagation of regularity of the boundary of a vortex patch to be proved, adapting the argument of Bertozzi and Constantin in.
## Prior work {#S:ToDo}
Bounded vortex patches evolving under the two-dimensional Euler equations have been well-studied, with global regularity of the boundary being established by Chemin and by Bertozzi and Constantin . Regularity of the vortex patch boundary can also be seen to follow from a more general approach studying level sets of the vorticity, establishing striated regularity, as in the work of Chemin and Serfati. Regularity of bounded vortex patches and/or striated regularity have been established for solutions of related evolution equations as well, such as aggregation equations, active transport equations , and the surface quasi-geostrophic equation and related systems, ,. None of these problems consider unbounded vortex patches as in the present work. There are seemingly fewer papers on the evolution of vortex layers. An equation similar to our version of the contour dynamics equation for the motion of the patch/layer boundary was developed in, and was subsequently used in for the study of complex singularities in vortex layers. (We mention that the version of the contour dynamics equation developed in the present work lends itself to the study of global regularity.) Atassi, Bernoff, and Lichter study the interaction of a point vortex with a vortex layer. Crowdy gives some exact solutions of vortex layers interacting with solid boundaries. Benedetto and Pulvirenti have shown that vortex layers rigorously approximate vortex sheets in analytic function spaces. Caflisch, Sammartino, and collaborators have considered vortex layers which are not sharp fronts in a series of papers, ,, considering how such flows behave in the zero viscosity limit and how such flows may approximate vortex sheets, which represent a more singular vorticity configuration. In these works, they take the vorticity to be exponentially decaying (in the vertical direction) away from a core region, rather than being an indicator function as in the present work. Despite the difference there are similarities to the present work, such as the development of velocity integrals similar to the spatially periodic contour dynamics equation we develop for the periodic patch/layer problem. Further background on vortex layers may be found in. While we are unaware of other works on the global regularity of unbounded vortex patches for the two-dimensional Euler equations, the situation is different for the quasi-geostrophic equation. Rodrigo developed existence theory for a patch which is spatially periodic and vertically unbounded in one direction (similarly to a half-space) ,. More recently Hunter, Shu, and Zhang have studied the related front solutions of the surface quasi-geostrophic equation , ,.
## Organization of this paper
We will find many of our calculations much more convenient to perform in the complex plane, yet our results are all real-valued. We describe how to translate back and forth between these settings, largely a matter of notation, in [2](#S:RealComplex){reference-type="ref" reference="S:RealComplex"}. In [3](#S:PeriodicSolutions){reference-type="ref" reference="S:PeriodicSolutions"} we describe the process of symmetrizing in pairs that is behind the Type 1 solutions, which we explore in [4](#S:Type1){reference-type="ref" reference="S:Type1"}. In [5](#S:Type2){reference-type="ref" reference="S:Type2"} we describe the results of that yield Type 2 solutions, and we use those results in [6](#S:Type3){reference-type="ref" reference="S:Type3"} to obtain Type 3 solutions. We show the equivalence of the three types of solution in [7](#S:ThreeTypes){reference-type="ref" reference="S:ThreeTypes"}. In [8](#S:VelocityGradient){reference-type="ref" reference="S:VelocityGradient"} we give expressions for the velocity gradient in terms of the vorticity, deferring the proofs to [\[A:VelocityGradient\]](#A:VelocityGradient){reference-type="ref" reference="A:VelocityGradient"}. We then specialize to vortex patch solutions for Type 1, 2, and 3 solutions, obtaining their contour dynamics equation in [9](#S:CDEPeriodic){reference-type="ref" reference="S:CDEPeriodic"}, and establishing the global-in-time propogation of the regularity of a vortex patch boundary in [10](#S:BoundaryRegularity){reference-type="ref" reference="S:BoundaryRegularity"}.
# Preliminaries: \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) and \(\C\) {#S:RealComplex}
## Real to complex translation
Some of our calculations will be more easily performed using complex analysis, though the end results are all real-valued functions. For this we need a means, and a corresponding notation, to switch back and forth between viewing points in the plane as vectors or points in \(\C^2\). For this purpose, we will use bold-face letters, such as \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}\) or \(\uu\), for quantities that are intrinsically elements of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) or vector-valued. We define maps, \[\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \overrightarrow{} \, \colon \C \to {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2, \\[4pt] \overrightarrow{x + i y} = (x, y) \end{array} \right\} \text{ and } \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \overleftarrow{} \colon {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2 \to \C, \\[4pt] \overleftarrow{(x, y)} = x + i y \end{array} \right\}. \end{aligned}\] For a vector \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}} = (x, y)\), we define \[\begin{aligned}
{\bm{\mathrm{x}}}^\perp := (-y, x). \end{aligned}\] Hence, \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}^\perp\) is \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}\) rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise.
The boundary integrals we encounter will be real path integrals, but we will sometimes find it useful to transform them to complex contour integrals as in the following lemma:
Using [\[L:vec\]](#L:vec){reference-type="ref" reference="L:vec"}, it is not hard to rewrite the classical Biot-Savart law in the following hybrid real-complex form:
## The cotangent
## Useful identities
The identities in [\[e:sinIdentity,e:TrigIdentities\]](#e:sinIdentity,e:TrigIdentities){reference-type="ref" reference="e:sinIdentity,e:TrigIdentities"} are easily verifiable; [\[e:AbramowitzStegun1964\]](#e:AbramowitzStegun1964){reference-type="ref" reference="e:AbramowitzStegun1964"} is 4.3.58 of. \[\begin{aligned}
\abs{\sin z}^2 &= \sin^2 x + \sinh^2 y, \label{e:sinIdentity} \\ \cosh 2 x &= 2 \sinh^2 x + 1, \quad \cos 2 x = 1-2 \sin^2 x, \label{e:TrigIdentities} \\ \cot z &= \frac{\sin 2 x-i \sinh 2 y}{\cosh 2y-\cos 2x}. \label{e:AbramowitzStegun1964} \end{aligned}\]
## Lifting paths and domains {#S:Lifting}
We will find the need, in the proof of [\[T:CDEType2\]](#T:CDEType2){reference-type="ref" reference="T:CDEType2"}, to apply [\[L:ComplexToRealContourIntegrals\]](#L:ComplexToRealContourIntegrals){reference-type="ref" reference="L:ComplexToRealContourIntegrals"} while integrating in \(\Pi\) and apply Cauchy's residue theorem. This could be done directly by introducing a version of the residue theorem for \(\Pi\), which is a (flat) analytic manifold. Alternately, we can transform integrals in \(\Pi\) to integrals of \(x_1\)-periodic functions in \(\C\) by *lifting* the domain \(\Omega\) in \(\Pi\) to a suitable domain \(\widetilde{\Omega}\) in \(\C\). Our main tool for doing this is the lifting of paths from a topological space to a covering space. Defining \[\begin{aligned}
p \colon \C \to \Pi, \quad p(x_1 + i x_2) = x_1-\lfloor x_1 + \tfrac{1}{2} \rfloor + i x_2, \end{aligned}\] we see that \((\C, p)\) is a covering space of \(\Pi\) (see Section IX.7 of, for instance). This will allow us to lift a path in \(\Pi\) to a path in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) or \(\C\).
This lifting allows us to relate path integrals in \(\Pi\) to lifted path integrals in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) or \(\C\):
[\[L:LiftedIntegral\]](#L:LiftedIntegral){reference-type="ref" reference="L:LiftedIntegral"} is not, however, the entire story when we lift the entire boundary of a domain in \(\Pi\). An immediate difficulty stems from the ambient space \(\Pi\), which is topologically a cylinder, having nontrivial fundamental (and first homology) group \(\ensuremath{\BB{Z}}\). Let us say that a closed curve on \(\Pi\) wraps around the cylinder \(n\) times if it crosses \(\set{x_1 = 0}\) (any vertical slice would do) \(n\) times counted with sign, positive in one direction, negative in the other (arbitrarily fixing which direction is positive). A closed path that wraps zero times around the cylinder is homotopic to a point and lifts to a closed path in \(\C\). A closed path that wraps around the cylinder \(n\) times, however, will lift by [\[L:Lifting\]](#L:Lifting){reference-type="ref" reference="L:Lifting"} to a non-closed path in \(\C\) that contains \(\abs{n} + 1\) points of \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}_0 + \Cal{L}\), where we define here and for future use, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:L} \Cal{L} := \set{\ensuremath{\BB{Z}}} \times \set{0}, \quad \Cal{L}^* := \Cal{L} \setminus (0, 0), \end{aligned}\] treated as subsets of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) or of \(\C\). Since we are lifting paths that are boundary components, they will always be closed in \(\Pi\), but can wrap only \(0\) or \(\pm 1\) times around the cylinder else they would of necessity self-intersect. shows an example of a domain \(\Omega\) in \(\Pi\) having two boundary components \(\Gamma_1\), \(\Gamma_2\) which lift to non-closed paths \(\widetilde{\Gamma}_1\), \(\widetilde{\Gamma}_2\). To make a domain from these paths, we could connect \(\widetilde{\Gamma}_1\), \(\widetilde{\Gamma}_2\) with vertical paths at \(x_1 =-\tfrac{1}{2}\) and \(x_1 = \tfrac{1}{2}\), oppositely oriented, so that the four paths together form the boundary of a lifted domain \(\widetilde{\Omega}\). Equivalently, and in a manner more easily generalizable, we cut the cylinder \(\Pi\) vertically[^1] along the line \(\ell = \set{x_1 = \pm \tfrac{1}{2}}\), which in effect means we view \(\Pi\) in the form suggested in [\[e:Pi\]](#e:Pi){reference-type="ref" reference="e:Pi"}. For any line segment formed by \(\ell \cap \ensuremath{\partial} \Omega\) we introduce oppositely oriented paths; together, the lifted components of \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega\) and these paths, properly oriented, form the boundary components of the lifted domain \(\widetilde{\Omega}\). In lifting these components and paths, however, we need to insure compatible initial points for the paths. To do this, fix any \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}_0\) in \(\Omega\). Let \({\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\) be any point in \(\Omega\) and let \(\bgamma_{\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\) be a path connecting \({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}_0\) to \({\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\). Being a domain, \(\Omega\) is path-connected so this is always possible. By [\[L:Lifting\]](#L:Lifting){reference-type="ref" reference="L:Lifting"}, there is a unique lifting \(\widetilde{\bgamma}_{\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\) of \(\bgamma_{\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\) with initial point \(\widetilde{{\bm{\mathrm{x}}}}_0\). Then \(\widetilde{\Omega} := \cup_{{\bm{\mathrm{y}}} \in \Omega} \, \widetilde{\bgamma}_{\bm{\mathrm{y}}}\) is the desired lifting of \(\Omega\). Lifted in this way, we have the following lemma:
# Periodized functions and Biot-Savart kernels {#S:PeriodicSolutions}
We will see in [5.1](#S:BSStrip){reference-type="ref" reference="S:BSStrip"} that \(K_\ensuremath{\infty}\) also serves as the Biot-Savart kernel on \(\Pi\).
# Type 1: Periodized solutions {#S:Type1}
We review here results, obtained variously in, on bounded vorticity, bounded velocity solutions to the 2D Euler equations in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\). Let \(a_R\) be a radial cutoff function: \(a_R(\cdot) = a(\cdot/R)\) for any \(R > 0\), where \(a \in C^\ensuremath{\infty}({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\) is radially symmetric and equal to \(1\) in a neighborhood of the origin. For definitiveness, we will assume that \(a \equiv 1\) on \(B_1(0)\), \(a \equiv 0\) on \(B_2(0)^C\), and \(\abs{a} \le 1\) on \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\).
[\[T:Uinf\]](#T:Uinf){reference-type="ref" reference="T:Uinf"} characterizes solutions to the 2D Euler equations that have bounded vorticity and bounded velocity: their existence and uniqueness under the condition that [\[e:SerfatiId\]](#e:SerfatiId){reference-type="ref" reference="e:SerfatiId"} holds is shown, for \({\bm{\mathrm{U}}}_\ensuremath{\infty} \equiv 0\), in and elaborated on in, their extension to a general \({\bm{\mathrm{U}}}_\ensuremath{\infty}\) being a simple matter. Uniqueness under the assumption of sublinear growth of the pressure is established in. Combining these results leads to the following:
# Type 2: Solutions in an infinite periodic strip {#S:Type2}
Let \(\BUC(\Pi)\) be the space of bounded, uniformly continuous functions, noting that any vector field in \(S(\Pi)\) lies in \(\BUC(\Pi)\). Well-posedness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations for initial velocity in \(\BUC(\Pi)\) was established by Afendikov and Mielke in. Building on this, Gallay and Slijepčević in (and see the comments in ) obtained improved bounds for the case where the initial velocity lies in \(S(\Pi)\), having established properties of the pressure in. These works are for the Navier-Stokes equations, but as the authors point out, the pertinent estimates are uniform in small viscosity and hold for solutions to the Euler equations as well (by repeating the argument with the viscous terms missing or by using known vanishing viscosity results). In [\[T:Type2\]](#T:Type2){reference-type="ref" reference="T:Type2"} we give the well-posedness result as derived from, but for this we need to first explore some aspects of the analysis in these references.
## Biot-Savart kernels {#S:BSStrip}
The authors of orient their periodic strip (infinite cylinder) horizontally and \(S^1\) is, in effect, parametrized from \(0\) to \(1\). Let \((x_1', x_2')\) be the coordinates for the horizontal strip of, while we will keep \((x_1, x_2)\) for our vertical strip. Rotating the horizontal strip 90 degrees counterclockwise induces the change of variables, \[\begin{aligned}
x_1' \mapsto x_2, \quad x_2' \mapsto-x_1. \end{aligned}\] The Biot-Savart kernel on \(\Pi\) used in and (2.7) of is \(\ensuremath{\nabla}^\perp G\), where \[\begin{aligned}
G(x_1', x_2') := \frac{1}{4 \pi} \log \pr{2 \cosh(2 \pi x_1')-2 \cos(2 \pi x_2')} \end{aligned}\] is the Green's function for the Dirichlet Laplacian on \(\Pi\). In \((x_1, x_2)\) variables, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:Green} G(x_1, x_2) := \frac{1}{4 \pi} \log \pr{2 \cosh(2 \pi x_2)-2 \cos(2 \pi x_1)}. \end{aligned}\]
## Mean horizontal values {#S:MeanHorizontal}
As observed below Lemma 2.2 of, although \(K_\ensuremath{\infty} \in L^1_{loc}(\Pi)\), \(K_\ensuremath{\infty}^2 \in L^1(\Pi)\) (accounting for the different orientation of the strip). Moreover, convolution with \(K_\ensuremath{\infty}^1\) can be handled by subtracting from \(u^2\) its mean horizontal value to give it mean value zero. We summarize here this process as described on page 1748 of. If \({\bm{\mathrm{v}}}(t) \in S(\Pi)\), the mean value of \(v^2(t)\) along the horizontal line segment \(x_2 = a\) is independent of \(a \in {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}\), and if \(({\bm{\mathrm{v}}}, p)\) solves the Euler equations on \(\Pi\) then it is independent of time as well. Hence, we can define \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:m2} m_2(t) &= m_2[{\bm{\mathrm{v}}}(t)] := \innp{v^2(t)}, \end{aligned}\] the mean value of \(v^2(t)\) along any such horizontal line segment and we will have \(\innp{v^2(t)} = \innp{v^2_0}\). The mean value of \(v^1(t)\), however, will depend upon \(x_2\), so we write \[\begin{aligned}
m_1(t, x_2) &= m_1[{\bm{\mathrm{v}}}(t)](x_2) := \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} v^1(t, x_1, x_2) \, d x_1. \end{aligned}\] Similarly, we define \[\begin{aligned}
\innp{\omega}(t, x_2) := \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \omega(t, x_1, x_2) \, d x_1 \end{aligned}\] and \(\widehat{\omega}(t, x_1, x_2) := \omega(t, x)-\innp{\omega}(t, x_2)\). Also, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:omegaMeanprt2m1} \innp{\omega}(t, x_2) &= \innp{\ensuremath{\partial}_1 u^2-\ensuremath{\partial}_2 u^1}(t, x_2) =-\innp{\ensuremath{\partial}_2 u^1}(t, x_2) =-\ensuremath{\partial}_2 m_1(t, x_2). \end{aligned}\] A form of the Biot-Savart law given in (2.5, 2.6) of (suppressing the time variable) is \[\begin{aligned}
\label{e:BSGS2014} {\bm{\mathrm{v}}}({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}) &= \begin{pmatrix} -m_1(x_2) \\ m_2 \end{pmatrix} + \int_{-\ensuremath{\infty}}^\ensuremath{\infty} \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} K_\ensuremath{\infty}({\bm{\mathrm{x}}}-{\bm{\mathrm{y}}}) \widehat{\omega}({\bm{\mathrm{y}}}) \, d y_1 \, d y_2. \end{aligned}\] We note here that in transforming from the expression as written in, a velocity \((v^1, v^2)\) in \((x_1', x_2')\) becomes \((v^2,-v^1)\) in \((x_1, x_2)\), which accounts for the minus sign in \(-m_1(x_2)\).
## Type 2 solutions
We can now summarize the known result we need for Type 2 solutions:
## Compactly supported vorticity
As a prelude to obtaining Type 3 solutions, let us consider the special case of Type 2 solutions that we can obtain when the vorticity is compactly supported in \(\Pi\). First, we specialize the Biot-Savart law in [\[e:BSGS2014\]](#e:BSGS2014){reference-type="ref" reference="e:BSGS2014"} to compactly supported vorticity.
We used [\[L:IntK\]](#L:IntK){reference-type="ref" reference="L:IntK"} in the proof of [\[L:KInfm2m1\]](#L:KInfm2m1){reference-type="ref" reference="L:KInfm2m1"}, above.
# Type 3: Solutions with a periodized kernel {#S:Type3}
# Three types of solution are equivalent {#S:ThreeTypes}
For certain classes of initial data, our three types of solution are equivalent. The equivalence of Type 1 and Type 2 holds for a broader class, so we first prove it in [\[T:TwoSolutions\]](#T:TwoSolutions){reference-type="ref" reference="T:TwoSolutions"}. The equivalence of the third type holds for initial data in \(L^\ensuremath{\infty}_c({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2)\), as we show in [\[T:ThreeSolutions\]](#T:ThreeSolutions){reference-type="ref" reference="T:ThreeSolutions"}. This includes vortex patch data, our application in [9](#S:CDEPeriodic){reference-type="ref" reference="S:CDEPeriodic"}.
# The velocity gradient {#S:VelocityGradient}
The following expression for \(\ensuremath{\nabla} (K * \omega)\) is classical (see, for instance, Proposition 2.20 of ):
The analog for the \(K_\ensuremath{\infty}\) kernel is [\[L:graduTypeI\]](#L:graduTypeI){reference-type="ref" reference="L:graduTypeI"}.
We have the following immediate corollary of [\[L:graduTypeI\]](#L:graduTypeI){reference-type="ref" reference="L:graduTypeI"}:
# Contour Dynamics Equations {#S:CDEPeriodic}
First we review the Contour Dynamics Equation (CDE) for a classical vortex patch---the characteristic function of a bounded, simply connected domain evolving under the vorticity equation for the Euler equations on all of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\)---then turn to the CDE for Type 2 solutions. In what follows we use the Lipschitz space \(Lip\) and homogeneous Lipschitz space \(lip\). On \(U \subseteq {\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^d\) for \(d \ge 1\), we define their semi-norm and norm, \[\begin{aligned}
\norm{f}_{lip(U)} := \sup_{x \ne y \in U} \frac{\abs{f(x)-f(y)}}{\abs{x-y}}, \quad \norm{f}_{Lip(U)} := \norm{f}_{L^\ensuremath{\infty}(U)} + \norm{f}_{lip(U)}. \end{aligned}\]
## Classical vortex patches {#S:ClassicalPatches}
In the classical setting of a vortex patch in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\), we have [\[T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE\]](#T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE){reference-type="ref" reference="T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE"}, as in Proposition 8.6 of and the derivation of the classical CDE that appears before it.
Now let us suppose that \(\Omega\) is a simply connected bounded domain in \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) with a \(C^{1, \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\) boundary. Let \(\uu\) be the unique weak solution to the Euler equations with initial vorticity \(\omega^0 := \omega_0 \CharFunc_\Omega\) and let \(X\) be the flow map for \(\uu\). Then we know that the vorticity \(\omega(t) = \omega_0 \CharFunc_{\Omega_t}\), where \(\Omega_t = X(t, \Omega)\). Let \(\bgamma(0, \cdot)\) be a \(C^1\)-regular counterclockwise parameterization of \(\Gamma = \ensuremath{\partial} \Omega\). Define a parameterization of \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega_t = X(t, \Gamma)\) by \(\bgamma(t, \cdot) := X(t, \bgamma(0, \cdot))\). The log-Lipschitz regularity of \(\uu(t)\) induces \(C^{c(t)}\)-regularity of the flow map \(X(t, \cdot)\) with \(c(t) \in (0, 1)\) and decreasing with time, as in Lemma 8.2 of. This is insufficient regularity to obtain a \(C^1\)-parameterization of \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega_t\), so let us *suppose* that our (classical) solution has \(\uu \in C(0, T; lip)\). Then \(\bgamma(t, \cdot)\) is a \(C^1\)-parameterization of \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega_t\). Since we assumed \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega\) is \(C^{1, \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\), we could give \(\bgamma(0, \cdot)\) \(C^{1, \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\)-regularity, but this does not itself ensure that \(\bgamma(t, \cdot)\) is \(C^{1, \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\): proving that is tantamount to establishing the propagation of regularity of the vortex patch boundary.
[\[T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE\]](#T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE){reference-type="ref" reference="T:ClassicalPatchBSLaw,T:ClassicalPatchCDE"} were expressed for simply connected domains. As pointed out on page 330 of, the only difference for multiply connected domains is that the integrals in [\[e:BSLawPatchR2,e:CDEClassical\]](#e:BSLawPatchR2,e:CDEClassical){reference-type="ref" reference="e:BSLawPatchR2,e:CDEClassical"} are summed over each component of the boundary.
We view [\[e:CDEClassical\]](#e:CDEClassical){reference-type="ref" reference="e:CDEClassical"} as a form of the Euler equations applying specifically to a vortex patch: it comes directly from [\[e:BSLawPatchR2\]](#e:BSLawPatchR2){reference-type="ref" reference="e:BSLawPatchR2"}, which we view as a form of the Biot-Savart law that recovers the velocity from the vorticity, as it is encoded by \(\bgamma\). We work, now, to obtain replacements for these expressions that apply to periodized vortex patches. This is a matter of deriving the CDE for a solution to the Euler equations and showing, conversely, that any solution to the CDE satisfies the Euler equations.
## Type 2 solutions
Turning to Type 2 solutions, we make the following assumptions on \(\Omega\):
With \(\Omega\) as in [\[A:OmegaPi\]](#A:OmegaPi){reference-type="ref" reference="A:OmegaPi"}, we let \(\uu\) be the unique Type 2 solution having initial vorticity \(\omega^0 := \omega_0 \CharFunc_\Omega\) with \(m_2 \equiv m_1(t,-\ensuremath{\infty}) + m_2(t, \ensuremath{\infty}) \equiv 0\) given by [\[T:Type2,P:KInfBSIsSameAsType2\]](#T:Type2,P:KInfBSIsSameAsType2){reference-type="ref" reference="T:Type2,P:KInfBSIsSameAsType2"} (\(m_1\), \(m_2\) are defined in [5.2](#S:MeanHorizontal){reference-type="ref" reference="S:MeanHorizontal"}). Set \[\begin{aligned}
\Omega_t := X(t, \Omega), \quad \Gamma_{t, j} := X(t, \Gamma_j), \end{aligned}\] noting that because \(X(t, \cdot)\) is a homeomorphism of \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\) onto \({\ensuremath{\BB{R}}}^2\), \(\Gamma_{t, j}\) is the \(j^{th}\) of the \(J\) components of \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega_t\). We then define a parameterization \(\bgamma_j\) of \(\Gamma_{t, j}\) as we parameterized \(\ensuremath{\partial} \Omega_t\) in [9.1](#S:ClassicalPatches){reference-type="ref" reference="S:ClassicalPatches"}, setting \(\bgamma_j(t, \cdot) := X(t, \bgamma_j(0, \cdot))\). As in that section, a priori, we do not even know that \(\bgamma_j(t)\) has \(C^1\) regularity for \(t > 0\); proving that it has \(C^{1, \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\) regularity is the ultimate goal (of [10](#S:BoundaryRegularity){reference-type="ref" reference="S:BoundaryRegularity"}). We show in [\[T:Type2PatchBSLaw,T:CDEType2\]](#T:Type2PatchBSLaw,T:CDEType2){reference-type="ref" reference="T:Type2PatchBSLaw,T:CDEType2"} that the analog of [\[T:ClassicalMultiplyConnected\]](#T:ClassicalMultiplyConnected){reference-type="ref" reference="T:ClassicalMultiplyConnected"} holds for Type 2 solutions.
# Regularity of a vortex patch boundary {#S:BoundaryRegularity}
To prove the propagation of regularity of a vortex patch boundary for our Type 1, 2, or 3 solutions, it will be easiest to work with Type 2 solutions, the result then immediately following for the other two types by [\[T:ThreeSolutions\]](#T:ThreeSolutions){reference-type="ref" reference="T:ThreeSolutions"}. We will prove, in [\[T:PatchType2\]](#T:PatchType2){reference-type="ref" reference="T:PatchType2"}, that for Type 2 solutions, the regularity of the boundary of a periodic vortex patch is maintained for all time, as in the classical case.
[^1]: In pathological cases, we would have to perturb this cut to avoid producing an infinite number of boundary components, but we will not explore this issue further.
[^2]: \(+ 2 K_\ensuremath{\infty}^2\) is \(-\ensuremath{\partial}_2 G\) in (2.8) of: we have made the transformation from a horizontal to a vertical strip.
[^3]: In, the patch boundary is parameterized clockwise, but \((\BoldTau, {\bm{n}})\) is in the standard \((\bm{\mathrm{e}}_1, \bm{\mathrm{e}}_2)\) orientation; the two resulting sign changes between and us cancel, so there is no sign change in our expressions. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:29', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14481', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14481'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
Since the beginning of the century we know that the observable Universe is in accelerated expansion which implies the existence of a *positive* cosmological constant \(\Lambda >0\). It is also known that a positive \(\Lambda\) imposes restrictions on the area of marginally (outer) future-trapped surfaces if these are stable in the sense of --equivalently, 'outer' in the sense of--if the dominant energy condition holds. These limits can be generalized and strengthened by adding electromagnetic charge. The stability assumption can be understood as stating that the marginal trapped surfaces (MTS) enclose a black hole (BH) region. The area \(A\) for (stable) MTS is limited by \[\label{lim} A< \frac{4\pi}{\Lambda}.\] Taking into account the relationship between the area of MTS (and of black hole event horizons) and their mass, one may wonder which kind of mechanism, if any, prohibits a BH with \(A\) near the limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} to increase its area by simply receiving more mass-energy from its exterior. Observe that this is completely different from the known cases of over-spinning or over-charging BHs with the goal of producing naked singularities, since in those cases there exist repulsive forces and a struggle between the increase in charge and/or angular momentum and the associated increase of the mass: the theory seems to conspire so that cosmic censorship prevails. In contrast, in principle a BH will simply become bigger by adding mass, and it is difficult to imagine what can prevent such physical process. In this paper, in order to understand this problem, I consider some simple models of spherical BHs that keep increasing their masses until the stable MTS of spherical topology reach the area-limit value and beyond. I will analyze the simplest possible models, first based on the Vaidya-de Sitter metric and then also in combination with the \(\Lambda >0\) generalizations of the Oppenheimer-Snyder and Lemaı̂tre-Tolman collapses studied in --later re-discovered in. In both cases we show that there is no problem in having larger and larger masses, but the dynamical horizon foliated by marginally trapped spheres then simply ends its existence. The cosmological horizon totally vanishes. The global structure of the resulting spacetimes is shown in convenient conformal diagrams. The global nature of event horizons is partly behind its dematerialization in these extreme spacetimes that I have called *ultra-massive*. However, that is not the main reason, or at least not only: the vanishing of future null infinity \(\mathscr{J}^+\) is the basic fact. This absence leads to 'frustrated event horzions' and, as was to be expected, the area limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} is never surpassed by any stable MTS. The next section is devoted to understanding the basic properties of Vaidya-de Stitter spacetimes. They can be easily inferred from those of the Kottler metrics (also known as Schwarzschild-de Sitter), which are well known and thoroughly studied in the literature. However, for the benefit of the reader I have added a useful Appendix with the main properties and corresponding conformal diagrams of the Kottler metrics. They can help in better understanding the main text. In section [3](#sec:first){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:first"} I present the first type of models, based on Vaidya-de Sitter exclusively. Section [4](#sec:second){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:second"} is devoted to the second type of models, which combine the first type of models with black holes in formation by stellar collapse using the Oppenheimer-Snyder-de Sitter models and others. I end the paper with an extensive discussion.
# The Vaidya-de Sitter metric
Using the advanced null coordinate \(v\) the Vaidya-de Sitter metric takes precisely the form [\[kot2\]](#kot2){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot2"} with the mass parameter replaced by an arbitrary function of \(v\): \[\label{VdS} ds^2 =-\left(1-\frac{2m(v)}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\right) dv^2 +2dv dr +r^2 d\Omega^2\] where \(d\Omega^2\) is the standard metric of the unit round sphere, \(r\) is the areal coordinate (so that round spheres with \(v\) and \(r\) constant have area \(4\pi r^2\)) and the range of coordinates is \(v\in(-\infty,\infty)\) and \(r\in (0,\infty)\) (or \(r\in (-\infty,0)\)). The metric [\[VdS\]](#VdS){reference-type="eqref" reference="VdS"} is a solution of the Einstein field equations with cosmological constant for an energy-momentum tensor of null radiation \[T_{\mu\nu}= \frac{2}{r^2}\frac{dm}{dv}k_\mu k_\nu\] where the future pointing null one-form \(k_\mu\) and vector field \(k^\mu\) are given respectivly by \[\mathbf{k}=-d v, \hspace{1cm} \vec k =-\frac{\partial}{\partial r}.\] Thus, the massless particles of the 'null dust' propagate along the null hypersurfaces \(v=\) const. towards decreasing values of \(r\), that is to say, towards round spheres of smaller areas. The dominant energy condition is satisfied whenever \(m(v)\) is a non-decreasing function everywhere \[\label{mdot} \frac{dm}{dv}\geq 0\] which I assume from now on. I will also assume \(m\geq 0\) everywhere. Kuroda proved that, under the above assumptions, a naked singularity would form in the Vaidya spacetime (with \(\Lambda =0\)) if the mass function initially increases slowly, that is if \(m(v\rightarrow 0^+)/v\leq 1/16\)--see also. This limit was confirmed for the Vaidya-de Sitter case in, and thus for simplicity I am going to assume[^1] \[\label{precond} \lim_{v\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{m(v)}{v} > \frac{1}{16}.\] The hypersurfaces \(r=\)const. have a normal one-form that satisfies \[g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu r \partial_\nu r = 1-\frac{2m(v)}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\] so that they are always spacelike for large values of \(r\) and for \(r\longrightarrow 0\) if \(m>0\). In those regions \(r\) is a time coordinate. Those hypersurfaces can also be timelike if there are regions where the function above is positive. Fixing \(v\), this can happen only if \[\label{cond} \Lambda < \frac{1}{9m^2(v)}\] at that \(v\). In particular this is always the case for \(v\) such that \(m(v)=0\). If condition [\[cond\]](#cond){reference-type="eqref" reference="cond"} holds at a given \(v\), then there are two values of \(r\), that I denote by \(r_-(v)\) and \(r_+(v)\), such that the round spheres with those values of \(r\) at that value of \(v\) are marginally trapped. It is easily seen that they satisfy \[0<r_-(v)\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}\leq r_+(v)<\frac{3}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}\] and that \(r_-(v)\) increases, while \(r_+(v)\) decreases, with \(v\), that is, as \(m(v)\) increases. Equality here is only possible if there exists a value \(\bar v\) of \(v\) such that \[\label{vbar} m (\bar v) = \frac{1}{3\sqrt{\Lambda}}.\] The two hypersurfaces defined by \(r=r_\pm(v)\) have a normal one-form given by \[\left( 1-\Lambda r_\pm^2(v) \right) dr-2 \frac{dm}{dv} dv\] whose norm is \[-4\frac{dm}{dv}(1-\Lambda r_\pm^2(v) )\] so that these marginally trapped spheres pile up to form a (spacelike) dynamical horizon and a (timelike) marginally trapped tube (see for definitions) given by \(r=r_-(v)\) and \(r=r_+(v)\), respectively. I will denote by AH the former and by MTT the latter. (Of course, in open regions where \(m(v)\) is a--non-zero--constant, they become null Killing horizons as the metric is Kottler there). Observe that, in case the value \(\bar v\) in [\[vbar\]](#vbar){reference-type="eqref" reference="vbar"} exists, then \[r_-(\bar v) =r_+ (\bar v) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}\] so that AH and MTT merge at the special round sphere defined by \(v=\bar v\) and \(r=1/\sqrt{\Lambda}\), and they both become null and tangent to the \(v=\bar v\) null hypersurface there. This special round sphere has precisely the maximum area \(4\pi/\Lambda\).
# First type of models {#sec:first}
The first type of models I am going to consider are defined by imploding null dust into an empty de Sitter universe. Thus, the mass function \(m(v)\) is assumed to vanish at initial values of \(v\). At a given advanced time (say \(v=0\)) \(m(v)\) starts to increase until eventually reaches its maximum value \(\mu\), say at \(v=v_1\): \[m(v\leq 0)=0, \hspace{1cm} m(v\geq v_1)=\mu\] where the condition [\[mdot\]](#mdot){reference-type="eqref" reference="mdot"} holds for \(v\in (0,v_1)\), and [\[precond\]](#precond){reference-type="eqref" reference="precond"} is enforced too. There are two possibilities to be considered, depending on whether \(9\mu^2 \Lambda <1\) or not. The case usually analyzed in the literature has \(9\mu^2 \Lambda <1\), see e.g., especially concerning BH evaporation because it leads to a standard Kottler (or Schwarzschild-de Sitter) black hole. The conformal diagram is presented in Figure [\[fig:VdS1\]](#fig:VdS1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:VdS1"}. However, in this paper I want to consider the other possibility, that is, when the final mass parameter satisfies \(9\mu^2 \Lambda >1\). Therefore, now the value \(\bar v\) in [\[vbar\]](#vbar){reference-type="eqref" reference="vbar"} does exist. In this situation a spherically symmetric dynamical horizon AH emerges and the area of the marginally trapped surfaces foliating AH increases with \(m(v)\) until it reaches its maximum possible value [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} at \(v=\bar v\), but \(m(v)\) keeps growing beyond that value until it reaches \(m(v_1)=\mu > m(\bar v)\). This leads to the absence of future null infinity \(\mathscr{J}^+\) and thereby to the nonexistence of any event horizon EH. What was going to become a BH actually grows up 'too much' and ends up swallowing the entire spacetime that becomes a contracting universe of type [\[kot3\]](#kot3){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot3"} outside the matter. Now the singularity is universal and every single possible observer or photon will inevitably end up there in finite time (or affine parameter). The whole thing is explained, and perhaps better understood, in the corresponding conformal diagram of Figure [\[fig:VdS2\]](#fig:VdS2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:VdS2"}. The null hypersurface \(v=\bar v\) is a past horizon for the region with marginally trapped round spheres, and any event with \(v>\bar v\) is unable to influence any such MTS. This region containing marginally trapped round spheres is actually a small (finite) portion of the entire spacetime, as can be proven by computing the volume of spacelike slices contained in the appropriate regions. On the one hand, the volume of spacelike spherically symmetric hypersurfaces orthogonal to the \(r=\)const. hypersurfaces contained in the region with \(1-\frac{2m(v)}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2 >0\) have a volume \[4\pi \int_0^{r_\pm(v)} \frac{r^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2m(V(r))}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2}} dr =\mbox{finite}\] where \(v=V(r)\) is the function defining these hypersurfaces. On the other hand, the spacelike spherically symmetric hypersurfaces \(r=\)const. in the Kottler region \(1-\frac{2\mu}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2 <0\) have an infinite volume \[4\pi r^2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2+\frac{2\mu}{r}-1} \int_{v_1}^\infty dv = \infty.\] It is remarkable that the absence of future null infinity arises precisely because there is a positive cosmological constant. As proven in, the non-existence of \(\mathscr{J}^+\) leading to the absence of the EH requires, for the Vaidya metric (that is, with \(\Lambda =0\)), that \[\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} \frac{m(v)}{v} > \frac{1}{16}.\] In plain words, when \(\Lambda =0\) one needs a very large *infinite* total mass. However, the existence of \(\Lambda > 0\) changes this drastically and any finite \(m(v)\) larger than \(3/\sqrt{\Lambda}\) removes \(\mathscr{J}^+\) and the EH. As the spacetime was locally creating a BH for a period of advanced time, these are somehow *frustrated black holes*, but the frustration arises simply because there are no observers reaching infinity, so the would-be BH ends up being a victim of its own success as its mass increases beyond the acceptable limit for the area of MTS. Therefore, recalling that the word 'ultra' comes from the Greek 'beyond', I think an acceptable name for these type of models is *ultra-massive spacetimes*. To make the features of these models more explicit and, perhaps, surprising, let us consider a mass function with the following properties \[m(v\leq 0)=0, \hspace{1cm} m(v_2<v < v_3) =\mu_0 < \frac{3}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}, \hspace{1cm} m(v\geq v_1)=\mu >\frac{3}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}\] with \(0<v_2 <v_3<\bar v <v_1\) and \(\mu_0\) a constant less than the critical value, while keeping [\[mdot\]](#mdot){reference-type="eqref" reference="mdot"} everywhere. This describes a situation identical to the first model, i.e. the creation of a BH of mass \(\mu_0\), for all \(v< v_3\), as the model settles down to a would-be EH, corresponding to the Killing horizon with \(r=r_-(\mu_0)\) of the Kottler metric. Nevertheless, this will eventually become a frustrated EH due to the extra matter that falls into the would-be BH after \(v=v_3\). Eventually, the BH never forms, again victim of its own success in accumulating matter. The corresponding conformal diagram is presented in Figure [\[fig:VdS3\]](#fig:VdS3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:VdS3"}. I would like to remark that the zone \(v_2<v<v_3\) can be made extremely large, so that such a 'frustrated BH' can look like a real BH in equilibrium for a period of time that can be taken as large as desired. There is a limiting case when \(v_1=\bar v\), that is to say, \(m(\bar v) =m(v_1)=\mu =3/\sqrt{\Lambda}\). The corresponding conformal diagram can be easily drawn, by taking the required part of the extreme Kottler metric joined to a version of Figure [\[fig:VdS2\]](#fig:VdS2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:VdS2"} with \(v_1 =\bar v\), to the left of \(\bar v\). In this case the AH and MTT both tend to merge at future infinity, arriving at the infinity 'point P' of the type shown in Figure [\[fig:kotext\]](#fig:kotext){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kotext"}. In this case, P is the only remaining vestige of the existence of future infinity, and there are some very special observers that can actually reach there. Therefore, for this special class of observers one can still define an EH.
# Second type of models {#sec:second}
The second type of models I am going to consider consist of BHs already formed (or better said in formation) by stellar collapse that, after having settled down to equilibrium, receive further matter that makes them grow beyond the limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"}. For illustration purposes I am going to use the generalization of the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse to the case with \(\Lambda >0\) analyzed in years ago. Nevertheless, the construction of our models work for any other collapse that produces a Kottler (Schwarzschild-de Sitter) BH, such as those studied in. The metric is described by the matching of the Kottler metric [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} to a closed Robertson-Walker metric (\(0<\chi<\pi\)) \[ds^2 =-d\tau^2 +a^2(\tau) \left(d\chi ^2 +\sin^2\chi d\Omega^2 \right)\] where the scale factor solves the Fridman-Lemaı̂tre equation for dust (i.e., pressure \(p=0\)) \[\label{FLeq} \left(\frac{da}{d\tau}\right)^2 =\frac{a_m}{a} +\frac{\Lambda}{3} a^2-1.\] Here \(a_m\) is a constant that represents the minimum value of the dust mass density and which, via the matching, can be related to the exterior (Kottler) constant mass parameter \(m\) by \[\label{am} a_m \sin^3\chi_0 =2m\] and the matching hypersurface is defined by \[\chi =\chi_0, \hspace{1cm} r=r_\Sigma = a(\tau) \sin\chi_0\] in the interior and exterior parts, respectively. The constant \(\chi_0\) is choosable in principle, and one can easily check on using [\[am\]](#am){reference-type="eqref" reference="am"} the relation \[\label{am1} \frac{4\pi}{3} \rho r_\Sigma^3 = \frac{c^2}{G} m (=M)\] where \(\rho\) is the mass density of the dust cloud. The righthand side of equation [\[FLeq\]](#FLeq){reference-type="eqref" reference="FLeq"} never vanishes if \(9m^2 \Lambda >1\), connecting with the conditions on the exterior for the absence of Killing horizons.[^2] However, I am going to consider the other possibility in which an MTT arises and a BH is formed. Thus choosing \(9m^2 \Lambda <1\) there always exist values of \(\chi_0 <\pi/2\) such that there is a bouncing time where \(d a/d\tau=0\). This time is usually taken as the initial time of the dust collapse. The collapse leads to a BH of Kottler type and total mass \(M\). The conformal diagram is presented in Figure [\[fig:OSdS\]](#fig:OSdS){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:OSdS"}. Now, the idea is to throw matter into this 'already formed' black hole in order to create an ultra-massive spacetime, so that no BH remains. To do that, one simply has to throw enough matter into the BH. This can be easily accomplished by using, as in previous cases, the Vaidya-dS metric starting at any \(v> v_s\), where \(v_s\) is defined as the limit of the advance times \(v\) that reach the dust cloud (so that the entire matching is performed in the Kottler part, for simplicity). If the final total mass parameter \(\mu\) is larger that \(1/(3\sqrt{\Lambda})\) we again encounter a situation where something that looks like a BH in equilibrium for a long time, and was *formed by stellar collapse*, eventually becomes an ultra-massive spacetime with no \(\mathscr{J}^+\) and no event horizon. Of course, these are idealized simple models, but the conclusion is robust in spherical symmetry[^3]: if one tries to increase the area of a MTS beyond the limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} by throwing matter into its interior the outcome will be the end of the stable MTSs as there will be one with the maximum area [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"}. This entails the dematerialization of the EH and of \(\mathscr{J}^+\), implying a general collapse into a future universal curvature singularity. I conjecture that the conclusion still holds without spherical symmetry, for instance, using the results in where the Robinson-Trautman metrics with \(\Lambda\) are seen to possess properties similar to Vaidya-dS, and actually they all approach Vaidya-dS asymptotically.
# Discussion {#sec:discussion}
As we have seen, the limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} is not violated in any of the models, even when increasing the total mass of the spacetime. Somehow, General Relativity is prepared to accept as much mass as one can imagine, nevertheless stable marginally trapped surfaces cannot increase its area indefinitely if there is a positive \(\Lambda\). They simply approach an MTS with the maximum area that ceases to be stable. This can be better understood by noticing that AH, where the marginally trapped spheres are stable in some spacelike outward directions[^4] merges with an MTT where the marginally trapped spheres are not stable in any spacelike direction; and they merge becoming tangential to a null hypersurface. Therefore, the special round sphere where they merge cannot be deformed outwardly in any non-timelike direction without becoming a (weakly) trapped surface. It must be observed that the results of persistence of stable MTS are not in conflict with the models we have presented because those results require the existence of an exterior untrapped barrier, leading to stability, and this is precisely what is missing at the special MTS where AH and MTT merge, as there are no untrapped external spheres whatsoever. An important puzzling question that arises is that of BH evaporation via Hawking radiation. The usual picture cannot be applied here as there is no EH defining the black hole. Of course, it has long been argued that the origin of Hawking radiation may have a different origin such as dynamical horizons or marginally trapped tubes of the type AH and MTT. One can even argue that some kind of radiation can be associated to *any* MTS. However, in the ultra-massive models herein presented, the question is where does any such radiation go. There is no infinity that allows the system to radiate (lose) energy away, and thus the already infinite curvatures at the singularity will become even larger if some energy arrives there from somewhere else. How quantum gravity might resolve this puzzle is uncertain. These results have also some implications on how to deal with BHs mergers and how to use numerical relativity to describe them. Because there seems to be a limit for the merger of apparent horizons and, if this limit is surpassed, the outerly stable MTS simply fail to exist: no numerical code will ever find them. Of course, there is also the query of how much mass is necessary to produce such ultra-massive spacetimes, and this depends on the value of the cosmological constant. If we accept the value that arises from the observed accelerated expansion of the visible Universe, which is about \[\Lambda \simeq 1.1 \times 10^{-52} \mbox{m},\] the limit [\[lim\]](#lim){reference-type="eqref" reference="lim"} requires a gravitational radius \(2m\) that should be greater than \[6.4 \times 10^{25} \, \mbox{m}\] and this translates into a total mass of about \[2.2\times 10^{22} M_\odot\sim 2.97 \times 10^{52} \mbox{Kg}.\] The estimated total mass of the observable universe now is about \[8.8\times 10^{52}-1.0 \times 10^{54} \mbox{Kg}\] so that one would need at least 3 times the total observed mass *now* to produce such ultra-massive objects. It does not seem they are going to be seen in the forseeable future! Still, the total mass of the entire Universe may well be much larger than that, hence these objects might be real somewhere, some time. And, in any case, there is a question of principle: if they may exist for any value of \(\Lambda >0\), what is the relevant physics behind them and how to deal with the universal singularity? Finally, I would like to add a remark. The time reversals of ultra-massive spacetimes are also worth considering. One just has to look at the diagram upside down, so that the future direction is reversed. Then, for instance, the time reversal of the model represented in Figure [\[fig:VdS2\]](#fig:VdS2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:VdS2"} will describe a universal big-bang singularity in the past and an expanding Universe of locally rotationally symmetric (Kantowski-Sachs) type in the Kottler region, but the mass-energy creating the gravitational field is radiated away towards \(\mathscr{J}^+\) entirely, leaving behind a portion of de Sitter vacuum spacetime. And the model of Figure [\[fig:OSVdS\]](#fig:OSVdS){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:OSVdS"} will have two expanding regions coming from the big-bang singularity, one of them of FLRW type. This may lead to several interesting speculations.
# Appendix: The Kottler metrics {#appendix-the-kottler-metrics .unnumbered}
The unique family of spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of the Einstein field equations--including a cosmological constant \(\Lambda\)--is given by the Kottler (also known as Schwarzschild-de Sitter) metric \[\label{kot} ds^2 =-c^2 \left(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\right) dT^2 + \left(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\right)^{-1} dr^2 +r^2 d\Omega^2\] where \(d\Omega^2\) is the standard metric of the unit round sphere, \(r\) is the areal coordinate and \(T\) is a fourth coordinate with range in \((-\infty,\infty)\). The 'mass parameter' is given by \(m:=GM/c^2\) where \(M\) is interpreted as the total mass generating the spacetime. When \(m=0\) it reduces to a (static) portion of de Sitter (dS) spacetime. In all cases, when \(r\rightarrow \infty\), the metric tends to dS. As is well known, when \(\Lambda >0\) there are three different possibilities for the metric [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} depending on whether \(9m^2\) is greater, equal, or smaller than \(1/\Lambda\). The standard case, which includes a static region similar to that of the Schwarzschild metric, requires \[\Lambda < \frac{1}{9m^2}\] in which case the function \(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\) has two positive zeros, \(r_+\) and \(r_-\) say. The particular values of \(r_\pm\) can be found in. The two hypersurfaces defined by \(r=r_\pm\) can be easily proven to define Killing horizons of the Killing vector \(\partial_T\) through which the metric [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} can be extended via the usual techniques. For instance, by using the advanced null coordinate \(v\) defined by \[\label{v} dv =cdT+\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\right)^{-1} dr\] the (extended) metric becomes \[\label{kot2} ds^2 =-\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\right) dv^2 +2dv dr +r^2 d\Omega^2\] with \(r\in (0,\infty)\) (alternatively \(r\in (-\infty,0)\)). The hypersurface \(r=r_+\) represents a cosmological horizon, and that with \(r=r_-\) a black hole horizon, both of them null hypersurfaces foliated by marginally trapped round spheres. One has \[0< r_-< \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} < r_+ < \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}\] the static region given by \(r_-< r < r_+\), while the round spheres with \(r<r_-\) and those with \(r>r_+\) are trapped--see for the terminology and for further details. Thus, \(r\) is a time coordinate in those two regions. The spacetime contains a curvature singularity at \(r=0\) unless \(m=0\). The conformal diagram of this spacetime is shown in Figures [\[fig:kot\]](#fig:kot){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kot"}, [\[fig:kot1\]](#fig:kot1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kot1"} and [\[fig:dS\]](#fig:dS){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:dS"}. The limiting case is when \[\Lambda = \frac{1}{9m^2}\] in which case there is only one (double) positive zero of the function \(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{r^2}{27m^2}\) given by \[r = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} = 3m.\] Now, the round spheres with constant \(v\) and \(r\) are always untrapped except for those with \(r = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} = 3m\) which are marginally trapped. The hypersurface \(r= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} = 3m\) is a degenerate Killing horizon, and infinity is only reachable for a tiny set of privileged observers ---a subset of the causal geodesics with \(T=\)const. in the original coordinates [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} plus the lightlike geodesics on the horizon with \(r=3m\). The global structure and general properties of this case were thoroughly analyzed in. The conformal diagram is shown in Figure [\[fig:kotext\]](#fig:kotext){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kotext"} Finally, there is the case with \[\Lambda > \frac{1}{9m^2}\] so that in this situation the function \(1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2\) has no real roots. In this case, there are no horizons and actually the original coordinates of [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} cover the entire spacetime. However, as now the coordinate \(r\) is a time everywhere, one should better write [\[kot\]](#kot){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot"} by renaming the coordinates so that is visually clearer: \[\label{kot3} ds^2 =-\left(\frac{\Lambda}{3} t^2 +\frac{2m}{t}-1\right)^{-1} dt^2 +\left(\frac{\Lambda}{3} t^2 +\frac{2m}{t}-1\right) dX^2 +t^2d\Omega^2.\] Notice that \(\left(\frac{\Lambda}{3} t^2 +\frac{2m}{t}-1\right)\) is positive everywhere, \(t\in(0,\infty)\) and, for compatibility with previous cases, I asusme that \(-\partial_t\) is future pointing. Thus, there is a future curvature singularity at \(t=0\). The spacetime represents a *locally rotationally symmetric* vacuum cosmological contracting model of 'Kantowski-Sachs' type, included in the general solution first found in. The metric is inextendible, and the conformal diagram is shown in Figure [\[fig:kot2\]](#fig:kot2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kot2"}.
[^1]: If this condition does not hold, the main conclusions do not change: absence of \(\mathscr{J}^+\) and event horizon. The only difference will be the existence of another, null and locally naked, singularity in addition to the universal one in the future.
[^2]: This situation was considered in in their section V, and the exterior is of type [\[kot3\]](#kot3){reference-type="eqref" reference="kot3"} leading to a conformal diagram which has a portion of the Figure [\[fig:kot2\]](#fig:kot2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:kot2"} as the exterior part. However, this was not presented in, as the authors chose to place a second collapsing dust to the right of the diagram---see their figure 10. Nevertheless, these models do not have any MTS anywhere, and therefore they are not of interest in the present discussion.
[^3]: This follows from the uniqueness results of the Oppenheimer-Snyder-like models in spherical symmetry, which themselves follow, via the idea of complementary matchings, from the uniqueness of the Einstein-Straus vacuoles, see for details.
[^4]: The outward direction here is the null future direction with vanishing expansion, or equivalently the direction into which the (null) mean curvature vector of the MTS points | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:33', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14585', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14585'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
The linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation [@1988ApJ...324..701D; @1989IAUS..134..217D], see also, sometimes referred to as the Magorrian relation, has repeatably been heralded as a critical ingredient to understanding the coevolution of galaxies and their central massive black holes. Black hole feedback is said to regulate the gas and thereby control the star formation [e.g., @1998A&A...331L...1S; @2007MNRAS.380..877S; @2008ApJ...676...33D; @2010MNRAS.402.1536S; @2013MNRAS.432.3401G and references therein] and thus establish/explain the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation.[^1] Despite early evidence for a non-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation [e.g., @1998ApJ...505L..83L; @2001ApJ...553..677L; @1999ApJ...519L..39W; @2000MNRAS.317..488S], there has been a tendency to cling to the simplicity of the original trend. However, along with increases in sample size and improvements in galaxy decomposition---which have led to both a better understanding of galaxies and a better measurement of their spheroidal component[^2]---, has come an ever-refined insight into the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram through the detection of (galaxy morphology)-dependent substructure and departures from the near-linear relation. Clues that something was amiss with the notion of a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation were presented in, which reported a steeper near-quadratic relation for spheroids with a light profile[^3] and a near-linear relation for spheroids with a core-Sérsic light profile[^4]. This work built on a key tip-off in the final paragraph of [^5] and was later expressed as a (cool gas)-rich versus (cool gas)-poor galaxy sequence in and. revealed that the near-quadratic relation also appeared to encompass active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with virial masses[^6] as low as \(2\times10^5\) M\(_{\odot}\). With improved data, found that the distributions in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram were better described by a 'blue sequence' for late-type galaxies (LTGs)---which are all Sérsic galaxies---and a 'red sequence' for early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can be Sérsic galaxies or core-Sérsic galaxies. This red versus blue sequence was later emphasised by others, including and. Doubling the sample size of spiral galaxies used by, could better constrain the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for the LTGs, finding a slope of 2.17\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.32 to \(2.44^{+0.35}_{-0.31}\) depending on the regression analysis used. Doubling the sample size of ETGs used by, measured a slope of 1.27\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.07 for the ETGs but crucially explained why this was misleading., and, knew which ETGs were (pure) elliptical galaxies and which were lenticular or ellicular[^7] galaxies. Separating the ETGs into those with and without discs, revealed that they followed separate \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relations with similar slopes (\(\approx\)`<!-- -->`{=html}1.9\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.2, based on \(M_*/L_{3.6} = 0.6\)) but offset by an order of magnitude in \(M_{\rm bh}\). Therefore, as explained, published slopes for the near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation, i.e., the 'red-sequence', are dependent on the sample's arbitrary number of ETGs with and without discs. See, for example, , , , and . The slope is not a measure of physical importance---as has been thought and reported for over a quarter of a century regarding galaxy/black hole coevolution---but rather a reflection of the sample selection. This revelation has been shown to impact black hole correlations involving not just the spheroid's stellar mass but also the spheroid's size and the spheroid's range of density measures. This new knowledge is important because it rewrites our understanding of the interplay between spheroids and their central massive black holes. This realisation was refined by performing multicomponent decompositions of the galaxy light, with recourse to kinematic information and accounting for distinct physical entities such as bars, rings, bulges, and discs detected in the images and the Fourier harmonic analysis of the isophotes. Here, with updated data, we offer a likely explanation for the offset between the relations followed by elliptical and ellicular/lenticular galaxies. We also raise some of the ensuing implications. In particular, we more clearly elucidate the origin and 'red herring' nature of the near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation in regard to understanding the (limited caretaker) role for AGN feedback in elliptical galaxies. We previously used a simple conversion of starlight-to-mass in our (galaxy morphology)-dependent scaling diagrams: specifically, \(M_*/L_{*,3.6\, \mu m} = 0.6\).[^8][^9] Such an approach meshes well with the notion that many compact 'red nuggets' at redshifts \(z \sim 2.5 \pm1\) (both massive and not so massive) have become the bulges of some of today's lenticular and spiral galaxies [@2015ApJ...804...32G; @2016MNRAS.457.1916D; @2017ApJ...840...68G; @2022MNRAS.514.3410H]. Such an origin for these bulges would make them old, as and reported, and therefore require a high mass-to-light ratio. However, not every bulge needs to be old. Here we explore colour-dependent \(M_*/L_{obs,3.6}\) ratios for a sample of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}100 galaxies pre-observed with the Spitzer Space Telescope and close enough to resolve their bulges (\(R_{\rm e} \gtrsim 2\arcsec\)). That is, we allow for departures from the assumption that all the bulges have the same \(M_*/L \equiv \Upsilon_*\) ratio. Here, we use a \(B-V\) colour-dependent mass-to-light ratio prescription to derive the stellar masses. Appendix [\[Apdx1\]](#Apdx1){reference-type="ref" reference="Apdx1"} offers an alternative optical-NIR prescription for the \(\Upsilon_*\) ratio based on the \(V-\)\[3.6\] colour. It provides an analysis less sensitive to star formation (given that star formation may be more reflective of the disc than the spheroid). In Section [2](#Sec_DaA){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_DaA"}, we summarise the salient features of our galaxy sample and describe the prescription for deriving their colour-dependent \(M_*/L_{obs,3.6}\) ratios. We have also updated a few black hole masses, some spheroid luminosities, and many galaxy distances, slightly impacting the black hole masses and absolute magnitudes. We provide a data table of final values with sufficient information to trace the origin of the data readily. In Section [3](#Sec_Results){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Results"}, we present the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagrams and relations as a function of galaxy morphology (E, ES/S0, and S). Section [3.3](#Sec_b2e){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_b2e"} presents the size-mass relation for our sample of spheroids and uses this to reveal how dry mergers, and the transition from bulges to E galaxies, naturally produce the offset \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) relations for E galaxies relative to the bulges in ES/S0 galaxies and also the offset between ES/S0 and E galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagram. Section [4.1](#Sec_Disc_2){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_2"} explains the apparent overmassive and underermassive black holes (in bulges) relative to the original near-linear relation, with Section [4.1.1](#Sec_Disc_3){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_3"} presenting the location of relic 'red nuggets' at the top of the bulge sequence. The stripped S0 galaxy M32---the prototype for the 'compact elliptical' galaxy class---is discussed in Section [4.2](#Sec_Disc_4){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_4"}. Section [4.3](#Sec_Disc_5){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_5"} identifies and discusses what may be the primary bivariate black hole relation in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. Section [4.4](#Sec_Disc_6){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_6"} then discusses the galaxy stellar mass function and the (moot) role of AGN feedback in shaping it instead of potentially just maintaining it. Finally, several other implications are briefly mentioned in Section [4.5](#Sec_imp){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_imp"}. It is important to note that the authors have been mindful of using the strict interpretation of morphological terms in this paper. An elliptical (E) galaxy has no substantial disc other than perhaps a small nuclear disc, whereas ellicular (ES) and lenticular (S0) galaxies have an intermediate-scale and a large-scale disc, respectively. The expression 'early-type galaxy' (ETG) is used to generically refer to the E, ES, and S0 galaxies without a spiral pattern, while the expression 'late-type galaxy' (LTG) refers to spiral (S) and irregular (Irr) galaxies. This notation is confined to high-surface brightness galaxies that define the galaxy classification grid seen in and built on the Aitken-Jeans-Lundmark-Hubble galaxy sequence discussed there. The term 'spheroid' refers to both an elliptical galaxy and the bulge of a disc galaxy, while the term bulge refers to the bulges of S, ES, and S0 galaxies but not E galaxies. The only (mild) confusion[^10] to this nomenclature is that we will sometimes refer to relic 'red nuggets'---unevolved spheroidal-shaped galaxies from \(z\sim 2.5\pm1\) which have not acquired a large-scale disc of stars by today---as belonging to the bulge sequence. Why we do this will become apparent as one reads on.
# Data and Analysis {#Sec_DaA}
## The sample {#Sec_Sample}
and provide galaxy decompositions for LTGs and ETGs with directly measured black hole masses obtained from the literature. The galaxy decomposition process involved the extraction of a nested set of one-dimensional profiles, including the surface brightness profile, the ellipticity profile, the position angle profile, and an array of profiles quantifying the amplitude of Fourier Harmonic terms used to describe the isophotal deviations from perfect ellipses. These one-dimensional profiles enable accurate two-dimensional reconstruction of the galaxy without stochastic irregularities due to, for example, star formation or undigested neighbours. Such irregularities remain in the 'residual image', obtained by subtracting the smooth reconstruction from the original image, where they can more readily be studied without the (often overwhelming) glow of the host galaxy. The surface brightness profile of the geometric-mean axis[^11] is then recreated by optimally fitting a suite of galaxy components. One of the advantages of this approach is that it is not limited to models in which galaxy components may have fixed ellipticity and position angles, as with directly fitting the two-dimensional image. For instance, a single-component triaxial bulge with a radially-varying ellipticity and position angle profile might get broken into two or more components when attempting to model it in two dimensions. The bulk of the sample was previously imaged with the Spitzer Space Telescope at a wavelength of 3.6 \(\mu\)m. The galaxies were 'disassembled' to reveal their components and better establish the luminosity of their spheroidal component. Their samples were supplemented by using optical and near-IR \(K_s\)-band images when the Spitzer data were either unavailable or when better spatial resolution was required to probe the bulge component. To keep things simple, and minimise the introduction of possible biases, here we avoid potential offsets arising from the use of a range of filters and thus adopted stellar mass-to-light ratios. We do this by solely using the galaxy sample whose structural composition was studied at 3.6 \(\mu\)m. This sample consists of 73 ETGs[^12] plus 31 LTGs[^13], coming from the larger sample of 84 ETGs and 43 LTGs. The smaller fraction of LTGs with useful Spitzer data is a consequence of the need to resolve the bulge component of the galaxy. As such, more LTGs than ETGs had previously required Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data. In passing, it is noted that the (peanut shell)-shaped structures associated with buckled bars ---sometimes referred to as 'pseudobulges'---were either modelled as a 'barlens' or effectively folded into the Ferrers bar component during the galaxy decomposition, which can be seen for every galaxy in, and. As noted above, we revisited the decomposition of seven of these (73+31=) 104 galaxies in, and we use the results here. The distances, shown in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}, are regarded as luminosity distances. As such, the small correction for cosmological surface brightness dimming, 2.5\(\log(1+z)^4\) is (implicitly) applied when we convert the 3.6 \(\mu\)m apparent magnitudes, \(m\)---given in the above four papers---into absolute magnitudes, \(\mathfrak{M}\), using the expression \(m-\mathfrak{M}=25+5\log\,D_L\), where \(D_L\) is the luminosity distance in Mpc. No Galactic extinction correction has been applied to the 3.6 \(\mu\)m data because any excess emission from dust in the Milky Way glowing at 3.6 \(\mu\)m would have effectively been removed during the sky-subtraction procedure. Finally, no K-correction or evolutionary corrections were applied given the small redshifts involved, typically \(z \approx\) 0.01--0.02. The spheroid and galaxy absolute magnitudes were expressed in units of solar luminosity using \(\mathfrak{M}_{\odot,3.6} = 6.02\) (AB mag), equal to 3.26 (Vega mag). These were then converted into stellar masses using the prescription described in the following subsection. These masses appear in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}, along with the references to where one can see each galaxy's decomposition. These references are also the source for the sizes of the spheroids, quantified using the effective half-light radius, \(R_{\rm e,sph}\), measured along the 'equivalent axis', \(R_{\rm eq}\) (see footnote [\[footReq\]](#footReq){reference-type="ref" reference="footReq"}). The masses for the black holes, updated according to the new galaxy distances, are also provided in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}. Unless an update is indicated, the nearly 100 references for these black hole masses can be traced through. Following the exclusion of mergers by, we exclude from the upcoming Bayesian linear regressions, but not the plots, one LTG plus four ETGs previously identified by others as somewhat unrelaxed mergers (NGC 2960 plus NGC 1194, NGC 1316, NGC 5018 and NGC 5128). We additionally exclude the stripped galaxy NGC 4342 and the dwarf galaxy NGC 404 [^14]. NGC 404 is the only galaxy in our sample with \(M_{\rm bh} < 10^6\) M\(_\odot\), thereby making it vulnerable to potentially biasing the analyses due to the weight it may have in torquing the regression lines. The ETG with the suspiciously[^15] blue colour of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.6 in Figure [\[Fig_colour_IP13\]](#Fig_colour_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_colour_IP13"} is NGC 1275, although we left this galaxy in the sample as its inclusion/exclusion had no appreciable impact. We also included the rather blue LTG NGC 4303 but needed to exclude NGC 5055 due to its uncertain black hole mass [@2004A&A...420..147B; @2021MNRAS.500.1933S] and Circinus, an unrelaxed S galaxy known to be undergoing considerable starbursts in addition to hosting an AGN. The \(B-V=0.174\) (Vega) colour of Circinus is less than 0.5 and well outside of the applicability range of the \(M/L\) equations we are about to introduce. The nine galaxies excluded from the linear regression are marked with a dagger symbol (\(\dagger\)) in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}, which includes all 104 galaxies initially considered here.
## Stellar mass-to-light ratios {#Sec_IP13}
As illustrated by, for example,, , and , the colour-dependent mass-to-light ratio prescriptions from different papers do not agree with each other. Even after correcting for the different assumptions in the stellar population models, the equations from different papers do not agree. @2019MNRAS.483.1496S [their Figure 10] present half a dozen (\(B-V\))-dependent relations for the mass-to-light ratio. The relation from sits in the middle and is therefore adopted here as a middle ground. In the Appendix, we additionally show the result of adopting the latest relation from. We have taken the \(B_T\) and \(V_T\) total galaxy magnitudes from, as listed in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)[^16], and then corrected these for Galactic extinction based on the near-infrared maps of, again, as provided by NED. These Johnson-Cousins \(B\) and \(V\) magnitudes are Vega magnitudes and benefit from having been (i) derived from wide field-of-view imaging from which the sky-background was readily available, and (ii) taken in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere, thereby capturing most of our sample. For three ETGs (NGC 6251, NGC 5252, and NGC 7052), and three LTGs (IC 2560, NGC 253, and NGC 2960), either the \(B\)-or the \(V\)-band magnitude was not available. For these three ETGs we assigned a \(B-V\) colour of 0.9, and for these three LTGs we assigned a \(B-V\) colour of 0.7. In passing, we recognise that spheroid colours, rather than galaxy colours, would be advantageous. However, this would encompass considerable additional work, requiring multicomponent decomposition of two optical bands. Moreover, while both LTGs and ETGs can have colour gradients---i.e., varying colour with radius, which can be due to the bulge-to-disc transition---our sample is dominated by early-type spirals (Sa--Sb) and early-type galaxies (E-S0) for which the bulge and disc colours within individual galaxies may not be too dissimilar. The (Galactic extinction)-corrected \(B_T-V_T\) galaxy colour, hereafter \(B-V\), is shown in Figure [\[Fig_colour_IP13\]](#Fig_colour_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_colour_IP13"} and provided in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}. It was used to obtain the stellar mass-to-light ratio at 3.6 \(\mu\)m as follows. We started with the (\(B-V\))-dependent expression for the \(K\)-band \(M_*/L_K\) ratio taken from Table 6 of. It is based on realistic dusty models, designed for "samples that include a range of morphologies, intrinsic colours and random inclinations". It is such that \[\label{EqIP13_tab6} \log(M_*/L_K) = 0.866 (B-V)-0.926,\] which is reportedly based on the 'initial mass function' (IMF)[^17], and good for \(0.5 < B-V < 1.1\). report a \(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.1 dex (25%) uncertainty on these \(M_*/L_K\) ratios. As they noted, the combination of dust attenuation (dimming the optical magnitudes) and reddening (of the \(B-V\) colour) somewhat cancel to provide \(M_*/L_K\) ratios that are consistent with those derived from their simpler (dust free) galaxy model. This partial nulling behaviour was noted by and can be seen in, when assuming the dust models of. Here, we convert Eq. [\[EqIP13_tab6\]](#EqIP13_tab6){reference-type="ref" reference="EqIP13_tab6"} into a 3.6 \(\mu\)m equation using the following relation taken from the start of Section 5.6 in: \[m_K-m_{3.6} = 0.54-0.42(B-V). \nonumber\] Taking 2.5 times the logarithm of \((M_*/L_K)L_K = (M_*/L_{3.6})L_{3.6}\) and substituting in this \(m_K-m_{3.6}\) colour term, one obtains \[\log(M_*/L_{3.6}) = 1.034(B-V)-1.142. \label{Eq-ML36}\] While the use of individual \(m_K-m_{3.6}\) colours rather than the above mean (\(B-V\))-dependent relation might seem preferable, in practice it can become problematic due to the different method used to determine the total \(K\)-band and Spitzer magnitudes [e.g., @2013ApJ...768...76S their Fig. 2]. As noted above, initially derived a colour-dependent \(M_*/L\) relation for a less complicated galaxy model based on composite stellar populations. This may be more applicable for the ETGs, and is such that \(\log(M_*/L_K) = 1.055 (B-V)-1.066\), for \(0.2 < B-V < 1.0\). Morphing this in the same manner as done to Equation [\[EqIP13_tab6\]](#EqIP13_tab6){reference-type="ref" reference="EqIP13_tab6"} gives the relation \[\log(M_*/L_{3.6}) = 1.223(B-V)-1.282. \label{Eq_ippy1}\] In the following subsection, we adjust these expressions (equations [\[Eq-ML36\]](#Eq-ML36){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq-ML36"} and [\[Eq_ippy1\]](#Eq_ippy1){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_ippy1"}) to align them with the IMF.
### Consideration of the IMF {#Sec_IMF}
The stellar mass-to-light ratios from the above, and all, stellar population models are dependent upon the assumed IMF [see @2013pss5.book..115K]. To convert from the IMF[^18] (spanning 0.1--100 M\(_\odot\))---which was used by and is inherent in the previous equations---to an alternative IMF, the logarithm of the \(M_*/L\) ratio needs to be adjusted by a (near) constant factor. This is shown by , where it can be seen that switching to the Salpeter IMF (spanning 0.1--100 M\(_\odot\))[^19] requires adding 0.225 dex to the above equations. Conversion to other assumed IMFs can be done following the offsets provided by, for example, or . In this paper, we adopt the IMF, detailed further in, and have therefore added 0.225 dex and subtracted 0.30 dex from Eq. [\[Eq-ML36\]](#Eq-ML36){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq-ML36"} to give \[\log(M_*/L_{3.6}) = 1.034(B-V)-1.067. \label{Eq_MonL_IP13}\] Following, we assign a 25 percent uncertainty to these \(M_*/L_{3.6}\) ratios. In the same way, Equation [\[Eq_ippy1\]](#Eq_ippy1){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_ippy1"} becomes \[\log(M_*/L_{3.6}) = 1.223(B-V)-1.207. \label{Eq_MonL_simple}\] We have included this additional relation (Equation [\[Eq_MonL_simple\]](#Eq_MonL_simple){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_simple"}), shown in the right-hand panel of Figure [\[Fig_colour_IP13\]](#Fig_colour_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_colour_IP13"}, simply to demonstrate that it yields similar \(M_*/L_{3.6} \equiv \Upsilon_{*,3.6}\) ratios to those from Equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"}. We proceed using Equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"} to derive the spheroid and galaxy stellar masses for all. In Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}, we list the spheroid and galaxy stellar-masses, and the black hole masses taken from the compilation in , unless indicated otherwise. The luminosity distances are also tabulated here. Distances from have been reduced by \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}4 percent due to a 0.083 mag reduction in their distance moduli. This arose from a 0.06 mag reduction after a recalibration by [@2002MNRAS.330..443B their Section 4.6][^20] plus a 0.023 mag reduction due to a reduced distance modulus for the Large Magellanic Cloud involved in the initial calibration. The black hole masses depend linearly on the angular distance to the host galaxies, and these masses have been updated here to reflect this. Following, the quoted uncertainties on the stellar masses include three uncertainties added in quadrature. These relate to the distance (see Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}), the \(M_*/L\) ratio (a 25 percent uncertainty is suggested by ), and the apparent magnitude. Here, we use a 0.15 mag uncertainty for the galaxy magnitude, and thus also for the spheroidal component of pure elliptical galaxies. This primarily captures uncertainty in the extrapolation of the light profile to large radii and this value also falls in the middle of the \(-\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.11 to +0.18 range reported by @2016ApJS..222...10S [their Section 4.2.4]. For those galaxies with two or more components, we assign uncertainties reflecting the complexity of the decomposition and thus the accuracy of the spheroid magnitude. These uncertainties were at elevated levels in and, in turn, because they were based on the published range of spheroid magnitudes from decompositions that, in retrospect, were clearly in error due to, for example, missed discs or bars. Having narrowed in on a better suite of components for each galaxy, the typical uncertainty on the spheroid magnitude is reduced. We adopt the following grading schema for the uncertainties on the magnitudes: Grade 0 (0.15 mag: single-component galaxy); Grade 1 (0.2 mag: ES galaxies and those with only minor inner components); Grade 1.5 (0.25 mag: typically a clean bulge+disc fit, or if several arcseconds of inner data were excluded, or if intracluster light (ICL) is present); Grade 2 (0.40 mag: usually a bar+bulge+disc fit); Grade 3 (0.55 mag: typically many components present). The forthcoming regressions were, however, tested and found to be stable (at the 1\(\sigma\) level) to a broad range of uncertainties. In Appendix [\[Apdx1\]](#Apdx1){reference-type="ref" reference="Apdx1"}, we repeat the forthcoming analysis of Section [3](#Sec_Results){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Results"} using an alternative optical-infrared colour-dependent prescription for the mass-to-light ratio, taken from. This additional analysis supports one of our primary conclusions: that violent, disc-destroying, mergers of (red) bulge\(+\)disc galaxies produce an offset population of elliptical galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. Neither the initial (bulge) nor the secondary (elliptical galaxy) relations have a near-linear slope in this diagram.
# Results {#Sec_Results}
## The \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,spheroid}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,galaxy}\) diagrams {#Sec_Diagrams}
In Figure [\[Fig_M\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_M_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_M_Msph_IP13"}, we show the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, using Equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"}, for the three morphological types: E, ES/S0 and S. In the upper panel we combine the E, ES and S0 galaxies, which represent the ETGs. In the middle panel, there is no grouping of the different galaxy types, while in the lower panel, we combine the ES, S0 and S galaxies, representing the disc galaxies. The first point we make is that the slope of the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for bulges in either S galaxies or ES/S0 galaxies, and the slope of the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for elliptical galaxies, is neither equal to 1 nor close to it. This is quantified in Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"} and described further in Section [3.2](#Sec-Relations){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec-Relations"}. The different relations for the bulges and elliptical galaxies can also be seen in the \((M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph})\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}). For a given spheroid stellar-mass, Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"} reveals different \((M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph})\) ratios for elliptical galaxies and the bulges of disc galaxies. This different ratio has received little attention in the literature and has never been explained. The arrows in this diagram trace the expected movement due to simple, equal-mass, dry mergers of galaxies with some illustrative bulge-to-total stellar mass ratios, \(B/T\). The merger of two E galaxies produces a shift to the right, while a merger of two identical S0 galaxies with a typical \(B/T=0.25\) produces a considerable shift to the lower right. Considering the mean regression lines, the elliptical galaxies appear to be built, on average, by just one major merger. One can also appreciate how brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), which are typically E galaxies, occupy the right-hand side of the distribution in this diagram. Figure [\[Fig_BonT_IP13\]](#Fig_BonT_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_BonT_IP13"} shows, for different morphological types, the trend between black hole mass and \(B/T\), or more precisely, the spheroid-to-total stellar mass ratio. \(B/T\) is not some near-constant value for all S0 galaxies; a range of ratios is known [e.g., @2008MNRAS.388.1708G]. Aside from the exclusions mentioned in Section [2.1](#Sec_Sample){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Sample"}, here we exclude the ES/S0 galaxy NGC 4762 given the excessive weight its small \(B/T\) ratio has on our sample's regression.[^21] Figure [\[Fig_BonT_IP13\]](#Fig_BonT_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_BonT_IP13"} reveals that the S0 galaxies with the lower \(B/T\) ratios have smaller black hole masses, as is observed among the S galaxies. These trends aid our understanding of the transition from the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_M\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_M_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_M_Msph_IP13"}) to the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_MMgal_IP13\]](#Fig_MMgal_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_MMgal_IP13"}). For a given black hole mass, the smaller \(B/T\) ratios in the LTGs imply that there will be a steeper \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation for LTGs than for ES/S0 galaxies. That is, given the greater disc-to-bulge flux ratios and smaller spheroid masses when moving from Sa to Sc galaxies, the spiral galaxies transition to a steeper \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation than the early-type disc galaxies (ES/S0). This is seen in Figure [\[Fig_MMgal_IP13\]](#Fig_MMgal_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_MMgal_IP13"}, in which the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation for the E galaxies is basically[^22] the same as the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for the E galaxies. The \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation for the E galaxies is, however, offset from the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation for the ES/S0 galaxies. The darker shading in this diagram reveals that the relations are not consistent with each other at the 1\(\sigma\) level. This reveals that the E and ES/S0 galaxies are not offset from each other in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram due to the exclusion of the non-spheroid stellar mass. In Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"}, we present the \((M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal})\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagram. As noted in, one can *approximate* the ETGs (E/ES/S0) with a single relation in this diagram if, for example, one is pursuing rough predictions for black hole masses in other ETGs. However, there is more detail to it than this, and this detail is one of the keys to understanding the black hole mass scaling diagrams. As with Figure [\[Fig_M\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_M_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_M_Msph_IP13"}, one can again see that the addition of the non-spheroid stellar mass, primarily from the disc and bar, does not align the lenticular and elliptical galaxies. This reveals that the offset in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, between the bulge component of ES/S0 galaxies and E galaxies, is not an artifact of separating/reducing the light in some ETGs (those with discs) but not others (those without) when we were plotting the spheroid stellar mass. The arrows in Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"} reveal that the distribution of elliptical galaxies is readily explained if they are built from the dry merger of lenticular galaxies, which is widely thought to be the case, and also the merger of elliptical galaxies.[^23] However, what is not well-recognised is the ensuing offset between the E and ES/S0 galaxies in various black hole mass scaling diagrams populated with real data. Here, we have:
- built on which established that there is not a single (fundamental) \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for ETGs;
- revealed that mergers have not built a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation, due to the folding-in of the disc/bar stellar mass, reducing the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio; and
- established that a single \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation is not a fundamental relation for ETGs, with merger-built E galaxies offset from the S0 galaxies.
We will return to these points with additional supportive evidence in Section [3.3](#Sec_b2e){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_b2e"}.
## The \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relations and ratios {#Sec-Relations}
We have used hierarchical Bayesian model fitting through the state-of-the-art platform for statistical modelling known as Stan [@2017JSS....76....1C; @Rstan:2016][^24]. The statistical model used for our linear regression considered uncertainties in both variables and is aimed at obtaining a symmetric relation between the two variables. A bivariate normal density was used to represent the distribution of latent ('true') \(\log M_*\) and \(\log M_{\rm bh}\) values that might occur in our sample. As noted in, "this is conceptually equivalent to the generative framework sketched by, in which the observed data points are imagined to be drawn from a distribution centred around a 'line of best fit', except that here we allow Bayesian 'shrinkage' by estimating the underlying distribution along the line rather than keeping this as an improper uniform prior." Details of the statistical model framework are described in @2019ApJ...873...85D [their Appendix A]. The best-fitting relations are shown in Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"}, along with the slope, \(A\), and intercept, \(B\), at the normalisation point. The normalisation point of, for example, the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation is \(\upsilon(5\times10^{10}\,M_\odot)\). If using equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"} to convert light into stellar mass and thus derive a value of \(M_{\rm *,sph}\) for use in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) equation (to predict \(M_{\rm bh}\)), one has that \(\upsilon=1\). If, however, a different light-to-mass ratio prescription is preferred and used to derive one's estimate of \(M_{\rm *,sph}\), then one needs to apply the appropriate value of \(\upsilon\), as illustrated in @2019ApJ...876..155S [see their Figure 4 and Equations 6 to 8] for colour-dependent light-to-mass ratio prescriptions in different passbands. While we could drop this \(\upsilon\) term from our equations, as typically done before @2019ApJ...873...85D [see their Equations 10 and 11], its inclusion serves to remind readers that a specific prescription for \(\Upsilon_*\) has been used to derive the equation and that they need to apply a conversion if using an alternate prescription. The root mean square scatter, \(\Delta_{\rm rms}\), in the \(\log\,M_{\rm bh}\) direction is also tabulated for reference, although it is noted that this is not the quantity that is minimised with a Bayesian regression. We have also applied three additional linear regression codes to our data, and found consistent results with our primary Bayesian analysis. For example, the Bisector regression from the Bivariate Correlated Errors and Intrinsic Scatter (BCES) routine gave the following slopes in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram for the E, ES/S0, and S galaxies: 1.62\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.17; 1.49\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.13; and 2.19\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.33. Using a symmetrical treatment[^25] of the modified-FITEXY routine from yielded slopes equal to 1.65\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.12, 1.53\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.11 and 2.20\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.26, respectively. Finally, the Bayesian linmix code from yielded: 1.61\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.14 (E); 1.52\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.13 (ES/S0); and 2.14\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.34 (S). From Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"}, we have that \(M_{\rm bh} \propto M_{\rm *,sph}^{2.25\pm0.39}\) for the bulges of the spiral galaxies. This has 1\(\sigma\) uncertainties which overlap with those from the steeper relation reported by, in which \(M_{\rm bh} \propto M_{\rm *,sph}^{2.44\pm0.33}\) for a larger sample of 40 spiral galaxies observed with a range of filters and \(M_*/L\) ratios. It appears that the bulges of spiral galaxies define a steeper \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation than the bulges of S0 galaxies. Three evolutionary pathways for the spiral galaxy bulges are offered in Section [4](#Sec_Disc_1){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_Disc_1"}. In fair agreement with the relations found here for the ETGs using the hierarchical Bayesian model fitting (see Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"}), report a slope of 1.86\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.20 for 36 ES/S0 galaxies and 1.90\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.20 for 40 E galaxies. As seen in, the present sample of E galaxies trace a relation which is roughly parallel to that defined by the bulges of S0 galaxies. Using multicomponent decompositions, reported a median \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) value of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.68 percent for 45 ETGs, which they thought followed a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. This result was based on the use of an \(M_*/L_{3.6}\) ratio of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.60 and a IMF. suggest a reduction of just 0.05 dex to the logarithm of \(\Upsilon_*\) (\(\equiv M_*/L\)) to convert from the IMF to the IMF. Therefore, this \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) mass ratio of 0.68 percent increases to 0.76 percent for the IMF. This is comparable to the median \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio for core-Sérsic galaxies reported in, which was obtained using \(M_*/L_{K}=0.8\) from and based on a diet-Salpeter IMF. Their reported \(K\)-band mass-to-light ratio of 0.49 drops by 0.15 dex, or to \(M_*/L_{K}=0.57\), when switching to the IMF. Consequently, their \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio of 0.49 percent increases to 0.69 percent once calibrated against the IMF, and is thus in good agreement with the above value of 0.76 percent.[^26] However, as uncovered, and as can be seen in Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}, this near-constant \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) mass ratio of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.7 percent for ETGs is misleading. Individual ratios, at a fixed \(M_{\rm *,sph}\), differ by an order of magnitude depending on whether the system is an S0 or an E galaxy. Furthermore, the ratio can vary by an order of magnitude within either of these two galaxy types. Turning to the *galaxy* masses, Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"} illustrates that while the S galaxies tend to have lower \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\) ratios than the ETGs in our sample, due in part to the greater disc-to-bulge ratios in S galaxies, there is more to it than that. On average, for a given \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\) ratio, the E galaxies have higher masses than the S0 galaxies, which is expected if S0 galaxies merge to form E galaxies. This observation also expresses itself as a lower \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\) ratio in E galaxies than S0 galaxies at a given galaxy mass, modulo the scarcity of low-mass E and high-mass S0 galaxies---another signature of the dry merger phenomena. In passing we note that it almost goes without saying that applying consistent \(\Upsilon_*\) ratios between different studies is vital for avoiding artificial mismatches such as that reported in. Realised some years ago, and detailed in, this mismatch led us to introduce the mass-to-light conversion term, \(\upsilon\), in.[^27] This was developed further in and explains the \(\upsilon\) term included in Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"}.
The slope and intercept of the relations shown in Figures [\[Fig_M\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_M_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_M_Msph_IP13"}, [\[Fig_BonT_IP13\]](#Fig_BonT_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_BonT_IP13"} [\[Fig_MMgal_IP13\]](#Fig_MMgal_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_MMgal_IP13"}, [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"} and [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"} have been obtained using a Bayesian analysis that treats the data symmetrically. The root mean square (rms) scatter reported here, \(\Delta_{\rm rms}\), is the vertical scatter about each relation. The spheroid and galaxy stellar masses have been obtained using the \(M_*/L\) prescription given in Equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"}. The \(\upsilon\) term is mentioned towards the end of Section [3.2](#Sec-Relations){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec-Relations"} is equal to 1 if one uses stellar masses consistent with those obtained via Equation [\[Eq_MonL_IP13\]](#Eq_MonL_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Eq_MonL_IP13"}.
Here, we find \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph} = 0.0018\) (0.18 percent) for elliptical galaxies with \(M_{\rm *,sph}=10^{11}\) M\(_\odot\), and 1.7 percent for bulges of the same stellar mass. The order of magnitude difference between these morphological types can be seen in Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}. This difference appears to widen slightly when moving to lower spheroid masses. Furthermore, one can see how dry mergers of S0 galaxies, building E galaxies, can explain this observation.
## From bulges to elliptical galaxies {#Sec_b2e}
Much of the accretion-driven growth of black holes is known to occur in regular star-forming disc galaxies [e.g., @2009ApJ...691..705G; @2011ApJ...726...57C]. That is, the AGNs tend to reside in normal, often isolated, spiral galaxies. AGNs are not particularly prevalent during or after major mergers. Given that elliptical galaxies have little to no star formation, it is apparent that the gaseous processes driving growth in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram occur in bulges. As noted by multiple studies, the black hole accretion rate relative to the star formation rate is such that it is not expected to establish a linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) relation but instead a steeper relation [e.g., @2012ApJ...755..146S; @2013ApJ...765L..33L; @2014A&A...566A..53D; @2019ApJ...885L..36D]. This bodes well for the steeper-than-linear trend seen for spiral galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagram. Should some of the star-formation be occurring in bulges, then the higher (black hole accretion rates)-to-(star-formation rates) in spiral galaxies may mesh well with the trend seen in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. By considering the sizes of the spheroids, we can build a more informed scenario for what we are witnessing in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagrams. We will see how dry mergers can account for the steeper-than-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation observed for the E galaxies. In Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"}, we show the effective half-light size of the spheroids, \(R_{\rm e,sph}\), versus their stellar mass, \(M_{\rm *,sph}\). These radii are given in Table [\[Table-data\]](#Table-data){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-data"}, along with the reference showing the modelled light profile from which the radii were measured. We used the geometric-mean axis, aka the 'equivalent axis', \(r=\sqrt{ab}\), along which the size of the radii are equivalent to a circularised version of the quasi-elliptical isophotes. There is no discontinuity in the \(R_{\rm e,sph}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram between the different types of spheroids. This continuity holds whether the spheroids coexist with a disc that either does or does not contain a spiral pattern, or whether they exist on their own with no disc, i.e., are an elliptical galaxy. The \(R_{\rm e,sph}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\), or equally \(M_{\rm *,sph}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\), relation is seen in Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"} to have a slope close to unity. Curiously, there is little evidence for any broad curvature in the distribution of \(R_{\rm e,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm *,sph}\). This differs from what is seen in the \(M_{\rm *,gal}\)--\(R_{\rm e,gal}\) relation for ETGs due to the presence and then dominance of discs as one moves to lower masses. Not surprisingly, this near-linear slope matches that seen at the bright end of the \(M_{\rm *,gal}\)--\(R_{\rm e,gal}\) relation for ETGs, which is dominated by E galaxies [e.g., @2008MNRAS.388.1708G; @2018MNRAS.477.5327K; @2019ApJ...886...80D; @2020ApJ...903...97S their Figure 9], i.e., systems without discs. The simulations from, involving elliptical galaxies undergoing minor and major dry merger events, build a near-linear \(M_{\rm *,gal}\)--\(R_{\rm e,gal}\) relation. This relation will be explored further in with a sample twice that used here and having multicomponent decompositions and a consistent set of \(\Upsilon_*\) ratios. In the left-hand panel of Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}, we see the black hole masses versus the half-light radii of the host spheroids, as measured from the geometric-mean axis. Given the strong relation between the sizes and the masses of the *spheroids* seen in Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"}, it is not too surprising that the structure in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}) shows a similarity to that seen in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_M\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_M_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_M_Msph_IP13"}). Using the \(M_{\rm *,sph}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"}), one can map the expected shift in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram for equal-mass mergers of S0 galaxies that produce an E galaxy. This is shown in the right-hand panel of Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}, and can be understood in terms of the galaxies effectively folding in their disc stars to make the new E galaxy and thereby lowering the \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio, as seen in Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}. This scenario also readily explains the offset between bulges and E galaxies seen in Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}. For example, a merger of two equal-mass S0 galaxies with B/T=0.25 [e.g., @2005MNRAS.362.1319L; @2008MNRAS.388.1708G] will double \(M_{\rm bh}\) and increase the spheroid (now elliptical galaxy) mass 8-fold once the disc light is incorporated. In the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, this merger moves a high stellar mass S0 up by 0.3 dex and across by 0.9 dex, placing it on the sequence of elliptical galaxies. From the relation \(M_{\rm *,sph} \propto R_{\rm e,sph,eq}^{1.14\pm0.04}\) (based on the Spitzer sample used here), we have that a 0.9 dex increase in \(M_{\rm *,sph}\) is associated with a 0.79 dex increase in \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\). Such an increase from a major merger event is plotted in Figures [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"} and [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}. Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"} provides a previously unstated measure-of-sorts of the average number of major mergers the E galaxies in our sample have experienced. There is evidence here, and in Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"}, that BCGs have experienced a greater number of mergers, and this will be explored in more detail in a subsequent paper.
# Discussion {#Sec_Disc_1}
## Overmassive and undermassive black holes {#Sec_Disc_2}
Early observational bias favouring the detection of systems with big black holes led to samples dominated by elliptical galaxies and lenticular galaxies with massive bulges. This sample selection produced an apparent near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation, which steepened as lower-mass black holes were gradually included. Figure [\[Fig_schematic\]](#Fig_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_schematic"} reveals how this near-linear 'red sequence' in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram arises by sampling both massive bulges and elliptical galaxies. For many such elliptical galaxies, their spheroid mass may be dominated by the disc masses of their progenitor galaxies. This explains the approximately order of magnitude lower \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio in elliptical galaxies when compared to bulges of the same 'spheroid' mass (Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}). As noted earlier, this is not because the galaxies' disc masses are excluded from the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram; the \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\) ratio is not equal among ES/S0 and E galaxies at a given galaxy stellar-mass (Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"}). The notion of a 'red sequence' representing the underlying fundamental connection between black holes and 'classical bulges', i.e., bulges built by mergers, introduces problems that disappear when considering the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram in terms of a bulge sequence and an offset merger-built population of elliptical galaxies. Most obvious is that the E galaxies do not follow the (near-linear) red sequence but define a steeper non-linear relation (see Table [1](#Table-IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Table-IP13"}). In addition, the low-and high-mass bulges appear as outliers from the near-linear 'red sequence', invoking a misleading perception as to the need for separate formation physics. It had led to the notion that massive bulges and relic galaxies are a disconnected population with overmassive black holes relative to galaxies on the near-linear relation (see Figure [\[Fig_schematic\]](#Fig_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_schematic"}). They are, however, not overmassive relative to the bulge sequence. Furthermore, while some black holes in BCGs appear overmassive relative to the 'red sequence', they are not overmassive relative to the elliptical galaxy \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) sequence. By appreciating the role of mergers, we can understand how the morphology-dependent relationships arose in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagrams. The near-linear red-sequence also resulted in claims that low-mass bulges were yet another disconnected population with undermassive black holes relative to galaxies on the red-sequence. However, they are not undermassive relative to the bulge sequence. We again note that while our sample of bulges does contain members which reside below the 'red sequence', they are not the (peanut shell)-shaped structures associated with unstable bars, nor are they nuclear or inner discs which we model with separate components.
### Relic red nuggets at the top of the bulge sequence {#Sec_Disc_3}
The gaseous processes that gave rise to some bulges may have occurred long ago. Indeed, many local bulges could be the descendants of the 'red nuggets' observed at \(z \approx 2.5 \pm 1\) and potentially now cloaked in a large-scale disc [@2015ApJ...804...32G; @2016MNRAS.457.1916D; @2022MNRAS.514.3410H and references therein]. If any of the high-\(z\) red nuggets did not acquire a disc by today---which may be likely if they started life in a proto-(galaxy cluster), given (i) the propensity for ram-pressure stripping of cold gas by hot gas, and (ii) the reduction in galaxy mergers due to high fly-by speeds---, then they will remain a compact massive galaxy today [e.g., @1966ApJ...143..192Z; @1968cgcg.bookR....Z; @1971cscg.book.....Z; @2010MNRAS.408L..21S; @2010ApJ...712..226V; @2013ApJ...777..125P; @2014ApJ...780L..20T]. Such local 'compact galaxies' are also referred to as 'relic galaxies' if their stars are old. In separating spheroid types, the 'relic galaxies' are seen not to be associated with the merger-built E galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram but rather sit on the bulge sequence, with the most massive red relics located at the top. Consequently, Figure [\[Fig_schematic\]](#Fig_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_schematic"} reveals how massive relic galaxies appear to have overmassive black holes relative to the near-linear 'red sequence' but are consistent with the bulge sequence for ETGs. NGC 1332 is not an elliptical galaxy but a relic ES galaxy which has not acquired/built a large-scale disc. The dominant spheroidal component in NGC 1332 has \(\log(M_{\rm *,sph}/M_{\odot}) = 11.15\pm0.15\) dex and a geometric mean radius \(R_{\rm e,sph} \approx 1.9\) kpc. It has the second highest black hole mass of the ES+S0 galaxies in our sample, and can be seen to reside at the top of the bulge sequence in Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}. We have also labelled the ES galaxy NGC 6861 in Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}, which has \(\log(M_{\rm *,sph}/M_{\odot}) = 11.07\pm0.19\) and \(R_{\rm e,sph} \approx 2.6\) kpc. If a high-\(z\) 'red nugget' acquired a disc over time, then today the 'red nugget' would be the compact massive spheroid of a disc galaxy. NGC 5252, for example, likely has such a relic bulge; and also a relic quasar. Given the old ages of discs in massive lenticular galaxies, the bulk of their stars formed long ago, no doubt acquired through direct accretion and mergers but also possibly via star-formation in their gas discs at cosmic noon [e.g., @2020MNRAS.497.3273F].
### Merger-built Brightest Cluster Galaxies
The creation of BCGs via (multiple) mergers produces the largest elliptical galaxies, found at the centres of galaxy groups and clusters. The steeper-than-linear \(M_{\rm bh} \propto M_{\rm *,sph}^{1.72}\) relation seen in for BCGs is explained here as a combination of mergers folding in the disc mass and a steep origin relation for the bulges of the pre-merged progenitor galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. That is, the elliptical galaxies, which include the BCGs[^28], should not be thought of as a departure from a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. Instead, they represent a shift to a somewhat parallel relation to that defined by the bulges of ETGs. Of course, when E\(+\)E dry mergers build new E galaxies, the evolutionary path in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram will be along a vector with a slope of 1. One might imagine that in the Universe's distant future, one would start to see a linear relation for BCGs emerge from the top end of the current relation for the E galaxies. This is, however, something which we will leave for the simulators.
## The stripped S0 galaxy M32 {#Sec_Disc_4}
In Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"}, M32 appears to the left of the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation defined by bulges in ETGs. However, it resides within the 1\(\sigma\) scatter about this relation. The slight preference to the left may reflect that the bulge, along with the disc, in M32 has been eroded by its massive neighbour, M31. This process can reduce the bulge mass and inflate its half-light radius. 'Compact elliptical' (cE) galaxies like M32, which have lost the gravitational tug-of-war to retain ownership of their stars, stand out in the galaxy colour-magnitude diagram due to their low luminosity for their colour . For M32, the \(V-I\) (Vega) colour of \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}1.2--1.4 mag implies \(M_*/L_I \approx 3 M_\odot/L_\odot\), or \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2.4 after converting to a IMF. Coupled with 0.09 mag of Galactic extinction, the absolute magnitude for the spheroidal component of M32, \(M_I =-17.0\) mag, corresponds to \(M_* \approx 0.8\times10^9\,M_\odot\). Performing a multicomponent fit to M32's major-axis light profile, measured an effective half light-radius of 26\(\arcsec\).3 for the bulge component. For an ellipticity of 0.3 at this radius, this translates to an equivalent-axis \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}=22\arcsec\). Using a scale of 4 pc per 1\(\arcsec\), this angular size is equal to a physical size of 88 pc, as shown in Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}. We add the dwarf E galaxy Pox 52 (93 Mpc distant), with \(M_{\rm bh} = (3.2\pm1)\times10^5\) M\(_\odot\) and \(M_{\rm *,sph}=1.2\times10^9\) M\(_\odot\). We use \(R_{\rm e,eq}=436\) pc, based on a minor-to-major axis ratio \(b/a = 0.79\) and \(R_{\rm e,maj}=490\) pc. Pox 52 follows both the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) relations well. There is another spheroid in our sample, albeit not used in our regression analyses, with a smaller mass and size than that of M32. The dwarf S0 galaxy NGC 404 can be seen in Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"} to follow the S0 galaxy sequence in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) diagram but reside to the left of the S0 galaxy sequence in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. This LINER galaxy has a bright (\(r \approx 2\arcsec\)) nuclear spiral pattern [compare CG 611: @2017ApJ...840...68G] and is encircled by a much larger H I gas disc with knotty, irregular tendrils of UV hotspots and H II regions . However, this galaxy is excluded from the fitting process because its location at the lower extremum of our data might excessively torque the fitted relation. This becomes problematic using such a datum if its measurements are in error or if the scaling relation does not extend linearly to such low black hole masses. reported a 3\(\sigma\) upper limit to the black hole mass of \(1.5\times10^4\) M\(_\odot\), which was recently revised to \(M_{\rm bh} = 5.5^{+4.1}_{-3.8}\times10^5\) M\(_\odot\). In passing, we note how this discrepancy highlights the affect of systematic errors not captured by the small formal/random errors typically reported for most black hole mass measurements. We also attach a 0.5 dex uncertainty to our spheroid mass, which may be three times less massive than our adopted value from if this galaxy has an anti-truncated disc, resulting in a steeper inner-disc component at the expense of the bulge. LEDA 87000 is a galaxy that likely harbours a central intermediate-mass black hole. Although observed it to follow the near-quadratic \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation followed by LTGs, inspection of subsequent Hubble Space Telescope images reveals that the previously poorly-resolved 'barge' component[^29]---as seen in ground-based images---was all bar and no bulge. This represents something of a growing trend in which the closer one looks, the more 'bulges'---when simply defined as the excess of light above the inward extrapolation of an outer exponential disc---retreat by giving up ground to bars or other features [e.g., @2003ApJ...582L..79B; @2003ApJ...597..929E; @2005MNRAS.362.1319L; @2022MNRAS.514.3410H].
## The primary relation {#Sec_Disc_5}
The larger, merger-built elliptical galaxies are seen to define a secondary, or at least subsequent, relation in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. In terms of Darwinian evolution on a galaxy scale, they can be thought of as coming into existence via punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism. Major dry mergers between S0 galaxies, in which the S0 galaxies effectively fold in all their disc stellar mass to create an elliptical galaxy, are accompanied by a substantial oversized jump in the stellar mass (relative to the jump in the black hole mass) and a large jump in the half-light size of the new spheroid, i.e., the elliptical galaxy. Such evolution explains the two prominent relations observed in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram and the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\) diagram for ETGs (Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}). Broadly speaking, some bulges may have arisen from a kind of rapid monolithic collapse, or at least result from an early-formation process that created the observed high-\(z\) 'red nuggets', while most elliptical galaxies likely formed from a binary merger or hierarchical merging (in the case of the BCGs) over the age of the Universe. As such, a meaningful cosmological probe into the evolution of the galaxy/black hole scaling relations needs to be mindful of the galaxy morphology. For example, a sample of elliptical galaxies at \(z=1\) can not be directly compared with a sample of bulges at \(z=0\); to do so would be comparing apples and oranges. To summarise, the notion of a single near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation is inadequate and seems to offer misdirection in understanding galaxies and black holes. The averaging of black hole and galaxy masses through mergers has established neither the expected nor an observed near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. While we have presented the most accurate \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram to date, and interpreted the broad brush stroke near--parallel relations shown in, there is further information to be gleaned from this diagram. Mergers, both wet and dry, which do not fold in all of the disc's stellar mass will be addressed in, where we develop something of a phylogenetic tree diagram within the bivariate space of \(M_{\rm bh}\) versus \(M_{\rm *,sph}\). One should expect to observe morphology-dependent substructure in other black hole scaling diagrams. For example, as previously noted, the broad red/blue sequence for ETGs/LTGs in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) diagram has been observed in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--colour diagram. This broad division may also appear in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--metallicity, \(Z\), diagram. Depending how the number of globular clusters, \(N_{\rm GC}\), traces a galaxy's stellar mass, one may also expect the ETGs and LTGs to follow different trends in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(N_{\rm GC}\) diagram. The number of red and blue globular clusters around each galaxy may yield yet further subdivisions, as may their kinematics. With our new understanding of the relevance of galaxy morphology and galaxy formation history, the role of mergers, and refined insight into what may be considered the primary relations versus their modified/evolved form, one is also better placed to tackle the question of whether or not a two-dimensional plane within a three-dimensional space may provide an improved description over bivariate linear relations. For example, does a third axis, in addition to \(M_{\rm bh}\) and \(M_{\rm sph}\), uncover a distribution on a more fundamental plane? Our analysis, considering additional parameters obtained from physically-motivated multicomponent decomposition, such as the spheroid Sérsic index and stellar density [e.g., @2007ApJ...655...77G; @2016ApJ...818...47S; @2022ApJ...927...67S], along with spheroid size, mass, and velocity dispersion, will be presented in a forthcoming paper. Here, we restrict ourselves to briefly explaining why the combination of \(M_{\rm bh}\), \(M_{\rm *,sph}\), and \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\) (or equally[^30] \(\langle I \rangle _{\rm e}\)) may *not* produce a useful plane about which the scatter in the \(\log(M_{\rm bh})\) direction is less than that seen about the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. For the following thought experiment, we can consider two parallel relations in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, one for S0 galaxy bulges and the other for an offset population of merger-built E galaxies. We can use the knowledge that the (logarithm of the) half-light spheroid radius scales with the (logarithm of the) spheroid stellar mass (Figure [\[Fig_R\_Msph_IP13\]](#Fig_R_Msph_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_R_Msph_IP13"}). One way to think of the problem is that we wish to introduce an \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\) term to effectively shift the E galaxies to the left in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, to make them overlap with the bulges and thereby reduce the scatter seen in this diagram (see Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}). However, we need to bear in mind that this procedure will also shift the bulges to the left, given that we are assuming no knowledge of morphology and just using the parameters \(M_{\rm bh}\), \(M_{\rm *,sph}\), and \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\). It turns out that to achieve overlap of the elliptical and bulge samples, the necessary subtraction of a \(\log\,R_{\rm e}\) term from the \(\log\,M_{\rm *,sph}\) values in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram results in a near-vertical distribution of points with a near-infinite slope. Remember, \(R_{\rm e,sph,eq}\) scales almost linearly with \(M_{\rm *,sph}\). This shall be shown in a forthcoming paper but we felt it was of sufficient interest to provide some initial insight here.
## Is there a role for AGN feedback in shaping the turnover and (high mass)-end of the galaxy mass function? {#Sec_Disc_6}
The observational results herein represent a considerable departure from the connection galaxies are often claimed or thought to have with their central black hole. More accurate spheroid masses---particularly from a greater awareness that many ETGs are S0s rather than Es--- have revealed how the coevolution of *bulges* and supermassive black holes have built a super-linear[^31] or near-quadratic[^32] \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. and highlighted this steeper slope and discussed how dry mergers might be producing an offshoot of core-Sérsic galaxies, creating (what was thought to be) a near-linear slope at high black hole masses in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. However, this idea did not account for the incoming disc mass during some mergers, or for the more recent observation that merger-built elliptical galaxies (with and without depleted cores) do not follow a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. Obviously, AGN feedback has thus also not produced a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for the elliptical galaxies. Moreover, the location of the elliptical galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram would appear to not be due to AGN feedback but rather major mergers in which the angular momenta of the progenitor galaxy's discs have largely cancelled. This observation is apparent from the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram, the \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratios (Figure [\[Fig_msph_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_msph_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_msph_rat_IP13"}), the \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\) ratios (Figure [\[Fig_mgal_rat_IP13\]](#Fig_mgal_rat_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_mgal_rat_IP13"}) and the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) diagram (Figure [\[Fig_evolve_IP13\]](#Fig_evolve_IP13){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_evolve_IP13"}). While 'quasar mode' AGN feedback (discussed in Section [4.5](#Sec_imp){reference-type="ref" reference="Sec_imp"}) might contribute to a link between black hole mass and *bulge* mass for some lower mass systems, it is not yet well established how much it may regulate the gas and star formation in the discs of galaxies. Given that most of the stellar mass in disc galaxies resides in their discs, with \(B/T < 0.5\) for most S0 and S galaxies, the role of AGN in shaping the *galaxy* stellar-mass function appears limited. Given that mergers, rather than AGN feedback, have likely built the elliptical galaxies which dominate the high-mass end of the galaxy mass function, the scope for AGN feedback driving and shaping coevolution in high-mass galaxies appears quenched [e.g., @2003ApJ...599...38B; @2013MNRAS.436.1750R; @2022MNRAS.511..506C]. Of course, a galaxy does not need to blow out its gas---via, say, supernovae or an AGN---in order to cause a cessation of star formation. A galaxy could instead prevent the cooling of gas which might form stars. Creating a hot gas halo in/around massive pressure-supported spheroids may have this effect [e.g., @2020MNRAS.491.1311M see our Figure [\[Fig_schematic_MF\]](#Fig_schematic_MF){reference-type="ref" reference="Fig_schematic_MF"}]. While star formation and stellar winds might not generate the escape speeds required to clear gas from a massive galaxy (and its dark matter halo), they contribute a hot gas source, as does gas 'shock-heating' during a galaxy collision [e.g., @2019ApJ...878..161J]. X-ray sputtering from hot gas also breaks up dust clouds and thereby removes the shielding from ionising radiation that dust may have provided potential stellar nurseries. Furthermore, these winds can keep the AGN 'pilot light' on by supplying low-level fuelling [e.g., @1991ApJ...376..380C; @2006ApJ...640..143S] for the AGN. We term such an energy source a 'Benson burner'.[^33] Should hot gas halos efficiently suppress star formation, then rather than ejecting gas which might form stars, it is about acquiring and retaining (hot) gas. The system needs to be capable of maintaining, and thus also massive enough to retain, a hot gas halo rather than have it evaporate or collapse into a disk where it may cool and form stars. A *hot 'n dry* (hot gas and dry merger) combination may help explain the upper-end of the galaxy mass function where star formation has dwindled or ceased. Unlike energetic but directional AGN jets [which can both suppress and trigger star formation: @2013ApJ...772..112S; @2014AN....335..531G; @2015ApJ...799...82C], a hot gas halo can permeate the entire galaxy, including the disc. The relation between black hole mass and both X-ray gas temperature and luminosity may add credibility to this picture. Low levels of omni-directional particle outflows and electromagnetic radiation from the central 'Benson burner' would also help counter cooling [@2006MNRAS.368L..67B; @2006MNRAS.370..645B; @2006MNRAS.365...11C; @2017MNRAS.465...32B] ---seen as X-ray radiation coming from the hot gas halo . This would help hold star-formation at bay, at least in a closed-box model with no substantial infall of cold gas. When cooler gas is available, sporadic feeding and associated percolation events may produce bubbles and cavities observed at various wavelengths . However, this so-called 'radio mode' AGN feedback would only maintain the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation, which we have argued is established by other means. For the first time, we have used the black hole scaling relations to confirm that AGN primarily have a caretaker role among elliptical galaxies, and we have revealed how mergers rule the roost and dictate the \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\) ratio and presumably also the \(M_{\rm *,sph}/M_{\rm dark matter}\) ratio. This result is tied to the offset trend seen for elliptical galaxies in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\), \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,gal}\) and \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(R_{\rm e,sph}\) diagrams. It is not due to spheroids with partially depleted cores, which some E galaxies have but others do not, and which some S0 galaxy bulges possess. Such spheroids, whose central 'phase space' is depleted of stars, tend to occupy the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) 'red sequence', which is a 'red herring' due to the partial picture it provided. In particular, it missed the wet and damp mergers, and thus the steep \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for the ensemble of elliptical galaxies. We will pursue this further by addressing merger-built lenticular galaxies with depleted cores, such as NGC 5813, and major wet mergers, for example NGC 5128, in.
## Some further thoughts {#Sec_imp}
It is evident that the coevolution of bulges and their central black holes have not produced a simple near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. The steep \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for bulges has implications for countless simulations, semi-analytic works, theories, and papers that may have calibrated themselves to a near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. For example, as shown by @2018ApJ...852..131B [their Figure 6], while the Horizon-AGN simulation produces an \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) 'red sequence' with a slope around 1.1 to 1.2, it does not have the scatter to accommodate the steeper relations defined by either the bulges or the elliptical galaxies. That is, it appears to have not captured the key merger-induced jump from bulges to elliptical galaxies. While some studies are ahead of the pack, producing steeper relations [e.g., @2006MNRAS.373.1173F; @2012MNRAS.420.2662D; @2012MNRAS.423.2397K; @2017MNRAS.472L.109A; @2018MNRAS.479.4056W; @2019ApJ...885L..36D; @2020MNRAS.494.2747M; @2022MNRAS.513.3768I; @2022MNRAS.511.5756T], it has been hard for the notion of a steep \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation to get oxygen given the significant paradigm shift that it implies. It is, therefore, perhaps worth reiterating an element from, which introduced a related revision to the 'quasar mode' (aka cold-gas mode) of black hole growth used in some semi-analytic models. The steep \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm dyn,sph}\) relation detected by, which supplanted the single linear relation from, challenged the past assumption of accretion-induced black hole growth that is linearly proportional to the inflowing mass of cold gas. and others have popularised this black hole feeding scenario to model how AGN outflows account for what was thought to be a linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation. presented a revised prescription for the increase in black hole mass, \(\delta M_{\rm bh}\), associated with wet mergers, such that \[\delta M_{\rm bh} \propto \left(\frac{M_{\rm min}}{M_{\rm maj}}\right) \left[ \frac{M^X_{\rm cold}}{1+(280\, {\rm km\, s}^{-1})/V_{\rm virial}}\right]. \label{EqQ}\] The exponent \(X\) represents the logarithmic slope of the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for bulges, and they specified \(X=2\). \(M_{\rm min}\) and \(M_{\rm maj}\) are the total baryonic masses from the minor and major galaxies involved in the accretion/merger event, and \(M_{\rm cold}\) is their combined cold gas mass. The velocity \(V_{\rm virial}\) is the merged system's circular or 'virial' velocity, normalised at 280 km s\(^{-1}\). This modified equation may prove helpful for exploring and understanding galaxy/(black hole) evolution through semi-analytic approaches, although it does not encompass the cessation of star-formation due to hot X-ray halos in massive systems, or the pivotal role of dry mergers in shaping the distribution seen in the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) diagram. There are also significant ramifications for predictions of gravitational waves from space-based interferometers [e.g., @2005LRR.....8....8M; @2013CQGra..30x4009S; @2020MNRAS.492..256K; @2022arXiv220505099S] and pulsar timing arrays monitored with ground-based radio telescopes [e.g., @2010CQGra..27h4013H; @2013Sci...342..334S; @2019MNRAS.488..401C]. For example, the steep \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for bulges should be considered, if not favoured over the near-linear 'red-sequence' when assigning BH masses to galaxies in works attempting to estimate the background signal from binary black hole mergers. One caveat here is that the mergers involving a BCG may involve systems on both the bulge and the elliptical sequence. As noted in, predictions for black hole masses will be too high if using the original near-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation at low spheroid masses. This over-prediction can result in over-looking potential populations of intermediate-mass black holes (\(10^2 < M_{\rm bh}/M_{\odot} < 10^5\)). Furthermore, application of the steeper relation has already been shown to result in an order of magnitude reduction to the expected detection rate of extreme mass ratio inspiral (EMRI) events from compact stellar-mass objects around massive black holes. That work can be further refined based on the updated relations herein, providing better expectations for what the European Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (*LISA*) and TianQin can hope to achieve based on their current design plans. As noted above, the pursuit of long-wavelength gravitational waves, from the coalescence of binary supermassive black holes [e.g., @2003ApJ...582L..15K; @2006ApJ...646...49R; @2019ApJ...884...36L; @2022ApJ...926L..35O], is an endeavour underway via monitoring pulsar arrival times using radio telescopes. These studies will benefit from an improved knowledge of the varying \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,sph}\), and \(M_{\rm bh}/M_{\rm *,gal}\), ratios in pre-merged galaxies. This can enable revised predictions for, and possibly aid in the tentative confirmation of, a long-wavelength gravitational wave background. Related to the EMRI events are the nuclear stars clusters that coexist with [e.g., @2008AJ....135..747G; @2008ApJ...678..116S; @2009MNRAS.397.2148G] and feed [e.g., @2002RvMA...15...27K; @2002ApJ...576..753L] the central black hole in galaxies. The revised/steeper \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relations, coupled with the \(M_{\rm nsc}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relations [@2003ApJ...582L..79B; @2003AJ....125.2936G], led to the discovery of the \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm nsc}\) relation. This should be useful for modelling not only gravitational radiation events but also the expected frequency of tidal disruption events [TDEs: @2001astro.ph..6422K; @2004ApJ...600..149W; @2015JHEAp...7..148K; @2016MNRAS.455..859S; @2017MNRAS.465.3840C; @2020MNRAS.498..507T], which have been observed in data dating back to 1990. There are currently around 100 such known events.[^34] If a non-rotating Schwarzschild-Droste [@1916AbhKP1916..189S; @1917KNAB...19..197D] black hole is more massive than \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}10\(^8\) M\(_\odot\), and thus the gravitational gradient at, and beyond, the 'event horizon' is not strong enough to pull a star apart, there will be no TDE. The star will cross the event horizon and disappear without displaying its hot interior. As we have seen, most of the systems with \(M_{\rm bh} \lesssim 10^8\) M\(_\odot\) follow the near-quadratic \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relation for bulges, suggesting the need to use this steeper relation rather than the near-linear 'red-sequence', which pertains to (some) systems with \(M_{\rm bh} \gtrsim 10^8\) M\(_\odot\). One should, however, be mindful that the spin-reduced size of the event horizon in a rotating black hole can result in a star's tidal disruption radius being greater than the event horizon for black hole masses up \(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}7\(\times 10^8\) M\(_\odot\) for maximally spinning black holes. The morphology-dependent black hole scaling relations also demand a re-examination of the virial \(f\)-factors used to convert AGN virial masses into black hole masses. Failing to account for the different morphologies and formation history of the spheroids hosting the AGN or inactive black holes will produce erroneous results. As noted in, there is a wealth of additional and immediate implications and insight from the steeper-than-linear \(M_{\rm bh}\)--\(M_{\rm *,sph}\) relations. These include black hole mass predictions in other galaxies, constructing the black hole mass function, and deriving the black hole mass density based on reliable bulge and elliptical galaxy mass functions. In passing, it is noted that some care with the Hubble-Lemaître constant, or little \(h\), is required for such calculations, as noted in and. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:59', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14526', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14526'} |
null | null |
# Introduction {#S1}
Aluminium alloys are widely used in industry for their various advantages: they are light weighted metallic alloys, have a high corrosion resistance and good mechanical properties. Since the early work of Guinier and Preston, it has been demonstrated that the increase of hardness in age hardened Al-Cu alloys is due to the formation of nanoscaled zones that have been first detected by small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) known as the Guinier-Preston (GP) zones. When such alloy is quenched, then aged at room temperature (*i.e.*: naturally aged), the formation of these GP zones is activated by the excess vacancies after quenching, which are slowly annihilated near residual dislocations and grain boundaries. When an Al-Cu alloy is heat treated, the precipitation sequence is: Super Saturated Solid Solution \(\rightarrow\) Cu clustering \(\rightarrow\) GP zones \(\rightarrow\) \(\theta''\) \(\rightarrow\) \(\theta'\) \(\rightarrow\) \(\theta\). The formation of GP zones is obtained quickly at ambient temperature, thus the copper clustering sequence is usually neglected to describe the precipitation sequence of this alloy. GP zones in Al-Cu alloys are circular nanoscaled disks parallel to {100} planes, isolated in one layer. The precipitation in Al-Cu alloys has been extensively studied in the literature through hardness measurements, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and strength models have been developed to correlate the increase of hardening to the precipitation state. Atomistic calculations have been used to predict the evolution during ageing of the precipitation in addition to determine the formation energy of particles, their geometries and interaction with dislocations. These parameters can be then implemented in classical nucleation and growth theories or/and clusters dynamics. Publications about naturally aged alloys and the role of excess vacancies are numerous, but less information is reported on GP zone nucleation and growth during the first step of natural ageing. Besides, aluminium alloys are among materials bearing the highest potential to contain, and to facilitate the transport of hydrogen fuel due to their various advantages and they are already used in fuel-cell-based, electric vehicles. More generally, since hydrogen is becoming a key component of the energy transition worldwide, it can either be used as an energy carrier or directly as a fuel in vehicles, including automobiles and planes. However, due to its small size and high mobility, hydrogen influences the mechanical properties of metals and alloys leading to premature failures of engineering structures. This phenomenon is called hydrogen embrittlement (HE) and several models have been proposed in the literature to describe the underlying physical mechanisms (see for details ). For all models, HE involves the energy reduction of one process in the presence of hydrogen to activate a mechanism (*e.g.*: grain boundary segregation, Cottrell atmosphere of dislocation, shielding effect promoting slip band localisation, enhancement of vacancy formation, and so on\...). These models can describe accurately HE of pure metals, but can fail describing HE in more complex materials (*e.g.* in alloys) where mechanical properties are dependent on the distribution of strengthening precipitates and their interactions with defects, in particular dislocations. Aluminium alloys are also not immune to hydrogen ingress and when hydrogen is introduced as a solute, it easily diffuses and segregates to crystalline defects. *Ab initio* calculations have shown that hydrogen atoms strongly interact with vacancies in aluminium. Previous studies focusing on the hydrogen/vacancy interactions in metals have shown that hydrogen decreases the formation energy of vacancy clusters containing hydrogen and the vacancy migration energy. Hydrogen may also delay the clustering of solutes and the coarsening of precipitates in some Al alloys. Therefore, it is critical to understand how these interactions impact the kinetic and thermodynamic of precipitates in aluminium alloys (which may evolve even at room temperature) to predict microstructural evolutions and eventually to reduce the damaging effect of hydrogen. In this study, the influence of hydrogen on the early stage of GP zone formation during natural ageing in an Al-5Cu alloy is investigated. The following section is focused on experimental data that highlight the influence of hydrogen on GP zone nucleation and growth during the first step of natural ageing. Then, *ab initio* calculations are presented to first demonstrate the impact of copper on the interaction between hydrogen and vacancy. The second part of the *ab initio* calculations is focused on the effect of hydrogen on the diffusion of vacancy and copper in FCC aluminium.
# Experimental evidence of the hydrogen influence on the GP zone formation and hardening kinetics {#S2}
## Experimental details {#S21}
The investigated material is provided by Goodfellow\(^{\circledR}\) with the following composition (wt.%): 5.3%Cu-0.7%Fe-0.4%Si-0.3%Pb, Al balance (standard AA2011, called Al-5Cu further). Disc shaped samples (with a diameter of 6 mm and a thickness of 1 mm) are solutionised at 810 K during 1 h, water quenched, then naturally aged at room temperature either in air or 5 h in a 0.1 M NaOH solution. Before the introduction in the solution, samples are quickly (few minutes) mechanically grinded using SiC foil paper with a particle size of 8 µm to remove the oxide layer grown during the solution heat treatment. Aqueous solution containing NaOH is aggressive towards aluminium and its oxide, it prevents the formation of a passive layer and leads to H incorporation in the alloy. After 5 h in NaOH, the samples are further aged in air at room temperature and the hardness evolution is compared to the alloy directly aged in air. The increasing hardness resulting from the GP zone nucleation and growth is firstly measured by micro-hardness measurements, using a Future tech FM7 device at room temperature. The micro-hardness values presented in this study are the average of at least 6 indents obtained with a micro Vickers diamond indenter using a load of 500 g and a dwell time of 10 s. High angle annular dark field scanning TEM (HAADF-STEM) images are recorded with collection angles ranging from 50 to 180 mrad using a JEOL ARM 200 microscope, operated at 200 kV. Thin foil specimens are prepared with a twin-jet electro-polisher (TENUPOL 5 from Struers\(^{\circledR}\)) using a mixture of \(30\%\mathrm{HNO_3}-70\%\mathrm{CH_3OH}\) (%vol) at 243 K. Final thinning is carried out by low-energy ion milling conducted with a GATAN\(^{\circledR}\) Precision Ion Polishing System.
## Hardness kinetic variations of the naturally aged Al-5Cu alloy due to hydrogen {#S22}
After water quenching, the hardness of the alloy is 91\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}1 HV, and it increases progressively to reach a maximum of 117\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2 HV after \(\sim50\,h\) (see fig. [\[FigHVAgeTime_AlCu\]](#FigHVAgeTime_AlCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigHVAgeTime_AlCu"}). When the alloy is aged 5 h in NaOH solution to introduce hydrogen, the microhardness is significantly lower than the alloy directly aged in air: after 5 h, the hardness of the alloy naturally aged in air is 105\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2 HV while it is only 95\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2 HV when NaOH treatment is carried out. However, after several additional hours (50 to 200 hours) at room temperature in air, the micro-hardness further increases and catches up the hardness of the material without hydrogen. This suggest that hydrogen atoms quickly desorb from the alloy and do not significantly affect the final microstructure (fig. [\[FigHVAgeTime_AlCu\]](#FigHVAgeTime_AlCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigHVAgeTime_AlCu"}). To confirm these measurements, HAADF-STEM observations are carried out further. Naturally aged materials are observed by HAADF-STEM in (001) zone axis to clearly exhibit GP zones. They are observed after being naturally aged 1 and 9 days. When the alloy is directly aged 1 day in air, small GP zones appear, as shown in fig. [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.a and they become significantly larger after 9 days (fig. [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.c). When it is aged 5 h in NaOH, GP zones are not visible after 1 day (fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.b), but become visible after 9 days (fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.d), with an average diameter similar to those observed in the alloy directly aged 1 day in air (fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.a). These observations are consistent with the delayed hardening (fig. [\[FigHVAgeTime_AlCu\]](#FigHVAgeTime_AlCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigHVAgeTime_AlCu"}). However, the hardnesses of the alloy aged in both conditions are relatively similar after 9 days (fig. [\[FigHVAgeTime_AlCu\]](#FigHVAgeTime_AlCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigHVAgeTime_AlCu"}), suggesting that hydrogen does not affect the final microstructure, which obviously is not the case when fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.c and [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.d are compared. GP zone diameters \(d\) are directly measured on STEM-HAADF images and their distributions are plotted in fig. [\[FigdGPZ\]](#FigdGPZ){reference-type="ref" reference="FigdGPZ"}. There is no distribution for the alloy stored in 5 h in NaOH, then aged 1 day in air because GP zones could not be observed (fig. [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.b). Longer natural ageing gives larger GP zones with a mean diameter varying form 1.4 nm\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5 nm after 1 day to 2.6 nm\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.8 nm after 9 days. Besides, the diameter distribution becomes significantly broader during natural ageing. When the alloy is stored 5 h in NaoH prior to 9 days in air, the mean diameter is 1.7 nm\(\pm\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5 nm with a narrow distribution similar to that of the alloy aged during 1 day directly in air. Due to the limited foil thickness, some GP zones are partially imaged and the true diameter \(d_t\) of GP zones can be determined from the apparent diameter \(d\) using: \[d = \left(\frac{\pi d_t/4 + \delta}{\delta + d_t} \right)d_t, \label{eqdapp}\] with \(\delta\) the thin foil thickness. In this work, thin foil thickness \(\delta\) was measured by electron energy loss spectroscopy. Assuming an electron mean free path in aluminium of 120 nm, the thickness of thin foils was systematically between 40 nm and 100 nm. The density of GP zones may be also estimated, following: \[n_P = \frac{N_x + N_y + N_z}{S (d_t + \delta)}, \label{eqnP}\] with \(N_x\), \(N_y\) \(N_z\), the number of GP zones counted in the x, y and z axes, parallel to the \([100]\), \([010]\) and \([001]\) directions, respectively and \(S\) the surface of observation (\(S=5.10^{-3} {\rm \mu m}\)). Since only GP zones perpendicular to (001) Al planes are visible on HRSTEM images (fig. [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}), the number of precipitates in the z-direction (\(N_z\)) is obtained from \(N_x\) and \(N_y\) using: \[N_z = 0.5 \times (N_x + N_y)\left(\frac{d_t+\delta}{\sqrt{S}}\right). \label{eqNz}\] Assuming that the thickness of all GP zones is half the aluminium lattice parameter (\(a_{Al} = 0.404\,{\rm nm}\)), their volume fraction writes as: \[f_V = n_P \frac{\pi d_t^2 a_{Al}}{8}. \label{eqfV}\]
Fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) of each HAADF images are also displayed in fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}. Spots in FFTs at the {110} positions are clearly exhibited for the alloy directly aged during 1 day, but they disappear after 9 days when GP zones are well developed. These spots also appear for the alloy aged 5 h in NaOH, followed by 1 day in air with a stronger intensity as compared to the directly aged alloy. These spots do not completely disappear after 9 days and thus seem to be linked to features appearing before GP zones. {110} reflections are forbidden reflections on diffraction pattern and they appear only on FFTs of HRSTEM images. Similar reflections on FFT patterns have been reported in naturally aged Al-Zn-Mg alloys. Authors have attributed these features to either \(\rm{Al_3Zn}\) dispersoids or artefacts caused by the TEM sample preparations. Since we do not have such dispersoids and since similar preparation conditions were applied for all thin foils, these spots can only be the result of real features revealed by images. Since they disappear when GP zones are well developed, they might results from Cu clusters that form prior to GP zones. To study these clusters, a mask is applied on the FFTs of each image having strong signals at the {110} positions (fig. [\[FigCuClDistri\]](#FigCuClDistri){reference-type="ref" reference="FigCuClDistri"}.a), isolating these spots. Then, a reconstructed image showing areas responsible of the strong {110} signals is obtained using an inverse FFT function (fig. [\[FigCuClDistri\]](#FigCuClDistri){reference-type="ref" reference="FigCuClDistri"}.b) Assuming that these areas correspond to Cu clusters, their sizes are measured and the obtained distributions are displayed on fig [\[FigCuClDistri\]](#FigCuClDistri){reference-type="ref" reference="FigCuClDistri"}.c. Contrary to GP zones, these nanosized particles are not detectable without this image filtering and disappear when the alloy is directly aged in air during 9 days (no signal is observed at the {110} positions of the FFTs of fig [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"}.c). The precipitate density is directly obtained by counting the observed clusters. The cluster size is estimated from the average of the longest and shortest distances measured on images. The obtained distributions are similar for all states but the average diameter is significantly smaller for samples stored in 5 h NaOH The determined GP zone and Cu cluster densities \(n_P\), apparent diameters \(d\) and volume fraction \(f_V\) are summarised in table [\[tblSTEMNA\]](#tblSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="tblSTEMNA"}. These experiments clearly indicate a significant change of microstructure due to hydrogen incorporation: there is a delay of GP zone formation, observable using microhardness and HAADF-STEM. Complementary information is detailed in [\[AppDSC\]](#AppDSC){reference-type="ref" reference="AppDSC"} where DSC measurements have been performed on this alloy differently aged. Hydrogen strongly interacts with excess vacancies, and thus seems to delay the formation of GP zones probably by reducing the diffusion of copper or/and by increasing the energy barrier of GP zones nucleation. *Ab initio* calculations are then carried out to get a deeper understanding of fundamental mechanisms leading to the delayed formation of GP zones when hydrogen is introduced on the alloy.
# Influence of copper atoms on the hydrogen-vacancy interactions in aluminium {#S3}
*Ab initio* calculations are performed to quantify the variation of copper diffusion when the atom is close to a hydrogen vacancy complex. The first step is to estimate the interaction enthalpy between vacancy and hydrogen \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}\) in aluminium and in a diluted Al-Cu alloy. The aim is to determine if this complex is more stable in the vicinity of copper atom before determining the influence of H on the diffusion variation of copper.
## Computational details {#S31}
The following *ab initio* calculations used density functional theory (DFT) in the Quantum Espresso code. Pseudopotentials built with the projected augmented wave method are used with a kinetic energy cutoff of 600 eV. The exchange-correlation is described with the generalised gradient approximation with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof functional. All calculations are performed at constant pressure with a 0.2 eV Methfessel-Paxton broadening. All simulations cells are 4\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}4\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}4 repetition of the primitive cell and the Brillouin zone was sampled using a 8\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}8\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}8 Monkhorst and Pack. Atomic positions are relaxed until all ionic forces are inferior to 10 meV/Å for static and for climbing nudged elastic band (C-NEB) calculations. With these parameters and using the method described in previous study, the obtained lattice parameters and elastic constants are deduced and given in table [1](#tblaCijAlCu){reference-type="ref" reference="tblaCijAlCu"}. The experimental values are also given and showing that these parameters describe accurately both metals at atom scales.
## Interaction between hydrogen and vacancy in the vicinity of copper {#S32}
The first calculations aim at determining the interaction enthalpy of hydrogen vacancy complex \(H_{Vac-H}^{inter}\) with and without Cu atom in its vicinity. This enthalpy determined at zero pressure (\(p=0\)) is defined by: \[H^{inter}_{Vac-H} = H^{sp}_{Vac-H}(p)-H^{sp}_{Vac}(p)-H^{sp}_{H}(p) + H^{sp}_{Bulk}(p), \label{eqHinter}\] with \(H^{sp}_{Vac-H}\) and \(H^{sp}_{Vac}\), the enthalpies of the supercell containing the hydrogen-vacancy complex and the hydrogen free vacancy, respectively. The enthalpies \(H^{sp}_{H}\) and \(H^{sp}_{Bulk}\) are from the vacancy free systems with and without hydrogen in solid solution, respectively. Since the tetrahedral interstitial sites are the most stable sites for hydrogen near vacancy in pure Al, we introduced hydrogen in these sites for pure Al and in a diluted Al-Cu system. For the latter, the different interstitial sites (\(T_i\) sites) are not equivalent when the copper atom is in the vicinity of the vacancy as shown in fig. [\[FigdCuH\]](#FigdCuH){reference-type="ref" reference="FigdCuH"}. However, due to the crystal symmetry, the distance between Cu and H when H is in \(T_1\) is identical to the distance between Cu and H when H is in \(T_2\). These equivalent positions are called \(P_1\) (with \(d_{Cu-H}^{P_1}\)=0.04 nm). The distance between Cu and H is also identical when H is in \(T_3\), \(T_4\), \(T_5\) and \(T_6\), these equivalent positions are called \(P_2\) (\(d_{Cu-H}^{P_2}\)=0.08 nm). Finally, the position \(P_3\) stands for H in sites \(T_7\) and \(T_8\) (\(d_{Cu-H}^{P_3}\)=0.11 nm). Therefore, \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}\) has to be calculated for only 3 positions in a diluted Al-Cu system. The interaction enthalpies between hydrogen and vacancy in pure aluminium and in a diluted Al-Cu are displayed in fig. [\[FigEinterVacH\]](#FigEinterVacH){reference-type="ref" reference="FigEinterVacH"}. The interaction enthalpy is always attractive when hydrogen is close to the vacancy, both in pure Al and in diluted Al-Cu. In pure aluminium, \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H} =-0.34\) eV, similar to the interaction energy reported in previous work using *ab initio* calculations (\(E^{inter}_{Vac-H} =-0.335\) eV and \(E^{inter}_{Vac-H} =-0.33\) eV ) but lower than experimental data (\(-0.45\pm0.07\) eV ). In diluted Al-Cu, \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}\) is also negative, meaning that vacancies attract hydrogen, but the attraction is stronger when the vacancy is not bound to a Cu atom. Small variations are also observed depending on the position of H in the lattice: if H is inserted in \(P_1\) (*i.e.*: sites \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) in fig. [\[FigdCuH\]](#FigdCuH){reference-type="ref" reference="FigdCuH"}), the attraction is the weakest with \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}(P_1) =-0.29\) eV. If H is inserted in \(P_3\) (*i.e.*: sites \(T_7\) and \(T_8\) in fig. [\[FigdCuH\]](#FigdCuH){reference-type="ref" reference="FigdCuH"}), \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}(P_3) =-0.31\) eV and the attraction is the strongest when H is in \(P_2\) position (*i.e.*: sites from \(T_3\) to \(T_6\) in fig. [\[FigdCuH\]](#FigdCuH){reference-type="ref" reference="FigdCuH"}), with \(H^{inter}_{Vac-H}(P_2) =-0.33\) eV. These interaction enthalpy variations show that copper atoms have an influence on the interaction between hydrogen atoms and vacancies in FCC aluminium matrix, but hydrogen still segregates near vacancies even with a copper atom in its vicinity and the most stable sites for H corresponds to \(P_2\) and \(P_3\) positions.
# Atomic scale modelling of hydrogen consequences on the diffusion of copper in aluminium {#S4}
Further, the diffusion coefficient of copper in aluminium is evaluated using the five jump frequency model from LeClaire, which has been used in previous studies to describe the diffusion of vacancies in aluminium matrix or substitutionnal solute (including copper) in different matrix, including aluminium. The first step to determine \(D_{Cu}\) is to calculate the self diffusion coefficient for Al, \(D_{Al}\) and the impact of hydrogen on it. Therefore, the influence of H on the self-diffusion coefficient of \(D_{Al}\) is firstly investigated then the consequence of H of \(D_{Cu}\) is studied.
## Hydrogen impact on self diffusion in pure aluminium {#S41}
Since the interaction between vacancy and hydrogen is attractive in diluted Al-Cu, the self-diffusion coefficient for Al (\(D_{Al}\)) and the diffusion of copper (\(D_{Cu}\)) near hydrogen vacancy complex is determined, further. The self diffusion coefficient \(D_{Al}\) can be defined as: \[D_{Al}(T) = f_0\omega_0(T)a(T)^2C_{0}^{j}(T), \label{eqDAl}\] with \(f_0\) a correlation factor, which is constant and equal to 0.7815 for FCC crystals, \(a(T)\) the lattice parameter of aluminium determined at finite temperature following the method described in by considering the atomic vibrations of aluminium atoms (see [\[AppLatParamDet\]](#AppLatParamDet){reference-type="ref" reference="AppLatParamDet"} for more details on its determination at finite temperature). The concentration \(C_{0}^{j}(T)\) (with \(j = Vac\) or \(Vac-H\)) is the equilibrium concentration of vacancies or hydrogen-vacancy complexes, respectively and defined as: \[C^{Vac}_0(T) = \exp\left(-\frac{H_{Vac}^f-TS_{Vac}^f}{k_BT} \right), \label{eqCVac}\] where \(k_B\) and \(T\) are the Boltzmann constant and the temperature of the system, respectively. \(H^f_{Vac}\) and \(S^f_{Vac}\) are the vacancy formation enthalpy and entropy written in the hydrogen free system as: \[\begin{aligned}
H_{Vac}^f &= H^{sp}_{Vac}-\frac{N-1}{N} H^{sp}_{Bulk}, \label{1}\\ S_{Vac}^f &= S^{sp}_{Vac}-\frac{N-1}{N} S^{sp}_{Bulk}, \label{2} \end{aligned}\] with \(H^{sp}_{Vac}\), \(S^{sp}_{Vac}\), \(H^{sp}_{Bulk}\) and \(S^{sp}_{Bulk}\) the enthalpy and entropy of the supercell of a perfect crystal with and without a vacancy, respectively. The obtained formation enthalpy \(H_{Vac}^f\) is equal to 0.64 eV, in agreement with the literature. In previous work, Naghavi *et al* have shown how the self diffusion coefficient of Cobalt is impacted by modifying \(S^f_{Vac}\). Hence, we have explicitly calculated \(S^{sp}_{Vac}\) and \(S^{sp}_{Bulk}\) with the PHON program, which calculates force constant matrices and phonon frequencies in both crystals. For hydrogen vacancy complexes, their equilibrium concentration \(C^{Vac-H}_0(T)\) is: \[C^{Vac-H}_0(T) = \exp\left(-\frac{H_{Vac-H}^f-TS_{Vac-H}^f}{k_BT} \right), \label{eqCVac-H}\] assuming that \(S^f_{Vac-H}=S^f_{Vac}\) and with \(H^f_{Vac-H}\) defined as: \[H_{Vac-H}^f = H^{sp}_{Vac-H}-\frac{N-1}{N} H^{sp}_{Bulk}-0.5\times H_{H_2}, \label{eqHfVac_HH}\] with \(H_{H_2}\) the enthalpy of the hydrogen molecule at zero pressure \(p = 0\) MPa as a reference. It leads to \(H^f_{Vac-H}=1.05\) eV, close to data reported in the literature (1.32 eV and 1.02 eV ). The jump frequency \(\omega_0(T)\) is defined as: \[\omega_{0} = \nu_0\exp\left(-\frac{H_{0}^m}{k_BT} \right), \label{eqw0}\] with \(\nu_0\) the attempt frequency equal to \(\sqrt(3/5)k_B/h \theta_D\) (\(h\) and \(\theta_D\) are the Planck constant and Debye temperature of aluminium, respectively). \(H_{0}^m\) is the migration enthalpy of vacancies or hydrogen vacancy complexes. Since all calculations are performed at zero pressure, it is assumed that the migration enthalpy \(H_{0}^m\) is equivalent to the migration energy \(E^m_{0}\), which is obtained from the transition states of the C-NEB calculations of vacancy (with or without H) diffusing from one site to another. Without H, the vacancy migration enthalpy presented in fig. [\[Figw0\]](#Figw0){reference-type="ref" reference="Figw0"} is found \(H_{Vac}^m=E_{Vac}^m=0.59\) eV, in agreement with the literature. Assuming Al atoms exchange a similar way with the vacancy in pure Al and in a diluted Al-Cu, hydrogen can either be still associated to the vacancy (when H is in \(P_1\)) or dissociated from the vacancy (when H is in \(P_3\)). The migration energy of a hydrogen-vacancy complex (with H in \(P_1\) and \(P_3\)) is also obtained using C-NEB calculations and results are also presented in fig. [\[Figw0\]](#Figw0){reference-type="ref" reference="Figw0"}. When H is still associated to the vacancy during the Al atom displacement, an increase of the migration energy is observed (\(E_{Vac-H}^m(P_1)=1.08\) eV) while \(E_{Vac-H}^m(P_3)=0.61\) eV, close to \(E_{Vac}^m\). However, the final state is less stable when H is in \(P_3\), the energy difference corresponding to the hydrogen-vacancy binding energy. The self-diffusion coefficient calculated as a function of the temperature is displayed in fig. [\[FigDAl\]](#FigDAl){reference-type="ref" reference="FigDAl"}. The coefficient \(D_{Al}\) obtained from our *ab initio* calculations is close to the values reported in the literature in a range of 360 K to 933 K. In presence of H, \(D_{Al}\) is always reduced but the diffusion coefficient is less impacted when H is in \(P_3\) than when it is in \(P_1\) (due to the increase of migration energy \(E_{Vac-H}^m(P_1) = 1.08\) eV). The diffusion of impurities or vacancies usually follows an Arrhenius type temperature dependence: \[D_{Al}(T) = D_0 \exp{\left(-\frac{Q}{k_B T}\right)}, \label{eqDAlArr}\] with \(D_0\) a pre-exponential factor and \(Q\) the activation energy. From *ab initio* calculations (fig. [\[FigDAl\]](#FigDAl){reference-type="ref" reference="FigDAl"}), curves are fitted using eq. ([\[eqDAlArr\]](#eqDAlArr){reference-type="ref" reference="eqDAlArr"}) to quantify the change of \(D_0\) and \(Q\) due to hydrogen incorporation. The results are given in table [2](#tblD0QDAl){reference-type="ref" reference="tblD0QDAl"}. Without hydrogen, calculated data are similar to those reported in the literature but an important increase of the activation energy is obtained when hydrogen-vacancy complexes exist.
Although the interaction enthalpy between a vacancy and a H atom is negative, these calculations show that in pure Al, hydrogen delays the diffusion of vacancy by increasing the vacancy migration enthalpy (when H is in \(P_1\) only) and vacancy formation enthalpy (when H is in \(P_1\) and \(P_3\)). Thus, hydrogen should also impact the diffusion of copper, as studied in the next section.
## Copper diffusion in the vicinity of hydrogen-vacancy complexes in Al matrix {#S42}
The influence of hydrogen on the diffusion coefficient of copper (\(D_{Cu}\)) is investigated in this section using the five jump frequency model developed by LeClaire. The model includes several assumptions: (i) the solute diffusion is controlled by a vacancy mechanism, (ii) the interaction between solute and vacancy is only limited to monovacancy being in the nearest neighbour of the solute and (iii) Cu atoms do not interact with other Cu atoms (diluted system). It has been demonstrated that such model accurately describes the diffusion of solute in aluminium or in cobalt. This approach considers that solute atoms diffuse predominantly with a vacancy mechanisms through the five jump frequencies \(\omega_i, i = 0,4\) defined by: \[\omega_i(T) = \nu_i\exp{-\frac{H_{i}^m}{k_BT}}. \label{eqwi}\] \(\omega_1\) corresponds to the jump frequency for Al atom-vacancy jumps between a pair of sites that are both nearest neighbours of Cu atom. \(\omega_2\) is the jump frequency for Cu atom-vacancy exchange. \(\omega_3\) is the jump frequency of Al, which dissociates the vacancy and Cu. \(\omega_4\) is the opposite of \(\omega_3\) (*i.e.*: jump frequency of Al atom, which binds Cu and the vacancy). The fifth jump is \(\omega_0\), the self-diffusion of Al (see eq. ([\[eqw0\]](#eqw0){reference-type="ref" reference="eqw0"}) in section [3.2](#S32){reference-type="ref" reference="S32"}). The attempt frequency \(\nu_i\) is equal \(\sqrt(3/5)k_B/h \theta_D\) (like in the previous section), with \(\theta_D\) the Debye temperature of aluminium or copper depending on the atom that is exchanged with the vacancy. NEB calculations are performed to determine the migration energies of the different jumps without H and with H in \(P_1\) and \(P_3\) positions. Like in section [4.1](#S41){reference-type="ref" reference="S41"}, these positions are chosen over \(P_2\) in order to have H either still associated with the vacancy before and after the jump or dissociated from it. Besides, all calculations are performed at zero pressure, therefore it is also assumed that the migration enthalpies \(H_{i}^m\) are equivalent to the migration energies \(E^m_{i}\). Results are plotted in fig. [\[Figwi\]](#Figwi){reference-type="ref" reference="Figwi"}. When H is still associated to the vacancy, the migration energy is always larger than when the atom is exchanged with a hydrogen free vacancy. When H is the furthest from the mobile atom, H is dissociated from the vacancy and the final state has an higher energy than its initial state corresponding to the interaction energy between H and vacancy. Consequently, when H is in \(P_1\), \(E^m_4\) is lower than \(E^m_3\), while it is symmetrical when the vacancy is not linked to a hydrogen atom. Then, the diffusion coefficient of copper \(D_{Cu}\) is obtained using: \[D_{Cu}(T) = f_2\omega_2a(T)^2C_2^{j}(T), \label{eqDCu}\] with \(f_2\) a correlation factor, similar to \(f_0\) in eq. ([\[eqDAl\]](#eqDAl){reference-type="ref" reference="eqDAl"}), which is written: \[f_2 = \frac{2\omega_1+\omega_3 F(\alpha)}{2\omega_2+2\omega_1+\omega_3 F(\alpha)}, \label{eqf2}\] where \(\alpha=\omega_4/\omega_0\) and \[\begin{gathered}
F(\alpha) = 7-\left(\frac{10\alpha^4+180.5\alpha^3+927\alpha^2+1341\alpha}{2\alpha^4+40.2\alpha^3+254\alpha^2+597\alpha+436}\right). \label{eqF2} \end{gathered}\] The concentration \(C^{j}_2(T)\) is similar to \(C^{j}_0(T)\) of eq. ([\[eqDAl\]](#eqDAl){reference-type="ref" reference="eqDAl"}) and is written as: \[C^{j}_{2}(T) = \exp\left(-\frac{H_{j}^f-TS_{i}^f + \Delta G_b}{k_BT} \right), \label{eqC2}\] with the \(\Delta G_b\), corresponding to the binding energy between copper and vacancy. This energy is linked to the concentration of copper atoms near vacancies and can be determined using the jump frequencies ratio within the assumptions detailed in the beginning of this section: \[\frac{\omega_3}{\omega_4} = \exp{\left(-\frac{\Delta G_b}{k_B T}\right)}. \label{eqDGb}\] Identical to section [4.1](#S41){reference-type="ref" reference="S41"}, the concentration and migration energy of hydrogen-vacancy complexes are calculated for systems having hydrogen in \(P_1\) and \(P_3\) and the resulting coefficient diffusion of copper is plotted in fig. [\[FigDCu\]](#FigDCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigDCu"}. While a slightly higher diffusion coefficient is obtained at low temperature compared to literature data, relatively consistent values are obtained at high temperatures (\(T<500\,K\)). Moreover, the diffusion coefficient of copper is systematically lower in presence of hydrogen. Assuming that hydrogen atoms stay in its interstitial site, the effect is more important when H is far from the copper atom (in \(P_3\)) than when it is close to Cu (in \(P_1\)). This result is obtained because when H is far from Cu, the energy barrier to associate the hydrogen vacancy complex (\(E^m_4\)) or to dissociate it with the Cu atom (\(E^m_3\)) is large. Besides, when Cu atom is exchanged with the vacancy, it dissociates H-vacancy complex (which is less stable than the initial state). These effects have a more important impact on the diffusion coefficient than having hydrogen in \(P_1\), which increases the migration energy of copper \(E^m_2\). Assuming that the diffusion of copper also follows an Arrhenius type temperature dependence (eq. [\[eqDAlArr\]](#eqDAlArr){reference-type="ref" reference="eqDAlArr"}), \(D_0\) and \(Q\) can also be estimated for Cu in pure Al, by fitting curves of fig. [\[FigDCu\]](#FigDCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigDCu"}. The fitted results are displayed in table [3](#tblD0QDCu){reference-type="ref" reference="tblD0QDCu"}. Without hydrogen, the calculated data are significantly lower than those reported in the literature. An important increase of the activation energy is also obtained when hydrogen is linked to the vacancies, but the variation of the activation energy is less pronounced for \(D_{Cu}\) than for \(D_{Al}\).
# Discussion {#S5}
The experiments of section [2](#S2){reference-type="ref" reference="S2"} show a delay of the formation and growth of GP zones when hydrogen is introduced in solid solution. In the following section, a classical strength model is applied to correlate the microstructure evolution observed through HAADF-STEM with the hardness measurements. Then, results from experiments are compared with the diffusion coefficients obtained in section [3](#S3){reference-type="ref" reference="S3"} and discussed further.
## Relationship between structure evolution and hardness {#S51}
Classical strengthening model is applied to establish a relationship between the hardness measurements and the HAADF-STEM observations (model developed in previous work for Al alloys ). It is assumed that the microhardness is linked to the yield stress \(\sigma_Y\) through a Tabor factor (T = 2.8) and \(\sigma_Y\) is linked to the stress needed to induce dislocations or to make them mobile (*i.e.*: the critical resolved shear stress) \(\tau_Y\) through a Taylor factor (M = 3.1): \[\tau_Y = \frac{T}{M}HV. \label{eqHVty}\] The stress \(\tau_Y\) can be determined from microstructural features and additive contributions; which may be considered as a first approximation as: \[\tau_Y = \tau_0 + \tau_d + \tau_{gb} + \tau_{ss} + \tau_P \label{eqty}\] where \(\tau_0\) is the friction stress, \(\tau_d\) the forest hardening due to dislocations, \(\tau_{gb}\) the stress contribution of the grain boundaries, \(\tau_{ss}\) the stress contribution Cu of solid solution and \(\tau_P\) the stress contribution of particles. The stress contributions \(\tau_0\), \(\tau_d\) and \(\tau_{gb}\) are assumed constant for all ageing times and they are determined from hardness measurements of the alloy naturally aged 10 minutes, assuming that all the copper atoms are in solid solution. The stress contribution \(\tau_{ss}\) may be written: \[\tau_{ss} = HX_{Cu}^{n}, \label{eqtss}\] with \(X_{Cu}\) the mass fraction of Cu in solid solution in the Al matrix. \(H\) and \(n\) two constants equal to 7.2 MPa and 1, respectively. Then, the concentration of copper in solid \(X_{Cu}\) is updated for each state by knowing the volume fraction of precipitates (Cu clusters and GP zones) inducing a variation of \(\tau_{ss}\). When the alloy is naturally aged, Cu atoms agglomerate as clusters then quickly form GP zones. According to the HAADF-STEM images, the kinetic is slower when the alloy is in contact of hydrogen prior to ageing in air. Both GP zones and Cu clusters affect hardness due to interactions with dislocations. Since they are nanoscaled with a diameter \(d_t\) inferior to \(d_C = 10 \rm{nm}\), a critical diameter below which dislocations shear these particles (and when the particles are larger than \(d_C\), they are by-passed by dislocations), the shear stress \(\tau_P\) for a moving dislocation writes as: \[\tau_{P} = \frac{1}{b}\sqrt{\frac{3 f_V}{2 \pi}}\left(0.72 \mu b^2 \right) \left(\frac{2}{d_C}\right)^{1.5}\left(\frac{d_t}{2}\right)^{0.5}, \label{eqtp}\] with \(b\) and \(\mu\), the Burgers vector and shear modulus equal to 0.286 nm and 27 GPa, respectively. \(d_t\) and \(f_V\) are experimental data (table [\[tblSTEMNA\]](#tblSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="tblSTEMNA"}) and they are used to determine \(\tau_P\) for each condition. It is important to note that eq. ([\[eqtp\]](#eqtp){reference-type="ref" reference="eqtp"}) was established for spherical particles, which is clearly not the case for GP zones. However, previous studies have shown that this equation gives also consistent results for GP zones. Fig. [\[FigTauY\]](#FigTauY){reference-type="ref" reference="FigTauY"} shows the variations of \(\tau_Y\) estimated from hardness measurements and eq. ([\[eqHVty\]](#eqHVty){reference-type="ref" reference="eqHVty"}). These estimates are compared to values calculated from model, eqs. ([\[eqty\]](#eqty){reference-type="ref" reference="eqty"}-[\[eqtp\]](#eqtp){reference-type="ref" reference="eqtp"}), with only the contribution of GP zones and with the contribution of GP zones and Cu clusters. The shear stresses obtained from the strength model exhibit the same trend than values estimated from hardness measurements: (i) \(\tau_Y\) increases with the ageing time and (ii) \(\tau_Y\) is always larger when the alloy is aged in air than when it is stored in NaOH prior to ageing in air. However, the best match is obtained when both clusters and GP zones are considered. This result confirms the delay of GP zone nucleation and growth due to hydrogen incorporation.
## Comparison between experiments and calculations {#S52}
The microhardness measurements show a delay of the hardening kinetic when the alloy is stored in 5 h in NaOH. The HAADF-STEM observations confirm this delay and even after being naturally aged 9 days, microstructures are still different when the alloy is directly aged in air or stored 5 h in NaOH. This difference can be due to hydrogen reducing the diffusion of copper or/and an increase of the energy barrier to form GP zones, locking copper agglomerates as clusters. Since hydrogen strongly interacts with the excess vacancies, our numerical study focused on the effect of hydrogen on the diffusion of the copper in aluminium through *ab initio* calculations. According to fig. [\[FigDCu\]](#FigDCu){reference-type="ref" reference="FigDCu"}, the ratio of diffusion coefficient \(D^{With H}_{Cu}/D^{Without H}_{Cu}\) is \(\sim10^{-6}\) at 300 K. Defining the effective diffusion length of copper as \(\lambda_{Cu} = \sqrt{6 D_{Cu} t}\), then \(\lambda^{With H}_{Cu}/\lambda^{Without H}_{Cu} \sim 10^{-3}\). The HAADF-STEM images of fig. [\[FigSTEMNA\]](#FigSTEMNA){reference-type="ref" reference="FigSTEMNA"} show that the structure is similar in the alloy directly aged 1 h in air and in the alloy stored 5 h in NaOH and aged 9 days in air. Assuming that this difference is only due to the impact of hydrogen on the diffusion coefficient, then \(\lambda^{With H}_{Cu}(t=9\,d) = \lambda^{Without H}_{Cu}(t=1\,d)\) and \(D^{With H}_{Cu}/D^{Without H}_{Cu} \sim 10^{-1}\). This is consistent but much lower than results from *ab initio* calculations. However, during the first hours in NaOH, hydrogen diffuses in Al-5Cu and some time is required to create H-vacancy complexes, thus part of them annihilate before the creation of a hydrogen-vacancy complex. Besides, during the ageing in air after the 5 h in NaOH, hydrogen may desorb from the alloy, which probably reduces the quantity of hydrogen-vacancy complexes. These two features may explain the difference ọf diffusion coefficient between experimental observations and calculations. Nevertheless, the *ab initio* calculations are focused only on single H-vacancy complexes while previous work has shown that depending on the hydrogen content, hydrogen-vacancy complexes with several hydrogen atoms may be more stable than single H-vacancy complexes. However, these H atoms would be placed in additional tetrahedral interstitial sites of the vacancy, decreasing even more the diffusion coefficient and may lead to a non-Arrhenius behavior of the diffusion coefficient (as observed for \(D_{Al}^H\) in ref. ). *Ab initio* calculations revealed that hydrogen and vacancy are attractive, even with copper in the vicinity of the vacancy (and H is more stable far from Cu atoms, in positions \(P_2\) and \(P_3\)). The previous calculations for pure Al (sec. [4.1](#S41){reference-type="ref" reference="S41"}) show that hydrogen affects the mobility of vacancy and thus should also impact the diffusion of copper as confirmed in section [4.2](#S42){reference-type="ref" reference="S42"}. However, it is important to note that these *ab initio* calculations have some limitations. It has been established that hydrogen enhances the formation of vacancies in aluminium even though an increase of the formation enthalpy of hydrogen-vacancy complex is obtained (which is also in agreement with the literature ). This is because *ab initio* calculations focus on monovacancies bound exclusively to one hydrogen atom. According to previous *ab initio* calculations, up to 10 H atoms can be incorporated in one vacancy (12 H atoms for and 13 H for ). While increasing the number of H-trapped atoms in one vacancy may increases the formation enthalpy of the hydrogen-vacancy complex, several hydrogen atoms included in one vacancy can form \(H_2\) molecules. This might reduce the formation energy of these complexes or lead to divacancies, which have a stronger attraction with H. In the situation where several H are trapped in vacancies or divacancies, the complex may reduce its formation energy considerably and would not impact the migration energy of the vacancy (*e.g.*: when H atoms are far of the moving atom). Theoretically, even an increase of the self-diffusion due to H can not be excluded. Such increase of self-diffusion has been reported for nickel where the formation energies of hydrogen-vacancy follows the superabundant vacancy model with up to 6 H atoms inserted. However, the increase of the migration energy of these complexes due to H incorporation is smaller. As a consequence, when one hydrogen atom is incorporated in one vacancy, hydrogen delays its diffusion, but the opposite may occur when more hydrogen atoms are incorporated in one vacancy, and an increase of the vacancy mobility can even be obtained. Similar mechanisms cannot be excluded in the diluted Al-Cu system, but experimental data show that Cu diffusion is significantly reduced, thus based on our *ab initio* calculations, single H-vacancy complexes are probably dominant.
# Conclusions {#S6}
This present work studied the consequences of hydrogen on the GP zone formation and growth in an Al-5Cu alloy. When it is naturally aged in air, excess vacancies diffuses and are annihilated in residual dislocations and grain boundaries, allowing copper to diffuse leading to the nucleation of GP zones, which that harden the alloys. When the alloy is in contact with hydrogen during the beginning of the natural ageing, a delay of the hardening kinetics is noted with a change of the microstructure observed through HAADF-STEM. According to the *ab initio* calculations performed in this study, hydrogen-vacancy complexes are stable in the vicinity of Cu in a diluted Al-Cu system. Therefore, these complexes (̣containing one or more H atoms) affect the diffusion of Cu in Al matrix leading to a delayed nucleation and growth of GP zones. Modelling at atomic scale the self-diffusion for Al and the diffusion of Cu in Al in the presence of hydrogen-vacancy complexes highlights two phenomenons: (i) hydrogen in the path of the atom that exchange with the vacancy will increase the energy barrier and (ii) hydrogen far from this atom will be dissociated from the vacancy and it will be less stable after the atom jump. As a consequence, the diffusion coefficient of copper is always smaller in presence of hydrogen close to or trapped in the vacancy. In addition, even if hydrogen always reduces the mobility of Cu in diluted Al-Cu, it was demonstrated that the position of H in the lattice of a diluted Al-Cu alloy influences the diffusion coefficient. Therefore, statistical study using techniques such as kinetic Monte-Carlo simulations would be performed in the near future to determine the evolution of the diffusion coefficient of copper as a function of the hydrogen concentration. This statistical study would also help determining the number of H atoms insides a vacancy for a given temperature and H concentration, which is an unknown parameter in the present work. Finally, these results are obtained without studying the consequences of hydrogen on the precipitate/matrix interface, which will also be the object of a future study. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:43', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14623', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14623'} |
# Introduction
Ultra-reliable and low-latency communication (URLLC) is one of the generic applications required to be covered in the fifth-generation (5G). As a result, it has been attracted significant interests since it enables several innovative usages, especially in industrial production, such as remote heavy industrial machines operation and factory automation. However, compared with conventional communication systems, the achievable rate under URLLC is quite different since short blocklength is adopted to shorten the latency such that the classical Shannon-sense capacity no longer holds. Specifically, the URLLC rate is a complicated function of the transmission power, the precoding vector, the bandwidth, the transmission time, and the decoding error probability. Indeed, guaranteeing URLLC represents unique challenges to resource allocation design due to the non-convexity introduced by the finite blocklength. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to designing effective resource allocation algorithms that support URLLC. However, the systems considered in these works are all cellular networks and their performance is known to be limited by severe inter-cell interference. Cell-free massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) architecture is a new promising solution to overcome the issue discussed above. It reaps the advantages of massive MIMO and network MIMO, since massive distributed access points (APs) facilitate coherent signal transmission to serve all the users without any cell boundaries. However, current literature focuses on the resource allocation in cell-free massive MIMO systems for URLLC is still limited. For example, in, the authors applied the path-following algorithm (PFA) for optimizing the power allocation with a special class of conjugate beamforming to maximize the users' minimum URLLC rate and the energy efficiency. However, an adaptive and optimized precoding design at the APs is generally more effective that the fixed one. Besides, in, the upper bounds of the uplink and downlink decoding error probabilities (DEPs) were derived by using the saddlepoint method to support URLLC. While the closed-form expression of DEP can characterize the performance, it is generally intractable for the the design of cooperatively efficient resource allocation. As such, there is an emerging need for designing the precoding with the performance metric of the URLLC rate. Motivated by the above discussion, the PFA-based precoding design for maximizing the users' minimum URLLC rate is studied in this correspondence. First, a PFA-based centralized precoding design is proposed which generates a sequence of feasible points and converges to a locally optimal solution of the design optimization problem. Second, we propose a decentralized PFA-based precoding design by dividing the APs into several non-overlapping cooperative clusters in which the APs only share the data and instantaneous channel state information (CSI) in each cluster to design the precoding vectors to reduce the computational complexity. Simulation results show that compared with the centralized precoding, the decentralized PFA precoding can achieve 80% of the 95%-likely URLLC rate and 89% of the average URLLC rate with only 12% of the computational complexity of the counterpart. We also investigate the impact of the precoding schemes, the length of transmission duration, and the size of the AP cluster on the URLLC rate via extensive simulations.
# System Model
We consider a cell-free massive MIMO system, which consists of \(L\) APs and \(K\) single-antenna users that are distributed arbitrarily over a large area. We assume that each AP is equipped with \(N\) antennas. Moreover, all the APs are connected with each other and a central processing unit (CPU) via dedicated fronthaul links with sufficient capacity. All APs serve all users on the same time-frequency resource through time division duplex (TDD) operation. The channel coefficient between AP \(l\) and user \(k\), \({{\bf{h}}_{kl}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{N \times 1}}\), is assumed to follow a correlated Rayleigh fading distribution. We adopt a classic block fading model for modeling the channels such that \({{\bf{h}}_{kl}}\) remains constant in \(t\) channel uses of the time-frequency blocks and experience an independent realization in every block. Note that the channel coefficients can be acquired at the APs by existing channel estimation algorithms and this is beyond the scope of this work as we aim to optimize the precoding for URLLC. Therefore, we assume that perfect CSI is available at the APs. In the downlink payload data transmission phase, the received signal at user \(k\) can be expressed as \({y_k} =\sum\limits_{l = 1}^L {\bf{h}}_{kl}^H{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}{s_k} + \sum\limits_{l = 1}^L {{\bf{h}}_{kl}^H} \sum\limits_{i \ne k}^K {{\bf{w}}_{il}}{s_i} + {n_k}\), where \({s_i} \sim {{\cal N}_{\mathbb{C}}}\left( {0,1} \right)\) at AP \(l\), \({{\bf{w}}_{il}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{N \times 1}}\) is the precoding vector for user \(i\) at AP \(l\), and \({n_k} \sim {{\cal N}_{\mathbb{C}}}\left( {0,{\sigma ^2}} \right)\) represents the thermal noise at user \(k\). Then, the corresponding effective signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) is given as \[{\varphi _k} = \frac{{{{\left| {{\bf{ h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_k}} \right|}^2}}}{{\sum\limits_{i \ne k}^K {{{\left| {{\bf{ h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {\sigma ^2}}},\] where \({{\bf{h}}_k} = {\left[ {{\bf{h}}_{k1}^H, \cdots ,{\bf{h}}_{kL}^H} \right]^H} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{LN \times 1}}\) and \({{\bf{w}}_i} = {\left[ {{\bf{w}}_{i1}^H, \cdots ,{\bf{w}}_{iL}^H} \right]^H} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{LN \times 1}}\). By treating the inter-user interference \({\bf{h}}_{kl}^H\sum\limits_{i \ne k}^K {{{\bf{w}}_{il}}{s_i}}\) as Gaussian noise, where \(p_{il}^{{\rm{dl}}} \buildrel \Delta \over = {\left\| {{{\bf{w}}_{il}}} \right\|^2}\) is the power allocated to user \(i\) at AP \(l\), the achievable rate in nats/sec/Hz for user \(k\) for the case of sufficiently long blocklength is given by the Shannon rate function \({{\tilde R}_k}= \ln \left( {1 + {\varphi _k}} \right)\), and the achievable URLLC rate in nats/sec/Hz for user \(k\) can be approximated as \[\label{URLLC Rate} {R_k} = \ln \left( {1 + {\varphi _k}} \right)-\sqrt {\frac{1}{{tB}} \times {V_k}} \times {Q^{-1}}\left( {\epsilon} \right),\] where \(t\) is the transmission duration, \(B\) is the communication bandwidth, \({V_k}\) is the channel dispersion which can be expressed as \({V_k} = 1-\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 + {\varphi _k}} \right)}^2}}}\), \({Q^{-1}}\left( \cdot \right)\) is the inverse of the Gaussian Q-function, i.e., \(Q\left( x \right) = \int_x^\infty {\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } }}\exp \left( {-{t^2}/2} \right)} dt\), and \({\epsilon}\) is the decoding error probability. Note that ([\[URLLC Rate\]](#URLLC Rate){reference-type="ref" reference="URLLC Rate"}) is the normal approximation when the channel \({{\bf{h}}_k}\) is assumed to be quasi-static and deterministic over the transmission duration \(t\). The subtrahend in ([\[URLLC Rate\]](#URLLC Rate){reference-type="ref" reference="URLLC Rate"}) captures the rate penalty due to the finite block length, \(tB\).
# Max-min Rate Based Precoding Design {#Design}
## Centralized Precoding Design
In the centralized precoding design, the optimization of the precoding vectors takes place at the CPU, where the estimate of the global instantaneous CSI \({{{\bf{h}}}_{kl}},\forall k \in \left\{ {1, \cdots ,K} \right\},\forall l \in \left\{ {1, \cdots ,L} \right\}\), available. The centralized max-min URLLC rate optimization problem can be expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
&\mathop {\max }\limits_{\bf{w}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} \left\{ {{R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)} \right\}\label{P1}\tag{3a}\\ &{\rm{s.}}{\rm{t.}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\sum\limits_{k = 1}^K {{{\left\| {{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}} \right\|}^2}} \le {p_{\max }},\forall l,\label{3b}\tag{3b} \end{aligned}\] where \({\bf{w}} = \left\{ {{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}:k = 1, \cdots ,K,l = 1, \cdots ,L} \right\}\) and \({p_{\max }}\) is the maximum power at each AP. The problem ([\[P1\]](#P1){reference-type="ref" reference="P1"}) is non-convex due to the URLLC rate function \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\). With the help of, we apply the PFA to develop a concave lower bound for \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\). Without loss of generality, the URLLC rate expression for user \(k\) can be rewritten as \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) = {f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)-a{g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\), where \(a = {Q^{-1}}\left( {\epsilon } \right)/\sqrt {t{ B}}\), \({f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) = \ln \left( {1 + {\varphi _k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)} \right)\), and \({g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) = \sqrt {1-1/{{\left( {1 + {\varphi _k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)} \right)}^2}}\). Now, we aim to establish a convex lower bound for \({f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) and a concave upper bound for \({g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\). Let \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}\) be a feasible point for ([\[P1\]](#P1){reference-type="ref" reference="P1"}) that is computed from the \(\left( {n-1} \right)\)th iteration of the iterative PFA.
### Lower bounding for \({f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\)
According to, the following inequality holds for all \({\bf{x}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{{M_1}}},{\bf{y}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{{M_2}}}\) and \({\bf{\bar x}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{{M_1}}},{\bf{\bar y}} \in {{\mathbb{C}}^{{M_2}}}\) \[\begin{aligned}
\label{I1}\tag{4} \ln\! \left( \!\!{1\!\! +\! \frac{{{{\left\| {\bf{x}} \right\|}^2}}}{{{{\left\| {\bf{y}} \right\|}^2} \!\!+\! {\sigma ^2}}}}\!\! \right) \!\!\ge\!\! a\!\!-\! \frac{{{{\left\| {{\bf{\bar x}}} \right\|}^2}}}{{2{\cal R}\!\!\left\{ {{{{\bf{\bar x}}}^H}{\bf{x}}} \right\} \!\!-\! {{\left\| {{\bf{\bar x}}} \right\|}^2}}}\!-\! b{\left\| {\bf{x}} \right\|^2} \!\!-\! c{\left\| {\bf{y}} \right\|^2}. \end{aligned}\] Applying the inequality in ([\[I1\]](#I1){reference-type="ref" reference="I1"}) for \(x = {\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_k}\), \(y = {{\cal L}_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\), \(\bar x = {\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}\), \(\bar y = {{\cal L}_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)\), where \({{\cal L}_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) arranges \({\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i},i \ne k\) into a vector of dimension \(K-1\), we obtain \[\begin{aligned}
\label{f_n} {f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) &\ge \bar a_k^{\left( n \right)}-\frac{{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}}}{{2{\cal R}\left\{ {{{\left( {{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^H}{{{\bf{h}}}_k}{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_k}} \right\}-{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}}}\notag\\ &-\!\bar b_k^{\left( n \right)}{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_k}} \right|^2} \!-\! \bar c_k^{\left( n \right)}\sum\limits_{i \ne k} {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} \!\buildrel \Delta \over = \!f_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\tag{5}, \end{aligned}\] with the constraint of \[\label{trust region}\tag{6} 2{\cal R}\left\{ {{{\left( {{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^H}{{{\bf{h}}}_k}{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_k}} \right\}-{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|^2} > 0,\] where \(\bar a_k^{\left( n \right)} \!=\! {f_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right) \!+\! 2 \!-\! \frac{{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}}}{{\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}}}\frac{{\sigma ^2}}{{\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}}}\), \(0 \!< \!\bar b_k^{\left( n \right)} \!=\! \frac{{\bar a_k^{\left( n \right)}}}{{\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}}}\), \(0 \!<\! \bar c_k^{\left( n \right)} \!= \!\frac{{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_k^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}}}{{\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}}}\), \(\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)} \!\buildrel \Delta \over =\! \sum\limits_{i \ne k} \!{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}} \!+\! {{\sigma ^2}}\), and \(\beta _k^{\left( n \right)} \!\buildrel \Delta \over = \! \sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}} \!+\! {{\sigma ^2}}\). According to, the function \(f_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) is concave over the trust region ([\[trust region\]](#trust region){reference-type="ref" reference="trust region"}) and achieves the same value as \({f_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) at \({{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}}\), \(f_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right) = {f_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)\).
### Upper bounding for \({g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\)
Since the function \(f\left( x \right) = \sqrt x\) is concave on \(x > 0\), the following inequality for all \(x > 0\) and \(\bar x > 0\) holds true \[\begin{aligned}
\label{I2}\tag{7} \sqrt x \!=\! f\left( x \right)\le f\left( {\bar x} \right) \!+\! {\left. {\frac{{\partial \!f\!\left( x \right)}}{{\partial x}}} \right|_{x = \bar x}}\left( {x \!-\! \bar x} \right)\!=\! \frac{{\sqrt {\bar x} }}{2} \!+ \!\frac{x}{{2\sqrt {\bar x} }}, \end{aligned}\] where \(\frac{{\partial f\left( x \right)}}{{\partial x}}\) refers to the partial derivative of the function \(f\left( x \right)\le f\left( {\bar x} \right)\) with respect to \(x\). Applying the inequality in ([\[I2\]](#I2){reference-type="ref" reference="I2"}) for \(x = 1-1/{\left( {1 + {\varphi _k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)} \right)^2}\) and \(\bar x = 1-1/{\left( {1 + {\varphi _k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)} \right)^2}\) and using \[\begin{aligned}
\label{I3} &{{{{\left( {\sum\limits_{i \ne k} {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}}} \right)}^2}}}/{{{{\left( {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}}} \right)}^2}}}\notag\\ &\ge\!\!\! \frac{{4\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}}}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^2}}}\!\!\left( \!{\sum\limits_{i \ne k}\! {\left(\! {2{\cal R}\!\left\{ \!{{{\left( \! {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \!\right)}^*}{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right\} \!\!-\! {{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \!\right|}^2}} \!\right)} } { + {{\sigma ^2}}} \!\!\right)\notag\\ &-\!\! \frac{{2{{\left( \!{\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}} \!\right)}^2}}}{{{{\left(\! {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \!\right)}^3}}}\!\!\left( \!{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K \!{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} \!\! +\! {{\sigma ^2}}} \!\!\right)\!-\! \frac{{{{\left( \!{\sum\limits_{i \ne k}\! {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} \!\!+\! {{\sigma ^2}}} \!\!\right)}^2}}}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^2}}}\tag{8}, \end{aligned}\] with the constraints of \[\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}} \le 2\beta _k^{\left( n \right)},\label{cons_g1}\tag{9}\\ &\frac{1}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^2}}}\left( {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}}} \right)\le \!\! \frac{2}{{\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}}}\notag\\ &\;{\times}\!\!\left( \! {\sum\limits_{i \ne k}\! {\left( {2{\cal R}\!\left\{ {{{\left( {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \! \right)}^*}{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \!\right\}} \right.} } {\left. { \!\!-\! {{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}} \right) \!\!+\! \!{{\sigma ^2}}} \right),\label{cons_g2}\tag{10} \end{aligned}\] we have \[\begin{aligned}
\label{g_n} {g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) &\le d_k^{\left( n \right)}-\frac{{4\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}e_k^{\left( n \right)}}}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^2}}}\left( {\sum\limits_{i \ne k} {\left( {2{\cal R}\left\{ {{{\left( {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^*}{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right\}} \right.} } \right. \notag\\ &\left.{\left. {-\!{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{\bf{w}}_i^{\left( n \right)}} \right|}^2}} \right) \!\!+\! {{\sigma ^2}}} \!\right)\!\! + \!\! \frac{{2{{\left( \!{\alpha _k^{\left( n \right)}} \!\right)}^2}e_k^{\left( n \right)}}}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^3}}}\!\!\left( \!{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K \!{{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} \!\! +\!\! {{\sigma ^2}}} \!\! \right)\notag\\ &+\frac{{{{\left( {\sum\limits_{i \ne k} {{{\left| {{\bf{h}}_k^H{{\bf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}}} \right)}^2}e_k^{\left( n \right)}}}{{{{\left( {\beta _k^{\left( n \right)}} \right)}^2}}}\buildrel \Delta \over = g_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\tag{11}, \end{aligned}\] where \(0 \!< \!d_k^{\left( n \right)} \!= \!\frac{{\sqrt {1 \!-\! 1/{{\left( {1 \!+\! {\varphi _k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)} \right)}^2}} }}{2} \!+\! \frac{1}{{2\sqrt {1 \!-\! 1/{{\left( {1 \!+\! {\varphi _k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)} \right)}^2}} }}\), and \(0 < e_k^{\left( n \right)} = \frac{1}{{2\sqrt {1-1/{{\left( {1 + {\varphi _k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)} \right)}^2}} }}\). The function \(g_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) is convex and achieves the same value as \({g_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) at \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}\), \(g_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right) = {g_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right)\).
### Concave Lower bound for \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\)
By applying ([\[f_n\]](#f_n){reference-type="ref" reference="f_n"}) and ([\[g_n\]](#g_n){reference-type="ref" reference="g_n"}), we have \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) \ge f_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)-ag_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) \buildrel \Delta \over = R_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\), under the trust region constrained by ([\[trust region\]](#trust region){reference-type="ref" reference="trust region"}), ([\[cons_g1\]](#cons_g1){reference-type="ref" reference="cons_g1"}), and ([\[cons_g2\]](#cons_g2){reference-type="ref" reference="cons_g2"}). The function \(R_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) is concave and matches with the function \({R_k}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)\) at \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}\): \[\label{R_n}\tag{12} {R_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right) = R_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right).\] At the \(n\)th iteration, we solve the following convex problem with the computational complexity \({\cal O}\left( {{{\left( {LNK} \right)}^3}\left( {2K + 1} \right)} \right)\) to generate the next feasible point \({\bf{w}}^{\left( {n+1} \right)}\): \[\label{P2}\tag{13} \mathop {\max }\limits_{\bf{w}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} \left\{ {R_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right)} \right\} \;\;\;{\rm{s.}}{\rm{t.}}\;\;\;\text{(\ref{3b}),\;(\ref{trust region}),\;(\ref{cons_g1}),\;(\ref{cons_g2})}.\] According to ([\[f_n\]](#f_n){reference-type="ref" reference="f_n"}) and ([\[g_n\]](#g_n){reference-type="ref" reference="g_n"}), we can conclude that \(\mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} {R_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( {n + 1} \right)}}} \right) \ge \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} {R_k}\left( {{{\bf{w}}^{\left( n \right)}}} \right),\;\forall n\), which guarantees the monotonicity in convergence. According to, it is important to have a proper initial point \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}\) with the positive URLLC rate. Thus, we start from any random point \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}\) satisfying the convex power constraint \(\sum\limits_{k = 1}^K {{{\left| {{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}} \right|}^2}} \le K,\forall l\) and ([\[trust region\]](#trust region){reference-type="ref" reference="trust region"}), and then iterate \[\label{Shannon}\tag{14} \mathop {\max }\limits_{\bf{w}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} f_k^{\left( n \right)}\left( {\bf{w}} \right) \;\;\;{\rm{s.}}{\rm{t.}}\;\;\;\text{(\ref{3b})},\] The solution obtained by these iterations can be adopted as the feasible initial point \({{\bf{w}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}\). Finally, Algorithm 1 provides the pseudo-code for the applied path-following procedure.
:::
## Decentralized Precoding Design
The previously proposed centralized precoding design requires all the APs to upload the instantaneous CSI to the CPU, which put a significant burden on the fronthaul signaling. Besides, the computational complexity of the centralized precoding design can be exceedingly high for a huge number of antennas. As such, there is a desire for designing the precoding in a decentralized manner which only requires local instantaneous CSI at the APs. In practice, the APs can be divided into several non-overlapping cooperation clusters in which the APs in the same cluster shares both the data and the instantaneous CSI to design the precoding vectors. The APs in different clusters only have the knowledge of the statistical CSI, such as the mean and the variance. Note that although APs are divided into clusters, each user is served by all the APs instead of the APs in the cluster which the user resides in. Assume each cluster contains \(M\) APs, therefore, there are \(L/M\) clusters in the network. As stated before, each AP can obtain the instantaneous CSI of the APs in the same cluster and the statistical CSI of the APs in different clusters. Therefore, the virtual SINR of user \(k\) in cluster \({\cal{L}}\) for designing the precoding vector can be expressed as \[\label{VSINR-1}\tag{15} \varphi _{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}}} \right)\! \! = \!\!\frac{{{{\left| {\sum\limits_{l \in {\cal L}} {{\bf{h}}_{kl}^H{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}} + \sum\limits_{\bar l \notin {\cal L}} {{\mathbb{E}}\left\{ {{\bf{h}}_{k\bar l}^H} \right\}{{\bf{w}}_{k\bar l}}} } \right|}^2}}}{{\sum\limits_{i \ne k}^K {{{\left| {\sum\limits_{l \in {\cal L}} {{\bf{h}}_{kl}^H{{\bf{w}}_{il}}} + \sum\limits_{\bar l \notin {\cal L}} {{\mathbb{E}}\left\{ {{\bf{h}}_{k\bar l}^H} \right\}{{\bf{w}}_{i\bar l}}} } \right|}^2}} \!+ \!{\sigma ^2}}}.\] Since we consider Rayleigh fading channels, we have \({\mathbb{E}}\left\{ {{\bf{h}}_{k\bar l}^H}\right\} = {\bf{0}}\). Therefore, ([\[VSINR-1\]](#VSINR-1){reference-type="ref" reference="VSINR-1"}) can be written as \[\label{VSINR-2}\tag{16} \varphi _{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}}} \right) = \frac{{{{\left| {\sum\limits_{l \in {\cal L}} {{\bf{h}}_{kl}^H{{\bf{w}}_{kl}}} } \right|}^2}}}{{\sum\limits_{i \ne k}^K {{{\left| {\sum\limits_{l \in {\cal L}} {{\bf{h}}_{kl}^H{{\bf{w}}_{il}}} } \right|}^2}} + {{\sigma ^2}}}}.\] The decentralized max-min URLLC rate optimization problem can be expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
\label{P_distributed} &\mathop {\max }\limits_{{\bf{w}}_{\cal L}^{\rm{V}}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1, \cdots ,K} R_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{\bf{w}}_{\cal L}^{\rm{V}}} \right)\notag\\ &\;{\rm{s.}}{\rm{t.}}\;\;\;\;\;\sum\limits_{k = 1}^K {{{\left| {{{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}}} \right|}^2}} \le {p_{\max}},\forall l \in {\cal L},\tag{17} \end{aligned}\] where \({\bf{w}}_{\cal L}^{\rm{V}}\) represents the precoding vectors designed for all the users by APs in cluster \({\cal{L}}\) according to ([\[VSINR-2\]](#VSINR-2){reference-type="ref" reference="VSINR-2"}), and \(R_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}} \right) = \ln \!\left( {1 + \varphi _{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}} \right)} \right)-\sqrt {\frac{1}{{tB}} \times V_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}} \times{Q^{-1}}\left( \epsilon \right)\), \(V_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}} = 1-\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 + \varphi _{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}\left( {{\bf{w}}_{k{\cal L}}^{\rm{V}}} \right)} \right)}^2}}}\). The problem ([\[P_distributed\]](#P_distributed){reference-type="ref" reference="P_distributed"}) can be solved in a similar approach as the one for ([\[P1\]](#P1){reference-type="ref" reference="P1"}). When the problem ([\[P_distributed\]](#P_distributed){reference-type="ref" reference="P_distributed"}) has been solved for all the clusters, we can obtain the precoding vector for user \(k\) by \[\label{w}\tag{18} {{\bf{w}}_k} = {\left[ {{{\left( {{\bf{w}}_{k1}^{\rm{V}}} \right)}^H}, \cdots ,{{\left( {{\bf{w}}_{k\left( {L/M} \right)}^{\rm{V}}} \right)}^H}} \right]^H}.\] Then, the URLLC rate of user \(k\) can be obtained by computing ([\[URLLC Rate\]](#URLLC Rate){reference-type="ref" reference="URLLC Rate"}) using the precoding vector obtained from ([\[w\]](#w){reference-type="ref" reference="w"}). The computational complexity for each iteration in decentralized precoding design is \({\cal O}\left( {{{\left( {\left( {\frac{L}{M}} \right)NK} \right)}^3}\left( {2K + 1} \right)} \right)\). Compared with the centralized precoding, the computational complexity decreased by \(M^3\).
# Numerical Results
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed PFA precoding design for the centralized and the decentralized fashion and investigate the impact of the precoding schemes, the length of transmission duration \(t\), the number of antennas equipped at each AP \(N\), and the size of the AP cluster \(M\) on the URLLC rate. We first describe our adopted simulation parameters. We adopt the similar parameters setting as in as the basis to establish our simulation system model. \(L\) APs and \(K\) users are deployed in a rectangular area of \(96\times48\) \(\text{m}^{2}\). In particular, the APs are deployed on a rectangle grid. The area is wrapped around at the edges to avoid the boundary effects. The horizontal spacing between APs are \(24\) m, and the vertical spacing is \(12\) m. The \(K\) users are deployed randomly. We adopt a similar propagation model as in. Besides, we set \(L = 16\), \(\tau_p = 3\), and \(\epsilon = 10^{-5}\). Note that in all the figures, the achievable rates are calculated in bits/s/Hz. Fig. [\[fig_centralized_MMSE_vs_PFA\]](#fig_centralized_MMSE_vs_PFA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig_centralized_MMSE_vs_PFA"} shows the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the achievable rate per user achieved by the proposed PFA centralized precoding and the duality-based MMSE precoding with \(t = 0.05\) ms, \(B = 1\) MHz, \(K = 6\), and \(N = 4\) which is given by \[\label{MMSE}\tag{19} {{\bf{w}}_k} = \frac{{{{\bf{v}}_k}}}{\left\| {{{\bf{v}}_{kl}}} \right\|},\;\;\; {{\bf{v}}_k} = p{\left( {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K p {{{\bf{h}}}_i}{\bf{h}}_i^H + {\sigma ^2}{{\bf{I}}_{LN}}} \right)^{-1}}{{{\bf{h}}}_k},\] where \(p\) is the transmit power intend for each user at each AP. It can be observed that the proposed PFA centralized precoding scheme performs very well. The achievable rate per user distribution with the proposed PFA centralized precoding almost uniformly outperforms the duality-based MMSE precoding, and the former is more steeper. Specifically, applying the PFA centralized precoding leads to 32% improvement in terms of average URLLC rate and 65% improvement in terms of 95%-likely URLLC rate. Note that the duality-based MMSE precoding in ([\[MMSE\]](#MMSE){reference-type="ref" reference="MMSE"}) is only a heuristic solution utilizing the uplink-downlink duality and cannot effectively minimize the MSE \({\mathbb{E}}\left\{ {\left. {{{\left| {{y_k}-{s_k}} \right|}^2}} \right|{{{\bf{h}}}_{kl}}} \right\}\). Moreover, compared with the PFA centralized precoding, the duality-based MMSE precoding has a lower computational complexity since it only requires \(\frac{{{N^2}{L^2}K + NLK}}{2} + \frac{{{N^3}{L^3}-NL}}{3} + {N^2}{L^2}\) complex-valued multiplications. Besides, as expected, the performance of Shannon rate serves as a performance upper bound of the URLLC rate at the expense of infinitely long code length. Fig. [\[fig_T\]](#fig_T){reference-type="ref" reference="fig_T"} plots the optimized 95%-likely achievable rate by Algorithm 1 versus the transmission time \(t\) with \(N = 4\) and \(B = 1\) MHz. As expected, the URLLC rate increases along with the transmission time \(t\) according to the expression of the URLLC rate. Note that the Shannon rate is fixed since it is computed assuming a sufficient long blocklength, e.g., \(t \to \infty\). Besides, when the number of user increases from 6 to 15, we can observe that the achievable rate decreases since there are more users competing for limited resources that reduces the flexibility of the resource allocation for effective beamforming. The performance gap between the Shannon rate and URLLC rate is also reduced with the increasing number of users as the performance of these two scheme is limited by the user with the weakest channel gain. Fig. [\[fig_URLLC\]](#fig_URLLC){reference-type="ref" reference="fig_URLLC"} shows the performance of the PFA precoding in the centralized and decentralized fashion in terms of the URLLC rate. The curve "C-PFA" represents the URLLC rate computed using the centralized PFA precoding design. Also, the curve "D-4-cluster", "D-2-cluster", and "D-16-cluster" stand for the performance of the decentralized PFA precoding design with 4 APs, 8 APs, and 1 AP in each cluster, respectively. The first observation from Fig. [\[fig_URLLC\]](#fig_URLLC){reference-type="ref" reference="fig_URLLC"} is that compared with the centralized PFA precoding, the 95%-likely URLLC rate with the decentralized PFA precoding is generally lower. This is because when the decentralized PFA precoding is adopted, only the instantaneous CSI within the cluster and the statistical CSI outside the cluster are used for optimization in each cluster. As there is a mismatch between the statistical CSI and the instantaneous CSI, the optimization for the decentralized setting is less effective for the utilization of the system resources. Besides, the performance of the 2-cluster decentralized PFA precoding outperforms the centralized PFA precoding for the strong users. The reason is that the performance of the centralized PFA precoding is always limited by the worst-case users, since substantial resources are allocated to equalize all the SINRs, while the decentralized PFA precoding benefits from being more scalable. Compared with the 2-cluster decentralized PFA precoding, when adopting the 4-cluster or 16-cluster decentralized PFA precoding, the mismatch between the statistical CSI and the instantaneous CSI is pronounced, so the performance is the worse. Specifically, compared with the centralized precoding, the 95%-likely URLLC rate is reduced from 16.73 bits/s/Hz to 13.25 bits/s/Hz with the 2-cluster decentralized PFA precoding and to 8.95 bits/s/Hz with the 4-cluster decentralized PFA precoding. Moreover, when the fully distributed 16-cluster decentralized PFA precoding is adopted, the 95%-likely URLLC rate is only 0.17 bits/s/Hz. However, since the computational complexity is also reduced, the performance loss of adopting the 2-cluster decentralized PFA precoding instead of the centralized precoding is tolerable. In particular, the 2-cluster decentralized PFA precoding achieves 80% of the 95%-likely URLLC rate, 89% of the average URLLC rate, and 12% of the computational complexity of the centralized precoding. The second observation is that the CDF of users' URLLC rate is not as steep as the counterpart when the decentralized PFA precoding design is adopted. The reason is that the optimization target of each cluster contains virtual SINR rather than the actual SINR, leading to under utilisation of system resources.
# Conclusion
In this correspondence, we considered the precoding design in the cell-free massive MIMO system for URLLC in the centralized and decentralized fashion. PFA was designed for maximizing the users' minimum URLLC rate and its performance was evaluated with different settings of the transmission time, the number of antennas per AP, and the size of the AP cluster. Simulation results showed that the centralized PFA precoding design can effectively improve the performance of 95%-likely achievable rate and the decentralized PFA precoding with a reasonable setting can approach the performance of the former but with low computational complexity. In the future, we will jointly optimize the precoding vector, the cluster formation, and the number of APs in each cluster in a distributed fashion for URLLC. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:07', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14504', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14504'} |
# Introduction {#intro}
In the broader area of computational finance, the mere establishment of the existence of solution to a problem is not sufficient towards achieving the tangible financial goals, for the problem that has been posed. Accordingly, as is the case for many applications, we seek a solution that (in practice) happens to be an approximation to the actual solution being sought. To this end, we begin by observing that for problems in quantitative finance, one can arrive at either an analytical or (possibly) a semi-analytical solution, in only a handful of cases. Therefore, for the most part, one needs to devise efficient methods to arrive at the desired and appropriate solution to the posed problem which, in turn, necessitates the resorting to computational techniques. At the heart of this paper, lies a specific computational technique, widely used in the finance industry, namely, the Monte Carlo simulation approach. Accordingly, we begin our presentation with a brief narrative about this approach, with the main focus of the discussion being steered towards the recent research and development in the area of Multilevel Monet Carlo (MLMC). The interested readers may refer to for greater clarity on the approach of MLMC and the key developments with respect to algorithms, as well as the applications in financial engineering problems. In this article we primarily focus on the importance sampling approach developed and studied in and also on how MLMC has led to the development of algorithms for efficient risk estimation in the field of financial risk management, discussed by the authors in. However, we give a brief overview of Monte Carlo and MLMC before directing our discussion towards the aforesaid specific topics. Monte Carlo methods have become one of the driving computing tools in the finance industry. The necessity of simulating high-dimensional stochastic models, which in turn may be attributed to the linear development in the complexity corresponding to the size of the problem itself, is one of the primary reasons that this approach is becoming the critical computational strategy in the industry. The main objective of this method, in case of computational finance is to reach the necessary degree of accuracy, which is coupled with a high computational cost. More specifically, we intend to approximate \(\mathbf{E}[Y]\) where, \(Y = G(X)\) is functional of the random variable \(X\). The traditional Monte Carlo approach requires a computational complexity of an order of \(O(\epsilon^{-3})\) to attain the root mean square (RMS) error of \(O(\epsilon)\) in a biased context. This limitation led to the introduction of the multilevel framework in to address this issue and achieve \(O(\epsilon^{-2})\) computational complexity in the biased framework. The idea behind the multilevel architecture is to employ independent standard Monte Carlo on various resolution levels and use the differences as the control variate for the Monte Carlo simulation at its most granular level, which in mathematical terms is given by, \[\label{rev:eq1} \mathbf{E}[Y_{L}]=\mathbf{E}[Y_{1}]+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\mathbf{E}[Y_{l}-Y_{l-1}],~\text{where}~ Y_{l}=G(X_{l}).\] Using the standard Monte Carlo as the estimator to approximate the expectation on the right hand side of [\[rev:eq1\]](#rev:eq1){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq1"}, we obtain, \[\label{rev:eq2} \widehat{Y}_{L}=\frac{1}{N_{1}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{1}}Y_{1}^{k}+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\frac{1}{N_{l}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{l}}\left(Y_{l}^{k}-Y_{l-1}^{k}\right),\] and therefore, \(\mathbf{E}[Y_{L}] \approx \widehat{Y}_{L}\). Here \(X_{l}\) is the approximation of the random variable \(X\) on level \(l\) and this approximation is contingent on the application under consideration. For example, if the underlying stochastic process is driven by a stochastic differential equation (SDE), then \(X_{l}\) is the approximation of \(X\), with some time discretization parameter \(h_{l}\). With all the preludes being presented in the preceding discussion, we are now in a position to examine the following the seminal result due to Giles.
It is quite evident from the above theorem that the computational complexity is driven by the strong convergence of the estimator *i.e.,* \(\mathbf{V}[Z_{l}]\). Therefore, one of the main challenges while developing a MLMC based estimator is to study the order of strong convergence of the underlying approximation. With this brief introduction of MLMC, we now direct our discussion towards its recent developments, pertaining to algorithm and financial applications.
# Importance Sampling Multilevel Algorithm {#importance_sampling}
Since the advent of MLMC in literature, one of the directions of its progression has been through various attempts to combine this algorithm, with the already existing variance reduction techniques. For instance, Giles, in studied and analyzed the combination of antithetic variates and MLMC in order to bypass the Levy area simulation, encountered while using Milstein discretization scheme, in order to simulate higher dimensional SDEs. However, in our discussion we primarily focus on the combination of importance sampling algorithm and Multilevel estimator. The idea of incorporating importance sampling with multilevel estimators is derived from the seminal paper by Arouna. Arouna's idea relied upon the parametric change of measure and using a search algorithm to approximate the optimal change of the measure parameter, in order to minimize the variance of the standard Monte Carlo estimator. Before we discuss the research undertaken in the area of multilevel pertaining to importance sampling algorithm, we give a brief overview of the parametric importance sampling approach. Consider a general problem of estimating \(\mathbf{E}[G(X)]\), where \(X\) is a \(d\)-dimensional random variable. If \(f(x)\) is the multivariate density function, then, \[\mathbf{E}[G(X)]=\int G(x)f(x)dx=\int G(x+\theta)f(x+\theta)dx=\int h(\theta, x)f(x)dx,\] where, \(\displaystyle{h(\theta,x)=\frac{G(x+\theta)f(x+\theta)}{f(x)}}\). This implies that, \(\mathbf{E}[G(X)]=\mathbf{E}[h(\theta,X)]\). Therefore, we need to determine the optimal value of \(\theta\) such that \(\text{Var}[h(\theta,X)]\) is minimum. Mathematically this is represented as, \[\label{rev:eq3} \theta^{*}=\arg\min_{\theta \in \mathbf{R}^{d}}\text{Var}[h(\theta,X)].\] In order to solve the above problem, one can resort to the usage of the Robbins-Monro algorithm that deals with a sequence of random variable \(\left(\theta_{i}\right)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\), which approximate \(\theta^{*}\) accurately. However, the convergence of this algorithm requires certain restrictive conditions, which are known as the non explosion condition (given in ), \[\mathbf{E}[h^{2}\left(\theta, X\right)] \leq C\left(1+|\theta|^{2}\right)~\text{for all}~\theta \in \mathbf{R}^{d}.\] In order to deal with this restrictive condition, the authors in introduced a truncation based procedure which was furthered in. An unconstrained procedure to approximate \(\theta^{*}\), by using the regularity of the density function in an extensive manner, was introduced in along with the proof of convergence of the algorithm. Beside the stochastic approximation algorithm, one can also use deterministic algorithm such as sample average approximation, which, though being computationally expensive, provides for a better approximation to \(\theta^{*}\). In problems dealing with the pricing of the options, for the most part the underlying stochastic process \((X_t)_{0\leq t \leq T}\) with \(T>0\) being a finite time horizon, is governed by some SDEs. The general form of these SDEs is given as follows: \[\label{rev:eq4} dX_{t}=b(X_{t})dt+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q} \sigma_{j}(X_{t})dW_{t}^{j},~X_{0}=x \in \mathbb{R}^{d},\] where, \(\displaystyle{W:=\begin{pmatrix}W_{1}&W_{2}&\dots&W_{q}\end{pmatrix}}\) is a \(q\)-dimensional Brownian motion on a filtered probability space \(\left(\Omega,(\mathcal{F}_{t}\right)_{0 \leq t \leq T},\mathbb{P})\), with \(b:\mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}\) and \(\sigma_{j}:\mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}\) being the functions satisfying the following condition: \[\label{rev:assumption_1} \forall x,y \in \mathbb{R}^{d},~\lvert b(x)-b(y)\rvert+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}\lvert \sigma_{j}(x)-\sigma_{j}(y)\rvert < K_{b,\sigma}\lvert x-y \rvert,~\text{where}~ K_{b,\sigma}>0. \tag{\(\text{C}_1\)}\] Assumption [\[rev:assumption_1\]](#rev:assumption_1){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:assumption_1"} ensures the existence and the uniqueness of solution to [\[rev:eq4\]](#rev:eq4){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq4"}. For the most part, constructing an analytical or semi-analytical solution to [\[rev:eq4\]](#rev:eq4){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq4"} is not possible, and therefore we need to rely on discretization schemes such as Euler or Milstein in order to simulate the SDEs. For detailed discussion on these discretization schemes, the interested readers may refer to. Further, following the idea of, we consider a family of stochastic process \(\left(X_{t}(\theta)\right)_{0 \leq t \leq T}\), with \(\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{d}\), being governed by the following SDE: \[\label{rev:eq5} dX_{t}(\theta) = (b(X_{t}(\theta))+\sigma(X_{t}(\theta))\theta)dt + \sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}\sigma_{j}(X_{t}(\theta))dW_{t}^{j},~\sigma(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{1}(x)&\dots&\sigma_{q}(x)\end{pmatrix}.\] As a consequence of the Girsanov's Theorem, we know that there exists a risk-neutral probability measure \(\mathbf{P}_{\theta}\), which is equivalent to \(\mathbf{P}\) such that, \[\label{rev:eq6} \frac{d\mathbf{P}_{\theta}}{{d\mathbf{P}|}_{\mathcal{F}_t}}=\exp{\left(-\innerproduct{\theta}{ W_{t}}-\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta\rvert^{2}t\right)},\] under which the process \(\displaystyle{\left(\theta t+W_{t}\right)_{0\leq t \leq T}}\) is a Brownian motion. Therefore, \[\label{rev:eq7} \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{P}}\left[G(X_{T})\right] = \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{P}_{\theta}}\left[G(X_{T}(\theta))\right]= \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{P}}\left[G(X_{T}(\theta))e^{-\innerproduct{\theta}{ W_{T}}-\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta\rvert^{2}T}\right]\] Therefore, following the discussion above we have, \[\mathbf{E}\left[G(X_{T})\right]=\mathbf{E}\left[h(\theta, X_{T})\right].\] here, \(h(\theta, X_{T}) = G(X_T(\theta))e^{-\innerproduct{\theta}{ W_{T}}-\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta\rvert^{2}T}\). Now the idea of importance sampling Monte Carlo method is to estimate \(\mathbf{E}\left(G(X_{T})\right)\), where \(\theta\) is given by, \[\label{rev:eq8} \theta^{*}=\arg\min_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{d}} \text{Var}~\left(G(X_{T}(\theta))e^{-\innerproduct{\theta}{ W_{T}}-\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta\rvert^{2}T}\right).\] In the context of Multilevel estimator, we present two approaches studied in, adapting the ideas studied by authors in and extending it to multilevel scenarios. Under the parametric change of measure, the general multilevel estimator is given defines as, \[\label{rev:eq9} \mathbf{E}[Y_{L}]=\mathbf{E}[Y_{1}^{\theta_1}]+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\mathbf{E}[Y_{l}^{\theta_l}-Y_{l-1}^{\theta_l}],~\text{where}~Y_{l}^{\theta}= G(X_{l}^{\theta})e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_l}{ W_{T}^l}-\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_l\rvert^{2}T}.\] Under the framework of multilevel estimator, the parametric importance sampling estimator looks like, \[\label{rev:eq10} \displaystyle\widehat{Y}_L^{\theta}=\frac{1}{N_{1}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{1}}Y_{1}^{k,\theta_1}+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\frac{1}{N_{l}} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{l}}(Y_{l}^{k,\theta_l}-Y_{l-1}^{k,\theta_{l}}).\] Considering the variance of the above estimator, we have, \[\label{rev:eq11} \displaystyle\text{Var}[\widehat{Y}_L^{\theta}]=\frac{1}{N_{1}}\mathbf{v}_{1}(\theta_1)+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\frac{1}{N_{l}} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{l}}\frac{(M-1)T}{M^l}\mathbf{v}_{l}(\theta_{l}),\] where, \[\mathbf{v}_{1}(\theta_{1})=\text{Var}[Y_{1}^{\theta_{1}}]~\text{and}~\mathbf{v}_{l}(\theta_{l})=\text{Var}[Y_{l}^{\theta_{1}}-Y_{l-1}^{\theta_{1}}].\] Therefore, as discussed, in order to solve the problem of minimizing the overall variance of the estimator described above, we intend to minimize the variance at each level of resolution, *i.e.,* we aim at approximating \(\theta_{l}^{*}\) for \(l=1,\dots,L\), such that, \[\label{rev:eq12} \theta_{1}^{*}=\arg\min_{\theta \in \mathbf{R}^{d}}v_{1}(\theta_{1})~\text{and}~\theta_{l}^{*}=\arg\min_{\theta \in \mathbf{R}^{d}}v_{l}(\theta_{l}).\] Further, pertinent to the discussion carried out in and another application of the Girsanov's Theorem, the above problem can be reformulated as, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{rev:eq13} \theta_{1}^{*}&=&\arg\min_{\theta_{1}\in \mathbf{R}^{d}}\mathbf{E}\left[G(X_{1})^{2}e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_1}{W_{T}^{1}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{1}\rvert^{2}T}\right] \nonumber\\ \theta_{l}^{*}&=&\arg\min_{\theta \in \mathbf{R}^{d}}\mathbf{E}\left[\frac{M^{l}}{(M-1)T}\left(G(X_{l})-G(X_{l-1})\right)^{2} e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_l}{W_{T}^{l}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{l}\rvert^{2}T}\right]. \end{aligned}\] We present below the two algorithm namely, the sample average approximation and stochastic approximation, in order to approximate the \(\theta_{l}\)'s as the solution to [\[rev:eq13\]](#rev:eq13){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq13"}.
## Sample Average Approximation
The sample average approximation deals with approximating the above expectations using \(\widetilde{N}_l\) sample paths. More specifically, \[\label{rev:eq14} \mathbf{E}\left[G(X_{1})^{2}e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_1}{ W_{T}^{1}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{1}\rvert^{2}T}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\widetilde{N}_{1}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\widetilde{N}_{1}}G(X_{1}^{k})^{2} e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_{1}}{W_{T}^{1,k}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{1} \rvert^{2}T} \equiv \mathcal{V}_{1},\] and, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{rev:eq15} && \mathbf{E}\left[\left(G(X_{l})-G(X_{l-1})\right)^{2}e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_l}{W_{T}^{l}}+ \frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{l}\rvert^{2}T}\right] \nonumber\\ & \approx & \frac{1}{\widetilde{N}_{l}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\widetilde{N}_{l}}\frac{M^{l}}{(M-1)T}\left(G(X_{l}^{k})-G(X_{l-1}^{k})\right)^{2}e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_{l}}{ W_{T}^{l,k}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{l}\rvert^{2}T} \equiv \mathcal{V}_{l}. \end{aligned}\] Having approximated the expectation in the minimization problem, the authors used the standard Newton-Raphson algorithm on the functions \(\mathcal{V}_1\) and \(\mathcal{V}_l\) in order to approximate \(\theta_{l}^{*}\) for \(l=1,\dots,L\). In it is proved that if the functional \(G(X)\) satisfies the non-degeneracy conditions *i.e.,* \(\mathbf{P}((G(X^{1}_{T})\neq 0) >0\) and \(\mathbf{P}\left(((G(X^{l}_{T})-G(X^{l-1}_{T}))\neq 0\right) >0\) and further assuming they have finite second moment, then by Lemma 2.1 in , \(\mathcal{V}_{1}\) and \(\mathcal{V}_{l}\) are infinitely continuously differentiable. Moreover, both \(\mathcal{V}_{1}\) and \(\mathcal{V}_{l}\) are both strongly convex, thus implying the existence of the unique minimum \(\theta_{1}^{*}\) and \(\theta_{l}^{*}\) as the solution to equation [\[rev:eq13\]](#rev:eq13){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq13"}.
## Adaptive Stochastic Approximation
Under the stochastic approximation, studied in the aim of determining the optimal change of parameter \(\theta_{l}^{*}\) for \(l=1,\dots,L\) is carried out using the Robbins-Monro algorithm. Here, we briefly describe the algorithm. Consider a compact convex set \(\Theta \subset \mathbb{R}^{q}\) such that \(0 \in \text{int}(\Theta)\). Then the recursive algorithm with projection is defined as follows, \[\label{rev:eq16} \theta_{l}^{n+1}=\textbf{Proj}_{\Theta}\left[\theta_{l}^{n}-\gamma_{n+1}H_{l}(\theta_{l}^{n},Y_{l},W_{T}^{l})\right],\] where, \(\text{Proj}_{\Theta}(\theta)=\min_{\theta \in \Theta}\abs{\theta-\theta_{0}}\). The sequence \((\gamma_n)_{n \geq 1}\) is a decreasing sequence of positive real numbers satisfying, \[\label{rev:eq17} \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty} \gamma_{n}=\infty~\text{and}~\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \gamma_{n}^{2} < \infty.\] Also, \[\label{rev:eq18} H_{l}(\theta_{l}^{n},Y_{l},W_{T}^{l})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \left(\theta_{1}T-W_{T}^{1}\right)\left(G(X_{1})^{2}e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_1}{W_{T}^1}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{1}\rvert^{2}T)}\right),&l=1, \\ \left(\theta_{l}T-W_{T}^{l}\right)\left[\frac{M^{l}}{(M-1)T} \left(G(X_{l})-G(X_{l-1})\right)^2e^{-\innerproduct{\theta_l}{W_{T}^{l}}+\frac{1}{2}\lvert\theta_{l}\rvert^{2}T}\right],& l=2,\dots,L. \end{array} \right\}\] The algorithm described above is the constrained version of the Robbins-Monro algorithm. The inclusion of the projection operator in the recursive algorithm is to satisfy the non-explosion condition described above. Similar to the discussion carried out in the previous section, if the non-degeneracy conditions are satisfied *i.e.,* \(\mathbf{P}\left(G(X^{1}_{T})\neq 0\right) >0\) and \(\mathbf{P}\left(\left(G(X^{l}_{T})-G(X^{l-1}_{T})\right)\neq 0\right) >0\), further assuming the finite second moment of \(G(X_{1})\) and \(G(X_{l})-G(X_{l-1})\), we can conclude the convergence of the \(\theta_{l}^{*}\), constructed recursively using equation [\[rev:eq16\]](#rev:eq16){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq16"}, for various level of resolutions. The term adaptive is used in the sense that, the estimation of the optimal importance sampling parameter and the multilevel Monte Carlo run simultaneously. The multilevel estimator in this case is given as follows, \[\label{rev:eq19} \widehat{Y}_{L}^{\theta}=\frac{1}{N_{1}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{1}}Y_{1}^{k,\theta_{1}^{k-1}}+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{L}\frac{1}{N_{l}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{l}}\left(Y_{l}^{k,\theta_{l}^{k-1}}-Y_{l-1}^{k,\theta_l^{k-1}}\right).\] However, for the purpose of the practical implementation, one needs to stop the approximations procedure after finite number of iterations. Having approximated the \(\theta_{l}^{*}\) for \(l=1,\dots,L\), we use the multilevel algorithm described by equation [\[rev:eq16\]](#rev:eq16){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq16"} to estimate our expectation. It is quite evident from the way the algorithms have been described that the importance sampling algorithm combined with a multilevel estimator is more computationally complex than the standard multilevel algorithm. However, the variance reduction achieved by these combinations compensates for the high computational complexity. That is, the hybrid algorithm achieves the desired RMS error much faster than the MLMC estimator. The studies carried out in demonstrate the accuracy of the hybrid importance sampling multilevel algorithm over standard multilevel algorithm, through a series of numerical examples, where the underlying SDEs are multi-dimensional. The slight drawback of the sample average approximation method, though more stable than the adaptive stochastic algorithm, is the slow convergence rate to the optimal value. As for the stochastic approximation, the algorithm is sensitive to the learning parameter \(\gamma_n\) and therefore is unstable. It may be pointed out that the study performed above only deals with the Euler Multilevel Monte Carlo, restricted to the use of Euler discretization to simulate the underlying SDEs. More recently, a study carried out by authors in generalize this approach, undertaking higher order discretization schemes such as Milstein to simulate the underlying SDEs. The interested reader can refer to the references mentioned therein to get a more rigorous understanding of this hybrid algorithm.
# MLMC and Efficient Risk Estimation. {#multi_risk}
Risk measurement and consequent management is one of the essential components of financial engineering. The computation of the former (risk measures) for a financial portfolio is both challenging and computationally intensive, which may be ascribed to computations involving nested expectation, which entails multiple evaluations of the loss to the portfolio, for distinct risk scenarios. Further, the cost of computing loss of portfolio entailing thousands of derivatives becomes progressively expensive with an increase in the size of the portfolio. Value-at-Risk (VaR), Conditional VaR (CVaR), and the likelihood of a large loss are the necessary risk metrics used to estimate the risk of a financial portfolio. At the core of these estimation, is the necessity of evaluating the nested expectation, given by, \[\label{rev:eq20} \eta=\mathbf{E}\left[H\left(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\right)\right ]\] where, \(H\) is the Heaviside function. More specifically, suppose we need to compute the probability of the expected loss being greater than \(L_{\eta} \in \mathbf{R}\), *i.e.,* we are interested in the following computation: \[\label{rev:eq21} \eta=\mathbf{E}\left[H(\mathbf{E}[\Delta\lvert R_{\tau}]-L_{\eta})\right],\] where \(\mathbf{E}[\Delta \lvert R_{\tau}]\) is the expected loss in a risk-neutral world, with \(R_{\tau}\) being a possible risk scenario at some short risk (time) horizon \(\tau\). Also, \(\Delta\) is the average loss of many losses incurred from different financial derivatives, depending upon similar underlying assets, that is, \[\label{rev:eq22} \Delta=\frac{1}{K}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K} \Delta_{i},\] where \(K\) is the total number of derivatives and \(\Delta_i\) is the loss from the \(i\)-th derivative. The average is considered to ensure the boundedness of \(\Delta\), when the portfolio size of \(K\) increases. A standard and straight forward way to estimate the nested expectation [\[rev:eq20\]](#rev:eq20){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq20"} is the usage of Monte Carlo method. This involves, simulating \(M\) independent scenarios of the risk parameter \(R_{\tau}\), and for each risk scenario, \(N\) total loss samples, which are independent. This method was explored in and an extended analysis was carried out in. The total computational cost to perform the above simulation is \(O(\max(K\epsilon^{-2},\epsilon^{-3}))\) in order to achieve the root-mean-squared (RMS) error of \(\epsilon\). In order to handle this issue we present the ideas studied in under the realm of MLMC.
## Adaptive Sampling Multilevel estimator {#adap_multi}
As mentioned in the previous section, the cost of the standard Monte Carlo to achieve the root-mean-squared error of \(\epsilon\) is \(O(\epsilon^{-3})\). To improve the computational complexity, the authors in developed an efficient through the adaptation of the sample size required in the inner sampler of Monte Carlo, to the particular outer sampler random variable. Under certain conditions, the authors were able to achieve the \(O(\epsilon^{-5/2})\) computational complexity to achieve the RMS of \(\epsilon\). Giles in extended this approach to the multilevel framework and was able to achieve \(O\left(\epsilon^{-2}\lvert \log \epsilon \rvert^{2}\right)\) computational cost for a RMS error tolerance \(\epsilon\). Before presenting the work initiated by Giles, we put forth a brief review of the studies carried out in and. The authors in, estimated the inner expectation of the equation [\[rev:eq20\]](#rev:eq20){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq20"}, *i.e.,* \(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y = y]\), for a given \(y\), using the unbiased Monte Carlo estimator, with \(N\) sample paths, as given by, \[\label{rev:eq23} \widehat{Z}_{N}(y)=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} x_{n}(y),\] where, \(\{x_{n}(y)\}_{n}\) are the mutually independent samples from the random variable \(X\), conditioned on \(Y=y\). Again using the Monte Carlo for the outer expectation, we have, \[\label{rev:eq24} \eta \approx \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N}(y_{m})\right),\] where \(\{y_{m}\}_{m}\) are the mutually independent samples from the random variable \(Y\). Further, they proved that if the two random variables \(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\) and \(\widehat{Z}_N\) have the joint density \(d_{N}(y,z)\) and assuming that for \(i=0,1,2\), \(\displaystyle{\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}d_{N}(y,z)}\) exists, plus there exists a non-negative function \(d_{i,N}\), such that, \[\left\lvert \frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}d_{N}(y,z) \right \rvert \leq d_{i,N},~\text{for all}~ N,y,z,~\text{and}~ \sup_{N} \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} \lvert z \rvert^{q}d_{i,N}(z)dz < \infty \tag{\(\text{C}_2\)} \label{rev:assumption_2},\] for all \(0\leq q \leq 4\), then the RMS error of the estimator [\[rev:eq24\]](#rev:eq24){reference-type="eqref" reference="rev:eq24"} is \(O\left(M^{-1/2}+N^{-1}\right)\). Therefore, in order to achieve the RMS error of \(O(\epsilon)\) we need \(M=O(\epsilon^{-2})\) and \(N=O(\epsilon^{-1})\), leading to the total computational complexity of \(O(\epsilon^{-3})\). Authors in developed an adaptive sampling technique to deal with high computational complexity previously discussed. Their approach was based on the likelihood that an additional sample will result in a negative estimate of \(\widehat{Z}_{N+1}\) having estimated that \(\widehat{Z}_{N} > 0\) for given \(Y\). More specifically they showed that, \[\mathbf{P}\left[\widehat{Z}_{N+1}\leq 0 \lvert \widehat{Z}_{N}\right] \leq \frac{\sigma^{2}}{\left(N\widehat{Z}_{N}(Y)+\mu\right)^{2}}\approx \frac{\sigma^{2}}{N^{2}\mu^{2}},\] where \(\mu = \mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\) and \(\sigma^2 = \text{Var}[X\lvert Y]\). Therefore, if \(\displaystyle{N \geq \frac{\epsilon^{-1/2}\sigma}{\abs{\mu}}}\), then the probability that \(H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N}(Y)\right)= H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N+1}(Y)\right) \approx H\left(\mathbf{E}[X \lvert Y]\right)\) is equal to \(1-\epsilon\). Based on these observations, the authors in introduced two algorithms, the first being based on the minimization of the total number of samples for all inner Monte Carlo samplers with respect to given tolerance \(\epsilon\), and the second being iterative, estimating \(\abs{\mu}\) and \(\sigma\) after every iteration, for given value of \(Y\), using \(N\) samples further adding more inner samples till \(\displaystyle{\frac{N\mu}{\sigma}}\) exceeds some error margin threshold. Under these two algorithms it was observed that the overall computational complexity is \(O(\epsilon^{-5/2})\). The authors in introduced the above algorithms in the realm of multilevel simulation, wherein they used multilevel estimator in order to achieve an approximation to the outer expectation, while making use of the sample size in the inner expectation as the discretization parameter. More specifically, \[\label{rev:eq25} \widetilde{\eta} \coloneqq \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L}\frac{1}{M_{l}}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M_{l}} H\left( \widehat{Z}_{N_{l}}^{f,l,m}(y^{l,m})\right)-H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N_{l-1}}^{c,l,m}(y^{l,m})\right),\] where, \[\label{rev:eq26} \widehat{Z}_{N_{l}}^{f,l,m}(y)=\frac{1}{N_l}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N_{l}} x^{f,l,m,n}(y),\] with \(\{x^{.,l,m,n}(y)\}\) being the i.i.d samples of the random variable \(X\), given \(Y=y\). Also, \(H\left(\widehat{Z}_{-1}^{c,0,\dots}(y)\right)\equiv 0\). Now under the assumptions [\[rev:assumption_2\]](#rev:assumption_2){reference-type="ref" reference="rev:assumption_2"}, it can be proved that, \[\babs{\mathbf{E}\left[H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N_{l}}(Y)\right)-H\left(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\right)\right]}=O\left(N_{l}^{-1}\right).\] Further, under the assumption that there exists constants \(\delta_{0}\) and \(\rho_{0}\) such that, \(\displaystyle{\rho(\delta)\leq \rho_{0}}\), for all \(\delta \in [0,\delta_0]\) where \(\delta\) is the random variable with density \(\rho\), the authors in proved that, if \(X\) and \(Y\) are the two random variables, satisfying the stated assumption, then, \[\label{rev:eq27} \text{Var}\left[H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N}(Y)\right)-H\left(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\right)\right]=O(N^{-1/2}).\] The above result determines the strong convergence property necessary to analyze the full potential of the MLMC estimator, in this scenario. However, if \(\displaystyle{N_{l}=N_{0}2^{l}}\), then with standard MLMC complexity analysis it is easy to determine that the computational complexity required to achieve RMS error of \(\epsilon\), we need \(O\left(\epsilon^{-5/2}\right)\) computational complexity. To cater to this high computational demand, even in the framework of MLMC, the authors undertook the adaptive approach developed in and extended it to the framework of MLMC. Giles extended the studies carried out by authors in to multilevel paradigm with an aim to reduce the overall computational cost to \(O\left(\epsilon^{-2}\abs{\log \epsilon)}^2\right)\). In addition to the assumptions stated above, it is further assumed that, \[\label{assumption_3} \sup_{y} \mathbf{E}[\sigma^{-q}\abs{X-\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]}^{q}\lvert Y=y] < \infty, \quad 2 < q < \infty. \tag{\(C_3\)}\] Thus, under the above stated assumptions, it was proved in Lemma 2.5 (for the perfect adaptive sampling) and Theorem 2.7 of, that if the maximum number of sample paths is restricted to, \[\label{rev:eq28} N =\bigg \lceil\max\left(O\left(\epsilon^{-1}\right),C^{2}\frac{\sigma^2}{\abs{\mu}^2}\right)\bigg \rceil,\] then the further number of sample path of various level of resolutions are given by, \[\label{rev:eq29} N_{l}=\bigg \lceil N_{0}4^{l}\max\left(2^{-l},\min\left(1,\left(C^{-1} N_{0}^{1/2}2^{l}\frac{\abs{\mu}}{\sigma}\right)^{-r}\right)\right)\bigg \rceil,\] with \(C\) being some confidentiality constant and \(\displaystyle{1 < r < 2-\frac{2}{q}}\) for the perfect adaptive sampling and\
\(\displaystyle{1< r < 2-\frac{\sqrt{4q+1}-1}{q}}\) when the values of \(\abs{\mu}\) and \(\sigma\) is approximated. Therefore, \[\label{rev:eq30} \text{Var}\left[H\left(\widehat{Z}_{N}(Y)\right)-H\left(\mathbf{E}[X\lvert Y]\right)\right]=O\left(2^{-l}\right),\] thereby leading to the overall computational complexity of the desired order. In a detailed discussion carried out in Section 4 of, it was proved (pertaining to the calculation of VaR and CVaR) that in order to achieve the overall computational cost of \(O(\epsilon)\) RMS error, the required computational complexity is \(O\left(\max(\epsilon^{-2}\abs{\log \epsilon)}, K \epsilon^{-2})\right)\) for the estimation of VaR and CVaR, respectively. The numerical test on a model problem undertaken shows the efficacy of the algorithm constructed. Readers are directed to the referred paper for detailed discussion on the proofs of the above stated results. It may be noted that the computational complexity increases with an increase in the portfolio size, \(K\). A random sub-sampling approach, extending it to a multilevel framework, thereby addressing the dependency on the portfolio size, to achieve the desired RMS error was recently introduced in.
# Conclusion
In this paper, we gave a brief overview of the recent trends in the paradigm of the multilevel algorithm concerning the importance sampling, in the case of option pricing and an adaptive sampling approach while determining the VaR and CVaR for large portfolios. The algorithms discussed serves as the improvement in the computational efficiency of the standard multilevel estimators, each having its merits and shortcomings. As discussed in Section [2](#importance_sampling){reference-type="ref" reference="importance_sampling"}, the importance sampling algorithm combined with multilevel estimators significantly decreases variance at various resolution levels. However, the decrease in variance comes at the cost of increased computational complexity in either case and an increase in the sensitivity to approximate the optimal parameter. As for developing the MLMC based algorithm for efficient risk estimation discussed in Section [3](#multi_risk){reference-type="ref" reference="multi_risk"}, the adaptive sampling approach introduced in this paradigm leads to a significant improvement in the overall computational complexity to achieve the desired root mean squared error. However, the dependence of computational complexity on the size of the portfolio is a subtle shortcoming of the discussed algorithm. Overall, the presented ideas have substantially contributed to the research and development of the multilevel algorithm for various applications encountered in financial engineering problems. However, the scope to enrich the standard algorithm with non-standard variance reduction techniques is still an exciting path for future research.\
\ | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:20', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14549', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14549'} |
# Introduction {#sec:introduction}
Recent work on GPT-2 and GPT-3 have shown that large language models possess few-shot learning capabilities and zero-shot instruction following capabilities, despite only being pre-trained with a self-supervised causal language modeling objective (which is to predict the next token). An arbitrary task can be converted into a natural language task specification, often called a *prompt*. Prompting a task in this way makes its format similar to the language modeling objective used to pre-train large language models. In the zero-shot setting, this prompt contains just the task with instructions, whereas in the few-shot setting, the prompt contains both the task and several example demonstrations. When a language model is tasked to generate text to complete this prompt, it can perform the task in the process. The broader paradigm of reframing all tasks as text generation is known as *prompt-based learning*. In the few-shot setting, the learning that occurs from examples provided in a given prompt (the context) is known as *in-context learning*. In the zero-shot setting, models perform *instruction following*, with their performance guided through natural language instructions provided in the prompt. Emergent prompt-based learning capabilities have mainly been demonstrated for unidirectional language models. Bidirectional language models have stronger learned representations; however, they have not been able to broadly demonstrate the same few-shot in-context learning capabilities or zero-shot instruction following capabilities due to the incompatibility bidirectional denoising pre-training objectives have with the prompting paradigm. Instead, they typically require fine-tuning. Bidirectional models are not able to generate long, fluent completions to prompts since they are usually only trained to output single tokens or short spans of text to in-fill masked tokens during pre-training. We discuss this more in-depth in Section [2.1](#sec:directionality){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:directionality"}. Today, language model architects are faced with a difficult choice between unidirectional or bidirectional models. The authors of GPT-3 lay out this design dilemma in:
In this paper, we directly address this dilemma. We contribute a new technique, [Sap]{.smallcaps} (**S**equential **A**utoregressive **P**rompting), that enables bidirectional language models to take advantage of prompting and allows them to perform at the level of unidirectional models in few-or zero-shot learning without fine-tuning. [Sap]{.smallcaps} iteratively prompts bidirectional models, concatenating previous generations back into the prompt, to produce longer generations from models that were only pre-trained to output short, mask-infill spans. We acknowledge efficiency concerns in Section [6](#sec:conclusion){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:conclusion"} and we discuss the importance and impact of [Sap]{.smallcaps} and its results to the field regardless of those concerns. Using the machine translation task as an in-depth case study, we empirically demonstrate mT5 , a bidirectional language model, used with [Sap]{.smallcaps} outperforms its unidirectional counterparts, GPT-3 and XGLM in both the few-shot and zero-shot settings, while utilizing approximately 50% fewer parameters. We then examine [Sap]{.smallcaps}'s effectiveness on other tasks such as question answering and summarization, demonstrating that bidirectional models can be prompted for tasks beyond machine translation. Our work hints at the possibility of more efficient and performant few-shot learners through pre-trained language models that incorporate bidirectionality. We discuss this impact and outline future research directions to this end in Section [6](#sec:conclusion){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:conclusion"}. In summary, our key contributions are:
1. We introduce [Sap]{.smallcaps}, a technique that enables bidirectional language models to work with few-shot and zero-shot prompt-based learning at a level that exceeds unidirectional models. Our results demonstrate in-context learning and instruction following are emergent properties of a broader class of language models, rather than only unidirectional models, addressing a long-standing challenge in language model design and use.
2. We perform an in-depth study of the effectiveness of a bidirectional language model, mT5, with [Sap]{.smallcaps} on the machine translation task. Evaluating over 14 language pairs, despite using approximately 50% fewer parameters than GPT-3 and XGLM, we find [Sap]{.smallcaps} with mT5 has improved average few-shot and zero-shot performance over all language pairs, and especially has improved performance on individual low-resource language pairs.
3. We propose a range of improvements---filtering, prompt ensembling, and English-centric bootstrapping---to the unsupervised machine translation procedure outlined by to better adapt the bootstrapping process for unsupervised low-resource machine translation.
4. We assess [Sap]{.smallcaps}'s performance on the tasks of question answering and summarization, and we find the technique enables few-shot in-context learning and zero-shot instruction following capabilities of bidirectional models in tasks beyond machine translation.
# Related Work
## Unidirectional and Bidirectional Language Models {#sec:directionality}
Transformer-based language models can be broadly categorized into bidirectional and unidirectional models. Bidirectional models are models that use a denoising pre-training objective (such as masked language modeling), allowing them to utilize *bidirectional* context when learning language representations. Unidirectional language models are models with a causal---or a left-to-right---language modeling objective (such as next token prediction), restricting them to be *unidirectional* when learning representations. The T5 family of models, such as T5 v1.1 and mT5, and BART-style models are bidirectional, while GPT-style models, such as GPT-2, GPT-3, and XGLM are unidirectional. Usually, but not always, bidirectional models are paired with an encoder-decoder architecture, while unidirectional models are paired with a decoder-only architecture. BERT-style models are an example of an exception. BERT-style models are bidirectional, but they cannot be easily utilized for prompting and text generation since they are encoder-only. Of the available bidirectional models, T5 models are the only models with a long enough sequence length (unlimited with their relative position embeddings) to support many in-context prompt examples and with a large enough number of parameters to be effective zero-shot and few-shot performers. See Appendix [\[sec:survey\]](#sec:survey){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:survey"} for a survey of popular open source language models. Aside from sequence length and model size, BART is not purely trained on the span denoising objective [Sap]{.smallcaps} exploits, but is also trained on many other corruption objectives like "Sentence Permutation." For this reason, we utilize the T5 models for experiments and leave the exploration of the generalization of [Sap]{.smallcaps} to other models, that could become available later, as future work. and have both shown that after transfer learning, bidirectional denoising pre-training objectives such as BERT's masked language modeling and T5's random span corruption outperform causal language modeling on downstream tasks. concedes this to be a potential source of weakness for the GPT-3 model on certain tasks where bidirectionality is important. Despite the advantages of denoising objectives, prompting and in-context learning capabilities have not been broadly demonstrated for bidirectional language models like T5, disqualifying them when few-shot in-context learning and zero-shot instruction following is desired. explains this may be because:
In other words: when pre-trained on their denoising objectives, language models like T5 that utilize bidirectionality are only conditioned to output a single token or short spans of tokens (the in-fill of the mask) rather than full and complete sentences; this inhibits their ability to generate arbitrary-length natural responses to a variety of prompts. Despite the stronger learned representations of bidirectional models, their shortcomings in prompt-based learning motivate and to explicitly choose unidirectional models over bidirectional models for GPT-3 and XGLM.
## Prompting Bidirectional Language Models {#sec:priortechniques}
Unlike prior approaches to incorporate prompt-based learning capabilities into bidirectional models, our technique, [Sap]{.smallcaps}, neither requires fine-tuning, weight updates, nor supervised instruction-tuning datasets. It demonstrates that bidirectional language models develop *innate* few-shot learning capabilities with in-context learning and zero-shot instruction following capabilities.
#### Cloze-style prompts
and find that bidirectional models such as RoBERTa and ALBERT can be "prompted" with cloze-style phrases. They propose a few-shot training paradigm called [Pet]{.smallcaps} where the model's predicted mask in-fill, called a "verbalizer," is used to label fine-tuning examples for the model. These verbalizers are only a single word or a few words, e.g. "yes", "no", "amazing", "worse". follow a similar technique, but with the ELECTRA model. These works primarily demonstrate zero-shot effectiveness on classification tasks such as sentiment analysis, rather than more challenging generation tasks such as machine translation or question answering. Furthermore, they still require fine-tuning for effective few-shot learning, a major limitation that does not achieve the prompt-based in-context learning or instruction following abilities of unidirectional models such as GPT-3.
#### LM-adaptation
finds some success with prompting the T5 v1.1 models after continued pre-training on the unidirectional prefix-LM objective described in. The resulting model, T5 v1.1 LM-adapted (T5+LM), is described as a late-stage adaptation to a unidirectional objective. Adaptation requires performing weight updates, and given that representations learned by the original denoising objective have been shown to be superior, we hypothesize that such an adaptation could degrade the quality of the learned representations.
#### Prompt-tuning
and find by fine-tuning only a portion of the parameters in an otherwise frozen pre-trained bidirectional language model, a "soft prompt" can be discovered through backpropagation. Soft prompts are prompts discovered in the embedding space of the model and are not grounded in natural language. As a form of parameter-efficient fine-tuning, this approach requires training the prompt embeddings and benefits from initialization from LM-adaptation, both of which require performing weight updates. The nature of soft prompts lacking grounding in natural language makes their use and flexibility limited, a stark difference from the instruction following capabilities of unidirectional models .
#### Instruction-tuning
Language models can be fine-tuned on a supervised dataset consisting of natural language prompts and their respective target completions. This "instruction-tuning" technique allows these models to improve performance on instruction following and therefore exhibit few-shot and zero-shot capabilities through prompting. The T0 model in particular is an instruction-tuned version of the T5+LM model , augmenting it with prompting capabilities. While instruction-tuning likely bolsters the instruction following performance of a model, we hypothesize that by instruction-tuning, the T0 model is to some degree surfacing the innate prompting ability that the bidirectional model already has. We provide evidence towards this hypothesis by demonstrating that bidirectional models can be prompted without instruction-tuning.
## Unsupervised Machine Translation through Prompting
GPT-2 and GPT-3 have shown it is possible to perform few-shot machine translation and unsupervised zero-shot machine translation with large language models using prompting and in-context learning. The XGLM model trains a similar architecture to GPT-3 on a diverse multilingual corpus, resulting in improvements on few-shot, low-resource machine translation. introduce bootstrapping and self-amplification techniques to further improve unsupervised zero-shot performance on machine translation.
# Few-shot Machine Translation {#sec:few-shot}
To motivate our method for enabling few-shot in-context learning in bidirectional language models, we first focus on applying \(\text{mT5}_\text{3.7B}\) (mT5-XL) to the machine translation task as an in-depth case study since this task benefits greatly from bidirectionality. We largely follow the procedure of, except with mT5 and [Sap]{.smallcaps}. mT5 is a massively multilingual bidirectional model trained on random span corruption, a variant of masked language modeling. We demonstrate that with [Sap]{.smallcaps}, mT5 can perform few-shot machine translation using prompting and in-context examples with no fine-tuning. We first formulate a prompt format that utilizes its random span masking scheme to complete the translation task, such as:\
## Sequential Autoregressive Prompting ([Sap]{.smallcaps}) Technique
By requiring mT5 to in-fill [\<X\>]{style="color: red"}[^1], we are effectively asking it to translate the Spanish sentence. However, due to the limitations of the denoising pre-training objective on prompting (described in Section [2.1](#sec:directionality){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:directionality"}), we observe mT5 often outputs a partial translation of the beginning of the source sentence, rather than the full translation. To overcome this, we prompt mT5 \(T\) times until the model generates a stop token [\</s\>]{style="color: gray"}[^2], resulting in a longer translation. At each time step of iteration, we keep the first word generated (using the space character as delimiter) and concatenate it into the last line of the prompt to use in the next time step. This iterative prompting enables us to extract longer generations. Formally, we denote the generation at each time step \(t\) as \(G_t\). We denote the first word generated at each time step as \(F_t\), where \(F_t = \texttt{SPLIT}(G_t, \texttt{" "})\texttt{[0]}\). We update the prompt at each time step \(P_t\) to include the cumulative generation from all previous time steps concatenated in the last line of the prompt. The prompt used at each time step \(P_t\) is as follows:\
\
In Table [\[table:firstword-ablation\]](#table:firstword-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="table:firstword-ablation"}, we also consider sequential prompting---concatenating the entire generation \(G_t\) instead of just the first word of the generation \(F_t\)---but find that it produces significantly inferior results as low-quality tokens are generated after the first word. By conditioning the model to generate the next word in the translation based on previous words generated, this technique resembles autoregression. mT5 is already autoregressive, but it is autoregressive only at the decoder level. Adding previously generated words back into the prompt allows them to pass through the encoder layers as well. For this reason, we call this technique [Sap]{.smallcaps} (**S**equential **A**utoregressive **P**rompting). To provide a signal to stop generation, we add our stop token at the end of each example in the prompt. We stop prompting after the model generates a stop token.[^3] The overall process is graphically depicted, with stop tokens omitted, in Figure [\[fig:fewshot\]](#fig:fewshot){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:fewshot"}.
## Results {#sec:fewshot-results}
Following, we evaluate our technique on 14 languages from the FLORES-101 dataset that span high-resource and low-resource languages[^4]. We evaluate SentencePiece BLEU (spBLEU) in every direction, leading to an evaluation over 182 language pairs in total. Abbreviated results can be found in Table [\[table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev\]](#table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev){reference-type="ref" reference="table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev"}, and the matrix of full results can be found in Appendix [\[sec:flores-results\]](#sec:flores-results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:flores-results"}. Examples generations can be found in Appendix [\[sec:examplegenerations\]](#sec:examplegenerations){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:examplegenerations"}. On an average spBLEU score over all 182 pairs, our model matches the performance of the unidirectional XGLM and GPT-3 models---with approximately 50% fewer parameters and 16x fewer examples. Notably, our technique has significant improved performance on language pairs with at least one low-resource language, while trailing only slightly on high-resource pairs.
# Unsupervised Zero-shot Machine Translation {#sec:zero-shot}
To extend our in-depth case study on the machine translation task, we now perform fully unsupervised zero-shot machine translation with [Sap]{.smallcaps} and mT5 following the procedure of, which uses a self-amplification technique to boost performance. A comparison of zero-shot performance without self-amplification can be found in Appendix [\[sec:selfamp-ablation\]](#sec:selfamp-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:selfamp-ablation"}. We ultimately will replace the examples in the few-shot prompt with synthetic parallel examples. These synthetic parallel examples are bootstrapped in a completely unsupervised fashion using a zero-shot translation prompt with no examples. The zero-shot prompt format looks like:\
\
We adapt the bootstrap process of to retrieve these synthetic parallel examples. The process, as depicted in Figure [\[fig:bootstrap\]](#fig:bootstrap){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:bootstrap"}, consists of three steps:
- **Step 1 (sampling)**: Generate synthetic parallel examples using a zero-shot translation prompt (with no examples) to translate sentences from a monolingual source language corpus.
- **Step 2 (filtering)**: Filter out low-quality synthetic examples to keep only high-quality synthetic examples using an unsupervised scoring technique (discussed in Section [4.1](#sec:mt5score){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:mt5score"}).
- **Step 3 (self-amplification)**: Translate any source language sentence desired using these synthetic parallel examples in the few-shot prompt.
We iteratively run multiple rounds of this bootstrap by repeating step 2 and step 3 to form a better few-shot prompt. The few-shot prompt after self-amplification is used to translate more source language sentences. These are then filtered using the scoring technique used in step 2 and so on. In our experiments, we run four bootstrapping rounds and sample 100 source language sentences from the training dataset in each round. Note that none of the target language parallel sentences from the training dataset are used in this zero-shot setting; following, only the source language sentences are used.
## Filtering Down to High-quality Translations {#sec:mt5score}
The filtering step of the bootstrap requires an unsupervised scoring method for assessing the quality of translations. We first use `langdetect`[^5], a language identifier, as a simple rule-based filter to ensure the generated text is in the desired target language. We then score the remaining generated translations against their corresponding original sentence in the source language. For this unsupervised multilingual similarity metric, we utilize the BERTScore algorithm with \(\text{mT5}_{\text{300M}}\) (mT5-small)[^6], dubbing it "mT5Score". We ablate the use of mT5Score as a filter in Appendix [\[sec:mt5score-ablation\]](#sec:mt5score-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:mt5score-ablation"}. We take the top two synthetic parallel examples with the highest mT5Score in the filtering step and use those as synthetic few-shot examples in the prompt in the self-amplification step.
## Translating with an Ensemble of Prompts
Because the two examples used in the prompt can greatly affect the quality of the generated translations, some prompts containing low-quality synthetic examples may cause poor translations for certain sentences. To combat this and reduce variation in performance, we keep the top \(N\) synthetic examples instead of two synthetic examples. We use these to form \(\frac{N}{2}\) different few-shot prompts with two synthetic parallel examples each. Each sentence in the test set is then translated with these \(\frac{N}{2}\) different prompts to produce \(\frac{N}{2}\) translations. The best translation of the \(\frac{N}{2}\) translations is chosen in a fully unsupervised manner with mT5Score, as done in the filtering step of the bootstrap. We find this ensembling technique helps make unsupervised zero-shot performance competitive with few-shot performance. Experiments varying the number of prompts in the ensemble can be found in Appendix [\[sec:promptensemble-ablation\]](#sec:promptensemble-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:promptensemble-ablation"}. Unless otherwise stated, we use a 4 prompt ensemble in this paper: \(\frac{N}{2} = 4\). In sum, we sample and zero-shot translate 100 sentences from a monolingual corpus, keep the top eight synthetic parallel examples scored by mT5Score, and use them to form four few-shot prompts, each of which has two synthetic examples.
## English-centric Bootstrapping {#sec:englishcentric}
While only performed a bootstrap on English-French and French-English pairs, we perform bootstrapping on some language pairs which may contain at least one low-resource language or non-English language. It has been found that multilingual language models perform best in English, due to imbalance of languages in the pre-training corpus where English has the highest amount of data. Therefore, when running the bootstrap on various language pairs, we modify the bootstrap to favor generating English, or pivot through English when neither the source nor target language is English. Ablation experiments can be found in Appendix [\[sec:englishcentric-ablation\]](#sec:englishcentric-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:englishcentric-ablation"}. We outline examples of our modified English-centric bootstrapping process for various language pairs in Appendix [\[sec:englishcentric-examples\]](#sec:englishcentric-examples){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:englishcentric-examples"}.
## Results {#results}
We report results with the same method used for our few-shot evaluation. Abbreviated results can be found in Table [\[table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev\]](#table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev){reference-type="ref" reference="table:fewshot-flores-results-abbrev"} and the matrix of full results can be found in Appendix [\[sec:flores-results\]](#sec:flores-results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:flores-results"}. In this unsupervised setting, we find our zero-shot results exceed our 2-shot results; furthermore, they significantly exceed the performance of the XGLM and GPT-3 results reported in on an average spBLEU score over all 182 pairs (+1.0 spBLEU). Again, we note strong performance on language pairs that contain one or more low-resource languages. Intuitively, we can explain the zero-shot performance surpassing the few-shot performance through our use of prompt ensembling in the zero-shot setting. As prompt ensembling utilizes four prompts with two synthetic parallel examples each, it essentially uses eight synthetic examples, instead of just two real examples in the few-shot setting. Our synthetic examples are nearly as high-quality as real examples (similar to the findings of ) as demonstrated by Appendix [\[sec:promptensemble-ablation\]](#sec:promptensemble-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:promptensemble-ablation"}. Prompt ensembling not only reduces performance variation if low-quality synthetic examples are selected during the bootstrap, but it also boosts performance beyond the few-shot setting as demonstrated by Table [\[table:firstword-ablation\]](#table:firstword-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="table:firstword-ablation"} and the Appendix [\[sec:promptensemble-ablation\]](#sec:promptensemble-ablation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:promptensemble-ablation"} experiments (Russian-English 26.9 \(\rightarrow\) 27.9 spBLEU). In Appendix [\[sec:zeroshot-results\]](#sec:zeroshot-results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:zeroshot-results"}, we also evaluate on WMT14 to compare with the results reported in using \(\text{GPT-3}_\text{175B}\).
# Other Language Generation Tasks {#sec:other-tasks}
We next demonstrate that bidirectional models have a generalized ability, beyond machine translation, to be prompted for arbitrary tasks. We evaluate their performance on question answering and summarization language generation tasks. Example generations can be found in Appendix [\[sec:examplegenerations\]](#sec:examplegenerations){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:examplegenerations"}.
## Question Answering
We compare the zero-shot question answering performance of mT5 against XGLM on the XQuAD dataset, a multilingual question answering dataset, in Table [\[table:xquad\]](#table:xquad){reference-type="ref" reference="table:xquad"}. We find mT5 with [Sap]{.smallcaps} outperforms XGLM significantly (+1.7 EM, +12.3 F1). In Table [\[table:squad\]](#table:squad){reference-type="ref" reference="table:squad"}, we also compare against T5+LM . As T5+LM is English-only, we compare using the English-only SQuAD v1.1 dataset. We still utilize the multilingual mT5 with [Sap]{.smallcaps} due to observations that the English-only T5 v1.1 model does not perform as well as mT5 in prompt-based learning[^7]. [Sap]{.smallcaps} achieves +6.7 EM and +5.6 F1 over T5+LM. [Sap]{.smallcaps}, as an iterative technique, is useful for producing long generations from a bidirectional model for tasks such as machine translation. We find, however, it still has utility on tasks like question answering where answer generations are shorter spans of text. We ablate utilizing [Sap]{.smallcaps} with mT5 against the simple approach of prompting mT5 once and using the mask in-fill generated on SQuAD v1.1. In the few-shot (16-shot) setting, we find that utilizing [Sap]{.smallcaps} still markedly improves performance (+12.5 EM, +5.5 F1) even on short-form generation tasks like question answering.
## Summarization
We next perform summarization on the CNN/Daily Mail dataset as another long-form text generation task. We compare mT5 with T5+LM and ablate the usage of [Sap]{.smallcaps} once again in Table [\[table:summarization\]](#table:summarization){reference-type="ref" reference="table:summarization"}. In the few-shot setting, we find a significant lead against T5+LM (+7.1 ROUGE-L). Of that +7.1 ROUGE-L boost, the ablation of our usage of [Sap]{.smallcaps} finds the technique itself is responsible for a large component of the boost (+5.3).
# Conclusion and Future Directions {#sec:conclusion}
We demonstrate [Sap]{.smallcaps} with the bidirectional mT5 model enables few-shot and zero-shot machine translation and zero-shot multilingual question answering, outperforming unidirectional models despite using far fewer parameters and examples. Our results suggest that the bidirectional representations learned by models such as mT5 contribute to this improved performance. Still, we concede that our results do not conclusively prove bidirectionality explains the difference in performance. Beyond bidirectionality and pre-training objectives, mT5, XGLM, and GPT-3 further differ in architecture, pre-training corpus, and hyperparameters. A complete ablation experiment would be computationally expensive, and we leave this as future work. The main limitation of [Sap]{.smallcaps} lies in its computational efficiency, discussed further in Appendix [\[sec:limitations\]](#sec:limitations){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:limitations"} along with potential mitigations. Importantly, these results demonstrate bidirectional models possess few-shot in-context learning and zero-shot instruction following capabilities innately, without the post-hoc modifications required by prior work. Our results finally contribute strong evidence towards the strength and efficiency of bidirectional pre-training objectives and motivate further research into bidirectional architectures, pre-training objectives, and language models designed and optimized for prompting and few-shot learning. We hypothesize these future bidirectional training schemes could yield an approach that overcomes the efficiency limitations of [Sap]{.smallcaps}, while maintaining the performance and parameter size reduction benefits. Concurrent recent work that compares or mixes unidirectional and bidirectional pre-training objectives already provide some early evidence towards this hypothesis.
[^1]: We use the first sentinel token from the mT5 vocabulary as our mask token.
[^2]: We repurpose the 100th sentinel token from the mT5 vocabulary as our stop token.
[^3]: We also implement a basic post-processing step to strip any generated text after a repeated sequence of three or more tokens following settings available in common decoding implementations.
[^4]: HR: English (en), German (de), French (fr), Catalan (ca), Finish (fi), Russian (ru), Bulgarian (bg), Chinese (zh); LR: Korean (ko), Arabic (ar), Swahili (sw), Hindi (hi), Malayalam (my), Tamil (ta)
[^5]: <https://pypi.org/project/langdetect/>
[^6]: The BERTScore Python library directly supports using mT5 instead of BERT.
[^7]: We discuss this observation in more detail in Appendix [\[sec:t5v11observation\]](#sec:t5v11observation){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:t5v11observation"}. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:00', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14500', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14500'} |
null | null |
# Introduction {#s:Introduction}
Emulsions are suspensions of immiscible liquids (such as oil and water) and play a central role in a wide range of industrial processes such as food processing , pharmaceutical processes or oil production . Moreover, current research is examining the application of fuel--water emulsions for more efficient and environmentally friendly power generation. Examples include gasoline--water direct injection (GWDI) for future gasoline engines or fuel--water emulsions for small gas turbines and diesel engines . In particular for power generation applications, a better understanding of the stability of emulsions and the timescale of the segregation process is of central importance. To this end, we numerically study the segregation of emulsions in decaying turbulence under gravity. The formation of an emulsion requires energy input in form of kinetic energy, to deform and break up droplets. For a non-iso-density emulsion, the mixing of the lighter and the heavier phase requires additional energy input. In order to keep an emulsion stable, a continuous supply of energy is then required. Without further energy input, emulsions are unstable due to the natural tendency to minimize the potential and surface energy. To minimize the net potential energy, the heavier phase sinks, which is governed by the gravitational acceleration \(g\) and the density difference between the two phases. To minimize the surface energy, droplets coalesce, thus reducing the interface area. A higher surface tension \(\sigma\) leads to a higher variation of surface energy and thus increases the tendency for coalescence. Furthermore, it should be noted that interface minimization can be prevented by the presence of surfactants , such as the naturally occurring surfactants asphaltene and resins. Both rising and coalescence lead to segregation of emulsions, which can be quantified by the height of the lighter phase, i.e., the position of its center of mass in the direction of the gravitational acceleration, and the interface area, respectively. However, the two processes of rising and coalescence mutually interact with each other since larger droplets rise more easily and acceleration in one direction promotes coalescence. Experimental studies on the segregation process of emulsions mainly focus on chemical engineering aspects and monitor the height of the coalescing interface. There are several studies in the literature related to modeling of gravity assisted oil-water emulsion separation in oil production processes . The proposed models are designed for gravity settlers to separate the water during the oil production process and deliver correlations for the temporal evolution of zone heights. A review of these models is provided by. Most of these models require various input and modeling parameters and are very sophisticated. Further, limited optical access makes experimental studies of emulsion segregation processes challenging and requires advanced measurement techniques . For this reason, information on the interface area in segregating emulsions is hard to access. In this work, we want to complement these experimental studies with a numerical investigation for a generic configuration. Several numerical studies of emulsions and emulsification processes have been reported in the past, mostly focusing on droplet size distributions. First numerical emulsion studies employed Lattice-Boltzmann (LB) methods, such as e.g. and. More recently, and utilized direct numerical simulations (DNS) combined with the volume of fluid method (VOF) for these investigations. Moreover, several numerical studies focused specifically on the break-up of droplets such as e.g. or. The reverse process to emulsification, namely coalescence and rising of the lighter phase, was studied in the following papers: investigated droplet coalescence and droplet turbulence interaction in decaying turbulence and found that the energy release due to coalescence processes has an impact on the decay of the turbulent kinetic energy. The present work builds upon our recent paper on emulsification and emulsions . study the segregation of emulsions resembling oil--in--water emulsions in terms of density ratio. In our study, we vary and the surface tension coefficient \(\sigma\), the latter resulting in different droplet size distributions of the emulsions. Hence, we focus on the parameters affecting the segregation progress (minimization of potential and surface energy). For our studies, we use DNS with the finite volume approach and the VOF method. The emulsions are generated by a linear forcing of turbulence augmented with a PID controller . We then switch off the forcing and activate the gravitational acceleration and let the emulsions segregate in decaying turbulence under gravity. The paper is structured as follows. In [2](#s:Method){reference-type="ref" reference="s:Method"}, we describe the computational method. presents the considered configurations and the numerical setup. The results are presented in [\[s:Results\]](#s:Results){reference-type="ref" reference="s:Results"}, which firstly studies the segregation process in detail, then focuses on the energy releases to elucidate the dominant mechanisms and finally studies the timescale of the segregation. summarizes the findings and draws conclusions.
# Computational method {#s:Method}
The simulations are conducted with the open source code PARIS (PArallel, Robust, Interface Simulator) . PARIS has been specifically designed for simulations of multiphase flows and is often used for studies of atomization processes, see e.g. as well as other multiphase flow configurations . The solver uses the single fluid formulation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. The continuity and momentum equation are given as \[\label{eq:continuity} \frac{ \partial u_{ i } }{ \partial x_{ i } } = 0\,,\] \[\label{eq:momentum} \begin{split} & \rho \left( \frac{ \partial u_{ i } }{ \partial t } + \frac{ \partial u_{ i } u_{ j } }{ \partial x_{ j } } \right) = \\ &-\frac{ \partial p }{ \partial x_{ i } } + \frac{ \partial }{ \partial x_{ j } } \left[ \mu \left( \frac{ \partial u_{ i } }{ \partial x_{ j } } + \frac{ \partial u_{ j } }{ \partial x_{ i } } \right) \right] + \sigma n_{ i } \kappa \delta_{ s } + \rho g_{ i } \end{split}\] with the density \(\rho\), the dynamic viscosity \(\mu\), the \(i^{th}\) velocity component \(u_i\), the pressure \(p\) and the gravitational acceleration \(g_i\). In each cell, the density and viscosity values are linearly interpolated using the local volume fraction \(\alpha\) of the dispersed phase, which is tracked with the geometrical VOF method : \[\label{eq:densityViscosity} \rho=\alpha \rho_d + \left( 1-\alpha \right) \rho_c,\quad \mu=\alpha \mu_d + \left( 1-\alpha \right) \mu_c.\] The subscripts \(d\) and \(c\) denote the dispersed and the carrier phase, respectively. The Continuous-Surface-Force (CSF) approach determines the surface tension force from the surface tension coefficient \(\sigma\), the interface normal \(n_i=\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x_i}/| \nabla \alpha |\), the interface indicator function \(\delta_S=|\nabla \alpha|\) and the interface curvature \(\kappa=\frac{\partial n_i}{\partial x_i}\). The latter is accurately computed using a state-of-the-art height function approach . Details on its implementation in PARIS can be found in. The advection of the VOF marker function is performed using a geometrical interface reconstruction algorithm. The respective transport equation is given as \[\label{eq:VOFtransport} \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial t}+u_i \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x_i}=0,\,\,\,\alpha= \begin{cases} 1, & \text{if \(\pmb{x}\) is in dispersed phase.}\\ 0, & \text{if \(\pmb{x}\) is in carrier phase.} \end{cases}\] A red-black Gauss-Seidel solver with overrelaxation is employed to solve the Poisson equation for pressure in the framework of the projection method. The simulation is advanced in time using a second-order predictor-corrector method. For the spatial discretization, the finite-volume approach is realized using a cubic grid. The velocity components are stored on a staggered grid, while the pressure and the VOF marker function, as well as the local densities and the viscosities resulting from the latter, are computed at the cell centers. The third-order Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for Convective Kinematics (QUICK) scheme has been chosen to discretize the convective term of the momentum equation, while its viscous term is treated using central differences | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:14', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14607', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14607'} |
# Preliminary
# Introduction
advances within the Smart Grid (SG) paradigm are geared towards the incorporation of several Internet of Things (IoT) based devices and advanced computing technologies to ensure reliability, flexibility and efficiency of critical power systems. With the prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the enormous amount of highly granular power-related data generated by such intelligent devices enable energy service providers to improve load forecasts, maximize financial gains, devise effective demand management and other grid operation strategies, etc. Besides, consumers can experience better quality of service through personalization of the power system applications and tools. However, present data analytics solutions for SGs primarily emphasize on centralized and decentralized approaches that require the direct sharing of data and/or learning models to dedicated central servers . In such cases, the sharing of fine-grained load consumption profiles collected from individual smart meters to central data servers imposes several privacy concerns to energy data owners. For instance, several studies have highlighted that simple analysis of load consumption patterns recorded by smart meters can reveal household occupancy rates, the presence of people within a house, and sleep/wake-up time of residents, without any prior knowledge. Indeed, higher resolution of smart meter data leads to higher granularity in information and allows third parties to infer more sensitive information about households. In such a scenario, Federated Learning (FL) emerges as a viable privacy-preserving distributed computing alternative which transfers computation to energy data owners and allows the training of a global model through collaboration of devices without requiring the migration of data to a central repository for model training. Typically, edge devices in an energy system network iteratively train a local model and update the resulting parameters to a central aggregator which accumulates and processes the parameters and then sends back the updated parameters to the edge devices. The communication rounds continue until successful convergence of the model. In spite of the privacy preservation benefits due to the omission of raw data sharing requirements, FL is also efficient in terms of communication resource usage and has higher scalability. Recently, FL has gained much attention from researchers to explore its potential benefits within several smart grid domains, namely short-term load forecasting, energy theft detection, to name a few. Nevertheless, despite its promising privacy-preserving potentials, recent literature has revealed that FL may fail to provide sufficient privacy guarantees in certain circumstances. For example, researchers have discovered that they are able to reconstruct the original raw data from the sharing of gradients of the model during iterations. Furthermore, due to the distributed nature of FL, it is vulnerable to Byzantine faults/attacks whereby the client nodes behave arbitrarily which may be a result of adversarial manipulations or software/hardware faults. Therefore, it is imperative to design FL mechanisms that are fault-tolerant to such behaviours, provide good generalisation performance and are communication efficient. Consequently, we investigate this research gap in the field of smart grids by contributing to the following:
1. Inspired by the idea of gradient quantization, we develop a state-of-the-art privacy-preserving federated learning-based framework that leverages the SIGNSGD algorithm to improve the robustness of FL strategies for residential short-term load forecasting against Byzantine attacks.
2. Specifically, in this paper, we highlighted three key data integrity attacks against short term load forecasting FL models. We design the data integrity threat models and their counter measures.
3. We further extend the proposed framework towards a privacy-preserving SIGNSGD-based FL approach whereby the clients locally perturb their trained parameters by adding noise prior to uploading to the server for aggregation to prevent parameter information leakage and ensure privacy preservation more effectively.
4. We conduct comprehensive case studies and extensive empirical evaluations to verify the effectiveness of our proposed scheme using a real Australian energy consumption dataset obtained from Ausgrid Network.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section [4](#sect:prelim){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:prelim"} provides some background information in relation to our conceptual framework. Section [5](#sect:probdef){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:probdef"} covers the problem definition section where we discuss some popular adversarial byzantine threat models on FL. In Section [6](#propmethod){reference-type="ref" reference="propmethod"}, we describe our proposed FL architecture followed by Section [7](#Results){reference-type="ref" reference="Results"} which focusses on the evaluation and comparison of our proposed framework under several scenarios. Finally, Section [8](#Conclusion){reference-type="ref" reference="Conclusion"} concludes this manuscript and provides some potential future directions for research.
# Related Works
Typically, byzantine threats on federated learning scenarios consist of updating arbitrary model parameters from the clients to the server in the aim of impacting the convergence of the model. More specifically, byzantine attacks are typically untargeted threats during which adversarial clients either train their local models on corrupted datasets or fabricate random model updates. Inherently, byzantine threats are usually less stealthy and can be detected through close analysis of the global model performance. To address byzantine resiliency in FL, a number of works have been proposed in recent literature. Throughout this section, we briefly summarize the main studies undertaken in regards to byzantine resiliency in FL. A common approach to byzantine-resiliency in FL is to employ aggregation operators which are based on statistically robust estimators. For instance, the authors in leveraged the use of Byzantine-robust aggregation rules by comparing the local updates of clients and filtering out statistical outliers prior to global model updates. Furthermore, Blanchard et al. proposed a computationally expensive *Krum* algorithm which performs gradient update selection and has the least sum of distances from the nearest gradient updates during each iteration. In addition, introduced *Bulyan* as an extension of Krum to recursively find subset of nodes using Krum and eventually perform an element-wise pruned mean on the updates to exclude the high magnitude values. Similarly, a handful of other byzantine-robust aggregation operators have been proposed in existing literature to mitigate the vulnerability of FL to byzantine attacks. Another interesting study in utilized a mixed-strategy game-theoretic approach between the server and the clients whereby each client can either update good or corrupted model parameters while the server can either choose to accept or discard them. By employing the Nash Equilibrium property, the clients' updates were selected based on their probability of providing the correct updates. In addition to the design of byzantine-robust operators, several other defence strategies have been employed through anomaly detection, pre-processing methods, etc. However, while much work has been carried out to mitigate the threats of FL, little to no work has been carried out on secure, privacy-preserving and fault-tolerant FL frameworks for residential short-term electrical load forecasting to the best of our knowledge.
# Preliminary {#sect:prelim}
Throughout this section, we will discuss some preliminary and related background knowledge on FL and Differential Privacy (DP). Furthermore, within this section, we shall discuss a conventional FL set-up for short term load forecasting which will be used as a baseline during the evaluation of our proposed scheme.
## Federated Learning
For the past couple of decades, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed every walk of life and proven its benefits within several fields. However, one of the biggest real-world challenge faced by AI is the design of high-performing models due to natural data fragmentation coupled with security and privacy enforcement. Eventually, to alleviate this issue, introduced a fundamentally novel learning technique known as *Federated Learning* which enables the collaborative decentralised training of machine learning models without the physical migration of raw data as depicted in Fig. [\[fig:fedillus\]](#fig:fedillus){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:fedillus"}. Suppose we have \(N\) clients and each client \(C_i\) holds a local training dataset \(D_i\) where \(i \in {1,2...,N}\). An active \(C_i\), participating in in the local training, aims to collaboratively learn the weights \(w_i\) of the shared global model such that a certain empirical loss \(L_i\) is minimized. Therefore, we can formulate the optimization problem solved by multiple data owners as \(w^* = \underset{w_i}{\mathrm{arg\ min}} \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^N L_{i} (w_{i})\). Specifically, each communication round proceeds as shown in Fig. [\[fig:fedillus\]](#fig:fedillus){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:fedillus"} through the following steps: (1) The central server sends a unanimous global model \(w\) to the active FL clients. (2) Each client trains the local model by using its own local dataset \(D_i\) in order to solve the optimization problem \(\underset{w_i}{\mathrm{min}}\ L_i(D_i, w_i)\). (3) Each client updates its local model parameters to the central server. (4) The server computes the global model update by aggregating the parameters received from the local models such that. (5) Lastly, the server sends back the updated parameters to the local models. This iterative process is continued until convergence of the global model. Furthermore, there are two baseline approaches to train models in a FL set-up namely Federated Averaging (Fed-Avg) and Federated Stochastic Gradient Descent (Fed-SGD). Generally, Fed-SGD averages the locally computed gradient at every step of the learning phase while Fed-Avg averages local model updates when all the clients have completed training their models. However, as mentioned before, regardless of the approach used, FL is prone to several privacy and security threats, which have been discussed as following.
## Differential Privacy {#sect:diffpriv}
Due to the several drawbacks of data anonymization techniques such as loss of data utility, risks of re-identification, etc., Differential Privacy (DP) emerged as a formal framework that enables the quantification of the preservation of individual privacy within a statistical database during the release of useful aggregate information. Therefore, we formally define some related concepts in relation to DP as in the following: **Definition 1**: A randomized algorithmic mechanism \(M: X \longrightarrow R\) with domain \(X\) and range \(R\) satisfies (\(\epsilon\), \(\delta\))-differential privacy if for all measurable sets \(S \subseteq R\) and if for any two adjacent inputs \(D\), \(D' \in X\), the following holds: \(Pr[M(D) \in S] \leq exp(\epsilon) \times Pr[M(D') \in S] + \delta\). Here \(Pr\) denotes probability. **Definition 2**: The privacy loss \(L\) of a randomized algorithmic mechanism \(M: X \longrightarrow R\) for any result \(v \in R\) and for any two data samples \(D\), \(D' \in X\) is expressed as: \(L(v, D, D') = log \dfrac{Pr[M(D) = v]}{Pr[M(D') = v]}\). One of the most popular noise addition mechanisms for DP is the Gaussian Mechanism. A given noise distribution \(n \sim N(0, \sigma^2)\) preserves (\(\epsilon\),\(\delta\))-DP where \(N\) is a Gaussian distribution with 0 mean and variance \(\sigma\), such that the noise scale is \(\sigma \geq c\Delta s/\epsilon\) and the constant \(c \geq \sqrt{2ln(1.25/\delta)}\) for \(\epsilon \in (0,1)\) where \(\Delta s\) is the sensitivity of the real-valued function. However, it is important to note that choosing the right amount of noise is a significant challenge that still lingers within research.
## Federated Load Forecasting with Fed-SGD (Benchmark)
During Fed-SGD, a distributed stochastic gradient descent algorithm is applied within a federated environment to jointly train the global model. As shown in Algorithm [\[FedSGDalgo\]](#FedSGDalgo){reference-type="ref" reference="FedSGDalgo"}, during each communication round, each client \(k\) computes the gradient \(g_k\) by initially optimizing the loss of the local model using their local dataset \(D_{k}\). The local gradients \(g_k\) is then sent to the control centre whereby they are aggregated and the new gradient updates are pushed back to the local models. Eventually, the whole process is continued until convergence.
# Problem Definition & Adversarial Models {#sect:probdef}
Federated learning enables promising privacy-preserving data analytics for smart grids by pushing model training to devices, thus requiring no direct data sharing. Nonetheless, recent literature has revealed its failure to sufficiently guarantee privacy preservation due to update leakage, deep leakage, byzantine attacks, etc. Throughout this paper, we aim to address byzantine threats in relation to federated learning for electrical load forecasting. Before we present our proposed defense strategy, in this section, we consider three types of byzantine threat models on federated load forecasting as in the following:
1. **Threat Model 1** *(Local Data Poisoning)*: We consider the scenario where a subset of the total number clients \(k\) to be malicious or are controlled by a malicious attacker. Malicious clients may be injected to the federated learning framework through the addition of adversarially-controlled smart metering devices. The goal of the adversary is to manipulate the learnt parameters such that the global model \(M\) has high indiscriminate errors, thus implying that the attack objective is: \(Attack(D_{k} \cup D_{k}', m_{t}^k) = max \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}1[f(x_{i}'; m_{t}^k ) = t_{i}']\), where \(m_{t}^k\) represents the updated model. Each malicious client is able to stealthily alter their local training sample, \(D_k\) but is unable to access and manipulate the data of other participants or the model learning process. Let \(D_k = \{(x_i, t_i)|i = 1...,n\}\) denote the pristine local training dataset with \(n\) samples where \(x_i\) is the time instance and \(y_i\) is the corresponding electrical load consumed. Each malicious client \(k\) modifies their dataset \(D_k\) such that the trigger \(v\) is inserted into \(x_i\) whereby \(x_{i}' = x_i + v, t_i\). The sign \(+\) denotes the addition of the poison trigger \(v\) to \(x\) such that the poisoned dataset \(D_{k}' = \{(x_{i}', t_{i}'|i = 1...,n\}\). The poisoned dataset \(D_{k}'\) is then used for model training. The adversary's goal is to ensure the degradation of forecasts of the auxiliary data by the global model.
2. **Threat Model 2** *(Model Leakage & Poisoning)*: In this scenario, we assume that the adversary can arbitrarily manipulate the local models sent from the clients to the central aggregator for illicit purposes but cannot observe the training data of other honest clients. Similarly, during this type of threat, the ultimate adversarial goal is to manipulate the learnt global model such that it has a high error rate indiscriminately for testing examples. Such attacks directly negatively impact the usability of the model and will eventually lead to denial-of-service attacks.
3. **Threat Model 3** *(Colluding attack)*: Lastly, we consider the cross-device scenario whereby multiple malicious clients are present during the federated training iteration. The adversaries intentionally collude with each other during a single iteration by sending the same update. i.e., each of the attackers send the same learnt update during some of the training iterations such that the goal of this threat model relies upon the manipulation of the learnt global model to induce high error rates.
# Proposed Method {#propmethod}
Within this section, we propose a new FL framework to circumvent the aforementioned byzantine threats on FL for short-term load forecasting. The key idea lies in sharing just the sign of the gradients to preserve privacy. We present the our developed solution as in the following:
## System Model Overview
As previously discussed, the objective of this study is to design a robust and privacy-preserving FL framework for residential short-term load forecasting. As shown in Fig [\[fig:proposedapp\]](#fig:proposedapp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:proposedapp"}, our proposed method consists of three components as discussed.
1. *Electrical Appliances*: Whenever someone within a household uses one of the electrical appliances, the load consumption is collected by the smart meter
2. *Smart Meter*: Each customer has a smart meter that is connected a Home Area Network. Each smart meter collects energy load consumption profiles. The data collected is locally stored on the HAN of the consumer such that local models can be trained using their own dataset.
3. *Control Centre*: The control centre is responsible for broadcasting a learning model and default model parameters, aggregation of parameters after training and finally broadcasting the updated model parameters.
## Algorithm Design
Within a conventional federated learning setting with \(N\) clients, at round \(t\), a selected client \(k \in N\) performs local gradient descent iterations \(T_{gd}\) using a common broadcasted local model \(m_{t-1}\) on its local training sample \(D_{k}\) such that a new updated model \(m_{t}^k\) is obtained. Each client \(k\) then sends its updated parameters \(\Delta m_{t}^k = m_{t}^k-m_{t-1}^k\) to the central orchestrator which in turn aggregates model updates from all \(N\) clients \(\forall k \in N\) such that \(m_{t} = m_{t-1} + \sum_{k \in N} \dfrac{|D_{k}|}{\sum_{j} |D_{j}|} \Delta m_{t}^k\). The model training continues until convergence and is subsequently terminated after a set number of rounds \(T_{cl}\).
However, in the context of smart grids, conventional federated learning settings pose several privacy risks as earlier discussed. Therefore, we propose a novel privacy-preserving federated learning framework for electrical load forecasting through model weight quantization as in. Specifically, as shown in Algorithm [\[proposedalgo\]](#proposedalgo){reference-type="ref" reference="proposedalgo"} and Figure [\[fig:proposedapp\]](#fig:proposedapp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:proposedapp"}, a selected client \(k\) initially computes the gradient update \(g_{k} = m_{t}^k-m_{t-1}^k\) from which it obtains the sign vector \(sign(\Delta m_{t}^k) = sign(m_{t}^k-m_{t-1}^k)\) where \(sign(\Delta m_{t}^k)\): \(\mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow {-1,1}^n\). A random Gaussian noise \(\zeta_{k}\) is then added to perturb \(sign(\Delta m_{t}^k)\) such that \(\sum_{k \in N} sign(\Delta m_{t}^k) + \zeta_{k}\) satisfies differential privacy. Furthermore, to prevent an adversary from learning \(sign(\Delta m_{t}^k) + \zeta_{k}\) accurately in circumstances where \(N\) is large, each client \(k\) updates the encrypted results \(E_{k}[sign(\Delta m_{t}^k) + \zeta_{k}]\) to the central aggregator. The orchestrator in turn sums all the encrypted model updates from \(N\) such that \(\sum_{k} E_{N_{k}} (sign(\Delta m_{t}^k) + \zeta_{k})\). This aggregation follows the selection of the median of all \(N\) clients signs at every position of the update vector. The model training continues until convergence and is subsequently terminated after a set number of rounds \(T_{cl}\).
## Convergence Analysis
In the following, we will present a formal analysis of the SIGNSGN approach through the use of refined assumptions derived from conventional SGD assumptions. **Assumption 1** *(Lower Bound)*: Given an objective/loss function \(f\), at any point \(x\), \(f(x) \geq f^(x^*)\), where \(f^(x^*)\) represents the objective value and \(x^*\) represents the global minima of f(x). This standard assumption is indeed necessary to ensure the convergence to a stationary point. **Assumption 2** *(Smoothness)*: Given an objective/loss function \(f\), the gradient of \(f\) (derivative of the function with respect to \(x\)) when evaluated on any coordinate \((x, y)\) can be represented as \(g(x)\). Then, for \(\forall x, y\) and for some non-negative constant \(L_{i}\), we require that \(|f(y)-[f(x) + g(x)^T (y-x)]| \leq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i}L_{i}(y_{i}-x_{i})^2\). This assumption is an extension of the Lipschitz Continuity condition which is essential to guarantee that the loss \(l\) of \(f\) is smooth and convergence of gradient descent algorithms. **Assumption 3** *(Variance Bound)*: Upon receiving the query \(x \in \mathbb{R}^n\), the stochastic gradient oracle results in an independent, unbiased estimate \(\hat{g}\) that has bounded variance per coordinate \(\mathbb{E}[\hat{g}(x)] = g(x)\), \(\mathbb{E}[(\hat{g}(x)_{i}-g(x)_{i})^2 \leq \sigma{i}^2\) where \(\sigma{i}^2\) is the uniform variance bound. The classical convergence analysis of SGD is carried out under the assumption that the norm of the stochastic gradient is uniformly bounded. While this might hold for some loss functions, bounded variance may be violated where \(f\) is strongly convex as \(x \longrightarrow \infty\). However, this assumption is necessary to grasp the fundamental properties of stochastic optimisation algorithms. **Assumption 4** *(Gradient Noise)*: At any given point \(x\), each component of the stochastic gradient vector, \(\hat{g}(x)\), must have a unimodal distribution that is also symmetric about the mean. This assumption ensures that the addition of extra noise for the purpose of differential privacy does not skew the distribution and decrease utility. Under these assumptions, we have the following result: **Theorem 1** *(Non-convex convergence rate of SIGNSGD)*: Run algorithm 1 for \(K\) iterations under Assumptions 1 to 3. Set the learning rate as \(\delta_k = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{||L||_1 K}}\) where \(n_k = K\). Let \(N\) be the cumulative number of stochastic gradient calls up to step \(K\), i.e. \(N = O(K^2)\). Then we have \(\mathbb{E}[\dfrac{1}{K} \displaystyle \sum_{k = 0}^{K-1}||g_k||_1 ]^2 \leq \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}[\sqrt{||L||_1 } (f_0-f_* \dfrac{1}{2}) + 2||\sigma||_1]\).
# Simulation & Results {#Results}
In this section, we provide the results of the experimental evaluations of our proposed approach. We first introduce the dataset used and the settings shared by all experiments. Next, the performance of the proposed approach is presented and compared throughout different scenarios. Lastly, we discuss the overall results.
## Experimental Setup
This research was conducted using *Solar Home Electricity Data* from Eastern Australia's largest electricity distributor, Ausgrid. The dataset composes of half-hourly electricity consumption data of 300 de-identified customers which is measured using gross meters during the period starting 1^st^ July 2012 to 30^th^ June 2013. We initially filter the data based on General Consumption (GC) category. It is then converted to the suitable time-series format. It is then split into test (30%) and train (70%) subsets. Every experiment carried out have the following general configurations. There is a set number of clients (10 clients) each holds a local subset of the data and there is a server which helps to coordinate the FL scenario. The model performance is evaluated using three metrics: *Mean Squared Error (MSE)*, *Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)* and lastly, *Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)*.
## Comparison with Baseline (No Attack)
Throughout this section, we present the experimental results to compare the performance of the proposed approach against the conventional Fed-SGD approach. As shown in Fig. [\[fig:trainloss\]](#fig:trainloss){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:trainloss"}(a), it can be seen that the Fed-SGD reaches convergence after the 47^th^ communication round while the proposed approach converges after the 40^th^ communication round.
As our proposed solution converges faster that the traditional Fed-SGD one, we can conclude that the proposed approach provides a fast algorithmic convergence. Furthermore, we use the three aforementioned evaluation metrics to compare and contrast the performance of the proposed solution against Fed-SGD with several models as presented in Table [1](#CompaGedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="CompaGedSGD"} and Table [2](#CompaSignSGDModel){reference-type="ref" reference="CompaSignSGDModel"}. The experimental results reveal that the the proposed framework reaches similar performance as compared to the Fed-SGD approach. Similarly, in Fig. [\[fig:trainloss\]](#fig:trainloss){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:trainloss"}(b), the MAPE per active household within the FL set ups are contrasted which shows that our proposed approach reaches relatively similar performance as compared to the Fed-SGD. More specifically, after the comparison, we can deduce that our proposed framework reaches good generalization performance for short-term load forecasting within acceptable error ranges. Moreover, after comparing the proposed framework based on models as presented in Table [2](#CompaSignSGDModel){reference-type="ref" reference="CompaSignSGDModel"}, it can be deduced that LSTM-CNN model shows the best overall forecasting performance with an average MAPE of 9.7% in both the conventional Fed-SGD and the proposed FL framework.
## Impact on attacks on proposed framework
In this section, we evaluate the robustness of our proposed FL framework against the adversarial threat models as described in Section [5](#sect:probdef){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:probdef"}. To discuss the impact of Byzantine Attacks on the standard Fed-SGD and our proposed approach, we further divide the results into the two following sections:
### Impact of attacks on Fed-SGD
After evaluating the impact of the three byzantine threat models as in Section [5](#sect:probdef){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:probdef"}, we present the results within this section. In Table [\[EvaluationFLThreat\]](#EvaluationFLThreat){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat"}, we evaluated the performance of Fed-SGD under Threat Model 1 & 2 respectively. For both threat models, there is a direct relationship between the percentage of compromised active FL clients and the mean error of the FedSGD FL model, that is, once the percentage of compromised clients increases, the mean error of the FL model decreases. Specifically, for threat models 1 & 2, at 10% of compromised clients, the MAPE of the FL model is 18.2% and 20.1% respectively, thereby following an upward trend such that at 30% of compromised, the MAPE of the FL model reaches around 38.9% and 42.2% respectively. It is worth noting that once a third of the clients are compromised/malicious, there is almost around an average of 40% difference between the actual value and the forecasted value. On the other hand, Table [3](#EvaluationFLThreat3){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat3"} investigates the impact of the colluding attack on the Fed-SGD setup. Similarly, the the number of compromised clients is directly proportional to the mean error of the FL model. As the number of colluding adversaries increases, the mean error of the FL model also increases. Furthermore, based on Fig. [\[fig:impactFedSGD\]](#fig:impactFedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactFedSGD"}(a) and Fig. [\[fig:impactFedSGD\]](#fig:impactFedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactFedSGD"}(b), we can note that as the percentage of compromised clients increase, the FL model loss starts to diverge after a certain number of communication rounds due to threat models 1 & 2. Similarly, based on Fig. [\[fig:impactFedSGD\]](#fig:impactFedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactFedSGD"}(c), as the number of colluding adversaries increases, the FL model loss starts to diverge after a certain number of communication rounds.
### Impact of proposed FL framework on attacks
Within the previous section, we discussed the impact of attacks on the standard Fed-SGD setup. However, throughout this one, we will discuss the impact of our proposed solution on mitigating the threat models presented in Section [5](#sect:probdef){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:probdef"}. As presented in Table [\[EvaluationFLThreat\]](#EvaluationFLThreat){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat"}, when our proposed solution is under attack by threat models 1 & 2, at 10% of compromised clients, the mean error of the FL model stayed relatively similar to the MAPE of the model prior to any attacks. Gradually, with increasing percentage of compromised clients, it can be seen that there is a slight increase in the MAPE. Specifically, from 20% to 30% of compromised clients, the MAPE is 5.1% and 3.3% for threat models 1 & 2 respectively. However, the small increase in the mean error of the FL model is still within acceptable ranges. Similarly, based on Table [3](#EvaluationFLThreat3){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat3"}, it is evident that there is a very slight increase (within acceptable error ranges) in the MAPE value as the number of compromised clients increases. Furthermore, based on Fig. [\[fig:impactSIGNSGD\]](#fig:impactSIGNSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactSIGNSGD"}, we notice that the under all percentages of compromised clients, our proposed model is optimized such that it converges after a certain number of communication rounds/iterations. Therefore, we can eventually conclude that our proposed approach effectively mitigates byzantine attacks.
## Results Discussion
With increasing concerns and regulation enforcement in regards to security and privacy within the smart grid paradigm, it is crucial to develop privacy-preserving and robust short term load forecasting solutions. FL, whilst still being in its infant stage, requires further improvements under different circumstances. Therefore, throughout this study, we investigate Byzantine attacks in relation to federated short term load forecasting. Furthermore, we propose and design a robust defense solution to mitigate those threats. From Table [1](#CompaGedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="CompaGedSGD"} and [2](#CompaSignSGDModel){reference-type="ref" reference="CompaSignSGDModel"} above, it can be seen that our proposed approach reaches comparable forecasting performance as FedSGD when there are no attacks. Similarly, when compared to several other time-series forecasting models, our proposed approach matches that of Fed-SGD. More specifically, we achieved the best overall performance of our proposed approach using the LSTM-CNN model with a MAPE of 9.7% for both FL setups. Therefore, we selected LSTM-CNN as the principal model to evaluate our proposed approach under the three threat models as discussed in Section [5](#sect:probdef){reference-type="ref" reference="sect:probdef"}. Based on the experimental results presented in Tables [\[EvaluationFLThreat\]](#EvaluationFLThreat){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat"} and [3](#EvaluationFLThreat3){reference-type="ref" reference="EvaluationFLThreat3"} as well as the Figs. [\[fig:impactFedSGD\]](#fig:impactFedSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactFedSGD"} and [\[fig:impactSIGNSGD\]](#fig:impactSIGNSGD){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:impactSIGNSGD"}, under the conventional Fed-SGD approach, we notice an overall degradation in the performance of the model with increasing intensity of attacks. For instance, an increase in the percentage of compromised clients results an upward shift in the mean error of the model. On the flip side, we notice that our proposed approach can withstand such attacks with minimal impact on the mean error of the FL model. This leads us to conclude that it is indeed a resilient and privacy-preserving FL set-up for residential short-term load forecasting.
# Conclusion {#Conclusion}
The rapid adoption of FL within the smart grid ecosystem has spiked the interest of researchers to address its security and privacy issues. Byzantine attack mitigation plays a crucial role in securing and enhancing the robustness of FL for short-term load forecasting. Therefore, throughout this manuscript, we propose a state-of-the-art FL-based approach that leverages the notions of gradient quantization and differential privacy to overcome this challenge. Furthermore, we empirically demonstrate that our proposed solution effectively mitigate popular byzantine threats and provides relatively similar performance as compared to standard FL setups. Finally, the next steps in this research are to: (1) design and evaluate our proposed FL framework against stronger byzantine attacks, and, (2) take into consideration the existence of distributed energy resources to improve the grid model. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:20', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14547', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14547'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction {#intro}
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing targets to transform a sentence into a directed acyclic graph, which represents the relations among different concepts. The original AMR does not provide concept-to-word alignment information, which hinders the trace-back from concept to input word and brings difficulties to AMR parsing. To solve the problem, based on Chinese AMR , further propose to add concept and relation alignment to the structure of Chinese AMR as shown in Figure [\[fig:camr\]](#fig:camr){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:camr"}. Currently, while a majority of work is focusing on improving the performance of English AMR Parsing, those methods or models can not be directly applied to Chinese AMR Parsing since English AMR does not provide alignment information itself. To better reflect the full structure of Chinese AMR, CAMRP-2022 evaluation[^1] firstly requires the AMR parser to generate explicit word alignment including concept and relation alignment which calls for novel models and algorithms. We propose a two-stage method to conduct Chinese AMR Parsing with alignment generation[^2]. In a nutshell, the method includes the Concept-Prediction and Relation-Prediction stages, which can be regarded as the process of graph formation. In the Concept-Prediction stage, we develop a hierarchical sequence tagging framework to deal with the concept generation and the complex multi-type concept alignment problem. In the Relation-Prediction stage, we utilize the biaffine network to predict relations and Relation-alignment simultaneously among predicted concepts. Our model ranks 2nd in the closed-track of the evaluation, achieving 0.7756 and 0.7074 Align-Smatch F1 scores on the CAMR 2.0 test set and the blind-test set of CAMRP-2022 individually.
# Method
Our methods includes the Concept-Prediction stage and Relation-Prediction stage. As illustrated in Figure [\[fig:piplines\]](#fig:piplines){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:piplines"}, during training, both stages have individual input and output. During inference, the output concepts from the Concept-Prediction stage are passed to the Concept-Prediction stage to generate the full AMR graph.
## Concept-Prediction
Different from English AMR where nodes or concepts can have arbitrary variable names, a large portion of concepts of Chinese AMR have standard variable names which denote the alignment to input words. Moreover, there are different alignment patterns which make generating the right alignment a complex problem. In following sections, we'll sequentially introduce the alignment rules we design for CAMRP-2022, the two-stage method and the model.
### Multi-Type Concept Alignment Rule
We mainly design 6 different alignment rules for concepts according to different alignment patterns, which are ***Direct Alignment***, ***Normalization Alignment***, ***Continuous Multi-word Alignment***, ***Discontinuous Multi-word Alignment***, ***Split Alignment*** and ***Null-Aligned Concepts***. The difference among alignment rules lies in how an abstract concept corresponds to the input words. We list three cases involving different rules as shown in Figure [\[fig:concept_align\]](#fig:concept_align){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:concept_align"} as examples.
1. **Direct Alignment** is the easiest alignment where a concept directly corresponds to a certain word in the input without the need for any modification.
2. **Normalization Alignment** exists when a concept still corresponds to one word in the input however needs to be "normalized" into the final concept. The normalization includes different situations like word sense disambiguation for predicate and Arabic numerals transformation for numerals in other languages. For example, as shown in Figure [\[fig:concept_align\]](#fig:concept_align){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:concept_align"}, in case (a) the word "
::: {.CJK*}
UTF8gbsn称为
:::
" corresponds to the concept "
::: {.CJK*}
UTF8gbsn称为-01
:::
" after word sense disambiguation. In case (c), Chinese numeral "
::: {.CJK*}
UTF8gbsn一
:::
" would be mapped to concept "1" since all numeral concepts in CAMR are Arabic.
3. **Continuous Multi-word Alignment** exists when multiple continued words in the input sentence are concatenated into the final concept, which usually happens for named entities.
4. **Discontinuous Multi-word Alignment** means multiple discontinued words in the input sentence are joined into the final concept or preposition patterns like "
::: {.CJK*}
UTF8gbsn在\...上
:::
".
5. **Split Alignment** denotes one word that could correspond to multiple concepts, which usually suggests the word corresponds to a sub-graph in the final AMR graph.
6. **Null-Aligned Concepts** do not have alignment and could have arbitrary variable names. These concepts usually abstract away from syntactic features and do not directly correspond to certain word in the input sentence, making them harder for the model to predict. In fact, according to our experiment, our system could reach a 0.91 f1 score for aligned concepts' prediction but only a 0.70 f1 score for Null-Aligned concepts' prediction.
As shown in Figure [\[fig:concept_align_pie\]](#fig:concept_align_pie){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:concept_align_pie"}, we further collect more statistics about the alignment between concepts and input words with the training set of the CAMR 2.0 dataset. From the perspective of input sentences, about 75% of words in the input sentences are associated with certain concepts under one alignment rule. From the perspective of concepts, there are 83% of concepts with alignment. For all concepts with alignment, a majority of them belongs to Direct(56%) and Normalization(33%) Alignments.
### Sequence Tagging Framework
In spite of the complex word alignment rules, we can see that a large portion of concepts are directly or indirectly aligned with a single word of input and one word can only correspond to one concept at most, which inspires us to adopt sequence tagging method. It can deal with concept prediction and Direct Alignment prediction simultaneously. Considering different alignment rules, we develop three sequence tagging rules to cover all possible situations.
#### Model Structure
As depicted in Figure [\[fig:models\]](#fig:models){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:models"}, we add a linear layer on the top of the Chinese RoBERTa model as a Tag Classifier. Adapting to character-based Chinese pretrained language model, Tag classification is conducted **on the first character's hidden state** for a word with multiple characters. During training, we use Cross-Entropy as the loss function and use the average loss of \(N\) all tags in a sentence as the final loss, as described in Equation [\[eq:tagging\]](#eq:tagging){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:tagging"}, \[\begin{aligned} \text{TagCLS}(\mathbf{a}) & = [\mathbf{a};\mathbf{1}]\mathbf{W}, (\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}, \mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{(d+1)\times c} ) \\ \text{Loss}&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N CE(\text{TagCLS}(\mathbf{h_i}) ,\hat{\mathbf{h_i}}) \end{aligned} \label{eq:tagging}\] where \(d\) denotes the hidden size, \(c\) denotes the number of different tags, \(N\) denotes the number of input words, \(\mathbf{h_i}\) denotes the \(i^{th}\) word's output hidden state from the encoder and \(\hat{\mathbf{h_i}}\) denotes the one-hot vector of its gold tag.
#### Surface Tagging
We design an 8-classes BIO tagging rule as the first step to process the input sentence. The eight classes are O, B-Single, B-Continuous-Multiword, I-Continuous-Multiword, B-Discontinuous-Multiword, I-Discontinuous-Multiword, B-Split, and B-Virtual. This tagging rule can cover 4 out of 6 alignment rules, which are Direct Alignment, Continuous Multi-word Alignment, Discontinuous Multi-word Alignment, and Split Alignment. Note that the B-Single tag is for both Direct Alignment and Normalization Alignment because they both correspond to one input word. As for B-Split, we use manually curated rules to split the word with Split Alignment. Note that B-Virtual is also added to label the virtual word for the later relation classification task. The F1-score of the Surface Tagging step can reach 91% on the development set in our experiment.
#### Normalization Alignment Tagging
Previous Surface Tagging can not recognize words that need normalization like word sense disambiguation so we introduce a 2-class Tagging rule to identify whether a word from the input sentence needs normalization before becoming a concept in the AMR graph. The labels can be collected directly from the gold AMR graph. If one concept is aligned to one identical word from the input sentence, then the word's label is negative. If the concept is aligned to a word different from itself, then the word's label is positive. The F1-score of Normalization Alignment Tagging can reach 0.95% on the development set. After recognizing words needing normalization, we run a statistical normalization method as described in Appendix A. This step can cover and predict the Normalization Alignment.
#### Null-Aligned Concept Tagging
For concepts that do not have alignment with input words, we define trigger words for those concepts and also use sequence tagging method. To be more specific, we first collect the dictionary of all Null-Aligned concepts in the training set and there are 184 different Null-Aligned concepts in total. The label of the input word is the class of Null-Aligned concept it triggers, or "None" if it triggers nothing. For Null-Aligned concept, we define the concepts that it has a direct relation to as its trigger concepts and the aligned word of the trigger concept as the trigger word. For example, as shown in Figure [\[fig:camr\]](#fig:camr){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:camr"}, the Null-Aligned concept "Event" has direct relation to concept "
". According to the alignment information of the concept, the trigger words of the concept "Event" are x1 and x2. Since a Null-Aligned concept could have multiple concepts it has a direct relation to, we tried using the first or the last of the concepts. The experimental result shows that using the last concept is more effective with a 0.03 F1 improvement. There are nearly 5% cases where the trigger concepts are all Null-Aligned concepts. Under such circumstances, we keep tracing back from the trigger concept until we reach the first concept with alignment and we regard this concept as the trigger concept.
## Relation-Prediction
As shown in Figure [\[fig:models\]](#fig:models){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:models"}, we design a RoBERTa-BiLSTM-Biaffine network to conduct relation prediction given the predicted concepts. All concepts are first split into characters before feeding into the RoBERTa model to extract hidden representations. After the RoBERTa model, all hidden states are fed into a one-layer BiLSTM network to better encode sequential information to the hidden states. At last, the **first hidden states of every two concepts** are fed into the biaffine network to get the relation between the two concepts. During training, we use Cross-Entropy as the loss function and use the average loss of \(N\times N\) relations as the final loss, as described in Equation [\[eq:biaffine\]](#eq:biaffine){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:biaffine"}, \[\begin{aligned} \text{Biaffine}(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}) & = [\mathbf{a};\mathbf{1}]\mathbf{W}[\mathbf{b};\mathbf{1}]^T, (\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}, \mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}, \mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{(d+1)\times c \times(d+1)}) \\ \text{Loss}&=\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N CE(\text{Biaffine}(\mathbf{h_i},\mathbf{h_j}), \hat{r}(\mathbf{h_i},\mathbf{h_j}))\\ \text{Relation}_{a,b} & = \arg \max \text{Biaffine}(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}) \end{aligned} \label{eq:biaffine}\] where \(d\) denotes the hidden size, \(c\) denotes the number of relations, \(N\) denotes the number of input concepts, \(\hat{r}\) denotes the one-hot vector for the gold relation and \(\mathbf{h_i}\) denotes the \(i^{th}\) output hidden state from the BiLSTM network.
#### Relation-Alignment Prediction
On top of relation between concepts, another important feature of Chinese AMR is the relation alignment, which takes Chinese functional words' semantics into consideration in AMR graph. For example, as shown in Figure [\[fig:camr\]](#fig:camr){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:camr"}, functional word "
" is aligned to the "arg1" relation between concepts "
" and "Event". In fact, in the input Chinese sentence, the word "
" is the marker of relation "arg1" between concept "
" and "
". We use the same model as relation prediction to align functional words with relations. To be more specific, concepts and functional words are both fed into the RoBERTa-BiLSTM-Biaffine network. As depicted in Figure [\[fig:relaton_example\]](#fig:relaton_example){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:relaton_example"}, for any relation triples(concept1, concept2, relation), if the relation is aligned with functional word \(w\), we create another triple(concept1, \(w\), relation) for the model to predict. In this way, we can predict the relation and relation alignment simultaneously. After predicting all relations, if one concept is linked with one concept and one functional word with the same relation, the functional word will be aligned to the relation.
## Teacher Forcing in Training
Since our method has two stages, during inference the Relation-Prediction model takes the output of Concept-Prediction as input. To stabilize and prevent error propagation during training, we adopt the Teacher Forcing method, where we use the gold concepts and relations as the input of the relation prediction model. However, error propagation still exists in the inference phase. We will discuss the error propagation situation of our system in section [4.1](#sec:error_p){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:error_p"}.
# Experiment
## Dataset {#sec:dataset}
The CAMRP-2022 evaluation uses the training, development, and test splits of the CAMR 2.0 dataset as its dataset and also involves an out-of-domain blind test set to measure the generalization performance of parsers. The statistics of the dataset are shown in Table [\[tab:dataset\]](#tab:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:dataset"}. For concepts, there are 31941 different concepts in the training set. Among all concepts, there are 8443 different predicates that need to conduct word sense disambiguation and 184 Null-Aligned concepts. As for relations, there are 142 different relations and 841 relation alignment words. The top 5 most frequent relation alignment words are "
","
","
","
" and "
".
## Model
Both the Concept Tagging and Relation Classification model adopt the HIT-roberta-large pretrained model downloaded from HuggingFace model hub[^3]. For Concept Tagging models, the output size of the tag classifier is 8, 2, 185 for Surface Tagging, Normalization Alignment Tagging, and Null-Aligned Concept Tagging individually and the dropout rate of the classifiers is 0.1 in all experiments. For the Relation Classification model, there is one BiLSTM layer and the hidden size is 4096. the dimension of Biaffine matrix is \(4097\times142\times4097\).
## Training Details
We use Adam as the optimizer and conduct hyper-parameter searches on batch-size (from 10 to 100) and learning rate (from 1e-5 to 1e-4 ) in all models. The optimal hyper-parameters for each model are listed in Appendix B. We train all models for 100 epochs with 1% warmup steps and select the one with the best result on the development set as the final model.
## Results {#sec:result}
As shown in Table [\[tab:result\]](#tab:result){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:result"}, we list the results of our trained 2-stage AMR Parser on the development, test, and blind-test set of CAMRP-2022. For the development set, we list the concrete results of all different sub-tasks in two stages along with the overall and fine-grained AlignSmatch scores.
#### Sub-task Results
For the three sub-tasks of the Concept-Prediction stage, we can tell from Table [\[tab:result\]](#tab:result){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:result"} that our model performs better in the Surface Tagging task with a 0.931 F1 score and Normalization Alignment Tagging task (0.878 F1) than in Null-Aligned Concept Tagging task (0.693 F1). It suggests that the model can better recognize concepts with alignment and there is a big performance drop when predicting concepts without alignment under the same sequence tagging framework. For the Relation Classification task, our model can reach 0.744 F1 when given gold concepts while only 0.583 F1 in inference when the concepts are generated by the Concept-Prediction stage instead of gold concepts. It reveals a train-inference discrepancy existing in the current method since the model might generate wrong concepts during the Concept Prediction stage in inference which would bias the Relation Prediction stage.
#### AlignSmatch Results
As for the overall AlignSmatch scores, we can tell from the result of Development, Test and Blind-Test evaluations that there exists a domain shift. When looking at the fine-grained scores, the trend is consistent among three evaluation dataset that the performance of attribute or alignment prediction is better than instance prediction and far better than relation prediction. The trend indicates that the model generally outperforms in the first stage than in the second stage. Moreover, for relation prediction, we can see that the recall is about 5 points lower than the precision in all experiments and the gap is much bigger than instance or attribute prediction. The reason is that in the relation classification model there exists a performance gap in relation prediction and relation alignment prediction. Compared to relation prediction, a lot more relation alignments are not predicted while the relation-only score in AlignSmatch takes both relation and relation alignment into account, which makes the recall score lower. In fact, if we preclude relation alignment prediction in the relation-only score, the gap between precision and recall will be reduced to 2 points. It hints to us that we need to pay more attention to the relation alignment prediction to improve the overall performance.
# Discussion
In this section, we summarize some problems that need to be addressed to improve the performance of the Chinese AMR parser.
## Error Propagation in the Two-Stage Model {#sec:error_p}
As pointed out in Section [3.4](#sec:result){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:result"}, there exists error propagation in the two-stage model. The direct evidence is that while the relation prediction could reach 0.744 F1 with gold concepts, this score drops to 0.583 when giving it the model predicted concepts. Error propagation also exists in the Concept-Prediction stage since Normalization Alignment needs both the correct result from Surface Tagging and Normalization Alignment Tagging.
## Class Imbalance Problem
As pointed out in section [3.1](#sec:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:dataset"}, there exist severe class imbalance problems in both stages of the parsing task. As for the Concept-Prediction stage, the problem reflects the great differences in the distribution of different tags in the three tagging tasks, especially for the Null-Aligned Concept Tagging tasks. For the Relation-Prediction stage, a large portion of labels is "None Relation" as shown in Figure [\[fig:relaton_example\]](#fig:relaton_example){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:relaton_example"}. We have tried some techniques like using weighted loss that assigns greater weight to the minority classes to handle the class imbalance problem. While this can greatly reduce the time required for the model to converge, it does not improve the final performance when all epochs are finished.
## Improving the Null-Aligned Concept Prediction Performance
In our model, we use a trigger-based method to predict concepts without alignment. This method could cover nearly 95% cases while the rest 5% is neglected because they are mostly triggered by another Null-Aligned concept. Though we design methods to overcome the drawback by tracing back to the first aligned concept, the overall result of Null-Aligned Concept Prediction is still the lowest in the Concept-Prediction stage, which could lead to great bias for the next stage. A more natural method to predict those concepts might greatly improve this task.
# Conclusion
In this paper, we provide a detailed description of the proposed two-stage Chinese AMR Parsing model which is the first to deal with the explicit word alignment problem for CAMRP-2022 evaluation. We also analyze the result and point out the limitation of the current method and some potential roads that might lead to improvement. Though straightforward, the method is far from perfect that it still calls for future exploration to reach a better result in the Chinese AMR Parsing task.
[^1]: https://github.com/GoThereGit/Chinese-AMR
[^2]: We participate in the closed-track evaluation where we can only use HIT-roberta as the pretrained language model
[^3]: https://huggingface.co/hfl/chinese-roberta-wwm-ext-large | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:30', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14512', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14512'} |
# Introduction {#sec:intro}
The nature and geometry of the X-ray emission region in black hole binaries are still controversial, especially in the low/hard state, where most of the power is emitted in a spectrum quite unlike a standard disc (@Shakura_1973). Spectral fitting alone is degenerate, with proposed geometries being a compact source on the spin axis (lamppost), extended emission along the jet direction (jet corona), extended coronal emission on top of an underlying accretion disc (sandwich), and extended coronal emission which replaces the accretion disc (truncated disc/hot inner flow) see e.g. . The truncated disc/hot inner flow model has the advantage that it gives a framework to explain the evolution of the spectrum and its fast variability properties together (@Done_2007), although there are persistent questions over the extent of disc truncation from modelling the reflected emission and its associated iron line (e.g. @Buisson_2019; but see @Zdziarski_2021). Another way to track the extent of the disc is the quasi-thermal emission arising from the same X-ray irradiation of the disc which gives rise to the iron line and reflected emission (@DeMarco_2015 [@Wang_2022]). Photons which are not reflected are reprocessed in the disc, producing a thermal reverberation signal. This gives a soft lag, where variations of soft photons follow those of hard photons with a light travel time delay. Reverberation size-scales do indeed point to a truncated disc, with a truncation radius which decreases as the source spectrum softens (@DeMarco_2021). Perhaps, the most compelling evidence for a truncated disc is the new polarisation results for a low/hard state of Cyg X-1. These rule out the X-ray emission region being aligned with the jet and instead require it to be aligned with the accretion flow (@Krawczynski_2022). Truncated disc/hot inner flow models are thus strongly favoured, motivating our work in exploring how we can derive physical properties of the hot flow from X-ray spectral-timing data. The model of propagating fluctuations of mass accretion rate has given the most promising framework for the stochastic variability seen on 0.01--100 seconds (@Lyubarskii_1997 [@Kotov_2001]). Slower fluctuations of the local mass accretion rate stirred up at outer radii propagate down to modulate faster fluctuations at inner radii, producing correlated but lagged variability on multi-time-scales in the entire hot flow. The fluctuations are expected to be generated by the magnetorotational instability (MRI; @Balbus_1991 [@Balbus_1998]). Different disc responses to the fluctuations at different radii lead to the radial stratification of the variability time-scale (@Churazov_2001 [@Ingram_2013; @Ingram_2016]). Given spectral inhomogeneity in the hot flow, i.e., softer (harder) photons are predominantly generated at outer (inner) radii, there arises the hard lag associated with the propagation time, where variations of hard photons lag behind those of soft photons. This picture is consistent with major timing properties observed, i.e., the broad-band variability and the hard lag (@Miyamoto_1988 [@Nowak_1999]). Indeed, developed numerical models combining the propagating fluctuations process with spectrally-inhomogeneous hot flows, confirming general agreement with the variability properties observed by *RXTE*. However, accurately reproducing observed timing properties with the propagating fluctuations model has turned out very difficult. Plainly, observed power spectra and lags as a function of Fourier frequency in the low/hard state are too complex for models to fully capture. One of the variability features generally observed yet poorly understood is that power spectra are double-peaked (@Belloni_2002 [@Pottschmidt_2003; @Axelsson_2005; @Grinberg_2014]). The propagating fluctuations models normally produce a single peak in power spectra (@Arevalo_2006 [@Mahmoud_2018]). Reconstructing double-peaked power spectra within a single accretion flow appears to require fine-tuning of the flow properties (@Mahmoud_2018 [@Mahmoud_2018b]) A key recognition was made by, who found from *XMM-Newton* data that not only the hot flow but the disc generated considerable variability in the low/hard state. proposed that the fluctuations of mass accretion rate propagated from the variable disc to the hot flow. Their different variability time-scales due to their different physical properties naturally produce double-peaked power spectra (but see @Veledina_2016 for another potential mechanism). In this picture, even though the high-energy flux does not contain the disc emission, it does carry the imprint of the disc variability through the propagation. This idea also explains the wide range of time-scales on which the X-ray flux varies even when the truncation radius is only a few tens of gravitational radii (@Rapisarda_2016). Another difficulty in accurate variability modelling is that there are other physical processes at work. Reverberation described above decreases the hard lags (@Mastroserio_2018) and adds some of the high-frequency variability of the hot flow to the low-energy bands (@Kawamura_2022). Compton scattering in the hot flow produces energy-dependent lags according to the number of scatterings seed photons experience (e.g. @Kylafis_2018 [@Garcia_2021]). There is no consensus on how important each process is at different time-scales and energy bands, and there can also be a contribution from the jet (though the extent of this is limited by the new polarisation results (@Krawczynski_2022)). The spectral-timing analysis is a powerful tool to constrain the accretion flow properties as it combines all the information from the energy spectrum and its fluctuations (power spectra) and causal connection (lags/leads e.g. @Axelsson_2018 [@Mahmoud_2019; @Wang_2021; @DeMarco_2021]). In our previous work, we developed a spectral-timing model based on propagating fluctuations from a turbulent disc through a spectrally inhomogeneous (two Comptonisation regions) flow which generates variability at each radius. We also incorporated the reverberation from the variable Comptonisation components illuminating the disc to perform a self-consistent spectral-timing analysis. We applied the model to the recently discovered black hole transient MAXI J1820+070 (@Kawamuro_2018 [@Tucker_2018]), which has been actively studied (e.g. @Kara_2019 [@Shidatsu_2019; @Homan_2020; @Bright_2020; @Axelsson_2021; @Ma_2021; @You_2021; @Tetarenko_2021; @Wang_2022; @Prabhakar_2022]) thanks to its exceptional brightness, low galactic absorption (@Uttley_2018), and intensive monitoring by multiple telescopes such as *NICER*. K22 modelled the time-averaged energy spectrum for the *NICER* (0.5--10 keV) + *NuSTAR* (3--73 keV) and used this to develop a model for the variability below 10 keV seen in *NICER*. However, *NuSTAR* has less capability for fast timing, limiting the ability of K22 to investigate the propagating fluctuations process through the innermost parts of the hot flow, where higher energy photons are emitted. Better constraints on propagation require extending the bandpass for fast timing to higher energies. Here we use contemporaneous data from *Insight-HXMT* to test our model at higher energies (Section [2](#sec:data){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:data"}). The *Insight-HXMT* data show that our previous model fails to describe several key features of the energy-dependent power spectra and phase lags above 10 keV (Section [3](#sec:old){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:old"}). We consider several additional processes suggested in the context of other propagating fluctuations models (@Rapisarda_2017a [@Mahmoud_2018b]), but none of these allows us to capture the energy dependence of variability (Section [4](#sec:rev1){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:rev1"}). Instead, we find that allowing the spectra to pivot is key to matching the data. This allows the energy spectra of the Comptonisation components to change their shape as well as normalisation in response to the propagating fluctuations (@Mastroserio_2018 [@Mastroserio_2019; @Mastroserio_2021]). This is physically expected from Comptonisation models (@Veledina_2016 [@Veledina_2018]) and is seen in the data (@Malzac_2003 [@Gandhi_2008; @Yamada_2013; @Bhargava_2022]). We are able to give a good match to the power spectra and phase-lag spectra from 2.6 keV up to 48 keV by including spectral pivoting (Section [5](#sec:rev2){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:rev2"}). Additionally, we successfully perform a joint spectral-timing fit using our new model across the entire 2.6--48 keV bandpass (Section [6](#sec:spec_timing){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:spec_timing"}). We discuss the physical properties of the accretion flow, comparing them with theoretical hot flow models (Section [7](#sec:discussion){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:discussion"}), and conclude (Section [8](#sec:conclusions){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:conclusions"}). All of the technical details of the model formalism are given in the appendices so that the main text stresses the physical aspects of the model.
# Observation and data reduction {#sec:data}
We investigate the bright low/hard state of MAXI J1820+070 observed by *Insight-HXMT*. The observation ID is P0114661003, and the observation was conducted from 2018-03-22 10:46:53 to 2018-03-24 02:49:49. The same data are studied in. The observation time is slightly later than that we studied in K22 (Obs. ID: 1200120106; 2018-03-21), but there are simultaneous *NICER* data (Obs. ID: 1200120108; 2018-03-23) corresponding to these *Insight-HXMT* data. We checked that the energy spectrum, power spectra, and phase-lag spectra in these simultaneous *NICER* data are almost identical to K22. The observation data were processed with *Insight-HXMT* Data Analysis Software package (HXMTDAS) v2.04. The data were calibrated and screened under the same criteria as in. The observation data were subdivided according to observation time. Since both spectral and variability properties do not change over the observation, we merged all data to achieve high signal-to-noise ratios. The energy spectrum obtained is shown in Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (top). The different colours represent different telescopes (red: LE, green: ME, blue: HE; @Zhang_2020). The energy spectrum from ME has a dip around 22 keV (light green), which is associated with silver fluorescent lines generated within the detector (@Li_2018). Following, we added 1.5 % systematic errors to all spectral data. To study fast variability, we split background-subtracted light curves into segments of \(256\,\si{s}\) with \(1/128\,\si{s}\) time bins (\(2^{15}\) points), where we avoided any data gaps. We only used the data where all telescopes were active to calculate power spectra and cross spectra using the same data points for every energy band. Following, we calculated the white-noise-subtracted power spectra and the cross spectra from segments and averaged them over different segments and logarithmically-spaced Fourier frequencies. We use the normalized power spectra for plots throughout the paper, such that their integral over frequency corresponds to the fractional variance (@Miyamoto_1991 [@Vaughan_2003]). Phase-lag spectra were calculated from the cross spectra, using the relation between the phase-lag spectrum \(\phi (f)\) and cross spectrum \(C(f)\), \(\phi (f)=\tan ^{-1} (\Im[C(f)]/\Re[C(f)])\), where \(\Re[\cdots]\) and \(\Im[\cdots]\) denote the real and imaginary parts, respectively. The power spectra calculated for 2.6--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV light curves are shown in Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (middle). These energy bands are marked in the energy spectrum with shaded regions. A fundamental QPO and its second harmonic exist around 0.036 Hz and 0.1 Hz (shown with dashed lines), in addition to the broad-band variability. The fundamental QPO appears to affect the phase lag between these two energy bands, creating a dip in the phase-lag spectrum around the corresponding frequency (@Ma_2021), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (bottom). Positive lags mean hard lags throughout the paper. The effect of the second harmonic on the phase lag is not so clear between these energy bands. But we note that the bump at the corresponding frequencies is seen more clearly in phase-lag spectra for different choices of energy bands (@Ma_2021). The phase lag from the broad-band variability has its peak at \(\sim 1.2\,\si{Hz}\) (shown with a dotted line), which deviates from peak frequencies in the power spectra. This implies the complexity of the mechanism creating the broad-band variability since simple propagating fluctuations models lead to having the same peak frequency both in the power spectrum and cross spectrum (@Ingram_2013 [@Rapisarda_2016]). For all of data fits performed in this paper, we use `XSPEC` 12.12.1 (@Arnaud_1996). Variability data such as power spectra were formatted such that `XSPEC` can import. We developed our model as an `XSPEC` model. Being able to perform timing fits with the common tool in spectral fits is beneficial in performing spectral-timing fits. We ignore variability below \(\sim 10^{-2}\,\si{Hz}\) because it behaves distinctly from other Fourier frequencies. interpreted this low-frequency variability as the QPO sub-harmonic.
# Propagation and reverberation in our previous model {#sec:old}
## Summary of our previous work
We start with connecting our current work to previous work (K22), during which we summarize our model. The overview of the model is shown in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"}. Model parameters are summarized in Table [\[tab:model_parameters\]](#tab:model_parameters){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:model_parameters"}, which also contains those introduced in the model updates. We give a more quantitative model summary in Appendix [\[sec:app_model_summary\]](#sec:app_model_summary){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_model_summary"}. K22 used a spectral model of a disc as seed photons for soft and hard Comptonisation regions, together with their reflection. Such spectral models are quite degenerate in the *NICER* bandpass, so the simultaneous *NuSTAR* data were used to help constrain the components. This spectral model is coupled to a timing model by assuming geometry, where the variable disc, soft Comptonisation, hard Comptonisation regions are radially aligned across \(r_{\mathrm{out}}\)--\(r_{\mathrm{ds}}\), \(r_{\mathrm{ds}}\)--\(r_{\mathrm{sh}}\), \(r_{\mathrm{sh}}\)--\(r_{\mathrm{in}}\) (\(r_{\mathrm{in}}<r_{\mathrm{sh}}<r_{\mathrm{ds}}<r_{\mathrm{out}}\)), respectively (see Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (a)). We use the lower-case letter \(r\) as the radius from the central object in units of the gravitational radius \(R_{\mathrm{g}}=GM_{\mathrm{BH}}/c^2\), where \(G\), \(M_{\mathrm{BH}}\), and \(c\) are the gravitational constant, black hole mass, and speed of light in a vacuum. The timing model assumes that fluctuations are stirred up at the local generator time-scale at each radius and that these propagate down through the remaining inner parts of the flow in the propagation time-scale. In K22, we assumed that the generator time-scale is the same as the propagation time-scale, and call these time-scales the viscous time-scale altogether (@Lyubarskii_1997 [@Arevalo_2006; @Ingram_2009]). However, proposed from an observational point of view that these two time-scales are not exactly the same. Indeed, we will separate these time-scales as one of the model updates (Section [4](#sec:rev1){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:rev1"}). The viscous time-scale could be termed for both time-scales. To avoid confusion, we do not use the viscous time-scale but use the generator time-scale and propagation time-scale in the paper. The generator time-scale in a thin disc is well known to be related to the scale height \(h\) via \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)=\alpha (h/r)^2 f_{\mathrm{K}}(r)\) where \(f_{\mathrm{K}}(r)=(1/2\pi) r^{-3/2} (c/R_g)\) is the Keplarian frequency and \(h\) is measured in units of \(R_{\mathrm{g}}\) (@Shakura_1973 [@Novikov_1973; @Churazov_2001; @Ingram_2016]). However, neither the hot flow nor the turbulent edge of the thin disc is likely to be described by the untruncated thin disc properties. Hence in K22 we parameterised the generator time-scale as a power-law with radius, so that \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)=Br^{-m}f_{\mathrm{K}}(r)\). We allow this relationship to change between the very different physical regions so that there is a separate \(B, m\) controlling the generator time-scale in the hot flow and turbulent disc: \[f_{\mathrm{gen}} (r)= \begin{cases} B_{\mathrm{f}} r ^{-m_{\mathrm{f}}} f_{\mathrm{K}} (r) & (r_{\mathrm{in}} \leq r <r_{\mathrm{ds}}) ,\\ B_{\mathrm{d}} r ^{-m_{\mathrm{d}}} f_{\mathrm{K}} (r) & (r_{\mathrm{ds}} \leq r < r_{\mathrm{out}}), \end{cases} \label{eq:viscous_frequency}\] as shown in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (b). Sample power spectra for the generated variability of the local mass accretion rate are shown with dashed lines in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (c), where three radii are picked up from each spectral region. The functional form is a zero-centred Lorentzian with the cut-off frequency corresponding to the local generator frequency \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\), which yields the peak at \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\) in the \(fP(f)\) representation. Slower fluctuations stirred up at larger radii modulate the faster fluctuations produced at smaller radii with a lag given by the propagation time (@Lyubarskii_1997). K22 set the propagation speed from the generator time-scale as \(v_{\mathrm{p}}(r)=rf_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\). Sample power spectra for the variability, in which the inwards propagation of fluctuations is considered, are shown with solid lines in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (c), where the middle radius out of the three selected radii is picked up for each spectral region. The analytic expression of the correlated variability (solid) using the intrinsic variability (dashed) is given in K22 Appendix A (see @Ingram_2013 for the derivation). and K22 show how these two time-scales separated at the transition of the turbulent disc and hot flow makes the characteristic double hump shape of the power spectra. We set \((B_{\mathrm{d}}, m_{\mathrm{d}})=(0.03, 0.5)\) and \(r_{\mathrm{out}}=45\) by assuming that the QPO is set by Lense-Thirring precession of the entire hot flow and the first bump in the power spectrum is set by the turbulent disc (@Ingram_2011). The generator frequency at the outer edge is \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r_{\mathrm{out}})=0.06\,\si{Hz}\), which corresponds to the observed low-frequency break (Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (middle)). We assume that the local energy spectrum fluctuates in the same way as the local mass accretion rate at the corresponding radius. To convert the variability properties of mass accretion rate into those of the flux, the emission profile, how much each radius contributes to the flux, is needed (see Appendix [\[sec:app_model_summary\]](#sec:app_model_summary){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_model_summary"} for details). We assign the time-averaged energy spectrum of the disc, soft Comptonisation, or hard Comptonisation to each radius according to which spectral region it constitutes. We note that what the model actually requires in calculating power spectra and cross spectra is the proportion of each spectral component in given energy bands, not the absolute flux. The sample time-averaged energy spectrum is shown in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (d). Considering spectral hardening from the turbulent disc to soft and hard Comptonisation regions, high-energy photons tend to be emitted from inner regions, while low-energy photons are predominantly generated in outer regions. The analytic expressions of the power spectrum and cross spectrum for the flux are provided in K22 Appendix A. Briefly, the model has radially-stratified variability and radially-stratified spectrum. The propagation of fluctuations produces correlated, lagged variability of mass accretion rate throughout the variable flow. This variability is encoded in radiation. The model provides energy-dependent flux variability because different energy bands have different emission profiles. The resultant power spectra calculated for the flux are compared between different energy bands in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (e). Colours correspond to those of shades in the time-averaged energy spectrum (Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (d)). High-frequency variability (\(\gtrsim 1\,\si{Hz}\)) is more pronounced for the higher energy band because the higher-energy photons are more predominantly emitted from inner regions having higher-frequency variability. On the other hand, these power spectra are almost identical below \(\sim 1\,\si{Hz}\), indicating that variability on these slow time-scales is propagated from outer regions rather than generated at their emission regions. This behaviour is consistent with the model assumption in the example that the hot flow, where most photons are radiated for both energy bands (Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (d)), has generator frequencies higher than \(\sim 1\,\si{Hz}\) (Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (b)). The phase-lag spectrum calculated between these energy bands is shown in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (f). Hard lags are primarily seen for 1--20 Hz as a result of the combination of the propagating fluctuations and spectral inhomogeneity. The little lags below \(\sim 1\,\si{Hz}\) are attributed to the variability on these time-scales being propagated rather than generated for both energy bands, as described above. On the other hand, these energy bands lose lags above \(\sim 20\,\si{Hz}\) because the variability on these fast time-scales is commonly dominated by the hard Comptonisation component for both the energy bands. The fluctuating soft and hard Comptonisation regions illuminate the outer disc and produce a reflected/reprocessed signal which lags behind the generated and propagated flow variability by the light travel time to the disc. The reflected emission itself is not strong, but photons which are not reflected heat the disc, giving a thermal reverberation signal which is strong at energies close to that of the disc emission (\(\lesssim 2\,\si{keV}\); @Kara_2019). This reverberation signal gives an independent check on the assumption of the disc truncation radius, and the fact that it is consistent (@DeMarco_2021) gives strong supporting evidence for the underlying assumption that the QPO mechanism is Lense-Thirring precession. Our previous model includes the reverberation, along with the propagating fluctuations (K22). K22 showed that this model gave a fairly good fit to the energy dependence of the power spectrum across the *NICER* energy band (0.5--10 keV) and to the lags between the same fluctuations in different energy bands as a function of frequency. However, while the spectral components were built from *NuSTAR* data which extended above 10 keV, this instrument does not have a sufficient area to do high time-resolution studies, so the model prediction at higher energies could not be tested. This outburst of MAXI J1820+070 was also monitored by *Insight-HXMT* (@Ma_2021 [@You_2021; @Yang_2022]), which does have a sufficient effective area at high energies. As mentioned in the previous section, the *Insight-HXMT* data are not absolutely simultaneous with the *NICER*/*NuSTAR* dataset we used in K22, but they are very close in time, and spectral and variability properties are nearly constant during these periods. Hence we take the spectral-timing model of K22, use it to predict the higher energy behaviour, and compare it to the *Insight-HXMT* data.
\
[\[tab:model_parameter_values\]]{#tab:model_parameter_values label="tab:model_parameter_values"}
## Comparison of our previous model to *Insight-HXMT* data
We compare the predictions of our previous model to the power spectra for the 2.6--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV bands and the phase-lag spectrum between these bands calculated from the *Insight-HXMT* observation data in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (left). Model parameter values are summarised in Table [1](#tab:model_parameter_values){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:model_parameter_values"}, which also contains those for the rest of the columns in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"}. The lower energy band is well reproduced by our previous model from K22, as expected, as it is within the *NICER* energy range over which K22 got good fits. However, the power spectrum at the higher energy band is clearly overestimated, and the phase lag between the two is completely wrong, peaking at too high a frequency with a lag which is too short to match the data. Next, we explore how well our previous model is capable of reproducing these observed timing properties. For this purpose, we ignore the time-averaged spectrum and attempt to minimize the sum of \(\chi ^2\) values for the power spectra and phase-lag spectrum: \[\begin{split} \sum_{k} \biggl\{ &\left( \frac{P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_1, f_{k})-P_{\mathrm{model}}(E_1, f_{k})}{\Delta P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_1, f_{k})} \right) ^2 \\ + &\left( \frac{P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_2, f_{k})-P_{\mathrm{model}}(E_2, f_{k})}{\Delta P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_2, f_{k})} \right) ^2 \\ + &\left( \frac{\phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_1, E_2, f_{k})-\phi_{\mathrm{model}}(E_1, E_2, f_{k})}{\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_1, E_2, f_{k})} \right) ^2 \biggr\}, \\ \end{split}\] where \(P_{\mathrm{data}}(E, f)\), \(\Delta P_{\mathrm{data}}(E, f)\) are the observed power spectrum and its one-sigma error at frequency \(f\) for energy \(E\), \(\phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E, E', f)\), \(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E, E', f)\) the equivalents for the phase-lag spectrum between energy \(E\) and \(E'\), \(P_{\mathrm{model}}(E, f)\) and \(\phi (E, E', f)\) the modelled power spectrum and phase-lag spectrum, \(E_{1}=2.6\textrm{--}4.8\,\si{keV}\), \(E_{2}=35\textrm{--}48\,\si{keV}\), and \(f_{k}\) the sampled Fourier frequency. The time-averaged energy spectrum is excluded from the fitting (we will come back to joint spectral-timing modelling in Section [6](#sec:spec_timing){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:spec_timing"}). Our model requires the fraction of each spectral component in calculating power spectra and cross spectra. We express this fraction as \(S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)\), \(S_{\mathrm{s}}(E)\), \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{s}}(E)\), \(S_{\mathrm{h}}(E)\), \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{h}}(E)\) for the variable disc, soft Comptonisation and its reflection, hard Comptonisation and its reflection, respectively. Assuming that these spectral components give a complete set of X-ray emission for the energy band of interest, the sum of these fractions corresponds to unity: \[S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)+S_{\mathrm{s}}(E)+S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{s}}(E)+S_{\mathrm{h}}(E)+S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{h}}(E)=1. \label{eq:spec_constraint}\] Whereas in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (left), these fractions were calculated from the result of spectral fit in K22 for the self-consistent spectral-timing modelling, we will let them be independent of the time-averaged spectrum in order to focus on the variability properties for the time being. We fix \(S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)=0\) because the disc emission is negligible above 2.6 keV. We also ignore the reverberation, i.e., \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{s}}(E)=S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{h}}(E)=0\), to simplify the model. This is validated because our attempt is to capture the broad-band power spectrum and hard lags, which are expected to originate from the propagating fluctuations. The reverberation alters variability properties mildly, not drastically, for the energy range of interest. Finally, we only have the soft and hard Comptonisation components with the constraints of \(S_{\mathrm{s}}(E)+S_{\mathrm{h}}(E)=1\). We do not include any models for the QPO features for simplicity. Ignoring the reverberation and QPOs does not affect the investigation of the capability of our previous model. We keep the black hole mass of \(M_{\mathrm{BH}}=8M_{\odot}\) (@Torres_2020) and emissivity profile, i.e., \(\gamma=3\) and \(b(r)=1-\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{in}}/r}\) (@Shakura_1973 [@Novikov_1973]), where we assume that radiation energy from the annulus ranging from \(r\) to \(r+\Delta r\) is proportional to \(r^{-\gamma}b(r)2\pi r \Delta r\). In K22, the transition radii \(r_{\mathrm{sh}}, r_{\mathrm{ds}}\) were calculated from the emissivity profile and spectral decomposition. However, we lack spectral decomposition. In addition, it turned out that model calculations are hardly affected by small changes in these parameters. Thus, we simply fix these transition radii to typical values, \(r_{\mathrm{sh}}=16\) and \(r_{\mathrm{sh}}=32\). We show the result of the joint fit to the power spectra for 2.6--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV and the phase-lag spectrum between these energy bands in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (mid-left). Our model does not improve the fit even though we ignore the time-averaged energy spectrum. While the power spectrum for the higher energy band is preferentially modelled, the power spectrum for the lower energy band is completely underestimated, in turn. Plainly, while the previous model from K22 was designed to fit the data below 10 keV, it does not extrapolate to the higher energies, so does not adequately describe the physics of the propagation of fluctuations through the flow. This is important as K22 shows that the propagation speed is a key determinant of the nature of the hot flow, which can allow large-scale magnetically dominated flows (MAD) to be distinguished from those with turbulent dynamo (SANE) models. The poor applicability of our previous model to higher energy bands motivates our study to improve it.
# Suppressing variability at high energies with a constant spectral shape {#sec:rev1}
The major feature missing in the previous model for the power spectra is the strong suppression of fractional variability at high energies. The generation/propagation of fluctuations in the model, where whole fluctuations generated outer regions propagate down through the flow, always leads to an increase in variability with energy, as long as the spectrum hardens inwards. In contrast, the *Insight-HXMT* observation data show that plainly the high-energy broad-band power spectrum is a factor \(\sim 3\) lower than the low-energy power spectrum at all frequencies (Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (middle)). This decrease in fractional variability with energy was not seen in the *NICER* energy band (\(\lesssim 10\,\si{keV}\); K22). But it has been seen before, in e.g. the *RXTE* data of other black hole binary low/hard states (e.g. @Nowak_1999 [@Axelsson_2018] for Cyg X-1; @Malzac_2003 for XTE J1118+480). In the context of other propagating fluctuations models, it was modelled by the damping of high-frequency fluctuations as they propagate inwards (@Arevalo_2006 [@Rapisarda_2017a]), and by decreasing the intrinsic variability power generated in the inner regions (@Mahmoud_2018b). To implement these effects in our model, we introduce two new parameters. One is a damping parameter \(D\), which allows the model to prevent high-frequency variability from propagating inwards. The variability is suppressed exponentially with \(\mathrm{exp}(-D f \Delta t)\) via inwards propagation in the frequency domain, where \(\Delta t\) is the propagation time. The damping effect is ignored if \(D=0\). The other is for allowing the intrinsic variability amplitude to be different between the hot flow \(F_{\mathrm{var, h}}\) and disc \(F_{\mathrm{var, d}}\) (the previous model from K22 has \(F_{\mathrm{var,f}}=F_{\mathrm{var,d}}\)). Another observational feature that our previous model fails to capture is the discrepancy in the frequency at which the power spectra (in the \(fP(f)\) representation) and phase-lag spectra peak. The power spectra and phase-lag spectra calculated by the model have a similar peak frequency. This observational property is also seen in the *RXTE* data (e.g. XTE J1550-564: @Rapisarda_2017a), where the proposed solution was to allow the propagation time-scale to be different to the generator time-scale on which the fluctuations are generated. Following this, we separate these time-scales and define the propagation frequency with \[f_{\mathrm{prop}} (r)= \begin{cases} B^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{f}} r ^{-m^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{f}}} f_{\mathrm{K}} (r) & (r_{\mathrm{in}} \leq r_{n} <r_{\mathrm{ds}}) ,\\ B^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{d}} r ^{-m^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{d}}} f_{\mathrm{K}} (r) & (r_{\mathrm{ds}} \leq r_{n} < r_{\mathrm{out}}), \end{cases} \label{eq:propagation_frequency}\] such that the propagation speed is provided by \(v_{\mathrm{p}}(r)=rf_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\). Since it is difficult to constrain disc parameters from the energy range of interest, we simply fix \(B^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{d}}=B_{\mathrm{d}}=0.03\) and \(m^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{d}}=m_{\mathrm{d}}=0.5\). To reduce the number of free parameters, we assume that \(f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\) has the same radial dependence as \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\), i.e., \(m^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{f}}=m_{\mathrm{f}}\). Eventually, we have only one additional parameter \(B^{(\mathrm{p})}_{\mathrm{f}}\). The modified model formalism due to the damping effect is given in Appendix [\[sec:app_damping\]](#sec:app_damping){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_damping"}. The implementation of other effects, that is, \(F_{\mathrm{var, d}} \neq F_{\mathrm{var, f}}\) and \(f_{\mathrm{gen}} (r) \neq f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\), is trivial. As in the last part of the previous section, we attempt to reproduce only variability properties based on the propagating fluctuations process. We keep those parameters fixed which are fixed in the previous fit. Even with all these additional effects, the model is not capable of matching the observation data. The damping parameter \(D\) is pegged to its lower bound of zero, indicating that the damping described above is ineffective in improving the fit (@Mahmoud_2019). This could be due to the following reason. Our model assumes that the intrinsic variability has a cut-off at the local generator frequency \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\), as shown in Fig. [\[fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic\]](#fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:propagating_fluctuations_schematic"} (c). The high-frequency variability does not exist from the definition. We see that this assumption already includes some aspects of the damping. The MRI (@Balbus_1991 [@Balbus_1998]) is expected to produce variability up to faster than \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\). However, it is variability slower than \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\) that propagate inwards because the faster variability is viscously damped out (@Churazov_2001 [@Cowperthwaite_2014; @Ingram_2016; @Hogg_2016; @Bollimpalli_2020; @Turner_2021]). Our assumption on the intrinsic variability is an approximation of this physical picture. The damping parameter being pegged to zero indicates no need for additional damping effects. We did not find an improvement in the fits using separate variability amplitude between the variable disc region and hot flow region, either. Eventually, we perform the joint fit to the power spectra for 2.6--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV and the phase-lag spectrum between these energy bands by allowing \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r) \neq f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\) for the hot flow and by removing any other additional effects, i.e., \(F_{\mathrm{var, d}}=F_{\mathrm{var, f}}\) and \(D=0\). The result is shown in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (mid-right). Although we see a slightly better match to the observed phase-lag spectrum than the previous fit, the model still underestimates it considerably. More importantly, we still do not solve the essential issue: the model calculates larger variability for higher energy bands, inconsistent with the observation. introduce more complex radial dependence for the intrinsic variability, emissivity and damping to capture energy-dependent variability properties. However, some assumptions involved with these complications remain to be tested. We do not explore the complex radial structure further and conclude that those additional effects implemented here are less effective than required by the high signal-to-noise ratio data obtained by *Insight-HXMT*. We note that the difficulty in reproducing the observation data here lies in joint fitting to the power spectra and phase-lag spectrum. It is possible to reproduce power spectra for these energy bands with the current model fairly well, ignoring the phase-lag spectrum. In this case, however, the lower-energy photons would come from inner regions, because inner regions are more variable than outer regions, and predict soft lags, which is completely in disagreement with the observed hard lags. This points to the importance of modelling cross spectra and power spectra.
# Spectral pivoting {#sec:rev2}
So far, we have assumed that the spectral shape of each component does not vary in time. However, the constant spectral shape is unrealistic because mass accretion rate fluctuations make spectral parameters, e.g., the optical depth and electron temperature, vary on short time-scales (@Malzac_2003 [@Gandhi_2008; @Yamada_2013; @Bhargava_2022]). This oversimplification limits the model's flexibility to reproduce energy-dependent variability data. As the main updates of our model, we allow the spectral shape to fluctuate (@Veledina_2016 [@Veledina_2018; @Mastroserio_2018; @Mastroserio_2019; @Mastroserio_2021]), along with the amplitude. Here, we give concise explanations of how the spectral pivoting is implemented and what the model gets to be able to handle with this update. More specific formalism is found in Appendix [\[sec:app_pivot\]](#sec:app_pivot){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_pivot"}. The constant spectral shape means that the spectrum at every energy reacts to mass accretion fluctuations in the same way. We consider mass accretion rate and energy spectrum at a certain radius. By defining the average and difference from the average as \(\dot{m}_0\) and \(\Delta \dot{m}(t)\) for the mass accretion rate and as \(S_0 (E)\) and \(\Delta S(E, t)\) for the spectrum, the constant spectral shape is equivalent to \(\Delta S (E, t)/S_0 (E)=\Delta \dot{m} (t)/\dot{m}_0\), which is independent of energy \(E\). To let the spectral shape vary in time, we give the spectrum sensitivity to \(\Delta \dot{m}(t)\) as a function of energy, \(\eta (E)\), and redefine \(\Delta S (E, t)/S_0 (E)=\eta(E) \Delta \dot{m} (t)/\dot{m}_0\), which now depends on energy. The amplitude of sensitivity parameter \(|\eta (E)|\) regulates how sensitive the spectrum is to change of the mass accretion rate from its average, while its sign determines whether the spectrum reacts positively or negatively. The spectrum gets higher (lower) with an increase in mass accretion rate if \(\eta (E) >0\) (\(<0\)). The energy at which \(\eta (E)\) crosses zero, called the pivoting point, does not react to a change in mass accretion rate. The schematic picture of the spectral pivoting is shown in Fig. [\[fig:spectral_variation\]](#fig:spectral_variation){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spectral_variation"}. The decrease in \(\eta (E)\) with energy, i.e., the spectrum being less sensitive to \(\Delta \dot{m}(t)\) for higher energies, could let the power spectrum decrease with energy, as observed for MAXI J1820+070, even if the mass accretion rate is more variable for central regions emitting higher-energy photons. In our implementation, there arises no lag between different energies from the spectral pivoting itself except for the phase lag of \(\pi\) when \(\eta (E_1)\eta (E_2)<0\). Our new model shares this feature of spectral pivoting with the model developed by. The new model returns to the previous one by setting \(\eta (E)=1\). Each spectral component is expected to show its own sensitivity pattern. We give the sensitivity parameter to each spectral component, \(\eta _{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\,(\mathrm{Y}={\mathrm{d, s, h}})\), where the lower subscripts stand the variable disc, soft Comptonisation, and hard Comptonisation, respectively. With the implementation of spectral pivoting, all \(S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\,(\mathrm{Y}={\mathrm{d, s, h}})\) contained in the analytic expressions of power spectra and cross spectra is replaced by \(\eta _{\mathrm{Y}}(E)S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\) (see Appendix [\[sec:app_pivot\]](#sec:app_pivot){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_pivot"} for the derivation). This means that the model's flexibility is not bound by the constraint ([\[eq:spec_constraint\]](#eq:spec_constraint){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:spec_constraint"}) anymore because time-averaged spectra always appear as the product with their sensitivity. In addition, \(\eta _{\mathrm{Y}}(E)S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\) can be negative in contrast to \(0\leq S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E) \leq 1\). The spectral pivoting gives freedom to the model in this way. We attempt to fit the variability properties with the new model. We have \(\eta _{\mathrm{Y}}(E) S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\) as model parameters, instead of \(S_{\mathrm{Y}}(E)\). The negligible disc emission \(S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)=0\) results in \(\eta_{\mathrm{d}}(E)S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)=0\). We fix \(D=0\), in which all intrinsic variability propagates inwards without any loss. We also fix \(F_{\mathrm{var, d}}=F_{\mathrm{var, f}}\) to the typical value of \(0.8\) because the sensitivity parameter \(\eta (E)\) can regulate the variability amplitude. The simultaneous fit to the power spectra for 2.6--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV and the phase-lag spectrum between these energy bands with the new model is shown in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (right). We see significant improvement in variability modelling by allowing the spectral shapes to vary in time. Our new model captures the energy-dependent variability, pointing to the importance of spectral pivoting in modelling variability at high energies. To study the variability for a continuous energy range, we split energy between 2.6--4.8 keV (LE) and 35--48 keV (HE) into four bands, i.e., 4.8--7 keV (LE), 7--11 keV (LE), 11--23 keV (ME), 23--35 keV (ME), where the telescopes used are specified in parenthesis, and attempt to reproduce power spectra for these six energy bands and phase-lag spectra with respect to the lowest energy band for the rest of five energy bands. We minimize \[\begin{split} &\sum_{j, k} \left( \frac{P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{j}, f_{k})-P_{\mathrm{model}}(E_{j}, f_{k})}{\Delta P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{j}, f_{k})} \right) ^2 \\ + &\sum _{\substack{j, k\\(E_{j} \neq E_{\mathrm{r}})}} \left( \frac{\phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{j}, f_{k})-\phi_{\mathrm{model}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{j}, f_{k})}{\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{\mathrm{j}}, f_{k})} \right) ^2, \\ \end{split}\] through the fit, where \(E_j\) is each energy band and \(E_{\mathrm{r}}=2.6\textrm{--}4.8\,\si{keV}\) the reference band. For more complete modelling, we add two Lorentzian functions to model the QPOs in power spectra by using the `XSPEC` model `lorentz`. In all energy bands, we fix the centroid and width to \(3.66 \times 10^{-2}\,\si{Hz}\), \(1.20 \times 10^{-2}\,\si{Hz}\) for the QPO fundamental, \(9.44 \times 10^{-2}\,\si{Hz}\), \(1.16 \times 10^{-1}\,\si{Hz}\) for the second harmonic. Thus, the \({\tt lorentz}\) model has only one free parameter, the normalization. On the other hand, we do not use any additional models in phase-lag spectra due to the relatively small QPO features. The results of the joint fit to six power spectra and five phase-lag spectra are shown in Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_multi\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_multi){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_multi"}. Each component forming power spectra is explicitly plotted with dashed (QPOs) and dotted (broad-band) lines only for the highest energy band of 35--48 keV. Model parameter values are summarized in Table [2](#tab:model_parameter_values_multi){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:model_parameter_values_multi"}. We find that the new model matches observations well for all energy bands whilst keeping parameter values similar to those found in the joint fitting for 2.4--4.8 keV and 35--48 keV only (Fig. [\[fig:psd_phase_fit_comp\]](#fig:psd_phase_fit_comp){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:psd_phase_fit_comp"} (right)). It is interesting to note that the spectral parameter for the soft Comptonisation component \(\mu _{\mathrm{s}}(E) S_{\mathrm{s}}(E)\) decreases with energy and finally reaches a negative value at the highest energy band of 35--48 keV. This means that the soft Comptonisation component increases for an increase in mass accretion rate at low energies (\(\lesssim 35\,\si{keV}\)), whereas it decreases at high energies (\(\gtrsim 35\,\si{keV}\)), showing the pivoting point of \(\sim 35\,\si{keV}\). Although the broad-band variability has been studied with *Insight-HXMT* observations (e.g. @Wang_2020 [@Yang_2022]), we succeeded in reproducing it with a physically motivated model for the first time. In addition, while propagating fluctuations models have been applied up to \(\sim 35\,\si{keV}\) (@Mahmoud_2018 [@Mahmoud_2018b]) with *RXTE* observations, we extend the energy range up to 48 keV using *Insight-HXMT* observations with significantly improved residuals. Our successful modelling shows the propagating fluctuations scenario holds good up to high energy bands, keeping it the most plausible explanation for the aperiodic variability.
\
[\[tab:model_parameter_values_multi\]]{#tab:model_parameter_values_multi label="tab:model_parameter_values_multi"}
# Joint spectral-timing fit with spectral pivoting {#sec:spec_timing}
\
[\[tab:spec_timing_parameter_values\]]{#tab:spec_timing_parameter_values label="tab:spec_timing_parameter_values"}
We come back to a spectral-timing analysis from a series of timing analyses above. We attempt to fit the energy-dependent timing properties from 2.6--48 keV along with the time-average energy spectrum at the corresponding energy range by minimizing \[\begin{split} &\sum_{i} \left( \frac{S_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{i})-S_{\mathrm{model}}(E_{i})}{\Delta S_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{i})} \right) ^2 \\ + &\sum_{j, k} \left( \frac{P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{j}, f_{k})-P_{\mathrm{model}}(E_{j}, f_{k})}{\Delta P_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{j}, f_{k})} \right) ^2 \\ + &\sum _{\substack{j, k\\(E_{j} \neq E_{\mathrm{r}})}} \left( \frac{\phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{j}, f_{k})-\phi_{\mathrm{model}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{j}, f_{k})}{\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{data}}(E_{\mathrm{r}}, E_{\mathrm{j}}, f_{k})} \right) ^2, \\ \end{split}\] where \(S_{\mathrm{data}}(E)\), \(\Delta S_{\mathrm{data}}(E)\) are the observed time-averaged spectrum and its one-sigma error, \(S_{\mathrm{model}}(E)\) the modelled time-averaged spectrum, and \(E_{i}\) each energy bin in the time-averaged spectrum. We remove clear calibration features seen in the ME spectrum for 20--24 keV (light green regions in Fig. [\[fig:observation_data\]](#fig:observation_data){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:observation_data"} (top)) from the spectral modelling. To model the energy spectrum, we account for not only the soft and hard Comptonisation components but their disc reflection. We ignore emission from the turbulent disc due to its negligible contribution above the lowest energy of 2.6 keV (few % at 2.6 keV in the spectral fit found in K22). We also ignore the negligible effect of galactic absorption. We use the `XSPEC` model `nthcomp` (@Zdziarski_1996 [@Zycki_1999]) for the Comptonisation components, and `relxillCp` provided in `relxill` version 2.0 (@Garcia_2014 [@Dauser_2022]) for the reflected components. Finally, we use \[({\tt nthcomp}+{\tt relxillCp}) + ({\tt nthcomp}+{\tt relxillCp}),\] where each bracket corresponds to the soft Comptonisation/reflection and hard Comptonisation/reflection, respectively. To connect the time-averaged spectrum and variability consistently, we take reverberation into account in our timing model. Its implementation is updated from that in K22 mainly due to the inclusion of spectral pivoting. We summarize how the reverberation behaves in our new model here, while the detailed formalism is described in Appendix [\[sec:app_reflection\]](#sec:app_reflection){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_reflection"}. The illuminating Comptonisation spectrum changing its shape with time results in the reflected spectrum also changing its shape with time. As in the previous section, we consider a certain radius. Along with the mass accretion rate and direct emission, we account for the reflected emission associated with the direct emission. Defining the average and difference from it as \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{0}(E)\) and \(\Delta S^{(\mathrm{r})}(E, t)\), we assume \(\Delta S^{(\mathrm{r})}(E, t)/S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{0}(E) = (\Delta S(E, t)/S_{0}(E))\otimes h(t)=\eta (E) (\Delta \dot{m}_{0}(t)/\dot{m}_{0})\otimes h(t)\). We use the upper script '\({(\mathrm{r})}\)' to stand for the reflected emission. The convolution in time is denoted by \(\otimes\), and \(h(t)\) is called the impulse response, which is the time evolution of reflected emission for a flash of illumination. All information as to the disc response, such as the delay for the direct emission due to an additional light crossing path and the duration due to the different delay times for different locations of reflection, are encoded in \(h(t)\). The relation of spectral variation between the direct and reflected emission means that the reflected emission follows variations of the direct emission at the corresponding energy with some time delay, as long as the variability is slow enough not to be washed out via reprocessing, i.e., via the operation of the convolution. In the simple case of \(h(t)=\delta (t-\tau)\), variations of the reflected emission exactly lag behind those of the direct emission with the time delay of \(\tau\): \(\Delta S^{(\mathrm{r})}(E, t)/S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{0}(E)=\Delta S(E, t-\tau )/S_{0}(E)\). Each reflected component has its own impulse response. We define the impulse response with a top-hat function: \[h_{\mathrm{Y}} (t)= \begin{cases} 1/\Delta t_{0, \mathrm{Y}} & (|t-t_{0, \mathrm{Y}}|< \Delta t_{0, \mathrm{Y}}/2) ,\\ 0 & (\mathrm{othewise}), \end{cases}\] where \(\mathrm{Y}={\mathrm{s, h}}\) are associated with the soft and hard Comptonisation components, respectively. The parameters \(t_{0, \mathrm{Y}}\) and \(\Delta t_{0, \mathrm{Y}}\) characterize the delay and duration, respectively. More realistic impulse responses are required, especially for low energy bands \(E\lesssim 2\,\si{keV}\), where the quasi-thermal emission due to the reprocessing dominates high-frequency variability (\(\gtrsim 1\,\si{Hz}\)). However, the top-hat function appears to be a good approximation for high energies, where Comptonisation largely determines variability properties. For the consistency between the spectral modelling and variability modelling, we calculate the fractional time-averaged spectra required in our timing model, \(S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)(=0)\), \(S_{\mathrm{s}}(E)\), \(S_{\mathrm{h}}(E)\), \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{s}}(E)\), \(S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{\mathrm{h}}(E)\), from the spectral models, `nthcomp` and `relxillCp`. We model the sensitivity parameter phenomenologically with \[\eta _{\mathrm{Y}}(E)=\eta_{0, \mathrm{Y}} + \eta_{1, \mathrm{Y}} \log _{10} \left( E\,[\si{keV}] \right), \label{eq:eta_phenomenology}\] for \(\mathrm{Y}={\mathrm{s, h}}\) (we do not need \(\eta_{\mathrm{d}}(E)\) due to \(S_{\mathrm{d}}(E)=0\)). The sensitivity parameter is assumed to change with energy logarithmically. We note the difference in the model calculations between the timing fits (Section [5](#sec:rev2){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:rev2"}) and spectral-timing fits. In the timing fits, \(\eta(E) S_{0}(E)\) is a model parameter, and it is impossible to disentangle this product. On the other hand, \(S_{0}(E)\) and \(\eta (E)\) are separately modelled in the spectral-timing fits. The former is calculated from spectral models, the latter is from equation ([\[eq:eta_phenomenology\]](#eq:eta_phenomenology){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:eta_phenomenology"}). In the joint spectral-timing fit, we fix the seed photon temperature of Comptonisation components to the typical disc temperature in this state, \(kT_{\mathrm{seed, s}}=kT_{\mathrm{seed, h}}=0.2\,\si{keV}\) (@DeMarco_2021, K22). Since the electron temperature is difficult to constrain from the energy band of interest, we fix it to \(kT_{\mathrm{e, s}}=kT_{\mathrm{e, h}}=23\,\si{keV}\), as in K22. While we allow the inner radius of the reflector for the hard Comptonisation component to be free, we fix that for the soft Comptonisation component to \(R_{\mathrm{in, s}}=45R_{\mathrm{g}}\) corresponding to the outer edge of the variable flow located at \(r_{\mathrm{out}}=45\). Following K22, we fix the inclination angle to \(i=66^{\circ}\) (@Torres_2020) and Fe abundance to \(Z_{\mathrm{Fe}}=1.1\). We also set the black hole spin to \(a^{*}=0\), consistent with \(r_{\mathrm{in}}=6\) in the timing model, and use the high electron density of \(N_{\mathrm{e}}=10^{20}\,\si{cm^{-3}}\) (@Garcia_2016 [@Mastroserio_2021]). The delay and duration of the impulse response should be, in principle, calculated from the location and geometry of illuminating source and reflector. However, it is computationally expensive to get them in fitting and also difficult to constrain them. Thus, we simply fix \(t_{0, \mathrm{s}}=t_{0, \mathrm{h}}=6\,\si{ms}\) and \(\Delta t_{0, \mathrm{s}}=\Delta t_{0, \mathrm{h}}=10\,\si{ms}\). The top-hat impulse response with these values appears to be good approximations of more realistic ones (K22). The results of simultaneous modelling of the energy spectrum, six power spectra, and five phase-lag spectra are shown in Fig. [\[fig:spec_psd_phase_fit\]](#fig:spec_psd_phase_fit){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spec_psd_phase_fit"}. The comparison between the data and model is also plotted as the ratio for the energy spectrum and the difference divided by one-sigma errors for the variability. Model parameter values are found in Table [\[tab:spec_timing_parameter_values\]](#tab:spec_timing_parameter_values){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:spec_timing_parameter_values"}. Overall, our new model successfully reproduces both time-averaged and variability properties, although the discrepancies are seen in the phase-lag spectrum between 35--48 keV and 2.6--4.8 keV (magenta), which is discussed in Section [7.3](#sec:discussion_limitations){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:discussion_limitations"}. This modelling is the first simultaneous fit to spectrum and variability using our model. The uncertainties of the derived parameter values are evaluated with an MCMC analysis in Appendix [\[sec:app_mcmc\]](#sec:app_mcmc){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:app_mcmc"}. The spectral variation derived from the fit is shown in Fig. [\[fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection\]](#fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection"}. The spectra for the mass accretion rate being its average and double the average are plotted with solid and dashed lines. For illustration purposes, we ignore all effects from the impulse response for reverberation, such as time delay, i.e., we assume \(h(t)=\delta (t)\). This means that the Comptonisation and its associated reflection behave completely in the same way, \(\Delta S(E, t)/S_{0}(E)=\Delta S^{(\mathrm{r})}(E, t)/S^{(\mathrm{r})}_{0}(E)\). Generally, all spectra are less sensitive for higher energies to mass accretion rate fluctuations, which results in a decrease in power spectrum with energy. We see the pivoting point at \(\sim 50\,\si{keV}\) for the soft Comptonisation and its reflection, which roughly agrees with that at \(\sim 35\,\si{keV}\) derived from the fit only to the timing properties in the previous section.
# Discussion {#sec:discussion}
## Generator time-scale and propagation time-scale
The characteristic time-scales on which the fluctuations are propagated at each radius are derived from the spectral-timing fit (Fig. [\[fig:spec_psd_phase_fit\]](#fig:spec_psd_phase_fit){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spec_psd_phase_fit"}). We compare the propagation frequency derived (solid) to those predicted by different hot flow models (dash-dotted) in Fig. [\[fig:fvisc_updates\]](#fig:fvisc_updates){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:fvisc_updates"}. The theoretical propagation frequencies for the Advection Dominated Accretion Flow (ADAF; @Narayan_1997), Standard And Normal Evolution accretion flow (SANE; @Narayan_2012), Magnetically Arrested Disc (MAD; @Narayan_2012), and Jet Emitting Disc (JAD; @Marcel_2018) are calculated in a standard way by dividing the accretion speed by radius for the assumption of \(M_{\mathrm{BH}}=8M_{\odot}\) (see K22 for details). The propagation frequency derived from our previous model from K22 is also plotted (dashed). In K22, we found fairly good agreement of the derived propagation time-scales with those in ADAF, SANE, and JED rather than MAD. The propagation time-scale derived from our new model is now not very similar to any theoretical predictions. Here, allowing the generator and propagation frequencies to be different makes their radial dependence steeper, i.e., from \(f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\propto r^{-2.7}\) to \(f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\propto r^{-4.22}\). This steep radial dependence is required to reproduce both the observed large phase-lags and high-frequency broad-band variability simultaneously. Indeed, the propagation time-scale derived is robust against uncertainties of the relationship between generator time-scale and propagation time-scale. Using our new model including the spectral pivoting, the assumption of \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)=f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\) also gives the similar propagation time-scale, although the fit is not as good as that obtained in the previous section with \(f_{\mathrm{gen}}(r)\neq f_{\mathrm{prop}}(r)\). The key feature that our new model requires is a slow propagation speed enough to reproduce observed phase lags. The propagation time-scale of MAD (brown dash-dotted line) is too short to explain the observed phase lags. Thus, our results still prefer SANE rather than MAD, although MAXI J1820+070 displays a powerful jet (@Bright_2020).
## Origin of QPOs
Our full spectral-timing modelling accounts for all the X-ray spectrum and rapid variability except for timing features of the QPOs. We account for the timing features of the QPOs by adding peaked Lorentzian components in the power spectra. No extra component is added to the phase-lag spectra simply because QPO features are not very clear across 2.6--48 keV. We did not add any other spectral components for the QPOs, assuming that the QPO is a modulation of the spectral components included in the model (multiplicative) rather than being associated with an additional spectral component (additive). Our successful modelling, in which there is no room for an additional emission component only related to the QPOs (Fig. [\[fig:spec_psd_phase_fit\]](#fig:spec_psd_phase_fit){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spec_psd_phase_fit"}), supports the assumption made. This result is consistent with a QPO produced predominantly from a global mode of the flow rather than an intrinsic change in intensity with QPO frequency. We specifically have in mind Lense-Thirring (vertical) precession of the entire hot flow, where the observed luminosity of the Compton component(s), including all their stochastic variability, are modulated by the changing projected area of the translucent hot flow as the viewing angle changes with QPO phase (@Fragile_2007 [@Ingram_2009; @Ingram_2011; @Ingram_2012]). This picture agrees with the new polarisation results for Cyg X-1 in the low/hard state, which require the hot X-ray emitting plasma to be radially extended (@Krawczynski_2022). The alternative precessing jet model suggested by is, on the other hand, challenged by the above picture because it requires the hot X-ray emitting region to align with the jet.
## Limitations of our new model {#sec:discussion_limitations}
Our new model gives a poor fit to both the energy spectrum and phase lags beyond \(\sim 40\)--\(50\) keV. From Fig. [\[fig:spec_psd_phase_fit\]](#fig:spec_psd_phase_fit){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spec_psd_phase_fit"} (left), the spectral model clearly underestimates the data above \(\sim\) 100 keV. The hard Comptonisation spectrum rolls over too fast to match the observed data. The comparison of the phase-lag spectrum between the model and data at high energies are shown in Fig. [\[fig:phase_extrapolation\]](#fig:phase_extrapolation){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:phase_extrapolation"}. The model phase lags increase with energy to \(\sim 40\,\si{keV}\) (Fig. [\[fig:spec_psd_phase_fit\]](#fig:spec_psd_phase_fit){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spec_psd_phase_fit"} (right)) but then saturates to a constant value rather than continually increasing as in the data. The lag behaviour arises as the fraction of the total spectrum which is made of the hard (and long lagged) Comptonisation spectrum increases up to around \(\sim 40\,\si{keV}\), but after this point, the hard Comptonisation dominates, leading to the saturation of lag. The spectral mismatch could be fixed if there is additional stratification of the energy spectrum of the hot flow, so the very innermost regions produce an even hotter/harder Comptonisation component. In many ways, this is quite natural. The two Comptonisation components used here for the spectral decomposition could be an approximation to a continuous flow with (presumably) continuous stratification. There should physically be two main regions. Close to the disc, seed photons for Comptonisation are predominantly from the disc. However, it is quite easy for this Comptonisation to become optically thick along the equatorial direction, shielding the inner regions from the disc photons so that seed photons are predominantly from cyclo-synchrotron (@Poutanen_2014). Nonetheless, there could still be some radial temperature/spectral hardness gradients in this second region which could produce additional emissions at the hardest energies (@Poutanen_2014). We note that the JED models (e.g. @Marcel_2018) also predict a continuously increasing temperature/harder spectrum with radius in their hot flow. However, including the additional harder Comptonisation component probably does not fully solve the deviation of the phase lag. Although this will give a qualitatively increasing lag, the amount of the increased lag should be rather small as the propagation speed is already high. Yet the data show a large increase in lag between high energy bands. It seems more likely that there are other factors affecting lags at work. There is another feature which is lacking from our new model. It is a physical description of the spectral pivoting from the Comptonisation process. Currently, the model assumes that the spectra pivot in a synchronous way, i.e., the local spectrum at every energy responds to fluctuations of the local mass accretion rate simultaneously. Although the magnitude of the response can be different between different energies, as seen in Fig. [\[fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection\]](#fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spectral_pivoting_fit_reflection"}, there is no causal connection between them. There can be 0 or \(\pi\) of phase lags arising from the spectral pivoting itself (the phase lag of \(\pi\) arises if one energy band is above the pivoting point and the other band is below it, i.e., \(\eta(E_1)\eta(E_2)<0\)). Thus, in our new model, the lags between different energies are still due to the propagating fluctuation process, as is the case for the model developed by. The spectral pivoting implemented in our new model can strongly affect power spectra but has only a relatively mild effect on phase-lag spectra. Indeed, our new model is able to reproduce energy-dependent power spectra fairly well up to \(\sim 100\,\si{keV}\), even though it fails to match to the phase-lag spectra. However, the physical picture of Comptonisation described above yields a characteristic spectral pivoting pattern having a causal connection. A fluctuation from the edge of the truncated disc first gives a change in seed photons to the soft Comptonisation. Assuming an increase in seed photons, it increases the Compton cooling on the light travel time without any change in electron heating, so the spectrum softens. Then, after the accretion time-scale (propagation time-scale), the same fluctuation modulates the soft Comptonisation by increasing the electron density, increasing the heating rate, and causing the spectrum to harden. This gives an asynchronous rocking of the soft Comptonisation, where two mutually-correlated but lagged variability sources form its time-dependent behaviour. By contrast, in the hard Comptonisation region, the fluctuation gives a synchronous change in seed photons and electron heating as both are produced together around its outer edge. The synchronous pivoting implemented in our model is limiting the ability to properly model the data, as it is suppressing a real lag which occurs from the two time-scale propagation mechanism in the soft Comptonisation. It is worth noting that our implementation of the spectral pivoting is different from that in the `RELTRANS` model (e.g. @Mastroserio_2018 [@Ingram_2019b]). consider the nonlinear effects in the time-varying continuum spectrum and have two variable terms in its expression to allow lags to arise from the spectral pivoting itself (@Kotov_2001). Not specifying the underlying process causing the spectral pivoting may make `RELTRANS` too flexible in producing the observed hard-lag data. On the other hand, our new model has only one variable term, i.e., the local mass accretion rate, in the expression of the local spectrum. The local spectrum varies linearly to this term, which does not produce lags except for \(\pi\). As mentioned above, our model relies on the hard lags caused by the combination of the propagating fluctuations process and energy-dependent emission profile (@Veledina_2016 [@Veledina_2018]). We suspect that this lack of a physical spectral pivoting model, including the light crossing time spectral softening as well as the propagation time, is the major reason our new model fails to fit the phase-lag spectra from 50--150 keV. This more physical model for spectral pivoting is beyond the scope of this paper but will be considered in future work.
# Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
We have studied X-ray spectral-timing properties of the black hole binary MAXI J1820+070 in the bright low/hard state using *Insight-HXMT* observation data. Particularly, we have focused on the energy-dependent broad-band variability on time-scales from milliseconds to seconds. We started with testing our previous model from K22, which included the propagating fluctuations process and reverberation and successfully explained soft X-ray timing properties (\(< 10\,\si{keV}\)), and found that it cannot be applied to higher energy bands. The key variability feature that our previous model missed was the decrease in fractional power spectrum with energy above \(\sim 10\,\si{keV}\), which was difficult to explain with the simple propagating fluctuations picture but typically observed (@Nowak_1999 [@Malzac_2003; @Axelsson_2018]). We have seen that additional effects proposed in the literature, such as the damping (@Rapisarda_2017a [@Mahmoud_2018b]), are not very effective in reproducing both observed power spectra and phase-lag spectrum simultaneously. We have updated our model by implementing the physically natural picture, the spectral pivoting (@Malzac_2003 [@Gandhi_2008; @Veledina_2016; @Mastroserio_2018]), and shown that the new model succeeded in reproducing both power spectra and phase-lag spectra across the 2.6--48 keV band. The energy spectra being less sensitive to mass accretion rate fluctuations allow the model to suppress variability at high energies. In addition, we have successfully performed a joint spectral-timing fit, demonstrating that our timing model self-consistently combined with spectral models helps to break the spectral degeneracy. In modelling the time-averaged spectrum and broad-band variability, we have considered emission from the turbulent disc and soft and hard Comptonisation regions and their associated disc reflection, all of which constitute the accretion flow. Because the energy spectrum is filled up by the emission above, the emission of QPOs also present in the observation is likely to be produced from the considered spectral components, supporting that the QPOs originate from the accretion flow such as Lense-Thirring precession (@Ingram_2009) rather than the jet (@Ma_2021). However, our new model still has limitations in that there are clear discrepancies between the model and observation in phase-lag spectra above \(\sim 40\,\si{keV}\). The model saturates the phase lag around \(\sim 40\,\si{keV}\), while those observed keep increasing up to \(\sim 150\,\si{keV}\). We suggest that additional harder spectral component(s) at the innermost region, the lags intrinsically arising from the spectral pivoting, or both could solve these discrepancies. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:46', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14492', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14492'} |
{'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:59', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14561', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14561'} |
|
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
Deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) of electrons off ions is at the forefront of experimental efforts to probe the internal structure of nucleons and nuclei and will be a primary focus of study at the Electron-Ion Collider. In semi-inclusive DIS, selected particles produced by the fragmentation of the struck quark are observed in coincidence with the scattered electron, \(e(k) + N(P) \rightarrow e(k') + h(p) + X\), resulting in observables which provide access to a convolution of parton distribution functions (PDFs), describing the momentum of partons within the nucleon, and fragmentation functions (FFs), describing the probability of producing a final state particle with some momentum from the struck quark in the factorization approach. The kinematic variables describing the DIS process, with center of mass energy squared \(s=(P+k)^{2}\) can be defined in terms of the virtual photon four-momentum \(q\) as, \[Q^{2} =-q^{2},\; y = \frac{P\cdot q }{P\cdot k}, \; x = \frac{Q^{2}}{sy}\]
# SIDIS kinematic reconstruction
In semi-inclusive DIS, observables are extracted in the nucleon center of mass frame, with the SIDIS cross-section a function of the inclusive DIS variables as well as (\(p_{h\perp}, z, \phi_h\)). The relevant transverse momentum is defined with respect to the virtual photon axis, and the single-hadron azimuthal angle \(\phi_h\) is defined between the lepton scattering plane and hadron production plane (figure 1). \(z\) is defined as \(z = \frac{p_{h}\cdot P}{q\cdot P}\) The calculation of SIDIS kinematics therefore requires precise reconstruction of the four-momenta of the selected hadron and the exchanged virtual-photon.
## Electron method
Extraction of SIDIS observables and multiplicities at the EIC presents a new challenge, as fully multi-dimensional SIDIS studies have so far only been carried out in lower energy fixed target experiments. In fixed target SIDIS studies, \(q\) has been determined using only the scattered electron, \(q = k-k'\). However, studies done for the EIC yellow report and EIC detector proposals have found that a significant contribution to uncertainty in SIDIS kinematics is poor reconstruction of the virtual photon four-momentum when using only the scattered electron. In particular, the electron method fails in such regions of kinematic phase space at the EIC such as at low y (\(y < 0.05\)), where the energy loss of the electron is small and not well resolved. This is a significant issue for the study of TMD effects at e-p colliders, as at low-\(Q^2\) and large-x spin-orbit correlations are expected to be most significant and higher twist effects are observable. Additionally, the low-y region will be critical for overlapping the phase space covered by the EIC and SIDIS studies carried out at other facilities such as Jefferson Lab.
## Hadronic final state methods
Fast simulation studies for the EIC yellow report and ATHENA (A Totally Hermetic Electron Nucleon Apparatus) proposal have demonstrated that DIS reconstruction methods developed at past e-p colliders can be used to improve the reconstruction of inclusive DIS variables at the EIC. The DIS reconstruction methods developed at HERA utilized combinations of measured quantities from the scattered electron and the hadronic final state (HFS). The use of the HFS allowed these additional methods, such as the double angle (DA) and \(\Sigma\)-methods , to improve inclusive DIS kinematic reconstruction for various regions of the HERA kinematic space, as well as to make the reconstruction robust with respect to QED radiative effects . For the studies planned at the EIC, methods utilizing the HFS must be extended to the reconstruction of SIDIS kinematics. The authors of this contribution conducted first studies of SIDIS kinematic reconstruction for the EIC and demonstrated methods in which the hadronic final state can be used to improve the reconstruction of the virtual photon four momentum. This was carried out in the EIC yellow report and ATHENA proposal by first obtaining the transverse component of \(q\) from the recoil of the HFS transverse to the beamline through a sum of the momenta of HFS particles. Following the determination of this transverse recoil, the remaining two components of \(q\) can be constrained by the system of equations including \(q\) from the definitions of \(Q^2\) and \(y\), \[q_x = \sum_{i}^{N_{HFS}} p_{x,i}, q_y = \sum_{i}^{N_{HFS}} p_{y,i}\] \[q_z, q_t \leftarrow \begin{cases} Q^2 =-( q_x^2 + q_y^2 + q_z^2-q_t^2 )\\ y = \frac{P_x q_x + P_y q_y + P_z q_z-P_t q_t}{P \cdot k} \end{cases}\] In the EIC yellow report and ATHENA proposal, this procedure was carried out using various inclusive DIS reconstruction methods developed at HERA, in fast simulations showing improvements over the electron method in some regions of the DIS kinematic space. As methods such as the Jacquet-Blondel (JB) method use only the hadronic final state information, this also allows for the determination of \(q\) from the HFS alone. Results using this approach are shown in the next section compared to ML and electron methods, with resolution using this method expected to improve with further developed full simulations based on fast simulation results.
# Machine learning kinematic reconstruction
## Network architecture
Multiple studies have been conducted demonstrating an improved resolution of inclusive DIS variables \(Q^2, y, x\) through deep learning approaches, but these have not yet been extended to reconstruction of semi-inclusive DIS kinematics. In this study, we demonstrate that machine learning models which learn from the full HFS and scattered electron can be used to improve on current reconstruction methods to provide reliable reconstruction of the virtual photon axis across all of the DIS kinematic coverage at the EIC. This approach to semi-inclusive DIS reconstruction is centered on the use of deep neural networks to better leverage the full hadronic final state at the level of reconstructed tracks. While previous applications of deep learning to inclusive DIS reconstruction directly regressed the kinematic variables of interest , this study aims to improve kinematics by directly regressing the virtual photon four-momentum in the lab frame. Improvements to the HFS reconstruction are carried out through the use of Particle Flow Networks . Particle Flow Networks are an application of the deep sets neural network architecture, which learns a function of an unordered set of objects rather than from a fixed size input. The network consists of fully connected linear neural network layers which take as input the features of each particle individually, the outputs of which are summed over all particles to create a latent space representation of the event. The latent space variables and supplied global features of the event are then passed to another set of dense layers which produce the final output of the network . Particle flow networks have seen particular success in tasks such as jet classification at the LHC. Particle flow networks implemented in Keras are included in the EnergyFlow python package.
## Variables and dataset
The features of the hadronic final state reconstructed particles provided to the particle flow network include the four-momentum of each particle, as well as the lab frame azimuthal angle and pseudorapidity to provide direct information on angular acceptance in addition to momentum in each direction. The global features used for training include the four-momentum of the scattered electron and the DIS variables \(x\) and \(Q^2\) from the electron, DA, and JB methods. By supplying the full electron four-momentum following the single-particle layers \(\Phi\), the model is intended to learn corrections to the electron method based on the hadronic final state latent space variables. When a greater amount of fully simulated EIC simulated data is available, the DIS methods could also be replaced by the output of the deep learning models for inclusive DIS variables described previously. The particle flow network was trained to predict the full four-momentum \(q\) in the lab frame. The particle flow network, implemented in Keras and available in the EnergyFlow python package, is used with per-particle dense layer units \(\phi = (500, 500, 500)\), \(l = 512\), and final dense layer units \(F = (200, 200, 200)\). Both the layers making up \(\phi\) and \(F\) employ a relu activation function, with the final output layer having linear activation. The dataset used for the training and testing of this model was the ATHENA full simulation developed for the ATHENA detector proposal for the first interaction region at the EIC. ATHENA was developed with the objective of meeting the resolution and physics goals laid out in the EIC yellow report. The ATHENA full simulation was implemented in DD4hep, Geant4, and Juggler. At the time of the detector proposal, PID algorithms were not fully implemented, meaning PID information was not included in this model. Additionally, the scattered electron was taken as always correctly identified by matching the scattered electron with the MC truth information. The simulated event sample used for model training and testing was a neutral current DIS sample generated using Pythia-8, with additional beam smearing and crossing angle effects implemented. 3 million events with \(Q^2 > 1 \: \mathrm{GeV}^2\) and 2 million events with \(Q^2 > 10 \: \mathrm{GeV}^2\) were used for training with 1 million \(Q^2 > 1 \: \mathrm{GeV}^2\) set aside for model validation.
# Results
As a function of \(y\) (figures 4 and 5), using the virtual photon four-momentum as predicted by the neural network model results in significantly improved reconstruction of \(p_{h\perp}\), \(\phi_h\) and \(z\) for low-y, when compared to both the electron method and methods utilizing information from the hadronic final state. The neural network reconstruction of \(q\) results in a distribution of the SIDIS variables which is both better centered around the true value, and with a significantly smaller RMS where the electron method begins to fail at low-y. At large-y, the neural network achieves performance only slightly surpassing that of the electron method, which is expected based on the projected energy and tracking resolution for the scattered electron with ATHENA. As a function of \(p_{h\perp,true}\), we also observe a significant improvement in kinematic reconstruction for both transverse momentum and for the semi-inclusive azimuthal angle. As the electron method begins to degrade for lower values of \(p_{h\perp}\), the neural network reconstruction of \(q\) results in stable performance to the lowest values of \(p_{h\perp}\) in the dataset.
# Summary
The EIC will provide the first opportunity for semi-inclusive DIS measurements in an e-A collider context, giving access to new kinematic regions in which to precisely explore the 3-dimensional spin structure of nucleons. The development of reliable kinematic reconstruction methods will be critical to enabling precision extraction of SIDIS observables, especially at low-y. This can be achieved through the use of information from the hadronic final state alongside the scattered electron. As demonstrated in this contribution, machine learning, here using particle flow networks, can combine the information from the scattered electron and full HFS to provide reliable SIDIS kinematic reconstruction across the DIS variable space. Further steps in this work will include the consideration of QED radiative effects on SIDIS reconstruction, as well as possible extension to other neural network architectures exploiting correlations between particles. Additionally, this approach will continue to be studied and validated as more detailed full detector simulations are developed for the EIC. | {'timestamp': '2022-10-05T02:15:52', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14489', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14489'} |
# Introduction and Summary
Fundamental objects in relativistic theory are fields whose dynamics is derived from the action principle. The action is manifestly covariant object that is defined as the space-time integral of Lagrangian density. This manifest covariance is lost in the Hamiltonian formalism since its crucial point is an existence of one preferred coordinate which is the time coordinate. There is an alternative Hamiltonian formalism, known as covariant Hamiltonian theory or the Weyl-De Donder theory that maintains manifest covariance. In the covariant Hamiltonian theory, the momenta are defined as derivatives with respect to all partial derivatives of coordinates so that there is no preferred direction and hence manifest covariance is preserved. This is very attractive idea that could be especially useful in manifest covariant theories as for example theory of gravity. In fact, the first covariant Hamiltonian theory of General Relativity was published by Hořava long time ago. Recently, this work was further discussed examining its thermodynamic consequences in. The obvious next step is to apply this approach to some generalized theories of gravity. The simplest one is the \(F(R)\) gravity where the scalar curvature in the Lagrangian is replaced by a general function \(F(R)\) of scalar curvature [^1]. The covariant Hamiltonian for \(F(R)\) gravity in Jordan frame was found in. It is well known that \(F(R)\) gravity can also be formulated in Einstein frame, for detailed discussion, see for example. The transformations between these two frames is based on the Weyl transformation of metric and corresponding Riemann and Ricci tensor. In more details, with appropriate chosen Weyl factor we can arrive to Einstein frame formulation of \(F(R)\) gravity. \(F(R)\) Lagrangian in Einstein frame is very similar to General Relativity Lagrangian minimally coupled to a scalar field. In 3+1 formalism, Hamiltonians for both frames were formulated and there was found that they are related by canonical transformation. This leads to a question whether this is also true in the covariant Hamiltonian formalism. This question is answered with the presented paper. In more details, we firstly derive the covariant Hamiltonian for \(F(R)\) gravity in Einstein frame. We find that covariant Hamiltonian for \(F(R)\) gravity in Einstein frame has the same form as was found in together with new additional scalar field contribution. On the other hand the covariant Hamiltonian formulation of \(F(R)\) gravity in Jordan frame was performed in and our goal is to show that these two formulations are related by canonical transformations. To do this we should firstly examine how canonical transformations are defined in covariant Hamiltonian formalism, following . Then we study relationship between covariant Hamiltonians for \(F(R)\) gravity in Jordan and Einstein frames and we find generating function resulting in proof of canonical transformation between those two Hamiltonians. This is really new and non-trivial result that shows that these two Hamiltonians are related by canonical transformations in the similar way how two Hamiltonians are related in \(3+1\) canonical formalism. On the other hand there is crucial difference between these two canonical transformations which is in the preservation of the Poisson brackets. In fact, it is not completely clear how to define Poisson brackets in covariant canonical formalism due to the fact that the conjugate momenta have additional vector index. Then it is natural to define Poisson bracket as in where the Poisson bracket is defined in the same way as canonical Poisson bracket so that it is now labeled by vector index. It was shown in that such Poisson brackets are not generally preserved under canonical transformations and we show that exactly this situation occurs in case of canonical transitions between Einstein and Jordan frame covariant Hamiltonians for \(F(R)\)-gravity. On the other hand we show that the form of Lagrangian brackets is preserved under canonical transformation. We mean that this is very interesting result that demonstrates nice application of the covariant canonical formalism for the study of \(F(R)\)-gravity. The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section ([2](#second){reference-type="ref" reference="second"}) we formulate covariant Hamiltonian for \(F(R)\) gravity in Einstein frame. The section ([3](#third){reference-type="ref" reference="third"}) is devoted to the canonical transformation between these two frames. At first the transformation's existence is proven using fundamental Lagrange brackets, then the explicit form of the generating function of this transformation is found, and at the end the Poisson brackets are also noted, they role is however a minor one since in the covariant Hamiltonian theory they do not serve as canonical invariant. The fourth section ([4](#fourth){reference-type="ref" reference="fourth"}) deals with the surface term of the Lagrangian [^2].
# \(F(R)\)-gravity in Einstein Frame and Its Covariant Hamiltonian {#second}
We begin this section with the introduction of the Lagrangian for \(F(R)\) gravity. \(F(R)\) gravity is the simplest generalization of the Einstein-Hilbert action when we replace the linear dependence of the Lagrangian density on the scalar curvature \(R\) by more general function \(F(R)\) [^3]. Explicitly, the Lagrangian density of \(F(R)\) theory of gravity has the form \[\label{lagFR} \mathcal{L} = \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{16\pi}F(R) \:.\] The presence of the function \(F(R)\) implies that it is not straightforward procedure to find corresponding Hamiltonian. In order to overcome this issue it is convenient to introduce two scalar fields \(A\) and \(B\) and replace the Lagrangian density ([\[lagFR\]](#lagFR){reference-type="ref" reference="lagFR"}) by the following one \[\label{FRextend} \mathcal{L} = \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{16\pi} \hzav{F(B) + A\kzav{R-B}}\.\] In fact, equations of motion for \(A\) and \(B\) that follow from ([\[FRextend\]](#FRextend){reference-type="ref" reference="FRextend"}) have the form \[\label{eqFRexed} R-B=0 \, \quad F'(B)-A=0 \, \quad F'(B)\equiv \frac{dF}{dB} \.\] Then inserting the first equation in ([\[eqFRexed\]](#eqFRexed){reference-type="ref" reference="eqFRexed"}) into ([\[FRextend\]](#FRextend){reference-type="ref" reference="FRextend"}), we easily see the Lagrangian density ([\[FRextend\]](#FRextend){reference-type="ref" reference="FRextend"}) reduces into ([\[lagFR\]](#lagFR){reference-type="ref" reference="lagFR"}) that shows equivalence of these two actions. For our purposes, it is useful to use the second equation in ([\[eqFRexed\]](#eqFRexed){reference-type="ref" reference="eqFRexed"}) to solve \(A\) as function of \(B\) and hence the Lagrangian density in Jordan frame has the form \[\mathcal{L}^J = \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{16\pi} \hzav{F(B) + F'(B)\kzav{R-B}}\:.\] As it is well known, we can formulate \(F(R)\)-gravity in the Einstein frame too, see for example. Note that the Einstein frame is defined by requirement that the Lagrangian density is linear in the scalar curvature \(R\). In the rest of this paper, the coordinates with a tilde are coordinates in Einstein frame while those without punctuation belong to Jordan frame. In order to find the transformation from Jordan frame to Einstein one we should perform Weyl transformation of the metric that is defined as \[\label{trang} \widetilde{g}_{ij} = F' g_{ij}\.\] As the next step we introduce connection with tilde \[\widetilde{\Gamma}^i_{jk}=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{il} (\partial_j \widetilde{g}_{lk}+\partial_k \widetilde{g}_{lj}-\partial_l \widetilde{g}_{jk}) \.\] Then using ([\[trang\]](#trang){reference-type="ref" reference="trang"}) we find how it is related to \(\Gamma^i_{ij}\) and to \(F(B)\) \[\label{tGamma} \widetilde{\Gamma}^i_{jk} = \Gamma^i_{jk} + \half{1} \delta^i_j \partial_k (\ln F') + \half{1} \delta^i_k \partial_j (\ln F')-\half{1} g_{jk} g^{km}\partial_m (\ln F')\:.\] With the help of this relation between connections, we can easily find relation between corresponding scalar curvatures and we get \[\widetilde{R} = \widetilde{g}^{ab} \widetilde{R}_{ab} = \inv{F'}R-\frac{3}{F'} \Box \ln F'-\frac{3}{2F'} \partial_i \ln F' g^{ij} \partial_j \ln F' \:.\] For writing the Lagrangian in Einstein frame, we need to express \(R\) in terms of \(\widetilde{R}\), \(\widetilde{g}_{ij}\) and corresponding derivatives. To do this, we use the following rules \[\Box \ln F' = F' \widetilde{\Box} \ln F'-F' \kzav{\widetilde{\partial}\ln F'}^2 \:, \quad \kzav{\partial \ln F'}^2 = F'\kzav{\widetilde{\partial}\ln F'}^2 \.\] Then we can easily express \(R\) as \[R = F' \hzav{ \widetilde{R} + 3 \widetilde{\Box} \ln F'-\frac{3}{2} \kzav{\widetilde{\partial} \ln F'}^2} \:.\] Using this expression together with the fact that \(\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}} = F'^2 \sqrt{-g}\) we obtain that the Lagrangian density for \(F(R)\) gravity takes the form \[\mathcal{L} = \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \hzav{ \frac{F-F'B}{F'^2} + \widetilde{R} + 3 \widetilde{\Box} \ln F' -\frac{3}{2} \kzav{\widetilde{\partial} \ln F'}^2 } \:,\] or equivalently \[\mathcal{L} = \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \hzav{ \frac{F-F'B}{F'^2} + \widetilde{R} -\frac{3}{2} \kzav{\widetilde{\partial} \ln F'}^2 } + \frac{3}{16\pi}\partial_i \kzav{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}} \widetilde{\partial}^i \ln F'} \:.\] In order to get canonical form of the Lagrangian density, we introduce a new scalar variable \(\widetilde{\phi} = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \ln F'\) and a potential \(V(B) = \frac{F'B-F}{F'^2}\) so that the Lagrangian density takes Einstein-Hilbert form \[\mathcal{L}^E = \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \hzav{ \widetilde{R} -\widetilde{g}^{ij}\partial_i\widetilde{\phi}\partial_j \widetilde{\phi}-V(\widetilde{\phi}) } + \frac{\sqrt{6}}{16\pi}\partial_i \kzav{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}\widetilde{g}^{ij} \partial_j \widetilde{\phi}} \:.\] This is the final form of Lagrangian density for \(F(R)\) gravity in Einstein frame. To proceed to the covariant canonical formalism, it is necessary to separate Lagrangian into two parts: the bulk term that contains only the first derivatives and the surface term which can be expressed as a total derivative. To construct Hamiltonian, solely the bulk term is needed, the surface Hamiltonian will be discussed in section ([4](#fourth){reference-type="ref" reference="fourth"}). Explicitly, we get \[\begin{aligned}
\label{mLbulk} &&\mathcal{L}^E=\mathcal{L}^E_{bulk}+\mathcal{L}^E_{sur} \, \nonumber \\ &&\mathcal{L}_{bulk} = \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \hzav{ \widetilde{g}^{ab}\widetilde{\Gamma}^c_{bd}\widetilde{\Gamma}^d_{ac}-\widetilde{g}^{ac}\widetilde{\Gamma}^b_{bd}\widetilde{\Gamma}^d_{ac}-\widetilde{g}^{ij}\partial_i \widetilde{\phi} \partial_j \widetilde{\phi}-V(\widetilde{\phi}) } \, \nonumber \\ &&\mathcal{L}_{sur} = \partial_i \hzav{\frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \kzav{\widetilde{g}^{ab}\widetilde{\Gamma}^i_{ab}-\widetilde{g}^{ai}\widetilde{\Gamma}^b_{ab} + \sqrt{6} \widetilde{g}^{ij}\partial_j \widetilde{\phi} } } \. \nonumber \\ \label{Lagrangians} \end{aligned}\] We see that the bulk part reminds the bulk Lagrangian of General Relativity together with added \(\tilde{\phi}\)-related terms. First step to transform the Lagrangian into covariant Hamiltonian is to find corresponding momenta. From ([\[mLbulk\]](#mLbulk){reference-type="ref" reference="mLbulk"}) we find that the momentum conjugated to \(\widetilde{g}\) is equal to \[\label{Mabc} \widetilde{M}^{prs} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{bulk}}{\partial \partial_p \widetilde{g}_{rs}} = \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \hzav{ \widetilde{\Gamma}^p_{ab} \kzav{ \widetilde{g}^{ar} \widetilde{g}^{bs}-\half{1} \widetilde{g}^{ab} \widetilde{g}^{rs} } + \half{1} \widetilde{\Gamma}^a_{ak} \kzav{ \widetilde{g}^{rs} \widetilde{g}^{kp}-\widetilde{g}^{ps} \widetilde{g}^{kr}-\widetilde{g}^{pr} \widetilde{g}^{ks} } } \:.\] However it was shown in that the covariant canonical formalism of general relativity is better formulated when we introduce coordinate \(\widetilde{f^{ab}}\) that is related to \(\widetilde{g}\) by following relation \[\label{deffab} \widetilde{f}^{ab} = \sqrt{-\widetilde{g}} \widetilde{g}^{ab} \,\] where, following , we define \(\tilde{f}_{ab}\) as inverse to \(\tilde{f}^{ab}\) [^4] \[\tilde{f}_{ab}\tilde{f}^{bc}=\delta_a^c \.\] Note that from ([\[deffab\]](#deffab){reference-type="ref" reference="deffab"}) we also get useful result \[\tilde{f} \equiv \det \tilde{f}^{ab}=\widetilde{g} \.\] The momentum \(\widetilde{N}^c_{ab}\) conjugated to \(\tilde{f}^{ab}\) can be obtained directly when \(\tilde{f}^{ab}\) is substituted into Lagrangian or by using formulae \[\widetilde{N}^c_{ab} =-\widetilde{M}^{cmn} \inv{\sqrt{-\widetilde{f}}} \widetilde{B}_{mn\:ab} \:, \qquad \widetilde{B}_{mn\:ab} = \half{1} \kzav{ \widetilde{g}_{ma} \widetilde{g}_{bn} + \widetilde{g}_{mb} \widetilde{g}_{an}-\widetilde{g}_{mn} \widetilde{g}_{ab} } \:.\] Using explicit form for \(\widetilde{M}^{abc}\) given in ([\[Mabc\]](#Mabc){reference-type="ref" reference="Mabc"}) we obtain the well known result \[\label{Ncab} \widetilde{N}^c_{ab} = \inv{16\pi} \hzav{-\widetilde{\Gamma}^c_{ab} + \half{1} \kzav{ \widetilde{\Gamma}^k_{ak} \delta^c_b + \widetilde{\Gamma}^k_{kb} \delta^c_a } } \.\] From ([\[mLbulk\]](#mLbulk){reference-type="ref" reference="mLbulk"}) we also find momentum conjugate to \(\widetilde{\phi}\) \[\widetilde{p}^{a} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{bulk}}{\partial \partial_a \widetilde{\phi}} = -\inv{8\pi} \widetilde{f}^{ab} \partial_b \widetilde{\phi} \:.\] The Hamiltonian is then computed using Legendre transformation as \[\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{H}^E = \partial_c \widetilde{f}^{ab} \widetilde{N}^c_{ab} + \partial_a \widetilde{\phi} \widetilde{p}^a-\mathcal{L}_{bulk} =\nonumber \\ &&= \frac{1}{16\pi} \hzav{ \widetilde{f}^{ab} \kzav{ \widetilde{\Gamma}^c_{db}\widetilde{\Gamma}^d_{ca}-\widetilde{\Gamma}^c_{ab}\widetilde{\Gamma}^d_{dc} } + \sqrt{-\widetilde{f}} V-\widetilde{f}^{ab} \partial_a \widetilde{\phi} \partial_b \widetilde{\phi} } \. \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] Finally we should express this Hamiltonian in terms of canonical variables which can be done using the relations \[\label{inverseMomenta} \widetilde{\Gamma}^i_{jk} = 16\pi \hzav{-\widetilde{N}^i_{jk} +\inv{3}\kzav{ \widetilde{N}^u_{ju} \delta^i_k +\widetilde{N}^u_{ku} \delta^i_j } } \:, \quad \partial_a \widetilde{\phi} =-8\pi \widetilde{f}_{ab} \widetilde{p}^b \:.\] Then the final form of covariant Hamiltonian for Einstein frame of \(F(R)\) gravity, is expressed as \[\label{EFHam} \mathcal{H}^E = 16\pi\widetilde{f}^{ab} \kzav{ \widetilde{N}^c_{bd} \widetilde{N}^d_{ac}-\inv{3} \widetilde{N}^c_{ac} \widetilde{N}^d_{bd} } + \frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{f}}}{16\pi} V-4\pi \widetilde{f}_{ab} \widetilde{p}^a \widetilde{p}^b \:.\]
# Relationship with Jordan Frame Hamiltonian {#third}
Now we proceed to the main part of this paper which is the relationship between covariant Hamiltonians in Einstein and Jordan frames respectively. Our work is motivated by an interesting paper where the Hamiltonian for \(F(R)\) gravity in \(3+1\) formalism was analysed and it was shown there that they are related by canonical transformations. Then it is very interesting question whether such canonical transformation exists in the case of the covariant canonical formalism too.
## Lagrange Brackets
If there is a canonical transformation between the two frames, the fundamental Lagrange brackets shall be preserved. Contrary to the conventional Hamiltonian theory, it is not good to use Poisson brackets for this purpose, because fundamental Poisson brackets are preserved only when the transformed momenta do not depend on original coordinates or on original momenta. This condition is quite strong and, as it will be presented in this section, does not hold for our system. The Poisson brackets will be noted shortly in section [3.3](#PoissonBrackets){reference-type="ref" reference="PoissonBrackets"}. So the calculation of Lagrange brackets of Jordan frame variables in Einstein frame can reveal us the existence of a canonical transformation. In order to calculate the Lagrange brackets we need relations between Jordan frame variables and Einstein frame ones. We are already able to express the transformation rules for coordinates \[\label{coordTransformation} \widetilde{f}^{ab} = F' f^{ab} \:, \qquad \widetilde{\phi} = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \ln F' \:.\] In order to find transformation of momenta \(\tilde{N}^c_{ab}\), we need to take and and compare it with the the Jordan frame momenta \[N^c_{ab} = \frac{F'}{16\pi}\hzav{-\Gamma^c_{ab} + \half{1} \kzav{\Gamma^k_{ak}\delta^c_b + \Gamma^k_{bk} \delta^c_a} + \half{1} \kzav{ \delta^c_b \partial_a \ln F' + \delta^c_a \partial_b \ln F' + f^{gc} f_{ab}\partial_g \ln F' } } \:,\] resulting in transformation relation \[\label{tNinJordan} \widetilde{N}^c_{ab} = \inv{F'} N^c_{ab} \:,\] that also implies following important relation \[\label{fN=tftN} \tilde{f}^{ab}\tilde{N}^c_{ab} = f^{ab}N^c_{ab}\:.\] From the relation , we see that the transformed momentum depends on original momentum as well as original coordinate, so the condition for canonical invariance of Poisson brackets is not met. As the next step, we proceed to the transformation of momentum \(\tilde{p}^a\). First of all, we use the second relation in where we insert so that we find relation between \(\partial_a B\) and \(\tilde{p}^a\). Further, we use the relation between \(\partial_a B\) and \(p^a\) that was derived in \[\partial_g B = \frac{16\pi}{3F''} f_{gc} \kzav{f^{ik} N^c_{ik}-\frac{F'}{F''} p^c} \.\] If we combine these relations together we find desired relation \[\label{tpinJordan} \widetilde{p}^a =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\kzav{ \frac{F'}{F''}p^a-f^{bc} N^a_{bc} } \:.\] Having found the transformation relations, the brackets follow simply as \[\begin{aligned}
&\left\{f^{ab},\:f^{cd}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{f^{cd}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{f^{cd}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{f^{cd}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{f^{cd}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{f^{ab},\:B\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{B} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{B} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{B} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{B} = 0 \:,\nonumber \\ &\left\{B,\:B\right\}^j = 0 \text{ by definition} \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{f^{ab},\:N^{c}_{de}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{N^{c}_{de}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{N^{c}_{de}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{N^{c}_{de}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{N^{c}_{de}} = \delta^j_c \delta^{de}_{ab} \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{f^{ab},\:p^{c}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{p^{c}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{p^{c}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{p^{c}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{f^{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{p^{c}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{B,\:N^{c}_{de}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{N^{c}_{de}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{N^{c}_{de}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{N^{c}_{de}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{N^{c}_{de}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{B,\:p^{c}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{p^{c}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{p^{c}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{p^{c}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{B}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{p^{c}} = \delta^j_c \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{N^c_{ab},\:N^{d}_{ef}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{N^{d}_{ef}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{N^{d}_{ef}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{N^{d}_{ef}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{N^{d}_{ef}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{N^c_{ab},\:p^{d}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{p^{d}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{p^{d}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{p^{d}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{N^c_{ab}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{p^{d}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\left\{p^{a},\:p^{b}\right\}^j = \pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{p^{a}}\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{p^{b}} -\pd{\widetilde{N}^j_{ik}}{p^{a}}\pd{\widetilde{f}^{ik}}{p^{b}} +\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{p^{a}}\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{p^{b}} -\pd{\widetilde{p^j}}{p^{a}}\pd{\widetilde{\phi}}{p^{b}} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] where we have used abbreviation \(\delta^{ab}_{cd} = \half{1} \kzav{\delta^a_c \delta^b_d + \delta^b_c \delta^a_d}\). From the equations above, it is easily visible that the fundamental Lagrange brackets are preserved, so there is a canonical transformation between Jordan and Einstein frames.
## Generating Function of Canonical Transformation
Having proven existence of canonical transformation, its generating function is looked for. But first, let us review basic facts about canonical transformations in covariant formalism, following. Let us consider covariant formulation of \(F(R)\) gravity in Jordan frame with the canonical variables \(f^{ab},N_{ab}^c,B,p^c_B\). On the other hand in case of covariant formulation of Einstein-frame \(F(R)\)-gravity the canonical variables are \(\tilde{f}^{ab},\tilde{N}_{ab}^c,\tilde{\phi},\tilde{p}^a\). We demand that they give the same description of the physical systems so that we have a requirement \[\begin{aligned}
\delta \int d^4x (N^c_{ab}\partial_c f^{ab}+p^c\partial_c B-\mathcal{H}^J)= \delta\int d^4x (\tilde{N}^c_{ab}\partial_c \tilde{f}^{ab}+\tilde{p}^c\partial_c \tilde{\phi}-\mathcal{H}^E) \. \end{aligned}\] This result implies that the integrals can differ only by divergence of a vector function whose variation vanishes on the boundary \(\partial R\) of the integration region \(R\) \[\label{CanonicalSurfaceCondition} \delta \int_R d^4x \partial_a G_1^a(f,B,\tilde{f},\tilde{\phi})= \delta \oint_{\partial R}G_1^a(f,B,\tilde{f},\tilde{\phi}) dS_a=0 \:.\] Using \(G_1^a\), we can write \[\label{eqLagrangians} N^c_{ab}\partial_c f^{ab}+p^c\partial_c B-\mathcal{H}^J= \tilde{N}^c_{ab}\partial_c \tilde{f}^{ab}+\tilde{p}^c\partial_c \tilde{\phi}-\mathcal{H}^E+ \partial_a G_1^a(f,B,\tilde{f},\tilde{\phi},x) \:.\] The divergence of \(G_1^a\) can be expressed using coordinates as \[\partial_a G^a_1= \frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial f^{bc}}\partial_a f^{bc}+ \frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial \tilde{f}^{bc}}\partial_a \tilde{f}^{bc}+ \frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial B}\partial_a B+ \frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial \tilde{\phi}}\partial_a \tilde{\phi}+ \frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial x^a}|_{expl} \:.\] Putting this into and comparing terms proportional to \(\partial_c f^{ab}\) and \(\partial_c \tilde{f}^{ab}\) and \(\partial_a B\) and \(\partial_a \tilde{\phi}\) we obtain \[\begin{aligned}
N^c_{ab} &=\frac{\partial G_1^c}{\partial f^{ab}} \, \quad \quad p^c =\frac{\partial G_1^c}{\partial B} \, \nonumber \\ \tilde{N}_{ab}^c &=-\frac{\partial G_1^c}{\partial \tilde{f}^{ab}} \, \quad \: \tilde{p}^c =-\frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial \tilde{\phi}} \, \nonumber \\ \mathcal{H}^J&=\mathcal{H}^E-\frac{\partial G_1^a}{\partial x^a}|_{expl} \:. \end{aligned}\] On the other hand we can consider different type of generating function \[\label{G2Def} G_1^a = G_2^a(f,B,\tilde{N},\tilde{p})-\tilde{f}^{ik}\tilde{N}_{ik}^a-\tilde{\phi} \tilde{p}^a \:,\] so that its total divergence is equal to \[\begin{aligned}
&& \partial_c (G^c_2-\tilde{f}^{ab}\tilde{N}_{ab}^c-\tilde{\phi} \tilde{p}^c)=\nonumber \\ && \frac{\partial G^c_2}{\partial f^{ab}} \partial_c f^{ab}+ \frac{\partial G^c_2}{\partial B}\partial_c B+ \frac{\partial G^c_2}{\partial \tilde{N}_{ab}^d} \partial_c \tilde{N}_{ab}^d+ \frac{\partial G^c_2}{\partial \tilde{p}^a} \partial_ c\tilde{p}^a+ \frac{\partial G^c_2}{\partial x^c}|_{exp}-\nonumber \\ && -\tilde{N}_{ab}^c\partial_c \tilde{f}^{ab}-\tilde{f}^{ab}\partial_c \tilde{N}_{ab}^c-\tilde{p}^c\partial_c\tilde{\phi}-\tilde{\phi} \partial_c \tilde{p}^c \:.\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] Substituting the second type of generating function this into and then comparing the related terms yields a set of different equations \[\begin{aligned}
\label{G2conditions} &&\mathcal{H}_J=\mathcal{H}_E-\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial x^c}|_{expl} \, \nonumber \\ &&\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial \tilde{p}^a}=\delta^c_a \tilde{\phi} \, \quad \frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial \tilde{N}^d_{ab}}=\tilde{f}^{ab}\delta_d^c \, \quad N^c_{ab}=\frac{\partial G_2^c}{f^{ab}} \, \quad p^c=\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial B} \. \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] After this brief discussion of the canonical formalism, we proceed to the analysis of the question how Einstein and Jordan frame formulations of \(F(R)\) gravity are related by canonical transformations. Recall that the Covariant Hamiltonian in Jordan frame has the form \[\begin{aligned}
\label{HJ} \mathcal{H}^J =& \frac{16\pi}{F'} f^{ab} \kzav{ N^c_{bd} N^d_{ac}-\inv{3} N^c_{ac} N^d_{bd} } \nonumber \\ &-\frac{8\pi}{3F'} f_{ab} \kzav{\frac{F'}{F''}p^a-N^a_{cd} f^{cd}} \kzav{\frac{F'}{F''}p^b-N^b_{ef} f^{ef}} \nonumber \\ &-\frac{\sqrt{-f}}{16\pi}\kzav{F-F'B} \. \end{aligned}\] Using the transformations , , , we can express the Einstein frame Hamiltonian in Jordan frame coordinates \[\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{E*} =& \frac{16\pi}{F'} f^{ab} \kzav{ N^c_{bd} N^d_{ac}-\inv{3} N^c_{ac} N^d_{bd} } \nonumber \\ &-\frac{8\pi}{3F'} f_{ab} \kzav{\frac{F'}{F''}p^a-N^a_{cd} f^{cd}} \kzav{\frac{F'}{F''}p^b-N^b_{ef} f^{ef}}\nonumber \\ &-\frac{\sqrt{-f}}{16\pi}\kzav{F-F'B} \:, \end{aligned}\] which agrees with . The fact that these two Hamiltonians are equal means that the generating function of canonical transformation is independent on coordinates. In fact, transformations , and suggest that the generating function has the form of \[\label{GeneratingFunctionG2} G_2^c=F'\tilde{N}^c_{ab}f^{ab}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\ln F' \tilde{p}^c \:.\] In order to verify that the suggested form of \(G_2^c\) is really the generating function of canonical transformations let us calculate the following derivative \[\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial B}= F'' \tilde{N}_{ab}^c f^{ab} +\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{F''}{F'}\tilde{p}^c = \frac{F''}{F'} N_{ab}^c f^{ab} +\frac{F''}{F'}\kzav{\frac{F'}{F''} p^c-N_{ab}^c f^{ab} } = p^c \end{aligned}\] that agrees with the the fourth equation in . Further, the derivative \(G_2^c\) with respect to \(f^{ab}\) gives \[N^c_{ab}=\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial f^{ab}}= F'\widetilde{N}^c_{ab}\] that gives the relation ([\[tNinJordan\]](#tNinJordan){reference-type="ref" reference="tNinJordan"}). Finally, the derivative of \(G_2^c\) with respect to \(\tilde{p}^a\) and \(\widetilde{N}^d_{ab}\) lead to \[\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial \tilde{p}^a}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\ln F'\delta^c_a=\delta^c_a\widetilde{\phi} \, \nonumber \\ && \frac{\partial G_2^c}{\partial \widetilde{N}^d_{ab}}= F'\delta^c_d f^{ab}=\widetilde{f}^{ab}\delta^c_d \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] that lead to relations in ([\[coordTransformation\]](#coordTransformation){reference-type="ref" reference="coordTransformation"}). In summary, we have shown that is generating function of canonical transformation between Jordan and Einstein frame. This shows that these two frames are related by canonical transformations even in the case of covariant canonical formulations of these two theories which is new and non-trivial result.
## Remark About Poisson Brackets {#PoissonBrackets}
In Covariant Hamiltonian theory, the fundamental Poisson brackets are not always preserved under canonical transformation. Their purpose of canonical invariant is fulfilled with Lagrange brackets. This section summarizes Poisson brackets just for the reference. We will calculate Poisson brackets of Einstein frame variables in Jordan frame. Since no Einstein frame coordinate depends on any of Jordan frame momenta , the Poisson brackets of coordinates are zero. For the mixed brackets, one obtains \[\begin{aligned}
\hzav{\widetilde{f}^{ab} \:,\: \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}_j &= \frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial p^j} = \delta^c_j \delta^{ab}_{cd} \:, \nonumber \\ \hzav{\widetilde{f}^{ab} \:,\: \widetilde{p}^c}_j &= \frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{f}^{ab}}{\partial p^j} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ \hzav{\widetilde{\phi} \:,\: \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}_j &= \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial p^j} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ \hzav{\widetilde{\phi} \:,\: \widetilde{p}^c}_j &= \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial p^j} = \delta^c_j \:. \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] As we can see all mixed brackets yield the expected results. The brackets of momenta are those who break canonical invariance of Poisson brackets \[\begin{aligned}
&\hzav{\widetilde{N}^f_{ab} \:,\: \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}_j = \frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^f_{ab}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^f_{ab}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^f_{ab}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^c_{de}}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^f_{ab}}{\partial p^j} = 0 \:, \nonumber \\ &\hzav{\widetilde{N}^d_{ab} \:,\: \widetilde{p}^c}_j = \frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^d_{ab}}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^d_{ab}}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^d_{ab}}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{N}^d_{ab}}{\partial p^j} = \nonumber \\ &\qquad = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\inv{F'}\kzav{\delta^d_j N^c_{ab}-\delta^c_j N^d_{ab}} \:, \nonumber \\ &\hzav{\widetilde{p}^a \:,\: \widetilde{p}^c}_j = \frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^a}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial N^j_{ik}} + \frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^a}{\partial B}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial p^j}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial f^{ik}}\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^a}{\partial N^j_{ik}}-\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^c}{\partial B }\frac{\partial \widetilde{p}^a}{\partial p^j} = \nonumber \\ &\qquad= \frac{2}{3}\delta^c_j \kzav{ f^{ik} N^a_{ik} + \frac{F'(F''^2-F'F''')}{F''^3} p^a }-\frac{2}{3}\delta^a_j \kzav{ f^{ik} N^c_{ik} + \frac{F'(F''^2-F'F''')}{F''^3} p^c } \:. \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}\] Contrary to the conventional Hamiltonian theory, the canonical transformation does not preserve fundamental Poisson brackets for momenta.
# Surface Lagrangian and Thermodynamic Properties {#fourth}
It is also important to mention the so-called surface part of the Lagrangian. This is the part which can be expressed as a derivative, or alternatively said as a divergence of some vector potential, and usually is neglected since it does not contribute to the equations of motion. However, this is not true just for any surface and more importantly, this part of Lagrangian contains information about thermodynamic properties of the boundary region, typically a horizon. Previously, we have found the surface Lagrangian as \[\mathcal{L}_{sur} = \partial_i \hzav{\frac{\sqrt{-\widetilde{g}}}{16\pi} \kzav{\widetilde{g}^{ab}\widetilde{\Gamma}^i_{ab}-\widetilde{g}^{ai}\widetilde{\Gamma}^b_{ab} + \sqrt{6} \widetilde{\partial}^i \widetilde{\phi} } } \.\] It is natural to express this surface term using canonical coordinates when we use the relations and we get \[\label{L_sur_Einstein} \mathcal{L}_{sur} = -\partial_i \kzav{ \widetilde{f}^{ab} \widetilde{N}^i_{ab} + \sqrt{\half{3}} \widetilde{p}^i } \:.\] If we used coordinate transformation and put it back into the Jordan Frame, we would obtain \[\label{L_sur_Jordan} \mathcal{L}_{sur} =-\partial_i \kzav{ \frac{F'}{F''} p^i } \:,\] which is the same result, as was derived for Jordan Frame formulation. Thus, the thermodynamic properties can be assumed to be the same as in Jordan case, which is the expected result. In General Relativity, there is a relation between the two Lagrangians (bulk and surface) \[\mathcal{L}_{sur} =-\partial_c \kzav{ g_{ab} \pd{\mathcal{L}_{bulk}}{\partial_c g_{ab}} } \:,\] which is better for our purposes to be written in \(f-N\) formalism \[\label{mL_sur} \mathcal{L}_{sur} =-\partial_c \kzav{ f^{ab} N^c_{ab} } \:,\] as visible from surface Lagrangian of Jordan as well as Einstein frame, this relation does not hold for \(F(R)\) gravity theory. One could argue that is a kind of first approximation of more general formula, however its form is non-trivial and so it remains an open question. **Acknowledgement:**\
The work of J. Klusoň is supported by the grant "Integrable Deformations" (GA20-04800S) from the Czech Science Foundation (GACR).
[^1]: For review of this theory see.
[^2]: This paper uses the East Coast convention with metric signature (\(-,+,+,+\)) and Latin indices running over \(0...3\) interval while the Greek ones over \(1...3\). The fundamental constants \(c, G, \hbar, k_B\) are treated as equal to one.
[^3]: For review and extended list of references, see for example.
[^4]: This definition is different from the one used in, where the new coordinate was defined so \(f^{ab} f_{cb} =-f\delta^a_c\). | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:57', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14560', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14560'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
High-entropy alloys (HEAs) receive much interest due to their rich functionality, such as high strength, corrosion resistance, energy storage, radiation protection, superconductivity, soft ferromagnetism, and biocompatibility. The entropy state of an alloy is classified by the configurational entropy \(\Delta S_\mathrm{mix}=-R\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_{i}\mathrm{ln}c_{i}\), where \(n\) is the number of elements, \(c_{i}\) is the atomic fraction, and \(R\) is the gas constant. At the initial stage of HEAs research, HEA required \(\Delta S_\mathrm{mix}\) larger than 1.62 \(R\), which can be realized by the solid solution of more than five elements. The critical value defining HEA is now 1.0 \(R\). So the equiatomic quaternary alloy investigated in this study can be referred to as HEA. In HEAs, the microstructure often affects the physical properties, and, for example, the control of microstructure towards improved mechanical or magnetic properties is the central topic of HEAs. The other current topic is the materials research on HEAs exhibiting novel phenomena by utilizing the large compositional space of HEAs. Magnetic HEAs are attracting much attention because of their good soft ferromagnetism coexisted with high strength and/or high hardness. The magnetic HEAs are a promising alternative to conventional soft magnetic materials with poor strength. Based on a face-centered cubic (fcc) FeCoNi with high saturation magnetization and low coercive field \(H_\mathrm{c}\), many studies on the effect of adding alloying elements are carried out. For example, Al\(_{x}\)CoCrFeNi is well investigated HEA, which shows a structural change from fcc to body-centered cubic (bcc) structure with increasing \(x\). The Curie temperature \(T_\mathrm{C}\) of Al-free CoCrFeNi is 120 K, which can be enhanced above room temperature as \(x\) increases. NiFeCoCrPd and NiFeCoCrMn are famous equiatomic HEAs with \(T_\mathrm{C}\)=440 K and 38 K, respectively. There are a few reports which aim at attaining a higher \(H_\mathrm{c}\). FeCoNiAlCu\(_{x}\)Ti\(_{x}\) shows a relatively high \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of 955 Oe after heat treatment. The recent research on magnetic HEAs shows a growing interest in controlling magnetic properties through tailoring a microstructure. For example, Fe\(_{15}\)Co\(_{15}\)Ni\(_{20}\)Mn\(_{20}\)Cu\(_{30}\) exhibits a spinodal decomposition after a heat treatment, which leads to enhanced \(T_\mathrm{C}\).
We are focusing on HEAs with the combination of 3\(d\) magnetic elements and noble metals (e.g., Rh, Ir, Pd, and Pt) because materials research on such an HEA is unexplored. Recently, Fukushima et al. reported the database (\(T_\mathrm{C}\), spin moment, residual resistivity) of 147630 quaternary HEAs produced by a density functional theory calculation. This database contains fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt, which can be regarded as Pd-or Pt-added FeCoNi alloy, and the magnetic properties of these HEAs are not well investigated. Only the Mössbauer effect of FeCoNiPd is reported, and the fundamental magnetic properties such as \(T_\mathrm{C}\) and saturation moment \(M_\mathrm{s}\) are unknown. Therefore, this study's first purpose is to assess the fundamental magnetic properties of fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt and to compare the magnetic properties between these HEAs and FeCoNi. The Vickers microhardness is usually measured to evaluate the hardness of a material. In HEAs, it is reported that the Vickers microhardness empirically correlates with the valence electron count (VEC) per atom. The hardness vs. VEC plot of HEAs with VEC ranging from 4.1 to 8.8 seems to form a broad peak at VEC\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}6.8, as mentioned below. The VEC of FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt is 9.25, and we are interested in the hardness to check the possible universal relationship between the hardness and the VEC. This examination would be useful for designing soft ferromagnetic HEAs with high hardness. The second purpose of this study is to investigate the Vickers microhardness of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt. This paper reports the magnetic properties, electrical resistivity, and hardness of as-cast and annealed fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt. The electronic structure was calculated to elucidate the ferromagnetism in each HEA. We have found that the heat treatment does not significantly influence the physical properties of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt. The soft ferromagnetic behaviors are observed in both HEAs. The comparisons between experimental and theoretical values are made for \(T_\mathrm{C}\), \(M_\mathrm{s}\), and the residual resistivity. The hardness of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt do not deviate from the empirical relationship between the hardness and the VEC.
# Materials and Methods
Polycrystalline samples of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt were synthesized by a home-made arc furnace using constituent elements Fe (99.9 %), Co (99.9 %), Ni (99.9 %), Pd (99.9 %), and Pt (99.9 %) under Ar atmosphere. The button-shaped samples were remelted several times on a water-cooled Cu hearth and flipped each time to ensure homogeneity. The as-cast samples were annealed in an evacuated quartz tube at 800 \(^{\circ}\)C for four days. Room temperature X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of samples were recorded using an X-ray diffractometer (XRD-7000L, Shimadzu) with Cu-K\(\alpha\) radiation. We used thin slabs cut from the samples due to their high ductility. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) images were collected using a field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, JSM-7100F, JEOL). The chemical composition was also evaluated by an energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometer equipped with the FE-SEM. The temperature dependence of dc magnetization \(\chi_\mathrm{dc}\) (\(T\)) between 50 and 300 K was measured using VersaLab (Quantum Design). The high-temperature \(\chi_\mathrm{dc}\) (\(T\)) from 300 K to 1173 K was measured by a vibrating sample magnetometer (TM-VSM33483-HGC, Tamakawa) to estimate \(T_\mathrm{C}\). The isothermal magnetization (\(M\)) curve at 50 K was taken using the VersaLab. The temperature dependence of electrical resistivity \(\rho\) (\(T\)) between 3 K and 300 K was measured by a conventional dc four-probe method using a home-made sysytem in a GM refrigerator (UW404, Ulvac cryogenics). The Vickers microhardness was measured under the applied load of 0.49, 0.98, 1.96, 2.94, and 4.903 N, respectively, using a Shimadzu HMV-2T microhardness tester. The holding time under the diamond indenter is 10 s. We also performed the electronic structure calculation using the coherent potential approximation (CPA) approach because of no report of the density of states (DOS) in the previous study. We employed the Akai-KKR program package, which is based on the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (KKR) method with CPA. We used the generalized gradient approximation from Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) and treated the spin-polarization and the spin-orbit interaction. The spin-orbit interaction is not included in the previous study.
# Results and Discussion
Figure [\[fig1\]](#fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig1"} shows the XRD patterns of as-cast and annealed FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt. All patterns can be indexed by fcc structure with the Miller indices denoted in the figure. The lattice parameters \(a\) obtained by the least square method are listed in Table [\[tab:table1\]](#tab:table1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table1"}. SEM images and elemental mappings of all samples are displayed in Fig.[\[fig2\]](#fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig2"}. In each sample, no trace of impurity phase is detected, and the elemental mapping shows a homogeneous elemental distribution. The chemical compositions evaluated by EDX measurements are tabulated in Table [\[tab:table1\]](#tab:table1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table1"} and agree well with the ideal one with 25 at.% for each element. HEAs often show composition segregation after heat treatment. However, FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt forms a stable single-phase fcc against the heat treatment at 800 \(^{\circ}\)C. Figures [\[fig3\]](#fig3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig3"}(a) and (b) show \(\chi_\mathrm{dc}\) (\(T\)) under the external field \(H\) of 100 Oe for FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt, respectively. In each sample, a steep increase of \(\chi_\mathrm{dc}\) is observed as the temperature is lowered, which indicates a ferromagnetic ordering. \(T_\mathrm{C}\) is estimated by the temperature derivative of \(\chi_\mathrm{dc}\) and defined by the minimum point described in the inset of Fig.[\[fig3\]](#fig3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig3"}(a) or (b). This is one of the effective ways to obtain \(T_\mathrm{C}\) in transition metal-based ferromagnets. Thus obtained \(T_\mathrm{C}\)s are listed in Table [\[tab:table1\]](#tab:table1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table1"}, and the slight enhancement of \(T_\mathrm{C}\) after the annealing is confirmed in each HEA. Fukushima et al. have provided \(T_\mathrm{C}\) data obtained by the density functional theory calculation for 147630 quaternary HEAs and placed the data in a repository. The predicted \(T_\mathrm{C}\)s of fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt are 1137 and 1085 K, respectively. Although the higher \(T_\mathrm{C}\) of FeCoNiPd compared to FeCoNiPt is consistent with the experimental result, the theoretical value is approximately 200 K higher than the experimental one in each HEA. The mean-field approximation used for calculating \(T_\mathrm{C}\) tends to overestimation, which is the reason for the relatively large difference between theoretical and experimental values. The isothermal \(M\)-\(H\) curves of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt measured at 50 K are exhibited in Figs.[\[fig3\]](#fig3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig3"}(c) and (d). With the increase of \(H\) from 0 Oe in each HEA, \(M\) increases steeply and soon saturates, which supports the ferromagnetic ground state. Thermal annealing seems not to affect \(M\)-\(H\) curves. The values of \(M_\mathrm{s}\) for HEAs investigated are summarized in Table [\[tab:table1\]](#tab:table1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table1"} and compared with the theoretical values below. The inset of each figure is the expanded view to show the hysteresis. The very weak hysteresis indicates the soft ferromagnetism in each HEA. While \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of FeCoNiPt would be approximately 2 Oe, no hysteresis is observed for FeCoNiPd within the measurement accuracy. Here we compare the magnetic properties of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt with those of fcc FeCoNi. The lattice parameter, \(T_\mathrm{C}\), and \(M_\mathrm{s}\) of fcc FeCoNi are reported to be 3.599 Å, 1000 K, and 163 emu/g (=1.687 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u.), respectively. The atomic radius of Pd(Pt) is 1.3754 Å(1.387 Å), which is larger than those of Fe, Co, and Ni (1.2412, 1.2510, and 1.2459 Å, respectively). Therefore, the lattice parameter of FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt expands compared to FeCoNi. As discussed later, Pd(Pt) carries the magnetic moment smaller than Fe, Co, and Ni moments, which causes the reduction of \(M_\mathrm{s}\) in FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt. Going from FeCoNi, FeCoNiPd to FeCoNiPt, the lattice parameter increases, and \(T_\mathrm{C}\) is systematically reduced. The expansion of lattice means the increase of interatomic distance between 3\(d\) elements, which would lead to a weakened magnetic exchange interaction. In this case, the systematic reduction of \(T_\mathrm{C}\) with increasing lattice parameter can be anticipated. We note that FeCoNiCr (\(a\)=3.580 Å, \(T_\mathrm{C}\)=104 K) and FeCoNiMn (\(a\)=3.6029 Å, \(T_\mathrm{C}\)=332 K) significantly reduce \(T_\mathrm{C}\), which is independent of the unit-cell volume change compared to FeCoNi. The alloying by antiferromagnetic elements of Cr or Mn severely decreases the averaged magnetic exchange interaction strength. FeCoNi possesses \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of 1.5 Oe and this value is not largely enhanced in fcc FeCoNiAl\(_{x}\) or fcc FeCoNiSi\(_{x}\) (\(H_\mathrm{c}\): 0.5\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}6 Oe). The same trend is observed in FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt, and the soft ferromagnetism of fcc FeCoNi is robust against the addition of alloying elements. Next, \(M_\mathrm{s}\) and \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt are compared with those of related systems. The values of \(M_\mathrm{s}\) in the unit of emu/g for FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt after annealing are 116 emu/g and 88 emu/g, respectively. The corresponding values of FeCoNi-related systems are, for example, 130 emu/g in FeCoNiAl\(_{x}\) (\(x\)=0.2 and 0.3), 126 emu/g in FeCoNiSi\(_{0.25}\), and 101 emu/g in FeCoNiAl\(_{0.25}\)Mn\(_{0.25}\). So, while \(M_\mathrm{s}\) of FeCoNiPd is slightly reduced compared to FeCoNiAl\(_{x}\) and FeCoNiSi\(_{0.25}\), the relatively large reduction of \(M_\mathrm{s}\) occurs in FeCoNiPt due to the heavy element Pt with a small magnetic moment. This comparison indicates that light elements are favorable for achieving high \(M_\mathrm{s}\) soft ferromagnet. FeCoNiAl\(_{x}\) (\(x\)=0.2 and 0.3), FeCoNiSi\(_{0.25}\), and FeCoNiAl\(_{0.25}\)Mn\(_{0.25}\) possess \(H_\mathrm{c}\) ranging from 0.5 to 5 Oe. These values are comparable to \(H_\mathrm{c}\) (\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2 Oe) of FeCoNiPt. On the other hand, \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of FeCoNiPd would be smaller compared to the related systems. \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of HEAs and commercial soft ferromagnets are summarized in the review by Huang et al. According to the review, \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of FeCoNiPd would locate in the range of commercial soft ferromagnets (Ni-Fe alloys with \(H_\mathrm{c}\) of 0.004 Oe \(\sim\) 0.1 Oe). Figure [\[fig4\]](#fig4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig4"} summarizes \(\rho\) (\(T\)) of as-cast and annealed FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt. For each HEA, \(\rho\) of the as-cast sample decreases after the heat treatment, which suggests a relaxation of the lattice distortion. Despite the existence of atomic disorders, \(\rho\) smoothly decreases with cooling. The measured temperature range is well below \(T_\mathrm{C}\), and relatively large temperature dependences mean the dominance of magnetic contribution to the electrical transport. Such a behavior is often observed in ferromagnetic metals with atomic disorders. The database by Fukushima et al. also includes the values of residual resistivity \(\rho_\mathrm{res}\). According to the database, \(\rho_\mathrm{res}\)s of fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt are 5.1 and 21.6 \(\mu\Omega\)cm, respectively, which agree well with the experimental values of annealed HEAs.
In the electronic structure calculations of fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt, the lattice parameters obtained for the annealed samples are used, and the perfect solid solution of constituent elements is assumed. Figures [\[fig5\]](#fig5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig5"} (a) and (c) exhibit the total DOSs of FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt, respectively. In each case, the difference in total DOS between spin-up and spin-down electrons supports the ferromagnetic ground state. Partial DOSs are displayed in Figs.[\[fig5\]](#fig5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig5"} (b) and (d) for FeCoNiPd and FeCoNiPt, respectively. Only \(d\)-electron DOS is drawn for each partial DOS due to the dominant contribution around the Fermi level. Reflecting the isoelectronic HEAs, the structures of partial DOS shown in Figs.[\[fig5\]](#fig5){reference-type="ref" reference="fig5"} (b) and (d) for each element are similar to each other. The partial DOSs indicate the presence of magnetic moment for all elements. The spin and orbital moment values calculated for all elements are summarized in Table [\[tab:table2\]](#tab:table2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table2"}. In each HEA, all moments align parallel, and Fe and Co spin moments are dominant. The spin moment values of Fe, Co, and Ni are slightly larger than those obtained by Fukushima et al. Accordingly, the total moments of 1.402 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u. for FeCoNiPd and 1.421 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u. for FeCoNiPt are also respectively larger than 1.383 and 1.395 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u. in the database. The spin-orbit interaction considered in this study would be responsible for the slight increase of moment. The calculated total moments in this study or the database well explain the experimental \(M_\mathrm{s}\)s (see also Table [\[tab:table1\]](#tab:table1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:table1"}), which means that the magnetic structure of FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt would be a simple one with all spins aligning parallel. Figure [\[fig6\]](#fig6){reference-type="ref" reference="fig6"} (a) depicts the Vickers microhardness vs. applied load profiles for all samples. The hardness in each sample gradually decreases as the load is increased, which is also reported in many HEAs and intermetallic compounds. It is well known that the elastic recovery effect is responsible for the increase of Vickers microhardness with decreasing load. In FeCoNiPd, the annealed sample displays lower hardness than the as-cast sample. The annealing would cause the release of lattice distortion introduced in the rapid solidification process of arc melting, which leads to lower hardness. FeCoNiPt also shows similar behavior. It is proposed that the Vickers microhardness depends on the VEC. Figure [\[fig6\]](#fig6){reference-type="ref" reference="fig6"}(b) presents the VEC dependence of hardness. The solid curve is a guideline obtained for HEAs with the bcc structures (VEC: 6.0\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}7.55) and fcc structures (VEC: 7.8\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}8.8). The result of refractory bcc HEAs with VEC:4.14\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}5.65 is also shown and seems to be connected to the guideline. In addition, a deep learning study of the hardness of refractory HEAs with the VEC: 4\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}6 also supports the positive correlation between the hardness and VEC in that VEC range. The VEC of FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt is 9.25, and the hardness of 188 HV obtained at 4.9030 N load is employed because the hardness at a higher load is usually employed. In addition we cannot obtain the hardness under a load higher than 4.9030 N due to the limitation of the microhardness tester used. Thus plotted data points in Figure [\[fig6\]](#fig6){reference-type="ref" reference="fig6"}(b) do not essentially deviate from the expected universal relation between the VEC and the hardness. We note that there are not enough data points from other HEAs at VEC larger than 9. Therefore, further study is required to prove the universal relation. This study implies a vital role of VEC in designing the hardness of magnetic HEAs. The VEC is also related to the phase stability of fcc and bcc HEAs: a single bcc phase for VEC between 5.0 and 6.87 and a single fcc phase for VEC larger than 8.0. Therefore, if we need a soft ferromagnetic HEA with high hardness within the limitation of a single fcc phase, a magnetic HEA based on FeCoNi with an alloying for tuning VEC=8 is desirable.
# Summary
We have investigated the fundamental magnetic properties, electrical resistivity, and Vickers microhardness of as-cast and annealed fcc FeCoNiPd and fcc FeCoNiPt. After the heat treatment at 800 \(^{\circ}\)C, both HEAs keep the single-phase fcc, and the annealing does not largely alter the physical properties. The values of \(T_\mathrm{C}\) and \(M_\mathrm{s}\) at 50 K are 955 K and 1.458 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u. for annealed FeCoNiPd, and 851 K and 1.456 \(\mu_\mathrm{B}\)/f.u. for annealed FeCoNiPt, respectively. The coercive fields of both HEAs are very small, and they are soft ferromagnets. In each HEA, the electrical resistivity shows the metallic temperature dependence. The electronic structure calculations of both HEAs were performed, and the ferromagnetic ground states were obtained. The total moments are close to those reported in the database made by the density functional theory calculation and agree with the experimental \(M_\mathrm{s}\)s. The theoretical values of \(T_\mathrm{C}\) and \(\rho_\mathrm{res}\) are also reported in the database. While the theoretical \(T_\mathrm{C}\) values are relatively higher than the experimental ones in both HEAs, good agreement is confirmed between the theoretical and experimental \(\rho_\mathrm{res}\) values. The database would be beneficial for the materials research on magnetic quarternary HEAs. In addition, the comparisons of magnetic properties of HEAs investigated and FeCoNi are made. The Vickers microhardness of FeCoNiPd or FeCoNiPt slightly decreases after the annealing. The hardness vs. VEC plot of these HEAs does not essentially deviate from the expected universal relation forming a broad peak at VEC\(\sim\)`<!-- -->`{=html}6.8. This study provides a possible material design of soft ferromagnetic HEA with high hardness; a magnetic HEA based on FeCoNi with an alloying for tuning VEC=8 is promising. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:10', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14506', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14506'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
We are interested in the construction of solutions of the following generalized parabolic Cahn-Hilliard equation \[\label{eq1.1} u_t=-\Delta\left[\Delta u-W'(u)\right]+W''(u)\left[\Delta u-W'(u)\right], \qquad \forall\, (t, x)\in \widetilde{\mathbb R}\times \R^n,\] where \(n=2\) or \(n\geq4\), \(\widetilde{\mathbb R}\) is given by \[\widetilde{\mathbb R}=\left\{ \begin{array}{rl} (0, \infty), &\quad \mbox{if } n=2, \\[2mm] (-\infty, 0), & \quad \mbox{if } n\geq 4, \end{array} \right.\] and the functions \(W'(s)\) and \(W''(s)\) denote the derivatives of first and second orders of \(W\) respectively. The potential \(W(s)\) is a smooth function, which satisfies the following assumptions \[\label{eq1.4} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} W(s)>W(-1)=W(1)\qquad \text{in}\ (-1, 1), \\[1mm]W(s)=W(-s),\qquad \text{for all}\ s\in\R, \\[1mm] W'(-1)=W'(1)=0, \\[1mm] W''(-1)=W''(1)>0. \end{array} \right.\] The potential \(W(u)\) has two non-degenerate local minimum points \(u=+1\) and \(u=-1\), which are stable equilibria of [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"}. In particular, the function \(W(s)=\frac{1}{4}(1-s^2)^2\) obviously satisfies the above conditions in ([\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.4"}). Up to a scaling, the function \(W(s)=\cos(s)\) also satisfies [\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.4"}.
## Backgrounds
Generally speaking, the Cahn-Hilliard equation means the following equation \[\label{eq1.2} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} u_t=-\Delta\left[\Delta u-W'(u)\right], \qquad \forall\, (t, x)\in (-\infty, +\infty)\times\Omega, \\[2mm] u(0, x)=u_0(x), \hspace{2cm} \forall\, x\in\Omega, \end{array} \right.\] where \(\Omega\) denotes a smooth bounded domain in \(\R^n\) or the whole space \(\R^n\)(\(n\geq1\)), which describes phase separation processes of binary alloys in. Various kinds of problems of this class equation have been extensively studied in recent thirty years. By applying a priori estimate and continuity argument, the existence and asymptotic behaviors of global smooth solutions of Cauchy problem [\[eq1.2\]](#eq1.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.2"} have been proved in when the initial value \(u_0\) is close to stable equilibria \(\bar{u}\) (\(W(\bar{u})=0\)) in the \(L^\infty\cap L^1(\R^n)\) space. Using Fourier transform and estimates on the kernel of a linear parabolic operator, a uniform \(L^\infty\) bound estimate for solutions of perturbed Cauchy problem [\[eq1.2\]](#eq1.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.2"} with additional nonlinear terms, was established by Caffarelli and Muler in. In a bounded domain, the global well-posedness and long-time behavior of solutions to problem [\[eq1.2\]](#eq1.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.2"} with several types of dynamic boundary conditions were studied in. Based on the works of De Giorgi in, numerous authors studied the diffuse approximation of the Willmore functional: \[\label{wf} \mathcal{W}(S, \Omega)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial S\cap\Omega}\abs{H_{\partial S}(x)}^2 {\mathrm d}\mu^{n-1},\] where \(\Omega\) is a given open set in \(\R^n\), the set \(S\subset\R^n\) with smooth boundary \(\partial S\subset \Omega\), and \(H_{\partial S}(x)\) is the mean curvature of surface \(\partial S\) at point \(x\in \partial S\). The approximating functional is defined by \[\mathbb{W}_\varepsilon(u)=\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \frac{1}{2\varepsilon}\int_{\Omega}\Big(\varepsilon\Delta u-\frac{W'(u)}{\varepsilon}\Big)^2{\mathrm d}x,\qquad \text{if}\ u\in L^1(\Omega)\cap W^{2, 2}(\Omega), \\[2mm] +\infty,\hspace{3.9cm} \text{otherwise in}\ L^1(\Omega), \end{array} \right. \label{CHEnergy}\] where the function \(W\) satisfies [\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.4"}. The essential and more challenging work is to rigourously prove that the approximating functional \(\mathbb{W}_\varepsilon(u)\) \(\Gamma\)-converges to the Willmore functional \(\mathcal{W}(S, \Omega)\) as \(\varepsilon\) goes to \(0\). Bellettini and Paolini in proved the \(\Gamma\)-lim sup inequality for smooth Willmore hypersurfaces. However, the \(\Gamma\)-lim inf inequality is more hard to prove. Up to now, it has been proved in \(\R^n\) with \(n=2, 3\) in or \(n=2\) in. This problem is still open in \(\R^n\) with \(n\geq4\). The relation of the critical points of [\[wf\]](#wf){reference-type="eqref" reference="wf"} and [\[CHEnergy\]](#CHEnergy){reference-type="eqref" reference="CHEnergy"} was exemplified by M. Rizzi and also A. Malchiodi, R. Mandel, M. Rizzi. On the other hand, for the parabolic Cahn-Hilliard equation [\[eq1.2\]](#eq1.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.2"}, the gamma convergence results have obtained by Le in under suitable conditions. And see for the case of [\[eq1.2\]](#eq1.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.2"} on the one-dimensional torus. The \(L^2\) gradient flow of the approximating energy \(\mathbb{W}_\varepsilon (u)\) is equivalent to the evolution equation: \[\label{eq1} \partial_tu_\varepsilon=-\Delta\Big[\Delta u_\varepsilon-\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}W'(u_\varepsilon)\Big] +\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}W''(u_\varepsilon)\Big[\Delta u_\varepsilon-\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}W'(u_\varepsilon)\Big] \qquad \text{in}\ (-\infty, +\infty)\times \Omega,\] which was introduced in to describe the deformation of a vesicle membrane under the elastic bending energy, with prescribed bulk volume and surface area. The well-posedness of the phase field model [\[eq1\]](#eq1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1"} with fixed \(\varepsilon\) has been proved in providing a volume constraint for the average of \(u\), or in with both volume and area constraints. By applying formal method of matched asymptotic expansions, Loreti and March in (or Wang in ) showed that if \(\Gamma(t)\subset \R^n\) with \(n=2\) or \(3\), is a family of compact closed smooth interfaces and evolves by Willmore flow, it can be approximated by nodal set of the solution \(u_\varepsilon\) to the phase field ([\[eq1\]](#eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1"}) when \(\varepsilon\) goes to \(0\). The Willmore flow equation is given by \[\label{willmore} V(t)=\Delta_{\Sigma(t)}H-\frac{1}{2}H^3+H\|A\|^2,\] which is the \(L^2\) gradient flow for [\[wf\]](#wf){reference-type="eqref" reference="wf"} with \(\partial S(t)=\Sigma(t)\), where \(V(t)\) denotes the outer normal velocity at \(x \in \Sigma(t)\), \(\Delta_{\Sigma(t)}\) is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on surface \(\Sigma(t)\), \(H\) and \(A\) are the mean curvature and the second fundamental form of \(\Sigma(t)\) respectively, and \(\|A\|^2\) is the sum of squared coefficients of \(A\). Fei and Liu proved that for given a solution \(\Gamma_0(t)\) of [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"} in \(\R^n(n=2, 3)\), there exists a solution \(u_\varepsilon\) of equation [\[eq1\]](#eq1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1"} with Neumann boundary condition such that its level set convergence to \(\Gamma_0(t)\) as the parameter \(\varepsilon\) goes to zero. Moreover, a variety of problems for the Willmore flow [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"} has been investigated by Kuwert and Schätzle in several papers (for example see ). However, the study of connections between equation [\[eq1\]](#eq1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1"} and the Willmore flow [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"} is a challenging work when \(n\geq4\). The present paper is one of the first attempts in this direction.
## Main results
In this paper, we want to find solutions of ([\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.1"}) whose values lie at all times in \([-1, 1]\), and approach either \(+1\) or \(-1\) in the most of the space \(\R^n\). This type of solution corresponds to a continuous realization of a material, in which the two states (\(u=-1\) and \(u=+1\)) coexist. The main difficult point of the study of this type solution of ([\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.1"}), is to derive qualitative information on the interface region(the walls separating the two phases). It is easy to find that \(u(t, x)\) is a solution of [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"} if and only if \(u_\eps(t, x):=u(\eps^{-4}t, \eps^{-1} x)\) satisfies equation [\[eq1\]](#eq1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1"}. Basing on the results in or with \(n=2\) and \(3\), we know that the nodal set of \(u_\varepsilon(t, x)\) approximates to the solution of Willmore flow [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"}. Let us consider the sphere \(\Gamma_n(t)\) evolving by the Willmore flow in [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"}. Then we have that the radius \(\gamma_n(t)\) of \(\Gamma_n(t)\) satisfies the equation \[\label{willmoreflowradial} \gamma_n'(t)=-\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{n-1}{\gamma_n(t)}\Big)^3+\frac{\big(n-1\big)^2}{\big(\gamma_n(t)\big)^3},\] which has a solution \[\label{sphere eq} \gamma_n(t):=\sqrt[4]{-2(n-3)(n-1)^2t},\] where \(t\leq0\) when \(n\geq 3\) and \(t\geq0\) when \(n=2\). Due to the self-similarity, there holds that the sphere \(\abs{x}=\gamma_n(t)\) is also the transition layer (nodal set) for \(u(t, x)\), which is a solution of [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"}. Our aim is to construct solutions to equation [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"} with one transition layer closes to the sphere \(\abs{x}=\gamma_n(t)\). In which, \(t\leq0\) when \(n\geq 4\), these solutions are called ancient solutions. And \(t\geq0\) for \(n=2\), they are long time solutions. We shall mention that the ancient radially symmetric solutions for the parabolic Allen-Cahn equation \[\label{Allen} u_t=\Delta u+u-u^3 \qquad \text{in} \ (-\infty, 0]\times\R^n,\] have been obtained by del Pino and Gkikas in for \(n=1\) and with \(n\geq2\). Let us introduce a layer function by considering the following problem of semilinear elliptic equation \[\label{eqq} \omega''(y)-W'\big(\omega(y)\big)=0, \quad \omega'(y)>0, \quad y\in\R, \quad \omega(0)=0\quad \text{and} \quad \lim\limits_{y\rightarrow\pm\infty}\omega(y)=\pm 1,\] which has a unique smooth solution \(\omega(y)\) obtained in, where \(W\) satisfies the conditions in ([\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.4"}). In particular if we choose \(W'(s)=s^3-s\), then ([\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="ref" reference="eqq"}) is the elliptic Allen-Cahn equation, and its solution is written as \[\omega(y)=\tanh(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}).\] For general functions \(W\) satisfying [\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.4"}, the solution \(\omega\) of ([\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="ref" reference="eqq"}) has no explicit expression. In, the inverse function of \(\omega\) is given by \[\label{eqq2} \lambda(s):=\int^s_{0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(W(\tau)-W(1))}}\mathrm{d}\tau, \qquad s\in(-1, 1).\] Thanks to ([\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.4"}), the function \(\lambda(s)\) is well-defined. Taking \(\omega\) as a basic layer (the name layer is motivated by the fact that \(\omega\) approaches the limits \(1\) and \(-1\) at \(\pm \infty\)), we will construct a solution of ([\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq1.1"}) with a 'transition layer' which is symmetric about the sphere \(\abs{x}=\gamma_n(t)\) in [\[sphere eq\]](#sphere eq){reference-type="eqref" reference="sphere eq"}. More precisely, we want to find a solution of equation [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"}, which has the following asymptotical behavior \[\label{eq1.12} u(t, x)\approx \omega\big(\abs{x}-\rho(t)\big),\] where \(\omega\) is given by ([\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="ref" reference="eqq"}). The function \(\rho(t)\) satisfies \[\label{eq1.13} \rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t), \qquad \text{with}\ h(t)=O\left(\frac{1}{\log\abs{t}}\right),\] where \(h(t)\) is an \(C^1\) function with respect of \(t\) and the function \(\gamma_n(t)\) is defined by [\[sphere eq\]](#sphere eq){reference-type="eqref" reference="sphere eq"}. In fact, \(\rho(t)\) can be chosen by solving the following ODE \[\rho'(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2\rho^3(t)}=Q\big(\rho(t), \rho'(t)\big), \qquad \text{with}\ Q\big(\rho(t), \rho'(t)\big)=O\left(\frac{1}{\abs{t}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{2(p-1)}}\right),\] for all \(t\leq0\) when \(n\geq4\) or \(t\geq0\) when \(n=2\), where \(p\in(n, n+1]\), see Section [5](#sec:tc){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:tc"}. Our main results can be stated as follows.
The paper is organized as follows. \(\clubsuit\) In the first part of Section [2](#sec:a){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:a"}, we deduce some estimates of decay for \(\omega\) in ([\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="ref" reference="eqq"}) and its derivatives. After that, an approximate solution, say \(z(t,\abs{x})\) with a parameter \(\rho(t)\) in [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"} and [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}, will be defined. By the perturbation of \(z(t,\abs{x})+\phi(t,\abs{x})\), the setting-up of a projected form of [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"} will be derived, see ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"})-([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}) with the Lagrange multiplier \(c(t)\). With the introduction of a suitable norm, the estimates of the error will be provided in the last part of Section [2](#sec:a){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:a"}. \(\clubsuit\) Section [3](#sec:lp){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:lp"} is devoting to the collection of some results of linear parabolic equations with a biharmonic operator and then obtain the solvability of a linear projected problem in ([\[eq3.1\]](#eq3.1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.1"}). \(\clubsuit\) In Section [4](#sec:nl){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:nl"}, we solve the nonlinear problem ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"})-([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}) by an argument of the fixed-point theorem. \(\clubsuit\) In Section [5](#sec:tc){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:tc"}, in order to obtain a radial solution to [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"} we choose a suitable parameter \(h(t)\) (in other words, adjusting the parameter \(\rho\) given by [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}) such that \(c(t)\) equals to zero, in problem ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"})-[\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.11"}.
# The setting-up: ansatz, the nonlinear projected problem for perturbation term {#sec:a}
## Some estimates of the basic layer
Before proving the main theorems, we first derive the decay estimates of the basic layer \(\omega\), which is the solution to equation ([\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="ref" reference="eqq"}).
Next we consider the kernel of a fourth order linear operator. The main result is stated as the following.
For the proof of this lemma, see Lemma [\[lem2\]](#lem2){reference-type="ref" reference="lem2"} which is a more general result. 0◻
## The setting-up of the problem {#section2.2}
We will prove that Theorem [\[thm4\]](#thm4){reference-type="ref" reference="thm4"} holds. Thus, we always assume that \(n\geq 4\) and \(t<0\) in the rest of the present paper. Let \(\widetilde{u}(t, \abs{x})\) be a solution of [\[eq1.1\]](#eq1.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.1"}, by a translation \(u(t, \abs{x})=\widetilde{u}(t-T, \abs{x})\) with some abuse of notation, then we have that \(u(t, r)\) satisfies the following problem \[\label{eq2.2} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} u_t=-u_{rrrr}-\frac{2(n-1)}{r}u_{rrr}+\Big(2W''(u)-\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\Big)u_{rr} +\Big(\frac{2(n-1)W''(u)}{r}+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^3}\Big)u_{r} \\[3mm] \hspace{0.8cm}+W'''(u)u^2_r-W'(u)W''(u), \qquad \ \ \forall\, (t, r)\in (-\infty,-T]\times(0, +\infty), \\[3mm] u_{rrr}(t, 0)=u_r(t, 0)=0,\hspace{2.35cm}\text{for all}\ t\in (-\infty,-T], \end{array} \right.\] where \(r=\abs{x}\) and \(T\) is a large positive number whose value can be adjusted at different steps. For convenience, we denote the right hand side of the first equation in ([\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.2"}) by \(F(u)\), that is \[\label{defF} \begin{aligned} F(u):=&-u_{rrrr}-\frac{2(n-1)}{r}u_{rrr}+\Big(2W''(u)-\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\Big)u_{rr} \\[2mm] &+\Big(\frac{2(n-1)W''(u)}{r}+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^3}\Big)u_{r}+W'''(u)u^2_r-W'(u)W''(u). \end{aligned}\] Our purpose is to find a solution of [\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.2"} with the property \[u(t, r)\approx \omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big),\] where \(\omega(y)\) is the solution of problem [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}. Firstly, we notice that \(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\) does not satisfies the boundary conditions in [\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.2"}. A smooth cut-off function \(\chi(r)\) can be defined in the form \[\label{dcut-off} \chi(r)=0, \qquad \text{for}\ r\leq\frac{\delta_0}{2}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \chi(r)=1, \qquad \text{for}\ r\geq\delta_0,\] for some small fixed positive number \(\delta_0\). We define the first approximate solution of ([\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.2"}) as the following \[\label{eq2.3} \widehat{\omega}(t, r)=\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\chi(r)+\chi(r)-1.\] Here we assume that the function \(\rho(t)\) has the from \[\rho(t)= \gamma_n(t)+h(t), \label{drho1}\] where the function \(h(t)=O((\log|t|)^{-1})\) as \(t\rightarrow-\infty\) and the function \(\gamma_n(t)\) is defined in [\[willmoreflowradial\]](#willmoreflowradial){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmoreflowradial"}-[\[sphere eq\]](#sphere eq){reference-type="eqref" reference="sphere eq"}, i.e. \[\label{dgamma-n} \gamma_n(t):=\sqrt[4]{-2(n-1)^2(n-3)t}, \qquad t<0,\] which is a radial solution of Willmore flow equation [\[willmore\]](#willmore){reference-type="eqref" reference="willmore"} with \(n\geq4\). More precisely, we assume that \(h(t)\) satisfies the following constraint \[\label{assumeh} \sup_{t\leq-1}\abs{h(t)}+\sup_{t\leq-1}\left\{\frac{\abs{t}}{\log\abs{t}}\abs{h'(t)}\right\}\leq 1.\] Secondly, by using [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}\label{eq2.4} -\partial_t\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+F(\widehat{\omega}(t, r))&=\rho'(t)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-\frac{(n-3)(n-1)}{r^2}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) \\[2mm] &\quad+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^3}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big), \qquad \text{for}\ r>\delta_0, \end{aligned}\] where the operator \(F(u)\) is defined by [\[defF\]](#defF){reference-type="eqref" reference="defF"}. By [\[dgamma-n\]](#dgamma-n){reference-type="eqref" reference="dgamma-n"}, we find that the second term in the right hand side of equality [\[eq2.4\]](#eq2.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.4"}, that is \[-\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big),\] has a slow decay of order \(O\left(\abs{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)\) as \(t\) goes to negative infinity. However, it is not enough to solve equation [\[eq2.4\]](#eq2.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.4"} since this term is much bigger than other terms in [\[eq2.4\]](#eq2.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.4"}. To cancel it and improve the approximate solution, inspired by, we define a correction function \[\label{w1} \widetilde{\omega}(y) :=-\omega'(y)\int_0^y \Bigg[ (\omega'(\hat{y}))^{-2}\int_{-\infty}^{\hat{y}}\frac{s(\omega'(s))^2}{2}\mathrm{d}s \Bigg]{\mathrm d}\hat{y},\] Then we have that \[\label{eq2.1}\begin{aligned} L^*(\widetilde{\omega}):=\big[-\partial_{yy}+W''(\omega(y))\big]\widetilde{\omega}(y)=\frac{1}{2}y\omega'(y), \qquad (L^*)^2\big[\widetilde{\omega}(y)\big]=-\omega''(y), \qquad \forall\, y\in\R, \end{aligned}\] and \(\widetilde{\omega}(y)\) is an odd function with exponential decay such that \[\label{dwtd} \int_{\R}\omega'(y)\widetilde{\omega}(y){\mathrm d}y=0\quad \text{and}\quad \abs{\widetilde{\omega}(y)}\leq Ce^{-\frac{3\alpha}{4}\abs{y}},\qquad \text{for}\ y\in\R.\] At last, we define an approximate solution of problem [\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.2"} as the following \[\label{dz} z(t, r):=\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\chi(r)+\chi(r)-1+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2} \widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\chi(r),\] where the cut-off function \(\chi(r)\) and the function \(\rho(t)\) are given by [\[dcut-off\]](#dcut-off){reference-type="eqref" reference="dcut-off"} and [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}. We will look for a solution of equation ([\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.2"}) of the form \[\label{eq2.30000} u(t, r)=z(t, r)+\phi(t, r),\] where \(\phi\) is a small perturbation term. This can be done by using the Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction method in two steps. The first step (see Sections [3](#sec:lp){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:lp"}-[4](#sec:nl){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:nl"}) is solving the following projected version of problem ([\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.2"}) in terms of \(\phi(t, r)\): \[\label{eq2.10} \begin{aligned} \phi_t=L[\phi]+E(t, r)+N(\phi)-c(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\qquad \text{in}\ (-\infty,-T]\times (0, \infty), \end{aligned}\] and \[\label{eq2.11} \int_{0}^\infty \phi(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big) r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r=0, \qquad \text{for all}\ t<-T,\] where the function \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) is defined by [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"}, the error term \(E(t, r)\) and nonlinear term \(N(\phi)\) are defined respectively by \[\label{Error} E(t, r):=F\big(z(t, r)\big)-\frac{\partial z(t, r)}{\partial t}\] and \[\label{nonlinearterm} N(\phi):=F\big(z(t, r)+\phi(t, r)\big)-F\big(z(t, r)\big)-F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\phi].\] In the above, \(F(u)\) is defined by [\[defF\]](#defF){reference-type="eqref" reference="defF"} and the linear operator \(L[\phi]:=F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\phi]\) is defined as follows \[\label{eq2.13} \begin{aligned} F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\phi]:=&-\phi_{rrrr}-\frac{2(n-1)}{r}\phi_{rrr} +\Bigg[2W''\big(z(t, r)\big)-\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\Bigg]\phi_{rr} \\[2mm] &-\big(W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\big)^2\phi +\Bigg[\frac{2(n-1)W''\big(z(t, r)\big)}{r}-\frac{(3-n)(n-1)}{r^3}\Bigg]\phi_{r} \\[2mm] &+2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi_rz_r-W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi+W^{(4)}\big(z(t, r)\big)\abs{z_r}^2\phi \\[2mm] &+2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)z_{rr}\phi+2\frac{n-1}{r}W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)z_r\phi. \end{aligned}\] The second step is to choose the function \(c(t)\) in such a way that \(\phi\) satisfies the orthogonality condition ([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}), namely the following equality holds: \[\begin{aligned}
&c(t)\int_{0}^\infty\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &=\int_{0}^\infty \Big[\omega'''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\frac{n-1}{r}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) -W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] \nonumber\\[2mm] &\qquad\qquad\times\left(-\phi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_r+W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi\right) r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &\quad +\int_{0}^\infty\left[\partial_{rr}z(t, r) +\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_{r}z(t, r)-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\right]\phi \omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &\quad +\int_{0}^\infty \phi(t, r)\partial_t\big[\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \ +\ \int_{0}^\infty\big(E(t, r)+N(\phi)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r, \label{eq2.14} \end{aligned}\] for all \(t<-T\). Later on, in Section [5](#sec:tc){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:tc"}, we will choose \(h(t)\) such that \(c(t)=0\). This means that the function \(u\) in [\[eq2.30000\]](#eq2.30000){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.30000"} will exactly solve [\[eq2.2\]](#eq2.2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.2"}.
## Estimates of the error terms
We will establish some estimates for the error term \(E(t, r)\) in [\[Error\]](#Error){reference-type="eqref" reference="Error"}. By Taylor's formula, the definitions in [\[defF\]](#defF){reference-type="eqref" reference="defF"} and [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
E(t, r)=&F\big(z(t, r)\big)-\frac{\partial z(t, r)}{\partial t} \\[2mm] =&F\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big)-\frac{\partial\big[ \widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big]}{\partial t} \\[2mm] =&F\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big) +F'\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\big[\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big] +F''\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\theta\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big)\big[\widetilde{z}(t, r), \widetilde{z}(t, r)\big] \\[2mm] &-\frac{\partial \widetilde{z}(t, r)}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial \widehat{\omega}(t, r)}{\partial t} \\[2mm] :=&E_1(t, r)+E_2(t, r), \end{aligned}\] where \(\theta\in(0, 1)\). In the above, the operators \(F(u)\) and \(F'(u)[v]\) are given by [\[defF\]](#defF){reference-type="eqref" reference="defF"} and [\[eq2.13\]](#eq2.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.13"} respectively, and the function \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) is given by [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"} and \(\widetilde{z}(t, r)\) is defined by \[\label{dzt}\begin{aligned} \widetilde{z}(t, r):=\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2} \widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\chi(r), \end{aligned}\] with \(\rho(t)\) and \(\chi(r)\) given by [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"} and [\[dcut-off\]](#dcut-off){reference-type="eqref" reference="dcut-off"} respectively. The operator \(F''(u)[v_1, v_2]\) is defined as the following \[\label{dFs}\begin{aligned} F''(u)[v_1, v_2]:=&\Delta\big[W'''(u)v_1v_2\big] \-\ \left\{W'''(u)W''(u) \ +\ W^{(4)}(u)\big[-\Delta u+W'(u)\big]\right\}v_1v_2 \\[2mm] &\ +\ W'''(u)\Big\{\big[\Delta v_1-W''(u)v_1\big]v_2 \ +\ \big[\Delta v_2-W''(u)v_2\big]v_1\Big\}. \end{aligned}\] The terms \(E_1(t, r)\) and \(E_2(t, r)\) have the following explicit forms \[\label{de1} E_1(t, r):=F\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)-\frac{\partial \widehat{\omega}(t, r)}{\partial t}+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\partial_{rr}\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)^2}{2r^3}\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r),\] and \[\begin{aligned}
E_2(t, r):=&-\left[\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\partial_{rr}\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)^2}{2r^3}\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\right] +F'\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\big[\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big] \nonumber \\[2mm] & +F''\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\theta\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big)\big[\widetilde{z}(t, r), \widetilde{z}(t, r)\big] -\frac{\partial \widetilde{z}(t, r)}{\partial t}. \label{de2}\end{aligned}\] The main result is given by the following lemma.
# The Linear Problem {#sec:lp}
In this section, firstly, we will obtain the solvability of a class of semilinear biharmonic parabolic equations by applying some properties of biharmonic heat kernel and fixed-point arguments, which is given in Proposition [\[prop8\]](#prop8){reference-type="ref" reference="prop8"}. Secondly, we will prove that the linear projected problem [\[eq3.1\]](#eq3.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.1"} is solvable by using Proposition [\[prop8\]](#prop8){reference-type="ref" reference="prop8"} and a priori estimate in Lemma [\[lem5\]](#lem5){reference-type="ref" reference="lem5"}. The main result is given by Proposition [\[prop2\]](#prop2){reference-type="ref" reference="prop2"}.
## A few results of linear parabolic equations with a biharmonic operator
We first collect some known results for homogeneous biharmonic parabolic equation, from. Its solution can be represented by the convolution of a biharmonic heat kernel and initial function.
Next we will use the above results to study the following inhomogeneous problem: \[\label{noneq} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} u_t+(-\Delta)^2u=f(t, x)\qquad\text{in}\ (t_0, t_1)\times\R^{n}, \\[2mm] u(t_0, x)=u_0(x)\hspace{1.7cm} \text{in}\ \R^n, \end{array} \right.\] where \(f(t, x)\in L^\infty((t_0, t_1)\times\R^{n})\) and \(u_0\in C^1(\R^n)\cap L^\infty(\R^n)\).
Notice that it is not hard to verify that \(u\) is a mild solution of [\[noneq\]](#noneq){reference-type="eqref" reference="noneq"} if and only if \(u\) solves it in the pointwise sense. We give some regularity estimates for mild solutions.
We will apply the above proposition to study the solvability of a class of semilinear parabolic equations. Let \(u_0\in C^1(\R^n)\cap L^\infty(\R^n)\), and we consider the initial value problem \[\label{heatnonlineareq} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} u_t+(-\Delta)^2u=G[\Delta u, \nabla u, u, t, x]\qquad \text{in}\ (t_0, t_1)\times\R^n, \\[2mm] u(t_0, x)=u_0(x)\hspace{3.35cm} \text{in}\ \R^n, \end{array} \right.\] where \(G[p, \vec{q}, s, t, x]:\R\times\R^n\times\R\times[t_0, +\infty)\times\R^n\rightarrow \R\) is a measurable function satisfying
1. For every \(M>0\) and \(T>t_0\), there exists \(C_{T, M}>0\) such that \(\Big{|}G[p, \vec{q}, s, t, x]\Big{|}\leq C_{T, M}\) for all \(x\in\R^n\), \(t\in[t_0, T]\) and \(p, \abs{\vec{q}}, s \in[-M, M]\).
2. There is a constant \(\sigma>0\) in such a way that \[\label{delpf} \Big{|}G[p_1, \vec{q}_1, s_1, t, x]-G[p_2, \vec{q}_2, s_2, t, x]\Big{|}\leq \sigma\Big(\abs{p_1-p_2}+\abs{\vec{q}_1-\vec{q}_2}+\abs{s_1-s_2}\Big),\] for all \(x\in\R^n, t\geq t_0\), \(p_1, p_2 \in\R\), \(\vec{q}_1, \vec{q}_2\in\R^n\) and \(s_1, s_2\in\R\).
In particular, we can take \[\label{defG} G[\Delta u, \nabla u, u, t, x]=a(t, x)\Delta u+\sum_{i=1}^nb^i(t, x)\nabla_{x_i} u+c(t, x)u+g(t, x),\] where those functions \(a(t, x)\), \(b^1(t, x), \cdots, b^n(t, x)\), \(c(t, x)\) are all belonging to \(L^\infty ([t_0, +\infty), C^1(\R^n))\) and \(g\in L^\infty([t_0, +\infty)\times\R^n)\). Assume that \(u(t, x)\) satisfies that \[\Delta u, \ \abs{\nabla u}, \ u\in L^{\infty}((t_0, t_1)\times\R^n),\] then by [\[demil\]](#demil){reference-type="eqref" reference="demil"}, \(u\) is a mild solution of [\[heatnonlineareq\]](#heatnonlineareq){reference-type="eqref" reference="heatnonlineareq"} if and only if \[\label{demils} u(t, x)=\Gamma_{t-t_0}[u_0](x)+\int^t_{t_0}\Gamma_{t-\tau}\Big[G[\Delta u, \nabla u, u, \tau, \cdot](\tau, \cdot)\Big](x){\mathrm d}\tau\qquad\text{for}\ (t, x)\in (t_0, t_1)\times\R^n.\] Notice that \(G[\Delta u, \nabla u, u, t, x]\in L^{\infty}((t_0, t_1)\times\R^n)\) by the assumptions on \(u\) and \(G\). Thus ([\[demils\]](#demils){reference-type="ref" reference="demils"}) is well defined by Proposition [\[prop7\]](#prop7){reference-type="ref" reference="prop7"}. Now we devote to the study of the solvability of problem [\[heatnonlineareq\]](#heatnonlineareq){reference-type="eqref" reference="heatnonlineareq"}. For convenience, we define a map \(\mathcal{N}_{G, u_0}\) from \(L^\infty[(t_0, t_1); C^{2}(\R^{n})]\) to itself as follows \[\mathcal{N}_{G, u_0}[u](t, x):=\Gamma_{t-t_0}[u_0](x)+\int^t_{t_0}\Gamma_{t-\tau}\Big[G[\Delta u, \nabla u, u](\cdot, \tau)\Big](x){\mathrm d}\tau\qquad\text{for}\ (x, t)\in \R^n\times(t_0, t_1),\] for \(u_0\in C^1(\R^n)\cap L^\infty(\R^n)\) and \(u\in L^\infty[(t_0, t_1); C^{2}(\R^{n})]\). The main result is the following:
## A priori estimate of a linear problem involving the operator \(L\)
Recall the functions \(\rho\), \(\gamma_n\) and \(h\) in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}-[\[assumeh\]](#assumeh){reference-type="eqref" reference="assumeh"}. By defining \[\|\psi\|_{C_{\Phi}\left((t_1, t_2)\times(0, \infty)\right)}:=\left\| \frac{\psi}{\Phi}\right\| _{L^\infty((t_1, t_2)\times(0, \infty))},\] we choose a set consisting of continuous functions as the following \[\begin{aligned}
& C_{\Phi}((t_1, t_2)\times(0, \infty)) \nonumber\\[2mm] &:=\left\{ \psi \ :\ \psi(t, r)=0, \ \forall\, (t, r)\in(t_1, t_2)\times\left(0, \frac{\delta_0}{2}\right), \ \text{and}\ \|\psi\|_{C_{\Phi}((t_1, t_2)\times(0, \infty))}<+\infty \right\}, \label{eq3.3} \end{aligned}\] where \(t_1<t_2<0\), \(\delta_0>0\) is a small fixed number, the functions \(\Phi(t, r)\) and is given by ([\[dpsi\]](#dpsi){reference-type="ref" reference="dpsi"}). Let us consider the following Cauchy problem: \[\label{eq3.5} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \psi_t=L[\psi]+g(t, r)\qquad \ \text{in}\ (s,-T]\times(0, \infty), \\[2mm] \psi(s, r)=0,\hspace{1.85cm} \forall\, r\in (0, +\infty), \\[2mm] \partial^j_r\psi(t, 0)=0, \hspace{1.55cm} \forall\, t\in (s,-T]\ \text{and}\ j=1, 3, \end{array} \right.\] where \(g\in C_{\Phi}\left((-\infty,-T]\times(0, \infty)\right)\), \(T>0\) and \(s+1<-T\). Notice that problem [\[eq3.5\]](#eq3.5){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.5"} has a unique solution \(\psi^s(t, r)\). Indeed, by the definition of the operator \(L[\psi]\) in [\[eq2.13\]](#eq2.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.13"}, we can rewrite \(L[\psi]\) as follows \[\begin{aligned}
L[\psi]=&-(\Delta)^2\psi+2W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\Delta \psi+2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\Delta z(t, r)\psi +W^{(4)}\big(z(t, r)\big)\abs{\nabla z(t, r)}^2\psi \\[2mm] &+2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\nabla z(t, r)\cdot\nabla \psi-\Big[\big|W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\big|^2-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\Big]\psi, \end{aligned}\] where we recall that approximate solution \[z(t, r)=\left(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2} \widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\right)\chi\big(r\big)+\chi\big(r\big)-1,\] and the functions \(\chi(r)\) and \(\rho(t)\) are given by [\[dcut-off\]](#dcut-off){reference-type="eqref" reference="dcut-off"} and [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"} respectively. According to Lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"} and the assumptions on \(W(s)\) in [\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.4"}, those coefficients in front of \(\Delta \psi\), \(\nabla\psi\) and \(\psi\) are all smooth and bounded for \(x\in\R^n\) and \(t<-2\). Thus we know that problem [\[eq3.5\]](#eq3.5){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.5"} is uniquely solvable by applying Proposition [\[prop8\]](#prop8){reference-type="ref" reference="prop8"}, and denote this solution by \(\psi^s(t, r)\). Moreover, we have that \(\psi^s(t, r)=0\) when \(r\in(0,\frac{\delta_0}{2})\). Indeed, we consider \[\psi^{e}(t,r):=\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \psi^s(t,r),\qquad \text{if}\ r\in(0,\frac{\delta_0}{2}]; \\[2mm] 0,\hspace{1.65cm} \text{if}\ r\in(\frac{\delta_0}{2},+\infty), \end{array} \right.\] which satisfies that \[\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \psi_t=-(\Delta)^2\psi+4\Delta\psi-4\psi\qquad \ \text{in}\ (s,-T]\times(0,+\infty), \\[2mm] \psi(s, r)=0,\hspace{3.1cm} \forall\, r\in (0, +\infty), \\[2mm] \partial^j_r\psi(t, 0)=0, \hspace{2.83cm} \forall\, t\in (s,-T]\ \text{and}\ j=1, 3, \end{array} \right.\] where \(n\geq4\) and we have used the fact that \(z(t,r)=-1\) when \(r\in(0,\frac{\delta_0}{2}]\). According to the proposition [\[prop8\]](#prop8){reference-type="ref" reference="prop8"}, the above equation has a unique mild solution \(\psi(t,r)=0\). Hence \(\psi^e(t,r)=0\), that is \(\psi^s(t, r)=0\) when \(r\in(0,\frac{\delta_0}{2}]\). We next establish a priori estimate for the solutions of problem ([\[eq3.5\]](#eq3.5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.5"}).
The proofs of this lemma consist of tedious analysis, which will be given in the sequel.
### Proof of Lemma [\[lem5\]](#lem5){reference-type="ref" reference="lem5"}
Here are the details.
### Proof of **Assertion** {#proofAssertion}
We will prove ([\[eq3.9\]](#eq3.9){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.9"}) by contradiction arguments in the following five steps. We assume that ([\[eq3.9\]](#eq3.9){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.9"}) is not valid. Then there exists a sequence \(\{i_m\in \mathbb{N}\}\) with \(\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty} i_m=\infty\) and \(R>0\) such that there exists \(l\in\{0, 1, 2, 3\}\) satisfying \[\left\|\frac{\partial^l_r\psi^{i_m}}{\Phi}\right\|_{L^\infty\left(A^{\left(s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}\right)}_{R}\right)}>0.\] Without loss of the generality, we assume that \[\Big\|\frac{\psi^{i_m}}{\Phi}\Big\|_{L^\infty\left( A^{\left(s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}\right)}_{R}\right)}>0.\] For the other situations, the following arguments are similar. Let \((\hat{t}_{i_m}, r_{i_m})\in A^{(s_{i_m}, t_{i_m})}_{R}=\big\{(t, r)\in (s_{i_m}, t_{i_m})\times \R: \abs{r-\gamma_{n}(t)}<R+1\big\}\) such that there exist \(\delta>0\) and \[\label{eq3.12} \abs{\frac{\psi^{i_m}(\hat{t}_{i_m}, r_{i_m})}{\Phi(\hat{t}_{i_m}, r_{i_m})}}>\delta>0.\] Let us introduce the following change of variables \[\nu=t-\hat{t}_{i_m},\quad y=r-y_{i_m}-\rho(t+\hat{t}_{i_m})\quad \text{and}\quad y_{i_m}=r_{i_m}-\gamma_{n}(\hat{t}_{i_m}),\] and set \[\label{eq3.14} \widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(\nu, y):=\frac{\psi_{i_m}\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m},\, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)\,} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m} +\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)},\] where we recall that \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\) defined in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}. Hence, there exists \(y_0\) such that \[\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow\infty}y_{i_m}=y_0 \quad \mbox{and}\quad \abs{y_0}<R+2.\] According to ([\[eq3.5\]](#eq3.5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.5"}), we have that \(\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}\) satisfies the following problem \[\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_\nu =&-\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yyyy}-\frac{2(n-1)}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yyy} +\Bigg[ 2W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)-\frac{(n-3)(n-1)}{ \big(y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)^2}\Bigg] \widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yy} \nonumber\\[2mm] &-\Big(W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\Big)^2\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} +\Bigg[\frac{2(n-1)W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}-\frac{(3-n)(n-1)}{\big(y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)^3}\Bigg]\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{y} \nonumber\\[2mm] &+2W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\hat{z}_{yy}\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} +2\frac{n-1}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\hat{z}_y\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} \nonumber\\[2mm] &+2W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\hat{z}_y\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_y-W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)W'\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} +W^{(4)}\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\abs{\hat{z}_y}^2 \widehat{\psi}^{i_m} \nonumber\\[2mm] &+\frac{g^{i_m}\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, \, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)}-\partial_\nu \rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{y} \qquad \text{in}\ \Gamma^{s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}}, \label{eq3.10} \end{aligned}\] with the conditions \[\begin{aligned}
\abs{\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(0, 0)}\geq\delta, \quad \widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, y)=0, \quad y\in\big(-y_{i_m}-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}), +\infty\big), \label{eq3.10-111} \end{aligned}\] where \[\hat{z}(\nu, y)=z\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big),\] and \[\Gamma^{s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}}:=\Big\{(\nu, y)\in \big(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m},\, 0\big]\times \big(-y_{i_m}-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}),\, +\infty\big)\Big\}.\] As the same as previous part, \(\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow\infty}(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m})=\hat{\varsigma}\), where \(\hat{\varsigma}\) equal to \(-\infty\) or a negative number. **Step** \(\mathbf{1}\). We first consider the case: \(\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow\infty}(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m})=-\infty\). We have that \(\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}\rightarrow\widehat{\psi}\) locally uniformly, \(\abs{\widehat{\psi}(0, 0)}>\delta>0\), which \(\widehat{\psi}\) satisfies the following equation \[\label{eq3.13} \begin{aligned} \widehat{\psi}_\nu=&-\widehat{\psi}_{yyyy}+2W''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\widehat{\psi}_{yy} +2W'''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\omega'(y+y_0)\widehat{\psi}_y-\Big[W''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\Big]^2\widehat{\psi} \\[3mm] &+\Big[W''''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\big(\omega'(y+y_0)\big)^2 +W'''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\omega''(y+y_0)\Big]\widehat{\psi}, \qquad \text{in} \ (-\infty, 0]\times\R. \end{aligned}\] According to ([\[dpsi\]](#dpsi){reference-type="ref" reference="dpsi"}), ([\[eq3.8\]](#eq3.8){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.8"}) and ([\[eq3.14\]](#eq3.14){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.14"}), by the definition of \(\rho\) in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}, similar as [\[esp\]](#esp){reference-type="eqref" reference="esp"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3.15} \nonumber\abs{\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(\nu, y)}=&\abs{\frac{\psi_{i_m}\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)}} \\[2mm]\nonumber \leq&\abs{\frac{\Phi\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)}} \\[2mm] \leq &C\big(\alpha, n, R, \|h\|_{L^\infty}\big) \big(1+\abs{y}\big)^p, \qquad \forall\, (\nu, y)\in B_{\hat{t}_{i_m}, j}, \end{aligned}\] for all \(j=0, 1\), where \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\) in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"} and the sets \(B_{\hat{t}_{i_m}, j}\) are defined as the following \[\begin{aligned}
B_{\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0}&:=\Big\{(\nu, y)\in (s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0]\times\R: 0 < y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\leq \delta_0\Big\}, \\[2mm] B_{\hat{t}_{i_m}, 1}&:=\Big\{(\nu, y)\in (s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0]\times\R: \delta_0 \leq y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})<+\infty\Big\}. \end{aligned}\] We notice that \[\label{eq3.17} \Gamma^{s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}}=\cup_{l=0}^{1}B_{\hat{t}_{i_m}, j} =\big(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0\big]\times\big(-y_{i_m}-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}),\, +\infty\big).\] Similarly, we have that \[\label{f4} \sum_{l=1}^3\abs{\partial_y^l\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(\nu, y)}\leq C (1+\abs{y})^p,\] for all \((\nu, y)\in \Gamma^{s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}}\), where \(p\in(n, n+1)\) and \(C\) depends on \(\alpha, R\), \(n\) and \(\|h\|_{L^\infty}\). Since \(\gamma_{n}(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(i\) goes to infinity, by ([\[f4\]](#f4){reference-type="ref" reference="f4"}), ([\[eq3.10\]](#eq3.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.10"})-[\[eq3.10-111\]](#eq3.10-111){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.10-111"}, and \(y_{i_m}\rightarrow y_0\), we can get the limiting equation in [\[eq3.13\]](#eq3.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.13"}. If \(\hat{\varsigma}\in (-\infty, 0)\), we have \(\hat{\psi}(\hat{\varsigma}, y)=0\). According to Proposition [\[prop8\]](#prop8){reference-type="ref" reference="prop8"}, we have that equation [\[eq3.13\]](#eq3.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.13"} has a unique solution \(\hat{\psi}(\nu, y)\equiv0\), which contradicts with \(\abs{\hat{\psi}(0, 0)}>0\). Hence, it only happens that \(\hat{\varsigma}=-\infty\). Thus, we get the desired result. **Step** \(\mathbf{2}\). We will prove the following orthogonality condition for \(\widehat{\psi}\) \[\label{eq3.16} \int_{\R}\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)\omega'(y+y_0){\mathrm d}y=0, \qquad \text{for all}\ \nu\in(-\infty, 0].\] In fact, according to ([\[eq3.6\]](#eq3.6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.6"}) and ([\[eq3.14\]](#eq3.14){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.14"}), we get that \[\begin{aligned}
0&= \frac{\left[y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\right]^{1-n}} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} \int_0^\infty \psi^{i_m}(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[2mm] &=\int_{-y_{i_m}-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}^\infty\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}(\nu, y)\omega'(y+y_{i_m}) \left[\frac{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})} {y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}\right]^{n-1}{\mathrm d}y, \end{aligned}\] where \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\) with \(\|h(t)\|_{L^\infty}<1\) and the function \(\omega\) is given by [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}. And using ([\[eq3.15\]](#eq3.15){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.15"}), ([\[eq3.17\]](#eq3.17){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.17"}) and Lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"}, we also get that \[\begin{aligned}
&\abs{\widehat{\psi}_{i_m}(\nu, y)\omega'(y+y_{i_m})}\leq C(R, n, \alpha, \|h\|_{L^\infty})(1+\abs{y})^p \exp\big\{-\alpha\abs{y+y_{i_m}}\big\}. \end{aligned}\] Since \(y_{i_m}\rightarrow y_0\) and \(\hat{t}_{i_m}\rightarrow-\infty\), as \(m\) goes to infinity, using Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, we can obtain that ([\[eq3.16\]](#eq3.16){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.16"}) holds. **Step** \(\mathbf{3}\). In this step, we will prove the following decay of \(\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)\): there exists a constant \(C\) of the form \[C=C\big(\alpha, n, R, \|h\|_{L^\infty}\big)>0\] such that \[\label{eq3.18} \abs{\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)}\leq \frac{C}{\left(1+\abs{y}\right)^2}, \qquad \forall\, (\nu, y)\in (-\infty, 0]\times\R.\] In fact, for any \((\nu, y)\in B_{t_{i_m}, j}\), by the definition of \(\rho(t)\) in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}, in view of the proof of ([\[eq3.15\]](#eq3.15){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.15"}), we have \[\label{f3} \abs{\frac{g^{i_m}\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)}} \leq C \|g^{i_m}\|_{C_{\Phi}((s_{i_m},\, t_{i_m})\times(0,+\infty))}(1+\abs{y})^p, \ \] for all \((\nu, y)\in \Gamma^{s_{i_m}, t_{i_m}}\) given by [\[eq3.17\]](#eq3.17){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.17"}, where \(C\) depends on \(\alpha, R, n\) and \(\|h\|_{L^\infty}\). By formula [\[f1\]](#f1){reference-type="eqref" reference="f1"}, the solution of equation [\[eq3.10\]](#eq3.10){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.10"} has the form \[\label{f2} \widehat{ \psi}_{i_m}(\nu, y)=\int_{0}^{\nu-s_{i_m}+\hat{t}_{i_m}}\int_{\R}e^{-\alpha^4\tau} \mathbf{Q}(\tau, x)\hat{f}_{i_m}\big(\hat{\psi}^{i_m}(\nu-\tau, y-x), \nu-\tau, y-x\big){\mathrm d}x{\mathrm d}\tau,\] for all \((\nu, y)\in(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0)\times\R\), where \(\alpha=\sqrt{W''(1)}\) and the function \(\hat{f}_{i_m}\) is given by \[\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}_{i_m}=&2\Big[W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)-W''(1)\Big]\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yy} +2W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\partial_y\hat{z}(\nu, y)\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_y-\Big(\big[W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\big]^2-\big[W''(1)\big]^2\Big)\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} \\[3mm] &+\Big\{\partial_{yy}W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)+W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\big[\partial_{yy}\hat{z}(\nu, y)-W'\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\big]\Big\}\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} \\[3mm] &-\frac{2(n-1)}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yyy}-\frac{(n-3)(n-1)}{\big(y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)^2}\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{yy} \\[3mm] &+\Bigg[\frac{2(n-1)W''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}-\frac{(3-n)(n-1)}{\big(y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)^3}\Bigg]\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{y} \\[3mm] &+2\frac{n-1}{y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})}W'''\big(\hat{z}(\nu, y)\big)\hat{z}_y\widehat{\psi}^{i_m} +\frac{g^{i_m}\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} {\Phi\big(\hat{t}_{i_m}, y_{i_m}+\rho(\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)} \\[3mm] &-\partial_\nu \rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\widehat{\psi}^{i_m}_{y} \end{aligned}\] and \(\hat{z}(\nu, y)=z\big(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m}, y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\big)\). According to the lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"}, [\[eq3.3\]](#eq3.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.3"}, [\[f3\]](#f3){reference-type="eqref" reference="f3"}, [\[eq3.15\]](#eq3.15){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.15"} and [\[f4\]](#f4){reference-type="eqref" reference="f4"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
\abs{\hat{f}_{i_m}}\leq &C(1+\abs{y})^p\Bigg[\exp\big\{-\alpha\abs{y+y_{i_m}}\big\} +\|g^{i_m}\|_{C_{\Phi}((s_{i_m}, t_{i_m})\times(0,+\infty))} \\[2mm] &\qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{\left[-(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\right]^{3/4}}+\sum_{l=1}^3\left(y+y_{i_m}+\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})\right)^{-l}\Bigg] \overline{\chi}_{\left\{y>\frac{\delta_0}{2}-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})-y_{i_m}\right\}}, \end{aligned}\] for all \((\nu, y)\in \big(s_{i_m}-\hat{t}_{i_m}, 0\big)\times(-\rho(\nu+\hat{t}_{i_m})-y_{i_m},+\infty)\), where \(C\) depends on \(\alpha, R, n\) and \(\|h\|_{L^\infty}\), and \(\overline{\chi}_{A}\) is the characteristic function of the set \(A\). Thus by [\[f2\]](#f2){reference-type="eqref" reference="f2"}, similar arguments as [\[13\]](#13){reference-type="eqref" reference="13"} and \(\abs{y_{i_m}}\leq R+2\), let \(m\) goes to infinity, and then we can get the desired result since \(\|g^{i_m}\|_{C_{\Phi}((s_{i_m}, \bar{t}_{i_m})\times(0,+\infty))}\rightarrow0\) as index \(m\) goes to infinity in [\[eq8\]](#eq8){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq8"} and the following fact that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{0}^{\nu+\check{t}_{i_m}}\int_{\R}e^{-\alpha^4\tau}\abs{\mathbf{Q}(\tau, y-x)}\big(1+\abs{x}\big)^p \exp\big\{-\alpha\abs{x+y_{i_m}}\big\}{\mathrm d}x{\mathrm d}\tau \\[2mm] &\leq C\int_{0}^{\nu+\check{t}_{i_m}}\int_{\R}\exp\left\{-\alpha^4\tau-\frac{1}{4}\abs{x}\right\} \exp\left\{-\frac{\alpha}{2}\abs{y-\tau^{1/4}x}\right\}{\mathrm d}x{\mathrm d}\tau \\[2mm] &\leq C\int_{0}^{\nu+\check{t}_{i_m}}\int_{\R}\exp\left\{-\alpha^4\tau-\frac{1}{4}\abs{x}\right\} \frac{1}{\left(1+\abs{y-\tau^{1/4}x}\right)^2}{\mathrm d}x{\mathrm d}\tau \\[2mm] &\leq C\int_{0}^{\nu+\check{t}_{i_m}}\int_{\R}\exp\left\{-\alpha^4\tau-\frac{1}{4}\abs{x}\right\} \left(\frac{1+\abs{\tau^{1/4}x}}{1+\abs{y}}\right)^2{\mathrm d}x{\mathrm d}\tau \\[2mm] & \leq \frac{C}{\left(1+\abs{y}\right)^2}, \end{aligned}\] where \(\check{t}_{i_m}:=\hat{t}_{i_m}-s_{i_m}\) and \(C>0\) only depends on \(\alpha\). **Step** \(\mathbf{4}\). To proceed further, we need the following result. However, we can not find the proof of this result in references. Here we give a proof in details.
**Step** \(\mathbf{5}\). We will prove that [\[eq3.9\]](#eq3.9){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.9"} holds. Multiplying ([\[eq3.13\]](#eq3.13){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.13"}) by \(\hat{\psi}(y)\) and integrating with respect to \(y\), and using [\[eqi\]](#eqi){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqi"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
0=&\frac{1}{2}\int_\R \big(\widehat{\psi}^2\big)_\nu{\mathrm d}y+\int_\R\abs{\widehat{\psi}_{yy}-W''\big(\omega(y+y_0)\big)\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)}^2{\mathrm d}y \\[2mm] \geq& \frac{1}{2}\int_\R \big(\widehat{\psi}^2\big)_\nu{\mathrm d}y+c\int_\R\abs{\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)}^2{\mathrm d}y, \end{aligned}\] where the constant \(c>0\). Then, according to the Gronwall inequality, we get that \[a(\nu)\geq a(0)e^{-2c\nu}, \ \ \ \ \forall\, \nu<0,\ \] where the function \[a(\nu):=\int_\R\abs{\widehat{\psi}(\nu, y)}^2{\mathrm d}y.\] This is a contradiction since ([\[eq3.18\]](#eq3.18){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.18"}). The proof of [\[eq3.9\]](#eq3.9){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.9"} is completed.
## The projected linear problem involving the operator \(L\)
We consider the following projection problem: \[\label{eq3.19} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \psi_t=L[\psi]+g(t, r)-c(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\qquad \text{in}\ (s,-T]\times(0, \infty), \\[2mm] \psi(s, r)=0, \qquad \forall\, r\in (0, +\infty), \\[2mm] \partial_r^j\psi(t, 0)=0, \qquad \forall\, t\in (s,-T], \ \ j=1, 3, \end{array} \right.\] where the linear operator \(L[\psi]=F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\psi]\) is defined by [\[eq2.13\]](#eq2.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.13"}, the function \(g\in C_{\Phi}((s, -T)\times (0, +\infty))\) and \(c(t)\) satisfies the following relation \[\begin{aligned}
&c(t)\int_{0}^\infty\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &= \int_{0}^\infty \Big[\omega'''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\frac{n-1}{r}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) -W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] \nonumber\\[3mm] &\qquad\qquad\times\left[-\psi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\psi_r+W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\psi\right] r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &\quad+\int_{0}^\infty\left[\partial_{rr}z(t, r) +\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_{r}z(t, r)-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\right]\psi \omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &\quad+\int_{0}^\infty \psi(t, r)\partial_t\big[\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \,+\, \int_{0}^\infty g(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big) r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r, \label{eq3.20} \end{aligned}\] for all \(t\in (s,-T]\), where the functions \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) and \(z(t, r)\) are defined by [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"} and [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"} respectively. If \(\psi\) is a solution of ([\[eq3.19\]](#eq3.19){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.19"}) and \(c(t)\) satisfies ([\[eq3.20\]](#eq3.20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.20"}), integration by parts will imply that \(\psi\) satisfies the following the orthogonality condition \[\label{eq3.21} \int_0^\infty \psi(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho_i(t)\big) r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r=0, \qquad \forall\, t\in (s,-T).\] For ([\[eq3.20\]](#eq3.20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.20"}), we have the following result:
According to Lemma [\[lem6\]](#lem6){reference-type="ref" reference="lem6"}, we have
## The solvability of a linear projected problem
In this section, we devote to building the solvability of the following linear parabolic projected problem: \[\label{eq3.1} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \psi_t=L[\psi]+g(t, r)-c(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r) \qquad\text{in}\ (-\infty,-T]\times(0, \infty), \\[2mm] \int_{\R}r^{n-1}\psi(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big){\mathrm d}r=0, \hspace{0.75cm} \text{for all}\ t\in (-\infty,-T], \end{array} \right.\] for a bounded function \(g\), and \(T>0\) fixed sufficiently large. In the above, the linear operator \(L\) is given by [\[eq2.13\]](#eq2.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.13"}, the functions \(\rho(t)\) and \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) are defined by ([\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="ref" reference="drho1"}) and [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"} respectively. The function \(c(t)\) solves the following relation: \[\begin{aligned}
&c(t)\int_{0}^\infty\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &= \int_{0}^\infty \Big[\omega'''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\frac{n-1}{r}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) -W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] \nonumber\\[3mm] &\qquad\qquad \times\left[-\psi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\psi_r+W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\psi\right]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &\quad+\int_{0}^\infty\Bigg[\partial_{rr}z(t, r)+\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_{r}z(t, r)-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\Bigg]\psi \omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[3mm] &\quad+\int_{0}^\infty \psi(t, r)\partial_t[\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \,+\, \int_{0}^\infty g(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r, \label{eq3.2} \end{aligned}\] for all \(t<-T\), where \(z(t, r)\) is given by [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"}. Indeed, this can be solved uniquely since if \(T\) is taken sufficiently large, the coefficient \(\int_{0}^\infty\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r\) is strictly positive. The main result in this section is as follows:
\(\mathbf{Proof \ of\ Proposition \ \ref{prop2} }\): We choose a sequence \(s_j\rightarrow-\infty\). Let \(\psi^{s_j}\) be the solution to problem ([\[eq3.19\]](#eq3.19){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.19"}) with \(s=s_j\), according to Lemma [\[lem7\]](#lem7){reference-type="ref" reference="lem7"}. By ([\[eq3.27\]](#eq3.27){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.27"}), we can find that the sequence \(\{\psi^{s_j}\}\) converges to \(\psi\) (up to subsequence) locally uniformly in \((-\infty,-T_1)\times(0, \infty)\). Using ([\[eq3.7\]](#eq3.7){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.7"}) and Proposition [\[prop7\]](#prop7){reference-type="ref" reference="prop7"}, we have that \(\psi\) is a solution of ([\[eq3.1\]](#eq3.1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.1"}) and satisfies ([\[eq3.4\]](#eq3.4){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3.4"}). The proof is completed.
# Solving the nonlinear projected problem {#sec:nl}
In this section, we mainly solve the nonlinear problem ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"})-([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}) by using the fixed-point arguments. According to the result in Proposition [\[prop2\]](#prop2){reference-type="ref" reference="prop2"}, \(\phi\) is a solution of ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"})-([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}) if only if \(\phi\in C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T_1)\times(0, \infty))\) is a fixed point of the following operator \[\label{eq4.2} \mathbf{ T}(\phi):=\mathcal{A}\big(E(t, r)+N(\phi)-c(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big),\] where \(T_1\) and \(\mathcal{A}\) are given by Proposition [\[prop2\]](#prop2){reference-type="ref" reference="prop2"}. Let \(T\geq T_1\), We define a set \[\label{LambdaT} \Lambda_T:=\Big\{h\in C^1(-\infty,-T]:\ \|h\|_{\Lambda_T}<1\Big\},\] with the norm \[\label{LambdaTNorm} \|h\|_{\Lambda_T}:=\sup_{t\leq-T}|h(t)|+\sup_{t\leq-T}\Big(\frac{|t|}{\log|t|}|h'(t)|\Big),\] and also a close domain \[\label{eq4.9} X_{T}:=\left\{\phi:\phi\in C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))\ \ \text{and}\ \ \sum_{l=0}^2\big\|\partial^l_r\phi\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))} \leq \frac{2 \widehat{C}}{\log T}\right\},\] where the space \(C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))\) is defined by [\[eq3.3\]](#eq3.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.3"} and \(\widehat{C}\) is a fixed constant. The main result is given by the following proposition
To prove the above proposition, we first prepare two lemmas. We note that the error term \(E(t, r)\) and the nonlinear term \(N(\phi)\) in [\[Error\]](#Error){reference-type="eqref" reference="Error"}-([\[nonlinearterm\]](#nonlinearterm){reference-type="ref" reference="nonlinearterm"}) are all dependent of \(h\), due to the setting \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\) in [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"}. So we denote \(E(t, r)\) and \(N(\phi)\) by \(E(t, r, h)\) and \(N(\phi, h)\).
**Proof of Proposition [\[prop3\]](#prop3){reference-type="ref" reference="prop3"}** We consider the operator \(\mathbf{T}\) defined by ([\[eq4.2\]](#eq4.2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.2"}) from the domain \(X_{T}\) in ([\[eq4.9\]](#eq4.9){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.9"}) to itself. We will prove \(\mathbf{T}\) is a contraction mapping. Thus by fixed-point theorem, the operator \(\mathbf{T}\) has a unique fixed point \(\phi\), i.e. \(\mathbf{T}(\phi)=\phi\). For any \(\phi_1, \phi_2\in X_{T}\), according to Lemma [\[lem10\]](#lem10){reference-type="ref" reference="lem10"}, Lemma [\[lem8\]](#lem8){reference-type="ref" reference="lem8"} and Proposition [\[prop2\]](#prop2){reference-type="ref" reference="prop2"}, we find that \[\sum_{l=0}^2\big\|\partial^l_r\mathbf{T}(0)\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty, T_4)\times(0, \infty))}\leq \frac{\widehat{C}}{\log T}\] and \[\sum_{l=0}^2\big\| \partial^l_r \left[\mathbf{T}(\phi_1)-\mathbf{T}(\phi_2)\right]\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty, T)\times(0, \infty))} \leq \frac{\widehat{C}}{\log T} \| \phi_1-\phi_2\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty, T)\times(0, \infty))}.\] Hence, \(\mathbf{T}\) is a contraction mapping in \(X_{T}\) for any \(T\) large enough. Hence, according to Banach fixed-point theorem, there exists a unique \(\phi\in X_{T}\) such that \(\mathbf{T}(\phi)=\phi\). Next we will prove the estimate ([\[eq4.3\]](#eq4.3){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.3"}). Choosing \(h_1, h_2\in \Lambda_{T}\), according to the above proof, we know that there exist \(\phi_i=\phi(t, r, h_i)\), \(i=1, 2\), are two solutions to problem [\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.10"}-[\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.11"} with \(\rho=\gamma_n+h_i\) respectively. We note that \(\phi_1-\phi_2\) does not satisfy the orthogonality condition ([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}). Let us consider a function \(\bar{\phi}=\phi_1-\bar{\phi}_2\), where \[\bar{\phi}_2= \phi_2-\tilde{c}(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r),\] where \(\widehat{\omega}_l(t, r):=\omega\big(r-\rho_1(t)\big)\chi(\gamma_n(t)r)\) with \(\rho_1(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h_1(t)\), the cut-off function \(\chi\) is defined by [\[dcut-off\]](#dcut-off){reference-type="eqref" reference="dcut-off"}, and \(\tilde{c}(t)\) is defined by the following relation \[\tilde{c}(t)\int_{0}^\infty \partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho_1(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r =\int_{0}^\infty \phi_2(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho_1(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r,\] for all \(t\leq-T\). According to the proof of Lemma [\[lem6\]](#lem6){reference-type="ref" reference="lem6"}, the coefficient of \(\tilde{c}(t)\) in the left hand side of above equality is strictly positive, hence the function \(\tilde{c}(t)\) is well-defined. Thus \(\bar{\phi}\) satisfies the following problem \[\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \bar{\phi}_t=F'\big(z_1(t, r)\big)[\bar{\phi}] \,+\, \big[E(t, r, h_1)-E(t, r, h_2)\big] \,+\, \big[N(\phi_1, h_1)-N(\phi_2, h_2)\big] \\[3mm] \quad \quad+c_2(t)\big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big] \,+\, R(h_1, h_2) \,-\, \big[c_1(t)-c_2(t)\big]\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r) \\[3mm] \quad \quad \ \text{in}\ (-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty), \\[3mm] \int_{0}^\infty \bar{\phi}(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho_1(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r=0, \qquad \text{for all}\ t<-T, \end{array} \right.\] where \(\widehat{\omega}_i(t, r):=\omega(r-\rho_i(t))\chi(\gamma_n(t)r)\) with \(i=1, 2\), and the term \(R(h_1, h_2)\) is defined by \[\begin{aligned}
R(h_1, h_2)=&\,\tilde{c}'(t)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r) +\tilde{c}(t)\partial_t\big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big] \\[2mm] &+\tilde{c}(t)F'(z_1(t, r))\big[\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big] +F'\big(z_2(t, r)\big)[\phi_2]-F'\big(z_1(t, r)\big)[\phi_2], \end{aligned}\] where \(z_i(t, r)\) is defined by [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"} with \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h_i(t)\) for \(i=1, 2\). Recall that the linear operator \(L[\phi]=F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\phi]\) is given by \[\begin{aligned}
L[\phi]:=&-\phi_{rrrr}-\frac{2(n-1)}{r}\phi_{rrr}+\Bigg[2W''\big(z(t, r)\big)-\frac{(n-3)(n-1)}{r^2}\Bigg]\phi_{rr}-\big(W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\big)^2\phi \\[2mm] &+\Bigg[\frac{2(n-1)W''\big(z(t, r)\big)}{r}-\frac{(3-n)(n-1)}{r^3}\Bigg]\phi_{r} +2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi_rz_r+W^{(4)}\big(z(t, r)\big)\abs{z_r}^2\phi \\[2mm] &-W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi +2W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)z_{rr}\phi+2\frac{n-1}{r}W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)z_r\phi, \end{aligned}\] where the approximate solution \(z(t,r)\) is defined by [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"}. Hence by Proposition [\[prop2\]](#prop2){reference-type="ref" reference="prop2"}, the proof of Lemma [\[lem2\]](#lem2){reference-type="ref" reference="lem2"}, Lemmas [\[lem7\]](#lem7){reference-type="ref" reference="lem7"} and [\[lem8\]](#lem8){reference-type="ref" reference="lem8"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=0}^2 \| \partial^l_r\bar{\phi}\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))}\leq &C\frac{1}{\log T}\Big\{\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_T}+\|\phi_1-\phi_2\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))}\Big\} \nonumber\\[2mm] &+C\sup_{t\leq-T}\frac{\abs{t}^{1/2}}{\left(\log\abs{t}\right)^{1-p}}\Big(\abs{\tilde{c}(t)}+\abs{\tilde{c}'(t)}\Big). \label{eq4.10} \end{aligned}\] By the orthogonality condition ([\[eq2.11\]](#eq2.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.11"}), we have \[\label{eq4.11}\begin{aligned} \abs{\int_{0}^\infty \phi_2(t, r)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} &=\abs{\int_{0}^\infty \phi_2(t, r)\Big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\Big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} \\[2mm] &\leq \frac{C}{\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{p-1}\abs{t}^{\frac{1}{2}}\log T}\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_{T}}\abs{\gamma_n(t)}^{n-1}, \end{aligned}\] where we have used the following fact \[\abs{\frac{\partial_r\widehat{\omega}(t, r)}{\Phi(t, r)}}\leq C\abs{t}^{1/2}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{p-1}, \qquad \text{for all} \ r>0,\] where \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) is defined by [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"}. We consider \[\label{eq4.12}\begin{aligned} &\abs{\frac{{\mathrm d}}{{\mathrm d}t}\int_{0}^\infty \phi_2(t, r)\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} =\abs{\frac{{\mathrm d}}{{\mathrm d}t}\int_{0}^\infty \phi_2(t, r) \big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r }. \end{aligned}\] By the definition of \(F'\big(z(t, r)\big)[\phi]\) and integration by parts, we have \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{0}^\infty (\phi_2)_t\big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber \\[2mm] &=\int_{0}^\infty \Big[(\phi_2)_t-F'\big(z_2(t, r)\big)[\phi]\Big]\Big(\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\Big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &\quad+\int_0^\infty\left(-\phi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_r+W''\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\right)\partial_{rr}\big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber \\[2mm] &\quad+(n-1)\int_0^\infty\left(-\phi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_r+W''\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\right)\partial_r\big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\big]r^{n-2}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber \\[2mm] &\quad+\int_0^\infty W''\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\Big[\phi_{rr}+\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_r-W''\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\phi\Big]\Big(\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\Big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber \\[2mm] &\quad+\int_{0}^\infty\left(\partial_{rr}z_2+\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_rz_2-W'\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\right) W'''\big(z_2(t, r)\big)\phi\Big(\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\Big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r. \label{eq4.13} \end{aligned}\] By the previous fixed-point arguments and the above equality [\[eq4.13\]](#eq4.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq4.13"}, we have \[\label{eq4.14}\begin{aligned} \abs{\int_{0}^\infty r^{n-1}(\phi_2)_t\Big[\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_2(t, r)-\partial_r\widehat{\omega}_1(t, r)\Big]{\mathrm d}r} \leq \frac{C}{\log T}\frac{\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_{T}}}{\abs{t}^{\frac{1}{2}}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{p-1}} \abs{\gamma_n(t)}^{n-1}. \end{aligned}\] By the above estimates ([\[eq4.11\]](#eq4.11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.11"}), ([\[eq4.12\]](#eq4.12){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.12"}), ([\[eq4.14\]](#eq4.14){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.14"}) and the definition of \(\tilde{c}(t)\), we have \[\abs{\tilde{c}(t)}+\abs{\tilde{c}'(t)}\leq \frac{C}{\log T}\frac{\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_{T}}}{\abs{t}^{\frac{1}{2}}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{p-1}}, \qquad \forall\, t<-T.\] Hence \[\sum_{l=0}^2 \big\|\partial^l_r \bar{\phi}\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))} \leq \frac{C}{\log T}\Big[ \big\|\phi_1-\phi_2\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))}+\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_{T}}\Big],\] where \(C\) is uniform positive constant independent of \(T\). Eventually, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=0}^2\big\| \partial_r^l[\phi_1-\phi_2]\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))} &\leq \sum_{l=0}^2 \big\| \partial_r^l\bar{\phi}\big\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))} +C\sup_{t\leq-T}\frac{\abs{t}^{1/2}}{\big(\log\abs{t}\big)^{p-1}}\abs{\tilde{c}(t)} \\[2mm] &\leq C \frac{1}{\log T}\Big[ \| \phi_1-\phi_2\|_{C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, \infty))}+\|h_1-h_2\|_{\Lambda_{T}}\Big], \end{aligned}\] where we choose \(T\) large enough. Thus we can obtain the estimate ([\[eq4.3\]](#eq4.3){reference-type="ref" reference="eq4.3"}).
# The reduction procedure: choosing the parameter \(h\) {#sec:tc}
As we stated in Section [2.2](#section2.2){reference-type="ref" reference="section2.2"}, the left job is to choose suitable \(h(t)\), i.e. \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\), such that the function \(c(t)\) vanishes in equation ([\[eq2.10\]](#eq2.10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.10"}).
## Deriving the reduced equation involving \(h(t)\)
According to ([\[eq2.14\]](#eq2.14){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2.14"}), the relation \(c(t)=0\) is equivalent to \[\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7.12} 0=&\int_{0}^\infty \Big[\omega'''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\frac{n-1}{r}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) -W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] \nonumber\\[2mm] &\qquad\qquad \times\left(-\phi_{rr}-\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_r+W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi\right) r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] & +\int_{0}^\infty\left[\partial_{rr}z(t, r) +\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_{r}z(t, r)-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\right]\phi \omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] & +\int_{0}^\infty \phi(t, r)\partial_t\big[\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \,+\, \int_{0}^\infty \big(E(t, r)+N(\phi)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r, \end{aligned}\] where the error term \(E(t, r)\) and the nonlinear term \(N(\phi)\) are defined by [\[Error\]](#Error){reference-type="eqref" reference="Error"}-([\[nonlinearterm\]](#nonlinearterm){reference-type="ref" reference="nonlinearterm"}), \(z(t, r)\) is given by [\[dz\]](#dz){reference-type="eqref" reference="dz"} and \(\phi, \phi_r, \phi_{rr}\in C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0,+\infty))\) defined by [\[eq3.3\]](#eq3.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq3.3"}. The tedious computations of all terms in [\[eq7.12\]](#eq7.12){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.12"} will be given in the following parts.
###
We first estimate the projection of the error term \(E(t, r)\). According to [\[de1\]](#de1){reference-type="eqref" reference="de1"} and [\[de2\]](#de2){reference-type="eqref" reference="de2"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{+\infty}E(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r =& \int_{0}^{\delta_0}E(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &+\sum_{l=1}^5\int_{\delta_0}^{+\infty}\widetilde{E}_l(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r, \label{integerate E} \end{aligned}\] where \(\gamma_n(t)\) is given by [\[dgamma-n\]](#dgamma-n){reference-type="eqref" reference="dgamma-n"} with fixed small positive number \(\delta_0\), and the functions \(\widetilde{E}_1(t, r), \cdots, \widetilde{E}_5(t, r)\) are defined as follows \[\label{dee}\begin{aligned} \widetilde{E}_1(t, r)&:=\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\left(\rho'(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2r^3}\right), \\[2mm] \widetilde{E}_2(t, r)&:=-\partial_{rr}\Big(\partial_{rr}\widehat{\omega}(t, r)-W'\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\Big) +W''\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\Big(\partial_{rr}\widehat{\omega}(t, r)-W'\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\Big), \\[2mm] \widetilde{E}_3(t, r)&:=\frac{2(n-1)}{r}\Big[W''\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)-W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\Big]\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big), \\[2mm] \widetilde{E}_4(t, r)&:=F'\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\big)\big[\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big]-\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\left[\frac{(n-3)}{2r}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)+\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\right], \\[2mm] \widetilde{E}_5(t, r)&:=F''\big(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)+\theta\widetilde{z}(t, r)\big) \big[\widetilde{z}(t, r), \widetilde{z}(t, r)\big]-\frac{\partial\widetilde{z}(t, r)}{\partial t}, \end{aligned}\] where the functions \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) and \(\widetilde{z}(t, r)\) are defined by [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"} and [\[dzt\]](#dzt){reference-type="eqref" reference="dzt"} respectively. For the first term in the right hand side of [\[integerate E\]](#integerate E){reference-type="eqref" reference="integerate E"}, by Lemma [\[lem10\]](#lem10){reference-type="ref" reference="lem10"}, we have that \[\label{intE_1}\begin{aligned} \abs{\int_{0}^{\delta_0}E(t, r)\partial_r\big[\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big]r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} &\leq C \int_{0}^{\delta_0}\Phi(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[2mm] &\leq C\frac{\, \big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}\log\abs{t}}{\abs{t}^{1/2}\, }\exp\Bigg\{-\frac{\gamma_n(t)}{2}\Bigg\}, \end{aligned}\] where \(\gamma_n(t)\) is defined by [\[dgamma-n\]](#dgamma-n){reference-type="eqref" reference="dgamma-n"} and \(C>0\) only depends on \(n\) and \(\alpha=\sqrt{W''(1)}\). Next we will estimate other terms in the right hand side of [\[integerate E\]](#integerate E){reference-type="eqref" reference="integerate E"}. Using the definition of \(\widehat{\omega}(t, r)\) in [\[eq2.3\]](#eq2.3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.3"} and equation in [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}, we have that \[\widetilde{E}_2(t, r)=\widetilde{E}_3(t, r)=0, \qquad \text{for all}\ r>\delta_0.\] For \(\widetilde{E}_1(t, r)\) in [\[dee\]](#dee){reference-type="eqref" reference="dee"}, by Lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\delta_0}^\infty\widetilde{E}_1(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &= \int_{\delta_0}^\infty\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\left(\rho'(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2r^3}\right)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \nonumber\\[2mm] &=\left(\rho'(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2\rho^3(t)} \right)\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}\int_{\R}\big[\omega'(x)\big]^2{\mathrm d}x \,+\, O\left(\frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}\log\abs{t}}{\abs{t}^{5/4}}\right), \label{ese1} \end{aligned}\] where we have used the fact that \[\int_\R[\omega'(y)]^2y{\mathrm d}y=0,\] in the last equality. Next we estimate the terms \(\widetilde{E}_4(t, r)\) given in [\[dee\]](#dee){reference-type="eqref" reference="dee"}, by the definition of \(\widetilde{z}(t, r)\) in [\[dzt\]](#dzt){reference-type="eqref" reference="dzt"} and the same arguments in proof of Lemma [\[lem10\]](#lem10){reference-type="ref" reference="lem10"}, [\[eq2.13\]](#eq2.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.13"}, for all \(r>\delta_0\), we have that \[\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{E}_4(t, r)&=\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^3} \Bigg\{4\partial_{rrr}\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-4W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\partial_r\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big) -\frac{(n-3)}{2}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big) \\[3mm] &\qquad\qquad\qquad-2(n-3)\Big[\partial_{rrr}\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\partial_{r}\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big) \omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big) \\[3mm] &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-W'''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\widetilde{ \omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big]\Bigg\} \\[3mm] &\quad+\frac{1}{r^4}\Bigg\{\Big[12(n-4)-(n-1)(n-3)\Big]\partial_{rr}\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-4(n-4)W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Bigg\} \\[3mm] &\quad+\rho'(t)\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{r^2}\widetilde{\omega}'\big(r-\rho(t)\big) \,+\, O\left(\frac{1}{r^5}\sum_{j=1}^ke^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\abs{r-\rho(t)}\right), \end{aligned}\] where we have used that \(\widetilde{\omega}(x)\) in [\[w1\]](#w1){reference-type="eqref" reference="w1"} and its derivatives have exponential decay. Thus, by same arguments in above estimate of the projection of \(\widetilde{E}_2(t, r)\) and the equalities in [\[eq2.1\]](#eq2.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.1"}, [\[w1\]](#w1){reference-type="eqref" reference="w1"} and [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}, integrating by parts, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\delta_0}^\infty\widetilde{E}_4(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[2mm] &=4(n-3)(n-1)\int^\infty_{\frac{\gamma_n}{2}-\rho(t)}\omega'(y) \Big[\widetilde{\omega}'''(y)-W''\big(\omega(y)\big)\widetilde{\omega}'(y)\Big]\big[y+\rho(t)\big]^{n-4}{\mathrm d}y \\[2mm] &\quad+\frac{(n-3)^2(n-1)}{2}\int^\infty_{\delta_0-\rho(t)}\omega'(y) \Big[2y\omega''(y)+\omega'(y)\Big]\big[y+\rho(t)\big]^{n-4}{\mathrm d}y \,+\, \int^\infty_{\delta_0-\rho}\frac{\omega'(y)\big[y+\rho(t)\big]^{n-6}}{\exp\Big\{\alpha\frac{\abs{y}}{2}\Big\}}{\mathrm d}y \\[2mm] &\quad \,+\, \int^\infty_{\delta_0-\rho(t)}\Bigg[\Big(12(n-4)-4(n-1)(n-3)\Big)\widetilde{\omega}''(y)-4(n-4)W''\big(\omega(y)\big)\widetilde{\omega}(y)\Bigg] \omega'(y)\big[y+\rho(t)\big]^{n-4}{\mathrm d}y \\[2mm] &\quad+\frac{\rho'(t)}{\big[\rho(t)\big]^2}\int^\infty_{\delta_0-\rho(t)}\widetilde{\omega}'(y)\omega'(y)dy \\[2mm] &=O\left(\frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}}{\abs{t}^{5/4}}\right), \end{aligned}\] where we have used [\[eq2.4\]](#eq2.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.4"}, [\[eq2.1\]](#eq2.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.1"}, [\[dwtd\]](#dwtd){reference-type="eqref" reference="dwtd"} and the fact that \[\int_\R \omega'(y)\Big[2y\omega''(y)+\omega'(y)\Big]{\mathrm d}y=0.\] For the term \(\widetilde{E}_5(t, r)\) in [\[dee\]](#dee){reference-type="eqref" reference="dee"}, by the definitions in [\[dzt\]](#dzt){reference-type="eqref" reference="dzt"} and [\[dFs\]](#dFs){reference-type="eqref" reference="dFs"}, the properties of \(W\) in [\[eq1.4\]](#eq1.4){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq1.4"} and the oddness of \(\widetilde{\omega}\) in [\[w1\]](#w1){reference-type="eqref" reference="w1"} respectively, and the equalities in [\[eq2.1\]](#eq2.1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq2.1"}, we get that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\delta_0}^\infty\widetilde{E}_5(t, r)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[2mm] &=\int_{\delta_0}^\infty\Bigg\{ \partial_{rr}\left[W'''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)^2\right]-W'''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)^2 \\[2mm] & \quad +2\Big[\partial_{rr}\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-W''\big(\omega\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\big)\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] W'''\big(\omega(r-\rho(t)\big)\widetilde{\omega}\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Bigg\}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-5}{\mathrm d}r \\[2mm] & \quad +O\left(\int^\infty_{\delta_0-\rho(t)}\frac{\omega'(y)\big[y+\rho(t)\big]^{n-6}}{\exp\Big\{\alpha\frac{\abs{y}}{2}\Big\}}{\mathrm d}y \right) \\[2mm] &=O\left( \frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}}{\abs{t}^{5/4}}\right). \end{aligned}\]
###
We next estimate other terms in the right hand side of [\[eq7.12\]](#eq7.12){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.12"}. By \(\phi\in C_{\Phi}((-\infty,-T)\times(0, +\infty))\) and the definitions of \(\Phi(t, r)\) and \(\rho(t)\) in [\[dpsi\]](#dpsi){reference-type="eqref" reference="dpsi"} and [\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="eqref" reference="drho1"} respectively, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
&\int_{0}^{\infty}\abs{N(\phi)}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[3mm] &\leq C\int_{0}^\infty\big(\Phi(t, r)\big)^2\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[3mm] &\leq C\frac{\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^2} {\abs{t}}\int^{+\infty}_{\frac{\gamma_n(t)}{4}-\rho(t)} \left (1+\abs{x+\rho(t)-\frac{\alpha}{3}\log\abs{t}}\right )^{-2p}\big[x+\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}\omega'(x){\mathrm d}x \\[3mm] &\quad +C\frac{\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^2}{\abs{t}}\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}\exp\Bigg\{-\frac{\gamma_n(t)}{2}\Bigg\}. \end{aligned}\] Thus, by Lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"} and direct computations, we have that \[\label{en} \int_{0}^{\infty}\abs{N(\phi)}\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r\leq C \frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}}{\abs{t}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{2(p-1)}},\] where \(C\) only depends on \(\alpha, n\) and \(\|h\|_{L^\infty}\). We estimate the first and second term in [\[eq7.12\]](#eq7.12){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.12"}. According to Taylor expansion and [\[eqq\]](#eqq){reference-type="eqref" reference="eqq"}, the same argument as the proof of Lemma [\[lem2\]](#lem2){reference-type="ref" reference="lem2"}, we have that \[\begin{aligned}
\Bigg{|}&\int_{0}^\infty\Big[-\omega'''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)-\frac{n-1}{r}\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big) +W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)\Big] \\[3mm] &\qquad\qquad \times\left[\phi_{rr}+\frac{n-1}{r}\phi_{r}-W''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi\right] r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[3mm] &\ +\int_{0}^\infty\left[\partial_{rr}z(t, r)+\frac{n-1}{r}\partial_{r}z(t, r)-W'\big(z(t, r)\big)\right]W'''\big(z(t, r)\big)\phi\omega'\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r\Bigg{|} \\[3mm] &\leq C\int_{-\rho(t)}^\infty\abs{\left[\omega^{(4)}(r)-W''\big(\omega(r)\big)\omega''(r)-W'''\big(\omega(r)\big) [\omega'(r)]^2\right]\phi\big(t, r+\rho(t)\big)}\big[r+\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r \\[3mm] &\leq C\frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}}{\abs{t}\big[\log\abs{t}\big]^{p-2}}. \end{aligned}\] By Lemma [\[lem1\]](#lem1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem1"} and the definition of \(\rho\) in ([\[drho1\]](#drho1){reference-type="ref" reference="drho1"}), similar arguments as in [\[en\]](#en){reference-type="eqref" reference="en"}, we have \[\begin{aligned}
\abs{\rho'(t)\int_{0}^\infty \phi(t, r)\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} &\leq \frac{C}{\abs{t}^{3/4}} \abs{ \int_{0}^\infty \Phi(t, r)\omega''\big(r-\rho(t)\big)r^{n-1}{\mathrm d}r} \\[2mm] & \leq C \frac{\big[\rho(t)\big]^{n-1}}{\abs{t}^{5/4}}. \end{aligned}\] Combining the above estimates, we can obtain that ([\[eq7.12\]](#eq7.12){reference-type="ref" reference="eq7.12"}) is equivalent to the following ODE: \[\label{eq7.13}\begin{aligned} \rho'(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2\rho^3(t)}=Q\big(\rho(t), \rho'(t)\big), \end{aligned}\] for all \(t<-T\), where we recall that \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\), and \(\gamma_n(t)\) is given by [\[dgamma-n\]](#dgamma-n){reference-type="eqref" reference="dgamma-n"}. The function \(h(t)\) belongs to the set \(\Lambda_T\) with \(T>T_2\), where \(T_2\) is given by Proposition [\[prop3\]](#prop3){reference-type="ref" reference="prop3"} and we also recall the following two definitions in [\[LambdaT\]](#LambdaT){reference-type="eqref" reference="LambdaT"}-[\[LambdaTNorm\]](#LambdaTNorm){reference-type="eqref" reference="LambdaTNorm"} \[\Lambda_T=\left\{h(t): h\in C^1(-\infty, -T] \quad \text{and}\quad \|h\|_{\Lambda_T}< 1 \right\},\] where \[\label{eq7.16} \|h\|_{\Lambda_T}=\sup_{t\leq-T}\abs{h(t)}+\sup_{t\leq-T}\left[\frac{\abs{t}}{\log\abs{t}}\abs{h'(t)}\right].\] According to the above arguments, Proposition [\[prop3\]](#prop3){reference-type="ref" reference="prop3"} and Lemma [\[lem10\]](#lem10){reference-type="ref" reference="lem10"}, we have that
## Solving the reduced equation involving \(h\)
In the rest of this section we will study the ODE in [\[eq7.13\]](#eq7.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.13"}. We look for solutions of [\[eq7.13\]](#eq7.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.13"} of the form \(\rho(t)=\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\), then \(h(t)\) satisfies that \[h'(t)+\gamma'_n(t)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2\big[\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\big]^3}=P\big(h(t), h'(t)\big)\qquad \text{in}\ (-\infty,-\widehat{T}_0],\] where \(\widehat{T}_0>T_2\), where \(T_2\) is given by Proposition [\[prop3\]](#prop3){reference-type="ref" reference="prop3"}. By the definition of \(\gamma_n(t)\) in [\[dgamma-n\]](#dgamma-n){reference-type="eqref" reference="dgamma-n"}, the above equation is equivalent to \[\label{eq7.14} h'(t)+\frac{3h(t)}{4t}=\widetilde{P}\big(h(t), h'(t)\big)\qquad \text{in}\ (-\infty,-\widehat{T}_0],\] where \[\label{dpt} \widetilde{P}\big(h(t), h'(t)\big):=P\big(h(t), h'(t)\big)+\frac{(n-3)(n-1)^2}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\big(\gamma_n(t)\big)^3}-\frac{1}{\big(\gamma_n(t)+h(t)\big)^3} -\frac{3h(t)}{\big(\gamma_n(t)\big)^4}\right].\] We will solve equation [\[eq7.14\]](#eq7.14){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.14"} by applying the fixed-point theorem in a suitable space with \(h(-\widehat{T}_0)=0\). It is easily to check that if \(h(t)\) is a solution of [\[eq7.14\]](#eq7.14){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.14"} with initial data \(0\), then it has the form \[\label{eq7.17} h(t)=-\frac{1}{{(-t)}^{\frac{3}{4}}}\int^{-T_0}_t{(-s)}^{\frac{3}{4}} \widetilde{P}\big(h(s), h'(s)\big)\mathrm{d}s,\] with \(t\leq-\widehat{T}_0\). Let us define two operators as following \[\mathcal{ P}(h(t)):=-\frac{1}{{(-t)}^{\frac{3}{4}}}\int^{-\widehat{T}_0}_t{(-s)}^{\frac{3}{4}} \widetilde{P}\big(h(s), h'(s)\big)\mathrm{d}s \qquad \text{and}\qquad \mathcal{ P}'(h(t)):=\partial_t \mathcal{ P}(h(t)).\] Then using Proposition [\[prop1\]](#prop1){reference-type="ref" reference="prop1"} and [\[dpt\]](#dpt){reference-type="eqref" reference="dpt"}, we have that \[\label{eq7.15} \abs{\mathcal{ P}(0)}\leq\frac{ \widetilde{C}(n, \alpha)}{\log \widehat{T}_0}\quad \text{and}\quad \frac{\abs{t}}{\log\abs{t}}\abs{\mathcal{ P}'(0)}\leq\frac{ \widetilde{C}(n, \alpha)}{\log \widehat{T}_0},\] with \(\widehat{T}_0>e^{2}\), where \(\widetilde{C}(n, \alpha)\) is a positive constant depending on \(n\) and \(\alpha\). We consider the domain \[Y:=\left\{h(t)\in C^1(-\infty,-\widehat{T}_0]\ :\ \|h(t)\|_{\Lambda_{\widehat{T}_0}}\leq \frac{2\widetilde{C}(n, \alpha)}{\log \widehat{T}_0}\right\},\] where the norm \(\|\cdot\|_{\Lambda_T}\) is given by [\[eq7.16\]](#eq7.16){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.16"} and \(\widetilde{C}(n, \alpha)\) is a positive constant in [\[eq7.15\]](#eq7.15){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.15"}. According to Proposition [\[prop1\]](#prop1){reference-type="ref" reference="prop1"} and [\[dpt\]](#dpt){reference-type="eqref" reference="dpt"}, we get that for all \(h_1, h_2\in Y\), \[\abs{\mathcal{ P}(h_1)-\mathcal{ P}(h_2)}\leq\frac{C(n, \alpha)}{\log \widehat{T}_0} \|h_1(t)-h_2(t)\|_{\Lambda_{\widehat{T}_0}}\] and \[\abs{\mathcal{ P}'(h_1)-\mathcal{ P}'(h_2)}\leq\frac{C(n, \alpha)}{\log \widehat{T}_0} \|h_1(t)-h_2(t)\|_{\Lambda_{\widehat{T}_0}},\] where \(C(n, \alpha)>0\) only depends on \(n\) and \(\alpha\). Thus by Banach fix point theorem, there exists \(h(t)\in Y\) such that \(\mathcal{P}(h(t))=h(t)\), if we choose \(\widehat{T}_0\) big enough. Thus we proved that the ODE in [\[eq7.13\]](#eq7.13){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.13"} is solvable. Furthermore, by the formula in [\[eq7.17\]](#eq7.17){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7.17"}, we get that \[\abs{h(t)}\leq\frac{C}{\log\abs{t}}, \qquad \text{as} \ t\rightarrow-\infty.\] | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:53', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14522', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14522'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
Highly directive radiation from a finite aperture is desired in many electromagnetics applications such as radar, communications, sensing, and imaging. In this context, Fabry Pérot cavity (FPC) antennas have captured significant research interest because they offer high gain with a small aperture while retaining a simple feed structure for ease of fabrication and conformal deployment . The FPC consists of a dielectric cavity encased by a metal ground plane on one side and a partially reflecting surface (PRS) on the other. Excitation from a primary radiator within the cavity undergoes multiple reflections between the PRS and ground plane before emanating from the antenna, resulting in an enhanced gain. The primary FPC radiators have been conventionally linearly polarised (LP) microstrip patches or slot antennas. The design of circularly polarized (CP) FPC antennas is relatively very challenging. In applications such as communications, biomedical imaging, and sensing, CP mode is desired to prevent the possible polarisation mismatch between the transmit and receive signals. This ensures maximum power from the transmit to the receive antenna irrespective of their orientations. A common way to achieve CP FPC is to employ a CP primary radiator such as a feed point at a particular position on an asymmetric and rectangular patch. However, this technique suffers from low fabrication error tolerances and narrow bandwidths. Simple patches with dual-orthogonal feed structures have also been proposed but a complicated feeding mechanism negates the purpose of realizing a simple single-feed high gain FPC antenna. Alternatively, a linearly polarized primary radiator is used and the polarization is subsequently changed to circular by the PRS. Here, a single-feed LP microstrip patch serves as the primary radiator. But the superstrate PRS is specifically designed to convert linear to circular polarization. In, the PRS was designed with a periodic array of unit cells where each unit cell consists of a rectangular loop with a diagonal. The resulting axial ratio of the structure was fairly low, but the antenna system was narrowband and of low gain. Our preliminary work in showed that further enhancements in the bandwidth and gain could be realized by incorporating peripheral roughness in the form of bricks along the metal edges of the unit cell. However, there are considerable degrees of freedom (DoFs) in the number and distribution of the bricks along the periphery. This design is not optimal because the evaluation of each candidate design, through either electromagnetic (EM) simulations or measurements, is slow and laborious. In this paper, we propose accelerating the design optimization process by replacing the time-consuming EM simulations with rapid neural network-based surrogate models. In general, the antenna design often involves optimization of several complicated and irregular geometry parameters in order to meet multiple objectives pertaining to the resonant frequency, gain, polarization, bandwidth, and size constraints. The procedure involves two time-consuming steps before the optimal design is realized: The first step is the synthesis of multiple candidate designs for evaluation. Traditionally, antenna parameters were optimized through trial and error. Later works have employed evolutionary algorithms, such as genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization, wherein geometry parameters were optimized through an iterative synthesis of antenna designs constrained by a fitness function on the antenna characteristics. In the second step, the antenna characteristics for each design are simulated using computationally-expensive full-wave EM solvers involving finite difference time domain techniques, finite element methods, or method of moments. Several recent studies have shown to reduce the computational workload during the evaluation process through machine learning (ML) techniques, including artificial neural networks, support vector regression, and deep learning (DL) networks. These methods map the non-linear relationship between the geometric parameters and antenna characteristics using data from EM solvers. Once trained, the design process is significantly accelerated with the surrogate model replacing the EM solver for rapidly generating the antenna behaviors for any given set of geometry parameters. In this context, deep generative adversarial networks (GANs) have emerged as a preferred DL technique to solve a wide variety of EM problems. A GAN works as a zero-sum game between two deep networks: generator and discriminator. Its objective is to *implicitly* learn the probabilistic distribution of a set of training samples and, subsequently, create samples of the distribution during the prediction stage. The generator produces samples of a distribution from the training data while the discriminator assesses the samples and decides if they are real or fake (produced by the generator). The primary advantage of using the GAN framework with two competing neural networks is that the GAN is semi-supervised and requires smaller, less diverse training data set . In this work, we propose to accelerate the CP FPC parameter optimization through a GAN-aided design procedure. The generator serves as a surrogate model for producing samples of antenna characteristics using training antenna patterns obtained from an EM solver. The inputs to the generator are the unit cell geometric parameters. Once the surrogate model is trained, we use it to simultaneously evaluate the antenna characteristics of several hundred candidate designs, eventually facilitating the choice of the optimal design with bandwidth, axial ratio, and gain as 269 MHz, 0.4 dB, and 7.5 dBi respectively. We demonstrate the feasibility of our proposed method through validation via full-wave simulations, fabrication of optimized antenna, and hardware measurements.
# FPC Structure {#sec:sysmod}
In FPC, the primary source of excitation is introduced within the cavity. The height of the cavity is carefully chosen such that the multiple reflections within the cavity are in phase with each other when they emanate from the antenna, thereby enhancing the gain of the primary radiator. The polarization of the resulting radiation is determined by either the polarization of the primary radiating source or by the unit cell in the PRS. Consider a basic FPC structure (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}a), where a single feed patch antenna-the primary radiator resonating at \(2.4\) GHz-is mounted on a Rogers 4350B substrate and impedance matched to 50 \(\Omega\) through a three-stage quarter-wave transformer (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}b(i)). The other side of the substrate is a partial ground metal plane of copper (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}b(ii)). The patch radiates into a polystyrene-based dielectric cavity which is enclosed, on the other end, by a Rogers 4350B superstrate. The inner side of the superstrate is printed with a periodic array of \(4 \times 4\) unit cells in copper to form a PRS (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}b(iii)). Each unit cell of the PRS is a rectangular loop with a diagonal. The dimensions of this basic antenna structure (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}) remain fixed across all candidate designs. Then, peripheral roughness is introduced to metallic edges along each dimension of the unit cell through 36 \(0.5 \times 0.5\) mm\(^2\) metal bricks (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}b(iv)). The positions of the bricks along the peripheries of the rectangular loop become the DoFs for reducing the axial ratio while enhancing the gain and bandwidth. The position of each brick is indicated in two-dimensional (2-D) Cartesian coordinates, with the origin assumed to be at the left lower corner of the unit cell. The antenna system with each unique unit cell design is simulated in CST Microwave Studio to obtain the electrical characteristics from 2 to 3 GHz. Since this is a 3-D antenna structure, there are approximately 6.4 million mesh cells for each design with a simulation duration of each around 75 minutes, which is excessive.
# GAN Architecture for CP FPC Design {#sec:GAN Architecture for Antenna Design}
We propose to reduce the resource-expensive EM simulations by replacing them with a GAN at the prediction stage. This network is a semi-supervised learning architecture comprising a generator (\(G_{\theta}\)) and a discriminator (\(D_{\phi}\)) (Fig. [\[fig:TrainingGAN\]](#fig:TrainingGAN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:TrainingGAN"}a). During the training phase, the 2-D position coordinates of 36 bricks in the unit cell in the PRS are reshaped to a single column vector, \(This is concatenated with a latent noise vector,\[, of\)\[100 \]\(size, to prevent overfitting, and provided as input to\)G\_\(. The output of the generator (\)G\_(+
\]\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:objectivefn} V(G_{\theta},D_{\phi})= log(D_{\phi}(\yb))+\log(1-D_{\phi}(G_{\theta}(\mathbf{z}+ \end{gathered}\[The optimal \(G\) and \(D\) are obtained by solving the minimax problem, i.e., \(\{D^{\ast}_{\phi}, G^{\ast}_{\theta}\} = \underset{G_{\theta}}{\text{arg min}}\;\underset{D_{\phi}}{\text{arg max}}\; V(D_{\phi},G_{\theta})\). The training process involved iterative simultaneous stochastic gradient descent based on Adam optimization on batches of 16 samples of \(The total number of iterations was set to 10000. The learning rate of the stochastic gradient descent operation for both networks was\)`<!-- -->`{=html}5\^-4\(and batch normalization was applied with a momentum of 0.8. The network\)G\(had 128, 256, and 512 nodes in the first, second, and third layers, respectively, with \emph{Leaky ReLU} activation functions. The network\)D\(had similar 512 and 256 nodes in two respective hidden layers. The output layer had one node with\)sigmoid\(function. \section{Numerical Experiments} \label{sec:numexp} We implemented the DL network with Keras 2.7 and Python on an Intel Core i7-10510U processor running at 1.80 GHz and NVIDIA GeForce MX250. \subsection{Validation of surrogate model via simulations} Consider the architecture in Fig.~\ref{fig:TrainingGAN}b where the input antenna designs (distinct from those used for training) correspond to the brick positions in the unit cell form\]and the output are the corresponding antenna characteristics\)= G(+ )\(. The (fake) output\[of\)G\(was then compared with\]generated from the EM solver to monitor the training process. We used\)`<!-- -->`{=html}90%\(and\)`<!-- -->`{=html}10%\(of a total of 300 antenna designs-pattern pairs for training and validation, respectively, with 10-fold cross-validation. We compared the performance metrics as a function of frequency from 2 to 3 GHz. \begin{table}[t] \centering \caption{\small NMSE of antenna characteristics } \label{Comparison_table} \begin{tabular}{p{1cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2.0cm}} \hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt} Methods & Axial Ratio (dB) & Return Loss (dB) & Gain (dBi)\\[1pt] \hline \hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt} ANN& 5.4&7.5& 5.67\\ CNN& 1.35&3.65& 5.3\\ GAN&0.05&2.28&2.9\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} Training and test data in Fig.~\ref{fig:Histogram}a-c show that these metrics vary with the spatial distribution of the peripheral roughness features and the data were not overfitted. Finally, comparisons (Table.~\ref{Comparison_table}) with a fully connected artificial neural network (ANN) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained with the same data demonstrate that GAN has the lowest normalized mean square error (NMSE) between the real and fake antenna characteristics. \subsection{Fabrication and measurement results} \label{subsec:GAN Rsults} The simple rectangular patch is essentially an LP narrowband (20 MHz bandwidth) and low gain (3.4 dBi) antenna. The PRS structure enhances the gain and bandwidth of the structure to 188.5 MHz and 9.4 dBi gain (Fig.~\ref{fig:ExperimentalResult}) with a resonant frequency shifted from 2.4 GHz. The unit cell design of a \emph{rectangular loop with a diagonal} without roughness transforms the patch’s LP signal to an elliptically polarised wave with an axial ratio of 7.4 dB. The peripheral roughness features reduce the axial ratio without accounting for DoF in the metal brick distribution. The trained generator is able to analyze the antenna characteristics of 500 such designs in 20 seconds (as against 625 hours with CST). From these 500 antenna characteristics (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Histogram}d-f), we chose the design with a wide bandwidth of 269 MHz and axial ratio of 0.4 dB. We validated this with CST and fabricated the corresponding antenna (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}c). The measurements from the actual antenna show very good agreement with GAN and CST results (Fig.~\ref{fig:ExperimentalResult}). \begin{table}[t] \centering \caption{\small Comparison with competing antenna structure } \ \label{table: Comparison of antenna characteristics} \begin{tabular}{p{3.3cm}|p{1.25cm}|p{1.35cm}|p{1.0cm}} \hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt} Antenna & Bandwidth (MHz) & Axial Ratio (dB)& Gain (dBi) \\[1pt] \hline \hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt} Simple patch & 20 & 40 & 3.4\\ FPC with PRS & 88.5 & 7.6 & 9.4\\ GAN-based FPC, rough PRS & 269 & 0.4 & 7.5\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} Quantitative comparisons (Table.\ref{table: Comparison of antenna characteristics}) with FPC and the simple patch further demonstrate the performance enhancements with a GAN-aided design. \section{Summary} \label{sec:Conclusion} Peripheral roughness along the edges of the unit cell of the PRS of a CP-FPC offers several DoFs for improving antenna performance. We proposed a versatile GAN-based FPC design strategy where we train a GAN to serve as a surrogate model using input-output pairs of antenna designs and their corresponding patterns obtained from the solver. The proposed design strategy enables rapid evaluation of a large number of candidate designs. Our GAN-optimized unit cell yielded axial ratio, gain, and bandwidth of 0.4 dB, 7.5 dBi, and 269 MHz, respectively, thereby considerably improving the performance of the original FPC structure. Fabrication and experimental validations supported the GAN results. The design files and GAN codes are available at \url{https://essrg.iiitd.edu.in/?page_id=4355}. \bibliographystyle{ieeetr} \section{Introduction} \label{sec:Introduction} Highly directive radiation from a finite aperture is desired in many electromagnetics applications such as radar, communications, sensing, and imaging. In this context, Fabry P\'{e}rot cavity (FPC) antennas have captured significant research interest because they offer high gain with a small aperture while retaining a simple feed structure for ease of fabrication and conformal deployment . The FPC consists of a dielectric cavity encased by a metal ground plane on one side and a partially reflecting surface (PRS) on the other. Excitation from a primary radiator within the cavity undergoes multiple reflections between the PRS and ground plane before emanating from the antenna, resulting in an enhanced gain. The primary FPC radiators have been conventionally linearly polarised (LP) microstrip patches or slot antennas. The design of circularly polarized (CP) FPC antennas is relatively very challenging. In applications such as communications, biomedical imaging, and sensing, CP mode is desired to prevent the possible polarisation mismatch between the transmit and receive signals. This ensures maximum power from the transmit to the receive antenna irrespective of their orientations. A common way to achieve CP FPC is to employ a CP primary radiator such as a feed point at a particular position on an asymmetric and rectangular patch. However, this technique suffers from low fabrication error tolerances and narrow bandwidths. Simple patches with dual-orthogonal feed structures have also been proposed but a complicated feeding mechanism negates the purpose of realizing a simple single-feed high gain FPC antenna. Alternatively, a linearly polarized primary radiator is used and the polarization is subsequently changed to circular by the PRS. Here, a single-feed LP microstrip patch serves as the primary radiator. But the superstrate PRS is specifically designed to convert linear to circular polarization. In, the PRS was designed with a periodic array of unit cells where each unit cell consists of a rectangular loop with a diagonal. The resulting axial ratio of the structure was fairly low, but the antenna system was narrowband and of low gain. Our preliminary work in showed that further enhancements in the bandwidth and gain could be realized by incorporating peripheral roughness in the form of bricks along the metal edges of the unit cell. However, there are considerable degrees of freedom (DoFs) in the number and distribution of the bricks along the periphery. This design is not optimal because the evaluation of each candidate design, through either electromagnetic (EM) simulations or measurements, is slow and laborious. In this paper, we propose accelerating the design optimization process by replacing the time-consuming EM simulations with rapid neural network-based surrogate models. In general, the antenna design often involves optimization of several complicated and irregular geometry parameters in order to meet multiple objectives pertaining to the resonant frequency, gain, polarization, bandwidth, and size constraints. The procedure involves two time-consuming steps before the optimal design is realized: The first step is the synthesis of multiple candidate designs for evaluation. Traditionally, antenna parameters were optimized through trial and error. Later works have employed evolutionary algorithms, such as genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization, wherein geometry parameters were optimized through an iterative synthesis of antenna designs constrained by a fitness function on the antenna characteristics. In the second step, the antenna characteristics for each design are simulated using computationally-expensive full-wave EM solvers involving finite difference time domain techniques, finite element methods, or method of moments. Several recent studies have shown to reduce the computational workload during the evaluation process through machine learning (ML) techniques, including artificial neural networks, support vector regression, and deep learning (DL) networks. These methods map the non-linear relationship between the geometric parameters and antenna characteristics using data from EM solvers. Once trained, the design process is significantly accelerated with the surrogate model replacing the EM solver for rapidly generating the antenna behaviors for any given set of geometry parameters. In this context, deep generative adversarial networks (GANs) have emerged as a preferred DL technique to solve a wide variety of EM problems. A GAN works as a zero-sum game between two deep networks: generator and discriminator. Its objective is to \emph{implicitly} learn the probabilistic distribution of a set of training samples and, subsequently, create samples of the distribution during the prediction stage. The generator produces samples of a distribution from the training data while the discriminator assesses the samples and decides if they are real or fake (produced by the generator). The primary advantage of using the GAN framework with two competing neural networks is that the GAN is semi-supervised and requires smaller, less diverse training data set . In this work, we propose to accelerate the CP FPC parameter optimization through a GAN-aided design procedure. The generator serves as a surrogate model for producing samples of antenna characteristics using training antenna patterns obtained from an EM solver. The inputs to the generator are the unit cell geometric parameters. Once the surrogate model is trained, we use it to simultaneously evaluate the antenna characteristics of several hundred candidate designs, eventually facilitating the choice of the optimal design with bandwidth, axial ratio, and gain as 269 MHz, 0.4 dB, and 7.5 dBi respectively. We demonstrate the feasibility of our proposed method through validation via full-wave simulations, fabrication of optimized antenna, and hardware measurements. \section{FPC Structure} \label{sec:sysmod} In FPC, the primary source of excitation is introduced within the cavity. The height of the cavity is carefully chosen such that the multiple reflections within the cavity are in phase with each other when they emanate from the antenna, thereby enhancing the gain of the primary radiator. The polarization of the resulting radiation is determined by either the polarization of the primary radiating source or by the unit cell in the PRS. Consider a basic FPC structure (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}a), where a single feed patch antenna-the primary radiator resonating at\)`<!-- -->`{=html}2.4\(GHz-is mounted on a Rogers 4350B substrate and impedance matched to 50\)\(through a three-stage quarter-wave transformer (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}b(i)). The other side of the substrate is a partial ground metal plane of copper (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}b(ii)). The patch radiates into a polystyrene-based dielectric cavity which is enclosed, on the other end, by a Rogers 4350B superstrate. The inner side of the superstrate is printed with a periodic array of\)`<!-- -->`{=html}4 \(unit cells in copper to form a PRS (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}b(iii)). Each unit cell of the PRS is a rectangular loop with a diagonal. The dimensions of this basic antenna structure (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}) remain fixed across all candidate designs. Then, peripheral roughness is introduced to metallic edges along each dimension of the unit cell through 36\)`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5 \(mm\)\^2\(metal bricks (Fig.~\ref{fig:Antenna}b(iv)). The positions of the bricks along the peripheries of the rectangular loop become the DoFs for reducing the axial ratio while enhancing the gain and bandwidth. The position of each brick is indicated in two-dimensional (2-D) Cartesian coordinates, with the origin assumed to be at the left lower corner of the unit cell. The antenna system with each unique unit cell design is simulated in CST Microwave Studio to obtain the electrical characteristics from 2 to 3 GHz. Since this is a 3-D antenna structure, there are approximately 6.4 million mesh cells for each design with a simulation duration of each around 75 minutes, which is excessive. \section{GAN Architecture for CP FPC Design} \label{sec:GAN Architecture for Antenna Design} We propose to reduce the resource-expensive EM simulations by replacing them with a GAN at the prediction stage. This network is a semi-supervised learning architecture comprising a generator (\)G\_\() and a discriminator (\)D\_\() (Fig.~\ref{fig:TrainingGAN}a). During the training phase, the 2-D position coordinates of 36 bricks in the unit cell in the PRS are reshaped to a single column vector,\) This is concatenated with a latent noise vector, \(\mathbf{z}\), of \([100 \times 1]\) size, to prevent overfitting, and provided as input to \(G_{\theta}\). The output of the generator (\(G_{\theta}(\mathbf{z}+ \par\noindent\small \begin{multline} \label{eqn:objectivefn} V(G_{\theta},D_{\phi})= log(D_{\phi}(\yb))+\log(1-D_{\phi}(G_{\theta}(\mathbf{z}+ \end{multline}\normalsize The optimal\)G\(and\)D\(are obtained by solving the minimax problem, i.e.,\){D\^\_, G\^\_} = V(D\_,G\_)\(. The training process involved iterative simultaneous stochastic gradient descent based on Adam optimization on batches of 16 samples of\) The total number of iterations was set to 10000. The learning rate of the stochastic gradient descent operation for both networks was \(5\times10^{-4}\) and batch normalization was applied with a momentum of 0.8. The network \(G\) had 128, 256, and 512 nodes in the first, second, and third layers, respectively, with *Leaky ReLU* activation functions. The network \(D\) had similar 512 and 256 nodes in two respective hidden layers. The output layer had one node with \(sigmoid\) function.
# Numerical Experiments {#sec:numexp}
We implemented the DL network with Keras 2.7 and Python on an Intel Core i7-10510U processor running at 1.80 GHz and NVIDIA GeForce MX250.
## Validation of surrogate model via simulations
Consider the architecture in Fig. [\[fig:TrainingGAN\]](#fig:TrainingGAN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:TrainingGAN"}b where the input antenna designs (distinct from those used for training) correspond to the brick positions in the unit cell form \(\mathbf{\hat{x}}\) and the output are the corresponding antenna characteristics \(\y = G(\mathbf{z}+ \mathbf{\hat{x}})\). The (fake) output \(\y\) of \(G\) was then compared with \(\yb\) generated from the EM solver to monitor the training process. We used \(90\%\) and \(10\%\) of a total of 300 antenna designs-pattern pairs for training and validation, respectively, with 10-fold cross-validation. We compared the performance metrics as a function of frequency from 2 to 3 GHz.
Training and test data in Fig. [\[fig:Histogram\]](#fig:Histogram){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Histogram"}a-c show that these metrics vary with the spatial distribution of the peripheral roughness features and the data were not overfitted. Finally, comparisons (Table. [1](#Comparison_table){reference-type="ref" reference="Comparison_table"}) with a fully connected artificial neural network (ANN) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained with the same data demonstrate that GAN has the lowest normalized mean square error (NMSE) between the real and fake antenna characteristics.
## Fabrication and measurement results {#subsec:GAN Rsults}
The simple rectangular patch is essentially an LP narrowband (20 MHz bandwidth) and low gain (3.4 dBi) antenna. The PRS structure enhances the gain and bandwidth of the structure to 188.5 MHz and 9.4 dBi gain (Fig. [\[fig:ExperimentalResult\]](#fig:ExperimentalResult){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ExperimentalResult"}) with a resonant frequency shifted from 2.4 GHz. The unit cell design of a *rectangular loop with a diagonal* without roughness transforms the patch's LP signal to an elliptically polarised wave with an axial ratio of 7.4 dB. The peripheral roughness features reduce the axial ratio without accounting for DoF in the metal brick distribution. The trained generator is able to analyze the antenna characteristics of 500 such designs in 20 seconds (as against 625 hours with CST). From these 500 antenna characteristics (shown in Fig. [\[fig:Histogram\]](#fig:Histogram){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Histogram"}d-f), we chose the design with a wide bandwidth of 269 MHz and axial ratio of 0.4 dB. We validated this with CST and fabricated the corresponding antenna (Fig. [\[fig:Antenna\]](#fig:Antenna){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Antenna"}c). The measurements from the actual antenna show very good agreement with GAN and CST results (Fig. [\[fig:ExperimentalResult\]](#fig:ExperimentalResult){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ExperimentalResult"}).
[\[table: Comparison of antenna characteristics\]]{#table: Comparison of antenna characteristics label="table: Comparison of antenna characteristics"}
Quantitative comparisons (Table.[2](#table: Comparison of antenna characteristics){reference-type="ref" reference="table: Comparison of antenna characteristics"}) with FPC and the simple patch further demonstrate the performance enhancements with a GAN-aided design.
# Summary {#sec:Conclusion}
Peripheral roughness along the edges of the unit cell of the PRS of a CP-FPC offers several DoFs for improving antenna performance. We proposed a versatile GAN-based FPC design strategy where we train a GAN to serve as a surrogate model using input-output pairs of antenna designs and their corresponding patterns obtained from the solver. The proposed design strategy enables rapid evaluation of a large number of candidate designs. Our GAN-optimized unit cell yielded axial ratio, gain, and bandwidth of 0.4 dB, 7.5 dBi, and 269 MHz, respectively, thereby considerably improving the performance of the original FPC structure. Fabrication and experimental validations supported the GAN results. The design files and GAN codes are available at <https://essrg.iiitd.edu.in/?page_id=4355>. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:34', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14550', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14550'} |
# Introduction {#1}
Two features of atomic systems that emerge from quantum theory are the presence of highly inhomogeneous shell structure and the spontaneous breaking of spherical symmetry. These two attributes play an important role in determining atomic size and facilitating chemical bonding. An intuitive understanding of the mechanism behind them would be helpful in considerations of molecules and bulk materials. On one hand, quantum superposition arguments can be made in support of the point of view that all isolated atoms, even open shell atoms, are spherically symmetric. On the other hand, the concept of an "isolated" atom is purely theoretical, and operationally, it is nowadays accepted that open-shell atoms used as building blocks for molecular calculations are not generally treated as have spherically symmetric electron densities. In particular, the recent density functional theory (DFT) study of open-shell atoms by Chowdhury and Perdew has examined the implications of spherical symmetry-breaking for molecular bonding and atomization energies. An alternative to the Kohn-Sham (KS) DFT used by Chowdhury and Perdew is polymer self-consistent field theory (SCFT). Based on a quantum-classical isomorphism introduced by Feynman, classical statistical mechanics is used to represent quantum particles as ring "polymers", that is, extended non-point like objects, embedded in an extra thermal dimension. SCFT has been shown to be equivalent to KS-DFT, assuming the Pauli-exclusion principle holds, and incorporates all quantum effects in terms of classical quantities which enables explanations of quantum phenomena more in tune with classical intuition. The use of a Pauli potential and lack of explicit orbitals means that SCFT is related to orbital-free (OF) DFT, and as is typical in OF-DFT, the exclusion principle can be incorporated using approximations. SCFT predicts molecular bonding, atomic shell structure, includes temperature dependence, and can be related to dynamical quantum mechanics. SCFT also has foundational implications due to its classical ensemble formulation. Like DFT, SCFT is based on an energy functional, and since the quantities are real and classical, it can be decomposed into thermodynamic components in order to explain the origins of predicted structures. The purpose of this paper is to show that SCFT spontaneously predicts shell structure and spherical symmetry-breaking in isolated atoms, and to give the thermodynamic explanations for non-spherical ground-state structures. We partition the SCFT free energy functional for the electron density into components: the translational entropy contribution, polymer configurational entropy contribution (equivalent to the quantum kinetic energy), and the internal energy which includes electron-electron, electron-nucleus, and Pauli-exclusion interactions. We find that for the atoms we studied from hydrogen to neon, all thermodynamic contributions cause the free energy to increase for spherical symmetry-breaking except the electron-nucleus potential. In other words, the overall energy is reduced when the electrons can move closer to the nucleus by breaking spherical symmetry and this more than compensates for all other factors which would tend to increase the energy. Neutral atoms in their ground-state were studied in a previous work using a spherical-averaging approximation, which amounts to representing only the radial part of the electron density, as well as the adoption of partial atomic shell information. These approximations were useful to see how well the model could replicate atomic trends for a large range of elements, most importantly if it could produce the proper shell structure. We will generalize that work by restoring the full angular distribution of the electron density. We organize the paper as follows. In section [2](#2){reference-type="ref" reference="2"}, the conceptual basis of the theory is outlined and a new derivation of the model equations is given. The fields in the model are introduced, the free energy components are given, and the section ends with a discussion about the numerical methods used. The atomic binding energies for the elements hydrogen to neon and the angular electron density contour plots for the elements boron to neon are presented in section [3](#3){reference-type="ref" reference="3"}, along with tables of data for the free energy components and various density constraints that the model satisfies with a proof of the equivalence with KS-DFT. The Discussion in section [4](#4){reference-type="ref" reference="4"} demonstrates that the external potential is responsible for the spherical symmetry breaking. The paper concludes in section [5](#5){reference-type="ref" reference="5"} and some future research directions are discussed.
# Theory {#2}
The pioneering work of Feynman in developing the path integral formulation of quantum theory led to the deduction of the isomorphism between quantum mechanics and the statistical mechanics of ring-like molecules, using a Wick rotation of time \(t=-i\hbar\beta\) to a parameter \(\beta\). The Wick rotation essentially allows one to transform a dynamics problem into a statics problem in one higher dimension, where temporal variables are typically exchanged for spatial variables. Part of the intuition behind why the Wick rotation takes quantum mechanics to the statistical mechanics of ring-like molecules stems from the nature of the trace operator in the partition function, which is a sum of the Boltzmann factors over configurations starting and ending at the same position. This cyclic aspect is crucial to the interpretation, especially after having transferred to the path integral picture, because the path integral allows one to see that each of the trajectories followed through the imaginary time configuration parameter space correspond to the different possible arrangements of quantum particles comprising a system of quantum particles. The correspondence with the mathematics of polyatomic fluids noted by Chandler lends itself to label each of the quantum particles in the system as atoms comprising a molecule. The probabilistic uncertainty in the position and momenta of the quantum system are then manifested as the collection of system arrangements associated to a given configuration. The connection to polymer SCFT is then made clear through the insights of Matsen. The periodicity of the imaginary time parameter \(\beta\) also happens to be a part of one of the conditions to be a Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) state, which is a general notion of being in a thermal state. Although the mathematics is essentially identical between quantum mechanical and polymeric systems, the interpretation of the fundamental constituents and the mechanisms that govern their behaviour has changed dramatically. In the quantum mechanical case, the time evolution of the system could trace out many different paths, forming a distribution of them that expresses the uncertainty in which path will be followed. In the statistical mechanical case, the system could explore many different energy configurations, forming a distribution of them where thermal fluctuations represent the uncertainty in which configuration will be chosen. A set of postulates has been proposed to bridge between finite-temperature quantum DFT and ring polymer SCFT. In the static case considered here, there are two postulates needed, in addition to those from statistical mechanics, to describe quantum many-body systems of Fermions: 1) "pairs" (i.e. 1-2) of quantum particles are classically modelled as stochastic chains in a 4-dimensional thermal space and 2) the chains have excluded-volume with respect to 4-dimensional thermal space. The first postulate can be seen to be equivalent to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the introduction of the term "pairs" is to account for Fermion spin, while the second postulate is a (conjectured) statement of the Pauli-exclusion principle. Similar to ring polymer SCFT, the base entities in this theory are fundamentally distinguishable from each other, so the notion of particle "pairs" with higher-dimensional excluded-volume is the mechanism that emulates particle statistics from quantum statistical mechanics. To recover the standard electron density, field, and electron number that appear in DFT, we simply sum up all of the pairs, which we denote with a Greek index. The two postulates in combination with the usual approximations used in the study of many-body systems (i.e. Born-Oppenheimer approximation, point-particle nuclei) are then enough to derive the expression for the partition function of the system. Working in the canonical ensemble for simplicity, with \(N\)-body potential \(U\), the \(N\)-body partition function \(Q_N\) can be expressed as a path integral in configuration space as \[\begin{aligned}
Q_N(\beta) = \prod^N_i\int\mathrm{d}\bm{r}_i\int\mathcal{D}[\bm{r}_i] e^{-\int^{\beta}_0 \mathrm{d}\tau \left[\sum_j \frac{m}{2\hbar^2}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{r}_j(\tau)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}\right|^2+U[\hat{n}](\bm{r}_1(\tau), \ldots, \bm{r}_N(\tau))\right]} \label{expec_bolt} \end{aligned}\] where the parameter \(\beta\) is the Lagrange multiplier that ensures the expectation value of the free energy remains constant, which will end up being the reciprocal thermal energy \(\beta=1/k_BT\) (where \(k_B\) is Boltzmann's constant and \(T\) is the temperature) due to the KMS condition; \(\bm{r}_i(s)\) is the parametrized curve representing the \(i\)th quantum particle as depicted in figure [\[poly_contour\]](#poly_contour){reference-type="ref" reference="poly_contour"}, with the parameter \(s\) running from \(0\) (a high classical temperature) to \(\beta\) (a lower temperature); and the \(N\)-body potential \(U\) is expressed as a functional of an electron density operator \(\hat{n}(\bm{r})\), which is defined to be \[\begin{aligned}
\hat{n}(\bm{r}) = \sum_\mu \hat{n}_\mu(\bm{r}) = \sum_\mu\sum^{N_\mu}_i \delta(\bm{r}-\bm{r}_i)\. \label{elec_denop} \end{aligned}\] \(U[\hat{n}]\) can be re-expressed in terms of the fields \(\mathcal{N}_\mu(\bm{r})\) using the functional Dirac delta \(\delta[\mathcal{N}_\mu-\hat{n}_\mu]\), which can in-turn be expressed in terms of its functional Fourier transform representation with respect to conjugate fields \(W_\mu(\bm{r})\), allowing eqn. [\[expec_bolt\]](#expec_bolt){reference-type="ref" reference="expec_bolt"} to be expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
Q_N(\beta) &= \prod_\mu\int \int \mathcal{D}[\mathcal{N}_\mu] \mathcal{D}[W_\mu]e^{-\beta U[\mathcal{N}] + \beta\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' W_\mu(\bm{r}')\mathcal{N}_\mu(\bm{r}')}\prod^{N_\mu}_i\int\mathrm{d}\bm{r}_i \nonumber \\ &\qquad \qquad \times\int\mathcal{D}[\bm{r}_i] e^{-\int^\beta_0 \mathrm{d}\tau \left[ \frac{m}{2\hbar^2}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{r}_i(\tau)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}\right|^2 + \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' W_\mu(\bm{r}')\hat{n}_\mu(\bm{r}')\right]}\. \label{part1} \end{aligned}\] The \(\hat{n}\) operator implicitly carries the \(N\) coordinate dependencies with it, so inserting eqn. [\[elec_denop\]](#elec_denop){reference-type="ref" reference="elec_denop"} into eqn. [\[part1\]](#part1){reference-type="ref" reference="part1"} allows one to see, after some manipulations, that the argument of the exponential in the configuration path integral is now completely separable into \(N\) one-body terms, producing a product of \(N\) separable path integrals. The configuration integrals can then be evaluated one at a time with the result being \(N\) identical terms. The \(N\)-body partition function \(Q_N(\beta)\) can then finally be expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
Q_N(\beta) = \prod_\mu\int \int \mathcal{D}[\mathcal{N}_\mu] \mathcal{D}[W_\mu]\,e^{-\beta F[\mathcal{N}_\mu, W_\mu]} \label{part_fin} \end{aligned}\] where \[\begin{aligned}
F[\mathcal{N}_\mu, W_\mu] =-\frac{1}{\beta} N_\mu\ln (Q_\mu[W](\beta))+U[\mathcal{N}_\mu]-\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' W_\mu(\bm{r}')\mathcal{N}_\mu(\bm{r}') \label{free_func} \end{aligned}\] and \(Q_\mu[W](\beta)\) is a single-pair partition function that we have defined according to the expression \[\begin{aligned}
Q_\mu[W](\beta) = \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}, \beta) \label{1part} \end{aligned}\] where \(q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}, \beta)\) represents the propagation of a single pair from initial position \(\bm{r}\) at \(s=0\) to final position \(\bm{r}\) at \(s=\beta\). The single-pair propagator \(q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s)\) can be expressed as a path integral: \[\begin{aligned}
q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s) = \mathcal{A}\int \mathcal{D}[\bm{r}] e^{-\int^s_0 \mathrm{d}\tau \left[\frac{m}{2\hbar^2}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{r}(\tau)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}\right|^2 + W_\mu(\bm{r}(\tau))\right]} \label{prop1} \end{aligned}\] where \(\mathcal{A}\) is a formally infinite normalization constant coming from the kinetic degrees of freedom, whose value we shall not be concerned with since it will not appear in any of the quantities of interest. As a propagator, it can be shown that \(q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s)\) equivalently satisfies the modified diffusion equation \[\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s)}{\partial s} =-H^{\text{eff}}_\mu q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s)-W_\mu(\bm{r})q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s) \label{diffuse} \end{aligned}\] with initial condition \(q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', 0) = \delta(\bm{r}-\bm{r}')\), which makes it possible to evaluate \(Q_\mu[W](\beta)\) and thus \(F[\mathcal{N}, W]\) exactly. It is worth pointing out that the Hamiltonian \(H_{\text{eff}}\) above is the same Hamiltonian appearing in the Kohn-Sham equation from KS-DFT, a fact we use to prove the equivalence of the two theories in appendix [\[AppendixC\]](#AppendixC){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixC"}. Although it is possible to analytically evaluate the functional eqn. [\[free_func\]](#free_func){reference-type="ref" reference="free_func"}, we are not so fortunate with eqn. [\[part_fin\]](#part_fin){reference-type="ref" reference="part_fin"}, whose path integrals are too unwieldy to perform exact calculations with to get the free energy. However, eqn. [\[free_func\]](#free_func){reference-type="ref" reference="free_func"} plays the same role that the action does in the real-time quantum mechanical path integral, so a solution can be sought which extremizes \(F[\mathcal{N}, W]\) by setting its first variation to zero and then approximating the integrand with the extremum of \(F\). The free energy can then be calculated from \(F[n, w]\), where \(n\) and \(w\) are the mean-fields for which the functional \(F\) has a saddle point. We can further justify the preservation of exactness in the model from varying eqn. [\[free_func\]](#free_func){reference-type="ref" reference="free_func"}, since any neglected higher-order contributions can be packaged into the unknown functional \(U\), whose approximations occupy a large portion of current DFT research. The total kinetic energy functional \(K[n, w]\) can also be calculated from the expectation value of the kinetic term in the many-body Hamiltonian, after some manipulation, to be \[\begin{aligned}
K[n, w] &=-\sum^N_j\bigg\langle \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2_j\bigg\rangle =-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum_\mu\sum^N_j\frac{1}{Q_\mu[w](\beta)} \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}_j \nabla^2_{\bm{r}'_j}q_\mu(\bm{r}_j, \bm{r}'_j, \beta)\bigg|_{\bm{r}'_j=\bm{r}_j} \. \label{kin_func} \end{aligned}\] Proceeding from the variational principle outlined above, using the path integral form of the single-pair propagator, the mean-field density \(n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) and field \(w_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) corresponding to each pair are found to be \[\begin{aligned}
w_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta) = \frac{\delta U[n]}{\delta n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)} \ \ \text{and} \ \ n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta) = \frac{N_\mu}{Q_\mu[w](\beta)}q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}, \beta)\.\label{field_dens} \end{aligned}\] The potential \(U[n]\) is the only remaining quantity yet to be specified, which will give us the expressions for the fields \(w_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) experienced by each pair in the system, and finally the expression for the free energy \(F[n, w]\). In our model, the electron pairs experience four fields in the vicinity of the atomic nucleus: the Coulomb field between the nucleus and the electron pairs \(w_\mu^{e-n}(\bm{r}, \beta)\), the Coulomb field between the electrons \(w_\mu^{e-e}(\bm{r}, \beta)\), and the exchange field between electron pairs \(w_\mu^{x}(\bm{r}, \beta)\) representing two separate fields. The first of these two fields is the electron self-interaction field \(w_\mu^{sic}(\bm{r}, \beta)\), which corrects for the interaction of the electron with its own field that is not accounted for in the electron-electron Coulomb field \(w_\mu^{e-e}(\bm{r}, \beta)\); the self-interaction correction introduced in prior work is employed in this work as well. The second of these two fields, as is commonplace in all OF-DFT approaches, is the Pauli-exclusion field \(w_\mu^P(\bm{r}, \beta)\), which accounts for the repulsion felt by electron pairs with the same configuration attempting to occupy the same location at the same (imaginary) time, as stipulated by the Pauli-exclusion principle. As will be discussed later, the Pauli-exclusion field used in this work accounts for some exchange effects but does not account for correlations. The electron-nucleus potential \(U_{e-n}[n]\) takes the form \[\begin{aligned}
U_{e-n}[n] =-\int \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, \mathrm{d}\bm{r}'\, n(\bm{r}, \beta)\frac{\rho_{\text{nuc}}(\bm{r}')}{\left|\bm{r}-\bm{r}' \right|}\,, \end{aligned}\] where \(\rho_{\text{nuc}}(\bm{r})\) is the nuclear density, which we take to be \(\rho_{\text{nuc}}(\bm{r}) = N\delta(\bm{r})\). The electron-nucleus field for each pair \(w^{e-n}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) is then found to be \[\begin{aligned}
w^{e-n}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta) =-\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}'\, \frac{\rho_{\text{nuc}}(\bm{r}')}{\left|\bm{r}-\bm{r}' \right|} =-\frac{N}{|\bm{r}|}\. \label{wen} \end{aligned}\] The potential due to electron-electron Coulomb-type interactions \(U_{e-e}[n]\) is similarly given by \[\begin{aligned}
U_{e-e}[n] = \frac{1}{2}\int \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, \mathrm{d}\bm{r}'\, n(\bm{r}, \beta)\frac{n(\bm{r}', \beta)}{\left|\bm{r}-\bm{r}' \right|}\,, \end{aligned}\] and the electron-electron field for each pair \(w^{e-e}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) is then found to be \[\begin{aligned}
w^{e-e}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta) = \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' \frac{n(\bm{r}', \beta)}{|\bm{r}'-\bm{r}|}\. \label{wee} \end{aligned}\] Both eqn. [\[wen\]](#wen){reference-type="ref" reference="wen"} and eqn. [\[wee\]](#wee){reference-type="ref" reference="wee"} indicate that each pair experiences the exact same electron-electron and electron-nucleus field. The total field experienced by each pair will however not be the same, thanks to the exchange effects introduced by the other two fields. Following previous work, the closest classical analogue of the Pauli-exclusion principle is the notion of excluded-volume, which in polymer SCFT, is often implemented as a Dirac delta energy penalty for overlapping polymer segments. If we are to be truly faithful to the exclusion principle however, the energy penalty should be for overlapping polymer segments from *different* polymer contours representing pairs of quantum particles to account for spin. Since the position along the polymer contour is parametrized by a parameter \(s\), the energy penalty due to overlapping polymer contours occurs only for contours at the same value of \(s\). Recall from the quantum-classical correspondence that the parameter \(s\) can be interpreted as an imaginary time, so the Pauli-exclusion repulsion is akin to a particle pair feeling the excluded-volume repulsion when at the same place and (imaginary) time as another pair. This idea is difficult to implement in practice however, so we approximate it by projecting out the degrees of freedom from the \(s\) parameter space, which effectively amounts to imposing the excluded-volume energy penalties for every value of \(s\). The downside to this approximation is that it ignores the inter-contour correlations and will clearly overestimate the excluded-volume felt between the pairs. The approximate Pauli-exclusion potential is then given by \[\begin{aligned}
U_P[n] = \frac{1}{2g_0}\sum_{\substack{\mu,\nu \\ \mu \neq \nu}} \int \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\mathrm{d}\bm{r}' n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\delta(\bm{r}-\bm{r}')n_\nu(\bm{r}', \beta) = \frac{1}{2g_0}\sum_{\substack{\mu,\nu \\ \mu \neq \nu}} \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r} n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)n_\nu(\bm{r}, \beta) \label{Paulipot_approx} \end{aligned}\] where \(g_{0}\) is a constant with the same units as a density of states. In principle, since the excluded-volume interaction is independent of the system under study, \(g_0\) should be a universal constant whose value can be determined by comparing the Pauli potential for a very simplistic system (e.g. a uniform gas with only excluded-volume interactions) to experimental results. However, because the Pauli potential is being approximated in this work, \(g_0\) is taken to be arbitrary and we choose its value once for all calculations; the value chosen and how it was chosen will be discussed in the Results section [3](#3){reference-type="ref" reference="3"}. The approximate form of the Pauli-exclusion field for each pair \(w^{P}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)\) is then calculated as \[\begin{aligned}
w^{P}_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta) = \frac{1}{g_0} \sum_{\substack{\gamma \\ \gamma \neq \mu}}n_\gamma(\bm{r}, \beta)\. \label{wpauli} \end{aligned}\] In previous work, some constraints on the exact form of the Pauli-exclusion field were given which allowed for the accuracy of the approximate expression eqn. [\[wpauli\]](#wpauli){reference-type="ref" reference="wpauli"} to be assessed. The relevant constraints were as follows: \[\begin{aligned}
&w^P(\bm{r}, \beta) \geq 0\ \, \ \ \Lim{|\bm{r}|\rightarrow \infty} w^P(\bm{r}, \beta) = 0\ \, \ \ \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, w^P(\bm{r}, \beta)n(\bm{r}, \beta) < \infty\ \, \ \ w^P(\bm{r}, \beta) = 0 \ \ \text{for} \ \ N=2\ \, \nonumber \\[1.5ex] &w^P[\lambda^3n](\lambda\bm{r}, \beta) = \lambda^2w^P[n](\lambda\bm{r}, \beta) \label{pauli_cons} \end{aligned}\] where in the last criterion \(\lambda\) is a scale factor and the functional dependence of the field on the density has been explicitly reinstated. We found that all but the last of the constraints in eqn. [\[pauli_cons\]](#pauli_cons){reference-type="ref" reference="pauli_cons"} were satisfied by eqn. [\[wpauli\]](#wpauli){reference-type="ref" reference="wpauli"}, with \(w^P(\bm{r}, \beta)\) overestimating the excluded-volume interactions by precisely the amount required to fulfill the last constraint in eqn. [\[pauli_cons\]](#pauli_cons){reference-type="ref" reference="pauli_cons"}; a point also discussed in a previous work. The electron self-interaction field \(w_\mu^{\text{sic}}(\bm{r}, \beta)\) used in this work was first introduced in reference, and is essentially a Fermi-Amaldi self-interaction correction applied to each particle pair; see reference for further discussion. It has the form \[\begin{aligned}
w_\mu^{\text{sic}}(\bm{r}, \beta) =-\frac{1}{N_\mu}\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}'\frac{n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)}{|\bm{r}-\bm{r}'|}\label{self_int} \end{aligned}\] where the corresponding potential \(U_{\text{sic}}[n]\) is simply \[\begin{aligned}
U_{\text{sic}}[n] =-\sum_\mu\frac{1}{2N_\mu}\int \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\mathrm{d}\bm{r}'\frac{n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)n_\mu(\bm{r}, \beta)}{|\bm{r}-\bm{r}'|}\. \label{self_int_pot} \end{aligned}\] In this form, eqn. [\[self_int\]](#self_int){reference-type="ref" reference="self_int"} directly preserves the desirable qualities of the original Fermi-Amaldi electron self-interaction correction for hydrogen and helium. Furthermore, because eqn. [\[self_int\]](#self_int){reference-type="ref" reference="self_int"} acts on electron pairs and \(N_\mu = \{1, 2\}\), then eqn. [\[self_int\]](#self_int){reference-type="ref" reference="self_int"} effectively accounts for the self-interaction of every electron in the atomic system. Those familiar with the Hartree-Fock model will immediately recognize that our model with eqn. [\[self_int\]](#self_int){reference-type="ref" reference="self_int"} is *identical* to the situation in the Hartree-Fock model, which models exchange effects exactly. However, because we are approximating the Pauli-exclusion field by projecting out the degrees of freedom from the \(s\) parameter space, our model in its current implementation will not reproduce the precise binding energies predicted by Hartree-Fock theory. This is because our Pauli-exclusion field overestimates the excluded-volume felt by the polymer contours in the \(s\)-parameter space, hence electron pairs feel too much repulsion between each other and the electron shells will be too distant from their neighbours, raising the free energy substantially in some cases. The Hartree-Fock model on the other hand, is a wavefunction-based model, so the Pauli-exclusion effect is automatically encoded into the wavefunction due to the spin-statistics theorem. Implementing the exact expression for the Pauli potential would then allow our model to coincide exactly with Hartree-Fock theory. As was mentioned previously, electron pairs are taken to be ring polymers embedded in a 3+1-dimensional thermal space under the influence of a potential \(U\). The ring polymers are confined to explore the thermal space according to this potential, which they can do using two different mechanisms: translation and configuration. The translational degrees of freedom refer to the three dimensional motion of the polymer as a whole, while the configurational degrees of freedom refer to how the polymer confirmations change while holding one point of the polymer fixed in space. Each of these mechanisms has an entropy associated to them, which we will denote as \(S_t\) and \(S_c\), respectively. The behaviour of the polymer can then be explained by looking at the competition between the degrees of freedom encoded in the entropies and those restricted by the potential \(U\). Therefore, by rephrasing the free energy per pair \(F[n_\mu, w_\mu]\) in terms of these entropies, we can exactly describe the process in the polymer picture by which the electrons surrounding the atomic nucleus would break spherical-symmetry; and with the notion of pairs, we can pinpoint exactly which pairs affect this change. Following previous work and reference , the free energy per pair \(F[n_\mu, w_\mu]\) can be re-expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
F[n_\mu, w_\mu] &=-\frac{1}{\beta} \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\ln{\left(\frac{n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)}{N_\mu}\right)}+U[n_\mu] \nonumber \\[1.5ex] &\quad+\frac{1}{\beta}\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\left[\ln{\left(q_\mu(\bm{r}', \bm{r}', \beta)\right)} + \beta w_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\right] \label{free_func_ent} \end{aligned}\] where we can identify the last term with the free energy contribution coming from the configurational entropy \(S_c[n_\mu, w_\mu]\) [^1] and the first term with the translational entropy \(S_t[n_\mu]\), which we write as \[\begin{aligned}
S_c[n_\mu, w_\mu] &=-\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\left[\ln{\left(q_\mu(\bm{r}', \bm{r}', \beta)\right)} + \beta w_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\right]\\[1.5ex] S_t[n_\mu] &= \int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}' n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)\ln{\left(\frac{n_\mu(\bm{r}', \beta)}{N_\mu}\right)}\. \label{ent_funcs} \end{aligned}\] We shall examine the intuitive polymeric interpretation of spherical symmetry-breaking in the Results [3](#3){reference-type="ref" reference="3"} and Discussion [4](#4){reference-type="ref" reference="4"} sections. To solve the set of self-consistent equations [\[diffuse\]](#diffuse){reference-type="ref" reference="diffuse"},[\[1part\]](#1part){reference-type="ref" reference="1part"}, and [\[field_dens\]](#field_dens){reference-type="ref" reference="field_dens"}, the biggest obstacle is the solution to the modified diffusion equation eqn. [\[diffuse\]](#diffuse){reference-type="ref" reference="diffuse"}, which needs to be solved a number of times corresponding to the total number of pairs \(N_p\) in the system---per self-consistent iteration---for every value of both spatial positions \(\bm{r}\) and \(\bm{r}'\). This double spatial dependence of \(q_\mu(\bm{r}, \bm{r}', s)\) means that traditional real-space methods are impractical for computational efficiency. Instead, what is usually done in the polymer SCFT community, is to use the spectral method: all spatially-dependent functions are decomposed in terms of a set of basis functions, for which the position dependence of each function can be integrated out and the resulting equations become matrix equations for the unknown expansion coefficients. The problem encountered earlier with real-space methods is then made to vanish and is replaced with solving a matrix equation \(N_p\) times per self-consistent iteration. In this work we use the spectral method with non-orthogonal Gaussian basis sets outlined in reference to solve the modified diffusion equation. The method, along with the numerical procedure, has been discussed in reference , however, only the case of spherical Gaussian basis functions was treated. To solve the angular problem, we will need the full angular Gaussian basis functions, which are given by the (normalized) expression \[\begin{aligned}
f_{i} (\bm{r}) = \left(2(2c_{pl})^{l+\frac{3}{2}}\left[\Gamma\left(l+\frac{3}{2}\right)\right]^{-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}Z^m_{l} (\theta,\phi) r^l e^{-c_{pl} r^2 }\,, \label{gauss} \end{aligned}\] where the index \(i\) represents the tuple of indices \((p, l, m)\) and \(Z^l_{m} (\theta,\phi)\) are the real spherical harmonics defined in appendix [\[AppendixA\]](#AppendixA){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixA"}. From here, the basis-specific quantities outlined in appendix [\[AppendixA\]](#AppendixA){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixA"} of the overlap matrix (eqn. [\[over_gauss\]](#over_gauss){reference-type="ref" reference="over_gauss"}), Laplace matrix (eqn. [\[new_lap_gauss\]](#new_lap_gauss){reference-type="ref" reference="new_lap_gauss"}), and Gamma tensor (eqn. [\[gamma_gauss\]](#gamma_gauss){reference-type="ref" reference="gamma_gauss"}) must be recalculated, but the general non-orthogonal spectral equations listed in appendix [\[AppendixB\]](#AppendixB){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixB"} remain unchanged. Although the differences from the spherical case only appear in the basis-specific quantities, it should be pointed out that the addition of angularity increases the dimensions of the basis-specific quantities substantially, severely increasing the computational runtime for even a modest sized basis set, and also introduces a complicated quantity into the expression for the Gamma tensor known as the real Gaunt coefficients; all details can be found in appendix [\[AppendixA\]](#AppendixA){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixA"} and references . The Gaussian exponents \(c_{pl}\) are chosen according to an "even-tempered"-type scheme outlined in reference . In this work \(N_b=425\) Gaussian basis functions were used for the angular results since this number provided excellent resolution and converged far enough to the infinite basis set limit, although more basis functions are used in this case compared with reference because we assigned numbers for each \(l\) value of the real spherical harmonics, which in turn have \(2l+1\) types of basis functions (for the number of \(m\) values associated to each \(l\)). Convergence here is judged according to the spectral convergence criterion used in reference . The number 425 comes from assigning 150 basis functions to \(l=0\), 50\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}3 basis functions to \(l=1\), and 25\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}5 basis functions to \(l=2\). Increasing \(l\) values are assigned smaller numbers of basis functions because the corresponding basis functions become much more diffuse and start to represent smaller portions of the electron density profile. The angular results are also only presented for the first 10 elements, so 150 basis functions for the \(l=0\) portion is more than enough to achieve good resolution; the approximations used in this work also limit our accuracy a lot more than the basis set truncation error does. The set of minimum exponents we chose was \(c_{1,1,1}=(10^{-15}, 10^{-10}, 10^{-6})\) and the set of maximum exponents was \(c_{150,50,25}=(10^{11}, 10^{5}, 10^{3})\), where each entry corresponds to \(l\) values in increasing order, respectively. Anything higher than 425 would only add a small amount of resolution and would require a relatively large increase in computation time. For 425 basis functions, every element was able to satisfy a tolerance of at least \(10^{-6}\), with some going as far as \(10^{-8}\). We decided to keep the same value for \(g_0\) that was used in reference of \(g_0=0.1\) for the arbitrary constant \(g_0\) associated to the Pauli-exclusion field eqn. [\[wpauli\]](#wpauli){reference-type="ref" reference="wpauli"}, since this will make comparison with previous results easier. The full angular Gaussian basis set used in this work does not introduce or change any previously encountered numerical considerations addressed in reference .
# Results {#3}
The atomic binding energies corresponding to \(g_0=0.1\) for the elements hydrogen to neon, strictly enforcing the maximum occupancy of 2 electrons per pair, are shown in table [1](#tab2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab2"} for the spectral expansion of the density with angular basis functions, and table [2](#tab3){reference-type="ref" reference="tab3"} for the restriction to spherically-symmetric basis functions; atomic units are used unless otherwise specified. The binding energies predicted by our model are contrasted with those predicted by Hartree-Fock theory, since in our neglect of correlations and use of an exact self-interaction correction, Hartree-Fock theory should be considered as "exact". One difference with the results from reference can be seen by looking at the percentage deviation with Hartree-Fock for the two tables: The model with angular dependence is much closer to Hartree-Fock for the first 6 elements, but rapidly worsens due to an overabundance of Pauli-exclusion repulsion felt between electron pairs. In the angular case considered here, the atomic shell configurations are not prebuilt into the code, so the overabundance of the Pauli-exclusion force causes the pairs after carbon to spread too far apart. However, the observed shell structure does arise solely from the information provided by the electron pair configurations and still somewhat resembles what we expect (figures [\[ang_boron\]](#ang_boron){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_boron"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"})[^2]. Moreover, we do see spontaneous spherical symmetry-breaking, which is first predicted to occur at carbon as opposed to boron. The shapes of the pair densities after boron do not match naive expectations; this is addressed later in this section. The magnitude of the symmetry-breaking effect can also be modified through the value of \(g_0\) (i.e. a smaller value produces more noticeable deviations). In particular, if \(g_0\) is given pair dependence, then a simple arithmetic sequence of increasing values chosen from the neighbourhood around \(0.1\) such that the smallest value is assigned to the first pair, is sufficient for boron to break spherical symmetry. Although nature predicts spherical symmetry-breaking to first occur at boron, this does not mean the polymer excluded-volume picture is invalid: symmetry-breaking has a subtle effect on the binding energies, as can be seen by comparing tables [2](#tab3){reference-type="ref" reference="tab3"} and [1](#tab2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab2"}, so the approximation used for the Pauli-exclusion field may be too coarse to allow such a prediction, in which case the exact field would need to be implemented to sufficiently test this. The fact that spontaneous spherical symmetry-breaking does occur, and only one element off from where it is supposed to be, is a very encouraging result.
There is no difference in the binding energies between the spherical and angular results for the first 4 elements since these elements are known to have spherical ground-state distributions and minimal Pauli-exclusion repulsion. The lack of a binding energy difference between the spherical and non-angular cases of boron is attributed to the approximate Pauli potential used in this work, which predicts symmetry-breaking to occur at carbon instead of boron. Carbon is the first element where any difference in the binding energy between the spherical and non-angular cases can be seen: the percent difference of the SCFT model with the prediction from Hartree-Fock theory in the angular case is approximately an order of magnitude smaller than in the spherical case. The agreement for carbon is due in part to the cancellation of certain errors as opposed to a genuine agreement with Hartree-Fock theory, but the other trends in tables [2](#tab3){reference-type="ref" reference="tab3"} and [1](#tab2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab2"} suggest that the angular case does yield an improvement in the agreement with Hartree-Fock theory. The rest of the elements from tables [2](#tab3){reference-type="ref" reference="tab3"} and [1](#tab2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab2"} display very minor changes in the binding energy, which agrees nicely with the results of Chowdhury and Perdew, who report that the effect of symmetry-breaking has a small impact on the binding energy. These results suggest that the spherical-averaging approximation used in reference performs quite well in most scenarios, and that it is physically reasonable to use it for isolated atoms provided the aim is not to investigate delicate features that arise from angularity. In figures [\[ang_boron\]](#ang_boron){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_boron"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"}, we see that the first pair density always remains spherically-symmetric, which makes sense as this pair corresponds to the innermost electrons in the atom whose density profile is dominated by the spherical 1s contribution. In fact, because the magnitude of the density for the first pair is so much larger than the rest, the total density profile only marginally deviates from a spherical distribution. The pair densities beyond the first pair do not correspond to the orbital picture we get from other DFT approaches, and the non-spherical pair densities only resemble a single lobe in contrast to the multiple lobes expected from orbital pictures such as Hartree-Fock theory. However, pair densities do not correspond to the squared modulus of individual orbitals from KS-DFT, rather, they correspond to sums of squared moduli of orbitals, as shown in appendix [\[AppendixC\]](#AppendixC){reference-type="ref" reference="AppendixC"}. The pair density profiles corresponding to non-spherical pairs somewhat resemble the situation in polymer macro-phase separation, where one pair occupies one of the lobes in one region and the other occupies the partner lobe across from it, together forming a hybrid 2s-2p-like structure. This macro-phase behaviour is unsurprising given that the system is being modelled as a classical polymeric system with higher-dimensional excluded-volume, a model which is equivalent to the wavefunction picture through the theorems of DFT. The total densities of the atoms seen in figures [\[ang_carbon\]](#ang_carbon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_carbon"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"} have approximately the same profiles as the densities predicted by quantum mechanics in the wavefunction picture, but due to the inexact Pauli-exclusion field used in this work, we do not expect to produce identical profiles. In light of the macro-phase-like behaviour seen in figures [\[ang_carbon\]](#ang_carbon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_carbon"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"}, there are a number of constraints that the true electron density must satisfy in order to be considered physically acceptable, which we can use as benchmarks to assess the density profiles predicted by the model used in this work. The two main constraints on the electron density are that it must be positive for all positions \(\bm{r}\) and that its integral over all space must yield the electron number \(N\) (or the pair electron number if we are dealing with an individual pair density). Two further constraints are \[\begin{aligned}
1 \geq \frac{3\pi}{4K}\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, n^3(\bm{r}, \beta)\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}\ \ \text{and} \ \ 1 \geq \frac{1}{2K}\int \mathrm{d}\bm{r}\, \left(\nabla \sqrt{n(\bm{r}, \beta)}\right)^2 \label{den_constr} \end{aligned}\] where \(K\) represents the kinetic energy of the system, which is given by eqn. [\[kin_en\]](#kin_en){reference-type="ref" reference="kin_en"} in the model. The first constraint of eqns. [\[den_constr\]](#den_constr){reference-type="ref" reference="den_constr"} is the requirement that the electron density be contained in the function space \(L^3\), while the second is the requirement that the kinetic energy associated with the electron density be bounded below by the von Weizsacker kinetic energy.
The pair density profiles corresponding to figures [\[ang_boron\]](#ang_boron){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_boron"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"} clearly demonstrate that the pair densities, and thus the total density, are non-negative for all positions \(\bm{r}\), since we know the density goes to zero for large \(r\). Likewise, the expected electron numbers corresponding to each pair were obtained from the pair density integrals to within numerical accuracy (e.g. basis set truncation), adding up to the desired total electron number in every case. Table [3](#tab5){reference-type="ref" reference="tab5"} displays the right-hand side values of eqns. [\[den_constr\]](#den_constr){reference-type="ref" reference="den_constr"} for the elements hydrogen to neon, where we can see that the density predicted by the model always satisfies these two inequalities. In particular, one can notice that the right-hand side values of the second inequality in eqns. [\[den_constr\]](#den_constr){reference-type="ref" reference="den_constr"} for hydrogen and helium are almost exactly 1, which is the statement that the von Weizsacker kinetic energy functional is exact for one and two electron systems.
Tables [4](#tab4){reference-type="ref" reference="tab4"} and [5](#tab6){reference-type="ref" reference="tab6"} list the pairwise components of the potential energy terms, the energy contributions from the configurational and translational entropies, and the total free energies for the elements carbon and fluorine, respectively. In both elements we can see that the lowering of the free energy due to spherical symmetry-breaking is produced from pairs 2 and 3, which both adopt opposing lobe shapes, in contrast to the purely spherical distributions in the spherically-averaged case, that distributes their free energy contribution uniformly amongst the two. It is this feature in particular that accounts for the free energy difference between the spherical and angular cases. Looking more closely at tables [4](#tab4){reference-type="ref" reference="tab4"} and [5](#tab6){reference-type="ref" reference="tab6"}, the cause of this feature is the fact that the third pair density can occupy a region closer to the atomic nucleus by violating spherical symmetry, which is evidenced by the much lower \(U_{e-n}\) value in both elements for the angular case. The electron-electron plus self-interaction correction potential, the Pauli potential, and both entropic contributions to the free energy for pair 3 are all worse in the angular case, suggesting that the move towards the nucleus more than compensates for the interaction penalties with other pairs. In order for pair 3 to accomplish the move from a spherical distribution to a lobe distribution, pair 2 must also transform to a mirroring lobe distribution so that its original spherical shape does not overlap as much with the new lobe shape of pair 3; this effect is propagated with the other pairs (except the first), converting them into non-spherical distributions as well.
# Discussion {#4}
Despite the failure of the Pauli-exclusion field to satisfy the coordinate scaling relation eqn. [\[pauli_cons\]](#pauli_cons){reference-type="ref" reference="pauli_cons"}, the scaling argument presented in reference shows that the picture of higher-dimensional excluded-volume interactions between pairs of threads recovers the Thomas-Fermi quantum kinetic energy term and the Dirac exchange term in the uniform density limit. The analysis from section [3](#3){reference-type="ref" reference="3"} also demonstrates that the pair densities making up the total density satisfy all constraints necessary to guarantee a physically acceptable electron density. Together with the proof that pair densities do not necessarily correspond to individual squared moduli of orbitals, and the formal equivalence of the polymer-thread picture with quantum DFT through the quantum-classical isomorphism, the macro-phase-like behaviour exhibited in figures [\[ang_carbon\]](#ang_carbon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_carbon"}-[\[ang_neon\]](#ang_neon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_neon"} show that spontaneous shell structure and spherical-symmetry breaking are robust predictions. The symmetry-breaking arises from the energetic benefit of electrons distributing asymmetrically closer to the nucleus. It is also clear from adding up the individual pair density profiles for any given atom, that the total density profiles only deviate slightly from spherical symmetry, which is consistent with the findings of Chowdhury and Perdew that asymmetries in the electron density have a small effect. Together, these two observations highlight an important distinction: the ability of the pairs to individually break spherical-symmetry allows the atom to lower its binding energy in all cases, but this does not necessarily mean that the total electron density also breaks spherical symmetry. One should consider whether the macro-phase-like behaviour is simply an artefact of the specific approximation for the Pauli potential being used in this work, as it is reasonable to speculate that the exaggerated repulsion produced by the approximate Pauli-exclusion field causes the pairs to clear their local neighbourhood. That is, are we only observing isolated atoms to be spherically-asymmetric because we are using an approximate model? If we implemented the exact Pauli potential, would total electron densities always be found to be spherically symmetric, consistent with the arguments of references ?. This seems unlikely, since this would require an unjustifiable perfect balance between the Pauli potential and other factors. Other frustrated systems induce spontaneous symmetry breaking, for example in true polymeric systems, SCFT is used to predict the micro-phases of block copolymers. Returning to the present model, the shell structure for carbon displayed in figure [\[ang_carbon\]](#ang_carbon){reference-type="ref" reference="ang_carbon"} demonstrates non-spherical structure yet maintains nearly identical shell structure to that predicted by Hartree-Fock theory. As was mentioned earlier, there is probably some cancellation of errors happening within carbon due in part to competing Pauli pair repulsions, but it seems unlikely based on the trends from the other atoms combined with the difference in sensitivity between the binding energies and the density profiles, that the magnitude of this effect would be large enough to account for the macro-phase-like structure while also producing the minute differences with Hartree-Fock theory that are observed.
# Conclusions and Future Work {#5}
The ring polymer SCFT formulation of quantum mechanics predicts the spontaneous emergence of atomic shell structure and spherical symmetry-breaking in isolated neutral atoms hydrogen to neon Using postulated pair structure of the model and ideas of higher-dimensional excluded-volume in cooperation with an exact self-interaction correction, the model shows excellent agreement with Hartree-Fock theory for the atomic binding energies and density profiles of the first six elements, providing exact matches for the elements hydrogen and helium. However, due to the approximation made on the Pauli-exclusion field, the predicted shell structure starts to deviate significantly past the element neon and the symmetry-breaking is first predicted to occur at carbon instead of boron. Consistent with Chowdhury and Perdew, the symmetry-breaking effect is found to have a very small impact on the binding energies, which suggests that the spherical-averaging approximation is physically reasonable when investigating atomic systems. The pair density contour plots also display behaviour similar to polymer macro-phase separation, where individual electron pairs occupy single lobe structures that together form a dumbbell shape analogous to the 2p orbital shape. It is further shown that the predicted densities satisfy known constraints and still produce the same total electronic density profile that is predicted by quantum mechanics. There are a number of future directions to consider, now that the basic engine from reference has been constructed. One possible direction could be to extend the work of reference in modelling systems of diatomic molecules to arbitrary formations of molecules or even solid-state lattices, since the Gaussian methodology is easily adapted to any number of complex geometries. The initial groundwork involved in this direction would involve switching to contracted Gaussian basis sets, since they allow for many fewer basis functions to be used while still maintaining roughly the same level of precision and resolution; the price tag associated to the contracted sets comes in the form of additional minimization routines that either minimize the spectral representation of the free energy eqn. [\[free_en\]](#free_en){reference-type="ref" reference="free_en"} with respect to even-tempered parameters or fit the Gaussians to a Slater-type function. Both of the these methods typically require derivative information to perform the minimization, which is undesirable because the derivatives may not be well-defined or could possibly lead to numerical instabilities yielding false minima. A method that uses only the Nelder-Mead algorithm was originally developed for this work in anticipation of investigating molecular systems, which uses the spectral coefficients of the density and the Gaussian exponents from the uncontracted result to solve for the contraction coefficients, and then minimizes the sum of squared deviations between the two to solve for the exponents of the contracted set. After implementing the contracted sets and updating the current computational engine, one would need to generalize the centres of the Gaussian basis sets to arbitrary positions and modify the structure of the computation to accommodate multiple atoms. The shifting of the centres of the Gaussians from the origin to arbitrary positions is not so easily done with the spherical harmonic representation used in this work and might be better facilitated using a Cartesian representation of the Gaussians, which only entails re-deriving the basis specific matrices and the spectral components of the electron-nucleus field. Fortunately, the expressions for these quantities have already been derived, although the expressions are much more complicated. In the case of solid-state lattices, pseudo-potentials and other modifications would need to be introduced as well. Further increases in accuracy could also be achieved by combining the molecular dynamics framework of Car and Parrinello with the model, to better account for the nuclear degrees of freedom. Another possible direction is to implement an exact Pauli-exclusion field, so that the comparison of the present model with Hartree-Fock theory can be completed, and the equivalence of higher-dimensional excluded-volume with the Pauli-exclusion principle can be verified. This direction would be an important test of a foundational aspect of the theory, and would provide further evidence in support of the symmetry breaking mechanism presented here, in which electrons lower the free energy by breaking spherical symmetry to form electron distributions that approach closer to the atomic nucleus. Other possible directions include adding correlation terms and relativistic corrections, or clarifying the mechanism for electron spin in the model. Correlation fields are stipulated to be the only thing missing from this model that prevents it from completely agreeing with the predictions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics for neutral atoms not in the presence of any other fundamental fields. Therefore, finding a mechanism for correlations within the polymer picture would also be of foundational importance to the model. An investigation of quantum correlations would also naturally lead to the topic of quantum entanglement, which further connects with information-theoretic approaches to DFT that may be useful in learning more about properties of correlations in many-body systems from the perspective of DFT. Investigating the mechanism that represents electron spin would also complement the study of correlations. Lastly, relativistic corrections including fine structure and finite-size nuclear centres could be added to the model in order to study heavier elements, which may yield useful information on how relativistic effects manifest themselves in the polymer picture. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:06:10', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14507', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14507'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
In the standard quantum theory, a set of quantum measurements is called incompatible if these measurements cannot be performed simultaneously on a single copy of a quantum system. This notion of measurement incompatibility is one of the fundamental features of quantum theory that differentiates quantum mechanics from the formulation of classical physics. Quantum measurement incompatibility is at the root of demonstrating various fundamental quantum aspects ranging from Bell-nonlocality, Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen steering, measurement uncertainty relations, quantum contextuality, quantum violation of macrorealism, to temporal and channel steering. Bell inequality violation is the most compelling operational witness of incompatible measurements since it relies only on the input-output statistics of bipartite systems. Further, measurement incompatibility can also be witnessed through Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen steering . These protocols, however, rely on entanglement. Only recently, witnessing of quantum measurement incompatibility in the prepare-and-measure scenario based on some state discrimination task has been proposed. It is particularly noteworthy that measurement incompatibility is necessary but not sufficient for Bell inequality violations employing fully untrusted devices, whereas incompatibility is shown to be necessary as well as sufficient in steering with one-sided trusted devices and in state discrimination task with fully trusted preparations (also see ). Notwithstanding, the generic link between measurement incompatibility and nonclassical correlations in the simplest prepare-and-measure scenario is still not fully explored. The present article is motivated towards filling this important gap in the relevant literature. Moreover, the results presented here address whether incompatible quantum measurements are necessary for probing quantum advantage in any one-way communication task. Apart from addressing this fundamental question, this work aims to provide an operational witness of incompatibility for any set of quantum measurements of an arbitrary setting-any set of an arbitrary number of measurements acting on an arbitrary (but finite) given dimension wherein different measurements have different arbitrary number of outcomes. Specifically, we consider the one-way communication scenario consisting of two players, say, Alice (sender) and Bob (receiver). Alice and Bob are given inputs such that each player does not know the input of the other player. Alice, upon receiving her input, sends classical or quantum communication to Bob. Bob, upon receiving his input and the communication sent by Alice, produces the outputs. In such scenario, we show that any quantum advantage in an arbitrary communication task over all possible classical strategies with unlimited shared randomness implies that the quantum measurements performed by Bob to produce the outputs are incompatible. Therefore, any one-way communication task in prepare-and-measure scenario serves as a tool to witness measurement incompatibility in a semi-device independent way. Furthermore, we point out that whenever the figure of merit of any task is a convex function of the input-output statistics, its maximum value in classical communication and quantum communication with compatible measurements are the same. The result, that a pair of quantum measurements is incompatible whenever it provides advantage in random access code task, becomes a corollary of our observation. Subsequently, we focus on a specific quantum communication task in the prepare-and-measure scenario, namely, Random Access Codes (RAC). Based on the operational figure of merit of this task, we propose a witness of measurement incompatibility of a set of arbitrary number of quantum measurements having arbitrary number of outcomes acting on arbitrary dimensional state. Specifically, we derive upper bound (or, exact value in specific cases) of the average success probability of RAC assisted with the best classical strategy, or equivalently the best quantum strategy involving compatible measurements by the receiver. Therefore, given any set of quantum measurements, if the average success probability of RAC involving the given measurements by the receiver exceeds the above bound, then we can certify that the given measurements are incompatible. Here, it should be noted that RAC, being one of the fundamental quantum communication protocols, has been implemented in a series of experiments. Hence, the results presented in this study can be used as experimental tool to witness measurement incompatibility based on present day technology. Finally, we identify all sets of three incompatible rank-one projective qubit measurements that can be witnessed by RAC. We next proceed by first explaining the definition of measurement incompatibility, followed by detailed analysis and discussions of illustrative results.
# Quantum Measurement Incompatibility {#sec2}
An arbitrary measurement is conceptualized by some Positive Operator-Valued Measure (POVM) defined as \(E_y \equiv \{M_{b_y|y}\}_{b_y}\) with \(M_{b_y|y} \geqslant 0\) for all \(b_y\) and \(\sum_{b_y} M_{b_y|y} = \mathbbm{1}\). Here \(y\) corresponds to the choice of measurement, and \(b_y\) denotes the outcomes of measurement \(y\). A set of measurements \(\{E_y\}_{y}\) with \(y \in [n]\) (here we use the notation \([k]:=\{1,\dots,k\}\)) is compatible if there exists a parent POVM \(\{G_{\kappa}: G_{\kappa} > 0 \, \forall \kappa, \, \sum_{\kappa} G_\kappa = \mathbbm{1} \}\) and classical post-processing for each \(y\) given by \(\{P_y(b_y|\kappa)\}\) such that \[\label{com} \forall b_y,y, \quad M_{b_y|y} = \sum_\kappa P_y(b_y|\kappa) G_\kappa.\] Post-processing for each \(y\) is defined by \(\{P_y(b_y|\kappa)\}\) such that \[P_y(b_y|\kappa) \geqslant 0 \, \, \forall y, b_y, \kappa; \, \, \, \, \sum_{b_y} P_y(b_y|\kappa) = 1 \, \, \forall y, \kappa.\]
# Incompatibility is necessary for quantum advantage in communication tasks {#sec3}
Now, we will show that incompatible measurements are necessary for showing quantum advantage in any communication task. Before proceeding, let us briefly describe a generic communication scenario consisting of two players-Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob are given inputs \(x\in [l]\) and \(y\in[n]\), respectively. Further, initially neither player has any idea about the other player's input. Alice, upon receiving the input \(x\) sends a \(d\)-dimensional classical or quantum system to Bob. Bob, upon receiving the input \(y\) and the message (which is \(d\)-dimensional classical or quantum system) sent by Alice, outputs \(b_y\in [d_y]\). The outcome of this communication task is determined by the set of probabilities distributions \(\{p(b_y |x,y)\}\). In classical communication, they can use pre-shared randomness \(\lambda\), and therefore, the any typical probability can be expressed as \[\label{pc} p(b_y|x,y) = \sum_{m=1}^d \int_\lambda \pi(\lambda) p_a(m|x,\lambda)p_b(b_y|y,m,\lambda)\ d\lambda.\] Here \(\{p_a(m|x,\lambda)\},\{p_b(b_y|y,m,\lambda)\}\) are encoding and decoding functions by Alice and Bob, satisfying non-negativity and \[\sum_m p_a(m|x,\lambda) = \sum_{b_y} p_b(b_y|y,m,\lambda) =1.\] While in quantum communication \[\label{pq} p(b_y|x,y) = \text{Tr} (\rho_xM_{b_y|y} ), \quad \rho_x, M_{b_y|y} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbbm{C}^d)\] Here \(\mathcal{B}(\mathbbm{C}^d)\) stands for the space of all operators acting on \(d\) dimensional complex Hilbert space. Let \(l, n, d_y\) be some natural numbers. Given the scenario \(x \in [l]\), \(y \in [n]\), \(b_y \in [d_y]\), we define the set all probabilities obtainable by \(d\)-dimensional classical communication \[\mathcal{C}_d := \{p(b_y|x,y)\}\] where \(p(b_y|x,y)\) is given by [\[pc\]](#pc){reference-type="eqref" reference="pc"}, and the set of all probabilities in \(d\)-dimensional quantum communication \[\mathcal{Q}_d := \{p(b_y|x,y)\}\] where \(p(b_y|x,y)\) is given by [\[pq\]](#pq){reference-type="eqref" reference="pq"}. We are interested in another set of probabilities, \[\mathcal{Q}^C_d := \{p(b_y|x,y)\}\] where \(p(b_y|x,y)\) is given by [\[pq\]](#pq){reference-type="eqref" reference="pq"} such that the set of measurements acting on \(d\)-dimensional quantum states used by Bob \(\{M_{b_y|y}\}\) is compatible according to [\[com\]](#com){reference-type="eqref" reference="com"}.
We are often interested in linear functions of \(\{p(b_y|x,y)\}\) due to their practical importance in quantum communication complexity tasks, quantum key distribution, quantum randomness generation, quantum random access codes, oblivious transfer and many other applications. To find the optimum value of any linear function of \(\{p(b_y|x,y)\}\), it is sufficient to consider classical strategy without shared randomness (see *Lemma* 1 in the Appendix [\[app1\]](#app1){reference-type="ref" reference="app1"} for detailed explanation). As a consequence, all probability distributions \(\{p(b_y|x,y)\}\), that are obtained from classical strategy without shared randomness, can always be reproduced by the following quantum strategy. Upon receiving the input \(x\), Alice sends the quantum state \(\rho_x\) such that \(\rho_x\) is diagonal in some basis. Bob, upon receiving the input \(y\) and the state \(\rho_x\), performs a fixed measurement \(\{G_\kappa\}\), which is independent of \(y\) and nothing but the measurement in that basis, followed by some post-processing depending on \(y\). Therefore, we have another useful result.
Above results have profound implications in practice. As a consequence of them we are able to conclude that any arbitrary communication task can serve as a witness of measurement incompatibility. Next, we will propose incompatibility witness for an arbitrary set of measurements for a family of communication tasks, namely, the general version of random access codes.
# Incompatibility witness for sets of measurements of arbitrary setting {#sec4}
Take the most general form of a set of measurements. There are \(n\) measurements, defined by \(\{M_{b_y|y}\}\) where \(y\in [n]\) each of which has different outcomes, say, measurement \(y\) has \(d_y\) outcomes, that is, \(b_y \in [d_y]\), and these measurement are acting on \(d\)-dimensional quantum states (see FIG. [\[fig1\]](#fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig1"}). In order to witness incompatibility of this set we introduce the most general form of random access codes with Bob having this set of measurements. Alice gets a string of \(n\) dits \(x=x_1x_2\cdots x_n\) randomly from the set of all possible strings in which \(x_y \in [d_y]\) for all \(y \in [n]\). While Alice communicates a \(d\)-dimensional classical or quantum system to encode the information about obtained string, the task for Bob is to guess the \(y\)-th dit when \(y\) is chosen randomly. The figure of merit is the average success probability defined by the following linear function \[\label{Pndd} S(n,\Vec{d},d) = \frac{1}{n\prod_y d_y} \sum_{x,y} p(b_y=x_y|x,y)\] that is fully specified by \(n\), \(\Vec{d}=(d_1d_2\cdots d_n)\), and \(d\). Since this [\[Pndd\]](#Pndd){reference-type="eqref" reference="Pndd"} is a linear function of \(p(b_y|x,y)\), by *Result* [\[result2\]](#result2){reference-type="ref" reference="result2"}, the maximum value over \(\mathcal{C}_d\) and \(\mathcal{Q}^C_d\) is the same and denoted by \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\). Precisely, \[\begin{aligned}
S^C(n,\Vec{d},d) &= \max_{\{p(b_y|x,y)\} \in \mathcal{C}_d} S(n,\Vec{d},d) \nonumber \\ &= \max_{\{p(b_y|x,y)\} \in \mathcal{Q}^C_d} S(n,\Vec{d},d). \end{aligned}\] Hence, \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\) can be evaluated by maximizing the average success probability either over all classical strategies, or over all quantum strategies involving compatible measurements only. Whenever a set of measurements in the scenario specified by \(n\), \(\Vec{d}\), \(d\) gives \(S(n,\Vec{d},d) > S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\) in above-introduced general version of the random access codes, we can conclude that the measurements are incompatible. Hence, in order to witness measurement incompatibility, we need to know \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\). Now we present an upper bound on \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\) for arbitrary \(n,\Vec{d},d\).
This upper bound in Eq. [\[SC1\]](#SC1){reference-type="eqref" reference="SC1"} is obtained for \(\mathcal{Q}^C_d\), that is, by taking the existence of a parent POVM of the measurements \(\{M_{b_y|y}\}_{b_y,y}\) performed by Bob. The proof of this result is presented in the Appendix [\[app1\]](#app1){reference-type="ref" reference="app1"}. When the outcome of all the measurements are same, which is \(d_y = \Tilde{d}\) for all \(y\), the above bound simplifies to \[S^C(n,\Tilde{d},d) \leqslant \frac{1}{n} \times \min \left\{1 + \frac{n(n-1)d}{2\Tilde{d}^{2}} \, \ n-1 +\frac{d}{\Tilde{d}^n} \right\}.\] Hence, in different types of RAC involving an arbitrary set of quantum measurements by Bob, if the average success probability exceeds the aforementioned upper bounds on \(S^C\), then we can conclude that the measurements by Bob are incompatible. On the other hand, whenever \[\label{ddy} d \leqslant \min_y d_y\] we find out the exact value of \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\). Say, \(k_i\) is the number of sets among \([d_1],\cdots,[d_n]\) such that dit \(i\in [d_y]\). For example, consider the random access codes with \(n=4\) and \(d_1=2\), \(d_2=3\), \(d_3=4\) and \(d_4 = 3\). That is, Alice gets a string of four dits \(x=x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4\) randomly, where \(x_1 \in [2]\), \(x_2 \in [3]\), \(x_3 \in [4]\) and \(x_4 \in [3]\). In this case, \(k_1=4\), \(k_2=4\), \(k_3=3\), \(k_4=1\). Also, we denote \(d_{\max} = \max_y d_y\).
Note here that ([\[SCex\]](#SCex){reference-type="ref" reference="SCex"}) is obtained for \(\mathcal{C}_d\) by considering the classical strategies. The detailed proof is given in the Appendix [\[app2\]](#app2){reference-type="ref" reference="app2"}. For a particular case of *Result* [\[thm:graceb\]](#thm:graceb){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:graceb"} wherein \(d_y = \Tilde{d} = d\) for all \(y\), the proof is previously given in. Hence, when \(d \leqslant \min_y d_y\), the necessary criteria for a set of measurements to be compatible is given by, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{witness-ineq} S(n,\Vec{d},d) \leqslant S^C(n,\Vec{d},d), \end{aligned}\] where \(S^C(n,\Vec{d},d)\) is given by ([\[SCex\]](#SCex){reference-type="ref" reference="SCex"}). For \(n=2\), \(d_y=\Tilde{d}\) for all \(y\), and \(d\leqslant \Tilde{d}\), the expression [\[SCex\]](#SCex){reference-type="eqref" reference="SCex"} simplifies to (for details, see the Appendix [\[app3\]](#app3){reference-type="ref" reference="app3"}) \[\label{simSCex} S^C(2,\Tilde{d},d) = \frac{1}{2\Tilde{d}^2} \left(d + 2d\Tilde{d}-d^2 \right).\] And for \(n=3\), \(d_y=\Tilde{d}\) for all \(y\), and \(d\leqslant \Tilde{d}\), the expression [\[SCex\]](#SCex){reference-type="eqref" reference="SCex"} simplifies to (for details, see the Appendix [\[app3\]](#app3){reference-type="ref" reference="app3"}) \[\label{3_measurements} S^C(3,\Tilde{d},d) = \frac{d}{3\Tilde{d}^3} \left(d^2-1 + 3\Tilde{d} (\Tilde{d} + 1-d) \right).\] The particular case of *Result* [\[thm:gracb\]](#thm:gracb){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:gracb"} for \(n=2\) can be found in, and moreover, it is shown that any pair of rank-one projective measurements that are incompatible provides advantage in RAC. In order to showcase the generic applicability of *Results* [\[thm:gracb\]](#thm:gracb){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:gracb"}-[\[thm:graceb\]](#thm:graceb){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:graceb"}, we consider an arbitrary set of three rank-one projective qubit measurements, which using the freedom of unitary can be expressed as \[\begin{aligned}
\label{3qpm} M_{x_1|1} &=& (1/2) U \left[\mathbbm{1} + (-1)^{x_1} \sigma_z \right] U^\dagger \nonumber \\ M_{x_2|2} &=& (1/2) U \left[\mathbbm{1} + (-1)^{x_2} \left( \alpha \sigma_z + \sqrt{1-\alpha^2} \sigma_x \right) \right] U^\dagger \nonumber \\ M_{x_3|3} &=& (1/2) U \Big[\mathbbm{1} + (-1)^{x_3} \big( \beta \sigma_z + \gamma \sqrt{1-\beta^2} \sigma_x \nonumber \\ && \qquad \qquad \quad \pm \sqrt{1-\beta^2} \sqrt{1-\gamma^2} \sigma_y \big) \Big] U^\dagger \end{aligned}\] where \(x,x_2,x_3 \in [2],\) the variables \(\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in [-1,1]\), and \(U\) can be arbitrary unitary operator acting on \(\mathbbm{C}^2\). We obtain the following result.
This result is proved with the help of numerical optimizations and the proof is put over to Appendix [\[app:322\]](#app:322){reference-type="ref" reference="app:322"}.
# Conclusion {#sec5}
By characterizing the set of quantum correlations in prepare-and-measure scenarios produced from any set of compatible measurements, we have shown in this article that incompatible measurements at the receiver's end is necessary for demonstrating quantum advantage in any one-way communication task. Further, based on this result, we have presented a semi-device independent witness of measurement incompatibility invoking generalized random access codes. Interestingly, we have completely characterized the sets of three incompatible projective qubit measurements that can be detected using our proposed witness. It might be noted that some of the results derived in appear as natural corollaries of the results obtained here. The significance of the result presented here lies in the fact that the classical bound of the success metric of any one-way communication task becomes an upper bound on the metric of the task under compatible set of measurements. Consequently, violating the classical bound of any one-way communication task can be used as a sufficient criteria to witness measurement incompatibility. Further, the present study establishes that measurement incompatibility is the fundamental quantum resource for non-classicality in any one-way communication task or, more generally, in prepare-and-measure scenarios. Our study opens up the possibilities of several open questions. First of all, deriving more efficient incompatibility witnesses based on different communication tasks is worth for future studies. Secondly, our results may be generalized to propose semi-device witnesses for incompatible quantum channels and quantum instruments. Though we have proved that \(\mathcal{Q}^C_d\) is a subset of \(\mathcal{C}_d\) for any \(d\), we strongly anticipate that \(\mathcal{Q}^C_d\) is in fact a strict subset of \(\mathcal{C}_d\). It needs further investigation to prove this. Finally, proposing operational witnesses for all incompatible extremal POVM is another fundamentally motivated open problem. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:32', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14582', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14582'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
The phase classification using machine-learning (ML) based techniques has been attracting intense attentions since the pioneering work in 2017. In addition to the classical phase detections where each phase is well defined by the corresponding order parameters, detecting topological phase transitions is interesting and challenging due to the lack of local order parameters. Recently, the phase detections and classifications have been performed via different ML techniques for classifying various topological invariants[@yoshioka2018; @carvalho2018; @balabanov2020; @balabanov2021; @greplova2020; @greplova2020; @ho2021; @zhang2021; @narayan2021; @yu2021; @zhang2017; @cheng2018; @sun2018; @zhang2020; @carvalho2018; @kerr2021; @kaming2021; @ho2021; @rem2019; @che2020; @chung2021; @ming2019quantum; @zhang2018; @sun2018; @holanda2020; @che2020; @kerr2021; @tsai2021; @kerr2021; @zhang2020; @zhang2017a; @mano2019; @su2019; @lian2019; @carvalho2018; @ho2021; @beach2018; @laskowska2018; @zhang2019; @RN2019; @tsai2020; @scheurer2020; @tsai2021; @caio2019], including the Chern number, winding number, \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) index[@zhang2020; @zhang2017a; @mano2019; @su2019; @lian2019; @carvalho2018; @ho2021; @beach2018; @laskowska2018; @zhang2019; @RN2019; @tsai2020; @scheurer2020; @tsai2021; @caio2019], to name a few. In addition to the applied ML architectures, the forms of the inputs for training the machine also play a crucial role in determining the resulting performance of the topological phase detections. For the topological systems with the Chern numbers or the winding numbers as the topological invariants, various types of inputs are used to perform the phase classifications. For instance, researchers in Kim's group introduced quantum loop topography (QLT) to construct multi-dimensional images from raw Hamiltonians or wave functions as inputs. Zhai's group collected the Bloch Hamiltonians into an arrays to feed their machines. The real-space particle densities and local density of states were used as inputs by Cheng *et al*.. Carvalho *et al*. fed the local projections of the density matrix to the machine. From cold-atom experiments, momentum-space density images were generated as inputs by Rem *et al*.. The time-of-flight images, spatial correlation function and density--density correlation function were also used as inputs. The density profiles formed in quantum walks were proposed as appropriate inputs for training in Ming *et al*'s work. Furthermore, several works had tried the spin configurations and the Bloch Hamiltonians over the Brillouin zone (BZ) as inputs. For these forms of inputs mentioned above, various ML techniques with distinct real-valued neural networks have been applied to discriminate different topological phases. As the development of artificial neural networks becomes mature, generalization from real-valued neural networks to complex-valued ones is undertaken that anticipates a raise of representation capability of machines . Specifically, a quaternion contains one real part and three imaginary parts so that a quaternion-based neural network is expected to have remarkable performance on handling the processing of data with more than two degrees of freedom such as the color images (RGB channels) and the descriptions of 3D systems (xyz coordinates). There have been various proposals about quaternion-based neural networks in ML techniques and applications in computer science, such as the quaternion convolutional neural network (qCNN), quaternion recurrent neural network, quaternion generative adversarial networks, quaternion-valued variational autoencoder, quaternion graph neural networks, quaternion capsule networks and quaternion neural networks for the speech recognitions. However, the ML-related applications of the quaternion-based neural networks on solving problems in physics are still limited, especially in the topological phase detections, even though the quaternion-related concepts have been applied in some fields in physics . In this work, we perform the Chern-insulator classifications from both supervised-and unsupervised-learning aspects based on the inputs transformed via the quaternion algebra. For the unsupervised learning, we firstly encode the quaternion-transformed eigenstates of Chern insulators via a convolution function as inputs and study them using the principal component analysis. We found that using only the first two principal elements is not enough to fully classify the Chern insulators, consistent with Ming's work. Further studies show that the performance can be improved by including more principal components. For the supervised learning, we construct a quaternion-based neural network in which the first layer is a quaternion convolutional layer. We then show that this quaternion-based machine has better performance than a conventional CNN machine. Our machine is good not only at testing but also at identifying data that have no common structures as in training data. The good performance can be partially attributed to the similarities between the formula of the Berry curvatures and the quaternion algebra. Therefore, our work demonstrates the power of the quaternion algebra on extracting relevant information from data, paving the way to applications of quaternion-based algorithm ML techniques in topological phase classifications. The outline of the remaining part of this work is as follows. In section II, we introduce the model Hamiltonian, generating the training data for our classification tasks, and the quaternion convolution layer used in this work. PCA analysis of the quaternion-transformed eigenstates is discussed in Sec. III. The data preparations, the network structures and the performance of the quaternion-based supervised learning task are given in Sec. IV. Some further discussions on our neural networks are given in Sec. V. Finally, a conclusion is provided in Sec. VI.
# Model and quaternion convolutional layer
## Model
A generic two-band Bloch Hamiltonian with the aid of the identity matrix \(\sigma_0\) and Pauli matrices \(\pmb{\sigma}=(\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\sigma_3)\) is written as \[\label{eq:2band} \mathcal{H}(\vec{k}) = h_0(\vec{k}) \sigma_0 + \mathbf{h}(\vec{k})\cdot\pmb{\sigma},\] where \(\vec{k}=(k_x,k_y)\) is the crystal momentum in the 2D BZ(\(={k_x,k_y\in(-\pi,\pi]}\)), and the vector \(\mathbf{h} = (h_1,h_2,h_3)\) acts as an external magnetic field. Sometimes we will omit arguments \(\vec{k}\) when writing \(\mathbf{h}(\vec{k})\) for brevity in \(k\)-space. The eigenstate of the upper (lower) band will represent the spin pointing antiparallel (parallel) to \(\mathbf{n} = \mathbf{h}/\abs{\mathbf{h}}\). Since \(h_0(\vec{k})\) does not affect the pointing direction, it will be ignored in the remaining part of this section. The function \(\mathbf{n}\) embeds the topology of the system, and we firstly discuss the topological structure in \(\mathbf{n}\). Here, the topological invariant is the Chern number \(C \in \mathbb{Z}\) with the formula: \[\label{chern} C = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\text{BZ}} \mathbf{n}\cdot(\partial_{k_x}\mathbf{n}\times\partial_{k_y}\mathbf{n})d\vec{k},\] where the integrand is the Berry curvature and the integration is over the first BZ. We construct the normalized spin configurations \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k})\) based on the following models. For topological systems, we choose the Hamiltonian with \(\mathbf{h}=\mathbf{h}^{(c)}\), where \[\label{eq:HighChern} \mathbf{h}^{(c)}(\vec{k})= \begin{pmatrix} \ \mathrm{Re}\big[(\sin{k_x}-i\sin{k_y})^c\big]\\ -\mathrm{Im}\big[(\sin{k_x}-i\sin{k_y})^c\big]\\ \cos{k_x} + \cos{k_y} + m \end{pmatrix}\] with positive integer \(c\) and real parameter \(m\) to control the Chern number. For \(c = 1\), the model is the Qi-Wu-Zhang (QWZ) model. For a given \(c\), the Chern number \(C\) can be either \(0,~c,\text{ or}-c\) depending on the value of \(m\): \[C = \begin{cases} \mathrm{sgn}(m)c, & 0<|m|<2, \\ 0, & |m|>2. \end{cases}\] The Chern numbers with different c's and m's are shown in Fig. [\[fig:spin_conf\]](#fig:spin_conf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spin_conf"}. Note that \(C=0\) stands for a topologically trivial phase and nonzero \(C\)'s are for nontrivial phases. The topological phase diagram is shown in Fig. [\[fig:HighChern\]](#fig:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:HighChern"}. In this work, the unsupervised learning involves seven topological phases (\(C=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \pm 3\)) in Sec. [9](#sec:PCA){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:PCA"}, and the supervised learning involves nine topological phases (\(C=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \pm 3, \pm 4\)) in Sec. [10](#sec:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:qcnn"}.
## Quaternion convolutional layer
A quaternion number has four components, the first of which stands for the real part and the other three of which stand for the imaginary parts. Given two quaternions \(q_1=(r_1,a_1,b_1, c_1)\) and \(q_2=(r_2,a_2,b_2,c_2)\), their product \(Q=q_1q_2=(R,A,B,C)\) is given by \[\label{eq:q_1q_2} \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} r_1 r_2-a_1 a_2-b_1 b_2-c_1 c_2\\ a_1 r_2 + r_1 a_2-c_1 b_2 + b_1 c_2\\ b_1 r_2 + c_1 a_2 + r_1 b_2-a_1 c_2\\ c_1 r_2-b_1 a_2 + a_1 b_2 + r_1 c_2 \end{pmatrix},\] which can be written as the matrix product form \[\label{eq:matrix_q} \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_1 &-a_1 &-b_1 &-c_1 \\ a_1 & r_1 &-c_1 & b_1 \\ b_1 & c_1 & r_1 &-a_1 \\ c_1 &-b_1 & a_1 & r_1 \end{pmatrix*} \begin{pmatrix} r_2\\ a_2\\ b_2\\ c_2 \end{pmatrix}.\] To implement a quaternion convolutional (q-Conv) layer in numerical programming, we will regard the two quaternions as a \(4\times4\) matrix and a \(4\times1\) column matrix, respectively: \[\label{eq:rep2} q_1 \doteq \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_1 &-a_1 &-b_1 &-c_1 \\ a_1 & r_1 &-c_1 & b_1 \\ b_1 & c_1 & r_1 &-a_1 \\ c_1 &-b_1 & a_1 & r_1 \end{pmatrix*}\quad \mathrm{and}\quad q_2 \doteq \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_2\\ a_2\\ b_2\\ c_2 \end{pmatrix*}.\] More details of quaternion algebra are described in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}. A conventional CNN contains a real-valued convolutional layer to execute the convolution of the input and the kernel. Let the input \(F\) have the shape: \(H_i\times W_i\times C_i\) (Height \(\times\) Width \(\times\) Channel) and the shape of the kernel \(K\) be \(H_{k} \times W_{k} \times C_i \times C_f\). The convolution will produce an output \(O\), \(O=F\ast K\), whose elements are \[\label{eq:C-convo} O_{i',j',t'} =\sum_{i}^{H_k} \sum_{j}^{W_k} \sum_{t}^{C_i} F_{i'+i-1,j'+j-1,t}\cdot K_{i,j,t,t'}.\] Here the stride is assumed to be \(1\) both in the width and the height directions. The indices \(i\) and \(j\) are spatial indicators, \(t\) is the index of channel in the input feature map and \(t'\) is the kernel index. The shape of the output will be \((H_{i}-H_{k}) \times (W_{i}-W_{k}) \times C_f\). Assume that the input has four components. To uncover the entanglement among components through CNN, we will utilize the quaternion product. Now, we introduce another dimension--Depth--which is four, as a quaternion number of four components. Both of the input \(F\) and the kernel \(K\) have Depth of four as two quaternion numbers. The product of \(F\) and \(K\) will have Depth of four as a quaternion in Eq. ([\[eq:q_1q_2\]](#eq:q_1q_2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:q_1q_2"}). Referring to Eq. ([\[eq:rep2\]](#eq:rep2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:rep2"}) where we show a matrix representation to implement quaternion algebra and thinking of \(F\) as \(q_1\) and \(K\) as \(q_2\) in Eq. ([\[eq:rep2\]](#eq:rep2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:rep2"}), we transform the Depth-four input \(F\) into a 4x4 matrix, \(F^{(l,s)}\), and keep the kernel \(K\) still of Depth 4, \(K^{(l)}\), where \(l, s=1,…,4\). The product of \(F\) and \(K\), say \(O\), will have Depth of four as shown in Eq. ([\[eq:Q-convo\]](#eq:Q-convo){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:Q-convo"}). We remark that the products between components of \(F\) and \(K\) are convolution operations as Eq. ([\[eq:C-convo\]](#eq:C-convo){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:C-convo"}). \[\label{eq:Q-convo} O_{i',j',t'}^{(s)} = \sum_{l}^{4}\sum_{i,j,t} F^{(s,l)}_{i'+i-1,j'+j-1,t}\cdot K^{(l)}_{i,j,t,t'},\] More specifically, we consider an input data as \(q_1\) (four color squares on the left of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}) and four kernels encoded in \(q_2\), given in the following \[\left\{\begin{matrix} q_1 \doteq & (r_1~a_1~b_1~c_1)^T &\\ q_2 \doteq & (r_2~a_2~b_2~c_2)^T & =: K^{(\cdot)}. \end{matrix}\right.\] The output feature maps \(O\doteq (R~A~B~C)^T\) is then calculated based on Eq. ([\[eq:q_1q_2\]](#eq:q_1q_2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:q_1q_2"}). As the first step, we permute the order of \(q_1\) to obtain \[\begin{aligned}
F^{(\cdot,1)}=: \begin{pmatrix} r_1\\ a_1\\ b_1\\ c_1 \end{pmatrix}, F^{(\cdot,2)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -a_1\\ r_1\\ c_1\\ -b_1 \end{pmatrix*},\\\nonumber F^{(\cdot,3)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -b_1\\ -c_1\\ r_1\\ a_1 \end{pmatrix*}, F^{(\cdot,4)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -c_1\\ b_1\\ -a_1\\ r_1 \end{pmatrix*} \end{aligned}\] (see the four sets of sqaures in the middle of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}). We then convolute those four quaternions (\(F^{(\cdot,l)}\) with \(l =1,2,3\) and 4) with four kernels (\(K^{(l)}\) with \(l = 1,2,3\) and 4) in the following way: \[\left\{ \begin{matrix} F^{(\cdot,1)}K^{(1)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} r_1r_2&a_1r_2&b_1r_2&c_1r_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,2)}K^{(2)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -a_1a_2&r_1a_2&c_1a_2&-b_1a_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,3)}K^{(3)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -b_1b_2&-c_1b_2&r_1b_2&a_1b_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,4)}K^{(4)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -c_1c_2&b_1c_2&-a_1c_2&r_1c_2 \end{pmatrix}^T \end{matrix} \right.\], as shown in the middle of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}. Finally, we sum over the above four quaternions to get the output feature maps \(O\), as shown on the right of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}. \[O := \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} r_1 r_2-a_1 a_2-b_1 b_2-c_1 c_2\\ a_1 r_2 + r_1 a_2-c_1 b_2 + b_1 c_2\\ b_1 r_2 + c_1 a_2 + r_1 b_2-a_1 c_2\\ c_1 r_2-b_1 a_2 + a_1 b_2 + r_1 c_2 \end{pmatrix}.\]
# principal component analysis {#sec:PCA}
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear manifold learning that is to find the relevant basis set among data. We prepare eigenstates \(\ket{u_\pm}\) of Eq. ([\[eq:2band\]](#eq:2band){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:2band"}), where \(+\ (-)\) stands for the upper (lower) band. For a topological state, the phase cannot be well-defined over the whole BZ. Therefore, we can divide the whole BZ into two parts, in each part of them the topological wave function has continuously well-defined phase. We then choose two regions according to the sign of \(h_3\) in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}): \[\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \ket{u_+} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_+(h_{+}+h_3)}}\mqty(h_{+}+h_3 \\ h_1+i h_2) \\ \ket{u_-} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_-(h_{-}+h_3)}} \mqty(-h_1+ih_2 \\ h_{-}+h_3) \end{split} \quad ,~ h_3\geq 0, \label{eq:gauge1} \end{aligned}\] and \[\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \ket{u_+} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_{+}(h_{+}-h_3)}}\mqty(h_1-ih_2 \\ h_{+}-h_3) \\ \ket{u_-} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_{-}(h_{-}-h_3)}} \mqty(h_{-}-h_3 \\-h_1-ih_2) \end{split} \quad ,~ h_3 < 0, \label{eq:gauge2} \end{aligned}\] where \(h_{\pm} =\pm \sqrt{h_1^2+h_2^2+h_3^2}\). In this choice of gauge, the first (second) component of \(\ket{u_{+}}\) \((\ket{u_-})\) is real-valued when \(h_3\geq0\), and the second (first) component of \(\ket{u_{+}}\) \((\ket{u_-})\) is real-valued when \(h_3<0\). By translating \(\ket{u_\pm} \doteq (\alpha_\pm, \beta_\pm)^T\) with \(\alpha_\pm, \beta_\pm\in\mathbb{C}\), into a quaternion number of four components, we have \[\label{eq:transf} q_\pm := \mathrm{Re}(\alpha_\pm) + \mathrm{Im}(\alpha_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{i}} + \mathrm{Re}(\beta_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{j}} + \mathrm{Im}(\beta_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{k}}.\] (a brief introduction of the quaternion number can be seen in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}). To see the correlation of states over \(\vec{k}\), we define the quantity \(F\) to be the quaternion-based convolutions: \[\label{eq:Ne} \begin{split} F(\vec{p}) := q^*_{+}&\circledast q_{+}[\vec{p}]-q^*_{-}\circledast q_{-}[\vec{p}] \quad\mathrm{with}\\ q_{\pm}^*&\circledast q_{\pm}[\vec{p}] := \sum_{\vec{k}\in \mathrm{BZ}} q_{\pm}^*(\vec{k})q_{\pm}(\vec{p}-\vec{k}), \end{split}\] where \(q^*\) is the conjugate of \(q\). It can be proved that \(F\) is real-valued. Therefore, \(F(\vec{p})\) of all \(\vec{p}\) in the BZ based on a given Hamiltonian can be analysed by using PCA. We collected various \(F\) of all \(\vec{k} \in\)BZ within seven topological phases as the dataset for PCA. For each topological phases, 30 \(F\)'s were prepared, so the total amount of data was 210. The data for six non-trivial phases were generated based on Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) with \(m=\pm 1\) (the sign of \(m\) determines the sign of \(C\)). For the trivial phase, we prepared five data points from each of six combinations of \(\{c,m\}\), where \(c\in\{1,2,3\}\) and \(m\in\{3,-3\}\), and then there are totally 30 data. To augment the number of data, we add Gaussian noises \(\delta\mathbf{h}\) at every \(\vec{k}\) of the model \[Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"})\] such that \(\mathbf{h}\to\mathbf{h}+\delta\mathbf{h}\) without closing the band gap. In Fig. [\[fig:nematic\]](#fig:nematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:nematic"}, we present various noiseless \(F\) generated from Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) with different \(c\) and \(m\). It is notable that \(F\) for \(C = 0\) are featureless, \(F\) for \(C = \pm 1\) have a dipole moment, and \(F\) for \(C = \pm 2\) have a quadruple moment, and \(F\) for \(C = \pm 3\) seemingly have a primary dipole and a secondary quadruple moment. The remarkable features imply that the convolution function \(F\) is a good choice for topological classifications. We examine data with the standard deviation (SD) equal to 0, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 respectively, and show the first two PCs of 210 pieces of data for each SD in Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}. In Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}, it is evident that data are clustered into four groups and their variances increase with SD. PCA is successful to separate different topological phases into different clusters. However, some clusters contain two topological phases of Chern numbers: \(\{+1,-3\}\), \(\{-1,+3\}\), and \(\{+2,-2\}\). The \(C\) modulo 4 resemblance has also be observed in a previous study . We find that including more PCs helps separate different classes in each cluster. Figure [\[fig:ninePC\]](#fig:ninePC){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ninePC"} shows first six PCs of data in topologically non-trivial phases, where PCx denotes the x-th PC component. One can find that PC1 and PC2 in each pair of \(\{+1,-3\}\), \(\{-1,+3\}\), and \(\{+2,-2\}\) are nearly identical, as also shown in Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}. By including PC3 PC6 into the analysis, all topological classes are completely classified. Via the proposed convolution, topological states can be successfully classified by using PCA, a linear machine for classification.
# Supervised learning of CNN and the qCNN {#sec:qcnn}
## Datasets
The input data are normalized spin configurations \(\mathbf{n}\), laying on a \(40\times 40\) square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, and their corresponding topological phases are labels with one-hot encoding. We prepared four datasets: training, validation, testing and prediction dataset. The first three datasets are well known in conventional deep learning procedure . To understand whether our machine can also classify unseen spin configuration, we prepare a prediction dataset that includes a few types of spin configurations never seen by the machine during the training process. The data pool containing training and validation datasets is constructed as follows. Based on the Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}), we firstly prepared 5760 data points of \(\mathbf{n}\) of nine topological phases with Chern number ranging from-4 to 4 so that each phase contain 640 data points. Additionally, we add 360 data points for spin vortex which belongs to the trivial phase. A spin-vortex has an in-plane spin texture that winds around a center, which is generated by setting one of three components in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) to be zero. By including spin vortices, the machine learn the difference between 3D winding (non-trivial) and 2D winding (trivial) spin configurations (more details are described in the Appendix [\[app:dataset\]](#app:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="app:dataset"}). After the training process, the trained machine is scored by a testing dataset with the same composition of nine phases as that in the training (and validation) dataset. Importantly, without changing the topologies, the Gaussian distributed random transition and random rotation imposed on these three datasets can increase the diversity of dataset and enhance the ability of generalization of the trained machine. The prediction dataset contains six categories of spin configurations. The first category is generated with \(m\) uniformly distributed from \(+3\) to \(-3\). In the second and the third categories, we change the sign of \(n_z\) (the second category) and swapping \(n_y\) and \(n_z\) of \(\mathbf{n}\) (the third category). Finally, we consider three categories for trivial states, which are ferromagnetic (FM), conical \((\epsilon\neq 0)\) and helical \((\epsilon=0)\) states, based on the following formula: \[\label{eq:conical} \mathbf{n}_{\mathrm{spiral/conical}}(\vec{k})= \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\cos{(k_x+ k_y)}\\ \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\sin{(k_x+ k_y)}\\ \epsilon \end{pmatrix}.\] FM can be viewed as 1D uncompleted winding configuration while conical and helical can be viewed as 2D uncompleted ones. In total, we prepared six categories for the prediction dataset. More details about data preparations will be described in Appendix [\[app:dataset\]](#app:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="app:dataset"}. For the conventional CNN, we use \(\mathbf{n}\) as the input data. For the qCNN, in order to feed the input data into the qCNN classifier, we transform the 3D spin vector into an unit pure quaternion, \[\label{eq:encoding} (n_x,n_y,n_z)\in\mathbb{R}^3 \mapsto (0, n_x,n_y,n_z)\in\mathbb{H},\] where the scalar part (the first component) is zero and the vector part is \(\mathbf{n}\).
## network structure and performance
We implement a qCNN classifier with a quaternion convolution (q-Conv) layer as the first layer \[see red dotted cube in Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}(b)\], and the operations in a q-Conv layer are based on the quaternion algebra. Then the next three layers are conventional 3D convolutional layers. Details of the quaternion algebra and the keynote of a qCNN are explained in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}. For comparison, we also set up a conventional CNN classifier by replacing the q-Conv layer by a conventional 2D convolutional layer, and appending three conventional 2D convolutional layers to the first layer. The architecture of these two classifiers are shown in Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}. Note that the data in the qCNN has one more rank than that in CNN, and in numerical programs, this extra dimension---*Depth* is used to store the quaternion \[referred to Eq. ([\[eq:encoding\]](#eq:encoding){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:encoding"})\]. As you can see in the Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}, the architecture of the qCNN is one layer more than the CNN's, the total network parameters of the qCNN is however less than the CNN's. This is one advantage of the qCNN over the conventional CNN. In order for classifiers to satisfy some physically reasonable conditions, three special designs are needed. Firstly, we extend the \(k\) points out of the BZ by padding the input data according to the periodic boundary conditions . Secondly, a convolutional layer (q-Conv layer in the qCNN) with arctangent activation function is then adopted, which contains 27 filters of kernel size \(2\times 2\). This layer executes an "overlapping" feature mapping. (Figure [\[fig:overlap\]](#fig:overlap){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:overlap"} illustrates how the "overlapping" and "non-overlapping" feature mapping can be manipulated by varying the size of stride.) Thirdly. we shrink the \(k\) space of data into "a point\" by three non-overlapping convolutional layers. In the qCNN, three 3D convolutional layers are applied while keeping four Depths independent. In particular, we additionally append a 2D convolutional layer to make combination Depths-wisely. Specifically, this layer with 9 filters of kernel size \(4\times1\) transforms data from \(4\times9\) to \(1\times9\), where each of nine neurons corresponds to one topological class. In comparison, the conventional CNN shrinks the \(k\)-space to a point in each of nine *Channels*, where the dimension is integrated out after the convolution. More details and descriptions are relative to the SEC. [11](#sec:discu){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:discu"}. In the following, we perform both the qCNN and conventional CNN trainings. The learning curves of both machines are shown in Fig. [\[fig:learningCurve\]](#fig:learningCurve){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:learningCurve"}. The CNN machine (orange and light orange lines) jumps over a big learning barrier at around the \(700^{th}\) epoch. After that, the training and the validation accuracy (orange and light orange line respectively) are separated and do not converge up to end of this training process. Even though the same training (and validation) dataset is used in the training process, the learning curves of the qCNN machine (blue and light blue lines) are qualitatively different. The training and the validation accuracy are separated around \(90^{th}\) epoch, but the difference between these two accuracies decreases with increasing epochs. After the training procedure finished, the qCNN (CNN) machine gets 99.67% (94.12%) testing accuracy. This difference in accuracy results from the spin-vortex dataset, where the qCNN works well but CNN dose not. The trained machines are ready to do prediction, and the result is shown in Fig. [\[fig:performpred\]](#fig:performpred){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:performpred"}. In Fig. [\[fig:performpred\]](#fig:performpred){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:performpred"}, since the first category contains \(\mathbf{n}\) of uniformly distributed \(m\), where a few data points are very close to the phase boundaries \(m \approx \{0, \pm 2 \}\), the accurate rate of the the qCNN is slightly low at \(96\%\). For the second and third categories, we choose \(m=\pm 1\), away from the phase transition points, and the performance is nearly perfect. For the uncompleted winding configurations, the qCNN, different from the conventional CNN, can accurately classifies FM, helical and conical states after learning the spin-vortex states. This is the main advantage of the qCNN over the conventional CNN, which is expected to result from the quaternion algebra.
# discussions {#sec:discu}
On PCA the reason why we choose spinor state vector \(\ket{u}\), not the spin normalized vector \(\mathbf{n}\) as data is that the gauge discontinuities exist in the non-trivial \(\ket{u}\), but not in \(\mathbf{n}\)'s. It turns out that the function \(F\) can detect the existence of this discontinuity so that trivial and non-trivial states can be distinguished by PCA. Above statement is further supported by the relation between \(\ket{u}\) and \(\mathbf{n}\) in pure state, which is known as \[\label{eq:sigma} \mathbf{n}(\vec{k}) = \bra{u_+(\vec{k})}\pmb{\sigma}\ket{u_+(\vec{k})}.\] In Eq. ([\[eq:sigma\]](#eq:sigma){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:sigma"}), the \(U(1)\) ambiguity of \(\ket{u}\) is eliminated effectively, thus, there is no discontinuities to be detected by PCA in \(\mathbf{n}\). There is another issue if we use n as the data in PCA. If we encode \(\mathbf{n}=(n_x, n_y,n_z)\) into a quaternion in the following form, \[q := (0,~n_x,~n_y,~n_z),\] the corresponding convolution \[Eq. ([\[eq:Ne\]](#eq:Ne){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:Ne"})\] will not depend on the sign of \(m\). It can be shown that there exists one point \(\vec{k}'\to\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}+\pi\) in BZ such that \[n_z(\vec{k}, m_0)n_z(\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}, m_0) = n_z(\vec{k}',-m_0)n_z(\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}',-m_0).\] That is, for two spin configurations with opposite sign \(m_0\), their \(n_z\) products are equal at \(\vec{k}\) and \(\vec{k}'\) respectively. As shown in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}), m shows up only in the \(n_z\) component. Therefore, after the integration over the whole BZ, the convolution is independent of the sign of \(m\) and there is no feature for PCA to discriminate distinct topological states. On qCNN, there are several possible factors promoting the performance of our supervised learning machine. The first one is that the size of filter in the first convolutional layer is 2 × 2 with stride = 1, which means the machine can collect spin information among four nearest neighbors \[see Fig. [\[fig:filter\]](#fig:filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:filter"}(b)\]. We know that the Chern number is the integral of the Berry curvature in the BZ, and the Berry curvature is twice of the solid angle. A solid angle \(\Omega\) subtended by three normalized vectors \(\vec{a}\), \(\vec{b}\), \(\vec{c}\), can be calculated using the following equation: \[\label{eq:solid} \tan{\frac{\pmb{\Omega}}{2}}=\frac{\abs{\vec{a}\cdot(\vec{b}\times \vec{c})}}{1+\vec{a}\cdot \vec{b}+\vec{b}\cdot \vec{c}+\vec{c}\cdot \vec{a}}.\] Our choice of the size of the filter in the first hidden layer is the minimal of \(2 \times 2\) that mixes only the nearest-neighboring spins. In this way, it is very possible to enforce the machine to notice the solid angle extended in this plaquette. The second factor is the quaternion product. Recall that the conventional CNN might correlate spins \(\mathbf{n}'s\) in neighboring \(\vec{k}'s\) due to the feature map through the kernel. However, the map does not mix the components of spins. In comparison, the qCNN is more efficient for it directly entangle spins via the quaternion product. It is this entanglement of spin components by the quaternion product that makes the scalar and vector products in calculating the solid angle (see Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"})) become possible to be realized by the machine. As a solid angle involves at least three spins and the feature map by the kernel is just linear, a nonlinear transformation is crucial to create high-order (three spins) terms in the expansion. Based on this argument, the third factor is the non-linear activation function, which is an arctangent function in this work. Based on Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"}), the calculation of a solid angle involves the arctan operation. Therefore, we expect that using the arctangent function as the activation function can further help the machine to learn correct representations. This idea is further supported by the results shown in Fig. [\[fig:acti\]](#fig:acti){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:acti"}, where the arctangent activation function outperforms the ReLU and tanh activation functions over nine different datasets. In summary, several factors are combined to enhance the performance of our machine as follows. The quaternion-based operations in the q-Conv layer mix not only different components of a spin \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_0)\) but also neighbouring spins, say \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_0)\) and \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_1)\). When these linear combinations are fed into the non-linear activation functions in our qCNN, the output can be viewed as an expansion of a non-linear function, which may contain a term having both the scalar-and vector-product of neighboring spins, similar to that in Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"}). Therefore, in the optimization process, combined with the effect of choosing the size of filter to be \(2 \times 2\), the machine may keep increasing the weight of a solid-angle-related term and eventually learn to classify the topological phases based on the calculated solid angles. Also, adding some noises to the training dataset helped our supervised-learning machine to learn the generic feature of our data. We found that when the training data was generated directly from Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) without adding any noise, the machine worked well for training and testing datasets but had poor performance on all the prediction dataset. This could be understood by noting that topology is determined by the sign of \(m\), which appears only in the z component in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}). By using the dataset without noises, the machine may learn to classify states only by looking at the \(z-\)component but not extracting the full information from the full configuration. When we gave random transition and rotation to each training data, the machine had to examine all three components in order to have correction predictions. From our observations, the performance on the prediction dataset was remarkably enhanced when the noise was added, which supports our ideas.
# Conclusions
In summary, we classify topological phases with distinct Chern numbers via two types of machine-learning algorithms. For the unsupervised part, we propose a quaternion-based convolution to transform the topological states into the input data. With this convolution, distinct topological states are successfully classified by PCA, a linear machine for classification. We then go to the supervised learning part where, in contrast to the conventional CNN, we successfully use the qCNN to classify different topological phases. This work demonstrates the power of quaternion-based algorithm, especially for the topological systems with the Chern number as the topological invariants.
# Introduction
The phase classification using machine-learning (ML) based techniques has been attracting intense attentions since the pioneering work in 2017. In addition to the classical phase detections where each phase is well defined by the corresponding order parameters, detecting topological phase transitions is interesting and challenging due to the lack of local order parameters. Recently, the phase detections and classifications have been performed via different ML techniques for classifying various topological invariants[@yoshioka2018; @carvalho2018; @balabanov2020; @balabanov2021; @greplova2020; @greplova2020; @ho2021; @zhang2021; @narayan2021; @yu2021; @zhang2017; @cheng2018; @sun2018; @zhang2020; @carvalho2018; @kerr2021; @kaming2021; @ho2021; @rem2019; @che2020; @chung2021; @ming2019quantum; @zhang2018; @sun2018; @holanda2020; @che2020; @kerr2021; @tsai2021; @kerr2021; @zhang2020; @zhang2017a; @mano2019; @su2019; @lian2019; @carvalho2018; @ho2021; @beach2018; @laskowska2018; @zhang2019; @RN2019; @tsai2020; @scheurer2020; @tsai2021; @caio2019], including the Chern number, winding number, \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) index[@zhang2020; @zhang2017a; @mano2019; @su2019; @lian2019; @carvalho2018; @ho2021; @beach2018; @laskowska2018; @zhang2019; @RN2019; @tsai2020; @scheurer2020; @tsai2021; @caio2019], to name a few. In addition to the applied ML architectures, the forms of the inputs for training the machine also play a crucial role in determining the resulting performance of the topological phase detections. For the topological systems with the Chern numbers or the winding numbers as the topological invariants, various types of inputs are used to perform the phase classifications. For instance, researchers in Kim's group introduced quantum loop topography (QLT) to construct multi-dimensional images from raw Hamiltonians or wave functions as inputs. Zhai's group collected the Bloch Hamiltonians into an arrays to feed their machines. The real-space particle densities and local density of states were used as inputs by Cheng *et al*.. Carvalho *et al*. fed the local projections of the density matrix to the machine. From cold-atom experiments, momentum-space density images were generated as inputs by Rem *et al*.. The time-of-flight images, spatial correlation function and density--density correlation function were also used as inputs. The density profiles formed in quantum walks were proposed as appropriate inputs for training in Ming *et al*'s work. Furthermore, several works had tried the spin configurations and the Bloch Hamiltonians over the Brillouin zone (BZ) as inputs. For these forms of inputs mentioned above, various ML techniques with distinct real-valued neural networks have been applied to discriminate different topological phases. As the development of artificial neural networks becomes mature, generalization from real-valued neural networks to complex-valued ones is undertaken that anticipates a raise of representation capability of machines . Specifically, a quaternion contains one real part and three imaginary parts so that a quaternion-based neural network is expected to have remarkable performance on handling the processing of data with more than two degrees of freedom such as the color images (RGB channels) and the descriptions of 3D systems (xyz coordinates). There have been various proposals about quaternion-based neural networks in ML techniques and applications in computer science, such as the quaternion convolutional neural network (qCNN), quaternion recurrent neural network, quaternion generative adversarial networks, quaternion-valued variational autoencoder, quaternion graph neural networks, quaternion capsule networks and quaternion neural networks for the speech recognitions. However, the ML-related applications of the quaternion-based neural networks on solving problems in physics are still limited, especially in the topological phase detections, even though the quaternion-related concepts have been applied in some fields in physics . In this work, we perform the Chern-insulator classifications from both supervised-and unsupervised-learning aspects based on the inputs transformed via the quaternion algebra. For the unsupervised learning, we firstly encode the quaternion-transformed eigenstates of Chern insulators via a convolution function as inputs and study them using the principal component analysis. We found that using only the first two principal elements is not enough to fully classify the Chern insulators, consistent with Ming's work. Further studies show that the performance can be improved by including more principal components. For the supervised learning, we construct a quaternion-based neural network in which the first layer is a quaternion convolutional layer. We then show that this quaternion-based machine has better performance than a conventional CNN machine. Our machine is good not only at testing but also at identifying data that have no common structures as in training data. The good performance can be partially attributed to the similarities between the formula of the Berry curvatures and the quaternion algebra. Therefore, our work demonstrates the power of the quaternion algebra on extracting relevant information from data, paving the way to applications of quaternion-based algorithm ML techniques in topological phase classifications. The outline of the remaining part of this work is as follows. In section II, we introduce the model Hamiltonian, generating the training data for our classification tasks, and the quaternion convolution layer used in this work. PCA analysis of the quaternion-transformed eigenstates is discussed in Sec. III. The data preparations, the network structures and the performance of the quaternion-based supervised learning task are given in Sec. IV. Some further discussions on our neural networks are given in Sec. V. Finally, a conclusion is provided in Sec. VI.
# Model and quaternion convolutional layer
## Model
A generic two-band Bloch Hamiltonian with the aid of the identity matrix \(\sigma_0\) and Pauli matrices \(\pmb{\sigma}=(\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\sigma_3)\) is written as \[\label{eq:2band} \mathcal{H}(\vec{k}) = h_0(\vec{k}) \sigma_0 + \mathbf{h}(\vec{k})\cdot\pmb{\sigma},\] where \(\vec{k}=(k_x,k_y)\) is the crystal momentum in the 2D BZ(\(={k_x,k_y\in(-\pi,\pi]}\)), and the vector \(\mathbf{h} = (h_1,h_2,h_3)\) acts as an external magnetic field. Sometimes we will omit arguments \(\vec{k}\) when writing \(\mathbf{h}(\vec{k})\) for brevity in \(k\)-space. The eigenstate of the upper (lower) band will represent the spin pointing antiparallel (parallel) to \(\mathbf{n} = \mathbf{h}/\abs{\mathbf{h}}\). Since \(h_0(\vec{k})\) does not affect the pointing direction, it will be ignored in the remaining part of this section. The function \(\mathbf{n}\) embeds the topology of the system, and we firstly discuss the topological structure in \(\mathbf{n}\). Here, the topological invariant is the Chern number \(C \in \mathbb{Z}\) with the formula: \[\label{chern} C = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\text{BZ}} \mathbf{n}\cdot(\partial_{k_x}\mathbf{n}\times\partial_{k_y}\mathbf{n})d\vec{k},\] where the integrand is the Berry curvature and the integration is over the first BZ. We construct the normalized spin configurations \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k})\) based on the following models. For topological systems, we choose the Hamiltonian with \(\mathbf{h}=\mathbf{h}^{(c)}\), where \[\label{eq:HighChern} \mathbf{h}^{(c)}(\vec{k})= \begin{pmatrix} \ \mathrm{Re}\big[(\sin{k_x}-i\sin{k_y})^c\big]\\ -\mathrm{Im}\big[(\sin{k_x}-i\sin{k_y})^c\big]\\ \cos{k_x} + \cos{k_y} + m \end{pmatrix}\] with positive integer \(c\) and real parameter \(m\) to control the Chern number. For \(c = 1\), the model is the Qi-Wu-Zhang (QWZ) model. For a given \(c\), the Chern number \(C\) can be either \(0,~c,\text{ or}-c\) depending on the value of \(m\): \[C = \begin{cases} \mathrm{sgn}(m)c, & 0<|m|<2, \\ 0, & |m|>2. \end{cases}\] The Chern numbers with different c's and m's are shown in Fig. [\[fig:spin_conf\]](#fig:spin_conf){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:spin_conf"}. Note that \(C=0\) stands for a topologically trivial phase and nonzero \(C\)'s are for nontrivial phases. The topological phase diagram is shown in Fig. [\[fig:HighChern\]](#fig:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:HighChern"}. In this work, the unsupervised learning involves seven topological phases (\(C=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \pm 3\)) in Sec. [9](#sec:PCA){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:PCA"}, and the supervised learning involves nine topological phases (\(C=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \pm 3, \pm 4\)) in Sec. [10](#sec:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:qcnn"}.
## Quaternion convolutional layer
A quaternion number has four components, the first of which stands for the real part and the other three of which stand for the imaginary parts. Given two quaternions \(q_1=(r_1,a_1,b_1, c_1)\) and \(q_2=(r_2,a_2,b_2,c_2)\), their product \(Q=q_1q_2=(R,A,B,C)\) is given by \[\label{eq:q_1q_2} \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} r_1 r_2-a_1 a_2-b_1 b_2-c_1 c_2\\ a_1 r_2 + r_1 a_2-c_1 b_2 + b_1 c_2\\ b_1 r_2 + c_1 a_2 + r_1 b_2-a_1 c_2\\ c_1 r_2-b_1 a_2 + a_1 b_2 + r_1 c_2 \end{pmatrix},\] which can be written as the matrix product form \[\label{eq:matrix_q} \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_1 &-a_1 &-b_1 &-c_1 \\ a_1 & r_1 &-c_1 & b_1 \\ b_1 & c_1 & r_1 &-a_1 \\ c_1 &-b_1 & a_1 & r_1 \end{pmatrix*} \begin{pmatrix} r_2\\ a_2\\ b_2\\ c_2 \end{pmatrix}.\] To implement a quaternion convolutional (q-Conv) layer in numerical programming, we will regard the two quaternions as a \(4\times4\) matrix and a \(4\times1\) column matrix, respectively: \[\label{eq:rep2} q_1 \doteq \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_1 &-a_1 &-b_1 &-c_1 \\ a_1 & r_1 &-c_1 & b_1 \\ b_1 & c_1 & r_1 &-a_1 \\ c_1 &-b_1 & a_1 & r_1 \end{pmatrix*}\quad \mathrm{and}\quad q_2 \doteq \begin{pmatrix*}[r] r_2\\ a_2\\ b_2\\ c_2 \end{pmatrix*}.\] More details of quaternion algebra are described in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}. A conventional CNN contains a real-valued convolutional layer to execute the convolution of the input and the kernel. Let the input \(F\) have the shape: \(H_i\times W_i\times C_i\) (Height \(\times\) Width \(\times\) Channel) and the shape of the kernel \(K\) be \(H_{k} \times W_{k} \times C_i \times C_f\). The convolution will produce an output \(O\), \(O=F\ast K\), whose elements are \[\label{eq:C-convo} O_{i',j',t'} =\sum_{i}^{H_k} \sum_{j}^{W_k} \sum_{t}^{C_i} F_{i'+i-1,j'+j-1,t}\cdot K_{i,j,t,t'}.\] Here the stride is assumed to be \(1\) both in the width and the height directions. The indices \(i\) and \(j\) are spatial indicators, \(t\) is the index of channel in the input feature map and \(t'\) is the kernel index. The shape of the output will be \((H_{i}-H_{k}) \times (W_{i}-W_{k}) \times C_f\). Assume that the input has four components. To uncover the entanglement among components through CNN, we will utilize the quaternion product. Now, we introduce another dimension--Depth--which is four, as a quaternion number of four components. Both of the input \(F\) and the kernel \(K\) have Depth of four as two quaternion numbers. The product of \(F\) and \(K\) will have Depth of four as a quaternion in Eq. ([\[eq:q_1q_2\]](#eq:q_1q_2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:q_1q_2"}). Referring to Eq. ([\[eq:rep2\]](#eq:rep2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:rep2"}) where we show a matrix representation to implement quaternion algebra and thinking of \(F\) as \(q_1\) and \(K\) as \(q_2\) in Eq. ([\[eq:rep2\]](#eq:rep2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:rep2"}), we transform the Depth-four input \(F\) into a 4x4 matrix, \(F^{(l,s)}\), and keep the kernel \(K\) still of Depth 4, \(K^{(l)}\), where \(l, s=1,…,4\). The product of \(F\) and \(K\), say \(O\), will have Depth of four as shown in Eq. ([\[eq:Q-convo\]](#eq:Q-convo){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:Q-convo"}). We remark that the products between components of \(F\) and \(K\) are convolution operations as Eq. ([\[eq:C-convo\]](#eq:C-convo){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:C-convo"}). \[\label{eq:Q-convo} O_{i',j',t'}^{(s)} = \sum_{l}^{4}\sum_{i,j,t} F^{(s,l)}_{i'+i-1,j'+j-1,t}\cdot K^{(l)}_{i,j,t,t'},\] More specifically, we consider an input data as \(q_1\) (four color squares on the left of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}) and four kernels encoded in \(q_2\), given in the following \[\left\{\begin{matrix} q_1 \doteq & (r_1~a_1~b_1~c_1)^T &\\ q_2 \doteq & (r_2~a_2~b_2~c_2)^T & =: K^{(\cdot)}. \end{matrix}\right.\] The output feature maps \(O\doteq (R~A~B~C)^T\) is then calculated based on Eq. ([\[eq:q_1q_2\]](#eq:q_1q_2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:q_1q_2"}). As the first step, we permute the order of \(q_1\) to obtain \[\begin{aligned}
F^{(\cdot,1)}=: \begin{pmatrix} r_1\\ a_1\\ b_1\\ c_1 \end{pmatrix}, F^{(\cdot,2)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -a_1\\ r_1\\ c_1\\ -b_1 \end{pmatrix*},\\\nonumber F^{(\cdot,3)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -b_1\\ -c_1\\ r_1\\ a_1 \end{pmatrix*}, F^{(\cdot,4)}=: \begin{pmatrix*}[r] -c_1\\ b_1\\ -a_1\\ r_1 \end{pmatrix*} \end{aligned}\] (see the four sets of sqaures in the middle of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}). We then convolute those four quaternions (\(F^{(\cdot,l)}\) with \(l =1,2,3\) and 4) with four kernels (\(K^{(l)}\) with \(l = 1,2,3\) and 4) in the following way: \[\left\{ \begin{matrix} F^{(\cdot,1)}K^{(1)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} r_1r_2&a_1r_2&b_1r_2&c_1r_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,2)}K^{(2)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -a_1a_2&r_1a_2&c_1a_2&-b_1a_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,3)}K^{(3)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -b_1b_2&-c_1b_2&r_1b_2&a_1b_2 \end{pmatrix}^T\\ F^{(\cdot,4)}K^{(4)} &\doteq& \begin{pmatrix} -c_1c_2&b_1c_2&-a_1c_2&r_1c_2 \end{pmatrix}^T \end{matrix} \right.\], as shown in the middle of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}. Finally, we sum over the above four quaternions to get the output feature maps \(O\), as shown on the right of Fig. [\[fig:Q-filter\]](#fig:Q-filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Q-filter"}. \[O := \begin{pmatrix} R\\ A\\ B\\ C \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} r_1 r_2-a_1 a_2-b_1 b_2-c_1 c_2\\ a_1 r_2 + r_1 a_2-c_1 b_2 + b_1 c_2\\ b_1 r_2 + c_1 a_2 + r_1 b_2-a_1 c_2\\ c_1 r_2-b_1 a_2 + a_1 b_2 + r_1 c_2 \end{pmatrix}.\]
# principal component analysis {#sec:PCA}
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear manifold learning that is to find the relevant basis set among data. We prepare eigenstates \(\ket{u_\pm}\) of Eq. ([\[eq:2band\]](#eq:2band){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:2band"}), where \(+\ (-)\) stands for the upper (lower) band. For a topological state, the phase cannot be well-defined over the whole BZ. Therefore, we can divide the whole BZ into two parts, in each part of them the topological wave function has continuously well-defined phase. We then choose two regions according to the sign of \(h_3\) in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}): \[\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \ket{u_+} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_+(h_{+}+h_3)}}\mqty(h_{+}+h_3 \\ h_1+i h_2) \\ \ket{u_-} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_-(h_{-}+h_3)}} \mqty(-h_1+ih_2 \\ h_{-}+h_3) \end{split} \quad ,~ h_3\geq 0, \label{eq:gauge1} \end{aligned}\] and \[\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \ket{u_+} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_{+}(h_{+}-h_3)}}\mqty(h_1-ih_2 \\ h_{+}-h_3) \\ \ket{u_-} & \doteq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2h_{-}(h_{-}-h_3)}} \mqty(h_{-}-h_3 \\-h_1-ih_2) \end{split} \quad ,~ h_3 < 0, \label{eq:gauge2} \end{aligned}\] where \(h_{\pm} =\pm \sqrt{h_1^2+h_2^2+h_3^2}\). In this choice of gauge, the first (second) component of \(\ket{u_{+}}\) \((\ket{u_-})\) is real-valued when \(h_3\geq0\), and the second (first) component of \(\ket{u_{+}}\) \((\ket{u_-})\) is real-valued when \(h_3<0\). By translating \(\ket{u_\pm} \doteq (\alpha_\pm, \beta_\pm)^T\) with \(\alpha_\pm, \beta_\pm\in\mathbb{C}\), into a quaternion number of four components, we have \[\label{eq:transf} q_\pm := \mathrm{Re}(\alpha_\pm) + \mathrm{Im}(\alpha_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{i}} + \mathrm{Re}(\beta_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{j}} + \mathrm{Im}(\beta_\pm)\hat{\mathbf{k}}.\] (a brief introduction of the quaternion number can be seen in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}). To see the correlation of states over \(\vec{k}\), we define the quantity \(F\) to be the quaternion-based convolutions: \[\label{eq:Ne} \begin{split} F(\vec{p}) := q^*_{+}&\circledast q_{+}[\vec{p}]-q^*_{-}\circledast q_{-}[\vec{p}] \quad\mathrm{with}\\ q_{\pm}^*&\circledast q_{\pm}[\vec{p}] := \sum_{\vec{k}\in \mathrm{BZ}} q_{\pm}^*(\vec{k})q_{\pm}(\vec{p}-\vec{k}), \end{split}\] where \(q^*\) is the conjugate of \(q\). It can be proved that \(F\) is real-valued. Therefore, \(F(\vec{p})\) of all \(\vec{p}\) in the BZ based on a given Hamiltonian can be analysed by using PCA. We collected various \(F\) of all \(\vec{k} \in\)BZ within seven topological phases as the dataset for PCA. For each topological phases, 30 \(F\)'s were prepared, so the total amount of data was 210. The data for six non-trivial phases were generated based on Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) with \(m=\pm 1\) (the sign of \(m\) determines the sign of \(C\)). For the trivial phase, we prepared five data points from each of six combinations of \(\{c,m\}\), where \(c\in\{1,2,3\}\) and \(m\in\{3,-3\}\), and then there are totally 30 data. To augment the number of data, we add Gaussian noises \(\delta\mathbf{h}\) at every \(\vec{k}\) of the model \[Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"})\] such that \(\mathbf{h}\to\mathbf{h}+\delta\mathbf{h}\) without closing the band gap. In Fig. [\[fig:nematic\]](#fig:nematic){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:nematic"}, we present various noiseless \(F\) generated from Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) with different \(c\) and \(m\). It is notable that \(F\) for \(C = 0\) are featureless, \(F\) for \(C = \pm 1\) have a dipole moment, and \(F\) for \(C = \pm 2\) have a quadruple moment, and \(F\) for \(C = \pm 3\) seemingly have a primary dipole and a secondary quadruple moment. The remarkable features imply that the convolution function \(F\) is a good choice for topological classifications. We examine data with the standard deviation (SD) equal to 0, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 respectively, and show the first two PCs of 210 pieces of data for each SD in Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}. In Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}, it is evident that data are clustered into four groups and their variances increase with SD. PCA is successful to separate different topological phases into different clusters. However, some clusters contain two topological phases of Chern numbers: \(\{+1,-3\}\), \(\{-1,+3\}\), and \(\{+2,-2\}\). The \(C\) modulo 4 resemblance has also be observed in a previous study . We find that including more PCs helps separate different classes in each cluster. Figure [\[fig:ninePC\]](#fig:ninePC){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:ninePC"} shows first six PCs of data in topologically non-trivial phases, where PCx denotes the x-th PC component. One can find that PC1 and PC2 in each pair of \(\{+1,-3\}\), \(\{-1,+3\}\), and \(\{+2,-2\}\) are nearly identical, as also shown in Fig. [\[fig:2DPCA\]](#fig:2DPCA){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:2DPCA"}. By including PC3 PC6 into the analysis, all topological classes are completely classified. Via the proposed convolution, topological states can be successfully classified by using PCA, a linear machine for classification.
# Supervised learning of CNN and the qCNN {#sec:qcnn}
## Datasets
The input data are normalized spin configurations \(\mathbf{n}\), laying on a \(40\times 40\) square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, and their corresponding topological phases are labels with one-hot encoding. We prepared four datasets: training, validation, testing and prediction dataset. The first three datasets are well known in conventional deep learning procedure . To understand whether our machine can also classify unseen spin configuration, we prepare a prediction dataset that includes a few types of spin configurations never seen by the machine during the training process. The data pool containing training and validation datasets is constructed as follows. Based on the Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}), we firstly prepared 5760 data points of \(\mathbf{n}\) of nine topological phases with Chern number ranging from-4 to 4 so that each phase contain 640 data points. Additionally, we add 360 data points for spin vortex which belongs to the trivial phase. A spin-vortex has an in-plane spin texture that winds around a center, which is generated by setting one of three components in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) to be zero. By including spin vortices, the machine learn the difference between 3D winding (non-trivial) and 2D winding (trivial) spin configurations (more details are described in the Appendix [\[app:dataset\]](#app:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="app:dataset"}). After the training process, the trained machine is scored by a testing dataset with the same composition of nine phases as that in the training (and validation) dataset. Importantly, without changing the topologies, the Gaussian distributed random transition and random rotation imposed on these three datasets can increase the diversity of dataset and enhance the ability of generalization of the trained machine. The prediction dataset contains six categories of spin configurations. The first category is generated with \(m\) uniformly distributed from \(+3\) to \(-3\). In the second and the third categories, we change the sign of \(n_z\) (the second category) and swapping \(n_y\) and \(n_z\) of \(\mathbf{n}\) (the third category). Finally, we consider three categories for trivial states, which are ferromagnetic (FM), conical \((\epsilon\neq 0)\) and helical \((\epsilon=0)\) states, based on the following formula: \[\label{eq:conical} \mathbf{n}_{\mathrm{spiral/conical}}(\vec{k})= \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\cos{(k_x+ k_y)}\\ \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\sin{(k_x+ k_y)}\\ \epsilon \end{pmatrix}.\] FM can be viewed as 1D uncompleted winding configuration while conical and helical can be viewed as 2D uncompleted ones. In total, we prepared six categories for the prediction dataset. More details about data preparations will be described in Appendix [\[app:dataset\]](#app:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="app:dataset"}. For the conventional CNN, we use \(\mathbf{n}\) as the input data. For the qCNN, in order to feed the input data into the qCNN classifier, we transform the 3D spin vector into an unit pure quaternion, \[\label{eq:encoding} (n_x,n_y,n_z)\in\mathbb{R}^3 \mapsto (0, n_x,n_y,n_z)\in\mathbb{H},\] where the scalar part (the first component) is zero and the vector part is \(\mathbf{n}\).
## network structure and performance
We implement a qCNN classifier with a quaternion convolution (q-Conv) layer as the first layer \[see red dotted cube in Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}(b)\], and the operations in a q-Conv layer are based on the quaternion algebra. Then the next three layers are conventional 3D convolutional layers. Details of the quaternion algebra and the keynote of a qCNN are explained in Appendix [\[app:qcnn\]](#app:qcnn){reference-type="ref" reference="app:qcnn"}. For comparison, we also set up a conventional CNN classifier by replacing the q-Conv layer by a conventional 2D convolutional layer, and appending three conventional 2D convolutional layers to the first layer. The architecture of these two classifiers are shown in Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}. Note that the data in the qCNN has one more rank than that in CNN, and in numerical programs, this extra dimension---*Depth* is used to store the quaternion \[referred to Eq. ([\[eq:encoding\]](#eq:encoding){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:encoding"})\]. As you can see in the Fig. [\[fig:QCNN\]](#fig:QCNN){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:QCNN"}, the architecture of the qCNN is one layer more than the CNN's, the total network parameters of the qCNN is however less than the CNN's. This is one advantage of the qCNN over the conventional CNN. In order for classifiers to satisfy some physically reasonable conditions, three special designs are needed. Firstly, we extend the \(k\) points out of the BZ by padding the input data according to the periodic boundary conditions . Secondly, a convolutional layer (q-Conv layer in the qCNN) with arctangent activation function is then adopted, which contains 27 filters of kernel size \(2\times 2\). This layer executes an "overlapping" feature mapping. (Figure [\[fig:overlap\]](#fig:overlap){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:overlap"} illustrates how the "overlapping" and "non-overlapping" feature mapping can be manipulated by varying the size of stride.) Thirdly. we shrink the \(k\) space of data into "a point\" by three non-overlapping convolutional layers. In the qCNN, three 3D convolutional layers are applied while keeping four Depths independent. In particular, we additionally append a 2D convolutional layer to make combination Depths-wisely. Specifically, this layer with 9 filters of kernel size \(4\times1\) transforms data from \(4\times9\) to \(1\times9\), where each of nine neurons corresponds to one topological class. In comparison, the conventional CNN shrinks the \(k\)-space to a point in each of nine *Channels*, where the dimension is integrated out after the convolution. More details and descriptions are relative to the SEC. [11](#sec:discu){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:discu"}. In the following, we perform both the qCNN and conventional CNN trainings. The learning curves of both machines are shown in Fig. [\[fig:learningCurve\]](#fig:learningCurve){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:learningCurve"}. The CNN machine (orange and light orange lines) jumps over a big learning barrier at around the \(700^{th}\) epoch. After that, the training and the validation accuracy (orange and light orange line respectively) are separated and do not converge up to end of this training process. Even though the same training (and validation) dataset is used in the training process, the learning curves of the qCNN machine (blue and light blue lines) are qualitatively different. The training and the validation accuracy are separated around \(90^{th}\) epoch, but the difference between these two accuracies decreases with increasing epochs. After the training procedure finished, the qCNN (CNN) machine gets 99.67% (94.12%) testing accuracy. This difference in accuracy results from the spin-vortex dataset, where the qCNN works well but CNN dose not. The trained machines are ready to do prediction, and the result is shown in Fig. [\[fig:performpred\]](#fig:performpred){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:performpred"}. In Fig. [\[fig:performpred\]](#fig:performpred){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:performpred"}, since the first category contains \(\mathbf{n}\) of uniformly distributed \(m\), where a few data points are very close to the phase boundaries \(m \approx \{0, \pm 2 \}\), the accurate rate of the the qCNN is slightly low at \(96\%\). For the second and third categories, we choose \(m=\pm 1\), away from the phase transition points, and the performance is nearly perfect. For the uncompleted winding configurations, the qCNN, different from the conventional CNN, can accurately classifies FM, helical and conical states after learning the spin-vortex states. This is the main advantage of the qCNN over the conventional CNN, which is expected to result from the quaternion algebra.
# discussions {#sec:discu}
On PCA the reason why we choose spinor state vector \(\ket{u}\), not the spin normalized vector \(\mathbf{n}\) as data is that the gauge discontinuities exist in the non-trivial \(\ket{u}\), but not in \(\mathbf{n}\)'s. It turns out that the function \(F\) can detect the existence of this discontinuity so that trivial and non-trivial states can be distinguished by PCA. Above statement is further supported by the relation between \(\ket{u}\) and \(\mathbf{n}\) in pure state, which is known as \[\label{eq:sigma} \mathbf{n}(\vec{k}) = \bra{u_+(\vec{k})}\pmb{\sigma}\ket{u_+(\vec{k})}.\] In Eq. ([\[eq:sigma\]](#eq:sigma){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:sigma"}), the \(U(1)\) ambiguity of \(\ket{u}\) is eliminated effectively, thus, there is no discontinuities to be detected by PCA in \(\mathbf{n}\). There is another issue if we use n as the data in PCA. If we encode \(\mathbf{n}=(n_x, n_y,n_z)\) into a quaternion in the following form, \[q := (0,~n_x,~n_y,~n_z),\] the corresponding convolution \[Eq. ([\[eq:Ne\]](#eq:Ne){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:Ne"})\] will not depend on the sign of \(m\). It can be shown that there exists one point \(\vec{k}'\to\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}+\pi\) in BZ such that \[n_z(\vec{k}, m_0)n_z(\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}, m_0) = n_z(\vec{k}',-m_0)n_z(\vec{p}_0-\vec{k}',-m_0).\] That is, for two spin configurations with opposite sign \(m_0\), their \(n_z\) products are equal at \(\vec{k}\) and \(\vec{k}'\) respectively. As shown in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}), m shows up only in the \(n_z\) component. Therefore, after the integration over the whole BZ, the convolution is independent of the sign of \(m\) and there is no feature for PCA to discriminate distinct topological states. On qCNN, there are several possible factors promoting the performance of our supervised learning machine. The first one is that the size of filter in the first convolutional layer is 2 × 2 with stride = 1, which means the machine can collect spin information among four nearest neighbors \[see Fig. [\[fig:filter\]](#fig:filter){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:filter"}(b)\]. We know that the Chern number is the integral of the Berry curvature in the BZ, and the Berry curvature is twice of the solid angle. A solid angle \(\Omega\) subtended by three normalized vectors \(\vec{a}\), \(\vec{b}\), \(\vec{c}\), can be calculated using the following equation: \[\label{eq:solid} \tan{\frac{\pmb{\Omega}}{2}}=\frac{\abs{\vec{a}\cdot(\vec{b}\times \vec{c})}}{1+\vec{a}\cdot \vec{b}+\vec{b}\cdot \vec{c}+\vec{c}\cdot \vec{a}}.\] Our choice of the size of the filter in the first hidden layer is the minimal of \(2 \times 2\) that mixes only the nearest-neighboring spins. In this way, it is very possible to enforce the machine to notice the solid angle extended in this plaquette. The second factor is the quaternion product. Recall that the conventional CNN might correlate spins \(\mathbf{n}'s\) in neighboring \(\vec{k}'s\) due to the feature map through the kernel. However, the map does not mix the components of spins. In comparison, the qCNN is more efficient for it directly entangle spins via the quaternion product. It is this entanglement of spin components by the quaternion product that makes the scalar and vector products in calculating the solid angle (see Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"})) become possible to be realized by the machine. As a solid angle involves at least three spins and the feature map by the kernel is just linear, a nonlinear transformation is crucial to create high-order (three spins) terms in the expansion. Based on this argument, the third factor is the non-linear activation function, which is an arctangent function in this work. Based on Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"}), the calculation of a solid angle involves the arctan operation. Therefore, we expect that using the arctangent function as the activation function can further help the machine to learn correct representations. This idea is further supported by the results shown in Fig. [\[fig:acti\]](#fig:acti){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:acti"}, where the arctangent activation function outperforms the ReLU and tanh activation functions over nine different datasets. In summary, several factors are combined to enhance the performance of our machine as follows. The quaternion-based operations in the q-Conv layer mix not only different components of a spin \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_0)\) but also neighbouring spins, say \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_0)\) and \(\mathbf{n}(\vec{k}_1)\). When these linear combinations are fed into the non-linear activation functions in our qCNN, the output can be viewed as an expansion of a non-linear function, which may contain a term having both the scalar-and vector-product of neighboring spins, similar to that in Eq. ([\[eq:solid\]](#eq:solid){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:solid"}). Therefore, in the optimization process, combined with the effect of choosing the size of filter to be \(2 \times 2\), the machine may keep increasing the weight of a solid-angle-related term and eventually learn to classify the topological phases based on the calculated solid angles. Also, adding some noises to the training dataset helped our supervised-learning machine to learn the generic feature of our data. We found that when the training data was generated directly from Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}) without adding any noise, the machine worked well for training and testing datasets but had poor performance on all the prediction dataset. This could be understood by noting that topology is determined by the sign of \(m\), which appears only in the z component in Eq. ([\[eq:HighChern\]](#eq:HighChern){reference-type="ref" reference="eq:HighChern"}). By using the dataset without noises, the machine may learn to classify states only by looking at the \(z-\)component but not extracting the full information from the full configuration. When we gave random transition and rotation to each training data, the machine had to examine all three components in order to have correction predictions. From our observations, the performance on the prediction dataset was remarkably enhanced when the noise was added, which supports our ideas.
# Conclusions
In summary, we classify topological phases with distinct Chern numbers via two types of machine-learning algorithms. For the unsupervised part, we propose a quaternion-based convolution to transform the topological states into the input data. With this convolution, distinct topological states are successfully classified by PCA, a linear machine for classification. We then go to the supervised learning part where, in contrast to the conventional CNN, we successfully use the qCNN to classify different topological phases. This work demonstrates the power of quaternion-based algorithm, especially for the topological systems with the Chern number as the topological invariants. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:36', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14551', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14551'} |
# Introduction
We recall notations and terminologies used in, where it was shown that the following holds.
To summarize, it was found that some \(\omega\)-regular Schreier graphs avoid Baire measurable \(\omega\)-domatic colorings. In this note, we prove a measure-theoretic counterpart to the previous result.
We say that a locally countable Borel graph \(G\) on a standard probability space \((X,\mu)\) is *\(\mu\)-preserving* if \(G\) can be covered by countably many \(\mu\)-preserving Borel automorphisms of \(X\).
# Proofs
Before we use Lemma [\[lem:2.1\]](#lem:2.1){reference-type="ref" reference="lem:2.1"} to prove Theorem [\[thm:2.4\]](#thm:2.4){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:2.4"}, here are some quick applications.
Now we will prove the promised result. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:09', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14534', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14534'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
This is repeated as Theorem [\[sec3: GM Duality-Thm\]](#sec3: GM Duality-Thm){reference-type="ref" reference="sec3: GM Duality-Thm"} in the body of the paper.
This is Theorem [\[sec3: MGM equivalence\]](#sec3: MGM equivalence){reference-type="ref" reference="sec3: MGM equivalence"} in the body of the paper.
We remark that \(a^{t}\)-reduced modules is related to *prisms*; a concept which belongs to the new groundbreaking theory of perfectoid rings, see.
# \(\mathfrak{ a}\)-reduced and \(\mathfrak{ a}\)-coreduced complexes
We denote by \(M\) the \(A\)-complex \((M^{n}, d_{M}^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\).
We denote by \(\text{C}(A)_{\mathfrak{a}\text{-red}}\) the full subcategory of \(\text{C}(A)\) consisting of \(\mathfrak{a}\)-reduced complexes.
Denote by \(\text{C}(A)_{\mathfrak{a}\text{-cor}}\) the full subcategory of \(\text{C}(A)\) consisting of \(\mathfrak{a}\)-coreduced complexes. We give the dual of Proposition [\[sec2: Pro-I-red\]](#sec2: Pro-I-red){reference-type="ref" reference="sec2: Pro-I-red"}.
# GM Duality and MGM Equivalence
## A more general condition
**ACKNOWLEDGMENT** | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:49', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14596', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14596'} |
null | null |
# Electron effective potential from the geodesic equation
In their paper on Rydberg atom bounds on the cosmological constant, Kundu, Pradhan, and Rosenzweig use an effective potential for the electron inferred from an exponentially expanding de Sitter universe. Our aim in this paper is to show that the same potential can be obtained in a more general way from the geodesic equation for motion of the electron, which gives added insight into how bounds obtained from this potential vary between different models for the cosmological constant action. Weinberg in his text"Gravitation and Cosmology" gives the geodesic equation for a general spherical metric. For the line element \[\label{linelt} ds^2=B(r) dt^2-A(r) dr^2-r^2 d\Omega~~~,\] Eq. (8.4.19) of gives \[\label{geo} \frac{A(r)}{B^2(r)}\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2 +\frac{J^2}{r^2}-\frac{1}{B(r)}=-E~~~,\] where \(E_{nr}=(1-E)/2\) plays the role of the non-relativistic energy per unit mass. Comparing this with the nonrelativistic energy formula \[\label{nrform} \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2 +\frac{V_{eff}}{m_e}-E_{nr}=0~~~,\] and doing algebraic rearrangement to eliminate \((dr/dt)^2\) we get a formula for \(V_{eff}\), \[\label{Veff} \frac{V_{eff}}{m_e}=\frac{B^2(r)}{2A(r)} \frac{J^2}{r^2} + \frac{B(r)}{2A(r)}[B(r)-1]-E_{nr}\left[\frac{B^2(r)}{A(r)}-1\right]~~~.\] Since \(B(r)\) and \(A(r)\) are unity up to small corrections of order the electostatic and gravitational potentials and the cosmological constant, the cosmological constant contribution to the effective potential is given by \[\label{Veffcosm} V_{eff}\simeq \frac{m_e}{2} [B(r)_{cosm}-1]~~~.\] As summarized in Adler, one can write for a central mass \(M\) in geometrized units, \[\begin{aligned}
\label{paramdef1} A(r)=&1+2M/r-C_A \Lambda r^2 +D_A \Lambda M r+...,\cr B(r)=&1-2M/r-C_B \Lambda r^2 +D_B \Lambda M r+...,\cr \end{aligned}\] with the parameters given in Table I for a standard dark energy action and for a Weyl scaling invariant dark energy action.
[\[tab1\]]{#tab1 label="tab1"}
So the general formula for the cosmological constant contribution to \(V_{eff}\) is \[\label{gen} V_{eff}=-\frac{m_e \,C_B}{2} \Lambda r^2\] which for the standard dark energy action gives \(V_{eff}=-(1/6) m_e \Lambda r^2\), in agreement with Eq. (7) of. For a Weyl scaling invariant dark energy action, one instead gets \(V_{eff}=-(1/2) m_e \Lambda r^2\) according to Table I. Thus qualitatively, there is no distinction between the potentials arising in the two cases, as well as for other models of dark energy that take the form of a gravitational action, which will each have a characteristic value of \(C_B\). One might ask what happens if the center for measuring \(\vec r\) is not taken as the center of the atom, but a displacement \(\vec R\) from the atomic center. Then \(r^2\) in Eq. [\[gen\]](#gen){reference-type="eqref" reference="gen"} is replaced by \(\vec R^{\,2} + 2 \vec R \cdot \vec r +r^2\). The term \(\vec R^{\,2}\) is a constant and does not contribute to energy level differences in Rydberg atoms, and the term \(2 \vec R \cdot \vec r\) will average to zero over any inversion invariant squared atomic wave function. So the calculation of energy differences is invariant with respect to the choice of \(\vec R\).
# Perturbation theory of Rydberg atoms
Given \(V_{eff}\), the change in the energy level of a Rydberg atom can be calculated from first order perturbation theory, \[\label{pert} \Delta E_{cosm}= \langle \Psi| V_{eff} |\Psi \rangle =-\frac{m_e \,C_B}{2} \Lambda \langle \Psi| r^2 |\Psi \rangle \simeq -\frac{m_e \,C_B}{2} \Lambda R^2~~~,\] where \(R\) is the radius of the Rydberg atom orbit. Thus, from an upper bound \(|\Delta E_{cosm}|<U\) we get a bound on the cosmological constant \[\label{bound} \Lambda < \frac{2U}{m_e C_B R^2}~~~.\] If \(U\) is a bound on an energy level difference, \(R^2\) in Eq. [\[bound\]](#bound){reference-type="eqref" reference="bound"} will be an orbit radius-squared difference. In analogy with the formulas of Eqs. (12)-(15) of this can be turned into a quantitative bound on \(\Lambda\). As Kundu et al. have noted, the energy scale of their bound is much smaller than the energy scale of the standard model, already implying very substantial cancellations if the cosmological constant is interpreted as a vacuum energy. But as shown above using a geodesic equation derivation, a very similar bound is obtained in a dark energy model in which the cosmological constant does not arise as a vacuum energy. Thus, although the bounds set by Rydberg atoms are interesting, they do not reveal whether the gravitational vacuum gravitates. As long as \(C_B\) is of order unity, any dark energy action coupled to the gravitational metric gives a bound similar in magnitude to that given by the conventional cosmological constant action. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:32', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14484', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14484'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
Our aim in this paper is to explain the origin of the problems that have been noticed when using Gauss-Radau quadrature upper bounds of the \(A\)-norm of the error in the Conjugate Gradient (CG) algorithm for solving linear systems \(Ax=b\) with a symmetric positive definite matrix of order \(N\). The connection between CG and Gauss quadrature has been known since the seminal paper of Hestenes and Stiefel in 1952. This link has been exploited by Gene H. Golub and his collaborators to bound or estimate the \(A\)-norm of the error in CG during the iterations; see. Using a fixed node \(\mu\) smaller than the smallest eigenvalue of \(A\) and the Gauss-Radau quadrature rule, an upper bound for the \(A\)-norm of the error can be easily computed. Note that it is useful to have an upper bound of the error norm to stop the CG iterations. In theory, the closer \(\mu\) is to the smallest eigenvalue, the closer is the bound to the norm. However, in many examples, even if the bound is close to the norm at the beginning of the CG iterations, the upper bound becomes worse after a while and almost independent of \(\mu\), even in exact arithmetic. Therefore, this problem is not linked to rounding errors and has to be explained. The Gauss quadrature bounds of the error norm were obtained by using the connection of CG to the Lanczos algorithm and modifications of the tridiagonal matrix which is generated by this algorithm and implicitly by CG. This is why we start in Section 2 with the Lanczos algorithm. In Section 3 we discuss the relation with CG and how the Gauss-Radau upper bound is computed. A model problem showing the problems arising with the Gauss-Radau bound in "exact" arithmetic is constructed in Section 4. In Sections 5 to 7 we give an analysis that explains that the problems start when the distance of the smallest Ritz value to the smallest eigenvalue becomes smaller than the distance of \(\mu\) to the smallest eigenvalue. We also explain why the Gauss-Radau upper bound becomes almost independent of \(\mu\). In Section 8 we give an algorithm for improving the accuracy of the upper bound at iteration \(k\) using the information from the next CG iterations. In particular, the algorithm determines adaptively the number of forthcoming CG iterations that are needed to get an estimate with a prescribed relative accuracy. Conclusions are given in Section 9.
# The Lanczos algorithm
Given a starting vector \(v\) and a symmetric matrix \(A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\), one can consider a sequence of nested Krylov subspaces \[\mathcal{K}_{k}(A,v)\equiv\mathrm{span}\{v,Av,\dots,A^{k-1}v\},\qquad k=1,2,\dots\] The dimension of these subspaces can increase up to an index \(n\) called the *grade of \(v\) with respect to \(A\)*, at which the maximal dimension is attained, and \(\mathcal{K}_{n}(A,v)\) is invariant under multiplication with \(A\).
# The conjugate gradient method and error norm estimation {#sec:estimation}
When solving a linear system \(Ax=b\) with a symmetric and positive definite matrix \(A\), the CG method (Algorithm [\[alg:cg\]](#alg:cg){reference-type="ref" reference="alg:cg"})
Let us describe in more detail the situation we are interested in. Suppose that \(\lambda_{1}\) is well separated from \(\lambda_{2}\), and that \(\mu\) is a tight underestimate to \(\lambda_{1}\) such that \[\lambda_{1}-\mu\ll\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}.\label{eq:separate}\] We would like to compare \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) for which phase 2 does not occur with \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\)for which phase 2 occurs; see Figure [\[fig-0\]](#fig-0){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-0"}. Using [\[eq:sensitivity\]](#eq:sensitivity){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:sensitivity"} and [\[eq:separate\]](#eq:separate){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:separate"}, we are able to compare the individual \(\eta\)-terms. In particular, for \(i>1\) we obtain \[\frac{\eta_{i,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}-\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}}{\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}}<\frac{\lambda_{1}-\mu}{\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}}\ll1,\] i.e., \[\eta_{i,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\approx\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\quad\mbox{for}\quad i>1.\] Hence, \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\) can significantly differ from \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) only in the first term of the sum in [\[eq:terms\]](#eq:terms){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:terms"} for which \[\frac{\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}-\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}{\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}=\frac{\lambda_{1}-\mu}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}.\label{eq:compare1}\] If \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) is a better approximation to \(\lambda_{1}\) than \(\mu\) in the sense of [\[eq:first\]](#eq:first){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:first"}, see Figure [\[fig:phase2\]](#fig:phase2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:phase2"}, then [\[eq:compare1\]](#eq:compare1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:compare1"} shows that \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) can be much larger than \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\). As a consequence, \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) can differ significantly from \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\). On the other hand, if \(\mu\) is chosen such that \[\lambda_{1}-\mu\ll\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1},\] for all \(k\) we are interested in, then phase 2 will not occur, and \[\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\approx\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}.\] In the following we discuss phase 1 and phase 2 in more detail.
## Phase 1 {#subsec:Phase1}
In phase 1, \[\lambda_{1}-\mu<\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1},\] and, therefore, all components \(\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\) (including \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\)) are not sensitive to small changes of \(\mu\); see [\[eq:sensitivity\]](#eq:sensitivity){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:sensitivity"}. In other words, the coefficients \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\) are approximately the same for various choices of \(\mu\). Let us denote \[h=\frac{\lambda_{1}-\mu}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}<1.\] In fact, we can write \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\mu=\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{1}-\mu\) and use the Taylor expansion of \(1/(1+h)\). It yields \[\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\mu} & = & \frac{1}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}\left(\frac{1}{h+1}\right)=\frac{1}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}\left[1-h+h^{2}-h^{3}+\cdots\right]. \end{aligned}\] At the beginning of the iterations, \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}\) is large compared to \(\lambda_{1}-\mu\), \(h\) is small and the right-hand side of \(1/(\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\mu)\) is almost given by \(1/(\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1})\), independent of \(\mu\). Moreover, the last components \(s_{k,i}^{(k)}\) squared are not very small and the first term of the sum of the \(\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\) is the largest one.
## Phase 2[\[subsec:Phase2\]]{#subsec:Phase2 label="subsec:Phase2"}
First recall that for any \(0<\mu<\lambda_{1}\) it holds that \[\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}<\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}<\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}.\label{eq:coefficients}\] As before, suppose that \(\lambda_{1}\) is well separated from \(\lambda_{2}\) and that [\[eq:separate\]](#eq:separate){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:separate"} holds. Phase 2 begins when \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) is a better approximation to \(\lambda_{1}\) than \(\mu\), i.e., when [\[eq:first\]](#eq:first){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:first"} holds. Since \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) is a tight approximation to \(\lambda_{1}\) in phase 2, [\[eq:bound1\]](#eq:bound1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:bound1"} and [\[eq:first\]](#eq:first){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:first"} imply that \[\label{eq:boundedaway} \eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\geq\lambda_{2}-\theta_{1}^{(k)} = \lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1} + \lambda_1-\theta_{1}^{(k)} > (\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1})-(\lambda_1-\mu).\] Therefore, using [\[eq:separate\]](#eq:separate){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:separate"}, \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) is bounded away from zero. On the other hand, [\[eq:bound1\]](#eq:bound1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:bound1"} also implies that \[\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}=\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\mu}\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\leq\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\mu}\left(\lambda_{n}-\lambda_{1}\right)\] and as \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) converges to \(\lambda_{1}\), \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\) goes to zero. Therefore, \[\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\approx\mu+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)},\] and the sum on the right-hand side is almost independent of \(\mu\). Note that having two values \(0<\mu<\lambda<\lambda_{1}\) such that \[\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}<\lambda_{1}-\lambda\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lambda-\mu\ll\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1},\label{eq:assumption2}\] then one can expect that \[\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\approx\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda)}\label{eq:predict-1}\] because \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\) and \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda)}\) converge to zero and \(\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\approx\eta_{i,k}^{(\lambda)}\) for \(i>1\) due to \[\frac{\eta_{i,k}^{(\lambda)}-\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}}{\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}}=\frac{\lambda-\mu}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\lambda}<\frac{\lambda-\mu}{\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}}\ll1,\] where we have used [\[eq:sensitivity\]](#eq:sensitivity){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:sensitivity"} and the assumption [\[eq:assumption2\]](#eq:assumption2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:assumption2"}. Therefore, \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\) is relatively insensitive to small changes of \(\mu\) and the same is true for the upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"}. Let us demonstrate the theoretical results numerically using our model problem. To compute the following results, we, again, use Matlab's vpa arithmetic with 128 digits. We first consider \(\mu=\mu_{3}=(1-10^{-3})\lambda_{1}\) for which we have \(\lambda_{1}-\mu=10^{-9}\). The switch from phase 1 to phase 2 occurs at iteration 13. Figure [\[fig-7\]](#fig-7){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-7"} displays the first term \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\) and the maximum term \(\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\) as well as the sum \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu)}\) defined by [\[eq:zeta\]](#eq:zeta){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:zeta"}, see Lemma [\[lem:alphamu\]](#lem:alphamu){reference-type="ref" reference="lem:alphamu"}, as a function of the iteration number \(k\). In phase 1 the first term \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\) is the largest one. As predicted, after the start of phase 2, the first term is decreasing quite fast. Let us now use \(\mu=\mu_{8}=(1-10^{-8})\lambda_{1}\) for which we have \(\lambda_{1}-\mu=10^{-14}\). The switch from phase 1 to phase 2 occurs at iteration 15; see Figure [\[fig-4\]](#fig-4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-4"}. The conclusions are the same as for \(\mu_{3}\). The behavior of the first term is completely different for \(\mu=(1-10^{-50})\lambda_{1}\) which almost corresponds to using the exact smallest eigenvalue \(\lambda_{1}\); see Figure [\[fig:phase2\]](#fig:phase2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:phase2"}. The maximum term of the sum is then almost always the first one; see Figure [\[fig-3\]](#fig-3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-3"}. Remember that, for this value of \(\mu\), we are always in phase 1. Finally, in Figure [\[fig-3-1\]](#fig-3-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-3-1"} we present a comparison of the sums \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu)}\) for \(\mu_{3}\), \(\mu_{8}\), and \(\mu_{50}\). We observe that from the beginning up to iteration \(12\), all sums visually coincide. Starting from iteration 13 we enter phase 2 for \(\mu=\mu_{3}\) and the sum \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\) starts to differ significantly from the other sums, in particular from the "reference" term \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{50})}\). Similarly, for \(k=15\) we enter phase 2 for \(\mu=\mu_{8}\) and \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\) and \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{50})}\) start to differ. We can also observe that \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\) and \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\) significantly differ only in iterations 13, 14, and 15, i.e., when we are in phase 2 for \(\mu=\mu_{3}\) but in phase 1 for \(\mu=\mu_{8}\). In all other iterations, \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\) and \(\zeta_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\) visually coincide.
## The coefficient \(\alpha_{k+1}\)[\[subsec:alpha\]]{#subsec:alpha label="subsec:alpha"}
The coefficient \(\alpha_{k+1}\) can also be written as \[\alpha_{k+1}=\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}\quad\mbox{for}\quad\mu=\theta_{1}^{(k+1)},\] and the results of Lemma [\[lem:alphamu\]](#lem:alphamu){reference-type="ref" reference="lem:alphamu"} and Lemma [\[lem:lemma2\]](#lem:lemma2){reference-type="ref" reference="lem:lemma2"} are still valid, even though, in practice, \(\mu\) must be smaller than \(\lambda_{1}\). Using [\[eq:diff1\]](#eq:diff1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:diff1"} we can express the differences between the coefficients, it holds that \[\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})} & = & \eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}}+\left(\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}\right)E_{k}^{(\theta_{1}^{(k+1)},\lambda_{1})}.\label{eq:diff02} \end{aligned}\] If the smallest Ritz value \(\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}\) is close to \(\lambda_{1}\), then the second term of the right-hand side in [\[eq:diff02\]](#eq:diff02){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:diff02"} will be negligible in comparison to the first one, since \[E_{k}^{(\theta_{1}^{(k+1)},\lambda_{1})}=\mathcal{O}(1),\] see [\[eq:Ek\]](#eq:Ek){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:Ek"}, and since \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) is bounded away from zero; see [\[eq:boundedaway\]](#eq:boundedaway){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:boundedaway"}. Therefore, one can expect that \[\alpha_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\ \approx\ \eta_{1,k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}}.\label{eq:closeness}\] The size of the term on the right-hand side is related to the speed of convergence of the smallest Ritz value \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) to \(\lambda_{1}\). Denoting \[\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}=\rho_{k}<1,\] we obtain \[\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}}=\frac{\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}}{1-\frac{\theta_{1}^{(k+1)}-\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}}=\frac{\rho_{k}}{1-\rho_{k}}.\] For example, if the convergence of \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) to \(\lambda_{1}\) is superlinear, i.e., if \(\rho_{k}\rightarrow0\), then \(\alpha_{k+1}\) tends to be very close to \(\alpha_{k+1}^{(\lambda_{1})}\). In Figure [\[fig:1\]](#fig:1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1"} we plot the coefficients \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\), \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\), \(\alpha_{k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) and \(\alpha_{k}\), so that we can compare the observed behaviour with the predicted one. Phase 2 starts for \(\mu_{3}\) at iteration 13, and for \(\mu_{8}\) at iteration 15; see also Figure [\[fig-0\]](#fig-0){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-0"}. For \(k\leq13\) we observe that \[\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\approx\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\approx\alpha_{k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\] as explained in Section [5.2](#subsec:Phase1){reference-type="ref" reference="subsec:Phase1"} and \(\alpha_k\) is larger. For \(k\geq16\), the first terms \(\eta_{1,k-1}^{(\mu_{3})}\) and \(\eta_{1,k-1}^{(\mu_{8})}\) are close to zero, and, as explained in Section [\[subsec:Phase2\]](#subsec:Phase2){reference-type="ref" reference="subsec:Phase2"}, \[\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\approx\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}.\] For \(k=14\) and \(k=15\), \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\) and \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\) can differ significantly because \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{3})}\) is already in phase 2 while \(\alpha_{k}^{(\mu_{8})}\) is still in phase 1. We can also observe that \(\alpha_{k}\) can be very close to \(\alpha_{k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) when the smallest Ritz value \(\theta_{1}^{(k)}\) is a tight approximation to \(\lambda_{1}\), i.e., in later iterations. We know that the closeness of \(\alpha_{k}\) to \(\alpha_{k}^{(\lambda_{1})}\) depends on the speed of convergence of the smallest Ritz value to \(\lambda_{1}\); see [\[eq:closeness\]](#eq:closeness){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:closeness"} and the corresponding discussion.
# The Gauss-Radau bound in phase 2
Our aim in this section is to investigate the relation between the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} and the simple upper bound; see [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"}. Recall the notation \[\phi_{k}=\frac{\left\Vert r_{k}\right\Vert ^{2}}{\left\Vert p_{k}\right\Vert ^{2}};\] see [\[eq:phiupdate\]](#eq:phiupdate){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:phiupdate"}. In particular, we would like to explain why the two bounds almost coincide in phase 2. Note that using [\[eq:gammalpha\]](#eq:gammalpha){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:gammalpha"} we obtain \[\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)}=\left(\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}\right)^{-1}+\frac{\delta_{k}}{\gamma_{k-1}}\label{eq:alphamu}\] and from [\[eq:alphaspectral\]](#eq:alphaspectral){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:alphaspectral"} it follows \[\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{k+1}^{(\mu)} & = & \mu+\beta_{k}^{2}e_{k}^{T}\left(T_{k}-\mu I\right)^{-1}e_{k},\qquad\beta_{k}^{2}=\frac{1}{\gamma_{k-1}}\frac{\delta_{k}}{\gamma_{k-1}}. \end{aligned}\] Therefore, \[\begin{aligned}
\left(\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}\right)^{-1} & = & \mu+\beta_{k}^{2}\left(e_{k}^{T}\left(T_{k}-\mu I\right)^{-1}e_{k}-\gamma_{k-1}\right).\label{eq:gammatilde} \end{aligned}\] In the following lemma we find another expression for \(e_{k}^{T}\left(T_{k}-\mu I\right)^{-1}e_{k}\).
Based on the previous lemma we can now express the coefficient \(\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}\).
Obviously, using [\[eq:omega\]](#eq:omega){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:omega"}, the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} and the simple upper bound in [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"} are close to each other if and only if \[\sum_{i=1}^{k}\left(\frac{\mu}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\eta_{i,k}^{(\mu)}\,\ll\,\frac{\mu}{\phi_{k}},\label{eq:negligible}\] which can also be written as \[\left(\frac{\mu}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}{\mu}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\left(\frac{\beta_{k}s_{k,i}^{(k)}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\mu}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\mu}\,\ll\,\phi_{k}^{-1}.\label{eq:negligible2}\] Assuming as before that \(\lambda_{1}\) is well separated from \(\lambda_{2}\), and that \(\mu\) is a tight underestimate to \(\lambda_{1}\) in the sense of [\[eq:separate\]](#eq:separate){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:separate"}, the sum of terms on the left-hand side of [\[eq:negligible2\]](#eq:negligible2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible2"} can be replaced by its tight upper bound \[\left(\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}{\mu}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\left(\frac{\beta_{k}s_{k,i}^{(k)}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}\label{eq:upper2}\] which simplifies the explanation of the dependence of the sum in [\[eq:negligible2\]](#eq:negligible2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible2"} on \(\mu\). The second term in [\[eq:upper2\]](#eq:upper2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:upper2"} is independent of \(\mu\) and its size depends only on the behaviour of the underlying Lanczos process. Here \[\left(\frac{\beta_{k}s_{k,i}^{(k)}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}=\frac{\left\Vert A\left(V_{k}s_{:,i}^{(k)}\right)-\theta_{i}^{(k)}\left(V_{k}s_{:,i}^{(k)}\right)\right\Vert ^{2}}{\left(\theta_{i}^{(k)}\right)^{2}}\label{eq:term1}\] can be seen as the relative accuracy to which the \(i\)th Ritz value approximates an eigenvalue, and the size of the term \[\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}},\qquad i\geq2,\label{eq:term2}\] depends on the position of \(\theta_{i}^{(k)}\) relatively to the smallest eigenvalue. In particular, one can expect that the term [\[eq:term2\]](#eq:term2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term2"} can be of size \(\mathcal{O}(1)\) if \(\theta_{i}^{(k)}\) approximates smallest eigenvalues, and it is small if \(\theta_{i}^{(k)}\) approximates largest eigenvalues. Using the previous simplifications and assuming phase 2, the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} and the rightmost upper bound in [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"} are close to each other if and only if \[\frac{\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}{\mu}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\left(\frac{\beta_{k}s_{k,i}^{(k)}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\lambda_{1}}\,\ll\,\phi_{k}^{-1}.\label{eq:negligible3}\] From Section [\[subsec:Phase2\]](#subsec:Phase2){reference-type="ref" reference="subsec:Phase2"} we know that \(\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}\) goes to zero in phase 2. Hence, if \[\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}<\mu,\label{eq:lessmu}\] which will happen for \(k\) sufficiently large, then the first term in [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"} is smaller than the term on the right-hand side. As already mentioned, the sum of positive terms in [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"} depends only on approximation properties of the underlying Lanczos process, that are not easy to predict in general. Inspired by our model problem described in Section [4](#sec:model){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:model"}, we can just give an intuitive explanation why the sum could be small in phase 2. Phase 2 occurs in later CG iterations and it is related to the convergence of the smallest Ritz value to the smallest eigenvalue. If the smallest eigenvalue is well approximated by the smallest Ritz value (to a high relative accuracy), then one can expect that many eigenvalues of \(A\) are relatively well approximated by Ritz values. If the eigenvalue \(\lambda_{j}\) of \(A\) is well separated from the other eigenvalues and if it is well approximated by a Ritz value, then the corresponding term [\[eq:term1\]](#eq:term1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term1"} measuring the relative accuracy to which \(\lambda_{j}\) is approximated, is going to be small. In particular, in our model problem, the smallest eigenvalues are well separated from each other, and in phase 2 they are well approximated by Ritz values. Therefore, the corresponding terms [\[eq:term1\]](#eq:term1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term1"} are small. Hence, the Ritz values that did not converge yet in phase 2, are going to approximate eigenvalues in clusters which do not correspond to smallest eigenvalues, i.e., for which the terms [\[eq:term2\]](#eq:term2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term2"} are small; see also Figure [\[fig-4\]](#fig-4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-4"} and Figure [\[fig-7\]](#fig-7){reference-type="ref" reference="fig-7"}. In our model problem, the sum of positive terms in [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"} is small in phase 2 because either [\[eq:term1\]](#eq:term1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term1"} or [\[eq:term2\]](#eq:term2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:term2"} are small. Therefore, one can expect that the validity of [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"} will mainly depend on the size of the first term in [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"}; see Figure [\[fig:1-1\]](#fig:1-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1-1"}. The size of the sum of positive terms in [\[eq:negligible3\]](#eq:negligible3){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:negligible3"} obviously depends on the clustering and the distribution of the eigenvalues, and we cannot guarantee in general that it will be small in phase 2. For example, it need not be small if the smallest eigenvalues of \(A\) are clustered.
# Detection of phase 2
For our model problem it is not hard to detect phase 2 from the coefficients that are available during the computations. We first observe, see Figure [\[fig:1-1\]](#fig:1-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:1-1"}, that the coefficients \[\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\frac{\phi_{k}}{\mu},\label{eq:bracketing}\] and the corresponding bounds [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} and [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"} visually coincide from the beginning up to some iteration \(\ell_{1}\). From iteration \(\ell_{1}+1\), the Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} starts to be a much better approximation to the squared \(A\)-norm of the error than the simple upper bound [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"}. When phase 2 occurs, the Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} loses its accuracy and, starting from iteration \(\ell_{2}\) (approximately when [\[eq:lessmu\]](#eq:lessmu){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:lessmu"} holds), it will again visually coincide with the simple upper bound [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"}. We observe that phase 2 occurs at some iteration \(k\) where the two coefficients [\[eq:bracketing\]](#eq:bracketing){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:bracketing"} significantly differ, i.e., for \(\ell_{1}<k<\ell_{2}.\) To measure the agreement between the coefficients [\[eq:bracketing\]](#eq:bracketing){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:bracketing"}, we can use the easily computable relative distance \[\frac{\frac{\phi_{k}}{\mu}-\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}}{\gamma_{k}^{(\mu)}}=\phi_{k}\left[\left(\frac{\mu}{\theta_{1}^{(k)}}\right)^{2} \frac{\eta_{1,k}^{(\mu)}}{\mu}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\left(\frac{\beta_{k}s_{k,i}^{(k)}}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}}\right)^{2}\frac{\mu}{\theta_{i}^{(k)}-\mu}\right].\label{eq:crit1}\] We will consider this relative distance to be small, if it is smaller than 0.5. The behavior of the term in [\[eq:crit1\]](#eq:crit1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1"} for various values of \(\mu\) is shown in Figure [\[fig:71\]](#fig:71){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:71"}. The index \(\ell_{1}=12\) is the same for all considered values of \(\mu\). For \(\mu_{3}\) we get \(\ell_{2}=15\) (red circle), for \(\mu_{8}\) we get \(\ell_{2}=18\) (magenta circle), for \(\mu_{16}\) \(\ell_{2}=25\) (blue circle), and finally, for \(\mu_{50}\) there is no index \(\ell_{2}\). As explained in the previous section, in more complicated cases we cannot guarantee in general a similar behaviour of the relative distance [\[eq:crit1\]](#eq:crit1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1"} as in our model problem. For example, in practical problems we sometimes observe staircase behaviour of the \(A\)-norm of the error, when few iterations of stagnation are followed by few iterations of rapid convergence. In such cases, the quantity [\[eq:crit1\]](#eq:crit1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1"} can oscillate several times and it is much more difficult to use it for detecting phase 2. In general we can only say that when the smallest Ritz value is close enough to the smallest eigenvalue, the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} can lose its accuracy even if \(\mu\) is close to \(\lambda_1\), and it usually coincides with the simple upper bound [\[eq:basic\]](#eq:basic){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:basic"}. The formulas [\[eq:omega\]](#eq:omega){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:omega"} and [\[eq:crit1\]](#eq:crit1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1"} can be helpful in understanding this behaviour.
# Improving the accuracy
For integers \(\ell\geq k\geq0\), let us denote \[\Delta_{k}=\gamma_{k}\left\Vert r_{k}\right\Vert ^{2},\quad\Delta_{k:\ell}=\sum_{j=k}^{\ell}\Delta_{j},\quad\mbox{and}\quad\Delta_{k:k-1}=0.\] As described in, the accuracy of lower and upper bounds can be improved using \[\varepsilon_{k}=\Delta_{k:\ell-1}+\varepsilon_{\ell},\label{eq:HSid}\] where \(\varepsilon_{j} \equiv \| x-x_j \|_A^2\); see also [\[eq:delay\]](#eq:delay){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:delay"}. An improved bound at iteration \(k\) is obtained such that the last term in [\[eq:HSid\]](#eq:HSid){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:HSid"} is replaced by the basic lower or upper bounds on \(\varepsilon_{\ell}\). In particular, the improved Gauss-Radau upper bound can be defined as \[\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}\,=\,\Delta_{k:\ell-1}+\gamma_{\ell}^{(\mu)}\left\Vert r_{\ell}\right\Vert ^{2},\label{eq:improved}\] and the improved Gauss lower bound is given by \(\Delta_{k:\ell}\). To improve the accuracy of the Gauss-Radau upper bound, we would like to choose \(\ell\) such that the relative error of the improved Gauss-Radau upper bound is small enough, i.e., \[\frac{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}-\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon_{k}}\leq\tau\label{eq:crit1-1}\] where \(\tau\) is a prescribed tolerance, say, \(\tau=0.25\). Since \[\frac{\text{\ensuremath{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}}}-\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon_{k}}<\frac{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}-\Delta_{k:\ell}}{\Delta_{k:\ell}}=\frac{\left\Vert r_{\ell}\right\Vert ^{2}\left(\gamma_{\ell}^{(\mu)}-\gamma_{\ell}\right)}{\Delta_{k:\ell}},\] we can require \(\ell\geq k\) to be the smallest integer such that \[\frac{\left\Vert r_{\ell}\right\Vert ^{2}\left(\gamma_{\ell}^{(\mu)}-\gamma_{\ell}\right)}{\Delta_{k:\ell}}\leq\tau.\label{eq:crit2}\] If [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} holds, then also [\[eq:crit1-1\]](#eq:crit1-1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1-1"} holds. The just described adaptive strategy for obtaining \(\ell\) giving a sufficiently accurate upper bound is summarized in Algorithm [\[alg:pseudo\]](#alg:pseudo){reference-type="ref" reference="alg:pseudo"}.
:::
Note that \[\frac{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}-\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon_{k}}+\frac{\varepsilon_{k}-\Delta_{k:\ell}}{\varepsilon_{k}}<\frac{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}-\Delta_{k:\ell}}{\Delta_{k:\ell}},\] i.e., if [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} holds, then \(\tau\) represents also an upper bound on the sum of relative errors of the improved lower and upper bounds. In other words, if \(\ell\) is such that [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} is satisfied, then both the improved Gauss-Radau upper bound as well as the improved Gauss lower bound are sufficiently accurate. Note that the index \(\ell\), determined by Algorithm [\[alg:pseudo\]](#alg:pseudo){reference-type="ref" reference="alg:pseudo"} that focuses on improving the accuracy of the Gauss-Radau upper bound, usually represents an overestimate of the optimal index \(\ell\) for the improved Gauss lower bound. For an adaptive heuristic strategy focused on improving the accuracy of the Gauss lower bound, see. In the previous sections we have seen that the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound is delayed, in particular in phase 2. The delay of the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound can be defined as the smallest nonnegative integer \(j\) such that \[\gamma_{k+j+1}^{(\mu)}\left\Vert r_{k+j+1}\right\Vert ^{2}<\varepsilon_{k}.\label{eq:udelay}\] Having sufficiently accurate lower and upper bounds (e.g., if [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} is satisfied), we can approximately determine the delay of the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound as the smallest \(j\) satisfying [\[eq:udelay\]](#eq:udelay){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:udelay"} where \(\varepsilon_{k}\) in [\[eq:udelay\]](#eq:udelay){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:udelay"} is replaced by its tight lower bound \(\Delta_{k:\ell}\). The strategy for improving the accuracy of the Gauss-Radau upper bound implemented in Algorithm [\[alg:pseudo\]](#alg:pseudo){reference-type="ref" reference="alg:pseudo"} is demonstrated in Figure [\[fig:81-1\]](#fig:81-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81-1"} and Figure [\[fig:81\]](#fig:81){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81"}. In Figure [\[fig:81-1\]](#fig:81-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81-1"} we consider our model problem described in Section [4](#sec:model){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:model"} and use Matlab's vpa arithmetic with 128 digits. In Figure [\[fig:81\]](#fig:81){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81"} we consider the matrix `bcsstk01` of order \(48\) from the SuiteSparse Matrix collection and the unit norm right-hand side \(b\) that has equal components in the eigenvector basis, choose \(\mu_{4}=\lambda_{1}(1-10^{-4})\), and run the experiment in the standard double precision arithmetic using MATLAB R2019b. In the top parts of figures we plot the \(A\)-norm of the error (dotted), the square root of the basic Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:GR\]](#eq:GR){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:GR"} (dashed), and the square root of the improved Gauss-Radau upper bound [\[eq:improved\]](#eq:improved){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:improved"} with \(\ell\) satisfying [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"}. We can see that the improved upper bound is visually the same as the \(A\)-norm of the error. In the middle parts we plot the relative error \[\frac{\Omega{}_{k:\ell}^{(\mu)}-\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon_{k}}\label{eq:relerr}\] (solid) together with the prescribed tolerance \(\tau=0.25\) (dotted) where \(\ell\) was chosen using [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"}. For comparison we also plot the relative relative error [\[eq:relerr\]](#eq:relerr){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:relerr"} with the "ideal" value of \(\ell\), i.e., with the smallest integer \(\ell\geq k\) such that [\[eq:crit1-1\]](#eq:crit1-1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1-1"} is satisfied. Note that the ideal value of \(\ell\) was determined using the quantities \(\varepsilon_{k}\) that are not available in practical computations. Finally, in the bottom parts of Figure [\[fig:81-1\]](#fig:81-1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81-1"} and Figure [\[fig:81\]](#fig:81){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:81"} we plot the difference \(\ell-k\) at the individual iterations \(k\), where \(\ell\) was determined using [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} (solid) or using [\[eq:crit1-1\]](#eq:crit1-1){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit1-1"} (dashed). We observe that in later iterations, the values of \(\ell\) satisfying the criterion [\[eq:crit2\]](#eq:crit2){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:crit2"} are almost ideal (optimal).
# Conclusions
In this paper we discussed and analyzed the behaviour of the Gauss-Radau upper bound on the \(A\)-norm of the error in CG. In particular, we concentrated on the phenomenon observed during computations showing that, in later CG iterations, the upper bound loses its accuracy, it is almost independent of \(\mu\), and visually coincides with the simple upper bound. We explained that this phenomenon is closely related to the convergence of the smallest Ritz value to the smallest eigenvalue of \(A\). It occurs when the smallest Ritz value is a better approximation to the smallest eigenvalue than the prescribed underestimate \(\mu\). We developed formulas that can be helpful in understanding this behavior, and suggested an adaptive strategy of how to improve the accuracy of the Gauss-Radau upper bound. Note that the loss of accuracy of the Gauss-Radau upper bound is not directly linked to rounding errors in computations of the bound, but it is related to the finite precision behaviour of the underlying Lanczos process. In more detail, the phenomenon can occur when solving linear systems with clustered eigenvalues. However, the results of finite precision CG computations can be seen (up to some small inaccuracies) as the results of the exact CG algorithm applied to a larger system with the system matrix having clustered eigenvalues. Therefore, one can expect that the discussed phenomenon can occur in practical computations not only when \(A\) has clustered eigenvalues, but also whenever orthogonality is lost in the CG algorithm. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:05', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14601', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14601'} |
# Introduction {#sec:introduction}
The linear-quadratic (LQ) optimal control problem originated by is of great importantance in the field of optimal control. The SLQ optimal control problem, pioneered by, has been widely considered in the previous literatures . It is well-known that a conventional way to work out the SLQ problem is to solve the corresponding SARE. However, owing to the nonlinear property of the SARE, it is difficult to obtain its analytical solution. Over the past two decades, researchers have turned to investigate numerical solution to the corresponding SARE of their problems. For example, proposed two iterative algorithms to solve an SARE arising in SLQ optimal control problems subject to state-dependent noise. developed a strategy to study a class of state-perturbed SARE in LQ zero-sum games. With the help of the linear matrix inequalities, obtained the maximal solution of an SARE for a continuous-time indefinite SLQ problems on infinite horizon. In literatures mentioned above, all parameters of their systems need to be used to solve the corresponding SARE. However, the system coefficients may not be completely known in the real world, especially in applications such as finance and engineering. Therefore, it is valuable to solve the SARE with partially model-free systems, i.e., with partial information of the system coefficient matrices. Recently, the techniques of adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) and reinforcement learning have been widely used to tackle control problems with model-free or partially model-free system dynamics. For example, about deterministic discrete-time problems, applied the method of Q-learning to solve a discrete-time optimal control problem with unknown system dynamics. In, an optimal strategy was obtained for a class of linear model-free zero-sum games by the method of Q-learning. Regarding to deterministic continuous-time problems, introduced a policy iteration algorithm to investigate partially model-free LQ optimal control problems. By virtue of ADP, studied a kind of deterministic continuous-time LQ problems with completely unknown dynamics. Based on the ADP approach, got an optimal output feedback control for model-free continuous-time nonlinear systems with actuator saturation. As for the stochastic case, obtained an optimal control for a kind of model-free stochastic discrete-time systems by the theory of ADP. Without knowing the information of drift term, obtained an adaptive linear-quadratic Gaussian control for a class of linear systems where the diffusion term does not rely on the control and state. Recently, proposed a partially model-free policy iteration method to solve a kind of continuous-time SLQ problems on infinite horizon, without using system matrix \(A\) (see equation ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) in Section 2 for the system dynamics). Inspired by the above work, especially and , we propose a novel data-driven policy iteration strategy to work out the infinite-horizon continuous-time SLQ optimal control problem. The main feature of this algorithm is that it does not rely on the information of three coefficient matrices \(A, B, C\). Specifically, we employ the ADP technique to iteratively solve the corresponding SARE by utilizing the input and state data. Finally, we provide a simulation example to validate the proposed algorithm. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section [2](#sec2){reference-type="ref" reference="sec2"}, the formulation of the SLQ problem is introduced and some preliminaries are given. In Section [3](#sec3){reference-type="ref" reference="sec3"}, the data-driven algorithm is developed in detail. Section [4](#sec4){reference-type="ref" reference="sec4"} provides a numerical example to validate the data-driven algorithm. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in Section [5](#sec5){reference-type="ref" reference="sec5"}. We denote by \(\mathbb{R}\) the set of real numbers, by \(\mathbb{Z}^+\) the set of non-negative integers, respectively. The collection of all \(p\times q\) real matrices is denoted by \(\mathbb{R}^{p\times q}\). \(\mathbb{R}^{p}\) represents the \(p\)-dimensional Euclidean space and \(|\cdot|\) is the Euclidean norm for matrix or vector of proper size. For simplicity, we denote zero matrix (or vector) by 0. \(diag(l)\) denotes a square diagonal matrix with the elements of vector \(l\) on the main diagonal. \(M^{T}\) is the transpose of a vector or matrix \(M\). We use \(\textbf{S}^{p}\), \(\textbf{S}^{p}_{+}\) and \(\textbf{S}^{p}_{++}\) to denote the collection of all symmetric matrices, positive semidefinite matrices and positive definite matrices in \(\mathbb{R}^{p\times p}\), respectively. Moreover, if a matrix \(E\in \textbf{S}^{p}_{++}\) (resp. \(E\in\textbf{S}^{p}_{+}\)) is positive definite (resp. positive semidefinite), we usually write \(E>0\) (resp. \(\geqslant 0\)). If matrices \(E\in \textbf{S}^{p}\), \(F\in \textbf{S}^{p}\), then we write \(E\geqslant F\) (resp. \(E>F\)) if \(E-F\geqslant0\) (resp. \(E-F> 0\)). (\(\Omega\), \(\mathbb{F}\), \(\{\mathbb{F}_{t}\}_{t\geqslant 0}\), \(\mathbb{P}\)) is a filtered probability space that satisfies usual conditions, on which a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion \(W(\cdot)\) is defined. We define space \(L^2_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\) as \[\begin{split} L^2_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\bigg\{\psi (\cdot):[0,+\infty)\times \Omega\ \to \mathbb{R}^{n}\bigg|&\psi(\cdot) \,\,\text{is}\,\, \mathbb{F}_{t}-\text{adapted,\,\,measureable,}\\ &\text{\,\,and}\,\, \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{\infty} |\psi(s,\omega )|^2ds<\infty \bigg\}\\ \end{split}\] and its norm is defined as \[\left \|\psi (\cdot) \right \|:=\big(\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{\infty} |\psi(s,\omega )|^2ds\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\] Furthermore, \(\otimes\) denotes the Kronecker product. For any matrix \(F\), \(vec(F)\) is a vectorization map from the matrix \(F\) into a column vector of proper size, which stacks the columns of \(F\) on top of one another, i.e., \[vec \begin{bmatrix} f_{11}& f_{12}\\ f_{21}& f_{22}\\ f_{31}& f_{32}\\ \end{bmatrix}:=(f_{11},f_{21},f_{31},f_{12},f_{22},f_{32})^T.\]
# Problem formulation and some preliminaries {#sec2}
In this section, the SLQ optimal control problem and some preliminaries will be presented. Moreover, some assumptions are given to ensure the well-posedness of the SLQ problem. Consider a stochastic linear system \[\label{eq2} \begin{cases} dX(s)=[AX(s)+Bv(s)]ds+[CX(s)+Dv(s)]dW(s),s\in[0,\infty),\\ X(0)=x_0, \end{cases}\] where \(A, C\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\), \(B, D\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}\) are given constant matrices and \(x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\). The cost functional adopted in this paper is \[\label{eq3} \begin{split} J(v(\cdot))=\mathbb{E}\int_{0 }^{\infty}[X(s)^TQX(s)+2v(s)^TSX(s)+v(s)^TRv(s)]ds, \end{split}\] where \(Q\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\), \(S\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\) and \(R\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}\) are constant matrices. Now we give the definition of \(L^2\)-stabilizability, which is indespensable for the well-posedness of infinite-horizon SLQ problems. System ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) is called \(L^2\)-stabilizable if there exists a matrix \(K\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\) such that, for any initial state \(x_0\), the solution of \[\label{eq4} \begin{cases} dX(s)=(A+BK)X(s)ds+(C+DK)X(s)dW(s),s\in[0,\infty),\\ X(0)=x_0 \end{cases}\] satisfies \(\lim \limits_{s \to \infty}\mathbb{E}[X(s)^TX(s)]=0\). In this case, the feedback control \(v(\cdot)=KX(\cdot)\) is called stabilizing and the matrix \(K\) is called a stabilizer of system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}). System ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) is \(L^2\)-stabilizable. We define \[\mathcal{V}_{ad}:=\{v(\cdot)\in L^2_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{R}^{m})|v(\cdot) \,\, \text{is\, stabilizing}\}\] as an admissible control set. The continuous-time SLQ problem is given as follows: For given \(x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\), we want to find an optimal control \(v^*(\cdot) \in \mathcal{V}_{ad}\) such that \[J(v^*(\cdot))=\inf \limits_{v(\cdot) \in \mathcal{V}_{ad}}J(v(\cdot)).\] When \(\inf _{v(\cdot) \in \mathcal{V}_{ad}}J(v(\cdot))>-\infty\) is satisfied for any \(x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\), Problem (SLQ) is called well-posed. Moreover, the control \(v^*(\cdot)\) that achieves \(\inf _{v(\cdot) \in \mathcal{V}_{ad}}J(v(\cdot))\) is called *optimal control* and the corresponding trajectory \(X^*(\cdot)\) is called *optimal trajectory*. Based on the main results of , we introduce the following assumption. \(R>0\) and \(Q-S^TR^{-1}S > 0\). Therefore, for any \(x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n\), Problem (SLQ) is a well-posed problem under Assumptions 1 and 2.
# Data-driven algorithm for the SLQ optimal control Problem {#sec3}
In this section, we will introduce a data-driven algorithm to solve Problem (SLQ), which does not need the knowledge of coefficient matrices \(A\), \(B\), \(C\) in system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}). Before giving the algorithm, we first present an iterative method to solve Problem (SLQ). For the proof, please see Lemma 2.3 and Theorems 2.1-2.2 in . Suppose \(K_0\) is a stabilizer of system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) and \(P_{i+1} \in \textbf{S}^{n}_{++}\) is the solution of \[\label{eq5} \begin{split} P_{i+1}(A+BK_i)+(A+BK_i)^TP_{i+1} &+(C+DK_i)^TP_{i+1}(C+DK_i)\\ &+K_i^TRK_i +S^TK_i+K_i^TS+Q=0, \end{split}\] where \(K_{i+1}\), \(i=0,1,2,\cdots\), are updated by \[\label{eq6} \begin{split} K_{i+1}=-(R+D^TP_{i+1}D)^{-1}(B^TP_{i+1}+D^TP_{i+1}C+S). \end{split}\] Then \(P_i\) and \(K_i\), \(i=1,2,3,\cdots\) can be uniquely determined, and the following conclusions hold: (i) every element of \(\{K_i\}_{i=0}^{\infty}\) is a stabilizer of system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}). (ii) \(P^* \leq P_{i+1} \leq P_i\), \(i=1,2,3,\cdots\). (iii)\(\lim \limits_{i \to \infty}P_i=P^*\), \(\lim \limits_{i \to \infty}K_i=K^*\), where \(K^*=-(R+D^TP^*D)^{-1}(D^TP^*C+B^TP^*+S)\) and \(P^*\) is the solution to the SARE \[\label{eq111} \begin{split} PA+A^TP&+C^TPC+Q\\ &-(C^TPD+PB+S^T)(R+D^TPD)^{-1}(D^TPC+B^TP+S)=0. \end{split}\] Moreover, \(v^*(\cdot)=K^*X^*(\cdot)\) is an optimal control of Problem (SLQ). Though Lemma 1 presents an approximation method to solve SARE ([\[eq111\]](#eq111){reference-type="ref" reference="eq111"}), solving \(P_{i+1}\) and \(K_{i+1}\) from equation ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}) requires all information of the system coefficient matrices. As noted in the previous section, it is hard to obtain all information of the system parameters in the real world. In the sequel, we will propose a data-driven algorithm to solve them with partial knowledge of system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}). In order to get our data-driven algorithm, system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) is rewritten as \[\label{eq11} \begin{cases} \begin{split} dX(s)=&\big[A_iX(s)+B\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)\big]ds\\ &+\big[C_iX(s)+D\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)\big]dW(s),s\in[0,\infty),\\ \end{split}\\ X(0)=x_0, \end{cases}\] where \(A_i=A+BK_i\) and \(C_i=C+DK_i\). Then ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) can be transformed to \[\label{eq7} \begin{split} A_i^TP_{i+1}+P_{i+1}A_i+C_i^TP_{i+1}C_i+Q_i=0, \end{split}\] where \(Q_i=S^TK_i+K_i^TRK_i+K_i^TS+Q\). Now we give the next lemma to illustrate some relationship between \(P_{i+1}\) and \(K_{i+1}\), \(i=0,1,2,\cdots\), generated from ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}). For any \(K_i\), \(i=0,1,2,\cdots\), \(P_{i+1}\) and \(K_{i+1}\) generated from ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}) satisfy the following equation \[\label{eq10} \begin{split} &\mathbb{E}\big[X(t+\triangle t)^TP_{i+1}X(t+\triangle t)-X(t)^TP_{i+1}X(t)\big]\\ &+2\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TM_{i+1}X(s)ds\\ &-\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}v(s)^TD^TP_{i+1}Dv(s)ds +\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}X(s)^TK_i^TD^TP_{i+1}DK_iX(s)ds\\ =&-\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}X(s)^TQ_iX(s)ds-2\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TSX(s)ds, \end{split}\] where \(M_{i+1}=(R+D^TP_{i+1}D)K_{i+1}\), \(\triangle t\) is any positive real number, \(t\geq 0\) and \(X(\cdot)\) is the trajectory of system ([\[eq11\]](#eq11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq11"}) with any control \(v(\cdot)\). By Ito's formula and ([\[eq11\]](#eq11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq11"}), one gets \[\label{eq8} \begin{split} &d\big(X(s)^TP_{i+1}X(s)\big)\\ =\bigg\{&X(s)^T\big[A_i^TP_{i+1}+P_{i+1}A_i+C_i^TP_{i+1}C_i\big]X(s)\\ &+2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^T\big(B^TP_{i+1}+D^TP_{i+1}C_i\big)X(s)\\ &+\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TD^TP_{i+1}D\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)\bigg\}ds +\bigg\{\cdots\bigg\}dW(s)\\ \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} =&\bigg\{X(s)^T\big[A_i^TP_{i+1}+P_{i+1}A_i+C_i^TP_{i+1}C_i\big]X(s)\\ &+2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^T\big(B^TP_{i+1}+D^TP_{i+1}C+D^TP_{i+1}DK_i+S-S\big)X(s)\\ &+\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TD^TP_{i+1}D\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)\bigg\}ds+\bigg\{\cdots\bigg\}dW(s)\\ =&\bigg\{X(s)^T\big[A_i^TP_{i+1}+P_{i+1}A_i+C_i^TP_{i+1}C_i\big]X(s)\\ &+2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^T\big(B^TP_{i+1}+D^TP_{i+1}C+S\big)X(s)\\ &+\big[v(s)^TD^TP_{i+1}Dv(s)-X(s)^TK_i^TD^TP_{i+1}DK_iX(s)\\ &-2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TSX(s)\big]\bigg\}ds + \bigg\{\cdots\bigg\}dW(s).\\ \end{split}\] Then it follows from [\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq6"} and [\[eq7\]](#eq7){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq7"} that\
\[\begin{split} B^TP_{i+1}+D^TP_{i+1}C+S=-(R+D^TP_{i+1}D)K_{i+1}, \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} A_i^TP_{i+1}+P_{i+1}A_i+C_i^TP_{i+1}C_i=-Q_i. \end{split}\] Inserting them into [\[eq8\]](#eq8){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq8"}, we know \[\label{e} \begin{split} &d(X(s)^TP_{i+1}X(s))\\ =&-\bigg\{X(s)^TQ_iX(s)\bigg\}ds-\bigg\{2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^T\big(R+D^TP_{i+1}D\big)K_{i+1}X(s)\bigg\}ds\\ &+\bigg\{\big[v(s)^TD^TP_{i+1}Dv(s)-X(s)^TK_i^TD^TP_{i+1}DK_iX(s)\\&\quad-2\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TSX(s)\big]\bigg\}ds + \bigg\{\cdots\bigg\}dW(s).\\ \end{split}\] Thus, integrating from \(t\) to \(t+\triangle t\) and taking expection \(\mathbb{E}\) on both sides of ([\[e\]](#e){reference-type="ref" reference="e"}), we get ([\[eq10\]](#eq10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq10"}). The proof is completed. \(\hfill\blacksquare\) Next, we define some symbols that will be frequently used in the sequel. For any \[X=[x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots,x_n]\in\mathbb{R}^n,\] and \[P=\begin{bmatrix} p_{11}& p_{12}&\cdots&p_{1n}\\ p_{12}& p_{22}&\cdots&p_{2n}\\ \vdots&\vdots& & \vdots\\ p_{1n}& p_{2n}&\cdots&p_{nn}\\ \end{bmatrix}\in\mathbf{S}^n,\] we define \[vech(P)\,:=[p_{11}, 2p_{12},\cdots,2p_{1n},p_{22}, 2p_{23},\cdots,2p_{n-1,n},p_{nn}]^T,\] \[\overline{X}:=[x_1^2, x_1x_2,\cdots,x_1x_n,x_2^2, x_2x_3,\cdots,x_{n-1}x_n,x_n^2]^T,\] where \(p_{ij}\), \(i,j=1,2,3,\cdots\), is the \((i,j)\)th element of \(P\) and \(x_i\), \(i=1,2,3,\cdots\), is the \(i\)th element of \(X\). By Kronecker product theory, if \(D\), \(E\) and \(F\) are matrices of proper sizes, \(P\) is any symmetric matrix and \(\theta\) is any column vector, we have \[\begin{split} vec(DEF)=(F^T\otimes D)vec(E),\,\,\, E^T\otimes F^T=(E\otimes F)^T, \end{split}\] \[\theta^TP\theta=vec(\theta^TP\theta)=(\theta^T\otimes \theta^T)vec(P)=\bar\theta^T vech(P).\] Thus, in ([\[eq10\]](#eq10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq10"}), noting that \(Dv(s)\) and \(DK_iX(s)\) are two column vectors and \(P_{i+1}\in\mathbf{S}^n\), one gets \[v(s)^TD^TP_{i+1}Dv(s)=\overline{Dv(s)}^T vech(P_{i+1}),\] \[X(s)^TK_i^TD^TP_{i+1}DK_iX(s)=\overline{DK_iX(s)}^T vech(P_{i+1}).\] Similarly, from ([\[eq10\]](#eq10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq10"}) and the above notations, for any \(l \in \mathbb{Z^{+}}\), we know
where \(0\leq t_0<t_1<t_2<\cdots<t_l\) and \(I_n\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\) is identity matrix of proper sizes. To rewrite ([\[eq22\]](#eq22){reference-type="ref" reference="eq22"}) in a more compact form, we define matrices \(\eta _{xx} \in \mathbb{R}^{l\times \frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\), \(\delta _{xx} \in \mathbb{R}^{l\times n^2}\),\(\delta _{xv} \in \mathbb{R}^{l\times mn}\),\(\delta _{\overline{dv}}\in \mathbb{R}^{l\times \frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\),\(\delta _{\overline{dk_ix}} \in \mathbb{R}^{l\times \frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\) as follows \[\begin{split} \eta _{xx}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\overline{X(t_1)}-\overline{X(t_0)},\,\,\overline{X(t_2)}-\overline{X(t_1)},\,\,\cdots,\,\, \overline{X(t_l)}-\overline{X(t_{l-1})}\bigg]^T,\\ \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} \delta _{xx}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_0}^{t_1}X(s)\otimes X(s)ds,\,\,\int_{t_1}^{t_2}X(s)\otimes X(s)ds,\,\,\cdots,\,\, \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}X(s)\otimes X(s)ds\bigg]^T,\\ \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} \delta _{xv}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_0}^{t_1}X(s)\otimes v(s)ds,\,\,\int_{t_1}^{t_2}X(s)\otimes v(s)ds,\,\,\cdots,\,\, \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}X(s)\otimes v(s)ds\bigg]^T,\\ \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} \delta _{\overline{dv}}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\overline{Dv(s)}ds,\,\,\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\overline{Dv(s)}ds,\,\,\cdots,\,\, \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\overline{Dv(s)}ds\bigg]^T,\\ \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} \delta _{\overline{dk_ix}}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\overline{DK_iX(s)}ds,\,\,\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\overline{DK_iX(s)}ds,\,\,\cdots,\,\, \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\overline{DK_iX(s)}ds\bigg]^T.\\ \end{split}\] With these symbols, ([\[eq22\]](#eq22){reference-type="ref" reference="eq22"}) implies \[\label{eq12} \mathbb{V}_i\times \begin{pmatrix} vech({P}_{i+1})\\ vec\big(M_{i+1}\big)\\ \end{pmatrix}=\mathbb{I}_i,\] where \(\mathbb{V}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{l\times (\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+mn)}\) and \(\mathbb{I}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{l}\) are defined as \[\begin{split} \mathbb{V}_i:=\big[\eta_{xx}-\delta_{\overline{dv}}+\delta_{\overline{dk_ix}},2\delta_{xv}-2\delta_{xx}(I_n\otimes K_i^T) \big], \end{split}\] \[\begin{split} \mathbb{I}_i:=&\big[\delta_{xx}vec(-Q_i+2K_i^TS)-2\delta_{xv}vec(S) \big],\,\,\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+. \end{split}\] Multiplying \(\mathbb{V}_i^T\) on both sides of ([\[eq12\]](#eq12){reference-type="ref" reference="eq12"}), we have \[\label{eq201} \mathbb{V}_i^T\mathbb{V}_i\times\begin{pmatrix} vech({P}_{i+1})\\ vec\big(M_{i+1}\big)\\ \end{pmatrix}=\mathbb{V}_i^T\mathbb{I}_i, \,\,\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+.\] If \(\mathbb{V}_i\) has full column rank, ([\[eq201\]](#eq201){reference-type="ref" reference="eq201"}) can be solved by\
\[\label{eq20} \begin{pmatrix} vech({P}_{i+1})\\ vec\big(M_{i+1}\big)\\ \end{pmatrix}=(\mathbb{V}_i^T\mathbb{V}_i)^{-1}\mathbb{V}_i^T\mathbb{I}_i, \,\,\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+.\] If \(\mathbb{V}_i\), \(\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), has full column rank, it follows from Lemma 2 and the above procedure that \(P_{i+1}\) and \(K_{i+1}\) generated from ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}) satisfy ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}). Note that ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}) does not use the information of coefficient matrices \(A\), \(B\), \(C\), thus if we can solve \(P_{i+1}\) and \(K_{i+1}\), \(\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), from ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}), we obtain a partially model-free algorithm. Then, we give a rank condition in the next lemma, under which matrices \(\mathbb{V}_i\), \(\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), have full column rank. If there exists an \(l_0 \in \mathbb{Z^{+}}\), such that \[\label{rank} rank([\delta_{xx},\,\,\delta_{xv}])=mn+\frac{n(n+1)}{2},\] for all \(l \geq l_0\), then matrices \(\mathbb{V}_i\), \(\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), have full column rank. Given \(i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), this proof is equivalent to proving that \[\label{eq14} \mathbb{V}_iN=0\] has only the solution \(N=0\). Now we prove it by contradiction. Assume \(N=[vech(F)^T,vec(G)^T]^T\in \mathbb{R}^{mn+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\) is a nonzero column vector, where \(vech(F)\in \mathbb{R}^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\) and \(vec(G)\in \mathbb{R}^{mn}\). Applying Ito's formula to \(X(s)^TFX(s)\), integrating from \(t\) to \(t+\triangle t\) and taking expection \(\mathbb{E}\), one gets \[\label{eq13} \begin{split} &\mathbb{E}\big[X(t+\triangle t)^TFX(t+\triangle t)-X(t)^TFX(t)\big]\\ = &\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}X(s)^T\big(A_i^TF+FA_i+C_i^TFC_i\big)X(s)ds\\ &+2\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TB^TFX(s)ds\\ &+2\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TD^TFC_iX(s)ds\\ &+\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\triangle t}\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)^TD^TFD\big(v(s)-K_iX(s)\big)ds,\\ \end{split}\] where \(X(\cdot)\) is the trajectory of system ([\[eq11\]](#eq11){reference-type="ref" reference="eq11"}) with control \(v(\cdot)\). By ([\[eq10\]](#eq10){reference-type="ref" reference="eq10"}), ([\[eq13\]](#eq13){reference-type="ref" reference="eq13"}) and the definition of \(\mathbb{V}_i\), we have \[\label{eq15} \mathbb{V}_iN=\delta_{xx}vec(\mathcal{Y})+\delta_{xv}vec(\mathcal{L}),\] where \[\label{eq16} \begin{split} \mathcal{Y}=&A_i^TF+FA_i+C_i^TFC_i-K_i^T(B^TF+D^TFC_i+G-D^TFDK_i)\\ &-(FB+C_i^TFD+G^T-K_i^TD^TFD)K_i,\\ \end{split}\] \[\label{eq17} \begin{split} \mathcal{L}=2B^TF+2D^TFC_i+2G-2D^TFDK_i. \end{split}\] Noting that \(\mathcal{Y}\) is a symmetric matrix, we know \[\delta_{xx}vec(\mathcal{Y})=\delta_{\overline{x}}vech(\mathcal{Y}),\] where \(\delta_{\overline{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\) is defined as\
\[\begin{split} \delta_{\overline{x}}=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\overline{X(s)}ds,\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\overline{X(s)}ds, \cdots, \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\overline{X(s)}ds\bigg]^T.\\ \end{split}\] Then ([\[eq14\]](#eq14){reference-type="ref" reference="eq14"}) and ([\[eq15\]](#eq15){reference-type="ref" reference="eq15"}) imply \[\label{eq18} [\delta_{\overline{x}},\delta_{xv}]\begin{pmatrix} vech(\mathcal{Y})\\ vec(\mathcal{L})\\ \end{pmatrix}=0.\] Under the rank condition in Lemma 3, it is easy to see that \([\delta_{\overline{x}},\delta_{xv}]\) has full column rank. As a result, the unique solution to ([\[eq18\]](#eq18){reference-type="ref" reference="eq18"}) is \(vech(\mathcal{Y})=0,vec(\mathcal{L})=0\). By the definitions of \(vec(\cdot)\) and \(vech(\cdot)\), we have \(\mathcal{Y}=0,\mathcal{L}=0\). It follows from ([\[eq16\]](#eq16){reference-type="ref" reference="eq16"}),([\[eq17\]](#eq17){reference-type="ref" reference="eq17"}), \(\mathcal{Y}=0\) and \(\mathcal{L}=0\) that \[\label{eq19} A_i^TF+FA_i+C_i^TFC_i=0.\] Further, since \(K_i\), \(i\in\mathbb{Z^{+}}\), is a stabilizer, we can easily see from Definition 1 that the trajectory of \[\label{system2} \begin{cases} \begin{split} dx(s)= \,\,A_ix(s)ds+C_ix(s)dw(s), \end{split}\\ x(0)=x_0\neq 0, \end{cases}\] satisfies \(\lim_{s\rightarrow+\infty}\mathbb{E}\big[x(s)^Tx(s)\big]=0\). For any \(t>0\), applying Ito's formula to \(d\big(x(s)^TFx(s)\big)\), we get \[\label{eq88} \begin{split} &\mathbb{E}\big[x^T(t)Fx(t)\big]-x_0^TFx_0\\ =\,\,&\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}x^T(s)\big(A_i^TF+FA_i+C_i^TFC_i\big)x(s)ds,\\ \end{split}\] where \(x(\cdot)\) is governed by ([\[system2\]](#system2){reference-type="ref" reference="system2"}). Letting \(t\) go to positive infinity, it is easy to see from ([\[eq19\]](#eq19){reference-type="ref" reference="eq19"}) and ([\[eq88\]](#eq88){reference-type="ref" reference="eq88"}) that \(x_0^TFx_0=0\). Notice that \(x_0\) can be any nonzero element in \(\mathbb{R}^n\), thus we know \(F=0\). Then it follows from ([\[eq17\]](#eq17){reference-type="ref" reference="eq17"}) and \(\mathcal{L}=0\) that \(G=0\), which contradicts with \(N\neq0\). The proof is completed.\(\hfill\blacksquare\)\
Using notations defined above, the data-driven algorithm is given in Algorithm [\[A2\]](#A2){reference-type="ref" reference="A2"}.
:::
In Algorithm [\[A2\]](#A2){reference-type="ref" reference="A2"}, \(e(\cdot)\) is called the exploration noise. The main purpose of adding exploration noise is to meet the persistent excitation condition, and thus rank condition ([\[rank\]](#rank){reference-type="ref" reference="rank"}) in Lemma 3 is satisfied. To tackle some practical ADP and machine learning problems, researchers usually choose exploration noises such as exponentially decreasing noise , the random noise generated from the normal distribution, the sum of sinusoidal signals and random noise . During the simulation in Section [4](#sec4){reference-type="ref" reference="sec4"}, the exploration noise is selected as a noise generated by Gaussian distribution. Finally, we present the convergence analysis of Algorithm [\[A2\]](#A2){reference-type="ref" reference="A2"}. When rank condition ([\[rank\]](#rank){reference-type="ref" reference="rank"}) is guaranteed, \(\{K_i\}_{i=0}^\infty\) and \(\{P_i\}_{i=1}^\infty\) defined in Algorithm [\[A2\]](#A2){reference-type="ref" reference="A2"} converge to \(K^*\) and \(P^*\), respectively. Given \(K_i\), \(\forall i\in\mathbb{Z}^+\), it follows from Lemma 2 that \(\big(P_{i+1},M_{i+1}\big)\) generated from iteration ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}) satisfy ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}). Moreover, it can be seen from Lemma 3 that ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}) has a unique solution if rank condition ([\[rank\]](#rank){reference-type="ref" reference="rank"}) holds. Therefore, if condition ([\[rank\]](#rank){reference-type="ref" reference="rank"}) is satisfied, the solution of equation ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}) is equivalent to the solution of iterations ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) and ([\[eq6\]](#eq6){reference-type="ref" reference="eq6"}). Otherwise, ([\[eq20\]](#eq20){reference-type="ref" reference="eq20"}) has at least two different solution pairs. Thus, the convergence of Algorithm [\[A2\]](#A2){reference-type="ref" reference="A2"} is obtained by Lemma 1. This completes the proof.\(\hfill\blacksquare\)
# Numerical example {#sec4}
In this section, we give a simulation example to illustrate the data-driven partially model-free algorithm. The system parameters of system ([\[eq2\]](#eq2){reference-type="ref" reference="eq2"}) are given as follows \[A= \begin{bmatrix} 0 &-0.6\\ 0.6 &-0.3 \end{bmatrix}, B= \begin{bmatrix} 0.05\\ 0.01 \end{bmatrix}, C= \begin{bmatrix}-0.02 & 0.03\\-0.05 &0.02 \end{bmatrix}, D= \begin{bmatrix} 0.001\\ 0.03 \end{bmatrix},\] and the initial state is \(x_0=[0.5,-0.1]^T\). The coefficients in cost functional ([\[eq3\]](#eq3){reference-type="ref" reference="eq3"}) are chosen as \(Q=diag(1,0.1)\), \(S=0\) and \(R=1\). Let \(K_0=[0,0]\) and \(\triangle t=0.01\) s, i.e., the value of \(l\) in equation ([\[eq22\]](#eq22){reference-type="ref" reference="eq22"}) is \(l=\frac{4}{\triangle t}=\frac{4}{0.01}=40\). We employ \(v(\cdot)=K_0X(\cdot)+e(\cdot)\) as the input and collect the input and state information over time interval \([0, 4]\). Then, the collected data and the coefficient matrix \(D\) are used to implement Algorithm 1, where rank condition ([\[rank\]](#rank){reference-type="ref" reference="rank"}) is guaranteed due to the existence of exploration noise \(e(\cdot)\). Moreover, we set \(P_0=0\) to check the stopping criterion at the first iteration step. By applying the data-driven algorithm, we can obtain two approximation matrices \(\widetilde{P}^*\) and \(\widetilde{K}^*\) as shown below \[\widetilde{P}^*= \begin{bmatrix} 2.2384 & -0.8272 \\-0.8272 & 1.8240 \\ \end{bmatrix}, \widetilde{K}^*= \begin{bmatrix} -0.1109 & 0.0408\\ \end{bmatrix}.\] Figure 1 plots the convergence of Algorithm 1. Moreover, to check the error between (\(\widetilde{P}^*, \widetilde{K}^*\)) and the true values (\(P^*, K^*\)), we denote the left side of ([\[eq5\]](#eq5){reference-type="ref" reference="eq5"}) as \[\begin{split} \mathcal{R}(P, K):=P(A+BK)+(A+BK)^TP &+(C+DK)^TP(C+DK)\\ &+K^TRK+S^TK+K^TS+Q. \end{split}\] Then we have \(| \mathcal{R}(\widetilde{P}^*,\widetilde{K}^*)|=9.7162\times10^{-4}\), implying that the error of (\(\widetilde{P}^*, \widetilde{K}^*\)) is of size \(10^{-4}\). Furthermore, an optimal trajectory governed by \(v(\cdot)=\widetilde{K}^*X(\cdot)\) is plotted in Figure 2, which means that \(\widetilde{K}^*\) is indeed a stabilizer. The above simulation results imply that the algorithm proposed in this paper maybe an effective method in solving infinite-horizon SLQ problems with partial knowledge of system parameters.
# Conclusions {#sec5}
This paper develops a data-driven algorithm to tackle a continuous-time SLQ optimal control problem. The data-driven algorithm relaxes the assumption on the information of system matrix parameters by using input and state data collected over some time interval. The convergence analysis is provided under some mild conditions. An interesting topic is to consider the case that the control weighting matrix in the cost functional to be indefinite. This problem is left for further investigation. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:43', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14490', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14490'} |
null | null |
# Introduction
Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is an emerging medical imaging technique to examine the internal structure of a subject noninvasively. A CBCT scanner emits cone-shaped X-ray beams and captures 2D projections at equal angular intervals. Compared with the conventional Fan Beam CT (FBCT), CBCT enjoys the benefits of high spatial resolution and fast scanning speed . Recent years have witnessed the blossoming of low dose CT, which delivers a significantly lower radiation dose during the scanning process. There are two ways to reduce the dose: decreasing source intensity or projection views . This paper focuses on the latter, *i.e.*, sparse-view CBCT reconstruction. Sparse-view CBCT reconstruction aims to retrieve a volumetric attenuation coefficient field from dozens of projections. It is a challenging task in two respects. First, insufficient views lead to notable artifacts. As a comparison, the traditional CBCT obtains hundreds of images. The inputs of sparse-view CBCT are 10\(\times\) fewer. Second, the spatial and computational complexity of CBCT reconstruction is much higher than that of FBCT reconstruction due to the dimensional increase of inputs. CBCT relies on 2D projections to build a 3D model, while FBCT simplifies the process by stacking 2D slides restored from 1D projections (but in the sacrifice of time and dose). Existing CBCT approaches can be divided into three categories: analytical, iterative and learning-based methods. Analytical methods estimate attenuation coefficients by solving the Radon transform and its inverse. A typical example is the FDK algorithm . It produces good results in an ideal scenario but copes poorly with ill-posed problems such as sparse views. The second family, iterative methods, formulates reconstruction as a minimization process. These approaches utilize an optimization framework combined with regularization modules. While iterative methods perform well in ill-posed problems , they require substantial computation time and memory. Recently, learning-based methods have become popular with the rise of AI. They use deep neural networks to 1) predict and extrapolate projections , 2) regress attenuation coefficients with similar data , and 3) make optimization process differentiable . Most of these methods need extensive datasets for network training. Moreover, they rely on neural networks to remember what a CT looks like. Therefore it is difficult to apply a trained model of one application to another. While there are self-supervised methods , they operate under FBCT settings considering network capacity and memory consumption. Their performance and efficiency drop when applied to the CBCT scenario. Apart from the aforementioned work designated for CT reconstruction, efforts have been made to deal with other ill-posed problems, such as 3D reconstruction in the computer vision field. Similar to CT reconstruction, 3D reconstruction uses RGB images to estimate 3D shapes, which are usually represented as discrete point clouds or meshes. Recent studies propose Implicit Neural Representation (INR) as an alternative to those discrete representations. INR parameterizes a bounded scene as a neural network that maps spatial coordinates to metrics such as occupancy and color. With the help of position encoder , INR is capable to learn high-frequency details. This paper proposes Neural Attenuation Fields (NAF), a fast self-supervised solution for sparse-view CBCT reconstruction. Here we use 'self-supervised' to highlight that NAF requires no external CT scans but the X-ray projections of the interested object. Inspired by 3D reconstruction work , we parameterize the attenuation coefficient field as an INR and imitates the X-ray attenuation process with a self-supervised network pipeline. Specifically, we train a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), whose input is an encoded spatial coordinate \((x,y,z)\) and whose output is the attenuation coefficient \(\mu\) at that location. Instead of using a common frequency-domain encoding, we adopt hash encoding , a learning-based position encoder, to help the network quickly learn high-frequency details. Projections are synthesized by predicting the attenuation coefficients of sampled points along ray trajectories and attenuating incident beams accordingly. The network is optimized with gradient descent by minimizing the error between real and synthesized projections. We demonstrate that NAF quantitatively and qualitatively outperforms existing solutions on both human organ and phantom datasets. While most INR approaches take hours for training, our method can reconstruct a detailed CT model within 10-40 minutes, which is comparable to iterative methods. In summary, the main contributions of this work are:
- We propose a novel and fast self-supervised method for sparse-view CBCT reconstruction. Neither external datasets nor structural prior is needed except projections of a subject.
- The proposed method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy and spends relatively short computation time. The performance and efficiency of our method make it feasible for clinical CT applications.
- The code will be publicly available for investigation purposes.
# Method
## Pipeline
The pipeline of NAF is shown in Fig. [\[fig:framework\]](#fig:framework){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:framework"}. During a CBCT scanning, an X-ray source rotates around the object and emits cone-shaped X-ray beams. A 2D panel detects X-ray projections at equal angular intervals. NAF then uses the scanner geometry to imitate the attenuation process discretely. It learns CT shapes by comparing real and synthesized projections. After the model optimization, the final CT image is generated by querying corresponding voxels. NAF consists of four modules: ray sampling, position encoding, attenuation coefficient prediction, and projection synthesis. First, we uniformly sample points along X-ray paths based on the scanner geometry. A position encoder network then encodes their spatial coordinates to extract valuable features. After that, an MLP network consumes the encoded information and predicts attenuation coefficients. The last step of NAF is to synthesize projections by attenuating incident X-rays according to the predicted attenuation coefficients on their paths.
## Neural attenuation fields
### Ray sampling
Each pixel value of a projection image results from an X-ray passing through a cubical space and getting attenuated by the media inside. We sample \(N\) points at the parts where rays intersect the cube. A stratified sampling method is adopted, where we divide a ray into \(N\) evenly spaced bins and uniformly sample one point at each bin. Setting \(N\) greater than the desired CT size ensures that at least one sample is assigned to every grid cell that an X-ray traverses. The coordinates of sampled points are then sent to the position encoding module.
### Position encoding
A simple MLP can theoretically approximate any function . Recent studies , however, reveal that a neural network prefers to learn low-frequency details due to "spectral bias". To this end, a position encoder is introduced to map 3D spatial coordinates to a higher dimensional space. A common choice is the *frequency encoder* proposed by Mildenhall *et al.* . It decomposes a spatial coordinate \(\mathbf{p}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\) into \(L\) sets of sinusoidal components at different frequencies. While frequency encoder eases the difficulty of training networks, it is considered quite cumbersome. In medical imaging practise , the size of encoder output is set to 256 or greater. The following network must be wider and deeper to cope with the inflated inputs. As a result, it takes hours to train millions of network parameters, which is not acceptable for fast CT reconstruction. Frequency-domain encoding is a dense encoder because it utilizes the entire frequency spectrum. However, dense encoding is redundant for CBCT reconstruction for two main reasons. First, a human body usually consists of several homogeneous media, such as muscles and bones. Attenuation coefficients remain approximately uniform inside one medium but vary between different media. High-frequency features are not necessary unless for points near edges. Second, natural objects favor smoothness. Many organs have simple shapes, such as spindle (muscle) or cylinder (bone). Their smooth surfaces can be easily learned with low-dimensional features. To exploit the aforementioned characteristics of the scanned objects, we use the *hash encoder* , a learning-based sparse encoding solution. The equation of hash encoder \(\mathcal{M_{H}}\) is: \[\mathcal{M_{H}}(\mathbf{p};\mathbf{\Theta})=[\mathcal{I}(\mathbf{H}_{1}),\cdots,\mathcal{I}(\mathbf{H}_{L})]^T,~\mathbf{H}=\{\mathbf{c}|h(\mathbf{c})=(\bigoplus c_{j}\pi_{j})~{\rm mod}~T\}.\] Hash encoder describes a bounded space by \(L\) multiresolution voxel grids. A trainable feature lookup table \(\mathbf{\Theta}\) with size \(T\) is assigned to each voxel grid. At each resolution level, we 1) detect neighbouring corners \(\mathbf{c}\) (cubes with different colors in Fig. [\[fig:framework\]](#fig:framework){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:framework"}(b)) of the queried point \(\mathbf{p}\), 2) look up their corresponding features \(\mathbf{H}\) in a hash function fashion \(h\) , and 3) generate a feature vector with linear interpolation \(\mathcal{I}\). The output of a hash encoder is the concatenation of feature vectors at all resolution levels. More details of hash function and its symbols can be found in . Compared with frequency encoder, hash encoder produces much smaller outputs (\(32\) in our setting) with competitive feature quality for two reasons. On the one hand, the many-to-one property of hash function conforms to the sparsity nature of human organs. On the other hand, a trainable encoder can learn to focus on relevant details and select suitable frequency spectrum . Thanks to hash encoder, the subsequent network is more compact.
### Attenuation coefficient prediction
We represent the bounded field with a simple MLP \(\mathbf{\Phi}\), which takes the encoded spatial coordinates as inputs and outputs the attenuation coefficients \(\mu\) at that position. As illustrated in Fig. [\[fig:framework\]](#fig:framework){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:framework"}(c), the network is composed of 4 fully-connected layers. The first three layers are 32-channel wide and have ReLU activation functions in between, while the last layer has one neuron followed by a sigmoid activation. A skip connection is included to concatenate the network input to the second layer's activation. By contrast, Zang *et al.* use a 6-layer 256-channel MLP to learn features from a frequency encoder. Our network is \(10\times\) smaller.
### Attenuation synthesis
According to Beer's Law, the intensity of an X-ray traversing matter is reduced by the exponential integration of attenuation coefficients on its path. We numerically synthesize the attenuation process with: \[I=I_{0}\exp(-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mu_{i}\delta_{i}),\] where \(I_{0}\) is the initial intensity and \(\delta_{i}=\|\mathbf{p}_{i+1}-\mathbf{p}_{i}\|\) is the distance between adjacent points.
## Model optimization and output
NAF is updated by minimizing the L2 loss between real and synthesized projections. The loss function \(\mathcal{L}\) is defined as: \[\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{\Theta},\mathbf{\Phi}) = \sum_{\mathbf{r}\in\mathbf{B}}\|I_{r}(\mathbf{r})-I_{s}(\mathbf{r})\|^2,\] where \(\mathbf{B}\) is a ray batch, and \(I_{r}\) and \(I_{s}\) are real and synthesized projections for ray \(\mathbf{r}\) respectively. We update both hash encoder \(\mathbf{\Theta}\) and attenuation coefficient network \(\mathbf{\Phi}\) during the training process. The final output is formulated as a discrete 3D matrix. We build a voxel grid with the desired size and pass the voxel coordinates to the trained MLP to predict the corresponding attenuation coefficients. A CT model thus is restored.
# Experiments
## Experimental settings
### Data
We conduct experiments on five datasets containing human organ and phantom data. Details are listed in Table [1](#tab:dataset){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:dataset"}. : We evaluate our method using public datasets of human organ CTs , including chest, jaw, foot and abdomen. The chest data are from LIDC-IDRI dataset , and the rest are from Open Scientific Visualization Datasets . Since these datasets only provide volumetric CT scans, we generate projections by a tomographic toolbox TIGRE . In TIGRE , we capture 50 projections with 3% noise in the range of 180. We train our model with these projections and evaluate its performance with the raw volumetric CT data. : We collect a phantom dataset by scanning a silicon aortic phantom with GE C-arm Medical System. This system captures 582 500\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}500 fluoroscopy projections with position primary angle from-103to 93and position secondary angle of 0. A 512\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}512\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}510 CT image is also generated with inbuilt algorithms as the ground truth. We only use 50 projections for experiments.
### Baselines
We compare our approach with four baseline techniques. **FDK** is firstly chosen as a representative of analytical methods. The second method **SART** is a robust iterative reconstruction algorithm. **ASD-POCS** is another iterative method with a total-variation regularizer. We implement a CBCT variant of IntraTomo , named **IntraTomo3D**, as an example of frequency-encoding deep learning methods.
### Implementation details
Our proposed method is implemented in PyTorch . We use Adam optimizer with a learning rate that starts at \(1\times10^{-3}\) and steps down to \(1\times10^{-4}\). The batch size is 2048 rays at each iteration. The sampling quantity of each ray depends on the size of CT data. For example, we sample \(192\) points along each ray for the 128\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}128\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}128 chest CT. We use the same hyper-parameter setting for hash encoder as . More details of hyper-parameters can be found in the supplementary material. All experiments are conducted on a single RTX 3090 GPU. We evaluate five methods quantitatively in terms of peak signal-to-noise ratio (PNSR) and structural similarity (SSIM) . PSNR (dB) statistically assesses the artifact suppression performance, while SSIM measures the perceptual difference between two signals. Higher PNSR/SSIM values represent the accurate reconstruction and vice versa.
## Results
### Performance
Our method produces quantitatively best results in both human organ and phantom datasets as listed in Table [2](#tab:results){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:results"}. Both PSNR and SSIM values are significantly higher than other methods. For example, the PSNR value of our method in the abdomen dataset is 3.07 dB higher than that of the second-best method **SART**. We also provide visualization results of different methods in Fig. [\[fig:demo\]](#fig:demo){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:demo"}. **FDK** restores low-quality models with notable artifacts, as analytical methods demand large amounts of projections.
Iterative method **SART** suppresses noise in the sacrifice of losing certain details. The reconstruction results of **ASD-POCS** are heavily smeared because total-variation regularization encourages removing high-frequency details, including unwanted noise and expected tiny structures. **IntraTomo3D** produces clean results. However, edges between media are slightly blurred, which shows that the frequency encoder fails to teach the network to focus on edges. With the help of hash encoding, results of the proposed **NAF** have the most details, clearest edges and fewest artifacts. Fig. [\[fig:slice\]](#fig:slice){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:slice"} indicates that **NAF** outperforms other methods in all slices of the reconstructed CT volume. Figure [\[fig:numView\]](#fig:numView){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:numView"} shows the performance of iterative methods and learning-based methods under different number of views. It is clear that the performance increases with the rise of input views. Our methods achieves better results than others under most circumstances.
### Time
We record the running time of iterative and learning-based methods as shown in Fig. [\[fig:time\]](#fig:time){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:time"}. All methods use CUDA to accelerate the computation process. Overall, the methods spend less time on datasets with small projections (chest, jaw and foot) and increasingly more time on big datasets (abdomen and aorta). **IntraTomo3D** requires more than one hour to train the network. Benefiting from the compact network design, **NAF** spends similar running time to iterative methods and is 3\(\times\) faster than the frequency-encoding deep learning method **IntraTomo3D**.
# Conclusion
This paper proposes NAF, a fast self-supervised learning-based solution for sparse-view CBCT reconstruction. Our method trains a fully-connected deep neural network that consumes a 3D spatial coordinate and outputs the attenuation coefficient at that location. NAF synthesizes projections by attenuating incident X-rays based on the predicted attenuation coefficients. The network is updated by minimizing the projection error. We show that frequency encoding is not computationally efficient for tomographic reconstruction tasks. As an alternative, a learning-based encoder entitled hash encoding is adopted to extract valuable features. Experimental results on human organ and phantom datasets indicate that the proposed method achieves significantly better results than other baselines and spends reasonably short computation time. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:16', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14540', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14540'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction {#sec::intro}
Chemical abundance variations play a key role in our understanding of galactic formation and evolution. In particular, radial abundance gradients in stellar populations are believed to be the result of the inside-out galaxy formation scenario . However, theoretical models also suggest that the radial abundance gradients are affected by various dynamical processes where stars can migrate far away from their birth radii . For instance, stellar radial migration caused by the spiral arms and/or spiral/bar resonances overlap results in flattening of the radial gradient . Some models also suggest that spiral arms can cause variations of the mean metallicity of stars in the azimuthal direction where the metallicity variations are caused by re-shaping of pre-existing stellar populations with different chemo-kinematical properties in the vicinity of the spiral arms. Alternatively, developed a new 2D analytic model where stars in the Milky Way (MW)-type disk inherit systematic (\(\approx 0.1\) dex) abundance variations from the ISM, where the latter ones are the result of the enrichment near the arms with the most significant azimuthal variations appearing near the corotation radius. Since stars inherit the abundances from the ISM, analysis of the chemical abundance variations of gas plays a fundamental role in understanding the present-day stellar abundance patterns. Observations suggest that the ISM in disk galaxies is well mixed (scatter in azimuth of \(\approx 0.05\) dex ) and environmental variations of abundances depend on the observational techniques, disk coverage, and filling factor of individual \(\rm HII\) regions. For instance, analysis of the M101 galaxy has shown evidence for azimuthal variations in gas-phase metallicity but later on found no difference between arm and inter-arm metallicities. Several more recent integral field unit (IFU) observations are in favour of small but systematic variations of metallicity that appears to correlate with the location of the spiral arms . In particular, by studying the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 1365, found systematic (\(0.2\) dex) azimuthal variations of the \(\rm HII\) region oxygen abundance near the spiral arms imprinted on a negative radial gradient. showed that the \(\rm HII\) region oxygen abundances are higher at the trailing edges and lower at the leading edges of the spiral arms which is likely caused by radially outward (inward) streaming motion at the trailing (leading) edges of the spiral arms. By analyzing the Very Large Telescope/Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (VLT--MUSE) data for eight nearby galaxies, found a low \(0.03-0.05\) dex azimuthal abundance scatter where half of the galaxies reveal azimuthal variations which in many cases, however, can not be clearly associated with the spirals. On the other hand, found that the inter-arm regions of NGC 628 have oxygen abundances similar to the arms which, however, could be the result of poor coverage of the galactic disk. A recent study of \(45\) nearby spiral galaxies by suggests that \(45-65\%\) of galaxies have more metal-rich \(\rm HII\) regions in spiral arms with respect to the inter-arm area. However, in some cases (\(5-20\%\), depending on the calibrator), the opposite trend is seen, particularly more metal-poor \(\rm HII\) regions in the spiral arms compared to the inter-arm region. According to more metal rich spiral arms than the inter-arm area are observed in more massive galaxies with grand-design spiral arms. Finally, have mapped the two-dimensional variations of metals across the disks of 19 nearby galaxies observed with the VLT--MUSE and found no evidence that spiral arms are enriched compared to the disk. Existing models of the ISM mixing in disk galaxies also have not reached a consensus about the abundance variations in azimuth where both turbulence and gravitational instability act towards homogeneity of the ISM , while the large-scale models predict variations driven by spirals [^1]. Therefore, the origin of the azimuthal ISM metallicity variations remains unclear: whether they are real and, if so, are they driven by local self-enrichment or by radial flows in the disk ? In this work, using a set of high-resolution \(N\)-body hydrodynamical simulations we explore the origin of the ISM abundance variations across the spiral arms of the MW-type disk galaxies. We quantify the impact of the local ISM enrichment by ongoing star formation (SF) and the transformation of the radial abundance gradient into the azimuthal one due to gas radial displacement (migration) caused by the spiral arms. The paper is structured as follows. In Sec. [2](#sec::models){reference-type="ref" reference="sec::models"} we describe our models setup, subgrid physics and spiral arms kinematics analysis. In Sec. [3](#sec::results){reference-type="ref" reference="sec::results"} we discuss both small-and large-scale metallicity variations in the azimuthal direction and along the spirals linking the observed patterns to the properties of individual arms. In Sec. [4](#sec::conclusions){reference-type="ref" reference="sec::conclusions"} we discuss and summarize our findings.
# Models {#sec::models}
## Simulations setup {#sec::appendix_model}
We performed three \(N\)-body/hydrodynamical simulations of disk galaxies with a total stellar mass and a rotation curve compatible with those of the MW. All three models are the same in terms of the mass model but differ from each other by the initial radial profile of metallicity of the ISM and on/off enrichment of the ISM by newly formed stellar populations. Our models start from a pre-existing axisymmetric stellar disk with gas where we allow the star formation which is complemented by the chemical evolution of stellar populations. In all three models, \(5\times 10^6\) stellar particles are initially redistributed following a Miyamoto-Nagai density profile that has a characteristic scale length of \(3\) kpc, vertical thicknesses of \(0.2\) kpc and mass of \(6 \times 10^{10}\) M\(_\odot\). Our simulation also includes a live dark matter halo (\(5\times 10^6\) particles) whose density distribution follows a Plummer sphere , with a total mass of \(4\times 10^{11}\) M\(_\odot\) and a radius of \(21\) kpc. Gas component is represented by an exponential disk with a scale length of \(5\) kpc and the total mass of \(2\times 10^{9}\) M\(_\odot\). Gas dynamics is treated on a Cartesian grid with \(5\) pc uniform spatial resolution. The initial equilibrium state has been generated using the iterative method from AGAMA software . In our simulations subgrid physics implementation is the same as in. In particular, we include the formation of new star particles which inherit both kinematics and elemental abundances of their parent gas cells. At each time step, for newly formed stars we calculate the amount of gas returned, the mass of the various species of metals, the number of SNII or SNIa for a given initial mass and metallicity, the cumulative yield of various chemical elements, the total metallicity, and the total gas released. Feedback associated with the evolution of massive stars is implemented as an injection of thermal energy in a nearby gas cell proportional to the number of SNII, SNI and AGB stars. The hydrodynamical part also includes gas-metallicity depended radiative cooling . Since our simulations aim to explore the formation of the azimuthal metallicity variations in three models we test the impact of the local ISM enrichment with and without pre-existing radial metallicity gradient in the gas. Models M1 and M2 include the ISM enrichment, while in model M3 we turn off the metals release to the ISM by newborn stellar populations. Models M2 and M3 start from the initial negative metallicity gradient (\(\rm-0.15dex/r_e\), where \(r_e=5.1\) kpc is the disk effective radius or \(\rm-0.35dex/R_{25}\), where \(R_{25}=12\) kpc) while model M1 has a constant initial metallicity of the gas. Therefore, Model M1 allows us to test how much the local enrichment alone is responsible for the azimuthal variations of the gas metallicity. Model M3 aims to quantify how the spiral arms induced redistribution of metals drives the azimuthal gradients, while Model M2 combines both effects. The simulations were evolved with the \(N\)-body+Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) hydrodynamical code . For the \(N\)-body system integration and gas self-gravity, we used our parallel version of the TREE-GRAPE code with multithread usage under the SSE and AVX instructions. For the time integration, we used a leapfrog integrator with a fixed step size of \(0.1\) Myr. In the simulation we adopted the standard opening angle \(\theta = 0.7\). In recent years we already used and extensively tested our hardware-accelerator-based gravity calculation routine in several galaxy dynamics studies where we obtained accurate results with a good performance .
## Pattern speed measurements {#sec::appendix1}
In this section, we provide details about the pattern speed measurements for individual spiral arms. In order to measure the pattern speed of the spiral arms, we analyse the stellar surface density morphology in three snapshots, one is the referenced one at \(t_0\) and the other two correspond to \(\rm t_0 \pm 1~Myr\). Thanks to the small interval between the snapshots we can directly measure how much different radial segments of the individual spirals rotated in azimuthal direction over \(1\) Myr. In practice we split each individual spiral arm into \(\delta \ensuremath{\rm R_{gal}}\, = 0.1\) kpc segments and calculate the following parameter: \[\displaystyle \rm \epsilon(\phi) = \sum_{x,y} \left(\Sigma_0(x,y)-\Sigma^*(\phi,x,y)\right)^2\,,\label{eq:eps}\] where \(\Sigma_0(x,y)\) is the stellar surface density at \(t_0\) and \(\Sigma^*(\phi,x,y)\) is the stellar surface density at \(\rm t_0-1~Myr\) (or \(\rm t_0+1~Myr\)) rotated by \(\phi\) in the azimuthal direction. Since the amplitude of the spiral arms does not change much over \(1\) Myr, as the result of the procedure for each segment of the spiral arms we have a curve \(\epsilon(\phi)\) with a global minimum at the angle corresponding to the best similarity between the arm at \(t_0\) and \(t_0\pm1\) Myr (see Fig. [\[fig::xi\]](#fig::xi){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::xi"} (left) for a single spiral arm in M1 model). In other words, we are trying to find the angle of rotation of a given spiral arms segment over \(1\) Myr (backward and forward in time). Therefore, the angular offset corresponding to the minima of the curves in Fig. [\[fig::xi\]](#fig::xi){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::xi"} (left) divided by \(1\) Myr results in the pattern speed of the spiral arms segments, or the pattern speed of individual arms as the function of \(\rm R_{gal}\) (see the right panel). Since we have an opportunity to measure the rotation of spirals backwards and forward in time we present the curves \(\epsilon(\phi)\) for \(\rm t_0-(t_0+1Myr)\) and \(\rm (t_0+1Myr)-t_0\) where the minima for each \(\rm R_{gal}\) are marked by circles and squares, respectively. In Fig. [\[fig::Omega0\]](#fig::Omega0){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::Omega0"} (right) we show the pattern speed of the individual arms (crosses) compared to the rotational frequency (circular velocity divided by \(\rm R_{gal}\) , solid lines) shown for each pattern speed by the same colour. For a better visibility, both the pattern speed and the corresponding rotational frequency are shifted by \(10~\rm km~s\ensuremath{^{-1} }\,\) for different arms. As we can see, the spiral arms in our model, similar to a number of other \(N\)-body/hydrodynamical simulations , do not rotate with the same pattern speed along the radius. This behaviour makes our results qualitatively similar to the ones presented in.
# Results {#sec::results}
## Spiral structure properties and small-scale metallicity behaviour
For each simulation, we focus our analyses on a single snapshot at \(t_0=0.6\) Gyr of evolution, when a well-formed spiral structure is present. At later times the models are unstable to bar formation which substantially impacts both stars and the ISM, analyses of which is beyond the scope of the present study. In Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} we show the face-on distributions of stellar (first column) and gas density (second column) together with the mean ISM metallicity (third column), the residual ISM metallicity (the fourth column, after the subtraction of the radial metallicity gradient (i.e. the mean metallicity at a given \(\rm R_{gal}\) shown by the white solid lines in the fifth column) and the radial metallicity profile (fifth column). In the fifth column we also provide the exponential fits of the radial metallicity profiles (red solid lines, shifted vertically). The slopes of the ISM metallicity we measure, while being mainly inherited from the initial setup, are comparable to the ones observed in the nearby disk galaxies . Although our initial setup (mass model and initial equilibrium state) is the same in all the models, the morphology of the spiral structure is slightly different at the same snapshot in time. This is likely the result of stochasticity of the growth of the perturbations in stellar-gaseous disks due to different ISM dynamics caused by metallicity-dependent gas cooling rates. Nevertheless, a Fourier analysis of the snapshots suggests that the modal composition of the spiral structure is very similar (see the radial structure of Fourier harmonics in Fig. [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"} (top row)) and all three models reveal a multi-arm, tightly wound spiral structure similar to the one usually obtained in \(N\)-body simulations. It is seen that the spiral arms structure, revealed by the Fourier analysis, is dominated by the \(m=2\) and \(m=3\) modes, which superposition results in a slightly different morphology among our models (see Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} (left)) at a given time. In order to quantify the ISM metallicity behaviour in the vicinity of the spirals we localize the individual arms which we define as the positive part of 2D stellar density perturbation (overdensity): \[\displaystyle \rm \delta \Sigma = \frac{\Sigma(R_{gal},\varphi)-\left\langle\Sigma(R_{gal},\varphi )\right\rangle_\varphi}{\left\langle\Sigma(R_{gal},\varphi)\right\rangle_\varphi}\,,\label{eq::eq1}\] where \(\rm R_{gal}\) and \(\varphi\) are the radius and azimuth in cylindrical coordinates and the brackets \(\left\langle\right\rangle_{\varphi}\) indicate the mean--i.e. azimuthally averaged value at a given \(\rm R_{gal}\)İn Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} the stellar spiral arms are highlighted by coloured lines spanning \(2\) kpc radial \(\rm R_{gal}\) range. Although, the ISM morphology is quite complicated, because of a number of chains of giant clumps near the arms and isolated clouds in between the arms , one can see that inside \(\ensuremath{\rm R_{gal}}\,\lesssim10\) kpc the maxima of the large-scale gas density distribution correspond to the leading side of the stellar spiral arms, as it has been expected for slowly rotating spirals . In order to test the impact of the local enrichment and the radial gradient transformation on the azimuthal variations of metallicity, one needs to be sure that both the strength and pattern speed of the spiral arms are the same in different models. We showed that the amplitudes of the stellar density perturbations are essentially the same in all the models (see Fig. [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"}, top). Also, the spiral arms for all three models rotate slower than the gas in the inner disk (\(\lesssim8-10\) kpc) and corotate with the gas in the outer disk (see Fig. [\[fig::Omega0\]](#fig::Omega0){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::Omega0"}, the right panel). Therefore, the material stellar arms are non-steady; they are wound and, likely, stretched by the galactic shear in the outer disk. In the inner disk, spirals can bifurcate and merge with the others . This makes the ISM structures and abundance patterns associated with the stellar arms also non-steady. In Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} (see the third column) the mean metallicity distributions show a spiral-like morphology which however differs from the ones seen in gas and stars. To quantify the strength of the azimuthal metallicty variations, similar to the stellar overdensity (see Eq. [\[eq::eq1\]](#eq::eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq::eq1"}) we derive the residual metallicity: \[\displaystyle \rm \delta Z/Z_\odot = \frac{ (Z/Z_\odot)(R_{gal},\varphi)-\left\langle(Z/Z_\odot)(R_{gal},\varphi)\right\rangle_\varphi }{ \left\langle(Z/Z_\odot)(R_{gal},\varphi)\right\rangle_\varphi}\,,\label{eq::eq2}\] where \(\left\langle(Z/Z_\odot)(R_{gal},\varphi)\right\rangle_{\varphi}\) is the azimuthally-averaged radial metallicity profile (see the white lines in Fig [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}, fifth column). Maps in Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} (fourth column) demonstrate that the residual metallicity varies from negative to positive values across the arms. In particular, we find that at a given \(\rm R_{gal}\) the scatter is about \(0.05\) dex which is similar to the numbers obtained in different observations . To demonstrate that in Fig. [\[fig::delta_z\_cumulative\]](#fig::delta_z_cumulative){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::delta_z_cumulative"} we show the cumulative distribution of the absolute values of the residual metallicity for different models. The figure shows that the metallicity deviates from the mean value at a given radius by \(0.05\) dex for \(40-65\)% of cases.
## Large-scale metallicity behaviour across the spiral arms
In Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} we notice that in M1 the residual metallicity does not reveal a large-scale spiral pattern, but instead consists of a number of patchy segments, while in models M2 and M3 the regions of systematically lower (higher) metallicity span across the entire disk. This is highlighted more quantitatively in Fig. [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"} where the radial profile of Fourier coefficients are presented. In these models one can see a dominant \(m=2,3\) mode (more prominent in negative \(\delta Z\), fourth column in Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}) despite the presence of six spiral arms. This result suggests that the large-scale metallicity pattern, in the presence of radial gradient, likely follows the dominant spiral mode (see Figs. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}, [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"}). In observations, the information about the ISM metallicity distribution is often based on the data from the \(\rm HII\) regions , where the gas density is high enough to sustain recent star-formation. This usually does not allow for a mapping of the metallicity distribution everywhere in the disk and limits the analysis to some sparsely distributed regions. In our simulations we are not able to resolve individual \(\rm HII\) regions, however, to link the observational results with our models we first limit the analysis of the ISM metallicity to the regions with high gas density. In Fig. [\[fig::metallicity_den_threshold\]](#fig::metallicity_den_threshold){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::metallicity_den_threshold"} we show the distribution of the residual metallicity where we masked the regions with the gas surface density below given values (\(0.4\), \(1.4\) and \(5\) M\(_\odot\) pc\(^{-2}\) ). Obviously, once we move to the metallicity distribution in regions with higher gas density the coverage of the disk decreases and the remaining regions trace better the spiral arms. However, there is no prominent systematics in the residual metallicity values in the remaining high-gas density regions. In particular, the second and third columns of Fig. [\[fig::metallicity_den_threshold\]](#fig::metallicity_den_threshold){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::metallicity_den_threshold"} show that the residual metallicity varies in a wide range where the entire arms or their small patches can have systematically either positive or negative values of the residual metallicity. If, following some theoretical expectations , the high-metallicity ISM is associated with the spiral arms then the mean of the metallicity distribution should move towards positive values once we mask low-gas density regions. To test this in the rightmost column in Fig. [\[fig::metallicity_den_threshold\]](#fig::metallicity_den_threshold){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::metallicity_den_threshold"} we show the distribution of the residual metallicity in the regions with high gas density. In other words, we plot the distribution of the values from maps shown in the first three columns of Fig. [\[fig::metallicity_den_threshold\]](#fig::metallicity_den_threshold){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::metallicity_den_threshold"}. The resulting distributions however do not vary significantly, and both the mean and its dispersion are weakly impacted by the spatial selections based on the gas surface density. This suggests that similar to a number of observational studies, there is no apparent match of the large-scale metallicity patterns with the spiral arms in our models. However, since Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"} shows the metallicity distributions still demonstrating certain patterns, in the following, we analyse the complete metallicity distributions without masking any low gas-density regions. To analyze the variations of the metallicity more quantitatively, in Fig. [\[fig::fig2\]](#fig::fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig2"} we show the residual metallicity distributions for all spiral arms and inter-arm region (top) and for individual spiral arms (bottom). We see that the residual metallicities for both arm and inter-arms regions vary in roughly the same range, while spiral arm regions have slightly higher metallicities. The effect is the most prominent in Model M3 (without enrichment) suggesting that the release of metals by newly formed stars does not correlate much with the spiral arms but tends to smear the metallicity distribution at a given \(\rm R_{gal}\) . The distributions in Fig. [\[fig::fig2\]](#fig::fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig2"} suggest that systematically negative residuals in metallicity do occur in some of the spiral arms. This contradicts naive expectations that star formation would locally increase the ISM metallicity. To search for the latter effect, we find the location of nearby positive peaks in metallicity next to the arms and, thus, measure the offset to the spiral arms. In Fig. [\[fig::fig4\]](#fig::fig4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig4"} (top) we show two examples of the offset calculation for the pair of arms in M1 and M3 models. One can see that there is a positive (larger \(\rm R_{gal}\) ) offset of the metallicity peak (dashed lines) to the blue arm (solid) in M1 while in model M3 we see the opposite configuration (peak of metallicity has systematically smaller \(\rm R_{gal}\) relative to the stellar spiral arm). For the red arms in both models, the offset is, on average, zero. Of course, the offset we calculate may not represent a generic connection between the spiral arms and metallicity distribution, especially at local scales, however, it gives an idea of how, on average, the spatial distribution of metals correlates with the spiral arms depending on initial radial gradient and ISM enrichment. In the bottom panel of Fig. [\[fig::fig4\]](#fig::fig4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig4"}, we show the distribution of the offset for all the arms in three models. Models with initial radial gradient (M2, M3) show on average a negative radial offset between spiral arm and metallicity peak, suggesting the presence of higher metallicity behind the trailing arms. In M1, the offset distribution is roughly symmetric. This behaviour is likely linked to the SF activity where newborn stars can release metals far away from their birthplaces in the spirals or even reach other arms, especially in the inner disk, where spirals rotate slower than the gas, thus breaking a coherent cycle of enrichment/mixing proposed in some previous works . To test further the hypothesis about the impact of the local enrichment, in Fig. [\[fig::sfr_z\]](#fig::sfr_z){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::sfr_z"} we show the relation between the SF surface density and the metallicity residuals. The relation is based on the \(\rm 500\times500~pc^2\) smoothing of both SFR and \(\delta Z\) metallicity XY-maps. Although we do not see a strong correlation for any of our models, in M1, there is a clear trend where more metal-rich regions tend to be spatially associated with more intense SF. Finally, we test how much the ISM dynamics affects the appearance of the large-scale abundance variations in the azimuthal direction. In Fig. [\[fig::vrvphi_z\]](#fig::vrvphi_z){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::vrvphi_z"} we compare the relation between both radial (\(V_R\)) and residual azimuthal velocity (\(\delta V_\varphi\)) components of the gas with the residual metallicity. The residual azimuthal velocity component is the gas velocity component after the subtraction of the mean azimuthally-averaged rotation (rotation curve, see Eq. [\[eq::eq1\]](#eq::eq1){reference-type="ref" reference="eq::eq1"} where \(\Sigma\) should be replaced by \(V_\varphi\)). We see no correlation in the case of M1 (only enrichment) and a very clear correlation for M3 (no enrichment, but initial radial gradient) while model M2 shows an intermediate behaviour. Similar to the \(\rm SFR-\delta Z\) analysis in Fig. [\[fig::sfr_z\]](#fig::sfr_z){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::sfr_z"}, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficients which allow us to quantify the relations between the gas velocity components and the residual ISM metallicity (see numbers in the panels of Fig. [\[fig::vrvphi_z\]](#fig::vrvphi_z){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::vrvphi_z"}). This result suggests that, even slowly (compared to the gas) rotating spiral arms drag a more metal-rich gas from the inner parts of the disk to the trailing side of the arms and, thus, increasing the mean metallicity of the ISM behind the spirals. This picture explains why in models M2 and M3 we find a prominent negative offset of the metallicity peaks relative to the spiral arms (see Fig. [\[fig::fig4\]](#fig::fig4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig4"}).
# Summary {#sec::conclusions}
Using hydrodynamical simulations of isolated spiral galaxies, we study the impact of the local enrichment and pre-existing radial metallicity gradient transformation on the formation of azimuthal metallicity variations in the vicinity of the spiral arms. Similar to some previous studies, in our models, the pattern speed of individual arms varies with the radius being slow (compared to the disk rotation) in the inner (\(<8\) kpc) and corotating in the outer disk. Our main results are as follows.
- Both types of models with local enrichment and pre-existing radial abundance gradient are able to produce the azimuthal scatter of the ISM metallicity (\(\approx0.05\) dex) in simulated spiral galaxies (see Fig. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}). Analysis of the ISM metallicity as a function of the underlying gas density does not reveal any strong relations between the residual metallicity and the location of the stellar spiral arms (see Fig. [\[fig::metallicity_den_threshold\]](#fig::metallicity_den_threshold){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::metallicity_den_threshold"}). Although individual arms could have systematically lower or higher (than the mean) metallicity, gas in the spiral is slightly more metal-rich compared to the inter-arms region (see Fig. [\[fig::fig2\]](#fig::fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig2"}).
- We find that model with local enrichment only (M1, no pre-existing metallicity gradient) is not able to reproduce large-scale spiral arms-like variations of the mean metallicity (see Figs. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}, [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"}). In this model, the short-scale patches of high-metallicity regions can be found suggesting that the enrichment of the ISM does not correlate much with the large-scale spiral structure.
- Both models with pre-existing radial metallicity gradient (M2 and M3) show the formation of the spiral-like metallicity pattern but its morphology differs from the stellar spiral structure (see Figs. [\[fig::fig1\]](#fig::fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig1"}). Although we identify a six-armed spiral structure, the large-scale residual metallicity pattern depicts \(m=2,3\) structure corresponding to the most significant 2D Fourier harmonics of the stellar density distribution (see Fig. [\[fig::fourier_amps\]](#fig::fourier_amps){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fourier_amps"}).
- We found a substantial radial offset between spiral arms and the metal-rich ISM pattern. The amplitude of the offset reaches up to \(1-1.5\) kpc (see Fig [\[fig::fig4\]](#fig::fig4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig::fig4"}). In models with the radial gradient we find no correlation of the residual metallicity with recent star-formation while in model M1 (without) gradient we can see a weak increase of the metallicity with higher star formation. Model without ISM enrichment shows the most prominent correlation of the residual metallicity with the gas velocity components: larger metallicity corresponds to larger negative (inflow) radial velocities and negative azimuthal velocity residuals. Therefore, we suggest that dynamical effects play a key role in the formation of the large-scale metallicity variations across spiral arms.
Our models, while being rather simplified, nevertheless allow us to propose an explanation of the observational data demonstrating a controversial picture of the systematic azimuthal variations of metallicity around spiral arms. We suggest that the ISM enrichment near the arms alone is unlikely responsible for the systematic azimuthal metallicity pattern, at least in the case of non-steady spirals, while the key ingredient is a pre-existing radial abundance gradient. If the observed radial gradients are small , they are likely not enough to be transformed into the azimuthal variations in most of the galaxies. However, once the azimuthal variations are found, more likely they will depict the shape of the most significant spiral mode (\(m=2, 3\)), which can explain prominent oxygen variations found in some barred galaxies , however, in some cases flattening of the radial gradient should act against the formation of the systematic azimuthal variations. Extending the model presented in we suggest that not only corotating spirals are responsible for the azimuthal variations of the ISM metallicity but also slowly (compared to the gas) rotating patterns provide similar results. Obviously, our predictions will depend on the strength and nature of the spirals and also star formation activity, which, along with the Fourier analysis of the 2D metallicity distribution, may be tested by IFU surveys in the near future.
[^1]: Note that and discuss the abundance variations in stellar populations but not in the ISM. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:19', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14576', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14576'} |
null | null |
# INTRODUCTION
The ability to detect dynamic and stationary obstacles (e.g., cars, trucks, pedestrians, bicycles, hazards) is critical for autonomous vehicles. This is particularly important in semi-urban and urban settings characterized by complex scenes with large amounts of occlusion and varieties of shapes. Previous perception methods rely heavily on utilizing cameras or LiDARs to detect obstacles. These methods have a number of drawbacks: they are unreliable in cases of heavy occlusions, the sensors may be prohibitively expensive, they can be unreliable in adverse weather conditions or at night. Traditional RADAR based obstacle detection methods work well in detecting moving objects that have good reflection properties, but often struggle when estimating object dimensions and orientations and often completely fail in detecting stationary objects or objects with poor RADAR reflectivity. In this paper, we present a deep neural network (DNN) that detects moving and stationary obstacles, computes their orientation and size, and detects drivable free space from RADAR data alone. We do this in top-down bird's-eye view (BEV) for highway and urban scenarios while using readily available automotive RADARs. Our method relies on RADAR peak detections alone since automotive RADAR firmware provides only this data. In contrast, other approaches , require expensive Fast Fourier Transformation operations on the raw RADAR data cube cross-sections that are not available in most commercial automotive sensors. Our deep learning approach is able to accurately distinguish between stationary obstacles, such as cars, versus stationary background noise. This is important when navigating in a cluttered urban environment. In addition, our approach allows us to regress the dimensions and orientations of these obstacles, which classical methods cannot provide. Our DNN can even detect obstacles with poor reflectivity like pedestrians. Finally, our method provides an occupancy probability map to mark unclassified obstacles and regresses drivable free space. We have tested our NVRadarNet DNN in real-world autonomous driving on our vehicles running NVIDIA DRIVE AGX's embedded GPU. Our DNN runs *faster than real-time* at **1.5 ms** end-to-end and provides sufficient time for the planner to react safely. Our contributions are as follows:
- NVRadarNet: A first of its kind multi-class deep neural network that detects dynamic and stationary obstacles end-to-end without post-processing in a top-down bird's-eye view (BEV) using only peak detections coming from automotive RADARs;
- A novel semi-supervised drivable free space detection method using only RADAR peak detections;
- A DNN architecture that runs *faster than real-time* at **1.5 ms** end-to-end on an embedded GPU.
# PREVIOUS WORK
**Obstacle Detection.** Fast and efficient obstacle perception is a core component of a self-driving vehicle. Automotive RADAR sensors provide a cost-efficient way of obtaining rich 3D positioning and velocity information and are widely available on most modern cars. Several recent papers examined the use of the dense RADAR data cubes in order to perform obstacle detection . However, these methods require high input/output bandwidth to obtain such rich data. This makes them impractical for real-world autonomous vehicles. Thus, most classical methods in automotive RADAR applications utilize post-processed peak detections from the data cube in order to perform classification and occupancy grid detection . Others realized that the RADAR peak detections can be viewed as a sparse 3D point cloud and therefore can be used in sensor fusion along with 3D LiDAR points in approaches similar to LiDAR DNNs . There were attempts to enhance camera 3D obstacle detection by fusing it with RADAR as well . **Free Space Detection.** RADAR-based drivable free space estimation has been attempted in and . Our DNN performs multi-class detection of dynamic and static obstacles together with the segmentation of drivable free space by using RADAR peak detections alone. Our DNN architecture is lightweight and runs *faster than real-time* at **1.5 ms** end-to-end on an embedded GPU (on NVIDIA DRIVE AGX). It has been proven to be robust in real-world driving and was tested on over \(10000\) km of highway and urban roads as part of our autonomous stack. To date, we are not aware of any RADAR peak detections only DNN that can perform all of these tasks and can run efficiently on autonomous vehicles.
# METHOD
## Input Generation
The input to our network is a top-down BEV orthographic projection of accumulated RADAR detections peaks around our ego-vehicle, which is placed at the center of this top-down bird's-eye view (BEV) with its front facing right. To compute this input, we first accumulate RADAR peak detections across all RADAR sensors on our vehicle (8 radars covering 360 degrees field of view) and then transform them to our ego-vehicle rig coordinate system. We also accumulate these peak detections temporally over \(0.5\) seconds in order to increase the density of the signal. Each data point gets a relative timestamp to indicate its age, similar to . Next, we perform ego-motion compensation for the accumulated detections to the latest known vehicle position. We propagate the older points using the known ego-motion of our vehicle to estimate where they will be at at the time of DNN inference (current time). Next, we project each accumulated detection to a top-down BEV grid using the desired space quantization to create an input tensor for our DNN. We set our input resolution to 800\(\times\)`<!-- -->`{=html}800 pixels with \(\pm\) \(100\) m range in each direction, resulting in \(25\) cm per pixel resolution. Each valid BEV pixel (with data) gets a set of features in its depth channel computed by averaging the raw signal features of the RADAR detections that land in that pixel. Our final input for time \(t\) is a tensor \(I_t \in \R^{h \times w \times 5}\) where \(h=800, w=800\) are height and width of a top-down view. The 5 RADAR features in the depth channel are the averages of: Doppler, elevation angle, RADAR cross section (*RCS*), azimuth angle and the relative detection timestamp. We normalize these values to a \([0,1]\) range for training stability using maximum and minimum values provided by the hardware specifications. The resulting tensor is used as input to our network.
## Label Propagation {#label_propogation}
We use LiDAR-based human-annotated bounding box labels as the ground truth for training our RADAR DNN. These labels are created for LiDAR data for the same scene on which we train our RADAR DNN. Given how sparse the RADAR signal is, it is practically impossible for humans to distinguish vehicles using RADAR points alone even in top-down BEV view. Hence, we rely on LiDAR to label training data. We capture both LiDAR and RADAR data at different frequencies and select the data closest in time for processing. We then create a top-down BEV projection of the LiDAR scene for humans to annotate objects with bounding box labels and free space with polylines. For each labeled LiDAR BEV frame, we compute the closest accumulated RADAR BEV image via the pre-processing method described above and then transfer the labels to the RADAR top-down view. We further clean up the the ground truth by removing any vehicle labels that contain fewer than \(4\) RADAR detections, which empirically demonstrated to increase the network accuracy. Finally, we remove any detections with an *RCS* below \(-40\) dBm as we empirically determined that they introduce more noise than signal. An example can be seen in Fig. [\[fig:lidar_to_radar\]](#fig:lidar_to_radar){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:lidar_to_radar"}.
## Free Space Label Generation
The free space target is generated by using the raw LiDAR point cloud. First, we pre-process the point cloud by identifying and removing the points belonging to the drivable surface itself by using surface slope angle estimation of adjacent LiDAR scan lines. We then overlay manually obtained LiDAR free space labels to further clean up this estimate. Next, a set of rays is traced from the ego-vehicle's origin in all angular directions, enabling us to reason about which regions are:
- Observed and free.
- Observed and occupied.
- Unobserved.
- Partially observed.
Finally, we overlay our existing 3D obstacle labels on top of the automatically derived occupancy. We explicitly mark obstacles as observed and occupied. See Fig. [\[fig:freespace_labels\]](#fig:freespace_labels){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:freespace_labels"}.
## Dataset
Our model is trained on a diverse internal dataset with over 300k training frames and over 70k validation frames sampled from hundreds of hours of driving in several geographic regions. The dataset includes a combination of urban and highway data and contains synchronized LiDAR, RADAR and IMU readings. The labels are human annotated and include vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and drivable free space.
## Network Architecture
[\[tab:network_arch\]]{#tab:network_arch label="tab:network_arch"}
We use a DNN architecture similar to Feature Pyramid Network . Our DNN consists of encoder and decoder components and several heads for predicting different outputs. See Fig. [\[fig:network_diagram\]](#fig:network_diagram){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:network_diagram"} for high-level structure and Table [\[tab:network_arch\]](#tab:network_arch){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:network_arch"} for details. Our encoder starts with a *2D convolutional layer* with \(64\) filters, stride 2 and \(7\times7\) kernels. It is followed by \(4\) blocks of \(4\) layers each, where each block increases the number of filters by two, while dividing the resolution in half. Each layer in the block contains a *2D convolution* with *batch normalization* and *ReLU activation*. The decoder consists of one *transposed 2D convolution* with stride \(4\) and \(4\times4\) kernels per head. We also experimented with using two *transposed 2D convolutions* with a skip connection in the middle. The resulting output tensor is at \(1/4\) of the spatial resolution of the input. We use the following heads in our network:
- **Class segmentation head** predicts a multi-channel tensor, one channel per class. Each value contains a confidence indicating that a given pixel belongs to a class corresponding to its channel.
- **Instance regression head** predicts oriented bounding boxes for an object using an \(n_r\) (\(n_r = 6\)) channels of information for each predicted pixel. The \(n_r\) element vectors contains: \[\(\delta_x\), \(\delta_y\), \(w_0\), \(l_0\), \(\sin\theta\), \(\cos\theta\)\], where (\(\delta_x\), \(\delta_y\)) points toward the centroid of the corresponding object, \(w_0\) \(\times\) \(l_0\) are the object dimensions, and \(\theta\) is the orientation in the top-down BEV.
- **Inverse sensor model head** (ISM) computes a map of occupancy probabilities for each grid cell .
## Loss
Our loss consists of a standard cross-entropy loss for the classification head, with a larger weight emphasis on the minority classes, \(L_1\) loss for instance bounding box regression, and the inverse sensor model loss for free space detection . We combine these losses using Bayesian learned weights by modeling each task weight as a homoscedastic task-dependent uncertainty following the method described in. This approach allows us to efficiently co-train these three diverse tasks without affecting the overall model accuracy. The total loss is defined as: \[\begin{aligned}
\textit{TotalLoss} = \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} L_i w_i + \mu_w \end{aligned}\] where \(K\) is the number of tasks/heads, \(L_i\) is a loss for task \(i\), \(w_i\) = \(e^{-\delta_i}\), \(\delta_i\) is a learned log variance parameter per task, and \(\mu_w\) is the mean of \(w_i\) weights.
## End-to-end Obstacle Detection
In order to avoid expensive non-maximum suppression (NMS) or clustering at post-processing (e.g. DBSCAN), we employ an end-to-end approach by classifying a single pixel per obstacle, as inspired by OneNet . First we compute the \(L_1\) loss for the regression head and the pixel-wise classification loss for the classification head. Next, for each target obstacle, we select the foreground pixel with the lowest total loss between \((\textit{ClassWeight} * \textit{ClassLossPerPixel}) + \textit{RegressionLossPerPixel}\). This pixel is then selected for the final loss computation while the rest of the foreground pixels are ignored. The losses from the background pixels are then selectively used by utilizing hard negative mining. Finally, we perform batch normalization by dividing the total cross-entropy loss by the number of positive pixels selected during the above process. The regression losses are computed only for the selected positive pixels. At inference time we simply pick all of the candidate pixels above a certain threshold in the classification head, per class. The obstacle dimensions are picked directly from the regression head for each corresponding threshold candidate. By using this technique our network is able to directly output the final obstacle without expensive post-processing.
## Converting ISM Head Output to a Radial Distance Map
Autonomous vehicle applications often represent drivable free space area by its boundary contour. In this sections we describe how to convert the boundary contour to a *radial distance map* (RDM) if needed. The RDM assigns a set of angular directions \(\phi_{f}\), in the top-down BEV view around the ego-vehicle, to the distance \(d_{f}\) between a reference point \(\vec{p}_{ref}\) on the ego-vehicle and the drivable free space boundary. To compute the RDM, we first re-sample the dense occupancy probability map (DNN output) into a polar coordinate system centered around the reference point \(\vec{p}_{ref}\). By employing a nearest-neighbour interpolation schema, the re-sampling process can be expressed in terms of an indexing operation. This assigns the value of each pixel \((\phi_{f},d_{f})\) of the polar representation the value of a single pixel of the predicted dense occupancy probability map. Since this mapping only depends on the dimensions of the occupancy map and the position of reference point \(\vec{p}_{ref}\), all required indices can be calculated offline and stored in a lookup table. Fig. [\[fig:occupancy_map_polar\]](#fig:occupancy_map_polar){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:occupancy_map_polar"} shows the occupancy probability map. Fig. [\[fig:occupancy_map\]](#fig:occupancy_map){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:occupancy_map"} shows it re-sampled in polar coordinates. After re-sampling, the distance \(d_{f}\) for each angular direction \(\phi_{f}\) is determined by finding the first pixel along each angular axis, where the occupancy probability reaches some threshold \(p_{occ}\). Fig. [\[fig:drivable_freespace_boundary\]](#fig:drivable_freespace_boundary){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:drivable_freespace_boundary"} shows the RDM representation of the drivable free space boundary derived by this procedure from the dense occupancy probability map shown in Fig. [\[fig:occupancy_map\]](#fig:occupancy_map){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:occupancy_map"}.
# EXPERIMENTS
## Internal Dataset Experiments
Datasets, benchmarks and published DNNs dedicated to RADAR based obstacle and freespace detection are limited at this time which presents difficulty when evaluating. See Table [1](#tab:radarmethods){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:radarmethods"} for a list of available methods and their features. The closest works use sensor fusion and do not share RADAR only results publicly. Thus, to the best of our knowledge we are setting a baseline for obstacle detection, classification and freespace regression using RADAR peaks alone. Detection of pedestrians and cyclists is a big challenge due to the sparsity of the RADAR signal.
:::
[\[tab:occupancy_net_freespace\]]{#tab:occupancy_net_freespace label="tab:occupancy_net_freespace"}
## NVRadarNet DNN Inference
Our NVRadarNet DNN can be trained in mixed precision mode using INT8 quantization without any loss of accuracy. We export the network using NVIDIA TensorRT and time it on NVIDIA DRIVE AGX's embedded GPU used in our autonomous vehicles. Our DNN is able to achieve **1.5 ms** end-to-end inference with all three heads. We process all of the surround RADARs, perform obstacle detection and free space segmentation much faster than real-time on the embedded GPU. It was difficult to find other RADAR DNNs inference timings in the literature for direct comparison. We only found that is an order of magnitude slower.
# CONCLUSION
In this work, we presented NVRadarNet DNN, a real-time deep neural network for obstacle and drivable free space detection from raw RADAR data provided by common automotive RADARs. We benchmarked our DNN on both internal NVIDIA dataset and the public nuScenes dataset and provided accuracy results. Our DNN runs faster than real-time at **1.5 ms** end-to-end inference time on NVIDIA DRIVE AGX's embedded GPU. To date, we are not aware of any other RADAR only networks that can simultaneously perform obstacle detection and free space regression while running faster than real-time on automotive embedded computers. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:05:58', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14499', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14499'} |
# Introduction
Large datasets containing millions of samples have become the standard for obtaining advanced models in many artificial intelligence directions, including natural language processing , speech recognition , and computer vision . Meanwhile, large datasets also raise some issues. For example, data storage and preprocessing are becoming more and more difficult. Also, expensive servers are needed to train models on these datasets, which is not friendly for low-resource environments . An effective way to solve these problems is data selection (coreset construction) which identifies representative training samples of large datasets . However, since some of the original data cannot be discarded, there is an upper limit on the compression rate of the data selection method.
Recently, dataset distillation as an alternative method to data selection has attracted widespread attention . Dataset distillation is the task of synthesizing a small dataset that preserves most information of the original large dataset. The algorithm of dataset distillation takes a sizeable real dataset as input and synthesizes a small distilled dataset. Unlike the data selection method that uses actual data from the original dataset, dataset distillation generates synthetic data with a different distribution from the original one . Therefore, the dataset distillation method can distill the whole dataset into several images, or even only one image . Dataset distillation has many application scenarios, such as privacy protection , continual learning , neural architecture search , etc.
Since the dataset distillation task was first introduced in 2018 by Wang et al. , it has gained increasing attention in the research community. The original dataset distillation algorithm is based on meta-learning and optimizes the distilled images with gradient-based hyperparameter optimization. Subsequently, many works have significantly improved the distillation performance with label distillation , gradient matching , differentiable augmentation , and distribution/feature matching . The recently proposed dataset distillation method by matching network parameters has been the new SOTA on several datasets . However, a network usually has a large number of parameters. And we found that a few parameters are difficult to match in the distillation process and harm the distillation performance, which could be improved.
In this paper, we propose a new dataset distillation method using parameter pruning. As one of the model pruning approaches, parameter pruning is often used for model compression and accelerated model training. Here, we introduce parameter pruning into dataset distillation to remove the effect of difficult-to-match parameters. The proposed method can synthesize more robust distilled datasets by pruning difficult-to-match parameters in the distillation process, improving the distillation and cross-architecture generalization performance. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets and a real-world COVID-19 chest X-ray (CXR) dataset show the superiority of the proposed method to other SOTA dataset distillation methods.
Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:
- We propose a new dataset distillation method using parameter pruning, which can synthesize more robust distilled datasets and improve the distillation performance.
- The proposed method can outperform other SOTA dataset distillation methods on two benchmark datasets and have better performance in cross-architecture generalization.
- We verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in the real-world application on a COVID-19 CXR dataset.
# Methodology
An overview of the proposed method is shown in Fig. [\[fig1\]](#fig1){reference-type="ref" reference="fig1"}. Our method is constructed on a teacher-student architecture, and the objective is to make the student network parameters trained on the distilled dataset \(\mathcal{D}_\textrm{distill}\) match the teacher network parameters trained on the original large dataset \(\mathcal{D}_\textrm{original}\). Our method consists of three stages, teacher-student architecture training, dataset distillation using parameter pruning, and optimized distilled dataset generation, which we will show details in the following subsections.
## Teacher-Student Architecture Training
First, we pre-train \(N\) teacher networks on \(\mathcal{D}_\textrm{original}\) and save their snapshot parameters at each epoch. We define teacher parameters as time sequences of parameters \(\{\theta_{i}\}^{I}_{0}\). Meanwhile, student parameters are defined as \(\tilde{\theta}_{i}\) who are trained on the distilled dataset \(\mathcal{D}_\textrm{distill}\) at each training step \(i\). At each distillation step, we first sample parameters from one of the teacher parameters at a random step \(i\) and use it to initialize student parameters as \(\tilde{\theta}_{i}=\theta_{i}\). We set an upper bound \(I^{+}\) on the random step \(i\) to ignore the less informative later parts of the teacher parameters. And the number of updates for student parameters and teacher parameters are set to \(J\) and \(K\), where \(J \ll K\). For each student update \(j\), we sample a minibatch \(b_{i,j}\) from distilled dataset as follows: \[b_{i,j} \thicksim \mathcal{D}_\textrm{distill},\] Then we perform \(j\) updates on the student parameters \(\tilde{\theta}\) using the cross-entropy loss \(\ell\) as follows: \[\tilde{\theta}_{i,j+1} = \tilde{\theta}_{i,j}-\alpha\nabla\ell(\mathcal{A}(b_{i,j});\tilde{\theta}_{i,j}),\] where \(\alpha\) represents the trainable learning rate. \(\mathcal{A}\) represents a differentiable data augmentation module proposed in , which can improve the distillation performance.
## Experimental Settings
We used two benchmark datasets (i.e., CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100) in the experiments for comparison with other methods. The resolution of images in CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 is 32 \(\times\) 32. We also used a COVID-19 CXR dataset for proving the effectiveness of our method in the real-world application. The COVID-19 CXR dataset has four classes, including COVID-19 (3616 images), Lung Opacity (6012 images), Normal (10192 images), and Viral Pneumonia (1345 images). Since CXR images have high resolutions (224 \(\times\) 224), they are resized to 112 \(\times\) 112 for rapid distillation.
For comparative methods, we used three data selection methods, including random selection (Random), example forgetting (Forgetting) , and herding method (Herding) . Also, we used five SOTA dataset distillation methods, including Differentiable Siamese Augmentation (DSA) , Distribution Matching (DM) , Aligning Features (CAFE) , Matching Training Trajectories (MTT) and Kernel Inducing Point (KIP) . The network used in this study is a sample 128-width ConvNet , which is often used in current dataset distillation methods. We conducted three experiments to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, including benchmark comparison, cross-architecture generalization, and real-world dataset verification. We found that pruning too many parameters would cause the model training to crash. Hence parameter pruning threshold \(\epsilon\) was set to 0.1, which performed well in all experiments. All experimental results are average accuracy and standard deviation of five networks trained from scratch on the distilled dataset.
## Benchmark Comparison
In this subsection, we verify the effectiveness of the proposed method by comparing it with other SOTA dataset distillation methods on two benchmark datasets, i.e., CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. We employed zero-phase component analysis (ZCA) whitening with default parameters and used a 3-depth ConvNet the same as MTT . We pre-trained 200 teacher networks (50 epochs per teacher) for the distillation process. The number of distillation steps was set to 5,000. And the number of images per class (IPC) was set to 1, 10, and 50, respectively. For KIP , we used their original 1024-width ConvNet (KIP-1024) and 128-width ConvNet (KIP-128) for a fair comparison. Also, we used their custom ZCA implementation for distillation and evaluation.
From Table [\[tab1\]](#tab1){reference-type="ref" reference="tab1"}, we can see that the proposed method outperformed dataset selection methods and SOTA dataset distillation methods in all settings. Especially for CIFAR-100 with IPC = 10, our method has an accuracy increased by 3.0% compared to the second best method MTT. As shown in Table [\[tab2\]](#tab2){reference-type="ref" reference="tab2"}, the proposed method drastically outperformed KIP using the same 128-width ConvNet. Even for KIP that uses 1024-width ConvNet, our method has higher accuracy except for CIFAR-10 with 1 image per class. For the results of CIFAR-100 with IPC = 50, KIP did not conduct experiments due to the large computational resources and time required, so we only report our results in this paper. Figure [\[fig2\]](#fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig2"} shows visualization results of the distilled CIFAR-10 dataset. As shown in Fig. [\[fig2\]](#fig2){reference-type="ref" reference="fig2"}, when we set the number of distilled images to 1, the generated images were more abstract but also more information-dense because all information of a class has to be compressed into only one image in the distillation process. Meanwhile, when the number of distilled images was set to 10, the generated images were more realistic and contained various forms because discriminative features in a class can be compressed into multiple images in the distillation process. For example, we can see various types of dogs and different colored cars.
## Cross-Architecture Generalization
In this subsection, we verify the effectiveness of our method in cross-architecture generalization. Cross-architecture means using distilled images generated by one architecture and testing on other architectures. The distilled images were generated by ConvNet on CIFAR-10 and the number of distilled images was set to 10. We used the same pre-trained teacher networks used in subsection 3.2 for rapid distillation and experimentation. For KIP, we used 128-width ConvNet and their custom ZCA implementation for distillation and evaluation. And we tested the accuracy of ConvNet and three cornerstone networks for evaluation of cross-architecture generalization, i.e., AlexNet , VGG , and ResNet .
From Table [1](#tab3){reference-type="ref" reference="tab3"}, we can see that our method outperformed the SOTA methods MTT and KIP with all architectures. Especially for ResNet, our method has increased accuracy by 5.2% compared to MTT. The results indicate that our method generated more robust distilled images. By pruning difficult-to-match parameters in teacher and student networks, the proposed method can avoid the influence of these parameters on the distilled dataset, which improves cross-architecture generalization performance.
## Real-World Dataset Verification
In this subsection, we verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in real-world application on a COVID-19 CXR dataset. We used a 5-depth ConvNet for distillation since the image resolution increases significantly compared to CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. We pre-trained 100 teacher networks (50 epochs per teacher) for the distillation process. The number of distillation steps was set to 5,000. And we tested the COVID-19 accuracy when the IPC was set to 1, 5, 10, and 20, respectively.
Table [2](#tab4){reference-type="ref" reference="tab4"} shows that the proposed method achieved high test accuracy even when using a few distilled CXR images, such as IPC = 20 (80 distilled CXR images). Furthermore, the proposed method outperformed the SOTA method MTT in all IPC settings, indicating the effectiveness of our method in the real-world application for COVID-19 detection. Figure [\[fig3\]](#fig3){reference-type="ref" reference="fig3"} shows visualization results of real and distilled CXR images. The distilled CXR images are generated from noise and have different distributions from the original images. Compared with the original CXR images, the distilled images are visually different, showing the potential of dataset distillation for anonymization and privacy preservation.
# Conclusion
This paper has proposed a novel dataset distillation method using parameter pruning. The proposed method can synthesize more robust distilled datasets by pruning difficult-to-match parameters in the distillation process. Experimental results show that the proposed method can outperform other SOTA dataset distillation methods on two benchmark datasets and have better performance in cross-architecture generalization. We also verify the effectiveness of our method in the real-world application on a COVID-19 CXR dataset. | {'timestamp': '2022-10-06T02:10:53', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14609', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14609'} |
# Introduction
Finite coverings of CW complexes are classical subject in algebraic topology. Recently, double coverings attract a lot of attentions for the topology of hyperplane arrangement complement. A finite collection \(\mathcal{A}\) of hyperplanes in \(\mathbb{C}^n\) (or \(\mathbb{CP}^n\)) is called a complex affine (resp. projective) hyperplane arrangement. The topology of the hyperplane arrangement complement is very interesting. For instance, Dimca and Papadima and Randell independently showed that the complement of hyperplane arrangement is homotopy equivalent to a minimal CW complex. A fundamental problem in the theory of hyperplane arrangements is to decide whether various topological invariants of the complement of \(\mathcal{A}\) are determined by the combinatorial structure of \(\mathcal{A}\). It is well known that Betti numbers and the cohomology ring of arrangement complements are combinatorially determined (e.g., see ). However, it is still an open question whether the Betti numbers of a finite abelian cover of a projective arrangement complement are combinatorially determined. This includes the Milnor fiber of a central hyperplane arrangement, see for recent progress in this direction and also for an overview of the theory. Yoshinaga studied the mod-2 Betti numbers of double covering for hyperplane arrangement complement and showed that these are combinatorially determined. As an application, he showed that the first integral homoloy group of the Milnor fiber of the icosidodecahedral arrangement has 2-torsion. Ishibashi, Sugawara and Yoshinaga further studied the 2-torsion part of the homology groups of the double coverings and gave a refinement of Papadima and Suciu's work. Based on computations, Ishibashi, Sugawara and Yoshinaga proposed a conjecture regarding the first integral homology group of double coverings and the first homology group of a rank one \(\mathbb{Z}\)-local system. In this note, we settle this conjecture for all degrees with the more general setting: the CW complex is homotopy equivalent to a minimal CW complex. As an application, we show that the integral homology groups of double coverings of hyperplane arrangement complement are combinatorially determined under certain conditions. Let \(X\) be a connected finite CW complex. Fix a non-zero element \(\omega \in H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}_2)\), where \(\mathbb{Z}_2=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\). Then \(\omega\) determines a surjective map \(\pi_1(X) \to \mathbb{Z}_2\cong \{\pm 1\}\). This gives a double covering \(X^\omega \to X\). On the other hand, the group homomorphism \(\pi_1(X)\to \{\pm 1\}=\mathbb{Z}^\times\) also gives a rank one \(\mathbb{Z}\)-local system which we denote by \(\mathcal{L}_\omega\). What is the relation between \(H_*(X^\omega,\mathbb{Z})\) and \(H_*(X,\mathcal{L}_\omega)\)? It is easy to see that \[H_i(X^\omega, \mathbb{C})\cong H_i(X,\mathbb{C})\oplus H_i(X, \mathcal{L}_\omega\otimes_\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{C}).\] So the difficult part is about the torsions of the homology groups. We give a complete answer to this question when \(X\) is homotopy equivalent to a minimal CW complex.
Both Corollary [\[cor1\]](#cor1){reference-type="ref" reference="cor1"} and [\[cor2\]](#cor2){reference-type="ref" reference="cor2"} follow directly from Theorem [\[main\]](#main){reference-type="ref" reference="main"} by using the Universal Coefficient Theorem. As an application of Corollary [\[cor2\]](#cor2){reference-type="ref" reference="cor2"}, we give a partial answer to a question asked by Yoshinaga.
**Acknowledgments.** We thank Masahiko Yoshinaga for valuable comments.
# Proofs
Since \(f_{kj}\) takes the value of 0 at \(t=1\), \(b_{kj}=-a_{kj}\). Consider the direct sum \[\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm}]/(t^2-1) \cong \mathbb{Z}\cdot 1 \oplus \mathbb{Z}\cdot t\] as \(\mathbb{Z}\)-modules. Then by this choice of basis, \(\big(f_{kj}\big)_{m\times n}\) becomes a \((2m\times 2n)\)-matrix with entry \(f_{kj}\) being replaced by \(\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix}-a_{kj}& a_{kj}\\ a_{kj}&-a_{kj} \end{smallmatrix} \bigr).\) By elementary row and column operations, this new matrix becomes \[\begin{pmatrix} (-a_{kj})_{m\times n} & 0 \\ 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}_{2m\times 2n}.\] On the other hand, the homology group of \(\mathcal{L}_\omega\) can be computed by the following complex \[(E_*, \alpha_*) \coloneqq C_*(X^\nu,\mathbb{Z})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm}]} \mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm}]/(t+1).\] Note that \(f_{kj}\) takes the value \(-2a_{kj}\) at \(t=-1\). Hence the boundary map \(\alpha_i\) can be written down as a matrix \(\big(-2 a_{kj}\big)_{m\times n}\). Then the claim follows. ◻ | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:07:10', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14535', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14535'} |
null | null |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
Index insurance is a promising tool to reduce the risk faced by smallholder farmers. By linking payouts to a regional index instead of individual losses, it reduces moral hazard, adverse selection and transaction costs. But delinking payouts from individual losses creates *basis risk*, the possibility that a farmer experiences a loss yet does not receive any indemnity. Basis risk substantially reduces the benefit of index insurance, and if severe enough can make it worse than no insurance at all. Further,, , and others argue that basis risk is likely among the most important barriers to index insurance adoption, and that the basis risk of some index insurance schemes has been be very high. Recent improvements in satellite remote sensing and machine learning show great potential to improve the accuracy of index and thus reduce basis risk. These technologies have triggered a very active literature extending far beyond the field of economics.[^1] These technologies have led to three major shifts in the design of agricultural indices. First, satellite data has helped to design better weather-based indices: while early products were based on local weather stations, satellite data has increased the spatial resolution of weather indices, and facilitated the incorporation of new variables such as soil moisture. Second, it has led to a shift from input-based weather indices towards higher-accuracy output-based indices based on vegetation indices observed with optical satellite sensors. In these two first approaches, the satellite data is used primarily to obtain a better index, while the assessment of the quality of the index is conducted using traditionally-collected field-level yield data. In the third approach, satellite data is used directly to estimate farm or field-level crop yields. Although accurately predicting individual yields currently remains a challenge, rapid progress is being made and this approach shows great potential for deriving very accurate output-based indices. Even more importantly, it will provide a cost-effective way to assess the quality of a given index over a large number of fields, helping insurers to design better insurance zones and making it easier for governments, researchers, and others to reliably assess the quality of index insurance products. This paper identifies and studies a new challenge associated with assessing index insurance quality with more granular data: existing measures of quality are biased in large-\(N\) (number of farms), small-\(T\) (number of time periods) samples. We show that \(R^2\)-derived estimates of basis risk are systematically biased downward in the small-\(T\) large-\(N\) case, meaning practitioners who do not take this into account will generally overestimate the quality of index insurance products. Intuitively, this bias arises from the fact that the basis risk estimates are functions of the covariance matrix between fields. The covariance matrix between fields has \(N\cdot(N-1)/2\) parameters, yet only \(N\cdot T\) observations to estimate it. Having more fields \(N\) than time periods \(T\) is very typical of agricultural data, and is going to be exacerbated by developments of satellite data methods, which are particularly suited to extend the sample over space, but are unfortunately only available for a few recent years. The resulting bias has gone unnoticed in the existing literature and has important implications for both past and future estimates of basis risk. After documenting the bias in various measures of basis risk, we analyze it theoretically. We focus on linear measures of basis risk, which allows us to connect our problem with a rich literature in statistics. We start with a review of models to parameterize the inter-field covariance matrix, focusing on the *spiked* model introduced by. We discuss then how the high-dimension, low-sample-size (HDLSS) framework introduced by can help us understand the bias of linear basis risk measures. In the HDLSS framework, the sample size \(T\) is assumed fixed, while the number \(N\) of variables is assumed to grow to infinity. This corresponds exactly to the situation we are facing in index insurance, where satellite data techniques increase sample sizes over space much faster than over time. Using results from the HDLSS literature, we provide a new theorem deriving the theoretical bias of our linear measure of basis risk. Going back to the simulations, we find that our theory predicts the empirical bias remarkably well. The bias we study in this paper is particularly pernicious for two reasons. First, we show the bias in basis risk measurement can actually be worsened by higher resolution data. Second, the bias is greatest when individual yields are poorly correlated, meaning it is likely to be particularly severe in smallholder systems in developing countries, which is precisely where new satellite data promise to have the largest positive impact. In light of these findings, understanding this bias is essential to realizing the promise of high resolution satellite data for index insurance. This paper's findings also provide a potential explanation for observed low uptake of existing index insurance products.[^2] Farmers are experts on their yields and are aware of how they relate to their neighbors, and likely have an accurate understanding of how correlated their yields are to their neighbors'. Since the bias we study in this paper is essentially a result of inaccurate estimates of inter-field correlations due to a small number of observed time periods, farmers who have more accurate understandings of these correlations ought to buy insurance less often than biased estimates would suggest.
# Measures of basis risk
Index insurance products are usually assessed following two broad approaches. In the first one, the interest is on basis risk, which is a measure of the frequency and size of errors in predicting individual yields and/or harvest losses. The second seeks to evaluate how the insurance product derived from this index performs. This entails typically specifying a indemnity and premium functions and assuming a utility function for the farmer. In this paper, we focus on the first approach. Basis risk is sometimes defined as the probability of a farmer experiencing a loss yet not receiving an indemnity. As such, it can be estimated as a simple conditional probability, the false negative probability. However, this measure fails to capture the severity of the prediction error, which has important consequences for farmer welfare. For this reason, suggest focusing on the field-level share of the variation in yields not explained by the index. This is equivalent to using \(1-R^2_i\), where \(R^2_i\) is the coefficient of determination between the yields of field \(i\) and the index. In this paper, we focus on output-based indices such as the zone average yield. This comes from our initial motivation to assess the benefits of third-generation datasets, which (will) allow estimates of yields at the field-level. That said, the same results hold for traditional area yield insurance contracts; the source of the field-level yield estimates does not matter. In recent work on output-based indices, discuss how to aggregate the field-specific \(R_{i}^{2}\) and propose a zone-specific *total* \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}}}\equiv1-\sum_{i}SSR_{i}/\sum SST_{i}\). This \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}}}\) is a generalization of the individual \(R^{2}\) written as \(R_{i}^{2}\equiv1-SSR_{i}/SST_{i}\), where SSR and SST stand respectively for sum of squared residuals and total sum of squares. This measure is simply a variance-weighted average of the individual \(R_i^2\), meaning it puts more weight on farmers who are exposed to more risk. The \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}}}\) measure can alternatively be obtained by running \(N\) field-specific regressions of the index on individual yields and aggregating their \(SSR_i\) and \(SST_i\) into \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}}}\equiv1-\sum_{i}SSR_{i}/\sum SST_{i}\). In the case of an output-based area-yield index, propose an alternate, numerically identical, formula: \[\label{eq:R2_mean} \overline{\overline{R^{2}}}=tr\left(\Sigma\mathbf{1}(\mathbf{1}^{'}\Sigma\mathbf{1})^{-1}\mathbf{1}^{'}\Sigma\right)/tr(\Sigma)\] Here, \(\Sigma\) is the covariance matrix between individual fields, and \(\mathbf{1}\) denotes a vector of 1, of dimension \(N\). While numerically equivalent to field-specific regression, formula [\[eq:R2_mean\]](#eq:R2_mean){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:R2_mean"} has the advantage of establishing the connection between the basis risk and the covariance of fields. Intuitively, the strength of the index depends on the strength of the off-diagonal elements: a diagonal covariance matrix (uncorrelated fields) would result in higher basis risk than a covariance matrix with many positive off-diagonal elements (many correlated fields). show also that the formula [\[eq:R2_mean\]](#eq:R2_mean){reference-type="eqref" reference="eq:R2_mean"} can be generalized to a broader class of output-based indices, which use field-specific weights to form the index, \(f_{t}=\sum_{i}w_{i}y_{it}\), or in matrix form, \(f=Y\mathbf{w}\). The area-yield index is a special case in this class, with \(\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{1}/N\). The formula becomes then: \[\label{eq:R2_w} \overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w})}}=tr\left(\Sigma\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{w}^{'}\Sigma\mathbf{w})^{-1}\mathbf{w}^{'}\Sigma\right)/tr(\Sigma)\] They show that this quantity is not maximized using the area-yield index \(\mathbf{1}/N\), but instead taking the first principal component (PC) of the covariance matrix \(\Sigma\), \(\mathbf{w^\star}=PC_1(\Sigma)\). Evaluated at this optimal \(\mathbf{w}^{\star}\), the objective function \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}\) turns out to be equal to the share of the first eigenvalue of \(\Sigma\), that is \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}=\lambda_{1}/\sum\lambda\). The \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}\) is an interesting measure that defines the upper-bound any index can achieve (according to the total \(R^{2}\) criterion) for a given zone. In that sense, it can be interpreted as a measure of zone quality, a low \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}\) for a given zone indicating that even the best index would not perform very well. The connection between \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}\) and the eigenvalues of \(\Sigma\) indicates that the \(\overline{\overline{R^{2}(\mathbf{w}^{\star})}}\) is equivalent to the usual definition of \(\lambda_{1}/\sum\lambda\) in terms of the *percentage of total variance captured by the first principal component*. In addition, and of particular relevance for the current paper, the statistical properties of sample eigenvalues are a very well-studied problem in statistics. Admittedly, linear correlation measures have limitations in the context of index insurance. Arguably, it is more important for an index to accurately predict yield losses than to predict good harvests. Various approaches have been suggested to take this into account, ranging from quantile regression to more sophisticated left-tail dependence indices. In the following, we include also a quantile version of our total \(R^2\) measure, based on the quantile pseudo \(R^2\) developed by. suggest a pseudo \(R^2(\tau)=1-V(f,\tau)/V(const,\tau)\) at quantile \(\tau\), where \(V(\tau)\) is the quantile analogous to the SSR. In a similar way to our total \(R^2\), we define the total quantile pseudo \(R^2\) as \(R^2_q=1-\sum V_i(f,\tau)/\sum V_i(const,\tau)\), and use the value of \(\tau=0.3\) following previous literature. The bias we identify in this study may also apply to other nonlinear measures of basis risk, but we leave that for future studies.
# Data and empirical simulations[\[sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls\]]{#sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls label="sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls"}
## Data
We use two state-of-the-art datasets of satellite-estimated yields in the USA and in Kenya to illustrate the potential bias in basis risk measures. Both datasets contain maize yield predictions produced with the Scalable Yield Mapper (SCYM) model initially developed by. The SCYM model is one of the most advanced yield prediction models available to date (see [@JinAzzariEtAl2017; @AzzariLobell2017; @DeinesPatelEtAl2021OneMillionTruth] for the US and [@BurkeLobell2016; @JinAzzariEtAl2017SmallholderYieldHeterogeneity; @JinAzzariEtAl2019; @LobellAzzariEtAl2020AJAE] for Sub-Saharan Africa), and has been already used to analyze various questions such as the effect of cover crops, of conservation tillage or the dynamics of crop expansion. The dataset has been used specifically for analyzing crop insurance in the US in and in Kenya in. While the US and Kenya datasets share a common methodology, they also differ in several respects. First, we have twenty years of data for the US: from 2000 to 2019, while for Kenya we have only four: from 2016 to 2019. This difference is due to the fact that fields are much smaller in Kenya which means that higher resolution satellite images are required (from Sentinel-2), and those images are only available for recent years. Another difference lies in the fact that maize is mainly cultivated in rotation together with soybeans in the US, while this is less common in Kenya. For the US, this means we observe a large number of missing maize values for those fields practicing rotation, which makes estimating accurate covariance matrices more difficult. We adopt a simple solution, and focus on the fields that only cultivate corn over the 2000-2019 period, and select counties that have at least 30 observations. Doing so, we end up with a sample of 37 *zones* for the US. For Kenya, almost all fields cultivate maize every year, and we randomly sample 200 fields in each of 453 Kenyan sub-counties (Kenya's smallest administrative unit). A last aspect where both datasets differ is in the quality of the satellite predictions. Predictions are typically much better in the US, characterized by large uniform fields, than in Kenya, which has smaller fields and more heterogeneous cultivation practices. report that the SCYM yield estimates in the US have a \(r^2\) of 0.45 when compared to a ground-truth dataset at the field level, raising to 0.69 when assessed against county-level means instead. On the other hand, report that the yield estimates in Kenya have an agreement of about 50% against district means. Clearly, the current accuracy of the satellite-based yield predictions is not yet perfect, and more research is still needed before using these datasets at an operational level for routine insurance assessment. Witnessing the rapid progress made in the field in the last ten years, there is good reason to believe that in a near future yield estimates will be much more accurate. In this paper, we focus on another source of error for insurance applications, that due to the small-\(T\) large-\(N\) setting, that has largely gone unnoticed in the literature.
## Basis risk measures in SCYM data
Our analysis here proceeds in two steps. We first estimate various basis risk measures using both SCYM data sets. We then estimate the bias associated to these measures. To do so, we employ a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation experiment using pseudo true values calibrated to the data at hand. More precisely, we pretend that the covariance matrices and the basis risk measures estimated in the first step are the true ones, and simulate random samples of various \(T\) sizes using these pseudo-true covariances. We then re-estimate the basis risk measures on the simulated samples, and infer the bias by comparing those simulated values to the pseudo-true basis risk measures used to simulate the data. Starting with the initial estimates of basis risk, we focus on three measures, 1) the total \(R^2\) using the county mean as the index, 2) the total quantile pseudo \(R^2\) using also the county mean, and 3) the total \(R^2\) using the optimal index, which is equivalent to the share of the first eigenvalue. Figure [\[fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial\]](#fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial"} shows the results for these three measures, highlighting a stark difference between Kenya and the USA. Remembering that basis risk is defined as \(1-R^2\), we see that the basis risk is much lower in the USA than in Kenya according to the three measures.[^3] This result is consistent with the structure of agricultural production in the two settings, large-scale farms in the US use relatively similar production technologies, whereas smallholder farmers Kenya are very heterogeneous. It is therefore unsurprising that basis risk, interpreted as the lack of correlation between fields, is much higher in Kenya than in the USA. However, these estimates are based on small-T samples (T=4 for Kenya, and T=20 for the USA), and we show in the next section that they underestimate basis risk as predicted by the theory.
## SCYM-based simulations of the bias
To gauge the reliability of the estimates obtained above, we proceed to a Monte Carlo simulation. Using the covariance matrices and means implicitly estimated above and pretending those are pseudo-true covariance matrices, we simulate random samples assuming a normal distribution. We do this for three different T dimensions representative of dataset found in practice, T=4, 10 and 20, and for each of these run 500 simulations. For each simulated sample, we recompute the three measures of basis risk, average them over the 500 samples, and compute the resulting bias by comparing these averages to the pseudo-true values obtained from the pseudo-true covariance matrices.[^4] Figure [\[fig:bias-SCYM-simul\]](#fig:bias-SCYM-simul){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:bias-SCYM-simul"} shows the bias as estimated by simulation. Values on the x-axis denote the pseudo-true population value, and on the y-axis the average sample values (left column) and bias (right column). We note a very similar phenomenon over each basis risk metric: the bias is relatively high for low values of the pseudo-true basis risk, and tend to decrease for increasing values of basis risk, with a possible sign reversal for very high values. This indicates that an insurer assessing the basis risk of a zone will tend to be over-optimistic about the \(R^2\) measure, and hence under-estimate the basis risk itself. This upward bias in the \(R^2\) is relatively large, and even larger in percentage terms, with an upward bias of 150% for low values of the quantile pseudo \(R^2\) measure. The bias decreases for larger values of T, suggesting it would eventually disappear with a large enough sample over the T dimension. Taken together, the fact that the bias is higher for lower value and for lower T suggests that the bias in the initial estimates in Figure [\[fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial\]](#fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:Basis-risk-SCYM-empirial"} is relatively modest for the USA (T=20 and high \(R^2\) values observed), but much more important in Kenya (T=4 and low \(R^2\) values observed). The calibrated Monte Carlo exercise suggests that there is a substantive upwards bias in the total \(R^2\) measure, resulting in downwards bias for the linear basis risk metrics considered. However, this approach of simulating pseudo-true covariance matrices faces several limitations. First, it rests on an initial estimate of the covariance matrix, which is itself potentially biased. Second, and most important, it is difficult to know whether these insights generalize to other cases, since the results were derived for specific covariance matrices. Generalizing these results calls for analyzing the bias theoretically, which is the subject of the next section.
# Theory[\[sec:Theoretical-simulations\]]{#sec:Theoretical-simulations label="sec:Theoretical-simulations"}
The simulations in Section [\[sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls\]](#sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls"} show that there is potentially a substantive bias in various basis risk measures. These results were obtained by pretending that the sample covariance matrices we estimated are the population ones, and simulating from this population matrix. This is somewhat artificial, since the simulations show that our initial estimate could be biased. Escaping this conundrum calls for a more formal approach, assuming a-priori a specific covariance matrix to be used as data-generating process (DGP). This makes it possible to simulate data by controlling and varying the *true* parameters, and assessing how sample estimates behave with respect to these known parameters.
## Choice of the data generating process
To derive analytical results on the estimation of the basis risk metrics, we need to specify a data generating process. To do so, we adopt the so-called spiked covariance model introduced by. This model assumes that the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix are spiked, i.e. that a few eigenvalues clearly dominate the rest of the eigenvalues. This corresponds to the idea that a few common factors explain much of the variability of the data, and that the remaining variability is idiosyncratic. In fact, show that a spiked structure can be generated from a factor model. This factor structure is exactly the assumption behind index insurance, which posits that a single common index will predict well individual yields. It is also implicitly assumed in existing literature on index insurance that models farm-level risk as a linear combination of covariate shocks and idiosyncratic farm-level shocks (See @Miranda1991, @Mahul1999 and @ConradtFingerEtAl2015 for example). This suggests that the spiked model is a very natural starting point as generating process for agricultural data, noting that the main determinants of yield (weather, input and output prices) are highly correlated within a zone. As another benefit, the spiked model is the subject of a vast theoretical literature (see for reviews [@JohnstonePaul2018]), providing us with important tools to understand the bias of our estimates. The idea behind the spiked model is to specify the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix, assuming that a few eigenvalues are much larger than the other ones, and furthermore grow with the dimensionality \(N\) of the sample. In other words, letting \(\lambda_{1}>\lambda_{2}>\ldots>\lambda_{M}>\lambda_{M_{1}}\geq\ldots\geq\lambda_{N}\) represent the ordered eigenvalues of \(\Sigma\), one assumes that there are at most \(M\) *large* eigenvalues, and that the remaining \(N-M\) are bounded. In the following, we will use the simplest specification, assuming that there is only one large spike \(\lambda_{1}=aN^{\alpha}\), and that the remaining eigenvalues are all equal to a constant \(b\). Denoting \(\Lambda\) the diagonal matrix whose elements are the ordered eigenvalues, the population covariance matrix is then specified as \(\Sigma=Q\Lambda Q^{'}\), where \(Q\) is an orthogonal matrix (\(QQ^{'}=I\)). Using an orthogonal matrix guarantees that the eigenvalues of \(\Sigma\) are the same as \(\Lambda\), that is \([aN^{\alpha},b,\ldots,b]\). As discussed above, a measure of minimum zonal risk is given by \(1-\overline{\overline{R^{2}(w^{\star})}}=1-\lambda_{1}/\sum\lambda\equiv1-\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\), which indicates the minimum \(1-\overline{\overline{R^{2}(w)}}\) that can be reached within a zone by any linear index. From now on, we will focus on the population \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\equiv\lambda_{1}/\sum\lambda\), and its sample counterpart, \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_{1}\equiv\hat{\lambda}_{1}/\sum\hat{\lambda}\). Starting with the population \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\), in the spiked model it takes the value of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}=aN^{\alpha}/(aN^{\alpha}+(N-1)b)\). The behavior of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) with growing \(N\) will depend on the value of \(\alpha\), and we distinguish three cases:
Which spike structure should be considered is a complicated question. Typically, a researcher faces a dataset with given \(T\) and \(N\), and asking the thought experiment of what would happen if she had an infinite number of fields N is somewhat abstract. One could eventually argue that when the dimension \(N\) is increased by extending the sample over space, adding fields further away would possibly reduce the value of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\), which would correspond to the vanishing spike case. Conversely, if the sample is extended by adding more pixels or fields within a zone, \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) could alternatively increase (expanding spike). At the theoretical level, the vanishing and expanding spike are, however, not very interesting since they only allow two extreme values of either 0 or 1. In the following, we focus hence on the constant spike, assuming that the value of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) is constant, and equal to \(a/(a+b)\). This will allow us to investigate the behavior of the basis risk measure for a variety of cases of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\), representing both low and high homogeneity zones that we encountered in Section [\[sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls\]](#sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls"}.
## Analytical results
Turning now to the behavior of the sample eigenvalue under the moderate spike, we need now to make assumptions on the ratio between \(T\) and \(N\). There exist broadly three frameworks in statistics: 1) traditional asymptotics, with \(N\) fixed and \(T\to\infty\) so that \(N/T\to0\), 2) random matrix theory \(N/T\to c\) for a constant \(c\) and 3) high-dimension low-sample size (HDLSS), where \(N/T\to\infty\). The latter case, HDLSS, appears the most appropriate to describe third-generation datasets, where \(T\) is considered fixed, and \(N\) is allowed to grow very large. The HDLSS was introduced by, with notable contributions from, see also for a review. While important results have been derived for the raw sample eigenvalue \(\hat{\lambda}_{1}\) (see [@AhnMarronEtAl2007]), there is, to the best of our knowledge, no result available on the relative eigenvalue \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_{1}\equiv\hat{\lambda}_{1}/\sum\hat{\lambda}\). To fill this gap, we derive a new result, describing the distribution and the bias of \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_{1}\), building on the seminal work by. In what follows, \(\stackrel{d}{\to}\) denotes convergence in distribution and \(\stackrel{p}{\to}\) denotes convergence in probability. See the appendix for details on the notation.
Figure [\[fig:distribution-lambda\]](#fig:distribution-lambda){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:distribution-lambda"} shows the asymptotic distribution of \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_{1}\) in the constant spike case for four values of the true \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) and for various T dimensions. The asymptotic distribution explains the behavior of the bias that we observed in the calibrated simulations above. It is clear that the bias is large for low values of the true \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\), and tends to decrease as the true \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) increases. This is especially problematic: the bias is greater when there is little shared risk between farmers. This is likely to be the case in places where farmers are more heterogeneous, such as smallholder systems in developing countries. It is also clear that the bias is a function of \(T\): increasing \(T\) reduces the bias, and for values as high as \(T=100\), this bias appears negligible. Unfortunately, having 100 years of field-level data (\(T=100\)) is unrealistic, and climate change would limit the usefulness of such a long series even if it were available. Looking at a value of \(T=20\) which is more realistic for agricultural data, bias is still present, in particular for lower values of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\). This suggests that even with high-quality data, an insurer will still be over-confident in her assessment of the quality of an insurance product, unless the true quality is very high. Ideally, deriving the bias would help construct a bias-corrected estimator. Unfortunately, the extent of the bias depends itself on the true yet unknown value of \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\). This is a challenging statistical problem, which we leave for further research. However, the result we obtained can be used to derive an upper bound on the bias. Note indeed that the bias is maximum at \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}=0\), taking a value of \(1/(T-1)\). This suggests a simple rule of thumb for practitioners to quantify the expected bias they can face in the worst case scenario.
## Illustration of the theorem
To illustrate this result, we simulate population covariance matrices \(\Sigma_N(\tilde{\lambda})\) according to the moderate spike model, varying \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) between 0 and 1. That is, \(\Sigma_N(\tilde{\lambda})=Q_N\Lambda_N(\tilde{\lambda}) Q_N^{'}\), where \(\Lambda_N(\tilde{\lambda})\) is a diagonal matrix with the eigenvalues \([aN=\tilde{\lambda}/(1-\tilde{\lambda})N, 1, \ldots,1]\) and \(Q_N\) is a random orthogonal matrix. For each of the \(\Sigma(\tilde{\lambda})\) covariances, we then simulate data with sample size of \(T\in[4,20,100]\) and dimension \(N\in[50,200,500,1000]\) assuming a multivariate normal distribution that is i.i.d. over time. The correlation metrics being insensitive to the values of the means vector \(\mu_N\), we simply set it to 0. In other words, we now simulate data from: \[Y_{T,N}\stackrel{iid}{\sim} \mathcal{N} \left(0_N, \Sigma_N(\tilde{\lambda})=Q\Lambda_N(\tilde{\lambda}) Q^{'}\right)\] We then estimate \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_{1}\) on the simulated data. Figure [\[fig:theo-simul-bias-T4\]](#fig:theo-simul-bias-T4){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:theo-simul-bias-T4"} shows the resulting bias estimates on the y-axis, and the true population value \(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\) on the x-axis. The black line represent the bias of the values estimated on the simulated data from the spiked model, and the blue line represents the formula from Theorem ([\[thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval\]](#thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval"}). The red dot corresponds to the worst bound \(1/(T-1)\). Focusing first on the behaviour of the bias, we clearly see the phenomenon observed with the SCYM-calibrated simulations shown in section [\[sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls\]](#sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls){reference-type="ref" reference="sec:Data-and-empirical-simuls"}. For low values of \(\tilde{\lambda}\), we observe a very substantive upwards bias, leading to over-confidence in the quality of an insurance product. This bias decreases with increasing \(\tilde{\lambda}\), and even reverses at very high values of \(\tilde{\lambda}\). Comparing now the difference between the simulated bias (black line) and our asymptotic formula from ([\[thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval\]](#thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:main-theorem-sample-eigenval"}), we see that the formula approximates remarkably well the empirical bias for dimensions as low as \(N=200\). More interestingly, having a higher dimensionality \(N\) is no longer a curse, but improves instead the validity of the bias formula! As a final test, we compare the empirical bias obtained in the calibrated simulations to the analytical bias formula. Remember that the calibrated simulations were generated based on the empirical covariance matrices estimated from the satellite data. As such, there is no guarantee that the asymptotic bias formula holds, since the latter is obtained assuming a constant spike model, which might not hold in the SCYM dataset. To further test the generality of the bias formula, we focus on the total \(R^2\) measure based on the area-yield index, instead of focusing on \(\hat{\tilde{\lambda}}_1=R^2(w^\star)\). In a constant spike model, one can show that these measures are very similar, but this is not necessarily the case in practice. Figure [\[fig:SCYMul-vs-theo\]](#fig:SCYMul-vs-theo){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:SCYMul-vs-theo"} shows the empirical bias (straight line) together with the bias predicted by theorem 2 (dotted line). The analytical bias formula approximates the empirical bias well, with a difference that tends to vanish as the dimension \(N\) increases. This result is very encouraging, suggesting that our choice of a constant spike model to represent the data might be relevant in practice. Furthermore, it indicates that the theory developed here provides a reliable tool for practitioners to assess the potential bias in their measures of basis risk.
# Conclusion
High resolution satellite images coupled with recent advances in machine learning are expected to yield significant progress in index insurance. However, the discussion to date has overlooked the fact that while data is becoming much richer in terms of number of fields observed, the number of years we observe remains low. As we have shown in this paper both theoretically and empirically through simulation, this introduces a downward bias in common measures of basis risk, which if left uncorrected is likely to yield overly optimistic assessments of insurance product quality. Our paper is the first to identify this bias in commonly used measures of index insurance quality, which is important because it is likely to lead to overly optimistic assessments of product quality. The theory we develop to explain the observed bias provides a useful set of building blocks to approximate and bound the bias in real-world situations. Academics as well as organizations and governments designing new index insurance products ought to take this into account, especially when products are being designed based on a small number of time periods; the simulation methods we develop provide a strategy for generating more accurate product quality estimates. We highlight two aspects of this bias that are especially problematic for developing country settings where satellite-based index insurance has the greatest potential benefit. First, the bias is generally larger when individual farm yields are less correlated, which is more true in rural smallholder systems than in large developed country farms. Second, the bias can actually increase as the number of fields in the data increases, meaning high resolution data may yield worse estimates of basis risk if the bias is uncorrected. For these reasons, it is critical that companies, governments, and non-governmental organizations designing index insurance products are aware of and take steps to correct the bias we study in this paper. Future work ought to focus on developing methods to correct the bias identified in this paper. More careful modeling of the covariance between fields is a promising avenue: methods that take into account spatial correlation and/or allow the covariance matrix between fields to vary over time are promising. For example, in the worst years, when poor weather conditions are the dominant factor affecting yields, it may be that field-level outcomes are more correlated than in more typical years, when individual non-weather shocks drive most of the variation. This paper showed evidence of bias in both linear and quantile-based measures of basis risk, yet confirmed analytically this bias only in the linear case. Focusing on linear measures of basis risk is convenient in that they are easy to understand and study analytically. At the same time, linear measures fail to capture the fact that the effect of basis risk is nonlinear: failures to accurately predict negative shocks are much more detrimental than failures in good years. Analyzing the theoretical bias of nonlinear measures of basis risk and of expected utility metrics remains a challenging task where future research will be needed.
[^1]: See for example the special issue of *Remote Sensing* on "Earth Observation for Index Insurance" 2021, 13(5), or reviews by and.
[^2]: See and for discussions of the literature on low index insurance uptake
[^3]: Interestingly, these three measures of basis risk are highly correlated to each other, the lowest correlation being 92% between the quantile pseudo \(R^2\) and the first eigenvalue.
[^4]: For the linear basis risk metrics, the population value is directly obtained from on the covariance matrix based on the formulas derived above. For other measures such as the quantile pseudo \(R^2\), we don't have analytical formulas for the population values, and hence obtain them by simulating with a large sample of 25000 observations. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:09:26', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14611', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14611'} |
null | null |
null | null |
# Introduction
Liquid Crystal (LC) technologies are starting to be studied at mm-wave bands in order to develop tunable devices that work properly at those frequency ranges. Because of its birefringence, by applying a low-frequency electric field to a cavity containing nematic LC, its electromagnetic properties can be varied and therefore the device response changes. This phenomenon has been widely used in optics to develop LC displays and other devices such as spatial phase modulators, but its potential use at mm-wave frequencies has only started to flourish. This varying behaviour is related to a continuous change on the electric permittivity, which can be leveraged to vary the resonant frequency or beam of an antenna, to sweep the shift in phase shifters or to tune the different elements in a reflectarray antenna, to name a few. Very recently, the use of nematic LC as the key phase-shifting element of the upcoming Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (RIS), planar devices able to manipulate electromagnetic propagation, has been proposed, as it is one of the few tunable technologies with moderate cost capable of keeping the pace of the high frequencies (\(>\)`<!-- -->`{=html}100GHz) expected in future network generations beyond 5G. Moreover, since the LC fills an entire cavity and its behaviour can be locally modified, a pixel-wise active element implementation is avoided. This, together with the fact that these manufacturing procedures are widely common in optics, especially when developing electrically large planar devices with thousands of cells, make of this technology a very attractive solution for developing RIS panels. Alternative solutions to switch a beam in a metasurface, such as mechanical steering or unit cells based on varactor diodes, although being commercially available are either of much higher cost or exhibit frequency limitations, as Table [\[tab:techs\]](#tab:techs){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:techs"} shows. Nevertheless, the relatively large losses and the slow switching times between states are the main weaknesses of such LC-based devices, as detailed in Table [\[tab:techs\]](#tab:techs){reference-type="ref" reference="tab:techs"}. Even though LC manufacturers are starting to develop novel composites specifically designed to present low losses at microwave and mm-wave frequencies, current mm-wave LC devices provide reconfigurability times in the order of the seconds. However, to be fully implantable in future ultra-reliable low-latency communication networks, improving these times until they are at least comparable to the channel coherence time is of utmost importance due to the stringent dynamic requirements of upcoming communication protocols. | {'timestamp': '2022-09-30T02:08:51', 'yymm': '2209', 'arxiv_id': '2209.14597', 'language': 'en', 'url': 'https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14597'} |