content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Autonomous driving has gained significant attention within the automotive research community in recent years \cite{eskandarian2019research, montanaro2018towards, kuutti2019deep}. The potential benefits in improved fuel efficiency, passenger safety, traffic flow, and ride sharing mean self-driving cars could have a significant impact on issues such as climate change, road safety, and passenger productivity \cite{eskandarian2012handbook, thrun2010toward, DepartmentforTransport2017}. Deep learning techniques have been demonstrated to be powerful tools for autonomous vehicle control, due to their capability to learn complex behaviours from data and generalise these learned rules to completely new scenarios \cite{kuutti2020survey}. These techniques can be divided in two categories based on the modularity of the system. On one hand, modular systems divide the driving task into multiple sub-tasks such as perception, planning, and control and deploy a number of sub-systems and algorithms to solve each of these tasks. On the other hand, end-to-end systems aim to learn the driving task directly from sensory measurements (e.g., camera, radar) by predicting low-level control actions.
End-to-end approaches have recently risen in popularity, due to the ease of implementation and better leverage of the function approximation of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). However, the high level of opaqueness in DNNs is one of the main limiting factors in the use of neural network-based control techniques in safety-critical applications, such as autonomous vehicles \cite{borg2018safely, burton2017making, varshney2017safety, rajabli2020software}. As the DNNs used to control the autonomous vehicles become deeper and more complex, their learned control policies and any potential safety issues within them become increasingly difficult to evaluate. This is made further challenging by the complex environment in which autonomous vehicles have to operate in, as it is impossible to evaluate the safety of these systems in all possible scenarios they may encounter once deployed \cite{kalra2016driving, wachenfeld2017new, koopman2016challenges}. One class of solutions to introduce safety in machine learning enabled autonomous vehicles is to utilise a modular approach to autonomous driving, where the machine learning systems are used mainly in the decision making layer, whilst low-level control is handled by more interpretable rule-based systems \cite{xu2018zero, wang2019lane, arbabi2020lane}. Alternatively, safety can be guaranteed through redundancy for end-to-end approaches, where machine learning can be used for vehicle motion control with an additional rule-based virtual safety cage acting as a supervisory controller \cite{heckemann2011safe, vom2020fail}. The purpose of the rule-based virtual safety cage is to check the safety of the control actions of the machine learning system, and to intervene in the control of the vehicle if the safety rules imposed by the safety cages are breached. Therefore, during normal operation, the more intelligent machine learning-based controller is in control of the vehicle. However, if the safety of the vehicle is compromised the safety cages can step in and attempt to bring the vehicle back to a safe state through a more conservative rule-based control policy.
This work extends our previously developed Reinforcement Learning (RL) based vehicle following model \cite{kuutti2019end} and virtual safety cages \cite{kuutti2019safe}. We make important extensions to our previous works, by integrating our safety cages into the RL algorithm. The safety cages not only act as a safety function enhancing the vehicle's safety, but are also used to provide weak supervision during training, by limiting the amount of unnecessary exploration and providing penalties to the agent when breached. In this way, the vehicle can be safe during training by avoiding collisions when the RL agent takes unsafe actions. More importantly, the efficiency of the training process is improved, as the agent converges to an optimal control policy with less samples. We also compare our proposed framework on less safe agents with smaller neural networks, and show significant improvement in the final learned policies when used to train these shallow models. Our contributions can be summarised as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We combine the safety cages with reinforcement learning by intervening on unsafe control actions, as well as providing an additional learning signal for the agent to enable safe and efficient exploration.
\item We compare the effect of the safety cages during training for both models with optimised hyperparameters, as well as less optimised models which may require additional safety considerations.
\item We test all trained agents without safety cages enabled, in both naturalistic and adversarial driving scenarios, showing that even if the safety cages are only used during training, the models exhibit safer driving behaviour.
\item We demonstrate that by using the weak supervision from the safety cages during training, the shallow model which otherwise could not learn to drive can be enabled to learn to drive without collisions.
\end{itemize}
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec2} discusses related work and explains the novelty of our approach. Section \ref{sec3} provides the necessary theoretical background for the reader and describes the methodology used for the safety cages and reinforcement learning technique. The results from the simulated experiments are presented and discussed in Section \ref{sec4}. Finally, the concluding remarks are presented in Section \ref{sec5}.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec2}
\subsection{Autonomous Driving}
A brief overview of relevant works in this field is given in this Section. For a more in-depth view of deep learning based autonomous driving techniques, we refer the interested readers to the review in \cite{kuutti2020survey}. One of the earliest works in neural control for autonomous driving was Pomerleau's Autonomous Land Vehicle In a Neural Network (ALVINN) \cite{pomerleau1989alvinn}, which learned to steer an autonomous vehicle by observing images from a front facing camera, using the recorded steering commands of a human driver as training data. Among the first to adapt techniques such as ALVINN to use deep neural networks, was NVIDIA's PilotNet \cite{bojarski2016end}. PilotNet was trained for lane keeping using supervised learning with a total of 72 h of recorded human driving as training data.
Since then, these works have inspired a number of deep learning techniques, with imitation learning often being the preferred learning technique. For instance, \mbox{Zhang et al. \cite{zhang2016query}} and Pan et al. \cite{pan2018agile} extended the popular Dataset Aggregation (DAgger) \cite{ross2011reduction} imitation learning algorithm to the autonomous driving domain, demonstrating that autonomous vehicle control can be learned from vision. While imitation learning based approaches have shown important progress in autonomous driving \cite{codevilla2018end, bansal2018chauffeurnet, wang2018deep, hecker2018end}, they present limitations when deployed in environments beyond the training distribution \cite{codevilla2019exploring}. These driving models relying on supervised techniques are often evaluated on performance metrics on pre-collected validation datasets \cite{xu2017end}, however low prediction error on offline testing is not necessarily correlated with driving quality \cite{codevilla2018offline}. Even when demonstrating desirable performance during closed-loop testing in naturalistic driving scenarios, imitation learning models often degrade in performance due to distributional shift \cite{ross2011reduction}, unpredictable road users \cite{kuutti2020training}, or causal confusion \cite{de2019causal} when exposed to a variety of driving scenarios.
{However, RL-based techniques have shown promising results for autonomous vehicle applications \cite{kiran2020deep, wu2020battery, wu2020batteryb}. These RL approaches are advantageous for autonomous vehicle motion control, as they can learn general driving rules, which can also adapt to new environments.} Indeed, many recent works have utilised RL for longitudinal control in autonomous vehicles with great success \cite{puccetti2019actor, chae2017autonomous, zhao2017model, li2019ecological, huang2017parameterized}. This is largely due to the fact that longitudinal control can be learned from low-dimensional observations (e.g., relative distances, velocities), which partially overcomes the sample-efficiency problem inherent in RL. Moreover, the reward function for RL is easier to define in the longitudinal control case (e.g., based on safety distances to vehicles in front). For these reasons, we focus on longitudinal control and extend on our previous work on RL-based longitudinal control in a highway driving environment \cite{kuutti2019end}.
\subsection{Safety Cages}
Virtual safety cages have been used in several cyber-physical systems to provide safety guarantees when the controller is not interpretable. The most straightforward application of such safety cages is to limit the possible actions of the controller to ensure the system is bounded to a safe operational envelope. If the controller issues commands that breach the safety cages, the safety cages step in and attempt to recover the system back to a safe state. This type of approach has been used to guarantee the safety of complex controllers in different domains such as robotics \cite{kurien1998model, crestani2015enhancing, haddadin2012making, kuffner2016virtual}, aerospace \cite{polycarpou2004neural}, and automotive \mbox{applications \cite{adler2016safety, jackson2019certified, pek2020using}.} Heckemann et al. \cite{heckemann2011safe} suggested that these safety cages could be used to ensure the safety of black box systems in autonomous vehicles by utilising the vehicle's sensors to monitor the state of the environment, and then limiting the actions of the vehicle in safety-critical scenarios. Demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach, \mbox{Adler et al. \cite{adler2016safety}} proposed five safety cages based on the Automotive Safety Integrity Levels (ASIL) defined by \mbox{ISO26262 \cite{iso26262}} to improve the safety of an autonomous vehicle with machine learning based controllers. Focusing on path planning in urban environments, Yurtsever et al. \cite{yurtsever2020integrating} combined RL with rule-based path planning to provide safety guarantees in autonomous driving. Similar approaches have also been used for highway driving, by combining rule-based systems with machine learning based controllers for enhanced driving safety \cite{likmeta2020combining, baheri2019deep}.
In our previous work \cite{kuutti2019safe}, we developed two safety cages for highway driving, and demonstrated these safety cages can be used to prevent collisions when the neural network controllers make unpredictable decisions. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the interventions by the safety cages can be used to re-train the neural networks in a supervised learning approach, enabling the system to learn from its own mistakes and further making the controller more robust. However, the main limitation of the safety cage approach was that the re-training happened in an offline manner, where the learning was broken down into three stages: (i) supervised training, (ii) closed-loop evaluation with safety cages, and (iii) re-training using the safety cage interventions as labels for supervised learning.
Here, we extend on this approach by utilising the safety cages to improve the safety of a RL based vehicle motion controller, and using the interventions of the safety cages as weak supervision which enables the system to learn to drive more safely in an online manner. Weak supervision has been shown to improve the efficiency of exploration in \mbox{RL \cite{lee2020weakly}} by guiding the agent towards useful directions during exploration. Here, the weak supervision enhances the exploration process in two ways; the safety cages stop the vehicle from taking unsafe actions thereby eliminating the unsafe part of the action space from the exploration, while also maintaining the vehicle in a safe state and thereby reducing the amount of states that need to be explored. {Reinforcement learning algorithms often struggle to learn efficiently at the beginning of training, since initially the agent is taking largely random actions, and it can take a significant amount of training before the agent starts to take the correct actions which are needed to learn its task. Therefore, by utilising weak supervision to guide the agent to the correct actions and states, the efficiency of the early training stage can be improved.} We show that eliminating the unsafe parts of the exploration space improves convergence during training, which can be a significant advantage considering the low sample efficiency of RL. Furthermore, we show that the safety cages eliminate the collisions that would normally happen during training, which could be a further advantage of our technique, should the training occur in a real-world system where collisions are undesirable.
\section{Materials and Methods}\label{sec3}
\subsection{Reinforcement Learning}
\end{paracol}
\begin{figure}[H]
\widefigure
\includegraphics[width=16 cm]{Figures/rl}
\caption{Reinforcement learning process.\label{fig:rl}}
\end{figure}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
Reinforcement learning can be formally described as a Markov Decision Process (MDP). The MDP is denoted by a tuple \{$\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{P}, \mathcal{R}$\}, where $\mathcal{S}$ represents the state space, $\mathcal{A}$ represents the the action space, $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the state transition probability model, and $\mathcal{R}$ is the reward function \cite{sutton1998introduction}. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rl}, at each time step $t$, the agent takes an action $a_t$ from the possible set of actions $\mathcal{A}$, according to its policy $\pi$ which is a mapping from states $s_t$ to actions $a_t$. Based on the action taken in the current state, the environment then transitions to the next state $s_{t+1}$ according to the transition dynamics $p(s_{t+1}|s_t, a_t)$ as given by the transition probability model $\mathcal{P}$. The agent then observes the new state $s_{t+1}$ and receives a scalar reward $r_t$ according to the reward function $\mathcal{R}$. The aim of the agent in the RL setting is to maximise the total accumulated returns $R_t$:
\begin{equation}
R_t = \sum_{i=t}^{\infty}\gamma^{(i-t)}r(s_i,a_i)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is the discount factor used to prioritise immediate rewards over \mbox{future rewards.}
\subsection{Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient}
Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) \cite{lillicrap2015continuous} extends the Deterministic Policy Gradient algorithm by Silver et al. \cite{silver2014deterministic} by utilising DNNs for function approximation. It is an actor-critic based off-policy RL algorithm, which can scale to high-dimensional and continuous state and action spaces. The DDPG uses the state-action value function, or Q-function, $Q(s, a)$, which estimates the expected returns after taking an action $a_t$ in \mbox{state $s_t$} under policy $\pi$. Therefore, given a state visitation distribution $\rho^\pi$ under policy $\pi$ in environment $E$ the Q-function is denoted by:
\begin{equation}
Q^\pi(s_t, a_t) = \mathbb{E}_{r_{i \geq t}, s_{i>t}\sim E,a_{i>t} \sim \pi}[R_t|s_t, a_t]
\end{equation}
The Q-function can be estimated by the Bellman equation for deterministic policies as:
\begin{equation}
Q^\pi(s_t, a_t) = \mathbb{E}_{r_t,s_{t+1} \sim E}[r(s_t, a_t) + \gamma Q^\pi (s_{t+1}, \pi(s_{t+1}))]
\end{equation}
As the expectations depend only on the environment, the critic network can be trained off-policy, using transitions from a different stochastic policy with the state visitation distribution $\rho^\beta$. The parameters of the critic network $\theta^Q$ can then be updated by minimising the critic loss $\mathcal{L}_Q$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_Q = \mathbb{E}_{s_t\sim\rho^\beta,r_t\sim E}[(Q(s_t, a_t| \theta^Q) - y_t)^2]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
y_t = r(s_t, a_t) + \gamma Q(s_{t+1}, \pi(s_{t+1})|\theta^Q)
\end{equation}
The actor network parameters $\theta^\pi$ are then updated using the policy gradient \cite{silver2014deterministic} from the expected returns from a start distribution $J$ with respect to the actor parameters $\theta^\pi$:
\begin{multline}
\triangledown_{\theta^\pi}J \approx \mathbb{E}_{s_t\sim\rho^\beta}[\triangledown_{\theta^\pi}Q(s, a|\theta^Q)|_{s=s_t,a=\pi(s_t|\theta^\pi)}] \\
= \mathbb{E}_{s_t\sim\rho^\beta}[\triangledown_{a}Q(s,a|\theta^Q)|_{s=s_t, a=\pi(s_t)} \triangledown_{\theta^\pi}\pi(s|\theta^\pi)|_{s=s_t}]
\end{multline}
For updating the networks, mini-batches are drawn from a replay memory $\mathcal{D}$, which is a finite sized buffer storing state transitions $e = [s_t, a_t, r_t, s_{t+1}]$. To avoid divergence and improve stability of training, DDPG utilises target networks \cite{mnih2013playing}, which copy the parameters of the actor and critic networks. These target networks, target actor $\pi ' (s|\theta^{\pi '})$ and target critic network $Q'(s,a|\theta^{Q'})$, are updated slowly based on the learned network parameters to improve stability:
\begin{equation}
\theta' \leftarrow \tau \theta + (1 - \tau)\theta'
\end{equation}
where $\tau \ll 1$ is the mixing factor, a hyperparameter controlling the speed of target network updates.
To encourage the agent to explore the possible actions for continuous action spaces, noise is added to the actions of the deterministic policy $\pi(s_t|\theta^\pi)$. This exploration policy $\pi^e(s_t)$, samples noise from a noise process $\mathcal{N}$ which is added to the actor policy:
\begin{equation}
\pi^e(s_t) = \pi(s_t|\theta_t^\pi) + \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
Here, the chosen noise process $\mathcal{N}$ is the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process \cite{uhlenbeck1930theory}, which generates temporally correlated noise for efficient exploration in physical control problems.
\subsection{Safety Cages}
Virtual safety cages provide interpretable rule-based safety for complex cyber-physical systems. The purpose of these safety cages is to limit the actions of the system to a safe operational envelope. The simple way to achieve this, would be to limit the upper or lower limits of the system's action space. However, by using run-time monitoring to observe the state of the environment, the safety cages can dynamically select the control limits based on the current states. Therefore, the system can be limited in its possible courses of action when faced with a safety-critical scenario, such as a near-accident situation on a highway. We utilise our previously presented safety cages \cite{kuutti2019safe}, which limit the longitudinal control actions of a vehicle based on the Time Headway (TH) and Time-To-Collision (TTC) relative to the vehicle in front. The TH and TTC metrics represent the risk of potential forward collision with the vehicle in front, and are calculated as:
\begin{equation}
TH = \frac{x_{rel}}{v}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
TTC = \frac{x_{rel}}{v_{rel}}
\end{equation}
where $x_{rel}$ is the distance between the two vehicles in m, $v$ is the velocity of the host vehicle in m/s, and $v_{rel}$ is the relative velocity between the two vehicles in m/s.
The TTC and TH metrics were chosen as the states monitored by the safety cages as they represent the risk of potential collision with the vehicle in front, thereby providing effective safety measurements for our vehicle following use-case. We utilise two metrics as the TTC and TH provide complimentary information; the TTC measures time to a forward collision assuming both vehicles continue at their current speeds, whilst TH measures distance to the vehicle in front in time and makes no assumptions about the lead vehicle's actions. For example, when the host vehicle is driving significantly faster than the vehicle in front, as the distance between the vehicles gets closer the TTC approaches zero and correctly captures the risk of a forward collision. However, in a scenario where both vehicles are driving close to each other but at the same speed, the TTC will not signal a high risk of collision even though in this scenario if the lead vehicle begins to break, the two vehicles would be in a likely collision. In such a scenario, the two vehicles will have a low headway, therefore monitoring the TH will correctly inform the safety monitors of a collision risk.
The risk levels for both safety cages are as defined in \cite{kuutti2019safe}, where the aim was to identify potential collisions in time to prevent them, whilst minimising unnecessary interventions on the control of the vehicle. The different risk levels and associated minimum braking values are illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:cages}. For each safety cage, there are three risk levels for which the safety cages will enforce a minimum braking value on the vehicle, with higher risk levels using increased rate of braking relative to the associated safety metric. When the vehicle is in the low risk region, no minimum braking is necessary and the RL agent is in full control of the vehicle. The minimum braking values enforced by the safety cages can be formally defined as shown in (\ref{eqn:sc_th})--(\ref{eqn:sc_ttc}). The braking value is normalised to the range [0, 1] where 0 is no braking and 1 is maximum braking value. In this framework, both safety cages provide a recommended braking value, which is then compared to the current braking action from the RL agent. The final braking value used for the vehicle motion control, $b$, is then chosen as the largest braking value between the two safety cages and the RL agent as given by (\ref{eqn:min_b}).
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sc_th}
b_{TH} =
\begin{cases}
0.0, & \text{for TH $>$ 1.6} \\
-0.5TH + 1.0, & \text{for 1.0 $<$ TH $\leq$ 1.6} \\
-1.0TH + 1.5, & \text{for 0.5 $<$ TH $\leq$ 1.0} \\
1.0, & \text{for TH $\leq$ 0.5} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sc_ttc}
b_{TTC} =
\begin{cases}
0.0, & \text{for TTC $>$ 2.5} \\
-0.5TTC + 1.25, & \text{for 1.5 $<$ TTC $\leq$ 2.5} \\
-1.0TTC + 2.0, & \text{for 1.0 $<$ TTC $\leq$ 1.5} \\
1.0, & \text{for TTC $\leq$ 1.0} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:min_b}
b = max(b_{TH}, b_{TTC}, b_{RL})
\end{equation}
where $b_{TH}$ is the minimum braking value from the TH safety cage, $b_{TTC}$ is the minimum braking value from the TTC safety cage, and $b_{RL}$ is the current braking value from the \mbox{RL agent.}
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{figure}[H]
\widefigure
\includegraphics[width=18 cm]{Figures/safety_cages_2}
\caption{Risk-levels and minimum braking values for each safety cage.}
\label{fig:cages}
\end{figure}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\subsection{Highway Vehicle Following Use-Case}
The vehicle following use-case was framed as a scenario on a straight highway, with two vehicles travelling in a single lane. The host vehicle controlled by RL is the follower vehicle, and its aim is to maintain a 2 s headway from the lead vehicle. The lead vehicle velocities were limited to $v_{lead} \in$ [17, 40] m/s, and coefficient of friction values were chosen from the range [0.4, 1.0] for each episode. During training, the lead vehicle's acceleration was limited to $\dot{v}_{lead} \in$ [$-$2, 2] m/s\textsuperscript{2}, except for emergency braking manoeuvrers, which occurred on average once an hour, which used an acceleration in the range \mbox{$\dot{v}_{lead} \in$ [$-$6, $-$3] m/s\textsuperscript{2}}. The output from the RL agent is the gas and brake pedal values, which are continuous action values used to control the vehicle. As in \cite{kuutti2019end}, a neural network is used to estimate the longitudinal vehicle dynamics, by inferring the vehicle response to the pedal actions from the RL agent. This neural network acts as a type of World \mbox{Model \cite{ha2018world}}, providing an estimation of the simulator environment. This has the advantage that the neural network can be deployed on the same GPU as the RL network during training, thereby speeding up training time significantly. The World Model was trained with 2,364,041 time-steps from the IPG CarMaker simulator under different driving policies combining a total of 45 h of simulated driving. This approach was shown in \cite{kuutti2019end} to speed up training by up to a factor of 20, compared to training with the IPG CarMaker simulator. However, to ensure the accuracy of all results, we also evaluate all trained policies in IPG CarMaker (Section~\ref{sec4.1}).
\subsection{Training}
The DDPG model is trained in the vehicle following environment for 5000 episodes, where each episode lasts up to 5 min or until a collision occurs. The simulation is sampled at 25 Hz, therefore each time-step has a duration of 40 ms. The training parameters of the DDPG were tuned heuristically, and the final values can be found in Table \ref{tbl:netarch}. The critic uses a single hidden layer, followed by the output layer estimating the $Q$ value. The actor network utilises 3 hidden feedforward layers, followed by a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) \cite{hochreiter1997long} and then the action layer. {The actor network outputs the vehicle control action, for which the action space is represented by a single continuous value $a_t \in$ [$-$1, 1], where positive values represent the use of the gas pedal and negative values represent the use of the brake pedal. The observations of the agent are composed of 4 continuous state-values, which are the host vehicle velocity $v$, host vehicle \mbox{acceleration $\dot{v}$}, relative velocity $v_{rel}$, and time headway $TH$, such that $s_t = [v, \dot{v}, v_{rel}, TH]^T$.} To enable the LSTM to learn temporal correlations, the mini-batches for training were sampled as consecutive time-steps, with the LSTM cell state reset between each training update. To encourage the agent to learn a safe vehicle following policy, a reward function based on its current headway and headway derivative was defined in \cite{kuutti2019end} based on the reward function by Desjardins \& \mbox{Chaib-Draa \cite{desjardins2011cooperative}}, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reward}. The agent gains the maximum reward when it is close to the target headway of 2 s, whilst straying further from the target headway results in smaller rewards. The headway derivative is used in the reward function to encourage the vehicle to move towards the target headway, by giving small positive rewards as it moves closer to the target and penalising the agent when it is moving further away from the target region. For further comparison, we compare training the model with an additional penalty for breaching the safety cages, such that the final reward is given \mbox{as follows:}
\begin{equation}
r_t = r_{th} + r_{sc}
\end{equation}
where $r_t$ is the reward for time-step $t$, $r_{th}$ is the headway based reward function as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reward}, and $r_{sc}$ is the safety cages penalty equal to -0.1 if the safety cage is breached and 0 otherwise.
\begin{specialtable}[H]
\caption{Network hyperparameters.}
\label{tbl:netarch}
\setlength{\cellWidtha}{\columnwidth/2-2\tabcolsep+0.8in}
\setlength{\cellWidthc}{\columnwidth/2-2\tabcolsep-0.8in}
\scalebox{1}[1]{\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidtha}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidthc}}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Mini-batch size & 64 \\
Hidden neurons in feedforward layers & 50 \\
LSTM units & 16 \\
Discount factor $\gamma$ & 0.99 \\
Actor learning rate $\eta_{\pi}$ & 10\textsuperscript{$-$4} \\
Critic learning rate $\eta_{q}$ & 10\textsuperscript{$-$2} \\
Replay memory size & 10\textsuperscript{6} \\
Mixing factor $\tau$ & 10\textsuperscript{$-$3} \\
Initial exploration noise scale & 1.0 \\
Max gradient norm for clipping & 0.5 \\
Exploration noise decay & 0.997 \\
Exploration mean $\mu$ & 0.0 \\
Exploration scale factor $\theta$ & 0.15 \\
Exploration variance $\sigma$ & 0.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}}
\end{specialtable}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/rewardfunc}
\caption{Time headway based reward function for vehicle following.}
\label{fig:reward}
\end{figure}
The episode rewards during training can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:training}, where three models are compared. The three models are DDPG only, DDPG+SC which is DDPG with safety cages, and DDPG+SC (no penalty) which is the DDPG with safety cages but without the $r_{sc}$ penalty. As can be seen, the DDPG+SC model has lower rewards at the beginning of training as it receives additional penalties compared to the other two models. However, after the initial exploration the DDPG+SC is the first model to reach the optimal rewards per episode ($\sim$7500 rewards), demonstrating improved convergence. Comparing the DDPG+SC models with and without penalties from the safety cages shows the model with the penalties converges to the optimal solution sooner, suggesting the penalty improves convergence during training. An additional benefit of the safety cages here is the safety of exploration, as the DDPG model collided 30 times during training, whilst the DDPG+SC model had no collisions during training. However, it can be seen that all three models converge to the same level of performance, therefore no significant difference in the trained policies can be concluded from the training rewards alone.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/train_deep}
\caption{Episode rewards during DDPG training. Darker lines represent the moving average reward plot, whilst the actual reward values are seen in the transparent region.}
\label{fig:training}
\end{figure}
As an additional investigation of the effect of the safety cages on less safe control policies, we train two further models utilising smaller neural networks with constrained parameters. These models use the same parameters as in Table \ref{tbl:netarch}, except they only have 1 single hidden layer with 50 neurons and no LSTM layer. We refer to these models as Shallow DDPG and Shallow DDPG+SC. It should be noted that the parameters of these models were not tuned for better performance, and indeed sub-optimal parameters were chosen on purpose to enable better insight into the effect of the safety cages in unsafe systems. The episode rewards for the two shallow models during training are shown \mbox{in Figure~\ref{fig:training2}}. As can be seen, these two models have a more significant difference in training performance. The Shallow DDPG struggles to learn a feasible training policy, whilst the Shallow DDPG+SC learns to drive without collisions, although at a lower level of overall performance compared to the deeper models.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/train_shallow}
\caption{Episode rewards during DDPG training of shallow models. Darker lines represent the moving average reward plot, whilst the actual reward values are seen in the transparent region.}
\label{fig:training2}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}\label{sec4}
To investigate the performance of the learned control policies, we evaluate the vehicle follower models in various highway driving scenarios. We utilise two types of testing for this evaluation. Naturalistic testing tests the control policies in typical driving scenarios, giving an idea of how the control policies perform in everyday driving. Adversarial testing utilises an adversarial agent to create safety-critical scenarios, showing how the vehicle performs in dangerous edge cases where collisions are likely to occur. The controller performance in both types of scenario is important, since most driving scenarios on the road fall into naturalistic driving the controller must be able to drive efficiently and safely in these scenarios, however the controller must also be able remain safe in dangerous edge cases in order to avoid collisions. To enable better analysis of the performance of the RL-based control policies, no safety cages are used during testing so the vehicle follower models must depend on their own learned knowledge to keep the vehicle safe. This also enables better understanding on the effect of using the safety cages during training on the final learned control policy.
\subsection{Naturalistic Testing}\label{sec4.1}
For the naturalistic driving, similar lead vehicle behaviours were used to those during training, with velocities in the range [17, 40] m/s and acceleration [$-$2, 2] m/s\textsuperscript{2}. The exception to this was the harsh braking manoeuvres which occurred, on average, once an hour with deceleration [$-$6, $-$3] m/s\textsuperscript{2}. At the start of the episode, the coefficient of friction is randomly chosen in the range $[0.4, 1.0]$ and each episode lasts until 5 min has passed or a collision occurs. For each driving model, a total of 120 test scenarios were completed, totalling up to 10 h of testing. All driving for these tests occurred in the IPG CarMaker simulation environment to ensure accuracy of the results. Two types of baselines are provided for comparison; the IPG Driver is the default driver in the CarMaker Simulator and A2C is the Advantage Actor Critic \cite{mnih2016asynchronous} based vehicle follower model in \cite{kuutti2019end}.
The results from the naturalistic driving scenarios are summarised in Table \ref{tbl:simresults}. The table shows the RL based models outperform the default IPG Driver, with the exception of the shallow models. The results demonstrate that both DDPG based models outperform the previous A2C-based vehicle follower model. However, comparing the DDPG and DDPG+SC models shows the benefit of using the safety cages during RL training. While in most scenarios the two models have similar performance (the mean values seen are approximately equal), the minimum headway by the DDPG+SC during testing is higher, showing it can maintain a safer distance from the lead vehicle. However, as both models can maintain a safe distance without collisions this difference is not significant by itself. Therefore, investigating the difference between the Shallow DDPG and Shallow DDPG+SC models provides further insight into the role the safety cages play in supervision during RL training. Similar to the training rewards, the shallow models show a more extreme difference between the two models. The results show the Shallow DDPG model without safety cages fails to learn to drive safely, whilst the Shallow DDPG+SC model avoids collisions safely, although it comes relatively close to collisions with a minimum time headway at 0.79 s. This shows the benefit of the safety cages in guiding the model towards a safe control policy during training.
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{specialtable}[H]
\widetable
\caption{10-hour driving test under naturalistic driving conditions in IPG CarMaker.}
\label{tbl:simresults}
\setlength{\cellWidtha}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidthb}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidthc}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidtha}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidthb}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidthc}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\setlength{\cellWidtha}{\columnwidth/7-2\tabcolsep+0.0in}
\scalebox{1}[1]{\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidtha}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidthb}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidtha}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidthb}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidtha}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidthb}
>{\PreserveBackslash\centering}m{\cellWidthc}}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{IPG Driver} & \textbf{A2C} \cite{kuutti2019end} & \textbf{DDPG} & \textbf{DDPG+SC} & \textbf{Shallow DDPG} & \textbf{Shallow DDPG+SC} \\
\midrule
min. x\textsubscript{rel} [m] & 10.737 & 7.780 & 15.252 & 13.403 & 0.000 & 5.840 \\
mean x\textsubscript{rel} [m] & 75.16 & 58.01 & 58.19 & 58.24 & 41.45 & 59.34 \\
max. v\textsubscript{rel} [m/s] & 13.90 & 7.89 & 10.74 & 9.33 & 13.43 & 6.97 \\
mean v\textsubscript{rel} [m/s] & 0.187 & 0.0289 & 0.0281 & 0.0271 & 4.59 & 0.0328 \\
min. TH [s] & 1.046 & 1.114 & 1.530 & 1.693 & 0.000 & 0.787 \\
mean TH [s] & 2.546 & 2.007 & 2.015 & 2.015 & 1.313 & 2.034 \\
collisions & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 120 & 0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}}
\end{specialtable}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\subsection{Adversarial Testing}
Utilising machine learning to expose weaknesses in safety-critical cyber-physical systems has been shown to be an effective method for finding failure cases \mbox{effectively \cite{corso2020survey, riedmaier2020survey}}. We utilise the Adversarial Testing Framework (ATF) presented in \cite{kuutti2020training}, which utilised an adversarial agent trained through RL to expose over 11,000 collision cases in machine learning based autonomous vehicle control systems. The adversarial agent is trained through A2C \cite{mnih2016asynchronous} with a reward function $r_A$ based on the inverse headway:
\begin{equation}
r_A = min\left(\frac{1}{TH}, 100\right)
\end{equation}
This reward function encourages the adversarial agent to minimise the headway and make collisions happen, while capping the reward at 100 ensures that the reward does not tend to infinity as the headway reaches zero.
As this lead vehicle used in the adversarial testing can behave very differently to those seen during training, this testing focuses on investigating the models' generalisation capability as well as their response to hazardous scenarios. Each DDPG model is tested under two different velocity ranges; the first limits the lead vehicle's velocity to the same as the training scenarios with $v_{lead} \in [17, 40]$ m/s, and the second uses a lower velocity range which enables the ATF to expose collisions more easily at a velocity range of \mbox{$v_{lead} \in [12, 30]$ m/s.} For each model, 3 different adversarial agents were trained, such that results can be averaged between these 3 training runs. The minimum episode TH during training can be seen for both deep models over the 2500 training episodes in Figures~\ref{fig:at_deep} and \ref{fig:at_deep_low}. These tests show that both deep models can maintain a safe distance from the lead vehicle even when the lead vehicle is attempting to cause collisions intentionally. Although a slight difference in the two models can be seen, as the DDPG+SC model has a slightly higher headway on average as well as significantly less variance. However as both deep models remain at a safe distance from the adversarial agent, these models can be considered safe even in safety-critical edge cases. Comparing the two shallow models in Figures~\ref{fig:at_shallow} and \ref{fig:at_shallow_lw}, a more significant difference can be seen. While both models are worse in performance than the deep models, the Shallow DDPG is significantly easier to exploit than the Shallow DDPG+SC model. The Shallow DDPG model continues to cause collisions during the adversarial testing, whilst the Shallow DDPG+SC model remains at a safer distance. In the training conditions, the Shallow DDPG+SC remains relatively safe, with no decrease in the minimum headway during the training of the adversarial agent, although it can be seen that the variance increases as the training progresses. In the lower velocity case, the Shallow DDPG+SC still avoids collisions, but the adversarial agent is able to reduce the minimum headway significantly better. This shows that the safety cages have helped the model learn a significantly more robust control policy, even when the model uses sub-optimal parameters. Without the additional weak supervision from the safety cages, it can be seen that these shallow models would not have been able to learn a reasonable driving policy. Therefore, the weak-supervision by the safety cages can be used to train models with sub-optimal parameters. In addition, for models with optimal parameters they provide improved convergence during training and slightly improved safety in the final trained policy.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/at2_deep2}
\caption{Comparison of the deep vehicle following agents’ minimum TH per episode over adversarial training runs with lead vehicle velocity limits $v_{lead} \in [17, 40]$ m/s. Averaged over 3 runs,
with standard deviation shown in shaded colour.}
\label{fig:at_deep}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/at2_deep}
\caption{Comparison of the deep vehicle following agents’ minimum TH per episode over adversarial training runs with lead vehicle velocity limits $v_{lead} \in [12, 30]$ m/s. Averaged over 3 runs,
with standard deviation shown in shaded colour.}
\label{fig:at_deep_low}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/at2_shallow2}
\caption{Comparison of the shallow vehicle following agents’ minimum TH per episode over adversarial training runs with lead vehicle velocity limits $v_{lead} \in [17, 40]$ m/s. Averaged over 3 runs,
with standard deviation shown in shaded colour.}
\label{fig:at_shallow}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/at2_shallow}
\caption{Comparison of the shallow vehicle following agents’ minimum TH per episode over adversarial training runs with lead vehicle velocity limits $v_{lead} \in [12, 30]$ m/s. Averaged over 3 runs,
with standard deviation shown in shaded colour.}
\label{fig:at_shallow_lw}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec5}
In this paper, a reinforcement learning technique combining rule-based safety cages was presented. The safety cages provide a safety mechanism for the autonomous vehicle in case the neural network-based controller makes unsafe decisions, thereby enhancing the safety of the vehicle and providing interpretability in the vehicle motion control system. In addition, the safety cages are used as weak supervision during training, by guiding the agent towards useful actions and avoiding dangerous states.
We compared the model with safety cages to a model without them, and show improvements in safety of exploration, speed of convergence, and the safety of the final control policy. {In addition to improved training efficiency, simulated testing scenarios demonstrated} that even with the safety cages disabled, the model which used them during training has learned a safer control policy {by maintaining a minimum headway of 1.69 s in a safety-critical scenario, compared to 1.53 s without safety cage training}. We additionally tested the proposed approach on shallow models with constrained parameters, and {showed that the shallow model with safety cage training was able to drive without collisions, whilst the shallow model without safety cage training collided in every test scenario. These results }demonstrate that the safety cages enabled the shallow models to learn a safe control policy while otherwise the shallow models were not able to learn a feasible driving policy. This showed that the safety cages add beneficial supervision during training, enabling the model to learn from the environment more effectively.
Therefore, this work provides an effective way to combine reinforcement learning based control with rule-based safety mechanisms not only to improve the safety of the vehicle, but also incorporating weak supervision in the training process for improved convergence and performance.
{This work opens up multiple potential avenues for future work. The use-case in this study was a simplified vehicle following scenario. However, extending the safety cages to consider both longitudinal and lateral control actions, as well as potential objects on other lanes, would allow the technique to be applied to more complex use-cases such as urban driving. Moreover, comparing the use of the weak supervision for different use-cases or learning algorithms (e.g., on-policy vs. off-policy RL) would help with understanding the most efficient use of weak supervision in reinforcement learning. Furthermore, extending the reinforcement learning agent to use more high dimensional inputs, such as images, would allow investigation into how the increased speed of convergence helps in cases where the sample inefficient reinforcement learning algorithms struggle. Finally, using the safety cages presented here in real-world training could better demonstrate the benefit in both safety and efficiency of exploration, compared to the simulated scenario presented in this work.}
\vspace{6pt}
\authorcontributions{Conceptualization, S.K., R.B. and S.F.; methodology, S.K.; software, S.K.; validation, S.K.; formal analysis, S.K.; investigation, S.K.; resources, S.K.; data curation, S.K.; writing---original draft preparation, S.K.; writing---review and editing, R.B and S.F.; visualization, S.K.; supervision, R.B. and S.F.; project administration, R.B. and S.F.; funding acquisition, R.B. and S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.}
\funding{This research was supported by the U.K.-Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under Grant EP/R512217.}
\institutionalreview{Not applicable.}
\informedconsent{Not applicable.}
\dataavailability{Data sharing not applicable.}
\conflictsofinterest{The authors declare no conflict of interest.}
\newpage
\end{paracol}
\reftitle{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Motivation}
The Ising model, invented by Lenz in 1920 to explain magnetism, is a cornerstone in statistical physics.
Consider any graph $G$ with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$. Each vertex carries one of two possible spins $\pm 1$ and the interactions between vertices are represented by $E$. For a spin configuration $\sigma \in \cbc{\pm 1}^V$ on $G$, we can consider the Hamiltonian $\cH_G$
\begin{equation*}
\cH_G(\sigma) = \sum_{(v,w) \in E} \frac{1 + \sigma_v \sigma_w}{2}.
\end{equation*}
Together with a real parameter $\beta>0$ the Hamiltonian gives rise to a distribution on spin configurations defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq_boltzmann}
\mu_{G,\beta}(\sigma) = \frac{\exp\bc{-\beta \cH_G(\sigma)}}{Z_{G,\beta}} \quad \bc{\sigma \in \cbc{\pm 1}^V} \quad \text{where} \quad Z_{G,\beta} = \sum_{\tau \in \cbc{\pm 1}^V} \exp \bc{-\beta \cH_G(\tau)}.
\end{equation}
The probability measure $\mu_{G,\beta}$ is known as the Boltzmann distribution with the normalizing term $Z_{G, \beta}$ being the partition function. $\mu_{G,\beta}$ favors configurations with few edges between vertices of the same spin which is known as the antiferromagnetic Ising model. There is a corresponding formulation of \eqref{eq_boltzmann} where edges between vertices of the same spin are preferred - the ferromagnetic Ising model. Both models are of great interest in combinatorics and physics and the literature on each is vast \cite{Huang_2009}.
In this paper, we study the Ising antiferromagnet on the random $d$-regular graph $\mathbb{G}=\mathbb{G}(n,d)$. One might be tempted to think that the regularities of this graph model provide a more amenable study object than its well-known Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi\ counterpart with fluctuating vertex degrees. However, for the Ising model the reverse seems to be true.
Indeed, the independence of edges in the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi-model greatly facilitates deriving the distribution of short cycles in the planted model and simplifies the calculation of both the first and second moment.
Clearly, $\mu_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ gives rise to correlations between spins of nearby vertices. The degree of such correlations is governed by the choice of $\beta$. A question which is of keen interest in combinatorics and statistical physics is whether such correlations persist for two uniformly sampled (and thus likely distant) vertices. According to physics predictions, for small values of $\beta$ we should observe a rapid decay of correlation \cite{Mezard_2009} and thus no \textit{long-range correlations}. This regime is known as the \textit{replica symmetric phase}. It is suggested that there exists a specific $\beta$ which marks the onset of long-range correlations in $\mathbb{G}$. This value is conjectured to be at the combinatorially meaningful Kesten-Stigum bound \cite{Coja_2020}
\begin{equation*}
\beta_{\text{KS}} = \log \bc{\frac{\sqrt{d-1}+1}{\sqrt{d-1}-1}}.
\end{equation*}
The question of long-range correlations is tightly related to the partition function $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ from which also various combinatorially meaningful observables can be derived. The {\sc Max Cut} on random $d$-regular graphs is a case in point due to the well-known relation
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{\sc MaxCut}(G)=\frac{dn}{2}+\lim_{\beta\to\infty}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\log Z_{G,\beta}.
\end{equation*}
for any graph $G$. Thus, it is of key interest to understand the behavior of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$.
\subsection{Result}
In recent work, \cite{Coja_2020} were able to pinpoint the replica symmetry breaking phase transition at the Kesten-Stigum bound, thus charting the replica symmetric phase for the Ising antiferromagnet on random $d$-regular graphs.
The key feature of the replica-symmetric phase is that w.h.p.\ two independent samples $\SIGMA_1, \SIGMA_2$ from the Boltzmann distribution $\mu_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ exhibit an almost flat overlap in the sense that $\abs{\SIGMA_1 \cdot \SIGMA_2} = o(n) $.
To be precise, \cite{Coja_2020} determined $Z_{\G, \beta}$ up to an error term $\exp(o(n))$ for $\beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$.
In this paper, we move beyond this crude approximation. By deriving the limiting distribution in the replica-symmetric phase, we show that $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ is tightly concentrated with bounded fluctuations which we can quantify and attribute to short cycles in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm_dist}
Assume that $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$. Let $(\Lambda_i)_{i}$ be a sequence of independent Poisson variables with $\Erw \brk{\Lambda_i} = \lambda_i$ where $\lambda_i = \frac{\bc{d - 1}^i }{2 i}$.
Then as $n \to \infty$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\log \bc{Z_{\mathbb{G}(n,d), \beta}} - \frac{1}{2} \log \bc{\frac{1 + e^{ \beta}}{ 2 + d e^{\beta} - d }} - n \bc{\bc{1 - \frac{d}{2}} \log \bc{2} + \frac{d}{2} \log\bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}} + \frac{d - 1}{2} \frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1} + \frac{\bc{d - 1}^2}{4} \bc{\frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1}}^2\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \xrightarrow{d} \log \bc{W} := \sum_{i = 3}^\infty \Lambda_i \log \bc{1+\bc{\frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1}}^i} - \frac{\bc{d - 1}^i}{2 i} \bc{\frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1}}^i.
\end{align*}
The infinite product defining $W$ converges a.s. and in $L^2$.
\end{theorem}
Taking the expectation of this distribution readily recovers the first part of the result by \cite{Coja_2020}.
The proof of \Thm~\ref{thm_dist} relies on the combination of the method of moments and small subgraph conditioning enriched in our case by spatial mixing arguments to make the calculation of the second moment tractable.
\section{Techniques}
\subsection{Notation}
Let $\mathbb{G}=\mathbb{G}(n,d)$ denote a random $d$-regular graph on $n$ vertices. We consider sparse graphs with constant $d$ as $n \to \infty$. Throughout the paper, we will employ standard Landau notation with the usual symbols $o(\cdot), O(\cdot), \Theta(\cdot), \omega(\cdot)$, and $\Omega(\cdot)$ to refer to the limit $n \to \infty$. We say that a sequence of events $(\cE_n)_n$ holds \textit{with high probability} (w.h.p.) if $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr \brk{\cE_n} = 1$. When the context is clear we might drop the index of the expectation. Moreover, we will use the proportional $\propto$ to hide necessary normalisations.
\subsection{Outline}
To get a handle on the distribution of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ in the replica symmetric phase, we need to identify the sources of fluctuations of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$. One obvious source is the number of short cycles. Since $\mathbb{G}$ is sparse and random, standard arguments reveal that $\mathbb{G}$ contains only few short cycles. In the following, let $C_i(G)$ denote the number of short cycles of length $i$ in a graph $G$ and $\cF_\ell$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the random variables $C_i(\mathbb{G})$ for $i \leq \ell$. A key quantity to consider is the variance of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$. By standard decomposition, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}^2} - \Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}}^2 = \Erw \brk{\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta} \mid \cF_\ell}^2 - \Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}}^2} + \Erw \brk{\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}^2 \mid \cF_\ell} - \Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta} \mid \cF_\ell}^2}
\end{equation*}
for any $\ell \geq 1$.
Note that the first term of the r.h.s. describes the contribution to the variance by the fluctuations in the number of short cycles, while the second term accounts for the conditional variance given the number of short cycles. It turns out that as $\ell \to \infty$ after taking $n \to \infty$, the second summand vanishes. In other words, the entire variance of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ is due to fluctuations in the number of short cycles.
To show this property formally, we leverage a result by \cite{Janson_1995} that stipulates conditions under which one is able to describe the limiting distribution of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ (see \Thm~\ref{thm_janson} in the appendix).
One ingredient is the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}$ and a planted model $\mathbb{G}^*$. In $\mathbb{G}^*$, we first select a spin configuration $\sigma$ uniformly at random and subsequently sample a graph $G$ with probability proportional to $\exp \bc{- \beta \cH_G(\sigma)}$. While the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}$ is well established, the distribution of short cycles in the planted model $\mathbb{G}^*$ is a key contribution of this paper. The second ingredient is a careful application of the method of moments. Unfortunately, standard results on the first and second moment on random regular graphs (see i.e. \cite{Coja_2020}), do not suffice in our case and we have to sharpen our pencils to yield an error term of order $O\bc{\exp(1/n)}$. While the need for this lower error term prolongs calculations, it also poses some challenges that we resolve by a careful application of the Laplace's method as suggested by \cite{Greenhill_2010} and spatial mixing arguments.
\subsection{Short cycles}
To get started, let us write
\begin{equation} \label{eq_def_delta_lambda}
\delta_i = \bc{\frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1}}^i \qquad \text{and} \qquad \lambda_i = \frac{\bc{d-1}^i}{2i}.
\end{equation}
The first item on the agenda is to derive the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}$. This is a well-established result.
\begin{fact} [Theorem 9.5 in \cite{Janson_2011}] \label{fact_cycle_null}
Let $\Lambda_i \sim {\rm Po}(\lambda_i)$ be a sequence of independent Poisson random variables for $i \geq 3$. Then jointly for all $i$ we have $C_{i}(\mathbb{G}) \xrightarrow{d} \Lambda_i$ as $n \to \infty$.
\end{fact}
Deriving the distribution of short cycles in the planted model $\mathbb{G}^*$ informally introduced above requires some more work. Let us start with the definitions. Given $\sigma \in \cbc{\pm 1}^V$ and for any $\beta > 0$, let us define the distribution of $\mathbb{G}^*(\sigma)$ for any event $\cA$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq_g_star}
\Pr \brk{\mathbb{G}^*(\sigma) \in \cA} \propto \Erw \brk{\exp\bc{-\beta \cH_\mathbb{G}(\sigma)} \vec{1} \cbc{\mathbb{G} \in \cA}}.
\end{equation}
This definition gives rise to the following experiment. First, draw a spin configuration $\SIGMA^*$ uniformly at random among all configurations $\cbc{\pm 1}^V$. In the next step, draw $\mathbb{G}^*=\mathbb{G}^*(\SIGMA^*)$ according to \eqref{eq_g_star}. Hereafter, $\mathbb{G}^*$ will be denoted the planted model.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop_cycle_planted}
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Xi_i \sim {\rm Po} \bc{\lambda_i \bc{1 + \delta_i}}
\end{equation*}
be a sequence of independent Poisson random variables for $i \geq 3$. Then jointly for all $i$ we have $C_{i}(\mathbb{G}^*) \xrightarrow{d} \Xi_i$ as $n \to \infty$.
\end{proposition}
Establishing the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}^*$ is one of the main contributions of this paper. To this end, we start off with similar arguments as used in \cite{Mossel_2011}, but need to diligently account for the subtle dependencies introduced by the regularities in $\mathbb{G}^*$.
Applying \Fac~\ref{fact_cycle_null} and \Prop~\ref{prop_cycle_planted} to \Thm~1 in \cite{Janson_1995} requires a slight detour via the Nishimori property. To this end, note that the random graph $\mathbb{G}$ induces a reweighted graph distribution $\hat \mathbb{G}$ which for any event $\cA$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq_g_hat}
\Pr \brk{\hat \mathbb{G} \in \cA} \propto \Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G},\beta} \vec{1} \cbc{\mathbb{G} \in \cA}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, consider the distribution $\hat \SIGMA$ on spin configurations defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq_sigma_hat}
\Pr \brk{\hat \SIGMA = \sigma} \propto \Erw \brk{\exp\bc{-\beta \cH_{\mathbb{G}}(\sigma)}}
\end{equation}
for any $\beta > 0$.
$\hat \mathbb{G}, \mathbb{G}^*, \hat \SIGMA, \SIGMA^*$, and the Boltzmann distribution from \eqref{eq_boltzmann} are connected via the well-known Nishimori property.
\begin{fact} [Proposition 3.2 in \cite{Coja_2021}]\label{fact_nishimori}
For any graph $G$ and spin configuration $\sigma \in \cbc{\pm 1}^V$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Pr \brk{\hat \mathbb{G} = G} \mu_{G}(\sigma) = \Pr \bc{\hat \SIGMA = \sigma} \Pr \bc{\mathbb{G}^* = G \mid \SIGMA^* = \sigma}.
\end{equation*}
\end{fact}
\subsection{The first and second moment}
The second key ingredient towards the proof of \Thm~\ref{thm_dist} is the method of moments. As standard random regular graph results are too crude, we need a more precise calculation. Fortunately, with some patience and equipped with Laplace's method as stated in \cite{Greenhill_2010}, the first moment is not too hard to find.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_first_moment}
Assume that $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta} } = \exp \bc{- \lambda_1 \delta_1 - \lambda_2 \delta_2 + O \bc{\frac{1}{n}}} \sqrt{\frac{1 + e^{ \beta}}{ 2 + d e^{\beta} - d }} \exp \bc{n \bc{\bc{1 - d/2} \log \bc{2} + d\log\bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}/2}}
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The second moment is not as amenable. The key challenge for applying Laplace's method is to exhibit that the obvious choice of the optimum is indeed a global maximum. We resolve this issue by resorting to results on the broadcasting process on an infinite $d$-regular tree and the disassortative stochastic block model. This spatial mixing argument allows us to focus our attention on an area close to the anticipated optimum. To this end, let us exhibit an event $\cO$ that is concerned with the location of two typical samples $\SIGMA_\mathbb{G}, \SIGMA'_\mathbb{G}$ from the Boltzmann distribution $\mu_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq_def_O}
\cO = \cbc{\Erw \brk{\vert \SIGMA_\mathbb{G} \cdot \SIGMA'_\mathbb{G} \vert \mid \mathbb{G}} < \eps_n n}
\end{equation}
for a sequence of $\eps_n = o(1)$. Then we can leverage the following result from \cite{Coja_2020}.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.7 in \cite{Coja_2020}] \label{lem_o}
For the event $\cO$ defined in \eqref{eq_def_O} we have for $d \geq 3, 0<\beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta} \vecone \cbc{\cO}} = (1 - o(1))\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Conditioning on $\cO$ greatly facilitates the calculation of the second moment.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_second_moment}
For $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}^2 \vecone \cbc{\cO}} = \exp \bc{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 - \frac{4 \lambda_1}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2} - \frac{4 \lambda_2 \bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4}+O \bc{\frac{1}{n}}} \frac{ \bc{ 1 + e^{ \beta}}^2 \exp \bc{n \bc{\bc{ 2 - d} \log \bc{2} + d \log \bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}}}}{\bc{d e^\beta - d + 2} \sqrt{2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d e^{2 \beta} - d + 2}}
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of \Thm~\ref{thm_dist}}
We apply \Thm~1 in \cite{Janson_1995} to the random variable $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta} \vec{1} \cbc{\cO}$.
Condition $(1)$ readily follows from \Fac~\ref{fact_cycle_null}. For Condition $(2)$ let us write
\begin{equation*}
\cC(G) = \cbc{C_{1}(G)=c_1, \dots, C_{\ell}(G)=c_\ell}
\end{equation*}
for any graph $G$. By \Lem~\ref{lem_o} considering $Z_{\G, \beta}$ rather than $Z_{\G, \beta} \vec{1} \cbc{\cO}$ only introduces an error of order $1+o(1)$ in Condition $(2)$. Using standard reformulations and the definition of $\hat \mathbb{G}$ from \eqref{eq_g_hat} we find
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta} \mid \cC(\mathbb{G})}}{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}}} = \frac{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta} \evC{(\mathbb{G})}}}{\Pr \brk{\cC(\mathbb{G})} \Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}}} = \frac{\Pr \brk{\cC(\hat \mathbb{G})}}{\Pr \brk{\cC(\mathbb{G})}} = \frac{\Erw_{\hat \SIGMA} \brk{\Pr \brk{\cC(\hat \mathbb{G})\mid \hat \SIGMA}}}{\Pr \brk{\cC(\mathbb{G})}}.
\end{equation*}
Since a typical sample $\sigma$ from $\hat \SIGMA$ has the property that $\abs{\sigma \cdot \vec{1}} = O\bc{n^{2/3}}$, i.e. is relatively balanced, the Nishimori property (\Fac~\ref{fact_nishimori}) implies
\begin{equation*}
\Erw_{\hat \SIGMA} \brk{\Pr \brk{\cC(\hat \mathbb{G}) \mid \hat \SIGMA}} \sim \Pr \brk{\cC{(\mathbb{G}^*)}}.
\end{equation*}
Condition $(2)$ now follows from \Fac~\ref{fact_cycle_null} and \Prop~\ref{prop_cycle_planted}.
For Condition $(3)$ consider any $\beta = \beta_{\text{KS}} - \eps$ for some small $\eps>0$. Letting $\eta=\eta(\eps)>0$ a simple calculation reveals
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i \geq 1} \lambda_i \delta_i^2 \leq \sum_{i \geq 1} \lambda_i \bc{\frac{e^{-\beta_{\text{KS}}+\eps}-1}{e^{-\beta_{\text{KS}}+\eps}+1}}^{2i} = \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{(1-\eta)^i}{2i} < \infty
\end{equation*}
which also implies $\sum_{i \geq 3} \lambda_i \delta_i^2 < \infty$. Finally, by \Lem~\ref{lem_o}, \Prop s~\ref{prop_first_moment} and \ref{prop_second_moment} and the fact that for any $0 < x < 1$
$\log \bc{1-x} = -\sum_{i \geq 1} x^i/i$
we find for $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}^2 \vecone \cbc{\cO}}}{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta} \vecone \cbc{\cO}}^2} = (1+o(1)) \frac{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}^2 \vecone \cbc{\cO}}}{\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta}}^2}\\
&= (1+o(1)) \frac{1 + e^\beta}{\sqrt{2 + 2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d - d e^{2 \beta}}} \exp \bc{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 - \frac{4 \lambda_1}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2} - \frac{4 \lambda_2 \bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4} + 2 \lambda_1 \delta_1 + 2 \lambda_2 \delta_2} \\
&= (1+o(1)) \bc{1-(d-1)\bc{\frac{e^{-\beta}-1}{e^{-\beta}+1}}}^{-1/2} \exp \bc{ - \lambda_1 \delta_1^2 -\lambda_2 \delta_2^2}= (1+o(1)) \exp \bc{\sum_{i \geq 3} \lambda_i \delta_i^2}
\end{align*}
establishing Condition $(4)$ and thus the distribution of $Z_{\G, \beta} \vecone \cbc{\cO}$. Since $\Erw \brk{Z_{\G, \beta} \bc{1-\vecone \cbc{\cO}}} = o\bc{\Erw\brk{Z_{\G, \beta}}}$ by \Lem~\ref{lem_o}, \Thm~\ref{thm_dist} follows from Markov's inequality.
\section{Discussion}
Studying partition functions has a long tradition in combinatorics and mathematical physics. $k$-SAT, $q$-coloring or the stochastic block model are just some noteworthy examples where the partition function reveals fundamental and novel combinatorial insights. Due to its connection to the {\sc Max Cut} problem and the disassortative stochastic block model, the Ising antiferromagnet fits nicely into this list.
For random $d$-regular graphs, Coja-Oghlan et al. \cite{Coja_2020} pinpointed its replica symmetry breaking phase transition at the Kesten-Stigum bound. Using the method of moments and spatial mixing arguments, they they determine $Z_{\G, \beta}$ up to $\exp(o(n))$.
In this paper, we move beyond this approximation and derive the limiting distribution of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ in the replica symmetric regime. We note that the distribution of $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ above the Kesten-Stigum bound is fundamentally different.
A similar analysis for the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi-model was carried out in \cite{Mossel_2011}
Using the combination of the method of moments and small subgraph conditioning underlying our proof was initially pioneered by Robinson \& Wormald \cite{Robinson_1992} to prove that cubic graphs are w.h.p.\ Hamiltonian. Janson \cite{Janson_1995} subsequently showed that small subgraph conditioning can be used to obtain limiting distributions. This strategy was successfully applied, among others, to the stochastic block model \cite{Mossel_2011} and the Viana-Bray model \cite{Guerra_2004}.
For other problems, the second moment appears to be too crude for the entire replica symmetric phase and enhanced techniques are needed \cite{Coja_2018_2}. In this work, we enrich the classical strategy of the method of moments and small subgraph conditioning by spatial mixing arguments to cover the entire replica symmetric phase.
An interesting remaining question is to throw a bridge between the properties of the partition function $Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}$ and long-range correlations in $\mathbb{G}$. While it should be a small step from \Thm~\ref{thm_dist} to vindicate the absence of long-range correlations in the replica symmetric phase, proving the presence of long-range correlations above the Kesten-Stigum bound is a more challenging, yet important endeavour.
\section{Getting started} \label{app_start}
Before moving to the proofs of \Prop s~\ref{prop_cycle_planted}, \ref{prop_first_moment} and \ref{prop_second_moment}, let us introduce some additional notation.
With $\cP$ denoting the set of all probability distributions on a finite set $\Omega \neq \emptyset$ and two probability measures $\mu, \nu \in \cP(\Omega)$, let us introduce the entropy $H(\mu)$ and Kullback-Leibler divergence $\KL{\mu}{\nu}$
\begin{equation*}
H(\mu) = - \sum_{\omega \in \Omega} \mu(\omega) \log \mu(\omega) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \KL{\mu}{\nu} = \sum_{\omega \in \Omega} \mu(\omega) \log \frac{\mu(\omega)}{\nu(\omega)} \in [0, \infty].
\end{equation*}
Note the convention $0 \cdot \log \left( \frac{0}{0}\right)=0$ and furthermore that if there exists some $\omega \in \Omega$ such that $\mu (\omega) > 0$ and $\nu (\omega) = 0$, this implies $D_{\textrm{KL}}(\mu \| \nu) = \infty$.
When we consider the product measure between two probability distribution $\mu$ and $\nu$, we will use the notation $\mu \otimes \nu$.
Next, let us state a fundamental result by Janson \cite{Janson_1995} which stipulates conditions under which one is able to obtain the limiting distribution of the partition function.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 1 in \cite{Janson_1995}] \label{thm_janson}
Let $\lambda_i>0$ and $\delta_i \geq -1, i=1,2,\dots,$ be constants and suppose that for each $n$ there are random variables $C_{in}, i=1,2,\dots,$ and $Z_n$ (defined on the same probability space) such that $X_{in}$ is non-negative integer valued and $\Erw \brk{Z_{n}} \neq 0$ (at least of large n), and furthermore the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C_{in} \xrightarrow{d} \Lambda_i$ as $n \to \infty$, jointly for all $i$ where $\Lambda_i \sim {\rm Po}\bc{\lambda_i}$ are independent Poisson random variables;
\item For any finite sequence $c_1, \dots, c_m$ of non-negative integers,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\Erw \brk{Z_n \mid C_{1n}=c_1, \dots, C_{mn}=c_m}}{\Erw \brk{Z_n}} \to \prod_{i=1}^m (1+\delta_i)^{x_i} \exp \bc{-\lambda_i \delta_i} \qquad \text{as} \quad n \to \infty;
\end{equation*}
\item $\sum_{i} \lambda_i \delta_i^2 < \infty;$
\item $\Erw\brk{Z_n^2}/\bc{\Erw\brk{Z_n}}^2 \to \exp \bc{\sum_i \lambda_i \delta_i^2} \qquad \text{as} \quad n \to \infty.$
\end{enumerate}
Then, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{Z_n}{\Erw \brk{Z_n}} \xrightarrow{d} W = \prod_{i \geq 1} (1+\delta_i)^{\Lambda_i} \exp \bc{-\lambda_i \delta_i};
\end{equation*}
moreover, this and the convergence in (1) hold jointly. The infinite product defining $W$ converges a.s. and in $L^2$, with $\Erw \bc{W} = 1$ and $\Erw \bc{W^2} = \exp \bc{\sum_{i=1}^\infty \lambda_i \delta_i^2}$. Hence, the normalized variables $Y_n/\Erw \bc{Y_n}$ are uniformly square integrable. Furthermore, the event $W > 0$ equals, up to a set of probability zero, the event that $Z_i > 0$ for some $i$ with $\delta_i = -1$. In particular, $W > 0$ a.s. if and only if every $\delta_i > -1$.
\end{theorem}
A substantial part of this paper is devoted to determining the first and second moment of $Z_\mathbb{G}$. As we will see in due course, this task requires a special version of the well-known Laplace's method, which is usually formulated in terms of integrals. In contrast to that, the model considered here is discrete and therefore requires a variation of Laplace's method which is applicable to countable sums. Fortunately, \cite{Greenhill_2010} provides an adaptation that we can leverage here. Let us start by providing the result of interest:
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 2.3 in \cite{Greenhill_2010}]\label{theoremGJR}
Suppose the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{L} \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ is a lattice with rank $r \leq N$.
\item $V \subseteq \mathbb{R}^N$ is the $r$-dimensional subspace spanned by $\mathcal{L}$.
\item $W = V + w$ is an affine subspace parallel to $V$, for some $w \in \mathbb{R}^N$.
\item $K \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ is a compact convex set with non empty interior $K^\circ$.
\item $\phi : K \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function and the restriction of $\phi$ to $K \cap W$ has a unique maximum at some point $x_0 \in K^\circ \cap W$.
\item $\phi$ is twice continuously differentiable in a neighbourhood of $x_0$ and $H := D^2 \phi \left( x_0\right)$ is its Hessian at $x_0$.
\item $\psi : K_1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function on some neighbourhood $K_1 \subseteq K$ of $x_0$ with $\psi \left( x_0\right) > 0$.
\item For each positive integer $n$ there is a vector $\ell_n \in \mathbb{R}^N$ with $\frac{\ell_n}{n} \in W$.
\item For each positive integer $n$ there is a positive real number $b_n$ and a function $a_n: \left( \mathcal{L} + \ell_n \right) \cap n K \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that, as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{align*}
a_n \left( \ell \right) = O \left( b_n e^{n \phi \left( \ell / n \right) + o\left( n\right) } \right), \hspace{5 em} \ell \in \left( \mathcal{L} + \ell_n \right) \cap n K,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
a_n \left( \ell\right) = b_n \left( \psi \left( \frac{\ell}{n}\right) + o(1) \right) e^{n \phi \left( \ell / n\right) } , \hspace{4 em} \ell \in \left( \mathcal{L} + \ell_n \right) \cap n K_1,
\end{align*}
uniformly for $\ell$ in the indicated sets.
\end{enumerate}
Then, provided $\det \left( - H \vert_V \right) \neq 0$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\ell \in \left( \mathcal{L} + \ell_n \right) \cap n K} a_n \left( \ell \right) \sim \frac{\left( 2 \pi n \right)^{r/2} \psi \left( x_0\right) b_n e^{n \phi \left( x_0 \right) }}{\det \left( \mathcal{L} \right) \sqrt{\det \left( - H \vert_V \right)}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\Thm~\ref{theoremGJR} is largely self-explanatory. The concept of lattices, however, is not obvious from the theorem itself. Therefore, we briefly revisit the idea of lattices and how they are connected to our model. In general, lattices are discrete subgroups of $\mathbb{R}^N$ where each lattice is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^r$ for some $0 \leq r \leq N$. In this context, \textit{discrete} simply means that the intersection of a lattice with an arbitrary, bounded set in $\mathbb{R}^N$ is finite. Furthermore, $r$ is commonly called the rank of the respective lattice. This means that each lattice has a (not necessarily unique) basis consisting of the vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_r$. The crucial characteristics of these basis vectors are on the one hand that they are independent. On the other hand, every element of the respective lattice has a unique representation of the form $\sum_{i =1}^{r} k_i \cdot x_i$ where $k_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ for all $i \in [r]$.\\
In applying \Thm~\ref{theoremGJR} we are especially interested in understanding the determinant $\det \left(\mathcal{L} \right)$ for a given lattice $\mathcal{L}$. Formally, $\det \left(\mathcal{L} \right)$ is simply obtained by calculating the determinant of the matrix that consists of the basis vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_r$ mentioned above. Intuitively, the determinant provides the $r$-dimensional volume of a unit cell of the lattice $\mathcal{L}$. Note that the term $\left( \det \left(\mathcal{L} \right)\right)^{-1}$ in Theorem \ref{theoremGJR} is the key difference compared to more common versions of Laplace's method for integrals.
\section{Short Cycles in the Regular Stochastic Block Model / Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_cycle_planted}}
Let us start with a brief repetition of the Regular Stochastic Block Model (RSBM) which is the result of the following experiment. Given a vertex set $V_n = \cbc{v_1, \ldots, v_n}$, we first sample a spin configuration uniformly at random. We denote this uniformly sampled configuration by $\SIGMA^*$. Next, we draw a $d$-regular graph $\mathbb{G}^* = \mathbb{G}^* (\SIGMA^*)$ from the distribution
\begin{align*}
\Pr \brk{\mathbb{G}^* = G \vert \SIGMA^* = \sigma} \propto \exp \left( - \beta \mathcal{H}_G \left( \sigma \right) \right).
\end{align*}
For some graph $d$-regular $G$ with $n$ nodes and some spin configuration $\sigma \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^n$ on the nodes of $G$ we define
\begin{align} \label{eq_def_mu_1}
\mu_{++}(G,\sigma) := \frac{2}{dn} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = \sigma \left( u\right) = +1 \right\rbrace }.
\end{align}
Since $G$ has $\frac{d n}{2}$ edges in total, $\mu_{++}$ simply measures the fraction of edges that connect two positive vertices. Analogously, we define
\begin{align} \label{eq_def_mu_2}
\mu_{--}(G,\sigma) &:= \frac{2}{dn} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = \sigma \left( u\right) = -1 \right\rbrace }
\hspace{3 em} \textrm{ and } \hspace{3 em} \\
\mu_{+-}(G,\sigma) &= \mu_{-+}(G,\sigma) : = \frac{1}{dn} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) \neq \sigma \left( u\right) \right\rbrace }.
\end{align}
Due to the fact that our model is built on undirected edges, we just count all the edges connecting vertices with different spins and evenly 'split' them between $\mu_{+-}$ and $\mu_{-+}$. In a similar way, we define
\begin{align} \label{eq_def_rho}
\rho_+(G,\sigma) := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{v \in V} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = +1 \right\rbrace } \hspace{3 em} \textrm{ and } \hspace{3 em} \rho_-(G,\sigma) := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{v \in V} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = -1 \right\rbrace }
\end{align}
where $\rho_{+}$ and $\rho_{- }$ depict the fractions of nodes that have been assigned a positive spin or a negative one, respectively. For notational convenience, we usually drop the reference to the graph $G$ and the spin configuration $\sigma$. Accordingly, let $\mu' = \mu(\mathbb{G}^*, \SIGMA^*)$ and $\cM(\sigma)$ denote the set of all probability distributions fulfilling the obvious symmetry and marginalization conditions, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++} + \mu_{+-} = \rho_+, \qquad \mu_{--} + \mu_{+-} = \rho_-, \qquad \mu_{+-} = \mu_{-+}
\end{align*}
and where $\mu_{++}dn/2, \mu_{--}dn/2$ and $\mu_{+-}dn/2$ are integers.
Further, we define a probability measure $\hat{\mu}$ with
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}_{++}= \hat{\mu}_{--}= \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta} \right)} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \hat{\mu}_{+-}= \hat{\mu}_{-+}= \frac{1}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta} \right)}.
\end{align*}
To determine the distribution of short cycles in the RSBM, we start by considering the event
\begin{align*}
\cA_{\mu} := \cbc{ \norm{\mu' - \mu} = O\bc{ n^{-1/2} \log n}}.
\end{align*}
In the next lines, we establish that $\cA_{\hat \mu}$ is a high probability event.
\begin{lemma} \label{A_mu_high_prob_event}
We have $\Pr\brk{\cA_{\hat\mu}} = 1- o(1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{A_mu_high_prob_event}]
In the following we will write $\mu$ for $\mu(G, \sigma)$ when the reference to $G$ and $\sigma$ is obvious. For this proof, we leverage some results that are derived in detail in Section \ref{section_first_moment}. More specifically, we consider equation \eqref{first_moment_before_Laplace}, that is
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbb{G}\left( n, d\right), \beta} \right]
= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right).
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right) := \textrm{H} \left( \rho\right) - \frac{d}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + \beta \left(1 +2 \mu_{++} -2 \rho_+ \right)\right)
\end{align*}
and $\mathcal{Q}$ is the set of all conceivable pairs $\bc{ \rho_+, \mu_{++}}$. Furthermore, from Lemma \ref{maximum_first_moment} we know that $\psi\bc{ \mu_{++}, \rho_+}$ obtains it unique maximum on $\mathcal{Q}$ at $\bc{ \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_+} = \bc{\frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}}, \frac{1}{2}}$. The entries of the Hessian turn out to be
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \mu_{++}^2} \bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} &= -2 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta = \Theta(1) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \psi} {\partial \mu_{++}\partial \rho_+}\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} &= 2 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta = \Theta(1)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \rho_+^2}\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} &= -4 -2 d \left(1 + e^{-\beta} + 2 e^\beta \right) = \Theta(1).
\end{align*}
Note that a detailed calculation of the Hessian can be found in Section \ref{section_first_moment}.
With all these results at hand, the two dimensional Taylor expansion of $\psi$ at $\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}}$ turns out to be
\begin{align*}
\psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right) &= \psi\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}}
+ \Theta \bc{1} \bc{ \bc{\rho_+ - \hat{\rho}_+}^2 + \bc{\mu_+ - \hat{\mu}_+}^2 + \bc{\rho_+ - \hat{\rho}_+}\bc{\mu_+ - \hat{\mu}_+}} + O \bc{ \norm{\mu - \hat{\mu}}^3}\\
&= \psi\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} + \Theta \bc{ \norm{\mu - \hat{\mu}}^2}
\end{align*}
where we exploited that the higher order derivatives are bounded.
Keeping this in mind, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right) \vec{1}{\left\lbrace 1 - \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}\\
&= \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \exp\left( n \psi\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} - \Omega \bc{\log^2 n} \right) \vec{1}{\left\lbrace 1 - \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}\\
&= O \bc{n^2} \exp\left( n \psi\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} - \Omega \bc{\log^2 n} \right)
= O \bc{n^{- \log n}} \exp\left( n \psi\bc{\hat{\mu}, \hat{\rho}} \right)\\
\end{align*}
which in turn yields
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}}&= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right) \vec{1}{\left\lbrace \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}\\
&\qquad + \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right) \vec{1}{\left\lbrace 1 - \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}\\
&= \bc{1 + o(1)} \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right) \vec{1}{\left\lbrace \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}\\
&= \bc{1 + o(1)} \mathbb{E} \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}\vec{1}{\left\lbrace \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}}.
\end{align*}
Now, the proof is almost completed. Corollary 4.5 in \cite{Coja_2020} states that iff $\mathbb{E} \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}} = \bc{1 + o(1)} \mathbb{E} \brk{Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}\vec{1}{\left\lbrace \cA_{\hat \mu} \right\rbrace}}$ holds, we have $\Pr \brk{\mathbb{G}^* \in \cA_{\hat \mu}} = 1 - o(1)$. This is just the desired statement.
\end{proof}
The following preliminary arguments combine ideas from \cite{Janson_2011} and \cite{Mossel_2011} to derive the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}^*$. We apply the method of moments to derive expected values conditional on $\mu'$ being close to $\hat{\mu}$. Then, with Lemma \ref{A_mu_high_prob_event}, we draw conclusions for the unconditional expectation.
Let $C_l \left( \mathbb{G}^* \right) $ be the number of cycles of length $l$ in $\mathbb{G}^*$.
Furthermore, let $M$ denote the number of edges $e_1, \ldots e_l$ that connect vertices with opposite spins. This construction immediately implies that $M$ is an even number.
Let us briefly recap the configuration model to construct a $d$-regular graph on $n$ uniformly at random. To get started, we take $d$ copies of each of the $n$ nodes. Thus, we have $dn$ nodes in total. In the next step, we choose a perfect matching uniformly at random. To obtain a graph with $n$ nodes again, we merge the $d$ copies of each node, providing a graph with $\frac{d n}{2}$ edges in total. Since this procedure does not rule out self-loops or double-edges, we condition on the event $\mathcal{S}$ that we obtain a simple graph. Note that standard results from the literature entail that $\mathbb{P} \left[ G \in \mathcal{S}\right] = \Omega \left( 1\right) $. Similarly, conditional on $\mathcal{S}$, each of the admissable $d$-regular graphs is created with the same probability. \\
Now recall the probability to observe a specific graph in the regular stochastic block model
\begin{align} \label{eq_rsbm}
\mathbb{P} \left[ \mathbb{G}^* = G \vert \sigma \right] \propto \exp \left( - \beta \mathcal{H}_G \left( \sigma \right) \right).
\end{align}
Clearly, the definition of $\mathbb{G}^*$ does not give rise to a uniform distribution over all admissable graphs. However, it is easy to see that \eqref{eq_rsbm} yields a uniform distribution over all graphs exhibiting a specific $\mu$. This observation is central towards deriving the distribution of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}^*$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma_cycle_planted_optimal_mu}
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Xi_i \sim {\rm Po} \bc{\lambda_i \bc{1 + \delta_i}}
\end{equation*}
be a sequence of independent Poisson random variables for $i \geq 3$. Then jointly for all $i$ we have $C_{i}(\mathbb{G}^*) \vert_{\hat{\mu}} \xrightarrow{d} \Xi_i$ as $n \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $p_{l, M}$ be the probability that any given set of $l$ edges where $l_{++}$ edges connect two positive vertices and $l_{--}$ edges connect two negative edges results from the construction of $\mathbb{G}^*$ conditioned on some some fixed $\mu$. We readily find
\begin{align*}
p_{l, M} \left( \mu \right) &= \frac{\binom{dn \rho_{+} - 2 l_{++} - M}{dn \mu_{++}- 2 l_{++}}\left( dn \mu_{++} - 2 l_{++}- 1 \right) !!}
{\binom{dn \rho_{+}}{dn \mu_{++}}\left( dn \mu_{++} - 1 \right) !!} \cdot \frac{\binom{dn \rho_{-} - 2 l_{--} - M}{dn \mu_{--} - 2 l_{--}} \left( dn \mu_{--} - 2 l_{--}- 1 \right) !! \left( d n \mu_{+-} - M \right)!}
{\binom{dn \rho_{-}}{dn \mu_{--}} \left( dn \mu_{--} - 1 \right) !! \left( d n \mu_{+-} \right)!}.
\end{align*}
Using the following well-known identity.
\begin{align} \label{eq_df}
\left( 2k -1 \right) !! = \frac{\left( 2k\right) !}{k! 2^k}
\end{align}
we find
\begin{align} \label{eq_cycle_1}
\frac{\left( dn \mu_{++} - 2 l_{++}- 1 \right) !! \left( dn \mu_{--} - 2 l_{--}- 1 \right) !! \left( d n \mu_{+-} - M \right)!}
{\left( dn \mu_{++} - 1 \right) !! \left( dn \mu_{--} - 1 \right) !! \left( d n \mu_{+-} \right)!}
&=\frac{\frac{\left( dn \mu_{++} - 2 l_{++}\right)! }{\left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{++} - l_{++}\right)! 2^{\frac{d n}{2}\mu_{++} - l_{++}}}
\cdot \frac{\left( dn \mu_{--} - 2 l_{--}\right)! }{\left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{--} - l_{--}\right)! 2^{\frac{d n}{2}\mu_{--} - l_{--}}}}
{\frac{\left( dn \mu_{++}\right)!}{\left( \frac{d n}{2} \mu_{++} \right)! 2^{\frac{d n}{2} \mu_{++}}} \cdot \frac{\left( dn \mu_{--}\right)!}{\left( \frac{d n}{2} \mu_{--} \right)! 2^{\frac{d n}{2} \mu_{--}}} \cdot \left( d n \mu_{+-} \right)_M } \notag\\
&= 2^{l - M} \cdot \frac{ \left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{++}\right)_{l_{++}} \left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{--}\right)_{l_{--}} }{\left( d n \mu_{++} \right)_{2 l_{++}} \left( d n \mu_{--} \right)_{2 l_{--}}\left( d n \mu_{+-} \right)_{ M}}.
\end{align}
Moving on to the binomial coefficients and using Stirling's formula
\begin{align} \label{eq_stirling}
k! = \sqrt{2 \pi k} \left( \frac{k}{e}\right) ^k \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{k} \right) \right)
\end{align}
we obtain
\begin{align} \label{eq_cycle_2}
\frac{\binom{dn \rho_{+} - 2 l_{++} - M}{dn \mu_{++}- 2 l_{++}} \binom{dn \rho_{-} - 2 l_{--} - M}{dn \mu_{--} - 2 l_{--}} }
{\binom{dn \rho_{+}}{dn \mu_{++}}\binom{dn \rho_{-}}{dn \mu_{--}}}
&= \frac{\left( d n \mu_{++}\right)_{2 l_{++}} \left( d n \mu_{--}\right)_{2 l_{--}} }{\left( d n \rho_{+}\right)_{2 l_{++} + M} \left( d n \rho_{-}\right)_{2 l_{--} + M}}
\cdot \frac{\left( d n \rho_{+} - d n \mu_{++} \right)! \left( d n \rho_{-} - d n \mu_{--} \right)!}{\left( d n \rho_{+} - d n \mu_{++} - M \right)! \left( d n \rho_{-} - d n \mu_{--} - M \right)!} \notag \\
&= \frac{\left( d n \mu_{++}\right)_{2 l_{++}} \left( d n \mu_{--}\right)_{2 l_{--}} \left( d n \rho_{+} - d n \mu_{++} \right)_M \left( d n \rho_{-} - d n \mu_{--} \right)_M}{\left( d n \rho_{+}\right)_{2 l_{++} + M} \left( d n \rho_{-}\right)_{2 l_{--} + M}}
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{eq_cycle_1} and \eqref{eq_cycle_2}, we yield
\begin{align*}
p_{l, M} \left( \mu \right) = 2^{l - M} \cdot \frac{\left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{++}\right)_{l_{++}} \left( \frac{d n}{2}\mu_{--}\right)_{l_{--}} \left( d n \rho_{+} - d n \mu_{++} \right)_M \left( d n \rho_{-} - d n \mu_{--} \right)_M }{\left( d n \rho_{+}\right)_{2 l_{++} + M} \left( d n \rho_{-}\right)_{2 l_{--} + M}\left( d n \mu_{+-} \right)_{ M}}.
\end{align*}
In particular, we thus have for all $\hat{\mu}' \in \cA_{\hat\mu}$
\begin{align*}
p_{l, M} \left( \hat{\mu}' \right)
&= 2^{l - M} \frac{ \left( \frac{d n}{2} \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{l_{++}} \left( \frac{d n }{2}\frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{l_{--}} \left( d n \frac{1}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right) }\right)^M \left( d n \frac{1}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right) }\right)^M }{\left( \frac{d n}{2} \right)^{2 l_{++} + M} \left( \frac{d n}{2}\right)^{2 l_{--} + M}\left( d n \frac{1}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) } \right)^{M}} \bc{1 + o(1)}\\
&= \frac{2^{l - M} \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{l - M} \left( \frac{1}{ 1 + e^{- \beta} }\right)^{2 M}}{\left( \frac{d n}{2} \right)^{ l_{++} } \left( \frac{d n}{2}\right)^{ l_{--}}\left( d n \frac{1}{2 \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) } \right)^{M}}\bc{1 + o(1)}
= \left( \frac{2}{dn} \right)^l \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{l - M} \left( \frac{1}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) } \right)^{M}\bc{1 + o(1)}.
\end{align*}
We point out that $p_{l, M}\left( \hat{\mu}' \right)$ can asymptotically be expressed without $l_{++}$ and $l_{--}$.
Next, we consider the number of possible cycles with length $l$ and exactly $M$ edges that connect vertices with opposite spins, subsequently denoted by $a_{l, M}\left( \mu\right)$. For starters, we have
\begin{align*}
2 l \cdot a_{l, M}\left( \mu\right) = 2 \binom{l}{M}\left( n \rho_{+} \right)_{l_{+}} \left( n \rho_{-} \right)_{l_{-}} \left( d \left( d -1\right) \right)^l.
\end{align*}
This implies for $\hat{\mu}' \in \cA_{\hat\mu}$
\begin{align*}
a_{l, M}\left( \hat{\mu}' \right) = \binom{l}{M} \frac{1}{ l} n^l 2^{-l} \left( d \left( d -1\right) \right)^l \bc{1 + o(1)}.
\end{align*}
Now, we are in a position to calculate the conditional expectation of the number of short cycles, that is
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ C_l \left( \mathbb{G}^*\right) \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] &= \sum_{i = 0}^l p_{l, M=i}\left( \hat{\mu}\right) a_{l, M=i}\left( \hat{\mu}\right) \bc{1 + o(1)} \\
&\sim \sum_{i = 0, i \textrm{ even}}^l \ \left( \frac{2}{dn} \right)^l \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{l - M} \left( \frac{1}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) } \right)^{M} \binom{l}{i} \frac{1}{ l} n^l 2^{-l} \left( d \left( d -1\right) \right)^l \\
&=\frac{\left( d - 1\right)^l}{ l}\sum_{i = 0, i \textrm{ even}}^l \binom{l}{i} \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{1 + e^{- \beta}}\right)^{l - i} \left( \frac{1}{1 + e^{- \beta}}\right)^i \\
&= \frac{\left( d - 1\right)^l}{2 l} \left( \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{1 + e^{- \beta}} +\frac{1}{1 + e^{- \beta}} \right)^l + \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{1 + e^{- \beta}} -\frac{1}{1 + e^{- \beta}} \right)^l \right)\\
&= \frac{\left( d - 1\right)^l}{2 l} \left( 1+ \left( \frac{e^{- \beta} - 1}{1 + e^{- \beta}} \right)^l \right) =: \lambda^*.
\end{align*}
In order to establish \Prop~\ref{prop_cycle_planted} we next need to calculate the higher moments of the number of short cycles in $\mathbb{G}^*$. To this end, we consider $\mathbb{E}\left[ C_l \left( \mathbb{G}^*\right)^2 \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right]$ which can be interpreted as the expected number of ordered pairs of cycles in $\mathbb{G}$. We introduce two new random variables, namely $X'$ and $X''$. $X'$ denotes the number of ordered cycle pairs that are vertex-disjoint whereas $X''$ counts the ordered cycle pairs that have at least one vertex in common. This immediately brings us to
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ C_l \left( \mathbb{G}^*\right)^2 \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] = \mathbb{E}\left[ X' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] + \mathbb{E}\left[ X'' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right].
\end{align*}
Starting with $X'$ and adopting a corresponding definition of $p'_{ l, M}$ and $a'_{l, M}$ - just now referring to two vertex-disjoint cycles - an analogue calculation to the one above yields
\begin{align*}
p'_{ l, M} \left( \hat{\mu} \right) \sim
\left( \frac{2}{dn} \right)^{2 l} \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) }\right)^{2 l - 2 M} \left( \frac{1}{ \left(1 +e^{-\beta}\right) } \right)^{2 M}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\left( 2 l \right)^2 \cdot a'_{l, M}\left( \mu\right) = 4 \left( \binom{l}{M} \right)^2 \left( n \rho_{+} \right)_{2 l_{+}} \left( n \rho_{-} \right)_{2 l_{-}} \left( d \left( d -1\right) \right)^{2l}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ X' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] \sim \left( \lambda^* \right)^2.
\end{align*}
All that remains to do is to show that $\mathbb{E}\left[ X'' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right]$ is asymptotically dominated by $\mathbb{E}\left[ X' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right]$. More precisely, we show that $\mathbb{E}\left[ X'' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] = O \left( n^{- 1}\right)$ where we adopt an argument from \cite{Janson_2011} to our case. Whenever we have two cycles of length $l$ that have $k$ vertices in common, the number of shared vertices will exceed the number of shared edges by at least one. Put differently, the number of shared edges is at most $k - 1$. As a result of this insight we have
\begin{align*}
a_{l, M}\left( \hat{\mu}' \right) = \Theta \left( n^{2 l - k}\right) \hspace{3 em} \textrm{ and } \hspace{3 em} p_{l, M}\left( \hat{\mu}' \right) = O \left( n^{ -2 l + k - 1}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $k < l$ and $\hat{\mu}' \in \cA_{\hat\mu}$. Summing up over all $k \in \left[ l - 1 \right] $ yields the desired statement
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ X'' \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right] = O \left( n^{- 1}\right).
\end{align*}
This same argumentation can be extended to arbitrary higher moments $\mathbb{E}\left[ C_l \left( \mathbb{G}^*\right)^j \vert \cA_{\hat\mu} \right]$ with $j \in \mathbb{N}$. Thus, the method of moments provides the desired statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_cycle_planted}]
The Proposition results from combining \Lem s~\ref{A_mu_high_prob_event} and \ref{lemma_cycle_planted_optimal_mu}.
\end{proof}
\section{The First Moment/ Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_first_moment}}\label{section_first_moment}
In this section, we first focus on the so-called pairing model $\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{G} \bc{n, d}$. In pairing model, each of the $n$ initial nodes is represented by $d$ clones. Then, a perfect matching for these $d n$ clones is chosen uniformly at random. Finally, the clones are merged back into their initial vertex, such that each node in the original vertex set has degree $d$. By design, this setup allows for loops and double edges. If the graph does not contain either of them, we call the graph simple. Furthermore, we denote the event that a graph is simple by $\mathcal{S}$. The following result (which we will prove first) can be leveraged for showing Proposition \ref{prop_first_moment}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_first_moment_pairing_model}
Assume that $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} } = \exp \bc{O \bc{\frac{1}{n}}} \sqrt{\frac{1 + e^{ \beta}}{ 2 + d e^{\beta} - d }} \exp \bc{n \bc{\bc{1 - d/2} \log \bc{2} + d\log\bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}/2}}
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Getting started}
Recall the definitions of $\mu(G, \sigma)$ and $\rho(G, \sigma)$ from \eqref{eq_def_mu_1}--\eqref{eq_def_rho}.
As a starting point for our first moment calculations, consider the following result due to \cite{Coja_2020} which encodes the combinatorial structure of the first moment of the partition function. Let $\cM_n = \cup_{\sigma \in \cbc{\pm 1}^{V_n}} \cM(\sigma)$ be the set of all conceivable distributions $\mu$.
\begin{lemma}[\Lem s~4.1 and 4.3 in \cite{Coja_2020}]\label{first_mom_starting_point}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G} , \beta} \right]
&= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_n} \binom{n}{\rho_+ n} \frac{\left( d n \mu_{++} - 1\right) !! \left( d n \mu_{--} - 1\right)!! \left(d n \mu_{+-} \right) !}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!} \binom{dn \rho_+}{dn \mu_{++}} \binom{dn \rho_-}{dn \mu_{--}}\cdot \exp \left(- \beta \frac{d n}{2} \left( \mu_{++} + \mu_{--}\right) \right).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Reformulation of the first moment}
Recall Stirling's formula \eqref{eq_stirling} and the identity for the double factorial from \eqref{eq_df}.
The next Lemma yields a simplified expression for the first moment which is obtained by applying \eqref{eq_stirling} and \eqref{eq_df} to the factorials and binomial coefficients in Lemma \ref{first_mom_starting_point}. The proof follows \cite{Coja_2020}, but now explicitly accounting for smaller-order terms to yield an error term of order $O(\exp(1/n))$.
\begin{lemma}\label{reformulation_first_moment}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right]
&= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_n} \frac{\exp\left(n \textrm{H} \left( \rho\right) - \frac{dn}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + \beta \left( \mu_{++} + \mu_{--}\right)\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Starting with \Lem~\ref{first_mom_starting_point} and considering the fraction of factorials first, we find
\begin{align} \label{eq_firstmoment_1}
&\frac{\left( d n \mu_{++} - 1\right) !! \left( d n \mu_{--} - 1\right)!! \left(d n \mu_{+-} \right) !}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!}
= \frac{\left( d n \mu_{++} \right) ! \left( d n \mu_{--} \right) ! \left(d n \mu_{+-} \right) ! \left( \frac{d n}{2}\right) !\cdot 2^{\frac{d n}{2}}}{\left( d n \right)! \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++}}{2}\right) ! \left( \frac{d n \mu_{--}}{2}\right) ! \cdot 2^{\frac{d n}{2} \left( \mu_{++} + \mu_{--}\right) }} \notag \\
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right) \sqrt{2 \pi \frac{dn \mu_{++} dn \mu_{--} dn \mu_{+-} \frac{d n}{2}}{dn \frac{d n \mu_{++}}{2}\frac{d n \mu_{--}}{2}}} \cdot 2^{\frac{d n}{2} \left( 1 -\mu_{++} - \mu_{--}\right)} \cdot \left( \frac{dn}{e}\right)^{dn \left( \mu_{+-} - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\mu_{++}}{2} + \frac{\mu_{--}}{2}\right) } \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot 2^{ dn \left( \frac{\mu_{++}}{2} + \frac{\mu_{--}}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \right)}\cdot \mu_{++}^{dn \left(\mu_{++} - \frac{\mu_{++}}{2} \right) } \cdot \mu_{--}^{dn \left(\mu_{--} - \frac{\mu_{--}}{2} \right)} \cdot \mu_{+-}^{dn \mu_{+-}} \notag\\
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right) 2 \sqrt{ \pi d n \mu_{+-} } \cdot \mu_{++}^{dn \frac{\mu_{++}}{2} } \cdot \mu_{--}^{dn \frac{\mu_{--}}{2} } \cdot \mu_{+-}^{dn \mu_{+-}} \notag\\
&=2 \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \pi d n \mu_{+-}\right) + \underbrace{dn \frac{\mu_{++}}{2} \log\left( \mu_{++} \right) + dn \frac{\mu_{--}}{2} \log\left( \mu_{--} \right) + dn \mu_{+-} \log \left( \mu_{+-}\right)}_{= -\frac{dn}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right)}\right) \notag\\
&= \exp \left( -\frac{dn}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( n\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left(4 \pi d \mu_{+-}\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)
\end{align}
where we used \eqref{eq_df} for the first equality and Stirling's formula \eqref{eq_stirling} for the second equality. Similarly, we rearrange the second term of interest:
\begin{align*}
\binom{dn \rho_+}{dn \mu_{++}} \binom{dn \rho_-}{dn \mu_{--}} = \frac{\left( d n \rho_+ \right)! \left( d n \rho_- \right)! }{\left( d n \mu_{++} \right)! \left( d n \mu_{--} \right)! \left( d n \left(\rho_+ - \mu_{++} \right) \right)! \left( d n \left(\rho_- - \mu_{--} \right) \right)!} = \frac{\left( d n \rho_+ \right)! \left( d n \rho_- \right)! }{\left( d n \mu_{++} \right)! \left( d n \mu_{--} \right)! \left( \left( dn \mu_{+-}\right)!\right) ^2}.
\end{align*}
Another application of \eqref{eq_stirling} yields
\begin{align} \label{eq_firstmoment_2}
&\binom{dn \rho_+}{dn \mu_{++}} \binom{dn \rho_-}{dn \mu_{--}} \notag \\
&=\exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right) \frac{1}{2 \pi d n} \sqrt{\frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-}^2}} \left( \frac{d n}{e}\right) ^{dn \left( \rho_+ + \rho_- - \mu_{++} - \mu_{--} - 2 \mu_{+-}\right) } \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \rho_+^{d n \rho_+} \cdot \rho_-^{d n \rho_-} \cdot \mu_{++}^{-dn \mu_{++}} \cdot \mu_{--}^{-dn \mu_{--}} \cdot \mu_{+-}^{- 2dn \mu_{+-}} \notag\\
&= \exp \left( d n \rho_+ \log \left( \rho_+\right) + d n \rho_- \log \left( \rho_-\right) - dn \mu_{++} \log \left( \mu_{++} \right) - dn \mu_{--} \log \left( \mu_{--} \right) - 2 dn \mu_{+-} \log \left( \mu_{+-} \right) \right)\notag \\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \exp \left( - \log \left( n\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-}^2 4 \pi^2 d^2}\right)+ O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right) \notag\\
&= \exp\left(dn \left( \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right) - \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)\right) - \log \left( n\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-}^2 4 \pi^2 d^2}\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{eq_firstmoment_1} and \eqref{eq_firstmoment_2} and denoting by we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\left( d n \mu_{++} - 1\right) !! \left( d n \mu_{--} - 1\right)!! \left(d n \mu_{+-} \right) !}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!}
\binom{dn \rho_+}{dn \mu_{++}} \binom{dn \rho_-}{dn \mu_{--}} \\
&=\exp\left(\frac{dn}{2} \left( \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right) - \textrm{H}\left( \rho \otimes \rho \right)\right) - \frac{1}{2} \log \left( n\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-} \pi d}\right)+ O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \\
&=\exp\left(- \frac{dn}{2} D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) - \frac{1}{2} \log \left( n\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-} \pi d}\right)+ O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)
\end{align*}
As an immediate consequence, the first moment from \Lem~\ref{first_mom_starting_point} can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right] = \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_n} \binom{n}{\rho_+ n} \sqrt{\frac{\rho_+ \rho_-}{\mu_{++} \mu_{--} \mu_{+-} \pi d n }}\exp\left(- \frac{dn}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + \beta \left( \mu_{++} + \mu_{--}\right)\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) \right)
\end{align*}
where $\cM_n$ is again the set of all conceivable distributions $\mu$. A short auxiliary calculation using Stirling's formula \eqref{eq_stirling} yields
\begin{align*}
\binom{n}{\rho_+ n} &= \frac{n!}{\left( \rho_+ n\right)! \left( \rho_- n\right)! } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi n \rho_+ \rho_-}} \left( \frac{n}{e}\right) ^n \left( \frac{\rho_+ n}{e}\right) ^{- \rho_+ n}\left( \frac{\rho_- n}{e}\right) ^{- \rho_- n} \exp \left(O \left(\frac{1}{n} \right) \right) \\
&= \frac{\rho_+^{- \rho_+ n} \rho_-^{- \rho_- n}}{\sqrt{2 \pi n \rho_+ \rho_-}} \exp \left(O \left(\frac{1}{n} \right) \right)
= \exp\left( n \textrm{H} \left( \rho\right) - \frac{1}{2} \log\left( n \right) - \frac{1}{2} \log\left( 2 \pi \rho_+ \rho_-\right) +O \left(\frac{1}{n} \right) \right)
\end{align*}
which enables us to state
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right]
&= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_n} \frac{\exp\left(n \textrm{H} \left( \rho\right) - \frac{dn}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + \beta \left( \mu_{++} + \mu_{--}\right)\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}}
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}
Revisiting the setup of our model, we see that all values of $\mu$ and $\rho$ are completely determined by the choice of $\mu_{++}$ and $\rho_{+}$. Exploiting the fact that $\rho$ is a probability distribution, we have
\begin{align*}
\rho_{-} = 1 - \rho_{+}.
\end{align*}
A similar argument can be made for $\mu$. Since edges are by definition undirected in our setup, we have $\mu_{+-} = \mu_{-+}$. Keeping in mind that $\mu$ is also a probability measure, the missing weights of $\mu$ can be deduced from $\mu_{++}$ and $\rho_{+}$ by the equations
\begin{align*}
\mu_{+-} &= \mu_{-+} = \rho_+ - \mu_{++}\\
\mu_{--} &= 1 - 2 \left( \rho_+ - \mu_{++}\right) - \mu_{++} = 1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+.
\end{align*}
Substituting the above into \Lem~\ref{reformulation_first_moment} and some simplifications give us
\begin{align}\label{first_moment_before_Laplace}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right]
= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right).
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right) := \textrm{H} \left( \rho\right) - \frac{d}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + \beta \left(1 +2 \mu_{++} -2 \rho_+ \right)\right)
\end{align*}
and $\mathcal{Q}$ is the set of all conceivable pairs $\bc{ \rho_+, \mu_{++}}$. The KL-divergence can also be expressed just in terms of $\mu_{++}$ and $\rho_{+}$, as the following calculation shows.
\begin{align*}
D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) = &\mu_{++} \log \left(\frac{\mu_{++}}{\rho_+^2} \right) + \mu_{--} \log \left(\frac{\mu_{--}}{\rho_-^2} \right) + 2 \mu_{+-} \log \left(\frac{\mu_{+-}}{\rho_+ \rho_-} \right) \\
= &\mu_{++} \log \left(\frac{\mu_{++}}{\rho_+^2} \right) + \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) \log \left(\frac{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ }{\left( 1 -\rho_+\right)^2} \right) + 2 \left( \rho_+ - \mu_{++}\right) \log \left(\frac{\rho_+ - \mu_{++}}{\rho_+ \left( 1 -\rho_+\right) } \right)\\
= &\mu_{++} \log\left( \mu_{++}\right) + \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) \log \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) \\
&- 2 \left(1 - \rho_+ \right) \log \left( 1 - \rho_+\right)+ 2 \left( \rho_+ - \mu_{++}\right) \log \left( \rho_+ -\mu_{++}\right) - 2 \rho_+ \log\left( \rho_+\right).
\end{align*}
Having effectively reduced the number of involved variables, we now can move on to apply the Laplace method as stated in Theorem $2.3$ in \cite{Greenhill_2010}.
\subsection{Application of the Laplace method to the first moment}
Before we can apply the Laplace method to the expression for the first moment in \eqref{first_moment_before_Laplace}, we need some preliminary work. To be precise, we need to determine the unique maximum $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ of $\psi$ on the set $\mathcal{Q}$ and evaluate the Hessian at this point. To this end, consider
\begin{align} \label{eq_def_hat_rho}
\hat{\rho}_{+} =\hat{\rho}_{-} = \frac{1}{2},
\end{align}
i.e. balanced number of vertices with positive and negative spins. Moreover, let
\begin{align} \label{eq_def_hat_mu}
\hat{\mu}_{++} = \hat{\mu}_{--} = \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \hspace{3 em} \textrm{and} \hspace{3 em} \hat{\mu}_{+-} = \hat{\mu}_{-+} = \frac{1}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }.
\end{align}
We will see in due course in \Lem~\ref{maximum_first_moment} that $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ indeed constitutes the unique maximum of $\psi$. Let us first calculate partial derivatives and establish the Hessian of $\psi$ at $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$.
\begin{lemma}[Hessian for the first moment]\label{hessian_first_moment}
We have
\begin{align*}
\det\left( - \textrm{Hes}_\psi \left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta}\right) } \right) \right)
= 4 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta \left(2 + d \left( e^{\beta} - 1\right) \right).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us get started simple and state the partial derivatives of the Kullback-Leibler divergence from \eqref{first_moment_before_Laplace} with respect to $\mu_{++}$ and $\rho_+$.
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right)}{\partial \mu_{++}}
&= \log \left( \mu_{++}\right) + \log \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) - 2 \log \left( \rho_+ -\mu_{++}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right)}{\partial \mu_{++}^2} &= \frac{1}{\mu_{++}} + \frac{1}{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+} + \frac{2}{\rho_+ -\mu_{++}}\\
\frac{\partial D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) }{\partial \rho_{+}}
&= - 2 \log \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) +2 \log \left( 1 - \rho_+\right) +2 \log \left( \rho_+ -\mu_{++}\right) - 2 \log\left( \rho_+\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) }{\partial \rho_{+}^2} &= \frac{4}{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ } - \frac{2}{1 - \rho_+} + \frac{2}{\rho_+ - \mu_{++}} - \frac{2}{\rho_+}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, for the entropy we recall
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \textrm{H} \left( \rho_+\right)}{\partial \rho_+} = \log\left(1 - \rho_+ \right) - \log\left(\rho_+ \right) \hspace{2 em} \textrm{and} \hspace{2 em} \frac{\partial^2 \textrm{H} \left( \rho_+\right)}{\partial \rho_+^2} = - \frac{1}{1 - \rho_+} - \frac{1}{\rho_+}.
\end{align*}
Keeping these auxiliary calculations in mind, the first derivatives of $\psi$ turn out to be
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)}{\partial \mu_{++}} &= -\frac{d}{2} \left(\log \left( \mu_{++}\right) + \log \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) - 2 \log \left( \rho_+ -\mu_{++}\right) + 2 \beta \right)\\
\frac{\partial \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)}{\partial \rho_+} &= \log\left(1 - \rho_+ \right) - \log\left(\rho_+ \right)- d \left( - \log \left(1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ \right) + \log \left( 1 - \rho_+\right) + \log \left( \rho_+ -\mu_{++}\right) - \log\left( \rho_+\right) - \beta \right)
\end{align*}
while the second derivatives of $\psi$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)}{\partial \mu_{++}^2} &= - \frac{d}{2}\left( \frac{1}{\mu_{++}} + \frac{1}{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+} + \frac{2}{\rho_+ -\mu_{++}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)} {\partial \mu_{++}\partial \rho_+}&=\frac{\partial^2 \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)} {\partial \rho_+\partial \mu_{++}} = -\frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+}- 2 \frac{1}{\rho_+ - \mu_{++}}\right)= \frac{d \left( 1 - \rho_+\right) }{\left( 1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+\right) \left( \rho_+ - \mu_{++}\right)}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)}{\partial \rho_+^2} &= - \frac{1}{1 - \rho_+} - \frac{1}{\rho_+} - d\left(\frac{2}{1 + \mu_{++} - 2 \rho_+ } - \frac{1}{1 - \rho_+} + \frac{1}{\rho_+ - \mu_{++}} - \frac{1}{\rho_+} \right).
\end{align*}
With the above at hand, the entries of the Hessian turn out to be
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \mu_{++}^2} \left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}\right) &= - \frac{d}{2}\left( \frac{1}{ \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}} + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)} - 1} + \frac{2}{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}}\right) \notag \\
&= - 2d \left( \frac{1 + e^{- \beta} + e^{- \beta} + e^{-2 \beta}}{e^{- \beta}}\right) = -2 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta < 0 \label{first_principal_minor}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi} {\partial \mu_{++}\partial \rho_+}\left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}\right)&=\frac{\partial^2 \psi} {\partial \rho_+\partial \mu_{++}}\left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}\right) = \frac{ \frac{d}{2} }{ \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)} \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}\right)}\\
&= \frac{ 2 d }{ \frac{e^{-\beta}}{ 1 + e^{- \beta} } \cdot \frac{1}{ 1 + e^{- \beta} }} = 2 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \rho_+^2}\left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}\right) &= - 2 - 2 - d\left(\frac{2}{ \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)} } - 2 + \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}} - 2 \right)\\
&= -4 -d \left( \frac{4 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}{e^{- \beta}} -2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\right)
= -4 -2 d \left(1 + e^{-\beta} + 2 e^\beta \right).
\end{align*}
Combining the above, the determinant of the Hessian at $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\det\left( - \textrm{Hes}_\psi \left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{e^{-\beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta}\right) } \right) \right)
&= 8 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta +4 d^2 \left(1 + e^{-\beta} + 2 e^\beta \right) \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta - 4 d^2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^4 e^{2\beta} \notag \\
&= 8 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta +4 d^2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta \underbrace{\left( 1 + e^{- \beta} + 2 e^\beta - e^{\beta} - 2 - e^{- \beta} \right)}_{= e^\beta -1} \notag\\
&= 4 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta \left(2 + d \left( e^{\beta} - 1\right) \right) >0.\label{second_principal_minor}
\end{align}
closing the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
With the partial derivatives in place, we can proceed to establish that the unique maximum of $\psi$ is indeed at $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$.
\begin{lemma}[Maximum for the First Moment Calculation]\label{maximum_first_moment}
With the definitions of $\hat{\rho}_{+}$ and $\hat{\mu}_{++}$ from \eqref{eq_def_hat_rho} and \eqref{eq_def_hat_mu} we have
\begin{align*}
\arg \max_ {\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_{+} \right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \psi \left( \mu_{++}, \rho_{+} \right) = \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As a starting point, we set the first derivatives equal to zero, resulting in
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \psi\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_+\right)}{\partial \hat{\mu}_{++}} &= -\frac{d}{2} \left(\log \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}\right) + \log \left(1 + \hat{\mu}_{++} - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - 2 \log \left(\hat{\rho}_+ -\hat{\mu}_{++}\right) + 2 \beta \right) = 0
\end{align*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
0 &= \log \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}\right) + \log \left(1 + \hat{\mu}_{++} - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - 2 \log \left(\hat{\rho}_+ -\hat{\mu}_{++}\right) + 2 \beta \\
\Leftrightarrow 1 &= \frac{\hat{\mu}_{++} \left(1 + \hat{\mu}_{++} - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right)}{ \left( \hat{\rho}_+ -\hat{\mu}_{++}\right)^2} e^{2 \beta} \\
\Leftrightarrow 0 &= \hat{\mu}_{++}^2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) + \hat{\mu}_{++} \left(1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ + e^{-2 \beta} 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - e^{-2 \beta} \hat{\rho}_+^2.
\end{align*}
Then, the quadratic formula yields two candidates for the solution, namely
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}_{++, 1/2} &= \frac{-1 + 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - e^{-2 \beta} 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \pm \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta}\right) \right)^2+ 4 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) e^{-2 \beta} \hat{\rho}_+^2}}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}\\
&= \hat{\rho}_+ - \frac{1 \mp \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) }}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}.
\end{align*}
This result immediately poses the question of possible extrema. First we note that
\begin{align*}
\left(1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) > 0
\end{align*}
since both summands are positive.
This in turn enables us to rule out $\hat{\mu}_{++, 2}= \hat{\rho}_+ - \frac{1 + \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) }}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}$ as a solution since that would imply
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}_{-+} = \hat{\mu}_{+-} = \hat{\rho}_+ - \hat{\mu}_{++, 2}= \frac{1 + \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) }}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)} > \frac{1 }{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)} > \frac{1}{2}
\end{align*}
which contradicts the fact that $\hat{\mu}$ is a probability measure. As a consequence, the only solution that is consistent with our model assumptions is
\begin{align}\label{mu++_in_terms_of_rho+}
\hat{\mu}_{++} = \hat{\rho}_+ - \frac{1 - \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) }}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)} = \hat{\rho}_+ - \frac{1 - \eta}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\eta := \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) } = \sqrt{ 1 - 4 \hat{\rho}_+ \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) +4 \hat{\rho}_+^2 \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}
\end{align*}
In the next step, we plug \eqref{mu++_in_terms_of_rho+} into the first derivative of $\psi$ with respect to $\rho_{+}$
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \psi\left( \hat{\mu}_{++},\hat{\rho}_+\right)}{\partial \hat{\rho}_+} &= \log\left(1 - \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - \log\left(\hat{\rho}_+ \right)\\
&- d \left( - \log \left(1 + \hat{\mu}_{++} - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right) + \log \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) + \log \left( \hat{\rho}_+ -\hat{\mu}_{++}\right) - \log\left( \hat{\rho}_+\right) - \beta \right) = 0
\end{align*}
which yields
\begin{align*}
\xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right) &:= \log\left(1 - \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - \log\left(\hat{\rho}_+ \right)\\
&- d \left( - \log \left(1 - \frac{1 - \eta}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)} - \hat{\rho}_+ \right) + \log \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) + \log \left( \frac{1 - \eta}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}\right) - \log\left( \hat{\rho}_+\right) - \beta \right)\\
&= \log\left(1 - \hat{\rho}_+ \right) - \log\left(\hat{\rho}_+ \right) - d \left( - \log \left(\frac{\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}{1 - \eta } - 1 \right) + \log \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) - \log\left( \hat{\rho}_+\right) - \beta \right)\\
&= 0
\end{align*}
Next, let us take a look at the derivative of $\xi$ with respect to $\hat{\rho}_+$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right)}{\partial \hat{\rho}_+}&= \left( 1-d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{1 - \hat{\rho}_+} - \frac{1}{\hat{\rho}_+} \right)
+ d \left( \frac{\frac{- \left( 1 - \eta \right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) + \frac{2}{ \eta} \left( 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 \right) \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}{\left( 1 - \eta \right)^2 }}{\frac{\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}{1 - \eta } - 1} \right) \\
&= \frac{ d - 1}{\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) \hat{\rho}_+}
+ d \left( \frac{- \left( 1 - \eta \right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) + \frac{4}{ \eta} \left( 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 \right) \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)\left( 1 - \eta \right) - \left( 1 - \eta \right)^2} \right) \\
\end{align*}
where we made use of the simple fact
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \eta }{\partial \hat{\rho}_+} = \frac{1}{2 \eta} \left( 8\hat{\rho}_+ - 4 \right) \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) = \frac{2}{ \eta} \left( 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 \right) \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right).
\end{align*}
To simplify the first derivative, we focus on
\begin{align*}
&\frac{- \left( 1 - \eta \right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) + \frac{4}{ \eta} \left( 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 \right) \left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)\left( 1 - \eta \right) - \left( 1 - \eta \right)^2}
= \frac{ 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) \cdot \left( - \left( 1 - \eta \right) + \frac{1 - \eta^2}{\eta} + \frac{2}{ \eta} \left( \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 \right) \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)\right) }
{\left( 1 - \eta \right) \left( 1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 2 e^{-2 \beta} + 2 e^{-2 \beta} \hat{\rho}_+ + \eta \right) }\\
&= \frac{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) }{\left( 1 - \eta \right) \eta} \cdot \frac{ - \eta + 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta} + 2 e^{-2 \beta}}
{ 1 - 2 \hat{\rho}_+ - 2 e^{-2 \beta} + 2 e^{-2 \beta} \hat{\rho}_+ + \eta }
= - \frac{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right) }{\left( 1 - \eta \right) \eta}.
\end{align*}
As a consequence, the derivative can be simplified to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right)}{\partial \hat{\rho}_+} &= \frac{d -1}{\left( 1- \rho_+\right) \rho_+} - 2 d \left( \frac{ 1- e^{-2 \beta}}{\left(1 - \eta \right) \eta} \right).
\end{align*}
Before proceedings, we point out that
\begin{align*}
\left( 1 - \hat{\rho}_+\right) \hat{\rho}_+ = \frac{1 - \eta^2}{\left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta}\right) 4 }
\end{align*}
which brings us to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right)}{\partial \hat{\rho}_+} &=\frac{d -1}{\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) \hat{\rho}_+} - 2 d \left( \frac{ 1- e^{-2 \beta}}{ \left(1 - \eta \right) \eta} \right)
= \frac{1 - e^{-2 \beta}}{1 - \eta}\left( \frac{4d -4 }{1 + \eta}- \frac{2 d}{\eta}\right) \\
&=\frac{1 - e^{-2 \beta}}{\left( 1 - \eta^2\right) \eta}\left( 4d \eta - 4 \eta - 2d - 2d \eta \right) =\frac{1 - e^{-2 \beta}}{\left( 1 - \eta^2\right) \eta}\left( 2d \left( \eta -1 \right) - 4 \eta - 2d \right) < 0
\end{align*}
where we implicitly assumed that $\hat{\rho}_+$ is conceivable which especially means that $0 < \eta < 1$ holds.
$\frac{\partial \xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right)}{\partial \hat{\rho}_+} < 0$ implies that if we can locate any root of $\xi \left( \hat{\rho}_+ \right)$ it is automatically the unique one.
Recalling our definition of $\rho_+$ and $\mu_{++}$ from \eqref{eq_def_hat_rho} and \eqref{eq_def_hat_mu}, we conjecture that this root is located at $\hat{\rho}_+ = \frac{1}{2}$. A short calculation indeed verifies
\begin{align*}
\xi \left(\frac{1}{2} \right) & = - d \left( - \log \left(\frac{\left( 1 - \frac{1}{2}\right) 2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)}{1 - \eta } - 1 \right) + \log \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2}\right) - \log\left(\frac{1}{2}\right) - \beta \right)\\
& = d \left( \log \left(\frac{ 1 - e^{-2 \beta}}{1 - e^{- \beta} } - 1 \right) + \beta \right) = d \left( \log \left(e^{- \beta } \right) + \beta \right) = 0
\end{align*}
where we used
\begin{align*}
\eta = \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2\hat{\rho}_+ \right)^2 + 4 \hat{\rho}_+ e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \hat{\rho}_+\right) } = \sqrt{ \left(1 - 2 \cdot \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 + 4 \cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot e^{-2 \beta}\left( 1- \frac{1}{2} \right) } = e^{- \beta}.
\end{align*}
This immediately allows us to calculate the optimal $\hat{\mu}_{++}$ by plugging $\hat{\rho}_+ = \frac{1}{2}$ into equation (\ref{mu++_in_terms_of_rho+})
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}_{++} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1 - e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)} = \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)}.
\end{align*}
The above establishes that $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ is the (only) extremum of $\psi$. Let us next show that it is indeed the global maximum (and not a minimum or stationary point). From the calculation of the Hessian (\Lem~\ref{hessian_first_moment}), we saw that the first leading principal minor is negative (see inequality (\ref{first_principal_minor})) and the second one is positive (see inequality (\ref{second_principal_minor})). Thus, $\psi$ is strictly concave at $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ which makes it a local maximum. Due to the uniqueness of the extremum, $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$ thereby also is the unique maximum.
\end{proof}
As an application of \Lem~\ref{maximum_first_moment}, we obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{maximum_first_moment_cor}
We have
\begin{align*}
\max_ {\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_{+} \right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \psi \left( \mu_{++}, \rho_{+} \right) = \psi \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right) = \left(1 - \frac{d}{2} \right) \log\left( 2\right) + \frac{d}{2}\log\left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right)
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We evaluate $\psi$ at the optimal point $\left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right)$. Starting with the entropy we have
\begin{align} \label{eq_first_moment_entropy_opt}
\textrm{H} \left( \hat{\rho} \right) = - \frac{1}{2} \log\left( \frac{1}{2}\right) - \frac{1}{2} \log\left( \frac{1}{2}\right) = \log \left( 2\right).
\end{align}
Continuing with the Kullback-Leibler divergence, we find
\begin{align} \label{eq_first_moment_kldivergence_opt}
D_\textrm{KL} \left( \hat{\mu }\vert\vert \hat{\rho} \otimes\hat{\rho}\right)
&= \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \log\left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }\right) + \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \log \left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right)} \right)\\
&+ 2 \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }\right) \log \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }\right) - 2 \log\left( \frac{1}{2}\right) \\
&= \frac{e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \log\left( \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }\right) + 2 \log \left( 2\right) + \frac{1}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \log \left( \frac{1}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) }\right) \\
&= \log \left( 2\right) - \frac{\beta e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } - \log \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right).
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{eq_first_moment_entropy_opt} and \eqref{eq_first_moment_kldivergence_opt} we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\psi \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right) &= \textrm{H} \left( \hat{\rho}\right) - \frac{d}{2}\left( D_\textrm{KL} (\hat{\mu} \vert\vert \hat{\rho} \otimes\hat{\rho}) + \beta \left(1 +2 \hat{\mu}_{++} -2 \hat{\rho}_+ \right)\right)\\
&= \log \left( 2\right) - \frac{d}{2}\left( \log \left( 2\right) - \frac{\beta e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } - \log \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) + 2 \beta \frac{e^{- \beta}}{2 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right) } \right)\\
&= \left(1 - \frac{d}{2} \right) \log\left( 2\right) + \frac{d}{2}\log\left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right).
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Prop~\ref{prop_first_moment_pairing_model}]
With \Lem s~\ref{hessian_first_moment} and \ref{maximum_first_moment} and \Cor~\ref{maximum_first_moment_cor} in place, all that is left for the application of Laplace's method from \cite{Greenhill_2010} is the determination of the appropriate lattice.
Put differently, we are interested in the respective matrix $A_\textrm{first}$ which consist of the basis elements of the lattice.
For the first moment, the matrix can be constructed in a rather simple way. Since $\rho_+$ is of the form
\begin{align*}
\rho_+ = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{v \in V} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = +1 \right\rbrace }
\end{align*}
the first entry $A_{\textrm{first},1,1}$ immediately turns out to be equal to one. Similarly, keeping in mind
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++} = \frac{2}{dn} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} {\left\lbrace \sigma \left( v \right) = \sigma \left( u\right) = +1 \right\rbrace }
\end{align*}
yields $A_{\textrm{first},2,2} = \frac{2}{d}$. Having constructed the matrix $A_\textrm{first}$, we are left to compute its determinant
\begin{align*}
\det \left( A_{\textrm{first}} \right)= \det \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{2}{d} \\
\end{pmatrix} = \frac{2}{d}.
\end{align*}
Now, we can bring together all the findings of this section to obtain a precise statement of the first moment up to an error term of order $O(\exp(1/n))$.
Applying the Laplace method, i.e. Theorem 2.3 in \cite{Greenhill_2010} to expression \eqref{first_moment_before_Laplace} yields
\begin{align*}
\Erw \left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right]
&= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\left( \rho_+, \mu_{++}\right) \in \mathcal{Q}} \frac{1}{\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \mu_{++}\mu_{--} \mu_{+-} d}} \exp\left( n \psi\left( \mu_{++}, \rho_+\right)\right)\\
&= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \frac{2 \pi n \exp \left(n \psi \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right) \right) }{\det \left( A_{\textrm{first}} \right) \sqrt{\det\left( - \textrm{Hes}_\psi \left( \hat{\mu}_{++}, \hat{\rho}_{+}\right) \right) }\pi n\sqrt{ 2 \hat{\mu}_{++}\hat{\mu}_{--} \hat{\mu}_{+-} d}} \\
&= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \frac{2 \exp \left(n \left( \left(1 - \frac{d}{2} \right) \log\left( 2\right) + \frac{d}{2}\log\left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right)\right) \right) }{\frac{2}{d} \sqrt{4 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 e^\beta \left(2 + d \left( e^{\beta} - 1\right) \right) }\sqrt{ 2 \frac{e^{- 2 \beta}}{8 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^3 } d}} \\
&= \exp\left(O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \sqrt{\frac{1 + e^{ \beta}}{ 2 + d e^{\beta} - d }} \exp \left(n \left( \left(1 - \frac{d}{2} \right) \log\left( 2\right) + \frac{d}{2}\log\left( 1 + e^{- \beta} \right)\right) \right).
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The simple d-regular case}
Having established the first moment in the pairing model $\mathbf{G}$, we next adapt the result to the $d$-regular model $\mathbb{G}$ of interest. As we will see, a pairing variant $\mathbf{G}^*_1$ of the planted model will be a useful tool to do so. The pairing variant $\mathbf{G}^*_1$ is defined as follows. First, draw a spin assignment $\SIGMA^* \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^n$ uniformly at random. Then, draw a graph $\mathbf{G}^*_1$ according to the probability distribution
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P} \left[ \mathbf{G}^*_1 = G \vert \SIGMA^* \right] \propto \exp \left( - \beta \mathcal{H}_G \left( \SIGMA^* \right) \right).
\end{align*}
where $G$ might contain self-loops and double-edges. In the following, we will call a graph $G$ \textit{simple} if it does not feature any such self-loops or double-edges. With this definition, we are able to prove \Prop~\ref{prop_first_moment}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Prop~\ref{prop_first_moment}]
To get started, we note the asymptotic equality
\begin{equation}\label{first_moment_pairing_regular_connection}
\Erw \left[ Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta} \right] \sim \frac{\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_1 \mathrm{\ is \ simple}}}{\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G} \textrm{ is simple}}}\Erw \left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \right].
\end{equation}
Fortunately, both $\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_1 \mathrm{\ is \ simple}}$ and $\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G} \textrm{ is simple}}$ can be readily found in the literature.
\begin{fact}[Corollary 9.7 in \cite{Janson_2011}]\label{prob_pairing_model_simple}
For $d \geq 3$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G} \mathrm{\ is \ simple}} \sim \exp \bc{ - \frac{d -1}{2} - \frac{\bc{d - 1}^2}{4}}.
\end{align*}
\end{fact}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.6 in \cite{Coja_2020}]\label{prob_planted_pairing_model_simple}
For $d \geq 0$ and $\beta > 0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_1\mathrm{\ is \ simple}} \sim \exp \bc{- \bc{d -1} \frac{1}{1 + e^\beta} - \bc{d -1}^2 \frac{1 + e^{2\beta}}{2 \bc{1 + e^\beta}^2}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
In combination with \Prop~\ref{prop_first_moment_pairing_model} and equation \eqref{first_moment_pairing_regular_connection}, Fact \ref{prob_pairing_model_simple} and Lemma \ref{prob_planted_pairing_model_simple} yield the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{The Second Moment/ Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_second_moment}}
Similar to the first moment, we will first establish the following result for the paring model $\mathbf{G}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_second_moment_pairing_model}
For $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$ and $d \geq 3$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Erw \brk{Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta} \vecone \cbc{\cO}} = \exp \bc{O \bc{\frac{1}{n}}} \frac{ \bc{ 1 + e^{ \beta}}^2 \exp \bc{n \bc{\bc{ 2 - d} \log \bc{2} + d \log \bc{1 + e^{- \beta}}}}}{\bc{d e^\beta - d + 2} \sqrt{2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d e^{2 \beta} - d + 2}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Once we have done so, we bridge the gap between $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbb{G}$.
\subsection{Getting started}
For the second moment calculation, we introduce a set of variables that is similar in meaning to the ones employed in the previous sections. Yet, the definitions become more complicated since for the second moment each node $v$ in some graph $G$ is assigned two spins $\sigma_{v}$ and $\tau_{v}$ which can be either positive or negative. As before, we aim to measure the fractions of edges that connect two vertices with certain spin configurations. Since each node is equipped with two spins, there are 16 possible spin configurations for two connected vertices. Usually, we will denote such a configuration as $\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2\right) \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^4 $ where $\sigma_1$ and $\tau_1$ denote the spins assigned to the first node. Accordingly, $\sigma_2$ and $\tau_2$ are the spins of the second node.
With this notation of spin assignments in mind, we define
\begin{align*}
\mu_{r,s,t,u} &:= \frac{2}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u)=r, \sigma (v)=s, \tau (u) = t, \tau(v) = u\right\rbrace \qquad \cbc{r,s,t,u \in {\pm 1}}. \\
\end{align*}
with the shorthand notation $\mu_{++++} = \mu_{+1, +1, +1, +1}$ and so forth.
Our choices of $\mu$ are constrained by the following relationship.
\begin{align}\label{mu_symmetry}
\mu_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2\right)} = \mu_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2, \sigma_1, \tau_1\right)} \hspace{5 em}\forall \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2\right) \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^4.
\end{align}
Note that $\mu_{++++}, \mu_{+-+-}, \mu_{-+-+}$, and $\mu_{----}$ get a special meaning: these four configurations satisfy both $\sigma (u) = \sigma (v)$ and $\tau (u) = \tau(v)$. Hence, they trivially fit condition (\ref{mu_symmetry}). All of the remaining 12 $\mu$'s can be divided into pairs which are the same up to the order of the two vertices. Since the edges are undirected, for each of these pairs we simply count all the edges that could be assigned to either of the two components of $\mu$. Then, to ensure that the $\mu$ pairs satisfy \eqref{mu_symmetry}, the count is equally split between the $\mu$ pair. Combining these thoughts yields
\begin{align*}
&\mu_{++--} = \mu_{--++} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \tau (u) \neq \sigma(v) = \tau(v)\right\rbrace\\
&\mu_{+--+} = \mu_{-++-} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \tau (v) \neq \tau (u) = \sigma(v)\right\rbrace \\
&\mu_{+++-} = \mu_{+-++} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v) = +1 \wedge \tau (u) \neq \tau(v)\right\rbrace \\
&\mu_{++-+}= \mu_{-+++} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1}\left\lbrace \sigma (u) \neq \sigma (v) \wedge \tau (u) = \tau(v) = +1\right\rbrace \\
&\mu_{---+} = \mu_{-+--} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v) = -1 \wedge \tau (u) \neq \tau(v)\right\rbrace\\
&\mu_{--+-} = \mu_{+---} := \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) \neq \sigma (v) \wedge \tau (u) = \tau(v) = -1\right\rbrace.
\end{align*}
Finally, we need expressions to indicate which fraction of vertices is assigned a certain spin configuration $\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^2$. This is achieved rather easily by defining
\begin{align*}
\rho_{\sigma_1, \tau_1} := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{v \in V} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma \left(v\right) = \sigma_1 , \tau \left( v\right) = \tau_1 \right\rbrace
\end{align*}
for $\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1\right) \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^2$. With the definitions in place, we can move on to calculating the second moment.
As a starting point we choose an equation that was derived in detail in \cite{Coja_2020}.
\begin{lemma}[(4.42) in \cite{Coja_2020}] \label{second_moment_start}
We have
\begin{align}\label{eqsecmom}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \right] &= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{U}} \frac{\mathcal{X}_\mu \mathcal{Y}_\mu \mathcal{Z}_\mu}{\left( dn -1\right) !!} \cdot \exp \left( - \beta \frac{d n}{2} \left( \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma) \right) \right)
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{U}$ is the set of conceivable distributions $\mu$, $\sigma$ is of the form $\sigma := (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) \in \{\pm 1\}^4$, $A_1$ is defined by
\[
A_1 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 \neq \tau_2 \right\rbrace \cup \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 \neq \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace,
\]
$A_2$ is given by
\[
A_2 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace,
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{X}_\mu &= \binom{n}{\rho_{++}n, \rho_{+-}n, \rho_{-+}n, \rho_{--} n },\\
\mathcal{Y}_\mu &= \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \binom{d n \rho_{i j}}{d n \mu_{i j ++}, d n \mu_{i j +-}, d n \mu_{i j -+}, d n \mu_{i j --}},\\
\mathcal{Z}_\mu &= \left( d n \mu_{++--}\right)! \left( d n \mu_{-++-}\right)! \prod_{k \in \{ \pm\}} \left( \left( d n \mu_{+ k - k}\right)! \left( d n \mu_{k + k -}\right)!\right) \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}}\left(d n \mu_{i j i j} -1 \right)!! .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Reformulation of the second moment}
The next Lemma equips us with an useful reformulation of the second moment.
\begin{lemma}\label{second_moment_simplified}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \right]
= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{U}} \frac{1}{8 d^3 \pi^\frac{9}{2} n^\frac{9}{2} \sqrt{\prod_{\sigma \in B}\mu_{\sigma}}}\exp \left(n \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) \right)
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{U}$ is the set of conceivable distributions $\mu$, $\sigma$ is of the form $\sigma := (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) \in \{\pm 1\}^4$, $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) $ is defined by
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) := \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
B := \{\pm\}^4 \setminus \left\{ (++--), (-++-), (++-+), (+++-), (+---), (-+--) \right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start off the formulation of the second moment from \Lem~\ref{second_moment_start}. In the next lines, we will establish four asymptotic equalities\footnote{The basic idea for the proof is the same as the one in \cite{Coja_2020}. The contribution of this paper is a more precise calculation that allows us to reduce the error term to order $\exp O \left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$.}. Let us start with
\begin{align*}
\left( dn -1\right) !! &= \frac{\left( d n\right) !}{\left( \frac{d n}{2}\right) ! 2^\frac{d n}{2}}= 2^{-\frac{d n}{2}} \cdot \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{d n}{e}\right) ^{d n} \left( \frac{d n}{2 e} \right)^{-\frac{d n}{2}} \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)
= \exp \left( \frac{1}{2} \log \left( 2\right) + \frac{d n}{2} \log \left( d n\right) - \frac{d n}{2} + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right).
\end{align*}
Second, we take a closer look at
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{X}_\mu &= \binom{n}{\rho_{++}n, \rho_{+-}n, \rho_{-+}n, \rho_{--} n } = \frac{n!}{\left( \rho_{++} n \right)!\left( \rho_{+-} n \right)! \left( \rho_{-+} n \right)! \left( \rho_{--} n \right)! }\\
&= \left(2 \pi \right)^{- \frac{3}{2}} \left( n^3 \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{n}{e}\right) ^{n} \left( \frac{\rho_{++} n}{e}\right) ^{-\rho_{++} n}\left( \frac{\rho_{+-} n}{e}\right) ^{- \rho_{+-} n}\\
&\cdot \left( \frac{\rho_{-+} n}{e}\right) ^{- \rho_{-+} n}\left( \frac{\rho_{--} n}{e}\right) ^{- \rho_{--} n}\exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&=\left(2 \pi \right)^{- \frac{3}{2}} \left( n^3 \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \underbrace{\rho_{++}^{-\rho_{++} n}\rho_{+-}^{-\rho_{+-} n}\rho_{-+}^{-\rho_{-+} n}\rho_{--}^{-\rho_{--} n}}_{= \exp \left( n \cdot \textrm{H} \left( \rho \right) \right) } \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{8 \pi^3 n^3 \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}}}\exp \left( n \cdot \textrm{H} \left( \rho \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)\right).
\end{align*}
Moving on to the third term, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{Y}_\mu &= \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \binom{d n \rho_{i j}}{d n \mu_{i j ++}, d n \mu_{i j +-}, d n \mu_{i j -+}, d n \mu_{i j --}}\\
&= \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \left(2 \pi d n \right)^{- \frac{3}{2}} \sqrt{ \frac{\rho_{i j}}{\mu_{i j ++} \mu_{i j +-}\mu_{i j -+}\mu_{i j --}}} \\
& \qquad \qquad \cdot \rho_{i j}^{d n \rho_{i j}}\mu_{i j ++}^{- d n \mu_{i j ++}} \mu_{i j +-}^{- d n \mu_{i j +-}} \mu_{i j -+}^{- d n \mu_{i j -+}}\mu_{i j --}^{- d n \mu_{i j --}} \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&= \frac{1}{\left( 2 \pi d n\right)^6} \left( \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \sqrt{ \frac{\rho_{i j}}{\mu_{i j ++} \mu_{i j +-}\mu_{i j -+}\mu_{i j --}}}\right) \exp \left( d n \left( \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)- \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
\end{align*}
Last, we consider the fourth term
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{Z}_\mu &= \left( d n \mu_{++--}\right)! \left( d n \mu_{-++-}\right)! \prod_{k \in \{ \pm\}} \left( \left( d n \mu_{+ k - k}\right)! \left( d n \mu_{k + k -}\right)!\right) \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}}\left(d n \mu_{i j i j} -1 \right)!!\\
&= 2 \pi d n \sqrt{ \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++--}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{++--}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{-++-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{-++-}} \cdot \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \prod_{k \in \{ \pm\}}\left(2 \pi d n \sqrt{ \mu_{+k-k} \mu_{k+k-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{+k-k}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{+k-k}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{k+k-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{k+k-}} \right) \cdot \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \frac{\left( d n \mu_{i j i j}\right) !}{\left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}\right)! \cdot 2^\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}}
\end{align*}
In order to proceed with the fourth equation, we keep in mind
\begin{align*}
\frac{\left( d n \mu_{i j i j}\right) !}{\left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}\right)! \cdot 2^\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}} &= 2^{-\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}} \cdot \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{i j i j}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2 e}\right)^{-\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}} \cdot \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&= \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}} \cdot \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)
\end{align*}
which brings us back to
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{Z}_\mu
&= \left( 2 \pi d n\right)^3 \sqrt{ \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++--}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{++--}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{-++-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{-++-}} \cdot \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&\cdot \prod_{k \in \{ \pm\}}\left( \sqrt{ \mu_{+k-k} \mu_{k+k-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{+k-k}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{+k-k}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{k+k-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{k+k-}} \right)
\cdot \prod_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{i j i j}}{2}}\\
&= 4 \left( 2 \pi d n\right)^3 \sqrt{ \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++--}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{++--}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{-++-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{-++-}} \cdot \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)\\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \sqrt{ \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++-+}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{++-+}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{+++-}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{+++-}} \sqrt{ \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}} \\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \left( \frac{d n \mu_{+---}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{+---}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{-+--}}{e}\right)^{d n \mu_{-+--}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{++++}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{++++}}{2}}\\
&\qquad \qquad \cdot \left( \frac{d n \mu_{+-+-}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{+-+-}}{2}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{-+-+}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{-+-+}}{2}} \left( \frac{d n \mu_{----}}{e}\right)^{\frac{d n \mu_{----}}{2}}.
\end{align*}
To simplify this rather complicated term further, we recall the symmetry of our model (see \eqref{mu_symmetry}). Applying this insight to our calculation yields
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{Z}_\mu = 2^5 \pi^3 d^3 n^3 \sqrt{\mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-} \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-} \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}}
\cdot \exp\left( - \frac{d n}{2}\cdot \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) - \frac{d n}{2} + \frac{d n}{2}\log\left( dn \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right).
\end{align*}
Next, we combine these four results starting with
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mathcal{Z}_\mu}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!}
&= 2^{\frac{9}{2}} \pi^3 d^3 n^3 \sqrt{\mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-} \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-} \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}} \cdot \exp\left( - \frac{d n}{2}\cdot \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right) .
\end{align*}
Finally, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mathcal{X}_\mu \mathcal{Y}_\mu \mathcal{Z}_\mu}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!} &= \exp \left( \frac{d n}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right) - n \left( d-1\right) \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) - \frac{9}{2} \log \left( n\right) - \frac{9}{2} \log \left( 2 \pi \right) - 3 \log\left( d\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)\right) \\
&\qquad \cdot \exp \left( - \frac{1}{2}\log \left( \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j \in \{ \pm\}} \log \left( \frac{\rho_{i j}}{\mu_{i j ++} \mu_{i j +-}\mu_{i j -+}\mu_{i j --}}\right)\right)\\
&\qquad \cdot \exp \left( \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-} \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-} \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}\right) + \frac{3}{2} \log \left( 2\right)\right)\\
&= \exp \left( \frac{d n}{2}\left( \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right) - 2 \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)\right) + n \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)- \frac{9}{2} \log \left( 2 \pi n\right) - 3 \log\left( d \right)+ O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)\right) \\
&\qquad \cdot \exp \left(- \frac{1}{2}\log \left( \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \rho_{-+} \rho_{--}}{\prod_{\sigma \in \{\pm\}^4}\mu_{\sigma}}\right)\right)\\
&\qquad \cdot \exp \left( \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-} \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-} \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}\right)+ \frac{3}{2} \log \left( 2\right)\right)\\
&= \exp \left( -\frac{d n}{2}D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho) + n \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)- \frac{9}{2} \log \left( \pi n\right) - 3 \log\left( 2 d \right) - \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \prod_{ \sigma \in \{\pm\}^4} \mu_{\sigma}\right) \right)\\
&\qquad \cdot \exp \left( \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \mu_{++--} \mu_{-++-} \mu_{++-+} \mu_{+++-} \mu_{+---} \mu_{-+--}\right)+ O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)\right)
\end{align*}
To simplify this expression, we introduce the set
\begin{align*}
B = \{\pm\}^4 \setminus \left\{ (++--), (-++-), (++-+), (+++-), (+---), (-+--) \right\}
\end{align*}
to write
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mathcal{X}_\mu \mathcal{Y}_\mu \mathcal{Z}_\mu}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!}
&= \frac{1}{8 d^3 \pi^\frac{9}{2} n^\frac{9}{2} \sqrt{\prod_{\sigma \in B}\mu_{\sigma}}}\exp \left(n \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d n}{2}D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) \right).
\end{align*}
With this result , the second moment turns out to be
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \right] &= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{U}} \frac{\mathcal{X}_\mu \mathcal{Y}_\mu \mathcal{Z}_\mu}{\left( d n - 1\right) !!} \cdot \exp \left( - \beta \frac{d n}{2} \left( \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma) \right) \right) \\
&= \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{U}} \frac{1}{8 d^3 \pi^\frac{9}{2} n^\frac{9}{2} \sqrt{\prod_{\sigma \in B}\mu_{\sigma}}}\exp \left(n \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) \right) \label{second_moment_before_Laplace}
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{U}$ is the set of conceivable distributions $\mu$, $\sigma$ is of the form $\sigma := (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) \in \{\pm 1\}^4$, $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) $ is defined by
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) := \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right)
\end{align*}
$A_1$ is defined by
\[
A_1 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 \neq \tau_2 \right\rbrace \cup \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 \neq \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace,
\]
and $A_2$ is given by
\[
A_2 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace.
\]
\end{proof}
Our ultimate goal is to apply the Laplace method. In order to keep things manageable, we will substitute certain variables using basic symmetry and composition arguments. First, we note that $\rho$ can be simply obtained by calculating the marginals of $\mu$, that is
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++} &= \mu_{++++} + \mu_{+++-} + \mu_{++-+} + \mu_{++--} \\
\rho_{+-} &= \mu_{+-++} + \mu_{+-+-} + \mu_{+--+} + \mu_{+---} \\
\rho_{-+} &= \mu_{-+++} + \mu_{-++-} + \mu_{-+-+} + \mu_{-+--} \\
\rho_{--} &= \mu_{--++} + \mu_{--+-} + \mu_{---+} + \mu_{----}.
\end{align*}
By construction we know that
\begin{align*}
\mu_{+--+} &= \mu_{-++-} , \qquad \mu_{++--} =\mu_{--++}, \qquad \mu_{+++-} = \mu_{+-++}\\
\mu_{++-+} &= \mu_{-+++}, \qquad \mu_{+---} = \mu_{--+-}, \qquad \mu_{-+--} = \mu_{---+}\\
\mu_{----} &= 1 - \sum_{\sigma \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^4, \sigma \neq \left( -1, -1, -1, -1 \right) } \mu_\sigma
\end{align*}
Bringing these results together we are left with $9$ variables, which we rename in the following order for notational convenience
\begin{align*}
x_1 &:= \mu_{+--+} = \mu_{-++-}, \qquad x_2 := \mu_{++--}=\mu_{--++}, \qquad x_3 := \mu_{+++-} = \mu_{+-++},\\
x_4 &:= \mu_{++-+} = \mu_{-+++}, \qquad x_5 := \mu_{+---} = \mu_{--+-}, \qquad x_6 := \mu_{-+--} = \mu_{---+}\\
x_7 &:= \mu_{+-+-}, \qquad x_8 := \mu_{-+-+}, \qquad x_9 := \mu_{++++}
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align*}
\mu_{----} &= 1 - \sum_{\sigma \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^4, \sigma \neq \left( -1, -1, -1, -1 \right) } \mu_\sigma = 1 - 2 x_1 - 2 x_2 - 2 x_3 - 2 x_4 - 2 x_5 -2 x_6 -x_7 - x_8 - x_9\\
\rho_{++} &= x_9 + x_3 + x_4 + x_2 = x_2 + x_3 + x_4 + x_9\\
\rho_{+-} &= x_3 + x_7 + x_1 + x_5= x_1 + x_3 + x_5 + x_7 \\
\rho_{-+} &= x_4+ x_1 + x_8 + x_6 = x_1 + x_4 + x_6 + x_8\\
\rho_{--} &= x_2 + x_5 + x_6 + \mu_{----}= 1 - 2 x_1- x_2 - 2 x_3 - 2 x_4 - x_5 - x_6 -x_7 - x_8 - x_9.
\end{align*}
In order to apply the Laplace method to the second moment, let us consider the function
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) = \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right) .
\end{align*}
We continue by reformulating terms
\begin{align*}
D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right)
&= 2 x_1 \log \left( \frac{x_1}{\rho_{+-} \rho_{-+}} \right) + 2 x_2 \log \left( \frac{x_2}{\rho_{++} \rho_{--}} \right) + 2 x_3 \log \left( \frac{x_3}{\rho_{++} \rho_{+-}}\right) + 2 x_4 \log \left(\frac{x_4}{\rho_{++} \rho_{-+}}\right) \\
&\qquad + 2 x_5 \log \left(\frac{x_5}{\rho_{+-} \rho_{--}} \right)
+ 2 x_6 \log \left(\frac{x_6}{\rho_{-+} \rho_{--}} \right) + x_7 \log \left(\frac{x_7}{\rho_{+-}^2} \right) + x_8 \log \left( \frac{x_8}{\rho_{-+}^2} \right)\\
&\qquad + x_9 \log \left( \frac{x_9 }{\rho_{++}^2}\right) + \mu_{----} \log\left( \frac{ \mu_{----}}{\rho_{--}^2}\right) \\
&= 2 x_1 \log \left( x_1\right) + 2 x_2 \log \left( x_2\right) + 2 x_3 \log \left( x_3\right) + 2 x_4 \log \left(x_4 \right) + 2 x_5 \log \left( x_5\right)+ 2 x_6 \log \left( x_6\right) \\
&\qquad + x_7 \log \left( x_7\right) + x_8 \log \left( x_8\right)+ x_9 \log \left( x_9\right) + \mu_{----} \log\left( \mu_{----}\right) - 2 \rho_{++} \log \left( \rho_{++}\right)\\
&\qquad - 2 \rho_{+-} \log \left( \rho_{+-} \right) - 2 \rho_{-+} \log \left( \rho_{-+} \right) -2 \rho_{--} \log \left( \rho_{--}\right).
\end{align*}
As a consequence, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) &= \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right) \\
&= \left( 1 - d\right) \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) + \frac{d}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) - d \beta \left( x_3 + x_4 + x_5 + x_6 + x_7 + x_8 + x_9 + \mu_{----} \right)
\end{align*}
\subsection{Application of the Laplace method to the second moment}
To apply the Laplace method we need to determine the maximum of $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) $. This is achieved with the following Lemma. Due to its technical and tedious nature, the proof of the lemma is outsourced to a separate section (see section \ref{section_maximization_sec_mom}).
\begin{lemma}\label{sec_mom_optimum}
For $0<\beta<\beta_{\text{KS}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\max_{\mu \in \mathcal{O}'} \delta\left( \mu, \rho\right)=\delta\left( \mu^*, \rho^*\right) =\left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right)
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{O}'$ denotes the set of all $\mu$ that are conceivable under the assumption that the event $\mathcal{O}$ occurs. The unique maximum is obtained at
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++++}^* &= \mu_{----}^* = \mu_{+-+-}^* = \mu_{-+-+}^* = \frac{e^{-2 \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+--+}^* &= \mu_{--++}^* = \mu_{-++-}^* = \mu_{++--}^* = \frac{1}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+++-}^* &= \mu_{++-+}^* = \mu_{+-++}^* = \mu_{-+++}^* = \mu_{---+}^*= \mu_{--+-}^*= \mu_{-+--}^*= \mu_{+---}^* = \frac{e^{- \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}
\end{align*}
which also implies
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++}^* = \rho_{+-}^* = \rho_{-+}^* = \rho_{--}^* = \frac{1}{4}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Having determined the maximum, we next need to evaluate the Hessian at the optimal point. The derivation of the Hessian matrix and evaluation at the optimal point is not too difficult. Thus, we just state the result here and refer the interested reader to \Sec~\ref{sec_hessian}.
\begin{lemma}[Hessian for the second moment]\label{hessian_second_moment}
We have
\begin{align*}
\det \left(- \mathrm{D}^2 \delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right) \right) = 2^{17} d^6 e^{- 8 \beta} \left( 1 + e^\beta \right)^{16} \left( d e^\beta - d + 2 \right)^2 \left(2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d e^{2 \beta} - d + 2 \right).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Prop~\ref{prop_second_moment_pairing_model}]
With \Lem s~\ref{sec_mom_optimum} and \ref{hessian_second_moment} in place, we still need to determine the lattice matrix and its determinant. Similar to the notation for the first moment, we let $A_{\textrm{second}}$ denote the matrix consisting of the elements in the basis of the lattice for the second moment. Recalling the following definitions
\begin{align*}
x_1 &= \mu_{+--+} = \mu_{-++-} = \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \tau (v) \neq \tau (u) = \sigma(v)\right\rbrace \\
x_3 &= \mu_{+++-} = \mu_{+-++} = \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v) = +1 \wedge \tau (u) \neq \tau(v)\right\rbrace \\
x_4 &= \mu_{++-+} = \mu_{-+++} = \frac{1}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1}\left\lbrace \sigma (u) \neq \sigma (v) \wedge \tau (u) = \tau(v) = +1\right\rbrace \\
x_7 &= \mu_{+-+-} = \frac{2}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v)=+1 \wedge \tau (u) = \tau(v) = -1\right\rbrace\\
x_8 &= \mu_{-+-+} = \frac{2}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1}\left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v)=-1 \wedge \tau (u) = \tau(v) = +1\right\rbrace\\
x_9 &= \mu_{++++} = \frac{2}{d n} \sum_{(u,v) \in E} \vec{1} \left\lbrace \sigma (u) = \sigma (v)= \tau (u) = \tau(v) = +1\right\rbrace
\end{align*}
we immediately obtain the diagonal entries for the respective $x$'s, i.e $\frac{1}{d}$ and $\frac{2}{d}$. From here on, things get more complicated. Since $\rho_{++}, \rho_{+-}, \rho_{-+},$ and $\rho_{--}$ each count fractions of the set of nodes (which contains $n$ nodes in total) their entries in the lattice matrix all have to be multiples of $\frac{1}{n}$. Furthermore, we recall the following binding conditions
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++} &= x_9 + x_3 + x_4 + x_2 = x_2 + x_3 + x_4 + x_9\\
\rho_{+-} &= x_3 + x_7 + x_1 + x_5= x_1 + x_3 + x_5 + x_7 \\
\rho_{-+} &= x_4+ x_1 + x_8 + x_6 = x_1 + x_4 + x_6 + x_8.
\end{align*}
Combining these two points, $x_2, x_5,$ and $x_6$ each need to be chosen such that the sums consisting of four summands each add up to a number that is a multiple of $\frac{1}{n}$. Let us focus on $x_2$. Similar arguments apply to $x_5$ and $x_6$. For $x_2$, the above equation can be reformulated as
\begin{align*}
x_2 = \rho_{++} - x_3 - x_4 -x_9 = \frac{b_2}{n} - \frac{b_3}{d n} - \frac{b_4}{d n} - \frac{2 \cdot b_9}{d n}
\end{align*}
where $b_i \in \mathbb{N}, i \in [9]$ are the scalars for the linear combination yielding the desired $\mu$. From the reformulated equation we immediately obtain the matrix entries $A_{\textrm{second}, 2,2} =1$, $A_{\textrm{second}, 2,3} = - 1/d$, $A_{\textrm{second}, 2,4} = -1/d$, and $A_{\textrm{second}, 2,9} = -2/d$. Following through this procedure for $x_5$ and $x_6$, we obtain the remaining entries of $A_{\textrm{second}}$ that are different from zero. This enables us to calculate the determinant of interest:
\begin{align} \label{lattice_second_moment}
\det \left( A_{\textrm{second}} \right)= \det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{d} & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1& - \frac{1}{d} &- \frac{1}{d}& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & - \frac{2}{d} \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{d} & 0 & 0 & 0& 0& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{ d} & 0 &0&0&0 &0 \\
- \frac{1}{d}& 0 &- \frac{1}{d}& 0& 1& 0&- \frac{2}{d}& 0 &0 \\
- \frac{1}{d} & 0 & 0 & - \frac{1}{d} & 0 & 1& 0& - \frac{2}{d}&0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &0 & 0& \frac{2}{d}& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0& 0 &0& 0 & 0& 0& \frac{2}{d} &0 \\
0 &0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0& 0 &\frac{2}{d} \\
\end{pmatrix} = \frac{2^3}{d^6}.
\end{align}
With these results in place, we can apply \Thm~\ref{thm_janson} to the expression for the second moment in \Lem~\ref{second_moment_simplified} which yields
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \vec{1} { \{\mathcal{O} \}} \right]
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \sum_{\mu \in \mathcal{U}} \frac{1}{8 d^3 \pi^\frac{9}{2} n^\frac{9}{2} \sqrt{\prod_{\sigma \in B}\mu_{\sigma}}}\exp \left(n \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) \right) \\
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \frac{\left( 2 \pi n \right)^{\frac{9}{2}} \exp \left(n \delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right) \right)}{8 d^3 \pi^\frac{9}{2} n^\frac{9}{2} \sqrt{\prod_{\sigma \in B}\mu^*_{\sigma}} \det \left( A_{\textrm{second}} \right) \sqrt{ \det \left(- \mathrm{D}^2 \delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right) \right)}}.
\end{align*}
Using \Lem s~\ref{sec_mom_optimum} and \ref{hessian_second_moment} and the determinant of the lattice matrix from \eqref{lattice_second_moment}, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \vec{1} { \{\mathcal{O} \}} \right]
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \frac{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^{10} \exp \left(n \left( \left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right) \right) \right)}{ e^{- 10 \beta} \left( 1 + e^\beta \right)^{8} \left( d e^\beta - d + 2 \right) \sqrt{\left(2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d e^{2 \beta} - d + 2 \right)}}\\
&= \exp \left( O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right)\right) \cdot \frac{ \left( 1 + e^{ \beta}\right)^{2} \exp \left(n \left( \left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right) \right) \right)}{ \left( d e^\beta - d + 2 \right) \sqrt{\left(2 e^{2 \beta} + 2 d e^\beta - d e^{2 \beta} - d + 2 \right)}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{The simple d-regular case}
Having established the second moment in the pairing model $\mathbf{G}$, we still have to adapt the result to the $d$-regular model $\mathbb{G}$ of interest. As we will see, a pairing variant (not the same as for the first moment) $\mathbf{G}^*_2$ of the planted model will be a useful tool to do so. The pairing variant $\mathbf{G}^*_2$ is defined as follows. First, draw two spin assignments $\SIGMA^*, \TAU^* \in \left\lbrace \pm 1 \right\rbrace^n$ independently and uniformly at random. Then, draw a graph $\mathbf{G}^*_2$ according to the probability distribution
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P} \brk{ \mathbf{G}^*_2 = G \vert \SIGMA^*, \TAU^* } \propto \exp \bc{ - \beta \mathcal{H}_G \bc{ \SIGMA^*} - \beta \mathcal{H}_G \bc{ \TAU^*} }.
\end{align*}
where $G$ might again feature self-loops and double-edges. With some effort, we obtain the next result.
\begin{lemma} \label{prob_sec_pairing_model_simple}
For $d \geq 0$ and $\beta > 0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_2 \mathrm{\ is \ simple}} \sim \exp \bc{- \bc{d -1} \frac{2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2} - \bc{d -1}^2 \frac{\bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{prob_sec_pairing_model_simple}]
This proof is based on an idea in \cite{Coja_2020} (Lemma 4.6). First of all, we are interested in the number of self-loops $X$ in $\mathbf{G}^*_2$ on the one hand, and the number of double edges $Y$ on the other hand. For notational convenience, we let $\mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}$ be the event that the generated graph has $\frac{d n}{2} \mu_{++++}$ edges that connect two vertices that each have been assigned two positive spins; the same is assumed to hold for all entries of $\mu$ and the respective types of edges. With these definitions in place, we move on to the expectations of $X$ and $Y$. Instead of calculating the two directly, we decompose the two to simplify the following calculations.
So let us start with the number of self-loops $X$. Basically, there are four different types of self-loops in our model, $X_{++},X_{+-},X_{-+},$ and $X_{--}$. The index in each of the four cases just refers to the spin pair assigned to the vertex of the self-loop. Then, the expectation of $X_{++}$ can be formulated as
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{X_{++} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &= \frac{\rho_{++} n \binom{d}{2} \binom{d n \rho_{++} -2 }{d n \mu_{++++} -2} \bc{d n \mu_{++++} -3}!!}{\binom{d n \rho_{++}}{d n \mu_{++++}} \bc{d n \mu_{++++} -1}!!}
= \frac{\rho_{++} n \frac{d !}{2 (d -2)!} \frac{\bc{d n \rho_{++} -2 }!}{\bc{d n \mu_{++++} -2}! \bc{d n \rho_{++} - d n \mu_{++++}}!}}{ \frac{\bc{d n \rho_{++} }!}{\bc{d n \mu_{++++}}! \bc{d n \rho_{++} - d n \mu_{++++}}!} \bc{d n \mu_{++++} -1} }\\
&= \frac{n \mu_{++++} d (d-1)}{2 \bc{d n \rho_{++} - 1}} \sim \frac{\mu_{++++} (d -1)}{2 \rho_{++}}
\end{align*}
where, in the first step, we already cancelled out the factors that appeared both in the numerator and denominator. By almost identical calculations, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{X_{+-} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &\sim \frac{\mu_{+-+-} (d -1)}{2 \rho_{+-}}, \qquad
\Erw \brk{X_{-+} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{\mu_{-+-+} (d -1)}{2 \rho_{-+}}, \\
&\text{and} \qquad \Erw \brk{X_{--} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{\mu_{----} (d -1)}{2 \rho_{--}}.
\end{align*}
Bringing these four results together and plugging in the optimal point $\bc{\mu^*, \rho^*}$, we arrive at
\begin{align}\label{expectation_self_loops}
\Erw \brk{X \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \bc{d -1} \frac{2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2}.
\end{align}
With a similar argument, we determine the expectation of the number of double edges $Y$. More precisely, we decompose $Y$ into the random variables $Y_{\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2}$ with $\bc{\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2} \in \cbc{\pm 1}^4$. Each $Y_{\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2}$ is just the number of double edges between two vertices where the first vertex is assigned to the spin-pair $\bc{\sigma_1, \tau_1}$ and the second to the pair $\bc{\sigma_2, \tau_2}$. Let us start with the four spin configurations with $\bc{\sigma_1, \tau_1} = \bc{\sigma_2, \tau_2}$. In order to keep the calculations simple, we focus on $Y_{++++}$ and then extend the results to $Y_{+-+-}$, $Y_{-+-+}$, and $Y_{----}$.
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{Y_{++++} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &= \frac{2 \binom{\rho_{++} n}{2} \binom{d}{2}^2 \binom{d n \rho_{++} -4}{d n \mu_{++++} -4} \bc{d n \mu_{++++} -5}!!}{\binom{d n \rho_{++}}{d n \mu_{++++}} \bc{d n \mu_{++++} -1}!!}\\
&\sim \frac{\bc{ \rho_{++} n}^2 \bc{\frac{d (d-1)}{2}}^2 \bc{d n \mu_{++++}}^4}{\bc{ \rho_{++} d n}^4 \bc{d n \mu_{++++}}^2} = \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{++++}^2}{\rho_{++}^2}
\end{align*}
where, in the first step, we already cancelled out the factors that occured both in the numerator and denominator. Following this line of thought, we can also state
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{Y_{+-+-} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &\sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{+-+-}^2}{\rho_{+-}^2}, \qquad
\Erw \brk{Y_{-+-+} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{-+-+}^2}{\rho_{-+}^2}, \\
&\text{and} \qquad \Erw \brk{Y_{----} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{----}^2}{\rho_{--}^2}.
\end{align*}
For the next calculation, we consider the sum of $Y_{+---}$ and $Y_{--+-}$. Since the edges in our model are undirected, it is not suitable to make a distinction between the two.
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{Y_{+---} + Y_{--+-} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &= \frac{2 \rho_{+-} \rho_{--} n^2 \binom{d}{2}^2 \binom{d n \rho_{+-} -2}{d n \mu_{+---} -2} \binom{d n \rho_{--} -2}{d n \mu_{+---} -2} \bc{d n \mu_{+---} -2}!}{\binom{d n \rho_{+-}}{d n \mu_{+---}} \binom{d n \rho_{--}}{d n \mu_{+---}}\bc{d n \mu_{+---}}!}\\
&\sim \frac{2 \rho_{+-} \rho_{--} n^2 \bc{\frac{d (d-1)}{2}}^2 \bc{d n \mu_{+---}}^4}{\bc{ \rho_{+-} d n}^2 \bc{ \rho_{--} d n}^2 \bc{d n \mu_{+---}}^2}
= \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{+---}^2}{\rho_{+-} \rho_{--}}
\end{align*}
Here, we once again tacitly cancelled out the factors in the first expression that are included in both the numerator and denominator. The same approach can be iteratively applied to the remaining types of double edges, which eventually yields
\begin{align*}
\Erw \brk{Y_{-+--} + Y_{---+} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &\sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{-+--}^2}{\rho_{-+} \rho_{--}}, \qquad
\Erw \brk{Y_{+++-} + Y_{+-++} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{+++-}^2}{\rho_{++} \rho_{+-}}, \\
\Erw \brk{Y_{-+++} + Y_{++-+} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} &\sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{++-+}^2}{\rho_{++} \rho_{-+}}, \qquad
\Erw \brk{Y_{++--} + Y_{--++} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{++--}^2}{\rho_{++} \rho_{--}}, \\
&\text{and} \qquad \Erw \brk{Y_{+--+} + Y_{-++-} \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} \frac{\mu_{+--+}^2}{\rho_{+-} \rho_{-+}}.
\end{align*}
Taking the sum of all these findings and plugging in the optimal point $\bc{\mu^*, \rho^*}$, we finally obtain
\begin{align}\label{expectation_double_edges}
\Erw \brk{Y \vert \mathcal{G} \bc{\sigma, \mu}} \sim \bc{d -1}^2 \frac{\bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4}.
\end{align}
With the statements \eqref{expectation_self_loops} and \eqref{expectation_double_edges} in mind, we claim that for all $k, \ell \geq 1$
\begin{align}\label{expectation_loop_self_edge_combined}
\Erw \brk{ \prod_{i = 1}^k \bc{X -i + 1} \prod_{j = 1}^\ell \bc{Y - j + 1}}
\sim \bc{\bc{d -1} \frac{2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2}}^k \bc{\bc{d -1}^2 \frac{\bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4}}^\ell
\end{align}
holds. This can be seen as follows. In \eqref{expectation_self_loops} and \eqref{expectation_double_edges}, we placed just one loop or double edge, respectively. To obtain \eqref{expectation_loop_self_edge_combined}, we now have to place some fixed numbers $k$ and $\ell$ of self-loops and double edges. Since $n$ approaches infinity, the probability that any choices of self-loops and double-edges overlap is bounded by $O (1/n)$. Thus, the desired result can be leveraged from \eqref{expectation_self_loops} and \eqref{expectation_double_edges}.
With \eqref{expectation_loop_self_edge_combined} in place, we immediately see
\begin{equation*}
\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_2 \in \mathcal{S}} = \Pr \brk{X =Y =0} \sim \exp \bc{- \bc{d -1} \frac{2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^2} - \bc{d -1}^2 \frac{\bc{1 + e^{2 \beta}}^2}{\bc{1 + e^\beta}^4}}.
\end{equation*}
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
Now, we are equipped to prove Proposition \ref{prop_second_moment}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_second_moment}]
We again use the asymptotic equality
\begin{equation}\label{second_moment_pairing_regular_connection}
\Erw \left[ Z_{\mathbb{G}, \beta}^2 \vec{1} { \{\mathcal{O} \}} \right] \sim \frac{\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G}^*_2 \mathrm{\ is \ simple}}}{\Pr \brk{\mathbf{G} \textrm{ is simple}}}\Erw \left[ Z_{\mathbf{G}, \beta}^2 \vec{1} { \{\mathcal{O} \}} \right].
\end{equation}
Thus, the desired result is obtained by combining equation \eqref{second_moment_pairing_regular_connection}, \Prop~\ref{prop_second_moment_pairing_model}, Lemma \ref{prob_sec_pairing_model_simple}, and Fact \ref{prob_pairing_model_simple}.
\end{proof}
\section{Second Moment Optimization / Proof of \Lem~\ref{sec_mom_optimum}}\label{section_maximization_sec_mom}
In this section we solve the maximization problem
\begin{align*}
\max_{\mu \in \mathcal{O}'} \delta\left( \mu, \rho\right)
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) &:= \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right) \qquad \text{and} \\
A_1 &:= \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 \neq \tau_2 \right\rbrace \cup \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 \neq \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace \qquad \text{and} \\
A_2 &:= \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace.
\end{align*}
with vectors of the form $\sigma = (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) \in \{\pm 1\}^4$. Furthermore, $\mathcal{O}'$ denotes the set of all $\mu$ that are conceivable given that the event $\mathcal{O}$ from \eqref{eq_def_O} holds. At this point, we exploit the spatial mixing argument. Keeping Lemma \ref{lem_o} in mind, we limit our attention to the event $\mathcal{O}$. This is a crucial step for the following calculations because it allows us to perform the reparametrization
\begin{align} \label{eq_rho_alpha}
\rho_\alpha (\sigma_1, \tau_1) := \frac{1 + \alpha \cdot \vec{1} \cbc{\sigma_1 = \tau_1} - \alpha \cdot \vec{1} \cbc{\sigma_1 \neq \tau_1}}{4}
\end{align}
where $\alpha \in (-1, +1)$ and $(\sigma_1, \tau_1) \in \{\pm 1\}^2$.
Now, the proof strategy is as follows. First, we minimize $\delta$ with respect to $\mu$. This will provide us with a solution of $\mu$ formulated in terms of $\rho$ or $\alpha$, respectively. In a second step, all that remains to do is to maximize the function $\delta$ with respect to $\alpha$.
\subsection{Minimization with respect to $\mu$}
Instead of solving the optimization in one step, we start by considering
\begin{align*}
g(\mu, \rho_\alpha):= D_\textrm{KL} (\mu \vert\vert \rho_\alpha \otimes \rho_\alpha) + \beta\cdot \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \cdot \beta \cdot \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)
\end{align*}
where $A_1$ is defined by
\begin{align*}
A_1 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 \neq \tau_2 \right\rbrace \cup \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 \neq \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace
\end{align*}
and $A_2$ is given by
\begin{align*}
A_2 := \left\lbrace x \in \{\pm 1\}^4: \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \textrm{ and } \tau_1 = \tau_2 \right\rbrace.
\end{align*}
Note that the entropy term $H(\rho)$ is independent of $\mu$ and thus not relevant for optimizing with respect to $\mu$.
The above formulation immediately brings us to the constrained minimization problem
\begin{align*}
&\min_{\mu \in \mathcal{O}'} g(\mu, \rho_\alpha)\\
\textrm{ s.t. } \forall \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in &\{\pm 1\}^2: \sum_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) = \rho_\alpha \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \\
\forall \left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in &\{\pm 1\}^2: \sum_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu (\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2) = \rho_\alpha \left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{P}\left( \{\pm 1\}^4 \right)$ denotes the set of all probability distributions on $\{\pm 1\}^4$. For ease of notation, we will drop the index $\alpha$ and just write $\rho$. As a first step, we point out that due to symmetry the optimal $\mu^*$ will have the following properties:
\begin{align*}
\mu^*_{++++} &= \mu^*_{----}, \qquad \mu^*_{++--} = \mu^*_{--++}, \\
\mu^*_{+-+-} &= \mu^*_{-+-+}, \qquad \mu^*_{+--+} = \mu^*_{-++-},\\
\mu^*_{+++-} = \mu^*_{++-+}&= \mu^*_{+-++} = \mu^*_{-+++} = \mu^*_{---+} = \mu^*_{--+-}= \mu^*_{-+--} = \mu^*_{+---}.
\end{align*}
From the above reparametrization, we additionally emphasize that both
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++} = \rho_{--} \hspace{3 em} \textrm{ and } \hspace{3 em} \rho_{+-} = \rho_{-+}
\end{align*}
hold irrespective of the chosen $\alpha$. This fact directly entails that setting up the Lagrangian function for our minimization problem will only require two distinct Lagrangian multipliers, namely $\lambda_{++}$ and $\lambda_{+-}$. Put differently, we are going to consider the following Lagrangian function $\mathcal{L}$:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right) :=
&g(\mu, \rho_\alpha) - \lambda_{++} \cdot \left( \sum_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \left\lbrace (-1, -1), (+1, +1) \right\rbrace } \left[ \sum_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu \left(\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right] - \rho_\alpha \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right)\right) \\
&- \lambda_{++} \cdot \left( \sum_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in \left\lbrace (-1, -1), (+1, +1) \right\rbrace } \left[ \sum_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu \left(\sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right] - \rho_\alpha \left(\sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right) \\
&- \lambda_{+-} \cdot \left( \sum_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \left\lbrace (-1, +1), (+1, -1) \right\rbrace } \left[ \sum_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right] - \rho_\alpha \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right)\right) \\
&- \lambda_{+-} \cdot \left( \sum_{\left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right) \in \left\lbrace (-1, +1), (+1, -1) \right\rbrace } \left[ \sum_{\left( \sigma_1, \tau_1 \right) \in \{\pm 1\}^2} \mu \left( \sigma_1, \tau_1, \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right] - \rho_\alpha \left( \sigma_2, \tau_2 \right)\right)
\end{align*}
Keeping the symmetry in mind, it suffices to consider the following derivatives of the Lagrangian function
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right)}{\partial \mu_{++++}} &= 1+ \log \left( \frac{\mu_{++++}}{\rho_{++}^2}\right) + 2 \beta - 2 \lambda_{++} \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right)}{\partial \mu_{++--}} &= 1+ \log \left( \frac{\mu_{++--}}{\rho_{++}^2}\right) - 2 \lambda_{++}\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right)}{\partial \mu_{+-+-}} &= 1+ \log \left( \frac{\mu_{+-+-}}{\rho_{+-}^2}\right) + 2 \beta - 2 \lambda_{+-}\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right)}{\partial \mu_{+--+}} &= 1+ \log \left( \frac{\mu_{+--+}}{\rho_{+-}^2}\right) - 2 \lambda_{+-}\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L} \left( \mu, \lambda_{++}, \lambda_{+-} \right)}{\partial \mu_{+++-}}&= 1+ \log \left( \frac{\mu_{+++-}}{\rho_{++}\cdot \rho_{+-}}\right) + \beta - \lambda_{++} - \lambda_{+-}
\end{align*}
Setting these derivatives equal to zero, we instantly obtain
\begin{align}
\mu_{++++}^* &= \rho_{++}^2 \exp \left( 2 \lambda_{++} - 2 \beta -1 \right) = \rho_{++}^2 x_1^2 e^{-2\beta} \label{mu_first_condition_sec_mom}\\
\mu_{++--}^* &= \rho_{++}^2 \exp \left( 2 \lambda_{++} -1 \right) = \rho_{++}^2 x_1^2 \\
\mu_{+-+-}^* &= \rho_{+-}^2 \exp \left( 2 \lambda_{+-} - 2 \beta -1 \right)= \rho_{+-}^2 x_2^2 e^{-2\beta} \\
\mu_{+--+}^*& = \rho_{+-}^2 \exp \left( 2 \lambda_{+-} -1 \right)= \rho_{+-}^2 x_2^2 \\
\mu_{+++-}^*& = \rho_{++} \rho_{+-} \exp \left( \lambda_{++} + \lambda_{+-} - \beta -1 \right)= \rho_{++}\rho_{+-} x_1 x_2 e^{-\beta}\label{mu_fifth_condition_sec_mom}
\end{align}
where the second equalities in each line represent a notational simplification by introducing $x_1 := e^{\lambda_{++}-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $x_2 := e^{\lambda_{+-}-\frac{1}{2}}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_sol_min_sec_moment}
The above system of equations (\ref{mu_first_condition_sec_mom})-(\ref{mu_fifth_condition_sec_mom}) and therefore the minimization problem of $g \left( \mu, \rho_\alpha \right)$ has the unique solution
\begin{align*}
x_1 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1+ \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}.
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
x_2 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \pm 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In order to solve this system of equations, we recall two of the initial constraints of our minimization problem, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++++} + \mu_{+++-} + \mu_{++-+}+ \mu_{++--} &= \rho_{++} \\
\mu_{+-++} + \mu_{+---} + \mu_{+--+} + \mu_{+-+-} &= \rho_{+-}.
\end{align*}
Plugging in the $\mu^*$ we derived above and once again keeping in mind the symmetry of the problem, the two constraints can be reformulated into
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++} x_1^2 e^{-2\beta} + 2\rho_{+-} x_1 x_2 e^{-\beta} + \rho_{++} x_1^2 &= 1 \\
\rho_{+-} x_2^2 e^{-2\beta} + 2\rho_{++} x_1 x_2 e^{-\beta} + \rho_{+-} x_2^2 &= 1.
\end{align*}
which in turn yields
\[
x_1 = \frac{1- x_2^2 \rho_{+-} \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) }{2 \rho_{++} e^{- \beta} x_2}.
\]
Substituting $x_1$ into the first constraint, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\frac{\left(1 + e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- x_2^2 \rho_{+-} \left(1 + e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \right)^2 }{4 \rho_{++} e^{- 2 \beta} x_2^2} + \frac{\rho_{+-}}{\rho_{++}} \cdot \left( 1- x_2^2 \rho_{+-} \left(1 + e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \right) =1
\end{align*}
For notational convenience, we substitute $x:= x_2^2$ and $\kappa := 1 + e^{- 2 \beta}$. As a consequence, the previous equation can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
x^2 \left( \rho_{+-}^2 \kappa^3 - 4 \rho_{+-}^2 \kappa e^{-2 \beta}\right) + x \left( 4 \rho_{+-} e^{-2 \beta} - 2 \rho_{+-} \kappa^2 - 4 \rho_{++} e^{-2 \beta} \right) + \kappa = 0.
\end{align*}
Now, we are able to apply the quadratic formula which yields
\begin{align*}
x &= \frac{- 4 \rho_{+-} e^{-2 \beta} + 2 \rho_{+-} \kappa^2 + 4 \rho_{++} e^{-2 \beta} \pm \sqrt{\left( 4 \rho_{+-} e^{-2 \beta} - 2 \rho_{+-} \kappa^2 - 4 \rho_{++} e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 4 \rho_{+-}^2 \kappa^2 \left( \kappa^2 - 4 e^{-2 \beta} \right) }}{2 \left( \rho_{+-}^2 \kappa^3 - 4 \rho_{+-}^2 \kappa e^{-2 \beta}\right) }\\
&= \frac{\frac{1}{2} \left( 1- \alpha \right) \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \left( 1+ \alpha \right) e^{-2 \beta} - \left( 1- \alpha\right) e^{-2 \beta} \pm \sqrt{\left( 2 \alpha e^{-2 \beta} + \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \kappa^2 \right)^2 - \frac{1}{4} \left( 1 - \alpha \right)^2 \kappa^4 + \left( 1 - \alpha \right)^2 \kappa^2 e^{-2 \beta}} }{\frac{1}{8} \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - 4 e^{-2 \beta}\right) }\\
&= 4 \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \pm 2 \sqrt{ 4 \alpha^2 e^{-4 \beta} + 2 \alpha e^{-2 \beta} \left( 1- \alpha \right) \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 + \left( 1 - \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 e^{-2 \beta}} }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }\\
\end{align*}
Focusing on the square root term, we note
\begin{align*}
&4 \alpha^2 e^{-4 \beta} + 2 \alpha e^{-2 \beta} \left( 1- \alpha \right) \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 + \left( 1 - \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 e^{-2 \beta} \\
&= 4 \alpha^2 e^{-4 \beta} - \alpha^2 e^{-2 \beta} \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 + \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 e^{-2 \beta} = e^{-2 \beta} \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 \right)
\end{align*}
which leads us to
\begin{align*}
x = 4 \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \pm 2 e^{- \beta} \sqrt{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2} }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }
= 4 \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \pm 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }
\end{align*}
where we have introduced $z := \sqrt{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2}$ for notational convenience. At this point, we recall that $x =x_2^2$ to arrive at
\begin{align*}
x_2 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \pm 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}
\end{align*}
where we discard the negative square root since $x_2$ by definition is of the form $x_2 = e^{\lambda_{+-}-\frac{1}{2}}$ and thereby always non-negative. This leaves us with two potential solutions for $x_2$ which only differ in the $\pm$ sign in the above equation. Leaving out the detailed calculation, it is easy to show that choosing $+$ at the $\pm$ sign would result in a negative $x_1$. However, similar to $x_2$, $x_1 = e^{\lambda_{++}-\frac{1}{2}}$ also cannot become negative by construction. As a consequence, the only remaining and suitable candidate for $x_2$ and thereby the solution is
\begin{align*}
x_2 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}.
\end{align*}
With this solution for $x_2$ we are now able to calculate the optimal $x_1$. More specifically, we recall the formula we have derived a few steps back
\begin{align*}
x_1 = \frac{1- x_2^2 \rho_{+-} \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) }{2 \rho_{++} e^{- \beta} x_2}.
\end{align*}
Plugging in the optimal $x_2$, we arrive at the expression
\begin{align} \label{eq_lagrange_x1}
x_1 = \frac{1- \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 } }{\left( 1 + \alpha \right) e^{- \beta} \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1- \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}}
= \frac{\left( -4 e^{- \beta} + 2 z\right) \sqrt{1 + e^{- 2 \beta}} }{\left( 1 + \alpha \right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) \sqrt{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }}.
\end{align}
Next, we claim that
\begin{align*}
x_1 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1+ \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}.
\end{align*}
Indeed, we find starting at \eqref{eq_lagrange_x1} that
\begin{align*}
x_1 = \frac{\left( -4 e^{- \beta} + 2 z\right) \sqrt{1 + e^{- 2 \beta}} }{\left( 1 + \alpha \right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) \sqrt{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }}.
\end{align*}
Thus, our claim is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{simpopt}
\left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right)^2 \left( 1 + e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2
= \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right).
\end{align}
To see that \eqref{simpopt} is indeed true, we execute the following auxiliary calculation:
\begin{align*}
&\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) \\
&= \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^4 - 4 e^{- \beta} z \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 4 e^{-2 \beta} \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \right) - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^4 \\
&= \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \left(z^2 - 4 e^{- \beta} z + 4 e^{-2 \beta}\right) = \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \left( z - 2e^{- \beta}\right)^2.
\end{align*}
Hence, we established our claim and thus know
\begin{align*}
x_1 = 2 \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ \left( 1+ \alpha \right)^2 \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 }}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Let us bring together our findings of this subsection. Due to the well-known fact that the Kullback-Leibler divergence is convex in its input parameters, we immediately see that the function $ g(\mu, \rho_\alpha)$ is convex as well. As a consequence, the $\mu^*$ we have just calculated is indeed the minimum. Put differently, we are now able to state
\begin{align*}
\min_{\mu \in \mathcal{O}' } g(\mu, \rho_\alpha) = g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha).
\end{align*}
Although this statement is satisfactory, we would favor a more explicit expression. This is achieved by the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_g_simplified_version}
We have
\begin{align*}
g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) &= 2 \log\left( 2\right) - \log \left( \left( 1 +e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) ^2\right) - \left(1 + \alpha \right) \log \left( 1 + \alpha \right) \\
&- \left(1 - \alpha \right) \log \left( 1 - \alpha \right) + \frac{1 + \alpha}{2} \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) \\
&+\frac{1 - \alpha}{2} \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In order to get to the desired expression, we take a closer look at the Kullback-Leibler divergence for the optimal $\mu^*$
\begin{align*}
D_\textrm{KL} (\mu^* \vert\vert \rho_\alpha \otimes \rho_\alpha)
&= 2 \mu_{++++}^* \log \left( x_1^2 e^{-2 \beta}\right) +2 \mu_{++--}^* \log \left( x_1^2 \right) +2 \mu_{+-+-}^* \log \left( x_2^2 e^{-2 \beta}\right) \\
&\qquad +2 \mu_{+--+}^* \log \left( x_1^2 \right) +8 \mu_{+++-}^* \log \left( x_1 x_2 e^{- \beta}\right) \\
&= - \beta \left(4 \mu_{++++}^* + 4 \mu_{+-+-}^* + 8 \mu_{+++-}^* \right) + \log \left( x_1\right) \left( 4 \mu_{++++}^* + 4 \mu_{++--}^* + 8 \mu_{+++-}^*\right) \\
&\qquad + \log \left( x_2\right) \left( 4 \mu_{+-+-}^* + 4 \mu_{+--+}^* + 8 \mu_{+++-}^*\right)
\end{align*}
Using the reformulation of $D_\textrm{KL} (\mu^* \vert\vert \rho_\alpha \otimes \rho_\alpha)$, $g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha)$ can be formulated as
\begin{align*}
g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha)
= \log \left( x_1\right) \left( 4 \mu_{++++}^* + 4 \mu_{++--}^* + 8 \mu_{+++-}^*\right) + \log \left( x_2\right) \left( 4 \mu_{+-+-}^* + 4 \mu_{+--+}^* + 8 \mu_{+++-}^*\right).
\end{align*}
This expression in turn is suitable for inserting $x_1$ and $x_2$ leading to
\begin{align*}
g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) &= 2 \log\left( 2\right) - \log \left( \left( 1 +e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) ^2\right)\\
&\qquad + \left[ \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) - 2 \log \left(1+ \alpha \right) \right] \cdot \left( 2 \mu_{++++}^* + 2 \mu_{++--}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^*\right) \\
&\qquad + \left[ \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) - 2 \log \left(1- \alpha \right) \right] \cdot \left( 2 \mu_{+-+-}^* + 2 \mu_{+--+}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^*\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\mu^*$ is a probability measure by definition, we can exploit the identity
\begin{align*}
2 \mu_{+-+-}^* + 2 \mu_{+--+}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^* = 1 - 2 \mu_{++++}^* - 2 \mu_{++--}^* - 4 \mu_{+++-}^*
\end{align*}
to rearrange $g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha)$ as
\begin{align*}
g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) &= 2 \log\left( 2\right) - \log \left( \left( 1 +e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) ^2\right)
+ \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) - 2 \log \left(1- \alpha \right) \\
&\qquad + \left[ \log\left( \frac{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} \right) - 2 \log \left(\frac{1 + \alpha}{1- \alpha} \right) \right] \cdot \left( 2 \mu_{++++}^* + 2 \mu_{++--}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^*\right).
\end{align*}
To keep the terms relatively brief, we define
\begin{align*}
T_1 &:= 2 \log\left( 2\right) - \log \left( \left( 1 +e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) ^2\right)
+ \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right)
- 2 \log \left(1- \alpha \right) \\
T_2 &:= 2 \mu_{++++}^* + 2 \mu_{++--}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^* \\
T_3 &:= \log\left( \frac{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} \right) - 2 \log \left(\frac{1 + \alpha}{1- \alpha} \right)
\end{align*}
which implies $g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) = T_1 + T_2 \cdot T_3$. In the next step, we will plug in $\mu^*$ in order to simplify $T_2$
\begin{align*}
T_2 &= 2 \mu_{++++}^* + 2 \mu_{++--}^* + 4 \mu_{+++-}^* = 2 x_1^2 \rho_{++}^2 \left(1 + e^{-2 \beta} + 2 e^{- \beta} \frac{\rho_{+-} x_2}{\rho_{++} x_1} \right) \\
&= \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ 2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 } \\
& \qquad + e^{- \beta} \frac{\sqrt{\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) }}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2}
\end{align*}
Applying \eqref{simpopt} to the term in the square root yields
\begin{align*}
T_2 &= \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }{ 2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 } + e^{- \beta} \frac{\left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right) \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right) }{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2}\\
&= \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 4 e^{-2 \beta} }{ 2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 } = \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}.
\end{align*}
Coming back to $g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha)$, we obtain the expression that Lemma \ref{lemma_g_simplified_version} promised
\begin{align*}
g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) &= 2 \log\left( 2\right) - \log \left( \left( 1 +e^{- 2 \beta}\right) \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right) ^2\right) - \left(1 + \alpha \right) \log \left( 1 + \alpha \right) - \left(1 - \alpha \right) \log \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \\
&\qquad + \frac{1 + \alpha}{2} \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right)
+\frac{1 - \alpha}{2} \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Maximization with respect to $\alpha$}
In this subsection we focus on the function
\begin{align*}
f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) := \log (2) + \textrm{H}\left( \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}\right) - \frac{d}{2} g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha).
\end{align*}
which results from plugging in the definition of $\rho$ in terms of $\alpha$ from \eqref{eq_rho_alpha}. More specifically, we are interested in solving the optimization
\begin{align*}
\max_{-1 < \alpha <1} f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right).
\end{align*}
which will immediately yield the answer to our initial optimization problem over $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)$. Note that we tacitly exploit the results of both Lemma \ref{lemma_sol_min_sec_moment} and Lemma \ref{lemma_g_simplified_version} to be able to state a function $f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right)$ that only depends on $d, \alpha,$ and $\beta$. As a consequence, we have to prove the following statement.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_optimal_alpha}
Assume that $0 < \beta < \beta_{\text{KS}}$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\arg \max_{-1 < \alpha <1} f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To solve the maximization with respect to $\alpha$, we calculate the derivatives. Let us start with the simpler ones, namely the first and second derivative of the entropy with respect to $\alpha$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}\right) }{\partial \alpha} = \frac{1}{2} \log \left( 1- \alpha \right) - \frac{1}{2} \log \left( 1+ \alpha \right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \textrm{H}\left( \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}\right) }{\partial \alpha^2} = \dfrac{1}{2} \left( \frac{-1}{1- \alpha} - \frac{1}{1 + \alpha} \right) = - \frac{1}{1 - \alpha^2}.
\end{align*}
Before we continue with our main task, let us state a useful observation which will be helpful in the following calculations. Let
\begin{align*}
z = \sqrt{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2}
\end{align*}
Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial z }{\partial \alpha} &= \frac{- \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{\sqrt{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2}} = - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Next, we determine the first two derivatives for $g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha)$. Starting with the first derivative, we find
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\partial g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial \alpha} = -\frac{1 + \alpha}{1 + \alpha} - \log \left( \frac{1+ \alpha}{2}\right) + \frac{1 - \alpha}{1 - \alpha} + \log \left( \frac{1- \alpha}{2}\right)\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\left[ \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) - \log\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right)\right] \\
&+ \frac{1 + \alpha}{2} \cdot \frac{ \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}
+ \frac{1 - \alpha}{2} \cdot \frac{ -\left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}
\end{align*}
For the next simplification, we focus on the last two summands of the previously stated derivative, i.e.
\begin{align*}
& \frac{1 + \alpha}{2} \cdot \frac{ \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}
+ \frac{1 - \alpha}{2} \cdot \frac{ -\left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z}\\
&= \frac{\left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{2 z} \cdot \frac{\left( 1 + \alpha \right) \left( z + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) }{\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) }\\
&+ \frac{\left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{2 z} \cdot \frac{\left( 1 - \alpha \right) \left( -z + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) }{\left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) }
\end{align*}
Again, we restrict our attention to one term, namely
\begin{align*}
&\left( 1 + \alpha \right) \left( z + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) \\
&+ \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \left( -z + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \right) \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right)\\
&=\left( \left( 1 + e^{- 2 \beta}\right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z \right) \left( 4 e^{- \beta} \alpha + 2 \alpha z \right) + \alpha \left( 1 - e^{- 2 \beta}\right)^2 \left( -2 z - 4 e^{- \beta} \alpha^2 \right) \\
&= 2 \alpha z 4 e^{-2 \beta} - 8 e^{-2 \beta} \alpha z= 0.
\end{align*}
As a result, the first derivative can be reduced to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial \alpha} &= - \log \left( 1+ \alpha\right) + \log \left( 1- \alpha\right) +
\frac{1}{2} \log\left( \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} {\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }\right).
\end{align*}
Based on this result, we can instantly compute the second derivative
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial \alpha^2}
= -\frac{2}{1- \alpha^2} + \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left[ \frac{ \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} - \frac{ -\left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + 2 e^{- \beta}\alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 z^{-1}}{\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} \right].
\end{align*}
Once again, we apply \eqref{simpopt} to get to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial \alpha^2}
&= -\frac{2}{1- \alpha^2} + \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 \frac{2 z \left( \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z\right) - 4 e^{- \beta} \alpha^2 \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2} {2z \left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right)^2 \left( 1 + e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}\\
&= -\frac{2}{1- \alpha^2} + \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta}\right)^2 \frac{ \left( 1 + e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 \left(z - 2 e^{- \beta} \right) } {z \left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right)^2 \left( 1 + e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2} = \frac{ \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 } {z \left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right) } -\frac{2}{1- \alpha^2}.
\end{align*}
Finally, combining the derivatives of the entropy and $g(\mu^*, \rho_a)$ we arrive at
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\partial f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) }{\partial \alpha} = \frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}\right) }{\partial \alpha} - \frac{d}{2} \cdot \frac{\partial g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial \alpha}\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \log \left( 1- \alpha \right) - \frac{1}{2} \log \left( 1+ \alpha \right) \\
&\qquad + \frac{d}{2} \left( \log \left( 1+ \alpha\right) - \log \left( 1- \alpha\right) - \frac{1}{2} \log\left( \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} {\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }\right)\right) \\
&= \frac{d - 1}{2} \log \left( 1+ \alpha \right) - \frac{d -1}{2} \log \left( 1- \alpha \right) - \frac{d}{4} \log\left( \frac{ \left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z} {\left( 1+ e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha \left( 1- e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - 2 e^{- \beta} z }\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) }{\partial \alpha^2} &= \frac{\partial^2 \textrm{H}\left( \frac{1 + \alpha}{2}\right) }{\partial \alpha^2} - \frac{d}{2} \cdot \frac{\partial^2 g(\mu^*, \rho_\alpha) }{\partial^2 \alpha}
= - \frac{1}{1 - \alpha^2} - \frac{d}{2} \cdot \left( \frac{ \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 } {z \left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right) } -\frac{2}{1- \alpha^2} \right)\\
&= d \cdot \frac{z^2 -4 z e^{-\beta} + \left( 1 + e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 - \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2 + \alpha^2 \left( 1 - e^{-2 \beta} \right)^2}{\left( 1 - \alpha^2 \right) 2 z \left( z - 2 e^{- \beta}\right)} - \frac{1}{1- \alpha^2}\\
&= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d e^{- \beta}}{\left( 1- \alpha^2\right) z} =\frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d }{\left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \sqrt{\left( e^\beta + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 - \alpha^2 \left( e^\beta - e^{- \beta}\right)^2}}\\
&= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d }{\left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \sqrt{\left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \cdot \left( e^{2 \beta} + e^{-2 \beta}\right)+ 2 + 2 \alpha^2 }}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we note that for every $\beta $ we have for $\alpha = 0$
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial f_d }{\partial \alpha}\left( 0, \beta \right) = 0.
\end{align*}
Now, to complete the maximization with respect to $\alpha$, we claim is that the global maximum of $f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) $ is at $\alpha = 0$ as long as $\beta<\beta_{\text{KS}}$. We prove this claim in two steps. First, we show that $\frac{\partial^2 f_d }{\partial \alpha^2} \left( \alpha, \beta \right)$ is increasing in $\beta$. Subsequently, we establish that $\frac{\partial^2 f_d }{\partial \alpha^2} \left( \alpha, \beta^* \right)$ is smaller than zero for all $\alpha \in (-1, 1)$.
As a consequence, $\frac{\partial^2 f_d }{\partial \alpha^2} \left( \alpha, \beta \right) < 0$ holds for all $\beta \in \left( 0, \beta^* \right) $ and $\alpha \in (-1, 1)$ and thereby implies that the maximum of $f_d \left( \alpha, \beta \right) $ is attained at $\alpha = 0$ for $\beta < \beta^*$.
The previously performed technical rearrangements are helpful for calculating the next derivative in a straightforward manner.
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} \left( \frac{\partial^2 f_d }{\partial \alpha^2}\right) \left( \alpha, \beta \right)
&= \frac{d}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right)} \frac{ \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \cdot \left( 2 \beta e^{2 \beta -1} - 2 \beta e^{-2 \beta -1}\right)}{ \left[ \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \cdot \left( e^{2 \beta} + e^{-2 \beta}\right)+ 2 + 2 \alpha^2 \right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}\\
&= \underbrace{\frac{d}{2} 2 \beta e^{2 \beta -1} \left( 1 - e^{-4 \beta }\right)}_{>0} \underbrace{\left[ \underbrace{\left( 1- \alpha^2\right)}_{>0} \cdot \left( e^{2 \beta} + e^{-2 \beta}\right)+ 2 + 2 \alpha^2 \right]^{-\frac{3}{2}} }_{>0} > 0
\end{align*}
where we restrict our attention to $-1< \alpha <1$. All that remains to do is to plug in the Kesten-Stigum bound into the second derivative with respect to alpha which yields
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 f_d }{\partial \alpha^2} \left( \alpha, \beta^* \right) &= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d}{ 1- \alpha^2} \cdot \left[ \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \cdot \left( \frac{\left( \sqrt{d-1}+1\right) ^2}{\left( \sqrt{d-1}-1\right) ^2} + \frac{\left( \sqrt{d-1}-1\right) ^2}{\left( \sqrt{d-1}+1\right) ^2}\right) + 2 + 2 \alpha^2 \right]^{- \frac{1}{2}} \\
&= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d}{ 1- \alpha^2} \cdot \left[ \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) \cdot \left( \frac{\left( \sqrt{d-1}+1\right) ^4 + \left( \sqrt{d-1}-1\right) ^4}{\left(d-1 -1\right) ^2} \right) + 2 + 2 \alpha^2 \right]^{- \frac{1}{2}} \\
&= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } - \frac{d}{ 1- \alpha^2} \cdot \left[ \frac{ 4 d^2 + \alpha^2 \left( 16 - 16d\right) }{\left(d-2\right) ^2} \right]^{- \frac{1}{2}}\\
&= \frac{d-2}{2 \left( 1- \alpha^2\right) } \cdot \underbrace{\left( 1 - \frac{d}{\sqrt{d^2 - 4 \alpha^2 \left( d-1\right)}}\right) }_{<0}< 0
\end{align*}
where we assume both $d > 2$ and $-1< \alpha <1$. This concludes the maximization problem.
\end{proof}
What remains is to bring all the findings of this section together.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{sec_mom_optimum}]
Substituting $\alpha = 0$ from Lemma \ref{lemma_optimal_alpha} into the previous reformulations, we can state that $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)$ obtains its optimum at $\mu^*$ where
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++++}^* &= \mu_{----}^* = \mu_{+-+-}^* = \mu_{-+-+}^* = \frac{e^{-2 \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+--+}^* &= \mu_{--++}^* = \mu_{-++-}^* = \mu_{++--}^* = \frac{1}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+++-}^* &= \mu_{++-+}^* = \mu_{+-++}^* = \mu_{-+++}^* = \mu_{---+}^*= \mu_{--+-}^*= \mu_{-+--}^*= \mu_{+---}^* = \frac{e^{- \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}
\end{align*}
which also implies
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++}^* = \rho_{+-}^* = \rho_{-+}^* = \rho_{--}^* = \frac{1}{4}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right) = \textrm{H}\left( \rho^* \right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu^* \vert\vert \rho^* \otimes \rho^* \right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu^* (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu^* (\sigma)\right)\\
&= \left( 2 - 2 d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left( 2 \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right) \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{e^{-2 \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2} \log \left(e^{-2 \beta} \right) - \frac{2 e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2} \log \left(e^{- \beta} \right) \right) - d \beta \frac{e^{-2 \beta} + e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
&= \left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right) + d \beta \left( \frac{e^{-2 \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2} + \frac{ e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2} \right) - d \beta \frac{e^{-2 \beta} + e^{- \beta}}{ \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
&= \left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right).
\end{align*}
Lemma \ref{sec_mom_optimum} readily follows.
\end{proof}
\section{The Hessian for the second moment / Proof of \Lem~\ref{hessian_second_moment}} \label{sec_hessian}
The proof of \Lem~\ref{hessian_second_moment} boils down to tedious calculations of the first and second partial derivatives.
As a starting point we reformulate $\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)$ with the restricted number of variables.
\begin{align*}
&\delta \left( \mu, \rho \right) = \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) -\frac{d}{2} \left( D_\textrm{KL} \left( \mu \vert\vert \rho \otimes \rho\right) + \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_1} \mu (\sigma) + 2 \beta \sum_{\sigma \in A_2} \mu(\sigma)\right) \\
&= \left( 1 - d\right) \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) + \frac{d}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) - d \beta \left( x_3 + x_4 + x_5 + x_6 + x_7 + x_8 + x_9 + \mu_{----} \right)
\end{align*}
Now, let us turn to the first derivatives of $\textrm{H}\left( \rho\right) $
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_1} &= - \log \left( \rho_{+-} \right) - 1 - \log \left( \rho_{-+} \right) - 1 + 2 \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_2} &= - \log \left( \rho_{++} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_3} &= - \log \left( \rho_{++} \right) - 1 - \log \left( \rho_{+-} \right) - 1 + 2 \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_4} &= - \log \left( \rho_{++} \right) - 1 - \log \left( \rho_{-+} \right) - 1 + 2 \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_5} &= - \log \left( \rho_{+-} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_6} &= - \log \left( \rho_{-+} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_7} &= - \log \left( \rho_{+-} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_8} &= - \log \left( \rho_{-+} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \rho\right)}{\partial x_9} &= - \log \left( \rho_{++} \right) - 1 + \log \left( \rho_{--} \right) + 1 \\
\end{align*}
and the first derivatives of $\textrm{H}\left( \mu \right) $
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_1} &= - 2 \log \left( x_1 \right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_2} &= - 2 \log \left( x_2 \right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_3} &= - 2 \log \left( x_3 \right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_4} &= - 2 \log \left( x_4\right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_5} &= - 2 \log \left( x_5 \right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2\\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_6} &= - 2 \log \left( x_6 \right) - 2 + 2 \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 2\\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_7} &= - \log \left( x_7 \right) - 1 + \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 1\\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_8} &= - \log \left( x_8 \right) - 1 + \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 1 \\
\frac{\partial \textrm{H}\left( \mu\right)}{\partial x_9} &= - \log \left( x_9 \right) - 1 + \log \left( \mu_{----} \right) + 1.
\end{align*}
For the second derivatives we obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_1^2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{x_1} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_2 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_3 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_4 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_5 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_1} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_2^2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}}- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{x_2} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_3 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_4 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}}- \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_5 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}}- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right).\\
\end{align*}
We continue with
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_3^2} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left(-\frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{x_3} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_4 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( -\frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_5 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( -\frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( -\frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_3} &= \left( 1 - d \right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_4^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{4}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left(- \frac{2}{x_4} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_5 \partial x_4} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6 \partial x_4} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_4} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_4} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_4} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{2}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_5^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{x_5} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6 \partial x_5} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_5} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_5} &=\left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_5} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_6^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{x_6} - \frac{4}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7 \partial x_6} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_6} &=\left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_6} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left( - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{2}{\mu_{----}}\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_7^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{+-}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( -\frac{1}{x_7} - \frac{1}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8 \partial x_7} &=\left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{1}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_7} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left(- \frac{1}{\mu_{----}} \right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_8^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{-+}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( -\frac{1}{x_8} - \frac{1}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9 \partial x_8} &=\left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{--}}\right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( - \frac{1}{\mu_{----}}\right) \\
\frac{\partial^2 \delta \left( \mu, \rho \right)}{\partial x_9^2} &= \left( 1 - d\right) \left(- \frac{1}{\rho_{++}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{--}} \right) + \frac{d}{2} \left( -\frac{1}{x_9} - \frac{1}{\mu_{----}}\right).
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $\mu^*$
\begin{align*}
\mu_{++++}^* &= \mu_{----}^* = \mu_{+-+-}^* = \mu_{-+-+}^* = \frac{e^{-2 \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+--+}^* &= \mu_{--++}^* = \mu_{-++-}^* = \mu_{++--}^* = \frac{1}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}\\
\mu_{+++-}^* &= \mu_{++-+}^* = \mu_{+-++}^* = \mu_{-+++}^* = \mu_{---+}^*= \mu_{--+-}^*= \mu_{-+--}^*= \mu_{+---}^* = \frac{e^{- \beta}}{4 \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align*}
\rho_{++}^* = \rho_{+-}^* = \rho_{-+}^* = \rho_{--}^* = \frac{1}{4}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right)
&= \left( 1 - d\right) \textrm{H}\left( \rho^*\right) + \frac{d}{2} \textrm{H}\left( \mu^* \right) - d \beta \left( x_3^* + x_4^* + x_5^* + x_6^* + x_7^* + x_8^* + x_9^* + \mu_{----}^* \right)\\
&= \left( 2 - d\right) \log \left( 2\right) + d \log \left(1 + e^{- \beta} \right).
\end{align*}
Evaluating the above derivatives at $\mu^*, \rho^*$ we obtain the Hessian at $\mu^*, \rho^*$.
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^2 \delta \left( \mu^*, \rho^* \right) &= 4 \left( d - 1 \right) \begin{pmatrix}
6 & 2 & 5 & 5 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 \\
2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
5 & 3 & 6 & 5 & 3 & 2& 3& 2 &3 \\
5 & 3 & 5 & 6 & 2 &3&2&3 &3 \\
3 & 1 & 3 & 2& 2& 1&2& 1 &1 \\
3 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 2& 1& 2 &1 \\
3 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1& 2& 1 &1 \\
3 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 2& 1& 2 &1 \\
2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1& 1& 1 &2 \\
\end{pmatrix} \\
& \qquad - 2 d \frac{\left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2}{e^{-2 \beta}} \begin{pmatrix}
4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4& 2& 2 &2 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 &4&2&2 &2 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 4& 4& 4&2& 2 &2 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4& 2& 2 &2 \\
2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2& 1& 1 &1 \\
2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2& 1& 1 &1 \\
2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2& 1& 1 &1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \\
& \qquad - 2 d \left( 1 + e^{- \beta}\right)^2 \begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2 e^{\beta} & 0 & 0 & 0& 0& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 2 e^{\beta} & 0 &0&0&0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 2 e^{\beta}& 0&0& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 e^{\beta}& 0& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& e^{2 \beta}& 0 &0 \\
0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0& e^{2 \beta} &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0& 0 &e^{2 \beta} \\
\end{pmatrix} \\
\end{align*}
The lemma now follows from calculating the determinant of the preceding expression.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $e(z) := e^{2\pi i z}$ and let $K(M)$ denote the best constant such that
\begin{align}\label{dres}
\nms{\sum_{n = 1}^{M}a_{n}e(nx_1 + n^{2}x_2)}_{L^{6}([0, 1]^2)} \leq K(M)(\sum_{n = 1}^{M}|a_n|^{2})^{1/2}
\end{align}
for all sequences of complex numbers $\{a_n\}_{n = 1}^{M}$. Trivially,
$K(M) \leq M^{1/2}$.
In 1993, Bourgain in \cite{Bourgain93} considered, among other things, the size of $K(M)$ since \eqref{dres} is associated to the periodic Strichartz inequality for the nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation on the torus. He obtained that
\begin{align}\label{eq:Bourgain_ul}
(\log M)^{1/6} \lsm K(M) \leq \exp(O(\frac{\log M}{\log\log M}))
\end{align}
using number theoretic methods, in particular the upper bound follows from the divisor bound and the lower bound follows
from Gauss sums on major arcs (see also \cite{BlomerBrudern} for a precise asymptotic in the case of $a_n = 1$ of \eqref{dres}).
It is natural to ask what is the true size of $K(M)$ and whether the gap between the upper
and lower bounds can be closed.
The lower bound has not been improved since \cite{Bourgain93}. However
by improving the upper bound on the decoupling constant for the parabola,
Guth-Maldague-Wang recently in \cite{GMW} improved the upper bound in \eqref{eq:Bourgain_ul}
to $\lsm (\log M)^{C}$ for some unspecified but large absolute constant $C$.
Our main result is that $C$ can be reduced to $2+$. More precisely:
\begin{thm}\label{final}
For every $\vep > 0$, there exists a constant $C_{\vep} > 0$ such that
$$K(M) \leq C_{\vep} (\log M)^{2 + \vep}.$$
\end{thm}
Our proof of Theorem \ref{final} will rely on a decoupling theorem for the parabola in $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$.
Previous work on studying discrete restriction using decoupling relied on proving decoupling theorems
over $\mathbb{R}$ (see for example \cite{BD, BDG, GMW, Li18}). Here, we will broadly follow the proof in \cite{GMW}
except to efficiently keep track of the number of logs we will prove a decoupling theorem over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ rather than over $\mathbb{R}$.
Additionally we will introduce some extra efficiencies to their argument to decrease the number of logs even further.
Working in $\mathbb{Q}_p$ has two benefits. First, the Fourier transform
of a compactly supported function is also compactly supported
and hence this allows us to rigorously and efficiently apply the uncertainty principle which is just a heuristic in $\mathbb{R}$.
Second, since 6 is even, decoupling in $\mathbb{Q}_p$ still implies discrete restriction estimates.
To avoid confusing the $p$ in $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$ with the $p$ in $L^{p}$ norm, henceforth we will replace the $p$ in $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$ with $q$.
Let $q$ be a fixed odd prime. Let $|\cdot |$ be the $q$-adic norm associated to $\mathbb{Q}_q$.
We omit the dependence of this norm on $q$.
This is a slight abuse of notation as we will use the same notation for the absolute value on $\mathbb{C}$, as well as the length of a $q$-adic interval. However, the meaning of the symbol will be clear from context.
In Section \ref{basic}, we summarize all relevant facts of $\mathbb{Q}_q$ that we make use of.
See Chapters 1 and 2 of \cite{Taibleson} and Chapter 1 (in particular Sections 1 and 4) of \cite{VVZ} for a more complete discussion of analysis on $\mathbb{Q}_q$.
For $\delta \in q^{-\mathbb{N}}$, we write
\begin{equation*}
\Xi_{\delta} = \{(\xi,\eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon \xi \in \O, |\eta - \xi^2| \leq \delta\}.
\end{equation*}
For a Schwartz function $F: \mathbb{Q}_q^{2} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and an interval $\tau \subset \O$, let $F_{\tau}$ be defined by
$\wh{F_{\tau}} := \wh{F} \, 1_{\tau \times \mathbb{Q}_q}$.
Our main decoupling theorem is as follows and is the $\mathbb{Q}_q$ analogue of Theorem 1.2 of \cite{GMW}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:L2Linfty_intro}
For every odd prime $q$ and every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a constant $C_{\varepsilon,q}$, such that whenever $R \in q^{2\mathbb{N}}$ and a Schwartz function $F \colon \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \to \mathbb{C}$ has Fourier support contained in $\Xi_{1/R}$, one has
\begin{equation}\label{L2Linfty_eq}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |F|^6 \leq C_{\varepsilon,q} (\log R)^{12+\varepsilon} (\sum_{|\tau| = R^{-1/2}} \|F_{\tau}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{|\tau| = R^{-1/2}} \|F_{\tau}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2).
\end{equation}
Here the sums on the right hand side are over all intervals $\tau \subset \O$ with length $R^{-1/2}$.
\end{thm}
This theorem is proved in Sections \ref{log12:setup}-\ref{highlow}.
We will in fact show this theorem with $\varepsilon$ replaced by $10\varepsilon$.
Since 6 is even, Theorem \ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro} once again immediately implies Theorem \ref{final} (as we prove in Section \ref{decimpliesres}).
The 12 powers of log in \eqref{L2Linfty_eq} can be accounted for as follows.
Reducing from \eqref{L2Linfty_eq} to the level set estimate (Proposition \ref{prop:newprop34}) costs 5 logs. They come from: 3 logs from the Whitney decomposition in Section \ref{whitney}, 1 log from the number of scales in deriving \eqref{eq:broad_final}, and 1 log from pigeonholing to derive \eqref{3.6}.
The level set estimate itself costs 7 logs. These come from:
1 log since we decompose $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ into sets $\Om_k$ and $L$ in Section \ref{7.3decomp} and \eqref{eq:goal2},
2 logs to control
$g^{2}_k$ by $|g_{k}^{h}|^{2}$ on $\Om_k$ in \eqref{eq:7.55}, and 4 logs from the appearance of $\lambda^{2}$
in \eqref{eq:lambda2appear} (also see \eqref{eq:lambda}).
In addition to efficiencies introduced by working with the uncertainty principle $q$-adically, we introduce a Whitney decomposition,
much like in \cite{GLYZK}, which allows us to more efficiently reduce to a bilinear decoupling problem.
Additionally compared to \cite{GMW}, the ratio between our successive scales $R_{k + 1}/R_{k}$ is of size $O((\log R)^{\vep})$ rather than
in $O((\log R)^{12})$ which allows for further reductions (we essentially have $O(\vep^{-1})$ times many more scales than in \cite{GMW}).
Note that \eqref{L2Linfty_eq} is not a true $\mathbb{Q}_q$ analogue of a
$l^2 L^6$ decoupling theorem for the parabola. At the cost of a
few more logs, a similar argument as in Section 5 of \cite{GMW} would allow us
to upgrade to an actual
$l^2 L^6$ decoupling theorem, however \eqref{L2Linfty_eq} is already
enough for discrete restriction for the parabola.
Since $p$-adic intervals correspond to residue classes it may be possible to rewrite the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro} in the language of congruences and compare it with efficient congruencing \cite{WooleyNested}.
However we do not attempt this here. For more connections between efficient congruencing and decoupling see \cite{GLY, GLYZK, Li18, Pierce}.
In this paper we consider decoupling over $\mathbb{Q}_p$. However one can also consider
the restriction and Kakeya conjectures over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ (or alternatively over
more general local fields). We refer the interested
reader to \cite{HickmanWright} and the references therein for more discussion.
For the rest of the paper, for two positive expressions $X$ and $Y$, we write $X \lsm Y$ if $X \leq C_{\vep, q} Y$ for some constant $C_{\vep, q}$ which is allowed
to depend on $\vep$ and $q$. We write $X \sim Y$ if $X \lsm Y$ and $Y \lsm X$.
Additionally by writing $f(x) = O(g(x))$, we mean $|f(x)| \lsm g(x)$. Finally, we say that $f$ has Fourier support in $\Om$ if its Fourier transform $\wh{f}$ is supported in $\Om$.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
SG is supported by NSF grant DMS-1800274. ZL is supported by NSF grant DMS-1902763. PLY is partially supported by a Future Fellowship FT200100399 from the Australian Research Council.
\section{Some basic properties of $\mathbb{Q}_q$}\label{basic}
For convenience we briefly summarize some key relevant facts about $\mathbb{Q}_q$.
First, for a prime $q$, $\mathbb{Q}_q$ is the completion of the field $\mathbb{Q}$ under the $q$-adic norm, defined by $|0| = 0$ and $|q^a b/c| = q^{-a}$ if $a \in \mathbb{Z}$, $b, c \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}$ and $q$ is relatively prime to both $b$ and $c$. Then $\mathbb{Q}_q$ can be identified (bijectively) with the set of all formal series
\[
\mathbb{Q}_q = \left\{\sum_{j=k}^{\infty} a_j q^j \colon k \in \mathbb{Z}, a_j \in \{0, 1, \dots, q-1\} \text{ for every $j \geq k$} \right\},
\]
and the $q$-adic norm on $\mathbb{Q}_q$ satisfies
$|\sum_{j=k}^{\infty} a_j q^j| = q^{-k}$ if $a_k \ne 0$.
The $q$-adic norm obeys the ultrametric inequality $|x + y| \leq \max\{|x|, |y|\}$ with equality when $|x| \neq |y|$. We also define the $q$-adic norm on $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ by setting $|(x,y)| = \max\{|x|,|y|\}$ for $(x,y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$.
Write $\O = \{x \in \mathbb{Q}_q: |x| \leq 1\}$ for the ring of integers of $\mathbb{Q}_q$. This is in analogy to the real interval $[-1, 1]$.
In analogy to working over $\mathbb{R}$, for $a \in \O$, we will call sets of the form $\{\xi \in \O: |\xi - a| \leq q^{-b}\}$
an interval inside $\O$ of length $q^{-b}$ (so the length of an interval coincides with its diameter, i.e. maximum distance between two points in that interval). Similarly for $(c_{1}, c_{2}) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}$, we will call sets of the form
$\{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}: |x - c_1| \leq q^{-b}, |y - c_2| \leq q^{-b}\}$ a square of side length $q^{-b}$.
Note that because the norm on $\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}$ is the maximum $q$-adic norm of each coordinate, this square is the same
as $\{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}: |(x, y) - (c_{1}, c_{2})| \leq q^{-b}\}$. Thanks to the ultrametric inequality, if two squares intersect, then one is contained inside the other; hence two squares of the same size are either equal or disjoint.
Observe that $\O$ is a subset of $\mathbb{Q}_q$ consisting of elements of the form $\sum_{j \geq 0}a_{j}q^{j}$ where $a_{j} \in \{0, 1, \ldots, q - 1\}$.
Since each positive integer has a base $q$ representation, we may embed $\mathbb{N}$ into $\O$. Identifying $-1$ with the element
$\sum_{j \geq 0}(q - 1)q^{j}$ in $\O$ then allows us to embed $\mathbb{Z}$ into $\O$.
Note that if $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$, the intervals $\{\xi \in \O: |\xi - a| \leq 1/q^{\ell}\}$ for $a = 0, 1, \ldots, q^{\ell} - 1$ partition
$\O$ into $q^{\ell}$ many disjoint intervals which are pairwise disjoint and each pair of intervals are separated by distance at least $q^{-\ell + 1}$.
To see this, suppose $|\xi_1 - a| \leq q^{-\ell}$ and $|\xi_{2} - b| \leq q^{-\ell}$ for some $a \neq b$.
As $|a - b| \geq q^{-\ell + 1}$ and $|(\xi_1 - \xi_2) - (a - b)| \leq q^{-\ell}$, the equality case of
the ultrametric inequality implies that $|\xi_1 - \xi_2| = |a - b| \geq q^{-\ell + 1}$.
Next, for fixed $a \in \{0, 1, \ldots, q^{\ell} - 1\}$, the interval $\{\xi \in \O: |\xi - a| \leq 1/q^{\ell}\}$ is exactly the $\xi \in \O$
such that $\xi \equiv a \pmod{q^{\ell}}$ (meaning $q^{-\ell} (\xi - a) \in \O$). This illustrates the connection between $q$-adic intervals in $\mathbb{Q}_q$ and residue classes and both point of views are useful throughout; for instance, it follows easily now that $\O$ is the union of these $q^{\ell}$ disjoint intervals.
Finally, let $\chi$ be the additive character of $\mathbb{Q}_q$ that is equal to $1$ on $\O$ and non-trivial on $q^{-1} \O$ (up to isomorphism, there is essentially just one, given by
\[
\chi(x) := e\Big( \sum_{j=k}^{-1} a_j q^j \Big) \quad \text{if $x = \sum_{j=k}^{\infty} a_j q^j$}
\]
where $a_j \in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$ for all $j$).
From this, one can define the Fourier transform for $f \in L^{1}(\mathbb{Q}_q)$ by $\wh{f}(\xi) := \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q}f(x)\chi(-\xi x)\, dx$ for $\xi \in \mathbb{Q}_q$, where $dx$ is the Haar measure on $\mathbb{Q}_q$,
and we have an analogous definition for the Fourier transform in higher dimensions.
The theory of the Fourier transform
in $\mathbb{Q}_q$ is essentially the same as in $\mathbb{R}$ and we refer the interested reader to \cite{Taibleson, VVZ} for more details.
Note that in $\mathbb{Q}_q$ and in higher dimensions, linear combinations of indicator functions of intervals and squares play the analogue of Schwartz functions in the real setting. For $f, g \in L^1(\mathbb{Q}_q^2) \cap L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)$, we have Plancherel's identity
$
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} f \, \overline{g} = \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \hat{f} \, \overline{\hat{g}},
$
which allows one to extend the Fourier transform to a unitary operator on $L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)$. We also have $\widehat{f*g} = \hat{f} \hat{g}$ for any integrable $f$ and $g$ on $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$, where $(f*g)(x)$ is the convolution $\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} f(x-y) g(y) dy$. The inverse Fourier transform will be denoted by $\widecheck{\cdot}$, and we have $f = \widecheck{\hat{f}}$ for Schwartz functions $f$. Henceforth we will only deal with Schwartz functions on $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$; note $F_{\tau}$ is Schwartz whenever $F$ is Schwartz.
\subsection{Basic geometry and the uncertainty principle}
The key property about harmonic analysis in $\mathbb{Q}_q$ is that the Fourier transform of an indicator function of an interval is another
indicator function of an interval.
The key lemma is following, for a proof see p.42 of \cite{VVZ}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:char}
For $\xi \in \mathbb{Q}_q$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{align*}
\widecheck{1_{|x| \leq q^{\gamma}}}(\xi) = \int_{|x| \leq q^{\gamma}}\chi(\xi x)\, dx = q^{\gamma}(1_{|\xi| \leq q^{-\gamma}})(\xi).
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
Another useful geometric fact about $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ is that curvature disappears entirely if one considers the intersection of $\Xi_{1/R}$ with a vertical strip of width $R^{-1/2}$.
\begin{lem}
For any $R \in q^{2\mathbb{Z}}$ and any interval $I \subset \mathbb{Q}_q$ with length $|I| = R^{-1/2}$, the set $\{(\xi,\eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon \xi \in I, |\eta - \xi^2| \leq R^{-1}\}$ coincides with the parallelogram
\[
\{(\xi,\eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon |\xi - a| \leq R^{-1/2}, |\eta - 2 a \xi + a^2| \leq R^{-1}\}
\]
where $a$ is any point in $I$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $a \in I$. The ultrametric inequality implies $I = \{\xi \in \mathbb{Q}_q \colon |\xi - a| \leq R^{-1/2}\}$. Now $|\eta - \xi^2| = |\eta - a^2 - 2a(\xi-a) - (\xi-a)^2| = |(\eta - 2 a \xi + a^2) - (\xi-a)^2|$. It follows that for $\xi \in I$, i.e. if $|\xi - a| \leq R^{-1/2}$, then $|\eta - \xi^2| \leq R^{-1}$, if and only if $|\eta - 2 a \xi + a^2| \leq R^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
This motivates the following rigorous $q$-adic uncertainty prinicple, that is just a heuristic in $\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{lem}[Uncertainty Principle]\label{lem:uncertainty}
Let $R \in q^{2\mathbb{Z}}$ and $I \subset \mathbb{Q}_q$ be an interval of length $|I| = R^{-1/2}$.
Define the parallelogram
\begin{align} \label{eq:parallelogram_def}
P := \{(\xi, \eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}: \xi \in I, |\eta - \xi^2| \leq R^{-1}\}
\end{align}
and the dual parallelogram
\begin{align} \label{eq:ta^ast}
T := \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}: |x + 2ay| \leq R^{1/2}, |y| \leq R\}
\end{align}
where $a$ is any point in $I$ (this is well-defined independent of the choice of $a$).
Let $f$ be Schwartz and Fourier supported in $P$. Then $|f|$ is constant on each translate of $T$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
One only needs to prove this for $I = \O$, $R = 1$ and then invoke affine invariance. Alternatively, and more directly, we have
\begin{align*}
\widecheck{1_{P}}(x, y) &= \int_{|t| \leq R^{-1}}\int_{|s - a| \leq R^{-1/2}}\chi(sx + s^{2}y)\chi(ty)\, ds\, dt\\
&= \chi(ax + a^{2}y)(\int_{|s| \leq R^{-1/2}}\chi(s(x + 2ay) + s^{2}y)\, ds)R^{-1}1_{|y| \leq R}
\end{align*}
where the last equality is by Lemma \ref{lem:char}.
Since $|y| \leq R$, $|s^{2}y| \leq 1$ and therefore $s^2 y \in \O$. As $\chi$ is trivial on $\O$, after another application of Lemma \ref{lem:char}, the above expression is equal to
$R^{-3/2}\chi(ax + a^{2}y)1_{|x + 2ay| \leq R^{1/2}, |y| \leq R} = R^{-3/2}\chi(ax + a^{2}y)1_{T}$.
Suppose $(x, y) \in (A, B) + T$ for some $(A, B) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$.
Write $x = A + x'$ and $y = B + y'$ for some $(x', y') \in T$.
Then since $f = f \ast \widecheck{1_{P}}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:unceq1}
f(x, y) = R^{-3/2}\chi(ax + a^{2}y)\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}} f(z, w)\chi(-az - a^{2}w)1_{T}(x' + A - z, y' + B - w)\, dz\, dw
\end{align}
Since $|x' + 2ay'| \leq R^{1/2}$, using the ultrametric inequality, $|(x' + A - z) + 2a(y' + B - w)| \leq R^{1/2}$
if and only if $|(A - z) + 2a(B - w)| \leq R^{1/2}$. Similarly, since $|y'| \leq R$, $|y' + B - w| \leq R$
if and only if $|B - w| \leq R$. Therefore \eqref{eq:unceq1} is equal to
\begin{align*}
R^{-3/2}\chi(ax + a^{2}y)\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}f(z, w)\chi(-az - a^{2}w)1_{T}(A - z, B - w)\, dz\, dw.
\end{align*}
Thus $|f(x, y)|$ is independent of $(x, y) \in (A,B) + T$ and therefore $|f|$ is constant on each translate of $T$ (with a constant
that depends on $f$, $P$, $I$, and the particular translate of $T$).
\end{proof}
A similar proof as above shows that if $f$ is Fourier supported in a square of side length
$L$, then $|f|$ is constant on any square of side length $L^{-1}$. Furthermore, if $f$ is Fourier supported in a square centered at the origin of side length $L$, then $f$ itself is constant on any square of side length $L^{-1}$.
In analogy with the real setting, we will say that the parallelogram $T$ in \eqref{eq:ta^ast} has direction $(-2a, 1)$.
These parallelograms $T$ enjoy the following nice geometric properties.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:geom}
If $R \in q^{2\mathbb{N}}$, $I \subset \O$ is an interval with $|I| = R^{-1/2}$, and $T$ is the parallelogram defined by \eqref{eq:ta^ast} (with $a \in I$), then
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{lem2.4a} each translate of $T$ is the union of $R^{1/2}$ many squares of side length $R^{1/2}$;
\item any two translates of $T$ are either equal or disjoint;
\item \label{lem2.4c} %
any square of side length $R$ can be partitioned into translates of $T$.
\end{enumerate}
We write $\mathbb{T}(I)$ for the set of all translates of $T$. Note that $(c)$ implies that
$\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ can be tiled by translates of $T$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item First, we claim that if $(x,y) \in T$, and $|(x',y') - (x,y)| \leq R^{1/2}$, then $(x',y') \in T$ as well. This is because $|x'+2ay'| = |x+2ay+(x'-x)+2a(y'-y)| \leq R^{1/2}$ if both $|x+2ay| \leq R^{1/2}$ and $|(x',y')-(x,y)| \leq R^{1/2}$ (recall $|2a| \leq 1$ when $a \in \O$). Similarly, $|y| \leq R$ and $|y'-y| \leq R^{1/2}$ implies $|y'| \leq R$. This proves the claim. It follows that if $(x,y)$ belongs to a certain translate of $T$, then the square of side length $R^{1/2}$ containing $(x,y)$ is also contained in the same translate of $T$.
Now by the ultrametric inequality, two squares of side length $R^{1/2}$ are either equal or disjoint. Thus every translate of $T$ is a union of squares of side lengths $R^{1/2}$, and volume considerations show that each translate of $T$ contains $R^{1/2}$ many such squares.
\item It suffices to show that if $(x,y) + T$ intersects $T$, then $(x,y) \in T$ (because then $(x,y)+T = T$). But if $(x,y) + T$ and $T$ both contains a point $(x',y')$, then both $|(x'-x)+2a(y'-y)| \leq R^{1/2}$ and $|x'+2ay'| \leq R^{1/2}$, which implies $|x+2ay| \leq R^{1/2}$. Similarly, $|y'-y| \leq R$ and $|y'| \leq R$ implies $|y| \leq R$. Thus $(x,y) \in T$, as desired.
\item Write $R = q^{2A}$ for $A \geq 1$.
It suffices to partition $Q = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: |x| \leq R, |y| \leq R\}$ into translates of parallelograms $T_{a} := \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: |x+ 2ay| \leq R^{1/2}, |y| \leq R\}$.
We first consider the $a = 0$ case.
Let $S = \{\sum_{-2A \leq j < -A}a_{j}q^{j}: a_{j} \in \{0, 1, \ldots, q - 1\}\}$.
Note that $\# S = R^{1/2}$.
We claim we can tile $Q$ by $\{(s, 0) + T_{0}: s \in S\}$. Indeed, for each $(x, y) \in Q$, we can write
$x = \sum_{-2A \leq j < -A}x_{j}q^{j} + \sum_{j \geq -A}x_{j}q^{j}$ for some $x_j \in \{0, 1, \ldots, q - 1\}$.
As $\sum_{-2A \leq j < -A}x_{j}q^{j} \in S$, $x \in (\sum_{-2A \leq j < -A}x_{j}q^{j}, 0) + T_0$.
This shows $Q \subset \bigcup_{s \in S}(s, 0) + T_0$.
The ultrametric inequality implies that $(s, 0) + T_0 \subset Q$ for each $s \in S$ and so $Q = \bigcup_{s \in S}(s, 0) + T_0$.
Finally, this union is disjoint as if $(x, y) \in ((s_1, 0) + T_0) \cap ((s_2, 0) + T_0)$, then $|s_1 - s_2| \leq R^{1/2}$
but from the definition of $S$, $|s_1 - s_2| \geq q^{A + 1} = R^{1/2} q$.
Therefore we have partitioned $Q$ into translates of $T_0$.
Next we consider the general case. Let $L_{a} = (\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 2a \\0 & 1\end{smallmatrix})$.
The ultrametric inequality gives that $L_{a}(Q) = Q$ since $|2a| \leq 1$ and for $s \in S$, $L_{a}((s, 0) + T_0) = (s, 0) + T_a$.
Therefore we can also partition $Q$ into translates of $T_a$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:wavepacket} %
Let $R \in q^{2\mathbb{N}}$, $I \subset \O$ be an interval with $|I| = R^{-1/2}$, and $f$ be a Schwartz function with Fourier support in $\{(\xi,\eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon \xi \in I, |\eta - \xi^2| \leq 1/R\}$. Then there exist constants $\{c_T\}_{T \in \mathbb{T}(I)}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ptwisewp}
|f| = \sum_{T \in \mathbb{T}(I)} c_T 1_T.
\end{equation}
As a result, $|f|^2 = \sum_{T \in \mathbb{T}(I)} c_T^2 1_T$, and
\[
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f|^2 = \sum_{T \in \mathbb{T}(I)} c_T^2 |T|.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:uncertainty}, for every $T \in \mathbb{T}(I)$, there exists a constant $c_T$ so that $|f| = c_T$ on $T$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:geom}(\ref{lem2.4c}), $\mathbb{T}(I)$ tiles $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$. Thus \eqref{eq:ptwisewp} holds and the rest follows easily.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tubeintersect}
Suppose $R \in q^{2\mathbb{N}}$ and $a, b \in \O$ with $a \neq b$, let
$$T = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: |x + 2ay| \leq R, |y| \leq R^2\}$$
and
$$T' = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: |x + 2by| \leq R, |y| \leq R^2\}.$$
Then
\begin{align*}
|T \cap T'| \leq \frac{R^2}{|b - a|}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By redefining $x$, we may assume that $a = 0$. Then
\begin{align*}
T \cap T' &= \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: \max(|x|, |x + 2by|) \leq R, |y| \leq R^2\}\\
&\subset \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2: |x| \leq R, |y| \leq R/|2b|\}.
\end{align*}
Since $q$ is an odd prime, the claim then follows since
the Haar measure is normalized so that $|\O| = 1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Theorem \ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro} implies Theorem \ref{final}}\label{decimpliesres}
Since $K(M)$ is trivially increasing, it suffices to show Theorem \ref{final}
only in the case when $M = q^{t}$ for some $t \in \mathbb{N}$. By using the trivial bound for $K(M)$,
we may also assume that $t$ is sufficiently large (depending only on an absolute constant).
By considering real and imaginary parts,
we may also assume that $a_n$ is a sequence of real numbers in \eqref{dres}.
Let $R = M^2 = q^{2t}$.
Choose $F$ such that
\begin{align*}
\wh{F}(\xi, \eta) = \sum_{n = 1}^{q^{t}}a_{n}1_{(n, n^2) + B(0, q^{-10t})}(\xi, \eta)q^{20t}.
\end{align*}
Here we are using the embedding of $\mathbb{Z}$ into $\O$, and $(n,n^2)+B(0,q^{-10t})$ denotes the square $\{(\xi,\eta) \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon |(\xi,\eta)-(n,n^2)| \leq q^{-10t}\}$.
Note that $\wh{F}$ is indeed supported inside $\Xi_{1/R}$ since %
if $|(\xi, \eta) - (n, n^2)| \leq q^{-10t}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\xi \in \O$ and %
\begin{align*}
|\xi^{2} - \eta| &= |(\xi - n)^{2} + 2n(\xi - n) + n^{2} - \eta|\leq \max(|\xi - n|^{2}, |2n||\xi - n|, |n^{2} - \eta|).
\end{align*}
Since $q \geq 3$ is an odd prime, $|2n| \leq 1$ and so the above is $\leq q^{-10t} \leq q^{-2t}$.
Inverting the Fourier transform gives that
\begin{align*}
F(x) = \bigg(\sum_{n = 1}^{q^{t}}a_{n}\chi(x_1 n + x_2 n^{2})\bigg)1_{B(0, q^{10t})}(x).
\end{align*}
Similarly, for each $\tau$ on the right hand side of \eqref{L2Linfty_eq} (with length $R^{-1/2} = M^{-1} = q^{-t}$),
$F_{\tau}(x) =a_{n}\chi(x_1 n + x_2 n^{2})1_{B(0, q^{10t})}(x)$
where $n$ is the unique element in $\{1, \dots, q^t\} \cap \tau$; then
$\nms{F_{\tau}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2} = |a_n|^{2}$
and
$\nms{F_{\tau}}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2} = |a_{n}|^{2}q^{20t}$.
The right hand side of \eqref{L2Linfty_eq}
is then $\lesssim (\log M)^{12 + 10\vep}q^{20t}(\sum_{n = 1}^{q^{t}}|a_n|^2)^3$.
It now remains to show that
\begin{align}\label{targetdr}
\nms{F}_{L^{6}(\mathbb{Q}_{q}^{2})}^{6} = q^{20t}\nms{\sum_{n = 1}^{q^{t}}a_{n}e(nx_1 + n^{2}x_2)}_{L^{6}([0, 1]^2)}^{6}.
\end{align}
This relies on that we are working with $L^6$.
Expanding the left hand side gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{decreseq1}
&\sum_{n_1, \ldots, n_6 = 1}^{q^{t}}a_{n_1}\cdots a_{n_6}\times\\
&\int_{B(0, q^{10t})}\chi((n_1 + n_2 + n_3 - n_4 - n_5 - n_6)x_1 + (n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2})x_2)\, dx.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:char} gives that the above is equal to
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n_1, \ldots, n_6 = 1}^{q^{t}}q^{20t}a_{n_1} \cdots a_{n_6}1_{|n_1 + n_2 + n_3 - n_4 - n_5 - n_6| \leq q^{-10t}}1_{|n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2}| \leq q^{-10t}}.
\end{align*}
The statement that $(n_1, \ldots, n_6) \in \{1, \ldots, q^{t}\}^{6}$ are such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:padicineq}
|n_1 + n_2 + n_3 - n_4 - n_5 - n_6| \leq q^{-10t}, \quad |n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2}| \leq q^{-10t}
\end{equation}
is equivalent to the statement that $(n_1, \ldots, n_6)\in \{ 1, \ldots, q^{t}\}^{6}$ are such that
\begin{align*}
n_{1} + n_2 + n_{3} - n_{4} - n_{5} - n_{6} \equiv 0 \pmod{q^{10t}}, \quad n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2} \equiv 0 \pmod{q^{10t}}.
\end{align*}
Since the $1 \leq n_i \leq q^{t}$, $n_{1} + n_{2} + n_{3} - n_{4} - n_{5} - n_{6}$ is an integer between
$-3q^{t}$ and $3q^{t}$, while $n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2}$ is an integer
between $-3q^{2t}$ and $3q^{2t}$. Since the only integer $\equiv 0 \pmod{q^{10t}}$ between $-3q^{2t}$
and $3q^{2t}$ is 0, \eqref{eq:padicineq} is true for a given $(n_1, \ldots, n_6) \in \{1, \ldots, q^t\}^{6}$ if
and only if
\begin{align*}
n_{1} + n_2 + n_{3} - n_{4} - n_{5} - n_{6} = 0, \quad n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2} = 0.
\end{align*}
Thus \eqref{decreseq1} is equal to
\begin{align*}
q^{20t}\sum_{n_1, \ldots, n_6 = 1}^{q^{t}}a_{n_1} \cdots a_{n_6}1_{n_1 + n_2 + n_3 - n_4 - n_5 - n_6 = 0}1_{n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2} + n_{3}^{2} - n_{4}^{2} - n_{5}^{2} - n_{6}^{2} = 0}
\end{align*}
which in turn is equal to the right hand side of \eqref{targetdr}.
\section{Setting up many scales for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro}}\label{log12:setup}
We now set out to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro}.
Fix $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$. Let $A$ be an integer with
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \leq A \leq \frac{2}{\varepsilon}.
\end{equation*}
Henceforth all implicit constants may depend on $q$, $\varepsilon$ and $A$.
Given $R \in q^{2\mathbb{N}}$, choose $r \in 4\mathbb{N}$ so that
\begin{equation*}
q^{q^{A(r-4)}} \leq R < q^{q^{Ar}}.
\end{equation*}
Then $q^{Ar} \sim \log R$ and $(\log R)^{\varepsilon/2} \lesssim q^r \lesssim (\log R)^{\varepsilon}$,
so for $R$ sufficiently large (depending only on $q$ and $\varepsilon$) we have $r \sim \log \log R$.
Henceforth we fix a sufficiently large $R$, and define
\begin{equation*}
R_k := q^{kr} \quad \text{for $k = 0, 1, \dots, N$},
\end{equation*}
where $N \in \mathbb{N}$ is defined such that
\begin{equation*}
q^{Nr} \leq R < q^{(N+1)r}.
\end{equation*}
The choice $r \in 4\mathbb{N}$ ensures that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Rk1/4}
R_k^{-1/2} \in q^{-2\mathbb{N}}
\end{equation}
for every $k$. Throughout we write $\tau_k$ for a generic interval inside $\O$ of length $R_k^{-1/2}$, for $k = 0, 1, \dots, N$. For instance, $\sum_{\tau_N}$ means sums over all intervals $\tau_N \subset \O$ with $|\tau_N| = R_N^{-1/2}$.
Let $F \colon \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \to \mathbb{C}$ be Fourier supported in $\Xi_{1/R}$ as in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro}. In order to establish \eqref{L2Linfty_eq}, it suffices to prove
\begin{equation} \label{eq:goal0}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |F|^6 \lesssim (\log R)^{12+ 9\varepsilon} (\sum_{\tau_N} \|F_{\tau_N}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_N} \|F_{\tau_N}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)
\end{equation}
and then trivially decouple from frequency scale $R_N^{-1/2}$ down to $R^{-1/2}$ (note $R_N^{-1/2} / R^{-1/2} \leq q^{r/2} \lsm (\log R)^{\varepsilon/2}$ which implies $\|F_{\tau_N}\|_{L^{\infty}}^2 \lsm (\log R)^{\varepsilon/2} \sum_{|\tau|=R^{-1/2}} \nms{F_{\tau}}_{L^{\infty}}^{2}$ and $\sum_{\tau_N}\nms{F_{\tau_N}}_{L^{2}}^{2} = \sum_{|\tau|=R^{-1/2}}\nms{F_{\tau}}_{L^{2}}^{2}$ by Plancherel).
\section{Bilinearization}\label{whitney}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro} relies on the following key bilinear estimate:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:bilinear}
Let $F$ be Fourier supported in $\Xi_{1/R}$. For $k = 0, 1, \dots, N-1$, and for intervals $\tau_k \subset \O$ with $|\tau_k| = R_k^{-1/2}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \max_{\substack{ \tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k }} |F_{\tau_{k+1}} F_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3 \lesssim (\log R)^{9 + 6 \varepsilon} (\sum_{\tau_N \subset \tau_k} \|F_{\tau_N}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_N \subset \tau_k} \|F_{\tau_N}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2).
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
We also need the following Whitney decomposition for $\O^2$, which expresses $\O^2$ into a disjoint union of squares of different scales:
\begin{equation*}
\O^2 = \mathcal{W}_0 \sqcup \mathcal{W}_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup \mathcal{W}_{N-1} \sqcup \mathcal{W}^N
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{W}_k := \bigsqcup_{\tau_k \subset \O} \bigsqcup_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} \tau_{k+1} \times \tau_{k+1}' \quad \text{for $k = 0, 1, \dots, N-1$}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{W}^N := \bigsqcup_{\tau_N \subset \O} \tau_N \times \tau_N.
\end{equation*}
The proof of \eqref{eq:goal0}, and hence Theorem~\ref{thm:L2Linfty_intro} can then be given as follows.
First,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |F|^6 = \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} | F^2 |^3
= \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| \sum_{\tau_N \subset \O} F_{\tau_N}^2 + \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \sum_{\tau_{k+1} \times \tau_{k+1}' \subset \mathcal{W}_k} F_{\tau_{k+1}} F_{\tau_{k+1}'} \Big|^3
\end{align*}
which by the Minkowski inequality is
\begin{align} \label{eq:5.6}
\leq \left[ \sum_{\tau_N} \left( \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| F_{\tau_N}^2 \Big|^3 \right)^{1/3} + \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \sum_{\tau_{k+1} \times \tau_{k+1}' \subset \mathcal{W}_k} \left( \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| F_{\tau_{k+1}} F_{\tau_{k+1}'} \Big|^3 \right)^{1/3} \right]^3.
\end{align}
H\"{o}lder's inequality gives
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\tau_N} \left( \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| F_{\tau_N}^2 \Big|^3 \right)^{1/3}
&= \sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^6(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2
\leq \sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2 \cdot \frac{2}{3}} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2 \cdot \frac{1}{3}} \\
&\leq ( \sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{2}{3}} (\sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{1}{3}}.
\end{align*}
In addition, for each fixed $\tau_k$, the number of $(\tau_{k+1},\tau_{k+1}')$ with $\tau_{k+1},\tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k$ is $\leq (q^{r/2})^2 \lesssim (\log R)^{\varepsilon}$. Together with Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear}, this shows that for each $k = 0, 1, \dots, N-1$,
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\tau_{k+1} \times \tau_{k+1}' \subset \mathcal{W}_k} \left( \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| F_{\tau_{k+1}} F_{\tau_{k+1}'} \Big|^3 \right)^{1/3}
= \, \sum_{\tau_k} \sum_{ \substack{ \tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k }} \left( \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \Big| F_{\tau_{k+1}} F_{\tau_{k+1}'} \Big|^3 \right)^{1/3} \\
\lesssim &\, (\log R)^{3+2\varepsilon} (\log R)^{\varepsilon} \sum_{\tau_k} ( \sum_{\tau_N \subset \tau_k} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{2}{3}} (\sum_{\tau_N \subset \tau_k} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
\leq &\, (\log R)^{3 + 3\varepsilon} ( \sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{2}{3}} (\sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^{\frac{1}{3}}
\end{align*}
Thus \eqref{eq:5.6} is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
N^3 (\log R)^{9 + 9\varepsilon} ( \sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^2 (\sum_{\tau_N} \| F_{\tau_N} \|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )
\end{equation*}
which proves \eqref{eq:goal0} because $N \lesssim \log R$. %
Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear} can be proved by parabolic rescaling and the proposition below. That is, we use the next proposition with $J = N-k$ and
\begin{equation}\label{rescale1}
f(x) := \chi(-R_k^{1/2} a x_1 +R_k a^2 x_2) F_{\tau_k}(R_k^{1/2} x_1 - 2 a R_k x_2, R_k x_2)
\end{equation}
where $a$ is an arbitrary point in $\tau_k$. Note that
\begin{equation}\label{rescale2}
\widehat{f}(\xi,\eta) = R_k^{-3/2} \widehat{F}_{\tau_k}(a + R_k^{-1/2} \xi, a^2 + 2 a R_k^{-1/2} \xi + R_k^{-1} \eta)
\end{equation}
is supported on $\Xi_{R_k / R} \subset \Xi_{1/R_{N-k}}$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:bilinear_rescaled}
Let $J = 1, \dots, N$ and let $f$ be Fourier supported in $\Xi_{1/R_J}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3 \lesssim (\log R)^{9 + 6 \varepsilon} (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2).
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
It remains to prove Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled}.
\section{Broad/Narrow decomposition: Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled}}
The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled} is via a broad/narrow decomposition. Let $J = 1, \dots, N$ and $f$ be Fourier supported in $\Xi_{1/R_J}$. For $k = 0, 1, \dots, J-1$, and for $\tau_k \subset \O$ with $|\tau_k| = R_k^{-1/2}$, define
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k} = & \{x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon |f_{\tau_k}(x)| \leq (\log R) q^{r/2} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x) f_{\tau_{k+1}'}(x)|^{1/2} \label{eq:alternative1} \\
& \text{and} \quad (\sum_{\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x)|^6)^{1/6} \leq (\log R) q^{r/2} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x) f_{\tau_{k+1}'}(x)|^{1/2} \}. \label{eq:alternative2}
\end{align}
For $x \notin \mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:initial_narrow}
\max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1}(x) f_{\tau_1'}(x)|^3 \leq \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} \sum_{\tau_1} |f_{\tau_1}(x)|^6.
\end{equation}
This is because if $x \notin \mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}$, then either \eqref{eq:alternative1} is violated, in which case
\begin{align*}
\max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1}(x) f_{\tau_1'}(x)|^3
\leq \frac{q^{-3r}}{(\log R)^6} |f(x)|^6
= \frac{q^{-3r}}{(\log R)^6} |\sum_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1}(x)|^6
\leq \frac{q^{-3r}}{(\log R)^6} q^{5r/2} \sum_{\tau_1} |f_{\tau_1}(x)|^6,
\end{align*}
or \eqref{eq:alternative2} is violated, in which case
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1}(x) f_{\tau_1'}(x)|^3
\leq \frac{q^{-3r}}{(\log R)^6} \sum_{\tau_1} |f_{\tau_1}(x)|^6.
\end{equation*}
Either way \eqref{eq:initial_narrow} holds. Upon splitting the integral in Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled} according to whether $x \in \mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}$ or not, \eqref{eq:initial_narrow} allows us to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bn_initial}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3
\leq \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3 + \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} \sum_{\tau_1} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_1}|^6.
\end{equation}
Now observe that if $k = 1, \dots, J-1$ and $|\tau_k| = R_k^{-1/2}$, then
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item for $x \in \mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:broad_pointwise}
|f_{\tau_k}(x)|^6 \leq (\log R)^6 q^{3r} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k \\ \tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}'}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x) f_{\tau_{k+1}'}(x)|^3;
\end{equation}
\item for $x \notin \mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:narrow_pointwise}
|f_{\tau_k}(x)|^6 \leq (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6} \sum_{\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x)|^6.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
The estimate \eqref{eq:broad_pointwise} holds because of \eqref{eq:alternative1}. The proof of \eqref{eq:narrow_pointwise} proceeds via the Narrow Lemma:
\begin{lem}[Narrow Lemma] \label{lem:narrow}
Fix $\tau_k \subset \O$ with $|\tau_k| = R_{k}^{-1/2}$.
Suppose $x$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}%
|f_{\tau_k}(x)| > (\log R) q^{r/2} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k + 1}, \tau_{k + 1}' \subset \tau_k\\\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}'}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x) f_{\tau_{k+1}'}(x)|^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Then there exists a $\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k$ such that
\begin{equation*}%
|f_{\tau_k}(x)| \leq (1 - (\log R)^{-1})^{-1}|f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x)|.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
Indeed, for $x \notin \mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}$, either \eqref{eq:alternative1} fails, in which case the Narrow Lemma applies, or \eqref{eq:alternative1} holds but \eqref{eq:alternative2} fails, in which case
\begin{equation*}
|f_{\tau_k}(x)| \leq (\log R) q^{r/2} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k \\ \tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}'}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x) f_{\tau_{k+1}'}(x)|^{1/2} \leq (\sum_{\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}(x)|^6)^{1/6}.
\end{equation*}
Either way \eqref{eq:narrow_pointwise} holds. From \eqref{eq:broad_pointwise} and \eqref{eq:narrow_pointwise}, we see that for $k = 1, \dots, J-1$ and $|\tau_k| = R_k^{-1/2}$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(k-1)} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_k}|^6
\leq \, & q^{5r/2} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(k-1)} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}} f_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3 \\
& + \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6k} \sum_{\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}|^6.
\end{align*}
Summing over $\tau_k$, we get
\begin{align*}
&\frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(k-1)} \sum_{\tau_k} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_k}|^6 \\
\leq \, & q^{5r/2} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(k-1)} \sum_{\tau_k} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}} f_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3 \\
& + \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6k} \sum_{\tau_{k+1}} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_{k+1}}|^6
\end{align*}
for $k = 1, \dots, J-1$. We now apply these successively to the right hand side of \eqref{eq:bn_initial}, starting with $k = 1$ and going all the way up to $k = J-1$. Then
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3 & \leq \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3 \\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{J-1} q^{5r/2} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(k-1)} \sum_{\tau_k} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}} f_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3 \\
&+ \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-6(J-1)} \sum_{\tau_J} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_J}|^6.
\end{align*}
Since $J \leq N \lesssim \log R$, this gives
\begin{align}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1} f_{\tau_1'}|^3
& \lesssim q^{5r/2} (\log R) \max_{k=0,\dots,J-1} \sum_{\tau_k} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}} f_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3 \label{eq:broad_final} \\
&+ \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} \sum_{\tau_J} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{\tau_J}|^6. \label{eq:narrow_final}
\end{align}
Observe that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:narrow_last}
\eqref{eq:narrow_final} \lesssim \frac{q^{-r/2}}{(\log R)^6} (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)
\end{equation}
which is much better than what we needed in the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled}. Equation \eqref{eq:broad_final} is controlled by the following proposition:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:bilinear_broad}
Let $J = 1, \dots, N$ and let $f$ be Fourier supported in $\Xi_{1/R_J}$. Let $k = 0, 1, \dots, J-1$ and $\tau_k \subset \O$ with $|\tau_k| = R_k^{-1/2}$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bilinear_broad}
\int_{\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}} \max_{\substack{\tau_{k+1} \ne \tau_{k+1}' \\ \tau_{k+1}, \tau_{k+1}' \subset \tau_k}} |f_{\tau_{k+1}} f_{\tau_{k+1}'}|^3
\lesssim (\log R)^{8 + \frac{7 \varepsilon}{2}} (\sum_{\tau_J \subset \tau_k} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_J \subset \tau_k} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Assuming this for the moment, we see that \eqref{eq:broad_final} is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\eqref{eq:broad_final} & \lesssim q^{5r/2} (\log R)^{1+8+\frac{7 \varepsilon}{2}} \max_{k=0,\dots,J-1} \sum_{\tau_k} (\sum_{\tau_J \subset \tau_k} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_J \subset \tau_k} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2) \\
& \lesssim (\log R)^{9+ 6 \varepsilon} (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2)^2 (\sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2).
\end{align*}
(Recall $q^{5r/2} \leq (\log R)^{5 \varepsilon/2}$.) Together with \eqref{eq:narrow_last} we finish the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_rescaled}.
It remains to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:narrow} and Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_broad}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:narrow}]
Let $\tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}$ be the $\tau_{k + 1} \subset \tau_{k}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\tau_{k + 1} \subset \tau_{k}}|f_{\tau_{k + 1}}(x)| = |f_{\tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}}(x)|.
\end{equation*}
For $\tau_{k + 1} \subset \tau_k$ such that $\tau_{k + 1} \neq \tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}$, note that
\begin{equation*}
|f_{\tau_{k + 1}}(x)| \leq |f_{\tau_{k + 1}}(x)f_{\tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}}(x)|^{1/2} < (\log R)^{-1}q^{-r/2}|f_{\tau_{k}}(x)|.
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{align*}
|f_{\tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}}(x)| &= |f_{\tau_k}(x) - \sum_{\tau_{k + 1} \neq \tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}} f_{\tau_{k + 1}}(x)|\\
&\geq (1 - \#\{\tau_{k + 1}: \tau_{k + 1} \subset \tau_k, \tau_{k + 1}\neq \tau_{k + 1}^{\ast}\}(\log R)^{-1}q^{-r/2})|f_{\tau_k}(x)|\\
&\geq (1 - (\log R)^{-1})|f_{\tau_k}(x)|.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
To prove Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_broad}, we need the following level set estimate.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:newprop34}
Let $J = 1, \dots, N$ and let $f$ be with Fourier support in $\Xi_{1/R_J}$. For $\alpha > 0$, let
\begin{align*}%
U_{\alpha}(f) := \{x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^{2}: \max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{1/2} \sim \alpha \text{ and } (\sum_{\tau_1}|f_{\tau_1}(x)|^{6})^{1/6} \lsm (\log R)q^{r/2}\alpha\}.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f)| \lsm (\log R)^{7 + \frac{7 \vep}{2}}(\sum_{\tau_{J}}\nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^{2})}^{2})^{2}
(\sum_{\tau_{J}} \nms{f_{\tau_J}}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{Q}_q^{2})}^{2})
\end{align*}
where the implied constant is independent of $f$ and $\alpha$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bilinear_broad}]
By the same rescaling as in \eqref{rescale1}-\eqref{rescale2}, it suffices to prove \eqref{eq:bilinear_broad} for $k = 0$.
For a given $J_0 = 1, 2, \ldots, N$ and $k_0 = 1, 2, \ldots, J_0 - 1$,
the case of $(k, J) = (k_0, J_0)$ in \eqref{eq:bilinear_broad} follows from the case
$(k, J) = (0, J_0 - k_0)$. Note also that in this rescaling, it is important
that in the definition of $\mathcal{B}_{\tau_k}$ we have the condition $x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ in \eqref{eq:alternative1} rather than a smaller spatial region.
Now to prove \eqref{eq:bilinear_broad} for $k = 0$, for each square $Q_{R_J^{1/2}} \subset \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ of side length $R_J^{1/2}$, we estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:br0dom1}
\int_{\mathcal{B} \cap Q_{R_J^{1/2}}}\max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{3}
\end{equation}
where we write $\mathcal{B} := \mathcal{B}_{\tau_0}$ for brevity.
Let
\[
\mathcal{B}_{\text{small}}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}}) := \{x \in \mathcal{B} \cap Q_{R_J^{1/2}} : \max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{1/2} \leq R^{-1/2}\max_{\tau_{J}}\nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}\}
\]
and partition $(\mathcal{B} \cap Q_{R_J^{1/2}}) \bs \mathcal{B}_{\text{small}}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})$ into $O(\log R)$ sets where
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{1/2}\sim \alpha
\quad \text{and} \quad
R^{-1/2}\max_{\tau_J} \nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})} \leq \alpha \leq R\max_{\tau_J} \nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}.
\end{equation*}
By pigeonholing, there exists an $\alpha_{\ast}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{3.6}
\eqref{eq:br0dom1} \lsm R_J R^{-3} \max_{\tau_{J}}\nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^{6} + (\log R)\alpha_{\ast}^{6}|Q_{R_{J}^{1/2}} \cap U_{\alpha_{\ast}}(f)|.
\end{align}
But by the uncertainty principle (see discussion after Lemma~\ref{lem:uncertainty}), $|f_{\tau_J}|$ is constant on $Q_{R_J^{1/2}}$, so
\begin{equation*}
\|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^2 = R_J^{-1} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^2 \leq \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^2.
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^6 \leq \max_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^4 \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^2 \leq ( \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^2 \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(Q_{R_J^{1/2}})}^2.
\end{equation*}
Plugging this back into \eqref{3.6}, and summing over $Q_{R_J^{1/2}}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathcal{B}}\max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{3}
&\lesssim R_J R^{-3} ( \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^2 \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 + (\log R) \alpha_*^6 |U_{\alpha_*}(f)| \\
&\lesssim (\log R)^{8+ \frac{7 \varepsilon}{2}} ( \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2 )^2 \sum_{\tau_J} \|f_{\tau_J}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^2
\end{align*}
where the last inequality is a consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop:newprop34}. This finishes our proof.
\end{proof}
The rest of the argument goes into proving Proposition~\ref{prop:newprop34}.
\section{High/Low decomposition: Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:newprop34}}\label{highlow}
\subsection{Square functions and pruning of wave packets}
Fix $J = 1, \dots, N$ and fix $f$ with Fourier support in $\Xi_{1/R_J}$.
For $x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ and $\ld$ to be chosen later (see \eqref{eq:lambda}), define
\begin{align*}
g_{J}(x) &:= \sum_{\tau_{J}}|f_{\tau_{J}}(x)|^{2} = \sum_{\tau_{J}}\sum_{T_{J} \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_{J})}|(1_{T_{J}}f_{\tau_{J}})(x)|^{2}\\
f_{J}(x) &:= \sum_{\tau_{J}}\sum_{\st{T_{J} \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_J)\\\|1_{T_{J}}f_{\tau_{J}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^{2})} \leq \ld}}(1_{T_{J}}f_{\tau_{J}})(x)
\end{align*}
and for $k = J - 1, J - 2, \ldots, 1$, define
\begin{align*}
g_{k}(x)&:= \sum_{\tau_k}|(f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|^{2} = \sum_{\tau_k}\sum_{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)}|(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|^{2}\\
f_{k}(x) &:= \sum_{\tau_k}\sum_{\st{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)\\\|1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^{2})} \leq \ld}}(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x).
\end{align*}
Note that the Fourier support of $g_k$ is contained in a $R_{k}^{-1/2}$ square centered at the origin
and hence $g_k$ is constant on squares of side length $R_{k}^{1/2}$.
Additionally by definition of the $f_k$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:prunedmon}
|f_{k, \tau_k}| \leq |f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|
\end{align}
and so
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_{k}|^{2} = \sum_{\tau_k}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_{k, \tau_k}|^{2} \leq \sum_{\tau_k}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2} = \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_{k + 1}|^{2},
\end{align*}
where in the last step we applied $L^2$ orthogonality. Therefore
\begin{align}\label{eq:increase}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_1|^{2} \leq \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_2|^{2} \leq \cdots \leq \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f_{J}|^{2} \leq \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^{2}}|f|^{2}.
\end{align}
This matches the intuition that when passing from $f_{J}$ to $f_1$ we are throwing away wave packets and therefore at least at the $L^2$ level, we have a monotonicity relation as above.
\subsection{High and low lemmas}
For $k = 1, \dots, J-1$, define
\[
g_k^l = g_k \ast R_{k + 1}^{-1}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})} \quad \text{and} \quad g_k^h = g_k - g_k^l.
\]
Note that $g_k$ (and $g_{k}^h$) is Fourier supported on the union of $\{|\xi| \leq R_k^{-1/2}, |\eta - 2\alpha \xi| \leq R_k^{-1}\}$ where $\{\alpha\}$ is a collection
of points chosen from $\{\tau_k\}$, with one $\alpha$ for each $\tau_k$.
Additionally, observe that since
\begin{align}\label{qrk1ft}
R_{k + 1}^{-1}\widehat{1}_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})} = 1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})}
\end{align}
we have
$\wh{g_{k}^{l}} = \wh{g_k}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})}$ and so $g_{k}^{l}$ is just the restriction
of $g_k$ to frequencies less than $R_{k + 1}^{-1/2}$.
By definition of $g_k$ and $g_{k}^{l}$, both are nonnegative functions.
\begin{lem}[Low Lemma]\label{201218lem4_4}
For $k = 1, \dots, J-1$, we have $g_k^l \leq g_{k+1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{201218lem4_4}]
We have
\begin{align}\label{lowlemeq1}
g_{k}^{l} = g_{k} \ast R_{k + 1}^{-1}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})} = \sum_{\tau_k}\sum_{\tau_{k + 1}, \tau_{k + 1}' \subset \tau_k}(f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}\ov{f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}'}})\ast R_{k + 1}^{-1}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})}.
\end{align}
Taking a Fourier transform we see that
\begin{align*}
(f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}\ov{f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}'}})\ast R_{k + 1}^{-1}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})} &= \begin{cases}
|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2} \ast R_{k + 1}^{-1}1_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{1/2})} & \text{ if } \tau_{k + 1} = \tau_{k + 1}'\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}\\
&=
\begin{cases}
|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2} & \text{ if } \tau_{k + 1} = \tau_{k + 1}'\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where the last equality is because of \eqref{qrk1ft} and that $|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2}$
is Fourier supported in $B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})$.
Thus \eqref{lowlemeq1} is equal to
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\tau_{k + 1}}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2} \leq \sum_{\tau_{k + 1}}|f_{k + 2, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2} = g_{k + 1}
\end{align*}
by \eqref{eq:prunedmon}. Here if $k = J - 1$, we interpret $f_{k + 2}$ to mean $f$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[High Lemma]\label{201218lem4_5} For $k = 1, \dots, J-1$,
$$\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |g_k^h|^2 \leq q^{r/2} \sum_{\tau_k}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{4}. $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{201218lem4_5}]
It suffices to partition $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ into squares with side length $R_{k + 1}$ and prove the estimate on each such square.
Fix an arbitrary square $B \subset \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ of side length $R_{k + 1}$.
We have by Plancherel,
\begin{align*}
\int_{B}|g_{k}^{h}|^{2} = \int \ov{\wh{g_{k}^h}}(\wh{g_{k}^h} \ast \wh{1_B}).
\end{align*}
Since $g_{k}^{h}$ is Fourier supported outside $B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})$
and $1_{B}$ is Fourier supported in $B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1})$, $\wh{g_{k}^h} \ast \wh{1_B}$
is supported in $B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2}) \setminus B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})$ by the ultrametric inequality.
Therefore the above is equal to
\begin{align}\label{higheq1}
\sum_{\tau_k}\int_{B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2}) \setminus B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})}\ov{(|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2})^{\wedge}}\sum_{\tau_{k}'}((|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}'}|^{2})^{\wedge} \ast \wh{1_B}).
\end{align}
We claim that for each $\tau_k$, the Fourier support of $|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2}$ outside $B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})$ only intersects $q^{r/2}$ many
Fourier supports of the $|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}'}|^{2}$ outside $B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})$.
Indeed, suppose there exists $(\xi,\eta)$ such that $\max\{|\xi|,|\eta|\} > R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$
and
\[
|\xi| \leq R_k^{-1/2}, \qquad |\eta-2\alpha\xi|, |\eta-2\alpha'\xi| \leq R_k^{-1}
\]
for some $\alpha \in \tau_k$ and $\alpha' \in \tau_{k}'$.
Then
\[
|2(\alpha-\alpha')\xi| \leq R_k^{-1},
\]
and so if $|\xi| > R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$, then
\[
|\alpha-\alpha'| \leq R_k^{-1} / R_{k+1}^{-1/2} = R_k^{-1/2} q^{r/2}.
\]
Else $|\xi| < R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$ and $|\eta| > R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$, which implies $|\eta - 2\alpha \xi| = \max\{|\eta|, |2\alpha \xi|\} > R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$,
contradicting $|\eta - 2\alpha \xi| \leq R_k^{-1}$ if $k \geq 1$. So $|\alpha-\alpha'| \leq R_k^{-1/2} q^{r/2}$, the number of overlaps is just $q^{r/2}$ times.
Thus we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\tau_k}&\int_{B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2})\setminus B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})}\ov{(|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2})^{\wedge}}\sum_{\tau_{k}': d(\tau_k, \tau_{k}') \leq R_{k}^{-1/2}q^{r/2}}(|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}'}|^{2})^{\wedge} \ast \wh{1_B}\\
&=\sum_{\tau_k}\int_{B}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2}\ast (\widecheck{1}_{B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2})} - \widecheck{1}_{B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2})})\sum_{\tau_{k}': d(\tau_k, \tau_{k}') \leq R_{k}^{-1/2}q^{r/2}}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}'}|^{2}\\
&\leq \sum_{\tau_k}\int_{B}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2}\sum_{\tau_{k}': d(\tau_k, \tau_{k}') \leq R_{k}^{-1/2}q^{r/2}}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}'}|^{2}
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we have used that $|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2} \ast \widecheck{1}_{B(0, R_{k}^{-1/2})} = |f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2}$,
$\widecheck{1}_{B(0, R_{k + 1}^{-1/2})}$ is nonnegative, and that the convolution of two nonnegative functions is also nonnegative.
Applying Cauchy-Schwarz then gives that \eqref{higheq1} is
\begin{align*}
\leq q^{r/2}\sum_{\tau_k}\int_{B}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{4}
\end{align*}
and summing over all $B \subset \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ of side length $R_{k + 1}$ then completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Decomposition into high and low sets}\label{7.3decomp}
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{J-1} = \{x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \colon g_{J-1}(x) \leq (\log R) g_{J-1}^h(x)\}
\end{equation*}
For $k = J-2, J-3, \dots, 1$, define
\begin{align*} %
\Omega_k = \{x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \setminus (\Omega_{k+1} \cup \dots \cup \Omega_{J-1}) \colon g_k(x) \leq (\log R) g_k^h(x)\}
\end{align*}
Finally,
\begin{equation*}
L = \mathbb{Q}_q^2 \setminus (\Omega_1 \cup \dots \cup \Omega_{J-1}).
\end{equation*}
Note that $g_k$ is constant on squares of size $R_{k}^{1/2}$. By definition,
$g_{k}^{l}$ is constant on squares of size $R_{k + 1}^{1/2} > R_{k}^{1/2}$.
Therefore $g_{k}^{h}$ is also constant on squares of size $R_{k}^{1/2}$.
One can view the construction of the $\Om_k$ as follows.
Partition $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ first into squares of size $R_{J - 1}^{1/2}$.
Then $\Om_{J - 1}$ is a union of those squares on which $g_{J - 1}(x) \leq (\log R) g_{J - 1}^{h}(x)$
where here we have used that both $g_{J - 1}$ and $g_{J - 1}^{h}$ are constant on each such square of size $R_{J - 1}^{1/2}$.
Next, partition each of the remaining squares not chosen to be part of $\Om_{J - 1}$
into squares of size $R_{J - 2}^{1/2}$.
From these squares of size $R_{J - 2}^{1/2}$, $\Om_{J - 2}$ is the union of those
squares on which $g_{J - 2}(x) \leq (\log R)g_{J - 2}^{h}(x)$.
Repeat this until we have defined $\Om_{1}$ after which we call
the remaining set $L$ (which can be written as the union of squares of size $R_{1}^{1/2}$).
To prove Proposition~\ref{prop:newprop34}, note that
\begin{align} \label{eq:goal2}
\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f)| \leq \alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap L| + \sum_{k = 1}^{J - 1}\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Omega_{k}|.
\end{align}
In view of the definition of the set $U_{\alpha}(f)$, to control the right hand side, we need to understand the size of $\max_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} |f_{\tau_1}(x) f_{\tau_1'}(x)|$ on $\Omega_k$ (for $k = 1, \dots, J-1$) and on $L$. We do so in the next section, and then use it to bound the right hand side of \eqref{eq:goal2}.
\subsection{Approximation by pruned wave packets}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:3.22}
Let $k = 1, 2, \ldots, J - 1$ and $|\tau| \geq R_{k}^{-1/2}$. Then for $x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$,
\begin{align*}%
|\sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}(x) - \sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{k, \tau_k}(x)| \leq \ld^{-1}g_{k}(x).
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3.22}]
Fix $x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$. We have
\begin{align}
|\sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{k + 1, \tau_{k}}(x) - \sum_{\tau_{k} \subset \tau}f_{k, \tau_k}(x)| &= |\sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}\sum_{\substack{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)\\\|1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} > \ld}}(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|\nonumber\\
&\leq \sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}\sum_{\substack{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)\\\|1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} > \ld}}|(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|\label{lem73eq1}.
\end{align}
For each $\tau_k$, there exists exactly a parallelogram $\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)$ depending on $x$ in $\mathbb{T}(\tau_k)$ such that
$x \in \mathcal{T}_{k}(x)$. If for this parallelogram, $\nms{1_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} \leq \ld$, then
the inner sum for this particular $\tau_k$ in \eqref{lem73eq1} is equal to 0.
Otherwise,
\begin{align*}
|(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)| \leq \frac{\nms{1_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2}}{\ld}
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)\\\|1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} > \ld}}|(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)| \leq \ld^{-1}\nms{1_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2}.
\end{align*}
Since $|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|$ is constant on $\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)$,
$\|1_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2} = |(1_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(x)}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|^{2}$
and so \eqref{lem73eq1} is
\begin{align*}
\leq \ld^{-1} \sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}\sum_{\substack{T_k \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_k)\\\|1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} > \ld}}|(1_{T_k}f_{k + 1, \tau_k})(x)|^{2}\leq \ld^{-1}g_{k}(x)
\end{align*}
which completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:3.27}
Let $k = 1, 2, \ldots, J - 1$ and $|\tau| \geq R_{k}^{-1/2}$. Then for $x \in \Om_k$,
\begin{align*}%
|f_{\tau}(x) - \sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}(x)| \lsm \ld^{-1}\frac{\log R}{\log\log R}\nms{g_{J}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3.27}]
Fix $x \in \Om_k$.
Since $\sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{\tau_k} = f_{\tau} = \sum_{\tau_{k- 1} \subset \tau}f_{\tau_{k - 1}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
|f_{\tau}(x) - \sum_{\tau_k \subset \tau}f_{k + 1, \tau_k}(x)| & \leq |f_{\tau}(x) - \sum_{\tau_{J} \subset \tau}f_{J, \tau_{J}}(x)| + \sum_{j = k + 1}^{J - 1}|\sum_{\tau_{j} \subset \tau}f_{j + 1, \tau_j}(x) - \sum_{\tau_j \subset \tau}f_{j, \tau_j}(x)|\\
&\leq \ld^{-1}\sum_{j = k + 1}^{J}g_{j}(x)
\end{align*}
by Lemma \ref{lem:3.22} (by how $f_{J}$ is defined, the $f_{\tau} - \sum_{\tau_{J} \subset \tau}f_{J, \tau_{J}}$ term is controlled by the same proof as in Lemma \ref{lem:3.22}).
To control this sum, we now use the definition of $\Om_k$.
The low lemma gives
$$g_{j}(x) = g_{j}^{l}(x) + g_{j}^{h}(x) \leq g_{j + 1}(x) + g_{j}^{h}(x).$$
Since $x \in \Om_k$, for $j = k + 1, \ldots, J - 1$, this is then $\leq g_{j + 1}(x) + (\log R)^{-1} g_{j}(x)$
and hence
\begin{align*}
g_{j}(x) \leq (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-1} g_{j + 1}(x).
\end{align*}
Therefore for $j = k + 1, \ldots, J - 1$,
\begin{align*}
g_{j}(x) \leq (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-(J - j)} \|g_{J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}.
\end{align*}
Thus
\begin{align*}
\ld^{-1}\sum_{j = k + 1}^{J} g_{j}(x) &\leq \ld^{-1}\|g_{J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}\sum_{j = k + 1}^{J} (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-(J - j)}\\
& \lsm \ld^{-1}\frac{\log R}{\log \log R}\|g_{J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}
\end{align*}
which completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3.27}.
\end{proof}
Note that the above proof also works for $x \in L$ and we obtain the same conclusion.
Now choose
\begin{align}\label{eq:lambda}
\ld := (\log R)^2 q^{r/2} \frac{\|g_{J}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}}{\alpha}.
\end{align}
We can write the conclusion of Lemma \ref{lem:3.27} as for $x \in \Om_k$ and $|\tau| \geq R_{k}^{-1/2}$, we have
\begin{align*}
f_{\tau}(x) = f_{k + 1, \tau}(x) + O((\log R)^{-1} q^{-r/2} (\log \log R)^{-1}\alpha)
\end{align*}
and so for $x \in \Om_k$ and $\tau_1, \tau_{1}'$ disjoint intervals of length $R_{1}^{-1/2}$,
\begin{align*}
|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)| = &|f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}}(x)f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}(x)|\\
& + O\bigg(\frac{\alpha}{(\log R) q^{r/2} \log\log R}(|f_{\tau_{1}}(x)| + |f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|) + \frac{\alpha^2}{(\log R)^{2} q^r (\log\log R)^2}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Since $x \in U_{\alpha}(f)$, we control the $|f_{\tau_1}(x)|$ and $|f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|$ by the $l^6$ sum over all such $\tau_1$ caps and thus by $(\log R)q^{r/2}\alpha$.
This gives that for $x \in U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k$,
\begin{align*}
|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)| = |f_{k + 1, \tau_1}(x)f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}(x)| + O(\frac{\alpha^2}{\log\log R}).
\end{align*}
This implies for $x \in U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k$ and $R$ sufficiently large,
\begin{align*}
\max_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{\tau_1}(x)f_{\tau_{1}'}(x)|^{2} \lsm \max_{\tau_{1} \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{k + 1, \tau_1}(x)f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}(x)|^{2}
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:pruned}
\alpha^{4}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k| \lsm \nms{\max_{\tau_{1} \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{k + 1, \tau_1}(x)f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}(x)|^{1/2}}_{L^{4}(U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k)}^{4}.
\end{align}
Similarly, Lemma \ref{lem:3.22} with $k = 1$ implies $|f_{2, \tau_1}(x) - f_{1, \tau_{1}}(x)| \leq \ld^{-1}g_{1}(x)$
and the beginning of the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3.27} implies
$|f_{\tau_1}(x) - f_{2, \tau_1}(x)| \leq \ld^{-1}\sum_{j = 2}^{J} g_{j}(x)$.
Following the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3.27} and the choice of $\ld$ in \eqref{eq:lambda}
shows that for $x \in L$,
\begin{align*}
f_{\tau_1}(x) = f_{1, \tau_{1}}(x) + O((\log R)^{-1} q^{-r/2} (\log\log R)^{-1}\alpha)
\end{align*}
from which following the same reasoning as in the $\Om_k$ case, we obtain that
\begin{align}\label{eq:prunedlow}
\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap L| \lsm \nms{\max_{\tau_{1} \neq \tau_{1}'}|f_{1, \tau_{1}}(x)f_{1, \tau_{1}'}(x)|^{1/2}}_{L^{6}(U_{\alpha}(f) \cap L)}^{6}.
\end{align}
In light of \eqref{eq:goal2}, it remains to estimate the right hand sides of \eqref{eq:pruned} and \eqref{eq:prunedlow}.
\subsection{Estimating $\alpha^6 |U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Omega_k|$ for $k = 1, \dots, J-1$}
We first recall the following bilinear restriction theorem whose proof we defer to the end of this section.
\begin{lem}[Bilinear restriction] \label{lem_bilinear}
Suppose $\delta \in q^{-2\mathbb{N}}$, and for $i = 1,2$, $f_i$ is a function on $\mathbb{Q}_q^2$ whose Fourier support is contained in
$ %
\{(\xi,\eta) \colon \xi \in I_i, |\eta - \xi^2| \leq \delta\},
$ %
where $I_1$, $I_2$ are intervals in $\O$ (not necessarily of the same length) separated by a distance~$\kappa$. Assume
\begin{equation} \label{assump}
\kappa \geq \delta^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation} \label{bilrest}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1 f_2|^2 \leq \frac{\delta^2}{\kappa} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1|^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_2|^2.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Fix $k = 1, 2, \dots, J - 1$ below. Then \eqref{eq:pruned} is bounded by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pruned2}
\sum_{\tau_1 \ne \tau_1'} \int_{\Omega_k} |f_{k+1,\tau_1} f_{k+1,\tau_1'}|^2.
\end{equation}
Since $g_k$ and $g_k^h$ are constant on squares of side length $R_{k}^{1/2}$, we may partition $\Om_k$ into squares $Q$ of side length $R_{k}^{1/2}$, and integrate on each such $Q$ before we sum over $Q$. If $k \ge 2$, then the Fourier supports of $f_{k+1,\tau_1} 1_Q$ and $f_{k+1,\tau_1'} 1_Q$ are contained in $\Xi_{R_k^{-1/2}}$, while the distance between $\tau_1$ and $\tau_1'$ is $> R_1^{-1/2}$. Since $R_1^{-1/2} \geq (R_k^{-1/2})^{1/2}$ and \eqref{eq:Rk1/4} holds, the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{lem_bilinear} is satisfied with $\kappa = R_1^{-1/2}$ and $\delta = R_k^{-1/2}$. From \eqref{bilrest}, we then obtain
\[
\int_Q |f_{k+1,\tau_1} f_{k+1,\tau_1'}|^2 \leq \frac{(R_k^{-1/2})^2}{R_1^{-1/2}} \int_Q |f_{k+1,\tau_1}|^2 \int_Q |f_{k+1,\tau_1'}|^2 = \frac{q^{r/2}}{|Q|} \int_Q |f_{k+1,\tau_1}|^2 \int_Q |f_{k+1,\tau_1'}|^2.
\]
The same inequality holds for $k=1$, because then $|f_{k+1,\tau_1}|$ and $|f_{k+1,\tau_1'}|$ are constants on squares of side length $R_1^{1/2}$.
Thus in either case, \eqref{eq:pruned2} is controlled by
\begin{align*}
\sum_{Q \in P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)}\sum_{\tau_1 \neq \tau_{1}'}\int_{Q}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}}f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}|^{2}
&\leq q^{r/2}\sum_{Q \in P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)}\frac{1}{|Q|} \sum_{\tau_{1} \ne \tau_{1}'} \int_{Q}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}}|^2 \int_{Q}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}'}|^2\\
&\leq q^{r/2}\sum_{Q \in P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)}\frac{1}{|Q|}(\sum_{\tau_{1}}\int_{Q}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{1}}|^{2})^{2}
\end{align*}
where here $P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)$ denotes the partition of $\Om_k$ into squares of side length $R_{k}^{1/2}$.
Since $Q$ has side length $R_{k}^{1/2}$, Plancherel and the definition of $g_{k}$ then controls this by
\begin{align*}
q^{r/2}\sum_{Q \in P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)}\frac{1}{|Q|}(\sum_{\tau_k}\int_{Q}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{2})^{2} = q^{r/2}\sum_{Q \in P_{R_{k}^{1/2}}(\Om_k)}\frac{1}{|Q|}(\int_{Q}g_{k})^{2} = q^{r/2}\int_{\Om_k}g_{k}^{2}
\end{align*}
where the last equality is because $g_k$ is constant on squares of size $R_{k}^{1/2}$.
Therefore we have shown that
\begin{align*}
\alpha^{4}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k| \lsm q^{r/2} \int_{\Om_k}g_{k}^{2}.
\end{align*}
Using that we are in $\Om_k$ and applying the high lemma, this is controlled by
\begin{align} \label{eq:7.55}
(\log R)^2 q^{r/2} \int_{\Om_k}|g_{k}^{h}|^{2} \leq (\log R)^2 q^r \sum_{\tau_k}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f_{k + 1, \tau_k}|^{4}
\end{align}
Write $f_{k+1,\tau_k} = \sum_{\tau_{k+1} \subset \tau_k} f_{k+1,\tau_{k+1}}$.
Note that the sum has $R_k^{-1/2}/R_{k+1}^{-1/2}$ terms. Using H\"{o}lder's inequality, we further obtain that
\begin{align*}
\eqref{eq:7.55} &\le (\log R)^2 q^r (\frac{R_k^{-1/2}}{R_{k+1}^{-1/2}})^{3} \sum_{\tau_{k + 1}} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{k+1,\tau_{k+1}}|^4\\
& = (\log R)^2 q^{5r/2} \sum_{\tau_{k + 1}}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f_{k + 1, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{4}\\
& = (\log R)^2 q^{5r/2} \sum_{\tau_{k + 1}}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}\sum_{\st{T_{k + 1} \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_{k + 1})\\\|1_{T_{k + 1}}f_{k + 2, \tau_{k + 1}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}\leq \ld}}|1_{T_{k + 1}}f_{k + 2, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{4}
\end{align*}
where in the last equality we have used that each $x \in \mathbb{Q}_q^2$ is contained in exactly one $T_{k + 1} \in \mathbb{T}(\tau_{k + 1})$. Here we have also used the convention that if $k = J - 1$, then $f_{k + 2}$ is just $f$.
Applying the definition of $f_{k + 1}$ shows that this is
\begin{align}\label{eq:lambda2appear}
\leq (\log R)^2 q^{5r/2} \ld^{2}\sum_{\tau_{k + 1}}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f_{k + 2, \tau_{k + 1}}|^{2} = (\log R)^2 q^{5r/2} \ld^{2}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f_{k + 2}|^{2} \leq (\log R)^2 q^{5r/2} \ld^{2}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f|^{2}
\end{align}
where the last inequality is by \eqref{eq:increase}.
Using \eqref{eq:lambda} then shows that we have proved
\begin{align*}
\alpha^{4}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k| \lsm (\log R)^6 q^{7r/2} \alpha^{-2} \nms{g_{J}}^{2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f|^{2}.
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{align} \label{eq:7.5conclusion}
\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap \Om_k| \lsm (\log R)^6 q^{7r/2} (\sum_{\tau_{J}}\|f_{\tau_{J}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2})^{2}\sum_{\tau_{J}}\|f_{\tau_{J}}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Estimating $\alpha^6 |U_{\alpha}(f) \cap L|$}
The right hand side of \eqref{eq:prunedlow} is
\begin{align}\label{eq:lowdomeq1}
&\leq \int_{L}(\sum_{\tau_1}|f_{1, \tau_1}|^{2})^{3}\leq \int_{L}(\sum_{\tau_1}|f_{2, \tau_1}|^{2})^{3}= \int_{L}g_{1}^{2}\sum_{\tau_{1}}|f_{2, \tau_{1}}|^{2}
\end{align}
where the second inequality is by \eqref{eq:prunedmon}.
For $x \in L$ and $k = 1, \dots, J-1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
g_k(x) \leq (1-(\log R)^{-1})^{-1} g_{k+1}(x)
\end{equation*}
so
\begin{equation*}
g_1(x) \lesssim \sum_{\tau_{J}} |f_{\tau_{J}}(x)|^2.
\end{equation*}
Therefore this and \eqref{eq:increase} shows that \eqref{eq:lowdomeq1} is
\begin{align*}
\lsm (\sum_{\tau_{J}}\nms{f_{\tau_{J}}}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2})^{2}\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2}|f|^{2}.
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{align} \label{eq:7.6conclusion}
\alpha^{6}|U_{\alpha}(f) \cap L| \lsm (\sum_{\tau_{J}}\|f_{\tau_{J}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2})^{2}\sum_{\tau_{J}}\|f_{\tau_{J}}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{Q}_q^2)}^{2}.
\end{align}
Finally, we may sum \eqref{eq:7.5conclusion} over $k=1,\dots,J-1$ with \eqref{eq:7.6conclusion}. Since $J \leq N \lesssim \log R$, this concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:newprop34}, modulo the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem_bilinear}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem_bilinear}}
Decompose
\begin{equation*}
f_i = \sum_{\substack{\theta_i \subset I_i \\ |\theta_i| = \delta^{1/2}}} f_{i,\theta_i}.
\end{equation*}
Then by Plancherel,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1 f_2|^2
= \sum_{\theta_1, \theta_1', \theta_2, \theta_2'} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} f_{1,\theta_1} f_{2,\theta_2} \cdot \overline{ f_{1,\theta_1'} f_{2,\theta_2'} }
= \sum_{\theta_1, \theta_1', \theta_2, \theta_2'} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} (\widehat{f_{1,\theta_1}}*\widehat{f_{2,\theta_2}}) \cdot \overline{(\widehat{f_{1,\theta_1'}}*\widehat{f_{2,\theta_2'}})}.
\end{equation*}
For the last integral to be non-zero, the support of $\widehat{f_{1,\theta_1}}*\widehat{f_{2,\theta_2}}$ must intersect the support of $\widehat{f_{1,\theta_1'}}*\widehat{f_{2,\theta_2'}}$.
Thus we can find $(\xi_i, \eta_i)$, $i = 1, 2, 3, 4$ such that
$\xi_1 + \xi_2 = \xi_3 + \xi_4$ and $\eta_1 + \eta_2 = \eta_3 + \eta_4$
where $|\eta_{i} - \xi_i^{2}| \leq \delta$ and $\xi_1 \in \ta_1$, $\xi_2 \in \ta_2$,
$\xi_3 \in \ta_{1}'$, and $\xi_4 \in \ta_{2}'$.
Hence by the ultrametric inequality, for this $(\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_4)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{linear}
\xi_1 + \xi_2 - (\xi_3 + \xi_4) = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{quad}
|\xi_1^2 + \xi_2^2 - (\xi_3^2 + \xi_4^2)| \leq \delta.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{linear}, we have $\xi_1 - \xi_4 = -(\xi_2-\xi_3)$, so we see from \eqref{quad} that
\begin{equation*}
|\xi_1-\xi_4| |\xi_1+\xi_4-(\xi_2+\xi_3)| \leq \delta.
\end{equation*}
But \eqref{linear} also implies $\xi_1+\xi_4-(\xi_2+\xi_3) = 2 (\xi_1 - \xi_3)$. Since $q$ is an odd prime, we have
\begin{equation*}
|\xi_1-\xi_4| |\xi_1 - \xi_3| \leq \delta.
\end{equation*}
Since $|\xi_1 - \xi_4| \geq \kappa$, this shows
\begin{equation*}
|\xi_1 - \xi_3| \leq \frac{\delta}{\kappa}.
\end{equation*}
If $\delta / \kappa \leq \delta^{1/2}$, i.e. \eqref{assump} holds,
then $|\xi_1 - \xi_3| \leq \delta^{1/2}$.
Since $\ta_1$ and $\ta_{1}'$ are intervals of length $\delta^{1/2}$
and two $q$-adic intervals of the same length are either disjoint or equal, we must have $\theta_1 = \theta_1'$. Using \eqref{linear} again then implies $\theta_2 = \theta_2'$.
This shows
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1 f_2|^2 = \sum_{\theta_1, \theta_2} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |\widehat{f_{1,\theta_1}}*\widehat{f_{2,\theta_2}}|^2 = \sum_{\theta_1, \theta_2} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{1,\theta_1}|^2 |f_{2,\theta_2}|^2.
\end{equation*}
Now for $i = 1,2$, we may expand
\begin{equation*}
|f_{i,\theta_i}|^2 = \sum_{T_i \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_i)} |c_{T_i}|^2 1_{T_i}
\end{equation*}
as in Corollary \ref{cor:wavepacket}, so that $\sum_{T_i \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_i)} |c_{T_i}|^2 |T_i| = \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{i,\theta_i}|^2$.
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{1,\theta_1}|^2 |f_{2,\theta_2}|^2
&= \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} \sum_{T_1 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_1)} |c_{T_1}|^2 1_{T_1} \sum_{T_2 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_2)} |c_{T_2}|^2 1_{T_2} \\
&= \sum_{T_1 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_1)} \sum_{T_2 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_2)} |c_{T_1}|^2 |c_{T_2}|^2 |T_1 \cap T_2|
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Using the definition of $\kappa$, and Lemma \ref{lem:tubeintersect}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
|T_1 \cap T_2| \leq \delta^{-1/2} \cdot \frac{\delta^{-1/2}}{\kappa} = \frac{\delta^2}{\kappa} |T_1| |T_2| \quad \text{for all $T_1 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_1)$, $T_2 \in \mathbb{T}(\theta_2)$},
\end{equation*}
so
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{1,\theta_1}|^2 |f_{2,\theta_2}|^2 \leq \frac{\delta^2}{\kappa} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{1,\theta_1}|^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_{2,\theta_2}|^2.
\end{equation*}
Summing over $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ on both sides, we yield
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1 f_2|^2 \leq \frac{\delta^2}{\kappa} \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_1|^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}_q^2} |f_2|^2,
\end{equation*}
as desired.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Computing shortest paths is certainly one of the most fundamental graph problems
and has numerous theoretical and practical applications.
The two classical variants of the shortest paths problem are \emph{single-source shortest paths} (SSSP)
and \emph{all-pairs shortest path} (APSP).
A common generalization of these variants is the \emph{distance oracle} problem,
where we are allowed to preprocess a given network into a (possibly small) data structure
that is later used to answer arbitrary \emph{point-to-point} shortest paths queries.
Clearly, SSSP and APSP algorithms can be viewed as extreme solutions to the
distance oracle problem: the former can be used without any preprocessing to query a distance in near-linear
time, whereas the latter precomputes the answers
to all the $n^2$ possible queries and thus can answer queries in constant time. Hence,
when constructing distance oracles we seek a tradeoff between these two extremes.
Unfortunately, it is not known how to obtain a non-trivial (with both subquadratic
space and sublinear query time) \emph{exact} distance oracle
for general graphs. Subquadratic space and constant query time oracle is only known
for undirected weighted graphs if approximation factor of at least $3$ is allowed~\cite{oracles}.
Due to this theoretical inefficiency of distance oracles, researchers either focus
on special graph classes, or study approximate approaches.
On one hand, near-optimal (in terms of space and query time) exact distance oracles have
been recently described for planar graphs~\cite{10.1145/3313276.3316316}.
On the other hand, for many important graph classes near-optimal $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate distance
oracles are known~\cite{10.5555/2027127.2027142,10.1145/1146381.1146411}.
Nevertheless, in practice heuristic approaches are usually preferable -- for an overview
of used techniques see~\cite{Bast2016}. However, the term ``heuristic'' in this domain usually refers to ways of speeding up exact algorithms.
There are some examples of heuristics that have been analyzed theoretically and
proved to yield speedups in meaningful settings, see e.g.,~\cite{10.1145/2985473}.
Perhaps the most well-known heuristic approach to speeding up a shortest path
\linebreak computation is a variant of Dijkstra's algorithm called the \emph{$A^*$ search}~\cite{HartNR68}.
This algorithm incorporates a heuristic function that lower-bounds
the distance to the target and uses it to decide which search paths to follow first.
The algorithm is still guaranteed to find the shortest path
to the target vertex, but the number of vertices explored can be much smaller
compared to the standard Dijkstra's algorithm. For example, if vertices
of the network correspond to points in the plane, the Euclidean distance
to the target is a valid and well-working heuristic function. The natural question
arises when such algorithms perform provably better than in the worst-case.
\subsection{Shortest paths in weighted unit-disk graphs}
The seminal result that answers this question is by Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986}, who
studied the performance of $A^*$ search on various random geometric graph models.
Perhaps the most interesting of their results concerns the \emph{weighted unit-disk graphs}.
In a weighted unit-disk graph with \emph{connectivity radius} $r$,
vertices correspond to points on the plane.
An edge between two distinct vertices (points) $u,v$ exists in such a graph
if ${||u-v||_2\leq r}$ and has weight $||u-v||_2$.
This class of geometric graphs has been widely studied from the algorithmic
perspective since such graphs can model e.g., ad-hoc communication networks.
A \emph{random weighted unit-disk graph} $G$, given $n$ and radius $r\in (0,1)$, is
obtained from a set of $n$ random points of a unit square $[0,1]^2$.
Note that such a random $G$ has $\Theta((nr)^2)$ edges in expectation.
However, Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986} show that, assuming that the neighbors of each vertex in $G$
are stored explicitly, one can compute a point-to-point shortest path
in $G$ using $A^*$ search in $O(n)$ expected time, i.e., independent of $r$
and sublinear in the size of the edge set of~$G$. In other words, they have given an
exact distance oracle for random weighted unit-disk graphs
that in expectation requires $O((nr)^2)$ space and $O(n)$ query time.
Sedgewick and Vitter's result~\cite{sedgewick1986} can be also interpreted as follows: for weighted
unit-disk graphs ${G=(V,E)}$, just storing the graph explicitly allows
$O(n)$-time queries for an average-case graph~$G$.
Whereas such a query time is sublinear in the graph size, the $\Theta((nr)^2)$
space used might be \emph{superlinear} in the graph's description -- observe
that a weighted unit-disk graph can be described using $O(n)$ space
solely with $n$ point locations and the connectivity radius $r$.
In recent years efficient single-source shortest paths algorithm
for weighted unit-disk graphs have been proposed~\cite{CabelloJ15, KaplanMRSS20, wangxue}, culminating
in the $O(n\log^2{n})$ algorithm of Wang and Xue~\cite{wangxue}.
Note that their worst-case bound is near-optimal and almost matches the bound of~\cite{sedgewick1986}
which holds only on average.
All-pairs shortest paths in weighted unit-disk graphs can be computed
slightly faster that running single-source computations~$n$ times~\cite{ChanS16}.
To the best of our knowledge, no exact distance oracle with non-obvious space and
query bounds for this graph class is known.
On the contrary, a very efficient $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate distance
oracle with near-optimal space, preprocessing, and query bounds was given by Chan and Skrepetos~\cite{ChanS19a}.
The notion of a weighted unit-disk graph naturally generalizes to three- and higher dimensions:
an edge between two vertices appears if the $d$-dimensional balls of radius $r$
at these points intersect. We are not aware of
any non-trivial results on computing shortest paths in such graphs for $d\geq 3$.
\subsection{Our results}
Observe that all of the above algorithms in order
to answer distance queries require work essentially proportional to the number of vertices
and not the number of edges. In this paper, we break this natural barrier and
show an even stronger sublinear time results.
We propose a natural heuristic approach to computing exact shortest paths in weighted unit-disk graphs.
Following Sedgewick and Vitter, we analyze its average-case query
time by studying its performance on a random $n$-vertex graph with connectivity radius $r$
in the unit square $[0,1]^2$, where $r=\Omega\left(\sqrt{\log (n)/n}\right)$.\footnote{This simplifying assumption
has also been made by Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986} and
excludes only very sparse graphs with $m=O(n\log{n})$ from our consideration. Moreover,
it is known that if $r=o(\sqrt{\log(n)/n})$, then the random unit-disk graph
is disconnected with high probability~\cite{825799}.}
In this setting, we prove that after near-linear preprocessing,
the query procedure of our average-case distance oracle
has $O(1/r^2+\sqrt{n})$ expected running time.
Formally, we prove:
\begin{theorem}
Let $r\in (0,1)$ be such that $r=\Omega\left(\sqrt{\log(n)/n}\right)$. Let $G$ be a
weighted unit-disk graph with connectivity radius $r$ on a set $P$ of $n$ points
picked uniformly at random from the unit square $[0,1]^2$.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a data structure that, after preprocessing $P$ in $O(p(n))$ time,
supports reporting all $k$ points in $P$
lying in an arbitrary (not necessarily orthogonal) rectangular subregion
in $O(k+t(n))$ time.
Then, there exists an exact distance oracle on $G$ with $O(p(n))$ preprocessing time and
$O(1/r^2+t(n))$ expected query time.
\end{theorem}
The state-of-the-art range searching data structures~\cite{Chan12}
imply that $t(n)=O(\sqrt{n})$ using $O(n)$ space and $O(n\log{n})$ preprocessing.
Consequently, for $r=\Omega(1/n^{1/4})$ the expected query time
is $O(\sqrt{n})$ and it remains truly sublinear
for all $r=\Omega(\sqrt{\log(n)/n})$ -- improving the running time of Sedgewick and Vitter
in the full range of parameters $r$ they consider.
The general idea behind our heuristic algorithm for computing a shortest $s-t$ path
is fairly intuitive: we run the single-source shortest paths
algorithm limited to increasingly ``fat'' rectangular subregions of $G$ surrounding
the segment $s-t$.
The subregions of interest are computed using a range reporting data structure
which constitutes the only preprocessed information of our oracle.
Since dynamic variants of such range searching data structures are known~\cite{Matousek92} (with query and space
bound matched up to polylogarithmic factors, and polylogarithmic update bounds),
our heuristic distance oracle can be trivially dynamized as well (see Remark~\ref{dynamic}).
Another advantage of our algorithm is that it easily generalizes to higher dimensions. Using new ideas we prove
that for random weighted unit-disk graphs\footnote{Since a disk is a subset of a plane, in higher dimensions $d>2$, it would be perhaps more appropriate to call
such graphs \emph{weighted unit-ball graphs}. However, anyway, we stick to the well-established term \emph{weighted unit-disk graph}
since our main result concerns the plane case $d=2$.}
in~$[0,1]^d$,
the expected query time is $O(\min(1/r^{2d-1},n)+t_d(n))$,
assuming one can report the points from an arbitrary (not necessarily orthogonally aligned)
$d$-dimensional hyperrectangle in $O(t_d(n)+k)$ time.
It is known~\cite{Chan12} that $t_d(n)=O(n^{1-1/d})$
so this expected time is sublinear in $n$ unless $r=\Omega\left(n^{-\frac{1}{2d-1}}\right)$.
It is worth noting that for $d=2$, the expected query time has a ``better'' dependence, i.e., $O(1/r^d)$, on $r$
than for $d\geq 3$ where the dependence is $O(1/r^{2d-1})$.
This is justified by the fact that whereas single-source shortest paths in weighted
unit-disk graphs for $d=2$ can be computed nearly-optimally~\cite{wangxue}, no
non-trivial algorithm like this is known for $d\geq 3$ and we have to resort
to running the standard Dijkstra's algorithm.
We also show that the $O(t_d(n))=O(n^{1-1/d})$ term can be improved for $d\geq 3$
using a different ad-hoc algorithm for reporting the points
of $G$ in sufficiently thin hyperrectangles surrounding the segment
$st$ that we use.
Namely, we show that we can achieve $O(1/r^{2d-1}+n^{1/d})$ expected
query time for any $d\geq 3$.
This improved algorithm is discussed in Section~\ref{s:improved}
ans is also easily dynamized.
Undoubtedly, the technical difficulty of our result lies in the probabilistic
analysis. We use similar approach to the one used by Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986} to bound the probability
that the sought path exist in ellipsoidal grid-like regions called \emph{channels}.
However, in order to avoid looking at all the edges incident to a vertex we need to use a new heuristic that allows
us to consider only edges induced within an rectangular region.
Interestingly, we also identify a shortcoming in their original
analysis for the two-dimensional case and give a more delicate argument inspired
by the techniques from so-called \emph{oriented percolation theory}~(see e.g.,~\cite{durrett}). The original result of
Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986} wrongly limited the sets of directed paths
going through the channel grid. Thus the resulting probability that a path exists
was overestimated. The more detailed description of the shortcoming of the original
proof is given in Appendix~\ref{ashortcoming}.
We note that for $d=2$ the graph model considered here has been widely studied in the context
of wireless networks~\cite{825799}. For example, Gupta and Kumar~\cite{760846} studied the connectivity of such
networks, and have shown a critical $r$ above which the graph is connected with high probability.
This result was generalized by Penrose~\cite{1098-2418}
to $k$-connectivity. Our result gives the first known sublinear shortest path routing oracle
for such networks. In a sense, our results call for further work on exact distance oracles
for weighted unit disk graphs. In particular it might suggest that near-linear space and
sublinear query time exact distance oracles in the worst-case exist, as proving such result over
random graphs can be a seen as a proof-of-concept for such a possibility.
\newcommand{\mathrm{BE}}{\mathrm{BE}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{BB}}{\mathrm{BB}}
\newcommand{W_{\mathrm{ub}}}{W_{\mathrm{ub}}}
\section{Preliminaries}
A \emph{weighted unit-disk graph} $G=(V,E)$ with \emph{connectivity radius} $r$ is an undirected geometric graph whose vertices are identified
with some $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, where $d\geq 2$ is a constant.
The edge set of $G$ contains an edge $\{u,v\}$ for all $u=(u_1,\ldots,u_d)$, $v=(v_1,\ldots,v_d)\in V$
such that $||u-v||_2=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^d (u_i-v_i)^2}\leq r$.
For brevity, in the following we omit the subscript and write $||x-y||$ instead of $||x-y||_2$.
For $u,v\in V$, by $\dist_G(u,v)$ we denote the length of a shortest $u\to v$ path
in~$G$.
We consider \emph{exact distance oracles} for weighted unit-disk graphs $G$,
i.e., data structures that preprocess $G$ (ideally into a near-linear space
data structure using near-linear time) and then accept point-to-point
distance queries, i.e., given query vertices $u,v\in V$, compute $\dist_G(u,v)$.
The algorithms we propose can be straightforwardly extended to also report
actual shortest paths within the same asymptotic time bound. Hence, we focus only on computing distances.
In order to perform a meaningful average-case analysis of a distance oracle's
query algorithm
on weighted unit-disk graphs for a given $r$, we need to
limit the space of possible graphs. To this end, following Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986},
for $r\in (0,1)$ we limit our attention to graphs with all
$n$ points in $[0,1]^d$.
In order to compute the average running time of a shortest path query,
we would like to compute it over all possible such graphs.
Equivalently, we study the expected running time of a query
algorithm on a \emph{random graph} $G$, where each of $n$ points
is picked uniformly at random from $[0,1]^d$.
Note that in such a case, each vertex $w$ has $\Theta(nr^d)$ neighbors in expectation:
the probability that another vertex $z$ is connected with $w$ with
an edge equals the probability that $z$ is picked in the $d$-dimensional
ball of radius~$r$ around $v$ which clearly has volume $\Theta(r^d)$.
We also assume $r\geq \left(\frac{\beta\log{n}}{n}\right)^{1/d}$ for a sufficiently large constant $\beta>1$.
Then, the random graph $G$ has $\Omega(n\log{n})$ edges in expectation.
For $d=2$, the bound $r=\Omega\left(\left(\frac{\log{n}}{n}\right)^{1/d}\right)$ has also been assumed by Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite{sedgewick1986},
as it greatly simplifies calculations.
Moreover, for $r=o\left(\left(\frac{\log{n}}{n}\right)^{1/d}\right)$, with high probability $G$ is not connected~\cite{760846}.
\section{The distance oracle}\label{sec:oracle}
\subsection{Preprocessing}
Let the coordinates of the $n$ points of an input weighted unit-disk graph $G$ be given.
In the preprocessing phase, in $O(n\log{n})$ time
we build a simplex range searching data structure
on~$V$~\cite{Chan12}. This data structure requires only linear space
and allows $O(n^{1-1/d}+k)$ worst-case time queries
reporting all of the $k$ input points in an arbitrary hyperrectangle (with sides not necessarily
parallel to the axes) of $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\subsection{Query algorithm}
\label{sec:query_alg}
Suppose the query is to compute $\dist_G(s,t)$ for $s,t\in V$.
Let
\begin{equation*}
w=||t-s||.
\end{equation*}
Clearly, we have $\dist_G(s,t)\geq w$.
Moreover, in the following we assume $w>r$, since otherwise we trivially have
$\dist_G(s,t)=w$.
Let us first move and rotate the coordinate system so that the origin is now
in~$s$ and the direction of the first axis is the same as $\overrightarrow{st}$,
thus we have $s=(0,0,\ldots,0)$ and $t=(w,0,\ldots,0)$ in the new coordinate system.
\begin{observation}\label{obs-ellipse}
Let $W\ge w$ denote an upper bound on $\dist(s,t)$.
If a $s$--$t$ shortest path in~$G$ contains a vertex $x\in V$ then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellipsoid}
||x-s||+||x-t||\le W.
\end{equation}
\end{observation}
Inequality \eqref{eq:ellipsoid} describes a set of points contained in a $d$-dimensional ellipsoid.
The first axis of that ellipsoid has length $W/2$, whereas all other $d-1$ axes have length $R$,
where $R$ satisfies $(w/2)^2 + R^2 = (W/2)^2$. Hence:
\begin{equation*}
R=\frac12\sqrt{W^2-w^2}.
\end{equation*}
Note that the ellipsoid is contained in a $d$-dimensional \emph{bounding box}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bb}
\left[-\frac{W-w}2,\frac{W+w}2\right]\times [-R,R]\times \ldots \times [-R,R]
\end{equation}
with first side length equal to $W$ and the other $d-1$ side lengths equal to $2R$.
We will later pick an unbounded increasing function $W_{\mathrm{ub}}:\mathbb{Z}_{+}\to \mathbb{R}_{+}$
with values depending on $n,d,r$, with the goal of defining increasingly large bounding boxes, as follows.
\begin{definition}
For a given integer $i\geq 1$, by $\mathrm{BE}(i)$ we denote the set
of points satisfying inequality~\eqref{eq:ellipsoid} for $W=W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$.
Similarly, by $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ we
denote the bounding box as in formula~\eqref{eq:bb} for $W=W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$.
\end{definition}
\newcommand{i_{\text{max}}}{i_{\text{max}}}
Our entire algorithm will be to run a single-source shortest paths algorithm
on the graphs
\begin{equation*}
G(i) = (V_i,E_i) = G\cap \mathrm{BB}(i),
\end{equation*}
subsequently for $i=1,2,\ldots,i_{\text{max}}$ (where $i_{\text{max}}$ is to be set later)
until an $s\to t$
path of length no more than $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ is found.
If we are successful with that for some $i$, the found path is returned as the shortest $s\to t$ path.
Otherwise, we simply run Dijkstra's algorithm from $s$ on the entire $G$
and either return the found shortest $s\to t$ path,
or return $\infty$ if no path is found.
\begin{lemma}
The above algorithm is correct.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The algorithm clearly stops. Moreover, the final
Dijkstra step ensures that an $s\to t$ path is found
if and only if a $s\to t$ path in $G$ exists.
To prove correctness suppose that $\dist_G(s,t)<\infty$.
Let $i^*$ be the first $i$ for which \linebreak ${\dist_{G(i^*)}(s,t)\leq W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i^*)}$,
if such $i^*$ exists.
Since $G(i^*)\subseteq G$, $\dist_G(s,t)\leq \dist_{G(i^*)}(s,t)$ and hence $\dist_G(s,t)\leq W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i^*)$.
So, by Observation~\ref{obs-ellipse},
a path of length $\dist_G(s,t)$ has all its vertices in $\mathrm{BE}(i^*)\subseteq \mathrm{BB}(i^*)$.
This proves $\dist_G(s,t)\geq \dist_{G(i^*)}(s,t)$, so in fact
$\dist_G(s,t)=\dist_{G(i^*)}(s,t)$.
If $i^*$ does not exists, we run Dijkstra's algorithm on the entire graph $G$,
so clearly a shortest $s\to t$ path is returned.
\end{proof}
\newcommand{\text{T}_{\text{gen}}}{\text{T}_{\text{gen}}}
Let $\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^V(i)$ and $\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^E(i)$ be the times required to find
sets $V_i$ and $E_i$, respectively.
Since $V_i$ is defined as a subset of $V$ inside a $d$-dimensional
bounding box $\mathrm{BB}(i)$, it can be clearly computed using a single query
to the preprocessed range searching data structure.
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^V(i)=O(n^{1-1/d}+|V_i|).
\end{equation*}
Denote by $T_d(i)$ the worst-case running time of step $i$.
The cost $T_d(i)$ might differ depending on the algorithm
that we use to find a shortest path in $G(i)$.
Note that $G(i)$ is a weighted unit-disk graph,
so if $d=2$, and we employ the recent nearly-linear (in the number of vertices), albeit difficult to implement,
algorithm of Wang and Xue~\cite{wangxue}, so we have:\footnote{We use $\log{(|V_i|+2)}$ instead of just
$\log{|V_i|}$ to make sure this term is at least a positive constant.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T_2}
T_2(i)=O\left(|V_i|\log^2(|V_i|+2)+\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^V(i)\right)=O\left(|V_i|\log^2(|V_i|+2)+\sqrt{n}\right).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if $d>2$, we need to use the simple-minded Dijkstra's algorithm
to find a shortest path in $G(i)$,
so we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T_d}
T_d(i)=O\left(|V_i|\log(|V_i|+2)+|E_i|+\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^E(i)\right)
\end{equation}
Let $\bar{P}(i)$ be the probability that we fail
to find a path of length at most $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$
in the graph $G_i$.
The expected running time of the algorithm is then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:runtime}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{i_{\text{max}}} \bar{P}(i-1)\cdot \EX[T_d(i)]+\bar{P}(i_{\text{max}})\cdot n^2\right).
\end{equation}
We will prove that by choosing
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imax-asymp}
i_{\text{max}}=\Theta(nr^d),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chlenub-asymp}
W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)=\Theta\left(w\cdot \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{i}{nr^d}\right)^{\frac{2}{d-1}}}\right)=O(w),
\end{equation}
as described precisely in Section~\ref{sec:explicit},
we can obtain the following key bound.
The proof of this bound is covered in Sections~\ref{s:channels} and~\ref{sec:explicit}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:barP}
For $i=1,\ldots,i_{\text{max}}$, $\bar{P}(i)\le e^{-i}.$
\end{lemma}
We now derive bounds on the expected sizes of sets $V_i$ and $E_i$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Vub}
For $i=1,\ldots,i_{\text{max}}$,
$\EX[|V_i|]=\Theta\left(
(w/r)^di
\right).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $\EX[|V_i|]$ equals the volume of $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ times $n$.
For $W=W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r}
R=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{W^2-w^2}=\Theta\left(w\cdot \left(\frac{i}{nr^d}\right)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}\right).
\end{equation}
Since $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ has size $W\times 2R\times \ldots \times 2R$, its volume is
\begin{equation*}
W\cdot (2R)^{d-1}=\Theta(w)\cdot \Theta(R^{d-1})=\Theta(w)\cdot \Theta\left(\frac{w^{d-1}i}{nr^d}\right)=\Theta\left(\frac{1}{n}\cdot \left(\frac{w}{r}\right)^d\cdot i\right).\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
In order to analyse the running time we will need the following technical lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:chernoff}
Let $X$ be a random variable from a binomial distribution with $n$ variables and mean $\EX[X]=\mu=\Omega(1)$.
Then for any constant integer $\alpha\geq 1$:
\begin{equation*}
\EX[X\cdot \log^\alpha (X+2)]=O(\EX[X]\cdot \log^\alpha (\EX[X]+2)))= O(\mu\cdot \log^\alpha (\mu+2))).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By using a Chernoff bound $P[X\geq (1+\delta)\mu]\leq e^{\frac{-\delta^2\mu}{2+\delta}}$, and the inequality\linebreak
$(x+y)^\alpha\leq 2^{\alpha-1}(x^\alpha+y^\alpha)$ that holds for any $x,y>0$ $\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}_+$,
we get:
\begin{align*}
\EX[X\cdot \log^\alpha (X+2)] &= \sum_{j=1}^{n} j \log^\alpha (j+2) \cdot \Pr[X=j]\\
&\le \sum_{j=1}^{\lceil n/\mu \rceil} P[(j-1) \mu \le X < j\mu ] \cdot j\log^\alpha (j\mu+2)\\
&\le \left(\sum_{j={\lceil 2/\mu\rceil}}^{\infty}P[X\geq (j-1)\mu] \cdot j\mu \log^\alpha (j(\mu+2))\right)+O(\mu)\\
&\le \left(\sum_{j=\lceil 2/\mu\rceil-2}^{\infty}P[X\geq (1+j)\mu] \cdot (j+2)\mu \log^\alpha ((j+2)(\mu+2))\right)+O(\mu)\\
&=O\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}P[X\geq (1+j)\mu] \cdot j\mu \log^\alpha (j(\mu+2))\right)+O(\mu\log^{\alpha}(\mu+2))\\
&=O\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{j^2\mu}{2+j}} \cdot j\mu \log^\alpha (j(\mu+2))\right)+O(\mu\log^{\alpha}(\mu+2))\\\
&=O\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{j^2\mu}{2+j}} \cdot j\mu \cdot 2^{\alpha-1}(\log^\alpha (j)+\log^\alpha(\mu+2))\right)+O(\mu\log^{\alpha}(\mu+2))\\
&=O\left(\mu \log^\alpha{(\mu+2)}\cdot \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}e^{-\frac{j^2\mu}{2+j}} \cdot j\log^\alpha (j)\right)+O(\mu\log^{\alpha}(\mu+2))\\
&=O\left(\mu \log^\alpha{(\mu+2)}\cdot \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(e^\mu\right)^{-j} \cdot j\log^\alpha (j)\right)+O(\mu\log^{\alpha}(\mu+2))\\
&=O(\mu\log^\alpha(\mu+2)).
\end{align*}
The final step is justified by $\sum_{j=1}^\infty c^{-j}\cdot \operatorname{poly}(j)=O(1)$ for any $c>1$ and $e^\mu=\Omega(1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:logs}
For any integer $\alpha\geq 1$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\EX[|V_i|\log^{\alpha}(|V_i|+2)] =O(\EX[|V_i|]\cdot \log^{\alpha}(\EX[|V_i|]+2)).
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We can apply Lemma~\ref{l:chernoff} since $\EX[|V_i|]=\Omega(1)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:Vub}.
\end{proof}
\newcommand{f^\text{E}}{f^\text{E}}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Eub}
Let
\begin{equation*}
f^\text{E}(i)=\min\{nr^d, (w/r)^{d-1}i\}=\begin{cases}
(w/r)^{d-1}i\quad&\text{for }r\ge \sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}i/n}\\
nr^d&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Then for $i=1,\ldots,i_{\text{max}}$, $\EX[|E_i|]=\EX[|V_i|]\cdot O(f^\text{E}(i))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take a vertex $v\in V_i$.
All neighbours of $v$ in $G(i)$ belong to the intersection of the $d$-dimensional ball of
radius $r$ centered at $v$, and the bounding box $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
This intersection, on one hand,
is contained in a box of size $2r\times2R\times\cdots\times 2R$,
where $R=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i))^2-w^2}$ (see \eqref{eq:r}).
On the other hand, it is trivially inside a ball of radius $r$.
In the former case the volume of the box with $v$'s neighbours is
\begin{equation*}
O(rR^{d-1})=O\left(\frac{1}{n}(w/r)^{d-1}\cdot i\right)
\end{equation*} In the latter case the volume is $O(r^d)$.
Therefore, the expected number of neighbours of $v$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nb_v}
O\left(n\cdot \min\left\{\frac{1}{n}(w/r)^{d-1}\cdot i, r^d\right\}\right)=O(\min\{(w/r)^{d-1}\cdot i, nr^d\}).
\end{equation}
By linearity of expectation we get the desired bound on $\EX[|E_i|]$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma describes how to efficiently generate the edges $E_i$
when we use Dijkstra's algorithm (for $d\geq 3$).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:tgenE}
Let $f^\text{E}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:Eub}.
Given $V_i$,
the edge set $E_i$ can be computed in
$\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^E(i)=O(\EX[|V_i|]\cdot f^\text{E}(i))$ expected time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We divide $[0,1]^d$ into cubes of size $r\times r\times\cdots\times r$.
With each non-empty cube we will keep a list of vertices from $V_i$
that belongs to that cube.
We build these lists by iterating over all $v\in V_i$ and assign $v$
to the appropriate cube's list.
Technically speaking, the lists are stored in a
hash table with expected $O(1)$ insertion and access time (see e.g.,~\cite{DietzfelbingerH90}):
note that the cubes can be mapped to integers $[1,(\lceil 1/r\rceil)^d]$
and we have $(\lceil 1/r\rceil)^d=O(n)$ by $r=\Omega\left((\log(n)/n)^{1/d}\right)$.
To find the edges,
for each $v$ we iterate over all vertices $w$ belonging
to the same cube as $v$ or a neighbouring cube
and check whether $||v-w||\le r$.
There are at most $3^d$ such cubes and each neighbor
of $v$ necessarily lies in these neighboring cubes.
Each cube contains $O(n\min\{rR^{d-1}, r^d\})$ vertices in expectation,
where we again set $R=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i))^2-w^2}$ (see \eqref{eq:r}).
Recall from~\eqref{eq:nb_v} in Lemma \ref{lemma:Eub} that
this quantity is $O(f^\text{E}(i))$.
This is because if $2R<r$ then the cube's intersection with $\mathrm{BB}(i)$
has size at most $r\times(2R)\times\cdots\times(2R)$ and
only in that part of the cube the vertices from $V_i$ can appear.
Therefore, the expected total work for each vertex will be $O(3^d\cdot f^\text{E}(i))=O(f^\text{E}(i))$.
Thus, by linearity of expectation, the expected running time is indeed $O(\EX[|V_i|]\cdot f^E(i))$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the following theorem bounding the expected
running time of the query algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:query-general}
The expected running time of the query algorithm on
an $n$-vertex random weighted unit-disk graph in $[0,1]^d$
with connectivity radius $r$ is
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{item:d2}
$O\left((w/r)^2\log^2(1+w/r)+\sqrt{n}\right)$ for $d=2$,
\item\label{item:big_r}
$O\bigl((w/r)^{2d-1}+n^{1-1/d}\bigr)$ for $d\ge3$ and $r\ge\sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}/n}$,
\item\label{item:small_r}
$O(nw^d+n^{1-1/d})$ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In all cases we will bound the expected query time as given in sum~(\ref{eq:runtime}):
\begin{equation*}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{i_{\text{max}}} \bar{P}(i-1)\cdot \EX[T_d(i)]+\bar{P}(i_{\text{max}})\cdot n^2\right).
\end{equation*}
First of all, note that by Equation~\ref{eq:imax-asymp}, Lemma~\ref{lemma:barP} and the assumption
$r\geq (\beta \log(n)/n)^{1/d}$ where $\beta>1$ is a large enough constant, for some constant $\gamma>0$ we have:
\begin{equation*}
i_{\text{max}}\geq \gamma\cdot nr^d\geq \gamma\cdot\beta \log{n}
\end{equation*}
So, picking $\beta=2/\gamma$ gives us
\begin{equation*}
\bar{P}(i_{\text{max}})\cdot n^2=O\left(e^{-i_{\text{max}}}\cdot n^2\right)=O\left(e^{-2\log{n}}\cdot n^2\right)=O(1).
\end{equation*}
Hence, we can focus on the below sum. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:barP}, we have:
\begin{equation*}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{i_{\text{max}}} \bar{P}(i-1)\cdot \EX[T_d(i)]\right)
=O\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \EX[T_d(i)]e^{-(i-1)}\right)
=O\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \EX[T_d(i)]e^{-i}\right).
\end{equation*}
In the following, we will use the asymptotic formula
$\sum_{i=1}^\infty f(i)e^{-i}=O(1)$ that holds for any function $f(i)=\operatorname{poly}(i)$.
Recall that $w>r$.
Let us first prove item~(\ref{item:d2}). By \eqref{eq:T_2} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:Vub},
we have:
\begin{multline*}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \EX[T_2(i)]e^{-i}\right)\\
=O\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty (w/r)^2\cdot i\cdot \log^2\bigl((w/r)^2i+2\bigr)\cdot e^{-i}
+\sum_{i=1}^\infty\sqrt{n}e^{-i}\right)\\
=O\left(
(w/r)^2\log^2(w/r+1)\sum_{i=1}^\infty i\log^2(i)\cdot e^{-i}
+\sqrt{n}\sum_{i=1}^\infty e^{-i}
\right)\\
=O\left((w/r)^2\log^2(1+w/r)+\sqrt{n}\right).
\end{multline*}
Above we silently used Corollary~\ref{cor:logs} for $X=|V_i|$ and $\alpha=2$.
Now let us prove items (\ref{item:big_r})~and~(\ref{item:small_r}).
Let us first argue that the term $\EX[|V_i|\log{|V_i|}]$ is, by Corollary~\ref{cor:logs}, asymptotically
dominated by the bound $\EX[|V_i|]\cdot O(f^\text{E}(i))$ on $\EX[|E_i|]$ from Lemma~\ref{lemma:Eub}.
This follows by Lemmas \ref{lemma:Vub} and \ref{lemma:Eub} --
if $r$ is sufficiently large.
\iffalse
, then for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ we even have
\todo[inline]{AK: to tez jest oszustwo}
\begin{equation*}
\EX|V_i|^{1+\epsilon}=\EX|V_i|\cdot \EX|V_i|^\epsilon=\EX|V_i|\cdot O(f^\text{E}(i)).
\end{equation*}
for some small enough $\epsilon>0$.
Otherwise, for small values $r$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\EX\left[|V_i|\log{|V_i|}\right]\leq \EX|V_i|\cdot 2\log{n}\leq \EX|V_i|\cdot nr^d=\EX|V_i|\cdot O(f^\text{E}(i)).
\end{equation*}
\fi
Thus by plugging that bound into \eqref{eq:T_d} we get
\begin{multline*}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \EX[T_d(i)]e^{-i}\right)\\
=\sum_{i=1}^\infty(w/r)^di\cdot
\min\{nr^d, (w/r)^{d-1}i\}
e^{-i}
+\sum_{i=1}^\infty n^{1-1/d}e^{-i}
\\
=O\left(
\min\left\{
nw^d
\sum_{i\ge 1} ie^{-i}
,
(w/r)^{2d-1}
\sum_{i=1}^\infty i^2e^{-i}
\right\}
+
n^{1-1/d}
\sum_{i=1}^\infty
e^{-i}
\right)
\\
=O\left(
\min\left\{
nw^d
,
(w/r)^{2d-1}
\right\}
+
n^{1-1/d}
\right).\qedhere
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{dynamic}
The described distance oracle can be very easily made dynamic with
only polylogarithmic overhead. That is, we can support insertions
and deletions of vertices of the weighted unit-disk graph $G$,
in amortized $O(\operatorname{polylog}{n})$ time. To this end we simply
replace the simplex range query data structure of Chan~\cite{Chan12}
that we build in the preprocessing with that of Matousek~\cite{Matousek92}
which allows for polylogarithmic amortized updates to the point set and
has only polylogarithmically slower preprocessing and query times.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Faster generation of sets $V_i$}\label{s:improved}
We now show how to generate $V_i$ faster and
without resorting to using simplex range query data
structure~\cite{Chan12}.
Let $k$ be an integer to be chosen later.
Let us partition $[0,1]^d$ into
$k^d$ orthogonal \emph{cells}, each of size $(1/k)\times (1/k)\times\ldots\times (1/k)$.
For any $(i_1,\ldots,i_d)\in \{1,\ldots,k\}^d$,
the cell $C_{i_1,\ldots,i_d}$ equals $[(i_1-1)\cdot (1/k),i_1\cdot (1/k)]\times \ldots\times [(i_d-1)\cdot (1/k),i_d\cdot (1/k)]$.
During preprocessing, each point of $v\in V$ is assigned to an arbitrary cell $C_v$ out of $O(1)$ cells $v$ is contained in.
Clearly, for any cell $C$ we have $E[V\cap C]=n\cdot (1/k)^d$.
Upon query, each required $V_i=\mathrm{BB}(i)\cap V$ is generated as follows.
We first find all the cells $\mathcal{C}_i$ that intersect $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
To this end, we start by adding the cell $C_s$ to $\mathcal{C}_i$.
For each added $C\in \mathcal{C}_i$ we iterate through its at most $3^d=O(1)$
neighboring cells and add them to $\mathcal{C}_i$ unless they do not intersect $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
Since the cells intersecting $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ form a connected subset of all cells,
this algorithm is correct.
As each cell has $O(1)$ neighbors,
the time used to construct $\mathcal{C}_i$ is linear in the final size
of $\mathcal{C}_i$.
Finally, for each $C\in\mathcal{C}_i$, we iterate through the vertices $v$
assigned to $C$ (i.e., with $C_v=C$) and include $v$ in $V_i$ if $v\in \mathrm{BB}(i)$.
Clearly, the expected running time of the above algorithm
is $O(|\mathcal{C}_i|\cdot (n\cdot (1/k)^d+1))$.
To proceed, we need to bound the size of $\mathcal{C}_i$.
Recall that $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ has size $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)\times 2R\times\ldots\times 2R$,
where $R=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)-w^2}=\Theta(w(i/nr^d)^{\frac{1}{d-1}})$.
\begin{lemma}
We have $|\mathcal{C}_i|=O(k^dR^{d-1}+k)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us partition $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ into $O(k)$ chunks of size
$(1/k)\times 2R\times\ldots\times 2R$.
Each such chunk is contained in a union of
$O(\max(Rk,1)^{d-1})$
hybercubes of size $(1/k)\times \ldots\times (1/k)$.
The longest diagonal of such a hybercube has length $\sqrt{d}/k$.
As a result, such a hypercube lies in an orthogonally aligned hypercube of
size $(\sqrt{d}/k)\times\ldots\times (\sqrt{d}/k)$.
Clearly, such an aligned hypercube can be covered by $O(d^{d/2})=O(1)$ cells.
As a result, a chunk can be covered using $O(\max(Rk,1)^{d-1})$ cells.
Finally, we conclude that $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ can be covered using
$O(k\cdot \max(Rk,1)^{d-1})=O(k^dR^{d-1}+k)$ cells.
\end{proof}
By the above lemma, the expected running time is:
\begin{equation*}
O\left(|\mathcal{C}_i|\cdot \left(n\frac{1}{k^d}+1\right)\right)=O\left((k^dR^{d-1}+k)\cdot \left(\frac{n}{k^d}+1\right)\right)=O\left(i\cdot(1/r^d+k^d/nr^d)+\frac{n}{k^{d-1}}+k\right).
\end{equation*}
By picking $k=\lfloor n^{1/d}\rfloor$, we obtain $O(i/r^d+n^{1/d})$ expected running time.
As a result, through all $i=1,\ldots,i_{\text{max}}$, the expected total time
required to construct the sets $|V_i|$ is
\begin{equation*}
O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{i_{\text{max}}}\bar{P}(i-1)\cdot (i/r^d+n^{1/d})\right)=O\left((1/r^d+n^{1/d})\sum_{i=1}^{i_{\text{max}}}e^{-i}\cdot i\right)=O(1/r^d+n^{1/d}).
\end{equation*}
By combining the above with our earlier developments, we obtain
the following improved version of Theorem~\ref{t:query-general}.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:query-general-faster}
The expected running time of the query algorithm on
an $n$-vertex random weighted unit-disk graph in $[0,1]^d$
with connectivity radius $r$ is
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{item:d2}
$O\left((w/r)^2\log^2(1+w/r)+\sqrt{n}\right)$ for $d=2$,
\item\label{item:big_r}
$O\bigl((w/r)^{2d-1}+n^{1/d}\bigr)$ for $d\ge3$ and $r\ge\sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}/n}$,
\item\label{item:small_r}
$O(nw^d+n^{1/d})$ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Finally, similarly as in Remark~\ref{dynamic}, we note that the the algorithm in this section
is also efficient if $G$ undergoes dynamic updates, such as point insertions and deletions.
The only data structure we use is the assignment of points to $\Theta(n)$ cubes.
Clearly, this assignment can be easily updated in constant time upon
an insertion or deletion of vertices.
\section{Channels}\label{s:channels}
The remaining part of the paper is devoted to proving the very convenient bound on $\bar{P}(i)$
from Lemma~\ref{lemma:barP}.
We start by introducing a notion of a \emph{channel}, which
is a parameterized grid-like object whose goal is to ``discretize'' the space
of possible shortest $s\to t$ paths in $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
The next step is to upper-bound the probability that we fail
to find reasonably short $s\to t$ path in the channel.
Afterwards, we are ready to give explicit formulas
for $i_{\text{max}}$ and $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ so that the asymptotic bounds~(\ref{eq:imax-asymp})~and~(\ref{eq:chlenub-asymp}),
as well as the bound $\bar{P}(i)\leq e^{-i}$
hold.
\newcommand{\textrm{ch}}{\textrm{ch}}
Roughly speaking, a channel is a subset of vertices $V$ restricted to some subspace.
We generalize the channels defined in \cite[page 41]{sedgewick1986} to
$d$-dimensional space and arbitrary start/end vertices $s$ and $t$.
Recall that $w=||t-s||$ and $w>r$. Let $K\geq 1$ be the smallest integer such that $l=w/(4K+1) \le r/4$.
We also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ldef}
l=\frac{w}{4(K-1)+1}\cdot\frac{4(K-1)+1}{4K+1}>r/4\cdot \frac{4K-3}{4K+1}\geq r/20.
\end{equation}
We are going to work in the coordinate system introduced in Section \ref{sec:query_alg}.
Let us denote the first axis by $x_0$ and the remaining axes by $x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1}$.
\begin{definition}[Box $R(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{d-1})$]\label{def:box}
Let $h>0$ be fixed.
Let us cut the space using planes $x_0=lz$ and $x_i=(1/2+z)h$
for all integers $z$ and $i=1,\ldots,d-1$.
For $z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{d-1}\in\mathbb{Z}$, \emph{the box} $R(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{d-1})$ contains all points
$(x_i)_{i=0}^{d-1}$ satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item $lz_0\le x_0 \le l(z_0+1)$,
\item $(-1/2+z_i)h\le x_i\le (1/2+z_i)h$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d-1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Each box, defined as above, has size $l\times h\times\cdots\times h$.
Note that ${s\in R(0,0,\ldots,0)}$ and $t\in R(4K,0,\ldots,0)$.
Now suppose we want to travel from the box containing $s$ to
the box containing $t$
using \emph{jumps}, defined below.
\begin{definition}[Jumping between boxes]\label{def:jump}
We say that we can \emph{jump} from box
$R(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{d-1})$ to
box $R(z'_0,z'_1,\ldots,z'_{d-1})$ iff
\begin{itemize}
\item $z'_0=z_0+2$,
\item $|z'_i-z_i|=1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d-1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Consider a jumping trip from $R(0,0,\ldots,0)$ to $R(4K,0,\ldots,0)$.
\begin{observation}[Reachable boxes]
\label{obs:reachable_boxes}
Let $B=R(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{d-1})$ be an arbitrary box.
Suppose a sequence of jumps (as defined above) from $R(0,0,\dots,0)$ to $R(4K,0,\ldots,0)$
goes through the box $B$. Then, the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $z_0=2k$ for some integer $k$, $0\le k\le 2K$,
\item $|z_i|\le\min(k,2K-k)$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d-1$,
\item $z_i\equiv k\pmod 2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}
Now we are ready to define the \emph{channel} parameterized by $h$.
\begin{definition}[Channel]\label{d:channel}
A \emph{channel} $\textrm{ch}(h)$
is a subset of $[0,1]^d$
defined as the union of all boxes $B$ satisfying the
conditions of Observation \ref{obs:reachable_boxes}.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.55, every node/.style={scale=0.80}]
\draw[xstep=2.0,ystep=1.0,color=black!10] (-0.5,-5.9) grid (26.5,5.9);
\draw[xstep=2.0,ystep=1.0,color=black!40,shift={(0,0.5)}] (0,-6) grid (26,5);
\draw[very thick] (0,-0.5) rectangle (2,0.5);
\draw[very thick] (4,-1.5) rectangle (6,-0.5);
\draw[very thick] (4,0.5) rectangle (6,1.5);
\draw[very thick] (8,-2.5) rectangle (10,-1.5);
\draw[very thick] (8,-0.5) rectangle (10,0.5);
\draw[very thick] (8,1.5) rectangle (10,2.5);
\draw[very thick] (12,-3.5) rectangle (14,-2.5);
\draw[very thick] (12,-1.5) rectangle (14,-0.5);
\draw[very thick] (12,0.5) rectangle (14,1.5);
\draw[very thick] (12,2.5) rectangle (14,3.5);
\draw[very thick] (16,-2.5) rectangle (18,-1.5);
\draw[very thick] (16,-0.5) rectangle (18,0.5);
\draw[very thick] (16,1.5) rectangle (18,2.5);
\draw[very thick] (20,-1.5) rectangle (22,-0.5);
\draw[very thick] (20,0.5) rectangle (22,1.5);
\draw[very thick] (24,-0.5) rectangle (26,0.5);
\node at (0,-6.2) {$0$};
\node at (2,-6.2) {$l$};
\node at (4,-6.2) {$2l$};
\node at (6,-6.2) {$3l$};
\node at (24,-6.2) {$4K\cdot l$};
\node at (-0.9,0) {$0$};
\node at (-0.9,1) {$h$};
\node at (-0.9,-1) {$-h$};
\node at (-0.9,3) {$3h$};
\node at (-0.9,-3) {$-3h$};
\node at (1,0) {\footnotesize $R(0,0)$};
\node at (5,-1) {\footnotesize $R(2,-1)$};
\node at (5,1) {\footnotesize $R(2,1)$};
\node at (25,0) {\footnotesize $R(4K,0)$};
\node at (3,3) {\footnotesize $R(1,3)$};
\draw[->,very thick,color=red] (9,0) to (13,1);
\draw[->,very thick,color=red] (9,0) to (13,-1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The rectangles represent boxes from Definition~\ref{def:box} for $d=2$. The red arrows represent possible jumps
from a single box. The channel $\textrm{ch}(h)$ for $K=3$ (see Definition~\ref{d:channel}) is represented by rectangles with
thick black border.}\label{f:boxes}
\end{figure}
In other words, a channel $\textrm{ch}(h)$ consists of all boxes that
can appear in a sequence of jumps from the box containing
$s$ to the box containing $t$.
Boxes, jumps, and channels are depicted in Figure~\ref{f:boxes}.
In the following, we say that a box $B$ is \emph{empty} if it does not contain any vertex of $G$.
\subsection{Paths in a channel}
Not all channels $\textrm{ch}(h)$ are of our interest.
We need a condition on $h$ guaranteeing
that if we can jump from a non-empty box $B$ to another non-empty box $B'$
then there exists an appropriate edge in the graph,
namely if there is $u\in B\cap V$ and $v\in B'\cap V$ then $||u-v||\le r$.
Then, a sequence of jumps between non-empty boxes will certify the
existence of a path in $G$.
Observe that the distance between two opposite corners of $B$ and $B'$
(recall that $B$ and $B'$ have to satisfy Definition~\ref{def:jump})
is
\begin{equation*}\sqrt{(3l)^2+(d-1)(2h)^2}.\end{equation*}
We need this to be smaller than $r$.
Taking into account that $l\le r/4$, it is sufficient that
\begin{equation*}
\Bigl(\frac34r\Bigr)^2+(d-1)(2h)^2\le r^2,
\end{equation*}
which gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h_bound}
h\le\frac18\sqrt{\frac7{d-1}}\cdot r.
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}[Path in $\textrm{ch}(h)$]\label{def:path}
\emph{A path} in $\textrm{ch}(h)$
with $h$ satisfying \eqref{eq:h_bound}
is a sequence of non-empty boxes $B_0,\ldots,B_{2K}$
such that $B_0=R(0,0,\ldots,0)$, $B_{2K}=R(4K,0,\ldots,0)$, and
we can jump from $B_j$ to $B_{j+1}$ for all $j=0,\ldots,{2K-1}$.
\end{definition}
Now we show that a path in $\textrm{ch}(h)$ certifies the existence of an $s-t$ path in~$G$
which is not too long.
Specifically, we show the following bound.
\begin{lemma}[Channel induced path length]
\label{lemma:channel_len}
Suppose there is a path in $\textrm{ch}(h)$. Then, there
exists an
$s-t$ path in $G$ of length no more than
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:channel_len}
w\sqrt{1+40^2(d-1)(h/r)^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_j=(u_0^j,\ldots,u_{d-1}^j)$ be a vertex of $G$ in $B_j\cap V$.
Additionally, set $u_0=s$ and $u_{2K}=t$.
Recall that $u_j$ exists since each box in a path in $\textrm{ch}(h)$ is non-empty.
Consider subsequent vertices $u_j$ and $u_{j+1}$.
Note that
\begin{align*}
||u_{j+1}-u_j||=\sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^{d-1} (u_i^{j+1}-u_i^j)^2}=(u_0^{j+1}-u_0^j)\sqrt{1+\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}\left(\frac{u_i^{j+1}-u_i^j}{u_0^{j+1}-u_0^j}\right)^2}.
\end{align*}
Recall that we have $u_0^{j+1}-u_0^j\geq l$ and $u_i^{j+1}-u_i^j\leq 2h$ for $i\geq 1$. Hence,
\begin{equation*}||u_{j+1}-u_j||\leq (u_0^{j+1}-u_0^j)\sqrt{1+(d-1)\frac{(2h)^2}{l^2}}.\end{equation*}
Since $u_0\to u_1\to\ldots u_{2K}$ is a path in $G$, the
length of a shortest $s-t$ path in $G$ can be bounded by:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=0}^{2K-1}||u_{j+1}-u_j|| &\leq
\sqrt{1+(d-1)\frac{(2h)^2}{l^2}}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{2K-1}(u_0^{j+1}-u_0^j)\\
&=\sqrt{1+(d-1)\left(\frac{2h}{l}\right)^2}\cdot w.
\end{align*}
The claimed bound is obtained by $l\geq r/20$.
\end{proof}
\newcommand{\hat P}{\hat P}
\subsection{Probability}
Denote by $q$ the probability that a single box is empty.
We have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_ub}
q = (1 - lh^{d-1})^n\le \exp({-nlh^{d-1}}).
\end{equation}
Denote by $\hat P(h)$ the probability that no path exists in $\textrm{ch}(h)$.
We are going to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:AntiP}
There exists constants $q_0\in (0,1)$ and $c>0$ such that if $q<q_0$ then
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cut_ub}
\hat P(h)\le (cq)^{2^{d-3}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof will proceed by induction on $d$. We will thus use
the notation $\hat P_d(h)$ and $\textrm{ch}_d(h)$ to underline
which dimension $d$ we are currently referring to.
The crux of the proof is to prove the induction base $d=2$,
i.e., the bound \begin{equation*}\hat P_2(h)\leq \sqrt{cq}\end{equation*} that holds
for all $q<q_0$ for some constants $c,q_0$.
This bound is proved in Section~\ref{sec:antiP_2d}.
For larger $d$ it is enough to prove that the bound
\begin{equation*}
\hat P_d(h)\le\bigl(\hat P_{d-1}(h)\bigr)^2.
\end{equation*}
holds.
Let $s\in\{-1, 1\}$.
Consider a subchannel $\textrm{ch}^s_d(h)$ of the channel $\textrm{ch}_d(h)$
that
is composed of the reachable boxes $B=R(z_0, z_1, \ldots, z_{d-1})$
fulfilling the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $z_0=2k$ for some integer $k$, $0\le k\le 2K$,
\item $|z_i|\le\min(k,2K-k)$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d-2$,
\item $z_{d-1}=s\cdot\min(k,2K-k)$,
\item $z_i\equiv k\pmod 2$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that the above conditions say
that $B$ is a reachable box in
$\textrm{ch}_d(h)$
with additional constraint $z_{d-1}=s\cdot\min(k,2K-k)$,
which can also be written as $z_{d-1}=s\cdot\min(z_0,4K-z_0)/2$.
Now one can see that $\textrm{ch}^s_d(h)$ has exactly the same structure
as $\textrm{ch}_{d-1}(h)$:
we can jump between boxes $R(z_0, \ldots, z_{d-2})$ and
$R(z'_0, \ldots, z'_{d-2})$ in channel $\textrm{ch}_{d-1}(h)$
if and only if
we can jump between boxes \begin{equation*}R(z_0, \ldots, z_{d-2},s\cdot\min(z_0,4K-z_0)/2)\end{equation*} and
\begin{equation*}R(z'_0, \ldots, z'_{d-2},s\cdot\min(z'_0,4K-z'_0)/2)\end{equation*} in channel $\textrm{ch}^s_d(h)$.
Therefore the probability that no path exists in $\textrm{ch}^s_d(h)$
is bounded by $\hat P_{d-1}(h)$.
Observe that $\textrm{ch}^{-1}_d(h)$ and $\textrm{ch}^1_d(h)$ share
only the corner boxes $R(0,0,\dots,0)$ and $R(4K,0,\ldots,0)$.
Thus if no path exists in $\textrm{ch}_d(h)$, there must be no paths
in $\textrm{ch}^{-1}_d(h)$ and $\textrm{ch}^1_d(h)$ independently.
This clearly happens with probability at most
$\bigl(\hat P_{d-1}(h)\bigr)^2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Choosing the size of $i$-th bounding box}\label{sec:explicit}
In this section we show how we derive the bound of Lemma~\ref{lemma:barP}
from Lemma~\ref{lemma:AntiP}.
We will also be able to explicitly define the value $i_{\text{max}}$ and the function
$W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$
so that the asymptotic bounds~(\ref{eq:imax-asymp})~and~(\ref{eq:chlenub-asymp}) hold.
Suppose that for a fixed $i$ we pick such $h_i$ that $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)=w\sqrt{1+40^2(d-1)(h_i/r)^2}$.
Then, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:channel_len}, a path in $\textrm{ch}(h_i)$ certifies the existence
of a $s\to t$ path in $G$ of length at most $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$.
Such a path is clearly contained in $\mathrm{BE}(i)$, and thus
also in $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
As a result, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
\bar{P}(i)\leq \hat P(h_i).
\end{equation*}
Given this, and
since we want the probability $\bar{P}(i)$ to decay exponentially
with $i$,
we would like to choose $h_i$ in a such way that
$\hat P(h_i)\le e^{-i}$, which will imply $\bar{P}(i)\leq e^{-i}$.
Suppose $\exp(-nlh^{d-1})<q_0$, where $q_0$ is the constant of Lemma~\ref{lemma:AntiP}.
By combining inequality~\eqref{eq:q_ub} and the bound of Lemma~\ref{lemma:AntiP}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\hat P(h)\le \exp\left(2^{d-3}(\log c - nlh^{d-1})\right).
\end{equation*}
In order to guarantee $\hat P(h_i)\leq e^{-i}$, it is thus enough to have
\begin{align}
2^{d-3}(\log c - nlh_i^{d-1})&\le-i\notag\\
\log c + \frac{i}{2^{d-3}}&\le nlh_i^{d-1},\label{eq:step_to_h_0}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:bound_q0}
\log{\frac{2}{q_0}}\leq nlh^{d-1}_i.
\end{equation*}
Let $c'$ be such a positive constant that for $i\ge 1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cprim}
\max\left(\log{\frac{2}{q_0}},\log c + \frac{i}{2^{d-3}}\right)\le c'\cdot i.
\end{equation}
Now let $h_0$ be such that $h_0^{d-1}=\frac{c'}{nl}$, and let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hi}
h_i=h_0\cdot i^{\frac{1}{d-1}}.
\end{equation}
Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\max\left(\log{\frac{2}{q_0}},\log c + \frac{i}{2^{d-3}}\right)\leq c'\cdot i=c'\cdot \left(\frac{h_i}{h_0}\right)^{d-1}=c'\cdot h_i^{d-1}\cdot \frac{nl}{c'}=nlh_i^{d-1}.
\end{equation*}
So indeed, if $h_i$ is defined as in (\ref{eq:hi}), we have
$\hat P(h_i)\leq e^{-i}$.
So the explicit formula for $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ is:
\begin{equation*}W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)=w\sqrt{1+40^2(d-1)\left(\frac{c'i}{nlr^{d-1}}\right)^{\frac{2}{d-1}}},\end{equation*}
where $c'$ is a constant defined in~(\ref{eq:cprim}) and $l=\Theta(r)$ is as defined in~(\ref{eq:ldef}).
It is now verified that $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ indeed satisfies the
asymptotic formula~(\ref{eq:chlenub-asymp}) from Section~\ref{sec:oracle}.
\iffalse
Plugging it into \eqref{eq:step_to_h_0} we get the following conclusion.
\begin{concl}
\label{concl:antiP}
\begin{equation*}
\hat P(h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i})\le \exp(-i),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h_0}
{h_0}^{d-1}=\frac{c}{nl}
\end{equation}
for some constant $c$ and $i\ge 1$.
\end{concl}
Now, we are ready to define the value of $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$.
This will be the upper bound \eqref{eq:channel_len} of the path length
from Lemma \ref{lemma:channel_len}
in $\textrm{ch}(h)$ for $h=h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Wub_def}
W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)=w\sqrt{1+40^2(d-1)\bigl(h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i}/r\bigr)^2}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
Let $W=W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$ as defined in \eqref{eq:Wub_def}.
Then
\begin{align}
\bar{P}(i)\le e^{-i},\label{eq:barPub}\\
W&=O(w),\label{eq:Wub}\\
R^{d-1}&=O\left(\frac{w^{d-1}}{nr^d}i\right).\label{eq:Rub}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\eqref{eq:barPub} is a direct consequence of Conclusion \ref{concl:antiP}
since if a path exists in $\textrm{ch}{h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i}}$
then its length is bounded by $W_{\mathrm{ub}}(i)$
and $\bar{P}(i)=\hat P(h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i})$ by definition.
For \eqref{eq:Wub} it is enough to see that $h_0=o_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1)$.
Plugging \eqref{eq:Wub_def} into equation $R=\sqrt{W^2-w^2}$ we get
\begin{equation*}
R=20w(h_0\sqrt[d-1]{i}/r)\sqrt{d-1}
\end{equation*}
Now powering to $d-1$, applying \eqref{eq:h_0} and using $l=\Theta(r)$
we get \eqref{eq:Rub}.
\end{proof}
\begin{concl}
\label{concl:box_volume}
The volume of $\mathrm{BB}(i)$ for $i\ge 1$ is:
\begin{equation*}
O\left(
\frac1{n}
(w/r)^di
\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{concl}
\fi
The above proof derivation of $\bar{P}(i)\leq e^{-i}$ is only
correct if $h_i$ is not too large. Namely, recall that the bound~(\ref{eq:h_bound})
requires that
\begin{equation}
h_i\le\frac18\sqrt{\frac7{d-1}}\cdot r.
\end{equation}
Since $h_i$ is an increasing function of $i$, this imposes a constraint
on maximum possible $i=i_{\text{max}}$ allowed. Hence, we need to have
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{c'\cdot i_{\text{max}}}{nl}\right)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}&\le\frac18\sqrt{\frac7{d-1}}\cdot r.\\
i_{\text{max}}&= \left\lfloor \frac{1}{c'}\cdot \left(\frac18\sqrt{\frac7{d-1}}\cdot r\right)^{d-1}\cdot nl\right\rfloor=\Theta(nr^d).
\end{align*}
Observe that the above definition of $i_{\text{max}}$ agrees with the bound~\eqref{eq:imax-asymp} from Section~\ref{sec:oracle}.
\iffalse
We will convert this inequality to asymptotic bound.
From \eqref{eq:h_0} and from $l=\Theta(r)$ we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:imax_def}
i_{\text{max}}=
\Theta\left(\frac{r^{d-1}}{\frac{1}{nr}}\right)=
\Theta(nr^d).
\end{equation}
\section{Graph $G(i)$}
In this section we bound the size of graph $G(i)$.
\begin{fact}[Size of $V_i$]
\label{fact:V_i_size}
For $i\ge1$ it holds
\begin{equation*}
\EX|V_i|=
O\left(
(w/r)^di
\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
Follows directly from Conclusion \ref{concl:box_volume}.
\end{proof}
\begin{fact}[Size of $E_i$]
\label{fact:E_i_size}
For $i\ge1$ it holds
\begin{align*}
\EX|E_i|&=
\EX|V_i|\cdot O\left(\min\{nr^d, (w/r)^{d-1}i\}\right)\\
&=
\EX|V_i|\cdot
\begin{cases}
O\left((w/r)^{d-1}i\right)\quad&\text{for }r\ge \sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}i/n}\\
O(nr^d)&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
Take a vertex $v\in V_i$.
All neighbours of $v$ belongs to intersection of $d$-dimensional ball of
radius $r$ and bounding box $\mathrm{BB}(i)$.
This intersection is either $d$-dimensional ball
or it is contained in a box of dimensions $2r\times2R\times\cdots\times 2R$.
In the second case the volume is $O(r^d)$ and thus expected number of neighbours of $v$ is $O(nr^d)$.
In the first case the volume of the box with $v$'s neighbours is
$O(rR^{d-1})$ which by using \eqref{eq:Rub} gives
\begin{equation*}
O\left(
\frac1{n}(w/r)^{d-1}i
\right),
\end{equation*}
thus the expected number of neighbours of $v$ is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
O\left(
(w/r)^{d-1}i
\right).
\end{equation*}
Combining the expected number of neighbours of $v$ in both cases
we get the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{fact}[$\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^E(i)$]
$\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^E(i)=O\left(\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^V(i)+|E_i|\right).$
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
\todo[inline]{Przepisać z użyciem dzielenia na kostki oba przypadki.}
Firstly, we generate all vertices in time $\text{T}_{\text{gen}}^V(i)$.
It remains to show that we are able to generate all edges
in time $O(|E_i|)$.
Now, we consider two cases as in Fact \ref{fact:E_i_size}.
If $r\ge \sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}i/n}$ then we generate all edges
by sweep algorithm.
We sort all vertices by $x_0$ coordinate
in time $O(|V_i|\log|V_i|)$.
This will be dominated by $O(|E_i|)$
since from Facts \ref{fact:V_i_size} and \ref{fact:E_i_size}
we have $\EX|V_i|^{1+\epsilon}=O(\EX|E_i|)$.
We move a box $B$ of dimensions $2r\times2R\times\cdots\times 2R$
from left to right along the first axis.
We keep all vertices belonging to $B$.
All neighbours of a vertex with $x_0$ coordinate in the middle
of $B$ are contained in $B$ so we simply iterate over $B$.
The resulting time will be $|V_i|$ times the expected numbers of
neighbours of each vertex which will be the same as $\EX|E_i|$.
If $r<\sqrt[2d-1]{w^{d-1}i/n}$ we will use orthogonal range queries
with preprocessing time $O(|V_i|\log^{O(1)}|V_i|)$ and
query time $O(\log^{O(1)}|V_i|+nr^d)$ ---
each vertex has $O(nr^d)$ neighbours in expectation, but no more than $|V_i|$.
This will give the total time
\begin{equation*}
O\left(
|V_i|\bigl(\log^{O(1)}|V_i|+nr^d\bigr)
\right)
=
O\left(
|V_i|\bigl(\log^{O(1)}(w/r)+\log^{O(1)}i+nr^d\bigr)
\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{Existence of a path in a two-dimensional grid}
\label{sec:antiP_2d}
Recall that our goal is to prove the induction
base of Lemma~\ref{lemma:AntiP} for $d=2$.
More concretely, we need to prove $\hat P_2(h)\leq \sqrt{cq}$
for a sufficiently small $q<q_0$ and some positive constant $c$.
\paragraph{Grid formulation.} It is beneficial to reformulate our problem in terms
of reachability in directed grids.
Suppose we are given a two-dimensional grid with corners
in $(0,0)$ and $(n,n)$.\footnote{In this section we completely
forget about the graph $G$ and use $n$ to denote the grid size.}
The grid partitions $[0,n]\times [0,n]$
into $n^2$ square cells: we identify the cells
by the coordinates of its upper right corner.
\newcommand{\widetilde{P}}{\widetilde{P}}
The cells can be \emph{on} or \emph{off}. We consider paths from cell $(1,1)$
to cell $(n,n)$, where one can go from cell $a$
to cell $b$ if $b$ is the upper or the right neighbor of $a$
and both these cells are on.
Since one cannot go from cell $b$ to cell $a$ in this
case, the possible movements between adjacent cells
are described using a directed graph.
Each cell is \emph{off} with probability $q$ and \emph{on}
with probability $p=1-q$, independently from all the other cells.
Our goal is to upper-bound the probability $\widetilde{P}(q)$ that there
is no path between $(1,1)$ and $(n,n)$ using a function of $q$.
\paragraph{Correspondence to the original problem.}
Let us now describe how this reformulated problem corresponds
to the original problem.
Note that the boxes in channel $\textrm{ch}(h)$ in fact
form a $n\times n$ grid, where $n=K+1$. The correspondence is as follows:
we map the box $R(x,y)$ of $\textrm{ch}(h)$ to cell $(x/4-y/2+1,x/4+y/2+1)$
of the grid.
Then, there is a 1-1 correspondence between
path from $R(0,0)$ to $R(4K,0)$ as in Definition~\ref{def:path},
and paths between cell $(1,1)$ to $(n,n)$ that can only
proceed upwards or to the right.
We have $\hat P(h)=\widetilde{P}(q)$.
\paragraph{Proof.}
Recall that our goal is to upper-bound the probability $\widetilde{P}(q)$ that there
is no path between $(1,1)$ and $(n,n)$ using a function of $q$.
To this end, consider an event when such a path does not exist.
Consider the last cell $a$ reachable from $(1,1)$
out of $(1,1),(1,2),\ldots,(1,n),(2,n),\ldots,(n-1,n)$ (i.e.,
from the ``topmost'' possible path).
Similarly, let $b$ be the last cell out
of
\begin{equation*}
(1,1),(2,1),\ldots,(n,1),(n,2),\ldots,(n,n-1)
\end{equation*}
that is reachable from $(1,1)$ (i.e., from the ``bottommost'' possible path).
We distinguish four cases depending on the pair $a,b$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a=(1,k)$ and $b=(l,1)$ for some $1\leq k,l<n$,
\item $a=(n-k,n)$ and $b=(n,n-l)$ for some $1\leq k,l<n$,
\item $a=(1,k)$ and $b=(n,n-l)$ for some $1\leq k,l<n$,
\item $a=(n-k,n)$ and $b=(l,1)$ for some $1\leq k,l<n$,
\end{enumerate}
For $i=1,2,3,4$, let $\widetilde{P}_i(q)$ be the probability
that there is no $(1,1)\to (n,n)$ path and case $i$ occurs.
Clearly, $\widetilde{P}(q)=\sum_{i=1}^4 \widetilde{P}_i(q)$.
Consider the first case when $a=(1,k)$ and $b=(l,1)$,
where $1\leq k,l< n$.
Consider the ``contour'' of the area reachable from $(1,1)$
obtained by going around
the area's boundary while keeping the right hand in contact with it
at all times. In particular, consider the contiguous part
$\mathcal{C}$ of that contour starting at $(0,k)$
and ending at $(l,0)$. Intuitively, since the area reachable
from $(1,1)$ is connected, and by the definition of $a,b$, the curve
$\mathcal{C}$ does not intersect the grid's boundary
except at its endpoints $(0,k),(l,0)$. See Figure~\ref{fig:grid}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) grid (7,7);
\draw[fill=black] (0.1,5.1) rectangle (0.9,5.9);
\draw[fill=black] (1.1,5.1) rectangle (1.9,5.9);
\draw[fill=black] (2.1,6.1) rectangle (2.9,6.9);
\draw[fill=black] (3.1,6.1) rectangle (3.9,6.9);
\draw[fill=black] (4.1,5.1) rectangle (4.9,5.9);
\draw[fill=black] (5.1,4.1) rectangle (5.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=black] (6.1,3.1) rectangle (6.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=black] (3.1,4.1) rectangle (3.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=black] (3.1,2.1) rectangle (3.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=black] (4.1,1.1) rectangle (4.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=black] (1.1,1.1) rectangle (1.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=black] (6.1,1.1) rectangle (6.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,0.1) rectangle (0.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,1.1) rectangle (0.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,2.1) rectangle (0.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,3.1) rectangle (0.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,4.1) rectangle (0.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,2.1) rectangle (1.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,3.1) rectangle (1.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,4.1) rectangle (1.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,2.1) rectangle (2.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,3.1) rectangle (2.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,4.1) rectangle (2.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,5.1) rectangle (2.9,5.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,5.1) rectangle (3.9,5.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,3.1) rectangle (3.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (4.1,3.1) rectangle (4.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (5.1,3.1) rectangle (5.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (4.1,4.1) rectangle (4.9,4.9);
\draw[fill=black] (3.1,0.1) rectangle (3.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,0.1) rectangle (1.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (2.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,1.1) rectangle (2.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,1.1) rectangle (3.9,1.9);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (0,5) to (1,5);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (0,5) to (1,5);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (1,5) to (2,5);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (2,5) to (2,6);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (2,6) to (3,6);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (3,6) to (4,6);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (4,6) to (4,5);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (4,5) to (5,5);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (5,5) to (5,4);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (5,4) to (6,4);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (6,4) to (6,3);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (6,3) to (5,3);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (5,3) to (4,3);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (4,3) to (3,3);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (3,3) to (3,2);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (3,2) to (4,2);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (4,2) to (4,1);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (4,1) to (3,1);
\draw[ultra thick,color=red,-latex] (3,1) to (3,0);
\node at (0.5,4.5) {$(1,k)$};
\node at (2.5,0.5) {$(l,1)$};
\node at (-0.5,5) {$(0,k)$};
\node at (3,-0.5) {$(l,0)$};
\node at (0.5,0.5) {$(1,1)$};
\node at (6.5,6.5) {$(n,n)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The black cells are precisely those that are off. The reachable area is in gray. The non-reachable cells that are on are white.
The red arrows a part of contour~$\mathcal{C}$ from $(0,k)$ to $(l,1)$ with $s=18$ steps,
assuming we are in case 1.\label{fig:grid}}
\end{figure}
Observe that the walk around $\mathcal{C}$
consists of a number $s$ of unit-length \emph{steps}, each going
either up (U), down (D), left (L), or right (R).
Let $c_{\text{U}},c_{\text{D}},c_{\text{L}},c_{\text{R}}$
denote the counts of the respective types of steps
in $\mathcal{C}$.
Clearly, we have ${c_{\text{D}}-c_{\text{U}}=k}$
and $c_{\text{R}}-c_{\text{L}}=l$.
Hence, $c_{\text{D}}\geq c_{\text{U}}$ and $c_{\text{R}}\geq c_{\text{L}}$,
and therefore $c_{\text{D}}+c_{\text{R}}\geq \frac{1}{2}(c_{\text{D}}+c_{\text{U}}+c_{\text{L}}+c_{\text{R}})=s/2$.
We also have $s\geq k+l$.
Note that for each ``down'' step $(x,y)\to(x,y-1)$,
the cell $(x+1,y)$ is necessarily \emph{off},
since otherwise we would reach it.
Similarly, for each ``right'' step $(x,y)\to(x+1,y)$,
the cell $(x+1,y+1)$ is necessarily off.
As the steps in $\mathcal{C}$ are distinct,
each cell that is off can be ``charged'' this way
to at most two steps (at most one ``right'' step, and at most one ``down'').
As a result, $\mathcal{C}$ certifies the existence
of at least $\frac{c_{\text{D}}+c_{\text{R}}}{2}\geq s/4$
cells that are off.
Let $\widetilde{P}(q,\mathcal{C})$ be the probability
that an $s$-step curve $\mathcal{C}$ is the $(0,k)\to (l,0)$ part of the
contour of the reachable area.
So, we have $\widetilde{P}(q,\mathcal{C})\leq q^{\lceil s/4\rceil}\leq q^{s/4}.$
On the other hand, given $k,l,s$, the number
of possible $s$-step curves $\mathcal{C}$ from $(0,k)$ to $(l,0)$
is at most $3^s$, as
each subsequent step can be chosen to be
in at most $3$ distinct directions.
As a result, the probability $\widetilde{P}_1(q)$ that the case~1 arises,
i.e., $a$ is of the
form $(1,k)$, and $b$ is of the form $(l,1)$
for $1\leq k,l<n$ is no more than:
\begin{equation*}\widetilde{P}_1(q)\leq \sum_{k,l\geq 1}\sum_{s\geq k+l}3^s\cdot q^{s/4}=\sum_{k,l\geq 1}\sum_{s\geq k+l}\left(3q^{1/4}\right)^{s}.\end{equation*}
Set $\alpha=3q^{1/4}$.
Then we have:
\begin{equation*}\widetilde{P}_1(q)\leq \sum_{k,l\geq 1}\alpha^{k+l}\frac{1}{1-\alpha}=\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\sum_{k\geq 1}\alpha^{k+1}\cdot\frac{1}{1-\alpha}=\frac{\alpha^2}{(1-\alpha)^3}.\end{equation*}
The second case when $a=(n-k,n)$ and $b=(n,n-l)$ for $1\leq k,l<n$
is symmetric
and leads to the same bound.
Thus, $\widetilde{P}_2(q)\leq \frac{\alpha^2}{(1-\alpha)^3}$.
In the third case we have $a$
of the form $(1,k)$ and $b$ of the form $(n,n-l)$
for some $k,l\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$.
We consider (parts of) contours $\mathcal{C}$ starting
at $(0,k)$ and ending at $(n,n-l)$ and
thus $c_{\text{R}}-c_{\text{L}}=n$
and $|c_{\text{D}}-c_{\text{U}}|\leq n$.
We also have
\begin{equation*}s=c_{\text{R}}+c_{\text{L}}+c_{\text{D}}+c_{\text{U}}\leq 2c_{\text{R}}-n+c_{\text{D}}+(c_{\text{D}}+|c_{\text{D}}-c_{\text{U}}|)\leq 2(c_{\text{R}}+c_{\text{D}}),\end{equation*}
so again, by the same reasoning, a (part of) contour $\mathcal{C}$ with $s$ steps
certifies that at least $\lceil s/4\rceil$ cells are off,
and we can obtain the same bound
$\widetilde{P}_3(q)\leq \frac{\alpha^2}{(1-\alpha)^3}$.
on the probability that case $3$ arises.
Case $4$ is, again, symmetric to case $3$.
Since any of the described $4$ cases can apply, the
probability that one
cannot reach cell $(n,n)$ from cell $(1,1)$, is bounded by:
\begin{equation*}\widetilde{P}(q)=\sum_{i=1}^4 \widetilde{P}_i(q)\leq \frac{4\alpha^2}{(1-\alpha)^3}.\end{equation*}
Assume $q<\frac{1}{2^{10}\cdot 3^4}$. Then $\alpha=\frac{1}{2^{2.5}}<1/2$, and thus:
\begin{equation*}\widetilde{P}(q)\leq \frac{4\alpha^2}{(1-\alpha)^3}\leq \frac{4\alpha^2}{(1/2)^3}\leq 32\alpha^2=32\cdot 9\cdot q^{1/2}<1.\end{equation*}
To conclude, we have proved that for $c=(32\cdot 9)^2$ and $q<\frac{1}{2^{10}\cdot 3^4}$
we indeed have $\widetilde{P}(q)\leq \sqrt{cq}$ as desired.
\subsection{A shortcoming in~\cite{sedgewick1986}.}
\label{ashortcoming}
Sedgewick and Vitter~\cite[pages 41-42]{sedgewick1986} also derive a bound $\widetilde{P}(q)=O(\operatorname{poly}{q})$.
However, we believe they argument to be flawed.
When bounding $\widetilde{P}(q)$, they argue that unless a (directed, as defined above)
path from $(1,1)$ to $(n,n)$ exists there has to be an ``antipath''.
An antipath is defined to be a sequence of cells that are ``off''
such that each subsequent cell is a neighbor of the previous
one, and $(1,1)$ cannot reach $(n,n)$.
However, as the example in Figure~\ref{fig:cexp} shows, $(n,n)$ may become
unreachable from $(1,1)$ even if no antipath exists,
i.e., when the cells that are off do not form a path, regardless
of how exactly we define neighborhood between cells (e.g., neighboring
sides, or neighboring corners).
As a result, their bound on $\widetilde{P}(q)$ does not cover
all possible cases and thus underestimates the probability that
no path from $(1,1)$ to $(n,n)$ exists.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) grid (5,5);
\draw[fill=black] (0.1,3.1) rectangle (0.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=black] (1.1,2.1) rectangle (1.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=black] (2.1,1.1) rectangle (2.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=black] (3.1,3.1) rectangle (3.9,3.9);
\draw[fill=black] (4.1,2.1) rectangle (4.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,2.1) rectangle (0.9,2.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,1.1) rectangle (0.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (0.1,0.1) rectangle (0.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,1.1) rectangle (1.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (1.1,0.1) rectangle (1.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (2.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,0.1) rectangle (3.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,1.1) rectangle (3.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (4.1,1.1) rectangle (4.9,1.9);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (3.1,2.1) rectangle (3.9,2.9);
\node at (0.5,0.5) {$(1,1)$};
\node at (4.5,4.5) {$(5,5)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The cells that are \emph{off} (black) do not have to form a path
in any sense to disconnect $(1,1)$ from $(5,5)$.
The area reachable from $(1,1)$ is gray.
\label{fig:cexp}}
\end{figure}
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The detection of low-energy neutrino bursts is particularly relevant in the search for supernovae. Prompt detection would allow providing early warning for the subsequent electromagnetic observations, that is crucial to understand the underlying mechanisms.
The usual method consists in watching for upper fluctuations from the typical expected background. In most of the neutrino detectors, the main background at energies relevant for supernovae can be modelled with Poisson statistics, i.e. a constant rate with simple statistical fluctuations. For a given background rate $r$, the number of background events in a time window $w$ is simply following the Poisson distribution with $\lambda = r \times w$:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Poisson}(m; r,w) = e^{-r \times w} \dfrac{(r\times w)^m}{m!}.
\end{equation}
Let's denote $\tau_{\rm phys}$ the typical time scale of the physical phenomenon under study. For instance, $\tau_{\rm phys} \sim \SI{10}{\second}$ is expected in the case of supernovae. If $r \tau_{\rm phys} \gg 1$, Gaussian approximation can be used and the search for neutrino bursts can be simplified to a search of an excess with a z-score~\cite{NOvA:2020dll}.
However, if the detector has a relatively low background ($r \tau_{\rm phys} \lesssim 1$), this method cannot be applied and the usual technique consists in dividing the data in clusters using time windows of size $w$, covering the physical time scale $\tau_{\rm phys}$. For supernovae, $w = \SI{20}{\second}$ is commonly used. There are two different approaches to define these time windows, as illustrated in \autoref{fig:cluster}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Sliding windows of width $w$, with each window starting in the middle of the previous one~\cite{Agafonova:2007hn}.
\item Dynamic windows of width $w$, one starting from each selected event~\cite{Abe:2016waf,Novoseltsev:2019gdt}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfloat[Sliding windows]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6, every node/.style={scale=0.75}]
\draw[-latex] (0,0)--(11, 0) node[right] {time};
\draw[blue,<->] (0, -0.6)--(5, -0.6) node[midway, anchor=north] {$w$};
\draw[blue,<->] (5, -0.6)--(10, -0.6) node[midway, anchor=north] {$w$};
\draw[blue,<- ] (10, -0.6)--(11, -0.6);
\node[blue,anchor=east] at (12.9, -0.6) {1st scan};
\draw[blue,<->] (2.5, -1.1)--(7.5, -1.1) node[midway, anchor=north] {$w$};
\draw[blue,<-] (7.5, -1.1)--(11, -1.1) node[midway, anchor=north] {$w$};
\node[blue,anchor=east] at (12.9, -1.1) {2nd scan};
\node[red] at (0.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (1.2, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (3, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (4.2, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (5.9, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (6.3, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (8.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (10.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subfloat[][Dynamic windows]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6, every node/.style={scale=0.75}]
\draw[-latex] (0,0)--(11, 0) node[right] {time};
\draw[blue,<->] (0.5, -0.6)--(5.5, -0.6) node[midway, anchor=south] {$w$};
\draw[blue,<->] (1.2, -0.75)--(6.2, -0.75);
\draw[blue,<->] (3.0, -0.90)--(8.0, -0.90);
\draw[blue,<->] (4.2, -1.05)--(9.2, -1.05);
\draw[blue,<->] (5.9, -1.20)--(10.9, -1.20);
\draw[blue,<- ] (6.3, -1.35)--(11.0, -1.35);
\draw[blue,<- ] (8.5, -1.50)--(11.0, -1.50);
\node[white,anchor=east] at (12.9, -1.5) {-};
\node[red] at (0.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (1.2, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (3.0, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (4.2, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (5.9, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (6.3, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (8.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\node[red] at (10.5, 0) {$\bullet$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Illustration of the two standard methods to build the time windows.}
\label{fig:cluster}
\end{figure}
It is then straightforward to define a cut on the cluster multiplicity in order to achieve a target false alarm rate $\textrm{FAR}$ (e.g. 1/year or 1/century) by using the Poisson survival function.
For sliding time windows,
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{2}{w} \times \sum_{m=m_{\rm cut}}^{\infty} e^{-rw} \dfrac{(rw)^m}{m!} \leq \textrm{FAR},
\label{eq:Fim_sld}
\end{equation}
and for dynamic time windows,
\begin{equation}
r \times \sum_{m=m_{\rm cut}-1}^{\infty} e^{-rw} \dfrac{(rw)^m}{m!} \leq \textrm{FAR}.
\label{eq:Fim_dyn}
\end{equation}
where the factor in front of the sum is the ``rate'' of time windows. For instance, for a background rate of $\SI{0.01}{\per\second}$ and a false alarm rate of $\SI{1}{\per\century}$, one gets multiplicity cuts of 7 and 8 events for the sliding and dynamic methods respectively (16 and 17 for $r=\SI{0.1}{\per\second}$).
Nevertheless, these methods are limited as neither take into account that signal bursts will have a very different time structure (localised in a few seconds interval) than the background (expected to be uniformly distributed within the time window).
Recently, there have been attempts in using additional time-related variables, such as the time difference $\Delta t$ between the first and the last event in a cluster~\cite{Casentini:2018bdf}: typically $\Delta t \sim \tau_{\rm phys}$ for signal-only cluster and $\Delta t \sim w$ for background-only cluster. This can however suffer from background contamination, in particular at high background rates.
In this publication, an alternative approach, that is getting rid of the traditional time window definition while benefiting from the time structure of signal burst, is proposed. The ~\autoref{sec:method} will present the new method. In~\autoref{sec:results}, the results when applied to toy SN simulation will be presented. In~\autoref{sec:nonpoisson}, it is shown that the method can still be applied in case of remaining non-Poisson background, with slight modifications. The \autoref{sec:discussion} presents a brief discussion about the different aspects of the new method.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
Each selected neutrino event $i$ is characterised by a contribution $f(t; t_i)$, maximal at $t=t_i$. One can then compute:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}(t) = \sum_i f(t; t_i)
\end{equation}
where the sum is performed over all events. This continuous function $\mathcal{F}$ can then be used to search for an excess i.e. $\mathcal{F}(t) > \mathcal{F}_{\rm cut}$. The value of the cut can be optimised to obtain a given false alarm rate. If $N$ centuries of background are simulated and the requested false alarm rate is one per century, one should find $\mathcal{F}_{\rm cut}$ such that $\mathcal{F}(t)$ exceeds this threshold less than $N$ times in total.
If one uses
\begin{equation}
f(t; t_i) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1 \text{ if } t_i - w < t < t_i \\
0 \text{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
this is fully equivalent to the dynamic time window approach presented in \autoref{sec:intro}.
However, in this publication, the following function will be considered:
\begin{equation}
f(t; t_i) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
e^{-(t-t_i)/T_c} \text{ if } t \geq t_i \\
0 \text{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
where $T_c$ is a characteristic time. $\mathcal{F}(t)$ is re-written as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}(t) = \sum_{i : t_i < t} \exp{\left(- \dfrac{t-t_i}{T_c} \right)}.
\label{eq:RTS:nopenalty}
\end{equation}
For the implementation in an online process, one may simply store in memory the value $\mathcal{F}(t_{i})$ at the previous event and rewrite $\mathcal{F}$ for $t_i < t < t_{i+1}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}(t) = \exp{\left(- \dfrac{t-t_i}{T_c} \right)} \times \mathcal{F}(t_i),
\end{equation}
and:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}(t_{i+1}) = \exp{\left(- \dfrac{t_{i+1}-t_i}{T_c} \right)} \times \mathcal{F}(t_i) + 1.
\end{equation}
\emph{Average value:} In the case of Poisson-distributed background, the average value of $\mathcal{F}(t)$ is:
\begin{align}
\langle \mathcal{F} \rangle(t) &= \int \mathcal{F}(t; t_1, \ldots, t_n) \prod_{i=1}^{n} P(t_i) dt_i \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \int e^{-(t-t_i)/T_c} \times P(t_i) dt_i,
\end{align}
where $n$ is the number of events within the period $[0, t]$ and $P(t_i)$ is the distribution of the time of event $i$. Using order statistic and assuming the events are uniformly distributed between $0$ and $t$, the latter may be written as:
\begin{equation}
P(t_i) = \dfrac{n! \times (t_i/t)^{i-1} \times (1-t_i/t)^{n-i}}{t \times (i-1)! (n-i)!}.
\end{equation}
By taking the limit $t \to \infty$ ($n \to r t$), one can derive the full computation and obtain:
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{F} \rangle(t) \underset{t \to \infty}{\to} r T_c.
\label{eq:meanF}
\end{equation}
This ensures that $\mathcal{F}$ remains stable in case of background-only events.
For simplicity, in the following, the method is named RTS$^2$ for \textit{Real-time Test Statistic for Supernovae}.
The \autoref{fig:hist} shows the typical distribution of $\mathcal{F}(t)$ (using $T_c = \SI{10}{\second}$) if it is computed regularly for background-only scenario (with $r = \SI{0.05}{\per\second}$), compared with the distribution of the maximum value reached for a supernova signal (see \autoref{sec:signalsim} for the description of the latter). As expected from the \autoref{eq:meanF}, the background distribution keeps relatively small values and the average value is $\langle \mathcal{F} \rangle \sim 0.50 = r T_c$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig2.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of $\mathcal{F}(t)$, computed every second on a background simulation with Poisson rate $r = \SI{0.05}{\per\second}$ and assuming $T_c = \SI{10}{\second}$, with its corresponding anticumulative (dark blue). The signal histograms (arbitrary scale) show the distributions of the maximal $\mathcal{F}$ values obtained for a signal injection of 5, 8 or 10 events ($\tau_1 = \SI{1}{\second}$, $\tau_2=\SI{0.01}{\second}$).}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
In this section, various background rates will be considered. The performance of the new method presented in \autoref{sec:method} will be compared to ones of the simple clusterisation in dynamic time windows (\autoref{eq:Fim_dyn}), referred as the ``multiplicity'' method.
In the following, $T_c = \SI{10}{\second}$ will be used as it is found to be a good compromise in the search for supernova signal with similar time scale.
\subsection{Signal simulation}
\label{sec:signalsim}
The simulation is performed in a generic way, so that it is relatively independent on the supernova models and on the neutrino detector:
\begin{itemize}
\item A given number of signal events $n_S$ is supposed to be detected. This could be converted to a supernova distance for a given detector (fixed mass, target and efficiency) using SNOwGLoBES \cite{snowglobes} ;
\item Their time distribution is parametrised by a double-exponential shape as in \cite{Casentini:2018bdf}:
\begin{equation}
p(t) = \left( 1-e^{-t/\tau_1} \right) \times e^{-t/\tau_2},
\label{eq:signalpar}
\end{equation}
with typically $\tau_1 = \SIrange{10}{100}{\milli\second}$ and $\tau_2 \gtrsim \SI{1}{\second}$, representing respectively the rising time and the decaying time of the signal. In the following, when not explicitly specified, $\tau_1 = \SI{10}{\milli\second}$ and $\tau_2 = \SI{1}{\second}$ are used, which fit well the current SN models and SN1987a data.
\end{itemize}
Each signal burst is simulated on a short time interval (typically $\tau=\SIrange{30}{50}{\second}$), on top of simulated background events with rate $r_{\rm bkg}$. The signal efficiency for a given cut $\mathcal{C}$ is obtained by simulating a large number of signal bursts and by computing the fraction of bursts satisfying $\mathcal{C}$ during the period $\tau$ (one cluster passing the multiplicity cut or $\mathcal{F}(t)$ exceeding given threshold).
\subsection{Raw performance}
Independently on the signal simulation, one can first compare directly the cuts applied on $\mathcal{F}$ and on multiplicity in order to achieve a given false alarm rate respectively in the RTS$^2$ and ``multiplicity'' methods, as illustrated in \autoref{fig:res:cut_comp}. This is relevant as these cuts correspond to the minimal number of events needed to trigger an alert.
The figure clearly shows that the new method is reaching lower multiplicities and is more robust with increasing multiplicities. The penultimate point on the right in \autoref{fig:res:cut_comp} corresponds to the scenario presented in the \autoref{fig:hist}, with $r=\SI{0.05}{\per\second}$ and with a typical cut $\mathcal{F} \gtrsim 4-5$ as already visible in the histogram.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig3.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the applied cuts on $\mathcal{F}$ for the RTS$^2$ method (solid line) and on multiplicity $m$ for the ``multiplicity'' method (dashed line) for different fixed false alarm rates (\SI{1}{\per\century}, \SI{1}{\per\year}, \SI{1}{\per\day}), as a function of fixed background rate.}
\label{fig:res:cut_comp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Signal selection efficiency}
The \autoref{fig:res:sig_eff} presents the obtained signal efficiency for different fixed background rates and number of injected signal neutrinos. It confirms the results presented in the previous paragraph: the RTS$^2$ method performs much better for low-multiplicity signal bursts and the effect is visible for all background rates. Referring back to the example of $r=\SI{0.05}{\per\second}$ from the \autoref{fig:hist}, one can achieve non-negligible efficiencies for $n_{\rm sig} > 6$, as seen in the clear separation between background and signal in the histogram.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig4.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the signal selection efficiency for the RTS$^2$ method (solid line) and for the ``multiplicity'' method (dashed line), as a function of the number of true signal neutrinos in the detected burst, for a fixed false alarm rate of \SI{1}{\per\century}, for different background rates (that impact both the simulation toys and the required cut).}
\label{fig:res:sig_eff}
\end{figure}
For a fixed false alarm rate and background rate, one may then reduce the detection threshold (and therefore increase the distance horizon) of the supernova search.
\subsection{Stability with signal shape}
The \autoref{fig:res:eff_dep} illustrates how the signal efficiency changes with different signal shapes (\autoref{eq:signalpar}) and different sizes of time window for the ``multiplicity'' method. Reducing the time window down to \SI{5}{\second} allows increasing the efficiency with respect to the longer duration, but it does not reach the performance of the newly proposed method.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig5.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the signal selection efficiency for the RTS$^2$ method (solid line) and for the ``multiplicity'' method (dashed line = time window of \SI{20}{\second}, dotted line = time window of \SI{5}{\second}), as a function of the number of true signal neutrinos in the detected burst, for a fixed false alarm rate of \SI{1}{\per\century}, different background rates $r = \SIrange{0.01}{0.1}{\per\second}$ and different values of the signal shape parameter $\tau_2$.}
\label{fig:res:eff_dep}
\end{figure}
\section{Non-Poisson background}
\label{sec:nonpoisson}
Neutrino detectors may suffer from spatially correlated backgrounds whose times will not be distributed with a Poisson distribution. This is the case of spallation events, where radioactive decays may follow the interaction of high-energy cosmic ray muons with the matter of the detector. In Super-Kamiokande, this is handled by checking the spatial distribution of the identified vertices after clustering~\cite{Abe:2016waf}, computing the ``dimensionality'' of the vertex distribution and only selecting clusters identified as ``volume-distributed'' (vertices uniformly distributed in the volume of the detector).
One may try to adapt the real-time test statistic defined in \autoref{sec:method} in order to penalise events if they are detected nearby previous events, so that spatially-correlated clusters are effectively suppressed:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}_{SP}(t) = \sum_{i : t_i < t} \exp{\left(- \dfrac{t-t_i}{T_c} \right)} \times p_i,
\label{eq:RTS:wpenalty}
\end{equation}
where $p_i$ is the weight applied to event $i$. A naive approach is to define:
\begin{equation}
p_i = \displaystyle \prod_{j<i} \Big( 1 - e^{-\dfrac{t_i-t_j}{T_{\rm SP}}} e^{- \dfrac{\Vert \vec{x_i} - \vec{x_j} \Vert^2}{2\sigma_{\rm SP}^2}} \Big),
\label{eq:spatial_penalty}
\end{equation}
where $\{ \vec{x_i} \}$ are event positions, $T_{\rm SP}$ and $\sigma_{SP}$ are the time and spatial characteristic of the spatial penalty and the sum runs over the events with $t_j < t_i$ (it may be sufficient to only consider events with $t_i - t_j \lesssim 10 T_{\rm SP}$).
The formula ensures that $p_i \sim 1$ if there are no events nearby event $i$, while $p_i \to 0$ otherwise (event will not contribute to $\mathcal{F}$). The weight of a given event is reduced even further if more than one other event is detected nearby.
For a correlated cluster of $N$ events and characterised by a multi-normal distribution with $\sigma=\sigma_B$, one can derive that $\mathcal{F}_{SP}(t_c) \simeq \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \leq 2$, if $\sigma_B = \sigma_{\rm SP}$ and assuming all events are arriving at the same time $t_c$, even for $N \to \infty$. The effect of the cluster is effectively suppressed. The term $\sigma_{SP}$ can easily be tuned to the scale of the background of interest in a given detector.
The \autoref{fig:np:illustrate} illustrates how the implementation of the spatial penalty terms allows to reduce the contamination due to non-Poisson background, as peaks related to non-Poisson background (point-like sources) are shrunk, while signal bursts remain at the same level than without spatial penalty. The \autoref{fig:np:rej} presents the rejection power of RTS$^2$ method for spatially-correlated clusters.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig6.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of non-Poisson rejection. The top panel shows an example of event rate as a function of time in a detector with the size of Super-Kamiokande. The injected Poisson background has a rate $r_{\rm bkg} = \SI{0.05}{\per\second}$. Two additional spatially-correlated clusters of background events (with $\sigma_B = \SI{2}{\meter}$) and with respectively $10$ and $15$ events) have been injected. Finally, two signal-like bursts with the parametrisation of \autoref{eq:signalpar} are added, with respectively 7 and 10 neutrinos. The bottom panel shows the test statistic time evolution for the RTS$^2$ method without and with the spatial penalty from \autoref{eq:spatial_penalty}.}
\label{fig:np:illustrate}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/fig7.pdf}
\caption{Fraction of simulated spatially-correlated clusters that are rejected by applying the cut on $\mathcal{F}(t)$ optimised in order to ensure a false alarm rate of 1/century, 1/year, 1/month, 1/week, 1/day or 1/hour from Poisson-distributed background (with $r_{\rm bkg} = \SI{0.05}{\per\second}$), as a function of injected multiplicity of the cluster. The solid lines (resp. dashed lines) show the results without (resp. with) the spatial penalty term in \autoref{eq:RTS:wpenalty}.}
\label{fig:np:rej}
\end{figure}
One can see that, even though the chosen spatial penalty term is relatively simple, it is quite effective to reject point-source background. It is only in the case of low false alarm rates (e.g., 1/hour) that extra care may be needed. Furthermore, the definition of $p_i = p(\{x_j\}_{j \leq i}, \{t_j\}_{j \leq i})$ may be optimised to reject specific backgrounds related to a given experiment, as the proposed formula only takes care of point-like sources while e.g. spallation background may have vertices distributed along a line.
To classify each newly detected neutrino as part of a background ``burst'' ($p_i \to 0$) or not ($p_i \sim 1$), the use of a k-nearest neighbours algorithm or other outliers detection techniques may be very promising.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The presented approach would allow to select supernovae bursts with relatively low multiplicity ($\sim 5-10$), effectively increasing the horizon compared to more standard approaches.
For reference, based on numbers from Table 4 of \cite{Kharusi:2020ovw}, the Hyper-Kamiokande detector would be able to reach M31-Andromeda ($d \sim \SI{778}{\kilo\parsec}$) while smaller current detectors would still trigger for most of the Milky Way satellite galaxies~\cite{Drlica-Wagner:2019vah} ($d \lesssim \SI{200}{\kilo\parsec}$).
The approach can be easily be implemented in a real-time monitoring system, as a recursive process of the type $\mathcal{F}(t_{i+1}) = a(t_{i+1}-t_i) \mathcal{F}(t_i) + p_{i+1}$, where $a(\tau)=e^{-\tau/T_c}$ characterises the decay of the signal and the $\{ p_{i} \}$ characterise the weights of individual events (either $=1$ or $<1$ if spatial penalties are applied).
The threshold may be adjusted to safely reduce contamination by using Monte Carlo simulations of the background or by data-driven methods. The latter are particularly relevant if one wants to achieve false alarm rates of 1/(day, week, month), as limited datasets would be sufficient to validate it.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, the new RTS$^2$ method has been presented and applied to the detection of neutrino bursts with a generic time spectrum that fit well current supernovae models. The performances were compared to using solely a cut on the multiplicity in fixed size time window and it has been shown that the new method performs well, especially for higher background rates.
The method allows high flexibility on the choice of the function characterising the contribution of each event and it may be further improved by considering adding new variables in the analysis, such as the event energy.
It is possible to simply adapt the RTS$^2$ formula in order to take care of the non-Poisson distributed backgrounds, either with a basic penalty term (e.g. \autoref{eq:spatial_penalty}) or with specially adapted methods, to reject specific backgrounds in a given detector (outlier detection techniques or machine learning approaches).
Not only could it help to extend the horizon of existing and future large neutrino detectors beyond their current reach, but it may also be useful for smaller detectors that need a consistent way to define and send alerts to the community, in particular through SNEWS 2.0~\cite{Kharusi:2020ovw}. The latter aims to gather data from neutrino detectors all over the world (with various sizes and targets) for combination and initiate multi-messenger follow-up of a candidate supernova. This would ensure taking the most from the next galactic core-collapse supernovae that the astronomy community is waiting for.
\begin{acknowledgments}
I would like to thank the local group in the Department of Physics of the University of Padova, as well as the astrophysics working group of the Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration, for useful discussions. CloudVeneto is acknowledged for the use of computing and storage facilities. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 754496.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In many practical applications from science and engineering fields, it is common to model certain physical complex phenomena by means of dynamical systems. In some cases, the number of variables that characterize such systems is very high and does not permit feasible online simulation, nor performing fast controlling tasks. Hence, the need for approximating the original large-scale complex model with a much smaller and simpler model that allows the total computational effort to significantly decrease. Model order reduction (MOR) methods accomplish precisely this goal. Over the years, significant effort has been allocated to refining, optimizing and also including data assimilation in MOR methods. We refer the reader to the following books \cite{Antoulas05,AntBeaGug20,BenOhlCohWill17,QuaManNeg15} for more details on various reduction methodologies.
The Loewner framework is a data-driven modeling and complexity reduction method that can be used to learn models of dynamical systems from measurements of their transfer function. It was originally introduced in \cite{Antoulas07} and it was steadily developed over the last decade. For linear systems, extensions of the method were proposed to cope with singular or rectangular systems in \cite{Antoulas17}, with parametric systems in \cite{IonAnt14}, and with preservation of the DAEs (differential algebraic equations) in \cite{Gosea20}. Moreover, in recent years, several works have been made to extend the Loewner framework to certain classes of nonlinear dynamical systems, such as bilinear systems in \cite{AntGosIon16}, switched systems \cite{GPA18}, and quadratic-bilinear systems in \cite{GosAnt18,AntGosHei19}. For a comprehensive view on the Loewner framework we refer the reader to \cite{Antoulas17,KarGosAnt20}.
One important feature of the Loewner framework consists in the fact that it does not need an exact description of the original dynamical system to start with, which is typically described by ordinary or partial differential equations (ODEs, PDEs). Instead of having full access to the coefficient matrices that scale these equations, one requires only transfer function measurement values. These data can be inferred from time-domain snapshots via spectral transforms (see \cite{PehGugBea17,KarGosAnt20_2} for details) or directly measured with electronic devices (see \cite{LefAnt10,Antoulas17} for details). Finally, by arranging the given data in a specific way, one can construct with basically no computational effort a realization (dynamical system) that explains the data. The Loewner pencil plays a central role in the system realization constructed by the Loewner framework. More precisely, the two Loewner matrices that enter the pencil represent the coefficient matrices that sc
ale the internal variable vector and its derivative. Consequently, the eigenvalues of the pencil are the poles of the surrogate Loewner model and are used to characterize the dynamics of the system.
We first derive an explicit eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of the Loewner pencil based on a general factorization of the Loewner/shifted Loewner matrices. It was previously shown that the Hankel matrix can be factorized in terms of matrices with special structure, e.g., Vandermonde matrices, in \cite{Sarkar90,Golub99,Golub07}. Similarly, the Loewner matrix can also be factorized in terms of generalized Cauchy matrices, as shown in \cite{Zdenek97}. We will show that the factors given by the generalized Cauchy matrices are actually Krylov projection matrices for a particular system realization. Using the factorization of the generalized Loewner matrix, the EVD of the Loewner pencil is hence available. Based on this EVD and on eigenvalue perturbation theory for matrix pencils, some theoretical aspects of the Loewner pencil perturbation are derived.
To study the sensitivity of eigenvalues in different situations, two kinds of Loewner pencil perturbations are considered. The first one is unstructured perturbation and the perturbation quantities are given by random matrices.
The sensitivity $\rho$ with respect to unstructured perturbation is introduced. It is shown that $\rho$ is connected to the condition numbers of the associated generalized Cauchy matrices; $\rho$ is hence an useful tool for sensitivity analysis of the Loewner pencil, e.g., in the computation of pseudospectra \cite{Trefethen05,Embree19}. The second case analyzed in this work considers structured perturbation that usually arises due to noisy data. Because of the special structure of the Loewner matrix, the perturbation matrices of the Loewner pencil are also structured. Some previous works, such as the ones in \cite{Lefteriu10,Zlatko19}, have already studied the effects of noisy measurements in the Loewner model. In this work, we provide a new analysis that takes into consideration the pole sensitivity of the Loewner model with respect to perturbation of data. The sensitivity defined with respect to structured perturbation is denoted with $\eta$. Both sensitivities are influenced by the choice of data.
The paper is organized as follows; Section \ref{sec:intro_Loew} shows a general factorization of the Loewner pencil and derives an explicit generalized eigenvalue decomposition of the pencil. Next, in Section \ref{sec:Sylvester} we show a number of factorizations for the Loewner pencil, depending on different measurements or on different system realizations. Section \ref{sec:sens} defines sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$ with respect to the unstructured and structured perturbations. Furthermore, the consequences resulting from these sensitivities are discussed. Section \ref{sec:numerics} includes numerical examples and discussions to illustrate the consequences of the sensitivities for the different test cases. Conclusions are given in Section \ref{sec:conc}.
\newpage
\section{The Loewner matrix pencil and its properties}
\label{sec:intro_Loew}
We consider the linear time-invariant dynamical system $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $ described by the following equations:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:sys_def}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma} : ~
{\mathbf E} \dot{{\mathbf x}}(t) = {\mathbf A} {\mathbf x}(t) + {\mathbf B} {\mathbf u}(t),
\quad {\mathbf y}(t) = {\mathbf C} {\mathbf x}(t),
\end{equation}
where
$
{\mathbf C}\in\mathbb R^{p\times n}$, ${\mathbf E}$,
${\mathbf A}\in\mathbb R^{n\times n}$, ${\mathbf B}\in\mathbb R^{n\times m}$,
is a minimal realization of $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $. Additionally, ${\mathbf x}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the vector of internal variables, ${\mathbf u}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the input and ${\mathbf y}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times 1}$ is the output.
Let the associated resolvent of pencil $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$ be $ \boldsymbol{\Phi} (s)=(s{\mathbf E}-{\mathbf A})^{-1}$, and the
transfer function of $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $ be ${\mathbf H}(s)= {\mathbf C}(s{\mathbf E}-{\mathbf A})^{-1}{\mathbf B} = {\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (s){\mathbf B}$.
Given the interpolation conditions
\begin{equation}\label{equ:interp_cond}
\boldsymbol{\ell}^T_i{\mathbf H}(\mu_i)={\mathbf v}_i^T,~~i=1,\cdots,q,\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\mathbf w}_j={\mathbf H}(\lambda_j){\mathbf r}_j,~~j=1,\ldots,k,
\end{equation}
we refer to the {\textit left data} $({\mathbf M},{\mathbf L}^T,\mathbb V)$ and the {\textit right data}
$(\boldsymbol{\Lambda},{\mathbf R},\mathbb W)$, where
\begin{align}
{\mathbf M} &= \text{diag}\left(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_q \right)
\in\mathbb{C}^{q \times q},~
{\mathbf L} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
\boldsymbol{\ell}_1 & \cdots & \boldsymbol{\ell}_q
\end{matrix} \right]^T \in \mathbb{C}^{p \times q},~
\mathbb V = \left[ \begin{matrix}{\mathbf v}_1 & \cdots & {\mathbf v}_q
\end{matrix} \right]^T\in \mathbb{C}^{m\times q}, \\[1mm]
\boldsymbol{\Lambda} &= \text{diag}\left(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_k \right)
\in \mathbb{C}^{k\times k},~
{\mathbf R} = \left[ \begin{matrix}{\mathbf r}_1 & \cdots & {\mathbf r}_k
\end{matrix} \right] \in \mathbb{C}^{m \times k},~
\mathbb W = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{\mathbf w}_1 & \cdots & {\mathbf w}_k
\end{matrix} \right]\in \mathbb{C}^{p\times k}.
\end{align}
It is assumed here that the interpolation points
$\mu_i$, $\lambda_j$ are mutually distinct.
The Loewner framework in \cite{Antoulas07} offers a simple solution to the
problem of constructing a data-based surrogate linear model with the same structure as in (\ref{equ:sys_def}), that satisfies the conditions in (\ref{equ:interp_cond}). The answer is given by the Loewner quadruple:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Loew_quad_def}
(\mathbb W,\mathbb L,{\mathbb L}_s,\mathbb V)\in\mathbb C^{p\times k}\times
\mathbb C^{q\times k}\times\mathbb C^{q\times k}\times\mathbb C^{q\times m},
\end{equation}
where the Loewner matrix $\mathbb L \in \mathbb{C}^{q\times k}$ and the shifted Loewner matrix ${\mathbb L}_s \in \mathbb{C}^{ q\times k}$ are defined as:
\begin{align}\label{equ:Loew_mat_def}
\left(\mathbb L\right)_{i,j}=\frac{
{\mathbf v}_i^T{\mathbf r}_j-\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf w}_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j},~~
\left({\mathbb L}_s\right)_{i,j}=\frac{
\mu_i{\mathbf v}_i^T{\mathbf r}_j-\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf w}_j\lambda_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j}.
\end{align}
The Loewner quadruple is often referred to as the {\textit raw model} of the
data.
Let $ {\cal K} _{{L}}$ and $ {\cal K} _{{R}}$ be the associated left/right tangential rational Krylov projection matrices:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:KL_KR_def}
{\cal K} _{{L}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\ell}_1^T{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_1)\\[1mm]
~~~\vdots\\[1mm]
\boldsymbol{\ell}_q^T{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_q)\\[1mm]
\end{array}
\right]\in\mathbb C^{q\times n},~~ {\cal K} _{{R}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_1){\mathbf B}{\mathbf r}_1 & \cdots & \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_k){\mathbf B}{\mathbf r}_k
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb C^{n\times k},
\end{equation}
assumed to satisfy the condition that $ {\cal K} _{{L}} {\cal K} _{{R}}$ has full rank.
In what follows, we will make use of the {\textit Moore-Penrose generalized-inverse}\footnote{Given a matrix ${\mathbf M}\in\mathbb C^{k\times \ell}$, its Moore-Penrose
generalized inverse denoted by ${\mathbf M}^+\in\mathbb C^{\ell\times k}$, is the unique
matrix satisfying the conditions (a) ${\mathbf M}\bM^+{\mathbf M}={\mathbf M}$, (b)
${\mathbf M}^+{\mathbf M}\bM^+={\mathbf M}^+$, (c) $({\mathbf M}\bM^+)^*={\mathbf M}\bM^+$, (d) $({\mathbf M}^+{\mathbf M})^*={\mathbf M}^+{\mathbf M}$.
For further, details see \cite{StewartSun}}. It is to be noted that the Drazin inverse could also be used, as shown in \cite{Antoulas16}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:1}
The following factorizations hold:
\begin{equation}\label{factorization}
\mathbb W= {\mathbf C}{ {\cal K} _{{R}}} \in\mathbb C^{p\times k},~
\mathbb L= - {\cal K} _{L} {\mathbf E} {\cal K} _{R} \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~
{\mathbb L}_s=- {\cal K} _{L} {\mathbf A} {\cal K} _{R} \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~
\mathbb V= {\cal K} _{L} {\mathbf B} \in\mathbb C^{q\times m} .
\end{equation}
Consequently:\\[-2mm]
\begin{enumerate}
\item
This factorization is rank revealing and
the rank of $\mathbb L$ is equal to the McMillan degree $n$ of $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $.
The entries of the Loewner quadruple $(\mathbb W,\mathbb L,{\mathbb L}_s,\mathbb V)$,
depend exclusively on values of the transfer
function ${\mathbf H}$. Furthermore the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{geninverse}
{\mathbf H}(s) = \mathbb W\, ({\mathbb L}_s-s\,\mathbb L)^{+}\, \mathbb V
\end{equation}
where $\,(\cdot)^+$ denotes the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of
$\,(\cdot)$.
\item
An explicit generalized EVD (eigenvalue decomposition) of the Loewner pencil $({\mathbb L}_s,\mathbb L)$ results. Let $(\lambda ,\hat{\mathbf q},\hat{\mathbf p})$ be
a triple composed of an eigenvalue, and the right/left eigenvectors
of $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$. Then $\lambda$ is also an eigenvalue of the pencil
$({\mathbb L}_s,\,\mathbb L)$, with corresponding right/left eigenvectors:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:lr_eigv}
{\mathbf q}= {\cal K} _{{R}}^+\hat{\mathbf q}\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{\mathbf p}^T\!=\hat{\mathbf p}^T {\cal K} _{{L}}^+.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
It should be stressed that the above results hold
irrespective of whether ${\mathbb L}_s-s\,\mathbb L$ is singular or rectangular.
Therefore the Loewner quadruple is a model of the data and
there is no need for an explicit projection.
\vspace*{1mm}
\begin{proof}
Based on the definition of matrices $ {\cal K} _{{L}}$ and $ {\cal K} _{{R}}$ provided in (\ref{equ:KL_KR_def}), it follows that the $(i,j)$ entry of matrix ${ {\cal K} _{{L}}}{\mathbf E}{ {\cal K} _{{R}}}$ can be written as (for all $1 \leq i \leq q, \ 1 \leq j \leq k$):
$$\small
\begin{array}{ll}
\left({ {\cal K} _{{L}}}{\mathbf E}{ {\cal K} _{{R}}}\right)_{i,j} &= \boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_i) {\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_j){\mathbf B}{\mathbf r}_j = \boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_i) \frac{ \boldsymbol{\Phi} ^{-1}(\lambda_j) - \boldsymbol{\Phi} ^{-1}(\mu_i)}{\lambda_j-\mu_i} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_j){\mathbf B}{\mathbf r}_j \\[2mm]
&= \frac{1}{\lambda_j-\mu_i} \Big{(} \underbrace{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_i) {\mathbf B}}_{{\mathbf v}_i^T}{\mathbf r}_j - \boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T \underbrace{{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_j){\mathbf B}{\mathbf r}_j}_{{\mathbf w}_j} \Big{)} = \frac{{\mathbf v}_i^T {\mathbf r}_j - \boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T {\mathbf w}_j }{\lambda_j-\mu_i}.
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{array}
$$
Note that in the derivations above, the following identity was used ${\mathbf E} = \frac{ \boldsymbol{\Phi} ^{-1}(\mu_i)- \boldsymbol{\Phi} ^{-1}(\lambda_j)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j}$. From (\ref{equ:Loew_mat_def}) it indeed follows that $\mathbb L = - { {\cal K} _{{L}}}{\mathbf E}{ {\cal K} _{{R}}}$. Similarly, we prove the other identities. These computations
can also be found in \cite{Antoulas07}.\\[-2mm]
To show (\ref{geninverse}), we notice that because $ {\cal K} _L$ is full column rank
and $ {\cal K} _R$ is full row rank, the generalized inverse of $({\mathbb L}_s-s\,\mathbb L)$ is:
$$
\left[ {\cal K} _L({\mathbf A}-s{\mathbf E}) {\cal K} _R\right]^+= {\cal K} _R^T\left( {\cal K} _R {\cal K} _R^T\right)^{-1}
({\mathbf A}-s{\mathbf E})^{-1}\left( {\cal K} _L^T {\cal K} _L\right)^{-1} {\cal K} _L^T.
$$
The desired result follows by multiplying this expression
on the left by ${\mathbf C} {\cal K} _R$ and on the right by $ {\cal K} _R{\mathbf B}$, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb W\, ({\mathbb L}_s-s\,\mathbb L)^{+}\, \mathbb V &= {\mathbf C} {\cal K} _R \left[ {\cal K} _L({\mathbf A}-s{\mathbf E}) {\cal K} _R\right]^+ {\cal K} _R{\mathbf B} \\
&= {\mathbf C} {\cal K} _R {\cal K} _R^T\left( {\cal K} _R {\cal K} _R^T\right)^{-1}
({\mathbf A}-s{\mathbf E})^{-1}\left( {\cal K} _L^T {\cal K} _L\right)^{-1} {\cal K} _L^T {\cal K} _R{\mathbf B} = {\mathbf C} ({\mathbf A}-s{\mathbf E})^{-1} {\mathbf B} = {\mathbf H}(s).
\end{align*}
To show (\ref{equ:lr_eigv}) notice that if
$(\lambda ,\hat{\mathbf q},\hat{\mathbf p})$ is a triple composed of the eigenvalue, and the right/left eigenvectors of $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$, ${\mathbf q}= {\cal K} _{{R}}^+\hat{\mathbf q}$,
is the right eigenvector
of the Loewner pencil $({\mathbb L}_s,\mathbb L)$, corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda$:
\begin{align*}
{{\mathbb L}_s{\mathbf q}}= - {\cal K} _{{L}}{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _{{R}}{\mathbf q}=- {\cal K} _{{L}}{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _{{R}} {\cal K} _{{R}}^+\hat{\mathbf q}=- {\cal K} _{{L}}{\mathbf A}\hat{\mathbf q} =-\lambda {\cal K} _{{L}}{\mathbf E}\hat{\mathbf q} =\lambda \left(- {\cal K} _{{L}}{\mathbf E} {\cal K} _{{R}}\right) {\cal K} _{{R}}^+\hat{\mathbf q}{=\lambda\, \mathbb L{\mathbf q}}.
\end{align*}
The proof for the left eigenvector ${\mathbf p}$ follows in a similar way.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}{
$\bullet$ If in (\ref{equ:KL_KR_def}), $q$ and $k$ are less that $n$, it is readily shown
that the transfer function of the projected system (\ref{factorization}),
interpolates the transfer function of the original system at
$\mu_i$, $i=1,\cdots,q$, and $\lambda_j$, $j=1,\cdots,k$ (see e.g. chapter 11
in \cite{Antoulas05}). In the general case $q,\,k\geq n$, expression
(\ref{geninverse}) shows that if more than necessary interpolation conditions hold, then the original system is recovered. From a practical point of view, it follows
that the emergence of the Loewner matrix in (\ref{factorization}) ensures
that its rank (or numerical rank) provides an estimate of the complexity
of the underlying system. Hence by establishing a connection between
interpolatory projections and the Loewner matrix as in (\ref{factorization}),
we obtain the {\textit additional advantage} that the rank of $\mathbb L$ (exact or
numerical) provides the complexity of the ensuing reduced models. In addition,
the projected matrices ${\mathbf A}$ and ${\mathbf E}$ (i.e. the Loewner pencil) provide information about the poles of the reduced system. This fact will be used in the next sections to examine the sensitivity of models
to the choice of data and to perturbation in the data.
}
\end{remark}
\section{The generalized Sylvester equation and its impact on factorizing the Loewner pencil}
\label{sec:Sylvester}
Given the minimal realization $({\mathbf C},{\mathbf E},{\mathbf A},{\mathbf B})$ $\in$
$\mathbb R^{p\times n}\times\mathbb R^{n\times n}\times\mathbb R^{n\times n}
\times\mathbb R^{n\times m}$, we consider the interpolatory projection matrices
$ {\cal K} _L\in\mathbb C^{k\times n}$ and $ {\cal K} _R\in\mathbb C^{n\times q}$, $k,\,q\geq n$,
such that each has full rank and their product $ {\cal K} _L {\cal K} _R\in\mathbb C^{k\times q}$ is non-singular. This means that $ \boldsymbol{\Theta} = {\cal K} _L( {\cal K} _R {\cal K} _L)^{+} {\cal K} _R$
is a projector, i.e., $ \boldsymbol{\Theta} ^2 = \boldsymbol{\Theta} $. The projected quantities are given by (\ref{factorization}).
The projection matrices $ {\cal K} _L$ and $ {\cal K} _R$ satisfy the following {\textit generalized Sylvester equations}:
\small
\begin{equation}\label{fundamental}
\fbox{$\displaystyle
\begin{array}{c|c}
\underbrace{{\color{black}{\mathbf M}}{\color{black} {\cal K} _L}{\color{black}{\mathbf E}}-
{\color{black} \boldsymbol{\Psi} \,}{\color{black} {\cal K} _L}{\color{black}{\mathbf A}}={\color{black}{\mathbf L}^T}{\color{black}{\mathbf C}}}_{
\begin{array}{ll}
&\\[-2mm]
\color{black}({\mathbf C},{\mathbf E},{\mathbf A}):&\color{black}\mbox{ observable triple (w.r.t system)}\\[1mm]
\color{black}({\mathbf L}^T\!, \boldsymbol{\Psi} ,{\mathbf M}):&\color{black}\mbox{ controllable triple (w.r.t data)}\end{array}}&
\underbrace{{\color{black}{\mathbf E}}\,{\color{black} {\cal K} _R}{\color{black}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}-{\color{black}{\mathbf A}}\,{\color{black} {\cal K} _R}{\color{black}\,\boldsymbol{\Delta}}=
{\color{black}{\mathbf B}}\,{\color{black}{\mathbf R}}}_{
\begin{array}{l}
\\[-2mm]
\color{black}({\mathbf E},{\mathbf A},{\mathbf B}):~\,\mbox{ controllable triple (w.r.t system)}\\[1mm]
\color{black}({\mathbf R},\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{\Delta}):~\mbox{ observable triple (w.r.t data)}\end{array}}
\end{array}
$}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\subsection{Deriving factorizations for different data choices}
Next we list the projection matrices for some special cases of the data measurements. For simplicity, we treat only the SISO case but all the derivations can be extended to MIMO by incorporating the left and right tangential directions as described in the previous section.
\subsubsection{Matching at finite values}
In this case, let $\boldsymbol{\Lambda},{\mathbf M}$ be diagonal matrices,
with mutually distinct interpolation points and $\boldsymbol{\Delta}={\mathbf I}_q, \boldsymbol{\Psi} ={\mathbf I}_k$, where ${\mathbf I}_n \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $n$. Additionally, let ${\mathbf L}=\mathbb I_q^T$, ${\mathbf R}=\mathbb I_k^T$, where $\mathbb I_n = \left[ \begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & \cdots & 1
\end{matrix} \right]^T \in \mathbb R^n $ is a $n$th dimensional column vector of ones.
Recall that the system resolvent is denoted by $ \boldsymbol{\Phi} (s)=(s{\mathbf E}-{\mathbf A})^{-1}$. Then, this corresponds to the case presented in the previous section (the classical scenario encountered in the Loewner framework). It follows that the following formulas hold true
$$
{\cal K} _L=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_1)\\\vdots\\{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\mu_q)
\end{array}\right],~~
{\cal K} _R=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_1){\mathbf B}&\cdots& \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda_k){\mathbf B}
\end{array}\right].
$$
\noindent
\textbf{Matching at equal left and right points equal to minus the poles} \\
Next, analyze the case for which the left and right interpolation points are equal to each other, and equal to the mirrored poles of the system (w.r.t to the imaginary axis). Denote with $\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_n$ the poles of the underlying model, and let $ \boldsymbol{\Pi} \in \mathbb C^{n \times n}$ be the diagonal matrix containing the poles on its diagonal.
Let $k = q =n$ and $ \boldsymbol{\lambda} _i= \boldsymbol{\mu} _i=- \boldsymbol{\pi} _i$, for all $1 \leq i \leq n$. This represents a special case encountered in optimal $ {\cal H} _2$ approximation, as illustrated in \cite{AntBeaGug20}. Furthermore, choose $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}={\mathbf M}=- \boldsymbol{\Pi} $, $\boldsymbol{\Delta}={\mathbf I}_q, \boldsymbol{\Psi} ={\mathbf I}_k$, and ${\mathbf R}={\mathbf L} = \mathbb I_n^T$. Then write
$$
{\cal K} _L=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (-\pi_1)\\\vdots\\{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (-\pi_n)\end{array}\right],~ {\cal K} _R=\left[ \boldsymbol{\Phi} (-\pi_1){\mathbf B}~\cdots~ \boldsymbol{\Phi} (-\pi_n){\mathbf B}\right],
$$
while the Loewner matrices $\mathbb L= - {\cal K} _{L} {\mathbf E} {\cal K} _{R}$ and ${\mathbb L}_s= - {\cal K} _{L} {\mathbf A} {\cal K} _{R}$ satisfy the following (degenerate) Sylvester equations:
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbb L \boldsymbol{\Pi} - \boldsymbol{\Pi} \mathbb L&=&-{\mathbf R}^T{\mathbf W}+{\mathbf W}^T{\mathbf R},\\[2mm]
{\mathbb L}_s \boldsymbol{\Pi} - \boldsymbol{\Pi} {\mathbb L}_s&=&{\mathbf R}^T{\mathbf W} \boldsymbol{\Pi} - \boldsymbol{\Pi} {\mathbf W}^T{\mathbf R}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
It is to be noted that in this case, the $(i,i)$ entries of the Loewner matrices are written in terms of the transfer function derivatives, as given below
\begin{equation*}
\left(\mathbb L\right)_{i,i}=
-\frac{d \left[{\mathbf H}(s) \right]}{d s} \Big{\vert}_{s = -\pi_i}, \ \ \left({\mathbb L}_s\right)_{i,i}=
-\frac{d \left[ s {\mathbf H}(s) \right]}{d s} \Big{\vert}_{s = -\pi_i}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent
\textbf{Matching at the same finite point} \\
Let $\lambda \in \mathbb C$ be a complex scalar, and assume in this case that all interpolation points are equal to $\lambda$, i.e., $\mu_i = \lambda$ and $\lambda_j = \lambda$. We presents the results for this through an illustrative simple example. More concrete, choose $k=q=3$, and hence we have that the left quantities are written as follows
$$
{\mathbf M}=\left[\begin{array}{rrr}\lambda&0&0\\-1&\lambda&0\\0&-1&\lambda
\end{array}\right],~{\mathbf L}^T=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\0\\0\end{array}\right]~
\Rightarrow~ {\cal K} _L=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda)\\{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda)\\
{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda)\end{array}\right],
$$
while the right quantities are given below:
$$
\boldsymbol{\Lambda}=\left[\begin{array}{rrr}\lambda&-1&0\\0&\lambda&-1\\0&0&\lambda
\end{array}\right],~{\mathbf R}^T=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\0\\0\end{array}\right]~
\Rightarrow~ {\cal K} _R=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf B}& \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf B}&
\boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf E} \boldsymbol{\Phi} (\lambda){\mathbf B}\end{array}\right].
$$
Thus, the Loewner matrices $\mathbb L= {\cal K} _L{\mathbf E} {\cal K} _R$ and ${\mathbb L}_s= {\cal K} _L{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _R$, become:
$$\small
\mathbb L=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{3!}{\mathbf H}^{(3)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{3!}{\mathbf H}^{(3)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{4!}{\mathbf H}^{(4)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{3!}{\mathbf H}^{(3)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{4!}{\mathbf H}^{(4)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{5!}{\mathbf H}^{(5)}(\lambda)\\
\end{array}\right],~{\mathbb L}_s=\lambda\mathbb L\,+
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathbf H}^{(0)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{3!}{\mathbf H}^{(3)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{3!}{\mathbf H}^{(3)}(\lambda)&\frac{1}{4!}{\mathbf H}^{(4)}(\lambda)\\
\end{array}\right].
$$
It follows that the equations satisfied by the Loewner and the shifted Loewner matrices can be rewritten as:
$$\small
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb L{\mathbf J}_r-{\mathbf J}_r^T\mathbb L=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\0\\0\end{array}\right]
\left[{\mathbf H}^{(0)}(\lambda) ~\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda) ~
\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)\right]-\left[
\begin{array}{c}{\mathbf H}^{(0)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{2!}{\mathbf H}^{(2)}(\lambda)\end{array}\right][1 ~0 ~0],
\\[3mm]
({\mathbb L}_s-\lambda\mathbb L){\mathbf J}_r-{\mathbf J}_r^T({\mathbb L}_s-\lambda\mathbb L)=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}0\\[1mm]{\mathbf H}^{(0)}(\lambda)\\[1mm]\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)
\\[1mm]
\end{array}\right][1 ~0 ~0]-
\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\0\\0\end{array}\right]
\left[0 ~{\mathbf H}^{(0)}(\lambda) ~\frac{1}{1!}{\mathbf H}^{(1)}(\lambda)\right].
\\[1mm]
\end{array}
$$
\normalsize
\subsubsection{Matching at infinity}
Let ${\mathbf M}={\mathbf I}_q$, ${\mathbf L}={\mathbf e}_{1,q}^T$, $ \boldsymbol{\Psi} \,={\mathbf J}_q^T$, and also
$\boldsymbol{\Lambda}={\mathbf I}_k$, ${\mathbf R}={\mathbf e}_{1,k}^T$, $\,\boldsymbol{\Delta}={\mathbf J}_k$. Here ${\mathbf J}_n \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$ is a Jordan matrix of dimension $n$ with 0 eigenvalues and ${\mathbf e}_{1,n} \in \mathbb R^n$ is the first unit vector of length $n$ (we sometime use ${\mathbf e}_{1}$ for ease of notation). In this case, we also assume that ${\mathbf E}={\mathbf I}_n$. The following derivations hold
\small
$$
\left.\begin{array}{l}
{\cal K} _L-{\mathbf J}_q^T {\cal K} _L{\mathbf A}={\mathbf e}_1{\mathbf C}\\[1mm]
{\cal K} _R-{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _R{\mathbf J}_k={\mathbf B}{\mathbf e}_1^T\end{array}\right\}\Rightarrow
{\cal K} _L=\left[\!\begin{array}{c}{\mathbf C}\\{\mathbf C}{\mathbf A}\\\vdots\\{\mathbf C}{\mathbf A}^{q-1}
\end{array}\!\!\right],~ {\cal K} _R=[{\mathbf B},~{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B},~\cdots,\,{\mathbf A}^{k-1}{\mathbf B}]~
\Rightarrow~\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb L= {\cal K} _L {\cal K} _R= {\cal H} _{q,k},\\[1mm]{\mathbb L}_s= {\cal K} _L{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _R=\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
\normalsize
Here, $ {\cal H} _{q,k} \in \mathbb R^{q \times k}$ and $\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k} \in \mathbb R^{q \times k}$ are Hankel matrices that contain as entries the Markov parameters ${\mathbf h}_i = {\mathbf C} {\mathbf A}^{i-1} {\mathbf B}, i \geq 1$ of the original system, i.e. $ \left( {\cal H} _{q,k} \right)_{i,j} = {\mathbf h}_{i+j-1}$ and $ \left(\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k} \right)_{i,j} = {\mathbf h}_{i+j}$ for $i.j \geq 1$.
$$
\left.\begin{array}{l}
{\cal K} _L{ {\cal K} _R}-{\mathbf J}_q^T {\cal K} _L{\mathbf A}{ {\cal K} _R}=
{\mathbf e}_1{\mathbf C}{ {\cal K} _R}\\[2mm]
{ {\cal K} _L} {\cal K} _R-{ {\cal K} _L}{\mathbf A} {\cal K} _R{\mathbf J}_k=
{ {\cal K} _R}{\mathbf B}{\mathbf e}_1^T\end{array}\right\}\Rightarrow\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
{\cal H} _{q,k}-{\mathbf J}_q^T\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\mathbf h}_1,~{\mathbf h}_2,~\cdots,~{\mathbf h}_k\\
{\mathbf 0}\\\vdots\end{array}\right]={\mathbf e}_1\,{\mathbf e}_1^T {\cal H} _{q,k},\\[5mm]
{\cal H} _{q,k}-\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k}{\mathbf J}_k=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathbf h}_1&0&\cdots\\{\mathbf h}_2&0&\cdots\\\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\\{\mathbf h}_q&0&\cdots\end{array}\right]= {\cal H} _{q,k} {\mathbf e}_1\,{\mathbf e}_1^T.
\end{array}\right.
$$
The equations for the Hankel and shifted Hankel matrices are given below:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal H} _{q,k}{\mathbf J}_k-{\mathbf J}_q^T {\cal H} _{q,k}=
{\mathbf e}_1 {\mathbf e}_1^T {\cal H} _{q,k}{\mathbf J}_k-{\mathbf J}_q^T {\cal H} _{q,k} {\mathbf e}_1 {\mathbf e}_1^T,~~\\[2mm]
\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k}{\mathbf J}_k-{\mathbf J}_q^T\sigma {\cal H} _{q,k}={\mathbf e}_1 {\mathbf e}_1^T {\cal H} _{q,k}-
{\cal H} _{q,k} {\mathbf e}_1 {\mathbf e}_1^T .
\end{array}
$$
\subsection{Deriving factorizations for different system realizations}
Next we will derive several factorizations of the Loewner quadruple based
on different system realizations and data. For clarity
we will discuss three separate special cases: (a) SISO
(single-input single-output) systems with strictly proper rational (spr)
transfer functions, (b) MIMO (multiple-input multiple output) systems with
spr transfer functions and finally (c) systems with polynomial transfer
functions. The general case of systems characterized by DAEs (differential algebraic equations),
with arbitrary rational transfer functions follows readily as a combination
of these special cases.
\subsubsection{The case of SISO systems with strictly proper transfer function}
Let an underlying linear SISO ($m=p=1$) system $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $ of dimension $n$ as defined in (\ref{equ:sys_def}) be
represented by means of its partial fraction decomposition:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:zero-pole-siso}
{\mathbf H}(s)=\frac{{\mathbf n}(s)}{{\mathbf d}(s)}=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\gamma_i}{s-\pi_i},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_i \neq 0 \in\mathbb C$, for all $i$. The poles and the residues of the system are denoted by $\{\pi_1,\cdots,\pi_n\}$, and by $\{\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_n\}$, respectively. Let diagonal matrices be defined as $ \boldsymbol{\Pi} =\mbox{diag}[\pi_1,\cdots,\pi_n]\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ and
$ \boldsymbol{\Gamma} =\mbox{diag}[\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_n]\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$, while $ \boldsymbol{\gamma} = [\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_n]^T\in\mathbb C^{n\times 1}$.
Then, a realization for its transfer function ${\mathbf H}(s)$, defined in (\ref{equ:zero-pole-siso}), is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:realiz_pol_res}
{\mathbf A} = \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} , ~ {\mathbf E} = \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ,~ {\mathbf B} = \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\mathbb I }_n, ~ {\mathbf C} = {\mathbb I }_n^T \boldsymbol{\Gamma} .
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb I_n$ is all-ones column vector of length $n$. It is to be noted that an equivalent realization to that in (\ref{equ:realiz_pol_res}) is given by: ${\mathbf A} = \boldsymbol{\Pi} , ~ {\mathbf E} = {\mathbf I}_n,~ {\mathbf B} = {\mathbb I }_n, ~ {\mathbf C} = {\mathbb I }_n^T \boldsymbol{\Gamma} $.
To the SISO system $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $, we associate a Loewner quadruple (raw model)
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Loew_quad_def2}
(\mathbb W,\mathbb L,{\mathbb L}_s,\mathbb V)\in\mathbb C^{1\times k}\times
\mathbb C^{q\times k}\times\mathbb C^{q\times k}\times\mathbb C^{q\times 1},
\end{equation}
constructed by means of the left interpolation points $\mu_i$, $i=1,\cdots,q$,
the right interpolation points $\lambda_j$, $j=1,\cdots,k$ ($\lambda_j$, $\mu_i$ assumed pairwise distinct), and the left values ${\mathbf v}_i={\mathbf H}(\mu_i)$ and the right values ${\mathbf w}_j={\mathbf H}(\lambda_j)$, where $q,k\geq n$. Additionally, by choosing ${\mathbf R}={\mathbb I }_q^T$, ${\mathbf L}={\mathbb I }^T_k$, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{equ:Loew_mat_def2}
\mathbb W_j = {\mathbf w}_j,~~\left(\mathbb L\right)_{i,j}=\frac{
{\mathbf v}_i-{\mathbf w}_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j},~~
\left({\mathbb L}_s\right)_{i,j}=\frac{
\mu_i{\mathbf v}_i-{\mathbf w}_j\lambda_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j},~~\mathbb V_i = {\mathbf v}_i.
\end{align}
Given two sets of mutually
distinct complex numbers $\alpha_i$, $i=1,\ldots,\kappa$, and
$\beta_j$, $j=1,\ldots,\rho$,
we define the associated {\textit Cauchy matrix} as:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Cauchy_def}
{\cal C} _{\alpha,\beta}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{\alpha_1-\beta_1}& \cdots & \frac{1}{\alpha_1-\beta_\rho}\\[1mm]
\vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\[1mm]
\frac{1}{\alpha_\kappa-\beta_1}& \cdots & \frac{1}{\alpha_\kappa-\beta_\rho}\\[1mm]
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb C^{\kappa\times \rho}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:2}
Given the Loewner quadruple (\ref{equ:Loew_quad_def2}),
the following factorizations hold true:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:facsiso}
\mathbb W={\mathbb I }_n^T\, \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \,
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \in\mathbb C^{1\times k},~
\mathbb L=-{ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \, {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi},~
{\mathbb L}_s=-{ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}} \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~\mathbb V={ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}}\, \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\mathbb I }_n \in\mathbb C^{q\times 1}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $1 \leq i \leq q$ and $1 \leq j \leq k$, we can write the $(i,j)$ entry of the Loewner matrix $\mathbb L$ in (\ref{equ:Loew_mat_def2}), as follows
$$
\mathbb L_{(i,j)} = \frac{{\mathbf v}_i-{\mathbf w}_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j} = \frac{{\mathbf H}(\mu_i)-{\mathbf H}(\lambda_j)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j} = \frac{\Big(
\sum_{l=1}^n \frac{\gamma_l}{\mu_j-\pi_l} - \sum_{\l=1}^n \frac{\gamma_l}{\lambda_j-\pi_l}
\Big)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j}
= \sum_{l=1}^n \gamma_l \frac{1}{\mu_i-\pi_l} \frac{1}{\pi_l- \lambda_j}.
$$
Hence, it follows that the $(i,j)$ entry of the Loewner matrix $\mathbb L$ coincides with the $(i,j)$ entry of the matrix computed by the product $-{ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}}~ \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ~ {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}$, for all $i,j$. Hence, the second equality in (\ref{equ:facsiso}) holds. Similarly, we can show the other three equalities.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Cauchy_Sylv}
The Cauchy matrix in (\ref{equ:Cauchy_def}) satisfies the Sylvester equation ${\mathbf D}_\alpha {\cal C} _{\alpha,\beta}- {\cal C} _{\alpha,\beta} {\mathbf D}_\beta={\mathbb I }_\kappa{\mathbb I }_\rho^T$, where ${\mathbf D}_\alpha=\mbox{diag}[\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_\kappa],~~
{\mathbf D}_\beta=\mbox{diag}[\beta_1,\cdots,\beta_\rho]$. Hence, the Cauchy matrices that are used for the factorizations in (\ref{equ:facsiso}) satisfy the Sylvester equations:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Cauchy_Sylv}
{\mathbf M} {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}- {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Pi} ={\mathbb I }_q{\mathbb I }_n^T, \ \ {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}- \boldsymbol{\Pi} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}={\mathbb I }_n{\mathbb I }_k^T.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
It is to be noted that the equations in (\ref{equ:Cauchy_Sylv}) represent special cases of those in (\ref{fundamental}), for a particular realization of the original system.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:11}
The right and left eigenvectors of the Loewner matrix pencil given by
$({\mathbb L}_s, \mathbb L)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_i$ are given, respectively, by
\begin{align} \label{equ:lr_eigv2}
{\mathbf q}_i &= (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i, \quad \text{and} \quad
{\mathbf p}_i = (\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i,
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{e}_i$ is the unit vector of length $n$ whose $i^{th}$ entry is $1$ (and all others are zeros).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that used to prove part c). of Lemma \ref{lemma:1}. Since the factorization in (\ref{equ:facsiso}) holds, it is easy to show that $\left(\pi_i, \mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{e}_i \right)$ for $i = 1,\ldots, n$ are the triple (eigenvalue, left eigenvector, right eigenvector) of pencil $\left( \boldsymbol{\Pi} , {\mathbf I} \right)$. Then, the identity stated in (\ref{equ:lr_eigv2}) can be obtained by simply substituting $ {\cal K} _{{R}}$ with $\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T$ and $ {\cal K} _{{L}}$ with $\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}$ into the formulas given in (\ref{equ:lr_eigv}).
\end{proof}
If the left interpolation points are the same as the right interpolation points, then
\begin{align}\label{equ:lr_eigv3}
{\mathbf q}_i ={\mathbf p}_i= (\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i,
\end{align}
which means the left eigenvector coincide to the right eigenvector.
{\textbf Connection with the Hankel singular values.}
Again consider the realization of $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $ as given in (\ref{equ:realiz_pol_res}). Moreover, consider that $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma} $ is a stable system. Then, it follows that the controllability Gramian is $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{C}_{-\pi, \pi^*}$, while the observability Gramian is given by $\mathcal{Q} = - \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ^* \mathcal{C}_{\pi^*, -\pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} $. We conclude that if $k = q = n$ and the interpolation points are chosen as $\mu_i = -\pi^*_i$ and
$\lambda_j = -\pi^*_j$, and the resulting Loewner matrix satisfies:\\[-2mm]
\begin{center}
$
-\mathbb L^* \boldsymbol{\Gamma} = \mathcal{P}\mathcal{Q}.
$\\[2mm]
\end{center}
\noindent
Thus, the eigenvalues of the squares of the Hankel singular values $\sigma_i$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, of the system
are equal to the eigenvalues of the resulting Loewner matrix $\mathbb L$ scaled by the diagonal matrix $ \boldsymbol{\Gamma} $:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:hsv}
\sigma^2_i( \boldsymbol{\Sigma} ) = \sigma(\mathbb L^* \boldsymbol{\Gamma} )_i, ~~~~ i = 1, \ldots, n.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The case of MIMO systems with strictly proper transfer function}
\label{sec:MIMO_str_prop}
Let ${\mathbf C}=\left[{\mathbf c}_1\cdots{\mathbf c}_n\right]\in\mathbb R^{p\times n},~~
{\mathbf B}^T=\left[{\mathbf b}_1\cdots{\mathbf b}_n\right]\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$ with ${\mathbf c}_i\in\mathbb R^p,
~~{\mathbf b}_i\in\mathbb R^m$ and also assume that ${\mathbf A} = \boldsymbol{\Pi} $.~ Hence, the transfer function ${\mathbf H}(s)$ can be expressed in pole-residue form as follows
\begin{equation}\label{equ:zero-pole-mimo}
{\mathbf H}(s)={\mathbf C} \ \left(s{\mathbf I}- \boldsymbol{\Pi} \right)^{-1} {\mathbf B} =\sum_{i=1}^n\displaystyle\frac{{\mathbf c}_i {\mathbf b}_i^T}{s-\pi_i}.
\end{equation}
Consider now the generalized Cauchy matrices $ {\cal C} _{{L}}\in\mathbb C^{q\times n}$ and $ {\cal C} _{{R}} \in\mathbb C^{n\times k}$, defined as follows:
\begin{align} \label{equ:CL_CR_def}
( {\cal C} _{{L}})_{i,j}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf c}_j}{\mu_i-\pi_j}, \ \ \ ( {\cal C} _{{R}})_{i,j}=\frac{{\mathbf b}_i^T{\mathbf r}_j}{\lambda_j-\pi_i},
\end{align}
that can be obtained as solutions of Sylvester equations:
\begin{align}\label{equ:Cauchy_Gen_Sylv}
{\mathbf M} {\cal C} _{{L}}-{ {\cal C} _{{L}} \boldsymbol{\Pi} ={\mathbf L}^T{\mathbf C}}, \ \ \ {\cal C} _{{R}} \boldsymbol{\Lambda} - \boldsymbol{\Pi} {\cal C} _{{R}} ={\mathbf B}{\mathbf R}.
\end{align}
As before, it is to be noted that the equations in (\ref{equ:Cauchy_Gen_Sylv}) represent special cases of those in (\ref{fundamental}), for a particular realization of the original system as given in (\ref{equ:zero-pole-mimo}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:3}
In the above setting, the relationships below hold true:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:facmimo}
\mathbb W= {\mathbf C}\, {\cal C} _{{R}} \in\mathbb C^{p \times k},~~
\mathbb L= - {\cal C} _{{L}} {\cal C} _{{R}},~
{\mathbb L}_s=- {\cal C} _{{L}} \boldsymbol{\Pi} {\cal C} _{{R}} \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~~
\mathbb V= {\cal C} _{{L}}{\mathbf B} \in\mathbb C^{q\times m}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a pair of indexes $1 \leq i \leq q$ and $1 \leq j \leq k$, we can write the $(i,j)$ entry of the Loewner matrix $\mathbb L$ in (\ref{equ:Loew_mat_def}), as follows:\small
\begin{align*}
\mathbb L_{(i,j)} &= \frac{ {\mathbf v}_i^T{\mathbf r}_j-\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf w}_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j} = \frac{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf H}(\mu_i){\mathbf r}_j-\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf H}(\lambda_j ){\mathbf r}_j}{\mu_i-\lambda_j} = \frac{\Big(
\sum_{l=1}^n \frac{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf c}_l {\mathbf b}_l^T{\mathbf r}_j}{\mu_j-\pi_l} - \sum_{\l=1}^n \frac{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf c}_l {\mathbf b}_l^T{\mathbf r}_j}{\lambda_j-\pi_l}
\Big)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j} \\
&= \sum_{l=1}^n \boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf c}_l {\mathbf b}_l^T{\mathbf r}_j \frac{ (\lambda_j-\pi_l)-(\mu_i-\pi_l) } {(\lambda_j-\pi_l)(\mu_i-\pi_l)(\mu_i-\lambda_j)} = -\sum_{l=1}^n \frac{\boldsymbol{\ell}_i^T{\mathbf c}_l}{\mu_i-\pi_l} \frac{{\mathbf b}_l^T{\mathbf r}_j}{ \lambda_j- \pi_l}.
\end{align*}\normalsize
Hence, it follows that the $(i,j)$ entry of the Loewner matrix $\mathbb L$ coincides with the $(i,j)$ entry of the matrix computed by the product $- {\cal C} _{{L}} {\cal C} _{{R}}$, for all $i,j$. Hence, the second equality in (\ref{equ:facmimo}) holds. The others can be proven similarly.
\end{proof}
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
One can notice that if all rows of ${\mathbf L}^T$ are the same,
i.e. ${\mathbf L}^T={\mathbb I }_q \boldsymbol{\ell}^T$, then
$$
{\cal C} _{{L}}= {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}
\underbrace{\mbox{diag}[\boldsymbol{\ell}^T\!{\mathbf c}_1,\cdots,\boldsymbol{\ell}^T\!{\mathbf c}_n]}_{\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf C}},
~\mbox{where}~ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} ~\mbox{is a }~q\times n~\mbox{ Cauchy matrix}.
$$
Furthermore, if all columns of ${\mathbf R}$ are the same, i.e. ${\mathbf R}={\mathbf r} {\mathbb I }_k^T$, then
$$
{\cal C} _{{R}}=
\underbrace{\mbox{diag}[{\mathbf b}_1^T{\mathbf r},\cdots,{\mathbf b}_n^T{\mathbf r}]}_{\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf B}}
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}, ~\mbox{where} ~ {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} ~\mbox{is a }~n\times k~\mbox{ Cauchy matrix}.
$$
If both of these conditions hold, we have that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb W&= {\mathbf C}\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf B}
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \in\mathbb C^{p \times k},~~
\mathbb L= - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf B}\
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi},\\
{\mathbb L}_s&= - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf C} \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf B}
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~~
\mathbb V= {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf C}{\mathbf B} \in\mathbb C^{q\times m}.
\end{align*}
If $m=p=1$ the above relationships reduce to ~{(\ref{equ:facsiso})}.
\subsubsection{The case of SISO systems with polynomial transfer functions}
In this section we assume that the transfer function is a polynomial, i.e., ~${\mathbf H}(s)=a_{r-1}s^{r-1}+\cdots+a_1s+a_0$. For simplicity, we treat only the scalar case. A minimal realization
of ${\mathbf H}$ is given by ${\mathbf H}(s)={\mathbf C}(s{\mathbf E}-{\mathbf A})^{-1}{\mathbf B}$,~ where:
\begin{equation}\label{minrealpoly}
{\mathbf E}={\mathbf J}_r, ~~{\mathbf A}={\mathbf I}_r,~~{\mathbf B}={\mathbf e}_r,~~{\mathbf C}=\left[\begin{matrix}
a_{r-1} & \cdots & a_1 & a_0 \end{matrix} \right],
\end{equation}
${\mathbf J}_r$ is a $r\times r$ Jordan block with zero eigenvalues
and ones in the superdiagonal and ${\mathbf e}_r \in \mathbb R^r$ is
the $r^{\textrm th}$ unit vector.
To compute the Loewner pencil,
we choose the left interpolation points as $\mu_i$, $i=1,\cdots,q$,
and the right interpolation points as $\lambda_j$, $j=1,\cdots,k$.
The Loewner pencil of size $q\times k$ is then represented as:
\begin{equation}\label{loew_poly_form}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(\mathbb L)_{i,j}&=\frac{{\mathbf H}(\mu_i)-{\mathbf H}(\lambda_j)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j}=
a_{r-1}(\mu_i^{r-2}+\mu_i^{r-3}\lambda_j+\cdots+\mu_i\lambda_j^{r-3}+\lambda_j^{r-2})+
\cdots+a_2(\mu_i+\lambda_j)+a_1,\\[3mm]
{({\mathbb L}_s)}_{i,j}&=\frac{\mu_i{\mathbf H}(\mu_i)-\lambda_j{\mathbf H}(\lambda_j)}{\mu_i-\lambda_j}=
a_{r-1}(\mu_i^{r-1}+\mu_i^{r-2}\lambda_j+\cdots+\mu_i\lambda_j^{r-2}+\lambda_j^{r-1})+
\cdots+a_1(\mu_i+\lambda_j)+a_0.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
With $x=[x_1,\cdots,x_m]$, the associated {\textit Vandermonde matrix} is:
\begin{equation}\label{vandermonde} \footnotesize
{\mathbf V}_{\ell,m}(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&\cdots&1\\[1mm]
x_1&x_2&\cdots&x_m\\[1mm]
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\[1mm]
x_1^{\ell-1}&x_2^{\ell-1}&\cdots&x_m^{\ell-1}
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb C^{\ell\times m}.
\end{equation}
Then, based on (\ref{loew_poly_form}), and on the above definition,
it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{equ:facLLspoly}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbb L&=a_1{\mathbf V}^T_{1,q}(\mu){\mathbf V}_{1,k}(\lambda)+a_2{\mathbf V}^T_{2,q}(\mu) {\mathbf V}_{2,k}(\lambda)+
\cdots+a_{r-1}{\mathbf V}_{r-1,q}^T(\mu){\mathbf V}_{r-1,k}(\lambda),\\[3mm]
{\mathbb L}_s&=a_0{\mathbf V}_{1,q}^T(\mu){\mathbf V}_{1,k}(\lambda)+a_1{\mathbf V}_{2,q}^T(\mu){\mathbf V}_{2,k}(\lambda)+
\cdots+a_{r-1}{\mathbf V}_{r,q}^T(\mu){\mathbf V}_{r,k}(\lambda),
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and also, since $\mathbb W_j = {\mathbf H}(\lambda_j)$ and $\mathbb V_i = {\mathbf H}(\mu_i)$, we get that
\begin{align}\label{equ:facVWpoly} \mathbb W=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}a_0&a_1&\cdots&a_{r-1}\end{array}\right] {\mathbf V}_{r,k}(\mu) ~~\text{and}~~
\mathbb V={\mathbf V}_{r,q}^T(\lambda)
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}a_0&a_1&\cdots&a_{r-1}\end{array}\right]^T.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:2poly}
Given the Loewner quadruple introduced in (\ref{equ:facLLspoly})
and (\ref{equ:facVWpoly}), the following
factorizations hold true:
\begin{align}\label{equ:facpoly}
\mathbb W &= \hat{{\mathbf C}} {\mathbf V}_{r,k}(\lambda) \in\mathbb C^{1\times k},~
\mathbb L= {\mathbf V}_{r,q}^T(\lambda) \hat{{\mathbf E}} {\mathbf V}_{r,k}(\mu),\\
{\mathbb L}_s&= {\mathbf V}_{r,q}^T(\lambda) \hat{{\mathbf A}} {\mathbf V}_{r,k}(\mu) \in\mathbb C^{q\times k},~
\mathbb V= {\mathbf V}_{r,q}^T(\mu) \hat{{\mathbf B}} \in\mathbb C^{q\times 1},
\end{align}
where the following notation is used
\begin{equation}\label{equ:def_hatE_hatA}\footnotesize
\hat{{\mathbf E}}\! =\! \left[\!\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & a_2 &\cdots & a_{r-2}& a_{r-1}&0\\
a_2 & a_3 & \cdots &a_{r-1} & 0&0\\a_3&a_4&\cdots&0&0&0\\
\vdots & \vdots&\ddots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\
a_{r-1} &0&\cdots& 0 & 0&0\\
0&0&\cdots &0&0&0\\
\end{array}\!\right]\!,~
\hat{{\mathbf A}}\! =\! \left[\!\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_0 & a_1 &\cdots & a_{r-3}& a_{r-2}&a_{r-1}\\
a_1 & a_2 & \cdots &a_{r-2} & a_{r-1}&0\\
a_2&a_3&\cdots&a_{r-1}&0&0\\
\vdots & \vdots&\ddots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\
a_{r-2} &a_{r-1}&\cdots& 0 & 0&0\\
a_{r-1}&0&\cdots &0&0&0\\
\end{array}\!\right]\!,~
\hat{{\mathbf B}}\! =\! \left[\!\begin{array}{c}a_0\\a_1\\\vdots\\a_{r-1}
\end{array}\!\right]\! = \hat{{\mathbf C}}^T.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The factorizations in (\ref{equ:facpoly}) directly follow from the representations in (\ref{equ:facLLspoly}) and in (\ref{equ:facVWpoly}).
\end{proof}
\section{Sensitivities of the Loewner pencil eigenvalues} \label{sec:sens}
In this section, we provide definitions for sensitivities of eigenvalues of the Loewner pencil. These concepts of sensitivity arise from the perturbation of eigenvalues of the Loewner matrix pencil. In the following, we introduce the eigenvalue perturbation theory for the matrix pencil. Afterwards, we discuss the perturbation of the Loewner pencil and define two types of sensitivities, denoted with $\rho$ and $\eta$, corresponding to structured or unstructured perturbations.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:5}
For the matrix pencil $\left({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf E}\right)$ that is assumed to be diagonalizable, under the perturbation of $\bar{{\mathbf A}} = {\mathbf A} + \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A}$ and $\bar{{\mathbf E}} = {\mathbf E} + \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E}$, the first order approximation of the eigenvalue perturbation $\pi^{(1)}$ is
\begin{align*}
\pi^{(1)} &= \frac{{\mathbf p}^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A} - \pi \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E} \right) {\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf p}^T {\mathbf E} {\mathbf q}},
\end{align*}
where the eigenvalue problem of the pencil $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$ is:
${\mathbf A}{\mathbf q}=\pi{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}$,~ ${\mathbf p}^T{\mathbf A}=\pi{\mathbf p}^T{\mathbf E}$,
and $\pi$ is assumed to be an eigenvalue with algebraic multiplicity equal to 1.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A perturbation of the system yields
$$\small
\begin{array}{ll}
{({\mathbf A}+\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A})}({\mathbf q}+{\mathbf q}^{(1)}+\cdots)&=\quad
(\pi+\pi^{(1)}+\cdots){({\mathbf E}+\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E})}
({\mathbf q}+{\mathbf q}^{(1)}+\cdots),\\[1mm]
({\mathbf p}^T+{\mathbf p}^{(1)^T}+\cdots){({\mathbf A}+\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A})}&=\quad
(\pi+\pi^{(1)}+\cdots)({\mathbf p}^T+{\mathbf p}^{(1)^T}+\cdots)
{({\mathbf E}+\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E})}.
\end{array}
$$
By retaining only the first-order terms, it follows that:
$({\mathbf A}-\pi{\mathbf E}){\mathbf q}^{(1)}=(\pi^{(1)}{\mathbf E}+\pi\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E}-\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A}){\mathbf q}$.
We wish to find an expression for $\pi^{(1)}$, which measures the first-order
sensitivity of $\pi$. Towards this goal we multiply this equation
on the left by the corresponding left eigenvector ${\mathbf p}$:
$$\small
\begin{array}{c}
{ {\mathbf p}^T}({\mathbf A}-\pi{\mathbf E}){\mathbf q}^{(1)}=
{ {\mathbf p}^T}(\pi^{(1)}{\mathbf E}+\pi\Delta_{\mathbf E}-\Delta_{\mathbf A}){\mathbf q}~\Rightarro
\underbrace{{ {\mathbf p}^T}{\mathbf A}{\mathbf q}^{(1)}-\pi{ {\mathbf p}^T}{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}^{(1)}}_{=0}=
\pi^{(1)}{ {\mathbf p}^T}{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}+\pi{ {\mathbf p}^T}\Delta_{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}-
{ {\mathbf p}^T}\Delta_{\mathbf A}{\mathbf q}\\[6mm]~\Rightarrow
\pi^{(1)}=\frac{\displaystyle
{ {\mathbf p}^T}\Delta_{\mathbf A}{\mathbf q}-\pi{ {\mathbf p}^T}\Delta_{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}}{\displaystyle{ {\mathbf p}^T}{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}}=\frac{
\displaystyle{ {\mathbf p}^T}(\Delta_{\mathbf A}-\pi\Delta_{\mathbf E}){\mathbf q}}
{\displaystyle{ {\mathbf p}^T}{\mathbf E}{\mathbf q}} .
\end{array}
$$
\end{proof}
Now, consider the Loewner pencil $\left({\mathbb L}_s, \mathbb L\right)$ as a surrogate to the pencil $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$. The perturbed matrices are as follows, i.e., $\bar{\mathbb L} = \mathbb L + \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L}$, ~ $\bar{\mathbb L}_s = {\mathbb L}_s + \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s}$. Then, by following the result in Lemma \ref{lemma:5}, we have that the first order approximation of the eigenvalue perturbation $\pi^{(1)}$ is
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sensitivity}
\pi^{(1)} = \frac{{\mathbf p}^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} - \pi \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} \right) {\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf p}^T \mathbb L {\mathbf q}}.
\end{equation}
Note that in (\ref{equ:sensitivity}), the left/right eigenvectors denoted with
${\mathbf p}$, ${\mathbf q}$, can be actually obtained as in (\ref{equ:lr_eigv}), or as in (\ref{equ:lr_eigv2}). It can hence be noticed that the first-order eigenvalue perturbation $\pi^{(1)}$ depends on the perturbation matrices $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L}$, $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s}$ corresponding to the Loewner matrices. In the upcoming subsections, we will discuss two different cases.
\subsection{Sensitivity of the Loewner pencil eigenvalues with unstructured perturbations}
In this subsection we consider the case of unstructured perturbation. The strength of the perturbation can be quantified by the norm of the perturbation matrix. We will show that in this case, i.e., unstructured perturbation, the sensitivity depends on the numerical condition of the Loewner pencil. Assume that the norm of perturbation matrices is bounded as follows:
\begin{align}
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Delta}_L \Vert_2 \le \epsilon \omega_0 ,\quad
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} \Vert_2 \le \epsilon\omega_1 .
\end{align}
where $\omega_i\geq0$, $i=0,1$ are the weights. Straightforward calculations yield to the bound
\begin{align}
\vert \pi^{(1)} \vert &= \left\vert \frac{{\mathbf p}^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} - \pi \boldsymbol{\Delta}_L \right) {\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf p}^T \mathbb L {\mathbf q}} \right\vert \leq \frac{\|{\mathbf p}\|_2\left| \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} - \pi \boldsymbol{\Delta}_L \right| \|{\mathbf q}\|}{|{\mathbf p}^T {\mathbf E} {\mathbf q}|} \le \epsilon \rho,
\end{align}
where the sensitivity $\rho$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{sensitivity}
\rho=(\omega_0+|\pi|\omega_1)\,\frac{\|{\mathbf p}\|_2\|{\mathbf q}\|_2}{|{\mathbf p}^T\mathbb L{\mathbf q}|}.
\end{equation}
This formula is well known in the literature and can be found, e.g., in \cite{Luis19}.
To elaborate on this expression we will make use of the system realization quoted in Lemma \ref{lemma:2}. As already mentioned, the right and left eigenvectors of the Loewner matrix pencil given by $({\mathbb L}_s, \mathbb L)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_i$ are given, respectively, by
$$
{\mathbf q}_i = (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i, \quad \text{and} \quad
{\mathbf p}_i = (\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i.
$$
Consequently, it follows that
${\mathbf p}_i^T \mathbb L {\mathbf q}_i$ $=$ $-\mathbf{e}_i^T (\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi})^{+} {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i$
$=$ $-\gamma_i$.
Next, we make a particular choice of weights given by $\omega_0=\Vert \mathbb L \Vert_2$
and $\omega_1=\Vert {\mathbb L}_s \Vert_2$ (this is typical for such problems).
Hence, by applying the general formula in (\ref{sensitivity}), the sensitivity of the eigenvalue $\pi_i$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sen-uncon}
\rho_i = \frac{1}{|\gamma_i|} \Vert {\mathbf p}_i \Vert_2 ( \vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \mathbb L \Vert_2 + \Vert \mathbb L_s \Vert_2) \Vert {\mathbf q}_i \Vert_2.
\end{equation}
By using the factorizations in (\ref{equ:facsiso}), we get that $\mathbb L = - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}$ and $\mathbb L_s = - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}$, and hence, the formula in (\ref{equ:sen-uncon}) is equivalently rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sen-unco2}
\rho_i = \frac{1}{|\gamma_i|} \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2 \Big( \vert \pi_i \vert \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2 + \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2 \Big) \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Deriving error bounds}
By using the same previously mentioned factorizations of the Loewner matrices, it follows that the following inequalities hold:
\begin{align}\label{bounds_Loew_Loews}
\begin{split}
\mathbb L &= - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Rightarrow \| \mathbb L \|_2
\leq \| {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \|_2 \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 \| {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}\|_2,
\\
\mathbb L_s &= - {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Rightarrow
\| \mathbb L_s \|_2 \leq \| {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \|_2 \Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 \|
{\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \|_2.
\end{split}
\end{align}
By plugging in the inequalities from (\ref{bounds_Loew_Loews}) into the extended formula (\ref{equ:sen-unco2}), we get that
\begin{align}\label{equ:bound_prelim}
\rho_i &\le \frac{1}{|\gamma_i|} \Vert {\mathbf p}_i \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2 ( \vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 + \Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 ) \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert {\mathbf q}_i \Vert_2 \\
&\le \frac{\vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 + \Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 }{|\gamma_i|} \Vert {\mathbf p}_i \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert {\mathbf q}_i \Vert_2 \nonumber \\
&\Rightarrow \rho_i \le \frac{\vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 + \Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 }{|\gamma_i|} \Vert(\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2.
\end{align}
Using the fact that $\Vert {\mathbf X} {\mathbf e}_i \Vert_2 \le \Vert {\mathbf X} \Vert_2$,
the bound in (\ref{equ:bound_prelim}) is rewritten as follows:
\begin{align*}
\rho_i &\le \frac{\vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 +
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 }{\|\gamma_i|} \Vert(\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+}
\Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2 \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2
\Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \Vert_2 \\
&\Rightarrow \rho_i \le \frac{\vert \pi_i \vert \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 +
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 }{|\gamma_i|} \kappa( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})
\kappa( {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi}),
\end{align*}
where $\kappa({\mathbf X})$ denotes the condition matrix of matrix ${\mathbf X}$. Next, by using the identities
$$
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 = \max_j(\vert \gamma_j \vert), \ \
\Vert \boldsymbol{\Pi} \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert_2 = \max_j(\vert \pi_j \gamma_j \vert),
$$
and by substituting these equalities into the inequality above, the upper bound can be further rewritten as:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:bound1}
\rho_i \le \zeta_i \, \kappa( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})
\,\kappa( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}),
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_i = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\vert \gamma_i \vert} \left(\vert \pi_i \vert \displaystyle \max_j(\vert \gamma_j \vert)
+ \displaystyle \max_j(\vert \pi_j \gamma_j \vert) \right),
$
for all $1 \le i \le n$. \\
In what follows we will derive bounds for the the vector of unstructured sensitivities $\boldsymbol{\rho} \in \mathbb R^n$, defined as $ \boldsymbol{\rho} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
\rho_1 & \rho_2 & \cdots & \rho_n
\end{matrix} \right]^T$. Similarly, let $\boldsymbol{\zeta} \in \mathbb R^n$. Then, from (\ref{equ:bound1}), it readily follows that
\begin{equation}\label{equ:bound2}
\Vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \Vert_2 \le \Vert \boldsymbol{\zeta} \Vert_2 \, \kappa( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})
\,\kappa( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}).
\end{equation}
Next, by making use of the inequality $x y \le \frac{1}{2} (x^2+y^2)$, one can rewrite (\ref{equ:bound_prelim}) as
\begin{align}\label{equ:bound_prelim2}
\rho_i \le \frac{1}{2} \zeta_i \Big{(} \Vert(\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2^2 \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2^2 + \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2^2 \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2^2 \Big{)}
\end{align}
Denote with $\zeta^{(\textrm max)} = \displaystyle \max_i(\zeta_i)$. By summing up the inequalities in (\ref{equ:bound_prelim2}), one can write that
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^q \rho_i \le \frac{1}{2} \zeta^{(\textrm max)} \Big{(} \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2^2 \sum_{i=1}^q \Vert(\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2^2 + \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2^2 \sum_{i=1}^q \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \mathbf{e}_i \Vert_2^2 \Big{)},
\end{align}
and by using that $\sum_{i=1}^q \Vert {\mathbf X} {\mathbf e}_i \Vert_2^2 = \Vert {\mathbf X} \Vert_{\textrm F}^2 $, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{equ:bound3}
\displaystyle \Vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \Vert_1 \le \frac{1}{2} \zeta^{(\textrm max)} \Big{(} \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi} \Vert_2^2 \Vert(\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \pi}^T)^{+} \Vert_{\textrm F}^2 + \Vert {\cal C} ^T_{\lambda,\pi} \Vert_2^2 \Vert (\mathcal{C}_{\lambda, \pi}^T)^{+} \Vert_{\textrm F}^2 \Big{)}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Connections with pseudospectra}
Pseudospectra represent important tools for the numerical analysis of uncertain linear systems, eigenvalue perturbations or stability study.
\begin{definition}
Given a matrix ${\mathbf A} \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ and a positive real constant $\epsilon >0$, the $\epsilon$-pseudospectrum of ${\mathbf A}$ is:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:pseudoA_def}
\sigma_{\epsilon}({\mathbf A}) = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} \vert \text{is an eigenvalue of} \ {\mathbf A} + \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \ \text{for some} \ \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n} \ \text{with} \ \Vert \boldsymbol{\Gamma} \Vert < \epsilon \}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Note that, for all $\epsilon > 0$, $\sigma_\epsilon({\mathbf A})$ is a bounded, open subset of the complex plane that contains the eigenvalues of ${\mathbf A}$.
The concept of pseudospectrum has been extended over the years to cope with more general eigenvalue problems and dynamical systems. More precisely, we are interested in extensions of (\ref{equ:pseudoA_def}) to matrix pencils $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$. In \cite{Embree19}, one definition for the pseudospectrum of matrix pencil is mentioned. In order to allow matrix perturbations of both ${\mathbf A}$ and ${\mathbf E}$ to be scaled independently, this definition below includes two additional parameters, denoted with $\nu$ and $\delta$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\nu, \delta > 0$. For matrix pencil $\left({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf E}\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ and $\forall \epsilon \ge 0$, the $\epsilon$-$\left(\nu, \delta\right)$-pseudospectrum $\sigma_\epsilon^{\left(\nu, \delta\right)} \left({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf E}\right)$ of the matrix pencil $\pi {\mathbf E}- {\mathbf A}$ is the set
\begin{align}\label{equ:pseudoAE_def}
\begin{split}
\sigma_\epsilon^{\left(\nu, \delta\right)} \left({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf E}\right) =&
\{
\pi \in \mathbb{C} ~ is ~ an ~eigenvalue~of~the~pencil~\pi \left({\mathbf E} + \epsilon \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf E}}\right) - \left( {\mathbf A} + \epsilon\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf A}}\right) \\
& for~some~\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf E}}, \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf A}} \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n} ~ with~\Vert \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf E}} \Vert = \nu, \Vert\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf A}} \Vert = \delta \}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
As also illustrated in \cite{Embree19}, the pseudospectra provides a useful tool to explore the sensitivity of eigenvalues of matrix pencils. It is easy to see that the special points of the pseudospectra for $\epsilon = 0$ are precisely the eigenvalues of the matrix pencil $\left({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf E}\right)$.
Moreover, the slope of the pseudospectra around an eigenvalue $\pi$ can be used as a scale for eigenvalue sensitivity. If the slope is large, it means that the eigenvalue perturbation $\delta \pi$ is small for large perturbations applied to the pencil. Similarly, when the slope is small, it means that the eigenvalue perturbation $\delta \pi$ is large with a small perturbation of the matrix pencil.
The sensitivity value $\rho_i$ introduced in (\ref{equ:sen-uncon}) is connected to the pseudospectra in the sense that both can be used to measure eigenvalue perturbations when the matrix pencil is perturbed and quantified by its norm.
For $\epsilon_2>\epsilon_1 > 0$, it follows that the slope of the pseudospectra near the eigenvalue $\pi$ can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:slope_def}
\xi = \lim_{\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2 \rightarrow 0} \left\vert \frac{\pi_2^{(1)} - \pi_1^{(1)}}{\epsilon_2 - \epsilon_1} \right\vert,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_i$ is the eigenvalue of matrix pencil $\left({\mathbf E} + \epsilon_i \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf E}}, {\mathbf A} + \epsilon_i\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{{\mathbf A}}\right)$, for $i=1,2$ that is closest to $\pi$. Using the first order approximation of the eigenvalue perturbation, we obtain that
\begin{align}\label{equ:bound_pi}
\pi_i^{(1)} &= \left\vert \frac{{\mathbf p}^T\left( \epsilon_{i}\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A} - \pi \epsilon_{i}\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E} \right) {\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf p}^T {\mathbf E} {\mathbf q}} \right\vert = \epsilon_{i} \left\vert \frac{{\mathbf p}^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf A} - \pi \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\mathbf E} \right) {\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf p}^T {\mathbf E} {\mathbf q}} \right\vert \le \epsilon_i \rho, \ \forall i=1,2.
\end{align}
Then, from (\ref{equ:slope_def}) and (\ref{equ:bound_pi}), it automatically follows that $\xi \le \rho$. Hence, the sensitivity $\rho$ provides an upper bound for the slope of the pseudospectra in the neighborhood of eigenvalue $\pi$.
It is also mentioned in \cite{Embree19} that analyzing structured pseudospectra could provide additional insight, i.e. the perturbed matrices have the same structure as the unperturbed (they are also Loewner matrices). Additionally, it could also be helpful to explore the eigenvalue sensitivity of Loewner pencils in the case of noisy data.
The efficient computation for pseudospectra is still a matter of ongoing research. A recent result is provided in \cite{Embree19}, e.g., in Section 4, where the authors propose methods to accelerate this computation for (large) structured Loewner pencils and hence reduce the cost from $O(n^3)$ to $O(n^2)$ operations. In the next section, we explore the eigenvalue sensitivity of the Loewner pencil with respect to a structured perturbation.
\subsection{Sensitivity of the eigenvalues with structured perturbations}
In this section, we will study structured perturbations, i.e., the perturbation matrices have a particular structure. When the data are perturbed, e.g., the measurements are corrupted by additive noise, the perturbation matrices are indeed Loewner matrices. Recently, the robustness of the Loewner framework with respect to noise in the transfer-function values was studied in \cite{Zlatko19}. There, a statistical analysis was provided for bounding the deviation between the transfer function of noisy Loewner models and that of Loewner models without noise (see, e.g., Theorem 1 in Section 4). The eigenvalue sensitivity analysis with respect to noise in the data is significant for assessing the robustness of the Loewner models. In what follows, we will treat only the case of SISO systems (the MIMO case follows equivalently by adapting the factorization formulas as was shown in Section \ref{sec:MIMO_str_prop}).
\subsubsection{Distinct left and right interpolation points ($ \boldsymbol{\mu} \ne \boldsymbol{\lambda} $)}
\label{sec:Sens_struct_distinct}
Introduce the perturbed transfer function defined as $\bar{{\mathbf H}}(s) = {\mathbf H}(s) (1 + \epsilon_s)$, and consider the left and right measurements corresponding to this transfer function under the influence of perturbation, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\bar{{\mathbf H}}(\epsilon_{\mu_i}) = {\mathbf H}(\epsilon_{\mu_i}) (1 + \epsilon_{\mu_i}) = {\mathbf v}_i (1 + \epsilon_{\mu_i}), \ \ \text{and}, \ \ \bar{{\mathbf H}}(\epsilon_{\lambda_j}) = {\mathbf H}(\epsilon_{\lambda_j}) (1 + \epsilon_{\lambda_j})= {\mathbf w}_j (1 + \epsilon_{\lambda_j}),
\end{align}
for $1 \le i \le q$ and $1 \le j \le k$. Define the diagonal matrices $ {\cal V} \in \mathbb{C}^{q \times q}$ and $ {\cal W} \in \mathbb{C}^{k \times k}$ as
$$
\mathcal{V} = \mbox{diag}({\mathbf v}_1,{\mathbf v}_2,\cdots,{\mathbf v}_q), \ \ \mathcal{W} = \mbox{diag}({\mathbf w}_1,{\mathbf w}_2,\cdots,{\mathbf w}_k).
$$
Then, the following relations hold
\begin{equation}
\mathbb L = \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda}
\mathcal{W},~~ {\mathbb L}_s = {\mathbf M} \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} \mathcal{W} \boldsymbol{\Lambda}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the perturbation matrices can be written as
\begin{align}\label{equ:per_mat_def}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} &= \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \epsilon_{\mu_2}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q})
\mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} \mathcal{W}
\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\lambda_1}, \epsilon_{\lambda_2},
\cdots, \epsilon_{\lambda_k}),\\[1mm]
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} &= \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \epsilon_{\mu_2}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q})
{\mathbf M} \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} \mathcal{W}
\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\lambda_1}, \epsilon_{\lambda_2}, \cdots,
\epsilon_{\lambda_k}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
From (\ref{equ:per_mat_def}), it follows that the perturbation pencil is expressed as
\begin{align}\label{equ:per_penc_def}
s \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} - \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} & = \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \epsilon_{\mu_2}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) (s{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} \mathcal{W} (s{\mathbf I} - \boldsymbol{\Lambda})
\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\lambda_1},\epsilon_{\lambda_2}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\lambda_k}).
\end{align}
By substituting (\ref{equ:per_penc_def}) into (\ref{equ:sensitivity}), it follows that the first order approximation of the eigenvalue perturbation corresponding to the pole $\pi_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$, is given by
\begin{equation} \label{equ:loewpert}
\left.\begin{split}
\pi_i^{(1)}~ &=\frac{ {\mathbf p}_i^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} -\pi_i \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} \right) {\mathbf q}_i}{{\mathbf p}_i^T \mathbb L {\mathbf q}_i}=\frac{1}{\gamma_i} {\mathbf p}_i^T\left( \pi_i \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} - \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} \right) {\mathbf q}_i \\
&= \frac{1}{\gamma_i}\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu^T \mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) ( \pi_i {\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} {\mathbf q}_i - \frac{1}{\gamma_i}{\mathbf p}_i^T\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} \mathcal{W} (\pi_i {\mathbf I} - \boldsymbol{\Lambda})
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\lambda \\
& =
\left[ \begin{matrix}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu^T &
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\lambda^T
\end{matrix}\right] \frac{1}{\gamma_i}\left[\begin{matrix}
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) ( \pi_i {\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda} {\mathbf q}_i & \mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - \boldsymbol{\Lambda}) \mathcal{W} \mathcal{C}_{\lambda,\mu} {\mathbf p}_i
\end{matrix}\right] \\
& = \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^T \left( {\cal S} {\mathbf e}_i \right) = \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^T {\cal S} _i,\\
\end{split}~\right.,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu = \left[\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q} \right]^T \in \mathbb C^q$, ~$\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\lambda = \left[\epsilon_{\lambda_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\lambda_k} \right]^T \in \mathbb C^k$, $\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu \\
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\lambda
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{q+k}$, and $ {\cal S} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{\cal S} _\mu \\
{\cal S} _\lambda
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{(q+k) \times n}$. Additionally, the $i$th column of matrix $ {\cal S} $ is denoted with $ {\cal S} _i$, while the $i$th columns of matrices $ {\cal S} _\mu \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$ and $ {\cal S} _\lambda \in \mathbb C^{k \times n}$, for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, are given by:
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}{ {\cal S} _\mu}_i = {\cal S} _\mu {\mathbf e}_i = \frac{1}{\gamma_i}
\begin{matrix}
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})\mathcal{V}\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda}{\mathbf q}_i
\end{matrix} \in \mathbb C^{q}, \\[2mm] { {\cal S} _\lambda}_i = {\cal S} _\lambda {\mathbf e}_i = \frac{1}{\gamma_i}
\begin{matrix}
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - \boldsymbol{\Lambda}) \mathcal{W} \mathcal{C}_{\lambda,\mu} {\mathbf p}_i
\end{matrix} \in \mathbb C^{k}
\end{cases}, \text{and} \ \ {\cal S} _i = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{ {\cal S} _\mu}_i \\
{ {\cal S} _\lambda}_i
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{(q+k)}.
\end{align}
As shown in (\ref{equ:loewpert}), the eigenvalue perturbation is a linear combination of the left and right measurement noise.
By considering noise in the left measurements, the effect on perturbing the poles can be hence quantified by the entries of matrix $ {\cal S} _\mu \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$. Additionally, by choosing noisy right measurements, the perturbation of the poles is hence quantified by the entries of matrix $ {\cal S} _\lambda \in \mathbb C^{k \times n}$.
Next, a simplified case is considered in order to better understand the structure of matrix $ {\cal S} $. We consider the case for which we quantify how perturbing the $j$th left measurement is affecting the $i$th pole $\pi_i$. Using that ${\mathbf e}_j^T \mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) = {\mathbf p}_i^T {\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T$, it follows that the $(j,i)$ entry of matrix $ {\cal S} _\mu$ is explicitly given by the following formula
\begin{align}\label{equ:Smu}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{j,i} = {\mathbf e}_j^T {\cal S} _\mu {\mathbf e}_i
&=& {\mathbf e}_j^T \frac{1}{\gamma_i}\mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})\mathcal{V}\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \lambda}{\mathbf q}_i=\frac{1}{\gamma_i}
{\mathbf p}_i^T\left[{\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T\,(\pi_i{\mathbf I}-{\mathbf M})
\mathcal{V} {\cal C} _{\mu,\lambda}\right] \,{\mathbf q}_i\\[2mm]
&=&\frac{1}{\gamma_i}
{\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+
\left[{\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T\,(\pi_i{\mathbf I}-{\mathbf M})
\mathcal{V} {\cal C} _{\mu,\lambda}\right] \,( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i\\[2mm]
&=&\frac{\left(\pi_i-\mu_j\right){\mathbf v}_j}{\gamma_i}
\left({\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+{\mathbf e}_j\right)
\left({\mathbf e}_j^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\lambda})( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i\right).
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Similarly, assume now that the $j^{th}$ right measurement is perturbed and we would like to measure the influence on the $i$th pole. We have that the $(j,i)$ entry of matrix $ {\cal S} _\lambda$ is explicitly given as
\begin{align}\label{equ:Sla}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\left( {\cal S} _\lambda \right)_{j,i} = {\mathbf e}_j^T {\cal S} _\lambda {\mathbf e}_i
&=& \frac{\left(\pi_i-\lambda_j\right){\mathbf w}_j}{\gamma_i}
\left({\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi})^+{\mathbf e}_j\right)
\left({\mathbf e}_j^T( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\mu})( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i\right).
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{align}
In what follows, consider a special case for which the number of poles equals to the number of left and right interpolation points, i.e., $k=q=n$. The inverse of a square Cauchy matrix $ {\cal C} _{x,y} \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ is explicitly expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{equ:inv_cauchy_def}
\left( {\cal C} _{x,y}^{-1}\right)_{i, j} = \frac{\prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(x_j - y_k\right) \prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(x_k - y_i\right)}{\left(x_j - y_i\right) \prod_{k \ne j} \left(x_j - x_k\right) \prod_{k \ne i} \left(y_k - y_i\right)}.
\end{equation}
By substituting the result (\ref{equ:inv_cauchy_def}) in the formula (\ref{equ:Smu}), we obtain that the $(j,i)$ entry of matrix $ {\cal S} _\mu$ can be explicitly written in terms of the poles and the left and right interpolation points, as follows
\begin{align}\label{equ:Smu_exp}
\begin{split}
\left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{j,i}
&=\frac{\left(\pi_i-\mu_j\right){\mathbf v}_j}{\gamma_i}
\left({\mathbf e}_\ell^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+{\mathbf e}_i\right)
\left({\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\lambda})( {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_\ell\right) \\
& = -\frac{ {\mathbf v}_j}{\gamma_i} \frac{\prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(\mu_j - \pi_k\right) \left(\pi_i - \mu_k\right) \left( \pi_i - \lambda_k \right)}{\prod_{k \ne j} \left(\mu_j - \mu_k\right) \prod_{k \ne i} \left( \pi_i - \pi_k\right)^2}
\left(
\sum_{m=1}^{n}
\frac{\prod_{k\ne i}^{} \left(\pi_k - \lambda_m \right)}{\left(\mu_j - \lambda_m \right)
\prod_{k \ne m} \left(\lambda_k - \lambda_m\right)} \right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Similar derivations can be obtained for the $(j,i)$ entry of the matrix $ {\cal S} _\lambda$. We will illustrate the results presented in formula (\ref{equ:Smu_exp}) by means of a couple of simplified scenarios.
\begin{example}
Choose $n = q = k =1$ and ${\mathbf H}(s) = \frac{\gamma_1}{s- \pi_1}$. Hence, one can then write
\begin{equation}
\left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{1,1} = \frac{{\mathbf v}_1}{\gamma_1} \frac{\left(\pi_{1}-\lambda_{1}\right)}{\left(\mu_{1}-\lambda_{1}\right)} \left(\mu_{1}-\pi_1\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Next, choose $n = q = k =2$ and ${\mathbf H}(s) = \frac{\gamma_1}{s- \pi_1}+ \frac{\gamma_2}{s- \pi_2}$. Hence, the following hold for $1 \leq i \leq 2$
\begin{align}
\left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{1,i} &= \frac{{\mathbf v}_i}{\gamma_i} \frac{\left(\pi_{i}-\lambda_{1}\right)\,\left(\pi_{i}-\lambda_{2}\right)\,\left(\pi_{i}-\mu_{2}\right)}{\left(\mu_{1}-\lambda_{1}\right)\,\left(\mu_{1}-\lambda_{2}\right)\,\left(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2}\right)} \frac{\left(\mu_{1}-\pi_{2}\right)^2\,\left(\mu_{1}-\pi_{1}\right)^2}{\left(\pi_{1}-\pi_{2}\right)^2}, \\
\left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{2,i} &= \frac{{\mathbf v}_i}{\gamma_i} \frac{\left(\pi_{i}-\lambda_{1}\right)\,\left(\pi_{i}-\lambda_{2}\right)\,\left(\pi_{i}-\mu_{1}\right)}{\left(\mu_{2}-\lambda_{1}\right)\,\left(\mu_{2}-\lambda_{2}\right)\,\left(\mu_{2}-\mu_{1}\right)} \frac{\left(\mu_{2}-\pi_{2}\right)^2\,\left(\mu_{2}-\pi_{1}\right)^2}{\left(\pi_{1}-\pi_{2}\right)^2}.
\end{align}
Similar formulas can be derived for $\left( {\cal S} _\lambda \right)_{j,i}$, but will be omitted here.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
Let $\eta_{(j, i)}$ be the structured sensitivity defined for eigenvalue $\pi_i$ with respect to perturbing the $j^{th}$ left or right measurement. The value $\eta_{(j, i)}$ is explicitly given by
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sen-con}
\eta_{(j,i)} = \vert \left( {\cal S} \right)_{j,i} \vert = \begin{cases}
\vert \left( {\cal S} _\mu \right)_{j,i} \vert, \ \ \text{if} \ \ 1\leq j \leq q,\\
\vert \left( {\cal S} _\lambda \right)_{j,i} \vert, \ \ \text{if} \ \ q+1\leq j \leq q+k,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Let $ {\cal N} \in \mathbb R^{(q+k)\times n}$ be the matrix containing all structured sensitivity values in (\ref{equ:sen-con}). Furthermore, we split matrix $ {\cal N} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{\cal N} _\mu \\
{\cal N} _\lambda
\end{matrix}\right]$ into two sub-matrices, $ {\cal N} _{\mu} \in \mathbb R^{q\times n}$ and $ {\cal N} _{\lambda} \in \mathbb R^{k\times n}$, corresponding to the left and right measurements, so that $ {\cal N} _{\mu} = \vert {\cal S} _\mu \vert$, and $ {\cal N} _{\lambda} = \vert {\cal S} _\lambda \vert$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
It is to be noted that the structured sensitivity formula given in (\ref{equ:sen-con}) is proportional to the left and right measurements. Alternatively, we could also introduce the absolute structured sensitivity defined for eigenvalue $\pi_i$ with respect to perturbing the $j^{th}$ left or right measurement. This is denoted by $\overline{\eta}_{(j, i)}$, and is explicitly given by
\begin{equation}
\overline{\eta}_{(j, i)} = \begin{cases}
\eta_{(j, i)}/{\mathbf v}_j, \ \ \text{if} \ \ 1\leq j \leq q,\\
\eta_{(j, i)}/{\mathbf w}_j, \ \ \text{if} \ \ q+1\leq j \leq q+k.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
The variance of the eigenvalue perturbation $\pi_i^{(1)}$ is given by
$$\mbox{Var}(\pi_i^{(1)}) = {E} \left[ \left( {\cal S} _i\right)^T\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^H\left( {\cal S} _i\right)^* \right] =
\left( {\cal S} _i\right)^T{E} \left[ \boldsymbol{\epsilon} \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^H \right]\left( {\cal S} _i\right)^*.
$$
Assuming that the noise is Gaussian (which is typical the case in many practical situations), it follows that ~${E} \left[ \boldsymbol{\epsilon} \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^H \right] =
\sigma_{ \boldsymbol{\epsilon} }^2\mathbf{I}$, and hence, we can write the variance and the standard deviation of $\pi_i^{(1)}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:std-gaussian-loew}
\mbox{Var}(\pi_i^{(1)}) = \sigma_{ \boldsymbol{\epsilon} }^2 \left\Vert {\cal N} _i \right\Vert_2^2, \ \ \sigma(\pi_i^{(1)}) = \sigma_{ \boldsymbol{\epsilon} } \left\Vert {\cal N} _i \right\Vert_2.
\end{equation}
Hence, conclude that $\left\Vert {\cal N} _i \right\Vert_2$ determines the standard deviation of eigenvalue perturbation $\pi_i^{(1)}$.
\begin{definition}
The eigenvalue sensitivity $ \boldsymbol{\eta} _i$ is defined for the eigenvalue $\pi_i$ with respect to a structured perturbation, as the norm of column vector $ {\cal N} _i$. Hence, introduce the vector $ \boldsymbol{\eta} \in \mathbb R^n$ such that its $i$th entry is
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sen-con1}
\boldsymbol{\eta} _i = \left\Vert {\cal N} _i \right\Vert_2 = \sqrt{\eta_{( 1,i)}^2 +\eta_{(2,i)}^2 + \ldots + \eta_{(q+k,i)}^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{ex:4.2}
Consider the system characterized by the following realization:
\begin{equation}\label{real:ex4.2}
{\mathbf A} =
\left[\!\begin{array}{rrrrr} -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\[1mm] 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\[1mm] 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0\\[1mm] 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\[1mm] 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \end{array}\!\right],~
{\mathbf B} =\left[\!\begin{array}{c} 1\\[1mm] 1\\[1mm] 0\\[1mm] 1\\[1mm] 0 \end{array}\!\right],~
{\mathbf C} =\left[\!\begin{array}{ccccc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{2\,\sqrt{3}}{3} \end{array}\!\right].
\end{equation}
The poles, residues and the transfer function of this system are as follows
\small
$$
\begin{cases}
\boldsymbol{\pi} ~=~
\left[\!\begin{array}{rrrrr} -1 & -1-\mathrm{i} & -1+\mathrm{i} & -\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}& -\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\end{array}\!\right],\\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}=
\left[\!\begin{array}{rrrrr} 1& -\frac{1}{2}{}\mathrm{i}& \frac{1}{2}{}\mathrm{i}& -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}\mathrm{i}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3} \mathrm{i}\end{array}\right], \end{cases} \hspace{-5mm}\Rightarrow~~
{\mathbf H}(s)= \frac{s^4+s^3-2\,s-1}{\left(s+1\right)\,\left(s^2+2\,s+2\right)\,\left(s^2+s+1\right)},
$$
\normalsize
where $ \boldsymbol{\pi} $ is the vector of poles and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ the vector of residues. Choose the right/left interpolation points as:
$$
\boldsymbol{\lambda} =\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} \frac{2}{9} & \frac{4}{9} & \frac{6}{9} & \frac{8}{9} & \frac{10}{9} \end{array}\right],~ \boldsymbol{\mu} = - \boldsymbol{\lambda} ^T.
$$
Then, put together the various Cauchy matrices:
$ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}$,~
$ {\cal C} _{\mu,\lambda}$,~ and
$ {\cal C} _{\pi,\lambda}$. Hence, compute the matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu \in \mathbb R^{5 \times 5}$ of sensitivity associated to the left measurements as well as matrix $ {\cal N} _\lambda \in \mathbb R^{5 \times 5}$ of sensitivity associated to the right measurements, as follows
\footnotesize
$$
\frac{ {\cal N} _\mu}{10^2 } = \left[\begin{array}{rrrrr}
0.0068 & 4.1910 & 4.1910 & 0.7128 & 0.7128 \\
0.0016 & 0.7972 & 0.7972 & 0.1283 & 0.1283 \\
0.0012 & 0.3757 & 0.3757 & 0.0548 & 0.0548 \\
0.0011 & 0.1224 & 0.1224 & 0.0158 & 0.0158 \\
0.0003 & 0.0375 & 0.0375 & 0.0043 & 0.0043
\end{array} \right], \ \ \ \frac{ {\cal N} _\lambda}{10^3} =
\left[\begin{array}{rrrrr}
0.0041 & 3.2017 & 3.2017 & 0.5474 & 0.5474 \\
0.0093 & 7.6490 & 7.6490 & 1.2804 & 1.2804 \\
0.0086 & 7.3720 & 7.3720 & 1.2041 & 1.2041 \\
0.0031 & 2.7251 & 2.7251 & 0.4345 & 0.4345 \\
0.0001 & 0.1169 & 0.1169 & 0.0182 & 0.0182
\end{array} \right].
$$
\normalsize
By examining the entries of $ {\cal N} _\mu$, it follows that the pair of poles $-1\pm i$ are the most sensitive, especially when perturbing the first left measurement value. This can be observed in the $(1,2)$ and $(1,3)$ entries of matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu$.
Similarly, from the entries of $ {\cal N} _\lambda$, we conclude that the pair of poles $-1\pm i$ are the most sensitive. The largest entry is obtained when perturbing the second right measurement value. Again, this can be observed in the $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ entries of matrix $ {\cal N} _\lambda$.
Additionally, compute the vector $ \boldsymbol{\eta} \in \mathbb R^5$ as in (\ref{equ:sen-con1}):
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\eta} = 10^4 \left[ \begin{matrix}
0.0014 & 1.1434 & 1.1434 & 0.1893 & 0.1893
\end{matrix} \right]^T.
\end{equation}
From the above result, we indeed draw the conclusion that the pair of poles $-1\pm i$, is by far the most sensitive, also in an $\ell_2$ way (since $ \boldsymbol{\eta} _2$ and $ \boldsymbol{\eta} _3$ are the largest entries).
Finally, it is to be noted that the sensitivities computed for matrix ${\mathbf A}$ corresponding to the canonical realization in (\ref{real:ex4.2}) are all ones. In this case, the pencil $({\mathbf A},{\mathbf E})$ simplifies to matrix ${\mathbf A}$, since ${\mathbf E}$ is the identity matrix. Hence, the choice of interpolation points can greatly influences the sensitivity computations.
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Same left and right interpolation
points ($ \boldsymbol{\mu} = \boldsymbol{\lambda} $)}
\label{sec:Sens_struct_same}
For the case $ \boldsymbol{\mu} = \boldsymbol{\lambda} $, the diagonal entries of the Loewner matrix are actually derivatives of transfer function ${\mathbf H}(s)$. Considering that the measurements are perturbed, we assume that $\bar{{\mathbf H}}(s) = {\mathbf H}(s) (1 + \epsilon_s)$, and, additionally that $\bar{{\mathbf H}}'(s) = {\mathbf H}'(s) (1 + \epsilon'_s)$. Here, ${\mathbf H}'(s)$ denotes the derivative of ${\mathbf H}(s)$ w.r.t s, i.e., ${\mathbf H}'(s) = \frac{d}{ds} {\mathbf H}(s)$. The Loewner and shifted Loewner matrices can be written as follows
\begin{equation}
\mathbb L = \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu}
\mathcal{V} + \mathcal{V}',~~ {\mathbb L}_s = {\mathbf M} \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} \mathcal{V} {\mathbf M} + {\mathbf M} \mathcal{V}' + \mathcal{V},
\end{equation}
where
$\small
\mathcal{V}' = \mbox{diag}({\mathbf v}_1',{\mathbf v}_2',\cdots,{\mathbf v}_q')$ with ${\mathbf v}_i' = {\mathbf H}'(\mu_i)$. Additionally, note that $\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu}(i,i) = 0$ for all $i =1,\ldots,q $. The perturbation matrices $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s}$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{equ:per_mat_def2}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} &= \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q})
\mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} \mathcal{V}
\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) + \mathcal{V}'\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}', \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}'),
\\[1mm]
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s}&= \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q})
{\mathbf M} \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} \mathcal{V}
{\mathbf M}\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) + \mathcal{V}'{\mathbf M} \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}', \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}') \\
&+ \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) {\cal V} .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Since $ \boldsymbol{\mu} = \boldsymbol{\lambda} $, the left/right eigenvectors of the Loewner pencil are the same, i.e., ${\mathbf p} = {\mathbf q}$. From (\ref{equ:per_mat_def2}), it follows that
\begin{align*}\small
s \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} - \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} &= \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) (s{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} \mathcal{V} (s{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})
\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) \\
+& \mathcal{V}' (s{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}', \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}') - \mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}) {\cal V} .
\end{align*}
By substituting the above expression into (\ref{equ:sensitivity}), it follows that the first order approximation of the eigenvalue perturbation corresponding to $\pi_i$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hspace*{-3mm}
\begin{split}
\pi_i^{(1)} &= \frac{ {\mathbf p}_i^T\left( \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} -\pi_i \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} \right) {\mathbf q}_i}{{\mathbf p}_i^T \mathbb L {\mathbf q}_i} = \frac{1}{\gamma_i} {\mathbf p}_i^T\left( \pi_i \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L} - \boldsymbol{\Delta}_{L_s} \right) {\mathbf q}_i \\
&=
\frac{1}{\gamma_i} \left[
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu^T \mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V} \mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} {\mathbf q}_i - {\mathbf p}_i^T\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} \mathcal{V} (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu - \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu^T \mbox{diag}({\mathbf p}_i) {\cal V} {\mathbf q}_i
\right]
\\
&+ \left[
{\mathbf p}_i^T \mathcal{V}' (\pi_i{\mathbf I}-{\mathbf M}) \mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu' \right] \\
&= \left[ \begin{matrix}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu^T &
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu'^T
\end{matrix}\right] \frac{1}{\gamma_i}\left[\begin{matrix}
2\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})\mathcal{V}\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu}{\mathbf q}_i - \mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) {\cal V} {\mathbf q}_i &
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i)(\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V}' {\mathbf q}_i
\end{matrix}\right]
\\
&= \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^T \left( {\cal T} {\mathbf e}_i \right) =
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^T {\cal T} _i,
\end{split}
\end{equation}\normalsize
where $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu = \left[\epsilon_{\mu_1}, \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q} \right]^T$, ~$\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu' = \left[\epsilon_{\mu_1}', \cdots, \epsilon_{\mu_q}' \right]^T,$
$\small
\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu \\
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_\mu'
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{2q}$ and $ {\cal T} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{\cal T} _\mu \\
{\cal T} _\mu'
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{2q \times n}$. Additionally, the $i$th column of matrix $ {\cal T} $ is denoted with $ {\cal T} _i$, while the $i$th columns of matrices $ {\cal T} _\mu \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$ and $ {\cal T} _\mu' \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$, for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, are given by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}{ {\cal T} _\mu}_i = {\cal T} _\mu {\mathbf e}_i =
\frac{1}{\gamma_i}
2\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) (\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})\mathcal{V}\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu}{\mathbf q}_i - \frac{1}{\gamma_i}
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) {\cal V} {\mathbf q}_i, \\[2mm]
{ {\cal T} _\mu'}_i = {\cal T} _\mu' {\mathbf e}_i = \frac{1}{\gamma_i}
\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i)(\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M}) \mathcal{V}' {\mathbf q}_i,
\end{cases} \text{and} \ \ {\cal T} _i = \left[ \begin{matrix}
{ {\cal T} _\mu}_i \\[2mm]
{ {\cal T} _\mu'}_i
\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathbb C^{2q}.
\end{equation}
As shown above, the eigenvalue perturbation is a linear combination of noise on measurements of the transfer function and of the transfer function derivative. By considering noise in the measurements of the transfer function, the effect on perturbing the poles can be hence quantified by the entries of matrix $ {\cal T} _\mu \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$. Additionally, by choosing perturbed derivative measurements, the perturbation of the poles is then quantified by the entries of matrix $ {\cal T} _\mu' \in \mathbb C^{q \times n}$.
As before, a simplified is considered to gain better insight into the structure of matrix $ {\cal T} $. We analyze a specific case, i.e., by perturbing the $j$th measurement, we seek to quantify the influence on the $i$th pole. Using that ${\mathbf e}_j^T \mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) = {\mathbf q}_i^T {\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T$, it follows that the $(j,i)$ entry of matrix $ {\cal T} _\mu$ is explicitly given by the following formula
\begin{align}
\left( {\cal T} _\mu \right)_{j,i} &= {\mathbf e}_j^T { {\cal T} _\mu}_i
= {\mathbf e}_j^T \frac{1}{\gamma_i}\mbox{diag}({\mathbf q}_i) \left[ 2(\pi_i{\mathbf I} - {\mathbf M})\mathcal{V}\mathcal{C}_{\mu, \mu} - {\cal V} \right]{\mathbf q}_i=\frac{1}{\gamma_i}
{\mathbf q}_i^T{\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T \left[2(\pi_i{\mathbf I}-{\mathbf M})
\mathcal{V} {\cal C} _{\mu, \mu} - {\cal V} \right] \,{\mathbf q}_i \nonumber \\[2mm]
&=\frac{1}{\gamma_i}
{\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+ {\mathbf e}_j{\mathbf e}_j^T
\left[2(\pi_i{\mathbf I}-{\mathbf M})
\mathcal{V} {\cal C} _{\mu, \mu} - {\cal V} \right] \,( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i \nonumber \\[2mm]
&=\frac{2\left(\pi_i-\mu_j\right){\mathbf v}_j}{\gamma_i}
\left({\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+{\mathbf e}_j\right)
\left({\mathbf e}_j^T( {\cal C} _{\mu, \mu})( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i\right) - \frac{{\mathbf v}_j}{\gamma_i} \left(
{\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+ {\mathbf e}_j \right) \left( {\mathbf e}_j^T
\,( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}^T)^+{\mathbf e}_i \right).
\end{align}
Similarly, assume now that the $j^{th}$ derivative measurement is perturbed. We have that the $(j,i)$ entry of matrix $ {\cal T} _\mu'$ is explicitly given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\left( {\cal T} _\mu' \right)_{j,i}
&= \frac{\left(\pi_i-\mu_j\right){\mathbf v}'_j}{\gamma_i}
\left({\mathbf e}_i^T( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})^+{\mathbf e}_j\right)^2.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition} \label{def:sens_struct_same}
We define $\eta_{(j, i)}$ as the structured sensitivity for the eigenvalue $\pi_i$ with respect to the perturbing the $j^{th}$ measurement, or on $j^{th}$ derivative measurement, as follows
\begin{equation} \label{equ:sen-con2}
\eta_{(j,i)} = \vert \left( {\cal T} \right)_{j,i} \vert = \begin{cases}
\vert \left( {\cal T} _\mu \right)_{j,i} \vert, \ \ \text{if} \ \ 1\leq j \leq q,\\
\vert \left( {\cal T} _\mu' \right)_{j,i} \vert, \ \ \text{if} \ \ q+1\leq j \leq 2q.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
All other definitions and formulas introduced in Section \ref{sec:Sens_struct_distinct} follow equivalently, for values $\eta_{(j, i)}$ as in Definition \ref{def:sens_struct_same}. For example, let $ {\cal N} _{\mu} \in \mathbb R^{q\times n}$ and $ {\cal N} _{\mu}' \in \mathbb R^{q\times n}$, corresponding to the measurements and to the derivatives, respectively, so that $ {\cal N} _{\mu} = \vert {\cal T} _\mu \vert$, and $ {\cal N} _{\mu}' = \vert {\cal T} _\mu' \vert$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:4.3}
Consider the same test case as in Example \ref{ex:4.2}. The vectors of poles and of residues are given by:
$$
\begin{cases}
\boldsymbol{\pi} =
\left[\!\begin{array}{rrrrr} -1 & -1-\mathrm{i} & -1+\mathrm{i} & -\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}& -\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\end{array}\!\right],\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}=
\left[\!\begin{array}{rrrrr} 1& -\frac{1}{2}{}\mathrm{i}& \frac{1}{2}{}\mathrm{i}& -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}\mathrm{i}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3} \mathrm{i}\end{array}\right]. \end{cases}
$$
Choose identical right/left interpolation points as follows:
$$
\boldsymbol{\lambda} =\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} \frac{2}{9} & \frac{4}{9} & \frac{6}{9} & \frac{8}{9} & \frac{10}{9} \end{array}\right]= \boldsymbol{\mu} ^T.
$$
Then, compute the Cauchy matrices:
$ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}$,~
$ {\cal C} _{\mu,\mu}$,~ and
$ {\cal C} _{\pi,\mu}$ and the matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu \in \mathbb R^{5 \times 5}$ of sensitivity associated to the measurements, as well as matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu' \in \mathbb R^{5 \times 5}$ of sensitivity associated to the derivatives, as follows
\footnotesize
$$
\frac{ {\cal N} _\mu}{10^8} = \left[\begin{array}{rrrrr}
0.0434 & 0.0897 & 0.0897 & 0.0079 & 0.0079 \\
0.7100 & 1.5651 & 1.5651 & 0.1340 & 0.1340 \\
0.9711 & 2.2717 & 2.2717 & 0.1872 & 0.1872 \\
0.3703 & 0.8327 & 0.8327 & 0.0709 & 0.0709 \\
0.0354 & 0.0838 & 0.0838 & 0.0068 & 0.0068
\end{array} \right], \ \ \frac{ {\cal N} _\mu'}{10^8} =
\left[\begin{array}{rrrrr}
0.0030 & 0.0062 & 0.0062 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 \\
0.1251 & 0.2708 & 0.2708 & 0.0234 & 0.0234 \\
0.6091 & 1.3748 & 1.3748 & 0.1158 & 0.1158 \\
0.5235 & 1.2179 & 1.2179 & 0.1001 & 0.1001 \\
0.0581 & 0.1381 & 0.1381 & 0.0111 & 0.0111
\end{array} \right].
$$
\normalsize
By examining the entries of $ {\cal N} _\mu$, it follows that the pair of poles $-1\pm i$ are the most sensitive, especially when perturbing the first left measurement value. This can be observed in the $(3,2)$ and $(3,3)$ entries of matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu$. Similar conclusion can be drawn when analyzing the entries of matrix $ {\cal N} _\mu'$ (that contains the sensitivities with respect to perturbing the derivative measurements ${\mathbf v}_i$'). Finally, compute the vector $ \boldsymbol{\eta} \in \mathbb R^5$ as in (\ref{equ:sen-con1}):
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\eta} = 10^8 \left[ \begin{matrix}
1.5005 & 3.4329 & 3.4329 & 0.2868 & 0.2868
\end{matrix} \right]^T.
\end{equation}
We again conclude that the pair of poles $-1\pm i$, is the most sensitive (since $ \boldsymbol{\eta} _2$ and $ \boldsymbol{\eta} _3$ are the largest entries). Additionally, note that the highest values computed in this example are in $O(10^8)$, while the ones in Example \ref{ex:4.2} were considerably smaller, i.e., in $O(10^2)$ or $O(10^3)$.
\end{example}
\subsection{On the choice of the interpolation points and its influence on the sensitivities}
As shown in the previous sections, the sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$ depend on the eigenvectors ${\mathbf p}$, ${\mathbf q}$, on the interpolation points $ \boldsymbol{\mu} $, $ \boldsymbol{\lambda} $, and on the poles $ \boldsymbol{\pi} $. Moreover, since eigenvectors ${\mathbf p}$, ${\mathbf q}$ depend on $ \boldsymbol{\mu} $, $ \boldsymbol{\lambda} $, $ \boldsymbol{\pi} $ and also on the residues $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$, we conclude that sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$ are determined by $ \boldsymbol{\mu} $, $ \boldsymbol{\lambda} $, $ \boldsymbol{\pi} $ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$. The poles $ \boldsymbol{\pi} $ and residues $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ of a given linear system are fixed (system invariants). Hence, the choice of interpolation points will determine sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$. Consequently, this will be reflected the robustness of the Loewner model.
In the Loewner framework the problem of data selection can be split into two sub-problems. The first one stems from the choice of interpolation points, while the second one stems from separating these points into left and right (disjoint) partitions. This is still a complex problem to deal with that is not fully understood. Some progress was made in \cite{KarGosAnt20}, where different types of distributions and separating techniques for the interpolation points were tried.
The sensitivity $\rho$ is directly related to the condition numbers of matrices $ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}$ and $ {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}$. Hence, in the case of unstructured perturbation, we can study the problem of choosing interpolation points by exploring the condition number of such generalized Cauchy matrices. The work \cite{Beckermann17} provides a bound for the condition number of the generalized Cauchy matrices for which the denominator part is real. More details are provided in Section \ref{app:1}. However, in many applications, the eigenvalues and interpolation points could be indeed complex numbers. For the sensitivity $\eta$, the problem is more complex because $\eta$ does not depend on the condition number of generalized Cauchy matrices. We illustrate the dependence in $\eta$ by means of numerical examples in Section \ref{sec:4}.
In what follows we discuss a simplified case. It is assumed that the poles and the interpolation points are well separated into two clusters. The dimension of the Loewner pencil is the same as the order of the original system (denoted with $n$). The Cauchy matrices $ {\cal C} _{\mu, \pi}$ and $ {\cal C} _{\lambda, \pi}$ are hence square matrices. We also assume that the poles and interpolation points are well separated into two clusters with distance $d$. More precisely, the following relations hold
\begin{align}\label{equ:distance_bounds}
\vert \mu_i - \pi_k \vert = O(d),\quad \text{and} \quad\vert \lambda_j - \pi_k \vert = O(d).
\end{align}
for $i, j, k \in \left\{1, 2, \ldots, n \right\}$.
In the sequel we investigate how the distance $d$ affects the sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sens_dist}
Given the unstructured perturbation sensitivity $\rho$ in (\ref{equ:sen-uncon}), the structured perturbation sensitivity $\eta$ in (\ref{equ:sen-con}), and the assumptions made in (\ref{equ:distance_bounds}), the following result hold:
\begin{align} \label{equ:sen-d}
\rho(d) = O(d^{4n-4}), \quad \text{and} \quad \eta(d) = O(d^{4n-2}).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\noindent
Given the condition (\ref{equ:distance_bounds}) then the transfer function and the Loewner matrices follow
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Cauchy_mat_bounds}
{\mathbf H}(\mu) = O(d^{-1}), ~~ {\mathbf H}(\lambda) = O(d^{-1}), ~~
\Vert \mathbb L \Vert = O(d^{-2}), ~~ \Vert {\mathbb L}_s \Vert = O(d^{-2}).
\end{equation}
Given the inverse of Cauchy matrix in equation (\ref{equ:inv_cauchy_def}), it directly follows that the two relations hold
\begin{align}\label{equ:eigvec_mat_bounds}
\Vert {\mathbf p} \Vert = \Vert {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}^{-T} \mathbf{e} \Vert &= O(d^{2n-1}),~~
\Vert {\mathbf q} \Vert = \Vert {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}^{-T} \mathbf{e} \Vert = O(d^{2n-1}),
\end{align}
Using the results stated in (\ref{equ:Cauchy_mat_bounds}), and in (\ref{equ:eigvec_mat_bounds}), and the definition of $\rho$ in (\ref{equ:sen-uncon}), one can write that
$$
\rho(d) = O(d^{2n-1}) (O(d^{-2}) + O(d^{-2})) O(d^{2n-1}) = O(d^{4n-4}).
$$
Similarly, by using the results in equation (\ref{equ:Cauchy_mat_bounds}), and the formula for $ {\cal S} _i$, write that
\begin{align*}
\eta(d) &= O(d^{-1}) O(d^n) O(d^n) O(d^n) O(d^{n-1}) = O(d^{4n-2}).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\vspace{-2mm}
As shown in Lemma \ref{lem:sens_dist}, when $n$ is large, the sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$ will increase fast when the distance $d$ is enlarged. So, it is better to choose interpolation points that are not far away from the poles of the system. However, this does not necessarily imply that it is desired to take all measurements close to the poles. For example, if some of the interpolation points are very close to the poles, the values of the measured data could be indeed very large and hence yield an ill-conditioned Loewner pencil.
\section{Numerical examples}\label{sec:4}
\label{sec:numerics}
In this section, we provide a numerical study that includes two examples from \cite{Embree19}.
\subsection{Example 1}\label{sec:4.1}
In this section we analyze the first example provided in \cite{Embree19}. Consider a linear system with realization
$$
{\mathbf A} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
-1.1 & ~1 \\
~1 & -1.1
\end{matrix}\right], ~~
{\mathbf B} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
0 \\
1
\end{matrix}\right], ~~
{\mathbf C} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right].
$$
The poles are given by $\pi_1 = -2.1$ and $\pi_2 = -0.1$.~
Four settings corresponding to the choice of interpolation points are shown in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-1}. Note that the right points are chosen on the real axis in all settings, while the left points are chosen on the imaginary axis for the first three settings. Lastly, for setting 4, all interpolation points are real.
\begin{table}[h!]
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Setting & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\mu_1$ & $\mu_2$ \\
\hline
1 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 0.00+1.00i & 0.00-1.00i \\
\hline
2 & 0.25 & 0.75 & 0.00+2.00i & 0.00-2.00i \\
\hline
3 & 0.40 & 0.60 & 0.00+4.00i & 0.00-4.00i \\
\hline
4 & 8.00 & 9.00 & 10.00 & 11.00 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small The four settings for choosing interpolation points.}
\label{table:Example 1-1}
\end{table}
The condition number of Cauchy matrices, the sensitivities $\rho_i$ and their bound are shown in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-2}. It is easy to see that the sensitivity $\rho_i$ (corresponding to eigenvalue $\pi_i$ for $i = 1,2$) is strongly related to the condition numbers of the Loewner and generalized Cauchy matrices. An increase in the condition numbers is reflected also in the sensitivity values (see, e.g., for setting 4). This behavior is in accordance to the results provided in Section \ref{sec:sens}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Setting & cond($ {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi}$) & cond($ {\cal C} _{\lambda,\pi}$) & $\rho_1$ $\left(\pi_1 = -2.1 \right)$ & $\rho_2$ $\left(\pi_2 = -0.1 \right)$ & $bound(\rho_1)$ & $bound(\rho_2)$ \\
\hline
1 & 2.860e+00 & 3.619e+01 & 2.202e+02 & 5.609e-01 & 4.348e+02 & 2.278e+02 \\
\hline
2 & 2.740e+00 & 1.958e+01 & 1.049e+02 & 2.191e+00 & 2.253e+02 & 1.180e+02 \\
\hline
3 & 4.321e+00 & 3.741e+01 & 2.710e+02 & 1.111e+01 & 6.789e+02 & 3.556e+02 \\
\hline
4 & 2.717e+02 & 1.869e+02 & 9.091e+04 & 2.077e+04 & 2.133e+05 & 1.117e+05 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Condition numbers and sensitivities $\rho_i$.}
\label{table:Example 1-2}
\end{table}
The pseudospectra computed for each of the four settings are shown in Fig.\;\ref{fig:Example 1-1}. The results match the expectations for sensitivity $\rho$. More precisely, in Setting 4, the slope of the pseudospectrum around the eigenvalues is much smaller than the slope for the other settings. The sensitivity $\rho$ in Setting 4 is also much larger than for other settings. In all the depicted pseudospectra, it is found that the eigenvalue at $-2.1$ is more sensitive than the eigenvalue at $-0.1$. This is also shown for sensitivity $\rho$, i.e., it follows that $\rho_1 \gg \rho_2$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{screenshot001}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\small Pseudospectra of the Loewner pencils.}
\label{fig:Example 1-1}
\end{figure}
Next, we modify the choice of left and right interpolation points. These will be chosen as shown in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-3}. More precisely, all points will be on the real axis with increasing value for each setting $k \in \{1,2,3\}$. Moreover, the differences $\lambda_2 - \lambda_1$ and $\mu_2-\mu_1$ are kept the same for all three settings (equal to $2$). In Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-3}, we illustrate the relationship between sensitivities $\rho$, $\eta$ and $d$, i.e., the distance from the eigenvalue cluster to the interpolation points cluster. By following the results in (\ref{equ:sen-d}), we can indeed show that $\eta = O(d^6)$ and $\rho = O(d^4)$. The results presented in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-3} indeed match the theoretical prediction.
\begin{table}[h!]
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\mu_1$ & $\mu_2$ & $\rho_1$ ($p_1$=-0.1) & $\rho_2$ ($p_2$=-2.1) & $\eta_1$ ($p_1$=-0.1) & $\eta_2$ ($p_2$=-2.1) \\
\hline
0.00 & 2.00 & 1.00 & 3.00 & 2.881e+00 & 1.295e+03 & 2.848e+00 & 2.758e+02 \\
\hline
10.00 & 12.00 & 11.00 & 13.00 & 1.124e+04 & 4.551e+04 & 1.144e+06 & 1.855e+06 \\
\hline
100.00 & 102.00 & 101.00 & 103.00 & 6.415e+07 & 1.797e+08 & 4.220e+11 & 4.475e+11 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Sensitivities for different choices of interpolation points.}
\label{table:Example 1-3}
\end{table}
\normalsize
\subsection{Example 2}\label{sec:4.2}
In this section we analyze the second example provided in \cite{Embree19}. Consider a linear system with realization given by matrices
$$
{\mathbf A} = \mbox{diag}(-1,-2,\cdots, -10), ~~
{\mathbf B} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
1, 1, \cdots, 1
\end{matrix}\right]^T, ~~
{\mathbf C} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
1, 1, \cdots, 1
\end{matrix}\right].
$$
The poles of the system are $\{-1, -2, \ldots, -10\}$ corresponding to residues $\{ 1, 1, \ldots, 1\}$. As given in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 2-1}, we choose two settings for the interpolations points. Note that both settings share the same interpolation points, chosen on the negative real axis inside the interval $(-11,0)$. The difference between them is given by ordering and by separating into the left/right partitions. Note that the left/right interpolation points corresponding to Setting 1 are interlaced, while the left/right interpolation points in Setting 2 are completely separated (half-half).
Additionally, the sensitivities $\rho$ and $\eta$ corresponding to each of the two separation settings, are also listed in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 2-1}. An interesting numerical result can be observed: sensitivity $\rho$ in Setting 2 is much larger than that in Setting 1 which implies the model in Setting 2 is more ill-conditioned than the model in Setting 1. However, we also note that the sensitivity $\eta$ in Setting 2 is comparable to that of Setting 1. This means that the Loewner model in Setting 1 is as robust as that in Setting 2, with respect to perturbing the data.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda$ & $\mu$ & $\pi$ & $\rho$ & $\eta$ \\
\hline
-10.25 & -9.75 & -10.000 & 2.205e+01 & 2.098e-01 \\
\hline
-9.25 & -8.75 & -9.000 & 1.947e+01 & 1.836e-01 \\
\hline
-8.25 & -7.75 & -8.000 & 1.812e+01 & 1.711e-01 \\
\hline
-7.25 & -6.75 & -7.000 & 1.697e+01 & 1.647e-01 \\
\hline
-6.25 & -5.75 & -6.000 & 1.590e+01 & 1.619e-01 \\
\hline
-5.25 & -4.75 & -5.000 & 1.487e+01 & 1.619e-01 \\
\hline
-4.25 & -3.75 & -4.000 & 1.387e+01 & 1.647e-01 \\
\hline
-3.25 & -2.75 & -3.000 & 1.292e+01 & 1.711e-01 \\
\hline
-2.25 & -1.75 & -2.000 & 1.208e+01 & 1.836e-01 \\
\hline
-1.25 & -0.75 & -1.000 & 1.185e+01 & 2.098e-01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda$ & $\mu$ & $\pi$ & $\rho$ & $\eta$ \\
\hline
-5.25 & -10.25 & -10.000 & 5.857e+06 & 2.098e-01 \\
\hline
-4.75 & -9.75 & -9.000 & 9.429e+06 & 1.836e-01 \\
\hline
-4.25 & -9.25 & -8.000 & 6.653e+06 & 1.711e-01 \\
\hline
-3.75 & -8.75 & -7.000 & 2.704e+06 & 1.647e-01 \\
\hline
-3.25 & -8.25 & -6.000 & 1.578e+06 & 1.619e-01 \\
\hline
-2.75 & -7.75 & -5.000 & 1.447e+06 & 1.619e-01 \\
\hline
-2.25 & -7.25 & -4.000 & 2.082e+06 & 1.647e-01 \\
\hline
-1.75 & -6.75 & -3.000 & 4.285e+06 & 1.711e-01 \\
\hline
-1.25 & -6.25 & -2.000 & 5.042e+06 & 1.836e-01 \\
\hline
-0.75 & -5.75 & -1.000 & 2.571e+06 & 2.098e-01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\caption{Poles and sensitivities of Loewner models of Setting 1 and 2.}
\label{table:Example 2-1}
\end{table}
Next, we generate 1000 Loewner models for measurements corrupted by Gaussian noise with $\sigma = 0.3$. For each trial, we display in Fig.\;\ref{fig:Example 2-2} the poles for both noisy and noiseless case in each of the two settings. The results depicted there show that the Loewner models constructed from noisy data by Setting 1 have a similar distribution of eigenvalues compared with the models in Setting 2. This numerical example illustrates that it is indeed meaningful to define the sensitivity with respect to both unstructured and structured perturbations.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{EX2_3_ROM}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption
{The distribution of poles of Loewner system models constructed from noisy data.}
\label{fig:Example 2-2}
\end{figure}
As shown in Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 2-2}, the condition numbers for the Cauchy matrices defined for Setting 2 are considerably larger than those of the matrices defined for Setting 1 (approximately 5 to 6 orders of magnitude). Next, compute the $\ell_2$-norm of the sensitivities $\boldsymbol{\rho}$. This quantity takes into account the unstructured sensitivities with respect to all the poles $\pi_i$. Additionally, compute the upper bound on $\vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \vert_2$ provided in (\ref{equ:bound2}). Note that this bound is much tighter for Setting 1.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Setting & $\kappa( {\cal C} _{\mu,\pi})$ & $\kappa(\lambda, \pi)$ & $\Vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \Vert_2$&
$bound(\Vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \Vert_2)$
\\
\hline
1 & 1.217e+00 & 1.217e+00 & 5.100e+01 & 7.385e+01\\
\hline
2 & 1.771e+06 & 1.771e+06 & 1.530e+07& 1.563e+14\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Condition numbers of different matrices and the coefficient $\Vert \boldsymbol{\rho} \Vert_2$.}
\label{table:Example 2-2}
\end{table}
The pseudospectra in Fig. \ref{fig:Example 2-1} also shows that the eigenvalues in Setting 2 are more sensitive to noise than those in Setting 1. This example illustrates how separating the interpolation points (into left and right subsets) can greatly affect the condition numbers of the Loewner pencil and generalized Cauchy matrices. It is to be concluded that interlaced data separation seems to be more advantageous than splitting the interpolation data in half, in order to avoid ill-conditioning of the Loewner model.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{screenshot002}
\caption{Pseudospectra of the Loewner pencils.}
\label{fig:Example 2-1}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:EX2_eta_1}, we display a heat map of sensitivity values $\eta_{(i,j)}$ for the two settings described before. Hence the entries of matrices $ {\cal N} _\mu$ and $ {\cal N} _\lambda$ are displayed. This shows that the sensitivity values are large whenever the measurements are closer to the poles. This means that measurements that are close to poles will greatly affect the perturbation with respect to those particular poles.
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-14mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.2\linewidth]{EX2_eta_1}
\vspace{-10mm}
\caption{Structured sensitivity $\eta_{(i,j)}$ for the first two settings; interpolation points are on the x-axis, while the poles are on the y-axis.}
\label{fig:EX2_eta_1}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Bounds on the singular values of Cauchy and Loewner matrices} \label{app:1}
In \cite{Beckermann17}, a bound on the decay of the singular values for matrices with displacement structure is provided. Such matrices satisfy Sylvester equations. Indeed, the Cauchy and Loewner matrices are two types of matrices with displacement structure. For the Cauchy matrix $ {\cal C} _{x,y} \in \mathbb{C}^{m \times n}$ ($m \ge n$) where the entries of $x$ are located in the interval $\left[a, b\right]$ and the entries of $y$ are located in the interval $\left[c, d\right]$, the following bound holds (provided that the two intervals are disjoint)
\begin{equation} \label{equ:bound_cauchy}\small
\sigma_{j+k} \left( {\cal C} _{x,y}\right) \le
4 \left[ \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi^2}{4\mu\left(1/\sqrt{\gamma}\right)}\right) \right]^{-2k}
\sigma_{j} \left( {\cal C} _{x,y}\right), ~~~~~ 1\le j+k \le n
\end{equation}
where $\gamma = \vert \left( c-a \right)\left( d-b \right) /
\left( \left( c-b \right) \left( d-a \right) \right) \vert$ is the absolute value of the cross-ratio of $a,b,c,d$ and $\mu$ is the Grotzsch ring function.
Thus, an upper bound for the decay of singular values is obtained which is independent from the numerators of Cauchy matrix entries. In our work, numerators of entries are residues of the poles of the system. Tab.\;\ref{table:Example 1-4} shows the experimental result of the bound on example \ref{sec:4.1}. Fig. \ref{fig:Example4_2_1} shows the experimental results of the bound on example \ref{sec:4.2}.
\begin{table}[h]
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\mu_1$ & $\mu_2$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\kappa( {\cal C} _{\tiny\mbox{L}})$ & bound($\kappa( {\cal C} _{\tiny\mbox{L}})$) & $\kappa( {\cal C} _{\tiny\mbox{R}})$ & bound($\kappa( {\cal C} _{\tiny\mbox{R}})$) \\
\hline
1.0 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.0 & 1.439e+01 & 7.443e+00 & 4.541e+01 & 1.732e+00 \\
\hline
11.0 & 13.0 & 10.0 & 12.0 & 1.737e+02 & 1.696e+02 & 1.485e+02 & 1.444e+02 \\
\hline
101.0 & 103.0 & 100.0 & 102.0 & 1.063e+04 & 1.063e+04 & 1.043e+04 & 1.042e+04 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Condition numbers and sensitivity $\rho$}
\label{table:Example 1-4}
\end{table}\\[-4mm]
A similar bound holds for Loewner matrices. Let $\mathbb L_{x,y}\in \mathbb{C}^{m \times n}$ be a Loewner matrix, where $m \ge n$, the following bound for the decay of singular values was given in \cite{Beckermann17}:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:bound_loewner}\small
\sigma_{j+2k} \left(\mathbb L_{x,y}\right) \le
4 \left[ \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi^2}{4\mu\left(1/\sqrt{\gamma}\right)}\right) \right]^{-2k}
\sigma_{j} \left(\mathbb L_{x,y}\right), ~~ 1\le j+2k \le n.
\end{equation}
The figure below provide results of the experiment on the bound of example \ref{sec:4.2}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\hspace{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.54\linewidth]{Example4_2_1} \hspace{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.54\linewidth]{Example4_2_2}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Singular value decay of Cauchy and Loewner matrices with the corresponding bounds for example \ref{sec:4.2}. The red asterisks represent poles of the system, blue crosses represent left interpolation points $\mu$, and orange plus signs represent right interpolation points $\lambda$ (for two different settings provided in Section \ref{sec:4.2}).}
\label{fig:Example4_2_1}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
In this paper, we have presented a factorization of the Loewner pencil which yields an explicit generalized eigenvalue decomposition of the pencil. Based on this decomposition and on results from perturbation theory of eigenvalues corresponding to a matrix pencil, the sensitivities of eigenvalues of the Loewner pencil are defined and analyzed. This is done with respect to both unstructured and structured types of perturbations.
It was found that the sensitivity of eigenvalues with unstructured perturbation is related to the condition numbers of the generalized Cauchy matrices that appear in the factorization of the Loewner pencil. This can indeed represent a useful tool for eigenvalue sensitivity analysis, together with the pseudospectrum.
The sensitivity of eigenvalues with structured perturbations is an important tool to be used in the case of noisy data. The relationship between the perturbation of eigenvalues and the perturbation in the data is explored. One issue dealt with in this work was to analyze the robustness of the Loewner model with respect to perturbed data. Using eigenvalue sensitivity analysis, we showed how the choice of interpolation points affects the Loewner model.
In this work, we have explored some meaningful developments of the eigenvalue sensitivity analysis for the Loewner pencil. Nevertheless, there are still some open problems to be dealt with. For example, one needs to further investigate the problem of choosing the interpolation points. Additionally, the study of sensitivity for eigenvalues with multiplicity could also represent a topic of further research. Finally, the sensitivity computation procedure needs to be expanded for the case of redundant data. Consequently, the sensitivity analysis can also be used for reduced-order models constructed within the Loewner framework.
\small
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
Low frequency (LF) Quasi-Periodic Oscillations (QPOs) in stellar-mass black hole binaries (BHB) have been known for many years (see reviews by \citealt{Motta2016} and \citealt{Ingram2020}). These QPOs are distinct peaks in the Power Density Spectra (PDS) of X-ray light curves of these sources. Based on the strength of the underlying broad-band variability, centroid frequency, $\nu$, and quality factor, $Q=\nu/\Delta \nu$, where $\Delta \nu$ is the full width at half maximum around the centroid frequency, LF QPOs are divided into three types, type-A, -B and -C (\citealt{Casella2004A&A}). While all of these types share similar centroid frequencies, type-C are the most frequent QPOs, with high $Q$-factors. Although type-C QPOs usually appear in the range of a few mHz to 10 Hz, they have also been detected at frequencies as high as 30 Hz (\citealt{Revnivtsev2000MNRAS}). Models that explain the dynamical origin of QPOs in BHBs were proposed about two decades ago when \cite{Stella1998} introduced the idea of relativistic Lense-Thirring precession (LTP) as the underlying mechanism. Follow-up theoretical work by \cite{Stella1999ApJ}, \cite{Psaltis2000}, \cite{Fragile2001}, \cite{Schnittman2006ApJ} and \cite{Ingram2009MNRAS} connected the LF QPOs in BHBs to the LTP frequency. Since then, there have been a plethora of studies that used timing and spectral features to add support to LTP as the origin of LF QPOs (\citealt{Motta_b_2014MNRAS}; \citealt{Motta_a_2014MNRAS}; \citealt{Ingram2016} and \citealt{Ingram2017}). Other models, implementing different physical mechanisms were being developed almost at the same time; some of those are the Two-Component Advection Flow model (TCAF, \citealt{Molteni1996ApJ}; \citealt{Chakrabarti2008A&A}) and the Accretion-ejection instability model (\citealt{Tagger1999}). For recent reviews of observations and theory of LF QPOs, we refer the reader to \cite{Done2007A&ARv}, \cite{Motta2016} and \cite{Ingram2020}.
The picture of the geometry of accretion onto a BH presented in \cite{Ingram2009MNRAS} consists of two main components. The first component is the classical optically thick geometrically thin accretion disc (\citealt{Shakura1973}), which is thought to be truncated at a radius $r_t$ from the BH, typically larger than the inner-most stable circular orbit (ISCO), $r_{ISCO}$, depending on the spectral state (\citealt{Ichimaru1977ApJ}; \citealt{Esin1997ApJ}; \citealt{Poutanen1997MNRAS}; \citealt{Gierli2008};). The second component is a geometrically thick hot flow that is assumed to reside between the truncated disc and the ISCO, and to be misaligned with respect to the accretion disc plane. General relativistic hydrodynamical simulations suggest that, under certain conditions, such thick inner flows can occur (\citealt{Fragile2005ApJ}; \citealt{Fragile2007ApJ}). The core idea of \cite{Ingram2009MNRAS} is that the type-C QPO is produced by such torus-like inner flow which precesses at the LTP frequency. The outer radius of the torus, $r_o$, is smaller or equal to the truncation radius of the accretion disc, while the inner radius is set by the limit at which the surface density of the torus becomes sufficiently low, due to the high tilt angle of its inner parts (see \citealt{Ingram2009MNRAS} for a detailed description). The idea of a precessing torus, rather than a precessing disc, is partly motivated by the fact that the energy spectrum that is modulated at the frequency of the type-C QPO (covariance or rms spectrum), is well described by a Comptonised spectrum (\citealt{Sobolewska2006MNRAS}).
\par The general spectral behaviour of BHBs is usually described by a transition from a hard, less luminous, to a soft luminous state, imprinted as a q-shaped trajectory on the Hardness-Intensity Diagram (HID; \citealt{Belloni2005A&A} and \citealt{Homan2005Ap&SS}), with regimes of intermediate hardness and luminosity. The frequency of the type-C QPO increases as the source moves from harder to softer states. Depending on the model, the change in hardness in the HID can be interpreted as a change of the outer radius of a hot inner flow (\citealt{Ingram2009MNRAS}) or, for models with an extended Comptonising medium (\citealt{Kazanas1997ApJ}), as a change in properties of this Comptonising medium such as size, optical depth and temperature. Hereafter, we will refer to this extended Comptonising medium as the corona (\citealt{Thorne1975ApJ}; \citealt{Sunyaev1979Natur}).
\par The timing properties of the type-C QPO, namely the fractional rms amplitude in a broad energy band and phase lag between a hard and a soft band, have also been shown to depend upon QPO frequency and source inclination. In particular, \cite{Motta2015MNRAS} suggested that the rms amplitude of the type-C QPO as a function of QPO frequency is systematically higher for high than for low-inclination sources. Similarly, \cite{vde2017MNRAS} provided evidence that above a certain QPO frequency in low-inclination sources the phase lags of the type-C QPOs are positive (hard lags), meaning that high-energy photons arrive at the observer after the low-energy photons, and these hard lags increase with QPO frequency, whereas for high-inclination sources the phase lags are negative (soft lags) and decrease with QPO frequency. The aforementioned results favour a geometric origin for the type-C QPOs, which was further supported by more quantitative results, such as the modulation at half the QPO frequency of the centroid energy of the iron emission line in H$1743-322$ (\citealt{Ingram2016}). Many of the observational findings mentioned above still remain unexplained.
\par Over the years, considerable work has been done to study the dependence of the phase lags between two broad energy bands not only upon QPO frequency, as we mentioned in the previous paragraph, but also upon the frequency of the broad-band noise. At low Fourier frequencies of the broad-band noise, the lags are hard (\citealt{Miyamoto1988Natur}; \citealt{Kotov2001MNRAS}), and thought to be produced by fluctuations of the mass accretion rate that propagate from the outer to the inner part of the accretion disc (\citealt{Lyubarskii1997MNRAS}; \citealt{Arevalo2006MNRAS}; \citealt{Ingram2013MNRAS}), and are imprinted on the Comptonised and un-Comptonised emission that is used to calculate these lags. At higher Fourier frequencies of the broad-band noise the magnitude of the lags decreases, and the lags usually become soft, providing strong evidence for reverberation (\citealt{Uttley2011MNRAS}; \citealt{DeMarco2015ApJ}). Strong reverberation signatures were also recently reported in the broad-band noise component of MAXI J$1820+070$ by \cite{Kara2019Natur}, who studied the soft phase lags of the broad-band noise both in the energy and frequency domain. These authors suggest that a compact corona with a height of about 5 $R_g$, where $R_g=GM/c^2$ is the gravitational radius, and $G$, $M$ and $c$ are the gravitational constant, BH mass and speed of light, respectively, illuminates an accretion disc that is truncated at $\sim$ 2 $R_g$, thus producing the measured soft lags. As the corona contracts, the soft lags become shorter due to the shorter light travel-time. Further attention to reverberation was given, since an accurate reverberation mapping model was developed by \cite{Ingram2019MNRAS} that is able to put constraints on the mass of the BH, as was shown by \cite{Mastroserio2019MNRAS}.
Undoubtedly, reverberation is an essential physical mechanism for modeling spectra of BHBs at certain states. However, the treatment of the corona as a point-like source at a fixed height above the accretion disc in reverberation models limits the prospects of a self-consistent explanation of the observed phenomenology. In fact, several previous studies (\citealt{Miller2010MNRAS}; \citealt{Legg2012ApJ}; \citealt{Mizumoto2018MNRAS}; \citealt{Mizumoto2019MNRAS} have presented the timing analyses of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) where, in general, the phenomenology is similar and requires the presence of an extended corona that partially covers the accretion disc. Moreover, the soft lags of the LF QPOs in stellar mass BHBs, on which we focus from now on, are usually much larger than the lags of the broad-band noise component (\citealt{Wijnands1999ApJ}), and therefore a compact corona or hot flow with a small scale height is unable to produce such large soft lags. Specifically for stellar mass BHBs, \cite{Mizumoto2016PASJ} showed that in the case of GRS 1915$+$105 the lack of a variation of the iron line at different timescales further supports the idea of an extended corona. In addition, \cite{DeMarco2016ApJ} showed that in order to explain the large soft lags of H 1743$-$322 during the hard states, when the type-C QPO is present, with reverberation, one has to assume an extended corona as an illuminating source, with a height of a few hundred $R_g$. We note also that the broad-band noise component in NS and BHC sources consists of a combination of QPO-like components (\citealt{Nowak2000MNRAS}; \citealt{Belloni2002ApJ}) and therefore it is natural to study the rms and lag spectra of these QPO-like components to understand the properties of the boradband noise.
\par Although the soft lags of LF QPOs have been extensively studied in the literature, little work has been done to explain quantitatively their energy or frequency dependence in the context of a radiative mechanism. \cite{Nobili2000ApJ} suggested a Comptonisation model that consists of a two-component corona, which produces both hard and soft lags through Compton up- and down-scattering, respectively, in these two different components. Their model successfully explains both the magnitude and the change of sign of the lags as a function of QPO frequency in GRS 1915$+$105.
\par Recently, \cite{Karpouzas2020} presented a model that explains the observed soft lags of the lower kHz QPO in neutron star (NS) LMXB, as a delayed heating of the seed photon source by photons previously up-scattered in the corona. This effect is referred to as feedback. In the case of NS LMXBs, it has been shown through Monte Carlo simulations (\citealt{Kumar2016MC}) that feedback should play an important role even among different corona geometries, and that feedback depends on the size of the corona. Although the geometry of the corona and seed photon source are very different between NS and BH LMXBs, one can in principle test how well feedback of up-scattered photons in an extended corona can explain the soft lags observed in BH LMXBs. In fact, based on the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020}, \cite{Garcia2021MNRAS} showed that a two-component extended corona explains the energy dependence of the time lags and rms amplitude of the type-B QPO in MAXI J1348$-$630, and so in this work we extend our analysis for type-C QPOs. A good candidate to perform such a test is GRS 1915$+$105 (\citealt{Castro1992}; \citealt{Castro1994}). GRS 1915$+$105 is one of the most observed, and thus best studied, sources in the Rossi X-ray timing explorer (\citealt{Bradt1993}, RXTE) archive. The compact object in GRS 1915$+$105, is a BH with a mass $M_{BH}=12.4^{+2}_{-1.8}$ $M_{\odot}$, (\citealt{Reid2014ApJ}) and spin estimated, with spectral techniques, to be between $a^*=0.68$ and $a^*=0.99$ (\citealt{spin2015}).
\par GRS $1915+105$ is a peculiar source, in the sense that it never showed a full Q-shaped cycle on the HID. For a dedicated review on GRS 1915$+$105, we refer the reader to \cite{Fender2004MNRAS}. Its spectral behaviour was separated in 14 classes based on the work of \cite{Belloni2000} (see also \citealt{KW2002MNRAS} and \citealt{Huppenkothen2017MNRAS}). Timing studies of GRS 1915$+$105, which are mainly what we are interested in, date back to \cite{Xingming1997ApJ} and \cite{Morgan1997ApJ} and since then, several others focused on the spectral-timing properties of LF QPOs in this source (\citealt{Markwardt1999}; \citealt{Vignarca2003A&A}; \citealt{Rodriguez2004ApJ}). One of the most notable timing properties related to the type-C QPO phase lag between two broad bands of GRS 1915$+$105 is possibly the switch from hard lags, at QPO frequencies below $\sim$2 Hz (\citealt{Reig2000ApJ};\citealt{Pahari2013ApJ}; \citealt{Zhang2020MNRAS}), to zero at around 2 Hz, and then to soft lags at QPO frequencies above that limit. The slope of the lag-energy spectrum follows the same behaviour, changing from positive below 1.8 Hz to zero at around 1.8 Hz, and then negative above 1.8 Hz. Alongside with the phase lags, the rms amplitude, both energy- and frequency-dependent, of the type-C QPO also shows a particular dependence upon QPO frequency (\citealt{Zhang2020MNRAS}).
Recent work from \cite{Dutta2016ApJ} and \cite{Chatterjee2017MNRAS}, implementing the TCAF model (\citealt{Chakrabarti2008A&A}), linked the QPO frequency to the size of the Centrifugal pressure supported Boundary Layer (CENBOL), which serves as the corona in the TCAF model. These studies suggested that changes in the size of the CENBOL can explain the change in sign of the time lag. More recently, \cite{Dutta2018MNRAS} applied the TCAF model to data of GRS 1915$+$105, and showed how a gradual change in the size of the CENBOL can explain the time evolution of the type-C QPO frequency, above and below the 1.8 Hz limit. \cite{Dutta2018MNRAS} concluded that, as the QPO frequency decreases from over 5 Hz to below 1.8 Hz, the CENBOL increases in size from around 135 $R_g$ to over 500 $R_g$, and then it decreases again to about 100 $R_g$, when the QPO frequency increases beyond 5 Hz.
\par Here, we use the Comptonisation model of \cite{Karpouzas2020} to explain the dependence of both the rms amplitude and phase lags upon QPO frequency and energy. In sections 2 and 3 we, respectively, introduce the model and explain its application to the data of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. In section 4 we show our results. Finally, in section 5 we discuss our results and provide a new view to how the corona evolves over time, and how the latter affects the timing behaviour of GRS 1915$+$105.
\section{Comptonisation model}
In this work we use the model presented by \cite{Karpouzas2020}, which is an adaptation of the Comptonisation model proposed by \cite{Lee1998}; \cite{Lee2001}; and \cite{Kumar2014}. The main idea behind these models is that any QPO can be described as an oscillation of the time averaged spectrum, $n_{\gamma0}$, that is coupled to oscillations of other properties of the system, such as the corona temperature, $kT_e$, seed-photon source temperature, $kT_s$, and the external heating provided to a finite-sized corona, $\dot{H}_{ext}$. No assumption is made about the origin of the QPO frequency in the model. As far as the model is concerned, the QPO is an oscillation of the X-ray flux available for Compton up-scattering in the corona. As a consequence, the properties of the corona and seed-photon source can react to the QPO and oscillate coherently. Another possibility is that the QPO itself is produced by some instability in $T_e$ and $\dot{H}_{ext}$ or some oscillatory mode in the corona (see \citealt{Ingram2009MNRAS}; \citealt{Fragile2016MNRAS}; \citealt{Fragile2020MNRAS}).
\par The model of \cite{Karpouzas2020}, assumes that the seed photon source is a blackbody and that the Comptonising corona is a spherically symmetric homogeneous shell with optical depth $\tau$ and thickness $L$ around that blackbody. The model also takes into account feedback of up-scattered photons onto the blackbody. When applying the model in practice, first we calculate $n_{\gamma0}$ by solving the Kompaneets equation (\citealt{kompaneets1957}) in steady-state. Next, we linearise the Kompaneets equation assuming that $kT_e$, $kT_s$ and $\dot{H}_{ext}$ undergo small oscillations at exactly the QPO frequency, and solve for the complex amplitude, $\delta n_{\gamma}$, of the averaged spectrum, $n_{\gamma 0}$. We note that the oscillation of the seed-photon source temperature, $kT_s$, is attributed to feedback photons. Feedback, within the model, is regulated by the feedback fraction, $f_{\eta}$, that is defined as the fraction of the luminosity of the seed source that is solely due to feedback. The complex amplitude, $\delta n_{\gamma}$, holds information about the energy-dependent amplitude and phase lags at the QPO frequency, $\nu_{QPO}$, that was used to perform the linearisation. We note here that only $n_{\gamma0}$ and $\delta n_{\gamma}$ are functions of photon energy, while $kT_e$, $kT_s$, $L$, $\tau$ and $f_{\eta}$ are considered constant for a specific QPO frequency. In \cite{Karpouzas2020} we showed that the model can fit the energy-dependent time lags and fractional rms amplitude of the kHz QPOs of the NS LMXB, 4U $1636-53$. In this paper we make a first attempt to quantitatively explain the timing properties of the type-C QPO in the BH LMXB GRS 1915$+$105 using this same model. Our approach introduces two caveats. Firstly, the source of seed photons that we use is a blackbody instead of a disc-blackbody. Secondly, the photon-loss term in the Kompaneets equation assumes an equal optical depth seen by all seed-photons, which is a crude approximation in the case of a disc whose spatial extent is comparable to the size of the corona. We will expand on these issues in the Discussion section.
\section{Data Analysis and Modeling}
\cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} presented an extensive timing analysis of 620 observations of GRS 1915$+$105 showing type-C QPOs, after analysing all of the RXTE archival data (1996$-$2012). The QPO frequencies ranged from 0.4 Hz to 6.3 Hz. \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} measured the phase lags of all type-C QPOs between two broad bands, 2$-$5.7 keV and 5.7$-$15 keV. They also measured the lags between multiple narrow energy bands, which we hereafter refer to as lag-energy spectra. In the paper of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}, lag-energy spectra at nine selected QPO frequencies were shown for reference. Similarly, \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} measured the fractional rms amplitude both in the full PCA band (2$-$60 keV), and in separate bands. The latter will be referred to as the rms-energy spectrum. The primary focus of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} was to study the frequency dependence of the phase lags between the two broad bands mentioned above, which they called the lag-frequency spectrum. The authors fitted a broken line to the lag-frequency spectrum and placed a sufficiently precise limit of $1.8 \pm 0.1$ Hz on the QPO frequency at which the measured phase lags change from hard to soft. Their best-fitting broken-line to the lag-frequency spectrum also exhibited a statistically significant difference in slope, with a value of $-0.21 \pm 0.02$ below 1.8 Hz and $-0.1 \pm 0.01$ above 1.8 Hz, indicating a potential change in the physical mechanism that produces the lags.
\par \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} showed that the frequency dependence of the rms amplitude in the full PCA band, which we will refer to as the rms-frequency spectrum, also changes behaviour around the same QPO frequency, switching from increasing with QPO frequency for QPO frequencies below 1.8 Hz, to decreasing for QPO frequencies above 1.8 Hz. Although the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020} can predict both energy and frequency dependence of the fractional rms amplitude and phase lags, in this work we first study the frequency-dependent fractional rms amplitude in the full band, and phase lags between the two broad bands used in \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. The latter approach allows us to analyze all 620 QPO frequencies, while avoiding the computationally expensive process of fitting the rms- and lag-energy spectra at all QPO frequencies. By studying the frequency dependence, we obtain an initial estimate of how the model parameters depend upon QPO frequency. Then we proceed with fitting the rms- and lag-energy spectra presented by \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}, at representative QPO frequencies, and compare with our initial estimate for completeness. The challenge of the frequency-dependent analysis, with which we start, is that we only have two measurements at our disposal, namely the fractional rms amplitude and phase lag for each set of the 7 parameters of the model, $kT_e$, $kT_s$, $\tau$, $L$, $f_{\eta}$, $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$ that are needed to produce a pair of simulated fractional rms amplitude and phase lag at a certain QPO frequency, $\nu_{QPO}$. Thus, one can not perform a fitting in the classical sense. In the following, we describe how we can overcome the aforementioned limitation by matching the predicted, from the model, frequency dependence of the fractional rms amplitude and phase lags to the measured ones. Hereafter, we will refer to the term fractional rms amplitude simply as rms amplitude.
\par As shown by \cite{Karpouzas2020}, for a given set of the 7 parameters mentioned above, the model simultaneously predicts the rms amplitude in any band and phase lag between any two bands. However, the amplitude of the external heating rate, $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$, only affects the rms amplitude, acting as a normalisation, while the phase lags are not dependent on this parameter. Therefore, a good approach is to only simulate the lag-frequency spectrum at first, and then re-scale the simulated rms-frequncy spectrum, that was anyway produced alongside the lag-frequency spectrum, by adjusting $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$ in order to match the measured rms amplitude values. In the following sections we discuss the modeling of the phase lags first, and then we study the resulting rms amplitude.
\subsection{Modeling of the lag-frequency spectrum}
\label{sub:lag-frequency}
\par To explain the change of sign of the phase lag around 1.8 Hz and its dependence upon QPO frequency, we designed a simple computational experiment using the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020}. In particular, we generated $10^6$ random combinations of the model parameters uniformly for $kT_e$ in the range 3$-$100 keV, $kT_s$ in the range 0.1$-$3 keV, $L$ in the range 2$-$500 $R_g$, $f_{\eta}$ in the range 0$-$1 and $\nu_{QPO}$ in the range 0.4$-$6.3 Hz. We then calculated $\tau$ using $kT_e$ and a random uniformly distributed value of $\Gamma$ between 1.5 and 3, to cover a wide enough range of the power-law index. To calculate $\tau$, for every selected value of $kT_e$ and $\Gamma$, we used the formula:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tau}
\tau = \sqrt{2.25 + \frac{3}{ \frac{kT_e}{m_ec^2}\big[ (\Gamma + 0.5)^2 - 2.25 \big]}},
\end{equation}
where $m_e$ is the electron mass. We set the external heating rate, $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$, to a constant arbitrary value of $1\%$, since it only affects the measured rms amplitude and, as has been shown by \cite{Karpouzas2020}, it has a dependence upon QPO frequency, which we do not know a priori. Later, when we compare with the measured rms amplitude, we can re-scale $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$ to match the data, and reveal its QPO frequency dependence and actual value.
\par For each randomly generated QPO frequency, there is a corresponding randomly generated combination of the five model parameters $kT_s$, $kT_e$, $L$, $f_{\eta}$ and $\tau$, that when given as input to the model generates a model estimate of the phase lag between the bands 2$-$5.7 keV and 5.7$-$15 keV, at that QPO frequency. The energy bands were chosen such that we maintain consistency with \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. If one plots all the values of the model estimated phase lags as a function of the randomly generated QPO frequency, as we have done with gray circles in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}, no obvious correlation between the two is observed. However, the data suggests that there exists a significant correlation between phase lag and QPO frequency. To accommodate for the observed correlation, we created two sub-samples from our total simulated sample of phase lags, one with pairs of simulated phase lags and QPO frequencies for which the phase lags where positive, at QPO frequencies below 1.8 Hz and clustered around the best-fitting broken line of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} below 1.8 Hz, and another with pairs of simulated phase lags and QPO frequencies for which the phase lags where negative, at QPO frequencies above 1.8 Hz and clustered around the best-fitting broken line above 1.8 Hz. As a condition for the clustering around the best-fitting broken line, we demanded that the predicted phase lag from the model can deviate from the best-fitting broken line as much as one standard deviation of the data. The aforementioned computational experiment is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}, alongside with the original data and best-fitting broken line of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}.
\par For each pair of simulated phase lag and QPO frequency, that we restricted alongside the best-fitting broken line in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}, there is also a pair of the five remaining model parameters $kT_s$, $kT_e$, $L$, $f_{\eta}$ and $\tau$. Our goal was to check whether the aforementioned model parameters, that were used to generate the clustered simulated points around the broken line, have any correlation with QPO frequency that separates them from the total simulated population which is uniformly sampled. We will discuss the dependence of the model parameters upon QPO frequency in the Results section of this paper, where they are presented, but for now we will discuss the other by-product of our model, the rms amplitude, which at this point is already calculated but not compared with the measured rms amplitude.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,angle =-90]{brline.eps}
\caption{The measured lag-frequency spectrum of GRS 1915$+$105 (black points with error bars) alongside with all of our simulations. Grey circles represent all of the simulated pairs of phase lags and QPO frequencies. Red represents the simulated pairs that cluster within 1-$\sigma$ of the best-fitting broken line (blue dashed line) to the measured phase lags. The break, where the phase lags switch from hard to soft, is denoted by the cyan dotted line at $\sim$1.8 Hz. The white circles that track the best-fitting broken line show individual observations, at selected QPO frequencies, for which the energy dependence of the phase lags was measured (see section \ref{subsection:MCMC}).}
\label{fig:plag_clustering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The rms-frequency spectrum}
As we mentioned above, our model can predict the rms amplitude at any QPO frequency, simultaneously with the phase lag, for any combination of the model parameters. However, we remind the reader that to compare with measured rms amplitude we need to take into account the amplitude of the external heating rate , $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$. Up to this point, we have clustered the simulated pairs of phase lags and frequencies alongside the best-fitting broken line (Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}). In Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}, we plot the simulated rms-frequency spectrum, i.e. the pairs of simulated rms amplitude and frequency, only for the points for which the corresponding simulated phase lags are clustered around the broken-line of Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}. On top of that, we plot the rms amplitude measurements of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} alongside with their uncertainties. In Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}, we re-scaled the simulated rms-frequency spectrum by multiplying all of the values by a factor of 11, which is equivalent to assuming an external heating rate amplitude of $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}=11\%$ instead of $1\%$ that we used before, equal at all QPO frequencies. This re-scaling is totally arbitrary and only serves as a way to visually compare the simulated rms-frequency spectrum to the measured values of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}.
\par One can immediately distinguish two clusters of simulated points in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}. These clusters reflect the degeneracy caused by the lack of prior knowledge of the spectral parameters of the source in these observations (\citealt{Karpouzas2020}), $kT_e$, $\tau$ and $kT_s$. To detect and separate the clusters, we used the DBSCAN algorithm (\citealt{Ester1996ADA}). One of the clusters (blue rectangle in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}) corresponds to very low values of the rms amplitude (< 1$\%$) and does not populate the higher QPO frequencies (>3 Hz) very well, even when arbitrarily re-scaled. The other cluster (red rectangle in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}) appears at higher rms amplitude but does not fully populate the lower QPO frequencies (<2 Hz) sufficiently well. Interestingly, by forcing the simulated lag-frequency spectrum to follow the broken line in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}, the corresponding simulated rms-frequency spectrum for the upper cluster (red rectangle in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}), has a significant negative correlation, exactly above the 1.8 Hz level, as observed in the measured rms amplitude.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,angle =90]{clust1.eps}
\caption{The measured rms-frequency spectrum of GRS 1915$+$105 (black points with errorbars) alongside with the simulated rms-frequency pairs that follow the broken line of Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering} (contours). The contours were produced by smoothing the two-dimensional space of the simulated points with a Gaussian kernel. The rms amplitude is re-scaled by a factor of $11 \%$ to better compare with the data. The red and blue rectangles showcase the separation of the two prominent clusters in the simulations. }
\label{fig:rms_clustering}
\end{figure}
\par Since $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$ is QPO frequency-dependent, in general, the simulated rms-frequency spectrum can not perfectly match the data yet, for any arbitrary re-scaling factor that is constant at each frequency. However, if one matches the measured rms-frequency spectrum with the simulated one, the expected frequency dependence of $\delta \dot{H}_{ext}$ can be extracted. To perform the aforementioned matching, first we divided the simulated frequency range in 15 bins. In each bin we calculated the mode of the distribution of the simulated rms amplitude values and used that as the expected value of the simulated rms amplitude in that bin. We also calculated the $1-\sigma$ confidence interval around the mode, and used that value as the uncertainty of the simulated rms amplitude in that bin. After doing that, we have an rms-frequency relation which we can match to the measured rms-frequency relation. To do the latter, we simply found a normalisation, different at each QPO frequency that, when multiplied with the simulated rms amplitude, re-produces the measured rms amplitude at each QPO frequency. The value of the normalisation factor at each QPO frequency represents the required external heating rate fractional amplitude, $|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}|$, that best fits the data. We plot the result of this matching in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:rms_sim_DHext}, while the lower panel shows the values of the normalisation factor required at every QPO frequency.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{-1.7cm}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,angle =90]{rms_sim.eps}
\caption{Matching of the simulated rms-frequency spectrum to the measured one for the type-C QPOs in GRS 1915$+$105. The top panel shows the data (black error-bars) alongside with the full simulated values of the rms amplitude (contours) which have been averaged in selected frequency bins (white circles). The blue error-bars indicate the 1-$\sigma$ interval around the mode of each distribution of simulated rms amplitude in a particular frequency bin. The red dashed line in the lower panel is the required external heating rate amplitude, at each QPO frequency bin, that minimises the residuals between the white circles (top panel) and the average measured rms (back errors). }
\label{fig:rms_sim_DHext}
\end{figure}
\par We must note that we discarded the lower cluster (blue rectangle in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}) of the simulated rms-frequency spectrum because it would require an extreme variability of the external heating rate ($\delta \dot{H}_{ext} \sim 100\%$), to agree with the measured rms amplitude. In Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}, the contour levels correspond to a smoothing of the simulated rms-frequency pairs in the two-dimensional space using a Gaussian kernel. Seemingly, the contours in Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering} show no simulated rms-frequency pairs below 1 Hz. This happens only because the model, under the priors assumed, predicts too few points below 1 Hz, compared to the ones above that frequency, that they appear insignificant after the smoothing process, and thus not visible. This effect will be discussed below.
\par To study the physical parameters of the model and their dependence upon QPO frequency, which is discussed in the next section, we separated the simulated QPO frequency domain in two regimes, one below 1.8 Hz and the other above 1.8 Hz. For the regime above 1.8 Hz, we used all the simulated models that belonged to the upper cluster of the rms-frequency spectrum (red rectangle of Figure \ref{fig:rms_clustering}). For the regime below 1.8 Hz, we used all the available simulated models due to the fact that the simulations in this regime were more scarce. The issue of scarce model sampling below 1.8 Hz will be addressed in Section \ref{s:caveats}.
\subsection{MCMC fitting to the rms- and lag-energy spectra}
\label{subsection:MCMC}
\cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} presented rms- and lag-energy spectra of GRS 1915$+$105 for selected type-C QPO frequencies in the complete range 0.4$-$6.3 Hz. Those selected frequencies are plotted as white circles in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}, and can be viewed as snapshots of the timing properties of GRS 1915$+$105 at a given QPO frequency. They showed that, on average, the initially negative slope of the lag-energy spectra systematically increases following a linear trend, while the QPO frequency decreases down to $\sim$ 2 Hz. Below 2 Hz, the slope of the lag-energy spectrum, on average, crosses the zero level (switching to hard lags) and continues to increase following a significantly different linear trend than the one formed above the 2 Hz limit. Up to this point, our analysis has omitted any information about the energy dependence of the rms amplitude and phase lags provided by the model. Nevertheless, we arrived at an initial estimate of how the physical parameters depend upon QPO frequency. The dependence of the physical parameters upon QPO frequency are shown as black circles in Figure \ref{fig:feta}.
\par Using this initial estimate as a starting point, we performed an individual Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fitting to each rms- and lag-energy spectrum selected by \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. For the MCMC fitting and analysis we used the affine-invariant ensemble sampler (\citealt{emcee2013PASP}) and followed the same approach as in \cite{Karpouzas2020}. We must note that in the case of the rms-energy spectrum, for reasons that we discuss in Section \ref{s:caveats}, we neglected the rms amplitude measurements above 25 keV. The best-fitting model, alongside with the data of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}, at each QPO frequency is plotted separately for the frequencies above 1.8 Hz in Figure \ref{fig:above} and for the frequencies below 1.8 Hz in Figure \ref{fig:below}. As expected, the MCMC fitting gives a separate estimate of the dependence of the physical parameters upon QPO frequency. In the next sections we will discuss these results and how they compare to the analysis that does not take the energy dependence of the rms amplitude and phase lags into account.
\section{Results}
In section \ref{sub:lag-frequency}, we discussed the clustering of the simulated phase lags alongside the best-fitting broken-line of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. This clustering provides an initial estimate of the frequency dependence of the model parameters, thus revealing what, in the context of the model, is the physical mechanism that drives the lag-frequency relation. In Figure \ref{fig:feta} we plot five of the model parameters, namely the corona size, $L$, feedback fraction, $f_{\eta}$, electron temperature of the corona, $kT_e$, optical depth, $\tau$, and seed photon source temperature, $kT_s$, as a function of the QPO frequency plus the photon power-law index, $\Gamma$, which is not an independent parameter but was used to generate the values of $\tau$ for the simulation (see section \ref{sub:lag-frequency}).
\par To estimate the frequency dependence of the parameters, we divided the simulated frequency domain of the cases that clustered alongside the broken line in 15 bins. In each frequency bin we studied the distribution of each one of the five parameters and used the mode of the distribution as a best estimate, and the $1-\sigma$ confidence interval around that mode as the uncertainty of that estimate. These parameters, and their corresponding uncertainties at each QPO frequency are summarized in Table \ref{tab:frequency-only-approach}.
In Figure \ref{fig:feta} the black circles represent the values of the parameters as a function of QPO frequency derived from the clustering alongside the best-fitting broken-line (Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}). Hereafter, for simplicity, we will refer to the results derived from the clustering around the best-fitting broken-line process as the frequency-only-approach. The red circles in the same Figure represent the best-fitting parameters derived from the MCMC fitting to the individual rms- and lag-energy spectra of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} at selected QPO frequencies (see \citealt{Karpouzas2020} for details on the parameter estimation using the MCMC method). We will refer to the process of MCMC fitting to the rms- and lag-energy spectra as the energy-dependent-approach. The physical parameters derived from the energy-dependent-approach are summarized separately in Table \ref{tab:energy-dependent-approach}.
\par Based on the frequency-only-approach we find that the corona size decreases systematically from 115 $R_g$ at around 6 Hz down to about 7.2 $R_g$ at 2 Hz, and then increases again to almost 160 $R_g$ at 0.9 Hz. Alongside with the decreasing corona size, in Figure \ref{fig:feta} we plot the evolution of the disc inner radius assuming that the type-C QPO is the manifestation of the LTP frequency around a BH with mass 12.4$M_{\odot}$ and spin, $a
^{*}$, between 0.68 and 0.99. At the same time, the feedback fraction, $f_{\eta}$, stays at a maximum value of $\sim$ 1, which means that the disc is mainly heated up by up-scattered photons, for QPO frequencies above 2 Hz and then drops abruptly to zero at frequencies below 2 Hz, where the measured lags also change sign. For the rest of the parameters, $kT_e$, $\tau$ and $kT_s$, we did not find significant correlations with QPO frequency, except in the case of the corona temperature which exhibits, on average, lower values at frequencies below 2 Hz than above 2 Hz. More specifically, the corona temperature, $kT_e$, remains above 70 keV, on average, at frequencies above 2 Hz, while at 1.7 Hz it becomes $\sim$ 60 keV and decreases down to about 11 keV at 1.2 Hz. The amplitude of the external heating rate, $|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}|$, which is derived through comparison with the measured rms-frequency spectrum, decreases from around $10\%$ at 5.9 Hz, to $20\%$ at 2 Hz. Below 2 Hz, $|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}|$ becomes extremely high (>100$\%$), a fact that will be discussed later in section \ref{s:caveats}.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{-3cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=23cm,angle=90]{feta_L.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the physical parameters upon the type-C QPO frequency in GRS 1915$+$105. In each panel the black circles show the parameter estimates based on the total QPO frequency sample (frequency-only-approach) while the red circles show the parameter estimates from the MCMC fitting applied to individual selected frequencies (energy-dependent-approach). The red shaded area, in the upper left panel shows the range of the predicted evolution of the disc inner radius assuming that the type-C QPO frequency is produced by LTP and assuming a range for the masses and spins of the BH in GRS 1915$+$105. The dotted cyan vertical lines, in all panels, denote the 1.8 Hz limit. }
\label{fig:feta}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Physical parameters of the model at different frequencies of the type-C QPO in GRS $1915+105$. The frequencies in the first column represent the center of the selected bins in which the distribution of each parameter was analysed. The amplitude of the external heating rate (last column) is deduced by comparison of the simulated rms-frequency spectra to the measured one (see Figure \ref{fig:rms_sim_DHext}). The uncertainties of the model parameters were calculated as described in Figure \ref{fig:rms_sim_DHext} and are omitted when only upper limits for the parameters could be constrained.}
\label{tab:frequency-only-approach}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
$\nu_{qpo}$ [Hz] & $L$ [$R_g$] & $f_{\eta}$& $kT_e$ [keV] & $kT_s$ [keV] & $\tau$ & $\Gamma$ & $|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}| [\%]$\\
\hline
0.9 & 157$^{+56}_{-113}$ & 0 & 15$^{+24}_{-0}$ & 0.4$^{+1.2}_{-0}$ & 2.3$^{+2.0}_{-0}$ & 1.9$\pm0.3$ & 256.2 \\
\hline
1.2 & 185$^{+38}_{-75}$ & 0 & 11$^{+49}_{-0.}$ & 0.3$^{+1.1}_{-0}$ & 1.7$^{+2}_{-0}$ & 1.5$^{+0.5}_{-0}$ & 310.6 \\
\hline
1.5 & 231$^{+0}_{-64}$ & 0 & 16$^{+44}_{-9}$ & 0.2$^{+1.6}_{-0}$ & 1.2$^{+2.2}_{-0}$ & 1.5$^{+0.7}_{-0}$ & 432.2 \\
\hline
1.7 & 7.6$^{+84}_{-0}$ & 0.1$^{+0.5}_{}$ & 57$^{+29}_{-34}$ & 0.2$^{+2.0}_{-0}$ & 1.0$^{+1.6}_{-0}$ & 1.5$^{+0.7}_{-0}$ & 36.5 \\
\hline
2.0 & 7.2$^{+34}_{-0}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 93$^{+5}_{-29}$ & 0.3$^{+1.2}_{-0.1}$ & 1.0$^{+0.7}_{-0.0}$ & 1.6$^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$ & 21.1 \\
\hline
2.3 & 7$^{+43}_{-0}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 76$^{+22}_{-31}$ & 0.3$^{+1.2}_{-0.1}$ & 1.0$^{+1.4}_{-0.0}$ & 1.7$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & 19.8 \\
\hline
2.6 & 30$^{+34}_{-23}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 79$^{+19}_{-28}$ & 0.4$^{+1.1}_{-0.3}$ & 1.0$^{+0.8}_{-0.0}$ & 1.9$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ & 19.1 \\
\hline
2.8 & 44$\pm36$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 93$^{+5}_{-25}$ & 0.6$^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ & 1.5$\pm0.6$ & 1.8$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 18.8 \\
\hline
3.1 & 58$\pm38$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 100$^{}_{-26}$ & 0.5$^{+1.2}_{-0.3}$ & 1.5$\pm0.6$ & 1.7$^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$ & 18.5 \\
\hline
3.4 & 75$\pm 40$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 76$^{+22}_{-27}$ & 0.7$^{+1.1}_{-0.5}$ & 1.1$^{+0.9}_{-0}$ & 1.7$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & 18.3 \\
\hline
3.7 & 79$^{+39}_{-52}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 100$^{}_{-27}$ & 0.9$^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ & 1.0$^{+0.8}_{-0}$ & 2$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ & 17.8 \\
\hline
3.9 & 96$\pm42$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 74$^{+23}_{-29}$ & 0.6$^{+1.3}_{-0.3}$ & 1$^{+1.4}_{-0}$ & 1.7$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 17.1 \\
\hline
4.2 & 107$\pm42$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 100$^{}_{-29}$ & 1$^{+1}_{-0.7}$ & 1$^{+1.4}_{-0}$ & 1.7$^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$ & 16.2 \\
\hline
4.5 & 89$^{+44}_{-73}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 91$^{+6}_{-24}$ & 0.9$^{+1.2}_{-0.5}$ & 0.9$^{+1.3}_{-0.0}$ & 1.9$\pm 0.3$ & 15.0 \\
\hline
4.8 & 101$^{+44}_{-59}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 100$^{}_{-24}$ & 1$^{+1.1}_{-0.7}$ & 1.1$^{+1}_{-0}$ & 1.8$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 13.6 \\
\hline
5.0 & 116$\pm44$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 91$^{+6}_{-24}$ & 1.4$\pm 0.9$ & 1.0$^{+1.4}_{-0}$ & 1.6$^{+0.6}_{-0.1}$ & 12.2 \\
\hline
5.3 & 115$^{+45}_{-60}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 79$^{+18}_{-30}$ & 0.8$^{+1.2}_{-0.5}$ & 1$^{+0.8}_{-0}$ & 1.8$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 11 \\
\hline
5.6 & 117$^{+44}_{-59}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 73$^{+24}_{-30}$ & 1.3$\pm 0.9$ & 1$^{+0.8}_{-0}$ & 2$\pm 0.3$ & 10.2 \\
\hline
5.9 & 116$^{+45}_{-74}$ & 1$^{}_{-0.2}$ & 79$^{+18}_{-30}$ & 2.9$^{+0}_{-0.9}$ & 1.1$^{+0.9}_{-0}$ & 1.8$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 10.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In the energy-dependent-approach, we fitted the rms- and lag-energy spectra of the QPO at the individual frequencies selected by \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS}. This allows us to better constrain the physical parameters of the model. This approach is equivalent to taking a snapshot of what the parameters would be at the time when the QPO frequency had a particular value. Based on the results of the energy-dependent-approach, we find that the corona size stays above 100 $R_g$ when the QPO frequency is above 2.5 Hz, while at around 2 Hz it becomes 8.7 $R_g$ with a lower $1-\sigma$ uncertainty of 6 $R_g$, indicating that around that frequency the corona size, within the uncertainties, can be as low as the lowest value in our simulations, which was 2 $R_g$. However, we note here that, based on the MCMC, the best-fitting corona size between 2 Hz and 3.5 Hz does not seem to agree with the smooth decrease in size that we derive from the frequency-only approach. This happens because the observations between 2 Hz and 3.5 Hz, for which we had energy-dependent measurements (white circles in Figure \ref{fig:plag_clustering}), happened to be selected such that the phase lags were very low, compared to other observations in the same frequency range, which naturally leads to larger fitted corona sizes, $L$, since that parameter is mostly affected by the magnitude of the phase lag. The feedback fraction, $f_{\eta}$, decreases with QPO frequency smoothly from almost 100$\%$, at 5 Hz to almost zero at 0.5 Hz. The corona temperature, although badly constrained, is high (>40 keV) at QPO frequencies above 2 Hz, and it becomes significantly lower (<13 keV) at QPO frequencies below 2 Hz. The optical depth of the corona shows a systematic increase from 0.7 at 5 Hz to 6.2 at 0.5 Hz. The seed-photon source temperature also shows a decrease, on average, from values above 1 keV at QPO frequencies above 2 Hz, to values below 0.3 keV at QPO frequencies below 2 Hz. Finally, the amplitude of the external heating rate increases from $17\%$ at 5 Hz to $\sim 40\%$ at 2 Hz, and then it becomes higher than $100\%$ at QPO frequencies below 2 Hz.
The last column of Table \ref{tab:energy-dependent-approach} summarizes the $\chi^2$ of the fits to the rms- and lag-energy spectra at each QPO frequency. For the calculation of $\chi^2$ we combined both the rms amplitude and phase lags, using the same approach as in \cite{Karpouzas2020}. The high $\chi^2$ values are, in most cases, because of the bad fit of the model to the rms-energy spectrum at energies higher than 20 keV. Although, as we mentioned before, the measured rms in energy bands above 25 keV was not used in the MCMC fitting, the rms amplitude, predicted by the model, fails to flatten out at high energies. The non-flattening of the model rms amplitude at high energies was already noticed in the case of NS LMXBs (\citealt{Karpouzas2020}), and attributed to a lack of a non-oscillating flux component in the model, such as reflection, that would contribute to a reduction of the rms amplitude at higher energies. This explanation is also valid in the case of GRS 1915$+$105, where reflection signatures appear in the energy spectrum when the type-C QPOs are observed (\citealt{Misra2020ApJ}).
\begin{table*}
\caption{Physical parameters of the model as a function of the type-C QPO frequency in GRS 1915$+$105. The best-fitting model parameters are derived via MCMC fitting to the energy-dependent rms amplitude and phase lags at each frequency, while the corresponding uncertainties where taken as the 1$-\sigma$ confidence interval around the mode of the MCMC posterior distributions for each model parameter. The values of $\Gamma$ in the seventh column are derived using the best-fitting temperature, $kT_e$, and optical depth, $\tau$, while the uncertainties of $\Gamma$ are computed through propagation, using the uncertainties of the same parameters.}
\label{tab:energy-dependent-approach}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
$\nu_{qpo}$ [Hz] & $L$ [$R_g$] & $f_{\eta}$& $kT_e$ [keV] & $kT_s$ [keV] & $\tau$ & $\Gamma$ & $|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}| [\%]$ & $\chi^2/d.o.f$\\
\hline
0.466 & 1348$^{+45}_{-56}$ & 0.01$\pm 0.004$ & 7.1$^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ & 0.2$\pm 0.05$ & 6.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & 2.0$\pm 0.1$ & 995$^{+2}_{-4}$ & 880.9/5 \\
\hline
0.865 & 479$^{+55}_{-81}$ & 0.3$\pm 0.1$ & 7.7$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ & 0.2$\pm 0.04$ & 4.6$^{+0.4}_{-0.6}$ & 2.3$\pm 0.2$ & 926$^{+62}_{-600}$ & 482.4/5 \\
\hline
1.334 & 208$^{+38}_{-42}$ & 0.4$\pm 0.1$ & 12$\pm 2.4$ & 0.1$\pm 0.05$ & 3.6$\pm 0.7$ & 2.3$\pm 0.4$ & 826$^{+127}_{-218}$ & 54.6/5 \\
\hline
1.651 & 161$^{+25}_{-29}$ & 0.4$\pm 0.1$ & 13$^{+3}_{-2}$ & 0.1$\pm 0.03$ & 4.0$\pm 0.7$ & 2.1$\pm 0.3$ & 719$\pm 187$ & 153.9/5 \\
\hline
2.077 & 9$^{+8}_{-6}$ & 0.7$\pm 0.1$ & 111$^{+51}_{-43}$ & 1.3$\pm 0.3$ & 2.3$^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$ & 1.3$^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ & 39$^{+7}_{-10}$ & 24.3/5 \\
\hline
2.538 & 138$^{+31}_{-28}$ & 0.9$\pm 0.1$ & 86$^{+52}_{-40}$ & 1.3$\pm 0.2$ & 1.0$^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ & 2.1$^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ & 21$\pm3$ & 7.0/5 \\
\hline
3.137 & 136$^{+31}_{-34}$ & 0.9$\pm 0.1$ & 76$^{+42}_{-45}$ & 1.2$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 1.1$\pm 0.5$ & 2.1$\pm 0.8$ & 21$\pm 5$ & 17.6/5 \\
\hline
4.097 & 96$^{+10}_{-14}$ & 0.8$\pm 0.04$ & 40.3$^{+18.1}_{-14.2}$ & 1.0$\pm 0.1$ & 1.2$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 2.7$^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ & 17.3$^{+1.8}_{-2.1}$ & 11.2/5 \\
\hline
4.979 & 130$^{+15}_{-22}$ & 0.99$\pm 0.01$ & 69$^{+27}_{-16}$ & 2.9$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & 0.7$\pm 0.2$ & 2.7$\pm 0.6$ & 17$^{+1}_{-2}$ & 42.4/5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{-1.99cm}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,height=12cm,angle=90]{all_fits_above_18.eps}
\caption{ Best-fitting energy-dependent models to the rms- and lag-energy spectra at selected type-C QPO frequencies above 1.8 Hz in GRS 1915$+$105. In the left and right panels the rms- and lag-energy spectra are plotted, respectively, alongside with the best fitting models. For the different QPO frequencies, the data-points and model-lines are plotted with different styles colors. In the bottom sub-panels of each side we plot the residuals between the data and model normalised by the uncertainties in the data. }
\label{fig:above}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{-1.99cm}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,height=12cm,angle=90]{all_fits_below_18.eps}
\caption{ Same as in Figure \ref{fig:above}, for the type-C QPO frequencies in GRS 1915$+$105 at QPO frequencies below 1.8 Hz. }
\label{fig:below}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm,height=14cm]{schema.eps}
\caption{ Schematic representation of the evolution of the corona size in GRS 1915$+$105 at four typical QPO frequencies. In panel a, at high QPO frequency, a spherically symmetric corona (blue layered circle) covers the inner accretion disc (thick horizontal line) and feedback is very efficient. In panel b the QPO frequency is lower and, assuming it reflects the Lense-Thirring frequency at the inner edge of the disc, the inner-disc radius increases; the size of the corona has decreased enough so that it is only marginally covering the inner disc, while feedback efficiency has decreased. In panel c, where the QPO frequency is at around 2 Hz, the inner-disc radius is higher, the corona has reached its minimum size and is now inside the disc. Finally, in panel d the corona size increases again as the QPO frequency decreases, and the inner edge of the disc increases further.}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We propose a novel explanation for the change of the time lags of the type-C QPO in GRS 1915$+$105 from soft, at high QPO frequencies, to hard, at low QPO frequencies. We applied a Comptonisation model that incorporates feedback of the hard corona photons onto the soft photon source to a large data set of timing measurements of this source with the RXTE satellite. We used the rms amplitude and phase lag measurements of \cite{Zhang2020MNRAS} combined with the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020} and conclude that a corona with time-varying size, accompanied by a switch in feedback efficiency, is able to explain the data. In particular, we find that, as the QPO frequency decreases from 5 Hz to 2 Hz, the size of the corona decreases from around 120 $R_g$ to a few $R_g$. During this contraction, the accretion disc is covered by the corona, the feedback of Compton up-scattered photons onto the disc is very efficient ($\sim$ 100$\%$), and most of the disc flux is due to feedback photons. As the QPO frequency decreases, so does the feedback efficiency because the corona covers less and less area of the disc, as its size decreases. At the same time, assuming that the truncation radius of the disc is anti-correlated to the QPO frequency, the inner radius of the disc increases and at some critical frequency ($\sim 1.8$ Hz) the disc is no longer covered by the corona. From that point on, the efficiency of feedback decreases as the disc inner radius moves further out and the corona size continues to decrease. In Figure \ref{fig:schematic}, we present a schematic representation for the evolution of the size of the corona in four phases as the type-C QPO frequency decreases from 5 Hz down to 1 Hz. Our fits are systematically worse when the QPO frequency is below 1.8 Hz than when it is above that value. Our results indicate that when the QPO frequency is below 1.8 Hz the size of the corona increases to values much larger than 130 $R_g$, the feedback efficiency decreases to values <50$\%$ and down to zero, and also the power of the source of external heating for the corona oscillates with an amplitude larger than $100 \%$. The aforementioned paradigm of a decreasing corona and feedback efficiency fits well with all available timing measurements of the type-C QPO in the frequency range of 1.8$-$5 Hz, and explains both the decrease in phase lags between two energy bands, and the smooth decrease in the slope of the lag-energy spectrum. The change in the behaviour of the lags at 1.8 Hz and below indicates either a possible switch in the physical mechanism that produces the lags or a change in the geometry of the Comptonising region that the model does not take into account.
\subsection{Comparison to other models}
\cite{Nobili2000ApJ} proposed a model that was able to explain the lag-frequency spectrum of GRS 1915$+$105. The difference between their approach and ours is in the mechanism that produces the soft lags. In the model of \cite{Nobili2000ApJ}, the soft lags are caused by Compton down-scattering of soft disc photons that have previously suffered saturated Comptonisation in an inner optically thick component of the corona. In the model of \cite{Nobili2000ApJ} the Compton down-scattering happens in an outer cooler component of the corona.
\par In the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020}, the soft lags are interpreted as a delayed response of the seed photon source to feedback photons that impinge back on the disc after being Compton up-scattered in the corona. The differences in the physical assumptions between the two models are reflected on the correlation between the inferred corona size and disc inner radius. In the model of \cite{Nobili2000ApJ}, the disc inner radius is positively correlated to the size of the corona, whereas in our model the two quantities are anticorrelated down to the limit of $\sim$2 Hz and then positively correlated for lower QPO frequencies. Our model, however, explains not only the lag-frequency spectrum, but also both the rms- and lag-energy spectra at different QPO frequencies.
\par \cite{Dutta2018MNRAS} based on the TCAF model, provide an explanation opposite to ours when it comes to the evolution of the Comptonising cloud at different type-C QPO frequencies. More specifically, although the size of our corona is of the same order of magnitude as the size of the CENBOL in \cite{Dutta2018MNRAS}, in their interpretation there is no systematic or rapid decrease in the CENBOL size at around 1.8 Hz. Since a transition of a type-C QPO frequency around 1.8 Hz typically happens in matter of a few days (\citealt{Dutta2018MNRAS}), the predicted decrease in the size of the corona should happen on the same time scale. Regardless of whether the decrease in corona size is systematic or very rapid, our fits to both the lag-energy and lag-frequency spectra agree that the size should be significantly lower around 1.8 Hz. If our explanation is correct, a reduction in the size of the corona, while the temperature remains the same or decreases, would lead to a reduction in the hard X-ray intensity at low QPO frequencies. \cite{Stiele2018ApJ} and \cite{Bhargava2019MNRAS} provide evidence of positive correlation between QPO frequency and X-ray flux. Furthermore, if matter from the corona is not advected onto the black hole then, given appropriate conditions in the magnetic field, matter could be directed towards the jet, in which case enhanced radio emission should be present at low QPO frequencies. In support to our expectations, \cite{Yan2013MNRAS}, found that increased radio activity is present when the frequency of the type-C QPO is low.
\par Although at first glance our explanation appears to be in conflict with the model of \cite{Ingram2009MNRAS}, this is not the case. \cite{Ingram2009MNRAS} assumed that the inner flow around an accreting black hole consists of a geometrically thick torus located inside the truncation radius of a non-precessing geometrically thin disc. As the torus precesses, it illuminates different parts of the disc causing the modulation of the X-ray flux that produces the LF QPO. \cite{Ingram2016} noted, however, that the same pattern would result if the torus was fixed and it was the disc the one that precessed at the LT frequency (\citealt{Schnittman2006ApJ}; \citealt{Tsang2013MNRAS}). As \cite{Ingram2016} explained, their choice of one geometry over the other was based on the fact that the rms spectrum of the QPO is hard and hence the emission at the QPO frequency could not come from the disc.
\par As we showed here, this argument is not applicable, and a scenario with a precessing disc and a fixed corona is possible. Indeed, in our model the rms spectrum of the QPO is a consequence of inverse Compton scattering of soft disc photons in the corona (the torus in the scenario of \citealt{Ingram2009MNRAS}), such that the high rms amplitude values of the QPO at high energies simply reflect the variability of the soft disc emission at the LT frequency that is scattered in the corona. This, plus the feedback from the corona to the disc, naturally explain both the variability of the iron line discussed in \cite{Ingram2016} and the rms spectrum of the QPO.
Our interpretation of a corona with a different size at different QPO frequencies, agrees with recent evidence presented by \cite{Kara2019Natur} of a contracting corona in the BH transient MAXI J1820$+$070. \cite{Kara2019Natur} studied the broad-band noise component through a reverberation model that assumes a point-like corona above the accretion disc, and presented evidence that the height of the corona changes with time. Here, we used the LF QPOs and applied a Comptonisation model that assumes an extended corona, and provided evidence that the size of this corona changes with QPO frequency. Since the QPO frequency changes with time, the corona size also changes with time. The results of \cite{Kara2019Natur} and ours could be due to a similar mechanism that acts throughout the different spectral states and depending on the exact state, and its spectral-timing properties can be detected by using different analysis and modelling techniques.
\subsection{On the possible connection between the corona and the jet}
Persistent and transient BH LMXBs exhibit significant radio emission (\citealt{Fender2001MNRAS}). The radio activity is related to the existence of a jet (\citealt{Brand1986ApJ}; \citealt{Levinson1996ApJ}; \citealt{Georganopoulos2002A&A}; \citealt{Reig2003A&A}), that can produce hard X-rays through Compton up-scattering. Jet models, such as the ones presented in \cite{Reig2003A&A} and \cite{Kylafis2018A&A}, successfully explain the hard lags as a function of broad-band frequency in the context of Comptonisation of disc seed-photons in the jet. However, to the best of our knowledge, the soft lags of the type-C QPOs, and particularly the transition from hard to soft lags, has yet to be explained by jet models.
\par The radio emission in GRS 1915$+$105 is occasionally anti-correlated to the hard X-ray flux (\citealt{Trudolyubov2001ApJ}). The fact that the radio emission of GRS 1915$+$105 is stronger at lower type-C QPO frequencies (\citealt{Yan2013MNRAS}), combined with the fact that the lags are hard at low QPO frequencies and, as we showed here, Comptonisation in a uniform corona provides systematically worse fits to the data, naturally leads to the following scenario: At high QPO frequencies an extended corona with efficient feedback onto the disc can explain both the power-law component in the energy spectrum and the lags and rms-amplitude of the type-C QPO. As the size of the corona decreases, feedback onto the disc and Comptonisation in the corona are no longer the dominant components that drive the timing-spectral properties, and so the jet takes over as the medium that produces the power-law and the hard lags. This scenario, if validated, can explain all the spectral and timing properties at once, as well as the correlation between X-ray and radio luminosity.
\subsection{Model Caveats}
\label{s:caveats}
We modelled the rms-frequency, lag-frequency, rms-energy and lag-energy spectra of the type-C QPO in GRS 1915$+$105, using the Comptonisation model of \cite{Karpouzas2020}. As with every model, there are certain caveats that we address here. Firstly, the model tends to produce less simulated phase-lag and rms-amplitude values at QPO frequencies lower than 1.8 Hz (Figures \ref{fig:plag_clustering} and \ref{fig:rms_clustering}). This happens because in the model the energy-dependent rms-amplitude and lags do not change as smoothly for low values of the feedback fraction, $f_{\eta}$, as for high values ($f_{\eta}$>0.3). This behaviour is inherent to the model and depends on the assumptions upon which it is built. To produce hard lags, the model requires less feedback, since in the model increasing the feedback means increasing the time-delay of the soft component with respect to the hard one, and so regimes of hard lags will tend to be poorly sampled. A detailed study of how the model depends upon each physical parameter will be presented in an upcoming publication (Garc\'ia et al. in prep.).
\par Secondly, the model of \cite{Karpouzas2020} uses a simple blackbody as the seed-photon source for Comptonisation. Despite this simplification, it is remarkable how good the model works when applied to the data. While a multi-colour disc-blackbody would be a more realistic assumption, this would not only add two additional free parameters (source inclination and disc inner radius), but it would complicate the definition of both the optical depth, which should then have an extra spatial dependence, and of the feedback, since the feedback efficiency should then depend on the inner disc radius. Addressing the aforementioned problems will be part of a future work, especially since source inclination is suspected to play a role in the switch of the time lags behaviour as a function of QPO frequency (\citealt{vde2017MNRAS}).
\par Finally, the model yields a seemingly worse fit to the data of the rms-energy spectra above 25 keV, and also in general at QPO frequencies below 1.8 Hz. The first issue was also addressed in \cite{Karpouzas2020} and is likely due to the lack of a reflection component in our model. The second issue, which becomes even more apparent from the very large values of the required external heating rate amplitude ($|\delta \dot{H}_{ext}|$>100$\%$), can be due to either a break-down of the assumption of the model at QPO frequencies below 1.8 Hz, or to an actual switch in the physical mechanism, as mentioned in the previous sub-section. To answer as many of these questions as possible and retain applicability to large data-sets, a more detailed modeling of the disc-corona-jet geometry and interaction in a semi-analytical framework is needed.
\section{Conclusions}
We applied our newly developed Comptonisation model, initially designed to explain the lower kHz QPO in NS LMXBs, to the type-C QPO of the BH LMXB GRS 1915$+$105. We used a large data-set of timing measurements of this source obtained using archival data from the RXTE satellite. We showed that a spherically symmetric and uniform corona of a finite size is able to explain these timing properties, under the condition that the size of the corona decreases as a function of QPO frequency, down to the critical frequency of 1.8 Hz, where the lags turn from soft to hard. Furthermore, the switch of the lags from soft to hard is moderated by the feedback efficiency of up-scattered photons onto the accretion disc that lies inside the corona. For the first time, we were able to fit the energy dependent rms amplitude and time lags of type-C QPOs, which supports the idea that Comptonisation in the corona should be an essential component of every spectral and timing model.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
D.A acknowledges support from the Royal society. This work is part of the research programme Athena with project
number 184.034.002, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research
Council (NWO). LZ acknowledges support from the Royal Society Newton Funds. TMB acknowledges financial contribution from the agreement ASI-INAF n. 2017-14-H.0. Y.Z. acknowledges the support from China Scholarship Council (CSC 201906100030). This research has made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center, provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figures/Problem_Trimmed.png}
\caption{Problem illustration. Mathematically, an observed motion sequence traces out a trajectory on the skeletal pose manifold. The problem of human motion prediction amounts to extrapolating this trajectory in a smooth and coherent manner. We are interested in tasks: 1) predicting the most likely motion (e.g., continuation of the walking action); 2) predicting the transition to another specified action (e.g. transition from current action to eating); 3) fine-grained control over body parts, e.g., requiring the upper body performing eating action while the lower body engaging in walking.}
\label{fig:problem}
\end{figure}
An important component of our capacity to interact with the external world resides in the ability to predict the future \cite{residualgru}, based on existing cues and past experience. Having a mental representation of how other humans are likely to act is crucial for us to avoid dangers and make decisions. Likewise, the ability for machines to anticipate and model human motion dynamics is very much coveted. Modeling and predicting human motion is at the heart of many important applications in the computer vision domain such as video making, human posture tracking \cite{taylor2010dynamical}, as well as the robotics domain such as regulating a robot's response and behaviour in human-machine interactions \cite{koppula2013anticipating, koppula2016anticipatory}.
Human motion prediction(HMP) is challenging since humans do not follow fixed laws of motion as is the case for inanimate objects. The inherent stochastic nature of human behaviour invokes complexity in the form of non-linearity and high dimensionality. Earlier approaches have typically utilized shallow latent-variable models such as hidden Markov models \cite{Markov} or Gaussian processes \cite{gaussian} to represent the motion dynamics with hidden states. In recent years, many deep learning approaches were proposed and have yielded improved results.
A first class of work utilised recurrent neural networks (RNNs) such as Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) \cite{erd}, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) \cite{residualgru,pavllo2019modeling} or refined RNN architectures tailored for modeling motion dynamics. Another line of work built upon the success of deep generative models including Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) \cite{habibie2017recurrent, yan2018mt} and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) \cite{barsoum2018hp, kundu2019bihmp}.
A major shortcoming of prior works
is that they can only predict a single output sequence for any given observed motion sequence. However, given our incomplete knowledge of the present, the future should not be represented as a single deterministic state but rather a spectrum of plausible outcomes. Considering only a single future outcome may be inadequate and lead to misinformed decision making. For example, in safety-crucial applications such as autonomous driving, unexpected maneuvers such as sudden overtaking must be accounted for in guiding the course of actions.
Another severe limitation of existing works is that they can only predict one single activity belonging to the same activity as the observed sequence, e.g. predicting `walking' motion from an observed `walking' sequence. For real applications such as video synthesis, animation, and game character movement generation, we usually want to (1) customize a future motion with fine-grained control on the body parts, e.g., requiring the whole body act in ‘walking’ activity but with the right arm act in ‘eating’, and (2) command the prediction to smoothly transfer from current activity to another activity. However, existing methods clearly fail to fulfill the above requirements. This motivates us to propose the controlled motion prediction problem.
The ability to control and fine-tune the generated future motion would allow for a broader research space in human-machine interaction and would certainly be desirable for many applications.
Inspired by a divide and conquer strategy, we propose a novel Aggregated Multi-GAN (AM-GAN) framework for the task of controlled human motion prediction. The generator module in our architecture allows for conditional motion generation, which may be used to realize action transfer, \emph{i.e.,} the predicted motion can be controlled to transfer to a specified action instead of continuing the original action. AM-GAN models the motion of central spine and four limbs with separate GANs and the final complete motion is aggregated over them. The aggregation process ensures that the overall dynamics and interaction between kinematic chains are balanced and attuned. Dividing the generative modeling of the entire human skeletal motion into sub kinematic chains reduces the complexity of high dimensional motion generation into a less complicated low dimensional one. Furthermore, such an approach also enables us to acquire fine-grained control over the generated motion in body chains.
To summarize, our main contributions are: 1) We propose a generalized 3D human motion prediction problem that allows for adequate and fine-grained control over the predictive spectrum. 2) We design a novel Aggregated Multi-GAN (AM-GAN) framework to tackle this problem via a divide and conquer strategy. 3) AM-GAN sets the new state-of-the-art performance for quantitative short-term prediction and also generates natural and consistent long-term prediction. More importantly, AM-GAN also allows control over the prediction such as generating transitions to specified actions and fine-grained control of body part movements. The AM-GAN is, to our knowledge, the first work that can handle these tasks simultaneously (short-term prediction, long-term prediction, specified action transfer, and fine-grained motion prediction control).
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{RNN based motion prediction.} Deep learning has achieved great success in various fields \cite{kingma2014semi,butepage2017deep,Multiview,Leizhu,Ningxu}. RNN is a natural candidate for modeling human motion sequence due to their suitability in handling time series. Each time step of a motion sequence is encoded as a hidden state that learns the dynamics of the motion up to the current. The final hidden state corresponding to the last observed frame is then recurrently updated to generate a future sequence. This approach has been adopted in several works \cite{erd, residualgru}. A similar work \cite{li2018convolutional} employs convolutional layers instead of RNN units. In general, the progress within this line of work seeks to better model long-term temporal dependency and overcome the issue that the current hidden state tends to be overwhelmed by the last observed frame. \cite{residualgru} proposes to incorporate a residual connection between the RNN units while \cite{liu2019towards} proposes a hierarchical RNN architecture.
The major shortcoming of this class of works is that the output is fixed to be a single deterministic future motion sequence, and would be inadequate for obtaining a representation of the spectrum of future possibilities.\\%The prediction ability can be improved from the model structure or from the kinematics principle. In order to further improve the prediction ability, a multi-stage architecture (Guo and Choi 2019) is proposed. The combination structure achieves better results in motion prediction
\hspace*{0.3cm}\textbf{GAN based human motion prediction.} GAN \cite{goodfellow2014generative} provides an alternative to the RNN based approach for HMP. In an adversarial process, a generator network outputs possible future motion sequences conditioned on an observed input sequence and a discriminator network assesses how likely these generated sequences are real or fake. In contrast to RNN-based approaches, GAN-based approaches \cite{barsoum2018hp, kundu2019bihmp} for HMP are probabilistic in that the learned generative model can output different sequences of possible future human poses from the same input sequence by sampling an additional latent noise vector. A challenging problem with GAN approaches is mode-collapsing during training, which leads to generated outputs all lying within certain modes. \cite{kundu2019bihmp} proposed a modification of the discriminator so as to incorporate both adversarial loss as well as content loss on the prediction. \\%The authors claim that this helps in avoiding mode collapse with empirical evidence.
\hspace*{0.3cm}\textbf{Controllable motion prediction.} To our knowledge, few existing works assimilate control for motion prediction tasks. \cite{holden2016deep, pavllo2019modeling} incorporate control parameters in the form of path trajectories along which a predicted walking or running action is bound to traverse. Another related work \cite{holden2017fast} adapts the technique of neural style transfer for motion generation. For example, a walking motion sequence may be manifested in a jubilant fashion or a depressed manner and these different styles can be transferred onto a walking sequence without altering the essential content.
However, the problem of generating transitions between different class of actions has not yet been studied in the setting of HMP. Different from previous works, our approach does not focus on controlling the trajectory or expression style of a walking action. Rather, we seek to allow for predicting transitions between different actions and fine-grained control over body parts in executing a prediction.
\section{Our Approach}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Figures/Architecture.png}
\caption{The proposed AM-GAN architecture. Each kinematic chain is modeled by its own sub-GAN (with matching colors). Each sub-GAN has a generator in the form of a VAE network as well as a local critic. The combined output from all sub-GANs is then aggregated and passed to a global critic. The aggregation layer and the global critic constitute the global GAN.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we present the details of our proposed AM-GAN. The overview of our approach is inspired by the divide and conquer strategy. We observe that by reducing the general motion generation task entailing of the entire human skeleton to its constituent skeletal kinematic chains, the issue of mode collapsing can be effectively alleviated, leading to more accurate and diverse motion sequence forecasts.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
Presented with an observed human motion sequence parameterized as $\left(\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\cdots,\mathbf{p}_{t}\right)$ with optional control parameters, we are interested in generating a future pose sequence $\left(\mathbf{p}_{t+1},\mathbf{p}_{t+2},\cdots,\mathbf{p}_{t+T}\right)$.
Each human skeletal pose $\mathbf{p}_i$ is composed of distinct key joints.
For simplicity, we adopt 3D coordinates to characterize the locations of each joint. Mathematically, the skeletal human pose lies on a manifold, and a motion sequence traces out a trajectory on this pose manifold, which is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:problem}. The problem of HMP is to find a smooth extension to the observed trajectory, while action transfer is to find a smooth transfer from current trajectory to the target one.
\subsection{Method Overview and Rationale}
\textbf{Divide and conquer with multiple GANs and aggregation.} Existing methods attempt to model the dynamics of entire human skeletal motion in its entirety. \cite{srnn, li2018convolutional} further seek to model spatial dependencies between joints. These attempts set the problem of motion generation on an unnecessarily high dimensional manifold. Optimizing for both the adversarial and content loss on a high dimensional manifold is harder and more likely to incur issues of non-convergence, gradient diminishing and mode collapse \cite{kodali2017convergence}.
Taking into account the anatomical separability of different chains and the difficulty of motion generation in high dimensional manifolds, we propose to divide the motion generation problem into that of the constituent chains and conquer the complete problem through an aggregation process that takes into account the interaction between these chains.
Corresponding to each pose $\mathbf{p}_i$, the constituent chains will be denoted as $\mathbf{c}_i^j$ where $1\leq j \leq 5$ is the chain index (torso and four limbs). Note that we also experimented with other body divisions such as dividing each limb into two parts, but with no significant performance gain obtained.
\textbf{Controlled prediction across action types.} It is not realistic to confine human motion prediction within a single class of action, as is the case for existing methods. We propose a method that explicitly allows for predictions where one action may transit and evolve into another specified action. Therefore, instead of purely RNNs, we engage generative modeling which are better suited for this objective.
\textbf{Fine-grained control of body parts.} Previous motion prediction works are lacking in their abilities to control individual body parts in the predicted motion. We attempt to attain fine-grained control of body components and again, modeling each kinematic chain with its own specific GAN plays a major role in this. The capacity to control fine details of body parts in motion is undoubtedly a very desirable influence in fostering the versatility and usability in human motion prediction research. For example, different stylistic peculiarities or gait patterns across different individuals maybe directly integrated into the final prediction.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods \textbackslash Time (ms)}
& \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Walking} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Eating} \\ \cline{2-11}
& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\
\hline
ERD \cite{erd} & 0.93 & 1.18 & 1.59 & 1.78 & 2.24 & 1.27 & 1.45 & 1.66 & 1.80 & 2.02 \\
SRNN \cite{srnn}& 0.81 & 0.94 & 1.16 & 1.30 & 1.80 & 0.97 & 1.14 & 1.35 & 1.46 & 2.11 \\
RRNN \cite{residualgru} & 0.33 & 0.56 & 0.78 & 0.85 & 1.14 & 0.26 & 0.43 & 0.66 & 0.81 & 1.34 \\
LSTM-AE \cite{tu2018spatial} & 1.00 & 1.11 & 1.39 & ----- & 1.39 & 1.31 & 1.49 & 1.86 & ----- & 2.01 \\
CEM \cite{li2018convolutional} & 0.33 & 0.54 & 0.68 & 0.73 & 0.92 & 0.22 & 0.36 & 0.58 & 0.71 & 1.24 \\
HP-GAN \cite{barsoum2018hp} & 0.95 & 1.17 & 1.69 & 1.79 & 2.47 & 1.28 & 1.47 & 1.70 & 1.82 & 2.51 \\
SKelNet \cite{guo2019human} & 0.34 & 0.52 & 0.69 & 0.70 & 0.90 & 0.23 & 0.39 & 0.50 & 0.71 & 1.23 \\
BiHMP-GAN \cite{kundu2019bihmp} & 0.33 & 0.52 & 0.63 & 0.67 & 0.85 & \textbf{0.20} & 0.33 & 0.54 & 0.70 & 1.20 \\
HMR \cite{liu2019towards} & 0.34 & 0.52 & 0.67 & 0.69 & 0.90 & 0.22 & \textbf{0.31} & 0.51 & 0.69 & 1.21 \\
QuaterNet \cite{pavllo2019modeling} & \textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.37} & \textbf{0.59} & 0.66 & 0.86 & \textbf{0.20} & 0.33 & 0.54 & 0.68 & 1.17 \\
AM-GAN (Ours) & \textbf{0.23} & 0.51 & 0.62 & \textbf{0.66} & \textbf{0.84} & \textbf{0.20} & \textbf{0.31} & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{0.66} & \textbf{1.15} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods \textbackslash Time (ms)}
& \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Smoking} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Discussion} \\ \cline{2-11}
& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\ \hline
ERD \cite{erd} & 1.66 & 1.95 & 2.35 & 2.42 & 3.14 & 2.27 & 2.47 & 2.68 & 2.76 & 3.11 \\
SRNN \cite{srnn} & 1.45 & 1.68 & 1.94 & 2.08 & 2.57 & 1.22 & 1.49 & 1.83 & 1.93 & 2.19 \\
RRNN \cite{residualgru} & 0.35 & 0.64 & 10.3 & 1.15 & 1.83 & 0.37 & 0.77 & 1.06 & 1.10 & 1.79 \\
LSTM-AE \cite{tu2018spatial} & 0.92 & 1.03 & 1.15 & ----- & 1.77 & 1.11 & 1.20 & 1.38 &-----& 1.73 \\
CEM \cite{li2018convolutional} & 0.26 & 0.49 & 0.96 & 0.92 & 1.62 & 0.32 & 0.67 & 0.94 & 1.01 & 1.86 \\
HP-GAN \cite{barsoum2018hp} & 1.71 & 1.89 & 2.33 & 2.42 & 3.20 & 2.29 & 2.61 & 2.79 & 2.88 & 3.67 \\
SKelNet \cite{guo2019human} & 0.26 & 0.47 & 0.91 & 0.89 & 1.56 & 0.29 & 0.62 & 0.88 & 1.00 & 1.68 \\
BiHMP-GAN \cite{kundu2019bihmp} & 0.26 & 0.50 & 0.91 & \textbf{0.86} & 1.11 & 0.33 & 0.65 & 0.91 & 0.95 & 1.77 \\
HMR \cite{liu2019towards} & 0.26 & 0.47 & 0.90 & 0.91 & 1.49 & 0.29 & \textbf{0.55} & 0.83 & 0.94 & 1.61 \\
QuaterNet \cite{pavllo2019modeling} & 0.26 & 0.49 & 0.92 & 0.89 & 1.67 & \textbf{0.28} & 0.62 & 0.87 & 0.95 & 1.89 \\
AM-GAN (Ours) & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.46} & \textbf{0.88} & 0.88 & \textbf{1.10} & \textbf{0.28} & \textbf{0.55} & \textbf{0.81} & \textbf{0.92} & \textbf{1.58} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance evaluation (in MAE) of comparison methods over 4 different action types on the H3.6m dataset}
\label{tab:allmethods}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Architecture Overview}
The overall framework of our method is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:architecture}. There are five sub-GANs (local GANs), each taking care of a kinematic chain. The sub-GANs will now model motion generation on a lower dimensional manifold which is advantageous from a computational perspective and may be favorable in avoiding mode collapse. After a local discrimination process, the outputs from all sub-GANs are then combined via an aggregation layer. The output of the aggregation layer is then passed to the global critic for assessing the quality of the generated motion sequence in its entirety.
The conditional probability distributions learnt through the generative modeling process may then be invoked to realize action transfer in motion prediction. The sub-GANs in the AM-GAN network can further be mobilized to control the skeletal pose at a fine-grained scale.
{\bf Generator.} In order to effectively interpolate between latent representations for generating transitions across different action types, we have adopted a Variational Auto-encoder (VAE) architecture \cite{kingma2014semi}
as the generator module for each of our sub-GAN. Since the task entails sequential timeseries data, the encoder and decoder engage GRU for modeling the motion sequences.
Formally, the encoder (in sub-GAN $j$) maps the observed sequence $\mathbf{C}^j=\left(\mathbf{c}_1^j,\mathbf{c}_2^j,\cdots,\mathbf{c}_t^j\right)$ to a latent variable $\mathbf{z}^j$.
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:encoder}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{z}^j&=& \text{EN} (\mathbf{C}^j)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The decoder then recursively generates a future prediction sequence based on this latent vector $\mathbf{z}^j$.
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:decoder}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C}'^j&=& \text{DE} (\mathbf{z}^j)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/MergeAction.png}
\caption{We perform motion interpolation in the latent space (i.e., $z$ in VAE) and insert these motion frames (red) to fill up the discontinuity between two action sequences. Different from other two tasks, here the AM-GAN network is trained to predict an immediate future pose rather than a sequence.}
\label{fig:mergeaction}
\end{figure*}
{\bf Aggregation.} Dynamically, there is interconnection and interdependence between different kinematic chains, as typified in the synchronized movements of the right arm and left leg in walking. Therefore, the individual latent motion contexts from each kinematic chain is mapped through a fully connected aggregation layer, to the final predicted pose sequence output as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:aggregation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}'&=&\text{Agg}\left(\sum_{j=1}^5 \mathbf{C}'^j\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\text{Agg}$ denotes the mapping function of the aggregation layer. $\mathbf{P}'$ is shorthand for the future pose sequence.
{\bf Critic.} The critic module consists of Local Critics for each sub-GAN $\text{D}^j$ and a Global Critic $\text{D}^G$ after the aggregation layer. A three-layers fully connected feedforward network is used in both types of critics. The local critics judge the generation of the five branches of the human body to ensure the accuracy of local prediction. The rationale is to first focus on the local context and reduce interference between local components or body parts at the base level. However, we cannot simply ignore the correlation and synchronization between different body parts in executing a motion. We also include a global critic to judge the feasibility of the motion and to ensure the naturalness and accuracy of the entire pose.
\subsection{Loss Function} \label{sec_lossfunction}
Now, we zoom in on the loss function for training AM-GAN. To account for chain-level and pose-level accuracy, we consider both local loss and global loss. We further engage a stability loss at the chain-level and a consistency loss at the pose-level to ensure the authenticity and temporal smoothness of the motion.
{\bf Chain-level loss.} Within each sub-GAN, a generator outputs the motion prediction of a kinematic chain $j$. A critic network $\mathbf{D}^j$ learns to assign higher scores to real future sequences and lower scores to the generated ones. This gives the Wasserstein GAN loss for kinematic chain $j$ as:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:chainWGANloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Chain}^j} = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{C}^j}\mathbf{D}^j[C^j_{t+1:t+T}] - \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{C'}^j}\mathbf{D}^j[C'^j_{t+1:t+T}]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{C}^j$ and $\mathbf{C}'^j$ respectively denote the real and generated future sequences for chain $j$.
On top of the Wasserstein GAN loss, we further introduce a stability loss given by the variance over $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Chain}^j}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:stabilityloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Stability}} = \frac{1}{5}\sum_{j=1}^{5}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{Chain}^j}-\overline{\mathcal{L}_{\text{Chain}^j}})^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The local or chain level loss for chain $j$ is given by a weighted sum of the Wasserstein GAN loss for the chain as well as the stability loss,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:localloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Local}}^j = \alpha\mathcal{L}_{\text{Chain}^j}+\beta\mathcal{L}_{\text{Stability}}+\gamma\mathcal{L}_{\text{GroundTruth}}^j
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are weight hyperparameters. $\mathcal{L}_{\text{GroundTruth}}^j$ is the difference between ground truth of chain $j$ and its prediction.
{\bf Pose-level loss.} The aggregation layer aggregates and balances the five kinematic chains to give a generated pose sequence $\mathbf{P}'_{t+1:t+T}$. A global critic network $\mathbf{D}^G$ learns the authenticity of this pose, incurring a pose-level Wasserstein GAN loss as:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:poseWGANloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Pose}} =
\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{D}^G[P_{t+1:t+T}] - \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{P'}}\mathbf{D}^G[P'_{t+1:t+T}]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{P}$ denotes the real future pose sequence.
To ensure temporal smoothness, a consistency loss is incorporated as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:consistencyloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Consistency}} = \sum_{i=1}^T{|\mathbf{P}'_{t+i}-\mathbf{P}'_{t+i-1}|^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The global or pose-level loss for the global GAN is given by a weighted sum of the pose Wasserstein GAN loss and the consistency loss:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:globalloss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Global}} = \lambda\mathcal{L}_{\text{Pose}} + \mu\mathcal{L}_{\text{Consistency}} + \eta \mathcal{L}_{\text{GroundTruth}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{\text{GroundTruth}}$ is the difference between the ground truth pose sequence $\mathbf{P}$ and its prediction $\mathbf{P'}$.
\textbf{Action transfer.} The training for action transfer is challenging since there are no public MoCap datasets involving transitions between different actions. We can only train in an unsupervised way. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:mergeaction}, we perform interpolation in the latent space to fill in the discontinuity between two sequences. Specifically, let $\mathbf{P}=(\mathbf{P}_{1},\cdots,\mathbf{P}_{t})$ be a sequence of action $A_1$ and $\mathbf{P}'=(\mathbf{P}'_{m+1}, \cdots, \mathbf{P}'_{m+T})$ a sequence of action $A_2$. We are to transfer from $\mathbf{P}$ to $\mathbf{P}'$. We may first train the VAE generator using large-scale ground truth sequences of all actions, making it able to predict the immediate future pose (\textbf{not} future sequence). Then, feed $\mathbf{P}$ and $(\mathbf{P}'_{m-t+1}, \cdots, \mathbf{P}'_{m})$ respectively to the trained VAE network, obtaining their latent vectors $\mathbf{z}_1$ and $\mathbf{z}_2$. We perform interpolation between $\mathbf{z}_1$ and $\mathbf{z}_2$ to fill in the discontinuity between $\mathbf{P}_{t}$ to $\mathbf{P}'_{m+1}$. Given that $\mathbf{z}_2$ contains motion contexts towards generating prediction $\mathbf{P}'_{m+1}$, the decoded interpolations will gradually transfer from $\mathbf{P}_{t}$ to $\mathbf{P}'_{m+1}$.
\begin{table*}[t]
{
\begin{tabular}{l|llll|llll|llll|llll}
\hline
Time & 80 & 160 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 &400 & 1000 \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Directions} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Greeting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Phoning} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Posing} \\
\hline
HMR & 0.38 & 0.58 &0.90 & 1.43 & 0.52 & {0.85} & 1.40 & 1.73 & 0.56 & 1.09 & 1.61 & 1.80 & 0.24 & 0.53 & 1.42 & 2.50 \\
QNet & \textbf{0.36} & \textbf{0.57} & 0.90 & 1.42 & 0.52 & \textbf{0.81} & 1.38 & 1.73 & 0.58 & 1.12 & 1.60 & 1.82 & 0.26 & 0.56 & \textbf{1.41} & 2.56 \\
Ours & \textbf{0.36} & \textbf{0.57} & \textbf{0.89} & \textbf{1.41} & \textbf{0.51} & 0.86& \textbf{1.36} & \textbf{1.70} & \textbf{0.54} & \textbf{1.05} & \textbf{1.58} & \textbf{1.79} & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{1.41} & \textbf{2.48}\\
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Purchases} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Sitting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Sittingdown} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Takingphoto} \\ \hline
HMR & 0.58 & \textbf{0.83} & 1.25 & 1.99 & 0.38 & 0.61 & 1.15 & 1.66 & 0.39 & 0.75 & 1.28 & 1.91 & \textbf{0.21} & 0.44 & 1.01 & 1.42 \\
QNet & 0.59 & \textbf{0.83} & 1.24 & 2.37 & 0.37 & \textbf{0.58} & \textbf{1.11} & 1.62 & 0.37 & 0.73 & 1.23 & 1.94 & 0.24 & 0.48 & 1.02 & 1.43 \\
Ours & \textbf{0.55} & 0.85 & \textbf{1.23} & \textbf{1.95} & \textbf{0.35} & 0.60 & 1.13 & \textbf{1.60} & \textbf{0.36} & \textbf{0.72} & \textbf{1.20} & \textbf{1.85} & 0.23 & \textbf{0.41} & \textbf{0.99} & \textbf{1.40} \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Waiting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Walkingdog} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Walkingtogether} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Average} \\ \hline
HMR & 0.27 & 0.59 & 1.33 & 2.21 & 0.55 & 0.87 & 1.36 & 1.84 & 0.26 & 0.50 & 0.71 & 1.21 & 0.39 & 0.69 & 1.46 & 1.79 \\
QNet & 0.29 & 0.58 & \textbf{1.03} & 2.38 & \textbf{0.53} & 0.89 & 1.34 & 1.97 & 0.24 & \textbf{0.45} & \textbf{0.68} & 1.31 & 0.38 & 0.69& 1.47 & 1.82 \\
Ours & \textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.56} & 1.29 & \textbf{2.15} & \textbf{0.53} & \textbf{0.85} & \textbf{1.33} & \textbf{1.80} & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{0.45} & 0.73 & \textbf{1.19} & \textbf{0.37} & \textbf{0.67} & \textbf{1.43} & \textbf{1.75} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance evaluation (in MAE) over 11 remaining action types on the H3.6m dataset.The unit of time is ms.}
\label{tab:otheractions}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
Time (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{Walking} \\
\hline
Remove Local Critic & 0.40 & 0.63 & 0.73 & 0.85 & 1.01 \\
Remove Global Critic & 0.35 & 0.61 & 0.72 & 0.84 & 1.92 \\
Remove sub-GANs & 0.90 & 1.10 & 1.61 & 1.79 & 2.01 \\
AM-GAN (Complete) & 0.23 & 0.51 & 0.62 & 0.66 & 0.84 \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{Discussion} \\
\hline
Remove Local Critic & 0.40 & 0.71 & 0.89 & 1.20 & 2.89 \\
Remove Global Critic & 0.29 & 0.62 & 0.87 & 1.00 & 1.19 \\
Remove sub-GANs & 2.20 & 2.51 & 2.68 & 2.71 & 3.20 \\
AM-GAN (Complete) & 0.28 & 0.55 & 0.81 & 0.92 & 1.58 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Ablation studies on different components of our AM-GAN evaluated over `Walking' and `Discussion'.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Figures/VisualResults.png}
\caption{Some visual results.}
\label{fig:Visual}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.68\columnwidth]{Figures/ActionTransfer.png}
\caption{Action transfer examples.}
\label{fig:ActionTransfer}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figures/PoseControl.png}
\caption{Fine-grained control over different chains in the predicted motion. In the left figure, we predict a `walking' action (purple) with the right leg following the action of `eating' (red). The result is shown on the bottom row with matching colors. In the right figure, we predict a 'posing' action with the left hand following the `direction' action.}
\label{fig:posecontrol}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Fine-grained pose control.} Breaking down the motion generation to chain level representations allows us to naturally incorporate fine-grained manipulation of each chain. Specifically, assuming that we are to generate the future sequence of an observed `walking' sequence $\textbf{P}$ and wants to control the right arm to act like `direction'. We can train the proposed network for each action independently. Then, we simply feed $\textbf{P}$ into the trained `walking' network to generate future `walking' action for the five chains. Similarly, we feed $\textbf{P}$ into the trained `direction' network to generate future `direction' action for the right arm chain. We replace the right arm chain generated by the `walking' network with that of the `direction' network, and feed the new five chains to the aggregation layer to generate a natural final pose sequence.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Dataset and Preprocessing}
In order to verify the ability of our model, we selected the largest and widely used data set: H3.6m \cite{H36M} that contains 3.6 million human images with 3D poses (comprising 25 distinct skeletal joints) obtained via the Vicon mocap system. There are 15 different action classes performed by 7 subjects. Following the protocol of previous methods \cite{erd,srnn}, subject 5 is used for testing while the data for the other 6 subjects are used for training. The observed sequence has 25 frames and the predicted output sequence is also set to 25 frames.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
We use Tensorflow to implement our method. For each of our sub-GAN, we have adopted a Variational Auto-encoder (VAE) architecture \cite{kingma2014semi}
as the generator module. The encoder and decoder of VAE consist of a GRU with 1,024 hidden units. The training of the GANs follows that of Wasserstein GANs \cite{gulrajani2017improved} but with our customized loss function outlined in the Loss Function section. The aggregation module is a full connected layer with 1,024 units. The local critic is a three-layer fully connected feedforward network with 512 units, while the global critic possesses 1,024 units. The Adam Optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam} is employed with initial learning 5e-5 and the batch size is set to 16.
\subsection{Quantitative Evaluation on H3.6M Dataset}
We benchmark our method against previous methods, including ERD \cite{erd}, SRNN \cite{srnn}, RRNN \cite{residualgru}, LSTM-AE \cite{tu2018spatial}, HP-GAN \cite{barsoum2018hp}, CEM \cite{li2018convolutional}, BiHMP-GAN \cite{kundu2019bihmp}, SKel-Net \cite{guo2019human}, HMR \cite{liu2019towards} and QuaterNet \cite{pavllo2019modeling}. Following previous work, the mean angle error (MAE) is adopted as the evaluation metric. We report the results in Table \ref{tab:allmethods} over four actions `Walking', `Eating', `Smoking', `Discussion'.
As shown in Table \ref{tab:allmethods}, our method generally achieves superior performance in quantitative accuracy over the state-of-the-arts. One case in point is that the actions have different levels of complexity. For example, walking is a more regular action and demonstrates a high degree of periodicity whereas discussion is more complex and basically aperiodic. As would be expected, prediction accuracy falls with complexity of the action, which is observed throughout the empirical results. One noteworthy remark is that our method demonstrates significant improvements for the more complex action types such as discussion. This can be attributed to the fact that by modeling body parts and skeletal kinematic chains separately, our AM-GAN approach is less affected by lack of regularity and periodicity in the overall motion pattern. Furthermore, comparing against the other two GAN frameworks HP-GAN and BiHMP-GAN, the superior performance of our AM-GAN for both short-term and long-term prediction is also an indicator to the effectiveness of the divide and conquer approach in modeling local body parts and merging them at the final stage.
For the sake of completeness, we benchmark our method over the remaining 11 H3.6m actions against the two most recent and state-of-the-art works HMR and QuaterNet(QNet). The comparison results are shown in Table \ref{tab:otheractions}. Obviously,our method achieves new state-of-the-art performance quite consistently for short term and long term predictions. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Visual}, we also visualize the results of our method against current excellent HMR, observing that our method delivers more natural and smooth sequences.
\subsection{Action Transfer}
We now consider scenarios where we control the specific action performed in the future. Some generated sequences depicting transitioning back and forth between different actions are showcased in Fig. \ref{fig:ActionTransfer}, where the middle six frames are generated transition frames. Empirical results show that our method is able to smoothly and authentically transfer from one action to another.
\subsection{Human Pose Control}
We can assimilate high level controls over specific body parts with AM-GAN. The local and global level generation can be seamlessly combined to create natural and consistent motion sequences. As an example, we illustrate in the left figure of Fig. \ref{fig:posecontrol} on how we may control the movements of the right leg in the predicted sequence. Specifically, given a walking sequence, we generate its future `walking' sequence but enforce the right leg act like `eating' action prediction. Similarly, in the right figure of Fig.\ref{fig:posecontrol}, we show another example where we predict the future 'posing' action sequence but command the left hand to follow a `direction' action.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
We quantitatively analyze the contribution of various design components, including removing the 5 sub-GANs, removing the local critic and global critic. The empirical results are reported in Table \ref{tab:ablation}. One crucial finding is that incorporating sub-GANs and a divide and conquer strategy indeed improves over the baseline with a single GAN for modeling the motion generation. Modeling the constituent chains instead of the entire pose directly reduces complexity, thus improving the short-term and long-term prediction capabilities. Furthermore, it may be observed that the improvement over the baseline is more significant in the case of aperiodic actions such as `Discussion'. This is likely due to the fact that zooming in on individual body parts is more effective for modeling complex and irregular motion, where different body parts usually engage differently in the motion. Another observation is that the local critic enhances the short-term prediction whereas the global critic elevates long-term prediction performance.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a novel human motion prediction problem to incorporate control. In order to reduce the complexity of optimizing over the entire human pose manifold and to achieve fine-grained control, we employed a divide and conquer strategy and modeled each kinematic chain separately with our AM-GAN. On top of improving the state-of-the-art for both short and long-term predictions, AM-GAN also allows for controlling of the prediction spectrum. This includes generating transitions to a desired action or fine-grained control over specific body parts. We are positive that controllable motion generation would open many doors in adjacent fields.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work was partly supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under No. 2020AAA0140004. The Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China No. LQ19F020001. The National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 61902348 and No. 61772466. The Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars No. LR19F020003, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Zhejiang University NGICS Platform).
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Management of the heat flux to the divertor targets is a major challenge for developing a full-power tokamak fusion reactor, and especially so for a commercial power plant.
The exhaust power is fixed for a given design - dictated by the reactor's rated power output and energy gain factor $Q$ - but the radial profile of heat deposition sets the total area over which that heat is distributed.
These radial profiles are in turn set by the level of cross-field transport in the Scrape-Off Layer (SOL), compared with the rate of parallel heat transport towards the targets.
Cross-field transport in the SOL cannot be modelled as purely advective or diffusive, and instead requires resolving and then averaging turbulent fluctuations and short-lived structures\cite{Krasheninnikov2001}.
Drift-fluid turbulence modelling is computationally expensive, and drastically more so in three dimensions due to the need to resolve fast parallel timescales.
Therefore many reduced two-dimensional drift-plane models have been employed by the community, including ESEL\cite{Garcia2005, Militello2012}, SOLT\cite{Russell2009,Myra2011}, STORM-2D\cite{Easy2014,Easy2016}, and TOKAM2D\cite{Bisai2005}.
These models evolve variables in the drift-plane, but simplify the parallel transport along the magnetic fields lines as overall loss terms.
It is now possible to perform full 3D scrape-off-layer turbulence simulations, which explicitly resolve fluctuations along the parallel direction.
Codes with 3D capability include GBS\cite{Halpern2016}, SOLT3D\cite{Umansky2019}, TOKAM3X\cite{Tamain2016}, GRILLIX\cite{Stegmeir2018}, and HERMES\cite{Dudson2017}.
Recently this was even demonstrated for full-scale simulations of the turbulent SOL in the medium-sized tokamak MAST\cite{Sykes2001}, using STORM-3D\cite{Riva2019}.
Several of these codes have been benchmarked against one another through simulations of the ISTTOK device\cite{Dudson2020}.
However, there exists a large catalogue of previous work done with the various 2D models (e.g. \cite{Militello2013,Garcia2006,Myra2011a,Bisai2005}, as presented in the comprehensive review by D'Ippolito\cite{DIppolito2011}), which successfully reproduce key experimental results such as the universality of fluctuation statistics\cite{Garcia2004}.
These codes continue to possess some advantages over the 3D models, such as computational speed, model simplicity, and physical interpretability.
We present a systematic comparison of 2D models with their closest 3D analogues, providing a basis to evaluate the systematic errors of the approximations used to truncate the models to 2D.
In section \ref{sect:model} we describe the systems of equations solved, before describing the parameters chosen and the domain geometry in section \ref{sect:numerics}.
Our results begin with a comparison of 2D and 3D simulations (section \ref{sect:Comparison2Dvs3D}), before studying the effect of varying the divertor leg length (section \ref{sect:leglength}), and the sensitivity to some of the overall simulation parameters (section \ref{sect:sensitivity}).
\section{Physical Model}
\label{sect:model}
The model and code we will use is STORM, a scrape-off layer physics module built using the BOUT++ framework for plasma fluid simulations\cite{Dudson2009,Dudson2014,Dudson2016a}.
STORM has two related models: a 3D version\cite{Riva2019,Walkden2019, Walkden2015}, and a 2D version\cite{Easy2014}.
Because of the modular way that BOUT++ is designed, these two versions of the STORM code use mostly the same methods to solve the perpendicular dynamics.
STORM has previously been used to model individual filaments\cite{Easy2014,Easy2016a}, finite electron temperature effects\cite{Walkden2016}, filament interactions\cite{Militello2017}, electromagnetic effects\cite{Hoare2019}, neutral background\cite{Schworer2017,Schworer2018}, divertor turbulence\cite{Walkden2019}, and full 3D geometries\cite{Riva2019}.
\subsection{Three-dimensional STORM model}
\newcommand{\curv}[1]{\mathcal{C}\qty(#1)}
We use a drift-reduced, fluid, cold-ion, electrostatic model, which evolves density $n$, $E \cross B$ vorticity $\Omega$, temperature $T$, electrostatic potential $\phi$, parallel electron velocity $V$, and parallel ion velocity $U$.
The equations are ultimately derived from the well-known Braginskii equations\cite{BraginskiiS1965}, where the Boussinesq approximation has been employed in deriving the vorticity equation \eqref{eq:STORMvorticity}.
\begin{multline}\label{eq:STORMdensity}
\pdv{n}{t} = - \qty{\phi, n} - V \nabla_\parallel n - n \nabla_\parallel V + \curv{p} \\
- n\curv{\phi} + D_n \laplacian_\perp{n} + S .
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}\label{eq:STORMionparallel}
\pdv{U}{t} = -\qty{\phi, U} - U \nabla_\parallel U - \nabla_\parallel \phi \\
- \frac{\nu_\parallel}{\mu} (U-V) + 0.71 \nabla_\parallel T - U\frac{S}{n}
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}\label{eq:STORMelectronparallel}
\pdv{V}{t} = -\qty{\phi, V} - V \nabla_\parallel V - \mu \nabla_\parallel \phi - \frac{\mu}{n} \nabla_\parallel p \\
+ \nu_\parallel (U-V) - 0.71 \mu \nabla_\parallel T - V\frac{S}{n}
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}\label{eq:STORMvorticity}
\pdv{\Omega}{t} = - \qty{\phi, \Omega} - U \nabla_\parallel \Omega \\
+ n \qty[\nabla_\parallel (U-V) + (U-V) \nabla_\parallel \log(n)] \\
+ \curv{p} + \mu_\Omega \laplacian_\perp{\Omega}
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}\label{eq:STORMtemperature}
\pdv{T}{t} = -\qty{\phi, T} - \frac{2}{3} T \curv{\phi} - V \nabla_\parallel T - \frac{2}{3} T \nabla_\parallel V
\\ - \frac{2}{3n} \nabla_\parallel q_\parallel - \frac{2}{3} 0.71 (U-V) \nabla_\parallel T + \frac{2}{3n} \frac{\nu_\parallel}{\mu n} J^2_\parallel
\\ + \frac{5}{3} T \curv{T} + \frac{2T}{3n} \curv{p} + \frac{2}{3n} \kappa_{\perp,0} \laplacian_\perp{T}
\\
+ \frac{2}{3n} S_E + \frac{2}{3n} \frac{1}{2 \mu} V^2 S - \frac{2}{3n} \frac{V^2}{2 \mu} \curv{p} - \frac{T}{n} S.
\end{multline}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:STORMpotential}
\Omega = \scalardiv{\frac{\nabla_\perp \phi}{B^2}}
\end{equation}
Here we have used the quantities
electron pressure $p = nT$,
parallel current $J_\parallel = n \qty(U - V)$,
and parallel heat flux $q_\parallel = - \kappa_{\parallel,0} T^{5/2} \nabla_\parallel T - 0.71 T J_\parallel $;
as well as various operators such as
the total derivative $\dv{f}{t} = \pdv{f}{t} + \qty{\phi, f}$,
the Poisson bracket $\qty{\phi, f} = \vb{b} \cross \qty(\grad{\phi} \vdot \grad{f}) / B$,
parallel gradient $\nabla_\parallel{f} = \vb{b} \vdot \grad{f}$,
perpendicular gradient $\nabla_\perp{f} = \grad{f} - \vb{b} \nabla_\parallel{f}$, and
perpendicular Laplacian $\laplacian_\perp{f} = \scalardiv{\nabla_\perp f}$.
$\mu$ is the electron to ion mass ratio $m_e/m_i$.
Also, within the simplified geometry described in section \ref{sect:numerics} the curvature operator acting on a scalar field $\curv{f}$ takes the form\cite{Easy2016}
\begin{equation}
\curv{f} \equiv \curl(\frac{\vb{b}}{B}) \vdot \grad{f} \approx - \frac{2}{R_0 B_0} \pdv{f}{z}.
\end{equation}
A Bohm normalisation scheme has been used for these equations (defined for STORM in \cite{Easy2016} and \cite{Walkden2019}), in which lengths and times are normalised to the hybrid Larmor radius and the ion gyrofrequency
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{\vb{x}}{\rho_s} \rightarrow \vb{x}, \quad
\Omega_i t \rightarrow t, \quad
\frac{L_\parallel}{\rho_s} \rightarrow L_\parallel.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Variables are normalised to characteristic values (for which the numerical values used are given in table \ref{tab:parameters}) or combinations of them.
The dimensionless forms of the evolved fluid variables are obtained from the dimensional forms through
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
n \equiv \frac{n_e}{n_{e,0}}, \quad
T \equiv \frac{T_e}{T_{e,0}}, \quad
\phi \equiv \frac{e \varphi}{T_{e,0}}, \\
V \equiv \frac{u_{\parallel,e}}{c_s}, \quad
U \equiv \frac{u_{\parallel,i}}{c_s}, \quad
\Omega \equiv \frac{\omega}{\Omega_i},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
meaning currents and sources are normalised through
\begin{equation}
J_\parallel \equiv \frac{j_\parallel}{e n_{e,0} c_s}, \quad
S_n \equiv \frac{S^{\qty(n)}}{n_{e,0} \Omega_i}, \quad
S_E \equiv \frac{W}{n_{e,0} T_{e,0} \Omega_i},
\end{equation}
and the normalised parallel resistivity given by
\begin{equation}
\nu_\parallel \equiv \frac{0.51 \nu_{ei}}{\Omega_i}.
\end{equation}
Diffusion coefficients are normalised to the Bohm diffusion ($D_\text{Bohm} \equiv \rho_s^2 \Omega_i$)
\begin{equation}
D_n \equiv \frac{D}{D_\text{Bohm}}, \quad
\mu_\Omega \equiv \frac{\mu_\omega}{D_\text{Bohm}}, \quad
\kappa \equiv \frac{\kappa}{D_\text{Bohm}},
\end{equation}
and numerical values are given in table \ref{tab:diffusioncoefficients}.
For more details see \cite{Easy2016}.
The system \eqref{eq:STORMdensity}-\eqref{eq:STORMtemperature} requires a corresponding set of boundary conditions.
To model the interaction with the divertor target plates, we describe the plasma dynamics at the magnetic pre-sheath entrance by imposing Bohm sheath boundary conditions for the parallel velocities $U$ and $V$, and computing the corresponding parallel electron power flux $Q_\parallel$ by following \cite{Stangeby2000}.
Therefore at each target plate we require
\newcommand{V_{\text{fl}}}{V_{\text{fl}}}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sheathbcs}
\begin{split}
U_\parallel |_\text{target} &\geq \sqrt{T} \\
V_\parallel |_\text{target} &=
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{T} \exp(-V_{\text{fl}} -\frac{\phi}{T}), & \text{if } \phi > 0, \\
\sqrt{T} \exp(-V_{\text{fl}}), & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\\
Q_\parallel |_\text{target} &= \gamma n T V,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with the signs reversed if $\mathbf{B}$ is directed away from the wall.
Here $V_{\text{fl}}$ is the plasma floating potential, defined as
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{fl}} = \frac{1}{2} \log(\frac{2\pi}{\mu} \qty(1 + 1/\mu)),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=2+V_{\text{fl}}$ is the sheath transmission coefficient.
The parallel electron heat flux $q_\parallel$ is determined from the power flux by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sheathbcsq}
q_\parallel |_\text{target} = Q_\parallel |_\text{target} - \frac{5}{2} n T V - \frac{1}{2 \mu} n V^3.
\end{equation}
The binormal boundary is periodic, and the radial boundary conditions are described in appendix \ref{appendix:bcs}.
\subsection{Two-dimensional STORM model}\label{sect:closure2D}
The 2D model system is a simplification of the 3D system.
Grouping all terms with parallel dependence into loss terms, in the perpendicular drift-plane equations \eqref{eq:STORMdensity}, \eqref{eq:STORMvorticity}, \& \eqref{eq:STORMtemperature} become
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:STORMdensity2D}
\pdv{n}{t} = \frac{1}{B} \qty{\phi, n} + \curv{p} - n \curv{\phi} + S_n + D_n \nabla_\perp^2 n - n_\text{loss}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:STORMvorticity2D}
\pdv{\Omega}{t} = \frac{1}{B} \qty{\phi, \Omega} + \frac{\curv{p}}{n} + \mu_\Omega \nabla_\perp^2 \Omega - \Omega_\text{loss}
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:STORMtemperature2D}
\pdv{T}{t} = \frac{1}{B} \qty{\phi, T} - \frac{2}{3} T \curv{\phi} + \frac{2T}{3n} \curv{p} + \frac{5}{3} T \curv{T}
\\ + \frac{2}{3n} S_E - \frac{TS}{n} + \frac{2}{3n} \kappa_{\perp_0} \nabla_\perp^2 T - T_\text{loss}
\end{multline}
with the Laplacian inversion for the electrostatic potential \eqref{eq:STORMpotential} unchanged.
We use the so-called sheath-dissipation closure\cite{Easy2016,Garcia2006}, in which density and temperature are assumed to be constant along the parallel direction, and we treat the parallel velocities as linearly varying between the Bohm sheath values, so that $\nabla_\parallel{U} \sim U / L_\parallel$.
This gives the loss rate of density and vorticity as
\begin{equation}
n_\text{loss} = \frac{1}{L_\parallel} n V_\text{sh}\qty(\phi, T)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Omega_\text{loss} = \frac{1}{L_\parallel} (V_\text{sh}\qty(\phi, T) - \sqrt{T}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
V_\text{sh}\qty(\phi, T) = V_{\text{sh}_0} \sqrt{T} e^{-\phi/T},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{sh}_0} = e^{- V_{\text{fl}}}.
\end{equation}
However, we linearize the exponential sheath factor around the floating potential (as is done for example in \cite{Easy2016}), giving
\begin{equation}
V_\text{sh}\qty(\phi, T) = \sqrt{T} \qty[1 - \qty(V_{\text{fl}} + \frac{\phi}{T})] .
\end{equation}
We choose the sheath-dissipation closure over the vorticity-advection closure (also described in \cite{Easy2016}) because we found that the vorticity advection closure was not adequate for turbulence simulations, providing too little damping at large scales, which lead to the domain filling with unphysically-large structures \cite{Easy2014}.
To model parallel loss of thermal energy we interpolate between two limits, following the approach of Myra\cite{Myra2011}.
The loss rates in the two regimes (sheath-limited and conduction-limited\cite{Stangeby2000}) are
\begin{align}
q_{\parallel_\text{SL}} &= \qty(\gamma_e - \frac{3}{2}) n T V_\text{sh}\qty(\phi, T) \\
q_{\parallel_\text{CL}} &= \frac{2}{7} \frac{1}{L_\parallel} \kappa_{\parallel,0} T^{7/2},
\end{align}
where we have again linearized the potential dependence of the sheath velocity.
These loss rates are incorporated into \eqref{eq:STORMtemperature2D} through
\begin{equation}
T_\text{loss} = \frac{2}{3 n} \frac{1}{L_\parallel} q_\parallel .
\end{equation}
(As an aside, dropping Myra's $q_\text{FL}$ term for the flux-limited regime\cite{Myra2011} is equivalent to using Fundamenski's free-streaming expression\cite{Fundamenski2007} when the collisionality is high, as we will see it is in these simulations.)
Harmonically averaging these loss rates through
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:interpolation}
\frac{1}{q_\parallel} = \frac{1}{q_{\parallel_\text{SL}}} + \frac{1}{q_{\parallel_\text{CL}}},
\end{equation}
effectively means that the loss is limited to the smaller of the two rates, with a smooth switchover controlled by the collisionality.
This ``heuristic'' parallel closure that we use is therefore equivalent to a linearized version of the ``sheath-dissipation'' closure, but which interpolates between two different regimes of parallel heat transport.
\section{Numerical Setup}
\label{sect:numerics}
The STORM code numerically solves \eqref{eq:STORMdensity}-\eqref{eq:STORMtemperature} in 3D, and \eqref{eq:STORMdensity2D} - \eqref{eq:STORMtemperature2D} in 2D.
The dissipative parameters ($\mu_n$, $\mu_\Omega$, $\kappa_\perp$, and $\kappa_\parallel$) were kept constant in time and space, and calculated using the classical expressions from \cite{Fundamenski2007}, evaluated using the reference normalisation values of density and temperature (given in table \ref{tab:parameters}).
These are the same values used to simulate the MAST SOL in \cite{Militello2012}, and are similar to those used for the full 3D MAST-U geometry STORM simulations performed in \cite{Riva2019}.
Ion temperature is set to zero in the derivation of the main model equations for simplicity, but is included in table \ref{tab:parameters} because a finite value is still required for some of the dissipative expressions from \cite{Fundamenski2007}.
The resistivity $\eta_\parallel$ was allowed to vary, following the $T^{-3/2}$ dependence that follows from the definition
\begin{equation}
\eta_\parallel = 0.51 \frac{\nu_{ei_0}}{T^{3/2} \Omega_{e_0}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
\hline
$n_0$ [$10^{-19}$m$^{-3}$] & $T_{e,0}$ [eV] & $T_{i,0}$ [eV] & $B_0$ [T] \\
\hline
$0.5$ & $15$ & $30$ & $0.24$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Reference normalisation values of density and temperature, used for all simulations.}
\label{tab:parameters}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }
\hline
$D_n$ & $\mu_\Omega$ & $\kappa_\perp$ & $\kappa_\parallel$ & $\eta_\parallel \qty(T_e=T_{e,0})$ \\
\hline
$2.1 \vdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.6 \vdot 10^{-3}$ & $3.3 \vdot 10^{-4}$ & $4.4 \vdot 10^{4}$ & $3.6 \vdot 10^{-5}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Normalised values of various dissipation coefficients used in all simulations.
Calculated using the standard classical expressions from the parameters given in table \ref{tab:parameters}.}
\label{tab:diffusioncoefficients}
\end{table}
The equations were solved on a simplified cuboid domain (rectangular in 2D), which maps onto a schematic representation of the real SOL (figure \ref{fig:domainSOL}).
Vertically extending from target to target, the simplified domain can be interpreted as a straightened SOL flux tube, and has periodicity only in one direction.
The pitch of the field lines at the edge means that our periodic direction perpendicular to both the major radius and the magnetic field in our simulations is angled relative to the real toroidal direction in experiments, and so will hereon be referred to as the binormal direction instead.
The domain contains no magnetic shear, though this is a choice which could be relaxed in future work with STORM.
The numerical domain for the baseline 3D simulation spans $140.625 \rho_s$ in the radial ($x$) direction, $4000.0 \rho_s$ in the parallel ($y$) direction, and $150.0 \rho_s$ in the binormal ($z$) direction (i.e. $L_x=140.625$, $L_y=4000.0$ and $L_z=150$ in normalized units).
The 3D domain is resolved with $240 \times 32 \times 256 $ grid points, meaning that the grid cells were square in the perpendicular plane.
In 2D the domain covers the same ($x, z$) extent in normalized units, but a larger resolution is used of $960 \times 1024 $ grid points, and (by definition) only a single grid point in the $y$ direction.
Convergence tests were performed to assess the impact of the perpendicular grid resolution, which showed that the grid used for 3D simulations is well resolved (see appendix \ref{appendix:resolutionscan}).
The simulations are source-driven, meaning that a volumetric density and energy source are present near the inner boundary of the domain (see figure \ref{fig:domainSOL}).
The source-driven simulations represent a SOL constantly fed with particles and power coming from the core plasma, and were chosen over fixing either the incoming flux or the pressure at the inner boundary so as to most directly compare the 2D and 3D models.
This choice was made to impose as few constraints as possible on the resultant variable and flux profiles, and separate the self-consistently generated profiles as much as possible from the inner boundary conditions.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={3.5cm 0.25cm 0.0cm 0},clip]{figures/domain_SOL_only.png}
\caption{Schematic diagram of the relationship between the simplified 3D simulation domain and the full experimental device geometry.
The 2D simulation domain here corresponds to a plane into the page located at the mid-plane.
The basis set of vectors $(R, Z, \phi)$ denote the radial, vertical and toroidal directions in the experimental domain, but are aligned along the radial, parallel and binormal directions in the simplified simulation domain.
In reality the simulation domain corresponds to a flux tube which is closer to horizontal than vertical (tilted into the page), because typically $B_\text{tor} > B_\text{pol}$ at the edge.
In this paper the simulation domain only models the region outside of the separatrix, marked by the dashed line.}
\label{fig:domainSOL}
\end{figure}
The magnitude of the source terms was chosen so that the densities and temperatures in the 2D simulation were representative of the MAST SOL in L-mode near the ``separatrix'', i.e. around $1.0 \times 10^{-19}$m$^{-3}$ and $10$eV.
This represents a relatively low-power L-mode shot.
The sources in the 3D simulations were then set such that the total particles and energy injected per second was the same as in the 2D simulations.
The sources (both temperature and density) are constant in the binormal direction, but have a Gaussian profile in the radial direction, centered upon a point located at $ L_x/10$, and with a radial width of $L_x / 120$.
They are therefore extremely localized, and present only at one location on the inner side of the domain.
In 3D the sources also have parallel extent.
A top-hat function is used, so that the source extends from the mid-plane half-way to the target in both directions (so $L_S = 0.5 L_\parallel$ in figure \ref{fig:domainSOL}).
The point in the parallel direction at which the source ends is intended to roughly represent the position of X-point.
The baseline 3D simulation therefore represents an experimental regime in which the main source of particles and power is from the core, crossing over the separatrix between the two X-points.
The inner part of the domain is therefore not considered to be physical, meaning that profiles should be compared to one another only from the radial position of the sources outwards.
The sources create gradients which display growing instabilities, which eventually non-linearly couple to produce turbulence which drives transport in the radial direction.
Throughout the domain particles, momentum, and energy are lost - in 3D by fluxes through the targets at either end, and in 2D by heuristic loss terms approximating those same parallel processes.
A statistical steady-state was required to represent a saturated L-mode turbulence regime.
To obtain data from this state, each simulation was run with an initial ``spin-up'' phase which was then discarded, and only the following phase of statistical steady state was used for analysis.
The spin-up phase lasted typically around 5ms, while the saturated phase was typically of the order of several milliseconds, which corresponds to thousands of turbulence correlation times.
A typical output of the code, which shows a snapshot of the density fluctuations at the mid-plane of a 2D simulation, is shown in figure \ref{fig:typical_output}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.1cm 0.25cm 0.0cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/density_2D_snapshot_transparent.png}
\caption{Snapshot of the typical spatial variation of the density during the saturated phase of a simulation using the two-dimensional STORM model.}
\label{fig:typical_output}
\end{figure}
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Comparison between 2D and 3D}
\label{sect:Comparison2Dvs3D}
There are multiple different metrics on which we can compare 2D and 3D simulations.
Each of these metrics will help us assess the suitability of the simplified 2D model for capturing some aspect of the more complex 3D physics, or for predicting some physical result of interest.
As a baseline we first compare a single 3D simulation with a single 2D simulation, set up so as to have the same sources and parallel connection length.
\subsubsection{Radial profiles}
The time-averaged radial profiles of quantities represent the balance achieved in steady-state between perpendicular transport and parallel loss.
In our model, which has hot electrons but cold ions, the fluid variables of interest that exist in both the 2D and 3D models are density, electron temperature, and potential.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.5cm 0.25cm 1cm 0},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/n_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of density. Averages are performed over the saturated time periods, over the binormal direction, and in the case of the line labelled ``3D average'', also over the parallel domain.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:nprofiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.5cm 0.25cm 1cm 0},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/T_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of electron temperature.
Averages are performed over the saturated time periods, over the binormal direction, and in the case of the line labelled ``3D average'', also over the parallel domain.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:Tprofiles}
\end{figure}
We see in figure \ref{fig:nprofiles} that the density profile is well-captured by the 2D simulation: the exponential falloff length is reproduced (fitting a decaying exponential to $x>L_x/10$ gives $\lambda_n = 6.5$cm for the 2D line and $\lambda_n = 5.4$cm for the 3D average line), and the absolute value matches that of the parallel-averaged value of the 3D domain.
However, the choice of which 3D average we compare to matters - there is a factor of 2 difference between the mid-plane value or the parallel-averaged value.
The temperature is less well reproduced, being overestimated at all radial positions in 2D relative to 3D ($\lambda_T = 15.3$cm for the 2D line and $\lambda_T = 8.2$cm for the 3D average line).
This implies that the parallel heat loss is weaker (for the same upstream temperature) in 2D than in 3D, as discussed in section \ref{sect:heatloss}.
In the SOL the sheath causes characteristic potential fluctuations to be set by the temperature ($e \phi \sim T$), so a similar difference is seen in the potential.
\subsubsection{Statistical properties}
Whilst the profiles tell us about the overall balance of fluxes, the statistical properties of the timeseries capture some of the dynamics of the turbulent fluctuations themselves.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.5cm 0.25cm 1cm 0},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/n_std_dev_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of the standard deviation of normalized density fluctuations away from the time-averaged mean local density.
Averages are performed over the saturated time periods, over the binormal direction, and in the case of the line labelled ``3D average'', also over the parallel domain.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:nstddevprofiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.25cm 1cm 0},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/n_skew_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of the skewness of the normalized density fluctuations.
Averages are performed over the saturated time periods, over the binormal direction, and in the case of the line labelled ``3D average'', also over the parallel domain.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:nskewprofiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.25cm 1cm 1.2cm},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/n_kurtosis_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of the kurtosis of normalized density fluctuations.
Averages are performed over the saturated time periods, over the binormal direction, and in the case of the line labelled ``3D average'', also over the parallel domain.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:nkurtprofiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.3cm 0.0cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/all_phi_pdfs_transparent.png}
\caption{Probability distribution functions of the fluctuations of the potential away from its mean value, plotted for different radial positions.
The distributions are averaged over the binormal direction, and the statistics for the 3D case are are taken at the mid-plane.
There is no significant systematic difference in the fluctuation distribution between the 2D and 3D simulations.
}
\label{fig:phipdfs}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:nstddevprofiles}, \ref{fig:nskewprofiles} and \ref{fig:nkurtprofiles} show that the standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of the parallel-averaged fluctuations in 3D are comparable everywhere to the fluctuations in 2D.
In the far SOL the skewness and kurtosis are relatively higher in 3D though - indicating that the 3D simulation allows a greater fraction of unusually high-density structures to persist out to the far SOL.
This qualitative correspondence appears to hold for the whole distribution, not just for the first few moments - the probability distribution functions of the fluctuations in the potential show little difference between 2D and 3D in the SOL (figure \ref{fig:phipdfs}).
This similarity is potentially encouraging for the purposes of comparison: it may indicate that the dominant perpendicular dynamics is largely unchanged by addition of parallel physics, and hence captured by the 2D model.
This would then mean it is not important to capture the parallel modes which are present in 3D but not in 2D - for example the possibility of drift-waves in the 3D simulations.
However it is also possible that the dynamics needed to recreate the ``universality'' of fluctuation spectra observed both here and in experiment are relatively common\cite{Antar2003}, and that just because a similar distribution is formed a similar underlying mechanism is not implied.
\subsubsection{Power spectra}
The power spectra can tell us about cross-scale energetic transfer, as well as forcing and dissipation scales (at least in cases where the scales are not very broad).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.0cm 0.cm 0cm},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/power_spectra_n.png}
\caption{Power spectrum of density fluctuations at different spatial scales.
In 2D the energy cascades to smaller scales before being dissipated.}
\label{fig:powerspectra}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:powerspectra} shows that dissipative mechanisms remove power from the fluctuations at a larger scale in the 3D simulation than in the 2D simulation.
This observation motivated the choice to use substantially higher resolution in the 2D simulations, to verify that the cascade region was not distorted by the dissipation region.
Nevertheless, appendix \ref{appendix:resolutionscan} shows that the choice of resolution in 3D does not significantly affect the overall results, implying that the location of the diffusion scale plays only a minor role.
The temporal Fourier spectra (not shown) exhibit a similar trend: in 2D the activity extends down to smaller temporal scales.
It is not clear what causes this effect, or whether it is physically relevant.
As Garcia et\ al. pointed out\cite{Garcia2006}, a Fourier decomposition of the perpendicular scales in the vorticity equation (eq. (30) Garcia et\ al. 2006) shows that the form of the parallel loss term affects the scales that are preferentially damped.
\subsubsection{Parallel heat fluxes}
\label{sect:heatloss}
The biggest systematic difference between the radial profiles in 2D and 3D is in the temperature profiles, so we now look at the cause of these differences in the form of the parallel heat fluxes.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.0cm 0.25cm 0.0cm 0.1},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/collisionality_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of collisionality.
Whilst the 2D simulations have $\nu^* \sim 35$ everywhere, the 3D simulations are much more collisional.
}
\label{fig:pcollisionalityprofile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.5cm 0.25cm 1cm 1},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/heat_loss_2D_profiles_transparent.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of parallel heat flux in 2D.
The harmonic averaging procedure in \eqref{eq:interpolation} means the total parallel heat flux in 2D, $q_\parallel$, is limited by the smaller value.
Here $q_\text{CL}$ is by far the smaller value, meaning this 2D simulation is in the conduction-limited regime.
The radial location of the density and temperature sources is shown by the black dotted line.}
\label{fig:heatloss2Dprofile}
\end{figure}
The collisionality can be estimated through equation (4.105) from Stangeby's textbook\cite{Stangeby2000}
\begin{equation}
\nu^* = 1.0 \times 10^{-16} \frac{n L_\parallel}{T^2} ,
\end{equation}
where $n$ is in m$^{-3}$, $L_\parallel$ in $m$ and $T$ in eV.
Figure \ref{fig:pcollisionalityprofile} shows that in 2D the collisionality is high everywhere, which is due to the low temperature.
The 2D parallel heat transfer is therefore very much in the conduction-limited regime (figure \ref{fig:heatloss2Dprofile}).
As an aside, because the collisionality is high, we do not need the flux-limiting term in 2D that is included by Myra\cite{Myra2011} in the harmonic average \eqref{eq:interpolation} and by Fundamenski\cite{Fundamenski2007} in an adjusted definition of parallel thermal conductivity.
In the 3D models the average parallel heat flux is evaluated near the target in figure \ref{fig:heatloss3Dprofile}.
The peak loss at a single target is $\sim40\%$ larger than in 2D, which indicates the difference in radial temperature profiles in figure \ref{fig:Tprofiles} is due to increased parallel heat transport at the same temperature rather than due to decreased radial transport.
Decomposing the parallel transport into conductive and convective terms, again the conductive loss is smaller, which in 3D means the total loss is dominated by the convection.
Therefore whilst in 2D the conduction is the limiting quantity, in 3D we have found that the convection is more significant instead.
The condition for the dominance of conduction over convection (and hence also for the validity of the standard two-point model \cite{Stangeby2000}) can be estimated as
\begin{equation}
\kappa_\parallel \frac{T_\text{up}}{L_\parallel} \gg n T u_\parallel.
\end{equation}
Rewriting in terms of the parallel electron mean free path $\lambda_\text{mfp}$, the Mach number $M$, the sounds speed $c_s$, and the electron thermal velocity $v_{\text{th},e}$ this becomes
\begin{equation}
v_{\text{th},e} \frac{\lambda_\text{mfp}}{L_\parallel} \gg M c_s.
\end{equation}
Therefore in conjunction with the requirement to be in the collisional fluid limit ($\nu^* \gg 1$), the regime of validity of the two-point model (which assumes conduction dominates over convection) is a function of the local collisionality $\nu^*$ through
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:condvsconv}
1 \ll \nu^* \ll M^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{m_i}{m_e}}.
\end{equation}
In \eqref{eq:condvsconv} the left-hand inequality is necessary to be in the fluid limit, and the right-hand inequality expresses convection being smaller than conduction.
In 3D, despite having the same total sources as in 2D, the lower temperature profile which emerges leads to a very high value of collisionality, shown in figure \ref{fig:pcollisionalityprofile}.
Figure \ref{fig:pcollisionalityprofile} shows that $\nu^* > 100$ everywhere in 3D, completely violating the right-hand inequality in \eqref{eq:condvsconv}.
This explains the presence of significant convective as well as conductive heat loss in the 3D simulations.
Conventionally the dependence on Mach number $M$ is removed from \eqref{eq:condvsconv}, because at the target the Bohm conditions normally imply $M=1$.
However, in this case the supersonic flow near the target allows $M \sim 2$ (see section \ref{sect:leglength}), making the value of collisionality where convection becomes comparable to conduction a factor of two lower again than it would be otherwise.
Overall this means that despite choosing sources to be consistent between simulations, and values representative of the MAST SOL, the results are not in the regime of validity usually assumed: in 2D the conduction dominates but the conventional assumption of negligible convection is not well-justified, and in 3D convection dominates significantly.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.0cm 0.25cm 0.0cm 1},clip]{figures/2D_vs_3D/heat_loss_3D_profiles.png}
\caption{Average radial profiles of parallel heat flux in 3D, through a single target.
The parallel transport is in a convective regime.}
\label{fig:heatloss3Dprofile}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Varying divertor leg length}
\label{sect:leglength}
The parallel connection length is a key parameter in SOL physics, which sets the size of the 2D parallel loss terms, and sets the domain size in 3D.
However it is not always obvious what numerical value to use for the parallel connection length in 2D - some models use the physical length of the field-line from mid-plane to target, whilst others instead use a value intended to represent the characteristic parallel length of field-aligned structures\cite{Militello2011}.
We therefore treat this as a sensitivity parameter.
In 3D we compare 3 simulations with the same sources but different length divertor legs, the intention being to determine which lengths agree or disagree with 2D simulations with the same connection length.
The length of the leg beyond the X-point is alternatively doubled and halved relative to the baseline simulation, creating three domains with a respective $L_\parallel/L_S$ ratio of $\qty{3,2,1.5}$, where the size of the source region $L_S$ is fixed.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_n_profiles_0.06_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of density for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 6cm (close to the particle source).
The length of the leg does not significantly affect the density at the mid-plane, or the overall profile.}
\label{fig:parallelnprofiles0.06}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_n_profiles_0.15_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of density for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 15cm (in the far SOL).
The length of the leg does not significantly affect the overall profile, but the densities are separated due to the different overall radial decay lengths.
Therefore the shorter leg is allowing higher particle flux into the target and out of the domain.}
\label{fig:parallelnprofiles0.15}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_T_profiles_0.06_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of temperature for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 6cm (close to the energy source).
Whilst the temperature is peaked at mid-plane, most of the temperature loss occurs in the last 1m before the target, regardless of leg length.}
\label{fig:parallelTprofiles0.06}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_T_profiles_0.15_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of temperature for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 15cm (in the far SOL).
The temperature is mostly constant along parallel direction (figure \ref{fig:parallelTprofiles0.15}) - the drop occurs in a small region in front of the target.}
\label{fig:parallelTprofiles0.15}
\end{figure}
The average radial profiles at the mid-plane are affected: figures \ref{fig:parallelnprofiles0.06}-\ref{fig:parallelTprofiles0.15} show that the mid-plane density and temperature values are similar at the position of the sources, but separated in the far SOL.
Decay lengths of $\lambda_n=\qty{4.3,5.4,7.6}$cm and $\lambda_T=\qty{6.8,8.2,11.2}$cm are measured for $L_\parallel=\qty{1.13,2.25,4.50}$m respectively.
This dependence is weaker than linear with leg length, and a change of a factor of 2 is not sufficient to bring the temperature profile to match that observed in 2D (which had $\lambda_T=15.3$cm).
This implies the profiles have limited sensitivity to the leg length in 3D, so the agreement with the 2D model is relatively robust in that sense.
Looking specifically at the parallel variation not present in 2D, figure \ref{fig:parallelnprofiles0.06} also shows that the parallel density profile at the mid-plane is not significantly affected by changing the divertor leg length, but figure \ref{fig:parallelnprofiles0.15} shows that the densities in the far SOL are separated due to a slight difference in the different overall radial decay lengths.
Therefore the shorter leg is allowing a slightly higher particle flux into the target and out of the domain.
The continued drop of density towards the target within the leg is due to the lack of localised divertor sources or recycling in these simulations.
Figure \ref{fig:parallelTprofiles0.06} shows that while the temperature is peaked at mid-plane, most of the temperature loss occurs in the last 1m before the target, regardless of leg length.
In the far SOL the temperature is mostly constant along the parallel direction (figure \ref{fig:parallelTprofiles0.15}) - the drop still occurs in a small region in front of the target.
Like figure \ref{fig:parallelnprofiles0.15}, the profiles have separated showing a difference in overall parallel loss rate.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_M_profiles_0.06_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of mach number for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 6cm (close to the particle source).
The length of the leg does not significantly affect the overall profile.
A transition to supersonic flow can be seen in all simulations, which occurs in the divertor leg beyond the "X-point" (marked by the vertical dotted lines).}
\label{fig:parallelmprofiles0.06}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.2cm 0.15cm 0.2cm 0.2cm},clip]{figures/3D_leg_length/parallel_M_profiles_0.15_vs_leg_transparent.png}
\caption{Parallel profiles of mach number for 3D simulations with differing divertor leg lengths, averaged over time at radial position of 15cm (in the far SOL).
The length of the leg does not significantly affect the overall profile.
A transition to supersonic flow can be seen in all simulations, which occurs in the divertor leg beyond the ``X-point''.}
\label{fig:parallelmprofiles0.15}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:parallelmprofiles0.06} shows that the parallel velocity reaches sonic speeds before the target in all cases.
This result might at first appear to be inconsistent with standard nozzle theory, which derives the parallel gradient of the plasma Mach number to be (as shown in section (1.8.2.3) of \cite{Stangeby2000})
\begin{equation} \label{eq:NozzleMach}
\dv{M}{s_\parallel} = \frac{S_n}{n c_s} \frac{(1 + M^2)}{(1 - M^2)}.
\end{equation}
However in our case $M=1$ would not correspond to a singularity in the Mach gradient because we also have $S_n=0$ at the same location ($S_n=0$ anywhere past the ``X-point'' by assumption in our geometric setup).
The mach-gradient relation \ref{eq:NozzleMach} arguably still rules out this sonic transition in the source region.
(The model used to derive \eqref{eq:NozzleMach} is isothermal, unlike our model, but figure \ref{fig:parallelTprofiles0.06} shows that the temperature only drops by $\sim 25\%$ from the mid-plane to the sonic region.)
Supersonic flow is expected in the system being studied here.
The parallel conduction of heat causes a temperature drop along the parallel direction, which lowers the local sound speed.
Meanwhile the density also drops away from the mid-plane density source.
Therefore an increasingly rarefied and cold plasma accelerates away from the mid-plane.
This model includes no momentum exchange terms to stop this flow from accelerating to supersonic speeds.
That the inclusion of momentum exchange terms is necessary to avoid cold supersonic flow is expected given that the plasma fluid has no way to exchange parallel momentum because parallel viscosity is neglected, there are no neutral collisions, and no charge exchange.
This been noted before in 1D modelling of detachment onset, such as with SD1D\cite{Dudson2019a}.
Another valid interpretation of this phenomenon is that whilst the spatially-varying parameter $S_n$ is explicitly set to zero beyond the X-point, cross-field transport between flux tubes creates an effective particle sink, which is what is actually represented in the 1D model used to derive \eqref{eq:NozzleMach}.
This sink makes the effective $S_n$ negative, so that even with $M>1$ past the X-point the plasma continues to accelerate supersonically.
As Ghendrih et\ al. \cite{Ghendrih2011} describe, ``when this particle sink prevails from the X-point region towards the target plate, one finds that transitions to supersonic flows will occur, the bifurcation point being in the vicinity of the X-point''.
This phenomenon then takes the dynamics further into a high collisionality regime, by increasing $M$ in \eqref{eq:condvsconv}, making the assumption that parallel thermal transport is only through conduction increasingly invalid.
This indicates a clear avenue for future work: a similar domain setup but with a density source in the divertor should prevent supersonic parallel flows, whilst imitating a high-recycling regime.
It would therefore be closer to an experimental reactor-relevant regime, and also include more of the key neutral effects identified as being important in 1D studies (such as \cite{Dudson2019a}).
The challenge of this model experiment would be in either (1)
deciding what shape \& size the sources should be without introducing too many arbitrary assumptions, or (2) choosing the simplest possible neutrals model that can satisfactorily model the recycling in the divertor.
A starting point for (1) might use a divertor source with a radial exponential decay length set to the typical mean free path of ions before neutralisation.
\subsection{Sensitivity to parameters in 2D}
\label{sect:sensitivity}
We also tested the sensitivity of the 2D results with a simple parameter scan, alternately doubling or halving (a) the magnitude of all the parallel loss terms, (b) the magnitude of the particle source term, and (c) the magnitude of the energy source term.
The aim was to assess whether the effect on the profiles was linear with changing parameters, and to see if a regime of closer agreement with the 3D models existed.
For each change ((a),(b), or (c)), we looked at the effect on the time-averaged radial density and temperature profiles, for both the absolute value and the shape (by normalising to the maximum value).
Whilst we will now describe the results for all these cases, we will only show the profiles for the cases which displayed some form of non-trivial or unexpected result.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.1cm 0.20cm 0.0cm 0.0cm},clip]{figures/Source_size/T_sink_size_scan.png}
\caption{Alternately doubling or halving the magnitude of the parallel loss terms ($n_\text{loss}$, $\Omega_\text{loss}$, $T_\text{loss}$ in \eqref{eq:STORMdensity2D} - \eqref{eq:STORMtemperature2D}) scaled the density profiles proportionally everywhere as expected (not shown), but changed the decay length of the temperature profiles without altering their maximum value.
Therefore scaling the loss terms by a overall constant factor cannot create agreement with the 3D profiles in both density and temperature.}
\label{fig:sink_size_T}
\end{figure}
Doubling or halving the magnitude of all parallel loss terms in 2D increases or decreases the average density profiles at all radial locations, as expected.
It also changes the temperature profiles, but in a way which leaves the maximum value fixed, whilst altering the decay lengths (figure \ref{fig:sink_size_T}).
Therefore the magnitude of the loss terms cannot be used on its own to tune the 2D simulations to match the 3D results in both density and temperature because increasing the losses (equivalent to a shorter $L_\parallel$) will depress the density profiles as well as the temperature decay lengths, and the temperature profiles do not change their absolute value so will not match either.
Altering the magnitude of the density source terms has a larger effect on the density profiles than changing the size of the loss terms does, with the absolute height of the profiles varying almost linearly with the density sources.
When normalised, the profiles are coincident, so there is no change the the decay length, as expected.
The temperature profile scales inversely with the size of the density source, which is expected because the same energy has been distributed amongst twice as many particles in the same time period.
However, increasing the density sources also broadens the normalised temperature profile, shown in figure \ref{fig:n_source_size_T_profile_normed}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.1cm 0.20cm 0.0cm 0.0cm},clip]{figures/Source_size/n_source_size_scan_T_normed.png}
\caption{Altering the density source $S_n$ by a factor of 2 scaled the density profiles linearly at all locations (not shown), but also altered the shape of the normalised temperature profiles relative to their maximum value.}
\label{fig:n_source_size_T_profile_normed}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.1cm 0.20cm 0.0cm 0.0cm},clip]{figures/Source_size/E_source_size_scan_T_normed.png}
\caption{Scaling the energy source $S_E$ by a factor of 2 scales the absolute value of the temperature profiles linearly as expected (not shown), but also has the effect of broadening the temperature profiles.}
\label{fig:E_source_size_T_profile_normed}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim={0.1cm 0.20cm 0.0cm 0.0cm},clip]{figures/Source_size/E_source_size_scan_n.png}
\caption{Scaling the energy source $S_E$ by a factor of 2 scales the absolute value of the density profiles inversely.}
\label{fig:E_source_size_n_profile}
\end{figure}
Scaling the energy source terms causes the absolute value of the temperature profile to vary linearly as expected, but changes the normalised shape of the profiles (figure \ref{fig:E_source_size_T_profile_normed}), with smaller energy input creating broader profiles.
Therefore, as the 2D temperature profile is broader than the 3D one, and scaling the energy sources does not change the shape, the discrepancy between the 2D and 3D temperature profiles cannot be resolved by simply scaling the energy sources in 2D.
The density profile scales inversely with energy source (figure \ref{fig:E_source_size_n_profile}), but with no change to the normalised shape.
Since decreasing the energy source brings the absolute temperature closer to the 3D profile but makes the 2D density increase, we also tried decreasing both the density and the energy source terms (again by a factor of 2).
We found that whilst the temperature profiles now matched 3D, the density profile was everywhere lower.
We conclude that over a range of a factor of 4 changing the magnitude of the loss and source terms in the 2D simulation is not sufficient to easily recreate the average 3D profiles of both density and temperature simultaneously.
\section{Conclusions}
There is extensive literature on two-dimensional simulations of SOL drift-plane turbulence, including experimental validation.
We have taken a first-principles approach to evaluating the approximations used to truncate the models to 2D, comparing the 2D case with 3D simulations set up so as to form the closest possible analogues of the 2D models.
The 2D model successfully replicates the mean density profile of the 3D models with matched sources and no parameter tuning.
The 2D model also reproduces the fluctuation statistics of the 3D model well, and the results are robust to changing the length of the divertor leg in 3D or the source and sink sizes in 2D.
One systematic difference was a broadening of the mean temperature profile in 2D compared to in 3D.
The reason for this difference is an interplay of issues caused by two reasonable-seeming assumptions in the model setup.
In particular, in very high collisionality conditions, the assumptions used to close 2D models are not valid, because high enough collisionality suppresses thermal conduction so that convection becomes important.
Further, the source setup used in the parallel direction for the 3D simulations causes supersonic flows beyond the X-point, which make the thermal convection compete with conduction at lower collisionality than would otherwise be the case.
Since this highly supersonic flow is not typically observed in experiments, we suggest that future work always include particle sources in the divertor leg.
The good qualitative agreement between these two types of reduced models provides a basis for interpreting 2D and 3D models relative to one another, our results also motivate future work.
Our results open up avenues for future work moving the 3D models step by step towards more detailed representations of tokamak divertors, in particular using a larger power source (to obtain a higher temperature and hence lower collisionality) and a divertor density source (to keep the parallel flows subsonic), would provide a more consistently analogous system.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The corresponding author was financially supported by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in the Science and Technology of Fusion Energy [Grant Number EP/L01663X/1], as well as an iCASE award from CCFE.
This work has also been part-funded by the RCUK Energy Programme [grant number EP/T012250/1].
All simulations presented were performed on the CINECA Marconi supercomputer within the framework of the FUA33\_SOLBOUT3 and FUA34\_SOLBOUT4 projects.
|
\section{Introduction}
Radiation Therapy (RT) is one of the most commonly found cancer treatments and uses various types of highly concentrated beams to kill identified cancer cells. Today roughly 50\% of patients diagnosed with cancer will receive RT sometime during the course of their illness~\cite{baskar2012cancer}. Before starting RT with a patient, a radiation therapy plan (called \textit{treatment plan} or simply \textit{plan}) must be developed by Radiation Therapy Planning (RTP). The RTP is performed by a group of medical experts that primarily rely on (and are assisted by) the result of computer software. Said software is often very complex, compute-intensive~\cite{jia2014gpu}, and -- perhaps most importantly -- very time-consuming (computing a plan can take several hours or even days), which restricts the number of plans that can be computed within a given time frame.
In today’s state-of-the-art paradigm for RTP, mathematical optimization is used to determine the settings of the treatment machine (typically a linear accelerator or a particle accelerator) that will result in as beneficial a dose to the patient as possible. The main computational bottlenecks of RTP are two: the radiation dose computation and the optimization step. Dose distributions from multiple beams, possibly under various realizations of uncertainties, must be computed in each iteration of an optimization procedure, which moreover requires the calculation of function values and often gradients to update the beam variables. In this work, we focus on the radiation dose computation.
RTP may be seen as a joint work of a radiation oncologist and a medical physicist. However, there is a critical contribution to algorithmic and software development by computer scientists, mathematicians, and physicists. An oncologist makes the first step in today’s RTP by marking contours of organs and regions of suspected malignant cancer cells that have been delineated on computed tomography (CT) images. These contours form input to the software that produces a treatment plan under the supervision of a medical physicist, based on the prescribed target dose and the tolerance doses to each organ at risk as specified in the clinical protocol or by the oncologist. The plan includes the set of operations for the treatment machine to deliver the treatment. To generate the plan, the medical physicist formulates the treatment goals as an optimization problem, which is solved by the planning software. The objective function of the problem measures the quality of the simulated treatment dose. Typically, the objective function will promote a high, uniform dose in the target volume and low dose in the surrounding organs. The optimization problems are of varying complexity, sometimes taking into account aspects of uncertainty, such as patient positioning errors, changes of the patient anatomy between treatment sessions, and calculation uncertainties. There is a trade-off between the quality of the solution and the complexity of the optimization problem. The optimization problem is typically solved iteratively, and requires calculation of the simulated treatment dose in each iteration.
A crucial aspect when it comes to the performance of the RTP is the significant advances within high-performance computing over recent years and the advent of accelerators. GPUs especially have seen successful use in accelerating many of the workloads in RTP~\cite{jia2014gpu}. High-Performance Computing systems consist of very different technologies that can lead to a considerable performance and efficiency improvement of the applications. Today, supercomputers not only feature conventional CPUs and memory technologies, e.g., DRAM. They also include computing units that can accelerate the computation and new memory technologies to speed-up the data movement.
Today, accelerators such as GPUs are often providing a majority of computing in several of the fastest computers in the world\footnote{Three out of five of the top5 systems includes GPUs (www.top500.org)} and even FPGAs are slowly gaining traction as alternatives~\cite{podobas2017evaluating}.
An example of a modern accelerator is the newly released Nvidia Ampere GPU~\cite{choquette2020nvidia}, providing a computational power of roughly 9.4 TFlop/s in double precision in one chip. However, the performance improvement comes with increased difficulty in programming the accelerators and with a change of the algorithms to better map to the underlying hardware architecture. This work addresses this challenge of programming radiation therapy dose calculation on GPUs.
The main contributions of the paper are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We design and develop a new kernel for the radiation dose calculation on Nvidia GPUs. The radiation dose calculations are intended for the treatment planning system RayStation. We convert the RayStation compressed sparse matrix format to CSR and implement CSR sparse matrix vector multiplication (SpMV) for radiation dose calculation with mixed half and double precision and using CUDA cooperative groups.
\item We evaluate the performance of radiation dose calculations on different GPU systems, including a machine with Nvidia A100, and compare its performance with the performance of the state-of-the-art implementations, such as Ginkgo~\cite{anzt2020ginkgo} and cuSPARSE~\cite{naumov2010cusparse}. We find that our implementation is up to 4$\times$ faster than a baseline implementation mimicking RayStation radiation dose calculation on GPU. Our implementation performance is also comparable and in some cases faster than implementations using Ginkgo and cuSPARSE.
\end{enumerate}
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{background} describes how radiation dose calculations are performed in RTP systems. We present our design and implementation of radiation dose calculation on Nvidia GPUs in Section~\ref{methodology}. Section~\ref{experiment} describes the experimental set-up and the systems we use for the performance evaluations. Section~\ref{results} presents the performance results and roofline models, and Section~\ref{related_work} briefly reviews previous related works. Finally, Section~\ref{conclusions} summarizes the work and outlines future work.
\section{Background}
\label{background}
RTP aims to create a treatment plan such that a sufficient dose is delivered to the tumor while sparing surrounding healthy tissue as much as possible. The treatment machine needs control parameters to provide the desired dose. To determine these control parameters, a treatment planning system (TPS) is used, which is a software product designed specifically for RTP. In this work, the TPS used to create the dose deposition matrices (see Section~\ref{sec:dose_calc}) is RayStation \cite{RaystationLink}, developed by RaySearch Laboratories. RayStation is written in C++ and C\#, and it also provides Python as a higher-level scripting interface.
The radiation dose calculation is one of the most computationally intensive routines in RayStation as it is performed at each iteration in the optimization solver. Currently the dose calculation for pencil beam scanning (see Section~\ref{sec:dose_calc}) in proton therapy RayStation is done partly on CPUs. In this work, we focus on porting this routine to Nvidia GPUs using CUDA and evaluating the performance benefit that RayStation can reach by offloading the radiation dose calculation for protons to GPUs.
\subsection{Radiation Dose Calculation} \label{sec:dose_calc}
The radiation dose calculation relies on a method that first constructs the \textit{dose deposition matrix} and then multiplies it to the control parameters in the form of an input vector. Calculating the dose in the patient from the values of the control parameters becomes a single matrix-vector product. The assumption of this method is that the relationship between the control parameters and the dose is linear.
Various methods for computing the dose deposition matrix exists, including Monte Carlo simulation~\cite{ma2002monte} and pencil beam approximations~\cite{ahnesjo1992pencil}. In this work, we use RayStation's Monte Carlo simulations to compute the dose deposition matrix. The Monte Carlo simulations simulate the transport of individual particles (either protons or photons) through the tissue to generate the dose deposition matrices. Numerical noise affects Monte Carlo simulations and for this reason deposition matrices will include entries for voxels where a very small dose (due to the noise of the method) is received. This can lead to an artificial increase of the non-zero values in the dose deposition matrix.
In this work, we focus on the dose deposition matrices for patients treated with proton therapy~\cite{mohan2017proton} (other sources of radiation in radiation therapy include photons, electrons or carbon ions). The specific treatment technique used in these patient cases is \textit{pencil beam scanning}: a thin proton beam scans the target in a scanline pattern, stopping to deliver dose at a number of \textit{spots}. An illustration of the pencil beam scanning treatment technique from RayStation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spot_scanning}. In the figure we use the "Beam's eye view": a 2D view of the target, seen from the beam's perspective. The dose deposition matrix in this case is a mapping between the spot weights, a measure of the amount of radiation delivered by the pencil beam at each spot (the orange crosses in Figure~\ref{fig:spot_scanning}), and the resulting dose in the voxels of the patient, measured in Gray. With this in mind, a column of the dose deposition matrix is the contribution of a single spot to the dose in all voxels of the patient. Since a single spot will not contribute to the resulting dose in most voxels, \textbf{dose deposition matrices are typically highly sparse} (for instance, in the test cases we show in this paper, the percentage of the non-zero elements varies between 0.6\% to 2\%).
The characteristics of dose deposition matrices can vary significantly due to a number of factors. Firstly, different treatment modalities, such as photon and proton treatments, will result in matrices with different characteristics because the dose deposition and physics differ. Furthermore, dose deposition matrices can differ for different treatment sites, and between cases as well, simply due to differences in patient geometry, anatomy and setup.
Since the optimization problems from RTP are often complex and nonlinear, iterative methods for solving them are necessary. As such, solving the optimization problem often requires the dose to be calculated multiple times, meaning that dose calculation can become a significant bottleneck. Note also that the dose deposition matrix does not change during the optimization process; only the machine parameters (the input vector in our algorithm) do.
Thus, a fast and efficient method for computing the dose using the dose deposition matrix is required. Since the dose deposition matrices can become very large, the use of accelerators like GPUs could be used to speed up optimization times. Better performance of the optimization algorithm not only improves the productivity in clinics, but can also enable the creation of higher quality plans because it enables the planners to explore more treatment options in a given time, as well as through the use of more sophisticated and computationally demanding optimization methods. Examples of such methods include robust optimization, where uncertainties in treatment delivery due to, e.g., changes in the patient geometry between successive treatment sessions and patient movement during treatment delivery can be taken into account by the optimization algorithm.
\subsection{Dose Deposition Matrix Characteristics}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spot_scanning_visualization.png}
\caption{Illustration of the spot scanning treatment technique. The figure is shown from the perspective of the treatment beam. The purple outline shows the target volume (the tumor), and the orange crosses are the spots. The arrows between the spots indicate the direction that the beam scans the target volume.}
\label{fig:spot_scanning}
\end{figure}
We test our radiation dose calculations on GPUs with two use cases: a liver case with four beams from different angles, and a prostate case with two parallel opposed beams. Each beam is characterized by its own dose deposition matrix. We thus test a total of six dose deposition matrices. The dimensions of each of the matrices are given in Table~\ref{tab:dimensions}, together with the number of non-zeros. Recall that the number of rows in the matrix is the number of voxels in the dose grid, and the number of columns is the number of spot weights. Because the number of dose grid voxels is typically much higher than the number of spot weights, the dose deposition matrices are highly skewed in the row direction: the number of rows is 40-200$\,\times$ the number of columns in the test cases.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
beam no. & Rows & Columns & non-zeros & non-zero & size (GB) \\
& & & & ratio & \\
\hline
Liver 1 & 2.97e6 & 6.80e4 & 1.48e9 & 0.73\% & 8.880 \\
Liver 2 & 2.97e6 & 6.77e4 & 1.28e9 & 0.64\% & 7.672 \\
Liver 3 & 2.97e6 & 6.99e4 & 1.39e9 & 0.67\% & 8.368 \\
Liver 4 & 2.97e6 & 6.32e4 & 1.84e9 & 0.98\% & 11.04 \\
Prostate 1 & 1.03e6 & 5.09e3 & 9.50e7 & 1.81\% & 0.5744 \\
Prostate 2 & 1.03e6 & 4.96e3 & 9.51e7 & 1.86\% & 0.5747 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Characteristics of the dose deposition matrices used in this work.}
\label{tab:dimensions}
\end{table}
To gain insights about the unstructured nature of the sparse matrices, we can investigate how the non-zeros are distributed throughout the matrix (specifically along the rows since we are going to parallelize the SpMV algorithm along that direction). Figure~\ref{fig:nonzero-row-hist} shows the cumulative function for the number of non-zero values per row of the dose deposition matrices for beam~1 in the liver and prostate cases. The cumulative function provides us the percentage of rows with less than a certain number of non-zero elements (x-axis). The plots presents also the average number of non-zeros per row and the percentage of the non-empty rows that have less than 32 non-zero elements. In this work, we implement an SpMV algorithm that is most efficient when there are more than 32 non-zero elements per row: from Figure~\ref{fig:nonzero-row-hist} we see that cases violating this account only for 5.6\% and 14.2\% for the liver and prostate cases, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{merged_row_len_hists.pdf}
\caption{Cumulative row length histograms for liver~beam~1 and prostate~beam~1. The rows with length 0 are excluded in the histograms. In both liver and prostate~beam~1, ~70\% of the rows have length 0.}
\label{fig:nonzero-row-hist}
\end{figure}
The histogram and statistics of the row lengths indicate a high level of irregularity in the matrices. Many rows are relatively short for the liver case, with lengths in the tenths or hundreds, while other rows have around 16000 non-zeros. For the prostate case, the difference in row lengths is also significant, though not as dramatic as the liver case. This could mainly be due to the much smaller number of total columns.
\subsection{Sparse Matrix Formats}
As mentioned previously, dose deposition matrices are typically highly sparse, due to each part of the treatment beam contributing dose to only a small part of the patient volume. As such, the problem of computing the dose in the patient given a dose deposition matrix becomes an SpMV.
Sparse matrices can be represented in several formats. Some common representations include coordinate list (COO) and compressed sparse row (CSR). In COO, three arrays are used to store the matrix. One with the non-zero values, one with the row index for each value and one with the column index for each value. CSR format also uses three arrays, one for non-zero values (in row-major order), one with column indices, and one with the starting index of each row in the previous two arrays. There also exists other sparse matrix representations specifically designed for performance on GPUs and SIMD architectures. Examples of this include the ELLPACK, and SELL-C-sigma~\cite{kreutzer2014unified} formats, designed for SIMT and wide SIMD architectures.
RayStation uses a custom storage format to compress the dose deposition matrices. In this work, we convert RayStation's custom compressed format to CSR. The use of CSR storage format allows us to gain insights into the structure of dose deposition matrices from RTP and obtain insights about achievable performance on different hardware. RayStation's custom sparse matrix format was developed for CPUs at a time when the amount of available memory in most systems was much smaller than today. Investigating other storage formats, such as ELLPACK, and SELL-C-sigma, will be a topic of future work.
\subsection{RayStation Requirements}
To integrate the SpMV kernels investigated in this paper into RayStation, we need to meet two requirements.
First, \textbf{the input and output vectors} of the SpMV product \textbf{must be in double precision}. The reason for this is that lower precisions have been found to affect the numerical stability of the optimization engine used in RayStation. However, due to the size of dose deposition matrices from larger patient cases, the entries in \textbf{the dose deposition matrix should preferably be stored in lower precision}. The current CPU implementation in RayStation uses 16 bits to store the entries in the matrix. To match this level of precision, IEEE-754 half precision floating point can be used in the GPU implementations
Second, the radiation dose calculation must be reproducible on the same system: computing the matrix-vector product using the same input data and system must yield exactly the same result at each time run. The non-associativity of floating point arithmetic implies that certain methods and algorithms cannot be used. For instance, our algorithm cannot implement reductions using atomic operations, where the order of operations is not set in advance (this would lead to non-reproducible results on different runs on the same system).
\section{Methodology}
\label{methodology}
Our implementation of the SpMV for the radiation dose calculation is an adaption of the "Vector CSR-kernel" presented in the seminal paper by Bell and Garland~\cite{bell2009implementing}. The main difference is the use of CUDA cooperative groups, introduced recently in CUDA 9.0. These allow for efficient synchronization and collective operations in threads belonging to the same warp.
We show a stripped-down version of our CSR sparse matrix-vector multiplication in Listing~\ref{spmv}. To exploit CUDA cooperative groups, we assign one thread warp of 32 threads to process each row of the input matrix. The main motivation behind assigning one thread warp to each row, as opposed to just a single thread, is a more favourable memory access pattern. The reason behind this is that at each iteration of the inner loop in the SpMV kernel (see lines 27-28 in Listing 1), the threads in each warp access consecutive elements in the data array. This is not the case when assigning one thread per row in the matrix. In that case, at each iteration each thread in a warp accesses elements from different rows, which will not be consecutive in the data arrays.
Thus, each row in the matrix is processed by one thread warp, with an intra-warp reduction being performed for each row before the result is stored in the output vector. In our implementation, the coordination of threads and warps is largely handled via CUDA's cooperative groups API~\cite{CooperativeGroups}: we use a \texttt{tiled\_partition} to partition the thread blocks into chunks of 32 threads, such that each part of the tiled partition contains one thread warp. We utilize the \texttt{reduce} function from the CUDA cooperative groups API to perform the intra-warp reductions.
Several libraries, such as cuSPARSE and Ginkgo, provide optimized CSR SpMV implementations. However, in our implementation, \textbf{we need mixed half and double precision}: the dose deposition matrices are stored in half precision, while the input and output vectors are in double precision. The matrix is stored in half precision to save space, while the input and output vectors (which are the spot weights and output dose, respectively) are in double precision to ensure the stability of the optimization algorithm used in RayStation. While cuSPARSE supports mixed precision, the specific case of half and double precision mixing is not currently supported.
\begin{lstlisting}[
language=C++,
keywordstyle=\color{blue}\ttfamily,
stringstyle=\color{red}\ttfamily,
commentstyle=\color{green}\ttfamily,
numbers=left,
stepnumber=1,
basicstyle=\tiny,
caption={Example CUDA code for our CSR SpMV kernel. This example code is given in single precision only for clarity, but can be made to support mixed precision using C++-templates.},
captionpos=b,
label=spmv,
float
]
__global__
void CSR_SpMV(const float* __restrict__ data,
const int* __restrict__ col_inds,
const int* __restrict__ row_ptr,
const float* __restrict__ x,
float* __restrict__ y,
int y_size)
{
namespace cg = cooperative_groups;
cg::thread_block block_group = cg::this_thread_block();
cg::grid_group grid = cg::this_grid();
int tile = cg::tiled_partition<warp_size>(block_group);
int warp = block_group.group_index().x * tile.meta_group_size()
+ tile.meta_group_rank();
int num_warps = grid.size() / warp_size;
int idx_in_warp = tile.thread_rank();
for (int i = warp; i < y_size; i += num_warps) {
int start_row = row_ptr[i];
int end_row = row_ptr[i + 1];
if (start_row == end_row)
continue;
float val = 0.0;
for (int j = start_row + idx_in_warp; j < end_row; j += tile.size())
val += data[j] * x[col_inds[j]];
float warp_aggregate = cg::reduce(tile, val, cg::plus<float>());
if (idx_in_warp == 0)
y[i] = warp_aggregate;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\section{Experimental Setup}
\label{experiment}
In this work, we export the dose deposition matrices used from RayStation. The export is carried out directly in the RayStation source code, after the dose deposition matrix has been calculated by RayStation's Monte Carlo dose engine and before the optimization of the treatment plan. Recall that the dose deposition matrix does not change during the optimization process, since it reflects the physics of how the proton beam deposits dose in the patient. We then convert the dose deposition matrices from RayStation's in-house storage format to the CSR format used in the experiments.
To evaluate our implementation against the performance of the current RayStation algorithm, we measure the performance of the RayStation CPU implementation, which is what is used clinically in RayStation at the time of writing. Since having only this comparison might be misleading, due to our implementation being run on GPU instead of CPU, we also port the RayStation algorithm to GPU. We will refer to this implementation as \texttt{GPU Baseline} in the remainder of this paper. To note is that the RayStation CPU implementation does not map very well to GPU, mainly due to the use of per-thread scratch arrays to avoid race conditions while maintaining reproducibility. Due to the much larger number of threads in use on GPUs, the use of per-thread scratch arrays is not feasible on GPU. To address this, we utilize atomic operations instead in our GPU implementation of the RayStation algorithm. However, the use of atomic operations has one major drawback, namely that it causes the \texttt{GPU Baseline} implementation to not produce bitwise reproducible results between runs on the same system. As such, the \texttt{GPU Baseline} implementation is intended to give an optimistic bound on the performance of the RayStation algorithm on GPU.
We evaluate our CUDA implementations on three systems with Nvidia A100, V100 and P100 GPUs. Furthermore, we evaluate the current RayStation CPU implementation on an Intel i9-7940X CPU.
\begin{itemize}
\item The A100 GPUs used in this work have 40 GBs of RAM and an L2 cache size of 40 MB. The system used for the A100 tests are equipped with AMD EPYC 7302P CPUs. We compile our code for the A100 using NVCC and CUDA version 11.1, with GCC 8.3.1 as the host compiler.
\item Our V100 experiments are run on the Kebnekaise supercomputing cluster. The GPU nodes we used at Kebnekaise are equipped with two Nvidia V100 GPUs, with 16 GBs of RAM and 6 MB of L2 cache each, and two Intel Xeon Gold 6132 processors. We compile our code for the A100 using NVCC and CUDA version 10.1, with GCC 8.3.0 as the host compiler.
\item For the P100 GPU, we compile our code using CUDA version 10.1 and GCC 4.8.5 as the host compiler. The P100 GPU has 16 GBs of RAM and 4 MB of L2 cache. The system the P100 experiments are run on are equipped with IBM POWER8 CPUs.
\item The RayStation CPU tests were run on an Intel i9-7940x CPU with 64 GBs of RAM. The tests were done on a research version of RayStation 10B.
\end{itemize}
We test our implementation using half precision for the matrix elements, and double precision in the input and output vectors, as per the requirements in RayStation. Furthermore, to assess the performance of our implementation, we compare against existing library implementations of SpMV for CSR matrices, namely Ginkgo and cuSPARSE. Since these libraries do not, at the time of writing, support mixed double and half precision in SpMV, this comparison is done in single precision only. While this is not the precision used in RayStation, the comparison can be used to assess the performance of our implementation, as well as investigate the potential impact of different floating point precisions on performance. Our kernel using mixed half and double precision will be referred to as \texttt{Half/double}, and our implementation using single precision only will be referred to as \texttt{Single}.
Furthermore, we perform a roofline~\cite{williams2009roofline} analysis of our implementation, as well as of cuSPARSE and Ginkgo on the A100 GPU system. We use Nvidia's Nsight Compute to measure the total size of all memory transactions from DRAM to the caches. Given the total number of floating point operations required for SpMV, namely two times the number of non-zeros of the matrix, we calculate the arithmetic intensity of the SpMV implementations, which we then use in our roofline analysis.
We repeat our experiments 10000 times each, the values presented in the results section are the averages of those runs. We omit errorbars in the results in cases where the standard deviation is less than 5\%.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
When developing a new implementation of a particular algorithm, as is the case in the present paper, it is imperative to analyze how far said implementation is from the theoretical peak performance bound by machine characteristics. We apply the Roofline methodology in order to quantify how much of system compute- and memory-bandwidth resources we use. We perform this analysis on the A100 by analyzing the workloads and their arithmetic intensity (Flops/Byte) and empirically measuring their last-level cache (LLC) to external memory (HBM2 or DDR) using performance counters. We apply said methodology to all implementations, even those which currently cannot be adapted to RayStation (cuSPARSE and Ginkgo), to contrast our implementation against state-of-the-art. We do this for a sub-set of the liver and prostate use-cases.
Figure~~\ref{fig:roofline} shows the results for the A100, which is the latest generation Nvidia GPU. In this plot, the performance (y-axis) is a function of the operational intensity (x-axis). We measure the operational intensities used in Figure~\ref{fig:roofline} the \texttt{dram\_\_bytes} metric from Nvidia's Nsight Compute. However, in the case of SpMV in particular, we note that the operational intensity can be calculated accurately using a simple model as well, even when accounting for cache filtering. To illustrate this, we compute a theoretical upper bound estimate for the operational intensity for liver~beam~1.
To obtain an upper bound on the operational intensity for the \texttt{Half/Double} case, we assume an infinite cache size, such that all values need only be read from main memory once, and then can be accessed from cache. In the case of CSR SpMV, for each multiplication and addition we perform, we need to load one 2 byte value from the matrix, together with a 4 byte column index, and one 8 byte value from the input vector. Furthermore, for each row of the matrix that we process, we load its starting and final index in the flattened data array from the \texttt{row\_ptr} array (see lines 21 and 22 in Listing \ref{spmv}). Since the \texttt{end\_row} is the \texttt{start\_row} index for the next row (and assuming infinite cache size) we only need to load one index of four bytes per row of the matrix from main memory, except for the first row, where both indices must be loaded from main memory. Finally, we need to write our local aggregate value for each row (corresponding to the dot product between the row and the input vector) to the output vector. For the sake of estimating an upper bound, let's assume that the output vector has non-zero values in all positions, meaning that we need to write 8 bytes for each row in the matrix to the output vector. The total memory traffic required then becomes $6 * nnz + 12 * nr + 8 * nc$, where $nnz$ is the number of non-zeros in the matrix, $nr$ is the number of rows and $nc$ the number of columns. Given that the number of floating point operations required is $2 * nnz$, we can compute the operational intensity for liver~beam~1 using the values from Table~\ref{tab:dimensions}. This gives us an approximation of the upper bound for the operational intensity of $0.332$, which is very close to the measured value seen in Figure~\ref{fig:roofline}.
The reason the measured and theoretical peak operational intensity are so similar in value likely comes from the total memory transactions required being dominated by the number of non-zeros in the input matrix, which is several orders of magnitude larger than the number of rows and columns. Since each non-zero in the matrix is only used once in the calculation, the infinite cache re-use assumption has no effect, since no re-use is required. Furthermore, the dimensions of the input vector, whose values are re-used, are small enough to fit entirely in the 40MB L2 cache of the A100. This also explains the difference in operational intensity between the \texttt{Single} version and \texttt{Half/double}. Since the memory traffic required is dominated by the non-zeros of the matrix, increasing the size of the matrix values by 2 bytes has a noticeable impact on the observed (and theoretical) operational intensity. This higher operational intensity for the \texttt{Half/Double} case, when compared to the single precision only experiments, like for Ginkgo and cuSparse, leads to better bandwidth utilization and thus higher performance.
Finally, the analysis of the operational intensity also reveals another important factor in the performance of the kernel, namely that the memory traffic caused by loading the column indices of the elements in the matrix make up a large portion of the total memory traffic. Assuming that 4 byte integers are used to store the column indices (which is the case in this work), the column indices then contribute $4 * nnz$ bytes to the total memory traffic. Since the $nnz$ term typically dominate the others in the formula for the total memory traffic, the contribution to the memory traffic by the column indices is substantial. We can already see in figure \ref{fig:roofline} that a reduction in the size of the matrix elements from 4 bytes to 2 bytes, effectively reducing the memory traffic contribution from them by $2 * nnz$, has a significant impact on the operational intensity. It is reasonable to expect that the same reduction in the size of the column indices would similarly increase the operational intensity. Looking at the dimensions from table \ref{tab:dimensions}, the column indices for the prostate case could be stored using 16 bit unsigned integers, thus saving memory and likely improving performance. While the column indices for the liver cases cannot be directly stored using 16-bit integers, they are not much larger than the largest possible value for 16 bit integers, namely 65535. Through this analysis, we can identify the size used to store column indices in memory as a potential improvement for future work, as the matrices arising from the specific case of proton dose calculation have a significantly smaller number of columns compared to rows.
In summary, our implementation, using mixed half and double precision, increases the amount of operations we do per external memory access; improvement in this metric is particularly important in GPUs, which often are bandwidth-deprived machines (their Flops/Byte ratio is rather high). As such, we expect the performance of the kernels using mixed half and double precision to perform better than the ones using only single precision. SpMV is typically a highly memory-bound operation, and this is true in this case as well, as can be seen from the low operational intensity of the evaluated kernels. Due to this, we consider also the bandwidth achieved when evaluating the performance later in section \ref{sec:perf_measurements}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Roofline_tnr.pdf}
\caption{Roofline analysis of the Ginkgo SpMV kernel, cuSPARSE kernel and our mixed half and double precision implementations.}
\label{fig:roofline}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Execution Configuration}
To determine the most performant execution configuration (number of threads per block and thread blocks) for our kernels, we perform some experiments with varying execution configurations to determine the best one. In our CSR SpMV kernel, since we assign one thread warp of 32 threads to each row, the total number of threads we use in our execution configuration is 32 times the number of rows of the dose deposition matrix. To further narrow down a more specific number of thread blocks and threads per block to use, we perform tests using a varying number of threads per block for liver~beam~1 and measure the performance in order to find the best configuration. In the experiments, we vary the number of threads per block between 32 and 1024, while setting the number of thread blocks such that the total number of threads is 32 times the number of rows.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{exec_config_new.pdf}
\caption{Performance for our different kernels with varying number of threads per block on liver~beam~1. The total number of threads used is fixed by the input size, so the number of thread blocks is always set such that the total number of threads is 32 times the number of rows.}
\label{fig:exec_config}
\end{figure}
From inspecting Figure~\ref{fig:exec_config}, it is clear that 512 threads per block performs the best for the \texttt{Half/Double} implementation on liver~beam~1. For the \texttt{Single} kernel, the performance is similar for 128, 256 and 512 threads per block. Finally, for the \texttt{Baseline} kernel, the performance is also similar for different execution configurations, with 64 and 128 threads per block performing slightly better. In the following experiments, we use 512 threads per block for \texttt{Half/Double} and \texttt{Single} and 128 threads per block for \texttt{Baseline}.
\subsection{Performance Measurements} \label{sec:perf_measurements}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{A100_CPU_comp.pdf}
\caption{Performance measurements of our implementations on the A100 and RayStation's CPU implementation. The GPU baseline is the current algorithm used in RayStation ported to GPU. Half/double and Single precision are our implementations with mixed half and double precision and single precision only, respectively. The right y-axis shows the bandwidth values, and the left axis the GFLOP/s. The lines with markers show the bandwidth values and the bars the GFLOP/s.}
\label{fig:A100_perf}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:A100_perf} shows the performance of the different implementations. Here, the units of metric are the floating-point performance (FLOP/s) and bandwidth. The bandwidth is measured using performance counters from Nvidia Nsight Compute, with the measurement being done for memory traffic between the L2 cache and DRAM. We test the different implementations against different use cases with different dose deposition matrices (4 for liver cancer and 2 for prostate cancer). We compare three different versions. \texttt{Baseline} is the direct port of the algorithm to the GPU based on RayStation's CPU code (also using RayStation's custom compressed format). \texttt{Half/Double} is our optimized implementation (our contribution in the paper). The \texttt{Single} implementation provides a contrast against the other two, as well as for comparison with popular library implementations (using single precision for the input).
Out of the three GPU implementations, \texttt{GPU Baseline} is the poorest performing. This is expected as the CPU algorithm does not map well to the GPU, mainly due to the use of scratch arrays to avoid race conditions in the CPU implementation. We address this issue in the GPU implementation by using CUDA atomics instead, which incurs additional overhead. The implementation we engineer for this work performs rather well-- up-to 4x faster than the \texttt{GPU Baseline} for liver~beam~3 with an average speedup of approximately 3$\times$. The highest performance we reach is 420 GFlop/s, which is $\Tilde{}8\%$ of peak Nvidia A100 double precision floating point performance, on the liver use-cases. We also note that there is a rather large difference between cancer treatment depending on the use-case, where the liver use-cases often experience a ~30\% improvement over prostate. This degradation of performance materialize could be caused by the relatively smaller size of the prostate cases, with significantly smaller matrices. The \texttt{Single} version performs worse than the \texttt{Half/double}. The reason behind this is likely that the \texttt{Half/double} version have a higher arithmetic intensity (Flops/Byte) than the single-precision. This is discussed further in the beginning of this section. The RayStation CPU implementation is noticeably slower than the GPU implementations on the A100. A large part of this can be explained by the difference in hardware used, since the GPU port of the RayStation code already shows a $~17 \times$ speedup when compared to the CPU implementation. In practice, this indicates that significant performance benefits could be achieved by moving the implementation of the SpMV for dose calculation to GPU, which in turn could improve optimization times in RayStation significantly for proton plans.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{library_comp.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of performance between our kernel, cuSPARSE and Ginkgo in single precision on the A100. The right y-axis shows the bandwidth values, and the left axis the GFLOP/s. The lines with markers show the bandwidth values and the bars the GFLOP/s.}
\label{fig:library_perf}
\end{figure}
In terms of bandwidth, the \texttt{Half/double} and \texttt{Single} kernels have a bandwidth of about ~1250-1350 GB/s on the liver cases, which is approximately $80-87 \,\%$ of the peak bandwidth of 1555 GB/s for the A100. The bandwidth on the prostate cases is slightly lower at approximately 1050 GB/s, or about $68 \,\%$ of the theoretical peak bandwidth. As in the case for the GFlop/s, the bandwidth achieved for the prostate cases is slightly lower than for the liver cases, possibly due to smaller matrix sizes. For the \texttt{GPU Baseline}, we see that the measured bandwidth varies significantly between the different cases. One possible explanation for this is that the bandwidth is measured from the L2 cache to DRAM. The \texttt{GPU Baseline} kernel, due to using atomic reductions to the output vector, write to the output vector much more frequently compared to the \texttt{Half/double} and \texttt{Single} kernels, that only write to the output vector once per row. This significantly increases the total memory traffic for the \texttt{GPU Baseline} kernel. However, since the 40 MB L2 cache of the A100 is large enough for the entire output vector to fit in, this additional memory traffic is mostly between caches. This means the kernel overall is more constrained by memory traffic inside the caches, meaning that accesses to DRAM for other required data like matrix elements happen less frequently, causing lower overall bandwidth and possibly a higher variation in the DRAM bandwidth achieved, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:A100_perf}.
Furthermore, Figure~\ref{fig:library_perf} shows a performance comparison between our \texttt{Single} kernel, Ginkgo and cuSPARSE. We see that our implementation matches the performance or is better than Ginkgo and cuSPARSE for the evaluated matrices. When comparing cuSPARSE to Ginkgo, we observe that cuSPARSE performs better than Ginkgo for the liver cases but worse for the prostate cases. Since the implementation details of cuSPARSE are not public, the reason for this difference is difficult to give. Overall, we observe that our implementation's performance is comparable or better compared to state-of-the-art library implementations for SpMV, when the computation is done in single precision only. Looking at the bandwidth values from Figure~\ref{fig:library_perf}, we see that it follows the performance trends noted in the FLOP/s very closely. This is somewhat expected given the highly memory-bound nature of SpMV.
Finally, Figure~\ref{fig:machine_comp} shows a comparison between the performance for the A100, V100 and P100 systems. The difference in performance between the A100 and V100 is approximately between a factor 1.5 and 2. The difference in performance between the V100 and P100 is larger, with a difference of a factor of 2.5, approximately. This difference in performance cannot be fully explained by the difference in peak memory bandwidth of the GPUs, which are 1555 GB/s for the A100, 897 GB/s for the V100 and 732 GB/s on the P100, even though SpMV is typically a memory-bound kernel. On both the A100 and V100 we attain roughly 80-88\% of the peak bandwidth. On the P100, the achieved value is closer to 41\%, a large difference. We intend to investigate the causes of the difference in performance between the different GPUs in future work.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{GPU_comp_new.pdf}
\caption{Performance measurements on the A100, V100 and P100 for the \texttt{half/double} implementation. The right y-axis shows the bandwidth values, and the left axis the GFLOP/s. The lines with markers show the bandwidth values and the bars the GFLOP/s.}
\label{fig:machine_comp}
\end{figure}
\section{Related Work}
\label{related_work}
Several previous works have focused on accelerating medical treatment planning using GPUs. Applications in the treatment planning workflow that have been accelerated using GPUs previously include: algorithms for image processing and deformable registration, proton planning using Monte-Carlo simulation on GPUs~\cite{qin2016recent, schiavi2017fred, souris2016fast}, dose calculation for different treatment modalities as well as the optimization process itself. An overview of areas in RTP where GPU acceleration has been used can be found in the work by Jia et al.~\cite{jia2014gpu}. A condensed history and overview of challenges on proton planning can be found at~\cite{mohan2017proton}.
There is a rich lineage of research literature on Sparse Vector-Multiplication, tracing back all the way to the 1970s \cite{duff1977survey}, and we would do a poor job condensing it within this paper. Instead, we redirect the interested reader to several well-written surveys on the topic~\cite{mcssc07, gpusc09, gpusc14, grossman2016survey}.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{conclusions}
In this paper, we described the porting of radiation dose calculation, a major computational bottleneck in RTP, to Nvidia GPUS. We ported the original CPU implementation used in the RaySearch engine to GPU and found several opportunities for optimization. Our contributed implementation, which leverages mixed-precision in a way that is not allowed yet in state-of-the-art SpMV implementations such as cuSPARSE and Ginkgo, improves performance by up to 4$\times$ (average: 3$\times$) over the baseline and have a higher operational intensity compared to both cuSPARSE and Ginkgo. Furthermore, the GPU port of RayStation's CPU algorithm shows an approximate $17 \times$ performance improvement compared to the performance on the CPU. With our modified CSR kernel, the performance improvement is even larger at $46 \times$ improvement compared to the CPU baseline. In practice, this can mean a significant speedup in optimization times and time-to-treatment for radiation therapy treatment planning.
We believe that our results encourage the wider inclusion of high-performance accelerators into medical facilities, as they will reduce the time-to-treatment for cancer patients and enable the use of more sophisticated RTP methods, ultimately improving care for cancer patients. In the future, together with the investigation of sparse matrix formats (other than CSR), we intend to investigate other components of the Radiation Therapy pipeline in order to research and further reduce time-to-treatment.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The computations were performed on resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at High Performance Computing Center North (HPC2N) partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2018-05973.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Given an undirected graph $G(V,E)$, a \emph{spanner} is a subgraph $H$ which approximately preserves distances in $G$ up to some error.
Spanners are an important primitive in the literature on network design and shortest path algorithms, with applications in motion planning in robotics~\cite{MB13,DB14,DBLP:journals/ijcga/CaiK97,SSAH14}, asynchronous protocol design~\cite{PU89jacm}, approximate shortest path algorithms~\cite{dor2000all}, and much more; see survey \cite{ahmed2020graphElsevier}.
One general goal in research on spanners is to minimize the size or sparsity of the spanner (as measured by the number of edges $|E(H)|$), given some error by which distances can be distorted.
For weighted graphs, another desirable goal is to minimize the \emph{lightness}, defined as the total weight of the spanner divided by the weight of a minimum spanning tree (MST) of $G$.
Spanners were introduced in the 1980s by Peleg and Sch\"{a}ffer~\cite{doi:10.1002/jgt.3190130114}, who first considered \emph{multiplicative} error. A subgraph $H$ is a (multiplicative) $k$-spanner of $G(V,E)$ if $d_H(s,t) \le k \cdot d_G(s,t)$ for all vertices $s,t \in V$, where $d_G(s,t)$ is the distance between $s$ and $t$ in $G$. Since $H$ is a subgraph, we also have $d_G(s, t) \le d_H(s, t)$ by definition, so the distances in $H$ approximate those of $G$ within a multiplicative factor of $k$, sometimes called the stretch factor. Alth{\" o}fer et al.~\cite{Alth90} showed that all $n$-vertex graphs have multiplicative $(2k-1)$-spanners on $O(n^{1+1/k})$ edges with $O(n/k)$ lightness, and this edge bound is the best possible assuming the girth conjecture by Erd\H{o}s~\cite{erdos1963extremal} from extremal combinatorics. Meanwhile, this initial lightness bound has been repeatedly improved in follow-up work, and the optimal bound still remains open \cite{CDNS92,ENS14,CW16,Filtser16,LS20}.
Multiplicative spanners are extremely well applied in computer science.
However, they are typically applied to very large graphs where it may be undesirable to take on errors that scale with the (possibly very large) distances in the input graph.
A more desirable error is \emph{additive} error which does not depend on the original graph distances at all:
\begin{definition}[Additive $+\beta$ spanner]
Given a graph $G(V,E)$ and $\beta \ge 0$, a subgraph $H$ is a $+\beta$ spanner of $G$ if \begin{equation} \label{eqn:spanner-ineq}
d_G(s, t) \le d_H(s, t) \le d_G(s, t) + \beta
\end{equation}
for all vertices $s,t \in V$.
\end{definition}
A pairwise $+\beta$ spanner is a subgraph $H$ for which~\eqref{eqn:spanner-ineq} only needs to hold for specific vertex pairs $\mathcal{P} \subseteq V \times V$ given on input, and a subsetwise spanner is a pairwise spanner with $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{S}$ for some $\mathcal{S} \subseteq V$ (if $\mathcal{P} = V \times V$, these are sometimes called all-pairs spanners, for clarity).
It is known that all unweighted graphs $G(V,E)$ with $|V|=n$ have (all-pairs) $+2$ spanners on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges \cite{Aingworth99fast,knudsen2014additive},
$+4$ spanners on $\widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ edges \cite{chechik2013new,bodwin2020note}, and $+6$ spanners on $O(n^{4/3})$ edges \cite{baswana2010additive,knudsen2014additive,woodruff2010additive}. On the negative side, there exist graphs which have no $+\beta$ spanner on $O(n^{4/3 - \varepsilon})$ edges even for arbitrarily large constant $\beta$~\cite{abboud20174}. This presents a barrier to using additive spanners in applications where a very sparse subgraph, say on $O(n^{1.001})$ edges, is needed. However, the lower bound construction in~\cite{abboud20174} is rather pathological; tradeoffs do continue for certain natural classes of graphs with good girth or expansion properties~\cite{baswana2010additive}, and recent experimental work~\cite{ahmed2021multi} showed that tradeoffs seem to continue for graphs constructed from common random graph models.
A more serious barrier preventing the applicability of additive spanners is that classic constructions only apply to \emph{unweighted} graphs, while many naturally-occurring metrics are not expressible by a unit-weight graph.
To obtain additive spanners of weighted graphs $G=(V,E,w)$ where $w:E \to \mathbb{R}^+$, the error term $+\beta$ needs to scale somehow with the edge weights of the input graph.
Prior work \cite{ahmed2020weighted} has considered \emph{global} error of type $\beta = cW$, where $W = \max_{e \in E} w(e)$ is the maximum edge weight in the input graph and $c$ is a constant.
However, a more desirable paradigm studied by Elkin, Gitlitz, and Neiman~\cite{elkin2019almost,elkin2020improved} is to consider \emph{local} error in terms of the maximum edge weight along a shortest $s$--$t$ path:
\begin{definition} [Local $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner]
Given a graph $G(V,E)$, subgraph $H$ is a (local) $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner if $d_H(s, t) \le d_G(s, t) + cW(s, t)$ for all $s, t \in V$, where $W(s, t)$ is the maximum edge weight along a shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ in $G$.\footnote{If there are multiple shortest $s$--$t$ paths, then
we break ties consistently so that subpaths of shortest paths are also shortest paths.}
\end{definition}
It is often the case that $W(s,t) \ll W$ for many vertex pairs $(s,t)$ in which a $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner has much less additive error for such vertex pairs.
Additionally, a $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner is also a multiplicative $(c+1)$-spanner, whereas a $+cW$ spanner can have unbounded multiplicative stretch.
This relationship between additive and multiplicative stretch is thematic in the area \cite{Elkin:2004:SCG:976327.984900,baswana2010additive}.
\paragraph{Sparse Local Additive Spanners.}
Weighted additive spanners were first studied by Elkin et al.~\cite{elkin2019almost}, who gave a local $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner with $O(n^{3/2})$ edges, as well as a ``mixed'' spanner with a similar error type. Ahmed, Bodwin, Sahneh, Kobourov, and Spence~\cite{ahmed2020weighted} gave a comprehensive study of weighted additive spanners, including a \emph{global} $+4W$ spanner with $\widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ edges and $+8W$ spanner with $O(n^{4/3})$ edges, analogous to the previously-known unweighted constructions.
The $+6$ unweighted error vs.\ $+8W$ global weighted error left a gap to be closed; this was mostly closed in a recent follow-up work of Elkin et al.~\cite{elkin2020improved}, who gave a \emph{local} all-pairs $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{4/3})$ edges\footnote{We use $O_{\varepsilon}(f(n))$ as shorthand for $O(\text{poly}(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})f(n))$.} by generalizing the $+6$ spanner by Knudsen~\cite{knudsen2014additive}, and a subsetwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O_{\varepsilon}(n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|})$ edges~\cite{elkin2020improved} (following a similar $+2$ subsetwise spanner in unweighted graphs by Elkin (unpublished), later published in~\cite{Pettie09,Cygan13}).
Our first contribution is the improvement of several remaining known constructions of weighted additive spanners from global to local error.
\begin{restatable}{thm}{sparse}
\label{thm:sparse}
Let $\varepsilon > 0$. Then every weighted graph $G$ and set $\mathcal{P} \subseteq V \times V$ of vertex pairs has:
\begin{enumerate}\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\item a deterministic pairwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O_{\varepsilon}(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ edges, \label{thm:pairwise-2epsW}
\item a deterministic pairwise $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O_{\varepsilon}(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ edges, \label{thm:pairwise-6epsW}
\item a pairwise $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ edges, \label{thm:pairwise-2W}
\item a pairwise $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$ edges, and \label{thm:pairwise-4W}
\item an all-pairs $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $\widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ edges. \label{thm:allpairs-4W}
\end{enumerate}
\end{restatable}
Unweighted versions of these results were proved in \cite{Kavitha15,Kavitha2017,bodwin2020note}, and weighted versions with global error but without $\varepsilon$ dependence were proved in \cite{ahmed2020weighted}.
This theorem is the first to provide versions with local error. Moreover, the first two pairwise constructions are deterministic, unlike the randomized constructions from~\cite{ahmed2020graphElsevier}.
Together with \cite{elkin2019almost,elkin2020improved}, the above results complete the task of converting unweighted additive spanners to weighted additive spanners with local error; see Tables~\ref{table:additive} and~\ref{table:additive-pairwise}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c}{Unweighted} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Weighted} \\ \hline
$+\beta$ & Size & Ref. & $+\beta$ & Size & Ref. \\ \hline
$+2$ & $O(n^{3/2})$ & \cite{Aingworth99fast, baswana2010additive, Cygan13, knudsen2014additive} & $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ & $O(n^{3/2})$ & \cite{elkin2019almost} \\ \hline
$+4$ & $\widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ & \cite{chechik2013new} & $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $\widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ & \textbf{[this paper]} \\ \hline
$+6$ & $O(n^{4/3})$ & \cite{baswana2010additive, knudsen2014additive} & $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ & $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{4/3})$ & \cite{elkin2020improved} \\ \hline
$+n^{o(1)}$ & $\Omega(n^{4/3 - \varepsilon})$ & \cite{abboud20174} & & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{All-pairs additive spanner constructions for unweighted and weighted graphs.}
\label{table:additive}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c}{Unweighted} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Weighted} \\ \hline
Type & $+\beta$ & Size & Ref. & $+\beta$ & Size & Ref. \\ \hline
Subset & $+2$ & $O(n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|})$ & \cite{Cygan13} & $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O_{\varepsilon}(n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|})$ & \cite{elkin2020improved} \\ \hline
Pairwise & $+2$ & $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ & \cite{Kavitha15,censor2016distributed} & $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ & \textbf{[this paper]} \\ \hline
Pairwise & $+4$ & $\widetilde{O}(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$ & \cite{Kavitha2017} & $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$ & \cite{ahmed2021weighted} \\ \hline
Pairwise & $+6$ & $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ & \cite{Kavitha2017} & $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O_{\varepsilon}(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ & \textbf{[this paper]} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Pairwise and subsetwise (purely) additive spanner constructions for unweighted and weighted graphs.}
\label{table:additive-pairwise}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Lightweight Local Additive Spanners.} All of the aforementioned results are in terms of the number of edges $|E(H)|$ of the spanner. If minimizing the total edge weight is more desirable than constructing a sparse spanner, a natural problem is to construct \emph{lightweight} spanners. Given a connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with positive edge weights $w:E \to \mathbb{R}^+$, the \emph{lightness} of a subgraph $H$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:lightness}
\text{lightness}(H) := \frac{w(H)}{w(\MST(G))}
\end{equation}
where $w(H)$ and $w(\MST(G))$ are the sum of edge weights in $H$ and an MST of $G$, respectively. Section~\ref{sec:lightweight} highlights why none of the aforementioned sparse spanners have good lightness guarantees. Our second contribution is the following:
\begin{restatable}{thm}{lightness} \label{thm:lightness}
Let $\varepsilon > 0$. Then every weighted graph $G$ has:
\begin{enumerate}\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\item a deterministic all-pairs $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner with $O_{\varepsilon}(n)$ lightness, and \label{thm:lightness-epsW}
\item a deterministic all-pairs $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner with $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{2/3})$ lightness. \label{thm:lightness-4epsW}
\end{enumerate}
\end{restatable}
To the best of our knowledge, these are the first nontrivial lightness results known for additive spanners.
For comparison on the first result, it is easy to show that every graph $G$ has an all-pairs distance preserver $H$ with $\text{lightness}(H) = O(n^2)$.
It follows from the seminal work of Khuller, Raghavachari, and Young \cite{khuller1995balancing} on shallow-light trees that every graph $G$ has a subgraph $H$ that preserves distances up to a $(1+\varepsilon)$ multiplicative factor, with lightness $O_{\varepsilon}(n)$.
Our first result implies that the same lightness bound (up to the specifics of the $\varepsilon$ dependence) can be achieved with \emph{additive} error. Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}.\ref{thm:lightness-epsW} strictly strengthens this consequence of \cite{khuller1995balancing}, since local $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ error implies multiplicative $(1+\varepsilon)$ stretch as previously mentioned.
Additionally, Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}.\ref{thm:lightness-epsW} is tight, in the sense that an unweighted complete graph $K_n$ has lightness $\Theta(n)$ and no nontrivial $+\varepsilon W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner. Table~\ref{table:additive-lightweight} summarizes these lightness results compared with those in unweighted graphs.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Unweighted} &
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{Weighted} \\ \hline
$+\beta$ & Lightness & $+\beta$ & Lightness & Ref. \\ \hline
0 & $O(n)$ & $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O_{\varepsilon}(n)$ & \textbf{[this paper]} \\ \hline
$+2$ & $O(n^{1/2})$ & & ? & \\ \hline
$+4$ & $\widetilde{O}(n^{2/5})$ & $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ & $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{2/3})$ & \textbf{[this paper]} \\ \hline
$+6$ & $O(n^{1/3})$ & & ? & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Lightweight all-pairs additive spanners in unweighted and weighted graphs.}
\label{table:additive-lightweight}
\end{table}
The lightweight spanners are based on a new initialization technique which we call $d$-\emph{lightweight initialization}, in which an initial set of lightweight edges is added to the spanner starting from the MST of the input graph. Nearly all of the above spanners have a common theme in the construction and analysis: add an initial set of edges oblivious to the distances in the graph, then add shortest paths for any vertex pairs which do not satisfy inequality~\eqref{eqn:spanner-ineq}. The size or lightness bounds are then analyzed by determining how many pairs of nearby vertices there are whose distances sufficiently improve upon adding a shortest path; this method was also used by Elkin et al.~\cite{elkin2020improved}. Note that such improvements in unweighted graphs must be by at least 1; in weighted graphs, distances may improve by arbitrarily small amount which leads to the $\varepsilon$ dependence.
We leave as open questions the lightness bounds for $+2W$ and $+6W$ spanners (with or without $\varepsilon$ dependence), whether the lightness for the $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner can be improved to $\widetilde{O}(n^{2/5})$, and whether we can construct additive spanners in weighted graphs which are simultaneously sparse \emph{and} lightweight.
\section{Preliminaries}
Many additive spanner constructions begin with either a clustering~\cite{baswana2010additive,Cygan13,Kavitha2017} or initialization phase~\cite{knudsen2014additive,ahmed2020weighted,elkin2020improved}, where an initial set of edges is added to the spanner oblivious to distances or vertex pairs $\mathcal{P}$ in the graph; after this phase, additional edges or paths are added so that the resulting subgraph is a valid spanner. Experimental results~\cite{ahmed2021multi} suggest that initialization is preferred over clustering in terms of runtime and spanner size, and all constructions in this paper are initialization-based.
For weighted graphs, a $d$-\emph{light initialization} of $G$ is a subgraph obtained by selecting the $d$ lightest edges incident to every vertex, or all edges if the degree is less than $d$. We exploit the following lemma from~\cite{ahmed2020weighted}:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{ahmed2020weighted}]
\label{lemma:d_initialize}
Let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization
of a weighted graph $G$, and let $\pi(s,t)$ be a shortest path in $G$. If there are $\ell$ edges of $\pi(s,t)$ absent from $H$, then there is a set $N$ of $\frac{d\ell}{6} = \Omega(d\ell)$ vertices, where each vertex in $N$ is adjacent to a vertex on $\pi(s,t)$, connected via an edge of weight at most $W(s,t)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.60\textwidth]{figures/d_init_labeled.png}
\caption{Illustrating the idea behind $d$-initialization. Here, the straight path from $s$ to $t$ is the shortest. Intuitively it seems that two possible scenarios may arise after $d$-initialization: we have many distinct nodes around the shortest path (top figure) and we do not have that many nodes because some neighbor nodes (like $x$) are shared multiple times (bottom figure). But the second scenario leads to a contradiction: if $x$ has been shared more than three times then one can bypass through $x$ from $s$ to $t$ which will provide a shorter path than the shortest path.}
\label{fig:d_init}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
We refer to vertices in $N$ as the $d$-\emph{light neighbors} of $\pi(s,t)$. The fact that $d$-light neighbors are connected to $\pi(s,t)$ via light edges of weight $\le W(s,t)$ was not explicitly stated in~\cite{ahmed2020weighted} but follows directly from the proof, as $N$ is constructed by taking the $d$ lightest edges incident to vertices on $\pi(s,t)$ which are incident to a missing edge of weight at most $W(s,t)$.
After $d$-light initialization, additional edges or paths are added to $H$ in order to ``satisfy'' the remaining unsatisfied vertex pairs\footnote{A vertex pair $(s,t)$ is \emph{satisfied} if the spanner inequality~\eqref{eqn:spanner-ineq} holds for that pair.}.
We will use the standard method of $+\beta$ \emph{spanner completion}, where we iterate over each vertex pair $(s,t)$ in nondecreasing order of maximum weight $W(s,t)$ (then by nondecreasing distance $d_G(s,t)$ in case of a tie) and add $\pi(s,t)$ to the spanner if $(s,t)$ is unsatisfied.
\begin{comment}
\section{A subsetwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner}
\label{sec:subsetwise}
Cygan et al.~\cite{Cygan13} give a construction of a subsetwise $+2$ spanner in unweighted graphs, using a clustering and path-buying approach. Ahmed et al.~\cite{ahmed2020weighted} give a construction of a subsetwise $+4W$ spanner on $O(n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|})$ edges, which was then used as a subroutine to compute a pairwise $+8W$ spanner on $O(np^{1/4})$ edges and an all-pairs $+8W$ spanner on $O(n^{4/3})$ edges. These edge bounds are the same as the \emph{unweighted} subsetwise $+2$ spanner~\cite{Cygan13} and all-pairs $+6$ spanner~\cite{knudsen2014additive,Kavitha15,Kavitha2017}; a natural question is whether these error bounds can be improved. Recently, Elkin et al.~\cite{elkin2020improved} addressed the all-pairs case by generalizing the $+6$ construction of Knudsen~\cite{knudsen2014additive} to give a $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon} n^{4/3})$ edges.
In this section, we answer the above question in the subsetwise case and prove Theorem~\ref{thm:2pluseps} by giving a polynomial time algorithm which constructs a subsetwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} \cdot n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|}\right)$ edges. The construction uses the $d$-light initialization followed by spanner completion as before, and is as follows: let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization where $d = \sqrt{\frac{|\mathcal{S}|}{\varepsilon}}$. Then for each vertex pair $(s,t) \in \mathcal{S}^2$ sorted in nondecreasing order of maximum weight $W(s,t)$, if $d_H(s,t) > d_G(s,t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$, add the shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$. This clearly outputs a subsetwise spanner over $\mathcal{S}$ so it remains to establish an upper bound on $|E(H)|$.
In the analysis of the all-pairs $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner, Elkin et al.~\cite{elkin2020improved} consider three neighboring vertices near a shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ in order to show that the distances between at least $\Omega(\ell n^{2/3})$ vertex pairs sufficiently improve by $\Omega(\varepsilon W(s,t))$ upon adding $\ell$ missing edges in $\pi(s,t)$. For the subsetwise spanner here, we only need to consider vertex pairs containing at least one vertex in $\mathcal{S}$ and determine how many of the pairs' distances sufficiently improve.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:improvements}
Let $s,t \in \mathcal{S}$ be two vertices for which the path $\pi(s,t)$ is added to the spanner $H$. Let $x$ be a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$, connected to a vertex $y \in \pi(s,t)$ with $w(xy) \le W(s,t)$. Let $H_0$ and $H_1$ denote the spanner immediately before and after $\pi(s,t)$ is added, respectively. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{5pt}
\item $d_{H_1}(s,x) \le d_G(s,x) + 2W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(t,x) \le d_G(t,x) + 2W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(s,x) - d_{H_1}(s,x) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ or $d_{H_0}(t,x) - d_{H_1}(t,x) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\include{figures/2pluseps}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements}. By adding $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$, the pairs $(s,x)$ and $(t,x)$ have additive error at most $+2W(s,t)$, and at least one of the pairs' distance improves by at least $\frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item By the triangle inequality, we have
\begin{align}
d_{H_1}(s,x) &\le d_{H_1}(s,y) + w(xy) \tag*{}\\
&\le d_G(s,y) + W(s,t) \label{ineq:dh1} \\
&\le [d_G(s,x) + w(xy)] + W(s,t) \tag*{}\\
&\le d_G(s,x) + 2W(s,t). \tag*{}
\end{align}
Similarly, $d_{H_1}(t,x) \le d_G(t,x) + 2W(s,t)$.
\item Assume for sake of contradiction that $d_{H_0}(s,x) - d_{H_1}(s,x) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ and $d_{H_0}(t,x) - d_{H_1}(t,x) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Consider a shortest path from $s$ to $t$ in $H_0$ if it exists (if no such path exists, then $d_{H_0}(s,x)$ or $d_{H_0}(t,x) = \infty$ and 2. follows). Then by this assumption and~\eqref{ineq:dh1}:
\begin{align*}
d_{H_0}(s,t) &\le d_{H_0}(s,x) + d_{H_0}(t,x) \\
&\le \left[d_{H_1}(s,x) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] + \left[ d_{H_1}(s,x) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] \\
&\underset{\eqref{ineq:dh1}}{\le} \left[d_G(s,y) + W(s,t) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] + \left[ d_G(y,t) + W(s,t) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] \\
&= d_G(s,t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)
\end{align*}
contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added to the spanner.
\end{enumerate}
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:subsetwise-size}
By setting $d = \sqrt{\frac{|\mathcal{S}|}{\varepsilon}}$, the above construction outputs a subgraph $H$ such that $|E(H)| = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} \cdot n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $d = \sqrt{\frac{|\mathcal{S}|}{\varepsilon}}$, the $d$-light initialization adds $O(nd) = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} \cdot n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|}\right)$ edges.
Following~\cite{elkin2020improved}, let $s,t \in \mathcal{S}$ be two vertices for which $\pi(s,t)$ was added to $H$; let $H_0$ and $H_1$ denote the subgraph $H$ immediately before and after $\pi(s,t)$ was added. An ordered pair $(a,b)$ of vertices, where $a \in \{s,t\}$ and $b \in V$ is \emph{set-off} if $d_{H_1}(a,b) \le d_G(a,b) + 2W(s,t)$, and it is \emph{improved} if $d_{H_1}(a,b) \le d_{H_0}(a,b) - \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Since paths are added in order of maximum weight $W(\cdot, \cdot)$, once a pair $(a,b)$ is set-off, it can be improved at most $\frac{2W(s,t)}{\varepsilon W(s,t)/2} = O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})$ times.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}, if adding $\pi(s,t)$ adds $\ell$ missing edges to the spanner, then there are $\Omega(d \ell)$ vertices $x$ adjacent to $\pi(s,t)$ connected to $\pi(s,t)$ via an edge of weight at most $W(s,t)$. Then if $\pi(s,t)$ is added, the pairs $(s,x)$ and $(t,x)$ are set-off if not already, and at least one of the pairs $(s,x)$, $(t,x)$ is improved by Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements}, so $\Omega(d \ell)$ pairs are improved.
If $k$ total edges are added in spanner completion, then the number of improvements is $\Omega(dk)$. As there are $O(n|\mathcal{S}|)$ such vertex pairs (as opposed to $O(n^2)$ in the all-pairs setting) and each pair is improved $O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)$ times, we obtain
\[ \Omega(dk) = \Omega\left(k \cdot \sqrt{\frac{|\mathcal{S}|}{\varepsilon}}\right) = O\left(\frac{n|\mathcal{S}|}{\varepsilon}\right).\]
Then $k = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} \cdot n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|}\right)$, and $|E(H)| = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} \cdot n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|}\right)$.
\qed
\end{proof}
\twopluseps*
This follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:subsetwise-size} and the fact that $H$ is a valid subsetwise spanner.
\begin{corollary}
Every weighted graph $G$ has a polynomially constructible $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ (all-pairs) spanner on $O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}} n^{3/2}\right)$ edges.
\end{corollary}
This follows by setting $\mathcal{S} = V$. Note that this is a slightly weaker result than the $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges in~\cite{elkin2019almost}, though the construction and analysis are comparatively straightforward. In Section~\ref{sec:allpairs} we show how to remove the dependence on $\varepsilon$, by showing that all graphs have a $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges.
\begin{corollary}
Every unweighted graph $G$ has a polynomially constructible subsetwise $+2$ spanner on $O(n\sqrt{|\mathcal{S}|})$ edges.
\end{corollary}
This follows by setting $W=1$ and $\varepsilon = 0.5$, in which a $+2.5$ spanner of an unweighted graph is also a $+2$ spanner. This matches the clustering-based $+2$ subsetwise spanner by Cygan et al.~\cite{Cygan13} but with a better running time. It is already known that $n^{1/2}$-initialization followed by spanner completion can be used to compute an all-pairs $+2$ spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges in unweighted graphs~\cite{knudsen2014additive}; the above corollary generalizes this result to subsetwise spanners.
\end{comment}
\section{Sparse local additive spanners} \label{sec:pairwise}
Instead of $+cW$ additive error considered in~\cite{ahmed2020weighted}, we consider $+cW(\cdot, \cdot)$ local error.
\subsection{Pairwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanners}
For the pairwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanners (Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2epsW}-\ref{thm:pairwise-6epsW}), we describe a deterministic construction.
The analysis behind the edge bounds uses a set-off and improving strategy also used in~\cite{elkin2020improved}. The constructions involve one additional step of adding a certain number of edges along every vertex pair's shortest path before spanner completion.
Let $\ell, d \ge 1$ be parameters which are defined later. Let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization. Then for each vertex pair $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$, consider the shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ in $G$ and add the first $\ell$ missing edges and the last $\ell$ missing edges to $H$ (if $\pi(s,t)$ is missing at most $2\ell$ edges, all missing edges from $\pi(s,t)$ are added to $H$). We remark that if $(s,t)$ is already satisfied, we can skip this step for the pair $(s,t)$.
After this phase, we perform $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ or $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion as follows: for each pair $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$ sorted in nondecreasing order of maximum weight $W(s,t)$, if $(s,t)$ is still unsatisfied, add the remaining edges from the path $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$. This construction clearly outputs a valid pairwise spanner, and $O(nd + \ell |\mathcal{P}|)$ edges are added in the ``distance-oblivious'' phase before spanner completion. It remains to determine the number of edges added in spanner completion.
Let $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$ be a vertex pair for which $\pi(s,t)$ is added to $H$ during spanner completion. Observe that after $d$-light initialization, the first $\ell$ missing edges and the last $\ell$ missing edges from $\pi(s,t)$ do not overlap; otherwise no remaining edges from $\pi(s,t)$ would have been added to $H$. Let $u_1v_1$, \ldots, $u_{\ell}v_{\ell}$ denote the first $\ell$ missing edges on $\pi(s,t)$ which are added after $d$-light initialization, and let $u_1'v_1'$, \ldots, $u_{\ell}'v_{\ell}'$ denote the last $\ell$ missing edges, where $u_i$ (or $u_i'$) is closer to $s$ than $v_i$ (or $v_i'$); see Fig.~\ref{fig:6W-spanners} for illustration.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{figures/6W-spanners}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW} (left) and Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-6W} (right) with $\ell = 2$. Note that $s = u_1$ and $t = v_2'$ in this example. By adding $\pi(s,t)$, at least one of the pairs' $(a,x)$ or $(x,b)$ distance improves by at least $\frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Note that $a$, $x$, $b$ are not necessarily distinct.}
\label{fig:6W-spanners}
\end{figure}
We will refer to the set $\{u_1, \ldots, u_{\ell}\}$ as the \emph{prefix} and the set $\{v_1', \ldots, v_{\ell}'\}$ as the \emph{suffix}. Consider the shortest paths $\pi(s,v_{\ell})$ and $\pi(u_1', t)$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}, there are $\Omega(d \ell)$ $d$-light neighbors which are adjacent to a vertex in the prefix and suffix, respectively, connected by an edge of weight at most $W(s,t)$.
Consider the subpath $\pi(v_{\ell}, u_1')$; suppose $z \ge 1$ edges of $\pi(s,t)$ are added during spanner completion. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize} again, there are $\Omega(dz)$ $d$-light neighbors which are adjacent to a vertex on $\pi(v_{\ell}, u_1')$. In the following lemmas, denote by $H_0$ and $H_1$ the spanner immediately before and after $\pi(s,t)$ is added, respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:improvements-2epsW}
Let $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$ be such that $\pi(s,t)$ is added to $H$ during $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Let $a$ and $b$ be vertices in the prefix and suffix respectively. Let $x$ be a $d$-light neighbor of the path $\pi(v_{\ell}, u_1')$. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{5pt}
\item $d_{H_1}(a,x) \le d_G(a,x) + 2W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(b,x) \le d_G(b,x) + 2W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ or $d_{H_0}(b,x) - d_{H_1}(b,x) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have by the triangle inequality
\begin{align}
d_{H_1}(a,x) &\le d_G(a,y) + w(xy) \le d_G(a,y) + W(s,t) \label{ineq:triangle-2W}\\
&\le [d_G(a,x) + w(xy)] + W(s,t) \tag*{}\\
&\le d_G(a,x) + 2W(s,t) \tag*{}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $x$ is a $d$-light neighbor, so $w(xy) \le W(s,t)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}. Similarly, $d_{H_1}(b,x) \le d_G(b,x) + 2W(s,t)$.
\item The vertices $a$ and $b$ are on the prefix and suffix respectively. Suppose otherwise $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ and $d_{H_0}(x,b) - d_{H_1}(x,b) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Consider a shortest $s$--$t$ path in $H_0$ if it exists (if no such path exists, then $d_{H_0}(s,x) = \infty$ or $d_{H_0}(t,x) = \infty$, and 2. follows). Since $a$ is on the prefix and the first $\ell$ edges of $\pi(s,t)$ are added before completion, we necessarily have $d_{H_0}(s,a) = d_G(s,a)$ and symmetrically $d_{H_0}(b,t) = d_G(b,t)$. Then
\begin{align*}
d_{H_0}(s,t) &\le d_G(s,a) + d_{H_0}(a,x) + d_{H_0}(x,b) + d_G(b,t) \\
&\le d_G(s,a) + \left[d_{H_1}(a,x) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] \\
&\quad + \left[d_{H_1}(x,b) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] + d_G(b,t)\\
&\underset{\eqref{ineq:triangle-2W}}{\le} d_G(s,a) + d_G(a,y) + d_G(y,b) + d_G(b,t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t) \\
&= d_G(s,t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)
\end{align*}
contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added during $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion.
\end{enumerate}\qed
\end{proof}
For the pairwise $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner, we consider arbitrary $d$-light neighbors $a$ and $b$ of the prefix and suffix, and similarly consider vertex pairs $(a,x)$, $(b,x)$ whose distances sufficiently improve:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:improvements-6W}
Let $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$ be such that $\pi(s,t)$ is added to $H$ during $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Let $a$ and $b$ be $d$-light neighbors adjacent to vertices $u_i$ and $v_j'$ in the prefix and suffix, respectively. Let $x$ be a $d$-light neighbor of the path $\pi(v_{\ell}, u_1')$. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{5pt}
\item $d_{H_1}(a,x) \le d_G(a,x) + 4W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(x,b) \le d_G(x,b) + 4W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ or $d_{H_0}(x,b) - d_{H_1}(x,b) > \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Similar to Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW}, we have by the triangle inequality
\begin{align}
d_{H_1}(a,x) &\le w(au_i) + d_G(u_i, y) + w(xy) \tag*{} \\
&\le d_G(u_i, y) + 2W(s,t) \label{ineq:triangle-6W}\\
&\le [w(u_ia) + d_G(a,x) + w(xy)] + 2W(s,t) \tag*{} \\
&\le d_G(a,x) + 4W(s,t) \tag*{}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $a$ and $x$ are $d$-light neighbors, so $w(u_ia) \le W(s,t)$ and $w(xy) \le W(s,t)$. Similarly, $d_{H_1}(x,b) \le d_G(x,b) + 4W(s,t)$.
\item Suppose otherwise $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$ and $d_{H_0}(x,b) - d_{H_1}(x,b) \le \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Consider a shortest $s$--$t$ path in $H_0$ if it exists (if no such path exists, then $d_{H_0}(s,x) = \infty$ or $d_{H_0}(t,x) = \infty$ and 2. follows). Then
\begin{align*}
d_{H_0}(s,t) &\le d_G(s,u_i) + w(u_ia) + d_{H_0}(a,x) + d_{H_0}(x,b) + w(bv_i') + d_G(v_i't) \\
&\le d_G(s,u_i) + W(s,t) + \left[d_{H_1}(a,x) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] \\
&\quad +\left[d_{H_1}(x,b) + \frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}\right] + W(s,t) + d_G(v_i't) \\
&\le d_G(s,u_i) + d_{H_1}(a,x) + d_{H_1}(x,b) + d_G(v_i',t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t) \\
&\underset{\eqref{ineq:triangle-6W}}{\le} d_G(s,u_i) + [d_G(u_i,y) + 2W(s,t)] \\
&\quad + [d_G(y,v_i') + 2W(s,t)] + d_G(v_i',t) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t) \\
&= d_G(s,t) + (6+\varepsilon)W(s,t)
\end{align*}
contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added during $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion.
\end{enumerate}\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:pairwise-size-2epsW}
By setting $d = |\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}$ and $\ell = n/|\mathcal{P}|^{2/3}$, the pairwise $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ construction outputs a subgraph $H$ with $|E(H)| = O_{\varepsilon}\left(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the distance-oblivious phase, we add $O(nd + \ell|\mathcal{P}|) = O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ edges to $H$.
A vertex pair $(v,x)$ is \emph{set-off} if it is the first time that $d_H(v,x) \le d_G(v,x) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$ and is \emph{improved} if its distance in $H$ decreases by at least $\frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. Suppose adding $\pi(s,t)$ during $+(2+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion adds $z \ge 1$ additional edges. Let $x$ be a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(v_{\ell},u_1')$ and let $a$, $b$ be vertices in the prefix and suffix. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}, there are $\Omega(dz)$ vertices $x$ adjacent to $\pi(v_{\ell}u_1')$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW}, both of the pairs $(a,x)$, $(b,x)$ are set-off if not already, and at least one of the pairs is improved upon adding $\pi(s,t)$. Since there are $\Omega(\ell)$ choices for $a$ or $b$, this gives $\Omega(dz \times \ell) = \Omega(nz/|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ improvements upon adding $z$ edges to $H$.
Once a pair $(v,x)$ is set-off, it can only be improved $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})$ times; this follows since pairs are ordered by their maximum weight, so any improvement is by at least $\frac{\varepsilon W(s,t)}{2}$. If $Z$ total edges are added during spanner completion, then the number of improvements is $\Omega(d\ell Z)$. There are $O(n^2)$ vertex pairs and once set-off, each vertex pair is improved $O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)$ times, in which we have $ \Omega(d\ell Z) = O\left(\frac{n^2}{\varepsilon}\right). $
Since $d = |\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}$ and $\ell = n/|\mathcal{P}|^{2/3}$, we obtain $Z = O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon} n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}\right)$. Altogether we obtain $|E(H)| = O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}\right)$.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:pairwise-size-6epsW}
By setting $d = |\mathcal{P}|^{1/4}$ and $\ell = n/|\mathcal{P}|^{3/4}$, the pairwise $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ construction outputs a subgraph $H$ with $|E(H)| = O_{\varepsilon}(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is the same as Lemma~\ref{lem:pairwise-size-2epsW} except that $a$ and $b$ are $d$-light neighbors of the subpaths containing the first and last $\ell$ missing edges. Then if $z \ge 1$ edges in $\pi(s,t)$ are added during $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, we obtain $\Omega(dz \times d\ell) = \Omega(d^2 \ell z) = \Omega(nz/|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ improvements upon adding $z$ edges to $H$.
If $Z$ total edges are added during $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, then similar reasoning gives
\[ \Omega(d^2 \ell Z) = O\left(\frac{n^2}{\varepsilon}\right) \]
in which $Z = O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ and $|E(H)| = O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Lemma~\ref{lemma:2w}]
Since $x$ is a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$, we have $w(xy) \le W(s,t)$. Using the triangle inequality:
\begin{align*}
d_G(s,x) + d_G(x,t) &\le [d_G(s,y) + w(xy)] + [w(xy) + d_G(y,t)] \\
&\le d_G(s,t) + 2w(xy) \\
&\le d_G(s,t) + 2W(s,t)
\end{align*}
completing the proof. \qed
\end{proof}
Lemmas~\ref{lem:pairwise-size-2epsW} and~\ref{lem:pairwise-size-6epsW} imply Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2epsW} and~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-6epsW} respectively. Further, by setting $W=1$ and $\varepsilon = 0.5$, these results imply pairwise $+2$ and $+6$ spanners of size $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ and $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/4})$ in \emph{unweighted} graphs (as a $+2.5$ spanner of an unweighted graph is also a $+2$ spanner). These edge bounds match those of existing pairwise $+2$ spanners~\cite{Kavitha15,censor2016distributed} and pairwise $+6$ spanners~\cite{Kavitha2017}.
\subsection{Pairwise $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanners}
We prove Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W} and~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-4W}: every weighted graph has a pairwise $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner and $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ edges and $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$ edges respectively. This removes the $\varepsilon$ dependence from Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2epsW} and uses local error instead of global $W$ error as in~\cite{ahmed2020weighted}. First, we need the following simple lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:2w}
Let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization, and let $s, t \in V$. Let $x$ be a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$ connected to a vertex $y \in \pi(s,t)$ in $H$. Consider a shortest path tree in $G$ rooted at $x$. Then the distance from $s$ to $t$ in this tree is at most $d_G(s,t) + 2W(s,t)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $x$ is a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$, we have $w(xy) \le W(s,t)$. Using the triangle inequality:
\begin{align*}
d_G(s,x) + d_G(x,t) &\le [d_G(s,y) + w(xy)] + [w(xy) + d_G(y,t)] \\
&\le d_G(s,t) + 2w(xy) \\
&\le d_G(s,t) + 2W(s,t)
\end{align*}
completing the proof. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W}]
The main idea is to first show the existence of a pairwise $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ \emph{spanner with slack} on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ which satisfies at least a constant fraction of the vertex pairs. Then, we apply a lemma from~\cite{bodwin2020note} (Lemma~\ref{lem:slack}) to show the existence of a pairwise spanner. Let $\ell, d \ge 1$ be parameters, and let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization ($O(nd)$ edges). We iterate over each pair $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$. If $d_H(s,t) \le d_G(s,t) + 2W(s,t)$, then $(s,t)$ is already satisfied and we can do nothing. If $d_H(s,t) > d_G(s,t) + 2W(s,t)$ and $\pi(s,t)$ has fewer than $\ell$ missing edges in $H$, add all missing edges in $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$ ($O(\ell |\mathcal{P}|)$ edges). Otherwise $(s,t)$ is unsatisfied and $\pi(s,t)$ is missing more than $\ell$ edges. In this case, we do not add any edges yet.
After iterating over each vertex pair, consider the following randomized process: for each vertex in $V$, select it with probability $\frac{6}{d\ell}$. If more than $\frac{6n}{d\ell}$ vertices are selected, repeat this process. For each selected vertex, add a shortest path tree rooted at that vertex to $H$. Note that at most $\frac{6n}{d\ell}$ vertices are selected, so at most $\frac{6n(n-1)}{d\ell} = O\left(\frac{n^2}{d\ell}\right)$ edges are added in this process.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}, every unsatisfied pair $(s,t)$ has at least $\frac{d\ell}{6}$ $d$-light neighbors. Then with probability at least $1 - \left(1 - \frac{6}{d\ell}\right)^{d\ell / 6}$, we will have selected at least one $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$. This probability is at least a constant, since $1 - \frac{1}{e} \le 1 - \left(1 - \frac{1}{x}\right)^x \le 1$ for all $x \ge 1$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:2w}, adding a shortest path tree at any $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$ satisfies the pair $(s,t)$.
Under this randomized process, every unsatisfied vertex pair is satisfied with at least constant probability $\alpha$, so by linearity of expectation, the expected number of satisfied vertex pairs is at least $\alpha |\mathcal{P}|$. Then there necessarily exists a subset of $\frac{6n}{d\ell}$ vertices such that adding a shortest path tree rooted at each vertex satisfies $\alpha |\mathcal{P}|$ vertex pairs.
The number of edges in this spanner with slack is at most $k\left(nd + \ell |\mathcal{P}| + \frac{n^2}{\ell d}\right)$ for some constant $k$; set $\ell := \frac{n}{|\mathcal{P}|^{2/3}}$ and $d := |\mathcal{P}|^{1/3}$ to obtain the desired edge bound of $kn|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3} = O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$. This only implies the existence of a $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner which satisfies a constant fraction $\alpha$ of vertex pairs; to finish, we use the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{bodwin2020note}] \label{lem:slack}
Let $a, b, c, k, \alpha > 0$ be constants (independent of $n$ or $|\mathcal{P}|$) with $\alpha \le 1$, let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph, and let $p^*$ be a parameter. Suppose that:
\begin{itemize}
\item There is an algorithm which, on input $G$, $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}| \le p^*$, returns a pairwise spanner on $O(n^a)$ edges
\item There is an algorithm which, on input $G$, $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}| \ge p^*$, returns a spanner with slack on $\le k n^b|\mathcal{P}|^c$ edges which satisfies at least $\alpha |\mathcal{P}|$ vertex pairs
\end{itemize}
Then there is a pairwise spanner of $G$, $\mathcal{P}$ on $O(n^a + n^b |\mathcal{P}|^c)$ edges.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Lemma~\ref{lem:slack}]
While the number of unsatisfied vertex pairs $|\mathcal{P}|$ is greater than $p^*$, compute a spanner with slack on $\le k n^b |\mathcal{P}|^c$ edges, then remove the satisfied vertex pairs from $\mathcal{P}$. Repeat this process until $|\mathcal{P}| \le p^*$, then compute a pairwise spanner on $O(n^a)$ edges. The union of these computed spanners is a pairwise spanner of $G$ over the initial set of vertex pairs $\mathcal{P}$.
Let $p_1 = |\mathcal{P}|$ denote the number of vertex pairs initially, and for $i \ge 1$, let $p_i$ denote the number of unsatisfied vertex pairs immediately before the $i^{\text{th}}$ iteration. Since each spanner with slack satisfies at least a constant fraction $\alpha$ of the unsatisfied vertex pairs, we have $p_i \le (1-\alpha)p_{i-1}$, which implies $p_i \le p_1(1-\alpha)^{i-1}$ for all $i \ge 1$. Let $H_i = (V_i, E_i)$ denote the spanner with slack computed on the $i^{\text{th}}$ iteration, so that $|E_i| \le kn^b p_i^c$. By a simple union bound, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\bigcup_{i \ge 1} E_i\right| &\leq \sum_{i \ge 1} |E_i| \le \sum_{i \ge 1} kn^b p_i^c \\
&\le kn^b \sum_{i \ge 1} (p_1(1-\alpha)^{i-1})^c \\
&= kn^b {p_1}^c \sum_{i \ge 1} ((1-\alpha)^c)^{i-1} \\
&= O(n^b |\mathcal{P}|^c)
\end{align*}
since $\sum_{i \ge 1} ((1-\alpha)^c)^{i-1}$ is a geometric series with common ratio $(1-\alpha)^c < 1$. The final pairwise spanner on $\le p^*$ pairs adds $O(n^a)$ edges, completing the proof.
\qed
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:slack} implies the existence of a pairwise $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{1/3})$ edges.
\qed
\end{proof}
We now show that every weighted graph $G$ has a pairwise $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner on $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$ edges.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:4w}
Let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization and let $s, t \in V$. Let $v_1$ and $v_2$ be two different $d$-light neighbors of $\pi(s,t)$, connected to two (not necessarily distinct) vertices $u_1, u_2 \in \pi(s,t)$ respectively. Consider adding the missing edges along the shortest paths from $s$--$u_1$, $v_1$--$v_2$, and $u_2$--$t$ to $H$. Then $d_H(s,t) \le d_G(s,t) + 4W(s,t)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Fig.~\ref{fig:4W-spanners} for illustration. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are $d$-light neighbors of $u_1$, $u_2$ respectively, we have $w(u_1v_1) \le W(s,t)$ and $w(u_2v_2) \le W(s,t)$. By triangle inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
d_H(s,t) &\le d_H(s,u_1) + w(u_1v_1) + d_H(v_1,v_2) + w(u_2v_2) + d_H(u_2,t) \\
&\le d_G(s,u_1) + W(s,t) + d_G(v_1,v_2) + W(s,t) + d_G(u_2,t) \\
&= d_G(s,u_1) + d_G(v_1, v_2) + d_G(u_2, t) + 2W(s,t)
\intertext{Again by triangle inequality, $d_G(v_1,v_2) \le w(u_1v_1) + d_G(u_1,u_2)+w(u_2v_2) \le d_G(u_1,u_2) + 2W(s,t)$; hence we have}
&\le d_G(s,u_1) + d_G(u_1,u_2) + d_G(u_2,t) + 4W(s,t) \\
&= d_G(s,t) + 4W(s,t)
\end{align*}
as desired.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-4W}]
As in Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W}, we use two parameters $d, \ell \ge 1$. Let $H$ be a $d$-light initialization. We iterate over each pair $(s,t) \in \mathcal{P}$. If $(s,t)$ is already satisfied, do nothing; otherwise, if $\pi(s,t)$ is missing at most $\ell$ edges in $H$, add the shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$. This adds at most $nd + \ell p$ edges to $H$.
Construct a random sample $R_1$ of vertices by selecting each vertex with probability $\frac{6d}{n}$; repeat if more than $6d$ vertices were selected. Add a shortest path tree rooted at each $v \in R_1$. We claim that if $(s,t)$ is unsatisfied and there are at least $\frac{n}{d^2}$ missing edges on $\pi(s,t)$, then with at least a constant probability, we will have selected a $d$-light neighbor of $\pi(s,t)$. Since $\pi(s,t)$ has at least $\frac{n}{d^2}$ missing edges, Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize} implies there are at least $\frac{n}{6d}$ $d$-light neighbors of $\pi(s,t)$. Using a similar reasoning to Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W}, with at least a constant probability, we will have selected at least one $d$-light neighbor for $R_1$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:2w}, adding the shortest path tree rooted at this neighbor satisfies the pair $(s,t)$. This sample $R_1$ adds $O(dn)$ edges to $H$.
Lastly, there may be vertex pairs $(s,t)$ such that $(s,t)$ is unsatisfied, and $\pi(s,t)$ is missing greater $\ell$ but fewer than $\frac{n}{d^2}$ edges. For each such pair, add the first $\ell$ missing edges and the last $\ell$ missing edges to $H$ ($O(\ell p))$ edges). Let the \emph{prefix} denote the set of vertices on $\pi(s,t)$ which are incident to one of the first $\ell$ missing edges which were added to $H$; define the \emph{suffix} similarly.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{figures/4W-spanners}
\caption{Illustration of the $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ randomized construction, with edges incident to the prefix and suffix bolded ($\ell=2$ in this example).}
\label{fig:4W-spanners}
\end{figure}
Construct a second random sample $R_2$ by sampling each vertex with probability $\frac{6}{d\ell}$; repeat if more than $\frac{6n}{d\ell}$ vertices are sampled. Then, for every two vertices $v_1, v_2 \in R_2$, add all edges among the shortest $v_1$-$v_2$ path among all paths which are missing at most $\frac{n}{d^2}$ edges; this adds $O\left(\left(\frac{n}{d\ell}\right)^2 \cdot \frac{n}{d^2}\right) = O\left(\frac{n^3}{\ell^2 d^4}\right)$ edges. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}, there are $\frac{d\ell}{6} = \Omega(d\ell)$ $d$-light neighbors of the prefix, and $\Omega(d\ell)$ $d$-light neighbors of the suffix. Then with at least a constant probability, we will have sampled in $R_2$ at least one $d$-light neighbor $v_1$ of the prefix and one $d$-light neighbor $v_2$ of the suffix of $\pi(s,t)$. By adding a shortest path from $v_1$ to $v_2$ containing at most $\frac{n}{d^2}$ edges along with the first and last $\ell$ edges of $\pi(s,t)$, this satisfies the pair $(s,t)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:4w}.
The number of edges in $H$ is $|E(H)| = O\left(nd + |\mathcal{P}|\ell + n^3/(\ell^2d^4) \right)$. Set $\ell := n/|\mathcal{P}|^{5/7}$ and $d := |\mathcal{P}|^{2/7}$ to obtain the desired edge bound of $O(n|\mathcal{P}|^{2/7})$. As in Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W}, this only ensures the existence of a $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner with slack; apply Lemma~\ref{lem:slack} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-4W}.
\qed
\end{proof}
\subsection{All-pairs $+cW(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanners}\label{sec:allpairs}
\begin{comment}
By applying a lemma from~\cite{bodwin2020note}, the above pairwise $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $+4W(\cdot, \cdot)$ imply all-pairs spanners.
The main idea is to reduce the all-pairs setting to the pairwise setting as follows.
Start with all possible vertex pairs $\mathcal{P} = {V \choose 2}$, and construct a pairwise spanner over these vertex pairs.
If the number of vertex pairs is greater than the number of edges in this spanner, then there exists a vertex pair which does not contribute any edges to the spanner, and thus it can be removed without affecting the size in the spanner.
A quick analysis reveals that, using our pairwise $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(np^{1/3})$ edges, this process halts at $p^* = O(n^{3/2})$ demand pairs, giving a spanner of size $O(n^{3/2})$.
This implies that every graph has an all-pairs $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges. Similarly, using our $+4W(\cdot, \cdot)$ pairwise spanner, the process halts at $p^* = O(n^{7/5})$ vertex pairs and a spanner of size $O(n^{7/5})$, proving Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:allpairs-4W}.
For background, a construction of a $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ local pairwise spanner of $G, \mathcal{P}$ is \emph{demand-oblivious} if it can be phrased as follows.
Select a function $\pi$ (an ``(approximate) tiebreaking scheme'') that maps each vertex pair $s, t$ to a particular $s \leadsto t$ path $\pi(s, t)$ in $G$ that satisfies the demand pair, meaning e.g.\ that the length of $\pi(s, t)$ is at most $\dist_G(s, t) + cW(s, t)$.
Then, form the spanner $H$ by overlaying the selected paths $\pi(s, t)$ for all $(s, t) \in \mathcal{P}$.
The construction is \emph{demand-oblivious} if the definition of $\pi$ depends on the graph $G$ and the number of demand pairs $|\mathcal{P}|$, but not otherwise on the structure of $\mathcal{P}$.
In this paper, our $+2W(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $+4W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanners described in Section~\ref{sec:pairwise} are both implicitly demand-oblivious.
Although we do not state them exactly in this framework, the paths analyzed to prove the spanner stretch guarantee depend on the initial graph $G$ and the randomly-sampled shortest path trees (which in turn depend on $|\mathcal{P}|$), but not otherwise on $\mathcal{P}$.
Thus, one gets a spanner of the claimed sparsity by overlaying these selected paths for each demand pair.
But the local pairwise $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner described previously is \emph{not} demand-oblivious, since it considers demand pairs sequentially, and the paths selected for a later demand pair can depend on the paths selected for a previous demand pair.
The lemma from \cite{bodwin2020note} that we use is the following (in fact, we state a slightly special case relevant to our paper):
\begin{lemma}[\cite{bodwin2020note}] \label{lemma:oblivious}
Suppose one can construct a demand-oblivious $+c W(\cdot, \cdot)$ local pairwise spanner in any $n$-vertex input graph $G$ on at most $f(n,|\mathcal{P}|)$ edges. Let
\[ p^* := \min\{p \mid p > f(n,|\mathcal{P}|) \}.\]
Then one can construct an all-pairs spanner of $G$ on $\le f(n,p^*)$ edges.
\end{lemma
We use this to prove:
\begin{corollary} \label{thm:2W_allpairs}
Every graph has a $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:pairwise-2W}, every graph has a $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ demand-oblivious pairwise spanner on $O(np^{1/3})$ edges, so consider $f(n,p) = O(np^{1/3})$. If we set $p^*=\Theta(n^{3/2})$ then $f(n,p^*) = O(n^{3/2})$ as well. Hence by Lemma~\ref{lemma:oblivious}, every graph has an all-pairs $+2W(\cdot, \cdot)$ additive spanner on $O(n^{3/2})$ edges.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:allpairs-4W}]
The proof is identical to that of Corollary~\ref{thm:2W_allpairs}, except with $f(n,p) = O(np^{2/7})$ and $p^* = \Theta(n^{7/5})$.
\qed
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
We now discuss the all-pairs setting, to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:sparse}.\ref{thm:allpairs-4W}.
Our construction is essentially the same as the pairwise construction given above, but the analysis is slightly different.
The parameter $\ell$ no longer plays a role, and we skip the step where we consider pairs $(s, t)$ such that $\pi(s, t)$ is missing at most $\ell$ edges.
But the rest of the construction is the same:
\begin{itemize}
\item We start the spanner $H$ as a $d$-light initialization,
\item We take a random sample $R_1$ by selecting each vertex with probability $\frac{6d}{n}$ and add a shortest path tree rooted at each sampled vertex, and then
\item We take a random sample $R_2$ by including each vertex with probability $\frac{6}{d}$.
For any two nodes $s, t \in R_2$, let $\pi(s, t)$ be the shortest $s \leadsto t$ path among all paths that are missing $\le \frac{n}{d^2}$ edges in the initialization (if no such path exists, then ignore the pair $s, t$).
Then we add all edges in $\pi(s, t)$ to the spanner.
\end{itemize}
The total number of edges in this construction is $O(nd + \frac{n^3}{d^4})$. Setting $d = n^{2/5}$ gives an edge bound of $O(n^{7/5})$.
Finally, by the same analysis as above, each demand pair is satisfied with constant probability.
So if we repeat the construction $C \log n$ times for a large enough constant $C$, and we union together the $O(\log n)$ spanners computed in each round, then with high probability all demand pairs are satisfied.
The final spanner thus has $O(n^{7/5} \cdot \log n) = \widetilde{O}(n^{7/5})$ edges in total.
\begin{comment}
\section{All pairs $+6W$ spanners}
Multiple known constructions exist for constructing a $+6$ spanner of size $O(n^{4/3})$ of an unweighted graph~\cite{baswana2010additive,knudsen2014additive,woodruff2010additive}. The construction by Knudsen~\cite{knudsen2014additive} is particularly simple: let $H$ be a $n^{1/3}$-initialization, then while there are vertex pairs $s,t$ for which $d_H(s,t) > d_G(s,t) + 6$, add the shortest path $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$. This construction can be adapted to weighted graphs by using $n^{1/3}$-light initialization and changing $6$ to $6W$; however, the weighted case becomes more difficult due to a technicality in the analysis of the $+6$ spanner.
Specifically, consider a pair $s,t$ for which $\pi(s,t)$ is added to the $+6$ spanner. It is shown in~\cite{knudsen2014additive} that, if $\ell$ edges in $\pi(s,t)$ are added, then there are $\Omega(d^2 \ell) = \Omega(n^{2/3}\ell)$ pairs of nearby vertices whose distances are reduced in $H$. Thus, if $k$ total edges are added in $+6$-spanner completion, the sum of these improvements is $\Omega(n^{2/3}k) = O(n^2)$, which implies $k = O(n^{4/3})$. The difficulty with weighted graphs is that for these $\Omega(n^{2/3}\ell)$ vertex pairs, the distances could improve by a very small amount relative to $W$ (whereas in the unweighted case, the distances must improve by at least 1). Elkin~\cite{elkin2020improved} recently showed how to adapt this construction and analysis to produce a $+(6+\varepsilon)W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n^{4/3})$ edges, by noting that there are $\Omega(n^{2/3}\ell)$ vertex pairs which improve by at least $\Omega(\varepsilon W(u,v))$. Whether this construction produces a $+6W$ or $+6W(\cdot, \cdot)$ spanner on $O(n^{4/3})$ edges remains open.
Instead, we generalize the existing unweighted $+6$ spanner construction by Woodruff~\cite{woodruff2010additive} to the weighted setting. In our first phase of the algorithm we compute a $n^{1/3}$-light initialization $H$ of the input graph $G$. We then consider the set of vertices $V'$ that have a degree greater than $n^{1/3}$. We compute a set of random vertices $R_1$ such that each vertex is taken with probability $1/n^{1/3}$. The expected size of $R_1$ is $\Tilde{O}(n^{2/3})$.
With constant probability there is a vertex in $R_1$ that is adjacent to a vertex in $V'$.
Now consider a pair $(s, t)$; let the shortest path from $s$ to $t$ be $\pi = \pi(s,t)$. If there are $\ell$ missing edges of $\pi(s,t)$ absent from $H$, then there are $\Omega(n^{1/3}\ell)$ neighbor vertices around these $\ell$ missing edges by Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}. To compute a path $\pi'$ such that $d_{\pi'}(s, t) \leq d_\pi(s, t) + 6W$, we sample a set of random vertices $R_2$ where each vertex is taken with probability $1/(n^{1/3}\ell)$. The expected size of $R_2$ is $\Tilde{O}(n^{2/3}/\ell)$. Since, there are $\Omega(n^{1/3}\ell)$ $d$-light neighbors of $\pi$, with constant probability there is a vertex $r \in R_2$ that is adjacent to a vertex $w$ in $\pi$, see Figure~\ref{fig:6W_pth}. Let $u$ (resp. $v$) be the first (resp. last) vertex of $\pi$ incident to a missing edge from $\pi$. Since each of $u$ and $v$ has a missing edge, each of them has degree greater than $n^{1/3}$ in $G$. Let $p$ $(q)$ be a vertex in $R_1$ that is adjacent to $u$ $(v)$ in $H$. We add a shortest path from $p$ to $r$ such that there are $\ell$ missing edges. Similarly, we add a shortest path from $q$ to $r$. Then the shortest path in $H$ from $s$ to $t$ will have no more than $+6W$ error:
\begin{align*}
d_H(s,t) &\leq d_H(s,u) + w(p, u) + d_H(p, r) + d_H(r,q) + w(q, v) + d_H(v, t) \\
&\leq d_G(s,u) + W + d_G(p, r) + d_G(r,q) + W + d_G(v, t)\\
&\leq d_G(s,u) + W + w(p, u) + d_G(u, w) + w(w, r)\\
&+ w(r, w) + d_G(w,v) + w(v, q) + W + d_G(v, t)\\
&\leq d_G(s,u) + 2W + d_G(u, w) + 2W + d_G(w,v) + 2W + d_G(v, t)\\
&= d_G(s,t) + 6W
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.60\textwidth]{figures/6W_pth.png}
\caption{Illustration of the $+6W$ construction.}
\label{fig:6W_pth}
\end{figure}
For every pair of vertices $a, b$ such that $a \in R_1, b \in R_2$ we add a shortest path that contains approximately $\ell$ missing edges. Hence, in total we add $O((n^{2/3}/\ell)\times n^{2/3}x) = O(n^{4/3})$ edges in $H$. Since, we have to do this for different values of $\ell$, a geometric series appears in the order term and we have to add $\Tilde{O}(n^{4/3})$ edges in total.
\subsection{Improvement in the unweighted setting}
The construction provided in~\cite{woodruff2010additive} is similar to the idea mentioned above. One major difference is they start with an clustering phase. Our approach uses $d$-initialization. The construction provided in~\cite{woodruff2010additive} only considers unweighted graph. In order to provide a $\Tilde{O}(n^2)$ running time they provided a BFS-like dynamic programming. The goal of this algorithm is to compute an approximate shortest path tree from a root vertex $r$. More specifically, we will compute a path $p$ from $r$ to each vertex $r'$ such that $d_p(r, r') \le d_G(r, r')+c$ and the number of missing edges in $p$ is minimum. The reason they consider this additive error $c$ is we have to ensure that the path contains the minimum number of missing edges. If we only consider adding the missing edges of the shortest path then we may need to add a large amount of missing edges. If we allow some additive error, then we will be able to minimize the number of missing edges. The running time of this algorithm is $O(m)$, where $m$ is the number of edges.
In order to compute a $+6$-spanner, we can run the dynamic programming-based algorithm from each node in the second dominating set. However, then the number of edges in the spanner can be more than $\Tilde{O}(n^2)$. Hence, a separate technique has been applied in~\cite{woodruff10}. If the maximum degree is less than or equal to $n^{1/3}x$, then $m = O(n^{4/3}x)$ and the running time is $(n^{2/3}/x)*n^{4/3}x = n^2$. Otherwise, if the degree $d > n^{1/3}x$, then the size of the dominating set is equal to $n/d$. And the running time is $(n/d).(nd) = n^2$, and the edge bound is $n^{2/3}.(n/d).(d/n^{1/3}) = n^{4/3}$. Overall the edge bound becomes $O(n^{4/3} \log^3 n)$. The first $\log n$ factor appears because we have to run the algorithm for different values of $x$. The second $\log n$ factor appears because we can not run the algorithm on the whole graph. Instead, they increase the maximum degree $d$ exponentially and run the algorithm on the induced graph. Finally, the third $\log n$ factor appears because of the Monte Carlo method applied in~\cite{woodruff10}.
We can get rid of the last $\log n$ factor by applying the technique we discussed in~\cite{bodwin2020note}. The main idea is as long as we can guarantee that a constant fraction of the pairs satisfy the additive error, we can continue the process until we have a valid spanner. Since a constant fraction of the pairs satisfies the additive error in every iteration, the total edges increase by a constant factor of the first iteration. Hence, we will have a $+6$-spanner of size $O(n^{4/3} \log^2 n)$.
\begin{theorem}
Every unweighted graph has a $+6$ spanner on $O(n^{4/3} \log^2 n)$ edges.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Running time}
The running time of a single iteration of this algorithm is $\Tilde{O}(n^2)$. We have to continue this sampling process until we have a valid spanner. Note that the overall running time of this algorithm is not better than~\cite{woodruff10}. Also, there exists $+6$-spanner construction with better edge bounds~\cite{baswana2010additive}. However, these constructions depend on clustering phase, and our algorithm is starts with $d$-initialization. Recent experimental result showed that initialization is better than clustering in terms of running time~\cite{ahmed2021multi}.
\subsection{The weighted scenario}
To obtain a $+6W$ spanner, we have to develop an algorithm to compute an approximate shortest path tree for a weighted graph. The goal of this algorithm is given a root vertex $r$ and an integer $i \in \{0, 1, \cdots, C\}$ to compute a path $p$ for each vertex $v$ from $r$ such that the distance is less than or equal to $d_G(r, v) + iW$ and $p$ contains minimum number of missing edges. We provide an algorithm to compute the number of missing edges $D(v, i)$ for a root vertex $r$. One can also explicitly obtain the missing edges while computing $D(v, i)$. Let $S(j)$ be the set of nodes $w$ reachable by a walk from $r$ of length $l$ such that $(j-1)W < l \le jW$ and, for which $l \le d_G(r, w) + CW$. Let $N(v)$ be the vertices that are at most $W$ distance away from $v$. The set $S(0) = \{r\}$, and we can get $S(j+1)$ by computing $N(v)$ for every vertex in $S(j)$. Then we can compute $D(v, i)$ using the following formula using dynamic programming:
$$D(v, i) = \min_{w \in S(\lceil d_G(r, v)/W \rceil + i - 1) \cap N(v)} D(w, i-1) + \phi(w, v)$$
Here, $\phi(w, v)$ is equal to the number of missing edges in the shortest path from $w$ to $v$. The running time of this algorithm is dominated by the computation of $N(v)$, which is no more than the running time of a single source shortest path. We have to compute it for each vertex in the graph.
\begin{theorem}
Every graph has a $+6W$ spanner on $\Tilde{O}(n^{4/3})$ edges
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Running time}
The running time of a single iteration of this algorithm is $\Tilde{O}(nm)$ running time. We have to continue this sampling process until we have a valid spanner.
\end{comment}
\section{Lightweight local additive spanners} \label{sec:lightweight}
In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness} by constructing \emph{lightweight} additive spanners.
The previous spanner algorithms based on $d$-light initialization can produce spanners with poor lightness: Let $G$ be the graph obtained by taking $K_{\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}}$ with all edges of weight $W$, then adding two paths of weight 0 connecting the vertices within each bipartition. Then $w(\MST(G)) = W$, while $d$-light initialization already adds $\Omega(Wnd)$ weight to the spanner $H$, or $\Omega(nd)$ lightness.
In order to construct lightweight additive spanners, we introduce a new initialization technique called $d$-\emph{lightweight initialization}, which adds edges of total weight at most $d$ for each vertex, starting from the MST of $G$. We first perform the following simple modifications to the input graph $G$ in order:
\begin{enumerate}\setlength{\itemsep}{5pt}
\item Scale the edge weights of $G$ linearly so that the weight of the MST is $\frac{n}{2}$.
\item Remove all edges of weight $\ge n$ from $G$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that step 1 also scales $W(s,t)$ for vertex pairs $(s,t)$, but the validity of an additive spanner or spanner path is invariant to scaling. Step 2 does not change the shortest path metric or the maximum edge weights $W(s,t)$; since the MST has weight $\frac{n}{2}$, this implies $W(s,t) \le d_G(s,t) \le \frac{n}{2}$.
Given $G$ and $d \ge 0$, the $d$-\emph{lightweight initialization} is a subgraph $H$ defined as follows: let $H$ be an MST of $G$. If $d > 0$, then for each vertex $v \in V$, consider all incident edges to $v$ which have not already been added to $H$, in nondecreasing order of weight. Add these incident edges one by one to $H$ until the next edge causes the total edge weight added corresponding to $v$ to be greater than $d$. This subgraph $H$ has $O(n + nd)$ total edge weight, and $O(1+d)$ lightness. Note that 0-lightweight initialization is simply the MST of $G$. After $d$-lightweight initialization, perform $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion by iterating over each vertex pair $(s,t)$ in nondecreasing order of the maximum weight $W(s,t)$ (then by nondecreasing distance $d_G(s,t)$ if two pairs have the same maximum weight), and adding $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$ if $(s,t)$ is unsatisfied.
\subsection{Lightweight initialization and neighborhoods of shortest paths}
In order to prove the desired lightness bounds, we consider a subdivided graph obtained as follows: for each MST edge $e$ of $\MST(G)$, subdivide $e$ into $\lceil w(e) \rceil$ edges of weight $\frac{w(e)}{\lceil w(e) \rceil}$. Recall that $w(\MST(G)) = \frac{n}{2}$, so this adds $O(n)$ vertices, all of which are on MST edges. Let $G'$ denote this subdivided graph. We do not modify the maximum edge weights $W(s,t)$ for each pair $(s,t) \in V(G)$, even if such edges are subdivided in $G'$. We remark that the MST of $G'$ also has weight $\frac{n}{2}$, and all MST edges have weight at most 1.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood-1}
Let $e = uv$ be an edge in $E(G')$ which is not contained in the $d$-lightweight initialization $H$. Then there are $\Omega(d^{1/2})$ vertices $x$ in $G'$ such that $d_H(u,x) \le w(e)$. Moreover, if $\varepsilon' \in (0,1]$, there are $\Omega(\varepsilon' w(e))$ vertices $x$ such that $d_H(u,x) \le \varepsilon' w(e)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $w(e) \ge d^{1/2}$, then consider the set $N$ of vertices (including $u$) such that each $x \in N$ is connected to $u$ by a path of $\le \lfloor w(e) \rfloor$ MST edges.
Since all MST edges have weight $\le 1$, all vertices $x \in N$ satisfy $d_H(u, x) \le w(e)$. Then $|N| = \max\{1, \lfloor w(e) \rfloor\} \ge \frac{w(e)}{2} = \Omega(d^{1/2})$, proving this case. Note that $w(e) \le n$ by step 2 above. Moreover given $\varepsilon' \in (0,1]$, consider vertices $x$ which are at most $\lfloor \varepsilon' w(e)\rfloor$ MST edges away from $u$. There are $\max\{1, \lfloor \varepsilon' w(e) \rfloor\} \ge \frac{\varepsilon' w(e)}{2} = \Omega(\varepsilon' w(e))$ such vertices, all of distance $\le \varepsilon' w(e)$ from $u$.
If $w(e) < d^{1/2}$, then every edge added when $u$ is considered in the $d$-lightweight initialization has weight less than $d^{1/2}$, since edges are added in nondecreasing weight.
We thus add at least $d^{1/2} - 1$ edges corresponding to $u$. By construction, each such edge is lighter than $e$, so for any vertex $x$ that is the endpoint of one of these edges $ux$, we have $d_H(u, x) \le w(ux) \le w(e)$. Lastly by considering $x=u$, we obtain $d^{1/2}$ vertices $x$ in $G'$. \qed
\end{proof}
We now prove a lightweight analogue of Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood}
Let $H$ be a $d$-lightweight initialization, let $\pi(s,t)$ be a shortest $s$--$t$ path in $G'$, let $z$ be the total weight of the edges in $\pi(s,t)$ which are absent in $H$, and let $\varepsilon' \in (0,1]$. Then there is a set $N$ of at least $\frac{\varepsilon'z}{10} = \Omega(\varepsilon'z)$ vertices in $G'$ which are of distance at most $\varepsilon'W(s,t)$ in $H$ from some vertex in $\pi(s,t)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $M_0 = \{e_1, \ldots, e_{\ell}\}$ be the set of $\ell$ edges in $\pi(s,t)$ which are absent in $H$, where $z$ is the total weight of these edges. We denote the endpoints of $e_i$ by $u_i$ and $v_i$ where $u_i$ is closer to $s$. We will first construct a subset $M_1 \subseteq M_0$ of edges which satisfies two properties: i) the neighborhoods of nearby MST vertices from each edge in $M_1$ are pairwise disjoint, and ii) the total edge weight in $M_1$ is $\Omega(z)$
Let $M_1 := \emptyset$. While $M_0$ is not empty, select an edge $e_i \in M_0$ of maximum weight and add it to $M_1$. Then remove $e_i$ from $M_0$, as well as all other edges $e_j$ such that $d_{G'}(u_i,u_j) \le 2\varepsilon' w(e_i)$ from $M_0$. When $M_0$ is empty, we will be left with a set $M_1$ of edges which are relatively far apart. For each edge $e_i = u_iv_i \in M_1$, add to $N$ all vertices connected to $u_i$ by a path of $\le \varepsilon' w(e_i)$ MST edges (including $u_i$ itself).
Let $N_i$ denote the set of vertices added to $N$ corresponding to edge $e_i$.
Since MST edges in $G'$ have weight at most 1, we have $|N_i| \ge \frac{\varepsilon'w(e_i)}{2}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood-1}, and $d_H(u_i,x) \le \varepsilon' w(e_i) \le \varepsilon'W(s,t)$ for each $x \in N_i$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{figures/initialization-lightness}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood} where MST edges are bolded and $\varepsilon'=\frac{1}{2}$. By selecting $e_i = u_iv_i$ of weight 5.2 and adding $e_i$ to $M_1$, the five MST vertices which are connected by at most $\lfloor \frac{1}{2} \times 5.2 \rfloor = 2$ MST edges are added to $N$, and $|N_i|=5$. Note that $u_{i+1} = v_i$ in this example since $e_i$ and $e_{i+1}$ are adjacent.}
\end{figure}
We claim that the sets $N_i : e_i \in M_1$ are pairwise disjoint. Suppose otherwise there exists some vertex $x \in N_i \cap N_j$, and w.l.o.g. edge $e_i$ was selected before edge $e_j$ so that $w(e_i) \ge w(e_j)$. Since $x \in N_i$, we have $d_H(u_i,x) \le \varepsilon'w(e_i)$ and similarly $d_H(u_j,x) \le \varepsilon'w(e_j)$. Then by the triangle inequality:
\begin{align*}
d_{G'}(u_i, u_j) \le d_H(u_i, u_j) &\le d_H(u_i, x) + d_H(x, u_j) \\
&\le \varepsilon'w(e_i) + \varepsilon'w(e_j) \le 2\varepsilon'w(e_i). \\
\end{align*}
However this is a contradiction: once edge $e_i$ is selected for $M_1$, edge $e_j$ is also removed from $M_0$ since the distance from $u_i$ to $u_j$ is at most $2\varepsilon'w(e_i)$, so $e_j$ could not have been selected for $M_1$.
We also claim that the total edge weight in $M_1$ is $\Omega(z)$.
Whenever an edge $e_i$ is selected for $M_1$, we remove $e_i$ and any nearby edges $e_j$ with $d_{G'}(u_i,u_j) \le 2\varepsilon'w(e_i)$ from $M_0$. Since all nearby edges by definition are on $\pi(s,t)$, the total weight of the edges removed from $M_0$ when $e_i$ is selected is at most $(1+4\varepsilon')w(e_i)$. Then the total edge weight in $M_1$ is at least $\frac{z}{1+4\varepsilon'} \ge \frac{z}{5} = \Omega(z)$, since $0 < \varepsilon' \le 1$.
Let $N := \bigcup_{e_i \in M_1} N_i$.
As shown previously, each $N_i$ contains at least $\frac{\varepsilon'w(e_i)}{2}$ vertices.
By the above claims, the neighborhoods $N_i$ are pairwise disjoint and the sum of edge weights in $M_1$ is at least $\frac{z}{5}$, so we obtai
\[
|N| = \sum_{e_i \in M_1} |N_i| \ge \sum_{e_i \in M_1} \frac{\varepsilon' w(e_i)}{2} \ge \frac{\varepsilon'}{2} \cdot \frac{z}{5} = \Omega(\varepsilon'z). \qquad \qed
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}}
Using Lemmas~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood-1} and~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood}, we can analyze the lightness of the above spanner constructions by considering the number of vertex pairs in the subdivided graph $G'$ whose distances sufficiently improve upon adding $\pi(s,t)$, where $s,t \in V(G)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:improvements-epsW}
Let $(s,t) \in V(G)$ be a vertex pair such that $\pi(s,t)$ is added during $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Let $x \in N$ be a vertex in $G'$ which is of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex $u$ in $\pi(s,t)$ in $H$. Let $H_0$ and $H_1$ denote the spanner before and after $\pi(s,t)$ is added. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_{H_1}(s,x) \le d_{G'}(s,x) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(t,x) \le d_{G'}(t,x) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(s,x) - d_{H_1}(s,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4} W(s,t)$ or $d_{H_0}(t,x) - d_{H_1}(t,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4} W(s,t).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Similar to Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW}, statement 1. holds by the triangle inequality, and 2. can be proven by contradiction: if neither inequality was true, then $d_{H_0}(s,t) \le d_G(s,t) + \varepsilon W(s,t)$, contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added during spanner completion.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{figures/epsW-spanners}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-epsW}. By adding $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$ during $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, both pairs $(s,x)$ and $(t,x)$ are satisfied, and at least one of the pairs' distances improves by at least $\frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(u,v)$.}
\label{fig:epsW-spanners}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}.\ref{thm:lightness-epsW}]
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood} with $\varepsilon' = \frac{\varepsilon}{4}$, there are $\Omega(\varepsilon z)$ vertices $x \in V(G')$ which are of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex in $\pi(s,t)$, so adding path $\pi(s,t)$ of weight $z$ improves $\Omega(\varepsilon z)$ vertex pairs. If $Z$ is the total weight added during $+\varepsilon W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, then there are $\Omega(\varepsilon Z)$ improvements.
Once a vertex pair is set-off, it is only improved a \emph{constant} number of times (since any such pair $(s,x)$ or $(t,x)$, once set-off, has error $\frac{\varepsilon}{2}W(s,t)$, and any improvement is by $\Omega(\varepsilon W(s,t))$). Then by considering the number of improvements, we obtain $\Omega(\varepsilon Z) = O(n^2) \implies Z = O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n^2)$. This result does not depend on $d$-lightweight initialization, so set $d = 0$. The total weight of the spanner $H$ is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}n^2)$; since $w(\MST(G))=\frac{n}{2}$, we obtain $\text{lightness}(H) = O_{\varepsilon}(n)$ as desired. \qed
\end{proof}
For the $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner, the corresponding lemma is as follows:
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:improvements-4epsW}
Let $(u,v) \in V(G)$ be a vertex pair such that $\pi(u,v)$ is added during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Let $a$ and $b$ be $d$-lightweight neighbors of $s$ and $t$ in $G'$, respectively, such that $d_{H_0}(x,a) \le W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_0}(y,b) \le W(s,t)$. Let $x \in N$ be a vertex in $G'$ which is of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex $y$ in $\pi(s,t)$. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_{H_1}(a,x) \le d_{G'}(a,x) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(b,x) \le d_{G'}(b,x) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ or $d_{H_0}(b,x) - d_{H_1}(b,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Again, this is proved using the same methods as in Lemmas~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW},~\ref{lem:improvements-6W}, and \ref{lem:improvements-epsW}; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4epsW-spanners}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{figures/4epsW-spanners}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-4epsW}. By adding $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$ during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, both pairs $(a,x)$ and $(b,x)$ are satisfied, and at least one of the pairs' distances improves by at least $\frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$.}
\label{fig:4epsW-spanners}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}.\ref{thm:lightness-4epsW}]
Let $(s,t)$ be a vertex pair for which $\pi(s,t)$ is added during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Again, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood} with $\varepsilon' = \frac{\varepsilon}{4}$, there are $\Omega(\varepsilon z)$ choices for $x$ which are of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex in $\pi(u,v)$.
Similar to~\cite{elkin2020improved}, we observe that the first edge (say $st_1$) in $\pi(s,t)$ (starting from $s$) is absent in $H_0$ immediately before $\pi(s,t)$ is added. Suppose otherwise $st_1 \in E(H_0)$, then consider the pair $(t_1,t)$. Since $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion considers all vertex pairs in nondecreasing $W(s,t)$ and then by distance $d_G(s,t)$, the pair $(t_1,t)$ is already satisfied before considering $(s,t)$. Then $d_{H_0}(s,t) \le w(st_1) + d_{H_0}(t_1,t) \le w(st_1) + [d_G(t_1,t) + (4+\varepsilon)W(s,t)] \le d_G(s,t) + (4+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$, contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added to $H$. Symmetrically, the last edge in $\pi(s,t)$ is absent in $H_0$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood-1} and the above observation, we can establish there are $\Omega(d^{1/2})$ choices for $a$ and $b$. Then for every choice of $x$, $a$, $b$, adding $\pi(s,t)$ sets off the pairs $(a,x)$, $(b,x)$ if not already, and improves at least one pair's distance by at least $\frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood}, this gives $\Omega(\varepsilon d^{1/2}z)$ improvements upon adding $z$ total edge weight in $\pi(s,t)$.
If $Z$ is the total weight added during $+(4+\varepsilon) W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, then
\[ \Omega(\varepsilon d^{1/2}Z) = O\left(\frac{n^2}{\varepsilon}\right) \implies Z = O_{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{n^2}{d^{1/2}}\right).\]
By setting $d := n^{2/3}$, we obtain that the total weight of the spanner $H$ is $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{5/3})$; since $w(\MST(G)) = \frac{n}{2}$, this implies $\text{lightness}(H) = O_{\varepsilon}(n^{2/3})$ as desired.
\qed
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:improvements-4epsW}
Let $(u,v) \in V(G)$ be a vertex pair such that $\pi(u,v)$ is added during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Let $a$ and $b$ be $d$-lightweight neighbors of $s$ and $t$ in $G'$, respectively, such that $d_{H_0}(x,a) \le W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_0}(y,b) \le W(s,t)$. Let $x \in N$ be a vertex in $G'$ which is of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex $y$ in $\pi(s,t)$. Then both of the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_{H_1}(a,x) \le d_{G'}(a,x) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$ and $d_{H_1}(b,x) \le d_{G'}(b,x) + (2+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$
\item $d_{H_0}(a,x) - d_{H_1}(a,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ or $d_{H_0}(b,x) - d_{H_1}(b,x) \ge \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Again, this is proved using the same methods as in Lemmas~\ref{lem:improvements-2epsW},~\ref{lem:improvements-6W}, and \ref{lem:improvements-epsW}; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4epsW-spanners}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{figures/4epsW-spanners}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lem:improvements-4epsW}. By adding $\pi(s,t)$ to $H$ during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, both pairs $(a,x)$ and $(b,x)$ are satisfied, and at least one of the pairs' distances improves by at least $\frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$.}
\label{fig:4epsW-spanners}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:lightness}.\ref{thm:lightness-4epsW}]
Let $(s,t)$ be a vertex pair for which $\pi(s,t)$ is added during $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion. Again, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood} with $\varepsilon' = \frac{\varepsilon}{4}$, there are $\Omega(\varepsilon z)$ choices for $x$ which are of distance $\le \frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$ from some vertex in $\pi(u,v)$.
Similar to~\cite{elkin2020improved}, we observe that the first edge (say $st_1$) in $\pi(s,t)$ (starting from $s$) is absent in $H_0$ immediately before $\pi(s,t)$ is added. Suppose otherwise $st_1 \in E(H_0)$, then consider the pair $(t_1,t)$. Since $+(4+\varepsilon)W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion considers all vertex pairs in nondecreasing $W(s,t)$ and then by distance $d_G(s,t)$, the pair $(t_1,t)$ is already satisfied before considering $(s,t)$. Then $d_{H_0}(s,t) \le w(st_1) + d_{H_0}(t_1,t) \le w(st_1) + [d_G(t_1,t) + (4+\varepsilon)W(s,t)] \le d_G(s,t) + (4+\varepsilon)W(s,t)$, contradicting that $\pi(s,t)$ was added to $H$. Symmetrically, the last edge in $\pi(s,t)$ is absent in $H_0$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood-1} and the above observation, we can establish there are $\Omega(d^{1/2})$ choices for $a$ and $b$. Then for every choice of $x$, $a$, $b$, adding $\pi(s,t)$ sets off the pairs $(a,x)$, $(b,x)$ if not already, and improves at least one pair's distance by at least $\frac{\varepsilon}{4}W(s,t)$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lightweight-neighborhood}, this gives $\Omega(\varepsilon d^{1/2}z)$ improvements upon adding $z$ total edge weight in $\pi(s,t)$.
If $Z$ is the total weight added during $+(4+\varepsilon) W(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanner completion, then
\[ \Omega(\varepsilon d^{1/2}Z) = O\left(\frac{n^2}{\varepsilon}\right) \implies Z = O_{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{n^2}{d^{1/2}}\right).\]
By setting $d := n^{2/3}$, we obtain that the total weight of the spanner $H$ is $O_{\varepsilon}(n^{5/3})$; since $w(\MST(G)) = \frac{n}{2}$, this implies $\text{lightness}(H) = O_{\varepsilon}(n^{2/3})$ as desired.
\qed
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
We showed that many of the global $+cW$ spanners from~\cite{ahmed2020weighted} are actually local $+cW(\cdot,\cdot)$ spanners by strengthening the analysis and Lemma~\ref{lemma:d_initialize}. We additionally provided several additional pairwise and all-pairs spanners based on $d$-light initialization; this suggests $d$-light initialization can be used to construct several other types of additive spanners.
We then provided the first known lightweight additive spanner constructions, whose lightness does not depend on $W$. These lightness results are likely not optimal; we leave the questions of finding more optimized lightness guarantees, as well as lightness guarantees for pairwise and subsetwise spanners as future open problems. Further, another natural question is whether we can construct additive spanners in weighted graphs which are simultaneously sparse \emph{and} lightweight.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements} The authors wish to thank Michael Elkin, Faryad Darabi Sahneh, and the anonymous reviewers for their discussion and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{A} lot of computer vision tasks exhibit multi-instance property, i.e. each input data sample is represented by a bag of instances and learning is performed at the bag level instead of the instance level \cite{zhou2004multi,foulds2010review}. For example, video-based identity recognition can be treated as a multi-instance learning (MIL) task, as each video input is a time-series of frames and each frame can be regarded as an instance \cite{ref24}. Another example is the automatic diagnosis system based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, which consists of multiple slices presenting the area of interest being scanned \cite{LIU2018157}. In these two cases, there is either temporal or spatial dependency between images; whereas in a lot more MIL scenarios, instances within each bag are unordered or exhibit no dependency among each other. Such unordered MIL tasks are especially common in biomedical image processing \cite{li2012drosophila, YAO2020101789, ilse2018attention,10.1093/bioinformatics/btw252}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{introduction_4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Two typical aggregation mechanisms in deep learning models. CNNs are commonly used to extract features from input images, and then the extracted features are fed into the feature aggregation module to obtain the final aggregation output. }
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}
The imaging of biological samples, plays a key role in current life science research, enabling scientists to analyze from tissue level down to the cell level.
Unlike natural images, biological microscopy images are often much harder to obtain due to the difficulty in preparing the specimen or stringent experimental conditions. Therefore, during the imaging procedure, it is common to capture multiple images for a specimen in a single trial of experiments and perform multiple trials for repeatability. To infer the functions of genes or characteristics of molecules, all the captured images should be considered comprehensively to give a more accurate judgement on the final output, as single images may only contain partial information.
Compared with video or 3D data, dealing with unordered input requires the model to have the permutation-invariant property \cite{ilse2018attention}, i.e., the model should be insensitive to the presenting order of input instances. Moreover, the models also need to address the issues coming from variable-sized inputs and different image qualities. Thus, developing MIL models is a very challenging job.
Traditional MIL methods fall into two categories, focusing on feature extraction and classification, respectively.
The first category of methods aggregates multiple instances into a fixed-length input before feeding the classifiers. The aggregation operation can be performed before or after feature extraction. FlyIT \cite{ref27} is an example of the former type, which first stitches images belonging to the same bag into large images and then extracts features from the large images.
The latter type first extracts features for raw instances and then performs the aggregation operation (as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:onecol}). For instance, MIMT-CNN \cite{MIMT-CNN} employs 10 VGG models to learn feature representation from 10 images, respectively, and concatenates them into a bag representation for the following classification.
The feature aggregation can be regarded as a part of feature engineering, and the subsequent learning procedure remains unchanged.
Alternatively, common classifiers can be modified to handle inputs of multiple instances. Till now, a lot of MIL methods have been developed, like multi-instance KNN \cite{wang2000solving}, multi-instance neural networks \cite{zhang2004improve,zhou2002neural}, multi-instance decision tree \cite{chevaleyre2001solving}, and multi-instance support vector machines (SVMs) \cite{andrews2003support}. The core idea is to compute pair-wise similarity or loss function at the bag level instead of instance level and define the loss function according to the prediction accuracy on bags.
Note that before using these traditional learning models, image features should be extracted separately, while deep neural networks perform feature learning automatically. For the past decade, MIL tasks have also benefitted a lot from deep learning \cite{ref23}.
However, the performance of the existing multi-instance DNN models has been limited due to the high complexity of input data. For one thing, some methods set a fix-length of input \cite{MIMT-CNN, ref27}, which lacks flexibility of handing varying-sized input. For the other thing, since the number of instances per sample is often large while high-quality instances are few, the methods that are unable to identify informative instances may not work well.
To address these challenges, we propose a model, called HAMIL (\underline{H}ierarchically \underline{A}ggregation for \underline{M}ulti-\underline{I}nstance \underline{L}earning). The model is featured by a hierarchical aggregation protocol with simple but effective aggregation units. It can not only learn input bags with varying size but also give preference to informative instances. We assess the performance of HAMIL on two microscopy image classification tasks. On both tasks, HAMIL achieves significant improvement in prediction accuracy compared with other feature aggregation methods and state-of-the-art predictors for these two tasks.
\section{Related work}
\subsection{Traditional feature aggregation}
In traditional image processing, feature aggregation aims to fuse features extracted from multiple images into a comprehensive feature representation before feeding into a learning model. There are three typical feature fusion methods, the bag of visual words (BOV) \cite{bov}, Fisher vector \cite{fishervector}, and vector of locally aggregated descriptors (VLAD) \cite{vlad}. BOV regards image features as words, builds a vocabulary of local image features and generates a vector of their occurrence counts. The Fisher vector method stores the mixing coefficients of the Gaussian mixture model (GMM) as well as the mean and covariance deviation vectors of the individual components. The VLAD method computes the distance of each feature point to the cluster center closest to it. All of these three methods produce a fixed-length feature vector for the input image set, which can work with traditional machine learning models, like SVMs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{FlowChart_v3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Model architecture of HAMIL. The raw images are first fed to convolutional layers to get feature embeddings and then aggregated based on the hierarchical tree to get a unified encoding for final classification.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Aggregation of deep convolutional features}
For the past decade, feature encoding via deep neural networks has almost replaced traditional feature engineering in image processing \cite{ref16} \cite{ref19} \cite{ref20}. Various feature aggregation methods working with deep neural networks have also emerged. There are two typical aggregation schemes, i.e. pooling-based and attention-based.
As a straightforward aggregation method, the pooling function is permutation-invariant and requires no (or very few) parameters, thus has been widely used in MIL tasks. Babenko \textit{et al.} showed that a simple sum-pooling method working on deep convolutional features is superior to traditional aggregation methods working on shallow features \cite{ref28}; Su \textit{et al.} proposed the multi-view CNN (MVCNN) model, which adopts max pooling to combine information of photos captured from multiple orientations for 3D recognition \cite{ref23}; Wang \textit{et al.} introduced three popular pooling functions in their proposed mi-net, i.e. max pooling, mean pooling, and log-sum-exp (LSE) pooling (a smooth version and convex approximation of the max pooling) \cite{wang2018revisiting}; and Kraus \textit{et al.} proposed the Noisy-AND pooling function to handle outliers \cite{10.1093/bioinformatics/btw252} .
A major flaw of pooling is its incapability to focus on important instances, while the attention mechanism is a good choice, as it can assign scores/weights to instances. Till now, various attention-based feature aggregation methods have been developed. Yang \emph{et al}. proposed a neural aggregation network for video face recognition, NAN\cite{ref24}, which aggregates multiple features by an attention module. Ilse \textit{et al.} proposed a general attention-based deep MIL framework, which introduced both attention and gated-attention functions \cite{ilse2018attention}. Due to their good interpretability, attention-based methods have gained more popularity in biomedical image processing, \textit{e.g.} Yao \textit{et al.} used the attention-based MIL pooling for whole slide image analysis. In addition, the attention-based MIL can be implemented in various types of neural networks. For instance, Annofly uses long short-term memory model as the backbone network \cite{annofly}, while Set Transformer \cite{pmlr-v97-lee19d} and ImPLoc \cite{long2020imploc} are based on Transformer models. Besides these two mechanisms, there are some other deep MIL models with special designs, like DeepMIML \cite{feng2017deep} utilizing a pluggable sub-concept layer to learn the latent relationship between input patterns and output semantic labels. And Tu \textit{et al.} proposed a graph neural network-based model, which regards each instance as a node in the graph. Learning the graph embedding is essentially an information aggregation process \cite{tu2019multiple}.
The proposed HAMIL model has a different aggregation mechanism compared with the existing methods.
It has trainable and non-linear convolution aggregation units, and designs a hierarchical clustering protocol for permutation-invariance. Different from the hierarchical graph clustering in GNN-based model \cite{tu2019multiple}, both the numbers of clusters and aggregation times are automatically determined by the size of input bag rather than fixed hyperparameters.
\vspace{-1mm}
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Problem description}
In this study, we discuss a more complex MIL problem, namely multi-instance multi-label learning. Formally, let $\mathcal{X}$ denote the sample set, i.e. $\mathcal{X}=\{X_i\}$, where $i \in \{1,2,...,n\}$, $n$ is the number of samples, and $X_i$ is a sample; $X_i=\{x_{i,1}, x_{i,2}, \ldots, x_{i,m}\}$, where $m$ is the number of instances of the $i$th sample, $x_{i,j}$ ($j \in \{1, 2, ..., m\}$) denotes an instance of $X_i$. Let $\mathcal{Y}=\{Y_i\}$ be the output space, and $Y_i=\{y_1,y_2, \ldots, y_k\}$ corresponds to the label set of $X_i$. The goal is to learn a mapping function $f:\mathcal{X}\mapsto \mathcal{Y}$. Especially, as we focus on the image processing tasks, here each instance is an image and each sample is represented by a bag of images.
\subsection{Model architecture}
To process input bags of any size and varying sizes, HAMIL sets no limit on the number of instances for a bag and implements a hierarchical aggregation protocol.
The model architecture is shown in Figure \ref{fig:framework}. There are three main components, namely feature extraction, feature aggregation, and classification. The first component consists of several convolutional layers serving as the feature extractor. The CNN layers are followed by a hierarchical aggregation procedure to produce a unified representation for the input set of instances, which is further fed to the fully connected layer for classification.
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{ \textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{ \textbf{Output:}}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Construction of the hierarchy of instances} \label{algo1}
\label{alg:Framwork}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE
A bag of images, $X$. \\
$X=\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{m}\}$, where $m$ is the number of instances of $X$.
\ENSURE
A queue recording the aggregation history.
\STATE Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a set of clusters.
\STATE $\mathcal{S}=\{\{x_1\}, \{x_2\}, \cdots, \{x_m\}\}$.
\STATE $I_{\{x_i\}} = i$, $maxI$ = $m$, where $I$ denotes the index of clusters and $maxI$ is the maximum index of clusters in $\mathcal{S}$.
\STATE Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a queue of triplets as defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:triplet}). Initialize $\mathcal{T}$ to an empty queue.
\WHILE{$|S|>1$
\STATE $n=|S|$
\STATE Let $minL$ be the minimal pairwise distance between clusters. $minL = +\infty$
\STATE Let ${C1}, {C2}$ be the two clusters to be merged.
\FOR{$i=1$ to $n-1$}
\FOR{$j=i+1$ to $n$}
\STATE $L_{i,j} = dis(S_i,S_j)$,where $dis$ is a distance function and $S_i$ is the $i$ th element in $\mathcal{S}$ by the ascending order of indexes.\label{line}
\IF{$L_{i,j} < minL$}
\STATE $minL = L_{i,j}$.
\STATE ${C1}$ = $S_i$, ${C2}$ = $S_j$.
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE $C$ = ${C1} \cup {C2}$
\STATE $S = (S\cup C)\setminus {C1}\setminus {C2} $.
\STATE $maxI = maxI+1$, $I_{C} = maxI$.
\STATE Define a triplet $t = <I_{{C1}}, I_{{C2}}, I_{{C}}>$.
\STATE Push $t$ into $\mathcal{T}$. %
\ENDWHILE
\STATE Return $\mathcal{T}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Specifically, by regarding the input bag as a set of images, HAMIL constructs a hierarchy of images/instances within each bag, thus determines an aggregation order according to the tree structure, i.e. from the leaf node to the root node of the hierarchical tree. The construction of instance hierarchy is described in Algorithm \ref{algo1}. In Line \ref{line}, the distance between two clusters is defined as the minimum distance of all cross-cluster instance pairs, i.e. the single-link method. And the distance between instances is Euclidean distance computed based on features yielded by the convolutional layers in the first component of HAMIL.
The hierarchy of instances is a binary tree in nature. During the construction of the hierarchy, we record the merging history of clusters. Assume that there are a total of $K$ merging steps (note that $K$ is not a hyperparameter but the height of the binary tree determined by the number of instances), then we will keep a queue $\mathcal{T}$ of length $K$. Each element in the array is a triplet denoted by $t_k$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
t_k = <I_{{C1}}, I_{{C2}}, I_{{C}}>,\\
k \in \{1, \cdots, K\}
\label{eq:triplet}
\end{equation}
$t_k$ consists of three indexes of clusters in $S$. The first two are the indexes of the two clusters being merged in the $k$-th step, and the last one is the index of the newly generated cluster.
Then, the aggregation order is determined by the records in $\mathcal{T}$, and the specific aggregation operations are defined by kernel functions as described in the next Section
\subsection{Feature aggregation unit}\label{sec:fa}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{aggregationUnit_v5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of feature aggregation in HAMIL.
}
\label{fig:units}
\end{figure}
As the convolution operation can be regarded as a weighted average of inputs, we design the aggregation units via convolution. In detail, given two input feature maps of size $H\times W\times C$, which can be considered as $C$ pairs of $H\times W$ matrices along the channels, i.e. for each channel there is a pair of matrices. We first input each pair into the feature aggregation unit to obtain the aggregated output of size $H\times W$. Then, the $C$ outputs are concatenated into the final output of size $H \times W \times C$. Figure \ref{fig:units} shows an illustration of the aggregation units.
Formally, let $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ be the feature maps to be aggregated. The aggregation is defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:agg}),
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\textbf{X}=[x_{1}, x_{2}],\\
&O= \textbf{W}*\textbf{X}+b,
\end{split}
\label{eq:agg}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{X}$ is a tensor composed by the feature maps, $*$ is the convolution operator, $\textbf{W}$ is the convolutional filter, $b$ is the bias, and $O$ is the aggregated feature map. This is a one-layer aggregation unit, We call it L1Agg.
To meet the needs of more complex tasks, the aggregation units can be extended to deeper versions with multiple layers. Eqs. (\ref{eq:l2}) and (\ref{eq:l3}) formulate the two-layer and three-layer aggregation units which nest the basic aggregation operation twice and three times, respectively.
\begin{equation}
O= \textbf{W}'*f(g(\textbf{W}*\textbf{X}+b))+b',
\label{eq:l2}
\end{equation}
where $g(\cdot)$ is a normalization function, $f(\cdot)$ denotes the ReLU function.
\begin{equation}
O= \textbf{W}''*f(g(\textbf{W}'*f(g(\textbf{W}*\textbf{X}+b))+b'))+b'',
\label{eq:l3}
\end{equation}
No matter how many layers are there, the aggregation units are shared by all aggregation operations. Thus, the aggregation module introduces only a slight increase in the number of parameters compared to the backbone CNN model.
\section{Experiments}
We assess the model performance on two large-scale image classification tasks, involving two typical kinds of bio-images, i.e. microscopic cell images and gene expression images. The two tasks are described below.
\vspace{1mm}
\newline
\textbf{Task I: Prediction of protein subcellular location using immunofluorescence (IF) images. }Each protein corresponds to a bag of microscopy images captured from multiple tissues. The labels, i.e. cellular locations, are predicted based on all localization patterns implied in these images. A protein may exist in multiple locations.
\vspace{1mm}
\newline
\textbf{Task II: Gene function annotation using gene expression images}. The \textit{in situ} hybridization (ISH) imaging technology visualizes spatial distribution patterns of gene expression in tissues and help to reveal gene functions. Each gene corresponds to a bag of expression images captured in different angles or experimental trials. The labels are functional annotation terms. A gene may have more than one annotation terms.
Apparently, both of these two tasks are multi-instance multi-label classification. We compare HAMIL with both single-instance learning models and the existing feature aggregation models as listed in the following.
To assess the performance of HAMIL, we compare it with 7 baseline models, including:
\begin{itemize}
\item A single-instance learning model (SI)\footnote{It has the same backbone network as HAMIL but its inputs are single images, which have the same labels as the bags they belong to. The prediction results of single images are combined per bag to yield the bag labels.};
\item Three pooling-based methods, MI with mean pooling, MVCNN \cite{ref23} with max pooling, and SPoC \cite{ref28} with sum pooling;
\item Two attention-based methods, NAN \cite{ref24} and Attention \cite{ilse2018attention};
\item A specially designed deep MIL model, DeepMIML \cite{feng2017deep}.
\end{itemize}
All the baseline models have the same backbone network (ResNet18) for extracting features from raw images. The prediction performance is evaluated by three metrics, AUC (the Area Under ROC Curve)\footnote{The averaged AUC value over labels, i.e. macro AUC}, macro F$_1$, and micro F$_1$.
\subsection{Task 1- Protein microscopy images}
\subsubsection{Data source} The data set was collected from the cell atlas of the human protein atlas (HPA) database \cite{uhlen2010towards}. We download 1600 bags of IF images, each of which corresponds to a protein. The location annotations of proteins are hand-crafted in the database. The total number of images is 19,777. The sizes of raw images include $800\times 800$, $1728\times 1728$, and $2048\times 2048$. Obviously, the large size of images and small numbers of bags bring great computation difficulties. Considering that there are usually multiple cells within an image, the selective search algorithm \cite{uijlings2013selective} is adopted to pick the cellular patches from raw images as shown in Figure \ref{fig:hpa}. We scale the selected patches into a fixed size $512\times 512$. Proteins with too many patches are split into multiple bags. The top-10 frequent classes are selected for our experiment. The training and test sets are partitioned at the protein level. Details about the data set can be found in suppl. Table \ref{tab:S1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{hpa.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Extracted patches from HPA raw images. The top left figure is a raw image, the top right figure shows the results of selective search, and the bottom figures are the cropped and scaled patches. }
\label{fig:hpa}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Experiment details}Adam optimizer \cite{ref25} is adopted to optimize the network. The learning rate is set to 0.0001, and the parameters $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ of the Adam optimizer are set to 0.9 and the default value, respectively. The batch size is 8 and the loss function is standard BCE loss. We select the L1Agg function as our aggregation function, and the kernel size is set to 7, in addition, we use the BN layer after the convolution operation to normalize the feature map. The selected feature extraction network is ResNet18 \cite{he2016deep}, and the final output layer consists of 10 nodes (to predict 10 major cellular organelles).
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Results}The prediction accuracy of HAMIL and 7 baseline models on Task I is shown in Table \ref{tab:base}.
\begin{table}
\small
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison on Task 1$^*$}\label{tab:base}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Method} &AUC &\small{MacroF$_1$} &\small{MicroF$_1$}\\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{SI} & 0.938 & 0.572 & 0.734 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\small{Pool}}&MI & 0.927 & 0.577 & 0.745 \\
& MVCNN\cite{ref23} &0.938 & 0.675 & 0.763 \\
& SPoC\cite{ref28} & 0.941 & 0.714 & 0.770 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\small{Attn}}&NAN\cite{ref24} & 0.928 & 0.705 & \textbf{0.784} \\
&\footnotesize{Attention}\cite{ilse2018attention}& 0.910 &0.559 &0.729\\
&\footnotesize{Gated-Attention}\cite{ilse2018attention}& 0.900 & 0.522 &0.724\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DeepMIML\cite{feng2017deep}}&0.915 &0.662& 0.746\\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HAMIL (ours)} & \textbf{0.944}& \textbf{0.733} & \textbf{0.784}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^*$`Pool' denotes pooling-based aggregation and `Attn' denotes attention-based aggregation. Gated-Attention used gated-attention mechanism for aggregation. The result of DeepMIML is obtained by resizing the images to 224$\times$224, which leads to much higher accuracy than using the original size. All methods use ResNet18 as feature extractor.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
As can be seen, HAMIL achieves the best performance. SI treats the task as single-instance learning, which assumes that every single instance has the same label set as the whole bag, thus would introduce a lot of noisy samples.
The three pooling methods, MI, MVCNN and SPoC, adopt mean, max, and sum pooling, respectively. SPoC achieves the best performance, perhaps due to the `centering prior' incorporated in the sum pooling, which assigns larger weights to center area of feature maps. As preprocessed by selective search (Fig. \ref{fig:hpa}), the central regions of most images contain more cell information.
As for the attention-based methods, NAN performs much better than `attention' and `gated-attention'. Despite different model settings and equations for computing attention scores, the major difference is that we apply NAN on feature maps while the latter two methods on feature vectors. Following the implementation in \cite{ilse2018attention}, the feature maps yielded by CNN layers are turned into lower-dimensional feature vectors via fully connected layers, thus the attention and gated-attention mechanisms work on feature vectors. This FC transformation may result in information loss.
DeepMIML does not obtain a comparable result to HAMIL, perhaps because it was designed to identify multiple concepts in single-image input, which is another kind of MIL problem different from ours.
\subsection{Task 2 - Gene expression images}
\subsubsection{Data source} The data set consists of standard gene expression images of \emph{Drosophila} embryos from the FlyExpress database~\cite{kumar2011flyexpress}. All the images were extracted from the Berkeley \textit{Drosophila} Genome Project (BDGP) (\url{www.fruitfly.org})~\cite{tomancak2002systematic,tomancak2007global} and preprocessed to a uniform size $180\times 320$. The data set is in bag-level. Each bag of images presents the expression distribution on the \emph{Drosophila} embryo for a single gene, in which the images were captured from different orientations, i.e. dorsal, lateral and ventral. We use the same dataset as FlyIT \cite{ref27}, where the dataset is divided (at bag-level) into training, validation, and test sets according to the ratio of 4:1:5 (suppl. Table \ref{tab:S1} shows data statistics). The total number of labels is 10, each of which is an ontology term describing anatomical and developmental properties. This task is also a multi-label classification problem, as each gene may have multiple developmental terms. Figure \ref{fig:fly} shows some example images.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{flyexpress_v2.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Examples of the gene annotation data of \emph{Drosophila} embryos. The first row shows gene names, the second row shows gene expression images for each gene, and the last row shows the corresponding CV terms of the gene, i.e. labels.}
\label{fig:fly}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Experiment details}The experimental settings in Task 2 are almost the same as in Task 1, except that the batch size is set to 32, because the gene expression images are smaller than protein microscopy images, so we can add more train samples during one train process. Here we compare HAMIL with additional four state-of-the-art MIL methods proposed for the \textit{Drosophila} embryo image analysis \cite{li2012drosophila,annofly,ref27}.
E-MIMLSVM is an MIML algorithm that adapts the kernel function of support vector machines to the MIML scenario~\cite{li2012drosophila}.
FlyIT\cite{ref27} adopts image stitching to combine raw images. AnnoFly \cite{annofly} first extracts features via ResNet, then employs RNN to deal with the multi-instance input.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Results}The experimental results are shown in Table \ref{tab:task2}. In this task, the image quality is much higher than that of Task I and the number of instances per bag is fewer. That could explain why pooling-based methods achieve better results on this Task.
By contrast, Task I has much more instances per bag and highly varying image quality (see examples in Fig. \ref{fig:vis2}), the attention mechanism which identifies high-quality instances can help make better decision based on the important instances.
Interestingly, the pooling and attention-based methods have comparable and even better performance than the previously proposed MIL methods for this task. E-MIMLSVM is a shallow learning model. Annofly uses the pre-trained (on Imagenet) CNN to extract feature embeddings and then feeds them into an LSTM model. FlyIt conducts aggregation at the raw-image level. Neither of them fully exploit the feature learning ability of deep CNNs during the aggregation process.
In summary, the advantages of HAMIL over these state-of-the-art methods can be attributed to the end-to-end training of ResNet18 for feature extraction and the hierarchical aggregation operations on the feature maps.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison on Task 2$^*$}\label{tab:task2}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Method} &AUC &\small{MacroF$_1$} &\small{MicroF$_1$}\\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{SI} & 0.936 & 0.691 & 0.685 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\small{Pool}}&MI & 0.938 & 0.688 & 0.706 \\
& MVCNN\cite{ref23} &0.942 & 0.741 & 0.743 \\
&SPoC\cite{ref28} & 0.944 & 0.729 & 0.737 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\small{Attn}}&NAN\cite{ref24} & 0.927 & 0.726 & 0.734 \\
&\footnotesize{Attention}\cite{ilse2018attention}& 0.935 &0.692 &0.707\\
&\footnotesize{Gated-Attention}\cite{ilse2018attention}& 0.935 & 0.701 &0.701\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DeepMIML\cite{feng2017deep}}&0.922& 0.681& 0.700\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{E-MIMLSVM\cite{li2012drosophila}} & 0.846 & 0.598 & 0.640 \\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{AnnoFly\cite{annofly}}&0.937&0.702&0.713\\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{FlyIT\cite{ref27}} & 0.936& 0.718 & 0.711 \\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HAMIL (ours)} & \textbf{0.944} & \textbf{0.755} & \textbf{0.746} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^*$The results of E-MIMLSVM$^+$, AnnoFly, and FlyIT are from \cite{ref27}.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Visualization analysis} We visualize the features representations with and without aggregation by projecting them onto a 2D space via tSNE algorithm \cite{tsne}. Figure \ref{fig:fig} (a) shows the 2D distribution of features learned by ResNet without aggregation, and Figure \ref{fig:fig} (b) shows the 2D distribution of aggregated features. Different colors denote different classes. The features of different categories before aggregation have a small margin and large overlap, which brings great difficulties to subsequent classifiers. After aggregation, samples of different categories are much more separated, with small overlap, which is beneficial for subsequent classification.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[Raw image features]{\includegraphics[height=4cm,width=4cm]{raw.pdf}}
\subfigure[Aggregated features]{\includegraphics[height=4cm,width=4cm]{agg.pdf}}
\caption{ Visualization of feature representations before and after aggregation. }
\label{fig:fig}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Study and Analysis}
\subsubsection{Ablation of the hierarchical aggregation}
In order to verify the contribution of hierarchical design to the performance of HAMIL, we remove the hierarchical clustering in HAMIL and aggregate the instances in random order using the same convolutional aggregation functions, which is denoted by RAMIL. As RAMIL is not permutation-invariant, during its training process, we randomly shuffle the order of instances within bags in each epoch. The comparison results of HAMIL and RAMIL are shown in Table \ref{tab:ablation1}. HAMIL outperforms RAMIL on all the three metrics, suggesting that the hierarchical aggregation scheme is able to improve the performance of the model.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison on Task 2$^*$}\label{tab:ablation1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
Task&Method & AUC& MacroF$_1$& MicroF$_1$\\
\hline\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Task I}& RAMIL&0.935 &0.720& 0.778\\
&HAMIL-A & 0.939 & 0.695 & 0.773 \\
&HAMIL&\textbf{0.944}&\textbf{0.733}&\textbf{0.784}\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Task II}&RAMIL& 0.935 & 0.735 & 0.730 \\
&HAMIL-A & 0.932 & 0.736 & 0.732 \\
&HAMIL & \textbf{0.944} &\textbf{0.755} & \textbf{0.746} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^*$RAMIL and HAMIL are two variants of HAMIL. RAMIL performs aggregation on random-ordered instances but with the same aggregation units as HAMIL; HAMIL-A adopts the same hierarchical aggregation protocol but replaces the convolutional aggregation units with mean pooling.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
In addition, to get more insight on the aggregation operation, we compute the cosine similarity between aggregated features and the features of input images, and take the similarity value as the score of the input images, which can be regarded as a kind of preference that model assigns to the instances. Figure \ref{fig:vis2} visualizes the images with different scores. Each row shows images from the same bag, the two numbers below each image represent the weights assigned to the image by HAMIL and RAMIL, respectively. As can be seen, the images with high scores contain relatively obvious local patterns corresponding to the target labels, suggesting that the feature aggregation retains more information from the high-quality images, i.e. the features aggregated by HAMIL will automatically focus on important features.
By contrast, it can be found that RAMIL pays nearly equal attention to different quality images, as the scores differ slightly. This is because RAMIL aggregates each input in a random order, i.e., each time it randomly selects two feature embeddings to aggregate, thus there is no mechanism for attention allocation. As a result, when the quality of images varies a lot, the performance of RAMIL cannot be guaranteed.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{visiualiza_7.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{
Visualization of scores for image instances. The three rows denote three bags of images, and the numeric values are the scores assigned by HAMIL and RAMIL to the corresponding images.
}
\label{fig:vis2}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Ablation of the convolutional aggregation units}\label{sec:abl2}
To verify the effectiveness of convolutional aggregation units in our design, we use a simple average operation to replace the non-linear convolutional aggregation unit. HAMIL-A is used to denote this alteration of aggregation unit. In Table \ref{tab:ablation1} we compare it with HAMIL in Task I and II. Because convolutional aggregation unit is a trainable module, its performance is better than simple average operation. Suppl. Table \ref{tab:ablation2} also shows the results on localized content-based image retrieval.
\section{Comparison on aggregation mechanisms}
HAMIL is a new aggregation framework designed for addressing MIL in image processing.
It allows variable sizes of input bags without a restriction on the bag size, and it has a light-weight architecture with simple aggregation operations. The hierarchical aggregation protocol makes the model invariant to the order of instances in bags.
Actually, many aggregation methods also have these advantages, like pooling and attention-based \cite{wang2018revisiting,ilse2018attention}.
A comparative analysis of these three mechanisms is listed below.
i) Traditional pooling-based methods (max, sum or mean) are non-trainable, thus have limited learning ability; while both attention-based aggregation function and HAMIL are trainable.
ii) The existing attention-based aggregation methods assign weight scores to instances, i.e. they treat an image/instance as a whole, no matter how the pairwise instance similarity is computed (based on feature maps or feature embedding vectors). By contrast, both pooling-based and HAMIL can operate on local regions of multiple instances.
Although attention methods have good interpretability (the weights directly reflect the importance of instances), the weighted-sum aggregation function is incompetent to express complex aggregation mechanisms.
iii) According to the experimental results, the pooling-based methods are very efficient and effective on data sets with high quality, and attention-based methods have more advantages in handling data with much noise or varying quality; while HAMIL is applicable to both cases, due to the powerful learning ability of its aggregation units.
Although HAMIL is designed for handling raw image data, we perform an additional experiment to investigate its performance on traditional MIL data sets (as shown in suppl. Table \ref{tab:mil-datasets}). As the input features are provided (preprocessed via feature engineering), we remove the first component of HAMIL, i.e. the CNN layers for learning image features. Following the practice in \cite{ilse2018attention}, We run the experiments using 10-fold cross-validations for 5 times (each time the data set is randomly partitioned into 10 folds). Experimental details can be found in suppl. Section \ref{section:details-mil}.
Suppl. Table \ref{tab:ablation2} shows the results on three localized content-based image retrieval tasks, and suppl. Table \ref{tab:ablation-drug} shows the results for two drug activity data sets. Considering that the input consists of statistical features of images, we not only replace the original 2D conv to 1D conv but also add HAMIL-A (as mentioned in Section \ref{sec:abl2}) into comparison. As can be seen, HAMIL achieves a little advantage on Fox and Elephant data sets while no advantage on others. Besides, HAMIL-A and HAMIL have very close performance.
From these experimental results, it can be seen that as the aggregation units of HAMIL are convolution-based and they directly function on feature maps, HAMIL is more suitable for processing raw image data. Nevertheless, the proposed HAMIL model could be an alternative feature aggregation protocol applied to the data sets with traditional features, which obtains comparable results with the existing aggregation methods. The contributions of HAMIL can be summarized as follows.
i) The convolution-based aggregation function of HAMIL is able to capture local neighborhood information in images during the aggregation process and learn complex non-linear aggregation patterns.
ii) The hierarchical design makes the model insensitive to the order of instances and improves model accuracy.
iii) The end-to-end architecture further improves the feature learning, as the hierarchical clustering can be dynamically adjusted to yield better clustering of instances based on the updated feature representations.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a hierarchical aggregation network for multi-instance learning in image classification. Different from the mainstream pooling and attention-based methods, the proposed HAMIL utilizes convolution operations for aggregation on feature maps and a hierarchical architecture to ensure permutation-invariance. HAMIL achieves better performance than the existing aggregation methods on two microscopy image classification tasks. Moreover, as a general feature aggregation network, HAMIL can be easily applied to other MIL image processing tasks.
\appendices
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\setcounter{section}{0}
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\theequation}{S\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{S\arabic{figure}}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{S\arabic{table}}
\renewcommand\thesection{\Alph{section}}
\section{Details for Tasks I and II}\label{section:details-hpa-fly}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{S\arabic{table}}
\begin{table}[H]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Data Overview of Tasks I and II}\label{tab:S1}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Dataset}& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Protein microscopy image}& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Gene expression image}\\
\cline{2-7}
&Train&Val&Test&Train&Val&Test\\
\hline\hline
Bag \#&5496&1320&6901&2714&678&3393\\
Instance \#&69943&16687&86964&10237&2426&12872\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-2mm}
The datasets can be accessed at \url{https://bioimagestore.blob.core.windows.net/dataset?restype=container&comp=list}
\section{Details for classical MIL data sets}\label{section:details-mil}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Overview of five classical MIL data sets}\label{tab:mil-datasets}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
Dataset &\# of bags &\# of instances &\# of featrues \\
\hline\hline
Musk1 & 92 & 476 & 166 \\
Musk2 & 102 & 6598 & 166 \\
Tiger & 200 & 1220 & 230 \\
Fox & 200 & 1302 & 230 \\
Elephant & 200 & 1391 & 230 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Model architecture of HAMIL and HAMIL-A working on the five traditional data sets$^*$}\label{tab:model-arch}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
Layer & Type \\
\hline\hline
1 & fc-256+ReLU \\
2 & dropout \\
3 & fc-128+ReLU \\
4 & dropout \\
5 & fc-64+ReLU \\
6 & dropout \\
7 & hierarchical clustering \\
8 & conv/average aggregation \\
9 & fc-1+sigm \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^*$To compare with previous studies, Layers 1-6 and 9 have exactly the same settings as Ilse et al's attention-based method \cite{ilse2018attention}.\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison of classification accuracy (mean$\pm$std) on localized content-based image retrieval$^1$}\label{tab:ablation2}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Method & Fox & Tiger & Elephant\\
\hline\hline
mi-SVM\cite{2002mi-svm} & 0.582 & 0.784 & 0.822 \\
MI-SVM\cite{2002mi-svm} & 0.578 & 0.840 & 0.843 \\
MI-Kernel\cite{2002mi-kernel} & 0.603 & 0.842 & 0.843 \\
EM-DD\cite{2001em-dd} & 0.609$\pm$0.101 & 0.730$\pm$0.096 & 0.771$\pm$0.097\\
mi-Graph\cite{zhou2009multiinstance} & 0.620$\pm$0.098 & \textbf{0.860$\pm$0.083} & 0.869$\pm$0.078\\
miVLAD\cite{2017Scalable} & 0.620$\pm$0.098 & 0.811$\pm$0.087 & 0.850$\pm$0.080\\
miFV\cite{2017Scalable} & 0.621$\pm$0.109 & 0.813$\pm$0.083 & 0.852$\pm$0.081\\
\hline\hline
mi-Net\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.613$\pm$0.078 & 0.824$\pm$0.076 & 0.858$\pm$0.083\\
MI-Net\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.622$\pm$0.084 & 0.830 $\pm$0.072 & 0.862$\pm$0.077\\
MI-Net with DS\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.630$\pm$0.080 & 0.845 $\pm$0.087 & 0.872$\pm$0.072\\
MI-Net with RC\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.619$\pm$0.104 & 0.836 $\pm$0.083 & 0.857$\pm$0.089\\
\hline\hline
Attention\cite{ilse2018attention} & 0.615$\pm$0.043 & 0.839 $\pm$0.022 & 0.868$\pm$0.022\\
Gated-Attention\cite{ilse2018attention} & 0.603$\pm$0.029 & 0.845 $\pm$0.018 & 0.857$\pm$0.027\\
\hline\hline
HAMIL-A$^2$ & 0.631$\pm$0.117 & 0.806 $\pm$0.095 & \textbf{0.878$\pm$0.091}\\
HAMIL$^3$ & \textbf{0.647$\pm$0.105} & 0.815 $\pm$0.091 & 0.865$\pm$0.079\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^1$Results of the first 11 methods are from \cite{wang2018revisiting}; and results of the Attention and Gate-Attention methods are from \cite{ilse2018attention}.\\
$^2$ Replace the conv-based aggregation of HAMIL with mean pooling.\\
$^3$ Change the aggregation units of HAMIL from 2D conv to 1D conv.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison of classification accuracy (mean$\pm$std) on drug activity prediction$^*$}\label{tab:ablation-drug}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
Method & MUSK1 & MUSK2 \\
\hline\hline
mi-SVM\cite{2002mi-svm} & 0.874 & 0.836 \\
MI-SVM\cite{2002mi-svm} & 0.779 & 0.843 \\
MI-Kernel\cite{2002mi-kernel} & 0.880 & 0.893 \\
EM-DD\cite{2001em-dd} & 0.849$\pm$0.098 & 0.869$\pm$0.108 \\
mi-Graph\cite{zhou2009multiinstance} & 0.889$\pm$0.073 & \textbf{0.903$\pm$0.086}\\
miVLAD\cite{2017Scalable} & 0.871$\pm$0.098 & 0.872$\pm$0.095\\
miFV\cite{2017Scalable} & \textbf{0.909$\pm$0.089} & 0.884$\pm$0.094\\
\hline\hline
mi-Net\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.889$\pm$0.088 & 0.858$\pm$0.110\\
MI-Net\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.887$\pm$0.091 & 0.859$\pm$0.102\\
MI-Net with DS\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.894$\pm$0.093 & 0.874$\pm$0.097\\
MI-Net with RC\cite{wang2018revisiting} & 0.898$\pm$0.097 & 0.873$\pm$0.098\\
\hline\hline
Attention\cite{ilse2018attention} & 0.892$\pm$0.040 & 0.858$\pm$0.048\\
Gated-Attention\cite{ilse2018attention} & 0.900$\pm$0.050 & 0.863$\pm$0.042\\
\hline\hline
HAMIL-A & 0.892$\pm$0.120 & 0.857$\pm$0.102\\
HAMIL & 0.866$\pm$0.121 & 0.820$\pm$0.107 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{flushleft}\scriptsize
$^*$Results of the first 11 methods are from Wang et al.(2018) \cite{wang2018revisiting}; and results of the Attention and Gate-Attention methods are from Ilse et al. (2018) \cite{ilse2018attention}.\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
The experimental settings are almost the same for the five data sets. We use the SGD optimizer, the momentum is 0.9, and the weight decay is 0.005. We set the learning rate to 0.0001. Our models are trained for 100 epochs on Fox, MUSK1, and MUSK2. As for Elephant and Tiger, the number of training epochs is 50, due to their faster convergence.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been developed rapidly for modeling graph-structured data and achieved remarkable progress in graph representation learning as well as
downstream learning tasks, such as bioinformatics and social networks analysis~\cite{kipf2016semi,hamilton2017inductive,xu2018powerful,velivckovic2018graph}.
While many GNNs learn graph representation at a fixed scale, the multiscale graph learning has also attracted a surge of interests~\cite{chen2017harp,liang2018mile,deng2019graphzoom,gao2019graph,lee2019self,li2020graph}, for its capability of capturing both fine and coarse graph structures and features (representing local and global information, respectively).
Several advanced feature extraction frameworks have been proposed for multiscale graph learning.
Some attempts adopt the encoder-decoder pipeline to embed the input-graph and perform feature updating in the latent coarsest graph~\cite{chen2017harp,liang2018mile,deng2019graphzoom}. Other works utilize the pyramid architecture to extract multiscale graph features, and perform feature aggregation via skip-connection~\cite{gao2019graph,lee2019self}, or cross-layer summation fusion~\cite{li2020graph}.
\input{Figure/heatmap}
Orthogonal to various multiscale feature learning techniques, one straightforward and promising strategy for adequately leveraging the extracted graph embeddings is to construct ensembles of multiple individual classifiers in a stacking style,
where each classifier receives a graph embedding at a fixed granularity, and predicted logits of all classifiers are then averaged to produce the final prediction.
As a generic method, such ensemble models are expected to obtain more reliable predictions.
Meanwhile, the success of ensemble learning crucially depends on two properties of each individual classifier: high accuracy and high diversity~\cite{dietterich2000ensemble,ren2016ensemble}.
The first property is readily satisfied due to the high expressive power of deep neural networks~\cite{csaji2001approximation},
however, the second one may not hold in the scenario of multiscale graph learning.
\input{Table/tab-CorrectionHelpEnsemble}
As indicated in recent researches~\cite{mesquita2020rethinking,bianchi2020spectral}, the indispensable graph pooling operation for establishing multiscale graph learning may have led to the high homogeneity of the node embeddings.
Mesquita et al.~\cite{mesquita2020rethinking} observe that graph pooling via the learnable cluster assignment procedure~\cite{ying2018hierarchical, khasahmadi2020memory, bianchi2020spectral} exacerbate the homogeneity of node embeddings, and thus a comparable performance could be obtained by just replacing the complicated assignment matrix with some random matrix.
Bianchi et al.~\cite{bianchi2020spectral} notice a similar issue in graph pooling methods based on the Top-$\textit{K}$ vertex selection mechanism~\cite{gao2019graph,lee2019self}. That is, these pooling layers would tend to select nodes that are highly-connected and share similar features.
Due to the homogeneity of the node embeddings, the generated graph embeddings at various granularity tend to become homogeneous as well.
Under this circumstance,
these homogeneous graph embeddings lead to limited diversity among learned classifiers.
Since diversity is crucial for the success of ensemble methods,
it is probable that the ensemble strategy will fail in boosting the performance of multiscale GNNs equipped with these pooling modules, or even become detrimental to them.
This is verified by the experiments results given in Table \ref{tab:fail-ensemble}.
A common solution to improve the ensemble diversity is to build multiple classifiers that get trained with different sampled data in an independent manner.
Nevertheless, it requires much more expensive computational cost
and
ignores the interaction among individual classifiers, which might also lead to shared feature representations among these members and would not be helpful to improve the performance~\cite{krogh1994neural}.
To address the issues discussed above, we design a diversified multiscale graph learning model that includes two main technical contributions:
1) a graph self-correction mechanism to
generate informative pooled graphs, which also hampers the homogeneity of node embeddings and thus promotes the ensemble diversity at the $\textit{node-level embeddings}$, and
2) a diversity boosting regularizer to
directly model and optimize the ensemble diversity at the $\emph{graph-level embeddings}$.
\noindent\textbf{The graph self-correction mechanism.}
It is intuitive to attribute the homogenization of node embeddings
to the information loss caused by graph pooling operations.
Existing pooling methods mainly focus on how to construct the structure of the coarsened graph~\cite{ying2018hierarchical, khasahmadi2020memory, bianchi2020spectral,gao2019graph,lee2019self,huang2019attpool,lihierarchical2019}, either through a cluster assignment procedure or a Top-$\textit{K}$ vertex selection mechanism.
However, few works have studied how to generate high-quality coarsened graphs with adequate semantic information.
We aim in this target by introducing
Graph Self-Correcting (GSC) mechanism to compensate for the information loss during the graph pooling process.
As we will show, GSC works by moving the emphasis of the graph pooling problem from direct learning an embedded pooled graph to a two-stage target: first, searching the optimal pooled graph structure, and second, self-correcting the semantic embeddings of it.
Notably, GSC not only enhances the embedding quality of the pooled graph by serving as a plug-and-play method, but also relieves the homogeneity of node features (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:visual-heatmap}), which further contributes to the success of the ensemble strategy on the multiscale graph learning model.
\noindent\textbf{The diversity boosting regularizer.}
Another key ingredient of our contributions is to directly emphasize the diversity among the graph embeddings at different granularity.
It's also expected to provide a comprehensive characterization of the input graph from multiple diversified graph embeddings.
Specifically, we leverage the interaction among base learners and model the ensemble diversity on the graph embeddings of each scaled graph.
Under this definition, we propose a diversity boosting regularizer (DBR) to further diversify the multiscale graph learning model.
Note that previous work has devised ensemble diversity on the level of model predictions~\cite{islam2003constructive,pang2019improving,zhang2019nonlinear}, and we also make a discussion with them.
To validate the effectiveness of our methods, we conduct extensive experiments on popular graph classification benchmark datasets to perform a comparative study.
We show that our GSC leads to significant improvements over state-of-the-art graph pooling methods. Meanwhile,
combing both GSC and DBR can consistently boost the ensemble multiscale graph learning model.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\subsection{Graph Pooling Modules}
For extracting multiple graphs at different scales, the graph pooling operation is essential to downsample the input full-graph.
Since the graphs are often irregular data which lies on the non-Euclidean domain, the locality of them is not well-defined.
And hence, mature pooling techniques in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) devised for processing regular data, such as image, can not be naturally extended to GNNs.
In some early attempts, researchers adopt some deterministic and heuristic methods to perform graph pooling. Either applying global pooling over all node embeddings~\cite{henaff2015deep} or coarsening the graph via traditional cluster assignment algorithms~\cite{bruna2013spectral,defferrard2016convolutional} are included in this aspect.
Further works focus on establishing the end-to-end hierarchical learning manner for embedding the graph
The first research line is distributed to turning the problem of graph pooling into vertex clustering through parameterizing the cluster assignment procedure so that the differentiable pooling operator is built.
DiffPool~\cite{ying2018hierarchical} leverages the node features and graph topology to learn the soft assignment matrix for the first time.
MinCUT~\cite{bianchi2020spectral} proposes a relaxed formulation of the spectral clustering and improve the DiffPool to some extent.
GMN~\cite{khasahmadi2020memory} generates the assignment matrix using a sequence of memory layers.
Additionally, HaarPool~\cite{ma2019graph} and EigenPool~\cite{wang2020haar} are spectral-based pooling methods that use the spectral clustering to generate the coarsened graphs, but their time complexity costs are relatively higher.
Another technical line is based on the Top-\textit{K} vertex selection mechanism, which introduces a scorer model to calculate the importance score of each node, and the nodes with \textit{K} highest scores are retained to construct the coarsened graph.
gPool~\cite{gao2019graph} firstly uses the node features to train the scorer model, and SAGPool~\cite{lee2019self} improves upon it by further leveraging the graph topology for scoring nodes.
AttPool~\cite{huang2019attpool} proposes a similar scoring model as SAGPool and a local-attention mechanism to prevent the sampled nodes from stucking in certain region.
ASAP~\cite{ranjan2020asap} proposes to update the nodes in the same cluster via a self-attention mechanism, and then scoring the nodes based on such enhanced node features. It also updates the adjacency matrix following DiffPool to maintain graph connectivity.
The Top-$K$ vertex selection based methods are usually more efficient since it avoids learning the dense assignment matrix.
\subsection{Feedback Networks}
Feedback networks decompose a one-step prediction procedure into multiple steps for establishing a mechanism of perceiving errors and making corrections. It has been used in many visual tasks~\cite{carreira2016human,haris2018deep,li2016iterative,lotter2016deep,shrivastava2016contextual,tu2009auto}.
For the case of human pose estimation~\cite{carreira2016human}, the feedback network iteratively estimates the position deviation and applies it back to the current estimation. DBPN~\cite{haris2018deep} proposes a projection module to involve iterative up- and down-sampling process in the super-resolution network.
To our knowledge, the notion of feedback procedures has not been applied to GNNs, especially the graph pooling operation.
This extension is technically non-trivial. While the offset or distortion produced in the prediction is clear for image signals, the irregular structures of graphs make identifying what is missing or undesirable a challenge.
In this paper, we devise two schemes of graph self-correction and obtain considerable performance improvement, though we do not adopt an iterative process for the consideration of computational cost.
\section{Graph Self-Correction Mechanism}
\label{sec:method-1}
Existing graph pooling methods haven't yet focused on generating high-quality coarsened graphs with rich semantic information,
and the information loss caused by pooling operations may have caused the homogenization of representations.
A core idea of Graph Self-Correction (GSC) mechanism is to reduce such information loss through compensating information generated by the feedback procedures.
It contains three phases: graph pooling, compensated information calculation and information feedback.
\subsection{Phase 1: Graph pooling}
\label{sec:step1}
In the settings of GSC, the initial graph pooling layer concentrates on searching for the optimal structure of the coarsened graphs rather than directly learning both the topological and informative embeddings.
As a preliminary step of the approach, it can be implemented by any kind of existing pooling methods~\cite{ying2018hierarchical,bianchi2020spectral,gao2019graph,lee2019self,huang2019attpool,ranjan2020asap}.
For the compactness of this paper, we only take the Top-$K$ vertex selection based pooling methods as the running example and we discuss the application of GSC on cluster assignment based methods in Appendix.
As a case of Eq.(\ref{eq:hierarchical-pooling}), SAGPool~\cite{lee2019self} adopts a $1$-layer GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} as the node scorer, and uses the Top-$K$ selection strategy to select nodes retained in the coarsened graph,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:scorer}
\mathbf{s}^{\pare{t}} &=\sigma(\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \mathbf{X}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}} \mathbf{W}^{\pare{l_t}}), \\
\label{eq:topk}
\text{Idx}^{\pare{t}} &= \mathrm{Top}\text{-}\mathrm{K}(\mathbf{s}^{\pare{t}}, K),
\end{align}
where the $\mathrm{Top}$-$\mathrm{K}$ function returns the $K$ indices of the selected nodes based on the ranking order of $\mathbf{s}^{\pare{t}}$, which are then used to pool down the input-graph as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:x-pool}
\mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}} &= \mathbf{X}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}_{\text{Idx},:} \odot \mathbf{s}_{\text{Idx}}, \\
\label{eq:a-pool}
\mathbf{A}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}} &= \mathbf{A}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}_{\text{Idx},\text{Idx}},
\end{align}
where $\odot$ is the element-wise product to apply node scores as attention weights for updating the pooled node features.
\subsection{Phase 2: Compensated information calculation}
As noticed in the pooling process given by SAGPool, the subsequent pooled node features discard all information preserved in those unselected nodes, which might hurt the exploitation of rich semantic features in original graphs.
Inspired by the feedback networks~\cite{carreira2016human,haris2018deep,li2016iterative}, GSC introduces a residual estimation procedure to calculate compensated information that empowers the self-correction of the embedded coarsened graph in the feedback stage.
Specifically, we propose two schemes to calculate such
residual
signals: complement graph fusion and coarsened graph back-projection.
\noindent\textbf{Complement graph fusion}
The graph composited by the unselected nodes after the graph pooling layer and their adjacency relations is defined as the complement of the pooled graph\footnote{In graph theory, the standard definition of the complement of a graph G is a graph H on the same vertices such that two distinct vertices of H are adjacent if and only if they are not adjacent in G.} here. Then the indices of nodes in the complement graph formulate:
\begin{equation}
\text{CompIdx}=\{i(v)|v\in\mathcal{V} \; \text{and} \; i(v)\not\in\text{Idx}^{\pare{t}}\},
\end{equation}
where $i(\cdot)$ gives a unique index to a node.
The complement denotes the information that has been lost during the first phase of GSC, and it can be adopted as the residual signal to be fused with the pooled graph.
The approach is to propagate node features from the complement graph to the pooled graph leveraging an $\mathrm{UnPool}$ layer:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unpool-comp}
\mathbf{E}_{\text{Comp}}^{\pare{t}} = \text{UnPool}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{Comp}}^{\pare{t}}, \mathbf{A}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}).
\end{equation}
Here the $\mathrm{UnPool}$ denotes an unpooling process. It receives node features of the complement graph as the input feature and the original graph structure as adjacency relation, and interpolates compensated information to those selected nodes of the pooled graph.
Similar to \cite{gao2019graph}, it can be devised by initializing the input feature matrix $\mathbf{X}_{\text{Comp}}^{\pare{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:feature-comp}
\mathbf{X}_{\text{Comp}}^{\pare{t}}\text{[}i(v),:\text{]} =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{X}_{i(v),:}^{\pare{l_t,P_t}} & i(v)\in\text{CompIdx}\\
\mathbf{0} & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{equation}
here we denote the index selection operator in the brackets of the left-hand side for clarity, and then $\mathrm{UnPool}$ propagate it by the message passing process, which is implemented by a 1-layer graph convolution network (GCN)~\cite{kipf2016semi}.
\input{Figure/framework}
\noindent\textbf{Coarsened graph back-projection}
Another source of the compensated information is inspired by the
classic back-projection algorithm \cite{irani1991improving} used for iteratively refining the restored high-resolution images.
The intuition is that a pooled graph is ideal if it contains adequate information for reconstructing the original graph.
Rather than introducing additional knowledge to model the pattern of lost information, coarsened graph back-projection manages
to restore the original graph using the pooled node features themselves, and then calculates the reconstruction error to serve as the compensated signals.
The restoration process is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unpool-bp}
\mathbf{X}_{\text{Recon}}^{\pare{t}} = \text{UnPool}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{Coarse}}^{\pare{t}}, \mathbf{A}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}),
\end{equation}
where the input feature matrix of $\mathbf{X}_{\text{Coarse}}^{\pare{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ is initialized by the pooled node features $\mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\text{Idx}|\times d}$ with padding zero vectors:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:feature-coarse}
\vspace{-1mm}
\mathbf{X}_{\text{Coarse}}^{\pare{t}}\text{[}i(v),:\text{]} =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{X}_{i(v),:}^{\pare{t+1}} & i(v)\in\text{Idx}\\
\mathbf{0} & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
After that, the residual graph is calculated by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:residual-bp}
\mathbf{E}_{\text{Recon}}^{\pare{t}} = \mathbf{X}^{\pare{l_t, P_t}}-\mathbf{X}_{\text{Recon}}^{\pare{t}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Phase 3: Information feedback}
GSC finally refines the pooled graph $\mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}}$ with the residual embedded graph of $\mathbf{E}^{\pare{l,P_t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$
as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum-fusion}
\Tilde{\mathbf{X}}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}} = \mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}} + \mathbf{E}_{\text{Idx},:}^{\pare{t}},
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{E}_{\text{Idx},:}^{\pare{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\text{Idx}|\times d}$ is tailored from the residual signal, either $\mathbf{E}_{\text{Comp}}^{\pare{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:unpool-comp}), or $\mathbf{E}_{\text{Recon}}^{\pare{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:residual-bp}), using the indices $\text{Idx}^{\pare{t}}$ given by Eq.(\ref{eq:topk}).
The graph self-correction mechanism not only helps the feedback of information vanished in the pooling process, but also reduces the homogeneity among nodes, which indicates that the self-correction learns to preserve the discrepancy of the original graph.
To verify this, we provide additional case studies and a deeper insight of the GSC mechanism in Section \ref{sec:how-geom-help-ensemble} for further discussion.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminary}
Throughout this work, a graph is represented as $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V}, \mathbf{A})$,
where $\mathcal{V}$ is vertex set that has $N$ nodes with $d_0$-dimension features of $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d_0}$,
and $\mathbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ is the adjacency matrix. Note that we omit the edge features in this paper for simplicity.
The node degree matrix is given by $\mathbf{D}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{A} \mathbf{1}_{N})$.
The adjacency matrix with inserted self-loops is $\hat{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbf{A}+\mathbf{I}$, and the corresponding degree matrix is denoted as $\hat{\mathbf{D}}$.
Given a node $v$, its connected-neighbors are denoted as $\mathcal{N}_v$. For a matrix $\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{X}_{i,:}$ denotes its $i$-th row and $\mathbf{X}_{:,j}$ denotes its $j$-th column.
\subsection{Multiscale Graph Neural Networks}
The key operation of GNNs can be abstracted to a process that involves message passing among the nodes in the graph.
The message passing operation iteratively updates a node $v$'s hidden states, $\mathbf{X}_{v,:}\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times d}$, by aggregating the hidden states of $v$'s neighboring nodes.
In general, the message passing process involves several iterations, each one can be formulated as,
\begin{align}\label{eq:message-passing}\notag
& \mathbf{m}_v^{\pare{l}} = \mathrm{AGGR}^\pare{l}( \{ (\mathbf{X}_{v,:}^\pare{l-1}, \mathbf{X}_{u,:}^\pare{l-1}) \;|\; u\in \mathcal{N}_v \} ),\\
& \mathbf{X}_{v,:}^\pare{l} = \sigma( \mathbf{W}^\pare{l}\mathbf{m}_v^{\pare{l}} + \mathbf{b}^\pare{l}),
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{AGGR}^\pare{l}(\cdot)$ is the aggregation operator, $\mathbf{m}_v^{\pare{l}}$ is the aggregated message, $\sigma(\cdot)$ is some activation function
and $\mathbf{W}$, $\mathbf{b}$ are the trainable parameters.
Usually we set the initial hidden states $\mathbf{X}^\pare{0}$ as node ego-features $\mathbf{X}$.
Multiscale GNNs iteratively generate coarsened graphs to extract hierarchical representations, which are imperative for capturing both fine and coarse structural and semantic information, by repeating hierarchical graph pooling operations.
Formally, assume there are $l_t$ number of message passing operations between $\mathrm{Pool}$ operation $P_{t-1}$ and $P_{t}$, i.e., the $t$-th $\mathrm{Pool}$ operation is acting on the $l_t$-th iterations of message passing on each scale's graph,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hierarchical-pooling}
\mathbf{X}^{\pare{0, P_{t}}}, \mathbf{A}^{\pare{0, P_{t}}} = \mathrm{Pool}^\pare{t}(\mathbf{X}^{\pare{l_{t-1}, P_{t-1}}}, \mathbf{A}^{\pare{l_{t-1}, P_{t-1}}}),
\end{equation}
where $t\in [1,T]$ represents the index number of the graph pooling layers.
We make a convention that $\mathbf{X}^{\pare{l, P_{0}}}:=\mathbf{X}^{\pare{l}}$ is the node feature matrix that has yet been pooled, and $\mathbf{X}^{\pare{0, P_{t+1}}}:=\mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{t+1}}}$.
Multiscale GNNs~\cite{deng2019graphzoom,lee2019self,li2020graph} utilize pooled graphs at multiple scales to perform feature fusion and generate final graph embedding,
\begin{align}\label{eq:readout}
\mathbf{x}_G = \mathrm{READOUT}( f( \{ \mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{0}}}, ..., \mathbf{X}^{\pare{P_{T}}} \}) ),
\end{align}
where the fusion function $f(\cdot)$, such as skip-connection \cite{gao2019graph,lee2019self} or cross-scale summation \cite{li2020graph}, is used to aggregate multiscale graphs. The following $\mathrm{READOUT}$ is a permutation-invariant operator to get graph-level embeddings.
Lastly, a classifier such as the multi-layer perceptron $\mathrm{MLP}$ is used to predict the category logits
$\tilde{y} = \mathrm{MLP}(\mathbf{x}_G)$.
\section{Diversified Multiscale Graph Learning}
\label{sec:method-2}
The graph self-correction mechanism proposed in Section \ref{sec:method-1} generates informative multiscale embedded graphs, which also encourages the discrepancy of node-level embeddings and thus contributes to the ensemble learning strategy.
In this section, we first introduce the simple stacking-style ensemble multiscale graph learning model,
and then propose the diversity boosting regularizer acting on the readout graph embeddings,
which is working together with the GSC procedure to
jointly enhance the diversity on node-level and graph-level representations.
\input{Table/tab-main}
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{sec:model-arch}
To fairly identify the contribution of each proposed ingredients, we design the multiscale graph learning framework following~\cite{gao2019graph,lee2019self,ranjan2020asap}.
In that case, $T$ and $L$ both equal to $3$ and $l_t$ is fixed to $1$ across all pooling layers.
The hierarchical pooled graphs at three scales are generated by three simple stacking modules of $\mathrm{GraphConv}$-$\mathrm{Pooling}$, then the graph embeddings are readout by the global pooling process separately.
We follow previous works to use a 1-layer GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} followed by an activation function to work as $\mathrm{GraphConv}$.
$\mathrm{Pooling}$ consists of the baseline pooling module to be compared with and the proposed GSC mechanism.
As a baseline backbone, the three graph embeddings are summed together before passing to an $\mathrm{MLP}$ to get the prediction logits.
For clarity, we provide the schemata of this baseline backbone in Appendix.
For performing the ensembled prediction, we modify the prediction module with three parameter-shared $\mathrm{MLP}$s, and each one receives a graph embedding from fixed granularity for predicting individual logits.
Here the $\mathrm{MLP}$-sharing setting is for conducting rigorous controlled experiments.
After that, the ensembled logits are obtained by averaging three individual logits.
The model is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}.
Noticed that the individual classifiers are a part of the multiscale learning architecture, thus they are trained on the same mini-batch of data but differ in the granularity of graphs to be readout as input.
This feature enables us to utilize the interactions among these base learners and improves the training process, as stated in the below section.
\subsection{Diversity Boosting Regularizers}
The collection of multiscale graph embeddings formulates $\mathbf{G} = (\mathbf{x}_{G}^{\pare{P_1}}, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \mathbf{x}_{G}^{\pare{P_T}})^{\mathrm{T}}\in \mathbb{R}^{T\times d}$, where each element $\mathbf{x}_G^{\pare{P_t}}\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times d}$ is readout from $\{\mathbf{X}_{v,:}^{\pare{P_t}}|v\in\mathcal{V}\}$ as a case of Eq.(\ref{eq:readout}).
Motivated by the theory of determinant point processes (DPPs)~\cite{kulesza2012determinantal},
we define the diversity of multiscale graph embeddings as:
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-1mm}
\textit{DoG} = \mathrm{det}(\mathbf{\Sigma}),
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Sigma}$ is the similarity matrix of the multiscale graph embeddings. For example, it could be the gram matrix, where each entry represents the inner-product similarity score of a pair of graph embeddings:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma} = \tilde{\mathbf{G}}\tilde{\mathbf{G}}^{\mathrm{T}},
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\mathbf{G}}$ is row-wise normalized from $\mathbf{G}$, for guaranteeing the property of positive semi-definiteness on $\mathbf{\Sigma}$.
According to the matrix theory~\cite{zhang2011matrix}, the value of $\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{G}\BG^{\mathrm{T}})$ equals to the squared volume of subspace spanned by graph embeddings $\{\mathbf{x}_G^{\pare{P_t}}|t\in\{1,...,T\}\}$, and hence $\textit{DoG}$ reaches the maximum value if and only if the graph embeddings are mutually orthogonal.
Noticed that the normalization of graph embeddings would reduce the variance of them, and lead the optimization problem to become trivial for regularizing the networks.
To address that, we introduce the gaussian kernel to parameterize the similarity matrix, which formulates:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gaussian}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{i,j}=\mathrm{exp}(-\gamma\cdot d^2(\mathbf{G}_i, \mathbf{G}_j)), \; i,j=1,\cdot\cdot\cdot,T,
\end{equation}
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ calculates the Euclidean distance and $\gamma$ is a hyper-parameter to control the flatness of the similarity matrix.
Under this definition, we propose the
Diversity Boosting Regularizer (DBR)
to further diversify the multiscale graph embeddings,
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:regularizer}
L_{\text{DBR}}(\mathbf{G}) = -\mathrm{log}(\textit{DoG}) + \mathrm{log}(\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{\Sigma}+\mathbf{I})),
\end{equation}
where the first term is the logarithm of embeddings diversity,
the second term as normalization controls the magnitude of the similarity matrix.
Although the training with DBR as regularizer involves the calculations of the matrix determinant and matrix inverse, it is still very efficient since the pooling number $T$ grows much slower with the scale of problem.
Lastly, for training the overall model, we combine the diversity regularizer $\alpha\cdot L_{\text{DBR}}$ ($\alpha$ as loss weight) with the summed cross-entropy loss $\Sigma_T L_{\text{CE}}$ over all predicted logits as the training objective function.
\paragraph{Discussion with other diversity-based methods.}
We noticed that previous methods focusing on promoting the diversity of ensemble models mainly consider the definition of ensemble diversity on the level of output predictions, including the classification error rates~\cite{islam2003constructive}, the normalized non-maximal classification scores~\cite{pang2019improving} and the predicted regression values~\cite{zhang2019nonlinear}.
Notably, since many graph learning tasks are binary classification~\cite{morris2020tudataset,hu2020open}, encouraging either the error or non-maximal score of individual classifiers to be diverse certainly diminish the score of correct category, so that the loss on accuracy outweighs the benefit of enhanced diversity.
In the scenario of multiscale graph learning, we develop a new perspective of ensemble diversity, i.e. the representation-level diversity,
which not only wouldn't affect the classifier accuracy but promoting the representativeness of multiscale graph embeddings.
\section{Conclusion}
Compared to various multiscale graph feature extraction frameworks, we provide an orthogonal perspective to establish a practical ensemble model. The proposed graph self-correction not only leads to significant improvements over existing graph pooling methods by serving as a plug-in component, but also contributes to promoting the ensemble diversity on node-level embeddings. Working together with the new diversity boosting regularizer that enhances diversity on graph-level embeddings, they jointly lead the ensemble model to achieve superior performances.
\section{Experiments}
\label{exp:exp-all}
\subsection{Experiments Setup}
\paragraph{Dataset}
We consider six graph-level prediction datasets for conducting a comprehensive comparison.
Five of them are part of the TU datasets~\cite{morris2020tudataset}: D\&D and PROTEINS are datasets containing proteins as graphs, NCI1 and NCI109 for classifying chemical compounds, FRANKENSTEIN possessing molecules as graphs,
and the recently proposed MOLHIV from Open Graph Benchmark (OGB)~\cite{hu2020open} and MoleculeNet~\cite{wu2018moleculenet} for identifying whether molecules as graphs inhibit HIV virus replication or not.
\vspace{-4mm}
\paragraph{Targets}
\label{sec:eval-baseline-protocol}
In the experiments, we aim at answering the following two questions:
Q1: Whether the Graph Self-Correction (GSC) mechanism can enhance graph pooling modules by serving as a plug-and-play method (Section \ref{exp:eva-GSC-main})?
Q2: Whether the two technical contributions (GSC and Diversity Boosting Regularizer (DBR)) can promote the success of ensemble learning (Section \ref{exp:eva-ensemble-main})?
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Evaluation of Graph Self-Correction}
\label{exp:eva-GSC-main}
To answer the first question,
we compare our GSC with previous graph learning methods, including hierarchical pooling based models of
DiffPool~\cite{ying2018hierarchical}, TopK~\cite{gao2019graph}, SAGPool~\cite{lee2019self}, ASAP~\cite{ranjan2020asap}, and global pooling based models of Set2Set~\cite{vinyals2015order}, GlobalAttention~\cite{li2015gated} and SortPool~\cite{zhang2018end},
under the non-ensemble architecture described in Section~\ref{sec:model-arch} (a minor difference is that global pooling methods only perform pooling after all GCN layers).
Among them, we select the two state-of-the-art pooling methods, SAGPool and ASAP as the evaluation baseline backbones to conduct in-depth comparisons.
Notably, SAGPool and ASAP both follow the same rigorous and fair evaluation protocol\footnote{Each experiment is run over 20 times of the 10-fold cross-validation under different random seeds, and especially avoids to perform model selection on the testset but instead uses an additional validation set.
The situations are somewhat different on some other graph classification networks~\cite{xu2018powerful,huang2019attpool,bianchi2020spectral,li2020graph}, which may have caused the inconsistent reported performance in the area.
Further discussion is deferred to Appendix.} for experiments on the TU dataset,
and we strictly follow it.
As for evaluation on MOLHIV, we use the default data split setting.
We use the same hyper-parameters search strategy (refer to Appendix) for all the baselines and our method.
We report the results of the compared methods given in \cite{ranjan2020asap}, which are all evaluated in a comparable manner.
And we re-implement the selected baselines of SAGPool and ASAP to eliminate the differences caused by different experimental frameworks or other minor details for a fair comparison, which have obtained performances on par with or better than theirs.
We denote GSC that calculates the residual signal $\mathbf{E}_{\text{Comp}}$ from complement graph as `GSC-C', and the one $\mathbf{E}_{\text{Recon}}$ from graph back projection as `GSC-B'.
The overall results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:main-comp}.
One can observe that the GSC mechanism achieves consistent and considerable performance improvement for all the cases.
It improves around $1.5\%$ accuracy and $1.0\%$ accuracy over six benchmarks on the baseline of SAGPool and ASAP, respectively.
Generally, the complement graph fusion (`GSC-C') performs better than the back projection (`GSC-B') on the SAGPool method, because the complement graph provides the pooled graph with richer information of the semantic representations of unselected nodes.
Instead, in the cases of NCI109 and MOLHIV on ASAP, GSC based on back projection (`GSC-B') achieves superior performance,
which might indicate that the reconstruction residuals have well refined the updating pooled node features generated by the graph pooling process.
We also employ a statistical test to provide a more convincing indication of the gain brought by GSC in Appendix.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figure/complexity_analysis_6.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Time (left), Memory (right) curve w.r.t sampling ratio.}
\label{fig:long}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\input{Table/tab-postEnhancement}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsubsection{Complexity Analysis}
The graph self-correction needs to additionally add the steps of compensated information calculation and feedback.
The time complexity of phase 1 depends on the based pooling module. It takes $O(Nd^2)+O(\vert\mathcal{E}\vert d)$ to derive the compensated graph in phase 2, and $O(Nd)$ to perform the fusion in phase 3.
We further analysis the trade-off between complexity and accuracy through the following three aspects.
First,
we compare the inference time and the training memory consumption of the methods.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:long},
GSC only increases marginal computational overhead over the baselines.
Second, we compare the efficiency of GSC and the most competitive module of ASAP \cite{ranjan2020asap}. Using SAGPool \cite{lee2019self} as a baseline, and a metric defined as the average accuracy improvement $\Delta_{\text{Acc}}$ divided by increased time cost $\Delta_{\text{Time}}$, GSC achieves a score of $3.75$ while ASAP only obtains $0.33$.
We provide detailed results in Appendix.
Third, we evaluate the contribution of the increased model capacity.
We establish another baseline module named as Pooled Graph Post-Enhancement (PGPE), which leverages a single GCN layer to update the coarsened graph after each hierarchical pooling layer.
In this case, the GNNs equipped with PGPE and GSC possess the same number of parameters, whose results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:comp-post}.
Clearly, the post-enhancement strategy (`w/ PGPE') fails in improving the embedding quality and obtains slight performance gain, while the self-correction during pooling process (`w/ GSC') is much more effective and achieves over 1.5\% accuracy improvement on average.
\input{Figure/demo}
\subsection{Evaluation of Ensemble Muitiscale Learning}
\label{exp:eva-ensemble-main}
Next we answer to the second question by performing evaluations on the ensemble framework depicted in Figure \ref{fig:framework} and validating the effect of GSC and DBR.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsubsection{How the GSC Helps the Ensemble Learning}
\label{sec:how-geom-help-ensemble}
\textbf{Quantitative result.}
We particularly compare the ensemble performance
between with and without graph self-correction mechanism on the pooling process.
The results are separately given in Table \ref{tab:main-comp} (methods denoted with `+') and Table \ref{tab:fail-ensemble}.
Table \ref{tab:fail-ensemble} illustrates the failure of ensemble strategy on boosting multiscale GNNs built on baseline pooling modules.
In contrast, for the multiscale GNNs equipped with GSC procedure (`GSC-C' or `GSC-B'),
the ensemble strategy (`GSC-C+' or `GSC-B+') successfully achieves over $0.5\%$ average accuracy improvement
on the even stronger baselines.
More experimental results under different model settings are given in Appendix.
\noindent\textbf{Qualitative analysis.}
Intuitively, the failure of classic ensemble strategy on multiscale GNNs is natural if the node representations possess similar patterns, since the stacking-style ensemble learning requires diversified information.
We conduct an exploring analysis to validate this intuition.
Figure \ref{fig:visual-embedding} shows the phenomenons that are in line with our expectations: nodes become severely homogenized after the second graph pooling process with SAGPool~\cite{lee2019self}, while the GSC mechanism helps relieve this issue.
The visualization analysis has provided a deeper insight into the beneficial effect of graph self-correction on the ensemble multiscale learning, that is,
promoting the preserving of nodes discrepancy in the coarse graph via restoring the fine graph, which further helps to increase the diversity of input information of the ensemble model.
\vspace{-4mm}
\input{Figure/Effect_DBR}
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsubsection{How the DBR Helps the Ensemble Learning}
\label{sec:exp-dbr}
We conduct a comparison study on the ensemble multiscale GNNs equipped with GSC, under the difference between training with and without the proposed DBR.
The results are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:effect_dbr}, which verify that DBR can jointly improve the ensemble performance with the GSC mechanism.
One can see that DBR achieves smaller standard deviation under the 10-fold cross validation, which means the diversified graph embeddings indeed provide a more comprehensive characterization of the input graph, and thus
improve the training stability.
The effectiveness of DBR and GSC on enhancing the representation diversity provides a general and effective solution to build the ensemble-based multiscale graph classification networks.
\vspace{-1mm}
\input{Table/tab-OGB}
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent\textbf{Performance on Deeper GNNs.}
We provide additional experiments to apply DBR for exceeding state-of-the-art (SOTA) GNNs on MOLHIV, which are usually deeper networks and adopt the global pooling layer for generating graph-level embeddings, since the dataset have graphs with fewer nodes.
We select the GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} and DeeperGCN~\cite{li2020deepergcn} as evaluation baselines, and construct the ensemble-style model on them (details are deferred to Appendix.
The results are shown in Table \ref{tab:SOTA-OGB}.
It's clear to observe performance improvements by applying the diversity boosting regularizer on these SOTA models, which again verifies its effectiveness and generalization ability.
\input{5_conclusion}
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Geometry of regularized Linear Programs}\label{section::appendix_geometry_regularized_linear}
We start by fleshing out the connection between strong convexity and smoothness charted in Lemma~\ref{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity}:
\equivalencesmoothnessstrongconvexity*
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y} \in\mathcal{D}$ be such that $\nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) = \mathbf{x}$ and $\nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}) = \mathbf{y}$. By definition this also implies that:
\begin{align*}
\langle \nabla F(\mathbf{x}) - \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{z}_1 - \mathbf{x} \rangle \geq 0, \quad \forall \mathbf{z} \in \mathcal{D} \\
\langle \nabla F(\mathbf{y}) - \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{z}_2 - \mathbf{y} \rangle \geq 0, \quad \forall \mathbf{z} \in \mathcal{D}
\end{align*}
Setting $\mathbf{z}_1 = \mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}_2 = \mathbf{x}$ along with the definition of $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}$ and summing the two inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::inequality_boundary}
\langle \nabla F(\mathbf{x}) - \nabla F(\mathbf{y}) , \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{x} \rangle \geq \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}) - \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}), \mathbf{u} - \mathbf{w} \rangle.
\end{equation}
By strong convexity of $F$ over domain $\mathcal{D}$ we see that:
\begin{align*}
F(\mathbf{x}) \geq F(\mathbf{y}) + \langle \nabla F(\mathbf{y}), \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \rangle + \frac{\beta}{2} \| \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \|^2\\
F(\mathbf{y}) \geq F(\mathbf{x}) + \langle \nabla F(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x} \rangle + \frac{\beta}{2} \| \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \|^2
\end{align*}
Summing both inequalities yields:
\begin{equation*}
\beta \| \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\|^2 \leq \langle \nabla F(\mathbf{x}) - \nabla F(\mathbf{y}), \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \rangle
\end{equation*}
Plugging in the definition of $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ along with inequality \ref{equation::inequality_boundary}:
\begin{equation*}
\beta \| \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) - \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}) \|^2 \leq \langle \mathbf{u} - \mathbf{w}, \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) - \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}) \rangle \stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \| \mathbf{u}-\mathbf{w} \|_* \| \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) - \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w})\| .
\end{equation*}
Where inequality $(i)$ holds by Cauchy-Schwartz and consequently:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) - \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}) \| \leq \frac{1}{\beta} \| \mathbf{u}-\mathbf{w} \|_*
\end{equation*}
By the mean value theorem there exists $\mathbf{z} \in [\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{w}]$:
\begin{align*}
F^*(\mathbf{u}) &= F^*(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{z}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle \\
&= F^*(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{z})-\nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle \\
&\leq F^*(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle + \| \nabla F^*(\mathbf{z})-\nabla F^*(\mathbf{w})\| \| \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\|_* \\
&\leq F^*(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle + \frac{1}{\beta}\|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{w}\|_* \| \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\|_* \\
&\leq F^*(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla F^*(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\rangle + \frac{1}{\beta} \| \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{u}\|^2_*
\end{align*}
Which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity} yields the following useful result that characterizes the smoothness properties of the dual function in a regularized LP:
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP}}
\dualsmoothnessregularizedLP*
\begin{proof}
Recall that:
\begin{equation*}
g_D(v) = \langle v, b \rangle + F^*(r-v^\top E).
\end{equation*}
Notice that:
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_{v} g_D(v) = b + E \nabla F^*(r - v^\top E).
\end{equation*}
And therefore for any two $v_1, v_2$:
\begin{align*}
\| \nabla g_D(v_1) - \nabla g_D(v_2) \| &= \| E \left( \nabla F^*(r - v_1^\top E) - \nabla F^*(r - v_2^\top E) \right) \| \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \| E \|_{\cdot, *} \| \nabla F^*(r - v_1^\top E) - \nabla F^*(r - v_2^\top E) \| \\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{\leq} \| E \|_{\cdot, *} \frac{1}{\beta} \| v_1^\top E - v_2^\top E \|_* \\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{\leq} \frac{ \| E\|_{\cdot, *}^2 }{\beta} \| v_1 - v_2 \|_*
\end{align*}
The result follows. %
\end{proof}
We can apply Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP} to problem~\ref{equation::primal_visitation_regularized} and thus characterize the smoothness properties of the dual function $J_D$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::RL_smoothness_dual}}\label{subsection::proof_of_RL_smoothness_dual}
\RLsmoothnessdual*
\begin{proof}
Recall that \ref{equation::primal_visitation_regularized} can be written as \ref{equation::regularized_LP}:
\begin{align*}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} \in \mathcal{D}} \langle \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \\
\text{s.t. } \mathbf{E}\boldsymbol{\lambda} = b. \notag
\end{align*}
Where the regularizer ($ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) := \frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \left(\log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1\right)$) is $\frac{1}{\eta}-\| \cdot \|_1$ strongly convex. In this problem $\mathbf{r}$ corresponds to the reward vector, the vector $\mathbf{b} = (1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|}$ and matrix $\mathbf{E} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}| \times |\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$ takes the form:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{E}[s, s',a] = \begin{cases}
\gamma \mathbf{P}_a(s | s') & \text{if } s \neq s'\\
1-\gamma \mathbf{P}_{a}(s|s) & \text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\| \mathbf{E} \|_{1, \infty} \leq S+1
\end{equation*}
The result follows as a corollary of Lemma~\ref{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution}}\label{section::proof_of_primal_value_candidate_solution}
The objective of this section is to show that a candidate dual variable $\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}$ having small gradient gives rise to a policy whose true visitation distribution has large primal value $J_P$.
\boundingprimalvaluecandidatesolution*
\begin{proof}
For any $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ let the lagrangian $J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v})$ be defined as,
\begin{equation*}
J_L( \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v}) = (1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \mathbf{v} \rangle + \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}} - \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{\mathbf{q}}\right) - 1 \right) \right\rangle
\end{equation*}
Note that $J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) = J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})$ and that in fact $J_L$ is linear in $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$; \emph{i.e.},
$$J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}}) = J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) + \langle \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}),\bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \rangle.$$
Using Holder's inequality we have:
\begin{equation*}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) - \|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1\cdot \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty = J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) - \|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1\cdot \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty.
\end{equation*}
Let $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\star$ be the candidate primal solution to the optimal dual solution $\mathbf{v}_\star = \argmin_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$. By weak duality we have that $J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) = J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star)$, and since by assumption $\|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1 \leq \epsilon$:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::lowr_bounding_J_lambda_star}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) -\epsilon \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty.
\end{equation}
In order to use this inequality to lower bound the value of $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}})$, we will need to choose an appropriate $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ such that the LHS reduces to $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}})$ while keeping the $\ell_\infty$ norm on the RHS small. Thus we consider setting $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ as:
\begin{equation*}
\bar{\mathbf{v}}_s = \mathbb{E}_{a,s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathcal{T} }\left[ \mathbf{z}_s + \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1 \right) + \gamma \bar{\mathbf{v}}_{s'} \right]
\end{equation*}
Where $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S|}$ is some function to be determined later. It is clear that an appropriate $\mathbf{z}$ exists as long as $\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{r}, \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1 \right)$ are uniformly bounded. Furthermore:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::z_infinity_bound}
\| \bar{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty \leq \frac{\max_{s,a} \left| \mathbf{z}_s + \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right) - 1 \right) \right|}{1-\gamma} \leq \frac{\| \mathbf{z} \|_\infty + \| \mathbf{r} \|_{\infty} + \frac{1}{\eta}\left\| \log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right) - 1\right\|_{\infty} }{1-\gamma}
\end{equation}
Notice that by Assumptions~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{ass:uniform}, we have that $\rho, \beta \leq \frac{1}{2}$. This is because for all $\pi$, Assumption~\ref{ass:uniform} implies that:
\begin{equation*}
0\leq 2\rho \leq | \mathcal{S}| \rho \leq \sum_{s } \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_s =1
\end{equation*}
The proof for $\beta \leq \frac{1}{2}$ is symmetric. Due to Assumption~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} the $\| \cdot \|_\infty$ norm of $\log( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}}) - \mathbf{1}_{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|} $ satisfies:
\begin{equation*}
\left\| \log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right) - \mathbf{1}_{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|} \right\|_\infty \leq 1 + \left\| \log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right) \right\|_\infty \leq 1 + \max(|\log(\rho/\beta) |, \log(1/\beta) ) \leq 1 + \log(1/\rho) + \log(1/\beta).
\end{equation*}
Notice the following relationships hold:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\left\langle \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \mathbf{A}^{\bar{\mathbf{v}}} - \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right) - 1 \right) \right\rangle &= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \gamma \bar{\mathbf{v}}_{s'} - \bar{\mathbf{v}}_s - \frac{1}{\eta} \left( \log\left( \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)-1 \right) \right] \right) \notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \frac{1}{\eta}\left(\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) -1 \right) - \frac{1}{\eta} \left( \log\left( \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)-1 \right) -\mathbf{z}_s \right] \right)\notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}\right) - \frac{1}{\eta} \log\left( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}\right) -\mathbf{z}_s \right] \right)\notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left( \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s}^{\widetilde{\pi}}\right) - \frac{1}{\eta} \log\left( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s}\right) - \mathbf{z}_s\right) \label{equation::support_equation_1}
\end{align}
\end{small}
Where $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} = \sum_{a} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_s = \sum_a \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}$. Note that by definition:
\begin{equation}
(1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} \rangle = \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} + \mathbf{r} - \frac{1}{\eta} \left( \log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right)-1 \right) \right\rangle = J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} \rangle. \label{equation::support_equation_2}
\end{equation}
\aldotwo{This may require some condition. Verify this comment,... I forgot why it was here.}
Let's expand the definition of $J_L( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} )$ using Equations~\ref{equation::support_equation_1} and \ref{equation::support_equation_2}:
\begin{align*}
J_L( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) &= (1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} \rangle + \left\langle \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \mathbf{A}^{\bar{\mathbf{v}}}- \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right) - 1 \right) \right\rangle\\
&= J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} \rangle + \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left( \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s}^{\widetilde{\pi}}\right) - \frac{1}{\eta} \log\left( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s}\right) - \mathbf{z}_s\right)\\
&= J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \sum_s \left( \mathbf{z}_s(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_s - \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s ) + \frac{1}{\eta}\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s} \right) \right)
\end{align*}
Since we want this expression to equal $J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}} )$, we need to choose $\mathbf{z}$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{z}_s = \frac{\frac{1}{\eta} \log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s} \right)}{1-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}}.
\end{equation*}
By Assumption~\ref{ass:uniform} we have that for all $s$:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s} \geq \rho
\end{equation*}
Now we bound $\| \mathbf{z}_s \|_\infty$. Note that the function $h(\phi) = \frac{\log \phi}{1-\phi}$ is non decreasing and negative, and therefore the maximum of its absolute value is achieved at the lower end of its domain. This implies:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \mathbf{z}_s \right| \leq \frac{|h(\rho)|}{\eta} = \frac{\left|\log(\rho)\right|}{\eta(1-\rho)} \leq \frac{2\log(1/\rho)}{\eta}, \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}.
\end{equation*}
And therefore Equation~\ref{equation::z_infinity_bound} implies:
\begin{equation*}
\| \bar{\mathbf{v}} \|_{\infty} \leq \frac{ \frac{2\log(1/\rho)}{\eta} + 1 + \frac{1 + \log(1/\rho) + \log(1/\beta)}{\eta} }{1-\gamma}= \frac{1 + \frac{ 1 + \log(\frac{1}{\rho^3\beta})}{\eta} }{1-\gamma}
\end{equation*}
Putting these together we obtain the following version of equation~\ref{equation::lowr_bounding_J_lambda_star}:
\begin{equation*}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) -\epsilon \left( \frac{1 + \frac{ 1 + \log(\frac{1}{\rho^3\beta})}{\eta} }{1-\gamma} + \| \widetilde{\mathbf{v} } \|_\infty \right)
\end{equation*}
As desired.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir}}\label{section::dual_variables_bound_ofir}
In this section we derive an upper bound for the $l_\infty$ norm of the optimal solution $\mathbf{v}^\star$.
\dualvariablesboundofir*
\begin{proof}
Recall the Lagrangian form,
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\mathbf{v}}, \max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \in \Delta_{S\times A}}~ J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v}) := (1-\gamma) \langle \mathbf{v}, \boldsymbol{\mu} \rangle + \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}} - \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1 \right)\right\rangle.
\end{equation*}
The KKT conditions of $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*$ imply that for any $s,a$, either (1) $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = 0$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,v^*) \le 0$ or (2) $\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*) = 0$. The partial derivative of $J_L$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*) = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'} - \mathbf{v}^*_{s}.
\end{equation}
Thus, for any $s,a$, either
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} \ge \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right) + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'},
\end{equation}
or,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} > 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)+ \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ is the discounted state-action visitations of some policy $\pi_\star$; \emph{i.e.}, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_s \cdot \pi_\star(a|s)$ for some $\pi_\star$. Note that by Assumption~\ref{ass:uniform}, any policy $\pi$ has $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_{s} > 0$ for all $s$. Accordingly, the KKT conditions imply,
\begin{equation}
\pi_\star(a|s) = 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} \ge \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{1}{\eta}\log \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'},
\end{equation}
or,
\begin{equation}
\pi_\star(a|s) > 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}.
\end{equation}
Equivalently,
\begin{align}
\mathbf{v}^*_{s} &= \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[\mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)+ \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}\right] \\
&= \frac{1}{\eta}\mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[-\log\left(\frac{\pi(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}}\right)\right] + \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi(s)}\left[r_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_{s}}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right) + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}\right].
\end{align}
We may express these conditions as a Bellman recurrence for $\mathbf{v}^*_s$:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}^*_{s} =
\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[-\log\left(\frac{\pi(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}}\right)\right] + \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[\mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left(\frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_{s}}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right)+ \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}\right].
\end{equation}
The solution to these Bellman equations is bounded when $\mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[-\log\left(\frac{\pi_\star(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}}\right)\right]$, $\mathbf{r}_{s,a}$, and $\log\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi_{s}}{\mathbf{q}_s}\right)$ are bounded~\citep{puterman2014markov}. And indeed, by Assumptions~\ref{ass:uniform} and~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards}, each of these is bounded by within $[\log \beta, \log |A|]$, $[0, 1]$, and $[\log \rho, -\log \beta]$, respectively.
We may thus bound the solution as,
\begin{equation}
\|\mathbf{v}^*\|_\infty \le \frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 1 + \frac{\log\frac{|S||A| }{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Convergence rates for REPS}\label{section::convergence_rates_REPS}
We start with the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_gradients} which we restate for convenience:
\begin{lemma}%
If $\mathbf{x}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal solution for the $\alpha-$smooth function $h: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|_\star$ then the gradient of $h$ at $\mathbf{x}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \| \leq \sqrt{ 2\alpha \epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ be an arbitrary point and let $\mathbf{x}'$ equal the point resulting of the update
\begin{equation}%
\mathbf{x}' = \argmin_{\mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{D}} \frac{1}{\alpha}\langle \nabla h(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{x}\rangle + \frac{\| \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{x} \|_\star^2}{2}
\end{equation}
Notice that by smoothness of $h$:
\begin{align}
h(\mathbf{x}') &\leq h(\mathbf{x}) + \langle \nabla h(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{x}' - \mathbf{x} \rangle + \frac{\alpha}{2} \| \mathbf{x}' - \mathbf{x}\|^2_\star = h(\mathbf{x}) -\frac{1}{2\alpha} \| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \|^2 \label{equation::support_equation_lemma_epsilon_optimal_1}
\end{align}
Since $h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \leq h(\mathbf{x}')$ and $\mathbf{x}$ is $\epsilon-$optimal:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2\alpha} \| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \|^2 + h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2\alpha} \| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \|^2 + h(\mathbf{x}') \stackrel{(ii)}{\leq} h(\mathbf{x}) \stackrel{(iii)}{\leq} h(\mathbf{x}^\star) + \epsilon
\end{equation*}
Inequality $(i)$ holds because $h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \leq h(\mathbf{x}')$, inequality $(ii)$ by Equation~\ref{equation::support_equation_lemma_epsilon_optimal_1} and $(iii)$ by $\epsilon-$optimality of $\mathbf{x}$. Therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2\alpha} \| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \|^2 \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
The result follows.
\end{proof}
We also show that the gradient norm of a smooth function over a bounded domain containing the optimum can be bounded:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::supporting_lemma_bound_gradient}
If $h$ is an $a\alpha-$smooth function w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|_\star$, and $\mathbf{x}^\star$ is such that $\nabla h(\mathbf{x}^\star) = \mathbf{0}$ then:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \| \leq \alpha \|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star\|_\star.
\end{equation*}
And therefore whenever $\|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star\|_\star \leq D$ we have that:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \| \leq \alpha D.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $h$ is $\alpha-$smooth:
\begin{equation*}
h(\mathbf{x}) \leq h( \mathbf{x}^\star) + \langle \nabla h(\mathbf{x}^\star), \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star \rangle + \frac{\alpha}{2}\| \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star \|^2_\star = h(\mathbf{x}^\star) + \frac{\alpha}{2}\| \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star \|^2_\star
\end{equation*}
Therefore:
\begin{equation*}
h(\mathbf{x}) - h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \leq \frac{\alpha}{2}\| \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}^\star \|^2_\star.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, as a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_gradients}:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \| \leq \alpha D.
\end{equation*}
The result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem::main_accelerated_result}} \label{section::accelerated_gradient_descent_guarantees}
We can now prove the estimation guarantees whenever exact gradients are available.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem::main_accelerated_result_appendix}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, let $\eta = \frac{1}{2\epsilon \log(\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta})}$. If $T \geq (|\mathcal{S}|+1)^{3/2}\frac{(2+c'')^2}{(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon^2}$, then $\pi_T$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal policy. %
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As a consequence of Corollary~\ref{corollary::regularized_result}, we can conclude that:
\begin{equation*}
J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\end{equation*}
Where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star$ is the regularized optimum. Recall that:
\begin{equation*}
J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \left(\log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1\right).
\end{equation*}
Since $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}$ is the maximizer of the regularized objective, it satisfies $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*)$ where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star$ is the visitation frequency of the optimal policy corresponding to the unregularized objective. We can conclude that:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\pi_T} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} &\geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a} \left( \log\left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1\right) - \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \left( \log\left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1\right) \right) -\frac{\epsilon}{2} \\
&= \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \frac{1}{\eta}\left( \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a} \left( \log\left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) \right) - \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \left( \log\left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) \right) \right) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}\\
&\geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{2}{\eta}\log(\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta}) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}
\end{align*}
And therefore if $\eta = \frac{1}{4\epsilon \log(\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta})}$, we can conclude that:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\pi_T} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} \geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\star} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Stochastic Gradient Descent}\label{section::appendix_SGD}
In this section we will have all the proofs and results corresponding to Section~\ref{section::stochastic_gradients} in the main. We start by showing the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::helper_projected_sgd}.
\helperprojectedsgd*
\begin{proof}
Through the proof we use the notation $\| \cdot \|$ to denote the $L_2$ norm. By smoothness the following holds:
\begin{equation*}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) \leq f(\mathbf{x}_{t}) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_t \rangle + \frac{L}{2}\| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_t \|_\infty^2 \leq f(\mathbf{x}_{t}) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_t \rangle + \frac{L}{2}\| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_t \|^2
\end{equation*}
Since $\mathbf{x}_{t+1} = \Pi_{\mathcal{D}}( \mathbf{x}_{t+1}')$ and by properties of a convex projection:
\begin{equation*}
\langle \mathbf{x}_{t+1}' - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1} \rangle \leq 0.
\end{equation*}
And therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\langle \mathbf{x}_{t} - \tau \left( \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \right) - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1} \rangle \leq 0.
\end{equation*}
Which in turn implies that :
\begin{equation*}
\| \mathbf{x}_{t} - \mathbf{x}_{t+1} \|^2 \leq \tau \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}\rangle.
\end{equation*}
We can conclude that:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::first_equation_proj_sgd}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1} ) \leq f(\mathbf{x}_{t}) - \frac{\| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}\|^2 }{\tau} + \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}\rangle +\frac{L}{2}\| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_t \|^2.
\end{equation}
By convexity:
\begin{equation*}
f(\mathbf{x}_\star) \geq f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{x}_\star - \mathbf{x}_t \rangle.
\end{equation*}
And therefore $f(\mathbf{x}_t) \leq f(\mathbf{x}_\star) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\rangle$.
Combining this last result with Equation~\ref{equation::first_equation_proj_sgd}:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::second_equation_proj_sgd}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) \leq f(\mathbf{x}_\star) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\rangle + \left(\frac{L}{2} - \frac{1}{\tau} \right) \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1}- \mathbf{x}_t \|^2 + \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}\rangle.
\end{equation}
Now observe that as a consequence of the contraction property of projections %
\begin{align*}
\| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 &\leq \| \mathbf{x}_t - \tau \left( \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \right) - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 \\
&= \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\|^2 + \tau^2 \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|^2 - 2\tau \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t , \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle.
\end{align*}
And therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\langle \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t ) , \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle \leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + \frac{\tau}{2} \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|^2 - \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle.
\end{equation*}
Substituting this last inequality into Equation~\ref{equation::second_equation_proj_sgd}:
\begin{align}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) - f(\mathbf{x}_\star) &\leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + \frac{\tau}{2} \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|^2 - \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle + \\
& \quad \left(\frac{L}{2} - \frac{1}{\tau} \right) \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1}- \mathbf{x}_t \|^2 + \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1}\rangle \label{equation::third_equation_proj_sgd}
\end{align}
Notice that as a consequence of the contraction property of projections:
\begin{align*}
\| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{t} \|^2 &\leq \| \mathbf{x}_t - \tau \left( \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t +\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \right) - \mathbf{x}_t \| \\
&= \tau\| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|
\end{align*}
And therefore
$$ \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1} \rangle \leq \| \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\| \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_{t+1} \| \leq \tau \| \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\| \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|$$ :
Substituting this back into~\ref{equation::third_equation_proj_sgd} and assuming $\frac{L}{2} \leq \frac{1}{\tau}$:
\begin{align*}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) - f(\mathbf{x}_\star) &\leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + \frac{\tau}{2} \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|^2 - \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle + \\
& \quad \tau \| \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\| \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|\\
&\leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + \tau \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|^2 + \frac{\tau}{2}\| \mathbf{b}_t+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|^2 - \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + 2\tau \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) \|^2 + 5\tau\| \mathbf{b}_t\|^2 + 5\tau \| \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|^2 - \langle \mathbf{b}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \rangle \\
&\leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} + 2\tau \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) \|^2 + 5\tau\| \mathbf{b}_t\|^2 + 5\tau \| \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|^2 + \| \mathbf{b}_t\|_1\|\mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\|_\infty - \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\rangle
\end{align*}
Inequality $(i)$ is a result of a repeated use of Young's inequality. The last inequality is a result of Cauchy-Schwartz.
\end{proof}
\section{Stochastic Gradients Analysis}
We will make use of the following concentration inequality:
\begin{lemma}[Uniform empirical Bernstein bound]
\label{lem:uniform_emp_bernstein}
In the terminology of \citet{howard2018uniform}, let $S_t = \sum_{i=1}^t Y_i$ be a sub-$\psi_P$ process with parameter $c > 0$ and variance process $W_t$. Then with probability at least $1 - \delta$ for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$
\begin{align*}
S_t &\leq 1.44 \sqrt{(W_t \vee m) \left( 1.4 \ln \ln \left(2 \left(\frac{W_t}{m} \vee 1\right)\right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)}\\
& \qquad + 0.41 c \left( 1.4 \ln \ln \left(2 \left(\frac{W_t}{m} \vee 1\right)\right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)
\end{align*}
where $m > 0$ is arbitrary but fixed.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Setting $s = 1.4$ and $\eta = 2$ in the polynomial stitched boundary in Equation~(10) of \citet{howard2018uniform} shows that $u_{c, \delta}(v)$ is a sub-$\psi_G$ boundary for constant $c$ and level $\delta$ where
\begin{align*}
u_{c, \delta}(v) &= 1.44 \sqrt{(v \vee 1) \left( 1.4 \ln \ln \left(2 (v \vee 1)\right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)}\\
&\quad + 1.21 c \left( 1.4 \ln \ln \left( 2 (v \vee 1)\right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}\right).
\end{align*}
By the boundary conversions in Table~1 in \citet{howard2018uniform} $u_{c/3, \delta}$ is also a sub-$\psi_P$ boundary for constant $c$ and level $\delta$. The desired bound then follows from Theorem~1 by \citet{howard2018uniform}.
\end{proof}
The following estimation bound holds:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::upper_lower_bounds_N_t_s_a}
Let $\{(s_\ell, a_\ell, s_\ell')\}_{\ell=1}^\infty$ be samples generated as above. Let $N_t(s,a) = \sum_{\ell = 1}^t \mathbf{1}(s_\ell, a_\ell = s,a)$. Let $\delta \in (0,1)$. With probability at least $1-(2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|\delta)$ for all $t$ such that $ \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6}$ and for all $s,a \in\mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$ simultaneously:
\begin{equation*}
N_t(s,a) \in \left[ \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{4} , \frac{7t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{4} \right]
\end{equation*}
Additionally define $\widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s,a} = \frac{N_t(s,a)}{t}$. For any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ with probability at least $1-(2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|\delta)$ and for all $t$ such that $\frac{t}{\ln\ln(2t)} \geq \frac{1+\ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}}{\beta \epsilon^2}$:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \right|\leq 3.69 \epsilon \mathbf{q}_{s,a}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start by producing a lower bound for $N_t(s,a)$. Consider the martingale sequence $Z_{s,a}(\ell) = \mathbf{1}(s_\ell = s, a_\ell = a) - \mathbf{q}_{s,a}$ with the variance process $V_t = \sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{s,a}^2(\ell) | \mathcal{F}_{\ell-1}\right]$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}[ Z_{s,a}^2(\ell)| \mathcal{F}_{\ell-1} ]\leq \mathbf{q}_{s,a} $. The martingale process $Z_{s,a}(\ell)$ satisfies the sub-$\psi_P$ condition of~\cite{howard2018uniform} with constant $c =1 $ (see Bennet case in Table 3 of~\cite{howard2018uniform}). By Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform_emp_bernstein}, and setting $m = \mathbf{q}_{s,a}$ we conclude that with probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ :
\begin{align}
N_t(s,a) &\geq t \mathbf{q}_{s,a} - 1.44\sqrt{ \mathbf{q}_{s,a} t\left( \ln \ln( 2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \right)} - 0.41\left( 1.4 \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} \right) \label{equation::lower_bound_N_t}\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\geq} t\mathbf{q}_{s,a} - \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{2} - \frac{3}{2}\left( \ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)\notag\\
&= \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{2} - \frac{3}{2}\left( \ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)\notag
\end{align}
Inequality $(i)$ holds because $\sqrt{\mathbf{q}_{s,a} t \left(\ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \right) } \leq \frac{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}t}{2} + \frac{\ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} }{2}$. As a consequence of Assumption~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} we can infer that with probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t$ such that $ \ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6} \leq \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{6}$:
\begin{equation*}
N_t(s,a) \geq \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{4}
\end{equation*}
The same sequence of inequalities but inverted implies the upper bound result. The last result is a simple consequence of the union bound. To obtain the stronger bound we start by noting that since $\frac{t}{\ln\ln(2t)} \geq \frac{1+\ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}}{\beta \epsilon^2} \geq \frac{1+\ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \epsilon^2} $ for all $(s,a)$ we can transform Equation~\ref{equation::lower_bound_N_t} as:
\begin{align*}
N_t(s,a) &\geq t \mathbf{q}_{s,a} - 1.44\sqrt{ \mathbf{q}_{s,a} t\left( \ln \ln( 2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \right)} - 0.41\left( 1.4 \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} \right) \\
&\geq t \mathbf{q}_{s,a} - 2.88\sqrt{ \mathbf{q}_{s,a} t \ln \ln( 2t) (1+ \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} )} - 0.81 \ln \ln(2t) (1+\ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} ) \\
&\geq t \mathbf{q}_{s,a} - 3.69\sqrt{ \mathbf{q}_{s,a} t \ln \ln( 2t) (1+ \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} )} \\
&\geq t\mathbf{q}_{s,a} - 3.69 \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \epsilon
\end{align*}
The same sequence of inequalities but inverted implie the upper bound. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
The gradients of $J_D(\mathbf{v})$ can be written as:
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\left( \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s &= (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \gamma \sum_{s',a} \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s',a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s',a} }{\mathbf{Z}} P_a(s|s') -\\
&\sum_a \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a} }{\mathbf{Z}} ,
\end{align*}
\end{small}
Where $\mathrm{Z} = \sum_{s,a} \exp\left(\eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a}$. We will work under the assumption that $\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \propto \exp( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}'}_{s,a} ) $ for some value vector $\mathbf{v}'$. Given a value vector $\mathbf{v}$ we denote its induced policy $\pi^\mathbf{v}$ as:
\begin{equation*}
\pi^{\mathbf{v}}(a | s) = \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}\right) \mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{ \mathbf{Z}_{s}}
\end{equation*}
Where $\mathbf{Z}_{s} = \sum_a \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a}$. If we define $\mathbf{q}_s = \sum_a \mathbf{q}_{s,a}$, and we define $\mathbf{q}_{a|s} = \frac{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_s}$ then we can write:
\begin{equation*}
\pi^{\mathbf{v}}(a | s) = \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}\right) \mathbf{q}_{a|s}}{ \mathbf{Z}_{a|s}}
\end{equation*}
Where $\mathbf{Z}_{s} = \sum_a \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{a|s}$. We work under the assumption that $\mathbf{q}_{a|s}$ is a policy, and therefore known to the learner. We start by showing how to maintain a good estimator $\hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}$ using stochastic gradient descent over a quadratic objective. Let $\mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} = \sum_{s'} P_a(s'|s) \mathbf{v}_{s'}$ so that $\mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \mathbf{v}_s + \gamma \mathbf{W}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}$ where both $\mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}$ are seen as vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{|S|\times |A|}$.
If we had access to an estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^\mathbf{v}$ of $\mathbf{W}^\mathbf{v}$ such that for some $\epsilon \in (0,1)$:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::upper_bound_norm_W}
\| \mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}} - \widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}} \|_{\infty} \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation}
We can use $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}$ to produce an estimator of $\mathbf{A}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}$ via $\widehat{\mathbf{A}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a}- \mathbf{v}_s + \gamma \widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
\| \widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}} - \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}\|_\infty \leq \gamma \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
We now consider the problem of estimating $\mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}$ from samples. We assume the following stochastic setting:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The learner receives samples $\{(s_\ell, a_\ell, s_\ell')\}_{\ell=1}^\infty$ such that $(s_\ell, a_\ell) \sim \mathbf{q}$ while $s_\ell' \sim P_{a_\ell}(\cdot | s_\ell)$. Let $N_t(s,a) = \sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{1}(s_\ell, a_\ell = s, a)$.
\item Define $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}(t) = \frac{1}{N_t(s,a)} \sum_{\ell=1}^T \mathbf{1}(s_\ell, a_\ell = s, a)\mathbf{v}_{s_\ell'}$. Notice that for all $s,a \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$, the estimator's noise $\xi_{s,a}(t) = \widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}(t) - \mathbf{W}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a}$ satisfies $\mathbb{E}[ \xi_{s,a}(t) | \mathcal{F}_{t-1} ] =0$ and $|\xi_{s,a}(t)| \leq 2\| \mathbf{v}'\|_\infty$. Where $\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$ is the sigma algebra corresponding to all the algorithmic choices up to round $t-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\{ (s_\ell, a_\ell, s_\ell')\}_{\ell=1}^\infty$ samples generated as above. Let $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)$ be the empirical estimator of $\mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}$ defined as:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}(t) = \frac{1}{N_t(s,a)} \sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{1}(s_\ell, a_\ell = s, a) \mathbf{v}_{s_\ell'}.
\end{equation*}
Where $N_t(s,a) = \sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{1}(s_\ell, a_\ell = s, a)$. Let $\delta \in (0,1)$. With probability at least $1-(2|S||A|)\delta$ for all $t\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6}$ and for all $(s,a) \in \mathcal{S} $ simultaneously:
\begin{align*}
| \mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}- \widehat{\mathbf{W}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}(t)| \leq 8 \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left(\sqrt{ \frac{\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} } + \frac{ \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} \right) .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the martingale difference sequence $X_{s,a}(\ell) = \mathbf{1}( s_\ell, a_\ell = s, a) \left( \mathbf{W}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}- \mathbf{v}_{s_\ell'} \right)$. Notice that for all $s,a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$ $| X_{s,a}(t) | \leq 2\| \mathbf{v}'\|_\infty $ The process $S_t =\sum_{\ell=1}^t X_{s,a}(\ell) $ with variance process $W_t = \sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbb{E}\left[X^2_{s,a}(\ell) |\mathcal{F}_{\ell-1}\right]$ satisfies the sub-$\psi_P$ condition of \cite{howard2018uniform} with constant $c=2\|\mathbf{v}'\|_\infty$ (see Bennet case in Table 3 of \cite{howard2018uniform}). By Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform_emp_bernstein} the bound:
\begin{equation*}
S_t \leq 1.44 \sqrt{(W_t \vee m ) \left(1.4 \ln \ln \left( 2(W_t / m \vee 1) \right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} \right) } + 0.81 \|\mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left( 1.4 \ln \ln \left(2 \left(\frac{W_t}{m} \vee 1\right)\right) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta}\right)
\end{equation*}
holds for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ with probability at least $1-\delta$. Notice that $\mathbb{E}[ X^2_{s,a}(\ell) | \mathcal{F}_{\ell-1} ] \leq 4\| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty^2 \mathrm{Var}_{\mathbf{q}}(\mathbf{1}_{s,a} ) = 4\| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty^2 \mathbf{q}_{s,a}(1-\mathbf{q}_{s,a}) \leq \mathbf{q}_{s,a}\| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty^2$ and therefore $W_t \leq t \mathbf{q}_{s,a}\| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty^2$. We set $m =\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty^2$. And obtain that with probability $1-\delta$ and for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{align}
\left| \underbrace{\frac{1}{N_t(s,a) }\sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{1}(s_\ell = s, a_\ell = 1) \mathbf{v}_{s_\ell'}}_{\widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)} - \mathbf{W}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}} \right| &\leq \frac{1}{N_t(s,a)} \Big( 1.44\|\mathbf{v}\|_\infty\sqrt{\mathbf{q}_{s,a} t \left( \ln \ln( 2t) + \ln\frac{10.4}{\delta} \right)} + \notag\\
&0.81\| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left( 1.4\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.2}{\delta} \right) \Big) \label{equation::initial_bound_closeness}
\end{align}
As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma::upper_lower_bounds_N_t_s_a} we know that with probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t$ such that $ \ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6} \leq \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{6}$:
\begin{equation*}
N_t(s,a) \geq \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{4}
\end{equation*}
Plugging this into Equation~\ref{equation::initial_bound_closeness} and applying a union bound over all $s,a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$ yields that for all $t$ such that $ \ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6} \leq \frac{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{6}$ and with probability $1-2|S||A|\delta$ for all $s,a \in \mathcal{S} $ simultaneously:
\begin{align*}
| \mathbf{W}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}- \widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) | &\leq \frac{4}{t\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \Big( 1.44\|\mathbf{v}\|_\infty\sqrt{ t \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \ln \ln( 2t) + t\ln\frac{10.4}{\delta}} + 0.81\| \mathbf{v}'\|_\infty \left( 1.4\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta} \right) \Big)\\
&\leq 8 \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left(\sqrt{ \frac{\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \mathbf{q}_{s,a}} } + \frac{ \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right) \\
&\leq 8 \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left(\sqrt{ \frac{\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} } + \frac{ \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} \right).
\end{align*}
The result follows.
\end{proof}
We can now derive a concentration result for $\widehat{\mathbf{A}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) = \mathbf{r}_{s,a}- \mathbf{v}_s + \gamma \widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}(t)$, the advantage estimator resulting from $\widehat{\mathbf{W}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)$:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::sample_complexity_advantage}
Let $\delta \in (0,1)$. With probability at least $1-(2|S||A|)\delta$ for all $t\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta} \leq \frac{t\beta}{6}$ and for all $(s,a) \in \mathcal{S} $ simultaneously:
\begin{align*}
| \mathbf{A}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}- \widehat{\mathbf{A}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) | \leq 8\gamma \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \left(\sqrt{ \frac{\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} } + \frac{ \ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} \right) .
\end{align*}
And therefore:
\begin{align*}
| \mathbf{A}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}- \widehat{\mathbf{A}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) | \leq 16\gamma \| \mathbf{v}\|_\infty \sqrt{ \frac{\ln \ln(2t) + \ln \frac{10.4}{\delta}}{t \beta} }
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Estimating the Gradients}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::exponential_approximate}
If $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $|\xi| \leq \epsilon < 1$, and $y \in \mathbb{R}$, then:
\begin{equation*}
\exp\left( y \right)(1-\epsilon) \leq \exp\left( y + \xi \right) \leq \exp\left( y \right)(1+2\epsilon)
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Notice that for $\epsilon \in (0,1)$:
\begin{equation*}
\exp( \epsilon ) \leq 1+2\epsilon, \quad \text{ and } 1-\epsilon \leq \exp( -\epsilon ).
\end{equation*}
The result follows by noting that:
\begin{equation*}
\exp(y) \exp(-|\xi|) \leq \exp(y + \xi) \leq \exp(y) \exp(|\xi|).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
A simple consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma::exponential_approximate} is the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::approximation_result_plugin_B}
Let $\epsilon \in (0,1/2)$. If $\mathbf{C}, \widehat{\mathbf{C}} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S} | \times |\mathcal{A}| } $ and $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}, \mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^{|\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$ are two vectors satisfying:
\begin{equation*}
\| \widehat{\mathbf{C}} - \mathbf{C} \|_\infty \leq \epsilon, \qquad | \widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a} -\mathbf{b}_{s,a} | \leq \epsilon \mathbf{b}_{s,a}.
\end{equation*}
For all $s,a \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$ define $\mathbf{B}_{s,a} = \frac{\exp(\mathbf{C}_{s,a}) }{\mathbf{Z}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} = \frac{\exp(\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_{s,a} )}{\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}}$ where $\mathbf{Z} = \sum_{s,a} \exp( \mathbf{C}_{s,a})\mathbf{b}_{s,a}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{Z}} = \sum_{s,a} \exp( \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_{s,a})\widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a}$:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}- \mathbf{B}_{s,a} \right| \leq 38\epsilon \mathbf{B}_{s,a}\leq 38\epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let's define an intermediate $\tilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} = \frac{\exp\left( \mathbf{C}_{s,a} \right) \widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a} }{\tilde{\mathbf{Z}} }$ where $\tilde{\mathbf{Z}} = \sum_{s,a} \exp\left( \mathbf{C}_{s,a}\right)\widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma::exponential_approximate} we can conclude that for any $s,a \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}$:
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \frac{ 1-\epsilon}{1+2\epsilon} \leq \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \leq \frac{1+2\epsilon}{1-\epsilon} \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}%
\end{equation*}
And therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}, \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \in \left[ \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+2\epsilon}, \frac{1+2\epsilon}{1-\epsilon} \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \right]
\end{equation*}
Which in turn implies that:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}- \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \right| \leq \left( \frac{ 1+2\epsilon }{ 1-\epsilon}-\frac{ 1-\epsilon }{ 1+2\epsilon} \right) \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \leq 15\epsilon \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}.
\end{equation*}
We now bound $| \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{B}_{s,a} |$. By assumption for all $s,a \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$, it follows that $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a}(1-\epsilon) \leq \mathbf{b}_{s,a} \leq \widehat{\mathbf{b}}_{s,a} (1+\epsilon)$ and therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{ \mathbf{B}_{s,a}}{1+\epsilon} \leq \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} \leq \frac{ \mathbf{B}_{s,a}}{1-\epsilon}
\end{equation*}
And therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}, \mathbf{B}_{s,a} \in \left[ \frac{\mathbf{B}_{s,a}}{1+\epsilon}, \frac{\mathbf{B}_{s,a}}{1-\epsilon} \right].
\end{equation*}
Hence:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{B}_{s,a} \right| \leq \left( \frac{1}{1-\epsilon} - \frac{1}{1+\epsilon} \right) \mathbf{B}_{s,a}\leq \frac{8}{3}\epsilon \mathbf{B}_{s,a}.
\end{equation*}
And therefore:
\begin{align*}
| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{B}_{s,a} | \leq | \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} - \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} | + | \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{B}_{s,a} | \leq 15\epsilon \widetilde{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a} + \frac{8}{3}\epsilon \mathbf{B}_{s,a} \leq \left(15\epsilon(1+\frac{8}{3}\epsilon) + \frac{8}{3}\epsilon\right) \mathbf{B}_{s,a} \leq 38\epsilon\mathbf{B}_{s,a}.
\end{align*}
The result follows.
\end{proof}
If we set $\mathbf{C} = \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}} , \widehat{\mathbf{C}} = \eta \widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}} $ we obtain the following corollary of Lemma~\ref{lemma::approximation_result_plugin_B}:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::approximation_result_plugin_B_1}
Let $\epsilon \in (0, 1/2)$. If $\widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{q}}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation*}
\| \widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}} - \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}\|_\infty \leq \epsilon, \quad \text{ and } \quad |\widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s,a} - \mathbf{q}_{s,a} | \leq \epsilon \mathbf{q}_{s,a}
\end{equation*}
Then:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}- \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}} \right| \leq 111\eta\epsilon \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}} \leq 111\eta\epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
We can combine the sample complexity results of Corollary~\ref{corollary::sample_complexity_advantage} and the approximation results of Corollary~\ref{corollary::approximation_result_plugin_B_1} and Lemma~\ref{lemma::upper_lower_bounds_N_t_s_a} to obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::approximation_B_t}
If $\delta, \xi \in (0,1)$, with probability at least $1-(4|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|\delta)$ for all $t$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{t}{\ln\ln(2t) } \geq \frac{120(\ln\frac{10.4}{\delta} +1)}{\beta \xi^2}\max\left( 480 \eta^2 \gamma^2 \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty^2 , 1 \right)
\end{equation*}
then for all $(s,a) \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$ simultaneously:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)- \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}} \right| \leq \xi \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} \leq \frac{\xi}{\beta}, \quad \text{ and }\quad \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a} \leq \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} ( 1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}) \leq \frac{1}{\beta}(1+ \frac{\xi}{\beta}).
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Biased Stochastic Gradients}\label{section::biased_stochastic_gradients_appendix}
Notice that:
\begin{align*}
\left( \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s &= (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \gamma \sum_{s',a} \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s',a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s',a} }{\mathbf{Z}} P_a(s|s') -\sum_a \frac{ \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a} }{\mathbf{Z}} \\
&= (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \gamma\mathbb{E}_{(s', a) \sim \mathbf{q} , s'' \sim P_{a}(\cdot |s')} \left[ \mathbf{B}_{s',a}^\mathbf{v} \mathbf{1}(s'' = s) \right] - \mathbb{E}_{(s',a) \sim \mathbf{q}}\left[ \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} \mathbf{1}(s' = s) \right]\\
&= (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \mathbb{E}_{(s', a) \sim \mathbf{q} , s'' \sim P_{a}(\cdot |s')} \left[ \mathbf{B}_{s',a}^\mathbf{v} \left( \gamma \mathbf{1}(s'' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s' = s)\right) \right],
\end{align*}
We now proceed to bound the bias of this estimator and prove a more fine grained version of Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee_appendix}
Let $\delta, \xi \in (0,1)$. With probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\frac{t}{\ln\ln(2t) } \geq \frac{120(\ln\frac{41.6|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\delta} +1)}{\beta \xi^2}\max\left( 480 \eta^2 \gamma^2 \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty^2 , 1 \right)$$
the plugin estimator $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ satisfies:
\begin{align}
\max_{u\in\{1,2,\infty\}} \left\|\widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}, s_{t+1}' }\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) \right]\right\|_u &\leq \frac{4}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}) \label{equation::bound_1_conditional} \\
\max_{u \in \{1,2, \infty\}}\left\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right] - \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right\|_u &\leq 2(1+\gamma) \xi (1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}), \label{equation::bound_2_conditional}\\
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}, s_{t+1}' }[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) ] \right\|_2^2 \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t) \right] &\leq (1+\gamma^2)(1+4\xi)\frac{1}\beta(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta})\label{equation::bound_3_conditional} %
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As a consequence of Corollary~\ref{corollary::approximation_B_t}, we can conclude that for all $t$ satisfying the assumptions of the Lemma and with probability at leat $1-\delta$ simultaneously for all $(s,a) \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::upper_bound_difference}
\left| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)- \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}} \right| \leq \xi \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}(1+ \frac{\xi}{\beta}), \quad \text{ and } \quad \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a} \leq \mathbf{B}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} ( 1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}) \leq \frac{1}{\beta}(1+ \frac{\xi}{\beta}).
\end{equation}
Let's start by bounding the first term. Notice that $ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) -(1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}$ has at most $2$ nonzero entries and therefore:
\begin{align*}
\max_{u \in \{ 1,2,\infty\}} \|\widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) -(1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \|_u \leq \frac{2}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}).
\end{align*}
Therefore for all $u \in \{ 1,2, \infty \}$:
\begin{equation*}
\left\| \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}, s_{t+1}' }\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) -(1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t)\right]\right\|_u \leq \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}, s_{t+1}' }\left[ \| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) -(1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \|_u \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t)\right] \leq \frac{2}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}).
\end{equation*}
\begin{align*}
\left\| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) \right] \right \|_u &\leq \left\| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - (1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \right\|_u+\left\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) \right] - (1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}\right \|_u\\
&\leq \frac{4}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta})
\end{align*}
Furthermore, notice that the following estimator of $\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ is unbiased:
\begin{equation*}
\left(\widetilde{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s = (1-\gamma)\boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \mathbf{B}^\mathbf{v}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t)\left(\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s)\right).
\end{equation*}
We conclude that for all $s\in\mathcal{S}$:
\begin{align*}
\left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s - \left( \widetilde{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s &= \left(\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s)\right)\left(\widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t) - \mathbf{B}^\mathbf{v}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t)\right)
\end{align*}
Consequently $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \widetilde{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ has at most $2$ nonzero entries. Now observe that any nonzero entry $s$ satisfies:
\begin{align*}
\left| \mathbb{E}\left[ \left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s \right]- \left( \nabla_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s \right| &= \left| \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1} \sim \mathbf{q}}\left[ \left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s - \left( \widetilde{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s \right]\right|\\
&\leq \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1} \sim \mathbf{q}}\left[ \left|\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s)\right|\left|\widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t) - \mathbf{B}^\mathbf{v}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t)\right| \right] \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1} \sim \mathbf{q}}[\left(\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) + \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s) \right) \xi \mathbf{B}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}^\mathbf{v}(1+ \frac{\xi}{\beta}) ] \\
&\leq (1+\gamma) \xi (1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}) \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1} \sim \mathbf{q}}[ \mathbf{B}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}} ] \\
&= (1+\gamma) \xi (1+\frac{\xi}{\beta})
\end{align*}
Inequality $(i)$ holds by the triangle inequality and Equation~\ref{equation::upper_bound_difference} and because $\mathbf{B}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a} \geq 0$. This finishes the proof of the first result. Since $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \widetilde{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ has at most $2$ nonzero entries for all $u \in \{1,2,\infty\}$:
\begin{equation*}
\left\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s \right]- \left( \nabla_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s \right\|_u \leq 2(1+\gamma) \xi (1+\frac{\xi}{\beta})
\end{equation*}
The second inequality follows.
Recall that for any $s$:
\begin{equation*}
\left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s = (1-\gamma)\boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}(t) }\left(\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s) \right).
\end{equation*}
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) - \mathbb{E}[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) ] \right\|_2^2 \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t) \right] &\leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right\|_2^2 \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t) \right] \\
&= \sum_{s', a} \left( \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s',a}(t) \right)^2 \gamma^2 \mathbf{q}_{s',a} P_a(s| s') +\\
&\sum_a \left( \widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v}(t)\right)^2 \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \left(1-2\gamma \right)P_a(s|s)\\
&\leq (1+\gamma^2)\mathbb{E}_{(s',a)\sim \widehat{\mathbf{q}}(t) \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t)}\left[ \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}_{s', a}(t) \frac{\mathbf{q}_{s',a}}{\widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s',a}} \right] \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} (1+\gamma^2)(1+4\xi)\frac{1}\beta(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta}).
\end{align*}
Inequality $(i)$ follows because $\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \leq \frac{\mathbf{q}_{s,a} }{\widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s,a} } \leq (1+4\xi)$ and because by Corollary~\ref{corollary::approximation_B_t} we have that $\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^\mathbf{v} \leq \frac{1}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi}{\beta})$.
The result follows.
\end{proof}
Combining the guarantees of Lemma~~\ref{lemma::helper_projected_sgd} and~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} for Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient_descent} applied to the objective function $J_D$:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::SGD_result_appendix}
Let $\xi_t= \min(\sqrt{\frac{c'}{t}}, \beta)$ for all $t$ where $c' = 2(|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2 \eta^2 D^2 + \frac{320}{\beta^2} + 240 $ and $D = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right)$. If $n(t)$ is such that:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::lower_bound_n_t}
\frac{n(t)}{\ln\ln(2 n(t))} \geq \frac{120 \left( \ln\frac{83.2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}| t^2}{\delta} + 1 \right)}{\beta \xi_t^2} \max\left( 280 \eta^2 \gamma^2 \| \mathbf{v}_t \|^2_\infty, 1\right)
\end{equation}
And $\tau_t = \frac{c}{\sqrt{t}}$ where $c = \frac{D}{2\sqrt{c'}}$ then for all $t \geq 1$ we have that with probability at least $1-2\delta$ and simulataneously for all $T \in \mathbb{N}$ :
\begin{equation*}
J_D\left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{v}_t\right) \leq J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \frac{36D}{\sqrt{T}}\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18 + 16\sqrt{\ln\ln(2T) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}}}{\beta}, 16 \right) %
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will make use of Lemmas~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} and~\ref{lemma::helper_projected_sgd}. We identify $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t = \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}_t}(n(t)) \right]$ and $\mathbf{b}_t = \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}_t} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}_t}(n(t)) \right]$. As a consequence of Cauchy-Schwartz and Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} we see that if $n(t)$ is such that:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{n(t)}{\ln\ln(2 n(t))} \geq \frac{120 \left( \ln\frac{83.2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}| t^2}{\delta} + 1 \right)}{\beta \xi_t^2} \max\left( 280 \eta^2 \gamma^2 \| \mathbf{v}_t \|^2_\infty, 1\right)
\end{equation*}
Then for all $t$ with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{2t^2}$ the bounds in Equations~\ref{equation::bound_1_conditional},~\ref{equation::bound_2_conditional}, and~\ref{equation::bound_3_conditional} in Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} hold and therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\left| \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star \rangle \right|\leq \| \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star\|_\infty \| \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|_1 \leq \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right) \frac{4}{\beta}(1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta}) \stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \underbrace{\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right) \frac{8}{\beta}}_{:=U_1}.
\end{equation*}
Where inequality $(i)$ holds by the assumption $\xi_t \leq \beta$. Notice that $X_t =\langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{v}_t -\mathbf{v}_\star\rangle $ is a martingale difference sequence. A simple application of Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform_emp_bernstein} yields that with probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t\in\mathbb{N}$:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::bounding_the_noise_terms}
-\sum_{t=1}^T \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t -\mathbf{x}_\star\rangle \leq 2U_1 \sqrt{t\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} %
\end{equation}
Similarly observe that for all $t$ with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{2t^2}$, since the bounds in Equations~\ref{equation::bound_1_conditional},~\ref{equation::bound_2_conditional}, and~\ref{equation::bound_3_conditional} in Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} hold, %
\begin{equation}\label{equation::bounding_the_bias}
\| \mathbf{b}_t \|_1 = \left\| \nabla_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - \mathbb{E}\left[ \widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}_t} J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \Big | \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}_t}(n(t)) \right] \right\|_1 \leq 2(1+\gamma) \xi_t (1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta})
\end{equation}
Notice that similarly and for all $t$ with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta }{2t^2}$, since the bounds in Equations~\ref{equation::bound_1_conditional},~\ref{equation::bound_2_conditional}, and~\ref{equation::bound_3_conditional} in Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} hold:
\begin{equation*}
\| \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t \|_2^2 \leq \frac{16}{\beta^2}\left(1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta}\right)^2,\quad \text{ and } \quad \| \mathbf{b}_t \|_2^2 \leq 4(1+\gamma)^2 \xi_t^2 (1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta})^2
\end{equation*}
Finally we show a bound on the $l_2$ norm of the gradient of $J_D$. Since $\mathbf{v}_\star \in \mathcal{D} = \left\{ \mathbf{v} \text{ s.t. } \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty \leq \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right) \right\}$. Recall that by Lemma~\ref{lemma::RL_smoothness_dual}, we have that $J_D$ is $(|\mathcal{S}| +1)\eta$-smooth in the $\| \cdot \|_\infty$ norm. Therefore by Lemma~\ref{lemma::supporting_lemma_bound_gradient}:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \|_1\leq (|\mathcal{S}|+1)\frac{\eta}{1-\gamma}\left( 1 + \frac{ \log \frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right)
\end{equation*}
Since $\| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \|_2 \leq \| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \|_1$ this in turn implies that:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \|^2_2\leq (|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2\frac{\eta^2}{(1-\gamma)^2}\left( 1 + \frac{ \log \frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right)^2.
\end{equation*}
We now invoke the guarantees of Lemma~\ref{lemma::helper_projected_sgd} to show that with probability $1-2\delta$ and simultaneously for all $T \in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^T J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) &\leq \sum_{t=1}^T \frac{ \| \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{v}_{t+1} - \mathbf{v}_\star\|^2 }{ 2\tau_t } +\\
&\tau_t \left( 2(|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2\frac{\eta^2}{(1-\gamma)^2}\left( 1 + \frac{ \log \frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right)^2 + \frac{80}{\beta^2}\left(1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta}\right)^2 + 20(1+\gamma)^2 \xi_t^2 (1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta})^2 \right) + \\
&2(1+\gamma) \xi_t (1+\frac{\xi_t}{\beta}) \times \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right) + 2 U_1 \sqrt{T\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \sum_{t=1}^T \frac{ \| \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{v}_{t+1} - \mathbf{v}_\star\|^2 }{ 2\tau_t } + \tau_t \left( 2(|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2 \eta^2 D^2 + \frac{320}{\beta^2} + 240 \right) + 8 D \xi_t + \\
&2U_1 \sqrt{T\left(\ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} %
\end{align*}
Recall that $U_1 = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right) \frac{8}{\beta}= \frac{8D}{\beta}$ and where $D = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{ \log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right)$. Inequality $(i)$ holds because $\xi_t \leq \beta$ and because $\gamma \leq 1$. Let $\tau_t = \frac{c}{\sqrt{t}}$ for some constant to be specified later and let's analyze the terms in the sum above that depend on these $\tau_t$ values:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^T \frac{ \| \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{v}_{t+1} - \mathbf{v}_\star\|^2 }{ 2\tau_t } &= -\frac{ \| \mathbf{v}_{T+1}-\mathbf{v}_\star\|^2}{2\tau_{T}} + \frac{1}{2c}\sum_{t=1}^T \| \mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\star \|^2\left( \sqrt{t} - \sqrt{t-1} \right) \\
&\leq \frac{D^2}{2c} \sqrt{T}
\end{align*}
The second term can be bounded as:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^T \tau_t c' = cc' \sum_{t=1}^T \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \leq cc' 2 \sqrt{T}
\end{align*}
Where $c' = 2(|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2 \eta^2 D^2 + \frac{320}{\beta^2} + 240 $. Therefore under this assumption we obtain:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^T J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) &\leq \frac{D^2}{2c} \sqrt{T} + cc' 2 \sqrt{T} + 8D \left(\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \right) + 2 U_1 \sqrt{T\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)}. %
\end{align*}
The minimizing choice for $c$ equals $c =\frac{ D}{2\sqrt{c'}}$. And in this case:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{t=1}^T J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) \leq 2D\sqrt{c'T} + 8D \left(\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \right) + 2 U_1 \sqrt{T\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} %
\end{equation*}
If we set $\xi_t =\min(\sqrt{\frac{c'}{t}}, \beta)$ we get:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^T J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) - J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) &\leq 18D\sqrt{c'T} + 2 U_1 \sqrt{T\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} \\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} 36D\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18}{\beta}, 16 \right)\sqrt{T} + 2 U_1 \sqrt{T\left( \ln \frac{2t^2}{\delta} \right)} \\
&\leq 36D\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18 + 16\sqrt{\ln\ln(2T) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}}}{\beta}, 16 \right)\sqrt{T} %
\end{align*}
Inequality $(i)$ holds because $\sqrt{c'} \leq 2\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18}{\beta}, 16 \right)$.
We conclude that:
\begin{align*}
J_D\left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{v}_t\right) &\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T J_D(\mathbf{v}_t) \\
&\leq J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \frac{36D}{\sqrt{T}}\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18 + 16\sqrt{\ln\ln(2T) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}}}{\beta}, 16 \right) %
\end{align*}
Inequality $(i)$ holds by convexity of $J_D$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
We are ready to present the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_simplified} which corresponds to a simplified version of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_appendix}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_simplified}}
\SGDresultsimplified*
\begin{proof}
First note that the $c' $ of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_appendix} satisfies $c' = \max\left( 2\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)^2 \eta^2 D^2, \frac{320}{\beta^2}, 240 \right)$ and therefore:
\begin{equation*}
c' \leq 8\max\left(8|\mathcal{S}|^2 \eta^2 D^2, \frac{320}{\beta} \right)
\end{equation*}
Thus $\sqrt{c'} = \max( 8 |\mathcal{S}|\eta D, \frac{31}{\beta}) = 8 |\mathcal{S}|\eta D$ (the last equality holds because $\eta \geq \frac{4}{\beta}$) and therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\xi_t = \min( \frac{8|\mathcal{S}|\eta D}{\sqrt{t}}, \beta) = \frac{8|\mathcal{S}|\eta D}{\sqrt{t}}
\end{equation*}
The last equality holds because $t \geq \frac{64|\mathcal{S}|^2\eta^2 D^2}{\beta}$.
Then the condition in Equation~\ref{equation::lower_bound_n_t} of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_appendix} is satisfies whenever:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::inequatliy_n_t}
\frac{n(t)}{\ln\ln(2n(t))} \geq \frac{120 t\times 280 \eta^2 D^2 \left( \ln \frac{100 |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|t^2}{\delta} + 1\right)}{\beta 64 |\mathcal{S}|^2 \eta^2 D^2 } = \frac{525 t \left( \ln \frac{100 |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|t^2}{\delta} + 1\right)}{\beta |\mathcal{S}|^2 }
\end{equation}
And therefore if we set $n(t) = \frac{525 t \left( \ln \frac{100 |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|t^2}{\delta}+ 1 \right)^3 }{\beta |\mathcal{S}|^2} \geq \frac{525 t \ln\ln(2t) \left( \ln \frac{100 |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|t^2}{\delta}+ 1 \right) }{\beta |\mathcal{S}|^2} \ln( \frac{2t^2}{\delta}) $ we see that with probability at least $1-3\delta$ and simultaneously for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{align*}
J_D\left(\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{v}_\ell\right) &\leq J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \frac{36D}{\sqrt{t}}\max\left(\left( |\mathcal{S}|+1\right)\eta D, \frac{18 + 16\sqrt{\ln\ln(2t) + \ln\frac{5.2}{\delta}}}{\beta}, 16 \right) \\ %
&= J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \frac{72D^2|\mathcal{S}|\eta}{\sqrt{t}}\left( 5 + 4\sqrt{\ln\ln(2t) + \ln \frac{5.2}{\delta} } \right)
\end{align*}
The last inequality holds since $\eta \geq \frac{4}{\beta} $. This implies that using a budget of $n(t)$ samples where $n(t)$ satisfies Inequality~\ref{equation::inequatliy_n_t} we can take $t$ gradient steps.
\end{proof}
\section{Extended Results for Tsallis Entropy Regularizers}\label{section::extended_results_tsallis}
For $\alpha > 1$ recall the Tsallis entropy between distributions $\mathbf{q}, \boldsymbol{\lambda}$ equals:
\begin{align*}
D_\alpha^{\mathcal{T}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}\parallel \mathbf{q}) &= \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\left(\mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \mathbf{q}} \left[\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^\alpha -1\right]\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\left(\mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \boldsymbol{\lambda}} \left[\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} -1\right]\right)
\end{align*}
Let $F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \frac{1}{\eta} D_\alpha^{\mathcal{T}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}\parallel \mathbf{q}) $. The Fenchel Dual of a Tsallis Entropy satisfies:
\begin{equation*}
F^*(\mathbf{u}) = \left \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}(\mathbf{u}), \mathbf{u} - \frac{\left(\mathbf{u} + x_* \mathbf{1} \right)}{\alpha} \boldsymbol{\lambda}(\mathbf{u})^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\mathbf{1} \right \rangle
\end{equation*}
Where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}(\mathbf{u}) = (\eta\mathbf{u} + \eta x_* \mathbf{1})^{1/(\alpha-1)} \left( \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\right)^{1/(\alpha-1)}\mathbf{q}$ and where $x_* \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}(\mathbf{u}) = 1$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}(\mathbf{u}) \geq 0$ for all $s,a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$. This implies that:
\begin{equation*}
J_D^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}(\mathbf{v}) = (1-\gamma)\sum_s \mathbf{v}_s \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \left \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}(\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v}), \mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v} - \frac{\left(\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v} + x_* \mathbf{1} \right)}{\alpha} \boldsymbol{\lambda}(\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v})^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\mathbf{1} \right \rangle
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{Strong Convexity of Tsallis Entropy}
In this section we show that whenever $\alpha \in (1,2]$, the Tsallis entropy is a strongly convex function of $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ in the $\| \cdot \|_2$ norm,
\begin{lemma}
If $\alpha \in (1,2]$, the function $F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \frac{1}{\eta} D_{\alpha}^\mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol{\lambda} \parallel \mathbf{q})$ is $\frac{\alpha}{\eta}$-strongly convex in the $\| \cdot \|_2$ norm.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that $\nabla^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} D_\alpha^{\mathcal{T}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda} \parallel \mathbf{q})$ is a diagonal matrix satisfying:
\begin{equation*}
\left[ \nabla^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} D_\alpha^{\mathcal{T}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda} \parallel \mathbf{q}) \right]_{s,a}= \frac{\alpha \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\alpha-2}}{\eta \mathbf{q}_{s,a}^{\alpha-1}}.
\end{equation*}
Whenever $\alpha \leq 2$, and noting that $\mathbf{q} \in [0,1]$ we conclude that any of these terms must be lower bounded by $\frac{\alpha}{\eta}$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tsallis entropy version of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution}}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution_tsallis}
Let $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|}$ be arbitrary and let $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ be its corresponding candidate primal variable (i.e. $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} = \boldsymbol{\lambda}( \mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v})$). If $\| \nabla_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\tilde{\mathbf{v}}) \|_1 \leq \epsilon$ and Assumptions~\ref{ass:uniform} and~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} hold then whenever $|\mathcal{S}| \geq 2$:
\begin{equation*}
J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\tilde{\pi}}) \geq J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\eta}^*) - \epsilon \left( \frac{1+c}{1-\gamma} + \| \tilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty \right)
\end{equation*}
Where $c = \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \left( \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}} ) + 2 \right)$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star$ is the $J_P$ optimum.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ let the lagrangian $J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v})$ be defined as,
\begin{equation*}
J_L( \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v}) = (1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \mathbf{v} \rangle + \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{\mathbf{q}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right) \right\rangle
\end{equation*}
Note that $J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) = J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})$ and that in fact $J_L$ is linear in $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$; \emph{i.e.},
$$J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}}) = J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) + \langle \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}),\bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \rangle.$$
Using Holder's inequality we have:
\begin{equation*}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) - \|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1\cdot \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty = J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) - \|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1\cdot \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty.
\end{equation*}
Let $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\star$ be the candidate primal solution to the optimal dual solution $\mathbf{v}_\star = \argmin_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$. By weak duality we have that $J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) = J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star)$, and since by assumption $\|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1 \leq \epsilon$:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::lowr_bounding_J_lambda_star_tsallis}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) -\epsilon \| \bar{\mathbf{v}} - \widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty.
\end{equation}
In order to use this inequality to lower bound the value of $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}})$, we will need to choose an appropriate $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ such that the LHS reduces to $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}})$ while keeping the $\ell_\infty$ norm on the RHS small. Thus we consider setting $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ as:
\begin{equation*}
\bar{\mathbf{v}}_s = \mathbb{E}_{a,s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathcal{T} }\left[ \mathbf{z}_s + \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right) + \gamma \bar{\mathbf{v}}_{s'} \right]
\end{equation*}
Where $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S|}$ is some function to be determined later. It is clear that an appropriate $\mathbf{z}$ exists as long as $\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{r}, \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1 \right)^{\alpha-1}$ are uniformly bounded. Furthermore:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::z_infinity_bound_tsallis}
\| \bar{\mathbf{v}} \|_\infty \leq \frac{\max_{s,a} \left| \mathbf{z}_s + \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right) \right|}{1-\gamma} \leq \frac{\| \mathbf{z} \|_\infty + \| \mathbf{r} \|_{\infty} + \frac{1}{\eta( \alpha-1)}\left\| \left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)^{\alpha-1} - 1\right\|_{\infty} }{1-\gamma}
\end{equation}
We proceed to bound the norm of $\left\| \left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)^{\alpha-1} - 1\right\|_{\infty}$. Observe that by Assumptions~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{ass:uniform}, for all states $s,a \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$, the ratio $|\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} | \leq \frac{1}{\beta}$ and therefore:
\begin{equation*}
\left\| \left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}} \right)^{\alpha-1} - 1\right\|_{\infty} \leq 1 + \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}}
\end{equation*}
Notice the following relationships hold:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\left\langle \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \mathbf{A}^{\bar{\mathbf{v}}} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right) \right\rangle &= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \gamma \bar{\mathbf{v}}_{s'} - \bar{\mathbf{v}}_s - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)} \left( \left( \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1}-1 \right) \right] \right) \notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left(\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} -1 \right) - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)} \left( \left( \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1}-1 \right) -\mathbf{z}_s \right] \right)\notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left(\mathbb{E}_{a, s' \sim \widetilde{\pi} \times \mathbf{P} } \left[ \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \left( \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} -\mathbf{z}_s \right] \right)\notag\\
&= \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left( \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_s}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right)^{\alpha-1}\right)\left[ \sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}^{\alpha-1}}\right] - \mathbf{z}_s\right)\label{equation::support_equation_1_tsallis}
\end{align}
\end{small}
Where $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} = \sum_{a} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s,a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_s = \sum_a \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_{s,a}$. Note that by definition:
\begin{equation}
(1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} \rangle = \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} + \mathbf{r} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)} \left( \left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right)^{\alpha-1}-1 \right) \right\rangle = J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} \rangle. \label{equation::support_equation_2_tsallis}
\end{equation}
Let's expand the definition of $J_L( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} )$ using Equations~\ref{equation::support_equation_1} and \ref{equation::support_equation_2}:
\begin{align*}
J_L( \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) &= (1-\gamma) \langle \boldsymbol{\mu}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} \rangle + \left\langle \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \mathbf{A}^{\bar{\mathbf{v}}}- \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{\mathbf{q}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right) \right\rangle\\
&= J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}, \mathbf{z} \rangle + \sum_{s} \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{s} \left( \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_s}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right)^{\alpha-1}\right)\left[ \sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}^{\alpha-1}}\right] - \mathbf{z}_s\right)\\
&= J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}) + \sum_s \left( \mathbf{z}_s(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_s - \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s ) + \frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_s}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right)^{\alpha-1}\right)\left[ \sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}^{\alpha-1}}\right] \right)
\end{align*}
Since we want this expression to equal $J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}} )$, we need to choose $\mathbf{z}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{z}_s &= \frac{\frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\mathbf{q}_s}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \left(\frac{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}{\mathbf{q}_s} \right)^{\alpha-1}\right)\left[ \sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{a|s}^{\alpha-1}}\right]}{1-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}}
\end{align*}
Observe that $ \mathbf{z}_s = \frac{\frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left({\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \left(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s \right)^{\alpha-1}\right)\left[ \sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}^{\alpha-1}}\right]}{1-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}}$ and therefore, since for all $s$ and when $\alpha \geq 1$ by Assumption~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} we have that $\sum_a \frac{\widetilde{\pi}^\alpha(a|s)}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}^{\alpha-1}} \leq \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}}$,
\begin{align*}
\left| \mathbf{z}_s \right| \leq \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \frac{\left| \left(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s^{\alpha-1} \right| }{\left|1-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s}\right|}
\end{align*}
Let $\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_s} = \frac{1}{\theta}$ where $\theta \in [0, \frac{1}{\rho}]$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\left| \mathbf{z}_s \right| \leq \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)\beta^{\alpha-1}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}_s \frac{|1-\theta^{\alpha-1} |}{\left|1 - \frac{1}{\theta}\right|}
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see that when $\alpha \geq 0$ the function $f(\theta) = \frac{1-\theta^{\alpha-1} }{1 - \frac{1}{\theta}} = \frac{\theta - \theta^{\alpha}}{\theta-1}$ is decreasing in the interval $(0, 1]$ and increasing afterwards. Furthermore, by L'Hopital's rule, $f(1) = 1-\alpha$ and $f(\frac{1}{\rho}) = \frac{\frac{1}{\rho^{\alpha}} - \frac{1}{\rho}}{\frac{1}{\rho}-1} \leq \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}}$ since $\rho \leq \frac{1}{2}$. This implies,
\begin{equation*}
\left| \mathbf{z}_s \right| \leq \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}}).
\end{equation*}
And therefore Equation~\ref{equation::z_infinity_bound_tsallis} implies:
\begin{equation*}
\|\bar{\mathbf{v}}\|_\infty \leq \frac{ \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}}) + 1 + \frac{1}{\eta( \alpha-1)} \left(\frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} +1\right) }{1-\gamma} = \frac{ \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \left( \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}} ) + 2 \right) +1 }{1-\gamma}
\end{equation*}
Putting these together we obtain the following version of equation~\ref{equation::lowr_bounding_J_lambda_star_tsallis}:
\begin{equation*}
J_L(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}, \bar{\mathbf{v}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star) -\epsilon \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \left( \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}} ) + 2 \right) +1 }{1-\gamma} + \| \widetilde{\mathbf{v} } \|_\infty \right)
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Extension of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir} to Tsallis Entropy}
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{dualvariablesboundofirtsallis}
\label{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir_tsallis}
Under Assumptions~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards}, \ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{ass:uniform}, the optimal dual variables are bounded as
\begin{equation}\label{equation::max_radius_tsallis}
\| \mathbf{v}^* \|_\infty \le \frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{\eta(\alpha-1) \beta^{\alpha-1}} \right) = D_{\mathcal{D}, \alpha}.
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
Recall the Lagrangian form,
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\mathbf{v}}, \max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \in \Delta_{S\times A}}~ J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v}) := (1-\gamma) \langle \mathbf{v}, \boldsymbol{\mu} \rangle + \left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}} - \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} - 1 \right)\right\rangle.
\end{equation*}
The KKT conditions of $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*$ imply that for any $s,a$, either (1) $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = 0$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,v^*) \le 0$ or (2) $\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*) = 0$. The partial derivative of $J_L$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}J_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*,\mathbf{v}^*) = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'} - \mathbf{v}^*_{s}-\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} .
\end{equation}
Thus, for any $s,a$, either
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} \ge \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'},
\end{equation}
or,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} > 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ is the discounted state-action visitations of some policy $\pi_\star$; \emph{i.e.}, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} = \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_s \cdot \pi_\star(a|s)$ for some $\pi_\star$. Note that by Assumption~\ref{ass:uniform}, any policy $\pi$ has $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_\star}_{s} > 0$ for all $s$. Accordingly, the KKT conditions imply,
\begin{equation}
\pi_\star(a|s) = 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} \ge \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'},
\end{equation}
or,
\begin{equation}
\pi_\star(a|s) > 0 ~\text{and}~ \mathbf{v}^*_{s} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}.
\end{equation}
Equivalently,
\begin{align}
\mathbf{v}^*_{s} &= \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi_\star(s)}\left[\mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \gamma\sum_{s'} P_{a}(s'|s) \mathbf{v}^*_{s'}\right] \\
\end{align}
We may express these conditions as a Bellman recurrence for $\mathbf{v}^*_s$ %
and the solution to these Bellman equations is bounded when $\mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)}$ is bounded~\citep{puterman2014markov}. And indeed, by Assumptions~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards}, $\left|\mathbf{r}_{s,a} -\frac{\alpha}{\eta(\alpha-1)}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*_{s,a} }{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha-1} + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)}\right| \leq 1 + \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} + \frac{1}{\eta(\alpha-1) \beta^{\alpha-1}}$
We may thus bound the solution as,
\begin{equation}
\|\mathbf{v}^*\|_\infty \le \frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{\eta(\alpha-1) \beta^{\alpha-1}} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Gradient descent results for the Tsallis Entropy}
\begin{remark}
Throughout this section we make the assumption that $\alpha \in (1,2]$.
\end{remark}%
We start by characterizing the smoothness properties of $J_D^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}(\mathbf{v})$, the dual function of the Tsallis regularized LP.
\begin{lemma}
If $\alpha \in (1, 2]$ the dual function $J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D(\mathbf{v})$ is $\frac{\eta |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\alpha}$-smooth in the $\| \cdot \|_2$ norm.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that \ref{equation::primal_visitation_regularized} can be written as \ref{equation::regularized_LP}:
\begin{align*}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} \in \mathcal{D}} \langle \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \\
\text{s.t. } \mathbf{E}\boldsymbol{\lambda} = b. \notag
\end{align*}
Where the regularizer ($ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) := \frac{1}{\eta}D_\alpha^{\mathcal{T}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}\parallel \mathbf{q}) $) is $\frac{\alpha}{\eta}-\| \cdot \|_2$ strongly convex. In this problem $\mathbf{r}$ corresponds to the reward vector, the vector $\mathbf{b} = (1-\gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|}$ and matrix $\mathbf{E} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}| \times |\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$ takes the form:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{E}[s, s',a] = \begin{cases}
\gamma \mathbf{P}_a(s | s') & \text{if } s \neq s'\\
1-\gamma \mathbf{P}_{a}(s|s) & \text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Therefore (since $\| \mathbf{E} \|_{2, 2}$ is simply the Frobenius norm of matrix $\mathbf{E}$),
\begin{equation*}
\| \mathbf{E} \|_{2, 2} \leq 2|\mathcal{S}|| \mathcal{A}|
\end{equation*}
The result follows as a corollary of Lemma~\ref{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity}.
\end{proof}
Throughout this section we use the notation $ D_{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}$ to refer to $\| \mathbf{v}^* \|_\infty \le \frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{\eta(\alpha-1) \beta^{\alpha-1}} \right)$. We are ready to prove convergence guarantees for Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} when applied to the objective $J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::grad_descent_guarantee_tsallis} Let Assumptions~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards},~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and \ref{ass:uniform} hold. Let $\mathcal{D}_{ \mathcal{T}, \alpha}= \left\{ \mathbf{v} \text{ s.t. } \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty \le D_{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}\right\}$, and define the distance generating function to be $w(\mathbf{x}) = \| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2$. After $T$ steps of Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent}, the objective function $J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D$ evaluated at the iterate $\mathbf{v}_T = y_T$ satisfies:
\vspace{-.3cm}
\begin{equation*}
J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D(\mathbf{v}_T ) - J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D(\mathbf{v}^*)\leq 4\eta \frac{|\mathcal{S}|^2|\mathcal{A}|}{\alpha}\frac{\left( 1 + c' \right)^2}{(1-\gamma)^2T^2}.
\end{equation*}
Where $c' =\frac{2}{\eta (\alpha-1)\beta^{\alpha-1}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This results follows simply by invoking the guarantees of Theorem \ref{theorem::accelerated_gradient_descent}, making use of the fact that $J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D$ is $\frac{\eta | \mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\alpha}-$smooth as proven by Lemma~\ref{lemma::RL_smoothness_dual}, observing that as a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir_tsallis}, $\mathbf{v}^\star \in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}$ and using the inequality $\| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2 \leq |\mathcal{S}|\| \mathbf{x}\|_\infty^2$ for $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{| \mathcal{S}|}$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lemma::grad_descent_guarantee_tsallis} can be easily turned into the following guarantee regarding the dual function value of the final iterate:%
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::lower_bound_T_accelerated_gradient_tsallis}
Let $\epsilon > 0$. If Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} is ran for at least $T$ rounds
\begin{equation*}
T \geq 2\eta^{1/2} (|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|^{1/2})\frac{\left( 1 + c' \right)}{\alpha^{1/2} (1-\gamma) \sqrt{\epsilon}}
\end{equation*}
then $\mathbf{v}_{T}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal solution for the dual objective $J^{\mathcal{T}, \alpha}_D$. %
\end{corollary}
If $T$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary~\ref{corollary::lower_bound_T_accelerated_gradient_tsallis} a simple use of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_gradients} allows us to bound the $\| \cdot \|_2$ norm of the dual function's gradient at $\mathbf{v}_{T}$:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_{T}) \|_2 \leq \sqrt{ \frac{2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|\eta \epsilon}{\alpha}}
\end{equation*}
If we denote as $\pi_{T}$ to be the policy induced by $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\mathbf{v}_{T}}$, and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\eta}^\star$ is the candidate dual solution corresponding to $\mathbf{v}^\star$. A simple application of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution_tsallis} yields:
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_{T}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star) -\frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 2+c+c' \right)\sqrt{ \frac{2|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|\eta \epsilon}{\alpha}}
\end{equation*}
Where $c = \frac{1}{\eta (\alpha-1)} \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha-1}} \left( \max(\alpha-1, \frac{2}{\rho^{\alpha-1}} ) + 2 \right)$, $c' =\frac{2}{\eta (\alpha-1)\beta^{\alpha-1}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star$ is the $J_P$ optimum.
This leads us to the main result of this section:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::regularized_result_tsallis}
Let $\alpha \in (1, d]$. For any $\xi > 0$. If $T \geq 4\eta|\mathcal{S}|^{3/2}|\mathcal{A}|^{1/2} \frac{\left( 2 + c+ c' \right)^2 }{\alpha (1-\gamma)^2 \xi} $ then:
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_{T}} )\geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star}_\eta) -\xi.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
Thus Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} achieves an $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon)$ rate of convergence to an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy. We now proceed to show that an appropriate choice for $\eta$ can be leveraged to obtain an $\epsilon-$optimal policy.%
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{mainacceleratedresulttsallis}\label{theorem::main_accelerated_result_tsallis}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, let $\eta = \frac{2}{(\alpha-1)\epsilon\beta^\alpha}$. If $T \geq 8|\mathcal{S}|^{3/2}|\mathcal{A}|^{1/2} \frac{\left( 2 + c+ c' \right)^2 }{(\alpha-1)\alpha (1-\gamma)^2 \beta^{\alpha}\epsilon^2} $, then $\pi_T$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal policy.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
As a consequence of Corollary~\ref{corollary::regularized_result_tsallis}, we can conclude that:
\begin{equation*}
J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\end{equation*}
Where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star$ is the regularized optimum. Recall that:
\begin{equation*}
J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\eta}\left(\mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \mathbf{q}} \left[\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^\alpha -1\right]\right).
\end{equation*}
Since $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}$ is the maximizer of the regularized objective, it satisfies $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star, \eta}) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*)$ where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star$ is the visitation frequency of the optimal policy corresponding to the unregularized objective. We can conclude that:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\pi_T} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} &\geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\eta}\left( \sum_{s,a} \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \left( \left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha} - 1\right) - \sum_{s,a} \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \left( \left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha} - 1\right) \right) -\frac{\epsilon}{2} \\
&= \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} + \frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\eta}\left( \sum_{s,a} \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_T}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha} - \sum_{s,a} \mathbf{q}_{s,a} \left( \frac{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right)^{\alpha} \right) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}\\
&\geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star_{s,a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\eta}\left(\frac{1}{\beta} \right)^{\alpha} - \frac{\epsilon}{2}
\end{align*}
And therefore if $\eta = \frac{2}{(\alpha-1)\epsilon\beta^\alpha}$, we can conclude that:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\pi_T} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} \geq \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^{\star} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Background}
In this section we review the basics of Markov decision processes and their Linear Programming primal and dual formulations (see section~\ref{section::RL_as_LP}) and some facts about the geometry of convex functions.
\subsection{RL as an LP}\label{section::RL_as_LP}
We consider a discounted Markov decision process (MDP) described by a tuple $\mathcal{M} = (\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A}, P, \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\mu}, \gamma)$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a finite state space, $\mathcal{A}$ is a finite action space, $P$ is a transition probability matrix, $\mathbf{r}$ is a reward vector, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ is an initial state distribution, and $\gamma \in (0,1)$ is a discount factor.
We make the following assumption regarding the reward values $\{ \mathbf{r}_{s,a} \}$.
\begin{assumption}[Unit rewards]\label{assumption::bounded_rewards}
For all $s,a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$, the rewards satisfy,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{r}_{s,a}\in[0,1].
\end{equation*}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\aldotwo{We can make this assumption more general.}
\end{assumption}
The agent interacts with $\mathcal{M}$ via a policy $\pi : \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \Delta_{\mathcal{A}}$. The agent is initialized at a state $s_0$ sampled from an initial state distribution $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ and at time $k=0,1,\dots$ it uses its policy to sample an action $a_k\sim \pi(s_k)$. The MDP provides an immediate reward $\mathbf{r}_{s_k,a_k}$ and transitions randomly to a next state $s_{k+1}$ according to probabilities $\mathbf{P}_a(s_{k+1}|s_k)$.
Given a policy $\pi$ we define its infinite-horizon discounted reward as:
\begin{equation*}
V_\pi := \mathbb{E}^\pi\left[\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k \mathbf{r}_{s_k, a_k} \right],
\end{equation*}
where we use $\mathbb{E}^{\pi}$ to denote the expectation over trajectories induced by the MDP $\mathcal{M}$ and policy $\pi$. In RL, the agent's objective is to find an optimal policy $\pi_\star$; that is, find a policy maximizing $V_\pi$ over all policy mappings $\pi : \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \Delta_{\mathcal{A}}$. We denote the optimal policy as:
\begin{equation*}
\pi_\star := \argmax_{\pi} V_\pi.
\end{equation*}
We now review the definitions of state value functions:
\begin{definition}
We define the value vector $\mathbf{v}^\pi \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|}$ of a policy $\pi$ as:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{v}^\pi_s := \mathbb{E}^{\pi}\left[\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k r_{s_k, a_k} | s_0 = s \right].
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
We now review the definition of visitation distributions:
\begin{definition}
Given a policy $\pi$ we define its state-action visitation distribution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$ as,
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_{s,a} := (1-\gamma)\mathbb{E}^{\pi}\left[\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k \mathbf{1}(s_k = s, a_k = a) \right].
\end{equation*}
Notice that by definition $\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} = 1$.
\end{definition}
We note that any vector of nonnegative entries $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ may be used to define a policy $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::lambda_to_policy}
\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(a | s) := \frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a}}{\sum_{a' \in \mathcal{A}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a'} } .
\end{equation}
Note that $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi} = \pi$, while the visitation distribution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ of $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ is not necessarily $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ for an arbitrary vector $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$. %
\begin{definition}
Given a policy $\pi$ we define its state visitation distribution as,
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_{s} := (1-\gamma)\mathbb{E}^{\pi}\left[\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k \mathbf{1}(s_k = s) \right].
\end{equation*}
Notice that $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_s = \sum_a \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_{s,a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi_{s,a} = \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi_s \cdot \pi(a|s)$.
\end{definition}
The optimal visitation distribution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^* := \argmax_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi} \sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi}_{s,a}\mathbf{r}_{s,a} .
\end{equation*}
It can be shown \citep{puterman2014markov,chen2016stochastic} that solving for the optimal visitation distribution is equivalent to the following linear program:
\begin{align}\label{equation::primal_visitation_unregularized}
& \max_{ \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \in \Delta_{\mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}}} ~ \sum_{s, a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} \tag{Primal-$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$}\\
& ~\text{s.t.}~ \sum_{a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a} = (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \gamma \sum_{s', a} \mathbf{P}_a(s | s') \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s', a}
\quad \forall s\in \mathcal{S}. \notag
\end{align}
Where we write $\mathbf{P} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S||A| \times |S| }$ to denote the transition operator. Specifically, the $|\mathcal{S}|$ constraints of~\ref{equation::primal_visitation_unregularized} restrict any feasible $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ to be the state-action visitations for some policy $\pi$ (given by $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$). The dual of this LP is given by,
\begin{align}\label{equation::dual_value_unregularized}
\min_{\mathbf{v}}~& (1-\gamma) \sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}} \boldsymbol{\mu}_s \mathbf{v}_s \tag{Dual-$\mathbf{v}$} \\
~\text{s.t.}~ & ~0 \geq \mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a} \quad \forall s\in \mathcal{S}, a\in \mathcal{A}, \notag
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v}_{s,a} = \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - \mathbf{v}_s + \gamma \sum_{s'} \mathbf{P}_a(s'|s)\mathbf{v}_{s'}$ is the advantage evaluated at $s,a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$. It can be shown~\citep{puterman2014markov,chen2016stochastic} that the unique primal solution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ is exactly $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_*}$ and the unique dual solution $\mathbf{v}^*$ is $\mathbf{v}^{\pi_*}$.
We finalize this section by defining the notion of suboptimality satisfied by the final policy produced by the algorithms that we propose.
\begin{definition}
Let $\epsilon > 0$. We say that policy $\pi$ is $\epsilon$-optimal if
\begin{equation*}
\max_{s \in \mathcal{S}} | \mathbf{v}_s^{\pi} - \mathbf{v}_s^{\pi_\star} | \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
Our objective is to design algorithms such that for any parameter $\epsilon > 0$, can return an $\epsilon-$optimal policy.
\section{Contributions}
The main contributions of this paper are the following:%
\begin{enumerate}
\item We prove several structural results regarding entropy regularized objectives for reinforcement learning and leverage them to prove convergence guarantees for Accelerated Gradient Descent on the dual (REPS) objective under mild assumptions on the MDP (see Theorem~\ref{theorem::main_accelerated_result}). For discounted MDPs we show that an $\epsilon$-optimal policy can be found after $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon^2)$ steps and an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy can be found in $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon)$ steps.
\item Similarly we show that a simple version of stochastic gradient descent using biased plug-in gradient estimators can be used to find an $\epsilon-$optimal policy after $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^8\epsilon^8)$ iterations (see Theorem~\ref{theorem::main_result}) and an $\epsilon$-optimal regularized policy in $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^8\epsilon^4)$ steps. Although our rates are short of the ones achievable by alternating optimization methods, we are the first to show meaningful convergence guarantees for a purely dual approach based on on-policy access to samples from the underlying MDP.
\item In Appendix~\ref{section::extended_results_tsallis} we extend our results beyond the REPS objective and consider the use of Tsallis Entropy regularizers. Similar to our results for the REPS objective we show that for discounted MDPs an $\epsilon-$optimal policy can be found after $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon^2 )$ steps and an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy can be found in $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon)$ steps.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Relative Entropy Policy Search}
We start by deriving some general results regarding the geometry of regularized linear programs. Our first result (Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP}) characterizes the smoothness properties of a regularized LP. This will prove crucial in later sections where we make use of this result to derive convergence rates for the REPS objective. We start by recalling the definitions of both strong convexity and smoothness of a function. %
\begin{definition}\label{definition::smoothness}
A function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $\beta-$strong convex w.r.t norm $\| \cdot \|$ if:
\begin{equation*}
f(\mathbf{x}) \geq f(\mathbf{y}) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{y}), \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \rangle + \frac{\beta}{2}\| \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y} \|^2
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\vspace{-.5cm}
Let's also define smoothness:
\begin{definition}\label{definition::strong_convexity}
A function $h$ is $\alpha-$smooth\footnote{Smoothness is independent of the convexity properties of $h$.} w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|_*$ if:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::definition_smoothness}
h(\mathbf{u}) \leq h(\mathbf{w}) + \langle \nabla h(\mathbf{w}), \mathbf{u}-\mathbf{w} \rangle + \frac{\alpha}{2} \| \mathbf{u}-\mathbf{w} \|_*^2
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\vspace{-.3cm}
We will now characterize the smoothness properties of the dual of a regularized linear program. Let's start by considering the generic linear program:
\begin{align*}
\max_{ \boldsymbol{\lambda} \in \mathcal{D} } ~&\langle \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle, \quad
\text{s.t. } \mathbf{E}\boldsymbol{\lambda} = \mathbf{b},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{r}\in\mathbb{R}^n$, $\mathbf{E}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, and $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is a convex domain.
Let's regularize this objective using a function $F$ that is $\beta$-strongly convex with respect to norm $\|\cdot\|$:
\begin{align}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} \in \mathcal{D}}~&\langle \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}), \quad
\text{s.t. } \mathbf{E}\boldsymbol{\lambda} = \mathbf{b}.\label{equation::regularized_LP} \tag{RegLP}
\end{align}
The Lagrangian of problem \ref{equation::regularized_LP} is given by
\begin{equation*}
g_L(\boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{v}) = \langle \mathbf{r}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda} ) + \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbf{v}_i\left( \mathbf{b}_i - (\mathbf{E}\boldsymbol{\lambda})_i\right).
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the dual function $g_D : \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with respect to the original primal regularized LP is,
\begin{align*}
g_D(\mathbf{v}) &= \langle \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{b} \rangle + \max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} \in \mathcal{D}} \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}, \mathbf{r}- \mathbf{v}^\top \mathbf{E} \rangle - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \\
&= \langle \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{b} \rangle + F^*( \mathbf{r}- \mathbf{v}^\top \mathbf{E} ),
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from the definition of the Fenchel conjugate of $F$. It is possible to relate the smoothness properties of $F^*$ with the strong convexity of $F$. A crucial result that we will use in our results is the following:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{equivalencesmoothnessstrongconvexity}
\label{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity}
If $F$ is $\beta$-strongly convex w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|$ over $\mathcal{D}$ then $F^*$ is $\frac{1}{\beta}$-smooth w.r.t the dual norm $\| \cdot \|_*$.
\end{restatable}
The proof of this lemma is in Appendix~\ref{section::appendix_geometry_regularized_linear}. Definitions~\ref{definition::smoothness} and~\ref{definition::strong_convexity} are stated in terms of a generic norm $\| \cdot \|$ and its dual $\| \cdot \|_\star$. When applied to the REPS objective in Equation~\ref{equation::dual_function_RL}, using these general norm definitions of smoothness and strong convexity allow us to obtain guarantees with a milder dependence on $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ than would be possible if we were to use their $\ell_2$ norm characterization instead. We can use the result of Lemma~\ref{lemma::equivalence_smoothness_strong_convexity} to characterize the smoothness properties of the dual function $J_D$ of a generic regularized LP.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{dualsmoothnessregularizedLP}
\label{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP}
Consider the regularized LP~\ref{equation::regularized_LP} with $\mathbf{r} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $\mathbf{E} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^m$, and where $F$ is $\beta-$strongly convex w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|$. The dual function $g_D:\mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of this regularized LP
is $\frac{\| \mathbf{E} \|^2_{\cdot, *}}{\beta}$-smooth w.r.t. to the dual norm $\| \cdot \|_*$, where we use $\| \mathbf{E} \|_{\cdot, *} $ to denote the $\| \cdot \|$ norm over the $\| \cdot \|_*$ norm of $\mathbf{E}'$s rows.
\end{restatable}
As a simple consequence of~Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP} we can characterize the smoothness parameter of $J_D$ in the REPS objective:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{RLsmoothnessdual}\label{lemma::RL_smoothness_dual}
The dual function $J_D(\mathbf{v})$ is $(|\mathcal{S}|+1)\eta$-smooth in the $\| \cdot \|_\infty$ norm.
\aldotwo{Actually we may want to check this because we are not using just the entropy... there is the $\mathbf{q}$ distribution.}
\end{restatable}
A detailed proof of this result can be found in Appendix~\ref{subsection::proof_of_RL_smoothness_dual}.
\subsection{Structural results for the REPS objective}\label{section::structural_REPS}
Armed with Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_smoothness_regularized_LP} we are ready to derive some useful structural properties of the REPS objective. In this section we present two main results. First we show that under some mild assumptions it is possible to relate the gradient magnitude of any candidate solution to $J_D$ with its suboptimality gap and second, we show an $l_\infty$ bound for the norm of the optimal dual solution $\mathbf{v}^\star$. For most of the analysis we make the following assumptions:
\begin{assumption}\label{assumption::lower_bound_q}
There is $ \beta >0$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{q}_{s,a}\geq \beta \quad \forall s, a \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}.
\end{equation*}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{assumption}
We introduce the following assumption on the discounted state visitation distribution of arbitrary policies $\pi$ in the MDP, paraphrased from~\citet{wang2017primal}:
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:uniform}
There exists $\rho>0$ such that for any policy $\pi$, the discounted state visitation distribution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi$ defined as $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_s^\pi = \sum_a \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}^\pi$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\pi_s \geq \rho
\end{equation}
for all states $s \in \mathcal{S}$.%
\end{assumption}
Suppose we have a candidate dual solution $\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}$ for$J_D(\mathbf{v})$ in~\ref{equation::dual_visitation_regularized} with its corresponding candidate primal solution $$\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} = \frac{\exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\tilde{\mathbf{v}}} \right)\boldsymbol{\cdot}\mathbf{q}}{\widetilde{Z}}$$ where the operators $\exp$ and $\boldsymbol{\cdot}$ act pointwise and $$\widetilde{Z} = \sum_{a, s} \exp( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\tilde{\mathbf{v}}} ) \mathbf{q}_{s,a}. $$ We denote the corresponding candidate policy (computed using Equation~\ref{equation::lambda_to_policy}) associated with $\widetilde{\mathbf{v}}$ as $\widetilde{\pi}(a| s)$. This candidate policy induces a discounted visitation distribution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}$ that may be substantially different from $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. We now show that it is possible to control the deviation of primal objective value of $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}}$ from $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ in terms of $\| \nabla J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1$:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{boundingprimalvaluecandidatesolution}
\label{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution}
Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{v}} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|}$ be arbitrary and let $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ be its corresponding candidate primal variable. If $\|\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{v}})\|_1 \leq \epsilon$ and Assumptions~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{ass:uniform} hold then whenever $|\mathcal{S}| \geq 2$:
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star) -\epsilon \left( \frac{1 +c }{1-\gamma} + \| \widetilde{\mathbf{v} } \|_\infty \right),
\end{equation*}
where $c = \frac{ 1 + \log(\frac{1}{\rho^3\beta})}{\eta} $ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^{\star}$ is the $J_P$ optimum.
\end{restatable}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution} is in Appendix~\ref{section::proof_of_primal_value_candidate_solution}.
We finish this section by proving a bound on the norm of the dual variables. This bound will inform our optimization algorithms as it will allow us to set up the right constraints.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{dualvariablesboundofir}
\label{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir}
Under Assumptions~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards}, \ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and~\ref{ass:uniform}, the optimal dual variables are bounded as
\begin{equation}\label{equation::max_radius}
\| \mathbf{v}^* \|_\infty \le \frac{1}{1-\gamma} \left( 1 + \frac{\log\frac{|S||A| }{\beta \rho}}{\eta} \right):= D.
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir} can be found in Appendix~\ref{section::dual_variables_bound_ofir}. From now on we use the notation $D$ to refer to the quantity on the RHS of Equation~\ref{equation::max_radius}.
\subsection{Convergence rates}
As a warm up in this section we derive convergence rates for the case when we have access to exact knowledge of the transition dynamics $\mathbf{P}$ and therefore exact gradients. We analyze the effects of running Accelerated Gradient Descent on the REPS objective $J_D(\mathbf{v})$. First we require to define a distance generating function:
\begin{definition}[Distance generating function] We say that $w : \mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a distance generating function (DGF) if $w$ is $1-$strongly convex w.r.t to the $\| \cdot \|_\star$ norm. Accordingly, the Bregman divergence is given as:
$$D_w(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) = w(\mathbf{y}) - \langle \nabla w(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x} \rangle - w(\mathbf{x}), \quad \mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{D}, \forall \mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{D}$$
The strong convexity of $w$ implies that $D_w$ satisfies $D_w(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}) = 0$ and $D_w(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) \geq \frac{1}{2}\| \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \|_\star^2\geq 0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{algorithm}
\textbf{Input} Initial point $\mathbf{x}_0$, domain $\mathcal{D}$, distance generating function $w$.\\
$\mathbf{y}_0 \leftarrow \mathbf{x}_0, \quad \mathbf{z}_0 \leftarrow \mathbf{x}_0$.\\
\For{$t=0, \cdots , T$}{
$\eta_{t+1} = \frac{t+2}{2\alpha}$ and $\tau_t = \frac{2}{t+2}$.\\
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} &\leftarrow (1-\tau_{t}) \mathbf{y}_{t} + \tau_{t} \mathbf{z}_{t}\\
\mathbf{y}_{t+1 } &\leftarrow \argmin_{\mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{D}} \frac{1}{\alpha}\langle \nabla h(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{x}_t \rangle+\frac{\| \mathbf{y} -\mathbf{x}_t\|_\star^2}{2} .\\
z_{t+1} &\leftarrow \argmin_{\mathbf{z} \in \mathcal{D}} \eta_t \langle \nabla h(\mathbf{x}_t) , \mathbf{z}- \mathbf{z}_t\rangle + D_w(\mathbf{z}_t, \mathbf{z}).
\end{align*}
}
For some stepsize parameter sequence $\eta_t$.
\caption{Accelerated Gradient Descent}
\label{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent}
\aldotwo{Verify this algorithm.}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} satisfies the following convergence guarantee:
\begin{theorem}[Accelerated Gradient Descent for general norms. Theorem 4.1 in~\citet{allen2014linear}]\label{theorem::accelerated_gradient_descent} Let $w$ be a distance generating function and let $D_\star$ be an upper bound to $D_w(\mathbf{x}_0, \mathbf{x}_\star)$. Given an $\alpha-$smooth function $h$ w.r.t. the $\| \cdot \|_\star$ norm over domain $\mathcal{D}$, then $T$ iterations of Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} ensure:%
\begin{equation*}
h(\mathbf{y}_t) - h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \leq \frac{4 \alpha D_* }{T^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
We care about recovering almost optimal solutions (in function value). Let's define an $\epsilon-$optimal solution:
\begin{definition}
Let $\epsilon>0$. We say that $\mathbf{x}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal solution of an $\alpha-$smooth function $h: \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ if:
\begin{equation*}
h(\mathbf{x}) - h(\mathbf{x}^\star) \leq \epsilon
\end{equation*}
Where $h(\mathbf{x}^\star) = \min_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d} h(\mathbf{x})$.
\end{definition}
We can also show the following bound on the gradient norm for any $\epsilon-$optimal solutions of $h$.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{boundinggradients}
\label{lemma::bounding_gradients}
If $\mathbf{x}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal solution for the $\alpha-$smooth function $h: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ w.r.t. norm $\| \cdot \|_\star$ then the gradient of $h$ at $\mathbf{x}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla h(\mathbf{x}) \| \leq \sqrt{ 2\alpha \epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{restatable}
The proof of this lemma can be found in Appendix~\ref{section::convergence_rates_REPS}.
When $h=J_D$ the \ref{equation::dual_visitation_regularized} function in the reinforcement learning setting, we set $\| \cdot \|_* = \| \cdot \|_\infty$ and $\| \cdot \| = \| \cdot\|_1$. We are ready to prove convergence guarantees for Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} when applied to the objective $J_D$. %
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma::grad_descent_guarantee} Let Assumptions~\ref{assumption::bounded_rewards},~\ref{assumption::lower_bound_q} and \ref{ass:uniform} hold. Let $\mathcal{D} = \left\{ \mathbf{v} \text{ s.t. } \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty \le D\right\}$, and define the distance generating function to be $w(\mathbf{x}) = \| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2$. After $T$ steps of Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent}, the objective function $J_D$ evaluated at the iterate $\mathbf{v}_T = y_T$ satisfies:
\vspace{-.3cm}
\begin{equation*}
J_D(\mathbf{v}_T ) - J_D(\mathbf{v}^*)\leq 4\eta (|\mathcal{S}|+1)^2\frac{\left( 1 + c' \right)^2}{(1-\gamma)^2T^2}.
\end{equation*}
Where $c' = \frac{\log\frac{|S||A| }{\beta \rho}}{\eta}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This results follows simply by invoking the guarantees of Theorem \ref{theorem::accelerated_gradient_descent}, making use of the fact that $J_D$ is $(| \mathcal{S}| + 1)\eta-$smooth as proven by Lemma~\ref{lemma::RL_smoothness_dual}, observing that as a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma::dual_variables_bound_ofir}, $\mathbf{v}^\star \in \mathcal{D}$ and using the inequality $\| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2 \leq |\mathcal{S}|\| \mathbf{x}\|_\infty^2$ for $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{| \mathcal{S}|}$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lemma::grad_descent_guarantee} can be easily turned into the following guarantee regarding the dual function value of the final iterate:%
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::lower_bound_T_accelerated_gradient}
Let $\epsilon > 0$. If Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} is ran for at least $T$ rounds
\begin{equation*}
T \geq 2\eta^{1/2} (|\mathcal{S}|+1)\frac{\left( 1 + c' \right)}{(1-\gamma) \sqrt{\epsilon}}
\end{equation*}
then $\mathbf{v}_{T}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal solution for the dual objective $J_D$. %
\end{corollary}
If $T$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary~\ref{corollary::lower_bound_T_accelerated_gradient} a simple use of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_gradients} allows us to bound the $\| \cdot \|_1$ norm of the dual function's gradient at $\mathbf{v}_{T}$:
\begin{equation*}
\| \nabla J_D(\mathbf{v}_{T}) \|_1 \leq \sqrt{ 2 (|\mathcal{S}|+1)\eta \epsilon}
\end{equation*}
If we denote as $\pi_{T}$ to be the policy induced by $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\mathbf{v}_{T}}$, and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\eta}^\star$ is the candidate dual solution corresponding to $\mathbf{v}^\star$. A simple application of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution} yields:
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_{T}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star) -\frac{\sqrt{ 2 (|\mathcal{S}|+1)\eta \epsilon} }{1-\gamma} \left( 2 + \frac{1+\log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}| }{\beta^2 \rho^4}}{\eta} \right)
\end{equation*}
The following is the equivalent version of optimality for regularized objectives:
\begin{definition}
Let $\epsilon >0$. We say $\tilde{\pi}$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy if $J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\widetilde{\pi}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star) -\epsilon$.
\end{definition}
This leads us to the main result of this section:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary::regularized_result}
For any $\xi > 0$, and let $c'' = \frac{1+\log\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}| }{\beta^2 \rho^4}}{\eta}$. If $T \geq 4\eta\left(| \mathcal{S}| + 1 \right)^{3/2} \frac{\left( 2 + c'' \right)^2 }{(1-\gamma)^2 \xi} $ then:
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\pi_{T}} )\geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\star}_\eta) -\xi.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
Thus Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::accelerated_gradient_descent} achieves an $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon)$ rate of convergence to an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy. We now proceed to show that an appropriate choice for $\eta$ can be leveraged to obtain an $\epsilon-$optimal policy.%
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{mainacceleratedresult}\label{theorem::main_accelerated_result}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, let $\eta = \frac{1}{2\epsilon \log(\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta})}$. If $T \geq (|\mathcal{S}|+1)^{3/2}\frac{(2+c'')^2}{(1-\gamma)^2\epsilon^2}$, then $\pi_T$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal policy. %
\end{restatable}
The proof of this result can be found in Appendix~\ref{section::accelerated_gradient_descent_guarantees}. The main difficulty in deriving the guarantees of Theorem~\ref{theorem::main_accelerated_result} lies in the need to translate the function value optimality guarantees of Accelerated Gradient Descent into $\epsilon$-optimality guarantees for the candidate policy $\pi_T$. This is where our results from Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution} have proven fundamental. It remains to show that it is possible to obtain an $\epsilon-$optimal policy access to the true model is only via samples.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Introduced by~\citet{peters2010relative}, \emph{relative entropy policy search} (REPS) is an algorithm for learning agent policies in a reinforcement learning (RL) context.
REPS has demonstrated successful policy learning in a variety of challenging simulated and real-world robotic tasks, encompassing table tennis~\citep{peters2010relative}, tether ball~\citep{daniel2012hierarchical}, beer pong~\citep{abdolmaleki2015model}, and ball-in-a-cup~\citep{boularias2011relative}, among others.
Beyond these direct applications of REPS, the mathematical tools and algorithmic components underlying REPS have inspired and been utilized as a foundation for a number of later algorithms, with their own collection of practical successes~\citep{fox2017taming,schulman2015trust,nachum2017bridging,neu2017unified,haarnoja2018soft,abdolmaleki2018maximum,kostrikov2019imitation,nachum2019algaedice}.
At its core, the REPS algorithm is derived via an application of convex duality~\citep{neu2017unified,nachum2020reinforcement}, in which a Kullback Leibler (KL)-regularized version of the max-return objective in terms of state-action distributions is transformed into an $\mathrm{logsumexp}$ objective in terms of state-action \emph{advantages} (\emph{i.e.}, the difference of the value of the state-action pair compared to the value of the state alone, with respect to some learned state value function).
If this dual objective is optimized, then the optimal policy of the original primal problem may be derived as a $\mathrm{softmax}$ of the state-action advantages.
This basic derivation may be generalized, using any number of entropic regularizers on the original primal to yield a dual problem in the form of a convex function of advantages, whose optimal values may be transformed back to optimal regularized policies~\citep{belousov2017f}.
While the motivation for the REPS objective through the lens of convex duality is attractive, it leaves two main questions unanswered regarding the theoretical soundness of using such an approach.
First, in practice, the dual objective in terms of advantages is likely not optimized fully. Rather, standard gradient-based solvers only provide guarantees on the \emph{near-optimality} of a returned candidate solution.
While convex duality asserts a relationship between primal and dual variables at the \emph{exact} optimum, it is far from clear whether a near-optimal dual solution will be guaranteed to yield a near-optimal primal solution, and this is further complicated by the fact that the primal candidate solution must be transformed to yield an agent policy.
The second of the two main practical difficulties is due to the form of the dual objective. Specifically, the form of the dual objective as a convex function of advantages frustrates the use of gradient-based solvers in stochastic settings. That is, the advantage of a state-action pair consists of an expectation over next states -- an expectation over the transition function associated with the underlying Markov decision process (MDP).
In practical settings, one does not have explicit knowledge of this transition function. Rather, one only has access to stochastic samples from this transition function, and so calculation of unbiased gradients of the REPS objective is not directly feasible.
In this paper, we provide solutions to these two main difficulties.
To the first issue, we present guarantees on the near-optimality of a derived policy from dual variables optimized via a first-order gradient method, relying on a key property of the REPS objective that ensures near-optimality in terms of gradient norms. To the second issue, we propose and analyze a stochastic gradient descent procedure that makes use of a plug-in estimator of the REPS objective gradients.
Under some mild assumptions on the MDP, our estimators need only sample transitions from a behavior policy rather than full access to a generative model (where one can uniformly sample transitions).
We combine these results to yield high-probability convergence rates of REPS to a near-optimal policy. In this way, we show that REPS enjoy not only favorable practical performance but also strong theoretical guarantees.
\subsection{Regularized Policy Search}
Following~\citet{belousov2017f}, we consider regularizing \ref{equation::primal_visitation_unregularized} with
a convex function $F:\Delta_{|\mathcal{S}|\times|\mathcal{A}|}\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$.
The resulting regularized LP is given by,
\begin{align}\label{equation::primal_visitation_regularized}
& \max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \in \Delta_{\mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}}} ~ \sum_{s, a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \tag{PrimalReg-$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$} := J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \\
& ~\text{s.t.}~ \sum_{a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a} = (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \gamma \sum_{s', a} \mathbf{P}_a(s | s') \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s', a} \quad \forall s\in \mathcal{S}. \notag
\end{align}
Henceforth we denote the primal objective function as $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{s, a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s, a} \mathbf{r}_{s,a} - F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) $. Note that any feasible $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ that satisfies the $|\mathcal{S}|$ constraints in this regularized LP is the (true) state-action visitation distribution for some policy $\pi$; therefore, the optimal $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ of this problem can be used to derive an optimal $F$-regularized max-return policy $\pi_{F,*} := \pi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*}$. To simplify the subsequent derivations, we introduce the definition of the convex conjugate of a convex function, oftentimes referred to as the Fenchel conjugate:
\begin{definition}[Fenchel Conjugate]
Let $F: \mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a convex function over a convex domain $\mathcal{D}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$. We denote its $\mathcal{D}-$constrained Fenchel conjugate as $F^*: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ defined as:
\begin{equation*}
F^*(\mathbf{u}) = \max_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathcal{D}} ~\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{u} \rangle - F(\mathbf{x}).
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
The dual $J_D$ of the regularized problem is given by the following optimization problem~\citep{belousov2017f,nachum2020reinforcement}:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) := (1 - \gamma) \sum_{s} \mathbf{v}_s \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + F^*\left(\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v}\right), \label{equation::dual_function_RL}
\end{equation}
where $F^*$ is the $\Delta_{\mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}}$-constrained Fenchel conjugate of $F$.
The vector quantity inside $F^*$ is known as the \emph{advantage}. That is, it quantifies the advantage (the difference in estimated value) of taking an action $a$ at $s$, with respect to some state value function $\mathbf{v}$.
Using Fenchel-Rockafellar duality, the optimal solution $\mathbf{v}^*$ of the dual function $J_D$ may be used to derive an optimal primal solution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lambda-star}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}^* \in \nabla F^*\left( \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}^\star} \right).
\end{equation}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\textbf{Input: } Initial iterate $\mathbf{v}_0$, accuracy level $\epsilon > 0$, gradient optimization algorithm $\mathcal{O}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Optimize the objective in~\ref{equation::dual_function_RL} using $\mathcal{O}$ to yield a candidate dual solution $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^*$ where $F$ satisfies Equation~\ref{equation::definition_KL_F}.
\item Use the candidate dual solution to derive a candidate primal solution $\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*$ using~\ref{eq:lambda-star}.
\item Extract a candidate policy $\pi_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*}$ from $\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*$ via Equation~\ref{equation::lambda_to_policy}.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Return:} $\pi_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*}$.
\caption{Relative Entropy Policy Search [Sketch].}
\label{alg:advantage_learning}
\end{algorithm}
Relative Entropy Policy Search (REPS) is derived by setting $F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}):= D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\boldsymbol{\lambda} \| \mathbf{q})$, the KL-divergence of $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ from some reference distribution $\mathbf{q} \in \Delta_{| \mathcal{S} | |\mathcal{A}|}$. The reader should think of $\mathbf{q}$ as the visitation distribution of a behavior policy. As we can see, the derivation we provide here further generalizes to arbitrary regularizers $F$. We focus on a specific $F$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{equation::definition_KL_F}
F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) := \frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{s,a} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a} \left(\log\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s,a}}{\mathbf{q}_{s,a}}\right) - 1\right),
\end{equation}
for some scalar $\eta>0$. In this case $F^* : \mathbb{R}^{|S|\times |A|}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ equals:
\begin{equation*}
F^*(\mathbf{u}) = \frac{1}{\eta}\log\left(\sum_{s,a} \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{u}_{s,a} \right)
\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \right) + \frac{1}{\eta}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\left[ \nabla F^*(\mathbf{u}) \right]_{s,a} = \frac{ \exp(\eta \mathbf{u}_{s,a}) \mathbf{q}_{s,a}}{\sum_{s', a'} \exp(\eta \mathbf{u}_{s',a'}) \mathbf{q}_{s',a'} }.
\end{equation*}
And therefore the dual function equals:
\begin{align}\label{equation::dual_visitation_regularized}\tag{DualReg-$\mathbf{v}$}
& J_D(\mathbf{v}) :=
(1 - \gamma) \sum_{s} \mathbf{v}_s \boldsymbol{\mu}_s \\
& + \frac{1}{\eta} \log\left( \sum_{s,a} \exp\left( \eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a} \right) + \frac{1}{\eta},
\end{align}
And the dual problem equals the unconstrained minimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{equation::dual_problem_RL}
\min_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})
\end{equation}
The objective of REPS is to find the minimizer $\mathbf{v}^\star$ of~\ref{equation::dual_visitation_regularized} (with regularization level $\eta$).
Algorithm~\ref{alg:advantage_learning} raises two practical issues discussed in Section~\ref{sec:intro}. Specifically, optimization algorithms applied to REPS will typically only give guarantees on the near-optimality of $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^*$. We will need to translate near-optimality of $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^*$ to near-primal-optimality (w.r.t. $J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^\star)$) of $\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*$, and then translate that to near-optimality of the final returned policy $\pi_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^*}$.
Secondly, first-order optimization of the REPS objective requires access to a gradient $\nabla_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$, which involved computing $\nabla F^*(\mathbf{A}^\mathbf{v})$. Exact computation of this quantity is often infeasible in practical scenarios where one does not have access to $\mathbf{P}$, but rather only stochastic \emph{generative} access to samples from $\mathbf{P}$. We show how to compute approximate (biased) gradients of $J_D(\mathbf{v})$ using samples from a distribution $\mathbf{q}_{s,a}$ (here thought of as a behavior policy) and how to use them to derive convergence rates for Relative Entropy Policy Search.
\section{Related Work}
As REPS is a popular and influential work, there exist a number of previous papers that have studied its performance guarantees.
These previous works predominantly study REPS as an iterative algorithm, where each step comprises of an exact optimization of the REPS objective and then the derived policy is used as the reference distribution for the KL regularization of the next step.
This iterative scheme may be interpreted as a form of mirror descent or similar proximal algorithms~\citep{beck2003mirror}, and this interpretation can provide guarantees on convergence to a near-optimal policy~\citep{zimin2013online,neu2017unified}.
However, because this approach assumes the ability to optimize the REPS objective exactly, it still suffers from the practical limitations discussed above; specifically (1) translation of near-optimality of advantages to near-optimality of the policy and (2) ability to compute unbiased gradients when one does not have explicit knowledge of the MDP dynamics. Our analysis attacks these issues head-on, providing guarantees on first-order optimization methods applied to the REPS objective. To maintain focus we do not consider iterative application of REPS, although extending our guarantees to the iterative setting is a promising direction for future research. %
In a somewhat related vein, a number of works use REPS-inspired derivations to yield \emph{dynamic programming} algorithms~\citep{fox2017taming,geist2019theory,vieillard2020leverage} and subsequently provide guarantees on the convergence of approximate dynamic programming in these settings.
Our results focus on the use of REPS in a \emph{convex programming} context, and optimizing these programs via standard gradient-based solvers.
The use of convex programming for RL in this way has recently received considerable interest.
Works in this area typically propose to learn near-optimal policies through \emph{saddle-point} optimization~\citep{chen2016stochastic,wang2017randomized,chen2018scalable,bas2019faster,cheng2020reduction,jin2020efficiently}.
Rather than solving either the primal or dual max-return problem directly, these works optimize the Lagrangian in the form of a $\min$-$\max$ bilinear problem.
The Lagrangian form helps to mitigate the two main issues we identify with advantage learning, since (1) the candidate primal solution can be use to derive a policy in a significantly more direct fashion than using the candidate dual solution, and (2) the bilinear form of the Lagrangian is immediately amenable to stochastic gradient computation.
In contrast to these works, our analysis focuses on learning exclusively in the dual (advantage) space.
The first part of our results is most comparable to the work of \cite{bas2019faster}, which proposes a saddle-point optimization with runtime $O(1/\epsilon)$, assuming access to known dynamics. While our results yield a $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ rate, we show that it can be achieved via optimizing the dual objective alone.
More similar to our work is the analysis of~\citet{basserrano2020logistic}, which considers an objective similar to REPS, but which is in terms of $Q$-values as opposed to state ($V$) values. Beyond these structural differences, our proof techniques also differ. For example, our result on the suboptimality of the policy derived from dual variables (Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution}), is arguably simpler from the analogous result in~\citet{basserrano2020logistic}, which uses a two-step process to first connect suboptimality of the dual variables to constraint violation of the primal variables, and then connects this to suboptimality of the policy.
\section{Stochastic Gradients}\label{section::stochastic_gradients}
In this section we show how to obtain stochastic (albeit biased) gradient estimators $\widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ for $\nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ (see Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient}). We use $\widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ to perform biased stochastic gradient descent steps on $J_D(\mathbf{v})$ (see Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient_descent}). In Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} we prove guarantees for the bias and variance of this estimator and show rates for convergence in function value to the optimum of $J_D(\mathbf{v})$ in Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_simplified}. We turn these results into guarantees for $\epsilon-$optimality of the final candidate policy in Theorem~\ref{theorem::main_result}.
Let's start by noting that:
\begin{align*}
&\left( \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s =
(1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \\
&\mathbb{E}_{(s', a, s'') \sim \mathbf{q} \times \mathbf{P}_{a}(\cdot |s')} \Big[ \mathbf{B}_{s',a}^\mathbf{v} \left( \gamma \mathbf{1}(s'' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s' = s)\right) \Big],
\end{align*}
Where $\mathbf{B}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} =\frac{ \exp(\eta \mathbf{A}_{s, a}^\mathbf{v})}{\mathbf{Z}}$ and $\mathrm{Z} = \sum_{s,a} \exp\left(\eta \mathbf{A}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a} \right)\mathbf{q}_{s,a}$. We will make use of this characterization to devise a plug-in estimator for this quantity:
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\textbf{Input} Number of samples $t$.\\
Collect samples $\{(s_\ell, a_\ell, s_\ell')\}_{\ell=1}^t$ such that $(s_\ell, a_\ell) \sim \mathbf{q}$ while $s_\ell' \sim \mathbf{P}_{a_\ell}(\cdot | s_\ell)$\\
\For{$(s,a) \in \mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A}$}{
Build empirical estimators $\widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{q}}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{S}|\times |\mathcal{A}|}$.\\
Compute estimators $\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s,a}^{\mathbf{v}}(t) = \frac{\exp(\eta \widehat{\mathbf{A}}^\mathbf{v}_{s, a}(t) )}{ \widehat{\mathbf{Z}}(t)}$. \\
Where $\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}(t) = \sum_{s,a} \exp(\eta \widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{v}}_{s,a}(t) ) \widehat{\mathbf{q}}_{s,a}(t)$. \\
}
Produce a final sample $(s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}) \sim \mathbf{q}$ and $s_{t+1}' \sim \mathbf{P}_{a_{t+1}}( \cdot | s_{t+1})$. \\
Compute $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) $ such that:
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\left(\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}) \right)_s &= (1-\gamma)\boldsymbol{\mu}_s + \\
&\widehat{\mathbf{B}}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}}(t)\left(\gamma \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1}' = s) - \mathbf{1}(s_{t+1} = s)\right).
\end{align*}
\end{small}
\textbf{Output:} $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$.
\caption{Biased Gradient Estimator}
\label{algorithm::biased_gradient}
\end{algorithm}
We now proceed to bound the bias of this estimator:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{biasedgradientguarantee}
\label{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee}
Let $\delta, \xi \in (0,1)$ with $\xi \leq \min(\beta, \frac{1}{4})$. With probability at least $1-\delta$ for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\frac{t}{\ln\ln(2t) } \geq \frac{120(\ln\frac{41.6|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\delta} +1)}{\beta \xi^2}\max\left( 480 \eta^2 \gamma^2 \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty^2 , 1 \right)$$
the plugin estimator $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ satisfies:
\begin{align*}
\max_{u \in \{ 1,2,\infty\}} \| \hat{\mathbf{g}} - \mathbb{E}_{t+1}[\hat{\mathbf{g}}] \|_u&\leq \frac{8}{\beta}, \\
\max_{u \in \{1,2,\infty\}} \| \mathbb{E}_{t+1}[ \hat{\mathbf{g}}] - \mathbf{g} \|_u &\leq 8 \xi, \\
\mathbb{E}\left[\| \hat{\mathbf{g}}- \mathbb{E}_{t+1}[\hat{\mathbf{g}}] \|_2^2 \Big| \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^\mathbf{v}(t) \right] &\leq \frac{8}{\beta},
\end{align*}
where $\hat{\mathbf{g}} = \widehat{\nabla}_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v}) $, $\mathbf{g}= \nabla_\mathbf{v} J_D(\mathbf{v})$, and $\mathbb{E}_{t+1}[\cdot ] = \mathbb{E}_{s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}, s'_{t+1} }[\cdot | \widehat{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{v}}(t)]$.
\end{restatable}
The proof of this lemma can be found in Appendix~\ref{section::biased_stochastic_gradients_appendix}.
We will now make use of Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} along with the following guarantee for projected Stochastic Gradient Descent to prove convergence guarantees for Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient_descent}.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\textbf{Input} Desired accuracy $\epsilon$, learning rates $\{\tau_t\}_{t=1}^\infty$, and number-of-samples function $n: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ .\\
Initialize $\mathbf{v}_0 = \mathbf{0}$
\For{$t=1, \cdots, T$}{
Get $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})$ with $n(t)$ samples via Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient}.\\
Perform update:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{v}'_t \leftarrow \mathbf{v}_t - \tau_t \widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v}). \\
\mathbf{v}_{t} \leftarrow \Pi_{\mathcal{D}} ( \mathbf{v}'_{t}).
\end{align*}
}
$\Pi_{\mathcal{D}}$ denotes the projection to $\mathcal{D}= \left\{ \mathbf{v} \text{ s.t. } \| \mathbf{v} \|_\infty \le D\right\}$. \\
\textbf{Output:} $\mathbf{v}_T$.
\caption{Biased Stochastic Gradient Descent}
\label{algorithm::biased_gradient_descent}
\end{algorithm}
The following holds:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{helperprojectedsgd}
\label{lemma::helper_projected_sgd}
Let $f: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be an $L-$smooth function. We consider the following update:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{x}_{t+1}' &= \mathbf{x}_t - \tau \left( \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_{t}) + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t + \mathbf{b}_t\right)\\
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} &= \Pi_{\mathcal{D}}( \mathbf{x}_{t+1}').
\end{align*}
If $\tau \leq \frac{2}{L}$ then:
\begin{align*}
f(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) - f(\mathbf{x}_\star) &\leq \frac{ \| \mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star \|^2 - \| \mathbf{x}_{t+1} - \mathbf{x}_{\star}\|^2}{2\tau} +\\
&2\tau \| \nabla f(\mathbf{x}_t) \|^2 + 5\tau\| \mathbf{b}_t\|^2 + 5\tau \| \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t\|^2 + \\
&\| \mathbf{b}_t\|_1\|\mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_\star\|_\infty -
\langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t, \mathbf{x}_t -\mathbf{x}_\star\rangle.
\end{align*}
\end{restatable}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::helper_projected_sgd} is in Appendix~\ref{section::appendix_SGD}. Lemma~\ref{lemma::biased_gradient_guarantee} implies the following guarantee for the following projected stochastic gradient algorithm with biased gradients $\widehat{\nabla}_{\mathbf{v}} J_D(\mathbf{v})R$:
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{SGDresultsimplified}
\label{lemma::SGD_result_simplified}
We assume $\eta \geq \frac{4}{\beta}$. Set $\xi_t = \frac{8|\mathcal{S}|\eta D}{\sqrt{t}}$ and $\tau_t = \frac{1}{16|\mathcal{S}|\eta\sqrt{t}}$. If we take $t$ gradient steps using $n(t)$ samples from $\mathbf{q} \times \mathbf{P}$ (possibly reusing the samples for multiple gradient computations) with $n(t)$ satisfying:
\begin{equation*}
n(t) \geq \frac{525 t \left( \ln \frac{100 |\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|t^2}{\delta} + 1\right)^3}{\beta |\mathcal{S}|^2 }
\end{equation*}
Then for all $t \geq 1$ we have that with probability at least $1-3\delta$ and simultaneously for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $t \geq \frac{64|\mathcal{S}|^2\eta^2 D^2}{\beta}$:
\begin{align*}
J_D\left(\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\ell=1}^t \mathbf{v}_\ell\right) &\leq J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{D^2 |\mathcal{S}|\eta}{\sqrt{t} }\right).
\end{align*}
\end{restatable}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_simplified} is in Appendix~\ref{section::biased_stochastic_gradients_appendix}.
Lemma~\ref{lemma::SGD_result_simplified} implies that making use of $N$ samples it is possible to find a candidate $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_N$ such that $J_D(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_N) \leq J_D(\mathbf{v}_\star) + \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{D^2 \eta}{\beta\sqrt{N} }\right)$. This in turn implies by a simple use of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_gradients} that $\| \nabla J_D(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_N)\|_1 \leq \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{|\mathcal{S}|^{1/2}D \eta}{\sqrt{\beta}N^{1/4} }\right)$. If we denote as $\bar{\pi}_N$ to the policy induced by $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\bar{\mathbf{v}}_N}$, a simple application of Lemma~\ref{lemma::bounding_primal_value_candidate_solution} yields:
\vspace{-.3cm}
\begin{equation*}
J_P( \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{\bar{\pi}_{N}} ) \geq J_P(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\eta^\star) - \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{|\mathcal{S}|^{1/2}D \eta}{(1-\gamma)\sqrt{\beta}N^{1/4} } \right)
\end{equation*}
Thus Algorithm~\ref{algorithm::biased_gradient_descent} achieves an $\mathcal{O}(1/(1-\gamma)^8\epsilon^4)$ rate of convergence to an $\epsilon-$optimal regularized policy. We proceed to show that an appropriate setting for $\eta$ can be leveraged to obtain an $\epsilon-$optimal policy:
\begin{theorem}[Informal]\label{theorem::main_result}
For any $\epsilon > 0$ let $\eta = \frac{1}{2\epsilon \log(\frac{|\mathcal{S}||\mathcal{A}|}{\beta})}$. If $N \geq \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon^8 (1-\gamma)^8 \beta^2} \right)$, then with probability at least $1-\delta$ it is possible to find a candidate $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_N$ such that $\bar{\pi}_N$ is an $\epsilon-$optimal policy.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusion}
This work presents an analysis of first-order optimization methods for the REPS objective in reinforcement learning. We prove convergence rates of $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ for accelerated gradient descent on the dual of the KL-regularized max-return LP in the case of a known transition function with convergence rate. For the unknown case, we propose a biased stochastic gradient descent method relying on samples from behavior policy and show that it converges to an optimal policy with rate $O(1/\epsilon^8)$. There are several interesting questions that remain open. First, while directly optimizing the dual via gradient methods is convenient from an algorithmic perspective, prior unregularized saddle-point methods have been shown to achieve a faster $O(1/\epsilon)$ convergence \citep{bas2019faster}. An important open direction is thus to understand if faster rates are possible in order to bridge this gap, or if optimizing the regularized dual directly is fundamentally limited. Second, we only considered MDPs with finite state and action spaces. It is therefore of interest to see if these ideas readily extend to infinite or very large spaces through function approximation.
\subsection*{#1}}{\qed\medskip}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{discussion}{Discussion}
\newcommand{\aldo}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\it {\bf Aldo:} {#1}}}
\newcommand{\lee}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\it {\bf Jon:} {#1}}}
\newcommand{\aldotwo}[1]{\textcolor{red}{}}
\newcommand{\ofir}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{\it {\bf Ofir:} {#1}}}
\newcommand{\lVert}{\lVert}
|
\section{Positioning of this work}
Recent advances on Natural Language Processing (NLP) are largely based on the use of embeddings. It started with performing SVD on vectorial representation of words (see for instance \cite{laham1998learning}) before turning to less linear analysis like the use of Self Organizing Maps \cite{lagus1999websom}. More recently, the term of ``embeddings'' emerged with the idea of learning a lookup table while performing downstream tasks \cite{2013arXiv1310.4546M}; later on downstream tasks used LSTM (Long Short Term Memory) networks to account for the sequential aspects of the natural languages \cite{ghosh2016contextual}.
Now BERT-like models as other attention-based models proposed to plug embeddings in sequences of local LSTM structures, to obtain more contextual (i.e. bi-directional) Euclidean representations of terms \cite{vaswani2017attention,devlin-etal-2019-bert}.
Despite the apparent successes of this series of improvements, very few mathematical modeling has been proposed.
Some interesting papers are descriptive, exposing the formulas behind the mechanisms of embeddings, like \cite{implicitmatrix} that investigate a SVD viewpoint on embeddings, but they do not provide a probabilistic model corresponding to the implicit assumptions made by the considered NLP modeling algorithm.
As a comparison, the literature on topic extraction naturally provides this kind of generative models \cite{blei2003latent}.
The goal of this paper is to provide such a mathematical understanding of how and what embeddings are learning. Since it is a complicated task, we are limiting ourselves to the word2vec model, that is paradigmatic of this family of language models. The sophistication of subsequent approaches (like LSTM or BERT), is ``simply'' to add some sequential memory and some ``locality'' (since they use an ensemble of embeddings, each of them specializing locally, i.e. in the neighborhood of a syntactic context). Writing the formulas for such models is probably possible, but would require a lot of sophisticated notations. We clearly restrict our analysis to global embeddings of the word2vec family, but cover both Skip-gram and CBOW modeling approaches.
\medskip
During this theoretical analysis, we define what we call a \emph{Reference Model}. Qualitatively speaking, it is a very large stochastic matrix collecting for each word of the vocabulary the probability of occurrence of all words in ``its neighborhood''. Given this Reference Model, no embedding is needed (or one can consider that the associated embedding is the identity matrix). It allows us to define a word2vec representation of a corpus as a compression of its Reference Model in two components: one the one hand an embedding, qualitatively mapping ``similar words'' (in the sense of the Reference Model) together, and hence defining ``frequentist synonyms''; and on the other hand a context matrix, allowing to recover the Reference Model once it is multiplied by the embedding (and after a slightly non linear operation, i.e. a softmax layer).
We are here in the spirit of other papers presenting embeddings as a compression (see for example \cite{may2019downstream,raunak2019effective,acharya2019online}), along with the initial papers on SVD, except that we can prove, under some assumptions, that the minimized criterion is a cross-entropy between the Reference Model and the compressed representation made of the embedding and the context matrices.
\medskip
In a second stage, we explore further the concept of frequentist synonyms (that ``should be put in the same neighborhood by the compression'') in association with the identifiability of word2vec embeddings. That for we generate synthetic corpora with know properties thanks to the control of their Reference Model. It allows us to test empirically that if the word2vec model can recover part of the structure we inject in the synthetic texts. The results are bellow standard expectations: the embeddings of synonyms do not exhibit strong cosine similarities, despite the fact that we use generative models satisfying strong mathematical assumptions (that is not the case of natural language).
\medskip
Last but not least, we use this understanding to train embeddings on a corpus of 42 millions of financial news from 2008 to 2020.
The literature on the use of NLP on financial data has been pushed forward by the work of Loughran and McDonald who analysed the polarity of 10-K fillings of listed company \cite{loughran2011liability}. One of the outcome of their work is a dictionary of polarized words in categories (Positive, Negative, Litigious, etc) that have been later used as a supervised dataset \cite{kumar2017iitpb}, as a benchmark \cite{ke2019predicting} or as an input \cite{li2014news} to analyze other corpora (financial news being one of the most used). It is clear that NLP is now part of the toolbox to predict stock returns \cite{xing2018natural,araci2019finbert}, but to authors' knowledge no systematic study analyzing the capability of language models to capture financial semantics have been proposed. In this paper we do not try to predict stock returns, we rather focus on providing insight about the structure of financial news from the perspective of embeddings, with a focus on semantic antonyms and non-stationarity.
\medskip
The paper is structured as follow: Section \ref{sec:theory} starts by defining properly word2vec model and its Skip-gram version, then explains the relationship between the internal representation of such an language model and the underlying ``truth'' of a Reference Model. Since a Reference Model is target that embeddings try to learn, it is pivotal in our analysis. We then make additional Markovian assumptions to ease the process of proving how the standard Skip-gram loss function asymptotically behaves like a cross-entropy between the learned model and the Reference Model.
This allow us to comment the influence of synonyms on the structure of embeddings.
Section \ref{sec:synth:experiments} exhibits experiments on synthetic corpus generated under restrictive assumptions, allowing us to control what the embeddings should learn. It shows the importance of the structure of the underlying model, and then it shows that the similarity between the representation of synonyms is not as large as expected, but significant when compared to other groups of words.
Then Section \ref{sec:finance} exploits a corpus made of 42 millions of financial News in conjunction with the Loughran-McDonald Lexicon. The latter is providing the structure of polarized words (mainly: Positive, Negative and Litigious) needed for our analysis. It allows us to explore the way embeddings can mix synonyms and antonyms, and we find and explain different results obtained on headlines only versus on the full-text of financial News.
Moreover, we study the non-stationarity of this structure, in particular around one particular example of a company name that is listen under Wikipedia's \emph{List of corporate collapses and scandals}.
\section{Theoretical analysis: learning embeddings and its relation with generative models}
\label{sec:theory}
An embedding is an vectorial representation of terms of a document, that is learned jointly with other NLP tasks that is learned to model a language or more recently jointly with different downstream task (like part of speech tagging or entity recognition). The underlying idea is that the learning phase positions the terms in the space of embeddings such a way that the downstream tasks are easier.
As a consequence, it is expected that the embeddings will position in the same neighborhood terms having similar roles in sentences. Academic papers, working of the topology in the space of embedding, identified some interesting algebra properties in the space of embeddings, like: ``\emph{King - man + woman = Queen}''. In this paper we focus on the word2vec algorithm which is proposed in \cite{2013arXiv1301.3781M} and \cite{2013arXiv1310.4546M}, and especially on its Skip-gram version.
\subsection{The word2vec model}
To be compatible with the standard word2vec Skip-gram notations of \cite{word2vec},
let assume that we face a set of documents, or a very long document that is a sequence of words belonging to a vocabulary ${\cal V}:=\{x_1, \cdots, x_V\}$.
The word2vec proposed in \cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016} can be written as a neural network with one hidden layer of size $N$, that is called the \emph{embedding size} and that is usually far lower than $V$ (see Figure \ref{fig:Skip-gram}).
Typically English vocabulary needs at least 70,000 words and the embedding size used by practitioners is between 150 and 400.
To feed to the neural network, the $i$-th word of the vocabulary is encoded using a one-hot vector $x_i$, i.e. $x_i\in\mathbbm{R}^V$ that is a vector with zeros everywhere but only one $1$ at its $i$-th coordinate.
The weights between the input layer and the output layer can hence be represented by a $V\times N$ matrix ${W}$. Each row of ${W}$ is the $N$-dimension vector representation ${e}_i$ of the associated word of the input layer. Formally row $i$ of ${W}$ can be identified with the representation of $i$-th word and noted ${x_i}^T W$, given as the context word one-hot vector ${x}_i$.
The activation of the hidden layer that is linear: ${h}_{x_i}^T = {x_i}^TW = {W}_{(i, \cdot)}$,
which is essentially copying the $i$-th row of ${W}$ to ${h}_i$. In this paper, we use row vector notation. We call ${W}$ the \emph{word-embedding matrix}, and its $i$-th row is commonly called the \emph{embedding of the $i$-th word of the vocabulary}.
From the hidden layer to the output layer, there is a matrix of weight commonly noted ${W}'$, which is an $N\times V$ matrix, associating an embedding to a long row of size $V$. $W'x_j$ the $j$th column of the \emph{context matrix} ${W}'$. Its output layer as a $\text{\sf softmax}$ activation, mapping a vector $(z_i)_i$ to another vector $(\exp(z_i)/\sum_j \exp(z_j))_i$ that is positive and which coordinates sum to one. The output of such a neural network is thus homogeneous to a vector of probabilities. As a consequence, the word2vec allows to compute the expected probability of occurrence of any $j$-th word of the vocabulary conditioned on the input word $i$ that reads $\text{\sf softmax}({x_i^T W W'}) x_j$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig-Skip-gram.pdf}
\caption{The Skip-gram model.}
\label{fig:Skip-gram}
\end{figure}
Moreover, the word2vec Skip-gram model has an hyperparameter $C$ that is the number of words that is explicitly considered by the model.
In this paper, for the simplicity of notation, the considered words are the $C$ words following the input word.\footnote{It is not need in general; their positions can be chosen by the user.}
As a consequence the variable
\begin{equation}
y_{c,j}^i = \text{\sf softmax}({x_i^T W W'}) x_j, \quad \quad \forall c \in \{1,.., C\}
\label{eq:cbow-uj}
\end{equation}
computes the estimate of the probability of occurrence of the $j$-th word of the vocabulary amongst the $C$ words following the $i$-th word of the vocabulary in the considered corpus of documents.
Note that each output $y_{c,j}^i $ is independent and only depend on the input word.
\begin{definition}[Parameters of a word2vec model]
A word2vec model is defined by the triplet of parameters: embeddings, contexts and width; i.e. $(W,W',C)$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{The Skip-gram loss function}
\paragraph{Assuming the existence of an ``underlying'' model of the text.}
In the following sections, we use $(X_k)_k$ to denote the sequence of words in a corpus.
To be able to define a probabilistic description of the embeddings, one needs first to make the weak assumption that the sequence of the $K$ words constituting the corpus are drawn from a probability distribution ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ that exists.
You can think that this distribution allows to generate the whole sample at once, with a lot of bi-directional dependencies, or you can think that $(X_k)_k$ is a stochastic process (meaning that there is an ``information arrow'' pointing from the left to the right in the text). It may be generated by a Markov chain if you believe in very short term memory in the text, or even be i.i.d. realizations of a random variable if you think the words are generated according to their histogram of frequencies in the English language.
The existence of this law will enable us to write probabilities.
\\
Since equality (\ref{eq:cbow-uj}) defines the likelihood of the occurrence of word $j$ in the neighborhood of word $i$, the word2vec model implies a specific structure of this probability ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$. Or at least it assume that the loss function it minimizes pushes this likelihood to be compatible with the underlying distribution.
This is typically what we will explore in this paper: which assumptions on ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ are naturally compatible with the way the word2vec model build its likelihoods? That for we need to start with a good understanding of the Skip-gram loss function.
\medskip
Following our notations: $X_k$ is the $k$-th word in the document while $x_i$ is the $i$-th word in the vocabulary. $x_i$ denotes the one hot encoding of the $i$-th word in the vocabulary (word index). Hence the event ``$X_k=x_j$'' means that the $k$-th word observed in the corpus is the $j$-th word of the vocabulary.
\paragraph{Writing the Skip-gram loss function.}
The part of the loss function associated with the $k$th word of the document corresponds to the estimate by the word2vec model of likelihood to observe the $C$ following words of the corpus. It reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:loss:skipgram}
\ell(X_k,\ldots,X_{k+C})
&=&{-\log \hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i) }\\\nonumber
&=& -\log \prod_{c=1}^C\text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T W W')x_{j_c} \\\nonumber
&=& -\log \prod_{c=1}^C\frac{\exp(x_i^T W W'x_{j_c})}{\sum_{j'=1}^V\exp(x_i^T W W' x_{j'})} \\\nonumber
&=& -\sum_{c=1}^C x_i^T W W'x_{j_c} + C\cdot\log\sum_{j'=1}^V\exp(x_i^T W W' x_{j'}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{j_1}, \cdots, x_{j_C}$ are the word occurring after the $k$-th one in the text. During the learning phase, the Skip-gram word2vec hence deals with sequences of $C+1$ words that can be found in the text.
\\
The full loss function is the average of $\ell(\cdot)$ over all the words of the text, that can be expressed as $\frac{1}{K}\sum_k \ell(X_k,\ldots,X_{k+C})$, i.e. the empirical average over the words of the text.
\paragraph{Defining a Reference Model.}
First define what we will call a ``\emph{Reference Model}'': qualitatively it is a word2vec model with a trivial embedding, i.e. the size of the embedding is the size of the vocabulary: $N=V$, and hence the embedding matrix $W$ is the identity.
Since the rows of the context matrix of a Reference Model do not interact and the $\text{\sf softmax}$ layer is not needed; it is enough to arbitrary scale its rows to sum to one. This non-linearity can thus be removed from the word2vec of a Reference Model.
\begin{definition}[Reference Model]\label{def:RM}
A \emph{Reference Model} $\text{\sf RM}$ is a triplet $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W'_0,C)$ that can be identified to the parameters of a word2vec neural network.
With $V$ the size of the vocabulary, $W'_0$ is a $V\times V$ stochastic matrix which element $(i,j)$ records the probability to see the $j$-th word of the vocabulary in the $C$ words following the $i$-th word.
\end{definition}
Different kinds of Reference Models can be built:
\begin{itemize}
\item[($i$)] The Reference Model corresponding to a given word2vec model $(W, W', C)$ that is $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W'_0, C)$ where for any $i$, $x_i^T W'_0:=\text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T W W')$; we use the notation $\text{\sf RM}(W,W')$.
\item[($ii$)] The Reference Model corresponding to a corpus of document that is $(Id, W'_0, C)$ where $W'_0$ is this time made of the averaged empirical probabilities of occurrence of the $C$ words following each possible word;
we use the notation $\text{\sf RM}(X_1, \ldots, X_K)$.
\item[($iii$)] The Reference Model corresponding to underlying probability distribution ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ that generated the corpus;
we use the notation $\text{\sf RM}({\cal L}_{\cal T})$.
\end{itemize}
Note that for the same corpus:
\begin{itemize}
\item Given $(X_1, \ldots, X_K)$ has been generated by ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ (and provided that $K$ is large enough), we expect to have $\text{\sf RM}(X_1, \ldots, X_K)\simeq \text{\sf RM}({\cal L}_{\cal T})$.
\item If a word2vec is a ``good model'' for this corpus, the corresponding Reference Model $\text{\sf RM}(W,W')$ should be ``close'' to the third one $\text{\sf RM}({\cal L}_{\cal T})$.
\end{itemize}
The question of a \emph{generative model} can be formulated this way:
\emph{what are the assumptions over ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ \emph{(i.e. the true underlying distribution)}, such that the Reference Model of the word2vec learned on a \emph{(very long)} sample generated by ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$ is the same as the Reference Model of ${\cal L}_{\cal T}$?}
\subsection{Probabilistic weaknesses of the word2vec embeddings}
\label{sec:PLM}
It is now clear that the information contained in a word2vec model on the learned language is captured by a factorization over $V\times N + N\times V$ coefficients (i.e. the embeddings $W$ and the context $W'$) of the joined probability of occurrences of $C+1$ words at a given distance that could be described by $(V\times V)^C$ parameters.
The key quantity that is manipulated by the word2vec is an estimate of $\mathbb{P}_{{\cal L}_{\cal T}}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i)$ for any word position $k$ in the observed text. We will use the notation $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i)$ to underline that this probability is estimated using matrices $W$ and $W'$ only.
We will list here the main weaknesses of this model and give pointers and intuitions to how more recent models answered to these points.
\paragraph{Weakness 1: The input is made of only one word.}
The first potential issue of the word2vec Skip-gram approach is that there is only one word as input. It implies that once the model parameters $W$ and $W'$ are chosen, there is no difference between $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i, X_{k-1}=x_{i'})$ and $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i, X_{k-1}=x_{i''})$.\footnote{If we consider the learning process it is clear that the loss function had to cope with the following two sequences: $(X_{k-1}=x_{i'}, X_k=x_i, X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C-1}=x_{j_{C-1}})$ and $(X_{k-1}=x_{i''}, X_k=x_i, X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C-1}=x_{j_{C-1}})$. The information is inside $W$ and $W'$, but at this stage it is difficult to know how, and it is sure that it is averaged using as weights the relative number of occurrences of these sequences in the text.}
They are a lot of different ways to explicitly fix this issue about a potential fragility of the input:
\begin{itemize}
\item the \emph{CBOW} version of the word2vec algorithm is one of them.
The CBOW uses the same weights $W$ and $W'$ but instead of minimizing a loss that is the likelihood of occurrence of a list of words observed ``after'' $X_k$, it takes a list of word occurring``before'' $X_k$ and averages their representations to target the $k+1$ word of the text:
$$\begin{array}{l}
\hat\mathbb{P}^{\text{\sc cbow}}_{W,W'}(X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_{k+C-1}=x_{j_{C-1}}, \cdots, X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, X_k=x_i) \\[.5em]
\phantom{\hat\mathbb{P}^{\text{\sc cbow}}_{W,W'}}= \text{\sf softmax}( \frac{1}{C}(x_{j_{C-1}}+ \ldots + x_{k+1}+x_k)^TW W' )x_{j_C}.
\end{array}$$
It means that the internal representations of the $C-1$ input vectors are averaged, and that this average is used to predict the likelihood of the next word.
\item Since Skip-gram is trying to estimate the averaged probability of occurrence of words occurring after the pivotal $k$-th word, and the CBOW is doing the reverse (estimate the probability of occurrence of the $k+1$-th word given an average of the word that are before $X_k$), one could imagine a mix of these two approaches:
using a weighted average of word ``before'' $X_k$ to predict a weighted averaged probability of words positioned after $X_k$.
It is not very far away of what the self-attention mechanism is doing \cite{vaswani2017attention} except that weights for the average are not chosen a priori, but they are learned and they are a function of words surrounding each weighted word: it is the \emph{attention} associated to the occurrence of the sequence of words $(X_{k-1}=x_{i'}, X_k=x_i, X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C-1}=x_{j_{C-1}})$.
\item Another way to have more information about the words before $X_k$ would be to increase the size of the state space and to concatenate $X_k$ and $X_{k-1}$. But it is considered to be far too demanding in number of parameters. NLP methods prefer to use averages.
\end{itemize}
The take-away if this weakness is that it prevents a word2vec to capture some subtleties of the learned corpus.
One solution is to average over more words such a way that their weights in the average (i.e. attention) are conditioned by the joined distribution of words. It certainly produces \emph{regularization} and \emph{localization} (in the sense that the embeddings are weighted differently according to their position in the very high dimensional space of observed sequences of words). It means that the conclusions we will obtain on word2vec will probably be only valid locally for attention mechanisms.
\paragraph{Weakness 2: The ordering of words is not taken into account.}
From the previous Section, it is clear that for a Skip-gram word2vec (and we know it is the same for a CBOW one) once the parameters $W$ and $W'$ are chosen, there is no difference between the word2vec estimate of $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{j_1}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{j_C} | X_k=x_i)$ and $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_{\sigma(j_1)}, \cdots, X_{k+C}=x_{\sigma(j_C)} | X_k=x_i)$, for any $C$-permutation $\sigma$.
Nevertheless, if we consider the learning process: only sequences that have been seen in the text are considered in the minimization of the loss function, hence $W$ and $W'$ incorporate a trace of the sequences.
But it would be interesting to explicitly inject the positions of the words in the probabilistic model.
This is what BERT is doing, by concatenating the embeddings of the words (i.e. the $W$ matrix of the word2vec) with a positional embedding \cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}.
It is clear that it adds the positional information that is missing in word2vec.
As an illustration, just have a look at the expected effect on the estimate of the likelihood if this idea of ``positional embeddings'' is transposed to the word2vec mechanism:
say that we augment the two matrices $W$ and $W'$ by a positional one $P$ that is used the standard word2vec way. Now we can replace (with $C=2$, to keep it simple, and with the notation $p_u$ to encode that a word is in position $u$)
$$\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'}(X_{k+1}=x_j, X_{k+2}=x_{j'}|X_k=x_i) = \frac{1}{2}(\text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^T W W')x_j+\text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^T W W')x_{j'})$$
by:
$$\begin{array}{l}
\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W',P}(X_{k+1}=x_j, X_{k+2}=x_{j'}|X_k=x_i) \\[.3em]
\phantom{\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W',P}} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\left(\text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^T W W' + p_1^T PP'p_2)x_j+\text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^T W W' + p_1^T PP'p_3)x_{j'}\right).
\end{array}$$
This produces different shifts inside the softmax depending on the relative positions of the words. It implies that using such a mechanism, a word2vec would consider two words to be interchangeable with respect to a given $x_i$, not only if they have the same $x_i^TWW'$ but also if they are positioned at the same distance if $i$.
\subsection{Markovian generative models}
In this section, we explore the theoretical properties of the word2vec embeddings under the assumption that the underlying language text is generated by a Markov model.
We restrict ourselves to the Skip-gram approach: the loss function that is minimized is derived form $\ell(k)$ defined by equality (\ref{eq:loss:skipgram}).
\begin{definition}[Markov generative model for texts]
A Markov generative model for a text over a vocabulary ${\cal V}$ of size $V$ is defined by a stochastic transition matrix $K$ of size $V\times V$ such that $K_{i,j}$ is the probability that the $j$-th word of the vocabulary follows the $i$-th word of the vocabulary.
Thanks to $K$, and provided that an initial distribution $m_0$ over words is defined, a text of size $T$ is a stochastic process $(X_k)_{1\leq k\leq T}$ such that $X_0\sim m_0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:probaK}
\mathbb{P}(X_{k+1}=x_j|X_k=x_i)=K_{i,j}.
\end{equation}
Markov generative models are restricted to irreducible Markov chains.
\end{definition}
It is natural restrict Markov generative models to irreducible Markov chain, since it is realistic to think that a language can link two arbitrary words of the vocabulary by a finite text.
Texts generated by Markov models are of course poorer that standard English texts. Nevertheless we could easily imagine ``multiple inputs'' or ``local'' versions of Markov text generation that would correspond the the formerly identified probabilistic weaknesses of the Skip-gram word2vec.
Moreover, one could think about extensions of the Markovian framework to more subtle ones like the one chosen for the Latent Dirichlet Allocation \cite{LDA} without killing most of the theoretical mechanisms that will be used in this section; but this is out of the scope of this paper.
Since a Markovian text satisfies $\mathbb{P}(X_{(k+c)}=x_{j}|X_k =x_{i}) = x_{i}^T K^c x_{j}$, it is straightforward to see that the main quantity of interest for a Skip-gram word2vec is linked to the Reference Model $\text{\sf RM}(K)$ corresponding to the Markov kernel $K$ since
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MK}
W'_0(\text{\sf RM}(K)) = \frac{1}{C}\sum_{i=1}^C K^i.
\end{equation}
This comes from the fact that the language model is trained on a sequence of $C$ words without any consideration of ordering.
Hence, given that ${\cal I}$ is a uniform random variable over $\{1,\ldots,C\}$, the Skip-gram word2vec tries to estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\mathbb{P}(X_{k+{\cal I}} | X_{k})
&=& \sum_{i=1}^C \mathbb{P}(X_{k+i} | X_{k}) \, \mathbb{P}( {\cal I}= i) \\%\text{ by independence} \\
&=& \frac{1}{C} \sum_{i=1}^C \mathbb{P}(X_{k+i} | X_{k}).
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Markov chain properties}
In this subsection, we formulate well known properties of Markov chains \cite{revuz2008markov} that we will need thereafter within our models and notations.
Let ${\cal D}(T)=(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_T)$ be a document made of $T$ words generated using a Markov chain with a transition matrix $K$ on a vocabulary of $V$ words, and denote by $\mu$ the stationary distribution of the Markov chain. The state space of our Markov chain is the vocabulary $\mathcal{V}$ which is finite. Hence our Markov chain is positive recurrent; we will largely rely on the ergodic theorem.
\begin{property}[Convergence of empirical distribution]
\begin{equation}\label{eq:station:conv}
\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^T \mathbbm{1}(X_k=x_1) = \mu(x_i)
\end{equation}
\end{property}
Note that $\mu$ is a vector of size $V$, and the $i$th coordinate $\mu_i = \mu(x_i)$ is the probability of appearance of work $i$ in the stationary distribution.
\begin{proof}
Direct consequence of Ergodic theorem.
See Theorem 4.16 in \cite{LevinPeresWilmer2006} or Corollaire 13.6.2 in \cite{legall}.
\end{proof}
Then we state a property for the convergence of empirical conditional distribution:
\begin{property}[Convergence of empirical Conditional distribution]
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be an independent uniformly random index from $1$ to $C$ (each index has equal probability $\frac{1}{C}$),
\[
\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i, X_{k+\mathcal{I}} = x_j)}
{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i)} = \frac{1}{C}\sum_{l=1}^C K^l(x_i, x_j)
\]
\end{property}
\begin{proof}
We only stage the proof in the simplest $C=1$ case to keep it short; when $C>1$, the proof is similar.
Just observe that $(X_k, X_{k+1})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ is an irreducible Markov chain too over the set of states $\{(x,y) | K(x,y)>0\}$ with kernel $Q((a,b),(c,d))=K(c,d)\mathbbm{1}(b=c)$. Its unique invariant probability measure is $\pi(x,y) = \mu(x) K(x,y)$. Applying the ergodic theorem to $\mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i, X_{k+1} = x_j)$ reads
\[
\frac{\frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i, X_{k+1} = x_j)}
{\frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i)} \underset{T\to \infty}{\longrightarrow }
\frac{\mu(x_i) K(x_i,x_j)}{\mu(x_i)} = K(x_i,x_j)
\]
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{From a Reference Model to a Markov kernel}
Given a Reference Model with $C=1$, i.e. $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W_0',1)$,
a Markov chain with $K:=W'_0$ is the corresponding Markov generative model:
by construction the two reference Models coincide.
But when $C>1$, there does not always exist a $K$ satisfying (\ref{eq:MK}) for a given $W'_0$.
\begin{theorem}[Representative generative model]
Given a reference model $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W_0',C)$ on a vocabulary of $V$ words,
there exists a Markov chain with a transition matrix $K$ verifying equality (\ref{eq:MK}) if one of these two conditions is verified:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $C=1$;
\item $W'_0$ is symmetric (or diagonalizable) and all its eigenvalues are in $[0, 1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
If our kernel $K$ is diagonalizable (for example, if it is reversible), then $K = P \Delta P^{-1}$ (and if it reversible, $P$ is a orthonormal basis, i.e., $P^{-1}=P^{T}$) where $\Delta$ is a diagonal matrix. Following the spectral properties of transition kernel (Lemme 9 in \cite{mixting}): if $K$ is ergodic then the maximal value in the diagonal $\Delta$ is $1$ and it is unique. The other diagonal elements have absolute value less than $1$. We can deduce the relation linking $W'_0$ and $C$ with the diagonal decomposition of $K$:
\begin{equation}
P^{-1} W'_0 P = \frac{1}{C} \sum_{i=1}^C \Delta^i.
\end{equation}
The right side of equation can be calculated exactly by the formula of geometric sum: it is a diagonal matrix which terms are $\frac{1}{C} \sum_{i=1}^C \lambda^i$
for all $\lambda \ne 1$.
\\
Now we can show the equivalence:
\begin{itemize}
\item Given a stochastic matrix $K$, we can always find $W'_0$ such that $W'_0$ is also a stochastic matrix and satisfying (\ref{eq:MK}).
The matrix constructed in this way $K:=P \Delta P^{-1}$ is stochastic. $v = (1,1,...,1)$ is the eigenvector of $W'_0$ of eigenvalue $1$ such that $W'_0 v =v$ and the first column of $P$ is $v$. So $P^{-1} v = (1,0, ..., 0)$ hence $P \Delta P^{-1} v = P (1,0, ..., 0) = v$. $K v = v$ means that each row of $K$ sums up to $1$ which prove that $K$ is stochastic.
\item Inversely, given a \emph{diagonalizable} stochastic matrix $W'_0$ with eigenvalues in $[0,1]$, we can also find such a matrix $K$. In fact, if $W'_0 = P D P^{-1}$ where $D$ is a diagonal matrix with value between $0$ and $1$, we can find a diagonal matrix $\Delta$ such that $\frac{1}{C}\sum_{i=1}^C \Delta^i = D$ because the function
$$x\mapsto \frac{1}{C}\sum_{i=1}^C x^i = \frac{1}{C}\left( \frac{1- x^{C+1}}{1-x} - 1\right)$$
is bijective from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$.
\end{itemize}
~\hfill$\square$
\subsection{Understanding Word2Vec as a Compression of a Reference Model}
\label{sec:compression}
\subsubsection{How to compress a Reference Model}
Assume that we start with the Reference Model $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W'_0,C)$ of a corpus and try to qualitatively understand what one can expect from a word2vec model of the same corpus when $N$, the dimension of the word embeddings, is $V-1$:
\begin{itemize}
\item On the one hand the likelihood associated by the word2vec model to the pair of words $(x_i, x_j)$ reads
$$\text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T W W') x_j,$$
\item on the other hand the empirical occurrences in the corpus says that this likelihood should be
$$x_i^T W_0' x_j.$$
\end{itemize}
If a pair of words $(x_i,x_{i'})$ is such that $x_i^T W_0' x_j = x_{i'}^T W_0' x_j$, then the rows $i$ and $i'$ of $W_0'$ are identical.
The best way to compress $W'_0$ is hence
\begin{enumerate}
\item to use the embedding matrix to map rows $i$ and $i'$ on the same embedding.
We will use the notation $E[i'\mapsto i]$ for this embedding matrix that is the $V\times V$ identity matrix with column $i'$ that is removed, and with $1$ in place of $0$ at its element $(i',i)$
\item to remove the row $i'$ of $W'_0$. We use the notation $W_0'[i']^\ominus$ for a $(V-1)\times V$ matrix corresponding to $W_0'$ once its $i'$-th row is deleted.
\end{enumerate}
Then $E[i'\mapsto i]\cdot W'_0[i']^\ominus=W'_0$. As a consequence:
\begin{property}[Trivial compression of a Reference Model by a Word2vec]
With the upper notations: the word2vec model $(E[i'\mapsto i],W'_0[i']^\ominus,C)$
is an \emph{exact compression} of the Reference Model $(\textbf{\sf Id},W_0',C)$, such that the $i$-th and $i'$-th words of $W_0'$ are identical, i.e.:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:trivial:compress}
\forall (k,k'):\: \text{\sf softmax}(x_k^T \, E[i'\mapsto i]\, W'_0[i']^\ominus) x_{k'} = x_k^T W_0' x_{k'}.
\end{equation}
\end{property}
We can have a qualitative look at $E[i'\mapsto i]$, the matrix of embeddings of this exact compression, and notice that it mapped $i$ and $i'$ on the same embedding vector.
And, qualitatively once more, the nature of words $xi$ and $x_{i'}$ is that they have the same ``probability vector", i.e. the same probability of occurrence of surrounding words. See \cite{implicitmatrix} and references therein to different perspectives on compression.
\paragraph{A frequentist (and confusing) viewpoint on synonyms.}
From a frequentist viewpoint, $x_i$ and $x_{i'}$ are interchangeable, this is the reason why the training algorithm will map them on the same embeddings. One could call them ``{synonyms from a word2vec viewpoint}'' or \emph{frequentist synonyms}.
For two words being frequentist synonyms it is enough that in the corpus all sentences containing $x_i$ have a similar sentence where it is replaced by $x_{i'}$.
This is clearly not the definition of semantic synonyms, for instance if all sentences containing the word ``\emph{bad}'' have an copy with the word ``\emph{good}'' in place, like:\\[.2em]
\begin{tabular}{l|lcl}
\rule{2em}{0pt}&\emph{look at this \framebox{bad} guy}& $\leftrightarrow$ &\emph{look at this \framebox{good} guy}.\\
&\emph{this is \framebox{bad} English} & $\leftrightarrow$ &\emph{this is \framebox{good} English}.\\
&etc.
\end{tabular}\\[.2em]
and these semantic antonyms will become synonyms in embeddings learned on this corpus.
Elaborating a little more on application, one can bet that on a corpus of cars, colors will probably be frequentist synonyms, since most cars can be seen in any color, hence such a corpus may have as many sentences like: ``a \emph{gray} car had an accident'' than ``a \emph{blue} car had an accident''. But on a corpus made of cooking recipes, colors will not be frequentist synonyms because there is no ``\emph{red} bananas'' but ``\emph{red} apples'' and ``\emph{red} peppers''.
We will empirically see in Section \ref{sec:finance} that if frequentist synonyms provide structure to a word2vec mode, they can confuse a task related to exploit polarity of sentiments of financial texts.
\subsubsection{A formal definition for compression of Markov chains}
The notion of Reference Model enables to define clearly what kind of compression can be expected from a text embedding, in particular for the word2vec class of models.
The vocabulary size being $V$, and the embedding dimension being $N$, compressing \emph{linearly} a Reference Model $(\textbf{\sf Id},W'_0,C)$ using a word2vec will end up with a ${V\times N}$ matrix $R$ and a ${N\times V}$ matrix $R'W_0'$, such that the probabilities defined by $(R,R'W_0,C)$ are as close as possible from the original ones.
Qualitatively:
$$\forall x_i,x_j:\: \text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T RR'W_0')x_j \mbox{ ``close to'' } x^T_i W_0' x_j.$$
The main point is to choose a quantitative criterion that has a sense to define this desired proximity.
Qualitatively, it is clear that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the rank of $RR'$ needs to be maximal (taking into account that the more frequentist synonyms in the language the lower the rank of $W'_0$) to recover the space spanned by $W_0'$,
\item without the softmax non linearity and if the SVD (Singular Value Decomposition) of $W'_0$ is $U\Sigma V^T$, one could expect that $R\simeq U\Sigma$ and $R'\simeq V^T$ (see \cite[Section 4.2]{implicitmatrix} for more details).
Nevertheless the softmax changes the setting. Moreover, the SVD compression criterion is the minimization of the unexplained variance whereas in word embedding, the proximity of conditional probabilities seems to be a better criterion.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition}[Compression of a reference model $({\rm Id},W_0',C)$]
We define the compression to dimension $N$ of a reference model of size $V$ using two
mappings $\phi(W'_0)$ and $\phi'(W'_0)$.
The compressed model is the $(\phi(W'_0),\phi'(W'_0),C)$ word2vec model.
For simplicity of the notation we set
$$\Phi(W'_0):=\phi(W'_0)\phi'(W'_0)$$
and we define ${\frak C}$ the class of function $\Phi$ that can be written this way.
\end{definition}
If we consider the sequence of words $X_k$ of a text of length $T$ as a stochastic process, then we may take any distance $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ between probability vectors (i.e. $x_k^tW'_0$ or $\text{\sf softmax}(x_k^T WW'$) and write our optimization problem as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:op.mv}
\min_{R, R'}\; \frac{1}{T} \sum_{k=1}^{T} d(\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \phi(W'_0)\phi'(W'_0)), \ X_k^T W'_0)
\end{equation}
For linear compression, just note that $RR'W_0':=\Phi(W'_0)$.
A last qualitatively remark: $\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \Phi(W'_0))$ and $X_k^T W'_0$ are both row vectors which coordinate $j'$ represents the probability of occurrence of the $j'$-th word of the vocabulary (in the neighborhood of $X_k=x_i$, i.e. if the word $x_{j'}$ occurs at least once in the next $C$ words after $X_k=x_i$). Hence the former will be a ``good compression'' of the later if the these two probability distributions are ``close".
\\
A natural choice is to consider the \emph{cross entropy} (that is a shifted version of Kullback-Leiber divergence) between these two distributions:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:CE:basic}
\mathbf{H}_{CE}(\mathbb{P}_{W'_0|X_k}, \hat\mathbb{P}_{\Phi(W'_0)|X_k})&:=& -\mathbb{E}_{X_k^T W'_0}\log\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \Phi(W'_0))\\\nonumber
&=& -\sum_{x_{j'}\in{\cal V}} \log\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \Phi(W'_0))x_{j'} \cdot X_k^T W'_0 x_{j'}
\end{eqnarray}
Thanks to the ergodic theorem\footnote{i.e. $\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\sum_t f(X_k)=\mathbb{E}_\mu f(X_i)$.} that can be used on the stochastic process made of the sequence of words when the length of the corpus goes to infinity, it is now possible to state this definition of a compression:
\begin{definition}[Compression criterion on a Markov chain generated text]
If a text $\mathfrak{X}=X_1,\ldots,X_k,\ldots$ stems from a Markov generative model which Reference Model is $(\textbf{\sf Id}, W_0',C)$, we define a compression $\Phi$, taken in the class of functions ${\frak C}$, of its Markov kernel $W_0'$ thanks to the expectation (according to the invariant distribution $\mu$ of $W_0'$) of the Cross Entropy between the output vectors of a word2vec.
It reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compress:markov}
\min_{\phi\in\Phi}\; \mathbb{E}_{X_k\sim\mu} \,\mathbf{H}_{CE}\left(\mathbb{P}_{W'_0|X_k}, \text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \Phi(W'_0))\right).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Note that with the already defined notation $\hat\mathbb{P}_{\Phi(W'_0)|X_k}$ for $\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \Phi(W'_0))$, we recover a minimization that is compatible with (\ref{eq:CE:basic}).
Moreover this definition goes beyond the Skip-gram word2vec embeddings, since the compression $\Phi$ is quite generic at this stage.
It is possible to extend it definition using to the natural filtration $\mathfrak{X}_k$ associated to $\mathfrak{X}$ and replacing
$\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \phi(W'_0))$ by $\text{\sf softmax}(X_k^T \phi(W'_0, \mathfrak{X}_k))$ in formula (\ref{eq:compress:markov}). It would need to change the writing of the expectation but it allows the compression to use all the words up to the $k$-th word of the text, and hence to embed a memory or local metrics, addressing for instance part of the Weakness 1 exposed in Section \ref{sec:PLM}.
\subsubsection{Convergence of the Skip-gram word2vec loss function to a cross-entropy}
Show that the mean of Skip-gram loss function converges to the criterion when the size of the corpus size goes to infinity, i.e. replacing it by something link $\mathbb{E}_t \ell(X_t)$ that would be close to (\ref{eq:compress:markov}).
\begin{theorem}[Correspondence between Skip-gram loss function and compression criterion]
\label{th:cross}
Assume the words $X_1,\ldots,X_T$ of a document of length $T$ are generated thanks to an ergodic stochastic process according to a Reference Model $(\textbf{\sf Id},W'_0,1)$ and an initial probability distribution $m_0$ over the vocabulary.
Then the loss function of a Skip-gram word2vec model $(W,W',1)$ over this corpus converges towards the expectation of cross-entropy between $\mathbb{P}_{W'_0|X_k}$ and $\hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'|X_k}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:th:cross}
\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^{T} -\log \text{\sf softmax}(X_{k}^TW W')X_{k+1} = \mathbb{E}_{X_k\sim\mu} \mathbf{H}_{CE}(\mathbb{P}_{W'_0|X_k}, \hat\mathbb{P}_{W,W'|X_k}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of notations, we will restrict the theorem and its proof to $C=1$.
Note $\mu$ as the
ergodic measure of the stochastic process $(X_k)_k$,
i.e. $\mu(x_i) = \lim_{T \to \infty}\frac{}{T} \sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i)$.
Then we can write the loss function
\begin{align*}
-\frac{1}{T}&\sum_{k=1}^{T} \log \text{\sf softmax}(X_{k}^TW W')X_{k+1}\\
=& -\sum_{i=1}^V\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i)}{T}
\sum_{j=1}^V \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i, X_{k+1} = x_j)}
{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \mathbbm{1}(X_{k}=x_i)}\log \text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^T W W')x_j
\end{align*}
With the notations $\mathbb{P}_{W_0'|x_i}$ for the probability distribution of words given the occurrence of $x_i$ (i.e. $x_i^T W'_0$) and $\hat\mathbb{P}_{WW'|x_i}$ for the probability of the same events modelled by the Skip-gram word2vec (i.e. $\text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T W W')$).
Then limit when the number of words goes to infinity of the Skip-gram loss reads
\begin{align*}
-\lim_{T\to\infty}& \frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^{T} \log \text{\sf softmax}(X_{k}^TW W')X_{k+1} \\
= & -\sum_{i=1}^V \mu(x_i) \sum_{j=1}^V \frac{\mu(x_i)x_i^T W'_0 x_j}{\mu(x_i)}\log \text{\sf softmax}(x_{i}^TW W')x_j\\
=& \sum_{i=1}^V \mu(x_i) \; \mathbf{H}_{CE}(\mathbb{P}_{W_0'|x_i}, \text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T W W')) \\
=& \mathbb{E}_{X_k\sim\mu} \mathbf{H}_{CE}(\mathbb{P}_{W_0'|X_k}, \hat\mathbb{P}_{W W'|X_k}).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
When $C>1$ the deduction is similar.
\section{Synthetic experiments: empirical study of the role of structures}
\label{sec:synth:experiments}
In this section, we will leverage on different elements of our theoretical analysis to perform numerical explorations around the identifiability of word embedding models. We mainly leverage on these two elements
\begin{itemize}
\item under restrictive assumption, we can use a Markov chain with a kernel $K$ to build a Reference Model $(\textbf{\sf Id},W_0',C)$ thanks to equation (\ref{eq:MK});
\item the existence of \emph{frequentist synonyms} influences the capability to compress efficiently a Reference Model.
\end{itemize}
We will hence generate different Reference Models having more or less structure (here structure means having blocks of frequentist synonyms or not), on vocabularies of different sizes, and observe how easy or difficult it is to recover them from a generated corpus.
If the compression performed by a word2vec is not a principal component analysis (since it is more ``low rank" than ``low variance" driven, because of the nonlinearity introduced by the softmax and because the minimized criterion in a cross entropy with an unknown Reference Model via a sample of text), it can nevertheless be expected to find commonalities with the pitfalls identified long ago by Random Matrix Theory (see \cite{tao2012topics} for an overview) that are playing an important role in the theoretical understanding of the limits of deep learning \cite{choromanska2015loss}.
\paragraph{Experimental conditions.}
We generate different Reference Models on vocabularies of size $V$, that will be ``compressed" via embeddings of dimension $N$ (for illustration purposes we even consider some configurations for which $N>V$). We use a Markov chain to build the reference model so that it is ``fully random" (uniformly generated), or has a structure. This structure is made of ``blocks" which rows are identical to each other (that is the definition of frequentist synonyms).
We train a Skip-gram word2vec during a large number of epochs (enough to stabilize the learning) via a standard SGD (Stochastic Gradient Descent, generally Adam with a fixed rate of $10^{-4}$) implemented in pyTorch and running on Google Colab or AWS using {\sc cuda} acceleration.
\paragraph{Types of structure.}
We experiment different level of structure:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{No structure} when $K$ is a dense matrix generated randomly and uniformly in the space of stochastic matrices each of its rows is sampled by the uniform distribution in the space of simplex using Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha=1$.
\item \emph{Structure} when $K$ is made of blocks of duplicated rows, when the number of block varies, the overall size of the structure is always kept constant.
For instance: when $V=1000$ we can take either $160$ blocks of $5$ rows or $40$ block of $20$ rows, because $150\times 5 = 40\times 20$.
\end{itemize}
The expected role of blocks is the following: the intrinsic dimension of a Reference Model made of $B$ blocks of size $S$ plus ``noise" on $V-B\times S$ components is between $B+1$ and $B+(V-B\times S)=V-B(S-1)$. it is expected to be closer to $B+1$ in a ``low overfitting'' configurations and closer to $V-B(S-1)$ when the model considers that it is equivalent to learn one row or $S$ similar rows. Our theoretical analysis suggests that the Skip-gram word2vec should be more in the first configuration that in the second, since attributing one vector of embedding to a block is far more rewarding (in terms of the loss function) than attributing it to one isolated row of $W_0'$.
\paragraph{Criteria to monitor.}
We focus on two criteria:
\begin{itemize}
\item The loss function during the learning, to analyse the performance of the compression. It is interesting to note that the loss function (\ref{eq:loss:skipgram}) being compatible with the cross entropy (\ref{eq:compress:markov}), and since we are generating synthetic dataset, in some case one can really expect a full success of the ``compression" that is in these cases a simple identification of the generating model.
\item The distance between the compressed vectors and the original ones. Once again it is a way to quantify the success of the identification of the properties of the generative model.
That for, we focus on the (mean) cosine similarity between two words $x_i$ and $x_{i'}$ defined as the scalar product between the two probability vectors:
$$\mathbf{C}_S^P(x_i,x_{i'}):= \sum_{j=1}^V \text{\sf softmax}(x_i^T WW') x_j \cdot x_{i'}^T W_0' x_j.$$
To formulate a criterion that is minimal when two groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ of words are close, we will use
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:crit}
d_C(G_1,G_2):=1-\frac{1}{\#G_1\cdot \#G_2}\sum_{x_i\in G_1}\sum_{x_{i'}\in G_2} \mathbf{C}_S^P(x_i,x_{i'}).
\end{equation}
This metric will allow us to understand if words belonging to the same group of frequentist synonyms are closer between themselves rather than to other words.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{First experimentation: low vocabulary size}
Figure \ref{fig:cosine50} shows that the Skip-gram word2vect has difficulties to find the generative $W'_0$ when the dimension of the word2vec is larger than the original dimension. This exhibits a clear identifiability issue.
Of course in general the size of the embeddings is lower than the vocabulary size, so for word2vec this configuration should never occur in practice. Nevertheless, not that the relative size of the embeddings vs. the one of the vocabulary is not low for embedding-driven language models like BERT.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=8_V=50_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=1_V=50_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The role of structure: cosine distance between $W_0'$ and $WW'$ during the learning ($x$-axis), for a vocabulary size $V=50$ and for 8 blocks of 5 (left) and no block (right).}
\label{fig:cosine50}
\end{figure}
When the dimension of the embeddings is low, Figure \ref{fig:cosine200} suggests that the structure can be captured by the compression.
Typically one could expect that an embedding of dimension $10$ has more chances to capture a Reference Model made of 8 blocks, than one made of 32 blocks, and it is verified in our experiments.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=8_V=200_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=16_V=200_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=32_V=200_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=1_V=200_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The role of structure: cosine distance between $W_0'$ and $WW'$ during the learning ($x$-axis), for a vocabulary size $V=200$ and for 8 blocks of 20 (top left), 16 blocks of 10 (top right), 32 blocks of 5 (bottom left) and no block (bottom right).}
\label{fig:cosine200}
\end{figure}
In any case, Figure \ref{fig:cosine1000} underlines the fact that higher dimension of embeddings, even if it is lower than the vocabulary size, is better in presence of structure. For instance when the Reference Model is made of 160 blocks of 5 rows (i.e. 800 rows over 1000 of the Reference Model are exhibiting structure): embedding size of $200$ and $500$ perform similarly (with more noise for $N=500$) whereas $n=800$ performs very poorly.
This underlines the fact that the structure has to be taken into account to choose the targeted compression dimension; in a highly structure language (with a lot of frequentists synonyms), a low dimension can be a proper choice. We can expect that very repetitive sentences (from a semantic perspective), like the headlines of financial News, should exhibit identifiability issues compared to the body of the same news, that are made of more semantically diverse sentences.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=10_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=40_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=160_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{{cosine_blk=1_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The role of structure: cosine distance between $W_0'$ and $WW'$ during the learning ($x$-axis), for a vocabulary size $V=1000$ and for 10 blocks of 80 (top left), 40 blocks of 20 (top right), 160 blocks of 5 (bottom left) and no block (bottom right).}
\label{fig:cosine1000}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Beyond the loss function: assessing the quality of the captured structure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\emph{8 block of size 5 for a vocabulary size of 50.}}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{{in_out_synonyms_blk=8_V=50_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}\\
\centerline{\emph{40 blocks of size 20 for a vocabulary size of 1000.}}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{{in_out_synonyms_blk=40_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}\\
\centerline{\emph{160 blocks of size 5 for a vocabulary size of 1000.}}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{{in_out_synonyms_blk=160_V=1000_Lk=1000.0}.pdf}
\caption{The recovery of structure: inter-block and intra-block cosine similarities of embeddings.}
\label{fig:synthetic:blocks}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:synthetic:blocks} exhibits how the compressed model $WW'$ recovers the blocks of the Reference Model $W'_0$. The standard deviations inside a block or between words of another block are similar, and as expected the cosine similarity between words belonging to the same block is higher than the cosine between words of two different blocks. Nevertheless if this cosine is large in low dimension (0.8 in the best case of $V=50$) it is far lower in high dimension. It is 0.02 when $V=1000$ for $N\leq 500$, but it is halves when $N=800$, showing that overfitting is really present in such a case.
The qualitative conclusions to this empirical study for synthetic data are
\begin{itemize}
\item the dimension of the embedding has to cope with the structure of the Reference Model, with a highly structured Reference Model, a too large embedding dimension is detrimental to the performances;
\item the skip-gram word2vec faces identifiability issues in general, and we suspect it is not specific to this model.
\item Surprisingly, even if the performances of the model is not good, it succeeds in putting words closer to frequentist synonyms (i.e. within the same block) than to other words.
\end{itemize}
Our experiments on the dimensionality of word embeddings seems to be compatible with \cite{dim} that is in favor of a dimension close to $N=300$.
\section{Experiments on a corpus of financial news: What can be learned?}
\label{sec:finance}
This section is an empirical study learning embeddings on a financial corpus. Our goal is to explore how particular type of structure, that is usually named \emph{sentiment polarity} in NLP, is preserved or not by embeddings.
The usage of NLP in finance often targets to make the difference between ``good news'' and ``bad news'' on listed company, as a pre-requisit to build investment strategies (see \cite{gentzkow2019text} and \cite{xing2018natural} for details).
The ``Loughran-McDonlad Lexicon'' tuned by human experts on 10-K regulatory fillings by US corporates (see \cite{loughran2011liability} for details), is commonly used to quantify the polarity of text.
Since it lists positive, negative, litigious words, we will use these lists of words as blocks of synonyms or antonyms. They study play a similar role as the ``blocks'' of the generative models studied in the previous section.
\subsection{Sentiments as a source of structure: Does Financial News understand better Loughran-McDonald's polarity than Wikipedia?}
\begin{table}[!h]\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{News full text} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{News headlines} \\
& avg. LM & avg. size & nbe & avg. LM & avg. size & nbe \\
\midrule
2008 & 0.26 & 156.18 & 415,524 & 0.24 & 10.14 & 406,315 \\
2009 & 0.25 & 146.84 & 2,780,525 & 0.23 & 10.20 & 2,497,544 \\
2010 & 0.22 & 173.07 & 2,911,113 & 0.21 & 10.17 & 2,651,780 \\
2011 & 0.20 & 354.10 & 4,038,762 & 0.19 & 9.65 & 1,937,799 \\
2012 & 0.19 & 387.70 & 4,650,571 & 0.23 & 10.23 & 132,126 \\
2013 & 0.19 & 370.67 & 4,797,842 & 0.21 & 9.96 & 187,842 \\
2014 & 0.19 & 360.51 & 4,785,053 & 0.18 & 9.90 & 195,455 \\
2015 & 0.20 & 374.79 & 4,763,002 & 0.16 & 9.12 & 1,303,531 \\
2016 & 0.24 & 242.99 & 3,716,652 & 0.18 & 9.54 & 2,763,163 \\
2017 & 0.22 & 133.33 & 3,401,207 & 0.15 & 9.89 & 2,191,320 \\
2018 & 0.21 & 129.60 & 3,357,355 & 0.14 & 9.75 & 1,980,199 \\
2019 & 0.17 & 160.64 & 1,634,809 & 0.15 & 10.00 & 1,545,239 \\
2020 & 0.17 & 175.42 & 1,388,059 & 0.15 & 9.97 & 1,449,560 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of the processed News full text
and Headlines (\emph{avg. LM} is the average number of words from the Longhran-McDonald lexicon in a document of the corpus
, \emph{avg. size} is the average number of words, and \emph{nbe} is the number of news).}
\label{tab:desc:bloom}
\end{table}
We use a corpus of financial News provided by a large provider of professional financial News covering years from 2008 to 2020. We will do experiments on the headlines only or on the whole body of the News (i.e. the headline followed by the text). We used different ad hoc filters to prevent the repetition of News (sometimes a News is repeated, in such a case we only keep its first appearance, and some times a header does not have enough words, in such a case we remove it from the headline corpus).
Table \ref{tab:desc:bloom} provides descriptive statistics on these corpora; it is restricted to the News that will be processed by our word2vec: the headlines contain on average 10 words where the body of the news contains on average around 250 words. Our filtering reduced the number of headlines years 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Because of this we will restrict some of our analysis to other years only.
As a reference, we use embedding pre-trained in Wikipedia (see Appendix \ref{sec:tech:appendix} for details).
The content of the Loughran-McDonald Sentiment Word Lists (2018) is described in Table \ref{tab:LM:desc}. This lexicon contains more negative words than positive words; that is the two categories we will mainly focus on. Not all these words appear in the considered corpora: for instance embeddings trained on Wikipedia contains only 349 of the 353 positive words where the headlines of our financial News from 2008 to 2012 contains 343 of them.
Here are examples of the first words of this lexicon:
\begin{itemize}
\item Negative: \emph{abandon,
abandoned,
abandoning,
abandonment,
abandonments,
abandons,
abdicated,
abdicates,} etc.
\item Positive; \emph{able,
abundance,
abundant,
acclaimed,
accomplish,
accomplished,
accomplishes,
accomplishing,
accomplishment,} etc.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|r|rrr}
& LM & in wiki-& in Fin. News & in Fin. News\\
& (ref) & pedia & headlines & Full text\\\hline
Negative words & 2,354 & 2,097 & 2,190 & 2,335\\
Positive words & 353 & 349 & 343 & 354\\\hline\hline
Uncertainty words & 396 & 270 & 273 & 294\\
Litigious words & 903 & 590 & 637 & 820\\
StrongModal words & 19 & 18 & 19 & 19\\
WeakModal words & 27 & 26 & 26 & 27\\
Constraining words & 183 & 172 & 178 & 181\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of word in each category present in each corpus.}
\label{tab:LM:desc}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:avg:cosin:glob} exhibits the cosine similarity between different sections of polarized words (as it is a scalar product between two vectors of norm 1, its maximum value is 1). The exact computation process is the following: (1) we trained Skip-gram word2vec embedding on each year, (2) for each year we compute the cosine similarity between any two words of the considered lists (for instance between any two positive words, or between any positive word and any negative word), (3) we average over all the obtained cosine similarities (we plot the obatined time series in Figure \ref{fig:yearly:cosine}), (4) we average the obtained numbers excluding years 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (Figure \ref{fig:yearly:cosine} shows that average cosine similarity is too different over these years for embeddings learned on headlines, probably because of the low number of headlines available).
\\
If the learned embeddings would have been compatible with the polarities expressed by the lexicon, we should observe
\begin{itemize}
\item The highest average similarity for groups \emph{Positive-Positive} and \emph{Negative-Negative} (blue and orange bars),
\item The lowest average similarity for the \emph{Positive-Negative} group (violet),
\item Medium similarities for groups \emph{Positive-Random} and \emph{Negative-Random} (red and green).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{images/compare_mean_polarities_T_selected.pdf
\caption{Average cosine similarity between embeddings of different groups of polarities trained on financial News or on Wikipedia (\emph{Random} means either random words --for Financial News-- either all the other words --for Wikipedia--).}
\label{fig:avg:cosin:glob}
\end{figure}
\emph{It is not what we observe}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if Positive-Positive and Negative-Negative (blue and orange bars) are the highest, it is not by far, especially for embeddings learned on the headlines.
\item \emph{Positive-Negative similarity (violet) is never the lowest}, it is comparable to distance to random words for embeddings
\item Positive-Random and Negative-Random (red and green) are not very low \emph{except for embeddings learned on the full text} of the News.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Conjectures on frequentist synonyms amongst polarized worlds in finance.}
The first empirical conclusion we can make at this stage is that \emph{it is difficult for embeddings to separate financial polarized antonyms}.
The fact that the Positive-Negative (violet) bars are never lower than the Positive or Negative vs. Random (red and green) bars is an evidence of this difficulty. Nevertheless, \emph{it is easier to separate financial polarized words with embeddings learned on the full text of News rather than on headlines only}. We can conjecture that it is because financial headlines are written to be quickly understood by humans, and that for they contain similar sentences with positive or negative words in the same environments. Indeed: when a corpus is structure with short sentences of similar structure, the chances that semantic antonyms becomes frequentist synonyms are high. This configuration disappear when the corpus of full text (body) of financial News is used.
Last but not least Positive-Random and Negative-Random similarity is particularly close to zero when embeddings are learned on the full body of the News. This similarity is even lower for embeddings trained on the full text of financial News rather than on the Wikipedia corpus.
Our theoretical analysis shed light on this: it is difficult for the Skip-gram word2vec to make the difference between frequentist synonyms. From a corpus of short and very structured sentences, antonyms have good chances to become frequentist synonyms.
As a conclusion of this first analysis, we can conclude that using embeddings to discriminate polarity will be more difficult on a the corpus of headlines, that is not diverse enough, and financial enough (since it does not work is well on Wikipedia).
\subsection{Stationarity of embeddings associated to polarized words}
\subsubsection{The cosine similarity between polarities is stationary}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.985\linewidth]{headlines_300_avg_cosin_yearly.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{body_300_avg_cosin_yearly.pdf}
\caption{Yearly cosine similarity between the embeddings of Loughran-McDonald Positive and Negative lexicon, for a skip-gram word2vec model learned on the headlines only (bottom) or on the full text (top) of financial News.}
\label{fig:yearly:cosine}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{tab:desc:bloom} shows the number of document in our corpus each year; we have clearly less headlines in 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014, and it is reflected in the average cosine similarities of Figure \ref{fig:yearly:cosine} (top panel). There is not enough documents, hence not enough diversity in the sentences, and as a consequence words are not been seen in differentiating enough contexts: the global cosine similarity is higher.
That being put aside, we observe that the averaged results of Figure \ref{fig:avg:cosin:glob} are in line with their time series representation: the ordering of cosine similarities between groups of words of same polarity are the same every year. Despite a widening of the difference between words of the same polarity (red and blue lines) and the cosine between polarized words and random words (orange and violet lines) in 2017 and 2018, \emph{the embeddings seem to be stationary} in the sense that there is no real change in their relative ranking from one year to another.
\subsubsection{Influence of the embedding size on the polarities}
Figure \ref{fig:yearly:pos2pos:changes} Shows the influence of embedding size on the cosine similarity between embeddings of Positive words with other classes (Positive, Negative, Random) words.\footnote{The effects are the same for Negative words.}
The empirical results are mixed since on the one hand when the dimension decreases, the similarity inside the class of positive words increase (that is good), but the similarity between positive and negative words increases too. The similarity to random words stays close to zero.
\paragraph{Conjecture on the influence of embedding size on frequentist synonyms.}
This observation is compatible with the idea that the lower the dimension to represent the language, the more difficult to memorize the differences in contexts of words. As a consequence, words with the same polarity will become more similar, but antonyms will become more similar too.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{evolution_PP_avg_cosin_yearly.pdf}
\caption{Change of the cosine similarity between positive words and random words as a function of the size of embeddings.}
\label{fig:yearly:pos2pos:changes}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{When a company name becomes a frequentist synonym}
Figure \ref{fig:yearly:theranos} document an interesting effect that can have an influence on using embeddings to predict returns of listed companies.
The important question to ask is if we want that a sentence like
``\emph{Microsoft printed booming results}''\footnote{``booming'' is part of the Loughran-McDonald list of positively polarized words.} is understood the same way as ``\emph{Google printed booming results}'' by an embedding-based system.
It would require that \emph{Microsoft} and \emph{Google} have no polarity.
There is no semantic reason for a company name to be positively or negatively biased, i.e. to have a cosine similarity different from zero to a group of polarized words.
This analysis is not systematic, we simply took the only company name of Wikipedia's \emph{List of corporate collapses and scandals} that is in our database, and computed its cosine similarity with the five most numerous lists of the Loughran-McDonald lexicon (Positive, Negative, Litigious and Uncertain).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{avg_cosin_yearly_theranos_e-300.pdf}
\caption{Yearly cosine similarity between the embeddings of Theranos and the Loughran-McDonald lexicon (it is measured using the {\tt model.wv.n\_similarity} function of gensim).}
\label{fig:yearly:theranos}
\end{figure}
Before commenting the results, have a look at the quick summary made by Wikipedia\footnote{On Theranos Wikipedia page as of the 10th of March 2020.} of the Theranos case:
\\[.3em]
\framebox{\parbox{\linewidth}{\sf \small%
In March 2018 the US Securities and Exchange Commission charged Theranos, its CEO Elizabeth Holmes and former president Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, claiming they had engaged in an "elaborate, years-long fraud" wherein they "deceived investors into believing that its key product – a portable blood analyzer – could conduct comprehensive blood tests from finger drops of blood".%
}}\\[.3em]
On Figure \ref{fig:yearly:theranos}, we see the change in the polarity of the embedding of the term \emph{Theranos} in the embeddings. This means that in 2018 and 2019, sentences with the name of this company is tinted with negativity and litigation compared to the same sentence concerning another company.
With an exaggerated anthropomorphism, we could say that the embedding now ``believes'' that most sentences concerning this company are negative or litigious. In fact this company name became a frequentist synonym of negative and litigious terms.
Probably because from the viewpoint of skip-gram Word2vec loss function, it was ``easier'' to get this company name closer to negative and litigious terms than to keep it away from them (like any company name should semantically be).
The goal of this paper is not to investigate further on this kind of polarization of entities, that is in fact covered in a completely different context by the literature on \emph{fairness of NLP}, see \cite{romanov2019s} for an example and \cite{shah2019predictive} for an overview.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we presented some theoretical understanding of word embeddings, essentially using the skip-gram word2vec model. Moreover we explain why more sophisticated model should inherit, at least locally, of some of these properties.
It allows us the define the concept of Reference Model (that is the uncompressed version of an embedding model), and to show that asymptotically the loss function of such a learning algorithm is a cross entropy between the representation of the model and the distribution of the Reference Model.
Moreover, it lead us to define frequentists synonyms, i.e. words that have the same context in the considered corpus. It is impossible for embeddings to make the difference between exact frequentist synonyms, and difficult for approximate synonyms.
Then we test these concepts on synthetic corpora generated using controlled Markovian models, so that we can focus on the identifiability of skip-gram word2vec embeddings. We observe that if their identifiability is poor, the cosine similarity between embeddings makes sense, even when it is low: frequentist synonyms are closer to word from their class than to words of another group of synonyms.
Last but not least, we provide empirical observations on a financial corpus: we use the Loughran-McDonald lexicon to obtain semantic synonyms and antonyms: lists of polarized words (Positive vs. negative words essentially).
And we compare the polarity of embeddings trained on headlines of News with other trained on the full text of the same News.
We observe that on News headlines, that are short and structured sentences, semantic antonyms are often frequentist synonyms, and hence it is difficult for embeddings learned on such headlines to make the difference between positive and negative words.
On the opposite, embeddings learned on the full body of the News are more reflecting the polarities of the considered lexicon. In fact they are better reflecting financial polarities than embeddings trained on Wikipedia.
It seems that the dimension of the embeddings has an influence on the cosine similarities between polarities: the lower the dimension, the more difficult to make the difference, in the space of embeddings, between positive and negative words.
We moreover observe that names of companies can be tinted with polarity. The structure of the loss function of embeddings can lead them to accept to represent a company name close to a polarized word if it appears a lot in negative News: this company name is thus becoming a frequentist synonym of negative and litigious words.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Almost a century after the 1927 Solvay Conference, the question of the ultimate ontology of quantum mechanics remains unsettled.
Essentially all formulations of quantum theory rely on the use of a wave function or state vector (or mathematically equivalent structures).
But researchers do not agree on whether the state vector is a complete and exact representation of reality, whether it represents part of reality but needs to be augmented by additional variables to be complete, or whether it is an epistemic tool rather than a representation of reality at all.
And they further do not agree on whether the state vector should be thought of as purely an element of some abstract Hilbert space, or whether there is some fundamental ontological status to a particular representation of that vector in terms of something more directly physical, such as configuration space or particles or fields in honest three-dimensional ``space.''
Here I want to argue for the plausibility of an extreme position among these alternatives, that the fundamental ontology of the world is completely and exactly represented by a vector in an abstract Hilbert space, evolving in time according to unitary Schr\"odinger dynamics.
Everything else, from particles and fields to space itself, is rightly thought of as emergent from that austere set of ingredients.
This approach has been called ``Mad-Dog Everettianism" \citep{Carroll:2018rhc} although ``Hilbert Space Fundamentalism" would be equally accurate.
Let's see how one might end up seduced by an ideology that is so radically different from our direct experience of the world.
When we are first taught quantum mechanics, we are shown how to construct quantum theories by taking classical models and quantizing them.
Imagine we have a classical precursor theory defined on some phase space, expressed mathematically as a symplectic manifold $\Gamma$, with evolution determined by some Hamiltonian function $H: \Gamma \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
We choose a ``polarization'' on phase space, which amounts to coordinatizing it in terms of canonical coordinates $Q$ (defining ``configuration space'') and corresponding canonical momenta $P$, where each symbol might stand for multiple dimensions.
This is a fairly general setup; for $N$ point particles moving in $D$-dimensional Euclidean space, configuration space is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{DN}$, but we could also consider field theory, for which the coordinates are simply the values of the fields throughout space.
One way to construct a corresponding quantum theory is to introduce complex-valued wave functions of the coordinates alone, $\Psi(Q) \in \mathbb{C}$.
Wave functions must be normalizable, in the sense that they are square-integrable, $\int \Psi^*\Psi \,dQ <\infty$, where $\Psi^*$ is the complex conjugate of $\Psi$.
Momenta are now represented by linear operators $\hat{P}$, whose form can be derived from the canonical commutation relations $[\hat{Q},\hat{P}]=i\hbar$ (where the operator $\hat{Q}$ is simply multiplication by $Q$).
This lets us promote the classical Hamiltonian to a self-adjoint operator $\hat{H}(\hat{Q}, \hat{P})$ (up to potential operator-ordering ambiguities).
We then posit that the wave function evolves according to the Schr\"odinger equation,
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}\Psi = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi.
\end{equation}
This form of the Schr\"odinger equation is perfectly general, and applies to relativistic theories as well as non-relativistic ones, as long as one uses an appropriate Hamiltonian.
This procedure gives us the beginnings of a quantum theory.
For Everettians, it gives us the complete theory; a unitarily-evolving quantum state describes the entire ontology at a fundamental level.
Other approaches require additional dynamical rules, physical structures, or some combination thereof.
Here our interest is in seeing how far we can get from a minimal starting point, so the Everettian approach is appropriate.
[For more on structure in the Everett interpretation, see \citep{wallace2003everett,pittphilsci18772}.]
But how precisely should we think about this ontology?
It might seem to include at least original configuration space coordinatized by $\{Q\}$, the set of wave functions $\Psi(Q)$, and the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$.
This has led \citet{albert1996} to suggest ``wave function realism'' -- the idea that it is the wave function $\Psi(Q)$ that describes reality, and that the wave function is defined on configuration space, so that configuration space ($3N$ dimensional for $N$ particles in 3 dimensions, infinite-dimensional for a field theory) is where the wave function ``really lives" [see also \citep{ney2013,north2013}].
This point of view has been criticized by \citet{wallace2017}, who points out that configuration space is simply one possible way of \emph{representing} the wave function; it could also be represented in momentum space (as a function of $P$), or an infinite number of other choices.
[Wallace also has other criticisms, and other authors criticize the idea for other reasons \citep{allori2013,Myrvold:2015vly}.]
The ambiguity between defining wave functions in position versus momentum space is an example of a broader issue.
``Quantization'' does not give us a one-to-one map from classical theories to quantum ones, or even a well-defined map at all.
A single classical precursor may correspond to multiple quantum theories, due to operator-ordering ambiguities.
Moreover, distinct classical models may have identical quantizations, as in the dualities of quantum field theory.
This makes it difficult to uniquely pinpoint what a quantum theory is supposed to be a theory ``of.''
In the duality between the massive Thirring model and sine-Gordon theory, a single quantum theory can arise from classical precursors describing either fundamental bosons or fundamental fermions \citep{PhysRevD.11.2088}.
In the AdS/CFT correspondence, a nongravitational field theory in $D$ spacetime dimensions is dual to a quantum gravity theory in $D+1$ dimensions \citep{Maldacena:1997re}.
So from a quantum theory alone, it might be impossible to say what kinds of fields the model describes, or even the number of dimensions they live in.
But the complicated relationship between classical and quantum theories is a problem for physicists, not for physics.
Nature simply is quantum from the start, and the classical world arises as an emergent approximation in some appropriate limit.
If our interest is in fundamental ontology, rather than focusing on quantum theories derived by quantizing classical precursors, it would make sense to consider the inverse problem: given a quantum theory, what kind of classical limits might arise within it?
So let us think carefully about what it means to be given a quantum theory (at least from an Everettian perspective).
Wave functions, as von Neumann noted long ago, can be added and scaled by complex numbers, and have a natural inner product defined by $(\Psi,\Phi) = \int \Psi^*\Phi$.
They therefore describe a complex, normed vector space, called Hilbert space, and the fact that the Schr\"odinger equation is linear means that it respects this structure.
In vector-space language, the choice between expressing the wave function in configuration space or momentum space is simply a change of basis in Hilbert space, which presumably has no physical importance whatsoever.
The physical quantum state -- as distinguished from its representation in some particular basis -- is simply a vector in Hilbert space, sometimes called the ``state vector,'' and written in Dirac notation as $\ket{\Psi}$.
It would therefore seem natural, if our goal is to take a nature's-eye view of things and specify the correct quantum theory of the world in its own right, to define that theory as a set of state vectors $\ket{\Psi}$ in a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, evolving under the Schr\"odinger equation via a specified Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$.
The problem is that this is very little structure indeed.
Hilbert space itself is featureless; a particular choice of Hilbert space is completely specified by its dimension $d = \mathrm{dim}\,\mathcal{H}$.
A vector in Hilbert space contains no direct specification of what the physical content of such a state is supposed to be; there is no mention of space, configuration space, particles, fields, or any such familiar notions.
Presumably all of that is going to have to somehow emerge from the dynamics, which seems like a tall order.
One might imagine that we can somehow read off the physical structure being described from the explicit form of the Hamiltonian.
For example, if we were handed
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2 m} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{1}{2} m \omega^{2} \hat{x}^{2},
\end{equation}
we would quickly surmise that we had a simple harmonic oscillator on our hands.
But that's only because we have conveniently been given the Hamiltonian in a particularly useful basis, in this case the position basis $\ket{x}$.
That is not part of the specification of the theory itself.
Hilbert space does not come equipped with a preferred basis; we should be able to deduce that the position basis (or some other one) is useful to our analysis of the system, rather than assuming we have been given it from the start.
Given that the only data that comes along with Hilbert space is its dimension $d$, the only other thing we have to work with is the Hamiltonian considered as an abstract operator.
That does pick out one particular basis: that of the energy eigenstates, vectors satisfying $\hat{H} \ket{n} = E_n\ket{n}$.
(For simplicity we assume non-degenerate energy eigenvalues, so that the states $\{\ket{n}\}$ define a unique basis.)
There is no information contained in the specification of the energy eigenstates themselves; they are just a collection of orthonormal vectors.
The information about the Hamiltonian is contained entirely in its set of eigenvalues $\{E_n\}$, called the ``spectrum'' of the Hamiltonian.
A specification of a quantum theory consists entirely, therefore, of this list of real numbers, the energy eigenspectrum.
There is an important caveat to this statement.
If Hilbert space is non-separable (infinite non-countable dimension), there can be unitarily inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations \citep{haag55}.
It is therefore necessary to give additional information to define the theory; typically this would amount to specifying an algebra of observables.
We have good reason, however, to expect that the Hilbert space for the real world is finite-dimensional, at least if we restrict our attention to our observable universe or any other finite region of space \citep{Bekenstein:1980jp,bousso1999,Banks:2000fe,Jacobson:2012yt,Bao:2017rnv}.
The reason is gravity.
In the presence of gravity, to make a long story short, the highest-entropy configuration we can construct in a spherical region \textbf{R} of radius $r$ is a black hole, and black holes have a finite entropy $S_\mathrm{BH} = A/4G = \pi r^2/G$, where $A$ is the area of the event horizon and $G$ is Newton's constant (and we set $\hbar=c=1$).
If we decompose Hilbert space into a tensor product of a factor describing that region and one describing the rest of the world,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R}\otimes \mathcal{H}_\mathbf{E},
\label{factorization}
\end{equation}
it follows that we have an upper bound on the dimensionality of $\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R}$, given by
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{dim}\,\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R} \leq \exp{(e^{\pi r^2/G})}.
\end{equation}
If $\mathbf{R}$ represents our observable universe with current values of the cosmological parameters, this works out to approximately $ \mathrm{dim}\,\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R} \leq e^{e^{123}}$, which is large but still smaller than infinity.\footnote{There are a number of nuances here. In gauge theories, we cannot precisely decompose Hilbert space into factors representing regions of space. And we are somewhat cheating by invoking ``regions of space'' at all, although this will be a sensible notion on individual semiclassical branches of the universal quantum state. For elaboration see \citep{Bao:2017rnv}.}
We don't know whether the dimension of the full Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is finite or infinite, other than the indirect consideration that infinite time evolution in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space would lead to a proliferation of Boltzmann Brains \citep{Dyson2002,Carroll:2008yd}.
But for our current purposes, it suffices that operations confined to our observable universe effectively act on a finite-dimensional part of Hilbert space.
In that case, the set of in-principle observables is simply all Hermitian operators on $\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R}$.
What can be observed in practice will depend on how we split further split Hilbert space into systems and observers, but the theory is completely specified by the Hilbert space and Hamiltonian, or in other words, by the discrete list of numbers $\{E_n\}$ in the energy spectrum.
By which we mean the spectrum of the Hamiltonian acting on $\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R}$ itself, assuming that interactions with degrees of freedom in $\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{E}$ can be neglected for practical purposes.
Henceforth we will speak as if the finite-dimensional factor $\mathcal{H}_\mathbf{R}$ is the relevant part of Hilbert space, and our world can be described by a unitarily-evolving state within it.
Technically it is more likely to be a mixed state described by a density operator, but that can always be purified by adding a finite-dimensional auxiliary factor to Hilbert space, so we won't worry about such details.
The challenge facing such an approach should be clear.
The world of our experience doesn't \emph{seem like} a vector in Hilbert space, evolving according to a list of energy eigenvalues.
It seems like there is space, and objects located in space, and those objects interact with each other, and so forth.
How in the world is all of that supposed to come from a description as abstract and featureless as a vector evolving through Hilbert space?
To make matters seemingly worse, the actual evolution is pretty trivial; in the energy eigenbasis, an exact solution to the Schr\"odinger equation from an initial state $\ket{\Psi(0)} = \sum_n \psi_n\ket{n}$ is
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Psi(t)} = \sum_n \psi_n e^{-i E_n t}\ket{n}.
\end{equation}
Each component simply evolves via an energy-dependent phase factor.
It seems like a long way from the complicated nonlinear dynamics of our world.
This challenge accounts for the epigraphs at the beginning of this paper.
Everettians tend to think that the right strategy for understanding the fundamental nature of reality is not necessarily to start with what the world seems like and to construct an ontology that hews as closely as possible to that.
Rather, we should start with some proposed ontology and ask what it would seem like to observers (if any such exist) described by it.
Clearly, ``observers'' are not represented directly by a vector in Hilbert space, nor is the world that they observe.
What we can instead ask is whether there could be a higher-level description, emergent from our ontology, that can successfully account for our world.
Such a description is not forced on us at the God's-eye (or Laplace's-Demon's eye) view of the world.
It would always be possible to say that reality is a vector in Hilbert space, evolving through time, and stop at that.
But that's not the only thing we're allowed to say.
The search for emergent levels is precisely the search for higher-level, non-fundamental descriptions that approximately capture some of the relevant dynamics, perhaps on the basis of incomplete information about the fundamental state.
The question is whether we \emph{can} recover the patterns and phenomena of our experience (space, objects, interactions) from the behavior of our fundamental ontology.
To get our bearings, consider the classic case of $N$ massive particles moving in three-dimensional space under the rules of classical Newtonian gravity.
The state of the system is specified by one point in a $6N$-dimensional phase space.
Yet there is an overwhelming temptation to say that the system ``really lives'' in three-dimensional space, not the $6N$-dimensional phase space.
Can we account for where that temptation comes from without postulating any \emph{a priori} metaphysical essence to three-dimensional space?
There are two features of the description as $N$ particles that make it seem more natural than that featuring a single point in phase space, even though they are mathematically equivalent.
The first is that the \emph{internal dynamics} of the system are more easily interpreted in the $N$-particle language.
For example, it is immediately clear that two particles will strongly affect each other when they are nearby and the others are relatively far away.
This kind of partial and approximate understanding of the dynamics is transparent in the $N$-particle description, and obscured in the point-in-phase-space description.
The second is that the system \emph{looks like} $N$ particles.
That is, in the real-world analogues of this toy model, when we observe the system by interacting with it as a separate physical system ourselves, what we immediately see are $N$ particles.
There can be multiple equivalent ways of describing the internal dynamics of a system, but the one we think of as ``natural'' or describing what ``really exists'' is often predicated on how that system interacts with the outside world.
Similar considerations apply to familiar examples of emergence, such as treating a box of many atoms as a fluid.
In this case the two descriptions are not equivalent -- the emergent fluid description is an approximation obtained by coarse-graining -- but the same principles apply.
The internal dynamics of the particles in the box are more easily apprehended in the fluid description (fewer variables and equations are required, given some short-distance coarse-graining scale), and we can measure the fluid properties directly (using thermometers and barometers and so on), while the states of each individual atom are inaccessible to us.
Emergent structures that accurately describe the dynamics of part of a system using only information accessible within the emergent description itself have every right to be thought of as ``real,'' even if they are not ``fundamental'' \citep{dennett1991real,wallace2012emergent}.
These two considerations (internal dynamics and what we see) work in tandem: we want the information we gather by observing a system to be sufficient for us to predict its subsequent behavior.
The ontology that seems most natural for us to ascribe to a physical subsystem thus depends on how that subsystem interacts with the rest of the world \citep{Zanardi:2004zz}.
For our program of Hilbert-space fundamentalism, this suggests that we should look for emergent descriptions by considering ways to factorize $\mathcal{H}$ into a tensor product of factors representing different subsystems, and ask how those subsystems interact with each other.
[For certain situations we might also consider direct-sum structures \citep{Kabernik:2019jko}.]
We are therefore interested in \emph{quantum mereology}: how to decompose the whole of Hilbert space into parts such that individual subsystems have simple internal dynamics, and those dynamics are readily observed via interactions with other subsystems, given nothing but the spectrum of the Hamiltonian [\citep{Carroll:2018rhc}; for related work see \citep{brun1999classical,Hartle:2008mv,Tegmark:2014kka,Ney2020-NEYFTW}].
This seems ambitious, but turns out to be surprisingly tractable.
Consider the most basic thing we might want to describe by such a factorization, the distinction between a ``system'' representing a macroscopic object exhibiting quasi-classical behavior and an ``environment" describing degrees of freedom that passively monitor the system and lead to decoherence.
This corresponds to expressing Hilbert space as the tensor product
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_S \otimes \mathcal{H}_E.
\end{equation}
Fixing the dimensions of $\mathcal{H}_S$ and $\mathcal{H}_E$, different factorizations are related by unitary transformations that mix the two factors together.
For any specific factorization, we automatically get a decomposition of the Hamiltonian into a self-Hamiltonian for the system, another self-Hamiltonian for the environment, and an interaction term:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = \hat{H}_S \otimes \mathbb{I}_E + \mathbb{I}_S \otimes \hat{H}_E + \hat{H}_\mathrm{int}.
\end{equation}
We can now ask, within the set of all possible factorizations, which ones lead to system dynamics that can be described by approximate classical behavior in appropriate circumstances?
In this decomposition, internal dynamics of the system are governed by $\hat{H}_S$ and how it is observed by the environment is governed by $\hat{H}_\mathrm{int}$.
(We assume that $\mathrm{dim}\,\mathcal{H}_E \gg \mathrm{dim}\,\mathcal{H}_S$ and that the environment's internal dynamics are largely irrelevant.)
To recover classical behavior when the system is macroscopic, we want localized wave packets in $\mathcal{H}_S$ to stay relatively localized and follow classical equations of motion under $\hat{H}_S$, but also for unentangled states in $\mathcal{H}_S\otimes \mathcal{H}_E$ to remain relatively unentangled; the environment is supposed to passively monitor the system, not rapidly reach maximal entanglement with it.
It was argued by \citet{Carroll:2018rhc} that generic Hamiltonians, as defined by their spectra, have neither of these features in any factorization; the Hamiltonian of the real world is apparently non-generic, to nobody's surprise.
When the Hamiltonian and the system/environment split allow for classical behavior, the density operator for the system rapidly diagonalizes in the dynamically-preferred \emph{pointer basis} $\{\ket{\phi_n}\}$, such that the corresponding pointer states are robust under environmental monitoring \citep{Zurek:1981xq}.
The pointer basis defines a pointer observable in the system's Hilbert space, $\hat{Q}_S = \sum \ket{\phi_n}\bra{\phi_n}$.
Pointer states are the ones that appear classical, and a standard pointer observable is the position in space of a system; a macroscopically coherent cat is described by a pointer state, but a superposition of cats in different physical configurations is not \citep{Joos:1984uk,Zurek:1994zq,riedel2012}.
In the Quantum Measurement Limit, where $\hat{H}_\mathrm{int}$ dominates over $\hat{H}_S$, the pointer observable satisfies Zurek's commutativity criterion \citep{Zurek:1981xq},
\begin{equation}
[\hat{H}_\mathrm{int}, \hat{Q}_S\otimes \mathbb{I}_E] \approx 0,
\label{commutativity}
\end{equation}
reflecting the fact that the system in a pointer state does not continually entangle with the environment.
These ideas about pointer states and decoherence are usually discussed within the context of a known factorization, but they also suggest a criterion for determining the factorization that allows for classical behavior \citep{Carroll:2020gme}.
Given $\mathcal{H}$ and $\hat{H}$, we search through all possible factorizations, and for each one we define a candidate pointer observable as the one that comes closest to achieving (\ref{commutativity}).
This candidate pointer observable embodies the idea that external observers ``see'' certain features of the system, and that those features evolve classically.
We can then calculate, from an initially localized and unentangled system state, the rate of delocalization and entanglement growth.
The correct factorization is the one that minimizes both.
Simple numerical examples verify that this criterion picks out what we usually think of as the standard system/environment split.
Again, the sought-after behavior is non-generic; it doesn't occur for random Hamiltonians, nor for random factorizations with any given Hamiltonian.
The data contained within the spectrum of $\hat{H}$ therefore seems to provide the requisite information to pinpoint an appropriate emergent classical description, when one exists.
Thus reassured, let us be somewhat more ambitious, and train our sights on the ontology that seems to accurately describe our low-energy world \citep{Carroll:2021yum}: an effective quantum field theory that includes both gravity and the Standard Model of particle physics, defined in four-dimensional spacetime.
We can again take guidance from our experience of the real world.
In quantum field theory (modulo previously-mentioned nuances), we can think about degrees of freedom as being associated with regions of space.
If we partition space into regions indexed by $\alpha$, there is a corresponding decomposition of Hilbert space into a tensor product of local factors,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \bigotimes_\alpha \mathcal{H}_\alpha.
\label{localdecomp}
\end{equation}
This lets us expand the Hamiltonian as a sum of self-Hamiltonians for each region, plus interactions between pairs of regions, triplets of regions, and so on:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = \sum_a h_a\hat{\mathcal{O}}_a^{\mathrm{(self)}} + \sum_{ab} h_{ab}\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{ab}^{\mathrm{(2-pt)}} + \sum_{abc} h_{abc}\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{abc}^{\mathrm{(3-pt)}} + \cdots,
\label{localham}
\end{equation}
where the $h_{\cdots}$ are numerical parameters.
A necessary requirement for the emergence of a structure recognizable as ``space,'' with local dynamics therein, is that the series (\ref{localham}) does not continue indefinitely when the factorization (\ref{localdecomp}) corresponds to local regions.
Degrees of freedom only interact with a small number of nearest neighbors, not with regions arbitrarily far away, which means that we only need interactions between a small number of Hilbert-space factors to capture the entire Hamiltonian.
Happily, this requirement is also essentially sufficient.
As shown by \citet{Cotler:2017abq}, generic Hamiltonians admit no local factorization at all, and when such a factorization exists, it is unique up to irrelevant internal transformations (and some technicalities that we won't go into here).
Therefore, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is enough to pick out the correct notion of an emergent spatial structure when one exists.
A natural next step would be to define an emergent dynamical metric on spacetime, as in general relativity.
Here results are much less definitive, but initial auguries are promising.
[For alternative perspectives see \citep{hu2009emergent,Carlip:2012wa,huggett2013emergent,Nielsen:2014rfa,Giddings:2015lla,Raasakka:2016uyk,ney2020}.]
In the local decomposition of Hilbert space (\ref{localdecomp}), given an overall state $\ket\Psi$ we can calculate the reduced density matrix $\hat\rho_\alpha$ for each factor or collection of factors, and the corresponding von~Neumann entropy $S_\alpha = -\mathrm{Tr}\,\hat\rho \log \hat\rho$.
The amount of entanglement between two factors can be measured by the quantum mutual information,
\begin{equation}
I(\alpha:\beta) = S_\alpha + S_\beta - S_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
In the vacuum state of a quantum field theory, we know that the entanglement between two regions decreases monotonically (exponentially in theories with massive fields, as a power law in conformal theories) with the distance between them.
We can therefore imagine turning this around, and \emph{defining} a distance metric depending inversely on the mutual information.\footnote{The resulting metric is defined on the same spacetime structure in which entanglement exists. This is in contrast to the emergence of spacetime from entanglement in the AdS/CFT context \citep{Swingle:2009,er-eprmvr,Faulkner:2013ica,er-eprms}, where entanglement is on the boundary and geometry is in the bulk. There is no inconsistency, as the procedure described here applies to weak-field situations far from any horizons, while the AdS/CFT construction extends over a cosmological spacetime where large-scale curvature is a central part of the description.}
If there exists an emergent best-fit smooth geometry, that can be uniquely determined using techniques such as classical multidimensional scaling.
Thus, both the dimensionality and geometry of space can be defined using the entanglement information contained in a state $\ket\Psi$, at least if that state is near to the vacuum \citep{Cao:2016mst}.
We can go further, and show that under certain optimistic assumptions (most notably, the eventual emergence of approximate Lorentz invariance), the resulting geometry obeys Einstein's equation of general relativity in the weak-field limit \citep{Cao:2017hrv}.
The basic idea, following \citet{jacobson95,Jacobson:2015hqa}, is to posit that perturbations in the quantum state lead to a change in the emergent area of a codimension-one surface that is proportional to the change in entanglement entropy across that surface,
\begin{equation}
\delta\mathcal A \propto \delta S.
\end{equation}
The area perturbation, being a geometric quantity, can then be related to the Einstein tensor, while in the long-distance limit the entropy can be related to the stress-energy tensor.
Assuming emergent Lorentz symmetry, the resulting dynamical equation for a perturbation of the vacuum (representing flat spacetime) is
\begin{equation}
\delta G_{\mu\nu} \propto \delta T_{\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
just as Einstein leads us to expect.
This is a provocative result, but one that shouldn't be over-interpreted.
The accomplishment is not that we recover specifically Einstein's equation; there aren't that many other locally Lorentz-invariant equations one could imagine for a dynamical spacetime metric.
What matters is that the necessary information required for such a description to emerge can be found in an abstract quantum state evolving according to a Hamiltonian specified purely by its spectrum, without any additional ontological assistance.
Moreover, while we can use entanglement to define \emph{an} emergent metric, we haven't shown that it is \emph{the} emergent metric, the one whose geodesics define the motion of localized test particles.
We can imagine how this might happen; as just one piece of the puzzle, the Lieb-Robinson bound in quantum information theory \citep{Lieb:1972wy} provides a natural mechanism whereby light-cone structures can emerge from quantum information theory \citep{Hamma:2008jt}.
What strictly emerges from entanglement in this story is the metric on space, not on spacetime; a reconstruction of the latter depends on a procedure for stitching together spatial surfaces evolving over time.
Since our entire analysis is based on the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian appearing in the Schr\"odinger equation $\hat{H}\ket\Psi = i \partial_t\ket\Psi$, we need to imagine that time itself is fundamental, rather than emergent.
The appearance of an explicit time parameter does not imply that this parameter is in some sense preferred.
Any Lorentz-invariant theory can be written in Hamiltonian form by choosing a frame; such a form will not be manifestly Lorentz invariant, but the symmetry is still there, so there is no obstacle to the emergent theory being approximately Lorentz- and diffeomorphism-invariant.
It would be natural if Lorentz invariance is indeed only approximate, since we are working in a finite-dimensional factor of Hilbert space, and there are no nontrivial representations of non-compact symmetry groups on finite-dimensional vector spaces.
This raises the intriguing possibility of potential experimental signatures of these ideas, as Lorentz invariance can be tested to high precision \cite{Liberati:2013xla}.
One might also worry about compatibility with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation of quantum gravity, which takes the form $\hat{H}\ket\Psi = 0$.
In this case the eigenvalues of $\hat{H}$ are seemingly irrelevant, since the world is fully described by a zero-energy eigenstate [cf. \citep{Albrecht:2007mm}].
But there is also no fundamental time evolution; that is the well-known ``problem of time'' \citep{Anderson:2010xm}.
A standard solution is to imagine that time is emergent, which amounts to writing the full Hamiltonian as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = \hat{H}_\mathrm{eff} - i\frac{d}{d\tau},
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the emergent time parameter.
In that case everything we have said thus far still goes through, only using the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_\mathrm{eff}$.
In addition to spacetime, we still have to show how local quantum fields can emerge in the same sense as the spacetime metric.
Less explicit progress has been made in reconstructing approximate quantum field theories from the spectrum of the Hamiltonian, but it's not unreasonable to hope that this task is more straightforward than reconstructing spacetime itself.
One promising route is via ``string net condensates," which have been argued to lead naturally to emergent gauge bosons and fermions \citep{Levin:2004mi}.
Nothing in this perspective implies that we should think of spacetime or quantum fields as illusory.
They are emergent, but none the less real for that.
As mentioned, we we may not be forced to invoke these concepts within our most fundamental picture, but the fact that they play a role in an emergent description is highly non-trivial.
(Most Hamiltonians admit no local decomposition, most factorizations admit no classical limit, etc.)
It is precisely this non-generic characteristic of the specific features of the world of our experience that makes it possible to contemplate uniquely defining them in terms of the austere ingredients of the deeper theory.
They should therefore be thought of as equally real as tables and chairs.
This has been an overly concise discussion of an ambitious research program (and one that may ultimately fail).
But the lesson for fundamental ontology is hopefully clear.
Thinking of the world as represented by simply a vector in Hilbert space, evolving unitarily according to the Schr\"odinger equation governed by a Hamiltonian specified only by its energy eigenvalues, seems at first hopelessly far away from the warm, welcoming, richly-structured ontology we are used to thinking about in physics.
But recognizing that the latter is plausibly a higher-level emergent description, and contemplating the possibility that the more fundamental vocabulary is the one straightforwardly suggested by our simplest construal of the rules of quantum theory, leads to a reconstruction program that appears remarkably plausible.
By taking the prospect of emergence seriously, and acknowledging that our fondness for attributing metaphysical fundamentality to the spatial arena is more a matter of convenience and convention than one of principle, it is possible to see how the basic ingredients of the world might be boiled down to a list of energy eigenvalues and the components of a vector in Hilbert space.
If it did succeed, this project would represent a triumph of unification and simplification, and is worth taking seriously for that reason alone.
\begin{center}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
\end{center}
It is a pleasure to thank Ashmeet Singh, Charles Cao, Spiros Mikhalakis, and Ning Bao for collaboration on some of the work described here.
This research is funded in part by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics at Caltech, by DOE grant DE-SC0011632, and by the Foundational Questions Institute.
\bibliographystyle{apa-good}
|
\section{\label{sec:introduction}Introduction}
Electron scattering has a long history as a powerful technique for probing hadron and nuclear structure~\cite{Walecka:2001gs}. In the case of parity-violating electron scattering, it has also been used to test the electroweak sector of the standard model, and thereby to search for new physics. As the precision of such experiments has improved, it has become necessary when analyzing the data to go beyond the single boson (photon or $Z$) exchange approximation, and include higher-order terms. Such terms include two-boson exchange corrections, e.g. $\gamma \gamma$ and $\gamma Z$ diagrams. The former is understood to be of critical importance for measurements of the proton's electric form factor $G_E^p$~\cite{Afanasev:2017gsk}. The apparent inconsistency between the form factor at high four-momentum transfer $Q^2$ as extracted using the Rosenbluth separation technique and that obtained from recoil polarization measurements appears to be at least partially explained by the greater contribution of $\gamma \gamma$ exchange to the Rosenbluth analysis~\cite{Guichon:2003qm,*Blunden:2003sp}. As a second example, the $\gamma Z$ box diagram~\cite{Gorchtein:2008px,*Sibirtsev:2010zg,*Rislow:2010vi,*Rislow:2013vta,*Gorchtein:2011mz,*Blunden:2011rd,*Hall:2013hta,*Hall:2015loa}
provides a numerically significant contribution to precision measurements of $A_{\rm PV}$, the parity-violating asymmetry in the scattering of longitudinally-polarized electrons from unpolarized protons, such as in the recent Q$_{\rm weak}$ experiment~~\cite{Androic:2018kni,Androic:2013rhu} and the upcoming P2 experiment~\cite{Becker:2018gzk}. Similar multiboson exchange effects, such as $\gamma W$ and $W Z$ box diagrams, are relevant for precision measurements of other electroweak processes, such as super-allowed nuclear beta decay~\cite{PhysRevLett.121.241804}.
In addition to ``hard" two-boson exchange, higher-order electromagnetic effects due to the
strong electric field of the nucleus (``Coulomb distortions") may also need to be accounted for when scattering electrons from nuclei with high atomic number~\cite{Article:Aste2005}.
One observable in electron scattering that directly probes two-photon exchange (TPE) is the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry (BNSSA), $B_n$ (or $A_y$~\cite{osti_4726823}). This is a parity-conserving asymmetry, which arises in the elastic scattering of electrons polarized normal to the scattering plane when scattering from an unpolarized target. It is identically zero for pure one-photon exchange, due to time-reversal invariance, and it is generated by the interference between single photon and two photon exchange amplitudes~\cite{DeRujula:1972te}. $B_n$ gives direct access to the imaginary (absorptive) part of the TPE amplitude. $B_n$ is defined as
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal_spin_formula}
B_n = \frac{\sigma^\uparrow - \; \sigma^\downarrow}{\sigma^\uparrow + \; \sigma^\downarrow} = \frac{2 \; \mathcal{I}m ( \mathcal{M}_{\gamma \gamma} \mathcal{M}_{\gamma}^* )}{|\mathcal{M}_{\gamma}| ^2},
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
$\sigma^\uparrow (\sigma^\downarrow)$ denotes the scattering cross section for electrons with spin parallel (anti-parallel) to a vector $\hat{n}$ perpendicular to the scattering plane. Here $\hat{n}=(\vec{k}\times\vec{k^{\prime}})/(|\vec{k}\times\vec{k^{\prime}}|)$ with $\vec{k}(\vec{k^{\prime}})$ being the momentum of the incoming (outgoing) electron. $\mathcal{M}_{\gamma}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\gamma \gamma}$ are the amplitudes for one- and two-photon exchange. For high beam energies ($> 100$ MeV) this asymmetry was first observed
over 20 years ago in the SAMPLE parity-violating electron-scattering experiment~\cite{Wells:2000rx}, where it was referred to as the ``vector analyzing power," even though by convention~\cite{osti_4726823} that terminology is meant to refer to observables with a vector polarized target. It is also sometimes referred to as the ``transverse asymmetry.'' At much lower energies ({\em i.e.} a few MeV) this asymmetry is known as the Mott asymmetry, and is used in electron beam polarimetry~\cite{Grames:2020asy}.
The beam-normal single spin asymmetry $B_n$ depends on the imaginary part of the two photon exchange amplitude. In contrast, the effect of TPE on reaction cross sections, which is of relevance for comparison of $e^+$ and $e^-$ cross sections \cite{Rachek:2014fam,*Adikaram:2014ykv,*Henderson:2016dea} and for the Rosenbluth determinations of proton form factors~\cite{Guichon:2003qm,*Blunden:2003sp}, depends on the real part of the amplitude. In principle, the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude can be connected via dispersion relations, however this would require data over a broad kinematic range. Nevertheless, measurements of $B_n$ provide a useful benchmark for theoretical models of TPE effects.
Theoretical calculations of TPE needed in order to predict $B_n$ require a model of the doubly-virtual Compton scattering amplitude over a broad range of kinematics, including an inclusive account of intermediate hadronic states, and are therefore challenging. The contribution from these intermediate states usually dominates the asymmetry, due to the logarithmic enhancement which arises when one of the exchanged hard photons is collinear with the parent electron, as initially recognized by Afanesev and Merenkov~\cite{Afanasev:2004pu}. Several different calculational techniques have been applied to describe $B_n$ for electron-nucleon scattering. One approach models the intermediate hadronic state in the resonance region via a parameterization of electroabsorption amplitudes~\cite{Pasquini:2004pv,Tomalak:2016vbf}. In these calculations the hadronic intermediate amplitudes are limited to $\pi N$ states, and the model should apply for all scattering angles. The second approach~\cite{Afanasev:2004pu,Gorchtein:2004ac,Gorchtein:2005yz,PhysRevC.73.035213} uses the optical theorem to relate the doubly-virtual Compton amplitude to the virtual photoabsorption cross section, which therefore encompasses all intermediate states, but is only strictly valid in the forward-angle limit. Heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory has also been used to calculate $B_n$~\cite{Diaconescu:2004aa}, however, this approach is expected only to be applicable for low energy beams.
These models have been confronted with experimental $B_n$ results for the proton and the neutron (deduced from quasielastic scattering on the deuteron), at various $Q^2$, beam energies, and at both forward and backward scattering angles ~\cite{Wells:2000rx,Armstrong:2007vm,Androic:2011rh,Maas:2004pd,Gou:2020viq,Rios:2017vsw,Androic:2020rkw}. The comparison of the data with the
models clearly demonstrates the importance of the inelastic intermediate states in the kinematic ranges that have been studied (see for example~\cite{Armstrong:2007vm,Maas:2004pd,Androic:2011rh,Androic:2020rkw,Rios:2017vsw}), although disagreements between the data and the available models are as large as a factor of two in some cases~\cite{Gou:2020viq,Wells:2000rx}. At very forward angles, there is impressive agreement between the optical model calculations and data,
see~\cite{Androic:2020rkw} and references therein.
The experimentally-measured asymmetry at a given azimuthal scattering angle $\phi$ depends on $B_n$
as \[A_{\rm exp}(\phi) \approx B_n \vec{P}\cdot\hat{n}, \]
where $\vec{P}$ is the electron polarization vector.
For beam energies around 1 GeV, elastic asymmetries of order $B_n \approx 10^{-5}$ are expected~\cite{Afanasev:2004pu}. Thus, experiments studying $B_n$ have the challenge of controlling uncertainties below the part-per-million (ppm) level.
The sustained progress in precision measurements of $A_{\rm PV}$ in parity-violating electron scattering over several decades~\cite{Souder:2015mlu,Armstrong:2012bi,Carlini2019} provides both an opportunity and an additional motivation for studying $B_n$. These experiments have demonstrated the ability to control the total uncertainty to well beyond the required level --- the most precise such measurement to date, Q$_{\rm weak}$, achieved a total uncertainty of 0.0093 ppm~\cite{Androic:2018kni}.
In parity-violating asymmetry measurements, which rely on a longitudinally-polarized electron beam, any small transverse components to the beam polarization, combined with non-zero values of $B_n$, may lead to large (on the scale of the desired precision) azimuthally-varying asymmetries, and therefore become important systematic corrections to control. Thus, determinations of $B_n$ for the appropriate kinematics and target represent important ancillary measurements for the parity-violation experiments. Indeed, most of our present experimental information on $B_n$ comes from such measurements.
A related observable to the BNSSA, which also probes TPE, is the target-normal single-spin asymmetry. This can be measured with an unpolarized beam and a target polarized normal to the scattering plane. Here the asymmetries are predicted to typically be much larger than $B_n$ at similar kinematics, {\em i.e.} of order $10^{-3}$. Only one such measurement has been reported to date, on $^3$He (in quasielastic kinematics to extract the neutron asymmetry), by the Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration~\cite{PhysRevLett.115.172502}. The highest-$Q^2$ result was in good agreement with a partonic calculation~\cite{PhysRevLett.93.122301} of TPE.
\section{\label{sec:theory}BNSSA on $A>1$ nuclei}
The situation for $B_n$ for complex nuclei ($A>1$) is less well developed. On the experimental side, the first nuclear measurements were reported for $^4$He, $^{12}$C, and $^{208}$Pb at very forward angle ($\approx 6^{\circ}$) and energies of 1--3 GeV by the HAPPEX/PREX collaborations~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}. More recently, the A1 collaboration at Mainz measured $B_n$ for $^{12}$C at a beam energy of 570 MeV and moderately forward angles ($15^{\circ}$-- $26^{\circ}$), over a range of $Q^2$ (0.023 -- 0.049 GeV$^2$) ~\cite{Esser:2018vdp}. The same collaboration has also reported measurements for $^{28}$Si and $^{90}$Zr at the same beam energy, at $Q^2 \approx 0.04$ GeV$^2$~\cite{Esser:2020vjb}.
On the theoretical side, only two approaches have been applied. Cooper and Horowitz~\cite{Cooper:2005sk} addressed the Coulomb distortion effect in a calculation for $^4$He and $^{208}$Pb, using an approach that applies to all orders in photon exchange (not just TPE), by solving the Dirac equation numerically. However, they had to neglect the effect of inelastic hadronic intermediate states. Perhaps for this reason, their calculation did not reproduce the data for either nucleus~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}.
The other approach is the optical theorem approach discussed earlier, which has been extended to complex nuclei by Afanasev and Merenkov~\cite{Afanasev:2004pu} and by Gorchtein and Horowitz~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy}. These calculations work in the forward angle and low-$Q^2$ limit. In that limit the virtual photoabsorption cross section on the nucleon $\sigma_{\gamma^*N}(W,Q^2)$ can be approximated by the real photoabsorption cross section $\sigma_{\gamma N}(W)$ ($W$ is the invariant mass of the intermediate hadronic system). It was shown~\cite{Gorchtein:2005za} that this leaves small corrections of order $Q^2/E_e^2$ where $E_e$ is the electron beam energy. Gorchtein and Horowitz extend this to complex nuclei by noting that the photoabsorption cross section has been measured for a range of nuclei, and was found to be well-reproduced by the nucleon cross section $\sigma_{\gamma N}(W)$, scaled by the mass number $A$~\cite{Bianchi:1995vb}. Thus they use $A\sigma_{\gamma N}(W)$ to represent the nuclear photoabsorption cross section.
The optical model only rigorously applies in the exact forward angle limit. This approach requires additional input
for kinematics beyond the forward limit. One needs to account for the $Q^2$ dependence of the Compton scattering amplitude for the nucleus. While the $Q^2$ dependence for the Compton cross section has been measured for the proton~\cite{Bauer:1977iq} and for $^4$He~\cite{Aleksanian:1986hb}, it is not available for other nuclei. It is plausible that this dependence should
fall more steeply
for nuclei than for the nucleon, in analogy to the observation that the elastic charge form factors are steeper for complex nuclei than for the proton. Consequently, Gorchtein and Horowitz adopt the ansatz that the Compton form factor $F_{\rm Compton}(Q^2)$ for nuclei is approximated by
\begin{equation}
F_{\rm Compton}(Q^2) \approx F_{\rm ch}(Q^2) e^{-\frac{B_c}{2}Q^2},
\end{equation}
where $F_{\rm ch}$ is the charge form factor of the
given nucleus, and $B_c$, called the Compton slope parameter, is taken as 8 GeV$^{-2}$.
This model was observed~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} to predict a simple approximate scaling, at low $Q^2$ and forward angles, for the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_n$ for a given nucleus of
\begin{equation}
B_n \approx \widehat{B}_n \frac{A}{Z}\sqrt{Q^2} . \label{eq:scaling}
\end{equation}
Here $A$ and $Z$ are the mass number and atomic number of the element, and $\widehat{B}_n$ is a constant. The model also has the feature that at fixed $Q^2$, $B_n$ is almost independent of the beam energy~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy,Afanasev:2004pu}.
With one exception, the Gorchtein and Horowitz model was found to work quite well describing the available data~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg,Esser:2018vdp,Esser:2020vjb}, if one assumes an uncertainty in the Compton slope parameter $B_c$ of $\pm 20$\%. The exception is $^{208}$Pb, where, at the experimental kinematics, the model predicts $B_n \approx -8$~ppm while the measurement~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} yielded $B_n = 0.28 \pm 0.25$ ppm. The cause for this discrepancy is not yet understood. Additional data for $B_n$ on nuclei may shed light on this anomaly. Results are expected for $^{40}$Ca and $^{48}$Ca, as well as new results for $^{12}$C and $^{208}$Pb, from the PREX-2 and CREX experiments ~\cite{McNulty:2020,Richards:2020}.
The present measurement extends the data set on $B_n$ in $A>1$ nuclei by providing a forward-angle datum for $^{12}$C and the first measurement on $^{27}$Al, both at a similar scattering angle as for the HAPPEX/PREX datum~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} but at a larger $Q^2$.
We note that the $^{27}$Al case represents the first measurement of $B_n$ on a non spin-zero complex nucleus.
Later in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} the nuclear dependence of $B_n$ will be examined for the three Q$_{weak}$ data on $^1$H~\cite{Androic:2018kni}, $^{12}$C, and $^{27}$Al, all of which were acquired at very similar kinematics ($E$, $\theta$, and $Q$).
\section{\label{sec:experiment}Experiment}
The experiment was performed with the Q$_{\rm weak}$ apparatus, which has been described in detail in~\cite{ALLISON2015105} as well as in the context of the proton's weak charge measurement in~\cite{Androic:2018kni}. Here only a short description of the apparatus (depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:NIM_CAD}) will be provided.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{
CAD view of the experimental apparatus, which reveals more otherwise hidden details than a photograph can. The beam was incident from the
right. The key elements include the target scattering chamber (cyan), a
triple collimator system (red), a resistive eight-fold symmetric toroidal magnetic spectrometer (grey), and eight Cherenkov detectors (narrow dark orange octagonal ring in an azimuthally-symmetric array around the beamline at a radius of 3.4 m). Two tracking drift chambers are illustrated just upstream of the eight Cherenkov detectors; the latter are arrayed about the beamline 12.3 m downstream of the target. For clarity, only some portions of the extensive
steel and concrete shielding are shown.
\label{fig:NIM_CAD}
}
\end{figure}
The 1.158 GeV polarized electron beam was produced by the CEBAF accelerator at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) and delivered to the Q$_{\rm weak}$ apparatus in experimental Hall C. The JLab polarized source directed linearly polarized laser light through a Pockels cell capable of reversing the helicity of the laser light 960 times a second. The helicity could also be reversed on a slower time scale (typically every 8 h) by inserting a half-wave plate (the IHWP) just before the Pockels cell. The circularly polarized light emerging from the Pockels cell was directed at a photocathode, where the helicity was transferred to the ejected electrons, which were then accelerated electrostatically. The spin of the nominally longitudinally-polarized electrons was then rotated to the transverse direction in the injector using a double Wien filter~\cite{Adderley:2011ri}. The spin direction of the electrons was
selected from one of two pseudo-randomly chosen $\uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow$ or $\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow \downarrow$ quartet patterns generated at 240 Hz. Here $\uparrow$ represents the standard spin orientation (spin up or to beam right) and $\downarrow$ represents a 180$^{\circ}$ rotation in the corresponding plane.
After acceleration through the first of the 5
passes of the JLab recirculating linac available at the time, the beam was extracted into the Hall C arc where its momentum could be measured. After that the beam passed through a transport section with beamline instrumentation consisting of beam position monitors (BPMs) and harps~\cite{Yan:1995nc}, beam charge monitors,
a Compton polarimeter and associated chicane~\cite{Magee:2016xqx,Narayan:2015aua}, a M{\o }ller polarimeter~\cite{Hauger:1999iv}, and air-core raster magnets to spread the nominally 100 $\mu$m (rms) diameter beam across the face of the target in a rectangular 4x4 mm$^2$ pattern.
Although the systematic uncertainty in the determination of the beam charge normalization was one of the largest relative contributions to the total uncertainty in the very precise parity-violating weak charge measurement on hydrogen~\cite{Androic:2018kni}, it is negligible in the context of the parity-conserving results reported here.
False asymmetries from spin-correlated beam position, angle, and energy changes were largely canceled by a regression algorithm combining beam monitor and scattered electron detector information as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:regression} below. Additional protection against other higher order sources of false asymmetry were largely cancelled by the periodic insertion of the IHWP.
Beam polarization results are discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Aexp_corrections}.
The two targets used in this measurement were positioned along the beamline at the same location as the downstream window of the 34-cm-long liquid hydrogen target cell used in the weak charge measurement~\cite{Androic:2018kni}. The relevant kinematics and acceptance parameters discussed below in Sec.~\ref{sec:Aexp_corrections} and ~\ref{sec:results} were all calculated for this position, and the changes were minor relative to those determined for the liquid hydrogen target.
The aluminum target was a 1.032 g/cm$^2$
(3.68 mm thick) 7075-T651 alloy target (4.60\% of $X_0$). This high-strength alloy was fabricated from the same block of material used for the entrance and exit windows of the liquid hydrogen target, so that measurements made on the aluminum target could be used for background
determinations in the weak charge measurement~\cite{Androic:2018kni,Androic:2013rhu}.
The elemental contributions to the alloy were determined by a commercial assay using optical emission spectroscopy~\cite{ATS}.
The carbon target was 99.95\% pure graphite $^{12}$C with an areal density of 0.7018 g/cm$^2$ (3.17 mm thick, or 1.64\% of $X_0$).
Three Pb collimators centered along the beamline each contained eight
openings arrayed symmetrically about the beam axis.
The collimators limited scattering (polar) angles to the range between about $6^\circ < \theta < 11^\circ$, but left open 49\% of the $2\pi$ radians in the azimuthal ($\phi$) direction. The first collimator 0.5 m downstream of the target also contained a water cooled W-Cu beam collimator which mitigated small-angle ($\theta > 0.88^\circ$) background from the target in the beampipe downstream of the target. The 2 m long region between the first collimator and the second (acceptance-defining) collimator, each 15 cm thick, was completely surrounded by thick concrete shielding. A resistive toroidal spectrometer magnet was situated just downstream of the third 11-cm-thick cleanup collimator.
The spectrometer magnet consisted of eight coils supported by an aluminum support structure in the shadow of the collimator, not intruding into the scattered electron acceptance. Magnetic fields between the coils generated a toroidal field around the beam axis along the 2.2 m length of the magnet coils, which bent scattered electrons radially outward. The $\int{B\, dl}$ was about 0.9 T-m at the average electron scattering angle of $7.7^\circ$. The magnet was designed to separate elastic and inelastic events from hydrogen at the nominal detector location. However, such a design ($\Delta p/p \approx 10\%$) was inadequate to separate elastic and inelastic events from $A>$1 targets. As a result, corrections had to be made for inelastic backgrounds in this experiment.
A shielding hut was built around the experiment's detectors on all sides, including around the beam pipe which was shielded in lead. The borated concrete upstream wall of this hut had eight sculpted openings matching the shape of the scattered electron envelopes defined by the three upstream collimators and the magnet. The detectors consisted of 2-m-long rectangular bars of quartz 18 cm wide and 1.25 cm thick in the beam direction, arrayed symmetrically around the beam axis at a radius of $\approx 3.35$ m. Cherenkov light produced by scattered electrons which reached the detectors was read out at each end by 13-cm-diameter photomultiplier tubes (PMT) equipped with low-gain bases. Lead pre-radiators, 2-cm-thick, provided amplification of the scattered electron signal as well as suppression of soft backgrounds.
Retractable and rotatable tracking drift chambers and trigger scintillation counters were employed just upstream of the detectors during dedicated periods with low beam current ($\approx 100$ pA - 1 nA) to measure the average four-momentum transfer $Q^2$, to benchmark simulations of the apparatus, and to establish light-weighted acceptance corrections.
The apparatus described above was ideally suited for precise measurements of both the longitudinally and transversely polarized parity-violating asymmetries on $^1$H ~\cite{Androic:2018kni, Androic:2020rkw}. However, it was not ideal for the study of $A>1$ nuclei reported here. Previous experiments on $A>1$ nuclei used high-resolution magnetic spectrometers to isolate the elastically scattered electrons from the nuclear excited states, other target alloy elements, quasi-elastic scattering, and the inelastic $e N \rightarrow e^\prime \Delta$ reaction. In this experiment the contributions from these processes could not be isolated from the measured asymmetries, and instead had to be estimated and corrected for. In the following sections, these corrections and how they were estimated will be discussed in detail.
The data were obtained in four distinct data sets.
In the first, the beam was transversely polarized in the horizontal orientation, the beam current was 75~$\mu$A and a total of 1.6 C of integrated beam current was incident on the $^{12}$C target. The
three remaining data sets were obtained using the $^{27}$Al target. In the first of these, the beam polarization was in the vertical direction, the beam current was 24~$\mu$A, and the integrated beam current was 0.5~C. In the remaining two data sets, the beam current was increased to 61~$\mu$A, and a total of 3.3~C of integrated beam current was delivered, split approximately equally between a data set with horizontal orientation and a set with vertical orientation of the beam polarization.
A comprehensive GEANT4~\cite{Agostinelli:2002hh} simulation of the experimental apparatus was developed, benchmarked with measurements using the tracking system~\cite{Pan:2016rbx}, and was used for acceptance and radiative corrections as well as subtraction of various physics backgrounds, as discussed below.
\section{\label{sec:analysis}Data Analysis}
In this section the corrections made and procedures used to determine the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_n$ for each target are described. These include corrections to the asymmetry data for spin-correlated fluctuations in the beam properties, fitting the angular dependence of these data in order to extract the amplitude of the azimuthal variation, and corrections for various backgrounds and other effects.
Further details of this data analysis
can be found in Ref.~\cite{marty-thesis} for the $^{12}$C data and Ref.~\cite{kurtis-thesis} for the $^{27}$Al data. The hydrogen BNSSA datum obtained from this experiment is described in Ref.~\cite{BWaidyawansa_phd,Androic:2020rkw}.
\subsection{Determination of individual detector asymmetries $A^i_{\rm msr}$} \label{sec:regression}
The signals from each end of the eight Cherenkov detectors were integrated for each $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ spin state of the beam. The resulting averaged detector $i$ ($i = 1,8$) asymmetries were calculated for each
quartet spin-pattern using
\begin{equation}
A^i_{\rm raw} = \frac{Y^i_\uparrow - \,Y^i_\downarrow}{Y^i_\uparrow + \,Y^i_\downarrow}
\label{eq:raw}
\end{equation}
where $Y^i_{\uparrow (\downarrow)}$
is the charge-normalized detector yield for detector $i$ in the $\uparrow \! \! (\downarrow)$ spin state, after subtraction of the electronic pedestal. $Y^i_{\uparrow (\downarrow)}$ was
summed over the two windows of the same spin-state in each quartet.
For each detector $i$, and for each quartet, false asymmetries in $A^i_{\rm raw}$ due to spin-correlated variations in the beam properties were corrected for using
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:regression}
A^i_{\rm msr} = A^i_{\rm raw} - \sum\limits^5_{j=1} \left( \frac{\partial A^i}{\partial \chi_j} \right) \Delta \chi_j
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \chi_j$ are the measured spin-correlated differences in beam trajectory or energy over each spin quartet, and the sensitivities $\partial A^i / \partial \chi_j$ were determined using multi-variable linear regression.
The natural random fluctuations in the trajectory and energy of the beam during the course of the measurement were large enough to enable these sensitivities to be extracted with sufficient precision for these corrections.
The measured asymmetry in each detector
was then corrected for two additional
effects: (i) the averaging of the azimuthally-varying asymmetry over the light-weighted angular acceptance of an individual detector, and (ii) any non-linear response of the detector to changes in yield.
The factor $R_{\rm av}$
accounts for averaging of the asymmetry over the effective azimuthal acceptance ($\approx$ 22$^{\circ}$) of a given Cherenkov detector~\cite{Androic:2013rhu}. In the ideal case of 100\% beam polarization, an individual detector centered at an azimuthal angle of $\phi_0 $ with an
angular acceptance covering $\pm \delta\phi$ would measure an asymmetry given by
\begin{equation}A_{\rm msr}(\phi_0) = \frac{B_n}{2\delta \phi}\int_{\phi_0-\delta\phi}^{\phi_0+\delta\phi}\sin(\phi)d\phi = B_n\langle \sin\phi_0 \rangle .
\label{eq:rav}
\end{equation}
Thus the measured asymmetries $A_{\rm msr}$ have to be scaled by the factor $R_{\rm av} = \frac{\langle \sin\phi_0 \rangle}{\sin\phi_0}$.
However the optical response of the sum of both ends of a given Cherenkov detector varies by typically 10\% along the length of each detector~\cite{ALLISON2015105}, and is thus a function of $\phi$. Therefore the integral in Eq.~\ref{eq:rav} was performed with the integrand weighted by each detector's measured optical response function, yielding $R_{\rm av} = 0.9862 \pm 0.0036$. An additional correction factor $R_l$ is used to account for the non-linearity in the Cherenkov detector readout chain (photomultiplier tube, low-noise voltage-to-current preamplifier, and analog-to-digital converter) as described in Ref.~\cite{ALLISON2015105}. Bench studies using light-emitting diodes were conducted in order to determine any non-linearity in the response. At the signal levels appropriate to these two targets,
the non-linearity was found to be $0.14 \pm 0.50$\%~\cite{Duvall_phd}, so the correction factor was $R_l = 1.0014 \pm 0.0050$.
\subsection{Extraction of azimuthal asymmetry variation $A_{\rm exp}$}
For each of the targets, and for each of the four
data sets, the measured asymmetries $A^i_{\rm msr}$ in each detector $i$ were sign-corrected for the presence
or absence of the IHWP at the electron source, averaged over the data set, and then fit to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance}
A^i_{\rm msr}(\phi_i) =
R_lR_{\rm av}B_{\rm exp}\sin(\phi_{\rm s}-\phi_i + \phi_{\rm off}) + C,
\end{equation}
in order to extract the experimental asymmetry $B_{\rm exp}$.
Here $\phi_{s}$ is the azimuthal angle of the electron polarization $\vec{P}$, $\phi_i$ is the azimuthal angle of the $i^{th}$ detector in the plane normal to the beam axis, and $R_l$ and $R_{\rm av}$ were discussed above. The detector number $i$ corresponds to the azimuthal location of the detectors, starting from beam left (Detector 1) where $\phi_i=0^\circ$, and increasing clockwise every $45^\circ$. The values of
$B_{\rm exp}$ extracted from the fits are
presented in Table~\ref{tab:reg}.
\begin{table*}[!hhtb]
\centering
\caption{Fitted asymmetries $B_{\rm exp}$ before (``raw") and after (``regressed") the linear regression correction to remove spin-correlated false asymmetries. The last two columns denote the phase $\phi_{\rm off}$ and offset $C$ from Eq.~\ref{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance} obtained from fits to the regressed data. The data sets are labeled by the target and the direction of the beam polarization (horizontal or vertical). The uncertainties are statistical only. Also indicated are the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of each fit; there were five degrees of freedom in each fit. }
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
Data Set & $B_{\rm exp}$ (raw) & ~~$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$~ & $B_{\rm exp}$ (regressed) & ~$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$~ & regressed-raw & $\phi_{\rm off}$ (regressed)& $C$ (regressed)\\
& (ppm) & & (ppm)& & (ppm) & (radians) & (ppm) \\
\hline
\rule{-3pt}{2.5ex}
$^{12}$C Horizontal & $-8.57 \pm 0.61$ & 0.80 &
$-8.50 \pm 0.61$ & 0.81 & 0.07 & -0.099 $\pm$ 0.070 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.43\\
\hline \rule{-3pt}{2.5ex}
$^{27}$Al Vertical \#1~~ & $-9.32 \pm 0.61$ & 1.16 & $-9.91 \pm 0.61$ & 1.16 & -0.59 & 0.114 $\pm$ 0.062 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.43\\
$^{27}$Al Horizontal& $-8.54 \pm 0.51$ & 1.14 & $-8.60 \pm 0.50$ & 1.17 & -0.06& 0.053 $\pm$ 0.059 & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.35\\
$^{27}$Al Vertical \#2 & $-8.02 \pm 0.74$ & 0.62& $-8.73 \pm 0.73$ & 0.64 & -0.71& -0.009 $\pm$ 0.084 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.51\\
\hline \rule{-3pt}{2.5ex}
$^{27}$Al average & $-8.69 \pm 0.34$ & & $-9.04 \pm 0.34$ & & -0.35\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:reg}
\end{table*}
A floating offset in phase $\phi_{\rm off}$ was included in the fit function (Eq.~\ref{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance}) to allow for possible position offsets of the detector in the azimuthal plane, and a floating constant $C$ was included to represent any background or false asymmetries which have no azimuthal variation. Such an azimuthally-symmetric asymmetry could arise due to, for example, the weak-interaction-induced parity-violating asymmetry, which could be generated by any residual longitudinal component to the beam polarization. For each of the data sets the fitted values for $\phi_{\rm off}$ and $C$ were consistent with zero, and the value of $B_{\rm exp}$ extracted was insensitive to the presence or absence of these two extra fit parameters. These findings for $\phi_{\rm off}$ and $C$ are also consistent with those from the precision result on hydrogen using the same apparatus, published earlier ~\cite{BWaidyawansa_phd,Androic:2020rkw}. For each target, the maximum deviation in $B_{\rm exp}$ between fits done with or without different combinations of
$\phi_{\rm off}$ and $C$ was chosen as a ``fit function'' systematic uncertainty $B_{\rm fit}$, which was
$\pm 0.042$ ppm for $^{12}$C and $\pm 0.050$ ppm for $^{27}$Al.
A useful ``null" test for the presence of a certain class of false asymmetries is the behavior of the asymmetry under the ``slow spin reversal" accomplished using the insertable half-wave plate.
In the absence of false asymmetry, the measured asymmetry should be equal in magnitude and opposite in sign for data taken with the IHWP inserted
compared to that with the IHWP removed.
Separate fits to the data with the IHWP inserted and data with the IWHP removed were done for each of the four data sets. In each case, the fitted $A_{\rm exp}$ was statistically consistent with the expected behavior. An example from one of the four datasets (horizontal $^{27}$Al) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ihwp_nulls}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{Asymmetries measured with the IHWP IN (blue squares) and OUT (red circles) during the $^{27}$Al dataset with horizontal orientation of the transversely polarized beam, plotted vs. detector number. The detector number corresponds to the azimuthal location of the detectors, starting from beam left (Detector 1) where $\phi_i=0^\circ$, and increasing clockwise every $45^\circ$. These data include the regression correction discussed in Eq.~\ref{eq:regression}. The error bars shown are statistical only. The null asymmetries
((OUT $+$ IN)/2) are denoted by the green diamonds. Solid lines correspond to fits using Eq.~\ref{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance} for each half-wave state, and to the average null asymmetry offset. The shaded areas represent the uncertainty in the fitted amplitudes for each IHWP orientation, as well as for the average null asymmetry which is consistent with zero, as expected.
\label{fig:ihwp_nulls}
}
\end{figure}
To quantify the effect of the removal of spin-correlated false asymmetries on the extracted value of $B_{\rm exp}$, a similar
fit to that of Eq.~\ref{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance} was also performed, but instead using the raw asymmetries
$A^i_{\rm raw}(\phi_i)$. Table ~\ref{tab:reg} provides the results of the fits to both the
raw ($A^i_{\rm raw}$) and the linear-regression corrected asymmetries ($A^i_{\rm msr}$) for each data set. The linear regression corrections were comparable with the statistical uncertainty for the two vertical data sets, but were an order of magnitude smaller for the horizontal data sets.
Different choices could be made for the set of BPMs used to determine the beam trajectories in the linear regression corrections (Eq.~\ref{eq:regression}). Several different
combinations of BPM selections were studied, and the largest deviation in the extracted values of $B_{\rm exp}$ was taken as a systematic uncertainty $B_{\rm reg}$ for each target. For $^{12}$C, $B_{\rm reg}$ was $\pm 0.002$~ppm and for $^{27}$Al it was $\pm 0.020~$ppm.
The (regressed) data and the fitted azimuthal dependencies from which $B_{\rm exp}$ was determined for each of the four datasets are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:All4wiggles}. Uncertainties shown are statistical only. Each fit consists of eight measurements and three free parameters, giving five degrees of freedom in each fit.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{The azimuthal asymmetry distributions measured in this experiment (red circles) and fits (blue lines) using Eq.~\ref{eq:bnsa_phi_dependance} are shown for the four datasets: $^{12}$C with horizontal transverse polarization (a), $^{27}$Al horizontal (b), $^{27}$Al vertical in run 1 (c), and $^{27}$Al vertical in run 2 (d). The abscissa denotes the detector number, as described in Fig.~\ref{fig:ihwp_nulls}. Uncertainties shown are statistical only.\label{fig:All4wiggles}
}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{2ex}
\subsection{Corrections to $B_{\rm exp}$: acceptance, beam polarization, instrumental false asymmetry} \label{sec:Aexp_corrections}
In order to extract the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_n$ from the measured, regressed $B_{\rm exp}$, corrections were made for beam polarization, radiative effects, several backgrounds, and an instrumental false asymmetry. These corrections were applied using
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:asymmetry_correction_formula}
B_n = R_{\rm tot}\left[\frac{\frac{B_{\rm exp}}{P}- \sum_{i} f_iB_i}{1-\sum_{i} f_i}\right] + B_{\rm bias} \;\; .
\end{equation}
Here $B_i$ is the background asymmetry generated by the $i^{th}$ background
(quasielastic scattering, inelastic scattering, nuclear excited states, neutral backgrounds, and alloy elements in the case of $^{27}$Al.) with fractional contribution to the detector signal $f_i$. The background
corrections will be discussed in the next section (\ref{Sec:backgrounds}). In the remainder of this section we discuss
the other components in Eq.~\ref{eq:asymmetry_correction_formula}.
\paragraph*{Beam Polarization:} The beam polarization $P$
was measured during longitudinal polarization data-taking conducted just before and after each transverse data set, using the M\o ller and Compton polarimeters~\cite{Hauger:1999iv,Magee:2016xqx,Narayan:2015aua} in Hall C. For the $^{12}$C data set the beam polarization was $P = 0.8852 \pm 0.0068$. For the three $^{27}$Al data sets the (asymmetry and statistics-weighted) average value was $P = 0.8873 \pm 0.0071$.
During the transverse running, the degree of transverse polarization was intermittently measured via several null measurements with the M\o ller polarimeter, which is only sensitive to longitudinal beam polarization. The worst case found (during a horizontal transverse running period) was a $2.19 \pm 0.26 \%$ residual longitudinal polarization, indicating the degree of transverse polarization was $\geq \sqrt{1-(2.19/88.73)^2} = 99.97 \%$
transverse. Other null checks made during the transverse running were consistent with zero residual longitudinal polarization.
\paragraph*{Radiative and acceptance corrections: }
The factor $R_{\rm tot} = 1.0054 \pm 0.0046$ is the product of several individually small (percent-level) corrections \cite{BWaidyawansa_phd}. These include electron energy-loss and depolarization from electromagnetic radiation (internal and external bremsstrahlung), and the non-uniform $Q^2$ distribution across the detectors coupled to variation in the light-collection across the detectors. It also corrects for the fact that, due to the large detector acceptance, we measure $B_n(Q)$ over a range of $Q$. Since $B_n$ varies roughly linearly with $Q$, we need to correct the acceptance-averaged value $\langle B_n(Q)\rangle$ to the value that would arise from point scattering at the central $\langle Q \rangle$, {\em i.e.} $B_n(\langle Q \rangle)$. The uncertainty in $R_{\rm tot}$ also accounts for the uncertainty in the central value of the acceptance-averaged $\langle Q \rangle$. The procedures used to determine these individual corrections follow those described in~\cite{Androic:2018kni} for our $A_{\rm PV}$ measurement on the proton (where $R_{\rm tot} = 0.976 \pm 0.008$), but with slightly different numerical results due to the use of different targets, and the fact that $A_{\rm PV}$ varies linearly with $Q^2$ instead of with $Q$ in the case of $B_n$.
\paragraph*{Rescattering Bias}
An instrumental false asymmetry, the rescattering bias, $B_{\rm bias}$, was accounted for as described in detail in \cite{Androic:2018kni}. The transversely-polarized electrons, scattered from the target, retained much of their transverse polarization as they were transported through the spectrometer magnet. Lead pre-radiators were located in front of each
of the Cherenkov detectors~\cite{ALLISON2015105}
to amplify the electron signal and help suppress soft backgrounds. When these polarized electrons showered in the pre-radiators, they could be reduced in energy enough that the analyzing power due to low-energy Mott scattering was sufficiently large to cause measurable asymmetries. The false asymmetry in the present case of transversely polarized beam was larger than it was for longitudinal polarization, {\em i.e.} for the weak charge measurement
~\cite{Androic:2018kni}. This is because, for longitudinal polarization, the analyzing power in the pre-radiator leads to an asymmetry of equal magnitude and opposite sign for the signals detected in the two PMTs on either end
of each Cherenkov detector. This largely canceled when the signals were summed in the data analysis. In the case of transversely polarized beam, the analyzing power affects both PMTs identically, so there is not a similar cancellation. Instead this generated an azimuthally-varying false asymmetry $B_{\rm bias} = 0.125 \pm 0.041$~ppm.
$B_{bias}$ is a false asymmetry across each detector bar that would be present for $B_n$ even in a perfectly symmetric identical array of detectors with no imperfections.
\subsection{Corrections to $A_{\rm exp}$: backgrounds}\label{Sec:backgrounds}
\paragraph*{Alloy elements:}
The $^{27}$Al target was not made from pure aluminum; rather, it was an alloy (7075-T651) containing 89.2\% Al by weight, 5.9\% Zn, 2.6\% Mg, 1.8\% Cu, and $\approx$0.6\% other elements. The reason this alloy was chosen instead of pure aluminum was its superior strength; the ultimate tensile strength is 572 MPa versus 90 MPa for pure aluminum. It could thus be used to make much thinner windows for the liquid-hydrogen target cell deployed in the weak charge measurement \cite{Androic:2018kni}, with correspondingly less background.
Because the elemental composition of a given alloy can vary, asymmetries were measured from solid aluminum alloy targets composed of the same lot of material used for the hydrogen target cell windows in order to characterize the background from the target cell in the weak charge measurement. In order to also report a result for $^{27}$Al in the work described here, however, it is necessary to subtract the small contributions from the alloy elements other than aluminum. The fractional contributions $f_i$ to the detected yield from each alloy element were determined through simulation. In the simulation, only the elastic scattering cross section (which dominates at the small-angle kinematics of this experiment) was considered for the alloy elements. The elastic cross sections for $^{27}$Al and the six most abundant elements in the alloy ($^{64}$Zn, $^{24}$Mg, $^{63}$Cu, $^{52}$Cr, $^{56}$Fe, and $^{28}$Si)
were calculated by Horowitz and Lin~\cite{chuck} using a relativistic mean-field model and including the effects of Coulomb distortions; a 10\% uncertainty was estimated for each cross section. For the remaining two alloy elements (Mn and Ti) the cross sections were estimated using form factors extracted from experimental Fourier-Bessel coefficients~\cite{DEVRIES1987495}, and a 50\% uncertainty was assumed for both cross sections. The estimated fractional contributions are given in Table~\ref{tab:alloy}; the total fraction of the experimental yield arising from the alloy elements was $f_{\rm alloy} = 5.41 \pm 0.34$\%.
There have yet to be $B_n$ measurements made for any of these alloy elements, with the exception of $^{28}$Si. In order to estimate the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_i$ for each alloy element, we assumed the scaling of Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling}, with $Q^2 = 0.0237$ GeV$^2$, and $\widehat{B}_n = -33.0 \;{\rm ppm}/{\rm GeV}$, where the value of $\widehat{B}_n$ was taken from our published result on the proton \cite{Androic:2020rkw} at essentially the same kinematics as the present measurements. These estimated $B_i$ are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:alloy}. In the case of $^{28}$Si, the A1 collaboration at Mainz has reported a result for $B_n$ ~\cite{Esser:2020vjb}, albeit at different kinematics than for the present measurement. Their $B_n$ agreed with the predictions for this nucleus using the model of Gorchtein and Horowitz to within about 30\%. Thus we ascribe a 30\% uncertainty to $B_n$ for each of the alloy elements. An average asymmetry for the alloy elements, weighted by the relative background fractions, was calculated to be $B_{\rm alloy}=- 10.7 \pm 2.0$ ppm.
The $^{12}$C target was elementally pure, so no corrections for alloy elements were required in that case.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Background fractions $f_i$ and beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_i$ estimates for the alloy elements
present in the aluminum target. The net background fraction and the weighted average background asymmetry from alloy materials are also listed.}
\label{tab:alloy}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Element & Background fraction ($f_i$) & Asymmetry ($B_i$) \\
& (\%) & (ppm) \\
\hline
Zn & $2.375 \pm 0.249$ & $-11.0 \pm 3.3$ \\
Mg & $2.088 \pm 0.219$ & $-10.3 \pm 3.1$ \\
Cu & $0.683 \pm 0.073$ & $-11.1 \pm 3.3$ \\
Cr & $0.100 \pm 0.011$ & $-11.0 \pm 3.3$ \\
Si & $0.080 \pm 0.009$ & $-10.2 \pm 3.0$ \\
Fe & $0.054 \pm 0.006$ & $-10.9 \pm 3.3$ \\
Mn & $0.018 \pm 0.009$ & $-11.1 \pm 3.3$ \\
Ti & $0.014 \pm 0.007$ & $-11.0 \pm 3.3$ \\
\hline
net Alloy & $5.41 \pm 0.34$ & $-10.7 \pm 2.0$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph*{Neutral backgrounds:}
A small fraction of the detector yield was due to neutral events (predominantly soft gammas). These neutral particles arose due to both the primary electron beam interacting in various beamline elements, including a tungsten beam collimator~\cite{ALLISON2015105}, and to the scattered electrons interacting in the triple collimator system or in the spectrometer magnet
structure. These backgrounds were carefully
studied for the weak charge measurement, as detailed in Ref.~\cite{Androic:2018kni}. Similar studies were done for the $^{27}$Al target~\cite{kurtis-thesis}, which found a total
neutral contribution to the yield of $f_{\rm neut} = 0.69 \pm 0.45$\%. The same contribution was applied to the $^{12}$C target. In the absence of any measurement of an azimuthal asymmetry associated with these neutral events, we conservatively assume $B_{\rm neut} = 0 \pm 10$ ppm for both targets.
\paragraph*{Pions:}
A $\pi^-$ background from the proton target in the $Q_{\rm weak}$ $A_{PV}$ measurement was only possible if two or more pions were produced. Those pions mostly fell outside even the wide momentum acceptance of the $Q_{\rm weak}$ apparatus. However, single $\pi^-$ production from the neutrons in $^{27}$Al was possible. Simulations were performed~\cite{kurtis-thesis} using the Wiser~\cite{Wiser} pion production code on protons and neutrons scaled to $^{27}$Al but neglecting nuclear medium effects. The result was $f_{pion}=0.06\%$, so small that no correction was necessary for either $^{27}$Al or $^{12}$C.
\subsubsection{Corrections to $A_{\rm exp}$: Background from non-elastic physics processes}\label{Sec:non-elastic}
The Q$_{\rm weak}$ spectrometer had a rather large acceptance bite (of order 150 MeV) in scattered electron energy $E'$. This meant that, along with the desired elastically-scattered electrons, events were accepted from various non-elastic scattering processes. These included low-lying nuclear excited states, the giant dipole resonance (GDR), quasi-elastic scattering from individual nucleons, and inelastic scattering from individual nucleons (pion production). All these processes, unresolved from the elastic-scattering peak, contributed to the measured detector yield $Y_{\uparrow (\downarrow)}$ used in the asymmetry analysis. For each of these processes, the fractional contribution to the measured yield was estimated using simulation, and the asymmetry associated with each process was estimated from previous measurements or theoretical expectations, as described below.
\paragraph*{Quasielastic and inelastic scattering:}
The fractional contribution to the yield arising from quasielastic scattering $f_{\rm QE}$ and inelastic scattering $f_{\rm inel}$ was determined for each target by simulation.
The quasielastic and inelastic cross sections used in the simulation were obtained from an empirical fit~\cite{Christy_future} to world data on inclusive electron-nucleus scattering, including both $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al. The fit was based on the picture of scattering from independent nucleons in the impulse approximation. The quasielastic contribution was modeled using input parameterizations of the nucleon form factors extracted from cross section data with the smearing due to Fermi motion of the nucleon in the nucleus accounted for by utilizing the super-scaling formalism of Donnelly and Sick~\cite{donnelly-sick:99}. The inelastic contribution was accounted for by utilizing nucleon-level cross sections determined from fits to inclusive scattering from proton and deuteron targets with a Gaussian smearing to account for the Fermi motion, and medium modification factors to account for the EMC effect. The fit utilized the approach of Bosted and Mamyan \cite{Bosted:2012qc}, but included a number of improvements in the kinematic region relevant for the current analysis at low $Q^2$ and $W$. In particular, Bosted and Mamyan only included data with $Q^2 > 0.2$ and introduced an {\it ad hoc} medium modification factor to the nucleon magnetic form factor to help improve the comparison to the cross section data. In the region unconstrained by data at very low $Q^2$ this resulted in a significant suppression of the quasielastic cross section, with this strength then absorbed into an empirical contribution associated with 2-body contributions such as meson-exchange currents (MEC). In contrast, the new fit included data down to $Q^2 = 0.045$ and was able to improve the description of the data across the kinematic region of the fit without the need for modification of the nucleon form factors. The agreement between the fit and the total cross section data, in the low-$Q^2$ region relevant to the present experiment, was typically at the 5-10\% level. An additional 10\% uncertainty was added in quadrature to represent the ability of the fit to separate the quasielastic from the inelastic processes in this region.
The estimates of contributions from 2-body effects in the new version of the model were much smaller than either the quasielastic or inelastic processes, and were therefore neglected. The extracted fractional yield estimates (inside the acceptance of the experiment) were $f_{\rm QE} = 21.2 \pm 2.9 \%$ and $f_{\rm inel} =0.66 \pm 0.10 \% $ ($^{27}$Al) and $f_{\rm QE} = 15.9 \pm 2.2 \%$ and $f_{\rm inel} = 0.40 \pm 0.06 \%$ ($^{12}$C).
Electromagnetic quasi-elastic interactions at the small angles and small momentum transfers of the current experiment are dominated by scattering from the proton. Therefore, the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry for quasielastic scattering $B_{\rm QE}$ was estimated using the
$B_n$ result for elastic scattering from the proton measured by our collaboration at the same kinematics using the same apparatus ~\cite{BWaidyawansa_phd,Androic:2020rkw}: $B_n=-5.194 \pm 0.106$~ppm. The uncertainty on this asymmetry was increased to $\pm 1$~ppm to account for the possibility of nuclear medium effects and for the neglect of quasielastic scattering from the neutron.
The beam-normal single-spin asymmetry for the hadronic inelastic events $B_{\rm inel}$ was estimated using our data from a separate measurement~\cite{Nuruzzaman_phd,Nuruzzaman:2015vba}. In that measurement, with the electron beam polarized in a transverse direction, the spectrometer magnetic field was reduced to 75\% of its nominal strength, thereby bringing electrons scattered in the $ep \rightarrow e'\Delta^+ $ process onto the Cherenkov detectors. Analyzing those data using a similar method to that described here led to the preliminary result $B_{\rm inel} = 43.0 \pm 16.0$ ppm ~\cite{Nuruzzaman_phd,Nuruzzaman:2015vba}. Note that the observed sign of the asymmetry is opposite to that of the asymmetry for elastic scattering; this sign difference was predicted theoretically ~\cite{Carlson:2017lys}.
We have assumed that this same asymmetry also applies to the inelastic process on the neutron, and that there are no significant nuclear medium modifications, and so the same $B_{\rm inel}$ was assigned for both the $^{12}$C and the $^{27}$Al targets.
\paragraph*{Nuclear Excitations:}
Electroexcitation of the low-lying discrete excited states of $^{27}$Al has been studied in several experiments~\cite{Singhal:1977wvn,Hicks:1980bv,Ryan:1983zz}, and form factors extracted. The eleven states with the largest form factors in the range of the present experimental acceptance 0.68 fm$^{-1}$ $< Q < 1.20 \; {\rm fm}^{-1}$ were considered here. Differential cross sections were calculated using these form factors and the fractional yield from each of these states determined from simulation~\cite{kurtis-thesis}. The results are
presented in Table~\ref{tab:al_excited}.
Experimental electroexcitation form factors for the low-lying excited states of $^{12}$C are also available. Differential cross sections were calculated for the three states with the largest form factors in the experimental acceptance~\cite{Crannell:1964zz,
PhysRev.148.1107,PhysRevLett.27.745}, and the
fractional yields from each of these states determined from simulation~\cite{marty-thesis}. The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:c_excited}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Simulated fractional contributions from unresolved nuclear excitations for $^{27}$Al. The 2.990 MeV represents an unresolved doublet of states. The asymmetries for these states were taken to be the $^{27}$Al elastic $B_n$ asymmetry $\pm 100\%$.}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Energy & $J^{P}$ & Background fraction ($f_i$) \\
(MeV) & & (\%) \\
\hline
0.844
& $1/2^+$ & $0.27 \pm 0.04$ \\
1.014 & $3/2^+$ & $0.41 \pm 0.10$ \\
2.211 & $7/2^+$ & $1.35 \pm 0.16$ \\
2.735 & $5/2^+$ & $0.19 \pm 0.02$ \\
2.990 & $3/2^+$ & $0.93 \pm 0.07$ \\
4.540 & & $0.06 \pm 0.01$ \\
4.812 & $5/2^+$ & $0.09 \pm 0.02$ \\
5.430 & & $0.17 \pm 0.03$ \\
5.668 & $9/2^+$ & $0.08 \pm 0.02$ \\
7.228& $9/2^+$ & $0.18 \pm 0.06$ \\
7.477& & $0.10 \pm 0.07$ \\
21 & $1^-$ (GDR) & $0.045 \pm 0.022$ \\
\hline
Total & & $ 3.88 \pm 0.23$ \% \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:al_excited}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Simulated fractional contributions from unresolved excitations for $^{12}$C. All other states contribute $<1\%$. The asymmetries for these states were taken to be the $^{12}$C elastic $B_n$ asymmetry $\pm 100\%$.
}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Energy & $J^{P}$ & Background fraction ($f_i$) \\
(MeV) & & (\%) \\
\hline
4.44 & $2^+$ & $2.86 \pm 0.29$ \\
7.65 & $0^+$ & $0.92 \pm 0.09$ \\
9.64 & $3^-$ & $0.93 \pm 0.09$ \\
24 & $1^-$ (GDR) & $0.077 \pm 0.038$ \\
\hline
Total & & $ 4.71 \pm 0.31$ \% \\ \end{tabular}
\label{tab:c_excited}
\end{table}
For each target, the yield contribution from the GDR was simulated using the Goldhaber-Teller model ~\cite{GOLDEMBERG1963242} with energy and width parameters taken from photoabsorption data~\cite{Varmalov2012,Ahrens:1975rq}. The simulated yield fraction $f_{\rm GDR}$
for $^{27}$Al was $0.045 \pm 0.022$\% and for $^{12}$C it was $0.077 \pm 0.038$\%
(see Table~\ref{tab:al_excited} and Table~\ref{tab:c_excited}). In total, the background fraction from the GDR and the low-lying excited states were $f_{\rm nucl} = 3.88 \pm 0.23$\% of the yield ($^{27}$Al) and
$f_{\rm nucl} = 4.71 \pm 0.31$\% of the yield ($^{12}$C).
There are neither theoretical calculations nor experimental measurements of $B_n$ for the low-lying nuclear excitations or the GDR, for either $^{12}$C or $^{27}$Al. The reactions exciting these states have only modestly different kinematics than the elastic scattering reaction of interest. Therefore we assume the same $B_n$ for these excited state transitions as for the elastic reaction for the given nucleus, but assign a conservative 100\% uncertainty to these values.
\section{\label{sec:results}Results}
The beam energy for both targets was $1.158 \pm 0.001$ GeV. The kinematics for the experiment were determined from a GEANT4 simulation, as benchmarked using the tracking chambers~\cite{Pan:2016rbx}.
The central kinematics (averaged over the acceptance) for
$^{12}$C was $\langle Q^2 \rangle = 0.02516 \pm 0.0001$ GeV$^2$ ($Q=0.159$) and $\langle \theta_{\rm Lab}\rangle = 7.86^{\circ} \pm 0.02^{\circ}$, and for
$^{27}$Al was $\langle Q^2 \rangle = 0.02357 \pm 0.0001 $ GeV$^2$ ($Q=0.154$) and
$\langle \theta_{\rm Lab}\rangle = 7.61^{\circ} \pm 0.02^{\circ}$.
Summing the various backgrounds contributing to the detector yield discussed in Sec.~\ref{Sec:backgrounds} for each target, we have $\sum_{i} f_i = 22.8 \pm 2.5 \%$ for $^{12}$C and
$\sum_{i} f_i = 31.8 \pm 3.0 \%$ for $^{27}$Al.
After all corrections were applied using Eq.~\ref{eq:asymmetry_correction_formula}, the resulting beam-normal single-spin asymmetries were $B_n = -10.68 \pm 0.90 {\rm (stat)} \pm 0.57 {\rm (syst)}$ ppm for $^{12}$C and
$B_n = -12.16 \pm 0.58 {\rm (stat)} \pm 0.62 {\rm (syst)}$ ppm for $^{27}$Al. Each of the corrections applied are tabulated in Table~\ref{Tab:Corrections}, as is the fractional contribution each correction made to the uncertainty of the $B_n$ values. The dilutions in Table~\ref{Tab:Corrections} for the discrete nuclear state backgrounds (including the GDR), as well as the $^{27}$Al alloy background, represent the sum of the relevant individual constituent dilutions. The asymmetry uncertainties for these two composite backgrounds were rolled up in the table by dividing the quadrature sum of the individual $f_i B_i$ uncertainty contributions by the sum of the relevant dilutions.
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\caption{Corrections applied to the measured asymmetry $B_{\rm exp}$ in order to determine $B_n$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:asymmetry_correction_formula} and text), and their contributions to the systematic uncertainty on $B_n$. }
\label{Tab:Corrections}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc }
\hline
Quantity & Value & Value & $\Delta B_n/B_n$ (\%) & $\Delta B_n/B_n$ (\%) \\
& $^{12}$C & $^{27}$Al & $^{12}$C & $^{27}$Al \\
\hline
& & & & \\
$P$: Beam Polarization & $0.8852 \pm 0.0068$ & $0.8872 \pm 0.0070$ & 0.9 & 1.0 \\
$R_{\rm tot}$: Kinematics \& Radiative effects & $ 1.0054 \pm 0.0046$ & $1.0054 \pm 0.0046$ & 0.5 & 0.5\\
$R_{\rm av}$: Acceptance averaging & $0.9862 \pm 0.0036$
& $0.9862 \pm 0.0036$ & 0.4 & 0.4\\
$R_l$: Electronic non-linearity & $1.0014 \pm 0.0050$ & $1.0014 \pm 0.0050$ & 0.6 & 0.6 \\
$B_{\rm fit}$: Fitting & $0 \pm 0.042$ ppm & $0 \pm 0.050$ ppm & 0.6 & 0.6\\
$B_{\rm reg}$: Linear Regression & $0 \pm 0.002$ ppm & $0 \pm 0.020$ ppm & $<0.1$ & 0.3\\
$B_{\rm bias}$: Rescattering Bias & $0.125 \pm 0.041$ ppm & ~~$0.125 \pm 0.041$ ppm & 0.6 & 0.6 \\
$f_{\rm neutral}$: & $0.69\pm 0.45$ \% & $0.69\pm 0.45$ \% & 0.8 & 0.7 \\
$B_{\rm neutral}$:& $0\pm 10$ ppm &$0\pm 10$ ppm & 0.6 & 0.8 \\
$f_{\rm alloy}$: & --- & $5.41 \pm 0.34$ \% & --- & $<0.1$ \\
$B_{\rm alloy}$: & --- & $-10.7 \pm 2.0$ ppm & --- & 1.3\\
$f_{\rm QE}$: & $15.9 \pm 2.2$ \% & $21.2 \pm 2.9$ \%& 1.5 & 2.4 \\
$B_{\rm QE}$:& $-5.2 \pm 1.0$ ppm & $-5.2 \pm 1.0$ ppm & 2.0 & 2.6 \\
$f_{\rm inel}$: & $0.40\pm 0.06$ \% & $0.66 \pm 0.10$ \% & 0.4 & 0.7 \\
$B_{\rm inel}$:& $43 \pm 16$ ppm & $43 \pm 16$ ppm & 0.8 & 1.3\\
$f_{\rm nucl}$ & $4.71 \pm 0.31$ \% & $3.88 \pm 0.23$ \% & $<0.1$ & $<0.1$\\
$B_{\rm nucl}$ & $-10.5 \pm 10.5$ ppm & $-12 \pm 5.5$ ppm & 3.9 & 2.6\\
\hline
Total Systematic & & & 5.3 \% & 5.2 \% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{\label{sec:discussion}Discussion}
In this section four different prisms are used to interrogate the new results on $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al. First the data are compared to theoretical predictions made at the kinematics of this experiment using the optical model approach. Next, a global set of the world's BNSSA data is assembled in Table~\ref{tab:Globaldata}, which excludes backward angle data as well as neutron data from quasi-elastic scattering on the deuteron.
This global dataset is then scaled linearly to the $Q$ of this experiment and plotted against atomic mass number $A$. The same BNSSA dataset is then scaled instead by $Z/A$ and plotted against $Q$ to look for trends which may provide insight into the global behaviour of the BNSSA. Finally, a plot against $Q$ is made of $\widehat{B}_n$ derived from the global dataset using Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling}, from which even more insights are obtained.
\subsection{\label{sec:Gorch}Comparison to calculations}
The present results are compared to predictions obtained in the optical model approach of Gorchtein and Horowitz~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy},
extended to the relevant nuclei~\cite{Gorch},
in Fig.~\ref{fig:aluminum_result} (for $^{27}$Al) and Fig.~\ref{fig:carbon_result} (for $^{12}$C).
No other data exist for $^{27}$Al, however data on a neighboring nucleus ($^{28}$Si) have recently been published~\cite{Esser:2020vjb} at $E=0.570$ GeV near $20^\circ$. Although these calculations were made specifically at the kinematics of the Q$_{\rm weak}$ experiment~\cite{Gorch}, the $^{28}$Si results from Mainz are included in Fig.~\ref{fig:aluminum_result} for comparison. Data from other experiments on $^{12}$C at slightly different kinematics are also included in Fig.~\ref{fig:carbon_result} along with the
$^{12}$C result from this experiment. The PREX datum~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} is another far-forward experiment ($\theta=5^\circ$, E=1.063 GeV, $Q^2=0.00984$ GeV$^2$). The Mainz data ~\cite{Esser:2018vdp} shown are at somewhat larger angles ($15.1^\circ \leq \theta \leq 25.9^\circ$, E=0.570 GeV, $0.023 \leq Q^2 \leq 0.049$ GeV$^2$).
The uncertainty bands shown for the calculations in both Figs.~\ref{fig:aluminum_result} and \ref{fig:carbon_result} arise from two components, added in quadrature: the Compton slope parameter $B_c$, and terms not enhanced by the large logarithm $\ln(Q^2/m_e^2)$ (where $m_e$ is the electron mass)~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy}.
The inner and outer uncertainty bands in the figure arise from assigning either a 10\% or 20\% uncertainty to $B_c$, and the non-log-enhanced terms~\cite{Gorchtein:2008px} are assigned 100\% uncertainty. It should be noted that these calculations
do not include the small elastic intermediate state contribution,
only the (dominant) inelastic intermediate-state contributions to the asymmetry, and further do not include Coulomb distortions~\cite{Gorch2}.
In addition, no corrections to Q were made to take into account the Coulomb field for the heavier nuclei.
The model calculations predict an essentially linear dependence of $B_n$ on $Q$. Such a dependence was confirmed previously for $^{12}$C by the Mainz A1 collaboration~\cite{Esser:2018vdp}.
It is worth noting that the far-forward angle Q$_{\rm weak}$ data on both $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al, as well as the far-forward angle PREX datum all lie near the upper bound of the calculations, whereas the less forward-angle Mainz $^{12}$C and $^{28}$Si data lie near the lower bound of the predictions. Note, in particular, the significant tension between the earlier Mainz $^{12}$C datum near $Q=0.15$ GeV and the present $^{12}$C result at a similar value of $Q$. The calculation~\cite{Esser:2018vdp} done at the 0.57 GeV appropriate for the Mainz data is almost identical to those shown in the $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al figures here at 1.1 GeV, an indication of the expected energy insensitivity of the calculation. Energy insensitivity in experimental results has also been observed~\cite{Androic:2020rkw} at higher energies, where far-forward $^1$H $B_n$ data at 3 GeV \cite{Armstrong:2007vm, Abrahamyan:2012cg} were shown to be consistent with 1 GeV data ~\cite{Androic:2020rkw} within uncertainties.
Finally, it is worth noting that the new Q$_{\rm weak}$ $^{12}$C result, which required corrections for several non-elastic physics processes described in Sec.~\ref{Sec:backgrounds}, is in good agreement with the precise PREX $^{12}$C datum at the same energy (which did not require such corrections), assuming only that the predicted (and experimentally established~\cite{Esser:2018vdp}) $Q$-scaling is correct. However it is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:carbon_result} when comparing the Mainz A1 datum and Q$_{\rm weak}$ datum at similar $Q \approx 0.15$ GeV but different angles and energies, that $B_n$ can also depend on $E$ or $\theta$ (only one of these is independent at fixed $Q$). Furthermore, it is also clear that the present calculations do not reproduce this additional $E/\theta$ dependence.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:aluminum_result}
The BNSSA measured in this experiment from $^{27}$Al (red diamond) compared to predictions (black curve) by Gorchtein and Horowitz~\cite{Gorch} for $Q=0.154$ GeV and $7.6^\circ$. The error bars represent the quadrature sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Recent data~\cite{Esser:2020vjb} from Mainz A1 on a neighboring nucleus, $^{28}$Si, are also included for comparison (open squares).
The inner (yellow) and outer (blue) bands correspond to 10\% and 20\% uncertainties for the Compton slope parameter used in the calculation (see text). }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:carbon_result} The world $B_n$ data on $^{12}$C, including the result from this experiment (red diamond). The precise result from PREX \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} at the lowest $Q$ is also shown (circle), as well as five larger-angle results (open squares) from Mainz A1 \cite{Esser:2018vdp}.
The error bars represent the quadrature sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner (yellow) and outer (blue) bands correspond to 10\% and 20\% uncertainties for the Compton slope parameter used in the calculation (see text).}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\label{sec:BnvsA}Dependence of $Q$-scaled BNSSA on Mass Number $A$}
The paucity of BNSSA measurements means that it is important to compare new results to what little is already available in the literature, in the hope of shedding light on commonalities and gaining insight into the underlying physics. One way to make a comparison that uses Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling} as a foundation is to scale all the existing data to a common $Q$, and plot the results against the relevant mass number $A$. For this comparison each BNSSA result at $Q=Q_i$ was scaled to the Q$_{\rm weak}$ average $Q=0.157$ GeV, {\em i.e.} scaled by $0.157/Q_i$. The scaling expectation shown in Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling} used the $A$ and $Z$ for every nucleus, and the common factor $\widehat{B}_n = -30$ ppm/GeV.
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsA}. The agreement of the available data with the naive expectation of Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling} is reasonably good for the subset of the data at far-forward angles, with the single exception of the PREX $^{208}$Pb datum. This outlier has been a puzzle since it was published~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}. Some have speculated that greater Coulomb distortions in $^{208}$Pb may be the key to this puzzle~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}, but to date no definitive explanation exists.
Clearly the $\theta > 10^\circ$ data (represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsA} by open symbols) are much less well described by simple scaling. This dichotomy was discussed in the previous Sec.~\ref{sec:Gorch}, and has also been observed and discussed in the recent Q$_{\rm weak}$ publication for $B_n$ on $^1$H~\cite{Androic:2020rkw}.
\begin{figure}[!hhtbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig6.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:BnvsA} All transverse asymmetries from $^1$H to $^{208}$Pb scaled linearly in $Q$ to the average $Q=0.157$ of the Q$_{\rm weak}$ experiment are plotted vs. atomic mass number $A$. The Q$_{\rm weak}$ data on $^1$H \cite{Androic:2018kni}, and the two new Q$_{\rm weak}$ results presented in this article on $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al are denoted by red diamonds. Data from other experiments are represented by circles. Note that some of the data in the plot are shifted slightly in $A$ for clarity where they would otherwise overlap. Open symbols denote less far-forward angle data than denoted by solid symbols, which are generally $\theta < 10^\circ$. More backward-angle ($\theta > 50^\circ$) results are not shown, nor are results for quasi-elastic scattering on the deuteron. The blue curve represents the
$A/Z$ dependence (Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling}) as proposed in \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}, with $Q=0.157$ and $\widehat{B}_n = -30$ ppm/GeV.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\label{sec:Alldata}Q-dependence of BNSSA data scaled by $Z/A$}
In this section, the global BNSSA data are scaled by $Z/A$ and plotted against $Q$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e}. According to Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling}, scaling each $B_n$ result by $Z/A$ should remove the nuclear dependence.
Plotting the scaled $B_n$ against $Q$ makes it possible to empirically determine $\widehat{B}_n$ using Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling} by fitting the slopes, as long as the scaled data can be fit by a straight line.
The intercept of the fit is taken to be zero, as it is in the optical model calculation~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy}.
\begin{table*}[!htb] \caption{Global dataset used in the figures. Some entries had to be calculated from the information provided in the references.}
\label{tab:Globaldata}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{3ex} & & $\theta$(lab) & $E$(lab) & $Q$ & $B_n$ & $\Delta B_n$ & Fitting & \\
Expt & A & (deg) & (GeV) & (GeV) & (ppm) & (ppm) & Group & Ref \\
\hline
A4 &\rule{0pt}{3ex}$^1$H & 33.9 & 0.3151 & 0.179 & -2.220 & 0.587 & 1,1a & \cite{Gou:2020viq} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 34.1 & 0.5102 & 0.286 & -9.320 & 0.884 & 1,1a & \cite{Gou:2020viq} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 34.1 & 0.8552 & 0.467 & -7.460 & 1.973 & 1 & \cite{Gou:2020viq} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 34.3 & 0.4202 & 0.239 & -6.880 & 0.676 & 1,1a & \cite{Gou:2020viq} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 34.1 & 1.5084 & 0.783 & -0.060 & 3.459 & 1 & \cite{Gou:2020viq} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 35.0 & 0.5693 & 0.326 & -8.590 & 1.164 & 1,1a & \cite{Maas:2004pd} \\
A4 & $^1$H & 35.3 & 0.8552 & 0.480 & -8.520 & 2.468 & 1 & \cite{Maas:2004pd} \\
G0 & $^1$H & 7.5 & 3.0310 & 0.387 & -4.060 & 1.173 & 1 & \cite{Armstrong:2007vm} \\
G0 & $^1$H & 9.6 & 3.0310 & 0.500 & -4.820 & 2.111 & 1 & \cite{Armstrong:2007vm} \\
Qweak & $^1$H & 7.9 & 1.1490 & 0.157 & -5.194 & 0.106 & 1,1a & \cite{Androic:2020rkw} \\
HAPPEX & $^1$H & 6.0 & 3.0260 & 0.310 & -6.800 & 1.540 & 1,1a & \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} \\
HAPPEX & $^4$He & 6.0 & 2.7500 & 0.280 & -13.970 & 1.450 & 1,1a & \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} \\
A1 & $^{12}$C & 15.1 & 0.5700 & 0.152 & -15.984 & 1.252 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2018vdp} \\
A1 & $^{12}$C & 17.7 & 0.5700 & 0.173 & -20.672 & 1.106 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2018vdp} \\
A1 & $^{12}$C & 20.6 & 0.5700 & 0.202 & -21.933 & 2.219 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2018vdp} \\
A1 & $^{12}$C & 23.5 & 0.5700 & 0.197 & -23.877 & 1.225 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2018vdp} \\
A1 & $^{12}$C & 25.9 & 0.5700 & 0.221 & -28.296 & 1.480 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2018vdp} \\
PREX & $^{12}$C & 5.0 & 1.0630 & 0.099 & -6.490 & 0.380 & 1,1a & \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} \\
Qweak & $^{12}$C & 7.9 & 1.1580 & 0.159 & -10.680 & 1.065 & 1,1a & - \\
Qweak & $^{27}$Al & 7.9 & 1.1580 & 0.154 & -12.160 & 0.849 & 1,1a & - \\
A1 & $^{28}$Si & 19.4 & 0.5700 & 0.190 & -21.807 & 1.480 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2020vjb} \\
A1 & $^{28}$Si & 23.5 & 0.5700 & 0.195 & -23.302 & 1.470 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2020vjb} \\
A1 & $^{90}$Zr & 20.7 & 0.5700 & 0.205 & -16.787 & 5.688 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2020vjb} \\
A1 & $^{90}$Zr & 23.5 & 0.5700 & 0.205 & -17.033 & 3.848 & 2 & \cite{Esser:2020vjb} \\
PREX & $^{208}$Pb & 5.0 & 1.0630 & 0.094 & 0.280 & 0.250 & $-$ & \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e} colors are used to distinguish each nucleus. Different symbols are used to distinguish each experiment. Closed or open symbols distinguish far-forward angle $(\theta \lesssim 10^\circ)$ data from larger-angle data, respectively. The
Q$_{\rm weak}$ datum on $^1$H~\cite{Androic:2020rkw}
as well as the new results reported here for $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al are highlighted in the inset.
We note the remarkable fact apparent in the inset that the factor of $\approx 2$ difference between the Q$_{\rm weak}$ $^1$H $B_n$ result and the Q$_{\rm weak}$ $B_n$ results for $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al is almost completely eliminated by the
$Z/A$ scaling. With this scaling, these three nuclei, all at the same kinematics, are roughly consistent with one another.
There is a lot of information to unpack in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e}. It is immediately clear that these data cannot be represented by a single fit. So in order to facilitate empirical fits to these data and extract slopes $\widehat{B}_n$ using Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling}, the global BNSSA data are further separated into three groups:
Group 1 represents all $^1$H data at any angle, as well as $\theta \lesssim 10^\circ$ far-forward angle data on any nucleus. All such BNSSA data with $0<Q<0.8$ are included in Group 1. Group 1a is the subset of Group 1 with $0<Q<0.35$ GeV, corresponding to the more restricted $Q$-range studied in Ref.~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}.
Group 2 contains $A>1$, $(\theta > 10^\circ)$ data, which consist of the Mainz $^{12}$C~\cite{Esser:2018vdp}, and the Mainz $^{28}$Si and $^{90}$Zr data~\cite{Esser:2020vjb}. These data clearly have a steeper slope than those in Group 1 (or its subset Group 1a) and thus require a separate fit.
The $^{208}$Pb outlier datum~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg} does not fit into any group, is not included in any of the fits discussed here, and no attempt to assign a slope to this datum is made.
The fit to the Group 1 data obviously requires a non-linear component in order to describe the data at higher $Q$. A similar deviation from linear scaling at higher $Q$ was predicted in the optical theorem approach by Afanasev and Merenkov~\cite{Afanasev:2004pu} for $B_n$ for the proton. Since the focus here is an empirical/phenomenological characterization of the global $B_n$ data, a quadratic term is simply added to the fit of the Group 1 data, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}. To be clear, this fit
returns the linear slope $\widehat{B}_n$ and quadratic term $\beta$ from
$Z/A \; B_n = \widehat{B}_n Q + \beta Q^2$. Fits to Groups 1a and 2 drop the quadratic term. The Group 1 and 1a fits are tightly constrained by the unusually good precision of both the
Q$_{\rm weak}$ $^1$H datum~\cite{Androic:2020rkw} as well as the PREX $^{12}$C datum~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}. The datum contributing most to the $\chi^2/\rm{dof}$ of those two fits is the lowest-$Q$ datum from the Mainz A4 $^1$H results~\cite{Gou:2020viq}.
In order to compare more directly with Ref.~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}, and to avoid the non-linear behaviour shown by the higher-$Q$ data, Group 1a is the subset of Group 1 with $Q<0.35$ GeV. No quadratic term is used in the Group 1a fit result shown in Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}.
The $^{27}$Al and $^{12}$C calculations shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:aluminum_result} and \ref{fig:carbon_result}, times $Z/A$, both have an effective slope $\widehat{B}_n=-44.0 \pm^{11.0}_{12.7}$ ppm/GeV. This result is consistent with all the empirical fits found for the Groups 1 \& 1a data.
The Group 2 data have twice the slope of the other fits, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}. This group includes the larger-angle Mainz A1 data on $^{12}$C~\cite{Esser:2018vdp}, as well as their $^{28}$Si and $^{90}$Zr results~\cite{Esser:2020vjb}. The $^{90}$Zr data belong in this group because they were part of the same experiment as $^{28}$Si and had similar kinematics. They appear to be
more consistent with the fit that has the shallower slope, but because they are in the larger angle $(\theta > 10^\circ)$, $A>1$ group they are included in the fit to those data. The lower bound of the slope associated with the theoretical calculations in Figs.~\ref{fig:aluminum_result} and \ref{fig:carbon_result} is consistent with the empirical fits found for the Group 2 data.
\begin{table*}[!htb] \caption{Fit results. }
\label{tab:Bnfits}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\vspace{0.8cm}
\rule{0pt}{3ex} & Linear $(\widehat{B}_n)$ & Quadratic ($\beta$) & & \\
Group & (ppm/GeV) & (ppm/GeV$^2$) & \# data & $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ \\ \hline
1 & $-41.1 \pm 1.1$ & $56.0 \pm 4.8$ & 15 & 4.4 \\
1a & $-31.8 \pm 0.5$ & $-$ & 10 & 6.4 \\
2 & $-58.3 \pm 1.4 $ & $-$ & 9 & 2.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Fig7.pdf}
\caption{World asymmetry data $B_n$ scaled by $Z/A$ to reduce the dependence on the target nucleus, are plotted against $Q$. Each experiment is denoted by a different symbol, each nucleus by a different color, and far-forward angle $(\theta <10^\circ )$ results (solid symbols) are differentiated from larger-angle data (open symbols). The experiments are Q$_{\rm weak}$ (\cite{Androic:2020rkw} and this experiment: {\Large $\diamond$}), HAPPEX~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}:
{\large $\triangleright $},
G0~\cite{Armstrong:2007vm}: {\large $\triangledown $}, Mainz A4~\cite{Gou:2020viq,Maas:2004pd}: {\Large $\circ$}, Mainz A1 \cite{Esser:2018vdp,Esser:2020vjb}: $\square $, and PREX~\cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}: {\large $\triangle $}. The target nuclei are {\color{red}\bf{$^1$H}} (red symbols), {\color{cyan}\bf{$^{4}$He}} (cyan symbol), {\color{black}\bf{$^{12}$C}} (black symbols), {\color{gray}\bf{$^{27}$Al}} (grey symbol), {\color{green}\bf{$^{28}$Si}} (green symbols), {\color{purple}\bf{$^{90}$Zr}} (magenta symbols), and {\color{blue}\bf{$^{208}$Pb}} (blue symbol). The experiments and the target nuclei are indicated in the legend. Vertical error bars represent statistical and systematic uncertainties in quadrature. Two distinct slopes $\widehat{B}_n$ are fit $(B_n(Q=0)\equiv 0)$, as well as a fit with a quadratic term. 1-$\sigma$ fit uncertainties are denoted by the bands. The blue dashed curve (with blue band) includes a quadratic term in a fit to the Group 1 data (all $A=1$ data as well as $A>1$ far-forward angle data, but excluding the outlier $^{208}$Pb datum). The fit to the Group 1a data (red dotted line with yellow band) is the subset of the Group 1 data out to $Q<0.35$ GeV, as in \cite{Abrahamyan:2012cg}.
The steeper green dashed line (with green band) fits the slope of the Group 2 ($A>1$, $\theta >10^\circ $) data, which includes the $^{90}$Zr results.
Note that some of the data in the plot (and the inset) are shifted slightly in $Q$ for clarity where they would otherwise overlap.
\label{fig:BnvsQ_e}
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{\label{sec:Bnhat} $Q$-dependence of $\widehat{B}_n$}
The previous section examined consistencies in the data apparent once the nuclear dependence was removed via $Z/A$ scaling. The Qweak results on $^1$H, $^{12}$C, and $^{27}$Al were particularly revealing, as those results are at the same kinematics and were seen to be consistent after scaling.
In this section we remove the explicit $Q$-dependence as well as the nuclear dependence, and plot $\widehat{B}_n = \frac{Z}{A}\frac{1}{Q}B_n$ versus $Q$.
The expectation from Eq.~\ref{eq:scaling} is that such a plot
would consist of data that could be represented with a flat horizontal line, because $\widehat{B}_n$ is assumed to be a constant. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bnhat}, where the same categories are used to group the data for fitting as were used in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e}. Fitting the Group 1a and 2 data in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bnhat} with the assumption that they are flat horizontal lines results in $\widehat{B}_n$ intercept values and uncertainties identical to those obtained in the previous section~\ref{sec:Alldata} and tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits} for the slopes $\widehat{B}_n$ found in those fits.
However, it is clear that the higher $Q$ Group 1 data in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bnhat} have a residual $Q$-dependence, which we empirically model as linear:
$\widehat{B}_n = \widehat{B}_n^{\, 0}(Q=0) + Q\: \widehat{B}^{\, Q}_n$.
The first term is the intercept. The second term is responsible for the residual $Q$-dependence seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bnhat}, and the quadratic behaviour seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e}.
In response, the Group 1 data (up to 0.8 GeV) were fit to determine an intercept as well as a slope. The numerical values and uncertainties returned from the fit intercept ($\widehat{B}_n$) and slope are identical to the values found in the previous section (Sec.~\ref{sec:Alldata}) for the linear slope ($\widehat{B}_n$) and quadratic terms respectively, for the Group 1 fit shown in Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}.
The Group 2 data in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bnhat} do not have a sufficient range in $Q$ to justify fitting a slope to them.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig8.pdf}
\caption{World transverse asymmetry data $B_n$ are scaled by the factor $Z/(AQ)$
and plotted against Q (in GeV).
Symbols and colors are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e}. The dotted red and solid green lines represent fits to the intercepts of the Group 1a \& 2 data, respectively, and thus correspond to the slopes $\widehat{B}_n$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e} and Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}.
The blue dashed line is a linear fit to all the Group 1 data, corresponding to the quadratic fit in Fig.~\ref{fig:BnvsQ_e} and Table~\ref{tab:Bnfits}. Uncertainties in the fits are denoted by the bands in the figure.
\label{fig:Bnhat} }
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
The beam-normal single-spin asymmetry $B_n$ has been measured at
forward-angle kinematics
for $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al. At small scattering angles, a model for $B_n$ based on the optical theorem ~\cite{Gorchtein:2008dy} is expected to be valid. This model is able to reproduce both
of the measurements reported here within the uncertainty of the calculation.
The new Q$_{\rm weak}$ $^{12}$C result together with the PREX datum at a lower $Q$ but similar scattering angle are in excellent agreement with the predicted $Q$-dependence. Comparing with earlier data on $^{12}$C obtained
at larger laboratory scattering angles suggests that for those kinematics the model's reliance on taking the far-forward approximation may be reaching its limit of applicability. Similar conclusions are drawn from a comparison of the
new Q$_{\rm weak}$ $^{27}$Al result with previous results for $^{28}$Si.
These comparisons also suggest that modest contributions from nuclear excited states can be successfully accounted for in measurements of $B_n$.
A global analysis of world $B_n$ data at forward angles supports these conclusions: a simple linear scaling $Z/(AQ)$ works well for most data at far forward-angles for $Q<0.35$~GeV. Data at larger angles follow a steeper $Q$-dependence. For $Q>0.35$ the dependence on $Q$ is clearly non-linear, and can be empirically modelled by a quadratic dependence. If further divided by $Q$, this quadratic dependence appears linear out to 0.8 GeV for all the world's $^1$H data as well as far-forward angle ($\theta < 10^\circ$) data on any nucleus. The significant exception to these trends is the case of $^{208}$Pb, whose unexpectedly small BNSSA remains unexplained.
Data on $B_n$ have recently been obtained by the PREX-2/CREX collaborations~\cite{McNulty:2020,Richards:2020} for two isotopes of Ca, as well as new measurements of $^{12}$C and $^{208}$Pb, which may shed additional light on the $^{208}$Pb puzzle.
Finally, as this paper was being completed, a preprint appeared by
Koshchii, Gorchtein, Roca-Maza, and Spiesberger ~\cite{Koshchii:2021mqq} in which $B_n$ for selected nuclei was calculated with inclusion of both hard two-photon exchange and Coulomb distortions. That model's predictions of $B_n$ for $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al at the present kinematics are lower in magnitude than the calculations displayed in Figs. \ref{fig:aluminum_result} and \ref{fig:carbon_result}, but still consistent with our data.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank the staff of Jefferson Lab, in particular the accelerator operations staff,
the radiation control staff, as well as the Hall C technical staff for their help and support. We are also grateful for the contributions of our undergraduate students. We thank TRIUMF for its contributions to the development of the spectrometer and integrated electronics, and BATES for its contributions to the spectrometer and Compton polarimeter.
We are indebted to C. Horowitz and Z. Lin for their cross section calculations.
We thank M. Gorchtein for helpful discussions and unpublished calculations. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177.
Construction and operating funding for the experiment was provided through the DOE, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) with university matching contributions from William \& Mary, Virginia Tech, George Washington University and Louisiana Tech University.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
For marine science and ocean engineering, significant applications such as the surveillance of coral reefs, underwater robotic inspection, and inspection of submarine cables, require clear underwater images. However, raw underwater images with low visual quality can not meet the expectations. The quality of underwater images plays an essential role in scientific missions; thus, fast, accurate, and effective image restoration techniques need to be developed to improve the visibility, contrast, and color properties of underwater images for satisfactory visual quality.
In the underwater scene, visual quality is greatly affected by light refraction, absorption, and scattering. For instance, underwater images usually have a green-bluish tone since red light with longer wavelengths attenuates faster. Underwater image restoration is an ill-posed problem, which requires several parameters (\eg{} global background light and medium transmission map) that are mostly unavailable in practice. These parameters can be roughly estimated by employing priors and supplementary information. However, due to the diversity of water types and lighting conditions, conventional underwater image restoration methods fail to rectify the color of underwater images.
Recent advances in deep learning demonstrate dramatic success in different fields. Learning-based models require a large-scale dataset for training, which is often difficult to obtain. Thus, most learning-based models use either small-scale real underwater images~\cite{li2019underwater,islam2020fast}, synthesized images~\cite{li2020underwater,fabbri2018enhancing}, or natural in-air images~\cite{li2018emerging} as either the source domain or target domain of the training set, instead of using the restored underwater images as the target domain. The aforementioned datasets are limited to capture natural variability in a wide range of water types.
To overcome the earlier discussed challenges, we construct a large-scale real underwater image dataset with accurate restored underwater images. We formulate the restoration problem as an image-to-image translation problem and propose a novel \textbf{C}ontrastive Under\textbf{W}ater \textbf{R}estoration approach (CWR). Given an underwater image as the input, CWR directly outputs a restored image showing the real color of underwater objects as if the image was taken in-air without any structure and content loss.
The main contribution of our work is summarized as:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose CWR, which leverages contrastive learning to maximize the mutual information between corresponding patches of the raw image and the restored image to capture the content and color feature correspondences between two image domains.
\item We construct a large-scale, high-resolution underwater image dataset with real underwater images and restored images. This dataset supports both paired or unpaired training. Our code and dataset are available on \href{https://github.com/JunlinHan/CWR}{\textcolor{red}{GitHub}}.
\end{itemize}
\section{A Novel Dataset}
\label{sec:dataset}
Heron Island Coral Reef Dataset (HICRD) contains raw underwater images from eight sites with detailed metadata for each site, including water types, maximum dive depth, wavelength-dependent attenuation within the water column, and the camera model. According to raw images' depth information and the distance between objects and the camera, images with roughly the same depth and constant distance are labeled as good-quality. Images with sharp depth changes or distance changes are labeled as low-quality. We apply our imaging model described in section~\ref{sec:imaging} to good-quality images, producing corresponding restored images, and manually remove some restored images with non-satisfactory quality.
HICRD contains 6003 low-quality images, 3673 good-quality images, and 2000 restored images. We use low-quality images and restored images as the unpaired training set. In contrast, the paired training set contains good-quality images and corresponding restored images. The test set contains 300 good-quality images as well as 300 paired restored images as reference images. All images are in 1842 x 980 resolution.
\section{Underwater Imaging Model}
\label{sec:imaging}
Unlike the dehazing model~\cite{he2010single}, absorption plays a critical role in an underwater scenario. Each channel's absorption coefficient is wavelength-dependent, being the highest for red and the lowest for blue. A simplified underwater imaging model~\cite{serikawa2014underwater} can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
I^{c}(x) = J^{c}(x)t^{c}(x) + A^{c}(1-t^{c}(x)),~~~~c\in \{{r,g,b}\},
\label{eq:haze}
\end{equation}
where $I(x)$ is the observed intensity, $J(x)$ is the scene radiance, and $A$ is the global atmospheric light. $t^{c}(x) = e^{-\beta^{c} d(x)}$ is the medium transmission describing $A(x)$ the portion of light that is not scattered, $\beta^{c}$ is the light attenuation coefficient and $d(x)$ is the distance between camera and object. Channels are in RGB space.
Transmittance is highly related to $\beta^{c}$, which is the light attenuation coefficient of each channel, and it is wavelength-dependent. Unlike previous work~\cite{peng2017underwater,chiang2011underwater}, instead of assigning a fixed wavelength for each channel containing bias (\eg, 600nm, 525nm, and 475nm for red, green, and blue), we employ the camera sensor response to conduct a more accurate estimation. Figure~\ref{fig:response} shows the camera sensor response of sensor type CMV2000-QE used in collecting the dataset.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]
{figures/camera.png}
\caption{Camera sensor response for camera sensor type CMV2000-QE which is used in collecting real underwater images.}
\label{fig:response}
\end{figure}
The new total attenuation coefficient is estimated by:
\begin{equation}
p^{c}=\int_{a}^{b}\beta^{\lambda}S^{c}(\lambda)d\lambda,
\label{eq:response}
\end{equation}
where $p^{c}$ is the total attenuation coefficient, $\beta^{\lambda}$ is the attenuation coefficient of each wavelength, and $S^{c}(\lambda)$ is the camera sensor response of each wavelength. Following the human visible spectrum, we set a = 400nm and b = 750nm to calculate the medium transmission for each channel. We modify $t^{c}(x)$ in equation~\ref{eq:haze} leading to a more accurate estimation: $t^{c}(x) = e^{-p^{c} d(x)}.$
It is challenging to measure the scene's actual distance from an individual image without a depth map. Instead of using a flawed estimation approach, we assume the distance between the scene and the camera to be small (1m - 5m) and manually assign a distance for each good-quality image.
The global atmospheric light, $A^{c}$ is usually assumed to be the pixel's intensity with the highest brightness value in each channel. However, this assumption often fails due to the presence of artificial lighting and self-luminous aquatic creatures. Since we have access to the diving depth, we can define $A^{c}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
A^{c} = e^{-p^{c \phi}},
\label{eq:airlight}
\end{equation}
where $p^{c}$ is the total attenuation coefficient, $\phi$ is the diving depth.
With the medium transmission and global atmospheric light, we can recover the scene radiance. The final scene radiance $J(x)$ is estimated as:
\begin{equation}
J^{c}(x) = \frac{I_{c}(x)-A_{c}}{max(t_{c}(x),t_{0})}+A_{c}.
\label{radiance}
\end{equation}
Typically, we choose $t_{0}$ = 0.1 as a lower bound. In practice, due to image the formulation's complexity, our imaging model may encounter information loss, \ie, the pixel intensity values of $J^{c}(x)$ are larger than 255 or less than 0. This problem is avoided by only mapping a selected range (13 to 255) of pixel intensity values from $I$ to $J$. However, outliers may still occur; we re-scale the whole pixel intensity values to enhance contrast and keep information lossless after restoration.
\input{tables/equation}
\section{Method}
Given two domains $\mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times 3}$ and $\mathcal{Y} \subset \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times 3}$ and a dataset of unpaired instances $X$ containing raw underwater images $x$ and $Y$ containing restored images $y$. We denote it $X= \left\{x \in \mathcal{X} \right\}$ and $Y= \left\{y \in \mathcal{Y} \right\}$. We aim to learn a mapping $G : X\rightarrow Y$ to enable underwater image restoration.
\textbf{C}ontrastive Under\textbf{W}ater \textbf{R}estoration (CWR) has a generator $G$ as well as a discriminator $D$. $G$ enables the restoration process, and $D$ ensures that the images generated by $G$ are undistinguished to domain $Y$ in principle. The first half of the generator is defined as an encoder while the second half is a decoder, presented as $G_{enc}$ and $G_{dec}$ respectively.
We extract features from several layers of the encoder and forward them to a two-layer MLP projection head $H$. Such a projection head learns to project the extracted features from the encoder to a stack of features. CWR combines three losses, including Adversarial loss, PatchNCE loss, and Identity loss. The details of our objective are described below.
The restored image should be realistic ($\mathcal{L}_{GAN}$), and patches in the corresponding raw and restored images should share some correspondence ($\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PatchNCE}}$). The restored image should have an identical structure to the raw image. In contrast, the colors are the true colors of scenes
($\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{Identity}}$). The full objective is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(G,D,H)
&=\lambda_{GAN}\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(G,D,X)\\
&+\lambda_{NCE}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PatchNCE}}(G, H, X)\\
&+\lambda_{IDT}\mathcal{L}_{\text {Identity}}(G).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We set $\lambda_{GAN}$ = 1, $\lambda_{NCE}$ = 1, and $\lambda_{IDT}$ = 10. The details of each component are elaborated in Table~\ref{tab:equations}.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Baselines and Training Details}
We compare CWR to several state-of-the-art baselines from different views, including image-to-image translation approaches (CUT~\cite{park2020contrastive} and CycleGAN~\cite{CycleGAN2017}), underwater image enhancement methods (UWCNN~\cite{li2020underwater}, Retinex~\cite{fu2014retinex} and Fusion~\cite{ancuti2017color}), and underwater image restoration methods (DCP~\cite{he2010single}, IBLA~\cite{peng2017underwater}). We use the pre-trained UWCNN model with water type-3, which is close to our dataset.
We train CWR, CUT, and CycleGAN for 100 epochs with the same learning rate of 0.0002. The learning rate decays linearly after half epochs. We load all images in 800x800 resolution, and randomly crop them into 512x512 patches during training. We load test images in 1680x892 resolution for all methods. The architecture of CWR is inspired by CUT, a Resnet-based generator with nine residual blocks and a PatchGAN discriminator. We employ spectral normalization for discriminator and instance normalization for generator. The batch size is 1 and the optimizer is Adam.
\input{figures/results1}
\subsection{Evaluation Protocol and Results}
To fully measure the performance of different methods, we employ three full-reference metrics: mean-square error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM) as well as a non-reference metric designed for underwater images: Underwater Image Quality Measure (UIQM)~\cite{panetta2015human}. A higher UIQM score suggests the result is more consistent with human visual perception. We additionally use Fréchet Inception Distance (FID)~\cite{TTUR} to measure the quality of generated images. A lower FID score means generated images tend to be more realistic.
\input{tables/compare}
Table~\ref{tab:3compare} provides quantitative evaluation, where no method always wins in terms of all metrics. However, CWR performs stronger than all the baselines. Figure~\ref{fig:result1} presents the \underline{randomly} selected qualitative results. Conventional methods produce blurry and unrealistic results, while learning-based methods tend to rectify the distorted color successfully. CWR performs better than other learning-based methods in keeping with the structure and content of the restored images identical to raw images with negligible artifacts.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents an underwater image dataset HICRD that offers large-scale underwater images and restored images to enable a comprehensive evaluation of existing underwater image enhancement \& restoration methods. We believe that HICRD will make a significant advancement for the use of learning-based methods. A novel method, CWR employing contrastive learning is proposed to capitalize on HICRD. Experimental results show that CWR significantly performs better than several conventional methods while showing more desirable results compared to learning-based methods.
\small{
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
Interfaces are arguably the most important elements of the microstructure of materials.
Since they play a key role in material properties, their control is essential to the design of engineering materials.
Simulation of microstructure evolution is complex because of the wide range of length- and time-scales involved\cite{Rollett2015}.
For example, while the structure and dynamics of most grain boundaries (GBs) can only be elucidated by a combination of atomistic and crystallographic approaches, elastic interactions amongst grains/GB in a polycrystalline microstructure and microstructure evolution must be based upon coarse-grained or macroscopic approaches appropriate for large length- and time-scales.
Ideally, approaches that provide comprehensive descriptions of interfaces in crystalline systems should retain details of different length- and time-scales.
At the same time, they should be versatile to cope with the complexity of experimental systems.
For example, they should be able to describe a wide range of complex interface geometries, allowing for parameterisations appropriate for large length- and time-scales and coupling of different physical effects occurring simultaneously.
Approaches based upon the underlying interface dynamics have greater potential for comprehensive descriptions of microstructure evolution than those built from either purely atomistic or continuum approaches.
Such approaches, for example, may be built upon the main carriers of interface dynamics in crystalline materials; i.e., \textit{disconnections} \cite{bollmann1970general,hirth1973grain,balluffi1982csl,hirth2006disconnections,hirth2007spacing,Han2018} which are line defects with dislocation and step characters.
This description may be abstracted in the form of a general, disconnection-mediated, interface equation of motion (EOM)\cite{SUTTONBOOK,Zhang2017,Zhang2018,Zhang2021,Han2021}.
It extends classical, purely continuum models for interface motion, such as mean-curvature flow or the motion by the Laplacian of the interface curvature \cite{Mullins1957,Mullins1959,Doherty1997}, that are widely applied in materials science for microstructure evolution.
In Part I of this paper\cite{Han2021}, we introduced a disconnection-based EOM approach for arbitrarily curved interfaces, overcoming severe limitations of previous formulations for application to general microstructure evolution.
In this paper, we propose a general framework for microstructure evolution, encoding this description in a continuum framework that easily and simultaneously handles nontrivial interface geometries/morphologies, topological changes, anisotropy in kinetic and thermodynamic properties, and multiple interfaces.
Our approach is based upon the well-established diffuse interface, phase-field (PF) model \cite{chen2002phase,boettinger2002phase,Steinbach_2009,Li2009,provatas2011phase}.
We note that several PF models have previously been proposed to study grain boundaries, coherent interfaces, and microstructure evolution.
These focus either on multi-order-parameter approaches\cite{Chen1994,steinbach1996phase,Moelans2008,Steinbach_2009,DARVISHIKAMACHALI20122719,Toth2015,DIMOKRATI2020147} or the incorporation of additional fields that account for local crystal orientations\cite{KOBAYASHI2000141,WARREN20036035,Herve2012,Korbuly2017}.
Both approaches for macroscopic modelling of microstructure have advantages for specific, targeted applications.
Here, we consider single and multi phase-field models to track the motion of interfaces based upon the underlying disconnection mechanisms~\cite{Zhang2017,Zhang2018,Han2018,Han2021}.
To achieve this goal, we exploit phase-field models originally designed for (interface) mean curvature flow and their extension to systems with many interfaces~\cite{Rubinstein1992,Li2009,Brassel2011,LEE201635,bretin2017new,BRETIN2018324}.
We then extend these to include disconnection dynamics, focusing on a wide range of driving forces that act directly on disconnections with the aim of reproducing the sharp-interface EOM for arbitrarily curved interface \cite{Han2021}, such as the effects of externally applied and self-stress, chemical potential jumps across the interface, and capillarity, providing a convenient and versatile framework for describing a mechanistically-appropriate and general model for interface dynamics. As a central result, we demonstrate interface evolution effects which arise from disconnections, such as anisotropic shapes also in the presence of isotropic interface energy and mobility, growth of grains due to an external applied stress, grain translation and topological changes.
This paper is organised as follows.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:cmodel}, we briefly review the basics of the continuum kinetic theory leading to an equation of motion for crystal interfaces based on disconnections mechanics; more details are in the preceding companion paper \cite{Han2021}.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:PF}, we develop a diffuse interface approach that incorporates disconnection dynamics-based interface migration, while its extension to an arbitrary number of different interfaces is reported in~\ref{sec:multiPF}.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:num}, we illustrate this approach through a varied set of numerical simulations exploiting simple integration schemes.
\section{Continuum Description}
\label{sec:cmodel}
\noindent
We consider a continuum representation of interfaces accounting for steps and dislocations as disconnections (see Part I\cite{Han2021}).
For simplicity of presentation, we focus on the minimal system encoding two interface references (each with a single type of disconnection; for extensions see \onlinecite{Han2021}).
Figure~\ref{fig:figure1} illustrates the objects entering the continuum model.
In brief, we consider a curve $\Sigma$ in the $\mathbf{e}_1$-$\mathbf{e}_2$ plane
\begin{equation}\label{eq:el}
\mathbf{x}(s) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1(s) \\ x_2(s)
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
parametrised by $s$, with
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{l}(s)
=& \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d} s}
= \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{d} x_1/\mathrm{d} s \\ \mathrm{d} x_2/\mathrm{d} s
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
l_1 \\ l_2
\end{array}
\right), \\
\hat{\mathbf{n}}(s)
=&\frac{1}{|\mathbf{l}|}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-l_2 \\ l_1
\end{array}
\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
its tangent vector and normal vector, respectively (the hat denotes a normalized vector).
The disconnection lines lie along $\mathbf{e}_3=\mathbf{e}_1 \times \mathbf{e}_2$.
Equation~\eqref{eq:el} can be rewritten in terms of the step heights $h^{(k)}$ and disconnection densities $\rho^{(k)}(s)dL$ (moving along the curve in direction $\mathbf{e}_k$, with $k=1,2$ and $dL$ the arc along $\Sigma$) through
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{l}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-h^{(2)}\rho^{(2)} \\ h^{(1)}\rho^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
adopting the convention $h^{(k)}>0$.
$\rho^{(1)} \gtreqless 0$ corresponds to $dx_2 \gtreqless 0$ and $\rho^{(2)} \gtreqless 0$ corresponds to $dx_1 \lesseqgtr 0$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1} shows an example of this at Point P on $\Sigma$).
The dislocation character or Burgers vector is $\mathbf{b}^{(k)}=b_k\mathbf{e}_k$ and the Burgers vector density along
a unit arc length is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho^{(m)}b^{(m)}=&\frac{b^{(m)}}{h^{(m)}}h^{(m)}\rho^{(m)}
=(-1)^n\beta^{(m)}\hat{l}_n,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $(m,n)=(1,2)$ or $(2,1)$, and $\beta^{(m)}$ is the shear-coupling factor for the interface with tangent vector $\mathbf{e}_m$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the variables and parameters in the continuum model (see Sect.~\ref{sec:cmodel}).
}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
The interface evolution law is based on the disconnection density along the curve and the local driving forces \cite{Han2021}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}=\mathbf{f}_{\rm s}+\mathbf{f}_{\rm d}+\psi \hat{\mathbf{n}}=(\Gamma \kappa+ \tau\Lambda+ \psi )\hat{\mathbf{n}}.
\label{eq:totdrivingforce}
\end{equation}
$\mathbf{f}_{\rm s}$ is the gradient descent of the interface energy
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}_{\rm s}=-\frac{\delta E[\mathbf{x}(s)]}{\delta \mathbf{x}(s)}=\Gamma \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{E}
E[\mathbf{x}(s)]
= \int_\Sigma \gamma(s) |\mathbf{l}(s)| \,\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
$\gamma(s)$ is the interface energy density (alternatively expressed as a function of the interface inclination angle $\phi$; $\gamma(s) = \gamma(\phi(s))$ in 2D), $\Gamma=\gamma+\gamma_{,\phi\phi}$ is the interface stiffness and $\kappa$ is the local curvature of the interface.
$\mathbf{f}_{\rm d}$ is the Peach-Koehler (PK) force acting on the disconnection Burgers vector from the total stress $\boldsymbol{\upsigma}$ at that interface position, namely
$\mathbf{f}_\text{d}
= (\boldsymbol{\upsigma}\mathbf{b}) \times \mathbf{e}_3.$
Assuming disconnection can only move conservatively (i.e., by glide), this reduces to
$\mathbf{f}_\text{d} = \tau \Lambda \hat{\mathbf{n}}$,
where $\tau \equiv \sigma_{12}$ the total shear stress and
\begin{equation}\label{defLambda}
\Lambda
\equiv \beta^{(2)} - \beta^{(1)}
= \frac{b^{(2)}}{h^{(2)}} - \frac{b^{(1)}}{h^{(1)}}.
\end{equation}
$\psi$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:totdrivingforce} accounts for the chemical potential ($\mu$) jump across the interface $\psi=\mu^{+}-\mu^{-}$ (``$\pm$'' denotes the side of interface to/from which $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ points). For a heterophase interface, $\psi$ is the difference in free energy per atom of the phases on the $\pm$ sides of the interface.
Assuming that disconnection dynamics are overdamped, we write the evolution law for $\mathbf{x}(s)$ as
\begin{equation}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s) = \mathbf{M}\mathbf{f} = (\Gamma \kappa + \tau\Lambda + \psi) \mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}(s),
\label{eq:modeleq}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}
\equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M^{(1)} & 0 \\
0 & M^{(2)}
\end{array}\right).
\label{eq:modelM}
\end{equation}
Curvatures, jumps in chemical potential across interfaces, external stresses, and disconnection stress-sources in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modeleq}, vary throughout the microstructure (which evolves with time). Limiting cases can be easily recovered; e.g. in the absence of dislocation character or chemical potential jumps this reduces to anisotropic mean curvature flow, the dominant roles of stress for flat interfaces with non-zero dislocation character, or to heterophase interface motion with $\psi \neq 0$ (in the absence of a stress).
The balance between these terms depends both on the physical situation as well as the parameters $\gamma^{(k)}$, $M^{(k)}$, $\beta^{(k)}$.
We consider the specific interface mobility and energy density anisotropy associated to the orientation of the reference interfaces\cite{Han2021}
\begin{equation}
M(\phi)
= \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}
= M^{(1)}\cos^2\phi + M^{(2)}\sin^2\phi,
\label{eq:mob}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\gamma(\phi)
= \gamma^{(2)} |\cos\phi|
+ \gamma^{(1)} |\sin\phi|.
\label{eq:gammaaniso}
\end{equation}
This interface energy is cusped and corresponds to preferred interface orientations; i.e., to equilibrium interface facets \cite{Wulff1901,Herring1951}.
Such singularities in $\gamma(\phi)$ leads to sharp corners in the equilibrium faceted interface profiles; this is the strong-anisotropy regime. This is a well-known condition that may pose issues for continuum approaches better suited for continuous profiles \cite{taylor1998diffuse,Spencer2004}.
To avoid this issue, we here simply regularise the interface energy density as
\begin{equation}
\gamma_\eta(\phi)
= \gamma^{(2)} R_\eta(\cos\phi)
+ \gamma^{(1)} R_\eta(\sin\phi),
\label{eq:gammaaniso_R}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{regular}
R_\eta(z)=\frac{\eta}{5}\bigg[\ln(2)+\ln(1+\cosh(5z/\eta)) \bigg] \stackrel{\eta\rightarrow 0}{\approx} |z|,
\end{equation}
is a smooth approximation for $|z|$ that provides a localized corner smoothing\cite{Herty2007} and formally converges to the nominal Wulff shape for $\eta \rightarrow 0$. Several other regularisations have been proposed, including e.g. an additional energy term or similarly enforcing rounding at cusps of $|z|$ with some parametrization \cite{taylor1998diffuse,Debierre2003,Spencer2004,Wan2018,Philippe2021,Han2021}.
Examples of shapes and dynamics obtained with different values of the regularisation parameter $\eta$ are shown below, where we illustrate the convergence to faceted shapes for small $\eta$.
The evolution of $\mathbf{x}(s)$ is determined by integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:modeleq} given the stress $\tau$.
This stress can be separated into contributions from an external shear stress $\tau_{\rm ext}$ and those generated by the disconnections themselves along the entire interface profile $\mathbf{x}(s)$, $\tau_{\rm self}(s)$.
The latter, assuming an isotropic and homogeneous medium, can be computed as
\begin{equation}\label{s12curve_s}
\tau_\text{self}(s)
= \beta^{(1)} I^{(1)}_\Sigma(s) + \beta^{(2)} I^{(2)}_\Sigma(s),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}\label{s12curve_s2}
I^{(m)}_\Sigma(s)
&= \frac{G}{2\pi(1-\nu)} \int_\Sigma
\Bigg\{\left(\frac{\mathrm{d} x_n}{\mathrm{d} s}\right)_{s=s_0}
\dfrac{x_m(s) - x_m(s_0)}{\varrho_a^2}
\nonumber\\
&\times \left[
1 - \dfrac{2 \big(x_n(s) - x_n(s_0)\big)^2}{\varrho_a^2}
\right]\Bigg\} \mathrm{d} s_0,
\end{align}
$(m, n) \in \{(1, 2),(2, 1)\}$, $\varrho_a^2 \equiv [x_1(s) - x_1(s_0)]^2 + [x_2(s) - x_2(s_0)]^2 + a^2$, $G$ and $\nu$ are the shear modulus and Poisson ratio, and $a$ encodes the disconnection core size\cite{cai2006non}.
Note that with this approach we assume that the system is in elastic equilibrium. We exploit known elastic fields at (mechanical) equilibrium for disconnections/stress sources and evaluate their contribution at any point. Since we consider linear elasticity, the superposition principle holds for any stress sources (e.g., external/applied stresses).
Stress sources associated with misfit may also be included by explicitly solving the mechanical equilibrium equations in the presence of eigenstrains.
Such cases are not considered here.
The following reduced scales are adopted: $\tilde{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{x}/\alpha$ (same for other length quantities) and $\Delta\tilde{t} = \Delta t M_0\gamma_0/\alpha^2$, where $\alpha$ is the Displacement-Shift-Complete (DSC) lattice parameter commonly used in bicrystallography (as widely used to describe disconnection step heights and the Burgers vector norm~\cite{Han2021}).
\section{Diffuse Interface Modeling of a Single Interface}
\label{sec:PF}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{Diffuse interface description of a sharp interface $\Sigma$ from Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1} in the phase-field model: (a) $\varphi(\mathbf{r})$, (b) selected $\varphi$ level sets ($\varphi=0.5$ corresponds to $\Sigma$), (c) $|\nabla \varphi|$, (d) a diffuse-interface representation of the local interface curvature of $\Sigma$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:ac_iso}), $\kappa(\varphi)$, (e) $\tau(\mathbf{r})$ (Eq.~\eqref{s12curve_s} evaluated at every point $\mathbf{r} \in \Omega$ instead of $s \in \Sigma$), for $\beta^{(1)}=1$, $\beta^{(2)}=0$ and $\tau_{\rm ext}=0$), and (f) $\bar{\tau}(\mathbf{r})|\nabla \varphi|$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:levelset} with $\tau(s)$ as in (e) on $\Sigma$).
The computational cell (reduced) size is $20$ and $\tilde{\varepsilon}=1$.}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
We now present a model for the evolution of arbitrary crystal interface shapes based on Eq.~\eqref{eq:modeleq} within a diffuse interface framework.
We consider a phase-field model that easily accommodates mean curvature flow (shape evolution that minimises the interface area/energy).
It tracks interface ($\Sigma$, Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}) evolution implicitly through an auxiliary order parameter which changes smoothly across the interface.
This order parameter is a smooth function $\varphi(\mathbf{r})$ with $\mathbf{r} \in \Omega=\Omega_0 \cup \Omega_1 \cup \Sigma_\varepsilon$, that describes two phases, $\varphi=1$ for $\mathbf{r} \in \Omega_1$, $\varphi=0$ for $\mathbf{r} \in \Omega_0$, with a continuous transition in between (i.e., for $\mathbf{r} \in \Sigma_\varepsilon$) - see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}a-\ref{fig:figure2}c.
$\varepsilon$ is a parameter that scales the diffuse interface width.
$\varphi$ is determined from the minimization of a free energy functional that approximates the interface energy as introduced in Ref.
\onlinecite{Tor2009},
\begin{equation}
F[\varphi]=\int_\Omega \gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} |\nabla \varphi|^2 + \frac{1}{\varepsilon}H(\varphi) \right) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r},
\label{eq:energy}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})$ is an orientation-dependent interface energy density, $\hat{\mathbf{n}}=-\nabla \varphi / |\nabla \varphi| $ is the interface normal, and $H(\varphi)=18\varphi^2(1-\varphi)^2$ is a double well potential vanishing in the bulk phases.
$|\nabla \varphi|^2$ makes the interface diffuse, while $H(\varphi)$ enforces the stability of the phases (i.e., $\varphi=0,1$);
their competition leads to a stable interface profile
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\mathbf{r})=\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\tanh \left(\frac{3 d(\mathbf{r})}{\varepsilon}\right)\right],
\label{eq:tanh}
\end{equation}
where $d(\mathbf{r})$ is a signed distance from the 0.5 level set of $\varphi$; this contour approximates the corresponding sharp interface, $\Sigma$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}. With $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})$ multiplying both terms in \eqref{eq:energy} the interface thickness is independent of the interface orientation; this is a convenient feature for both general numerical approaches (see detailed discussions in Ref. \onlinecite{Tor2009} and applications, e.g., in Refs.~\onlinecite{albani2019competition,Sal2015b,SalvalaglioDDCHaniso}).
Coefficients entering \eqref{eq:energy} and \eqref{eq:tanh} ensure that $F[\varphi] \approx E[\mathbf{x}(s)]$ for relatively small $\varepsilon$ (see, e.g., asymptotic analysis in Ref.~\onlinecite{Ratz2006}).
This framework conveniently describes mean curvature flow by computing $\dot{\varphi}$ as $L^2$-gradient flow of $F[\varphi]$; i.e., the Allen-Cahn equation \cite{AC1979,Li2009}.
For isotropic interface energies $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})\equiv\gamma_0$ and mobilities $M(\hat{\mathbf{n}})\equiv M_0$, it yields
\begin{equation}
\dot{\varphi}=-\frac{M_0}{\varepsilon}\frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi}=\frac{M_0\gamma_0}{\varepsilon}
\underbrace{\bigg[\varepsilon \nabla^2\varphi-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}H'(\varphi) \bigg]}_{\kappa(\varphi)},
\label{eq:ac_iso}
\end{equation}
with $\kappa(\varphi)$ a diffuse-interface representation of the interface curvature (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}d).
Formally, Eq.~\eqref{eq:ac_iso} asymptotically converges ($\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$) to isotropic mean curvature flow \cite{evans1992phase,Tor2009,Li2009}: $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)=M_0\gamma_0 \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}}$.
To this point, we have focused on the standard PF model to reproduce mean curvature flow. To account for new aspects related to driving forces associated with the total stress and chemical potentials defined for $\Sigma$, we add a term to the phase field evolution law for the advection of $\varphi$.
Similar terms are common to describe translation of the interfaces by a prescribed velocity within phase field model, for instance when describing solidification and crystal growth \cite{medvedev2013simulating,rojas2015phase,qi2017modeling,albani2019competition}.
In practice, we consider the 0.5 level set of $\varphi$ as $\Sigma$ (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}).
We then compute the additional velocity term $v_\Sigma=\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{f}_{\rm d}+\psi\hat{\mathbf{n}})$ on $\Sigma$ and extend it within the phase-field interface, i.e. in $\Sigma_\varepsilon$, obtaining a velocity $v(\hat{\mathbf{n}})$ constant along $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ such that $\dot{\varphi}=\Phi=v(\hat{\mathbf{n}})|\nabla\varphi|$ approximates the motion of $\Sigma$ dictated by $v_\Sigma$; this occurs as $v(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) |\nabla \varphi| \approx v\delta_\Sigma$ for $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, where the delta function $\delta_\Sigma$ identifies the surface, as commonly exploited in level-set and diffuse domain approaches \cite{sethian1999level,osher2006level,li2009solving}.
Here, the external stress $\tau_{\rm ext}$ and chemical potential jump $\psi$ are constants such that the conditions for advecting $\varphi$ are met.
On the other hand, $\tau_{\rm self}(s)$ is defined only on $\Sigma$ such that we must first compute the line integrals in Eq.~\eqref{s12curve_s} on the $\varphi \sim 0.5$ contour (see Eq.~\eqref{s12curve_s2} and Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}e).
The extension of the resulting $\tau_{\rm self}(s)$ within $\Sigma_\varepsilon$ (constant along $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$), can be achieved as the stationary solution of \cite{sethian1999level,osher2006level}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:levelset}
\begin{split}
\partial_{p}\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}&=S(\varphi-0.5) \hat{\mathbf{n}} \cdot \nabla \bar{\tau}_{\rm self}, \\
S(z)&=\frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2+\delta^2}},\\
\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}(\mathbf{r})&=\tau_{\rm self}(\mathbf{x}) \ \ \text{on}\ \ \Sigma\ : \{\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{x}\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $p$ is a pseudo-time and $S(z)$ is a regularised sign function with small parameter $\delta=10^{-6}$, avoiding numerical divergences far away from the interface.
Equation~\eqref{eq:levelset} extends $\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}$ along the interface (positive and negative) normal.
$\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}|\nabla\varphi|$ is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}f for $\beta^{(1)}=1$, $\beta^{(2)}=0$.
Note that in this approach, we do not need to solve for the elastic fields concurrent with the phase fields.
We recall that through Eq.~\eqref{s12curve_s}, \eqref{s12curve_s2} and \eqref{eq:levelset}, the elastic fields of the dislocations and the external stress are included assuming mechanical equilibrium.
The complete diffuse interface expression of Eq.~\eqref{eq:modeleq}, including anisotropy ($\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})$, $M(\hat{\mathbf{n}})$) and advection, is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dot{\varphi}=&-\frac{M (\hat{\mathbf{n}})}{\varepsilon}\bigg[ \bigg(\frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi}\bigg)+\varepsilon|\nabla \varphi|\bigg((\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\Lambda+\psi \bigg) \bigg] \\
\approx &\frac{M (\hat{\mathbf{n}})}{\varepsilon} \bigg[\varepsilon \nabla \cdot \bigg( \gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) \nabla \varphi + |\nabla \varphi|^2 \mathbf{P} \nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{n}}} \gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) \bigg)\\
&-\frac{\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})}{\varepsilon}H'(\varphi) + \varepsilon|\nabla \varphi|\bigg((\tau_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\Lambda+\psi \bigg)\bigg],
\label{eq:ac}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $[\mathbf{P}]_{ij}=\delta_{ij}-\hat{{n}}_i\hat{{n}}_j$ \cite{Tor2009}, $\nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{n}}}$ representing the gradient with respect to the components of the normal vector, and exploiting the asymptotic result $(1/\varepsilon)H(\varphi)\stackrel{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0 }{\approx} (\varepsilon/2)|\nabla \varphi|^2$. \cite{Tor2009,Sal2015b,SalvalaglioDDCH,SalvalaglioDDCHaniso}
Anisotropic quantities may be expressed as functions of $\phi$: $M(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) \equiv M(\phi)$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:mob}) and $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}) \equiv \gamma(\phi)$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:gammaaniso_R}), with $\phi=\arctan(\hat{n}_2/\hat{n}_1)=\arctan((\nabla \varphi)_2/(\nabla \varphi)_1)$.
The equations reported above exactly recover the targeted sharp-interface dynamics (Sect.~\ref{sec:cmodel}, Ref.~\onlinecite{Han2021}) in the limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. While this condition cannot be realized in simulations (finite $\varepsilon$ is required), convergence ensures that a numerical approximation of the sharp-interface limit within the selected error limit can be achieved with a relatively small $\varepsilon$.
$\varepsilon$ is typically chosen to be at least one order of magnitude smaller than the domain size characterised by the extension of the interface/phases described by $\varphi$.
Similarly to any investigation based on phase-field simulations, this is how we will perform simulation exploiting the model illustrated in this and in the following sections.
\section{Diffuse Interface Modelling of Many Interfaces}
\label{sec:multiPF}
While the model discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:PF} describes a single interface and directly translates the continuum description outlined in Sect.~\ref{sec:cmodel}, we now extend it to multi-phase systems with multiple interface types.
For example, this description is necessary to describe grain boundaries between different grains in an anisotropic material (each grain orientation is described as a separate phase).
Consider a set of phase fields $\varphi_i$ with $i=1,...,N$, each associated with an energy functional (as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy}) which satisfy $\sum_i^N \varphi_i=1$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure3}).
We write the total energy of the system as\cite{garcke1998anisotropic,garcke1999multiphase,Ratz2006,Tor2009,bretin2017new,BRETIN2018324},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Fmulti}
F_{\rm multi}[\{\varphi_i\}]=\frac{1}{2}\sum_i^N\int_\Omega \gamma_i\bigg(\frac{\varepsilon}{2}|\nabla \varphi_i|^2+\frac{1}{\varepsilon} H(\varphi_i) \bigg) d\mathbf{r}.
\end{equation}
with $\gamma_i\equiv\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}_i)$. The evolution of $\varphi_i$ is given by the $L^2$ gradient flow of $F_{\rm multi}$ with a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ that drives the gradient flow towards $\sum_i^N \varphi_i=1$; i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:evomulti}
\begin{split}
&\dot{\varphi_i}=-\frac{M_i}{\varepsilon}\bigg[\frac{\delta F_{\rm multi}}{\delta \varphi_i}+\lambda\sqrt{2H({\varphi_i})}\bigg],\\
&\lambda=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^N M_j \frac{\delta F_{\rm multi}}{\delta \varphi_j}}{\sum_{j=1}^N M_j \sqrt{2H({\varphi_j})}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $M_i\equiv M(\hat{\mathbf{n}}_i)$. $\lambda$ may be chosen with different forms\cite{Brassel2011,BRETIN2018324,bretin2019phase}.
This approach has some similarity with other, well-known, multi-phase field approaches\cite{Chen1994,steinbach1996phase,Moelans2008,Steinbach_2009,DARVISHIKAMACHALI20122719,Toth2015,DIMOKRATI2020147}.
However, it allows to directly control of interface properties through a convenient parametrization that allows us to recover the general sharp-interface dynamics (as outlined in Sect.~\ref{sec:cmodel}) and ensures other useful features such as an orientation-independent interface thickness \cite{Tor2009}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of three phase fields in the multi phase-field model (Sect.~\ref{sec:multiPF}). (a) Color map illustrating the three phase fields. (b) Values of $\varphi_i$ along the dashed arrow ($x$) in (a). Note that $\sum_i\varphi_i=1$ is everywhere satisfied.}
\label{fig:figure3}
\end{figure}
At variance with the model presented in Sect.~\ref{sec:PF}, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Fmulti} and \eqref{eq:evomulti} have parameters, such as $M$ and $\gamma$, associated with phases rather than the interfaces between them.
However, for isotropic $M_i$ and $\gamma_i$, these dynamics reproduce generalised mean-curvature flow of the interface between phases $i$ and $j$ with
$M_{ij}^{-1}\dot{\mathbf{x}}=\gamma_{ij} \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}}$
(for $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$)\cite{BRETIN2018324} and similar results are expected in an anisotropic setting \cite{garcke1998anisotropic,garcke1999multiphase,Ratz2006,Tor2009}. Interface properties may be related to parameters entering Eq.~\eqref{eq:evomulti} as $\gamma_{ij}=(\gamma_i+\gamma_j)/2$ and $M_{ij}^{-1}=M_i^{-1}+M_j^{-1}$.
Targeted $M_{ij}$ and $\gamma_{ij}$ may then be set through suitable definitions of $M_i$ and $\gamma_i$. For instance, focusing on the latter, one may compute
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i=\frac{\sum_{j}^N \gamma_{ij} |\nabla \varphi_i| |\nabla \varphi_j|}{\sum_{j}^N |\nabla \varphi_i| |\nabla \varphi_j| + \delta}, \qquad \text{with }\quad \gamma_{ii}=0.
\label{eq:gamma_par}
\end{equation}
This enforces $\gamma_i=\gamma_j=\gamma_{ij}$ at the $ij$-interfaces and an average of the properties of the $ij$-interfaces meeting at triple junctions.
$\delta=10^{-6}$ is set to avoid numerical divergences away from interfaces, similarly to Eq.~\eqref{eq:levelset}.
Notice that, by extension, one may exploit a form as in \eqref{eq:gamma_par} with the product of three $|\nabla \varphi_i|$ terms to enforce properties for triple junctions only. $M_{ij}$ can be set similarly.
As a practical example we may consider a microstructure having grain with different orientations.
To set $\gamma_{ij}$ accordingly, one may then exploit Eqs.~\eqref{eq:gammaaniso} for an inclination angle
\begin{equation}
\phi = \arctan\bigg(\frac{\hat{n}_2}{\hat{n}_1}\bigg) - \frac{\theta_i + \theta_j}{2},
\label{eq:phigij}
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{i,j}$ are the orientations assigned to domains $i,j$ and the inclination of the reference interface is $(\theta_i + \theta_j)/2$. $\gamma_{i}$ can then be defined through Eq.\eqref{eq:gamma_par}. A corresponding numerical example is shown in Sect.~\ref{sec:num}.
To include the contribution of stress fields generated by disconnection Burgers vectors and the external stress and to account for differences in chemical potentials between different phases (as in Sect.~\ref{sec:PF}), we include an advection-like term accounting for (multiple) distinct interfaces/phases.
The net velocity of an interface must be the sum of the normal velocities from the phases meeting at that interface point.
For the evolution of $\varphi_i$, describing the $i-th$ phase, i.e. in $\dot{\varphi}_i$, we include
\begin{equation}
\Phi_i=\sum_{i=j}^{N} \bigg( (\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\Lambda_{ij}' + \mu_j\bigg) |\nabla \varphi_j|(\hat{\mathbf{n}}_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}}_j).
\label{eq:advectionmulti}
\end{equation}
The last product accounts for the relative directions of $\hat{\textbf{n}}_j$ with respect to $\hat{\textbf{n}}_i$. $\mu_j$ is the chemical potential of the $j^\text{th}$ phase. $\Lambda_{ij}'=\varepsilon_{ij}(\beta^{(2)}_{ij}-\beta^{(1)}_{ij})$, with $\beta^{(k)}_{ij}=\beta^{(k)}_{ji}$ ($\varepsilon_{ij}$ the Levi-Civita symbol), accounts for the dislocation character of the disconnections at the interface between phases $i$ and $j$.
We may understand Eq.~\eqref{eq:advectionmulti} by considering an interface between two phases (1,2), i.e. $\varphi_1=1-\varphi_2$ (see e.g. Fig.~\ref{fig:figure3}b at $x\sim0.7$).
Here, $\hat{\mathbf{n}}_1=-\hat{\mathbf{n}}_2$, and both $\nabla \varphi_1=-\nabla \varphi_2$, $|\nabla \varphi_1|$ = $|\nabla \varphi_2|$.
With these relations, Eq.~\eqref{eq:advectionmulti} yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Phi_1
&=(\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\underbrace{(\beta_{12}^{(2)}-\beta_{12}^{(1)})}_{\Lambda_{12}}|\nabla \varphi_1| + \underbrace{(\mu_1-\mu_2)}_{\psi_{12}} |\nabla \varphi_1|,\\
\Phi_2
&=-(\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\Lambda_{12}|\nabla \varphi_1| -\psi_{12} |\nabla \varphi_1|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $\beta^{(k)}_{12}=0$ and $\mu_1=\mu_2$, one trivially finds $\Phi_1=\Phi_2=0$ (i.e. no advection occurs in the absence of dislocation character and interfacial chemical potential jumps).
If $\mu_1\neq \mu_2$ and/or
$\beta^{(1)}_{12}\neq \beta^{(2)}_{12}$, we find $\Phi_1=-\Phi_2$ and the advection of the two phases occurs in the same direction with velocity $|\nabla \varphi_1| (\psi_{12} + (\bar{\tau}_{\rm self}+\tau_{\rm ext})\Lambda_{12})$.
With many interfaces, the self-stress $\tau_{\rm self}(s)$ at any interface point $s$ is found by integration over all interfaces in the system; i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\tau_\text{self}(s)
= \sum_{j>i}^N
\left(\beta^{(1)}_{ij} I^{(1)}_{\Sigma_{ij}}(s) + \beta^{(2)}_{ij} I^{(2)}_{\Sigma_{ij}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_{ij}=\Sigma_{i}\cap\Sigma_{j}$ corresponds to an interpolation of the 0.5 level sets for $\varphi_i$ and $\varphi_j$ (that reduces to $\varphi_i\varphi_j\sim 0.25$ at interfaces among two phases).
When approaching triple junctions, the interpolation of the two closest phases (having the largest product $\varphi_i\varphi_j$) may be considered.
This realizes a triple junction as a point in the sharp-interface limit only, while delivering a description compatible with the diffuse interface approach otherwise.
Note that setting $\beta_{ij}$ implies a choice of the interface normal or tangent vector orientation.
For the single interface approach of Sect.~\ref{sec:PF}, this is inherently defined as the normal pointing towards the $\varphi=0$ phase.
The extension of $\tau(s)$ along the interface normal(s) is performed as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:levelset}.
An example of $\tau_{\rm self}(\mathbf{r})$ in a microstructure is reported in Sect.~\ref{sec:num}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure4.pdf}
\caption{Shrinking of an initially circular (radius $\tilde{R}=100$) embedded domain and the effect of interface energy and/or mobility anisotropies (parameters not specified here may be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:parnum}). (a) Effect of the $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}$ ratio with isotropic interface energy density. (b) Effect of the $\gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)}$ ratio with isotropic interface mobility ($\eta=0.5$). (c) Effect of the regularisation parameter $\eta$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:gammaaniso_R}) with $\gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)}=1$.
The solid blue curves show the initial two-phase interface configuration and the solid red and dashed grey curves show the interface position at different times, with time increments $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=200$.}
\label{fig:figure4}
\end{figure*}
The final, multi-phase field, general evolution equation, is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dot{\varphi_i}=&\frac{M_i}{\varepsilon} \bigg[ \varepsilon\Phi_i-\frac{\gamma_i}{\varepsilon}H'(\varphi_i)+\lambda\sqrt{2H({\varphi_i})}\\
&
+\varepsilon \nabla \cdot \bigg( \gamma_i \nabla \varphi_i +
|\nabla \varphi_i|^2 \mathbf{P}_i \nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{n}}_i} \gamma_i\bigg)\bigg].
\label{eq:acmulti}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $(1/\varepsilon)H(\varphi_i)\stackrel{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0 }{\approx} (\varepsilon/2)|\nabla \varphi_i|^2$ and additional definitions as in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ac} and \eqref{eq:evomulti}.
\section{Numerical Results and Discussion}
\label{sec:num}
In this section, we show the effects of different driving forces on disconnection-mediated interface evolution as encoded in the diffuse interface through full simulations and proof of concepts.
\subsection{Parameters and Simulation Details}
\label{sec:parnum}
The numerical results illustrated in this section are obtained by numerical integration of the disconnection-dynamics-based phase-field partial differential equations \eqref{eq:ac} and \eqref{eq:acmulti}.
We exploit a semi-implicit integration scheme and approximate the non-linear terms using a single-iteration Newton method.
The discretisation may exploit both Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods\cite{Vey2007,WitkowskiACM2015}.
We employ periodic boundary conditions (PBCs) for the evolution law of $\varphi_i$.
We also determine $\tau_{\rm self}$ by summing the elastic field of image interfaces repeated periodically (computational domain periodicity).
Additional details are provided in the Supplemental Material.
Our standard setup (against which others are compared) corresponds to classical mean curvature flow (i.e. fully isotropic interface energy and mobility with no stress or chemical potential variation: $\beta^{(1)}_{ij}=\beta^{(2)}_{ij}=0$, $\tau_{\rm ext}=0$, $\psi=0$ or $\mu_i=0$, $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}}_i)=\gamma_0=1$, $M^{(1)}_i=M^{(2)}_i=M_0=1$, $a=\alpha$, and $G/[2\pi(1-\nu)] = 1$).
In what follows, we only explicitly describe changes from this basic case.
For the geometries and sizes considered in the following, we found that an interface thickness of $\varepsilon=10\alpha$ (or $\tilde{\varepsilon}=10$) satisfactorily reproduces the sharp interface limit (see, in particular, simulations and discussions of Figs.~\ref{fig:figure4} and \ref{fig:figure5}).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figure5.pdf}
\caption{Effects of disconnection Burgers vector and stress field (parameters not specified here may be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:parnum}). (a) Shrinkage of a circular interface with initial radius $\tilde{R}=100$ including the effect of dislocation self-stress ($\beta^{(1)}=1$, $\tau_{\rm ext}=0$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=100$). (b) Effect of external stress field on a circular interface as in (a): $\beta^{(1)}=1$, $\tau_{\rm ext}=-2.5$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=1250$ (same scale as (a)). (c) Same as (b) but for multiple inclusions which coalesce (same scale as (a)), (d) Annular $\varphi=1$ domain shrinking by mean curvature flow (initial inner and outer radii are $\tilde{R}=100$ and $\tilde{R}=150$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=500$). (e) The same annular domain evolving with $\psi = -0.1$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=80$. (f) Self-stress generated by the two annulus interfaces for $\beta^{(1)}=1$ and $\tau_{\rm ext}=0$. (g) Evolution of the annulus under the action of the self-stress as in panel (f) - the coloured images are the evolving annulus shape correspond to the same colour contours in the first image.}
\label{fig:figure5}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Single interface}
A few examples of the evolution of an initially circular domain (initial radius $\tilde{R}=100$) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure4}; these illustrate the influence of interface energy and mobility anisotropy (in the absence of stress or chemical potential jumps).
These examples show interface evolution (0.5 isolines of $\varphi$); solid red and grey dashed curves show the interface position at uniform (reduced) time intervals, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=200$.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure4}a shows the effect of interface mobility anisotropy ($M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}$) for isotropic interface energy.
For isotropic mobility $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}=1$ (i.e., classic mean curvature flow) the domain shrinks as a circle and disappears at $\tilde{t}_{\rm end}=R^2/2M_0=5000$. In practice, effective numerical convergence is achieved with the considered $\varepsilon$.
Varying the disconnection mobility ratio $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:modelM}) leads to the evolution of the initially circular domain into ellipses with increasing ellipticity as the domain shrinks.
Changing $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}$ from $>1$ to $<1$ rotates the major axis of the ellipse.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure4}b shows the effect of anisotropic interface energy densities (with $\eta=0.5$) and isotropic mobility.
While the equilibrium domain shape is determined by the interface energy anisotropy (Wulff shape \cite{Wulff1901,Herring1951}),
the domain shape varies with time for different $\gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)}$ ratios.
Fixing the ratio $\gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)}=1$ and varying the regularisation parameter $\eta$ (see Eq.~\eqref{regular}) in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure4}c, we see that $\eta$ controls facet flatness; large $\eta$ leads to isotropic shapes, while $\eta\to0$ gives flat facets with converging morphologies and time scales.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure4} provides a means of comparison of the phase-field model predictions with their sharp-interface counterparts\cite{Han2021} and, generally, by anisotropic mean curvature flow\cite{taylor1998diffuse,garcke1999anisotropy,stocker2007effect,Li2009}.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure5} illustrates the role played by the disconnection Burgers vector in coupling the evolutions of the interface to the external and internal (self-stress) fields. In particular, Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}a illustrates the dynamics obtained with $\beta^{(1)}=1$ (i.e., $\mathbf{b}=b^{(1)}\mathbf{e}_1$, $b^{(1)}=h^{(1)}$).
The initially circular domain shrinks (as expected on the basis of mean curvature flow), but with a near-square shape because of the self-stress $\tau_{\rm self}$ and disconnection glide along the $\mathbf{e}_1$ and $\mathbf{e}_2$ directions.
This anisotropic interface evolution occurs with isotropic interface energy and mobility and is a consequence of the dislocation character of disconnections.
The same dynamics is achieved with $\beta_1=-1$, i.e. $\mathbf{b}=-b^{(1)}\mathbf{e}_1$.
However, the finite Burgers vectors make no contribution to the shape evolution when $\beta_1=\beta_2$, but double the interface velocity for $\beta_2=-\beta_1$.
The evolution shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}a matches the evolution for the same initial shape and parameters obtained by the sharp-interface approach (see Part I\cite{Han2021}); this validates the evaluation of stresses, the translation into the considered PF approach, and the numerical convergence achieved with the considered $\varepsilon$ when stresses are present.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure5}b shows the effect of an external shear stress ($\mathbf{b}$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}a);
for this applied stress ($\tau_{\rm ext}=-2.5$), the initially circular domain grows rather than shrinks, as would occur by mean curvature flow alone, and develops a four-fold shape (qualitatively resembling that in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}a), still with isotropic interface energy and mobilities. Figure~\ref{fig:figure5}c illustrates the same applied stress and $\beta$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}b, but for four, initially circular domains.
Here, we see that these domains grow, impinge and merge, demonstrating the ability of this method to naturally accommodate topology changes rather than just shape evolution.
In the long time limit, this microstructure evolves into one identical with Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}b.
Figures~\ref{fig:figure5}d--\ref{fig:figure5}g show the temporal evolution of an annular domain (the classical mean curvature flow limit is illustrated in \ref{fig:figure5}d).
Since the inner interface has a smaller radius (larger curvature) than the outer radius, the annulus thickens as it shrinks, eventually becoming a circle prior to disappearing.
The addition of a chemical potential jump that favours the growth of the annular ($\varphi=1$) domain at the expense of the inner and outer domains (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}e), leads to an increase in annulus area (the inner radius shrinks and the outer radius grows).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Figure6.pdf}
\caption{Effects of disconnection Burgers vector and applied stress on the evolution for the same initial, complex domain (parameters not specified here may be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:parnum}). (a) classical mean curvature flow dynamics and for a finite Burgers vector ($\beta^{(1)}=1$) (b) without and (c) with an external stress $\tau_{\rm ext}=-2.0$. }
\label{fig:figure6}
\end{figure}
When the disconnections have non-zero Burgers vectors ($\beta^{(1)}=1$, $\tau_{\rm ext}=0$, $\psi=0$, isotropic interface energy and mobility), the inner and outer interfaces move toward each other with velocities varying along each interface (Figs.~\ref{fig:figure5}f and \ref{fig:figure5}g).
This is a result of the self-stress developed as the interfaces move (i.e., shear coupling) - see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}f.
Here, the annulus shrinks, and thins non-uniformly, pinching off into a four domains - see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}g.
A nearly stationary inner interface is observed; this is different from the evolution for the same interface(s) with step character alone (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}d).
This non-trivial evolution, strongly deviates from mean curvature flow, results from the self-stress that accompanies disconnection glide in orthogonal directions and topology change that is only observable with the disconnection-based, shear-coupled interface migration model (accommodating disparate driving forces).
The behaviours depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5} for initially circular domains are also observed for arbitrary domain geometries and topologies as shown for a non-trivial initial domain shape in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure6}.
Evolution of the same complex domain by mean curvature flow, the disappearance of the $\varphi=1$ phase due to the action of the self-stress field and the growth of the $\varphi=1$ phase with a four-fold symmetric interface shape for a large, negative external stress are all illustrated in the three sets of panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure6}.
Again, internal and external stress effects, disconnection glide in orthogonal directions, and the competition between driving forces all strongly modify domain morphology evolution.
We note that in all three complex cases, the domains evolve toward convex morphologies but, when topological change occurs, this may result in multiple convex domains.
The shrinking and disappearing of arbitrarily complex domain shapes as convex objects is well-known in mean curvature flow\cite{gage1986heat,grayson1987heat}, but no topological changes are expected. This emerges from consideration of stresses acting on disconnection at interfaces with non-zero Burgers vector.
\subsection{Multiple domains}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure7.pdf}
\caption{Growth of multiple domains (inclusions) of phase $\omega_i$ in $\zeta$.
Initial $\omega_i$ domains (blue circles) have radius $\tilde{R}=100$ (parameters not specified here may be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:parnum}).
(a) Growth and impingement of two domains $\omega_i$ with an external shear stress ($\beta^{(1)}_{\omega_i\zeta}=1$, $\beta^{(1)}_{\omega_1\omega_2}=0$, $\beta^{(2)}_{ij}=0$, $\tau_{\rm ext}=-3.0$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=1250$). (b) Growth of two domains with $\mu_{\omega_i}<\mu_{\zeta}$ with interface-energy anisotropies rotated by $\omega_i \zeta$ ($\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=200$). (c) Growth of three phases $\omega_i$ with $\mu_{\omega_i}<\mu_{\zeta}$ forming a triple junction ($\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=200$). (d) Growth of two phases with different chemical potentials, $\mu_\omega < \mu_\xi < \mu_\zeta=0$.}
\label{fig:figure7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure8.pdf}
\caption{Examples of systems with multiple interfaces (parameters not specified here may be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:parnum}).
(a) Isotropic growth of 20 inclusions, represented by different phases $\omega_i$ (initially circular inclusion of $\tilde{R}=150$), in $\zeta$ leading to the formation of a polycrystalline microstructure ($\mu_{\omega_i}=-5.0$, $\mu_{\zeta}=0.0$, $\Delta \tilde{t}_{\rm plot}=1500$).
(b) Anisotropic interface energy density, with $\mathcal{L}_i=(1/2)\varepsilon |\nabla \varphi_i|^2+(1/\varepsilon)H(\varphi_i)$, for a microstructure corresponding to the last stage in panel (a) and randomly assigned grain rotations. Anisotropic interface energy is set as $\gamma_{ij}(\phi)$ via Eqs.~\eqref{eq:gammaaniso_R}, \eqref{eq:phigij}, \eqref{eq:gamma_par}, with $\gamma^{(1)}=1$ and $\gamma^{(2)}=4$.
(c) Self-stress for a microstructure corresponding to the last stage in panel (a) and a prescribed distribution of $\beta_{ij}$ illustrating different cases for interfaces with non-vanishing dislocation character: isolated interfaces (A), a triple junction (B), a closed interface (C). Black lines correspond to interfaces with $\beta_{ij}^{(1)}=1$, while arrows illustrates their assigned normal vector.
(d) Growth of the inclusions from (a) with random $\mu_{\omega_i} \in [-5.0,0]$ for different inclusions ($\mu_\zeta=0$). (e) Large number of inclusions ($\sim4000$) of two phases with $\mu_{\omega_i}=-5.0$ ($\mu_\zeta=0$).}
\label{fig:figure8}
\end{figure*}
We now consider the case of multiple domains, where interface junctions occur. First consider the growth of multiple domains (particles) of phase $\omega_i$ growing in $\zeta$, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure7}a-\ref{fig:figure7}c.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure7}a shows the case of two, initially circular, isolated particles growing together under the influence of an external stress $\tau_\text{ext}$, where each $\omega_i\zeta$ interface has the same, finite $\beta_{\omega_i\zeta}$ but where the $\omega_1\omega_2$ interface has $\beta_{\omega_1\omega_2}=0$.
This case is similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}b prior to impingement.
These results demonstrate how two $\omega_i\zeta$ interfaces smoothly merge to form a $\omega_1\omega_2$ interface and two triple (three domain) junctions $\omega_1\omega_2\zeta$.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure7}b shows the growth of the two $\omega_i$ domains into the $\zeta$ phase for the case where the chemical potentials of the two phases are different, i.e., $\mu_{\omega_i}<\mu_\zeta$.
In this example, the two $\omega$ phase domains have different crystallographic orientations and hence rotated $\omega\zeta$ interface energy anisotropies (by $\pi/5$).
This demonstrates the impingement and growth of identical but rotated crystals (as in grain growth).
Figure~\ref{fig:figure7}c shows the growth of three, differently oriented $\omega$ grains to form a classic 3-grain triple junction, with triple junction angle $2\pi/3$ for the equal grain boundary energy case $\gamma_{\omega_1\omega_2}=\gamma_{\omega_2\omega_3}=\gamma_{\omega_3\omega_1}$.
Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig:figure7}d shows the case of two dissimilar phases ($\omega$ and $\xi$) growing from $\zeta$, with $\mu_\omega < \mu_\xi$.
Such three-phase, single-component co-existence can occur at a fixed temperature $T$ and pressure $p$ or along a curve in $T$-$p$ space during the kinetic disappearance of $\zeta$ or, in a finite $T$-$p$ parameter range in the presence of a magnetic field (as per the Gibbs phase rule).
This example shows the growth of two domains at different rates, the formation of a three-phase interface, and the translation of the centre of mass of one phase relative to the others (green outlined phase in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure7}d).
The generalisation of our approach to a large number of interfaces is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}, and demonstrates that this approach is applicable to complex microstructures rather than individual interfaces.
Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}a first illustrates the growth of many $\omega_i$ crystalline particles into $\zeta$ resulting in a polycrystalline microstructure. Here, there is no external stress, yet internal stress ($\tau_{\rm self}$) may develop as a result of disconnection
motion during interface/grain-boundary migration.
Two examples of disconnection-related properties associated to this resulting microstructure are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:figure8}b and \ref{fig:figure8}c.
In particular, \ref{fig:figure8}b shows the anisotropic interface energy density corresponding to the final stage shown in \ref{fig:figure8}a for randomly oriented grains with $\gamma_{ij}$ set through Eqs.~\eqref{eq:gammaaniso_R}, \eqref{eq:phigij}, and \eqref{eq:gamma_par}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}c illustrates $\tau_{\rm self}$ for arbitrarily assigned $\beta^{(1)}_{ij}=0$ (white lines) and $\beta^{(1)}_{ij}=1$ (black lines) to interfaces in the microstructure obtained in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}a.
Different cases dislocation character cases are illustrated here: isolated surfaces (A), a triple junction (B), and a closed interface (C). Notice that the latter reproduces a stress distribution qualitatively corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}e.
This example demonstrates that the description of microstructures in the presence of accumulation/release of stress, as seen in molecular dynamics simulations~\cite{thomas2017reconciling}, can be described by the approach presented here.
Figure~\ref{fig:figure8}d shows the evolution of a microstructure of several phases $\omega_i$ with different $\mu_{\omega_i}$ (this is a generalisation of the cases shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:figure7}d and \ref{fig:figure8}a).
The colour map indicates the chemical potential of the phases.
This example may correspond, for instance, to the growth and coarsening of a polycrystal when applying magnetic fields, thus enforcing preferential orientations \cite{BackofenPRL2019}.
In this simulation, the lower $\mu_{\omega_i}$ the faster the phase grows, both before and after forming a dense microstructure with $\omega_i$ phases only.
The coarsening of the phases with lowest $\mu_{\omega_i}$ occurs, eventually filling the entire domain (see the dark red colour, corresponding to the lowest $\mu_{\omega_i}$).
Note that the three-domain junctions move according to jumps in the chemical potential across all of the different interfaces.
Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}e illustrates an example of a large system initialised with $\sim 4000$ small particles of two different $\omega_i$ phases with $\mu_{\omega_1}=\mu_{\omega_2}=-5.0$ growing into a parent phase $\mu_\zeta=0$.
In this case, the resultant domain morphology is a classical mazed (or Ising) microstructure, which was, for example, observed in the growth of a Au thin film on a $\{0 0 1\}$ Ge substrate~\cite{radetic2012mechanism}.
Here, each phase grows, but interfaces do not intersect after the parent $\zeta$ phase disappears.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
A general continuum framework for simulating the evolution of a microstructure, consisting of an interface network separating crystalline domains (e.g., grain boundaries in a polycrystal or heterophase interfaces in a multiphase microstructure) is presented.
The framework is based upon a disconnection mechanism-based description of interface migration.
The simulation method accounts for a wide range of driving forces for microstructural evolution, including chemical-potential differences between domains, capillarity (interface energy/curvature), external stresses, as well as the stresses generated by microstructure evolution itself.
The model also includes anisotropy in both thermodynamic driving forces as well as kinetic coefficients (mobilities).
The continuum approach is based upon the phase-field method and, as such, naturally accommodates both complex microstructures, topology change and the interplay of different physical effects.
Selected numerical simulations illustrate the diverse and robust capabilities of the approach.
In particular, we show examples that illustrate the effects of anisotropies in both mobility and interface energy density, applied stresses, and differences in energies between competing phases in simple and complex microstructures.
These simulations also clearly show how the microscopic, underlying disconnection mechanism of interface motion gives rise to effects
seen in atomic-scale (molecular dynamics) simulations and experiments. The emerging dynamics deviates from mean curvature flow, leading to additional anisotropies, topological changes and grain migration.
Of particular note is the inclusion of shear coupling and its constraint and accommodation in polycrystalline microstructure evolution. While general features are presented here, future works will be devoted to detailed investigations of these effects on grain growth and evolution of microstructures.
The work presented in this two-paper study delivers a versatile framework for the evolution of polycrystalline and multiphase microstructures based upon the underlying mechanisms of interface migration.
This approach may be further extended.
For example, it may be generalised to account for multiple disconnection types on each reference system and for non-orthogonal reference systems \cite{Han2021,Zhang2018}.
In addition, the chemical potential and external fields (e.g., electromagnetic field) may be incorporated and allowed to vary throughout space.
The effects of misfit between particles and the matrix, or in general different grains, may be included by explicitly accounting for the solution of the elastic problem following, e.g., Ref.~\onlinecite{Ratz2006,Salvalaglio2018} and providing its generalization to systems with many interfaces.
Composition fields and composition-dependent material parameters may also be included; this requires the adoption of conserved dynamics for some of the variables in addition or in pace of the present overdamped interface dynamics.
While we focus on two-dimensional examples in the present work, the extension to three dimensions is both natural and straightforward within the diffuse interface description of evolving interfaces.
However, the generalisation of the underlying disconnection model to two-dimensional interfaces in three dimensions requires the inclusion of several features not discussed here; e.g., curved disconnections (spatially varying line directions) may be described using the same ideas as are inherent in dislocation dynamics.
Finally, while the numerical methods described here for solution of the dynamical evolution equations were kept simple to facilitate transparent explanations, these may be greatly improved for systematic, large-scale simulations (e.g., through advanced adaptive finite element methods \cite{Backofen2019,Praetorius2019}).
\vspace{30pt}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
MS acknowledges support from Visiting Junior Fellowship of the Hong Kong Institute for Advanced Studies and the Emmy Noether Programme of the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant SA4032/2-1.
DJS acknowledges support from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council Collaborative Research Fund C1005-19G.
JH acknowledges support from City University of Hong Kong Start-up Grant 7200667 and Strategic Research Grant (SRG-Fd) 7005466.
We gratefully acknowledge computing time grants from the Centre for Information Services and High Performance Computing (ZIH) at TU Dresden.
|
\section{Introduction}
The field of parameterized algorithmics~\cite{CyganFKLMPPS15,DowneyF13} develops fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithms to solve NP-hard problems exactly, which are provably efficient on inputs whose parameter value is small. \bmp{The purpose of this work is to unify two lines of research in parameterized algorithms for \bmp{vertex-deletion} problems that were previously mostly disjoint.} On the one hand, there are algorithms that work on a structural decomposition of the graph, whose running time scales exponentially with a graph-complexity measure but polynomially with the size of the graph. Examples of such algorithms include dynamic programming over a tree decomposition~\cite{BodlaenderCKN15,BodlaenderK08} (which forms a recursive decomposition by small separators), dynamic-programming algorithms based on cliquewidth~\cite{CourcelleMR00}, rankwidth~\cite{HlinenyOSG08,Oum17,OumS06}, and Booleanwidth~\cite{Bui-XuanTV11} (which are recursive decompositions of a graph by simply structured although not necessarily small separations). The second line of algorithms are those that work with the ``solution size'' as the parameter, whose running time scales exponentially with the solution size. Such algorithms take advantage of the properties of inputs that admit small solutions. Examples of the latter include the celebrated \emph{iterative compression} algorithm to find a minimum odd cycle transversal~\cite{ReedSV04} and algorithms to compute a minimum vertex-deletion set whose removal makes the graph chordal~\cite{CaoM16,Marx10}, interval~\cite{CaoM15}, or planar~\cite{JansenLS14,Kawarabayashi09,MarxS12}.
In this work we combine the best of both these lines of research, culminating in fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for parameterizations which can be simultaneously smaller than natural parameterizations by solution size and width measures like treewidth. To achieve this, we (1) \bmp{employ recently introduced} graph decompositions tailored to the optimization problem which will be solved using the decomposition, (2) develop fixed-parameter tractable algorithms to compute approximately optimal decompositions, and (3) show how to exploit the decompositions to obtain the desired hybrid FPT algorithms. We apply these ideas to well-studied graph problems which can be formulated in terms of {vertex deletion}: find a smallest vertex set whose removal ensures {that} the resulting graph belongs to a certain graph class. Vertex-deletion problems are among the most prominent problems studied in parameterized algorithmics~\cite{ChenLLOR08,FominLPSZ20,GuptaLL20,LiN20,LokshtanovR0Z20}. We develop new algorithms for \textsc{Odd cycle transversal}, \textsc{Vertex planarization}, \textsc{Chordal vertex deletion}, and (induced) \textsc{$H$-free deletion} for fixed {connected}~$H$, among others.
To be able to state our results, we give a high-level description of the graph decompositions we employ; formal definitions are postponed to Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}. Each decomposition is targeted at a~specific graph {class}~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. We use two types of decompositions, corresponding to relaxed versions of treedepth~\cite{NesetrilM06} and treewidth~\cite{Bodlaender98,RobertsonS86}, respectively.
The first type of graph decompositions we employ are \emph{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests}, which decompose graphs of bounded $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance. The $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance~$\hhdepth(G)$ of an undirected graph~$G$ is a graph parameter that was recently introduced~\cite{BulianD16,BulianD17,HolsKP20}, which admits a recursive definition similar to treedepth. If~$G$ is connected and belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then~$\hhdepth(G) = 0$. If~$G$ is connected but does not belong to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then~$\hhdepth(G) = 1 + \min_{v \in V(G)} \hhdepth(G-v)$. If~$G$ has multiple connected components~$G_1, \ldots, G_p$, then~$\hhdepth(G) = \max_{i=1}^p \hhdepth(G_i)$. The process of eliminating vertices in the second case of the definition explains the name \emph{elimination distance}. The elimination process can be represented by a tree structure called an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest, whose depth corresponds to~$\hhdepth(G)$. These decompositions can be used to obtain polynomial-space algorithms, similarly as for treedepth~\cite{BelbasiF19,FurerY17,PilipczukW18}.
\bmp{The second type of decompositions we employ are called \emph{tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions}, which decompose graphs of bounded \hhtwfull{}. These decompositions are obtained by relaxing the definition of treewidth and were recently introduced by Eiben et al.~\cite{EibenGHK19}, building on similar hybrid parameterizations used in the context of solving SAT~\cite{GanianRS17a} and CSPs~\cite{GanianRS17d}.} A tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of a graph~$G$ is a~tree decomposition of~$G$, together with a set~$L \subseteq V(G)$ of base vertices. Base vertices are not allowed to occur in more than one bag, and the base vertices in a bag must induce a subgraph belonging to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. \bmp{The connected components of~$G[L]$ are called the \emph{base components} of the decomposition.} The {width} of such a decomposition is defined as the maximum number of non-base vertices in any bag, minus one. A tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition therefore represents a decomposition of a graph by small separators, into subgraphs which are either small or belong to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. The minimum width of such a decomposition for~$G$ is the \hhtwfull{} of~$G$, denoted~$\hhtw(G)$. We have~$\hhtw(G) \leq \hhdepth(G)$ for all graphs~$G$, hence the former is a potentially smaller parameter. However, working with this parameter will require exponential-space algorithms.
{We remark that both considered parameterizations are \bmp{interesting} mainly for the case where the class \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} has unbounded treewidth, e.g., $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{bipartite},\mathsf{chordal},\mathsf{planar}\}$,
as otherwise $\hhtw(G)$ is comparable with $\mathbf{tw}(G)$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:treewidth-of-hh}).
Therefore we do not study classes such as trees or outerplanar graphs.
}
We illustrate the key ideas of the graph decomposition for the case of \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} (OCT), which is the vertex-deletion problem which aims to reach a bipartite graph. Hence OCT corresponds to instantiations of the decompositions defined above for~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ {being} the class~$\mathsf{bip}$ of bipartite graphs. Observe that if~$G$ has an odd cycle transversal of~$k$ vertices, then~$\ed_\mathsf{bip}(G) \leq k$. In the other direction, the value~$\ed_\mathsf{bip}(G)$ may be arbitrarily much smaller than the size of a minimum OCT; see Figure~\ref{fig:octparameters}. At the same time, the value of~$\ed_\mathsf{bip}(G)$ may be arbitrarily much smaller than the rankwidth (and hence treewidth, cliquewidth, and treedepth) of~$G$, since the $n \times n$ grid graph is bipartite but has rankwidth~$n-1$~\cite{Jelinek10}. Hence a time bound of~$f(\ed_\mathsf{bip}(G)) \cdot |G|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ can be arbitrarily much better than bounds which are fixed-parameter tractable with respect to the size of an optimal odd cycle transversal or with respect to pure width measures of~$G$. Working with~$\ed_\mathsf{bip}$ as the parameter for \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} therefore facilitates algorithms which simultaneously improve on the solution-size~\cite{ReedSV04} and width-based~\cite{LokshtanovMS18} algorithms for OCT. As a~sample of our results, we will prove that \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} can be solved in FPT-time and polynomial space parameterized by $\ed_\mathsf{bip}$, and in FPT-time-and-space parameterized by $\tw_\mathsf{bip}$. Using this terminology, we now proceed to a detailed description of our contributions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{OCT-Depths.pdf}
\caption{The vertex labels correspond to depth values in a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth~5. By attaching triangles to vertices of depth at most three, the minimum size of an odd cycle transversal can increase boundlessly without increasing~$\hhdepth[\mathsf{bip}]$. The vertices in yellow are the base vertices of the decomposition and induce a bipartite graph.}
\label{fig:octparameters}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Results}
{Our work advances the budding theory of hybrid parameterizations. The resulting framework generalizes and improves upon several isolated results in the literature.}
We present three types of {theorems}: FPT algorithms to compute approximate decompositions, FPT algorithms employing these decompositions, and hardness results providing limits of tractability in {this paradigm}.
While several results of the first and second kind have been known,
we obtain the first framework which allows to handle miscellaneous graph classes with a~unified set of techniques and to deliver algorithms
with \bmp{a} running time of the form $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where $k$ is either $\hhdepth(G)$ or $\hhtw(G)$, even if no decomposition is given in the input.
The following theorem\footnote{This decomposition theorem strengthens the statements from the extended abstract~\cite{JansenKW21a}, to be applicable whenever a suitable algorithm for the parameterization by solution size exists.} \mic{gives a simple overview of} our FPT-approximation algorithms for $\hhdepth$ and $\hhtw$.
\mic{The more general version, as well as detailed results for concrete graph classes,
can be found in \cref{sec:summary}.}
\begin{thm} \label{thm:decomposition:general}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a hereditary union-closed class of graphs.
Suppose that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} either admits a polynomial-time constant-factor approximation algorithm or an exact FPT algorithm parameterized by the solution size $s$, running in time $2^{s^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
There is an algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$, computes in $2^{\hhtw(G)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$ of width~$\mathcal{O}(\hhtw(G)^5)$. Analogously, there is an algorithm that computes in~$2^{\hhdepth(G)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ of depth~$\mathcal{O}(\hhdepth(G)^3)$.
\end{thm}
The prerequisites of the theorem are satisfied for classes of, e.g., bipartite graphs, chordal graphs, (proper) interval graphs, and graphs excluding a finite family of connected (a) minors or (b) induced subgraphs (see \cref{table:decomposition} in \cref{sec:summary} for a longer list).
In fact, the theorem is applicable also when provided with an FPT algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} with an arbitrary dependency on the parameter.
This is the case for classes of graphs excluding a finite family of connected topological minors, where we only know that the obtained dependency on $\hhtw(G) \,/\, \hhdepth(G)$ is a computable function.
What is more, for some graph classes we are able to deliver algorithms with better approximation guarantees or running in polynomial time.
Finally, we also show how to construct $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests using only polynomial space at the expense of slightly worse approximation, which is later leveraged in the applications.
\bmp{While FPT algorithms to compute $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance for minor-closed graph classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ were known before~\cite{BulianD17} via an excluded-minor characterization (even to compute the exact distance), to the best of our knowledge the general approach of Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} is the first to be able to \mic{(approximately)} compute $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance for potentially \emph{dense} target classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ such as chordal graphs. Concerning $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth, we are only aware of a single prior result by Eiben et al.~\cite{EibenGHK19} which deals with classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_c$ consisting of the graphs of rankwidth at most~$c$. To the best of our knowledge, our results for $\hhtw$ are the first to handle classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ of unbounded rankwidth\footnote{Developments following the publication of the extended abstract of this article are given in ``Related work''.}.}
\mic{When considering graph classes defined by forbidden (topological) minors or induced subgraphs, Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} works only when all the obstructions are given by connected graphs due to the requirement that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ must be union-closed.
We show however that this connectivity assumption can be dropped and the same result holds for any graph class defined by a finite set of forbidden (topological) minors or induced subgraphs.
In particular, we provide FPT-approximation algorithms for the class of split graphs (since they are characterized by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs) as well as for the class of interval graphs (since the corresponding vertex-deletion problem admits a constant-factor approximation algorithm). This answers a challenge raised by Eiben, Ganian, Hamm, and Kwon~\cite{EibenGHK19}.
}
For the specific case of eliminating vertices to obtain a graph of maximum degree at most~$d \in \mathcal{O}(1)$ (i.e.,~a graph which does not contain~$K_{1,d+1}$ or any of its spanning supergraphs as an induced subgraph), corresponding to the family~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}$ of graphs of degree at most~$d$, our algorithm runs in time~$2^{(\hhdepth[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}](G))^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and outputs a degree-$d$-elimination forest of depth $\mathcal{O}((\hhdepth[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}](G))^2)$. This improves on earlier work by Bulian and Dawar~\cite{BulianD16}, who gave an FPT-algorithm with an unspecified but computable parameter dependence to compute a decomposition of depth~$k^{2^{\Omega(k)}}$ for~$k = \hhdepth[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}](G)$.
We complement Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} by showing that, assuming FPT~$\neq$~W[1], no FPT-approximation algorithms are possible for $\hhdepth[\mathsf{perfect}]$ or $\hhtw[\mathsf{perfect}]$, corresponding to perfect graphs.
By applying problem-specific insights to the problem-specific graph decompositions, we obtain FPT algorithms for vertex-deletion to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ parameterized by~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:solving:general}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a hereditary class of graphs that is defined by a finite number of forbidden {connected} {(a)~minors, or (b) induced subgraphs, or (c)~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{bipartite},\mathsf{chordal}, \mic{\mathsf{interval}}\}$.} There is an algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$, computes a minimum vertex set~$X$ such that~$G - X \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in time~$f(\hhtw(G)) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
\end{thm}
{As a consequence of case (a), for the class defined by the set of forbidden minors $\{K_5, K_{3,3}\}$
we obtain an~algorithm for \textsc{Vertex planarization} parameterized by $\hhtw[\mathsf{planar}](G)$.
In \mic{all} cases the running time is of the form~$2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where $k = \hhtw(G)$.
This is obtained by combining the $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$-approximation from Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} with efficient algorithms working on given decompositions.
For example, for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of bipartite graphs, we present an algorithm for \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} with running time
$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^3)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$
parameterized by $k = \hhtw(G)$.
\mic{For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{chordal}$, the running time for \textsc{Chordal deletion} is
$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{10})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.}
If $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by a family of connected forbidden (induced) subgraphs on at most $c$ vertices, we can solve $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
Analogous statements with slightly better running times hold for parameterizations by $\hhdepth(G)$, where in some cases we are additionally able to deliver polynomial-space algorithms.
}
\bmp{All our algorithms are \emph{uniform}: a single algorithm works for all values of the parameter. Using an approach based on finite integer index introduced by Eiben et al.~\cite[Thm. 4]{EibenGHK19}, it is not difficult to leverage the decompositions of Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} into \emph{non-uniform} fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for the corresponding vertex-deletion problems with an unknown parameter dependence in the running time. Our contribution in Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general} therefore lies in the development of \emph{uniform} algorithms with concrete bounds on the running times.
For example, for the problem of deleting vertices to obtain a graph of maximum degree at most~$d$ our running time is~$2^{\mathcal{O}(\hhtw[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}](G))^{6(d+1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. This improves upon a recent result by Ganian, Flute, and Ordyniak~\cite[Thm.~11]{GanianKO20}, who gave an algorithm parameterized by the \emph{core fracture number}~$k$ of the graph whose parameter dependence is~$\Omega(2^{2^{{(2k)}^k}})$. A graph with core fracture number~$k$ admits an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}$-elimination forest of depth at most~$2k$, so that the parameterizations by~$\hhtw[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}]$ and~$\hhdepth[\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\leq d}]$ can be arbitrarily much smaller and at most twice as large as the core fracture number.
}
Intuitively, the use of decompositions in our algorithms is a strong generalization of the ubiquitous idea of splitting a computation on a graph into independent computations on its connected components. Even if the components are not fully independent but admit limited interaction between them, via small vertex sets, Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general} exploits this algorithmically. We consider the theorem \bmp{an important step} in the quest to identify the smallest problem parameters that can explain the tractability of inputs to NP-hard problems~\cite{FellowsJR13,GuoHN04,Niedermeier10} (cf.~\cite[\S 6]{Niedermeier06}). The theorem explains for the first time how, for example, classes of inputs for \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} whose solution size and \bmp{rankwidth} are both large, can nevertheless be solved efficiently and exactly.
Not all classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ for which Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} yields decompositions, are covered by Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general}. The problem-specific adaptations needed to exploit the decompositions require significant technical work. In this article, we chose to focus on a number of key applications.
We purposely restrict to the case where the forbidden induced subgraphs or minors are connected, {as otherwise
the problem does not exhibit the behavior with ``limited interaction between components'' anymore.}
We formalize this in Section~\ref{subsec:not:closed} with a proof that the respective $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} problem parameterized by either $\hhtw$ or $\hhdepth$ is para-NP-hard.
Regardless of that, we provide our decomposition theorems in full generality, as they may be of independent interest.
For some problems, we can leverage $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests to obtain polynomial-space analogues of Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general}. For example, for the \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} problem we obtain an algorithm running in time~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} + 2^{\hhdepth[\mathsf{bip}](G)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}\cdot(n+m)$ and polynomial space. The additive behavior of the running time comes from the fact that in this case, an approximate $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest can be computed in \emph{polynomial time}, while the algorithm working on the decomposition is linear in~$n + m$.
{A~result of a different kind is an~FPT algorithm for \textsc{Vertex cover} parameterized by $\hhtw \, / \,\hhdepth$ for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being any class for which Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} works and on which \textsc{Vertex cover} is solvable in polynomial time.
This means that \textsc{Vertex cover} is tractable on graphs with small \hhtwfull{} for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{bipartite, chordal, claw\text{-}free}\}$. \bmp{While this tractability was known when the input is given \emph{along} with a decomposition~\cite{EibenGHK19}, the fact that suitable decompositions can be computed efficiently to establish tractability when given only a graph as input, is novel.}
}
\bmp{
\paragraph{Related work}
Our results fall in a recent line of work of using \emph{hybrid parameterizations}~\cite{BulianD16,BulianD17,EibenGS15,EibenGS18,GanianKO20,GanianOR17,GanianOS19,GanianRS17a,GanianRS17d,GanianRS17b,HecherTW20} which simultaneously capture the connectivity structure of the input instance and properties of its optimal solutions. Several of these works give decomposition algorithms for parameterizations similar to ours; we discuss those which are most relevant.
Eiben, Ganian, Hamm, and Kwon~\cite{EibenGHK19} introduced the notion of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth and developed an~algorithm to compute $\hhtw[\mathsf{rw} \leq c]$ corresponding to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth where~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is the class of graphs of rankwidth at most~$c$, for any fixed~$c$. As the rankwidth~$\mathsf{rw}(G)$ of any graph~$G$ satisfies~$\mathsf{rw}(G) \leq c + \hhtw[\mathsf{rw} \leq c](G)$, their parameterization effectively bounds the rankwidth of the input graph, allowing the use of model-checking theorems for Monadic Second Order Logic to compute a decomposition. In comparison, our Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} captures several classes of unbounded rankwidth such as bipartite graphs and chordal graphs.
Eiben, Ganian, and Szeider~\cite{EibenGS18} introduced the hybrid parameter \emph{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-well-structure number} of a~graph~$G$, which is a hybrid of the vertex-deletion distance to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and the rankwidth of a graph. They give FPT algorithms with unspecified parameter dependence~$f(k)$ to compute the corresponding graph decomposition for {classes}~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ defined by a~finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs, forests, and chordal graphs, and use this to solve \textsc{Vertex cover} parameterized by the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-well-structure number. Their parameterization is orthogonal to ours; for {a~class}~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ of unbounded rankwidth, graphs of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance~$1$ can have arbitrarily large $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-well-structure number, as the latter measure is the sum rather than maximum over connected components that do not belong to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Ganian, Ramanujan, and Szeider~\cite{GanianRS17d} introduced a related hybrid parameterization in the context of constraint satisfaction problems, the \emph{backdoor treewidth}. They show that if a certain set of variables~$X$ which allows a CSP to be decided quickly, called a strong backdoor, exists for which a suitable variant of treewidth is bounded for~$X$, then such a set~$X$ can be computed in FPT time. They use the technique of \emph{recursive understanding} (cf.~\cite{ChitnisCHPP16}) for this decomposition algorithm. This approach leads to a running time with a very quickly growing parameter dependence, at least doubly-exponential (cf.~\cite[Lemma 8]{GanianRS17dArxiv}).
\mic{After the conference version of this article was announced, several results employing recursive understanding to compute $\hhdepth(G)$ for various classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ have been obtained \cite{AgrawalKLPRSZ21, AgrawalKFR21, FominGT21, jansen2021fpt}.}
\micr{todo: update the arxiv citations when the papers get published, potentially plus the one from soda}
While the technique of recursive understanding and our decomposition framework both revolve around repeatedly finding separations of a certain kind, the approaches are fundamentally different. The separations employed in recursive understanding are independent of the target class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and always separate the graph into two large sides by a small separator. In comparison, the properties of the separations that our decomposition framework works with crucially vary with~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. As a final point of comparison, we note that our decomposition framework is sometimes able to deliver an approximately optimal decomposition in \emph{polynomial time} (for example, for the class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ of bipartite graphs), which is impossible using recursive understanding as merely finding a single reducible separation requires exponential time in the size of the separator.
}
\paragraph{Organization}
We start in Section~\ref{sec:outline} by providing an informal overview of our algorithmic contributions. In Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} we give formal preliminaries on graphs and complexity. There we also define our graph decompositions. Section~\ref{sec:decomposition} shows how to compute approximate tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests for various graph classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, building up to a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general}. The algorithms working on these decompositions are presented in Section~\ref{sec:solving}, leading to a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general}. In Section~\ref{sec:hardness} we present two hardness results marking the boundaries of tractability. We conclude with a range of open problems in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Outline} \label{sec:outline}
\subsection{Constructing decompositions}
We give a high-level overview of the techniques behind Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general}, which are generic and can be applied in more settings than just those mentioned in the theorem. Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general} requires {solutions tailored} for each distinct~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, and will be discussed in Section~\ref{sec:outline:deletion}.
The starting point for all algorithms to compute $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests or tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions, is a subroutine to compute \bmp{a novel kind of graph separation called}~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-\emph{separation}, where~$k \in \mathbb{N}$. Such a separation in a graph~$G$ consists of a pair of disjoint vertex subsets~$(C,S)$ such that~$C$ induces a subgraph belonging to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and consists of one or more connected components of~$G-S$ for some separator~$S$ of size \jjh{at most}~$k$. If there is an FPT-time (approximation) algorithm, parameterized by~$k$, for the problem of computing an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation $(C,S)$ such that~$Z \subseteq C \cup S$ for some input set~$Z$, then we show how to obtain algorithms for computing $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forests and tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions in a black-box manner. We use a four-step approach to approximate $\hhtw(G)$ and~$\hhdepth(G)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item \bmp{Roughly speaking, given an initial vertex~$v$ chosen from the still-to-be decomposed part of the graph, we iteratively apply the separation algorithm to find an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation~$(C \ni v,S)$ until reaching a separation whose set~$C$ cannot be extended anymore.} We then compute a preliminary decomposition by repeatedly extracting such extremal $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separations~$(C_i, S_i)$ from the graph.
\item We use the extracted separations~$(C_i, S_i)$ to define a partition of~$V(G)$ into connected sets~$V_i \subseteq C_i \cup S_i$. Then we define a contraction~$G'$ of~$G$, by contracting each connected set~$V_i$ to a single vertex.
\bmp{The extremal property of the separations~$(C_i,S_i)$ ensures that, apart from corner cases, the sets~$V_i$ cannot completely live in base components of an optimal tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest.}
These properties of the preliminary decomposition will enforce that the treewidth (respectively treedepth) of~$G'$ is not much larger than~$\hhtw(G)$ (respectively~$\hhdepth(G)$).
\item We invoke an exact~\cite{Bodlaender96,ReidlRVS14} or approximate~\cite{BodlaenderDDFMP16,CzerwinskiNP19,RobertsonS95b} algorithm to compute the treewidth (respectively treedepth) of~$G'$.
\item Finally, we transform the tree decomposition (elimination forest) of~$G'$ into a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition ($\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest) of~$G$ without increasing the width (depth) too much.
\end{itemize}
The last step is more challenging for the case of constructing a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition.
In order to make it work, we need to additionally assume that the $C$-sides of the computed separations do not intersect too much.
We introduce the notion of restricted separation that formalizes this requirement and work with a~restricted version of the preliminary decomposition.
With the recipe above for turning $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separations into the desired graph decompositions, the challenge remains to find such separations. We use several algorithmic approaches for various~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. \mic{Table~\ref{table:decomposition} on page~\pageref{table:decomposition} collects} the results on obtaining \hhdepthdecomp{s} and \hhtwdecomp{s} of moderate depth/width for various graph classes
(formalized as theorems in Section~\ref{sec:summary}).
For bipartite graphs, there is an elementary polynomial-time algorithm that given a graph~$G$ and connected vertex set~$Z$, computes a~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \leq 2k)$-separation~$(C \supseteq Z,S)$ if there exists a~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-separation~$(C' \supseteq Z,S')$. The algorithm is based on computing a minimum $s-t$ vertex separator, using the fact that computing a vertex set~$S \not \ni v$ such that the component of~$G - S$ containing~$v$ is bipartite, can be phrased as separating an ``even parity'' copy of~$v$ from an ``odd parity'' copy of~$v$ in an auxiliary graph. \bmp{Hence this variant of the~$(\mathsf{bip},k)$-separation problem can be approximated in \emph{polynomial} time.}
For other considered graph classes we present branching algorithms {to compute approximate separations in FPT time}.
For classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ {defined by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs~$\mathcal{F}$}, we can find a vertex set $F \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G[F] \in \mathcal{F}$ in polynomial time, {if one exists}.
If there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C,S)$ covering the given set $Z$, i.e., $Z \subseteq C \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $|S| \le k$, then $F$ cannot be fully contained in $C$.
\bmp{To find a separation satisfying $F \cap S \neq \emptyset$, we can} {guess a vertex in the intersection and recurse on} a subproblem with $k' = k-1$.
\bmp{For separations with~$F \cap S = \emptyset$,} some vertex $v \in F$ lies in a different component of $G - S$ than $Z$.
We prove that in this case we can assume that $S$ contains an important $(v, Z)$-separator of size $\le k$ and we can branch on all such important separators.
Our most general approach to finding $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-separations relies on the packing-covering duality of obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
It is known that graphs with bounded treewidth enjoy such a packing-covering duality
for connected obstructions for various graph classes \cite{RaymondT17}.
We extend this observation to graphs with bounded \hhtwfull{} and obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Namely, we show that when $\hhtw(G) \le k$ then $G$ contains either a vertex set $X$ at most $k(k+1)$ such that $G-X \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or $k+1$ vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs which do not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
In order to exploit this existential observation algorithmically, we again take advantage of important separators.
Suppose that there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C,S)$ such that the given vertex set $Z$ is contained in $C$.
In the first scenario, we rely on the existing algorithms for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion to find an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set $X$.
Even if the known algorithm is only a constant-factor approximation, it suffices to find $X$ of size $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$.
Then the pair $(V(G) \setminus X, X)$ forms an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(k^2))$-separation {as desired}.
\mic{
In the second scenario, by a counting argument there exists at least one obstruction to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ which is disjoint from $S$.
This obstruction cannot be contained in $C$, so by connectivity it is disjoint from $C \cup S$.
Then the set $S$ forms a small separator between this obstruction and $Z$.}
By considering all vertices $v \in V(G) \setminus Z$ and all important $(v,Z)$-separators of size at most $k$, we can detect such an obstruction -- let us refer to it as $F \subseteq V(G)$ -- with a small boundary, i.e., $|N(F)| \le k$.
There are two cases depending on whether $F \cap S = \emptyset$.
If so, we proceed similarly as for graph classes defined by forbidden induced subgraphs.
Namely, we show that there exists an important $(F,Z)$-separator of size $\le k$ which is contained in $S$ (for some feasible solution $(C,S)$) and we can perform branching.
If $F \cap S \ne \emptyset$, then we take $N(F)$ into the solution and neglect $F$.
Observe that in the remaining part of the graph there exists an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k-1)$-separation $(C^*,S^*)$ with $Z \subseteq C^*$.
We have thus decreased the value of the parameter by one at the expense of paying the size of $N(F)$, which is at most $k$.
This gives another branching rule.
Combining these two rules yields a recursive algorithm which outputs an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(k^2))$-separation.
\iffalse
Dealing with \bmp{(topological) minor-closed} classes like planar graphs requires {the} additional observation that graphs with bounded $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth {enjoy} a packing-covering duality {for obstructions to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}.
Namely, we show that if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, then $G$ either contains {a~packing of $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs that do not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, or a~vertex set $X$ of size $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$ such that each connected component in $G - X$ belongs to \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
In the first case, one of these $k+1$ subgraphs must be disjoint from $C \cup S$ and we again perform branching based on important separators.
Otherwise, the pair $(V(G) \setminus X, X)$ forms a~separation {as desired}.}
If the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under taking disjoint union of graphs,
it suffices to provide FPT algorithms for detecting an~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size $\ell=\mathcal{O}(k^2)$ or a~packing of $\ell=k+1$ obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, parameterized by~$\ell$.
Such algorithms exist for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ defined by a finite set of forbidden minors or topological minors.
The classes of chordal or interval graphs admit the so-called Erd\H{o}s-P\'{o}sa property and there are polynomial-time algorithms that always return either $k+1$ vertex-disjoint obstructions or a deletion set of size $\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)$.
If the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is not closed under disjoint unions, e.g., when we want to exclude a~disconnected minor,
we explain that we can equivalently consider the closure of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and reduce the problem to the cases covered so far.
\fi
\iffalse
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\text{class } \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} & \hhtw & \hhdepth & \hhdepth \text{ in poly-space} \\ \hline
\text{bipartite} & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^2) & \mathcal{O}(k^3\log k) \\
& 2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & \text{polynomial} \\ \hline
\text{chordal/interval} & \mathcal{O}(k^5\log^2 k) & \mathcal{O}(k^3\log k) & \mathcal{O}(k^4\log^2 k) \\
& 2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} \\ \hline
\text{forbidden induced} & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^2) & \mathcal{O}(k^3\log k) \\
\text{subgraphs}& 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \\ \hline
\text{forbidden (topological)} & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & - \\
\text{minors}& \text{FPT} & \text{FPT} & \text{} \\ \hline
\end{array}\]
\fi
\subsection{Solving vertex-deletion problems}
\label{sec:outline:deletion}
{Here we provide an~overview of the algorithms that work on the problem-specific decompositions.
The results described above {allow} us to construct such decompositions
of depth/width being a polynomial function of the optimal value,
so in further arguments we can assume that a~respective \hhdepthdecomp{} or \hhtwdecomp{} is given.
For {most} applications of our framework, we build atop existing algorithms that process (standard) elimination forests and tree decompositions.
In order to make them work with the more general {types} of graph decomposition, we need to specially handle the base components.
To do this, we generalize arguments from the known algorithms {parameterized by the solution size}. \bmp{An overview of the resulting running times for solving \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} is given in Table~\ref{table:algorithms}.}
\iffalse
One of the common approaches to solve vertex-deletion problems is the \emph{iterative compression} technique, in which we can assume that a~small vertex set $X$ is given, such that $G-X \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, and we only want to check if there exists smaller $X'$ with the same property.
The set $X$ can be treated as a~hint, which reveals a~convenient structure of the graph, and which can be exploited in a~clever way.
Our setting is more complicated though, since we are not given a~small deletion set $X$ but only a~small separator $S$ that splits the graph into a~subgraph $C$ that belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and the remaining part of the decomposition.
Despite that, we explain how to adapt the known arguments to (1) analyze the structure of the optimal solution within the subgraph $C$ and (2) keep track of its interaction with the other side of $S$.}
Finally, we present the most general method for solving \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} given a tree \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-decomposition.
It can be applied to work with chordal graphs and classes defined by a finite set of forbidden connected minors or (induced) subgraphs.
We will present a meta-theorem which gives a recipe to handle any class which is hereditary, closed under disjoint union of graphs, and satisfies two technical conditions.
\fi
We follow the ideas of gluing graphs and finite state property dating back to the results of Fellows and Langston~\cite{Fellows89} (cf. \cite{Arnborg91, Bodlaender96reduction}).
We will present a meta-theorem which gives a recipe to solve \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion}
parameterized by \hhtwfull{} or, as a~corollary, by \hhdepthfull{}.
\mic{It works for any class which is hereditary, union-closed, and satisfies two technical conditions.
}
The first condition concerns the operation $\oplus$ of gluing graphs.
Given two graphs with specified boundaries and an isomorphism between the boundaries, we can glue them along the boundaries by identifying the boundary vertices.
Technical details aside, two boundaried graphs $G_1, G_2$ are equivalent with respect to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} if for any other boundaried graph $H$, we have $G_1 \oplus H \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \Leftrightarrow G_2 \oplus H \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We say that the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} problem is finite state if the number of such equivalence classes is finite for each \bmp{boundary size}~$k$.
We are interested in an upper bound $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, so that for every graph with boundary of size $k$ one can find an~equivalent graph on $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$ vertices.
In our applications, we are able to provide polynomial bounds on $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, which could be
significantly harder for the approach based on \emph{finite integer index}~\cite{BodlaenderF01,EibenGHK19}.
\bmp{Before describing how to bound~$r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, we first explain how such a bound can lead to an algorithm parameterized by treewidth.}
Each bag of a tree decomposition forms a small separator.
Consider a bag $X_t \subseteq V(G)$ of size $k$ and set $A_t \subseteq V(G)$ of vertices introduced in the subtree of node $t$.
Then the subgraph $G_t$ induced by vertices $A_t \cup X_t$ has a natural small boundary $X_t$.
Suppose that for two subsets $S_1, S_2 \subseteq A_t\cup X_t$,
we have $S_1 \cap X_t = S_2 \cap X_t$ and the boundaried graphs $G_t - S_1, G_t - S_2$ are equivalent \mic{with respect to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership}}.
Then $S_1$ are $S_2$ are equally good for the further choices of the algorithm: if some set $S' \subseteq V(G) \setminus (A_t \cup X_t)$ extends $S_1$ to a valid solution, the same holds for $S_2$.
If we can enumerate all equivalence classes for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership}, we could store at each node $t$ of the tree decomposition and each equivalence class $\mathcal{C}$, the minimum size of a deletion set $S$ within $G_t$ so that $G_t - S \in \mathcal{C}$; this provides \bmp{sufficient} information for a dynamic-programming routine.
Such an approach \bmp{has} been employed to design optimal algorithms solving \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by treewidth for minor-closed classes~\cite{baste20complexity}.
\bmp{We modify this idea to additionally handle the base components, which are arbitrarily large subgraphs that belong to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ stored in the leaves of a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest, and which are separated from the rest of the graph by a vertex set~$X_t$ whose size is bounded by the cost~$k$ of the decomposition. This separation property ensures that any optimal solution~$S$ to~\textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} contains at most~$k$ vertices from a base component~$A_t$, as otherwise we could replace $A_t \cap S$ by $X_t$ to obtain a smaller solution. This means that in principle, we can afford to use an algorithm for the parameterization by the solution size and run it with the cost value~$k$ of the decomposition. However, such an algorithm does not take into account the connections between the base component and the rest of the graph. }
If we wanted to \bmp{take this into account by computing} a minimum-size deletion set $S_t$ in a base component $A_t$ \bmp{for which} $G[A_t \cup X_t] - S_t$ belongs to \bmp{a} given equivalence class $\mathcal{C}$, we would need a far-reaching generalization of the algorithm solving \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by the solution size.
\bmp{Working with a variant of the deletion problem that supports \emph{undeletable vertices} allows us to alleviate this issue.} We enumerate the minimal representatives of all the equivalence classes.
Then, given a bag $X_t$ and the base component $A_t$,
we consider all subsets $X_s \subseteq X_t$ and perform gluing $G' = G[A_t \cup (X_t \setminus X_s)]$ with each representative $R$ along $X_t \setminus X_s$.
One of the representatives $R$ is equivalent to the graph $G - A_t - S$, with the boundary $X_t \setminus S$, where $S$ is the optimal solution.
Therefore, the set $S \cap A_t$ is a solution to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} for the graph $G' \oplus R$
and any subset \mic{$S^R_t \subseteq A_t$} with this property can be extended to a solution in $G$ using the vertices from $S \setminus (A_t \cup X_t)$.
Since we can assume that $|S \cap A_t|$ is at most the width of the decomposition, we can find its replacement $S^R_t \subseteq A_t$ of minimum size as long as we can solve $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} with some vertices marked as undeletable, parameterized by the solution size.
This constitutes the second condition for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We check that for all studied problems, the known algorithms can be adapted to work in this setting.
The generic dynamic programming routine works as follows.
First, we generate the minimal representatives of the equivalence classes with respect to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership}.
The size of this family is governed by the bound $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, which differs for \mic{various} classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
For each base component $A_t$ and for each representative $R$,
we perform the gluing operation, compute a minimum-size subset $S^R_t \subseteq A_t$ that solves $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} on the obtained graph, \jjh{and add it} to a~family $\mathcal{S}_t$.
{Then for any optimal solution $S$, there exists $S_t \in \mathcal{S}_t$ such that $(S \setminus A_t) \cup S_t$ is also an optimal solution.
Such a family of partial solutions for $A_t \subseteq V(G)$ is called $A_t$-\emph{exhaustive}.
We proceed \bmp{to} compute exhaustive families bottom-up in a decomposition tree}, combining exhaustive families for children by brute force to get a new exhaustive family for their parent, and then trim the size of that family so it never grows too large. The following theorem summarizes our meta-approach.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:metathm:informal}
Suppose that the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary \mic{and union-closed}.
Furthermore, assume that \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} with undeletable vertices admits an algorithm with running time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where $k$ is the solution size.
Then \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} \bmp{on an $n$-vertex graph~$G$} can be solved in time~$f(k) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)^2 + k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a~tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition \bmp{of~$G$} of width~$k$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
If the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by a finite set of forbidden connected minors, we can take advantage of the theorem by
Baste, Sau, and Thilikos~\cite{baste20complexity} which implies that $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k) = \mathcal{O}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, and a~construction by Sau, Stamoulis, and Thilikos~\cite{sau20apices} to solve \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} with undeletable vertices.
Combining these results with our framework gives an algorithm \mic{running in time $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for parameter $k = \hhtw(G)$.}
For other classes we \mic{first} need to develop some theory to make them amenable \bmp{to} the meta-theorem.
\paragraph{Chordal deletion}
We explain \bmp{briefly} how the presented framework allows us to solve \textsc{Chordal} \textsc{deletion} when given a tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition.
The upper bound $r_\mathsf{chordal}(k)$ on the sizes of representatives
comes from a new characterization of chordal graphs.
\mic{Consider a boundaried chordal graph $G$ with a boundary $X$ of size $k$.
We define the \emph{condensing} operation, which contracts edges with both endpoints in $V(G) \setminus X$ and removes vertices from $V(G) \setminus X$ {which are simplicial} (a vertex is simplicial if its neighborhood is a clique).
Let $\widehat{G}$ be obtained by condensing $G$.
We prove that $G$ and $\widehat{G}$ are equivalent with respect to $\mathsf{chordal-}$\textsc{membership}, that is, for any other boundaried graph $H$, the result of gluing $H \oplus G$ gives a chordal graph if and only $H \oplus \widehat{G}$ is chordal.
Furthermore, we show that after condensing there can be at most $\mathcal{O}(k)$ vertices in $\widehat{G}$, which implies $r_\mathsf{chordal}(k) = \mathcal{O}(k)$.}
As a result, there can be at most $2^{\mathcal{O}(r_\mathsf{chordal}(k)^2)} = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}$ equivalence classes of graphs with boundary at most~$k$.
The second required ingredient is an algorithm for $\textsc{Chordal deletion}$ with undeletable vertices, parameterized by the solution size $k$.
We provide a simple reduction to the standard $\textsc{Chordal deletion}$ problem, which admits an algorithm with running time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{CaoM16}.
\mic{Our construction} directly implies that \textsc{Chordal deletion} on graphs of (standard) treewidth~$k$ can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first explicit treewidth-DP for \textsc{Chordal deletion}; previous algorithms all relied on Courcelle's theorem.
Together with the FPT-approximation algorithm for computing a tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition, we obtain (Corollary~\ref{thm:final-chordal-tw}) an algorithm solving \textsc{Chordal deletion} in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{10} )} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by $k = \mathbf{tw}_\mathsf{chordal}(G)$.
\paragraph{Interval deletion}
In order to solve \textsc{Interval deletion} with a given tree $\mathsf{interval}$-decomposition, we need to bound the function $r_\mathsf{interval}(k)$.
A graph $G$ is interval if and only if $G$ is chordal and $G$ does not contain an asteroidal triple (AT), that is, a triple of vertices so that
for any two of them there is a path between them avoiding the closed neighborhood of the third.
As we have already developed a theory to understand $\mathsf{chordal-}$\textsc{membership}, the main task remains to identify graph modifications which preserve the structure of asteroidal triples.
We show that given a boundaried interval graph $G$ with boundary $X$ of size $k$, we can mark a set $Q \subseteq V(G)$ of size $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ so that for any \mic{result of gluing} $F = H \oplus G$, if $F$ contains some AT, then $F$ contains an AT $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ so that $\{w_1,w_2,w_3\} \cap V(G) \subseteq X \cup Q$.
Afterwards, the vertices from $V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)$ can be either removed or contracted together, so that in the end we obtain a boundaried graph $G'$ of size $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ which is equivalent to $G$ with respect to $\mathsf{interval-}$\textsc{membership}.
As the most illustrative case \bmp{of the marking scheme}, consider vertices $v_1,v_2,v_3 \in V(G)$, such that there exists a $(v_1,v_2)$-path $P$ in the graph $F - N_F[v_3]$.
Recall that $F = H \oplus G$, where $H$ is an unknown boundaried graph.
Intuitively, the marking scheme tries to enumerate all ways in which $P$
crosses the boundary $X$ of $G$.
The naive way would be to enumerate each ordered subset of $X$ and consider paths which visit these vertices of $X$ in the given order.
There are $\Omega(k!)$ such combinations though.
Instead, we fix an interval model of $G$
and show that only $\mathcal{O}(1)$ subpaths of $P$ on the $G$-side of $X$ are relevant.
These are the subpaths closest to the vertices $v_1, v_2, v_3$ in the interval model.
This allows us to define a \emph{signature} of path $P$ with the following properties: (1) if there exists another triple $w_1,w_2,w_3 \in V(G)$ which matches the signature, then there exists a $(w_1,w_2)$-path $P'$ in the graph $F - N_F[w_3]$ and (2) there are only $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ different signatures.
For any triple of signatures, representing respectively $(v_1,v_2)$-path, $(v_2,v_3)$-path, and $(v_3,v_1)$-path, we check if there exists a triple of vertices that matches all of them (modulo ordering).
If yes, we mark the vertices in any such triple.
This procedure marks a set $Q \subseteq V(G)$ of $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ vertices, as intended.
Similarly as for \textsc{Chordal deletion}, we adapt the algorithm for \textsc{Interval deletion} parameterized by the solution size~\cite{CaoM2015} to work with undeletable vertices.
Together, this makes \textsc{Interval deletion} amenable to our framework (Corollary~\ref{thm:meta-interval:final}).
\paragraph{Hitting \jjh{connected} forbidden induced subgraphs}
We use the same approach
to solve \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} when~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by a finite set~$\mathcal{F}$ of connected forbidden induced subgraphs on at most~$c$ vertices each. \bmp{The standard technique of bounded-depth branching provides an FPT algorithm for the parameterization by solution size in the presence of undeletable vertices.}
We prove an upper bound $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k) = \mathcal{O}(k^c)$
and obtain
running time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where~$k = \hhtw(G)$ (Corollary~\ref{thm:final-induced-tw}).
In the special case when~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by a single forbidden induced subgraph that is a clique~$K_t$, we can additionally obtain (Corollary~\ref{thm:klfree-elimcombine}) a polynomial-space algorithm for the parameterization by~$k=\hhdepth$, which runs in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^3 \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. Here the key insight is that a forbidden clique is represented on a single root-to-leaf path of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest, allowing for a polynomial-space branching step that avoids the memory-intensive dynamic-programming technique.
When the forbidden clique~$K_t$ has size two, then we obtain the \textsc{Vertex cover} problem. The family~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ of~$K_2$-free graphs is simply the class of edge-less graphs, and the elimination distance to an edge-less graph is not a smaller parameter than treedepth or treewidth. But for \textsc{Vertex cover} we can work with even more relaxed parameterizations. For~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ defined by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs such that \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial-time solvable on graphs from~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ (for example, claw-free graphs), or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{chordal}, \mathsf{bipartite}\}$ (for which \textsc{Vertex cover} is also polynomial-time {solvable}), we can find a minimum vertex cover in FPT time parameterized by~$\hhdepth$ (Corollary~\ref{thm:vcelimcombine}) and~$\hhtw$ (Corollary~\ref{thm:vcdpcombine}). In the former case, the algorithm even works in polynomial space. More generally, \textsc{Vertex cover} is FPT parameterized by~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$ for any hereditary class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ on which the problem is polynomial, when a decomposition is given in the input.
\paragraph{Odd cycle transversal}
\bmp{While this problem can be shown to fit into the framework of Theorem~\ref{thm:metathm:informal}, we provide specialized algorithms with improved \mic{guarantees}. Given a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition of width~$k$, we can solve the problem in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:oct-dp}) by utilizing a subroutine developed for iterative compression~\cite{ReedSV04}.
\mic{What is more,
we obtain the same time bound within polynomial space when given a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth~$k$.}
Below, we describe how the iterative-compression subroutine is used in the latter algorithm.}
Suppose we are given a vertex set $S \subseteq V(G)$ that separates $G$ into connected components $C_1, \dots, C_p$.
The optimal solution may remove some subset $S_X \subseteq S$ and the vertices in $S \setminus S_X$ can {then be} divided into 2 groups $S_1, S_2$ reflecting the 2-coloring of the resulting bipartite graph.
If $|S| \le d$, then there {are} $3^d$ choices to split $S$ into $(S_1, S_2, S_X)$.
We can consider all of them and solve the problem recursively on $C_1 \cup S, \dots, C_p \cup S$, restricting to the solutions coherent with the partition of $(S_1, S_2, S_X)$.
We call such a subproblem with restrictions an~\emph{annotated problem}.
A \bmp{standard} elimination forest provides us with a~convenient mechanism of separators, given by the node-to-root paths, \bmp{to be used in the scheme above}.
The length of each such path is bounded by the depth $d$ of the elimination forest, so we can solve the problem recursively, starting from the separation given by the root node, in time $\mathcal{O}(3^d \cdot d^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n)$ \bmp{when given a depth-$d$ elimination forest}.
Moreover, such a computation needs only to keep track of the annotated vertices in each recursive call, so it can be implemented to run in polynomial space.
If we replace the standard elimination forest with a
$\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest, the idea is analogous but we need to additionally take care of the base components.
In each such subproblem we are given a bipartite component $C$, a partition $(S_1, S_2, S_X)$ of $N(C)$, and want to find a minimal set $C_X \subseteq C$
so that $C - C_X$ is coherent with $(S_1, S_2, S_X)$:
that is, there is no even path from $u \in S_1$ to $v \in S_2$ and no odd path between vertices from each $S_i$.
It turns out that the same subproblem occurs in the algorithm for \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} parameterized by the solution size in a single step in {iterative compression}.
\bmp{This} problem, called
\textsc{Annotated bipartite coloring}, can be reduced to finding {a} minimum cut and is solvable in polynomial-time.
Furthermore, we can assume that $C_X$ is at most as large as the depth of the given $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest, because otherwise we could remove the set $N(C)$ instead of $C_X$ and obtain a smaller solution.
This observation allows us to improve the running time
to be linear in $n+m$ (Corollary~\ref{thm:octelimcombine}), so that given a graph~$G$ of $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination distance~$k$ we can compute a minimum odd cycle transversal in~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3}\log k)} \cdot (n+m)$ time and polynomial space \bmp{by using a polynomial-space algorithm to \mic{construct} a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest}.
\bmp{
\begin{table}[bt]
\centering
\caption{\small Running times for solving \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-Deletion} parameterized by~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$. The algorithms only need the graph~$G$ as input and construct a decomposition within the same time bounds.} \label{table:algorithms}
\[\begin{array}{|c|r|r|}\hline
\text{class } \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} & k = \hhtw & k =\hhdepth \\ \hline
\mathsf{bipartite} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^3)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3}\log k)} \cdot (n+m) \\
\mathsf{chordal} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{10})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\mic{\mathsf{interval}} & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\mic{\mathsf{planar}} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{5}\log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3} \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\mic{ \text{forbidden connected minors}} & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\text{forbidden connected induced subgraphs } & & \\
\text{on~$\leq c$ vertices} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{4c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\text{forbidden clique $K_t$ } & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6t})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3}\log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \\
\hline
\end{array}\]
\end{table}
}
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
The set $\{1,\ldots,p\}$ is denoted by $[p]$. For a finite set~$S$, we denote by~$2^S$ the powerset of~\jjh{$S$} consisting of all its subsets. For~$n \in \mathbb{N}$ we use~$S^n$ to denote the set of $n$-tuples over~$S$.
We consider simple undirected graphs without self-loops. A graph $G$ has vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$. We use shorthand $n = |V(G)|$ and $m = |E(G)|$. For disjoint $A,B \subseteq V(G)$, we define $E_G(A,B) = \{uv \mid u \in A, v \in B, uv \in E(G)\}${, where we omit subscript $G$ if it is clear from context}.
For $A \subseteq V(G)$, the graph induced by $A$ is denoted by $G[A]$ and {we say that the vertex set $A$ is connected if the graph $G[A]$ is connected.}
We use shorthand $G-A$ for the graph $G[V(G) \setminus A]$. For $v \in V(G)$, we write $G-v$ instead of $G-\{v\}$. The {open} neighborhood of $v \in V(G)$ is $N_G(v) := \{u \mid uv \in E(G)\}$, where we omit the subscript $G$ if it is clear from context. {For a vertex set~$S \subseteq V(G)$ the open neighborhood of~$S$, denoted~$N_G(S)$, is defined as~$\bigcup _{v \in S} N_G(v) \setminus S$. The closed neighborhood of a single vertex~$v$ is~$N_G[v] := N_G(v) \cup \{v\}$, and the closed neighborhood of a vertex set~$S$ is~$N_G[S] := N_G(S) \cup S$.}
For two disjoint sets $X,Y \subseteq V(G)$, we say that $S \subseteq V(G) \setminus (X \cup Y)$ is an $(X,Y)$-separator if the graph $G-S$ does not contain any~path from any $u\in X$ to any $v\in Y$.
{For graphs~$G$ and~$H$, we write~$G \subseteq H$ to denote that~$G$ is a subgraph of~$H$.}
{A tree is a connected graph that is acyclic. A~forest is a disjoint union of trees. In tree $T$ with root $r$, we say that $t \in V(T)$ is an ancestor of $t' \in V(T)$ (equivalently $t'$ is a descendant of $t$)} {if $t$ lies on the (unique) path from $r$ to $t'$. } A graph $G$ admits a proper $q$-coloring, if there exists a function $c \colon V(G) \to [q]$ such that $c(u) \neq c(v)$ for all $uv \in E(G)$. A graph is {bipartite} if and only if it admits a proper 2-coloring. {A graph is {chordal} if it does not contain any induced cycle of length at least four. A graph is an {interval} graph if it is the intersection graph of a set of intervals on the real line. It is well-known that all interval graphs are chordal (cf.~\cite{BrandstadtLS99}).}
\mic{Let $R_S^G(X)$ be the set of vertices reachable from $X \setminus S$ in $G - S$, where superscript $G$ is omitted if it is clear from context.}
\begin{definition}[{\cite{CyganFKLMPPS15}}] \label{def:imp:sep}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $X,Y \subseteq V(G)$ be two {disjoint} sets of vertices. Let $S \subseteq V(G) \setminus (X \cup Y)$ be an $(X,Y)$-separator.
\mic{We say that $S$ is an \emph{important $(X,Y)$-separator} if it is inclusion-wise minimal and there is no $(X,Y)$-separator $S' \subseteq V(G) \setminus (X \cup Y)$ such that $|S'| \leq |S|$ and $R^G_S(X) \subsetneq R^G_{S'}(X)$.}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Proposition 8.50]{CyganFKLMPPS15}}] \label{lem:sep-to-importantsep}
Let $G$ be a graph and $X,Y \subseteq V(G)$ \mic{be} two disjoint sets of vertices. Let $S \subseteq V(G) \setminus (X \cup Y)$ be an $(X,Y)$-separator.
\mic{Then there is an important $(X,Y)$-separator $S' = N_G(R^G_{S'}(X))$ such that $|S'| \leq |S|$ and $R^G_S(X) \subseteq R^G_{S'}(X)$.}
\end{lemma}
\paragraph{Contractions and minors}
A contraction of $uv \in E(G)$ introduces a new vertex adjacent to all of {$N(\{u,v\})$}, after which $u$ and $v$ are deleted. The result of contracting $uv \in E(G)$ is denoted $G / uv$. For $A \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G[A]$ is connected, we say we contract $A$ if we simultaneously contract all edges in $G[A]$ and introduce a single new vertex.
We say that $H$ is a \emph{contraction} of $G$, if we can turn $G$ into $H$ by a series of edge contractions.
Furthermore, $H$ is a \emph{minor} of $G$, if we can turn $G$ into $H$ by a series of edge contractions, edge deletions, and vertex deletions.
We can represent the result of such \jjh{a} process with a mapping $\phi \colon V(H) \to 2^{V(G)}$, such that subgraphs $(G[\phi(h)])_{h\in V(H)}$ are connected and vertex-disjoint{, with an edge of~$G$ between a vertex in~$\phi(u)$ and a vertex in~$\phi(v)$ for all~$uv \in E(H)$.}
The sets $\phi(h)$ are called branch sets and the family $(\phi(h))_{h\in V(H)}$ is called a minor-model of $H$~in~$G$. A family $(\phi(h))_{h\in V(H)}$ of branch sets is called a contraction-model of~$H$ in~$G$ if the sets~$(\phi(h))_{h\in V(H)}$ partition~$V(G)$ and for each pair of distinct vertices~$u,v \in V(H)$ we have~$uv \in E(H)$ if and only if there is an edge in~$G$ between a vertex in~$\phi(u)$ and a vertex in~$\phi(v)$.
{A subdivision of an edge $uv$ is an operation that replaces the edge $uv$ with a~vertex $w$ connected to both $u$ and $v$.
We say that graph $G$ is a~subdivision of $H$ if $H$ can be transformed into $G$ by a~series of edge subdivisions.
A graph $H$ is called a~\emph{topological minor} of $G$ if there is a~subgraph of $G$ being a~subdivision of $H$.
Note that this implies that $H$ is also a~minor of $G$, but the implication in the opposite direction does not hold.}
\paragraph{Graph classes and decompositions}
We always assume that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is a hereditary class of graphs, that is, closed under taking induced subgraphs.
A set $X \subseteq V(G)$ is called an~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set if $G - X \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
The task of finding a smallest $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set is called the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} problem (also referred to as $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{vertex deletion}, but we abbreviate it since we do not consider edge deletion problems). \jjh{When parameterized by the solution size $k$, the task for the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} problem is to either find a minimum-size $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set or report that no such set of size at most $k$ exists.}
\mic{We say that class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is union-closed if a disjoint union of two graphs from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ also belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
\iffalse
\begin{definition}
An $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of graph $G$ is a tree $\mathcal{T}$ with functions $f \colon V(\mathcal{T}) \to V(G) \cup \{\bot\}$ and $T$ mapping the nodes of $\mathcal{T}$ to subgraphs of $G$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for the root node $r$ of $\mathcal{T}$ we have $T(r) = G$,
\item if $f(t) \ne \bot$, then $f(t) \in T(t)$ and for each connected component $C$ of $T(t) \setminus f(t)$, there is a child $t'$ of $t$ such that $T(t') = C$, and $t$ has no other children,
\item if $f(t) = \bot$, then $T(t)$ belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $t$ has no children.
\end{enumerate}
The corpus of the decomposition is defined as $V(G) \cap f(\mathcal{T})$.
A subgraph $T(t)$ for $f(t) = \bot$
is called a canopy component.
The $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-depth of $G$ is the smallest depth of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$.
\end{definition}
\fi
\begin{definition}
For a graph class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of graph $G$ is pair~$(T, \chi)$ where~$T$ is a rooted forest and~$\chi \colon V(T) \to 2^{V(G)}$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each internal node~$t$ of~$T$ we have~$|\chi(t)| = 1$.
\item The sets~$(\chi(t))_{t \in V(T)}$ form a partition of~$V(G)$.
\item For each edge~$uv \in E(G)$, if~$u \in \chi(t_1)$ and~$v \in \chi(t_2)$ then~$t_1, t_2$ are in ancestor-descendant relation in~$T$.
\item For each leaf $t$ of~$T$, the graph~$G[\chi(t)]$, {called a base component}, belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{enumerate}
The \emph{depth} of~$T$ is the maximum number of edges on a root-to-leaf path.
{We refer to the union of base components as the set of base vertices.}
The $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance of~$G$, denoted $\hhdepth(G)$, is the minimum depth of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest for~$G$.
{A pair $(T, \chi)$ is a (standard) elimination forest if \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} is the class of empty graphs, i.e., the base components are empty. The treedepth of~$G$, denoted $\mathbf{td}(G)$, is the minimum depth of a standard elimination forest.}
\end{definition}
{It is straight-forward to verify that for any~$G$ and~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, the minimum depth of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of~$G$ is equal to the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance as defined recursively in the introduction. (This is the reason we have defined the depth of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest in terms of the number of edges, while the traditional definition of treedepth counts vertices on root-to-leaf paths.)}
{The following definition captures our relaxed notion of tree decomposition.}
\begin{definition} \label{def:tree:h:decomp}
For a graph class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of graph $G$ is a triple $(T, \chi, L)$ where~$L \subseteq V(G)$,~$T$ is a rooted tree, and~$\chi \colon V(T) \to 2^{V(G)}$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each~$v \in V(G)$ the nodes~$\{t \mid v \in \chi(t)\}$ form a {non-empty} connected subtree of~$T$. \label{item:tree:h:decomp:connected}
\item For each edge~$uv \in E(G)$ there is a node~$t \in V(G)$ with~$\{u,v\} \subseteq \chi(t)$.
\item For each vertex~$v \in L$, there is a unique~$t \in V(T)$ for which~$v \in \chi(t)$, with~$t$ being a leaf of~$T$. \label{item:tree:h:decomp:unique}
\item For each node~$t \in V(T)$, the graph~$G[\chi(t) \cap L]$ belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. \label{item:tree:h:decomp:base}
\end{enumerate}
{The \emph{width} of a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition is defined as~$\max(0, \max_{t \in V(T)} |\chi(t) \setminus L| - 1)$.} The $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth of a graph~$G$, denoted~$\hhtw(G)$, is the minimum width of a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of~$G$.
The connected components of $G[L]$ are called base components
{and the vertices in $L$ are called base vertices.}
{A pair~$(T, \chi)$ is a (standard) \emph{tree decomposition} if~$(T, \chi, \emptyset)$ satisfies all conditions of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition; the choice of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is irrelevant.}
\end{definition}
{In the definition of width, we subtract one from the size of a largest bag to mimic treewidth. The maximum with zero is taken to prevent graphs~$G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ from having ~$\hhtw(G) = -1$.}
{The following lemma shows that the relation between the standard notions of treewidth and treedepth translates into a relation between~$\hhtw$ and~$\hhdepth$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:treedepth-treewidth}
For any class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and graph $G$, we have $\hhtw(G) \le \hhdepth(G)$. {Furthermore, given an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of depth $d$ we can construct a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width} {$d$ in polynomial time.}
\begin{proof}
The argument is analogous as in the relation between treedepth and treewidth.
{If $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then $\hhtw(G) = \hhdepth(G) = 0$.}
Otherwise, consider an \hhdepthdecomp{} $(T, \chi)$ of depth $d>0$ with the set of base vertices $L$ and a sequence of leaves $t_1, \dots, t_m$ of $T$ given by in-order traversal.
For each $t_i$ let $S_i$ denote the set of vertices in the nodes on the path from $t_i$ to the root of its tree, with $t_i$ excluded.
By definition, $|S_i| \le d$.
Consider a new tree $T_1$, where $t_1, \dots, t_m$ are connected as a path, rooted at $t_1$.
For each $i$ we create a new node $t'_i$ connected only to $t_i$.
We set $\chi_1(t_i) = S_i$ and $\chi_1(t'_i) = S_i \cup \chi(t_i)$.
Then $(T_1, \chi_1, L)$ forms a \hhtwdecomp{} of width $d-1$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:treewidth-of-hh}
Suppose $(T, \chi, L)$ is a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$ of width $k$ and the maximal treewidth in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is $d$. Then the treewidth of $G$ is at most $d+k+1$.
Moreover, if the corresponding decompositions are given, then the requested tree decomposition of $G$ can be constructed in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a node~$t \in V(T)$, the graph~$G[\chi(t) \cap L]$ belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, so it admits a tree decomposition $(T_t, \chi_t)$ of width $d$.
Consider a tree $T_1$ given as a disjoint union of $T$ and $\bigcup_{t \in V(T)} T_t$ with additional edges between each $t$ and any node from $V(T_t)$.
We define $\chi_1(t) = \chi(t) \setminus L$ for $t \in V(T)$ and $\chi_1(x) = \chi_t(x) \cup (\chi(t) \setminus L)$ for $x \in V(T_t)$. The maximum size of a bag in $T_1$ is at most $\max_{t \in V(T)} |\chi(t) \setminus L| + \max_{t \in V(T),\, x \in V(T_t)} |\chi_t(x)| \le d + k + 2$.
Let us check that $(T_1, \chi_1)$ is a tree decomposition of $G$,
starting from condition (1).
If $v \in L$ then it belongs to exactly one set $\chi(t) \cap L$ and $\chi_1^{-1}(v) = \chi_t^{-1}(v)$.
If $v \not\in L$, then $\chi_1^{-1}(v) = \chi^{-1}(v) \cup \bigcup_{t \in \chi{-1}(v)} V(T_t)$.
In both cases these are connected subtrees of $T_1$.
Now we check condition (2) for $uv \in E(G)$.
If $u,v \in L$, then both $u,v$ belong to a single set $\chi(t) \cap L$ and there is a bag $\chi_t(x)$ containing $u,v$.
If $u,v \not\in L$, then both $u,v$ appear in some bag of $T$ and also in its counterpart in $T_1$.
If $u \in L,\, v\not\in L$, then for some $t \in V(T)$ we have $u \in \chi(t) \cap L$, $v \in \chi(t) \setminus L$ and $u \in \chi_t(x)$ for some $x \in V(T_t)$.
Hence, $u,v \in \chi_1(x)$.
The conditions (3,4) are not applicable to a~standard tree decomposition.
\end{proof}
{When working with tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions, we will often exploit the following structure of base components that follows straight-forwardly from the definition.}
\begin{observation} \label{obs:basecomponent:neighborhoods}
Let~$(T,\chi,L)$ be a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of a graph~$G$, for an arbitrary class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each set~$L^* \subseteq L$ for which~$G[L^*]$ is connected there is a unique node~$t \in V(T)$ such that~$L^*\subseteq \chi(t)$ while no vertex of~$L^*$ occurs in~$\chi(t')$ for~$t' \neq t$, and such that~$N_G(L^*) \setminus L \subseteq \chi(t) \setminus L$.
\item For each node~$t \in V(T)$ we have~$N_G(\chi(t) \cap L) \subseteq \chi(t) \setminus L$.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}
\section{Constructing decompositions} \label{sec:decomposition}
\subsection{From separation to decomposition} \label{sec:decomp-abstract}
We begin with a basic notion of separation which describes a single step of cutting off a piece of the graph that belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$; \bmp{recall that~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is assumed throughout to be hereditary.}
Any base component together with its neighborhood forms a~separation.
\begin{definition}
For disjoint $C, S \subseteq V(G)$, the pair $(C,S)$ is called an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-\textbf{separation} in~$G$~if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G[C] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$,
\item $|S| \le k$,
\mic{ \item $N_G(C) \subseteq S$. }
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C, S)$ and set $Z \subseteq V(G)$,
we say that $(C,S)$ \textbf{covers} $Z$ if $Z \subseteq C$, or \textbf{weakly covers} $Z$ if $Z \subseteq C \cup S$.
Set $Z \subseteq V(G)$ is called $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-\textbf{separable} if
there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace that covers $Z$.
Otherwise $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-\textbf{inseparable}.
\end{definition}
We would like to decompose a graph into a~family of well-separated subgraphs from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, that could later be transformed into base components.
Imagine we are able to find an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace covering $Z$ algorithmically, or conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-inseparable.
We can start a~process at an arbitrary vertex $z$, set $Z = \{z\}$, and find a separation $(C,S)$ (weakly) covering $z$.
However, the entire set $C \cup S$ might be still a part of a larger base component.
To check that, we can now ask whether $Z = C \cup S$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-{separable} or not, and iterate this process until we reach a maximal separation, that is, one that cannot be further extended.
After this step is terminated, we consider the connected components of $G - S$.
The ones that are contained in $C$ are guaranteed to belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, so we do not care about them anymore.
In the remaining components, we try to repeat this process recursively, however some care is need to specify the invariants.
Let us formalize what kind of structure we expect at the end of this process.
\iffalse
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:inseparable}
Suppose $C$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k)$-inseparable.
Then for any $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of depth at most $k$ with corpus $Q$, it holds that $Q \cap C \ne \emptyset$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there is such a decomposition with corpus $Q$, so that the claim does not hold.
Then in particular $G[C] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Since $C$ is connected, it must be contained within a single {canopy component}.
Then the corpus vertices adjacent to this component form an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-crown of width $k$ covering $C$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:crown-pruning}
Let $(C_1, S_1)$ be an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-crown covering connected $C$ and let $H$ be a connected subgraph containing $C$.
There exists an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-crown $(C_2, S_2)$ within $H$, such that $C \subseteq C_2 \subseteq C_1 \cap H$ and $S_2 \subseteq S_1 \cap H$.
It can be found in polynomial time, given $(C_1, S_1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $C_2$ be connected component of $H \setminus S_1$ containing $C$ and $S_2$ be the neighborhood of $C_2$ in $H$.
\end{proof}
\fi
\begin{definition}\label{def:separation-decomposition}
An $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-\textbf{separation decomposition} of \bmp{a connected graph} $G$ is a rooted tree ${T}$, where each node $t \in V({T})$ is associated with a triple $(V_t, C_t, S_t)$ of subsets of $V(G)$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the subsets $V_t$ are vertex disjoint, induce non-empty connected subgraphs, and sum up to $V(G)$,
\item for each $t \in V({T})$ the pair $(C_t, S_t)$ is an \hsep{k_2} {in~$G$} and $V_t \subseteq C_t \cup S_t$,
\label{item:separation:k2}
\item each edge $e \in E(G)$ is either contained inside some $G[V_t]$ or there exists $t_1, t_2 \in V({T})$, such that $t_1$ is an ancestor of $t_2$ and $e \in E(V_{t_1} \cap S_{t_1}, V_{t_2})$, \label{item:separation:ancestor}
\item if $t$ is not a leaf in $T$, then $V_t$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1)$-inseparable. \label{item:separation:inseparable}
\end{enumerate}
We obtain an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-\textbf{separation quotient graph} $G\, /\, T$ by contracting each subgraph $(V_t)_{t \in {V(T)}}$ into {a corresponding} vertex $t$.
\end{definition}
The idea behind this definition is to enforce that, when working with a graph with an (unknown) $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$\footnote{{We use the notation $\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ to distinguish it from the separation decomposition tree $T$.}} of depth $k_1$, each non-leaf node $t \in V(T)$ of an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-{separation decomposition}~$T$ has some non-base vertex of $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ in the set $V_t$.
This will allow us to make a connection between the parameters $(k_1, k_2)$ of the separation decomposition $T$ with the treedepth of the quotient graph \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace.
The separations $(C_t, S_t)$ will {be} useful for going in the opposite direction, i.e., turning a standard elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace into an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of~$G$.
\bmp{We remark that \emph{any} \mic{connected} graph~$G$ admits a $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition, for \mic{any parameters $k_1 < k_2$}; hence one cannot deduce properties of~$G$ from the existence of a separation decomposition. If a graph~$G$ has bounded $\hhtw$ or $\hhdepth$, this will be reflected by the separation decomposition due to the quotient graph~$G\, /\, T$ having bounded treewidth or treedepth.}
{
We record the following observation for later use, which is implied by the fact that~$N_G(C_t) \subseteq S_t$ whenever~$(C_t, S_t)$ is an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k_1)$-separation.
\begin{observation} \label{obs:sepdec:connected:meets:s}
Let ${T}$ be an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition of a \mic{connected} graph $G$ and let~$t \in V(T)$. If~$Z \subseteq V(G)$ is a connected vertex set such that~$C_t \cap Z \neq \emptyset$ and~\jjh{$Z \not \subseteq C_t$}, then~$S_t \cap Z \neq \emptyset$.
\end{observation}
}
In order to construct a separation decomposition we need an algorithm for finding {an} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-separation with a moderate separator size.
In a typical case, we do not know how to find an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace efficiently, but we will provide fast algorithms with approximate guarantees.
In the definition below, we relax not only the separator size but we also allow the algorithm to return a weak coverage.
\defparproblem{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding}{Integers $k \le t$, a graph $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth bounded by $t$, and a connected {non-empty} subset $Z \subseteq V(G)$.}{$t$}
{Either return an \hsep{h(t)} $(C,S)$ that {weakly covers} $Z$ or conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.}
\mic{In the application within this section the input integers $k$ and $t$ coincide, but we distinguish them in the problem definition \bmp{to facilitate a recursive approach to solve the problem} in later sections.}
We formulate an algorithmic connection between this problem and the task of constructing {a}~separation decomposition.
The proof is postponed to Lemma~\ref{lem:restricted-decomposition}, which is a slight generalization of the claim below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:crown-decomposition}
Suppose there exists an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} running in time $f(n,t)$.
Then there is an algorithm that, given {an} integer $k$ and \mic{connected} graph $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth at most $k$,
runs in time $f(n,k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns an {$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k, h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition} of $G$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\mic{The connections between separation finding, separation decompositions, and constructing the final decompositions are sketched on \cref{fig:roadmap}.} \bmp{We remark that the problem of \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} is related to the problem of finding a large \emph{$k$-secluded} connected induced subgraph that belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., a connected induced $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-subgraph whose open neighborhood has size at most~$k$. When~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs, this problem is known to be fixed-parameter tractable in~$k$~\cite{GolovachHLM20} via the technique of recursive understanding, which yields a triple-exponential parameter dependence.}
\begin{figure}
\input{roadmap}
\caption{Roadmap for obtaining various types of decompositions.
{The arrows represent conceptual steps in solving the subroutines and constructing intermediate structures.
The function $h$ captures the approximation guarantee
in the $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{separation finding} problem and governs the approximation guarantee in the process of building a~decomposition.
For classes given by forbidden (induced) subgraphs and for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{bipartite}$ we provide algorithms with $h(x) = \mathcal{O}(x)$, whereas in the general case we have $h(x) = \mathcal{O}(x^2)$.
}}
\label{fig:roadmap}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Constructing an \texorpdfstring{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}{H}-elimination forest}
Now we explain how to exploit a separation decomposition for constructing an \hhdepthdecomp{}.
The first step is to bound the treedepth of the separation quotient graph.
To do this, we observe that the vertices given by contractions of base components (or their subsets) always form an independent set.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:independent}
Consider any $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest (resp. tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition) of \mic{a connected graph} $G$ of depth $k_1$ (resp. width $k_1 - 1$) with the set of base vertices $L$ and distinct nodes $t_1, t_2$ from {an} $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition ${T}$ of $G$.
If $V_{t_1}, V_{t_2} \subseteq L$, then $t_1t_2 \not\in E(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In both types of decomposition each $V_{t_i}$ {for $i \in \{1,2\}$} must be located in {a} single base component because it is connected, by Observation~\ref{obs:basecomponent:neighborhoods}.
The neighborhood of this base component has size at most $k_1$
so $V_{t_1}, V_{t_2}$ are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1)$-separable.
By property (\ref{item:separation:inseparable}) of Definition~\ref{def:separation-decomposition}, $t_1$ and $t_2$ must be leaves in $T$ and by property (\ref{item:separation:ancestor}) we have that $E(V_{t_1}, V_{t_2}) = \emptyset$.
\end{proof}
{Since the edges in an \hhdepthdecomp{} can only connect vertices in ancestor-descendant relation, we obtain the following observation that allows us to modify the decomposition accordingly to subgraph contraction. }
\begin{observation}\label{obs:elimination-forest-connected-set}
Suppose $(\mathcal{T}, \chi)$ {is} an \hhdepthdecomp{} of \mic{a connected graph} $G$
and $A \subseteq V(G)$ induces a~connected subgraph of $G$.
Then the set $Y_A = \{x \in V(\mathcal{T}) \mid \chi(x) \cap A \ne \emptyset\}$ contains a~node being an ancestor of all the nodes in $Y_A$.
\end{observation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:quotient-depth}
Let ${T}$ be an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition of a \mic{connected} graph~$G$ with $\hhdepth(G) \le k_1$.
Then the treedepth of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace is at most $k_1+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider an {optimal} \hhdepthdecomp{} $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ of $G$.
For a node $t \in V(T)$ of the separation decomposition $T$
we define {a} set $Y_t \subseteq V(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ as $Y_t = \{x \in V(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}) \mid \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x) \cap V_t \ne \emptyset\}$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:elimination-forest-connected-set},
there must be a node $y_t \in Y_t$ being an ancestor for all the nodes in $Y_t$.
Consider a new function $\chi_1 \colon V(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}) \to 2^{V(T)}$ defined as $\chi_1(x) = \{t \in V(T) \mid y_t = x\}$, {so that the bag~$\chi_1(x)$ consists of precisely those~$t \in V(T)$ for which~$x$ is the highest node of~$\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ whose bag intersects~$V_t$}.
We want {to} use it for constructing an elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace by identifying the vertices of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace with $V(T)$.
{If $E(V_{t_1}, V_{t_2}) \ne \emptyset$, then Observation~\ref{obs:elimination-forest-connected-set} applied to $V_{t_1} \cup V_{t_2}$ implies that $y_{t_1}, y_{t_2}$ are in ancestor-descendant relation in $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$, and therefore also in $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_1)$.}
Since the sets {$(V_t)_{t \in V(T)}$} are vertex-disjoint {and~$|\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)| = 1$ for non-leaf nodes~$x$ of~$\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}, the relation $y_{t_1} = y_{t_2} = x$ is only possible if $x$ is a~leaf node in $\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
{The structure~$(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_1)$ is almost an elimination forest of~$G/T$,} except for the fact that the leaf nodes have non-singleton bags.
However, if $x=y_t$ is a leaf node, then the set $V_t$ consists of base vertices {of $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independent}, there are no edges in \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace between such vertices.
We create a~new leaf node $x_t$ for each such $t \in \chi_1(x)$, remove $x$, replace it with the singleton leaves $(x_t)$, and set $\chi_1(x_t) = t$.
If the constructed elimination forest has any node with $\chi_1(x) = \emptyset$, we can remove it and connect its children directly to its parent.
{As in a~standard elimination forest we require that the base components are empty, we just need to add auxiliary leaves with empty bags.}
Hence, we have constructed an elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of depth at most one larger than the depth of $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$.
\end{proof}
We have bounded the treedepth of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace so now we could employ known algorithms to construct an elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of moderate depth.
After that, we want to go in the opposite direction and construct an \hhdepthdecomp{} of $G$ relying on the given elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:treedepth-to-h-depth}
Suppose we are given a \mic{connected} graph $G$, an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition ${T}$ of $G$, and an~elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of depth $d$.
Then we can construct an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ of depth $d\cdot k_2$ in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}
\mic{\begin{proof}
We give a proof by induction, replacing each node in the~elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace with a corresponding separator from $T$.
However, when removing vertices from $G$ we might break some invariants of an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition.
Therefore, we formulate a weaker invariant,
which is more easily maintained.
\begin{claim}\label{lem:treedepth-to-h-depth:induction}
Suppose that a (not necessarily connected) graph $H$ satisfies the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $V(H)$ admits a partition into a family of connected non-empty sets $(V_i)_{i=1}^\ell$,
\item for each $i \in [\ell]$ there is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation $(C_i, S_i)$ weakly covering $V_i$ in $H$, and
\item the quotient graph $H'$ obtained from $H$ by contracting each set $V_i$ into a single vertex, has treedepth at most $d$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\hhdepth(H) \le d \cdot k$.
Furthermore, \bmp{an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of depth at most~$d \cdot k$} can be computed in polynomial time when given the sets $(V_i, C_i, S_i)_{i=1}^\ell$ and the elimination forest of $H'$.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
We will prove the claim by induction on $d$.
The case $d = 0$ is trivial as the graph $H$ is empty.
Suppose $d \ge 1$.
The sets $(V_i)_{i=1}^\ell$ are connected so we get a partition for each connected component of $H$.
It suffices to process each connected component of $H$, so we can assume that \bmp{$H$ is connected. Hence} the given elimination forest of $H'$ has a single root $j$. We refer to the vertices of $H'$ by the indices from $[\ell]$.
Consider the graph $H_j = H - V_j$: we are going to show that it satisfies the inductive hypothesis for $d - 1$.
Clearly, the sets $\{V_i \mid i \in [\ell],\, i \ne j\}$
form a partition of $V(H_j)$; they are connected and non-empty.
For $i \ne j$, we obtain an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C_i \setminus V_j, S_i \setminus V_j)$ weakly covering $V_i$ in $H_j$. \bmp{(Recall that~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary.)}
Finally, the quotient graph, obtained from $H_j$ by contracting the sets in the partition, is $H' - j$.
The elimination forest of $H' - j$ obtained by removing the root from the elimination forest of $H'$ has depth at most $d-1$.
By the inductive hypothesis, we obtain an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $H_j$ of depth at most $(d-1) \cdot k$.
The graph $H - (C_j \cup S_j)$ is a subgraph of $H_j$, so we can easily turn the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $H_j$ into an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest $(T_j,\chi_j)$ of $H - (C_j \cup S_j)$.
We start constructing an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $H$ with a rooted path $P_j$ consisting of vertices of $S_j$, in arbitrary order.
We make the roots of $(T_j,\chi_j)$ children to the lowest vertex on $P_j$.
It remains to handle the connected components of $H-S_j$ lying inside $C_j$.
They all belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $N_H(C_j) \subseteq S_j$ so we can turn them into leaves, also attached to the lowest vertex on $P_j$.
The depth of such a decomposition is bounded by $k-1$ (the number of edges in $P_j$) plus $1 + (d-1)\cdot k$, which gives $d \cdot k$.
\end{innerproof}
Given an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition of $G$, we can directly
apply
\cref{lem:treedepth-to-h-depth:induction} with $k = k_2$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof} }
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace}
Suppose there exists an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} running in time $f(n,t)$.
Then there is an algorithm that, given graph $G$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance $k$,
runs in time $f(n,k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ of depth $\mathcal{O}(h(k)\cdot k^2\log^{3 / 2} k)$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\mic{It suffices to process each connected component of $G$ independently, so we can assume that $G$ is connected.}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-treewidth}, we know that $\hhtw(G) \le k$ so we can apply
Lemma~\ref{lem:crown-decomposition} to find an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k,h( k)+1)$-separation decomposition ${T}$ in time $f(n,k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the construction in Lemma~\ref{lem:crown-decomposition} preserves this property.
The graph \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace is guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:quotient-depth} to have treedepth bounded by $k+1$.
We run the polynomial-time approximation algorithm for treedepth, which returns an~elimination forest of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace with depth $\mathcal{O}(k^2 \log^{3 / 2} k)$~\cite{CzerwinskiNP19}.
We turn it into an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ of depth $\mathcal{O}(h(k)\cdot k^2\log^{3 / 2} k)$ in polynomial time with Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-to-h-depth}.
\end{proof}
By replacing the approximation algorithm for treedepth with an exact one, running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{ReidlRVS14}, we can improve the approximation ratio.
We lose the polynomial space guarantee, though.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:decomp-ed-exact}
Suppose there exists an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} running in time $f(n,t)$.
Then there is an algorithm that,
given graph $G$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination distance $k$,
runs in time $\br{f(n,k) + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ of depth $\mathcal{O}(h(k) \cdot k)$.
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Restricted separation}
\label{sec:decomposition-restricted-separation}
\bmp{To compute tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions, we will follow the global approach of Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace}.}
\bmp{An analog of Lemma~\ref{lem:quotient-depth} also works to bound the treewidth of a quotient graph~$G/T$ in terms of $\hhtw(G)$, as will be shown in Lemma~\ref{lem:quotient-width}.}
However, the provided structure of {a} separation decomposition turns out {to be} too weak to make a counterpart of Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-to-h-depth} work for tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions.
\bmp{This is because the separations~$(C_t, S_t)$ given by property (\ref{item:separation:ancestor}) may intersect each other, which can cause the neighborhood of a set~$V_t \setminus S_t \subseteq C_t$ to be arbitrarily large even though~$|N_G(C_t)| \leq k_2$ by property (\ref{item:separation:k2}).
We therefore need a stronger property to ensure that~$|N_G(V_t \setminus S_t)|$ does not become too large.}
\begin{definition} \label{def:restricted:separation:decomp}
We call {an} $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition \textbf{restricted} if it satisfies {the} additional property: for each $t \in V(T)$ there are at most $k_1$ ancestors $s$ of $t$ such that $V_{s} \subseteq C_t$.
\end{definition}
{When building a separation decomposition by repeatedly extracting separations, this additional property states that a vertex set that eventually becomes the separated~$C_t$-side of an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_2)$-separation cannot fully contain too many distinct sets~$V_s$ handled by earlier separations.}
{Intuitively, if we find an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_2)$-separation $(C_t,S_t)$ that covers $V_s$ for $s$ being an ancestor of $t$, then we could have used it earlier to replace $V_s$ with a~larger set.
However, we have no guarantee that an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_2)$-separation covering $V_s$ would be found when processing the node $s$, but it can be found later, when processing $t$.
\bmp{Since $V_s$ is guaranteed to be $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1)$-inseparable, this can only happen if $k_1 < k_2$}.
Unfortunately, we cannot enforce $k_1 = k_2$, mostly because our algorithms for finding separations are approximate. \bmp{However,} we are able to ensure that the number of such sets $V_s$ is small.
}
We introduce a restricted version of the \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} problem, tailored for building restricted separation decompositions.
\defparproblem{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding}{Integers $k \le t$, a graph $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth bounded by $t$, a connected {non-empty} subset $Z \subseteq V(G)$, a family $\mathcal{F}$ of connected, disjoint, $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable subsets of $ V(G)$.}{$t$}
{Either return an \hsep{h(t)} $(C,S)$ that {weakly covers} $Z$ {such that} $C$ contains \mic{at most $t$} sets from $\mathcal{F}$, or conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.}
We are ready to present a general way of constructing a separation decomposition, restricted or not, when supplied by an algorithm for the respective version of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{separation finding}.
In~particular, this generalizes {and proves} Lemma~\ref{lem:crown-decomposition}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:restricted-decomposition}
Suppose there exists an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for \textsc{(Restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} running in time $f(n,t)$.
Then there is an algorithm that, given an integer $k$ and \mic{a connected graph} $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth at most $k$,
runs in time $f(n,k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k, h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition of $G$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will construct the desired separation decomposition by a recursive process, aided by algorithm~$\mathcal{A}$. In the recursion, we have a partial decomposition covering a subset~$X$ of~$V(G)$, and indicate a connected subset~$H \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$ to be decomposed. Before describing the construction, we show how~$\mathcal{A}$ can be used to efficiently find an \emph{extremal} separation that covers a given subset~$Z$ of~$H$. The extremal property consists of the fact that the output separation weakly covers a set~$Z' \supseteq Z$ that is itself~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable, or all of~$H$.
\begin{claim}
In the time and space bounds promised by the lemma we can solve:
\defparproblem{Extremal (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(k)+1)$-separation finding}{A graph $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth bounded by $k$, an integer~$k$, a connected non-empty set~$Z \subseteq H \subseteq V(G)$, an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(k)+1)$-separation~$(C,S)$ in~$G$ weakly covering~$Z$. In the restricted case, additionally a family $\mathcal{F}$ of connected, disjoint, $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable subsets of $V(G)$ \bmp{such that~$C$ contains at most~$k$ sets from~$\mathcal{F}$}.}{$k$}
{Output a triple~$(Z',C',S')$ such that $(C', S')$ is an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(k)+1)$-separation in~$G$ that weakly covers the connected set~$Z' \supseteq Z$ which is either equal to~$H$ or is~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable and contained in~$H$. In the restricted case, ensure \bmp{that~$C'$ contains at most~$k$ sets from~$\mathcal{F}$}.}
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
Run~$\mathcal{A}$ on~$G$,~$k$, and~$Z$ (and~$\mathcal{F}$, in the restricted case), where we additionally set~$t=k$.
If~$\mathcal{A}$ reports that~$Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable: output~$(Z,C,S)$ unchanged. Otherwise, ~$\mathcal{A}$ outputs an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(k))$-separation~$(C',S')$ with~$Z \subseteq C' \cup S'$ (\bmp{with~$C'$ containing} at most~$k$ sets from~$\mathcal{F}$ in the restricted case). Note that~$|S'| \leq h(k)$ while~$|S| \leq h(k)+1$. Let~$Z'$ be the connected component of~$G[H \cap (C' \cup S')]$ that contains~$Z$.
If $Z' = H$, then we may simply output~$(Z', C', S')$. If $Z' \subsetneq H$, then choose an arbitrary vertex~$v \in N_G(Z') \cap H$, which exists since~$H$ is connected. Recursively solve the problem of covering~$Z' \cup \{v\}$ starting from the separation~$(C', S' \cup \{v\})$ {(and~$\mathcal{F}$, in the restricted case)} and output the result. Since the set~$Z$ strictly grows in each iteration, the recursion depth is at most~$n$.
\end{innerproof}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{separation4.pdf}
\caption{Illustration {of} the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:restricted-decomposition}: a
call to \textsc{Extremal (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(k)+1)$-separation finding}
with the family $\mathcal{F}_t = \{F_1, F_2, F_3\}$.
An $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(k))$-separation $(C', S')$ weakly covers $Z$.
The set $Z'$ is the entire green area (both dark and light).
We add vertex $v \in N_G(Z') \cap H$ to $Z'$ to ensure progress of the process.
The dark green area, i.e., $Z' \cap S'$ forms a separator between $Z' \setminus S'$ and $H \setminus Z'$.
The set $C'$ contains $F_2$ but in the restricted setting we require that contains at most $k$ such sets.
}
\label{fig:separation-decompostion}
\end{figure}
Using the algorithm for finding extremal separations, we construct the desired separation decomposition recursively. To formalize the subproblem solved by a recursive call, we need the notion of a \emph{partial} (restricted)~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k_1, k_2)$-separation decomposition of~$G$. This is a rooted tree~$T$ where each node~$t \in V(T)$ is associated with a triple~$(V_t, C_t, S_t)$ of subsets of~$V(G)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the subsets $V_t$ are vertex disjoint, induce non-empty connected subgraphs of~$G$, and sum up to a subset~$X \subseteq V(G)$ which are the vertices \emph{covered} by the partial separation decomposition,
\item for each $t \in V({T})$ the pair $(C_t, S_t)$ is an \hsep{k_2} {in~$G$} and $V_t \subseteq C_t \cup S_t$,
\item each edge $e \in E(G[X])$ is either contained inside some $G[V_t]$ or there exists $t_1, t_2 \in V({T})$, such that $t_1$ is an ancestor of $t_2$ and $e \in E(V_{t_1} \cap S_{t_1}, V_{t_2})$, \label{item:partial:separation:ancestor}
\item if $t$ is not a leaf in $T$, then $V_t$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1)$-inseparable,
\item if~$X \neq \emptyset$, then {for each connected component~$H$ of~$G - X$}, there is a node~$t^* \in V(T)$ such that~$N_G(H) \subseteq \bigcup _{t \in A_{t^*}} (V_t \cap S_t)$, where~$A_{t^*}$ are the ancestors of~$t^*$ in~$T$,
\label{item:partial:separation:inseparable}
\item additionally, in the case of a restricted partial separation decomposition: for each $t \in V(T)$ there are at most $k_1$ ancestors $s$ of $t$ such that $V_{s} \subseteq C_t$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that if the set~$X$ of vertices covered by a partial (restricted)~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k_1, k_2)$-separation decomposition is equal to~$V(G)$, then it is a standard (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k_1, k_2)$-separation decomposition following Definitions~\ref{def:separation-decomposition} and~\ref{def:restricted:separation:decomp}.
Using this notion we can now state the subproblem that we solve recursively to build a (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k, h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition of~$G$. The input is a partial (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k, h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition covering some set~$X \subseteq V(G)$ and a connected vertex set~$H \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$. The output is a partial (restricted) separation decomposition covering~$X \cup H$.
The algorithm solving this subproblem is as follows. Create a new node~$t$ in the decomposition tree. If~$X \neq \emptyset$, then \mic{choose}~$t^* \in V(T)$ such that~$N_G(H) \subseteq \bigcup _{t \in A_{t^*}} (V_t \cap S_t)$ and make~$t$ a child of~$t^*$; if~$X = \emptyset$ then~$t$ becomes the root of the tree. Let $\mathcal{F}_t$ denote the family of sets $V_{t_i}$ for the ancestors $(t_i)$ of node $t$. Let~$v$ be an arbitrary vertex from~$H$. Note that~$(C = \emptyset, S = \{v\})$ is an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(k)+1)$-separation in~$G$ weakly covering~$Z := \{v\} \subseteq H$, so that we can use~$(C,S)$ as input to \textsc{Extremal (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h)$-separation finding}. In the restricted case, we also give the family~$\mathcal{F}_t$ as input \mic{(note that setting $C = \emptyset$ meets the precondition for the restricted case)}. Let~$(C',S')$ be the resulting~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(k)+1)$-separation, weakly covering a connected set~$Z' \subseteq H$ which is equal to~$H$ or~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable. We set~$(V_t, C_t, S_t) := (Z', C', S')$, thereby adding~$Z'$ to the set of vertices covered by the partial decomposition. If~$Z' = H$ then the node~$t$ becomes a leaf of the decomposition and we are done. If~$Z' \subsetneq H$, then let~$H'_1, \ldots, H'_m$ be the connected components of~$G[H \setminus Z']$. One by one we recurse on~$H'_i$ to augment the decomposition tree into one that additionally covers~$H'_i$. Based on the guarantees of the subroutine to find extremal separations and the properties of partial separation decompositions, it is straight-forward to verify correctness of the algorithm.
\mic{To obtain the desired (restricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k, h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition of~$G$,
it suffices to solve the subproblem starting from an empty decomposition tree covering the empty set~$X$, for~$H = V(G)$.}
As the overall algorithm performs~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ calls to~$\mathcal{A}$ and otherwise consists of operations that run in polynomial time and space, the claimed time and space bounds follow.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Constructing a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition}
We proceed analogously as for constructing an \hhdepthdecomp{}.
We begin with bounding the treewidth of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace, so we could employ existing algorithms to find a tree decomposition {for it}.
Then we take advantage of restricted separations to build a \hhtwdecomp{} of $G$ by modifying the tree decomposition of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:quotient-width}
Let ${T}$ be an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition of \mic{a connected graph} $G$ with $\hhtw(G) \leq k_1-1$.
Then the treewidth of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace is at most $k_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{E}$ denote the class of edge-less graphs.
We use notation $\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ to refer to the tree in a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition, in order to distinguish it from the separation decomposition tree $T$.
We are going to transform a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition $(\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ of $G$ of width $k_1$ into
a tree $\mathcal{E}$-decomposition $(\mathcal{T_E}, \chi_\mathcal{E}, L_\mathcal{E})$ of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace, with $\mathcal{T_E} = \mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
{Recall that~$V(G / T) = V(T)$.}
For a vertex $v \in V(G)$ let $t_v \in V(T)$ denote the node for which $v \in V_{t_v}$.
For $x \in V(\mathcal{T}_\mathcal{E})$, we define $\chi_\mathcal{E}(x) = \{t_v \mid v \in \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)\}$.
Let $L_\mathcal{E}$ be the set of these nodes $t \in V(T)$ for which $V_t \subseteq L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We need to check that this construction satisfies the properties (\ref{item:tree:h:decomp:connected}){--}(\ref{item:tree:h:decomp:base}) of a tree $\mathcal{E}$-decomposition.
If $t_1t_2 \in E(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$, then there are $v_1, v_2 \in V(G)$ such that $v_1v_2 \in E(G),\, v_1 \in V_{t_1},\, v_2 \in V_{t_2}$.
Hence, there must be a bag $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)$ containing both $v_1, v_2$, so the bag $\chi_\mathcal{E}(x)$ contains both $t_1,t_2$.
The bags containing {an arbitrary} $t \in V(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$ {consist of the union} of connected subtrees, {that is,} $\chi_\mathcal{E}^{-1}(t) = \{\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-1}(v) \mid v \in V_t\}$.
Since $V_t$ is connected, this union is also a connected subtree.
To see property (\ref{item:tree:h:decomp:unique}), consider $t \in V(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$ with $V_t \subseteq L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:basecomponent:neighborhoods}, a~connected subset included in $L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ must reside in a single bag $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)$.
Therefore $t$ belongs only to its counterpart: $\chi_\mathcal{E}(x)$.
Finally, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independent}, $L_\mathcal{E}$ is an independent set in \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace, so $(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)[\chi_\mathcal{E}(x) \cap L_\mathcal{E}] \in \mathcal{E}$ for any $x \in \mathcal{T_E}$.
Hence, we have obtained a tree $\mathcal{E}$-decomposition.
For a node $x \in V(\mathcal{T_E})$ and $t \in \chi_\mathcal{E}(x) \setminus L_\mathcal{E}$, the set $V_t$ must include a vertex from $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x) \setminus L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Therefore $|\chi_\mathcal{E}(x) \setminus L_\mathcal{E}| \le |\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x) \setminus L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}| \le k_1$.
This means that the width of $(\mathcal{T_E}, \chi_\mathcal{E}, L_\mathcal{E})$ is at most $k_1 - 1$.
Since the edge-less graphs have treewidth 0, the claim follows from Lemma \ref{lem:treewidth-of-hh}.
\end{proof}
The following {lemma} explains the role of the restricted separation decompositions. \bmp{Effectively, the additional property of being restricted implies that for each node~$t \in V(T)$ of an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition~$T$, we not only know that~$C_t$ induces an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-subgraph with a neighborhood of small size ($k_2$), we can also infer that the set~$V_t \setminus S_t = V_t \cap C_t$ induces an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-subgraph with a neighborhood whose size is bounded in terms of~$k_1$ and~$k_2$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ancestors}
Let~$t$ be a node in a restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition~$T$ of a \mic{connected} graph~$G$ and let $A_t \subseteq V(T)$ be the set of nodes $t_i \ne t$ such that $E_G(V_{t_i}, V_t \setminus S_t)$ is non-empty. The following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item {$|A_t| \leq k_1 + k_2$.} \label{ancestors:count}
\item {$N_G(V_t \setminus S_t) \subseteq (V_t \cap S_t) \cup \bigcup_{s \in A_t} (V_s \cap S_s)$.} \label{ancestors:at}
\item {The pair~$(V_t \setminus S_t, N_G(V_t \setminus S_t))$ is an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k_2(k_1 + k_2 + 1)$-separation in~$G$.}\label{ancestors:separation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{\eqref{ancestors:count}} By property (\ref{item:separation:ancestor}) all nodes {$t_i \in A_t$} must be ancestors of $t$. {Note that~$V_t \setminus S_t \subseteq C_t$, so that~$N_G(V_t \setminus S_t) \subseteq C_t \cup S_t$ since~$(C_t, S_t)$ is an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_2)$-separation.}
As the decomposition is restricted, there can be at most $k_1$ many $t_i$ for which $V_{t_i} \subseteq C_t$.
{Since each set~$V_{t_i}$ induces a connected subgraph of~$G$, Observation~\ref{obs:sepdec:connected:meets:s} implies that} any other $t_i$ for which $E(V_{t_i}, V_t \setminus S_t) \ne \emptyset$
must satisfy $V_{t_i} \cap S_t \ne \emptyset$. Since $|S_t| \le k_2$ and the sets $V_{t_i}$ are vertex-disjoint,
the claim follows.
\textbf{\eqref{ancestors:at}}
As the sets~$V_s$ in a separation decomposition sum to~$V(G)$, each neighbor of~$V_t \setminus S_t$ either belongs to~$V_t \cap S_t$ or belongs to a set~$V_s$ for~$s \neq t$, implying~$s \in A_t$.
}
\textbf{\eqref{ancestors:separation}} {As~$V_t \setminus S_t \subseteq C_t$, we have~$G[V_t \setminus S_t] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ since~$G[C_t] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary. Since~\eqref{ancestors:at} shows that~$N_G(V_t \setminus S_t)$ is contained in the union of~$1 + |A_t| \leq 1 + k_1 + k_2$ sets~$S_s$, each of which has size at most~$k_2$, this proves the claim.}
\end{proof}
{The separation guarantee of the preceding lemma allows us to transform tree decompositions of~$G/T$ for restricted separation decompositions~$T$, into tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions of~$G$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:treewidth-to-h-width}
Let ${T}$ be a restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k_1,k_2)$-separation decomposition of
\mic{a connected graph} $G$.
Suppose we are given a tree decomposition of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of width $d-1$.
Then we can construct a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$ of width $d\cdot k_2 \cdot (k_1+k_2+1)$ in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a node $t \in V(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$, let $A_t$ be the set of nodes $t_i \ne t$ such that $E(V_{t_i}, V_t \setminus S_t)$ is non-empty.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:ancestors} we have $|A_t| \le k_1 + k_2$.
Given a tree decomposition $(\mathcal{T}_\mathbf{tw}, \chi_\mathbf{tw})$ of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of width $d-1$,
we define $Q = \bigcup_{t \in {V(T)}} (V_t \cap S_t)$.
We reuse the same tree $\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{T}_\mathbf{tw}$, define $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x) = \bigcup_{t \in \chi_\mathbf{tw}(x)} \left((V_t \cap S_t) \cup \bigcup_{s \in A_t} (V_s \cap S_s)\right)$,
and $L = V(G) \setminus Q$.
In other words, we replace $t$ with the ``downstairs'' separator $V_t \cap S_t$ and ``upstairs'' separator $\bigcup_{s \in A_t} (V_s \cap S_s)$.
\bmp{Lemma~\ref{lem:ancestors} ensures that} each constructed bag has size at most $\max_{x \in V(\mathcal{T}_\mathbf{tw})} |\chi_\mathbf{tw}(x)|\cdot \max_{t \in V(T)} |S_t| \cdot (\max_{t \in V(T)} |A_t| + 1) \le d\cdot k_2\cdot (k_1 +k_2+1)$.
First, we argue that for any $v \in Q$ the set of bags containing $v$ forms a connected subtree of $\mathcal{T}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\bmp{For~$v \in Q$, let $t_v$ be the node of~$T$} with $v \in V_t \cap S_t$ containing $v$.
The vertex $v$ appears in the bags which contained $t_v$ (then $v$ is a part of the ``downstairs'' separator) or some $t$ with $t_v \in A_t$ (then $v$ is a part of the ``upstairs'' separator).
Formally, we define $B_v = \{t \in V(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace) \mid t_v \in A_{t} \}$.
Note that $B_v \subseteq N_{\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace}(t_v)$.
We have $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-1}(v) = \chi_\mathbf{tw}^{-1}(t_v) \cup \bigcup_{t \in B_v}\chi_\mathbf{tw}^{-1}(t)$.
Hence, $v$ \mic{appears} in bags where either $t_v$ was located or some of its neighbors from $B_v$.
This gives a sum of connected subtrees that have non-empty intersections with $\chi_\mathbf{tw}^{-1}(t_v)$.
To finish the construction, we append the connected components of $G[L] = G - Q$, that is, the subgraphs $V_t \setminus S_t$.
Since $V_t \subseteq C_t \cup S_t$ and $C_t \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then also $V_t \setminus S_t \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
{By Lemma~\ref{lem:ancestors}, each set $N_G(V_t \setminus S_t)$ is contained in~$(V_t \cap S_t) \cup \bigcup_{s \in A_t} (V_s \cap S_s)$, i.e., in the set of vertices that was put in place of $t$.}
We can thus choose any node $x \in \chi_\mathbf{tw}^{-1}(t)$, make a new node $x_t$, connect $x_t$ to $x$, and set $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x_t) = \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x) \cup (V_t \setminus S_t)$.
This preserves the property that sets $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-1}(v)$ are connected.
Finally, we argue that for any edge $uv \in E(G)$, there is a node $x$ such that $\{u,v\} \subseteq \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)$.
If $u \in V_t \setminus S_t$ for some $t$, then
either $uv \in E(G[V_t])$ or $uv \in E(V_{s} \cap S_{s}, V_{t} \setminus S_t)$ for some $s \in A_t$
(we cannot have any edges in $E(V_{s} \setminus S_{s}, V_{t} \setminus S_t)$ since one of these nodes would be an~ancestor of the other one and this would contradict property (\ref{item:separation:ancestor}) of Definition~\ref{def:separation-decomposition}).
Then both $u,v$ are contained in $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x_t)$.
The case $v \in V_t \setminus S_t$ is symmetric, so the remaining case is when $u,v \in Q$.
Again, if $uv \in E(G[V_t])$ for some $t$, then $u,v$ are contained in $\chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x_t)$.
Otherwise, $uv \in E(V_{t_1} \cap S_{t_1}, V_{t_2} \cap S_{t_2})$ for $t_1t_2 \in E(\ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace)$.
Then there {exists} $x$ for which $t_1, t_2 \in \chi_\mathbf{tw}(x)$ and thus $u,v \in \chi_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(x)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:decomp-tw}
Suppose there exists an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} running in time $f(n,t)$.
Then there is an algorithm that,
given graph $G$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth $k-1$,
runs in time $\br{f(n,k) + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$ of width $\mathcal{O}((h(k))^2\cdot k)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\mic{It suffices to process each connected component of $G$ independently, so we can assume that $G$ is connected.}
We use Lemma~\ref{lem:crown-decomposition} to find a restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k,h(k)+1)$-separation decomposition ${T}$ in time $f(n,k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
The graph \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace is guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:quotient-width} to have treewidth at most $k$.
We find a tree decomposition of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace of width $\mathcal{O}(k)$ in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{BodlaenderDDFMP16, CyganFKLMPPS15}.
We turn it into a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of $G$ of width $h(k)\cdot(k+h(k)+1)\cdot \mathcal{O}(k) = \mathcal{O}((h(k))^2\cdot k)$ in polynomial time with Lemma~\ref{lem:treewidth-to-h-width}.
\end{proof}
Similarly to the construction of an \hhdepthdecomp{},
we can replace the approximation algorithm for computing the tree decomposition of \ensuremath{G\, /\, T}\xspace with one that works in polynomial space.
For this purpose, we could use the known $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\log \mathbf{tw}})$-approximation which runs in polynomial time (and space)~\cite[Thm 6.4]{FeigeHL08}.
This construction is not particularly interesting though, because all the considered algorithms exploiting \hhtwdecomp{s} require exponential space.
\iffalse
\begin{question}
Consider an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-like version of treewidth: an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth decomposition of width $k$ would be a treewidth decomposition of width $k$ with graphs from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ attached to some bags.
The optimal width is upper bounded by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-depth.
Could we adjust our arguments to also construct such decompositions?
\end{question}
\fi
\subsection{Finding separations}
\label{sec:finding-separators}
We have established a framework that allows us to {construct \hhdepthdecomp{}s and \hhtwdecomp{}s for any hereditary class \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{}, as long as we can supply an efficient parameterized algorithm for \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace.}
In this section we provide such algorithms for {various} graph classes.
Their running times and the approximation guarantee $h$ vary over different classes and they govern the efficiency of the decomposition finding procedures.
\iffalse
We refer to the case $\mathcal{F} = \emptyset$ as \textsc{Unrestricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding}.
Below we present a reduction from the restricted to the unrestricted case.
\fi
{A} crucial tool employed in several arguments is the theory of important separators (Definition~\ref{def:imp:sep}).
We begin with a few observations about them.
For two disjoint sets $X, Y \subseteq V(G)$, let $\mathcal{S}(X,Y)$ be the set of all important $(X,Y)$-separators and $\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ be the subset of $\mathcal{S}(X,Y)$ consisting of separators of size at most $k$. \bmp{We say that an algorithm \emph{enumerates the set~$\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ in polynomial space} if it runs in polynomial space and outputs a member of~$\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ at several steps during its computation, so that each member of~$\mathcal{S}_k$ is outputted exactly once.}
\begin{thm}[{\cite[{Thm.~8.51}]{CyganFKLMPPS15}}]\label{lem:important-enumerate}
For any disjoint $X, Y \subseteq V(G)$ the set
$\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ can be enumerated in time $\mathcal{O}^*(|\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)|)$ and polynomial space.
\end{thm}
\bmp
Note that a polynomial-space algorithm cannot store all relevant important separators to output the entire set~$\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ at the end, since the cardinality of~$\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)$ can be exponential in~$k$. While the original statement of \cref{lem:important-enumerate} does not mention the polynomial bound on the space usage of the algorithm, it is not difficult to see that the algorithm indeed uses polynomial space. At its core, the enumeration algorithm for important separators is a bounded-depth search tree algorithm. Each step of the algorithm uses a maximum-flow computation to find a minimum~$(X,Y)$-separator which is as far from~$X$ as possible, and then branches in two directions by selecting a suitable vertex~$v \notin X \cup Y$ and either adding~$v$ to the separator or adding it to~$X$. In the base case of the recursion, the algorithm outputs an important separator.}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 8.52]{CyganFKLMPPS15}}]\label{lem:important-sum}
For any disjoint $X, Y \subseteq V(G)$ it holds that $\sum_{S \in \mathcal{S}(X,Y)} 4^{-|S|} \le 1$.
\end{lemma}
In particular this implies that $|\mathcal{S}_k(X,Y)| \le 4^k$.
The next observation makes a connection between important separators and $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separations, which will allow us to perform branching according to the choice of an important separator.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:important-subset}
Let $Z \subseteq V(G)$ be a connected set of vertices. Suppose there is an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C,S)$ that covers $Z$ and a {vertex set $F$} such that $S$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator.
Then there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C^*,S^*)$ covering $Z$ such that $S^*$ contains an important $(F,Z)$-separator {$S'$.
Furthermore,
$(C^*,S^* \setminus S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k-|S'|)$-separation covering $Z$ in $G-S'$ and if $(\widehat{C},\widehat{S})$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k')$-separation covering $Z$ in $G - S'$,
then $(\widehat{C},\widehat{S} \cup S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k'+|S'|)$-separation covering $Z$ in $G$.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first show the existence of $(C^*,S^*)$.
Let $(C,S)$ be an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace covering $Z$ such that $S$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator. This exists by the premise of the lemma. If $S$ contains an important $(F,Z)$-separator, then with $(C^*,S^*) = (C,S)$ {the first claim holds.}
So suppose that this is not the case.
{Clearly $N_G(R_S(F)) \subseteq S$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator, so there exists an inclusion-minimal~$(F,Z)$-separator~$S_F \subseteq N_G(R_S(F))$.} As~$S_F \subseteq S$ is not important by assumption, {by Lemma~\ref{lem:sep-to-importantsep}} there exists an important $(F,Z)$-separator $S_F'$ {satisfying} $R_{S_F}(F) \subsetneq R_{S_F'}(F)$ {and $|S_F'| \le |S_F|$.}
We show that $(C^* = R_{S^*}(Z), S^* = (S \setminus S_F) \cup S_F')$ is an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace. Clearly $|S^*| \leq |S| \leq k$ and $(C^*,S^*)$ covers $Z$.
Since $C^*$ is the set of reachable vertices from $Z$ in $G - S^*$, it follows that $G[C^*]$ is a connected component of $G-S^*$. We show that~$C^* \subseteq C$. Suppose not. Since~$Z$ is connected, so is~$G[C^*]$. Consider a path~$P$ in~$G[C^*]$ from~$Z$ \bmp{to a vertex in~$C^* \setminus C$}. Since~$G[C]$ also contains~$Z$, the first vertex on~$P$ that is not in~$C$, is a vertex~$v\in N_G(C) \cap (C^* \setminus C)$. Then~$v \notin (S \setminus S_F)$, since~$S \setminus S_F \subseteq S^*$. As~$N_G(C) \subseteq S$, we therefore have~$v \in S_F$. Since~$S_F \ni v$ is an \emph{inclusion-minimal}~$(F,Z)$-separator in~$G$, there exists~$u \in N_G(v) \cap R_{S_F}(F)$. But this leads to a contradiction: as~$R_{S'_F}(F) \supsetneq R_{S_F}(F)$ there is a path from~$F$ to~$u$ in~$G - S'_F$, while~$v \in C^*$ yields a path from~$v$ to~$Z$ in~$G - S'_F$ as~$S'_F \subseteq S^*$, so the combination of these two paths with the edge~$uv$ yields a path from~$F$ to~$Z$ in~$G - S'_F$; a contradiction to the assumption that~$S'_F$ is an~$(F,Z)$-separator. Hence~$C^* \subseteq C$, and since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary we have $G[C^*] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Next, {let~$S' \subseteq S^*$ and $(C^*,S^*)$ be an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation covering~$Z$ in $G$.}
{Since {$N_G(C^*) \subseteq S^*$}, we have~$N_{G-S'}(C^*) \subseteq S^* \setminus S'$, and
therefore $(C^*, S^* \setminus S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k-|S'|)$-separation covering $Z$ in $G-S'$.}
{Analogously, we argue that if $(\widehat{C},\widehat{S})$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k')$-separation covering $Z$ in $G - S'$, then $(\widehat{C},\widehat{S} \cup S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, k'+|S'|)$-separation covering $Z$ in $G$. We have $G[\widehat{C}] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $|\widehat{S} \cup S'| = k' + |S'|$. Since
{$N_{G}(\widehat{C}) \subseteq N_{G - S'}(\widehat{C}) \cup S' \subseteq \widehat{S} \cup S'$, the pair~$(\widehat{C}, \widehat{S} \cup S')$ is indeed an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k' + |S'|)$ separation in~$G$, which clearly covers~$Z$.}}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Classes excluding induced subgraphs}
Within this section, let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class given by a finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs, so that $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if $G$ does not contain any graph from $\mathcal{F}$ as an induced subgraph.
Note that such a formulation allows us to express also classes excluding non-induced subgraphs.
Unlike further examples, in this setting we do not need to settle for approximation and we present an exact algorithm for separation finding.
\mic{The algorithm below solves
the \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{} problem \bmp{for} $h(x)=x$ with a~single-exponential \bmp{dependence} on the parameter.
Note that
it does not rely on the assumption of bounded $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth.
}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:separation-subgraph}
\mic{Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class given by a finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden \jjh{induced subgraphs}.
There is an algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$, an integer $k$, and a connected non-empty \bmp{set} $Z \subseteq V(G)$,
runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space, and returns an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} covering $Z$ or concludes that~$Z$ is~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(G,Z,k)$ be the input. \bmp{We present a recursive algorithm that works under the assumption that
there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C,S)$ covering
$Z$ and outputs an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation covering~$Z$.
If the algorithm fails to output a separation during its execution, we shall conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.} Since it suffices to consider the connected component containing~$Z$, we may assume that~$G$ is connected.
Let $q$ denote the maximal number of vertices among graphs in $\mathcal{F}$.
We can check in time $\mathcal{O}(n^q)$ whether $G$ contains an induced subgraph $F$ isomorphic to one from $\mathcal{F}$.
If not, we can simply return $(V(G), \emptyset)$.
It cannot be that $V(F) \subseteq C$, so \bmp{there exists a vertex} $u \in V(F) \setminus Z$ \bmp{such that} either $u \in S$ or $S$ is a $(u,Z)$-separator.
In the first case $(C, S \setminus u)$ is an answer for the instance $(G - u, Z, k - 1)$,
\mic{which we solve recursively.}
In the second case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:important-subset}, there exists an important $(u,Z)$-separator $S'$, such that $|S'| \le k$ and there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C^*, S^*)$ covering $Z$ with $S' \subseteq S^*$.
\mic{Note that since we have assumed that $G$ is connected, the separator $S'$ is always non-empty.}
Then $(C^*, S^* \setminus S')$ is an answer for the instance $(G-S', Z, k - |S'|)$.
We enumerate all separators from $\mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)$ and
branch on all these possibilities\bmp{, over all (at most~$q$) ways to choose~$u$.} If any recursive call returns a separation, then we can complete it to an answer for $(G,Z,k)$.
We shall bound the maximal number of leaves $T(k)$ in the {recursion} tree with respect to parameter~$k$.
For each $u \in V(F) \setminus Z$
the first branching rule leads to at most $T(k-1)$ leaves and
the second one gives $\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}T(k - |S'|)$.
Let us show inductively that $T(k) \le (5q)^k$, first upper bounding the summand coming from the important separators \bmp{for one choice of~$u$}.
\begin{align*}
\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}T(k - |S'|) \le& \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}(5q)^{k - |S'|} \le
\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}\left(\frac{5q}{4}\right)^{k - |S'|}4^k\cdot4^{- |S'|} \\
\le\, &\left(\frac{5q}{4}\right)^{k - 1}4^k\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}4^{- |S'|} \le
4\cdot(5q)^{k - 1} \quad\text{(Lemma~\ref{lem:important-sum})}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
T(k) \le \sum_{u \in V(F) \setminus Z} \left(T(k-1) + \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(u,Z)}T(k - |S'|)\right) \le q\cdot\left((5q)^{k-1} + 4\cdot(5q)^{k - 1}\right) = (5q)^{k}
\end{align*}
Since the depth of the recursion tree is $k$, we obtain a bound of $k \cdot (5q)^k$ on the number of recursive calls.
By Theorem~\ref{lem:important-enumerate}, the time spent in each call is proportional to the number of children in the recursion tree times a~polynomial factor. As the sum of the numbers of children, taken over all the nodes in the recursion tree, is bounded by its total size~$k \cdot T(k)$, this proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Bipartite graphs}
{Let $\mathsf{bip}$ denote the class of bipartite graphs.
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{bip}$ we present a~polynomial-time algorithm, which gives a 2-approximation to the task of separation finding.
Therefore, we obtain a~better running time but worse approximation guarantee than in the previous section.
\mic{Again, we do not rely on the bounded $\mathsf{bip}$-treewidth.} \bmp{The 2-approximation for separation finding for bipartite graphs is related to the half-integrality of 0/1/\textsc{all} constraint satisfaction problems as studied by Iwata, Yamaguchi, and Yoshida~\cite{IwataYY18}. To avoid the notational overhead of their framework, we give an elementary algorithm below.}
The presented algorithm works on a~parity graph $G'$:
each vertex $v$ from the original graph $G$ is replaced by two parity-copies $v', v''$ and each edge in $G'$ switches the parity of a~vertex.
A~path in $G$ is odd if and only if the endpoints of its counterpart in $G'$ have different parity.
Hence, we can express the task of hitting odd cycles in terms of finding a~separator in the parity graph.}
For $A \subseteq V(G)$, we say we identify $A$ \bmp{into} a vertex $v \notin V(G)$, if we add vertex $v$ to $G$ with $N_G(v) = \bigcup_{u \in A} N_G(u) \setminus A$, followed by deleting $A$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:separation-bipartite}
There is a polynomial-time algorithm for \textsc{($\mathsf{bip}$,\,$h(x) = 2x$)-separation finding}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph, $k$ be an integer, and $Z \subseteq V(G)$ be non-empty such that $G[Z]$ is connected.
If $k = 0$, then let $C$ be the connected component of $G$ that contains $Z$. The separation $(C,\emptyset)$ is a ($\mathsf{bip}$,$0$)-separation if $G[C]$ is bipartite, otherwise $Z$ is ($\mathsf{bip}$,$0$)-inseparable. Similarly, if $G[Z]$ is not bipartite then we simply conclude that $Z$ is ($\mathsf{bip}$,$2k$)-inseparable. In the remainder, assume that $G[Z]$ is bipartite and $k > 0$.
Compute a proper 2-coloring $c \colon Z \to [2]$ of $G[Z]$, which is unique up to relabeling since $G[Z]$ is connected. Let $G_Z$ be the graph obtained from~$G$ by {identifying each color class into a single vertex. That is, we identify $c^{-1}(1)$ into a vertex $v_1$ and $c^{-1}(2)$ into a vertex $v_2$.}
If $Z$ consists of a single vertex, then without loss of generality assume only $v_1$ exists, the rest of the construction remains the same up to ignoring $v_2$.
Next we construct a graph $G_Z'$ that contains a false twin for every vertex in $G_Z$ in order to keep track of parity of paths. More formally, let $V(G_Z') = \{u',u'' \mid u \in G_Z\}$ and $E(G_Z') = \{x'y'' \mid {xy} \in E(G_Z)\}$. Intuitively, an odd {cycle} in $G_Z$ that contains some vertex $u$ corresponds to a path {in~$G'_Z$ from $u'$ to its false-twin} copy $u''$. In what follows we show that breaking such paths for a good choice of endpoints results in the desired $(\mathsf{bip}$,$2k$)-separation.
\begin{claim}
If the set $S \subseteq V(G_Z')$ is a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator in $G_Z'$, then the connected component {of $G - \{u \mid u' \in S \vee u'' \in S\}$} that contains $Z$ is bipartite.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
Suppose $S \subseteq V(G_Z')$ is a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator in $G_Z'$. Let $X = \{u \mid u' \in S \vee u'' \in S\}$. For the sake of contradiction, suppose that the component of $Z$ in $G - X$ is not bipartite. Let $Q$ be an odd cycle in said component, and let $Q_Z$ be the walk in $G_Z-X$ obtained by replacing {each} $u \in Z \cap Q$ by {the vertex $v_{c(u)}$ into which it was identified.}
Clearly $Q_Z$ is a closed odd walk in $G_Z-X$, since there are no two consecutive vertices of $Q$ in $Z \cap Q$ that are in the same color class.
{As $Z$ is connected, we have $v_1v_2 \in E(G_Z)$, so $v_1$ and $v_2$ lie in a single connected component of $G_Z-X$.
We obtain that this component contains an odd cycle.} Let $O = (u_1,\ldots,u_{2k+1})$ be a {shortest} odd cycle in $G_Z-X$ in the component of $\{v_1,v_2\}$. Let $X'= \{u',u'' \mid u \in X\}$; note that $S \subseteq X'$. We do a case distinction on $|V(O) \cap \{v_1,v_2\}|$, in each case we show there exists a path in $G_Z'-S$ that contradicts that $S$ is a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator.
If $|V(O) \cap \{v_1,v_2\}| = 0$, then since $O$ and $\{v_1,v_2\}$ are in the same connected component of $G_Z - X$, there is a path $P$ in $G_Z'-X'$ from $v_1'$ to either $u_1'$ or $u_1''$ depending on the parity of $|P|$. Suppose $P$ ends in $u_1'$ (the argument for $P$ ending in $u_1''$ is symmetric), that is, $P = (v_1',\ldots,u_1')$. Then $P$ concatenated with $(u_2'',u_3',\ldots,u_{2k+1}',u_1'')$ ends at $u_1''$ in $G_Z'-X'$, since $O$ is an odd cycle. But then taking the twins of $P$ in the reverse direction, we arrive at $v_1''$. Since $G_Z'-X'$
is an induced subgraph of $G_Z'-S$, it follows that $S$ does not contain a single vertex of this path, and hence $S$ cannot be a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator.
If $|V(O) \cap \{v_1,v_2\}| = 1$, then {by re-numbering the cycle~$O$ if needed}, we may assume $V(O) \cap \{v_1,v_2\} = \{u_1\}$. {Assume $u_1 = v_1$; the case~$u_1 = v_2$ is symmetric.} Then $P = (v_1',u_2'',u_3',\ldots, \allowbreak u_{2k+1}',v_1'')$ is a $v_1'v_1''$-path in $G_Z'-S$. It follows that $S$ cannot be a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator.
Finally, consider the case $|V(O) \cap \{v_1,v_2\}| = 2$. First note that $v_1$ and $v_2$ are consecutive in $O$. To see this, for any odd cycle that contains both $v_1$ and $v_2$, exactly one of the $v_1v_2$-path or the $v_2v_1$-path contains an even number of edges, which can be combined with the edge $v_1v_2$ to form an odd cycle. Since $O$ is {a shortest odd cycle}, $v_1$ and $v_2$ are consecutive in $O$. Without loss of generality assume $u_1 = v_1$ and $u_{2k+1} = v_2$. Then $(v_1'$,$u_2''$,\ldots,$v_2')$ is a path of even length in $G_Z'-S$. It follows that $S$ cannot be a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator.
\end{innerproof}
\begin{claim}
If $Z$ is ($\mathsf{bip}$,$k$)-separable, then $G_Z'$ has a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator of size at most~$2k$.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
Suppose $Z$ is ($\mathsf{bip}$,$k$)-separable and let $(C,X)$ be a ($\mathsf{bip}$,$k$)-separation that covers $Z$. We show that $X' = \{u',u'' \mid u \in X\}$ is a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator in $G_Z'$. Clearly $|X'| \leq 2k$. Note that $X' \subseteq V(G_Z') \setminus \{v_1',v_1'',v_2',v_2''\}$ since $Z \subseteq C$.
Suppose $X'$ is not a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator in $G_Z'$. We consider the cases that there is a $v_1'v_1''$-path and a $v_1'v_2'$-path; the other cases are symmetric.
Let $P'$ be a $v_1'v_1''$-path in $G_Z'-X'$, then $P'$ has an odd number of edges. {The walk in $G_Z$ obtained from $P'$ by dropping all parity information is also odd and has empty intersection with $X$ because the set $X'$ is symmetric. Hence,~$G_Z - X$ contains an odd cycle~$P$.}
\begin{itemize}
\item If~$P$ contains the edge~$v_1 v_2$, then the remainder of~$P$ is a path of even length connecting~$v_1$ to~$v_2$. As~$v_1$ and~$v_2$ were obtained by identifying the color classes of~$Z$, it follows that there is an even-length walk~$P^*$ in~$G - X$ from a vertex~$z_1 \in Z \cap c^{-1}(1)$ to a vertex~$z_2\in Z \cap c^{-1}(2)$. As~$G[Z]$ is bipartite and connected, with~$z_1$ and~$z_2$ of opposite colors, we can extend this even walk~$P^*$ with an odd-length path from~$z_1$ to~$z_2$ in~$G[Z] - X$, to obtain an odd closed walk in the connected component of~$G - X$ containing~$Z$; a contradiction to the assumption that $(C,X)$ is a ($\mathsf{bip}$,\,$k$)-separation that covers $Z$.
\item If~$P$ does not contain the edge~$v_1 v_2$, then we can lift~$P$ to a closed odd walk in the component of~$G - X$ that contains~$Z$, as follows. For every occurrence of some~$v_j \in \{v_1, v_2\}$ on~$P$, let~$p$ and~$q$ be the predecessor and successor of~$v_j$ on~$P$. By the assumption of this case,~$p,q \notin \{v_1, v_2\}$. By construction of~$G_Z$, the fact that~$p,q \in N_{G_Z}(v_j)$ implies that there exist~$z_p \in c^{-1}(j) \cap Z \cap N_G(p)$ and~$z_q \in c^{-1}(j) \cap Z \cap N_G(q)$. Since~$G[Z]$ is connected, there is a path~$P_{p,q}$ from~$z_p$ to~$z_q$ in~$G[Z]$, and as~$G[Z]$ is bipartite and~$z_p,z_q$ belong to the same color class, this path has an even number of edges. Hence we can replace the occurrence of~$v_j$ on walk~$P$ by the path~$P_{p,q}$, which increases the number of edges on the walk by an even number and therefore preserves its parity. Replacing each occurrence of~$v_j \in \{v_1, v_2\}$ on~$P$ by a path~$P_{p,q}$ in this way, we obtain a closed walk~$P^*$ of odd length in the connected component~$G - X$ that contains~$Z$; a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
Finally let $P'$ be a $v_1'v_2'$-path in $G_Z'-X'$, then $P'$ has an even number of edges. Let $P$ be the walk in $G_Z - X$ obtained from $P'$ by dropping all parity information, $P$ is an even walk in $G_Z - X$ in the component of $\{v_1,v_2\}$. {Similarly as in the first bullet above, turn $P$ into a closed odd walk by making the last step from $v_2$ to $v_1$ with an odd-length path through~$G[Z]$.} Again we reach a contradiction for the fact that $(C,X)$ was a ($\mathsf{bip}$,$k$)-separation that covers $Z$.
\end{innerproof}
Now we can find the desired separation covering $Z$ by first constructing $G_Z'$ and then computing a $(\{v_1',v_2''\},\{v_1'',v_2'\})$-separator{, for example using the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm}. If the latter is larger than $2k$, return that $Z$ is ($\mathsf{bip}$,$2k$)-inseparable. Otherwise, return the separation given by the first claim together with the connected component of~$Z$. Clearly these operations can be performed in polynomial time.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{corollary}
There is a polynomial-time algorithm that given a graph with bipartite-depth $k$, returns a bipartite-decomposition of depth at most $2k\cdot 2^k$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{claim}
There is an algorithm that given a (bipartite, $k$)-separable $C \subseteq V(G)$, runs in time $\mathcal{O}^*\br{2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}}$ and returns a bipartite-crown of width $k$ covering $C$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Begin with a bipartite-crown $(C_1, S_1)$ of width $2k$ covering $C$.
If there exists a bipartite-crown of width $k$ covering $C \cup S_1$, we guess the sides of vertices in $S_1$, connect them to $C$, and find a $2k$-width bipartite crown covering $C \cup S_1$.
If we can no longer do this, then some vertex in $S_1$ is not covered by the optimal crown, so we recourse.
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
\subsubsection{Deprecated}
In this section we present the most general way of finding separations, which is based on packing-covering duality.
In particular, we show that having natural parameterized algorithms for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} and \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-obstruction packing} (the task of finding $k$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs that do not belong to \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}) suffices to find separations with a~moderate separator size.
However, in some cases the running time for the packing subroutine is huge and we can only estimate it as $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for some computable function $f$.
\defparproblem{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-packing-covering}
{A graph $G$ with $\hhtw(G) \le k$ and an integer $k$.}{$k$}
{Either find $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs $G_i \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size at most $h(k)$.}
We will consider $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{packing-covering} only for such $h$ that one of these structures is guaranteed to exist.
It turns out that for some classes \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} we do not need the assumption about bounded \hhtwfull{} and it can be shown that every graph either contains $k+1$ obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set
of size bounded by a function of $k$.
{This relation} is called the Erd\H{o}s-P\'{o}sa property {for obstructions to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}, after the famous result on the packing-covering duality for cycles~\cite{ErdosP65}.
There is a vast theory around Erd\H{o}s-P\'{o}sa properties for miscellaneous types of objects and algorithms to find either the packing or the deletion set (see {the} survey \cite{RaymondT17}).
We shall use two such results in a black-box manner.
\begin{thm}[{\cite{AgrawalLMSH18, KimK18}}]\label{thm:packing-chordal}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{chordal, interval}\}$ there is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given a~graph $G$, either finds $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs $G_i \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or a vertex set $S$ such that $G - S \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $|S| = \mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)$.
\end{thm}
In particular, these classes admit polynomial-time algorithms for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k))$-\textsc{packing-covering}.
For classes like planar graphs we do not know such a general construction (however, there are related results, cf. \cite{Kawarabayashi07, liu2017packing, graph-minors-erdos-posa}) and we need to take advantage of the assumption {of} bounded \hhtwfull{}.
Note that this is the only place where this assumption plays a role for constructing algorithms for \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{}.
So far we have shown an existential proof that under the assumption of bounded \hhtwfull{} the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ enjoys a packing-covering duality.
Hence, it suffices to provide algorithms for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} and \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-obstruction packing}, so one of them is guaranteed to find the desired structure.
We check that the classes given by a finite family of forbidden (topological) minors admit such algorithms,
first focusing on the simpler case where all the graphs in the forbidden family are connected.
The \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} problem is well-studied and we can use the existing results in a~black-box manner.
In order to solve the packing problem we reduce this task to detecting a forbidden (topological) minor given by a~disjoint union of some forbidden (topological) minors.
\begin{thm}[{\cite{CyganFKLMPPS15, GroheKMW11, RobertsonS95b}\label{thm:minor-algo}}]
There exists a computable function $f$ and an algorithm that, for given graphs $H$ and $G$, checks in time $f(H)\cdot|V(G)|^3$ whether $H$ is a (topological) minor of $G$.
\end{thm}
{From these decision algorithms, it is possible to obtain FPT algorithms that output a (topological) minor model by self-reduction. While this step is folklore, we include a proof sketch for completeness.}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:minor-algo}
There exists a computable function $f$ and an algorithm that, for given graphs $H$ and $G$,
runs in time $f(H)\cdot|V(G)|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$
and either returns a (topological) minor model of $H$ in $G$ or concludes that $G$ does no contain such a model.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof
First, consider standard, i.e., non-topological, minors.
The algorithm invokes the subroutine from Theorem~\ref{thm:minor-algo} polynomially many times.
Initially, we run it for $G$ and if we obtain {the} conclusion that $G$ does not contain a minor model of $H$, we are done.
Otherwise, if $G$ is not {already} isomorphic to $H$, then there exists $G'$ obtainable from $G$ by a single operation among vertex deletion, edge deletion, or edge contraction, that contains $H$ as a minor as well.
We test all possible $G'$, and for at least one choice we are guaranteed that the algorithm from Theorem~\ref{thm:minor-algo} answers positively.
After such $G'$ is found, we substitute $G = G'$ and iterate this procedure until we reach a graph isomorphic to $H$. {Note that the isomorphism of~$G'$ and~$H$ can trivially be tested in time~$|V(H)|! \cdot |V(G)|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.}
For topological minors we proceed in a similar manner.
If $H$ is a topological minor of $G$, then {exists} a series of vertex/edge deletions {which results in a graph} $G'$ that is a subdivision of $H$.
As long as there is such an~operation possible, which preserves having $H$ as a~topological {minor}, we detect it with the algorithm from Theorem~\ref{thm:minor-algo}, and shrink the graph.
Once we can no longer perform deletions,
we reduce the edge subdivisions by contracting edges with at least one endpoint of degree 2 until we reach a~graph isomorphic to $H$.
\end{proof}
{Unlike the setting with classes excluding induced subgraphs, to {solve \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace for classes defined by forbidden (topological) minors} we need to distinguish two cases: whether all the forbidden minors are connected or not.
If at least one of them is not connected, then the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is not necessarily closed under taking disjoint union of graphs
and we cannot apply Lemma~\ref{lem:branching:erdos-posa} directly.
We first cover the case with only connected forbidden minors and then explain how to reduce the general problem to this case.
}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:packing-forbidden-minors}
Suppose \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} is given by a finite family of forbidden (topological) minors~$\mathcal{F}$, which are all connected.
Then there is a computable function $f$ and an~$f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$-time algorithm solving $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k(k+1))$-\textsc{packing-covering}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the graphs in the forbidden family are connected, the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under disjoint union of graphs.
{By definition of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{packing-covering} we have~$\hhtw(G) \le k$}, so from Lemma~\ref{lem:branching:erdos-posa} we know that $G$ either contains $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs $G_i \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size at most $k(k+1)$.
In the first case, $G$ contains some (topological) minor model of some disjoint combination of graphs from $\mathcal{F}$ of the form $\sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}} a_F\cdot F$, where $a_F$ are non-negative integer coefficients summing to $k+1$.
We run the algorithm from Corollary~\ref{cor:minor-algo} for all such sequences $(a_F)_{F \in \mathcal{F}}$ and for some sequence we obtain a~(topological) minor model consisting of $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs that do not belong to \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
If we did not find such a packing, we
execute the algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} parameterized by the solution size $\ell = k(k+1)$.
This problem is FPT for a~family given by forbidden minors~\cite{AdlerGK08, sau20apices} or by forbidden topological minors~\cite{FominLPSZ20}.
We remark that all the referenced algorithms are uniform\footnote{A parameterized algorithm is called uniform if it is given by a single Turing machine that accepts the parameter as a~part of the input.
We have added this remark because the first known algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion}, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is minor-closed, was non-uniform.} for a~fixed family \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{proof}
As we now are equipped with algorithms for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h)$-\textsc{packing-covering}, we move on to employing them for solving \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:packing-to-separation}
Suppose $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{packing-covering}
admits an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ running in time $f(n,k)$ and function $h$ satisfies $h(k_1) + k_2 \le h(k_1 + k_2)$.
Then \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} admits an algorithm with running time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} \cdot (f(n,k) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
Recall that we are given vertex set $Z$ and we want to either conclude that it is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable or return an \hsep{h(k)} $(C,S)$ such that $Z \subseteq C \cup S$.
Suppose $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable and $(C_0, S_0)$ is the $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace covering $Z$.
We run the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-\textsc{packing-covering} with parameter $k$.
We either obtain an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set $S$ of size $h(k)$ or $k+1$ vertex-disjoint subgraphs $G_i \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
In the first case we return $(C,S) = (V(G) \setminus S,\, S)$ -- it is obviously an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(k))$-separation weakly covering $Z$.
Otherwise, none of $G_i$ can be contained in $C_0$ and
$S_0$ can have non-empty intersection with at most $k$ of them.
Therefore, there is some
$G_i$ disjoint from $C_0 \cup S_0$, so $S_0$ is a $(G_i,Z)$-separator.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:important-subset} we know that there exists $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C^*, S^*)$ covering $Z$ such that $S^*$ contains an important $(G_i,Z)$-separator.
We perform branching by choosing $i \in [k+1]$ and enumerating all important $(G_i,Z)$-separator of size at most $k$.
For a separator $S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(G_i,Z)$ we invoke a recursive call with $G' = G - S'$, $k' = k - |S'|$.
If we began with $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable set $Z$, then at least one recursive call is guaranteed to return an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\, h(k-|S'|))$-separation $(C^*, S^*)$ covering $Z$ in $G' = G - S'$.
Then $(C^*, S^* \cup S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(k))$-separation covering $Z$ in $G$.
In each recursive node we invoke the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ and spend time proportional to the number of direct recursive calls, by Theorem~\ref{lem:important-enumerate}.
In order to analyze the running time, we will bound the number of leaves in the {recursion} tree.
Let $T(k)$ denote the maximal number of leaves for a recursive call with parameter $k$.
We prove by induction that $T(k) \le (k+1)! \cdot 4^k$,
which holds for $k = 0$.
In a recursive call with parameter $k$ we consider $k+1$ different $G_i$ and for each of them we consider all important separators from $\mathcal{S}_k(G_i, Z)$.
Hence, we can estimate
\begin{equation*}
T(k) \le \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(G_i,Z)} T(k - |S'|) \le k! \cdot 4^k \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(G_i,Z)} 4^{-|S'|} \stackrel{\text{Lemma }\ref{lem:important-sum}}{\le} (k+1)! \cdot 4^k.
\end{equation*}
Since the depth of the recursion tree is $k$, we obtain a bound of $k \cdot (k+1)! \cdot 4^k$ on the total number of recursive calls.
The time spent in each recursive node is proportional to the number of children in the recursion tree times a~polynomial factor, plus the running time of $\mathcal{A}$,
which sums up to $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} \cdot (f(n,k) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$.
\end{proof}
By combining Lemma \ref{lem:packing-to-separation} with respectively Theorem~\ref{thm:packing-chordal} and Lemma~\ref{lem:packing-forbidden-minors} we obtain the following corollaries.
Note that we get a~slightly worse guarantee on $h$
for chordal and interval graphs but these algorithms enjoy better running time.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:separation-chordal}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{chordal, interval}\}$ there is an algorithm for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(k^2\log k))$-\textsc{separation finding} which runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:separation-minor}
Suppose \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} is given by a finite family of forbidden (topological) minors, which are all connected.
Then there is an $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$-time algorithm solving $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\mathcal{O}(k^2))$-\textsc{separation finding}.
\end{corollary}
\fi
\subsubsection{Separation via packing-covering duality}
\label{subsec:packing-covering}
In this section we present the most general way of finding separations, which is based on a packing-covering duality.
We show that the existence of an efficient parameterized (or approximation) algorithm for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} entails the existence of an efficient algorithm for \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(k^2))$-separation finding}.
The relation between the maximum size of a packing of obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ (e.g., odd cycles for the case $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{bip}$) and the minimum size of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set is
called the Erd\H{o}s-P\'{o}sa property {for obstructions to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}, after the famous result on the packing-covering duality for cycles~\cite{ErdosP65}.
It is known that graphs with bounded treewidth enjoy such a packing-covering duality
for connected obstructions for various graph classes.
\mic{We show that this relation also holds for graphs with bounded \hhtwfull{} and obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
This is the only place where the assumption of bounded \hhtwfull{} plays a role for constructing algorithms for \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:branching:erdos-posa}
Let \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} be a hereditary union-closed graph class and $G$ be a graph satisfying
$\hhtw(G) \le k$.
Then $G$ either contains $k+1$ {disjoint vertex sets $V_1, \dots, V_{k+1} \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G[V_i] \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $G[V_i]$ is connected \bmp{for all~$i \in [k+1]$}}, or an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size at most $k(k+1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition $(\mathcal{T}, \chi, L)$ of $G$ {of} width at most $k$ and root it at an arbitrary node~$r$.
For $t \in V(\mathcal{T})$ let $S_t = \chi(t) \setminus L$ and let $V_t$ denote the set of vertices occurring in {bags} in the subtree of $\mathcal{T}$ rooted at $t$ ({including} $\chi(t)$).
\bmp{If~$G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{}$, then the empty set is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size~$0$ and the lemma holds. If not, consider a node} $t$ for which $G[V_t] \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $t$ is furthest from the root among all such nodes.
{By Observation~\ref{obs:basecomponent:neighborhoods} we have \mic{that $N(\chi(t) \cap L) \subseteq S_t$ and by definition $G[\chi(t) \cap L] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
Also $G[V_{t_i}] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ for any child $t_i$ of $t$, by the choice of $t$, and thus $G[V_{t_i} \setminus S_t] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under disjoint unions, we get that the union of all these subgraphs, i.e., $G[V_t \setminus S_t]$ also belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
Hence, removing $S_t$ separates $G$ into $G - V_t$ and a~subgraph from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We define $S_1 = S_t,\,G_1 = G[V_t]$, and iterate this procedure on $G' = G - V_t$.
If after $\ell \le k$ steps we have reached a graph that belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$,
then $S = \bigcup_{i=1}^\ell S_i$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set and $|S| \le \ell\cdot\max_{i=1}^\ell |S_i| \le k(k+1)$.
\mic{Otherwise the induced subgraphs $G_1, G_2,\dots, G_{k+1}$ are vertex-disjoint and $G_i \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ for \jjh{each} $i \in [k+1]$.
Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under disjoint unions, for each $i \in [k+1]$ there is a
subset $V'_i \subseteq V(G_i)$ such that $G[V'_i]$ is
connected and does not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
\end{proof}
So far we have given an existential proof that under the assumption of bounded \hhtwfull{} the \bmp{obstructions to} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ enjoy a packing-covering duality.
Next, we show that when a graph admits a packing \bmp{of} $k+1$ obstructions to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and set $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable, then we can detect one obstruction that can cheaply be separated from $Z$.
\mic{Let $\hhdn{}(G)$ \bmp{(for \emph{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion number})} denote the minimum size of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:branching:separated-obstruction}
Let \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} be a hereditary union-closed graph class \bmp{such that there exists an algorithm~$\mathcal{A}$ that tests} membership of an $n$-vertex graph in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in time $f(n)$.
Then there is an algorithm that, \mic{given integers $k \le t$, a graph $G$ satisfying
$\hhtw(G) \le t$}, \bmp{and} an~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable set $Z \subseteq V(G)$, runs in time $4^k \cdot (f(n) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$ and polynomial space; it either correctly concludes that $\hhdn{}(G) \le t(t+1)$ or outputs a set $F \subseteq V(G)$ such that (1) $G[F] \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, (2) $G[F]$ is connected, (3) $N_G[F] \cap Z = \emptyset$, and (4) $|N_G(F)| \le k$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cref{lem:branching:erdos-posa} either $\hhdn{}(G) \le t(t+1)$ or there exist $t+1$ disjoint vertex sets $V_1, \dots, V_{t+1}$ such that $G[V_i] \not \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $G[V_i]$ is connected.
We present an algorithm that outputs the requested set $F$ under the assumption that the second scenario holds.
If the algorithm fails to output $F$, we shall conclude that $\hhdn{}(G) \le t(t+1)$.
We first present the algorithm and then argue for its correctness.
For each vertex $v \in V(G) \setminus N_G[Z]$
we enumerate all important $(v,Z)$-separators of size at most $k$.
There are at most $4^k$ such separators (\cref{lem:important-sum}) for a fixed $v$ and they can be enumerated in time $\mathcal{O}^*(4^k)$ (\cref{lem:important-enumerate}).
For a~separator $S'$ we consider the set $F_v^{S'} = R_{S'}(\{v\})$ \bmp{(recall Definition~\ref{def:imp:sep})}. We have $N_G(F_v^{S'}) \subseteq S'$ (since the separator $S'$ is important, it is also inclusion-wise minimal, so the equality holds as well) and therefore $F_v^{S'}$ satisfies \bmp{conditions} (2)--(4).
We check whether $G[F_v^{S'}] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, in time $f(n)$: if not, we simply output $F = F_v^{S'}$.
Now we analyze the algorithm.
Let $(C,S)$ be an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} covering $Z$, which exists by assumption.
We have also assumed the existence of $t+1$ disjoint vertex sets $V_1, \dots, V_{t+1}$ such that $G[V_i] \not \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $G[V_i]$ is connected.
Since $k \le t$,
by a counting argument there exists $j \in [t+1]$ such that $S \cap V_j = \emptyset$.
It cannot be that $V_j \subseteq C$ so,
by connectivity of $G[V_j]$, we infer that $C \cap V_j = \emptyset$.
Let $v$ be an arbitrary vertex from $V_j$.
We have that $S$ is a $(v,Z)$-separator of size at most $k$.
By \cref{lem:sep-to-importantsep} we know that there exists an~important $(v,Z)$-separator $S'$,
such that $R_S(v) \subseteq R_{S'}(v)$ and $|S'| \le |S| \le k$.
Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and $V_j \subseteq R_S(v)$, the subgraph induced by $R_{S'}(v)$ does not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
This implies that such a set will be detected by the algorithm.
\end{proof}
In the next lemma, we exploit the obstruction $F$ to design a branching rule which shaves off some part of the set $S$ in the $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C,S)$ covering the set $Z$.
We assume the existence of an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} parameterized by the solution size $s$.
We allow $\mathcal{A}$ to be \bmp{a} $\beta$-approximation algorithm for some constant $\beta \ge 1$.
Such an algorithm either outputs an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of size at most $\beta \cdot s$ or correctly concludes that $\hhdn{}(G) > s$.
We describe the running time of $\mathcal{A}$ by a function $f(n,s)$, where $n$ is the input size.
This function may be purely polynomial and independent of $s$; this will be the case when $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} admits a constant-factor polynomial-time approximation.
On the other hand, if $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} admits an exact FPT algorithm, the function $f(n,s)$ may be of the form, e.g., $2^{\mathcal{O}(s)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and the approximation factor $\beta$ equals 1.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:branching:general}
Let \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} be a hereditary union-closed graph class.
Suppose that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} admits a $\beta$-approximation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ $(\beta = \mathcal{O}(1)$, $\beta \ge 1)$ parameterized by the solution size $s$ running in time $f(n,s)$ on an $n$-vertex graph, where $f$ is a computable function non-decreasing on both coordinates.
Then there is an $f(n, t(t+1)) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(t)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$-time algorithm solving $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h)$-\textsc{separation finding} for $h(x) = \beta\cdot 2x(2x+1)$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(G,Z,k,t)$ be the given instance.
By the problem definition $G[Z]$ is connected, so whenever $G$ is not connected it suffices to focus on the connected component containing $Z$.
We present a recursive algorithm that works under the assumption that
there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C,S)$ covering
$Z$ \mic{and outputs an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\beta (t+k)(t+k+1))$-separation weakly covering $Z$ (recall that $k \le t$ by the problem definition).}
If the algorithm fails to output an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\beta (t+k)(t+k+1))$-separation weakly covering $Z$, we shall conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.
In the corner case $k=0$ it suffices to check whether the connected component containing $Z$ induces a graph from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\bmp{We can use $\mathcal{A}$ to test whether an $n$-vertex graph belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in time $f(n,0)$.}
We execute the algorithm from \cref{lem:branching:separated-obstruction} in
time $4^k \cdot (f(n,0) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$ (and polynomial space if $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space).
If it reports that $\hhdn{} (G) \le t(t+1)$ we
invoke the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ to find an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set $S'$ of size at most $\beta t(t+1)$, \mic{in time $f(n, t(t+1))$.}
We then output the $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\beta t(t+1))$-separation $(V(G) \setminus S', S')$ which weakly covers $Z$.
Otherwise we obtain a set $F \subseteq V(G)$
such that (1) $G[F] \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, (2) $G[F]$ is connected, (3) $N_G[F] \cap Z = \emptyset$, and (4) $|N_G(F)| \le k$.
In such a case we perform branching:
we create
multiple instances of the form $(G-S', Z, k',t)$ where $S'$ is some $(F,Z)$-separator of size at most $k$ and $k' < k$.
Note that $Z$ belongs to the vertex set of the graph on which we recurse \mic{and $\hhtw(G-S) \le \hhtw(G) \le t$.
We keep the value of parameter $t$ intact so the invariant $k' \le t$ is preserved.}
If an \hsep{\beta (t+k')(t+k'+1)} $(\widehat C, \widehat S)$ weakly covering $Z$ in $G-S'$ is found, we output $(\widehat C, \widehat S \cup S')$ for the original instance $(G,Z,k,t)$.
Observe that in such a case $|\widehat S \cup S'| \le \beta (t+k')(t+k'+1) + k \le \beta (t+k-1)(t+k) + k \le \beta (t+k)(t+k+1)$ and $N_G(\widehat C) \subseteq \widehat S \cup S'$, so the solution is valid.
It remains to design a branching rule to ensure that in least one call $(G-S', Z, k',t)$ the set $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k')$-separable in $G-S'$.
Then it follows from induction that an \hsep{\beta (t+k')(t+k'+1)} $(\widehat C, \widehat S)$ weakly covering $Z$ in $G-S'$ will be found.
The branching rule is divided into 2 parts.
\bmp{In part} (a) we consider all the important $(F,Z)$-separators of size at most $k$.
For each such a separator $S'$ we recurse on the instance $(G-S', Z, k-|S'|, t)$.
\bmp{In part} (b) we produce only one recursive call:
$(G-N_G(F), Z, k-1, t)$.
Note that $N_G(F)$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator of size at most $k$, so this instance obeys the description above.
Next, we advocate the correctness of this rule.
Recall that $(C,S)$ refers to an (unknown) $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} covering the given set $Z$, which we have assumed to exist.
\iffalse
The branching rule works as follows:
we consider all the important $(F,Z)$-separators of size at most $k$.
For each such a separator $S'$ we recurse on the instance $(G-S', Z, k-1)$.
Next, we advocate the correctness of this rule.
Recall that $(C,S)$ is an (unknown) $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} covering the given set $Z$, which we assumed to exist.
\fi
If $F \cap S = \emptyset$, then by connectivity of $G[F]$ we obtain that either $F \subseteq C$ or $C \cap F = \emptyset$.
The first option is impossible because $G[F] \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$,
therefore $S$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator.
From \cref{lem:important-subset}
we get that there exists an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C^*, S^*)$ covering $Z$ and an~important $(F,Z)$-separator $S'$, such that $S' \subseteq S^*$.
Furthermore (from the same lemma), we know that $(C^*, S^* \setminus S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, k - |S'|)$-separation covering $Z$ in $G - S'$, hence the instance $(G-S',Z,k - |S'|,t)$ admits a solution.
Recall that we have reduced the problem to the case where $G$ is connected so $|S'| > 0$.
Such an~important $(F,Z)$-separator $S'$ is going to be considered during the branching rule, part (a), and in such a case the algorithm returns an $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} obeying the requirements for the instance $(G-S',Z,k-|S'|,t)$.
Now consider the case $F \cap S \ne \emptyset$.
This means that the connected component of $F$ in $G-N_G(F)$ contains at least one vertex from $S$ and thus
the connected component of $Z$
contains at most $k-1$ vertices from $S$.
More precisely, let $V_Z$ denote the vertex set inducing the connected component of $Z$ in $G-N_G(F)$.
Then $|S \cap V_Z| < k$ and $(C \cap V_Z, S \cap V_Z)$ is an \hsep{k-1} covering $Z$ in $G[V_Z]$, and thus in $G-N_G(F)$.
Hence, this case is covered in the part (b) in the branching rule.
Finally, we analyze the running time.
We bound the number of leaves in the recursion tree.
Let $T(k)$ denote the maximal number of leaves for a call with parameter $k$ -- we shall prove by induction that $T(k) \le 5^k$.
We have $T(0) = 1$.
In part (a) of the branching rule
we consider all the important $(F,Z)$-separators of size at most $k$ and for each such separator $S'$ we create an instance with parameter value $k-|S'|$.
Similarly as in the proof of \cref{lem:separation-subgraph} we take advantage of \cref{lem:important-sum} to upper bound the sum of these terms.
The second summand comes from part~(b), where we create a single instance with parameter value $k-1$.
\iffalse
There are at most $4^k$ important $(F,Z)$ separators of size at most $k$ (\cref{lem:important-sum}) and also this many instances are created with parameter value $k-1$.
This gives a recursive relation $T(k) \le 4^k \cdot T(k-1)$ with $T(0) = 1$, which entails $T(k) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}$.
\fi
\begin{align*}
\bmp{T(k) \le} & \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)}T(k - |S'|) + T(k-1) \le \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)}5^{k - |S'|} + 5^{k-1} \\ = &
\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)}\left(\frac{5}{4}\right)^{k - |S'|}4^k\cdot4^{- |S'|} + 5^{k-1}
\le\, \left(\frac{5}{4}\right)^{k - 1}4^k\sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)}4^{- |S'|} + 5^{k-1} \\ \le\,\, &
4\cdot5^{k - 1} + 5^{k-1} = 5^k \quad\text{(Lemma~\ref{lem:important-sum})}
\end{align*}
The number of nodes in the recursion tree of depth bounded by $k$ is clearly at most $k \cdot T(k)$.
In each node we may invoke the algorithm from \cref{lem:branching:separated-obstruction} running in time $4^k \cdot (f(n,0) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$, the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ running in time $f(n,t(t+1))$, and enumerate the important $(F,Z)$ separators of size at most $k$, which takes time $4^k\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ (\cref{lem:important-enumerate}).
\end{proof}
\iffalse\micr{will not be used in the current form}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:branching:application}
There exist following algorithms solving $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h)$-\textsc{separation finding} where $h(k) = k(k+1)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of chordal graphs, the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space (?).
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of interval graphs, the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space.
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of proper interval graphs, the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space.
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of graphs with rankwidth at most 1 (distance-hereditary graphs), the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space (?).
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of graphs with linear rankwidth at most 1, the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space (?).
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of bipartite permutation graphs, the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space.
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ given by a finite family of forbidden connected minors, the algorithm runs in time $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
\item For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ given by a finite family of forbidden connected topological minors, the algorithm runs in time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for some computable function $f$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\fi
\subsubsection{Finding restricted separations}
As explained in Section \ref{sec:decomposition-restricted-separation}, for the sake of constructing a \hhtwdecomp{} we need algorithms with a stronger guarantee, formalized as a restricted separation.
We recall the problem statement.
\defparproblem{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding}{Integers $k \le t$, a graph $G$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth bounded by $t$, a connected {non-empty} subset $Z \subseteq V(G)$, a family $\mathcal{F}$ of connected, disjoint, $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable subsets of $ V(G)$.}{$t$}
{Either return an \hsep{h(t)} $(C,S)$ that {weakly covers} $Z$ {such that} $C$ contains at most \mic{$t$} sets from $\mathcal{F}$, or conclude that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.}
It turns out that as long as we can solve the basic separation problem exactly,
we obtain the stronger guarantee ``for free''.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:separation-subgraph-restricted}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ given by a finite family of forbidden induced subgraphs and function $h(x)=x$, \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} is solvable in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(t)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $k \le t$.
By \cref{lem:separation-subgraph},
there is an algorithm running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space,
which given a \bmp{non-empty} connected set $Z$ in a graph $G$, outputs an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separation $(C,S)$ covering $Z$ \bmp{or concludes that~$Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable}.
\bmp{If }the set $C$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable,
no subset of $C$ can be $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable and the condition required in restricted separation is always satisfied. Hence the output for the non-restricted version of the problem is also valid in the restricted setting.
\end{proof}
For other graph classes we present a reduction from \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},2h)$-separation finding} to \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{} that is burdened with a multiplicative factor $2^{\mathcal{O}(t\log t)}$. \bmp{The following lemma applies to hereditary classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, even those which are not union-closed.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:restricted-to-unrestricted}
Suppose \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h)$-separation finding} admits an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ running in time $f(n,t)$
and function $h$ satisfies $h(x) \ge x$.
Then \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, 2h)$-separation finding} admits an algorithm with running time $2^{\mathcal{O}(t\log t)} \cdot (f(n,t) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space, then the latter algorithm does as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We shall prove a stronger claim: given an instance $(G, Z, \mathcal{F}, k, t)$, \mic{within the claimed running time we can either find an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(t) + k)$-separation weakly covering $Z$ and covering at most $k$ sets from $\mathcal{F}$, or correctly report that $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable.}
This is indeed stronger than the lemma statement because $k \le t \le h(t)$.
We begin with the description of the algorithm.
Since it suffices to consider the connected component containing~$Z$ {and those sets from~$\mathcal{F}$ contained in that component}, we may assume that~$G$ is connected.
The algorithm distinguishes two cases.
First, if $|\mathcal{F}| \le k$ then we just execute the
algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ with input $(G, Z, k, t)$.
If $|\mathcal{F}| > k$
we choose {an} arbitrary subfamily $\mathcal{F}_0 \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ of size $k+1$.
We {branch} on the choice of $F \in \mathcal{F}_0$ and the choice of an important $(F,Z)$-separator of size at most $k$.
For each $S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)$ we invoke a recursive call $(G',Z,\mathcal{F}',k',t)$ with
$G' = G - S'$, $k' = k - |S'|$, and $\mathcal{F}'$ being the subfamily of sets from $\mathcal{F}$ that are subsets of $V(G')$.
If an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(t) + k')$-separation $(\widehat C, \widehat S)$ weakly covering $Z$ in $G'$ is found, we return $(\widehat C, \widehat S \cup S')$.
By connectivity we know that the separator $S'$ is non-empty so $k' < k$.
Note that we preserve the invariant $k' \le t$.
If we do not have enough budget to cut away any {set} $F$, the recursive call reports failure.
We prove the correctness of the algorithm by induction on $k$.
Recall the assumption that $G$ is connected.
\mic{If $k=0$ and $\mathcal{F} = \emptyset$ the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ gets executed and clearly returns a feasible solution because the restricted condition is trivially satisfied.
If $k=0$ and $\mathcal{F} \ne \emptyset$, then we know that $G \not\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ because otherwise any subset of $V(G)$ would be $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable.
In this case $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable because any $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},0)$-separation $(C,S)$ covering $Z$ would need to satisfy $C = V(G)$.
The algorithm will report this fact as there are no important separators of size 0 to perform branching.}
If $k > 0$ and $|\mathcal{F}| \le k$, then any (unrestricted) $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, h(t))$-separation found by the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ satisfies the restriction trivially.
\bmp{Suppose that $k > 0$ and $|\mathcal{F}| > k$. It is easy to see that the algorithm gives a correct answer when it returns a separation, so it suffices to prove that the algorithm indeed outputs a separation when~$Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable}. Consider
some $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace $(C, S)$ covering $Z$.
Let $\mathcal{F}_0 \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ be the chosen subfamily of size $k+1$.
None of the sets from $\mathcal{F}_0$ can be contained in $C$ (as they are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-inseparable) and $|\mathcal{F}_0| > |S|$ so by connectivity for some $F \in \mathcal{F}_0$ the set $S$ is an $(F,Z)$-separator.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:important-subset} we know that there exists {an} $(\hh,k)$-separation\xspace{} $(C^*, S^*)$ covering $Z$ such that $S^*$ contains an important $(F,Z)$-separator $S'$.
During the branching the algorithm considers the separator $S'$ and invokes a recursive call $(G',Z,\mathcal{F}',k',t)$ with
$G' = G - S'$, $k' = k - |S'|$, and $\mathcal{F}'$ being the subfamily of sets from $\mathcal{F}$ that are subsets of $V(G')$.
Then $Z$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k')$-separable in $G'$ and by induction we know that the algorithm will output some $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(t) + k')$-separation $(\widehat C, \widehat S)$
weakly covering $Z$ in $G'$
such that there are at most $k'$ sets from $\mathcal{F}'$ contained in $\widehat C$.
Furthermore, $N_G(\widehat C) \subseteq \widehat S \cup S'$ and no set from $\mathcal{F} \setminus \mathcal{F}'$ is contained in $\widehat C$ so
$(\widehat C, \widehat S \cup S')$ is an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},h(t) + k)$-separation weakly covering $Z$ in $G$ and covering at most $k' \le k$ sets from $\mathcal{F}$.
Finally, we analyze the running time.
The time spent in each recursive node is proportional to the number of direct recursive calls, \mic{modulo a polynomial factor}, due to Theorem~\ref{lem:important-enumerate}. We will bound the number of leaves in the recursion tree {similarly as in \cref{lem:separation-subgraph}}.
Let $T(k)$ denote the maximal number of leaves for a call with argument $k$.
We prove by induction that $T(k) \le (k+1)! \cdot 4^k$, which holds for $k=0$.
For each recursive call, as described above, we estimate
\begin{equation*}
T(k) \le \sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)} T(k - |S'|) \le k! \cdot 4^k \sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \sum_{S' \in \mathcal{S}_k(F,Z)} 4^{-|S'|} \stackrel{\text{Lemma }\ref{lem:important-sum}}{\le} (k+1)! \cdot 4^k.
\end{equation*}
The number of calls to $\mathcal{A}$ is thus at most $T(k)$.
Since the depth of the recursion tree is $k$, we obtain a bound of $k \cdot (k+1)! \cdot 4^k$ on the total number of recursive \mic{nodes}.
Together {with the assumption $k\le t$}, we obtain the claimed running time $2^{\mathcal{O}(t\log t)} \cdot (f(n,t) + n^{\mathcal{O}(1)})$.
\mic{The important separators can be enumerated using only polynomial space, so whenever $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space then the entire algorithm does.}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Disconnected obstructions}
\mic{So far we have focused on union-closed graph classes, so we could take advantage of \cref{lem:branching:erdos-posa} (with the exception of classes given by forbidden induced subgraphs in \cref{lem:separation-subgraph}).
If the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is given by a family $\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden (topological) minors, then $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is union-closed if all graphs in $\mathcal{F}$ are connected.}
We shall now explain how to reduce the general problem to this case.
We define the class \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}{} to be the closure of \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} under taking disjoint unions of graphs,
i.e., $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$ if each connected component of $G$ belongs to \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
Observe that in the definition of \hhdepthdecomp{} and \hhtwdecomp{} we only require that each base component belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
If a~base component $C$ is disconnected we can make several copies of its~bag, one for each connected component of~$C$.
Therefore we are only interested in checking whether some connected graphs belong to \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} and for the sake of obtaining decompositions there is no difference in studying \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} or \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}{}
\begin{observation}\label{obs:disjoint-union-decomposition}
An \hhdepthdecomp{} (resp. \hhtwdecomp{}) of $G$ can be transformed into an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$-elimination forest (resp. tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$-decomposition) of $G$ of the same width, in polynomial time.
In particular, $\mathbf{ed}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G) = \mathbf{ed}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}(G)$ and $\mathbf{tw}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G) = \mathbf{tw}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}(G)$.
\end{observation}
Below we explain that given \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} \bmp{defined} via a~finite family of forbidden (topological) minors, we can construct an~analogous family for \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}, in which all the graphs are connected.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:disjoint-union-minors}
There exists an algorithm that, for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} given by a~finite family of forbidden (topological) minors~$\mathcal{F}$, generates the family $\mathcal{D(F)}$ of
forbidden (topological) minors for \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}.
All the graphs in $\mathcal{D(F)}$ are connected.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Bulian and Dawar~\cite{BulianD17} have presented such an~algorithm for non-topological minors and we summarize it below.
It holds that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$ as long as all the graphs in $\mathcal{F}$ are connected.
If $H \in \mathcal{F}$ is not connected
and a~connected graph $G$ contains $H$ as a minor, then
$G$ also contains a minor being a~connected supergraph of $H$ \bmp{on vertex set~$V(H)$}.
\bmp{For each $H \in \mathcal{F}$ we generate all connected supergraphs of~$H$ on vertex set~$V(H)$, and add them to $\mathcal{D(F)}$. Afterwards we trim the family to its minor-minimal elements, to obtain the desired family of forbidden minors for~$\mathcal{D}(H)$.}
\bmp{With a small modification, the same argument also works for topological minors.}
If $H \in \mathcal{F}$ consists of \bmp{multiple} connected components $H_1, \dots, H_m$,
we consider \bmp{the}~family $\mathcal{T}_m$ of all trees $T$ such that $\{1,\dots, m\} \subseteq V(T)$ and all vertices apart from $\{1,\dots, m\}$ have degree at least 3.
Clearly, for $T \in \mathcal{T}_m$ it holds that $|V(T)| \le 2m$, so the family $\mathcal{T}_m$ is finite.
Now consider a~family $\mathcal{D}(H)$ given by choosing $T \in \mathcal{T}_m$, replacing the vertices $\{1,\dots, m\}$ with components $H_1, \dots, H_m$,
so that if $i \in \{1,\dots, m\}$ is an~endpoint of an~edge from $E(T)$, it gets replaced by some vertex from $H_i$ or a~vertex created by subdividing an~edge in $H_i$.
Then $\mathcal{D}(H)$ is also finite and
if a~connected graph $G$ contains $H$ as a~topological minor, then
$G$ also contains a topological minor from $\mathcal{D}(H)$.
The family $\mathcal{D(F)}$ is given by the family of topological-minor-minimal graphs in the~union of $\mathcal{D}(H)$ over $H \in \mathcal{F}$.
\end{proof}
We remark that when \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} is not closed under disjoint unions of graphs, we do not exploit the decompositions for solving the respective vertex deletion problems, as these become para-NP-hard (see Section~\ref{subsec:not:closed}).
However, we provided a~general way of constructing decompositions for the sake of completeness and because the resulting algorithms to approximate elimination distance and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth are of independent interest.
\subsection{Summary of the decomposition results}
\label{sec:summary}
Supplied with the algorithms for \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{} and \textsc{Restricted $(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{}, we can plug them into the framework from Section~\ref{sec:decomp-abstract}.
\mic{Each result \bmp{below follows} from the~combination of a~respective algorithm for \textsc{$(\hh,h)$-separation finding}\xspace{} with a procedure to build either an~\hhdepthdecomp{} or a~\hhtwdecomp{}.
Whenever the first algorithm runs in polynomial space, we formulate an~additional claim about constructing the~\hhdepthdecomp{} in polynomial space, but with a~slightly worse approximation guarantee.
We begin with a formalization of \cref{thm:solving:general}, which allows us to cover several graph classes in a unified way, and then move on to applications.}
\iffalse
\begin{thm}\label{thm:decomp-subgraph}
For \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} given by a finite family of forbidden induced subgraphs, there are algorithms $(a,b,c)$ which given a graph $G$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3\log k)$,
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$, \label{alg:subgraph:ed}
\item if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a \hhtwdecomp{}{} of width $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$. \label{alg:subgraph:tw}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To obtain $(a,b)$ we combine Lemma~\ref{lem:separation-subgraph} with Lemmas~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace} and~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-exact}.
For the case $(c)$ we supply Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-tw} with the algorithm from Lemma~\ref{lem:separation-subgraph-restricted}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:decomp-bipartite}
For \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} being the class of bipartite graphs, there are algorithms $(a,b,c)$ which given a graph $G$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in polynomial time and space, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3\log k)$,
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$,
\item if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a \hhtwdecomp{}{} of width $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To obtain $(a,b)$ we combine Lemma~\ref{lem:separation-bipartite} with Lemmas~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace} and~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-exact}.
From Lemmas~\ref{lem:separation-bipartite} and~\ref{lem:restricted-to-unrestricted} we obtain an algorithm for \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, 2k)$-separation finding} running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
The case $(c)$ follows then from Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-tw}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{thm:decomp-chordal}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ being the class of chordal graphs, there are algorithms $(a,b,c)$ which given a graph $G$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^4\log k)$,
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$, \label{alg:chordal:ed}
\item if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a \hhtwdecomp{}{} of width $\mathcal{O}(k^5)$. \label{alg:chordal:tw}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The \textsc{Chordal deletion} problem admits an FPT algorithm parameterized by the solution size $s$ running in time $f(n,s) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(s \log s)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{CaoM16} and polynomial space~\cite{CaoM16-communication}.
The claim follows from plugging this algorithm to the \cref{thm:branching:final}.
\end{proof}
\fi
\begin{thm}\label{thm:branching:final}
Let \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}{} be a hereditary union-closed graph class.
Suppose that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} admits an exact or $\mathcal{O}(1)$-approximate algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ parameterized by the solution size $s$ running in time $f(n,s)$ on an $n$-vertex graph, where $f$ is a computable function non-decreasing on both coordinates.
There \bmp{exist algorithms} which given a graph $G$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, the algorithm runs in time $f\left(n,k(k+1)\right) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a \hhtwdecomp{}{} of width $\mathcal{O}(k^5)$,
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, the algorithm runs in time $\left(f(n,k(k+1)) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\right) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$,
\item (only applicable when $\mathcal{A}$ works in polynomial space) if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, the algorithm runs in time $f\left(n,k(k+1)\right) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^4\log^{3 / 2} k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
From \cref{lem:branching:general} we obtain an algorithm for \textsc{$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(t^2))$-separation finding} running in time
$g(n,t) = f(n, t(t+1)) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(t)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ runs in polynomial space then the algorithm above does as well and we can plug it to \cref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace} to prove the claim (c) with running time $g(n,k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
Similarly, we obtain (b) via \cref{lem:decomp-ed-exact} to get running time $(g(n,k) + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)})\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
We construct an algorithm for \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(t^2))$-separation finding} via \cref{lem:restricted-to-unrestricted} at the expense of multiplying the running time $g(n,t)$ by $2^{\mathcal{O}(t \log t)}$.
Then the claim (a) follows from \cref{lem:decomp-tw}.
\end{proof}
Instead of formulating a lengthy theorem statement about numerous graph classes, we gather the detailed list of results in \cref{table:decomposition} and provide a combined proof for all of them below.
The cases of bipartite graphs and classes given by \mic{a finite family of} forbidden induced subgraphs are amenable to \cref{thm:branching:final}, but we provide specialized algorithms achieving better running times and approximation guarantees.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{\small Summary of decomposition results. Each result is of the form: there is an~algorithm that, given graph $G$ satisfying $\hhdepth(G) \le k$ (resp. $\hhtw(G) \le k$), runs in time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $h(k)$ (resp. a~\hhtwdecomp{} of width $h(k)$).
One can read the {bounds} on $h$ (top) and $f$ (bottom) in
the corresponding cell.
For bipartite graphs and $h(k) = \mathcal{O}(k^3\log^{3 / 2} k)$ we obtain $f=\mathcal{O}(1)$ as the algorithm runs in polynomial time.
} \label{table:decomposition}
\centering
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\text{class } \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} & & \hhtw & \hhdepth & \hhdepth \text{ in poly-space} \\ \hline
\text{bipartite} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^2) & \mathcal{O}(k^3\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & \mathcal{O}(1) \\ \hline
\text{forbidden induced} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^2) & \mathcal{O}(k^3\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
\text{subgraphs}&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \\ \hline
\text{chordal} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^4\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2 \log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)} \\ \hline
\text{(proper) interval} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^4\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \\ \hline
\text{bipartite permutation} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^4\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \\ \hline
\text{(linear) rankwidth $\le 1$} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & \mathcal{O}(k^4\log^{3 / 2} k) \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \\ \hline
\text{planar} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & - \\
&f & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)} & 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2\log k)} & \text{} \\ \hline
\text{forbidden} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & - \\
\text{minors}&f & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} & 2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} & \text{} \\ \hline
\text{forbidden topological} &h & \mathcal{O}(k^5) & \mathcal{O}(k^3) & - \\
\text{minors}&f & \text{FPT} & \text{FPT} & \text{} \\ \hline
\end{array}\]
\end{table}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:decomposition:full}
For each cell in \cref{table:decomposition} there exists an~algorithm
that, given graph $G$ satisfying $\hhdepth(G) \le k$ (resp. $\hhtw(G) \le k$), runs in time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $h(k)$ (resp. a~\hhtwdecomp{} of width $h(k)$).
The algorithms specified in the last column work in polynomial space.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{bipartite}$, we take advantage of the polynomial-time algorithm for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, 2t)$-\textsc{separation finding} from \cref{lem:separation-bipartite}.
To compute an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest we combine it with Lemmas~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace} and~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-exact}.
Note that in the first case we achieve a polynomial-time algorithm.
From Lemmas~\ref{lem:separation-bipartite} and~\ref{lem:restricted-to-unrestricted} we obtain an algorithm for \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, 4t)$-separation finding} running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(t\log t)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ \mic{and polynomial space}.
The algorithm computing a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition follows then from Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-tw}.
Let now $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be given by a finite family of forbidden induced subgraphs, not necessarily connected.
The algorithms for computing an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest are obtained by pipelining the algorithm for $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, t)$-\textsc{separation finding} from Lemma~\ref{lem:separation-subgraph}, running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(t)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and polynomial space, with Lemmas~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-polyspace} and~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-exact}, respectively.
For the case of a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition, we supply Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-tw} with the algorithm from Lemma~\ref{lem:separation-subgraph-restricted}.
The remaining results are obtained by supplying
\cref{thm:branching:final} with known algorithms for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion}, either approximate or exact, parameterized by the solution size.
First let us consider $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{chordal}$.
The \textsc{Chordal deletion} problem admits an FPT algorithm parameterized by the solution size $s$ running in time $f(n,s) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(s \log s)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{CaoM16} and polynomial space~\cite{CaoM16-communication}.
The claim follows from plugging this algorithm to \cref{thm:branching:final}.
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\mathsf{interval}, \mathsf{proper} \,\, \mathsf{interval}\}$, we take advantage of the existing constant-factor approximation algorithms for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} \cite{CaoK16, HofV13}.
Pipelining them with \cref{thm:branching:final} yields the claim.
The same argument works for the class of bipartite permutation graphs, for which we can also use a~constant-factor approximation algorithm \cite{BozykDKNO20}.
When $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is a class of graphs of rankwidth at most 1 or linear rankwidth at most 1 (these graphs are also called {distance-hereditary}), we use algorithms for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion}, parameterized by the solution size $s$, running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(s)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{EibenGK18, KanteKKP17}.
Both algorithms work in polynomial space~\cite{Kwon-communication}.
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$, we use the known algorithm for \textsc{Vertex planarization} parameterized by the solution size $s$, running in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(s \log s)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{JansenLS14}.
This algorithm however does not work in polynomial space so we do not populate the last cell in the row.
As a more general case, consider $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ given by a finite family of forbidden minors.
\cref{thm:branching:final} can be applied directly only when all the graphs in this family are connected as otherwise $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ might not be union-closed.
However, by
\cref{obs:disjoint-union-decomposition} and \cref{lem:disjoint-union-minors} the general problem of computing an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest (or a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition) can be reduced to the case where all the forbidden minors are connected.
Therefore, we can employ \cref{thm:branching:final} in combination with the algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion}, parameterized by the solution size $s$, running in time $2^{s^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$~\cite{sau20apices}.
Analogous reasoning applies when $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is given by a finite family of forbidden topological minors.
Here we rely on the FPT algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion}~\cite{FominLPSZ20} with a computable yet unspecified dependency on the parameter, so we do not specify the function $f$ in the table.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{thm}\label{thm:decomp-minor}
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ given by a finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden (topological) minors, there is a~computable function $f$ and algorithms $(a,b)$ which given a graph $G$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item if $\hhdepth(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, and returns an \hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$,
\item if $\hhtw(G) \le k$, then the algorithm runs in time $f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and returns a \hhtwdecomp{}{} of width $\mathcal{O}(k^5)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
{As explained in Observation~\ref{obs:disjoint-union-decomposition}, there is no difference in considering $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:disjoint-union-minors} states that if $\mathcal{F}$ contains some disconnected graphs, we can construct a~finite family $\mathcal{D(F)}$ of forbidden (topological) minors to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{D(H)}}$, which are all connected.
Hence, we can assume that the given family $\mathcal{F}$ consists of connected graphs.}
For the case $(a)$, we combine Corollary~\ref{cor:separation-minor} with Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-ed-exact}.
From Corollary~\ref{cor:separation-minor} and Lemma~\ref{lem:restricted-to-unrestricted} we obtain an FPT algorithm for \textsc{Restricted $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{O}(k^2))$-separation finding}.
The case $(b)$ follows then from Lemma~\ref{lem:decomp-tw}.
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{Solving vertex-deletion problems} \label{sec:solving}
\bmp{We move on to solving particular vertex-deletion problems parameterized by $\hhtw$ or $\hhdepth$.
In~particular, we will be interested in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-\textsc{deletion} parameterized by graph measures related to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. We begin by presenting preliminaries specific for solving vertex-deletions problems in Section~\ref{sec:vertexdeletion:prelims}. In Section~\ref{sec:algorithms:adhoc} we show how several existing algorithms can be adapted to work with the parameterizations~$\hhtw$ and~$\hhdepth$, leading to algorithms solving \textsc{Odd Cycle Transversal} and \textsc{Vertex Cover}. In Section~\ref{sec:alg:generic} we present a meta-algorithm and apply it to several problems using new or known bounds on the sizes of minimal representatives of suitable equivalence classes.}
\subsection{Preliminaries for solving vertex-deletion problems} \label{sec:vertexdeletion:prelims}
{Let $T$ be a rooted tree. We denote the subtree of $T$ rooted at $t\in V(T)$ by $T_t$. The distance (in terms of the number of edges) from $t \in V(T)$ to the root of $T$ is denoted by $\mathrm{depth}_T(t)$. The height of a rooted tree~$T$ is the maximum number of edges on a path from the root to a leaf, we denote it by~$\mathrm{height}(T)$. For an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest $(T,\chi)$, let $V_t = \bigcup\{\chi(t') \mid t \text{ is an ancestor of } t'\}$. }
We begin with a~simple observation that will play {an} important role in several arguments.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:optimal-set-separable-set}
Suppose $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is union-closed, $X \subseteq V(G)$ is a minimum $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in graph $G$ and $Z \subseteq V(G)$ satisfies $G[Z] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Then $|X \cap Z| \le |N(Z)|$.
\end{lemma
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $|X \cap Z| > |N(Z)|$.
Consider an alternative solution candidate $X' = (X \setminus Z) \cup N(Z)$.
The graph $G - (N[Z] \cup X)$ is an induced subgraph of $G - X$, so it belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, because the class is hereditary.
Furthermore, $G[Z] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $G-X'$ is a~disjoint union of these graphs, so $X'$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set.
To compare the sizes of $X$ and $X'$,
observe that when defining $X'$
we have removed all vertices from $X \cap Z$ and added at most $|N(Z)|$ new vertices, therefore $|X'| < |X|$.
This contradicts that $X$ is a~minimum deletion set.
\end{proof}
It is particularly useful when we are guaranteed that $Z$ has a~small neighborhood.
This is exactly the case for the base components in both types of decompositions: the base components of an~\hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $k$ (resp. \hhtwdecomp{} of width $k-1$) have neighborhood of size at most $k$.
We could thus assume that the intersection of any minimum $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set with any base component is not too large.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:optimal-set-separable-set}
Suppose $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under disjoint unions of graphs, $X \subseteq V(G)$ is a minimum $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$, and $Z \subseteq V(G)$ is a base component of an~\hhdepthdecomp{} of depth $k$ or a~\hhtwdecomp{} of width $k-1$.
Then $|X \cap Z| \le k$.
\end{corollary}
\iffalse
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:optimal-set-separable-set}
Suppose $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under disjoint unions of graphs, $X \subseteq V(G)$ is a minimum $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$ and $Z \subseteq V(G)$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separable.
Then $|X \cap Z| \le k$.
\end{corollary}
\fi
\paragraph{Nice decompositions}
We now introduce a standardized form of tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions which is useful to streamline dynamic-programming algorithms. It generalizes the nice (standard) tree decompositions which are often used in the literature and were introduced by Kloks~\cite{kloks1994treewidth}.
\mic{A~similar construction has been introduced by Eiben et al.~\cite{EibenGHK19}, however we treat the leaves in a~slightly different way for our convenience.}
\begin{definition} \label{def:nice:tree:h:decomp}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class. A tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition~$(T,\chi,L)$ is \emph{nice} if the tree~$T$ is rooted at a vertex~$r$ such that $\chi(r) \cap L = \emptyset$ and the following properties hold in addition to those of Definition~\ref{def:tree:h:decomp}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each node of~$T$ has at most two children.
\item If~$t \in V(T)$ has two distinct children~$c_1, c_2$, then~$\chi(t) = \chi(c_1) = \chi(c_2)$. (This implies that~$\chi(t) \cap L = \chi(c_1) \cap L = \chi(c_2) \cap L = \emptyset$.)
\item If node~$t$ has a single child~$c$, then one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a vertex~$v \in V(G) \setminus L$ such that~$\chi(t) = \chi(c) \cup \{v\}$.
\item There is a vertex~$v \in V(G) \setminus L$ such that~$\chi(t) = \chi(c) \setminus \{v\}$.
\item \mic{The node~$c$ is a leaf and~$\chi(t) = \chi(c) \setminus L$.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
As our approach to dynamic programming over a nice \jjh{tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-}decomposition handles all nodes with a single child in the same way, regardless of whether a vertex is being introduced or forgotten compared to its child, we do not use the terminology of \textsc{introduce} or \textsc{forget} node in this work.
We are going to show that any tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition can efficiently be transformed into a~nice one without increasing its width.
The analogous construction for standard tree decompositions is well-known and we shall use it as a black box.
In order to ensure that this process preserves existing bags,
we will rely on the following observation.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:treewidth-clique}
Suppose that $(T,\chi)$ is a tree decomposition of $G$ and the vertex set $A \subseteq V(G)$ forms a clique.
Then there exists a node $t \in V(T)$ such that $A \subseteq \chi(t)$.
\end{observation}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:makenice}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class. There is an algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex graph~$G$ and a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition~$(T,\chi,L)$ of~$G$ of width~$k$, runs in time~$\mathcal{O}(n + |V(T)|\cdot k^2)$ and outputs a \emph{nice} tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition~$(T', \chi', L)$ of~$G$ of width at most~$k$ satisfying~$|V(T')| = \mathcal{O}(kn)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Kloks~\cite{kloks1994treewidth} provided an~algorithm for turning a tree decomposition into a~nice one with the same bounds as in the statement of the lemma.
The (standard) nice tree decomposition satisfies Definition~\ref{def:nice:tree:h:decomp} with $L=\emptyset$.
Let $G_0 = G - L$ be the graph $G$ without the base components.
The tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition $(T,\chi,L)$ induces a~(standard) tree decomposition $(T_0,\chi_0)$ of $G_0$ of the same width.
We would like to turn $(T_0,\chi_0)$ into a~nice decomposition and then append the base components back.
However, we would like to keep the bags to which the base components are connected.
In order to ensure this, consider a~graph $G'_0$ obtained from $G_0$ by adding an~edge between each pair of vertices that reside in a~common bag of $(T_0,\chi_0)$.
Note that $(T_0,\chi_0)$ is a~valid tree decomposition of $G'_0$.
By the known construction~\cite{CyganFKLMPPS15, kloks1994treewidth},
we can build a~nice tree decomposition $(T'_0,\chi'_0)$ of $G'_0$
with $\mathcal{O}(k\cdot |V(G_0')|)$ nodes and width $k$, in time $\mathcal{O}(n + |V(T_0)|\cdot k^2)$.
If a set of vertices $B \subseteq V(G_0)$ forms a~bag in $(T_0,\chi_0)$, then $B$ is a clique in $G_0'$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:treewidth-clique}, there must be a bag in $(T'_0,\chi'_0)$ that contains $B$.
Let $C$ be a base component in $(T,\chi,L)$, that resides in the bag of node $t \in V(T)$.
By the observation above, there is a node $t' \in V(T'_0)$, such that $N(C) \subseteq \chi'_0(t')$.
For each base component $C$ we proceed as follows: (1) identify such a node $t_C \in V(T'_0)$, (2) create 2 copies $t_1, t_2$ of $t_C$, (3) move the original children (if any) of $t_C$ to be children of $t_1$, (4) make $t_C$ the parent of $t_1, t_2$, (5) create a~child node $t_3$ of $t_2$ with a~bag $\chi_0'(t_C) \cup C$.
Such a~modification of a~nice \hhtwdecomp{} preserves the conditions (1-3) and never modifies the bag of the root node.
For each base component we create only a~constant number of new nodes, so the upper bound is preserved.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
We root the tree $T$ at arbitrary node $r$ and proceed recursively over its rooted subtrees.
Let $G_t$ denote the subgraph induced by the vertices appearing in the subtree rooted at node $t$.
The tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition $(T,\chi,L)$, restricted to the nodes in the subtree rooted at $t$, is referred to as $(T_t,\chi_t,L_t)$.
It forms a~tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of the graph $G_t$.
Let us describe a~procedure \textsc{process}$(t)$ that transforms the decomposition $(T_t,\chi_t,L_t)$ of $G_t$, rooted at node $t$, into a nice decomposition $(T'_t,\chi'_t,L_t)$ with an~invariant that $\chi'_t(t) = \chi_t(t)$.
If $t$ is a~leaf, then we do not have to change anything.
Suppose now that $t$ is not a~leaf and let us refer to its children as $t_1, \dots, t_m$.
We call \textsc{process}$(t_i)$ for each child and use the obtained nice decompositions.
Let $t'_i$ be a node connected to $t_i$ with $\chi'_t(t'_i) = \chi_t(t_i) \setminus L_{t}$.
We build a binary tree rooted at $t$ with $m$ leaves labeled $\ell_1, \dots, \ell_m$ and set $\chi'_t(u) = \chi_t(t)$ for each node $u$ in this tree.
Now, for each $i \in \{1,\dots,m\}$ we construct the shortest possible path from $\ell_i$ to $t'_i$, so that any two adjacent bags differ by one element.
It is clear that such a path has length at most $2(k+1)$ and any subpath of bags containing a particular vertex $v\in V(G)$ is connected.
The only case when $t$ is not a leaf in the rooted tree but $\chi(t)$ contains some base vertices is for $t=r$.
To handle this, we create two children nodes $r_1, r_2$,
set $\chi'(r_1) = \chi(r)$, $\chi'(r) = \chi'(r_2) = \chi(r) \setminus L$,
and connect the original children of $r$ to $r_2$.
\fi
To exploit the separators which are encoded in a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition, the following definition is useful.
\begin{definition} \label{def:triseparation}
A \emph{tri-separation} in a graph~$G$ is a partition~$(A,X,B)$ of~$V(G)$ such that no vertex in~$A$ is adjacent to any vertex of~$B$. The set~$X$ is the \emph{separator} corresponding to the tri-separation. The \emph{order} of the tri-separation is defined as~$|X|$.
\end{definition}
The following notions will be used to extract tri-separations from rooted tree decompositions. Recall that~$T_t$ denotes the subtree of~$t$ rooted at~$T$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:kappa}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class and let~$(T,\chi,L)$ be a nice tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of a graph~$G$, rooted at some node~$r$. For each node~$t \in V(T)$ of the decomposition, we define the functions~$\pi_{T,\chi}, \kappa_{T,\chi} \colon V(T) \to 2^{V(G)}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For a non-root node~$t$ with parent~$s$, we define~$\pi_{T,\chi}(t) := \chi(s)$. For~$r$ we set~$\pi_{T,\chi}(r) = \emptyset$.
\item For an arbitrary node~$t$, we define~$\kappa_{T,\chi}(t) := (\bigcup _{t' \in T_t} \chi(t')) \setminus \pi(t)$.
\end{enumerate}
We omit the subscripts~$T,\chi$ when they are clear from context.
\end{definition}
{Intuitively,~$\pi(t)$ is the bag of the parent of~$t$ (if there is one) and~$\kappa(t)$ consists of those vertices that occur in bags in the subtree~$T_t$ but not in the parent bag of~$t$. The following observations about~$\kappa$ will be useful later on.
\begin{observation} \label{obs:kappa}
If~$(T,\chi,L)$ is a nice tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of a graph~$G$, then the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the root~$r$ of the decomposition tree,~$\kappa(r) = V(G)$.
\item If node~$t'$ is a child of node~$t$, then~$\kappa(t') \subseteq \kappa(t)$.
\item If~$c_1, c_2$ are distinct children of a node~$t$, then~$\kappa(c_1) \cap \kappa(c_2) = \emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{observation}
}
Tri-separations can be deduced from tree decompositions using~$\kappa$ and~$\pi$.
\begin{observation} \label{obs:triseparation:from:td}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class and let~$(T,\chi,L)$ be a nice tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of graph~$G$, where~$t$ is rooted at some node~$r$. Let~$t \in V(T)$, let~$A := \kappa(t)$ and let~$X := \chi(t) \cap \pi(t)$. Then~$(A, X, V(G) \setminus (A \cup X))$ is a tri-separation in~$G$.
\end{observation}
\subsection{Incorporating hybrid parameterizations into existing algorithms} \label{sec:algorithms:adhoc}
\subsubsection{Odd cycle transversal}
In this section we show how to obtain an FPT algorithm for the \textsc{Odd cycle transversal (oct)} problem when given either a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest or a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition.
In the \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} problem we are given a graph $G$, and ask for the (size of a) minimum {vertex} set $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G-S$ is bipartite. Such a set $S$ is called an odd cycle transversal. We introduce some more terminology. Recall that a graph is bipartite if and only if it admits a proper 2-coloring, this 2-coloring is referred to as a bipartition. For a bipartite graph $G$ we say that $A,B \subseteq V(G)$ occur in opposite sides of a bipartition of $G$, if there is a proper 2-coloring $c$ of $G$ such that $A \subseteq c^{-1}(1)$ and $B \subseteq c^{-1}(2)$. Another characterization is that a graph is bipartite if and only if it does not contain an odd cycle, explaining the name \textsc{Odd cycle transversal}.
In most classical branching algorithms on elimination forests or {dynamic-programming} algorithms on tree decompositions, some trivial constant time computation is done in the leaves. In our setting we do more work in the leaves, without changing the dependency on the parameter.
\paragraph{Given a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest}
The algorithms we present sometimes need to be able to decide that an instance has no solution {and then the algorithm should return $\bot$.} Our union operator $\cup$ has the additional feature that it propagates this information, that is, $A \cup B = \bot$ if $A = \bot$ or $B = \bot$.
Before we present the algorithm, we introduce the following problem that will be used as a subroutine later on.
\defproblem{Annotated bipartite coloring (abc)}{A bipartite graph $G$, two sets $B_1,B_2 \subseteq V(G)$, and an integer $k$.}{Return {a} minimum-cardinality set $X \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G-X$ has a bipartition with $B_1 \setminus X$ and $B_2 \setminus X$ on opposite sides, or return $\bot$ if no such $X$ exists of size at most $k$.}
The sets $B_1$ and $B_2$ can be seen as precolored vertices that any coloring after deletion of some vertices should respect. The problem is solvable in polynomial time.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 4.15]{CyganFKLMPPS15}}]
\label{lem:abc}
\textsc{Annotated bipartite coloring} can be solved in $\mathcal{O}(k(n+m))$ time.
\end{lemma}
We present a branching algorithm for computing an odd cycle transversal of minimum size in Algorithm~\ref{alg:oct-elim}. The general idea is to branch on the top-most vertex $t$ of a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest, and recursively call annotated subinstances. Since each edge has an ancestor-descendant relation in the elimination forest, we only need to annotate the ancestors of $t$ to be able to solve the problem. In the case of \textsc{oct}, a vertex $v \in V(G)$ is either in the deletion set or in one of two color classes in the resulting bipartite graph. We either return a minimum odd cycle transversal that respects the annotations, or conclude that {they} cannot lead to an optimal solution {for} the initial graph. The idea of branching on a top-most vertex of an elimination forest {has been used by, e.g.,} Chen et al.~\cite{ChenRRV18} to show that \textsc{Dominating set} is FPT {when} parameterized by treedepth. They also {provide} branching strategies for \textsc{$q$-coloring} and \textsc{Vertex cover}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{oct} (Graph $G$, $t \in V(T)$, $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest $(T,\chi)$, $(S_1,S_2,S_X)$)}
\label{alg:oct-elim}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input
\Statex $(T,\chi)$ is a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of $G$ that consists of a single tree.
\Statex $S = S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S_X = \{ \chi(t') \mid t' \text{ is a proper ancestor of } t\}$.
\Statex $S_1$, $S_2$, and $S_X$ are pairwise disjoint.
\Output
\Statex An odd cycle transversal $X_t \subseteq V_t$ of $G[V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2]$ of minimum size such that (1) $S_1$ and $S_2$ are in opposite sides of a bipartition of $G[V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - X_t$ and (2) $|X_t \cap \chi(t')| \leq \mathrm{depth}_T(t')$ for each leaf $t' \in V(T_t)$. If no such $X_t$ exists, {then} return $\bot$.
\If {$t$ is a leaf}
\If{$\exists_{u,w \in S_1} uw \in E(G) \vee \exists_{u,w \in S_2} uw \in E(G)$}
\State \Return $\bot$
\Else
\State \Return \textsc{abc}$(G[\chi(t)],N_G(S_1) \cap \chi(t),N_G(S_2) \cap \chi(t),\mathrm{depth}_T(t))$
\EndIf
\Else
\State Let $U_t$ be the children of $t$.
\State Let $X_X = \chi(t) \cup \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{oct}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_1,S_2,S_X\cup \chi(t)))$.
\State Let $X_1 = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{oct}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_1 \cup \chi(t),S_2,S_X))$.
\State Let $X_2 = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{oct}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_1,S_2\cup \chi(t),S_X))$.
\State \Return
smallest of $X_X, X_1, X_2$ that is not $\bot$, or $\bot$ otherwise.
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:octhhdepth}
\textsc{Odd cycle traversal} can be solved in time $\mathcal{O}(3^d \cdot d^2 \cdot (n+m))$ time and polynomial space when given a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth~$d$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let~$(F,\chi)$ be an $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth~$d$ of the input graph~$G$. We solve \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} by taking the union of \textsc{oct}$(G[V_{r_T}],r_T,(T,\chi_T),(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset))$ over all trees $T$ in the forest $F$. Here $r_T \in V(T)$ is the root of $T$, and $\chi_T$ is the function $\chi$ restricted to $V(T)$. To see that this solves the problem, by Corollary~\ref{cor:optimal-set-separable-set} any optimal odd cycle transversal $Y \subseteq V(G)$ of $G$ would {remove} at most $\mathrm{depth}_T(t')$ vertices from $\chi(t')$ for every leaf $t' \in V(T)$.
We argue the correctness and running time of Algorithm~\ref{alg:oct-elim} by induction on $\mathrm{height}(T_t)$. Consider a call \textsc{oct}$(G,t,(T,\chi),(S_1,S_2,S_X))$ that satisfies the input requirements.
If $\mathrm{height}(T_t) = 0$, then $t$ is a leaf and $G[\chi(t)]$ is a bipartite base component. For any set $Y_t \subseteq V_t$ that satisfies the output requirements, we must have that $S_1$ and $S_2$ are independent sets. Thus if this is not the case, no such $Y_t$ exists and hence we can return $\bot$. Otherwise, in a proper 2-coloring of the remaining graph, every vertex in $N_G(S_1) \cap \chi(t)$ that is not deleted by $Y_t$ needs to get the color opposite to $S_1$. Similarly, every vertex in $N_G(S_2) \cap \chi(t)$ that is not deleted by $Y_t$ needs to get the a color opposite to $S_2$. Therefore, {any solution to the annotated \textsc{oct} problem also solves the} \textsc{Annotated bipartite coloring} instance on $G[\chi(t)]$ with precolored vertex sets $N_G(S_1) \cap \chi(t)$ and $N_G(S_2) \cap \chi(t)$ with budget $\mathrm{depth}_T(t)$. {Conversely, for any solution~$X$ to the \textsc{abc} instance, the graph~$G[\chi(t)] - X$ has a proper 2-coloring with~$N_G(S_1) \cap \chi(t)$ and~$N_G(S_2) \cap \chi(t)$ in opposite color classes. By flipping the color classes if needed, we may assume~$N_G(S_1) \cap \chi(t)$ is colored~$2$ and~$N_G(S_2) \cap \chi(t)$ is colored~$1$. Since~$S_1$ and~$S_2$ are independent sets, we can extend this $2$-coloring of~$G[\chi(t)] - X$ to a $2$-coloring of~$G[V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - X = G[\chi(t) \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - X$ by simply assigning~$S_1$ color~$1$ and~$S_2$ color~$2$. Hence the call to \textsc{abc} results in the correct answer to the annotated \textsc{oct} problem.}
In the case that $t$ is not a leaf, {fix a solution $Y_t \subseteq V_t$ that satisfies the output requirements if there is one; otherwise let~$Y_t = \bot$. The} single vertex in $\chi(t)$ must either be in the odd cycle transversal, or in one of two color classes of the remaining bipartition. We branch on each of these cases, and construct solutions $X_X$, $X_1$, and $X_2$. Initially we add $\chi(t)$ to the transversal $X_X$, in the other cases $\chi(t)$ will be annotated to be in a specific color class of the resulting bipartition. In each branch, we recursively call the algorithm for every child $t'$ and take the union of their results. Since $\mathrm{depth}_T(t') < \mathrm{depth}_T(t)$, we can assume that these recursive calls are correct by the induction hypothesis. We make the following claims.
\begin{claim}
If $X_i \neq \bot$ for some $i \in \{1,2,X\}$, then $X_i$ satisfies the output requirements.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
We show the argument for $i = 1$. Note that the set of leaves of $T_t$ is the union of the set of leaves of $T_{t'}$ for $t' \in U_t$, where $U_t$ is the set of children of $t$. Therefore the second requirement is satisfied by $X_1$. Clearly $X_1 \subseteq V_t$. Let $X_t'$ be the odd cycle transversal of $G[V_{t'} \cup S_1 \cup \chi(t) \cup S_2]$ for each child $t'$ of $t$, and let $c_{t'}$ be a 2-coloring of $G[V_{t'} \cup S_1 \cup \chi(t) \cup S_2] - X_{t'}$ that colors $S_1 \cup \chi(t)$ with color $1$ and $S_2$ with color $2$. We construct a 2-coloring $c_t$ of $G[V_{t} \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - X_1$. For $v \in V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2$ let $c_t(v) = c_{t'}(v)$ if $v \in V_{t'}$, $c_t(v) = 1$ if $v \in S_1 \cup \chi(t)$, and $c_t(v) = 2$ if $v \in S_2$. Since any edge in $E(G)$ has an ancestor-descendant relationship in $T$, it follows that $c_t$ is a proper 2-coloring of $G[V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - X_1$. Therefore, $X_1$ is an odd cycle transversal. Note that the first requirement is also satisfied, since $c_t$ has $S_1$ and $S_2$ in opposite sides of the bipartition. The reasoning for $X_2$ {is symmetric. For~$X_X$, the only difference is that the unique vertex in~$\chi(t)$ is removed instead of colored.} The claim follows.
\end{innerproof}
From the above claim we have that $|Y_t| \leq |X_i|$ in the case that $X_i \neq \bot$ for $i \in \{1,2,X\}$.
\begin{claim}
If $Y_t \neq \bot$ is a solution that satisfies the output requirements, then $X_i \neq \bot$ and $|X_i| \leq |Y_t|$ for some $i \in \{1,2,X\}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
Let $v_t$ be the unique vertex in $\chi(t)$. Either $v_t \in Y_t$, or $v_t$ should be in one of two color classes of the remaining bipartite graph.
Let $c$ be a 2-coloring of $G[V_t \cup S_1 \cup S_2] - Y_t$ that has $S_1$ and $S_2$ colored 1 and 2 respectively. First consider the case that $v_t \notin Y_t$ and $c(v_t) = 1$. We argue that for each child $t' \in U_t$, the set $Y_t \cap V_{t'}$ is some solution to the call $\textsc{oct}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_1 \cup \chi(t),S_2,S_X))$. Since each leaf in $T_{t'}$ is also a leaf in $T_t$, the second requirement is satisfied by $Y_t \cap V_{t'}$. Clearly $Y_t \cap V_{t'}$ is an odd cycle transversal of $G'= G[V_{t'} \cup S_1 \cup \chi(t) \cup S_2]$ such that $S_1 \cup \chi(t)$ and $S_2$ are in opposite sides of a bipartition; the coloring $c$ restricted to $G'$ certifies this. Since $Y_t \cap V_{t'}$ is some solution \mic{for $t'$}, \bmp{an optimal solution for~$t'$ is not larger, so }
by induction it follows that the output $X_{t'}$ of the recursive \mic{call} satisfies $|X_{t'}| \leq |Y_t \cap V_{t'}|$. By observing that $Y_t = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t} Y_t \cap V_{t'}$, we get that $X_1 = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t} X_{t'}$ satisfies $|X_1| \leq |Y_t|$.
The argument for $v_t \notin Y_t$ and $c(v_t) = 2$ is symmetric. The argument for $v_t \in Y_t$ is similar; here $Y_t = \{v_t\} \cup \bigcup_{t' \in U_t} Y_t \cap V_{t'}$ and therefore $X_X = \{v_t\} \cup \bigcup_{t' \in U_t} X_{t'}$ satisfies $|X_X| \leq |Y_t|$.
\end{innerproof}
From the two claims above the correctness follows. For $x \in V(T)$, let $n_x$ and $m_x$ denote the number of vertices and edges of $G[V_x]$, respectively. Recall that~$d$ is the depth of the overall elimination forest~$(F,\chi)$, so that~$\mathrm{height}(T_t), \mathrm{depth}_T(t) \leq d$ for all~$t \in V(T)$. To help bound the running time, we use the number of edges in the subtree~$T_t$ as an additional measure of complexity.
\begin{claim}
There is a constant~$\alpha$ such that \textsc{oct}$(G, t, (T,\chi), (S_1,S_2,S_X))$ can be implemented to run in time bounded by $\alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_t+m_t + |E(T_t)|)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{innerproof}
Proof by induction on~$\mathrm{height}(T_t)$.
First consider the case that $\mathrm{height}(T_t) = 0$. Note that $G[\chi(t)]$ is a base component of $T$ and therefore $G[\chi(t)]$ is bipartite. To verify whether~$S_1$ and~$S_2$ are independent sets, we need to be able to efficiently test whether one vertex is a neighbor of another. This would be trivial using an adjacency-matrix representation of the graph, but it would require quadratic space. Instead, we enrich the data structure storing the $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest~$(F,\chi)$ to allow efficient adjacency tests. This enrichment step is performed before the first call to~$\textsc{oct}$. With each internal node~$t$ of~$F$, which represents a single vertex~$\{v\} = \chi(t)$, we will store a linked list of those edges which connect~$v$ to a vertex stored in the bag of an ancestor of~$t$. Note that, by definition, this list has length at most~$\mathrm{depth}_F(t)$. It is easy to see that this enrichment step can be done in time~$\mathcal{O}(n + m)$.
Using this additional information, we can verify whether~$S_1$ and~$S_2$ are independent sets in time~$\mathcal{O}(|S|^2) = \mathcal{O}(d^2)$. For each~$i \in [2]$, for each vertex~$s$ of~$S_i$ (stored in the bag~$\chi(t') = \{s\}$ of an ancestor~$t'$ of~$t$), iterate through the list of edges connecting~$s$ to an ancestor. For each of those edges~$s s'$ in the list, we can determine whether~$s' \in S_i$, by setting a local flag in all vertex objects for~$S_i$ to indicate their membership. As each list has length at most~$d$, we can test in~$\mathcal{O}(|S| \cdot d) = \mathcal{O}(d^2)$ time whether~$S_1$ and~$S_2$ are indeed independent. If so, we solve an \textsc{abc} instance. By Lemma~\ref{lem:abc} this takes $\mathcal{O}(|S|(n_t+m_t)) = \mathcal{O}(d(n_t+m_t))$ time. Hence there exists a constant~$\alpha$ such that the base case is handled in~$\alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_t+m_t + |E(T_t)|)$ time.
Next consider the case that $\mathrm{height}(T_t) > 0$. We branch on three instances with the unique vertex in $\chi(t)$ added to each of $S_1$, $S_2$, and $S_X$ respectively. In each branch, we call the algorithm recursively for each child $t'$ of $t$. Since $\mathrm{height}(T_{t'}) \leq \mathrm{height}(T_t) - 1$, by the induction hypothesis each instance can be solved in $\alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_{t'})} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_{t'}+m_{t'} + |E(T_{t'})|)$ time. In addition to solving the three recursive calls, the algorithm does some additional work in taking the union of result sets for child subtrees and determining which of these is largest. By storing solutions in linked lists, the union can be computed in time linear in the number of children by concatenating the lists. Hence the additional work that has to be done on top of the recursive calls, can be handled in time~$\mathcal{O}(|U_t|)$, linear in the number of children. Hence if~$\alpha$ is sufficiently large, the additional work can be done in time~$\alpha \cdot |U_t|$. Note that the edges from~$t$ to its children are present in~$T_t$ but not in the subtrees of its children, so that~$|E(T_t)| = |U_t| + \sum _{t' \in U_t} |E(T_{t'})|$. We can now bound the total running time~$N$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
N & \leq \alpha \cdot |U_t| + 3 \cdot \sum _{t' \in U_t} \alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_{t'})} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_{t'}+m_{t'} + |E(T_{t'})|) & \mbox{By induction} \\
& \leq \alpha \cdot |U_t| + 3 \cdot \alpha \cdot d^2 \cdot \sum _{t' \in U_t} 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t) - 1} \cdot (n_{t'}+m_{t'} + |E(T_{t'})|) & \mbox{$t'$ is a child of~$t$} \\
& \leq \alpha \cdot |U_t| + \alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot \sum _{t' \in U_t} \cdot (n_{t'}+m_{t'} + |E(T_{t'})|) & \mbox{Rewriting} \\
& \leq \alpha \cdot |U_t| + \alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_t + m_t + |E(T_t)| - |U_t|) & \mbox{Bound on~$|E(T_t)|$} \\
& \leq \alpha \cdot |U_t| + \left (\alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_t + m_t + |E(T_t)|) \right) - \alpha \cdot |U_t|) & \mbox{Rewriting} \\
& \leq \alpha \cdot 3^{\mathrm{height}(T_t)} \cdot d^2 \cdot (n_t + m_t + |E(T_t)|) & \mbox{Canceling terms}
\end{align*}
This proves the claim.
\end{innerproof}
Since we initially call the algorithm on each tree of the elimination forest, which we can compute in linear time, the result follows. To see the polynomial space {guarantee}, note that the recursion tree has depth at most $d+1$, and for each instance we store a single node $t \in V(T)$, annotations $(S_1,S_2,S_X)$ of size $\mathcal{O}(d)$, and construct three odd cycle transversals $X_X$, $X_1$, and $X_2$ of $\mathcal{O}(n)$ vertices. Furthermore the {call to} \textsc{abc} runs in polynomial time and therefore uses polynomial space too.
\end{proof}
In the algorithm above we assumed we were given some decomposition. Since we have seen that we can compute {approximate} $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forests {in FPT time}, we have the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:octelimcombine}
\textsc{Odd cycle transversal} is FPT parameterized by $k = \ed_\mathsf{bip}(G)$, furthermore it is solvable in $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} + 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3}\log k)} \cdot (n+m)$ time and polynomial space.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $k = \ed_\mathsf{bip}(G)$. \mic{By \cref{thm:decomposition:full},} we can compute a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3 \log k)$ {in polynomial time and space}. The result follows by supplying this elimination forest to Theorem~\ref{thm:octhhdepth}.
\end{proof}
We remark that this running time can be slightly improved by using the other result \mic{from \cref{thm:decomposition:full}} as we could compute a $\mathsf{bip}$-elimination forest of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$, but then we lose the polynomial space guarantee.
\paragraph{Given a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition}
Fiorini et al.~\cite{FioriniHRV08} give an explicit algorithm for computing the size of a minimum odd cycle transversal in a tree decomposition of width $\mathbf{tw}$ in time $\mathcal{O}(3^{3\mathbf{tw}} \cdot \mathbf{tw} \cdot n)$. We follow their algorithm to show that a similar strategy works when given a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition. Most of the reasoning overlaps with~\cite{FioriniHRV08}, we include some of it for completeness.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:oct-dp}
\textsc{Odd cycle traversal} can be solved in time $3^{3k}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition of width $k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
{First, we apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:makenice} to turn the given tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition~$(T,\chi,L)$ into a nice one.
This takes time~$\mathcal{O}(n + |V(T)|\cdot k^2)$ and generates a {nice} tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition of the same width, such that ~$|V(T)| = \mathcal{O}(kn)$.
In particular, we can assume that $T$ is a binary tree.}
Let $t^* \in V(T)$ be the root of $T$. Furthermore, for $t \in V(T)$, let $T_t$ be the subtree of $T$ rooted at $t$. For each $e = uv \in E(G)$, assign a specific node $t(e) \in V(T)$, such that $u,v \in \chi(t)$. Let $E_t$ be the set of edges between the vertices in $\chi(t)$ for $t \in V(T)$. Let us define graph $G(t)$ with vertex set $\chi(t)$ and edge set $E_t$, and the graph $G(T_t)$ with vertex set $\bigcup_{t' \in T_t} \chi(t')$ and edge set $\bigcup_{t' \in T_t}E_{t'}$. We associate with $t \in V(T)$ a set $\mathcal{A}_t$ of ordered triples $\Pi_t = (L_t,R_t,W_t)$, which forms a 3-partition of $\chi(t) \setminus L$. Note that $|\mathcal{A}_t|$ is at most $3^k$.
The algorithm works from the leaves up, and for each partition $\Pi_t$ stores the size of a minimum odd cycle transversal $\hat{W}_t$ in $G(T_t)$ such that $W_t \subseteq \hat{W}_t$ and $L_t$ and $R_t$ are in opposite color classes of $G(T_t) - \hat{W}_t$. This value is stored in $f(\Pi)$, and is infinity if no such transversal exists. For a non-leaf $t$ with a child $r$, a partition of $\Pi_r$ is said to be consistent with $\Pi_t$, denoted $\Pi_r \sim \Pi_t$, if $W_t \cap V(S_r) \subseteq W_r$, $L_t \cap V(S_r) \subseteq L_r$, and $R_t \cap V(S_r) \subseteq R_r$.
Let $r, s$ be children of $t$; if there is only one child, we omit the terms for $s$.
If both $L_t$ and $R_t$ are independent sets in $G(t)$, we have
\[f(\Pi_t) = \min_{\Pi_r \sim \Pi_t, \Pi_s \sim \Pi_t} f(\Pi_r) + f(\Pi_s) + |W_t - (W_r \cup W_s)| - |W_r \cap W_s|\]
Otherwise, set $f(\Pi_t) = \infty$. For a leaf $t \in V(T)$, we set
\[f(\Pi_t) = |W_t| + \textsc{abc}(G[\chi(t)\cap L],N(L_t) \cap \chi(t), N(R_t) \cap \chi(t), n)\]
Since $\chi(t) \cap L = \emptyset$ for non-leaf nodes $t \in V(T)$, the correctness follows as in~\cite{FioriniHRV08}. In each leaf node, similarly as in Theorem~\ref{thm:octhhdepth},
we obtain an instance of \textsc{Annotated bipartite coloring} (here with budget $n$), which can be solved in polynomial time (Lemma~\ref{lem:abc}).
The total work in the internal nodes remains $\mathcal{O}(k \cdot 3^{3k} \cdot n)$ as in~\cite{FioriniHRV08}. The total work in the leaves takes $3^k \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time.
\end{proof}
We note that the algorithm of Fiorini et al.~\cite{FioriniHRV08} we adapted above does not have the best possible dependency on treewidth. {The dependency on $\hhtw[\mathsf{bip}]$ of our algorithm can be improved by exploiting more properties of nice tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions, to improve the exponential factor to~$3^k$. Similarly, the polynomial in the running time can be improved to~$k^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot (n + m)$. Two additional ideas are needed to achieve this speed-up. First of all, the computations for \textsc{Annotated bipartite coloring} in the leaf nodes can be cut off. By Corollary~\ref{cor:optimal-set-separable-set}, an optimal solution contains at most~$k+1$ vertices from any base component of a $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition of width~$k$. Hence it suffices to set the budget for the \textsc{abc} instance to~$k+1$, and assign a table cell the value~$\infty$ if no solution was found. While this causes some entries in the table to become~$\infty$, the optimum solution and final answer are preserved. The second additional idea that is needed is an efficient data structure for testing adjacencies in graphs of bounded $\mathsf{bip}$-treewidth, similarly as explained in~\cite{BodlaenderBL13}. We chose to present a simpler yet slower algorithm for ease of readability.}
Since we can compute tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decompositions approximately, we conclude with the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:octdpcombine}
\bmp{The \textsc{Odd cycle transversal} problem can be solved in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{3})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by~$k = \tw_\mathsf{bip}(G)$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\mic{By \cref{thm:decomposition:full}} we can compute a tree $\mathsf{bip}$-decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$ in $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time. The result follows by supplying this decomposition to Theorem~\ref{thm:oct-dp}. {The algorithm that computes the minimum size of an odd cycle transversal can be turned into an algorithm that constructs a minimum solution by standard techniques or self-reduction, in the same asymptotic time bounds.}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Vertex cover}
In this section we give algorithms for the \textsc{Vertex cover} problem when given a decomposition with base components of some hereditary graph class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in which the problem is polynomial-time solvable. In the \textsc{Vertex cover} problem, we are given a graph $G$, and ask for the (size of a) minimum vertex set $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that for each $uv \in E(G)$, $S \cap \{u,v\} \neq \emptyset$. Such a set $S$ is called a vertex cover.
Note that the \textsc{Vertex cover} problem can be stated as hitting forbidden induced subgraph, namely $K_2$, which we {will treat in Section~\ref{sec:hitting:subgraphs}.}
{However for the special case of \textsc{Vertex cover}, we are able to handle the problem for a broader spectrum of parameterizations.}
\paragraph{Given an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest}
We present a branching algorithm for \textsc{Vertex cover} in Algorithm~\ref{alg:vc-elim} that is similar to Algorithm~\ref{alg:oct-elim} for \mic{\textsc{Odd cycle transversal}}. Again we branch on the top-most vertex of an elimination forest. In the case of \textsc{Vertex cover} a vertex is either in the vertex cover (and added to $S_I$) or outside the vertex cover (and added to $S_O$). The intuition for the computation in the base components is as follows. For any ancestor that was chosen to not be in the vertex cover, any neighbor contained in the base component must be in the vertex cover. Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary, the base component where these vertices are deleted {still belongs to} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Therefore we can run an algorithm on the remaining graph that solves vertex cover in polynomial time on graphs from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Let $\textsc{A}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a~minimum {vertex cover} in a~graph $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{vc} (Graph $G$, $t \in V(T)$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest $(T,\chi)$, $(S_I,S_O)$)}
\label{alg:vc-elim}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input
\Statex $(T,\chi)$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of $G$ that consists of a single tree.
\Statex $S = S_I \cup S_O = \{ \chi(t') \mid t' \text{ is a proper ancestor of } t\}$.
\Statex $S_I$ and $S_O$ are disjoint.
\Output
\Statex A vertex cover $X_t \subseteq V_t$ of $G[V_t \cup S_O]$ of minimum size. If no such $X_t$ exists return $\bot$.
\If {$t$ is a leaf}
\If{$\exists_{u,w \in S_O} uw \in E(G)$}
\State \Return $\bot$
\Else
\State Use $\textsc{A}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ to compute a minimum vertex cover~$X$ of~$G[\chi(t) \setminus N_G(S_O)]$
\State \Return $X \cup (N_G(S_O) \cap \chi(t))$
\EndIf
\Else
\State Let $U_t$ be the children of $t$.
\State Let $X_I = \chi(t) \cup \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{vc}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_I \cup \chi(t),S_O))$.
\State Let $X_O = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{vc}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_I,S_O \cup \chi(t)))$.
\State \Return smallest of $X_I$ and $X_O$ that is not $\bot$, or $\bot$ otherwise.
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We note that the branching can be improved using the following idea. Whenever we put some vertex $v$ in $S_O$ (so $v$ is not part of the cover), then we must have all of $N_G(v)$ in the vertex cover. We do not include it here for ease of presentation.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:vcelim}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a hereditary graph class in which \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial time solvable. Then given an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest $(F,\chi)$ with {depth}
$d$, \textsc{Vertex cover} is solvable in $2^d \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time {and polynomial space}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We solve \textsc{Vertex cover} by summing the results of \textsc{vc}$(G[V_{r_T}],r_T,(T,\chi_T),(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset))$ over all trees $T$ in the forest $F$. Here $r_T \in V(T)$ is the root of $T$, and $\chi_T$ is the function $\chi$ restricted to $V(T)$. We argue the correctness of Algorithm~\ref{alg:vc-elim} by induction on $\mathrm{height}(T_t)$. Consider a call \textsc{vc}$(G,t,(T,\chi),(S_I,S_O))$ that satisfies the input requirements.
If $\mathrm{height}(T_t) = 0$, then $t$ is a leaf and $G[\chi(t)] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. For any set $Y_t \subseteq V_t$ that satisfies the output requirements, the set $S_O$ must be an independent set. If this is not the case, we correctly return $\bot$. Otherwise for $Y_t$ to be a vertex cover, every vertex from $N_G(S_O) \cap \chi(t)$ must be in the vertex cover. Therefore we return the union of $N_G(S_O) \cap \chi(t)$ and the result of $\textsc{A}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G[\chi(t) \setminus N_G(S_O)])$.
Otherwise, if $\mathrm{height}(T_t) > 0$, then $t$ is not a leaf. We branch on the unique vertex in $\chi(t)$ to be either in the vertex cover or not. In each branch, we recursively call the algorithm for each child $t'$ of $t$. Since $\mathrm{height}(T_{t'}) \leq \mathrm{height}(T_t) - 1$, by the induction hypothesis these recursive calls are correct. Since there is an ancestor descendant relation for every edge in $E(G)$, the union of vertex covers for in the recursively called subinstances form a vertex cover for the current instance. Since this branching is exhaustive, an optimal vertex cover is found in one of the branches if it exists. If $X_I = X_O = \bot$, then we can return $\infty$ for the current instance as well.
{Finally, we bound the running time and space requirements, by analyzing the recursion tree generated by the initial calls on each tree~$T$ of the forest~$F$. For each node~$t \in V(T)$, there are exactly~$2^{\mathrm{depth}_T(t)}$ recursive calls to Algorithm~\ref{alg:vc-elim} with~$t$ as the second parameter, one for every partition of the nodes in the bags of ancestors of~$t$ into~$S_I$ and~$S_O$. Within one call, we either verify that $S_O$ is an independent set in $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ time and call $\textsc{A}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ that runs in $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time, or compute the union of the partial results given by other calls in $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time. Hence the total size of the recursion tree is bounded by~$2^d \cdot |V(F)|$ and the work per call is polynomial in~$n$. As we store a polynomial amount of information in each call, this yields the desired bounds on running time and space requirements.}
\end{proof}
In the algorithm above we assumed we are given some $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest. One example where $\textsc{Vertex cover}$ is polynomial time solvable, but no $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest can be computed in FPT time is the class of perfect graphs, which we prove in Theorem~\ref{thm:inapprox:perfectdepthwidth}. For some graph classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ we do know how to compute such decompositions, which gives the following.
\begin{corollary}
\label{thm:vcelimcombine}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class such that~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\text{bipartite, chordal, interval}\}$ or~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is characterized by a finite family of forbidden induced subgraphs and \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial-time solvable on~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Then \textsc{Vertex cover} is FPT parameterized by $\hhdepth(G)$. Furthermore it can be solved in $2^{\customdepth{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}(G)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time using polynomial space.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is well known that \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial time solvable on bipartite, chordal, and interval graphs, {as these are subclasses of perfect graphs~\cite{GrotschelLS81}}. Let $k = \hhdepth(G)$. \mic{By \cref{thm:decomposition:full}, we can compute an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of depth {$k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$} in $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time
and polynomial space, for each considered class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$}. The result follows by supplying the computed decomposition to Theorem~\ref{thm:vcelim}.
\end{proof}
{One example of a hereditary graph class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ that satisfies the premises of the theorem is the class of claw-free (induced $K_{1,3}$-free) graphs. A maximum independent set (and therefore, its complement which forms a minimum vertex cover) can be found in polynomial-time in claw-free graphs~\cite{Minty80,Sbihi80}.}
{Taking the idea of relaxed parameterizations for \textsc{Vertex cover} one step further, one could even combine multiple graph classes in which the problem can efficiently be solved. For example, if~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is the class of graphs where each connected component is bipartite, or chordal, or claw-free, then \textsc{Vertex cover} is still FPT parameterized by~$\hhdepth$. It is easy to see that the decomposition algorithms can be adapted to work with the combination of these graph classes, while Theorem~\ref{thm:vcelim} directly applies. This leads to even smaller parameter values. Using the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-treewidth counterpart (Theorem~\ref{thm:vc:width}), we also obtain fixed-parameter tractability for the parameterization by~$\hhtw$.}
\paragraph{Given a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition}
Niedermeier~\cite{Niedermeier06} gives an algorithm to solve \textsc{Vertex cover} given a tree decomposition of width $d-1$ in time $2^d \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ using a standard dynamic programming approach. We adapt this algorithm to work with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions for hereditary graph classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in which vertex cover is polynomial time solvable similar to the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest case.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:vc:width}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a hereditary graph class on which \textsc{Vertex cover} is {polynomial-time} solvable. \textsc{Vertex cover} can be solved in time $2^k\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width $k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We adapt the algorithm by Niedermeier~\cite[Thm.~10.14]{Niedermeier06}. Choose an arbitrary root for the given tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition $(T,\chi,L)$. For $t \in V(T)$, let $T_t$ be the subtree rooted at $t$. We keep a table for every $t \in V(T)$, with a row for every assignment $C_t \colon \chi(t) \setminus L \to \{0,1\}$. For every such assignment, we store a value $m_t(C_t)$ that denotes the number of vertices in a~minimum vertex cover $V'$ of the graph induced by $\bigcup_{t' \in T_t}\chi(t')$ such that $V' \cap (\chi(t) \setminus L) = C_t^{-1}(1)$. That is, we consider solutions which contain all vertices in~$C_t^{-1}(1)$ and none of~$C_t^{-1}(0)$. Not every assignment leads to a solution: $m_t(C_t) = \infty$ if there is some edge $uv$ with $C_t(u) = C_t(v) = 0$.
We only have to adapt the computation for the leaf nodes~$t$ of the decomposition; the update steps remain identical as before~\cite{Niedermeier06} since~$\chi(t) \cap L = \emptyset$ for non-leaf nodes $t \in V(T)$.
For a leaf node~$t$ and assignment~$C_t$, define the auxiliary graph~$G' := G[(\chi(t) \cap L) \setminus N_G(C_t^{-1}(0))]$ corresponding to the base component without the vertices which are forced to be in the solution to cover edges incident on~$C_t^{-1}(0)$. As the solutions we are asking for contain all of~$C_t^{-1}(1)$, none of~$C_t^{-1}(0)$ and therefore all of~$N_G(C_t^{-1}(0)) \cap (\chi(t) \cap L)$, and furthermore have to cover all edges of~$G'$, the value of~$m_t$ can be computed as follows:
\begin{equation*}
m_t(C_t) = \begin{cases}
+ \infty & \mbox{if $\exists uv \in E(G) \colon u,v \in C_t^{-1}(0)$} \\
|C_t^{-1}(1)| + |N_G(C_t^{-1}(0)) \cap \chi(t) \cap L| + \mathsf{minvc}(G') & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Note that since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and $G[\chi(t) \cap L] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, it follows that $G' \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Therefore we can compute the size $\mathsf{minvc}(G')$ of a minimum vertex cover in $G'$ in $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time.
The running time of $2^k \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ follows.
\end{proof}
As before, for certain $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ we can compute tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions to arrive at fixed parameter tractability results.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:vcdpcombine}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class such that~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \in \{\text{bipartite, chordal, interval}\}$ or~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is characterized by a finite family of forbidden induced subgraphs and \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial-time solvable on~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Then \textsc{Vertex cover} is FPT parameterized by $\hhtw(G)$ and can be solved in $2^{\customtw{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}(G)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is well known that \textsc{Vertex cover} is polynomial time solvable on bipartite, chordal, and interval graphs, {as these are subclasses of perfect graphs~\cite{GrotschelLS81}}. Let $k = \hhtw(G)$.
\mic{By \cref{thm:decomposition:full}, we can compute a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width {$k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$} in time $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, for each considered class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
The result follows by supplying the computed decomposition to Theorem~\ref{thm:vc:width}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Hitting forbidden cliques}\label{sec:forbiddencliques}
{We say that a graph is $K_\ell$-free if it does not contain $K_\ell$ as a~subgraph, or equivalently, as an~induced subgraph.} In this section we show how to obtain an FPT algorithm for the \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} problem {where one is given} an ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest, for some $\ell \geq 2$,
{and the goal is to compute the (size of a) minimum vertex set $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G-S$ is $K_\ell$-free.} Here $\ell$ is assumed to be a~constant. Note that the \textsc{Vertex cover} problem is equivalent to \textsc{$K_2$-free deletion}.
The fact that \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} problem has an FPT algorithm parameterized by the depth of an ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest will follow {from the more general Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-induced:main} on hitting forbidden induced subgraphs, but} the branching algorithm we present here has the additional feature that it runs in polynomial space.
{It is} similar to Algorithm~\ref{alg:vc-elim} for \textsc{Vertex cover}, where we branch on the top-most vertex of an elimination forest. As with \textsc{Vertex cover}, a vertex is either in the solution (and added to $S_I$), or not in the solution (and added to $S_O$). The {key idea} is that a clique {can occur only on} a single root-to-leaf path in an elimination forest.
{The base component might have some ancestors in $S_O$ that can still be part of some $K_\ell$. In the case of $\ell = 2$ (\textsc{Vertex cover}), there is only one remaining option to hit each $K_2$, namely to remove each neighbor of $S_O$ in the base component. In general there are can be as many as $\ell-1$ options to consider.}
Since the base component is $K_\ell$-free, by Corollary~\ref{cor:optimal-set-separable-set} it follows that any optimal solution uses at most $d$ vertices from the base component, where $d$ is the depth of the ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest.
Consider the \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion with forbidden vertices} (\textsc{$K_\ell$-fdfv}) problem, where we are given a graph $G$, a set of undeletable vertices $S \subseteq V(G)$, and integer $k$, whereas $\ell$ is treated as a constant. The task is to output a minimum set $X \subseteq V(G) \setminus S$ such that $G-X$ has no $K_\ell$ as induced subgraph and $|X| \leq k$, or $\bot$ if no such set exists. We can solve this problem by finding an induced $K_\ell$ in $\mathcal{O}(n^\ell)$ time, and then branching on the at most $\ell$ ways to delete a non-forbidden vertex to hit this subgraph. If a solution has not been found after branching for $k$ levels deep, return~$\bot$. Hence we get the following observation; a formal proof follows from the more general algorithm of Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-induced:undeletable} which is presented later.
\begin{observation}
\textsc{$K_\ell$-fdfv}$(G,S,k)$ is solvable in $\ell^k \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time and polynomial space.
\end{observation}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} (Graph $G$, $t \in V(T)$, $(T,\chi)$, $(S_I,S_O)$)}
\label{alg:klfree-elim}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input
\Statex $(T,\chi)$ is a ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest $G$ that consists of a single tree.
\Statex $S = S_I \cup S_O = \{ \chi(t') \mid t' \text{ is a proper ancestor of } t\}$.
\Statex $S_I$ and $S_O$ are disjoint.
\Output
\Statex A $K_\ell$-free deletion set $X_t \subseteq V_t$ of $G[V_t \cup S_O]$ of minimum size, such that $|X_t \cap \chi(t')| \leq \mathrm{depth}_T(t')$ for each leaf $t' \in V(T_t)$. If no such $X_t$ exists return $\bot$.
\If {$t$ is a leaf}
\If{$G[S_O]$ contains $K_\ell$ as induced subgraph}
\State \Return $\bot$
\Else
\State \Return \textsc{$K_\ell$-fdfv}($G[\chi(t) \cup S_O],S_O,\mathrm{depth}_T(t))$
\EndIf
\Else
\State Let $U_t$ be the children of $t$.
\State Let $X_I = \chi(t) \cup \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_I \cup \chi(t),S_O))$.
\State Let $X_O = \bigcup_{t' \in U_t}\textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion}(G, t', (T,\chi), (S_I,S_O \cup \chi(t)))$.
\State \Return smallest of $X_I$ and $X_O$ that is not $\bot$, or $\bot$ otherwise.
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:Kl-free-elim}
Given a ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest $(F,\chi)$ with depth $d$ for some constant $\ell \geq 2$, \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} is solvable in $(2\ell)^d \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time and polynomial space.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We solve \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} by summing the results of \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion}$(G[V_{r_T}],r_T,\allowbreak (T,\chi_T),(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset))$ over all trees $T$ in the forest $F$. Here $r_T \in V(T)$ is the root of $T$, and $\chi_T$ is the function $\chi$ restricted to $V(T)$. To see that this correctly solves the problem, note that any optimal solution takes at most $\mathrm{depth}_T(t')$ vertices from $\chi(t')$ for every leaf $t' \in V(T)$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:optimal-set-separable-set}.
We argue the correctness of Algorithm~\ref{alg:klfree-elim} by induction on $\mathrm{height}(T_t)$. Consider a call \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion}$(G,t,(T,\chi),(S_I,S_O))$ that satisfies the input requirements.
If $\mathrm{height}(T_t) = 0$, then $t$ is a leaf and $G[\chi(t) \cap L]$ is $K_\ell$-free.
If graph $G[S_O]$ is not $K_\ell$-free,
then there is no $X_t \subseteq V_t$ that satisfies the output requirements.
Otherwise, the problem is equivalent to an~instance of \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion with forbidden vertices} for arguments $(G[\chi(t) \cup S_O], S_O, \mathrm{depth}_T(t))$.
In the remaining case $\mathrm{height}(T_t) > 0$, so $t$ is not a leaf. Recall that there is an ancestor-descendant relation for every edge in $E(G)$. Therefore any clique occurs on a single root-to-leaf path in the decomposition. We branch on the unique vertex in $\chi(t)$ to be either in the solution or not, and recursively call the algorithm for each child $t'$ of $t$. Since $\mathrm{height}(T_{t'}) \leq \mathrm{height}(T_t) - 1$, these calls are correct by the induction hypothesis. Since a clique occurs on a single root to leaf path, the union of solutions for the recursively called subinstances forms a solution for the current instance. Since this branching is exhaustive, the minimum size solution occurs on one of them if it exists. If all subinstances return~$\bot$, then we can return $\bot$ for the current instance as well.
{Finally, we bound the running time and space requirements, by analyzing the recursion tree generated by the initial calls on each tree~$T$ of the forest~$F$. For each node~$t \in V(T)$, there are exactly~$2^{\mathrm{depth}_T(t)}$ recursive calls to Algorithm~\ref{alg:vc-elim} with~$t$ as the second parameter, one for every partition of the nodes in the bags of ancestors of~$t$ into~$S_I$ and~$S_O$. Within one call, we either verify that $G[S_O]$ does not contain $K_\ell$ as induced subgraph in $n^{\mathcal{O}(\ell)} = n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time and call $K_\ell$-\textsc{fdfv} that runs in $\ell^{\mathrm{depth}_T(t)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time, or compute the union of the partial results given by other calls in $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time. Hence the total size of the recursion tree is bounded by~$2^d \cdot |V(F)|$ and the work per call takes at most~$\ell^d \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time. Note that $K_\ell$-\textsc{fdfv} can be solved using polynomial space. Therefore, as we store a polynomial amount of information in each call, this yields the desired bounds on running time and space requirements.}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:klfree-elimcombine}
For each fixed $\ell \geq 2$, \textsc{$K_\ell$-free deletion} is FPT parameterized by $k = \customdepth{\text{$K_\ell$-free}}(G)$. Furthermore it can be solved in $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^3 \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time using polynomial space.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $k = \customdepth{\text{$K_\ell$-free}}(G)$. \mic{By Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:full},} we can compute a ($K_\ell$-free)-elimination forest of depth $\mathcal{O}(k^3 \log k)$ {in $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time and} polynomial space. The result follows by supplying this decomposition to Theorem~\ref{thm:Kl-free-elim}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Generic algorithms via $A$-exhaustive families} \label{sec:alg:generic}
\subsubsection{$A$-exhaustive families and boundaried graphs} \label{sec:repsets}
\mic{In this section we introduce the main tools needed to present our most general framework for dynamic programming
on tree \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-decompositions.
We follow the ideas of gluing graphs and finite state property dating back to the results of Fellows and Langston~\cite{Fellows89} (cf. \cite{Arnborg91, Bodlaender96reduction}).
The following definition formalizes a key idea for the dynamic programming routine: to compute a restricted set of partial solutions out of which an optimal solution can always be built.}
\begin{definition} \label{def:representative}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class, let~$G$ be a graph, and let~$A \subseteq V(G)$. Then we say that a family~$\mathcal{S} \subseteq 2^A$ of subsets of~$A$ is $A$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$ if for every minimum-size set~$S \subseteq V(G)$ for which~$G - S \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, there exists~$S_A \in \mathcal{S}$ such that for~$S' := (S \setminus A) \cup S_A$ we have~$|S'| \leq |S|$ and~$G - S' \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{definition}
As a consequence of this definition, if~$\mathcal{S}$ is $A$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} then there exists an optimal solution~$S$ to \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} with~$S \cap A \in \mathcal{S}$.
The notion of $A$-exhaustive families is similar in spirit to that of \emph{$q$-representative families} for matroids, which have been used in recent algorithms working on graph decompositions~\cite{FominLPS16,KratschW20} (cf.~\cite[\S 12.3]{CyganFKLMPPS15}) to trim the set of partial solutions stored by a dynamic program while preserving the existence of an optimal solution. As the desired outcome of the replacement process in our case is not defined in terms of independence in a matroid and there is no particular importance of a given integer~$q$, we use different terminology for our concept of exhaustive families.
We reserve the name of a~\emph{representative family} to refer to a set of representatives for each equivalence class in the relation introduced in Definition~\ref{def:boundaried:eqv}.
{The following observation shows how $A$-exhaustive families can be extended to supersets~$A' \supseteq A$ by brute force. If~$|A' \setminus A|$ is bounded, the increase in the size of the exhaustive family can be controlled.}
\begin{observation} \label{obs:representative:introduce}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class, let~$G$ be a graph, let~$A \subseteq V(G)$ and let~$\mathcal{S} \subseteq 2^A$ be $A$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. Then for any set~$A' \supseteq A$, the family~$\mathcal{S'} \subseteq 2^{A'}$ defined as follows has size at most~$|\mathcal{S}| \cdot 2^{|A' \setminus A|}$ and is $A'$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}' := \{ S_1 \cup S^* \mid S_1 \in \mathcal{S} \wedge S^* \subseteq (A' \setminus A)\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{observation}
{A similar brute-force extension can be done when merging exhaustive families for disjoint subsets~$A_1, A_2$ into a an $A$-exhaustive family for a common superset~$A \supseteq A_1 \cup A_2$. We will use this step to handle a variation of standard $\mathsf{join}$ bags in a tree decomposition.
}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:representative:join}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class and let~$G$ be a graph. Let~$A_1,A_2 \subseteq V(G)$ be disjoint sets and let~$\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2$ be $A_1$-exhaustive (respectively, $A_2$-exhaustive) for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. Then for any set~$A' \supseteq A_1 \cup A_2$, the family~$\mathcal{S'} \subseteq 2^{A'}$ defined as follows has size at most~$|\mathcal{S}_1| \cdot |\mathcal{S}_2| \cdot 2^{|A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2)|}$ and is $A'$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}' := \{ S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S^* \mid S_1 \in \mathcal{S}_1 \wedge S_2 \in \mathcal{S}_2 \wedge S^* \subseteq (A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2))\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The bound on~$|\mathcal{S}'|$ is clear from the definition. Consider an arbitrary optimal solution~$S \subseteq V(G)$ to~\textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$; we will show there exists~$\widehat{S} \in \mathcal{S}'$ such that~$(S \setminus A') \cup \widehat{S}$ is an optimal solution. We use a two-step argument.
Since~$\mathcal{S}_1$ is $A_1$-exhaustive, there exists~$S_1 \in \mathcal{S}_1$ such that~$S' := (S \setminus A_1) \cup S_1$ is again an optimal solution.
Applying a similar step to~$S'$, as~$\mathcal{S}_2$ is $A_2$-exhaustive there exists~$S_2 \in \mathcal{S}_2$ such that~$S'' := (S' \setminus A_2) \cup S_2$ is an optimal solution.
Since~$A_1$ and~$A_2$ are disjoint, we have~$S'' \cap A_1 = S_1$ and~$S'' \cap A_2 = S_2$. Let~$S^* := S'' \cap (A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2))$. It follows that the set~$\widehat{S} = S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S^*$ belongs to~$\mathcal{S}'$. Now note that~$S \setminus A' = S'' \setminus A'$ as we have only replaced parts of the solution within~$A_1$ and~$A_2$, while~$A' \supseteq A_1 \cup A_2$. Hence~$(S \setminus A') \cup \widehat{S} = S''$ is an optimal solution, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
Note that Lemma~\ref{lem:representative:join} implies Observation~\ref{obs:representative:introduce} by letting~$A_2 = \emptyset,\, \mathcal{S}_2 = \{ \emptyset\}$.
\paragraph{\bmp{Boundaried graphs}}
For a function~$f \colon A \to B$ and a set~$A' \subseteq A$, we denote by~$f_{|A'} \colon A' \to B$ the restriction of~$f$ to~$A'$.
A $k$-boundaried graph is a triple $\widehat{G} = (G,X,\lambda)$, where $G$ is a graph, $X \subseteq V(G)$, and $\lambda \colon [k] \to X$ is a bijection.
\mic{We define $V(\widehat{G}) = V(G)$.}
Two $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are compatible if $\lambda_2 \circ \lambda_1^{-1}$ is a graph isomorphism between $G_1[X_1]$ and $G_2[X_2]$.
Two $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are isomorphic if there is a graph isomorphism $\pi \colon V(G_1) \to V(G_2)$,
such that $\pi_{|X_1} = \lambda_2 \circ \lambda_1^{-1}$.
The gluing operation $\oplus$ takes two compatible $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$, creates their disjoint
union, and then identifies the vertices $\lambda_1[i], \lambda_2[i]$ for each $i \in [k]$.
A tri-separation $(A,X,B)$ of order $k$ in graph $G$ can \bmp{be naturally} decomposed as $(G[A \cup X], X, \lambda) \oplus (G[B \cup X], X, \lambda)$ for an~arbitrary bijection $\lambda \colon [|X|] \to X$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:boundaried:eqv}
We say that two $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$
are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent if \mic{they are compatible and} for every compatible $k$-boundaried graph $(G_3, X_3, \lambda_3)$, it holds that $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \Longleftrightarrow (G_2, X_2, \lambda_2) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{definition}
\mic{Observe that if $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$ \jjh{and} $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are compatible and $G_1, G_2$ do not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, they are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent because we only consider hereditary classes of graphs.
Therefore in each equivalence class of compatibility
there can be only one $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence class that is comprised of $k$-boundaried \bmp{graphs which} do not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
The relevance of \bmp{the} $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence relation for solving $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} can be seen from the observation below.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:boundaried-deletion-set}
Consider $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$, $(H, X_3, \lambda_3)$, such that
$(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent {and compatible with $(H, X_3, \lambda_3)$.}
Let $S \subseteq V(H) \setminus X_3$.
Then $(H - S, X_3, \lambda_3) \oplus (G_1, X_1, \lambda_1) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if $(H - S, X_3, \lambda_3) \oplus (G_2, X_2, \lambda_2) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{observation}
\bmp{The $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} problem is the problem of deciding whether a given graph belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.} We say that the $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} problem is finite state if the relation of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence has finitely many equivalence classes for each $k$.
A $k$-boundaried graph {$(G,X,\lambda)$} is called a \emph{minimal representative} in the relation of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence if {$G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and} there is no other $k$-boundaried graph, which is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent and has a smaller number of vertices.
{We remark that in the literature it is more common to define representatives also for equivalence classes in which the underlying graphs do not belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ but for our purposes such a restriction is sufficient.
It will allow us to (a) avoid non-interesting corner cases and (b) exploit the properties of some classes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ to bound the number of minimal representatives.}
A family
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_k$ is called $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-representative if it {contains a minimal representative from each $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence class where the underlying graphs belong $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
It will not matter how the ties are broken.
A family $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$ is called $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative if it is a~union of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-representative families for all $t \in [k]$.
We define $\texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}) = \sum_{{R} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}} |V({R})|$.
Note that even though there may be many
ways to construct such a family, the sum above is well-defined,
as well as the size of the family.
Let us note that we can effectively test $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence as long as some $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-representative family is {provided.}
\begin{observation}\label{obs:boundaried-testing}
\mic{Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{k}$ be an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-representative family.}
Suppose that $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are compatible
and for every compatible $k$-boundaried graph $(G_3, X_3, \lambda_3)$ from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_k$ it holds that $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \Longleftrightarrow (G_2, X_2, \lambda_2) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Then $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent.
\end{observation}
\mic{
We will be interested in upper bounding the maximal number of vertices of a graph in an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \le k)$-representative family $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$;
we will denote this quantity by $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$.
Since there are $2^{\mathcal{O}((r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k))^2)}$ different graphs on $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$ vertices,
this gives an immediate bound on $|\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ and $\texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k})$.
What is more, we can construct an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \le k)$-representative family within the same running time.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:representative-generation-general}
Consider a polynomially recognizable graph class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} is finite state and there is a time-constructible\footnote{A function $r \colon \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ is time-constructible if there exists a Turing machine that, given a string $1^k$, outputs the binary representation of $r(k)$ in time $\mathcal{O}(r(k))$. We add this condition so we can assume that the value of $r(k)$ is known to the algorithm. All functions of the form $r(k) = \alpha\cdot k^c$, where $\alpha, c$ are positive integers, are time-constructible.} function $r(k) \ge k$, such that
for every integer $k$ and for every $t$-boundaried graph, where $t\in [k]$, there exists an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-equivalent $t$-boundaried graph on at most $r(k)$ vertices.
Then there exists an algorithm that, given an integer $k$, runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}((r(k))^2)}$
and returns an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \le k)$-representative family.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a process in which we begin from an empty graph on $n$ vertices, fix $t$ boundary vertices, and choose an adjacency matrix determining which pairs of vertices share an edge.
By iterating over all possible adjacency matrices, we can generate all $t$-boundaried graphs on $n$ vertices.
We enumerate all $2^{\mathcal{O}((r(k))^2)}$ $t$-boundaried graphs {from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$} on at most $r(k)$ vertices, for all $t \in [k]$.
For each pair of $t$-boundaried graphs which are compatible, we perform gluing and check (in time polynomial in $r(k)$) whether the obtained graph belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-testing}, this provides sufficient information to divide the generated $t$-boundaried graphs into $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-equivalence classes.
We construct \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-representative family} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$, for each $t \in [k]$,
by picking any minimal representative from each class; as noted before, it does not matter how the ties are broken.
\end{proof}
}
\subsubsection{Dynamic programming with $A$-exhaustive families}
We move on to designing a meta-algorithm
for solving $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by \hhtwfull{}.
Let $S$ be \bmp{an} optimal solution and $t$ be a node
in a \bmp{tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition}.
We will associate some tri-separation $(A,X,B)$ with $t$,
where $A$ stands for the set of vertices introduced below $t$ and $|X| \le k$ for $k-1$ being the width of the decomposition.
The main idea is to consider all potential tri-separations $(A_S,X_S,B_S)$ \bmp{that may} be obtained after removing $S$.
We enumerate all the non-equivalent $k$-boundaried graphs which may be isomorphic with $(G[B_S \cup X_S], X_S)$ and seek a minimal deletion set within $A$ so that the resulting graph belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
We will show that it suffices to consider all the representatives in the relation of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence to construct an $A$-exhaustive family of partial solutions.
We shall use the following problem to describe a subroutine \bmp{for}
finding such deletion sets in the leaves of the decomposition.
\defparproblem{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion}
{A graph $G$, integers $s, \ell$, and a subset $U \subseteq V(G)$ of size at most $\ell$, which is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$.}{$s,\ell$}
{Either return a minimum-size $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set $S \subseteq V(G) \setminus U$ or conclude that no such set of size at most $s$ exists.}
\iffalse
\defparproblem{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion with undeletable vertices}
{A graph $G$, a subset $X \subseteq V(G)$, and an integer $k$.}{$k$}
{Either return a minimum-size $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set $S \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$ or conclude that no such set of size at most $k$ exists.}
\fi
\mic{
We introduce two parameters $s, \ell$ that control the solution size and the size of the set $U$.
In the majority of cases we can adapt known algorithms for \textsc{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} to solve \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} even without the assumptions on the size and structure of $U$.
It is however convenient to impose such requirements on $U$ because (1) this captures the subproblem we need to solve in Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:undeletable} and (2) this allows us to adapt the known algorithm for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-minors:main}).}
The following lemma shows that the requirement of having undeletable vertices is easy to overcome if $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is closed under the addition of true twins. We say that vertices $u,v \in V(G)$ are \emph{true-twins} if $N_G[u] = N_G[v]$.
Note that in the following lemma the value of parameter $\ell$ is insignificant.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:meta-uniform:undeletable}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class closed under the addition of true twins and such that~\textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} \jjh{parameterized by the solution size $s$} can be solved in $f(n,s)$ time.
Then the problem \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} can be solved in $f(s\cdot n, s)$ time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let~$G'$ be the graph obtained from~$G$ by making~$s+1$ new true-twin copies of every vertex in~the undeletable set $U$. Then for every set~$S \subseteq V(G) \setminus U$ for which~$G - S$ is a member of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, the graph~$G' - S$ is also in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. Conversely, any minimum-size set~$S \subseteq V(G')$ of size at most~$s$ for which~$G' - S$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ does not contain any copies of vertices in~$U$, as the budget of~$s$ vertices is insufficient to contain all copies of a vertex, while a solution that avoids one copy of a vertex can avoid all copies, since members of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ are closed under the addition of true twins. Consequently, an optimal solution in~$G'$ of size at most~$s$ is disjoint from~$U$, and is also a solution in the induced subgraph~$G$ of~$G'$. Hence to compute a set~$S$ as desired, it suffices to compute an optimal $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in~$G'$ if there is one of size at most~$s$, which can be done by assumption.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-uniform:base}
Suppose that \bmp{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} is finite state},~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and union-closed, and \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} admits an algorithm with running time $f(s,\ell)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
Then there is an algorithm that, given a tri-separation~$(A,X,B)$ of order~$k$ in a graph~$G$ such that $G[A] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, and \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$, runs in time~$2^k \cdot f(k, r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) \cdot \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k})^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and outputs a family~$\mathcal{S}$ of size at most~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ that is $A$-exhaustive for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} on~$G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Initialize $\mathcal{S} = \emptyset$.
For each subset $X' \subseteq X$, \bmp{fix an~arbitrary bijection $\lambda \colon [|X'|] \to X'$} and consider the graph $G - (X \setminus X')$.
\bmp{It} admits a tri-separation $(A, X', B)$.
For each representative ${R} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$, where $t = |X'|$, which is compatible with $(G[B \cup X'], X', \lambda)$,
we perform the gluing operation
$G_R = (G[A \cup X'], X', \lambda) \oplus {R}$
and execute the algorithm for \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} on $G_R$ with the set of undeletable vertices $U = V(G_R) \setminus A$ and parameters $(k, r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k))$.
In other words, we seek
a~minimum-size deletion set $A' \subseteq A$ of size at most $k$.
If such a set is found, we add it to $\mathcal{S}$.
Note that $U$ is indeed an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G_R$
because $G_R - U = G[A]$ which belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ by the assumption.
By the definition of an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family we have that $|U| \le |V(R)| \le r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$, so the created instance meets the specification of \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion}.
The constructed family clearly has size at most $2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$.
The running time can be upper bounded by $2^k \cdot \sum_{{R} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}} f(k,r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) (n+|V({R})|)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} = 2^k \cdot f(k,r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) \cdot \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k})^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
It remains to show that $\mathcal{S}$ is indeed $A$-exhaustive.
Consider a minimum-size solution~$S$ to \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. Define~$S_A, S_X, S_B$ as~$S \cap A, S \cap X, S \cap B$, respectively, and let~$X' := X \setminus S_X$, $|X'| = t$.
\mic{Fix an~arbitrary bijection $\lambda \colon [t] \to X'$.}
Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is union-closed and $G[A] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:optimal-set-separable-set} we know that $|S_A| \le k$.
{The graph $G[B \cup X'] - S_B$ is an induced subgraph of $G-S$ so it belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.}
The set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$ contains a $t$-boundaried graph $R$ that is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-equivalent to $(G[B \cup X'] - S_B, X',\lambda)$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-deletion-set},
$S_A$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set for $(G[A \cup X'], X', \lambda) \oplus R$.
As $(G[A \cup X'], X', \lambda) \oplus R$ contains an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set within $A$ of size at most $k$, some set $S'_A$ with this \bmp{property} has been added to $\mathcal{S}$.
Furthermore, $S'_A$ is a minimum-size solution, so $|S'_A| \le |S_A|$.
Again by Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-deletion-set}, $S'_A$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set for $(G[A \cup X'], X', \lambda) \oplus (G[B \cup X'] - S_B, X',\lambda)$.
It means that $S' = (S \setminus A) \cup S'_A = S_B \cup S_X \cup S'_A$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$ and $|S'| \le |S|$, which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
The next step is to propagate the partial solutions along the decomposition in a bottom-up manner.
As we want to grow the sets $A$ for which $A$-exhaustive families are computed, we
can take advantage of Observation~\ref{obs:representative:introduce} and Lemma~\ref{lem:representative:join}.
However, after processing several nodes, the size of $A$-exhaustive families computed this way can become arbitrarily large.
In order to circumvent this, we shall prune the $A$-exhaustive families after each step.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-uniform:pruning}
Suppose that \bmp{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership}} is finite state and graphs in the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ can be recognized in polynomial time.
There is an algorithm that, given a tri-separation~$(A,X,B)$ of order~$k$ in a graph~$G$, a family~$\mathcal{S}' \subseteq 2^A$ that is $A$-exhaustive for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-\textsc{deletion} on~$G$, and \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$, runs in time~$2^k \cdot |\mathcal{S}'| \cdot \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k})^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ and outputs a family~$\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{S}'$ of size at most~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ that is $A$-exhaustive for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-\textsc{deletion} on~$G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Initialize $\mathcal{S} = \emptyset$.
For each subset $X' \subseteq X$, \bmp{fix an~arbitrary bijection $\lambda \colon [|X'|] \to X'$} and consider the graph $G - (X \setminus X')$.
\bmp{It} admits a tri-separation $(A, X', B)$.
For each graph $R \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$, where $t = |X'|$, which is compatible with $(G[B \cup X'], X', \lambda)$,
we perform the gluing operation
\bmp{$G_R = (G[A \cup X'], X', \lambda) \oplus R$}.
\bmp{Using the polynomial-time recognition algorithm} we choose \bmp{a} minimum-size set $S_A \in \mathcal{S'}$ which is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set for $G_R$, if one exists, and add it to $\mathcal{S}$.
We construct at most $2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ graphs~$G_R$. \bmp{For each graph~$G_R$ we add at most one set to $\mathcal{S}$ and spend~$|\mathcal{S'}| \cdot (n + |R|)^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ time. In total, we perform at most $2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}| \cdot |\mathcal{S'}| \cdot \sum_{{R} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}} (n+|V({R})|)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} = 2^k \cdot |\mathcal{S'}| \cdot \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k})^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ operations.}
It remains to show that $\mathcal{S}$ is indeed $A$-exhaustive.
Consider a minimum-size solution~$S$ to \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. Define~$S_A, S_X, S_B$ as~$S \cap A, S \cap X, S \cap B$, respectively, and let~$X' := X \setminus S_X$, $|X'| = t$. Since $\mathcal{S'}$ is $A$-exhaustive on~$G$, there exists~$\widehat{S}_A \in \mathcal{S}'$ such that~$\widehat{S} = (S \setminus A) \cup \widehat{S}_A$ is also a minimum-size solution to~$G$, implying that~$|\widehat{S}_A| \leq |S_A|$.
\mic{Fix an~arbitrary bijection $\lambda \colon [t] \to X'$.}
The set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$ contains a $t$-boundaried graph $R$ that is $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-equivalent to $(G[B \cup X'] - S_B, X',\lambda)$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-deletion-set}, a set $A' \subseteq A$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set for $G' = (G[A \cup X'], X',\lambda) \oplus (G[B \cup X'] - S_B, X',\lambda)$ if and only if $A'$ is
an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set for $(G[A \cup X'], X',\lambda) \oplus R$.
Since~$G' - \widehat{S}_A = G - \widehat{S} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, we know that $\widehat{S}_A \in \mathcal{S'}$ is such a set. Hence by the construction above, there \bmp{exists some (possibly different)} $S'_A \in \mathcal{S}$ with this property and minimum size;
hence $|S'_A| \le |\widehat{S}_A| \le |S_A|$ and
$S' = (S \setminus A) \cup S'_A = S_B \cup S_X \cup S'_A$ is an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set in $G$ and $|S'| \le |S|$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}
We are ready to combine the presented subroutines in a general meta-algorithm to process tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decompositions for every class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ which satisfies three simple conditions. The following statement formalizes and, \mic{together with \cref{lem:representative-generation-general}}, proves Theorem~\ref{thm:metathm:informal} from Section~\ref{sec:outline:deletion}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:meta-uniform:main}
Suppose that the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ satisfies the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and union-closed,
\item \textsc{Disjoint \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}-deletion} admits an algorithm with running time $f(s,\ell)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, \label{item:meta-uniform:undeletable}
\item $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$\textsc{-membership} is finite state and there is an algorithm computing an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le t)$-representative family with running time $v(t)$.
\end{enumerate}
Then \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot f(k, r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) \cdot v(k)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a~tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width~$k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\iffalse
\bmp{Condition} (\ref{item:meta-uniform:undeletable}) implies that graphs in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ can be recognized in polynomial time.
Therefore we can take advantage of Lemmas~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:base} and \ref{lem:meta-uniform:pruning} as long as we can construct \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$.
As the minimal representatives
have at most $r(k)$ vertices,} we can generate all $2^{\mathcal{O}(r(k)^2)}$ $t$-boundaried graphs on at most $r(k)$ vertices, for each $t \in [k]$.
For each pair of $t$-boundaried graphs which are compatible, we perform gluing and check whether the obtained graph belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
By Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-testing}, this provides sufficient information to divide the generated $t$-boundaried graphs into $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-equivalence classes.
\mic{We construct \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},t)$-representative family} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$, for each $t \in [k]$,
by picking any minimal representative from each class; as noted before, it will not matter how the ties are broken.}
Let $v(k) = \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}) \le 2^{\mathcal{O}(r(k)^2)}$.
\fi
\mic{First, we construct \mic{an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}$ in time $v(k)$.
Since the output size of the algorithm cannot exceed its running time, we have $|\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}| \le \texttt{vol}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}) \le v(k)$.
}
The algorithm is based on a variant of dynamic programming in which bounded-size sets of partial solutions are computed, with the guarantee that at least one of the partial solutions which are stored can be completed to an optimal solution. More formally, for each node~$t \in V(T)$ we are going to compute (recall~$\kappa, \pi$ from Definition~\ref{def:kappa}) a set of partial solutions~$\mathcal{S}_t \subseteq 2^{\kappa(t)}$ of size at most~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ which is~$\kappa(t)$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} in~$G$. As~$\kappa(r) = V(G)$ for the root node~$r$ by Observation~\ref{obs:kappa}, any minimum-size set~$S \in \mathcal{S}_r$ for which~$G - S \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is an optimal solution to the problem, and the property of $\kappa(r)$-exhaustive families guarantees that one exists.
We do the computation bottom-up in the tree decomposition, using Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:pruning} to prune sets of partial solutions at intermediate steps to prevent them from becoming too large.
Let~$(T,\chi,L)$ be the given tree $\mathsf{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$-decomposition of width~$k-1$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:makenice} we may assume that the decomposition is nice and is rooted at some node~$r$.
For~$t \in V(T)$, define~$L_t := L \cap \chi(t)$. Process the nodes of~$T$ from bottom to top. We process a node~$t$ after having computed exhaustive families for all its children, as follows. Let~$X_t := \chi(t) \cap \pi(t)$, let~$A_t := \kappa(t)$ and let~$B_t := V(G) \setminus (A_t \cup X_t)$. By Observation~\ref{obs:triseparation:from:td}, the partition~$(A_t,X_t,B_t)$ is a tri-separation of~$G$. The way in which we continue processing~$t$ depends on the number of children it has. As~$T$ is a nice decomposition, node~$t$ has at most two children.
\textbf{Leaf nodes} For a leaf node~$t \in V(T)$, we construct an exhaustive family of partial solutions~$\mathcal{S}_t \subseteq 2^{\kappa(t)}$ as follows.
By Definition~\ref{def:tree:h:decomp}, vertices of~$L_t$ do not occur {in other bags than~$\chi(t)$}.
Because the decomposition is nice, we have $\chi(t) \setminus L_t = \pi(t)$.
Therefore $\kappa(t) = L_t$ and we have ~$(A_t,X_t,B_t) = (L_t, \chi(t) \setminus L_t, V(G) \setminus \chi(t))$.
Furthermore, $|X_t| \leq k$ since the width of the decomposition is~$k-1$.
As $G[L_t] \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, we can process the tri-separation $(A_t,X_t,B_t)$ with Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:base}
within running time $2^k \cdot f(k, r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) \cdot v(k)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
We obtain a $\kappa(t)$-exhaustive family of size at most $2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$.
\textbf{Nodes with a unique child} Let~$t$ be a node that has a unique child~$c$, for which a $\kappa(c)$-exhaustive family~$\mathcal{S}_c$ of size~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ has already been computed. Recall that vertices of~$L$ only occur in leaf bags, so that~$L_t = \emptyset$ and therefore~$|\chi(t)| \leq k$. Observe that~$\kappa(t) \setminus \kappa(c) \subseteq \chi(t)$, so that~$|\kappa(t) \setminus \kappa(c)| \leq k$. \bmp({A tighter bound is possible by exploiting the niceness property, which we avoid for ease of presentation.}) Compute the following set of partial solutions:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}'_t := \{ S_c \cup S^* \mid S_c \in \mathcal{S}_c, S^* \subseteq \kappa(t) \setminus \kappa(c) \}.
\end{equation*}
Since the number of choices for~$S_c$ is~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$, while the number of choices for~$S^*$ is~$2^{k}$, the set~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ has size at most~$2^{2k} \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$ and can be computed in time~$2^{2k} \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}| \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. Since~$\kappa(c) \subseteq \kappa(t)$ due to Observation~\ref{obs:kappa}, we can invoke Observation~\ref{obs:representative:introduce} to deduce that the family~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ is $\kappa(t)$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. As the last step for the computation of this node, we compute the desired exhaustive family~$\mathcal{S}_t$ as the result of applying Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:pruning} to~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ and the tri-separation~$(A_t,X_t,B_t)$ of~$G$, which is done in time~$2^{3k} \cdot v(k)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ because $|\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}| \le v(k)$.
As~$A_t = \kappa(t)$, the lemma guarantees that~$\mathcal{S}_t$ is $\kappa(t)$-exhaustive and it is sufficiently small.
\textbf{Nodes with two children}
The last type of nodes to handle are those with exactly two children. So let~$t \in V(T)$ have two children~$c_1, c_2$. Since~$t$ is not a leaf we have~$L_t = \emptyset$. Let~$K := \kappa(t) \setminus (\kappa(c_1) \cup \kappa(c_2))$ and observe that~$K \subseteq \chi(t) \setminus L$. Therefore~$|K| \leq k$.
Using the $\kappa(c_1)$-exhaustive set~$\mathcal{S}_{c_1}$ and the~$\kappa(c_2)$-exhaustive set~$\mathcal{S}_{c_2}$ computed earlier in the bottom-up process, we define a set~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}'_t := \{ S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S^* \mid S_1 \in \mathcal{S}_{c_1}, S_2 \in \mathcal{S}_{c_2}, S^* \subseteq K \}.
\end{equation*}
As~$\mathcal{S}_{c_1}$ and~$\mathcal{S}_{c_2}$ both have size~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$, while~$|K| \leq 2^{k}$, we have~$|\mathcal{S}'_t| = 2^{3k} \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|^2$.
{By Observation~\ref{obs:kappa} we have that $\kappa(c_1) \cap \kappa(c_2) = \emptyset$ and $\kappa(c_1) \cup \kappa(c_2) \subseteq \kappa(t)$, so we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:representative:join} to obtain that} the family~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ is $\kappa(t)$-exhaustive for \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on~$G$. The desired exhaustive family~$\mathcal{S}_t$ is obtained by applying Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:pruning} to~$\mathcal{S}'_t$ and the tri-separation~$(A_t,X_t,B_t)$ of~$G$,
which is done in time $2^{4k} \cdot v(k)^{\mathcal{O}(1)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$
\textbf{Wrapping up} Using the steps described above we can compute, for each node of~$t \in V(T)$ in a bottom-up fashion, a $\kappa(t)$-exhaustive family~$\mathcal{S}_t$ of size~$2^k \cdot |\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\le k}|$. Since the number of nodes of~$t$ is~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$
\mic{the overall running time follows.} As discussed in the beginning of the proof, an optimal solution can be found by taking any minimum-size solution from the family~$\mathcal{S}_r$ for the root~$r$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Hitting forbidden connected minors}
As a first application of the meta-theorem, we consider classes defined by a finite set of forbidden connected minors.
The seminal results of Robertson and Seymour~\cite{robertson2004wagner} \bmp{state} that every minor-closed family $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ can be defined by a finite set of forbidden minors.
The \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} problem is FPT for such classes when parameterized by the solution size~\cite{AdlerGK08, sau20apices} or by treewidth~\cite{baste20hitting}.
The requirement that all the forbidden minors are connected holds whenever $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is union-closed.
In Section~\ref{subsec:not:closed} we argue why this limitation is necessary.
Unlike the next sections, here we do not need to prove any claims about structure of minor-closed classes and we can just take advantage of known results in a black-box manner.
In order to apply Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main},
we first need to bound the sizes of representatives in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}^\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{k}$.
To this end, we shall take advantage of the recent result of
Baste, Sau, and Thilikos \cite{baste20complexity},
who have studied optimal running \bmp{times} for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by treewidth.
They define a relation of $(\le h,k)$-equivalence: two $k$-boundaried graphs $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1)$, $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2)$ are $(\le h,k)$-equivalent if {they are compatible and for every graph $F$ on at most $h$ vertices and for every compatible} $k$-boundaried graph $(G_3, X_3, \lambda_3)$, $F$ is a minor of $(G_1, X_1, \lambda_1) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3)$ if and only if $F$ is a minor of $(G_2, X_2, \lambda_2) \oplus (G_3, X_3, \lambda_3)$.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[{Thm.~6.2}]{baste20complexity}}]
\label{thm:meta-minors:minor-representatives}
{There is a computable function $f$, so that
if $(R, X, \lambda)$ is \bmp{a} $k$-boundaried graph and $R$ is $K_q$-minor-free, then
there exists a $k$-boundaried graph $(R', X', \lambda')$ which is $(\le h,k)$-equivalent to $(R, X, \lambda)$ and
$|V(R')| \le f(q,h) \cdot k$.}
\end{thm}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a family of forbidden minors, which are all connected and have at most $h$ vertices.
Then whenever two $k$-boundaried graphs are $(\le h,k)$-equivalent, they are also $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent.
{As we consider only representatives whose underlying graphs belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, they must exclude $K_h$ as a minor.}
This leads to the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:meta-minors:representatives}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite family of forbidden minors.
\mic{
There exists a constant $d_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ such that
for every minimal representative $R$ in the relation of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence we have
$|V(R)| \le d_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \cdot k$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:representative-generation-minor}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite non-empty family of forbidden minors.
There exists an algorithm that, given an integer $k$, runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)}$
and returns an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \le k)$-representative family.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We take advantage of the fact that graphs in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ are sparse, that is, there exists a constant $c_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ such that if $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ then $|E(G)| \le c_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \cdot |V(G)|$~\cite{Mader1967HomomorphieeigenschaftenUM}.
Any graph $G \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ on $n$ vertices can be represented by a set of at most $c_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \cdot n$ pairs of vertices which share an edge.
Therefore the number of such graphs is $2^{\mathcal{O}(n\log n)}$.
We proceed similarly as in \cref{lem:representative-generation-general} by generating all $2^{\mathcal{O}(k\log k)}$ $t$-boundaried graphs on at most $d_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \cdot k$ vertices (see \cref{cor:meta-minors:representatives}), whose underlying graphs belong to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, for all $t \in [k]$.
For each pair of $t$-boundaried graphs which are compatible, we perform gluing and check whether the obtained graph belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
Then
by Observation~\ref{obs:boundaried-testing} it suffices to pick any minimal representative from each computed equivalence class.
\end{proof}
Furthermore, it turns out that the known algorithms for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by the solution size can be adapted to work with undeletable vertices.
\begin{thm}[{\cite{sau20apices}\footnote{The details can be found in the full version of the article \cite[Section 7.2]{sau20apices-full}.}}]
\label{lem:meta-minors:undeletable}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite family of forbidden minors.
Then \textsc{Disjoint $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} admits an algorithm with running time $2^{s^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}\cdot n^3$, where $s$ is the solution size.
\end{thm}
In order to obtain a better final guarantee for the most important case $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$, we need a~concrete bound on the exponent in the running time for \textsc{Disjoint planar deletion}.
An~algorithm with this property was proposed by Jansen, Lokshtanov, and Saurabh~\cite{JansenLS14} as a subroutine in the iterative compression step for solving \textsc{Planar deletion}.
This is the only place where we rely on the assumption that that the undeletable set $U$ is
an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion set of bounded size.
\begin{thm}[{\cite{JansenLS14}}]
\label{lem:meta-planar:undeletable}
\textsc{Disjoint planar deletion} admits an algorithm with running time $2^{\mathcal{O}((\ell+s) \log (\ell+s))}\cdot n$,
where $s$ is the solution size and $\ell$ is the size of the undeletable set.
\end{thm}
\iffalse
{In order to obtain a better final guarantee for the most important case $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$, we need a~concrete bound on the exponent in the running time for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion with undeletable vertices}.
The fastest known algorithm for \textsc{Planar deletion} is due to Jansen, Lokshtanov, and Saurabh~\cite{JansenLS14} and runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)}\cdot n$, \mic{but it is not clear whether it can be adapted to work with undeletable vertices.}
We shall therefore rely on the algorithm by Kociumaka and Pilipczuk with a slightly worse running time, which can be extended to support integer weights on vertices~\cite[\S 6]{kociumaka2019deleting}.
By setting the weight of each undeletable vertex to $k+1$ and 1 for other vertices, we arrive at the following conclusion.}
\begin{thm}[\cite{kociumaka2019deleting}]
\label{lem:meta-planar:undeletable}
\textsc{Planar deletion with undeletable vertices} admits an algorithm with running time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2 \log k)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, parameterized by the solution size $k$.
\end{thm}
\fi
We are ready to combine all the ingredients and apply the meta-theorem.
\iffalse
Note that the bottle-neck of the obtained running time comes from solving the subproblem with undeletable vertices whereas computing exhaustive families in an internal node takes {time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)}$.}
\mic{This means that \cref{lem:representative-generation-minor} does not lead to any improvement over the naive approach from \cref{lem:representative-generation-general} in the final running time.
Nevertheless, we have prepared our framework for the possibility that the running time of the form $2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for \textsc{Planar deletion with undeletable vertices} is obtained in the future,
so that the case $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ could be improved.}
\fi
\begin{thm}\label{thm:meta-minors:main}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite family of forbidden connected minors.
Then \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time~$2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a~tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width~$k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
In the special case of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ the running time is $2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We check the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main}.
The class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and union-closed because the forbidden minors are connected.
By \cref{lem:meta-minors:undeletable}, \textsc{Disjoint $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time $2^{s^{\mathcal{O}(1)}}\cdot n^3$
and, by \cref{lem:representative-generation-minor},
there is an algorithm computing an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, \le k)$-representative family in time $v(k) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)}$.
For the case $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ we additionally take advantage of Theorem~\ref{lem:meta-planar:undeletable} to solve \textsc{Disjoint planar deletion} in time $f(s,\ell)\cdot n$ where $f(s,\ell) = 2^{\mathcal{O}((\ell+s) \log (\ell+s))}$.
By
Corollary~\ref{cor:meta-minors:representatives}
we can bound $r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)$ by $\mathcal{O}(k)$.
Hence, the running time in Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main} becomes $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot f(k, r_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(k)) \cdot 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)} = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we invoke the algorithm for computing a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of approximate width to infer the general tractability result.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:meta-minors:final}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite family of forbidden connected minors.
Then \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} can be solved in time $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ where $k = \mathbf{tw}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G)$.
In the special case of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ the running time is $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{5} \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
{By Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:full} we can find a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}\big((\mathbf{tw}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G))^5\big)$
in time $2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
For $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \mathsf{planar}$ the running time for constructing the decomposition is $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{2}\log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
It remains to apply \cref{thm:meta-minors:main} with parameter $k' = \mathcal{O}\big((\mathbf{tw}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}(G))^5\big)$.}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Hitting forbidden connected induced subgraphs} \label{sec:hitting:subgraphs}
In this section we deal with graph classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ defined by a finite family~$\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs.
The problem of hitting finite forbidden (induced) subgraphs, parameterized by treewidth, has been studied by several authors~\cite{CyganMPP17,Pilipczuk11,SauS20}.
We introduce some terminology for working with induced subgraphs and isomorphisms. For graphs~$G$ and~$H$, a function~$f \colon V(H) \to V(G)$ is an \emph{induced subgraph isomorphism from~$H$ to~$G$} if~$f$ is injective and satisfies~$xy \in E(H) \Leftrightarrow f(x)f(y) \in E(G)$ for all~$x,y \in V(H)$.
A function~$f' \colon A \to B$ is an \emph{extension} of a function~$f \colon A' \to B$ if~$f'_{|A'} = f$.
\begin{definition}
Let~$\mathcal{F}$ be a finite family of graphs. The operation of \emph{$\mathcal{F}$-pruning} a $k$-boundaried graph~$(G, X, \lambda)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Initialize all vertices of~$V(G) \setminus X$ as unmarked.
\item For each~$F \in \mathcal{F}$, for each tri-separation~$(A_F,X_F,B_F)$ of~$H$ with~$B_F \neq \emptyset$, for each induced subgraph isomorphism~$f$ from~$H[X_F]$ to~$G[X_G]$, if there exists an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$H[X_F \cup B_F]$ to~$G$ that is an extension of~$f$, then mark the vertex set~$\{f'(b) \mid b \in B_F\}$ for one such extension~$f'$, chosen arbitrarily.
\item Remove all vertices of~$V(G) \setminus X$ which are not marked at the end of the process.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Observe that graph resulting from the operation of \emph{$\mathcal{F}$-pruning} depends on the choices made for~$f'$. Our statements and algorithms are valid regardless how these ties are broken
as long as the graphs produced by $\mathcal{F}$-pruning two isomorphic graphs are also isomorphic.
We remark that there is no need to consider implementation aspects of {$\mathcal{F}$-pruning} because we only use it for an existential bound on the sizes of representatives.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:meta-induced:equivalent}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a class defined by a finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs.
Let~$(G_1, X, \lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph and
suppose that~$(G_2, X,\lambda)$ was obtained by $\mathcal{F}$-pruning~$(G_1, X,\lambda)$.
Then $(G_1, X,\lambda)$ and $(G_2, X,\lambda)$ are $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First observe that these graphs are compatible because $\mathcal{F}$-pruning removes a subset of vertices from $V(G_1) \setminus X$.
As~$G_2$ is an induced subgraph of~$G_1$, the \mic{forward implication of Definition~\ref{def:boundaried:eqv}} is trivial.
We prove that \mic{for any} compatible $k$-boundaried graph $\widehat{H}$ it holds that \bmp{if} $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2, X, \lambda)$ is induced-$\mathcal{F}$-free, then also $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_1, X, \lambda)$ is induced-$\mathcal{F}$-free.
Assume for a contradiction that $G = \widehat{H} \oplus (G_1, X, \lambda)$ contains an induced subgraph isomorphic to~$F$ for some~$F \in \mathcal{F}$.
Let $(A, X, B)$ be the tri-separation of $G$, so that $(G[A \cup X],X,\lambda)$ is isomorphic with $\widehat{H}$ and $(G[B \cup X],X,\lambda)$ is isomorphic with $(G_1,X,\lambda)$.
Let $B' \subseteq B$ be the set of vertices marked during $\mathcal{F}$-pruning $(G[B \cup X], X, \lambda)$.
Let~$f$
be an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F$ to~$G$. We define a tri-separation of~$F$ based on~$f$: let~$A_F := \{v \in V(F) \mid f(v) \in A\}$, let~$X_F := \{v \in V(F) \mid f(v) \in X\}$, and let~$B_F := \{v \in V(F) \mid f(v) \in B\}$.
\mic{Observe that if $B_F = \emptyset$, then the image of $F$ is fully contained in $A \cup X$, and so \bmp{$G[A \cup X \cup B'] = \widehat{H} \oplus (G_2, X, \lambda)$} contains $F$ as an induced subgraph, which gives a~contradiction.
Assume from now \bmp{on} that $B_F \ne \emptyset$.}
Note that~$f_{|X_F}$ is an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F[X_F]$ to~$G[X]$ \mic{(if $X_F = \emptyset$ this is an empty isomorphism, which is also considered during $\mathcal{F}$-pruning)}, and that~$f_{|X_F \cup B_F}$ is an extension of~$f_{|X_F}$ that forms an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F[X_F \cup B_F]$ to~$G[X \cup B]$. Consequently, in the process of $\mathcal{F}$-pruning $(G[B \cup X],X,\lambda)$ we considered~$F$, the function~$f_{|X_F}$, and an~extension~$f'$ of~$f_{|X_F}$ that is an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F[X_F \cup B_F]$ to~$G[X \cup B]$. Hence the vertices~$\{f'(b) \mid b \in B_F\}$ were marked during the pruning process and are preserved in~$B'$. It follows that~$f'$ is also an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F[X_F \cup B_F]$ to~${G}[X \cup B']$. Now consider the function~$f^* \colon V(F) \to V(G)$ such that~$f^*_{|A_F \cup X_F} = f$ and~$f^*_{|B_F} = f'$, and recall that~$f_{|X_F} = f'_{|X_F}$. As the tri-separation of~$G$ ensures that~$f(x)f(y) \notin E(G)$ for any~$x \in A_F$ and~$y \in B_F$, it can easily be verified that~$f^*$ is an induced subgraph isomorphism from~$F$ to~${G}[A \cup X \cup B']$.
This graph is isomorphic with $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2, X, \lambda)$,
so it also contains an induced subgraph isomorphic to~$F$: a~contradiction to the assumption that~$\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2, X, \lambda)$ is induced-$\mathcal{F}$-free.
\end{proof}
Since $\mathcal{F}$-pruning preserves the $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence class, we can assume that the minimal representatives \bmp{cannot be reduced by $\mathcal{F}$-pruning}.
It then suffices to estimate the maximal number of vertices left after $\mathcal{F}$-pruning.
For a graph~$F$ on~$c$ vertices, there are at most~$3^c$ tri-separations of~$F$ as each vertex either belongs to~$A_F, X_F$, or~$B_F$. The number of induced subgraph isomorphisms from~$X_F$ to~$X_G$ is bounded by~$k^c$, where~$k = |X|$, as for each of the at most~$c$ vertices in~$X_F$ there are at most~$k$ options for their image. For each such induced subgraph isomorphism we mark at most~$c$ vertices.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:meta-induced:pruning:size}
Let~$\mathcal{F}$ be a finite family of graphs on at most~$c$ vertices each. The operation of~$\mathcal{F}$-pruning a $k$-boundaried graph~$(G, X, \lambda)$ removes all but~$|\mathcal{F}| \cdot 3^c \cdot k^c \cdot c$ vertices from~$V(G) \setminus X$.
\end{observation}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:meta-induced:representatives}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class defined by a finite set~$\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs on at most~$c$ vertices each.
\mic{If $(R,X, \lambda)$ is a~minimal representative in the relation of $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-equivalence, then $|V(R)| = \mathcal{O}(k^c)$.}
\end{corollary}
As the next step, we need to provide an algorithm
for \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\textsc{-deletion} parameterized by the solution size, which works with undeletable vertices.
This can be done via a straightforward application of the technique of bounded-depth search trees.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:meta-induced:undeletable}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class defined by a finite set~$\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs on at most~$c$ vertices each.
Then \textsc{Disjoint $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} admits an algorithm with running time $c^s \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where $s$ is the solution size.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given an input~$(G,s,\ell,U)$ (the parameter $\ell$ is unused here), we start by finding an induced subgraph isomorphism~$f$ from some~$H \in \mathcal{F}$ to~$G$, if one exists.
As $c$ is constant, this can be done in time~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ by brute force. If no such~$f$ exists, then output the empty set as the optimal solution. Otherwise, let~$T := \{ f(v) \mid v \in V(H)\}$ denote the vertices in the range of~$f$. Any valid solution has to include a vertex of~$T \setminus U$. If~$s = 0$ or~$T \subseteq U$, then clearly no solution of size at most~$s$ exists and we report failure. Otherwise, for each of the at most~$c$ vertices~$v \in T \setminus U$ we recurse on the instance~$(G - v, s-1, \ell, U)$. If all recursive calls report failure, then we report failure for this call as well. If at least one branch succeeds, then we take a minimum-size solution~$S'$ returned by a recursive call and add~$v$ to it to form the output.
Since the branching is exhaustive, it is easy to see that the algorithm is correct. As the depth of the recursion tree is at most~$s$, while the algorithm branches on~$|T \setminus U| \leq c$ vertices at every step, the claimed running time follows.
\end{proof}
We can now combine all the ingredients and plug them into the meta-theorem.
Even though $c$ is constant, we can keep track of how it affects the exponent at $k$, as it follows easily from the claims above.
Observe that so far we never had to assume that the graphs in the family $\mathcal{F}$ are connected, but
this requirement is crucial for the tractability (see Section~\ref{subsec:not:closed}).
\begin{thm}\label{thm:meta-induced:main}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ be a graph class defined by a finite set~$\mathcal{F}$ of forbidden induced subgraphs on at most~$c$ vertices each, which are all connected.
Then \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{2c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a~tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width~$k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We check the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main}.
The class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is hereditary and closed under disjoint union of graphs because the forbidden subgraphs are connected.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-induced:undeletable}, \textsc{Disjoint $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time $c^s\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
Finally, by \cref{cor:meta-induced:representatives}
\mic{and \cref{lem:representative-generation-general},
an $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\le k)$-representative family can be computed in time $v(k) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{2c})}$.}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:final-induced-tw}
For any graph class~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ which is defined by a finite set~$\mathcal{F}$ of connected forbidden induced subgraphs on at most~$c$ vertices each, \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by~$k = \hhtw(G)$, \mic{and in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{4c})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by~$k = \hhdepth(G)$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We use \cref{thm:decomposition:full} to find a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$, {which takes time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$}, and plug it into Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-induced:main}.
To see the second claim, observe that \cref{thm:decomposition:full} allows us to find an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-elimination forest of width $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$ in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
This gives us a tree $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-decomposition of the same width (see Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-treewidth}), which can be again supplied to Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-induced:main}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Chordal deletion}
\label{sec:chordal}
In this section we develop a dynamic-programming algorithm that solves \textsc{Chordal deletion} using a tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition.
We again want to use the meta-algorithm presented in Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main}.
To this end, we need to bound the \bmp{sizes} of representatives in the relation of $(\mathsf{chordal}, k)$-equivalence.
We obtain it through a new criterion that tests whether a graph~$G$ is chordal based on several properties of a tri-separation~$(A,X,B)$ in~$G$. We therefore first develop some theory of chordal graphs.
A \emph{hole} in a graph~$G$ is an induced cycle of length at least four. A graph is chordal if it does not contain any holes.
We need the following observation, which follows easily from the alternative characterization of chordal graphs as intersection graphs of the vertex sets of subtrees of a tree~\cite{Gavril74}.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:meta-chordal:contraction}
Chordal graphs are closed under edge contractions.
\end{observation}
A vertex~$v$ in a graph~$G$ is \emph{simplicial} if the set~$N_G(v)$ forms a clique in~$G$.
Since a hole does not contain any simplicial vertices, we have the following.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:meta-chordal:simplicial}
If~$v$ is a simplicial vertex in~$G$, then~$G$ is chordal if and only if~$G - v$ is chordal. Consequently, if a graph~$G'$ is obtained from a chordal graph~$G$ by inserting a new vertex whose neighborhood is a clique in~$G$, then~$G'$ is chordal.
\end{observation}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Thm.~5.1.1]{BrandstadtLS99}}] \label{lem:meta-chordal:simplicial}
Every chordal graph contains a simplicial vertex.
\end{lemma}
The following structural property of chordal graphs will be used to bound the sizes of representatives,
once their structure is revealed.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:meta-chordal:simplicial:indset}
If~$G$ is a chordal graph and~$A \cup B$ is a partition of~$V(G)$ such that~$B$ is an independent set in~$G$ and no vertex of~$B$ is simplicial in~$G$, then~$|B| < |A|$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Proof by induction on~$|A|$. If~$|A| = 1$ then~$B = \emptyset$, as vertices in the independent set~$B$ can either be isolated or adjacent to the unique vertex in~$A$, which would make them simplicial.
For the induction step, let~$|A| > 1$ and let~$v \in V(G)$ be a simplicial vertex, which exists by Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:simplicial}. By the precondition to the lemma,~$v \in A$. Let~$B_v := N_G(v) \cap B$. Since~$B_v$ is a clique as~$v$ is simplicial, while~$B \supseteq B_v$ is an independent set by assumption, we have~$|B_v| \leq 1$. Let~$G' := G - (\{v\} \cup B_v)$. Then the vertices of~$B \setminus B_v$ are not simplicial in~$G'$, as the non-edges in their neighborhood do not involve~$v$. By inductive assumption the graph~$G'$ with its partition into~$A' := A \setminus \{v\}$ and~$B' := B \setminus B_v$ satisfies~$|B'| = |B \setminus B_v| < |A'| = |A| - 1$. As~$|B_v| \leq 1$, this implies the lemma.
\end{proof}
Recall that a \emph{walk} from a vertex~$u$ to a vertex~$v$ in a graph~$G$ is a sequence of (not necessarily distinct) vertices, starting with~$u$ and ending with~$v$, such that consecutive vertices are adjacent in~$G$. The vertices~$u$ and~$v$ are the \emph{endpoints} of the walk; all other vertices occurring on the walk are \emph{internal} vertices. The following observation gives an easy way to certify that a graph is not chordal.
\begin{observation}[{\cite[Proposition 3]{Marx10}}] \label{obs:meta-chordal:find-hole}
If a graph $G$ contains a vertex $v$ with two nonadjacent neighbors $u_1,u_2 \in N_G(v)$, and a walk from $u_1$ to $u_2$ with all internal vertices in $V(G) \setminus N_G[v]$, then $G$ contains a hole passing through $v$.
\end{observation}
We are ready to formulate an operation used to produce representatives of bounded size.
\begin{definition}
Let~$(G,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph.
The operation of \emph{condensing} $(G,X,\lambda)$ is defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each connected component~$B_i$ of~$G-X$ for which~$G[N_G(B_i)]$ is a clique, called a \emph{simplicial component}, remove all vertices of~$B_i$.
\item For each connected component~$B_i$ of~$G-X$ for which~$G[N_G(B_i))]$ is \emph{not} a clique, called a \emph{non-simplicial component}, contract~$B_i$ to a single vertex.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We want to show that condensing boundaried graphs preserves its equivalence class.
To this end, we show that we can harmlessly contract any edge which is not incident with the separator~$X$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-chordal:contraction-reverse}
Let~$G$ be a graph, $(A,X,B)$ be a tri-separation in~$G$, and let $u,v \in B$, $uv \in E(G)$.
Then~$G$ is chordal if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The graphs~$G[A \cup X]$ and~$G[B \cup X]$ are chordal.
\item The graph~$G / uv$ is chordal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If~$G$ is chordal, then since chordal graphs are hereditary and closed under edge contractions by Observation~\ref{obs:meta-chordal:contraction}, both conditions are satisfied.
We prove the reverse implication.
Suppose that $G[A \cup X], G[B \cup X]$ and $G / uv$ are chordal but $G$ is not, that is, it contains a hole $H$.
As both~$G[A \cup X]$ and~$G[B \cup X]$ are chordal, hole~$H$ contains some~$a \in A$ and some~$b \in B$.
Consider a vertex~$a \in A$ that lies on hole~$H$, and let~$p,q$ be the predecessor and successor of~$a$ on the hole. Then~$p,q \in N_G(a)$ and therefore~$p,q \notin B$ by the properties of a tri-separation. Furthermore,~$pq \notin E(G)$ since a hole is chordless. The subgraph~$P := H - \{a\}$ forms an induced path between~$p$ and~$q$ in~$G$. Since~$u,v \in B$ and~$a \in A$, we have~$u,v \notin N_G(a)$. As contractions preserve the connectivity of subgraphs, when contracting edge~$uv$ the path~$P$ turns into a (possibly non-simple) walk between nonadjacent~$p,q \in N_G(a)$ in~$G / uv$, whose internal vertices avoid~$N_G[a]$ since neither of the contracted vertices is adjacent to~$a$. By Observation~\ref{obs:meta-chordal:find-hole}, this implies~$G / uv$ contains a hole; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-chordal:equivalent}
Let~$(G_1,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph, so that $G_1$ is chordal,
and let $(G_2,X,\lambda)$ be obtained by condensing $(G_1,X,\lambda)$. Then $(G_1,X,\lambda)$ and $(G_2,X,\lambda)$ are $(\mathsf{chordal}, k)$-equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The condensing operation does not affect the boundary $X$ so these graphs are compatible.
Since $G_1$ is chordal, the same holds for $G_2$ because chordal graphs are closed under contracting edges and removing vertices.
Consider a $k$-boundaried graph $\widehat{H}$ compatible with $(G_1,X, \lambda)$.
By the same argument as above, if $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_1,X, \lambda)$ is chordal, then $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ is as well.
We now prove the second implication.
Suppose that $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ is chordal, so \mic{the underlying graph in $\widehat{H}$} is chordal as well.
Let $(A,X,B)$ be a tri-separation of $G = \widehat{H} \oplus (G_1,X, \lambda)$, so that $(G[A \cup X], X, \lambda)$ is isomorphic with $\widehat{H}$ and $(G[B \cup X], X, \lambda)$ is isomorphic with $(G_1,X, \lambda)$.
By the definition of condensing, $\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2,X, \lambda)$ can be obtained from $G$ by contracting each connected component of $G[B]$ to a single vertex -- let us refer to this graph as $G'$ -- and then removing some simplicial vertices.
Since~$G'$ can be obtained from the chordal graph~$\widehat{H} \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ by inserting simplicial vertices, then~$G'$ is chordal by Observation~\ref{obs:meta-chordal:simplicial}.
Let $G = G^1, G^2, \dots, G^m = G'$ be the graphs given by the series of edge contractions that transforms $G$ into $G'$.
We prove that if $G^{i+1}$ is chordal, then $G^{i}$ is as well.
The graph $G^{i}$ admits a tri-separation $(A,X,B^{i})$, so that $G^i[B^i \cup X]$ is obtained from $G[B \cup X]$ via edge contractions, therefore $G^i[B^i \cup X]$ is chordal.
Moreover, $G^i[A \cup X]$ is isomorphic with \mic{the underlying graph in $\widehat{H}$}, so it is also chordal, and $G^{i+1}$ is obtained \mic{from $G^i$} by contracting an edge in $B^i$.
We can thus apply Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:contraction-reverse} to infer that $G^i$ is chordal.
It follows that $G = \widehat{H} \oplus (G_1,X,\lambda)$ is chordal, which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:meta-chordal:representatives}
\mic{If $(R,X, \lambda)$ is a minimal representative in the relation of $(\mathsf{chordal},k)$-equivalence}, {$k > 0$,}
then {$|V(R)|\le 2k - 1$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:equivalent} we obtain
that condensing preserves $(\mathsf{chordal}, k)$-equivalence.
If $(R,X, \lambda)$ is a {minimal representative (so $R$ is chordal)},
it must be condensed.
Therefore $V(R) \setminus X$ is an independent set
and \bmp{no} $v \in V(R) \setminus X$ is simplicial.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:simplicial:indset}
we get that $|V(R) \setminus X| < |X|$ and therefore $|V(R)| \le 2k - 1$.
\end{proof}
The machinery developed so far is sufficient to obtain an FPT algorithm for \textsc{Chordal deletion} on a standard tree decomposition. To be able to accommodate tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decompositions, which can contain leaf bags with arbitrarily large chordal base components, we need to be able to efficiently compute exhaustive families for such base components. Towards this end, we will use the algorithm by Cao and Marx for the parameterization by the solution size as a subroutine.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Thm.~1.1]{CaoM16}}] \label{thm:meta-chordal:caomarx:ChD}
There is an algorithm that runs in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ which decides, given a graph~$G$ and integer~$k$, whether or not~$G$ has a chordal deletion set of size \mic{at most}~$k$.
\end{thm}
By self-reduction and some simple graph transformations, the above algorithm can be
adapted to our setting.
\jjh{
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-chordal:self-reduction}
There is an algorithm with running time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ that solves \textsc{Chordal deletion} parameterized by the solution size $k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By trying all values~$k'$ from~$0$ to~$k$ with Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-chordal:caomarx:ChD}, we can determine whether there is a chordal deletion set in~$G'$ of size at most~$k$, and if so determine the minimum size~$k'$ of such a set. If such a set exists, then using Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-chordal:caomarx:ChD} as a subroutine it is easy to find one by self reduction. In particular, if the optimum value is~$k'$ then a vertex~$v$ belongs to an optimal solution precisely when the instance obtained by removing~$v$ has a solution of size~$k' - 1$. Hence by calling the algorithm~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ times for parameter values~$k' \leq k$, we find a set~$S$ as desired or conclude that no such set exists.
\end{proof}
}
In order to enforce the requirement that some vertices are not allowed to be part of a solution, we use the following consequence of the fact that holes do not contain vertices sharing the same closed neighborhood.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:meta-chordal:truetwin:staychordal}
Let~$G$ be a chordal graph and let~$v \in V(G)$. If~$G'$ is obtained from~$G$ by making a true-twin copy of~$v$, that is, by inserting a new vertex~$v'$ which becomes adjacent to~$N_G[v]$, then~$G'$ is chordal.
\end{observation}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:meta-chordal:main}
The \textsc{Chordal deletion} problem can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a~tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition of width~$k-1$ consisting of~$n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We check the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main}.
The class of chordal graphs is clearly closed under vertex deletion and disjoint union of graphs.
\jjh{Because of Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:self-reduction} and Observation~\ref{obs:meta-chordal:truetwin:staychordal}}, \mic{we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:undeletable} to solve \textsc{Disjoint chordal deletion} in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(s \log s)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. }
Next, by Corollary~\ref{cor:meta-chordal:representatives}
\mic{and \cref{lem:representative-generation-general},
an $(\mathsf{chordal},\le k)$-representative family can be computed in time $v(k) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{2})}$.}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:final-chordal-tw}
The \textsc{Chordal deletion} problem can be solved in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{10})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by~$k = \mathbf{tw}_\mathsf{chordal}(G)$,
\mic{and in time~$2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{6})} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by~$k = \mathbf{ed}_\mathsf{chordal}(G)$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\mic{
We use \cref{thm:decomposition:full} to find a tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}(k^5)$, {which takes time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2 \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$,} and plug it into Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-chordal:main}.
The second claim follows again from \cref{thm:decomposition:full} by computing
a~$\mathsf{chordal}$-elimination forest of width $\mathcal{O}(k^3)$ in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.
This gives us a tree $\mathsf{chordal}$-decomposition of the same width (see Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-treewidth}), which can {again be} supplied to Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-chordal:main}.}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Interval deletion}
\label{sec:interval-deletion}
An interval graph is the intersection graph of intervals of the real line. In an interval model $\mathcal{I}_G = \{I(v) \mid v \in V(G)\}$ of a graph $G$, each vertex $v \in V(G)$ corresponds to a closed interval $I(v) = [\mathrm{lp}(v),\mathrm{rp}(v)]$, with left and right endpoints $\mathrm{lp}(v)$ and $\mathrm{rp}(v)$ such that $\mathrm{lp}(v) < \mathrm{rp}(v)$\bmp{; there is an edge between vertices~$u$ and~$v$ if and only if~$I(v) \cap I(u) \neq \emptyset$}.
The goal of this section is to show that \textsc{Interval deletion} is FPT parameterized by $k = \hhtw[interval](G)$. In order to apply Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main} (with
\cref{lem:representative-generation-general}), we aim to bound the size of a minimal representative for the $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence classes.
We introduce some notation and definitions.
Since an edge contraction can be seen as \bmp{merging} two overlapping intervals, we have the following observation.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:interval:contractions}
Interval graphs are closed under edge contractions.
\end{observation}
For $u,v \in V(G)$, we say that $I(u)$ is strictly right of $I(v)$ (equivalently $I(v)$ is strictly left of $I(u)$) if $\mathrm{lp}(u) > \mathrm{rp}(v)$. We \bmp{denote} this by $I(u) > I(v)$ (equivalently $I(v) < I(u)$) for short. An interval model is called \emph{normalized} if no pair of distinct intervals shares an endpoint. Every interval graph has a normalized interval model that can be produced in linear time (cf.~\cite{Cao16}).
We use the following well known characterization of interval graphs.
Three distinct vertices $u,v,w \in V(G)$ form an \emph{asteroidal triple} (AT) of $G$ if for any two of them there is a path between them avoiding the closed neighborhood of the third.
\begin{thm}[\cite{LekkerkerkerB1962} cf.~\cite{BrandstadtLS99}] \label{thm:interval:chordal:atfree}
A graph $G$ is an interval graph if and only if $G$ is chordal and contains no AT.
\end{thm}
A vertex set $M \subseteq V(G)$ is a module of $G$ if $N_G(u) \setminus M = N_G(v) \setminus M$ for all $u,v \in M$. A module $M$ is \emph{trivial} if $|M| \leq 1$ or $|M| = |V(G)|$, and \emph{non-trivial} otherwise. \bmp{Throughout the section, we use the following terminology. An \emph{obstruction} in a graph~$G$ is an inclusion-minimal vertex set~$X$ such that~$G[X]$ is not interval.}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Proposition 4.4]{CaoM2015}}]\label{lem:forbiddenmodule}
Let $G$ be a graph and $M \subseteq V(G)$ be a module.
If $X \subseteq V(G)$ is an obstruction and~$|X| > 4$, then either \bmp{$X \subseteq M$} or $|M \cap X| \leq 1$.
\end{lemma}
\bmp
Theorem~\ref{thm:interval:chordal:atfree} implies that all obstructions induce connected graphs, as the obstructions to chordality---chordless cycles and minimal subgraphs containing an AT---are easily seen to be connected.}
The only obstruction of no more than four vertices induces a $C_4$ (cf.~\cite{CaoM2015}). We use the following consequence.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Bmodule_singlevertex}
Let $(A,X,B)$ be a tri-separation of $G$, and let $M \subseteq B$ be a module \bmp{in~$G$}. If $G[X \cup B]$ is interval, then any \jjh{obstruction} \bmp{in~$G$ contains} at most one vertex of $M$. Furthermore, \bmp{for each \jjh{obstruction~$S$} intersecting~$M$, for each~$v \in M$, the set~$(\jjh{S} \setminus M) \cup \{v\}$ \jjh{is also an obstruction.}}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\bmp{We first derive the first part of the statement.}
For any \jjh{obstruction $S$} larger than four vertices, the statement follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:forbiddenmodule} \bmp{since no \jjh{obstruction} can be fully contained in~$M \subseteq B$ as~$G[X \cup B]$ is interval}. For the case of $\jjh{G[S]}$ isomorphic to $C_4$, at least one of its vertices must be in $A$ \bmp{as~$G[X \cup B]$ is interval}. Since $X$ is a separator, it follows that $|M \cap S| \leq |B \cap S| \leq 1$.
For the second part, consider some \jjh{obstruction $S$} intersecting $M$. By the arguments above, this intersection is a single vertex, say, $u$. The statement for $u=v$ is clear as then $(S \setminus M) \cup \{v\} = S$. In all other cases, since none of $S \setminus \{u\}$ is part of $M$, \bmp{by definition of a module} it follows that $v$ has the exact same neighborhood to $S \setminus \{u\}$ as $u$. Hence, the graph induced by $(S \setminus M) \cup \{v\}$ is isomorphic to $G[S]$.
\end{proof}
\mic{We arrive at the first useful observations about the structure of minimal representatives.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:no-non-trivial-modules}
If the $k$-boundaried graph $(G,X,\lambda)$ is a minimal representative in the relation of $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence and $G$ is interval, then $G$ has no non-trivial module $M \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\jjh{
For the sake of contradiction, suppose that $G$ has a non-trivial module $M \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$. Pick an arbitrary vertex $v \in M$. We argue that $(G' = G-(M \setminus \{v\}),X,\lambda)$ is $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalent to $(G,X,\lambda)$.
Consider a $k$-boundaried graph $H$ compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$. Note that $H$ is compatible with $(G',X,\lambda)$ too.
First suppose that $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ is not interval.
Consider the tri-separation $(V(H) \setminus X,X,V(G) \setminus X)$ of $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$. Let $S \subseteq V(F)$ be an obstruction.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Bmodule_singlevertex} we have that $|S \cap M| \leq 1$ and furthermore that $S' = (S \setminus M) \cup \{v\}$ is an obstruction. It follows that $H \oplus (G',X,\lambda)$ contains the obstruction $S'$ and hence is not interval.
Now suppose that $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ is interval. Since interval graphs are hereditary, it follows that $H \oplus (G',X,\lambda)$ is also an interval graph.
}
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\micr{we rather describe the structure of it, as the size bound comes later}
\micr{consider replacing tightening with a direct property that minimal representatives which are interval cannot have a non-trivial module within $V(G) \setminus X$ }
\begin{definition}\label{def:interval:tightening}
Let \jjh{$(G,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph.} The operation of \emph{\jjh{tightening}} the $(G,X,\lambda)$ is defined as follows.
If $G$ is not interval, then replace $G-X$ by $C_4$. Otherwise do the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:no_neighbors} For each connected component $B_i$ of $G-X$ such that $N_G(B_i) = \emptyset$, remove $B_i$.
\item\label{it:modules} \bmp{For each non-trivial module $M \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$ of~$G$, remove} all but one of the vertices of $M$.
\end{enumerate}
\bmp{We say that~$(G,X,\lambda)$ is \emph{tightened} if the tightening operation leaves it unchanged.}
\end{definition}
\jjh{We show that tightening a boundaried graph preserves its $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence class.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:interval:tightening}
Let $(G_1,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph and let $(G_2,X,\lambda)$ be obtained by tightening $(G_1,X,\lambda)$. Then $(G_1,X,\lambda)$ and $(G_2,X,\lambda)$ are $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\jjh{The tightening operation does not affect the boundary $X$ so these graphs are compatible. Consider a $k$-boundaried graph $H$ compatible with $(G_1,X,\lambda)$.
Suppose $H \oplus (G_1,X,\lambda)$ is not interval. If $G_1$ is not interval, then \bmp{$G_2-X$ contains a $C_4$} and hence $H \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ is not interval.
Otherwise, consider the tri-separation $(H-X,X,G_1-X)$\bmpr{These should be vertex sets, not subgraphs.} of $H \oplus (G_1,X,\lambda)$. Since minimal forbidden induced subgraphs are connected \micr{how does connectivity matter here?}, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Bmodule_singlevertex} $H \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ still contains a minimal forbidden induced subgraph and hence is not interval.
Now suppose that $H \oplus (G_1,X,\lambda)$ is interval. Since interval graphs are hereditary, it follows that $H \oplus (G_2,X,\lambda)$ is also an interval graph.}
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
\jjhr{renamed marked set from $M$ to $Q$ to avoid module confusion}
\bmpr{Why do we refer to the three vertices as `terminals of the AT'? They are simply the asteroidal triple, right? I think the `terminal' terminology comes in solely when using an asteroidal witness, i.e., a subgraph which also contains all paths. \jjh{you are right, I updated the terminology in a few places, may need some more updates elsewhere. For brevity, calling it a `terminal' rather than a `vertex of the triple' everywhere is also nice, how do you suggest to call them?}}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=1]{marking.pdf}
\caption{A tri-separation $(A,X,B)$ of $G$, where the horizontal lines indicate an interval model of interval graph $G[X\cup B]$. \bmp{The triple $\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$ is an AT in~$G$. Vertices of~$A$ are not drawn individually, but vertex-disjoint paths through~$A$ are visualized by curves.}}
\label{fig:marking}
\end{figure}
\bmp{To explain the intuition behind the marking scheme,} consider $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ with a tri-separation $(A = H-X,X,B=G-X)$. Figure~\ref{fig:marking} sketches the setting with an AT $\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$. \bmp{Since the number of vertices in~$B$ can be arbitrarily large compared to~$|X|$, while we aim to mark only~$|X|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ vertices, in general we cannot afford to mark all vertices.\micr{this sentence is pretty trivial} Hence our marking scheme will ensure that if~\jjh{$H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$} contains an AT~$\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$ in which~$u_2 \in B$ is not marked, then we can obtain a new AT in~\jjh{$H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$} by replacing~$u_2$ with a marked vertex. To preserve the properties of an AT, the} replacement for terminal $u_2$ should (possibly) allow a $y^2_\ell x^2_\ell$-path and a $y^2_rx^2_r$-path outside its neighborhood that are closest to the left and right of $u_2$ respectively. Furthermore, if the paths to the other two terminals enter the separator, the replacement should have paths to these entry points $z^2_3$ and $z^2_1$ as well. The marking scheme essentially marks a triple of vertices for each three such 6-tuples. Depending on the location of the \jjh{vertices of the asteroidal triple} in the tri-separation, certain conditions are not relevant. This is indicated by setting variables in the 6-tuples to $\bot$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:marking}
\jjh{Let $(G,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph such that $G$ is interval. Fix a \bmp{normalized} interval model $\mathcal{I} = \{I(v) \mid v \in V(G)\}$ of $G$. Let $B = V(G) \setminus X$.}
For each three tuples $t_1,t_2,t_3 \in (X \cup \{\bot\})^6$, where $t_i = (x^i_\ell,y^i_\ell,x^i_r,y^i_r,z^i_{j_1},z^i_{j_2})$ for $i \in [3]$ and $\{j_1,j_2\} = [3] \setminus \{i\}$, let $O_{t_1,t_2,t_3} \subseteq \{(u_1,u_2,u_3) \mid u_1,u_2,u_3 \in V(G) \cup \{\bot\}\}$ be the set of triples $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ that satisfy all of the following conditions (for ease of notation, let $u_0 = u_4 = \bot$):
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{it:order}$\{u_1,u_2,u_3\} \setminus \{\bot\}$ is an independent set and their intervals are ordered left to right, that is, for~$i < i' \in [3]$, if~$u_i, u_{i'} \neq \bot$, then~$I(u_i) < I(u_{i'})$.
\item \label{it:allowleft} For $i \in [3]$ with $u_i \neq \bot$ and~$x^i_\ell \neq \bot$, we have $I(x^i_\ell) < I(u_i)$ and:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $y^i_\ell \neq \bot$, there is an $x^i_\ell y^i_\ell$-path in $G - N[u_i]$;
\item if $y^i_\ell = \bot$ and $u_{i-1} \neq \bot$, there is an $x^i_\ell u_{i-1}$-path in $G - N[u_i]$.
\end{itemize}
\item \label{it:allowright} For $i \in [3]$ with $u_i \neq \bot$ and $x^i_r \neq \bot$, we have $I(u_i) < I(x^i_r)$ and:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $y^i_r \neq \bot$, there is an $x^i_ry^i_r$-path in $G - N[u_i]$;
\item if $y^i_r = \bot$ and $u_{i+1} \neq \bot$, there is an $x^i_ru_{i+1}$-path in $G - N[u_i]$.
\end{itemize}
\item \label{it:entry}
For $i \in [3]$ with $u_i \neq \bot$, for $v = u_j \in \{u_1,u_2,u_3\} \setminus \{u_i\}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{it:entry1} if $z^i_j \neq \bot$ and $v \neq \bot$, there is a $u_iz^i_j$-path in $G[B \cup \{z^i_j\}] - N[v]$.
\item \label{it:entry2} if $z^i_j \neq \bot$ and $v = \bot$, there is a $u_iz^i_j$-path in $G[B \cup \{z^i_j\}]$.
\item \label{it:entry3} if $z^i_j = v = \bot$ and $\{u_1,u_2,u_3\} \setminus \{u_i,v\} \neq \emptyset$, let $w \neq \bot \in \{u_1,u_2,u_3\} \setminus \{u_i,v\}$,\micr{sanity check: $\bot \in \{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$? $v = \bot$?} which is uniquely defined, then there is a $u_iw$-path in $G[B]$.
\item \label{it:entry4} if $z^i_j = \bot$, $v \neq \bot$, let $w \in \{u_1,u_2,u_3\} \setminus \{u_i,v\}$, which is uniquely defined. If $w \neq \bot$, there is a $u_iw$-path in $G[B] - N[v]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
For \bmp{each} $T \subseteq S \subseteq [3]$ and $t_x = (x_j \mid x_j \in X, j \in T) \in X^{|T|}$, \bmp{with~$t_1, t_2, t_3$ as above,}
define: \micr{how is $t_x$ referred to in this def? via $x_k$?}
$$O^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3} = \{(u_1,u_2,u_3) \in O_{t_1,t_2,t_3} \mid u_j \neq \bot \Leftrightarrow j \in S, u_k \in X \Leftrightarrow \bmp{(} k \in T \wedge u_k = x_k \bmp{)}\}.$$
If $O^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3} \neq \emptyset$, then let $Q^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3} = \{u,v,w\} \setminus \{\bot \cup X\}$ for an arbitrary tuple $(u,v,w) \in O^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$; \bmp{otherwise we let~$Q^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3} = \emptyset$.}
Let $Q = \bigcup_{T \subseteq S \subseteq [3],t_x,t_1,t_2,t_3} Q^{T,S,t_x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$, where we take the union over all valid tuples $t_1$, $t_2$, $t_3$, and $t_x$.
\end{definition}
\begin{observation}\label{obs:interval:size_marking}
\bmp{If~$Q$ is obtained by applying Definition~\ref{def:marking} to a $k$-boundaried graph~$(G,X,\lambda)$, then}
$|Q| = \mathcal{O}(|X|^{20})$.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
For each four tuples $t_1$, $t_2$, $t_3$, and $t_x$ we mark a constant number of vertices (in the case $|t_x| = 3$, we mark nothing). Since there are $\mathcal{O}(|X|^6)$ different 6-tuples in $X \cup \{\bot\}$ and $\mathcal{O}(|X|^2)$ different tuples of size at most 2 in $X$, it follows that $|Q| = \mathcal{O}(|X|^{6+6+6+2})$.
\end{proof}
\jjh{We show that the marked set of vertices has the desired property.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:markedterminals}
\jjh{Let $(G,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $H$. Let $Q \subseteq V(G)$ be obtained via Definition~\ref{def:marking}. If $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ contains an asteroidal triple, then it contains an asteroidal triple $\{a,b,c\}$ such that $\{a,b,c\} \cap V(G) \subseteq Q$.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\jjh{Let $(A = H-X,X,B = G-X)$ be the tri-separation of $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$.}
Suppose that \jjh{$F$} contains an AT with terminals $\{v_1,v_2,v_3\} \subseteq V(\jjh{F})$. Let $P^3_{1,2}$ be a shortest $v_1v_2$-path in $F-N[v_3]$. The paths $P^2_{1,3}$ and $P^1_{2,3}$ are defined \mic{analogously}.
If $\{v_1,v_2,v_3\} \cap (B \setminus \jjh{Q}) = \emptyset$, then the lemma obviously holds. Suppose this is not the case. Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ be a triple such that for $i \in [3]$, $u_i = v_i$ if $v_i \in X \cup B$, and $u_i = \bot$ otherwise. \bmp{By re-ordering the vertices if needed, we may assume without loss} of generality that this triple satisfies Property~\ref{it:order}. We define three tuples $t_1,t_2,t_3$ corresponding to those in the marking scheme and show that $(u_1,u_2,u_3) \in O_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$ and that there exists $(u_1',u_2',u_3') \in O_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$ with $\{u_1',u_2',u_3'\} \setminus \{\bot\} \subseteq \jjh{Q}$ such that $(\{v_1,v_2,v_3\} \setminus (X \cup B)) \cup (\{u_1',u_2',u_3'\} \setminus \{\bot\})$ is an AT in $\jjh{F}$.
For each $i \in [3]$ \bmp{we show how to define~$t_i = (x^i_\ell,y^i_\ell,x^i_r,y^i_r,z^i_{j_1},z^i_{j_2})$. If $u_i = \bot$ then all entries of~$t_i$ are~$\bot$.} Otherwise, let $[3] \setminus \{i\} = \{j_1,j_2\}$. \micr{maybe it would be clearer to define the construction just for $i=1, j_1 = 2, j_2 = 3$ and explain that it generalizes}
Let $z^i_{j_1} \in X \cap V(P^{j_1}_{j_2,i})$ be the first vertex in $X$ starting from $u_i$ along $P^{j_1}_{j_2,i}$, which may be vertex $u_i$ itself. If no such vertex exists, let $z^i_{j_1} = \bot$ and note that $V(P^{j_1}_{j_2,i}) \subseteq B$. Let $z^i_{j_2}$ be defined \bmp{analogously as the first vertex from~$X$ starting from~$u_i$ along the path avoiding~$N[v_{j_2}]$}.
We say a subpath of $P^i_{j_1,j_2}$ is maximal in $\jjh{F}[X \cup B]=G$ if it is a connected component of the linear forest $P^i_{j_1,j_2} - A$. Note that if $v$ is an endpoint of such a subpath and \bmp{$v \notin \{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$}, then $v \in X$ as $X$ is a separator.
\bmp{Choose the maximal subpath~$P_{w,w'}$ of $P^i_{j_1,j_2}$ in $\jjh{F}[X \cup B]$ such that for a suitable ordering of its endpoints as~$(w,w')$ we have $w \in X$, $I(w) < I(u_i)$ and such that~$\mathrm{rp}(w)$ is maximized over all paths satisfying these conditions.}
If no such subpath exists, let $x^i_\ell = y^i_\ell = \bot$, so suppose $P_{w,w'}$ is well defined. If $w$ is not a terminal, let $x^i_\ell = w$, otherwise $x^i_\ell = \bot$. Similarly, if $w'$ is not a terminal, let $y^i_\ell = w'$, otherwise $y^i_\ell = \bot$. The pair $x^i_r, y^i_r$ is defined analogously, where we take a maximal subpath $P_{w,w'}$ such that $w \in X$, $I(u_i) < I(w)$ and $\mathrm{lp}(w)$ is minimized. Now let $t_i = (x^i_\ell,y^i_\ell,x^i_r,y^i_r,z^i_{j_1},z^i_{j_2})$, $S \subseteq [3]$ be a set of indices such that $j \in S$ if and only if $u_j \neq \bot$, $T \subseteq S$ be a set of indices such that $j \in T$ if and only if $u_j \in X$, and $x = (u_j \mid j \in T)$. \micr{is $x$ just $T$ converted to a tuple?}
It is easy to verify that $(u_1,u_2,u_3) \in O^{T,S,x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$. Since at least one of $u_1$, $u_2$, and $u_3$ was not marked, there exists $(u_1',u_2',u_3') \in O^{T,S,x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$ such that $\{u_1',u_2',u_3'\} \setminus \{\bot \cup X\} = \jjh{Q}^{T,S,x}_{t_1,t_2,t_3}$ is marked. We argue that $\{v_1',v_2',v_3'\}$ is an AT in $\jjh{F}$, where for each $i \in [3]$, $v_i' = v_i$ if $v_i \notin X \cup B$, and $v_i' = u_i'$ otherwise. Note that because of the choice of tuple $x$, we have $v_i' = v_i = u_i'$ if $v_i \in X$, hence we essentially only replace the terminals in $B$.
\begin{claim}
For each $i \in [3]$ such that $[3] \setminus \{i\} = \{j_1,j_2\}$, there is a $v_{j_1}'v_{j_2}'$-path in $\jjh{F} - N[v_i']$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Case 1: $u_i = \bot$.}
Note that $u_i = u_i'$, $v_i' = v_i$, and $v_i' \in A$ and at least one of $u_{j_1}'$ and $u_{j_2}'$ is not $\bot$ as at least one terminal is in $B \setminus \jjh{Q}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $V(P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}) \subseteq B$, then $z^{j_1}_i = z^{j_2}_i = \bot$ and $u_{j_2}' \neq \bot$, and as $u_{j_1}'$ satisfies Property~\ref{it:entry3} there is a $v_{j_1}'v_{j_2}'$-path in $G[B]$ and hence in $\jjh{F} - N[v_i']$ as $v_i' \in A$ and $X$ is a separator.
\item \jjh{Otherwise} $V(P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}) \not\subseteq B$. \jjh{Consider the path $P = P^i_{j_1,j_2}$ that avoids $N[v_i]$. We transform it into a $v_{j_1}'v_{j_2}'$-path that avoids $N[v_i'] = N[v_i]$}.
\bmpr{Should ...
\jjh{updated} }
\jjh{If $u'_{j_1} \neq \bot$, then $z^{j_1}_i \neq \bot$ and} there is a path from $u_{j_1}'$ to $z^{j_1}_i$ in $G[B \cup \{z^{j_1}_i\}]$ by Property~\ref{it:entry2}. \jjh{Replace the $u_{j_1}z^{j_1}_i$-subpath of $P$ by said path. Similarly, if $u'_{j_2} \neq \bot$, we can replace the $u_{j_2}z^{j_2}_i$-subpath of $P$ by a path from $u_{j_2}'$ to $z^{j_2}_i$ in $G[B \cup \{z^{j_2}_i\}]$ that exists by Property~\ref{it:entry2}. Since the altered part of $P$ only uses vertices of $B$, and since $v_i \in A$, it follows that it avoids $N[v_i']$ and the claim holds.}
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Case 2: $u_i \neq \bot$.} Note that also $u_i' \neq \bot$ and $v_i' = u_i'$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $V(P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}) \subseteq B$, then $z^{j_1}_i = z^{j_2}_i = \bot$ and $u_{j_1}' \neq \bot$ and $u_{j_2}' \neq \bot$, and as $u_{j_1}'$ satisfies Property~\ref{it:entry4} there is a $v_{j_1}'v_{j_2}'$-path in $G[B] - N[v_i']$ and hence in $\jjh{F} - N[v_i']$.
\item \bmp{Otherwise,} $V(P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}) \not\subseteq B$. \jjh{Observe that the vertices $z_i^{j_1}$ and $z_i^{j_2}$ might equal $\bot$ if respectively $v_{j_1}$ and $v_{j_2}$ are contained in $A$.}
\bmpr{It took...
\jjh{updated}}
\jjh{Again we transform the path $P = P^i_{j_1,j_2}$ into a $v_{j_1}'v_{j_2}'$-path that avoids $N[v_i']$.} If $u_{j_1}' \neq \bot$, then $z^{j_1}_i \neq \bot$ and as $u_{j_1}'$ satisfies Property~\ref{it:entry1}, there is a $u_{j_1}'z^{j_1}_i$-path in $G[B \cup \{z^{j_1}_i\}] - N[u_i']$ and hence in $\jjh{F}-N[u_i']$. \jjh{Replace the $u_{j_1}z^{j_1}_i$-subpath of $P$ by said path. Do the same if $u_{j_2}' \neq \bot$ so that $P$ has a $u_{j_2}'z^{j_2}_i$-path avoiding $N[u_i']$.}
\bmpr{Show~$p_1,p_2$ in the figure? \jjh{reformulated, no longer needed}}
\jjh{We argue that the path $P$ avoids $N[u_i']$, which by construction holds for the altered parts of the graph.} \bmp{This is clearly true if $u_i' \notin B$, since then we have $u_i' = v_i$. So let~$u'_i \in B$ and assume for a contradiction that $u_i'$} is adjacent to some \bmp{vertex $s \in V(P)$. By $u_i' \in B$ we have $s \in X \cup B$; suppose without loss of generality (by symmetry) that $I(s) < I(u_i)$.} It follows that $s$ is part of some maximal subpath of $P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}$ in $G[X \cup B]$ other than $P_{w,w'}$ used for the definition of tuple $t_i$, since $u_i'$ satisfies Property~\ref{it:allowleft} (Property~\ref{it:allowright} in case $I(u_i) < I(s)$). But since $w$ has the rightmost endpoint of any such maximal subpath, it follows that there is a vertex in the subpath that contains $s$ that has a neighbor in $V(P_{w,w'})$, contradicting that $P^{i}_{j_1,j_2}$ is a shortest path (see Figure~\ref{fig:avoidsubpath}).
\jjh{It follows that the path $P$ satisfies the claim.}
\bmpr{The final wrap-up...
\jjh{updated, double check the updated arguments}}
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
The lemma follows from the claim.
\end{proof}
\micr{what is the role of $s$ on \cref{fig:avoidsubpath}? it looks that $s \in N[v'_i]$ so $v'_i$ is not a valid replacement for $v_i$ if that is the only option for the $ww'$-path}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=2]{marking.pdf}
\caption{Tri-separation $(A,X,B)$ with interval model of $G[X \cup B]$ and AT $\{v_{j_1}',v_i,v_{j_2}'\}$. Vertex $v_i'$ is a valid replacement for $v_i$ if there is a $ww'$-path avoiding its \bmp{closed} neighborhood. }
\label{fig:avoidsubpath}
\end{figure}
\jjh{In order to bound the size of a minimal representative, we require one final definition that partitions the unmarked vertices $V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)$.}
\begin{definition}\label{def:regions}
\jjh{Let $(G,X,\lambda)$ be a $k$-boundaried graph such that $G$ is interval.} Given a set $\jjh{Q} \subseteq V(G)$ and a normalized interval model $\mathcal{I} = \{I(v) \mid v \in X \cup \jjh{Q}\}$ of $G$, define the \emph{regions} of $X \cup \jjh{Q}$ as follows. The endpoints of intervals of $X \cup \jjh{Q}$ partition the real line into $z = 2(|X|+|\jjh{Q}|)+1$ regions. Let $(x_1,\dots,x_{z-1})$ be an increasing order of these endpoints and let $x_0 = -\infty$ and $x_z = \infty$. Define the set of subsets $\mathcal{J}_{\jjh{Q}}^\mathcal{I} = \{J_{i,j} \subseteq \jjh{V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)} \mid i \leq j \in [z]\}$, where $u \in \jjh{V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)}$ is in $J_{i,j}$ if and only if $i$ is the smallest index such that the intervals $[\mathrm{lp}(u),\mathrm{rp}(u)]$ and $[x_{i-1},x_i]$ have a non-empty intersection, and $j$ is the largest index such that $[\mathrm{lp}(u),\mathrm{rp}(u)]$ and $[x_{j-1},x_j]$ have a non-empty intersection.
\end{definition}
\fi
\paragraph{Marking scheme}
We proceed by marking a set of~$|X|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ vertices $Q \subseteq V(G)$ such that for any compatible $k$-boundaried graph $H$, the following holds: if $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ contains an asteroidal triple, then it contains an AT~$(v_1, v_2, v_3)$ such that $\{v_1, v_2, v_3\} \cap V(G) \subseteq X \cup Q$.
Our bound on the size of the minimal representative is then obtained by analyzing the size of $G-(X \cup Q)$. Before getting to the marking scheme, we introduce some definitions and notation.
For a path $P$ and $x,y \in V(P)$ let $P[x,y]$ be the subpath of $P$ from $x$ to $y$.
For a set $U \subseteq V(G)$ let $\mathcal{P}(P,U)$ be the family of maximal subpaths of $P$ contained in $U$.
\jjh{
\begin{observation}\label{obs:subpath_boundary}
Consider a vertex set $U \subseteq V(G)$. Let $P$ be a path whose \bmp{endpoints} are contained in $N(V(G) \setminus U)$. Then for each $Q \in \mathcal{P}(P,U)$, the \bmp{endpoints} of $Q$ are contained in $N(V(G) \setminus U)$.
\end{observation}
}
For a $k$-boundaried graph $(G,X,\lambda)$ such that $G$ is interval, and \jjh{a} normalized interval model $\mathcal{I} = \{I(v) \mid v \in V(G)\}$, we shortly say that $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ is a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model.
\jjh{Given a $k$-boundaried graph with a model $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ and connected vertex set $A \subseteq V(G)$, let \bmp{$I(A) = \bigcup_{a \in A} I(a)$} denote the union of intervals of the vertices in $A$. \bmp{Since~$A$ is connected, $I(A)$ is itself an interval~$[\mathrm{lp}(A), \mathrm{rp}(A)]$ with } $\mathrm{lp}(A) = \min_{a \in A}\mathrm{lp}(a)$ and $\mathrm{rp}(A) = \max_{a \in A}\mathrm{rp}(a)$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:interval:linear-forest}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model and $H$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$.
For a chordless path $P$ in $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$, let $\mathcal{I}(P) = \{I(V(Q)) \mid Q \in \mathcal{P}(P,V(G))\}$.
Then $\mathcal{I}(P)$ is a set of pairwise disjoint intervals. \jjh{Furthermore, if $P$ is disjoint from \mic{$N_G[u]$} for some $u \in V(G)$, then these intervals are disjoint from $I(u)$.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\jjh{First observe that for each $Q \in \mathcal{P}(P,V(G))$ we have that $V(Q)$ is a connected vertex set, namely a chordless path, and therefore $I(V(Q))$ is well-defined. If for any two distinct $Q, Q' \in \mathcal{P}(P,V(G))$, the intervals $I(V(Q))$ and $I(V(Q'))$ would overlap, then either the paths were not maximal subpaths of $P$, or $P$ would not be chordless.
To see the second part, note that any overlap between $I(V(Q))$ and $I(u)$ would imply that $u$ is adjacent \bmp{(or equal)} to some vertex of $V(Q) \subseteq V(P)$.}
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{definition}
Let $(A,X,B)$ be a tri-separation of $G$, $u \in V(G)$, $I$ be an interval model of $G[X \cup B]$, and $P$ be a chordless path in $G - N[u]$.
The vicinity $Y_u$ of $u$ with respect to $(I,P)$ is defined as follows.
If $u \in A$ then $Y_u = (-\infty, \infty)$.
Otherwise let $(x, \dots, y)$ be the subpath closest to $I(u)$ from the left, if any.
We set $Y_\ell = \{x,y\}$ or $-\infty$ if there is no such subpath.
Similarly we define $Y_r$ but from the right and set $Y_u = (Y_\ell, Y_r)$.
\end{definition}
\fi
\mic{We would like to encode all the relevant information about a path that connects two vertices $(v_1,v_2)$ and avoids the neighborhood of a vertex $u$,
so later we could argue that some vertex in an AT can be replaced with another one.
Since the boundaried graph $H$ is unknown, we want to encode the subpaths that might appear within $G$, in particular their starting and ending points in $X$.
However there might be $\Omega(|X|)$ such subpaths and exponentially-many combinations of starting/ending points.
We shall show that only the two subpaths including the vertices $v_1,v_2$ and the (at most) two subpaths closest to $u$ in the interval model are relevant.
This means we only need to encode $\mathcal{O}(1)$ subpaths which gives only $|X|^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ combinations.
We begin with formalizing the concept of encoding a path.
}
\begin{definition}\label{def:signature}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model and $H$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$.
Furthermore, let $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$, $v_1,v_2,u \in V(F)$, and $P$ be a chordless $(v_1, v_2)$-path in $F - N_F[u]$.
The signature $S$ of $(P,u)$
with respect to $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$
is defined as follows.
If $V(P) \cap X = \emptyset$ then $S$ is \emph{trivial}.
Otherwise $S$ is a triple $(x_1, x_2, \mathcal{X})$ where $x_1, x_2 \in X$
and $\mathcal{X}$ is a set of ordered pairs from $X$.
\jjh{Let $x_1$ be the first vertex of $P$ starting from $v_1$ with $x_1 \in X$. Similarly let $x_2$ be the first vertex of $P$ \bmp{in~$X$} starting from $v_2$.}
If $u \not\in V(G)$, then $\mathcal{X} = \emptyset$.
\bmp{Otherwise, if there exists $Q \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1, x_2],V(G))$ such that $I(V(Q)) < I(u)$, choose such~$Q_\ell = (w_1,\dots,w_{|V(Q_\ell)|})$ with maximal $\mathrm{rp}(V(Q_\ell))$ and add the pair $(w_1,w_{|V(Q_\ell)|})$ to $\mathcal{X}$. Similarly add a pair for a path $Q_r$ with minimal $\mathrm{lp}(V(Q_r))$ such that $I(u) < I(V(Q_r))$ if such $Q_r$ exists.}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=1]{marking.pdf}
\caption{\bmp{Schematic illustration of a graph~$F = (G,X,\lambda) \oplus H$, where $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ is a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model. A~$(v_1, v_2)$-path~$P$ in~$F - N_F[u]$ is shown.} The signature of $(P,u)$ is the triple $(x_1,x_2,\mathcal{X} = \{(x,y),(x',y')\})$.
}
\label{fig:signature}
\end{figure}
\jjh{Note that the definition above} is well-defined due to \cref{lem:interval:linear-forest}. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:signature}. In a signature we may have $x_1 = x_2$ and for any ordered pair $(x,y) \in \mathcal{X}$, possibly $x = y$.
\jjh{By Observation~\ref{obs:subpath_boundary} it follows that the pairs in $\mathcal{X}$ \bmp{consist of elements of} $X$. Since a non-trivial signature $S$ with respect to $(G,X,\lambda)$ can be represented as a sequence of at most six vertices of $X$, we observe the following.}
\begin{observation}
Let $\mathcal{S}(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be the family of all possible signatures with respect to $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$.
Then $|\mathcal{S}(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})| = \mathcal{O}(|X|^6)$.
\end{observation}
\mic{We now define the obedience relation between a signature and a triple of vertices.
We want to ensure the following properties: (1) if $P$ is an $(v_1,v_2)$-path in $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ avoiding the closed neighborhood of a vertex $u$, then $(v_1,v_2,u)$ obeys the signature of $(P,u)$, and (2) if two ``similar'' triples \bmp{obey} some signature, then for any choice of $H$ the desired path exists either for both triples or for none of them.
A technical issue occurs when we want to consider triples of vertices not only from $G$ but from $H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$.
Since our framework should be oblivious to the choice of $H$, we introduce the symbol $\bot$ as a placeholder for a vertex from \mic{$H-X$.}
In the definition below we assume $N_G[\bot] = \emptyset$.}
\begin{definition}\label{def:obey_signature}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model and $v_1, v_2, u \in V(G) \cup \{\bot\}$.
We say that $(v_1, v_2, u)$ obeys the trivial signature if $v_1 = v_2 = \bot$ or $G-X-N_G[u]$ contains a $(v_1,v_2)$-path (the latter implies that $v_1, v_2 \in V(G) \setminus X$).
We say that $(v_1, v_2, u)$ obeys a non-trivial signature $S = (x_1, x_2, \mathcal{X}) \in \mathcal{S}(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ if
all the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $v_1 = \bot$ or there is a $(v_1, x_1)$-path \jjh{contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_1\}) -N_G[u]$},
\item $v_2 = \bot$ or there is a $(v_2, x_2)$-path \jjh{contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_2\}) -N_G[u]$},
\item $u = \bot$ or for each $(x, y) \in \mathcal{X}$ there is an $(x,y)$-path in $G-N_G[u]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\mic{We give some intuition behind the obedience definition above. Consider some $k$-boundaried graph $H$ compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$.
Let $(v_1,v_2,u)$ be an AT in $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$, so there is a $(v_1,v_2)$-path $P$ in $F-N_F[u]$.
Suppose we want to replace some vertex from $(v_1,v_2,u)$ with another vertex from $F$, so that the new triple would still obey the signature of $(P,u)$, and certify that an analogous path exists.
If we replace $v_1$ or $v_2$ we will need to update the $(v_1, x_1)$-subpath (resp. $(v_2, x_2)$-subpath) of $P$.
The first (resp. second) condition certifies that such an update is possible: if $u \in V(G)$ then it directly states that the new subpath avoids $N_F[u] \cap V(G) = N_G[u]$ and if $u \not\in V(G)$ (this translates to $u = \bot$) then $N_F[u] \cap V(G) \subseteq X$ and we do not introduce any new vertices from $X$.
If we aim at replacing $u$, then the third condition states that we can update the two subpaths of $P$ which are closest to $u$ in the interval model $\mathcal{I}$---we will show that this is sufficient.}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model.
We set $v^\bot = v$ if $v \in V(G)$ or $\bot$ otherwise, assuming that $G$ is clear from the context.
We now show that the obedience relation satisfies the intuitive property that whenever a $(v_1, v_2)$-path $P$ avoids the closed neighborhood of $u$ then $(v_1^\bot, v_2^\bot, u^\bot)$ obeys the signature of $(P,u)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:interval:obedience}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model and $H$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$.
Furthermore, let $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$, $v_1,v_2,u \in V(F)$, $P$ be a chordless $(v_1, v_2)$-path in $F - N_F[u]$, and $S$ be the signature of $(P,u)$ with respect to $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$.
Then $(v_1^\bot, v_2^\bot, u^\bot)$ obeys $S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\jjh{
We do a case distinction on $V(P) \cap X$. First suppose that $V(P) \cap X = \emptyset$. By Definition~\ref{def:signature} we have that $S$ is trivial. In the case that $V(P) \subseteq V(H) \setminus X$, then $v_1^\bot = v_2^\bot = \bot$ and therefore $(v_1^\bot, v_2^\bot, u^\bot)$ obeys $S$. In the case that $V(P) \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$, then $P$ is a $(v_1,v_2)$-path in $G-X-N_G[u]$ and again $(v_1^\bot, v_2^\bot, u^\bot)$ obeys $S$.
Next, suppose that $V(P) \cap X \neq \emptyset$. Then by Definition~\ref{def:signature} we have $S = (x_1,x_2,\mathcal{X})$. We check the obedience conditions of Definition~\ref{def:obey_signature} for $(v_1^\bot, v_2^\bot, u^\bot)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $v_1 \notin V(G)$, then $v_1^\bot = \bot$ and the first condition clearly holds. Otherwise, $v_1 \in V(G)$, and $x_1$ is the first vertex of $P$ starting from $v_1$ with $x_1 \in X$. If $u \notin V(G)$, then $u^\bot = \bot$ and by construction there is a $(v_1,x_1)$-path contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_1\})=G-(X \setminus \{x_1\})-N_G[u^\bot]$. Otherwise, $u^\bot = u \in V(G)$ and $N_G[u] \subseteq N_F[u]$. Since $P$ is disjoint from $N_F[u]$, it follows that there is a $(v_1,x_1)$-path contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_1\})-N_G[u^\bot]$.
\item The argument for the second condition is symmetric to the first condition.
\item If $u \notin V(G)$, then $u^\bot = \bot$ and the third condition clearly holds. Otherwise, $u^\bot = u \in V(G)$. By \bmp{definition of~$\mathcal{X}$}, for each pair $(x,y) \in \mathcal{X}$, there is a subpath of $P$ in $G-N_G[u]$ starting at $x$ and ending at $y$. It follows that the third condition holds.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{proof}
\mic{In order to introduce the concept of replacing vertices in a triple, we formalize what we mean by saying that two triples are ``similar''.
Simply speaking, we consider the endpoints of intervals of the boundary vertices and treat two vertices as equivalent if their intervals contain the same set of ``boundary endpoints''.
We give the definition for a non-necessarily boundaried graph as later we will use it in a more general context.
}
\begin{definition}\label{def:interval:regions-new}
Let $G$ be an interval graph with a normalized interval model $\mathcal{I} = \{I(v) \mid v \in V(G)\}$
\mic{and $U \subseteq V(G)$}.
The endpoints of intervals of $U$ partition the real line into $z = 2\cdot |U| + 1$ regions. Let $(x_1,\dots,x_{z-1})$ be an increasing order of these endpoints and let $x_0 = -\infty$ and $x_z = \infty$. We define the set of subsets $\mathcal{J}_{U}^\mathcal{I} = \{J_{i,j} \subseteq {V(G) \setminus U} \mid i \leq j \in [z]\}$, where $u \in {V(G) \setminus U}$ is in $J_{i,j}$ if and only if $i$ is the smallest index such that the intervals $[\mathrm{lp}(u),\mathrm{rp}(u)]$ and $[x_{i-1},x_i]$ have a non-empty intersection, and $j$ is the largest index such that $[\mathrm{lp}(u),\mathrm{rp}(u)]$ and $[x_{j-1},x_j]$ have a non-empty intersection.
\end{definition}
The family $\mathcal{J}_{U}^\mathcal{I}$ clearly forms a partition of $V(G) \setminus U$.
For a superset $A$ of $V(G)$ and $x,y \in A$ we say $x,y$ are $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent if $x=y$ or $x,y \in V(G) \setminus X$ and $x,y$ belong to the same set in the partition $\mathcal{J}_{X}^\mathcal{I}$ \bmp{with respect to~$X$}.
Two $\ell$-tuples over $A$ are $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent if they are pointwise $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent.
\mic{We now prove the main technical lemma which states that whenever two $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent triples obey some signature, then
the desired path exists either for both triples of vertices
or for none of them.
}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:interval:path-exists}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model and $H$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$.
Furthermore, let $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$, $v_1,v_2,u,w_1,w_2,z \in V(F)$, and $P$ be a chordless $(v_1, v_2)$-path in $F - N_F[u]$.
Suppose that triples $(v_1, v_2, u)$ and $(w_1, w_2, z)$ are $(G,X, \mathcal{I})$-equivalent and $(w_1^\bot, w_2^\bot, z^\bot)$ obey the signature of $(P,u)$ \bmp{in $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$}.
Then there exists a $(w_1,w_2)$-path in $F-N_F[z]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be the signature of $(P,u)$. We do a case distinction on $V(P) \cap X$. First suppose that $V(P) \cap X = \emptyset$. By Definition~\ref{def:signature} we have that $S$ is trivial.
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case that $V(P) \subseteq V(H) \setminus X$, we have $v_1^\bot = v_2^\bot = \bot$. By the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence we have that $v_1 = w_1$ and $v_2 = w_2$. If $u \notin V(G) \setminus X$, then by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence we have $u = z$ and the path $P$ satisfies the lemma. Otherwise $u \in V(G) \setminus X$ and by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence we have $z \in V(G) \setminus X$ and therefore $N_F[z] \subseteq V(G)$. Since $V(P) \subseteq V(H) \setminus X$, again the path $P$ satisfies the lemma.
\item Next consider the case that $V(P) \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$. Since $v_1,v_2 \in V(G) \setminus X$, by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence we have that $w_1,w_2 \in V(G) \setminus X$. Since $(w_1^\bot, w_2^\bot, z^\bot)$ obeys $S$, it follows that there is a $(w_1,w_2)$-path in $G-X-N_G[z^\bot]$.
\end{itemize}
Next, suppose that $V(P) \cap X \neq \emptyset$. By Definition~\ref{def:signature} we have $S = (x_1,x_2,\mathcal{X})$. We transform $P$ into the required path. We do a case distinction on the location of $u \in V(F)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose $u \in X$, then $u = z$ by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence and therefore $P$ is a $(v_1,v_2)$-path in $F - N_F[z]$. We first argue that there is a $(w_1,x_1)$-path in $F - N_F[z]$. This is trivially true if $w_1^\bot = \bot$, since then $w_1 = v_1$ by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$ equivalence and~$P[v_1, x_1]$ is such a path. Otherwise, because of the first obedience condition it follows that there is a $(w_1,x_1)$-path $P'$ contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_1\})-N_G[z^\bot = z]$. Analogously, there is a~$(x_2, w_2)$-path~$P''$ contained in~$F-N_F[z]$. Then the concatenation of~$P'$,~$P[x_1, x_2]$, and~$P''$ is a~$(w_1,w_2)$-path in~$F - N_F[z]$, as desired.
\item
Suppose $u \in V(H) \setminus X$, then again $u = z$ by the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence and therefore $P$ is a $(v_1,v_2)$-path in $F - N_F[z]$. The construction of the required path is identical to the previous case, but the argument requires one more observation here to show that $V(P')$ avoids $N_F[z]$ as $z^\bot = \bot$. Consider the case that $w_1^\bot \neq \bot$, then by the first obedience condition it follows that there is a $(w_1,x_1)$-path $P'$ contained in $G-(X \setminus \{x_1\})-N_G[z^\bot = \bot]$ (recall that $N_G[\bot] = \emptyset$). Observe that $V(P') \cap X = \{x_1\}$. Since $N_F[z] \cap V(G) \subseteq X$ as $z \in V(H) \setminus X$, and $u=z$ is not adjacent to $x_1$ as $x_1 \in V(P)$ and $P$ is a path that avoids $N_F[u]$, it follows that $P'$ is a $(w_1,x_1)$-path in $F-N_F[z]$. A symmetric argument shows that $P''$ avoids $N_F[z]$. Concatenating these with~$P[x_1,x_2]$ yields a $(w_1,w_2)$-path in $F-N_F[z]$.
\item
Finally suppose $u \in V(G) \setminus X$. By the $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence, we have $z \in V(G) \setminus X$ and $u=u^\bot$ and $z=z^\bot$ belong to the same set in the partition $\mathcal{J}^\mathcal{I}_X$. Obtain a $(w_1,x_1)$-path $P'$ in $F$ as in the previous case, possibly identical to $P[v_1,x_1]$, and a $(x_2, w_2)$-path $P''$ in~$F$. By the obedience conditions of Definition~\ref{lem:interval:obedience}, these \bmp{can be taken} disjoint from $N_G[z] = N_F[z]$.
Now it suffices to argue that there is a $(x_1,x_2)$-path disjoint from $N_F[z] = N_G[z]$. We transform $P[x_1,x_2]$ to the desired path, only modifying $\mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$. By Observation~\ref{obs:subpath_boundary} it follows that $q_1,q_r \in X$ for each path $Q = (q_1,\dots,q_r) \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$. To complete the argument, we show that there is a $(q_1,q_r)$-path in $G-N_G[z]$ for each $Q = (q_1,\dots,q_r) \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$.
Consider $\mathcal{I}(P[x_1,x_2]) = \{I(V(Q)) \mid Q \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))\}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:interval:linear-forest} it follows that $\mathcal{I}(P[x_1,x_2])$ is a set of pairwise disjoint intervals. Consider the position of $I(u)$ with respect to the intervals in $\mathcal{I}(P[x_1,x_2])$. Since $P$ is disjoint from $N_F[u] = N_G[u]$, it follows that $I(u)$ does not intersect $I(V(Q))$ for any $Q \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$. Suppose there is a path $Q \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$ with $I(V(Q)) < I(u)$. Let $Q_\ell = (\ell_1,\dots,\ell_r)$ with $r = |V(Q_\ell)|$ be such that $I(V(Q_\ell)) < I(u)$ and $\mathrm{rp}(V(Q_\ell))$ is maximal. By Definition~\ref{def:signature} we have that $(\ell_1,\ell_r) \in \mathcal{X}$. By the third obedience condition, there is a $(\ell_1,\ell_r)$-path in $G-N_G[z]$. Note that $I(\ell_1) < I(z)$ and $I(\ell_r) < I(z)$ since $u$ and $z$ are in the same set in the partition $\mathcal{J}^\mathcal{I}_X$.
We argue that for any $Q = (q_1,\dots,q_r) \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$ with $I(V(Q)) < I(V(Q_\ell))$, the path $Q$ is disjoint from $N_G[z]$. Suppose not, then there is some $s \in V(Q)$ such that $s$ is adjacent to $z$. But since $I(s) < I(\ell_r) < I(z)$, this is not possible (refer to Figure~\ref{fig:no_long_interval} for an intuition).
A symmetric argument shows the existence of a $(q_1,q_r)$-path for any $Q = (q_1,\dots,q_r) \in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$ with $I(u) < I(V(Q))$. \bmp{As each path of~$\mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$ can be replaced by a path with the same endpoints that avoids~$N_F[z]$, this yields the desired~$(x_1,x_2)$-path avoiding~$N_F[z]$ since the subpaths outside~$P[x_1,x_2]$ are trivially disjoint from~$N_F[z] = N_G[z] \subseteq V(G)$.} \qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=2]{marking.pdf}
\caption{\mic{Illustration of the} last case in Lemma~\ref{lem:interval:path-exists}. By replacing the interval $u$ by $z$, we can only introduce adjacencies to the $(\ell_1,\ell_r)$-subpath of $P$; any \mic{potential \bmp{neighbor} $s \in N_F(z)$ in a path~$P'\in \mathcal{P}(P[x_1,x_2],V(G))$ with~$I(P') < I(P[\ell_1, \ell_r])$} would create a chord \bmp{such as~$s \ell_1$},
\mic{which is impossible as the path~$P$ is assumed to be chordless.}}
\label{fig:no_long_interval}
\end{figure}
\mic{We are ready to define the marking scheme and prove that we can always assume that a potential AT uses only the marked vertices.
Since there are only $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ signatures in a $k$-boundaried graph $G$, and every AT can be represented by three signatures, the replacement property from \cref{lem:interval:path-exists} allows us to use the same vertices in $G$ for each of $k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ ``types'' of an AT.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:markedAT}
Let $(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$ be a $k$-boundaried interval graph with a model.
There exists a~set $Q \subseteq V(G) \setminus X$ of $\mathcal{O}(k^{24})$ vertices so that for any $k$-boundaried graph $H$ compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$, if $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ contains some AT, then $F$ contains an AT $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ such that $\{w_1,w_2,w_3\} \cap V(G) \subseteq X \cup Q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each triple $(S_1,S_2,S_3)$ of signatures from $\mathcal{S}(G,X,\lambda,\mathcal{I})$, let $O(S_1, S_2, S_3)$ be the set of triples $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ from $V(G) \cup \{\bot\}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(v_2,v_3,v_1)$ obeys $S_1$,
\item $(v_3,v_1,v_2)$ obeys $S_2$,
\item $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ obeys $S_3$.
\end{enumerate}
\bmp{Partition the triples~$O(S_1, S_2, S_3)$ into equivalence classes based on the relation of $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence among triples.}
Let $Q(S_1, S_2, S_3)$ contain an arbitrary triple from each class of $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalence within $O(S_1, S_2, S_3)$, \mic{as long as at least one such triple exists.}
We add to $Q$ every vertex from $V(G) \setminus X$ that appears in any triple in $Q(S_1, S_2, S_3)$ for any $(S_1,S_2,S_3)$.
Observe that $|Q| \in \mathcal{O}(k^{24})$ as there are $\mathcal{O}(k^{18})$ choices of $(S_1,S_2,S_3)$ and $\mathcal{O}(k^6)$ equivalency classes.
\bmp{We now argue that~$Q$ has the claimed property. So consider a $k$-boundaried graph~$H$ compatible with~$(G,X,\lambda)$ such that~$F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ contains an AT~$(v_1, v_2, v_3)$.} Let $P_1$ be a shortest $(v_2,v_3)$-path in $F - N_F[v_1]$. \jjh{Note that $P_1$ is chordless.}
By \cref{lem:interval:obedience} the triple $(v_2^\bot,v_3^\bot,v_1^\bot)$ obeys the signature $S_1$ of $(P_1, v_1)$.
The same holds for analogously defined $P_2,P_3$ and signatures $S_2,S_3$.
The marking scheme picks some triple $(b_1, b_2, b_3)$ with $b_i \in V(G) \cup \{\bot\}$ for each $i \in [3]$, which is $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent to $(v_1^\bot,v_2^\bot,v_3^\bot)$ and such that $(b_2,b_3,b_1)$ obeys $S_1$, $(b_3,b_1,b_2)$ obeys $S_2$ and $(b_1,b_2,b_3)$ obeys $S_3$.
Let $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ be defined as follows: for each $i \in [3]$, if $b_i = \bot$ then $w_i = v_i$, otherwise $w_i = b_i$.
\mic{Note that $w_i \in V(F)$ for each $i \in [3]$.}
Then $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ is $(G,X,\mathcal{I})$-equivalent to $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ and $(w_1^\bot,w_2^\bot,w_3^\bot) = (b_1,b_2,b_3)$, so these triples behave the same for any signature.
\mic{It follows that $(w_2^\bot,w_3^\bot,w_1^\bot)$ obeys the signature $S_1$ so by
\cref{lem:interval:path-exists} there exists a $(w_2,w_3)$-path in $F - N_F(w_1)$.
By applying \cref{lem:interval:path-exists} to each of the above orderings of $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$, it follows that $(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ is an AT in $F$.}
By the definition of \jjh{the marked set of vertices} $Q$, $\{w_1,w_2,w_3\} \cap V(G) \subseteq X \cup Q$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Wrapping up}
\mic
\bmp{The last step of the proof is to give a bound on the size of a minimal representative~$(G,X,\lambda)$ in the relation of $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence, by arguing that in such a graph only few vertices exist outside the set~$Q$ of bounded size.}
We achieve this by combining the module-free property (Lemma~\ref{lem:no-non-trivial-modules}) and the former contraction property for chordal graphs (Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:contraction-reverse}).
}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:meta-interval:representatives}
If the $k$-boundaried graph $(G,X,\lambda)$ is a minimal representative in the relation of $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence, then $G$ has $\mathcal{O}(k^{48})$ vertices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the definition, $G$ is interval.
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a normalized interval model of $G$. Let $Q \subseteq V(G)$ be provided by Lemma~\ref{lem:markedAT}. Obtain the partition $\mathcal{J}_{\jjh{X \cup Q}}^\mathcal{I} = \{J_{i,j} \subseteq \jjh{V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)} \mid i \leq j \in [z]\}$ of $V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)$ via Definition~\ref{def:interval:regions-new}.
First consider the case that $J_{i,j}$ is an independent set for all $i \leq j \in [z]$. We show that $G$ satisfies the lemma. For each $i \neq j \in [z]$, $G[J_{i,j}]$ induces a clique as the intervals intersect at some region border between the $i$th and $j$th region. Therefore $G[J_{i,j}]$ consists of a single vertex for each $i \neq j \in [z]$.
We argue that $J_{i,i}$ has size $\mathcal{O}(|X \cup Q|)$ for each $i \in [z]$. If any two vertices in $J_{i,i}$ have the same \bmp{open} neighborhood, then they form a non-trivial module in $V(G) \setminus X$, which by Lemma~\ref{lem:no-non-trivial-modules} would contradict that $(G,X,\lambda)$ is a minimal representative. It follows that each pair of vertices in $J_{i,i}$ must have different neighborhoods in $V(G) \setminus (X \cup Q)$ as they have the same neighborhoods in $X \cup Q$ by Definition~\ref{def:interval:regions-new}. Since every vertex in $J_{i,i}$ is adjacent to every vertex in $J_{p,q}$ for each $p < i$ and $i < q$, they can only have neighborhood differences by adjacencies to $J_{p,i}$ or $J_{i,q}$, each of which \bmp{consists} of a single vertex as argued above. Since there are only $\mathcal{O}(|X \cup Q|)$ such vertices as $z \in \mathcal{O}(|X \cup Q|)$, we have that $J_{i,i}$ has size $\mathcal{O}(|X \cup Q|)$. Since $|Q| \in \mathcal{O}(|X|^{24})$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:markedAT}, it follows that $G$ at most $|X| + |Q| + \sum_{i \in [z]} |J_{i,i}| + \sum_{i < j \in [z]} |J_{i,j}| \in \mathcal{O}(k^{48})$ \bmp{vertices} and the lemma holds.
In the remaining case suppose there is some edge $uv$ for $\{u,v\} \subseteq J_{i,j}$ for some $i \leq j \in [z]$. We argue that $(G,X,\lambda)$ is not a minimal representative. Let $H$ be a $k$-boundaried graph compatible with $(G,X,\lambda)$. Let $F = H \oplus (G,X,\lambda)$ with tri-separation $(A = V(H) \setminus X,X,B = V(G) \setminus X)$. We argue that $F$ is interval if and only if $F / uv $ is interval. Since interval graphs are closed under edge contractions by Observation~\ref{obs:interval:contractions}, we have that if $F$ is interval then so is $F / uv$.
In the other direction suppose that $F$ is not interval. By Theorem~\ref{thm:interval:chordal:atfree} it follows that $F$ contains a chordless cycle of length at least four or an asteroidal triple.
Suppose $F$ contains a chordless cycle of length at least four and $F' = F / uv$ does not. Since $F'[A \cup X] = F[A \cup X] = H$ we have that $F[A \cup X]$ is chordal. Since $F[B \cup X] = G$ and $G$ is an interval graph we have that $F[B \cup X]$ is chordal. But then by Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-chordal:contraction-reverse} we have that $F$ is chordal, contradicting that it contains a chordless cycle. It follows that $F / uv$ also contains a chordless cycle and therefore $F / uv$ is not interval.
Finally suppose that $F$ \bmp{is chordal but} contains an asteroidal triple $(a,b,c)$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:markedAT} we can assume that $\{a,b,c\} \cap V(G) \subseteq X \cup Q$. Since $u,v \in J_{i,j}$ have the same neighborhood in $X \cup Q$, it follows that they are adjacent to the same vertices in $\{a,b,c\}$. Therefore any path in $F$ that avoids the closed neighborhood of any vertex of the triple translates to a path in $F / uv$ that avoids the closed neighborhood. It follows that $(a,b,c)$ is an asteroidal triple in $F / uv$ and therefore $F / uv$ is not interval.
Since $F / uv = H \oplus (G / uv, X, \lambda)$, we have shown that $(G / uv, X, \lambda)$ is in the same $(\mathsf{interval},k)$-equivalence class, contradicting that $(G,X,\lambda)$ is a minimal representative.
\end{proof}
\jjh{
As with \textsc{Chordal deletion} in the previous section, we proceed by showing that we can solve \textsc{Interval deletion} where some vertices become undeletable. As a first step, we observe that interval graphs are closed under addition of true twins, which follows from the fact that the added vertex can get the same interval in an interval model.
\begin{observation}\label{obs:meta-interval:truetwins:stayinterval}
Let $G$ be an interval graph an let $v \in V(G)$. If $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by making a true-twin copy $v'$ of $v$, then $G'$ is an interval graph.
\end{observation}
\textsc{Interval deletion} was shown to be FPT parameterized by \bmp{solution size~$\jjh{k}$} by Cao and Marx. Their algorithm either returns a minimum cardinality solution, or decides that no solution of size at most~$k$ exists.
\begin{thm}[\cite{CaoM2015}]\label{thm:meta-interval:interval_deletion_fpt}
\textsc{Interval deletion} parameterized by the solution size $k$ can be solved in time~\bmp{$10^\jjh{k} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$}.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:meta-interval:main}
The \textsc{Interval deletion} problem can be solved in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{96})}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when given a tree $\mathsf{interval}$-\bmp{decomposition} of width $k-1$ consisting of $n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ nodes.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We check the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-uniform:main}.
The class of interval graphs is clearly closed under vertex deletion and disjoint union of graphs.
Because of Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-interval:interval_deletion_fpt} and Observation~\ref{obs:meta-interval:truetwins:stayinterval},
\mic{we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-uniform:undeletable} to solve \textsc{Disjoint interval deletion}
in time $10^s\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$.}
Next, by Lemma~\ref{lem:meta-interval:representatives}
\mic{and \cref{lem:representative-generation-general},
an $(\mathsf{interval},\le k)$-representative family can be computed in time $v(k) = 2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{\jjh{96}})}$.}
\end{proof}
}
\mic{
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:meta-interval:final}
The \textsc{Interval deletion} problem can be solved in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^{\jjh{480}})}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by $k = \hhtw[interval](G)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We use \cref{thm:decomposition:full} to find a tree $\mathsf{interval}$-decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}(k^5)$, {which takes time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k \log k)} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$,} and plug it into Theorem~\ref{thm:meta-interval:main}.
\end{proof}
}
\section{Hardness proofs}\label{sec:hardness}
In this section we provide two hardness proofs that mark boundaries of applicability of our approach. In Section~\ref{subsec:fpt:inapprox} we show that for~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ the class of perfect graphs, no FPT-approximation algorithms exist for computing~$\hhtw$ or~$\hhdepth$ unless W[1]~$=$~FPT. In Section~\ref{subsec:not:closed} we show why the parameterization by elimination distance is only fruitful for vertex-deletion problems to graph classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ which are closed under disjoint union, by showing that for~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ not closed under disjoint union, \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} can be NP-complete even for graphs of elimination distance~$0$ to a member of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\subsection{No FPT-approximation for perfect depth and width} \label{subsec:fpt:inapprox}
Let $\mathsf{perfect}$ be shorthand for the class of perfect graphs.
Gr{\"o}tschel et al.~\cite{GrotschelLS81} show that computing a minimum vertex cover in a perfect graph can be done in polynomial time. {Given Theorems~\ref{thm:vcelim} and~\ref{thm:vc:width}}, computing a $\mathsf{perfect}$-elimination forest (or a tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition) would be of interest. However, we show that we cannot hope to approximate such decompositions {in FPT time}.
{For a function~$g \colon \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$, a fixed-parameter tractable $g$-approximation algorithm for a parameterized minimization problem is an algorithm that, given an instance of size~$n$ with parameter value~$k$, runs in time~$f(k)\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for some computable function~$f$ and either determines that there is no solution of size~$k$, or outputs a solution of size at most~$g(k) \cdot k$.}
In the \textsc{$k$-hitting set} problem, we are given a universe $U$, a set system $\mathcal{F}$ {over~$U$}, and an integer $k$, and ask for a smallest cardinality set $S \subseteq U$ such that {$F \cap S \neq \emptyset$ for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$}. As shown by Karthik et al.~\cite{KarthikLM19}, we have the following inapproximability result for \textsc{$k$-hitting set}.
\begin{thm}[{\cite{KarthikLM19}}]\label{thm:hitsetinapprox}
Assuming W[1] $\neq$ FPT, {there is no FPT {$g(k)$}-approximation for \textsc{$k$-hitting set} for any computable function $g$.}
\end{thm}
The decision variant of the \textsc{$k$-hitting set} problem, which asks if a solution of size at most $k$ exists, is known to be W[2]-hard. In the \textsc{$k$-perfect deletion} problem, we are given a graph $G$ and an integer $k$, and ask for a smallest cardinality set $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G-S$ is a perfect graph.
By the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem~\cite{ChudnovskyRST06}, this amounts to deleting odd induced cycles of length at least 5 (odd {holes}) and their edge complements (odd {anti-holes}) from the graph.
Heggernes et al.~\cite{HeggernesHJKV13} show that the decision variant of \textsc{$k$-perfect deletion} is W[2]-hard, reducing from \textsc{$k$-hitting set}. We show that their reduction also rules out good approximations for $\hhdepth[\mathsf{perfect}]$ and $\hhtw[\mathsf{perfect}]$.
Let \textsc{$k$-perfect depth} be the problem of computing a minimum depth $\mathsf{perfect}$-elimination forest. Similarly, let and \textsc{$k$-perfect width} be the problem of computing a minimum width tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition. We show that we cannot $g(k)$-approximate these problems in FPT time.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:inapprox:perfect}
Let~$g \colon \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ be a computable function. Assuming W[1] $\neq$ FPT, there is no algorithm that, given a graph~$G$ and integer~$k$, runs in time~$f(k) \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ for some computable function~$f$ and either determines that the minimum size of a perfect deletion set in~$G$ is larger than~$k$, or outputs a tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition of~$G$ of width~$g(k) \cdot k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
{Suppose that an algorithm~$\mathcal{A}$ as described in the lemma statement does exist. We will use it to build an FPT-time $2 \cdot g(k)$-approximation for \textsc{$k$-hitting set}, thereby showing W[1]~$=$~FPT by Theorem~\ref{thm:hitsetinapprox}. By contraposition, this will prove the lemma.}
We use the construction of~\cite{HeggernesHJKV13} to reduce an instance of \textsc{$k$-hitting set} to \textsc{$k$-perfect deletion}. Let $(U,\mathcal{F},k)$ be an instance of \textsc{Hitting set}.
Assume $|F| \geq 2$ for $F \in \mathcal{F}$. Build an instance $(G,k)$ for \textsc{$k$-perfect deletion} as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Create an independent set $X$ on $|U|$ vertices, let $X = \{v_u \mid u \in U\}$.
\item For each set $F = \{u_1,\ldots,u_t\} \in \mathcal{F}$, add $|F|+1$ new vertices $h_1,\ldots,h_{t+1}$. The set $\mathcal{G}_F = \{h_1,\ldots,h_{t+1}\}$ is the \emph{set gadget} for $F$. Let $U_F \subseteq U = \{v_{u_1},\ldots,v_{u_t}\}$ be the universe vertices corresponding to $F$. Add edges $h_1v_{u_1}$, $v_{u_1}h_2$, $h_2v_{u_2}$,\ldots,$v_{u_t}h_{t+1}$, $h_{t+1}h_1$. Note that $G[\mathcal{G}_F \cup U_F]$ induces an odd hole of length at least 5.
\item Take the pairwise join of the set gadgets. {That is, make all vertices of~$\mathcal{G}_F$ adjacent to all vertices of~$\mathcal{G}_{F'}$ for distinct~$F, F' \in \mathcal{F}$.}
\end{itemize}
The following series of claims are proven {by Heggernes et al.~\cite[{Claim 1--4, Thm.~1}]{HeggernesHJKV13}.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The graph $G-X$ is a cograph and therefore perfect.
\item Any hole in $G$ intersects $X$ and exactly one set gadget $\mathcal{G}_F$.
\item Any anti-hole in $G$ has length 5 and is therefore a hole of length 5.
\item If $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G-S$ is perfect, then there is $S' \subseteq X$ with $|S'| \leq |S|$ such that $G-S'$ is perfect.
\item {For each~$\ell \geq 0$}, the instance $(U,\mathcal{F})$ has a solution of size at most $\ell$ if and only if $G$ has {a~$\mathsf{perfect}$-deletion set} of size at most $\ell$. \label{prop:perfect:preserve:approx}
\end{enumerate}
We note that the construction above is independent of $k$ and approximation preserving due to {Property~\ref{prop:perfect:preserve:approx}}. The reduction can easily be computed in polynomial time.
{The algorithm for \textsc{$k$-hitting set} constructs the instance~$(G,k)$ from~$(U,\mathcal{F},k)$, and then applies~$\mathcal{A}$ to~$(G,k)$.} If~$\mathcal{A}$ concludes that the minimum size of a perfect deletion set in $G$ is larger than $k$, then by Property 5 we can conclude that a minimum hitting set is larger than $k${, and reject the instance.}
Otherwise, let $(T,\chi,L)$ be the resulting tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition of width $d \leq g(k) \cdot k$ output by the algorithm. {To transform the decomposition of~$G$ into a hitting set, we distinguish two cases.}
First, suppose not a single gadget vertex $h$ is contained in a base component, that is, $\mathcal{G}_F \cap L = \emptyset$ for each set gadget $\mathcal{G}_F$. Let $S \subseteq V(G)$ be a set that contains a single arbitrary vertex from each {set gadget~$\mathcal{G}_F$}. {Then~$G[S]$ induces a clique by construction, and therefore there is a single bag~$\chi(t)$ for some~$t \in V(T)$ which contains all vertices of~$S$. {Since no gadget vertex is in a base component and so $S \cap L = \emptyset$,} we have~$|\chi(t) \setminus L| \geq |S|$.} It follows that $d \geq |S| - 1 \geq |\mathcal{F}| - 1$. Hence we can simply take an arbitrary universe element from {every set}, and get a hitting set of size at most {$d + 1 \leq 2 \cdot g(k) \cdot k$}.
If the previous case does not apply, then there exists {$F \in \mathcal{F}$} such that some $h \in \mathcal{G}_F$ is contained in $\chi(t) \cap L$ for a leaf $t \in V(T)$. We construct a hitting set $S$ for $(U,\mathcal{F})$ as follows. For each $v \in \chi(t) \setminus L$, if {$v=v_u \in X$} then add $u$ to $S$. Otherwise $v \in \mathcal{G}_F$ is a gadget vertex and we add $u$ to $S$ for an arbitrary $u \in F$.
To see that $S$ is a valid hitting set, consider an arbitrary $F' \in \mathcal{F}$. Then either $h \in \mathcal{G}_{F'}$ or $h$ is adjacent to every vertex of $\mathcal{G}_{F'}$ by the join step {in the construction of~$G$}. Since $G[\mathcal{G}_{F'} \cup U_{F'}]$ induces an odd hole, at least one of its vertices {$u$} is outside the base component as the base component is perfect. Consider a shortest path $P$ from $h$ to $u$ in $G[\mathcal{G}_{F'} \cup U_{F'} \cup \{h\}]$. Note that such a path must exist by the previous observation. Let $w$ be the first vertex of $P$ such that $w \notin L$. Note that $w \in \chi(t) \setminus L$ by {Observation~\ref{obs:basecomponent:neighborhoods}}. Now since $w$ is either a universe vertex or a gadget vertex, it follows that $S$ contains an element that hits $F'$.
In both cases we have constructed a hitting set of size at most {$d + 1 \leq 2 \cdot g(k) \cdot k$}. But now we have an algorithm that either concludes that a minimum hitting set has size larger than $k$, or gives a hitting set of size at most $2 \cdot g(k) \cdot k$ in FPT time. Using Theorem~\ref{thm:hitsetinapprox}, this implies W[1]~$=$~FPT.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lemma:inapprox:perfect} leads to FPT-inapproximability results for \textsc{$k$-perfect depth} and \textsc{$k$-perfect width}, using the fact a small perfect deletion set trivially gives a decomposition of small depth or width.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:inapprox:perfectdepthwidth}
Assuming W[1] $\neq$ FPT, there is no FPT time $g$-approximation for \textsc{$k$-perfect depth} {or} \textsc{$k$-perfect width} for any computable function $g$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
{We show that an FPT-approximation for either problem would give an algorithm satisfying the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:inapprox:perfect} and therefore imply W[1]~$=$~FPT.}
Suppose there is an FPT time $g$-approximation for \textsc{$k$-perfect width} for some computable function $g$. If{, on input~$(G,k)$,} the algorithm decides that there is no tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition of width $k$, then we can also conclude that the minimum size of a perfect deletion set {of~$G$} is larger than $k$. {Otherwise, it provides a decomposition of width at most~$g(k) \cdot k$.}
Now suppose there is an FPT time $g$-approximation for \textsc{$k$-perfect depth} for some computable function $g$. If{, on input~$(G,k)$,} the algorithm decides that there is no $\mathsf{perfect}$-elimination forest of depth $k$, then we can also conclude that the minimum size of a perfect deletion set of the input graph is larger than $k$. If the algorithm returns a $\mathsf{perfect}$-elimination forest of depth at most $g(k) \cdot k$, then using Lemma~\ref{lem:treedepth-treewidth} we can construct a tree $\mathsf{perfect}$-decomposition of width at most $g(k) \cdot k - 1$ in polynomial time.
\end{proof}
{In the above FPT-inapproximability results for \textsc{$k$-perfect width} and \textsc{$k$-perfect depth}, we strongly rely on the fact that instances constructed in the W[2]-hardness reduction from \textsc{$k$-hitting set} to \textsc{$k$-perfect deletion} are very dense. While \textsc{$k$-wheel-free deletion} is also W[2]-hard~\cite{Lokshtanov08}, which is shown via an approximation-preserving reduction, this does not directly lead to FPT-inapproximability of \textsc{$k$-wheel-free width} and \textsc{$k$-wheel-free depth}, as the instances produced by that reduction are much less dense. In particular, in such instances there is no direct way to translate a graph decomposition into a wheel-free deletion set. We therefore do not know whether \textsc{$k$-wheel-free width} and \textsc{$k$-wheel-free depth} admit FPT-approximations.}
\subsection{Classes which are not closed under disjoint union} \label{subsec:not:closed}
In this section we show why the restriction of Theorem~\ref{thm:solving:general} to graph classes which are closed under disjoint unions is necessary. Recall that~$K_5$ is a clique on five vertices and~$K_{1,3}$ is the claw. Let~$H_{5+1,3} := K_5 + K_{1,3}$ denote the disjoint union of these two graphs. Let~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$ denote the (hereditary) family of graphs which do not contain~$H_{5+1,3}$ as an induced subgraph.
For our hardness proof, we will use the following result of Lewis and Yannakakis. Here a graph property is nontrivial in the class of planar graphs if there are infinitely many planar graphs that have the property, and infinitely many planar graphs which do not.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Cor.~5]{LewisY80}}]
The node-deletion problem restricted to planar graphs for graph-properties that are hereditary on induced subgraphs and nontrivial on planar graphs is NP-complete.
\end{thm}
In particular, their result shows that \textsc{Induced-$K_{1,3}$-free deletion} is NP-complete when restricted to planar graphs.
\begin{thm}
\textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$ deletion} is NP-complete when restricted to graphs whose elimination distance to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$ is~$0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We give a reduction from an instance~$(G,k)$ of \textsc{Induced-$K_{1,3}$-free deletion} on planar graphs, which asks whether the planar graph~$G$ can be made (induced) claw-free by removing at most~$k$ vertices.
Let~$G'$ be the disjoint union of~$G$ with~$k+1$ copies of~$K_5$. Observe that the elimination distance of~$G'$ to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$ is~$0$: each connected component of~$G'$ is either isomorphic to~$K_5$ (and does not contain~$K_{1,3}$) or consists of the planar graph~$G$ (and therefore does not contain~$K_5$). Hence each connected component of~$G'$ belongs to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$.
We claim that the instance~$(G',k)$ of \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$-deletion} is equivalent to the instance~$(G,k)$ of claw-free deletion. In one direction, any vertex set~$S \subseteq V(G)$ for which~$G - S$ is claw-free also ensures that~$G' - S$ is claw-free (as the components isomorphic to~$K_5$ do not contain any claws) and therefore implies~$G' - S \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$. For the reverse direction, suppose~$S' \subseteq V(G')$ is a set of size at most~$k$ such that~$G' - S' \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{5+1,3}$. Then~$G' - S'$ must be claw-free, because if~$G' - S'$ contains a claw, then this claw forms an induced copy of~$H_{5+1,3}$ in~$G' - S'$ together with one of the~$k+1$ copies of~$K_5$ that contains no vertex of~$S'$. So~$G' - S'$ is claw-free, and therefore the induced subgraph~$G - S'$ is claw-free as well, showing that~$(G,k)$ is a yes-instance.
As the transformation can easily be performed in polynomial time, this completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We remark that similar hardness proofs can be obtained for graph classes defined by a disconnected forbidden minor rather than a disconnected forbidden induced subgraph. For example, when~$H'$ is the disjoint union of the cycle~$C_9$ on nine vertices and the graph~$K_5$, one can show that \textsc{Induced $H'$-minor-free deletion} is NP-complete on graphs whose elimination distance to an~$H'$-minor-free graph is~$0$. This can be seen from the fact that \textsc{Feedback vertex set} remains NP-complete on planar graphs of girth at least nine since subdividing edges does not change the answer, that planar graphs do not contain~$K_5$ as a minor, while~$K_5$ does not contain~$C_9$ as a minor. As the purpose of these lower bounds is merely to justify our restriction to graph classes closed under disjoint union, we omit further details.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We introduced a new algorithmic framework for developing algorithms that solve \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} problems. Our algorithms simultaneously exploit small separators as well as structural properties of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, leading to fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for parameterizations by~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$ which can be arbitrarily much smaller than either the treewidth or the solution size. To obtain these algorithms, we showed that~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$ can be FPT-approximated using subroutines to compute~$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},k)$-separations and used a number of different tools from algorithmic graph theory to compute separations. Our work opens up a multitude of directions for future work.
\subparagraph{Beyond undirected graphs} On a conceptual level, the idea of solving a deletion problem parameterized by the elimination distance (or even less) is not restricted to undirected graphs. By developing notions of elimination distance for directed graphs, hypergraphs, or other discrete structures, similar questions could be pursued in those contexts. One could also consider undirected graphs with a distinguished set of terminal vertices, for example in an attempt to develop (uniform, single-exponential) FPT algorithms for \textsc{Multiway cut} parameterized by the elimination distance to a graph where each component has at most one terminal.
\subparagraph{Cross-parameterizations} In this paper, our main focus was on solving \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} parameterized by~$\hhdepth$ or~$\hhtw$. However, the elimination distance can also be used as a parameterization away from triviality for solving other parameterized problems~$\Pi$, when using classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in which~$\Pi$ is polynomial-time solvable. This can lead to interesting challenges of exploiting graph structure. For problems which are FPT parameterized by deletion distance to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, does the tractability extend to elimination distance to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$? For example, is \textsc{Undirected feedback vertex set} FPT when parameterized by the elimination distance to a subcubic graph or to a chordal graph? The problem is known to be FPT parameterized by the deletion distance to a chordal graph~\cite{JansenRV14} or the edge-deletion distance to a subcubic graph~\cite{MajumdarR18}.
As a step in this direction, Eiben et al.~\cite[{Thm.~4}]{EibenGHK19} present a meta-theorem that yields non-uniform FPT algorithms when~$\Pi$ satisfies several conditions, which require a technical generalization of an FPT algorithm for $\Pi$ parameterized by deletion distance to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\subparagraph{Improving approximation guarantees} The FPT algorithms we developed to approximate~$\hhdepth$ and~$\hhtw$ output decompositions whose depth (or width) is polynomially bounded in the optimal value. An obvious question is whether better approximation guarantees can be obtained with similar running time bounds. Exact FPT algorithms are known for several classes~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$~\cite{AgrawalKP0021,jansen2021fpt}, including all minor-closed classes~\cite{BulianD17}, but the current-best running times are not of the form~$2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. \bmpr{Update references with recent work.}
\subparagraph{Improving running times} \bmp{The running times we obtained for solving \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} parameterized by~$k = \hhdepth$ or~$k = \hhtw$ are typically of the form~$2^{k^{\mathcal{O}(1)}} \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$, where the polynomial in the exponent has a larger degree than in the best-possible algorithms for the parameterizations by solution size or treewidth. One way to speed up these algorithms would be to improve the approximation ratios of the decomposition algorithms; one could also investigate whether the structural properties of bounded $\hhtw$ or $\hhdepth$ can be exploited without precomputing a decomposition. Furthermore, for several \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} problems we incur additional overhead when using a decomposition to find a deletion set; can this be avoided?
Concretely, it would be interesting to determine whether the running times for these hybrid parameterizations can match the best-known running times for the parameterizations by solution size and treewidth. For example, can \textsc{Odd Cycle Transversal} be solved in time~$3^k \cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ when parameterized by the elimination distance~$k$ to a bipartite graph, or can such algorithms be ruled out by lower bounds based on the (Strong) Exponential Time Hypothesis?}
\subparagraph{Capturing more vertex-deletion problems} There are some graph classes for which Theorem~\ref{thm:decomposition:general} provides decomposition algorithms, but for which we currently have no follow-up algorithm to solve \textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} on a given decomposition. A natural target for future work is to see whether the decompositions can be turned into vertex-deletion algorithms. For example, if~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is characterized by a finite set of connected forbidden \bmp{topological} minors, is~\textsc{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$-deletion} FPT parameterized by~$\hhtw$?
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
A {\em polyhedral surface} consists of a set of interior-disjoint
polygons embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$,
where each edge may be shared by at most two polygons.
Polyhedral surfaces have been long studied in computational geometry,
and have well-established applications in for instance computer
graphics~\cite{Dobkin92computationalgeometry} and geographical
information science~\cite{fmp-acggi-97}.
Inspired by those applications, classic work in this area often
focuses on restricted cases, such as surfaces of (genus 0)
polyhedra~\cite {DBLP:journals/dcg/AronovKOV03,10.1145/276884.276901},
or $x,y$-monotone surfaces known as {\em polyhedral
terrains}~\cite{COLE198911}. %
%
Such surfaces are, in a sense, 2-dimensional. One elegant way to
capture this ``essentially 2-dimensional behaviour'' is to look at
the adjacency graph (see below for a precise definition)
of the
surface: in both cases described above, this graph is \emph{planar}.
In fact, by Steinitz's Theorem the adjacency graphs %
of surfaces of convex polyhedra are exactly the 3-connected planar graphs~\cite{S22}.
If we allow the surface of a polyhedron to have a {\em boundary}, then every planar graph has a representation as such a polyhedral surface~\cite{DGHKK12}.
Recently, applications in computational topology have intensified the study of polyhedral surfaces of non-trivial topology.
In sharp contrast to the simpler case above, where the classification is completely understood,
little is known about the class of adjacency graphs that describe
general polyhedral surfaces.
In this paper we investigate this graph class.
\subparagraph{Our model.}
A polyhedral surface $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace = \{S_1, \ldots, S_n\}$ is a set of $n$
closed polygons embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that, for all pairwise
distinct indices $i,j,k\in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$:
\begin {itemize}
\item $S_i$ and $S_j$ are interior-disjoint (w.r.t.\ the 2D relative
interior of the objects);
\item if $S_i \cap S_j \neq \emptyset$, then $S_i \cap S_j$ is
either a single %
corner
or a complete {\em side} of both~$S_i$ and~$S_j$;
\item if $S_i \cap S_j \cap S_k \neq \emptyset$ then it is a single
%
corner (i.e., a side is shared by at most two polygons).
\end {itemize}
To avoid confusion with the corresponding graph elements, we consistently refer to polygon vertices as \emph{corners} and to polygon edges as \emph{sides}.
The \emph{adjacency graph} of a polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace, denoted as $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$, is the graph whose vertices correspond to the polygons of \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace and which has an edge between
two vertices if and only if the corresponding polygons of \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace share
a side. Note that a corner--corner contact is allowed in our model
but does not induce an edge in the adjacency graph. Further observe that
the adjacency graph does not uniquely determine the topology of the surface.
%
%
%
\Cref{fig:3deg} shows an example of a polyhedral surface and its
adjacency graph.
We say that a polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace \emph{realizes} a graph $G$ if
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$ is isomorphic to $G$.
In this case, we write $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G$.
%
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=3,scale=.25]{3-tree-possible}
\caption{A surface
\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace.}
\label{fig:3degB}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=1]{3-tree-possible}
\caption{The graph $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$.}
\label{fig:3degA}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A convex-polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace and its nonplanar 3-degenerate adjacency graph $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$.}
\label{fig:3deg}
\end{figure}
If every polygon of a polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace is strictly convex,
we call \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace a \emph{convex-polyhedral} surface.
Our paper focuses on convex-polyhedral surfaces; refer to
\Cref{fig:non-convex} for an example of a general (nonconvex)
polyhedral surface.
We emphasize that we do not require
that every polygon side has to be shared with another polygon.
\noindent
Our work relates to two lines of research: Steinitz-type problems and contact representations.
\subparagraph{Steinitz-type problems.}
Steinitz's Theorem gives the positive answer to the \emph{realizability problem} for convex polyhedra.
This result is typically stated in terms
of the realizabilty of a graph as the 1-skeleton of a convex polyhedron.
Our perspective comes from the dual point of view, describing the
adjacencies of the faces instead of the adjacencies of the vertices.
Steinitz's Theorem settles the problem raised in this paper for surfaces
that are homeomorphic to a sphere.
A slightly stronger version of Steinitz's Theorem by Gr\"unbaum and
Barnette~\cite{BG69} states that every planar 3-connected graph can be
realized as the 1-skeleton of a convex polyhedron with the prescribed
shape of one face. Consequently, also
in our model we can prescribe the shape of one polygon if the adjacency graph
of the surface is planar.
For other classes of polyhedra only very few partial results for their graph-theoretic
characterizations are known~\cite{EM14,HN11}.
No generalization for Steinitz's Theorem
for surfaces of higher genus is known, and therefore there are also no results for the dual perspective.
In higher dimensions, Richter-Gebert's Universality Theorem
implies that the realizability problem for abstract 4-polytopes
is $\exists \mathbb{R}$-complete~\cite{richterGebertrealization}.
The algorithmic problem of determining whether a given
$k$-dimensional simplicial complex embeds in $\mathbb R^d$ is an
active field of research~\cite{vcadek2017algorithmic,undecidable2020,matousek20011hardness,mesmay2020embeddability,Skopenkov2020,skopenkov2020invariants}. There exist at least three interesting
notions of embeddability: linear, piecewise linear, and topological
embeddability, which usually are not the same~\cite{matousek20011hardness}.
The case $(k,d)=(1,2)$, however, corresponds to testing graph planarity, and
thus, all three notions coincide, and the problem lies in~\P.
\subparagraph{Contact representations.}
A realization of a graph as a polyhedral surface can be viewed as a \emph{contact representation} of this graph with polygons in $\mathbb R^3$,
where a contact between two polygons is realized by sharing an entire polygon side, and each side is shared by at most two polygons.
In a general contact representation of
a graph, the vertices are represented by interior-disjoint geometric
objects, where two objects touch if and only if the corresponding vertices are adjacent.
In concrete settings, the object type (disks, lines, polygons, etc.), the type of contact,
and the embedding space is specified.
Numerous results concerning %
which graphs admit a contact representation of some type are known;
we review some of them.
The well-known Andreev--Koebe--Thurston circle packing
theorem~\cite{a-cpls-70,Koebe36} states that every planar graph admits
a contact representation by touching disks in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
A less known but impactful generalization by
Schramm~\cite[Theorem~8.3]{schramm} guarantees that every
triangulation (i.e., maximal planar graph)
has a contact representation in $\mathbb{R}^2$
where every inner vertex corresponds to a homothetic copy of a prescribed smooth
convex set; the three outer vertices correspond to prescribed smooth arcs whose union is a simple closed curve.
If the prototypes and the curve are polygonal, i.e., are not smooth,
then there still exists a contact representation, however, the
sets representing inner vertices may degenerate to %
points, which may lead to extra contacts.
As observed by Gon{\c{c}}alves et al.~\cite{JGAA-509}, Schramm's result
implies that every subgraph of a 4-connected triangulation has a
contact representation with aligned equilateral triangles
and similarly, every inner triangulation of a 4-gon without separating
3- and 4-cycles has a hole-free contact representation with
squares~\cite{Fel13}.
While for the afore-mentioned existence results there are only iterative procedures that compute a
series of representations converging to the desired one, there also exist a variety of shapes
for which contact representations can be computed efficiently.
Allowing for sides of one polygon to be \emph{contained} in the side of adjacent polygons, Duncan et al.~\cite{DGHKK12} showed that, in this model,
every planar graph can be realized by hexagons in the plane and that
hexagons are sometimes necessary.
Assuming side--corner contacts, de Fraysseix et al.~\cite{FMR94}
showed that every plane graph has a triangle contact representation
and how to compute one. %
Gansner et al.~\cite{GHK10a} presented linear-time algorithms for triangle
side-contact representations for outerplanar graphs, square grid
graphs, and hexagonal grid graphs. Kobourov et al.~\cite{KMN13}
showed that every 3-connected cubic planar graph admits a triangle
side-contact representation whose triangles form a tiling of a
triangle. For a survey of planar graphs that can be represented by
dissections of a rectangle into rectangles, we refer to
Felsner~\cite{Fel13}. Alam et al.~\cite{ABFGKK13} presented a
linear-time algorithm for hole-free contact representations of triangulations
where each vertex is represented by a 10-sided rectilinear polygon of prescribed area.
Representations with one-dimensional objects in $\mathbb{R}^2$ have also been
studied. While every plane bipartite graph has a contact
representation with horizontal and vertical segments~\cite{FMP91},
recognizing segment contact graphs is an \NP-complete problem even
for planar graphs~\cite{HLINENY200195}.
Hlin\v{e}n\'{y} showed that recognizing
curve contact graphs, where no four curves meet in one point, %
is \NP-complete for planar graphs
and is solvable in polynomial time %
for planar triangulations.
Less is known about contact representations in higher dimensions.
Every graph is the contact graph of interior-disjoint convex polytopes in $\mathbb{R}^3$ where contacts
are shared 2-dimensional facets~\cite{tietze1905}.
Hlin\v{e}n\'{y} and Kratochv{\'\i}l~\cite{HK01} proved that the
recognition of unit-ball contact graphs in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is \NP-hard for $d=3,4,$ and~8.
Felsner and Francis~\cite{FF11} showed that every planar graph has a
contact representation %
with axis-parallel cubes in~$\mathbb{R}^3$.
For proper side contacts,
Kleist and Rahman~\cite{kleist14} proved that
every subgraph of an Archimedean grid %
can be represented with unit cubes, and every subgraph of
a $d$-dimensional grid can be represented with $d$-cubes.
Evans et al.~\cite{erssw-rghtp-GD19} showed that every
graph has a contact representation where %
vertices are represented by convex polygons in $\mathbb{R}^3$
and edges by shared corners of polygons, %
and gave polynomial-volume representations for bipartite, 1-planar, and cubic graphs. %
\subparagraph{Contribution and organization.}
We show that for every graph~$G$ there exists a polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace
such that $G$ is the adjacency graph of~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace; see \Cref{sec:general}.
For convex-polyhedral surfaces, the situation is more intricate; see
\Cref{sec:convex}. Every planar graph can be realized by a \emph{flat}
convex-polyhedral surface (\Cref{planar:2d}), i.e., a
convex-polyhedral surface in~$\mathbb R^2$.
Some nonplanar graphs cannot be realized
by convex-polyhedral surfaces in~$\mathbb{R}^3$;
in particular this holds for all supergraphs of~$K_5$ (\Cref{obs:K5}), of~$K_{5,81}$ (\Cref{thm:k581}),
and of all nonplanar $3$-trees (\Cref{thm:threeTree}).
Nevertheless, many nonplanar graphs, including $K_{4,4}$ and
$K_{3,5}$, have such a realization (\Cref{prop:K44,prop:K35}).
We remark that all our positive results hold for subgraphs and subdivisions as well (\cref{prop:subgraphsSubdivisions}).
Similarly, our negative results carry over to supergraphs.
Our results have implications on the maximum density of adjacency graphs of convex-polyhedral surfaces; %
see \Cref{sec:density-bounds}.
While the non-realizability of $K_{5,81}$ implies that the number of edges of any realizable $n$-vertex graph is upperbounded by $\mathcal{O}(n^{9/5})$ edges, the realizability of hypercubes (\Cref{sec:hypercubes})
implies that it is in $\Omega(n \log n)$.
Hence these graphs can be considerably denser than planar graphs, but not arbitrarily dense.
\section{General Polyhedral Surfaces}
\label{sec:general}
We start with a positive result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:nonconvex}
For every graph $G$, there exists a polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace
%
such that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We start our construction with~$n=|V(G)|$ interior-disjoint rectangles
such that there is a line segment~$s$ that acts as a common side of
all these rectangles. We then cut away parts of each rectangle
thereby turning it into a comb-shaped polygon as illustrated in
\Cref{fig:non-convex}. These polygons represent the vertices
of~$G$. For each pair~$(P,P')$ of polygons that are adjacent
in~$G$, there is a subsegment~$s_{PP'}$ of~$s$ such that~$s_{PP'}$
is a side of both~$P$ and~$P'$ that is disjoint from the remaining
polygons. In particular, every polygon side is adjacent to at most
two polygons. The result is a polyhedral surface whose adjacency
graph is~$G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.6\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{non-convex}
\caption{A realization of~$K_5$ by arbitrary polygons with side
contacts in~$\mathbb{R}^3$.}
\label{fig:non-convex}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{.33\linewidth}
\null\hfill
%
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{szilassi-2}
\hfill\null
\caption{The Szilassi polyhedron realizes $K_7$
%
\cite{wikipedia-szilassi}.}
\label{fig:szilassi}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
If we additionally insist that each polygon shares \emph{all} of its sides
with other polygons, the polyhedral surface describe a closed volume. In this
model, $K_7$ can be realized as the Szilassi polyhedron; see
\Cref{fig:szilassi}. The tetrahedron and the Szilassi polyhedron are
the only two known polyhedra in which each face shares a side with
every other face~\cite{wikipedia-szilassi}. Which other (complete)
graphs can be realized in this way remains an open problem.
\section{Convex-Polyhedral Surfaces}
\label{sec:convex}
In this section we investigate which graphs can be realized by
\emph{convex}-polyhedral surfaces.
First of all, it is always possible to represent a subgraph or a subdivision of an adjacency graph with slight modifications of the corresponding surface. While \emph{trimming} the polygons allows to represent subgraphs, subdivision can be obtained by trimming and inserting chains of polygons.
Consequently, we obtain the following result formally proved in \cref{app:omitted}.
\begin{restatable}{proposition}{subgraphsSubdivisions}\label{prop:subgraphsSubdivisions}
The set of adjacency graphs of convex-polyhedral surfaces in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ is closed under taking subgraphs and subdivisions.
%
%
\end{restatable}
The existence of a %
flat surface with the correct adjacencies follows
from the
Andreev--Koebe--Thurston circle packing theorem; we include an
independent, direct proof in Appendix~\ref{app:omitted}.
\begin{restatable}{proposition}{planarTwod}\label{planar:2d}
For every planar graph~$G$, there exists a flat %
convex-polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace such that
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G$.
Moreover, such a surface can be computed in
linear time.
\end{restatable}
So for planar graphs, corner and side contacts behave similarly.
For nonplanar graphs (for which the third dimension is essential), the
situation is different. Here, side contacts are more restrictive.
\subsection{Complete Graphs}
We introduce the following notation. In a polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace
with adjacency graph $G$, we denote by $P_v$ the polygon in~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace that
represents vertex~$v$ of~$G$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:triangle}
Let \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace be a convex-polyhedral surface in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ with adjacency
graph~$G$. If $G$ contains a triangle $uvw$, polygons~$P_v$
and~$P_w$ lie in the same closed halfspace w.r.t.\ $P_u$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Due to their convexity, each of $P_v$ and~$P_w$ lie entirely in one
of the closed halfspaces with respect to the supporting plane of~$P_u$.
Moreover, one of the halfspaces contains both~$P_v$ and~$P_w$; otherwise they cannot
share a side and the edge $vw$ would not be represented.
\end{proof}
A graph $H$ is \emph{subisomorphic} to a graph~$G$ if $G$ contains a
subgraph $G'$ with $H \simeq G'$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{obs:K5}
There exists no convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace in~$\mathbb{R}^3$
such that $K_5$ is subisomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
%
Suppose that there is a convex-polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace with
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq K_5$. By \Cref{lemma:triangle} and the fact that all vertex triples form a triangle, the surface $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace$ lies in one closed
halfspace of the supporting plane of every polygon~$P$ of \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace.
In other words, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace is a subcomplex
of a (weakly) convex polyhedron, whose adjacency graph must be
planar. This yields a contradiction to the nonplanarity of $K_5$.
Together with \cref{prop:subgraphsSubdivisions} this implies the claim.
\end{proof}
Evans et al.~\cite{erssw-rghtp-GD19} showed that every bipartite graph
has a contact representation by touching polygons on a polynomial-size
integer grid in $\mathbb{R}^3$ for the case of corner contacts. As we have seen
before, side contacts are less flexible.
In particular, in \Cref{thm:k581} we show that $K_{5,81}$ cannot be represented.
On the positive side, we show in the following that
those bipartite graphs that come from subdividing edges of arbitrary
graphs can be realized. In our construction, we place the polygons in a cylindrical fashion, which is reminiscent to the realizations created by Evans et al.
However, due to the more restrictive nature of side contacts, the details of the two approaches are necessarily quite different.
\begin{theorem}\label{obs:Knsub}
Let $G$ be any graph, and let $G'$ be the subdivision of~$G$ in
which every edge is subdivided with (at least) one vertex. Then
there exists a convex-polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G'$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $V(G)=\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$, let $E(G)=\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$, and let
$P$ be a strictly convex polygon with corners $p_1,\dots,p_{2m}$ in
the plane. We assume that $m \ge 2$, that $p_1$ and $p_{2m}$ lie on
the x-axis, and that the rest of the polygon is a convex chain that
projects vertically onto the line segment~$\overline{p_1p_{2m}}$,
which we call the \emph{long side} of~$P$. We call the other sides
\emph{short sides}. We choose~$P$ such that no short side is
parallel to the long side.
Let $Z$ be a (say, unit-radius) cylinder centered at the z-axis.
For each vertex $v_i$ of~$G$, we take a copy~$P^i$ of~$P$ and place
it vertically in~$\mathbb R^3$ such that its long side lies on the boundary of~$Z$; see
\Cref{fig:1a}. Each polygon~$P^i$ lies inside~$Z$ on a distinct
halfplane that is bounded by the z-axis. Finally, all polygons are
positioned at the same height, implying that for any
$j \in \{1,\dots,2m\}$, all copies of~$p_j$ lie on the same
horizontal plane~$h_j$ and have the same distance to the z-axis.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.35]{Knsub}
\caption{polygons $P^1,\ldots,P^n$}
\label{fig:1a}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics{Knsub-claim}
\caption{quadrilateral $Q$ spanned by $s^k$ and~$s^\ell$}
\label{fig:1b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration for the proof of \Cref{obs:Knsub}.}
\label{fig:knsub}
\end{figure}
Let $i \in \{1,\dots,m\}$. Then the side $s=p_{2i-1}p_{2i}$ is a
short side of~$P$. For $k=1,2,\dots,n$, we denote by~$s^k$ and
$p_i^k$ the copies of~$s$ and $p_i$ in~$P^k$, respectively. We
claim that, for $1 \le k<\ell \le n$, the sides $s^k$ and $s^\ell$
span a convex quadrilateral that does not intersect any $P^j$ with
$j \not\in \{k,\ell\}$. To prove the claim, we argue as follows; see
\Cref{fig:1b}.
By the placement of $P^k$ and $P^\ell$ inside $Z$, the supporting
lines of~$s^k$ and~$s^\ell$ intersect at a point $z$ on the z-axis,
implying that $s^k$ and $s^\ell$ are coplanar. Moreover, $p_{2i-1}^k$
and $p_{2i-1}^\ell$ are at the same distance from $z$, and the same
holds for $p_{2i}^k$ and $p_{2i}^\ell$. Hence the triangle
spanned by $z$, $p_{2i-1}^k$, and $p_{2i-1}^\ell$ is similar to the
triangle spanned by $z$, $p_{2i}^k$, and $p_{2i}^\ell$, implying
that $p_{2i-1}^kp_{2i-1}^\ell$ and $p_{2i}^kp_{2i}^\ell$ are
parallel and hence span a convex quadrilateral~$Q$ (actually a
trapezoid). Finally, no polygon $P^j$ with $j \not\in \{k,\ell\}$ can
intersect $Q$ as any point in the interior of $Q$ lies closer to the
z-axis than any point of $P^j$ at the same z-coordinate, which
proves the claim.
We use $Q$ as polygon for the subdivision vertex of the edge~$e_i$
of $G$ (in case~$e_i$ was subdivided multiple times, we dissect~$Q$ accordingly). Let $v_a$ and $v_b$ be the endpoints of~$e_i$. By our
claim, $Q$ that does not intersect any $P^j$ with
$j \not\in \{a,b\}$. The quadrilateral $Q$ lies in the
horizontal slice of~$Z$ bounded by the horizontal planes~$h_{2i-1}$
and $h_{2i}$. Since any two such slices are vertically
separated and hence disjoint, the $m$ quadrilaterals together with
the $n$ copies of $P$ constitute a valid representation of~$G'$.
\end{proof}
Note that the combination of \Cref{obs:K5} and \Cref{obs:Knsub} rules
out any Kuratowski-type characterization for adjacency graphs of convex-polyhedral surfaces. This graph class contains a
subdivision of~$K_5$, but it does not contain~$K_5$; hence it is not
minor-closed.
\subsection{Complete Bipartite Graphs}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:K44}
There exists a convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace such that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)=K_{4,4}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
%
Start with a rectangular box
in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and stab it with two rectangles that intersect each other in the center of the box as indicated in
\Cref{fig:K44} (left).
%
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{k44-base}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{k44-2colored.png}
\hfill
{\hspace*{-2ex}\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{k44side}\hspace*{-2ex}}
\caption{Construction of a convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)=K_{4,4}$.
The 2-coloring of the polygons in the central figure reflects the bipartition of $K_{4,4}$.}
\label{fig:K44}
\end{figure}
%
We can now draw polygons on these eight rectangles
such that each of the four vertical rectangles (representing the four
vertices of one side of the bipartition of~$K_{4,4}$)
contains a polygon that has a side contact with a polygon on each of
the four horizontal or slanted rectangles (representing the other side of
the bipartition of $K_{4,4}$).
%
To remove the intersection of the (polygons drawn on the) two slanted rectangles, we shift one corner of the original
box; see \Cref{fig:K44} (center and right).
A description of the resulting polygons via their coordinates and more figures can be found in the Appendix~\ref{app:K44}.
Note that, in the resulting representation, there are two additional side contacts between
pairs of polygons that are colored blue in \Cref{fig:K44} (right). %
By \cref{prop:subgraphsSubdivisions},
these contacts can be removed.
%
\end{proof}
\begin{restatable}{proposition}{kthreefive}\label{prop:K35}
There exists a convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace such that
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq K_{3,5}$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
We call the vertices of the smaller bipartition class the gray
vertices, and their polygons gray polygons. For the other class we
pick a distinct color for every vertex and use the same
naming-by-color convention. We start our construction with a
triangular prism in which the quadrilateral faces $q_1,q_2,q_3$ are
rectangles of the same size. Each of the faces $q_i$ will contain
one gray polygon. All colorful polygons lie inside the prism. We
call the lines resulting from the intersection of the supporting
planes with the prism the \emph{colorful supporting lines}.
Unfolding the faces~$q_1$, $q_2$, and~$q_3$ yields
\Cref{fig:k35unfolded}, which shows the gray polygons and the
colorful supporting lines. Note that the vertices of the gray
polygons in the figure are actually very small edges that have the
slope of the colorful supporting line there are placed on. The
colorful polygons are now already determined.
\begin{figure}[bhp]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=2,width=\textwidth]{k35}
\caption{Constructing a convex-polyhedral surface whose adjacency
graph is isomorphic to~$K_{3,5}$. The prism boundary is
unfolded into the plane.}
\label{fig:k35unfolded}
\end{figure}
We are left with checking that the colorful polygons are disjoint.
\Cref{fig:k35front} shows the prism in a view from the side where we
dashed all objects on the hidden prism face. The brown polygon~$P_0$ and
the blue polygon~$P_4$ avoid all other colorful polygons in this
projection and thus they avoid all other polygons in~$\mathbb{R}^3$, too.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=3,width=\textwidth]{k35}
\caption{Front view of the prism containing a realization
of~$K_{3,5}$.
%
Lines on the back are dashed.}
\label{fig:k35front}
\end{figure}
For the pink polygon~$P_1$, the orange polygon~$P_2$ and the green
polygon~$P_3$, we proceed as follows to prove disjointness.
Pick two of the polygons and name them~$P_i$ and~$P_j$.
The line~$\ell_{ij}$ of intersection of the supporting planes
of~$P_i$ and~$P_j$ is determined by the two intersections of the
corresponding colorful supporting lines. If the polygons intersect,
they have to intersect on this line. Polygon~$P_i$
intersects~$\ell_{ij}$ in a segment $s_{ij}$; polygon~$P_j$
intersects~$\ell_{ij}$ in~$s_{ji}$.
\Cref{fig:k35intersecting} shows, however, that~$s_{ij}$ and~$s_{ji}$ do
not overlap in any of the three cases.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=5,width=\textwidth]{k35}
\caption{Certificates for the disjointness of colorful
polygons~$P_1$, $P_2$, and~$P_3$. The supporting planes intersect
in the thin black lines; thicker segments indicate where the
lines intersect polygons.}
\label{fig:k35intersecting}
\end{figure}
In contrast to \Cref{prop:K44,prop:K35}, we can show that not every complete
bipartite graph can be realized as a convex-polyhedral surface in~$\mathbb{R}^3$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:k581}
There exists no convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ such that $ K_{5,81}$ is subisomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$.
\end {theorem}
To prove the theorem we start with some observations about realizing
complete bipartite graphs. We will consider a set $R$ of red polygons,
and a set $B$ of blue polygons, so that each red--blue pair must have
a side contact. For all $p\in R\cup B$ we denote by $p^=$ the
supporting plane of $p$, by $p^-$ the closed half-space left of $p^=$,
and by $p^+$ the closed half-space right of $p^=$ (orientations can be
chosen arbitrarily).
We start with a simpler setting where we have an additional
constraint.
We call $B$ \emph{one-sided w.r.t.\ $R$} if all red polygons must be on the same half-space of each blue
polygon, i.e., $\forall b \in B \colon
((\forall r \in R \colon r \subseteq b^-) \vee (\forall r \in R \colon
r \subseteq b^+))$.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{oneside} \label{lem:oneside}
Let $R$ and $B$ be two sets of convex polygons in
$\mathbb{R}^3$ realizing $K_{|R|,|B|}$. If $|R|=3$ and $B$ is one-sided w.r.t.\ $R$, then $|B|\leq 8$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
Let $R = \{r_1, r_2, r_3\}$ and let $\mathcal A$ be the arrangement of the supporting planes of $R$.
Consider a polygon $b \in B$. For every polygon $r_i \in R$, since $b$ is convex and shares a side with $r_i$,
$b$ is contained in $r_i^-$ or $r_i^+$.
Thus, $b$ is contained in a cell of $\mathcal A$.
Let $r_*=r_1^=\cap r_2^=\cap r_3^=$ be the intersection of the
supporting planes of $R$.
We may assume that no two supporting planes of $R$ coincide; otherwise, by strict convexity, all %
polygons (in $B$ and finally in $B \cup R$) must lie in the same
plane and the non-planarity of $K_{3,3}$ implies that $|B| \le 2$.
Further, if $r_*$ is a line, then every $b$ lies in a cell~$C$, in which
one of the red polygons is only present as a subset of $r_*$. It is not possible
to add $b$ such that it has a common segment with $r_*$ and each of the
bounding planes of $C$.
Consequently, $r_*$ is either a point or the empty set.
We consider two cases: either (1)~$r_*=\emptyset$ or no
polygon in~$R$ contains the point $r_*$, or (2)~one polygon in~$R$
does contain the point~$r_*$.
{\vspace{.5em}\noindent\bf Case (1)}.
Either $r_*=\emptyset$ or no polygon in~$R$ contains the point $r_*$.
We claim that at most four cells of $\mathcal A$
are incident to all polygons of $R$, and
at most two polygons of $B$ exist per cell.
%
%
If $r_*=\emptyset$, $\mathcal A$ contains two parallel planes or
forms an infinite prism.
It is easy to check that $\mathcal{A}$ has at most four cells
%
that are incident to three planes. If $r_*\neq \emptyset$, there
are eight cells, called \emph{octants},
of space of the form
$Q^{a_0b_0c_0} = r_1^{a_0} \cap r_2^{b_0} \cap r_3^{c_0}$,
$a_0,b_0,c_0\in\{\mathtt{+},\mathtt{-}\}$.
If the point $r_*$ is disjoint from all $r_i$, then each $r_i$
intersects at most six octants:
$r_1$ rules out the two octants $Q^{\pm b_1c_1}$, $r_2$ ``rules out''
the two octants $Q^{a_2{\pm}c_2}$, and $r_3$ rules out the two
octants $Q^{a_3 b_3 \pm}$ for some $a_2,a_3,b_1,b_3,c_1,c_2 \in
\{\mathtt{+},\mathtt{-}\}$. The maximal number of octants that
``remain'' is four. For example one could pick
$a_2=a_3=b_1=b_3=c_1=c_2= {\mathtt{+}}$.
By this choice,
$Q^{+--},Q^{-+-},Q^{--+},$ and $Q^{---}$ remain. All other
choices (a finite set to check) will have at most four octants
touching all three polygons.
Now consider one such cell $C$ incident to all $r_i$. For the argument within this
cell, we can truncate $r_i$ to $C$. Since each $r_i$ lies in a
boundary plane of $C$ and we are looking for a %
polygon $b$ that has
all of $R$ on one side, the four polygons $r_1, r_2, r_3, b$ must be
in convex position. Assume that we have three such polygons~$b_1$,
$b_2$, and~$b_3$. The cell~$C$ has three (unbounded) boundary
faces~$f_1$, $f_2$, and~$f_3$ such that $r_j$ lies in $f_j$.
Let $\ell_{i,j}$ be the segment that is the intersection of the plane~$b^=_i$ %
and the polygon~$f_j$,
and let~$t_i$ be
the triangle formed by $\ell_{i,1}$, $\ell_{i,2}$, $\ell_{i,3}$. Two
of these triangles intersect either in two points or they are
disjoint. On no face $f_j$, all three $\ell_{1,j}$, $\ell_{2,j}$,
$\ell_{3,j}$ can be disjoint since then the polygon belonging to the
\enquote{middle segment} intersects the interior of $r_j$.
On the other hand, every pair $t_i$, $t_{i'}$ has one face~$f_j$ without
intersection. Since we have three possible pairs, every face~$f_j$
contains two segments $\ell_{i,j}$ and $\ell_{i',j}$ that do not
intersect. Furthermore, the pair $i,i'$ will be different for every
$f_j$. We call the corresponding parallel segments \emph{upper} and
\emph{lower}, %
depending on whether $r_j$ lies below or above the
corresponding plane ($b^{=}_i$ or $b^{=}_{i'}$).
Now we have a contradiction to $B$ being one-sided with respect
to~$R$ since there has to be one~$t_i$ that belongs to an upper
segment on one face~$f_j$ and to a lower segment on another
face~$f_{j'}$. In other words, not all polygons in~$R$ lie on the
same side of~$b_i^=$. Thus, at most two polygons of~$B$ lie in~$C$,
one corresponding to upper segments and one corresponding to lower
segments.
%
This yields at most $2 \cdot 4 = 8$ polygons in $B$ in Case~(1).
{\vspace{.5em}\noindent\bf Case (2)}. One red polygon contains
$r_*$, w.l.o.g. this is $r_1$.
We claim that at most five cells of $\mathcal A$
are incident to all polygons of $R$, and
at most one polygon of $B$ exist per cell.
%
Similar as in Case~(1), now $r_2$ and
$r_3$ both intersect at most $6$ octants, and there are at most
five octants that intersect every polygon in~$R$. Consider again
some octant~$Q$. Since $r_1$ contains $r_*$, now there may be only one polygon $b \in B$
that is contained in $Q$ and has all polygons in $R$
on the same side of $b^=$ (the lower segments in Case~(1) are now forbidden).
Thus, there are at most $1 \cdot 5 = 5$ polygons in $B$ in Case~(2).
\end {proof}
With the help of \Cref{lem:oneside} we can now prove \Cref{thm:k581}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{thm:k581}]
Assume that $K_{5,81}$ can be realized, and let $R$ be a set of five
red polygons. Since every $b \in B$ is
adjacent to all polygons in $R$, $b$ partitions $R$ into two sets:
those in $b^-$ and those in $b^+$. At least one of these subsets
must have at least three elements. Arbitrarily charge $b$ to such a
set of three polygons. By \Cref{lem:oneside}, each set of three red
polygons can be charged at most eight times. There are ${5 \choose 3}
= 10$ sets of three red polygons. Therefore, there can be at most
$8 \cdot 10 = 80$ blue polygons; a contradiction. Together with \Cref{prop:subgraphsSubdivisions} this implies the claim.
\end {proof}
\subsection{3-Trees}
The graph class of $3$-trees is recursively defined as follows: $K_4$
is a $3$-tree. A graph obtained from a $3$-tree~$G$ by adding a new
vertex~$x$ with exactly three neighbors~$u,v,w$ that form a triangle
in~$G$ is a $3$-tree. We say~$x$ is \emph{stacked} on the
triangle~$uvw$. It follows that for each $3$-tree there exists a (not
necessarily unique) \emph{construction sequence} of $3$-trees
$G_4,G_5,\dots,G_n$ such that $G_4\simeq K_4$, $G_n=G$, and where for
$i=4,5,\dots, n-1$ the graph $G_{i+1}$ is obtained from~$G_i$ by
stacking a vertex~$v_{i+1}$ on some triangle of~$G_i$.
By \Cref{planar:2d}, for every planar $3$-tree~$G$ there is a
polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace (even in~$\mathbb{R}^2$) with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G$.
On the other hand, we can show that no nonplanar $3$-tree has such
a realization in $\mathbb{R}^3$. To this end, we observe that a $3$-tree is
nonplanar if and only if it contains the \emph{triple-stacked triangle\xspace} as a
subgraph. The triple-stacked triangle\xspace is the graph that consists of $K_{3,3}$
plus a cycle that connects the vertices of one part of the
bipartition; see \Cref{fig:3tree}. We show that the triple-stacked triangle\xspace is
not realizable.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics{3-tree}
\caption{The unique minimal nonplanar 3-tree, which we call
triple-stacked triangle\xspace.}
\label{fig:3tree}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:stackOnBothSides}
Let~$uvw$ be a separating triangle in a plane $3$-tree $G=(V,E)$.
Then there exist vertices~$a,b\in V$ that belong to distinct sides
of~$uvw$ in~$G$ such that both $\{a,u,v,w\}$ and $\{b,u,v,w\}$
induce a~$K_4$ in~$G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $G_4,G_5,\dots,G_n$ denote a construction sequence of~$G=G_n$,
and let~$k$ be the largest index in $\{4,5,\dots,n\}$ such that
$uvw$ is nonseparating in~$G_k$. Since~$uvw$ is separating
in~$G_{k+1}$, it follows that the vertex~$v_{k+1}=a$ is stacked
on~$uvw$ (say, inside $uvw$) to obtain~$G_{k+1}$ and, hence,
$\{a,u,v,w\}$ induce a~$K_4$ in~$G_{k+1}$ and~$G$.
It remains to argue about the existence of the vertex~$b$ in the
exterior of~$uvw$. If~$uvw$ is one of the triangles of the
original~$G_4\simeq K_4$, there is nothing to show, so assume
otherwise. Let~$j$ be the smallest index in $\{5,6,\dots, n\}$ such
that $uvw$ is contained in~$G_j$. It follows that one of~$u,v,w$,
say~$u$, is the vertex~$v_j$ that was stacked on some triangle~$xyz$
of~$G_{j-1}$ to obtain~$G_j$. Without loss of generality, we may
assume that~$\{v,w\}=\{y,z\}$. It follows that~$x=b$ forms a~$K_4$
with~$u,v,w$ in~$G_j$ and~$G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:characterizePlanarThreeTree}
A $3$-tree is nonplanar iff %
it contains the triple-stacked triangle\xspace as a subgraph.
%
%
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The triple-stacked triangle\xspace is nonplanar because it contains a~$K_{3,3}$
(one part of the bipartition is formed by the gray vertices and the
other by the colored vertices).
For the other direction, let~$G$ be a nonplanar $3$-tree. Let
$G_4,G_5,\dots,G_n$ be a construction sequence of~$G$. Let~$k$ be
the smallest index in $\{4,5,\dots, n\}$ such that~$G_k$ is
nonplanar. By $3$-connectivity, the graph~$G_{k-1}$, which is
planar, has a unique combinatorial embedding. Therefore, we may
consider~$G_{k-1}$ to be a plane graph. Let~$uvw$ be the triangle
that the vertex~$v_k$ was stacked on to obtain~$G_k$ from~$G_{k-1}$.
Since~$G_k$ is nonplanar, the triangle~$uvw$ is a separating
triangle of~$G_{k-1}$. It follows by \Cref{prop:stackOnBothSides}
that~$G_k$ (and, hence,~$G$) contains the triple-stacked triangle\xspace.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:nonrealizable_3treeB}
There exists no convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ such that triple-stacked triangle\xspace is subisomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We refer to the vertices of the triple-stacked triangle\xspace as the three gray
vertices and the three colored (red, green, and blue) vertices; see
also \Cref{fig:3tree}. Given the correspondence between vertices
and polygons (and their supporting planes), we also refer to the
polygons (and the supporting planes) as gray and colored.
Assume that the triple-stacked triangle\xspace can be realized.
Consider the arrangement of the gray supporting planes.
By strict convexity, it follows that if a pair of gray polygons has the same supporting plane, then all their common neighbors lie in the same plane. This implies that all supporting planes coincide -- a contradiction to the non-planarity of the triple-stacked triangle\xspace.
Consequently, the gray supporting planes are pairwise distinct. (Likewise, it holds that no colored and gray supporting plane coincide.)
We now argue that all colored polygons are contained in the same closed cell of the gray arrangement.
To see this, fix one gray polygon and observe, by \Cref{lemma:triangle}, that all polygons are contained in the same closed half space with respect to its supporting plane.
Note that gray plane arrangement has one of the following two combinatorics: either the three planes have a common point of intersection (cone case) or not (prism-case). In the first case, the planes partition the space into eight cones, one of which contains all polygons; in the second case, the (unbounded) cell containing all polygons forms a (unbounded) prism.
For a unified presentation, we transform any occurrence of the first case into the second case. To do so, we move the apex of the cone containing all polygons to the point at infinity by a projective transformation. This turns each face of the cone into a strip that is bounded by two of the extremal rays of the cone, which now has been deformed into a prism.
Consider one of the strips, which we call~$S$. The strip~$S$ has to
contain one of the gray polygons, which we call~$P_S$.
We know that $P_S$ has at least five sides, one for each neighbor.
Each of the two
\emph{bounding lines} contains a side to realize the adjacency
to the other two gray polygons. We call the sides of $P_S$ that
realize the adjacencies to the remaining polygons red, green, and
blue, in correspondence to the vertex colors. The supporting line of
the red side intersects each bounding line of~$S$.
We add a red point at each of the intersections.
For the blue and green sides we proceed analogously.
By convexity of $P_S$, these points are distinct.
This yields a permutation of red, green, blue (see
\Cref{fig:3treeorder}) on each bounding line.
The permutations on the
boundary of two adjacent strips coincide because the supporting lines are clearly contained in the supporting planes.
Consider the line arrangement inside~$S$ given by the supporting
lines of the red, green, and blue sides.
Up to symmetry, \Cref{fig:3treeorder} illustrates the different intersection patterns. To realize all contacts, the polygon~$P_S$ has to lie inside a cell incident to all five lines, namely the two bounding lines and the supporting lines. It is easy to observe that such a cell exists only if the permutation has exactly one or three inversions, see \Cref{fig:3treeorderB,fig:3treeorderD}. In particular, the number of inversions is odd.
%
%
%
%
%
Following the cyclic order of the bounding lines around the prism, we record three odd numbers of
inversions in the permutations before coming back to the start. Since an odd number of
inversions does not yield the identity, we obtain the desired
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=4]{3trees-newproof-order}
\caption{0 inversions}
\label{fig:3treeorderA}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=2]{3trees-newproof-order}
\caption{1 inversion}
\label{fig:3treeorderB}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=5]{3trees-newproof-order}
\caption{2 inversions}
\label{fig:3treeorderC}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[page=3]{3trees-newproof-order}
\caption{3 inversions}
\label{fig:3treeorderD}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The permutations of the intersections with the supporting
lines of the red, green, and blue edges as in the proof of
\Cref{lem:nonrealizable_3treeB}. Figures a) and c) illustrate possible scenarios. b) and d) show impossible scenarios because they do not contain cells of complexity 5.}
\label{fig:3treeorder}
\end{figure}
Together \cref{lem:characterizePlanarThreeTree,lem:nonrealizable_3treeB} yield the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:threeTree}
%
%
Let $G$ be a 3-tree. There exists a convex-polyhedral surface \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace
in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq G$ if and only if $G$ is planar.
\end{theorem}
In contrast to \cref{thm:threeTree}, there are nonplanar 3-degenerate
graphs that can be realized; see the example in \Cref{fig:3deg}.
\subsection{Hypercubes}
\label{sec:hypercubes}
In a paper from 1983, McMullen, Schulz, and Wills construct
a polyhedron for every integer $p\ge 4$ such that all faces are convex $p$-gons~\cite[Sect.~4]{msw-p2me3-IJM83}.
In the following, we show and illustrate how their result proves the realizability of any hypercube.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{msw-p2me3-IJM83}]
\label{prop:hypercube}
For every $d$-hypercube $Q_d$, $d\ge0$, there exists a convex-polyhedral surface~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ with
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace) \simeq Q_d$ and every polygon of~\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}\xspace is a $(d+4)$-gon.
\end{proposition}
The main building block in their construction is a polyhedral surface whose adjacency graph is a $(p-4)$-hypercube. In fact, we observed that the adjacency graph of
the polyhedron they finally construct
is the Cartesian product of $Q_{p-4}$ and a cycle graph $C_n, n\geq 3$.
For the first few steps of their inductive construction, see \Cref{fig:mcmullen}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{mcmullen1}
\caption{Realization of $Q_1$ (red), xy-plane (blue)}
\label{fig:mcmullen1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.2\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{mcmullen2}
\caption{Inductive step}
\label{fig:mcmullen2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.28\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{mcmullen3}
\caption{Realization of $Q_2$}
\label{fig:mcmullen3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The inductive construction of McMullen et
al.~\cite{msw-p2me3-IJM83}}
\label{fig:mcmullen}
\end{figure}
Recall that the $d$-hypercube has $2^d$ vertices.
The base case for $d=0$ %
is given by a single $4$-gon, namely by the unit square.
What follows is a series of inductive steps. In every step, the value of $d$ increases
by one and the number of polygons doubles. Before explaining the
step, we state the invariants of the construction. After every step,
all polygons have (almost) the same orthogonal projection into the xy-plane. Furthermore, this
projection looks like the unit square in which we have replaced the upper right corner
with a convex chain as shown in \Cref{fig:mcmullen2d}(a). The sides on the convex
chain (with negative slopes) have already two incident polygons, the four other sides
are currently incident to only one polygon. When projecting the polygons into the xy-plane
only the convex chain edges differ.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}cp{.5cm}cp{.5cm}c@{}}
\includegraphics[page=1]{mcmullen2d} &&
\includegraphics[page=2]{mcmullen2d} &&
\includegraphics[page=3]{mcmullen2d}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Projection of a polygon into the xy-plane in the
construction of McMullen et al. The gray rectangle depicts the
unit square. Edges incident to only one polygon are drawn in
blue. (a)~The start configuration for $d+4=7$. (b)~Cutting with
the xy-plane after the shear that puts only $e$ below the xy-plane
(before glueing the reflected copy). (c)~Slicing off a corner to
get the initial situation for $d+4=8$ modulo a projective
transformation.}
\label{fig:mcmullen2d}
\end{figure}
We explain next how to execute the inductive step. Suppose that we have a polyhedral surface where
every polygon is a $(d+4)$-gon fulfilling our invariant. We apply a shear along the z-axis and a vertical shift to the
whole surface such that
exactly the sides at $x=1$ lie completely below the xy-plane, see also \Cref{fig:mcmullen1}.
These transformations do not change the projections of the polygons
to the xy-plane. We then cut the surface with the xy-plane.
By this we slice away one of the sides in all polygons but also add a
side that lies in the xy-plane; see \Cref{fig:mcmullen2d}(b).
Each polygon now has a side that lies in the xy-plane and is disjoint from all other polygons.
We now take a copy of the surface at hand and reflect it across the xy-plane. Every polygon of the original (unreflected) surfaces is now glued to its reflected copy via the common side in the xy-plane.
With this step, we already have transformed
the adjacency graph from a $d$-hypercube to a $(d+1)$-hypercube. We only need to bring the
surface back into the shape required by the invariant. To do so, we cut off a corner
(see \Cref{fig:mcmullen2d}(c)) by slicing the whole
construction with an appropriate plane, see also \Cref{fig:mcmullen2}.
This turns all $(d+4)$-gons into $(d+5)$-gons.
Finally, we apply a projective transformation to restore a required
shape. Figures~\ref{fig:mcmullen1}--\ref{fig:mcmullen3} show spatial
images of this construction.
\section{Bounds on the Density}
\label{sec:density-bounds}
It is an intriguing question how dense adjacency graphs of
convex-polyhedral surfaces can be.
In this section, we use realizability and non-realizability results from the previous sections to
derive asymptotic bounds on the maximum density of such graphs, which we phrase in terms of the relation between their number of vertices and edges.
Let $\mathcal G_n$ be the class of graphs on $n$ vertices with a realization as a convex-polyhedral surface in~$\mathbb{R}^3$.
Further, let $e_{\max}(n)=\max_{G \in \mathcal G_n} |E(G)|$ be the maximum number of edges that a graph in $\mathcal G_n$ can have.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:density}
$e_{\max}(n)\in \Omega(n \log n)$ and $e_{\max}(n)\in \mathcal{O}(n^{9/5})$.
%
%
%
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For the lower bound, note that by
\Cref{prop:hypercube}, every hypercube is the adjacency graph of a
convex-polyhedral surface. As the $d$-dimensional hypercube has
$2^d$ vertices and $2^d \cdot d/2$ edges,
%
the bound follows.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
For the upper bound, we use that, by \Cref{thm:k581}, the
adjacency graph of a convex-polyhedral surface cannot contain
$K_{5,81}$ as a subgraph. It remains to apply the
K\H{o}vari--S\'os--Tur\'an Theorem~\cite{KST54}, which states that
an $n$-vertex graph that has no $K_{s,t}$ as a subgraph can have
at most $\mathcal{O}(n^{2-1/s})$ edges.
\end{proof}
Before being aware of the result of McMullen et
al.~\cite{msw-p2me3-IJM83}, we constructed a family of surfaces with
(large, but) constant average degree; see Appendix~\ref{sec:6n}. Our
construction is not recursive and therefore easier to understand and
visualize; see \Cref{fig:6n}. Note that some polygons in our
construction have polynomial degree.
\begin{restatable}{proposition}{sixN}
\label{thm:6n}
There is an unbounded family of convex-polyhedral surfaces
in~$\mathbb{R}^3$ whose adjacency graphs have average vertex degree
$12-o(1)$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{octa-grid-ensemble}
\caption{placement of octagon grids}
\label{subfig:placement_gamma}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.92\textwidth]{octa-vertical-2}
\caption{a vertical polygon}
\label{subfig:vertical_polygon}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{inner-horizontal}
\caption{a horizontal polygon from above}
\label{subfig:horizontal_polygons}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An family of convex-polyhedral surfaces whose adjacency
graphs have average vertex degree $12-o(1)$. The vertical
polygons are attached to the ``outside'' of the grids; the
horizontal polygons touch each grid along a single polygon side.}
\label{fig:6n}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Open Problems}
In this paper, we have studied the question which graphs can be
realized as adjacency graphs of (convex-)polyhedral surfaces. In
\cref{cor:density}, we bound the maximum number $e_{\max}(n)$ of
edges in realizable graphs on $n$ vertices by $\Omega(n \log n)$ and
$\mathcal{O}(n^{9/5})$. It would be interesting to improve upon these
bounds.
We conjecture that realizability is \NP-hard to decide.
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{From Random Walks to Rough Volatility}
Since we will never really know {\it why} the prices of financial assets move, we should at least make a model of {\it how} they move. This was the motivation of Bachelier in 1900, when he wrote in the introduction of his thesis that {\it contradictory opinions in regard to [price] fluctuations are so diverse that at the same instant buyers believe the market is rising and sellers that it is falling}. He went on to propose the first mathematical model of prices: the Brownian motion. He then built an option pricing theory that he compared to empirical data available to him --- which already revealed, quite remarkably, what is now called the volatility smile!
After 120 years of improvements and refinements, we are closing in on a remarkably realistic model, which reproduces almost all known stylized facts of financial price series. But are we there yet? As Beno\^\i t Mandelbrot once remarked: {\it In economics, there can never be a ``theory of everything''. But I believe each
attempt comes closer to a proper understanding of how markets behave.} In order to close the gap, and justify the modern mathematical apparatus that has slowly matured, we will need to understand the interactions between the behaviour of zillions of traders --- each with his or her own investment style, trading frequency, risk limits, etc. and the price process itself. Interestingly, recent research strongly suggests that markets self organise in subtle way, as to be poised at the border between stability and instability. This could be the missing link --- or the holy grail -- that researchers have been looking for.
For many years, the only modification to Bachelier's proposal was to consider that log-prices, not prices themselves, are described by a Brownian motion. Apart from the fact that this modification prevents prices from becoming negative, none of the flaws of the Bachelier model were seriously tackled. Notwithstanding, the heyday of Brownian finance came when Black \& Scholes published their famous 1973 paper, with the striking result that perfect delta-hedging is possible. But this is because, in the Black-Scholes world, price jumps are absent and crashes impossible. This is of course a very problematic assumption, specially because the fat-tailed distribution of returns had been highlighted as soon as 1963 by Mandelbrot --- who noted, in the same paper, that {\it large changes tend to be followed by large changes, of either sign, and small changes tend to be followed by small changes}, an effect now commonly referred to as ``volatility clustering'', and captured by the extended family of GARCH models.
It took the violent crash of October 1987, exacerbated by the massive impact of Black-Scholes' delta-hedging, for new models to emerge. The Heston model, published in 1993, is among the most famous post-Black-Scholes models, encapsulating volatility clustering within a continuous time, Brownian motion formalism. However, like GARCH, the Heston model predicts that volatility fluctuations decay over a single time scale --- in other words that periods of high or low volatility have a rather well defined duration. This is not compatible with market data: volatility fluctuations have no clear characteristic time scale; volatility bursts can last anything between a few hours and a few years.
Mandelbrot had been mulling about this for a long while, and actually proposed in 1974 a model to describe a very similar phenomenon in turbulent flows, called ``multifractality''. He adapted his theory in 1997 to describe currency exchange rates, before Emmanuel Bacry, Jean-Francois Muzy \& Jean Delour formulated in 2000 a more convincing version of the model, which they called the {\it Multifractal Random Walk} (MRW) \cite{MRW}. With a single extra parameter (interpreted as a kind of volatility of volatility), the MRW captures satisfactorily many important empirical observations: fat-tailed distribution of returns, long-memory of volatility fluctuations. In 2014, Jim Gatheral, Thibault Jaisson and Mathieu Rosenbaum introduced their now famous ``Rough Volatility'' model \cite{Rough}, which can be seen as an extension of the MRW with an extra parameter allowing one to tune at will the roughness of volatility, while it is fixed in stone in the MRW model. And indeed, empirical data suggests that volatility is slightly less rough than what the MRW posits. Technically, the Holder regularity of the volatility is $H=0$ in the MRW and found to be $H \approx 0.1$ when calibrated within the Rough Volatility specification.
The next episode of the long saga came in 2009 when Gilles Zumbach noticed a subtle, yet crucial aspect of empirical financial time series: they are not statistically invariant upon time reversal \cite{Zumbach}. Past and future are not equivalent, whereas almost all models to that date, including the MRW, did not distinguish past from future. More precisely, past price trends, whether up or down, lead to higher future volatility, but not the other way round. In 2019, following some work by Pierre Blanc, Jonathan Donier and myself \cite{QHawkes}, Aditi Dandapani, Paul Jusselin, Mathieu Rosenbaum proposed to describe financial time series with what they called a ``Quadratic Rough Heston Model'' \cite{QRough}, which is a synthesis of all the ideas reviewed above. It is probably the most realistic model of financial price series to date. In particular, it provides a natural solution to a long standing puzzle, namely the joint calibration of the volatility smile of the S\&P 500 and VIX options, which had eluded quants for many years \cite{Guyon}. The missing ingredient was indeed the Zumbach effect \cite{VIX}.
Is this the end of the saga? From a purely engineering point of view, the latest version of the Rough Volatility model is probably hard to beat. But the remaining challenge is to justify how this particular model emerges from the underlying flow of buy and sell trades that interacts with market makers and high frequency traders. Parts of the story are already clear; in particular, as argued by Jaisson, Jusselin \& Rosenbaum in a remarkable series of papers, the Rough Volatility model is intimately related to the proximity of an instability \cite{Rosenbaum1} (see also \cite{Hardiman}), that justifies the rough, multi-timescale nature of volatility. But what is the self-organising mechanism through which all markets appear to settle close to such a critical point? Could this scenario allow one to understand why financial time series all look so much alike --- stocks, futures, commodities, exchange rates, etc. share very similar statistical features, in particular in the tails. Beyond being the denouement of a 120 years odyssey, we would be allowed to believe that the final model is not only a figment of our mathematical imagination, but a robust, trustworthy framework for risk management and derivative pricing.
\section{Random Matrix Theory to the Rescue}
Harry Markowitz famously quipped that diversification is the only free lunch in finance. This is nevertheless only true if correlations are known and stable over time. Markowitz’ optimal portfolio offers the best risk-reward tradeoff, for a given set of predictors, but requires the covariance matrix -- of a potentially large pool of assets -- to be known and representative of the future realized correlations.
The empirical determination of large covariance matrices is however fraught with difficulties and biases. Interestingly, the vibrant field of ``Random Matrix Theory” has provided original solutions to this big data problem, and suggests droves of possible applications in econometrics, machine learning or other large dimensional models.
But even for the simplest two-asset bond/equity allocation problem, the knowledge of the forward looking correlation has momentous consequences for most asset allocators in the planet. Will this correlation remain negative in the years to come, as it has been since late 1997, or will it jump back to positive territories? But compared to volatility, our understanding of correlation dynamics is remarkably poor and, surprisingly, the hedging instruments allowing one to mitigate the risk of bond/equity correlation swings are nowhere as liquid as the VIX itself.
So there are two distinct problems in estimating correlation matrices. One is lack of data, the other one is time non-stationarity. Consider a pool of $N$ assets, with $N$ large. We have at our disposal $T$ observations (say daily returns) for each of the $N$ time series. The paradoxical situation is this: even though each individual off-diagonal covariance is accurately determined when $T$ is large, the covariance matrix as a whole is strongly biased unless $T$ is much larger than $N$ itself. For large portfolios, with $N$ a few thousands, the number of days in the sample should be in the tens of thousands – say 50 years of data. This is simply absurd: Amazon and Tesla did not even exist 25 years ago. Maybe use 5 minutes returns then, increasing the number of data points by a factor 100? Yes, except that 5 minute correlations are not necessarily representative of the risk of much lower frequency strategies, with other possible biases creeping in the resulting portfolios.
So in what sense are covariance matrices biased when $T$ is not very large compared to $N$? The best way to describe such biases is in terms of eigenvalues. One finds that the smallest eigenvalues are way too small and the largest eigenvalues are too large. This results, in the Markowitz optimization program, in a substantial over-allocation on combination of assets that happened to have a small volatility in the past, with no guarantee that this will persist looking forward. The Markowitz construction can therefore lead to a considerable under-estimation of the realized risk in the next period.
Out-of-sample results are of course always worse than expected, but Random Matrix Theory (RMT) offers a guide to (partially) correct these biases when $N$ is large. In fact, RMT gives an optimal, mathematically rigorous, recipe to tweak the value of the eigenvalues so that the resulting “cleaned” covariance matrix is as close as possible to the “true” (but unknown) one, in the absence of any prior information \cite{Bun}. Such a result, first derived by Ledoit and Péché in 2011 \cite{LP}, is already a classic and has been extended in many directions. The underlying mathematics, initially based on abstract ``free probabilities”, are now in a ready-to-use format, much like Fourier transforms or Ito calculus (see \cite{RMT} for an introductory account). One of the exciting, and relatively unexplored direction, is to add some financially motivated prior, like industrial sectors or groups, to improve upon the default ``agnostic” recipe.
Now the data problem is solved as best as possible, the stationarity problem pops up. Correlations, like volatility, are not fixed in stone but evolve with time. Even the sign of correlations can suddenly flip, as was the case for the S\&P500/Treasuries during the 1997 Asian crisis. After 30 years of correlations staunchly in positive territory (1965 – 1997), bonds and equities have been in a ``flight-to-quality” mode (i.e. equities down and bonds up) ever since. More subtle, but significant, changes of correlations can also be observed between single stocks and/or between sectors in the stock market. For example, a downward move of the S\&P500 leads to an increased average correlation between stocks. Here again, RMT provides powerful tools to describe the time evolution of the full covariance matrix \cite{RMT-dyn1, RMT-dyn2}.
As I discussed in the previous section, stochastic volatility models have made significant progress recently, and now encode feedback loops that originate at the microstructural level. Unfortunately, we are very far from having a similar theoretical handle to understand correlation fluctuations, although Matthieu Wyart and I had proposed in 2007 a self-reflexive mechanism to account for correlation jumps like the one that took place in 1997 \cite{JEBO}. Parallel to the development of descriptive and predictive models, the introduction of standardized instruments that hedge against such correlation jumps would clearly serve a purpose. This is especially true in the current environment \cite{seager} where inflation fears could trigger another inversion of the equity/bond correlation structure, possibly devastating for many strategies that – implicitly or explicitly – rely on persistent negative correlations. Markowitz diversification free lunch can sometimes be poisonous!
\section{My Kingdom for a Copula}
As I just discussed, assessing linear correlations between financial assets is already hard enough. What about {\it non-linear} correlations then? If financial markets were kind enough to abide to Gaussian statistics, non-linear correlations would be entirely subsumed by linear ones. But this is not the case: genuine non-linear correlations pervade the financial world and are quite relevant, both for the buy side and the sell side. For example, tail correlations in equity markets (i.e. stocks plummeting simultaneously) are notoriously higher than bulk correlations. Another apposite context is the Gamma-risk of large option portfolios, the management of which requires an adequate description of quadratic return correlations of the underlying assets.
In order to deal with non-linear correlations, mathematics has afforded us with a seemingly powerful tool -- ``copulas''. Copulas are supposed to encapsulate all possible forms of multivariate dependence. But in the zoo of all conceivable copulas, which one should one choose to faithfully represent financial data?
Following an unfortunate, but typical pattern of mathematical finance, the introduction of copulas twenty years ago has been followed by a calibration spree, with academics and financial engineers alike frantically looking for copulas to best represent their pet multivariate problem. But instead of first developing an intuitive understanding of the economic or financial mechanisms that suggest some particular dependence between assets and construct adequate copulas accordingly, the methodology has been to brute-force calibrate copulas straight out from statistics handbooks. The ``best'' copula is then decided from some quality-of-fit criterion, irrespective of whether the copula makes any intuitive sense at all.
This is reminiscent of local volatility models for option markets: although the model makes no intuitive sense and cannot describe the actual dynamics of the underlying asset, it is versatile enough to allow the calibration of almost any option smile. Unfortunately, a blind calibration of some unwarranted model (even when the fit is perfect) is a recipe for disaster. If the underlying reality is not captured by the model, it will most likely derail in rough times — a particularly bad feature for risk management (recall the use of Gaussian copulas to price CDOs before the 2008 crisis). Another way to express this point is to use a Bayesian language: there are families of models for which the ‘prior’ likelihood is clearly extremely small, because no plausible scenarios for such models to emerge from market mechanisms. Statistical tests are not enough — the art of modelling is precisely to recognize that not all models are equally likely.
The best way to foster intuition is to look at data before cobbling up a model, and come up with a few robust ``stylized facts'' that you deem relevant and that your model should capture. In the case of copulas, one interesting stylised fact is the way the probability that two assets have returns simultaneously smaller than their respective medians depends on the linear correlation between the said two assets. Such a dependence exists clearly and persistently in stocks and, strikingly, it cannot be reproduced by most ``out-of-a-book'' copula families.
In particular, the popular class of so-called ``elliptical'' copulas is ruled out by such an observation. Elliptical copulas assume, in a nutshell, that there is a common volatility factor for all stocks: when the index becomes more or less volatile, all stocks follow suit. A moment of reflection reveals that this assumption is absurd, since one expects that volatility patterns are at least industry specific. But this consideration also suggests a way to build copulas specially adapted to financial markets. In Ref. \cite{Remy1}, R\'emy Chicheportiche and I showed how to weld the standard factor model for returns with a factor model for volatilities. Perhaps surprisingly, the common volatility factor is not the market volatility, although it contributes to it. With a relatively parcimonious parameterisation, most multivariate ``stylized facts'' of stock returns can be reproduced, including the non-trivial joint-probability pattern alluded to above.
I have often ranted against the over-mathematisation of quant models, favouring theorems over intuition and convenient models over empirical data. Reliance on rigorous but misguided statistical tests is also plaguing the field. As an illustration related to the topic of copulas, let me consider the following question: is the univariate distribution of standardized stock returns {\it universal}, i.e. independent of the considered stock? In particular, is the famous ``inverse-cubic law'' \cite{cubic} for the tail of the distribution indeed common to all stocks?
A standard procedure for rejecting such an hypothesis is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (or Anderson-Darling) statistics. And lo and behold, the hypothesis is strongly rejected. But, wait -- the test is only valid if returns can be considered as independent, identically distributed random variables. Whereas returns are close to being uncorrelated, non-linear dependencies along the time axis are strong and long-ranged. Adapting the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in the presence of long-ranged ``self-copulas'' is possible \cite{Remy2} and now leads to the conclusion that the universality hypothesis {\it cannot} be rejected. Here again, thinking about the problem before blindly applying standard recipes is of paramount importance to get it right.
The finer we want to hone in on the subtleties of financial markets, the more we need to rely on making sense of empirical data, and to remember what the great Richard Feynman used to say: {\it It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.}
\section{Crowded Trades: Whales or Minnows?}
It is funny how, sometimes, seemingly obvious concepts do become paradoxical when one starts thinking harder about what they really mean. One topical example is the idea of ``crowded trades'' that has recently become a major talking point in the face of the disheartening performance of many Alternative Beta/Risk Premia funds. It seems self-evident to many that when investors pile into a given trade, future returns are necessarily degraded. But on the other hand, for each buyer there must be a seller -- so isn't the opposite trade crowded too? In what sense, then, is a crowded trade toxic? Can one come up with useful measures of crowding, that would allow one to construct portfolios as immune as possible to crowding risk?
In the mind of investors, the word ``crowding'' summons two distinct fears. One is that any mispricing that motivates a strategy is arbitraged away by the crowd, rendering that strategy unprofitable in the future. The second is crash risk: harmful deleveraging spirals may occur as the crowd suddenly decides to run for the exit. Here we see how the symmetry between the two sides of the trade can be broken: a trade is crowded when investors on -- say -- the buy side are more prone to act in sync than those of the sell side.
In fact, the most crowded trade of all is, and always has been, long the stock market. Crashes indeed happened many times in the past and will happen again in the future. Be that as it may, is investing in the stock market a bad decision? Certainly not, in fact all Risk Premia are profitable on the long run precisely because of such negatively skewed events. The equity risk premium is abnormally high -- but in fact it compensates for the deleveraging risk associated with the madness of crowds. In fact, we have argued in Ref. \cite{skewness} that the return of Risk Premia strategies are strongly correlated with their negative skewness, i.e. their propensity to crash. So in many cases, crowding is simply unavoidable -- the only question is whether the associated downside risk is adequately compensated or not.
This brings us back to our first point: that of withering returns. The mechanism usually put forth is that the spread between the fundamental price and the market price is closed by those who trade based on that mispricing. If the cake is shared between a larger number of participants, each of them must get a smaller piece. Although this makes intuitive sense, the story cannot be that simple. When one looks at different measures of mispricing on which classical factors (momentum, profitability, low volatility, etc.) are supposed to thrive, there is no sign of a recent narrowing of the valuation spread between the short and long legs of the corresponding portfolios. The situation is even the exact opposite for price-to-book spreads, which have become wider since 2016 -- tantamount to saying that Value strategies are currently in the doldrums.
But to argue that the plight of Value is due to crowding is at best misleading. Value as a strategy has been used extensively by market participants for decades. What we are seeing is more like a Value crash in slow motion, with investors getting out more aggressively of this strategy in the years 2019-2020, after a period of disappointing (but certainly not unprecedented!) performance. A rough estimation shows that if 250 B\$ are progressively redeemed from value strategies over a year, typical market neutral value portfolios should suffer a $\approx 20\%$ loss from price impact alone -- all very much in line with recent industry figures.
While there is no smoking gun that this is what happened recently, the argument that crowding is detrimental to convergent strategies (i.e. trades that reduce valuation spreads) is not without merit. But then how do we understand the effect of crowding on divergent strategies, such as momentum or trend following? Here, price impact arguments would suggest that more trend followers should bolster trends, not make them weaker. Crowding could even be beneficial for such strategies, at least up to a point.
The problem with this optimistic surmise is that it neglects yet another facet of price impact, namely transaction costs. The point is that, according to our definition, crowded strategies are precisely those leading to correlated trades, i.e. many managers entering or leaving the market simultaneously. As an extreme outcome, this can lead to crashes, as discussed above. But even in perfectly normal regimes, trading in the same direction as others can significantly increase impact costs, a.k.a. ``slippage''. It is not my own traded quantity that matters, it is the aggregate quantity traded by all managers following the same trading idea. Although the strength of the trading signal is not necessarily impaired, crowded trades may suffer from so much ``co-impact'' \cite{co-impact} that the profitability of the strategy quickly shrivels to zero, or even below zero.
This suggests an interesting metric to detect crowded strategies and estimate such co-impact costs. The first step is to reconstruct the putative trades that a manager following a given strategy -- say Fama-French Momentum -- would send to the market on a given day. One then uses order-book tick data to determine the actual buy/sell order imbalances for each trading day. This allows one to compute the correlation of the overall market imbalance with the imbalance expected from the strategy under scrutiny. A statistically significant correlation means that the strategy does leave a detectable trace in the markets. One can also measure the correlation between these reconstructed trades and the price return of each stock; this provides a direct estimate of the co-impact costs.
This is precisely what we did in Ref. \cite{crowded}. The conclusion is that the classical Fama-French momentum has indeed become more and more crowded in the last ten years, and, as of today, the estimated co-impact costs make the strategy all but unprofitable. The good news, on the other hand, is that there are many different ways to implement a given trading idea -- some more, some less correlated with the ``crowd''. This paves the way to portfolio constructions that attempt to minimize the correlation of trades with identified trading strategies, with the hope of eschewing the curse of crowded trades -- deleveraging spirals and all.
\section{High-Frequency Trading \& Market Stability}
In the midst of the first COVID lockdown, the 10th anniversary of the infamous May 6th, 2010 ``Flash Crash'' went unnoticed. At the time, fingers were pointed at High Frequency Trading (HFT), accused of both rigging the markets and destabilizing them. Research has since then confirmed that HFT in fact results in significantly lower bid-ask spread costs and, after correcting for technological glitches and bugs, does {\it not} increase the frequency of large price jumps. In fact, recent models explain why market liquidity is intrinsically unstable: managing the risk associated to market-making, whether by humans or by computers, unavoidably creates destabilising feedback loops. In order to make markets more resilient, research should focus on better market design and/or smart regulation that nip nascent instabilities in the bud.
Since orders to buy or to sell arrive at random times, financial markets are necessarily most of the time unbalanced. In such conditions, market-makers play a crucial role in allowing smooth trading and continuous prices. They act as liquidity buffers, that absorb any temporary surplus of buy orders or sell orders. Their reward for providing such a service is the bid-ask spread -- systematically buying a wee lower and selling a wee higher, and pocketing the difference.
What is the fair value of the bid-ask spread? Well, it must at least compensate the cost of providing liquidity, which is {\it adverse selection}. Indeed, market-makers must post prices that can be picked up if deemed advantageous by traders with superior information. The classic Glosten-Milgrom model provides an elegant conceptual framework to rationalize the trade-off between adverse selection and bid-ask spread, but fails to give a quantitative, operational answer (see e.g. \cite{TQP} for a recent discussion). In a 2008 study \cite{spread} we came up with a remarkably simple answer: the fair value of the bid-ask spread is equal to the ratio of the volatility to the square-root of the trade frequency. This simple rule of thumb has many interesting consequences.
First, it tells us that for a fixed level of volatility increasing the trade frequency allows market-makers to reduce the spread, and hence the trading costs for final investors. The logic is that trading smaller chunks more often reduces the risk of adverse selection. This explains in part the rise of HFT as modern market making, and the corresponding reduction of the spreads. Throughout the period 1900-1980, the spread on US stocks hovered around a whopping 60 basis points, whereas it is now only a few basis points. In the meantime, volatility has always wandered around $40 \%$ per year -- with of course troughs and occasional spikes, as we discuss below. In other words, investors were paying a much higher price for liquidity before HFT, in spite of wild claims that nowadays electronic markets are ``rigged''. In fact, after a few prosperous years before 2010, high frequency market-making has become extremely competitive and average spreads are now compressed to minimum values.
From this point of view, the economic rents available to liquidity providers have greatly decreased since the advent of HFT. But has this made markets more stable, or has the decrease in the profitability of market-making also made them more fragile? The second consequence of our simple relation between spread and volatility relates to this important question. The point is that this relation can be understood in a two-way fashion: clearly, when volatility increases, the impact of adverse selection can be dire for market makers who mechanically increase their spreads. Periods of high volatility can however be quite profitable for HFT since competition for liquidity providing is then less fierce.
But in fact higher spreads by themselves lead to higher volatility, since transactions generate a larger price jump -- or even a crash when liquidity is low and the order book is sparse. So we diagnose a fundamental destabilising feedback loop, intrinsic to any market-making activity:
\[
\text{volatility} \quad \longrightarrow \quad \text{higher spreads \& lower liquidity} \quad \longrightarrow \quad \text{more volatility}.
\]
Such a feedback loop can actually be included in stochastic order book models (such as the now commonly used family of ``Hawkes processes'' \cite{Hawkes_Review}). As the strength of the feedback increases, one finds a phase transition between a stable market and a market prone to {\it spontaneous liquidity crises}, even in the absence of exogenous shocks or news \cite{Fosset}.
This theoretical result suggests that when market-makers (humans or machines) react too strongly to unexpected events, liquidity can enter a death spiral. But who will blame them? As an old saying goes, {\it liquidity is a coward, it is never there when it is needed}.
Such a paradigm allows one to understand why a large fraction of price jumps in fact occur without any significant news -- rather, they result from endogenous, unstable feedback loops \cite{News}. Empirically, the frequency of $10$-sigma daily moves of US stock prices has been fairly constant in the last 30 years, with no significant change between the pre-HFT epoch and more recent years \cite{TQP}. Even the 6th May 2010 Flash Crash has a pre-HFT counterpart: on the May 28th 1962, the stock market plunged 9\% within a matter of minutes, for no particular cause, before recovering -- much the same weird price trajectory as in 2010. Our conjecture: markets are intrinsically unstable, and have always been so. As noted in section 1 above, this chronic instability may lie at the heart of the turbulent, multiscale nature of financial fluctuations.
Can one engineer a smart solution that make markets less prone to such dislocations? From our arguments above, we know that the task would be to crush the volatility/liquidity feedback loop, by promoting liquidity provision when it is on the verge of disappearing. One idea would be to introduce dynamical make/take fees, which would make cancellations more costly and limit order posting more profitable depending on the current state of the order book. These fees would then funnel into HFT's optimisation algorithms, and (hopefully) yank the system away from the regime of recurrent endogenous liquidity crisis.
\section{Radical Complexity \& Scenario Based Macro-economics}
Good science is often associated with accurate, testable predictions. Classical economics has tried to conform to this standard, and developed an arsenal of methods to come up with precise numbers for next year's GDP, inflation and exchange rates, among (many) other things. Few, however, will disagree with the fact that the economy is a complex system, with a large number of heterogeneous interacting units, of different categories (firms, banks, households, public institutions) and very different sizes. In such complex systems, even qualitative predictions are hard. So maybe we should abandon our pretense of exactitude and turn to another way to do science, based on scenario identification. Aided by qualitative (agent based) simulations, swans that appear black to the myopic eye may in fact be perfectly white.
The main issue in economics is precisely about the emergent organization, cooperation and coordination of a motley crowd of micro-units. Treating them as a unique representative firm or household clearly throws the baby with the bathwater.
Understanding and characterizing such emergent properties is however difficult: genuine surprises can appear from micro- to macro-. One well-known example is the Schelling segregation model: even when all agents prefer to live is mixed neighborhoods, myopic dynamics can lead to completely segregated ghettos \cite{Schelling}. In this case, Adam Smith's invisible hand badly fails.
More generally, slightly different micro-rules/micro parameters can lead to very different macro-states: this is the idea of ``phase transitions”; sudden discontinuities (aka crises) can appear when a parameter is only slightly changed.
Because of feedback loops of different signs, heterogeneities and non-linearities, these surprises are hard, if not impossible to imagine or anticipate, even aided with the best mathematical apparatus.
This is what I would like to call ``Radical Complexity”. Simple models can lead to unknowable behaviour, where ``Black Swans'' or ``Unknown Unknowns'' can be present, even if all the rules of the model are known in detail. In these models, even probabilities are hard to pin down, and rationality is {\it de facto} limited. For example, the probability of rare events can be exponentially sensitive to the model parameters, and hence unknowable in practice \cite{PNAS}. In these circumstances, precise quantitative predictions are unreasonable. But this does not imply the demise of the scientific method. For such situations, one should opt for a more qualitative, scenario based approach, with emphasis on mechanisms, feedback loops, etc. rather than on precise, but misleading numbers. This is actually the path taken by modern climate change science.
Establishing the list of possible (or plausible) scenarios is itself difficult. We need numerical simulations of Agent Based Models. While it is still cumbersome to experiment on large scale human systems (although more and more possible using web-based protocols), experimenting with Agent Based Models is easy and fun and indeed full of unexpected phenomena. These experiments {\it in silico} allow one to elicit scenarios that would be nearly impossible to imagine, because of said feedback loops and non-linearities. Think for example of the spontaneous synchronization of fireflies (or of neuron activity in our brains). It took nearly 70 years to come up with an explanation. Complex endogenous dynamics is pervasive, but hard to guess without appropriate tools.
Experimenting with Agent Based Models is interesting on many counts. One hugely important aspect is, in my opinion, that it allows to teach students in a playful, engaging way how complex social and economic systems work. Such simulations would foster their intuition and their imagination, much like lab experiments train the intuition of physicists about the real world, beyond abstract mathematical formalism.
Creating one’s own world and seeing how it unfolds clearly has tremendous pedagogical merits. It is also an intellectual exercise of genuine value: if we are not able to make sense of an emergent phenomenon within a world in which we set all the rules, how can we expect to be successful in the real world? We have to train our minds to grasp these collective phenomena and to understand how and why some scenarios can materialize and others not. The versatility of ABM allows one to include ingredients that are almost impossible to accommodate in classical economic models, and explore their impact on the dynamics of the systems \cite{Mark0,Mark0Covid}.
ABM are often spurned because they are in general hard to calibrate, and therefore the numbers they spit out cannot and should not be taken at face value. They should rather be regarded as all-purpose {\it scenario generators}, allowing one to shape one's intuition about phenomena, to uncover different possibilities and reduce the realm of Black Swans. The latter are often the result of our lack of imagination or of the simplicity of our models, rather than being inherently impossible to foresee.
Expanding the study of toy-models of economic complexity will create a useful corpus of scenario-based, qualitative macroeconomics \cite{Bookstater,Mounfield}. Instead of aiming for precise numerical predictions based on unrealistic assumptions, one should make sure that models rely on plausible causal mechanisms and encompass all plausible scenarios, even when these scenarios cannot be fully characterized mathematically. A qualitative approach to complexity economics should be high on the research agenda. As Keynes said, {\it it is better to be roughly right than exactly wrong.}
\section*{Acknowledgments} I want to warmly thank all my collaborators on these topics, especially: R. Allez, R. Benichou, M. Benzaquen, P. Blanc, J. Bonart, F. Bucci, J. Bun, R. Chicheportiche, J. Donier, Z. Eisler, A. Fosset, M. Gould, S. Gualdi, S. Hardiman, A. Karami, Y. Lemp\'eri\`ere, F. Lillo, R. Marcaccioli, I. Mastromatteo, F. Morelli, M. Potters, P. A. Reigneron, P. Seager, D. Sharma, M. Tarzia, B. Toth, V. Volpati, M. Wyart, F. Zamponi.
I also want to pay tribute to various people with whom I had exciting and enlightening discussions on these matters, in particular R. Bookstaber, D. Farmer, X. Gabaix, J. Gatheral, J. Guyon, A. Kirman, C. Lehalle, J. Moran, M. Rosenbaum, N. Taleb. Finally, I am deeply indebted to Mauro Cesa who offered me the possibility of putting my thoughts together and publishing them as six monthly columns in Risk.net, from September 2020 to February 2021.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Spherical collapse is ubiquitous in astronomy and has been used to model the formation of stars up to the formation of galaxy halos. Going back many years (e.g. \citealt{LMS65,Tomita, Gunn}), the model of a uniform density sphere collapsing homologously (no shell crosses another shell) from rest under its own gravity has been the simplest instantiation of this scenario. The governing equations (see e.g. \citealt{LMS65}) are
\begin{align}
&\frac{d^2 r}{dt} = -\frac{GM_r}{r^2} = -\frac{4\pi G \rho_0} {3}\frac{r_0^3}{r^2},\nonumber\\
&M_r \equiv \frac{4\pi}{3} r_0^3 \rho_0,
\end{align}
where $r$ is the radius of the sphere, $G$ is Newton's constant, $M_r$ is the mass internal to radius $r$, and $\rho_0$ is the (uniform) initial density when the sphere has its initial radius, $r_0$. The second equality in the first line above comes from inserting the form for $M_r$ given in the second line. These have the cycloidal
parametric solution
\begin{align}
&r(\theta) = r_0 \cos^2 \theta,\nonumber\\
&\theta + \frac{1}{2} \sin 2\theta = \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}},\qquad t_{\rm ff} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{3\pi}{32 G \rho_0}},
\label{eqn:theta_eqn}
\end{align}
where $t_{\rm ff}$ is the free-fall time. $\theta=0$ corresponds to the initial conditions of radius $r_0$ and zero velocity, and at $\theta = \pi/2$, the sphere has collapsed to zero radius.
Since the equation for $\theta$ is transcendental, one cannot explicitly obtain $\theta$ as a function of $t$ and thence $r(t)$. Here, we show how using techniques from complex analysis recently developed to solve the ``geometric goat problem'' (which we will momentarily describe), an explicit integral solution for $r(t)$ can be found.
The geometric goat
problem is as follows. Suppose a goat is placed inside a circular (2-D) enclosure of radius $R$, tethered to a fixed point on the circumference by a rope of length $r$. How long must the rope be to permit the goat to graze on exactly half the area of the enclosure?
Writing down the appropriate integral expressions for the enclosed area as a function of $r$ and $R$, one obtains a transcendental equation. Following a number of (non-trivial) manipulations, this equation can be written as
\begin{align}
\sin \beta - \beta \cos \beta = \frac{\pi}{2}
\end{align}
\citep{Ullisch}. We observe that this equation is somewhat similar to our equation (\ref{eqn:theta_eqn}) for $\theta$ if one treats $t$ as a constant and $\theta$ as analogous to $\beta$. If one is able
to solve an equation of the type above, it is worth considering whether
the same method may be used to solve equation \eqref{eqn:theta_eqn} for $\theta(t)$. This indeed turns out to be so.
\section{Solution}\label{sec:soln}
We follow the approach \new{described in} \citet{Ullisch} to obtain our solution.
First, we write our $\theta$ equation \eqref{eqn:theta_eqn} in terms of an \new{entire} function $f(z)$ defined on the complex plane,
\begin{align}
f(z) &\equiv z + \frac{1}{2} \sin 2z - \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}}
\label{eqn:f0_def}
\end{align}
\new{Here, we require $f(z_0) = 0$, where $z_0$ will give our desired solution $\theta(t)$. By symmetry, this has $\mathrm{Im}(z)=0$.}
For real $z$, and at fixed $t>0$, $f(z)$ is monotonically increasing on this interval and has exactly one zero (\textit{i.e.} one solution for $\theta(t)$).
\new{This zero may be shown to be simple}:
\begin{align}
\lim_{z \to z_0} \frac{z + (1/2) \sin 2z - (\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})}{z - z_0} = 1 + \cos 2 z_0 \neq 0
\end{align}
\new{given the bounds on $z_0$}.
{\bf Theorem 1} of \citet{Ullisch} \new{(see also \citealt{Jackson16,Jackson17,Luck15})} states that, on a simply-connected open subset \new{$U$} of the complex plane, for every simple zero \new{$z_0\in U$} of a non-zero analytic function $f(z)$, there exists a curve $C$ such that
\begin{align}
z_0 = \frac{\oint_C z\;dz/f(z)}{\oint_C dz/f(z)}.
\label{eqn:thm}
\end{align}
\new{Indeed, this is true for \textit{any} Jordan curve $C$ (\textit{i.e.} one which is continuous and does not self-intersect), enclosing $z_0$ such that $z_0$ is the only zero of $f(z)$ on $C$ and its interior.}
\new{To apply this method to the spherical collapse scenario}, we must must thus find \new{a valid} curve $C$ by which to evaluate the result (\ref{eqn:thm}).
\new{Motivated by the boundary conditions on $\theta$ and the discussion in \citet{Ullisch}, we first consider the (simply-connected) rectangular region $R = (0,\pi/2)\times i(-M,M)$ in the complex plane for arbitrary $M>0$. Via the argument principle, the number of zeros minus the number of poles contained within $R$ is given by
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\partial R}\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}dz = \frac{1}{2\pi}\times \Delta_{\partial R}[\arg f(z)]
\end{align}
where $\partial R$ is the (non-self-intersecting) boundary of $R$ (traversed counter-clockwise), and $\Delta_{\partial R}[\arg f(z)]$ represents the total change in the argument of $f(z)$ as one traverses $\partial R$.\footnote{\new{This is easily proven by noting that $\log f(z)$ is the antiderivative of $f'(z)/f(z)$ and using the relation between the complex logarithm of a function and the function argument.}} Given that $f(z)$ contains no poles in $R$, this simply counts the number of zeros within $R$.}
\new{Denoting $z = x+iy$, $f(z)$ has the limiting forms
\begin{align}
f\left(0+iy\right) &= -\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}}+i\left(y+\frac{1}{2}\sinh 2y\right)\nonumber\\
f\left(\frac{\pi}{2}+iy\right) &= -\frac{\pi}{2}\left(1-\frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}}\right)+i\left(y-\frac{1}{2}\sinh 2y\right)\nonumber\\
f\left(x+iM\right) &\approx x-\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}}+\frac{i}{4}e^{-2ix}e^{2M}\nonumber\\
f\left(x-iM\right) &\approx x-\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{\rm ff}}-\frac{i}{4}e^{2ix}e^{2M},
\end{align}
where the third and fourth equations are exact in the limit $M\rightarrow\infty$. Let us consider the change in $\arg f(z)$ along each of the four sides of $\partial R$ in turn (assuming $M\gg 0$).
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(0+iM) \rightarrow (0-iM)$. $\mathrm{Re}[f(z)]$ takes the constant (negative) value $-(\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})$, whilst $\mathrm{Im}[f(z)]$ decreases monotonically from $(1/4)\exp{2M}$ to $-(1/4)\exp{2M}$. Thus $\Delta[\arg f(z)] = +\pi$.\vskip 4 pt
\item $(0-iM) \rightarrow (\pi/2-iM)$. For large $M$, $f(z)\approx (1/4)\exp\left[2M+2ix+3i\pi/2\right]$, thus $\Delta[\arg f(z)] = +\pi$ as $x$ increases from $0$ to $\pi/2$.\vskip 4 pt
\item $(\pi/2-iM)\rightarrow(\pi/2+iM)$. $\mathrm{Re}[f(z)]$ takes the constant (positive) value $(\pi/2)(1-t/t_\mathrm{ff})$, whilst $\mathrm{Im}[f(z)]$ increases monotonically from $(1/4)e^{2M}$ to $(1/4)e^{-2M}$. Thus $\Delta[\arg f(z)] = -\pi$.\vskip 4 pt
\item $(\pi/2+iM)\rightarrow(0+iM)$. For large $M$, $f(z)\approx (1/4)\exp\left[2M-2ix+i\pi/2\right]$, thus $\Delta[\arg f(z)] = +\pi$ as $x$ decreases from $\pi/2$ to $0$.\vskip 4 pt
\end{enumerate}
Summing the regimes, we find $\Delta_{\partial R}[\arg f(z)]=2\pi$, indicating that $R$ contains exactly one zero. Since the point $z_0\in R$, this must be the only zero in the region. Since $M$ is arbitrary, we can thus write $f(z)\neq 0$ for all $z\in U\backslash\{z_0\}$,\footnote{\new{$U\backslash\{z_0\}$ indicates the set $U$ excluding the point $z_0$.}} where $U = \{z:\mathrm{Re}(z)\in(0,\pi/2)$.}
\new{Coupled with the theorem of \citet{Ullisch}, we see that any Jordan curve $C\in U$ enclosing $z_0$ can be used to evaluate equation \eqref{eqn:thm}. Here, we set $C$ equal to a circle with radius $\pi/4-\epsilon$ at center $(\pi/4,0)$ where $\epsilon>0$ is small.
This is contained within $U$ and, for sufficiently small $\epsilon$, encloses $z_0$, thus the above conditions apply. A representative plot of $f(z)$, alongside the region $U$ and the contour $C$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig: contours}.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.94\linewidth]{spherical_goat_contours_log.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $f(z)$ (equation \ref{eqn:f0_def}) in the complex plane, from which the integral solution \eqref{eqn: integral-soln} is obtained. The colorbar shows the value of $|f(z)|$ with the green $\times$ indicating $z_0$ such that $f(z_0) = 0$. The colored area indicates the open subset $U$ upon which the theorem of \citet{Ullisch} is valid (denoted by the black $U$ at lower right), and we evaluate the contour integrals on the closed curve $C$ (in red). As proven in the text, $z_0$ is the sole zero of $f(z)$ in $U$. Here, we show the behavior for $t = 0.25t_\mathrm{ff}$ and $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ (used to define $C$), but all choices are qualitatively similar.}
\label{fig: contours}
\end{figure}
We hence \new{obtain the integral solution}
\begin{align}
&z_0(t) = \frac{\oint_{C} z\;dz/\left[z \new{+} (1/2) \sin 2 z - (\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})\right]}{\oint_{C} dz/\left[z \new{+} (1/2) \sin 2 z - (\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})\right]},\nonumber\\
&r(t) = r_0 \cos^2 \left(\frac{\oint_{C} z\;dz/\left[z \new{+} (1/2) \sin 2 z - (\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})\right]}{\oint_{C} dz/\left[z \new{+} (1/2) \sin 2 z - (\pi/2)(t/t_{\rm ff})\right]}\right),\nonumber\\
& C =\{z: |z - \pi/4| = \pi/4 - \epsilon\}.\label{eqn: integral-soln}
\end{align}
\section{Evaluation using Fast Fourier Transforms}
\new{Following \citet{Ullisch}, we consider how to evaluate equation \eqref{eqn: integral-soln} using Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs). First, we parametrize the contour $C$ by the function $\gamma(x) = \pi/4+(\pi/4-\epsilon)e^{2\pi i x}$ where $x\in[0,1]$ and we identify $\gamma(0)=\gamma(1)$. With this choice, the integral solution for $z_0$ becomes
\begin{align}
z_0(t) &= \frac{\pi}{4}+\left(\frac{\pi}{4}-\epsilon\right)\frac{\int_{0}^1 dx\;e^{4\pi ix}\,g(x;t)}{\int_0^1 dx\;e^{2\pi ix}g(x;t)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\pi}{4}+\left(\frac{\pi}{4}-\epsilon\right)\frac{c_{-2}(t)}{c_{-1}(t)},
\end{align}
where $g(x;t)\equiv 1/f\left(\pi/4+(\pi/4-\epsilon)e^{2\pi i x}; t\right)$, making the $t$-dependence explicit, and we define the Fourier coefficients
\begin{align}\label{eqn:ck-def}
c_{k}(t) \equiv \int_0^1 dx\,g(x;t)e^{-2\pi i k x}
\end{align}
for integer $k$. The solution for $r(t)$ is thus
\begin{align}
r(t) = r_0\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}{4}+\left(\frac{\pi}{4}-\epsilon\right)\frac{c_{-2}(t)}{c_{-1}(t)}\right)
\end{align}
which can be computed to arbitrary precision for a given $t$ by estimating $c_{k}(t)$ using FFTs.\footnote{Alternatively, we may numerically integrate \eqref{eqn:ck-def} directly to compute only the $c_{-2}$ and $c_{-1}$ coefficients. In practice, this is slightly more efficient than using FFTs.} We recall that $\epsilon$ enters the radius of the contour $C$ (see Figure \ref{fig: contours}) used for the integration; this radius is $\pi/4 - \epsilon$.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.67]{updated_time_fig_goat.pdf}
\caption{We show in blue (100 points) and red (10 points) the sampling in $t$ (horizontal axis) implied by uniform sampling in $\theta$ (vertical axis) of equation \eqref{eqn:theta_eqn}. This illustrates that the na\"ive numerical approach of taking a \new{uniformly-sampled} 1-D array in $\theta$ to evaluate the cycloid trajectory $r$ (black) does not necessarily provide good control of the sampling in $t$ for which one might wish. Here, we see that as $r/r_0 \to 0$ (moving towards the left on the horizontal axis) the uniform sampling in $\theta$ gives less and less good resolution in time corresponding to larger spacing between the red points. In practice, one might rather prefer {\it increasing} resolution in time in the final phases of collapse. This might be the case if one imagines $r$ as an input to some more complicated model, for example as an input for a model of galaxy formation (e.g. \citealt{Kitaura_2013}) or a sub-grid model in a hydrodynamic simulation of gas or chemical evolution in galaxy formation.}
\label{fig:sampling}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The \new{above discussion} has shown how one can
obtain an efficient numerical approximation for the cycloid's evolution \new{using contour integration} coupled with FFTs, \new{just as for} the geometric goat problem \citep{Ullisch}. This \new{is of use} if one \new{requires} the radial evolution of a cycloid \new{(\textit{i.e.} the evolution of a collapsing object)} as a direct numerical lookup table against time. That being said, from the standpoint of numerics, it seems no less efficient to simply generate a grid of $\theta$ and evaluate both $t(\theta)$ and $r(\theta)$ on this grid, and then simply match the elements of these 1-D arrays.
However, on closer analysis, it is evident that if one wished to have a uniform sampling in time (or for that matter, any arbitrary, user-set sampling), this \new{would not be easily permitted by the latter method}:
one would need to numerically solve (e.g. using a root-finder) for $\theta$ at every desired $t$ point, and then evaluate $r$ at those $\theta$. This is shown, and further discussed, in Figure \ref{fig:sampling}. In contrast, since the integral solution here, paired with the Fourier method,
gives $r$ explicitly as a function of $t$, imposing any user-desired sampling in $t$ is trivial.
Finally, we also note that in the context of numerics, our restriction that we can work only on a domain from $\epsilon$ up to $\pi/2 - \epsilon$ in $\theta$ \new{(since we use a contour of radius $\pi/4-\epsilon$)} is not an issue: numerical discretizations always choose sampling points in any case, and the restriction that a sampling point not be in the set of measure zero given by $\{0, \pi/2\}$ is in practice no restriction at all.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spherical_goat_fft.pdf}
\caption{\new{Comparison of root-finding and FFT-based methods to solve the spherical collapse equation. Here, we plot $\left|\Delta r(t)\right|\equiv \left|r^\mathrm{root}(t)-r^\mathrm{FFT}(t)\right|$ against time in dimensionless units, for various choices of the FFT grid-size, $N_\mathrm{FFT}$, assuming $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$. To compute the root-finding solutions, we first solve equation \eqref{eqn:theta_eqn} by numerically finding $\theta$ for a given $t$ (using the Newton-Raphson method) then substituting to find $r(\theta)$. The FFT-based approach offers a speed-up of $\sim$$100\times$ relative to the root-finding, as shown in Figure\,\ref{fig: timings}.}}
\label{fig: fft-vs-root}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spherical_goat_timings.pdf}
\caption{\new{Computation time for the FFT-based spherical collapse solver considered in this work (solid curves) versus the na\"ive root-finding approach discussed in Figure\,\ref{fig: fft-vs-root} (dashed lines). We show results for a range of FFT grid-sizes and three lengths of the input $t$-array, from $10^4$ elements (top line/top curve, green) to $10^2$ elements (bottom line/bottom curve, red). Both methods are simply implemented in \textsc{python}, and the FFT-based approach may be efficiently vectorized.}}
\label{fig: timings}
\end{figure}
\new{To demonstrate our method, we implement the FFT-based technique in a simple \textsc{python} function.\footnote{This is publicly available on \href{https://gist.github.com/oliverphilcox/559f086f1bf63b23d55c508b2f47bad3}{GitHub}.} Given a set of time co-ordinates $t$ and an array of $2^{N_\mathrm{FFT}}$ sampling points $\{x_i\}$, we compute the coefficients $c_{k}$ \eqref{eqn:ck-def} via a (vectorized) FFT, and thus the corresponding components $r(t)$. Figure \ref{fig: fft-vs-root} compares these to the conventional approach of solving for $\theta$ numerically at each $t$, then using this solution to estimate $r(\theta)$. As $N_\mathrm{FFT}$ increases, our procedure rapidly converges, and we find it to require a $\sim$$100\times$ smaller runtime at $N_\mathrm{FFT}=32$, with only weak dependence on $N_\mathrm{FFT}$ and the size of the time array, as shown in Figure \ref{fig: timings}. Explicitly, the FFT algorithm requires $6\times 10^{-4}\,$s to compute $r(t)$ for $10^4$ points on a single $2.4\,$GHz Intel Skylake CPU, compared with $8\times 10^{-2}\,$s for the root-finding approach. Given the highly optimized FFT libraries that exist, a more mature implementation will be significantly faster.}
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. A \textsc{python} implementation of our code is available on \href{https://gist.github.com/oliverphilcox/559f086f1bf63b23d55c508b2f47bad3}{GitHub}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank J.R. Gott, III for initializing ZS's interest in the cycloid problem a number of years ago, and for enlivening the intervening time with sage advice and good humor. OP thanks Jeremy Goodman and William Underwood for insightful discussions regarding complex analysis. OP acknowledges funding from the WFIRST program through NNG26PJ30C and NNN12AA01C. No goats were harmed in the making of this work.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Under the paradigm of the \gls{IoT}, the number of connecting devices is increasing dramatically. IoT devices are mostly battery limited and transmit short packets in a sporadic and uncoordinated manner~\cite{Chen2020_massiveAccess,Wu2020_massiveAccess}. This calls for new theoretical frameworks that help to understand the fundamental limits of massive random access and provide guidelines for system design.
Polyanskiy~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} proposed a novel formulation for the massive uncoordinated access problem with three key assumptions: i) all users employ a common codebook and the decoder only aims to return a list of messages without recovering users' identities; ii) the error event is defined per user
and the error probability is averaged over the users; iii) each user sends a fixed amount of information bits within a finite frame length. Under this formulation, traditional as well as novel random access protocols \cite{Berioli2016NOW} yield achievability bounds. In \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, an achievability bound for the Gaussian \gls{MAC} was derived and it was shown that modern random access schemes exhibit a large gap to this bound. This gap has been later reduced in, e.g., \cite{Ordentlich2017low_complexity_random_access,Vem2019,Fengler2019sparcs,Amalladinne2020unsourced,Amalladinne2020,Pradhan2020}. Polyanskiy's framework has been extended to the quasi-static fading channel~\cite{Kowshik2020}, multiple-antenna channel~\cite{Fengler2019nonBayesian}, \revisee{and a setup with common alarm messages~\cite{Stern2019}.}
In Polyanskiy's achievability bound, the number of active users is fixed and known to the receiver, an assumption that has practical shortcomings. Since \gls{IoT} devices access the channel at random times and in a grant-free manner, the number of active users varies over time, and hence, it is typically unknown to the receiver. Therefore, the bound in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} may be an overoptimistic benchmark for random-access schemes that are designed to work with unknown number of active users. Moreover, when the number of active users is unknown, the decoder needs to determine the list size. Choosing a list size smaller than the number of active users will result in \glspl{MD}\textemdash i.e., transmitted messages that are not included in the decoded list\textemdash whereas choosing it larger than the number of active users will result in \glspl{FA}\textemdash i.e., decoded messages that were not transmitted. Furthermore, additional \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA} may occur in the decoding process.
There is a trade-off between \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities. A decoder that always outputs the whole codebook will never misdetect, but has \gls{FA} probability close to one; similarly, a decoder that always outputs an empty set will never raise a \gls{FA} but always misdetects.
Characterizing the \gls{MD}--\gls{FA} trade-off is a fundamental engineering challenge that was not addressed in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}. An achievability bound for the Gaussian \gls{MAC} with unknown number of active users was presented in \cite{Effros2018ISIT}. However, the authors consider the joint-user error event instead of the per-user error event, and thus, \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} are not explicitly considered. In short, a random-coding bound accounting for both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA}, which can serve as a benchmark for common-codebook massive uncoordinated random access with random user activity, is still missing.
Most of the practical algorithms that have been proposed for common-codebook massive random access require knowledge of the number of active users.
Advanced ALOHA schemes, such as irregular repetition slotted ALOHA~(IRSA)~\cite{Liva2011IRSA},
can also operate when the number of active users is unknown. However, research on modern random access protocols~\cite{Berioli2016NOW}, such as IRSA, has traditionally focused on characterizing and minimizing the packet loss rate, which accounts only for \gls{MD}. The scheme proposed in \cite{Vem2019} also addressed \gls{MD} only. Minimizing the \gls{MD} probability alone can entail a high \gls{FA} probability. In~\cite{Decurninge2020}, a tensor-based communication scheme was proposed, \revise{and both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities are reported in the performance evaluation. Another scheme \revisee{for which} both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities \revisee{are reported} was recently proposed in~\cite{fengler2020pilot} for the quasi-static fading \gls{MAC} \revisee{and for the case in which} the receiver has a large number of antennas.}
In this work, we extend Polyanskiy's bound to the case where the number of active users is {\em random} and {\em unknown}. To this end, we first extend the definition of a random-access code provided in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} to account for both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities. Then, we derive a random-coding bound for the Gaussian \gls{MAC}. Unlike the scheme in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, our decoder does not assume knowledge of the number of active users, and thus cannot use it to set the decoded list size. Instead, we let our decoder decide the best list size within a predetermined interval around an estimated value of the number of active users. \revisee{Our decoding metric is similar to that used in \cite{Stern2019}. However, different from \cite{Stern2019}, we limit the decoded list size to be in an interval
to avoid overfitting.}
\revisee{Compared with the bound in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}}, our bound suggests that the lack of knowledge of the number of active users entails a small penalty in power efficiency. Furthermore, \revise{we apply our bound to \revisee{characterize} \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} in slotted ALOHA with multi-packet reception (SA-MPR). Using our bound, we \revisee{benchmark the energy efficiency of} SA-MPR and \revisee{of the} massive random access schemes \revisee{proposed in \cite{Fengler2019sparcs,Amalladinne2020unsourced}}.}
For instance, for a system with $\revise{300}$ active users in average, to achieve both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities below $10^{-1}$, the required energy per bit \revisee{predicted by} our achievability bound is \revise{$0.65$~dB higher than that \revisee{predicted by} the bound for a known number of active users \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}. In the same setting, the required energy per bit predicted by our bound is $9$~dB, $4.1$~dB, and $3.6$~dB lower than that of the SA-MPR bound, the scheme based on sparse regression code (SPARC)~\cite{Fengler2019sparcs}, and an enhancement of SPARC~\cite{Amalladinne2020unsourced}, respectively.}
\subsubsection*{Notation}
Random quantities are denoted with non-italic letters with sans-serif font, e.g., a scalar $\vect{r}{x}$ and a vector $\rvVec{v}$.
Deterministic quantities are denoted
with italic letters, e.g., a scalar $x$ and a vector $\bm{v}$.
The Euclidean norm is denoted by $\|\cdot\|$.
We use $\mathfrak{P}({\mathcal A})$ to denote the set of all subsets of ${\mathcal A}$; $[n]$ denotes the set of integers $\{1,\dots,n\}$ if $n \ge 1$ and $[n] \triangleq \emptyset$ if $n=0$; $[m:n] \triangleq \{m,m+1,\dots,n\}$ if $m \le n$ and $[m:n] \triangleq \emptyset$ if $m>n$; $x^+ \triangleq \max\{x,0\}$; $\ind{\cdot}$ is the indicator function. The set of natural and complex numbers are denoted by $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{C}$, respectively. We denote the Gamma function by $\Gamma(x) \triangleq \int_{0}^{\infty}z^{x-1}e^{-z}dz$, and the lower and upper incomplete Gamma functions by $\gamma(x,y) \triangleq \int_{0}^{y}z^{x-1}e^{-z}dz$ and $\Gamma(x,y) \triangleq \int_{y}^{\infty}z^{x-1}e^{-z}dz$, respectively.
\section{Random-Access Channel} \label{sec:channel}
We consider a \gls{MAC} in which a random set of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ users transmit their messages to a receiver over $n$ uses of a stationary memoryless channel. Let $\vect{r}{x}_k \in {\mathcal X}$ be the transmitted signal of user $k$ in a channel use.
Given $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} = K_{\rm a}$, the channel law is given by $P_{\vect{r}{y} \,\vert\, \vect{r}{x}_1,\dots,\vect{r}{x}_{{K}_{\rm a}}}$. Thus this random-access channel is characterized by the \gls{PMF} $P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$ of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and by the set of conditional probabilities $\{P_{\vect{r}{y} \,\vert\, \vect{r}{x}_1,\dots,\vect{r}{x}_{{K}_{\rm a}}} \colon {\mathcal X}^{K_{\rm a}} \to {\mathcal Y} \}_{K_{\rm a} \in \mathbb{N}}$.
As in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, we assume that the channel law is permutation invariant.
We further assume that the receiver does not know the realizations of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$.
As in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, our model differs from the classical \gls{MAC} in that the total number of users is not limited, all users employ the same codebook, and the receiver decodes up to a permutation of messages.
However, as opposed to~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, where the number of active users is assumed to be fixed and known, we assume that $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ is random and unknown.
We therefore need to account for both \gls{MD} and \gls{FA}.
We next rigorously define the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities, as well as the notion of a random-access code.
\begin{definition}[Random-access code] \label{def:code}
Consider a random-access channel characterized by $\big\{P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}, \{P_{\vect{r}{y} \,\vert\, \vect{r}{x}_1,\dots,\vect{r}{x}_{{K}_{\rm a}}}\}_{K_{\rm a} \in \mathbb{N}}\big\}$. \revisee{An $(M,n,\epsilon_{\rm MD},\epsilon_{\rm FA})$ random-access code for this channel, where $M$ and $n$ are positive integers and $\epsilon_{\rm MD},\epsilon_{\rm FA} \in (0,1)$, consists of:}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item \revisee{A random variable $\vect{r}{U}$ defined on a set ${\mathcal U}$
that is revealed to both the transmitter and the receiver before the start of the transmission. This random variable acts as common randomness and allows for the use of randomized coding strategies.}
\item \revisee{An encoder mapping $f\colon {\mathcal U} \times [M] \to {\mathcal X}^n$ defining the transmitted codeword $\rvVec{x}_i = f(\vect{r}{U},\vect{r}{w}_i)$ of user $i$ for a given message $\vect{r}{w}_i$, which is assumed to be uniformly distributed over $[M]$.}
\item \revisee{A decoding function $g\colon {\mathcal U} \times {\mathcal Y}^n \to \mathfrak{P}([M])$ providing an estimate $\widehat{{\mathcal W}} = \{\hat{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,\hat{\vect{r}{w}}_{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|}\} = g(\vect{r}{U},\rvVec{y})$ of the list of transmitted messages, where $\rvVec{y} = [\vect{r}{y}(1) \dots \vect{r}{y}(n)]^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the channel output sequence.}
\end{itemize}
Let $\widetilde{{\mathcal W}} = \{\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_{|\widetilde{{\mathcal W}}|}\}$ denotes the set of distinct elements of $\{{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,{\vect{r}{w}}_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\}$. \revisee{We assume that the decoding function satisfies the following constraints on the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities:
\begin{align}
\!\!\!P_{\rm MD} &\triangleq \E\Bigg[{\ind{|\widetilde{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{1}{|\widetilde{{\mathcal W}}|} \sum_{i=1}^{|\widetilde{{\mathcal W}}|} \P[\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_i \!\notin\! \widehat{{\mathcal W}}]}\!\Bigg] \!\le \epsilon_{\rm MD}, \label{eq:def_pMD}\\
\!\!\!P_{\rm FA} &\triangleq \E\Bigg[{\ind{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{1}{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|} \sum_{i=1}^{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|} \P[\hat{\vect{r}{w}}_i \notin {{\mathcal W}}]}\Bigg] \!\le \epsilon_{\rm FA}, \label{eq:def_pFA}
\end{align}
The expectations in \eqref{eq:def_pMD} and \eqref{eq:def_pFA} are with respect to the size of ${\mathcal W}$ and $\widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, respectively.}
\end{definition}
In the random-access code defined in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, the decoder outputs a list of messages of size equal to the number of active users, which is assumed to be known. In such a setup, a \gls{MD} implies a \gls{FA}, and vice versa. Hence, the two types of errors become indistinguishable. In our setup, the decoded list size can be different from the number of transmitted messages. Hence, we introduce explicitly the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities. This allows us to characterize the \gls{MD}--\gls{FA} trade-off.
Hereafter, we consider the Gaussian \gls{MAC} with $\{P_{\vect{r}{y}|\vect{r}{x}_1,\dots,\vect{r}{x}_{{K}_{\rm a}}}\}$ imposed by
$
\rvVec{y} = \sum_{i=1}^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\rvVec{x}_i + \rvVec{z},
$
where $\{\rvVec{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$ are the transmitted signals over $n$ channel uses and $\rvVec{z} \sim {\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\mathbf{0},\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$ is the Gaussian noise
independent of $\{\rvVec{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$.
We consider the power constraint $\|\rvVec{x}_i\|^2 \le nP, \forall i \in [\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$.
\section{Random-Coding Bound} \label{sec:RCU}
The random-coding bound in~\cite[Th.~1]{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}
is derived by constructing a random-coding scheme as follows. Let ${\mathcal W} = \{\vect{r}{w}_1, \dots, \vect{r}{w}_{K_{\rm a}}\} \subset [M]$ be the set of transmitted messages. Each active user picks randomly a codeword $\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}$ from a common codebook containing $M$ codewords $\vect{c}_1,\dots,\vect{c}_M$ drawn independently from the distribution ${\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\mathbf{0},P'\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$ for a fixed $P' < P$. To convey message $\vect{r}{w}_i$, user $i$ transmits $\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}$ provided that $\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 \le nP$. Otherwise, it transmits the all-zero codeword.
The receiver employs a minimum distance decoder where the decoded list is $\widehat{{\mathcal W}} = \arg\min_{\widehat{{\mathcal W}} \subset [M], |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| = K_{\rm a}} \|c(\widehat{{\mathcal W}}) - \rvVec{y}\|^2$, with $c({\mathcal W}) \triangleq \sum_{i\in {\mathcal W}} \vect{c}_{i}$. The error analysis involves manipulations of unions of the pairwise error events via a change of measure and the application of the Chernoff bound combined with Gallager's $\rho$-trick~\cite[p.~136]{Gallager1968information}.
An alternative bound is also obtained by writing the pairwise error event as an inequality involving information densities, and by applying a property of the information density given in~\cite[Cor.~17.1]{Polyanskiy2019lecture}.
In the following, we derive a similar random-coding bound for the case in which $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ is random and unknown to the receiver. Specifically, we consider a random-coding scheme with the same encoder as in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}. However, since the receiver does not know $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$, we let the decoder estimate $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ from $\rvVec{y}$, then decide the best list size within an interval around the initially detected value of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$. Specifically, given the channel output $\vect{y}$, the receiver estimates $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ as
\begin{align}
K_{\rm a}' = \arg\min_{K \in [K_l:K_u]} m(\vect{y},K),
\end{align}
where $m(\vect{y},K)$ is a suitably chosen metric, and $K_l$ and $K_u$ are suitably chosen lower and upper limits on $K_{\rm a}'$, respectively.
Then, given $K_{\rm a}'$, the receiver decodes the list of messages as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:decoder_Ka'}
\widehat{{\mathcal W}} = \arg\min_{\widehat{{\mathcal W}} \subset [M], \underline{K_{\rm a}'} \le |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \le \overline{K_{\rm a}'}} \|c(\widehat{{\mathcal W}}) - \rvVec{y}\|^2,
\end{equation}
where \revisee{$\underline{K_{\rm a}'} =\max\{K_l,K_{\rm a}'-r\}$ and $\overline{K_{\rm a}'}\triangleq \min\{K_u,K_{\rm a}'+r\}$ with a chosen nonnegative integer $r$}.
\revisee{We refer to $r$ as the {\em decoding radius}.}
An error analysis of this random-coding scheme conducted along similar lines as in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} leads to the following result.
\begin{theorem}[Random-coding bound, $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ random and unknown] \label{thm:RCU_unknownKa}
Fix $P' < P$, \revise{$r$, $K_{l}$, and $K_{u}$ ($K_{l} \le K_{u}$)}. For the $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$-user Gaussian \gls{MAC} with $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \sim P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$, there exists an $(M,n,\epsilon_{\rm MD},\epsilon_{\rm FA})$ random-access code satisfying the power constraint $P$ and
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{\rm MD} &= \sum_{K_{\rm a} =\max\{K_{l},1\}}^{K_{u}} \bigg(P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}}\frac{t+(K_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+}{K_{\rm a}} \notag \\
&\qquad \cdot\min\{p_t,q_t, \xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')\} \bigg) + p_0, \label{eq:eps_MD}\\
\epsilon_{\rm FA} &= \sum_{K_{\rm a} =K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \bigg(P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}} \sum_{t' \in {\mathcal T}_t} \notag \\
&\qquad \frac{t'+(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})^+}{K_{\rm a} - t - {(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ + t' + {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})}^+} \notag \\
&\qquad \cdot \min\{p_{t,t'}, q_{t,t'}, \xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')\} \bigg) + p_0, \label{eq:eps_FA}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
p_0 &= 2 - \sum_{K_{\rm a} = K_{l}}^{K_{u}}P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) - \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\left[\frac{M!}{M^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(M-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})!} \right] \notag \\
&\quad + \E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] \frac{\Gamma(n,nP/P')}{\Gamma(n)}, \label{eq:p0}\\
p_t &= \sum_{t'\in \overline{{\mathcal T}}_t} p_{t,t'}, \label{eq:pt}\\
p_{t,t'} &= e^{-n E(t,t')}, \label{eq:ptt} \\
E(t,t') &= \max_{\rho,\rho_1 \in [0,1]} -\rho\rho_1 t' R_1 - \rho_1 R_2 + E_0(\rho,\rho_1), \label{eq:Ett} \\
\!\!\!\! E_0(\rho,\rho_1) &= \max_{\lambda} \rho_1 a + \ln(1-\rho_1 P_2 b), \label{eq:E0}\\%E_0(\rho,\rho_1,\lambda), \\
a &= \rho \ln(1+ P' t' \lambda) + \ln(1+ P't \mu), \label{eq:a}\\
b &= \rho\lambda -\frac{\mu}{1+ P't\mu}, \label{eq:b} \\
\mu &= \frac{\rho \lambda}{1+P't'\lambda}, \\
P_2 &= 1+ \big((K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+\big)P', \label{eq:P2}\\
R_1 &= \frac{1}{nt'} \ln\binom{M - \max\{K_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t'}, \label{eq:R1
\\
R_2 &= \frac{1}{n} \ln \binom{\min\{K_{\rm a}, \overline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t}, \\
q_t &= \inf_{\gamma} \bigg(\!\P[\vect{r}{I}_{t} \!\le\! \gamma] + \sum_{t'\in \overline{{\mathcal T}}_t}\!
\exp(n(t'R_1 \!+\! R_2) \!-\! \gamma)\!\bigg), \label{eq:qt}\\
q_{t,t'} &= \inf_{\gamma} \Big(\P[\vect{r}{I}_{t} \!\le\! \gamma] + \exp(n(t'R_1 \!+\! R_2) \!-\! \gamma)\Big), \label{eq:qtt} \\
{\mathcal T} &= [0:\min\{\overline{K_{\rm a}'},K_{\rm a},M\!-\!\underline{K_{\rm a}'} \!-\! (K_{\rm a} \!-\! \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+\}], \label{eq:T} \\
{\mathcal T}_t &= \big[\big({(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ - {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})}^+ + \max\{\underline{K_{\rm a}'},1\} \big. \big. \notag \\
&\quad \quad \big. \big. - K_{\rm a} + t\big)^+ : u_t\big], \label{eq:Tt} \\
\overline{{\mathcal T}}_t &= \big[\big({(K_{\rm a} \!-\! \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ - {(K_{\rm a}\!-\!\underline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ + t\big)^+ : u_t \big], \label{eq:Tbart} \\
u_t &= \min\big\{{(\overline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})}^+ - {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})}^+ + t, \big.\notag \\
&\quad \quad \big. \overline{K_{\rm a}'} - {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\!-\!K_{\rm a})}^+, M-\max\{\underline{K_{\rm a}'},K_{\rm a}\}\big\}, \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') &=
\min_{K\colon K \ne K_{\rm a}'} \P[m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K_{\rm a}' \right) < m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K\right)], \label{eq:xi}
\end{align}
in~\eqref{eq:xi}, $\rvVec{y}_0 \sim {\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\mathbf{0},(1+K_{\rm a}P')\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$. The random variable $\vect{r}{I}_t$ in~\eqref{eq:qt} and \eqref{eq:qtt} is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_It}
\vect{r}{I}_t \triangleq \!\!\min_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}\!\! \imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{01}') + c({\mathcal W}_{02});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c([K_{\rm a}] \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)),
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal W}_{01}' = [K_{\rm a} + 1: \underline{K_{\rm a}'}]$, ${\mathcal W}_0 = [(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+] \cup {\mathcal W}_{02}$,
and
\begin{align}
&\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) \notag \\
&= n \ln(1+(t+(K_a\!\!-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+)P') + \frac{\|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)\|^2}{1+(t+(K_a\!-\!\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+)P'} \notag \\
&\quad - \|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}_0) - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)\|^2. \label{eq:infor_den}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Some remarks are in order.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,label={\roman*)}]
\item The parameters $K_{l}$ and $K_{u}$ can be taken to be the essential infimum and the essential supremum of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$, respectively. In numerical evaluation, it is often convenient to set $K_{l}$ to be the largest value and $K_{u}$ the smallest value for which $\sum_{K_{\rm a} = K_{l}}^{K_{u}}P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a})$ exceeds a predetermined threshold.
\item The term $1 - \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\left[\frac{M!}{M^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(M-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})!} \right]$ in $p_0$ can be upper-bounded by $\E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\big[\binom{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}{2}/M\big]$ as in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}.
\item The term $R_1$ in~\eqref{eq:R1} can be upper-bounded by $ \frac{1}{n} \ln (M - \max\{K_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}) - \frac{1}{nt'} \ln t'!$, which allows for a stable computation when $M - \max\{K_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}$ is large.
\item The optimal $\lambda$ in~\eqref{eq:E0} is given by the largest real root of the cubic function $c_1x^3 + c_2x^2 + c_3x + c_4$ with
\begin{align}
c_1 &= -\rho \rho_1(\rho\rho_1 + 1)t'P'P_2P_3^2,\\
c_2 &= \rho\rho_1 t'P'P_3^2 - \rho\rho_1(3-\rho_1)t'P'P_2P_3 \notag \\
&\quad -\rho\rho_1(\rho_1+1)P_2P_3^2,\\
c_3 &= (2\rho-1)\rho_1 t'P'P_3 + \rho_1 P_3^2 - 2\rho\rho_1 P_2P_3, \\
c_4 &= (\rho-1)\rho_1 t'P' + \rho_1P_3,
\end{align}
where $P_2$ is given by~\eqref{eq:P2} and $P_3 \triangleq (t' + \rho t)P'$.
\item \revise{If the number of active users is fixed to $K_{\rm a}$, by letting $K_{\rm a}' = K_{\rm a}$ with probability $1$ and \revisee{by} setting the decoding radius $r$ to $0$,
one obtains from Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa} a trivial generalization of \cite[Th.~1]{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} to the complex case.}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}]
We next present a sketch of the proof. The full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:proof}.
Denote by ${\mathcal W}_0$ the set of misdetected messages, i.e., ${\mathcal W}_0 \triangleq {\mathcal W} \setminus \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, and by ${\mathcal W}_0'$ the set of falsely alarmed messages, i.e., ${\mathcal W}_0' \triangleq \widehat{{\mathcal W}} \setminus {\mathcal W}$. The \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities, given in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA}, respectively, can be expressed as
$P_{\rm MD} = \E[\ind{|{\mathcal W}| \ne 0} \cdot \md]$ and $P_{\rm FA} = \E[\ind{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \fa]$.
At a cost of adding a constant bounded by $p_0$ given in~\eqref{eq:p0}, we first replace the measure over which the expectation is taken by the one under which: i) there are at least $K_{l}$ and at most $K_{u}$ active users; ii) $\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$ are sampled uniformly without replacement from $[M]$; iii) $\rvVec{x}_i = \vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i} \forall i,$ instead of $\rvVec{x}_i = \vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i} \ind{\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 \le nP}$.
Let $K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'$ denote the event that the estimation step outputs $K_{\rm a}'$ while $K_{\rm a}$ users are active.
Given $K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'$, note that if $\overline{K_{\rm a}'} < K_{\rm a}$, the decoder commits at least $K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'}$ \glspl{MD}; if $\underline{K_{\rm a}'} > K_{\rm a}$, the decoder commits at least $\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a}$ \glspl{FA}. We let ${\mathcal W}_0 = {\mathcal W}_{01} \cup {\mathcal W}_{02}$ where ${\mathcal W}_{01}$ denotes the list of $(\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+$ \textit{initial} \glspl{MD} due to insufficient decoded list size, and ${\mathcal W}_{02}$ the \textit{additional} \glspl{MD} occurring during decoding. Similarly, let ${\mathcal W}_0' = {\mathcal W}_{01}' \cup {\mathcal W}_{02}'$ where ${\mathcal W}_{01}'$ denotes the list of $(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})^+$ \textit{initial} \glspl{FA} due to excessive decoded list size, and ${\mathcal W}_{02}'$ the \textit{additional} \glspl{FA}. Fig.~\ref{fig:venn} depicts the
relation between these sets.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.95, every node/.style={scale=0.95}]
\def\radius{2cm}
\def\radiusB{0.9*\radius}
\def\mycolorbox#1{\textcolor{#1}{\rule{2ex}{2ex}}}
\colorlet{colori}{gray!80}
\colorlet{colorii}{gray!20}
\coordinate (ceni) at (0,0);
\coordinate[xshift=1.05*\radius] (cenii);
\coordinate (edge1a) at (-\radiusB,0.1cm);
\coordinate(edge1b) at (\radiusB,-.2cm);
\coordinate (edge2a) at (\radius-\radiusB-.1cm,.1cm);
\coordinate (edge2b) at (\radius+\radiusB+.3cm,-.2cm);
\draw[fill=colori,fill opacity=0.5] (ceni) circle (\radiusB);
\draw[fill=colorii,fill opacity=0.5] (cenii) circle (\radius);
\draw (ceni) circle (\radiusB);
\draw (edge1a) to (edge2a);
\draw (edge1b) to (edge2b);
\draw[-latex] (-\radius,-0.6*\radius) node[below,xshift=-.4cm,text width=2cm,align=center] {\small Transmitted messages ${\mathcal W}$} -- (-0.77*\radius,-0.5*\radius);
\draw[-latex] (2.13*\radius,-0.6*\radius) node[below,xshift=.3cm,text width=2cm,align=center] {\small Decoded messages $\widehat{{\mathcal W}}$} -- (1.93*\radius,-0.5*\radius);
\node[yshift=1.1*\radius,xshift=-1.25cm,text width=4cm,align=center] {\small \glspl{MD}: \\ ${\mathcal W}_0 = {\mathcal W}_{01} \cup {\mathcal W}_{02} = {\mathcal W} \setminus \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$};
\node[yshift=1.2*\radius,xshift=1.25cm,text width=4cm,align=center] at (cenii) {\small \glspl{FA}: \\ ${\mathcal W}_0' = {\mathcal W}'_{01} \cup {\mathcal W}'_{02} = \widehat{{\mathcal W}} \setminus {\mathcal W}$};
\node[xshift=.93cm,text width=1.2cm,align=center] at (ceni) {\small correctly decoded messages ${\mathcal W} \cap \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$};
\node[yshift=.8\radius,xshift=-.62cm,text width=2.1cm,align=center] at (ceni) {\small $~~~~(\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+$ initial \glspl{MD} $~~~{\mathcal W}_{01}~~~$};
\node[yshift=-.8\radius,xshift=-.7\radius,text width=1.5cm,align=center] at (ceni) {\small additional \glspl{MD} $~~~{\mathcal W}_{02}~~~$};
\node[yshift=.7\radius,xshift=.6\radius,text width=1.5cm,align=center] at (cenii) {\small $(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})^+$ initial \glspl{FA} $~~~{\mathcal W}'_{01}~~~$};
\node[yshift=-1cm,xshift=.7\radius,text width=1.5cm,align=center] at (cenii) {\small additional \glspl{FA} $~~~{\mathcal W}'_{02}~~~$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A diagram depicting the relation between the defined sets of messages.}
\label{fig:venn}
\end{figure}
Using the above definitions, the set of transmitted messages is ${\mathcal W} = {\mathcal W}_{01} \cup {\mathcal W}_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)$, and the received signal is $\rvVec{y} = c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02}) + c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) + \rvVec{z}$. Since the messages in ${\mathcal W}_{01}$ are always misdetected and the messages in ${\mathcal W}_{01}'$ are always falsely alarmed, the best approximation of ${\mathcal W}$ that the decoder can produce is ${\mathcal W}_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) \cup {\mathcal W}_{01}'$. However, under the considered error event ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, the actual decoded list is ${\mathcal W}'_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) \cup {\mathcal W}_{01}'$. Therefore, ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$ implies the event $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}') \triangleq \big\{\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02})- c({\mathcal W}_{01}') - c({\mathcal W}_{02}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2 < \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) - c({\mathcal W}_{01}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2 \big\}$.
It follows that, after the change of measure, $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$ can be bounded as
\begin{align}
P_{\rm MD} &\le \sum_{K_{\rm a} =\max\{K_{l},1\}}^{K_{u}} \!\!\bigg(P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}}\frac{t+(K_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+}{K_{\rm a}} \notag \\
&\qquad \cdot \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \bigg) + p_0, \\
P_{\rm FA} &\le \sum_{K_{\rm a} =K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \bigg(P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}} \sum_{t' \in {\mathcal T}_t} \notag \\
&\qquad \frac{t+(\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+}{K_{\rm a} \!-\! t \!-\! {(K_{\rm a} \!-\! \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ \!\!+\! t' \!+\! {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\!-\!K_{\rm a})}^+\!} \notag \\
&\qquad \cdot \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \bigg) \!+\! p_0, \label{eq:tmp853}
\end{align}
where ${\mathcal T}$ and ${\mathcal T}_t$ are given by~\eqref{eq:T} and \eqref{eq:Tt}, respectively. The constraint $t \in {\mathcal T}$ holds because the number of \glspl{MD}, given by $t+{(K_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+$, is upper-bounded by the total number of transmitted messages $K_{\rm a}$, and by $M-\underline{K_{\rm a}'}$ (since at least $\underline{K_{\rm a}'}$ messages are returned). The constraint $t' \in {\mathcal T}_t$ holds because: i) the decoded list size, given by $K_{\rm a} - t - {(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ + t' + {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})}^+$, must be in $[\underline{K_{\rm a}'} : \overline{K_{\rm a}'}]$ and must be positive since the event $|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| = 0$ results in no \gls{FA} by definition; ii) the number of \glspl{FA}, given by $t'+ (\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})^+$, is upper-bounded by the number of messages that are not transmitted $M-K_{\rm a}$, and by the maximal number of decoded messages $\overline{K_{\rm a}'}$.
\revisee{Let $A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \triangleq
\{\rvVec{y} \colon K_{\rm a}' = \arg\min_{K \in [K_l : K_u]} m(\rvVec{y},K) \}$.}
Since the event $K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'$ implies $|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]$ and $A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\
&\le \P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}],A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')}] \\
&\le \min\big\{\P\big({|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}\big), \P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')] \big\}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t,|{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'}] \le \min\Big\{\P\Big[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| \!=\! t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\!\in\! [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]\Big]$, $\P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')] \Big\}.$
Under the new measure, $\rvVec{y} \sim {\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\mathbf{0},(1+K_{\rm a} P')\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$. Thus, we can show that $\P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')]$ is upper-bounded by $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ given by~\eqref{eq:xi}. To establish \eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA}, we proceed as in \cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, write the events $\{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \!\in\! [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]\}$ and $\{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t,|{\mathcal W}_{02}'| \!=\! t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\!\in\! [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]\}$ as the union of
$F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}')$ events, and bound their probabilities by $\min\{p_t, q_t\}$ and $\min\{p_{t,t'}, q_{t,t'}\}$, respectively.
\revisee{Finally, to guarantee that {\em both} \eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA} are satisfied, we allow for randomized coding strategies, by introducing the variable $\vect{r}{U}$, which acts as common randomness. Proceeding as in \cite[Th.~19]{Polyanskiy2011feedback}, one can show that
it is sufficient to perform randomization across (at most) three deterministic codes, i.e., $|{\mathcal U}|\le 3$.}
\end{proof}
In the following proposition, we derive $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ for two different estimators of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:xi}
For the \gls{ML} estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$, i.e., $m(\vect{y},K) \!=\! -\ln p_{\rvVec{y} | \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(\vect{y} | K)$, $\xi(K_{\rm a}, K_{\rm a}')$ is given by
\begin{align} \label{eq:xi_ML}
\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') &\triangleq \min_{K:\; K \ne K_{\rm a}'} \!\Big(\ind{K \!<\! K_{\rm a}'}\frac{\Gamma(n,\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')}{\Gamma(n)} \notag \\
& \qquad ~~ + \ind{K \!>\! K_{\rm a}'}\frac{\gamma(n,\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}'))}{\Gamma(n)}\Big),
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') &\triangleq n \ln\left(\frac{1+KP'}{1+K_{\rm a}'P'}\right)(1+K_{\rm a}P')^{-1} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \left(\frac{1}{1+K_{\rm a}'P'}-\frac{1}{1+KP'}\right)^{-1}. \label{eq:zeta_ML}
\end{align}
For an energy-based estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ with $m(\vect{y},K) = |\|\vect{y}\|^2 - n(1 + KP')|$, $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ is given by~\eqref{eq:xi_ML} with \begin{align}
\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \triangleq \frac{n}{1+K_{\rm a}P'}\left(1+\frac{K + K_{\rm a}'}{2}P'\right). \label{eq:zeta_energy}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\ref{proof:xi}.
\end{proof}
\revisee{The decoding radius $r$ can be optimized according to the target \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities. A large decoding radius reduces the initial \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA} at the cost of overfitting, especially at low SNR values. Specifically, when the noise dominates, increasing $r$ increases the chance that the decoder~\eqref{eq:decoder_Ka'} returns a list whose sum is closer in Euclidean distance to the noise than to the sum of the transmitted codewords.}
Our random-coding bound can also be applied to \revisee{SA-MPR} to investigate the resulting \gls{MD}--\gls{FA} trade-off. Consider an \revisee{SA-MPR} scheme where a length-$n$ frame is divided into $L$ slots and each user chooses randomly a slot to transmit. For $K_{\rm a}$ active users, the number of users transmitting in a slot follows a Binomial distribution with parameter $(K_{\rm a},1/L)$.
The \gls{PMF} of the number of active users per slot, denoted by $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm {SA}}$, is given by
$P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm {SA}}}(K_{\rm SA}) = \sum_{K_{\rm a}} P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \binom{K_{\rm a}}{K_{\rm SA}} L^{-K_{\rm SA}}\left(1-\frac{1}{L}\right)^{K_{\rm a} - K_{\rm SA}}$.
Existing analyses of slotted ALOHA usually assume that the decoder can detect perfectly if no signal, one signal, or more than one signal have been transmitted in a slot. Furthermore, it is usually assumed that a collision-free slot leads to successful message decoding. However, the more slots, the shorter the slot length over which a user transmits its signal.
To account for both detection and decoding errors, in Corollary~\ref{coro:slotted_ALOHA} below, we apply our decoder in a slot-by-slot manner, and obtain a random-coding bound similar to Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}.
\begin{corollary} \label{coro:slotted_ALOHA}
For the Gaussian \gls{MAC} with the number of active users following $P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$ and frame length $n$, an SA-MPR scheme with $L$ slots can achieve the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities given in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA}, respectively, with codebook size $M$, codeword length $n/L$, power constraint $PL$, and per-slot number of active users following $P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm {SA}}}$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Numerical Evaluation} \label{sec:numerical}
In this section, we numerically evaluate the proposed random-coding bound and compare it with \revisee{the} random-access \revisee{bound/}schemes \revisee{in\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access,Fengler2019sparcs,Amalladinne2020unsourced}}. We assume that $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ follows a Poisson distribution.
We consider $k \triangleq \log_2 M = 128$ bits and $n = 19200$ complex channel uses (i.e., $38400$ real degrees of freedom). The power is given in terms of average bit energy $\EbNo \triangleq nP/k$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\definecolor{magenta}{rgb}{1.00000,0.00000,1.00000
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\scriptsize]
\begin{axis}
width=3in,
height=2in,
at={(0.759in,0.481in)},
scale only axis,
xmin=0,
xmax=300,
xlabel style={font=\color{black},yshift=1ex},
xlabel={\footnotesize Average number of active users $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$},
ymin=-2,
ymax=12,
ytick={-2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12},
ylabel style={font=\color{black}, yshift=-3.2ex},
ylabel={\footnotesize Required $\EbNo$ (dB)},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
xmajorgrids,
ymajorgrids,
legend style={at={(0.05,-0.18)}, anchor=north west, row sep=-2.5pt, legend cell align=left, align=left, draw=white!15!black}
]
\addplot [color=green,line width=1pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
17 .7030 \\
20 0.6092 \\
25 0.6042 \\
50 0.6120 \\
75 0.6370 \\
100 0.6701 \\
125 0.7329 \\
150 0.9365 \\
175 1.2155 \\
200 1.5259 \\
225 1.8565 \\
250 2.2029 \\
275 2.5685 \\
300 2.9512 \\
};
\addplot [color=blue, dashed,line width=1pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
2 -0.2898 \\% -0.1183\\
10 -0.0988 \\% 0.0906\\
25 0.0146 \\
50 0.1275 \\
75 0.1615 \\
100 0.1974 \\
125 0.3502 \\
150 0.5912 \\
175 0.8533 \\
200 1.1264 \\
225 1.4078 \\
250 1.6960 \\
275 1.9234 \\
300 2.2876 \\%2.3253\\
};
\addplot [color=magenta, line width=.8pt, mark=*, mark size=1.5pt, mark options={solid,color = magenta,fill=white}]
table[row sep=crcr]
5 -0.5104 \\
10 -0.3337\\
25 0.5329\\
50 1.5650\\
75 2.8320\\
100 3.7426\\
125 4.7103\\
150 5.8035\\
175 6.8849\\
200 8.0970\\
225 8.9092\\
250 10.1469\\
275 11.3445\\
300 13.0720\\
};
\addplot [color=magenta, line width=.8pt, mark size=1.5pt, mark=square*, mark options={solid,color = magenta,fill=white},dashed]
table[row sep=crcr]
10 -.4161\\
25 .47 \\
50 1.2404 \\
75 2.3500 \\
100 3.3268 \\
125 4.4576 \\
150 5.4664 \\
175 6.5878 \\
200 7.7616 \\
225 8.4016 \\
250 9.5047 \\
275 10.8719 \\
300 12.1196 \\
};
\addplot [color=magenta, line width=.8pt, mark size=1.5pt, mark=*, mark options={solid, magenta}]
table[row sep=crcr]
5 -0.6204 \\
10 -0.5139 \\
25 0.3957 \\
50 1.2324 \\
75 2.1412 \\
100 3.2419\\
125 4.2234 \\
150 5.2535 \\
175 6.2287\\
200 7.2511\\
225 8.1388\\
250 9.1707\\
275 10.2813\\
300 11.8315 \\
};
\addplot [color=magenta, dashed, line width=.8pt, mark size=1.3pt, mark=square*, mark options={solid,color = magenta}]
table[row sep=crcr]
5 -.2949 \\
10 -.4201 \\
25 0.2775 \\
50 1.0264 \\
75 1.8417 \\
100 2.8363 \\
125 3.9383 \\
150 4.8895 \\
175 5.8534 \\
200 6.7662 \\
225 7.5140 \\
250 8.4517 \\
275 9.8268 \\
300 10.8815 \\
};
\addplot [color=orange, mark=x, line width=.8pt, mark size=2pt, mark options={solid, orange}]
table[row sep=crcr]
15 1.889065225218457877e+00 \\
20 1.829007583756270039e+00 \\
50 2.152915984617741252e+00 \\
75 2.35993197933708437e+00 \\
100 2.5614794499550815 \\
125 2.8702 \\
150 3.2059 \\
175 3.6287 \\
200 4.2303 \\
225 4.6432 \\
250 5.1734 \\
300 6.6150 \\
};
\addplot [color=orange, mark=+, line width=.8pt, mark size=2pt, mark options={solid, orange}]
table[row sep=crcr]
15 3.0828 \\
25 3.0260 \\
50 3.1830 \\
75 3.2404 \\
100 3.2987687520233147\\
125 3.3769650702680227 \\
150 3.5981 \\
175 4.0657 \\
200 4.5905 \\
225 4.9590 \\
250 5.5682 \\
300 7.0733 \\
};
\draw [color=gray] (200,12) node [below,xshift=5pt,yshift=1pt,color=black] {\cite[Th.~1]{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}} -- (194,30);
\draw [color=gray] (260,12) node [below,xshift=5pt,yshift=1pt,color=black] {{Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}}} -- (245,41);
\draw [black] (275,120) ellipse [x radius=5, y radius=6];
\draw [color=gray] (200,127) node [left,color=black,xshift=4pt,yshift=0pt,text width=1.9cm,align=center] {{SA-MPR with slot-index coding}} -- (272,124);
\draw [black] (200,100.5) ellipse [x radius=5, y radius=6];
\draw [color=gray] (100,115) node [left,color=black] {{SA-MPR}} -- (196,104);
\draw [color=gray] (26,75) node [above,color=black,xshift=0pt,yshift=-2pt,text width=1.5cm,align=center] {SPARC~\cite{Fengler2019sparcs}} -- (32,51);
\draw [color=gray] (120,12) node [below,color=black,xshift=5pt,yshift=1pt] {Enhanced SPARC~\cite{Amalladinne2020unsourced}} -- (112,47);
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture
\caption{The required $\EbNo$ to achieve $\max\{P_{\rm MD}, P_{\rm FA}\} \le 0.1$ vs. $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$ for $k=128$ bits, $n = 19200$ channel uses, and $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}])$. We compare our random coding bound (Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}) and SA-MPR bound (Corollary~\ref{coro:slotted_ALOHA}) with the bound in~\cite[Th.~1]{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} for $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ known, and two practical schemes, namely,
the SPARC scheme~\cite{Fengler2019sparcs}, and its enhancement~\cite{Amalladinne2020unsourced}.
Solid lines represent schemes/bounds with $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ unknown; dashed lines represent schemes/bounds with $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ known.}
\label{fig:EbN0_vs_EKa}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:EbN0_vs_EKa}, we compare our random-coding bound with that of Polyanskiy~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} in terms of the required $\EbNo$ so that neither $P_{\rm MD}$ nor $P_{\rm FA}$ exceed $0.1$. For our bound, we consider the \gls{ML} estimator of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and zero decoding radius, i.e., $\overline{K_{\rm a}'} = \underline{K_{\rm a}'} = K_{\rm a}'$. Numerical evaluation suggests that this choice is optimal for these target MD and FA probabilities. \revise{We choose $K_l$ to be the largest value and $K_u$ the smallest value for which $\P[{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \notin [K_l,K_u]}] < 10^{-9}$. The $q_t$ and $q_{t,t'}$ terms are evaluated for $t = 1$ and $K_{\rm a} \le 50$ only.} For the bound in \cite[Th.~1]{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, we average over the Poisson distribution of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$. This corresponds to the scenario where $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ is random but known. As can be seen, the extra required $\EbNo$ due to the lack of knowledge of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ is about $0.5$--$0.7$~dB.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:EbN0_vs_EKa}, we also show the performance of the SA-MPR bound given in Corollary~\ref{coro:slotted_ALOHA}, where we
optimize $L$ and the decoding radius for each $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$. We also consider the possibility to encode $\lfloor \log_2 L\rfloor$ extra bits for each user in the slot index, and assume perfect decoding of these bits. We refer to this scheme as SA-MPR with slot-index coding. We also evaluate the performance of two practical schemes, namely:
\begin{itemize}
\item the SPARC scheme proposed in~\cite{Fengler2019sparcs}, which employs a concatenated coding framework with an inner approximate message passing~(AMP) decoder followed by an outer tree decoder.
\item an enhancement of the SPARC scheme proposed in~\cite{Amalladinne2020unsourced}, which we refer to as enhanced SPARC. This scheme introduces belief propagation between the inner AMP decoder and the outer tree decoder in an iterative manner.
\end{itemize}
Note that
the SPARC and enhanced SPARC schemes were proposed for the Gaussian \gls{MAC} with \textit{known} number of active users. To adapt these schemes to the case where $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ is unknown, we employ an energy-based estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$, then treat this estimate as the true $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ in the decoding process. From Fig.~\ref{fig:EbN0_vs_EKa}, we see that SA-MPR, even with slot-index coding, becomes power inefficient as $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$ increases.
The enhanced SPARC scheme achieves the closest performance to our bound for $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] \ge 100$. It outperforms the original SPARC scheme by about $0.5$~dB for large $\E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}]$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Pe_vs_EbN0}, we plot the bounds on the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities in Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa} (with ML estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$) as a function of $\EbNo$ for different decoding radii. We observe that decoding with a small radius performs better in the low $\EbNo$ regime, where noise overfitting is the bottleneck. Increasing the decoding radius improves the performance in the moderate and high $\EbNo$ regime, where setting $r=0$ results in a high error floor due to the initial \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA}. The error floor can be characterized analytically (see Appendix~\ref{app:error_floor})
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\definecolor{magenta}{rgb}{1.00000,0.00000,1.00000
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\scriptsize]
\begin{axis}
width=2.95in,
height=1.8in,
at={(0.759in,0.481in)},
scale only axis,
xmin=0,
xmax=20,
xlabel style={font=\color{black},yshift=1ex},
xlabel={\footnotesize $\EbNo$ (dB)},
ymin=7e-7,
ymax=1,
ymode = log,
yminorticks=true,
ytick={1e0, 1e-1, 1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5, 1e-6},
ylabel style={font=\color{black}, yshift=-1.8ex},
ylabel={\footnotesize MD and FA probabilities},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
xmajorgrids,
ymajorgrids,
legend style={at={(0.99,0.99)}, anchor=north east, row sep=-2.5pt, legend cell align=left, align=left, draw=white!15!black}
]
\addplot [color=blue,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000 \\
0.500000000000000 0.146777707087554 \\
1.000000000000000 0.038501093391244 \\
1.500000000000000 0.025850383046193\\
2.000000000000000 0.021772071891965\\
2.500000000000000 0.018617775903273\\
3.000000000000000 0.016009283961793\\
3.500000000000000 0.013843186229793\\
4.000000000000000 0.012038715623758\\
4.500000000000000 0.010530615259555\\
5.000000000000000 0.009266057894810\\
5.500000000000000 0.008202197353721\\
6.000000000000000 0.007304145833348\\
7.000000000000000 0.005891122825509\\
8.000000000000000 0.004865075446055\\
9.000000000000000 0.004110837384321\\
10.000000000000000 0.003550069416826\\
11.000000000000000 0.003128846290549\\
12.000000000000000 0.002809571621660\\
13.000000000000000 0.002565675254348\\
14.000000000000000 0.002377690090178\\
15.000000000000000 0.002232321446917\\
16.000000000000000 0.002119370070190\\
17.000000000000000 0.002031256355991\\
18.000000000000000 0.001962289459717\\
19.000000000000000 0.001908159498677\\
20.000000000000000 0.001865577583167\\
};
\addlegendentry{$\epsilon_{\rm MD}$}
\addplot [color=blue,dashed,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000 \\
0.500000000000000 0.148101484266278 \\
1.000000000000000 0.038379904912468 \\
1.500000000000000 0.025609324195977 \\
2.000000000000000 0.021620294401635 \\
2.500000000000000 0.018549309949211 \\
3.000000000000000 0.015998992729046 \\
3.500000000000000 0.013872663930583 \\
4.000000000000000 0.012094931632125 \\
4.500000000000000 0.010604389871631 \\
5.000000000000000 0.009350962273943 \\
5.500000000000000 0.008293764145908 \\
6.000000000000000 0.007399234886732 \\
7.000000000000000 0.005987926360951 \\
8.000000000000000 0.004959840714961 \\
9.000000000000000 0.004202242566935 \\
10.000000000000000 0.003637935254935 \\
11.000000000000000 0.003213481211418 \\
12.000000000000000 0.002891445308809 \\
13.000000000000000 0.002645266730529 \\
14.000000000000000 0.002455441589217 \\
15.000000000000000 0.002308576012215 \\
16.000000000000000 0.002194423499029 \\
17.000000000000000 0.002105348035991 \\
18.000000000000000 0.002035612027232 \\
19.000000000000000 0.001980867561597 \\
20.000000000000000 0.001937795049910 \\
};
\addlegendentry{$\epsilon_{\rm FA}$}
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 0.001704144946427 \\
20 0.001704144946427 \\
};
\addlegendentry{Error floor}
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 0.001774442973898 \\
20 0.001774442973898 \\
};
\addplot [color=blue,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000\\
0.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.000000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
2.000000000000000 0.079465507503007\\
2.500000000000000 0.033068587453746\\
3.000000000000000 0.007071139952214\\
3.500000000000000 0.004781463371322\\
4.000000000000000 0.003772564460892\\
4.500000000000000 0.003022039388262\\
5.000000000000000 0.002495748575896\\
5.500000000000000 0.001949281367915\\
6.000000000000000 0.001576417581834\\
7.000000000000000 0.001047338502548\\
8.000000000000000 0.000713831162347\\
9.000000000000000 0.000501282020659\\
10.000000000000000 0.000364090279862\\
11.000000000000000 0.000274299830336\\
12.000000000000000 0.000214431261303\\
13.000000000000000 0.000173702742435\\
14.000000000000000 0.000145309250922\\
15.000000000000000 0.000125189787585\\
16.000000000000000 0.000110685421613\\
17.000000000000000 0.000100057695447\\
18.000000000000000 0.000092159424436\\
19.000000000000000 0.000086218208996\\
20.000000000000000 0.000081703460546\\
};
\addplot [color=blue,dashed,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000\\
0.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.000000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
2.000000000000000 0.388947507083411\\
2.500000000000000 0.220434978322149\\
3.000000000000000 0.111904745603824\\
3.500000000000000 0.096740896056475\\
4.000000000000000 0.089566128141456\\
4.500000000000000 0.083465134416361\\
5.000000000000000 0.003722992569717\\
5.500000000000000 0.002101844797902\\
6.000000000000000 0.001709628815437\\
7.000000000000000 0.001153906415675\\
8.000000000000000 0.000799477796390\\
9.000000000000000 0.000570967871549\\
10.000000000000000 0.000421525451198\\
11.000000000000000 0.000322480505532\\
12.000000000000000 0.000255637149437\\
13.000000000000000 0.000209649451649\\
14.000000000000000 0.000177328451787\\
15.000000000000000 0.000154178705677\\
16.000000000000000 0.000137362385795\\
17.000000000000000 0.000124961411813\\
18.000000000000000 0.000115696043535\\
19.000000000000000 0.000108695811219\\
20.000000000000000 0.000103357198913\\
};
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 6.596366572455718e-05 \\
20 6.596366572455718e-05 \\
};
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 8.468424489119134e-05 \\
20 8.468424489119134e-05 \\
};
\addplot [color=blue,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000\\
0.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.000000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
2.000000000000000 0.371347651566337\\
2.500000000000000 0.104903277919702\\
3.000000000000000 0.026824695964395\\
3.500000000000000 0.003293703095084\\
4.000000000000000 0.000989809288806\\
4.500000000000000 0.000726657389976\\
5.000000000000000 0.000467791041960\\
5.500000000000000 0.000316023082713\\
6.000000000000000 0.000222432120851\\
7.000000000000000 0.000111613752367\\
8.000000000000000 0.000057888750466\\
9.000000000000000 0.000031379359686\\
10.000000000000000 0.000018024561585\\
11.000000000000000 0.000011056340908\\
12.000000000000000 0.000007251475433\\
13.000000000000000 0.000005059480403\\
14.000000000000000 0.000003745317576\\
15.000000000000000 0.000002916710074\\
16.000000000000000 0.000002375337933\\
17.000000000000000 0.000002009188516\\
18.000000000000000 0.000001754146781\\
19.000000000000000 0.000001572056363\\
20.000000000000000 0.000001438968208\\
};
\addplot [color=blue,dashed,line width=0.5pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.000000000000000\\
0.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.000000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
1.500000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
2.000000000000000 1.000000000000000\\
2.500000000000000 0.879722959591974\\
3.000000000000000 0.462610389296507\\
3.500000000000000 0.248376287959890\\
4.000000000000000 0.221089032429527\\
4.500000000000000 0.208364737070244\\
5.000000000000000 0.001001165755560\\
5.500000000000000 0.000383865642598\\
6.000000000000000 0.000275367786392\\
7.000000000000000 0.000144538657683\\
8.000000000000000 0.000078493487920\\
9.000000000000000 0.000044624176381\\
10.000000000000000 0.000026765448010\\
11.000000000000000 0.000017067693361\\
12.000000000000000 0.000011577483590\\
13.000000000000000 0.000008325764519\\
14.000000000000000 0.000006317145206\\
15.000000000000000 0.000005020374956\\
16.000000000000000 0.000004156985782\\
17.000000000000000 0.000003563938514\\
18.000000000000000 0.000003145616116\\
19.000000000000000 0.000002843890150\\
20.000000000000000 0.000002622481408\\
};
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.112629875990382e-06 \\
20 1.112629875990382e-06 \\
};
\addplot [color=black,dashdotted,line width=0.8pt]
table[row sep=crcr]
0 1.997909370360383e-06 \\
20 1.997909370360383e-06 \\
};
\draw [black] (191,-9.3) ellipse [x radius=2, y radius=.7];
\draw [-latex] (180,-7.4) node [left] {Decoding radius $r = 1$} -- (190,-8.6);
\draw [-latex] (180,-4.5) node [left] {Decoding radius $r = 0$} -- (190,-6.2);
\draw [black] (191.5,-13.2) ellipse [x radius=2.5, y radius=.85];
\draw [-latex] (180,-10.8) node [left] {Decoding radius $r = 2$} -- (191,-12.3);
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture
\caption{The bounds on the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities vs. $\EbNo$ for $k=128$ bits, $n = 19200$ channel uses, and $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(50)$.}
\label{fig:Pe_vs_EbN0}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
We proposed a formulation for massive uncoordinated access where both the identity and the number of active users are unknown. We derived a random-coding bound for the Gaussian multiple access channel that reveals a trade-off between misdetection and false alarm. Our bound \revisee{provides an estimate of} the penalty in terms of energy efficiency due to the lack of knowledge of the number of active users, and serves as a benchmark to assess the performance of practical schemes. Possible future works include extending our bound to the \gls{MAC} with fading and multiple antennas.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work has been supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP).
\appendices
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}} \label{app:proof}
The following well-known results will be used in our proof.
\begin{lemma}[{Change of measure~\cite[Lemma~4]{Ohnishi2020novel}}] \label{lem:change_measure}
Let $p$ and $q$ be two probability measures. Consider a random variable $\vect{r}{x}$ supported on ${\mathcal H}$ and a function $f \colon {\mathcal H} \to [0,1]$. It holds that
\begin{align}
\E_p[f(\vect{r}{x})] \le \E_q[f(\vect{r}{x})] + d_{\rm TV}(p,q)
\end{align}
where $d_{\rm TV}(p,q)$ denotes the total variation distance between $p$ and $q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[{Chernoff bound~\cite[Th. 6.2.7]{DeGroot2012ProbStats}}] \label{lem:Chernoff}
For a random variable $\vect{r}{x}$ with moment-generating function $\E[e^{t \vect{r}{x}}]$ defined for all $|t| \le b$, it holds for all $\lambda \in [0,b]$ that
\begin{align}
\P[\vect{r}{x} \le x] \le e^{\lambda x} \E[e^{-\lambda \vect{r}{x}}].
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} [{Gallager's $\rho$-trick~\cite[p.~136]{Gallager1968information}}] \label{lem:Gallager}
It holds that $\P[\cup_i A_i] \le (\sum_{i} \P[A_i])^\rho$ for every $\rho \in [0,1]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:chi2}
Let $\rvVec{x} \sim {\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\vect{\mu},\sigma^2\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$. For all $\gamma > -\frac{1}{\sigma^2}$, it holds that
\begin{align}
\E[e^{-\gamma \|\rvVec{x}\|^2}] = (1+\gamma\sigma^2)^{-n} \exp\bigg(-\frac{\gamma\|\vect{\mu}\|^2}{1+\gamma\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:tmp363}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
We present next an error analysis of the random-coding scheme introduced in Section~\ref{sec:RCU}.
Denote by ${\mathcal W}_0$ the set of misdetected messages, i.e., ${\mathcal W}_0 \triangleq {\mathcal W} \setminus \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, and by ${\mathcal W}_0'$ the set of falsely alarmed messages, i.e., ${\mathcal W}_0' \triangleq \widehat{{\mathcal W}} \setminus {\mathcal W}$. The \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities, defined respectively in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA}, can be expressed as the average fraction of misdetected and falsely alarmed messages, respectively, i.e.,
\begin{align}
P_{\rm MD} &= \E[\ind{|{\mathcal W}| \ne 0} \cdot \md], \label{eq:pMD}\\
P_{\rm FA} &= \E[\ind{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \fa]. \label{eq:pFA}
\end{align}
\subsection{A Change of Measure} \label{sec:change_measure}
Recall that $|{\mathcal W}|$ is the number of {\em distinct} transmitted messages. Since multiple transmitters may pick the same codeword to transmit, $|{\mathcal W}|$ can be smaller than $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$. Since both $\ind{|{\mathcal W}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal W}_0|}{|{\mathcal W}|}$ and $\ind{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal W}_0'|}{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|}$ are nonnegative and upper-bounded by one, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:change_measure} to these random quantities. Specifically, we replace the measure over which the expectation is taken by the one under which:
i) there are at least $K_{l}$ and at most $K_{u} \ge \overline{K_{\rm a}'}$ active users, i.e., $K_{l}\le\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \le K_{u}$; ii) $\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}$ are sampled uniformly without replacement from $[M]$, i.e., $|{\mathcal W}| = \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$; iii) $\rvVec{x}_i = \vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}, \forall i$ (instead of $\rvVec{x}_i = \vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i} \ind{\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 \le nP}$).
It then follows from \cite[Eq. (41)]{Kowshik2020fundamental} that the total variation between the true measure and the new one is
upper-bounded by $\P[{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \notin [K_{l}:K_u]}] + \P[ |{\mathcal W}| < \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] + \P[\overline{U}]$, where
$U \triangleq \{\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 \le nP, \forall i \in [\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] \}$ and $\overline{U}$ denotes the complement of~$U$.
We compute these probabilities
as follows:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item To compute the first probability, we simply use that $\P[{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} \notin [K_{l}:K_u]}] = 1 - \sum_{K_{\rm a} = K_{l}}^{K_{u}}P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a})$.
\item Consider a given $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} = K_{\rm a}$. Since $\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_1,\dots,\widetilde{\vect{r}{w}}_{K_{\rm a}}$ are drawn uniformly and independently from $[M]$, there are $M^{K_{\rm a}}$ possible $K_{\rm a}$-tuples. Among them, $\frac{M!}{(M-K_{\rm a})!}$ tuples have nonduplicate elements. Therefore, $\P[ |{\mathcal W}| = K_{\rm a} \,\vert\, \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} = K_{\rm a}] = \frac{M!}{(M-K_{\rm a})!} \frac{1}{M^{K_{\rm a}}}$. As a consequence, $\P[ |{\mathcal W}| < \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] = 1 - \P[ |{\mathcal W}| = \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] = 1- \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\Big[\frac{M!}{M^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(M-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})!}\Big]$.\footnote{In~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access}, $\P[ |{\mathcal W}| \le K_{\rm a}]$ is upper-bounded by $\binom{K_{\rm a}}{2}/M$ using the union bound.}
\item The probability $\P[\overline{U}]$ can be finally evaluated as
\begin{align}
\P[\overline{U}] &= \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\Bigg[{\P[\bigcup_{i=1}^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}} \|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 > nP]}\Bigg] \\
&\le \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}} \Bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}{\P[\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2 > nP]}\Bigg] \label{eq:tmp675}\\
&= \E[\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}] \frac{\Gamma(n,nP/P')}{\Gamma(n)}, \label{eq:tmp676}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:tmp675} follows from the union bound and \eqref{eq:tmp676} holds since $\|\vect{c}_{\vect{r}{w}_i}\|^2$ follows the Gamma distribution with shape $n$ and scale $P'$.
\end{itemize}
From the above calculations, we deduce that the total variation between the two measures is upper-bounded by $p_0$ defined in~\eqref{eq:p0}.
Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:change_measure} to the random quantities $\ind{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal W}_0|}{|{\mathcal W}|}$ and $\ind{|{\mathcal W}| \ne 0} \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal W}_0'|}{|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|}$, we consider implicitly the new measure from now on at a cost of adding $p_0$ to their original expectations. It remains to bound the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities given in~\eqref{eq:pMD} and \eqref{eq:pFA}, respectively, under the new measure. For the sake of clarity, in Appendix~\ref{sec:special_case}, we shall prove a bound on $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$ for a special case where i) $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\vect{r}{K}'_{\rm a}$ are fixed and $r = 0$, i.e., there are always $K_{\rm a}$ users transmitting and the decoder always outputs a list of size $K'_{\rm a}$; ii) $K'_{\rm a} < \min\{K_{\rm a}, M-K_{\rm a}\}$. Then, in Appendix~\ref{sec:general_case}, we shall show how to extend the proof for the general case where $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\vect{r}{K}'_{\rm a}$ are random and $r \ge 0$.
\subsection{A Special Case} \label{sec:special_case}
In the aforementioned special case, \eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA} become
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{\rm MD} &= \sum_{t = 0}^{K_{\rm a}'}\frac{t+K_{\rm a}-K_{\rm a}'}{K_{\rm a}} \min\{p_{t,t},q_{t,t}\} + p_0, \label{eq:eps_MD_simp}\\
\epsilon_{\rm FA} &= \sum_{t = 0}^{K_{\rm a}'} \frac{t}{K'_{\rm a}} \min\{p_{t,t}, q_{t,t}\} + p_0, \label{eq:eps_FA_simp}
\end{align}
where $p_{t,t}$ and $q_{t,t}$ will be derived next. We next show that $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$ are indeed upper-bounds of $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$, respectively, in this special case.
Observe that since the decoded list size $K'_{\rm a}$ is smaller than the number of transmitted messages $K_{\rm a}$, at least $K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'}$ messages are misdetected by default, and there can be $t \in [0:K_{\rm a}']$ additional \glspl{MD} occurring during the decoding process. Due to symmetry, we can assume without loss of generality that ${\mathcal W} = [K_{\rm a}]$ and that the list of messages that are initially misdetected due to insufficient decoded list size is ${\mathcal W}_{01} = [{K}_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'}]$.\footnote{Note that due to user's identity ambiguity, this does not imply that the messages from a set of specific users are always misdetected.} Furthermore, let ${\mathcal W}_{02} = {\mathcal W}_{0} \setminus {\mathcal W}_{01}$ denote the set of $t$ additional \glspl{MD}. Note that ${\mathcal W}_{02}$ is a generic subset of $[K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}]$. Note also that $t$ is the number of \glspl{FA}, i.e., $|{\mathcal W}_0'| = t$.
The set of transmitted messages can thus be expressed as ${\mathcal W} = {\mathcal W}_{01} \cup {\mathcal W}_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)$, and the received signal is $\rvVec{y} = c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02}) + c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) + \rvVec{z}$. Since the messages in ${\mathcal W}_{01}$ are always misdetected, the best approximation of ${\mathcal W}$ that the decoder can produce is ${\mathcal W}_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)$. However, under the considered error event ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, the actual decoded list is ${\mathcal W}_{0}' \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)$. Therefore, ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$ implies that $\|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}_{0}') - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)\|^2 < \|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}_{02}) - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0))\|^2$, which is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02})- c({\mathcal W}_{0}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2 < \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2. \label{eq:eventF_simp}
\end{align}
We denote by $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')$ the set of $\{{\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}'\}$ that satisfy~\eqref{eq:eventF_simp}.
We now compute the expectations in~\eqref{eq:pMD} and \eqref{eq:pFA}.
Recall that, under assumptions just stated, we have $|{\mathcal W}_0| = t + K_{\rm a} - K'_{\rm a}$, $|{\mathcal W}_0'| = |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t$, and $|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| = K'_{\rm a}$.
It follows from \eqref{eq:pMD} and \eqref{eq:pFA} that, after the change of measure in Appendix~\ref{sec:change_measure}, $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$ can be bounded as
\begin{align}
P_{\rm MD} &\le \sum_{t=0}^{K'_{\rm a}} \frac{t+K_{\rm a}-{K_{\rm a}'}}{K_{\rm a}} \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t] + p_0, \label{eq:tmp850_simp}\\
P_{\rm FA} &\le \sum_{t=0}^{K'_{\rm a}} \frac{t}{K_{\rm a}'} \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t] + p_0, \label{eq:tmp853_simp}
\end{align}
Next, we proceed to bound $\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t]$.
This is done following two approaches. The first approach is based on error exponent analyses, resulting in the term $p_{t,t}$ in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD_simp}. The second approach is a variation of the dependence testing (DT) bound \cite[Th.~17]{Polyanskiy2010}, resulting in $q_{t,t}$ in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD_simp}.
\subsubsection{The Error-Exponent-Based Approach} \label{sec:1st_approach}
By writing the event $|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t$ as the union of the pairwise error events $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0})$, we have that
\begin{align}
&\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}] \notag \\
&= \P[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t} \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} \!F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')]\!, \label{eq:tmp901_simp}
\end{align}
Next, given $c({\mathcal W}_{01})$, $c({\mathcal W}_{02})$, and $\rvVec{z}$, it holds for every $\lambda > -\frac{1}{tP'}$ that
\begin{align}
&\P[F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')] \notag \\
&\le e^{\lambda \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \|\rvVec{z}\|^2} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \E_{c({\mathcal W}_{0}')}\Big[e^{-\lambda \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02})- c({\mathcal W}_{0}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2}\Big] \label{eq:tmp766_simp}\\
&= e^{\lambda \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2} (1+\lambda tP')^{-n} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \exp\bigg(-\frac{\lambda\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2}{1+\lambda t P'}\bigg), \label{eq:tmp768_simp}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:tmp766_simp} follows from the Chernoff bound in Lemma~\ref{lem:Chernoff}, and \eqref{eq:tmp768_simp} follows by computing the expectation in~\eqref{eq:tmp766_simp} using Lemma~\ref{lem:chi2}.
Next, we apply Gallager's $\rho$-trick in Lemma~\ref{lem:Gallager} to get that, given $c({\mathcal W}_{01})$, $c({\mathcal W}_{02})$, and $\rvVec{z}$, it holds for every $\rho \in [0,1]$ that
\begin{align}
&\P[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')] \\
&\le \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^\rho (1+\lambda tP')^{-n\rho} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \exp\Bigg(\lambda \rho \bigg(\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2 -\frac{\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) \!+\! c({\mathcal W}_{02}) \!+\! \rvVec{z}\|^2}{1+\lambda t P'}\bigg)\Bigg). \label{eq:tmp803_simp}
\end{align}
Taking the expectation over $c({\mathcal W}_{02})$ using Lemma~\ref{lem:chi2}, we obtain for given $c({\mathcal W}_{01})$ and $\rvVec{z}$ that
\begin{align}
&\P[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')] \notag \\
&\le \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^\rho (1\!+\!\lambda tP')^{-n\rho} \Big(1+\frac{\lambda \rho t P'}{1\!+\!\lambda tP'}\Big)^{-n} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \exp\Bigg(\!\lambda\rho \bigg(1-\frac{1}{1+\lambda P't(1+\rho)}\bigg)\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2\Bigg) \\
&= \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^\rho \exp\left(b_0\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2 - na_0\right), \label{eq:tmp811}
\end{align}
where $a_0$ and $b_0$ are given by taking $t' = t$ in~\eqref{eq:a} and \eqref{eq:b}, respectively.
Now applying Gallager's $\rho$-trick again, we obtain that, for every $\rho_1 \in [0,1]$,
\begin{align}
&\P[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t} \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')] \notag \\
&\le \binom{K_{\rm a}'}{t}^{\rho_1} \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^{\rho\rho_1} \label{eq:tmp797_simp}\notag \\
&\quad \cdot \E[\exp\left(\rho_1 b_0\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + \rvVec{z}\|^2 - n\rho_1 a_0\right)] \\
&= \binom{K_{\rm a}'}{t}^{\rho_1} \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^{\rho\rho_1} e^{-n\rho_1 a_0} \big(1-\rho_1P_2b_0\big)^{-n}, \label{eq:tmp800_simp}
\end{align}
where the last equality follows by computing the expectation in~\eqref{eq:tmp797_simp} jointly over $c({\mathcal W}_{01})$ and $\rvVec{z}$ with the help of Lemma~\ref{lem:chi2}, and $P_2= 1+(K_{\rm a} - K_{\rm a}')P'$. Finally, plugging the result into \eqref{eq:tmp901_simp}, we obtain
\begin{align}
&\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t] \notag \\
&\le \binom{K_{\rm a}'}{t}^{\rho_1} \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t}^{\rho\rho_1} e^{-n\rho_1 a_0} \big(1-\rho_1P_2b_0\big)^{-n} \\
&\triangleq p_{t,t}. \label{eq:tmp1148_simp}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{The DT-Based Approach} \label{sec:2nd_approach}
Next, we present an alternative bound on $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}]$. Consider the channel law $P_{\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W}_{0}), c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)}$ with input $c({\mathcal W}_{0})$ and output $\rvVec{y}$ where $|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t$. The corresponding information density~\cite[Def. 17.1]{Polyanskiy2019lecture}
is given by
\begin{align}
&\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) \notag \\
&= n \ln(1+(t+K_a-K_{\rm a}')P') + \frac{\|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)\|^2}{1+(t+K_a-K_{\rm a}')P'} \notag \\
&\quad - \|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}_0) - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)\|^2.
\end{align}
Notice that the event $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{0}')$ defined in~\eqref{eq:eventF_simp} is equivalent to $\{\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0}');\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) > \imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{02});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0))\}.$
Let
\begin{align} \label{eq:def_It_1_simp}
\vect{r}{I}_t \triangleq \min_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t} \imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{02});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)).
\end{align}
For a fixed arbitrary $\gamma$, it follows that
\begin{align}
&\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}] \notag \\
&=\P[I_{t} \le \gamma]\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t \;\big|\; I_{t} \le \gamma}] \notag \\
&\quad + \P[I_{t} > \gamma]\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t \;\big|\; I_{t} > \gamma}] \\
&\le \P[I_{t} \le \gamma] + \P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t \;\big|\; I_{t} > \gamma}] \label{eq:tmp838_simp}\\
&= \P[I_{t} \le \gamma] \notag \\
&\quad+ \P\bigg[ \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t} \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} \bigg. \notag \\ &\qquad \qquad \bigg. \big\{\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0}');\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) \bigg. \notag \\ &\qquad \qquad \bigg. > \imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{02});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0))\big\} \;\big|\; I_{t} > \gamma\bigg] \label{eq:tmp814_simp} \\
&\le \P[I_{t} \le \gamma] \notag \\
&\quad+ \P\bigg[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [K_{\rm a} - {K_{\rm a}'} + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t} \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{0}' \subset [K_{\rm a}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{0}'| = t} \bigg. \notag \\ &\qquad \qquad \bigg. \big\{\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0}');\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) > \gamma\big\}\bigg]. \label{eq:tmp383_simp}
\end{align}
Here, \eqref{eq:tmp814_simp} follows by writing explicitly the event $\{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t\}$, and \eqref{eq:tmp383_simp} follows by relaxing the inequality inside the second probability.
Using that $\P[\imath(x;\vect{r}{y}) > \gamma] \le e^{-\gamma}, \forall x$~\cite[Cor.~17.1]{Polyanskiy2019lecture}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\P[\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0}');\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) > \gamma] \le e^{-\gamma}.
\end{align}
Then, by applying the union bound and taking the infimum over $\gamma$, we conclude that
\begin{align}
&\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}] \notag \\
&\le \inf_{\gamma} \Bigg( \P[\vect{r}{I}_t \le \gamma] + \binom{K_{\rm a}'}{t} \binom{M-K_{\rm a}}{t} e^{-\gamma} \Bigg) \\
&\triangleq q_{t,t}. \label{eq:tmp1201_simp}
\end{align}
This concludes the DT-based approach.
It follows from \eqref{eq:tmp1148_simp} and \eqref{eq:tmp1201_simp} that
$\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t] \le \min\left\{p_{t,t}, q_{t,t} \right\}$.
Introducing this bound into \eqref{eq:tmp850_simp} and \eqref{eq:tmp853_simp}, we obtain that the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities, averaged over the Gaussian codebook ensemble, are upper-bounded by $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$ given in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD_simp} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA_simp}, respectively.
\subsection{The General Case} \label{sec:general_case}
We now explain how the result in the special case considered in the previous subsection can be extended to the general case where $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\vect{r}{K}'_{\rm a}$ are random and $r \ge 0$.
For random $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\vect{r}{K}'_{\rm a}$, one has to take into account all the possible combinations of the number of transmitted messages and decoded messages when computing the expectations in~\eqref{eq:pMD} and \eqref{eq:pFA}. Consider the event that $K_{\rm a}$ users are active and the estimation of $K_{\rm a}$ results in $K_{\rm a}'$, which we denote by $K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'$. As in the special case, we assume without loss of generality that ${\mathcal W} = [{K}_{\rm a}]$. Furthermore, due to symmetry, we let ${\mathcal W}_{01} = [({K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+]$ denote the list of $(\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+$ initial \glspl{MD} due to insufficient decoded list size, and ${\mathcal W}_{02} = {\mathcal W}_0 \setminus {\mathcal W}_{01}$ the $t$ additional \glspl{MD} occurring during the decoding process.
Note also that,
if $\underline{K_{\rm a}'} > K_{\rm a}$, the decoder always outputs more than $K_{\rm a}$ messages. Hence, at least $\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a}$ decoded messages are falsely alarmed. Due to symmetry, let ${\mathcal W}_{01}' = [\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} + 1: \underline{K_{\rm a}'}]$ denote the list of $(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})^+$ initial \glspl{FA} due to excessive decoded list size, and ${\mathcal W}_{02}' = {\mathcal W}_0' \setminus {\mathcal W}_{01}'$ the $t'$ additional \glspl{FA} occurring during the decoding process. See Fig.~\ref{fig:venn} for a diagram depicting the relation between these sets of messages. Under these assumptions, ${\mathcal W}_{02}$ and ${\mathcal W}_{02}'$ are generic subsets of $[({K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + 1:{K}_{\rm a}]$ and $[\max\{{K}_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}+1 : M]$, respectively.
Note that in the special case considered in Appendix~\ref{sec:special_case}, $t$ can take value from $0$ to $K'_{\rm a}$, and $t' = t$. In the general case, instead:
\begin{itemize}
\item The possible values of $t$ are given by ${\mathcal T}$ defined in~\eqref{eq:T}. This is because the number of \glspl{MD}, given by $t+{(K_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+$, is upper-bounded by the total number of transmitted messages $K_{\rm a}$, and by $M-\underline{K_{\rm a}'}$ (since at least $\underline{K_{\rm a}'}$ messages are returned).
\item Given $t$, the integer $t'$ takes value in $\overline{{\mathcal T}}_t$ defined in~\eqref{eq:Tbart} because: i) the decoded list size, given by $K_{\rm a} - t - {(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ + t' + {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})}^+$, must be in $[\underline{K_{\rm a}'} : \overline{K_{\rm a}'}]$; ii) the number of \glspl{FA}, given by $t'+ (\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})^+$, is upper-bounded by the number of messages that are not transmitted $M-K_{\rm a}$, and by the maximal number of decoded messages $\overline{K_{\rm a}'}$.
\item If the decoded list size is further required to be strictly positive,
then $t'$ takes value in ${\mathcal T}_t$ defined in~\eqref{eq:Tt}.
\end{itemize}
Using the above definitions, the best approximation of ${\mathcal W}$ that the decoder can produce is ${\mathcal W}_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) \cup {\mathcal W}_{01}'$, while the actual decoded list, under ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$, is ${\mathcal W}'_{02} \cup ({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) \cup {\mathcal W}_{01}'$. Therefore, ${\mathcal W} \to \widehat{{\mathcal W}}$ implies that $\|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}'_{02}) - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) - c({\mathcal W}_{01}')\|^2 < \|\rvVec{y} - c({\mathcal W}_{02}) - c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0) - c({\mathcal W}_{01}')\|^2$, which is equivalent to
\begin{multline}
\|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) + c({\mathcal W}_{02})- c({\mathcal W}_{01}') - c({\mathcal W}_{02}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2 \\
< \|c({\mathcal W}_{01}) - c({\mathcal W}_{01}') + \rvVec{z}\|^2. \label{eq:eventF}
\end{multline}
We denote by $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}')$ the set of $\{{\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}'\}$ that satisfy~\eqref{eq:eventF}.
We now compute the expectations in $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$.
Given $|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t$ and $|{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t'$, we have that $|{\mathcal W}_0| = t+(\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+$, $|{\mathcal W}_0'| = t + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})^+$, and $|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| = \vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} - t - (\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + t' + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})^+$.
It follows from \eqref{eq:pMD} and \eqref{eq:pFA} that, after the change of measure in Appendix~\ref{sec:change_measure}, $P_{\rm MD}$ and $P_{\rm FA}$ can be bounded as
\begin{align}
P_{\rm MD} &\le \sum_{K_{\rm a} =\max\{K_{l},1\}}^{K_{u}} P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}}\frac{t+(K_{\rm a}-\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+}{K_{\rm a}} \notag \\
&\qquad \quad \cdot \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\
&\quad + p_0, \label{eq:tmp850}\\
P_{\rm FA} &\le \sum_{K_{\rm a} =K_{l}}^{K_{u}} P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_{l}}^{K_{u}} \sum_{t\in {\mathcal T}} \sum_{t' \in {\mathcal T}_t} \notag \\
&\qquad \quad \frac{t+(\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+}{K_{\rm a} \!-\! t \!-\! {(K_{\rm a} \!-\! \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ \!\!+\! t' \!+\! {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\!-\!K_{\rm a})}^+\!} \notag \\
&\qquad \quad \cdot \P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\
&\quad + p_0. \label{eq:tmp853}
\end{align}
Next, we proceed to bound the joint probabilities $\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t,K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}']$ and $\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t,|{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t',K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}']$. Let
\begin{align} \label{eq:def_A}
A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \triangleq
\{m(\rvVec{y},K_{\rm a}') < m(\rvVec{y},K), \forall K \ne K_{\rm a}'\}.
\end{align}
Since the event $K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'$ implies that $|\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]$ and $A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$,
we have
\begin{align}
&\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\
&\le \P[{{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}}],A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')}] \\
&\le \min\left\{\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}], \P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')] \right\}, \label{eq:tmp883}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:tmp883} follows from the fact that the joint probability is upper-bounded by each of the individual probabilities.
Similarly, we can show that
\begin{align}
&\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t,|{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\
&\le \min\Big\{\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}|\in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}], \Big. \notag \\
&\qquad\qquad\Big. \P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')] \Big\}. \label{eq:tmp1054}
\end{align}
We next present the bounds on $\P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')]$, $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| \!=\! t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$, and $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$.
\subsubsection{Bound on $\P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')]$}
We have
\begin{align}
\P[A(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')]
&= \P[m(\rvVec{y},K_{\rm a}') < m(\rvVec{y},K), \forall K \ne K_{\rm a}'] \\
&\le\min_{K\colon K \ne K_{\rm a}'}\P[m(\rvVec{y},K_{\rm a}') < m(\rvVec{y},K)] \\
&= \xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}'), \label{eq:tmp1077}
\end{align}
where $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ is given by~\eqref{eq:xi}, and \eqref{eq:tmp1077} holds since under the new measure, $\rvVec{y} \sim {\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(\mathbf{0},(1+K_{\rm a} P')\mat{\mathrm{I}}_n)$ distribution.
\subsubsection{Bounds of $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$} \label{sec:bound_tMDs}
As in Appendix~\ref{sec:special_case}, we follow two approaches to bound $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$. The first approach is based on error exponent analyses and the second approach is based on the DT bound. In the first approach, we write the event $\{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]\}$ as the union of the pairwise events and obtain
\begin{align}
&\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \notag \\
&= \P\Bigg(\bigcup_{t' \in \overline{{\mathcal T}}_t} \bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}
\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02}' \subset [\max\{K_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t'} \Bigg. \notag \\
&\qquad \qquad \Bigg.F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}') \Bigg). \label{eq:tmp901}
\end{align}
Then, by applying the Chernoff bound, Gallager's $\rho$-trick, and Lemma~\ref{lem:chi2} following similar steps as in Appendix~\ref{sec:1st_approach}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \le p_t \label{eq:tmp1148}
\end{align}
with $p_t$ given by~\eqref{eq:pt}. In the second approach, we consider the channel law $P_{\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W}_{0}), c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)}$ with input $c({\mathcal W}_{0})$ and output $\rvVec{y}$ where $|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t$. The corresponding information density $\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{0});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0))$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:infor_den}. Notice that the event $F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}')$ defined in~\eqref{eq:eventF} is equivalent to $\{\imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{01}')+c({\mathcal W}_{02}');\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0)) > \imath_t(c({\mathcal W}_{01}') + c({\mathcal W}_{02});\rvVec{y} \,\vert\, c({\mathcal W} \setminus {\mathcal W}_0))\}.$
Then, by proceeding as in Appendix~\ref{sec:2nd_approach}, it follows that
\begin{align}
\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \le q_t \label{eq:tmp1201}
\end{align}
with $q_t$ given by~\eqref{eq:qt}.
\subsubsection{Bounds of $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$}
First, we have that
\begin{align}
&\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \notag \\
&= \P\Bigg[\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02} \subset [(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + 1:K_{\rm a}] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t}
\bigcup_{{\mathcal W}_{02}' \subset [\max\{K_{\rm a},\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}+1:M] \atop |{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t'} \bigg.\notag \\
&\qquad \quad \bigg. F({\mathcal W}_{01},{\mathcal W}_{02},{\mathcal W}_{01}',{\mathcal W}_{02}')\Bigg]. \label{eq:tmp365}
\end{align}
Notice that $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$ differs from $\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}]$ in~\eqref{eq:tmp901} only in the absence of the union $\bigcup_{t'\in \overline{{\mathcal T}}_t}$. By applying the Chernoff bound, Gallager's $\rho$-trick, and Lemma~\ref{lem:chi2} following similar steps as in Appendix~\ref{sec:1st_approach}, we obtain that
\begin{align}
\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \le p_{t,t'} \label{eq:tmp1217}
\end{align}
with $p_{t,t'}$ given by~\eqref{eq:ptt}.
Alternatively, bounding $\P\Big[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]\Big]$ using the information density's property as in Appendix~\ref{sec:2nd_approach}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\P[{|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', |\widehat{{\mathcal W}}| \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]}] \le q_{t,t'} \label{eq:tmp1226}
\end{align}
with $p_{t,t'}$ given by~\eqref{eq:qtt}.
\vspace{.3cm}
From \eqref{eq:tmp883}, \eqref{eq:tmp1077}, \eqref{eq:tmp1148}, and \eqref{eq:tmp1201}, we obtain that
\begin{align}
\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \le \min\left\{p_t, q_t, \xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \right\}.
\end{align}
From \eqref{eq:tmp1054}, \eqref{eq:tmp1077}, \eqref{eq:tmp1217}, and \eqref{eq:tmp1226}, we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}'] \notag \\ &\le \min\left\{p_{t,t'}, q_{t,t'}, \xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \right\}.
\end{align}
Substituting these bounds on $\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}']$ and $\P[|{\mathcal W}_{02}| = t, |{\mathcal W}_{02}'| = t', K_{\rm a} \to K_{\rm a}']$ into \eqref{eq:tmp850} and \eqref{eq:tmp853}, we deduce that the \gls{MD} and \gls{FA} probabilities, averaged over the Gaussian codebook ensemble, are upper-bounded by $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$ given in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA}, respectively. Finally, proceeding as in \cite[Th.~19]{Polyanskiy2011feedback}, one can show that there exists a randomized coding strategy that achieves \eqref{eq:eps_MD} and \eqref{eq:eps_FA} and involves time-sharing among three deterministic codes.
\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:xi}}
\label{proof:xi}
The \gls{PDF} of $\rvVec{y}_0$ is given by
\begin{align}
p_{\rvVec{y}_0}(\vect{y}_0) = \frac{1}{\pi^n (1+K_{\rm a} P')^n} \exp\left(-\frac{\|\vect{y}_0\|^2}{1+K_{\rm a} P'}\right).
\end{align}
Therefore, with the \gls{ML} estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$, we have that
\begin{align}
m(\rvVec{y}_0,K) &= -\ln p_{\rvVec{y}_0}(\vect{y}_0) \\
&= \frac{\|\vect{y}_0\|^2}{1+K P'} + n\ln(1+K P') + n \ln \pi.
\end{align}
As a consequence, the event $m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K_{\rm a}'\right) < m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K\right)$ can be written as $\frac{\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2}{1+K_{\rm a}' P'} + n\ln(1+K_{\rm a}' P') < \frac{\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2}{1+K P'} + n\ln(1+K P')$, or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2 \left(\frac{1}{1+K_{\rm a}'P'} - \frac{1}{1+KP'}\right) < n \ln\left(\frac{1+KP'}{1+K_{\rm a}'P'}\right). \label{eq:eventKa}
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2$ follows a Gamma distribution with shape $n$ and scale $1+K_{\rm a} P'$, we deduce that $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ is given by~\eqref{eq:xi_ML} with $
\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ given by~\eqref{eq:zeta_ML}.
For the energy-based estimation with $m(\vect{y},K) = |\|\vect{y}\|^2 - n(1 + KP')|$, after some manipulations, the event $m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K_{\rm a}'\right) < m\left(\rvVec{y}_0,K\right)$ is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2 > n\left(1 + \frac{K_{\rm a} + K_{\rm a}'}{2}P'\right), &\text{if~} K_{\rm a}' < K_{\rm a}, \\
\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2 < n\left(1 + \frac{K_{\rm a} + K_{\rm a}'}{2}P'\right), &\text{if~} K_{\rm a}' > K_{\rm a}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Thus, from the Gamma distribution of $\|\rvVec{y}_0\|^2$, we deduce that $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ is given by~\eqref{eq:xi_ML} with $\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ given by~\eqref{eq:zeta_energy}.
\section{Error Floor Analysis} \label{app:error_floor}
For the decoder considered in Theorem~\ref{thm:RCU_unknownKa}, the initial \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA} are unavoidable. On the other hand, the additional \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA} can be reduced as the power $P$ increases.
As $P\!\to\! \infty$, by assuming that no additional \gls{MD} or \gls{FA} occurs on top of these initial \glspl{MD} or \glspl{FA}, we obtain lower bounds on $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$ as follows.
\begin{proposition}[Asymptotic lower bounds on $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$]
With ML or energy-based estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$,
it holds that
\begin{align}
&\lim_{P\to\infty} \epsilon_{\rm MD} \notag \\ &\ge \bar{\epsilon}_{\rm MD} \notag \\
&= \!\sum_{K_{\rm a} =\max\{K_\ell,1\}}^{K_{u}} \!\bigg(\!P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \!\sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_\ell}^{K_{u}} \! \frac{(K_{\rm a}\!-\!\overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+\!}{K_{\rm a}}
{\xi}(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \! \bigg) \!+\! \bar{p},\! \label{eq:eps_MD_floor}\\
&\lim_{P\to\infty} \epsilon_{\rm FA} \notag \\ &\ge \bar{\epsilon}_{\rm FA} \notag \\
&= \!\sum_{K_{\rm a} =K_\ell}^{K_{u}} \!\bigg(\!P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) \notag \\ & \qquad \cdot
\sum_{K_{\rm a}' = K_\ell}^{K_{u}} \! \frac{(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}-K_{\rm a})^+}{K_{\rm a} \!-\! {(K_{\rm a} \!-\! \overline{K_{\rm a}'})}^+ \!+\! {(\underline{K_{\rm a}'}\!-\!K_{\rm a})}^+}
{\xi}(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') \! \bigg) \!+\! \bar{p}, \label{eq:eps_FA_floor}
\end{align}
where $\bar{p} = 2 - \sum_{K_{\rm a} = K_\ell}^{K_{u}}P_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(K_{\rm a}) - \E_{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}\left[\frac{M!}{M^{\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}}(M-\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a})!} \right]$, and $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ is given by~\eqref{eq:xi_ML} with
$\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') = n \ln\big(\frac{K}{K_{\rm a}'}\big) K_{\rm a}^{-1}\big(\frac{1}{K_{\rm a}'} - \frac{1}{K}\big)^{-1}$ for ML estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') = n\frac{K+K_{\rm a}'}{2 K_{\rm a}}$ for energy-based estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, the optimal value of $P'$ minimizing the bounds must grow with $P$ since otherwise $\tilde{p}$ will be large. Therefore, as $P\to \infty$, we can assume without loss of optimality that $P' \to \infty$. Next, when $t = t' = 0$, we can verify that $a = b = 0$, thus $E_0(\rho,\rho_1) = 0$ and $E(0,0) = 0$, achieved with $\rho = \rho_1 = 0$. Therefore, $p_0 = p_{0,0} = e^{-n\cdot 0} = 1$. We can also verify that $q_0$ and $q_{0,0}$ both converge to $1$ as $P' \to \infty$.
When $P' \to \infty$, $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$ given in Proposition~\ref{prop:xi} converges to the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:xi_ML} with $\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') = n \ln\big(\frac{K}{K_{\rm a}'}\big) K_{\rm a}^{-1}\big(\frac{1}{K_{\rm a}'} - \frac{1}{K}\big)^{-1}$ for ML estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$ and $\zeta(K,K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}') = n\frac{K+K_{\rm a}'}{2 K_{\rm a}}$ for energy-based estimation of $\vect{r}{K}_{\rm a}$. Furthermore, the last term in $\tilde{p}$ given by~\eqref{eq:p0} vanishes and thus $\tilde{p} \to \bar{p}$. Finally, the lower bounds $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm MD}$ and $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm FA}$ follows by substituting the asymptotic values of $p_0$, $q_0$, $p_{0,0}$, $q_{0,0}$, $\xi(K_{\rm a},K_{\rm a}')$, and $\tilde{p}$ computed above into $\epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm FA}$, and by setting $\min\{p_t,q_t\}$ to zero for $t \ne 0$, and setting $\min\{p_{t,t'},q_{t,t'}\}$ to zero for $(t,t')\ne (0,0)$.
\end{proof}
We remark that the lower bounds in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD_floor} and~\eqref{eq:eps_FA_floor} are tight for typical IoT settings. Indeed, equalities in~\eqref{eq:eps_MD_floor} and~\eqref{eq:eps_FA_floor} hold if the probability of having additional \glspl{MD} and \glspl{FA} vanishes, i.e., $\min\{p_t,q_t\} \to 0$ for $t \ne 0$ and $\min\{p_{t,t'},p_{t,t'}\} \to 0$ for $(t,t') \ne (0,0)$ as $P\to\infty$. With $\rho = \rho_1 = 1$,
the optimal $\lambda$ in~\eqref{eq:E0} is given by $\lambda \!=\! 1/(2P_2)$. Thus, by replacing the maximization over $\rho$ and $\rho_1$ in~\eqref{eq:Ett} with $\rho = \rho_1 = 1$, we obtain that $E(t,t') \ge -t' R_1 - R_2 + \ln\big(1+\frac{(t+t')P'}{4P_2}\big)$. It follows that
\begin{align}
p_{t,t'} &\le \binom{M\!-\!\max\{K_{\rm a}, \underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t'} \binom{\min\{K_{\rm a}, \overline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \left(1+\frac{(t+t')P'}{4P_2}\right)^{-n}. \label{eq:bound_ptt}
\end{align}
If $K_{\rm a} \in [\underline{K_{\rm a}'}:\overline{K_{\rm a}'}]$, i.e., $P_2 = 1$, the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:bound_ptt} vanishes as $P' \to\infty$. Otherwise, the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:bound_ptt} converges to
\begin{align}
\bar{p}_{t,t'} &= \binom{M-\max\{K_{\rm a}, \underline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t'} \binom{\min\{K_{\rm a}, \overline{K_{\rm a}'}\}}{t} \notag \\
&\quad \cdot \bigg(1+\frac{t+t'}{4((K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+)}\bigg)^{-n} \\
&\le M^{t'} K_{\rm a}^t \bigg(1+\frac{t+t'}{4((K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+)}\bigg)^{-n}.
\end{align}
Observe that $\bar{p}_{t,t'}$ is small if $n$ is relatively large compared to $\ln M$ and $\ln K_{\rm a}$, which is true for relevant values of $n,M$ and $K_{\rm a}$ in the IoT. Specifically, in typical IoT scenarios, $M$ and $K_{\rm a}$ are in the order of $10^2$, while $K_{\rm a}/n$ is from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$\textemdash see~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} and \cite[Rem.~3]{Zadik2019}. For example, with $(M,n) = (2^{100}, 15000)$ and $K_{\rm a} \le 300$ as considered in~\cite{PolyanskiyISIT2017massive_random_access} and many follow-up works, assume that $(K_{\rm a} - \overline{K_{\rm a}'})^+ + (\underline{K_{\rm a}'} - K_{\rm a})^+ \le 20$, then $\bar{p}_{t,t'} < 10^{-128}$ for every $t\le 300$ and $t' \le 300$.
As a consequence, $p_{t,t'}$ and $p_t$ are very small. We conclude that $\lim\limits_{P\to\infty} \epsilon_{\rm MD}$ and $\lim\limits_{P\to\infty} \epsilon_{\rm FA}$ approach closely $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm MD}$ and $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm FA}$, respectively. In other words, $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm MD}$ and $\bar{\epsilon}_{\rm FA}$ essentially characterize the error floors of ${\epsilon}_{\rm MD}$ and ${\epsilon}_{\rm FA}$, respectively, as $P\to \infty$.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section*{Solutions}%
}
\IfFileExists{MinionPro.sty}{
}{
}
|
\section{Introduction}
Molecular communication is a novel communication technology that is inspired by the nature. It enables information transmission via micro-machinery by exploiting several biologically-inspired methods. One of the basic approaches of this technology is molecular communication via diffusion (MCvD) \cite{yilmaz2017mcvd}. It is based on the fact that the molecules in a fluid medium flow randomly through space, obeying the laws of Brownian motion. The transmitter (Tx) conveys its message to the receiver (Rx) by encoding the information in a property of the molecular wave of emitted molecules, such as the molecule quantity. Since the molecules propagate according to Brownian motion, they are subject to random propagation. Molecules that are delayed by more than the allotted signaling time are received in subsequent time slots, causing interference among information symbols. This phenomenon is called inter-symbol interference (ISI) and is a significant problem in MCvD systems.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Figures/FIG1.PDF}
\caption{Basic SISO communication scenario for MCvD.}
\end{figure}
Single-input-single-output (SISO) MCvD systems given in Fig. 1 are well-examined molecular communications systems, with their channel characteristics analytically derived in \cite{yilmaz2014three}. The literature presents a multitude of important contributions, including novel modulation methods and advanced reception methods to combat ISI \cite{yilmaz2017mcvd, kabir2015quantity, kuran2011type}. There are several works to mitigate the adverse effects of ISI. In \cite{tepekule2015isimitigation}, ISI mitigation for molecular SISO topologies by adjusting the signal power among symbols to calibrate the residual molecules is conducted. Additionally, this study proposes an energy efficient feedback decision filter to improve communication performance via combating the ISI \cite{tepekule2015isimitigation}. Furthermore, channel coding methods to improve communication quality are proposed in \cite{kislal2020channelcoding}, in which a novel coding method is presented to strengthen the communication by mitigating the residual molecules roaming into the channel. As an example to multiple-type molecular communication schemes, \cite{tepekule2015preequalization} utilizes a modulation scheme, where the residual messenger molecules are reduced by an additional molecule type to mitigate ISI. Despite the many solutions proposed in the literature to reduce the performance-degrading effects of ISI, communication performance --especially at high data rates-- is usually bounded by a severe error floor. Therefore, molecular multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) systems are introduced in \cite{yilmaz2016mimo}.
Using multiple Tx/Rx is a conventional method in wireless communications to improve channel quality significantly. However, for ISI-affected applications, such as MCvD, it introduces the risk of further increasing the interference due to inter-link interference (ILI). One of the recently proposed MIMO techniques in MCvD is index modulation (IM) \cite{gursoy2019index, huang2019index}, which is adapted to the molecular communications domain from wireless communications \cite{basar2016index}. In the literature, ISI mitigation techniques are occasionally adapted into molecular MIMO schemes. In \cite{tang2021spatiotemporal}, the index modulation proposed in \cite{gursoy2019index} is enhanced by utilizing a code book and the selection of the antennas depending on the previous symbols. With the proper selection of consecutive antennas, not only ISI, but also ILI is aimed to be mitigated. IM-based communication schemes are good candidates for employing multiple antennas in molecular communication due to their ability to combine the advantages of the spatial domain while keeping the interference at minimum. In index modulation, information is encoded into the selection of the Tx antenna, unlike other MIMO modulation schemes. Rx detects which Tx antenna was used for transmission and decodes the information as its index, accordingly. This scheme enables us to reduce channel use, which results in a cleaner channel with fewer stray molecules and lower interference.
Employing additional transmitters/receivers always increases implementation complexity. Reducing this complexity while preserving the improved communication performance is one of the main goals in molecular MIMO applications. In order to reduce receiver complexity, a molecular multiple-input-single-output (MISO) topology is proposed in this paper. In contrast to the prevalent MIMO topologies whose receiver regions are separated, MISO topology introduces compact receiver regions on the surface of a single central spherical receiver. Having a single receiver avoids the receiver complexity of molecular MIMO systems.
Receiver regions are located on the central spherical receiver and behave as perfect absorbing receiver surfaces. As done in IM-based molecular MIMO modulations, each equi-areal receiver region corresponds to its conjugate Tx antenna. Suggested receiver topology is able to achieve the single Rx specifications while mimicking multi-receiver Rx designs with its distinctly separated receiver regions. This allows a new approach of molecular MISO topologies in molecular MIMO applications. Possible advantages of using such a single-receiver topology extend from designing systems with multiple single-antenna receivers coexisting in the same channel to creating robust modulation schemes for spatially erroneous topologies. The centralized receiver also allows centralized machine learning-based detection algorithms to outperform conventional detection methods.
In this work, we utilize a machine learning-based single-receiver system for molecular index modulation. The proposed molecular MISO topology is uniquely utilized for molecular IM-based communication schemes.
Recent studies show that machine learning algorithms are able to learn and benefit from feature representations, especially from multiple time series. In particular, convolutional neural network (CNN)-based architectures have exhibited successful performance on time series classification tasks even though they need to be fed with abundant data during the training phase. Furthermore, unlike artificial neural network (ANN) architectures, convolutional neural networks (CNN) are further able to considerably capture the neighborhood information and cope with the multi-featured data in time series classification problems~\cite{assaf2019mtex, liu2018time}. On the other hand, considering the MISO index modulation scenario mentioned earlier, the receiver has to process multiple time series simultaneously, each of which is correlated with other ones. In the light of these, inspired by the superlative performance of CNN over other typical classification algorithms, we propose the novel use of a CNN-based model to mitigate the error caused by ISI.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/FIG2.pdf}
\caption{Communication scenarios for $n_{T_x} = 8$ \textbf{(a)} MIMO scenario \textbf{(b)} MISO scenario in 3D view \textbf{(c)} MISO scenario in 2D view. Black lines show the region boundaries on Rx and each region-transmitter conjugate is indexed from 0 to 7, consecutively.}
\label{fig:miso}
\end{figure*}
The organization of this paper is as follows: Section II demonstrates the proposed system topology. Furthermore, index modulation basics and ML-based detection are briefly explained in this section. In Section III, network details and design specifications of machine learning models are presented. Performances of the methods based on error rates are evaluated in Section IV. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
\section{System Model}
\subsection{Topology}
The considered MISO topology incorporates $n_{Tx}$ distinct spherical transmitters with radius $r_{Tx}$, whose centers are placed on a uniform circular array (UCA) with the ability to emit molecules into the diffusion channel, as well as a spherical receiver with radius $r_{Rx}$ that is able to absorb the molecules arriving at its surface therewithal record their azimuth and elevation angles. Note that the receiver's center is perfectly placed onto the axis of the UCA at a distance of $d_{Rx}$ from its center.
The closest distance between the center of the UCA and any transmitter is $d_{Tx}$. This topology is presented in Fig~\ref{fig:miso}.b. Additionally, the receiver sphere is partitioned into $n_{Tx}$ different regions with the purpose that each region becomes a conjugate of the oppositely positioned transmitter. Each Rx region-transmitter conjugate is indexed from 0 to $(n_{T_x}-1)$ consecutively. Region boundaries are further shown in Fig~\ref{fig:miso}.c. The experimental parameters are shown in Table 1. Note that we assume transmitters and receivers are perfectly synchronized.
\subsection{Index Modulation}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cLc}
\toprule
Name & Definition & Value \\
\midrule
$n_{Tx}$ & Number of transmitters & 8 \\
$n_{Rx}$ & Number of receivers & 1 \\
$r_{Tx}$ & Radius of each transmitter & $\SI{0.5}{\micro\meter}$ \\
$r_{Rx}$ & Radius of each receiver & $\SI{5}{\micro\meter}$ \\
$d_{Rx}$ & Distance between the centers' of the receiver and the UCA& $\SI{15.5}{\micro\meter}$ \\
$d_{Tx}$ & The closest distance between the center of the UCA and each transmitter & $\SI{10}{\micro\meter}$ \\
$D$ & Diffusion coefficient & $\SI{79.4}{\micro\meter\squared\per\second}$ \\
$T$ & Total simulation time & $\SI{5}{\second}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sim_param}
\caption{Simulation Parameters}
\end{table*}
The first adaptations of molecular MIMO modulations into the molecular communication realm aimed increasing overall system throughput at the cost of worse error probabilities \cite{gursoy2019index, huang2019index}. Using the channel multiple times during a symbol duration causes a significant amount of stray molecules --belonging to earlier channel uses-- residing in the channel, which results in heavy interference. To mitigate this effect, it is advantageous to use the channel only once per symbol duration. In this way, information is encoded into the \textit{index} of the intended Tx antenna rather than any other aspect of the molecules, such as quantity \cite{kabir2015quantity}, type \cite{kuran2011type}, or temporal position \cite{garralda2011temporal}. The packet size of the encoded information depends on the number of antennas in use, i.e., for $n_{Tx}$ antennas, information is encoded into $\log_2(n_{Tx})$-bit long packets. Rx antenna collects the messenger molecules through its receiver regions for a defined symbol duration and detects the originating Tx antenna. Information is then extracted through the index of the detected Tx antenna. This general modulation scheme enables reliable information transmission with lower channel use, which directly implies lower interference. In the proposed topology case, receiver regions of Rx are compacted on the surface of the spherical centralized Rx. As aforementioned above, molecules absorbed by Rx are recorded with their azimuth and elevation angles, which enables Rx to perfectly detect the receiver region which a molecule hits during a symbol period. Absorbed molecules are processed to decode the information.
\subsection{Propogation Model}
The proposed machine learning-based approach utilizes the time series of absorbed molecule rates recorded by $n_{Tx}$ regions of the receiver during communication. To train the model, the considered communication scenario is simulated by allowing a randomly selected transmitter to emit $M$ molecules at time $t = (k-1) t_s$, where $k\in\{1,2,...,w\}$, $t_s$ and $w$ denote the symbol period and window number, respectively. For our experiments, $T = \SI{5}\second$ is split into $w\in\{3,4,\dots, 10 \}$ windows per simulation, each of which corresponds to a symbol period of $t_s = \frac{T}{w}$. In other words, 200 simulations are performed for each window $w$ (a total of 1600 simulation runs) to prepare the dataset. In order to simulate the random movement of the molecules in a driftless fluid environment, total time of communication is divided into time steps of length $\Delta{t}=\SI{d-4}s$. For each symbol duration, i.e., $[(k-1)t_s, kt_s)$, molecules are emitted at the beginning of each window at time $t=(k-1) t_s$.
Note that, in order to make the simulations more realistic, our Tx antennas are designed to be spheres with radius $r_{Tx}$ rather than being point transmitters. Once a transmitter is triggered at time $t=(k-1) t_s$, molecules are generated at the center of the Tx, and start to propagate obeying the rules of diffusion. Moreover, once molecules exit the Tx where they were generated, they are no longer able to diffuse back inside the transmitter; instead, they are reflected.
The position of each molecule in the 3-D space is updated according to
\begin{align}
& X(t+\Delta{t}) = X(t) + \Delta{X},\\
& Y(t+\Delta{t}) = Y(t) + \Delta{Y},\\
& Z(t+\Delta{t}) = Z(t) + \Delta{Z},
\end{align}
where $\Delta{X}$, $\Delta{Y}$, and $\Delta{Z}$ are independent and identically distributed Gaussian random variables with $\mu=0$ and $\sigma^2=2D\Delta{t}$, and the diffusion coefficient $D$ is selected as $\SI{79.4}{\micro\meter\squared\per\second}$. Furthermore, if a molecule hits the surface of the receiver, it is absorbed by the receiver and removed from the environment. Note that each receiver region records the number of absorbed molecules at every discrete time of $\Delta{t}=\SI{d-1}{\second}$ and molecule rates are normalized across regions.
Intuitively, the naive approach, namely maximum count decoder (MCD), which predicts the \textit{active} transmitter index for the $k^{th}$ window of the $m^{th}$ sample can be formulated as
\begin{align}
\hat{y}^m_k = \argmax_i \sum_{j=(k-1)t_s}^{kt_s} x^{m}_{i,j},
\end{align}
where $\textbf{X}^m = (x^m_{i,j}),\: i=1,\dots,n_{T_x},\:j=1,\dots,\frac{T}{\Delta{t}}
$, i.e., $\textbf{X}^{m}$ is the set of the time series for the $m^{th}$ sample containing molecule rates of $n_{T_x}$ regions for each discrete time and is row-wise summed over the interval of the $k^{th}$ window. Thus, the specific region of the receiver that is absorbing the maximum number of molecules can be found, which is identical to the \textit{active} transmitter for the $k^{th}$ window of the $m^{th}$ sample denoted as $\hat{y}^m_k$, i.e., $\hat{\textbf{y}}^m = (\hat{y}^m_k),\: k=1,\dots,w $.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/FIG3.pdf}
\caption{Outline of the proposed model for $m^{th}$ sample where $w=5$ and $t_s = \SI{5}{\second}$. At each window following indexed transmitters emitted molecules: $0-6-3-6-0$.}
\label{fig:cnn_model}
\end{figure*}
\section{Machine Learning Model}
The task of detecting symbols at the receiver side turns into a multivariate time series classification problem. As each receiver region records the normalized rate of molecule distribution, the network is fed with $n_{T_x} = 8$ different time series simultaneously.
Each transmitter is indexed with a value from 0 to 7 consecutively (see Fig.~\ref{fig:miso}-c). In order to predict the correct transmitter index for each window, a CNN-based neural network architecture is designed encompassing two main parts. The first is the CNN-based model (given in Fig.~\ref{fig:cnn_model}), which is the backbone of the network, and the second is a classifier layer that is specialized for each distinct window number $w\in\{3,4,\dots, 10 \}$. Based on the selection among eight different windows, eight different models, which are differentiated according to their number of \textit{sub-heads} at the classifier layer, are implemented. The classifier layer of each model is separated into $w$ \textit{sub-heads}, each of which comprises eight neurons being the probabilities of having used the corresponding transmitter.
In other words, the algorithm can be formulated as $\mathcal{F}_w(\textbf{X}^m\mid\textbf{y}^m)$ where $\textbf{X}^m$ is a set of time series with dimensions $(n_{T_x},\frac{T}{\Delta{t}})$, $\textbf{y}^m$ is the one-hot encoded ground truth label with dimensions $(w,n_{T_x})$, $w$ is the window number, and superscript $m$ denotes the $m^{th}$ sample.
The objective of the machine learning model $\mathcal{F}_w$ is to learn the relation between the molecule distribution over eight regions of the receiver as well as the \textit{active} transmitter for each window.
Note that, for each window number $w$, the model is trained using the data generated with $M=10^5$ molecules. Each model is evaluated on its ability to correctly decode the transmissions done with varying molecule amounts $M\in\{750,1000,\dots, 3250 \}$.
The backbone network is composed of four convolutional layers with kernel sizes $(2,2)$ having $512$ filters connected to a $512$-dimensional dense layer after the convolutional layers. As an activation function, rectified linear unit (ReLU) is attached after each convolution block as well as after each dense layer. In order to alleviate the effects of overfitting, the batch normalization layer is utilized after each convolutional layer, which is beneficial in making neural networks faster and more stable by re-centering and scaling the mini-batches based on their mean and standard deviation values~\cite{ioffe2015batch}. Softmax is applied after each \textit{sub-head} in order to convert the linear outputs to a probability distribution. Particularly, the $i^{th}$ element of the vector $\hat{\textbf{y}}_n^m$, $\hat{y}_{n,i}^m$, denotes the probability of the $i^{th}$ transmitter that is \textit{active} for the $n^{th}$ time window/symbol and the $m^{th}$ sample.
To train such a \textit{multi-head} architecture for a classification task, categorical cross entropy loss function is applied through each of the \textit{sub-heads}. To calculate the total model loss $\mathcal{L}_{total}$ per mini-batch, all losses found for individual \textit{sub-heads}, given as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_n(\hat{\textbf{y}}_n,\textbf{y}_n) = -\frac{1}{B}\sum_{m=1}^B\sum_{i=1}^{n_{Tx}}y_{n,i}^m \log { \left( \hat{y}^m_{n,i} \right)},
\label{eq:loss_for_subhead}
\end{align}
are averaged over the windows as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{total} = \frac{1}{w}\sum_{n=1}^{w}\mathcal{L}_n(\hat{\textbf{y}}_n,\textbf{y}_n).
\label{eq:average_loss}
\end{align}
Here, $\mathcal{L}_n(\hat{\textbf{y}}_n, \textbf{y}_n)$ is the calculated loss for the $n^{th}$ \textit{sub-head}, $B$ is the mini-batch size, $n_{Tx}$ denotes the number of transmitters (which always equals to $8$ in our case), and $\hat{y}^m_{n,i}$ and $y_{n,i}^m$ denote the predicted value and one-hot encoded ground-truth label of the $i^{th}$ neuron at the $n^{th}$ window/\textit{sub-head} for the $m^{th}$ sample in the mini batch, respectively.
All models are trained with the stochastic gradient descent algorithm~\cite{robbins1951stochastic}, using Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} as an optimizer with a learning rate of $0.001$, and the network is trained for $200$ epochs with a batch size of $64$. Hyper-parameter values are selected to be the best-performing ones based on hyper-parameter search experiments. In addition, using complicated models with more layers shows no significant improvement in the performance, albeit their extra complexity.
Practically speaking, machine learning methods are somewhat similar to other decoder/demodulation techniques since they can be thought of as a different representation of multiplication and summation operations. The key point is that the machine learning model should be trained outside of the nanomachine prior to physical implementation. The dataset can be produced either by simulations or real-world experiments, which is in our case obtained by simulations. Then, this pretrained model can be embedded into the receiver, which will perform the classification using multiple summation and multiplication operations.
\section{Performance Results}
The communication performance of the suggested MISO topology in Section II-A is evaluated through Monte Carlo simulations. For performance evaluations, the maximum count decoder, formulated in (4), is employed as the baseline approach for comparisons. To further evaluate the performance of the proposed method, our method is compared to the symbol-by-symbol maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) method that is explained in \MakeUppercase{\romannumeral 7}-C section of \cite{gursoy2019index}. The receiver that is designed with this method is capable of storing the previous decisions. Then, it calculates the estimated past arrival mean and variances as
\begin{align*}
\hat\mu_{j,past}[k] = \sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\sum_{i=0}^{n_{Tx}-1} \hat{s}_i[z]h_{i,j}[k-z+1]
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\hat\sigma^2_{j,past}[k] = \\ &\sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\sum_{i=0}^{n_{Tx}-1} \hat{s}_i[z]h_{i,j}[k-z+1](1-h_{i,j}[k-z+1])
\end{align*}
using the previous decisions and channel coefficients ($h_{i,j}[k])$, which are easily obtained by running a simulation with a large molecule number to make it more precise. Note that $x[k]$ denotes the activated antenna for $k^{th}$ time instant, $n_{Tx}$ denotes the number of transmitters. Then, $\hat{s}_i[z]=\frac{\log n_{Tx}}{2}M^{Tx}$ if $\hat{x}[k] = i$, and is zero otherwise. After determining the past arrival values, the decoder calculates the estimated mean and variance vectors (for all Tx antennas) as
\begin{align*}
(\boldsymbol{\hat\mu_i[k]})_j = \hat\mu_{j,past}[k] + s_{MSSK}h_{i,j}[1]
\end{align*}
and similarly
\begin{align*}
(\boldsymbol{\hat\sigma^2_{i}[k]})_j = \hat\sigma^2_{j,past}[k] + s_{MSSK}h_{i,j}[1](1-h_{i,j}[1])
\end{align*}
for the given $i^{th}$ active Tx antenna, where $s_{MSSK}=\frac{\log n_{Tx}}{2}M^{Tx}$. After all, the objective is to find the index $i$ which maximizes the log-likelihood function applied to our receiver given the received number of molecules for that window.
Then, the index becomes
\begin{align*}
\hat{i} = \argmax_{i}\sum_{j=0}^{n_{Rx}-1}\ln & \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi (\boldsymbol{\hat\sigma^2_{i}[k]})_j}}\right)\\ &-\frac{(R_j[k]-(\boldsymbol{\hat\mu_i[k]})_j)^2}{2(\boldsymbol{\hat\sigma^2_{i}[k]})_j},
\end{align*}
where $R_j[k]$ is the number of received molecules and $n_{Rx}$ denotes the number of regions on the Rx antenna.
The unique contribution of this paper is the proposed machine learning model, and the required evaluations are conducted with the help of computer simulations. Communication simulations are conducted for both high and low data rates. Also, simulation results for varying bit durations $t_b$ are given in order to show the convergence of performance under the ISI and ILI effects.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figures/FIG4.pdf}
\caption{Natural Coding (NC) and Gray Coding (GC) bit error rate for Maximum Count Decoder (MCD), Machine Learning (ML), Symbol-by-symbol Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) approaches with $t_b = \SI{0.166}{\second}$. }
\label{fig:window_0166}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ref{fig:window_0166}, simulation results for high data rate scenario are presented. Since the receiver regions are positioned adjacently as segments of a spherical receiver, the probability of misreceived molecules (and the amount of ILI) is significantly high. This causes a significant number of molecules to be absorbed by adjacent receiver regions, resulting in ILI. For a high data rate communication, ISI becomes the dominant interference problem for the molecular realm along with ILI. MCD is prone to error due to significant interference. Ideally, the maximum-likelihood sequence estimator would perform optimally in term of error rates. However, it is not feasible to implement such an estimator for a nano-scaled communication system due to its high complexity. The symbol-by-symbol maximum-likelihood estimator shows a better performance compared to MCD. The proposed method shows strong performance compared to the symbol-by-symbol MLE at high data rate scenario due to its ability to learn interference patterns with higher success than the symbol-by-symbol MLE.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figures/FIG5.pdf}
\caption{Natural Coding (NC) and Gray Coding (GC) bit error rate for Maximum Count Decoder (MCD), Machine Learning (ML), Symbol-by-symbol Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) approaches with $t_b = \SI{0.555}{\second}$.}
\label{fig:window_0555}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For low data rate scenario given in Fig. 5, ILI becomes the dominant interference source. MCD is prone to errors due to considerable ILI. However, the proposed machine learning method significantly dominates both MCD and the maximum-likelihood estimation in bit error rate performance. The ability to learn and recognize interference patterns of the proposed method is enhanced when low data rates result in lower ISI.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figures/FIG6.pdf}
\caption{Natural Coding (NC) and Gray Coding (GC) bit error rate for Maximum Count Decoder (MCD), Machine Learning (ML), Symbol-by-symbol Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) approaches with varying $t_b$ and $750$ molecules per bit.}
\label{fig:tb_plot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As discussed before, the molecular MISO topology is particularly vulnerable to ILI, as a result, the performance improvement is limited when $t_b$ increases. In the varying $t_b$ scenario given in Fig. 6, where the number of molecules released per bit, $M^{Tx}$, is fixed, the topology shows its natural limits as the error performance improvement halts due to ILI, error performance improvement halts, resulting in an error floor. The MCD has a significantly high error floor. On the other hand, the proposed machine learning method continues to adapt under increasing $t_b$ and shows no error-flooring. This strength comes from the natural ability of the proposed approach, which indicates continuous adaptation to learn patterns and recognize interference sequences. Nearly at all $t_b$ scenarios, the proposed method outperforms both the MCD and the symbol-by-symbol maximum-likelihood estimator.
\section{Discussion on Different Scenarios}
In this section, we discuss other practical scenarios (e.g. using a higher number of transmitter antennas, varying channel conditions, different receiver sizes, etc.) and their expected results based on our findings.
As the number of transmitters increases, the surface area and the angle of each region on the receiver that corresponds to the transmitters will decrease. As a result, an increase in the inter link interference (ILI) is expected since molecules are more likely to hit and be absorbed by neighboring regions. To manage this, a larger receiver should be used to increase the surface region, which increases the implementation costs. Furthermore, if more transmitters are used in our scenario, the radius of uniform circular array (UCA) ($d_{Rx}$) should be increased to fit all of these transmitters in a circular shape, since transmitters are assumed to be little spheres rather than being points. Hence, transmitters and receiver move away from each other, which in turn increases the required time that molecules reach to receiver. Thus, communication slows down considerably and the symbol duration should be extended to compensate these changes to keep ISI from increasing.
The same logic applies when channel conditions, i.e., diffusion coefficient, changes. Since the square root of the diffusion coefficient is proportional to the variance of the displacement of molecules, it affects the speed of communication, which is directly related to ISI. Meanwhile, since the variance increases, the molecules are liable to hit neighboring regions. Hence, ILI is likely to cause further errors.
Again, using a larger receiver allows a greater surface region for each transmitter and the surface of the receiver and each transmitter gets closer to each other. Hence, both ILI and ISI errors will be alleviated.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this study, a machine learning-based molecular index modulation scheme for a newly-proposed molecular MISO topology has been introduced. Said topology is new to the molecular communication realm and enables reducing receiver complexity drastically. It is uniquely implemented on molecular IM-based communication schemes. Since the receiver regions are compacted on the single central receiver, the implementation complexity of the proposed scheme is realizable. It has been shown that the proposed molecular MISO topology is competent to provide adequate communication performance. Moreover, as aforementioned before, molecular MISO topology is able to fulfill the index modulation potential suggested by molecular MIMO topologies, which allows conducting IM-based modulation schemes using molecular MISO topology without losing the improved communication performance superiority promised by index modulation. Presented results are able to show that said topology is performing satisfactory under basic IM-based modulation schemes, namely the MCD, for this paper.
Another unique contribution of this paper is the proposed machine learning-based molecular index modulation scheme. The adaptive nature of machine learning methods enables overcoming communicative obstacles of molecular interference, namely ISI and ILI. It has been shown that machine learning-based modulation methods are prone to recognize interference patterns that are caused by the random nature of the molecular communication realm. The experimental results support the fact that the proposed machine learning-based modulation outperforms the MCD of the basic index modulation scheme conducted on molecular MISO topology at both low and high data rates. Due to our concerns for a fair comparison, a symbol-by-symbol MLE is performed. Based on the previous decisions and the channel characteristics knowledge, MLE detects the most likely antenna as the originating antenna for the considered symbol duration. The proposed machine learning scheme outperforms the MLE at almost all symbol power levels and has a much more promising betterment curve concerning the symbol power. Due to the nature of topology, molecular MISO topology is prone to suffer heavily from ILI. The proposed machine learning method suggests an effective modulation scheme with significant ISI mitigation, without depending on the perfect channel information.
The main goal is to introduce machine learning-based molecular index modulation schemes for newly-proposed MISO topologies, possible spatial misalignments of antennas, angular deviations or other imperfection assumptions are outside of the scope of this paper. Possible extensions of this study such as designing robust nano-networking hub with multiple receiver users are left as future works. Moreover, aforesaid spatial imperfections regarded for molecular MISO topology can be overcome, since rotational shifts can be considered straight-forward tasks for machine learning schemes. Therefore, with the help of such machine learning schemes, such further problems are effortless to provide a solution. Additionally, the future work entails the development of different machine learning models for different scenarios.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported in part by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Grant 119E190.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
The metal-insulator transition (MIT) in various strongly correlated transition-metal oxides is essential for recently proposed device applications, for instance memristors for next-generation neuromorphic computing{\cite{zhou2015mott,andrews2019building,zhang2020understanding, Ganesh.NPJ.Nature}}. However, understanding the underlying mechanism of the MIT in correlated solids has been a longstanding problem {\cite{imada1998metal,gruner1988dynamics}}, making selection and optimization of appropriate materials difficult. The theoretical difficulty in analyzing these materials lies in the strong electron correlation, giving rise to complex many-body phenomena and a close coupling of charge, spin, orbital, and lattice degrees of freedom. Identification of the important variables and key interactions that influence the MIT in correlated metals has consequently remained elusive.
The ABO$_x$ perovskite family has several candidate compounds that undergo a sharp and tunable MIT{\cite{staub2002direct,hepting2014tunable, scherwitzl2011metal, lu2016voltage, lu2017electric}}, which forms an excellent playground to look for the driving forces behind the transition. For example, consider the oxygen-rich perovskite SrCoO$_3$ (PV-SCO) which is a correlated ferromagnetic (FM) metal. The introduction of oxygen-vacancies typically amounts to introducing negative charge-carriers (i.e. $n$-doping). In a conventional band-theory picture, such doping often increases electronic conductivity, but in PV-SCO it leads to an insulating ground-state with a concomitant change in the magnetic ordering{\cite{jeen2013reversible,choi2013reversal}}. Indeed, the oxygen-deficient brownmillerite SrCoO$_{2.5}$ (BM-SCO) is an anti-ferromagnetic insulator. However, under pressure (both uniform and uniaxial), this anti-ferromagnetic insulator shows a reduction in the electronic band gap by ~40\%{\cite{hong2017pressure}}. Recent experiments{\cite{chowdhury2019tuning}} suggest that under pressure, the number of holes on oxygen-ligands possibly increase, which in principle could stabilize a ferromagnetic coupling between the metal-ions, in turn eventually closing the band-gap in BM-SCO. Given the concomitance of the MIT to structural or magnetic transitions (or both), it is not immediately clear what would be the key change that triggers the MIT in PV-SCO and other similar correlated perovskite metals. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the gap opening is driven by Hubbard repulsive interactions from correlated electrons in the 3{\sl d} orbitals, hybridization of orbitals between covalently bonded atoms, magnetic exchange interactions that favor Hund's rule, or charge-transfer energies that determine the transfer of electrons from the ligand (anion) to the metal (cation) sites.
The family of rare-earth nickelates is another example where the MIT occurs concomitantly with structural and magnetic transitions {\cite{jaramillo2014origins, bisogni2016ground,shamblin2018experimental}}. While the size of the rare-earth tunes the transition temperature, the underlying mechanism appears to remain the same and is dependent on the metal-ligand bonding{\cite{torrance1992systematic}}. In all the nickelate compounds, the high-temperature phase is a correlated metal with fluctuating magnetic moments (i.e. the paramagnetic phase). Below a certain temperature, all compounds, except for LaNiO$_3$, transition into a bond-disproportionated phase, i.e. a phase with alternating long and short Ni-O bonds. Some compounds exhibit an additional transition to an anti-ferromagnetic (AFM) phase concomitant to this bond-disproportionation. For example, recent experiments suggest even LaNiO$_3$ undergoes such an AFM transition below $\sim$157K\cite{2018_Guo_Nature_Comm_9_43_antiferromagnetic_lanio}. Similarly, n-doping with hydrogen induces a metal-to-insulator transition in SmNiO$_3$, with the underlying mechanism still uncertain with the observation of local lattice distortions in the insulating phase~\cite{HSNO1,HSNO2}. Based on the Zaanen-Sawatzky-Allen (ZSA) classification scheme{\cite{zaanen1985band}}, the nickelates are self-hole doped Mott insulators where the self-hole doping is due to a negative charge-transfer energy.
Due to a forced high-valence cationic-state (Ni$^{3+}$, $d^7$), the high-temperature metal is stabilized by self-hole doping ($d^8L$, where {\sl L} indicates a ligand-hole) and upon reducing the temperature, a {\sl bond} disproportionated insulating state emerges instead of a {\sl charge} ordered state, with short and long Ni-O bonds stabilizing alternating $d^8L^2$ and $d^8L^0$ Ni-cations, that in some cases also stabilizes an anti-ferromagnetic ground-state.
As such, while a Hubbard repulsion is necessary, it is not sufficient to transition to an insulating phase. Indeed, even in conventionally well regarded Mott insulators, such as VO$_2$ and NiO, and their superlattices, we recently demonstrated that that charge-state of oxygen anions and its coupling to local structural distortions play a significant role in driving the MIT~\cite{VO2-paper1,VO2-paper2, VO2-paper3, VO2TiO2-paper, NiO-paper1, NiO-paper2}. Though, it is still not very clear why self hole-doping leads to a bond disproportionated phase when temperature is reduced which opens a gap, and how the ZSA theory generalizes to MIT driven by changes in pressure, composition, and stoichiometry.
To address this question, we posit that the connection of the MIT and bond-disproportionation extends beyond the nickelate family of perovskites and is not limited to MITs triggered by a change in temperature.
Similar to the nickelates, the ferrates and the cobaltates have metal-ions forced in high-valency as well, e.g. Fe$^{4+}$ in SrFeO$_3$ and Co$^{4+}$ in SrCoO$_3$, and thereby possess large electron affinities leading to a low, possibly negative, charge-transfer{\cite{rogge2018electronic,kunevs2012spin}} energy.
Hence, these systems should also exhibit self-hole doping to stabilize their metallic phase.
We note that the MIT can also be triggered by compositional changes.
Just as {\sl n}-doping PV-SCO by making it non-stoichiometric opens a band gap in the Brownmillerite phase, similarly {\sl n}-doping PV-SCO by substituting Sr$^{2+}$ for La$^{3+}$ also leads to a band gap opening.
Similarly, LaFeO$_3$ is an insulator and can be regarded as an {\sl n}-doped PV-SrFeO$_3$ (${\rm Sr}^{2+}\rightarrow{\rm La}^{3+}$).
Given these observations, we hypothesize that metallic ABO$_3$ perovskites that demonstrate a MIT are self-hole doped negative charge transfer metals in the Zaanen-Sawatzky-Allen (ZSA) classification scheme.
{\sl n}-doping such self-hole doped metals fills these pre-existing holes and gives rise to an insulating state, possibly via a charge-lattice (or equivalently an electron-phonon) coupling, leading to a bond-disproportionated insulating structure, that owing to a symmetry lowering transition necessarily is also charge-disproportionated (not necessarily charge-ordered). Magnetic ordering as well as other kinds of ordering, such as charge- or orbital-ordering may further assist in the gap opening of this bond-disproportionated phase.
To prove the conjecture made above, in this work, we use density functional theory based methods together with the highly accurate fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo (FN-DMC)\cite{GRIMM1971134} flavor of quantum Monte Carlo (QMC)\cite{RevModPhys.73.33} to quantitatively compare the degree of self-hole doping in perovskite metals, and how it correlates with changes in metal-composition, oxygen-stoichiometry and pressure, across a MIT.
As a measure of the degree of self-hole doping, i.e. $d^{n+1}L$, we compare calculations of oxygen occupations via integrated densities around the oxygen sites.
We additionally demonstrate that changes in the degree of self-hole doping triggers a charge-lattice instability.
To benchmark our approach, we perform FN-DMC calculations of various ground-state properties and compare to experiments where possible, finding very good agreement.
The ground-state properties used for comparison are the cohesive energies of the perovskite compounds -- indicates accuracy of describing atomic bonding -- and the local magnetization around the metal-site which is important in determining the spin-state of the metallic cation.
A high quality description of the ground state is foundational for our investigations of charge-transfer in the perovskite family of materials considered here.
The fundamental band gaps from FN-DMC-benchmarked DFT$+U$ calculations are also in good agreement with available experimental gaps, with FN-DMC-gaps showing similar trends across the different compounds.
We find that holes are present in the oxygen-site for correlated perovskite metals (as measured by the reduced oxygen occupations relative to the insulating compounds), and that transitioning to a gapped insulating phase via changes in metal-composition or oxygen-stoichiometry or pressure results in a reduction of the holes on oxygen-sites (increased oxygen occupation). This is consistent with our density of states calculations, where the metals have an unoccupied $\sl p$ band, while insulators resulting from these metals undergoing an MIT have a $\sl p$-$\sl d$ type band gaps.
We find strong evidence for the insulating phases to be bond-disproportionated, due to an underlying charge-lattice coupling.
We therefore prove our conjecture that self-hole doped correlated metals can trigger a metal-to-insulator transition by {\sl n}-doping into their unsaturated holes (increased oxygen occupation) due to a strong charge-lattice (or electron-phonon) coupling in perovskites, and that this {\sl n}-doping can be achieved by changes in oxygen-stoichiometry, metal-composition, or pressure.
Hence, controlling the ligand-hole population, set by the charge-transfer energy, is the key-factor in controlling MIT, even in correlated perovskite metals with strong on-site Hubbard interactions.
\section{Methods}
We perform a combined study using density functional theory (DFT) with a linear-response determined Hubbard $U$ (i.e. $U_{\rm
LR}$)\cite{cococcioni2005linear} as well as fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo (FN-DMC) calculations to obtain ground-state
properties (details available in the supplementary information). Computations were performed for metallic SrCoO$_3$ and LaNiO$_3$
compounds as well as the insulating LaFeO$_3$ and LaCrO$_3$ compounds in the perovskite phase and SrCoO$_{2.5}$ in the
brownmillerite phase, at pressures ranging from 0-8 GPa. The magnetic orderings of the experimental ground state were considered, namely ferromagnetic for
SrCoO$_3$ and LaNiO$_3$; antiferromagnetic (AFM) for LaFeO$_3$, LaCrO$_3$, LaNiO$_3$ and BM SrCoO$_{2.5}$. For the insulating phases, we also calculated
the optical gap using LDA$+U_{\rm LR}$ and FN-DMC. The nodal surfaces for FN-DMC were obtained by using the variational property
of FN-DMC and varying the strength of the metal-site Hubbard interaction within the LDA$+U$ to find the best nodal surface for
each material. For the BM-SCO phase, distinct $U$ values were assumed for the two different coordination sites of the Co-atom.
For PV-SCO, we additionally used nodal surfaces obtained by varying the exact exchange fraction $w$ with PBE0$_w$.
For this work, we utilized the \textsc{Quantum Espresso} suite\cite{Giannozzi_2009} and the \textsc{VASP}
package\cite{VASP1,VASP2,VASP3,VASP4} for the DFT$+U$ calculations and for generating the orbitals needed for QMC. All QMC
calculations were performed with the high-performance QMCPACK code\cite{Kim_2018,kent_qmcpack_2020}. Using the \textsc{Nexus}
suite\cite{KROGEL2016154}, reproducible workflows were written for the DFT calculations and the complete set of calculations
needed for QMC.
Input and output files for the calculations performed in this study are available and maintained at the Materials Data Facility\cite{data_doi}.
\section{Results \& Discussion}
\subsection{Implications of ground state energies and magnetic structure}
Tables \ref{tab:cohesive_energies} and \ref{tab:magnetic_moments} compare the cohesive energies and the local-moments computed from FN-DMC to available experiments, respectively.
Cohesive energy has contributions from all necessary interactions, and is often incorrect in standard DFT-calculations
\cite{PhysRevB.84.045115}. Here we find that the cohesive energies for LaNiO$_3$, LaFeO$_3$, and LaCrO$_3$ are in good agreement
with estimates from the literature (derivations of experimental cohesive energies is provided in the supplemental material).
Particularly, we find that the inclusion of spin-polarization is necessary to bring the cohesion of LaNiO$_3$ in closer agreement
with experimental estimates, suggesting that the physics that stabilizes the local moment is essential in describing its
electronically metallic state. The accuracy in cohesive energies for both metals and insulators indicates that FN-DMC is
appropriate for looking at the driving force behind the MIT. In addition to cohesive energies, the methodology also captures the
magnitude of the local moments and its change with coordination and structure type for the cobaltates, with absolute values very
close to the values obtained from spin-polarized neutron scattering experiments in the
literature\cite{1957_Koehler_JPhysChemSolids_2_100_Neutron_Magnetic_Properties_LaBO3,2008_Munoz_PRB_78_054404_cryst_and_mag_structure_of_bm-sco,2018_Guo_Nature_Comm_9_43_antiferromagnetic_lanio}.
This affirms our methodology to predict the underlying electronic structure, allowing us to meaningfully conclude from systematic
changes observed in charge-/spin-densities, and derived quantities computed from the FN-DMC estimated many-body ground-state wave
function.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{Cohesive Energies from DMC in units of eV/atom.
}
\label{tab:cohesive_energies}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\hline\hline
Material & DMC & Exp. \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & 4.412(6) & \\
LaNiO$_3$ (NM) & 5.512(6) & \multirow{2}{*}{5.760\footnotemark[1]} \\
LaNiO$_3$ (FM) & 5.656(8) & \\
LaFeO$_3$ & 6.220(6) & 6.120\footnotemark[1] \\
LaCrO$_3$ & 6.400(6) & 6.422\footnotemark[1] \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\footnotetext[1]{See supplemental material for derivations of experimental values.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{Local Magnetic moments (Bohr mag) of cations from FN-DMC. The local moments are calculated by spherically averaging the $\rho_{\rm up}-\rho_{\rm down}$ density (where $\rho_{\rm up/down}$ is the spin-up/spin-down density) around the cation site.
}
\label{tab:magnetic_moments}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c}
\hline\hline
Material & Atom & DMC & Exp. \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & Co & 2.563(1) & 2.5 \\
LaNiO$_3$(FM) & Ni & 1.019(1) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.3 \footnotemark[1]} \\
LaNiO$_3$(G-AFM) & Ni & 0.518(2) & \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co1 & 3.187(1) & 3.12(13) \footnotemark[2] \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co2 & 3.081(1) & 2.88(14) \footnotemark[2] \\
LaFeO$_3$ & Fe & 4.202(1) & 4.6(2) \footnotemark[3] \\
LaCrO$_3$ & Cr & 2.537(2) & 2.8(2) \footnotemark[3] \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\footnotetext[1]{Reference \cite{2018_Guo_Nature_Comm_9_43_antiferromagnetic_lanio}}
\footnotetext[2]{Reference \cite{2008_Munoz_PRB_78_054404_cryst_and_mag_structure_of_bm-sco}}
\footnotetext[3]{Reference \cite{1957_Koehler_JPhysChemSolids_2_100_Neutron_Magnetic_Properties_LaBO3}}
\end{table}
Rhombohedral LaNiO$_3$ was thought to be a paramagnet, until very recent experiments on single-crystals of LaNiO$_3$ demonstrates
that it undergoes a transition to an anti-ferromagnetic phase below $\sim$157K, while still remaining
metallic\cite{2018_Guo_Nature_Comm_9_43_antiferromagnetic_lanio}. Nevertheless, the measured local moment was $\sim$0.3$\mu_B$, much smaller than the
moments on other perovskite systems, in good qualitative agreement with trends observed from our FN-DMC calculations, which even
in the ferromagnetic phase of rhombohedral LaNiO$_3$ finds a lower moment of $\sim$1.02$\mu_B$ (Table \ref{tab:magnetic_moments})
compared to other perovskite magnets. Note that our FN-DMC moment for the G-type AFM ordering of LaNiO$_3$ was also small
($\sim$0.52$\mu_B$), however, this ordering was not energetically favored in FN-DMC over FM ordering.
In all cases, we have used spin symmetry-broken trial wavefunctions in FN-DMC, which may partially explain
the larger fluctuations observed when the predicted moments are small in magnitude.
The local moments of all other
compounds from our fully {\sl ab initio} DMC calculations, including those on the different Wyckoff positions for the
Brownmillerite phase, show excellent agreement with experiments.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/Gaps_and_O_occ_20210712-123124.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:gaps_vs_charge}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/Gaps_vs_O1_and_O2_occ_20210712-123124.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:charge_vs_gaps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) For LaNiO$_3$, SrCoO$_{2.5}$, LaFeO$_3$, and LaCrO$_3$, optical band gaps calculated within LDA$+U$ versus the DMC cumulative radially-averaged charge around the oxygen site relative to SrCoO$_3$ (with O-charge 6.4120 a.u.). The oxygen site with majority charge was used for each system and the value of $U$ that minimizes the FN-DMC energy is chosen for each system. Cumulative charges are also shown from LDA$+U$ with $U$ values consistent with DMC. For comparison, we indicate experimentally measured band gaps for the insulating systems (SrCoO$_{2.5}$\cite{PhysRevLett.111.097401}, LaFeO$_3$\cite{lfo_exp_gap}, and LaCrO$_3$\cite{lcro_exp_gap}) with horizontal solid lines. (b) LDA$+U_{\rm DMC}$ band gap versus site-specific cumulative radially-averaged charge around the oxygen site relative to SrCoO$_3$.
}
\label{fig:charge_gap}
\end{figure*}
The on-site moments may be understood qualitatively in the atomic limit as $\sim 2 \sqrt {s(s+1)}$, where $s$ is the spin multiplicity, we find that the metal-sites under an octahedral crystal-field splitting are close to a high-spin configuration for LaCrO$_3$ ($t_{2g}^3e_g^0$)) and LaFeO$_3$ ($t_{2g}^3e_g^2$), an intermediate spin state for SrCoO$_3$ ($t_{2g}^4e_g^1$) and a low-spin state for LaNiO$_3$ ($t_{2g}^6e_g^1$). Interestingly, both linear-response theory as well as FN-DMC orbital optimization predicts an increasing trend in the strength of the on-site Hubbard repulsion for 3{\sl d} electrons as we increase the {\sl d}-orbital filling from LaCrO$_3$ to LaFeO$_3$, but it is reduced slightly as we move to SCO and LNO (details in SI). But the variation overall is not large and both the $U_{\rm LR}$ and the $U_{\rm DMC}$ remain between 4-5.5 eV. Further, the band gaps do not follow the trend of the Hubbard interaction, with LaCrO$_3$ having a larger gap than LFO, and the SCO with similar value for the Hubbard interaction as LaCrO$_3$ showing a metallic phase. This suggests that while the Hubbard interaction parameter (including the magnetic exchange, which dictates the Hund's rule) is necessary to stabilize the spin-state, and determine the local moment, the opening of the band gap is determined in large measure by other interactions, such as charge-transfer. Further, the responsible interaction necessarily also destabilizes the high-spin state favored by Hund's rule in both SCO and LNO. Because all compounds have the same oxygen ligand, one way to assess the degree and nature of charge-transfer across these compounds is to compare the charge associated with it.
\subsection{Understanding key ligand charge behavior}
To understand what type of charge-transfer could be present in our systems, we next compare the charges on the oxygen ligand sites. The charges were computed by integrating the radial charge-density around oxygen atoms within a fixed radius for all compounds, from both the linear-response LDA$+U_{\rm LR}$ as well as the FN-DMC following a nodal optimization using LDA$+U$ orbitals. The computed charges are in good agreement between the different methods (see SI Tables III-V), suggesting that the linear-response captures the bonding characters in the solid appreciably well. As also seen in Figure \ref{fig:charge_gap}, the LDA$+U_{\rm LR}$ band gaps are in decent agreement with the experimental gaps. A high degree of charge-transfer from oxygen-ligands to the metal-site is indicative of a negative charge-transfer energy. This is what we observe from Fig.\ref{fig:charge_gap}a and \ref{fig:charge_gap}b, where the metallic SCO and LNO are seen to have lowest relative charges on the oxygen atoms compared to the mean or majority charges carried by the oxygen ligand amongst all the compounds. Interestingly, the change in the majority charge on the oxygen ligand correlates linearly with the band gap, irrespective of whether we consider the observed experimental gap, or the band gaps calculated via LDA$+U_{\rm LR}$ or LDA$+U_{\rm DMC}$, and in spite of the change in the structure from perovskite to a brownmillerite phase. This clearly suggests that the quantity determining the size of the band gap across MIT in correlated perovskites is the charge-transfer energy, and that the metals are self-hole doped because it is negative.
A negative charge-transfer energy will also lead to a change in the formal oxidation state of the metal site, and thereby the magnetic moment. For example, in PV-SCO, the nominal Co$^{4+}$ ($3d^5$) valency will get lowered due to a transfer of electron from the ligand to the metal-site, destabilizing the nominally high-spin $t_{2g}^3e_g^2$ state, and giving rise to an intermediate spin-state $t_{2g}^4e_g^1$ with a net moment less than $\sim$3$\mu_B$, which would be in good agreement with both experiments and our calculations (Table \ref{tab:magnetic_moments}). Our integrated charges around the Co-site also supports this conclusion, with the nominal valency of $\sim$2.65a.u., closer to a Co$^{3+}$ as shown in Table SI-\ref{table_SI:qmc_metal_charges}. Similarly, hole-doping is seen to lower the nominal Ni$^{3+}$ to be $\sim$1.73a.u., closer to Ni$^{2+}$. With a reduced valency, it would be possible to stabilize a low-spin state, such as $t_{2g}^6e_g^2$, explaining the low moments in both the measured and our computed values. Note that this would also require the holes to have an $e_g$ symmetry so as to quench the high-spin moments in the $e_g$ sub-bands of the Co and Ni-atoms. As we will see below, this is just what we observe.
While the nominal charges are much reduced for the metallic PV-SCO and PV-LNO, consistent with a negative charge-transfer picture, the insulating perovskites have a charge-state closer to the nominal valency e.g a valency of $3+$ in LaFeO$_3$ (2.50 a.u.) and LaCrO$_3$ (2.78 a.u.) (Table SI-\ref{table_SI:qmc_metal_charges}). Nominally, an isolated oxygen atom possesses 6 a.u. of charge. We note that our pseudopotentials use a 2-electron core for oxygen and a 10-electron core for the 3$d$ metals. Due to formation of metal-ligand bonding, and owing to its high electronegativity, oxygen atoms are seen to possess more than 6 a.u. of charge for the compounds. Remarkably, the amount of oxygen-ligand charge appears to be the same (6.41 a.u.) for the two metallic systems -- PV-SCO and PV-LNO, even though the total charges on the metal-sites (Co \& Ni) are very different (14.35 \& 16.27 a.u.) (see Table SI-\ref{table_SI:scf_metal_charges}). This again underscores the importance of the anion O-$p$ states in determining the overall electronic-structure. Magnetic transitions could in certain cases result from a MIT, such as in PV-SCO -- but do not primarily drive it.
Indeed, even LaNiO$_3$ was found to be a metal, a rarity for a material with an AFM ground state, consistent with experiments. This difference relative to broadly observed FM correlated metals suggests that modified magnetic interactions that could result in a particular type of AFM ordering for LaNiO$_3$ and FM for other materials may not be the primary determinant for gap opening in self hole-doped {\bf perovskite} metals.
Given that the gap varies monotonically with the formal electronegativity of the metal-atom (see Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigX_GapVsElecNeg}), it is clear that the opening of the gap in these self hole-doped metals would require changing the nature of this charge-transfer energy, i.e making it more positive as the gap increases.
To investigate how the nature of the gap changes, we look at the orbitals participating in the gap opening. If there is an energy cost to transfer charges from the O-$p$ orbitals to the metal-$d$ orbitals, then the system would be gapped. Such a gap is naturally realized when the Fermi-level moves from the middle of the O-$p$ band, such as the case in the self-hole doped metals, to the top of the O-$p$-band, giving rise to a $p-d$ type gap. A larger Hubbard interaction would naturally yield a larger $p-d$ gap. Indeed, as shown in the calculated projected density-of-states, Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigS1_DOS} in SI, both metallic SCO and LNO show a relatively large number of states with an O-$p$ character at the Fermi-level. As we move out of this metallic phase by reducing the amount of charge-transfer from O-$p$ to the metallic $d$ state, by stoichiometrically or compositionally $n$-doping it, a gap is opened in the insulators BM-SCO (Fig. \ref{fig:bm_sco_enthalpy_dos}) and LaFeO$_3$ (Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigS1_DOS}). These compounds show a $p-d$ type band gap, reminiscent of a more positive charge-transfer system. As we further move to LaCrO$_3$, the amount of charge on the ligand site further increases, with the Cr-metal showing a more formal oxidation state of $+3$, as noted above. At this point the band-gap is equally determined by the Hubbard interaction and the charge-transfer energy, as also evidenced in the increased $d$ contribution to the valence-state in the projected density-of-states (Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigS1_DOS}).
The charge-difference with respect to a self-hole doped metal indicates how the density would respond to electron doping such a metal, and represents the nature of the lowest excitation. This is clearly seen when we plot the DMC charge-density isosurfaces, localized around the oxygen sites as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:phonon_chacomparedrge_iso}a for the different compounds, in reference to the metallic PV-SCO. While the difference between metallic LNO and SCO shows the hole to have more of a $t_{2g}$-symmetry, the gapped insulators show the hole state to have more of an $e_g$ symmetry. This is exactly what we expect, because for the self-hole doping to destabilize the high-spin states in the metallic SCO and LNO, as discussed above, the states involved in the electron-transfer need to have an $e_g$ symmetry. Further, with increasing {\sl n}-doping the magnitude of this charge-transfer increases, suggesting that the charge-transfer energy is becoming more positive. Thinking of this charge-density difference as the lowest type of excitation from the sea of electrons in the self hole-doped metal to form an $n$-doped insulator, we see that the nature of this excitation is $p-d$-like, in agreement with the predominantly $p-d$ like gaps we observe for all systems in their density-of-states (Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigS1_DOS}). These observations suggest that {\sl n}-doping a negative charge-transfer metal can result in making the charge-transfer energy more positive. However, it is not clear if $n$-doping simply shifts the Fermi-level to open a band gap when the Fermi-level reaches the top of the $p$-band or if there is some kind of instability that opens a gap when the system is perturbed away from its self-doped metallic state.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in]{figs/Fig2.pdf}
\caption{(a) DMC charge-density isosurface differences for the indicated compounds with respect to PV-SCO plotted around an apical O-atom. An increase in charge is shown in `red' while a decrease in `blue'. For each of the isosurfaces, the oxygen atom is centered in a cube of length 1.4 \AA and we take an isovalue of 0.022 a.u. so that each graphic can be soundly compared. (b) Phonon bands for $e^-$-doped PV-SCO showing dynamic instability at the $R$-point corresponding to an octahedral rotation. (c) Energy-surface along the distortion corresponding to the instability at the $R$-point suggesting a tendency for bond-disproportionation due to charge-disproportionation.}
\label{fig:phonon_chacomparedrge_iso}
\end{figure*}
Notice that while the majority charge on the oxygen ligand showed a monotonic increase with {\sl n}-doping the self hole-doped metal, the compounds show a symmetry lowering transition, which we can also associate with {\sl charge}-disproportionation. Indeed, while one of the oxygen-ligand site shows an increase in charge (Fig. \ref{fig:charge_vs_gaps}), the others have the same electron count as in the metallic phase. Also, a {\sl shorter} metal-ligand bond length is associated with an oxygen site with {\sl less} charge in all the compounds we have investigated, as shown in Table SI-\ref{table_SI:bond_lengths_and_charges}. This suggests a clear connection between charge and bond disproportionation. Interestingly enough, as the band-gap increases, the amplitude of the charge disproportionation also increases. Without further information, it is not immediately clear if the charge disproportion is caused by the bond disproportionation or vice versa, and what if any is its role in opening the band gap. But it is clear that under $n$-doping when a self-hole doped metal undergoes an insulating transition, symmetry is always lowered.
\subsection{Charge-lattice coupling in SrCoO$_3$}
To further understand this connection between charge and bond disproportionation, and explain the symmetry lowering, we subjected
cubic SrCoO$_3$ to the same level of electron doping (~0.25 $e^-$/Co) as the largest radial charge transfer we observed in our
study. Interestingly, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phonon_chacomparedrge_iso}b, $n$-doped PV-SCO shows a phonon-instability. The
instability is at an $R$ point of the Brillouin zone, corresponding to an octahedral rotation. Indeed, a similar $R$ type
octahedral rotation underlies the ground-state structure of LaFeO$_3$, leading to its rhombohedral symmetry. Freezing the
octahedral rotation lowers the energy, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:phonon_chacomparedrge_iso}c, suggesting a weak, but persistent
charge-lattice (i.e. electron-phonon) coupling. Similarly, hole-doping LaFeO$_3$ also gives rise to a phonon instability (Fig.
SI-\ref{fig_SI:FigY_HoleDopedPhonon_LFO}). This suggests that as the correlated metal becomes $n$-doped, either via removing
oxygen-atoms or chemical substitution (or by applying strain as discussed below), the system undergoes bond disproportionation due
to the underlying charge-lattice coupling, which in turn can lead to a charge disproportionated state as the symmetry gets
lowered. Indeed, even in hole-doped correlated metals that show a charge-ordered ground state, phonon damping and changes in heat
conduction have been experimentally observed, supporting this thesis \cite{Cohn2000}. Such bond and charge disproportionation can
remove electronic degeneracies and stabilize other symmetry breaking transitions such as magnetic, charge-ordering or
orbital-ordering, eventually opening a band gap.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/Fig3.pdf}
\caption{(a) LDA$+U$ enthalpy difference in BM-SCO as a function of strain. (b) Scheme of how holes mediate the magnetic transition. (c) LDA$+U$ DOS plots of AFM insulator and FM metal phases of BM-SCO. }
\label{fig:bm_sco_enthalpy_dos}
\end{figure*}
While we demonstrated how a self-hole doped metal can become an insulator due to change in metal-composition and oxygen-stoichiometry, pressure can achieve the same result. Indeed, a recent experiment suggests that pressurizing the antiferromagnetic BM-SCO phase leads to a reduction in the band-gap {\cite{hong2017pressure}}. While beyond 8.5 GPa the system appeared to transform into a different structure, up to 8.5 GPa a monotonic reduction in the optical gap was seen with pressure without any structural change. Indeed, BM-SCO is an insulator in the antiferromagnetic phase but a metal in the ferromagnetic phase, as seen in our density-of-states plot in Fig. \ref{fig:bm_sco_enthalpy_dos}c. By plotting the enthalpy difference between the two magnetic orderings as a function of strain induced by pressure (Fig. \ref{fig:bm_sco_enthalpy_dos}a), we find that the FM-ordering becomes more stable at higher pressures. Further investigating the amount of holes on the O-$p$ orbitals, we find that with pressure the amount of charge on the oxygen ligand sites decrease monotonically. The charges were computed within the same radius, scaled to the reduction in volume, shown in Fig. SI-\ref{fig_SI:bm_sco_strained_o_populations}.
A decrease in the charges indicate an effective increase in the amount of O-$p$ holes.
Presence of such holes can stabilize the ferromagnetic coupling between the Co-sites, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bm_sco_enthalpy_dos}b.
Indeed, small local moments observed on the O-$p$ sites (0.17 $\mu_B$) had an opposite orientation to the ferromagnetically coupled moments on the Co-site. This clearly suggests, that the reduction in the band gap and its eventual closing under the application of pressure in BM-SCO insulator is also driven by the same charge-transfer energy, with compressive (tensile) strain acting as $p$ ($n$)-doping of the system which thereby modifies the ligand holes, and that the AFM ordering in unstrained BM-SCO is a secondary effect that further assists in stabilizing the gap. Our findings also elucidate the physics underpinning recently observed machine-learning based identification of the average deviation of covalent radii and the global instability index as features that predominantly correlate with the tendency of materials to undergo a thermally driven MIT~\cite{ML_Rondinelli}.
\section{\label{sec:level4}Conclusions} In this work, we use density functional theory based methods and the diffusion Monte Carlo
(DMC) flavor of the many-body quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) approach that explicitly treats strong electron-electron correlations, to
understand what drives MIT in correlated perovskites. Where experimental data is available, comparisons cohesive energies, local
moments and other quantities are made. We find the correlated metal such as PV-SCO and PV-LNO to be self-hole doped as measured by significant O$p$ contributions to conduction bands and decreased oxygen occupation relative to the studied insulators, with similar
amounts of ligand-hole. The electronic band gap in insulating compounds that are related to these self-hole doped metals via {\sl
n}-doping, due to changes in oxygen-stoichiometry such as SrCoO$_{2.5}$, or metal-compositions, such as, LaFeO$_3$ and LaCrO$_3$, show filling of this ligand-hole in some sites, with the gap nearly
linearly changing with the degree of average (or majority) filling, suggesting that the band gap is opened by charge-transfer
energies. Further, the insulating phases are shown to be {\sl both} charge and bond-disproportionation due to an underlying charge-lattice coupling,
with more ligand-holes on certain oxygen-sites than others in the symmetry lowered bond-disproportionated phase. The charge-disproportionation drives bond-disproportionation, as is seen from phonon instabilities that arise when $n$-doping a pristine cubic perovskite phase. Together, this leads to the opening of a band gap, that is more {\sl p-d} like beyond a critical amount of {\sl n}-doping, transitioning of a self-hole doped metal to a less self-hole doped insulator. Similarly, we find that pressure leads to an increase in ligand holes
in the oxygen-sites, driving a transition to a ferromagnetic metallic ground-state.
Our study thus suggests that self-hole doped correlated metals can trigger a metal-to-insulator transition by {\sl n}-doping into
a less self-hole doped insulator as doping makes the charge-transfer energy more positive, and that this can lead to symmetry lowering
transitions due to a strong charge-lattice (or electron-phonon) coupling. This {\sl n}-doping can be achieved by
modulations in oxygen-stoichiometry or metal-composition or pressure. Moreover, this tendency to remain self-hole doped in correlated metals determines a universal electronic response to modulations in oxygen-stoichiometry/metal-composition/pressure via the charge-lattice coupling. Hence, controlling the amount and anisotropy of the ligand-hole is the
key-factor in controlling MIT even in correlated metals, and the band gap is fundamentally controlled by the strength of the
charge-transfer energy close to the MIT, and not by the Mott-Hubbard interactions as originally thought for Mottronics
applications \cite{Chen2020}.
While we do not present a rigorously predictive quantitative model that explains all of our observations, we have shown clearly that there exists a linear trend between the calculated band gaps and oxygen occupations across changes in composition, stoichiometry, or pressure. In addition, one could argue that the same trend would be seen for the hybridization between the transition metal and ligand site, which is related to the change in occupation, however hybridization cannot be quantitatively measured in the solid state so we use occupations as a proxy.
This knowledge can be used to discover new materials where MIT can be controlled more reliably enabling low-power and efficient neuromorphic devices\cite{Ganesh.NPJ.Nature}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and
Engineering Division, as part of the Computational Materials Sciences Program and Center for Predictive Simulation of Functional
Materials. Part of this research was conducted at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (CNMS), which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which
is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. This research used
resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the
Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This manuscript has been authored by
UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and
the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a nonexclusive,
paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so,
for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored
research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
C.B. and G.H. contributed equally to this work.
\section{\label{sec:level2}Methods}
\subsection{\label{subsec:level1}DFT+U}
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed using the Quantum Espresso (QE) software package. The GBRV pseudopotentials and local density approximation (LDA) exchange correlations (XC) were used. The plane wave cutoff was set to 120 Ry for the wave function. Energies were converged with a $1 \times 10^{-7}$ Ry tolerance. The experimental structures of the perovskites from Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD) were used for the calculations. The primitive cell of SrCoO$_3$, LaNiO$_3$, LaFeO$_3$, and LaCrO$_3$ contains 5, 10, 20, and 20 atoms, respectively. An $8 \times 8 \times 8$ k-point grid was used for the 5-atom and 10-tom cells, while an $8 \times 8 \times 5$ k-point grid was used for the 20-atom cell. The primitive cell of the oxygen deficient brownmillerite (BM) SrCoO$_{2.5}$ contains 36 atoms, and a $2 \times 6 \times 6$ k-point grid was used. The magnetic orderings of the experimental ground state were considered, namely ferromagnetic (FM) for SrCoO$_3$; antiferromagnetic (AFM) for LaFeO$_3$, LaCrO$_3$, and BM SrCoO$_{2.5}$.
The self-consistent Hubbard U (U$_{\rm LR}$) was calculated from first-principles by using the linear response approach proposed by Cococcioni and Gironcoli, in which U is determined by the difference between the screened and bare second derivative of the energy with respect to localized state occupations. The obtained U$_{\rm LR}$ values are 5.4 eV for Co in SrCoO$_3$, 4.2 eV for Ni in LaNiO$_3$, 5.6 eV for Fe in LaFeO$_3$, and 4.8 eV for Cr in LaCrO$_3$. For BM SrCoO$_{2.5}$, there are two types of Co sites, and the U$_{\rm LR}$ was determined to be 6.3 eV for the octahedral Co site and 4.9 eV for the tetrahedral Co site.
\subsection{\label{subsec:level1}QMC}
For this study, we utilized FN-DMC to obtain ground state properties of the selected family of ABO$_x$ materials.
We also calculated excited states for the set of insulating systems.
The high-performance QMC code, $\textsc{QMCPACK}$, was used for all FN-DMC calculations.
The QE software package was used throughout to generate the single-body orbitals that define the nodal hypersurface of the FN-DMC wave function.
To reach minimal fixed-node error, we variationally optimized the strength of a metal-site Hubbard interaction within LDA$+U$ for the full set of materials.
In the case of BM SrCoO$_{2.5}$, the $U$ value of the tetrahedral Co site was varied while keeping the difference between its value and the $U$ value at the octahedral site fixed at the difference predicted by linear reponse ($6.3-4.9\, {\rm eV} = 1.4\, {\rm eV}$).
For bulk SrCoO$_3$, we carefully verified that our LDA$+U$ orbitals were converged to the ground state by uniformly sampling the starting occupation matrix for the Co site within LDA$+U$.
We generated $36$ configurations, where all $10$ orbital occupations ($5$ within each spin-channel) were randomly chosen between $0$ and $1$ over a uniform distribution.
Furthermore, for SrCoO$_3$ we performed a more thorough nodal optimization by including scans over PBE$+U$ and PBE$0_w$ orbital sets, where line searches were performed over $U$ and the exact exchange fraction, $w$, of PBE$0$.
For the pseudopotentials, we employed the well-tested high-accuracy correlation-consistent ECPs (ccECPs) \cite{Bennett2017,Bennett2018,Annaberdiyev2018,Wang2019,annaberdiyev_accurate_2019}, where available.
In cases where ccECPs were not available, namely La and Sr, we generated the pseudopotentials as part of this work.
For the La and Sr pseudopotentials, we used a many-body testing protocol consistent with what was defined in the development of ccECPs to verify their accuracy.
The ccECPs Fe, Co, and Ni were softened to reach lower kinetic energy cutoff values and consequently lower computational cost.
To soften these atoms, their semi-local Gaussian parameter values were tuned to reduce the potential's amplitude at the origin in order to make them less plane-wave hard then were re-optimized within the full ccECP framework.
A cutoff of $730$ Ry was used for LaCrO$_3$ and all other materials used $670$ Ry -- leading to convergences of $0.05$--$0.06$ mHa/atom for all systems.
For self-consistency, an electronic convergence tolerance of $1\times10^{-10}$ Ry was used throughout.
For SrCoO$_3$, the SCF density was energetically converged to $0.01$ mHa/atom using a $12\times12\times12$ Monkhorst-Pack grid.
For all other systems, Monkhorst-Pack grids were used that were commensurate with the $12\times12\times12$ grid of SrCoO$_3$.
Experimental structures were taken from the ICSD database for the full set of materials.
The system-specific ICSD collection codes that were used are as follows: SrCoO$_3(77142)$, LaNiO$_3(173477)$, SrCoO$_{2.5}(162241)$, LaFeO$_3(184304)$, and LaCrO$_3(194033)$.
One-body finite-size effects were minimized by employing twist-averaged boundary conditions.
Fine supertwist grids with spacings of less than $0.15/\AA$ were used for all twist-averaged quantities.
Two-body finite size effects were partly reduced through the use of tiled supercells.
Supercells containing $8$ formula units were used for all the materials -- $40$ atoms in the case of SrCoO$_3$.
Cubic supercells were used when possible, namely, for SrCoO$_3$, LaFeO$_3$, and LaCrO$_3$.
For LaNiO$_3$ and BM SrCoO$_{2.5}$, we performed a brute force search over tiling matrix variations to find near-cubic supercells.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Metal charges from radial density integration from DMC/LDA+$U_{\rm min}$.
$r_{\rm max}$ is taken to be the outer minima of the spherically averaged
total charge denstiy centered at the cation.}
\label{table_SI:qmc_metal_charges}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & atom & $r_{\rm max}$ (\AA) & Charge (a.u.) & State (a.u.) \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & Co & 0.96 & 14.3513 & 2.6487 \\
LaNiO$_3$(FM) & Ni & 1.02 & 16.2730 & 1.7270 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co1 & 1.03 & 14.6202 & 2.3798 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co2 & 1.03 & 14.7639 & 2.2361 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & Fe & 1.00 & 13.4973 & 2.5027 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & Cr & 0.99 & 11.2228 & 2.7772 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Metal charges from radial density integration from LDA+$U_{\rm min/DMC}$}
\label{table_SI:scf_metal_charges}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & atom & rcut (\AA) & Charge (a.u.) & State (a.u) \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & Co & 1.0 & 14.5941 & 2.4059 \\
LaNiO$_3$ & Ni & 1.0 & 16.1558 & 1.8061 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co1 & 1.0 & 14.4792 & 2.5208 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & Co2 & 1.0 & 14.6142 & 2.3858 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & Fe & 1.0 & 13.5023 & 2.4977 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & Cr & 1.0 & 11.2671 & 2.7329 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/figure_X.pdf}
\caption{Band gap of ABO$_x $as a function of the electronegativity of the B site cation.}
\label{fig_SI:FigX_GapVsElecNeg}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/figure_S1.pdf}
\caption{DOS plots for SrCoO$_3, $LaNiO$_3, $LaFeO$_3, $and LaCrO$_3$. A gap-nature changing from p-p to p-d type can be observed.}
\label{fig_SI:FigS1_DOS}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/figure_Y.pdf}
\caption{Phonon dispersions of the hole-doped LaFeO$_3$.}
\label{fig_SI:FigY_HoleDopedPhonon_LFO}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/DMC_Gaps_20210108-124342.pdf}
\caption{DMC optical gaps of LaCrO$_3$, LaFeO$_3$, and SrCoO$_{2.5}$ extrapolated to thermodynamic limit.}
\label{fig_SI:DMCBandGaps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/SCO_Nodal_Opt_20210223-103818.pdf}
\caption{DMC/LDA+$U$ nodal optimization of SrCrO$_3$ using 40 atom simulation cell.}
\label{fig_SI:SCO_DMC_Nodal_Opt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/LNiO_Nodal_Opt_20210223-103818.pdf}
\caption{DMC/LDA+$U$ nodal optimization of LaNiO$_3$ using 40 atom simulation cell.}
\label{fig_SI:LNiO_DMC_Nodal_Opt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/BM_SCO_Nodal_Opt_20210223-103818.pdf}
\caption{DMC/LDA+$U$ nodal optimization of SrCoO$_{2.5}$ using 80 atom simulation cell.}
\label{fig_SI:BM_SCO_DMC_Nodal_Opt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/LFO_Nodal_Opt_20210223-103818.pdf}
\caption{DMC/LDA+$U$ nodal optimization of LaCrO$_3$ using 40 atom simulation cell.}
\label{fig_SI:LCrO_DMC_Nodal_Opt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{figs/LCrO_Nodal_Opt_20210223-103818.pdf}
\caption{DMC/LDA+$U$ nodal optimization of LaFeO$_3$ using 40 atom simulation cell.}
\label{fig_SI:LFO_DMC_Nodal_Opt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{$U$ values predicted from linear response ($U_{\rm LR}$) and FN-DMC nodal optimizations}
\label{table_SI:optimal_u_values}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & $U_{\rm LR}$ & $U_{\rm min}$ \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & 5.4. & 2.7(2) \\
LaNiO$_3$(FM) & 4.2 & 5.5(8) \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ (oct/tet) & 4.9,6.3 & 3.1(4),4.5(4) \\
LaFeO$_3$ & 5.6 & 4.8(2) \\
LaCrO$_3$ & 4.8 & 4.4(1) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Metal-oxygen bond lengths are listed for each system in \AA. The corresponding FN-DMC onsite oxygen charge is also listed in a.u.}
\label{table_SI:bond_lengths_and_charges}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & Bond & Bond Length & Oxygen Charge \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & O-Co & 1.9175 & 6.4120\\
LaNiO$_3$(NM) & O1-Ni & 1.9378 & 6.4096\\
LaNiO$_3$(NM) & O2-Ni & 1.9378 & 6.4021\\
LaNiO$_3$(FM) & O1-Ni & 1.9378 & 6.4237\\
LaNiO$_3$(FM) & O2-Ni & 1.9378 & 6.4193\\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O1-Co1 & 1.9407 & 6.4441\\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O2-Co2 & 1.7900 & 6.3741\\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O3-Co2 & 1.7947 & 6.3365\\
LaFeO$_3$ & O1-Fe & 2.0077 & 6.5845\\
LaFeO$_3$ & O2-Fe & 2.0000 & 6.4333\\
LaCrO$_3$ & O1-Cr & 1.9687 & 6.6497\\
LaCrO$_3$ & O2-Cr & 1.9634 & 6.4646\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figs/BMSCO_Strained_Charges_quant-radii_20201204-104254.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig_SI:bm_sco_strained_o_populations}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Oxygen charges from radial density integration from LDA+$U_{\rm min/DMC}$}
\label{table_SI:scf_oxygen_charges}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & atom & rcut (\AA) & Charge (a.u.) \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & O & 1.1 & 6.32684 \\
LaNiO$_3$ & O & 1.1 & 6.31259 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.34444 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.23610 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O3 & 1.1 & 6.25541 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.49029 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.34051 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.56356 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.37763 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Oxygen charges from radial density integration from DMC/LDA+$U_{\rm min}$}
\label{table_SI:qmc_oxygen_charges}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l}
\hline\hline
system & atom & rcut (\AA) & Charge (a.u.) \\
\hline
SrCoO$_3$ & O & 1.1 & 6.41249 \\
LaNiO$_3$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.40959 \\
LaNiO$_3$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.40214 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.44413 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.37409 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & O3 & 1.1 & 6.33649 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.58540 \\
LaFeO$_3$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.43631 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & O1 & 1.1 & 6.64961 \\
LaCrO$_3$ & O2 & 1.1 & 6.46568 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[h!]
\centering
\caption{On-site charges from LDA+U GBRV linear response}
\label{table_SI:scf_metal_charges_LR}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l}
\hline\hline
& & \multicolumn{5}{c}{L\"owdin-U$_{LR}$} \\
system & pressure & TM1 & TM2 & O1 & O2 & O3 \\
\hline
LaCrO$_3$ & 0 & 10.7008 & 12.4225 & 6.5860 & 6.5897 & \\
LaFeO$_3$ & 0 & 10.4151 & 15.238 & 6.4192 & 6.4227 & \\
LaNiO$_3$ & 0 & 10.4031 & 17.7272 & 6.2656 & & \\
SrCoO$_3$ & 0 & 9.6326 & 16.5942 & 6.2383 & & \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & 0 & 9.6610 & 16.4557 & 6.3590 & 6.3409 & 6.3353 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & 2 & 9.6766 & 16.4644 & 6.3544 & 6.3344 & 6.3271 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & 3.2 & 9.6874 & 16.4692 & 6.3519 & 6.3306 & 6.3233 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & 5.2 & 9.6864 & 16.4764 & 6.3481 & 6.3257 & 6.3145 \\
SrCoO$_{2.5}$ & 8.8 & 9.6833 & 16.5029 & 6.3151 & 6.2977 & 6.3038 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{\label{subsec:level2}Cohesive Energies}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Experimental cohesive energies}
\label{table_SI:exp_cohesive_energies}
\begin{tabular}{r r r r}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{LaCrO$_3$}\\
\hline
Reaction & T(K) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(kJ/mol) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(eV) \\
\hline
LaCrO$_3$(s) & 298 & -73.06 & -0.757\footnotemark[1] \\
Cr2O3(s) & 0 &-1128.844 & -11.700\footnotemark[2] \\
La2O3(s) & 0 &-1787.36 & -18.524\footnotemark[3] \\
O(g) & 0 & 246.790 & 2.558\footnotemark[2] \\
Cr(g) & 0 & 395.340 & 4.097\footnotemark[2] \\
La(g) & 0 & 431.29 & 4.470\footnotemark[3] \\
& & & \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$E_{\rm coh}$ = 0.757+(11.7+18.524)/2+3(2.558)}\\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{+4.097+4.47 eV = 32.11 eV}\\
& & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{LaFeO$_3$}\\
\hline
Reaction & T(K) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(kJ/mol) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(eV) \\
\hline
LaFeO$_3$(s) & 0 & -64.58 & -0.669\footnotemark[1] \\
Fe2O3(s) & 0 & -819.025 & -8.489\footnotemark[2] \\
La2O3(s) & 0 &-1787.36 &-18.524\footnotemark[3] \\
O(g) & 0 & 246.790 & 2.558\footnotemark[2] \\
Fe(g) & 0 & 413.127 & 4.282\footnotemark[2] \\
La(g) & 0 & 431.29 & 4.470\footnotemark[3] \\
& & & \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$E_{\rm coh}$ = 0.669+(8.489+18.524)/2+3(2.558)}\\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{+4.282+4.47 eV = 30.6 eV}\\
& & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{LaNiO$_3$}\\
\hline
Reaction & T(K) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(kJ/mol) & $\Delta_f H^{\circ}$(eV) \\
\hline
LaNiO$_3$(s) & 1000 & -46.07 & -0.477\footnotemark[1] \\
Ni2O3(s) & 298 & -489.5 & -5.073\footnotemark[5] \\
La2O3(s) & 0 &-1787.36 &-18.524\footnotemark[3] \\
O(g) & 0 & 246.790 & 2.558\footnotemark[2] \\
Ni(g) & 0 & 428.076 & 4.437\footnotemark[2] \\
La(g) & 0 & 431.29 & 4.470\footnotemark[3] \\
& & & \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$E_{\rm coh}$ = 0.477+5.073/2+18.524/2+3(2.558)}\\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{+4.437+4.47 eV = 28.86 eV}\\
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\footnotetext[1]{Reference \cite{cheng_navrotsky_zhou_anderson_2005}}
\footnotetext[2]{JANAF Tables}
\footnotetext[3]{https://data.nist.gov/od/id/mds2-2124}
\footnotetext[4]{Reference \cite{1954_Boyle_JAmerChemSoc_76_3835_Ni_and_Co_Oxides_Formation}}
\footnotetext[5]{Reference \cite{CRC_Handbook}}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
With the discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC~\cite{ATLAS:2012ulh, CMS:2012rpq}, one of the imperative tasks remaining is to understand the nature of the electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking and various aspects of it. Whether the EW symmetry breaking vacuum that our current universe is sitting on is the global vacuum or a metastable one is a fundamental question yet to be answered. In fact, in view of landscape with an exponentially large number of metastable vacua~\cite{Bousso:2000xa, Kachru:2003aw, Susskind:2003kw, Douglas:2003um} in string theory, it will not be too surprising that the EW symmetry breaking vacuum is a metastable one. However, whether it is a metastable or global one is relatively less explored both theoretically and experimentally. With our current knowledge of the Higgs potential being limited around the local EW symmetry breaking vacuum, the global shape of the Higgs potential is largely unknown and can be qualitatively different from that of the Standard Model (SM), as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:outline}. Our ignorance of the global structure of the Higgs potential also means that we do not have a clear picture of the cosmological evolution of the EW vacuum/vacua and the electroweak phase transition (EWPT).
The possibility of the EW symmetry breaking vacuum being metastable could give rise to a qualitatively different story for the cosmological evolution of the SM fermion and gauge boson masses, which deserves dedicated studies.
From the theoretical side, this possibility of our current EW symmetry breaking vacuum being a metastable one has been studied mainly in the context with a global vacuum located at a large Higgs field value. This global vacuum in the SM is mainly due to the top quark Yukawa coupling contribution to the renormalization group running of the Higgs quartic coupling~\cite{Sher:1988mj,Degrassi:2012ry}.
On the other hand, in models beyond the SM, there are many examples with a metastable EW symmetry breaking vacuum. Some models could have an additional vacuum in the small Higgs field region including the electroweak symmetric (EWS) vacuum at the origin in the Higgs field direction.~\footnote{Note that, even with a positive Higgs mass at the origin, the QCD interaction induced fermion condensation can still break the EW symmetry, although with a much smaller scale~\cite{Quigg:2009xr}. We will neglect the QCD effects for the Higgs potential in this study.} In this paper, we introduce a simple and representative model to realize this scenario.
For a phenomenologically viable set-up of such scenario, three conditions have been satisfied: a) the lifetime of the metastable EW symmetry breaking vacuum due to quantum tunneling should be at least comparable to the age of the universe; b) our thermal universe should have a symmetry non-restoring (SNR)~\cite{Weinberg:1974hy} evolution at high temperatures such that it will end up at the current metastable vacuum; c) the thermal tunneling rate from the metastable to the global vacuum should be suppressed enough such that the phase transition is uncompleted.
\begin{figure}[tph]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{outlinecartoon.pdf}
\caption{\small Representative shapes of the Higgs potential at zero temperature, that share the same locally known structure around $v=246$~GeV (denoted by a box around the Higgs VEV) and have different shapes at the origin.
}
\label{fig:outline}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The early universe evolution for the scenario with a global symmetric vacuum is different from the ordinary EWPT.
The most common assumption for the ordinary evolution of the EW symmetry is that the EW unbroken phase in the early universe goes through the EWPT to the broken phase as the temperature cools down.
A lot of attention has been given to this ordinary EWPT story, because the EWPT could be a first-order one to realize the EW baryogenesis~\cite{Cohen:1993nk,Cline:2006ts}.
Recently, there has been also increased interests in exploring an alternative cosmological history of the universe~\cite{Meade:2018saz,Baldes:2018nel,Glioti:2018roy,Matsedonskyi:2020mlz,Cao:2021yau}, by reviving the old idea of SNR, which is also known as inverse symmetry breaking, where the EWPT doesn't occur at the temperature of the EW scale, but rather at a much higher temperature. There is an SNR in between them, such that the broken vacuum remains to be the one that the universe sits on even for the temperature much above the EW scale.~\footnote{SNR has been adopted to solve other problems such as the monopole ~\cite{Langacker:1980kd,Salomonson:1984rh,Dvali:1995cj} and domain wall~\cite{Dvali:1995cc} problems in Grand Unified Theories.}
A salient feature of a simple model which realizes the EW SNR idea is to introduce SM singlet scalar fields with a large multiplicity of $N$ and a negative portal coupling to the SM Higgs such that one can achieve the goal in an effective field theory with perturbativity under control~\cite{Meade:2018saz,Glioti:2018roy,Chai:2020zgq}.
One attractive feature for the EWPT occurring at a higher temperature is to have an easier implementation of the baryogenesis with relaxed constraints from flavor and CP violation bounds~\cite{Mohapatra:1979qt, Mohapatra:1979vr, Baldes:2018nel,Glioti:2018roy,Matsedonskyi:2020mlz}.
For our scenarios in this paper, we also have EW SNR at high temperatures and could achieve baryogenesis based on EWPT at higher temperatures. On the other hand, the scenario considered in this paper has the EW breaking vacuum to be the metastable one and the EW unbroken vacuum to be the global one, which will have a different consideration for early universe and also different phenomenological consequences. Interestingly, the SNR is the necessary feature of the scenario considered in this paper, unlike other works on SNR, where SNR is an optional possibility.
In this work, we will consider a model with the minimal extension of the SM with two different copies of scalar singlets that couple to the SM Higgs via a quartic portal coupling. The EW symmetry breaking vacuum with a vacuum expectation value (VEV) $v=246$~GeV is a metastable one, with a global symmetry-preserving vacuum at the origin (without additional vacuum at a large Higgs field value, at least within the cutoff of our effective field theory). This can be regarded as a simple toy model that could be embedded into other models addressing the EW hierarchy problem and expanded to models with multiple fields and a large number of vacua. To be under perturbative control, we will impose approximately $O(N)$ symmetries for the new SM gauge singlet scalars. With a large $N$, we will demonstrate that the perturbativity is kept for the parameter space to achieve the global EW symmetric vacuum.
For the two types of singlet scalars with separate $O(N)$ symmetries, we have one type responsible for developing a global EW symmetric vacuum from its contribution to the Coleman-Weinberg (CW) potential of the Higgs field, while the other type mainly responsible for SNR in the thermal universe. Given the existence of additional scalars, one could also have non-trivial vacua along their field directions. For instance, in some EWPT models the so-called ``two-step" phase transition has been considered with the final transition from the vacuum with zero Higgs VEV $\langle h \rangle = 0$ and non-zero singlet VEV to the vacuum with $\langle h \rangle = v$ and zero singlet VEV. For this case, one could also study the consequence if the first vacuum with $\langle h \rangle = 0$ is the global vacuum. In this paper, we will focus on the scenario with the Higgs field as the only order parameter to define different vacua. The advantage of studying scenario is that, besides the merit of simplicity, the Higgs boson properties are modified more dramatically and could be tested more concretely at the LHC in the near future.
From the collider perspective, searching for a deviation of the Higgs trilinear coupling and $Z$-Higgs interactions from the SM predictions can help on reconstructing the Higgs potential, probe the cosmological history of the EW symmetry breaking, and provide a clue for the EW baryogenesis. It serves as one of the important motivations for the future colliders ({\it e.g.}, 100 TeV proton-proton circular collider). What distinguishes our scenario from other models in the literature is that our model predicts large enough corrections to the Higgs cubic (and quartic) self-couplings, such that it will be testable in the near future both at the LHC Run 3 with around 300\,fb$^{-1}$ luminosity and at the high-luminosity (HL) LHC with 3\,ab$^{-1}$. As the Higgs boson has direct couplings to two copies of scalar fields under separate $O(N)$ symmetries, it turns out that the signal with jets plus missing transverse momentum [via off-shell Higgs invisible decay from vector-boson-fusion (VBF) productions] will be another ``golden channel" to test our scenario at the HL-LHC experiment, or even at the LHC Run 3 if the singlet scalars are relatively light.
For the (uncompleted) transition from the EW symmetry breaking vacuum to the global unbroken vacuum, a first-order phase transition is generic in the model parameter space. We will demonstrate that the thermal tunneling rate is suppressed such that this first-order phase transition is an uncompleted one, which is different from the ordinary EWPT where the phase transition is quickly completed below and around the critical temperature. For our scenario, some nucleated bubbles could have a negative energy density inside the bubble and hence behave as an anti de-Sitter (AdS) bubbles. Those bubbles, mainly subcritical, will shrink and disappear if there is no additional pressure to be against the tension force. For the supercritical bubbles, their run-away speed is generically large~\cite{Bodeker:2017cim,Hoeche:2020rsg,Vanvlasselaer:2020niz} and they could easily occupy a big fraction of the current Hubble volume and overclose the universe if they are produced with a large rate. Therefore, we will estimate their formation rate and use it to constrain the allowed model parameter space.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:model}, we introduce a model with Higgs-portal couplings to SM singlet scalars with approximately global $O(N)$ symmetries with a large $N$. We list constraints on the couplings to ensure the perturbativity. In Section~\ref{sec:globalvacua}, we establish the global EW symmetric vacuum, while lifting the EW symmetry breaking vacuum to the metastable one, by modifying Higgs potential due to the radiative corrections from new SM singlet scalars. In Section~\ref{sec:SNR}, we study the EW symmetry non-restoring thermal history of the universe to have it end at the current metastable symmetry breaking vacuum. We present two benchmark scenarios (along with the parameter scans around them) which have the metastable vacuum to be long-lived enough against both the quantum and thermal tunneling processes. In Section~\ref{sec:bubble}, we discuss the formation of bubbles including the AdS ones that could be populated during the thermal evolution of the universe and their dynamics. In Section~\ref{sec:pheno}, we discuss how to test our scenario at the LHC Run 3 and HL-LHC. In Appendix~\ref{app:sec:frac:bubbles}, we derive the lower bound on the bounce action of finite temperature to ensure vanishing fraction of the space occupied by supercritical bubbles in the current universe. In Appendix~\ref{app:sec:interbubble:dist}, we estimate the typical distance between subcritical bubbles. In Appendix~\ref{app:sec:RGE}, we solve the renormalization group equations of scalar quartic couplings and derive the Landau pole scale. In Appendix~\ref{app:sec:atlas:recasting}, we recast the ATLAS analysis on the invisible decay of the off-shell Higgs in the VBF channel to derive the current (and future) sensitivity on the parameters of our scenario.
\section{Theoretical framework}
\label{sec:model}
The scenario considered in this paper is the extension of the SM by including two copies of SM gauge-singlet real scalar fields, $S$ and $\Phi$, transforming as fundamental representations under $O(N_s)$ and $O(N_\phi)$, respectively, and coupling to the SM via the Higgs-portal couplings. The scalar potential is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lag1}
\begin{split}
V_{\rm tree} =&\ - \mu^2_h\,H^\dagger H + \lambda_h\,(H^\dagger H)^2
\\[1.5pt]
&+ \lambda_{hs}\, H^\dagger H\, S^2+ \frac{m^2_s }{2} \, S^2 + \frac{\lambda_s}{4}\,(S^2)^2
+ \lambda_{h\phi}\, H^\dagger H \,\Phi^2 + \frac{m^2_\phi}{2} \,\Phi^2 + \frac{\lambda_\phi}{4} \, (\Phi^2)^2~,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $S^2 \equiv S^{\rm T} S$ and $\Phi^2 \equiv \Phi^{\rm T} \Phi$. The self-interacting quartic coupling of the SM Higgs field has a numeric value of $\lambda_h = m_h^2/(2v^2)\approx 0.13$ with $m_h\approx 125$~GeV and $v=246$~GeV. Here, we have ignored the quartic coupling between the two singlet fields $\lambda_{s\phi} S^2 \Phi^2$ (this interaction can be generated at one-loop level with $\lambda_{s\phi} \sim \lambda_{hs} \lambda_{h\phi} / (16\pi^2)$, which is small enough to affect our later results).
In terms of the neutral component of the Higgs field $H=(0, h)^{\rm T}/\sqrt{2}$, the potential takes the form,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V_{\rm tree} =&\ - \frac{\mu^2_h}{2} \,h^2 + \frac{\lambda_h}{4} \, h^4
\\[1.5pt]
& + \frac{\lambda_{hs}}{2}\,h^2 S^2 + \frac{m^2_s }{2} \, S^2 + \frac{\lambda_s}{4} \,(S^2)^2
+ \frac{\lambda_{h\phi}}{2}\, h^2\,\Phi^2 + \frac{m^2_\phi}{2}\, \Phi^2 + \frac{\lambda_\phi}{4}\, (\Phi^2)^2~.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In our study, we will only consider the parameter space with the SM Higgs developing a non-zero VEV $\langle h \rangle = v = 246$~GeV for the vacuum of our current universe sitting on and zero VEVs for both $S$ and $\Phi$. At tree level, this requires $\mu_h^2 > 0$, $m_s^2 + \lambda_{hs} v^2 > 0$ and $m_\phi^2 + \lambda_{h \phi} v^2 > 0$.~\footnote{We have also checked the multi-field potential at one-loop level to ensure that there is no vacuum with nonzero $S$ and $\Phi$ VEVs.} In order to prevent the EW symmetry from being restored at high temperatures, we will take $\lambda_{hs} < 0$ and positive values for other quartic couplings: $\lambda_h>0$, $\lambda_s >0$, $\lambda_\phi >0$, $\lambda_{h\phi} >0$.
Requiring the potential is bounded from below with $\lambda_{hs} < 0$, additional constraints on the quartic couplings can be obtained by focusing on the large field region
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V_{\rm tree} \approx&\ \frac{\lambda_h}{4} \, h^4 + \frac{\lambda_{hs}}{2}\, h^2 S^2 + \frac{\lambda_s}{4}\, (S^2)^2~
\\[1.5pt]
=&\ \frac{1}{4} \left ( \sqrt{\lambda_h} \, h^2 - \sqrt{\lambda_s} \, S^2 \right )^2 + \frac{1}{2} \, h^2 S^2 \left ( \lambda_{hs} + \sqrt{\lambda_h} \sqrt{\lambda_s} \right )~,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and it leads to the condition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stability:hs-h-s}
- \sqrt{\lambda_h} \sqrt{\lambda_s} \leq \lambda_{hs} < 0 ~.
\end{equation}
Demanding the perturbativity puts a series of constraints on the quartic couplings. The naive dimensional analysis (NDA) using the diagrammatic estimate gives rise to the perturbativity bound on the portal couplings, $\lambda_{hs}$ and $\lambda_{h\phi}$, respectively,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:perturbative-lambda-hs-hphi}
\frac{\sqrt{N_s}\, |\lambda_{hs}|}{16\pi^2}~, \quad \frac{\sqrt{N_\phi} \,\lambda_{h\phi}}{16\pi^2} < \mathcal{O}(1)~.
\end{equation}
Similarly the perturbativity on self quartic couplings, $\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_\phi$, gives rise to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:perturbative-diag-lambda}
\begin{split}
\frac{N_s \,\lambda_s}{16\pi^2}~,\quad \frac{N_\phi \,\lambda_\phi}{16\pi^2} < \mathcal{O}(1)~.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As long as the perturbativity of the quartic couplings in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:perturbative-lambda-hs-hphi}) and~(\ref{eq:perturbative-diag-lambda}) and the Higgs quartic coupling is kept up to a very high energy scale, the stability condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stability:hs-h-s}) will also be easily satisfied for running couplings. The lowest energy scale where any of the perturbativity bounds breaks down can be treated as the ultraviolet cutoff scale $\Lambda_{\rm UV}$ of our effective field theory model. After examining the renormalization group equations of the quartic couplings (see Appendix~\ref{app:sec:RGE} for more details), we find that either $\lambda_{hs}$ or $\lambda_{h\phi}$ can develop a Laudau pole above the EW scale. For instance, assuming a very large multiplicity, $N_\phi \gg 1$, and a negligible initial value of $\lambda_\phi$ at the EW scale, one can derive the Landau pole scale associated with the coupling $\lambda_{h\phi}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:landau-scale}
\Lambda_{\rm L} \sim v \exp \left [ \frac{16\pi^2}{\sqrt{8(2N_\phi+4)} } \frac{1}{\lambda_{h\phi}(v)} \right ]~.
\end{equation}
Similar argument applies to the couplings related to $S$. As will be discussed later in detail, $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}(v)$ is constrained to satisfy $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}(v) > 41$ to exhibit the global electroweak symmetric vacuum at the origin, and thus the cutoff scale of our effective field theory is estimated to be $\Lambda_{\rm UV} \sim \Lambda_{\rm L} \lesssim 120$ TeV.
\section{Global electroweak symmetric vacuum}
\label{sec:globalvacua}
Using the on-shell renormalization scheme in Landau gauge, the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential of the Higgs field from the fields $S$ and $\Phi$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Veff:toy}
V_{\rm CW} = \sum_{X=S,\, \Phi} \frac{N_X}{64\pi^2} \left [ m^4_X(h) \left ( \ln \frac{m^2_X(h)}{m^2_X(v)} - \frac{3}{2} \right ) + 2 m^2_X (h)\, m^2_X(v) \right ]~,
\end{equation}
where the field dependent masses are $m^2_X(h) = m^2_X + \lambda_{hX} h^2$. The total effective potential is $V_{\rm eff} \equiv V_{\rm tree} + V_{\rm CW}$. We will consider parameter space to have the electroweak symmetry breaking vacuum $\langle h \rangle = v$ to be a metastable one. The global vacuum of the total potential $V_{\rm eff}$ is located at $\langle h \rangle = 0$ with unbroken EW symmetry. At zero temperature, the transition time from our current symmetry breaking vacuum to the global EW-symmetric vacuum is required to be longer than the age of the universe.
Since we have adopted on-shell renormalization scheme for the CW potential, the physical Higgs mass and VEV is determined by the tree level potential. Without the CW potential, the tree-level potential only admits one ordinary symmetry breaking vacuum. The situation can be different if the CW potential becomes significant.
Two non-trivial conditions to have a metastable EW symmetry breaking vacuum with a global vacuum at the origin are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metavac:cons:all}
m^2_h (0) = \left . \frac{d^2V_{\rm eff}}{dh^2} \right |_{h=0} > 0 ~, \quad
\epsilon(v) \equiv V_{\rm eff} (v) - V_{\rm eff}(0) > 0~.
\end{equation}
For a better analytic understanding, we rewrite the first condition as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metavac:cons1}
\begin{split}
m^2_h (0) = \left . \frac{d^2V_{\rm eff}}{dh^2} \right |_{h=0} =& - \lambda_h v^2 + \frac{N_s \, \lambda_{hs}}{16\pi^2}\,m_s^2 \left [ \ln \left ( \frac{1}{1 + (\lambda_{hs} v^2)/m_s^2} \right ) + \frac{\lambda_{hs} \, v^2} {m_s^2} \right ]
\\[2.5pt]
&\hspace{1.0cm} + \frac{N_\phi\, \lambda^2_{h\phi}}{16\pi^2}\, v^2 \left [ \frac{m_\phi^2}{\lambda_{h\phi}\, v^2} \ln \left ( \frac{m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} v^2)}{m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} v^2) + 1 } \right ) + 1 \right ]>0~,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu^2_h = \lambda_h v^2$ was used. Terms inside the bracket for $\phi$ is roughly order one positive value as long as $m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} v^2) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$, and the second term for $s$ is negative definite.
In our benchmark scenarios we will focus on the parameter space satisfying the following properties,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:benchmark:assumptions}
m_s^2 \sim v^2~,\quad |\lambda_{hs}| \ll 1~,\quad \alpha \equiv {m_\phi^2 \over \lambda_{h\phi} v^2} \ll 1~.
\end{equation}
When properties in Eq.~(\ref{eq:benchmark:assumptions}) are assumed, the inequality in Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons1}) becomes approximately
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metavac:cons1:approx}
m^2_h(0) \approx - \lambda_h v^2 + \frac{N_s\, \lambda^3_{hs}}{32\pi^2} \frac{v^4}{m_s^2} + \frac{N_\phi \,\lambda^2_{h\phi}}{16\pi^2}v^2
\approx - \lambda_h v^2 + \frac{N_\phi\, \lambda^2_{h\phi}}{16\pi^2} v^2 > 0~,
\end{equation}
where we have assumed $\sqrt{N_s} |\lambda_{hs}|^{3/2}/\sqrt{2} \ll \sqrt{N_\phi} \lambda_{h\phi}$ (with $m_s^2 \sim v^2$) based on the previous $|\lambda_{hs}| \ll 1$ assumption, which can make the positivity of $m^2_h(0)$ better satisfied as it suppresses the negative contribution from $S$.
The condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons1:approx}) provides a lower bound on the combination of quartic $\lambda_{h\phi}$ and $N_\phi$, namely $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:constraint:pos:mhsq}
N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2 > 16 \pi^2\, \lambda_h \simeq 21~.
\end{equation}
Similarly the second condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons:all}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metavac:cons2}
\begin{split}
\epsilon(v) =& - \frac{1}{4}\lambda_h\,v^4 + \frac{N_s}{128\pi^2} \,m_s^4
\left [ \frac{\lambda_{hs}^2\,v^4}{m^4_s} - 2 \frac{\lambda_{hs} \,v^2}{m^2_s} - 2 \ln \left ( \frac{1}{1 + (\lambda_{hs} \,v^2)/m_s^2} \right ) \right ]
\\[2.5pt]
& \hspace{1.6cm} + \frac{N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2}{128\pi^2} \, v^4
\left [ 1 - 2 \frac{m^2_\phi}{\lambda_{h\phi}\, v^2} - 2 \frac{m^4_\phi}{\lambda_{h\phi}^2 \,v^4} \ln \left ( \frac{m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} \,v^2)}{m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} \,v^2) + 1 } \right ) \right ] > 0~,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the bracket for $\phi$ is roughly order-one positive value as long as $\alpha = m_\phi^2/(\lambda_{h\phi} v^2) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ and the term for $s$ is negative definite. When Eq.~(\ref{eq:benchmark:assumptions}) is assumed as above, the above inequality becomes approximately
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metavac:cons2:approx}
\epsilon(v)
\approx - \frac{1}{4}\lambda_h v^4 + \frac{m_s^4 N_s}{192\pi^2} \left ( \frac{\lambda_{hs} v^2}{m_s^2} \right )^3 + \frac{N_\phi \, \lambda_{h\phi}^2}{128\pi^2} \, v^4
\approx - \frac{1}{4}\lambda_h v^4 + \frac{N_\phi \, \lambda_{h\phi}^2}{128\pi^2} \, v^4 > 0~,
\end{equation}
with the assumption of $\sqrt{N_s} |\lambda_{hs}|^{3/2}/\sqrt{3/2} \ll \sqrt{N_\phi} \lambda_{h\phi}$ (with $m_s^2 \sim v^2$) to suppress negative contribution from $S$.~\footnote{
The negative sub-leading contribution from $S$ reduces the size of the positive $\epsilon(v)$ [also the value of $m_h^2(0)$] for lower $m_s^2$ ($m^2_s \lesssim v^2$). Accordingly, the critical temperature at which two vacua become degenerate will be raised for a higher value of $m_s^2$.
} Again the positivity of $\epsilon(v)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons2:approx}) depends only on $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ and leads to a lower bound on it,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:constraint:pos:epsilon}
\mbox{\it global vacuum at }\langle h \rangle = 0:\quad N_\phi\,\lambda_{h\phi}^2 > 32\pi^2\, \lambda_h \simeq 41~,
\end{equation}
which can easily satisfy the perturbativity constraints in \eqref{eq:perturbative-lambda-hs-hphi}.
Noting that both conditions in Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons:all}) under our assumption in Eq.~(\ref{eq:benchmark:assumptions}) place a lower bound on $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$. Interestingly, since the bound in Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraint:pos:epsilon}) is more stringent than the one from Eq.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons1:approx}), it allows the inverted relation between the two vacua, namely the symmetry unbroken vacuum at the origin is metastable and the symmetry breaking vacuum is the global one, for the following range of $N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vac:inverted}
\mbox{\it metastable vacuum at }\langle h \rangle = 0:\quad 41 \simeq 32 \pi^2\, \lambda_h > N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2 > 16 \pi^2\, \lambda_h \simeq 21~.
\end{equation}
As we will discuss below, the experimental probe for the existence of the metastable unbroken vacuum at the origin in our scenarios will be challenging even at the HL-LHC.
\section{Symmetry non-restoration at high temperatures}
\label{sec:SNR}
After demonstrating the existence of parameter space to have $\langle h \rangle = 0$ as the global vacuum, one also needs to worry about why our current universe ends up at the electroweak symmetry breaking vacuum with $\langle h \rangle = v$. In this section, we want to demonstrate that with the choice of $\lambda_{hs} < 0$ and a related condition, the electroweak symmetry could stay at the broken one all the way up to a high temperature. This symmetry non-restoration has been pointed out a while ago by Weinberg~\cite{Weinberg:1974hy} and explored in Refs.~\cite{Mohapatra:1979qt,Mohapatra:1979vr,Dvali:1995cj} and more recently in Refs.~\cite{Meade:2018saz,Baldes:2018nel,Glioti:2018roy,Matsedonskyi:2020mlz,Cao:2021yau}.
At high temperatures of the early universe, the thermal corrections to the scalar effective potential can change the shape of the potential so that our current metastable vacuum could become a global vacuum.
We will study the phenomenological implication of this possibility in this work.
In the high $T$ approximation, the thermal corrections are dominated by the scalar thermal masses.
Neglecting SM interaction contributions, one has~\cite{Dolan:1973qd}
\beqa\label{eq:Vth:toy:highT}
\Delta V_{\rm thermal} &=& \frac{1}{24} \left (N_s\, \lambda_{hs}+ N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi} \right ) T^2 h^2 \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-1cm} + \, \frac{1}{24} \left[4\,\lambda_{hs}+ (N_s +2) \,\lambda_s \right] T^2 S^2 \, + \, \frac{1}{24} \left[4\,\lambda_{h\phi}+ (N_\phi +2 ) \,\lambda_\phi \right] T^2 \Phi^2 + \cdots
~.
\eeqa
As long as the thermal correction in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Vth:toy:highT}) to the effective potential is the dominant one, the Higgs mass could stay negative around the vacuum $\langle h \rangle = v$ for a proper choice of $N_s\, \lambda_{hs}+ N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi} $. Then, the electroweak symmetry will not be restored up to an arbitrarily high temperature (at least to the cutoff scale of our effective field theory), if satisfying the condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:constraint:neg:Vth}
N_s\, \lambda_{hs} + N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi} < 0~,
\end{equation}
where we choose $\lambda_{h s}$ to be negative ($\lambda_{h s} < 0$) to satisfy the above inequality condition. To have no additional saddle points in the $S$ and $\Phi$ directions, we impose one more condition
\beq
\label{eq:constraint:neg:Vth2}
4\,\lambda_{hs}+ (N_s + 2) \,\lambda_s > 0 ~.
\eeq
Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:metavac:cons1:approx}),~(\ref{eq:constraint:pos:epsilon}),~(\ref{eq:constraint:neg:Vth}), and \eqref{eq:constraint:neg:Vth2}, the condition to have a global electroweak symmetric vacuum at both zero and high temperatures is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lamhphiwindow:highT}
\frac{6.41}{\sqrt{N_\phi}}\approx \frac{4\pi \sqrt{2\lambda_h}}{\sqrt{N_\phi}} < \lambda_{h\phi} < - \frac{N_s}{N_\phi} \lambda_{h s}\,\quad \mbox{and}\quad \lambda_s > - \frac{4\,\lambda_{hs}}{N_s + 2}~.
\end{equation}
The upper bound on $\lambda_{h\phi}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lamhphiwindow:highT}) suggests that asymmetric multiplicities, $N_s > N_\phi$, as $\lambda_{h\phi} > |\lambda_{hs}|$ is preferred based on our assumptions in \eqref{eq:benchmark:assumptions}.
While the lower bound on $\lambda_{h\phi}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lamhphiwindow:highT}) is robust based on our approximation, the upper bound can be relaxed in a situation when the negative thermal correction from the ring term becomes sizable~\cite{Kraemmer:2003gd}. For instance, the ring term from $S$ and $\Phi$ is
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm ring} = \sum_{x=s,\phi} \frac{N_x T}{12\pi} \left( m_x^{3}(h) - [m_x^2(h) + \Pi_x (0)]^{3/2} \right)~,
\end{equation}
where $m^2_s(h) = m^2_s + \lambda_{hs} h^2$ and the Debye mass $\Pi_s(0) = \frac{1}{12}\left [ 4\lambda_{hs}+ (N_s+2) \lambda_s \right ] T^2$ (similarly for $\Phi$ with the replacement of $s\rightarrow \phi$). When the values of $\lambda_\phi$ and $\lambda_s$ are chosen to be appropriate values so that the ring term contributes sizable to a negative Higgs mass-squared,~\footnote{For the purpose of analytic understanding, we can expand the ring term in either low or high $T$. The leading term in $h$, ignoring unimportant $h$-independent terms, is given by
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm ring} \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
- \displaystyle \sum_{x=s,\phi}\frac{N_xT^3}{96\pi} \left\{ \left [ 4 \lambda_{hx} + (2+N_x)\lambda_x \right ] \sqrt{m_x^2 + \lambda_{hx} h^2}\, \right\} \quad ~ (\text{low-}T),
\vspace{0.4cm}
\\[3.0pt]
- \displaystyle \sum_{x=s,\phi} \frac{T^2 h^2}{16\sqrt{3}\pi} \Big [ N_x \lambda_{hx} \sqrt{4\lambda_{hx} + (2+N_x)\lambda_x} \Big ] \quad ~ (\text{high-}T).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Given that $\lambda_{hs}$ is taken to be negative and the constraint from Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraint:neg:Vth2}), the ring term from $\Phi$ in either case can contribute sizably to the negative Higgs mass-squared. Nevertheless, the negative $\lambda_{hs}$ still helps for the symmetry non-restoration as it reduces the overall size of the Higgs mass-squared term [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:Vth:toy:highT}) for the case in the high-$T$ limit] which competes with the ring term.
} $\lambda_{h\phi}$ can be pushed to a higher value than $-\lambda_{hs}$ even for the case with $N_s \simeq N_\phi$, while maintaining symmetry non-restoration. In our numerical calculations, we do not work in the high-temperature limit, but include all temperature dependence for the effective potential (see Refs.~\cite{Delaunay:2007wb,Jain:2017sqm}).
Within the parameter space to have our current universe sitting at a metastable EW symmetry breaking vacuum, one needs to make sure that the current universe will not tunnel to the universe with the global EW symmetric vacuum, both at the current era and in the early universe with higher temperatures.
The tunneling rates per unit volume for both quantum and thermal ones are~\cite{Coleman:1977py,Linde:1980tt}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toy:S3vsS4}
\left\{
\begin{array} {ll}
\Gamma_4 \simeq \displaystyle\frac{1}{R^4} \left (\displaystyle\frac{S_4}{2\pi}\right )^2 \exp\left (-S_4 \right ) & \quad T \approx 0~,
\vspace{0.4cm}\\[5.0pt]
\Gamma_3 \simeq T^4 \left [\displaystyle\frac{S_3(T)}{2\pi T} \right ]^{3/2} \exp \left[ -\displaystyle{S_3(T)/T} \right] &\quad T \neq 0~,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the size of the $O(4)$ critical bubbles and is related to the parameters in the effective potential. There is a lower bound on $S_4$ to have our current EW symmetry breaking vacuum $\langle h\rangle=v$ not to tunnel into the global vacuum at $\langle h\rangle=0$. Roughly, this requires $\Gamma_4 < H_0^4$ with $H_0$ as the Hubble scale at the current universe. Using $R \sim 1/v$, this condition can be translated into $S_4 > S_4^{\rm min} \simeq \ln[v^4/H_0^4] + 2\ln[\ln(v^4/H_0^4)/(2\pi)] \approx 416$. In our later numerical calculations, we will show that it is fairly easy to satisfy this long-lived-enough condition for our current metastable vacuum.
At early universe with a higher temperature, the thermal tunneling may have faster transition rates or with $S_3(T)/T < S_4$ for some temperatures. This means that one also needs to satisfy another condition to make sure that the metastable vacuum at $\langle h\rangle = v(T) \neq 0$ does not thermally tunnel to the global one at $\langle h\rangle = 0$. There is a minimum value for $S_3(T)/T$ at the temperature $T_m$. After taking into account the bubble expansion (see details in Appendix~\ref{app:sec:frac:bubbles}), we derive a lower bound $S_3(T_m)/T_m \gtrsim \ln \left(M_{\rm pl} T^2_m t_0^3 \right) + \frac{3}{2} \ln \left[ \frac{2}{3} \ln (M_{\rm pl} T^2_m t_0^3)\right] \approx 339$ for $M_{\rm pl} = 2.43\times 10^{18}$~GeV, $T_m \simeq 10$~GeV and the age of our universe $t_0\simeq 13.7$~Gyr. Noting that the numerical number 339 is different from the number $\sim 150$ for the ordinary EW phase transition, where the phase transition is completed at the phase transition temperature around the EW scale. For our case, the phase transition is required to be an {\it uncompleted} one, so that the generated bubbles have a longer time to expand and occupy more space. For some strong first-order EW phase transitions, the phase transition occurs shortly after the critical temperature $T_c$. The energy difference $\epsilon(T)$~\footnote{For the ordinary EW phase transition, $\epsilon (T) = V_{\rm eff}(v,T) - V_{\rm eff}(0,T) < 0$ since the EW symmetry breaking vacuum becomes the global one for $T < T_c$. } is smaller than the barrier size,~\footnote{In the discussion of~\cite{Coleman:1977py} which should be qualitatively applicable to our case, this criteria for the validity is equivalent to that the bubble radius should be much larger than the wall thickness, $R \sim 3S_1/\epsilon \gg (V''(0))^{-1/2}$.} and thus the thin-wall approximation can be applied. On the contrary, in our situation, the thin-wall approximation is not necessarily satisfied, and we will rely on the numerical simulation to calculate $S_3(T)/T$ for different temperatures. More specifically, we will the $\mathsf{Mathematica}$~\cite{Mathematica} package {\sc FindBounce}~\cite{Guada:2020xnz} to calculate both $S_4$ and $S_3(T)/T$.
\begin{figure}[th!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{s4Nlamhphisq.pdf}
\caption{\small The bounce action $S_4$ as a function of $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ at zero temperature. Other parameters are fixed to be $N_s = 1500$, $\lambda_{hs}=-0.1$, $\alpha \equiv m_\phi^2 /( \lambda_{h\phi} v^2) = 0.001$. The peak value is around $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi} \sim (4\pi \sqrt{2\lambda_h})^2\approx 41$ below which $\epsilon(v)$ switches the sign or the global vacuum changes from $\langle h \rangle = 0$ to $\langle h \rangle = v$. For $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2 > 80$, the current metastable vacuum with $\langle h \rangle = v$ has a short lifetime to tunnel to the global one or $S_4 < S_4^{\rm min}\simeq 416$.}
\label{fig:bounce:B4:NphiLamphi}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Under the aforementioned assumption on $\lambda_{hs}$, $|\lambda_{hs}| \ll 1$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:benchmark:assumptions}) and $m_s^2 \sim v^2$, the effective potential at zero temperature is quite insensitive to $N_s$ (its dependence will be important for finite temperature). Two most relevant parameters, $N_\phi$ and $\lambda_{h\phi}$, affect the shape of the zero temperature effective potential (thus the size of $S_4$) through one combination, $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$. The calculated $S_4$ as a function of $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounce:B4:NphiLamphi}. For $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ above or below 41, we have the global vacuum at $\langle h \rangle =0$ or $\langle h \rangle = v$ [see also Eq.~(\ref{eq:vac:inverted})]. When $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi} < 21$, there is no vacuum at $\langle h\rangle = 0$. In the blue horizontal line, we show the minimum value $S_4^{\rm min} \approx 416$, which intersects the black curve at $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi} \approx 80$. When $S_4 > S_4^{\rm min}$, the current metastable vacuum at $\langle h \rangle = v$ is longer than the age of universe. Therefore, the $41 < N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi} < 80$ is the range of parameter space to have a ``safe" global vacuum at origin at zero temperature.
At high temperatures above a critical temperature $T_c$ when the two vacua are degenerate, the universe prefers sitting at the EW symmetry breaking vacuum.
As the universe cools down below the critical temperature or $T<T_c$, the symmetry breaking vacuum has a higher free energy than the unbroken one, so that the symmetry breaking vacuum becomes metastable. As examples, we show two benchmark scenarios with the corresponding parameter values in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark} and their behaviors of the effective potential in Fig.~\ref{fig:benchmark:Tevolution}. The two benchmark points are chosen to have a non-symmetric case ($N_s > N_\phi$) for the benchmark point 1 and a symmetric case ($N_s = N_\phi$) for the benchmark point 2. For the point 1, the ring-term contribution is not important, while for the point 2 with a larger value of $\lambda_s$, the ring-term contribution is important and the condition $N_s \lambda_{hs} + N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi} < 0$ in \eqref{eq:constraint:neg:Vth} can be relaxed.
\begin{table}[bh!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{0.2pt}
\scalebox{0.95}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\lambda_{hs}$ & $\lambda_{h\phi}$ & $\lambda_{s}$ & $\lambda_{\phi}$& $m_s$ & $\alpha=\frac{m_\phi^2}{\lambda_{h\phi} v^2} $ & $N_s$ & $N_\phi$ & $S_4$ & $\left(\frac{S_3}{T}\right)_{\rm min}$ & $\frac{T_{\rm min}}{v}$ & $\frac{T_c}{v}$\\
\hline
1 &$-0.1$ & $0.70$ & $5\cdot 10^{-4}$ & $10^{-4}$ & $246$ & $0.001$ & $1500$ & $100$ & $36680$ & $409$ & $0.234$ & $0.343$ \\[3pt]
\hline
2 &$-0.1$ & $0.83$ & $0.1$ & $0.1$ & $246$ & $0.001$ & $100$ & $100$ & $879$ & $386$ & $0.095$ & $0.278$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Two benchmark points (dimensionful parameters are in unit of GeV and $v=246$ GeV). $\lambda_s$ was chosen to satisfy the constraint in Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraint:neg:Vth2}) for the range of $N_s$ that will be used in our numerical scan.
}
\label{tab:benchmark}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[th!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{cartoonPoint1.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{cartoonPoint2.pdf}
\caption{\small The effective potential of the benchmark scenario 1 (left) and benchmark scenario 2 (right) in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}. The pure SM tree-level potential at $T=0$ is shown in solid red line, while the one-loop corrected one at $T=0$ is shown in the solid blue line. The effective potential around $T=T_m < T_c$, where $S_3(T)/T$ takes a minimum value, is shown in solid black line. Similarly, other curves are for $T=T_c$ (dotted black), $T > T_c$ (dashed black), and $T \gg T_c$ (dot-dashed black).
}
\label{fig:benchmark:Tevolution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the behaviors of the thermal potentials for our model, we show their values as a function of $h$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:benchmark:Tevolution}. Here, we have shifted the thermal potentials by an $h$-independent value to have a zero potential value at $h=0$. At $T=0$, the one-loop effective potential $V_{\rm tree} + V_{\rm CW}$ (the solid blue line) shows that the vacuum $\langle h \rangle = v$ is a metastable one with the global vacuum at $\langle h \rangle = 0$. At high temperatures with $T > T_c$, the symmetry breaking vacuum has a smaller effective potential than the symmetry-conserving one. In this plot, we also show the behavior at $T = T_m < T_c$ in the solid black line when $S_3(T)/T$ has its smallest value. In the right panel for the scenario 2, a monotonic behavior for the energy difference between the two vacua can be observed when $T$ decreases. On the other hand, a non-monotonic behavior appears in the left panel for the scenario 1. As a result, the potential barrier for $T=0$ potential is effectively higher than the $T=T_m$ one, so the tunneling action value $S_4$ is much larger than $S_3(T_m)/T_m$ for this benchmark point.
\begin{figure}[tph]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark1.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark2.pdf}
\caption{\small $S_3(T)/T$ (solid black) as a function of $T/v$ for the benchmark scenario 1 (left) and 2 (right) in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}. The dashed red line corresponds to the $S_4$ value for each scenario. The upper end in the $T/v$ axis corresponds to the critical temperature $T_c/v$.
}
\label{fig:benchmark:o3bounce}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:benchmark:o3bounce}, we show the values of $S_3(T)/T$ as a function of $T$ for both benchmark points in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}. The increasing behavior at the high-$T$ end is due to that $S_3(T) \propto (T_c - T)^{-a}$ when $T\rightarrow T_c$. The positive numeric index $a$ is not important for our discussion here. The increasing behavior at the low-$T$ end is simply due to that $S_3(T)$ reaches a constant such that $S_3(T)/T \propto 1/T$ when $T \rightarrow 0$. For both benchmark points, the minimum value of $S_3(T)/T$ is smaller than $S_4$. Therefore, when we consider the stability of the metastable vacuum, we have to take into account the potentially faster thermal tunneling rates.
\begin{figure}[th!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark1finiteT2.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark1s4s3t.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark2finiteT2.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{benchmark2s4s3t.pdf}
\caption{\small $(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$ (left) and the ratio of $S_4/(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$ (right) as a function of $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$. Upper (bottom) plots are obtained by scanning parameters around the benchmark scenario 1 (scenario 2) in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}. Data points are subdivided into three sub-regions: $N_\phi=[30,\, 80]$ (red), $N_\phi=[80,\, 110]$ (blue) and $N_\phi=[110,\, 200]$ (black). The horizontal line is to require an uncompleted thermal phase transition from the metastable vacuum $\langle h \rangle = v$ to the global one or $S_3/T > (S_3/T)_{\rm min}\approx 339$, which infers that $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi} \lesssim 62\, (69)$ from upper (bottom) plots.
}
\label{fig:o3bounce:1D}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To have a broader view of the values of $S_3(T)/T$ and $S_4$ for our model, we make some scans of model parameters in the vicinity of the two benchmark scenarios in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark} that have different importance for the ring terms.
Around the first benchmark scenario, we vary $\lambda_{h\phi}$, $N_\phi$, and $N_s$ in the following range,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scan:sc1}
\lambda_{h\phi} = [0.40,\, 1.10]~, \quad
N_\phi = [30,\, 200]~,\quad
N_s = [1000,\, 1500]~,
\end{equation}
while fixing $\lambda_{hs}$, $\lambda_{s}$, $\lambda_\phi$, $\alpha$ (or $m_\phi$), and $m_s$ as the values in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}.
Similarly around the second benchmark scenario, we vary $\lambda_{h\phi}$, $N_\phi$, and $N_s$ in the following range,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scan:sc2}
\lambda_{h\phi} = [0.40,\, 1.10]~, \quad
N_\phi = [30,\, 200]~,\quad
N_s = [30,\, 200]~,
\end{equation}
while fixing other parameters as the values in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}. We collect only the parameter points as valid ones that exhibit non-vanishing values of $T_c$, $S_4$, and $(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$ simultaneously.
Since the parameter combination $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$ is the most important one to have a global EW symmetric vacuum, we show $(S_3/T)_{\rm min} \equiv S_3(T_m)/T_m$ as a function of $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$ in the left panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:o3bounce:1D}. Because $S_3/T$ depends also on the parameter combination $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}$ (see \eqref{eq:Vth:toy:highT}), the value of $(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$ is larger for a smaller value of $N_\phi$ (or equivalently a larger value of $\lambda_{h\phi}$) when $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$ is fixed. To have $(S_3/T)_{\rm min} > 339$ or to have the current universe still sit at the $\langle h \rangle = v$ vacuum, one has an approximately upper bound on $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$ as $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2 \lesssim 62\, (69)$ for the benchmark scenario 1 (scenario 2). Varying the bare mass of $S$ in the range $m_s = [200,\, 350]$ GeV in addition to the parameters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scan:sc1}) ($m_s = [200,\, 350]$ GeV, $\lambda_\phi = [0.08,\, 0.12]$, and $\lambda_s = [0.08,\, 0.12]$ in addition to those in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scan:sc2})) for the benchmark scenario 1 (scenario 2), we have found that the upper limit remains almost the same within 3\% (1\%) upward fluctuation. Therefore, the uncompleted thermal phase transition requires
\beqa
\mbox{\it uncompleted thermal phase transition:}\quad\quad 41 < N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2 \lesssim 70 ~.
\eeqa
In the right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:o3bounce:1D}, the ratio of $S_4$ over $(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$ is shown as a function of $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2$. One can clearly see that this ratio is much larger than one for the cosmologically viable parameter region $N_\phi \lambda_{h\phi}^2 \lesssim 62\, (70)$. Thus the quantum tunneling at the current era is less efficient compared to the thermal tunneling in the early universe.
\section{Formation and dynamics of bubbles}
\label{sec:bubble}
During the thermal evolution, the Higgs potential energy in the symmetry breaking phase becomes higher than the value at the origin when the temperature is below the critical temperature $T_c$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:benchmark:Tevolution} for illustration). Since then, the vacuum at the origin becomes the global one, and the transition from the metastable symmetry breaking vacuum to the global one can happen through a first order phase transition. Bubbles with an unbroken EW symmetry inside and symmetry breaking outside could be thermally generated in space. At a low temperature such that the thermal energy is smaller than the vacuum energy difference $\epsilon(v)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:metavac:cons2}, the space-time geometry of the bubbles are dominated by the negative vacuum energy (our current universe has a tiny vacuum energy), those bubbles become AdS bubbles. On the other hand, to the outside observer, the bubbles including the AdS bubbles can be treated as normal matter whose mass gets two contributions from both the volume and surface energy terms~\cite{Espinosa:2015qea}. Depending on the size of bubble radii, bubbles are sub-divided into three categories: subcritical, critical and supercritical bubbles.
The dynamical evolution of the bubbles with a global vacuum inside might be analyzed following a similar strategy as Ref.~\cite{Espinosa:2015qea} which exploits the equation of motion on the bubble wall from the metric continuity conditions at the boundary separating inside and outside of the bubbles. However, the qualitative behaviors of different kinds of bubbles can be understood using the thin-wall approximation (also the Newtonian limit applies to small-radius bubbles), although some of our model parameters have a quantitatively thick-wall behavior, which we rely on numerical calculations.
Within the thin-wall approximation, the $O(3)$-symmetrical finite-temperature action can be approximated by the volume vacuum energy and the surface tension energy terms~\cite{Coleman:1977py,Coleman:1980aw},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:thinwall}
S_3 = 4\pi \int_0^\infty dr\, r^2 \Big [ \frac{1}{2} \left ( \frac{dh}{dr} \right )^2 + V(h,\, T) \Big ]
\sim - \frac{4}{3} \pi R^3 \epsilon(T) + 4\pi R^2 S_1(T)~,
\end{equation}
where $r=|\vec{x}|$ and $S_1(T)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
S_1(T) = \int_0^\infty dr\, \Big [ \frac{1}{2} \left ( \frac{dh}{dr} \right )^2 + V(h,\, T) \Big ]~,
\end{equation}
after substituting the bounce solution for $h$.
The critical bubble radius can be obtained by extremizing $S_3$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:S3:thinwall} in $R$ and is~\footnote{This estimate parametrically agrees with the expression in the Newtonian limit from the alternative approach in~\cite{Espinosa:2015qea} that does not assume a thin-wall approximation.}
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm crit} \equiv \frac{2\,S_1(T)}{\epsilon(T)} ~.
\end{equation}
The bubbles with larger (smaller) radius than $R_{\rm crit}$ are classified as supercritical (subcritical) bubbles. For those supercritical bubbles with $R > R_{\rm crit}$, the volume contribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:S3:thinwall}) dominates and it will expand. On the other hand, subcritical bubbles with $R < R_{\rm crit}$ will eventually shrink and collapse as the surface (or tension) contribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:S3:thinwall}) dominates. We discuss the consequence of both types of bubbles in sequence.
\subsection{Supercritical bubbles and uncompleted phase transition}
\label{sec:supercritical}
For the supercritical bubbles, they will keep expanding after productions until they meet other bubbles and percolate. If they exist within the Hubble patch of the current visible universe, their radii will be enormous. The enclosed large amount of vacuum energy makes them behave as very heavy matter and likely to overclose the universe. Assuming a constant wall velocity of $v_w$ and the initial production time at $T_m$, the size of a supercritical bubble today is $R_0\sim v_w\ t_0$ with the age of universe $t_0 \approx 13.7$\,Gyr. The total energy contained inside the bubble can be estimated to be $\epsilon(v)\,R_0^3 \sim v^4 \, v_w^3\,t_0^3$, which is $(v/\Lambda_{\rm CC})^4\,v_w^3 \sim 10^{56}\,v_w^3$ times the critical energy density of the current universe. Here, the cosmological constant scale is $\Lambda_{\rm CC}\approx 2\times 10^{-3}$\,eV. Obviously, this is phenomenologically unacceptable. Therefore, we will require a small probability to have one supercritical bubble in the current universe, which sets a lower bound on $S_3(T)/T$.
Given the nucleation rate per volume $\Gamma_3$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:toy:S3vsS4}), the fraction of space for a volume $V$ not occupied by the bubbles is roughly $f(t) \sim \exp (- \Gamma_3 \cdot V)$~\cite{Guth:1981uk}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:frac:not:occupied}
f(t) = \exp \left ( - \frac{4\pi}{3} \int_{t_c}^{t} dt' v_w^3 (t-t')^3 \,\Gamma_3(t') \right )~.
\end{equation}
Since the nucleation rate is dominated by around the time with $T=T_m$ with $S_3/T$ taking its minimum value $(S_3/T)_{\rm min}$, one can derive a lower bound on the bounce action by requiring $f(t_0) \sim 1$ in the current universe (see Appendix~\ref{app:sec:frac:bubbles} for a more detailed derivation)~\footnote{In a typical EWPT, $S_3/T \sim 150$ leads to an order-one fraction of universe by bubbles and ending of the EW phase transition. For our case, the phase transition is not completed. The difference between 150 and 339 amounts to the time interval between roughly the electroweak phase transition time and today. A higher value of $S_3/T$ for our case is required to avoid even a single supercritical bubble in the current universe.}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lowerbound:S3T}
\frac{S_3(T_m)}{T_m} \gtrsim \ln \left(M_{\rm pl} T^2_m t_0^3 \right) + \frac{3}{2} \ln \left[ \frac{2}{3} \ln (M_{\rm pl} T^2_m t_0^3)\right]\approx 339~,
\end{equation}
where we have used $M_{\rm pl} = 2.43 \times 10^{18}$ GeV, $T_m = 10$ GeV and $t_0 \approx 13.7$ Gyr.
\subsection{Subcritical bubbles}
For subcritical bubbles, they have smaller free energy that can be seen from the bounce action $S_3(T)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:S3:thinwall}). Therefore, they are produced more frequently and may have some non-trivial cosmological consequence (see Refs.~\cite{Gleiser:1991rf,Gleiser:1995er} for the effects of subcritical bubbles on first-order phase transition). On the other hand, the subcritical bubbles prefer to shrink once generated. Hence, usually we don't anticipate any footprints they leave. Nevertheless, we discuss a few potential phenomenological consequences that they may induce.
The first possibility is that the subcritical bubbles may collide with each other and generate some stochastic gravitational waves. We want to show here that the energy contained in gravitational waves is unlikely to be enough to be observed. The first argument relies on the typical distance between two subcritical bubbles (or the average inter-bubble distance), which is larger than $R_{\rm crit}$ and hence the radius of subcritical bubble ($< R_{\rm crit}$).
It can be estimated from the number density of bubbles, $n_{\text{bubble}} = N_{\text{bubble}}/V \equiv (1/d_\star)^3$.
Since the number density can be separately estimated in terms of the nucleation rate $\Gamma(t)$ and the fraction $f(t)$~\cite{Guth:1981uk}, the typical distance scale $d_\star$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\star \sim n_{\text{bubbles}}^{-1/3} \sim \left[\int_{t_\star}^{t}dt' \, \Gamma(t') \, f(t') \right]^{-1/3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_\star$ is the moment when a subcritical bubble was created and $t$ must be within the lifetime of the subcritical bubble.
Treating the universe as a radiation-dominated one, our conservative estimate has $d_\star \geq \mathcal O(10-10^2)/v$ for our benchmark points which looks comparable to the size of those bubbles during their lifetime (see Appendix~\ref{app:sec:interbubble:dist} for details). In a more realistic situation, we expect that average inter-bubble distance is much bigger than the size of the bubbles.
The second argument is based on the smallness of energy contained in the subcritical bubbles (for supercritical bubbles, the bubble radius is large when two bubbles expand first and collide, so the energy contained in the bubble is large). The total mass contained in the subcritical bubble is small: $M \sim (4\pi/3)R^3 v^4 \sim v$, so the gravitational wave amplitude from two bubble collision is suppressed by $G_N M/R \sim v^2/M_{\rm pl}^2$.
The second possibility is to have additional matter to stop the subcritical bubbles from shrinking. If there is a conserved quantum number like the baryon number or dark matter number (one can easily make $\Phi$ in our model a complex field to have an additional unbroken $U(1)_\Phi$). The quantum pressure from either fermions or scalar bosons can balance the surface tension pressure and make the whole system stable. This type of objects is similar to the $Q$-ball in the literature~\cite{Friedberg:1976me,Coleman:1985ki} (see also \cite{Ponton:2019hux} for the electroweak symmetric dark matter balls). For fermionic $Q$-balls, one could supplement Eq.~\eqref{eq:S3:thinwall} with the fermion kinetic energy $\sim N^{4/3}/R$ for the total fermion number of $N$. Minimizing the energy, one has the equilibrium radius of $R_{\rm eq} \sim N^{4/9}/S_1^{1/3}$ and the total mass of $M_N \sim N^{8/9}\,S_1^{1/3}$. So, for fermions with their masses mainly from the Higgs VEV, the $Q$-ball-like state with zero fermion mass inside has a smaller mass per quantum number $M_N / N \propto N^{-1/9}$ for a sufficiently larger $N$. So, the subcritical bubbles provide us another way to form $Q$-balls in the early universe, which could serve as another interesting dark matter state. The detailed properties of those states depend on the chemical potential or dark matter asymmetry and the later evolution of objects with different quantum numbers.
The third interesting possibility is to use the subcritical bubbles to provide the out-of-equilibrium condition for the EW baryogenesis. Note that for the ordinary EW baryogenesis based on the first-order phase transition from the EW symmetric one to the broken one, the out-of-equilibrium condition is provided by the expanding supercritical bubbles. The EW sphaleron process inside the subcritical bubbles can be efficient to generate baryon number asymmetry because of the EW unbroken core. Similar to the ordinary case, additional CP-violating interactions are required and beyond the ingredients in our current model. We leave this possibility to future explorations.
\section{Collider tests of the global EWS vacuum}
\label{sec:pheno}
The particle-physics phenomenology of our scenario is similar to other Higgs-portal models with new light scalars but with a large multiplicity. To avoid the constraints from the exotic or invisible Higgs decays (assuming both $\Phi$ and $S$ are stable at the collider scale), we restrict our consideration to the case with $m^{\rm phys}_{s,\, \phi} > m_h/2$ with $m^{\rm phys\,2}_s \equiv m^2_s+ \lambda_{hs} v^2$ and $m^{\rm phys\,2}_\phi \equiv m^2_\phi+ \lambda_{h\phi} v^2$. Otherwise, one has a too large invisible Higgs decay width. For instance, using $\Gamma(h \rightarrow \Phi \Phi) =N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2 v^2/(8\pi m_h)$ by ignoring the phase space factor, one has the invisible Higgs decay width much larger than the total Higgs boson decay width even for $N_\phi\, \lambda_{h\phi}^2$ order of unit. Given the large multiplicity and sizable portal couplings, one could infer the existence of new scalars either via indirect constraints from the SM Higgs properties or direct production from off-shell Higgs decays. In this section, we will consider relevant existing constraints and discuss the prospects at future experiments.
\subsection{Higgs self-couplings}
The potential existence of a global vacuum at $\langle h\rangle = 0$ brings sizable changes for the local Higgs potential shape around $\langle h\rangle = v$, which can be easily seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:outline}. So, measuring the Higgs boson self-interacting couplings will be a promising way to probe the scenarios presented in this paper.
Defining the quantum field $\mathtt{h}\equiv h - v$ around the EW symmetry breaking vacuum, the generic Higgs potential up to the quartic coupling can be parametrized as
\begin{equation}
V ( \mathtt{h}) = \frac{1}{2}m^2_h\, \mathtt{h}^2 + \frac{1}{3!}\lambda_3\, v\, \mathtt{h}^3 + \frac{1}{4!} \lambda_4\, \mathtt{h}^4~,
\end{equation}
where the SM values of Higgs self-couplings are given by $\lambda_3^{\rm SM} = \lambda_4^{\rm SM} = 6\lambda_h = 3m^2_h/v^2$.
Based on the total potential $V_{\rm eff} \equiv V_{\rm tree} + V_{\rm CW}$ and the CW potential in \eqref{eq:Veff:toy}, one can derive the cubic and quartic couplings in our model as
\beqa
\lambda_3 &\approx& 6 \, \lambda_h \,+\, \frac{N_\phi\,\lambda_{h\phi}^2}{4\pi^2} \,+\, \frac{N_s\,\lambda_{hs}^2}{4\pi^2}\,\frac{\lambda_{hs}\,v^2}{m_s^2} ~, \\
\lambda_4 &\approx&6 \, \lambda_h \,+\, \frac{N_\phi\,\lambda_{h\phi}^2}{\pi^2} \,+\, \frac{3\,N_s\,\lambda_{hs}^2}{2\pi^2}\,\frac{\lambda_{hs}\,v^2}{m_s^2} ~,
\eeqa
keeping the leading term in $\lambda_{hs} v^2/m_s^2$ for $\lambda_{hs} v^2 \ll m_s^2$. Ignoring the small last terms in the above two formulas, it is evident that there are positive shifts for both couplings from new physics. This can be easily seen from the cubic term $\frac{1}{3!}\lambda_3\, v\,\mathtt{h}^3 = \frac{1}{3!}\lambda_3\,v \,(h -v)^3$. To have a lower potential value at $h=0$, one prefers to have a larger positive value for $\lambda_3$. Applying the constraints, $41 < N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2 \lesssim 80\,(70)$, from requiring the existence of global EWS vacuum and a long-lived current universe (uncompleted thermal phase transition), one has
\beqa
\label{eq:lambda34}
2.3 < \lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM} \lesssim 3.6 \,(3.3) ~, \qquad \qquad 6.3 < \lambda_4/\lambda_4^{\rm SM} \lesssim 11.4 \, (10.1) ~.
\eeqa
For the Higgs boson as the only order parameter and a global vacuum at origin, a large modification for the Higgs self-interacting cubic and quartic couplings is a robust prediction. The existing data at the LHC~\cite{Sirunyan:2018ayu,Aad:2019uzh,DiMicco:2019ngk,ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-009,CMS-PAS-HIG-19-005} have not reached the sensitivity to probe the region in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lambda34}. For instance, using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ data, the ATLAS collaboration has imposed an upper bound [95\% confidence level (CL)] on the cubic coupling $\lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM} < 12.0$~\cite{Aad:2019uzh}.
The HL-LHC, on the other hand, has promising potential to test the global EWS vacuum scenarios. The combined sensitivities at the 95\% CL of various decay channels of $pp\rightarrow hh$ process at the HL-LHC are $-0.4 \lesssim \lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM} \lesssim 7.3$ and $-0.18 \lesssim \lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM} \lesssim 3.6$ for ATLAS and CMS analyses, respectively~\cite{Cepeda:2019klc,DiMicco:2019ngk}.
A simple statistical combination of ATLAS and CMS analyses, assuming no correlation among all channels, is estimated to give $0.1 \lesssim \lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM} \lesssim 2.3$ at the 95\% CL~\cite{Cepeda:2019klc,DiMicco:2019ngk}. Therefore, all or a large fraction of the global EWS vacuum scenarios will be tested at the HL-LHC (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bench1:c3c4}). The searches related to the single-Higgs production can also probe the Higgs self-couplings indirectly, although the expected constraint at the HL-LHC is weaker than that from the double-Higgs production. At lepton colliders with a low center-of-mass energy, searches associated with the single-Higgs production are the main processes to probe the Higgs self-couplings. For instance, $e^+e^-\rightarrow Zh$ where the Higgs cubic self-coupling enter through the loop correction to the $hZZ$ vertex. Recent studies at low-energy $e^+e^-$ colliders predict $\mathcal{O}(1)$ determination of the ratio $\lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM}$ at the 95\% CL. The precision becomes (or better than) roughly 50\% at the 68\% CL for the global fit (and roughly twice better for the single-parameter fit), whereas the precision at the 68\% CL at the HL-LHC has a similar precision of around 50\%~\cite{DiVita:2017vrr,DiMicco:2019ngk}. So, precise measurement of the Higgs couplings at lepton collider can also cover most of parameter space to have a global EWS vacuum. We summarize various projected sensitivities in the upper panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:bench1:c3c4} for hadron colliders.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{benchmark1cubic.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{benchmark1cubicquartic.pdf} \\[20pt]
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{benchmark1mphys.pdf} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{benchmark2mphys.pdf}
\caption{\small Upper: Higgs cubic self-coupling, normalized to the SM value, $\lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM}$ as a function of $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ (left). Predicted Higgs self-couplings in ($\lambda_3/\lambda_3^{\rm SM},\, \lambda_4/\lambda_4^{\rm SM}$) plane (right). Limits from $h^*\rightarrow {\rm inv}$ via VBF are obtained by projecting the ATLAS analysis~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2020-008} with 139 fb$^{-1}$ data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV to higher luminosities of 300 fb$^{-1}$ and 3000 fb$^{-1}$, assuming that statistical and systematic uncertainties scale down as the square root of the luminosity. Bottom: the scattering plots for the $\Phi$ particle physical mass in terms of $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}$ for the parameter space satisfying $(S_3/T)_{\rm min} > 339$ around the benchmark scenario 1 (left) and scenario 2 (right). The same color coding as Fig.~\ref{fig:o3bounce:1D}. The projected limits from $h^*\rightarrow {\rm inv}$ via VBF are overlaid. Dashed lines correspond to the limits with only statistical uncertainties. All limits are at the 95\% CL.
}
\label{fig:bench1:c3c4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using precise measurement of the Higgs quartic self-coupling to test our scenario is generally challenging due to the tiny signal rate. It is a tough task even at the 100 TeV $pp$ collider. Recent studies on $pp \rightarrow hhh$ process at the 100 TeV $pp$ collider indicate $\mathcal{O}(10)$ determination on $\lambda_4/\lambda_4^{\rm SM}$ (for positive values), assuming 30 ab$^{-1}$ of data and the SM-like Higgs cubic self-coupling~\cite{Papaefstathiou:2015paa,Chen:2015gva,Fuks:2017zkg,Kilian:2017nio,Papaefstathiou:2019ofh} (similar sensitivities on $\lambda_4/\lambda_4^{\rm SM}$ are expected from double-Higgs production at future $e^+e^-$ or 100 TeV $pp$ colliders~\cite{Maltoni:2018ttu,Liu:2018peg,Borowka:2018pxx,Bizon:2018syu}). Nevertheless, precise measurement on the Higgs quartic coupling will be important for the model discrimination in the situation where we observe any hint of new physics based on the Higgs cubic self-coupling measurement~\cite{Jain:2017sqm}.
\subsection{Off-shell Higgs invisible decays: $E_T^{\rm miss}$+ jets}
Although there is no on-shell Higgs boson decay into the new scalars $S$ and $\Phi$ for $m^{\rm phys}_{s,\, \phi} > m_h/2$, one could search for them based on their productions at colliders from an intermediate off-shell Higgs~\cite{Craig:2014lda,Ruhdorfer:2019utl}. The production cross sections will be enhanced by the factor of $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2$ or $N_s \lambda_{h s}^2$ and could be sizable. Because of the (approximately) $O(N)$ symmetries for both scalars, $S$ and $\Phi$ are effectively stable particles at collider and appear as the missing transverse momentum ($E_T^{\rm miss}$).
There are several production channels to probe the off-shell Higgs production of stable scalars. The process $pp \rightarrow h^*j \rightarrow SS j,\, \Phi\Phi j$ via the gluon fusion has a large cross section, although it is subject to large SM backgrounds. On the other hand, the vector boson fusion channel, $pp \rightarrow h^*jj \rightarrow SS jj,\, \Phi\Phi jj$, has the advantage of using the two forward jets to reduce the SM backgrounds. For both cases, the collider signatures are $E_T^{\rm miss} +$ jets. The production cross section of $\Phi$ (similarly for $S$) has a simple scaling for a fixed mass $m^{\rm phys}_\phi$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppPhiPhi:scaling}
\sigma(pp \rightarrow \Phi\Phi + \mbox{jets}) = N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi}^2\times \sigma(pp \rightarrow h^*+ \mbox{jets} \rightarrow \Phi\Phi +\mbox{jets}: \lambda_{h\phi}\sqrt{N_\phi} =1)~.
\end{equation}
Because $N_\phi\,\lambda_{h\phi}^2 \gg N_s \lambda^2_{hs}$ for our benchmark scenarios (see Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}) and $m^{\rm phys}_\phi < m^{\rm phys}_s$, the production cross section for $\Phi$ is much larger than that for $S$. Noting that a lighter $\Phi$ particle with sizable coupling to the SM Higgs is crucial to have a global EWS vacuum at the current universe.
Using the most recent collider search for off-shell Higgs invisible decays via the VBF channel with 139 fb$^{-1}$ at ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2020-008}, we have simulated the signal events, imposed the corresponding kinematic cuts and found a rather weak constraint on our model parameter (see Appendix~\ref{app:sec:atlas:recasting} for more detail). For $m^{\rm phys}_\phi = 200 \, (250)$~GeV,~\footnote{The exclusion limit for different mass values is shown in Fig.~\ref{app:fig:Etjets:exclusion1} in Appendix~\ref{app:sec:atlas:recasting}.} the upper limit on $N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi}^2$ at the 95\% CL is $N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi}^2 < 137 \, (361)$. We have also made simple projections for the LHC with 300 fb$^{-1}$ and the high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with 3 ab$^{-1}$ and found that the projected limits are $N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi}^2 < 94 \, (225)$ and $N_\phi \,\lambda_{h\phi}^2 < 28 \, (66)$, respectively (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bench1:c3c4} for the parameter space coverage). For the curves with systematic errors, we have assumed that the systematic errors scale down as the square root of luminosity. This could serve as a conservative estimation for the projected sensitivity. From the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bench1:c3c4}, one can see that searching for off-shell Higgs invisible decays can probe the whole global EWS vacuum scenario at the HL-LHC if the $\Phi$ physical mass is below around 200 GeV. So, this search is complementary to measuring the Higgs cubic self-coupling to probe the Higgs potential vacuum structure.
In the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:bench1:c3c4}, we show the scattering plots of $m_\phi^{\rm phys}$ and $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h \phi}$ for the two benchmark scenarios (see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:scan:sc1} and~\eqref{eq:scan:sc2}), after imposing the condition of $(S_3/T)_{\rm min} > 339$. One can see that $m_\phi^{\rm phys}$ is above around 190 GeV for both scenarios. Noting that there is no immediate upper bound on $m_\phi^{\rm phys}$. One could reduce $N_\phi$ and hence increase $\lambda_{h \phi}$ and $m_\phi^{\rm phys}$ while keeping $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h \phi} > 41$ to have a global vacuum at $\langle h \rangle = 0$. From the projected HL-LHC sensitivities, the parameter space with $m^{\rm phys}_\phi$ below around 250 GeV can be probed with 3\,ab$^{-1}$ luminosity. Also noting that all our projected sensitivities are based on the 13 TeV LHC. Slightly better sensitivities are anticipated for the 14 TeV LHC (see Refs.~\cite{Craig:2014lda,Ruhdorfer:2019utl} for collider studies) due to roughly 20\% larger signal cross sections for the mass range of interest.
The off-shell Higgs invisible decay can also be searched for at a future lepton collider like ILC~\cite{Baer:2013cma}, CEPC~\cite{CEPCStudyGroup:2018ghi} or FCC-ee~\cite{Abada:2019zxq} if the center-of-mass energy is large enough or $\sqrt{s} > 2 m^{\rm phys}_{\phi}$ for the channel $e^+ e^- \rightarrow e^+ e^- + h^*(\rightarrow \Phi \Phi)$ and $\sqrt{s} > 2 m^{\rm phys}_{\phi} + M_Z$ for $e^+ e^- \rightarrow Z + h^*(\rightarrow \Phi \Phi)$. Depending on the collider center-of-mass energy, the projected sensitivities can exceed the ones for HL-LHC (see Ref.~\cite{Ruhdorfer:2019utl} for comparison).
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
So far, the interactions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lag1} conserve the global $O(N_s)$ and $O(N_\phi)$ symmetries. If those global symmetries are exact, both $S$ and $\Phi$ fields are stable particles and could contribute to dark matter energy density (see \cite{Barger:2007im} for detailed studies). If the abundances of $S$ and $\Phi$ follow the thermal history and have the freeze-out ones, their abundances should be scaling like $N_s/\lambda_{h s}^2$ and $N_\phi/\lambda_{h \phi}^2$, respectively. In the large $N_s$ and $N_\phi$ limit, their thermal freeze-out abundance could be much larger than the observed dark matter energy density, and they cannot be viable dark matter candidates. On the other hand, the global symmetries could be explicitly broken by some very weak couplings such that $S$ and $\Phi$ behave as invisible particles at collider length scales. As a result, both $S$ and $\Phi$ are unstable particles and can decay into SM particles. Depending on the decay lifetime and products, they may or may not leave detectable imprints in the early universe.
As we discussed around Eq.~\eqref{eq:landau-scale} and in Appendix~\ref{app:sec:RGE}, the effective field theory in this paper has a perturbative cutoff scale at around 100 TeV after imposing the $N_\phi \lambda^2_{h\phi}(v) > 41$ condition to have a global EWS vacuum at origin. Whether the UV theory for our model still has the global EWS vacuum depends on the detailed UV completion. Along this direction of thought, one could also study other existing well-motivated models that address the hierarchy problem and see where one has the EWS vacuum as the global one and the EW symmetry breaking one as a metastable one.
So far, we have found that the collider studies for either the Higgs cubic self-coupling or the VBF off-shell Higgs invisible decays can probe the majority of parameter space of having the global EWS vacuum at origin, at least at the HL-LHC with an integrated luminosity of 3\,ab$^{-1}$. The quantum tunneling at the current universe and the thermal tunneling at the early universe just provide additional constraints on the model parameter space. For instance, $S_4 \gtrsim 416$ to have a long-lived enough universe can be translated into a bound $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2 \lesssim 80$, while $(S_3/T)_{\rm min} > 339$ requires a more stringent constraint $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2 \lesssim 70$. The bubbles generated from the thermal tunneling either die off (for subcritical ones) or diluted enough for not existing within our visible Hubble patch (for supercritical ones). To have interesting small-size supercritical bubbles exist in our visible universe, the bubble growth speed needs to be dramatically suppressed and have a non-relativistic value. This could be possible if the plasma provides a strong enough friction force to reduce the bubble growth speed. We leave this possible interesting scenario with ``electroweak symmetric bubbles in the sky" to future explorations.
In this paper, we have only considered the scenario with the Higgs field as the only order parameter and the additional EW gauge-singlet scalars to provide one-loop potential for the Higgs field. The analysis procedure adopted here could also be applied to other scenarios with more than one order parameters to define different vacua. For those scenarios, the global EWS vacuum could be realized just by a tree-level potential with a better perturbative control. On the phenomenological side, the qualitative features of formation and dynamics of bubbles are similar to the current scenario, but the modifications to the Higgs self-couplings could be more suppressed and are more challenging to be tested at the high luminosity LHC.
In conclusion, we have adopted a simple model to realize a global EWS vacuum at $\langle h\rangle=0$ by introducing some SM singlets with a large multiplicity to generate a substantial CW potential at loop level. We have also chosen suitable model parameters (for instance $\lambda_{hs} < 0$) to have the early universe at high temperatures sit at the EW symmetry breaking vacuum. In our study, we have focused on the case that the SM Higgs field is the only non-trivial order parameter to define different vacua with the new scalar singlets not developing a non-zero VEV. The parameter $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2$ is the most important one to achieve the global EWS vacuum if $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2 > 41$. This parameter is also bounded from above, $N_\phi \lambda_{h \phi}^2 \lesssim 70$, by requiring that the EW symmetry breaking vacuum is long-lived enough both at the current and early universe. The HL-LHC is superb to probe the scenarios discussed in this paper both from Higgs cubic self-coupling and VBF off-shell Higgs invisible decay measurement. After recasting the existing LHC searches with 139\,fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, we have found that the HL-LHC with 3\,ab$^{-1}$ can probe the parameter space with a global EWS vacuum if the $\Phi$ particle is light and below around 200 GeV.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Andrew Long for useful discussion. The work of YB is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under the contract DE-SC-0017647. MS and FY were supported by the Samsung Science and Technology Foundation under Project Number SSTF-BA1602-04. SL is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No. NRF-2021R1A2C1005615).
|
\subsection{Style}
Papers to be submitted to ICLR 2021 must be prepared according to the
instructions presented here.
Authors are required to use the ICLR \LaTeX{} style files obtainable at the
ICLR website. Please make sure you use the current files and
not previous versions. Tweaking the style files may be grounds for rejection.
\subsection{Retrieval of style files}
The style files for ICLR and other conference information are available online at:
\begin{center}
\url{http://www.iclr.cc/}
\end{center}
The file \verb+iclr2021_conference.pdf+ contains these
instructions and illustrates the
various formatting requirements your ICLR paper must satisfy.
Submissions must be made using \LaTeX{} and the style files
\verb+iclr2021_conference.sty+ and \verb+iclr2021_conference.bst+ (to be used with \LaTeX{}2e). The file
\verb+iclr2021_conference.tex+ may be used as a ``shell'' for writing your paper. All you
have to do is replace the author, title, abstract, and text of the paper with
your own.
The formatting instructions contained in these style files are summarized in
sections \ref{gen_inst}, \ref{headings}, and \ref{others} below.
\section{General formatting instructions}
\label{gen_inst}
The text must be confined within a rectangle 5.5~inches (33~picas) wide and
9~inches (54~picas) long. The left margin is 1.5~inch (9~picas).
Use 10~point type with a vertical spacing of 11~points. Times New Roman is the
preferred typeface throughout. Paragraphs are separated by 1/2~line space,
with no indentation.
Paper title is 17~point, in small caps and left-aligned.
All pages should start at 1~inch (6~picas) from the top of the page.
Authors' names are
set in boldface, and each name is placed above its corresponding
address. The lead author's name is to be listed first, and
the co-authors' names are set to follow. Authors sharing the
same address can be on the same line.
Please pay special attention to the instructions in section \ref{others}
regarding figures, tables, acknowledgments, and references.
There will be a strict upper limit of 8 pages for the main text of the initial submission, with unlimited additional pages for citations. Note that the upper page limit differs from last year!Authors may use as many pages of appendices (after the bibliography) as they wish, but reviewers are not required to read these. During the rebuttal phase and for the camera ready version, authors are allowed one additional page for the main text, for a strict upper limit of 9 pages.
\section{Headings: first level}
\label{headings}
First level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 12. One line space before the first level
heading and 1/2~line space after the first level heading.
\subsection{Headings: second level}
Second level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 10. One line space before the second level
heading and 1/2~line space after the second level heading.
\subsubsection{Headings: third level}
Third level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 10. One line space before the third level
heading and 1/2~line space after the third level heading.
\section{Citations, figures, tables, references}
\label{others}
These instructions apply to everyone, regardless of the formatter being used.
\subsection{Citations within the text}
Citations within the text should be based on the \texttt{natbib} package
and include the authors' last names and year (with the ``et~al.'' construct
for more than two authors). When the authors or the publication are
included in the sentence, the citation should not be in parenthesis using \verb|\citet{}| (as
in ``See \citet{Hinton06} for more information.''). Otherwise, the citation
should be in parenthesis using \verb|\citep{}| (as in ``Deep learning shows promise to make progress
towards AI~\citep{Bengio+chapter2007}.'').
The corresponding references are to be listed in alphabetical order of
authors, in the \textsc{References} section. As to the format of the
references themselves, any style is acceptable as long as it is used
consistently.
\subsection{Footnotes}
Indicate footnotes with a number\footnote{Sample of the first footnote} in the
text. Place the footnotes at the bottom of the page on which they appear.
Precede the footnote with a horizontal rule of 2~inches
(12~picas).\footnote{Sample of the second footnote}
\subsection{Figures}
All artwork must be neat, clean, and legible. Lines should be dark
enough for purposes of reproduction; art work should not be
hand-drawn. The figure number and caption always appear after the
figure. Place one line space before the figure caption, and one line
space after the figure. The figure caption is lower case (except for
first word and proper nouns); figures are numbered consecutively.
Make sure the figure caption does not get separated from the figure.
Leave sufficient space to avoid splitting the figure and figure caption.
You may use color figures.
However, it is best for the
figure captions and the paper body to make sense if the paper is printed
either in black/white or in color.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule[-.5cm]{0cm}{4cm} \rule[-.5cm]{4cm}{0cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{Sample figure caption.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tables}
All tables must be centered, neat, clean and legible. Do not use hand-drawn
tables. The table number and title always appear before the table. See
Table~\ref{sample-table}.
Place one line space before the table title, one line space after the table
title, and one line space after the table. The table title must be lower case
(except for first word and proper nouns); tables are numbered consecutively.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Sample table title}
\label{sample-table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf PART} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf DESCRIPTION}
\\ \hline \\
Dendrite &Input terminal \\
Axon &Output terminal \\
Soma &Cell body (contains cell nucleus) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Default Notation}
In an attempt to encourage standardized notation, we have included the
notation file from the textbook, \textit{Deep Learning}
\cite{goodfellow2016deep} available at
\url{https://github.com/goodfeli/dlbook_notation/}. Use of this style
is not required and can be disabled by commenting out
\texttt{math\_commands.tex}.
\centerline{\bf Numbers and Arrays}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle a$ & A scalar (integer or real)\\
$\displaystyle {\bm{a}}$ & A vector\\
$\displaystyle {\bm{A}}$ & A matrix\\
$\displaystyle {\tens{A}}$ & A tensor\\
$\displaystyle {\bm{I}}_n$ & Identity matrix with $n$ rows and $n$ columns\\
$\displaystyle {\bm{I}}$ & Identity matrix with dimensionality implied by context\\
$\displaystyle {\bm{e}}^{(i)}$ & Standard basis vector $[0,\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0]$ with a 1 at position $i$\\
$\displaystyle \text{diag}({\bm{a}})$ & A square, diagonal matrix with diagonal entries given by ${\bm{a}}$\\
$\displaystyle {\textnormal{a}}$ & A scalar random variable\\
$\displaystyle {\mathbf{a}}$ & A vector-valued random variable\\
$\displaystyle {\mathbf{A}}$ & A matrix-valued random variable\\
\end{tabular}
\egroup
\vspace{0.25cm}
\centerline{\bf Sets and Graphs}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.25in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle {\mathbb{A}}$ & A set\\
$\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ & The set of real numbers \\
$\displaystyle \{0, 1\}$ & The set containing 0 and 1 \\
$\displaystyle \{0, 1, \dots, n \}$ & The set of all integers between $0$ and $n$\\
$\displaystyle [a, b]$ & The real interval including $a$ and $b$\\
$\displaystyle (a, b]$ & The real interval excluding $a$ but including $b$\\
$\displaystyle {\mathbb{A}} \backslash {\mathbb{B}}$ & Set subtraction, i.e., the set containing the elements of ${\mathbb{A}}$ that are not in ${\mathbb{B}}$\\
$\displaystyle {\mathcal{G}}$ & A graph\\
$\displaystyle \parents_{\mathcal{G}}({\textnormal{x}}_i)$ & The parents of ${\textnormal{x}}_i$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.25cm}
\centerline{\bf Indexing}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.25in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle {a}_i$ & Element $i$ of vector ${\bm{a}}$, with indexing starting at 1 \\
$\displaystyle {a}_{-i}$ & All elements of vector ${\bm{a}}$ except for element $i$ \\
$\displaystyle {A}_{i,j}$ & Element $i, j$ of matrix ${\bm{A}}$ \\
$\displaystyle {\bm{A}}_{i, :}$ & Row $i$ of matrix ${\bm{A}}$ \\
$\displaystyle {\bm{A}}_{:, i}$ & Column $i$ of matrix ${\bm{A}}$ \\
$\displaystyle {\etens{A}}_{i, j, k}$ & Element $(i, j, k)$ of a 3-D tensor ${\tens{A}}$\\
$\displaystyle {\tens{A}}_{:, :, i}$ & 2-D slice of a 3-D tensor\\
$\displaystyle {\textnormal{a}}_i$ & Element $i$ of the random vector ${\mathbf{a}}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\egroup
\vspace{0.25cm}
\centerline{\bf Calculus}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.25in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle\frac{d y} {d x}$ & Derivative of $y$ with respect to $x$\\ [2ex]
$\displaystyle \frac{\partial y} {\partial x} $ & Partial derivative of $y$ with respect to $x$ \\
$\displaystyle \nabla_{\bm{x}} y $ & Gradient of $y$ with respect to ${\bm{x}}$ \\
$\displaystyle \nabla_{\bm{X}} y $ & Matrix derivatives of $y$ with respect to ${\bm{X}}$ \\
$\displaystyle \nabla_{\tens{X}} y $ & Tensor containing derivatives of $y$ with respect to ${\tens{X}}$ \\
$\displaystyle \frac{\partial f}{\partial {\bm{x}}} $ & Jacobian matrix ${\bm{J}} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ of $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$\\
$\displaystyle \nabla_{\bm{x}}^2 f({\bm{x}})\text{ or }{\bm{H}}( f)({\bm{x}})$ & The Hessian matrix of $f$ at input point ${\bm{x}}$\\
$\displaystyle \int f({\bm{x}}) d{\bm{x}} $ & Definite integral over the entire domain of ${\bm{x}}$ \\
$\displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{S}} f({\bm{x}}) d{\bm{x}}$ & Definite integral with respect to ${\bm{x}}$ over the set ${\mathbb{S}}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\egroup
\vspace{0.25cm}
\centerline{\bf Probability and Information Theory}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.25in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle P({\textnormal{a}})$ & A probability distribution over a discrete variable\\
$\displaystyle p({\textnormal{a}})$ & A probability distribution over a continuous variable, or over
a variable whose type has not been specified\\
$\displaystyle {\textnormal{a}} \sim P$ & Random variable ${\textnormal{a}}$ has distribution $P$\\% so thing on left of \sim should always be a random variable, with name beginning with \r
$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}_{{\textnormal{x}}\sim P} [ f(x) ]\text{ or } \mathbb{E} f(x)$ & Expectation of $f(x)$ with respect to $P({\textnormal{x}})$ \\
$\displaystyle \mathrm{Var}(f(x)) $ & Variance of $f(x)$ under $P({\textnormal{x}})$ \\
$\displaystyle \mathrm{Cov}(f(x),g(x)) $ & Covariance of $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ under $P({\textnormal{x}})$\\
$\displaystyle H({\textnormal{x}}) $ & Shannon entropy of the random variable ${\textnormal{x}}$\\
$\displaystyle D_{\mathrm{KL}} ( P \Vert Q ) $ & Kullback-Leibler divergence of P and Q \\
$\displaystyle \mathcal{N} ( {\bm{x}} ; {\bm{\mu}} , {\bm{\Sigma}})$ & Gaussian distribution %
over ${\bm{x}}$ with mean ${\bm{\mu}}$ and covariance ${\bm{\Sigma}}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\egroup
\vspace{0.25cm}
\centerline{\bf Functions}
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.25in}p{3.25in}}
$\displaystyle f: {\mathbb{A}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{B}}$ & The function $f$ with domain ${\mathbb{A}}$ and range ${\mathbb{B}}$\\
$\displaystyle f \circ g $ & Composition of the functions $f$ and $g$ \\
$\displaystyle f({\bm{x}} ; {\bm{\theta}}) $ & A function of ${\bm{x}}$ parametrized by ${\bm{\theta}}$.
(Sometimes we write $f({\bm{x}})$ and omit the argument ${\bm{\theta}}$ to lighten notation) \\
$\displaystyle \log x$ & Natural logarithm of $x$ \\
$\displaystyle \sigma(x)$ & Logistic sigmoid, $\displaystyle \frac{1} {1 + \exp(-x)}$ \\
$\displaystyle \zeta(x)$ & Softplus, $\log(1 + \exp(x))$ \\
$\displaystyle || {\bm{x}} ||_p $ & $L^p$ norm of ${\bm{x}}$ \\
$\displaystyle || {\bm{x}} || $ & $L^2$ norm of ${\bm{x}}$ \\
$\displaystyle x^+$ & Positive part of $x$, i.e., $\max(0,x)$\\
$\displaystyle \bm{1}_\mathrm{condition}$ & is 1 if the condition is true, 0 otherwise\\
\end{tabular}
\egroup
\vspace{0.25cm}
\section{Final instructions}
Do not change any aspects of the formatting parameters in the style files.
In particular, do not modify the width or length of the rectangle the text
should fit into, and do not change font sizes (except perhaps in the
\textsc{References} section; see below). Please note that pages should be
numbered.
\section{Preparing PostScript or PDF files}
Please prepare PostScript or PDF files with paper size ``US Letter'', and
not, for example, ``A4''. The -t
letter option on dvips will produce US Letter files.
Consider directly generating PDF files using \verb+pdflatex+
(especially if you are a MiKTeX user).
PDF figures must be substituted for EPS figures, however.
Otherwise, please generate your PostScript and PDF files with the following commands:
\begin{verbatim}
dvips mypaper.dvi -t letter -Ppdf -G0 -o mypaper.ps
ps2pdf mypaper.ps mypaper.pdf
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Margins in LaTeX}
Most of the margin problems come from figures positioned by hand using
\verb+\special+ or other commands. We suggest using the command
\verb+\includegraphics+
from the graphicx package. Always specify the figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below using .eps graphics
\begin{verbatim}
\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{myfile.eps}
\end{verbatim}
or
\begin{verbatim}
\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx} ...
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{myfile.pdf}
\end{verbatim}
for .pdf graphics.
See section~4.4 in the graphics bundle documentation (\url{http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/required/graphics/grfguide.ps})
A number of width problems arise when LaTeX cannot properly hyphenate a
line. Please give LaTeX hyphenation hints using the \verb+\-+ command.
\subsubsection*{Author Contributions}
If you'd like to, you may include a section for author contributions as is done
in many journals. This is optional and at the discretion of the authors.
\section{Introduction}
Humans exhibit remarkable ability in continual adaptation and learning new tasks throughout their lifetime while maintaining the knowledge gained from past experiences. In stark contrast, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) under such Continual Learning (CL) paradigm~\citep{cl1,cl2,cl3} forget the information learned in the past tasks upon learning new ones. This phenomenon is known as `Catastrophic Forgetting' or `Catastrophic Interference'~\citep{cat1,cat2}. The problem is rooted in the general optimization methods~\citep{dlbook} that are being used to encode input data distribution into the parametric representation of the network during training. Upon exposure to a new task, gradient-based optimization methods, without any constraint, change the learned encoding to minimize the objective function with respect to the current data distribution. Such parametric updates lead to forgetting.
Given a fixed capacity network, one way to address this problem is to put constraints on the gradient updates so that task specific knowledge can be preserved. To this end,~\cite{ewc},~\cite{si},~\cite{mas},~\cite{hat} add a penalty term to the objective function while optimizing for new task. Such term acts as a structural regularizer and dictates the degree of stability-plasticity of individual weights. Though these methods provide resource efficient solution to the catastrophic forgetting problem, their performance suffer while learning longer task sequence and when task identity is unavailable during inference.
Approaches~\citep{gem,agem} that store episodic memories of old data essentially solve an optimization problem with `explicit' constraints on the new gradient directions so that losses for the old task do not increase. In ~\cite{er} the performance of old task is retained by taking gradient steps in the average gradient direction obtained from the new data and memory samples. To minimize interference,~\cite{ogd} store gradient directions (instead of data) of the old tasks and optimize the network in the orthogonal directions to these gradients for the new task, whereas ~\cite{owm} update gradients orthogonal to the old input directions using projector matrices calculated iteratively during training. However, these methods either compromise data privacy by storing raw data or utilize resources poorly, which limits their scalability.
In this paper, we address the problem of catastrophic forgetting in a fixed capacity network when data from the old tasks are not available. To mitigate forgetting, our approach puts explicit constraints on the gradient directions that the optimizer can take. However, unlike contemporary methods, we neither store old gradient directions nor store old examples for generating reference directions. Instead we propose an approach that, after learning each task, partitions the entire gradient space of the weights into two orthogonal subspaces: Core Gradient Space (CGS) and Residual Gradient Space (RGS)~\citep{pca_cl}. Leveraging the relationship between the input and the gradient spaces, we show how learned representations (activations) form the bases of these gradient subspaces in both fully-connected and convolutional networks. Using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) on these activations, we show how to obtain the minimum set of bases of the CGS by which past knowledge is preserved and learnability for the new tasks is ensured. We store these bases in the memory which we define as Gradient Projection Memory (GPM). In our method, we propose to learn any new task by taking gradient steps in the orthogonal direction to the space (CGS) spanned by the GPM. Our analysis shows that such orthogonal gradient descent induces minimum to no interference with the old learning, and thus effective in alleviating catastrophic forgetting. We evaluate our approach in the context of image classification with miniImageNet, CIFAR-100, PMNIST and sequence of 5-Datasets on a variety of network architectures including ResNet. We compare our method with related state-of-the-art approaches and report comparable or better classification performance. \textcolor{black}{Overall, we show that our method is memory efficient and scalable to complex dataset with longer task sequence while preserving data privacy}.
\vspace{-5pt}
\vspace{-3pt}
\section{Related Works}
\vspace{-3pt}
Approaches to continual learning for ANNs can be broadly divided into three categories. In this section we present a detailed discussion on the representative works from each category, highlighting their contributions and differences with our approach.
\textbf{Expansion-based methods:} Methods in this category overcome catastrophic forgetting by dedicating different subsets of network parameters to each task.~With no constraint on network architecture, Progressive Neural Network (PGN)~\citep{pnn} preserves old knowledge by freezing the base model and adding new sub-networks with lateral connections for each new task. Dynamically Expandable Networks (DEN)~\citep{den} either retrains or expands the network by splitting/duplicating important units on new tasks, whereas~\cite{pns} grow the network to learn new tasks while sharing part of the base network. \citet{l2g} with neural architecture search (NAS) find optimal network structures for each sequential task. \textcolor{black}{RCL~\citep{rcl} adaptively expands the network at each layer using reinforcement learning, whereas APD~\citep{apd} additively decomposes the parameters into shared and task specific parameters to minimize the increase in the network complexity.} In contrast, our method avoids network growth or expensive NAS operations and performs sequential learning within a fixed network architecture.
\textbf{Regularization-based methods:} These methods attempt to overcome forgetting in fixed capacity model through structural regularization which penalizes major changes in the parameters that were important for the previous tasks. Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC)~\citep{ewc} computes such importance from diagonal of Fisher information matrix after training, whereas~\cite{si} compute them during training based on loss sensitivity with respect to the parameters. Additionally,~\cite{mas} compute importance from sensitivity of model outputs to the inputs. \textcolor{black}{Other methods, such as PackNet~\citep{packnet} uses iterative pruning to fully restrict gradient updates on important weights via binary mask, whereas HAT~\citep{hat} identifies important neurons by learning attention masks that control gradient propagation in the individual parameters.~\cite{pca_cl} using a PCA based pruning on activations~\citep{pca} partition the parametric space of the weights (filters) into core and residual (filter) spaces after learning each task. The past knowledge is preserved in the frozen core space, whereas the residual space is updated when learning the next task.}~In contrast to these methods, we do not ascribe importance to or restrict the gradients of any individual parameters or filters. Rather we put constraints on the `direction' of gradient descent.
\textbf{Memory-based methods:} Methods under this class mitigate forgetting by either storing a subset of (raw) examples from the past tasks in the memory for rehearsal~\citep{Robbo,icarl,gem,agem,er,mer} or synthesizing old data from generative models to perform pseudo-rehearsal~\citep{dgr}. For instance, Gradient Episodic Memory (GEM)~\citep{gem} avoids interference with previous task by projecting the new gradients in the feasible region outlined by previous task gradients calculated from the samples of episodic memory. Averaged-GEM (A-GEM)~\citep{agem} simplified this optimization problem to projection in one direction estimated by randomly selected samples from the memory.\textcolor{black}{~\cite{mega} propose a unified view of episodic memory-based CL methods, that include GEM and A-GEM and improves performance over these methods utilizing loss-balancing update rule.} Additionally, Experience Replay (ER)~\citep{er} and Meta-Experience Replay (MER)~\citep{mer} mitigate forgetting in online CL setup by jointly training on the samples from new tasks and episodic memory. All these methods, however, rely on the access to old data which might not be possible when users have concern over data privacy. Like all the memory-based methods we also use a storage unit which we call GPM. However, we do not save any raw data in GPM, thus satisfy data privacy criterion.
Our method is closely related to recently proposed Orthogonal Gradient Descent (OGD)~\citep{ogd} and Orthogonal Weight Modulation (OWM)~\citep{owm}. OGD stores a set of gradient directions in the memory for each task and minimizes catastrophic forgetting by taking gradient steps in the orthogonal directions for new tasks. \textcolor{black}{ In contrast to OGD, we compute and store the bases of core gradient space from network representations (activations) which reduces the memory requirement by orders of magnitude.} Moreover, OGD is shown to work under locality assumption for small learning rates which limits its scalability in learning longer task sequences with complex dataset. \textcolor{black}{Since our method does not use gradient directions (like OGD) to describe the core gradient spaces, we do not need to obey such assumptions, thus can use higher learning rates.}~On the other hand, OWM reduces forgetting by modifying the weights of the network in the orthogonal to the input directions of the past tasks. This is achieved by multiplying new gradients with projector matrices. These matrices are computed from the stored past projectors and the inputs with recursive least square (RLS) method at each training step. However, such an iterative method not only slows down the training process but also shows limited scalability in end-to-end task learning with modern network architectures. Like OWM, we aim to encode new learning in the orthogonal to the old input directions. In contrast to iterative projector computation in OWM, we identify a low-dimensional subspace in the gradient space analyzing the learned representations with SVD in one-shot manner at the end of each task. We store the bases of these subspaces in GPM and learn new tasks in the orthogonal to these spaces to protect old knowledge.~We quantitatively show that our method is memory efficient, fast and scalable to deeper networks for complex long sequence of tasks.
\vspace{-3pt}
\section{Notations and Background}
\vspace{-3pt}
In this section, we introduce the notations used throughout the paper and give a brief overview of SVD for matrix approximation.~In section~\ref{sec4}, we establish the relationship between input and gradient spaces. In section~\ref{sec5} we show the steps of our algorithm that leverage such relationship.
\textbf{Continual Learning:} We consider supervised learning setup where $T$ tasks are learned sequentially. Each task has a task descriptor, $\tau \in \{1,2....,T\}$ with a corresponding dataset, ${\mathbb{D}}_{\tau} = \{({\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}, {\bm{y}}_{i,\tau})_{i=1}^{n_{\tau}}\}$ having $n_{\tau}$ example pairs. Let's consider an $L$ layer neural network where at each layer network computes the following function for task $\tau$ :
\begin{equation}
{\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}^{l+1} = \sigma (f({\bm{W}}_\tau^l,{\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}^{l})).
\end{equation}
Here, $l=1,...L$, $\sigma(.)$ is a non-linear function and $f(. , .)$ is a linear function. We will use vector notation for input (${\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}$) in fully connected layers and matrix notation for input (${\bm{X}}_{i,\tau}$) in convolutional layers. At the first layer, ${\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}^{1}={\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}$ represents the raw input data from task $\tau$, whereas in the subsequent layers we define ${\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}^{l}$ as the \textbf{representation of input} ${\bm{x}}_{i,\tau}$ at layer $l$. Set of parameters of the network is defined by, ${\mathbb{W}}_\tau =\{({\bm{W}}_\tau^l)_{l=1}^{L}\}$, where ${\mathbb{W}}_0$ denotes set of parameters at initialization.
\textbf{Matrix approximation with SVD:} SVD can be used to factorize a rectangular matrix, ${\bm{A}} ={\bm{U}}{\bm{\Sigma}}{\bm{V}}^T \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ into the product of three matrices, where ${\bm{U}}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ and ${\bm{V}}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ are orthogonal, and ${\bm{\Sigma}} $ contains the sorted singular values along its main diagonal ~\citep{mml}. If the rank of the matrix is $r$ ($r\leq \text{min}(m,n)$), ${\bm{A}}$ can be expressed as ${\bm{A}}=\sum_{i=1}^r \sigma_i{\bm{u}}_i {\bm{v}}_i^T$, where ${\bm{u}}_i \in {\bm{U}}$ and ${\bm{v}}_i \in {\bm{V}}$ are left and right singular vectors and $\sigma_i \in diag({\bm{\Sigma}})$ are singular values. Also, $k$-rank approximation to this matrix can be expressed as, ${\bm{A}}_k=\sum_{i=1}^k \sigma_i{\bm{u}}_i {\bm{v}}_i^T$, where $k\leq r$ and its value can be chosen by the smallest $k$ that satisfies $||{\bm{A}}_k||_F^2 \geq \epsilon_{th}||{\bm{A}}||_F^2$. Here, $||.||_F$ is the Frobenius norm of the matrix and $\epsilon_{th}$ ($0 <\epsilon_{th} \leq 1$) is the threshold hyperparameter.
\section{Input and Gradient Spaces}\label{sec4}
Our algorithm leverages the fact that stochastic gradient descent (SGD) updates lie in the span of input data points \citep{zhang}. In the following subsections we will establish this relationship for both fully connected and convolutional layers. The analysis presented in this section is generally applicable to any layer of the network for any task, and hence we drop the task and layer identifiers.
\subsection{Fully Connected Layer}\label{sec31}
Let's consider a single layer linear neural network in supervised learning setup where each (input, label) training data pair comes from a training dataset, ${\mathbb{D}}$. Let, ${\bm{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the input vector, ${\bm{y}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the label vector in the dataset and ${\bm{W}} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n} $ are the parameters (weights) of the network. The network is trained by minimizing the following mean-squared error loss function
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
L = \frac{1}{2} || {\bm{W}} {\bm{x}} -{\bm{y}} ||_{2}^2.
\end{equation}
We can express gradient of this loss with respect to weights as
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\nabla_{{\bm{W}}} L = ({\bm{W}} {\bm{x}} -{\bm{y}}) {\bm{x}}^T = \bm{\delta} {\bm{x}}^T,
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the error vector. Thus, \textbf{the gradient update will lie in the span of input} (${\bm{x}}$), where elements in $\bm{\delta}$ scale the magnitude of ${\bm{x}}$ by different factors. Here, we have considered per-example loss (batch size of 1) for simplicity. However, this relation also holds for mini-batch setting (see appendix~\ref{seca1}). The input-gradient relation in equation \ref{eq2} is generically applicable to any fully connected layer of a neural network where ${\bm{x}}$ is the input to that layer and $\bm{\delta}$ is the error coming from the next layer. Moreover, this equation also holds for network with non-linear units (\textit{e.g.} ReLU) and cross-entropy losses except the calculation of $\bm{\delta}$ will be different.
\begin{figure
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figs2_final}
\caption{Illustration of convolution operation in matrix multiplication format during (a) Forward Pass and (b) Backward Pass. }
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{centering}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Convolutional Layer}\label{sec31}
Filters in a convolutional (Conv) layer operate in a different way on the inputs than the weights in a fully connected (FC) layer. Let's consider a Conv layer with the input tensor $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_i \times h_i \times w_i}$ and filters $\mathcal{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_o \times C_i \times k \times k}$. Their convolution $\langle \mathcal{X},\mathcal{W},*\rangle$ produces output feature map, $\mathcal{O} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_o \times h_o \times w_o}$ ~\citep{conv_op}. Here, $C_i$ ($C_o$) denotes the number of input (output) channels of the Conv layer, $h_i$, $w_i$ ($h_o$, $w_o$) denote the height and width of the input (output) feature maps and $k$ is the kernel size of the filters. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}(a), if $\mathcal{X}$ is reshaped into a $(h_o \times w_o) \times (C_i\times k \times k)$ matrix, ${\bm{X}}$ and $\mathcal{W}$ is reshaped into a $(C_i\times k \times k) \times C_o $ matrix, ${\bm{W}}$, then the convolution can be expressed as matrix multiplication between ${\bm{X}}$ and ${\bm{W}}$ as ${\bm{O}}$=${\bm{X}}{\bm{W}}$, where ${\bm{O}} \in \mathbb{R}^{(h_0\times w_0)\times C_o}$. Each row of ${\bm{X}}$ contains an input patch vector, ${\bm{p}}_j \in \mathbb{R}^{(C_i\times k \times k) \times 1}$, where $j=1,2...,n$ $(n=h_o*w_o)$.
Formulation of convolution in terms of matrix multiplication provides an intuitive picture of the gradient computation during backpropagation. Similar to the FC layer case, in Conv layer, during backward pass an error matrix $\bm{\Delta}$ of size $(h_0\times w_0)\times C_o$ (same size as ${\bm{O}}$) is obtained from the next layer. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}(b), the gradient of loss with respect to filter weights is calculated by
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{{\bm{W}}} L = {\bm{X}}^T \bm{\Delta},
\end{equation}
where, $\nabla_{{\bm{W}}}L$ is of shape $(C_i\times k \times k) \times C_o $ (same size as ${\bm{W}}$). Since, columns of ${\bm{X}}^T$ are the input patch vectors (${\bm{p}}$), \textbf{the gradient updates of the convolutional filters will lie in the space spanned by these patch vectors}.
\section{Continual Learning with Gradient Projection Memory (GPM)}\label{sec5}
In this section, we describe our continual learning algorithm which leverages the relationship between gradient and input spaces to identify the core gradient spaces of the past tasks. We show how gradient descent orthogonal to these spaces enable us to learn continually without forgetting.
\textbf{Learning Task 1:} We learn the first task ($\tau=1$) using dataset, ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ without imposing any constraint on parameter updates. At the end of Task 1, we obtain a learned set of parameters ${\mathbb{W}}_1$. To preserve the knowledge of the learned task, we impose constraints on the direction of gradient updates for the next tasks. To do so, we partition the entire gradient space into two (orthogonal) subspaces: Core Gradient Space (CGS) and Residual Gradient Space (RGS), such that gradient steps along CGS induce high interference on the learned tasks whereas gradient steps along RGS have minimum to no interference. We aim to find and store the bases of the CGS and take gradient steps orthogonal to the CGS for the next task. In our formulation, each layer has its own CGS.
To find the bases, after learning Task 1 , for each layer we construct a \textbf{representation matrix}, ${\bm{R}}_{1}^l =[{\bm{x}}_{1,1}^l, {\bm{x}}_{2,1}^l, ..., {\bm{x}}_{n_s,1}^l ]$ (for Conv layers ${\bm{R}}_{1}^l =[({\bm{X}}_{1,1}^l)^T, ({\bm{X}}_{2,1}^l)^T, ..., ({\bm{X}}_{n_s,1}^l)^T ]$ ) concatenating $n_s$ representations along the column obtained from forward pass of $n_s$ random samples from the current training dataset through the network.~Next, we perform SVD on ${\bm{R}}_1^l ={\bm{U}}_1^l{\bm{\Sigma}}_1^l({\bm{V}}_1^l)^T$ followed by its $k$-rank approximation $({\bm{R}}_1^l)_k$ according to the following \textbf{criteria} for the given threshold, $\epsilon_{th}^l$ :
\begin{equation}\label{ct1}
||({\bm{R}}_1^l)_k||_F^2 \geq \epsilon_{th}^l||{\bm{R}}_1^l||_F^2.
\end{equation}
We define the space, $S^l=span\{{\bm{u}}_{1,1}^l,{\bm{u}}_{2,1}^l, ...,{\bm{u}}_{k,1}^l\}$, spanned by the first $k$ vectors in $U_1^l$ as the \textbf{space of significant representation} for task 1 at layer $l$ since it contains all the directions with highest singular values in the representation. For the next task, we aim to take gradient steps in a way that the correlation between this task specific significant representation and the weights in each layer is preserved. Since, inputs span the space of gradient descent (section \ref{sec4}), the bases of $S^l$ will span a subspace in the gradient space which we define as the Core Gradient space (CGS). Thus gradient descent along CGS will cause maximum change in the input-weight correlation whereas gradient steps in the orthogonal directions to CGS (space of low representational significance) will induce very small to no interference to the old tasks. We define this subspace orthogonal to CGS as Residual Gradient space (RGS). We save the bases of the CGS in the memory, $\mathcal{M}=\{({\bm{M}}^l)_{l=1}^L\}$, where ${\bm{M}}^l =[{\bm{u}}_{1,1}^l, {\bm{u}}_{2,1}^l, ..., {\bm{u}}_{k,1}^l ]$. We define this memory as Gradient Projection Memory (GPM).
\textbf{Learning Task 2 to T:} We learn task 2 with the examples from dataset ${\mathbb{D}}_2$ only. Before taking gradient step, bases of the CGS are retrieved from GPM. New gradients ($\nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2$) are first projected onto the CGS and then projected components are subtracted out from the new gradient so that remaining gradient components lie in the space orthogonal to CGS. Gradients are updated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
\text{FC Layer:\space\space\space} \nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2 = \nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2 - (\nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2){\bm{M}}^l ({\bm{M}}^l)^T,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
\text{Conv Layer:\space\space} \nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2 = \nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2 - {\bm{M}}^l ({\bm{M}}^l)^T(\nabla_{{\bm{W}}_2^l} L_2).
\end{equation}
At the end of the task 2 training, we update the GPM with new task-specific bases (of CGS). To obtain such bases, we construct ${\bm{R}}_{2}^l =[{\bm{x}}_{1,2}^l, {\bm{x}}_{2,2}^l, ..., {\bm{x}}_{n_s,2}^l ]$ using data from task 2 only. However, before performing SVD and subsequent $k$-rank approximation, from ${\bm{R}}_2^l$ we eliminate the common directions (bases) that are already present in the GPM so that newly added bases are unique and orthogonal to the existing bases in the memory. To do so, we perform the following step :
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
\hat{{\bm{R}}}_{2}^l = {\bm{R}}_{2}^l - {\bm{M}}^l ({\bm{M}}^l)^T ({\bm{R}}_{2}^l) = {\bm{R}}_{2}^l -{\bm{R}}_{2,Proj}^l.
\end{equation}
Afterwards, SVD is performed on $\hat{{\bm{R}}}_{2}^l$ ($=\hat{{\bm{U}}}_2^l\hat{{\bm{\Sigma}}}_2^l(\hat{{\bm{V}}}_2^l)^T$) and $k$ new orthogonal bases are chosen for minimum value of $k$ satisfying the following \textbf{criteria} for the given threshold, $\epsilon_{th}^l$:
\begin{equation}\label{ct2}
||{\bm{R}}_{2,proj}^l||_F^2+||(\hat{{\bm{R}}}_2^l)_k||_F^2 \geq \epsilon_{th}^l||{\bm{R}}_2^l||_F^2.
\end{equation}
GPM is updated by adding new bases as ${\bm{M}}^l =[ {\bm{M}}^l, \hat{{\bm{u}}}_{1,2}^l, ..., \hat{{\bm{u}}}_{k,2}^l ]$. Thus after learning each new task, CGS grows and RGS becomes smaller, where maximum size of ${\bm{M}}^l$ (hence the dimension of the gradient bases) is fixed by the choice of initial network architecture. Once the GPM update is complete we move on to the next task and repeat the same procedure that we followed for task 2. The pseudo-code of the algorithm is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:gpm} in the appendix.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Experimental Setup}
\vspace{-3mm}
\textbf{Datasets:} We evaluate our continual learning algorithm on \textbf{Permuted MNIST} (PMNIST)~\citep{mnist}, \textbf{10-Split CIFAR-100}~\citep{cifar}, \textbf{20-Spilt miniImageNet}~\citep{miniI} and sequence of \textbf{5-Datasets}~\citep{5D}. The PMNIST dataset is a variant of MNIST dataset where each task is considered as a random permutation of the original MNIST pixels. For PMNIST, we create 10 sequential tasks using different permutations where each task has 10 classes~\citep{ucb}. The 10-Split CIFAR-100 is constructed by splitting 100 classes of CIFAR-100 into 10 tasks with 10 classes per task. Whereas, 20-Spilt miniImageNet, used in~\citep{agem}, is constructed by splitting 100 classes of miniImageNet into 20 sequential tasks where each task has 5 classes. Finally, we use a sequence of 5-Datasets including CIFAR-10, MNIST, SVHN~\citep{svhn}, notMNIST~\citep{nmnist} and Fashion MNIST~\citep{fmnist}, where classification on each dataset is considered as a task. In our experiments we do not use any data augmentation. The dataset statistics are given in Table~\ref{tab_app1} \&~\ref{tab_app2} in the appendix.
\textbf{Network Architecture:} We use fully-connected network with two hidden layer of 100 units each for PMNIST following \cite{gem}. \textcolor{black}{For experiments with split CIFAR-100 we use a 5-layer AlexNet similar to ~\cite{hat}. For split miniImageNet and 5-Datasets, similar to~\cite{er}, we use a reduced ResNet18 architecture.} No bias units are used and batch normalization parameters are learned for the first task and shared with all the other tasks (following~\cite{packnet}). Details on architectures are given in the appendix section~\ref{arch_app}. For permuted MNIST, we evaluate and compare our algorithm in `single-head' setting~\citep{eval1, eval2} where all tasks share the final classifier layer and inference is performed without task hint. For all other experiments, we evaluate our algorithm in `muti-head' setting, where each task has a separate classifier on which no gradient constraint is imposed during learning.
\textbf{Baselines:} We compare our method with state-of-the art approaches from both memory based and regularization based methods that consider sequential task learning in fixed network architecture. From memory based approach, we compare with Experience Replay with reservoir sampling (ER\_Res)~\citep{er}, Gradient Episodic Memory (GEM)~\citep{gem}, Averaged GEM (A-GEM)~\citep{agem}, Orthogonal Gradient Descent (OGD)~\citep{ogd} and Orthogonal Weight Modulation (OWM)~\citep{owm}. Moreover, we compare with sate-of-the-art HAT~\citep{hat} baseline and Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC)~\citep{ewc} from regularization based methods. Additionally, \textcolor{black}{we add `multitask' baseline where all the tasks are learned jointly using the entire dataset at once in a single network.} Multitask is not a continual learning strategy but will serve as upper bound on average accuracy on all tasks. Details on the implementation along with the hyperparameters considered for each of these baselines are provided in section~\ref{imp_app} and Table~\ref{tab_app3} in the appendix.
\textbf{Training Details:} We train all the models with plain stochastic gradient descent (SGD). For each task in PMNIST and split miniImageNet we train the network for 5 and 10 epochs respectively with batch size of 10. In Split CIFAR-100 and 5-Datasets experiments, we train each task for maximum of 200 and 100 epochs respectively with the early termination strategy based on the validation loss as proposed in~\cite{hat}. For both datasets, batch size is set to 64. For GEM, A-GEM and ER\_{Res} the episodic memory size is chosen to be approximately the same size as the maximum GPM size (GPM\_{Max}). Calculation of GPM size is given in Table~\ref{tab_app6} in the appendix. Moreover, selection of the threshold values ($\epsilon_{th}$) in our method is discussed in section~\ref{var_ref} in the appendix.
\vspace{-1.2mm}
\textbf{Performance Metrics:} To evaluate the classification performance, we use the \textbf{ACC} metric, which is the average test classification accuracy of all tasks. To measure the forgetting we report backward transfer, \textbf{BWT} which indicates the influence of new learning on the past knowledge. For instance, negative BWT indicates (catastrophic) forgetting. Formally, ACC and BWT are defined as:
\vspace{-1.5mm}
\begin{equation}
\text{ACC} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^T R_{T,i}, \;\;\; \text{BWT} = \frac{1}{T-1}\sum_{i=1}^{T-1} R_{T,i} - R_{i,i}.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-2mm}
Here, $T$ is the total number of sequential tasks and $R_{T,i}$ is the accuracy of the model on $i^{th}$ task after learning the $T^{th}$ task sequentially~\citep{gem}.
\begin{figure
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{memory_new}
\caption{(a) Memory utilization and (b) per epoch training time for PMNIST tasks for different methods. Memory utilization for different approaches for (c) CIFAR-100, (d) miniImageNet and (e) 5-Datasets tasks. For memory, size of GPM\_{Max} and for time, method with highest complexity is used as references (value of 1). All the other methods are reported relative to these references.}
\label{fig:memory}
\end{centering}
\vspace{-5.5mm}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{1.5}{1.1}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Continual learning on different datasets. Methods that do not adhere to CL setup is indicated by (*). \textcolor{black}{All the results are (re) produced by us and averaged over 5 runs.} Standard deviations are reported in Table~\ref{tab_app_4} and~\ref{tab_app5} in the appendix.}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.1\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.825}{
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}lcc@{}}\label{tab1}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{(a)}} \\
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{PMNIST}} \\
\cmidrule{2-3}
\textbf{Methods}& {ACC (\%)} & {BWT} \\ \midrule
OGD & 82.56 & - 0.14 \\
OWM & 90.71 & - 0.01 \\
GEM & 83.38 & - 0.15 \\
A-GEM & 83.56 & - 0.14 \\
ER\_Res & 87.24 & - 0.11 \\
EWC & 89.97 & - 0.04 \\
GPM (ours) & \textbf{93.91} & -0.03 \\
\midrule
Multitask* & 96.70& -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{2.75cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.75\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.825}{
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}lcccccccc@{}}\label{tab1}
& \multicolumn{7}{c}{\textbf{(b)}} \\
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{CIFAR-100}} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{miniImageNet}} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{5-Datasets}}\\
\cmidrule{2-3} \cmidrule{5-6} \cmidrule{8-9}
\textbf{Methods}& {ACC (\%)} & {BWT} && {ACC (\%)} & {BWT} && {ACC (\%)} & {BWT}\\ \midrule
OWM & 50.94 & - 0.30 && -& - && - & - \\
EWC & 68.80 & - 0.02 && 52.01& - 0.12 && 88.64 & - 0.04\\
HAT & 72.06 & - 0.00 && 59.78 & - 0.03 && \textbf{91.32} & - 0.01\\
A-GEM & 63.98 & - 0.15 && 57.24 & - 0.12 && 84.04 & -0.12\\
ER\_Res & 71.73 & - 0.06 && 58.94 & - 0.07 && 88.31 & - 0.04\\
GPM (ours) & \textbf{72.48} & - 0.00 && \textbf{60.41} & - 0.00 && 91.22 & - 0.01\\
\midrule
Multitask* & 79.58 & - && 69.46 & - && 91.54 & -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-6.5mm}
\end{table}
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Results and Discussions}\label{sec7}
\vspace{-3mm}
\textbf{Single-head inference with PMNIST:} First, we evaluate our algorithm in single-head setup for 10 sequential PMNIST tasks. \textcolor{black}{In this setup task hint is not necessary.} As HAT cannot perform inference without task hint, it is not included in the comparison. Since network size is very small (0.1M parameters) with $87\%$ parameters in the first layer, we choose threshold value ($\epsilon_{th}$) of $0.95$ for that layer and $0.99$ for the other layers to ensure better learnability. From the results, shown in Table~\ref{tab1}(a), we observe that our method (GPM) achieves best average accuracy ($93.91\pm 0.16\%$). In addition, we achieve least amount of forgetting, except OWM, which essentially trades off accuracy to minimize forgetting. Figure~\ref{fig:memory}(a) compares the memory utilization of all the memory-based approaches. While OWM, GEM, A-GEM and ER\_{Res} use memory of size of GPM\_{Max}, we obtain better performance by using only $69\%$ of the GPM\_{Max}. Moreover, compared to OGD, we use about $400$ times lower memory and achieve $\sim10\%$ better accuracy. In Figure~\ref{fig:memory}(b), we compare the per epoch training time of different memory based methods and found our method to be the fastest primarily due to the precomputation of the reference gradient bases (of CGS). Additionally, in single-epoch setting~\citep{gem}, as shown in Table~\ref{tab_app_4} in the appendix, we obtain best average accuracy ($91.74\pm 0.15\%$), which demonstrates the potential for our algorithm in online CL setup.
\textbf{Split CIFAR-100:} Next, we switch to multi-head setup which enables us to compare with strong baselines such as HAT. For ten split CIFAR-100 tasks, as shown in Table~\ref{tab1}(b), we outperform all the memory based approaches while using $45\%$ less memory (Figure~\ref{fig:memory}(c)). We also outperform EWC and our accuracy is marginally better than HAT while achieving zero forgetting. Also, we obtain $\sim20\%$ better accuracy than OWM, which have high forgetting (BWT=$-0.30$) thus demonstrating its limited scalability to convolutional architectures.
\textbf{Split miniImageNet:} With this experiment, we test the scalability of our algorithm to deeper network (ResNet18) for long task sequence from miniImageNet dataset. The average accuracies for different methods after learning $20$ sequential tasks are given in Table~\ref{tab1}(b). Again, in this case we outperform A-GEM, ER\_{Res} and EWC using $76\%$ of the GPM\_{Max} (Figure~\ref{fig:memory}(d)). Also, we achieve marginally better accuracy than HAT, however unlike HAT (and other methods) we completely avoid forgetting (BWT=0.00). Moreover, compared other methods sequential learning in our method is more stable, which means accuracy of the past tasks have minimum to no degradation over the course of learning (shown for task 1 accuracy in Figure~\ref{fig:longseq_app} in the appendix).
\textbf{5-Datasets:} Next, we validate our approach on learning across diverse datasets, where classification on each dataset is treated as one task. Even in this challenging setting, as shown in in Table~\ref{tab1}(b), we achieve better accuracy ($91.22\pm 0.20\%$) then A-GEM, ER\_{Res} and EWC utilizing $78\%$ of the GPM\_{Max} (Figure~\ref{fig:memory}(e)). Though, HAT performs marginally better than our method, both HAT and we achieve the lowest BWT (-$0.01$). \textcolor{black}{In this experiment, we have used tasks that are less related to each other. After learning 5 such tasks 78\% of the gradient space is already constrained. Which implies, if the tasks are less or non-similar, GPM will get populated faster and reach to its maximum capacity after which no new learning will be possible. Since, we use a fixed capacity network and the size of GPM is determined by the network architecture, the ability of learning sequences of hundreds of such tasks with our method will be limited by the chosen network capacity.}
\renewcommand{1.5}{1.1}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\textcolor{black}{Total wall-clock training time measured on a single GPU after learning all the tasks.}}
\hspace{0.75cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.1\linewidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}lc@{}}\label{tab11}
& \multicolumn{0}{c}{\textbf{(a)}} \\
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Training Time [s]}} \\
\cmidrule{2-2}
\textbf{Methods}& {PMNIST} \\ \midrule
OGD & 1658 \\
OWM & 396 \\
GEM & 1639 \\
A-GEM & 445 \\
ER\_Res & 259 \\
EWC & 645 \\
GPM (ours) & \textbf{245} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{1.75cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.75\linewidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}lccccc@{}}\label{tab11}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{(b)}} \\
\toprule
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Training Time [s]}} \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
\textbf{Methods}& {CIFAR-100} && {miniImageNet} && {5-Datasets} \\ \midrule
OWM & 1856 && - && - \\
EWC & 1352 && 4138 && 7613 \\
HAT & 1248 && 3077 && 7246\\
A-GEM & 2678 && 6069 && 12077 \\
ER\_Res & 1147 && \textbf{2775}&& 7015\\
GPM (ours) & \textbf{770} && 3387 && \textbf{5008} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{1.5}{1.1}
\begin{table*}[t]\centering
\vspace{-2.5mm}
\caption{\textcolor{black}{Continual learning of 20-task from CIFAR-100 Superclass dataset. ($\dagger$)~denotes the result reported from APD. (*)~indicates the methods that do not adhere to CL setup. Single-task learning (STL), where a separate network in trained for each task, serves as an upper bound on accuracy.}}
\centering
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc@{}}\label{tab_3}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{} \\
\toprule
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Methods}} \\
\cmidrule{2-7}
Metric & \multicolumn{1}{c}{STL$\dagger$*} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{PGN$\dagger$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DEN$\dagger$}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{RCL$\dagger$}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{APD$\dagger$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GPM (ours)}\\
\midrule
ACC (\%) & 61.00 & 50.76 & 51.10 & 51.99 & 56.81 & \textbf{57.72} \\
Capacity (\%) & 2000 & 271 & 191& 184 & 130 & \textbf{100} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-22.5pt}
\end{table*}
\textcolor{black}{\textbf{Training Time.} Table~\ref{tab11} shows the total training time for all the sequential tasks for different algorithms.~This includes time spent for memory management for the memory-based methods, fisher importance calculation for EWC and learning activation masks for HAT. Details of time measurement are given in appendix section~\ref{app_time}. For PMNIST, CIFAR-100, and 5-dataset tasks our algorithm trains faster than all the other baselines while spending only $0.2\%$, $3\%$ and $6\%$ of its total training time in GPM update (using SVD) respectively. Since each miniImageNet tasks are trained for only 10 epochs, our method have relatively higher overhead ($30\%$ of the total time) due to GPM update, thus runs a bit slower than the fastest ER\_Res. Overall, our formulation uses GPM bases and projection matrices of reasonable dimensions (see appendix section~\ref{gpm_app}); precomputation of which at the start of each task leads to fast per-epoch training. This gain in time essentially compensates for the extra time required for the GPM update, which is done only once per task, enabling fast training.}
\textcolor{black}{\textbf{Comparison with Expansion-based methods.} To compare our method with the state-of-the-art expansion based methods we perform experiment with 20-task CIFAR-100 Superclass dataset~\citep{apd}. In this experiment, each task contains 5 different but semantically related classes from CIFAR-100 dataset. Similar to APD, here we use the LeNet-5 architecture. Details of architecture and training setup are given in appendix section~\ref{exp_details}.~Results are shown in Table~\ref{tab_3} where ACC represents average accuracy over 5 different task sequences (used in APD) and Capacity denotes percentage of network capacity used with respect to the original network. We outperform all the CL methods achieving best average accuracy ($57.72\pm 0.37\%$) with BWT of -$0.01$ using the smallest network. For instance, we outperform RCL and APD utilizing $84\%$ and $30\%$ fewer network parameters respectively, which shows that our method induces more sharing between tasks.}
\textcolor{black}{Overall, we outperform the memory-based methods with less memory utilization, achieve better accuracy than expansion-based methods using smaller network, and obtain better or on-par performance compared to HAT in the given experimental setups. However, in the class-incremental learning setup~\citep{icarl}, method~\citep{dgdmn} that uses data replay achieves better performance than GPM (see experiment in appendix section~\ref{cil}). In this setup, we believe a subset of old data replay either from storage or via generation is inevitable for attaining better performance with minimal forgetting~\citep{rps}. In that quest, a hybrid approach such as combining GPM with small data replay would be an interesting direction for future exploration.}
\textbf{Controlling Forgetting:} Finally, we discuss the factors that implicitly or explicitly control the amount of forgetting in our algorithm. As discussed in section~\ref{sec5}, we propose to minimize interference by taking gradient steps orthogonal to the CGS, where CGS bases are computed such that space of significant representations of the past tasks can be well approximated by these bases. The degree of this approximation is controlled by the threshold hyperparameter, $\epsilon_{th}$ (through equation~\ref{ct1},~\ref{ct2}). For instance, a low value of $\epsilon_{th}$ (closer to 0) would allow the optimizer to change the weights along the directions where past data has higher representational significance, thereby significantly altering the past input-weight correlation inducing (catastrophic) interference. On the other hand, a high value of $\epsilon_{th}$ (closer to 1) would preserve such correlation, however learnability of the new task might suffer due to high volume of constraints in the gradient space. Therefore, in our continual learning algorithm, $\epsilon_{th}$ mediates the stability-plasticity dilemma. To show this analytically, let's consider a network after learning $T$ sequential tasks with weights of the network at any layer, $l$ expressed as :
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{equation}
{\bm{W}}_T^l={\bm{W}}_1^l+\sum_{i=1}^{T-1} \Delta{\bm{W}}_{i \rightarrow i+1}^l={\bm{W}}_1^l+ \Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-12pt}
Here, ${\bm{W}}_1^l$ is the weights after task 1 and $\Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l$ is the change of weights from task 1 to T. Weight update with our method ensures that $\Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l$ lie in the orthogonal space of the data (representations) of task 1. Linear operation at layer $l$ with data from task 1 (${\bm{x}}_1$) would produce: ${\bm{W}}_T^l{\bm{x}}_1^l={\bm{W}}_1^l{\bm{x}}_1^l+ \Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l{\bm{x}}_1^l$ . If $\Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l{\bm{x}}_1^l=0$, then the output of the network for task 1 data after learning task $T$ will be the same as the output after learning task 1 (\textit{i.e.} ${\bm{W}}_T^l{\bm{x}}_1^l={\bm{W}}_1^l{\bm{x}}_1^l$), that means no interference for task 1. We define $\Delta{\bm{W}}_{1 \rightarrow T}^l{\bm{x}}_1^l$ as the \textbf{interference activation} for task 1 at layer $l$ (for any task, $\tau<T$: $\Delta{\bm{W}}_{\tau \rightarrow T}^l{\bm{x}}_\tau^l$). As discussed above, degree of such interference is dictated by $\epsilon_{th}$. Figure~\ref{fig:interfere}(a)-(b) (and Figure~\ref{fig:interfere_app} in appendix) show histograms (distributions) of interference activations at each layer of the network for split CIFAR-100 experiment. For lower value of $\epsilon_{th}$, these distributions have higher variance (spread) implying high interference, whereas with increasing value of $\epsilon_{th}$, the variance reduces around the (zero) mean value. As a direct consequence, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:interfere}(c), backward transfer reduces for increasing $\epsilon_{th}$ with improvement in accuracy.
\begin{figure
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{forget}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Histograms of interference activations as a function of threshold, ($\epsilon_{th}$) at (a) Conv layer 2 (b) FC layer 2 for split CIFAR-100 tasks. (c) Impact of $\epsilon_{th}$ on ACC (\%) and BWT(\%). With increasing value of $\epsilon_{th}$, spread of interference reduces, which improves accuracy and reduces forgetting.}
\label{fig:interfere}
\end{centering}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-3mm}
In this paper we propose a novel continual learning algorithm that finds important gradient subspaces for the past tasks and minimizes catastrophic forgetting by taking gradient steps orthogonal to these subspaces when learning a new task. We show how to analyse the network representations to obtain minimum number of bases of these subspaces by which past information is preserved and learnability for the new tasks is ensured. Evaluation on diverse image classification tasks with different network architectures and comparisons with state-of-the-art algorithms show the effectiveness of our approach in achieving high classification performance while mitigating forgetting. \textcolor{black}{We also show our algorithm is fast, makes efficient use of memory and is capable of learning long sequence of tasks in deeper networks preserving data privacy.}
\vspace{-5pt}
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
\vspace{-5pt}
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship, Army Research Office, MURI, and by Center for Brain Inspired Computing (C-BRIC), one of six centers in JUMP, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program sponsored by DARPA.
|
\section{Introduction}
The close interplay between coding theory and finite geometry has emerged multiple times in the last 60 years, starting from the works of Prange \cite{Prange} and Rudolph \cite{Rudolph}, where they proposed to construct linear codes starting from projective planes. Their idea was to use the incidence matrix of the plane as a generator matrix or as a parity-check matrix of a linear code, showing that the underlying geometry can be translated in metric properties of the corresponding codes. Generalizations of these constructions have been studied since the 70's and are still subject of active research (see \cite{Assmus}). The relations between these two research areas had also a strong impact in the opposite direction. The most striking example is certainly the non-existence proof of a finite projective plane of order $10$ shown in \cite{lam1989non}. This groundbreaking result came -- with the help of a computer -- after that a series of papers analyzed the binary linear code coming from a putative projective plane of order $10$.
A very important class of codes which was sensibly influenced by geometric constructions is given by low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes, which were introduced by Gallager in
his 1962 seminal paper~\cite{Gal}. LDPC codes, as originally proposed,
are binary linear codes with a very sparse parity-check
matrix. This sparsity property is the bedrock of efficient decoding algorithms. Already Gallager provided two of such algorithms
whose decoding complexity is linear in the block length.
However,
LDPC codes came to fame much later, when in 2001 Richardson, Shokrollahi and
Urbanke~\cite{ri01a2} were able to show that LDPC codes are capable to
approach Shannon capacity in a practical manner. Above authors derived
this result using random constructions of very large and sparse parity-check matrices. Because of these random constructions the performance
of the codes was only guaranteed with high probability and there was
also the practical disadvantage that the storage of a particular
parity-check matrix required a lot of storage space.
There are several design parameters one wants to optimize when
constructing LDPC codes. On the side of guaranteeing that the distance
is reasonably large, it was realized early that it is desirable that
the girth of the associated Tanner graph is large as well. This last
property helps to avoid decoding failures in many decoding algorithms.
Thus, in order to guarantee that an LDPC code had desirable design
parameters, such as a large distance or a large girth of the associated
Tanner graph, some explicit constructions were needed. Already in 1982
Margulis~\cite{Margulis} used group theoretic methods to construct a
bipartite Cayley graph whose girth was large. This line of research
was extended by Rosenthal and Vontobel~\cite{ro00p} using some
explicit constructions of Ramanujan graphs, which have exceptional
large girth.
Maybe the first time objects from finite geometry were used to
construct explicitly some good LDPC codes was in the work of Kou, Lin
and Fossorier~\cite{ko01}. These authors gave four different
constructions using affine and projective geometries over finite
fields which did guarantee that the resulting code had a good distance
and the associated Tanner graph had a girth of at least 6.
Using points and lines in $\mathbb{F}_q^m$ Kim, Peled, Perepelitsa,
Pless and Friedland \cite{Kim04} came up with incidence matrices representing
excellent LDPC codes. In the last 15 years there has been active
research to come up with further explicit constructions of LDPC codes with desirable parameters based on combinatorial structures \cite{johnson2004low,ko01,liu2005ldpc,vontobel2001construction,Vandendriessche2010}.
Moderate-density parity-check (MDPC) codes were first introduced by Ouzan
and Be'ery~\cite{ou09u}. Misoczki, Tillich, Sendrier and
Barreto~\cite{mi13} showed that MDPC codes could still be decoded with
low complexity as long as the row-weight of each row vector of the
parity-check matrix was not much more than the square root of the
length of the code. These authors also showed that MDPC codes are
highly interesting for the use in the area of code based cryptography.
Similar as for LDPC codes, it is an important task to come up with explicit
constructions of MDPC codes where e.g. a good minimum distance can be
guaranteed. Already Ouzan and Be'ery \cite{ou09u} provided a
construction using cyclotomic cosets. Further constructions using
quasi-cyclic codes can be found in~\cite{Janoska,mi13}.
\medskip
This paper adds another dowel to the theory of error-correcting codes arising from geometric objects. We propose a new construction of linear codes using projective bundles in a Desarguesian projective plane, resulting in a family of MDPC codes. Concretely, a projective bundle in a projective plane of order $q$ is a collection of $q^2+q+1$ ovals which mutually intersect in a unique point. We consider the incidence structure consisting of the lines of a projective plane together with the ovals of a projective bundle. The incidence matrix of this structure will serve as a parity-check matrix of the proposed binary codes. We completely determine their dimension and minimum distance for both $q$ even and odd. In addition, we observe that we can design these codes to possess a quasi-cyclic structure of index $2$. As a consequence, their encoding can be
achieved in linear time and implemented with linear feedback shift
registers. Moreover, also the storage space required is only half their length.
The main motivation arises from \cite{Tillich}, where the error-correction capability of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm on the parity-check matrix of an MDPC code was analyzed. There, it was derived that its performance is inversely proportional to the maximum column intersection of the parity-check matrix, which is the maximum number of positions of ones that two distinct columns share. We show indeed that the maximum column intersection of the derived parity-check matrices is the smallest possible for the chosen parameters, implying in turn the best possible performance of the bit-flipping algorithm.
\medskip
The paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:coding} consists of the coding theory background needed in the paper. In particular, we introduce the family of MDPC codes and we recall the result on the performance of the bit-flipping algorithm presented in \cite{Tillich}, which was decisive for the idea of this construction. In Section \ref{sec:planes} we give a brief overview on projective planes, studying the basic properties of codes arising from them.
Section \ref{section_construction} is dedicated to the new proposed MDPC design using projective bundles. Here, we study some of the code properties and we determine its dimension and minimum distance. The paper is based on the master's thesis of the first author \cite{Bariffi} and in this section we extend the results which were originally stated there. Finally, the goal of Section \ref{section:generalization} is to generalize the results stated in Section \ref{section_construction} in order to have more flexibility in the choice of the parameters. This is done by using several projective bundles instead of only one.
\section{Coding Theory and Moderate Density Parity-Check Codes}\label{sec:coding}
Let us start by briefly recalling some basics of coding theory. Throughout the paper $q$ will always be a prime power, and we will denote the finite field with $q$ elements by $\mathbb{F}_q$. The set of vectors of length $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ will be denoted by $\mathbb{F}_q^n$.
We consider the \emph{Hamming weight} on $\mathbb{F}_q^n$ defined as
$$\weight(v):=\card{\lbrace i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \mid v_i\neq 0\rbrace}.$$
It is well-known that it induces a metric, namely the \emph{Hamming distance} which is given by
$$ \begin{array}{rccl}
\dd_{\HH}: & \mathbb{F}_q^n \times \mathbb{F}_q^n & \longrightarrow & \mathbb N \\
& (u,v) & \longmapsto & \weight(u-v).
\end{array}$$
\begin{definition}
A \emph{$q$-ary linear code} $C$ of length $n$ and dimension $\dim (C) = k$ is a $k$-dimensional linear subspace of $\mathbb{F}_q^n$ endowed with the Hamming metric. The \emph{minimum distance} of $C$ is the minimum among all the possible weights of the non-zero codewords and it is denoted by $\dd(C)$, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\dd(C) := \min \lbrace \weight (c) \, | \, c \in C, \, c \not = 0 \rbrace .
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
A $q$-ary linear code of length $n$ and dimension $k$ will be denoted for brevity by $[n,k]_q$ code, or by $[n,k,d]_q$ code if the minimum distance $d$ is known.
Any $[n,k]_q$ code $C$ has a dual code which is defined as
\begin{align*}
C^\perp = \lbrace x \in \mathbb{F}_q^n \, | \, x\cdot c^\top = 0, \, \forall c \in C \rbrace .
\end{align*}
A \emph{generator matrix} of an $[n,k]_q$ code $C$ is a matrix $G\in\mathbb{F}_q^{k\times n}$ whose rows form a basis of $C$. A generator matrix $H \in \mathbb{F}_q^{(n-k)\times n}$ for the dual code $C^\perp$ is called a \textit{parity-check matrix} of $C$. Note that $C$ can also be represented by a parity-check matrix $H$, since it corresponds to its right kernel, i.e.
\begin{align*}
C = \ker (H) = \lbrace c \in \mathbb{F}_q^n \, | \, c\cdot H^\top = 0 \rbrace .
\end{align*}
A matrix $A\in\mathbb{F}_q^{r\times s}$ is said to have \textit{row-weight} $w$, for some nonnegative integer $w$, if every row of $A$ has Hamming weight equal to $w$. Similarly, we say that $A$ has \emph{column-weight} $v$, if each of its columns has Hamming weight $v$.\\
In the following we will focus on the family of
moderate density parity-check (MDPC) codes. They are an extension of the well-known low density parity-check (LDPC) codes,
and they are defined by the row-weight of a parity-check matrix. The terminology was first introduced in \cite{ou09u}, and then these codes were reintroduced and further generalized in \cite{mi13} for cryptographic purposes.
\begin{definition}
Let $\{C_i\}$ be a family of binary linear codes of length $n_i$ with parity-check matrix $H_i$. If $H_i$ has row weight $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n_i})$, $\{C_i\}$ is called a (family of) \textit{moderate density parity-check (MDPC)} code. If, in addition, the weight of every column of $H_i$ is a constant $v_i$ and the weight of every row of the $H_i$ is a constant $w_i$ we say the MDPC code is of type $(v_i, w_i)$.
\end{definition}
MDPC codes have been constructed in various ways. In their seminal paper \cite{ou09u}, Ouzan and Be'ery designed cyclic MDPC codes carefully choosing the idempotent generator of the dual code. This structure has been generalized in order to design quasi-cyclic MDPC codes (see e.g. \cite{Janoska,mi13}).
A different approach has been proposed in \cite{Tillich}, where a random model is considered.
In the definition of an MDPC code the chosen parity-check matrix is very important. Indeed, as for LDPC codes, an MDPC code automatically comes together with a decoding algorithm -- for instance the bit-flipping algorithm -- whose performance depends on the chosen parity-check matrix.
Thus, in order to study the error-correction performance, we introduce the following quantity.
\begin{definition}
Let $H$ be a binary matrix. The \textit{maximum column intersection} is the maximal cardinality of the intersection of the supports of any pair of distinct columns of $H$.
\end{definition}
The following result was found by Tillich in 2018 (for more details and the proof see \cite{Tillich}). It states the amount of errors that can be corrected within one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{Tillich_correction}
Let $C$ be an MDPC code of type $(v, w)$ with parity-check matrix $H$. Let $s_H$ denote the maximum column intersection of $H$. Performing one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm with respect to $H$, we can correct all errors of weight at most $\lfloor \frac{v}{2 \cdot s_H}\rfloor$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent It hence follows that, the smaller $s_H$, the more errors can be corrected after one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm. A random construction would yield an asymptotic value for $s_H$. We would like to design MDPC codes in such a way that $s_H$ is as small as possible and, more importantly, that $s_H$ is deterministic.
\section{MDPC codes from Projective Planes}\label{sec:planes}
The projective plane $\PG(2,q)$ is a point-line geometry constructed from a three-dimensional vector space $V$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Its points and lines are the one- and two-dimensional subspaces of $V$ respectively and the containment relation in $V$ defines the incidence relation of the plane. It has $q^2+q+1$ points and equally many lines. The geometry satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item any two distinct points are incident with exactly one common line;
\item any two distinct lines are incident with exactly one common point;
\item there are four points such that no three of them are collinear.
\end{enumerate}
This means that $\PG(2,q)$ can also be regarded as a symmetric $2$-$(q^2+q+1,q+1,1)$-design, where the lines correspond to the blocks.
Moreover, every line in $\PG(2,q)$ is incident with $q+1$ points and dually, every point is incident with $q+1$ lines.
One way to represent $\PG(2,q)$ is by an incidence matrix. This is a matrix $A$ whose rows and columns are indexed by points and lines respectively such that
\begin{align*}
(A)_{p\ell} = \begin{cases}
1 \text{ if } p \text{ is incident with } \ell \\
0 \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Here we describe an alternative way to represent the projective plane $\PG(2,q)$. We can identify the set of points with the integers modulo $q^2+q+1$. For the description of the lines, we will follow the instruction presented by Hirschfeld in \cite[p77---p79]{Hirsch}. Let us therefore introduce the following set.
\begin{definition}\label{def:perfect_diff_set}
A set $D=\{d_0, \dots , d_r\}\subseteq \mathbb Z/(r^2+r+1)\mathbb Z$ is called a \textit{perfect difference set}, if all differences $(d_i - d_j)$ are distinct modulo $r^2+r+1$, for $i, j \in \{0, \dots, r\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
For instance, consider $r=2$. One can show that the set $D = \{0, 1, 3\}$ of $r+1 = 3$ integers is indeed a perfect difference set, since any two differences between two distinct elements are pairwise disjoint modulo $r^2+r+1 = 7$.
\end{example}
Hirschfeld showed in \cite[Theorem 4.2.2 and its Corollary]{Hirsch} that the set of lines of $\PG (2, q)$ is fully described by the circulant shifts modulo $q^2+q+1$ of a perfect difference set of $q+1$ elements. In this way we obtain a circulant incidence matrix in which the support of the first column is $D$.\\
In order to illustrate this, consider the Fano plane $\PG (2, 2)$ consisting of seven points and lines. We have seen, that the points will be identified with the integers modulo $q^2+q+1 = 7$. For the set of lines we will use the cyclic shifts (modulo 7) of the set $D = \{ 0, 1, 3 \}$, which we have seen is in fact a perfect difference set. Explicitly, we obtain the following set of points $\mathcal{P}$ and set of lines $\mathcal{L}$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P} &= \{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 \}, \\
\mathcal{L} &= \lbrace \{ 0+i, 1+i, 3+i \} \, | \, i \in \{0, \ldots 6 \} \rbrace.
\end{align*}
The defining properties of projective planes have made them a good source of error-correcting codes by taking their incidence matrices as the parity-check matrix, as was done already in the late 1950s, cf. \cite{Prange} or \cite{Rudolph}.
\begin{definition}
Let $H$ be an incidence matrix of $\Uppi = \PG(2,q)$ over the binary finite field $\mathbb{F}_2$. We define the code in $\mathbb F_2^{q^2+q+1}$
\begin{align*}
C_2(\Uppi)^{\perp} =\ker (H).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Codes from planes have been intensively studied and many properties have been derived thanks to the underlying geometric structure. Among the most relevant properties, Graham and MacWilliams \cite{Graham} completely determined the dimension of the codes $C_p(\Uppi)^\perp$ over $\mathbb F_p$ and their minimum distance when $p=2$ was determined by Assmus and Key \cite{Assmus}. Here we state the two results, restricting ourselves only to the case $p=2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:parameters_code_plane}
The code $C_2(\Uppi)^\perp$ is a $[q^2+q+1,k,d]_2$ code, where
$$ (k,d)=\begin{cases} (1,q^2+q+1) & \mbox{ if } q \mbox{ is odd }, \\
(2^{2h}-3^h+2^h, 2^h+2) & \mbox{ if } q=2^h.
\end{cases}$$
\end{theorem}
The first part just follows from the observation that if $A$ is the incidence matrix of a projective plane of order $q$, then by definition
\[A^\top \!A = AA^\top = qI + J,\]
where $I$ is the identity matrix and $J$ the all-one matrix of size $q^2+q+1$.
From Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane} we can see that binary codes from $\PG(2,q)$ are only interesting whenever $q$ is even. Moreover, one can see that the incidence matrix of $\Uppi$ has constant row and column weight equal to $q+1$ which is $\mathcal O(\sqrt{q^2+q+1})$. Hence, codes from projective planes are very special examples of MDPC codes. With the aid of Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction}, we can show that one round of the bit-flipping algorithm on these codes permits to decode up to half the minimum distance with no failure probability, for any projective plane.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:correction_capability_plane_codes}
Let $\Uppi$ be a projective plane of even order and $H$ its incidence matrix, which is the parity-check matrix of the code $C_2(\Uppi)^\perp$. After performing one round of bit-flipping on $H$ we can correct any error of weight up to $\lfloor\frac{d-1}{2}\rfloor$, where $d$ is the minimum distance of $C_2(\Uppi)^\perp$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since a projective plane is in particular a symmetric $2$-$(q^2+q+1,q+1,1)$-design, then the maximum column intersection of $H$ is $1$. Moreover, the matrix $H$ is of type $(q+1,q+1)$. Hence, applying Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction}, we obtain that one round of the bit-flipping algorithm corrects every error of weight at most $\lfloor\frac{d-1}{2}\rfloor$.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:correction_capability_plane_codes} shows that codes from planes are really powerful, and have the best performance according to Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction}, for a given matrix of type $(q+1,q+1)$ and size $(q^2+q+1)\times(q^2+q+1)$. However, we can only construct codes from projective planes of even order, resulting in $[2^{2h}+2^h+1,2^{2h}-3^h+2^h, 2^h+2]_2$ codes.
This lack of choice of the parameters motivated many variation on this construction. In the last 50 years, many codes have been constructed based on underlying geometric objects: Euclidean and projective geometries over finite fields \cite{delsarte1969geometric,tang2005codes,ko01}, linear representation of Desarguesian projective planes \cite{pepe2009small}, (semi-)partial geometries \cite{johnson2004codes,Vandendriessche2010}, generalized quadrangles \cite{vontobel2001construction,kim2007small}, generalized polygons \cite{liu2005ldpc}, Ramanujan graphs \cite{Margulis,ro00p}, $q$-regular bipartite graphs from point line geometries \cite{Kim04} and other incidence structures coming from combinatorial designs \cite{johnson2001regular,johnson2001construction,weller2003regular,johnson2004low}.
For the same reason, we propose a new construction of (families of) MDPC codes based on a suitable system of conics in a Desarguesian projective plane that behaves itself like a projective plane. This is encapsulated in the concept of \emph{projective bundles}, which we define in the following section.
\section{MDPC codes from Projective Bundles}\label{section_construction}
In this section we present the new MDPC codes using projective bundles by constructing its parity-check matrix. We start off by introducing the relevant geometrical objects, which are ovals and projective bundles in $\PG(2,q)$.
\begin{definition}
An oval in $\PG(2,q)$ is a set of $q+1$ points, such that every line intersects it in at most two points.
\end{definition}
The classical example of an oval is a non-degenerate conic, i.e. the locus of an irreducible homogeneous quadratic equation. When $q$ is odd, Segre's seminal result \cite{Segre2} shows that the converse is also true: every oval is a conic.
\begin{definition}
A line in $\PG(2,q)$ is \textit{skew}, \textit{tangent} or \textit{secant} to a given oval if it intersects it in zero, one or two points respectively.
\end{definition}
We recall some properties of ovals which were first recorded by Qvist \cite{Qvist}. We include the proof as it will be relevant later.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ovaltangents}
An oval in $\PG(2,q)$ has $q+1$ tangent lines, one in each point.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $q$ is odd, every point not on the oval is incident with zero or two tangent lines.
\item If $q$ is even, then all tangent lines are concurrent.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a point on the oval. Then there are $q$ lines through this point intersecting the oval in one more point. This means that one line remains, which is necessarily a tangent line, hence proving the first part of the lemma.
Now suppose that $q$ is odd and consider a point on a tangent line, not on the oval. As $q+1$ is even, this point is incident with an odd number of tangent lines more. Since the point is arbitrary, and there are $q+1$ tangent lines, this implies that every point on the tangent line (but not on the oval) is incident with exactly two tangent lines.
When $q$ is even, we consider a point on a secant line, but not on the oval and proceed in a similar fashion as before: $q-1$ is odd, so this point is incident with an odd number of tangents. Since this point is arbitrary, and there are $q+1$ tangent lines, this implies that every point on the secant line is incident with exactly one tangent line. Therefore the intersection point of two tangent lines is necessarily the intersection of all tangent lines.
\end{proof}
When $q$ is even, one can add the point of concurrency of the tangent lines, which is called the \textit{nucleus}, to the oval to obtain a set of $q+2$ points that has zero or two points in common with every line. This leads us to the following definition.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{hyperoval} is set of $q+2$ points in $\PG(2,q)$ such that every line has zero or two points in common. A \textit{dual hyperoval} is a set of $q+2$ lines such that every point is incident with zero or two lines.
\end{definition}
We will encounter these objects again later on. We are now in the position to define projective bundles.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{projective bundle} is a collection of $q^2+q+1$ ovals of $\PG(2,q)$ mutually intersecting in a unique point.
\end{definition}
Projective bundles were introduced by Glynn in his Ph.D.\ thesis \cite{Glynn} under the name `packings of $(q+1)$-arcs'. The original definition is a bit more general and applies to any projective plane instead of just $\PG(2,q)$. Since the only known projective bundles exist in $\PG(2,q)$, it suffices for our purposes to restrict ourselves to this case.
It follows from the definition that one can consider the points of $\PG(2,q)$ and the ovals of a projective bundle as the points and lines of a projective plane of order $q$. We can then define the notion of secant, tangent and skew ovals (which belong to the projective bundle) with respect to a line. Moreover, one can interchange the role of lines and ovals in the proof of \ref{lem:ovaltangents} and find the following statement, which we record for convenience.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:linetangents}
Given a projective bundle, a line in $\PG(2,q)$ has $q+1$ tangent ovals, one in each point.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $q$ is even, then all tangent ovals are concurrent.
\item If $q$ is odd, every point not on the line is incident with zero or two tangent ovals.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
When $q$ is even, we can similarly as before define a \textit{hyperoval of ovals} as a set of $q+2$ ovals such that every point is contained in zero or two of them.
An interesting property of projective bundles is that a third projective plane can be found. This result is due to Glynn \cite[Theorem 1.1.1]{Glynn} and served as the motivation for projective bundles: to possibly find new projective planes from known ones.
\begin{theorem}\label{cor:tangencyprojplane}
Consider the ovals of a projective bundle and the lines of $\PG(2,q)$ as points and lines respectively, with incidence defined by tangency. Then this point-line geometry is a projective plane of order $q$.
\end{theorem}
We can rephrase this in terms of incidence matrices. As follows: if $A$ and $B$ are the point-line incidence matrices of the $\PG(2,q)$ and the projective plane whose lines are the ovals of a projective bundle, then $AB^\top \!\pmod{2}$ is again the incidence matrix of a projective plane. However, for $q$ even this idea to construct new projective planes does not work, since then all three projective planes are isomorphic \cite[Corollary 1.1.1]{Glynn}.
Glynn showed that projective bundles indeed exist for any $q$, and his examples are all bundles of conics. When $q$ is odd, he showed the existence of three distinct types of projective bundles in $\PG(2,q)$, by identifying them with planes in $\PG(5,q)$. It was shown in \cite{Baker} that perfect difference sets can also be used to describe these projective bundles. In fact, given a perfect difference set $D\subseteq \mathbb Z/(q^2+q+1)\mathbb Z$ and its circular shifts corresponding to the set of lines of $\PG (2, q)$, the three bundles are represented in the following way.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Cirumscribed bundle:} set of all circular shifts of $-D$.
\item \textit{Inscribed bundle:} set of all circular shifts of $2D$.
\item \textit{Self-polar bundle:} set of all circular shifts of $D/2$.
\end{enumerate}
We are now going to construct the parity-check matrix as mentioned at the beginning of this section. Let us denote the projective plane formed by the points and lines of $\PG(2,q)$ by $\Uppi$ and the one formed by the points and the ovals of a projective bundle of $\PG(2,q)$ by $\Upgamma$. Then define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:parity_check_code_bundle}
H = ( \,A \, \mid \, B\,),
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $B$ are the incidence matrices of $\Uppi$ and $\Upgamma$ respectively.
Hence, we obtain a $(q^2+q+1)\times 2(q^2+q+1)$ binary matrix defined by the points, lines and ovals of a projective bundle of $\PG(2,q)$.
\begin{definition}
A binary linear code with parity-check matrix $H$ given in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle} is called a \emph{projective bundle code} and we will denote it by
\begin{align*}
C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp = \ker (H).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Clearly, the matrix $H$ given in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle} has constant row-weight $w = 2(q+1)$ and constant column-weight $v = q+1$. Hence, $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ is an MDPC code of length $n=2(q^2+q+1)$ and type $(q+1, 2(q+1))$.\\
\begin{remark}
The family of MDPC codes that we are considering is built upon a parity-check matrix as in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle}. In such a matrix the number of columns is twice the number of rows and this coincides with the setting originally studied in \cite{mi13}.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let us give a short example of a projective bundle code for a relatively small parameter $q = 3$. Hence, we consider the projective plane $\PG (2, 3)$. Recall, that the set of points $\mathcal{P}$ is given by the set of integers modulo $q^2+q+1 = 13$. The set of lines $\mathcal{L}$ is defined by the image of a perfect difference set $D$ of four integers under repeated application of the Singer cycle $S(i) = i+1$. It is easy to verify that $D = \{ 0, 1, 3, 9 \}$ is a perfect difference set, i.e. $$\mathcal{L} = \lbrace \{ 0+i, 1+i, 3+i, 9 + i\} \, | \, i \in \mathbb Z/13\mathbb Z \rbrace.$$
At this point, let us choose an inscribed bundle $\mathcal{B}_I$ in $\PG (2, 3)$. As shown above, this bundle is represented by the cyclic shifts of $2D = \lbrace 0, 2, 5, 6 \rbrace$. Hence, we obtain
$$\mathcal{B}_I = \lbrace \{ 0+i, 2+i, 5+i, 6 + i\} \, | \, i \in \mathbb Z/13\mathbb Z \rbrace.$$
Concatenating the two corresponding incidence matrices $A$ and $B$ yields the desired parity-check matrix
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
H = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc|ccccccccccccc}
1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot \\
1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 \\
\cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot \\
1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot \\
\cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 \\
\cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & 1 & \cdot & 1 \\
\end{array}\right) ,
\end{align*}
\end{small}
where the zero entries in the parity-check matrix are represented by dots.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Observe that the matrix $H$ defined in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle} can be constructed from a perfect difference set $D$, by taking the circular shifts of $D$ and $sD$, with $s \in \{-1,2,2^{-1}\}$. Such a matrix has a double circulant structure. Thus, the resulting code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup \Upgamma)^\perp$ is quasi-cyclic of index $2$, and encoding can be
achieved in linear time and implemented with linear feedback shift registers. Furthermore, we can also deduce -- because of the circular structure -- that the number of bits required to describe
the parity check matrix is about half the block length. It would even be less if one compresses
the data.
\end{remark}
In the following subsections we will analyse the dimension, minimum distance and error-correction performance with respect to the bit-flipping decoding algorithm of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$.
\subsection{Dimension}
Recall from Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane} that a $p$-ary code $C_p(\Uppi)$ from a projective plane $\Uppi \cong \PG(2,q)$, is either trivial of codimension $1$ -- when $p \nmid q$ -- or it is non-trivial to determine its dimension -- when $p \mid q$.
In our case, the structure of our code allows to both have a non-trivial code and to determine the exact dimension for all $q$. To do so, recall that if $A$ is the incidence matrix of a projective plane of order $q$, then
\[AA^\top = A^\top \!A = qI + J,\]
where $J$ is the all-one matrix of appropriate size.
Using this result we are able to state the dimension of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:dimension_basecase}
Let $\Uppi$ be a projective plane of order $q$ and let $\Upgamma$ be a projective bundle in $\Uppi$. Then, $$\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp\right) = \begin{cases}
q^2+q+2 & \mbox{ if } q \mbox{ is odd, }\\
2^{2h+1}+2^{h+1}-2(3^h)+1 & \mbox{ if } q=2^h.
\end{cases}$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In order to determine the dimension of the code, we need to compute the rank of a parity-check matrix $H = ( \,A \, \mid \, B\,)$. Since $H$ is of size $(q^2+q+1)\times 2(q^2+q+1)$, we can already say that the rank of $H$ is at most $q^2+q+1$. Now we consider the two cases.
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case I: $q$ odd}}. We know from Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane} that $\rank(A) = q^2+q$, which gives us the lower bound $\rank(H) \geq \rank(A) = q^2+q$.\\
The matrix $H$ has full rank $q^2+q+1$ if and only if there exists no element in the left-kernel, i.e. if there is no non-zero vector $x\in \mathbb{F}_2^{q^2+q+1}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{leftkernel_element}
x H = 0.
\end{align}
However, if $x$ is the all-one vector then Equation (\ref{leftkernel_element}) is satisfied. Hence, there is an element in the cokernel which implies that $H$ cannot have full rank and we conclude that $\dim C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp = q^2+q+2$.
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case II: $q$ even}}. In this case, we consider the matrix
$$ H^\top \!H=\begin{pmatrix} A^\top\! A \;& A^\top \!B\\ B^\top \!A \;& B^\top \!B
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} J & A^\top \!B\\ (A^\top \!B)^\top& J
\end{pmatrix}.$$
By Theorem \ref{cor:tangencyprojplane} and the discussion below, $A^\top \!B = C$ is again the incidence matrix of $\PG(2,q)$, and hence the sum of all its rows/columns is equal to the all one vector. Therefore, by doing row operations on $H^\top\!H$, we obtain the matrix
$$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & A^\top \!B+J\\ (A^\top \!B)^\top& J
\end{pmatrix}, $$
which has the same rank as $H^\top \!H$. Hence,
$$ \rank(H)\geq \rank(H^\top\!H)=\rank(A^\top \!B)+\rank(A^\top \!B+J)\geq 2\rank(A^\top\!B)-1,$$
where the last inequality comes from the fact that $J$ has rank $1$, and the rank satisfies the triangle inequality. On the other hand, we have that the all one vector is in the column spaces of both $A$ and $B$, showing that $\rank(H)\leq \rank(A)+\rank(B)-1$. Since $A$, $B$ and $A^\top \!B$ are all incidence matrices of a Desarguesian plane, they all have the same rank. Therefore, combining the two inequalities, we obtain
$$ \rank(H)=2\rank(A)-1,$$
and using Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane}, we can conclude that
\begin{align*}
\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp\right)&=2(q^2+q+1)-\rank(H)=2(q^2+q+1)-2\rank(A)+1\\
&=2\dim(C_2(\Uppi)^\perp))+1=2^{2h+1}+2^{h+1}-2(3^h)+1.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\noindent We can thus already say that $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ is a $[2(q^2+q+1), q^2+q+2]_2$ MDPC code of type $(q+1,2q+1)$.
\subsection{Minimum Distance}
As mentioned earlier, we are interested in the error-correction capability. A relevant quantity to give information about error-correction and also error-detection is the minimum distance of a linear code.
In the following we will determine the exact value of the minimum distance of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$. An important observation for the proof is that geometrically, the support of a codeword of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ corresponds to a set of lines and ovals such that every point of $\PG(2,q)$ is covered an even number of times.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:minimumdistance_codeebundle}
The minimum distance of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ is $q+2$ and the supports of the minimum weight codewords can be characterized, depending on the parity of $q$. For $q$ odd, the support of a minimum weight codeword is
\begin{itemize}
\item an oval and its $q+1$ tangent lines, or
\item a line and its $q+1$ tangent ovals.
\end{itemize}
On the other hand for $q$ even, we find that the support of a minimum weight codeword is
\begin{itemize}
\item a dual hyperoval, or
\item a hyperoval of ovals.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take a codeword of minimum weight in $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ and consider its support. This is a set of $r$ lines $L$ and $s$ ovals $O$ such that every point in $\PG(2,q)$ is incident with an even number of these elements. We will show that $r+s \geq q+2$ and equality only holds for the two examples stated.
Let $a_i$, $0 \leq i \leq 2q+2$, be the number of points that are covered $i$ times, then we can double count the tuples $(P), (P,E_1), (P,E_1,E_2)$, where $P$ is a point and $E_1,E_2 \in L \cup O$ are lines or ovals incident with this point. Remark that by assumption $a_i = 0$ whenever $i$ is odd. We find the following three expressions:
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} a_i &= q^2+q+1 \\
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} ia_i &= (r+s)(q+1) \\
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} i(i-1)a_i &\leq r(r-1)+s(s-1)+2rs,
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows as a line and oval intersect in at most two points. From these equations, we can find $\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2}i(i-2) a_i \leq (r+s)(r+s-q-2)$ and hence $r+s \geq q+2$, as the sum on the left-hand side has only non-negative terms. Moreover, in the case of equality, $a_i = 0$ whenever $i \notin \{0,2\}$.
Now consider a codeword of weight $r+s = q+2$, consisting of $r$ lines $L$ and $s$ ovals $O$. We will investigate the cases $q$ odd and even separately and show the characterisation.
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case I: $q$ odd}}. Since $q+2$ is odd and hence one of $r$ or $s$ is, we can suppose without loss of generality that $r$ is odd. The argument works the same when $s$ is odd, by interchanging the roles of lines and ovals.
Consider a line not in $L$. Then this line is intersected an odd number of times by the $r$ lines in $L$. Therefore, it should be tangent to an odd number of ovals in $O$, recalling that every point is incident with zero or two elements from $L \cup O$. In particular, any line not in $L$ is tangent to at least one oval in $O$. So count the $N$ pairs $(\ell,c)$, where $\ell$ is a line not in $L$, $c \in O$ and $|\ell \cap O| = 1$. By the previous observation, it follows that $q^2+q+1-r = q^2-1+s \leq N$. On the other hand, a oval has $q+1$ tangent lines so that $N \leq s(q+1)$. Combining these two leads to $s \geq q$, which implies that $r = 1$ and $s = q+1$. Remark that this argument only depends on $r$ being odd.
If $o \in O$ is one of these $q+1$ ovals, we see that the other $q$ ovals intersect $O$ in $q$ distinct points, as no point is incident with more than two elements from $L \cup O$. This immediately implies that the unique line in $L$ must be tangent to $o$. As $O$ was arbitrary, we conclude that the support of the codeword consists of one line and $q+1$ ovals tangent to it. By Lemma \ref{lem:linetangents} this indeed gives rise to a codeword, as every point not on the line is incident with zero or two ovals.
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case II: $q$ even}}. The situation is slightly different. Since $q+2$ is even now, either $r$ and $s$ are both odd, or both even. When $r$ is odd, we can reuse the argument from before to find the configuration of $q+1$ ovals tangent to a line. However, by Lemma \ref{lem:linetangents} we know that these $q+1$ ovals are all incident with a unique point, which is hence covered $q+1$ times, a contradiction.
So suppose that $r$ and $s$ are even. Any line in $L$ is intersected by the $r-1$ other lines in $L$, leaving $q+1-(r-1)$ points to be covered by the ovals in $O$, which is an even number. We see that we must have an even number of tangent ovals to this line. Similarly for a line not in $L$, we observe that it is intersected an even number of times by the $r$ lines in $L$ and hence it should have an even number of intersections with the ovals in $O$, leading again to an even number of tangent ovals. In summary, every line in $\PG(2,q)$ is incident with an even number of tangent ovals. Now, by Lemma \ref{lem:linetangents} and the fact that every point is covered zero or twice by the elements of $O \cup L$, it follows that every line in $\PG(2,q)$ is incident with zero or two tangent ovals. So suppose that $s > 0$, meaning we have at least one oval in $O$ and consider its $q+1$ tangent lines. Then each of these lines should have one more tangent oval, and all of these are distinct by Corollary \ref{cor:tangencyprojplane}, which means we find $s = q+2$ ovals forming a hyperoval of ovals. If $s = 0$, we find a dual hyperoval, concluding the theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Error-Correction Capability}
It is well-known that the minimum distance of a code gives information about the decoding radius. This means that it reveals an upper bound on the amount of errors that can be always detected and corrected.\\
We would like to focus in this subsection here on the performance of the constructed MDPC code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ within one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm. We now adapt and apply Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction} to the parity-check matrix $H$ of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$ given in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle}.
\begin{proposition}\label{bit_flipping_bound_mdpc}
The intersection number of the matrix $H$ defined in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle} is $s_H=2$. Thus,
after performing one round of the bit-flipping algorithm on $H$ we can correct all the errors of weight at most $\lfloor\frac{q+1}{4}\rfloor$ in the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma)^\perp$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From the construction of $H$ we have that $H$ consists of two matrices $A$ and $B$ which are the incidence matrices of points and lines and points and ovals of a projective bundle in $\PG(2,q)$, respectively. Clearly, both matrices $A$ and $B$ have a maximum column intersection equal to 1 as two distinct lines in a projective plane intersect in exactly one point and a similar property holds for every pair of distinct ovals of a projective bundle by definition. Since every line intersects an oval in at most 2 points, the maximum column intersection of the matrix $H$ is at most $2$. On the other hand, if we consider any two distinct points on an oval in the projective bundle, there always exists a line passing through them. Hence, $s_H=2$. The second part of the statement then follows directly from Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:sh}
Observe that $s_H = 1$ for a parity-check matrix of size $(q^2+q+1)\times c$ and column weight $q+1$ implies $c \leq q^2+q+1$. this can be seen by counting the tuples $\{(x,y,B) \,\, | \,\, x,y \in B\}$ in two ways. Thus, the value $s_H = 2$ is the best possible for $c > q^2+q+1$.
Furthermore, compared to a random construction of MDPC code, our design guarantees a deterministic error-correction performance for one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm. In particular, for the random model proposed in \cite{Tillich} it was proved that the expected value of $s_H$ is $\mathcal O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$. Hence, our construction guarantees an error-correction capability of the bit-flipping algorithm which improves the random construction by a factor $\mathcal O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$.
\end{remark}
Additionally, we have implemented the parity-check matrix for our MDPC-design as well as one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm. We were interested if we could correct even more errors than the number guaranteed in Proposition \ref{bit_flipping_bound_mdpc}. Since the bit-flipping decoding algorithm is only dependent on the syndrome and not on the actual chosen codeword, we took the all-zero codeword and added a pseudo-random error-vector of a fixed weight $wt(e) \geq \lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor$. We have generated $10^5$ distinct error vectors. Each of these error vectors then was used to run one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm for all the three different families of MDPC-codes that we have constructed. It turned out that all the three types of our constructed code showed exactly the same error-correction performance.\\
Finally, we have computed the probability of successful error-correction for the parameters $q \in \lbrace 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25 \rbrace $. The following results were obtained for the different error weights.
\begin{table}[H]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4mm}
\def\arraystretch{1.25}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{2.5cm}|p{2.5cm}|p{2.5cm}|}
\hline
$q$ & $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor + 1$ errors & $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor + 2$ errors & $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor + 3$ errors\\
\hline
\hline
5 & 50.82\% & 0.16\% & - \\
7 & 50.10\% & 0.34\% & - \\
9 & 79.31 \% & 3.86\% & - \\
11 & 43.83\% & 0.19\% & - \\
13 & 90.4\% & 14.4\% & - \\
17 & 97.2\% & 57.8\% & 7.8\% \\
19 & 91.8\% & 42.6\% & 10.7\% \\
23 & 97.86 \% & 77.66\% & 31.3\% \\
25 & 99.87\% & 95.3\% & 71.25\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Probability to decode a received word, with error-weight $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor + i$ for $i=1, 2, 3$, correctly after one round of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm.}\label{table:experiment}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table:experiment} shows that the probability to correct even more errors grows as we increase $q$. This is due to the fact, that for small $q$ we reach the unique decoding radius much faster.
\begin{remark}
In \cite{Tillich} the author analyzed also the error-correction performance after two rounds of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm. More precisely he estimated the probability that one round of the algorithm corrects enough errors so that in the second round all remaining errors will be correctable.
Following the notation of that paper, let us denote by $S$ the number of errors left after one round of the bit-flipping algorithm. Assuming that we have an MDPC code of length $n$ and of type $(v, w)$, where both $v$ and $w$ are of order $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$, the probability that $S$ is at least a certain value $t'$ satisfies the following inequality:
\begin{align}\label{prob:two_round_BF}
\mathbb{P}\left( S \geq t' \right) \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{t'}} {\rm e}^{\frac{t' v}{4} \ln(1 - {\rm e}^{-\frac{4wt}{n}}) + \frac{t'}{8}\ln(n) + O\left(t'\ln(t'/t) \right)},
\end{align}
where $t = \Theta(\sqrt{n})$ is the initial amount of errors that were introduced.\\
We have seen in Proposition \ref{bit_flipping_bound_mdpc}, that performing one round of the bit-flipping algorithm to a parity-check matrix $H$ of $C_2(\Uppi \sqcup \Upgamma)^\perp$ we can correct $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor$ errors. Therefore, a second round of the bit-flipping is able to correct completely if after one round there are no more than $\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor$ errors left. Applying \eqref{prob:two_round_BF} for $t' = \lfloor \frac{q+1}{4} \rfloor$ to the parity-check matrix $H$ of $C_2(\Uppi \sqcup \Upgamma)^\perp$ given in \eqref{eq:parity_check_code_bundle}, we obtain that we can successfully correct every error of weight $t=\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ after two rounds of the bit-flipping decoding algorithm with probability
$e^{-\Omega(n)}.$
\end{remark}
\section{Generalizations}\label{section:generalization}
Since our aim is to have more flexibility in the parameters, here we generalize the approach of Section \ref{section_construction}, by considering several disjoint projective bundles.
Let $t>1$ be a positive integer and let us fix a Desarguesian projective plane $\Uppi=\PG(2,q)$. Let $\Upgamma_1,\ldots, \Upgamma_{t}$ be disjoint\footnote{Here with ``disjoint'' we mean that any two distinct projective bundles have no common oval.} projective bundles of conics in $\Uppi$. Since we want $s_H$ to be low, we cannot take projective bundles of ovals in general, as for example two ovals in $\PG(2,q)$, $q$ even, could intersect in up to $q$ points: take any oval, add the nucleus and delete another point to find a second oval intersecting it in $q$ points. In Proposition \ref{cor:bit-flipping_performance_general} we will see that by choosing conics, we find $s_H = 4$.
Let us denote by $A$ the incidence matrix of $\Uppi$ and by $B_i$ the incidence matrix of the projective bundle $\Upgamma_i$, for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,t\}$. We then glue together all these matrices and consider the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$ to be the binary linear code whose parity-check matrix is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:paritycheck_general}
H_{q,t}:=\left(
A \mid B_1 \mid \cdots \mid B_t
\right).
\end{equation}
As already discussed, it is important to specify which parity-check matrix of a code we consider when we study the decoding properties, since the bit-flipping algorithm depends on the choice of the parity-check matrix.
We focus now on the parameters on the constructed codes. We first start with a result on the dimension of the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$
\begin{proposition}
Let $\Uppi=\PG(2,q)$ be a Desarguesian projective plane of order $q$ and let
$\Upgamma_1,\ldots,\Upgamma_{t}$ be a projective bundles in $\Uppi$. Then,
\begin{align*}\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp\right) &=
t(q^2+q+1)+1 & \mbox{ if } q \mbox{ is odd, }\\
\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp\right) & \geq (t+1)(2^{2h}-3^h+2^h)+t & \mbox{ if } q=2^h.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof goes as for Proposition \ref{prop:dimension_basecase}.
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case I: $q$ odd}}. We know from Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane} that $\rank(A) = q^2+q$, which gives us the lower bound $\rank(H_{q,t}) \geq \rank(A) = q^2+q$.\\
On the other hand, since $A$ and each matrix $B_i$ has the all one vector in its left kernel, we have that also $H_{q,t}$ has a nontrivial left kernel, and hance $\rank(H_{q,t})=q^2+q$, yielding
$$\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp\right) =(t+1)(q^2+q+1)-\rank(H_{q,t})= t(q^2+q+1)+1.$$
\noindent \underline{\textbf{Case I: $q$ even}}. Let us write $q=2^h$. In this case, we have that the all one vector belongs to the column spaces of each matrix $B_i$. Therefore,
$$\rank(H_{q,t})\leq \rank(A)+\sum_{i=1}^t\rank(B_i)-t.$$
Thus, we obtain
\begin{align*}\dim\left(C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp\right)&=(t+1)(q^2+q+1)-\rank(H_{q,t}) \\ & \geq (t+1)(q^2+q+1)-\rank(A)-\sum_{i=1}^t\rank(B_i)+t \\
&=(t+1)\dim(C_2(\Uppi)^\perp)+t\\ &=(t+1)(2^{2h}-3^h+2^h)+t ,\end{align*}
where the last equality comes from Theorem \ref{thm:parameters_code_plane}.
\end{proof}
Also in this general case we can study the minimum distance of the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$, generalizing the result on the minimum distance obtained when $t=1$ in Theorem \ref{thm:minimumdistance_codeebundle}. However, this time we are only able to give a lower bound.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:minimumdistance_general}
The minimum distance of $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$ is at least $\big\lceil\frac{q+2}{2}\big\rceil$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof goes in a similar way as the one of Theorem \ref{thm:minimumdistance_codeebundle}.
Take a codeword of minimum weight in $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$ and consider its support. This is a set $L$ of $r$ lines and a set $O_i$ of $s_i$ ovals for each $i \in\{1,\ldots,t\}$ such that every point in $\PG(2,q)$ is incident with an even number of these elements. We will show that $r+s_1+\ldots+s_t \geq \frac{q+2}{2}$.
Let $a_i$, $0 \leq i \leq 2q+2$, be the number of points that are covered $i$ times, then we can double count the tuples $(P), (P,E_1), (P,E_1,E_2)$, where $P$ is a point and $E_1,E_2 \in L \cup O_1\cup\ldots\cup O_t$ are lines or ovals incident with this point. Remark that by assumption $a_i = 0$ whenever $i$ is odd. We find the following three expressions:
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} a_i &= q^2+q+1 \\
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} ia_i &= \bigg(r+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg)(q+1) \label{eq:general2}\\
\sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} i(i-1)a_i &\leq r(r-1)+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i(s_i-1)+2r\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg)+4\bigg(\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq t}s_is_j\bigg), \label{eq:general3}
\end{align}
as two conics intersect in at most $4$ points by B\'ezout's theorem.
Subtracting \eqref{eq:general2} from \eqref{eq:general3} we obtain
$$0 \leq \sum_{i=0}^{2q+2} i(i-2)a_i = \bigg(r+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg)\bigg(r-q-2+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg)+2\bigg(\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq t}s_is_j\bigg).$$
One can easily check that this last quantity is in turn at most
$$ \bigg(r+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg)\bigg(2r-q-2+2\sum_{i=1}^ts_i\bigg),$$
which then implies
$$ r+\sum_{i=1}^ts_i \geq \frac{q+2}{2}.$$
\end{proof}
As a direct consequence of Proposition \ref{prop:minimumdistance_general} we have that in principle it should be possible to correct at least $\big\lfloor \frac{q}{4} \big\rfloor$ errors in the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$ when $q$ is even, and at least $\big\lfloor \frac{q+1}{4}\big\rfloor$ when $q$ is odd. However, also in this case, when running one round of the bit-flipping algorithm on the matrix $H_{q,t}$ given in \eqref{eq:paritycheck_general}, we only correct a smaller fraction of them, as the following result shows.
\begin{proposition}\label{cor:bit-flipping_performance_general}
The intersection number of the matrix $H_{q,t}$ defined in \eqref{eq:paritycheck_general} is at most $4$. Thus,
after performing one round of the bit-flipping algorithm on $H_{q,t}$ we can correct all the errors of weight at most $\lfloor\frac{q+1}{8}\rfloor$ in the code $C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The maximum column intersection is given by the maximum number of points lying in the intersection of elements in $\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t$. Each pair of lines intersects in exactly a point, and the same holds for every pair of conics belonging to the same projective bundle, since each projective bundle is itself (ismorphic to) a projective plane. Moreover, every line intersects a conic in at most two points, and we have already seen that each pair of conics meets in at most $4$ points. Hence, the maximum column intersection of $H_{q,t}$ is at most $4$. The second part of the statement directly follows from Theorem \ref{Tillich_correction}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
At this point it is natural to ask whether it is possible to construct disjoint projective bundles, and -- if so -- how many of them we can have. It is shown in \cite[Theorem 2.2]{Baker} that one can always find $(q-1)$ disjoint projective bundles when $q$ is even, and $\frac{q^2(q-1)}{2}$ of them when $q$ is odd. We want to remark that this is not a restriction, since we still want that our codes
$ C_2(\Uppi\sqcup\Upgamma_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup\Upgamma_t)^\perp$ (together with the parity-check matrices $H_{q,t}$ of the form \eqref{eq:paritycheck_general}) give rise to a family of MDPC codes. Thus, we are typically interested in family of codes where $t$ is a constant and does not grow with $q$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
This construction provides a better performance of (one round of) the bit-flipping algorithm compared to the one run on random constructions of MDPC codes explained in \cite{Tillich}. As already explained in Remark \ref{rem:sh}, the random construction of MDPC codes provides in average MDPC codes whose maximum column intersection is $\mathcal O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$, and thus one round of bit-flipping algorithm corrects errors of weight at most $\mathcal O(\frac{\sqrt{n}\log\log n}{\log n})$ in these random codes. Hence, also the generalized constructions of codes from projective bundles have asymptotically better performance in terms of the bit-flipping algorithm.
\end{remark}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we proposed a new construction of a family of moderate density parity-check codes arising from geometric objects. Starting from a Desarguesian projective plane $\Uppi$ of order $q$ and a projective bundle $\Upgamma$ in $\Uppi$, we constructed a binary linear code whose parity-check matrix is obtained by concatenating the incidence matrices of $\Uppi$ and $\Upgamma$. We observed that we can construct these two matrices taking the circular shifts of two perfect difference sets modulo $(q^2+q+1)$, providing a natural structure as a quasi-cyclic code of index $2$. Hence, the storage complexity is linear in the length and the encoding can be achieved in linear time using linear feedback shift registers. Furthermore, the underlying geometry of $\Upgamma$ and $\Uppi$ allowed us to study the metric properties of the corresponding code, and we could determine its exact dimension and minimum distance. We then analyzed the performance of the bit-flipping algorithm showing that it outperforms asymptotically the one of the random construction of codes obtained in \cite{Tillich}.
We then generalized the construction of this family of codes by concatenating the incidence matrices of several disjoint projective bundles living in the Desarguesian projective plane $\Uppi$. In this case we were still able to provide lower bounds on the parameters of the obtained codes exploiting their geometric properties. Nevertheless, we could still show that one round of the bit-flipping algorithm has the best asymptotic performance in terms of error-correction capability for the given parameters of the defining parity-check matrix.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The work of A. Neri was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant no.~187711.
The work of J. Rosenthal was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant no.~188430.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Proofs of impossibility results}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:distribution_free}}
Let $(X_i, C_i, T_i)_{i=1}^{n+1}\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim} (X, C, T)$. For notational convenience, we put $Z_i = (X_i, C_i, T_i)$. To avoid confusion, we expand $\hat{L}(x)$ into $\hat{L}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n; x)$. Note that $\hat{L}$ depends on $(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n)$ through $(X_i, C_i, {\widetilde{T}}_i)_{i=1}^{n}$. Let
\[\phi(Z_1, \ldots, Z_{n+1}) = I(T_{n+1} < \hat{L}_{n}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n; X_{n+1})).\]
Since $\hat{L}_n$ satisfies \eqref{eq:marginal_criterion} under the conditionally independent censoring assumption \eqref{eq:conditional_independent_censoring}, we have that
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\phi(Z_1, \ldots, Z_{n+1}) = 1\right) \le \alpha.\]
As a result, if we treat $T\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} C\mid X$ as a null hypothesis,
$\phi(Z_1, \ldots, Z_{n+1})$ is an $\alpha$-level test. Note that $X$
is continuous, and $(T, C)$ are continuous or discrete. By Theorem 2
and Remark 4 of \cite{shah2020hardness}, for any joint distribution
$Q$ of $Z$ with the same continuity conditions on $(X, C, T)$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:phiQ}
\mathbb{P}_{Z_i\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}\left(\phi(Z_1, \ldots, Z_{n+1}) = 1\right) \le \alpha.
\end{align}
Let $\tilde{Z}_i = (X_i, C_i, {\widetilde{T}}_i)$ and $Q$ denote its distribution. Then ${\widetilde{T}}_i\wedge C_i = T_i\wedge C_i$ and thus
\[\hat{L}_{n}(\tilde{Z}_1, \ldots, \tilde{Z}_n; x) = \hat{L}_{n}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n; x).\]
Clearly, $X$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure and ${\widetilde{T}}, C$ are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure or the counting measure.
By \eqref{eq:phiQ} and the definition of $\phi$, we have
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\tilde{T}_{n+1} \ge \hat{L}_{n}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n; X_{n+1})\right)\ge 1 - \alpha.\]
The proof is then completed by replacing $(T_{n+1}, X_{n+1})$ with $(T, X)$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:conditional_coverage}}\label{subapp:conditional_coverage}
We prove the theorem by modifying the proof of Proposition 4 from \cite{vovk2012conditional}. To avoid confusion, we expand $\hat{L}(x)$ into $\hat{L}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n; x)$ where $Z_{i} = (X_i, C_i, {\widetilde{T}}_i)$. Fix any distribution $P$ with $(X, C)\sim P_{(X, C)}$ and $C\ge 0, T\ge 0$ almost surely. Suppose there exists a set $\mathcal{V}$ of $P_{X}$-non-atom $x$ such that $P_{X}(\mathcal{V}) > 0$, and for any $x\in \mathcal{V}$,
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}P}(\hat{L}(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n, x) > 0) > \alpha.\]
Since $\mathcal{V}$ only includes non-atom $x$'s, there exists $t_{0} > 0$ and $\delta > 0$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:iidP}
\mathbb{P}_{Z_i\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}P}(\hat{L}(x) > t_{0}) > \alpha + \delta, \quad \forall x\in \mathcal{V}.
\end{align}
We can further shrink $\mathcal{V}$ so that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Pevent}
\sqrt{2 - 2(1 - P_{X}(\mathcal{V}))^{n}} \le \delta / 2.
\end{align}
Fix any $t_{1}\in (0, t_{0})$. Define a new probability distribution $Q$ on $(X, C, T)$ with $(X, C) \sim P_{(X, C)}$ and the regular conditional probability
\[Q(T\in A\mid X = x, C = c) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
P(T\in A\mid X = x, C = c), & x\not\in \mathcal{V},\\
\delta_{t_{1}}(A), & x\in \mathcal{V},
\end{array}
\right.\]
where $\delta_{t_{1}}$ defines the point mass on $t_{1}$. Let $d_{\mathrm{TV}}$ denote the total-variation distance. Then,
\begin{align}
d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P, Q)
&= \sup_{{\mathcal{A}}_{X}, {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, {\mathcal{A}}_{T}}|P(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T}) - Q(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T})|\\
& = \sup_{{\mathcal{A}}_{X}, {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, {\mathcal{A}}_{T}}|P(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T}) - Q(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T})|\\
& \le \sup_{{\mathcal{A}}_{X}, {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, {\mathcal{A}}_{T}}\max\{P(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T}), Q(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V}, C\in {\mathcal{A}}_{C}, T\in {\mathcal{A}}_{T})\}\\
& \le \sup_{{\mathcal{A}}_{X}}\max\{P(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V}), Q(X\in {\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V})\}\\
& = \sup_{{\mathcal{A}}_{X}}P_{X}({\mathcal{A}}_{X}\cap \mathcal{V})\le P_{X}(\mathcal{V}).
\end{align}
Using the tensorization inequality for the total-variation distance (see e.g., \cite{tsybakov2008introduction}, Section 2.4) and \eqref{eq:Pevent}, we obtain that
\[d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P^{n}, Q^{n})\le \sqrt{2 - 2(1 - d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P, Q))^{n}}\le \delta / 2.\]
Together with \eqref{eq:iidP}, this implies that
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(\hat{L}(x) > t_{0}) > \alpha + \delta / 2, \quad \forall x\in \mathcal{V}.\]
Let $Z = (X, C, T)$ be an independent draw from $Q$. The above inequality can be reformulated as
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i, Z\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(\hat{L}(X) > t_{0}\mid X = x) > \alpha + \delta / 2, \quad \forall x\in \mathcal{V}.\]
Marginalizing over $x\in \mathcal{V}$, it implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:contradiction}
\mathbb{P}_{Z_i, Z\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(\hat{L}(X) > t_{0}, X\in \mathcal{V}) > (\alpha + \delta / 2)Q_{X}(\mathcal{V}).
\end{equation}
By definition of $Q$, $T = t_1 < t_0$ almost surely conditional on $X \in \mathcal{V}$. Thus,
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i, Z\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(T < \hat{L}(X), X\in \mathcal{V}) > (\alpha + \delta / 2)Q_{X}(\mathcal{V}).\]
On the other hand, since $Q$ is a distribution with the same marginal distribution of $(X, C)$ and $T\ge 0$ almost surely, for any $x$,
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i, Z\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(T < \hat{L}(X)\mid X = x)\le \alpha.\]
Marginalizing over $x\in \mathcal{V}$, it implies that
\[\mathbb{P}_{Z_i, Z\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}Q}(T < \hat{L}(X), X\in \mathcal{V}) \le \alpha Q_{X}(\mathcal{V}).\]
This contradicts \eqref{eq:contradiction} since $Q_{X}(\mathcal{V}) = P_{X}(\mathcal{V}) > 0$. The theorem is proved by contradiction.
\section{Double robustness of weighted conformal inference}\label{app:double_robustness}
\revise{
Throughout this section, we will focus on the generic weighted conformal inference sketched in Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split_general} below.
\begin{algorithm}[H]\label{algo:weighted_split_general}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoLined
\BlankLine
\caption{generic weighted split conformal inference}
\textbf{Input:} level $\alpha$; data ${\mathcal{Z}}=(X_i,Y_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}$; testing point $x$;\\
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}function $V(x,y;{\mathcal{D}})$ to compute the conformity score between $(x,y)$ and
data ${\mathcal{D}}$; \\
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}function $\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{D}})$ to fit the weight function at $x$ using
${\mathcal{D}}$ as data.\;
\vspace*{.3cm}
\textbf{Procedure:}\\
\vspace*{.1cm}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}1. Split ${\mathcal{Z}}$ into a training fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}} \triangleq (X_i,Y_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{tr}}}$
and a calibration fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{ca}} \triangleq (X_i,Y_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}}$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}2. For each $i\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}$, compute the conformity score $V_i = V(X_i,Y_i;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}3. For each $i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}$, compute the weight $W_i = \hat{w}(X_i;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})\in [0, \infty)$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}4. Compute the weights $\hat{p}_i(x) = \frac{W_i}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}}W_i +\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}$
and $\hat{p}_{\infty}(x) = \frac{\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}}W_i + \hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}5. Compute $\eta(x) = \mathrm{Quantile}\left(1 - \alpha; \sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}}
\hat{p}_i(x)\delta_{V_i} + \hat{p}_{\infty}(x)\delta_{\infty}\right)$.\;
\vspace*{.3cm}
\textbf{Output}: $\hat{L}(x) = \inf\{y: V(x,y;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}}) \le \eta(x) \}$
\end{algorithm}
}
\subsection{Conformity score via nested sets}\label{subsec:score}
\cite{gupta2019nested} introduced a broad class of conformity scores
characterized by nested sets. Suppose we have a totally ordered index
set ${\mathcal{S}}$ (e.g., $\mathbb{R}$) and a sequence of nested sets
$\{{\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{D}}): s\in {\mathcal{S}}\}$ in the sense that
${\mathcal{F}}_{s_1}(x; {\mathcal{D}})\subset {\mathcal{F}}_{s_2}(x; {\mathcal{D}})$ for any
$s_1\le s_2\in{\mathcal{S}}$. Define a score as the index of the minimal set that
includes $y$, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{eq:nested_sets}
V(x,y;{\mathcal{D}}) = \inf\{s\in{\mathcal{S}}: y\in {\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x;{\mathcal{D}})\}.
\end{align}
Without loss of generality, we assume throughout that ${\mathcal{F}}_{\inf {\mathcal{S}}}(x)$ is the empty set and ${\mathcal{F}}_{\sup {\mathcal{S}}}(x)$ is the full domain of $Y$. The CMR-, CQR-, and CDR-based scores are instances of this:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] CMR score: ${\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{D}}) = [\hat{m}(x) - s, \infty)$.
\item[-] CQR score: ${\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{D}}) = [\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) - s, \infty)$.
\item[-] CDR score: ${\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{D}}) = [\hat{q}_{\alpha - s}(x), \infty)$.
\end{itemize}
We refer the readers to Table 1 of \cite{gupta2019nested} for a list of other conformity scores.
\revise{
\subsection{Nonasymptotic theory for weighted conformal inference}
In this section, we establish nonasymptotic bounds for the coverage which would imply the asymptotic results (e.g., Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}), formally proved in Section \ref{app:double_robustness_asym}. The first result is identical to Theorem A.1 of \cite{lei2020conformal}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:double_robustness_w}
Let
$(X_{i}, Y_{i})\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim}(X, Y) \sim P_{X}\times
P_{Y\mid X}$ and $Q_{X}$ be another distribution on the domain of
$X$. Set $N = |\mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ and $n = |\mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{ca}}|$. Further, let $\hat{w}(x) = \hat{w}(x; \mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}})$ be an
estimate of $w(x) = (dQ_{X} / dP_{X})(x)$, and $\hat{C}(x)$
be the conformal interval resulting from Algorithm
\ref{algo:weighted_split_general} with an arbitrary conformity score (not necessarily the ones defined in Section \ref{subsec:score}). Assume that
$\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X) \mid \mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}}] < \infty$, where $\mathbb{E}$ denotes
expectation over $X\sim P_{X}$. Redefine
$\hat{w}(x)$ as
$\hat{w}(x) / \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X) \mid \mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}}]$ so that
$\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X) \mid \mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}}] = 1$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unconditional_coverage_rate_w}
\mathbb{P}_{(X, Y)\sim Q_{X}\times P_{Y\mid X}}\left( Y\in \hat{C}(X)\right)\ge 1 - \alpha - \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{X\sim P_{X}}\big[|\hat{w}(X) - w(X)|\big].
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The second result generalizes Theorem A.2 of \cite{lei2020conformal}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:double_robustness_q}
In the setting of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_w}, assume further that
\begin{enumerate}[label = C\arabic*]
\item $\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}(w(X) < \infty) = 1$, and there exist $\delta, M > 0$ such that $\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{w}(X)^{1 + \delta}\right]\right)^{1 / (1 + \delta)} \le M$;
\item There exists $r > 0, s_0\in {\mathcal{S}}$, $b_2 > b_1 >0$, and a sequence of oracle nested sets $\{{\mathcal{O}}_s(x)\}_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}$, such that
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item for any $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\begin{align}
1 - \alpha - b_2\varepsilon \le \mathbb{P}\left( Y \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0-\varepsilon}(X) \mid X\right)
\le 1 - \alpha - b_1\varepsilon, \quad \text{almost surely};
\end{align}
\item there exist $k, \ell > 0$ such that $\displaystyle \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)] = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)] = 0$, where $\Delta(x) =\sup_{s\in [s_0 - r, s_0]}~\Delta_s(x)$, and
\begin{align}
\Delta_s(x) = \inf\left\{\Delta\ge 0:
s-\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}} , {\mathcal{F}}_{s - \Delta}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) \subset {\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) \text{ and } {\mathcal{O}}_{s - \Delta}(x) \subset {\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\right\}.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Then there are constants $B_{1}$ and $B_2$ that only depend on $r, b_1, b_2, \delta, M, k, \ell$ such that
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{P}_{(X, Y)\sim Q_{X}\times P_{Y\mid X}}(Y \in \hat{C}(X))\ge 1 - \alpha \\
-B_{1} \left\{\frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2(2 + \delta')}}{n^{\delta' / (2 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]\right)^{1 / (2+k)} + \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/ (1+\ell)}\right\},\label{eq:unconditional_coverage_rate_q}
\end{multline}
and, with probability at least $1 - \beta$,
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{P}_{(X, Y)\sim Q_{X}\times P_{Y\mid X}}(Y \in \hat{C}(X) \mid X )\ge 1 - \alpha \\
- B_{2}\left\{\frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2(2 + \delta')}}{n^{\delta' / (2 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]\right)^{1 / (2+k)} + \left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]}{\beta}\right)^{1/ \ell}\right\}.\label{eq:conditional_coverage_rate_q}
\end{multline}
where $\delta' = \min\{\delta, 1\}$. In particular, $B_1$ and $B_2$ depends on $M$ polynomially.
\end{theorem}
The next theorem shows that the conformal prediction interval is approximately the oracle interval when the outcome model is well estimated.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:prediction_intervals}
In the setting of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_w}, assume further that
\begin{enumerate}[label = C'\arabic*]
\item There exist $\delta_0, \delta, M > 0$ such that $\left(\mathbb{E}\left[w(X)^{1 + \delta_0}\right]\right)^{1 / (1 + \delta_0)} \le M, \left(\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{w}(X)^{1 + \delta}\right]\right)^{1 / (1 + \delta)} \le M$;
\item There exists $r > 0, s_0\in {\mathcal{S}}$, $b_1 >0$, and a sequence of oracle nested sets $\{{\mathcal{O}}_s(x)\}_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}$, such that
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item for any $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left( Y \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0+\varepsilon}(X) \mid X\right)
\ge 1 - \alpha + b_1\varepsilon, \quad \text{almost surely};
\end{align}
\item there exist $k, \ell > 0$ such that $\displaystyle \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)] = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)] = 0$, where $\Delta'(x) =\sup_{s\in [s_0, s_0+r]}~\Delta'_s(x)$,
\begin{align}
\Delta'_s(x) = \inf\left\{\Delta\ge 0:
s+\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}} , {\mathcal{F}}_{s}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) \subset {\mathcal{O}}_{s+\Delta}(x) \text{ and } {\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) \subset {\mathcal{F}}_{s+\Delta}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\right\}.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Then, for any $\beta\in (0, 1)$,
\[\mathbb{P}_{X \sim Q_{X}}\left( \hat{C}(X)\subset \mathcal{O}_{s_0 + \varepsilon_{n}(\beta)}(X)\right)\ge 1 - \beta,\]
where
\[\varepsilon_{n}(\beta) = \frac{B_{3}}{\beta^a}\log\left(\frac{1}{\beta}\right) \left\{\frac{1}{n^{\delta' / (1 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]\right)^{1/(1+k)} + \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/\ell}\right\},\]
the constant $B_{3}$ only depends on $r, b_1, \delta, M, k, \ell$, and
\[a = \min\left\{\frac{1}{2}, \frac{\delta_0}{1 + \delta_0}, \frac{1}{1+k}, \frac{1}{\ell}\right\}.\]
In particular, $B_{3}$ depends on $M$ polynomially.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_q}}
We first state a technical lemma whose proof is deferred to Section \ref{subapp:lemma_what}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:what}
Under Assumption C1, there exists a constant $A > 0$ that only depends on $\delta$ and $M$, such that
\[\mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\ge nt\right)\le \frac{An^{(1 - \delta')/2}}{t^{(1 + \delta')/2}}, \quad \text{for any }t > 0,\]
and
\[\mathbb{P}\left( \bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \hat{w}(X_i) - 1\bigg|\ge \frac{n}{2}\right)\le \frac{A}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}},\]
where $\delta' = \min\{\delta, 1\}$. In particular, $A$ depends on $M$ polynomially.
\end{lemma}
Throughout the proof, we treat $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}$, hence $\hat{w}(\cdot)$ and $\hat{F}_s(\cdot; \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr})$, as fixed. We shall prove the $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}$-conditional versions of \eqref{eq:unconditional_coverage_rate_q} and \eqref{eq:conditional_coverage_rate_q} (with $\mathbb{P}(\cdot)$ and $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ replaced by $\mathbb{P}(\cdot \mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr})$ and $\mathbb{E}[\cdot\mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}]$). The results then follow by the law of iterated expectations and the H\"{o}lder's inequality.
By definition, $w(X)$ is almost surely finite under $P_{X}$. Assumption C1 implies that $w(X)$ is almost surely finite under $Q_{X}$ and $\hat{w}(X)$ is almost surely finite under $P_{X}$. As a result, for any measurable function $f$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transformation}
\mathbb{E}_{X\sim Q_{X}}[f(X)] = \mathbb{E}_{X\sim P_{X}}[w(X)f(X)].
\end{equation}
In addition, the assumption $\mathbb{E}_{X\sim P_{X}}[\hat{w}(X)\mid \mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{tr}}] < \infty$ implies that $\mathbb{P}_{X\sim P_{X}}(\hat{w}(X) < \infty) = 1$. By \eqref{eq:transformation},
\[\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}(\hat{w}(X) < \infty) = 1 - \mathbb{E}_{X\sim P_{X}}[w(X)I(\hat{w}(X) = \infty)].\]
Thus, $\hat{w}(X)$ is almost surely finite under $Q_{X}$.
Let $\varepsilon < r / 3$ and $(\tilde{X}, \tilde{Y})$ denote a generic random vector drawn from
$Q_{X}\times P_{Y\mid X}$, which is independent of the data. Then
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left({\widetilde{Y}} \in \hat{C}({\widetilde{X}}) \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& = \mathbb{P}\left(V({\widetilde{X}}, {\widetilde{Y}}; {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}) \le \eta({\widetilde{X}}) \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& \ge \mathbb{P}\left({\widetilde{Y}} \in {\mathcal{F}}_{\eta({\widetilde{X}})}({\widetilde{X}};{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& \ge \mathbb{P}\left({\widetilde{Y}} \in {\mathcal{F}}_{s_0 - \varepsilon}({\widetilde{X}};{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)
-\mathbb{P}\left(\eta({\widetilde{X}}) < s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
&\stackrel{(1)}{\ge} \mathbb{P}\left({\widetilde{Y}} \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 - 2\varepsilon - \Delta({\widetilde{X}})}({\widetilde{X}}) \mid {\widetilde{X}} \right) -
\mathbb{P}\left(\eta({\widetilde{X}}) < s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& \ge \mathbb{P}\left({\widetilde{Y}} \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 - 2\varepsilon - \Delta({\widetilde{X}})\mathbf{1}\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}})\le \varepsilon\} }({\widetilde{X}})
\mid {\widetilde{X}} \right) - \mathbf{1}\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}}) > \varepsilon\}
- \mathbb{P}\left(\eta({\widetilde{X}}) < s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& \stackrel{(2)}{\ge} 1 - \alpha - b_2\left(2\varepsilon + \Delta({\widetilde{X}})\mathbf{1}
\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}}) \le \varepsilon\}\right) - \mathbf{1}\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}}) > \varepsilon\}
- \mathbb{P}\left(\eta({\widetilde{X}}) < s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right)\\
& \ge 1-\alpha- 3b_2\varepsilon - \mathbf{1}\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}}) > \varepsilon\}
- \mathbb{P}\left(\eta({\widetilde{X}}) < s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\widetilde{X}}\right).\label{eq:conditional_coverage_nonasym}
\end{align}
Above, step (1) is due to the definition of $\Delta(x)$, and step (2) follows from Assumption C2 (i).
Next, we derive an upper bound on
$\mathbb{P}(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon \mid \tilde{X})$. Let $G$ denote the
cumulative distribution function of the random distribution
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_{i}(\tilde{X})\delta_{V_{i}} +
\hat{p}_{\infty}(\tilde{X})\delta_{\infty}$. Again, $G$ implicitly
depends on $N$, $n$ and $\tilde{X}$. Then $\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon$
implies $G(s_0-\varepsilon)\ge 1 - \alpha$, and thus,
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon\mid \tilde{X}\right)\le \mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0-\varepsilon)\ge 1 - \alpha \mid \tilde{X}\right), \,\, \text{a.s.}.\]
Let $G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon)$ denote the expectation of $G(s_0-\varepsilon)$ conditional on
$\mathcal{D} = \{(X_{i})_{i=1}^{n}, \tilde{X}\}$, namely,
\[G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon) = \mathbb{E}[G(s_0-\varepsilon)\mid \mathcal{D}] = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_{i}(\tilde{X})\mathbb{P}(V_{i}\le s_0-\varepsilon\mid \mathcal{D}).\]
For any $t > 0$, the triangle inequality implies that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon\mid \tilde{X}\right)\nonumber\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon)\ge t \mid \tilde{X}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon)\ge 1 - \alpha - t \mid \tilde{X}\right), \,\, \text{a.s.}. \label{eq:etaX1}
\end{align}
To bound the first term, we note that
\[G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_{i}(\tilde{X})\left\{
I(V_{i}\le s_0 - \varepsilon) - \mathbb{P}(V_{i}\le s_0 -\varepsilon\mid \mathcal{D})\right\}.\] Conditional on
$\mathcal{D}$, $G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon)$ is sub-Gaussian with
parameter
\[\hat{\sigma}^{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_{i}(\tilde{X})^{2}.\]
For any $t > 0$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon) \ge t\mid \mathcal{D}\right)\le \exp\left(
-\frac{t^{2}}{2\hat{\sigma}^{2}}\right).\]
Let $\gamma_{n}$ be any fixed sequence with $\gamma_{n} = O(1)$. Taking expectation over $\mathcal{D}\setminus \{\tilde{X}\}$, we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon) \ge t \mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left( -\frac{t^{2}}{2\hat{\sigma}^{2}}\right)\mid \tilde{X}\right] \\
& \le \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left(\hat{\sigma}^2 \ge \gamma_{n}\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& = \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) + \hat{w}(\tilde{X})\right)^2}\ge \gamma_{n}\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \le \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\right)^2}\ge \gamma_{n}\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \stackrel{(1)}{=} \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\right)^2}\ge \gamma_{n}\right)\\
& \le \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\le \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\ge \frac{n^2\gamma_{n}}{4}\right)\\
& \le \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left(\bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) - 1\bigg|\ge \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\ge \frac{n^2\gamma_{n}}{4}\right), \label{eq:etaX2_0}
\end{align}
where (1) uses the fact that $\tilde{X}$ is independent of
$(\hat{w}(X_i))_{i=1}^{n}$. Note that this bound holds uniformly with $\tilde{X}$. Throughout the rest of the proof, we write
$a_{1,n}\preceq a_{2,n}$ if there exists a constant $B$ that only depends on $r, b_1, b_2, \delta, M, k, \ell$ and, in particular, on $M$ polynomially such that
$a_{1,n}\le B a_{2,n}$ for all $n$.
~\\
\noindent By Lemma \ref{lem:what},
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0-\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon) \ge t \mid \tilde{X}\right)\nonumber\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \frac{n^{(1 - \delta')/2}}{(n\gamma_n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}}\nonumber\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \frac{1}{n^{\delta'}\gamma_n^{(1 + \delta') / 2}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}}\nonumber\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2\gamma_{n}}\right) + \frac{1}{n^{\delta'}\gamma_n^{(1 + \delta') / 2}},\label{eq:etaX2}
\end{align}
where the last step follows from $\gamma_{n} = O(1)$ and $(\delta + \delta') / 2 \ge \delta'$.
~\\
\noindent Next, we almost surely bound the term
$\mathbb{P}\left( G^{*}(s_0-\varepsilon)\ge 1 - \alpha - t \mid \tilde{X}\right)$. When $\varepsilon < r/3$,
\begin{align}
G^*(s_0 - \varepsilon)
& = \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 - \varepsilon \mid {\mathcal{D}}\right) \\
& = \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[ \mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 - \varepsilon ,\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2 \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)
+ \mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 - \varepsilon, \Delta(X_i) \le \varepsilon/2 \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(1)}{\le} \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[\mathbf{1} \left\{\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}
+ \mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 - \varepsilon/2 - \Delta(X_i), \Delta(X_i) \le \varepsilon/2 \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\right]\\
& \le \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[\mathbf{1} \left\{\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}
+ \mathbb{P}\left(Y_i \in {\mathcal{F}}_{s_0 - \varepsilon/4 - \Delta(X_i)} (X_i; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(2)}{\le} \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[ \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2 \right\}
+ \mathbb{P}\left(Y_i \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 - \varepsilon/8}(X_i) \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(3)}{\le} \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}
+ 1-\alpha - \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{8},\label{eq:etaX3}
\end{align}
where step (1) holds because $\Delta(X_i)$ is deterministic
conditional on ${\mathcal{D}}$, step (2) follows from the definition of
$\Delta(X_i)$, and step (3) follows from the Assumption C2 (i). For any $t \le b_1\varepsilon / 16$,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G^*(s_0 - \varepsilon) \ge 1 - \alpha - t\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{8} - t\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I(\Delta(X_i)\ge \varepsilon / 2)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)}\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{16}\mid \tilde{X}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\le \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I\left( \Delta(X_i)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{32}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) - 1\bigg|\ge \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I\left( \Delta(X_i)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{32}\right). \label{eq:etaX4}
\end{align}
By Markov's inequality,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I\left( \Delta(X_i)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ge \frac{n b_1\varepsilon}{32}\right) &\preceq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{w}(X)I\left( \Delta(X)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\right]\preceq \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}},
\end{align*}
where the last step uses the simple fact that $I(\Delta(X_i)\ge \varepsilon / 2)\le (2/\varepsilon)^{k}\Delta^{k}(X_i)$. Further, by Lemma \ref{lem:what}, for any $t\le \varepsilon b_1 / 16$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:etaX5}
\mathbb{P}\left( G^*(s_0 - \varepsilon) \ge 1 - \alpha - t\mid \tilde{X}\right)\preceq \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}.
\end{equation}
~\\
\noindent Combining \eqref{eq:etaX1} - \eqref{eq:etaX5} together and setting $t = \varepsilon b_1 / 16$, we obtain that for any sequence $\gamma_{n} = O(1)$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon\mid \tilde{X}\right) &\preceq \exp\left( - \frac{b_1^2}{512}\frac{\varepsilon^2}{\gamma_{n}}\right) + \frac{1}{n^{\delta'}\gamma_{n}^{(1 + \delta') / 2}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta + \delta') / 2}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}\nonumber\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{b_1^2}{512}\frac{\varepsilon^2}{\gamma_{n}}\right) + \frac{1}{n^{\delta'}\gamma_{n}^{(1 + \delta') / 2}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}. \label{eq:etaX6}
\end{align}
Substitute $\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon_{n}$ and assume $\varepsilon_{n} \le r / 3$
(recall the beginning of the proof). Set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gamman}
\gamma_{n} = \frac{512}{b_1^2}\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^2}{\log n}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\gamma_{n} = o(1)$. Then the first term of \eqref{eq:etaX6} is $1 / n$, and thus,
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon_{n}\mid \tilde{X}\right) \preceq \frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}.\]
Equivalently, there exists a constant $B$ that only depends on $r, b_1, b_2, \delta, M, k, \ell$ and, in particular, on $M$ polynomially, such that
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) < s_0-\varepsilon_{n}\mid \tilde{X}\right) \le B\left\{\frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}\right\}, \,\, \text{a.s.}.\]
Together with \eqref{eq:conditional_coverage_nonasym}, it implies that
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{P}(\tilde{Y} \in \hat{C}(\tilde{X}) \mid \tilde{X})\\
\ge 1-\alpha- 3b_2\varepsilon - \mathbf{1}\{\Delta({\widetilde{X}}) > \varepsilon\}
- B\left\{\frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}\right\},
\end{multline*}
almost surely. Assume $B\ge 3b_2$ without loss of generality. Then
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbb{P}(\tilde{Y} \in \hat{C}(\tilde{X}) \mid \tilde{X}) \le 1 - \alpha - B\left\{\varepsilon_{n} + \frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}\right\}\right)\\
\quad \le \mathbb{P}(\Delta(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_{n}).\label{eq:conditional_coverage2}
\end{multline}
For any $\beta\in (0, 1)$, let
\[\varepsilon_{n} = \frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2(2 + \delta')}}{n^{\delta' / (2 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]\right)^{1 / (2+k)} + \frac{\left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/\ell}}{\beta^{1/\ell}}.\]
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eps_cond}
\frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}}, \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}\le \varepsilon_{n},
\end{equation}
and by Markov's inequality and \eqref{eq:transformation},
\[\mathbb{P}(\Delta(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_{n})\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\Delta^{\ell}(\tilde{X})]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{\ell}} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{\ell}}\le \beta.\]
Furthermore, the Assumption (4) implies that $\varepsilon_{n}\le r / 2$ when $N\ge N(r)$ and $n\ge n(r)$ for some constants $N(r), n(r)$ that only depend on $r$. Replacing $B$ by $3B$, we obtain that, for $N\ge N(r), n\ge n(r)$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbb{P}(\tilde{Y} \in \hat{C}(\tilde{X}) \mid \tilde{X}) \le 1 - \alpha - B\varepsilon_{n}\right)\le \beta.\]
We can further enlarge $B$ so that $B\varepsilon_{n} \ge 1 - \alpha$ when $N < N(r)$ or $n < n(r)$, in which case \eqref{eq:conditional_coverage_rate_q} trivially holds.
~\\
\noindent To prove the unconditional result, we note that \eqref{eq:conditional_coverage2} implies
\[\mathbb{P}(\tilde{Y} \in \hat{C}(\tilde{X}))\ge \left( 1 - \alpha - B\left\{\varepsilon_{n} + \frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon_{n}^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{1+k}}\right\}\right)(1 - \mathbb{P}(\Delta(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_{n})).\]
Let
\[\varepsilon_{n} = \frac{(\log n)^{(1 + \delta') / 2(2 + \delta')}}{n^{\delta' / (2 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{k}(X)]\right)^{1 / (2+k)} + \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/ (1+\ell)}.\]
Then \eqref{eq:eps_cond} remains to hold.
By Markov's inequality and \eqref{eq:transformation},
\[\mathbb{P}(\Delta(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_{n})\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\Delta^{\ell}(\tilde{X})]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{\ell}} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{\ell}(X)]}{\varepsilon_{n}^{\ell}}\le \varepsilon_{n}.\]
Furthermore, Assumption (4) implies that $\varepsilon_{n}\le r / 2$ when $N$ and $n$ are sufficiently large, in which case,
\[\mathbb{P}(\tilde{Y} \in \hat{C}(\tilde{X}))\ge \left( 1 - \alpha - 3B\varepsilon_{n}\right)(1 - \varepsilon_{n})\ge 1 - \alpha - (3B+1)\varepsilon_{n}.\]
Similar to \eqref{eq:conditional_coverage_rate_q}, we can enlarge the constant to make \eqref{eq:unconditional_coverage_rate_q} hold
when $N$ or $n$ is not sufficiently large.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals}}
Let $G$ denote the
cumulative distribution function of the random distribution
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_{i}(\tilde{X})\delta_{V_{i}} +
\hat{p}_{\infty}(\tilde{X})\delta_{\infty}$ and $G^{*}$ denote the expectation of $G$ conditional on $\mathcal{D} = \{(X_{i})_{i=1}^{n}, \tilde{X}\}$. Clearly, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon \Longrightarrow G(s_0+\varepsilon)\le 1 - \alpha.\]
Then, for any $t > 0$, the triangle inequality implies that,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon\right) \\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0+\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0+\varepsilon)\le -t \right) + \mathbb{P}\left( G^{*}(s_0+\varepsilon)\le 1 - \alpha + t \right)\label{eq:etaX0_pred}
\end{align}
Throughout the rest of the proof, we set $t = b_1 \varepsilon / 16$.
~\\
\noindent
Analogous to \eqref{eq:etaX2}, with probability $1$,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0+\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0+\varepsilon) \le -t \mid \tilde{X}\right) \preceq \inf_{\gamma > 0}\left\{\exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1}{512}\frac{\varepsilon^2}{\gamma}\right) + \frac{1}{n^{\delta'}\gamma^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}\right\}.
\end{align}
Let $\gamma = \varepsilon^2 / c$ for some $c > 0$. Marginalizing over $\tilde{X}$ implies
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G(s_0+\varepsilon) - G^{*}(s_0+\varepsilon) \le -t \right) \preceq \inf_{c > 0}\left\{\exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1 c}{512}\right) + \frac{c^{(1 + \delta') / 2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon^{1 + \delta'}}\right\}.\label{eq:etaX2_pred}
\end{align}
~\\
\noindent Next, we almost surely bound the term
$\mathbb{P}\left( G^{*}(s_0+\varepsilon)\le 1 - \alpha + t \mid \tilde{X}\right)$. When $\varepsilon < \min\{r/3, 8\alpha/b_1\}$,
\begin{align}
G^*(s_0 + \varepsilon)
& = \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 + \varepsilon \mid {\mathcal{D}}\right) \nonumber\\
& \ge \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}})\mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 + \varepsilon, \Delta'(X_i) \le \varepsilon/2 \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\nonumber\\
& \ge \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}})\mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 + \varepsilon/2 + \Delta'(X_i), \Delta'(X_i) \le \varepsilon/2 \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right)\nonumber\\
& \ge \sum^n_{i=1}\hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}})\left[\mathbb{P}\left(V_i \le s_0 + \varepsilon/2 + \Delta'(X_i) \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right) - \mathbf{1}\left(\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\mid {\mathcal{D}}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
& \ge \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[\mathbb{P}\left(Y_i \in {\mathcal{F}}_{s_0 + \varepsilon/4 + \Delta'(X_i)} (X_i; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\mid {\mathcal{D}} \right) - \mathbf{1} \left\{\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}
\right]\nonumber\\
& \ge \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \left[ \mathbb{P}\left(Y_i \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 + \varepsilon/8}(X_i) \mid {\mathcal{D}} \right) - \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2 \right\}
\right]\nonumber\\
& \ge \left( 1-\alpha + \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{8}\right) \left[1 - \hat{p}_{\infty}(\tilde{X})\right]-\sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}\nonumber\\
& \ge 1-\alpha + \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{8} - \tilde{p}_{\infty}(\tilde{X}) - \sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}.
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( G^*(s_0 + \varepsilon) \le 1 - \alpha + t\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\sum^n_{i=1} \hat{p}_i({\widetilde{X}}) \mathbf{1}\left\{\Delta'(X_i) > \varepsilon/2\right\}\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{32} \,\,\text{or }\,\,\tilde{p}_{\infty}(\tilde{X})\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{32}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I(\Delta'(X_i)\ge \varepsilon / 2)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)}\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{32}\,\, \text{or }\,\,\frac{\hat{w}(\tilde{X})}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)}\ge \frac{b_1\varepsilon}{32}\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\le \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I\left( \Delta'(X_i)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right) \\
& \qquad \qquad+ \mathbb{P}\left( \hat{w}(\tilde{X})\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right).\label{eq:etaX3_pred}
\end{align}
As shown in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_q},
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)\le \frac{n}{2}\right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)I\left( \Delta'(X_i)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right)\preceq \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}.\]
By H\"{o}lder's inequality and Markov's inequality,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( \hat{w}(\tilde{X})\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right) = \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)\mathbf{1}\left( \hat{w}(X)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right)\right]\\
& \le \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)^{1 + \delta_0}]\right)^{1/(1 + \delta_0)}\mathbb{P}\left(\hat{w}(X)\ge \frac{nb_1 \varepsilon}{64}\right)^{\delta_0/(1 + \delta_0)}\\
& \preceq \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}}.\label{eq:wtdX}
\end{align}
By \eqref{eq:etaX3_pred},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:etaX4_pred}
\mathbb{P}\left( G^*(s_0 + \varepsilon) \le 1 - \alpha + t\right)\preceq \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}.
\end{equation}
~\\
\noindent Putting \eqref{eq:etaX0_pred}, \eqref{eq:etaX2_pred}, and \eqref{eq:etaX4_pred} together, we obtain that, for any $c > 0$,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon\right)\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1 c}{512}\right) + \frac{c^{(1 + \delta')/2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}}. \label{eq:etaX7_pred}
\end{align}
Applying a union bound, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:etaX8_pred}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon\text{ or }\Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon\right)\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1 c}{512}\right) + \frac{c^{(1 + \delta')/2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}} \\
&\qquad + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}} + \mathbb{P}(\Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon)\\
& \preceq \exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1 c}{512}\right) + \frac{c^{(1 + \delta')/2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}} \\
&\qquad + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{\ell}}
\end{align}
where the last line applies Markov's inequality which yields
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left( \Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon\right)\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\Delta^{'\ell}(\tilde{X})]}{\varepsilon^{\ell}} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{\ell}}.
\end{align}
Thus, there exists a constant $B$ that only depends on $r, b_1, \delta, M, k, \ell$ and, in particular, on $M$ polynomially such that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon \text{ or }\Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon\right)\\
& \le B\bigg\{\exp\left( - \frac{b^{2}_1 c}{512}\right) + \frac{c^{(1 + \delta')/2}}{n^{\delta'}\varepsilon^{1 + \delta'}} + \frac{1}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}} + \frac{1}{(n\varepsilon)^{\delta_0 / (1 + \delta_0)}}\\
& \quad\qquad + \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{1+k}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]}{\varepsilon^{\ell}}\bigg\}.
\end{align}
Let $\tilde{B} = 10B / \beta$,
\[c = \frac{512\log \tilde{B}}{b^{2}_1},\]
and
\[\varepsilon_n = \frac{\tilde{B}^{1/(1+\delta')}c^{1/2}}{n^{\delta' / (1 + \delta')}} + \frac{\tilde{B}^{(1 + \delta_0) / \delta_0}}{n} + \left( \tilde{B}\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]\right)^{1/(1+k)} + \left( \tilde{B}\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/\ell}.\]
Then
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon_n \text{ or }\Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_n\right)\le \frac{\beta}{2} + \frac{B}{n^{(\delta' + \delta) / 2}}.\]
For a sufficiently large $n$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\eta(\tilde{X}) > s_0+\varepsilon_n \text{ or }\Delta'(\tilde{X}) > \varepsilon_n\right)\le \beta.\]
Recall that
\begin{align}
\hat{C}(x) &= \{y: V(x, y; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\le \eta(x)\} = \{y: \inf\{s\in {\mathcal{S}}: y \in {\mathcal{F}}_s(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\}\le \eta(x)\} \subset {\mathcal{F}}_{\eta(x) + \varepsilon_n}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}).
\end{align}
Thus, on the event $\eta(\tilde{X}) \le s_0+\varepsilon$ and $\Delta'(\tilde{X}) \le \varepsilon$, which has probability at least $1 - \beta$,
\[\hat{C}(\tilde{X})\subset {\mathcal{F}}_{s_0 + 2\varepsilon_n}(\tilde{X}; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\subset {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 + 3\varepsilon_n}(\tilde{X}).\]
The proof is then completed by noting that
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_{n}&\preceq \left\{ \frac{1}{\beta^{1/(1+\delta')}}\log\left(\frac{1}{\beta}\right) + \frac{1}{\beta^{\delta_0/(1+\delta_0)}} + \frac{1}{\beta^{1/(1+k)}} + \frac{1}{\beta^{1/\ell}}\right\}\\
& \quad \cdot \left\{\frac{1}{n^{\delta' / (1 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]\right)^{1/(1+k)} + \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/\ell}\right\}\\
& \preceq \frac{1}{\beta^a}\log\left(\frac{1}{\beta}\right) \left\{\frac{1}{n^{\delta' / (1 + \delta')}} + \left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]\right)^{1/(1+k)} + \left(\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)]\right)^{1/\ell}\right\}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:what}}\label{subapp:lemma_what}
The result is almost the same as a step in the proof of Theorem A.1 in \cite{lei2020conformal}. We repeat the proof below for the sake of completeness.
We start with the following two Rosenthal-type inequalities for sums of independent random variables with finite $(1 + \delta)$-th moments.
\begin{proposition}[Theorem 3 of \cite{rosenthal1970subspaces}]\label{prop:rosenthal}
Let $\{Z_{i}\}_{i = 1, \ldots, n}$ be independent mean-zero random
variables. Then for any $\delta \ge 1$, there exists $L(\delta) > 0$
that only depends on $\delta$ such that
\[\mathbb{E} \bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}Z_{i}\bigg|^{1 + \delta}\le L(\delta)\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E} |Z_{i}|^{1 + \delta} + \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E} |Z_{i}|^{2}\right)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}\right\}.\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}[Theorem 2 of \cite{vonbahr65}]\label{prop:vonbahresseen}
Let $\{Z_{i}\}_{i = 1, \ldots, n}$ be independent mean-zero random variables. Then for any $\delta \in [0, 1)$,
\[\mathbb{E} \bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}Z_{i}\bigg|^{1 + \delta}\le 2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E} |Z_{i}|^{1 + \delta}.\]
\end{proposition}
To prove the lemma, we consider two cases:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*)]
\item If $\delta \ge 1$, then by Markov's inequality,
\[\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\ge nt\right)\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2]}{nt} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_1)^2]}{t}\le \frac{M^2}{t}.\]
Since $\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)\mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}] = 1$, $\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)] = 1$. By Markov's inequality and Proposition \ref{prop:rosenthal},
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left( \bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) - 1\bigg|\ge \frac{n}{2}\right) \nonumber\\
& \le \frac{2^{1 + \delta}}{n^{1 + \delta}}\mathbb{E} \bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]\bigg|^{1 + \delta}\nonumber\\
& \le \frac{2^{1+ \delta}L(\delta)}{n^{1 + \delta}}\left\{ n\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]|^{1 + \delta} + n^{(1 + \delta) / 2}\left(\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]|^{2}\right)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}\right\}\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(i)}{\le} \frac{2^{2(1 + \delta)}L(\delta)}{n^{1 + \delta}}\left\{ n\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i)|^{1 + \delta} + n^{(1 + \delta) / 2}(\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i)|^2)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}\right\}\nonumber\\
& \le \frac{2^{3+2\delta}L(\delta)M^{1 + \delta}}{n^{(1 + \delta) / 2}},\label{eq:denom_case1}
\end{align}
where (i) follows from the H\"{o}lder's
inequality which gives
\[\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]|^{1 + \delta}\le 2^{\delta}\left( \mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i)|^{1+\delta} + |\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]|^{1+\delta}\right)\le 2^{1 + \delta}\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i)|^{1+\delta}.\]
\item If $\delta < 1$, then by Markov's inequality,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\ge nt\right)\le \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^2\right)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}\right]}{(nt)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}}
\le \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i)^{1 + \delta}\right]}{(nt)^{(1 + \delta) / 2}}\le \frac{n^{(1 - \delta) / 2 }M^{1 + \delta}}{t^{(1 + \delta)/2}},
\end{align*}
where the second last step follows from the simple fact that $\|x\|_{p}\le \|x\|_{1}$ for $p\ge 1$, with $p = 2 / (1 + \delta)$ and $x_i = \hat{w}(X_i)^{1 + \delta}$. By Markov's inequality and Proposition \ref{prop:vonbahresseen},
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}|\hat{w}(X_i) - 1|\ge \frac{n}{2}\right) \\
\le \frac{2^{1 + \delta}}{n^{1 + \delta}}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]\bigg|^{1 + \delta} \le \frac{2^{2 + \delta}n\mathbb{E}|\hat{w}(X_i) - \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X_i)]|^{1 + \delta}}{n^{1 + \delta}} \le \frac{2^{3+2\delta}M^{1+\delta}}{n^{\delta}}.\label{eq:denom_case2}
\end{multline}
\end{enumerate}
The proof is then completed by setting $A = 2^{3+2\delta}L(\delta)\max\{M^2, M^{1+\delta}\}$.
\subsection{Asymptotic theory for weighted conformal inference}
As a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_w}, Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_q}, and Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals}, we can derive the following asymptotic results.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:double_robustness}
Let
$(X_i,Y_i) \stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim} (X,Y) \sim P_X \times P_{Y\mid
X}$ and let $Q_X$ be another distribution on the domain of
$X$. Set $N = |{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}|$ and $n = |{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}|$. Further, let
$\{{\mathcal{F}}_s(x; {\mathcal{D}}): s\in {\mathcal{S}}\}$ be any sequence of nested sets,
$\hat{w}(x) = \hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})$ be an estimate of
$w(x) = (dQ_X/dP_X)(x)$, and $\hat{C}(x)$ be the resulting conformal
interval from Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split_general}. Assume that
$\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{w}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}\right] = 1$ and $\mathbb{E}[w(X)] =
1$. Assume that either B1 or B2 (or both) holds:
\begin{enumerate}[label = B\arabic*]
\item $\underset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\lim} \mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\hat{w}(X) - w(X) \big|\Big] = 0$;
\item The assumptions C1 and C2 in Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_q} hold.
\end{enumerate}
Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq:double_robust_marginal}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow\infty} \mathbb{P}_{(X,Y)\sim Q_X \times P_{Y \mid X}} \left( Y\in
\hat{C}(X)\right) \ge 1-\alpha.
\end{align}
Furthermore, under B2, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:conditional_coverage}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}\left(\mathbb{P}\left(Y\in \hat{C}(X) \mid X\right)
\le 1-\alpha-\varepsilon \right) = 0.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:asym_prediction_intervals}
In the settings of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness}, assume further that the assumptions C'1 and C'2 in Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals} hold. Then for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:optimality}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}\left(\hat{C}(X)\subset {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0 + \varepsilon}(X)\right) = 1.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
}
\section{Double robustness of conformalized survival analysis: asymptotic results}\label{app:double_robustness_asym}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}}
\revise{
Let $\xi = \min\{r, \varepsilon / b_2\}$. Since $\hat{L}(x) \le c_0$ for any $x$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(x) \mid X = x)&\ge \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge c_0 \mid X = x)\\
& \ge \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 - \alpha & \text{if }q_{\alpha}(x)\ge c_0\\
1 - \alpha - b_2 \xi & \text{if }q_{\alpha}(x)\in [c_0 - \xi, c_0]
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{align}
where the first case is proved by the definition of $q_{\alpha}(x)$ and second case is proved by the condition A2 (i). Thus, whenever $q_{\alpha}(x)\ge c_0 - \xi$,
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(x) \mid X = x)\ge 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon.\]
As a result,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon\right)\\
& = \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon, q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon
~\big|~ q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\right) &\ge (1 - \alpha - \varepsilon)\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}(q_{\alpha}(X) \ge c_0 - \xi)\\
&\quad + \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\mid q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi\right) \mathbb{P}(q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi).
\end{align}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, it remains to prove
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon\mid q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi\right) = 0,\]
and
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\mid q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - \xi\right) = 1 - \alpha.\]
The results to be proved are equivalent to Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} with $r$ replaced by $\xi$ and an additional assumption that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:break_tie_CQR}
q_{\alpha}(X) < c_0 - r \text{ almost surely under }P_X \text{ and }Q_X.
\end{equation}
The latter is due to that $w(X) < \infty$ almost surely under $P_X$. Throughout the rest of the proof, we will assume \eqref{eq:break_tie_CQR}.
}
Recall that $Y_i = T_i \wedge c_0$, $w(x) = 1 / \c(x)$ and $\hat{w}(x) = 1 / \hat{\c}(x)$. First we show that Assumption A1 of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} implies Assumption B1 of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness}. Since $\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}] < \infty$ almost surely and
$\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)] < \infty$, we set
$$\hat{w}_{N}(x) = \frac{1 / \hat{\c}(x)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid
{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}]}, \,\, w(x) = \frac{dP_{X}(x)}{dP_{X\mid T=1}(x)} = \frac{1 / \c(x)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)]}$$
and observe
$$\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}_{N}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}] = 1 = \mathbb{E}[w(X)].$$
Thus, Assumption B1 reduces to
\[\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1 / \hat{\c}(X)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}]} - \frac{1 / \c(X)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)]}\bigg| = 0.\]
In fact,
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1 / \hat{\c}(X)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}]} - \frac{1 / \c(X)}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)]}\bigg| \\
&\le \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}]}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)} - \frac{1}{\c(X)}\bigg| + \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E} \left[\frac{1}{\c(X)}\right]\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}]} - \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)]}\bigg|\\
&\stackrel{(1)}{\le} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)} - \frac{1}{\c(X)}\bigg| + \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E} \left[\frac{1}{\c(X)}\right]\mathbb{E} \bigg|\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)}\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\right] - \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\c(X)}\right]\bigg|\\
& \le \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)} - \frac{1}{\c(X)}\bigg| + \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E} \left[\frac{1}{\c(X)}\right]\mathbb{E}\left( \mathbb{E}\left[\bigg|\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)} - \frac{1}{\c(X)}\bigg|\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\right]\right)\\
&\stackrel{(2)}{=} \left( 1 + \mathbb{E} \left[\frac{1}{\c(X)}\right]\right)\limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\bigg|\frac{1}{\hat{\c}(X)} - \frac{1}{\c(X)}\bigg| = 0,
\end{align*}
where step (1) uses the fact that $\c(x), \hat{\c}(x)\in [0, 1]$, and step (2) uses Assumption A1 and the condition $\mathbb{E} [1 / \c(X)] < \infty$.
Next we show that Assumption A2 implies Assumption B2. Remark that
Assumption C1 is satisfied since
$\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{c}(X)^{1 + \delta}] < \infty$). It remains to prove that
$\text{A2} \Longrightarrow \text{C2}$. Let
\[{\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) = [q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - s, \infty).\]
Clearly, Assumption A2 (i) implies Assumption C2 (i) with $s_0 = 0$. Moreover,
\begin{align}
\Delta_{s}(x) & = \inf\left\{\Delta: \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - s + \Delta \ge q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - s \text{ and } q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - s + \Delta \ge \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - s\right\}\\
&= \inf\left\{\Delta: \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) + \Delta \ge q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) \text{ and } q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) + \Delta \ge \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0)\right\}\\
&= |\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)| = {\mathcal{E}}(x).
\end{align}
Thus, $\Delta(x) = \sup_{s\in [s_0 - r, s_0]}\Delta_s(x) \le {\mathcal{E}}(x)$ and Assumption C2 (ii) holds.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}}
\revise{
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}, we first show that it remains to prove the result when $q_{\alpha + r}(x; c_0) < c_0$ almost surely. Let $\xi = \min\{r, \varepsilon\}$. Since $\hat{L}(x) \le c_0$ for any $x$,
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(x) \mid X = x)\ge \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge c_0 \mid X = x) = \mathbb{P}(T \ge c_0 \mid X = x).\]
Then the condition (i) implies
\[\mathbb{P}(T\ge c_0 \mid X = x)\ge \mathbb{P}(T \ge q_{\alpha + \varepsilon}(x) \mid X = x) = 1 - \alpha - \xi, \quad \text{if }q_{\alpha+\xi}(x) \ge c_0.\]
As a result,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon\right)\\
& = \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon, q_{\alpha+\xi}(X) < c_0\right)\\
& \le \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon\mid q_{\alpha+\xi}(X) < c_0\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\right) &\ge (1 - \alpha - \varepsilon)\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}(q_{\alpha+\xi}(X) \ge c_0)\\
&\quad + \mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\mid q_{\alpha+\varepsilon}(X) \ge c_0\right) \mathbb{P}(q_{\alpha+\xi}(X) < c_0).
\end{align}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, it remains to prove
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( \mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X) \mid X = x) < 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon\mid q_{\alpha + \xi}(X) < c_0\right) = 0,\]
and
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left( T\wedge c_0 \ge \hat{L}(X)\mid q_{\alpha + \xi}(X) < c_0\right) = 1 - \alpha.\]
The results to be proved are equivalent to Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR} with $r$ replaced by $\xi$ and an additional assumption that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:break_tie_CDR}
q_{\alpha + r}(X) < c_0 \text{ almost surely under }P_X \text{ and }Q_X.
\end{equation}
The latter is due to that $w(X) < \infty$ almost surely under $P_X$. Throughout the rest of the proof, we will assume \eqref{eq:break_tie_CDR}.
}
Using the same argument as in the proof of Theorem
\ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}, it suffices to show that A2 from
Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR} implies Assumption C2. Let
\[{\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) = [q_{\alpha - s}(x; c_0), \infty),\]
Clearly, Assumption A2 (i) implies Assumption C2 (i) with $s_0 = 0$.
To compute $\Delta(x)$, we first replace $r$ by $2r$. Assumption A2 (i) with $\varepsilon = 0$ implies that $F(q_{\alpha - s}(x; c_0)\mid X = x) = 1 - \alpha + s$ for any $s \in [s_0 - 2r, s_0] = [ - 2r, 0]$.
Then for any $s \in [- r, 0]$,
\begin{align}
\Delta_{s}(x)
&= \inf\left\{\Delta: q_{\alpha - s + \Delta}(x; c_0)\ge \hat{q}_{\alpha - s}(x; c_0)\text{ and } \hat{q}_{\alpha - s + \Delta}(x; c_0) \ge q_{\alpha - s}(x; c_0)\right\}.
\end{align}
Let $\mathcal{V}$ denote the event that ${\mathcal{E}}(X)\le r$. Then on $\mathcal{V}$, $\alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X) \in [\alpha, \alpha + 2r]$, and by A2 (i),
\begin{align}
& \alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)= F(q_{\alpha - s}(X; c_0)\mid X) + {\mathcal{E}}(X)\text{ and } F(q_{\alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(x)}(X; c_0)\mid X) = \alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)\\
& \Longrightarrow \alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)\ge F(\hat{q}_{\alpha - s}(X; c_0)\mid X)\text{ and } F(\hat{q}_{\alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)}(X; c_0)\mid X) \ge \alpha - s\\
& \Longrightarrow q_{\alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)}(X; c_0)\ge \hat{q}_{\alpha - s}(X; c_0)\text{ and } \hat{q}_{\alpha - s + {\mathcal{E}}(X)}(X; c_0) \ge q_{\alpha - s}(X; c_0)\\
& \Longrightarrow \Delta_{s}(X)\le {\mathcal{E}}(X).
\end{align}
Thus on $\mathcal{V}$,
\[\Delta(X) = \sup_{s\in [s_0 - r, s_0]}\Delta_{s}(X)\le {\mathcal{E}}(X).\]
On the other hand, $\Delta(X)\le 1$ almost surely. Since $c(X)\le 1$ almost surely, A2 (ii) implies that $\mathbb{E} [\Delta(X)]\rightarrow 0$. By Markov's inequality,
\[\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}) \rightarrow 1.\]
As a result,
\begin{align}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}[\Delta(X) / \hat{c}(X)]
& \le \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}[\Delta(X)I_{\mathcal{V}} / \hat{c}(X)] + \mathbb{E}[\Delta(X)I_{\mathcal{V}^c} / \hat{c}(X)]\\
& \le \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E} [{\mathcal{E}}(X) / \hat{c}(X)] + \alpha \mathbb{E}[I_{\mathcal{V}^c} / \hat{c}(X)]\\
& \le \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E} [{\mathcal{E}}(X) / \hat{c}(X)] + \alpha \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}^c)^{1 + 1 / \delta} \mathbb{E} [1 / \hat{c}(X)^{1 + \delta}] = 0,
\end{align}
where the second last step follows from H\"{o}lder's inequality. Similarly, we have
\[\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}[\Delta(X) / \c(X)] = 0.\]
Since $\mathbb{E}[1 / \hat{\c}(X)], \mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)]\ge 1$, we conclude that
\[\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta(X)] = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta(X)] = 0.\]
In conclusion, A2 implies C2 (ii). This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}.
\revise{
\subsection{Adaptivity of conformalized survival analysis: asymptotic results}\label{app:adaptivity}
Following the steps of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}, we can show that
\[\Delta'_{s}(X) \le {\mathcal{E}}(X).\]
By Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals} with $k = \ell = 1$, for CQR,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}\left( [\hat{L}(X), \infty) \subset [q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - \varepsilon, \infty)\right) = 1,\]
and for CDR,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}\left( [\hat{L}(X), \infty) \subset [q_{\alpha - \varepsilon}(x; c_0), \infty)\right) = 1.\]
Theorem \ref{thm:adaptivity} is then proved.
Next, we discuss the more involved case where $c_0$ is growing with $n$. Intuitively, as $c_0$ approaches the upper endpoint of the domain of $T$, both CQR and CDR lower predictive bound should approach the oracle $\alpha$-th conditional quantile of $T$. Nevertheless, we cannot invoke Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness} directly because $1/\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0 \mid X)$ would diverge as $c_0$ grows. However, the nonasymptotic result provides sufficient conditions under which $\hat{L}(X)$ converges to $q_{\alpha}(X)$ with high probability under $Q_{X}$. We say a sequence $a_{n} = O\left(\mathrm{polyLog}(n)\right)$ iff there exists $\gamma > 0$ such that $a_{n} = O((\log n)^\gamma)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:adaptivity_growing_c0}
Assume that $c_0 = c_{0, n}$ grows with $n$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c0n_limit}
\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}c_{0, n}\ge q_{\alpha}(X)\right) = 1,
\end{equation}
and, for some $\delta > 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polylogn}
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\hat{\mathbb{P}}(C\ge c_{0, n}\mid X)^{1 + \delta}} + \frac{1}{\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_{0, n}\mid X)^{1 + \delta}}\right] = O\left(\mathrm{polyLog}(n)\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For CQR, assume further that
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists $b_1, r > 0$ such that, for any $\varepsilon\in [0, r]$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T \ge q_{\alpha}(X) - \varepsilon\right)\ge 1 - \alpha + b_1 \varepsilon.\]
\item $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) = \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0$ for some estimate $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x)$ of the $\alpha$-th conditional quantile of $T$.
\item For some $\gamma, \omega > 0$,
\[\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}^{*\gamma}(X)\right] = O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\omega}}\right), \quad \text{where }{\mathcal{E}}^{*}(x) = |\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) - q_{\alpha}(x)|.\]
\end{enumerate}
Then for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}(\hat{L}(X) \ge q_{\alpha}(X) - \varepsilon) = 1.\]
\item For CDR, assume further that
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists $r > 0$ such that, for any $\varepsilon\in [0, r]$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T \ge q_{\alpha - \varepsilon}(X)\right)\ge 1 - \alpha + \varepsilon.\]
\item $\hat{q}_{s}(x; c_0) = \hat{q}_{s}(x) \wedge c_0$ for $s\in [\alpha - r, \alpha]$ and some estimate $\hat{q}_{s}(x)$ of the $s$-th conditional quantile of $T$.
\item For some $\gamma, \omega > 0$,
\[\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}^{*\gamma}(X)\right] = O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\omega}}\right), \quad \text{where }{\mathcal{E}}^{*}(x) = \sup_{s\in [\alpha - r, \alpha]}|F(\hat{q}_{s}(x) \mid x) - F(q_{s}(x)\mid x)|.\]
\end{enumerate}
Then for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}(\hat{L}(X) \ge q_{\alpha - \varepsilon}(X)) = 1.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The condition \eqref{eq:c0n_limit} implies that essential supremum of $C$ must be at least as large as the essential supremum of $q_{\alpha}(X)$. Apparently, it is a necessary condition since otherwise $q_{\alpha}(x)$ would be strictly larger than $\hat{L}(x)$ for a nonnegligible fraction of units.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The moment condition on ${\mathcal{E}}^{*}(X)$ is satisfied for most parametric, nonparametric, and sparse models under standard regularity conditions.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
We shall verify the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals}. First, the condition \eqref{eq:polylogn} implies the condition C'1 with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M_polylogn}
\delta_0 = \delta, \quad M = O(\mathrm{polyLog}(n)).
\end{equation}
Next, we note that, for any $x$,
\[q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) = q_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0.\]
Since $z\mapsto z\wedge c_0$ is a contraction and $F(\cdot \mid x)$ is non-decreasing, it is easy to show
\[{\mathcal{E}}(x)\le {\mathcal{E}}^{*}(x),\]
for both CQR and CDR where ${\mathcal{E}}(x)$ is defined in Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} for CQR and in Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR} for CDR. Using the same arguments as in the proofs of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}, we can show that
\[\Delta'(x)\le {\mathcal{E}}(x).\]
Let $k = \ell = \gamma\delta / (1 + \delta)$. By H\"{o}lder's inequality,
\[\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)\Delta^{'k}(X)]\le \mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X){\mathcal{E}}^{*k}(X)]\le\left(\mathbb{E}[\hat{w}(X)^{1 + \delta}]\right)^{1 / (1 + \delta)}\left(\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal{E}}^{*\gamma}(X)]\right)^{\delta / (1 + \delta)} = O\left(\frac{\mathrm{polyLog(n)}}{n^{\omega \delta / (1 + \delta)}}\right).\]
Similarly,
\[\mathbb{E}[w(X)\Delta^{'\ell}(X)] = O\left(\frac{\mathrm{polyLog(n)}}{n^{\omega \delta / (1 + \delta)}}\right).\]
Finally, we verify the condition C'2 (i) for CQR and CDR separately.
\begin{itemize}
\item For CQR, let
\[{\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) = [q_{\alpha}(x)\wedge c_0 - s, \infty).\]
For any $s > 0$,
\[T \ge q_{\alpha}(x) - s\Longrightarrow T\wedge c_0 \ge q_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0 - s.\]
Thus,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T\wedge c_0 \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x)\right)\ge \mathbb{P}\left( T \ge q_{\alpha}(X) - s\right)\ge 1 - \alpha + b_1 s.\]
\item For CDR, let
\[{\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) = [q_{\alpha - s}(x)\wedge c_0, \infty).\]
For any $s > 0$,
\[T \ge q_{\alpha - s}(x)\Longrightarrow T\wedge c_0 \ge q_{\alpha - s}(x) \wedge c_0.\]
Thus,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T\wedge c_0 \in {\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x)\right)\ge \mathbb{P}\left( T \ge q_{\alpha}(X) - s\right)\ge 1 - \alpha + s.\]
\end{itemize}
Thus, we have shown that all assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals} are satisfied. Let $\beta = 1 / \log n$. Since $B_3$ depends on $M$ polynomially and other constants, \eqref{eq:M_polylogn} implies that
\[B_3 = O(\mathrm{polyLog(n)}).\]
By Theorem \ref{thm:prediction_intervals},
\[\mathbb{P}_{X \sim Q_{X}}\left( \hat{C}(X)\subset \mathcal{O}_{s_0 + \varepsilon_{n}}(X)\right) = 1 - o(1),\]
where
\[\varepsilon_{n} = O\left(\frac{\mathrm{polyLog}(n)}{n^{(\omega \wedge 1)\delta' / (1 + \delta')}}\right) = o(1).\]
Since $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}c_{0, n}\ge q_{\alpha}(X)$ almost surely under $Q_{X}$, for any $s\ge 0$,
\[\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(q_{\alpha}(X) - s)\wedge c_{0, n}\ge (q_{\alpha}(X) - s)\right) = 1,\]
and
\[\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_{X}}\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}q_{\alpha - s}(X)\wedge c_{0, n}\ge q_{\alpha - s}(X)\right) = 1.\]
The proof is then completed by plugging in ${\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x)$ for CQR and CDR, respectively.
\end{proof}
}
\subsection{When is CMR-LPB doubly robust?}\label{subapp:CMR}
For CMR, a natural oracle nested set is given by
\[{\mathcal{O}}_{s}(x) = [m(x; c_0) - s, \infty), \quad \text{where }m(x; c_0) = \mathbb{E}[T\wedge c_0 \mid X = x].\]
However, Assumption B2 (b) (i) with $\varepsilon = 0$ requires the existence of $s_0$ such that
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\in {\mathcal{O}}_{s_0}(X)\mid X) = 1 - \alpha, \quad \text{almost surely}.\]
This implies that for some $s_0$,
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge m(X; c_0) - s_0\mid X) = 1 - \alpha, \quad \text{almost surely}.\]
The above equality does not hold in general. One exception
is the additive case with homoscedastic errors:
\[T\wedge c_0 = m(X; c_0) + \nu, \quad \mathrm{Var}[\nu \mid X] =
\mathrm{Var}[\nu].\] In this case, we can derive the double
robustness of the CMR-LPB based on Theorem
\ref{thm:double_robustness}.
\revise{
\section{Additional results}
\subsection{Additional details for the selection of $c_0$}
\label{appx:c_up}
We consider two cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item When there is prior information on the consoring
mechanism:
for example, if the researcher
knows that there exists $\bar{c}$ such that
$\mathbb{P}(C \ge \bar{c} ~|~ X) \ge \eta$ almost
surely, for some $\eta > 0$. With any consistent
estimator $\tilde{c}(\cdot)$ for $c(\cdot)$,
we can again consider the truncated estimator
$\hat{c}(x) = \tilde{c}(x) \vee \frac{\eta}{2}$
and for any $\varepsilon >0$,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big|\bigg]\\
= & \mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big|
\cdot \mathbf{1}\Big\{\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big| \ge \varepsilon\Big\}\bigg]
+ \mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big|
\cdot \mathbf{1}\Big\{\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big| < \varepsilon\Big\}\bigg]\\
\le & \frac{4}{\eta}\cdot \mathbb{P}\Big(\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X) \big| \ge \varepsilon\Big)
+ \frac{4\varepsilon}{\eta^2}.
\end{align*}
The above implies that Assumpation \textbf{A}1 is satisfied.
\item
When there is no available
prior information on such $\bar c$, researchers
can instead use the data to determine $\bar c$.
Suppose the covariate $X$ takes value in a finite
set $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_m\}$, where $\mathbb{P}(X = x_l) >0$
for any $l\in[m]$. Let $\Delta = \min_{l\in[m]} \mathbb{P}(X =x_l)$.
Further divide
${\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ into two disjoint ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1$
and ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^2$, and the upper bound on $c_0$ can
be obtained via:
\begin{align*}
\bar{c} = \min_{l\in[m]} \bar{c}_l:=\sup
\left\{c \in \mathbb{R}: \frac{\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{C_i \ge c, X_i = x_l\}}
{\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l\}} \ge 2\eta \right\}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\bar{c}\ge 0$ for any $\eta < 0.5$.
We then claim that the event $A := \{\mathbb{P}(C \ge \bar{c} ~|~ X = x_l, {\mathcal{Z}}^1_{\mathrm{tr}}) \ge \eta,
\forall l \in [m]\}$ occurs with probability at least
$1 - m\exp(-\eta^2|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\Delta) -
m \exp(-\Delta^2|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|/2)$.
To prove this claim, for simplicity, we assume the censoring time has a continuous
distribution; the results can be applied to the general case
with a silimar but slightly more complicated argument.
Fix $\eta >0$. For any $l\in [m]$, define
\begin{align*}
c_l^* = \sup \big\{c\in\mathbb{R}: \mathbb{P}(C \ge c ~|~ X = x_l) \ge \eta\big\}.
\end{align*}
By the continuity of $C$, we have $\mathbb{P}(C \ge c_l^* ~|~ X = x_l) = \eta$
for $\forall l\in[m]$. Next,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\big(\exists l\in[m], \mathbb{P}(C \ge \bar{c} ~|~ X = x_l) < \eta \big)
\le \sum_{l\in[m]} \mathbb{P}\big( \mathbb{P}(C \ge \bar{c} ~|~ X = x_l) <\eta \big)\\
\le & \sum_{l\in[m]} \mathbb{P}(\bar{c} > c_l^*)
\le \sum_{l \in [m]} \mathbb{P}(\bar{c}_l > c_l^*)
\le \sum_{l \in [m]} \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\sum_{i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l,
C_i \ge c_l^*\}}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l\}} \ge 2\eta \right)\\
\le & \sum_{l \in [m]} \mathbb{E}\left[\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\sum_{i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l,
C_i \ge c_l^*\}}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l\}}
- \mathbb{P}(C \ge c_l^* ~|~ X = x_l) \ge \eta ~\Big|~ \{X_{i}:i\in{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\}
\right)\right]\\
\stackrel{\rm (1)}{\le} & m\cdot \mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\big(-2 \eta^2 \cdot |{\mathcal{Z}}_{tr}^{1,l}|\big)\Big],
\end{align*}
where $|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}| = \sum_{i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1} \mathbf{1}\{X_i = x_l\}$
and step (1) is due to Hoeffding's inequality. Finally, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\big(-2\eta^2 \cdot |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}|\big)\Big] = &
\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\big(-2\eta^2 \cdot |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}|\big)\cdot \mathbf{1}\left
\{|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}| \ge \frac{\Delta}{2} |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\right\}\right] \\
& \qquad + \mathbb{E}\left[\exp\big(-2\eta^2 \cdot |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}|\big)
\cdot \mathbf{1}\left\{|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}| < \frac{\Delta}{2} |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1| \right\}\right] \\
\le & \mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\big(-\eta^2 \Delta |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\big)\Big] + \mathbb{P}\left( |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{1,l}| < \frac{\Delta}{2} |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\right)\\
\le & \mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\big(-\eta^2 \Delta |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\big)\Big] + \exp\big(-|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1| \Delta^2/2\big),
\end{align*}
where the last line applies Hoeffding's inequality again. This completes the proof for the lower bound on $\mathbb{P}(A)$.
Now for any $c_0 \le \bar{c}$,
and any consistent estimator $\tilde{c}(\cdot)$,
the truncated estimator $\hat{c}(x) = \tilde{c}(x)\vee \frac{\eta}{2}$
satisfies that for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\Bigg(\mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big| ~\Big|~
{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\bigg] \ge \varepsilon \Bigg)\\
= & \mathbb{P}\Bigg(\mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big| ~\Big|~
{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\bigg] \ge \varepsilon, A \Bigg)
+ \mathbb{P}\Bigg(\mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big| ~\Big|~
{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\bigg] \ge \varepsilon, A^c \Bigg)\\
\stackrel{\rm (a)}{\le} & \mathbb{P}\bigg(\mathbb{P}\Big(\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big|
\ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8} ~\Big|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\Big) \ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8},A\bigg)
+ \mathbb{P}(A^c) \\
\stackrel{\rm (b)}{\le} & \mathbb{P}\bigg(\mathbb{P}\Big(\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big|
\ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8} ~\Big|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1\Big) \ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8}\bigg) +
m\cdot \exp\Big(- \eta^2 |{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|\Delta\Big)
+ m \exp\Big(-\frac{\Delta^2|{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1|}{2}\Big).
\end{align*}
Above, step (a) is because on event $A$,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\bigg[\Big|\frac{1}{\hat{c}(X)} - \frac{1}{c(X)}\Big| ~\bigg|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\bigg]
\le \frac{4}{\eta^2} \cdot \mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)]\big| ~\Big|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\Big]\\
= & \frac{4}{\eta^2} \cdot \bigg(\mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big|
\cdot \ind\Big\{\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big| \ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8}\Big\} ~\Big|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\Big]\\
&\qquad \qquad+ \mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big|
\cdot \ind\Big\{\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big| < \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8}\Big\}~\Big|~{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\Big]\bigg) \\
\le & \frac{4}{\eta^2}\cdot \mathbb{P}\Big(\big|\hat{c}(X) - c(X)\big| \ge \frac{\eta^2 \varepsilon}{8} ~\Big|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}\Big)
+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2};
\end{align*}
step (b) is due to the lower bound on $\mathbb{P}(A)$ we have
proved previously.
The above quantity goes to zero as $N,n \rightarrow \infty$.
Hence we arrive at a condition slightly weaker than Assumption
\textbf{A}1, and would imply a slightly weaker coverage guarantee: for any
$\varepsilon >0$,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathbb{P}\big(Y_{n+1} \in \hat{C}(X_{n+1}) ~|~ {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}^1 \big)
\le 1-\alpha-\varepsilon \Big) = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Selecting $c_0$ based on the calibration set}
\label{sec:uniform_c}
Throughout this section, we only consider the case where $\hat{w}(\cdot) = w(\cdot)$ is known. Without loss of generality, assume ${\mathcal{I}}_\mathrm{ca} = \{1, \ldots, n\}$. Let $\hat{c}_0$ be any choice of $c_0$ that potentially depends on both $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}$. In particular, we choose $\hat{c}_0$ by maximizing the average lower prediction bounds on $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}$ over a candidate set ${\mathcal{C}} \subset \mathbb{R}^{+}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hatc0}
\hat{c}_0 = \argmax{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}}~\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{L}_{c_0}(X_i),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{L}_{c_0}(X_i)$ denotes the lower prediction bound with threshold $c_0$. We shall prove that $\hat{L}_{\hat{c}_0}(X)$ is approximately valid under regularity conditions on $\mathcal{C}$ and the conformity score.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:finite_c0}
If $|\mathcal{C}| < \infty$ and $\mathbb{E}[w(X_i)^r] < \infty$ for some $r > 2$, then, as $n\rightarrow \infty$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T\ge \hat{L}_{\hat{c}_0}(X)\right)\ge 1 - \alpha - o(1).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:infinite_c0}
Assume ${\mathcal{C}} = \mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\mathbb{E}[w(X_i)^r] < \infty$ for some $r > 4$. If there exists a positive integer $M$ such that, for any $(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)$ and $(x_2, \tilde{t}_2)$, both $\{c_0\in \mathbb{R}^{+}: V(x_1, \tilde{t}_1; c_0) > V(x_2, \tilde{t}_2; c_0)\}$ and $\{c_0\in \mathbb{R}^{+}: V(x_1, \tilde{t}_1; c_0) < V(x_2, \tilde{t}_2; c_0)\}$ are unions of at most $M$ intervals, then, as $n\rightarrow \infty$,
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T\ge \hat{L}_{\hat{c_0}}(X)\right)\ge 1 - \alpha - o(1).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
For CQR, if we estimate the $(1-\alpha)$-th quantile of $T\wedge c_0$ by $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0$, where $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x)$ is an estimate of the $(1-\alpha)$-th quantile of $T$ using survival estimation techniques, then
\[V(x, \tilde{t}; c_0) = \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0 - \tilde{t}\wedge c_0.\]
Clearly, $V(x, \tilde{t}; c_0)$ is a piecewise linear function where the first and the third pieces are constants $0$ and $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) - \tilde{t}$, respectively, connecting by a linear piece with slope $\mathrm{sign}(\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) - \tilde{t})$. Thus, the condition of Theorem \ref{thm:infinite_c0} holds with $M = 1$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:finite_c0} and \ref{thm:infinite_c0}}
We start with the following lemma that bounds the weighted empirical process associated with the weighted conformal inference procedure indexed by $c_0$ and $v$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:weighted_conformal_conditional}
Let $V(x, y; c_0)$ be any conformity score that depends on $c_0$ and $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}$. Further let
\[A_{c_0, v} = \{(x, y): V(x, y; c_0)\le v\}, \quad {\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}) = \{A_{c_0, v}: c_0 \in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}\}.\]
If $\mathbb{E}[w(X_i)^r] < \infty$ for some $r > 2$,
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg|= O_\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))^{1/r}}{\sqrt{n}}\right)
\end{align*}
where $N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))$ denotes the shattering number of ${\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})$, i.e.,
\[N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})) = \sup_{(x_i, \tilde{t}_i)\in \mathrm{Domain}(X_i, \tilde{T}_i)}\bigg|\left\{\bigg( I[(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)\in A_{c_0, v}], \ldots, I[(x_n, \tilde{t}_n)\in A_{c_0, v}]\bigg): c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\bigg|.\]
\end{lemma}
The proof is lengthy and deferred to Section \ref{subsubapp:proof_weighted_conditional}. Next, we prove a lemma relating the empirical process bound to the coverage.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:coverage_lower_bound}
Let $\hat{c}_0$ be selected from ${\mathcal{C}}$ based solely on $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}$ (e.g., \eqref{eq:hatc0}). If
\[\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg| = o_\mathbb{P}(1),\]
then
\[\mathbb{P}(T\ge \hat{L}_{\hat{c}_0}(X))\ge 1 - \alpha - o(1).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\eta_{c_0}(x)$ denote the cutoff for the conformity score defined in Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split} that corresponds to the threshold $c_0$ and
\[\tilde{\eta}_{c_0} = \mathrm{Quantile}\left(1 - \alpha; \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)\delta_{V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} \right).\]
Clearly,
\[\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)\delta_{V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)}\preceq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)\delta_{V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i) + w(x)} + \frac{w(x)\delta_{\infty}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i) + w(x)}.\]
Thus, for any $x$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tdeta}
\tilde{\eta}_{c_0} \le \eta_{c_0}(x).
\end{equation}
Let
\[G(c_0, v) = \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right].\]
By \eqref{eq:tdeta},
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left( T\ge \hat{L}_{\hat{c}_0}(X)\mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}\right) &= \mathbb{P}\left( V(X, T; \hat{c}_0)\le \eta_{\hat{c}_0}(X)\mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}\right)\\
& \ge \mathbb{P}\left( V(X, T; \hat{c}_0)\le \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0}\mid \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}\right) = G(\hat{c}_0, \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0}).\label{eq:Gtdeta}
\end{align}
Noting that $\hat{c}_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0}\in \mathbb{R}$, the condition implies
\begin{align}
\bigg|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; \hat{c}_0)\le \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0})}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - G(\hat{c}_0, \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0})\bigg| = o_\mathbb{P}(1).
\end{align}
By definition,
\[\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; \hat{c}_0)\le \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0})}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} \ge 1 - \alpha.\]
Therefore,
\[G(\hat{c}_0, \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0}) \ge 1 - \alpha - o_\mathbb{P}(1).\]
Marginalizing over $\mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{ca}$ in \eqref{eq:Gtdeta} and apply the Dominated Convergence Theorem, we conclude
\[\mathbb{P}\left( T\ge \hat{L}_{\hat{c}_0}(X)\right)\ge \mathbb{E}[G(\hat{c}_0, \tilde{\eta}_{\hat{c}_0})] \ge 1 - \alpha - o(1).\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{Theorem \ref{thm:finite_c0}}]
For any $c_0 \in {\mathcal{C}}$,
\[\bigg|\left\{\bigg( I[(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)\in A_{c_0, v}], \ldots, I[(x_n, \tilde{t}_n)\in A_{c_0, v}]\bigg): v\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\bigg|\le n + 1.\]
Thus,
\[N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})) \le |{\mathcal{C}}| \cdot (n + 1) = O(n).\]
The result is then implied by the first bound in Lemma \ref{lem:weighted_conformal_conditional} and Lemma \ref{lem:coverage_lower_bound}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{Theorem \ref{thm:infinite_c0}}]
For any subset ${\mathcal{S}} \subset \{1, \ldots, n\}$, let $e_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ denote the binary vector with the $k$-th entry equal to $1$ iff $k\in {\mathcal{S}}$. Given $(x_i, \tilde{t}_{i})_{i=1}^{n}$, let ${\mathcal{C}}_{0, jk}$ denote all boundary points of $\{c_0\in \mathbb{R}^{+}: V(x_j, \tilde{t}_j; c_0) > V(x_k, \tilde{t}_k; c_0)\}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ denote the union of all $C_{0, jk}$'s, allowing the same value to appear for multiple times. Then
\[|{\mathcal{C}}_0| \le 2Mn^2 = O(n^2).\]
Let $c_{0, 1} \le c_{0, 2} \le \cdots \le c_{0, |{\mathcal{C}}_0|}$ be the elements of ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ and
\[{\mathcal{N}}_j = \left\{\bigg( I[(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)\in A_{c_{0, j}, v}], \ldots, I[(x_n, \tilde{t}_n)\in A_{c_{0, j}, v}]\bigg): v\in \mathbb{R}\right\}.\]
Then
\[\left\{\bigg( I[(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)\in A_{c_0, v}], \ldots, I[(x_n, \tilde{t}_n)\in A_{c_0, v}]\bigg): c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}\right\} = \bigcup_{j=1}^{|{\mathcal{C}}_0|}{\mathcal{N}}_j.\]
By definition, the ordering of the conformity scores $\{V(x_j, \tilde{t}_j; c_0)\}_{j=1}^{n}$ can only change at $c_0 = c_{0, j}$ for some $j = 1, \ldots, |{\mathcal{C}}_0|$. Since we allow for multiplicity in ${\mathcal{C}}_0$, at each $c_{0,j}$, only a pair of adjacent conformity scores exchange while all other elements maintain their ranks. Given $j < |{\mathcal{C}}_0|$, suppose that
\[V(x_{i_1}, \tilde{t}_{i_1}; c) \le V(x_{i_2}, \tilde{t}_{i_2}; c) \le \cdots \le V(x_{i_n}, \tilde{t}_{i_n}; c), \quad \text{for any }c \in (c_{0, j}, c_{0, j+1}),\]
and $V(x_{i_k}, \tilde{t}_{i_k}; c)$ would exchange with $V(x_{i_{k+1}}, \tilde{t}_{i_{k+1}}; c)$ at $c = c_{0, (j + 1)}$. Then
\[{\mathcal{N}}_j = \{e_{\mathcal{S}}: {\mathcal{S}} = \{i_1, \ldots, i_r\}, r = 1, \ldots, n\},\]
and
\[{\mathcal{N}}_{j+1} = {\mathcal{N}}_j \cup \{\{i_1, \ldots, i_{k-1}, i_{k+1}\}\} \setminus \{\{i_1, \ldots, i_{k-1}, i_{k}\}\}.\]
As a result,
\[|{\mathcal{N}}_{j+1}\setminus {\mathcal{N}}_{j}| = 1.\]
Clearly, $|{\mathcal{N}}_1| = n + 1$. Thus
\[\bigg|\bigcup_{j=1}^{|{\mathcal{C}}_0|}{\mathcal{N}}_j\bigg|\le |{\mathcal{N}}_1| + |{\mathcal{C}}_0| - 1 = n + |{\mathcal{C}}_0| = O(n^2).\]
The theorem is then implied by the first bound in Lemma \ref{lem:weighted_conformal_conditional} and Lemma \ref{lem:coverage_lower_bound}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:weighted_conformal_conditional}}\label{subsubapp:proof_weighted_conditional}
Let $(X'_1, \tilde{T}'_1), \ldots, (X'_n, \tilde{T}'_n)$ be independent copies of $(X_1, \tilde{T}_1), \ldots, (X_n, \tilde{T}_n)$ and $(\eta_1, \ldots, \eta_n)$ be i.i.d. Rademacher random variables. Further, let
\[\mathcal{N}((x_i, \tilde{t}_i)_{i=1}^{n}) = \left\{\bigg( w(x_1)I[(x_1, \tilde{t}_1)\in A_{c_0, v}], \ldots, w(x_n)I[(x_n, \tilde{t}_n)\in A_{c_0, v}]\bigg): c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}\right\}.\]
Clearly,
\[|\mathcal{N}((x_i, \tilde{t}_i)_{i=1}^{n})|\le N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})).\]
Then for any increasing convex function $\Phi: \mathbb{R}\mapsto \mathbb{R}^{+}$,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& \le \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(1)}{\le}\mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& = \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)\right\}\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(2)}{=} \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}\left\{w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)\right\}\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(3)}{\le} \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i} w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)\bigg| + \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg| \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_i w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& \stackrel{(4)}{\le} \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i} w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)\bigg|\right)\right]\\
& = \mathbb{E}\left\{\mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i} w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)\bigg|\right)\right]\mid (X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}\right\}\\
& \stackrel{(5)}{\le} \mathbb{E}\left\{\sum_{a\in \mathcal{N}((X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n})} \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i}\bigg|\right)\mid (X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}\right]\right\},\label{eq:EPhi_generic}
\end{align}
where (1) applies Jensen's inequality, (2) follows from the distributional symmetry of the summand $w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - w(X'_i)I(V(X'_i, \tilde{T}'_i; c_0)\le v)$, (3) is due to the triangle inequality and the monotonicity of $\Phi$, (4) applies Jensen's inequality again together with exchangeability of the two terms, and (5) uses the definition of the set $\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$. For any $a\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i}$ is sub-Gaussian with parameter $\frac{4}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i^2$. Given $(X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}$, for any $a\in \mathcal{N}((X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n})$,
\[\frac{4}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i^2\le \frac{4}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)^2.\]
Thus, for any $a\in \mathcal{N}((X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n})$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conditional_subgaussian}
\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i} \text{ is sub-Gaussian with parameter }\frac{4}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)^2 \text{ conditional on }(X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}.
\end{equation}
Now, we set $\Phi(y) = y^{r}$ which is increasing and convex since $r > 2 \ge 1$. It is well-known that the $r$-th moment of a $\sigma^2$-sub-Gaussian random variable is equivalent to that of a Gaussian random variable with variance $\sigma^2$ up to a constant that only depends on $r$ \citep[e.g.][Proposition 2.5.2]{vershynin2018high}. Thus, there exists a constant $C(r) > 0$ such that
\[\mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i}\bigg|\right)\mid (X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}\right]\le C(r)\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)^2\right)^{r/2}.\]
By H\"{o}lder's iequality,
\[\mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i}\bigg|\right)\mid (X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}\right]\le \frac{C(r)}{n^{r/2}} \left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)^r\right).\]
Then,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}\left\{\sum_{a\in \mathcal{N}((X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n})} \mathbb{E}\left[\Phi\left( \bigg|\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta_{i}a_{i}\bigg|\right)\mid (X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n}\right]\right\}\\
& \le \mathbb{E}\left\{|\mathcal{N}((X_i, \tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{n})| \cdot \frac{C(r)}{n^{r/2}} \left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)^r\right)\right\}\\
& \le C(r)\frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))}{n^{r/2}}\mathbb{E}[w(X_1)^{r}].\label{eq:EPhi_case1}
\end{align}
By Markov's inequality, \eqref{eq:EPhi_generic}, and \eqref{eq:EPhi_case1},
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg|\\
&= O_\mathbb{P}\left(\left\{\mathbb{E}\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v) - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\bigg|^{r}\right]\right\}^{1/r}\right)\\
&= O_\mathbb{P}\left( \left\{\frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))}{n^{r/2}}\right\}^{1/r}\right) = O_\mathbb{P}\left( \frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))^{1/r}}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\end{align*}
By Kolmogorov's strong law of large numbers,
\[\bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i) - 1\bigg| = O_\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right).\]
By Slusky's Lemma,
\[\bigg|\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)\right)^{-1} - 1\bigg| = O_\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right).\]
Thus,
\[\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]}{(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)}\bigg| = O_\mathbb{P}\left( \frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))^{1/r}}{\sqrt{n}}\right).\]
On the other hand,
\begin{align}
&\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{\mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]}{(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg|\\
& \le \mathbb{E}[w(X)]\bigg|\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)\right)^{-1} - 1\bigg|\\
&= O_\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right) = O_\mathbb{P}\left( \frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))^{1/r}}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\end{align}
By triangle inequality,
\[\sup_{c_0\in {\mathcal{C}}, v\in \mathbb{R}}\bigg|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)I(V(X_i, \tilde{T}_i; c_0)\le v)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}w(X_i)} - \mathbb{E}\left[w(X)I(V(X, \tilde{T}; c_0)\le v)\right]\bigg| = O_\mathbb{P}\left( \frac{N({\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}))^{1/r}}{\sqrt{n}}\right).\]
\subsection{Coverage results under complete independent censoring}
\label{appx:coverage_independent_censoring}
Suppose now weights $W_i = 1/\hat{c}(X_i)$ is non-decreasing in
the conformity scores $V_i = V(X_i,\tilde{T}_i; c_0)$ in the sense that
\begin{align*}
V_i \le V_j \Rightarrow W_i \le W_j,
\end{align*}
for any $i,j \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}\cup \{n+1\}$.
The predictive interval given by our algorithm is
\begin{align*}
\hat{C}(X_{n+1}) = \Bigg\{y: V(X_{n+1},y) \le \mathrm{Quantile}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}
W_i \cdot \delta_{V_i} + W_{n+1} \cdot \delta_{\infty}}
{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}} W_i + W_{n+1} }, 1-\alpha\bigg)\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Without loss of generality, we let ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}} = [n]$, so
${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}\cup \{n+1\} = [n+1]$.
Let $\{\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{n+1}\}$ be a permutation of $[n+1]$
such that $V_{\pi_1} \le \ldots \le V_{\pi_{n+1}}$. By the
assumption we also have $W_{\pi_1} \le \ldots \le W_{\pi_{n+1}}$.
Next, for any $k\in[n+1]$, we claim that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum^k_{i=1} W_{\pi_i}}{\sum^{n+1}_{j=1}W_j}
\le \frac{k}{n+1}.
\end{align*}
Assume otherwise. Then for any $j>k$, by the monotonicity
\begin{align*}
W_{\pi_j} \ge \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k W_{\pi_i}.
\end{align*}
Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\frac{ \sum_{j=k+1}^{n+1} W_{\pi_j}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}W_i}
\ge \frac{n+1-k}{k}\frac{\sum^{k}_{j=1} W_{\pi_j}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}W_i}
> \frac{n+1 - k}{n+1},
\end{align*}
which is a contradiction. Hence, we conclude that
for any $t \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum_{i =1}^{n+1}
W_i \cdot \mathbf{1}\{V_i \le t\}}
{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} W_j }
\le \frac{\sum_{i =1}^{n+1}
\mathbf{1}\{V_i \le t\}}
{n+1},
\end{align*}
and correspondingly,
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Quantile}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{i \in [n+1]}
W_i \cdot \delta_{V_i}}
{\sum_{j\in[n+1]} W_j}, 1-\alpha\bigg)
\ge \mathrm{Quantile}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{i \in [n+1]}
\delta_{V_i}}{n+1}, 1-\alpha\bigg).
\end{align*}
Finally, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\big(Y_{n+1} \in \hat{C}(X_{n+1})\big) = &
\mathbb{P}\Bigg(Y_{n+1} \le\mathrm{Quantile}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}
W_i \cdot \delta_{V_i} + W_{n+1} \cdot \delta_{V_{n+1}}}
{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}} W_i + W_{n+1} }, 1-\alpha\bigg) \Bigg)\\
\ge &\mathbb{P}\Bigg(Y_{n+1} \le\mathrm{Quantile}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}
\delta_{V_i} + \delta_{V_{n+1}}}{n+1}, 1-\alpha\bigg)\Bigg)\\
\ge & 1-\alpha.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Time complexity analysis}
\label{sec:time_comp}
We consider the following cases separately:
\begin{itemize}
\item The censoring mechanism is known and
the threshold $c_0$ is determined a priori: the
time complexity of the comformalized method can be decomposed into
\begin{align*}
& \mbox{TC(conformalized survival analysis)}\\
& = \mbox{TC(fitting the quantile of $T$)} \\
&\quad + \mbox{negligible cost to compute conformity scores and weighted empirical quantile}.
\end{align*}
\item The censoring mechanism is unknown and the
threshold $c_0$ is determined a priori: the time
complexity can be decomposed into
\begin{align*}
& \mbox{TC(conformalized survival analysis)}\\
& = \mbox{TC(fitting the quantile of $T$)}\\
& \quad + \mbox{TC(fitting $\mathbb{P}(C \ge c_0 ~|~X)$)}\\
& \quad + \mbox{negligible cost to compute the conformity scores and weighted empirical quantile}.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{An illustrating simulation in the presence of additional censoring (Section~\ref{subsec:beyond})}
\label{sec:add_sim}
To evaluate the validity and efficiency of our method under the
more general setting discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:beyond}, we
set up our simulation as follows: the covariate $X \sim {\mathcal{U}}(0,4)$
and the survival time $T$ satisfies $\log T \mid X \sim {\mathcal{N}}(\mu(X),\sigma^2(X))$,
where $\mu(x) = 2 + 0.37\cdot \sqrt{x}$ and $\sigma(x) = 1 + x/5$.
There are censoring times. The end-of-study censoring time
$C_{\mathrm{end}} \sim {\mathcal{E}}(0.4)$; the loss-to-follow-up censoring time
$C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ is generated from the following model:
\begin{align*}
\log C_{\mathrm{loss}} \mid X \sim {\mathcal{N}}(2 + 0.05 \log T + 0.09\cdot (X-2)(X-3)(X-4),1).
\end{align*}
Clearly, $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ is not independent of $T$ even conditional on $X$,
but Assumption~\ref{eq:Cend} is satisfied in
this example. We then apply our method to the observable
data $(X, T \wedge C_{\mathrm{end}} \wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}, C_{\mathrm{end}})$ with a
target level $90\%$;
the implementation details are the same as in Section~\ref{sec:sim}.
Figure~\ref{fig:sim3_coverage} plots the empirical coverage of
$T$ and $T\wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ of three variants of our proposed methods
and the naive CQR method. The naive CQR method is very conservative,
showing an almost $100\%$ coverage for both $T$ and $T\wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$;
the three variants of the proposed methods are all less conservative
than the naive CQR since they are able to remove the consoring from
$C_{\mathrm{end}}$---both CDR-conTree and CQR-cRF are able to achieve exact coverage
for $T\wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$; the coverage for $T$ is higher than the target level,
where the conservativeness comes from the censoring of $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$.
Figure~\ref{fig:sim3_conditional_coverage} further plots
the empirical conditional coverage of $T$ and $T\wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ as
functions of $\mathrm{Var}(T\mid X)$. The three variants of
our method are less conservative than the naive CQR;
CDR-conTree and CQR-cRF achieves conditional coverage approximately.
Figure~\ref{fig:sim3_length} plots the ratio
between the LPB to the theoretical conditional quantile
of three variants of our proposed methods and the naive CQR method,
where we again see that the naive CQR provides non-informative lower
bounds.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{figs/simulation4_coverage_boxplot.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{figs/simulation4_censored_coverage_boxplot.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Empirical $90\%$ coverage of (a) the uncensored survival
time $T$ and (b) the partially censored survival time $C_{\mathrm{loss}} \wedge T$.
The abbreviations are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:sim1_marginal_coverage}.}.
\label{fig:sim3_coverage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.9\textwidth]{figs/simulation4_conditional_coverage.pdf}\\
(a)\\
\includegraphics[width = 0.9\textwidth]{figs/simulation4_censored_conditional_coverage.pdf}\\
(b)
\caption{Empirical $90\%$ conditional coverage of (a) the uncensored survival
time $T$ and (b) the paritally censored survival time $T \wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$
as functions of $\mathrm{Var}(T\mid X)$. The
other details are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:sim1_conditional_coverage}.}.
\label{fig:sim3_conditional_coverage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.9\textwidth]{figs/simulation4_conditional_bound.pdf}
\caption{Ratio between the LPB and the
theoretical quantile as a function of $\mathrm{Var}(T \mid X)$.
The other details are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:sim1_conditional_coverage}.}.
\label{fig:sim3_length}
\end{figure}
}
\subsection{Semi-synthetic examples}
To demonstrate robustness, we start our analysis with two
semi-synthetic examples so that the ground truth is known and
calibration can be assessed (results on real outcomes are presented
next). We keep the covariate matrix $X$ from the UK Biobank COVID-19
data. In the first simulation study, we substitute the censoring time
with a synthetic $C$. In the second, each
survival time, observed or not, is substituted with a synthetic version. Details follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Synthetic $C$}: we take the censored survival time ${\widetilde{T}}$
as the uncensored survival time and generate the censoring time
$C_{\text{syn}}$ as
\begin{align*}
C_{\text{syn}} \sim {\mathcal{E}}(0.001\cdot \text{age} + 0.01\cdot \text{gender}).
\end{align*}
In this setting, the observables are $(X, C_{\text{syn}}, {\widetilde{T}} \wedge C_{\text{syn}})$, and
we wish to construct LPBs on ${\widetilde{T}}$.
\item {\em Synthetic $T$}: we keep the real censoring time $C$, and
generate a survival time $T_{\text{syn}}$ as:
\begin{align*}
\log{T_{\text{syn}}} \mid X \sim {\mathcal{N}}(2 + 0.05\cdot \text{age} + 0.1 \cdot\text{gender}, 1).
\end{align*}
In this setting, the observables are $(X, C, T_{\text{syn}}\wedge C)$, and we
wish to construct LPBs on $T_{\text{syn}}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{synthetic_data_hist.pdf}
\caption{Histograms of the survival time, censoring time, and
censored survival time defined as the minimum between the two, in
each simulation setting.
}
\label{fig:histogram_synthetic_data}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:histogram_synthetic_data} shows the histograms of the
survival time, censoring time, and censored survival time from the two
simulated datasets. We apply the CDR-LPB (with $c_0 = 14$) to
both. For comparison, we also apply the AFT and naive CQR. To evaluate
the LPBs, we randomly split the data into a training set with $75\%$
of the data and a holdout set with the remaining $25\%$. Each method
is applied to the training set, and the resulting LPBs are evaluated
on the holdout set. We repeat the above procedure $100$ times to
create 100 pairs of training and test data sets.
To visualize conditional calibration, we fit a Cox model on the data
to generate a predicted risk score for each unit and stratify all
units into $10$ subgroups defined by deciles of the predicted
risk. The results for synthetic $C$ and $T$ are plotted in
Figures~\ref{fig:synthetic_c} and~\ref{fig:synthetic_t},
respectively.
As in the simulation studies from Section \ref{sec:sim}, we see that
the naive CQR is overly conservative. Notably, although the AFT-LPB is
well calibrated in the synthetic-$C$ setting, this method is overly conservative in the synthetic-$T$ setting, even though the model
is correctly specified. In contrast, the CDR-LPB is calibrated in both
examples. From the middle panels of Figures \ref{fig:synthetic_c} and
\ref{fig:synthetic_t}, we also observe that the CDR-LPB is
approximately conditionally calibrated. Finally, the right panels show
that CDR-LPB nearly preserves the rank of the predicted risk given by
the Cox model. The flat portion of the LPB towards the left end corresponds to the threshold, implying that at least $99\%$ of people with predicted risk scores lower than $0.5$ can survive beyond $14$ days.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{syn_c_coverrate.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width =\textwidth]{syn_c_conditional_cover.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{syn_c_conditional_bound.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Results for synthetic censoring times across 100
replications: empirical coverage (left), empirical conditional
coverage of the CDR-LPB (middle), and CDR-LPB as a function of
the percentile of the predicted risk (right). The target coverage level
is $99\%$. The blue curves correspond to the mean coverage in the
middle panel and the median LPB in the right panel; the gray
confidence bands correspond to the $5\%$ and $95\%$ quantiles of
the estimates across $100$ independent replications.}
\label{fig:synthetic_c}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{syn_t_coverrate.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width =\textwidth]{syn_t_conditional_cover.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{syn_t_conditional_bound.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Results for synthetic survival times: everything else is as
in Figure~\ref{fig:synthetic_c}.}
\label{fig:synthetic_t}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Real data analysis}
We now turn attention to actual COVID-19 responses. Again, we randomly
split the data into a training set including $75\%$ of data and a
holdout set including the remaining $25\%$. Then we run the CDR on
the training set and validate the LPBs on the holdout set. The issue
is that the actual survival time is only partially observed, and thus,
the coverage of a given LPB cannot be assessed accurately (this is
precisely why we generated semi-synthetic responses in the previous
section.) Nevertheless, we note that
\begin{align*}
\beta_{\text{lo}} := \mathbb{P}\big( {\widetilde{T}} \ge \hat{L}(X) \big) \le \mathbb{P}\big(T \ge \hat{L}(X)\big) \le 1 - \mathbb{P} \big( {\widetilde{T}} < \hat{L}(X), T \le C\big) =: \beta_{\text{hi}},
\end{align*}
where both $\beta_{\text{lo}}$ and $\beta_{\text{hi}}$ are estimable
from the data. This says that we can assess the marginal coverage of
the LPBs by evaluating a lower and upper bound on the
coverage. Of course, this extends to conditional
coverage.
To assess the stability, we evaluate our method on $100$ independent sample splits. Figure~\ref{fig:bounds_of_coverage} presents the empirical lower and
upper bound of the marginal coverage and those of the conditional
coverage as functions of the predicted risk (as in the semi-synthetic
examples), together with their variability across $100$ sample splits. The left panel shows that the upper bound is very close to
the lower bound, and both concentrate around the target level. Thus we
can be assured that the CDR-LPB is well calibrated. Similarly, the
other panels show that the CDR-LPB is approximately conditionally
calibrated. We conclude this section by showing in
Figure~\ref{fig:covid_conditional_bound} the LPBs as functions of the
percentiles of the predicted risk, age, and BMI, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_coverage_boxplot.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_conditional_cover_lo.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_conditional_cover_up.pdf}
(c)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Analysis of the UK Biobank COVID-19 data: (a) lower and upper bounds of the empirical coverage;
(b) lower and (c) upper bounds of empirical coverage as a function of the predicted risk. The target coverage level is $99\%$. The blue
curves correspond to the mean coverage, and the gray confidence bands correspond to the $5\%$ and $95\%$ quantiles of
the estimates across $100$ sample splits.
}
\label{fig:bounds_of_coverage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_conditional_bound.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_conditional_bound_age.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{covid_conditional_bound_bmi.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Analysis of the UK Biobank COVID-19 data: LPBs on the survival time of COVID-19 patients as a function of the
percentiles of predicted risk (left), age (middle) and BMI (right). The target coverage level is $99\%$. The blue
curves correspond to the median LPB across $100$ sample splits. }
\label{fig:covid_conditional_bound}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Beyond Type-I censoring}\label{subsec:beyond}
In practice, censoring can be driven by multiple factors. As discussed
in \cite{leung1997censoring}, the two most common types of right
censoring in a clinical study are the end-of-study censoring caused by
the trial termination and the loss-to-follow-up censoring caused by
unexpected attrition; \revise{see also \cite{korn1986censoring} and
\cite{schemper1996note} for an account of the two types of
censoring}. Let $C_{\mathrm{end}}$ denote the former and $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ the
latter. By definition, $C_{\mathrm{end}}$ is observable for every patient, as
long as the entry times are accurately recorded. \revise{When the
event is not death (e.g., the patient's returning visit), $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$
is observable if all patients are tracked until
the end of the study. } However, when the event is death, $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$
can only be observed for surviving patients. This is because for dead
patients, it is impossible to know when they would have been lost to
follow-up, had they survived.
In survival analysis without loss-to-follow-up censoring, or
time-to-event analysis with non-death events, the setting of Type I
censoring considered in this paper is plausible. However, it is found
that both the end-of-study and loss-to-follow-up censoring are
involved in many applications \citep{leung1997censoring}. In these
cases, the effective censoring time $C$ is the minimum of $C_{\mathrm{end}}$ and
$C_{\mathrm{loss}}$, and is only observable for surviving patients, namely the
patients with $T > C$. This situation prevents us from applying
Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split} below because the subpopulation
with $C\ge c_0$ is not fully observed. If we use the subpopulation
whose $C$ is 1) observed and 2) larger than or equal to a threshold
$c_0$ instead, then the joint distribution of $(X, T)$ becomes
$P_{X\mid C\ge c_0, T > C}\times P_{T\mid X, C\ge c_0, T > C}$. The
extra conditioning event $T > C$ induces a shift of the conditional
distribution, since
$P_{T\mid X, C\ge c_0, T > C}\neq P_{T\mid X, C\ge c_0}$ in general,
rendering the weighted split conformal inference invalid.
Our method can nevertheless be adapted to yield meaningful inference
under an additional assumption:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Cend}
(T, C_{\mathrm{loss}}) ~ \rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} ~ C_{\mathrm{end}}\mid X.
\end{equation}
\revise{
Unlike \cite{korn1986censoring} and \cite{schemper1996note},
\eqref{eq:Cend} does not impose any restrictions on the dependence
between $T$ and $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$, which is harder to conceptualize.} The
assumption \eqref{eq:Cend} tends to be plausible, \revise{especially
when the total length of follow-up is short,} since the randomness
of the end-of-study censoring time often comes from the entry time of
a patient, which is arguably exogenous to the survival time and
attrition, at least when conditioning on a few demographic
variables. \revise{There are certain cases where \eqref{eq:Cend} could
be violated. For example, if new treatments become available during
the course of a study, subjects who enter later are different from
those who enter earlier as they could have been given the
alternative treatments, but were not.}
Let $T' = T\wedge C_{\mathrm{loss}}$, the survival time censored merely by the loss to follow-up. Then the censored survival time $\tilde{T} = T \wedge C = T'\wedge C_{\mathrm{end}}$, and \eqref{eq:Cend} implies that $T' \rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} C_{\mathrm{end}}\mid X$, an analog of the conditionally independent censoring assumption~\eqref{eq:conditional_independent_censoring}. Since $C_{\mathrm{end}}$ is observed for every patient, Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split} can be applied to produce an LPB $\hat{L}(\cdot)$ such that
\[\mathbb{P}(T' \ge \hat{L}(X))\ge 1 - \alpha\Longrightarrow \mathbb{P}(T \ge \hat{L}(X))\ge 1 - \alpha.\]
\revise{
In Section~\ref{sec:add_sim} of the Appendix,
we provide an additional simulation illustrating
the result of our method in this setting.
An observation in conjunction with this line of reasoning is
that, unlike most survival analysis techniques, our method
distinguishes two sources of censoring and takes advantage of the
censoring mechanism itself.}
It can be regarded as a building block to remove the
adverse effect of $C_{\mathrm{end}}$. It remains an interesting question whether
the censoring issue induced by $C_{\mathrm{loss}}$ can be resolved or alleviated in this context.
\subsection{Sharper coverage criteria}\label{subsec:localized}
It is more desirable to achieve a stronger conditional coverage
criterion:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:conditional_criterion}
\mathbb{P}\left(T\ge \hat{L}(X)\mid X = x\right) \ge 1-\alpha,
\end{align}
which states that $\hat{L}(X)$ is a conditionally calibrated LPB. Clearly, \eqref{eq:conditional_criterion} implies valid marginal coverage. Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR} show that the CQR- and CDR-LPB are approximately conditionally calibrated if the conditional quantiles are estimated well. However, without distributional assumptions, we can show that \eqref{eq:conditional_criterion} can only be achieved by trivial LPBs.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:conditional_coverage}
Assume that $X\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and $C\ge 0, T\ge 0$. Let $P_{(X, C)}$ be
any given distribution of $(X, C)$. If $\hat{L}(\cdot)$ satisfies
\eqref{eq:conditional_criterion} uniformly for all joint
distributions of $(X, C, T)$ with $(X, C)\sim P_{(X, C)}$,
then for all such
distributions,
\[\mathbb{P}(\hat{L}(x) = 0) \ge 1 - \alpha,\]
at almost surely all points $x$ aside from the atoms of $P_X$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:conditional_coverage} implies that no nontrivial LPB exists even if the distribution of $(X, C)$ is known. Put another way, it is impossible to achieve desired conditional coverage while being agnostic to the conditional survival function. This impossibility result is inspired by previous works on uncensored outcomes and two-sided intervals \citep{vovk2012conditional, foygel2019limits}.
It is valuable to find other achievable coverage criteria which are
sharper than the marginal coverage criterion
\eqref{eq:marginal_criterion}. Without censoring and covariate shift,
\cite{vovk2003mondrian} introduced Mondrian conformal inference to
achieve desired marginal coverage over multiple subpopulations. The
idea is further developed from different perspectives
\citep{vovk2012conditional, lei2013distribution, guan2019conformal,
foygel2019limits, romano2019malice}. Given a partition of the
covariate space $\{{\mathcal{X}}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal{X}}_K\}$, Mondrian conformal
inference guarantees that
\[\mathbb{P}(Y\in \hat{C}(X)\mid X\in {\mathcal{X}}_k) \ge 1 - \alpha, \quad k = 1, \ldots, K.\]
Mondrian conformal inference allows
the subgroups to also depend on the outcome; see
\cite{vovk2005algorithmic}, which refers to the rule of forming
subgroups as a ``taxonomy.'' Besides, the subgroups can also be
overlapping; see \cite{foygel2019limits}.
Following their techniques, we can extend Mondrian conformal inference to our case by modifying the calibration term $\eta(x)$ (in Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mondrian_eta}
\eta(x) = \mathrm{Quantile}\left(1 - \alpha; \frac{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}, X_i\in {\mathcal{X}}_k}
\hat{p}_i(x)\delta_{V_i} + \hat{p}_{\infty}(x)\delta_{\infty}}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}, X_i\in {\mathcal{X}}_k}}\hat{p}_i(x) + \hat{p}_{\infty}(x)}\right), \quad \forall x\in {\mathcal{X}}_k.
\end{equation}
Suppose ${\mathcal{X}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_2$ correspond to male and female
subpopulations. Then $\eta(x)$ is a function of both the testing point
$x$ and the gender. That said, estimation of censoring mechanisms and
conditional survival functions can still depend on the whole training
fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$ as joint training may be more powerful than
separate training on each subpopulation \citep{romano2019malice}.
When the censoring mechanism is known, we can prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mondrian_criterion}
\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge \hat{L}(X)\mid X\in {\mathcal{X}}_k)\ge 1 - \alpha, \quad k = 1, \ldots, K.
\end{equation}
By the conditionally independent censoring assumption, the target distribution in the localized criterion \eqref{eq:mondrian_criterion} for a given $k$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:local_subpopulation_dist}
(X, T\wedge c_0) \mid C\ge c_0, X\in {\mathcal{X}}_k~\sim~P_{X\mid C\ge c_0, X\in {\mathcal{X}}_k}\times P_{T\wedge c_0 \mid X}.
\end{equation}
The covariate shift between the observed and target distributions is
\[w_{k}(x) = \frac{d P_{X\mid C\ge c_0, X\in {\mathcal{X}}_k}}{dP_{X}}(x) \propto \frac{I(x\in {\mathcal{X}}_k)}{\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X = x)}.\]
This justifies the calibration term \eqref{eq:mondrian_eta} in the weighted Mondrian conformal inference. Since the weighted Mondrian conformal inference is a special case of Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split}, it also enjoys the double robustness property, implied by Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness} in Section \ref{app:double_robustness} in the Appendix.
\subsection{Survival counterfactual prediction}\label{subsec:causal}
The proposed method in this paper is designed for a single cohort. In practice, patients are often exposed to multiple conditions, and the goal is to predict the counterfactual survival times had the cohort been exposed to a different condition. For example, a clinical study typically involves a treatment group and a control group. For a new patient, it is of interest to predict her survival time had she been assigned the treatment. For uncensored outcomes, \cite{lei2020conformal} proposed a method based on weighted conformal inference for counterfactual prediction under the potential outcome framework \citep{neyman1923application, rubin1974estimating}. We can extend their strategy to handle censored outcomes and apply it to the survival counterfactual prediction.
Suppose each patient has a pair of potential survival times
$(T(1), T(0))$, where $T(1)$ (resp. $T(0)$) denotes the survival time
had the patient been assigned into the treatment (resp. control)
group. Our goal is to construct a calibrated LPB on $T(1)$, given
i.i.d.~observations $(X_i, W_i, C_i, T_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ with $W_i$
denoting the treatment assignment and
\[T_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
T_i(1), & W_i = 1,\\
T_i(0), & W_i = 0.
\end{array}
\right.\]
Without further assumptions on the correlation structures between $T(1)$ and $T(0)$, it is natural to conduct inference based on the observed treated group since the control group contains no information about $T(1)$. The joint distribution of $(X, T(1)\wedge c_0)$ on this group becomes
\[(X, T(1)\wedge c_0) \mid C\ge c_0, W = 1~\sim~P_{X\mid C\ge c_0, W = 1}\times P_{T(1)\wedge c_0 \mid X, C\ge c_0, W = 1}.\]
Under the assumption that $(T(1), T(0))\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} (W, C) \mid X$, the conditional distribution of $T(1)\wedge c_0$ matches the target:
\[P_{T(1)\wedge c_0 \mid X, C\ge c_0, W = 1} = P_{T(1)\wedge c_0\mid X}.\]
The assumption is a combination of the strong ignorability assumption \citep{rubin1978bayesian}, a widely accepted starting point in causal inference, and the conditionally independent censoring assumption.
The density ratio of
the two covariate distributions can be characterized by
\[w(x) = \frac{dP_{X\mid C\ge c_0, W = 1}}{dP_{X}}(x)\propto \frac{1}{\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0, W = 1\mid X = x)}.\]
In many applications, it is plausible to further assume that $C\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} W\mid X$. In this case,
\[\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0, W = 1\mid X = x) = \mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X = x)\mathbb{P}(W = 1\mid X = x),\]
where the first term is the censoring mechanism and the second term is the propensity score \citep{rosenbaum1983central}. Therefore, we can obtain calibrated LPBs on counterfactual survival times if both the censoring mechanism and the propensity score are known. This assumption is often plausible for randomized clinical trials. Furthermore, it has a doubly robust guarantee of coverage that is similar to Theorems \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}.
\subsection{Survival analysis}
Survival times are not always observed due to censoring
\citep{leung1997censoring}. A main goal of survival analysis is to
infer the survival function---the probability that a patient will
survive beyond any specified time---from censored data. The
Kaplan-Meier curve \citep{kaplan1958nonparametric} produces such an
inference when the population under study is a group of patients with
certain characteristics. On the positive side, the Kaplan-Meier curve
does not make any assumption on the distribution of survival times. On
the negative side, it can only be applied to a handful of
subpopulations because it requires sufficiently many events in each
subgroup \citep{kalbfleisch2011statistical}. More often than not, the
scientist has available multiple categorical and continuous
covariates, and it thus becomes of interest to understand
heterogeneity by studying the conditional survival function; that is,
the dependence on the available factors. In the conditional
setting, however, distribution-free inference for the conditional
survival function gets to be challenging. Standard approaches make
parametric or nonparametric assumptions about the distribution of the
covariates and that of the survival times conditional on covariate
values. A well-known example is of course the celebrated Cox model
which posits a proportional hazards model in which an unspecified
nonparametric base line is modified via a parametric model describing
how the hazard varies in response to explanatory covariates
\citep{cox1972regression, breslow1975analysis}. Other popular models,
such as accelerated failure time (AFT) \citep{cox1972regression,
wei1992accelerated} and proportional odds models
\citep{murphy1997maximum, harrell2015regression}, also combine
nonparametric and parametric model specifications.
As medical technologies produce ever larger and more complex clinical
datasets, we have witnessed a rapid development of machine learning
methods adapted to high-dimensional and heterogeneous survival data
\citep[e.g.,][]{verweij1993cross, faraggi1995neural,
tibshirani1997lasso, gui2005penalized, hothorn2006survival,
zhang2007adaptive, ishwaran2008random, witten2010survival,
goeman2010l1, simon2011regularization, katzman2016deep, lao2017deep,
wang2019machine, li2020censored}. An appealing feature of these
methods is that they typically do not make modeling
assumptions.
To quote from \cite{efron2020prediction}: ``
Neither surface nor noise is required as input to randomForest, gbm,
or their kin.''
The downside is that it is often challenging to
quantify the uncertainty for these methods. To be sure, blind
application of off-the-shelf uncertainty quantification tools, such as
the bootstrap \citep{efron1979bootstrap, efron1994introduction}, can
yield unreliable results since their validity 1) rests on implicit
modeling assumptions, and 2) holds only asymptotically
\citep[e.g.,][]{lei2020conformal,
ratkovic2021estimation}.
\subsection{Prediction intervals}
For decision-making in sensitive and uncertain environments---think of
the COVID-19 pandemic---it is preferable to produce prediction
intervals for the \emph{uncensored} survival time with guaranteed
coverage rather than point predictions. In this regard, the use of
$(1-\alpha)$ prediction intervals is an effective way of summarizing
what can be learned from the available data; wide intervals reveal a
lack of knowledge and keep overconfidence at arm's length. Here and
below, an interval is said to be a $(1-\alpha)$ prediction interval if
it has the property that it contains the true label, here, the
survival time, at least $100(1-\alpha)$\% of the time (a formal
definition is in Section 2). Prediction intervals have been widely
studied in statistics \citep[e.g.,][]{wilks1941determination,
wald1943extension, aitchison1980statistical, stine1985bootstrap,
geisser1993predictive, vovk2005algorithmic,
krishnamoorthy2009statistical} and much research has been concerned
with the construction of covariate-dependent intervals.
Of special interest is the subject of conformal inference, a generic
procedure that can be used in conjunction with sophisticated machine
learning prediction algorithms to produce prediction intervals with
valid marginal coverage without making any distributional assumption
whatsoever \citep[e.g.,][]{saunders1999transduction, vovk2002line,
vovk2005algorithmic, lei2014distribution,
tibshirani2019conformal}. While coverage is only guaranteed in a
marginal sense, it has been theoretically proved and empirically observed that some conformal
prediction methods can also achieve near conditional coverage---that
is, coverage assuming a fixed value of the covariates---when some key
parameters of the underlying conditional distribution can be estimated
reasonably well \citep[e.g.,][]{sesia2020comparison,
lei2020conformal}.
\subsection{Our contribution}
Standard conformal inference requires fully observed outcomes and is
not directly applicable to samples with censored outcomes. In this
paper, we extend conformal inference to handle right-censored outcomes
in the setting of Type-I censoring
\citep[e.g.,][]{leung1997censoring}. This setting assumes that the
censoring time is observed for every unit while the outcome is only
observed for uncensored units. In particular, we generate a
covariate-dependent lower prediction bound (LPB) on the uncensored
survival time, which can be regarded as a one-sided
$(1-\alpha)$-prediction interval. As we just argued, the LPB is a
conservative assessment of the survival time, which is particularly
desirable for high-stakes decision-making. A low LPB value suggests
either
a high risk for the patient, or a high degree of uncertainty for
similar patients due to data scarcity. Either way, the signal to a
decision-maker is that the patient deserves some attention.
Under the completely independent censoring assumption\space defined below, which states that the censoring
time is independent of both the outcome and covariates, our LPB
provably yields a $(1-\alpha)$ prediction interval. This property
holds in finite samples \emph{without any assumption other than that
of operating on i.i.d.~samples}. Under the more general
conditionally independent censoring assumption\space introduced later, our LPB satisfies a \emph{doubly
robust} property which states the following: marginal coverage is
approximately guaranteed if either the censoring mechanism or the
conditional survival function is estimated well. In the latter case,
the LPB even has approximately guaranteed conditional coverage.
Readers familiar with conformal inference would notice that the above
guarantees can be achieved by simply applying conformal inference to
the censored outcomes, i.e., by constructing an LPB on the censored
outcome treated as the response. This unsophisticated approach is
conservative. Instead, we will see how to provide tighter bounds and
sharper inference by applying conformal inference on a subpopulation
with large censoring times; that is, on which censored outcomes are
closer to actual outcomes. To achieve this, we shall see how to
carefully combine the selection of a subpopulation with ideas from
weighted conformal inference \citep{tibshirani2019conformal}.
Lastly, while we focus on clinical examples, it will be clear from our
exposition that our methods can be applied to other time-to-event
outcomes in a variety of other disciplines, such as industrial life
testing \citep{bain2017statistical}, sociology
\citep{allison1984event}, and economics \citep{powell1986censored,
hong2003inference, sant2016program}.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{introEC}
\section{Prediction intervals for survival times}
\label{sec:setup}
\input{setupEC}
\section{Conformal inference for censored outcomes}
\label{sec:method}
\input{methodEC}
\section{Simulation studies}
\label{sec:sim}
\input{simulationEC}
\section{Application to UK Biobank COVID-19 data}
\label{sec:application}
\input{applicationEC}
\section{Discussion and extensions}
\label{sec:discussion}
\input{discussionEC}
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
E. C. was supported by Office of Naval Research grant N00014-20-12157,
by the National Science Foundation grants OAC 1934578 and DMS 2032014,
by the Army Research Office (ARO) under grant W911NF-17-1-0304, and by
the Simons Foundation under award 814641. L.~L.~and Z.~R.~were
supported by the same NSF OAC grant and by the Discovery Innovation
Fund for Biomedical Data Sciences. L.L.~was also supported by NIH
grant R01MH113078. The authors are grateful to Steven Goodman, Lucas Janson, Ying Jin, Yan Min,
Chiara Sabatti, Matteo Sesia, Lu Tian and Steve Yadlowsky for their
constructive feedback. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 27837.
\bibliographystyle{rss}
\subsection{Weighted conformal inference}\label{subsec:weighted_conformal_inference}
Returning to \eqref{eq:subpopulation_dist} and
\eqref{eq:whole_population_dist}, the goal is to construct an LPB
$\hat{L}(\cdot)$ on $T\wedge c_0$ from training samples
$(X_i, \tilde{T}_i\wedge c_0)_{C_i\ge c_0} = (X_i, T_i\wedge c_0)_{C_i\ge
c_0}$ such that
\[
\mathbb{P}\big(T\wedge c_0\ge \hat{L}(X)\big)\ge 1 - \alpha.
\]
Since $T\wedge c_0\le T$, $\hat{L}(\cdot)$ is a calibrated LPB on
$T$. We consider $c_0$ to be a fixed threshold in Section
\ref{subsec:weighted_conformal_inference} and
\ref{subsec:double_robustness}, and discuss a data-adaptive approach
to choosing this threshold in Section \ref{subsec:c0}.
To deal with covariate shifts, \citet{tibshirani2019conformal}
introduced weighted conformal inference, which extends standard
conformal inference \citep[e.g.,][]{vovk2005algorithmic,
shafer2008tutorial, lei2014distribution,
foygel2019limits,barber2019predictive,sadinle2019least,
romano2020classification,cauchois2020knowing}). Imagine we have
i.i.d.~training samples $(X_i, Y_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ drawn from a
distribution $P_{X}\times P_{Y\mid X}$ and wish to construct
prediction intervals for test points drawn from the target
distribution $Q_X \times P_{Y\mid X}$ (in standard conformal
inference, $P_X = Q_X$). Assuming $w(x) = dQ_{X}(x)/dP_{X}(x)$ is
known, then weighted conformal inference produces prediction intervals
$\hat{C}(\cdot)$ with the property
\begin{align}\label{eq:covshift_cover}
\mathbb{P}_{(X,Y)\sim Q_{X} \times P_{Y\mid X}}
\big(Y\in\hat{C}(X)\big)\ge 1 - \alpha.
\end{align}
Above, the probability is computed over both the training set and the
test point $(X, Y)$. In our case, the outcome is $T\wedge c_0$ and
the covariate shift $w(x) = \mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0) / \c(x)$, as shown in
\eqref{eq:covariate_shift}.
\revise{In Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split}, we sketched a version
of weighted conformal inference based on data splitting, which is
adapted to our setting and has low computational
overhead. Operationally, it has three main steps:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item split the data into a training and a calibration fold;
\item apply any prediction algorithm on the training fold to generate
a \emph{conformity score} indicating how atypical a value of the
outcome is given observed covariate values;
here, we generate a conformity score such that a large value indicates a
lack of conformity to training data.
\item calibrate the predicted outcome by the distribution of
conformity scores on the calibration fold. In the calibration step
from Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split}, $\mathrm{Quantile}(1 - \alpha; Q)$
is the $(1-\alpha)$ quantile of the distribution $Q$ defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:quantile}
\mathrm{Quantile}(1 - \alpha; Q) = \sup\{z: Q(Z\le z) < 1 - \alpha\}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoLined
\BlankLine
\caption{\revise{conformalized survival analysis}\label{algo:weighted_split}}
\textbf{Input:} level $\alpha$; \revise{data ${\mathcal{Z}}=(X_i,{\widetilde{T}}_i,C_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}$}; testing point $x$;\\
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}function $V(x,y;{\mathcal{D}})$ to compute the conformity score between $(x,y)$ and
data ${\mathcal{D}}$; \\
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}function $\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{D}})$ to fit the weight function at $x$ using
${\mathcal{D}}$ as data;\\
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}function ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{D}})$ to select the threshold $c_0$ using
${\mathcal{D}}$ as data.\;
\vspace*{.3cm}
\textbf{Procedure:}\\
\vspace*{.1cm}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}1. Split ${\mathcal{Z}}$ into a training fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}} \triangleq (X_i,Y_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{tr}}}$ and a calibration fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{ca}} \triangleq (X_i,Y_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\text{ca}}}$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}\revise{2. Select $c_0 = {\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}})$ and let ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}' =
\{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}: C_i \ge c_0\}$.}\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}3. For each $i\in {\mathcal{I}}'_{\text{ca}}$, compute the conformity score
\revise{$V_i = V(X_i,{\widetilde{T}}_i \wedge c_0;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})$}.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}4. For each $i\in{\mathcal{I}}'_{\text{ca}}$, compute the weight $W_i = \hat{w}(X_i;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})\in [0, \infty)$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}5. Compute the weights $\hat{p}_i(x) = \frac{W_i}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}'_{\text{ca}}}W_i +\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}$
and $\hat{p}_{\infty}(x) = \frac{\hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}{\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}'_{\text{ca}}}W_i + \hat{w}(x;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}})}$.\;
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}6. Compute $\eta(x) = \mathrm{Quantile}\left(1 - \alpha; \sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}'_{\text{ca}}}
\hat{p}_i(x)\delta_{V_i} + \hat{p}_{\infty}(x)\delta_{\infty}\right)$.\;
\vspace*{.3cm}
\textbf{Output}: $\hat{L}(x) = \inf\{y: V(x,y;{\mathcal{Z}}_{\text{tr}}) \le \eta(x) \}\revise{\wedge c_0}$
\end{algorithm}
A few comments regarding Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split} are in
order. First, when the covariate shift $w(x)$ is unknown, it can be
estimated using the training fold. Second, note that in step 4, if
$\hat{w}(x; {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{tr}}) = \infty$, then
$\hat{p}_{i}(x) = 0\,\, (i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{ca}})$ and
$\hat{p}_{\infty}(x) = 1$. In this case, step 5 gives
$\hat{L}(x) = -\infty$. Third, the requirement that
$W_i\in [0, \infty)$ is natural because $X_{i}\sim P_{X}$ and
$w(X)\in [0, \infty)$ almost surely under $P_{X}$ even if $Q_{X}$ is
not absolutely continuous with respect to $P_{X}$. Fourth, it is worth
mentioning in passing that $\eta(x)$ is invariant to positive
rescalings of $\hat{w}(x)$. Thus, we can set $w(x) = 1 / \hat{\c}(x)$
in our case where $\hat{c}(x)$ is an estimate of $\c(x)$.
\revise{Finally, apart from fitting $V(\cdot, \cdot; \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr})$ and
$\hat{w}(\cdot; \mathcal{Z}_\mathrm{tr})$ once on the training fold, the additional
computational cost of our algorithm comes from computing
$|{\mathcal{I}}'_{\mathrm{ca}}|$ conformity scores and finding the $(1-\alpha)$-th
quantile. We provide a detailed analysis of time complexity in
Section~\ref{sec:time_comp} of the Appendix.}
In the algorithm, the conformity score function $V(x, y; {\mathcal{D}})$ can
be arbitrary and we discuss three popular choices from the literature:
\begin{itemize}
\item Conformalized mean regression (CMR) scores are defined via
$V(x, y; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) = \hat{m}(x)- y$, where $\hat{m}(\cdot)$ is an
estimate of the conditional mean of $Y$ given $X$. The resulting LPB
is then $(\hat{m}(x) - \eta(x))\wedge c_0$. This is the one-sided version of the
conformity score used in \cite{vovk2005algorithmic} and
\cite{lei2014distribution}.
\item Conformalized quantile regression (CQR) scores are
defined via $V(x, y; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) = \hat{q}_{\alpha}(x) - y$, where
$\hat{q}_\alpha(\cdot)$ is an estimate of the conditional
$\alpha$-th quantile of $Y$ given $X$. The resulting LPB is then
$(\hat{q}_\alpha(x) - \eta(x))\wedge c_0$. This score was proposed by
\cite{romano2019conformalized}; it is more adaptive than CMR and
usually has better conditional coverage.
\item Conformalized distribution regression (CDR) scores
are defined via
$V(x, y; {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}) = \alpha - \hat{F}_{Y\mid X = x}(y)$, where
$\hat{F}_{Y\mid X = x}(\cdot)$ is an estimate of the conditional
distribution of $Y$ given $X$. The resulting LPB is then
$\hat{F}_{Y\mid X = x}^{-1}(\alpha - \eta(x))\wedge c_0$, or equivalently, the
$(\alpha - \eta(x))$-th quantile of the estimated conditional
distribution. This score was proposed by
\cite{chernozhukov2019distributional}. It is particularly suitable
to our problem because most survival analysis methods estimate
the whole conditional distribution.
\end{itemize}
Under the completely independent censoring assumption, $\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X) = \mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0)$ almost surely. As a consequence, we can set $\hat{w}(x) = w(x) \equiv 1$ and obtain a calibrated LPB without any distributional assumption.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:exact_LPB}[Corollary 1 of \cite{tibshirani2019conformal}]
Let $c_0$ be any threshold independent of ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}$. Consider
Algorithm \ref{algo:weighted_split} with $Y_i = T_i\wedge c_0$ and
$\hat{w}(x; {\mathcal{D}})\equiv 1$. Under the completely independent censoring assumption, $\hat{L}(X)$ is
calibrated.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Doubly robust lower prediction bounds}
\label{subsec:double_robustness}
Under the more general conditionally independent censoring assumption, the censoring mechanism needs to be
estimated. We can apply any distributional regression techniques such
as the kernel method or the newly invented distribution boosting
\citep{friedman2020contrast} to estimate
$\c(x) = \mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X = x)$. For two-sided weighted split-CQR,
\cite{lei2020conformal} prove that the intervals satisfy a doubly
robust property which states the following: the average coverage is
guaranteed if either the covariate shift or the conditional quantiles
are estimated well, and the conditional coverage is approximately
controlled if the latter is true. In Section \ref{app:double_robustness}
in the Appendix, \revise{we present more general results, both
non-asymptotic and asymptotic, that are applicable to a broad
class of conformity scores proposed by \cite{gupta2019nested},
including the CMR-, CQR- and CDR-based scores.}
In this section, we first present a version of the asymptotic result
tailored to the CQR-LPB for simplicity.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:double_robustness_CQR}
Let $N = |{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}|, n = |{\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}|$, $c_0$ be any threshold
independent of ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}$, and $q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$ denote the $\alpha$-th conditional quantile of
$T\wedge c_0$ given $X = x$. Further,
let $\hat{\c}(x)$ and $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$ be estimates of $\c(x)$ and $q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$ respectively using ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$, and $\hat{L}(x)$ be the corresponding
CQR-LPB. Assume that there exists $\delta > 0 $ such that
$\mathbb{E}\left[1 / \hat{\c}(X)^{1 + \delta}\right] < \infty$ and
$\mathbb{E}[1 / \c(X)^{1 + \delta}] < \infty$. Suppose that either A1 or A2
(or both) holds:
\begin{enumerate}[label = A\arabic*]
\item $\underset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\lim} \mathbb{E}\Big[ \big|1 / \hat{\c}(X) - 1 / \c(X) \big|\Big] = 0$.
\item \begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item There exists $b_2 > b_1 > 0$ and $r > 0$ such that, for any $x$ and $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\revise{\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) + \varepsilon\mid X = x)\in {[}1 - \alpha - b_2\varepsilon, 1 - \alpha - b_1 \varepsilon{]}, \quad \text{if }q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) + \varepsilon < c_{0}.\]}
\item $\underset{N\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}(X) / \hat{c}(X)\right] =
\underset{N\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}(X) / c(X)\right] = 0$, where ${\mathcal{E}}(x) = |\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq:double_robust_marginal_LPB}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow\infty} \mathbb{P}\left( T\wedge c_0\ge \hat{L}(X)\right) \ge 1 - \alpha.
\end{align}
Furthermore, under A2, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:conditional_coverage_LPB}
\lim_{N,n\rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{P}\Big(\mathbb{E}\big[\mathbf{1}\big\{T\wedge c_0\ge \hat{L}(X)\big\} \mid X\big] > 1-\alpha-\varepsilon \Big) = 1.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\revise{
\begin{remark}
The condition A2 (i) holds if $\,T$ has a bounded and absolutely
continuous density conditional on $X$ in a neighborhood of
$q_{\alpha}(x)$. In fact, noting that
$q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) = q_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0$, when
$q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) + \varepsilon \le c_0$, we have
$q_{\alpha}(x) \le c_0$ and thus
$T\wedge c_0 \ge q_{\alpha}(x) \wedge c_0$ if and only if
$T\ge q_{\alpha}(x)$.
\end{remark}
}
Intuitively, if $\hat{c}(x)\approx c(x)$, then the procedure
approximates the oracle version of weighted split-CQR with the true
weights, and the LPBs should be approximately calibrated. On the other
hand, if $\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0)\approx q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$, then
$V_i \approx q_{\alpha}(X_i; c_0) - T_i\wedge c_0$. As a result,
\[\mathbb{P}(V_i \le 0\mid X_i)\approx \mathbb{P}(T_i\wedge c_0\le q_{\alpha}(X_i; c_0)\mid X_i) = \alpha.\]
Thus, the $(1 - \alpha)$-th quantile of the $V_i$'s conditional on
${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$ is approximately $0$. To keep on going, recall that
$\eta(x)$ is the $(1 - \alpha)$-th quantile of the random distribution
$\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}\hat{p}_{i}(x)\delta_{V_i} +
\hat{p}_{\infty}(x)\delta_{\infty}$, and set $G$ to be the cumulative
distribution function of this random distribution. Then,
\[G(0) \approx \mathbb{E}[G(0)\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}] = \sum_{i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}\hat{p}_i(x)\mathbb{P}(V_i\le 0\mid {\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr})\approx \sum_{i\in {\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{ca}}}\hat{p}_i(x)(1 - \alpha)\approx 1 - \alpha,\]
implying that $\eta(x)\approx 0$. Therefore, $\hat{L}(x)\approx q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$, which approximately achieves the desired conditional coverage.
With the same intuition, we can establish a similar result for the
CDR-LPB with a slightly more complicated version of Assumption
A2.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:double_robustness_CDR}
Let $F(\cdot\mid x)$ denote the conditional distribution of $T\wedge c_0$ given $X = x$. With the same settings and assumptions as in Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}, the same conclusions hold if A2 is replaced by the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item there exists $r > 0$ such that, for any $x$ and $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\revise{\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge q_{\alpha + \varepsilon}(x; c_0)\mid X = x) = 1 - \alpha - \varepsilon, \quad \text{if }q_{\alpha + \varepsilon}(x; c_0) < c_0.\]}
\item $\underset{N\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}(X) / \hat{c}(X)\right] =
\underset{N\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathcal{E}}(X) / c(X)\right] = 0$, where
\[{\mathcal{E}}(x) = \sup_{s\in [\alpha - r, \alpha + r]}|F(\hat{q}_{s}(x; c_0) \mid x) - F(q_{s}(x; c_0)\mid x)|.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The double robustness of weighted split conformal inference has some
appeal; indeed, the researcher can leverage knowledge about both the
conditional survival function and the censoring mechanism without any
concern for which is more accurate. Suppose the Cox model is adequate
in a randomized clinical trial; then it can be used to produce
$\hat{q}_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$ in conjunction with the known censoring
mechanism. If the model is indeed correctly specified, the LPB is
conditionally calibrated, as are classical prediction intervals
derived from the Cox model \citep{kalbfleisch2011statistical}; if the
model is misspecified, however, the LPB is still calibrated.
\revise{
\begin{remark}
A special case is when the completely independent censoring
assumption holds, yet the researcher is unaware of this and still
applies the estimated $\hat{c}(\cdot)$ to obtain the prediction
intervals. As implied by Theorem~\ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}
and~\ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}, if $\hat{c}(\cdot)$ is
approximately a constant function, the prediction interval is
approximately calibrated. Notably, even if $\hat{c}(\cdot)$
deviates from a constant, our prediction interval still achieves
coverage as long as the estimated weights are non-decreasing in
the conformity scores. We present this additional robustness
result in Section~\ref{appx:coverage_independent_censoring} of the
Appendix.
\end{remark}
}
\revise{ As a concluding remark, the prediction interval can become
numerically and statistically unstable in the presence of extreme
weights since the proposed method depends on $c(x)$ (or the
estimated $\hat{c}(x)$) through its inverse. The reader may have
observed that $c(x)$ plays a role similar to that of the propensity
score in causal inference; the reweighting step in Algorithm
\ref{algo:weighted_split} is analogous to inverse propensity score
weighting-type methods. Assumption A1 in Theorem
\ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} mimics the overlap condition
\citep[e.g.][]{d2021overlap} in the causal inference
literature. That said, there is a crucial difference. In a typical
causal setting, the overlap condition is an assumption about the
unknown data generating process, which cannot be manipulated. In
contrast, in our work Assumption A1 can always be satisfied by
selecting a sufficiently low threshold $c_0$.
We provide a detailed discussion in
Section~\ref{appx:c_up} of the Appendix.}
\revise{\subsection{Adaptivity to high-quality modeling} We have seen
that when the quantiles of survival times are well estimated,
$\hat{L}(x)\approx q_{\alpha}(x; c_0)$, which is the oracle lower
prediction bound for $T\wedge c_0$, had the true survival function
been known. This holds without knowing whether the survival model is
well estimated or not. This suggests that conformalized survival
analysis has favorable adaptivity properties, as formalized below.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:adaptivity}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Under the settings and assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR}, assume further that A2 (ii) holds and a modified version of A2 (i) holds: there exists $b_1 > 0$ and $r > 0$ such that, for any $x$ and $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge q_{\alpha}(x; c_0) - \varepsilon\mid X = x)\ge 1 - \alpha + b_1 \varepsilon.\]
Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}(\hat{L}(X) \ge q_{\alpha}(X; c_0) - \varepsilon) = 1.\]
\item Under the settings and assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}, assume further the condition (ii) and the modified version of condition (i): there exists $r > 0$ such that, for any $x$ and $\varepsilon \in [0, r]$,
\[\mathbb{P}(T\wedge c_0\ge q_{\alpha - \varepsilon}(x; c_0)\mid X = x) \ge 1 - \alpha + \varepsilon.\]
Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[\lim_{N, n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}_{X\sim Q_X}(\hat{L}(X) \ge q_{\alpha - \varepsilon}(X; c_0)) = 1.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In theory, if $c_0$ is allowed to grow with $n$ and $C$ exceeds
$c_0$ with sufficient probability, then
$\hat{L}(x)\approx q_{\alpha}(x)$ (see Appendix
\ref{app:adaptivity}). In practice, it would however be wiser to
tune $c_0$ in a data-adaptive fashion (discussed in the next
subsection) than to prescribe a predetermined growing sequence. }
\subsection{Choice of threshold}
\label{subsec:c0}
The threshold $c_0$ induces an estimation-censoring tradeoff: a larger
$c_0$ mitigates the censoring effect, closing the gap between the target
outcome $T$ and the operating outcome $T\wedge c_0$, but reduces
the sample size to estimate the censoring mechanism and the
conditional survival function. It is thus important to pinpoint the
optimal value of $c_0$ to maximize efficiency.
To avoid double-dipping, we choose $c_0$ on the training fold
${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$. In this way, $c_0$ is independent of the calibration fold
${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}$ and we are not using the same data twice. In particular,
Proposition \ref{prop:exact_LPB}, Theorem
\ref{thm:double_robustness_CQR} and \ref{thm:double_robustness_CDR}
all apply. Concretely, we (1) set a grid of values for $c_0$, (2)
randomly sample a holdout set from ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$, (3) apply Algorithm
\ref{algo:weighted_split} on the rest of ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$ for each value of
$c_0$ to generate LPBs for each unit in the holdout set, and (4)
select $c_0$ which maximizes the average LPBs on the holdout set. One
way to see all of this is to pretend that the training fold is the
whole dataset and measure efficiency as the average realized LPBs. In
practice, we choose $25\%$ units from ${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{tr}$ as the holdout
set. The procedure is convenient to implement, though it is by no
means the most powerful approach.
\revise{Under suitable conditions, we can choose $c_0$ by using the
calibration fold ${\mathcal{Z}}_{\mathrm{ca}}$ and have the resulting LPBs still be
(approximately) calibrated. To be specific, given a candidate set
${\mathcal{C}}$ for $c_0$, we simply maximize the average LPB on
${\mathcal{Z}}_\mathrm{ca}$:
\begin{align*}
\hat{c}_0 = \argmax{c_0 \in {\mathcal{C}}}~\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}|}
\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{ca}}} \hat{L}_{c_0}(X_i),
\end{align*}
where $\hat{L}_{c_0}(X)$ is given by the conformalized survival
analysis with the threshold $c_0$. In Section~\ref{sec:uniform_c} of
the Appendix we derive uniform results for the $c_0$'s
in ${\mathcal{C}}$, and prove coverage guarantees for $L_{\hat{c}_0}(X)$ via a
generalization of the techniques for unweighted conformal inference by
\cite{yang2021finite}.}
\subsection{Problem setup}\label{subsec:setup}
Let $X_i, C_i, T_i$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, be respectively the vector of covariates, the censoring time, and the survival
time of the $i$-th
unit/patient. Throughout the paper, we assume that $(X_i, C_i, T_i)$
are i.i.d.~copies of the random vector $(X,C,T)$. We consider the
Type I right-censoring setting, where the observables for the $i$-th
unit include $X_i, C_i$, and the censored survival time ${\widetilde{T}}_i$,
defined as the minimum of the survival and censoring time:
\[{\widetilde{T}}_i = \min(T_i, C_i).\]
For instance, if $T_i$ measures the time lapse between the admission
into the hospital and death, and $C_i$ measures the time lapse between
the admission into the hospital and the day data analysis is
conducted, then ${\widetilde{T}}_i = T_i$ if the $i$-th patient died before the
day of data analysis and ${\widetilde{T}}_i = C_i$ if she survives beyond that
day.
The censoring time $C$ partially masks information from the inferential target $T$. As discussed by \cite{leung1997censoring}, it is necessary to impose constraints on the dependence structure between $T$ and $C$ to enable meaningful inference. In particular, we make the following \textbf{conditionally independent censoring assumption} \citep[e.g.,][]{kalbfleisch2011statistical}:
\begin{assumption}[conditionally independent censoring]
\begin{align}\label{eq:conditional_independent_censoring}
T~\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$}~C\mid X.
\end{align}
\end{assumption}
This assumes away any unmeasured confounder affecting both the
survival and censoring time; please see immediately below for an
example. In some cases, we also consider the \textbf{completely independent censoring assumption}, which is stronger in the sense that it implies the former:
\begin{assumption}[completely independent censoring]
\begin{align}\label{eq:independent_censoring}
(T, X)~\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$}~C.
\end{align}
\end{assumption}
For instance, in a randomized clinical trial, the end-of-study
censoring time $C$ is defined as the time lapse between the
recruitment and the end of the study. For single-site trials, $C$ is
often modelled as a draw from an exogenous stochastic process
\citep[e.g.,][]{carter2004application, gajewski2008predicting} and
thus obeys \eqref{eq:independent_censoring}. For multicentral trials,
$C$ is often assumed to depend on the site location only
\citep[e.g.,][]{carter2005practical, anisimov2007modelling,
barnard2010systematic}, and thus
\eqref{eq:conditional_independent_censoring} holds as soon as the
vector of covariates includes the site of the trial. \revise{For an
observational study such as the COVID-19 example discussed later in
Section \ref{sec:application}, additional covariates would be
included to make the conditionally independent censoring assumption
plausible.}
Although \eqref{eq:conditional_independent_censoring} is a strong
assumption, it is a widely used starting point to study survival
analysis methods \citep{kalbfleisch2011statistical}. We leave the
investigation of informative censoring
\citep[e.g.,][]{lagakos1979general, wu1988estimation,
scharfstein2002estimation} to future research. Additionally, whereas
the setting of Type I censoring appears to be restrictive, we will
show in Section \ref{subsec:beyond} that an LPB in this setting can
still be informative for other censoring types.
\subsection{Naive lower prediction bounds}\label{subsec:naive}
Our ultimate goal is to generate a covariate-dependent LPB as a
conservative assessment of the uncensored survival time $T$. Denote by
$\hat{L}(\cdot)$ a generic LPB estimated from the observed data
$(X_i, C_i, {\widetilde{T}}_i)_{i=1}^{n}$. We say an LPB is \emph{calibrated} if
it satisfies the following coverage criterion:
\begin{align}\label{eq:marginal_criterion}
\mathbb{P}\big(T\ge \hat{L}(X)\big) \ge 1-\alpha,
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ is a pre-specified level (e.g., $0.1$), and the
probability is computed over both $\hat{L}(\cdot)$ and a future unit
$(X,C,T)$ that is independent of $(X_i,C_i,T_i)_{i=1}^{n}$.
Since ${\widetilde{T}}\le T$, any calibrated LPB on the censored survival time
${\widetilde{T}}$ is also a calibrated LPB on the uncensored survival time
$T$. Consequently, a naive approach is to discard the censoring time
$C_i$'s and construct an LPB on ${\widetilde{T}}$ directly. Since the samples
$(X_i, {\widetilde{T}}_i)$ are i.i.d., a distribution-free calibrated LPB on ${\widetilde{T}}$
can be obtained via standard techniques from conformal inference
\citep[e.g.,][]{vovk2005algorithmic, lei2018distribution,
romano2019conformalized}. Our first result is somewhat negative:
indeed, it states that all distribution-free calibrated LPBs on $T$
must be LPBs on ${\widetilde{T}}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:distribution_free}
Take $X\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and $C\ge 0$, $T\ge 0$. Assume that
$\hat{L}(\cdot)$ is a calibrated LPB on $T$ for all joint
distributions of $(X, C, T)$ obeying the conditionally independent censoring assumption ~with $X$ being
continuous and $(T, C)$ being continuous or discrete.
Then for any such
distribution,
\[\mathbb{P}({\widetilde{T}}\ge \hat{L}(X))\ge 1 - \alpha.\]
\end{theorem}
Our proof can be extended to include the case where either $C$ or $T$
or both are mixtures of discrete and continuous distributions but
we do not consider such extensions here.
An LPB constructed by taking ${\widetilde{T}}$ as the response may be calibrated
but also overly conservative because of the censoring mechanism. To
see this, note that the oracle LPB on ${\widetilde{T}}$ is, by definition, the $\alpha$-th
conditional quantile of ${\widetilde{T}} \mid X$, denoted by
$\tilde{q}_{\alpha}(X)$. Similarly, let $q_{\alpha}(X)$ be the oracle LPB
on $T$. Under the conditionally independent censoring assumption,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(T \ge q_{\alpha}(x)\mid X = x) = 1 - \alpha & = \mathbb{P}({\widetilde{T}} \ge \tilde{q}_{\alpha}(x)\mid X = x) \nonumber
\\ & = \mathbb{P}(T \ge \tilde{q}_{\alpha}(x)\mid X = x)\mathbb{P}(C \ge \tilde{q}_{\alpha}(x)\mid X = x). \label{eq:qqtd}
\end{align}
If the censoring times are small, the gap between
$\tilde{q}_{\alpha}(x)$ and $q_{\alpha}(x)$ can be large. For
illustration, assume that $X, C$, and $T$ are mutually independent,
and $T\sim \mathrm{Exp}(1), C\sim \mathrm{Exp}(b)$. It is easy to
show that $q_{\alpha}(X) = -\log(1 - \alpha)$ and
$\tilde{q}_{\alpha}(X) = -\log(1 - \alpha) / (1 + b)$. Thus, a naive
approach taking ${\widetilde{T}}$ as a target of inference can be arbitrarily
conservative.
In sum, Theorem \ref{thm:distribution_free} implies that any
calibrated LPB on $T$ must be a calibrated LPB on ${\widetilde{T}}$, under the
conditionally independent censoring assumption ~only. This is why to make progress and overcome the
limitations of the naive approach, we shall need additional
distributional assumptions.
\subsection{Leveraging the censoring mechanism}
We have just seen that the conservativeness of the naive approach is
driven by small censoring times. A heuristic way to mitigate this
issue is to discard units with small values of $C$. Consider a
threshold $c_0$, and extract the subpopulation on which $C \ge
c_0$. One immediate issue with this is that the selection induces a
distributional shift between the subpopulation and the whole
population, namely,
\[
(X, C, T) \stackrel{\textnormal{d}}{\neq} (X, C, T) \mid C \ge c_0.
\]
For instance, the patients with larger censoring times tend to be
healthier than the remaining ones. To examine the distributional shift
in detail, note that the joint distribution of $(X, {\widetilde{T}})$ on the
whole population is $P_{X}\times P_{{\widetilde{T}}\mid X}$ while that on the
subpopulation is
\[
P_{(X, {\widetilde{T}})\mid C\ge c_0} = P_{X\mid C \ge c_0}\times P_{{\widetilde{T}}\mid X,
C\ge c_{0}}.
\]
Next, observe that $P_{{\widetilde{T}}\mid X, C\ge c_{0}}\neq P_{{\widetilde{T}}\mid X}$ even
under the completely independent censoring assumption~because $(T, X)\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} C$ does not imply
${\widetilde{T}} \rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\models$} C\mid X$ in general. For example, as in Section
\ref{subsec:naive}, if $X, C$, and $T$ are mutually independent and
$T, C\stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim} \mathrm{Exp}(1)$, then
$\mathbb{P}({\widetilde{T}}\ge a, C\ge a) = \mathbb{P}({\widetilde{T}}\ge a) > \mathbb{P}({\widetilde{T}}\ge a)\mathbb{P}(C\ge a)$, for
any $a > 0$. As a result, both the covariate
distribution and the conditional distribution of ${\widetilde{T}}$ given $X$
differ in the two populations.
Now consider a secondary censored outcome ${\widetilde{T}}\wedge c_0$, where
$a\wedge b = \min\{a, b\}$. We have
\begin{align}
\nonumber
P_{(X, {\widetilde{T}}\wedge c_0)\mid C\ge c_0} = P_{X\mid C \ge c_0}\times P_{{\widetilde{T}}\wedge c_0\mid X, C\ge c_{0}} & \stackrel{(a)}{=} P_{X\mid C \ge c_0}\times P_{T\wedge c_0\mid X, C\ge c_{0}} \\
\label{eq:subpopulation_dist} & \stackrel{(b)}{=} P_{X\mid C \ge c_0}\times P_{T\wedge c_0\mid X},
\end{align}
where (a) uses the fact that
\[T\wedge c_0 = {\widetilde{T}} \wedge c_0, \,\,\text{ if } C\ge c_0,\]
and (b) follows from the conditionally independent censoring assumption. On the other hand, the joint distribution of $(X, T\wedge c_0)$ on the whole population is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:whole_population_dist}
P_{(X, T\wedge c_0)} = P_{X}\times P_{T\wedge c_0 \mid X}.
\end{align}
Contrasting \eqref{eq:subpopulation_dist} with
\eqref{eq:whole_population_dist}, we observe that {\em there is only a
covariate shift} between the subpopulation and the whole population.
The likelihood ratio between the two covariate distributions is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariate_shift}
\frac{dP_{X}}{dP_{X\mid C\ge c_0}}(x) = \frac{\mathbb{P}(C \ge c_0)}{\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X = x)}.
\end{equation}
\revise{While there is a distributional shift between the selected units and the target population, the special form of the covariate shift allows us to adjust for the bias by carefully reweighting the samples. In particular, }applying the one-sided version of weighted conformal inference
\citep{tibshirani2019conformal}, discussed in the next section, gives
a calibrated LPB on $T\wedge c_0$, and thus a calibrated LPB on
$T$. With sufficiently many units with large values of $C$, we can
choose a large threshold $c_0$ to reduce the loss of power caused by
censoring. We emphasize that there is no contradiction with Theorem
\ref{thm:distribution_free} because, as shown in Section
\ref{sec:method}, weighted conformal inference requires
$\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0 \mid X)$ to be (approximately) known.
We refer to the denominator $\mathbb{P}(C\ge c_0\mid X = x)$ in
\eqref{eq:covariate_shift} as the \emph{censoring mechanism}, denoted
by $\c(x; c_0)$. We write it as $\c(x)$ for brevity when no confusion
can arise. This is the conditional survival function of $C$ evaluated
at $c_0$. Under a censoring of Type I, the $C_i$'s are fully observed
while the $T_i$'s are only partially observed. Thus, $\mathbb{P}(C \mid X)$ is
typically far easier to estimate than $\mathbb{P}(T \mid X)$. Practically, the
censoring mechanism is usually far better understood than the
conditional survival function of $T$; for example, as mentioned in
Section \ref{subsec:setup}, in randomized clinical trials, $C$ often
solely depends on the site location.
Under the completely independent censoring assumption, the covariate shift even disappears since
$P_{X} = P_{X\mid C\ge c_0}$. In this case, we can apply a one-sided
version of conformal inference to obtain a calibrated LPB on
$T\wedge c_0$, and hence a calibrated LPB on $T$
\citep[e.g.,][]{vovk2005algorithmic, lei2018distribution,
romano2019conformalized}. With infinite samples, as
$c_0\rightarrow \infty$, the method is tight in the sense that the
censoring issue disappears. Again, this result does not contradict
Theorem \ref{thm:distribution_free}, which requires the LPB to be
calibrated under the weaker condition
\eqref{eq:conditional_independent_censoring}. With finite samples,
there is a tradeoff between the choice of the threshold $c_0$ and the
size of the induced subpopulation.
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of Private Information Retrieval (PIR) was first introduced by Chor \textit{et al.} in \cite{chor95}, and since then, the field has immensely grown \cite{henry11,shah14,sun17,sun17b,banawan18,kumar19,attia20}.
PIR systems allow a user to query a cluster of servers and retrieve the desired file without revealing any information about the desired file index to any of the individual servers.
The elemental setting of PIR considers the servers to be non-colluding i.e. the servers cannot cooperate with each other to recover information about the query.
PIR becomes important sometimes to protect users from surveillance, monitoring and profiling.
In such a scenario it becomes important that the querying of servers by the user does not leak any information about the user's requirements.
One can achieve privacy by downloading all the files.
Clearly, this is an inefficient method to achieve privacy.
A chief problem of PIR protocols is to achieve privacy efficiently.
Efficiency is typically measured in terms of the rate of the protocol.
The ratio of size of retrieved file to the amount to data downloaded is referred to as the PIR rate. A higher PIR rate signifies higher efficiency, and the highest achievable PIR rate is referred to as the PIR capacity. The reciprocal of PIR rate is referred to as download cost per bit and is a measure of number of bits that need to be downloaded to retrieve one bit of the desired file. The optimal download cost per bit is the lowest achievable download cost per bit.
\noindent
{\em Previous work.}
PIR protocols can store the files in a coded form or an uncoded form.
In the recent years there has been a growing interest in uncoded PIR due to the simplicity of encoding and decoding the files and also because they can offer competitive performances compared to coded protocols \cite{sun17,attia20,zhang19}.
In this paper we are interested in uncoded PIR protocols.
We consider a system of $N$ non-colluding servers, each storing $\frac{t}{N}$ fraction of each of the $F$ independent files.
The capacity of uncoded PIR from $N$ non-colluding, replicated databases, each storing all $F$ files completely was characterized by Sun and Jafar in \cite{sun17}.
They also provided a capacity achieving protocol for file sizes $L=N^{F}$.
Attia \textit{et al.} \cite{attia18} showed that, for any uncoded PIR scheme from storage constrained servers, the achievable rate $R$ is bounded above by $\big( 1+\frac{1}{t}+\dots+\frac{1}{t^{F-1}}\big)^{-1}$, where $F$ is the number of files in the system and every server stores fraction $\frac{t}{N}$ of each file, $N$ being the number of servers. The capacity achieving scheme they proposed requires a subpacketization of the file into $\binom{N}{t}$ pieces, which is exponential in the number of servers $N$.
Subsequently,
Zhang, \textit{et al.} \cite{zhang19}, improved upon the subpacketization and achieved capacity using a $t$ times smaller subpacketization, which is still exponential in the number of servers $N$.
\noindent
{\em Contributions. }
We propose a novel PIR protocol for uncoded systems storing a fraction of each file.
While the storage capacity is identical for the servers, they need not store the same content.
The proposed PIR protocol has two main components: a storage scheme and a retrieval scheme.
The storage scheme is based on combinatorial designs, more specifically tactical configurations,
while the retrieval scheme works by projecting the given system to multiple instances of smaller systems with replicated servers having full storage capacity.
It uses the retrieval scheme of \cite{sun17} for these smaller instances.
Our scheme is flexible and can easily accommodate a range of system parameters.
The proposed protocol also achieves linear subpacketization in contrast to the exponential subpacketization required in previous works \cite{attia18,zhang19}.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:bg}, we review the necessary background.
Then in Section~\ref{sec:prop-PIR}, we present our central result, namely a construction of PIR protocol.
We present the performance of our protocol in Section~\ref{sec:performance}. Finally we conclude and discuss further directions in Section~\ref{sec:conc}. %
\section{System Model}\label{sec:bg}
In this section, we review the system model for PIR systems and some relevant work.
We also provide a brief review of some necessary ideas from combinatorial design theory.
For a positive integer $n$, we
define $[n]\triangleq \{1, 2, \ldots, n \}$.
\subsection{Setup for PIR}
We consider a system of $N$ non-colluding servers storing $F$ independent files.
The servers are denoted as $\mathcal{S}_n$ where $n\in [N]$.
Each file is assumed to be of size $L$ bits.
The files are denoted as $W_i$, where $i\in [F]$.
As the files are independent we have $H(W_1,W_2,\dots,W_F) =\sum_{i=1}^n H(W_i) = F L$,
where $H(\cdot )$ denotes the entropy function.
We assume that the servers have identical storage capacity and every server stores
a fixed fraction $\mu \in [\frac{1}{N},1]$ of every file.
This fraction $\mu$ is called the normalized storage capacity of the server.
Therefore each server stores $\mu L$ bits of each file and a total of $\mu L F$ bits.
For simplicity we consider the case where $\mu$ is an integral multiple of $1/N$.
PIR protocols can be extended to other values of $\mu$ by memory sharing, see for instance \cite{attia20}.
We denote the content of server $S_n$ by $Z_{n}$, for any $n \in [N]$.
A system of $N$ non-colluding servers, storing $F$ files and having a normalized storage of $\mu$ is referred to as a $\mu$-$(F, N)$ system,
see Fig.~\ref{fig:pir-blockdiagram} for an illustration.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/PIR_figure.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=justified}
\caption{ A $\mu$-$(F, N )$ system with $N$ servers storing $F$ independent files.
The user generates an index $\theta \in [F]$ and a query $Q_n^{[\theta]}$ to each of the servers.
The server responds with an answer denoted as $A_n^{[\theta]}$.
The user recovers the requested file from all the answers.
} \label{fig:pir-blockdiagram}
\end{figure}
The PIR problem is described as follows. A user privately generates
an index $\theta \in [F]$ and wishes to retrieve file $W_\theta$, without revealing any information about $\theta$ to any of the individual servers.
This index $\theta$ is generated independent of the file content or the server contents.
To retrieve $W_\theta$, the user generates $N$ queries $Q_1^{[\theta]},Q_2^{[\theta]},\dots,Q_N^{[\theta]}$, where $Q_n^{[\theta]}$ is sent to server $\mathcal{S}_n, \;n\in [N]$.
Upon receiving these queries, each server $\mathcal{S}_n$ responds with an answer $A_n^{[\theta]}$, which is a deterministic function of the query and the contents stored on the server, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
H(A_n^{[\theta]}| Q_n^{[\theta]},Z_{n})=0, \text{ for all } n\in [N] \text{ and } \theta \in [F]. \label{eq:pir-constraint-0}
\end{equation}
In this work, we assume that the user requests a linear combination of bits stored on the server as the query.
The server responds by returning the value of the requested linear combination.
A PIR protocol must satisfy the following constraints:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
H(W_\theta | A_1^{[\theta]},\dots,A_N^{[\theta]},Q_1^{[\theta]},\dots,Q_N^{[\theta]})=0,\text{ for all }\theta \in [F]. \label{eq:pir-recovery}\\
I(\theta;Q_n^{[\theta]},A_n^{[\theta]},Z_n)=0, \;\;\forall n\in [N],\; \text{ for all } \theta \in [F] \label{eq:privacy-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The first condition \eqref{eq:pir-recovery} requires that
from the answers obtained form all the servers, the user must be able to correctly retrieve the desired file $W_\theta$.
The second condition \eqref{eq:privacy-condition} ensures privacy of request i.e.
the user does not reveal any information about the desired file index to any of the individual servers.
For any PIR protocol, the total size of all queries sent to the servers constitutes the upload cost and the amount of downloaded data constitutes the download cost.
The total cost of PIR is the sum of upload cost and download cost, with the later usually being the dominant contributor.
Thus, it is common to ignore the upload cost while quantifying the efficiency of a PIR protocol.
The following results are known regarding the capacity of PIR protocols.
\begin{theorem}[Attia {\em et al.} \cite{attia20}]{\label{th:cap-mu}}
For the $\mu$-$(F, N)$ system defined above, the optimal download cost per bit $D^\ast(\mu)$ (or the inverse of PIR capacity) is given by the lower convex hull of the following $(\mu,D^{*}(\mu))$ pairs, for $t=1,2,\dots,N$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg(\; \mu=\frac{t}{N},\; D^{*}(\mu)=\sum_{f=0}^{F-1} \frac{1}{t^f}\; \bigg).\label{eq:pir-capacity}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
For $\mu=1$, the optimal cost $D^{*}=\sum_{f=0}^{F-1}\frac{1}{N^f}$, which means the maximum achievable rate (capacity) $R^{*}=\big(1+\frac{1}{N}+\dots+\frac{1}{N^{F-1}}\big)^{-1}$, originally shown by Sun and Jafar in \cite[Theorem~1]{sun17}).
For comparison, the optimal download cost of PIR for a coded $\mu$-$(F, N)$ system using MDS codes was characterized by Tajeddine \textit{et al.} in \cite{tajeddine18}.
Using $(N, K)$ MDS codes they show that
\begin{eqnarray}
D^{*}(\mu_{MDS})=1+\frac{K}{N}+\frac{K^2}{N^2}+\dots +\frac{K^{F-1}}{N^{F-1}}\label{eq:pir-cap-mds}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_{MDS}=1/K$.
\subsection{Designs}
The storage scheme of the PIR protocol we propose in Section~\ref{sec:prop-PIR} is based on combinatorial designs.
So, we review some basic definitions and properties of combinatorial designs.
We refer the reader to \cite{stinson07} for more details.
\begin{definition}[Design]
A design is a pair $(X,\mathcal{A})$ such that the following are satisfied:
\begin{compactenum}[D1.]
\item $X$ is a set of elements called points.
\item $\mathcal{A}$ is a collection of non-empty subsets of $X$ called blocks.
\end{compactenum}
\end{definition}
A design can also be described in terms of a matrix called the incidence matrix.
We define this next.
\begin{definition}[Incidence Matrix]
Let $(X,\mathcal{A})$ be a design where $X=\{ x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{v}\}$ and $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1,A_2,\dots,A_{b}\}$. The incidence matrix of $(X,\mathcal{A})$ is the $v \times b$ binary matrix $M=(M_{ij})$ defined by the rule
\begin{equation}
M_{ij} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if } x_i \in A_j \\
0 & \mbox{if } x_i \notin A_j
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:incidence-matrix}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Of particular interest to us are a class of designs called tactical configurations.
\begin{definition}[Tactical configuration]
A ($v,k,b,r$)-configuration, also known as tactical configuration is a design with $v$ points and $b$ blocks, each containing $k$ points. Also, each point is contained in the same number of blocks $r$, called the repetition number.
\end{definition}
In \cite{bill}, it was shown that the necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a ($v,k,b,r$)-configuration is
\begin{equation}
b k=v r, \text{ where } v,k,b,r \in \mathbb{Z}^{+} \label{existence config}
\end{equation}
The incidence matrix $M$ of a ($v,k,b,r$)-configuration has some useful structure:
\begin{compactenum}[(i)]
\item Each row of $M$ has exactly $r$ ones.
\item Each column of $M$ has exactly $k$ ones.
\end{compactenum}
\section{PIR Protocol from Designs} \label{sec:prop-PIR}
In this section we explain the storage and retrieval schemes for the proposed protocol with examples. We prove that the protocol is both private and correct. Also, we characterize the rate and subpacketization for the proposed protocol.
\subsection{Proposed PIR protocol}
Given a system with $N$ servers, each with a normalized storage $\mu=t/N$ and a set of $F$ independent files, the storage scheme is given as follows:
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Storage scheme for proposed PIR protocol\\\textbf{Input}: $N,t$\\\textbf{Output}: $Z_n$, $\text{ for all } n\in [N]$ }
{\label{alg:storage}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Construct a ($v,k,b,r$)-configuration with $b=N$ and $r=t$. Denote the ${v \times b}$ incidence matrix of this configuration by $M$ whose $(i, j)$th entry is given by $M_{ij}$.
\STATE Divide each file $W_i$, for $i \in [F]$, into $v$ subfiles. Denote them as
$W_{ij}$ where $j \in [v]$.
Each subfile $W_{ij} $ is of size $L/v$ bits.
\STATE For all $i\in [F]$ and $j\in [v]$ store the subfile $W_{ij}$ on server $\mathcal{S}_n$ if $M_{jn}=1$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Note that each server stores $k$ out of the $v$ subfiles for each file (since each column of $M$ has exactly $k$ ones).
Thus, the normalized storage of each server is $\mu=k/v=r/b=t/N$.
Let $\mathcal{S}(W_{i j})$ be the subset of servers that store the subfile $W_{i j}$ for a fixed $i, j$ where $i\in[F], j\in [v]$.
Each subfile $W_{ij}$ is present on exactly $t$ servers (since each row of $M$ has exactly $r=t$ ones).
In other words, $|\mathcal{S}(W_{i j})|=t$.
For any fixed $j\in [v]$, we denote the part of the $Z_n$ containing the $j^{th}$ subfiles $W_{ij}$ as $Z_n^{[j]}$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Retrieval scheme for proposed PIR protocol\\\textbf{Input}: $\theta$\\\textbf{Output}: $W_\theta$ }
{\label{alg:recovery}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE For all $j\in [v]$, consider the system $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$, which is a 1-($F,t$) system storing $W_{ij}$, $i\in [F]$.
\STATE Using the protocol in \cite{sun17}, generate queries $Q_n^{[\theta j]}$, for all $ \mathcal{S}_n\in \mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
\STATE Using the answers $A_n^{[\theta j]}$ retrieve all bits of desired file $W_{\theta j}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Correctness and privacy of the proposed protocol}
Suppose the user wants to retrieve the file $W_\theta$.
To retrieve file $W_\theta$, the user needs to retrieve all the subfiles $W_{\theta j}$ for $j \in[v]$.
We can break it down into $v$ instances of retrieval of the subfiles of $W_\theta$.
The retrieval of each subfile $W_{\theta j}$ can be treated as a separate instance of a
PIR retrieval problem.
\begin{theorem}[Designs to PIR protocols]\label{th:design2pir}
Consider a $\mu$-$(F, b)$ system generated from a $(v, k, b, r)$-tactical configuration.
Then with respect to the subfiles $W_{ij}$, where $i\in [F]$, the servers $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$ form a
1-$(F, r)$ system.
For file size $L=v \times r^F$, the proposed protocol
consisting of Algorithms~\ref{alg:storage}~and~\ref{alg:recovery} is correct, private and achieves capacity.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
In the $\mu$-$(F, b)$ system the subfile $W_{\theta j}$ is present on $r$ servers in the set
$\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
Furthermore, each of the servers in $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$ contains all the subfiles
$W_{ij}$ for all $i\in [F]$.
Therefore, with respect to the subfiles $W_{ij}$, $i\in [F]$, the servers $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$ form a 1-$(F, r)$ system.
For recovering $W_{\theta j}$, we only restrict our attention to the 1-$(F, r)$ system obtained by restricting to the servers $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
Subfile $W_{\theta j}$ can be retrieved privately from the above system by using the protocol of \cite{sun17}.
Since $W_{\theta j}$ can be recovered for all $j\in [v]$ from the
$1$-$(F,r)$ systems formed by $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$, we are able to recover the file
$W_\theta$.
Therefore, \eqref{eq:pir-recovery} is satisfied.
We note two properties of the proposed protocol that we need to prove the privacy constraint.
\begin{compactenum}[P1)]
\item If we interchange all bits of file $W_1$ with $W_i$ where $i\in [F]$ in the
queries to all the servers, we would retrieve file $W_i$ instead of $W_1$.
This is because the storage is symmetric with respect to all the files. \item Any permutation of bits of $W_{ij},\;i\in[F],j\in[v]$ applied on all the queries to all the servers does not affect the retrieval process, since permutation is an invertible operation. This is equivalent to choosing a different permutation in the protocol of \cite{sun17}.
\end{compactenum}
Next to show privacy of recovery process, we introduce the following notation.
Suppose to recover the subfile $W_{\theta j}$,
the protocol for $1$-$(F, r)$ system storing $W_{\theta j}$ generates queries $Q_{n}^{[\theta j]}$, to send to server $\mathcal{S}_n$, wherein $\mathcal{S}_n \in \mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
Then denote the responses of $\mathcal{S}_n$ as
$A_{n}^{[\theta j]}$, $\mathcal{S}_n \in \mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
For $\mathcal{S}_n$ such that $\mathcal{S}_n \notin \mathcal{S} (W_{\theta j})$, we define $Q_{n}^{[\theta j]}=\emptyset$.
We can combine all the queries sent by the user to recover $W_\theta$
as
\begin{equation}
Q_{n}^{[\theta]} = \bigcup_{j \in [v]} Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} \label{eq:query-all}
\end{equation}
Likewise, we can combine all the responses
from server $S_n$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
A_n^{[\theta]} &= & \bigcup_{j\in [v]} A_n^{[\theta j]}
\end{eqnarray}
To show that the protocol is private, we need to show \eqref{eq:privacy-condition}.
Since the subfile $W_{\theta j}$ can be recovered privately, none of the servers can infer anything about $\theta$ given the queries, answers and stored content.
Therefore we have
\begin{align}
I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta j]},A_{n}^{[\theta j]},Z_{n}^{[j]})=0 \text{ for all } \mathcal{S}_n \in \mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j}) \label{privacy a1}
\end{align}
From this it follows that $I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta j]})=0 \text{ for all } \mathcal{S}_n \in \mathcal{S}(W_{\theta j})$.
If the subfile $W_{\theta j}$ is not present on $\mathcal{S}_n$, then $Q_n^{[\theta j]}$ is a null query
and once again we have $I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta j]})=0 $.
\begin{align}
I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta j]})=0 \text{ for all } n\in [b] \label{privacy a2}
\end{align}
Now, for any server $\mathcal{S}_n$, $n\in [b]$
\begin{align}
I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta]},A_{n}^{[\theta]},Z_{n}) & = I(\theta;Q_{n}^{[\theta]},Z_{n}) \label{privacy b1}
\end{align}
since $A_n^{[\theta]}$ is a deterministic function of $Q_n^{[\theta]}$ and $Z_n$.
Therefore, using \eqref{eq:query-all} we can write
\begin{align}
I(\theta; &Q_{n}^{[\theta]}, A_{n}^{[\theta]}, Z_{n})
= I(\theta;\underset{j \in [v]}{\cup}Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} )
+ I(\theta;Z_{n}|Q_{n}^{[\theta ]}) \nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{=} I(\theta;\underset{j \in [v]}{\cup}Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} ) + H(Z_n|Q_{n}^{[\theta]})
- H(Z_n|\theta, Q_{n}^{[\theta]}) \nonumber \\
&\overset{(b)}{=} I(\theta;\underset{j \in [v]}{\cup}Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} ) +H(Z_n) - H(Z_n) = I(\theta;\underset{j \in [v]}{\cup}Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} ) \nonumber
\end{align}
The last equality $(b)$ follows from the fact that $\theta$ and $Q_n^{[\theta]}$ are user generated quantities (generated without any communication to the server) and hence cannot contain any information about the server contents $Z_n$.
It remains to show that $I(\theta;\underset{j \in [v]}{\cup}Q_{n}^{[\theta j]} ) =0$.
Without loss of generality, assume that $\theta=1$ and $n=1$ and set $q:=Q_1^{[1]}$.
We will show that, fixing $q$ to server $\mathcal{S}_1$ the user can retrieve not only file $W_1$, but it can actually retrieve any file $W_i,\;i\in [F]$ by appropriately altering the queries to other servers. Also, we show that the probability of recovering any file $W_i,\;i\in [F]$, given $\mathcal{S}_1$ receives query $q$, is the same.
Showing these will establish that $I(\theta; Q_n^{[\theta]})=0,\;n\in [N]$.
We need the following properties of the PIR protocol from \cite{sun17}, see Lemma~1 therein.
\begin{compactenum}[SJ1)]
\item There are exactly $r^{F-1}$ bits for each subfile $W_{ij}$, involved in each query block.
In other words, $r^{F-1}$ bits of $W_{ij}$, $\forall \;i \in [F]$ are involved in the $j^{th}$ query block to $\mathcal{S}_n \in \mathcal{S}(W_{ij})$.
\item Any bit appears atmost once in the queries sent to a particular server, i.e. a bit involved in any query to $\mathcal{S}_n$ doesnot appear in any other query to $\mathcal{S}_n$.
\item The query structure is symmetric with respect to any file.
In other words, the linear combinations are similar and only differ in the actual bits
forming the queries.
\end{compactenum}
To alter the queries to other servers so that we can recover a different file we proceed as follows.
\begin{compactenum}[i)]
\item Interchange all bits of file $W_1$ with $W_i$ in the queries to all the servers.
This gives a (new) set of queries to be sent to the servers using which we can retrieve $W_i$.
\item Let $q_{new}$ be the query to $\mathcal{S}_1$ in the new set of queries.
Next, we try to make all queries in the query sets $q$ and $q_{new}$ same.
Recall that by SJ1) the same number of bits of $W_{ij}$ occur in any query block to a server and by SJ3) all query blocks have the same structure.
Therefore, by permuting the bits of $W_{ij}$ we can map $q_{new}$ to $q$ uniquely
with respect to the variables of $q$ and $q_{new}$.
This does not affect the recovery of the file $W_i$.
\end{compactenum}
This establishes that with respect to the queries of $\mathcal{S}_1$, the user can modify the queries to other servers so that any file $i\in [F]$ can be recovered.
Furthermore, the variables which are not part of $q$ and $q_{new}$ can also be permuted without affecting the recovery.
Since the number of variables not involved in these queries are same for all files,
from the point of view of the server there is equal uncertainty as to which file was requested by the user.
These permutations exhaust all the possibilities of queries consistent with the PIR
protocol of \cite{sun17}.
Therefore, \eqref{eq:privacy-condition} is also satisfied and the proposed protocol is private.
Now the size of the subfile is $r^F$, so the rate of the PIR protocol for the $1$-$(F, r)$ system is ${R}= (\sum_{f=0}^{F-1}r^{-f})^{-1}$.
Then to recover each of the subfiles $W_{\theta j}$ for a given index $\theta$ we require
to download $L/v{R}$ bits.
For recovery of the entire file we need to download $L/{R}$ bits.
Thus the rate of the proposed PIR protocol for the $\mu$-$(F, b)$ system is $L/(L/{R})= {R}$ which by Theorem~\ref{th:cap-mu} coincides with the capacity of the $\mu$-$(F, b)$ system when $L=v\times r^f$.
\end{IEEEproof}
With this result we can now construct capacity achieving PIR protocols for a wide range of system parameters.
\begin{theorem}[Capacity achieving PIR protocols] \label{th:subpacketization}
For any given $\mu$-$(F,N)$ system with $\mu=t/N$, $t\in [N]$ and file size $L=v\times t^F$, we can design a capacity achieving PIR scheme by using a $\bigg(\frac{N}{\gcd(N,t)},\frac{t}{\gcd(N,t)},N,t\bigg)$-configuration in Theorem~\ref{th:design2pir}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Since the parameters $v=\frac{N}{\gcd(N,t)}$, $k=\frac{t}{\gcd(N,t)}$, $b=N$ and $r=t$ satisfy \eqref{existence config}, a configuration with the above parameters exists.
The PIR scheme designed by using this configuration for the storage scheme in Theorem~\ref{th:design2pir}, and Sun-Jafar protocol for the retrieval of individual subfiles achieves capacity for the $\mu$-$(F,N)$ system with $L=v\times t^F$. This is true since the Sun-Jafar protocol achieves capacity for the $1$-$(F,t)$ systems with files size $t^F$.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{remark}
The results shown in Theorem~\ref{th:design2pir} and Theorem~\ref{th:subpacketization} can be extended to arbitrary $\mu$, by using the concept of memory sharing as done in \cite{attia20}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Theorem~\ref{th:subpacketization} establishes that, we can achieve capacity for the $\mu$-$(F,N)$ system using a subpacketization $v\leq N$ i.e. the minimum subpacketization required by the proposed PIR scheme is linear in the number of servers $N$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{An Example}
Consider a $\frac{2}{3}$-$(2,3)$ system i.e., a system with 3 servers, $\mu={2}/{3}$ and 2 files $a$ and $b$, each 12 bits long.
We shall use the $(3,2,3,2)$-configuration with the incidence matrix $M$ given below
for the storage scheme. So, we divide each file into 3 subfiles ($a\to a_1,a_2,a_3$, $b \to b_1,b_2,b_3$), each 4 bits long.
Let {$a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$, ${\;i\in [3],j\in[4]}$} represent the $j^{th}$ bit of subfile $a_i$ and $b_i$ respectively.
Store the subfiles on the servers as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
M = \begin{bmatrix}1&1&0\\0&1&1\\1&0&1 \end{bmatrix} \quad
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hline
\mathcal{S}_1 & \mathcal{S}_2 & \mathcal{S}_3 \\
\hline
a_1 & a_1 & a_2\\
b_1 & b_1 & b_2\\
a_3 & a_2 & a_3\\
b_3 & b_2 & b_3\\
\hline
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
This system can be projected onto the following reduced
$1$-$(2,2)$ systems.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{subtable}{.33\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{$\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta 1})$}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
$\mathcal{S}_1$ & $\mathcal{S}_2$ \\
\hline
$a_1$ & $a_1$ \\
$b_1$ & $b_1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{subtable}%
\begin{subtable}{.33\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{$\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta 2})$}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
$\mathcal{S}_2$ & $\mathcal{S}_3$ \\
\hline
$a_2$ & $a_2$ \\
$b_2$ & $b_2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}{.33\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{$\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta 3})$}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
$\mathcal{S}_1$ & $\mathcal{S}_3$ \\
\hline
$a_3$ & $a_3$ \\
$b_3$ & $b_3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{subtable}
\end{table}
Suppose the user wishes to retrieve file $a$.
Subfile $a_1$ is retrieved from system $\mathcal{S}(W_{\theta1})$ using the protocol in \cite{sun17} as follows:
We start by querying server $\mathcal{S}_1$ for bit $a_{11}$. Now to obfuscate $\mathcal{S}_1$, we also demand bit $b_{11}$ from it. Similarly, we query server $\mathcal{S}_2$ for bits $a_{12}$ and $b_{12}$. At this point we have 2 desired bits and 2 undesired bits. Now, we query the servers for linear combination of a unknown desired bit and known undesired bit. So, we query $\mathcal{S}_1$ for $a_{13}+b_{12}$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ for $a_{14}+b_{11}$. Clearly, we can retrieve all the desired bits of subfile $a_1$ using these queries. Privacy can be maintained by using a random permutation of bits of $a_1$ and $b_1$ instead of using them in the original order. Subfiles $a_2$ and $a_3$ can be retrieved in a similar manner. The queries to be sent to servers $\mathcal{S}_1$, $\mathcal{S}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$ for retrieval of file $a$ are summarised as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
$\mathcal{S}_1$ & &$\mathcal{S}_2$ & &$\mathcal{S}_3$ \\
\hline
$a_{11}$ & &$a_{12}$ && $a_{21}$\\
$b_{11}$ & &$b_{12}$ & &$b_{21}$\\
$a_{13}+b_{12}$& & $a_{14}+b_{11}$& & $a_{23}+b_{22}$\\
$a_{31}$ & &$a_{22}$ & &$a_{32}$\\
$b_{31}$ & &$b_{22}$ & &$b_{32}$\\
$a_{33}+b_{32}$& & $a_{24}+b_{21}$ & &$a_{34}+b_{31}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Suppose the queries for $\mathcal{S}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$ were \{$a_{13}$, $b_{13}$, $a_{11}+b_{14}$, $a_{23}$, $b_{23}$, $a_{21}+b_{24}$ \}, \{ $a_{21}$, $b_{21}$, $a_{23}+b_{22}$, $a_{33}$, $b_{33}$, $a_{31}+b_{34}$ \} then file $b$ would be retrieved for the same set of queries for $\mathcal{S}_1$.
We can design similar queries for recovering file $c$.
Therefore the queries to the servers do not leak information about the file requested.
Finally, note that the capacity for the given $\frac{2}{3}$-(2,3) system is $R^{*}(\mu)=\big(1+1/t \big)^{-1}=\big(1+1/2 \big)^{-1}={2}/{3}$.
The rate of the above PIR scheme is ${R}(\mu)= {12}/{18}={2}/{3}$, which matches the capacity of the given system.
\section{Performance of proposed protocol}\label{sec:performance}
In this section we report the performance of the proposed PIR schemes.
We also compare the performance of proposed protocol with previous work.
Fig.~\ref{fig:2} shows the variation of the download cost for the proposed protocol as a function of normalized storage $\mu$ for a $\mu$-$(F=4, N=4)$ system.
It can be seen that the proposed protocol achieves capacity.
In the same figure we also plot the optimal download cost (inverse of PIR capacity) for the given system using uncoded and coded PIR protocols, using \eqref{eq:pir-capacity} and
\eqref{eq:pir-cap-mds}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.95]{figures/fig1.pdf}
\caption{\small $D(\mu)$ \textit{vs.} $\mu$ for $\mu$-$(F=4, N=4)$ system. Also shown are the optimal download costs for MDS and uncoded PIR protocols.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:3} shows a comparison of minimum subpacketization required to achieve capacity for these three schemes as a function of the number of servers $N$, keeping $\mu$ fixed.
The proposed protocol requires a minimum subpacketization of $v=\frac{N}{\gcd(N,t)}$, whereas the schemes in \cite{attia20} and \cite{zhang19} require minimum subpacketizations of $\binom{N}{t}$ and $\binom{N}{t}/{t}$ respectively.
The minimum file size required to achieve capacity for the proposed protocol is given by $L=\frac{N}{\gcd(N,t)}t^F$. The minimum files size required to achieve capacity for the protocols proposed in \cite{attia20} and \cite{zhang19} are $L=\binom{N}{t}t^F$ and $L=\binom{N}{t}t^{F-1}$ respectively.
Table~\ref{tab:file-size} shows a comparison of the minimum file size required to achieve capacity for the three schemes.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\caption{\small Minimum File size required to achieve capacity}
\label{tab:file-size}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{$N$} & {$\mu$} & {$F$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Min. file size (MB)}
\tabularnewline
\cline{4-7} \cline{5-7} \cline{6-7} \cline{7-7}
& & & \cite{attia20}& \cite{zhang19}& Proposed \tabularnewline
& & & & & protocol\tabularnewline
\hline
6 & 1/2 & 5 & 5.4 $\times 10^{-4}$& 1.8 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 5.4$\times 10^{-5}$
\tabularnewline
\hline
7 & 3/7 & 5 & $ 10^{-3}$ & $ 3.33 \times 10^{-4}$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}$
\tabularnewline
\hline
18 & 1/2 & 8 & 2.43$\times 10^{5}$ & 2.70$\times 10^{4}$& 10.264 \tabularnewline
\hline
190 & 1/10 & 5 & 1.85 $\times 10^{25}$ & 9.73 $\times 10^{23}$ & 2.45 \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.95]{figures/fig2.pdf}
\caption{$v_{\min}$ \textit{vs.} $N$ for $\mu=1/4$}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
In this paper we presented a novel capacity achieving PIR protocol for storage constrained uncoded PIR systems. Apart from achieving capacity, our protocol has additional advantage that it offers linear subpacketization in the number of servers as compared to the exponential subpacketization required in the previous works. Moving forward, one natural direction is to establish bounds on the subpacketization required to achieve capacity. Developing efficient PIR protocols when file size is not a multiple of $v \times t^F$ is another interesting problem.
\nix{
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section*{Binary tree resonators}
We first explore one-dimensional hierarchical mechanical resonators in the form of binary tree beams. Each binary tree resonator is defined by two self-similar trees joined at their $\t{0^{th}}$ generation segments. The length of the $\t{0^{th}}$ generation segment, $2 l_0$, determines the fundamental mode frequency of the device. The length of segments in generation $k$ is set by multiplying $l_0$ with a factor of $\left(r_l\right)^k$, where the length contraction ratio $r_l < 1$ is chosen to be sufficiently small to prevent self-contact. The widths of the segments are determined by requiring constant stress throughout the structure, which minimizes static in-plane deformations upon structure undercut. This requirement is fulfilled by multiplying the width of each new generation of segments by a factor of $1/(2\cos\theta)$, which typically makes outer segments wider as is illustrated in the inset of \figref{fig:fractalBeams}a. In the resulting devices, the stress along all segments is equal to the film deposition stress \cite{fedorov2020fractallike}. The devices in our work are fabricated from suspended \SI{20}{nm}-thick, high-stress stoichiometric silicon nitride (\ch{Si_3N_4}) films grown on a silicon substrate; fabrication details are provided in the Methods.
\figref{fig:fractalBeams} summarizes our study of the quality factors of binary tree resonators optimized for low dissipation. \figref{fig:fractalBeams}a-c show scanning electron microscope images of \SI{20}{nm}-thick binary tree beams, with deposition stress $\sigma_\t{dep}=1.0$ GPa and intrinsic quality factor $Q_\t{int}=2600$ at room temperature (see Methods). The dissipation rates were characterized by ringdown measurements with optical interferometric position readout (see Methods). The probe laser beam was gated and switched on only for short periods to eliminate the possibility of photothermal damping. While most of the data was collected at room temperature, some devices were also cooled down to \SI{6}{\kelvin} in a cryostat. In the following, we refer to room temperature measurements unless otherwise specified. An example amplitude ringdown is shown in \figref{fig:fractalBeams}f for a \SI{110}{kHz}-frequency mode with a time constant of \SI{20}{min} (damping rate $\Gamma_m/2\pi = \SI{140}{\micro\hertz}$); the mechanical signal remained above the shot noise of the laser probe for several hours. The measured quality factors of fundamental modes are summarized in \figref{fig:fractalBeams}e. These devices have a central segment length ranging between $2l_0 = \SI{360}{\micro\meter}$ and $2l_0 = \SI{4}{mm}$ (and total longitudinal extent up to \SI{5.5}{mm}), branching angles between $\theta = \ang{75}$ and $\theta = \ang{83}$, and length contraction ratios between $r_l = 0.45$ and $r_l = 0.67$. Introducing three branching generations enhances the fundamental mode $Q$ by a factor of about 30 beyond the value exhibited by a doubly-clamped beam of the same frequency.
We could consistently observe devices with room-temperature $Q > 5\cdot 10^8$. As expected, increasing the number of branching generations, $N$, increased the quality factor while leaving the fundamental mode frequency approximately constant. This trend was observed up to $N=3$. The quality factors of low-order modes of $N=3$ devices were generally in good agreement with theory, as shown by the data in \figref{fig:fractalBeams}d. This data also confirms the theoretical prediction that many low-order modes of binary tree beams experience reduction of dissipation by soft clamping at the same time. Some discrepancy between experiment and theory was especially evident at the low end of the explored frequency range. The devices with \SI{57}{kHz} fundamental modes had quality factors more than ten times lower than the predicted values. This discrepancy could be explained by the influence of other loss mechanisms besides internal friction, such as acoustic wave radiation to the chip bulk. One potential extrinsic loss mechanism---damping by residual gas in the vacuum chamber---was experimentally ruled out at room temperature. Further investigations are required to understand the origin of added losses.
Cooling the binary tree resonators down to \SI{6}{K} moderately increases their quality factors, up to values as high as $Q = 1.1\cdot 10^9$. Under cryogenic conditions, the resonators also attain their highest thermal noise-limited force sensitivity, which reaches $\sqrt{S_\t{F}} = \sqrt{4 k_B Tm \Gamma_m}\approx$ \SI{90}{\zepto\newton\per\hertz^{1/2}} for the highest-$Q$ mode with a \SI{38}{pg} effective mass.
The self-similarity found in binary tree resonators leads to distinctive spectral features. Acoustic mode densities are convenient to characterize using the cumulative distribution function,
\begin{equation}
\t{CD}(\omega)=\sum_{n:\Omega_n\le\omega} 1,
\end{equation}
which gives the total number of modes below the frequency $\omega$. For a homogeneous medium in which the frequency of acoustic waves is proportional to their wavevector, $\t{CD}$ is proportional to $\omega^d$, where $d$ is the spatial dimension. This scaling explains mode densities in simple resonators, such as tensioned strings (where $\t{CD}\propto \omega$) and membranes (where $\t{CD}\propto \omega^2$ \cite{kac1966can}). Structural self-similarity can break this rule while preserving the power law behavior $\t{CD}\propto \omega^{\tilde{d}}$ for low-order modes. In this case, the power $\tilde{d}$ can be fractional, and is called the spectral dimension of the structure \cite{nakayama1994dynamical}.
Our experimental investigation of mode densities is outlined in \figref{fig:modedensity}. Panel a shows a binary tree resonator with $N=4$ generations of junctions, $\theta=\ang{60}$, and $r_l=0.6$. The branching angle of the device was chosen such that the constant stress condition is fulfilled when all segments have the same width (\SI{2}{\micro m} for this device). The resonator's fundamental mode has a frequency of $\Omega_m/2\pi = \SI{82}{kHz}$ and $Q = 2.8\times10^8$ at room temperature (in good agreement with the theoretical prediction of $\Omega_m/2\pi = \SI{82.5}{kHz}$ and $Q = 3.0\times10^8$). We computed the cumulative distribution function of this device by measuring thermomechanical noise spectra at different points (marked in \figref{fig:modedensity}a) and counting the modes. The result is presented in \figref{fig:modedensity}c. The experimental mode distribution follows a power law with $\tilde{d}=1.63$, in good agreement with the simulated distribution for which $\tilde{d}=1.65$. In the simulation, only out-of-plane modes were counted, as our optical interferometer is insensitive to in-plane modes. We evaluate our procedure by measuring the cumulative mode density of a uniform beam ($\tilde{d}=1$) and a square membrane ($\tilde{d}=2$) and find for each the expected power law scaling.
The excess of vibrational modes of binary tree resonators above those of a one-dimensional structure is mainly due to modes localized in high-generation segments as shown in \figref{fig:modedensity}b. We can confirm the localized nature of some low-order modes by comparing the thermal noise spectra taken at the $\t{0^{th}}$ and the $\t{1^{st}}$ generations of segments. The two spectra shown in \figref{fig:modedensity}d indicate that the mode around \SI{230}{kHz}, marked by the rightmost dashed line, has no amplitude on the $\t{0^{th}}$ generation segment, and hence is localized. At higher frequencies than those in \figref{fig:modedensity}d we cannot reliably establish a correspondence between the simulated and the measured spectra (see \figref{fig:modedensity}e), but, remarkably, the experimental mode distribution still follows the predicted power law.
\section*{Hierarchical structure in nanomechanical trampolines}
While binary tree beams have outstandingly low dissipation and mass, two-dimensional membrane resonators exhibit a higher interaction efficiency when they are embedded in Fabry-P\'{e}rot cavities or interrogated interferometrically. The integration of a nanomechanical membrane in an external optical cavity has enabled quantum optomechanics experiments such as ponderomotive squeezing \cite{purdy2013strong} and ground state cooling \cite{rossi2018measurementbased}.
We apply hierarchical junctions to trampoline membranes, a type of low-mass, high-$Q$ resonator that was introduced recently \cite{reinhardt2016ultralownoise,norte2016mechanical}. We implement two designs: the first one consists of two orthogonal binary trees combined with a pad, as shown in \figref{fig:sstrampolines}a; the second design, which we term a `steering wheel' membrane, can be produced from the first one by pairwise joining half of the segments at the $2^\t{nd}$ branching generation (\figref{fig:sstrampolines}b). Steering wheels are particularly simple to fabricate, but effectively limited to only one generation of branchings. Interestingly, similar geometries were obtained in \cite{gao2020systematic} through a topology optimization algorithm. In both our membrane designs, the junctions are not exactly self-similar, and the width profiles of their segments are fine-tuned to optimize quality factors while maintaining constant stress. In the fabricated devices, the pad size varies between \SI{35} and \SI{85}{\micro\meter}.
The fundamental modes of our trampolines are partially soft-clamped, which can be seen from the suppression of mode gradients towards the peripheral clamping points in \figref{fig:sstrampolines}e and f. The experimental results for devices with lateral extent between \SI{0.5}{mm} and \SI{2}{mm} are summarized in \figref{fig:sstrampolines}g. We observed quality factors of fundamental trampoline modes as high as $Q = 2.3\cdot 10^8$ at $\Omega_m/2\pi = \SI{100}{kHz}$ and $Q = 1.7\cdot 10^7$ at $\Omega_m/2\pi = \SI{470}{kHz}$.
These dissipation dilution levels are a factor of three beyond those of previously demonstrated trampoline designs \cite{reinhardt2016ultralownoise} at the same frequencies. Trampolines with branching tethers, with a smaller pad (about \SI{35}{\micro\meter}) and lower effective mass (\SI{260}{\pico\gram}) than steering wheels, exhibit $\sqrt{S_\t{F}} \approx \SI{3.7}{\atto\newton\per\hertz^{1/2}}$ at room temperature.
\section*{Conclusions and outlook}
We experimentally demonstrated and explored new classes of resonators which attain exceptional quality factors by combining dissipation dilution with hierarchical design. Our resonators exhibit fundamental mode quality factors on par with the highest values reported for high-order modes of nanomechanical resonators at the same temperature \cite{ghadimi2018elastic,tsaturyan2017ultracoherent,rossi2018measurementbased}.
The dissipation of binary tree beams at the lowest frequencies in the examined range is significantly higher than theory predictions. If additional loss mechanisms are identified and suppressed, our highest aspect ratio resonators could exhibit $Q > 10^9$ at room temperature. Going further, even higher dilution levels could be achieved by introducing strain engineering \cite{ghadimi2018elastic} in the hierarchical structures. Higher tensile strain at the mode antinode could be induced by appropriately choosing the segment width ratios. The hierarchical principle can also be applied to enhance the dissipation dilution of tensioned pendula \cite{gonzalez1994brownian} of test mass suspensions used in gravitational wave detectors. In general, an improved fundamental mode $Q$ could benefit non-resonant force sensors that require low thermal noise amplitudes in an extended frequency band.
The thermal noise-limited force sensitivities of the best hierarchical resonators surpass those of state-of-the-art atomic force microscopy cantilevers \cite{heritier2018nanoladder}, which makes them excellent candidates for use in `inverted microscope' configurations in scanning force microscopy \cite{halg2021membranebased}. The high dissipation dilution in our structures implies a minimized anharmonicity \cite{fedorov2019generalized,catalini2020softclamped}, and may allow driven oscillations with very low frequency noise, potentially useful for mass sensing and imaging \cite{hanay2015inertial}. Finally, the low loss, low mass and low frequency of our hierarchical trampolines raise prospects for cavity-free ground state cooling \cite{pluchar2020cavityfree}. \nocite{groth_high-aspect_2020}
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{Theoretical quality factors of high-stress resonators}
The intrinsic loss-limited quality factors of flexural modes in high aspect ratio resonators subjected to static tension are controlled by dissipation dilution \cite{unterreithmeier2010damping,yu2012control,villanueva2014evidence}. The quality factor, $Q$, of a mode can be theoretically calculated using the formula \cite{fedorov2019generalized}
\begin{equation}
Q=D_Q \cdot Q_\t{int},
\end{equation}
where $Q_\t{int}$ is the intrinsic quality factor and $D_Q$ is the dilution coefficient. For the \ch{Si_3N_4}\ films used in our work, $Q_\t{int}$ was experimentally characterized as described in the following section. The dilution factor, $D_Q$, is equal to the ratio of geometrically nonlinear (tension) and linear (bending and torsional) elastic energies \cite{fedorov2019generalized}. It depends on the film pre-strain, resonator geometry, and the vibrational mode order. We find $D_Q$ either using finite element simulations, in which our resonators are modeled as plates and the ratios of the energies are evaluated as described in the SI of Ref.~\cite{yu2012control}, or quasi one-dimensional models from \cite{fedorov2019generalized,fedorov2020fractallike} whenever they agree well with full simulations.
Analytically, the dilution factor can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DQLossCoeffs}
D_Q=\frac{1}{\alpha\lambda + \beta \lambda^2},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the boundary and the distributed loss coefficients, respectively, and $\lambda$ is the stress parameter,
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\frac{h}{l}\sqrt{\frac{\sigma}{12E}}.
\end{equation}
Here $h$ is the film thickness, $l$ is the resonator length, $\sigma$ is the static stress and $E$ is the Young's modulus. The precise definitions of $\sigma$ and $l$ depend on the resonator type: whether it is a beam, a membrane or a binary tree. In resonators with high dilution (for some devices in our work $D_Q$ is as high as $2\cdot 10^5$), the stress parameter is much smaller than one and the boundary term naturally dominates the denominator of \eqref{eq:DQLossCoeffs}. This means that the dissipation is dominated by the internal friction in the material in the immediate vicinity of the clamps even if the physical properties are uniform over the resonator surface. Vibrational modes with negligible boundary loss coefficients (i.e. with $\alpha\to 0$), are called soft-clamped \cite{tsaturyan2017ultracoherent}.
In \figref{fig:Qdiagram}, we present a comparison of theoretically calculated diluted quality factors achievable with different resonator types. Since dissipation dilution increases monotonously with increasing aspect ratio, we impose a length limit of \SI{3}{mm} and assume a fixed film thickness of \SI{20}{nm} in order to make a meaningful comparison between different geometries. We use the following material parameters: density of $\rho = \SI{3100}{kg/m^3}$, Young's modulus of $E=\SI{250}{GPa}$, Poisson's ratio of $\nu=0.23$, deposition stress of $\sigma_\t{dep}=\SI{1.03}{GPa}$, and intrinsic quality factor of $Q_\t{int}=2600$.
Green points in \figref{fig:Qdiagram} correspond to the modes of a \SI{3}{mm}-long uniform beam with rectangular cross section, whose dilution factors are given by \cite{gonzalez1994brownian,unterreithmeier2010damping}
\begin{equation}
D_Q=\frac{1}{2\lambda +(\pi n \lambda)^2},
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the mode order. This resonator type is one of the most widely experimentally studied to date. Modes of beams shorter than \SI{3}{mm} would fall into the green shaded area.
Blue points correspond to soft-clamped modes in \SI{3}{mm}-long phononic crystal beams incorporating strain engineering techniques~\cite{ghadimi2018elastic}. Here each point corresponds to a separate beam design, for which the unit cell number (and hence the localized mode order) was fixed and the phononic defect and tapering parameters were chosen to maximize the quality factor. All other modes of these structures, soft-clamped modes at sub-optimum parameters, and all modes of smaller beams of this type have $Q$s in the blue shaded area, or in the other shaded areas which are yet below.
Red points correspond to fundamental modes of binary tree beams with $N=5$ generations of branchings, found using the model from ref. \cite{fedorov2020fractallike}. The geometric parameters ($r_l=0.45$, $\theta=\ang{81}$) have been optimized to maximize the $Q$ at a fixed length. $l_0$ was swept between \SI{100}{\micro m} and \SI{3}{mm} in the plot. The fundamental modes of sub-optimum designs would fall into the red shaded area or below.
\subsection*{Stress and intrinsic loss in silicon nitride films}\label{sec:stressAndQintr}
The elastic and anelastic parameters of the employed \ch{Si_3N_4} films (from Hahn-Schickard Gesellschaft f{\"u}r angewandte Forschung e.V.) were estimated by characterization of an array of uniform beams with variable length, fabricated with the same process and machinery used for all the resonators in this work. Frequencies and quality factors of fundamental modes of doubly-clamped beams with uniform widths were measured and are displayed as a function of length in \figref{fig:uniform_beams}.
The deposition stress of the \ch{Si_3N_4}\ thin film, $\sigma_\mathrm{dep}$ was determined by fitting to the resonant frequencies with a linear dispersion model $\Omega_0/2\pi = \frac{1}{2l}\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{dep} \left(1 - \nu\right) }{\rho}}$, where $\rho = \SI{3100}{kg/m^3}$ is the volume density of \ch{Si_3N_4}\ , $\nu = 0.23$ its Poisson's ratio, $l$ the beam length and $\sigma_\mathrm{dep}$ is the parameter to be determined. The fit result is $\sigma_\mathrm{dep} \approx \SI{1.03}{GPa}$. This value reliably predicted all the experimentally observed resonance frequencies of the beam and membrane-type resonators presented in our work.
The approximate expression for the resonant frequency is appropriate for the limit of negligible bending stiffness and is valid for high aspect ratio beams with $\lambda = \frac{h}{l}\sqrt{\frac{E}{12\sigma_\mathrm{dep} \left(1 - \nu\right) }} \ll 1$ \cite{fedorov2019generalized} ($h$ is the beam thickness and $E$ the Young's modulus of \ch{Si_3N_4}\ ). In the same limit, the dissipation-diluted quality factor will linearly increase as a function of string length, $Q = Q_\mathrm{int}/2\lambda$. This trend is indeed found for beams with $l < \SI{1.5}{mm}$ in \figref{fig:uniform_beams}b: A fit to the $Q$ of these resonances provides an estimate of the \ch{Si_3N_4}\ intrinsic mechanical loss of $Q_\mathrm{int} \approx 2600$ . This value is two times higher than the average value of $Q_\t{int} = \left( 1200 \pm 800\right)$ found in \cite{villanueva2014evidence} for surface losses in \ch{Si_3N_4}\ (at the film thickness of $h = \SI{20}{nm}$ used for this work; in the surface dissipation-dominated regime $Q_\mathrm{int}$ increases linearly with $h$). Longer beams deviate from the predicted linear trend of dissipation dilution, exhibiting a nearly constant $Q$ independent of frequency and length due to an unknown mechanism.
\subsection*{Fabrication details}
\subsubsection*{Binary-tree beam resonators}
The fabrication process (see \figref{fig:design-overhang}b) is based on our previous work on strain-engineered nanobeam resonators \cite{ghadimi2018elastic,groth_high-aspect_2020}. The first step in the process flow is low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) of a \SI{20}{nm} thin film of stoichiometric \ch{Si_3N_4} onto a silicon wafer. (100)-oriented wafers are needed to facilitate the undercut of \ch{Si_3 N_4} while preventing undercut of the beam supports (see description below for details). The resonator geometry is defined in a first step of electron beam (e-beam) lithography (1) using flowable oxide resist (FOX\textregistered16). The mask is transferred to the underlying \ch{Si_3 N_4} by plasma etching using fluorine chemistry. The second step of e-beam lithography uses an up-scaled mask to ensure that the \ch{Si_3 N_4} layer is fully encapsulated by the second FOX\textregistered16 layer. The encapsulation protects the \ch{Si_3 N_4} layer in the subsequent deep reactive ion etch (DRIE) which creates a recess deeper than \SI{15}{\micro\meter} (2). At this point the wafers are diced into chips sized \SI{5x12}{mm}, with the devices protected from both damage and contamination by a \SI{15}{\micro\meter}-thick layer of viscous photoresist. The chips are then cleaned in a piranha solution and the photo- and e-beam resists are stripped in baths of NMP (1-methyl-2-pyrrolidon) and buffered hydroflouric acid (BHF), respectively. In the final step, the \ch{Si_3 N_4} chips are placed in a hot potassium hydroxide (KOH) bath, which suspends the beams by removing the silicon below the resonators (3). The anisotropy of the KOH etch is exploited to ensure that the beams are fully released while the supports of the resonators remain largely intact, as the (111) planes are etched much more slowly than the (100) and (110) planes. The recess created in the DRIE step facilitates the undercut by exposing the fast-etching planes in silicon and thereby reducing the etch time required for releasing the beams. It is necessary to dry the released devices in a critical point dryer (CPD), since the resonators are extremely fragile due to their high aspect ratios. When dried mechanically, the resonators are likely to collapse due to strong surface tension at the liquid-air interface.
Limiting the undercut of the supports is a crucial design consideration for fractal-like beam resonators (see \figref{fig:design-overhang}a) since any overhang of the supports was observed to deteriorate the quality factors. The branching angles of binary trees differ from multiples of \SI{90}{\degree}; therefore some beam segments will not be aligned along the slow-etching planes of silicon (viz. oriented along $\left< 110 \right>$ directions). If the final beam segments are orthogonally clamped to their support pillars, the latter will be attacked from all directions during the KOH etch (1). The removal of silicon below the supports and in the vicinity of the clamping points leaves this part of the \ch{Si_3 N_4} film free to deform. We attribute increased dissipation to this deformation and the corresponding change in strain of the \ch{Si_3 N_4} film, which is supported by our measurements: binary tree resonators with significant overhang at their connections to the frame were found to have quality factors more than one order of magnitude below the values predicted by our analytical model. Fortunately, it is possible to largely eliminate the overhang at the clamping points by aligning the supports along the slow-etching planes (2). In this case the silicon at the clamping points is protected during the KOH etch since only the slow-etching planes are exposed. The results reported in the main text were obtained for binary tree resonators based on this approach. It should be noted that the rotation of the supports inevitably leads to non-orthogonal clamping of the final beam segments causing a deviation from the ideal clamping conditions assumed in our model. This boundary geometry induces limited changes to the frequencies and dissipation rates of the lower order modes due to their limited mode amplitudes at the clamps, as confirmed by finite-element simulations. The increase in dissipation is small in comparison with the deleterious effect of a significant overhang at the supports.
\subsubsection*{Trampoline membrane resonators}
Trampoline membranes with branching tethers are fabricated similarly to binary-tree beam resonators. The overall process follows the one described in the Supplementary Material of \cite{fedorov2020thermal} and in \cite{beccari_high-aspect_2020}; here, we highlight the main differences with respect to the fabrication process of binary-tree beams. After patterning and etching the outline of the membrane resonators on the front side \ch{Si_3N_4} layer with e-beam lithography, we exploit the \ch{Si_3N_4} layer concomitantly deposited on the back side as a mask for the KOH undercut of the devices, and pattern rectangular membrane windows with UV lithography, aligned to the front side through appropriate reference markers. The dimensions of the windows are corrected with respect to the membrane outline on the front side to take into account the shrinking of the window as the etch progresses through the wafer thickness, owing to the slow-etching (111) planes, non-orthogonal to the wafer surface, being uncovered. Precise knowledge of the wafer thickness and optimal alignment to the front side patterns are required to avoid the formation of substantial overhang at the tether clamping points. During this step, a layer of photoresist protects the front side layer from contamination and mechanical damage by contact to the wafer holders of the optical exposure and plasma etching tools.
The KOH etch is typically subdivided in two steps. The first step removes the bulk of the silicon thickness ($\approx 10 - 40$ \si{\micro\meter} of silicon is retained) and occurs from the back side only, while the front side layer is protected by an appropriate sealing wafer holder \cite{fedorov2020thermal}. The second step is performed after chip separation, exposing both sides of the chips to the KOH etch. This bulk etch process removes the need for the DRIE step performed on beam samples. According to the specific tether clamping design, the two KOH steps must be timed carefully, in order to fully release the tethers without creating overhang at the clamped edges.
Membrane chips are dried from their rinsing baths though CPD as well: despite the low impact of stiction forces by virtue of the presence of an optical window through the whole wafer thickness, we found CPD useful to increase the device yield and decrease the residual contamination associated with the wet etch steps.
\subsection*{Buckling and static deformations in suspended structures}
Structures with internal or external compressive loads are subject to buckling, an elastic instability phenomenon that occurs when local stress surpasses a threshold value \cite{landau1986theory}. In thin \ch{Si_3N_4}\ structures (in our work, $h\approx \SI{20}{nm}$), buckling is commonly observed as a static out-of-plane deformation, which releases elastic energy. The dissipation dilution in buckled resonators is severely degraded.
While no significant buckling was observed in binary tree beam resonators, it was frequently encountered in trampoline membranes with non-optimized designs. In \figref{fig:buckling}a, an example static deformation pattern is portrayed, which occurred in a steering wheel membrane close to its clamping point. A FEM simulation of the static stress distribution in the same structure is presented in \figref{fig:buckling}b, which shows that the buckling is co-localized with regions of compressive principal stress. To obtain the color map in the figure, we decompose the simulated in-plane stress tensor into its principal components (i.e. its eigenvalues) and display the smallest one. In the regions where one principal stress is negative, there is compression along some direction, which can trigger buckling. In the region where buckling is observed in the real device, the simulated minimum principal stress dips to $\approx \SI{-30}{MPa}$.
Our strategies to avoid buckling in trampoline membranes were a) to ensure that the structures are stress-preserving \cite{fedorov2020fractallike}, i.e. that the forces acting on each junction point are balanced prior to suspension, and b) to taper wide segments, which helped maintain their transverse stress above zero. Buckling is also expected to appear less frequently for films thicker than \SI{20}{nm}.
Another type of static deformation that was observed in our tensile resonators is twisting of film segments. An example is portrayed in \figref{fig:buckling}c for the outer-most generation of segments of a trampoline membrane with branching tethers. The sample topography has been obtained through a confocal microscope profilometer. We conjecture that potential causes for this phenomenon could be the inhomogeneity of the film stress in the vertical direction, or the non-uniformity of the height of the silicon wafer. We expect that these undesired static deformations can also be reduced by increasing the film thickness.
\subsection*{Interferometric mechanical characterization setup}
All the measurements presented were performed using a balanced Mach-Zehnder homodyne interferometer (see \figref{fig:measurement_setup}). In the signal arm of the interferometer, the light beam is focused through a microscope objective or a simple convergent lens on the sample under examination, and a small fraction ($0.1 - 10 \%$) of the optical impinging power is collected in reflection and steered on a beam splitter where it interferes with a stronger local oscillator beam ($P \approx$ \SIrange{1}{10}{\milli\watt}).
The samples and a 3-axis nanopositioning stage, employed for alignment, are housed in a vacuum chamber capable of reaching pressures below $10^{-8}\,\SI{}{\milli\bar}$, sufficient to eliminate the effect of gas damping for the devices measured in this work. A piezoelectric plate, used to resonantly actuate the devices, is connected to the sample mount.
The low frequency fluctuations of the interferometer path length difference are stabilized by means of two cascaded acousto-optic modulators (AOMs): the first shifts the frequency of the local oscillator beam by \SI[retain-explicit-plus]{+100}{MHz}, while the second shifts it back by \SI{-100}{MHz}, with a small frequency offset controlled using the low-frequency signal from the balanced photodetector couple as an error signal. With this arrangement, the phase difference can be tuned finely with unlimited actuation range. The phase difference is stabilized close to phase quadrature, corresponding to the largest transduction of mechanical displacement.
Ringdown measurements are initiated by exciting a mechanical resonance with the piezoelectric plate, then turning the mechanical excitation off abruptly and recording the slowly-decaying amplitude of the displacement signal, obtained by demodulating the photocurrent signal at the excitation frequency. A demodulation bandwidth exceeding \SI{100}{Hz} is employed, to mitigate the effect of mechanical frequency drifts, induced e.g. by temperature or optical power fluctuations. As detailed in the following, gated measurements are performed in order to minimize the influence of optical backaction of the probing beam; to this end, a mechanical shutter inserted at the output of the laser, is actuated periodically.
\subsection*{Thermomechanical spectrum of a trampoline with branching tethers}
In \figref{fig:trampoline_spectrum} we display the thermomechanical noise spectrum recorded by shining the probe laser on the pad of a trampoline membrane with branching tethers. Resonance peaks were identified by comparison with a similar spectrum obtained by reflecting the probe off the chip surface, and are highlighted in blue. The trace is normalized to the level of shot noise.
The low-frequency spectrum of the trampoline with branching tethers presents flexural mode families similar to those of regular trampoline membranes. We adopt the notation of \cite{reinhardt2016ultralownoise}: `S' indicates symmetric displacement patterns, with an antinode at the location of the pad, `T', modes where one tether vibrates out of the plane, with a node at the pad, and the second undergoes torsion, and `A', modes where the two tethers undergo flexural displacement with a $\pi$ phase shift. `T' modes always appear in degenerate pairs, and `A' modes at a slightly higher frequency. The interferometer is most sensitive to out-of-plane motion, and purely torsional and in-plane flexural resonances could not be detected. Modes localized to high-generation segments appear at frequencies beyond the acquisition band.
\subsection*{Acquisition and analysis of binary tree resonators mode density data}
The spectral properties of the structure are found by acquiring thermomechanical spectra via optical interferometry and identifying the mechanical modes with a peak-finding algorithm. The cumulative distribution function is then computed by counting peaks below a certain frequency. Spectra are acquired at two points on all the branches on one half of the tree (62 spectra in total, including the fundamental branch), as the interferometric thermomechanical signal depends on the mode amplitude at the focus location of the probe beam. As optical driving or damping of the mode is not a particular concern for this measurement, it is performed using higher probe power ($\approx \SI{5}{mW}$) than the ringdown measurements. However, due to the narrow linewidth of the fundamental mode, high optical power frequently results in its excitation and appearance of its higher harmonics in the spectra. To avoid this problem, the pressure in the vacuum chamber was increased to $10^{-7}$ mbar to damp the fundamental mode.
Data analysis is then performed as follows: first, Lorentzian peaks with a minimum prominence and a minimum frequency spacing are identified on each spectrum. Then we take the union of all the sets of frequency values from all the branches. To avoid double-counting of the modes, the unification is done within a frequency tolerance, meaning that peaks closer than a fixed frequency separation are counted as one, as jitter or thermal drifts cause small changes in the resonant frequencies among different spectra. We also take several spectra from the substrate and \ch{Si3N4} pad surfaces and exclude their peaks from the unified set of mode frequencies. This final `purified' set is counted and shown in \figref{fig:modedensity}e of the main text, where it is compared to flexural out-of-plane modes obtained from the FEM simulation. The same procedure is used to acquire the mode densities of the uniform beam and the square membrane.
\subsection*{Optical backaction from the measurement beam}
\label{sec:SI_opticalBA}
The \SI{780}{nm} optical probe that was used for the mechanical quality factor characterization in the room temperature setup could exert backaction on vibrational modes and affect the observed energy decay rates. This effect had to be avoided in order to extract intrinsic mechanical properties. The magnitude and the sign of the optically induced damping depended sensitively on the sample type and the position of the laser spot. In many cases, the optical damping was negligible, while sometimes it was strong enough to self-excite resonator modes under continuous illumination. We did not make a detailed physical model for the optical damping, but we conjecture that the mechanism behind it involved the standing wave formed due to the reflection of the probe from the surface of the chip underneath the resonator.
To eliminate the effects of optical damping, we gated the ringdown measurements, by keeping the sample illuminated by the probe light only during short intervals of time. The total duration of time over which the probe light was on relative to the entire measurement time was typically between 0.1\% and 1\% in our measurements. We refer to this ratio as duty cycle. For each resonance, the absence of optical backaction was confirmed by measurements with different duty cycles and/or laser beam positions on the sample.
An example of particularly strong optical backaction is illustrated in \figref{fig:optical_backaction}. Panel a shows two ringdown measurements of the fundamental mode of a trampoline resonator with branching tethers (the fundamental mode in the spectrum of \figref{fig:trampoline_spectrum}) performed with the \SI{780}{nm} probe beam directed at the resonator central pad. The displayed measurements made at two different gate duty cycles had decay rates differing of a factor of 2.5. A deviation from exponential decay manifests at high amplitudes, close to the trace beginning. This is due to the strong phase modulation imparted on the probe upon reflection from the trampoline, whose oscillation amplitude approaches the wavelength. The transduction of the displacement signal by the interferometer becomes nonlinear, and higher-order sidebands appear in the photocurrent spectrum \cite{catalini2020modelling}. In these traces, therefore, only the linear amplitude decay was fit, with a simple exponential model.
When the duty cycle was beyond $\approx 1.6\%$, the mode was self-excited, as shown by a close-up plot of one of the measurement intervals in \figref{fig:optical_backaction}b. The optical damping rate inferred from this data is $\Gamma_\t{opt} =-2\pi\cdot\SI{48.4}{mHz}$ at the continuous optical power of around \SI{100}{\micro W}. In gated measurements, the optical antidamping was reduced proportionally to the duty cycle, which is confirmed by the data in \figref{fig:optical_backaction}c. While \figref{fig:optical_backaction} presents an extreme example of optical backaction, usually such effects could be reduced or eliminated entirely by directing the laser beam to a position of the device where the mode amplitude was lower.
In our cryogenic setup, quality factor measurements on binary tree beams were performed using a \SI{1550}{nm} gated probe laser, although no signatures of optical backaction were observed.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
Humans show their characteristics through not only the words they use, but also the way they speak and their facial expressions. Therefore, in multimodal affective computing tasks, such as emotion recognition, there are usually three modalities: textual, acoustic, and visual.
One of the main challenges in these tasks is how to model the interactions between different modalities, as they contain both supplementary and complementary information~\citep{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal}.
In the existing works, we discover that a two-phase pipeline is generally used~\citep{zadeh2018memory,zadeh2018multimodal,tsai2018learning,tsai2019multimodal,rahman2020integrating}. In the first phase, given raw input data, feature representations are extracted with hand-crafted algorithms for each modality separately, while in the second phase, end-to-end multimodal learning is performed using extracted features.
However, there are three major defects of this two-phase pipeline: 1) the features are fixed after extraction and cannot be further fine-tuned on target tasks; 2) manually searching for appropriate feature extraction algorithms is needed for different target tasks; and 3) the hand-crafted model considers very few data points to represent higher-level feature, which might not capture all the useful information.
These defects can result in sub-optimal performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/SMMM-Highlight-Col.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of feature extraction from hand-crafted model (\textit{left}), fully end-to-end model (\textit{middle}), and sparse end-to-end model (\textit{right}). The red dots represent the keypoints extracted by hand-crafted models. The areas formed by red lines represent the regions of interest that are processed by (sparse) end-to-end models to extract the features.}
\label{fig:intro}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we propose a fully end-to-end model that connects the two phases together and optimizes them jointly. In other words, the model receives raw input data and produces the output predictions, which allows the features to be learned automatically through the end-to-end training.
However, the current datasets for multimodal emotion recognition cannot be directly used for the fully end-to-end training, and we thus conduct a data restructuring to make this training possible.
The benefits from the end-to-end training are that the features are optimized on specific target tasks, and there is no need to manually select feature extraction algorithms.
Despite the advantages of the end-to-end training, it does bring more computational overhead compared to the two-phase pipeline, and exhaustively processing all the data points makes it computationally expensive and prone to over-fitting.
Thus, to mitigate these side-effects, we also propose a multimodal end-to-end sparse model, a combination of a sparse cross-modal attention mechanism and sparse Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)~\cite{SubmanifoldSparseConvNet}, to select the most relevant features for the task and reduce the redundant information and noise in the video and audio.
Experimental results show that the simply end-to-end training model is able to consistently outperform the existing state-of-the-art models which are based on the two-phase pipeline. Moreover, the incorporation of the sparse cross-modal attention and sparse CNN is able to greatly reduce the computational cost and maintain the performance.
We summarize our contributions as follows.
\begin{itemize
\item To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to apply a fully end-to-end trainable model for the multimodal emotion recognition task.
\item We restructure the existing multimodal emotion recognition datasets to enable the end-to-end training and cross-modal attention based on the raw data.
\item We show that the fully end-to-end training significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art two-phase models, and the proposed sparse model can greatly reduce the computational overhead while maintaining the performance of the end-to-end training. We also conduct a thorough analysis and case study to improve the interpretability of our method.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Works} \label{related_works}
Human affect recognition is a popular and widely studied research topic~\citep{Mirsamadi2017AutomaticSE,Zhang2017SentimentAA,Xu2020EmoGraphCE,Dai2020KungfupandaAS}. In recent years, there is a trend to leverage multimodal information to tackle these research tasks, such as emotion recognition~\citep{busso2008iemocap}, sentiment analysis~\citep{zadeh2016mosi,zadeh2018multimodal}, personality trait recognition~\citep{pom}, etc, have drawn more and more attention.
Different methods have been proposed to improve the performance and cross-modal interactions.
In earlier works, early fusion~\citep{morency2011towards,perez2013utterance} and late fusion~\citep{zadeh2016mosi,wang2017select} of modalities were widely adopted. Later, more complex approaches were proposed. For example, \citet{zadeh2017tensor} introduced the Tensor Fusion Network to model the interactions of the three modalities by performing the Cartesian product, while \citep{wang2019words} used an attention gate to shift the words using the visual and acoustic features. In addition, based on the Transformer~\citep{vaswani2017attention}, \citet{tsai2019multimodal} introduced the Multimodal Transformer to improve the performance given unaligned multimodal data, and \citet{rahman2020integrating} introduced a multimodal adaptation gate to integrate visual and acoustic information into a large pre-trained language model. However, unlike some other multi-modal tasks~\citep{Chen2017SCACNNSA,Yu2019DeepMC,Li2019VisualBERTAS} using fully end-to-end learning, all of these methods require a feature extraction phase using hand-crafted algorithms (details in Section~\ref{baseline}), which makes the whole approach a two-phase pipeline.
\section{Dataset Reorganization}
The fully end-to-end multimodal model requires the inputs to be raw data for the three modalities (visual, textual and acoustic).
The existing multimodal emotion recognition datasets cannot be directly applied for the fully end-to-end training for two main reasons.
First, the datasets provide split of training, validation and test data for the hand-crafted features as the input of the model and emotion or sentiment labels as the output of the model. However, this dataset split cannot be directly mapped to the raw data since the split indices cannot be matched back to the raw data.
Second, the labels of the data samples are aligned with the text modality. However, the visual and acoustic modalities are not aligned with the textual modality in the raw data, which disables the fully end-to-end training.
To make the existing datasets usable for the fully end-to-end training and evaluation, we need to reorganize them according to two steps: 1) align the text, visual and acoustic modalities; 2) split the aligned data into training, validation and test sets.
In this work we reorganize two emotion recognition datasets: Interactive Emotional Dyadic Motion Capture (IEMOCAP) and CMU Multimodal Opinion Sentiment and Emotion Intensity (CMU-MOSEI). Both have multi-class and multi-labelled data for multimodal emotion recognition obtained by generating raw utterance-level data, aligning the three modalities, and creating a new split over the aligned data.
In the following section, we will first introduce the existing datasets, and then we will give a detailed description of how we reorganize them.
\subsection{IEMOCAP}
IEMOCAP~\cite{busso2008iemocap} is a multimodal emotion recognition dataset containing 151 videos. In each video, two professional actors conduct dyadic conversations in English. The dataset is labelled by nine emotion categories, but due to the data imbalance issue, we take the six main categories: \textit{angry}, \textit{happy}, \textit{excited}, \textit{sad}, \textit{frustrated}, and \textit{neutral}. As the dialogues are annotated at the utterance level, we clip the data per utterance from the provided text transcription time, which results in 7,380 data samples in total. Each data sample consists of three modalities: audio data with a sampling rate of 16 kHz, a text transcript, and image frames sampled from the video at 30 Hz. The provided pre-processed data from the existing work~\cite{busso2008iemocap} \footnote{\url{http://immortal.multicomp.cs.cmu.edu/raw_datasets/processed_data/iemocap}} doesn't provide an identifier for each data sample, which makes it impossible to reproduce it from the raw data. To cope with this problem, we create a new split for the dataset by randomly allocating 70\%, 10\%, and 20\% of data into the training, validation, and testing sets, respectively. The statistics of our dataset split are shown in Table~\ref{tab:iemocap-dataset-statistics}.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|cc|ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Label} &
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Avg. word \\ length\end{tabular}} &\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Avg. clip \\ duration (s)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Train \\ size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Valid \\ size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Test \\ size\end{tabular}} \\
\midrule
Anger & 15.96 & 4.51 & 757 & 112 & 234 \\
Excited & 16.79 & 4.78 & 736 & 92 & 213 \\
Frustrated & 17.14 & 4.71 & 1298 & 180 & 371 \\
Happiness & 13.58 & 4.34 & 398 & 62 & 135 \\
Neutral & 13.08 & 3.90 & 1214 & 173 & 321 \\
Sadness & 14.82 & 5.50 & 759 & 118 & 207 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Statistics of our IEMOCAP dataset split.}
\label{tab:iemocap-dataset-statistics}
\end{table}
\subsection{CMU-MOSEI}
CMU-MOSEI~\cite{zadeh2018multimodal} comprises 3,837 videos from 1,000 diverse speakers with six emotion categories: \textit{happy}, \textit{sad}, \textit{angry}, \textit{fearful}, \textit{disgusted}, and \textit{surprised}. It is annotated at utterance-level, with a total of 23,259 samples. Each data sample in CMU-MOSEI consists of three modalities: audio data with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, a text transcript, and image frames sampled from the video at 30 Hz. We generate the utterance-level data from the publicly accesible raw CMU-MOSEI dataset. \footnote{\url{http://immortal.multicomp.cs.cmu.edu/raw_datasets/processed_data/cmu-mosei/seq_length_20/}} The generated utterances are perfectly matched with the preprocessed data from the existing work~\citep{zadeh2018multimodal}, but there are two issues with the existing dataset: 1) in includes many misaligned data samples; and 2) many of the samples do not exist in the generated data, and vice versa, in the provided standard split from the CMU MultiModal SDK. \footnote{\url{https://github.com/A2Zadeh/CMU-MultimodalSDK}} To cope with the first issue, we perform data cleaning to remove the misaligned samples, which results in 20,477 clips in total. We then create a new dataset split following the CMU-MOSEI split for the sentiment classification task.~\footnote{\url{http://immortal.multicomp.cs.cmu.edu/raw_datasets/processed_data/cmu-mosei/seq_length_50/mosei_senti_data_noalign.pkl}} The statistics of the new dataset split setting are shown in Table~\ref{tab:mosei-dataset-statistics}.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|cc|ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Label} &
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Avg. word \\ length\end{tabular}} &\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Avg. clip \\ duration (s)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Train \\ size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Valid \\ size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Test \\ size\end{tabular}} \\
\midrule
Anger & 7.75 & 23.24 & 3267 & 318 & 1015 \\
Disgust & 7.57 & 23.54 & 2738 & 273 & 744 \\
Fear & 10.04 & 28.82 & 1263 & 169 & 371 \\
Happiness & 8.14 & 24.12 & 7587 & 945 & 2220 \\
Sadness & 8.12 & 24.07 & 4026 & 509 & 1066 \\
Surprise & 8.40 & 25.95 & 1465 & 197 & 393 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Statistics of our CMU-MOSEI dataset split.}
\label{tab:mosei-dataset-statistics}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/main_model.pdf}
\caption{Architecture of our Multimodal End-to-end Sparse Model (MESM). On the left, we show the general architecture flow. In the middle and on the right, we exhibit the details of the cross-modal sparse CNN block, especially the cross-modal attention layer, which is the key to making the CNN model sparse.}
\label{fig:main_model}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology} \label{methodology}
\subsection{Problem Definition}
We define $I$ multimodal data samples as $X=\{(t_i,a_i,v_i)\}^I_{i=1}$, in which $t_i$ is a sequence of words, $a_i$ is a sequence of spectrogram chunks from the audio, and $v_i$ is a sequence of RGB image frames from the video. $Y=\{y_i\}^I_{i=1}$ denotes the annotation for each data sample.
\subsection{Fully End-to-End Multimodal Modeling} \label{fe2e}
We build a fully end-to-end model which jointly optimizes the two separate phases (feature extraction and multimodal modelling).
For each spectrogram chunk and image frame in the visual and acoustic modalities, we first use a pre-trained CNN model (an 11-layer VGG~\citep{simonyan2014very} model) to extract the input features, which are then flattened to vector representations using a linear transformation.
After that, we can obtain a sequence of representations for both visual and acoustic modalities. Then, we use a Transformer~\citep{vaswani2017attention} model to encode the sequential representations since it contains positional embeddings to model the temporal information.
Finally, we take the output vector at the ``CLS'' token and apply a feed-forward network (FFN) to get the classification scores.
In addition, to reduce GPU memory and align with the two-phase baselines which extract visual features from human faces, we use a MTCNN~\citep{mtcnn} model to get the location of faces for the image frames before feeding them into the VGG. For the textual modality, the Transformer model is directly used to process the sequence of words. Similar to the visual and acoustic modalities, we consider the feature at the ``CLS'' token as the output feature and feed it into a FFN to generate the classification scores. We take a weighted sum of the classification scores from each modality to make the final prediction score.
\subsection{Multimodal End-to-end Sparse Model}
Although the fully end-to-end model has many advantages over the two-phase pipeline, it also brings much computational overhead. To reduce this overhead without downgrading the performance, we introduce our Multimodal End-to-end Sparse Model (MESM).
Figure~\ref{fig:main_model} shows the overall architecture of MESM. In contrast to the fully end-to-end model, we replace the original CNN layers (except the first one for low-level feature capturing) with $N$ cross-modal sparse CNN blocks. A cross-modal sparse CNN block consists of two parts, a cross-modal attention layer and a sparse CNN model that contains two sparse VGG layers and one sparse max-pooling layer.
\subsubsection{Cross-modal Attention Layer}
The cross-modal attention layer accepts two inputs: a query vector $q \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and a stack of feature maps $M \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times S \times H \times W}$, where $C,S,H,$ and $W$ are the number of channels, sequence length, height, and width, respectively. Then, the cross-modal spatial attention is performed over the feature maps using the query vector. The cross-modal spatial attention can be formularized in the following steps:
\begin{align}
M_q &= \text{tanh } ((W_mM + b_m) \oplus W_qq) \label{eq:1} \\
M_i &= \text{softmax } (W_iM_q + b_i) \label{eq:2} \\
M_{ns} &= \text{Nucleus
Sampling } (M_i) \label{eq:3} \\
M_o &= M_{ns} \otimes M, \label{eq:4}
\end{align}
\noindent in which $W_m \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times C}$, $W_q \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times d}$, and $W_i \in \mathbb{R}^{k}$ are linear transformation weights, and $b_m \in \mathbb{R}^{k}$ and $b_i \in \mathbb{R}^1$ are biases, where $k$ is a pre-defined hyper-parameter, and $\oplus$ represents the broadcast addition operation of a tensor and a vector. In Eq.\ref{eq:2}, the softmax function is applied to the ($H \times W$) dimensions, and $M_i \in \mathbb{R}^{S \times H \times W}$ is the tensor of the spatial attention scores corresponding to each feature map. Finally, to make the input feature maps $M$ sparse while reserving important information, firstly, we perform Nucleus Sampling~\citep{holtzman2019curious} on $M_i$ to get the top-$p$ portion of the probability mass in each attention score map ($p$ is a pre-defined hyper-parameter in the range of $(0, 1]$). In $M_{ns}$, the points selected by the Nucleus Sampling are set to one and the others are set to zero. Then, we do broadcast point-wise multiplication between $M_{ns}$ and $M$ to generate the output $M_o$. Therefore, $M_o$ is a sparse tensor with some positions being zero, and the degree of sparsity is controlled by $p$.
\subsubsection{Sparse CNN}
We use the submanifold sparse CNN~\citep{SubmanifoldSparseConvNet} after the cross-modal attention layer.
It is leveraged for processing low-dimensional data which lies in a space of higher dimensionality. In the multimodal emotion recognition task, we assume that only part of the data is related to the recognition of emotions (an intuitive example is given in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}), which makes it align with the sparse setting. In our model, the sparse CNN layer accepts the output from the cross-modal attention layer, and does convolution computation only at the active positions. Theoretically, in terms of the amount of computation (FLOPs) at a single location, a standard convolution costs $z^2mn$ FLOPs, and a sparse convolution costs $amn$ FLOPs, where $z$ is the kernel size, $m$ is the number of input channels, $n$ is the number of output channels, and $a$ is the number of active points at this location. Therefore, considering all locations and all layers, the sparse CNN can help to significantly reduce computation.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics} \label{eval_metrics}
Following prior works~\citep{tsai2018learning,wang2019words,tsai2019multimodal,Dai2020ModalityTransferableEE}, we use the accuracy and F1-score to evaluate the models on the IEMOCAP dataset. On the CMU-MOSEI dataset, we use the weighted accuracy instead of the standard accuracy. Additionally, according to \citet{Dai2020ModalityTransferableEE}, we use the standard binary F1 rather than the weighted version.
\paragraph{Weighted Accuracy} Similar to existing works~\citep{zadeh2018multimodal,akhtar2019multi}, we use the weighted accuracy (WAcc)~\citep{tong2017combating} to evaluate the CMU-MOSEI dataset, which contains many more negative samples than positive ones on each emotion category. If normal accuracy is used, a model will still get a fine score when predicting all samples to be negative. The formula of the weighted accuracy is
\begin{align*}
\text{WAcc.} = \frac{TP \times N/P + TN}{2N} ,
\end{align*}
\noindent in which P means total positive, TP true positive, N total negative, and TN true negative.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lc|cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#FLOPs\\ ($\times 10^9$) \end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Angry}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Excited}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Frustrated}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Happy}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Neutral}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Sad}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Average}} \\
& & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 & Acc. & F1 \\
\midrule
LF-LSTM & - & 71.2 & 49.4 & 79.3 & 57.2 & 68.2 & 51.5 & 67.2 & 37.6 & 66.5 & 47.0 & 78.2 & 54.0 & 71.8 & 49.5 \\
LF-TRANS & - & 81.9 & 50.7 & 85.3 & 57.3 & 60.5 & 49.3 & 85.2 & 37.6 & 72.4 & 49.7 & 87.4 & 57.4 & 78.8 & 50.3 \\
EmoEmbs$^\dagger$ & - & 65.9 & 48.9 & 73.5 & 58.3 & 68.5 & 52.0 & 69.6 & 38.3 & 73.6 & 48.7 & 80.8 & 53.0 & 72.0 & 49.8 \\
MulT$^\dagger$ & - & 77.9 & 60.7 & 76.9 & 58.0 & 72.4 & 57.0 & 80.0 & 46.8 & 74.9 & 53.7 & 83.5 & 65.4 & 77.6 & 56.9 \\
\midrule
FE2E & 8.65 & \textbf{88.7} & \textbf{63.9} & \textbf{89.1} & \textbf{61.9} & 71.2 & 57.8 & \textbf{90.0} & 44.8 & \textbf{79.1} & \textbf{58.4} & \textbf{89.1} & \textbf{65.7} & \textbf{84.5} & \textbf{58.8} \\
MESM ($p=0.7$) & \textbf{5.18} & 88.2 & 62.8 & 88.3 & 61.2 & \textbf{74.9} & \textbf{58.4} & 89.5 & \textbf{47.3} & 77.0 & 52.0 & 88.6 & 62.2 & \textbf{84.4} & 57.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The results on the IEMOCAP dataset. \#FLOPs is the number of floating point operations per second. We report the accuracy (Acc.) and the F1-score on six emotion categories: \textit{angry}, \textit{excited}, \textit{frustrated}, \textit{happy}, \textit{neutral} and \textit{sad}. We re-run the models marked by $^\dagger$, as we use two more categories and the split is different.}
\label{tab:iemocap}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lc|cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\#FLOPs\\ ($\times 10^9$) \end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Angry}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Disgusted}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Fear}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Happy}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Sad}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Surprised}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Average}} \\
& & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 & WAcc. & F1 \\
\midrule
LF-LSTM & - & 64.5 & 47.1 & 70.5 & 49.8 & 61.7 & 22.2 & 61.3 & 73.2 & 63.4 & 47.2 & 57.1 & 20.6 & 63.1 & 43.3 \\
LF-TRANS & - & 65.3 & 47.7 & 74.4 & 51.9 & 62.1 & 24.0 & 60.6 & 72.9 & 60.1 & 45.5 & 62.1 & 24.2 & 64.1 & 44.4 \\
EmoEmbs$^\dagger$ & - & 66.8 & 49.4 & 69.6 & 48.7 & 63.8 & 23.4 & 61.2 & 71.9 & 60.5 & 47.5 & 63.3 & 24.0 & 64.2 & 44.2 \\
MulT$^\dagger$ & - & 64.9 & 47.5 & 71.6 & 49.3 & 62.9 & 25.3 & \textbf{67.2} & \textbf{75.4} & 64.0 & 48.3 & 61.4 & 25.6 & 65.4 & 45.2 \\
\midrule
FE2E & 8.65 &\textbf{67.0} & \textbf{49.6} & \textbf{77.7} & \textbf{57.1} & 63.8 & 26.8 & 65.4 & 72.6 & \textbf{65.2} & \textbf{49.0} & \textbf{66.7} & \textbf{29.1} & \textbf{67.6} & \textbf{47.4} \\
MESM (0.5) & \textbf{4.34} & 66.8 & 49.3 & 75.6 & 56.4 & \textbf{65.8} & \textbf{28.9} & 64.1 & 72.3 & 63.0 & 46.6 & 65.7 & 27.2 & 66.8 & 46.8 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The results on the CMU-MOSEI dataset. WAcc stands for weighted accuracy. We report the accuracy and the F1-score on six emotion categories: \textit{angry}, \textit{disgusted}, \textit{fear}, \textit{happy}, \textit{sad} and \textit{surprised}. We re-run the models marked by $^\dagger$, as the data we use is unaligned along the sequence length dimension and the split is different.}
\label{tab:mosei}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Baselines} \label{baseline}
For our baselines, we use a two-phase pipeline, which consists of a feature extraction step and an end-to-end learning step.
\paragraph{Feature Extraction} We follow the feature extraction procedure in the previous works~\citep{zadeh2018multimodal,tsai2018learning,tsai2019multimodal,rahman2020integrating}. For the visual data, we extract 35 facial action units (FAUs) using the OpenFace library\footnote{\url{https://github.com/TadasBaltrusaitis/OpenFace}}~\cite{tadas2015openface,baltrusaitis2018openface} for the image frames in the video, which capture the movement of facial muscles~\citep{ekman1980facial}. For the acoustic data, we extract a total of 142 dimension features consisting of 22 dimension bark band energy (BBE) features, 12 dimension mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) features, and 108 statistical features from 18 phonological classes. We extract the features per 400 ms time frame using the DisVoice library\footnote{\url{https://github.com/jcvasquezc/DisVoice}}~\citep{vsquez2018articulation,vsquez2019phonet}. For textual data, we use the pre-trained GloVe~\citep{pennington2014glove} word embeddings (glove.840B.300d\footnote{\url{https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/}}).
\paragraph{Multimodal Learning} As different modalities are unaligned in the data, we cannot compare our method with existing works that can only handle aligned input data. We use four multimodal learning models as baselines: the late fusion LSTM (LF-LSTM) model, the late fusion Transformer (LF-TRANS) model, the Emotion Embeddings (EmoEmbs) model~\cite{Dai2020ModalityTransferableEE}, and the Multimodal Transformer (MulT) model~\cite{tsai2019multimodal}.
They receive the hand-crafted features extracted from the first step as input and give the classification decisions.
\subsection{Training Details}
We use the Adam optimizer~\citep{kingma2014adam} for the training of every model we use. For the loss function, we use the binary cross-entropy loss as both of the datasets are multi-class and multi-labelled. In addition, the loss for the positive samples is weighted by the ratio of the number of positive and negative samples to mitigate the imbalance problem. For all of the models, we perform an exhaustive hyper-parameter search to ensure we have solid comparisons. The best hyper-parameters are reported in Appendix A. Our experiments are run on an Nvidia 1080Ti GPU, and our code is implemented in the PyTorch~\citep{paszke2019pytorch} framework v1.6.0. We perform preprocessing for the text and audio modalities. For the text modality, we perform word tokenization for our baseline and subword tokenization for our end-to-end model. We limit the length of the text to up to 50 tokens. For the audio modality, we use mel-spectrograms with a window size of 25 ms and stride of 12.5 ms and then chunk the spectrograms per 400 ms time window.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/case_study_new.pdf}
\caption{Case study of MESM on six basic emotion categories (happy, sad, angry, surprised, fear, disgusted). From left to right, we show the original image and the Nucleus Sampling ($p=0.6$) result over points in each attention layer. Red regions represent the points that are computed for the next layer.}
\label{fig:case_study}
\end{figure*}
\section{Analysis}
\subsection{Results Analysis}
In Table~\ref{tab:iemocap}, we show the results on the IEMOCAP dataset. Compared to the baselines, the fully end-to-end (FE2E) model surpasses them by a large margin on all the evaluation metrics. Empirically, this shows the superiority of the FE2E model over the two-phase pipeline. Furthermore, our MESM achieves comparable results with the FE2E model, while requiring much less computation in the feature extraction. Here, we only show the results of MESM with the best $p$ value of the Nucleus Sampling. In Section~\ref{ns}, we conduct a more detailed discussion of the effects of the top-p values. We further evaluate the methods on the CMU-MOSEI dataset and the results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:mosei}. We observe similar trends on this dataset.
\subsection{Case Study}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{imgs/case_study2_new.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of cross-modal attention of the acoustic modality. We only show the highest 10\% value of mel-spectrogram in each image. From left to right, we show the original image and the Nucleus Sampling ($p=0.6$) results over points in each attention layer. Red regions represent the active points that will go to the next sparse CNN layer.}
\label{fig:audio_case_study}
\end{figure}
To improve the interpretability and gain more insights from our model, we visualize the attention maps of our sparse cross-modal attention mechanism on the six basic emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised, fear, and disgusted. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:case_study}, in general, the models attend to several regions of interest such as the mouth, eyes, eyebrows, and facial muscles between the mouth and the eyes. We verify our method by comparing the regions that our model captures based on the facial action coding system (FACS)~\citep{ekman1997face}. Following the mapping of FACS to human emotion categories~\citep{basori2016facial,ahn2017insideout}, we conduct empirical analysis to validate the sparse cross-modal attention on each emotion category. For example, the emotion \textit{happy} is highly influenced by raising of the lip on both ends, while \textit{sad} is related to a lowered lip on both ends and downward movement of the eyelids. \textit{Angry} is determined from a narrowed gap between the eyes and thinned lips, while \textit{surprised} is expressed with an open mouth and raising of the eyebrows and eyelids. \textit{Fear} is indicated by a rise of the eyebrows and upper eyelids, and also an open mouth with the ends of the lips slightly moving toward the cheeks. For the emotion \textit{disgusted}, wrinkles near the nose area and movement of the upper lip region are the determinants.
Based on the visualization of the attention maps on the visual data in Figure~\ref{fig:case_study}, the MESM can capture most of the specified regions of interest for the six emotion categories. For the emotion \textit{angry}, the sparse cross-modal attention can retrieve the features from the lip region quite well, but it sometimes fails to capture the gap between the eyes. For \textit{surprised}, the eyelids and mouth regions can be successfully captured by MESM, but sometimes the model fails to consider the eyebrow regions.
For the acoustic modality, it is hard to analyse the attention in terms of emotion labels. We show a general visualization of the attention maps over the audio data in Figure~\ref{fig:audio_case_study}. The model attends to the regions with high spectrum values in the early attention layer, and more points are filtered out after going through further cross-modal attention layers. More visualized examples are provided in Appendix B.
\subsection{Effects of Nucleus Sampling} \label{ns}
To have an in-depth understanding of the effects of Nucleus Sampling on the MESM, we perform more experiments with different top-p values ranging from 0 to 1, with a step of 0.1. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ns}, empirically, the amount of computation is reduced consistently with the decrease of the top-p values. In terms of performance, with a top-p value from 0.9 to 0.5, there is no significant drop in the evaluation performance. Starting from 0.5 to 0.1, we can see a clear downgrade in the performance, which means some of the useful information for recognizing the emotion is excluded. The inflection point of this elbow shaped trend line can be an indicator to help us make a decision on the value of the top-$p$. Specifically, with a top-$p$ of 0.5, the MESM can achieve comparable performance to the FE2E model with around half of the FLOPs in the feature extraction.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/merge_perf.pdf}
\caption{The trend line of the \textbf{Top:} Weighted Accuracy and \textbf{Bottom:} FLOPs (x$10^9$)) of the MESM with different top-p values used in the Nucleus Sampling. \includegraphics[height=\fontcharht\font`\B]{imgs/yellow.png} represents performance of MESM, while \includegraphics[height=\fontcharht\font`\B]{imgs/red.png} represents performance of the FE2E model}
\label{fig:ns}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Mods.} & \textbf{Avg. Acc} & \textbf{Avg. F1} \\ \midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{FE2E} & TAV & 84.5 & 58.5 \\
& TA & 83.7 & 54.0 \\
& TV & 82.8 & 55.7 \\
& VA & 81.2 & 54.4 \\
& T & 80.8 & 50.0 \\
& A & 73.3 & 44.9 \\
& V & 78.2 & 49.8 \\ \midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{MESM} & TAV & 84.4 & 57.3 \\
& TA & 83.6 & 56.7 \\
& TV & 82.1 & 56.0 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Results of the ablation study of our fully end-to-end model (FE2E) and multimodal end-to-end sparse model (MESM) on the IEMOCAP dataset. In the Mods. (modalities) column, the T/A/V indicates the existence of the textual (T), acoustic (A), and visual (V) modalities.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\end{table}
\section{Ablation Study}
We conduct a comprehensive ablation study to further investigate how the models perform when one or more modalities are absent. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:ablation}. Firstly, we observe that the more modalities the more improvement in the performance. TAV, representing the presence of all three modalities, results in the best performance for both models, which shows the effectiveness of having more modalities. Secondly, with only a single modality, the textual modality results in better performance than the other two, which is similar to the results of previous multimodal works. This phenomenon further validates that using textual (T) to attend to acoustic (A) and visual (V) in our cross-modal attention mechanism is a reasonable choice. Finally, with two modalities, the MESM can still achieve a performance that is on par with the FE2E model or is even slightly better.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we first compare and contrast the two-phase pipeline and the fully end-to-end (FE2E) modelling of the multimodal emotion recognition task. Then, we propose our novel multimodal end-to-end sparse model (MESM) to reduce the computational overhead brought by the fully end-to-end model. Additionally, we reorganize two existing datasets to enable fully end-to-end training. The empirical results demonstrate that the FE2E model has an advantage in feature learning and surpasses the current state-of-the-art models that are based on the two-phase pipeline. Furthermore, MESM is able to halve the amount of computation in the feature extraction part compared to FE2E, while maintaining its performance.
In our case study, we provide a visualization of the cross-modal attention maps on both visual and acoustic data. It shows that our method can be interpretable, and the cross-modal attention can successfully select important feature points based on different emotion categories. For future work, we believe that incorporating more modalities into the sparse cross-modal attention mechanism is worth exploring since it could potentially enhance the robustness of the sparsity (selection of features).
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is funded by MRP/055/18 of the Innovation Technology Commission, the Hong Kong SAR Government.
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper was inspired by my studies of previous works dealing with Clifford algebra of multivectors for general, not necessarily symmetric or non-degenerate, bilinear forms. Here I will mention only a few of these works that were the main basis of my own research: Z. Oziewicz \cite{oziewicz97}, R. Ab{\l}amowicz and P. Lounesto \cite{ablamowiczlounesto}, B. Fauser \cite{fauser97}, R. Ab{\l}amowicz and B. Fauser \cite{ablamowiczfauser}. \footnote{More relevant references can be found in the cited papers, and also in a more recent paper by R. Ab{\l}amowicz et al. \cite{ablam2014}.} All these works are based on Chevalley's construction published in 1954 - cf. Ref. \cite[p. 102]{chevalley1996}. Chevalley is using there an explicitly nonsymmetric bilinear form to realize an algebra homomorphism from the Clifford algebra $\cl(V,Q)$ of a quadratic form $Q$ on a finite-dimensional vector space $V$ over an arbitrary field $\BK$ into the algebra of endomorphisms $\mbox{End}(\bigwedge(V)).$ The specially constructed bilinear form (called $B_0$ in Ref. \cite{chevalley1996}) is explicitly defined to be non-symmetric in order to cover the case of characteristic $2.$ Chevalley himself did not develop this idea any further. But it was subsequently developed a great deal (probably with his participation) in the 1959 algebra textbook ``Alg\`{e}bre, Chapitre 9, Formes Sesquilin\'{e}ares et Formes Quadratiques'' \cite{bourbaki1959} by N. Bourbaki. This particular volume of ``Algebra" by N. Bourbaki is the only one that was not translated into English and, as it seems to me, is totally unknown in the Cliffordian community. In the present paper I am presenting the relevant part from Bourbaki, developing it further so as to make it usable for applications of Clifford algebras, and in particular of `Clifford algebras of multivectors', to physics. In doing it I am trying to keep as much generality as possible, therefore, most of the time, not requiring the characteristic to be different from $2$. Much of the constructions developed in the present paper can be done for general modules over rings, but I am deliberately restricting myself to vector spaces, usually not requiring them to be finite-dimensional (unless specifically mentioning otherwise). \footnote{In applications to physics, when discussing Clifford algebras, we usually need only finite-dimensional vector spaces. A possible exception is the application of Clifford algebras in the discussion of Canonical Anticommutation Relations (CAR) in quantum field theory, but in this case we need functional analysis and $C^*$ algebras rather than pure algebraic constructions with infinite-dimensional vector spaces equipped with Hamel bases.}
One important distinctive feature of the Bourbaki approach consists of the use of operators $e_x,\,x\in V$ of left multiplication, and $Z_2$-graded derivations $i_f,\, f\in V^*$ already at the level of the tensor algebra $\T(V),$ where $i_f$ is defined recursively through $i_f(1)=0,$ $i_f(x\otimes u)=f(x)u- x\otimes i_f(u)$ for $x\in V,\,u\in \T^p(V)$ \footnote{Cf. \cite[\S 9.2]{bourbaki1959}. The antiderivation $i_f$ acting on the tensor algebra can be also found in Ref. \cite[Ch. 2.2.9]{meinrenken2013}.} Usually $Z_2$ derivations (antiderivations) are introduced only at the level of the exterior or Clifford algebra, that is after passing to the quotient $\T(V)/I(Q),$ where $I(Q)$ is the two-sided ideal generated by the expressions $x\otimes x -Q(x)$, $x\in V,$ where $Q$ is a quadratic form ($Q=0$ for the exterior algebra). The point is that $\T(V)$ is naturally $\BZ$-graded, and the reduction to $Z_2$ gradation may seem to be somewhat artificial. And yet the Bourbaki original approach allows for the construction of natural linear mappings $\lambda_F:\T(V)\rightarrow \T(V)$ that map every two-sided ideal $I(Q)$ to $I(Q+Q_F)$, where, for any bilinear form $F\in \bv(V)$, $Q_F$ is the quadratic form $Q_F(x)=F(x,x)$. I consider Bourbaki's mapping $\lambda_F:\T(V)\rightarrow \T(V)$ to be the most important tool for developing the subject of deformations of Clifford algebra products.\footnote{While it is possible to consider all Clifford algebras as deformations of one algebra, the exterior algebra, invoking the tensor algebra allows us to have a 'bird view' of the whole structure: all Clifford algebras, including the exterior algebra, have one `mother', and this mother is the tensor algebra.} For $x\in V$ and $F\in \bv(V)$ one first defines $i_x^F$ as $i_f$ for the linear form $f$ defined as $f(y)=F(x,y).$ Then $\lambda_F:\T(V)\rightarrow \T(V)$ is defined recursively as $\lambda_F(1)=\mbox{Id}$ on $\T_0(V),$ and $\lambda_F(x\otimes u)=x\otimes\lambda_F(u)+i_x^F(\lambda_F(u)).$ Using $\lambda_F$ way we can ``travel'' between different Clifford algebras already at the level of $\T(V)$. In fact, one can define the analogue of the Chevalley map, I call it $\Lambda_F: \T(V)\mapsto\mbox{End}(\T(V)),$ already at the level of the tensor algebra. Then $\lambda_F(u)=\Lambda_F(u)(1)$, $1\in \T(V),$ in a full analogy to the Chevalley's construction of the representation of a Clifford algebra by endomorphisms of the exterior algebra, and then realizing the Clifford product within the exterior algebra. All these operators $e_x,i_f, i_x^F,\lambda_F,\Lambda_F$ pass to the quotient and define corresponding operators within and between Clifford algebras.\footnote{The operators $\bi_x^F,\bar{e}_x,\bL_x^F,\bl_x^F$ can be also found in Ref. \cite[Ch. 5.7]{Northcott2009}, denoted there as $\Delta_x,L_x,\Lambda_x,\Omega(x)$ resp. } In this paper I am following Bourbaki's convention and denote the descendants of these operators, acting at the level of Clifford algebras, with a bar $\bar{e}_x,\bi_f,\bi_x^F,\bl_F,\bL_F$.\footnote{Bourbaki's text is not exactly consistent here, because $e_x$ is denoted the same way for $\T(V)$, where $e_x(u)=x\otimes u$, and for exterior or Clifford algebra, where $e_x(u)=x\wedge u$ or $e_x(u)=xu.$ } It is because of its importance that the explicit form of $\lambda_F$ is developed in Proposition \ref{prop:ln}, and then $\lambda_F$ is shown to be an exponential of an analogue of a two-fermion annihilation operator in Sec. \ref{sec:lexp}.\footnote{In characteristic $\neq 0$ instead of the exponential a divided powers exponential sequence is given.} Later on, in Sec. \ref{sec:aaf}, at the level of Clifford (or exterior) algebras, and for $F$ restricted to be an alternating form $A\in \av(V)$, $\bl_A$ is shown to be the exponential of $\bi_{A^*},$ where $A^*\in\bigwedge^2 (V^*)$ represents $A$ via the duality $\langle A^*,x\wedge y\rangle=A(x,y)$, cf. Eq. (\ref{eq:blexp}). This allows us to write the formula for a deformation of a Clifford product by an alternating form as (cf. Eq. (\ref{eq:xAv})):
\be \BAprod{x}{u}=e^{\bi_{A^*}}\left(x\,e^{-\bi_{A^*}}(u)\right)\, x\in V, u\in \cl(V,Q),\nn\ee
which I propose here instead of the ``Wick isomorphism'' based on the exponential of an element of $\bigwedge^2(V) $ suggested in Ref. \cite[Sec. 3]{ablamowiczfauser}.\footnote{Cf. Note \ref{n:wick}} \\
More generally, and in an arbitrary characteristic, we can use the mapping $\bl_F$ to deform a given Clifford multiplication by an arbitrary bilinear form $F$:
\be \BFprod{x}{u}=\bl_F\left(x\bl_{F}^{-1}(u)\right),\, x\in V,\, u\in\cl(V,Q),\ee
which is usually written on the background of the exterior algebra (the case of $Q=0$) as
\be \BFprod{x}{u}=\bl_F\left(x\wedge\bl_{F}^{-1}(u)\right),\, x\in V,\, u\in\bigwedge(V).\ee
Since $\bl_F$ has the exponential property $\bl_{F+G}=\bl_F\circ\bl_G,$ when $F=g+A$\footnote{Here we use the notation of Ref. \cite{ablamowiczfauser}.}, with $g$ symmetric and $A$ antisymmetric\footnote{In characteristic $\neq 2$ antisymmetric and alternating bilinear forms coincide.}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*} \BFprod{x}{u}&=&\bl_F(x\wedge\bl_{F}^{-1}(u))=\bl_A\left(\bl_g(x\wedge\bl_g(\bl_A(u))\right)\\
&=&\bl_A(x\cdot_g\,\bl_{A}^{-1}(u))=x\wedge u+\bi_x^g(u)+\bi_x^A(u).\end{eqnarray*}
The product defined by $x\cdot_F\,u$ is a twisted (with respect to $x\cdot_g\, u$) representation of the Clifford algebra $\cl(V,Q_g)$ on the exterior algebra $\bigwedge(V).$ In Ref. \cite{ablamowiczlounesto} it is denoted $\cl(V,F)$ and referred to as ``Quantum Clifford algebra''. Yet it is just a different but equivalent realization of the same Clifford algebra $\cl(Q_g)$, and therefore it has the same irreducible representations (ungraded and $Z_2$ graded) - cf. Sec. \ref{sec:reps}. In particular the twisted representation of the Clifford algebra $\cl(V,Q_g)$ for $g$ of signature $(2,2)$, twisted by a nontrivial antisymmetric form $A$, on its $8$-dimensional left ideal, suspected to be irreducible in Ref. \cite{ablamowiczlounesto}, turns out to be reducible.\footnote{I am indebted to R. Ab{\l}amowicz for an informative and extensive discussion of this subject.}\\
It is instructive to think of the family of Clifford algebras $\{\cl(V,Q):Q\in \qv(V)\}$ as a $Z_2$-graded vector bundle $\cl(V)$ over the space $\qv(V)$ of all quadratic forms on $V$. While each fiber $\cl(V,Q)$ carries an algebra structure, we will assign an important role to the maps $\bl_F,\, F\in \bv$, that are linear bijections preserving the $Z_2$-gradation , but twisting the products. The additive group of the vector space $\bv(V)$ acts on the base space via $F:Q\mapsto Q+Q_F$, and it acts on the bundle space $\cl(V)$ via the maps $\lambda_F$, mapping fibers onto fibers. The elements from the subgroup $\av(V)\subset \bv(V)$ do not move the points of the base and transform each fiber $\cl(V,Q)$ into itself, deforming the product within each algebra. In the theory of fiber bundles transformations of the bundle space that map bijectively fibers into fibers, and therefore induce a transformation of the base manifold, are called bundle automorphisms. Bundle automorphisms that do not move base points, so called ``vertical automorphisms", are often referred to as {\it gauge transformations}, more precisely, as {\it global active
gauge transformations\,} - cf. \cite[Ch. 3.2]{bleecker2005} and \cite[Appendix H]{percacci1986}. Instead of considering the usual Dirac equation, where the Clifford algebra acts on an irreducible graded ``spin module'' one considers the so called Ivanenko-Landau-K\"{a}hler equation \cite{obukhov1985,obukhov1994}, where spinors are represented by differential forms - elements of the exterior bundle of the cotangent space. The idea of representing spinors as differential forms has its clear physical justification that was stated explicitly by P. Lounesto in the following form (cf. Ref. \cite[p. 145]{lounesto2001}:
\begin{quotation}
``\dots However the physical justification of the theory of spin manifolds could be questioned on the following basis: why should we need to know the global properties of the universe if we want to explore the local properties of a single electron?''
\end{quotation}
Lounesto was at the same time well aware of the fact that choosing a global minimal graded ideal of the Clifford algebra bundle over space-time is questionable:
\begin{quotation}
``\dots In curved manifolds it is more appropriate to use abstract representation modules as spinor spaces and not minimal left ideals [not even subalgebras] of Clifford algebra. The injection ties these spaces together in a manner that singles out special directions in $\BR^{1,3}.$''
\end{quotation}
The only acceptable solution to these problems is by using the whole exterior algebra of differential forms, as in Ivanenko-Landau-K\"{a}hler equation on a curved spacetime manifold $M$, where gravitation is described via teleparalellism, along the lines outlined in Refs. \cite{obukhov2017}. There are at least two ways in which the deformations of the Clifford algebra action by antisymmetric forms can enter into field equations for matter fields in a gravitational background. The first way is by twisting the action of the Dirac gamma matrices $\gamma^\mu$ on the exterior algebra: $\gamma^\mu\rightarrow e^{\bi_{A^*}}\gamma^\mu e^{-\bi_{A^*}}.$ If $A$ is an antisymmetric form that does not depend on space-time coordinates $x^\mu$, then this can be compensated by redefining the matter field $\Phi(x)\in \bigwedge(T_x^*(M))$ via $\Phi\rightarrow e^{\bi_{A^*}}\Phi.$ When $A$ depends on space-time coordinates, we then get extra terms in the Ivanenko-Landau-K\"{a}hler equation resulting from the derivatives of $A(x)$. We can then treat $A$ as a non-minimal interaction in matter equations, or, alternatively, we can consider $\Phi(x)\rightarrow e^{\bi_{A^*(x)}}\Phi(x)$ as a local gauge transformation, in which case we should expect appearance of a certain non-closed $3$-form $\Psi$ in the equation, that transforms under these gauge transformations as $\Psi\rightarrow \Psi+dA.$ These ideas about a possible physical significance of twisted Clifford algebra products are in a need of further investigation, and they complement those already suggested in Refs. \cite{fauser97,ablamowiczfauser}.
\subsection{General setup}
A reasonably general formulation of the theory of Clifford algebras starts with the definition of the Clifford algebra of a module over a commutative ring, equipped with a quadratic form, see, e.g., ~\cite[p. 139]{bourbaki 1959}. Here we will not aim for such a generality, and we restrict ourselves to Clifford algebras over a vector space $V$ over a field $\BK,$ equipped with a quadratic form $Q.$\footnote{A vector space is a (projective) module over a (commutative) field.} Unless explicitly stated we will not assume $V$ to be finite dimensional. Initially, following Ref. \cite{bourbaki1959} we will not even demand for $\BK$ to be of characteristic $\neq 2.$ In electrodynamics gauge transformations are implemented via exponentials of the type $\exp(i\phi),$ where $\phi$ is a real scalar. These exponentials act on complex wave functions changing their phase. In our case we have exponentials of the type $\exp(\bi_{A^*})$, where $A$ is an antisymmetric bilinear form. These exponentials twist algebra products in Clifford algebras $\cl(V,Q)$ acting on the exterior algebra $\bigwedge(V).$ This brings us the idea of representing physical fields, including those corresponding to spin $1/2,$ as multivectors, that is the elements of the exterior algebra, as it was extensively discussed in Ref. \cite{graf1978};
while it is instructive to see how the case of characteristic 2 is being dealt with in Ref. \cite{bourbaki1959}, our main interest will be the case of $\BK$ being the field of real numbers $\BR$ or complex numbers $\BC.$
In linear algebra one shows that every vector space has a basis, possibly infinite, of linearly independent vectors (Hamel basis). Moreover, every two bases have the same cardinal number called the dimension of the vector space - cf. e.g. \cite[p. 103]{chevalley1956}. Every system of linearly independent vectors can be extended to a basis. In particular for every nonzero vector $x\in V$ there exists a linear functional $f$ on the space - that is an element of the dual space $V^*=\mbox{Hom}(V,\BK)$ - that takes a nonzero value on this vector: $f(x)\neq 0$.
\label{sec:scl}
\subsection{Tensor algebra of $V$}
Let $V$ be a vector space over $\BK.$ An algebra $\T$ is called a tensor algebra over $V$ (or ``of $V$") if it satisfies the following {\em universal property}\footnote{In all standard textbooks, see e.g. \cite{Bourbaki1998,chevalley1996,Northcott2009,greub1978}, the above characterisation of the tensor algebra of a module is always completed by an explicit construction. We also notice that the property of $\T(V)$ to be `generated by $V$' in (i) is superfluous (and even `forbidden'), as it is a consequence of the `uniqueness' that is the part of the universal property (ii).}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\T$ is an associative algebra with unit containing $V$ as a linear subspace, and is generated by $V,$
\item[{\rm (ii)}] Every linear mapping $\phi$ of $V$ into an associative algebra $A$ with unit over $\BK$, can be uniquely extended to an algebra homomorphism $\theta$ of $\T$ into $A$:
\end{enumerate}
Denoting by $\iota$ the embedding of $V$ into $\T$ mentioned in (i) the universal property expressed in (ii) reads:
\be \phi=\theta\circ\iota.\nn\ee Let $\T(V)$ be a tensor algebra of $V$. The multiplication in $\T(V)$ is denoted by the symbol $\otimes$. If $\{e_i\}_{i\in I(V)}$ is a basis in $V$, then $1\in \T^0(V)\subset \T(V)$ together with $e_{i_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes e_{i_p}$, $(p=1,2,\ldots )$ form a basis in $\T(V)$.
The tensor algebra $\T(V)$ of $V$ is $\BZ$-graded. We have
\be \T(V)=\bigoplus\displaylimits_{p=0}^{\infty}\T^p(V),\nn\ee
where
\be \T^p(V)=V^{\otimes p}=\underbrace{V\otimes \cdots \otimes V}_\text{$p$ \textup{factors}}\nn\ee
is the subspace spanned by $e_{i_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes e_{i_p}$.
It is understood here that $\T^0(V)=\BK$ and $\T^1(V)=V.$ The fact that $\T(V)$ is a graded algebra means that for any $x\in \T^p(V),y\in \T^q(V)$ the product $xy$ is in $\T^{p+q}(V)$ for all $p,q=0,1,\dotsi $.
By using this universal property one defines the main involution $\alpha$ and the main anti-involution $\tau$ of $\T(V).$\footnote{The mapping $\alpha$ is an involutive algebra homomorphism, while $\tau$ is an involutive algebra anti-homomorphism.} Explicitly, on homogeneous elements, we have:
\be \alpha (x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=(-1)^p x_1\otimes \cdots \otimes x_p,\label{eq:alpha}\ee
\be \tau(x_1 \otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=x_p\otimes \cdots\otimes x_1,\label{eq:tau}\ee
for $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V.$
The homogeneous elements define even-odd $Z_2$ gradation of $\T(V).$ The algebra $\T(V)$ is $Z_2$ graded into even and The main involution $\alpha$ respects this $Z_2$ gradation: For $u\in \T(V)$ even we have $\alpha(u)=u$, and for $u$ odd $\alpha(u)=-u.$
\subsubsection{Operators $e_x$, $i_f$, $i_x^F$.}\label{sec:ops}
For any vector space $W$ we denote by $\mbox{End}(W)$ the algebra of all endomorphisms (linear maps) of $W.$ For $x\in V$, we denote by $e_x$ the linear operator $e_x\in \mbox{End}(\T(V)),$ $\T^p(V)\rightarrow \T^{p+1}(V),$ of left multiplication by $x$:
\be e_x:u\mapsto e_x(u)=x\otimes u,\, u\in \T(V).\nn\ee
We denote by $V^*$ the dual vector space, that is the space of all linear functions from $V$ to $\BK.$ The following Proposition associates to each $f\in V^*$ an antiderivation of the graded algebra $\T(V)$.\footnote{C.f. also \cite[Lemma 3.2, p. 43]{chevalley1996},\cite[Lemma 1, p. 141]{Bourbaki2006}. Usually $i_f$ is defined on the exterior algebra rather than on the tensor algebra. Notice however that $i_f$ defined here is not the same as $i_f$ defined in Ref. \cite[A III.161-165]{Bourbaki1998} and\cite[A.15.2.1, p. 367]{dieu3}, where $i_f$ on $\T(V)$ is defined as the transpose of the operator $e_f$ acting on $\T(V)^*$, and where $i_f(u)$ is also written as $f\rfloor\, u$ and called a {\it a contraction in the direction of $f$. }}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:if}
Let $f$ be an element of $V^*.$ There exists a unique linear mapping $i_f$ from $\T(V)$ to $\T(V)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have \be i_f(1)=0,\label{eq:if1}\ee
\item For all $x\in V$ we have
\be e_x\circ i_f+i_f\circ e_x=f(x)\cdot 1\label{eq:if2a}\ee
\end{enumerate}
The map $f\mapsto i_f$ from $V^*$ to linear transformations on $\T(V)$ is linear. We have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] For all $x\in V\subset \T(V)$, $u\in \T(V),$ \be i_f(x\otimes u)=f(x)u-x\otimes i_f(u),\label{eq:ift}\ee
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $i_f(\T^p(V))\subset \T^{p-1}(V),$
\item[{\rm (iii)}] $i_f^2=0$,
\item[{\rm (iv)}] $i_fi_g+i_gi_f=0,\,\mbox{for all }f,g\in V^*$.
\end{enumerate}
For $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$ we have
\be i_f(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=\sum_{i=1}^p (-1)^{i-1}f(x_i)\,x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \hat{x}_i\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p.\label{eq:ifx1p}\ee
\label{prop:if0}\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The formula (\ref{eq:ift}) in (i) is an explicit expression of Eq. (\ref{eq:if2a}). The uniqueness of $i_f$ follows from the fact that Eq. (\ref{eq:if1}) determines $i_f$ on $\T^0(V)$, and
Eq. (\ref{eq:ift}) determines $i_f$ on $\T^p(V)$ once it is given on $\T^{p-1}(V)$. To prove the existence we notice that for $p\geq 1$ the map
\be (x_1,\ldots,x_p)\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^p (-1)^{i-1}f(x_i)\,x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \hat{x}_i\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p\nn\ee
from $V\times\cdots\times V$ to $\T(V)$ is $p$-linear, and therefore, by the universal property of tensor products, extends to a unique linear map, denoted here by $i^{(p)}_f,$ from $\T^p(V)$ to $\T^{p-1}(V).$ The mappings $i^{(p)}_f$, together with Eq.(\ref{eq:if1}) determine $i_f$ on $\T(V)$, so that Eq. (\ref{eq:ifx1p}) holds, and then Eq. (\ref{eq:ift}) follows by linearity. To prove (iii) we apply $i_f$ to both sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:ift}) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray*} i_f^2(x\otimes u)&=&f(x)i_f(u)-f(x)i_f(u)+x\otimes i_f^2(u)\\
&=&x\otimes i_f^2(u).\end{eqnarray*} Since $i_f(1)=0$, thus $i_f^2(1)=0,$ by recurrence we get that $i_f^2(u)=0$ for all $u\in \T(V).$ Then (iv) follows by noticing that $i_{f+g}^2=0$ for all $f,g\in V^*.$
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{def:ixf}
Let $F$ be a bilinear form on $V.$ Then every $x\in V$ determines a linear form $f_x$ on $V$ defined as $f_x(y)=F(x,y).$ We will denote by $i_x^F$ the antiderivation $i_{f_x}$ described in Proposition \ref{prop:if0}. In particular we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $i_x^F(1)=0$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] For all $y\in V$, $w\in \T(V)$ we have \be i_x^F(y\otimes w)=F(x,y)w-y\otimes i_x^F(w),\label{eq:iFx0}\ee
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ixf1}
With the notation as in the Definition \ref{def:ixf}, for $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ in $\T(V)$ we have
\be i_x^F(y_1\otimes\cdots\otimes y_n)=\sum_{j=1}^n (-1)^{j-1}F(x,y_j)y_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{y}_j\otimes\cdots\otimes y_n,\nn\ee
where $\hat{y}_j$ means that this factor is omitted in the product.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows immediately from the definition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Bourbaki's map $\lambda_F$}Bourbaki's book on sesquilinear and quadratic forms \cite{bourbaki1959} is one of the very few in the N. Bourbaki ``\'{E}l\'{e}ments de math\'{e}matique'' series that has never been translated into English.\footnote{It has been translated into Russian though \cite{bourbaki_ru}.} That is probably one of the main reasons why the idea of constructing a family of maps $\lambda_F$, parametrized by bilinear forms $F$ and acting as bundle automorphisms in the $Z_2$ graded vector bundle of Clifford algebras over the space of bilinear forms did not obtain the deserved attention in the Clifford algebra community.\footnote{Ref. \cite[pp. 30-31]{crumeyrolle} seems to be an exception. The author there considers the Bourbaki's mapping $\lambda_F$, though without quoting Bourbaki, for unexplained reason he calls it `antiderivation', and fails to distinguish between its actions on the tensor, exterior and Clifford algebras.} Here we will introduce the Bourbaki's operators $\Lambda_F$ by modifying the Chevalley's method as described in \cite[Ch. 2.1]{chevalley1996}, \cite[Ch. 5.14]{chevalley1956}, \cite[Ch. 5.7]{Northcott2009}. \footnote{Here we use the tensor algebra, instead of the exterior algebra as it is done in the quoted references.}\textsuperscript{,} \footnote{In Ref. \cite{Helmstetter2008} the authors discuss deformations of Clifford algebras, but they do it in their own way, difficult to follow for the present author.}
\begin{definition}
Let $F$ be a bilinear form on $V$. For each $x\in V$ let $\Lambda_F(x)\in \mbox{End}(\T(V))$ be defined as
\be \Lambda_F(x)=e_x+i_x^F.\nn\ee
The map $x\mapsto \Lambda_F(x)$ is linear, therefore, by the universal property of $\T(V)$, it extends to a unique algebra homomorphism, denoted $\Lambda_F$, from $\T(V)$ to $\mbox{End}(\T(V))$
\be \Lambda_F:\T(V)\ni u \mapsto \Lambda_F(u)\in \mbox{End}(\T(V)).\nn\ee
\end{definition}
In particular,
\be \Lambda_F(1)=\mbox{Id}_{\T(V)}.\label{eq:L1}\ee
For $u,v\in \T(V)$, we have
\be \Lambda_F(u\otimes v)=\Lambda_F(u)\,\Lambda_F(v),\nn\ee
and, in particular, for $x\in V$, $u\in \T(V)$ we have
\be \Lambda_F(x\otimes u)=(e_x+i_x^F)\Lambda_F(u).\label{eq:Lfxu}\ee
Finally, for $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$, we have
\be \Lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=(e_{x_1}+i_{x_1}^F)\cdots (e_{x_p}+i_{x_p}^F).\label{eq:L1p}\ee
\begin{proposition}
For $u\in \T^p(V)$ and $f\in V^*$ we have
\be i_f\circ \Lambda_F(u)=\Lambda_F(i_f(u))+(-1)^p\Lambda_F(u)\circ i_f.\label{eq:iFu}\ee
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We prove by induction. Since $\Lambda_F(1)=\mbox{Id}$, the statement evidently holds for $u=1.$ Let us suppose that the statement holds for all $u\in \T^p(V)$, $p\geq 0$. Then with $u\in \T^p(V)$, $x\in V$ we have
\begin{equation*} \begin{split}
&i_f\circ\Lambda_F(x\otimes u)=i_f\circ(e_x+i_x^F)\,\Lambda_F(u)=(i_f e_x +i_fi_x^F)\lambda_F(u)\\
&=(f(x)-e_xi_f-i_x^f i_f)\Lambda_F(u)=f(x)\Lambda_F(u)-(e_x+i_x^F)i_f\circ \Lambda_F(u)\\
&=f(x)\Lambda_F(u)-(e_x+i_x^F)\left[\Lambda_F(i_f(u))+(-1)^p\Lambda_F(u)\circ i_f\right]\\
&=\Lambda_F(f(x)u)-\Lambda_F(x\otimes i_f(u))+(-1)^{p+1}\Lambda_F(x\otimes u)\circ i_f\\
&=\Lambda_F(i_f(x\otimes u))+(-1)^{p+1}\Lambda_F(x\otimes u)\circ i_f.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
Therefore the statement holds also on $\T^{p+1}(V).$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $F,G$ be two bilinear forms on $V$. For $u,v\in \T(V)$ we have
\be \Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)=\Lambda_{F+G}(u)(\Lambda_F(v)(w))\label{eq:LFG}\ee
for all $w\in \T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G))\subseteq \T(V)$, where $\mbox{Rad}_R(G)=\{w\in V: G(v,w)=0,\,\forall v\in V\}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction. From Eq.(\ref{eq:L1}) for $u=1$ we get, on the left hand side
$\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(1)(v))(w)=\Lambda_F(v)(w),$ and the same result on the right hand side $\Lambda_{F+G}(1)(\Lambda_F((v)(w))=\Lambda_F(v)(w),$ for all $w\in V.$
Let us assume that the statement holds for $u\in \T^p(V).$
We will show that then it also holds for $u\in \T^{p+1}(V).$ Indeed, for $u\in \T^p(V),$ $v\in \T^q(V),$ and $x\in V$
we have:
\be
\begin{split}
&\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(x\otimes u)(v))(w)=\Lambda_F((e_x+i_x^G)\,\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)\nn\\
&=\Lambda_F(e_x\,\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)+\Lambda_F(i_x^G\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)\nn\\
&=(e_x+i_x^F)\,\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)+i_x^G\,\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)-(-1)^q\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(i_x^Gw)\nn\\
&=(e_x+i_x^{F+G})\,\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(w)-(-1)^q\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(i_x^Gw).\nn
\end{split}\ee
By the induction hypothesis for $w\in \T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G))$ we have $\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))=\Lambda_{F+G}(u)(\Lambda_F(v)(w))$, therefore
\be \begin{split}
&\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(x\otimes u)(v))(w)=(e_x+i_x^{F+G})\,\Lambda_{F+G}(x\otimes u)(v))(w)-(-1)^q\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(i_x^Gw)\\
&=\Lambda_{F+G}(x\otimes u)(\Lambda_F(v)(w))-(-1)^q\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u)(v))(i_x^Gw).
\nn\end{split}\ee
Now, if $w\in \T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G))$, the last term vanishes, which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
We notice that if $G$ is nondegenerate, then $\mbox{Rad}_R(G)=\{0\}$, and $\T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G))=\T^0(V)=\BK\cdot 1.$
\begin{definition}
Let $F$ be a bilinear form on $V$. We define $\lambda_F\in \mbox{End}(\T(V))$ as
\be \lambda_F(u)=\Lambda_F(u)(1), \label{eq:lf1}\ee
where $1$ denotes $1\in \BK=\T^0(V).$
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:7}
The map $\lambda_F$ defined above has the following properties
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
\be \lambda_F(1)=1,\quad \lambda_F(x)=x,\,(x\in V),\label{eq:l1}\ee
\item[{\rm (ii)}] \be\lambda_F(x\otimes u)=i^F_x(\lambda_F(u))+x\otimes\lambda_F(u),\, x\in V\label{eq:lb},\ee
\item[{\rm (iii)}] For all $f\in V^*$ we have
\be \lambda_F\circ i_f=i_f\circ\lambda_F.\label{eq:iii}\ee
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $F$ and $G$ are two bilinear forms on $V,$ then \be\lambda_F\circ\lambda_G=\lambda_{F+G}.\label{eq:lbc0}\ee
\item[{\rm (v)}] For $F=0$, $\lambda_F$ is the identity mapping:
\be \lambda_0 =\mbox{Id}_{\T(V)}.\nn\ee
\item[{\rm (vi)}] For every bilinear form $F,$ the linear mapping $\lambda_F:\T(M)\rightarrow \T(M)$ is a bijection.
\item[{\rm (vii)}] The map $\lambda_F$ preserves the parity (even-odd), i.e. with $\alpha$ defined as in Eq. (\ref{eq:alpha}) for $x_1,\ldots ,x_p\in V$ we have
\be \alpha (\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))=(-1)^p\,\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p).\nn\ee
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have $$\lambda_F(1)=\Lambda_F(1)(1)=\mbox{Id}_{\T(V)}(1)=1,$$ and $\lambda_F(x)=(e_x+i_x^F)(1)=x,$ therefore (i). From Eq. (\ref{eq:iFu}) we have
$$\lambda_F(x\otimes u)=\Lambda_F(x\otimes u)(1)=(e_x+i_x^F)\Lambda_F(u)(1)=(e_x+i_x^F)\lambda_F(u).$$ Therefore (ii) holds. Applying Eq. (\ref{eq:Lfxu}) to $1\in \T(V),$ and using $i_f(1)=0,$ we get (iii). To prove (iv) we set $v=w=1$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:LFG}). On the left hand side we get $\Lambda_F(\Lambda_G(u))$, while on the right hand side we notice that $w$ is now in $\T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G))$ and we use $\Lambda_F(1)(1)=1$ to get $\Lambda_{F+G}(u)$, as required. To show (v) notice that $i_x^0=0,$ and therefore from Eq. (\ref{eq:L1p}) we have $\Lambda_0(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=e_{x_1}\cdots e_{x_p}.$ It follows that $\lambda_0(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=e_{x_1}\cdots e_{x_p}1=x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p$, and therefore $\lambda_0=Id_{\T(V)}$. Now, using (v) we get $\Lambda_F\circ \lambda_{-F}=\Lambda_{-F}\circ \lambda_{F}=\lambda_0=\mbox{Id}_{\T(V)},$
therefore $\lambda_{-F}=(\lambda_F)^{-1}$, and so $\lambda_F$ is invertible. Thus (vi) holds. To prove (vii) notice that $\Lambda_{F,x}=e_x+i_x^F$ changes the parity:
\be \Lambda_{F,x}\circ \alpha=-\alpha\circ \Lambda_{F,x}.\nn\ee
Therefore, using Eq. (\ref{eq:L1p})we obtain
\be \Lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)\circ \alpha=(-1)^p\alpha\circ \Lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p).\nn\ee
Applying both sides of the above equation to $1\in \T(V)$ we get (vii).
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
For $u\in \T(V)=\bigoplus_{p=0}^\infty \T^p(V)$ we will denote by $u_p$ the component of $u$ in $\T^p(V).$
\end{definition}
From the definition of the algebraic direct sum it then follows that for each $u\in \T(V)$ we have that $u_p=0$, except for a finite number of $p.$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:par}
For $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$ we have that \be (\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p+k}=0,\, \mbox{for all } k>0.\nn\ee
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\lambda_F(1)=1$ and $\lambda_F(x)=x,$ the statement in the lemma is true for $p=0$ and $p=1.$ Let us assume that it holds for a given $p$, and we will show that then it also holds for $p+1.$ Indeed, with $x,x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$ we have
\be \lambda_F(x\otimes x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=x\otimes \lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)+i_x^F (\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)).\label{eq:lfhp}\ee From our induction assumption $\lambda_F(x\otimes x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)$ has no nonzero components of order higher than $p.$ Thus the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:lfhp}) has no nonzero components of order higher than $p+1$, while the second term does not have nonzero components of order higher than $-1$. Thus the assertion in the lemma holds.
\end{proof}
In the proposition below we denote by $[p/2]$ the floor function of $p/2$.
\begin{proposition}
Let $F$ be a bilinear form on $V,$ and assume $p\geq 2$, $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$. Then
\be
\begin{split}
&\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p\\
&+\sum_{k=1}^{[p/2]}\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}(-1)^\sigma F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k},x_{j_k})X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)},
\end{split}
\label{eq:ls}\ee
where the sum $\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}$ is over indices ${i_1},{j_1},\ldots,i_k,j_k$ such that $1\leq i_1<j_1,\ldots,i_k<j_k\leq p,$ and $i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_k,$ while $X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}$ denotes $x_1\otimes \cdots\otimes x_p$ with the factors $x_{i_1},x_{j_1},\ldots, x_{i_k},x_{j_k}$ omitted. $\sigma$ denotes the parity of the permutation that arranges the sequence $i_1,j_1,\ldots,i_k$ into the monotonic order within $i_1,\ldots,x_p.$
\label{prop:ln}\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{prop:7} and from Lemma \ref{lem:par} we know that if $u\in \T^p(V)$ then only the components
$(\lambda_F(u))_{p-2k}$ for which $p-2k\geq 0$ can be non-vanishing. It remains to prove that for $p-2k\geq 0$ we have
\be
\begin{split}&(\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p-2k}\\&=\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}(-1)^\sigma F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k},x_{j_k})X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}.
\end{split}\label{eq:lfk}
\ee
The proof is by induction. We know that $\lambda_F(1)=1$ and $\lambda_F(x)=x.$ Therefore
\be \lambda_F(x_1\otimes x_2)=x_1\otimes x_2+i_{x_1}^F(x_2)=x_1\otimes x_2+F(x_1,x_2).
\nn\ee
Thus, in this case, we have $p=2$ and only one term of the type as in Eq. (\ref{eq:lfk}), namely for $k=1.$ Let us assume now that Eq. (\ref{eq:lfk}) holds for $p$ smaller than or equal to a given $p\geq 2$. We will show that then it is also valid for $p+1.$
We have
\be
\begin{split}
&(\lambda_F(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p+1-2k}\nn\\&=x_0\otimes(\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p-2k}+i_{x_0}^F\left(\lambda(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)_{p+2-2k}\right)\nn\\
\end{split}\ee
The first term gives those terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:lfk}) for $p+1$ in which $x_0$ does not participate as an argument of $F$. Notice that the change of the numeration of indices does not influence the sign factor, as both indices $i_l,j_l$ are increased by one. The second term gives the terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:lfk}) in which $x_0$ participates as an argument of $F$. In that case it must participate as the first argument, and the operator $i_{x_0}^F$ makes sure that this happens. In order to obtain
\be (\lambda_F(x_0\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p+1-2k}\nn\ee
we need to take
\be i_{x_0}^F((\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p+2-2k}).\nn\ee
From Eq. (\ref{eq:iii}) we know that $i_{x_0}^F$ commutes with $\lambda_F$, therefore we need to calculate
\be (\lambda_F(i_{x_0}^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)))_{p+1-2k}.\nn\ee
We know the action of $i_{x_0}^F$
\be
\begin{split} &i_{x_0}^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)\nn\\&=\sum_{l=1}^p(-1)^{l-1}\,F(x_0,x_l)\,x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \hat{x}_l\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p,\nn
\end{split}\ee
where the hat denotes the factor omitted in the product. Therefore we need to calculate
\be
\begin{split} &\sum_{l=1}^p(-1)^{l-1}\,F(x_0,x_l)\nn\\
&(\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \hat{x}_l\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p+1-2k}.\nn
\end{split}\ee
For this term to be not automatically zero we need to take $k\leq [(p-1)/2].$ We set $k'=k-1$, then $p+1-2k=(p-1)-2k'$.
According to the induction assumption we have
\be \begin{split}&(\lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \hat{x}_l\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))_{p-1-2k'}\nn\\
&=\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_{k'})}(-1)^{\tilde{\sigma}} F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k'},x_{j_{k'}})\,\tilde{X}_{i_1,\ldots,j_{k'}}\nn
\end{split}\ee
where the tilde $\tilde{}$ denotes that $x_l$ is omitted in the expression. We need $\sigma'$ transpositions to restore the original order to the sequence $x_{i_1},\ldots,x_{i_k}$, and $l-1$ transpositions to put $x_l$ at the correct place. So the formula (\ref{eq:ls}) holds also for $x_0,\ldots,x_p.$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{$\lambda_F$ as an exponential}\label{sec:lexp}
\begin{definition}\label{def:ak}
Using the notation as in Proposition \ref{prop:ln} we define
\be a_0^F= \mbox{Id}_{\T(V)},\nn\ee
and for $k>0$ and $p\geq 2k$
\be
\begin{split}&a_k^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)\nn\\&=\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}(-1)^\sigma F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k},x_{j_k})X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}. \nn\end{split}\ee
For $p<2k$ we set $a_k^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=0$
\end{definition}
It is clear from the Proposition \ref{prop:ln} and from the definition of $a_k$ that we have:
\be \lambda_F=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k^F.\label{eq:lsum}\ee
We will show now that the sequence $(a_k^F)_{k\in {\bf N}}$ satisfies the relations that are characteristic for an {\it exponential sequence\,} - as discussed, for example, in Ref. \cite[A IV 87]{bourbaki47}:
\begin{proposition}
With $a_k$ defined as in the Definition \ref{def:ak} we have
\be a_k^F a_l^F=a_l^F a_k^F =\left(\begin{smallmatrix}k+l\\k\end{smallmatrix}\right)a_{k+l}^F,\label{eq:dp}\ee
where $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}k+l\\k\end{smallmatrix}\right)$
are binomial coefficients
\be \left(\begin{smallmatrix}k+l\\k\end{smallmatrix}\right) =\left(\begin{smallmatrix}k+l\\l\end{smallmatrix}\right)=\frac{(k+l)!}{k!l!}.\nn\ee
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
With $u\in \T^p(V)$, for $a_k^F(u)$ to be non-zero it is necessary that $p\geq 2k$, then $u'=a_k^F(u)$ is of grade $p'=p-2k$. For $a_l^F(u)'$ to be nonzero, we must have $p'-2l\geq 0$, i.e. $p\geq 2(k+l)$, as required by the statement. Assuming now $p\geq 2(k+l)$, we have
\be a_l^F(a_k^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))=\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}(-1)^\sigma F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k},x_{j_k})a_l(X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}).\nn\ee
Now
\be
\begin{split}
&a_l^F(X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)})\\
&=\sum_{(i_1',\ldots,j_l')}
(-1)^{\sigma'} F(x_{i_1'},x_{j_1'})\cdots F(x_{i_l'},x_{j_l'})\,X_{(i_1',\ldots,j_l')},
\end{split}
\label{eq:alko}\ee
where the primed indices are taken from among the indices remaining in $X_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}$, with $i_1'<\cdots i_l'$, $i_1'<j_1',\ldots,i_l'<j_l',$ and $\sigma'$ is the number of transpositions needed for restoring the original order in Eq. (\ref{eq:alko}). It is now clear that each term in the expansion of $a_{k+l}^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)$ will appear in the expansion of $a_l^F(a_k^F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p))$ as many times as there are $l$-element subsets in a given $(k+l)$-element subset of $\{1,\ldots,p\},$ that is $(k+l)!/l!$ times, and it will appear with the correct sign.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
It is clear from the proof above that, for any two bilinear forms $F,G$ the operators $a_k^F$ and $a_l^G$ commute. Therefore the family
$\{a_k^F\}$, with $k$ running through all natural integers and $f$ running through all bilinear forms generates a commutative subalgebra of $\mbox{End}(\T(V)).$
\end{rem}
\begin{corollary}
Assuming characteristic of $\BK$ is $0$, and setting $a_F=a_1^F$, we have
\be \lambda_F = \exp(a_F).\ee
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From the definition and from Eq. (\ref{eq:dp}) we have
$$ a_F^2=a_1^F a_1^F=2!\, a_2^F,$$
$$a_F^3=a_F a_F^2=2!\, a_1^F a_2^F=2!\,\frac{3!}{2!}a_3^F=3!\,a_3^F,$$
and, in general,
\be a_F^n=n!\,a_n^F.\ee
Thus, from Eq. (\ref{eq:lsum}) we have
\be \lambda_F=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\,a_F^n=\exp(a_F).\nn\ee
The series is finite when applied to any element $u\in \T(V)$, because $\T(V)=\bigoplus_{p=0}^\infty \T^p(V)$, by the definition of the algebraic direct sum, consists of elements $u=\oplus_{p=0}^\infty\, u_p$, $u_p\in \T^p(V)$, for which $u_p\neq 0$ for a finite number of $p$ only.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The case of alternating $F$ - the Pfaffian}
A bilinear form $F$ on $V$ is called alternating if $F(x,x)=0$ for all $x\in V.$ If $F$ is alternating, then $F(x+y,x+y)=0$ for all $x,y\in V$, and therefore, by bilinearity, the form $F$ is antisymmetric: $F(x,y)=-F(y,x)$. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in F.$ Then the matrix $f_{ij}=F(x_i,x_j)$ is alternating, i.e. $f_{ii}=0,\, f_{ij}=-f_{ji}.$
For an even-dimensional alternating matrix $f$ one defines the Pfaffian $\mbox{Pf}\,(f)$ as follows\footnote{See e.g. Ref. \cite[pp. 82-83]{bourbaki1959}.}
\begin{definition}
The Pfaffian of a $2n\times 2n$ alternating matrix $f=(f_{ij})$ is defined as
\be \mbox{Pf}\,(f)=\sum_\pi\, sign(\pi\,) f_{i_1j_1}f_{i_2j_2}\ldots f_{i_nj_n},\nn\ee
where the sum is over the set of all permutation $\sigma$ on the set $\{1,2,\ldots,2n\}$ of the form
\be \pi=\begin{pmatrix}1&2&3&4&\cdots &2n\\i_1&j_1&i_2&j_2&\cdots &j_n\end{pmatrix},\nn\ee
for $i_k<j_k$ and $i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_n.$ The sign of the permutation $sgn(\pi)$ is given by $(-1)^m$, where $m$ is the number of transpositions in $\pi.$
\label{def:pfa}\end{definition}
It is well known\footnote{See e.g. Ref. \cite[p.83]{bourbaki1959}.} that the square of the Pfaffian of an even-dimensional alternating matrix is equal to its determinant. Comparing the definition \ref{def:pfa} with the formula (\ref{eq:ls}) in Proposition \ref{prop:ln} and Definition \ref{def:ak}) we arrive at the following Corollary:
\begin{cor}
Let $F$ be an alternating bilinear form on $V$, let $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V,$ with $p\geq 2,$ $p$ even $p=2n.$ Then
\be \begin{vmatrix}F(x_1,x_1)&F(x_1,x_2)&\cdots &F(x_1,x_p)\\
F(x_2,x_1)&F(x_2,x_2)&\cdots &F(x_2,x_p)\\
.&.&\cdots &.\\
.&.&\cdots &.\\
.&.&\cdots &.\\
F(x_p,x_1)&F(x_p,x_2)&\cdots &F(x_p,x_p)\end{vmatrix}=\omega^2,\nn\ee
where
\be \omega=(\lambda_F (x_1\otimes \cdots \otimes x_p))_0=a_n^F(x_1\otimes \cdots \otimes x_p).\nn\ee
\QED\end{cor}
\section{Clifford algebras}
\subsection{Quadratic forms}
Given a module $M$ over a commutative ring $R$ there are two definitions possible of a quadratic form on $M$, one more general than the other if rings with an arbitrary characteristic are being considered.
The following, more general, definition is used, in particular, in Bourbaki \cite{Bourbaki1998}, Chevalley \cite{chevalley1996}, and Helmstetter \& Micali \cite{Helmstetter2008}:
\begin{definition}[Quadratic form I]\label{def:chev}
Let $M$ be a module over a commutative ring $R.$ A mapping $Q:M\rightarrow R$ is called a quadratic form on $M$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \be Q(\alpha x)=\alpha^2\,Q(x)\, \mbox{for all } \alpha\in R,\,x\in M,\label{eq:qa}\ee
\item There exists a bilinear form $\Phi(x,y)$ on $M$ such that for all $x,y\in M$ we have
\be \Phi(x,y)=Q(x+y)-Q(x)-Q(y).\label{eq:beta}\ee
\end{enumerate}
We say that the bilinear form $\Phi$ is the {\it polar form\,} associated with the quadratic form $Q.$ Sometimes $\Phi$ is also called {\em the polar form of $Q$}. It follows
from its very definition that $\Phi$ is {\em symmetric}: $\Phi(x,y)=\Phi(y,x)$ for all $x,y\in M.$
\end{definition}
We can combine Eqs. (\ref{eq:beta}) and (\ref{eq:qa}) into:
\be Q(\alpha x+\beta y)=\alpha^2Q(x)+\beta^2 Q(y)+\alpha\beta\Phi(x,y).\label{eq:qab}\ee
The short discussion of consequences given below is taken directly from Ref. \cite{Helmstetter2008}.
\begin{note}From the very definition we find that \be\Phi(x,x)=Q(2x)-2Q(x)=4Q(x)-2Q(x)=2Q(x)\label{eq:q2}.\ee It follows that {\bf if $R$ is of characteristic 2}, then $\Phi(x,x)=0$ for all $x\in R.$ Such a form is called {\em alternating }. In that case, since also $\Phi(x+y,x+y)=0$, we have that
\be
\begin{split}0=\Phi(x+y,x+y)=\Phi(x,x)+\Phi(x,y)+\Phi(y,x)+\Phi(y,y)\nn\\
=\Phi(x,y)+\Phi(y,x),
\nn\end{split}\ee
so that in this case the form $\Phi$ is antisymmetric $\Phi(x,y)=-\Phi(y,x).$
\end{note}
Getting back to a general characteristic, we may also notice at this point that {\em if the mapping $x\mapsto 2x$ is surjective} in $M,$ then the form $\Phi$ determines $Q.$ Indeed, setting $y=2x$ we get $Q(y)=Q(2x)=4Q(x)=2\Phi(x,x).$ We also observe that the quadratic form $Q$ is determined by the associated bilinear form $\Phi$ when the mapping $\alpha\mapsto 2\alpha$ is injective in $R,$ in particular if multiplication by $\frac{1}{2}$ makes sense in $R.$ In that case we can solve Eq. (\ref{eq:q2}) to obtain $Q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\Phi(x,x).$
In applications to Clifford algebras, unless we are interested in very special cases like characteristic $2,$ it is more convenient to use a little bit different definition of a quadratic form, as given, for instance, in Ref. \cite[p. 199]{sulanke2008}:
\begin{definition}[Quadratic form II]\label{def:sul}
Let $M$ be a module over a commutative ring $R.$ A function $Q:M\rightarrow R$ is called a quadratic form if there exists a bilinear form $F:M\times M\rightarrow R$ such that
\be Q(x)=F(x,x).\label{eq:qsul}\ee
\end{definition}
It follows from this last definition that the condition in Eq.(\ref{eq:qa}) is then automatically satisfied, and also the condition in Eq.(\ref{eq:beta}) is automatically satisfied with \be \Phi(x,y)=F(x,y)+F(y,x).\label{eq:bb}\ee
\begin{rem}
If the module $M$ admits a basis (in particular, when it is a vector space), then given a quadratic form $Q$ as in Def. \ref{def:chev} one can always construct a bilinear form $F$ (in general a non symmetric one) such that $Q(x)=F(x,x)$ (cf. Sec. \ref{sec:bf2} below).
\label{rem:qb}\end{rem}
\begin{definition}
If $F$ is a bilinear form on $V$, then the mapping $x\mapsto F(x,x)$ is a quadratic form. We will denote this form by $Q_F$:
\be Q_F(x)=F(x,x),\, x\in V.\nn\ee
\label{def:qb}\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Constructing a bilinear form in characteristic 2}\label{sec:bf2}
The construction here is taken from Ref. \cite[Proposition 2, p. 55]{Bourbaki2006}). \footnote{The construction can be also found in Ref. [I.2.2, p. 76]\cite{chevalley1996}, but under the assumption that $V$ is finite dimensional.}
Let $Q$ be a quadratic form on a vector space $V$ over a field $\BK.$ We start with noticing that $V,$ being a vector space, has a basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}.$ We select one such basis. By the well-ordering theorem every set can be well ordered, and we will assume that the index set $I$ is well ordered. Since $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$ is a basis, every bilinear form $F$ is uniquely determined by the coefficients $f_{ij}$, $i,j\in I.$ Let $\Phi$ be the bilinear form associated to $Q.$ We first observe that if $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in I}$ is any family of elements of $\BK$ with only a finite number of $\alpha_i\neq 0,$ then
\be Q(\sum_i \alpha_i e_i)=\sum_i \alpha_i^2Q(e_i)+\sum_{\{i<j\}}\alpha_i\alpha_j\Phi(e_i,e_j),\label{eq:rec1}\ee
where the last sum is over all {\em two-element subsets $\{i,j\}$ of} $I.$ \footnote{Thus if $a_{i_1}$ and $a_{i_2}$ are nonzero, with $i_1<i_2$, then only $\Phi(e_{i_1},e_{i_2})$ enters the sum, and not $\Phi(e_{i_2},e_{i_1}),$ because $\{i_2,i_1\}$ is the same subset as $\{i_1,i_2\}$ }
It is understood that each sum is over a finite set determined by non-zero $\alpha_i$-s. We prove Eq. (\ref{eq:rec1}) by induction with respect to the number $n$ of nonzero coefficients $\alpha_i$. If there are only two nonzero coefficients, then (\ref{eq:rec1}) follows from Eq. (\ref{eq:qab}), i.e. from the definition of the quadratic form \ref{def:chev}. Assume now that Eq. (\ref{eq:rec1}) holds for subsets $\{i_1,\ldots,i_n\}$ of $n$ non-zero coefficients $\alpha_i$, and let us add another non-zero coefficient $\alpha_{i_{n+1}}.$ Then
\begin{multline}
Q(\alpha_{i_1}e_{i_1}+\cdots +\alpha_{i_{n+1}}e_{i_{n+1}})=Q\left((\alpha_{i_1}e_{i_1}+\cdots +\alpha_{i_{n}}e_{i_{n}}\right)+\alpha_{i_{n+1}}e_{i_{n+1}})\notag\\
=Q(\alpha_{i_1}e_{i_1}+\cdots +\alpha_{i_n}e_{i_n})+Q(\alpha_{i_{n+1}}e_{i_{n+1}})+\Phi(\alpha_{i_1}e_{i_1}+\cdots +\alpha_{i_n}e_{i_n},\alpha_{i_{n+1}}e_{i_{n+1}})\notag.
\nn\end{multline}
Using now the quadratic form property, in particular for the sum of two elements, the assumed property for the sum of $n$ elements, as well as linearity of $\Phi$ in the first argument leads to the desired result. Nowhere do we need to assume that the basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$ is finite.
Given a quadratic form $Q$ we can now define a bilinear form $F$ satisfying $Q(x)=F(x,x)$ by defining its coefficients $f_{ij},$ $i,j\in I,$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} f_{ii}&=&Q(e_i),\nn\\
f_{ij}&=&\Phi(e_i,e_j),\, i<j,\nn\\
f_{ij}&=&0,\, i>j.
\end{eqnarray}
We now check that $Q(x)=F(x,x)$ for every $x$ in $V.$ If $x\in V$ then $x=\sum_i\alpha_i e_i,$ with only a finite number of non-zero terms in the sum. Therefore, using Eq. (\ref{eq:rec1}) we have
\be Q(x)=\sum_i \alpha_i^2Q(e_i)+\sum_{i<j}\alpha_i\alpha_j\Phi(e_i,e_j).\label{eq:rec2}\ee
On the other hand, from bilinearity of $F$ we have
$$ F(x,x)=F(\sum_i \alpha_i e_i,\sum_j \alpha_j e_j)=\sum_i \alpha_i^2 f_{ii}+\sum_{i\neq j}\alpha_i\alpha_j f_{ij}=Q(x)$$
from the definition of the coefficients $f_{ij}$ above (because $ f_{ij}=0$ for $i>j$) .
\subsubsection{Action of bilinear forms on quadratic forms}\label{sec:abf}
Let $V$ be a vector space over $\BK$. The set of quadratic forms on $V$ is a vector space. We will denote it $\mbox{Quad }(V).$ We will denote $\bv(V)$, $\sv(V)$, $\av(V)$ the vector spaces of bilinear, symmetric, and alternating forms respectively. If $Q\in \qv(V)$ and $F\in \bv(V)$ we will write $Q+F$ for the quadratic form $Q'(x)=Q(x)+Q_F(x).$ By Remark \ref{rem:qb} this action is transitive. If the characteristic of $\BK$ is $\neq 2$, then, given $Q,Q'$ there is a unique {\it symmetric\,} form $F$ such that $Q'=Q+F.$ On the other hand, in characteristic 2 there are quadratic forms $Q$ that are not of the form $Q=Q_F$, for $F\in \sv(V).$ \footnote{For a simple example of such a $Q$, for $\BK=\BZ/\BZ_2$, in the two dimensional space $\BK^2$, see ref. \cite[p. 295, Example]{lounesto2001}.}
\subsection{Clifford algebra - definition}
Let $V$ be a vector space over the (commutative) field $\BK$, let $Q$ be a quadratic form on $V$ (see Def. \ref{def:chev}), and let $I(Q)$ be the two-sided ideal in $\T(V)$ generated by elements of the form $x\otimes x-Q(x)1$, where $x\in V\subset \T(V).$ The ideal $I(Q)$ consists of all finite sums of elements of the form $x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_p\otimes (x\otimes x-Q(x)1)\otimes y_1\otimes \ldots\otimes y_q,$ where $x,x_1,\ldots,x_p,y_1,\ldots ,y_q$ are in $V.$
\begin{definition}[Clifford algebra]\footnote{Here we follows the standard definition as in \cite[p. 35]{chevalley1996}. An alternative definition can be found e.g. in \cite[p. 8]{gilbert91}}
With $V$ and $Q$ as above the quotient algebra $\cl(V,Q)=\T(M)/I(Q)$ is called the Clifford algebra associated to $V$ and $Q.$
\label{def:cli}\end{definition}
Denoting by $\pi_Q:\T(V)\rightarrow \cl(V,Q)$ the canonical mapping, $\pi_Q(V)$ is a subspace of $\cl(V,Q)$ that generates $\cl(V,Q)$ as an algebra.
\begin{rem}[A comment on non-triviality of $I(Q).$]
It may be of some interest to make it sure that $1_{\T(V)}$ is not in $I(Q)$. This is easy for the exterior algebra $\bigwedge(V)=\cl(V,0)$, which is $Z$-graded and the ideal $I(Q)$ is generated by homogeneous expressions $x\otimes x.$ To show that $I(Q)\neq \T(V)$ in a general case, one can proceed as follows. Let $F$ be a bilinear form such that\footnote{Cf. Sec. \ref{sec:bf2}.} $Q(x)=F(x,x)$, and consider the linear map $\bar{\Lambda}_F:V\rightarrow \mbox{End}(\bigwedge(B))$ defined as $\bar{\Lambda}_F:x\mapsto \bar{\Lambda}_F(x)=\bar{e}_x+\bi_x^F,$ where $\bar{e}_x$ and $\bi_x^F$ are defined as in Sec.\ref{sec:ops}, except that we use them on $\bigwedge(V)$ instead of on $\T(V)$.\footnote{We will discuss these operations in extenso in the next section.} By the universality of the tensor algebra $\T(V)$, $\bL_F$ extends uniquely to an {\em algebra homomorphism of unital algebras\,} (denoted by the same symbol) $\bL_F:\T(V)\rightarrow \mbox{End}(\bigwedge(V)).$ It is easy to see that $\bbe_x^2=(\bi_x^F)^2=0,$ and $\bbe_x\,\bi_x^F+\bi_x^F\,\bbe_x=F(x,x)=Q(x),$ and therefore $\bL_F$ vanishes on the ideal $I(Q)$. But, on the other hand, $\bL_F(1)=\mbox{Id}_{\bigwedge(V)},$ therefore $1_{\T(V)}\notin I(Q),$ and, a fortiori, $1\in \cl(V,Q).$
\label{rem:1}\end{rem}
\noindent For all $x\in V$ we have
\be (\pi_Q(x))^2=Q(x)1.\nn\ee
From $\pi_Q(x+y)^2-\pi_Q(x)^2-\pi_Q(y)^2=Q(x+y)-Q(x)-Q(y)=\Phi(x,y)$ we find that
\be \pi_Q(x)\pi_Q(y)+\pi_Q(y)\pi_Q(x)=\Phi(x,y).1.\nn\ee
In the following, whenever no confusion can arise, we will simply write $\cl(Q)$ instead of $\cl(V,Q).$
\begin{remn}Corollary \ref{cor:inj} below shows that the mapping $V\ni x\mapsto \pi_Q(x)$ is injective and therefore $V$ can be identified with a linear subspace of $\cl(Q).$
\end{remn}
The following proposition is an immediate consequence of the universal property of the tensor algebra and of the definition of the Clifford algebra above (c.f. \cite[Proposition 1, p. 140]{bourbaki1959}).
\begin{proposition}[Universal property]\label{pro:up}
Let $\phi$ be a linear map from $V$ into an algebra $\mathcal{A}$, such that
$\phi(x)^2=Q(x).1$ for all $x\in V.$ Then $\phi$ can be extended to a unique algebra homomorphism $\bar{\phi}:\cl(Q) \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$. If $\mathcal{A}$ is $Z_2$-graded, and $\phi$ maps $V$ into an odd subspace of $\mathcal{A}$, then $\bar{\phi}$ is a homomorphism of $Z_2$-graded algebras.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As mentioned above, the first part of the proposition follows from the universal property of the tensor algebra and the definition \ref{def:cli} of $\cl(Q).$ The second part follows from the fact that $V$ generates $\cl(V),$ and that the even (resp. odd) part of $\cl(V)$ is generated by products of even (resp. odd) number of elements of $V.$
\end{proof}
The case of $Q=0$ is special. The ideal $I(Q)$ is then generated by homogeneous elements $x\otimes x$ and the algebra $\cl(0)$ (i.e. $\cl(Q)$ for $Q=0$) is nothing but {\em the exterior algebra} $\bigwedge(V)$ of $V.$ All homogeneous elements of $I(0)$ are then of at least of the degree 2, therefore no non-zero element of $V$ can belong to this ideal. It then easily follows that in this case the mapping $x\mapsto \pi_Q(x)$ is an embedding and $V$ can be always identified with the grade 1 subspace of $\Lambda(V)=\cl(0)$.\label{sec:cad}
The ideal $I(Q)$ is stable under the main involution $\alpha$ and the main anti-involution $\tau$ (Eqs. (\ref{eq:alpha}) and (\ref{eq:tau})). Therefore $\alpha$ and $\tau$ descend to the quotient Clifford algebra $\cl(Q)$. We shall use the same symbols $\alpha,\tau$ to denote the induced involution and anti-involution on $\cl(Q).$ While the tensor algebra $\T(V)$ is $Z-$graded, the Clifford algebras $\cl(Q)$ for $Q\neq 0$ are only $Z_2$-graded:
\be \cl(Q)=\cl^+(Q)\oplus \cl^-(Q), \nn\ee
where $\cl^\pm(Q)$ are the images of even/odd parts of the tensor algebra. If the mapping $x\mapsto 2x$ of $\cl(Q)$ to itself is injective, then
\be \cl^{\pm}(Q)=\{u\in \cl(Q):\alpha(u)=\pm u\}.\nn\ee
Alternatively $\cl^+(Q)$ (resp. $\cl^-(Q))$ can be defined as the linear subspace of $\cl(Q)$ generated by the products
$x_1\cdots x_p$, $x_i\in V$, with $p$ even (resp. odd). We have
\be
\begin{split}\cl(Q)^+\cl(Q)^+\subset \cl(Q)^+,\,\cl(Q)^+\cl(Q)^-\subset \cl(Q)^-,\,\\ \cl(Q)^-\cl(Q)^-\subset \cl(Q)^+.
\end{split}\label{eq:eo}\ee
Therefore (since $1$ is an even element) $\cl(Q)^+$ is a subalgebra of $\cl(Q).$
It is called {\em the even Clifford algebra}.
\section{Natural operations within and between Clifford algebras}
In this section, the main section of this paper, we will study the natural linear operations acting within and between Clifford algebras over the same vector space $V.$ Connecting Clifford algebras $\cl(V,Q)$ and $\cl(V,Q')$ can be achieved by operations at the higher level, namely at the level of the tensor algebra $\T(V)$ - the one source of all $\cl(V,Q)$'s, through the quotient maps.
\subsection{Anti-derivations $\bi_f$.}
\label{sec:ibf}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ibf}
If $Q$ is a quadratic form on $V$ then the ideal $I(Q)$ is stable under $i_f$, that is $i_f(I(Q))\subset I(Q),$ and thus $i_f$ defines the endomorphism, denoted by $\bi_f$, on the quotient Clifford algebra $\cl(Q)=\T(V)/I(Q)$:
\be \pi_Q\circ i_f=\bi_f\circ\pi_Q,\label{eq:ifb}\ee
with the property
\be \bi_f(1)=0.\nn\ee
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $i_f(x\otimes x-Q(x).1)=f(x)\otimes x-x\otimes f(x)-f(x)i_f(1_{\T(V)})=0,$ therefore $i_f$ defines the linear mapping $\bi_f$ on the quotient algebra $\cl(Q)$, with the property
\be \bi_f\circ\pi_Q=\pi_Q\circ i_f.\label{eq:ibf}\ee
Since $\pi_Q$ is a homomorphism of unital algebras (cf. Remark \ref{rem:1}), we have $\pi_Q(1_{\T(V)})=1,$ and therefore, by Eq. (\ref{eq:ibf}) we have $\bi_f(1)=0.$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
The mapping $\pi_Q$ restricted to $V$, $\pi_Q:V\ni x\mapsto \pi(x)\in \cl(Q)$ is injective.
\label{cor:inj}\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Applying $\pi_Q$ to both sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:ift}) and using Eq. (\ref{eq:ibf}) we obtain
\be \bi_f(\pi_Q(x) w)=f(x)w-\pi_Q(x) \bi_f(w),\label{eq:ifp1}\ee
for all $x\in V,\, w\in \cl(Q).$
Let $x\in V,\, x\neq 0$, and let $f$ be any element from $V^*$ with the property $f(x)=1$ (cf. Section \ref{sec:scl}). Setting $w=1$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:ifp1}) we get $\bi_f(\pi_Q(x))=f(x)1\neq 0,$ therefore $\pi_Q(x)\neq 0.$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}In the following we will identify $x$ with $\pi_Q(x),$ and $V$ with $\pi_Q(V)$.\end{rem}
The operators $e_x:\T(V)\rightarrow \T(V),\,x\in V,$ of left multiplication in the tensor algebra evidently map the ideal $I(Q)$ into itself, and therefore descend to the quotient $\cl(Q)=\T(V)/I(Q)$, and become the operators of left multiplication in $\cl(Q)$
We will denote these quotient operators $\bar{e}_x:$
\be \pi_Q\circ e_x=\bar{e}_x\circ \pi_Q.\label{eq:expi}\ee
It follows from the very definition that for $x,y\in V$
\be \bar{e}_x^2=Q(x),\ \bar{e}_x\bar{e}_y+\bar{e}_y\bar{e}_x= \Phi(x,y).\label{eq:bex}\ee
\begin{proposition}
On $\cl(Q)$ we have\footnote{The right hand sides in Eqs. (\ref{eq:bex}),(\ref{eq:iepei}) are to be understood as multiplication by scalars in $\mbox{End}(\cl(Q))$. }
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $ \bi_f(1)=0,\,(1\in \cl(Q))$
\item[{\rm (ii)}] For all $x \in V,\,f,g\in V^*$ we have
\be \bi_f^2=0,\,\bi_f\bi_g+\bi_g\bi_f=0,\label{eq:bif2}\ee
\be \bi_f\bar{e}_x+\bar{e}_x\bi_f=f(x),\label{eq:iepei}\ee
or, explicitly: for all $x\in V$, $w\in \cl(Q),$ we have
\be \bi_f(x w)=f(x)\,w-x\, \bi_f(w).
\label{eq:ifp}\ee
\item[{\rm (iii)}] For $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$ we have
\be \bi_f(x_1\cdots x_p)=\sum_{i=1}^p (-1)^{i-1}f(x_i)\,x_1\cdots \hat{x}_i\cdots x_p.\label{eq:ifx2p}\ee
\end{enumerate}
\label{prop:if2}\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have already established (i). The formulas in (ii) follows immediately by applying $\pi_Q$ to Eqs. (iii) and (iv) in Proposition \ref{prop:if}, and to Eq. (\ref{eq:ifx1p}), and taking into account the fact that $\pi_Q$ is the algebra homomorphism.\footnote{The formula (\ref{eq:ifx2p}) is usually proven for the $Z$-graded exterior algebra $\bigwedge(V)$ rather than for a general Clifford algebra $\cl(Q)$ which is only $Z_2$ graded. See e.g. \cite[Exerc. 5, p. 155]{Bourbaki2006}.}
\end{proof}
As it was in the case with $\bi_f$, we will denote by $\bi_x^F$ the antiderivation $\bi_f$ for $f(y)=F(x,y):$
\be \bi_x^F=\bi_f, \quad \mbox{for } f(y)=F(x,y),\,(x,y\in V).\nn\ee
The mapping $V\ni x\rightarrow \bi_x^F\in \mbox{End}\left(\cl(Q\right))$ is linear and has the property
$(\bi_x^F)^2=0.$ Therefore it extends to a unique algebra homomorphism $\bigwedge(V)\ni u\mapsto \bi_u^F\in\mbox{End}(\cl(Q)).$ In particular, if $Q=0$, we have the map $u\mapsto \bi_{u}^F,$ $\bigwedge (V)\rightarrow \mbox{End}\left(\bigwedge(V)\right)$, sometimes written using the contraction symbol $\rfloor$:
\be u\JJF v\doteq\bi_u^F(v).\nn\ee
\subsection{The mapping $\bl_F$}
The Proposition below encapsulates one of the most important properties of $\lambda_F$. The detailed proof is provided here for the sake of completeness and follows the lines of \cite[Proposition 3, p. 143]{Bourbaki2006}.
\begin{proposition}
Let $Q$ and $Q'$ be two quadratic forms on $V$ such that $Q'(x)=Q(x)+F(x,x),$ where $F(x,y)$ is a bilinear form. The mapping $\lambda_F$ maps the ideal $I(Q')$ onto the ideal $I(Q)$, $\lambda_F(I(Q'))=I(Q),$ and therefore it defines a linear isomorphism, denoted $\bl_F$ of $\cl(Q')$ onto $\cl(Q):$
\be \pi_Q\circ \lambda_F=\bl_F\circ\pi_{Q'}.\label{eq:blam}\ee
\label{prop:ll}\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us define the linear subspace $\mF\subset \T(V)$ as
$$ \mF=\{u\in \T(V): \lambda_F(u)\in I(Q)\}.$$
We will show that $I(Q')\subseteq \mF,$ therefore $$\lambda_F( I(Q'))\subseteq I(Q).$$ Since this will hold for any $F$, we will also have, in particular, that $$\lambda_{-F}(I(Q))\subseteq I(Q').$$ Applying $\lambda_F$ to both sides, and taking into account the fact that (cf. Proposition \ref{prop:7}, (iv),(v)) $\lambda_F\circ\lambda_{-F}=\mbox{Id}_{\T(V)},$ we will get $I(Q)\subseteq \lambda_F(I(Q')),$ therefore $\lambda_F(I(Q'))=I(Q)$ as in the statement.
In order to show that $I(Q')\subseteq \mF,$ we will first show that $\mF$ contains the right ideal generated by $x\otimes x-Q'(x)$, $x\in V.$ In fact, we will show that for each $x\in V$, $u\in \T(V)$, we have
\be \lambda_F(x\otimes x-Q'(x))=(x\otimes x-Q(x))\otimes \lambda_F(u).\tag{*}\ee
We have
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&\lambda_F(x\otimes x\otimes u)=x\otimes\lambda_F(x\otimes u)+i_x^F(\lambda_F(x\otimes u)\\
&=x\otimes\left(x\otimes\lambda_F(u)+i_x^F(\lambda_F(u))\right)+i_x^F\left(x\otimes\lambda_F(u)+i_x^F(\lambda_F(u))\right)\\
&=(x\otimes x+F(x,x))\lambda_F(u),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we have used Eq. (\ref{eq:lb}) and the properties of $i_x^F$ listed in Proposition \ref{prop:if}. We will now show that $\mF$ is a left ideal in $\T(V),$ which will complete the proof.
To this end, assuming $u\in \mF$ and $x\in V$, we will show that $x\otimes u\in\mF.$ Indeed, using Eq. \ref{eq:lb}), we have
$\lambda_F(x\otimes u)=x\otimes \lambda_F(u)+i_x^F(\lambda_F(u)).$ Since, by assumption, $\lambda_F(u)\in I(Q)$, and $I(Q)$ is, in particular, a left ideal, it follows that $x\otimes \lambda_F(u)\in I(Q).$ On the other hand, since $\lambda_F(u)\in I(Q)$, and, by Lemma \ref{lem:ibf}, $I(Q)$ is stable under $i_x^F$, it follows that also $i_x^F(\lambda_F(u))\in I(Q).$ Thus, indeed, $\lambda_F(x\otimes u)\in I(Q)$, therefore $x\otimes u\in \mF,$ and so $\mF$ is a left ideal in $\T(V).$ \footnote{We are using here the fact that every element of $\T(V)$ is a finite sum of finite products of elements of $V.$}
\end{proof}
\begin{note} We assume that $V$ is a vector space, therefore $V$ can be identified with $\pi_Q(V)\subset \cl(Q)$, and in the following we will do so.
\end{note}
\begin{proposition}
For all $x\in V$, $w\in \cl(Q)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\bl_F(1)&=&1,\label{eq:lb1}\\
\bl_F(x)&=&x,\label{eq:lb2}\\
\bl_F(xw)&=&\bi_x^F(\bl_F(w))+x\bl_F(w),\label{eq:lb3}
\end{eqnarray}
where in Eq. (\ref{eq:lb3}) the multiplication $xw$ on the left is in the algebra $C(Q'),$ while the multiplication $x\bl_F(w)$ on the right is in the algebra $\cl(Q).$ Equations (\ref{eq:lb1}) and (\ref{eq:lb3}) define $\bl_F$ uniquely on $\cl(Q).$
For $p\geq2$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$, we have
\be
\begin{split}
&\bl_F(x_1\cdots x_p)=x_1\cdots x_p\\
&+\sum_{k=1}^{[p/2]}\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}(-1)^\sigma F(x_{i_1},x_{j_1})\cdots F(x_{i_k},x_{j_k})\bar{X}_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)},
\end{split}
\label{eq:lsq}\ee
where the sum $\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}$ is over indices ${i_1},{j_1},\ldots,i_k,j_k$ such that $1\leq i_1<j_1,\ldots,i_k<j_k\leq p,$ and $i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_k,$ while $\bar{X}_{(i_1,\ldots,j_k)}$ denotes the product $x_1\cdots x_p$ with the factors $x_{i_1},x_{j_1},\ldots, x_{i_k},x_{j_k}$ omitted. The product $x_1\cdots x_p$ on the left hand side is in the algebra $\cl(Q'),$ while the products on the right hand side are in the algebra $\cl(Q)$. $\sigma$ denotes the number of transpositions necessary for transforming the permutation of indices $1,\ldots,p$ as in Eq. (\ref{eq:lsq}) to the original order.
If $F,G$ are bilinear forms, if $Q''(x)=Q'(x)+G(x,x)$ and $Q'(x)=Q(x)+F(x,x),$ then
\be \bl_{F+G}=\bl_F\circ\bl_G.\label{eq:lbc}\ee:
\be
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.em]
& \cl(Q') \arrow{dr}{\bl_F} \\
\cl(Q'') \arrow{ur}{\bl_G} \arrow{rr}{\bl_{F+G}} && \cl(Q)
\end{tikzcd}
\label{eq:lbcd}\ee
We have
\be {(\bl_F)}^{-1}=\lambda_{(-F)}\label{eq:lfmin},\ee
therefore, in particular, $\bl_F$ is injective.
\label{prop:bl}\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Eqs. (\ref{eq:lb1}) and (\ref{eq:lb3}) follows immediately by applying $\pi_Q$ to both sides of Eqs. (\ref{eq:l1}) and (\ref{eq:lb}) and making use of Eqs. (\ref{eq:ifp}) and (\ref{eq:blam}), with $w=\pi_Q(u).$ Eq. (\ref{eq:lbc}) follows directly from Eq. (\ref{eq:lbc0}) and the definition of the quotient mappings, as we have the general property of compositions of quotients of mappings. Eq. (\ref{eq:lsq}) follows directly from Eq. (\ref{eq:ls}) by applying $\pi_Q$. \end{proof}
\begin{cor}
If $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are in $V$ and if $F(x_i,x_j)=0$ for $i<j$, then
\be \bl_F(x_1\cdots x_n)=x_1\cdots x_n,\nn\ee
where the product in the argument of $\bl_F$ is taken in $\cl(Q')$ and the product on the right hand side is in $\cl(Q).$
\label{cor:sqo}\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The statement follows directly from Eq. (\ref{eq:lsq}).
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The mapping $\bL_F$}\label{sec:bLF}
The mapping $\bL_F$ defined below is a straightforward generalization of the Chevalley's construction, cf. \cite[p. 70]{chevalley1996}.
Let $Q$ be a quadratic form and $F$ a bilinear form on a vectors space $V$ over a field $\BK$. With $x\in V$ let $\bL_x^F\in \mbox{End}\,(\cl(Q))$ be defined as
\be \bL_x^F = \bar{e}_x+\bi_x^F.\nn\ee
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq:bex}),(\ref{eq:bif2}),(\ref{eq:iepei}) we find that
\be (\bL_x^F)^2=Q'(x),\nn\ee
where $Q'(x)$ is the quadratic form
\be Q'(x)=Q(x)+F(x,x).\nn\ee
Therefore, by the universal property (see Proposition \ref{pro:up}), $\bL_x^F$ extends to a unique algebra homomorphism, denoted $\bL_F,$
\be \bL_F:\cl(Q')\rightarrow \mbox{End}(\cl(Q)).\nn\ee
Since every Clifford algebra has a natural $Z_2$-gradation , the algebra $\mbox{End}(\cl(Q))$ is also naturally $Z_2$-graded. In general, if $W_1,W_2$ are graded vector spaces, the gradation of the space $\mbox{Hom }(W_1,W_2))$ is given by
\be \mbox{Hom}^k(W_1,W_2)=\{\phi\in \mbox{Hom }(W_1,W_2):\phi(W_1^i)\subseteq W_2^{i+k}\}.\nn\ee
Since $\bL_x^F$ is an odd element of $\mbox{End }(\cl(Q')$, it follows that $\bL_F,$ is also a homomorphism of $Z_2$-graded algebras $\bL_F: \cl(Q)\rightarrow \mbox{End}(\cl(Q')).$ It follows from the definition that
for $x_1,\ldots,x_p\in V$ we have
\be \bL_F(x_1\cdots x_p)=(\bar{e}_{x_1}+\bi^F_{x_1})\cdots (\bar{e}_{x_p}+\bi^F_{x_p}).\nn\ee
From Eqs. (\ref{eq:L1p}),(\ref{eq:ifb}),(\ref{eq:expi}) we have the relation between $\bL_F$ and $\Lambda_F$, namely, for all $F\in \mbox{Bil}(V), Q\in \mbox{Quad}(V),\, u,v\in \T(V)$ we have
\be \bL_F(\pi_{Q'}(u))(\pi_Q(v))=\pi_Q(\Lambda_F(u)(v)).\label{eq:LbL}\ee
From Eq. (\ref{eq:LFG}) we obtain now
\be \bL_F\left(\bL_G(u)(v)\right)(w)=\bL_{F+G}(u)\left(\bL_G(v)(w)\right),\label{eq:bLFG}\ee
for all $F,G\in \mbox{Bil}(V),Q\in\mbox{Quad}(V),u\in\cl(Q+Q_{F+G}),v\in\cl(Q+Q_F),$ $w\in\pi_Q(\T(\mbox{Rad}_R(G)))=\cl(\mbox{Rad}_R(G),Q).$
Let us recall that from Eqs. (\ref{eq:L1p}),(\ref{eq:lf1}) we have
\be \lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)=\Lambda_F(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_p)(1)=(e_{x_1}+i^F_{x_1})\cdots (e_{x_p}+i^F_{x_p})(1).\nn\ee
Applying $\pi_Q$ to both sides we obtain:
\be \bl_F(x_1\cdots x_p)=\bL_F(x_1\cdots x_p)(1),\nn\ee
or \be \bl_F(u)=\bL_F(u)(1)\quad\mbox{for all}\quad u\in \cl(Q').\label{eq:lL1}\ee
We thus obtain the following commutative diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.em]
& \mbox{End }(\cl(Q)) \arrow{dr}{\mbox{ev}(\cdot,1)} \\
\cl(Q') \arrow{ur}{\bL_F} \arrow{rr}{\bl_F} && \cl(Q)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where $\mbox{ev}$ is the evaluation map. Since, (cf. Proposition \ref{prop:bl}) $\bl_F$ is injective, it follows that $\bL_F$ is injective as well, that is that $\bL_F$ is a graded algebra isomorphism from $\cl(Q)$ onto its image in $\mbox{End}(\cl(Q')).$
\subsubsection{A comment on representations of Clifford algebras $\cl(V,Q)$ on $\bigwedge(V)$}\label{sec:reps}
Let $F$ be a bilinear form on $V,$ and let $Q=Q_F$, i.e. $Q(x)=F(x,x),\,x\in V.$\footnote{Recall that if $\BK$ is of characteristic $\neq 2,$ then every $Q\in\mbox{Quad}(V)$ is of such a form.} The mapping $\bL_F$, defined above in Section \ref{sec:bLF}, is then an algebra homomorphism from $\cl(V,Q)$ to $\mbox{End}(\bigwedge(V))$. In other words $\bigwedge(V)$ becomes a Clifford module, and $u\mapsto \bL_F(u)$ becomes a (a faithful) representation of the algebra $\cl(V,Q)$ on $\bigwedge(V).$ Let us denote this representation $\rho_F$:
\be \rho_F(u)=\bL_F(u).\nn\ee
If $F'$ is another bilinear form with the property $Q_{F'}=Q_F=Q,$ then $F'=F+A,$ where $A$ is an alternating form. In this case we have two representations, $\rho_F$ and $\rho_{F'}$ of the same algebra $\cl(V,Q)$ on $\bigwedge(V).$
Let us recall (see e.g. \cite[p. 49]{erdmann}) that two representations $\rho$ and $\rho'$ of the same algebra $\mathcal{A}$ on a vector space $\mathcal{W}$ are said to be equivalent if there is a vector space automorphism $\psi:\mathcal{W}\rightarrow \mathcal{W}$ such that
\be \rho'(a)=\psi\circ\rho(a)\circ\psi^{-1}\quad \mbox{for all}\quad a\in \mathcal{A}.\nn\ee
\begin{proposition}
With the assumptions as above, the representations $\rho_F$ and $\rho_{F'}$ of $\cl(V,Q)$ on $\bigwedge(V)$ are equivalent. Namely, we have
\be \rho_{F'}(a)=\lambda_A\circ\rho_{F}(a)\circ\lambda_A^{-1},\quad \mbox{for all}\quad a\in \cl(V,Q).\nn\ee
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us put $F=A, G=F$, $w=1$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:bLFG}). Using Eq. (\ref{eq:lL1}) we obtain
\be \bl_A\left(\bL_F(u)(v)\right)=\bL_{F'}(u)\left(\bl_A(v)\right),\nn\ee
or
\be \bl_A\circ\rho_F(u)=\rho_{F'}(u)\circ\bl_A.\nn\ee
\end{proof}
\subsection{Automorphisms and deformations in the bundle of Clifford algebras}\label{sec:aut}
We have arrived at the following picture: We have an action, let us denote it by $\tilde{\lambda}$, of the additive group of bilinear forms $\bv(V)$ on the manifold of quadratic forms $\qv(V)$,
the stability subgroup being $\av(V)$ - the additive group of alternating forms:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\lambda}:\bv(V)\times\qv(V)&\rightarrow& \qv(V)\notag\\
\tilde{\lambda}(F,Q)&=&Q',\\ Q'(x)&=&Q(x)+F(x,x)\notag.
\end{eqnarray}
The group $\bv(V)$ acts on the basis of the $Z_2$-graded vector bundle $\cl(V)$ whose fibers are Clifford algebras $\cl(Q).$ And we know that this action admits what
is called a {\em lifting}, and we denote it with the letter $\tilde{\lambda}$, to the bundle $\cl(V):$
\be \tilde{\lambda}(F,u)=\bl_{-F}(u),\, u\in \cl(Q),\nn\ee
where $\bl_F$ have been defined in Proposition \ref{prop:ll}.\footnote{By definition the mapping $\bl_F$ is from $\cl(Q')$ to $\cl(Q)$. To map $\cl(Q)$ to $\cl(Q')$, where $Q'=Q+Q_F,$ we need to take the inverse map $\bl_{-F}=\bl_F^{-1}.$} Now $\tilde{\lambda}(F,\cl(Q))=\cl(Q').$ Thus fibers are mapped onto fibers by linear isomorphisms - see Fig. \ref{fig:bca}. For $F\in\av(V)$ we have $Q'=Q$, and so each fiber $\cl(Q)$ is mapped linearly onto itself. The linear morphism above are also preserving the natural $Z_2$ gradations of the Clifford algebras..
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,2) -- (7,2) -- (7,5) -- (1,5) -- (1,2);
\draw (1,1) -- (7,1);
\draw (2,2) -- (2,5);
\draw (2,0.9) -- (2,1.1);
\draw (5,0.9) -- (5,1.1);
\node at (6.5,4.7) {\large{$\cl(V)$}};
\node at (8,1) {\large{$\qv(V)$}};
\node at (2,0.5) {\large{$Q$}};
\node at (5,0.5) {\large{$Q'$}};
\draw (5,2) -- (5,5);
\node at (5.5,3.5) {\large{$\cl(Q')$}};
\node at (2.5,3.5) {\large{$\cl(Q)$}};
\draw [->] (2.5,0.5) -- (4.5,0.5);
\node at (3.5,0.75) {\large{$\tilde{\lambda}$}};
\draw [->] (2,2.5) -- (5,3);
\node at (3.5,3) {\large{$\bl$}};
\node at (3.5,4.5) {\large{$\bl$}};
\draw [->] (2,4) -- (5,4.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Every bilinear form $F\in \bv(V)$ defines an automorphism of the $Z_2$-graded vector bundle of Clifford algebras mapping linearly fibers onto fibers. Alternating forms in $\av(V)\subset\bv(V)$ define vertical automorphisms - they do not move points on the base and map every fiber into itself. Such automorphisms are also called {\em gauge transformations} }
\label{fig:bca}\label{fig:1}\end{figure}
In characteristic $\neq 2$ the $Z_2$-graded vector bundle $\cl(V)$ admits a natural parallelization. If $Q$ and $Q'$ are any two quadratic forms, then there is a unique symmetric bilinear form F, such that $Q'=Q+Q_F,$ where $Q_F$ is given by Definition \ref{def:qb}, namely $F=\frac12 (\Phi'-\Phi),$ where $\Phi, \Phi'$ are given by Eq. (\ref{eq:beta}). In that case $\bl_F$ provides a natural $Z_2$-graded vector space isomorphism between $\cl(V,Q')$ and $\cl(V,Q).$ In characteristic $2$ the bundle $\cl(V)$ is also parallelizable, and the parallelization can be achieved using a non-symmetric bilinear form $F$ defined, for instance, by the construction in Section \ref{sec:bf2}. In that case the parallelization depends on the choice of a basis in $V.$
Given two quadratic forms $Q$ and $Q'$, such that $Q'=Q+Q_F$, we can use the mapping $\bl_F$ to realize the Clifford algebra $\cl(Q')$ as a deformation of the Clifford algebra product in $\cl(Q)$ as follows. For $u,v\in \cl(Q)$ let $uv$ stand for the product of $u$ and $v$ in $\cl(Q).$ Then $\bl_{-F}(u)$ and $\bl_{-F}(v)$ are in $\cl(Q')$. We multiply them in $\cl(Q')$ and transform their product back to $\cl(Q)$ using $\bl_F.$ This way we obtain the $\cl(Q'),$ product, with $Q'=Q+Q_F$, realized within $\cl(Q)$:
\be \BFprod{u}{v}=\bl_F\left(\bl_{-F}(u)\,\bl_{-F}(v)\right).\label{eq:uvf1}\ee
Since $V$ generates any Clifford algebra $\cl(V,Q)$, in particular $\cl(Q'),$ it is enough to have the formula (\ref{eq:uvf1}) for $u=x\in V.$ In that case we can use the fact that $\bl_{-F}(x)=x$ to obtain - see Eqs. (\ref{eq:lb2}),(\ref{eq:lb3}) - to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\BFprod{x}{v}&=&\bl_F\left(\bl_{-F}(x)\,\bl_{-F}(v)\right)\notag\\
&=& \bl_F\left(x\,\bl_{-F}(v)\right)=x\,\bl_F\left(\bl_{-F}(v)\right)+\bi_x^F\left(\bl_F(\bl_{-F}(v))\right)\notag\\
&=&xv+\bi_x^F(v)\label{eq:xFv}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{The action of alternating forms}
In this section we will assume that $V$ is finite-dimensional vector space over an arbitrary field $\BK$. Later on in this section, when discussing the exponential, we will additionally assume that $\BK$ is of characteristic zero.
There is a natural linear mapping from $\bigwedge^2(V^*)$ to $\av(V)$ defined by
\be \langle f\wedge g,x\wedge y\rangle=g(x)f(y)-f(x)g(y),\label{eq:fwg}\ee
for $f,g\in V^*$ and $x,y\in V$. Since we have assumed that $V$ is finite-dimensional, the mapping above is a bijection - cf. e.g \cite[p. 591, Proposition 7]{Bourbaki1998}. Every element $A^*\in \bigwedge^2(V^*)$ defines an alternating form $A\in\av(V)$:
\be A(x,y)=\langle A^*,x\wedge y\rangle.\label{eq:axy}\ee
In particular, for $A^*=f\wedge g$ we have
\be A(x,y)=g(x)f(y)-f(x)g(y).\label{eq:Axy}\ee
From Section \ref{sec:ibf} we know that we have a linear map $V^*\ni f\mapsto \bi_f\in \mbox{End}(\cl(V,Q))$ that associates to every linear form $f\in V^*$ the antiderivation $\bi_f\in \mbox{End}(\cl(V,Q))$ with the property $\bi_f^2=0$. From the universal property of the exterior algebra it then follows that this mapping has a unique extension to an algebra homomorphism
\be \bigwedge(V^*)\ni u^*\mapsto i_{u^*}\in \mbox{End}(\cl(V,Q)),\nn\ee
thus making $\cl(V,Q)$ a left $\bigwedge(V^*)$ module. In particular, for $f,g\in V^*$ we have
\be \bi_{f\wedge g}=\bi_f\circ\bi_g.\label{eq:ibfg}\ee
One often writes $u^*\lrcorner v$ for $u^*\in \bigwedge(V^*)$, $v\in \cl(V,Q),$ and calls it the interior product of $u^*$ and $v$ - cf. e.g. \cite[Ch. 4.4]{Helmstetter2008}. We will be interested in the action of $i_{A^*}=A^*\lrcorner \,\cdot\,$ for $A^*\in \bigwedge^2(V^*).$ It is evident that $\bi_{A^*}(1_{\cl(V,Q)})=0.$ On the other hand, with $\bi_x^F$ defined as in Section \ref{sec:ibf} we have:
\begin{proposition}
For all $x\in V$, $u\in\cl(V,Q)$ we have
\be i_{A^*}(xu)=x\,\bi_{A^*}(u)+\bi_x^A(u).\label{eq:prA}\ee
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us first consider the case of $A^*$ being a simple two-form $A^*=f\wedge g$, $ f,g\in V^*,$ in which case we can use Eq. (\ref{eq:fwg}) relating $A^*\in \bigwedge^2(V^*)$ to $A\in \av(V).$ In this case we have
\begin{eqnarray} \bi_{A^*}(xu)&=&\bi_f(\bi_g(xu))=\bi_f(g(x)u-x\bi_g(u))\nn\\
&=&g(x)\bi_f(u)-f(x)\bi_g(u)+x\bi_f(\bi_g(u))\notag\\
&=&g(x)\bi_f(u)-f(x)\bi_g(u)+x\,\bi_{A^*}(u).\nn\end{eqnarray}
We will now show that
\be g(x)\bi_f(u)-f(x)\bi_g(u)=\bi_x^A(u).\label{eq:gxfu}\ee
To show (\ref{eq:gxfu}), let us fix $x$ and write (\ref{eq:Axy}) as
$$ A(x,y)=g(x)f(y)-f(x)g(y)=h(y),\quad\mbox{where}\quad h=g(x)f-f(x)g.$$
Consequently
$\bi_x^A=\bi_h=g(x)\bi_f-f(x)\bi_g,$ as in (\ref{eq:gxfu}).
Thus, for simple $A^*=f\wedge g$ we have obtained
\be \bi_{A^*}(xu)=\bi_x^A(u)+x\bi_{A^*}(u).\label{eq:iaxu}\ee
But then Eq. (\ref{eq:iaxu}) extends by linearity to the whole $\bigwedge^2(V^*).$
\end{proof}
It will be convenient to write Eq. (\ref{eq:prA}) as a commutator
\be [\bi_{A^*},\bar{e}_x]=\bi_x^A,\label{eq:cie}\ee
where $\bar{e}_x$ is the operator of left multiplication by $x\in V$ - c.f Eq. (\ref{eq:expi}).
\noindent The following Corollary is a stripped down and application oriented version of a much more sophisticated and general result to be found in Ref. \cite[Theorem 4.7.13, p. 208]{Helmstetter2008}. Here we use the ordinary exponential of a linear operator, as it is done in physics oriented formulations. Our version is simply aimed to replace the `Wick isomorphism' of Ref. \cite{ablamowiczfauser}.
\begin{note}\label{n:wick}In Ref. \cite[Sec. Wick isomorphism]{ablamowiczfauser} the authors consider two bilinear forms $g$ and $F$ related by $F=g+A,$ where $g$ is symmetric, while $A$ is alternating and realized as $A(x,y) = \bi_F^g (x\wedge y)$, where $x,y\in V,$ $F\in\bigwedge^2 (V),$ and, for $u,v\in V,$ $\bi_{u\w v}^g=\bi_u^g\circ\bi_v^g.$
The Clifford algebras $\cl(V,g)$ and $\cl(V,F)$ are realized as $\bigwedge(V)$ equipped with the algebra products defined by the general Chevalley's formula (\ref{eq:xFv}). The authors then state that `The Wick isomorphism is now given as $\cl(F,V)=\phi^{-1}(\cl(g,V))
= e_\wedge^{-F}\wedge \cl(Q,V)\wedge e_\wedge^F,$' where $\phi$ is not defined apart of this one formula. I have doubts about the validity of this construction. It is clear that $\phi^{-1}\wedge z\wedge \phi=z$ for all $z\in\bigwedge(V)$ if $\phi$ is an invertible element of $\bigwedge^+(V)$.
Moreover, concerning the following `contraction', (as in the formula (3.1),(ii) of the paper), $z\mapsto (x\lrcorner_gF)\wedge z$ is an operator of degree $+1$ which cannot be equal to an operator of degree $+1$.
\end{note}
\begin{cor}
Assuming $\BK$ to be of characteristic zero, for any $u\in\cl(Q)$ and any alternating form $A$ we have
\be e^{\bi_{A^*}}(u)=\bl_A(u),\label{eq:blexp}\ee
where $\bl_A$ is given by Eqs. (\ref{eq:lb1}),(\ref{eq:lb2}).
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
When the field $\BK$ contains the field of rational numbers, the exponential $\exp(i_{A^*})\in \mbox{End}(\cl(Q))$ is well defined. It follows then from Eq. (\ref{eq:cie}) and the fact that $[\bi_{A^*},\bi_f]=0$ for any $f\in V^*$ that
\be e^{\bi_{A^*}}\,\bar{e}_x e^{-\bi_{A^*}}=\bar{e}_x+\bi_x^A,\label{eq:exe}\ee
which we can rewrite as\footnote{Note that the exponential series in Eq. (\ref{eq:exe}) de facto terminate at $1+\bi_{A^*}$, because all higher commutators vanish. Therefore, with such an understanding, our formulae also make sense in characteristic $2$. In fact, we could also express $\bl_F$ in terms of divided powers, as we have done it for $\lambda_F$ in Sec. \ref{sec:lexp}, rewriting those formulas using the appropriately changed notation.}
\be e^{\bi_{A^*}}(xu)=x\left(e^{\bi_{A^*}}(u)\right)+\bi_x^A\left(e^{\bi_{A^*}}(u)\right).\label{eq:eias}\ee
Since $\bi_{A^*}\left(1_{\cl(Q)}\right)=0,$ we have $e^{\bi_{A^*}}\left(1_{\cl(Q)}\right)=1_{\cl(Q)}$, which together with Eq. (\ref{eq:eias}) shows that $\exp(\bi_{A^*})$ satisfies Eqs. (\ref{eq:lb1}),(\ref{eq:lb2}), and therefore $\exp(\bi_{A^*})=\bl_A.$
\end{proof}
With $F=A$, $x\in V$, $v\in\cl(V,Q)$, we can ow rewrite the second line in Eq. (\ref{eq:xFv}) as
\be \Tprod{x}{v}{A}=e^{\bi_{A^*}}\left(x\,e^{-\bi_{A^*}}(v)\right).\label{eq:xAv}\ee
\label{sec:aaf}\subsection{Symbol map and quantization map}
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field of characteristic $\neq 2$, $Q$ a quadratic form, and $\Phi$ the associated bilinear form. Let $F(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\Phi(x,y),$ so that $Q(x)=F(x,x).$ We denote by $\sigma_Q$ the linear map
\be \sigma_Q:\cl(Q)\rightarrow \bigwedge(V)\nn\ee
defined as $\sigma_Q=\bl_F,$ and by $q_Q:\bigwedge(V)\rightarrow \cl(Q)$ the inverse of $\sigma_Q$:
\be q_Q=\sigma_Q^{-1}=\lambda_{-F}.\nn\ee
Following Ref. \cite[Ch. 2.2.5, p. 32]{meinrenken2013} we call $\sigma_Q$ the symbol map, and $q_Q$ the quantization map.
The following property of the symbol map follows as an immediate application of Corollary \ref{cor:sqo}.
\begin{corollary}
If $V$ is vector space over a field of characteristic $\neq 2,$ if $x_1,\ldots ,x_n$ are in $V$, and if they are pairwise orthogonal, i.e. if $F(x_i,x_j)=0$ for $i\neq j$ then
\be \sigma_Q(x_1\cdots x_n)=x_1\wedge \cdots \wedge x_n.\label{eq:3c1}\ee
\label{cor:3c1}\end{corollary}
We also notice the following important property of the quantization map:\footnote{Corollary \ref{cor:3c1} and Proposition \ref{prop:3c} are stated as an exercise in Ref. \cite[Exercise 3c, p. 154]{bourbaki1959}.}
\begin{proposition}
If $V$ is vector space over a field of characteristic $\neq 2,$, then for any sequence $y_1,\ldots,y_n\in V$ we have\be n!q_Q(y_1\wedge y_2\wedge \cdots \wedge y_n)=\sum_\sigma (-1)^\sigma\, y_{\sigma(1)}y_{\sigma(2)}\cdots y_{\sigma(n)}.\label{eq:nfac}\ee
\label{prop:3c}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $y_1,\ldots,y_n\in V$ are arbitrary. Then they span a finite-dimensional vector subspace of $V$, and we can choose there an orthogonal basis $e_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots,p$, $p\leq n$ (see e.g. Ref. \cite[Th. 1, p. 90]{bourbaki1959}). Since both sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:nfac}) are linear in $y_1,\ldots,y_n$, it is enough to verify the equality on basis vectors. Let us therefore assume that $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ are taken from the set of basis vectors $e_1,\ldots,e_p$. If any two $y_i,y_j$ are identical, then the left hand side of (\ref{eq:nfac}) vanishes because of the properties of the wedge product. But then also the right hand side vanishes, because, owing to the orthogonality of the basis vectors, we can always arrange the product on the right hand side in such a way that the coinciding vectors are next to each other, and then there will be an identical term with the transposition of the coinciding vectors, with the minus sign - and the two terms will cancel. On the other hand, when all $y_i$ are different vectors from the basis $(e_\mu)$, and this can happen only when $p=n,$ the result follows by applying $q_Q$ to both sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:3c1}) and taking into account the fact that the wedge product changes sign when two of its factors are transposed.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The author would like to thank Rafa{\l} Ab{\l}amowicz for his interest and discussion, Robert Coquereaux for reading parts of the manuscript and numerous comments and suggestions, and LKJ for reading the manuscript and suggesting many corrections. Thanks are also due to Jacques Helmstetter for answering my questions and providing illuminating critical comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
Rydberg atoms trapped in optical lattices provide a versatile experimental platform to study quantum many-body systems~\cite{Labuhn16,Bernien17,Guardado-Sanchez18,Lienhard18,Ebadi20,Scholl20,Bluvstein21,Morgado20}. Such atomic arrays leverage the strong interactions afforded by exciting neutral atoms to Rydberg states to simulate quantum spin models. In the simplest scenario, each quantum spin is simulated by an individual atom, which can be in either its ground state, $\ket 0$, or a particular Rydberg state, $\ket 1$, so that an effective spin-1/2 model is realized. In the so-called Rydberg blockade regime~\cite{Jaksch00,Urban09}, these interactions are so strong that nearest-neighbor atoms are essentially prohibited from simultaneously occupying the $\ket{1}$ state. Under continuous pumping between the ground and Rydberg states, the effective Hamiltonian for a 1D array of atoms becomes~\cite{Bernien17}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:HPXP}
H=\lambda\sum_{i}\, P_{i-1}X_iP_{i+1}+\Delta\sum_i n_i,
\end{align}
which is known as the PXP model (see also Ref.~\cite{Fendley04}).
Here $n_i=(\ket1\bra1)_i$ is the occupation number of the $i$-th atom's Rydberg state, and $X_i=(\ket0\bra1+\ket1\bra0)_i$ flips the atom between its ground and Rydberg states. The parameters $\lambda$ and $\Delta$ correspond to the Rabi frequency of the pump laser and its detuning from the Rydberg state, respectively. The projection operators $P_i=\mathbbm 1-n_i$ enforce the nearest-neighbor (NN) Rydberg blockade constraint.
Despite its simple appearance, the PXP model has a number of intriguing properties. For example, the blockade constraint implies that the model \eqref{eq:HPXP} preserves an exponentially large subspace of Rydberg configurations in which the motif ``11" (representing a pair of NN Rydberg excitations) is forbidden. This constraint reduces the scaling of the Hilbert space for $L$ Rydberg atoms from $2^L$ to $\sim\varphi^L$, where $\varphi=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$ is the golden ratio~\cite{Domb60,Ovchinnikov03,Lesanovsky12b}. For this reason, the NN Rydberg-blockade Hilbert space is sometimes called the Fibonacci Hilbert space. The PXP model is thus an example of a quantum kinetically constrained model, which are known to exhibit slow, glassy dynamics in certain regimes~\cite{VanHorssen15,Pancotti20}.
A related and still-mysterious feature of the PXP model is the existence of quantum many-body scars (QMBS) in the limit of small $\Delta$. QMBS were first observed experimentally in Ref.~\cite{Bernien17}, where the system was prepared in the N\'eel state $\ket{1010\dots}$ and evolved under the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:HPXP} with $\Delta=0$. Rather than quickly relaxing to a steady state with no memory of the initial state, as expected from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH)~\cite{Deutsch91,Srednicki94,Rigol08,D'Alessio16,Deutsch18}, the system exhibited persistent coherent oscillations of the initial spin pattern. Subsequent theoretical work traced this surprising behavior to a set of ``scarred" eigenstates of the PXP model that have anomalously high overlap with the N\'eel state and are approximately equally spaced in energy~\cite{Turner18a,Turner18b}. While much progress has been made~\cite{Ho19,Khemani18,Lin18,Turner20}, the mechanism underlying these eigenstates of the PXP model is not yet fully understood. However, it is believed that the PXP model is proximate to one in which the scarred eigenstates form an emergent $SU(2)$ multiplet with large total spin~\cite{Choi18,Bull19b}. This ``nearly-$SU(2)$" character also underlies an approximate quasiparticle picture of the scarred eigenstates~\cite{Iadecola19}.
Another remarkable attribute of the PXP model~\eqref{eq:HPXP} is its relationship to $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory. This feature was pointed out and studied in detail in Ref.~\cite{Surace19}, and was foreshadowed by earlier works relating the PXP model to square-lattice quantum dimer models in a quasi-1D limit~\cite{Moessner01,Laumann12,Chen17}. In the gauge theory language, the Rydberg blockade constraint is interpreted as a Gauss's law constraint for a fixed charge background, and the oscillatory dynamics due to QMBS are interpreted as a ``string-inversion" phenomenon.
One consequence of the mapping to a lattice gauge theory is that Eq.~\eqref{eq:HPXP} hosts a regime exhibiting quark-antiquark confinement. This is achieved by replacing the spatially uniform detuning $\Delta$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:HPXP} with a site-dependent staggered detuning $\Delta_i=(-1)^i(h/2)$. In Ref.~\cite{Surace19}, it was shown that nonzero $h$ induces slow dynamics in both the Rydberg and gauge theory formulations of the model. Although confinement has been investigated in the context of other spin models, e.g. the mixed-field~\cite{McCoy78,Rutkevich08,Kormos17,Pai20} and long-range~\cite{Liu19,Tan19} Ising chains, the PXP model and associated Rydberg-atom platform probes this physics in a different regime. For example, while the aforementioned Ising chains correspond approximately to $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge theories, the PXP model realizes a $U(1)$ Gauss law. Thus, the model provides a route to investigate confinement in continuous gauge theories with quantum simulators. Moreover, the setting of the PXP model begs the question of whether this confining regime bears any relation to QMBS.
In this work, we develop a systematic theory of the confining regime of the PXP model and find a surprising connection to QMBS. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Confinement and Emergent Symmetry}, we use a Schrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation~\cite{Schrieffer66,Bravyi11} to formulate a perturbative description of confinement in the limit $h\to\infty$, where $h$ is the confining field. This ``strict-confinement" approach was explored in the context of $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge theory in Ref.~\cite{Yang20}, where it was found to yield a hierarchy of time scales that accurately describes the system's dynamics under quenches from initial product states. Surprisingly, we find that this approach fails for the PXP model in the sense that it predicts relaxation times for quench dynamics that do not agree with numerical simulations. In particular, we find a set of initial states whose relaxation times are orders of magnitude longer than the analytical predictions.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment}, we trace the origin of this failure to the emergence from the SW transformation of Sec.~\ref{sec:Confinement and Emergent Symmetry} of a new approximately conserved quantity. After performing an additional canonical transformation to enforce this new emergent symmetry, we find that the resulting effective Hamiltonian, which we dub a ``nested Schrieffer-Wolff" Hamiltonian, provides an accurate prediction of the numerically observed relaxation time scales. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Hilbert-Space Fragmentation Perspective}, we compare the traditional and nested SW approaches from the perspective of Hilbert-space fragmentation~\cite{Sala19,Khemani19}, which demonstrates why the quench dynamics described by the nested-SW approach are so much slower than those of the traditional approach.
Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:SU2} we demonstrate that the emergent conserved quantity that necessitates the nested-SW treatment is a consequence of the nearly-SU(2) algebra first considered in the context of QMBS. Thus, the dramatic slowdown of quench dynamics that we observe numerically and describe analytically using the nested-SW approach is a ramification of this algebra that goes beyond the existence of rare scarred eigenstates and results in a dramatic slowdown of the dynamics of exponentially many initial product states. We also use this algebraic interpretation of our result to identify other Hamiltonians exhibiting slow quantum dynamics.
Our work uncovers a mechanism whereby a many-body system expected to exhibit slow quantum dynamics due to confinement can suffer an additional slowdown due to the unexpected emergence of a new symmetry. In doing so, it also demonstrates a surprising connection between QMBS and confinement in $U(1)$ gauge theory. We highlight possible implications of these findings in our concluding remarks in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{Confinement and Emergent Symmetry}
\label{sec:Confinement and Emergent Symmetry}
We consider a one-dimensional spin-1/2 chain with $L$ lattice sites governed by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Zpi+PXP}
\begin{split}
H&=h\sum^L_{i=1}(-1)^{i}Z_{i}+\lambda\sum^L_{i=1}P_{i-1}X_{i}P_{i+1}\\
&\equiv h\, Z_\pi+\lambda\, H_{PXP},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $Z_i=2n_i-1$ and $X_i$ are Pauli operators on site $i$, and where
\begin{equation}
P_{i}=\mathbbm 1-n_i=\frac{\mathbbm{1}-Z_{i}}{2}
\end{equation}
is the projector that enforces the Rydberg-blockade constraint.
We work with periodic boundary conditions (PBC) such that $i=L+1\equiv1$ unless specified otherwise.
As shown in Ref.~\cite{Surace19}, $H_{PXP}$ can be mapped onto the spin-$1/2$ quantum link model (QLM), a $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory (LGT), equivalent to a lattice Schwinger model with a topological angle $\theta=\pi$.
Under this mapping, which is summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:LGT}(a), Rydberg atom configurations of the form $01$ and $10$ map to a local vacuum configuration of the LGT that contains a gauge field but no particles. The configuration $00$ on sites $2i-1$ and $2i$ maps onto an antiquark in the LGT, while the same configuration on sites $2i$ and $2i+1$ maps onto a quark. With the addition of the staggered field $h\, Z_\pi$, the Rydberg system is equivalent to a lattice Schwinger model with topological angle $\theta\neq\pi$ such that $h\propto \theta-\pi$. In Ref.~\cite{Surace19}, it was shown that a nonzero $h$ leads to confinement of quark-antiquark pairs.
The observed confinement can be interpreted as follows. The operator $Z_\pi$ essentially measures the distance between a quark and an antiquark. Adding this operator to the Hamiltonian with a large coefficient $h$ induces ``string tension," i.e., a large energy cost for separating quarks and antiquarks. In the limit $h\to\infty$, processes that change the distance between quark-antiquark pairs are completely suppressed and $Z_\pi$ becomes an emergent conserved quantity. In this ``strict-confinement" limit the system exhibits Hilbert-space fragmentation, wherein the Hilbert space within a sector with fixed $Z_\pi$ further splits into disconnected subsectors~\cite{Sala19,Khemani19}. This was shown in Ref.~\cite{Yang20} for a $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge theory, and similar phenomenology is expected in more general gauge theories like the $U(1)$ QLM studied here. In this Section we seek to understand the mechanics behind this confinement in further detail. We elaborate on the connection to Hilbert space fragmentation in Sec.~\ref{sec:Hilbert-Space Fragmentation Perspective}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{graph/LGTmRA3.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Illustration of the mapping from Rydberg atom to quantum link model configurations introduced in Ref.~\cite{Surace19}. (a) Local mapping of the even-odd and odd-even bonds in the Rydberg chain to even and odd sites, respectively, in the quantum link model. (b) Mapping of the N\'eel and fully polarized states to vacuum and fully packed quark-antiquark states, respectively. Panels (c) and (d) show how the next-nearest-neighbor hopping of Rydberg excitations induced by Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff4} map to (c) next-nearest-neighbor hopping of quark-antiquark pairs and (d) hopping of a ``hole" in a fully packed quark-antiquark background.}
\label{fig:LGT}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effective Hamiltonian from Schrieffer-Wolff Transformation}
\label{sec:SW}
We analyze the limit in which the staggered field $h\gg \lambda$.
In this limit, the system's dynamics can be studied perturbatively using an effective Hamiltonian approach based on the Schrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation~\cite{Schrieffer66,Bravyi11}. In this approach, we rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} as
\begin{equation}
H=H_0+\lambda\, V,
\end{equation}
where $H_0=h\, Z_\pi$ and $V=H_{PXP}$.
The effective Hamiltonian is then defined by performing a unitary transformation generated by an anti-Hermitian operator $S$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SW}
H_{\mathrm{eff}}=e^{S}He^{-S}\equiv H_0+\sum^{\infty}_{n=1} H_{\rm eff}^{(n)},
\end{align}
where $H^{(n)}_{\rm eff}$ is of order $(\lambda/h)^n$.
The Schrieffer-Wolff generator $S$ is chosen such that $[H^{(n)}_{\rm eff},Z_\pi]=0$ for any $n$. This can be accomplished by expanding $S=\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}S^{\left(n\right)}$ with $S^{(n)}$ of order $(\lambda/h)^n$. Substituting this expansion for $S$ into Eq.~\eqref{eq:SW}, expanding $H_{\rm eff}$ using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, and collecting terms of order $(\lambda/h)^n$ yields an expression for $H^{(n)}_{\rm eff}$ in terms of $S^{(m)}$ with $m\leq n$. Then, one can choose $S^{(m)}$ order by order such that $[H_{\rm eff},Z_\pi]=0$~\cite{Bravyi11}. Alternatively, one can choose $S\equiv \lambda \, S^{(1)}$ such that $H^{(1)}_{\rm eff}=0$ and compute higher-order terms using $S$ and projecting onto a fixed eigenspace of $Z_\pi$. We opt for the latter approach here.
Thus, we express
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BCH}
\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{eff}} &=H_{0}+\lambda\, \mathcal P\left(\left[S^{(1)},H_{0}\right]+V\right)\mathcal P\\
&\;+\lambda^2\,\mathcal P\left(\left[S^{(1)},V\right]+\frac{1}{2!}\left[S^{(1)},\left[S^{(1)},H_{0}\right]\right]\right)\mathcal P
+\dots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal P$ is the projection operator that projects each term in parentheses above onto a fixed eigenspace of $Z_\pi$.
Demanding that $H^{(1)}_{\rm eff}=0$ implies that $S^{(1)}$ must satisfy
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SW-Criterion}
\left[S^{(1)},H_{0}\right]+V=0.
\end{align}
Substituting this into Eq.~\eqref{eq:BCH} gives the general expression
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Heffn}
H^{(n)}_{\rm eff}=\lambda^n\, \frac{n-1}{n!}\, \mathcal P\Big[\underbrace{S^{(1)},\Big[S^{(1)},\dots,\Big[S^{(1)}}_{n-1},V\Big]\dots\Big]\Big] \mathcal P
\end{align}
One verifies by direct calculation that Eq.~\eqref{eq:SW-Criterion} is satisfied by the choice
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S1}
S^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{i}{2h}\sum_{j}\left(-1\right)^{j}P_{j-1}Y_jP_{j+1}\equiv\frac{i}{2h}H_{PYP}.
\end{equation}
Because $S^{(1)}$ is strictly block off-diagonal in the eigenbasis of $Z_{\pi}$, the odd-order effective Hamiltonians vanish due to the projector $\mathcal P$, while even-order terms survive.
The leading order effective Hamiltonian is found to be
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Heff2}
H^{\left(2\right)}_{\rm eff}=\frac{\lambda^{2}}{2h}\sum_{i}\left(-1\right)^{i}P_{i-1}Z_iP_{i+1}.
\end{equation}
Because this operator is diagonal in the $Z$-basis, it does not induce any transitions between the ground and Rydberg states.
Thus, evolving a $Z$-basis product state with $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ results only in phase accumulation and does not lead to nontrivial dynamics. We will argue in Sec.~\ref{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment} that $H^{\left(2\right)}_{\rm eff}$ should be viewed as a second emergent conserved quantity that appears in addition to the expected emergent conservation law for $Z_\pi$ that is enforced by the SW transformation.
The leading-order nontrivial dynamics of this system is therefore generated by the fourth-order effective Hamiltonian. This is given by:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Heff4}
\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\left(4\right)} =\frac{\lambda^{4}}{16h^{3}}\sum_{i}\left(-1\right)^{i}\left[\left(P_{i-1}\sigma_{i}^{+}P_{i+1}\sigma_{i+2}^{-}P_{i+3}
+
\text{H.c.}\right)
+
P_{i-1}Z_iP_{i+1}P_{i+2}
+
P_{i-2}P_{i-1}Z_iP_{i+1}
-
2P_{i-1}Z_iP_{i+1}\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $\sigma^\pm_j = (X_j\pm i Y_j)/2$.
The term in parentheses above describes next-nearest-neighbor hopping of Rydberg excitations and implements moves like $010001 \leftrightarrow 000101$. Since the remaining terms are diagonal in the $Z$-basis, the term in parentheses is the one that induces nontrivial dynamics of $Z$-basis product states.
Mapping the action of this term onto the LGT, we find that it produces two kinds of hopping processes. First, it enables the hopping of a nearest-neighbor quark-antiquark pair surrounded by vacuum, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LGT}(c). Second, it enables the hopping of a single ``hole" in the fully-packed quark-antiquark background that corresponds to the polarized state $\ket{0\dots0}$ in the Rydberg system, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LGT}(d). Both of these processes manifestly conserve $Z_\pi$. Moreover, from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff4} it is clear that $H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\left(4\right)}$ preserves the total number of Rydberg excitations, which is related to the total ``magnetization"
\begin{align}
S_z=\sum_iZ_i.
\end{align}
This can be viewed as another emergent conserved quantity, in addition to $Z_\pi$. However, unlike $Z_\pi$, $S_z$ is not conserved by higher-order corrections to $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$.
Higher order terms in the SW expansion of the effective Hamiltonian become unwieldy to write down explicitly. At a high level, they enable two types of processes. First, they enable further-neighbor hoppings of configurations that are already mobile at fourth order. Second, they enable shorter-range hops of quark-antiquark pairs separated by longer distances. To get a more detailed view of the dynamical processes induced by higher order terms, it is useful to represent these processes graphically as in Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity}. We represent the Hilbert space within a sector with fixed $Z_\pi$ as a graph whose nodes are $Z$-basis product states and whose edges are the couplings among them.
The first row of Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity} depicts the fourth-order two-site hopping processes of Rydberg excitations discussed below Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff4}.
The middle row of Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity} depicts processes arising at sixth order, including single-site hoppings of third-neighbor pairs of Rydberg excitations, e.g., $01001\leftrightarrow10010$. Interestingly, we see from the adjacency graph that, like $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, $H^{(6)}_{\rm eff}$ conserves $S_z$. The last row of Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity} shows processes appearing at 8th order. The adjacency graph in the $Z_\pi=2$ sector demonstrates that $H^{(8)}_{\rm eff}$ no longer conserves $S_z$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graph/Connectivity.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Hilbert space connectivity graph for the SW effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ at $L=8$. The rows correspond to different orders in the SW perturbation theory, while the columns correspond to different values of the emergent conserved quantity $Z_\pi$.}
\label{fig:connectivity}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quench Dynamics from Initial Product States}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{graph/ZZ_autocorrelator.pdf}
\centering
\caption{
Dynamics of the autocorrelator $\braket{Z_{L/2}(t)Z_{L/2}(0)}$ with $L=16$. The top row shows the dynamics of the autocorrelator with $\lambda=0.5 h$ for the initial states (a) $\left|\psi_{1}\right\rangle $, (b) $\left|\psi_{2}\right\rangle $, and (c) $\left|\psi_{3}\right\rangle $ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:initial states}]. The bottom row shows the dependence of the relaxation time on $\lambda$ for the same initial states, i.e., (d) $\left|\psi_{1}\right\rangle $, (e) $\left|\psi_{2}\right\rangle $, and (f) $\left|\psi_{3}\right\rangle $, on a log-log scale. The solid lines represent power-law fits, whose powers can be read off from the slopes in the insets.
}
\label{fig:ZZ corr}
\end{figure*}
We now test numerically whether the effective Hamiltonian derived in the previous Section captures the system's dynamics. We will restrict our attention to quench dynamics from initial states that are $Z$-basis product states.
When the system is prepared in such a state, the two-time $ZZ$ correlator factorizes, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\left\langle Z_{i}\left(t\right)Z_{j}\left(0\right)\right\rangle =\left\langle Z_{i}\left(t\right)\right\rangle \left\langle Z_{j}\left(0\right)\right\rangle \propto\left\langle Z_{i}\left(t\right)\right\rangle.
\end{align}
Our investigation of the dynamics will focus on the $ZZ$ autocorrelation function for the spin on site $L/2$, i.e., $\left\langle Z_{L/2}\left(t\right)Z_{L/2}\left(0\right)\right\rangle$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr} we show exact diagonalization (ED) results for the quench dynamics of three initial product states at $L=16$, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:initial states}
\begin{split}
\left|\psi_{1}\right\rangle &=\left|0000000010010000\right\rangle,\\
\left|\psi_{2}\right\rangle &=\left|0000001010010000\right\rangle,\\
\left|\psi_{3}\right\rangle &=\left|0000101010010000\right\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
respectively. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}(a)--(c), we plot the $ZZ$ autocorrelation function $\left\langle Z_{L/2}\left(t\right)Z_{L/2}\left(0\right)\right\rangle$ for $\lambda=0.5\, h$. In all cases, the $ZZ$ autocorrelator remains stable over a few orders of magnitude in time before eventually decaying.
This slow dynamics can nominally be understood using the effective Hamiltonian picture of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}. Initially, the Rydberg atom on site $L/2$ in all three product states is in its ground state.
According to the SW analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}, the leading-order nontrivial dynamics of the Rydberg excitations in these three states is via next-nearest-neighbor hopping processes described by $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$. Such processes enable the following transitions,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq: 4site}
\cdots0000010010\cdots&\rightarrow\cdots0100100000\cdots,\\
\cdots000001010010\cdots&\rightarrow\cdots010100100000\cdots,\\
\cdots00000101010010\cdots&\rightarrow\cdots01010100100000\cdots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
whereby the configuration of Rydberg excitations in each initial state is translated to the left by four sites.
The result of each of these transitions is to flip the state of the Rydberg atom on site $L/2$ from $0$ to $1$, enabling the relaxation of the $ZZ$ autocorrelator on that site. Since the energy scale of $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ is $\lambda^4/(16h^3)$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff4}], we expect that the $ZZ$ autocorrelator for these three initial states will decay at a time of order $t\sim\frac{h^{3}}{\lambda^{4}}$ provided that $\lambda/h$ is sufficiently small.
To test this picture quantitatively, we use ED to calculate the relaxation time of the $ZZ$ autocorrelator as a function of $\lambda$.
Operationally, we define the relaxation time as the first time for which the $ZZ$ autocorrelator is smaller than 0.8.
The results for each initial state are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(d)--(f). In Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(d), the relaxation time for $\left|\psi_1\right\rangle$ scales as a power law consistent with $t\sim\frac{h^{3}}{\lambda^{4}}$, fitting the naive expectation based on the SW analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}. However, in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(b,c), the $ZZ$ autocorrelator of the states $\left|\psi_2\right\rangle $ and $\left|\psi_3\right\rangle $ survives for times orders of magnitude longer than in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(a), even though the naive expectation based on SW suggests a common $t\sim\frac{h^{3}}{\lambda^{4}}$ scaling for all three initial states. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr} ~(e,f) shows that the relaxation times for $\left|\psi_2\right\rangle $ and $\left|\psi_3\right\rangle $ scale as power laws consistent with $t\sim\frac{h^{5}}{\lambda^{6}}$ and $t\sim\frac{h^{7}}{\lambda^{8}}$, respectively.
This suggests that we need to refine the conventional SW treatment of Sec.~\ref{eq:SW} to understand these dynamics.
\section{Nested Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment}
\label{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment}
In this Section we refine the perturbative approach of Sec.~\ref{sec:Confinement and Emergent Symmetry}. The rationale for our refinement is as follows. $H_0 = Z_\pi$ is highly degenerate since there are many $Z$-basis product states with the same $Z_\pi$ eigenvalue. The SW Hamiltonian describes how degeneracies in the spectrum of $H_0$ are lifted at small perturbation strength $\lambda$.
However, $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff2} is also diagonal in the $Z$-basis. Thus, even though it lifts some degeneracies of $H_0$ (i.e., those arising from $Z$-basis states with the same $Z_\pi$ but different $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$), the spectrum of $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ remains highly degenerate. Because the overall energy scale of $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ is much larger than that of $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, we might guess that the operator
\begin{align}
\label{eq:H2}
H_2=\sum_{i}\left(-1\right)^{i}P_{i-1}Z_iP_{i+1}
\end{align}
should be viewed as another emergent conserved quantity, in addition to $Z_\pi$.
This guess is consistent with the fact that the fourth-order processes depicted in Eq.~\eqref{eq: 4site} fail to predict the relaxation timescales for the initial states $\ket{\psi_2}$ and $\ket{\psi_3}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}. Although the initial and final states in Eq.~\eqref{eq: 4site} all have the same $H_2$ eigenvalue, for $\ket{\psi_2}$ and $\ket{\psi_3}$ the transitions in Eq.~\eqref{eq: 4site} involve intermediate processes like
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq: Heff4 dynamics}
\cdots0001010010\cdots&\rightarrow\cdots0100010010\cdots,\\
\cdots000101010010\cdots&\rightarrow\cdots010001010010\cdots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which do not preserve $H_2$. If the true dynamics of the system are described by an effective Hamiltonian $G_{\rm eff}\neq H_{\rm eff}$ that \textit{does} conserve $H_2$, then the transitions depicted in the second two lines of Eq.~\eqref{eq: 4site} must arise beyond fourth order. This higher-order behavior would result in relaxation times for these initial states that are substantially longer than the ones predicted by the SW analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}.
\subsection{Derivation of $G_{\rm eff}$}
\label{sec: Geff Derivation}
To derive an effective Hamiltonian $G_{\rm eff}$ that conserves $H_2$, we can perform a second SW transformation $e^{\lambda^{2}S'}$ on $H_{\rm eff}$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
G_{\rm eff} &= e^{\lambda^{2}S'} H_{\rm eff}e^{-\lambda^{2}S'}\\
&=H_{{\rm eff}}+\lambda^{2}\left[S',H_{{\rm eff}}\right]+\frac{\lambda^{4}}{2}\left[S',\left[S',H_{{\rm eff}}\right]\right]+\ldots,\nonumber
\end{align}
where the generator $S'$ is an anti-Hermitian operator different from $S$. In order to ensure that $[G_{\rm eff},Z_\pi]=0$, we should demand that $[S',H_0]=0$. By substituting
\begin{align}
H_{\rm eff} = \sum_{n}H^{(n)}_{\rm eff}=\sum_n\lambda^n\tilde{H}^{(n)}_{\rm eff},
\end{align}
where $\tilde{H}^{(n)}_{\rm eff}\equiv H^{(n)}_{\rm eff}/\lambda^n$,
into this expansion and collecting terms of order $\lambda^n$, we can rewrite $G_{\rm eff}$ as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Geff}
\begin{split}
G_{{\rm eff}} = &H_{0}+\lambda^{2}\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}+\lambda^{4}\left(\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(4)}+\left[S',\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}\right]\right)+\lambda^{6}\left(\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(6)}+\left[S',\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(4)}\right]+\frac{1}{2!}\left[S',\left[S',\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}\right]\right]\right)+\cdots
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
We now choose $S'$ such that the term of order $\lambda^4$ conserves $H_2$. To make progress more explicitly, we can break up $\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:V4}
\begin{split}
\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}
&=\mathcal{P}'\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}\mathcal{P}'+\left(\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}-\mathcal{P}'\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}\mathcal{P}'\right)\\
&\equiv\mathcal{P}'\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}\mathcal{P}'+V_4.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here, $\mathcal P'$ is a projector onto a fixed eigenspace of $H_2$, analogous to $\mathcal P$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:BCH}. Thus, the above decomposition splits $\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ into a part that commutes with $H_2$ and another, $V_4$, that does not. Then we can define $S'$ as the solution to the equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Generalized SW Criterion}
\left[\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)},S'\right]=V_{4},
\end{align}
which removes $V_4$ from the term of order $\lambda^4$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Geff}, ensuring that $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ explicitly conserves $H_2$. Note that, since $[V_4,H_0]=0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: Generalized SW Criterion} also ensures that $[S',H_0]=0$ as desired. Following the analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}, we substitute Eq.~\eqref{eq: Generalized SW Criterion} into Eq.~\eqref{eq:Geff} and use $\mathcal P'$ to project out the non-$H_2$-conserving parts of the higher-order terms. The new effective Hamiltonian is then
\begin{align}
G_{{\rm eff}}=H_{0}+\lambda^{2}\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}+\lambda^{4}G_{{\rm eff}}^{(4)}+\lambda^{6}G_{{\rm eff}}^{(6)}+\cdots,
\label{eq:Geff1}
\end{align}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}&=\mathcal P'\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}\mathcal P',\\
\begin{split}
G_{{\rm eff}}^{(6)}&=\mathcal{P}'\left(\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(6)}+\left[S',\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(4)}\right]-\frac{1}{2!}\left[S',V_{4}\right]\right)\mathcal{P}'\\
&=\mathcal{P}'\tilde{H}_{{\rm eff}}^{(6)}\mathcal{P}'+\frac{1}{2!}\mathcal{P}'\left[S',V_{4}\right]\mathcal{P}',
\label{eq:Geff6}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and so on. The expressions for $\tilde{H}^{(n)}_{\rm eff}$ entering $G_{\rm eff}$ at each order are calculated using Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heffn}. Note that the second equality in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Geff6} above follows from $\mathcal P'[S',P'\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}\mathcal P']\mathcal P'=0$, since $S'$ is block off-diagonal in the eigenbasis of $H_2$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq: Generalized SW Criterion}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{graph/Generalized_SW_adj.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Hilbert space connectivity graph for the nested SW effective Hamiltonian $G_{\rm eff}$. The system size $L=8$, orders in perturbation theory, and $Z_\pi$ sectors considered are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity}, except that now each symmetry sector can be further decomposed into sectors with different $H_2$ eigenvalues.}
\label{fig:General}
\end{figure*}
Calculating the projection of $\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, we find that the explicit expression for $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Geff4}
G_{{\rm eff}}^{(4)}\propto&\sum_{i}\left(\frac{\mathbbm{1}-Z_{i-2}Z_{i+4}}{2}\right)P_{i-1}\left(\sigma_{i}^{+}P_{i+1}\sigma_{i+2}^{-}+\text{H.c.}\right)P_{i+3} \nonumber \\
&+\left(\text{diagonal terms}\right).
\end{align}
Evidently the projection further constrains the next-nearest-neighbor hopping terms present in $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff4}. For example, transitions like $\cdots0100010\cdots \leftrightarrow \cdots0001010\cdots$ that can occur under $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ are not allowed under $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$. One can check explicitly that such processes violate the conservation of $H_2$.
To gain some intuition as to what kinds of processes conserve $H_2$, note that, for any $Z$-basis product state, we have
\begin{align}
\left\langle H_2\right\rangle = N_{{\rm even}}-N_{{\rm odd}},
\end{align}
where $N_{{\rm even}}$ ($N_{{\rm odd}}$) is the number of three-site ``$101$" N\'eel domains in which the leftmost ``1" resides on an even (odd) site. For instance, the product states $\ket{010100\cdots}$, $\ket{01010100\cdots}$ and $\ket{1010000\cdots}$ have $H_2$ eigenvalues 1, 2 and -1, respectively.
Translating Rydberg-atom configurations onto LGT configurations using the mapping of Ref.~\cite{Surace19} summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:LGT}, we find that conservation of $H_2$ amounts to conservation of the number of domain walls between vacuum (i.e., N\'eel) domains and fully packed quark-antiquark (i.e., all-0) domains.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{graph/L10_Sz0_8th.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Connectivity graph for $G^{(8)}_{\rm eff}$ with $L=10$ and $Z_{\pi} = 0$. Note that, in contrast with Fig.~\ref{fig:General}, total magnetization $S_z$ is not conserved.}
\label{fig:8th_L10}
\end{figure}
Equipped with the explicit expression for $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Geff4}, one can use Eq.~\eqref{eq:V4} to calculate $V_4$, i.e., the non-$H_2$-conserving part of $\tilde{H}^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, so that the expressions for higher-order $G^{(n)}_{\rm eff}$ can be derived. However, these expressions are generally unwieldy so we visualize them as connectivity graphs in Fig.~\ref{fig:General} for $L=8$.
With the added conservation law for $H_2$, the sectors in Fig.~\ref{fig:connectivity} with fixed $Z_\pi$ break up into smaller subsectors, as depicted in the middle and right columns in Fig.~\ref{fig:General}. $H_2$ conservation also restricts the higher order dynamics by preventing ``101" N\'eel domains from splitting into two isolated Rydberg excitations, or two Rydberg excitations from merging into a N\'eel domain. The top-right and middle-right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:General} show that a ``101" N\'eel domain can move at a time $t\sim\frac{h^{5}}{\lambda^{6}}$ but is frozen at times of order $t\sim\frac{h^{3}}{\lambda^{4}}$ and below. As we discuss in Sec.~\ref{sec: Nested SW dynamics}, this behavior extends to longer N\'eel domains: $H_2$ conservation prevents them from splitting or merging, so they must remain intact as they move. This implies that motion of a N\'eel domain can only arise at an order in perturbation theory that depends on its length; in particular, our finite-order results suggest that a N\'eel domain of odd length $\ell$ becomes mobile at order $\ell+3$.
From the connectivity graphs in Fig.~\ref{fig:General}, one might be tempted to conclude that the magnetization $S_z$ is also a conserved quantity of $G_{\rm eff}$. However, this is not true at larger system sizes, see, e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:8th_L10}. For system sizes $L\geq 10$, $S_z$ conservation breaks down at 8th order in the nested SW expansion, similar to what was found in Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}.
\subsection{Dynamics under $G_{\rm eff}$}
\label{sec: Nested SW dynamics}
We now show that the nested SW Hamiltonian $G_{\rm eff}$ can capture the dynamics shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr} for the initial states~\eqref{eq:initial states}. We begin with the state $\ket{\psi_1}$, which consists of the motif ``1001" on a background of 0s. From the leftmost column of Fig.~\ref{fig:General}, we see that the ``1001" motif is already mobile at fourth order, which is consistent with the relaxation timescale $t\sim\frac{h^3}{\lambda^4}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr} (d). The dynamics of this initial state is also consistent with the standard SW treatment of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}; indeed, the connectivity of the ``1001" motif at each order in Figs.~\ref{fig:connectivity} and \ref{fig:General} is the same.
For $\ket{\psi_{2}}$, the central site $L/2$ is located at the center of a ``101" N\'eel domain. As discussed at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec: Geff Derivation}, this length-3 N\'eel domain does not become mobile until sixth order (see, e.g., the top-right and middle-right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:General}). Hence, the nested SW treatment suggests that the Rydberg state on site $L/2$ cannot flip until a time $t\sim\frac{h^{5}}{\lambda^{6}}$. This result is consistent with the power law found from numerical results, see Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(e).
Finally, for $\ket{\psi_3}$, the central site $L/2$ is contained within a length-5 N\'eel domain ``$10101$." This longer N\'eel domain does not become mobile until eighth order, as we see from the connectivity graph for $L=12$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:L12_Zpi_6}. This suggests a relaxation time $t\sim\frac{h^{7}}{\lambda^{8}}$, consistent with the numerical result shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ZZ corr}~(f). This result also suggests the pattern that a ``101\dots" N\'eel domain of odd length $\ell$ becomes mobile at order $\ell+3$ in the nested SW expansion.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graph/L12_Zpi_6.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Connectivity graphs for the 4th-, 6th-, and 8th-order nested-SW effective Hamiltonian for $L=12$ and $Z_{\rm \pi} = 6$.}
\label{fig:L12_Zpi_6}
\end{figure}
\section{Hilbert-Space Fragmentation Perspective}
\label{sec:Hilbert-Space Fragmentation Perspective}
In this Section we discuss the connection of our results for the effective Hamiltonians $H_{\rm eff}$ and $G_{\rm eff}$ to earlier works exploring Hilbert space fragmentation (HSF) in gauge theories~\cite{Yang20} and other models~\cite{Sala19,Khemani19,Moudgalya19b,Hudomal19,DeTomasi19,Rakovszky20}. HSF is a phenomenon whereby the Hilbert space of a quantum many-body system ``fractures" into many disconnected components that cannot be uniquely labeled by global symmetry eigenvalues alone. HSF occurs in two varieties, namely ``strong" and ``weak" fragmentation~\cite{Sala19,Khemani19}, that are distinguished by the growth with system size $L$ of the number of disconnected Hilbert-space ``fragments" within a fixed symmetry sector. A system is said to be strongly fragmented if
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Strong HSF}
\frac{\mathcal D_{\rm max\, subsector}}{\mathcal D_{\rm max\, sector}}\sim e^{-\alpha L},
\end{align}
where $\alpha>0$, $D_{\rm max\, sector}$ is the dimension of the largest symmetry sector of the Hilbert space, and $D_{\rm max\, subsector}$ is the dimension of the largest connected component of that symmetry sector. The above behavior implies a lower bound $\sim e^{\alpha L}$ on the number of Hilbert space ``fragments." A system is said to be weakly fragmented if it is not strongly fragmented.
In Ref.~\cite{Yang20}, it was shown that a $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge theory coupled to fermionic matter in one spatial dimension exhibits HSF in its strict-confinement limit. For the $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge theory, this limit can be treated along the lines of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}. In particular, the model explicitly conserves fermion number, which in a spin-1/2 representation maps to the Ising domain-wall number
\begin{align}
n_{\rm DW}=\sum^L_{i=1}\frac{1-Z_iZ_{i+1}}{2}.
\end{align}
In the strict-confinement limit, a SW transformation enforces an additional conservation law for the total magnetization $S_z$. The interplay of these two conservation laws leads to HSF in the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$. In particular, the leading nontrivial order of $H_{\rm eff}$ exhibits strong HSF according to the definition~\eqref{eq:Strong HSF}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graph/H4G4.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Hilbert space connectivity graphs for (a) the SW effective Hamiltonian $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ at $L=16$ in the sector with $Z_\pi=0$ and (b) the nested SW effective Hamiltonian $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ at $L=16$ in the sector with $Z_\pi=0$ and $H_2=0$.}
\label{fig:H4G4}
\end{figure}
The model \eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} has a U(1) conservation law associated with the number of nearest-neighbor pairs of Rydberg excitations:
\begin{align}
n_{\rm NN}=\sum^L_{i=1}n_in_{i+1},
\end{align}
where $n_i=(1+Z_i)/2$ is the Rydberg-state occupation number. The Fibonacci Hilbert space is simply the symmetry sector of states with vanishing $n_{\rm NN}$. In the strict-confinement limit $h\gg \lambda$ of the model \eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP}, an additional U(1) symmetry generated by $Z_\pi$ is imposed. Since $n_{\rm NN}$ is closely related to $n_{\rm DW}$ and $Z_\pi$ is just a staggered version of $S_z$, we thus expect the standard SW Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ to exhibit strong HSF at leading nontrivial order. The nested SW treatment of Sec.~\ref{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment} imposes yet another U(1) symmetry generated by $H_2$, so we expect the nested SW Hamiltonian $G_{\rm eff}$ to be further fragmented at leading order.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graph/Fragment_Frozen_state.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Strong fragmentation and frozen states for the effective Hamiltonians $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$. (a) Scaling with $L$ of the strong-HSF diagnostic \eqref{eq:Strong HSF}, suggesting that both $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ (red) and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ (blue) exhibit strong HSF. (b) Scaling of the number of frozen states (i.e., connected components with dimension 1) with system size for $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ (red) and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ (blue). Both models exhibit an exponentially growing number of frozen states, with $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ having exponentially more such states than $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$. In both (a) and (b), the symmetry sectors used to calculations involving $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ match those used in Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4}.}
\label{fig:Fragment-Scaling}
\end{figure}
To test this hypothesis numerically, we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4} (a) and (b) the Hilbert space connectivity graphs for the leading nontrivial effective Hamiltonians $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, respectively, at $L=16$. In both cases, we focus on the largest symmetry sector, namely the subsector of the Fibonacci Hilbert space with $Z_\pi=0$ ($Z_\pi=H_2=0$) for the (nested) SW Hamiltonian $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ ($G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$). Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4} provides qualitative validation of our hypothesis: in both (a) and (b) the connectivity graph breaks into many disconnected subsectors, including many that contain a single product state. (Product states that constitute their own connected component of the Hilbert space are called ``frozen states.") The $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ connectivity graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4} (b) has markedly more disconnected subsectors despite the full Hilbert space containing fewer states due to the additional constraint of $H_2$ conservation.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Fragment-Scaling} provides a quantitative comparison of fragmentation in the models $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, focusing on the same symmetry sectors as in Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fragment-Scaling}~(a) we calculate the fragmentation diagnostic~\eqref{eq:Strong HSF} as a function of $L$ and find exponential decay for both $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ and $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, indicating that both models indeed exhibit strong HSF. The diagnostic \eqref{eq:Strong HSF} appears to decay slightly faster with $L$ for $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, indicating that the lower bound on the number of ``fragments" grows faster for $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ than it does for $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$. This is consistent with Fig.~\ref{fig:H4G4}, which shows that the Hilbert space of the model $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ is indeed ``more fragmented" than that of $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ at fixed $L$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fragment-Scaling}~(b) we calculate the scaling with $L$ of the number of frozen states (i.e., connected components containing a single product state) for the two models. It is clear that $G^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$ has substantially more frozen states than $H^{(4)}_{\rm eff}$, despite the fact that the former model has a smaller Hilbert space than the latter due to the additional conserved quantity $H_2$.
This difference in the scaling of the number of frozen states is the origin of the discrepancy in dynamical time scales between the SW treatment of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW} and the nested-SW treatment of Sec.~\ref{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment}. Many initial product states that have nontrivial dynamics at fourth order in the SW treatment described by $H_{\rm eff}$ are in fact frozen in the nested-SW treatment described by $G_{\rm eff}$. These initial states do not obtain nontrivial dynamics until higher orders in the nested-SW approach, which introduce longer-range terms that reduce the degree of HSF and with it the number of frozen states.
\section{Relation to Nearly-$SU(2)$ Algebra}
\label{sec:SU2}
We now connect the slow dynamics studied in this paper to the phenomenon of QMBS in the PXP model. In the process, we will learn more about the stability of these slow dynamics to the addition of other types of Hamiltonian terms.
The main reason underlying the slowness of the dynamics under the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} is the fact that $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ is diagonal in the $Z$ basis. This both delays the leading-order nontrivial dynamics to order $\lambda^4$ and generates the additional emergent symmetry $H_2$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:H2}] that further fragments the Hilbert space at fixed orders in perturbation theory. The diagonality of $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}$ is a consequence of the fact that $H_0$ and $V$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} can be viewed as generators of a ``nearly-$SU(2)$" algebra. This algebra was studied in the context of QMBS in the PXP model in Refs.~\cite{Choi18,Iadecola19,Bull19b}. Here, we demonstrate that it gives rise to deformations of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} that also yield slow dynamics.
The nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra is generated by the operators $Z_\pi$, $H_{PXP}$, and $H_{PYP}$, where the latter is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:S1}. For PBC, the commutation relations among these generators are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq: Nearly SU2}
\left[Z_{\pi},H_{PXP}\right]&=2i\,H_{PYP}\\
\left[Z_{\pi},H_{PYP}\right]&=-2i\,H_{PXP}\\
\left[H_{PXP},H_{PYP}\right]&=2i\left(Z_{\pi}+\mathcal{O}_{zzz}\right)= 2i\, H_2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}_{zzz}=\sum_{j}\left(-1\right)^{j}Z_{j-1}Z_{j}Z_{j+1}$. From the above, we see that $H_0$ and $V$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP} are the ``$Z$" and ``$X$" generators of the nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra. The SW generator $S^{(1)}$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:S1}] that eliminates off-diagonal matrix elements of $H$ to leading order is related to the ``$Y$" generator of this algebra. If the algebra \eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} were closed, we would have $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}\propto Z_\pi$. Instead, we obtain $H^{(2)}_{\rm eff}\propto H_2$, which shares an eigenbasis with $Z_\pi$. (We note in passing that this would not occur if we had replaced $Z_\pi$ by the non-staggered magnetization $S_z$ and then carried out the SW transformation.) This connection motivates us to consider Hamiltonians consisting of other combinations of nearly-$SU(2)$ generators.
First, we consider adding a term proportional to $H_{PYP}$ to the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Zpi+PXP}, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian}
H=h\, Z_{\pi}+\lambda_1\, H_{PXP}+\lambda_2\, H_{PYP}.
\end{align}
Following the analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:SW}, we consider the limit $h\gg \lambda_1, \lambda_2$ and find the generator $S^{(1)}$ analogous to Eq.~\eqref{eq:S1} using the commutation relations in Eq.~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2}:
\begin{align}
S^{(1)} \propto \lambda_1\, H_{PYP}-\lambda_2\, H_{PXP}.
\end{align}
From Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heffn}, one finds the second-order effective Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
H_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}&\propto\left(\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2\right)\left[H_{PYP},H_{PXP}\right]\\
&\propto\left(\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2\right)H_2,
\end{split}
\end{align}
similar to Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff2}. It follows that the slow dynamics and nested-SW approach studied in this paper apply equally well to the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graph/Fidelity.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Fidelity dynamics for the Hamiltonians of (a) Eq.~\eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian} and (b) Eq.~\eqref{eq:PXP+PYP} at $L=16$. The Hamiltonian parameters in (a) are $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=0.2 h$, and the initial state is chosen to be $\ket{\psi_1}$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:initial states}]. The Hamiltonian parameters in (b) are $\lambda=0.2\, h$ and the initial state is chosen to be the $325$th eigenstate of $H_{\rm PXP}$, which is nondegenerate. The horizontal line indicates the late-time value $\mathcal F_\infty=0.83\dots$ calculated from Eq.\eqref{eq:F_inf}.}
\label{fig:Fid}
\end{figure}
Another Hamiltonian amenable to the above analysis is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:PXP+PYP}
H=h\, H_{PXP}+\lambda\, H_{PYP}.
\end{align}
In the limit $h\gg \lambda$, the SW generator can be calculated as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:PXP+PYP S1}
S^{(1)}\propto Z_\pi,
\end{align}
and the corresponding second-order effective Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}
H_{{\rm eff}}^{(2)}\propto\left[H_{PYP},Z_\pi\right] \propto H_{PXP}.
\end{align}
This suggests a slowdown of quench dynamics when the system is prepared in an eigenstate of $H_{PXP}$. We remark that the above analysis also holds with $H_{PXP}$ and $H_{PYP}$ interchanged. However, it breaks down if a term $\lambda_2 Z_\pi$ is added due to the fact that the algebra~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} is not closed.
We now test numerically whether the Hamiltonians \eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian} and \eqref{eq:PXP+PYP} inspired by the nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra exhibit slow dynamics. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid}, we plot ED results at $L=16$ for the many-body fidelity, defined as
\begin{align}
\mathcal F(t)=\left|\braket{ \psi(t)|\psi(0)} \right|^{2}.
\end{align}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid} (a), we show fidelity dynamics for the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian} with $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=0.2\, h$ with the the initial state $\ket{\psi_1}$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:initial states}]. A relaxation timescale $t\sim\frac{h^{3}}{\lambda^{4}}$ is observed, in agreement with the nested SW description of Sec.~\ref{sec:Generalized Schrieffer-Wolff Treatment}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid} (b), we show fidelity dynamics for the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:PXP+PYP} for $\lambda=0.2\, h$ with the initial state taken to be the $325$th eigenstate of $H_{PXP}$, which is nondegenerate. In this case, the fidelity quickly relaxes and oscillates around a finite average value that persists to all numerically accessible times. The fact that the fidelity remains finite to arbitrarily late times is highly atypical---for example, even in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid} (a), the fidelity eventually relaxes to a value close to zero.
In fact, the finite value of the fidelity observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid} (b) has a nonperturbative explanation: the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:PXP+PYP} is unitarily equivalent to $H_{PXP}$. To see this, note that the algebra~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} implies that the unitary transformation
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
U(\theta) = e^{-i\theta Z_\pi/2}
\end{align}
acts on the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:PXP+PYP} as
\begin{align}
U^\dagger(\theta)\, H\, U(\theta)=\sqrt{h^2+\lambda^2}\, H_{PXP},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
when $\theta = \tan^{-1}(\lambda/h)$. Consequently, any eigenstate $H_{PXP}\ket{\psi_E}=E\ket{\psi_E}$ of $H_{PXP}$ corresponds to an eigenstate $U(\theta)\ket{\psi_E}$ of $H$ with the same energy $E$, up to a rescaling by $\sqrt{h^2+\lambda^2}$.
Using this fact, we can express the long-time average of $\mathcal F(t)$ for the initial state $\ket{\psi_E}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:F_inf}
\mathcal F_\infty\equiv \overline{\mathcal F(t\to\infty)} = \sum_{E'}|\braket{\psi_E|U(\theta)|\psi_{E'}}|^4,
\end{align}
which is the inverse participation ratio of the initial state $\ket{\psi_E}$ in the eigenbasis $\{U(\theta)\ket{\psi_{E'}}\}$ of $H$.
When $\lambda \ll h$, $\theta\approx \lambda/h\ll 1$, so $U(\theta)$ is close to the identity operator and the overlap $\braket{\psi_E|U(\theta)|\psi_E}$ is finite, leading to a finite value of $\mathcal F_{\infty}$. An example of this is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fid} (b), where the horizontal line denotes the value of $\mathcal F_\infty$ calculated from the above expression. If instead the eigenbases of $H$ and $H_{PXP}$ were unrelated, we would expect $\mathcal F_{\infty}$ to be exponentially small; this is the case for quantum quenches between generic many-body Hamiltonians~\cite{Gorin06,Goussev16}.
Thus, our results in this Section show that the nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra \eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} can give rise to two types of atypical quantum quench dynamics. The first type, exemplified by the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian}, is the slow dynamics studied in Secs.~\ref{sec:Confinement and Emergent Symmetry}--\ref{sec:Hilbert-Space Fragmentation Perspective}, which is governed by the pair of emergent symmetries $Z_\pi$ and $H_2$. In this type of dynamics, a hierarchy of relaxation time scales follows from perturbation theory in the limit of large staggered field. The second type of dynamics, exemplified by the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:PXP+PYP}, is characterized by a finite late-time average of the fidelity. The fact that the first type of dynamics arises at all is a consequence of the fact that the algebra~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} is not closed. If instead Eq.~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2} were a genuine $SU(2)$ algebra, one could always perform an appropriate $SU(2)$ rotation to bring any Hamiltonian of the form \eqref{eq:ZXY Hamiltonian} to one proportional to any of the generators $Z_\pi,H_{PXP}$, or $H_{PYP}$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this work, we have developed a theory of the confining regime of the PXP model, which was proposed in Ref.~\cite{Surace19} based on a connection to $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory. Intriguingly, we find that an analysis of the confining regime along the lines of Ref.~\cite{Yang20}, which considered a model relevant to $\mathbb Z_2$ lattice gauge theory, is not sufficient to describe the hierarchy of relaxation time scales observed in numerical simulations of quench dynamics. Instead we show that the PXP model, with the addition of a large staggered longitudinal field $Z_\pi$, exhibits a new emergent conserved quantity $H_2$ that further constrains the dynamics. We devise a nested Schrieffer-Wolff approach that properly accounts for this emergent symmetry and show that this approach explains the numerically observed dynamics. We also verify that the emergent symmetry $H_2$ leads, at leading nontrivial order in the effective Hamiltonian description, to a substantially more fragmented Hilbert space relative to what one finds using the approach of Ref.~\cite{Yang20}. Finally, we trace the origin of the emergent conserved quantity $H_2$ to the nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra believed to underlie many-body scarring in the PXP model at zero staggered field. This surprising algebraic connection to scars in fact underlies the inability of the ``standard" Schrieffer-Wolff approach of Ref.~\cite{Yang20} to describe the dynamics in this case.
One potentially fruitful direction for future work is to explore the existence of algebraically induced slow dynamics in higher-dimensional generalizations of the PXP model~\cite{Celi20,Lin20,Michailidis20}, which are also experimentally realizable~\cite{Ebadi20}. For example, a nearly-$SU(2)$ algebra has also been uncovered in the 2D PXP model on the square lattice~\cite{Michailidis20}. It is therefore natural to expect a regime of slow dynamics in that model that can be treated using the nested-SW approach developed here.
Another possible direction for future work is to clarify the role of the emergent conserved quantity $H_2$ in the $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory formulation of the model. In the gauge theory, the staggered magnetization $Z_\pi$ is related to the detuning of the topological $\theta$-angle from $\pi$. It would be interesting to determine how $H_2$ fits into this description. For example, the algebraic relationship between $Z_\pi$ and $H_2$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq: Nearly SU2}] seems to suggest that emergent $H_2$ conservation is related to the continuous nature of the gauge group $U(1)$. This relationship, if it exists, may explain why the techniques used in Ref.~\cite{Yang20} to treat a discrete gauge theory are not sufficient to describe the dynamics in the $U(1)$ case. A related direction is to consider whether similar phenomena arise in quantum-link-model formulations of non-Abelian gauge theories~\cite{Orland90,Chandrasekharan97,Banerjee13}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Alexey Gorshkov, Fangli Liu, and Zhicheng Yang for valuable discussions and collaboration on related work. This work was supported by Iowa State University startup funds.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Training procedure of ContraD}
\label{ap:alg}
\input{alg_contraD}
\FloatBarrier
\vspace{-0.05in}
\section{Results on AFHQ datasets}
\label{ap:afhq}
\vspace{-0.05in}
We evaluate our training method on the Animal Faces-HQ (AFHQ) dataset \cite{choi2020starganv2}, which consists of $\sim$15,000 samples of animal-face images at 512$\times$512 resolution, to further verify the effectiveness of ContraD on higher-resolution, yet limited-sized datasets.
We partition the dataset by class labels into three sub-datasets, namely AFHQ-Dog (4,739 samples), AFHQ-Cat (5,153 samples) and AFHQ-Wild (4,738 samples), and evaluate FIDs on these datasets.
In this experiment, we compare our method with ADA \cite{karras2020ada}, another recent data augmentation scheme for GANs (concurrently to DiffAug \cite{zhao2020diffaugment} considered in Section~\ref{s:experiments}), which includes a dynamic adaptation of augmentation pipeline during training. We follow the training details of ADA particularly for this experiment: specifically, we train StyleGAN2 with batch size 64 for 25M training samples, using Adam with $(\alpha, \beta_1, \beta_2)=(0.0025, 0.0, 0.99)$, $R_1$ regularization with $\gamma=0.5$, and exponential moving average on the generator weights with half-life of 20K samples. For ContraD training on AFHQ datasets, we consider to additionally use CutOut \cite{devries2017cutout} of $p=0.5$ upon the SimCLR augmentation, which we observe an additional gain in FID. We also follow the way of computing FIDs as per \citet{karras2020ada} here for a fair comparison, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., by comparing 50K of generated samples and all the training samples ($\sim$5K per dataset).
Table~\ref{tab:afhq} compares our ContraD models with the results reported by \citet{karras2020analyzing} where the models are available at \url{https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan2-ada}. Overall, we consistently observe that ContraD improves the baseline StyleGAN2, even achieving significantly better FIDs than ADA on AFHQ-Dog and AFHQ-Wild. These results confirms the effectiveness of ContraD on higher-resolution datasets, especially under the regime of limited data. Qualitative comparisons can be found in Figure~\ref{fig:qual_dog}, \ref{fig:qual_cat}, and \ref{fig:qual_wild} of Appendix~\ref{ap:qual}.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of the best FID score (lower is better) on unconditional image generation of AFHQ datasets \cite{choi2020starganv2} with StyleGAN2. Values in the rows marked by * are from those reported in its reference. We set our results bold-faced whenever the value improves the StyleGAN2 baseline (``Baseline''). Underlined indicates the best score among tested for each dataset.}
\label{tab:afhq}
\vspace{0.03in}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccc}
\toprule
Architecture & Method & \textsc{Dog} & \textsc{Cat} & \textsc{Wild} \\
\midrule
\multirow{3.5}{*}{StyleGAN2} & Baseline* \cite{karras2020analyzing} & 19.4 & 5.13 & 3.48 \\
& ADA* \cite{karras2020ada} & 7.40 & \underline{3.55} & 3.05 \\
\cmidrule(l){2-5}
& \textbf{ContraD (ours)} & \textbf{\underline{7.16}} & \textbf{3.82} & \textbf{\underline{2.54}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\FloatBarrier
\clearpage
\section{Results on ImageNet dataset}
\label{ap:imagenet}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of the best FID score and IS on conditional generation of ImageNet (64$\times$64) with BigGAN architecture. Values in the rows marked by * are from those reported in its reference.}
\label{tab:biggan}
\vspace{0.03in}
{\small \input{tables/fid_biggan}}
\caption{Comparison linear evaluation and transfer learning performance across 6 natural image classification datasets for BigGAN discriminators pretrained on ImageNet (64 $\times$ 64). We report the top-1 accuracy except for ImageNet and SUN397, which we instead report the top-5 accuracy.}
\label{tab:transfer_biggan}
\vspace{0.03in}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
{\small \input{tables/lineval_biggan}}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
We also apply ContraD to the state-of-the-art BigGAN \cite{brock2018large} architecture on ImageNet \cite{dataset/ilsvrc}, to examine the effectiveness of our method on this large-scale, class-conditional GAN model. For this experiment, we exactly follow the training setups done in FQ-BigGAN \cite{zhao2020fqgan}, a recent work showing that feature quantization in discriminator could improve state-of-the-art GANs, which is based on the official PyTorch \cite{paszke2019pytorch} implementation of BigGAN.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/ajbrock/BigGAN-PyTorch}} Following \citet{zhao2020fqgan}, we down-scale the ImageNet dataset into $64\times 64$, and reduce the default channel width of 96 into 64. We train the model with batch size 512 for 100 epochs ($\sim$250K generator steps).
Unlike other experiments, we compute FIDs between the training set and 50K of generated samples for a fair comparison to the baseline scores reported by \citet{zhao2020fqgan}.
In Table~\ref{tab:biggan}, we show that ContraD further improves the baseline BigGAN training and FQ-BigGAN \cite{zhao2020fqgan} both in FID and IS under the same training setups.
Next, we evaluate the representation of the learned BigGAN encoder $D$ from ContraD\footnote{We notice here that, although BigGAN is a class-conditional architecture, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., it uses the label information in training, the encoder part $D$ in ContraD is still trained in an unsupervised manner, as we put the labels only after stopping gradients, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., in the discriminator header $h_{\tt dis}$.} under linear evaluation (on ImageNet) and several transfer learning benchmarks of natural image classification: namely, we consider CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 \cite{dataset/cifar}, the Describable Textures Dataset (DTD) \cite{cimpoi2014describing}, SUN397 \cite{xiao2010sun}, Oxford 102 Flowers (Flowers) \cite{nilsback2008automated}, and Food-101 \cite{bossard2014food}.
As done in Table~\ref{tab:lineval}, we compare ContraD with an ablation when $\lambda_{\tt con} = \lambda_{\tt dis} = 0$, which is equivalent to the SimCLR \cite{chen2020simclr} training. In addition, we also compare against the \emph{supervised} baseline, where the representation is pre-trained on ImageNet with standard cross-entropy loss using the same architecture of BigGAN discriminator. Similarly to the ContraD training, this baseline is also trained with the SimCLR augmentation, using Adam optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam} for 120 epochs.
Table~\ref{tab:transfer_biggan} summarizes the results. We first note that the supervised training achieves 63.5\% top-5 accuracy on ImageNet, while the SimCLR baseline achieves 43.4\% (in linear evaluation). Again, as also observed in Table~\ref{tab:lineval}, ContraD significantly improves the linear evaluation performance from the baseline SimCLR, namely to 51.5\%. Although the results are somewhat far behind compared to those reported in the original SimCLR \cite{chen2020simclr}, this is possibly due to the use of model with much limited capacity, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., the BigGAN discriminator: its essential depth is only $\sim$10, and it also uses spectral normalization \cite{miyato2018spectral} for every layer unlike the ResNet-50 architecture considered by \citet{chen2020simclr}. Nevertheless, we still observe a similar trend in the accuracy gap between supervised and (unsupervised) contrastive learning. On the other hand, the remaining results in Table~\ref{tab:transfer_biggan}, those from the transfer learning benchmarks, confirm a clear advantage of ContraD, compared to both the SimCLR and supervised baselines: we found the two baselines perform similarly on transfer learning, while our ContraD training further improves SimCLR consistently.
\FloatBarrier
\clearpage
\section{Qualitative results}
\label{ap:qual}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\vspace{-0.05in}
\includegraphics[width=0.91\linewidth]{figures/qual_c10.pdf}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods. All the models are trained on CIFAR-10 with an SNDCGAN architecture.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\vspace{-0.1in}
\includegraphics[width=0.91\linewidth]{figures/qual_c100.pdf}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods. All the models are trained on CIFAR-100 with an SNDCGAN architecture.}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.66\linewidth]{figures/qual_celeb.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods. All the models are trained on CelebA-HQ-128 with an SNDCGAN architecture.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/qual_ddls.pdf}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Visualization of conditionally generated samples via conditional DDLS (Section~\ref{ss:cDDLS}) with ContraD. We use an SNDCGAN generator trained with an SNResNet-18 ContraD for the generation.}
\label{fig:qual_ddls}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/qual_dog.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods, along with real images from the training set. All the models are trained on AFHQ-Dog (4,739 images) with StyleGAN2. We apply the truncation trick \cite{karras2019stylegan} with $\psi=0.7$ to produce the images at the bottom row. We use the pre-trained models officially released by the authors to obtain the results of the baseline StyleGAN2 and ADA.}
\label{fig:qual_dog}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/qual_cat.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods, along with real images from the training set. All the models are trained on AFHQ-Cat (5,153 images) with StyleGAN2. We apply the truncation trick \cite{karras2019stylegan} with $\psi=0.7$ to produce the images at the bottom row. We use the pre-trained models officially released by the authors to obtain the results of the baseline StyleGAN2 and ADA.}
\label{fig:qual_cat}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/qual_wild.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of unconditionally generated samples from GANs with different training methods, along with real images from the training set. All the models are trained on AFHQ-Wild (4,738 images) with StyleGAN2. We apply the truncation trick \cite{karras2019stylegan} with $\psi=0.7$ to produce the images at the bottom row. We use the pre-trained models officially released by the authors to obtain the results of the baseline StyleGAN2 and ADA.}
\label{fig:qual_wild}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\FloatBarrier
\section{Effect of using larger batch sizes}
\label{ap:bs}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{figures/bs.pdf}
\caption{Comparion of the FID distribution of the top 25\% of trained models \cite{kurach2019large} on CIFAR-10 (SNDCGAN) for different batch sizes.}
\label{fig:ab_bs}
\end{figure}
Contrary to existing practices for training GANs, we observe in our experiments that ContraD typically needs a larger batch size in training to perform best. We further confirm this effect of batch sizes in Figure~\ref{fig:ab_bs}: overall, we observe the stanard training (``W/O'') is not significantly affected by a particular batch size, while ContraD offers much better FIDs on larger batch sizes. We also observe bCR \cite{zhao2020icr} slightly benefits from larger batches, but not as much as ContraD does. This observation is consistent with \citet{chen2020simclr} that contrastive learning benefits from using larger batch sizes, and it also supports our key hypothesis on the close relationship between contrastive and discriminator representations.
\FloatBarrier
\section{Experimental details}
\label{ap:details}
\subsection{Architecture}
Overall, we consider four architectures in our experiments: SNDCGAN \cite{miyato2018spectral}, StyleGAN-2 \cite{karras2020analyzing}, and BigGAN \cite{brock2018large} for GAN architectures, and additionally SNResNet-18 for a discriminator architecture only. For all the architectures considered, we have modified the last linear layer into a \emph{multi-layer perceptron} (MLP) having the same input and output size, for a fair comparison to ContraD that requires such an MLP for the discriminator header $h_{\tt d}$. When a GAN model is trained via ContraD, we additionally introduce two 2-layer MLP projection heads of the output size 128 upon the penutimate representation in the discriminator to stand $h_{\tt r}$ and $h_{\tt f}$.
All the models are implemented in PyTorch~\cite{paszke2019pytorch} framework.
\textbf{SNDCGAN.} We adopt a modified version of SNDCGAN architecture by \citet{kurach2019large} following the experimental setups of other baselines \cite{zhang2020cr, zhao2020icr}. The official implementation can be found in {\tt compare\_gan} codebase,\footnote{\url{https://www.github.com/google/compare_gan}} and we have re-implemented this TensorFlow implementation into PyTorch framework. The detailed structures of the generator and discriminator of SNDCGAN are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sndcgan_g} and \ref{tab:sndcgan_d}, respectively.
\textbf{SNResNet-18.} We modify the ResNet-18 \cite{he2016deep} architecuture, where a PyTorch implementation is available from \texttt{torchvision}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/pytorch/vision/blob/master/torchvision}} library, to not include batch normalization \cite{ioffe2015batch} layers inside the network. Instead, we apply spectral normalization \cite{miyato2018spectral} for all the convolutional and linear layers. We made such a modification to adapt this model as a stable GAN discriminator, as batch normalization layers often harm the GAN dynamics in discriminator in practice.
\textbf{StyleGAN2.} We follow the StyleGAN2 architecture used in the DiffAug baseline \cite{zhao2020diffaugment}. Specifically, we generally follow the official StyleGAN2, but the number of channels at 32$\times$32 resolution is reduced to 128 and doubled at each coarser level with a maximum of 512 channels, in order to optimize the model for CIFAR datasets, as suggested by \citet{zhao2020diffaugment}.
\textbf{BigGAN.} We use the official PyToch implementation of BigGAN (\url{https://github.com/ajbrock/BigGAN-PyTorch}).
In order to adapt ContraD into the class-conditional BigGAN architecture, we apply the stop-gradient operation not only on the penultimate representation before computing $h_{\tt d}$, but also before applying the class-conditional projection \cite{miyato2018cgans}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{\linewidth}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{SNDCGAN generator}
\label{tab:sndcgan_g}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{llr}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Layer} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Kernel} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Output} \\
\midrule
Latent ${\mathbf{z}}$ & - & 128 \\
Linear, BN, ReLU & - & $h/8\times w/8 \times 512$ \\
DeConv, BN, ReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h/4\times w/4 \times 256$ \\
DeConv, BN, ReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h/2\times w/2 \times 128$ \\
DeConv, BN, ReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h\ \ \ \ \times w\ \ \ \ \times \ \ 64$ \\
DeConv, Tanh & $[3, 3, 1]$ & $h\ \ \ \ \times w\ \ \ \ \times\ \ \ \ 3$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{SNDCGAN discriminator}
\label{tab:sndcgan_d}
\vspace{0.03in}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Layer} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Kernel} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Output} \\
\midrule
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[3, 3, 1]$ & $h\ \ \ \ \times w\ \ \ \ \times\ \ 64$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h/2\times w/2 \times 128$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[3, 3, 1]$ & $h/2\times w/2 \times 128$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h/4\times w/4 \times 256$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[3, 3, 1]$ & $h/4\times w/4 \times 256$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[4, 4, 2]$ & $h/8\times w/8 \times 512$ \\
Conv, LeakyReLU & $[3, 3, 1]$ & $h/8\times w/8 \times 512$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{table}
\subsection{Training details}
\textbf{SNDCGAN.}
Overall, we follow the best hyperparameter practices explored by \citet{kurach2019large} for SNDCGAN models on CIFAR and CelebA-HQ-128 datasets: We use Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} with $(\alpha, \beta_1, \beta_2)=(0.0002, 0.5, 0.999)$ for optimization with batch size of 64, while in case of ContraD on CIFAR datasets the batch size of 512 is used instead. For CelebA-HQ-128, we keep the default batch size of 64 even for ContraD. All models but the ``Hinge'' baselines in Table~\ref{tab:fid_celeb} are trained with the non-saturating loss \cite{goodfellow2014gan}. We stop training after 200K generator updates for CIFAR-10/100 and 100K for CelebA-HQ-128. When CR or bCR is used, we set their regularization strengths $\lambda=10$ for both real and fake images.
\textbf{StyleGAN2.} We follow the training details of DiffAug \cite{zhao2020diffaugment} in their CIFAR experiments: we use Adam with $(\alpha, \beta_1, \beta_2)=(0.002, 0.0, 0.99)$ for optimization with batch size of 32, but 64 for ContraD models. We use non-saturating loss for training, and use $R_1$ regularization \cite{mescheder2018training} with $\gamma=0.1$. We do not use, however, the path length regularization and the lazy regularization \cite{karras2020analyzing} in training. We take exponential moving average on the generator weights with half-life of $10^6$. We stop training after 800K generator updates. When CR or bCR is used, we set their regularization strengths $\lambda=10$ for both real and fake images.
\textbf{Linear evaluation and transfer learning.} For a single linear evaluation (and transfer learning) run, we train a linear classifier upon a given (frozen) representation. The results in Table~\ref{tab:lineval} are trained via stochastic gradient descent for 100 epochs: the initial learning rate of 0.1, and it is decayed by 0.1 at 60, 75, and 90-th epoch.
In case of Table~\ref{tab:transfer_biggan}, on the other hand, we use Adam optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam} for 90 epochs: the initial learning rate if 0.0002, and it is decayed by 0.3 at 60 and 75-th epoch.
We augment every training dataset via random crop, resizing and horizontal flipping.
\textbf{Conditional DDLS.} We run Langevin sampling of step size $\varepsilon=0.1$ for 1,000 iterations. We follow all the practical considerations proposed by \citet{che2020ddls} to improve the sample quality of DDLS: specifically, (a) we separately set the standard deviation of the Gaussian noise \eqref{eq:ddls} to 0.1, and (b) to alleviate mode dropping issues, instead of running DDLS on $G$ itself, we run the sampling with $G^*({\mathbf{z}}, {\mathbf{z}}'):=G({\mathbf{z}})+\varepsilon{\mathbf{z}}'$, where ${\mathbf{z}}'$ is also jointly updated via Langevin dynamics.
\textbf{Hyperparameters in ContraD.} Unless otherwise specified, we use $\lambda_{\tt con} = \lambda_{\tt dis} = 1$, and $\tau=0.1$ in our experiments, where $\tau$ is the temperature hyperparameter defined in \eqref{eq:simclr_score}. We use hidden layer of size 512 for $h_{\tt r}$, $h_{\tt f}$, $h_{\tt d}$ in SNDCGAN and StyleGAN2, and 1024 in SNResNet-18 and BigGAN.
For ContraD models, we use linear warm-up strategy on learning rate up to 3K steps of training for both generator and discriminator, following practices in contrastive learning \cite{chen2020simclr}.
\textbf{SimCLR augmentations.} We use the augmentation pipeline proposed in SimCLR \cite{chen2020simclr} for training ContraD. Specifically, for CIFAR datasets, we sequentially transform a given image by: (a) random crop and resizing, (b) horizontal flipping, (c) color jittering with probability of $p=0.8$, and (d) graying the image with probability of $p=0.2$. We additionally apply (f) Gaussian blurring with probability of $p=0.5$ for higher resolution images such as CelebA-HQ-128 and ImageNet. We ensure that every transformation in this pipelines are differentiably implemented, so that the augmentation still can be used for training the generator of GAN.
\subsection{Results}
\vspace{-0.05in}
{\bf Image generation on CIFAR-10/100.}
CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 \citep{dataset/cifar} consist of 60K images of size $32\times32$ in 10 and 100 classes, respectively, 50K for training and 10K for testing.
We start by comparing ContraD on CIFAR-10/100 with three recent methods that applies data augmentation in GANs: (a) Consistency Regularization (CR) \cite{zhang2020cr}, (b) the ``balanced'' Consistency Regularization (bCR) \cite{zhao2020icr}, and (c) Differentiable Augmentation (DiffAug) \cite{zhao2020diffaugment} as baselines.\footnote{Here, we notice that ADA \cite{karras2020ada}, a concurrent work to DiffAug, also offers a highly similar method to DiffAug, but with an additional heuristic of tuning augmentations on-the-fly with a validation dataset. We consider this addition is orthogonal to ours, and focus on comparing DiffAug for a clearer comparison in the CIFAR experiments. A more direct comparison with ADA, nevertheless, can be found in Appendix~\ref{ap:afhq}.}
We follow their best pratices on which data augmentations to use: specifically, we use a combination of horizontal flipping (HFlip) and random translation up to 4 pixels (Trans) for CR and bCR, and Trans + CutOut \cite{devries2017cutout} for DiffAug for CIFAR datasets. We mainly consider SNDCGAN and StyleGAN2 for training, but in addition, we further consider a scenario that the discriminator architecture of SNDCGAN is scaled up into \emph{SNResNet-18}, which is identical to ResNet-18 \cite{he2016deep} without batch normalization \cite{ioffe2015batch} but with spectral normalization \cite{miyato2018spectral}, in order to see that how each training method behaves when the capacity of generator and discriminator are significantly different.
Table~\ref{tab:fid} shows the results: overall, we observe our ContraD uniformly improves the baseline GAN training by a large margin, significantly outperforming other baselines as well. Indeed, our results on SNDCGAN already achieve better FID than those from the baseline training of \mbox{StyleGAN2}. Moreover, when the discriminator of SNDCGAN is increased to SNResNet-18, ContraD could further improve its results, without even modifying any of the hyperparameters. It is particularly remarkable that all the other baselines could not improve their results in this setup: A further ablation study presented in Section~\ref{ss:ablation} reveals that \emph{stopping gradients} before the discriminator head in our design is an important factor to benefit from SNResNet-18. Finally, our ContraD can also be applied to a larger, sophisticated StyleGAN2, further improving both FID and IS compared to DiffAug.
{\bf Image generation on CelebA-HQ-128.}
We also perform experiments on CelebA-HQ-128 \cite{dataset/celebhq}, which consist of 30K human faces of size $128\times128$, to see that our design of ContraD still applies well for high-resolution datasets. We split 3K images out of CelebA-HQ-128 for testing, and use the remaining for training. We use SNDCGAN for this experiment, and compare FID and IS to (a)~the default non-saturating loss (W/O) \cite{goodfellow2014gan}, (b)~the hinge loss (Hinge) \cite{lim2017geometric, tran2017hierarchical}, (c)~CR and (d)~bCR. Similarly to the CIFAR experiments, we use the ``HFlip+Trans'' augmentation for both CR and bCR, but for CelebA-HQ-128 we allow them to translate up to 16 pixels, following \cite{zhang2020cr}. Again, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:fid_celeb}, we confirm that ContraD could still improve training of GANs compared to other methods, even with this high-resolution, yet with limited samples and a straightforward choice of architecture.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracy under linear evaluation protocol on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. We report the mean and standard deviation across 3 runs of the evaluation.}
\label{tab:lineval}
\vspace{0.03in}
\small
\input{tables/lineval}
\vspace{-0.15in}
\end{table}
{\bf Linear evaluation.}
Recall that the training objective of ContraD we propose in \eqref{eq:loss_D} can be simply reduced into the SimCLR loss \cite{chen2020simclr} without considering the fake samples, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., by letting $\lambda_{\tt con}=\lambda_{\tt dis}=0$.
A natural question from here is whether those fake samples could help to improve the representation of SimCLR: we verify this by comparing the \emph{linear evaluation} performance \cite{kolesnikov2019revisiting, chen2020simclr, grill2020bootstrap} of the learned representation of ContraD to those from SimCLR: specifically, linear evaluation measures the test accuracy that a linear classifier on the top of given (frozen) representation could maximally achieve for a given (downstream) labeled data. Following this protocol, we compare the linear evaluation of a ContraD model with its ablation that $\lambda_{\tt con}$ and $\lambda_{\tt dis}$ are set to 0 during its training. We consider three discriminator architectures and two datasets for this experiments: namely, we train SNDCGAN, SNResNet-18, and StyleGAN2 models on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. In this experiment, we use batch size 256 for training all the SNDCGAN and SNResNet-18 models, while in case of StyleGAN2 we use batch size 64 instead.
Table~\ref{tab:lineval} summarizes the results, and somewhat interestingly, it shows that ContraD significantly improves the SimCLR counterpart in terms of linear evaluation for all the models tested: in other words, we observe that keeping discriminative features between real and fake samples in their representation, which is what ContraD does in addition to SimCLR, can be beneficial to improve the contrastive learning itself. Again, our observation supports a great potential of ContraD not only in the context of GANs, but also in the contrastive learning.
{\bf Conditional DDLS with ContraD.}
We further evaluate the performance of conditional DDLS (cDDLS) \eqref{eq:cddls} proposed for ContraD, with a task of deriving class-conditional generative models for a given (unconditionally-trained) GAN model. Here, we measure the performance of this conditional generation by computing the \emph{class-wise} FIDs to the test set, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., FIDs computed for each subsets of the same class in the test set. We test cDDLS on SNDCGAN and SNResNet-18 ContraD models trained on CIFAR-10. To perform a conditional generation for a specific class, we simply take a learned linear weight obtained from the linear evaluation protocol for that class. The results summarized in Table~\ref{tab:cond_fid} show that applying cDDLS upon unconditional generation significantly improves class-wise FIDs for all the classes in CIFAR-10. Some of the actual samples conditionally generated from an SNResNet-18 ContraD model can be found in Figure~\ref{fig:qual_ddls} of Appendix~\ref{ap:qual}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of FID (lower is better) from the class-wise subsets of CIFAR-10 test set (1K images per class). ``Random'' indicates unconditional generation, and ``Train-1K'' indicates a 1K random subsamples from the CIFAR-10 train set of the same class.}
\label{tab:cond_fid}
\vspace{0.03in}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
\input{tables/cond_fid}
\end{adjustbox}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\begin{minipage}[t]{\linewidth}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.37\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{Comparison of the best FID and IS on CIFAR-10 with SNDCGAN when stronger (bCR and DiffAug) or weaker augmentations (ContraD) are used for each method.}
\label{tab:fid_simclr}
\vspace{0.03in}
\small
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
\input{tables/fid_simclr}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.59\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{Comparison of the best FID score and IS on CIFAR-10 for ablations of our proposed components. All the models are trained with batch size 256. For the ablation of ``MLP $h_{\tt d}$'', we replace $h_{\tt d}$ with a linear model. ``$\mathtt{sg}(\cdot)$'' indicates the use of stop-gradient operation.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\vspace{0.02in}
\small
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\linewidth}
\input{tables/fid_ablation}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.10in}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Ablation study}
\label{ss:ablation}
\vspace{-0.05in}
We conduct an ablation study for a more detailed analysis on the proposed method. For this section, unless otherwise specified, we perform experiments on CIFAR-10 with SNDCGAN architecture.
\textbf{Stronger augmentations for other methods.}
One of the key characteristics of ContraD compared to the prior works is the use of stronger data augmentations for training GANs, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., we use the augmentation pipeline of SimCLR \cite{chen2020simclr} in our experiments. In Table~\ref{tab:fid_simclr}, we examine the performance bCR \cite{zhao2020icr} and DiffAug \cite{zhao2020diffaugment} when this stronger augmentation is applied, and shows that the SimCLR augmentation could not meaningfully improve FID or IS for both methods. Unlike these methods, our ContraD effectively handles the SimCLR augmentations without overly regularizing the discriminator, possibly leveraging many components of contrastive learning: \textit{e}.\textit{g}., the normalized loss, or the use of separate projection heads.
\textbf{Weaker augmentations for ContraD.} On the other side, we also consider a case when ContraD is rather trained with a weaker data augmentation, here we consider ``HFlip, Trans'' instead of ``SimCLR'', in Table~\ref{tab:fid_simclr}: even in this case, we observe ContraD is still as good as (or better in terms of IS) a strong baseline of bCR. The degradation in FID (and IS) compared to ``ContraD + SimCLR'' is possibly due to that SimCLR requires strong augmentations to learn a good representation \cite{chen2020simclr}, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., we also observe there is a degradation in the linear evaluation performances, $77.5\rightarrow 72.9$, when ``HFlip, Trans'' is used.
\textbf{MLP discriminator head.} In our experiments, we use a 2-layer network for the discriminator head $h_{\tt d}$. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:ablation}, this choice can be minimal: replacing $h_{\tt d}$ with a linear model severely breaks the training.
Conversely, although not presented here, we have also observed that MLPs of more than two layers neither give significant gains on the performance in our experimental setup.
\textbf{Stopping gradients.} We use the stop-gradient operation $\mathtt{sg}(\cdot)$ before the discriminator head $h_{\tt d}$ in attempt to decouple the effect of GAN loss to the ContraD representation. Table~\ref{tab:ablation} also reports the ablation of this component: overall, not using $\mathtt{sg}(\cdot)$ does not completely break the training, but it does degrade the performance especially when a deeper discriminator is used, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., SNResNet-18.
\textbf{Contrastive losses.} Recall that the representation of ContraD is trained by two losses, namely $L^{+}_{\tt con}$ and $L^{-}_{\tt con}$ (Section~\ref{ss:contrastive}). From an ablation study on each loss, as presented in Table~\ref{tab:ablation}, we observe that both of the losses are indispensable for our training to work in a larger discriminator architecture.
\textbf{Separate projection headers.} As mentioned in Section~\ref{ss:contrastive}, we use two independent projection headers, namely $h_{\tt r}$ and $h_{\tt f}$, to define $L_{\tt con}^{+}$ and $L_{\tt con}^{-}$, respectively. We have observed this choice is empirically more stable than sharing them: \textit{e}.\textit{g}., under $h_{\tt r} = h_{\tt f}$, we could not obtain a reasonable performance when only $D$ is increased to SNResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 with SNDCGAN. Intuitively, an optimal embedding (after projection) from $L_{\tt con}^{-}$ can be harmful to SimCLR, as it encourages the embedding of real samples to degenerate into a single point, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., the opposite direction of SimCLR.
\subsection{Contrastive representation for GANs}
\label{ss:contrastive}
Recall the standard training of GANs, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., we train $G: \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ and $D: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ via optimizing \eqref{eq:nonsat} from a given dataset $\{{\mathbf{x}}_i\}_{i=1}^N$, and let $\mathcal{T}$ be a family of possible transforms for data augmentation, which we assume in this paper to be those used in SimCLR \cite{chen2020simclr}.
In order to define the training objective of ContraD, we start by re-defining the scalar-valued $D$ to have vector-valued outputs, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., $D: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d_e}$, to represent an encoder network of contrastive learning.
Overall, the encoder network $D$ of ContraD is trained by minimizing two different \emph{contrastive} losses: (a) the SimCLR loss \eqref{eq:simclr} on the real samples, and (b) the supervised contrastive loss \cite{khosla2020supclr} on the fake samples,
which will be explained one-by-one in what follows.
\textbf{Loss for real samples.} By default, ContraD is built upon the SimCLR training: in fact, the training becomes equivalent to SimCLR if the loss (b) is missing, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., without considering the fake samples. Here, we attempt to simply follow the contrastive training scheme for real samples ${\bm{x}}$, to keep open the possibility to improve the method by adopting other self-supervised learning methods with data augmentations \cite{chen2020mocov2, grill2020bootstrap}. More concretely, we first compute two independent views ${\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(1)}, {\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(2)}:={\bm{t}}_1({\mathbf{x}}), {\bm{t}}_2({\mathbf{x}})$ for real samples using ${\bm{t}}_1, {\bm{t}}_2 \sim \mathcal{T}$, and minimize:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss_real}
L_{\tt con}^{+}(D, h_{\tt r}) := L_{\tt SimCLR}({\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(1)}, {\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(2)}; D, h_{\tt r}),
\end{equation}
where $h_{\tt r}: \mathbb{R}^{d_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d_p}$ is a projection head for this loss.
\textbf{Loss for fake samples.} Although the representation learned via $L_{\tt con}^{+}$ \eqref{eq:loss_real} may be enough, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., for discriminating two independent real samples, it does not give any guarantee that this representation would still work for discriminating real and fake samples, which is needed as a GAN discriminator. We compensate this by considering an auxiliary loss $L_{\tt con}^{-}$ that regularizes the encoder to keep necessary information to discriminate real and fake samples. Here, several design choices can be possible: nevertheless, we observe that one should choose the loss deliberately, otherwise the contrastive representation from $L_{\tt con}^{+}$ could be significantly affected. For example, we found using the original GAN loss \eqref{eq:nonsat} for $L_{\tt con}^{-}$ could completely negate the effectiveness of ContraD.
In this respect, we propose to use the \emph{supervised contrastive loss} \cite{khosla2020supclr} over fake samples to this end, an extended version of contrastive loss to support supervised learning by allowing more than one view to be positive, so that views of the same label can be attracted to each other in the embedding space. In our case, we assume all the views from fake samples have the same label against those from real samples. Formally, for each ${\bm{v}}_i^{(1)}$, let $V_{i+}^{(2)}$ be a subset of ${\bm{v}}^{(2)}$ that represent the positive views for ${\bm{v}}_i^{(1)}$. Then, the supervised contrastive loss is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:supcon}
L_{\tt SupCon}({\bm{v}}^{(1)}_i, {\bm{v}}^{(2)}, V^{(2)}_{i+}) := -\frac{1}{|V_{i+}^{(2)}|}\sum_{{\bm{v}}_{i+}^{(2)}\in V_{i+}^{(2)}}\log\frac{\exp(s_{\tt SimCLR}({\bm{v}}^{(1)}_i, {\bm{v}}_{i+}^{(2)}))}{\sum_{j} \exp(s_{\tt SimCLR}({\bm{v}}^{(1)}_i, {\bm{v}}_{j}^{(2)}))}.
\end{equation}
Using the notation, we define the ContraD loss for fake samples as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss_fake}
L_{\tt con}^{-}(D, h_{\tt f}) := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N L_{\tt SupCon}({\bm{v}}_{{\tt f}, i}, [{\bm{v}}_{{\tt f}, -i}; {\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(1)}; {\bm{v}}_{\tt r}^{(2)}], [{\bm{v}}_{{\tt f}, -i}]; D, h_{\tt f}),
\end{equation}
where again ${\bm{v}}_{\tt f}:={\bm{t}}_3(G({\mathbf{z}}))$ is a random view of fake samples, and ${\bm{v}}_{-i}:={\bm{v}} \setminus \{{\bm{v}}_i\}$. Remark that we use an independent projection header $h_{\tt f}: \mathbb{R}^{d_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d_p}$ instead of $h_{\tt r}$ in \eqref{eq:loss_real} for this loss.
There can be other variants for $L_{\tt con}^{-}$, as long as (a) it leads $D$ to discriminate real and fake samples, while (b) not compromising the representation from $L_{\tt con}^{+}$. For example, one can incorporate another view of fake samples to additionally perform SimCLR similarly to $L_{\tt con}^{+}$ \eqref{eq:loss_real}. Nevertheless, we found the current design \eqref{eq:loss_fake} is favorable among such variants considered, both in terms of performance under practice of GANs, and computational efficiency from using only a single view.
To sum up, ContraD learns its contrastive representation by minimizing the following loss:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss_encoder}
L_{\tt con}(D, h_{\tt r}, h_{\tt f}) := L_{\tt con}^{+}(D, h_{\tt r}) + \lambda_{\tt con} L_{\tt con}^{-}(D, h_{\tt f}),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\tt con}>0$ is a hyperparameter. Nevertheless, we simply use $\lambda_{\tt con}=1$ in our experiments.
\subsection{Training GANs with ContraD}
\label{ss:training}
The contrastive loss defined in \eqref{eq:loss_encoder} is jointly trained under the standard framework of GAN, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., we present in this paper the case of non-saturating loss \eqref{eq:nonsat}, for training the generator network $G$. To obtain a (scalar) discriminator score needed to define the GAN loss, we simply use an additional \emph{discriminator head} $h_{\tt d}: \mathbb{R}^{d_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ upon the contrastive representation of $D$.
Here, a key difference of ContraD training from other GANs is that ContraD only optimizes the parameters of $h_{\tt d}$ for minimizing the GAN loss: in practical situations of using stochastic gradient descent for the training, this can be implemented by \emph{stopping gradient} before feeding inputs to $h_{\tt d}$. Therefore, the discriminator loss of ContraD is defined as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:loss_dis}
L_{\tt dis}(h_{\tt d}) &:= -\mathbb{E}_{{\mathbf{r}}_{\tt r}}[\log (\sigma(h_{\tt d}({\mathbf{r}}_{\tt r})))] - \mathbb{E}_{{\mathbf{r}}_{\tt f}}[\log (1 - \sigma(h_{\tt d}({\mathbf{r}}_{\tt f})))],
\end{align}
where ${\mathbf{r}}_{\tt r}= \mathtt{sg}(D({\mathbf{v}}_{\tt r}))$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_{\tt f}= \mathtt{sg}(D({\mathbf{v}}_{\tt f}))$.
Here, $\sigma(\cdot)$ denotes the sigmoid function, ${\mathbf{v}}_{\tt r}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{\tt f}$ are random views of real and fake samples augmented via $\mathcal{T}$, respectively, and $\mathtt{sg}(\cdot)$ is the stop-gradient operation. Combined with the contrastive training loss \eqref{eq:loss_encoder}, the joint training loss $L_D$ for a single discriminator update is the following:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss_D}
L_D := L_{\tt con} + \lambda_{\tt dis} L_{\tt dis} = L_{\tt con}^{+} + \lambda_{\tt con} L_{\tt con}^{-} + \lambda_{\tt dis} L_{\tt dis},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\tt dis}>0$ is a hyperparameter. Again, as like $\lambda_{\tt con}$, we simply use $\lambda_{\tt dis}=1$ in our experiments.
Finally, the loss for the generator $G$ can be defined simply like other standard GANs using the discriminator score, except that we also augment the generated samples $G({\mathbf{z}})$ to ${\mathbf{v}}_{\tt f}$, in a similar way to DiffAug \cite{zhao2020diffaugment} or ADA \cite{karras2020ada}: namely, in case of the non-saturating loss \cite{goodfellow2014gan}, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss_G}
L_G := -\mathbb{E}_{{\mathbf{v}}_{\tt f}}[\log (\sigma(h_{\tt d}(D({\mathbf{v}}_{\tt f}))))].
\end{equation}
Note that the form \eqref{eq:loss_G} is equivalent to the original non-saturating loss \eqref{eq:nonsat} if we regard $\sigma(h_{\tt d}(D(\cdot))): \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ as a single discriminator.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:training} in Appendix~\ref{ap:alg} describes a concrete training procedure of GANs with ContraD using Adam optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam}.
\subsection{Self-conditional sampling with ContraD}
\label{ss:cDDLS}
Apart from the improved training of GANs, the learned contrastive representation of ContraD could offer some additional benefits in practical scenarios compared to the standard GANs.
In this section, we present an example of how one could further utilize this additional information to derive a conditional generative model from an unconditionally-trained GAN with ContraD. More specifically, here we consider a variant of \emph{discriminator-driven latent sampling} (DDLS) \cite{che2020ddls} to incorporate a given representation vector from the ContraD encoder as a conditional information. Originally, DDLS attempts to improve the sample quality of a pre-trained GAN via a Langevin sampling \cite{welling2011bayesian} on the latent space of the following form:
\begin{align}\label{eq:ddls}
{\mathbf{z}}_{t+1} &:= {\mathbf{z}}_t - \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\nabla_{{\mathbf{z}}_t}E({\mathbf{z}}_t) + \sqrt{\varepsilon}{\mathbf{n}}_t, {\mathbf{n}}_t\sim\mathcal{N}(0, 1),\
\end{align}
{where} $E({\mathbf{z}}) := -\log{p({\mathbf{z}})} - d(G({\mathbf{z}}))$ and $d(\cdot)$ denotes the logit of $D$. In this manner, for our ContraD, we propose to use the following ``conditional'' version of energy function $E({\mathbf{z}}, v)$ for an arbitrary vector $v \in \mathbb{R}^{d_e}$ in the ContraD representation space, called \emph{conditional DDLS} (cDDLS):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cddls}
E({\mathbf{z}}, v) := -\log{p({\mathbf{z}})} - h_{\tt d}(D(G({\mathbf{z}}))) - \lambda(v\cdot D(G({\mathbf{z}}))).
\end{equation}
In our experiments, for instance but not limited to, we show that using the learned weights obtained from linear evaluation as conditional vectors successfully recovers class-conditional generations from an unconditional ContraD model.
\section{Introduction}
\input{intro}
\section{Background}
\input{background}
\section{ContraD: Contrastive Discriminator for GANs}
\input{method}
\vspace{-0.01in}
\section{Experiments}
\label{s:experiments}
\vspace{-0.01in}
\input{experiments}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\section{Conclusion and future work}
\vspace{-0.05in}
In this paper, we explore a novel combination of GAN and contrastive learning, two important, yet seemingly different paradigms in unsupervised representation learning. They both have been independently observed the crucial importance of maintaining consistency to data augmentations in their representations \cite{zhang2020cr, tian2020makes}, and here we further observe that these two representations complement each other when combined upon the shared principle of \emph{view-invariant} representations: although we have put more efforts in this work to verify the effectiveness of contrastive learning on GANs, we do observe the opposite direction through our experiments, and scaling up our method to compete with state-of-the-art self-supervised learning benchmarks \cite{chen2020mocov2, grill2020bootstrap, caron2020unsupervised} would be an important future work.
We believe our work also suggests several interesting ideas to explore in future research in both sides of GAN and contrastive learning: for example, our new design of introducing a small header to minimize the GAN loss upon other (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., contrastive) representation is a promising yet unexplored way of designing a new GAN architecture. For the SimCLR side, on the other hand, we suggest a new idea of incorporating ``fake'' samples for contrastive learning, which is also an interesting direction along with other recent attempts to improve the efficiency of negative sampling in contrastive learning, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., via hard negative mining \cite{kalantidis2020hard, robinson2020contrastive}.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT). This work was also partly supported by Institute of Information \& Communications Technology Planning \& Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2019-0-00075, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program (KAIST)). The authors would like to thank Minkyu Kim for helping additional experiments in preparation of the camera-ready revision, and thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to improve our paper.
|
\section*{INTRODUCTION}
NASA's Stardust mission successfully returned cometary and interstellar dust collectors to Earth in 2006, after an encounter with the comet 81P/Wild 2 in 2004, and exposure to the interstellar dust stream in 2000 and 2002.
The cometary and interstellar dust particles it collected have been extensively studied, leading to scientific insights on the origins of the solar system \citep{brownlee2006comet, brownlee2014review}, the nature of comets \citep{brownlee2004surface, mckeegan2006isotopic, flynn2006elemental, zolensky2006mineralogy, simon2008refractory, joswiak2012comprehensive, ogliore2012incorporation, gainsforth2019fine}, the presence of cometary amino acids \citep{elsila2009cometary, sandford2006organics}, and the properties of interstellar dust \citep{westphal2014evidence, stroud2014stardust, bechtel2014stardust, brenker2014stardust, flynn2014stardust, butterworth2014stardust, gainsforth2014stardust, westphal2014final}.
Stardust carried one collector to capture cometary particles from 81P/Wild 2 and another to capture interstellar dust particles.
Each collector consisted of aerogel tiles and aluminum foils. The foils were intended to facilitate aerogel removal, but also provided an additional capture medium \citep{tsou2003wild}.
When particles hit the aluminum foils, they created small craters \citep{horz2006impacts, kearsley2008dust, price2010, wozniakiewicz2012stardust}.
These craters are sparsely distributed on the foils and the majority are only detectable by scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging.
Even then they can easily be confused with imperfections in the foil (See Fig. \ref{fig:craters} and Fig. \ref{fig:not_craters}), making the task of locating them nontrivial.
A large citizen science project, Stardust@home (hereafter SAH), engaged human volunteers to locate craters on the Stardust foils \citep{westphal2005stardust}.
This project has attracted more than 30,000 volunteers and has been particularly successful with respect to the identification of particles in aerogel \citep{westphal2014stardust}.
However, even with this massive participation, human views of the foils are still sparse.
Nearly 20\% of the available SAH foil images have not been viewed more than once.
Furthermore, the SAH site only contains images from four of the roughly 200 individual foils present in the Stardust collector.
More importantly, the majority of the foils in the Stardust collector have never been scanned by a SEM. \cite{stroud2014stardust} reports that approximately 4.8\% of the foils were examined by a SEM during the preliminary examination.
Since then, just over half of the foils have been removed from the collector.
An efficient and effective automated procedure could provide an impetus to scan the rest of these foils, as the examination of images would be much easier.
Previous successful attempts at automatic crater identification include a normalized cross-correlation and template matching algorithm by \cite{ogliore2012automated} and an algorithm based on a circular Hough transform and Canny edge detection developed by \cite{de2018fast}.
Both of these algorithms have revealed multiple new craters.
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which have been established as effective tools in image classification \citep{he_delving_2015, krizhevsky_imagenet_2012}, have the potential to complement or outperform the previously developed machine learning techniques.
By way of comparison, the Hough transform algorithm detects circular craters, and template matching detects craters matching a set of known craters.
A CNN, on the other hand, can be trained on craters in combination with other features, such as scratches and image exposure, and can integrate those observations into the final metric.
Thus, while both the Hough transform algorithm and the cross-correlation template matching algorithm only seek to find crater-like features, a CNN can both identify crater-like features and address the environment of a given image. (See Fig. \ref{fig:CNNHeatmaps}).
Because the fraction of SEM images that contain craters is very small, Bayes' theorem implies that the majority of images classified as containing craters by our algorithm will actually be false positives, even with a generous estimation of the neural net accuracy. \
For example, let us we suppose that our CNN achieves a value of 0.999 for both sensitivity and specificity, and we take the estimate that there there are 100 total craters in the sample of approximately $10^7$ images required to search the entire collector \citep{landgraf1999prediction}. Even so, Bayes' theorem says there is still less than a one percent chance that an image classified to contain a crater actually contains a crater.
Where $P(\textrm{c})$ represents the probability that a crater is actually present in an image, $P(\overline{\textrm{c}})$ represents the probability that a crater is \textit{not} present in an image, and $P(+)$ represents the probability that our CNN \textit{predicts} a crater is present in an image:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
P(\textrm{c}|+) &= \frac{P(+|\textrm{c})P(\textrm{c})}{P(+|\overline{\textrm{c}})P(\overline{\textrm{c}}) + P(+|\textrm{c})P(\textrm{c})} \\
&= \frac{.999 \times (100/10^7)}{.001 \times (1-(100/10^7)) + .999 \times (100/10^7)} \\
& \approx 1\% \textrm{ probability a crater is present in a positively identified image}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
So a significant amount of human interaction will still be necessary to ultimately find and identify craters, even if we reach the bounds of practical CNN performance.
The focus of the project, then, is not to make a perfect crater identification algorithm that eliminates the need for human interaction with these images.
Instead, we intend to make an algorithm that is good enough to correctly identify the large majority of images that \textit{do not} contain craters, thereby reducing the amount of time and effort humans must expend looking through images.
That is, we are biasing our CNN towards being highly specific, rather than being highly sensitive.
Cometary particles are generally larger than interstellar particles, and create craters with a typical diameter of $5-200$ $\mu$m \citep{kearsley2008dust}, as opposed to a diameter of $< 1$ $\mu$m for typical interstellar craters \citep{stroud2014stardust}.
However, there is interest in smaller cometary particles as well, as $\mu$m to sub-$\mu$m cometary craters have been examined by \cite{leroux2008transmission}, \cite{stroud2010structure} and \cite{Leitner}.
All of the data used in this paper comes from the interstellar dust collector, but the results could be applied to the cometary collector.
\section*{EXPERIMENTAL}
\subsection*{SAMPLE PREPARATION}
The top foil surface was separated from the collector apparatus using a twin rotary cutter in the Stardust Lab at Johnson Space Center. This resulted in thin Al strips that were stored and shipped in a custom foil mount \citep{kearsley2008dust}.
In preparation for SEM imaging, we clamped the foils mechanically at the ends and stretched them to ensure flatness.
This method of foil mounting was also described in \cite{stroud2014stardust} and has been shown to ensure stability and meet the standards necessary for automatic image acquisition.
We imaged the foils in SEMs using voltage between 5 keV and 15 keV, current between 0.2 nA and 5 nA, and image resolution between 40 and 60 nm px$^{-1}$ \citep{stroud2014stardust}.
Care was taken to ensure that imaging times were sufficiently short, and that the vacuum chambers within the SEMs used were sufficiently free of carbon, in order to minimize deposition that could compromise later investigation.
For example, Auger spectroscopy can be used for elemental mapping of craters in the Stardust foils but is extremely sensitive to carbon deposition and can be obscured even by a 4 nm layer of carbon \citep{stadermann2009use}.
Due to the small number of actual craters that have thus far been observed in the SEM images of the Stardust collector, this project would be impossible without analog craters produced by alternative means, namely light gas gun shots of aluminum foils \citep{burchell1999hypervelocity}.
44 such craters had originally been imaged for use by \cite{stadermann2008stardust}, and had previously been used by \cite{ogliore2012automated}.
We produced a further 53 with the two-stage light gas gun (LGG) in the Centre for Astrophysics and Planetary Sciences at the University of Kent (see \citealt{burchell1999hypervelocity}), using the procedure described in \cite{wozniakiewicz2012stardust}.
The method involved firing projectiles at an analog Stardust aluminium foil using a two stage light gas gun.
The projectiles were a mixed sample, comprising 0.5 and 1.0 $\mu$m diameter SiO$_2$ spheres, mixed with larger grains of hand-ground pyroxene, olivine and diopside.
We measured the impact speed to be 6.02 $\pm$ 0.05 km s$^{-1}$, comparable to the Stardust cometary dust impact speed.
The craters from the smaller SiO$_2$ grains were identifiable by their regular circular shape and size.
Based on \cite{price2010} it is predicted that, for silica beads similar to those here impacting Al foil at 6 km s$^{-1}$, crater size = 1.54 times projectile diameter.
Hence crater sizes of 0.77 $\mu$m and 1.54 $\mu$m are expected from the SiO$_2$ spheres, as well as larger craters from the mineral impacts. The larger craters from the various minerals would have distinct differences in residue composition inside the craters.
We imaged the foil using a Tescan Vega SEM at the Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley.
\subsection*{DATA PREPROCESSING
Adequate CNN training requires a set of thousands of images that contain craters and thousands that do not.
While we have many images without craters, images with craters in the interstellar collector are rare.
We resolved this issue by augmenting a set of blank images with analog craters that sample the range of crater morphologies, as described in the section above.
The process is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:image-augmenting}. A crater is first imaged (Fig. \ref{fig:crater-with-back}), isolated from the surrounding foil (Fig. \ref{fig:alpha-crater}) and then combined with a blank image (Figs. \ref{fig:blank-150150} and \ref{fig:pasted-150150}).
In order to isolate the crater from the surrounding foil, we hand-edited each image to delete the surrounding foil using a transparency channel.
We did this using the GIMP digital image processing package \citep{gimp} with brushes of varying sizes and hardnesses between 25 and 100 pixels in order to reduce the effect of a hard boundary at the edge of the crater or sensitivity to fourier components harmonic with the brush size. We then performed a process of augmentation of these craters through rotating, re-scaling, and altering the aspect ratio to produce about 30,000 artificial crater images \citep{scikit-image}.
The aspect ratio is sampled from a normal centered at 1 with a standard deviation of 0.1, and the re-scaling is such that a crater is no smaller than 5 pixels in diameter and no larger than about 25, matching the observed scale.
Such data augmentation techniques, known collectively as data warping, are well established in the field of deep learning and computer vision \citep{shorten2019survey, yu2017deep, wong2016understanding}.
We then pasted these augmented craters into foil images that do not contain craters. We visually checked that these synthetic images looked reasonable. (Fig. \ref{fig:pasted-150150}).
Before training, we normalized the images such that their pixel intensities were between 0 and 1.
Finally, we split the synthetic images into training, validation, and test sets of 10,000 each, with a similar set of blank images for a total database of 60,000 images.
\subsection*{NETWORK OVERVIEW}
Our network structure is similar to the VGG16 network \citep{simonyan2014very} frequently used in the machine vision community, but is tailored to our specific application.
The most significant difference is that our network is substantially smaller than VGG16, having $<$250,000 free parameters, while VGG16 has $>$10$^8$ free parameters.
Figure \ref{fig:CNNStructure} shows an overview of our network structure.
We used a set of three coarse feature finding units, each with two convolutional layers and a max pooling layer \citep{giusti2013fast}.
These are followed by two more convolutional layers each with a max pooling layer, before feeding into a fully connected head.
The coarse feature finding units identify features up to about 24 pixels wide, which is the size of a typical crater in our images.
The additional two convolutional units provide context up to 48 pixels across.
During hyperparameter optimization we found that features larger than $\sim$50 pixels across contributed little to determining the presence of a feature that looks like a crater.
Thus, we do not include convolutional layers for larger feature sizes.
The head combines the features found by the convolutional filters to determine whether a crater is present or not.
\subsection*{DETAILED ARCHITECTURE}
We programmed the CNN in Keras \citep{chollet2015keras} with a Tensorflow backend \citep{tensorflow2015-whitepaper} using python.
We utilized a number of other packages in image preprocessing and evaluation, including matplotlib \citep{Hunter:2007}, scikit-learn \citep{scikit-learn}, scikit-image \citep{scikit-image}, hdf5 \citep{hdf5}, numpy \citep{5725236}, and Jupyter notebooks \citep{kluyver2016jupyter}.
A tabular representation of the network architecture can be seen in Table \ref{table:network}. For brevity, we have only included the main layers in Table \ref{table:network}.
The CNN had a total of 216,465 trainable parameters, 8 two-dimensional convolutional layers and 7 densely connected layers.
All hidden layers are immediately followed by the ReLU activation function \citep{krizhevsky_imagenet_2012}, while the output layer is equipped with a sigmoid activation function.
Every convolutional layer uses a $3 \times 3$ kernel size, with a stride of 1 (stride is the number of pixels between the centers of adjacent kernel operations), and does not use padding.
All max pooling layers use a $2 \times 2$ pool-size and a stride of 2 pixels.
We used several methods to prevent overfitting: Following every convolutional layer, there is a two-dimensional spatial dropout layer \citep{Tompson2015EfficientOL} with a dropout rate of 0.25.
Following every densely-connected layer, there is a simple dropout layer \citep{JMLR:v15:srivastava14a} with a dropout rate of 0.3.
Every convolutional layer is equipped with a ridge-regression L2-loss kernel regularizer with regularization parameter $\lambda = 0.0001$ \citep{krogh1992simple}.
As a bridge between the feature-finding and densely-connected decision-making sections of the network, we used a global max pooling layer, as opposed to a flatten layer.
A global max pooling layer not only allows a variable-size input, but also helps prevent overfitting by minimizing the amount of noise passed to the decision-making section \citep{lin2013network}.
\subsection*{NETWORK TRAINING}
The raw data consist of $384 \times 512$ pixel grayscale JPG images.
It is computationally costly to train on images of that size.
To alleviate this cost, we allowed our network to accept a variable-size grayscale input, and trained in multiple steps.
In the first step, we trained on up to 20,000 synthetic $150 \times 150$ pixel grayscale images (10,000 each for positive and negative images).
In the second step, we retrained the network, starting from the previously obtained weights, on up to 20,000 grayscale images sized $384 \times 512$ pixels.
In both steps, we used the testing and validation sets of up to 20,000 images each.
For our optimizer we used Adam with Nesterov momentum \citep{Dozat2016IncorporatingNM}, with a constant learning rate of 0.002.
We used binary cross-entropy for our loss function.
In order to bias the network against false positives, we adjusted the class weights such that a false positive was penalized 10 times more than a false negative.
\subsection*{BIASING THE TRAINING SETS}
Performance can often be increased by ensemble learning (e.g. \cite{huang2017snapshot}, \cite{caruana2004ensemble}, \cite{dietterich2000ensemble}).
Our current prediction algorithm is in fact an ensemble of three networks each trained with slightly different training data.
They mostly identify the same images.
However, some edge cases (ambiguous features that \textit{may} be craters) are found by only one or two of the networks in the ensemble and therefore we capture more interesting craters by using the union of the predictions.
We produced different versions by varying the training sets as shown in Table \ref{table:Versions}.
There are two main differences that separate the versions: the number of images used in training and the content of training images.
The impact of using more images is clear: larger training sets resulted in more accurate networks after training.
However, while V3 and V4 are nominally trained using the same number of images, V4 was trained using only synthetic images produced with our analog craters using the process described above, whereas V2 and V3 were trained with images from the SAH site that had been biased by human volunteer responses.
The negative images for the V2/V3 training sets were chosen from images that had been consistently marked negatively by the SAH users (fewer than than 33\% of the views had indicated a crater).
Positive images were chosen from SAH ``calibration" images, which are used to measure volunteer performance and had been previously manufactured at the launch of the SAH site in a similar manner described by \cite{westphal2014stardust}, that had been consistently marked \textit{positively} by SAH users (greater than 50\% had indicated a crater).
Note that all of these calibration images contain synthetic craters, and the volunteer bias was used so that we could be sure that the craters were clear and realistic.
This approach was used to ensure that our network could mirror the activity of SAH volunteers, who have been established as largely reliable in the aggregate \citep{westphal2014stardust}.
These ``calibration" craters were manufactured using only a few analog craters which were all largely circular, and the use of more analog craters with a larger variety of structures helped V4 achieve higher sensitivity and specificity than V2 or V3.
\section*{RESULTS}
An overview of characteristics and performance of each CNN version is shown in Table \ref{table:Versions}.
The specificity was measured on a set of 500 images that do not contain craters, chosen randomly from the SAH database.
Two different measures of sensitivity are presented so as to evaluate both the CNN and our method of synthetic crater generation. The sensitivity with synthetic craters was measured on a set of 500 images that had synthetic craters, reflective of the way in which the CNNs were trained.
That is, the dataset used for V2 and V3 contained the SAH calibration images, and the dataset used for V4 contained synthetic craters created in the manner described in the data preprocessing section.
When an image from the SAH database is examined by our team and is determined to be a crater candidate, that corresponding section of the foil is re-scanned to obtain a higher resolution image.
Not all of these crater candidates that are re-scanned are determined to be of interstellar origin (some are crater-looking foil defects, others are craters created by spacecraft ejecta).
Our CNN should nevertheless identify these features as craters because, without a higher resolution image or elemental analysis, distinguishing them from interstellar craters is not possible.
The sensitivity with true craters is given as the proportion of 27 images verified by any and all means over the years including higher resolution SEM imageing, and FIB/TEM.
Each was verified by further study to be a real impact crater.
It is apparent that the V4 version of the network, which incorporates the most advanced image augmentation techniques, performed the best at finding features that were later verified to be valid craters.
The normalized cross-correlation algorithm of \citet{ogliore2012automated} (\url{https://presolar.physics.wustl.edu/Laboratory_for_Space_Sciences/software/cratersource.zip}) identified 8 of 25 true craters, indicating that its sensitivity is higher than V3 but lower than V4 of the network. However, the specificity is significantly lower, with 1--3 false positives for most images. Each image took a comparatively long time to search: about four minutes per processor core. Clearly, the network provides a significant improvement in sensitivity, specificity, and speed over a conventional normalized cross-correlation approach.
The output of the CNN is not binary, but is a continuous variable, known as the ``prediction", which is related to the probability that a crater is present.
In Fig. \ref{fig:SensAndSpec}, we plotted the sensitivity and specificity of each version of the network as a function of the minimum CNN prediction.
Because much of the change in specificity and sensitivity occurs near a prediction of zero, we define a new parameter $\xi$ as
$$\xi \equiv \log_{10} (p+10^{-6})$$
where $p$ is the prediction of a given version of a the network.
A small constant, $10^{-6}$, has been added to the prediction inside the logarithm so that a prediction of zero does not diverge.
This new parameter allows us to ``zoom in" on prediction values near zero.
The sensitivity in Fig. \ref{fig:SensAndSpec} is calculated on 129 images that have been selected as especially likely to contain craters by two of us, AA and MC.
Notice that the specificity is high for any threshold greater than zero, and climbs relatively slowly after that, while the sensitivity continues to drop steadily.
The equations used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity are shown below, where TP, TN, FP, and FN represent the numbers of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives, respectively.
\begin{gather*}
\textrm{sensitivity} = \frac{\textrm{TP}}{\textrm{TP} + \textrm{FN}} \qquad
\textrm{specificity} = \frac{\textrm{TN}}{\textrm{TN} + \textrm{FP}}
\end{gather*}
Because SAH volunteers have been established as largely reliable, we can use their responses as a proxy measurement for the success of the network.
Fig. \ref{fig:graph-probs} shows that there is a clear correlation between SAH volunteer responses and the predictions of the network for all three versions, with V4 being the most successful.
Only about 15,000 ($\sim4\%$) of the 424,000 images in our dataset meet a threshold of a prediction 0.01 from any of V2, V3, or V4. Thus, the network accomplishes our goal of eliminating the vast majority of images. (See Fig. \ref{fig:Distributions} for detail on the distribution of predictions for all three networks.)
\subsection*{CRATERS FOUND BY OUR ENSEMBLE}
Approximately 40 promising crater candidates that had previously gone unnoticed were identified by our CNNs.
Four of these can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig:promising}.
It will take further examination in order to conclusively determine whether or not these are created by interstellar dust impacts or simply imperfections in the foil.
Our CNN took about an hour running on an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 GPU to generate predictions for the entire dataset.
This speed is important because it contrasts with the pace of SAH.
Over the years 2015-2018, the average number of images viewed by volunteers per day was approximately 1,200.
With 424,000 images in the dataset, it took nearly a year ($\frac{424000}{1200} \approx 353$ days) for the SAH volunteers to work through that many images.
Some of the images that contain crater candidates have only been seen once or twice, like Fig. \ref{fig:5658134}, while others have been seen many times and have failed to earn a positive score.
For example, Fig. \ref{fig:5503346} had been disapproved all 4 times it had viewed.
We would likely never be alerted to images like these, which are prone to being overlooked by volunteers, without an automated approach.
\section*{DISCUSSION}
\subsection*{A REPLACEMENT OR A COMPLEMENT TO STARDUST@HOME?}
Deep learning is successful at classification tasks, but has inherent limitations. Whereas a human mind can leverage common sense and relatively few examples to perform well on simple tasks, neural networks lack general knowledge and real understanding, and require a large number of examples to reach proficiency with the same tasks.
Taking the statistical and practical limitations into account, we opted for a hybrid deployment strategy. After running the network on all of the images in our dataset, we eliminated all images that the network negatively classified from the SAH website, and left in the ones with predictions greater than 0.01 so that volunteers would have to sort through significantly fewer images without craters.
As we improve the quality of our network, it is possible to gradually reduce our reliance on SAH volunteers, but some form of human engagement will likely always be necessary.
\subsection*{FUTURE IMPROVEMENT}
As is evident from Table \ref{table:Versions}, there is a rift between our network's true sensitivity and its synthetic sensitivity, even with the augmented dataset used to train V4, which points to an important shortcoming in our algorithm.
The fact that the synthetic sensitivity is so high means that our network is training effectively: it gets very good at identifying the craters that we feed it.
However, that success doesn't appear to transfer smoothly to the images of true craters in our dataset.
There are two main possibilities.
The first is that our augmentation techniques are inadequate, and we are changing the crater analogs to such an extent that they no longer resemble true craters.
This is unlikely because we are using established data warping techniques \citep{shorten2019survey} with reasonable augmentation parameters.
Furthermore, we can visually confirm that the augmented craters still resemble genuine craters (Fig. \ref{fig:pasted-150150}).
The second is that the number of analog craters we use to construct our training set is too small.
This is more likely.
Data augmentation, though effective, cannot replace the simple act of collecting more raw data \citep{wong2016understanding, lee2015deeply}.
The only way to reduce the interdependence of training images created through data augmentation is to collect more raw data.
Therefore, we could create more analog craters with the LGG, or re-examine the LGG foils which have already been imaged for new morphologies.
In this way, we can increase the number of analog craters in our dataset by at least a factor of two.
The second way is to let the network find actual Stardust craters.
Even though the true sensitivity isn't perfect, it's still good enough to provide us with new images of true craters and, just as importantly, false positives.
As we gain access to this new data, we can can use this feedback to improve the performance of the network: the network finds some images that it thinks are craters and these images are evaluated both by experts and by volunteers on the SAH website.
These images are then incorporated correspondingly into an improved training set to re-train the network, and this process is iterated with the new version of the CNN.
Data warping-based augmentation is an established technique for improving neural network performance when limited data is available, but there are other approaches to data generation that may be worth exploring.
An entirely different way to improve our training data in the absence of new raw images is to deploy generative adversarial networks (GANs), which have seen success in recent years as an approach to data augmentation \citep{frid2018gan, shorten2019survey}.
\cite{perez2017effectiveness} reports GAN-based augmentation alone improves CNN performance about as much as traditional augmentation techniques, but recommends a combination of augmentation techniques that would likely outperform any single technique.
\subsection*{OUTLOOK FOR FURTHER EFFORTS ON STARDUST SAMPLES}
Aerogel composes 85\% of Stardust's collector area \citep{tsou2003wild}, and preserves particles in a way that aluminum foil does not.
Thus, it would be useful to have an effective computer vision model for identifying particles in the aerogel section of the collector.
Here we outline the challenges associated with this application.
The most obvious difference is the dimensionality of the data: when a particle embeds itself in aerogel it creates a track that is imaged in three dimensions.
On the Stardust@home website, aerogel tracks are viewed as ``movies", in which users view 30 to 40 frames in succession, each successive frame with its focus slightly lower than the last.
Many tracks cannot be identified by a single frame.
Much of the literature on volumetric computer vision comes from classification of volumetric medical images, like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scans.
A number of different approaches to classifying this type of data have been attempted, many of which attempt to adapt 2D networks to this problem: \cite{prasoon2013deep} used three separate 2D CNNs on three orthogonal planes of the volumetric data; \cite{roth2014new} adapted the approach used by \cite{prasoon2013deep} and mapped the three orthogonal planes to the RGB channels of a 2D CNN; \cite{grewal2018radnet} ran a 2D CNN on successive slices in a single plane, but added a long short-term memory (LSTM) layer to their network so previous slices could influence the predictions of later slices.
Of course, others have attempted to apply 3D CNNs to this type of classification problem, with early attempts by \cite{dou2016automatic} and \cite{payan2015predicting}, and a more recent attempt by \cite{ker2019image} that demonstrated higher performance than previous attempts at reasonable computational cost.
Though MRI and CT scans produce data of a different form than optical images of aerogel, these results provide optimism that a CNN might be successfully applied to the aerogel section of Stardust's collector.
\subsection*{APPLICATION TO OTHER MISSIONS}
Our success with computer vision on the Stardust samples lends credence to the hope that similar CNN methods could be successfully applied to other sample return missions, especially those that collect particulate rather than bulk samples.
The Tanpopo mission, managed by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and designed to investigate the interplanetary migration of microbes \citep{yamagishi2009tanpopo}, used a sample collection method very similar to the one used by the Stardust mission: aerogel held in place with aluminum foil \citep{tabata2014design}.
Though it appears little analysis has been done on samples collected by the aluminum foil part of the Tanpopo collector, our research shows that the barrier to beginning this analysis is low, as applying a CNN similar to ours on SEM images of the Tanpopo foils would likely expose many craters, which could then be examined.
Furthermore, our research lends optimism to an accelerated search for particles trapped in Tanpopo aerogel, as it does for those trapped in Stardust aerogel.
Stardust's sister mission, Genesis, included collectors that are similar in many respects to Stardust's foils. Namely, flat surfaces with rare features of interest and many ``contamination" features.
The main goal of Genesis was to gather data on solar wind \citep{lo1998genesis}, but there has been at least some interest in the analysis of interplanetary dust particles coincidentally caught by the Genesis collectors \citep{graham2004extraction}.
Also, NASA's Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) performed an experiment to measure the flux of small interplanetary dust particles \citep{singer1985ldef}.
A re-examination of these surfaces with our CNN could provide an updated calculation.
\section*{CONCLUSION}
This paper presented the implementation of a CNN to the task of finding craters within SEM images of the aluminum foil portion of the NASA Stardust mission collector.
The CNN was effective and demonstrated immediate utility.
We were able to identify crater candidates in the Stardust at Home (SAH) database that had not been noticed before, and we were able to effectively eliminate 96\% of the over 400,000 foils images in the SAH database, leaving SAH volunteers with a much more manageable set of images to look through.
Even with these successes, our CNN presents clear paths for improvement.
Particularly, the collection of more analog and true craters would increase the size of our training set and improve the effectiveness of our network.
Another way to address the small amount of craters we currently have is to use techniques like GAN-based augmentation.
This CNN might be a practical and convenient tool to future analyses of Stardust foils, and our CNN could be applied to sample return missions with similar collectors, such as Genesis and Tanpopo.
The success of deep learning methods on Stardust foils further gives optimism that deep learning methods can be applied to Stardust's aerogel collector.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
Computational work at the Advanced Light Source and Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02- 05CH11231.
This work was supported by NASA grant NNX16AI15G.
We specifically thank David Shapiro for providing access to computing resources, allowing us to train the CNN.
\medskip
\renewcommand\refname{REFERENCES}
\bibliographystyle{MAPS}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\refname} |
\section{Introduction}
In the current era of noisy intermediate scale quantum computers~\cite{Preskill:2018aa},
quantum architectures are limited by connectivity, gate fidelity, and various other sources of errors that limit both circuit depth and width.
In response, various models of quantum computation have been developed that are designed to be
relatively easy to implement on existing hardware.
The strength of these models is then confirmed by demonstrating their ability to achieve universality~\cite{Deutsch:85,DiVincenzo1995,Lloyd:95,lloyd,raussendorf}
or quantum supremacy~\cite{Preskill:2012aa,bremner1,farhi,aaronson2016,Harrow:2017aa,bouland2018,bermejo,haferkamp,Arute:2019aa}. Universality is a stronger attribute, as it implies the ability to reproduce the quantum supremacy results of other models.
In this spirit, here we propose a model of quantum computation that is computationally universal even when restricted to a one-dimensional (1D) chain of qubits with only nearest-neighbor interactions and a limited degree of control. This ``Varying-$Z$" (V$Z$) model is defined by applying a series of $Z$-diagonal Hamiltonians in the presence of a constant and homogeneous (i.e., qubit-permutation-invariant) $X$-field requiring no individually addressed control. We consider the V$Z$ model both on a general graph and in 1D. The latter is theoretically motivated by the question of the quantum computational power of 1D systems~\cite{Aharonov:2009tm,raussendorf} and experiments with 1D systems, such as chains of fluxonium qubits~\cite{Meier:2015aa}, and chains of transmons which were used in a prequel to Google's quantum supremacy work~\cite{Neill:2018aa}.
The general V$Z$ model is physically motivated by physical systems subject to always-on transverse fields,
such as superconducting flux-qubit architectures~\cite{You:2007aa,harris_flux_qubit_2010,Yan:2016aa,grover2020fast} which experience a small but always-on $X$-field in a quantum annealing context~\cite{mozgunov2020quantum}.
The outline of this paper is as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:review} we review the previous results on the universality and supremacy of 1D models. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model} we define our model and in Sec.~\ref{sec:proof} we demonstrate universality by reconstructing a universal gate set. In Sec.~\ref{sec:supremacy} we apply this universality result to generate distributions known to demonstrate quantum supremacy, and in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion} we close with concluding remarks. Additional technical details are provided in the appendix.
\section{Background: universality and supremacy via 1D models}
\label{sec:review}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Model & Inhomogeneity & Physical Qubits & UQC Runtime Scaling& QS Runtime Scaling& Reference \\
\hline
QAOA & Control Unit & $O(nlog(n))$ & $O(n^5d^5\epsilon^{-4})$ & $O(n^{10}\epsilon^{-4})$ & \cite{lloyd}\\
Quantum Circuits & - & $4n+2$ & $O(nd)$ & $O(n^2)$& \cite{raussendorf}\\
V$Z$ Model & $Z$ interactions & $n$ & $O(d)$ & $O(n)$ & This work\\
Quantum Circuits & $X$,$Z$ interactions & $n$ & $d$& $O(n)$ & \cite{bermejo, haferkamp}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table of various 1D models of universal quantum computation. Models are compared in terms of their requirements needed to reproduce the output distribution of a 1D circuit of $n$ logical qubits and depth $d$, to within total variation distance $\epsilon$. The UQC and QS columns give the runtime required for universality and supremacy, respectively.}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table*}
Universal Quantum Computation (UQC) is, informally, the ability to solve any problem that can be solved by any quantum computer, or more formally, the ability to approximate any unitary transformation to arbitrary accuracy in polynomial runtime~\cite{Deutsch:85,DiVincenzo1995}. Quantum Supremacy (QS) is, also informally, the ability to solve problems that cannot be solved in the same amount of time by any classical computer~\cite{Preskill:2012aa}. More formally, QS, is the ability to generate a probability distribution that cannot be efficiently approximated to arbitrary accuracy by any classical computer with access to randomness unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses, which is believed to be unlikely~\cite{aaronson2016,Harrow:2017aa}. A number of problems exist that are known to be solvable in theory by universal quantum computers but not classical computers, so a quantum computer's universality implies its quantum supremacy~\cite{bremner1,farhi}. A brief further discussion of the complexity basis of supremacy is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:complex}.
In recent years a number of alternative models of quantum computation have been proposed, with a variety of dimensionality, circuit depth, and homogeneity requirements needed to achieve universality. Here we restrict to considering models that are universal in 1D, and compare the models on their requirements needed to reproduce a depth $d$ universal gate set (UGS) based quantum circuit, as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:1}. Let us now explain the gain achieved by the V$Z$ model, by contrasting it with the other models featured in this table.
It is known that 1D gate-based quantum circuits can achieve QS in $O(n)$ depth \cite{bermejo, haferkamp}, so we can use 1D quantum circuits as a reference point to compare the runtime requirements of other universal models in achieving QS. One such model is the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA)~\cite{farhi2014quantum} (briefly reviewed in Appendix~\ref{app:notQAOA}) equipped with Broadcast Quantum Cellular Automata (BQCA)~\cite{Simon}, that was shown to be universal~\cite{lloyd,morales}. QAOA defined in 1D consists of a chain of qubits which undergo evolution that alternates between a homogeneous $X$-field and a potentially inhomogeneous $Z$-diagonal Hamiltonian.
BQCA requires addressed control of a single qubit, the control unit, which it uses to break translational symmetry and reproduce local gates on other qubits in the chain. Using QAOA with BQCA to reproduce the output distribution of a given 1D depth $d$ quantum circuit to within total variation (Kolmogorov) distance $\epsilon$ requires a runtime of $O(n^5 d^5 \epsilon^{-4})$ in the worst case, as shown in Appendix~\ref{app:lloyd}.
The QAOA model requires only a fixed $Z$-diagonal Hamiltonian repeated
with different evolution times.
Alternatively, if one is capable of implementing each desired gate as an alternating sequence of homogeneous nearest neighbor entangling gates and homogeneous local rotations, using boundary conditions of the underlying architecture to introduce spatial control, universality can be achieved in depth $O(nd)$ via the model of Ref.~\cite{raussendorf}. This model can reproduce the target circuit exactly in the absence of noise, so the time cost is independent of $\epsilon$. Compared with QAOA, this model works by applying a set of more general yet still homogeneous quantum gates.
Resource-wise, the 1D V$Z$ model defined here can be thought of as a midpoint between the homogenous circuit model of \cite{raussendorf} and general 1D quantum circuits, in that it only requires individually addressed control of the $Z$-interactions. Likewise, the asymptotic depth requirement of $O(d)$ to achieve universality is between that of \cite{raussendorf} and the original UGS-based universal quantum circuit being simulated.
While our primary concern is with universality of the V$Z$ model, in Sec.~\ref{sec:supremacy} we also provide an example of a problem not contained within the complexity class BPP, which could be used to demonstrate quantum supremacy in a practical setting, e.g., using trapped ions or flux qubits.
\section{The Varying-$Z$ Model}
\label{sec:model}
We will analyze the V$Z$ model from the perspective of gate layers, rather than individual gates.
\begin{definition}[Gate Layer]
A gate layer is a depth-$1$ operation, equivalent to a set of commuting gates applied in parallel in the circuit model.
\label{def:1}
\end{definition}
The V$Z$ model reproduces a gate layer from a circuit in the gate model using a series of
\emph{applied} layers:
gate layers corresponding to the application of a single time-independent Hamiltonian, which are natural to the V$Z$ model. We refer to the gate layer being reproduced from applied layers as the \textit{effective} layer.
In the V$Z$ model all $n$ qubits are initially prepared in the $\ket{+}^{\otimes n}$ state and then acted upon by a series of applied unitary layers. These unitaries are generated by a series of Hamiltonians composed of two terms: a $Z$-diagonal term $H_l^z$ which varies by applied layer $l$, and a constant, homogeneous $X$-field $H^x$ which is independent of the layer. Each applied layer $l$ is applied for time $t_l$. Note that $l$ plays the role of a discrete time index.
We take the $Z$-Hamiltonians to be two-local between neighboring qubits located on the vertices $i\in \mathcal{V}$ of some underlying graph $(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$, and with interactions $w_{ij}$ on the edges $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}$ that are uniform in magnitude but can be turned on or off by edge. The $l^{\text{th}}$ Hamiltonian may be written as:
\bes
\label{eq:H_l}
\begin{align}
H_l &= H_l^z+H^x \\
H^x &= a \sum_{i\in \mathcal{V}} X_i\\
H_l^z &= b_l \sum_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}} w_{l,ij} Z_i Z_{j} + c_l \sum_{i\in \mathcal{V}} v_{l,i} Z_i ,
\end{align}
\ees
where $w_{l,ij} \in \{0,1\}$ and $v_{l,i}\in \{0,1\}$ respectively switch the interactions and local fields on or off for the $l$th applied layer, and $a>0$ is fixed throughout the circuit. The total number of qubits is $n=|\mathcal{V}|$.
\begin{definition}[Varying-$Z$ model]
Starting from the initial state $\ket{\boldsymbol{+}}\equiv\ket{+}^{\otimes n}$, apply each Hamiltonian $H_l$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_l}] for corresponding time $t_l$, measure all the qubits in the $Z$-basis, and sample the final state.
\label{def:TZ}
\end{definition}
The output probability distribution is given by:
\begin{equation}
P(\mathbf s) = |\langle \mathbf s| \prod_l e^{-it_l H_l}\ket{\boldsymbol{+}}|^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf s \in \{0,1\}^n$.
Our main result is the following:
\begin{mytheorem}
\label{thm:1}
The V$Z$ model can simulate an arbitrary depth $d$ quantum circuit on a graph of maximum degree $\Delta$ to arbitrary accuracy in depth $O(d\Delta)$ on the same underlying graph.
\end{mytheorem}
Notably, any circuit on a graph of bounded degree, e.g., a 1D chain with $\Delta=2$, may be simulated by the V$Z$ model in depth $O(d)$. Given the universality of 1D quantum circuits, this has the immediate consequence:
\begin{mycorollary}
\label{cor:1D}
The 1D V$Z$ model is quantum computationally universal.
\end{mycorollary}
Note that if $t_l$ or $a$ had a sufficient degree of inhomogeneity (i.e., dependence on the qubit index $i$), or if $a$ were allowed to vary by layer and vanish, we would have sufficient control to directly construct the single qubit UGS $\{W, T\}$, where $W=ie^{-i\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2}}(X+Z)}$ is the Hadamard gate and $T=e^{-i\frac{\pi}{8}Z}$ is the $T$-gate. However, Theorem~\ref{thm:1} shows that on graphs of bounded degree and perhaps in general, neither of these relaxations provides a benefit over the already asymptotically optimal depth scaling. In other words, replacing $X$-field control with a constant, always-on transverse field $H^x$ is sufficient for low-overhead universality, as long as the $Z$-diagonal Hamiltonian can be updated between successive applied gate layers. This is clearly a significant simplification in terms of control requirements over the standard UGS approach.
Note that the initial state $\ket{\boldsymbol{+}}$ is the ground state of $-H^x$, so it can be prepared by turning on this Hamiltonian and waiting for the system to relax into its ground state. It can also be prepared starting from the $\ket{0}^{\otimes n}$ state and applying the global Hadamard gate $W^{\otimes n}$, which is compatible with the V$Z$ model since it requires no inhomogeneity of the $X$-field.
We remark that the V$Z$ model resembles QAOA~\cite{farhi2014quantum} to some extent. The main differences are
the fact that in the V$Z$ model the $X$-field is always on (whereas in QAOA one alternates between $H_l^z$ and $H^x$), and
that in V$Z$ model we assume that the $b$ and $c$ coefficients are $l$-dependent, whereas in QAOA they may vary by qubit but not by $l$ (see also Appendix~\ref{app:notQAOA}).
\textit{Proof outline of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.}
Two-qubit gates are universal for quantum computation~\cite{DiVincenzo1995}, and an arbitrary two-qubit gate can be produced with a constant number of single qubit unitaries and gates generated by $ZZ$ interactions~\cite{Barenco1995,nielsen2010quantum}, which we refer to as $ZZ$-gates. Thus, in order to reproduce an arbitrary quantum circuit, it is sufficient to demonstrate the ability to generate arbitrary single qubit unitaries and $ZZ$-gates. We will first demonstrate the ability to reproduce layers corresponding to arbitrary single qubit unitaries (Lemma~\ref{lem:single}) and then corresponding to $ZZ$-gates with arbitrary real coupling constants (Lemma~\ref{lem:couple}). The technical challenge in proving these results is to deal with the fact the $X$-field is always on.
Each type of effective gate layer $G_L$ can be implemented using $l_{\max}(L)\in O(1)$ applied layers of the V$Z$ model, corresponding to the decomposition
\begin{equation}
G_L = \prod_{l=1}^{l_{\max}(L)} e^{-it_l(H^x + H_l^z)} .
\end{equation}
As each effective layer can apply gates across all qubits in parallel, we will then analyze the decomposition of an arbitrary circuit into layers based on its UGS, and conclude that the circuit can be implemented in the V$Z$ model with depth overhead proportional to the number of gates that may act on the same qubit within a single gate layer.
\section{Proof of universality of the V$Z$ model}
\label{sec:proof}
In this section we provide a detailed proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.
\subsection{Single-qubit gate layers}
Consider an effective gate layer $G_L$ corresponding to identical arbitrary single qubit unitaries $g_i$, $i\in\mathcal{V}$. Let $g_i$ apply a rotation by some angle $\gamma$ about some axis $\vec r = (\sin(2\theta)\cos(2\phi),\ \sin(2\theta)\sin(2\phi),\ \cos(2\theta))$ of the Bloch sphere. This layer may then be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:logicalsinglelayer}
G_L = \bigotimes_{i} (g_i)^{v_i}= e^{-i\gamma \sum_i v_i \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma_i} \ , \quad v_i \in \{0,1\}
\end{equation}
for $\vec \sigma_i = (X_i, Y_i, Z_i)$, and $v_i = 1$ iff unitary $g_i$ is applied to qubit $i$. How would we implement $G_L$ using just the components of the V$Z$ model? It would appear that a simple Euler angles construction should suffice, but we explain in Appendix~\ref{app:Euler} why this approach fails. Instead, the following lemma provides the answer:
\begin{mylemma}\label{lem:single}
The V$Z$ model can implement an arbitrary effective single-qubit gate layer $G_L$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:logicalsinglelayer}] in three applied layers.
\end{mylemma}
\begin{proof}
We will show that $G_L$ may be decomposed into a product of three applied unitary layers as
\be
\label{eq:VUV}
G_L = V^{\otimes n} \bigotimes_{i=1}^n U_i \ (V^{\dag})^ {\otimes n} = \bigotimes_{i\in \mathcal{V}} V_i U_i V^\dag_i ,
\ee
with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:UiV}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Ui}
U_i &= e^{-it(a X_i + c v_i Z_i)}\\
\label{eq:V}
V_i &= e^{-it'(aX_i+c' Z_i)} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$V^\dag$ may be implemented modulo $\pi$, and does not require changing the $X$-field strength $a$ (we suppress the $i$ subscript where convenient). The resulting effective and applied layers are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:singlegatelayer}.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
\lstick{1}\hspace{2mm} &\gate{g}&\qw\\
\lstick{2}\hspace{2mm} &\qw&\qw\\
&\vdots\\
\lstick{$n$}\hspace{2mm} &\qw&\qw\\
\end{quantikz}}\hspace{5mm}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
\lstick{1}\hspace{2mm} &\gate{V^\dag}&\gate{U}&\gate{V}&\qw\\
\lstick{2}\hspace{2mm} &\gate{V^\dag}&\gate{e^{-iatX}}&\gate{V}&\qw\\
&&\vdots\\
\lstick{$n$}\hspace{2mm} &\gate{V^\dag}&\gate{e^{-iatX}}&\gate{V}&\qw\\
\end{quantikz}}
\caption{a) Example effective single-qubit gate layer $G_L$ in 1D, with a gate $g$ acting on only the first qubit. b) Implementation as applied layers in the V$Z$ model. The time $t$ is chosen to make the effect on qubits $\{2,\dots,n\}$ the identity gate.}
\label{fig:singlegatelayer}
\end{figure}
Intuitively, we would like $U_i$ to implement a Bloch sphere rotation by $\gamma$ for qubits $i$ with $v_i=1$ and by $0$ otherwise, up to equivalence modulo $\pi$. $V$ and $V^\dag$ effectively rotate the rotational axis of $U_i$ to point along the Bloch vector $\vec r$.
$U_i$ applies a rotation of magnitude $\sqrt{a^2+(cv_i)^2}t$, so we can construct the desired $U_i$ by solving for $c$ and $t$ such that
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:pipigamma}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pipigamma1}
at &= \pi \hspace{.5cm} &v_i=0 \\
\label{eq:pipigamma2}
\sqrt{a^2+c^2}t &= \pi+\gamma \hspace{.5cm} &v_i=1
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The offset by $\pi$ ensures the system of equations is solvable for nonzero $t$ and real $c$. As it can be factored out as
\begin{align}
e^{-i (\pi+\gamma) \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma} = e^{-i \pi \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma} e^{-i \gamma \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma} = -e^{-i \gamma \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma}
\end{align} for unit vector $\vec r$, this offset's only effect on the dynamics is an overall phase. This system of equations is solved by $t=\pi/a$, $c = (a/\pi)\sqrt{(\pi+\gamma)^2-\pi^2}$ (recall that in the V$Z$ model $a$ is given and fixed). For qubits with $v_i=0$, this choice amounts to $U_i = e^{-i \pi X_i}$ and thus no net rotation. For qubits with $v_i=1$ the resulting action of $U_i$ is
\bes
\begin{align}\label{eq:mid_rot}
U &= e^{-it(a X + c Z)} \\
&= e^{-i(\pi+\gamma) (\sin(2\alpha)X+\cos(2\alpha)Z)}
\end{align}
\ees
where $\alpha = \frac{1}{2}\cos^{-1}(\frac{c}{\sqrt{a^2+c^2}})$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:rot2_a}]. Thus the axis of rotation makes an angle $2\alpha$ with the $Z$-axis.
\begin{figure*}
\subfigure[\ ]{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{mid_rot}\label{fig:rot2_a}}
\subfigure[\ ]{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{side_rot}\label{fig:rot2_b}}
\subfigure[\ ]{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{net_rot}\label{fig:rot2_c}}
\caption{(a) $U_i$ depicted by its rotational axis in the $X$-$Z$ plane of the Bloch sphere. Here $c$ is picked to make the magnitude of rotation $\pi+\gamma$ for qubits with $v_i=1$, which results in the rotational axis making an angle $2\alpha$ with the $\ket{0}$ state. (b) The unitary $V$ has $t'$ and $c'$ such that the magnitude of rotation is $\alpha'$ and the axis makes an angle $2\psi$ with the $|0\rangle$ state for all qubits. (c) The net result of all three rotations $VU_iV^\dag$ is that the rotational axis of $U_i$ (dashed orange) is rotated by $V$ (blue) to point along $\vec r$ (solid orange) with spherical coordinates ($2\theta$,$2\phi$). The net rotation is of magnitude $\pi+\gamma$ about the axis $\vec r$.}
\label{fig:rot}
\end{figure*}
When solving for $V$ we can ignore the $v_i=0$ case, as $VV^\dag=I$. We choose $c'$, $t'$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:V} for $V$ to implement a rotation [Fig.~\ref{fig:rot2_b}]:
\bes
\begin{align}\label{eq:side_rot}
V &= e^{-it'(aX+c'Z)}\\
&= e^{-i\alpha'(\sin(2\psi) X+\cos(2\psi)Z)}
\end{align}
\ees
in order to effectively rotate the $\sin(2\alpha)X+\cos(2\alpha)Z$ axis into the desired axis $\vec r$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:rot2_c}]. The necessary $\alpha'$ and $\psi$ are solved for in Appendix \ref{app:sol}. They are:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:psialpha'}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:psialpha'-1}
&\psi = \frac{1}{2}\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\cos(2\alpha)-\cos(2\theta)}{\sin(2\theta)\cos(2\phi)-\sin(2\alpha)}\right)\\
\label{eq:psialpha'-2}
&\alpha' = \frac{1}{2}\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{\sin(2\theta)\sin(2\phi)}{\sin(2\psi - 2\alpha)}\right) ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we take $\psi \in [0,\frac{\pi}{2}]$ and $\alpha' \in [\frac{\pi}{4},\frac{3\pi}{4}]$. From here it is straightforward to solve for $c'$, $t'$.
The resulting values of $c$, $t$, $c'$, $t'$, in Eq.~\eqref{eq:UiV} are
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:solt}
t &= \frac{\pi}{a}\\
\label{eq:solc}
c &= \frac{a}{\pi}\sqrt{(\pi+\gamma)^2-\pi^2}\\
\label{eq:solt'}
t' &= \frac{\alpha'\sin(2\psi)}{a}\\
\label{eq:solc'}
c'&= a \cot(2\psi)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $\psi$ and $\alpha'$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:psialpha'}. Substituting these values into Eq.~\eqref{eq:VUV} yields the desired $G_L$.
\end{proof}
We note that in the case that $\phi = 0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:psialpha'} reduces to $\psi=(\theta+\alpha)/2$ and $\alpha' = \pi/2$. This case creates the $T$ gate when ($\theta$,$\gamma$) = ($0$,$\frac{\pi}{8}$) and Hadamard gate when ($\theta$,$\gamma$) = ($\frac{\pi}{8}$,$\frac{\pi}{2}$) so it is in fact sufficient to construct a universal set of single-qubit gates. The benefit of having found a way to represent general single-qubit unitaries is theoretical completeness and the potential simplicity of other UGSs.
\subsection{$ZZ$ coupling layers}
\label{subsection:3.2}
Now consider an effective two-qubit coupling layer $G_L$ corresponding to $ZZ$-coupling gates $g_{ij}= e^{-iC Z_i Z_j}$ with an arbitrary real coupling constant $C>0$, and acting on some but not all pairs of qubits connected by edges in $\mathcal{E}$. Such a layer decomposes as
\bes
\label{eq:logicalcouplayer}
\begin{align}
G_L &= \prod_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}} (g_{ij})^{w_{ij}} \hspace{.25in} w_{ij}\in \{0,1\}\\
&= e^{-iC\sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}}w_{ij}Z_i Z_j} ,
\end{align}
\ees
where $w_{ij} = w_{ji} =1$ iff qubit $i$ couples to qubit $j$ and $0$ otherwise. Again the question arises, how would we implement $G_L$ using just the components of the V$Z$ model?
We restrict to the case where each qubit experiences at most a single two-qubit gate (and no $>2$-qubit gates) in a single timestep (we relax this restriction in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth-req}). I.e., we assume that each qubit couples to at most one of its neighbors at a time:
\bes
\label{eq:w-cond}
\begin{align}
\sum_j w_{ij} &= \sum_i w_{ij} \in \{0,1\}\\
w_{ij} &= 0 \text{ for }(i,j) \notin \mathcal{E}
\end{align}
\ees
In this case we have the following lemma:
\begin{mylemma}
\label{lem:couple}
The V$Z$ model can implement a two-qubit coupling gate layer $G_L$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:logicalcouplayer}] in at most 6 applied layers.
\end{mylemma}
\begin{proof}
We show that this may be implemented in the V$Z$ model using either three or six applied layers depending on whether there exist uncoupled qubits. Let $\mathcal{S}\subset \mathcal{V}$ be the set of uncoupled qubits, i.e., qubits $i$ for which $w_{ij}=0\ \forall j$, and set $X_\mathcal{S} = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} X_i$. The implementation takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:couplayer}
G_L = e^{-i \gamma X_\mathcal{S}} e^{-i t'H^x} U e^{-it'H^x}
\end{equation}
for
\begin{equation}
U = e^{-it(H^x + b \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}} w_{ij} Z_i Z_j)}
\end{equation}
and $e^{-i \gamma X_\mathcal{S}}$ an auxiliary single qubit unitary layer, as defined in the previous subsection, acting on qubits in $\mathcal{S}$. This $e^{-i \gamma X_\mathcal{S}}$ cancels out the $X$-rotation uncoupled qubits experience while coupled qubits are being acted upon; in the case that all qubits are coupled it reduces to the identity. The decomposition into applied layers is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:couplegatelayer}.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
\lstick{1} &\gate[wires=2]{g}&\qw\\
\lstick{2} &&\qw\\
\lstick{3} &\qw&\qw\\
&\vdots\\
\lstick{$n$}&\qw&\qw\\
\end{quantikz}}\hspace{2mm}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}[column sep=3mm]
\lstick{1} &\qw &\gate{V} &\gate[wires=2]{U} &\gate{V} &\qw\\
\lstick{2} &\qw &\gate{V} & &\gate{V} &\qw\\
\lstick{3} &\gate{e^{-i\gamma X}} &\gate{V} &\gate{e^{-iatX}} &\gate{V} &\qw\\
&&&\vdots\\
\lstick{$n$} &\gate{e^{-i\gamma X}} &\gate{V} &\gate{e^{-iatX}} &\gate{V} &\qw
\end{quantikz}}
\caption{a) Example effective two-qubit gate layer $G_L$ with a gate $g$ acting on only the first 2 qubits. b) Its implementation as applied layers in the V$Z$ model. Here $V = e^{-iat'X}$.}
\label{fig:couplegatelayer}
\end{figure}
The pairwise coupling assumption [Eq.~\eqref{eq:w-cond}] allows use of the following two-qubit decomposition between qubits $i$ and $j$, derived in Appendix \ref{app:decomp}:
\bes
\label{eq:2qubitdecomp}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:2qubitdecomp-a}
&e^{-it(a (X_i+X_j) + b Z_i Z_j)}\\
\label{eq:2qubitdecomp-b}
&= e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)}e^{-iD_1X_i X_j} e^{-iD_2Y_i Y_j}e^{-iD_3 Z_i Z_j}e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)}
\end{align}
\ees
with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:2qubitsolns}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:solD1}
&D_1 = 0 \\
\label{eq:solD2}
&D_2 = \frac{1}{2}(b t-\omega)\\
\label{eq:solD3}
&D_3 = \frac{1}{2}(b t+\omega)\\
\label{eq:solomega}
&\omega = \sin^{-1}\left(\frac{b}{\sqrt{4a^2+b^2}}\sin(t\sqrt{4a^2+b^2})\right)\\
\label{eq:solbeta}
&\beta = \frac{s}{4} \cos^{-1}\left(\cos(t\sqrt{4a^2+b^2})\sec(\omega)\right)+\frac{\pi}{2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $s=\text{sign}(a \sin(\sqrt{4a^2+b^2}t))$ and we pick $\omega \in [-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}]$ and $\beta \in [0,\pi]$. Uncoupled qubits have $w_{ij}=0\ \forall j$, and simply experience $e^{-iatX}$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:couplegatelayer}.
We restrict to the pure $ZZ$-coupling of Eq.~\eqref{eq:logicalcouplayer} between qubits $i$ and $j$ by requiring that $D_2=0$ [to cancel the undesired $Y_iY_j$ term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecomp-b}], and thus that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond1}
b t = \omega = D_3 \equiv D .
\end{equation}
For coupled pairs, we take $b \neq 0$ and solve for $t$ in terms of $D$. Namely, substituting Eq.~\eqref{eq:cond1} into Eq.~\eqref{eq:solomega} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sincs-4}
\text{sinc}(D) = \text{sinc}\left(\sqrt{4a^2 t^2+D^2}\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\text{sinc}(x) \equiv \sin(x)/x$.
Achieving the desired magnitude of coupling in Eq.~\eqref{eq:logicalcouplayer} up to an overall phase requires that $D = C$ mod $\pi$. As demonstrated in Appendix \ref{app:numeric}, for every $C \in [0,\pi]$, there exists a $k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$ such that when $D = C+k\pi$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincs-4} is numerically solvable for $at>0$. Thus for any $C \in [0,\pi]$, we can pick this value of $k$ and corresponding numerical solution $t$, and set $b = D t^{-1} = (C+k\pi) t^{-1}$. With these parameter choices and taking the product across all pairs of qubits, the overall action of $U$ becomes
\bes
\begin{align}
&e^{-it(H^x + b \sum_{ij }w_{ij} Z_i Z_j)}\\
&= e^{-i at X_\mathcal{S}} e^{-i \beta X_{\overline{\mathcal{S}}}} e^{-i C \sum_{ij} w_{ij} Z_i Z_j}e^{-i \beta X_{\overline{\mathcal{S}}}} ,
\end{align}
\ees
up to an overall phase, for $X_{\overline{\mathcal{S}}}=\sum_{i \notin \mathcal{S}} X_i$.
The effect of $\beta$ can be undone by a uniform $X$-rotation for time $at' = \pi-\beta$ before and after the coupling layer. This gives
\bes
\begin{align}
&e^{-it' H^x}e^{-it( H^x+b \sum_{ij} w_{ij} Z_i Z_j)}e^{-i t'H^x}\\
&= e^{-i (at-2\beta) X_\mathcal{S}} e^{-iCw_{ij} Z_i Z_j} .
\end{align}
\ees
In the case that $|\mathcal{S}|=0$, $X_\mathcal{S}=0$, and the result is pure $ZZ$ coupling of the desired magnitude $C$. In the case that some qubits are uncoupled, the extra rotation on those qubits can be undone with an auxiliary inhomogeneous $X$-rotation by angle $\gamma = 2\beta - at$. In this case we have
\bes
\begin{align}
&e^{-i\gamma X_\mathcal{S}}e^{-it' H^x}e^{-it(H^x+b\sum_{ij}w_{ij} Z_i Z_j)}e^{-it'H^x}\\
&= e^{-iC\sum_{ij} w_{ij} Z_i Z_j} .
\end{align}
\ees
In either case, by picking parameters
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&t\ \text{s.t.}\ \ \text{sinc}(C+k\pi)=\text{sinc}(\sqrt{4a^2t^2+(C+k\pi)^2})\\
&b = (C+k\pi)t^{-1}\\
&t' = (\pi-\beta)a^{-1}\\
&\gamma = 2\beta-at ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
the effective coupling layer is implemented in at most 6 applied layers.
\end{proof}
Alternatively, if the coupling layer is preceded or succeeded by single qubit unitary layers acting nontrivially on the exact same set of qubits, the required $e^{-it'H^x}$ evolution may be absorbed into the single qubit unitary layers, and thus become effectively free, as long as the auxiliary $e^{-i \gamma X_\mathcal{S}}$ has $\gamma$ tuned to compensate. Furthermore, if multiple effective $ZZ$-coupling layers share a set $\mathcal{S}$ of uncoupled qubits, their auxiliary $X$-rotations will commute with all the $ZZ$-couplings, and thus can be combined into a single auxiliary unitary. Both of these methods may be used to implement SWAP gates more efficiently, as is done in Section~\ref{sec:supremacy}.
It is also worth mentioning that an effective layer of disjoint $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{8}Z\otimes Z}$ gates may be implemented in at most six applied layers, and one of disjoint CZ gates $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}Z_1 Z_2}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}(Z_1+Z_2)}$ in at most eight by absorbing one of the $e^{-it'H^x}$ rotations into the single qubit effective layer. Either case is sufficient for universality in combination with arbitrary single qubit gates. Though universality can be achieved using just $C=\frac{\pi}{4}$, the fact that we demonstrated the ability under the V$Z$ model to apply arbitrary (real) couplings is for more than just theoretical completeness, as it can reduce depth requirements.
\subsection{Depth Requirements}
\label{sec:depth-req}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
&L&\\
&\gate{g_1}&\qw&\qw\\
&\gate{g_1}&\qw&\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g_2}&\gate{g_3}&\qw\\
&&\qw&\qw\\
&\gate{g_3}&\qw&\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g_2}&\qw&\qw\\
&&\qw&\qw\\
\end{quantikz}}
\hspace{5mm}%
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
&L_1 & L_2 & L_3\\
&\gate{g_1} \slice{} & \qw \slice{} & \qw & \qw\\
&\gate{g_1} & \qw & \qw & \qw\\
&\qw & \gate[wires=2]{g_2} & \gate{g_3} & \qw\\
&\qw & & \qw & \qw\\
&\qw & \qw & \gate{g_3} & \qw\\
&\qw & \gate[wires=2]{g_2} & \qw & \qw\\
&\qw & & \qw & \qw
\end{quantikz}}
\caption{(a) An example of a single effective layer $L$ of an arbitrary 1D circuit, in the case that $g_2$ and $g_3$ commute. The circuit is composed of gates $g_l$ of the UGS $\mathcal G$, which act on at most two neighboring qubits. (b) The layer $L$ implemented as three effective sublayers. Each sublayer consists of only a single gate and the identity, allowing it to be implemented in the V$Z$ model in constant depth using the methods of this section.
}
\label{fig:depths}
\end{figure}
Naively, a depth $d$ quantum circuit on some graph could be implemented in the V$Z$ model on the same graph in $O(nd)$ layers without parallelization, simply by viewing each gate as its own effective layer. While this is sufficient for universality, we can reduce the required depth by a factor of $n$ using parallelization in terms of a universal gate set, leading to Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}]
Say that a circuit has depth $d$ when written in terms of UGS $\mathcal G$, composed of gates that act only on nearest neighbor qubits in some underlying architecture described by a graph $(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$. We can assume that $\mathcal G$ is composed of single-qubit unitaries and two-qubit $ZZ$-coupling, as any two-qubit gate can be decomposed into $O(1)$ gates of this form~\cite{Barenco1995}. Then each effective layer of the original circuit can be viewed as at most $|\mathcal G|$ individual effective sublayers, each corresponding to the application of a single $g \in \mathcal G$ to some subset of the qubits (Fig.~\ref{fig:depths}).
Consider an effective sublayer corresponding to a two-qubit coupling gate $g$. Within the sublayer, $g$ can act on an individual qubit $i$ once for each neighbor that qubit has. Because the decomposition used in Sec.~\ref{subsection:3.2} requires pairwise coupling of qubits, we must further decompose $g$ into an effective sublayer for each application of $g$ on $i$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:pairwise}).
The application of a single two-qubit coupling gate layer may require as many effective sublayers as the minimum edge coloring of the underlying graph $(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$. By Vizing's theorem~\cite{vizing}, this can be upper bounded by $\Delta+1$, where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of the graph.
In case the graph is a grid based lattice of dimension $D$ , this simply becomes the number of sublattices of paired qubits, which is $\Delta=2D$.
After full sublayer decomposition, each effective sublayer corresponds either to a single-qubit unitary or $ZZ$-coupling on monogamously paired qubits, so it is of a form that can be implemented in the V$Z$ model in $O(1)$ applied layers. An arbitrary quantum circuit of depth $d$ can then be represented in the V$Z$ model in depth $O(d|\mathcal G|\Delta)$ on the same graph. In the case of a $D$-dimensional integer lattice $\mathbb{Z}^D$, this becomes $O(2d|\mathcal{G}|D)$.
\end{proof}
For example to reproduce the effect of $\mathcal G = \{W, T, e^{-i\frac{\pi}{8} Z \otimes Z}\}$ on a 1D chain of qubits, effective sublayers of $W$ and $T$ gates may each be implemented in three applied layers while $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{8} Z \otimes Z}$ requires up to 2 effective sublayers of at most 6 each, so each effective layer of the original circuit requires at most 18 applied layers of the V$Z$ model to implement on the same graph.
By extending the 1D implementation of arbitrary IQP circuits used in Ref.~\cite{bermejo} to more general circuits, one sees that 1D quantum circuits are universal with $O(n)$ depth overhead. Thus the 1D V$Z$ model is capable of representing any depth-$d$ quantum circuit expressed in terms of UGS $\mathcal G$ on an arbitrary graph, in depth $O(n d |\mathcal G|$). Interestingly, as a fully connected graph has $\Delta = n-1$, in the worst case the 1D and same graph V$Z$ models have the same asymptotic depth scaling.
Note that in Table~\ref{tab:1} we state that an $O(d)$-depth 1D V$Z$ model reproduces the output distribution of a 1D circuit of $n$ logical qubits and depth $d$; the extra $n$ prefactor overhead in the expression $O(n d |\mathcal G|$) is incurred when going from an arbitrary graph to a 1D chain, or when generating SWAP gates.
The 1D case is also interesting in its own right: it is known that 1D $O(n)$ depth universal quantum circuits anticoncentrate~\cite{hangleiter} and can generate distributions that cannot be efficiently classically simulated~\cite{bermejo}. In the next section, we provide a circuit distribution that demonstrates this, and analyze the depth overhead required to implement it in the V$Z$ model.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
&L &\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
& &\qw
\end{quantikz}}
\hspace{5mm}%
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
&L_1\slice{} &L_2 &\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw &\qw\\
& &\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} & &\qw\\
& &\gate[wires=2]{g} &\qw\\
&\gate[wires=2]{g} & &\qw\\
& &\qw &\qw
\end{quantikz}}
\caption{(a) An example of an effective coupling sublayer $L$ of a 1D circuit, in which the coupling gate $g$ is applied across all qubits, rather than restricted to pairwise coupling. (b) The sublayer $L$ implemented as two effective coupling sublayers, each with pairwise coupling.
}
\label{fig:pairwise}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{quantikz}
\lstick{$\ket{+}$} & \gate{v_1} & \gate[wires=2]{w_{12}} & \gate[swap]{} & \qw & \qw & \gate[wires=2]{w_{24}} & \gate[swap]{} & \qw & \gate{W} & \meter{}\\
\lstick{$\ket{+}$} & \gate{v_2} & & & \gate[wires=2]{w_{14}} & \gate[swap]{} & & & \gate[wires=2]{w_{23}} & \gate{W} & \meter{}\\
\lstick{$\ket{+}$} & \gate{v_3} & \gate[wires=2]{w_{34}} & \gate[swap]{} & & & \gate[wires=2]{w_{13}} & \gate[swap]{} & & \gate{W} & \meter{}\\
\lstick{$\ket{+}$} & \gate{v_4} & & & \qw & \qw & & & \qw & \gate{W} & \meter{}
\end{quantikz}
\caption{The $n=4$ case of a 1D $O(n)$-depth circuit capable of generating the distribution in Eq.~\eqref{eq:IQP} via alternating layers of $ZZ$ coupling and SWAP gates. It is equivalent to that of Ref.~\cite{bermejo}, but composed of Hadamard gates ($W$), SWAP gates, and $Z$-diagonal gates of the form $e^{i v_i Z_i}$ and $e^{i w_{ij} Z_i Z_j}$, denoted by their degree of rotation $v_i$ or $w_{ij}$. In this design qubits effectively act as particles moving past each other in 1D, and after $n$ layers each qubit has a chance to interact with each other qubit once. As $Z$-diagonal gates commute, multiple interactions between any pair of qubits can be implemented as a single interaction. Thus, this 1D depth $O(n)$ circuit is sufficient to implement the circuit implied by
Eq.~\eqref{eq:IQP}.}
\label{fig:circuit}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
& \gate{\frac{3\pi}{4}} \slice{} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{5\pi}{8}} & \qw\\
& \gate{\frac{5\pi}{8}} & & \qw\\
& \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \qw\\
& \gate{\frac{\pi}{8}} & & \qw
\end{quantikz}\label{fig:5a}}
\hspace{5mm}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
& \gate{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \qw \slice{} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \qw & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{8}} & \qw\\
& \gate{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \qw & \gate{\frac{\pi}{8}} \slice{} & & \qw & \qw & \qw\\
& \qw & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \qw \slice{} & \qw & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \qw\\
& \qw & \qw & \gate{\frac{\pi}{8}} \slice{} & \qw & & \qw
\end{quantikz}\label{fig:5b}}
\caption{(a) The first two layers of an example circuit with arbitrarily chosen $w_{ij}$ and $v_i$.
$Z$-diagonal gates are denoted by their degree of rotation.
(b) The same two layers rewritten as effective sublayers which can be implemented in the V$Z$ model.
For example, the gate corresponding to $v_2=\frac{5\pi}{8}$ in (a) is decomposed into $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\frac{\pi}{8}$ gates in (b), with the $\frac{\pi}{8}$ gate shifted so that it is executed in parallel with the other $\frac{\pi}{8}$ gate from (a) to form a sublayer.}
\label{fig:bermejo1}
\end{figure*}
\section{Demonstrating quantum supremacy}
\label{sec:supremacy}
\subsection{Homogeneous $X$-field}
In this section we apply the previous results towards demonstration of quantum supremacy.
\begin{mycorollary}
The 1D V$Z$ model can generate a distribution in $O(n)$ depth that cannot be approximately simulated by a classical computer in the worst case.
\end{mycorollary}
The proof follows from Theorem \ref{thm:1} and the distribution generated in Refs.~\cite{bremner1, bermejo}, in which it is shown that no classical computer can efficiently sample from a distribution approximating the one in question. Here we detail the distribution and account for the exact overhead introduced from generating it in the V$Z$, rather than gate-based model of quantum computation. This distribution was proposed in Ref.~\cite{bremner1} and is the output distribution of an Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-time (IQP) model with long range interactions:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IQP}
P_{\text{IQP}}(\textbf{s}) = \langle \mathbf{s} | H^{\otimes n} e^{-iC_z} \ket{\bm{+}} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
& C_z = w_{ij}Z_i Z_j + v_i Z_i \ , \ \ w_{ij}, v_i \in \left\{\frac{1}{8}k \pi\right\}_{k=0}^7 ,
\end{align}
with $w_{ij}$ and $v_i$ chosen uniformly at random from their domains and \textbf{s} a string in the $Z$ basis.
In the V$Z$ model we can generate the distribution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:IQP} using a modified version of the circuit design of Ref.~\cite{bermejo}, as is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit}. The depth overhead of implementing this circuit in the V$Z$ model is affected by choice of UGS. Rather than implementing each term in $C_Z$ as an independent single qubit or coupling gate [Fig.~\ref{fig:5a}], we break each layer of single qubit and coupling gates into three effective sublayers by using the binary decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:binary}
v_i = \frac{4\pi}{8}a_i+\frac{2\pi}{8}b_i+\frac{\pi}{8}c_i \hspace{.5cm} a_i,b_i,c_i \in \{0,1\}
\end{equation}
and implementing each $a$, $b$, $c$ as its own sublayer. Each $ZZ$ coupling layer is decomposed into three sublayers with an equivalent decomposition on $w_{ij}$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:5b}]. A SWAP gate may be implemented by decomposition into a product of Hadamard gates and single-qubit and two-qubit $Z$-diagonal gates (Fig.~\ref{fig:6}).
\begin{figure*}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
& \ctrl{1} & \targ{} & \ctrl{1} & \qw\\
& \targ{} & \ctrl{-1} & \targ{} & \qw
\end{quantikz}\label{fig:6a}}
\hspace{5mm}%
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
& \qw & \ctrl{1} & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \gate{W} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw\\
& \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \gate{W} & \ctrl{-1} & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{2}} & \gate{W} & \qw
\end{quantikz}\label{fig:6b}}
\subfigure[\ ]{\begin{quantikz}
& \qw & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \gate[wires=2]{\frac{\pi}{4}} & \qw & \qw\\
& \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & & \gate{W} & \gate{\frac{\pi}{4}} & & \gate{W} & \qw
\end{quantikz}\label{fig:6c}}
\caption{The SWAP gate represented as (a) a product of CNOT gates, (b) Hadamard ($W$) and CZ gates, and (c) Hadamard, $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}Z}$, and $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}Z \otimes Z}$ rotation gates. The latter may be implemented in the V$Z$ model using the methods of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure*}
Using the methods of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, each sublayer of Fig.~\ref{fig:5b} corresponding to a single qubit gate can be implemented in three applied layers, and thus the set of all single qubit gates requires nine applied layers using the decomposition of Eq.~\eqref{eq:binary}. Similarly, each coupling layer requires $18$ applied layers, or $18n$ in total between the $n$ $ZZ$-coupling layers. In implementation of the SWAP layer [Fig.~\ref{fig:6c}], we combine adjacent single qubit unitary layers acting nontrivially on the same qubits. The result is that a SWAP gate requires only five effective single qubit unitary layers, or 15 applied layers. We further combine the $e^{-it'H^x}$ rotations needed for coupling layers into the adjacent single qubit unitary layers; all but one $e^{-it'H^x}$ rotation can be absorbed this way. All the auxiliary $e^{-i\gamma X_\mathcal{S}}$ rotations can be combined, so the set of three effective $ZZ$-coupling layers requires only four applied layers to implement if every qubit is coupled ($|\mathcal{S}|=0$), or seven otherwise. In total, each of the $n$ effective SWAP layers requires either $19$ or $22$ applied layers, depending on whether the SWAP gates span every qubit or not. When $n$ is even, half of the SWAP layers act on all qubits, but for odd $n$ every layer has uncoupled qubits, so in general the total overhead for the SWAP gate layers is at most $22n$. Summing the $18n$ applied layers for $ZZ$-coupling, $22n$ applied layers for SWAP gates, nine applied layers for single-qubit gates, and final all-qubit Hadamard, the entire circuit can be implemented in $40n+10$ applied layers.
These calculations assume a noiseless computation model. The presence of noise can reduce fidelity of an output distribution of a circuit to the point that it no longer demonstrates quantum supremacy (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Zlokapa:2020} for a discussion of this in the context of random circuit sampling), but for this distribution even a simple repetition code with $O(\text{ln}(n))$ repetitions is sufficient to regain supremacy~\cite{bremner2}. The universality of the V$Z$ model allows it to perform this repetition code efficiently, in contrast to methods of demonstrating QS which are not universal, and thus not necessarily able to correct for the effects of decoherence.
\subsection{Alternating $X$-field}
In this section we consider a slight modification of the V$Z$ model in which the $X$-field can be turned off for half the qubits at a time -- either those of even or odd index. This modification reduces the depth required to apply the SWAP gate while still being easier to implement than the full circuit model, and thus reduces total depth required to demonstrate quantum supremacy. We still use the homogeneous $X$-field method for implementing the $ZZ$-coupling layers. For even $n$, in each SWAP layer the SWAP gates alternate between acting pairwise on one sub-lattice such that they cover all of the qubits, and acting pairwise on the other sub-lattice such that there are two unaffected qubits at the boundaries of the qubit chain. For odd $n$ every sub-lattice acted on by SWAP gates has a single unaffected qubit. Cases with unaffected qubits require more layers to cancel the $X$-rotations these boundary qubits experience while the other qubits are being swapped, which we will discuss it at the end of this subsection.
In the alternating $X$-field method, instead of implementing the SWAP gate as three CNOT gates as in Fig.~\ref{fig:6a}, we use different building blocks: $ZZ$-coupling layers with nonzero $X$-fields on either only the even or only the odd qubits, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1Dchain}. First we start from one of these coupling layers with $X$-fields on only the even qubits. We can write the action of this layer as
\begin{align}
U &= \prod_{i=\text{odd}} e^{-i t (a X_{i+1} + b Z_i Z_{i+1})}
\end{align}
for appropriately chosen $b$. Consider just the two-qubit gate acting on the first and second qubits; it has the following block-diagonal structure:
\be
U_{12} = e^{-i t (a X_2 + b Z_1 Z_2)} =
\begin{bmatrix}
U_1& \bm{0} \\
\bm{0} & U_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\ee
where $\bm{0}$ is the $2\times 2$ zero-matrix,
and we can further decompose
\bes
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decomp-1}
U_1 &= e^{i \alpha Y } e^{-i \gamma X} e^{- i \alpha Y} \\
U_2 &= e^{-i \alpha Y } e^{-i \gamma X} e^{i \alpha Y},
\end{align}
\ees
where
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:decomp}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decomp-2}
\alpha &= \frac{1}{2} \cos^{-1} \left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}}\right)\\
\label{eq:decomp-4}
\gamma &= t \ \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
If we set $b=a$ and $t = \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{2}a}$, then $U_1 = -i W$, and $U_1^\dag U_2 = \tilde{Y}$, where
$\tilde{Y} = ZX =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}$.
Thus for this choice of $b$ and $t$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:U12}
U_{12} = -i(I\otimes W)C\tilde{Y}_{12}
\end{equation}
where $C\tilde{Y}_{12}$ is the controlled $\tilde{Y}$ gate. Similar to the $ZZ$-coupling gates (recall the discussion in Sec.~\ref{subsection:3.2}), this operation leads to a net $X$-rotation on uncoupled qubits which still experience an $X$-field, which then must be undone by an extra single-qubit unitary following the SWAP layer.
Defining the above building block $U_{12}$, the total circuit required for a SWAP gate will be:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:U12prod}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:U12prod-1}
C &= U_{12} W_1 W _2 U_{21} U_{12} W_2 \\
\label{eq:U12prod-2}
&=i(W_2 C\tilde{Y}_{12}) W_1 W _2 (W_1 C\tilde{Y}_{21}) (W_2 C\tilde{Y}_{12}) W_2
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The product of $W_1 W_2$ needs just one effective single qubit gate layer in total, and any effect on uncoupled qubits can be incorporated into the extra single-qubit unitary $e^{-i\gamma X_\mathcal{S}}$ on these qubits following the SWAP layer. Since the last $W_2$ requires three single qubit gate layers, the total number of required layers for implementing the above decomposition is seven.
Defining $\tilde{\bar{Y}} = - \tilde{Y} = XZ$ and using the equality $W_2 C\tilde{Y}_{12} = C\tilde{\bar{Y}}_{12} W_2$, we can simplify the above expression as below:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:U12prodproof}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:U12prodproof-1}
C&= iW_2 C\tilde{Y}_{12} W_1 W_2 W_1 C\tilde{Y}_{21} W_2 C\tilde{Y}_{12} W_2 \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-2}
&= iC\tilde{\bar{Y}}_{12} W_2 W_1 W_2 W_1 C\tilde{Y}_{21} C\tilde{\bar{Y}}_{12} W_2 W_2 \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-3}
&= iC\tilde{\bar{Y}}_{12} C\tilde{Y}_{21} C\tilde{\bar{Y}}_{12} \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-4}
&= i CX_{12} CZ_{12} CZ_{21} CX_{21} CX_{12} CZ_{12} \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-5}
&= i CX_{12} CX_{21} CX_{12} CZ_{12} \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-6}
&= i \text{SWAP}_{12} CZ_{12} \\
\label{eq:U12prodproof-7}
&= i CZ_{21} \text{SWAP}_{12} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This is the required SWAP gate up to $CZ_{21}$. This unwanted $CZ_{21}$ can be written as a product of single qubit $Z$-diagonal gates and $ZZ$-couplings, and can in fact be incorporated into the existing single qubit and coupling gates already in the overall circuit, simply by shifting the values of $w_{12}$, $v_1$, and $v_2$ by $\frac{\pi}{4}$. These $v_i$ and $w_{ij}$ parameters are chosen from a uniform distribution over the full range of multiples of $\frac{\pi}{8}$ mod $\pi$, so the shift by $\frac{\pi}{4}$ does not affect the distribution. This makes the $CZ$ gate effectively free to include.
In this construction a SWAP gate layer spanning all qubits can be implemented in seven applied layers. In the case of unswapped qubits, an unswapped qubit experiences a different net $X$-rotation depending on whether it is of even or odd qubit index. As there are at most two values of unwanted $X$-rotation after the SWAP layer, these can be undone in at most two single-qubit effective layers, or six applied layers. This brings the total number of applied layers to implement a single effective SWAP layer to seven if every qubit is swapped, $10$ if there is a single unswapped qubit, or at most $13$ otherwise.
For even $n$ the model alternates between SWAP layers with zero and two unswapped qubits, so the set of all SWAP layers requires $7\frac{n}{2}+13\frac{n}{2}=10n$ applied layers. For odd $n$, every SWAP layer has a single unswapped qubit, so the SWAP layers require a total of $10n$ applied layers -- the same as in the even $n$ case. Including $18n$ applied layers of $ZZ$-coupling gates and $10$ of single qubit gates and Hadamards, the total number of applied layers required to reach supremacy becomes $28n+10$ (recall that the cost was $40n+10$ in the case of a fully homogeneous $X$-field).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=.75]{1D-chain.pdf}
\caption{Homogeneous vs alternating pattern of $X$-fields. Blue lines represent $ZZ$-couplings, which form a sub-lattice. Grey circles represent nonzero $X$-field, while white circles have no $X$-field.}
\label{fig:1Dchain}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Minimalism is both a sound engineering design principle and a desirable feature of theoretical models. By minimalism we mean a reduction in the consumption of some or more precious resources, or the reliance on a small set of assumptions. This work is an attempt to be minimalistic about the resources and assumptions underlying both implementations and models of universal quantum computation and quantum supremacy. From a practical perspective, spatially homogeneous or global control can be a significant advantage over individualized or local control, since the latter typically involves additional control wires or lasers, each of which is another source of noise and decoherence. From a theoretical perspective, it is interesting to investigate the computational power of fully or partially translationally invariant models in low dimensions.
In accordance with this perspective we have studied here the power of a minimalistic model that assumes spatially homogeneous $X$-field control but spatially inhomogeneous $Z$-field control [Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_l}]. We have shown that this ``V$Z$ model" can be used to demonstrate quantum supremacy even in 1D, and is furthermore universal for quantum computation. The overhead required to implement the circuit model with a standard universal gate set using the 1D V$Z$ model is constant in system size and is significantly lower than the universal version of QAOA (see Table~\ref{tab:1}).
We are unaware of any model of quantum computation with a higher degree of homogeneity that achieves the same asymptotic depth scaling as the V$Z$ model.
Perhaps the most immediate application of the V$Z$ model would be a demonstration of quantum supremacy in the IQP setting, which we have shown here can be implemented in at most $40n+10$ layers of control pulses, for a circuit of width $n$. This model may be the next to be used for a quantum supremacy demonstration, now that this has been done using random circuit sampling~\cite{Arute:2019aa} and boson sampling~\cite{Zhong:2020aa}. Such a demonstration within the V$Z$ model would be particularly viable using flux qubits~\cite{harris_flux_qubit_2010,Yan:2016aa,grover2020fast}, where leaving a constant and homogeneous $X$-field on while locally controlling only $Z$-fields and interactions is both simpler and less prone to noise than also controlling the $X$-field.
\acknowledgments
We thank Paolo Zanardi for many insightful discussions. This research was sponsored by the Army Research Office and was accomplished under Grant Number W911NF-20-1-0075. This research is also based upon work (partially) supported by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), via the U.S. Army Research Office contract W911NF-17-C-0050. The views
and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official
policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the ODNI, IARPA, DARPA, ARO, or the U.S. Government. The
U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright
annotation thereon.
This work is partially supported by a DOE/HEP QuantISED
program grant, QCCFP/Quantum Machine Learning and Quantum
Computation Frameworks (QCCFP-QMLQCF) for HEP, Grant No.
DE-SC0019219.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Complexity basis of quantum supremacy}
\label{app:complex}
Bounded-error Probabilistic Polynomial-time (BPP) is the computational complexity class of problems that a classical computer, with access to true randomness, can solve with high probability in time polynomial in input size. It can be viewed as the class of problems that is it realistic for a classical computer to solve. Bounded-error Quantum Polynomial-time (BQP) is the equivalent class for quantum computers. It is widely believed that BQP $\neq$ BPP, due to a hypothetical tool called postselection. Postselection is the ability to select the results of randomness after completing all computations. The classes associated with BPP and BQP when the computer has access to postselection are referred to as PostBPP and PostBQP. While PostBPP is known to be within the third level of the polynomial hierarchy, a hierarchy representing a generalization of the P vs NP distinction, it is known by Toda's and Aaronson's theorems that PostBQP in fact contains the entire polynomial hierarchy as a subset \cite{toda1991, aaronson2016}. If BQP=BPP, then postBQP=postBPP, and the entire polynomial hierarchy would be contained within its third level, a situation referred to as collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. This is conjectured to not happen for the same reason it is believed that P $\neq$ NP.
The output of problems in BQP takes the form of distributions that one samples from. Because we cannot take infinite samples in practice, we cannot perfectly calculate the distribution that a practical quantum computer is sampling from. Verifying that a problem has been solved relies on anticoncentration of the output distribution \cite{bouland2018, bremner2}: the outcome probabilities must be sufficiently spread across all possible outcomes of measurements, so that there is a nonvanishing signal-to-noise ratio for at least a constant fraction of all possible outcomes.
\section{QAOA vs the V$Z$ model}
\label{app:notQAOA}
In QAOA~\cite{farhi2014quantum} one considers a Hamiltonian of the form
\bes
\label{eq:HQAOA}
\begin{align}
H(t) &= a(t) H^X + d(t) H^Z \\
\label{eq:Hx}
H^X &= \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}} X_i \\
H^Z &=\sum_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}} b_{ij} Z_i Z_j + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{V}} c_i Z_i ,
\label{eq:Hz}
\end{align}
\ees
for $n$ qubits occupying the vertices $\mathcal{V}$ of a graph $\mathcal{G}=\{\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$.
The parameters $b_{ij}$ and $c_{i}$ are controllable longitudinal local field and coupling constants, respectively, and $a(t)$ and $d(t)$ are time-dependent control functions. Note that $H_l$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_l}] is an instance of $H(t)$, for each fixed $l$ and $t$.
The level-$p$ QAOA produces an approximation $C_p^*$ to the optimal value of the classical cost function represented by $H^Z$:
\bes
\begin{align}
\label{eq:QAOA-def}
U(\beta, \gamma) &= e^{-i \beta H^X} e^{-i \gamma H^Z}\\
|\psi(\boldsymbol{\gamma},\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= \left(\prod_{k =1}^p U(\beta_k , \gamma_k) \right) |\bm{+}\rangle\\
C_p^* = &\min_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},\boldsymbol{\beta}} \; \; \langle\psi(\boldsymbol{\gamma},\boldsymbol{\beta}) | H^Z | \psi(\boldsymbol{\gamma},\boldsymbol{\beta}) \rangle
\end{align}
\ees
where $\boldsymbol{\gamma} = (\gamma_1 , ... , \gamma_p) ,\boldsymbol{\beta} = (\beta_1,...,\beta_p)$ are the angles that parameterize the circuit. Various heuristic methods for choosing these angles have been considered, and for small values of $p = O(1)$ the optimization can be done exactly~\cite{szegedy2019qaoa}.
The V$Z$ model (Def.~\ref{def:TZ}) differs from
QAOA in that the alternating sequence of unitaries always includes $H^X$, unlike the QAOA sequence given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:QAOA-def}. It also differs in that in QAOA the $H^Z$ Hamiltonian is fixed, while in the V$Z$ model we assume that the $b$,$c$,$w$, and $v$ coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_l} are controllable from layer to layer, which would be equivalent to making $b$ and $c$ time-dependent in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hz}.
\section{Depth Scaling of QAOA Universality}
\label{app:lloyd}
Here we analyze the required depth of the QAOA model used in Ref.~\cite{lloyd} to reproduce a 1D circuit to within a given total variation distance error $\epsilon$. This model of QAOA uses co-irrationality of terms in a $Z$-diagonal Hamiltonian $H_Z$ to reproduce a translationally invariant gate layer $U$ composed of a tensor product of one to two qubit gates across all qubits. The evolution time needed to reproduce a specific gate layer such that
\begin{equation}
\|e^{-itH_Z}-U\| \leq \epsilon'
\end{equation}
is $t \in O(\epsilon'^{-4})$, where $\|\cdot \|$ is the operator norm.
The BCQA method applies individually addressed gates by using SWAP gates to effectively walk a certain qubit, dubbed the control unit, across the chain until it is adjacent to a qubit being acted on~\cite{Simon}, then performing controlled gates. It thus requires $O(n)$ depth to implement a single gate. Assuming the ability to parallelize, a 1D circuit of depth $d$ with $O(nd)$ gates will then require $O(nd)$ depth BQCA to reproduce. In the QAOA implementation this becomes $O(nd\epsilon'^{-4})$, but we would like to bound runtime in terms of total variation distance $\epsilon$ of the output distribution, not operator norm error $\epsilon'$ of each individual gate.
For a target BQCA protocol $C = \prod_{l=1}^{nd}U_l$, we can write the QAOA approximation as $C' = \prod_{l=1}^{nd}(U_l+\delta_l)$, where $\delta_l$ is the error of the $l^{\text{th}}$ gate layer, such that $\|\delta_l\| \leq \epsilon'\ \forall l$. Let $\Delta \equiv C'-C$. Then the operator norm error of the complete QAOA implementation becomes
\bes
\begin{align}
\|\Delta\| &= \|\prod_{l=1}^{nd}(U_l+\delta_l) - \prod_{l=1}^{nd}U_l\|\\
&= \|\sum_{l=1}^{nd} U_{nd}...U_{l+1}\delta_l U_{l-1}...U_1 + \cdots \|\\
&\leq \sum_{l=1}^{nd} \|\delta_l\|+\sum_{l,k=1}^{nd} \|\delta_l\delta_k\| + \cdots \\
&\in O(nd\epsilon') .
\end{align}
\ees
Thus the total variation distance between the target BQCA and applied QAOA circuits becomes
\bes\label{eq:TVDbound}
\begin{align}
&\sum_{\bm{s}} |P'(\bm{s}) - P(\bm{s})|
\leq \text{Tr}[|C'|0\rangle \langle 0 | C'^\dag - C | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | C^\dag|]\\
&= \text{Tr}[|(\Delta+C)|0\rangle \langle 0 |(\Delta+C)^\dag - C | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | C^\dag|]\\
\label{eq:B3c}
&= \text{Tr}[|\Delta|0\rangle \langle 0 |\Delta^\dag + \Delta|0\rangle \langle 0 |C^\dag + C|0\rangle \langle 0 |\Delta^\dag|]\\
&\leq \text{Tr}[|\Delta|0\rangle \langle 0 |\Delta^\dag| + |\Delta|0\rangle \langle 0 |C^\dag| + |C|0\rangle \langle 0 |\Delta^\dag|]\\
&\leq \|\Delta\|^2 \||0\rangle \langle 0 |\|_1 + 2 \|\Delta\| \|C|0\rangle \langle 0 |\|_1\\
&\leq \|\Delta\|^2 + 2\|\Delta\|\\
&\in O(nd \epsilon')
\end{align}
\ees
where $\bm{s}$ represents a bitstring, the first inequality comes from bounding the total variation distance by the trace-norm distance,\footnote{$\sum_{\bm{s}} |P'(\bm{s}) - P(\bm{s})|\leq \Tr|\rho'-\rho|$, where $P(\bm{s}) = \Tr(\ket{\bm{s}}\!\bra{\bm{s}}\rho)$, with $\rho = C\ket{0}\!\bra{0}C^\dagger$, and the inequality follows since the trace norm distance is the maximum of $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bm{s}} |\Tr(E_{\bm{s}}(\rho'-\rho))|$ over all possible generalized measurements $E_{\bm{s}}$, which includes the projective measurement $\ket{\bm{s}}\!\bra{\bm{s}}$~\cite{Lidar-Brun:book}.} the third inequality from properties of the operator and trace norms,\footnote{$|\Tr(AB)|\leq \|A\| \|B^\dagger\|_1$~\cite{Bhatia:book,PhysRevA.78.012308}.} and in the last line we assumed that $\epsilon'<1/(nd)$.
Suppose we wish to approximate a circuit to total variation distance $O(\epsilon)$. Then assuming the worst case bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:TVDbound}, we must have $\epsilon' \sim \frac{\epsilon}{nd}$. In this case the total runtime of the QAOA circuit is $O(nd\epsilon'^{-4}) = O(n^5 d^5 \epsilon^{-4})$.
\section{Failure of the Euler angles construction to generate single-qubit gates in the V$Z$ model}
\label{app:Euler}
We can define su$(2)$ generators in the V$Z$ model:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{X}=\cos(\alpha)X+\sin(\alpha)Z \ , \ \tilde{Z}=-\sin(\alpha)X+\cos(\alpha)Z .
\end{equation}
It is simple to check that this pair satisfies the su$(2)$ commutation relations along with $Y$ (e.g., $[\tilde{Z},\tilde{X}]=2iY$, etc.). From here we can construct any SU$(2)$ single-qubit gate using the standard Euler angles construction:
\bes
\begin{align}
& g(\phi,\theta,\psi) = U^z(\phi)U^x(\theta)U^z(\psi) = \\
& \quad \begin{bmatrix}
\cos (\theta ) e^{-i (\psi +\phi )} & -i \sin (\theta ) e^{-i (\phi -\psi )} \\
-i \sin (\theta ) e^{i (\phi -\psi )} & \cos (\theta ) e^{i (\psi +\phi )} \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
\ees
where the angles take values within the intervals $\theta\in[0,\pi/2]$, $\phi\in[0,\pi]$, $\psi\in[0,2\pi]$ (mod $\pi$), and where $U^x(\varphi) = \exp(-i \varphi \tilde{X})$ and $U^z(\varphi) = \exp(-i \varphi\tilde{Z})$. This approach is certainly feasible for an applied layer in which all qubits undergo the same single-qubit gate. However, it fails when at least one qubit (but not all) in an applied layer is idle, since in the Euler angle construction the only way to generate the identity gate is to choose the angles as
\begin{equation}
\{\theta = 0,\psi = 2\pi-\phi \}\ \ \mod \pi .
\end{equation}
The problem is that fixing $\theta=0$ restricts the ability to generate an arbitrary single-qubit gate on the non-idle qubits. I.e., suppose that the applied layer includes one idle and another non-idle qubit requiring the pure $\tilde{X}$-rotation $g_2(0,\theta,0)=g(\phi,\theta,2\pi-\phi)$ with $\theta>0$. It is not possible to implement both gates without restricting generality within the same time-interval (applied layer) since this limits the allowed values of $\theta$. Namely, for a layer of duration $t$, on the one hand we would need $t\cos\alpha = k\pi$ and $t\sin\alpha = k\pi$ for the idle qubit (using $\theta=k\pi$ with integer $k$ instead of $\theta=0$), but on the other hand we would also need $t\cos\alpha =\theta$ and $t\sin\alpha =\theta$ for the non-idle qubit, thus forcing $\theta$ to be a multiple of $\pi$.
\section{Proof of Eq.~\eqref{eq:psialpha'}}
\label{app:sol}
In this appendix our goal is to show that we can decompose a desired arbitrary single-qubit rotation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:decomps-g}
g = e^{-i\gamma' \vec r \cdot \vec \sigma} ,
\end{equation}
where $\vec r = (\sin(2\theta)\cos(2\phi),\ \sin(2\theta)\sin(2\phi),\ \cos(2\theta))$,
as $g = V U V^\dag$, where
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:decomps}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decomps-U}
&U = e^{-i\gamma' (\cos(2\alpha)Z + \sin(2\alpha)X)}\\
\label{eq:decomps-V}
&V = e^{-i\alpha'(\cos(2\psi)Z+\sin(2\psi) X)} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Our second goal is to derive the values of $\alpha'$ and $\psi$ given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:psialpha'}. In Eq.~\eqref{eq:mid_rot} we take $\gamma'=\pi+\gamma$. However, the results of this proof do not depend on specific choice of $\gamma'$, aside from implicit dependence hidden in $\alpha$ or other parameters.
Defining the adjoint group action as $\text{Ad}_{g}(B) \equiv gBg^{-1}$ and using the fact that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ABA}
\text{Ad}_{A}(e^B) = e^{ABA^\dag}
\end{equation}
for any unitary $A$ and operator $B$, and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:axisrot}
\text{Ad}_{e^{i\theta Y}}(Z) = \cos(2\theta)Z+\sin(2\theta)X ,
\end{equation}
and similar identities obtained by cycling $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, we may rewrite
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:UV2}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:UV2-1}
U &= \text{Ad}_{e^{i\alpha Y}}(e^{-i\gamma' Z})\\
\label{eq:UV2-2}
V &= \text{Ad}_{e^{i\psi Y}} (e^{-i\alpha' Z}) .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Then setting $u = 2\alpha-2\psi$, we see that:
\bes
\begin{align}
& V U V^\dag = \text{Ad}_{e^{i\psi Y}}(\text{Ad}_{e^{-i\alpha' Z}}(\text{Ad}_{e^{i(\alpha-\psi)}}(e^{-i\gamma' Z}))) \\
&= \text{Ad}_{e^{i\psi Y}}(\text{Ad}_{e^{-i\alpha' Z}}(e^{-i\gamma' (\cos(u)Z+\sin(u)X)}))\\
& = \text{Ad}_{e^{i\psi Y}}e^{-i\gamma' (\cos(u)Z+\sin(u)(\cos(2\alpha')X-\sin(2\alpha')Y))}\\
&= e^{-i\gamma' (v_x X + v_y Y + v_z Z)}
\end{align}
\ees
where in the final line
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{}
v_x &= \cos(u)\sin(2\psi)+\sin(u)\cos(2\alpha')\cos(2\psi)\\
\label{}
v_y &= -\sin(u)\sin(2\alpha')\\
\label{}
v_z &= \cos(u)\cos(2\psi)-\sin(u)\cos(2\alpha')\sin(2\psi) .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Using the representation of the desired gate $g$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:decomps-g}, this gives a system of three equations:\\
$v_x = r_x$:
\bes
\label{eq:vxterm}
\begin{align}
&\sin(2\theta)\cos(2\phi)\notag\\
&= \cos(u)\sin(2\psi)+\sin(u)\cos(2\alpha')\cos(2\psi)\\
&= \sin(2\alpha) + \sin(u)\cos(2\psi)(\cos(2\alpha')-1) ,
\end{align}
\ees
and $v_y = r_y$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vyterm}
\sin(2\theta)\sin(2\phi) = -\sin(u)\sin(2\alpha') ,
\end{equation}
and $v_z = r_z$:
\bes
\label{eq:vzterm}
\begin{align}
&\cos(2\theta)\notag\\
&= \cos(u)\cos(2\psi) - \sin(u)\cos(2\alpha')\sin(2\psi)\\
&= \cos(2\alpha) - \sin(u)\sin(2\psi)(\cos(2\alpha')-1) .
\end{align}
\ees
The existence of a solution of these three equations for $\alpha$, $\alpha'$ and $\psi$ proves that $g$ can be written as $VUV^\dagger$ as claimed.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:vyterm} immediately reduces to
\begin{equation}
\sin(2\alpha') = -\frac{\sin(2\theta)\sin(2\phi)}{\sin(u)} ,
\end{equation}
while Eqs.~\eqref{eq:vxterm} and~\eqref{eq:vzterm} can be combined into
\begin{equation}
\tan(2\psi) = \frac{\cos(2\alpha)-\cos(2\theta)}{\sin(2\theta)\cos(2\phi)-\sin(2\alpha)} .
\end{equation}
Thus, we have the values of $\alpha'$ and $\psi$ given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:psialpha'}, up to a choice of the range of $\tan^{-1}$ and $\sin^{-1}$.
\section{Two qubit coupling decomposition}
\label{app:decomp}
The form of the decomposition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecomp} is motivated by Ref.~\cite{zhang2003}; any $U \in SU(4)$ can be decomposed as:
\be \label{eq:su4decompos}
U = k_1 e^{-i (D_1(X \otimes X) + D_2 (Y \otimes Y) + D_3 (Z \otimes Z))} k_2
\ee
where $k_1 , k_2 \in SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$ and $D_1, D_2, D_3 \in \mathbb{R}$. To write $U_{ij} = e^{-it(a (X_i +X_j) + bZ_i Z_j)}$ in this form we first diagonalize $h_{ij} = a (X_i +X_j) + bZ_i Z_j$ and obtain its eigenvalues ($e_i$) and eigenstates ($|e_i \rangle$). Then we can obtain $U_{ij}$ as $\sum_i e^{-it e_i}|e_i \rangle \langle e_i |$. If we decompose $U_{ij}$ in the Pauli basis, we can show that it has the following form:
\begin{align} \nn
& U_{ij} = P_{00} I + P_{01} X_j+ P_{10} X_i + P_{11} X_i X_j \\
&+ P_{22} Y_i Y_j + P_{33} Z_i Z_j,
\end{align}
with other terms equal to zero. From this form we see that we do not need to consider the most general form of a single qubit gate for $k_1$ and $k_2$. Instead we start from the following ansatz, which we will show to be sufficient:
\be
e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)}e^{-iD_1X_i X_j} e^{-iD_2Y_i Y_j}e^{-iD_3 Z_i Z_j}e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)} .
\ee
With this ansatz, the problem becomes solving the following equality:
\bes
\label{eq:2qubitdecompapp}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:2qubitdecompapp-a}
& e^{-it(a (X_i+X_j) + b Z_i Z_j)}\\
\label{eq:2qubitdecompapp-b}
&= e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)}e^{-iD_1X_i X_j} e^{-iD_2Y_i Y_j}e^{-iD_3 Z_i Z_j}e^{-i\beta (X_i+X_j)}
\end{align}
\ees
This requires solving $16$ coupled equations, each for one element of a $4 \times 4$ matrix. To simplify the task we represent both sides of Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecompapp} in the ``magic basis" defined in Ref.~\cite{Hill1997} as:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:magicbasis}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:magicbasis-1}
|\phi_1 \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|00\rangle + |11 \rangle ) \qquad |\phi_2 \rangle = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} (|00\rangle - |11\rangle) \\
\label{eq:magicbasis-2}
|\phi_3 \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|01\rangle - |10 \rangle ) \qquad |\phi_4 \rangle = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} (|01\rangle + |10 \rangle ) .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In this basis both matrices are sparse, and can be equated term by term to solve for the given parameters. Also, the non-local part of the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecompapp-b}, $e^{-iD_1 X_i X_j} e^{-iD_2 Y_i Y_j}e^{-iD_3 Z_i Z_j}$, is diagonal in the magic basis.
The following matrix changes the basis from the computational basis to the magic basis:
\be
Q = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & i & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & i \\
0 & 0 & -1 & i \\
1 & -i & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} .
\ee
Using $Q$ we can write any matrix $U \in SU(4)$ in the magic basis as:
\be
U_{\text{mag}} = \sum_{i,j} (Q^\dagger U Q)_{ji} |\phi_j \rangle \langle \phi_i |
\ee
The ansatz defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecompapp-b} takes the following form in this basis:
\be \label{eq:Umagic}
\begin{bmatrix}
u_{11} & 0 & 0 & u_{14} \\
0 & u_{22} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & u_{33} & 0 \\
u_{41} & 0 & 0 & u_{44} \\
\end{bmatrix} ,
\ee
where
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:ansmagic}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ansmagic11}
u_{11} &= \frac{1}{2} e^{- i (D_1+D_2+D_3)}( e^{2 i D_3} (\cos(4 \beta )-1) \nn \\
&+e^{2 i D_2} (\cos (4 \beta )+1) ) \\
\label{eq:ansmagic14}
u_{14} &= e^{-i D_1} \sin (4 \beta ) \cos(D_2-D_3) \\
\label{eq:ansmagic22}
u_{22} &= e^{ i (D_1-D_2-D_3)} \\
\label{eq:ansmagic33}
u_{33} &= e^{i (D_1+D_2+D_3)} \\
\label{eq:ansmagic41}
u_{41} &= -e^{-i D_1} \sin (4 \beta ) \cos(D_2-D_3) \\
\label{eq:ansmagic44}
u_{44} &= \frac{1}{2} e^{-i (D_1+D_2+D_3)} (e^{2 i D_2} (\cos (4 \beta )-1) \nn \\
&+e^{2 i D_3} (\cos (4 \beta )+1)) .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The unitary defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitdecompapp-a} takes the same form as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Umagic} in the magic basis, such that:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:magic}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:magic11}
u_{11} &= \cos \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)-\frac{i b \sin \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)}{\sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}} \\
\label{eq:magic14}
u_{14} &= \frac{2 a \sin \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)}{\sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}}\\
\label{eq:magic22}
u_{22} &= e^{-i b t} \\
\label{eq:ansmagic33}
u_{33} &= e^{i b t} \\
\label{eq:magic41}
u_{41} &= -\frac{2 a \sin \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)}{\sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}} \\
\label{eq:magic44}
u_{44} &= \cos \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)+\frac{i b \sin \left(t \sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}\right)}{\sqrt{4 a^2+b^2}} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Equating Eq.~\eqref{eq:ansmagic} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:magic} line by line, we obtain Eq.~\eqref{eq:2qubitsolns}.
\section{Numerical solutions for the sinc function}
\label{app:numeric}
In this appendix we show that for every value of $C \in [0,\pi]$, there exists a $k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$ such that the equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sincsolve}
\text{sinc}(\sqrt{x^2+(C+k\pi)^2}) = \text{sinc}(C+k\pi)
\end{equation}
has a solution for some real $x$ [where $x=2at$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincs-4}]. This equation is transcendental and cannot be solved analytically. However, for a given pair of $(C, k)$, numerical methods can approximately solve Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincsolve} in the domain $x>0$ or determine that no solution exists. We checked the solvability of Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincsolve} for $C \in [0,\pi]$ and $k=0,1,2,3$ to determine the minimum range of $k$ needed to make Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincsolve} solvable for all $C$. The results of this numerical determination are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Cplot}, from which one can see that $k\in \{0,1,2,3\}$ is sufficient.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{kvalues2.png}
\caption{Values of $C$ and $k$ for which Eq.~\eqref{eq:sincsolve} can be solved for $x>0$. Color is included for visibility. For each value of $C$, at least one value of $k$ leads to a solution.}
\label{fig:Cplot}
\end{figure}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
Digital artwork spans a broad range of content depicted in diverse visual styles. Learning a representation suitable for searching artwork based on visual style is an open challenge, particularly when discriminating between subtle, {\em fine-grained} \cite{finegrained_cvpr11, finegrained_ieee17, finegrained_cvpr20} variations in style. This is due to the difficulties of both (i) defining a suitable fine-grained ontology to label styles and (ii) the expert annotation task. Research to date has therefore focused upon coarse-grain discrimination of a limited number of styles \cite{Karayev2014,Collomosse2017}.
Artistic style is the distinctive appearance of an artwork; \ie how an artist has depicted their subject matter \cite{styledef}. Style may be characterized, non-exhaustively, by visual attributes such as the texture, strokes, media, shading, or layout of an artwork; the challenge of identifying a complete list of attributes is long-standing and unsolved \cite{styleont}. Our core contribution is to learn {\em fine-grained} artistic style similarity (Fig. 1) and do so via a weakly supervised approach that does not rely upon explicit labelling of style or style attributes in images. Our technical contributions are three-fold:
{\bf 1. ALADIN Fine-grained Style Embedding.} We propose ALADIN; a novel architecture to learn a search embedding for image style. ALADIN is an encoder-decoder (E-D) network, that pools Adaptive Instance Normalization (AdaIN) statistics across its style encoder layers to learn a discriminative search embedding capable of both discriminating subtle fine-grained of style (\eg variations in sketching style) as well as coarse-grained styles (\eg sketch, watercolor, etc.). Image stylization networks \cite{HuangAdaIn2017,google_adain,munit} have previously used AdaIN for style transfer, but these perform poorly for measuring similarlity (c.f. subsec~\ref{sec:coarsefinegrained}). For the first time, ALADIN explicitly disentangles content and style within an E-D network to show how AdaIN may be harnessed for fine-grained style search.
{\bf 2. Behance Artistic Media Fine-Grained (BAM-FG) dataset. }
We contribute a new 2.62 million image dataset of artwork within 310K fine-grained style groupings, gathered from a creative portfolio website (Behance.net). Digital artists publish to Behance.net in micro-collections (`projects') comprising images of a related visual theme. On the assumption that image co-occurrence within these groups implies a weak cue for style similarity, we sample millions of such co-occurrences. Further, we partition and clean this noisy co-occurrence data via a large-scale crowd annotation task in which distinct style-coherent sub-groups of images within projects are identified with high consensus (yielding 1.62 million images and 135K groups).
{\bf 3. Weakly supervised learning of fine-grained style.} We present the first study into representation learning for {\em fine-grained} artistic style similarity, taking a weakly supervised approach. Prior style-based visual search learns only {\em coarse-grain style} discrimination directly from {\em explicitly labelled} data (\eg via proxy classification tasks \cite{Karayev2014} or deep metric learning \cite{Collomosse2017}). We train ALADIN using supervised contrastive learning \cite{simclr,khosla2020supervised} to achieve a state of the art performance at both coarse and fine-grained style search without requiring any explicit coarse of fine-grained categorization of image style.
Note that we distinguish between noisy and weak supervision. The supervision is weak because there is no fine-grained style ontology to label images explicitly; instead, a weak proxy via implicit project groupings is the basis for learning. These groupings may be noisy or be cleaned up via crowd annotation, but supervision remains weak, as the data is not explicitly labelled to fine-grained styles. We show via objective and subjective user trials that raw project groupings are sufficient to train a state of the art model for fine-grained style similarity. Our cleaned data is used both for evaluating and enhancing fine-grained style discrimination of ALADIN.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth,height=5.5cm]{figures/pinkarch.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Proposed ALADIN architecture for learning a fine-grained style embedding. ALADIN uses a multiple stage encoder where AdaIN values are aggregated from each encoder layer and passed to the corresponding decoder stages. A concatenation of AdaIN features from encoder layers on the style branch is trained via a dual reconstruction ($L_\mathrm{rec}$) and constrastive loss ($L_\mathrm{con}$) under weak supervision from project group co-membership. The style encode/decoder backbone may take the form of several convolutional layers (ALADIN-S) or VGG-16 backbone (ALADIN-L).
}
\label{fig:unet}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
Visual style has been researched primarily from the perspectives of synthesis (\eg style transfer) and classification. Early style transfer work learned visual analogies from photo-artwork pairs \cite{Hertzmann2001,Lee2000}. More recently, deep representations enabled stylization from unpaired data \cite{gatys}. Notably, Gatys \etal computed the Grammian across layers of a pre-trained model (\eg VGG-19 \cite{Simonyan2015}) to abstract content from style in diverse imagery; a representation that has been exploited for texture description \cite{Lin2016}, style-coherent in-painting \cite{Gilbert2018}, and fast neural style transfer (NST) via style-specific encoder-decoder networks \cite{Ulyanov2016,Johnson2016}. Extensions to multi-scale \cite{Wang2017} and video \cite{Ruder2016} NST were later presented. Variants of this representation (\eg cosine-of-Grammian) have been explored to represent style \cite{gmdotcos}, and the concepts of image analogy and NST combined for style transfer~\cite{liao2017visual,upchurch2016z}. Instance normalization was proposed to enhance the quality of style transfer \cite{Ulyanov2017}, and building upon this, mean-variance statistics (AdaIN) between content and style features \cite{HuangAdaIn2017,google_adain}.
Recently unsupervised style transfer was enabled via MUNIT \cite{munit}, which disentangled content and style via AdaIN \cite{HuangAdaIn2017}; learning a latent code for style without labelled data within an encoder-decoder (E-D) architecture. A similar architecture was later used to swap style between images \cite{Park2020}. These approaches can be considered to embed the notion of style within architectural design choices. We explore the complementary problem of learned search representations via E-D models.
By contrast, trained representations for style learn disentangled embeddings for content and style explicitly via deep metric learning, supervised using triplets \cite{Collomosse2017}. Their work leverages an extensive public dataset of coarsely labelled digital artwork (Behance Artistic Media -- BAM \cite{bam}). Smaller collections of labelled data have been used to supervise the classification of style \cite{Zujovic2009,Karayev2014}, or product designs \cite{Bell2015} and even painters \cite{Cetinic2013} and artistic genres \cite{Shamir2010}. All these approaches use direct supervision of coarse-grain class labels on style, \eg of fine-art \cite{omniart}. A related field models image aesthetics using votes on social media \cite{Marchesotti2013}, and recently the link between style and emotion is explored \cite{artemis,wikiartemo}. Generative adversarial networks (GAN) such as cycle-consistent GAN \cite{cyclegan} have been trained to map images from one domain to another, including between styles, and require labelled sets of (unpaired) images. Recently StyleGAN \cite{styleGAN} explored the injection of a learned style-code at multiple stages in a convolutional encoder.
Our work tackles style representation learning with weak labels without requiring explicit class supervision while focusing (being able to) discriminate fine-grained styles (Fig. 1).
\section{Learning Fine-Grained Style Similarity}
Our goal is to learn a fine-grained representation of style from a weak proxy (group co-membership) rather than direct supervision under labels from a style ontology.
\subsection{ALADIN Architecture}
\label{sec:arch}
We propose ALADIN; All-Layer ADaptive Instance Normalization designed for content and style disentanglement using adaptive instance normalization (AdaIN eq. \ref{eq:adain}) \cite{HuangAdaIn2017,google_adain} in an encoder-decoder (E-D) network (Fig. \ref{fig:unet}). AdaIN has been applied to neural style transfer (NST), where content is disentangled from style to enable modification of the style code \cite{munit,Park2020} before recombination of the two. However, style codes for these models perform very poorly when used as a search embedding (c.f. subsec.~\ref{sec:coarsefinegrained}). ALADIN implements a disentangled E-D network design but extracts the mean and variation (as per AdaIN) values of activations from several style encoder layers in the latent code (`style embedding'). By training both for high reconstruction fidelity and with a contrastive approach to encourage metric properties in this latent space, we show ALADIN can learn a {\em search embedding} suitable for fine-grained style search.
ALADIN comprises dual encoder branches: (i) content encoder; (ii) style encoder. The content encoder uses 4 convolutional layers to downsample image features into a series of semantically-focused feature maps; instance normalization is applied to each layer. The style encoder branch comprises three convolutional layers, comprising of 64, 128, 256 filters, respectively. We extract the style information using the AdaIN mean and variance statistics of the feature maps, rather than a fully connected (FC) layer, as this encoder is used only for style extraction. The style code is composed of twice as many values as filters in the encoder, with a mean and variance of each output feature map. Fig. \ref{fig:unet} shows the ALADIN backbone built to include adaptive instance normalization (AdaIN) on the style encoder stages and the aggregation of activations (`style codes') from multiple encoder stages via concatenation to produce an 896-D search embedding.
The decoder mirrors the encoder shape, such that the style code can be split back into the same sized segments and applied to decoder filters. Both this mirroring and the multi-layer encoding of AdaIN differ from stylization E-D networks (\eg MUNIT \cite{munit}) and enable a more effective search embedding to be learned from the resulting style codes. In the decoder stylization stage, pairs of [mean $\mu(.)$ , variance $\sigma^2(.)$] values from style encoder layer activations (\eg x) are applied to activations from a mirrored layer in the ALADIN decoder (\eg y), following eq. \ref{eq:adain}.
\vspace{-2mm}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:adain}
AdaIN(x,y) = \sigma^2(y) \left( \frac{x-\mu(x)}{\sigma^2(x)} \right) + \mu(y)
\end{eqnarray}
For both ALADIN-S and ALADIN-L variants we apply a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with a hidden layer of size 512 and $L_2$ normalized output vector 128-D to the encoded embedding feature $f(.)$. We refer to this as projection network as $h(f(.))$ and later explore the efficacy of computing the loss on this projection embedding rather than the learned style embedding (c.f. Tbl.~\ref{tab:training_types}).
\subsection{Training with Implicit Project Groups}
\label{sec:train}
We train ALADIN using a variant of supervised contrastive learning adapted with logit accumulation (sec. \ref{sec:logit_accum}) to enable larger batch sizes. Training is weakly supervised, eschewing explicit style labels for the similarity in style implied by the co-presence of images in projects (groups) sampled from Behance.net creative portfolios (c.f. subsec ~\ref{sec:dataset}).
Classic approaches to deep metric learning for search exploit pair-wise comparison (\eg via triplet loss) to encourage correlation between visual similarity and embedding proximity. For a given training set $T$, a project group $G \subset T$ is selected at random, and an image $a$ picked at random from within $G$ as the `anchor'. The remaining images within that group form positive examples $G^+ = G \setminus \{a\}$, and an equal number of negative samples are selected from other project groups $G^- \subset T \setminus G^+$. For a given minibatch $B$ triplets $(a,p,n)$ are formed where $p \in G^+$ and $n \in G^-$, and backpropagation applied to minimize $\sum_{(a,p,n) \in B} \left[ \epsilon + |f(a)-f(p)|_2 - |f(n)-f(p)|_2 \right]_+$, where $|.|_2$ denotes the $L_2$ loss and $\epsilon$ a small margin.
Recently, contrastive learning has shown improved performance using larger batch sizes. We form a minibatch $B$ by sampling pairs of images $\{a,p\} \in G_i$ for $i=[1,N]$ groups (we use $N=1024$ groups). Thus a batch comprises $2N$ images, $B=\{b_1,b_2,...,b_{2N}\}$, where $b_{2i}$ and $b_{2i-1}$ come from the same group. For a given image $b_i$ we therefore have a positive group $G^+_i=\{b_p\}$ and a negative group $G^-_i=B \setminus \{b_i ~ b_p\}$ for which the loss is:
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
L_{\mathrm{con}}(B)= \sum_{i=1}^{2N} L(i) \mathrm{ ~~, where} \\
L(i) = - \log \sum_{p \in G^+_i} \frac{ \exp(f(i) \cdot f(p) / \tau)}{ \sum_{n \in G^-_i} \exp\left(f(i) \cdot f(n) / \tau\right)}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau>0$ is a temperature parameter as in the self-supervised SimCLR \cite{simclr}.
ALADIN is an encoder-decoder network, so we employ a dual loss comprising also a reconstruction loss term $L_{\mathrm{rec}}$:
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\mathrm{rec}}(B)&=& \sum_{b \in B} \left| f(b)-b \right|. \label{eq:recon}\\
L_{\mathrm{total}}(B)&=& L_{\mathrm{con}}(B) + \lambda L_{\mathrm{rec}}(B), \label{eq:dual}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|.|$ denotes the $L_1$ loss and we weight the reconstruction loss $\lambda=10^{-2}$.
\subsubsection{Logit Accumulation}
\label{sec:logit_accum}
Training ALADIN with large batches $|B|=1024$ is impractical on contemporary GPUs (without resorting to federated or distributed compute) due to the extensive VRAM requirements. To combat this issue, we propose a \textit{logit accumulation} strategy. The large batch size is first split into several smaller chunks (\textit{gradient} batch size) for which the model in inference mode generates logits. Once the \textit{target} batch size of 1024 is reached, these are concatenated and used for computing the contrastive loss. Backpropagation is carried out to compute gradients, stopping and retaining them at the logits level. The original chunks are next passed through the model again one by one, storing gradients in the model. The logit gradients corresponding to samples in a given chunk are backpropagated through the model before finally applying the gradients to the weights. When all chunks have been re-forwarded through the model the batch ends (see sup-mat. for visualizations of this process). With this technique, a single GPU with 12GB VRAM can fit the required batch size of 1024. Multiple GPUs could, in theory, handle larger batches as the bottle-beck becomes storing the MLP head gradients in VRAM, which may be parallelized across GPUs.
\subsection{BAM-FG: Behance Artistic Media Fine-Grained dataset}
\label{sec:dataset}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/bamfg_dataset_stats_new.png}
\caption{Top: BAM-FG-$C_N$ dataset statistics, cleaned at each worker consensus level $C_N=[1,5]$. Bottom: Three sub-groupings within a single raw project group, identified at consensus level $C_N=3$
}
\label{fig:bamfg}
\vspace{-2mm}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
We propose BAM-FG, a novel dataset of 2.62 million digital artworks in 310K project groups sampled from Behance.net -- a creative portfolio website. We assume that image co-occurrence within these groups implies a weak cue for style similarity, and it is this signal we harness to train our model. We split BAM-FG into two distinct partitions:
{\bf BAM-FG-Raw.} The raw, 'noisy' data where images are grouped as on Behance; we refer to this dataset as BAM-FG-Raw comprising 1M images in 175K projects. We train our model with this data.
{\bf BAM-FG-$C_N$}. Data that has been `cleaned' via a large-scale crowd-sourcing exercise so that image groups are known (rather than assumed) to be style consistent. This dataset initially comprises 1.62M images and 135K groups. We derive image groupings from this data to varying levels of confidence (participant consensus), written as $C_N=1,...,5$. Fig. \ref{fig:bamfg} (top) describes the number of images (samples) in BAM-FG at each consensus level, where $C_N=5$ returns the highest data quality but lowest data volume. This data is used to evaluate ALADIN and fine-tune its performance (train/test split details are in subsec.~\ref{sec:evaldset}).
\subsubsection{Cleaning Style Groups (BAM-FG-$C_N$)}
We constructed BAM-FG-$C_N$ by manually curating the 135K project groups into sub-groups of coherent style. Annotation was crowd-sourced via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) using 1073 workers. Workers were presented with images from a project and invited to tag any number of images (including zero) sharing the same visual style (creating a group). If there were multiple styles present, they picked the largest group. We sent each annotation task to 5 workers. The consensus was determined using a graph-based vote pooling method in which edges coded by an affinity matrix $A_{i,j}$ reflecting the number of times both images $\{i,j\}$ were simultaneously selected within an annotated cluster/moodboard. Thresholding $A_{i,j}$ at a given consensus level $C_N=[1,5]$ partitions the group into sub-groups. Fig. \ref{fig:bamfg} (bottom) shows an example of three sub-groups formed at $C_N=3$ from a single raw group. The supplementary material contains a task example and a visualization of the graph-vote algorithm.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc|ccc||cccc|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c||}{Coarse grained} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Fine grained}\\
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{BAM} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{BAM-X} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{BAM-FG} \\
Model & Top-1 & Top-3 & mAP & Top-1 & Top-3 & mAP & IR T-1 & IR T-5 & IR T-10 \\
\hline
Karayev \cite{Karayev2014} & 29.95 & 36.44 & 0.34 & 21.62 & 23.06 & 0.18 & 3.28 & 5.43 & 6.59 \\
NST \cite{gatys} & 36.56 & 39.43 & 0.38 & 31.01 & 32.03 & 0.28 & 6.31 & 7.82 & 9.86 \\
NST-CGM \cite{gmdotcos} & 34.74 & 42.96 & 0.36 & 32.85 & 36.84 & 0.31 & 3.54 & 8.32 & 10.89 \\
DML-BAM \cite{Collomosse2017} & 93.16 & 99.32 & 0.61 & 67.12 & 88.69 & 0.50 & 3.57 & 6.87 & 9.95 \\
DML-BAMX \cite{Collomosse2017} & 98.16 & {\bf 99.95} & 0.49 & 79.97 & 92.68 & {\bf 0.69} & 3.04 &6.18 & 8.70 \\
ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep} & 73.59 & 96.01 & 0.162 & 51.05 & 78.01 & 0.163 & 1.97 & 5.18 & 8.41 \\
MUNIT-Unsup~\cite{munit}& 33.79 & 45.05 & 0.44 & 45.76 & 74.41 & 0.22 & 4.12 & 6.92 & 9.45 \\
MUNIT-Triplet~\cite{munit} & 43.29 & 46.47 & 0.589 & 66.28 & 88.66 & 0.271 & 17.68 & 25.89 & 31.67 \\
MUNIT-Listwise ~\cite{munit} & 42.63 & 46.45 & 0.404 & 70.98 & 91.85 & 0.226 & 18.04 & 24.91 & 29.62 \\
MUNIT-Contrastive~\cite{munit}& \textcolor{new}{53.80} & \textcolor{new}{86.36} & \textcolor{new}{0.284} & \textcolor{new}{27.87} & \textcolor{new}{58.49} & \textcolor{new}{0.137} & \textcolor{new}{6.43} & \textcolor{new}{10.02} & \textcolor{new}{12.96} \\
\midrule
ALADIN-Unsup. & \textcolor{new}{93.86} & \textcolor{new}{99.79} & \textcolor{new}{0.394} & \textcolor{new}{83.13} & \textcolor{new}{96.66} & \textcolor{new}{0.308} & \textcolor{new}{11.48} & \textcolor{new}{16.38} & \textcolor{new}{19.84} \\
\midrule
ALADIN-Triplet & \textcolor{new}{96.59} & \textcolor{new}{99.90} & \textcolor{new}{0.638} & \textcolor{new}{78.60} & \textcolor{new}{95.28} & \textcolor{new}{0.336} & \textcolor{new}{26.70} & \textcolor{new}{35.08} & \textcolor{new}{40.47} \\
ALADIN-Listwise & \textcolor{new}{95.59} & \textcolor{new}{99.90} & \textcolor{new}{0.550} & \textcolor{new}{76.16} & \textcolor{new}{94.12} & \textcolor{new}{0.316} & \textcolor{new}{37.90} & \textcolor{new}{47.88} & \textcolor{new}{53.83} \\
ALADIN-Contrastive & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{99.48}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{99.95}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{0.737}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{85.28}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{98.07}} & 0.479 & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{56.89}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{66.80}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{71.94}}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Coarse (BAM/BAM-X) and Fine grained (BAM-FG) style discrimination for the ALADIN model compared to baselines on coarse and fine-grained retrieval (BAM-FG). The larger ALADIN-L model is used.
\label{tab:baselines}
}
\end{table*}
\section{Experiments and Discussion}
We evaluate the performance of ALADIN for both coarse and fine-grained retrieval tasks. We use a learning rate of $10^{-4}$ with decay 0.9 and the ADAM optimizer on a single NVidia Titan-X 12GB GPU for all experiments. We trained all models to convergence with early stopping.
\subsection{Datasets and Partitions}
\label{sec:evaldset}
\noindent{\bf BAM-FG/-Raw/-$C_N$.} We train all our models from scratch using 1M images with noisy grouping (BAM-FG-Raw). We split the 1.62M clean images in BAM-FG-$C_N$ into training (115K groups) and test (20K groups) partitions. BAM-FG-$C_N$ is crowd-annotated to form sub-groups as described in Section~\ref{sec:dataset}. The data is thresholded at different consensus levels $C_N=[1,5]$
(groupings referred to as BAM-FG-$\mathrm{C}_{1..5}$).
Fine-grained retrieval is evaluated over the 78K images test of $BAM-FG-C_3$; we use $C_3$ as the majority consensus level with the highest data volume.
\noindent{\bf BAM/-X.} Behance Artistic Media (BAM) is a public dataset of 2M contemporary artworks gathered from Behance.net and annotated using a large-scale active learning pipeline \cite{bam}. We sample a 70k subset of this dataset, the annotations for which include seven coarse style labels for non-photographic media (3D renderings, comics, pencil/graphite sketches, pen ink, oil paintings, vector art, watercolor). To increase the coarse-scale category count on BAM, we add a further 70K images gathered from web photo collections focusing on photographic styles (luxury, neon, minimalist photography, metallic, abstract shots, geometric forms, pastel shades), bringing the total to 14 coarse style classes each of 10K images. This Extended BAM (BAM-X) dataset of 140K images is used for coarse-grain evaluation. None of these are included in BAM-FG.
\subsection{Baseline Methods and Losses}
\label{sec:coarsefinegrained}
\textbf{1. Methods.} We compare against several existing style representations. \textbf{Karayev} \etal sample activations from a late FC layer of CaffeNet \cite{Karayev2014}. Neural Style Transfer \cite{gatys} \textbf{NST} features using VGG-19 \cite{vgg} pre-trained on ImageNet \cite{ Lin2016} are compared with a variant taking cosine of Gram matrices \textbf{NST-CGM} across layers \cite{gmdotcos}. A baseline discriminative network \emph{ResNet50} \cite{he2016deep}, extracting the style representation (embedding) from the penultimate FC layer (2048-D) of a ResNet50 network. We compare also against the coarse-grain style embedding of Collomosse \etal \cite{Collomosse2017} applying Deep Metric Learning (DML) via triplet loss. Their model \textbf{DML-BAM} was trained on BAM \cite{bam}, and we retrain it also on BAM-X \textbf{DML-BAMX}. We compare against the style codes available from MUNIT \cite{munit} which explicitly trains a disentangled representation for stylization. We evaluate MUNIT style codes for search, trained unsupervised (\textbf{MUNIT-Unsup} \cite{munit}) and trained via our contrastive scheme, per ALADIN (\textbf{MUNIT-Contrastive}).
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllcr|rr||rrr}
\toprule
& & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Coarse-grained} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Fine-grained} \\
Loss & Backbone & Aug. & MLP & \thead{Sup.} & \thead{BAM \\ mAP} & \thead{BAMX \\ mAP} & IR-1 & IR-5 & IR-10 \\
\midrule
Triplet & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & & & \checkmark& 0.589 & 0.271 & 17.68 & 25.89 & 31.67 \\
Triplet & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & & & HN & 0.483 & 0.255 & 12.96 & 19.48 & 24.58 \\
Triplet & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.482 & 0.252 & 7.39 & 12.70 & 17.16 \\
Triplet & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & \checkmark & & & 0.501 & 0.259 & 7.79 & 12.81 & 16.95 \\
Listwise & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & & & \checkmark & 0.447 & 0.244 & 20.15 & 27.40 & 32.27 \\
Listwise & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.404 & 0.226 & 18.04 & 24.91 & 29.62 \\
Listwise & MUNIT~\cite{munit} & \checkmark & & & 0.410 & 0.211 & 16.03 & 22.61 & 27.23 \\
Contrastive& Resnet50~\cite{he2016deep}& & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.231 & 0.143 & 40.14 & 50.90 & 57.19 \\
Contrastive& Resnet50~\cite{he2016deep} & \checkmark & \checkmark & & 0.209 & 0.104 & 28.51 & 36.72 & 41.96 \\
\midrule
Triplet & ALADIN-S & & & \checkmark & 0.558 & 0.297 & 25.60 & 33.71 & 38.93\\
Triplet & ALADIN-L & & & \checkmark & 0.638 & 0.336 & 26.70 & 35.08 & 40.47\\
Triplet & ALADIN-L & & & HN & \textcolor{new}{0.609} & \textcolor{new}{0.312} & \textcolor{new}{23.75} & \textcolor{new}{31.87} & \textcolor{new}{37.10} \\
Triplet & ALADIN-L & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \textcolor{new}{0.614} & \textcolor{new}{0.335} & \textcolor{new}{22.12} & \textcolor{new}{31.55} & \textcolor{new}{37.60} \\
Triplet & ALADIN-L & \checkmark & & & \textcolor{new}{0.417} & \textcolor{new}{0.214} & \textcolor{new}{21.07} & \textcolor{new}{28.20} & \textcolor{new}{32.81} \\% & 0.497 & 0.262 & 21.59 & 25.11 & 28.84 & 33.69 \\
Listwise & ALADIN-L & & & \checkmark & \textcolor{new}{0.463} & \textcolor{new}{0.247} & \textcolor{new}{25.14} & \textcolor{new}{33.44} & \textcolor{new}{38.80} \\
Listwise & ALADIN-S & & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.523 & 0.284& 30.03 & 38.42 & 43.67 \\
Listwise & ALADIN-L & & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.550 & 0.316 & 37.90 & 47.88 & 53.83 \\
Listwise & ALADIN-L & \checkmark & & & \textcolor{new}{0.453} & \textcolor{new}{0.244} & \textcolor{new}{21.22} & \textcolor{new}{27.98} & \textcolor{new}{32.36} \\
Contrastive & ALADIN-S & & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.565 & 0.308 & 36.42 & 44.49 & 49.32 \\
Contrastive & ALADIN-L & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{0.737}} & \textbf{0.479} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{56.89}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{66.80}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{71.94}} \\
Contrastive & ALADIN-L & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \textcolor{new}{0.443} & \textcolor{new}{0.222} & \textcolor{new}{30.47} & \textcolor{new}{38.43} & \textcolor{new}{43.39} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Coarse and fine-grained style discrimination of different architectures and training losses, exploiting data augmentation (Aug.) and projection networks (MLP) under self or weak supervision (Sup.). HN indicates hard negative mining. Trained over 1M images in BAM-FG-Raw.
}
\vspace{-2mm}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{tab:training_types}
\end{table}
\textbf{2. Alternative losses.} We also evaluate alternative training strategies for ALADIN, and the baselines. Both {\bf Triplet} loss and {\bf Listwise} loss \cite{listwise} are explored as smaller batch alternatives to contrastive training \eg \textbf{MUNIT-Triplet}, and \textbf{MUNIT-Listwise}. For triplet training we train using random negative mining, sampling $G^-$ from random projects, and also hard-negative mining (HN) sampling images from semantically similar projects. For HN, $n \in G^-$ are samples that satisfy a semantic threshold $|S(n)< S(a) + \sum{p \in G^+}S(p)| < T$ set empirically to encourage disentanglement similar to deep metric learning (DML) over BAM \cite{Collomosse2017}. We use a pre-trained auxillary ResNet/ImageNet embedding for $S(.)$. The listwise loss \cite{listwise} is a differentiable approximation to mean Average Precision (mAP), recently applied to deep metric learning for search embeddings. Using list-wise loss several style groups are chosen at random, and all samples are added as query (anchor) images to the batch $B=\{a_1,...,a_{32}\} \subset T$. For each $a$ we define $G^+$ as images co-present in the project, and $G^- = T \setminus G^+$. The listwise loss rewards higher ranking of $G^+$ versus $G^-$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,height=9cm]{figures/BIG_tsne_both.png}
\caption{t-SNE visualization of BAM-FG test set within the ALADIN and discriminative embeddings; qualitatively fewer semantic clusters form in the ALADIN vs. Discriminative embedding.}
\label{fig:tsnebig}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth,height=8cm]{figures/small_tsne.png}
\caption{t-SNE visualizations in style embeddings (Discriminative and ALADIN-L). Top: BAM-X coarse grain, color shows 14 test classes. Bottom: BAM-FG, color shows 20 test projects.}
\label{fig:tsne-cg-fg}
\vspace{-2mm}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{3. Alternative supervisions.} We baseline against self-supervised training of ALADIN using no project group supervision \ie $L_{\mathrm{total}}=L_{\mathrm{rec}}$ with minibatches selected from groups randomly. Whilst self-supervised, such loss does not encourage metric learning. Therefore we also baseline our dual loss eq. \ref{eq:dual}, where $L_{\mathrm{con}}$ uses vanilla contrastive learning (\ie self-supervised SimCLR \cite{simclr}), applying data augmentation to generate $G^+$ from $a$ using random cropping, horizontal flipping, and color jittering, and $G^-=B \setminus \{a,G^+\}$. Finally, we demonstrate the benefit of contrastive learning for weakly supervised learning, by baselining performance against {\bf softmax} loss for an $n-$way classification using project group membership as labelled data. Thus we use our weak supervision signal as explicit labels for strong supervision, a 175K-way classification (one label per group).
\subsection{Evaluating Coarse and Fine grained Retrieval}
We evaluate retrieval performance of ALADIN, computing \textbf{IR Top-$k$}; an instance retrieval (IR) metric that expresses the percentage of queries for which a relevant result (same project) occurs within the top $k$ ranked results, for ranks $k=\{1,5,10\}$. Tbl. \ref{tab:baselines} reports the performance of several baselines at this task; whilst coarse-grain performance is satisfactory on the BAM, and BAM-X datasets, the fine-grained style discrimination (BAM-FG) and generalization to new styles is poor for the baseline approaches, which supports our motivation to develop a new model (ALADIN) that is effective for fine grained style search. The style code learned in {\bf MUNIT-UnSup}~\cite{munit} model is known to be suitable for image stylization, and we explore it here for style search. We observe that for coarse-grain style discrimination, MUNIT performs similar (BAM IR-1: 33.79) to the lower-performing prior work that does not explicitly train for style (BAM IR-1: 34.74) \cite{gmdotcos}. However {\bf MUNIT-UnSup} performs poorly as a search embedding for fine-grained style, in line with all prior models. Our proposed approach, {\bf ALADIN-Contrastive} (using the ALADIN-L backbone), sets the new state of the art in fine grained retrieval (BAM-FG IR-1: 56.89).
Tbl~\ref{tab:baselines} also presents the results for coarse and fine grain for our proposed ALADIN network trained unsupervised (via reconstruction loss only; {\bf ALADIN-UnSup}) on BAM-FG\_Raw. The fine grained IR performance (BAM-FG IR-1: 26.70) of ALADIN-L exceeds all prior baseline architectures even without supervision.
\subsection{Evaluating weak supervision}
Next, we evaluate different ways to weakly supervise ALADIN training on BAM-FG-Raw noisy image groupings, comparing triplet, listwise and contrastive losses (Tbl. \ref{tab:training_types}). The ALADIN model (the ALADIN-L model structure) shows gains at both coarse-grain discrimination (+ 10-12\% mAP), and as shown in Tbl~\ref{tab:baselines}, fine-grained style discrimination (+ 10-15\% IR Top-1 ). Our proposed dual loss (reconstruction and contrastive learning) outperform others with listwise loss gives superior performance to triplet --- reflecting observations that even human annotators find it harder to assess style coherence in paired images versus groups of images. A discriminative Resnet50 backbone was also trained using a softmax loss, with a $\sim$175k-way classifier for every project group in the 1M BAM-FG-Raw dataset. However, it did not perform well for fine-grained discrimination. ALADIN achieves a state of the art performance on fine-grained style discrimination, but interestingly outperforms existing models for coarse grain style. We achieve this without using any of the coarse training labels, demonstrating our model's generalization capabilities.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\label{sec:eval}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll|ccc|ccc}
\toprule
& Data & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ALADIN-L} \\
Data & size & IR-1 & IR-5 & IR-10 & IR-1 & IR-5 & IR-10 \\
\midrule
BAM-FG-Raw & 250K & 20.72 & 28.72 & 34.30 & \textcolor{new}{40.08} & \textcolor{new}{49.62} & \textcolor{new}{55.27} \\
BAM-FG-Raw & 500K & 33.80 & 43.74 & 49.71 & \textcolor{new}{44.26} & \textcolor{new}{54.20} & \textcolor{new}{59.75} \\
BAM-FG-Raw & 750K & 38.73 & 49.11 & 55.09 & \textcolor{new}{47.78} & \textcolor{new}{57.89} & \textcolor{new}{63.53} \\
BAM-FG-Raw & 1M & 40.14 & 50.90 & 57.19 & \textcolor{new}{56.89} & \textcolor{new}{66.80} & \textcolor{new}{71.94} \\
\midrule
BAM-FG-$\mathrm{C}_3$ & 114K & 42.33 & 52.14 & 57.72 & 59.03 & 68.67 & 73.62 \\
BAM-FG-$\mathrm{C}_4$ & 86K & 43.85 & 53.86 & 59.37 & 59.31 & 68.80 & 73.92 \\
BAM-FG-$\mathrm{C}_5$ & 38K & 45.22 & 54.81 & 60.52 & \textbf{59.51} & \textbf{69.07} & \textbf{74.05} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{The effect of data volume and consensus level on a fine-tuned model, training with contrastive loss.
}
\label{tab:data_volume_tab}
\centering
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll|rrr}
\toprule
Data & Model & IR-1 & IR-5 & IR-10 \\
\hline
BAM & DML \cite{Collomosse2017} & 3.57 & 6.87 & 9.95 \\
\midrule
BAM-FG-C$_5$ & Ours (ALADIN-L) & \textcolor{new}{58.98} & \textcolor{new}{68.79} & \textcolor{new}{73.73} \\
BAM-FG-C$_5$ & Ours (ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep})& 45.22 & 54.81 & 60.52 \\
\midrule
BAM-FG-Raw & Ours (Fused) & \textcolor{new}{60.76} & \textcolor{new}{70.26} & \textcolor{new}{75.12} \\
BAM-FG-C$_5$ & Ours (Fused) & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{62.18}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{71.50}} & \textcolor{new}{\textbf{76.33}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of fused embeddings Discriminative and ALADIN for noisy (BAM-FG-Raw) and cleaned (BAM-FG).}
\label{tab:fused}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth,height=6.3cm]{figures/gallerynew.png}
\caption{Representative retrieval results for 4 queries;
Coarse-grain style embedding baseline (DML) \cite{Collomosse2017} versus our proposed fine-grained embedding (ALADIN architecture under weak supervision) and for comparison, a similarly trained (discr)iminative network; ResNet.
}
\label{fig:gallery}
\end{figure*}
Tbl~\ref{tab:training_types} reports an ablation study for both coarse and fine grained style discrimination, exploring contrastive learning, data augmentation and use of a projection network (applying the loss to $h(f(.))$ versus $f(.)$), the latter yields performance gain for both models. The pair-wise (triplet) losses consistently underperform the list-wise loss. Performing hard negative mining to encourage disentanglement between semantics and style is ineffective, perhaps due to the disentanglement in the ALADIN architecture. ALADIN-L (56.89\%) outperforms baselines for fine-grained discrimination, including a recent self-supervised baseline (SimCLR \cite{simclr}). In contrast, a discriminative model~\cite{he2016deep}, ResNet50, similarly trained, achieves 40.14\%.
Tbl. \ref{tab:data_volume_tab} explores the impact of data volume on overall performance for reductions of 25-75\% of BAM-FG-Raw data, for the best performing models ALADIN-L (IR-1: 56.89\%) and Discriminative (IR-1: 40.14\%). We also explored fine-tuning these two models with the cleaned BAM-FG training data at consensus levels $C_N=[3,4,5]$. Despite lower training volumes at higher consensus levels, we show the most significant gains are at these levels (up to 5\% at $C_5$).
\subsection{Visualizing Disentanglement}
We explore the complementary properties of ALADIN-Contrastive and a similarly trained discriminative network (ResNet50-Contrastive) that does not explicitly disentangle style from content in its architecture. Fig.~\ref{fig:gallery}, shows search results for both embeddings, offering a more significant correlation between content and style under the Discriminative model, which does not explicitly disentangle the two within its architecture.
Visualizing a t-SNE distribution of all 78K images in BAM-FG-$\mathrm{C}_3$ (Fig. \ref{fig:tsnebig}) shows similar groupings. It reveals ALADIN correlates more strongly on lower level features such as color.
Smaller-scale visualization of Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne-cg-fg} shows good discrimination between a random subset of 20 fine-grained groups and on coarse-grain styles despite no direct supervision on these classes; consistent with the quantitative performance in Tbl.~\ref{tab:baselines}.
\noindent {\bf Fused.} We explored simply concatenating both embeddings given their information appeared complementary. Interestingly, the incorporation of semantic cues gave a small performance boost (around $4\%$) to ALADIN. Further small gains can be made by further fine-tuning ALADIN on cleaned annotated data from BAM-FG-$C_N$. Tbl. \ref{tab:fused} reports our
best performing fine-grained search embeddings are the fused models on noisy data (60.76\%) and cleaned data at the highest consensus threshold ($C_5$ at 62.18\%).
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=0.70\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\toprule
Consensus & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Ours (ALADIN)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Ours (Fused)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{DML-BAMX \cite{Collomosse2017}} \\
$C_{N}$ & P@1 & P@5 & P@10 & P@1 & P@5 & P@10 & P@1 & P@5 & P@10 & P@1 & P@5 & P@10 \\
\midrule
3 & 0.959 & 0.914 & 0.895 & 0.965 & 0.918 & 0.893 & \textbf{0.974} & \textbf{0.937} & \textbf{0.918} & 0.780 & 0.607 & 0.449 \\
4 & 0.840 & 0.681 & 0.624 & 0.832 & 0.653 & 0.582 & \textbf{0.867} & \textbf{0.727} & \textbf{0.666} & 0.633 & 0.397 & 0.277 \\
5 & 0.562 & 0.324 & 0.256 & 0.612 & 0.307 & 0.221 & \textbf{0.642} & \textbf{0.363} & \textbf{0.277} & 0.467 & 0.196 & 0.120 \\
\midrule
3 (c) & 0.822 & 0.686 & 0.519 & 0.834 & 0.831 & 0.826 & \textbf{0.887} & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.875} & 0.681 & 0.571 & 0.428 \\
4 (c) & 0.522 & 0.432 & 0.322 & 0.558 & 0.458 & 0.450 & \textbf{0.575} & \textbf{0.569} & \textbf{0.560} & 0.364 & 0.307 & 0.229 \\
5 (c) & 0.153 & 0.117 & 0.096 & 0.115 & 0.106 & 0.101 & \textbf{0.173} & \textbf{0.166} & \textbf{0.159} & 0.079 & 0.065 & 0.049 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{\textcolor{new}{Image retrieval accuracy via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) study; Precision (P@k) at rank k=[1,5,10] over 1000 queries on BAM-FG. (c) indicates "held out" evaluation i.e. removing results in the same style group as the query. These show that when images from the same group are removed, ALADIN (and fused) maintains style similar results for longer. Results at 3 majority consensus levels.}}
\label{tab:img_ret_usersAG}
\end{table*}
\subsection{User Evaluation of Style Similarity}
\label{sec:user_study}
We ran crowd-sourced user studies on image retrieval results to compare ALADIN with the fine-grained ResNet-Contrastive model trained on the same data and a coarse-grain baseline (DML \cite{Collomosse2017}). 1000 queries were each presented independently to 5 workers. Each worker was asked to flag images within the 25 results that were style inconsistent with the query. Consensus thresholding (Sec.~\ref{sec:dataset}) was applied and Precision at rank $k$ recorded for majority consensus levels in Tab. \ref{tab:img_ret_usersAG}.
The fused embeddings consistently achieve the highest accuracy, both where we explore the complete results and when we consider only results where the query style group is held out from the search corpus.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-2mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,height=5cm]{figures/multiple.png}
\caption{Multi-image query results; a query moodboard (top left) and the top 25 ranked result images (bottom). Quantiative results from MTurk user study at majority consensus levels (top right).}
\label{fig:multiimage}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
We further explore image retrieval using the models when multiple images are used together to form a query. We use our annotated style groups from the test set as such queries, mean-pooling the encoder features of all images to create the query. We repeat our user study and ask groups of 5 workers to label 1000 retrieval results. The retrieval corpus does not contain images from the same project as the queries.
Fig.~\ref{fig:multiimage} shows multi-image queries, and a representative result with high relevance scores for both ALADIN and the fused variants, implying the mean well represents the query group and suitable for use as a query.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
We proposed an encoder-decoder (E-D) architecture; `ALADIN', to learn a fine-grained representation for measuring fine-grained artistic style similarity. ALADIN is inspired by the E-D models used to drive content stylization \cite{munit} by explicitly disentangling content and style across network branches. We present and use a weakly supervised approach to learn this representation using contrastive training made practical using a logit accumulation strategy. We sample 310K user-generated content groupings across 2.62M images which we release as the first fine-grained artistic style dataset, BAM-FG. We exploit these group co-occurrences as an implicit weak proxy for fine-grained style similarity. ALADIN sets the state of the art performance for fine-grained discrimination and improves further when trained with cleaned grouping data and when fused. ALADIN also sets a new state of the art in coarse grain style discrimination, despite not being trained with explicit style labels. Future work could explore the potential of ALADIN as a unified embedding for both stylization and search.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
High-transition-temperature (high-$T_{\mathrm{c}}${}) superconductivity emerges in layered compounds such as copper oxides and iron pnictides. Copper oxides are characterized by a highly two-dimensional nature, which is definitely one of the key ingredients to give rise to high-$T_{\mathrm{c}}${} superconductivity. In this two dimensional system, the electronic properties can be discussed only within the CuO$_2$ plane, while the out-of-plane charge dynamics does not play an important role in the essential physics. By contrast, it is known that two dimensionality or \textit{ac} anisotropy in iron pnictides is much smaller than in copper oxides, and thus the iron pnictides should be considered as an anisotropic three-dimensional system. Therefore, to comprehensively understand the electronic state of iron pnictides, it is indispensable to investigate not only the in-plane but also the out-of-plane properties. Nevertheless, there have been reported not many studies on the charge dynamics in the out-of-plane direction, partly because of the lack of large or thick single crystals.
BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} family, the most extensively studied materials among iron pnictides, show a very small anisotropy. \cite{Tanatar2009,Tanatar2010} This is a multiband system, in which there are hole Fermi surfaces (FSs) at the center of the Brillouin zone and electron FSs at the zone corner. \cite{Yi2009,Yin2011} Since the hole FS is significantly warped around the Z point, the out-of-plane transport seems to be dominated by hole carriers. BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} exhibits a magnetostructural phase transition from a paramagnetic-tetragonal (PT) to an antiferromagnetic-orthorhombic (AFO) phase at $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}, and superconductivity is achieved by suppressing the AFO phase with chemical substitution (or doping) or applying pressure. \cite{Ishida2009,Stewart2011} The AFO order has been attracted much interest because of its exotic electronic state associated with breaking of the fourfold rotational symmetry of lattice, spin, and orbital. \cite{Fernandes2014} The study of the in-plane resistivity using annealed single crystals revealed that the dominant role of chemical substitution in the AFO phase is to introduce disorder into the system and that a clear correlation is present between the magnitude of the residual resistivity (RR) and the in-plane resistivity anisotropy. \cite{Ishida2013a}
Out-of-plane transport properties of the BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} family have been intensively studied by Tanatar \textit{et al.} \cite{Tanatar2009,Tanatar2010,Tanatar2011,Tanatar2013,Tanatar2014a,Tanatar2014b} They systematically measured the temperature dependence of the out-of-plane resistivity of as-grown BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} substituted by various elements over a wide range of substitution. A focus was on the evolution of the resistivity in the PT phase with substitution, especially on a resistivity maximum at $T^*$, which was discussed in terms of pseudogap opening. \cite{Tanatar2010} This scenario seems reasonable but cannot account for a different composition dependence of $T^*$: Co substitution decreases $T^*$, \cite{Tanatar2010} whereas Ru, P, and K substitution increase it. \cite{Tanatar2013,Tanatar2014a,Tanatar2014b} As regards the effect of chemical substitution in the AFO phase, there has been no detailed study so far. A tendency of an increase in resistivity was seen in the results reported by Tanatar \textit{et al.}, \cite{Tanatar2010,Tanatar2013,Tanatar2014a,Tanatar2014b} implying that, as in the PT phase, the disorder effect associated with impurity scattering is also dominant in the AFO phase. A quantitative comparison with the in-plane transport properties is, however, difficult owing to a lack of precise out-of-plane resistivity measurements using annealed samples.
In this paper, we investigate the out-of-plane resistivity of parent and slightly substituted BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}. To clarify the substitution effect also in the AFO phase, we chose the compositions showing the AFO order and used annealed single crystals for the measurement. We found that, in the PT phase of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, contributions for the out-of-plane transport from electrons and holes, which have an incoherent and a coherent character, respectively, are comparable. Chemical substitution changes the balance between electrons and holes, and a resistivity maximum shows up at the temperature of dominant carrier crossover. In the AFO phase, the major effect of substitution for the out-of-plane transport is to introduce disorder. Co atoms are strong scatterers with large \textit{ac} anisotropy. K substitution induces an upturn of the resistivity at low temperatures, which would arise from a weakly-localized nature along the $c$-axis direction.
\section{Experimental}
Single crystals of parent and substituted BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} were grown using the FeAs-flux method described elsewhere. \cite{Nakajima2010} For the growth of samples containing K, we used a stainless-steel container instead of a quartz tube to
avoid a chemical reaction with vaporized K. \cite{Kihou2010} We prepared slightly substituted samples with various elements which show the AFO order: Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$)$_2$As$_2$, Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Ru$_x$)$_2$As$_2$, BaFe$_2$(As$_{1-x}$P$_x$)$_2$, Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$, and Ba$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ (referred to as Co-Ba122, Ru-Ba122, P-Ba122, K-Ba122, and Sr-Ba122, respectively). Co and K substitutions work as electron and hole doping, respectively, and isovalent Ru, P, and Sr substitutions do not change the balance between electrons and holes. The substitution concentrations were determined by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis, and the $c$-axis lattice constant was in good agreement with the corresponding composition. The samples were annealed in an evacuated quartz tube together with BaAs at 800$^\circ$C for several days. \cite{Nakajima2011,Ishida2011}
The out-of-plane resistivity was obtained by the Montgomery method. \cite{Montgomery1971} The advantage of this method is that we can measure the out-of-plane and in-plane resistivity simultaneously. Samples were cut into rectangular solids with a dimension of (1.0--1.5) $\times$ (0.7--0.9) $\times$ (0.3--0.6) mm$^3$ ($a \times a \times c$ for high-temperature tetragonal axes) with care not to contain cracks or FeAs flux. Gold wires were attached to the four corners of the smaller \textit{ac} face with a silver paste (inset of Fig.\ 1). The length of 1.0--1.5 mm in depth is long enough to make almost no impact on the computed resistivity value. Measuring several times for each composition, we determined the absolute values of resistivity within the error of 10\%. At room temperature, the out-of-plane resistivity of the compositions investigated here ranges between 1.0 and 1.3 m$\Omega$\ cm. The out-of-plane Hall effect and magnetoresistance were measured on the sample of $0.5 \times 0.2 \times 1.0$ mm$^3$ ($a \times a \times c$) with the electrical current along the $c$ axis and the magnetic field perpendicular to the current. The resistivity value obtained in the magnetoresistance measurement using the four-probe method is consistent with that measured by the Montgomery method.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Transport properties of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{figure1.pdf}%
\caption{Temperature dependence of (a) out-of-plane and (b) in-plane resistivity of as-grown and annealed BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}. Inset shows a photograph of the sample for the Montgomery method. (c) \textit{ac} resistivity anisotropy $\rho_c${}/$\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} as a function of temperature.}
\end{figure}
Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the temperature dependences of out-of-plane and in-plane resistivity ($\rho_c(T)${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}) of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, respectively. In the high-temperature PT phase, $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} decreases with decreasing temperature, while $\rho_c(T)${} monotonically increases down to the AFO transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. The behavior of $\rho_c(T)${} is slightly different from the result reported by Tanatar \textit{et al.}, \cite{Tanatar2010,Tanatar2011,Tanatar2013,Tanatar2014a,Tanatar2014b} in which $\rho_c(T)${} of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} shows a peak at $\sim$200 K and a metallic temperature dependence below the temperature. This might arise from admixture of an in-plane component because they measured slab-like samples with the shortest edge along the $c$ axis. Below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}, both $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} and $\rho_c${} show a significant decrease. The annealing treatment increases $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} from 137 K to 142 K and significantly reduces the resistivity in the AFO phase, whereas the resistivity in the PT phase does not show an appreciable change. The RR is quite small ($\sim$10 $\upmu \Omega$\ cm) both for $\rho_c${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${}, indicating the high quality of the annealed sample.
The temperature dependence of the \textit{ac} anisotropy of resistivity $\rho_c${}/$\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} is shown in Fig.\ 1(c). The anisotropy is $\sim$4 at room temperature, increases with decreasing temperature, and takes a maximum value of $\sim$6 at $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. Below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}, the anisotropy turns to decrease and becomes less than 2 at low temperatures. Interestingly, no significant change in the anisotropy was observed between the as-grown and annealed samples. This indicates that the rates of the suppression of $\rho_c${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} by annealing are almost the same.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{figure2.pdf}%
\caption{(a) Magnetic-field dependence of the out-of-plane Hall resistivity $\rho_{\mathit{zx}}$ for annealed BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}. Inset shows the configuration of the Hall-effect measurement. The sample was cut into bars with the longest edge along the $c$ axis. Current flows along the $c$-axis direction. (b) Out-of-plane Hall coefficient $R_{\mathrm{H}}$ as a function of temperature. $R_{\mathrm{H}}$ is determined from the slope of $\rho_{\mathit{zx}}(B)$ in the low-field limit. $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} is indicated by the vertical line. (c) Magnetic-field dependence and (d) the field derivative of the out-of-plane magnetoresistance for annealed BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} at various temperatures below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. The gray lines indicate that the derivative of the magnetoresistance changes its slope at $\sim$1.5 T.}
\end{figure}
Figure 2(a) shows the magnetic-field dependence of the out-of-plane Hall resistivity $\rho_{\mathit{zx}}$ measured on annealed BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} up to 9 T. $\rho_{\mathit{zx}}$ exhibits a linear field dependence above $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}, whereas the curve becomes concave upon entering the AFO phase. This behavior arises from the multiband nature with carriers with very different characters and is also observed for in-plane Hall resistivity of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, \cite{Ishida2011} although the curvature is milder for the present out-of-plane case. In Fig.\ 2(b), the out-of-plane Hall coefficient derived from the data in Fig.\ 2(a) is plotted as a function of temperature. The Hall coefficient is negative at room temperature and increases with decreasing temperature, resulting in a sign change to positive below 200 K. Below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}, the Hall coefficient turns to be negative again. The temperature dependence below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} is monotonic but shows a shoulder structure at $\sim$100 K. At this temperature, a similar behavior is observed in the study of the in-plane Hall effect. \cite{Albenque2009} The present result indicates that the band-structure modification occurs three dimensionally in BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}.
In Figs.\ 2(c) and 2(d), we show the magnetic-field dependence of out-of-plane magnetoresistance and its derivative with respect to magnetic field for annealed BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, respectively. The magnetoresistance is greatly enhanced with decreasing temperature in the AFO phase, whereas that is tiny in the PT phase (not shown). The magnitude reaches $\sim$90\% at $T$ = 5 K and $B$ = 9 T, indicative of quite high mobility of carriers, although the value is smaller than the in-plane magnetoresistance. \cite{Ishida2011} A kink structure observed in the derivative at $\sim$1.5 T [Fig.\ 2(d)] evidences the presence of $B$-linear component. This structure has been already reported in the in-plane magnetoresistance and is discussed in terms of a quantum transport of Dirac-cone states. \cite{Ishida2011,Huynh2011} Our result indicates that a Dirac nature is also present for the out-of-plane transport in BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, suggesting a three-dimensional Dirac system.
\subsection{Evolution with chemical substitution}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=170mm]{figure3.pdf}%
\caption{Temperature dependence of resistivity for as-grown and annealed Co-, Ru-, P-, K-, and Sr-Ba122. (a--e) Out-of-plane resistivity $\rho_c(T)${}, (f--j) in-plane resistivity $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}, and (k--o) \textit{ac} anisotropy of resistivity $\rho_c${}/$\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${}. Results for as-grown samples are indicated by open symbols.}
\end{figure*}
Figure 3 summarizes the results of the resistivity measurement for as-grown and annealed Co-, Ru-, P-, K-, and Sr-Ba122. The annealing effect for the substituted samples is the same as the case for the parent compound BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}. The annealing treatment increases $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} by several kelvins. The resistivity in the PT phase is hardly affected by annealing, whereas that in the AFO phase dramatically decreases. The resistivity anisotropy does not change by annealing for the whole temperature range. Hereafter, we mainly focus on the results for the annealed samples.
In the PT phase, the in-plane resistivity does not show a large change with substitution within the composition range in the present work [Figs.\ 3(f--j)]. Only a small decrease in $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} is observed for Co- and P-Ba122. On the contrary, a pronounced change is seen in the out-of-plane resistivity. For Ru-, P-, and K-Ba122 [Figs.\ 3(b--d)], chemical substitution decreases $\rho_c${} and significantly increases the slope of $\rho_c(T)${} [d$\rho_c(T)${}/d$T$], giving rise to a local maximum at $T^*$. $\rho_c(T)${} of Co-Ba122 shows a downward parallel shift [Fig.\ 3(a)]. A local maximum shows up due to a suppression of the AFO order with substitution rather than a change in the slope of $\rho_c(T)${}. For Sr substitution, only a subtle change was observed for the compositions investigated here [Fig.\ 3(e)].
The substitution effect in the AFO phase is rich in diversity depending on the species of substituted elements. For $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}, it has turned out that the predominant effect of substitution is to introduce disorder, leading to an increase in the RR component. \cite{Ishida2013a,Ishida2013b,Liu2015} A large increase is indeed observed for Co substitution [Fig.\ 3(f)], in agreement with the previous study. \cite{Ishida2013b} On the other hand, the effect is small for isovalent substitutions: Sr substitution shows no discernible change [Fig.\ 3(j)], and a small resistivity increase is seen for Ru and P substitution [Figs.\ 3(g) and 3(h)]. $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} for K-Ba122 shows a nonmonotonic evolution with $x$ [Fig.\ 3(i)]. The residual resistivity initially increases with K substitution but turns to decrease with further substitution after taking a maximum at $x$ = 0.04.
The composition dependence of $\rho_c(T)${} below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} is similar to that of $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} except for K substitution. As in the case for $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}, a large increase in $\rho_c(T)${} is observed for Co substitution [Fig.\ 3(a)]. Ru and P substitution slightly increase the resistivity, while Sr substitution gives no appreciable change. On the contrary, $\rho_c(T)${} for K-Ba122 shows not only a significant increase but also a peculiar temperature dependence at low temperatures. A clear non-metallic behavior was observed below 40, 35, and 20 K for $x$ = 0.04, 0.06, and 0.08, respectively. This feature is more prominent for as-grown samples.
The temperature dependence of the resistivity anisotropy in the PT phase is similar to $\rho_c(T)${} because of a less temperature dependence in $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}. The anisotropy at 300 K ($\rho_c${}/$\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} $\sim$4) is nearly independent of compositions. The anisotropy above $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} barely changes with Co substitution, whereas the other four substitutions decrease it. In the AFO phase, the anisotropy increases with substitution, although Sr substitution gives rise to an indiscernible change. For K-Ba122, the anisotropy at low temperatures is extremely large due to the non-metallicity in $\rho_c(T)${}. The most enhanced anisotropy was observed for $x$ = 0.06 ($\rho_c${}/$\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} $\sim$16 at $T$ = 5 K).
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Electronic state in BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}}
The temperature dependence of $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} for BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} exhibits a metallic behavior in the PT phase. Since BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} is a multiband system, contributions from hole and electron carriers have to be considered. For the in-plane conduction, it turned out that holes are strongly scattered incoherent carriers and the dominant contribution comes from coherent electrons. \cite{Albenque2009,Nakajima2014} The small number of electrons gives rise to the relatively high resistivity at room temperature ($\sim$0.3 m$\Omega$\ cm) and a moderate temperature dependence, or a bad-metallic behavior.
On the other hand, $\rho_c(T)${} above $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} increases with decreasing temperature. The FS of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} is composed of warped cylinders, among which the hole FS around the Z point are most warped, and thus the dominant carrier along the $c$ axis is considered to be holes. \cite{Tanatar2009} An issue to be addressed is why $\rho_c(T)${} exhibits a non-metallic behavior in BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} in spite of rather three-dimensional FS and small anisotropy. Tanatar \textit{et al.}\ pointed out that the presence of the resistivity minimum observed for heavily Co-doped samples, as well as low anisotropy values, rules out a crossover between incoherent and coherent transport. \cite{Tanatar2010} Together with the fact that the temperature dependence of the $^{75}$As NMR Knight shift for Co-Ba122 shows a mild slope change around $T^*$ and becomes weaker below $T^*$, \cite{Ning2009} they claimed that the carriers (presumably holes) are affected by a charge-gap formation, leading to the non-metallic temperature dependence. \cite{Tanatar2010}
The present result of the Hall coefficient in Fig.\ 2(b) offers an alternative interpretation for the out-of-plane transport. In the PT phase, the contributions of electrons and holes are nearly balanced, and the prevailing carrier changes from electrons at high temperatures to holes below 200 K. The slope of $\rho_c(T)${} becomes gentler with lowering temperature, and $\rho_c${} is almost temperature independent near $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${} [Fig.\ 1(a)]. This indicates that, contrary to the case for the in-plane transport, electron carriers are incoherent and would be affected by a charge-gap opening, while hole carriers dominant at low temperatures are coherent. The origin of the $c$-axis charge gap has to be clarified, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. The presence of the incoherent carriers governing the high-temperature out-of-plane transport is consistent with the result of the $c$-axis optical spectroscopy on BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}. \cite{Chen2010} In the $c$-axis optical conductivity spectrum, no clear Drude response was observed at room temperature, and a small Drude term becomes appreciable with decreasing temperature. The Drude term would arise from the warped part of the hole sheet. It should be noted that our scenario is in line with the NMR result. \cite{Ning2009} The slope change in the temperature-dependent Knight shift for BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} is present at $\sim$200 K. At this temperature, the Hall coefficient changes its sign [Fig.\ 2(b)], and, unlike the result by Tanatar \textit{et al.}, \cite{Tanatar2010} $\rho_c(T)${} for BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} does not show a maximum. The contribution from incoherent electrons becomes minor below 200 K, which would lead to the milder but finite temperature dependence of the Knight shift.
Upon entering the AFO phase, both $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} and $\rho_c${} suddenly decrease. Although the FS reconstruction across the AFO transition leads to the loss of the carrier density, a decrease in the scattering rate surpasses this effect, giving rise to the reduction of the resistivity below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. \cite{Albenque2009} The negative values of the Hall coefficient indicate that electrons dominate the $c$-axis conduction in the AFO phase as in the in-plane case. We observed the dramatic decrease in the anisotropy below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. This three-dimensional nature coincides with the reconstruction of the FS. \cite{Yin2011} The anisotropy decreases with decreasing temperature and takes a minimum value of $\sim$1.7 in the residual-resistivity region, in good agreement with the value estimated using the plasma frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{p}}${} and the scattering rate $1/\tau$ obtained by optical spectroscopy. \cite{Chen2010,Optical}
\subsection{Substitution effect in the PT phase}
In the PT phase, the substitution effect is stronger in $\rho_c(T)${} than in $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}. For the compositions studied in the present work, $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} shows only a tiny change with substitution above $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. On the other hand, $\rho_c(T)${} exhibits a dramatic evolution by a few percent chemical substitution. In particular, composition dependence is prominent for Ru-, P-, and K-Ba122, in which the low-temperature resistivity significantly decreases, giving rise to a resistivity maximum at $T^*$. With increasing substitution content, $T^*$ is raised. No correlated feature was observed in $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} around $T^*$ (Fig.\ 3). For Co and Sr substitution, the temperature dependence hardly changes, but a resistivity maximum appears in the Co-Ba122 associated with a suppression of $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. As mentioned above, incoherent electron carriers dominate the out-of-plane conduction at high temperatures, and a crossover of dominant carriers from incoherent electrons to coherent holes results in the weakening of the non-metallicity. Hence, it is natural to consider that a further increase in the hole contribution leads to a metallic behavior in $\rho_c(T)${} and thus a resistivity maximum.
Chemical substitution affects the electronic state in various ways. First, it changes the FS by injecting charge carriers or by varying the (local) crystal structure via chemical pressure. Second, substituted atoms introduce disorders into the system, leading to carrier scattering. Among these effects, the disorder effect is minor in the PT phase as evidenced by a decrease in resistivity by substitution, \cite{Nakajima2014} although this effect is dominant in the AFO phase, \cite{Ishida2013a} as will be discussed later. For isovalently substituted Ru-, P-, and Sr-Ba122, the dominant effect of substitution should be chemical pressure. In addition to chemical pressure, a change in the carrier number has to be considered for Co- and K-Ba122, corresponding to electron and hole doping, respectively.
For Ru- and P-Ba122, a small amount of substitution significantly increases $T^*$. This can be understood in terms of the change in the FS induced by chemical pressure. Since the warping of one of the hole sheets around the Z point is enhanced by Ru and P substitution, \cite{Ye2012,Xu2012} the hole contribution to the out-of-plane transport becomes stronger, and the metallic temperature dependence manifests itself at higher temperatures. However, it seems difficult to explain why Sr substitution barely changes $\rho_c(T)${}. To address this issue, we have to see the change in the crystal structure with substitution. It is well known that the band structure of iron pnictides is very sensitive to the local crystal structure, the As-Fe-As bond angle $\alpha$ \cite{Lee2008} or the pnictogen height from the Fe plane $h_{\mathrm{Pn}}$. \cite{Mizuguchi2010} Both Ru and P substitution make $\alpha$ and $h_{\mathrm{Pn}}$ larger and lower, respectively, \cite{Rotter2010,Sharma2015} but $\sim$5\% Sr substitution leads to only a tiny change in $\alpha$ and $h_{\mathrm{Pn}}$. \cite{Kirshenbaum2012} Indeed, the band structure of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} does not change largely by Sr substitution, whereas P substitution gives an appreciable change. \cite{Rotter2010} Thus, the Sr concentration in the present study is too small to change the local crystal structure inducing a significant change in the band structure. Note that SrFe$_2$As$_2$ exhibits metallic $\rho_c(T)${} in the PT phase and shows a smaller anisotropy than BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${}, \cite{Tanatar2009} consistent with the highly warped FS of SrFe$_2$As$_2$. \cite{Ma2010}
Next, as to Co- and K-Ba122, $T^*$ varies in opposite ways: $T^*$ decreases with Co substitution and increases with K substitution. Co (K) substitution makes $\alpha$ and $h_{\mathrm{Pn}}$ larger (smaller) and lower (higher), respectively, \cite{Drotziger2010,Rotter2009} which means that the variation of $T^*$ cannot be explained by the chemical-pressure effect. Therefore, carrier doping should be considered as a major effect. K substitution corresponding to hole doping increases the number of coherent hole carriers, which facilitates a metallic behavior of $\rho_c(T)${} starting from higher temperatures. Meanwhile, Co substitution decreases the hole carrier number and hence lowers $T^*$. In Ref.~\onlinecite{Tanatar2010}, for heavily Co-substituted compounds, a metallic behavior was observed at high temperatures. Electrons with a rather incoherent character would gain coherence by a large amount of electron doping.
Summing up, all these results of chemical-substitution effects on $T^*$ turn out to be a strong support for our proposed model for the out-of-plane conduction in the previous subsection.
\subsection{Substitution effect in the AFO phase}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{figure4.pdf}%
\caption{Composition dependence of (a) out-of-plane and (b) in-plane RR for annealed Co-, Ru-, P-, and Sr-Ba122. The data of RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} reported in Refs.\ \onlinecite{Ishida2013a} and \onlinecite{Liu2015} are also plotted. The RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} linearly increase with $x$ as indicated by the dashed lines. (c) Composition dependence of RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} for K-Ba122. In contrast to the other substitutions, the evolution with substitution is non-monotonic. Dashed lines just connect with the values for $x$ = 0 and 0.04.}
\end{figure}
Contrary to the evolution of the resistivity in the PT phase, chemical substitution increases $\rho_c${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}${} below $T_{\mathrm{\mathrm{AFO}}}${}. Except for K and Sr substitution, both $\rho_c(T)${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} shows almost a parallel upward shift, i.e., an increase in the residual-resistivity component. This indicates that the disorder effect dominates in the AFO phase. Such a prominent disorder effect stems from a small number of carriers enjoying exceedingly small scattering.
\begin{table}
\caption{Increasing rate of out-of-plane and in-plane residual resistivity for the five substitution systems, corresponding to the slopes of the dashed lines shown in Fig.\ 4. The anisotropy of the rate is also shown. For K substitution, the RR does not show a monotonic composition dependence, and the values are calculated using RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} for $x$ = 0 and 0.04. No appreciable increase in RR was observed for Sr-Ba122.\vspace{1mm}}
\begin{tabular}{p{31mm}p{9mm}p{9mm}p{9mm}p{9mm}p{9mm}}
\hline \hline
Element & \hfil Co \hfil & \hfil Ru \hfil & \hfil P \hfil & \hfil K \hfil & \hfil Sr \hfil \rule[0mm]{0mm}{4mm} \\ \hline
RR$_{\mathit{c}}${}/$x$ ($\upmu \Omega$ cm/\%) & \hfil 162 \hfil & \hfil 7.8 \hfil & \hfil 8.4 \hfil & \hfil 94$^{\mathrm{a}}$ \hfil & \hfil $<1$ \hfil \rule[0mm]{0mm}{4mm} \\
RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${}/$x$ ($\upmu \Omega$ cm/\%) & \hfil 45 \hfil & \hfil 3.4 \hfil & \hfil 3.5 \hfil & \hfil 8.9$^{\mathrm{a}}$ \hfil & \hfil $<1$ \hfil \rule[0mm]{0mm}{4mm} \\
Anisotropy & \hfil 3.6 \hfil & \hfil 2.3 \hfil & \hfil 2.4 \hfil & \hfil 11 \hfil & \hfil --- \hfil \rule[0mm]{0mm}{4mm} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{6}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$The RR does not linearly increase with $x$. \rule[0mm]{0mm}{4mm}}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To analyze the disorder effect in detail, we plot the RR of annealed samples as a function of substitution concentration $x$ in Fig.\ 4. The values were obtained from fitting of $\rho_c(T)${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} below 50 K using a quadratic function of temperature. In Fig.\ 4(b), the in-plane RR (RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${}) for Co-, Ru-, and P-Ba122 reported in the previous studies are also plotted, \cite{Ishida2013a,Liu2015} in good agreement with the present result. It has already been clarified that RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} linearly increases with substitution. \cite{Ishida2013a,Liu2015} In Fig.\ 4(a), a linear composition dependence is clearly seen for the out-of-plane RR (RR$_{\mathit{c}}${}), evidencing again that the primary effect of chemical substitution in the AFO phase of BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} is to introduce disorder into the system. In Table I, we show an increasing rate of RR for each chemical substitution. This value indicates the slope of the dashed lines in Fig.\ 4 and can be a good measure to see the strength of the disorder effect quantitatively. Among the five kinds of substitutions studied here, Co substitution shows the largest values both for RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${}, indicating that introduced Co atoms work as very strong scattering centers. The strengths of impurity scattering for Ru and P are comparable and weak. The scattering generated by Sr atoms is extremely weak, keeping the RR unchanged within our experimental precision.
The increasing rate of RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} with substitution is larger than that of RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${}. In Table I, the anisotropy of the slope is also shown. Neglecting the carrier multiplicity in iron pnictides, the resistivity is simply expressed as the Drude formula: $\rho = m^* / n e^2 \tau$, where $m^*$ and $n$ stand for the effective mass and the carrier number, respectively. In the system with impurity scattering, $1/\tau$ is written by a sum of the scattering rate of a pristine material $1/\tau_0$ and that originating from impurity $1/\tau_{\mathrm{imp}}$,
\begin{equation*}
\rho = \frac{m^*}{n e^2} (\frac{1}{\tau_0} + \frac{1}{\tau_{\mathrm{imp}}}) \propto \frac{1}{\omega_{\mathrm{p}}^2} (\frac{1}{\tau_0} + \frac{1}{\tau_{\mathrm{imp}}}).
\end{equation*}
Thus, when the impurity scattering is isotropic, the anisotropy of the disorder effect is determined by the anisotropy of $\omega_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}${} ($\propto n/m^*$) or the effective mass $m^*$. From the optical study, \cite{Chen2010} the anisotropy of $\omega_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}${} can be estimated to be $\sim$1.7. Although the value is slightly smaller than the anisotropy for Ru and P substitution, the anisotropy of the effective mass is considered to be a major cause to produce the anisotropic scattering for isovalent substitution.
The anisotropic effective mass alone, however, cannot explain the large anisotropy for Co substitution. Therefore, another mechanism has to be considered. One candidate is an anisotropic impurity state induced by a substituted Co atom in the AFO phase. In this scenario, Co atoms polarize its electronic surroundings anisotropically, giving rise to an anisotropic scattering cross section. The scanning tunneling spectroscopy measurement observed such an anisotropic state, \cite{Allan2013} and this has been discussed as one of the possibilities to produce the in-plane resistivity anisotropy. \cite{Nakajima2012,Ishida2013b} A similar anisotropic scattering may exist in the in-plane and $c$-axis direction. Another candidate is orbital-selective carrier scattering. The FS of iron pnictides is composed of all the five Fe 3d orbitals, and carriers with the 3d$_{z^2}$ character should play a crucial role in the out-of-plane transport. If a Co atom scatters carriers with the 3d$_{z^2}$ character more strongly, such orbital-selective scattering results in a larger increasing rate of RR$_{\mathit{c}}${}.
Different from the other four substitutions, K substitution gives the non-systematic evolution of the resistivity in the AFO phase. As shown in Fig.\ 4(c), RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} rapidly increases from the parent compound, takes a maximum at $x$ = 0.06, and shows a decrease with further substitution. On the other hand, RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} reaches a maximum at $x$ = 0.04 and then moderately decreases. There is no correlation between the composition dependences of RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${}. Moreover, the non-metallic temperature dependence was observed for $\rho_c${} [Fig.\ 3(d)]. Some mechanism must be at work in addition to a simple disorder effect, as will be discussed in the next subsection.
Using the RR value at $x$ = 0.04, we estimated the increasing rates of RR$_{\mathit{c}}${} and RR$_{\mathit{ab}}${} to be 94 and 8.9 $\upmu \Omega$~cm/\%, respectively. Although a simple comparison is impossible due to the distinct temperature dependence of resistivity, these values are smaller than those obtained for Co substitution. Interestingly, the estimated anisotropy ($\sim$11) is tremendously large, compared with the other substitutions. This can be understood in terms of the substitution lattice site. K atoms are substituted for Ba, which locates far away from the conduction Fe layer. Introduction of impurity into the blocking layer barely affects the in-plane conduction, but for the out-of-plane conduction, a change in the environment of the blocking layer should be highly influential for carriers moving along the $c$-axis direction.
Such a highly anisotropic behavior is not observed for Sr substitution. This would be because isovalent substitution of Sr$^{2+}$ for Ba$^{2+}$ can generate only tiny scattering, whereas aliovalent substitution of K$^{+}$ has a huge impact on the motion of carriers. In this sense, the strong scattering for Co doping might arise from the difference of the valence of Co from +2 as suggested by the near-edge x-ray absorption fine structure measurement. \cite{Merz2016} It is also worth noting that, among the three isovalent substitutions, the in-plane scattering induced by P atoms is not intermediate in magnitude between those by Ru and Sr but comparable with that for Ru substitution. \cite{Liu2015} This is counterintuitive because Ru substitution, which introduces disorder in the conduction layer, is expected to cause the strongest scattering. The strengths of the out-of-plane scattering for P and Ru substitution are also comparable. The present result indicates that As plays a crucial role in the electrical conduction both parallel and perpendicular to the Fe layers, consistent with the x-ray absorption measurements. \cite{Merz2016,Baledent2015}
\subsection{Origin of a resistivity upturn in K-Ba122}
The evolution of resistivity in the AFO phase with K substitution is distinct from that for the other substitutions. In particular, the resistivity upturn at low temperatures cannot be explained by the normal disorder effect which only increases the RR component. This feature is observed for the widest temperature range in $\rho_c(T)${} for $x$ = 0.04, and a similar behavior, albeit very weak, is also observed for $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} in the same composition. For $x$ = 0.06 and 0.08, the upturn is observed only for $\rho_c(T)${}. Hence, such a behavior shows up in a narrower doping range for $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${}. This is why this characteristic feature has not been pointed out, although a signature was discernible with a careful inspection of previously reported data. \cite{Shen2011,Ohgushi2012}
One of the possible origins of the resistivity upturn is the Kondo effect. The scattering of conduction electrons in metals due to dilute magnetic impurities gives rise to a logarithmic temperature dependence of resistivity and thus a resistivity minimum at a finite temperature. This effect should work isotropically, but the resistivity minimum temperature is different in $\rho_c(T)${} and $\rho_{\mathit{ab}}(T)${} of K-Ba122. A non-metallic behavior shows up only in $\rho_c(T)${} for $x$ = 0.06 and 0.08. Moreover, a K atom cannot be considered as a magnetic impurity. These facts rule out the Kondo effect as the origin of the resistivity upturn.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{figure5.pdf}%
\caption{(a) Temperature dependence of $c$-axis conductivity for as-grown K-Ba122 with $x$ = 0.04 and 0.06. The conductivity shows a $T$-linear behavior at low temperatures as indicated by the solid lines. (b) Magnetic-field dependence of the out-of-plane magnetoresistance for $x$ = 0.04.}
\end{figure}
A more plausible scenario is a weakly localized nature in a disordered system. In such a system, it is known that the conductivity shows a $\ln T$ and $T^{p/2}$ dependence for two and three dimensions, respectively, where $p$ is an exponent in the temperature dependence of the scattering rate $1/\tau \propto T^{p}$. \cite{Lee1985} Recently, resistivity measurements on iron-based ladder compounds Ba$_{1-x}$Cs$_x$Fe$_2$Se$_3$ under high pressure revealed that, the metallic samples show an insulating behavior at low temperatures. \cite{Hawai2017} The resistivity exhibits the $\ln T$ behavior, indicative of a weakly localized two-dimensional nature. In this compound, Ba atoms locating apart from the conducting layers are replaced with an alkali-metal element. This seems to be reminiscent of K-Ba122 in the present study. A pronounced upturn is observed in the as-grown crystals, and we show the temperature dependence of conductivity for $x$ = 0.04 and 0.06 in Fig.\ 5(a). For each composition, the conductivity exhibits a $T$-linear behavior at low temperatures. Applying to the three-dimensional case, we obtain $p \sim 2$, which implies that the inelastic scattering comes from the electron-electron interaction. The system is rather three dimensional, and only the carriers moving along the $c$-axis direction feel the random potential in the blocking layer induced by K substitution. The resistivity upturn vanishes for $x$ = 0.13 probably because the localization effect is suppressed by the change in the impurity potential and/or the carrier number.
One of the effective ways to verify the weak-localization effect is an observation of negative magnetoresistance. Figure 5(b) demonstrates magnetoresistance of as-grown K-Ba122 for $x$ = 0.04. Against expectations, we observed no signature of negative magnetoresistance. In disordered three-dimensional systems, the magnetic-field dependence of conductivity is proportional to $\sqrt{B}$, and its proportionality coefficient is independent of the details of the electronic structure of the system, \cite{Kawabata1980} allowing us to estimate the magnitude of negative magnetoresistance to be $\sim$0.6\% at 5 K and 7 T. Probably, the effect of weak localization is not strong enough to overcome rather large positive magnetoresistance resulting from the multiband nature.
\section{Summary}
We performed the out-of-plane transport measurements on parent and slightly substituted BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} with the five kinds of elements. In the PT phase of the parent compound, we revealed almost balanced contributions of electrons and holes to conduction along the $c$ axis. Contrary to the in-plane transport, the electrons moving along the $c$ axis are incoherent. With lowering temperature, the contribution from coherent holes grows and exceeds that from electrons at low temperatures. Chemical substitution changes the balance between holes and electrons via the local-structure change and/or the carrier-doping effect, and a crossover of the dominant carrier with temperature manifests itself as a maximum in $\rho_c(T)${}. In the AFO phase, an introduced atom works predominantly as a scattering center. Each substituted atom generates a different strength of carrier scattering, resulting in a different rate of increasing resistivity with substitution. Co atoms substituted at the center of conduction plane are very strong scatterers with a large \textit{ac} anisotropy. Isovalent substitutions of Ru and P give rise to a moderate increase in the resistivity, and Sr substitution makes no effect. The resistivity upturn was observed prominently in $\rho_c(T)${} of K-Ba122, which makes the resistivity for K-Ba122 highly anisotropic. The upturn is likely attributed to a weakly localized nature along the $c$ axis. Our result highlights the diversity of the substitution effect on BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}${} depending on the lattice site and the element species.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank S.~Miyasaka for valuable discussions and M.~Ichimiya and T.~Nakano for their technical help. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP26800187.
|
\section{Introduction}
B[e] supergiant s (B[e]SG s) are a class of rare stars which are not predicted by any stellar evolution models. They are characterized by hybrid spectra of hot stars with infrared excess, strong emission in Hydrogen Balmer and Helium lines, strong permitted and forbidden emission lines from a number of elements, wide absorption lines in the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, and significant infrared excesses. These features point towards a complex circumstellar environment \citep{Zickgraf1985, Zickgraf1986, Kraus2019ASupergiants}. Currently there are only $\sim$33 confirmed B[e]SG s discovered, and $\sim$25 further candidates \citep{Kraus2014DISCOVERY31, Levato2014NewCloud, Kraus2009, Krauscorrected, Kraus2019ASupergiants}. Their formation channels and the origin of the B[e] phenomenon are unclear, with some studies ascribing the phenomena to binarity \citep{Podsiadlowski2006corrected, Miroshnichenko2007, Wang2012AMBER/VLTI300} and others to non-radial pulsations \citep{Kraus2016a}. The opaque circumstellar envelopes of B[e]SG s generally preclude direct observation of photospheric absorption lines and therefore the determination of the stars' surface conditions (e.g. \citealt{Kraus2009}). The circumstellar envelopes must be formed by enhanced mass-loss or ejection, although the exact mechanism remains unknown. B[e]SG s are expected to be rapid rotators \citep{Zickgraf1986}; however direct observations of the rotation speeds of B[e]SG s are inconclusive \citep{Kraus2016}. \\
GG Carinae (GG Car, also known as HD 94878 and CPD-59 2855) is an enigmatic Galactic B[e]SG\ binary which has been studied for over a century due to its peculiar spectroscopic and photometric properties \citep{Pickering1896HarvardSpectra., Kruytbosch1930Variability2855, Greenstein1938FourCarinae}. \cite{Lamers1998} classified GG Car as a B[e]SG\ building on the work of \cite{Mcgregor1988ATOMICSTARS} and \cite{LOPES1992AStars}, noting their observation of the B[e] phenomenon in the object; its high luminosity; indications of mass-loss through P Cygni line profiles; and its hosting of a hybrid spectrum of narrow emission lines and broad absorption features. \cite{Porter2021GGPhotometry}, hereafter Paper A, using the measured parallax of GG Car in Data Release 2 from the \textit{Gaia} mission \citep{Prusti2016TheMission, Brown2018Gaia2}, refined the luminosity of the primary and used this to constrain the primary mass and radius. Table \ref{tab:ggcar_parameters} lists the primary's stellar parameters. Studies of the CO in GG Car's circumbinary disk suggest that the primary has evolved off the main sequence, but is in an early pre-red supergiant phase of its post-main sequence lifetime \citep{Kraus2009, Kraus2013, Oksala2013ProbingTransition}. However, this determination depends on the assumed rotation velocity of the primary, which is unknown.\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l}
\hline \hline
\\
$d$ & $3.4^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$\,kpc\\
$M_{\rm pr}$ & $24\pm4\,M_\odot$ \\
$T_{\rm eff}$ & $23\,000 \pm 2000$\,K \\
$L_{\rm pr}$ & $1.8^{+1.0}_{-0.7}\times10^5\,L_\odot$ \\
$R_{\rm pr}$ & $27^{+9}_{-7}\,R_\odot$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Gaia} DR2 distance, $d$, and stellar parameters of the primary in GG Car, where $M_{\rm pr}$ is the mass of the primary, $T_{\rm eff}$ is the effective temperature of the primary, $L_{\rm pr}$ is the luminosity of the primary, and $R_{\rm pr}$ is the radius of the primary. All values taken from Paper A \protect\citep{Porter2021GGPhotometry} except $T_{\rm eff}$, which is taken from \protect\cite{Marchiano2012}.}
\label{tab:ggcar_parameters}
\end{table}
Paper A investigates the variability of GG Car over its orbital period in photometry and Global Jet Watch (GJW) spectroscopy. We found that the photometric variations are continuous over the orbital period with one maximum and one minimum, and also that the He\,I, Fe\,II and Si\,II emission lines in GG Car's visible spectrum originate in the wind of the B[e]SG\ primary. We then determined an accurate orbital solution of the binary in GG Car, and found the orbit is significantly eccentric ($e=0.50$). Paper A shows that the system is brightest in the $V$-band at periastron, and that the photometric variations of the system at the orbital period may be described by enhanced mass transfer at periastron, with the secondary accreting the wind of the primary. The full orbital solution is given in Table \ref{tab:ggcar_porter_orbital_parameters}. Orbital phases in this study are calculated
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:orbital_phase}
\text{Orbital phase} = \frac{T - T_{\rm peri}}{P},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T$ is time in JD, $T_{\rm peri}$ is time of periastron passage, and $P$ is orbital period.\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l}
\hline \hline
\\
$P$ & $31.01^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$\, days \\
$K$ & $48.57^{+2.04}_{-1.87}$\,$\rm km\,s^{-1}$\\
$\omega$ &$339.87^{+3.10}_{-3.06}$\,$^\circ$\\
$e$ & $0.50^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ \\
$T_{\rm peri}$ & JD\,$2452069.36\pm1.30$ \\ \\
$M_{\rm sec}$ & $7.2^{+3.0}_{-1.3}\,M_\odot$ \\
$a$ & $0.61\pm0.03$\,AU\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Orbital parameters of the B[e]SG\ primary in GG Car found by Paper A \citep{Porter2021GGPhotometry}. $P$ is the orbital period, $K$ is the amplitude of the radial velocity, $\omega$ is the argument of periastron, $e$ the orbital eccentricity, $T_{\rm peri}$ is the time of periastron. $M_{\rm sec}$ is the inferred mass of the secondary, and $a$ is the resulting orbital separation. }
\label{tab:ggcar_porter_orbital_parameters}
\end{table}
Early time-series photometry studies noticed that GG Car displays significant intra-night variability, separate from its variability over its $\sim$31 day orbital period \citep{Kruytbosch1930Variability2855, Greenstein1938FourCarinae}. \cite{Gosset1984}, through Fourier analysis, found an indication of a periodicity at $\sim$1.6\,days in the system's photometry. This led them to state that one of the GG Car components is a variable, but no further analysis was undertaken and this periodicity has been neglected since that publication. \cite{Krtickova2018AnEnvelopes} were unable to determine a clear UV lightcurve of GG Car over the orbital period, presumably due to variability in the system; they conclude that the binary component that is brightest in the UV is the variable, but do not find a period. \\
In this study, we investigate this short-period variability of GG Car in detail, in both photometry and spectroscopy. The structure of this paper is as follows: Section \ref{sec:observations} introduces the $V$-band and TESS photometry, and the Global Jet Watch spectroscopy of GG Car; Section \ref{sec:variability} studies the variability of the system's photometry and emission lines' radial velocities; Section \ref{sec:orbital_phase_dependence_of_short_variability} investigates the relationship between the amplitude of the short-period variability in the system and the orbital phase of the binary; Section \ref{sec:discussion} presents our discussions; and Section \ref{sec:conclusions} presents our conclusions.
\section{Observations}
\label{sec:observations}
\subsection{$V$-band photometric observations}
\label{sec:v_band_observations}
$V$-band photometric data of GG Car are available from the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS, \citealt{Pojmanski2002TheHemisphere, Pojmanski2004TheSurvey}), the Optical Monitoring Camera (OMC) aboard the INTEGRAL satellite \citep{Mas-Hesse2003OMC:INTEGRAL}, and the All Sky Automated Survey for Supernovae (ASAS-SN, \citealt{Shappee2014THE2617, Kochanek2017TheV1.0}). Each of these surveys uses standard Johnson V-filters, centred at 550\,nm and with a full width half maximum of 88\,nm. Further details of the $V$-band observations used in this study for each survey are given in Paper A.\\
\subsection{TESS photometry}
The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS, \citealt{Ricker2014TransitingSatellite}) is a mission geared towards discovering new exoplanet candidates; however, its high-cadence and high-precision photometry of the majority of the sky means that it has proved a valuable resource for stellar astrophysics. The satellite is in a highly-elliptical 13.7-day orbit around Earth, and observes the sky in 26 partially overlapping ``Sectors'', each Sector being observed for roughly one month. The passband filter has an effective wavelength of 7\,500\,\AA\ and a width of 4\,000\,\AA; this wide bandpass is roughly centred on the Johnson $I_c$ band, but also encompasses the $R_c$ and $z$ bands. The filter therefore transmits to longer wavelengths than the $V$-band surveys described in Section \ref{sec:v_band_observations}. TESS is able to create exquisite light curves for objects whose Johnson V-magnitude lies between 3--12\,mags. \\
400\,000 pre-selected sources have had reduced photometric data at two minute cadence released, of which GG Car is unfortunately not a member. However, unreduced full-frame image (FFI) data with a sampling rate of 30 minutes are available for any source which lies within one of TESS's sectors. GG Car is located in TESS Sectors 10 and 11 which were observed from 2019-03-26 to 2019-05-21, covering almost two full orbital cycles of the binary, and its mean $V$-band magnitude of $\sim$8.6\,mag places it ideally within the observing limits of TESS. We reduced the TESS FFI data using the \texttt{eleanor} framework \citep{Feinstein2019Eleanor:Images}. \\
The pixel scale of TESS is 21 arcseconds per pixel, with a point-spread-function of a similar scale. This presents a problem for GG Car since it is only separated by 49\,arcseconds from its nearest neighbour, V413 Car. \texttt{eleanor} is able to minimise the impact that this may have by choosing optimal apertures and PSF modelling. We reduce the FFI data to 15$\times$15 pixel ``postage stamps'', and model the PSFs of both GG Car and V413 Car as Moffat profiles. We block the brightest 20\% of pixels away from the target, which effectively masks background stars, aiding the background subtraction. The data are converted to TESS magnitudes, using the mean magnitude of 7.696 taken from the TESS Input Catalogue. The uncertainties of the individual data points of the TESS data are very low, of the order $10^{-4}$\,mag.\\
To ensure that the features seen in the TESS light curve of GG Car are real and not instrumental artefacts, we extracted the data for three similarly bright stars which were observed nearby on the same CCD as GG Car (V413 Car, AG Car, and HD\,94961) using similar methods. The light curves of these other stars do not display the same features as those observed in GG Car.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{photometry/ggcar_tess.pdf}
\caption{TESS lightcurve of GG Car.}
\label{fig:ggcar_tess}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Global Jet Watch spectroscopy}
The Global Jet Watch (GJW) has been collecting mid-resolution (R$\sim$4\,000) optical spectroscopic data on a variety of objects, including GG Car which it has been observing since early 2015. GJW is an array of five telescopes separated in longitude which take optical spectra from $\sim$\,5\,800\,-\,8\,400\,\AA. Our observations of GG Car have exposure times of either 1000 or 3000 seconds. This is due to the dominant brightness of H-alpha. H-alpha is saturated in the 1000 and 3000\,s exposures. The spectra are barycentric corrected using heliocentric velocities calculated with the \texttt{barycorrpy} package \citep{Kanodia2018Pythonbarycorrpy}. In this study, all spectra are normalised by the local continuum. The GJW spectra studied are further described in Paper A. \\
\section{The short-period variability of GG Car}
\label{sec:variability}
\subsection{Photometric variability}
\label{sec:photometric_variability}
Figure \ref{fig:ggcar_tess} displays the TESS lightcurve of GG Car. The TESS data cover nearly two orbital cycles of the binary of GG Car with high precision and cadence. Both the longer-term variation at the orbital period and the shorter period variations along the lightcurve are apparent. It is also clear that the amplitude of the short period variation changes over the epoch of observation, with the amplitudes being correlated with the brightness of the system.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{photometry/photometry_power_spectra.pdf}
\caption{Fourier power spectra of the $V$-band photometry of GG Car (top panel) and the TESS photometric data (bottom panel). The frequencies corresponding to the orbital period and the short period are denoted by small arrows and presented in Table \ref{tab:fourier_period_estimates}. The periodograms are normalised by the peak power.}
\label{fig:gg_car_v_band_photometry_power}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:gg_car_v_band_photometry_power} displays the Fourier power spectrum of the ASAS, ASAS-SN, and OMC $V$-band photometry of GG Car in the top panel, and the power spectrum of the TESS photometry in the bottom panel. These power spectra, along with all subsequent power spectra in this study, were calculated using the CLEAN algorithm of \cite{Roberts1987}, which deconvolves the Fourier transform of the data from the Fourier transform of the observational aperture function, thereby overcoming the artefacts that inevitably arise from transforming irregularly sampled data. \\
The photometric periodograms are dominated by the $\sim$31-day orbital period of the binary, however there are other periods present in the power spectrum. Most notable is the significant peak at a higher frequency of $\sim$0.632 days$^{-1}$, corresponding to a $\sim$1.583-day period. This is the same higher-frequency period noted in \cite{Gosset1984}. The $V$-band data were all taken from ground-based surveys, with the exception of OMC, so there is a peak complex in this power spectrum around 1\,days$^{-1}$ due to aliasing effects arising from the Earth's rotation period. There is no such complex in the TESS periodogram, since it is a space-based mission.\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{0.15\textwidth} p{0.15\textwidth}}
Data source & Periodicities \\
\hline
\\
$V$-band photometry & \begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
$31.028\pm0.07$\,days\\
$1.583156\pm0.0002$\,days\\
\end{tabular} \\ \\
TESS photometry & \begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
$30.2\pm6.3$\,days\\
$1.588\pm0.025$\,days\\
\end{tabular} \\ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The periodicities found in the photometric data of GG Car.}
\label{tab:fourier_period_estimates}
\end{table}
We calculate the frequency and estimate the uncertainty of the peaks in the power spectra by fitting Gaussians to them, and thereby utilising the centroids and the standard deviations of the peaks as the frequencies and their uncertainties, respectively. Table \ref{tab:fourier_period_estimates} presents the periodicities found from the photometric data. The $\sim$31-day orbital period derived from the photometry is consistent with the spectroscopic period presented in Paper A within their respective uncertainties. Therefore for the rest of this paper we will calculate orbital phases using the spectroscopic period and ephemeris of Paper A, which is more precise at $31.01\pm0.01$\,days, to match the orbital phase of the binary. The values of the short period used in this study is the 1.583156$\pm$0.0002\,day value from the $V$-band photometry, as it is more precise than the TESS determination, and we use this period for both photometry and spectroscopy. We therefore calculate the phases of the short period by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:short_period_phase}
\text{phase} = \frac{T - T_{\rm peri}}{1.583156},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T$ is the JD of observation. We calculate the phases relative to $T_{\rm perid}$, though the choice of this reference time is arbitrary for the short period and without physical significance. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{photometry/v_band_tess_folded.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: $V$-band photometry of GG Car, folded by the short 1.583-day period using Equation \ref{eq:short_period_phase}. The data have had variations at the 31-day orbital period subtracted before folding. Black points indicate the average value in 30 bins by phase. Bottom panel: same as the top panel, except for the TESS photometric data, and the black points denote the average in 35 bins by phase.}
\label{fig:v_band_tess_folded_combined}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:v_band_tess_folded_combined} displays the $V$-band and TESS photometry data folded according to Equation \ref{eq:short_period_phase}, once the variations at the orbital period are subtracted. Black points average values by phase bin. The short period is very clear to see in both the $V$-band and the TESS data and the averages show that the variations agree in phase indicating an accurate and persistent period, as the two datasets cover nearly 19 years of observation. There is, however, considerable scatter in the folded data. A cause of this scatter is, as discussed in Paper A, because the photometric variations for each 31-day orbital cycle are not identical, but they vary in shape and depth. This can also be seen in the TESS photometric data in Figure \ref{fig:ggcar_tess}; the middle minimum is deeper than the minima at the start and end of the observational period. Another cause of the scatter is the variable amplitude of the 1.583-day variations, which is very clear in the TESS data. This amplitude modulation is further discussed in Section \ref{sec:orbital_phase_dependence_of_short_variability}.\\
\subsection{Spectroscopic variability}
We now turn to spectroscopic variability, as observed by the Global Jet Watch. The variability in this section focuses on the radial velocities (RVs) of emission lines in the visible spectrum of GG Car. We use the same spectra and Gaussian fitting methods to extract the RVs of the emission lines as Paper A, and we refer the reader to that study for details of the methodology. Paper A has shown that Gaussian fitting is a robust method to extract emission lines centers, amongst other studies (e.g. \citealt{Blundell2007FluctuationsTimescales, Grant2020Uncovering140}). The 1.583-day periodicity is detected in the RVs of the He\,I emission lines, and in some Si\,II and Fe\,II emission lines.\\
Figure \ref{fig:helium_lines_periodograms} displays the Fourier power spectra for the RVs of the emission of the three visible He\,I emission lines. The bottom panel displays the geometric mean of the three power spectra to detect common periodicities across the line species. Taking the geometric mean leads to spurious peaks in the individual periodograms being suppressed, and common periodicities which exist across all line species to be promoted. This allows us to observe whether real periodicities exist in noisy periodograms. As with the photometric power spectra in Figure \ref{fig:gg_car_v_band_photometry_power}, the He\,I variability is dominated by the orbital period, and each of the lines also has a peak at the short-period 1.583-day frequency. There are no common significant peaks at other periods, as shown in the geometric mean of the power spectra.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{spectroscopy/periodograms/helium_lines_periodograms.pdf}
\caption{Periodograms of the radial velocities of the emission components of the He\,I lines. The bottom panel displays the geometric mean of the three periodograms. Arrows indicate the frequencies of the orbital period and the new 1.583-day short period. The periodograms are normalised by the peak power, which for these lines are all at the orbital period.}
\label{fig:helium_lines_periodograms}
\end{figure}
Periodograms were similarly calculated for the RVs extracted from Fe\,II and Si\,II lines. The majority of these lines are also dominated by variations at the orbital period, and a minority show indications of the 1.583-day variations. The metal lines which show an indication of RV variability at the short period frequency are the Fe\,II 6317.4, 6456.4, 7712.4 and Si\,II 6347.1, 6371.4 lines, and their periodograms are displayed in Figure \ref{fig:metal_lines_short_period_periodograms}. Even though some of the individual periodograms in Figure \ref{fig:metal_lines_short_period_periodograms} do not have a significant peak at the short-period compared to the noise of the periodogram, a significant peak survives at this frequency in the geometric mean of the power spectra. Lines studied in Paper A which show no indication of variability at 1.583 days in their power spectra are H-alpha, Fe\,II\,5991.3711, 6383.7302, 6432.676, 6491.663, 7513.1762, and Si\,II\,5957.56, 5978.93. Their periodograms are not included in this paper as they do not enlighten, and these lines without the short-period variability are not investigated further in this study.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{spectroscopy/periodograms/metal_lines_short_periodograms.pdf}
\caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:helium_lines_periodograms}, except for the Si\,II and Fe\,II emission lines which display the 1.583-day variation.}
\label{fig:metal_lines_short_period_periodograms}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:he_lines_rv_fits} displays the RV variations of the emission lines which display variability at the 1.583-day period. The data are binned into 30 bins by phase, and the weighted mean and standard error on the weighted mean in each bin are given by the black error bars. The RV variations have different amplitudes and profiles for each line species, similar to what was found in Paper A with the RV variations at the orbital period. It is unclear why certain lines display the short-period variations whilst others do not, even lines which arise from the same ionisation species. For the He\,I lines, which display the short-period variations, comparing their RV curves to the photometric variations the phase of the maximal blueshift of the 1.583-day variations roughly corresponds with the phase of minimal brightness at this period.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{spectroscopy/158_rv_variability.pdf}
\caption{Radial velocity variations of the emission lines at the 1.583-day short period. Phases are calculated using Equation \ref{eq:short_period_phase}. The variations at the 31-day orbital period have been subtracted from the data of each line, to remove scatter. The data are split into 30 phase bins for each line species and black error bars indicate the weighted mean and standard error of the weighted mean for the radial velocities in each bin. The error bars of the data are both the uncertainties from the Gaussian fitting routine and the jitter, added in quadrature.}
\label{fig:he_lines_rv_fits}
\end{figure}
Similar to the findings in Paper A at the orbital period, the amplitude of the short-period RV variations varies according to line species, with He\,I having the largest variations and Fe\,II the smallest. Figure \ref{fig:k_v_ek_1583} plots the amplitude, $K$, of the RV data against the energy of the upper atomic state of the transition, $E_k$. A clear correlation of $K$ and $E_k$ is evident, even with the small number of lines available. The method of determining $K$ for the RV variations in described in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_k}. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{spectroscopy/k_v_ek_1583.pdf}
\caption{Amplitude, $K$, of the RV variations of the emission lines at the 1.583-day period against $E_k$, the energy of the initial excited state leading to the lines. The correlation coefficient, $r$, weighted by the inverse of the square of the error, is quoted in the legend.}
\label{fig:k_v_ek_1583}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Orbital-phase dependence of short-period variability} \label{sec:orbital_phase_dependence_of_short_variability}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{photometry/tess_orbital_subtracted.pdf}
\caption{TESS photometric data of GG Car with the orbital period variations subtracted, leaving the short-period variations, then folded over the orbital period using Equation \ref{eq:orbital_phase}. Sector 10 data are in blue, and sector 11 in orange. The bottom panel zooms in on the largest variations around phase 0.137, where a dashed vertical line is drawn.}
\label{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted}
\end{figure}
Here we focus on how the amplitudes of the short-period variability are modulated by the phase of the binary orbit. Figure \ref{fig:ggcar_tess} shows that, in the TESS observations of GG Car, both the orbital and 1.583-day photometric variations are not uniform, but they vary in both amplitude and profile. Figure \ref{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted} shows the TESS photometric data once they have had the orbital period variations subtracted, leaving only the short-period variability, and then folded by orbital phase using the orbital solution given in Table \ref{tab:ggcar_porter_orbital_parameters}. The largest variations in both observed orbital cycles occurs at around phase 0.12, with those variations being zoomed in the bottom panel. The variations are smallest around phase 0.6, though there is a data gap between phase 1.45--1.55. \\
Figure \ref{fig:tess_v_band_1583_amp_v_orbital} clearly shows how the amplitude of the short 1.583-day variations is modulated throughout the orbital period of GG Car in the photometric data. For the TESS data a sinusoid is fitted to each 1.583-day slice within the dataset, with the amplitude and phase kept as free parameters. The amplitudes of the 1.583-day variations are then folded over the 31-day orbital period. It is clear that, in the TESS observational interval, the amplitude of the short-period variation is strongly tied to orbital phase, with the largest variations occurring around phase $\sim$0.1. This is shortly after the binary is at periastron, as per the ephemeris of Paper A, and when the system is brightest (both of which occur at phase 0). \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{amplitude_orbital_dependence/tess_v_band_1583_amp_v_orbital.pdf}
\caption{Amplitudes of the photometric 1.583-day period as a function of the orbital phase of the binary for both TESS and $V$-band data. Orbital phases are calculated using Equation \ref{eq:orbital_phase}. Figure \ref{fig:phot_short_amp_v_phase} demonstrates how the data for the $V$-band photometry variations were calculated.}
\label{fig:tess_v_band_1583_amp_v_orbital}
\end{figure}
For the $V$-band photometry, since there is not the fine time-sampling of the TESS data, different techniques need to be used to study the amplitude modulations of the short-period variations. To do this, the ASAS, ASAS-SN, and OMC data had the mean 31-day orbital variations subtracted, then a sliding window of orbital phase width 0.15 is used to calculate the short-period amplitudes in the orbital phase intervals. The data in each window were folded by the 1.583-day period and then fitted by a sinusoid, with amplitude, phase, and offset as free parameters. Figure \ref{fig:phot_short_amp_v_phase} in the Appendix demonstrates how the amplitude modulation of the $V$-band photometry along the binary orbit was calculated in each orbital phase window.\\
Figure \ref{fig:tess_v_band_1583_amp_v_orbital} shows that the amplitude of the short-period variations in the $V$-band data is also modulated across the orbital phase of the binary. The amplitude-phase signal closely matches that shown by the TESS data in phase and shape, demonstrating that this orbital dependence of the 1.583-day period is long-lived and persistent across all data, and is not a curiosity of the TESS observing epoch. It is also noteworthy that the sharp rise in the TESS amplitude is matched as the phase where the amplitude is largest in the $V$-band photometry, suggesting that the large spike in amplitude that is seen in the TESS data around phase 0.1 persists throughout the observations of GG Car. We find that the phases of the 1.583-day variations have no significant variability across the orbital period; this can be seen in the fitted sinusoids to the $V$-band data in Figure \ref{fig:phot_short_amp_v_phase}, which are all in phase. \\
In Figure \ref{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted}, it is clear that the variability in the TESS data is not uniform, but it does follow the general trend of having larger amplitudes shortly after periastron. The $V$-band data, since it is taking the average short-period amplitude of many orbital cycles simultaneously with a sliding window in orbital phase, gives us the average amplitude change over a long period of time. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this relationship holds for each orbital cycle, but that, in aggregate, over all orbital cycles there is a general trend for the amplitude of the photometric variability at the 1.583-period to be largest shortly after periastron. \\
We now turn to see whether this amplitude modulation exists in the spectroscopic data. Figure \ref{fig:he_amp_v_orbital} displays the amplitude modulation along the binary orbit of the 1.583-day RV variations of the He\,I emission, as observed by the GJW. The amplitude modulations for the spectroscopy were calculated similarly to those of the $V$-band photometry. It is clear, for all three He\,I lines, that the amplitude of the spectroscopic RV variations are modulated in a similar manner to the photometric variations. He\,I 7065, however, has an offset to the other He\,I lines and the photometry with peak amplitude occurring around phase 0.9.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{amplitude_orbital_dependence/he_amp_v_orbital.pdf}
\caption{The amplitude of the short-period RV variations for the He\,I lines against orbital phase. The data were calculated in the same manner as the $V$-band data in Figure \ref{fig:tess_v_band_1583_amp_v_orbital}. The bottom panel shows the mean of the short-period amplitude in each phase bin, with the error-bar corresponding to the standard deviation in that bin.}
\label{fig:he_amp_v_orbital}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{amplitude_orbital_dependence/si_amp_v_orbital.pdf}
\caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:he_amp_v_orbital}, except for the Si\,II 6347 and 6371 lines.}
\label{fig:si_amp_v_orbital}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{amplitude_orbital_dependence/fe_amp_v_orbital.pdf}
\caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:he_amp_v_orbital}, except for the Fe\,II lines which display the short period variability.}
\label{fig:fe_amp_v_orbital}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:si_amp_v_orbital} and \ref{fig:fe_amp_v_orbital} show the same for the short-period presenting Si\,II and Fe\,II lines respectively. The Si\,II 6347 line shows a clear signal, with the amplitude of the short-period variations modulating across the orbital phase in the same manner as the photometry and the He\,I, whereas Si\,II 6371's signal of amplitude modulation is less clear. The Fe\,II shows some indication of amplitude modulation over the binary orbit, however their signals are not very clear due to the smaller amplitudes of the Fe\,II lines. The amount of amplitude modulation is largest for the He\,I lines, followed by the Si\,II lines, followed by the Fe\,II lines. \\
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Origin of the 1.583-day variability}
\label{sec:1583_origin}
Stellar variability is variously explained by rotations, multiplicity, or pulsations. As evidenced by the TESS data, the amplitude of the photometric variability at 1.583 days can reach up to 0.07\,mag. This implies a peak-to-trough brightness change of $\sim$14\,\%; since the secondary of GG Car is predicted to contribute <\,3\% of the flux of the system assuming it is a main sequence star of 7.2\,$M_\odot$ (Paper A), then the flux from the secondary alone cannot be the origin of this variability. Here, we investigate whether rotation of the primary, a hidden third body, or pulsations in the primary can cause the 1.583-day variability observed in GG Car.\\
As shown in \cite{Zickgraf1996SpectroscopicClouds} the critical rotation velocity at the equator of a star, above which it cannot rotate without breaking up, can be estimated by
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm crit} = \sqrt{\frac{G(1-\Gamma_{\rm rad})M}{R}},
\label{eq:v_crit}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the star, $R$ is the radius of the star, and $\Gamma_{\rm rad}$ is the correction to the effective gravity due to radiation pressure by electron scattering. $\Gamma_{\rm rad}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{\rm rad} = \frac{\sigma_e L}{4\pi G M c},
\label{eq:Gamma_rad}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $L$ is the stellar luminosity, $c$ is the speed of light, and $\sigma_e$ is the electron mass scattering coefficient. For $\sigma_e$, we adopt a value of 0.308\,$\text{cm}^2 \, \text{g}^{-1}$ taken from \cite{Lamers1986TheStars}; it should be noted that this value of $\sigma_e$ is calculated for the composition of the circumstellar environment of P Cygni. Entering the stellar parameters of GG Car given in Table \ref{tab:ggcar_parameters} gives $v_{\rm crit} = 370\pm70$\,$\rm km\,s^{-1}$. Should the 1.583-day period be interpreted as the rotation period of the B[e]SG \ primary, the surface rotation velocity would be $v_{\rm rot} = 860\pm260$\,$\rm km\,s^{-1}$ at the equator, far exceeding the critical rotation velocity of the star. Clearly the 1.583-day period cannot be the stellar rotation period of the B[e]SG\ primary component of GG Car. \\
Might there be a hidden close companion of the B[e]SG\ primary, or circumstellar material which orbits the primary every 1.583 days, causing the short-period variability of the system? Kepler's third law states
\begin{equation}
P^2 = \frac{4\pi^2a^3}{GM},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $P$ is the orbital period, $a$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit, and $M$ is the total mass of this inner system. Entering $P = 1.58315\pm0.0002$\,days, and the primary's mass of $M = 24\pm4\, M_\odot$ gives $a=16.5\pm0.9\,R_\odot$. Given that GG Car's primary has a radius of 27\,$R_\odot$, this implies that a hidden companion would be completely engulfed in the primary star. Whilst it is theorised that B[e]SG s may be post-merger objects \citep{Podsiadlowski2006corrected}, the variable period would not be as stable as it is observed to be if GG Car were a recently-merged object, given that an indication of a $\sim$1.6-day period was first reported by \cite{Gosset1984} and the periodicity continues to the present day.\\
This leaves pulsations as the likely cause of the short-period variability in GG Car. Pulsations have been observed in B[e] stars at a similar timescale to the one we observe in GG Car, though they are rare. \cite{Krtickova2018AnEnvelopes} detects a pulsation period of $1.194 \pm 0.06$\,days in the unclassified B[e] star HD\,50138 (V743 Mon). Pulsations with periods at this timescale are often observed in blue supergiants (e.g. \citealt{Haucke2018WindSupergiants}). \cite{Saio2013EvolutionAbundances} reports that radial pulsations and a spectrum of non-radial pulsations may be excited in evolved blue supergiants (BSGs) which have already undertaken the blue loop in their post-main sequence evolution, having been in a prior red supergiant (RSG) state. Conversely, they find that most of these pulsations were suppressed in BSGs which had not yet undergone the blue loop. Since we only observe one significant frequency, other than the orbital frequency, in the periodograms of the photometry and spectroscopy of GG Car this likely indicates that the primary GG Car is in a pre-RSG state, according to the conclusion of \cite{Saio2013EvolutionAbundances}. This supports the findings of \cite{Kraus2009} and \cite{Kraus2013}, which concluded that GG Car is in a pre-RSG state based on $^{13}$CO abundances. \\
\textcolor{black}{Given that the variability is coupled to the orbit of the binary, this may indicate that the tidal potential is exciting pulsations in the B[e]SG\ primary (this amplitude modulation is discussed in further detail in Section \ref{sec:amplitude_modulation}). As the tidal potential is quadrupolar, the most likely oscillation mode we are observing is an l=2 mode, where $l$ is the degree of the mode and indicates the number of surface nodes. \cite{Gough1993LinearPulsation} shows that f-modes of stars, which act as surface gravity waves with $n = 0$ (where $n$ is the number of radial nodes of the oscillation mode), have angular frequencies which may be determined as} \\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l2fmode_frequency}
\omega^2 = \frac{L g_s}{R}\left(1 - \epsilon(L)\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent \textcolor{black}{where $\omega = 2\pi / P$ is the angular frequency of the mode, $g_s = GM/R^2$ is the surface gravity of the star, $R$ is the stellar radius, $L = \sqrt{l (l + 1)}$, and $\epsilon(L)$ is a term to correct for the sphericity of the star. $\epsilon(L)$ is calculated}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l2fmode_frequency_correction}
\epsilon (L) = 2L^{-1} + \frac{3\int^{R}_{0}(r/R - 1) \rho \exp\left(2Lr/R\right)\,{\rm d}r}{\int^{R}_{0}\rho \exp\left(2Lr/R\right)\,{\rm d}r},
\end{equation}
\noindent \textcolor{black}{where $\rho = \rho(r)$ is the density of the star. Entering the stellar parameters of GG Car into Equation \ref{eq:l2fmode_frequency}, and utilising simple distributions of $\rho(r)$, yields values of the $l=2$ f-mode frequency which are consistent with our observations. Assuming a constant density gives $P = 2.4^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$\,days. While a constant density is highly unrealistic, we may use simple prescriptions to give higher densities in the stellar centre, such as $\rho(r) \propto 1 - A\,(r/R)^{B}$, where $A$ and $B$ are constants, that also yield consistent periods. Computing a grid of allowed periods for the $l=2$ mode using this simple prescription of $\rho(r)$ returns periods which are consistent with the observed periodicity for all values of $A$ and $B$ where $0 \leq A \leq 1$ and $B > 0$. While detailed modelling is beyond the scope of this paper, this shows that the observed pulsation frequency is consistent with and likely to be the $l=2$ f-mode. It must also be noted that, per Equation \ref{eq:l2fmode_frequency}, higher values of $l$ up to $\sim$8 may also yield periods which are consistent with the observed variability; however, the $l=2$ mode would be expected to be excited more strongly than the higher modes by the tidal potential. The mode observed may not be radial, since tidal modulation is only allowed for pulsation modes with $l \neq 0$ \citep{Polfliet1990DynamicOscillations.}.}\\
The RV variability that we detect in GG Car's emission lines would then be related to that pulsations in the primary affecting the structure of the wind at its 1.583-day periodicity. Pulsations have been theorised and shown to affect the wind and mass-loss of properties of blue supergiant stars \citep{Aerts2010Periodic50064, Kraus2015Interplay478, Yadav2016Stability198478, Yadav2017InstabilityStars, Haucke2018WindSupergiants}. Structures in stellar winds caused by pulsations have been proposed to explain variability in certain X-ray binaries \citep{Finley1992Periodic0114+65., Koenigsberger2006The010}. \\
\subsection{1.583-day amplitude modulation}
\label{sec:amplitude_modulation}
In Section \ref{sec:orbital_phase_dependence_of_short_variability}, we have shown that the amplitude of the 1.583-day variations is modulated by the orbital phase of the binary, most clearly in the photometry. The amplitudes are largest when the binary is at periastron in its eccentric ($e=0.5\pm0.03$) orbit. This linking between the 31-day orbital period and the 1.583-day short period is unusual, since the ratio between the two periods is $31.01 / 1.583 = 19.589$, i.e. they are non-commensurate. \\
GG Car's lightcurve bears a resemblance to the ``heartbeat stars'' which have resonant, tidally driven, stellar oscillations that have variable amplitudes over the orbital period (see e.g. \citealt{Fuller2017HeartbeatLocking}). Most heartbeat stars yet discovered are lower mass A and F stars, but the phenomenon has also been observed in massive O and B stars \citep{Pablo2017TheOrionis, Jayasinghe2019AnTESS}. These heartbeat stars are eccentric binaries which have orbital periods that are exact integer multiples of the star's g-mode pulsation periods, which lead to coherent and resonant pulsations due to the tidal excitation of the oscillation modes (see also \citealt{Kumar1995TidalPulsars, DeCat2000AFrequencies, Willems2002TidallyBinaries}). However, the short-period variability we observe in GG Car is clearly non-resonant with the orbital period, as the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted} and the non-integer relation between the short-period and orbital period clearly show. Therefore, the periodicity and amplitude modulation we report cannot arise due to resonance. However, there are indications that tidal effects can affect non-resonant free oscillations, and here we explore that possibility.\\
Paper A showed that, at periastron, the radius of the primary of GG Car extends to $85 \pm 28$\,\% of its Roche lobe radius, whereas at apastron it only extends to $28 \pm 9$\,\%; therefore, the tidal perturbation at periastron will be significant and a dynamical tide will be raised. Paper A also presents evidence that the primary's mass-loss is focused around periastron. In GG Car, the timescale of the varying gravitational potential will be short given that the orbit is significantly eccentric, with the timescale of periastron passage $T_{\rm peri} \sim \sqrt{a^3(1-e)^3 / G M_{\rm tot}} \sim 1.7$\,days, where $M_{\rm tot}$ is the combined mass of the primary and the secondary. A similar determination of the timescale of intense gravitational interaction is the half-width-at-half-maximum (HWHM) of the tidal force, i.e. the time taken for the tidal force of the secondary on the primary to increase from mid-point value to its peak value at periastron. The HWHM of the tidal force is $\sim$1.9\,days (since $F_{\rm tidal} \propto r^{-3}$, where $r$ is the instantaneous separation of the binary components). Therefore, around periastron, the timescale of the change of the tidal force is of the same order as the observed periodicity and dynamical timescale of the primary; the star will be unable to adjust to the changing tidal force in a quasi-static way. Conversely, for the tidal force to go from its minimum at apastron to the mid-point value takes 13.6\,days, i.e. an order of magnitude longer than the pulsation period and the dynamical timescale. \\
It therefore follows that the varying proximity of the two binary components will affect the conditions of the primary, and the rapid change of the tidal forces and enhanced mass loss at periastron will draw the primary out of hydrostatic equilibrium at a timescale of the same order as its dynamical timescale. The primary, attempting to regain equilibrium, oscillates at the observed period of 1.583 days, \textcolor{black}{which we have shown in Section \ref{sec:1583_origin} is likely to be the $l=2$ f-mode}. As the binary components separate after periastron passage, the tidal force becomes increasingly less important, and the star will continue to oscillate at the observed period and ultimately try to regain hydrostatic equilibrium. The timescale for the damping of the oscillations depends on the dominant source of viscosity, \textcolor{black}{but, in the case of the large tidally induced distortion observed in GG Car, could be as fast as the dynamical timescale of the primary's envelope ($\tau_{\rm dyn} \sim 1$\,day). Quantifying mode damping timescales in the envelopes of massive OB stars is an uncertain problem, and is beyond the scope of this paper.} \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{amplitude_orbital_dependence/amplitude_flux_separation.pdf}
\caption{Top: Amplitude of the 1.583-day variations in $V$-band photometry against orbital phase (black points, left hand axis), with the instantaneous separation of the binary components over-plotted (red dashed line, right hand axis). Phases of periastron are denoted by vertical dashed lines.
Bottom: same as top, except with the mean $V$-band magnitude in the phase bin replacing the short-period amplitudes.}
\label{fig:amplitude_flux_separation}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:amplitude_flux_separation} displays both how the short-period variation amplitude and mean brightness in the $V$-band compares with the instantaneous separation of the binary components along the orbital period: the mean brightness is near perfectly anti-correlated with the separation of the components. On the other hand, the short-period amplitude of the $V$-band data increases more rapidly than it decays, and peaks somewhere between orbital phases 0.0 and 0.14, corresponding to $\sim$0\,--\,4\,days after periastron. This delay can also be clearly seen in the folded TESS data in Figure \ref{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted}. \\
There are examples in the literature which support this hypothesis of tidally modulated free oscillations. \cite{Moreno2011EccentricBinaries} calculated that increased stellar activity can be expected on stellar surfaces around periastron in eccentric binaries due to the raising of dynamical tides and the associated changes in timescale of dissipation of the tidal energy, and this can lead to oscillations. The interaction of free oscillations with tidal interaction was theoretically studied by \cite{Polfliet1990DynamicOscillations.}, who show that a tidally distorted star may display free non-radial oscillations with periods of the order of its dynamical timescale. They find that the free oscillations' amplitudes are modulated at a frequency which is an integer multiple of the orbital frequency. Tidal modulation of pulsation amplitudes in this manner have been reported in the $\beta$ Cephei variables $\beta$ Cep \citep{Fitch1969EvidenceCephei}, CC And \citep{Fitch1967EvidenceScorpii}, $\sigma$ Scorpii \citep{Fitch1967EvidenceScorpii, Goossens1984LightScorpii., Chapellier1992PulsationScorpii.}, $\alpha$ Vir \citep{Dukes1974TheSpica.}, and 16\,Lacertae \citep{Fitch1969EvidenceCephei,Chapellier1995PulsationLacertae.}; in these objects, the pulsation periods and the orbital periods are non-resonant, but the pulsational amplitudes undergo an integer number of cycles per orbital period. \cite{Chapellier1995PulsationLacertae.} reports that the amplitude of an $l=1$ pulsation mode of the system 16\,Lacertae undergoes exactly one cycle over the orbital period where the pulsation period and the orbital period are non-commensurate, similar to what we observe in GG Car.\\
\textcolor{black}{It is worth noting that the amplitude modulation that we are reporting in GG Car also bears resemblance to binaries which have been recently discovered to have pulsations that are tidally trapped on one hemisphere of the variable component. \cite{Handler2020TidallyTESS} discovered a tidally-trapped pulsation mode in the binary star HD\,74423, in the form of amplitude modulation of the observed pulsations as a function of orbital phase. Similarly to what we observe in GG Car, the pulsation frequency and orbital frequency in HD\,74423 are non-commensurate. \cite{Kurtz2020TheCamelopardalis} find a similar result in CO Cam, finding that four modes are trapped by the tidal potential of the companion. \cite{Fuller2020TidallyStars} presents evidence of a similar process occurring in TIC\,63328020. The authors explain the amplitude modulation in these systems as being due to the pulsation axis of the variable component to be aligned with the line of apsis of the binary which cause the pulsations to have a larger amplitude on one hemisphere of the star, either the hemisphere facing towards or away from the companion. A larger, or smaller, photometric variability amplitude is then observed at times of conjunction depending on which hemisphere is facing the observer. According to the orbital geometry of GG Car ($e = 0.50$, $\omega = 339.87^\circ$), superior conjunction occurs at phase 0.14 and inferior conjunction occurs at 0.93. Superior conjunction, therefore, does occur at a remarkably similar phase as the oscillation amplitude's maximum, most clearly shown in Figure \ref{fig:tess_orbital_subtracted}. However, in the scenario of tidally trapped pulsations, the phase of inferior conjunction would then be expected to have the lowest oscillation amplitude. This is clearly not the case, as the oscillation amplitudes are still very large around phase 0.93. Therefore it is unlikely that the amplitude modulation we observe in GG Car is due to tidal trapping of the pulsation mode, though geometrical effects may perhaps be accentuating the observed amplitude of the non-radial pulsation mode at superior conjunction.}\\
Further TESS-quality observations of GG Car observing more orbital periods would be needed to fully confirm such an argument of orbital-phase modulated free oscillations. Alternatively, phase-resolved studies of the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the system could allow the varying contribution of the primary to the SED to be measured. Should the primary's contribution vary with the orbit and the 1.583-day period, this would lock down the variability as being due to pulsations of the primary, and therefore the amplitude modulation would be due to proximity effects of the primary to the secondary.\\
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have shown that the B[e]SG\ binary GG Car is significantly variable in both photometry and spectroscopy at $1.583156 \pm 0.0002$\,days, and we have studied this variability in detail for the first time. This period is much shorter than the well-known 31-day orbital period of the binary. We have shown that the short-period variability cannot be caused by the rotation of the B[e]SG\ primary, the presence of a hidden third body, or intrinsic variability of the secondary's flux. \textcolor{black}{We find that 1.583\,days is consistent with the period of the lower-order f-modes ($l \lessthanapprox 8$) of GG Car's primary given its mass and radius, and we ascribe the variability as most likely being due to the $l=2$ f-mode such that it couples to the quadrupolar tidal potential. We therefore argue that pulsations of this mode are the most likely cause of its variability.} \\
In spectroscopy, we found that the short period manifests itself in the RVs of the He\,I, Si\,II and Fe\,II emission lines; however, not all of GG Car's emission lines display the periodicity. We have found that the amplitudes of the spectroscopic RV variations at the 1.583-day period are correlated with the upper energy levels of the transitions causing the line emission, implying that the variations are related to the temperature of the line forming regions. \\
We have shown that the amplitudes of the short-period variations are dependent on the orbital phase of the binary, most notably for the $V$-band and TESS photometry, with the largest variations occurring around or just after periastron, where the system is also at its brightest. This is striking as the ratio between the orbital period and the shorter period is 19.596. This non-integer ratio of the two periods means the shorter period cannot be a tidally-resonant excited oscillation mode in one of the stars. \\
Paper A shows that the primary's radius extends to $\sim$85\% of its Roche radius at periastron, compared to only $\sim$28\% at apastron. We have shown, in Section \ref{sec:amplitude_modulation}, that the timescale of the change of the tidal forces on the primary at periastron are of the same order as its dynamical timescale. \textcolor{black}{Therefore, we suggest that the primary is being pulled out of hydrostatic equilibrium by the secondary every orbit due to the strong tidal effects at periastron faster than the primary can regain equilibrium. This loss of equilibrium causes pulsations at the $l=2$ f-mode, which can couple to the quarupolar tidal potential and which is consistent with the 1.583-day period observed, with a larger amplitude when the stars are close in proximity and the primary is being pulled further from equilibrium.} These oscillations are damped \textcolor{black}{at a timescale which may be as fast as the dynamical timescale} as the separation between the binary components increases and the primary can return to equilibrium. \\
The unusual behaviour of GG Car's short-period variability reported in this paper has not been reported in other B[e]SG s as of yet. Further TESS-quality observations and phase-resolved SED observations of GG Car would be required to pin down the cause of its short-period variability and amplitude modulation, and similar phenomena in other B[e]SG s in binaries should be searched for.\\
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank John Papaloizou for his useful discussions. AJDP thanks the Science \& Technology Facilities Council (STFC) for their support in the form of a DPhil scholarship. Part of this work was based on data from the OMC Archive at CAB (INTA-CSIC), pre-processed by ISDC. A great many organisations and individuals have contributed to the success of the Global Jet Watch observatories and these are listed on {\tt www.GlobalJetWatch.net} but we particularly thank the University of Oxford and the Australian Astronomical Observatory. This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This work made use of data supplied by the UK Swift Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester.
\section*{Data availability}
ASAS $V$-band photometric data available from \url{http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/cgi-asas/asas_cgi_get_data?105559-6023.5,asas3}.\\
ASAS-SN $V$-band photometric data available from \url{https://asas-sn.osu.edu/}.\\
OMC $V$-band photometric data available from \url{https://sdc.cab.inta-csic.es/omc/secure/form_busqueda.jsp}.\\
TESS FFI data was accessed and reduced via the \texttt{eleanor} framework \citep{Feinstein2019Eleanor:Images}; the \texttt{python3.x} reduction code used to access the data presented in this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.\\
The fits to spectroscopic Global Jet Watch data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\noindent Upcoming CMB experiments will target the tensor-to-scalar ratio \sm{r} to a sensitivity
of \sm{\sigma_r\sim 10^{-3}} \cite{Matsumura:2013aja,Abazajian:2016yjj,Finelli:2016cyd,Delabrouille:2017rct,
Ade:2018sbj,Hanany:2019lle,Shandera:2019ufi,Abazajian:2019eic,Hazumi:2021yqq}.
If primordial \sm{B} modes are detected, the way towards constraints on tensor non-Gaussianities,
and then on the interactions of the graviton during inflation, will open.
Even in the less exciting case that these experiments will only improve the current upper bounds,
it is still very interesting to look at what are the possible interactions in quasi de Sitter backgrounds. This is because of recent developments in the ``Cosmological Bootstrap''
program \cite{Maldacena:2011nz,Mata:2012bx,Ghosh:2014kba,Pajer:2016ieg,
Arkani-Hamed:2018kmz,Green:2020ebl,Baumann:2020dch,Pajer:2020wnj,Goodhew:2020hob,Cespedes:2020xqq,Pajer:2020wxk}. Indeed, Ref.~\cite{Pajer:2020wxk} has
discussed how to extend the bootstrap rules to the scenario where de Sitter boosts are broken, more
precisely to the phenomenologically-interesting case of single-clock inflation.
Working at the level of the Lagrangian can help in developing the bootstrap rules,
and also identify regions of parameter space where non-Gaussianities can be enhanced,
as is the case for the scalar non-Gaussianity in \sm{P(X,\phi)} theories.
The case of single-clock inflation is particularly simple to study since only one Goldstone mode is present.
Once we move away from this symmetry breaking pattern the number of Goldstone modes increases, and a study
of all the possible non-Gaussianities (scalar, vector and tensor) becomes complicated. Since restricting to graviton interactions
still allows to highlight the new features of the other symmetry breaking patterns, we have decided to study these first.
Graviton non-Gaussianities in single-clock inflation have been investigated in detail in \cite{Maldacena:2002vr,Maldacena:2011nz}.
What happens when couplings with the foliation are included has been discussed in \cite{Creminelli:2014wna,Bordin:2017hal,Bordin:2020eui,Bartolo:2020gsh}.
How do we extend the analysis to different symmetry breaking patterns?
Ref.~\cite{Nicolis:2015sra} provides a guide for how to achieve this.
On scales shorter than the horizon the de Sitter isometries reduce to the Poincar{\' e} group
(special conformal transformations and ``de Sitter dilations'' -- the combination of time translations with spatial dilations -- reduce to
Lorentz boosts and time translations, respectively). Then, we can gain intuition from the flat-space analysis
of \cite{Nicolis:2015sra}, in which the various ways to break spacetime symmetries while preserving spatial rotations and translations (both space and time) have been classified.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:zoology_review}
we review the results of \cite{Nicolis:2015sra} and discuss the coupling with gravity.
In Section~\ref{sec:inflation_and_actions} we discuss which of
the different symmetry breaking patterns admit a quasi de Sitter
solution once coupled to gravity, and consequently build the unitary-gauge
action. The main section of the paper is, then, Section~\ref{sec:main_section}: there we study
what are the graviton interactions in the different scenarios and show that the symmetry breaking pattern
of solids, of which Solid Inflation \cite{Endlich:2012pz} is the lowest order in a derivative expansion,
is the one that allows the most freedom.
In this section we also discuss some phenomenological consequences of these interactions, and make a comparison
to the symmetry breaking pattern of a superfluid. For simplicity, when
discussing phenomenology we focus on quadratic and cubic graviton self-couplings up to cubic order in derivatives:
for each of these we list all the corresponding operators in the unitary-gauge action.
We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
Appendices~{\ref{app:appendix-new},} \ref{app:appendix-A}{,} \ref{app:appendix-B} {and \ref{app:appendix-C}}
contain some details of the calculations carried out in Sections~\ref{sec:inflation_and_actions}
and \ref{sec:main_section}.
More precisely, Appendi{ces}~\ref{app:appendix-new} {and \ref{app:appendix-A}} show
how to construct the equivalent of the Effective Field Theory (EFT) of Inflation \cite{Cheung:2007st}
for the case of broken spatial diffeomorphisms, with special emphasis on the property of ``tadpole cancellation''
(i.e.~the fact that we want to write an EFT for fluctuations around a FLRW metric).
\paragraph{Summary of main results} We summarize the main results of the paper in the compact table below.
First, we list the different ways to break de Sitter boosts and what they correspond to once we make gravity dynamical. For each of them
we show what are the available (\checkmark) building blocks in terms of the transverse and traceless graviton field \sm{\gamma_{ij}}.
These building blocks can be combined by contracting indices in an \sm{SO(3)}-invariant way.
Given that for all the symmetry breaking patterns it is possible to take further time and spatial derivatives of the available building
blocks, there is no loss of generality in stopping at the order in derivatives we show in the table.
\begin{table}[H]
\myfloatalign
\label{tab:summary}
\centering
\medskip
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
{medium} & broken gauge symmetry & $\gamma_{ij}$ & $a^{-1}\partial_k\gamma_{ij}$ & $a^{-2}\partial_k\partial_l\gamma_{ij}$ & $\dot{\gamma}_{ij}$ \\
\midrule
superfluid & time diff.s & \ding{55} & \ding{55} & \checkmark & \checkmark \\[2ex]
type-I framid & local Lorentz boosts & \ding{55} & \ding{55} & \checkmark & \checkmark \\[2ex]
type-II framid & local boosts and rotations & \ding{55} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\[2ex]
solid & spatial diff.s & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{\texorpdfstring{``Zoology of condensed matter'' and coupling with gravity}{"Zoology of condensed matter" and coupling with gravity}}
\label{sec:zoology_review}
\noindent Let us review the analysis of \cite{Nicolis:2015sra}. We are interested in classifying all the symmetry breaking patterns
that can be associated with a static, homogeneous, and isotropic medium in a relativistic theory.
This implies that, together with the Poincar{\' e} generators \sm{P_\mu, K_i, J_i} of spacetime transformations,
there is a set of translation and rotation generators \sm{\bar{P}_\mu, \bar{J}_i} that govern the excitations inside the medium and
that leave the ground state invariant. These satisfy the same algebra as the Poincar{\' e} generators, i.e.~
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:zoology_review-1}
\big[\bar{J}_i,\bar{J}_j\big] = \mathrm{i}}%\mkern1mu\epsilon_{ijk}\bar{J}_k\,\,, \quad \big[\bar{J}_i,\bar{P}_j\big] = \mathrm{i}}%\mkern1mu\epsilon_{ijk}\bar{P}_k\,\,,
\end{equation}
but they need not be the same as \sm{P_\mu, J_i}. Indeed, the different systems are classified by whether or not \sm{\bar{P}_\mu, \bar{J}_i}
contain additional symmetries, generated by \sm{Q,Q_i,\tilde{Q}_i}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:zoology_review-2}
\bar{P}_0 = P_0 + Q\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i + Q_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i + \tilde{Q}_i\,\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The eightfold (sixfold) way}
\label{subsec:sixfold}
\noindent Ref.~\cite{Nicolis:2015sra} identifies eight types of media, depending on which of the generators \sm{Q,Q_i,\tilde{Q}_i} are non-vanishing. However,
only six of them can be realized by having these generators to be internal symmetries:
the remaining two require them to not commute with the Poincar{\' e} generators.
These two media are dubbed ``galileids'', since they are based on the galileon symmetry. Since, as the authors themselves argue,
it is difficult to extend this symmetry to the case where gravity is dynamical, we will not consider them in the following.
\begin{description}[leftmargin=0pt,labelwidth=0pt]
\item[Type-I framids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent This is the simplest scenario, since it does not involve any internal symmetry. It can be realized by
having a vector field that acquires a vacuum expectation value \sm{\braket{A^\mu(x)} = \delta^\mu_0}.
Ref.~\cite{Nicolis:2015sra} shows that there are three Goldstone modes present: they can be thought as the rapidity of a boost acting on \sm{\delta^\mu_0}.
\item[Type-I superfluids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0 + Q\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent The minimal setup to realize the superfluid scenario is to have a ``phase'' field \sm{\psi(x)} with vacuum
expectation value \sm{\braket{\psi(x)} = t}. The Goldstone mode is the fluctuation of this phase field, \sm{\psi(x)=t+\pi(x)}.
\item[Type-II framids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i + \tilde{Q}_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent As we will see in the rest of the paper, this is an extension of the type-1 framid. It can be realized by a triplet of vector fields
that rotate under an internal \sm{SO(3)} with vacuum expectation value \sm{\braket{A^\mu_i(x)} = \delta^\mu_i}. There are
six Goldstone modes, which can be identified with the rapidity and Euler angles of boosts and rotations acting on \sm{\delta^\mu_i}.
\item[Type-II superfluids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0 + Q\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i + \tilde{Q}_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent This symmetry breaking pattern can be realized by a combination of a type-1 superfluid and a type-2 framid, with a total of seven Goldstone modes.
\item[Solids and fluids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i + Q_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent This is the case of isotropic solids (that is, solids with no preferred axes, or ``jellies''). The low-energy effective field theory
can be characterized by a triplet of scalar fields \sm{\phi^i(x)} with vacuum expectation value
\sm{\braket{\phi^i(x)} = x^i} (the Lagrangian and Eulerian coordinates of the volume elements of the solid, respectively). There
are three Goldstone modes, \sm{\phi^i(x) = x^i+\pi^i(x)}. Fluids are obtained by imposing a symmetry under volume-preserving internal diffeomorphisms.
\item[Supersolids\sm{\,\rm :} \quad \sm{\bar{P}_0 = P_0 + Q\,\,, \quad \bar{P}_i = P_i + Q_i\,\,, \quad \bar{J}_i = J_i + \tilde{Q}_i}]
\leavevmode \\
\noindent Supersolids (with finite-temperature superfluids as a subset) are obtained by adding a type-I superfluid phase to the above case.
\end{description}
{It is important to emphasize that in this paper we consider the implementations that involve the minimal number
of Goldstone modes. We discuss this in more detail in Section~\ref{subsec:a_word_on_Goldstone_modes}
(one can also refer to \cite{Nicolis:2015sra} itself, more precisely their Section~2.1).}
\subsection{Coupling with gravity}
\label{subsec:coupling_with_gravity}
\noindent Let us now discuss how to couple these systems with gravity. The precise derivation would involve
the Callan-Coleman-Wess-Zumino (CCWZ) construction \cite{Coleman:1969sm,Callan:1969sn,Volkov:1973vd,Ivanov:1975zq}, also known as coset construction,
similarly to what has been done in \cite{Delacretaz:2014oxa} for Einstein gravity.
Here we take a much faster route: we just make an educated guess on the final result based on \cite{Delacretaz:2015edn,Bordin:2018pca}.
Indeed, these papers employ the CCWZ construction to couple to gravity two of the patterns of the previous section.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Ref.~\cite{Bordin:2018pca} showed that the coset construction for
the type-I superfluid gives the EFT of Inflation \cite{Cheung:2007st}, in which time diffeomorphisms are broken.
\item Ref.~\cite{Delacretaz:2015edn}, instead, showed that the type-I framid results in a breaking of
local Lorentz boosts, intended as transformations in the tangent space: for example,
given the vierbein \sm{e^\mu_A}, objects like \sm{\nabla_\mu e^\mu_0} can now appear in the action (\sm{\mu,\nu,\dots} and \sm{A,B,\dots} are diffeomorphism indices and local Lorentz ones, respectively).
\end{itemize}
How to couple the remaining symmetry breaking patterns to gravity is then clear.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item The case of a generic fluid, and more generally of a solid, amounts to the breaking of spatial diffeomorphisms, i.e.~to
Solid Inflation \cite{Endlich:2012pz} at lowest order in a derivative expansion.\footnote{{We recall that the additional
symmetries of a fluid, i.e.~the invariance under volume-preserving internal diffeomorphisms holds, prevent us from
building a healthy inflationary model, as discussed at the end of Section~3 of \cite{Endlich:2012pz} (see also
\cite{Endlich:2010hf,Gripaios:2014yha} for more discussions on the quantum mechanics of fluids). In this work, whose focus is on the interactions
of the graviton, we will not be concerned with these issues and consider the quadratic action of the Goldstone modes to be
that of a solid/``jelly''.}}
\item Type-II framids also involve the breaking of local Lorentz transformations. While in the case of the type-I framid only \sm{e^\mu_0} is allowed,
now the dreibein \sm{e^\mu_I} (\sm{I=1,2,3}) is what can appear in the action.
\item In both these cases, the fact that we want spatial and internal rotations to be broken to the diagonal subgroup
amounts to contracting the indices \sm{I,J,K,\dots} in an \sm{SO(3)}-invariant way.
\item Finally, the finite-temperature superfluid results in the breaking of all diffeomorphisms, i.e.~in Supersolid Inflation at
lowest order in derivatives \cite{Bartolo:2015qvr,Ricciardone:2016lym,Domenech:2017kno,Celoria:2020diz},
while type-II superfluids break time diffeomorphisms and local Lorentz transformations.
\end{itemize}
\section{Inflationary solutions and unitary-gauge actions}
\label{sec:inflation_and_actions}
\noindent We are now ready to construct the unitary-gauge action for the different symmetry breaking patterns.
We focus on the cases of type-I superfluids, solids and framids only. As discussed at the end of the previous section, the
remaining two patterns can be obtained straightforwardly from these four.
\subsection{Type-I superfluids}
\label{subsec:EFTI}
\noindent The breaking of time diffeomorphisms results in the EFT of Inflation, for which we refer to the original paper \cite{Cheung:2007st}.
The building blocks in this case are all diffeomorphism-invariant quantities constructed from the metric, together with all objects that can be
constructed from \sm{\partial_\mu t}, or equivalently the normal \sm{n_\mu = -\partial_\mu t/\sqrt{-g^{00}}} to the hypersurfaces of constant clock.
What is important to emphasize in this case is the following. The high degree of symmetry of the
FLRW background ensures that is possible to obtain ``tadpole cancellation''
at all orders in derivatives. Let us consider the ``slow-roll action'', i.e.~\cite{Cheung:2007st}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:EFTI-general_action}
S = \int\mathrm{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g}\,\bigg\{\frac{M_{\rm P}^2}{2}R - c(t)g^{00} - \Lambda(t)\bigg\}\,\,.
\end{equation}
At any order in derivatives one can show that additional operators can be split in a perturbation and a background part,
without introducing new degrees of freedom, in
such a way that the background part is always reabsorbed by the free functions \sm{c} and \sm{\Lambda} (possibly after integration by parts). The chief example is that of the
extrinsic curvature of constant-\sm{t} hypersurfaces, \sm{K_{\mu\nu} = \delta\!K_{\mu\nu} + H h_{\mu\nu}} (where \sm{h_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}+n_\mu n_\nu}).
\subsection{Solids and fluids}
\label{subsec:solids}
\noindent When breaking spatial diffeomorphisms, the building blocks are again all diffeomorphism-invariant
quantities constructed from the metric, together with all objects constructed from \sm{\partial_\mu x^i}
(see also \cite{Lin:2015cqa} for a discussion focused on the scalar and vector modes).
At leading order in derivatives, the action is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solids-general_action}
S = \int\mathrm{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g}\,\bigg\{\frac{M_{\rm P}^2}{2}R + F(X,Y,Z)\bigg\}\,\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solids-X_Y_Z}
X = g^{ii}\,\,, \quad Y = \frac{g^{ij}g^{ji}}{X^2}\,\,, \quad Z = \frac{g^{ij}g^{jk}g^{ki}}{X^3}\,\,.
\end{equation}
Choosing \sm{F} and \sm{\partial F/\partial X} appropriately, one can solve the equations of motion on the background
for any value of the energy density and pressure. More precisely, quasi de Sitter expansion \sm{\varepsilon = {-\dot{H}/H^2}}
can be achieved if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solids-SR_condition}
\varepsilon = \frac{\partial\ln F}{\partial\ln X} \ll 1\,\,,
\end{equation}
and the role of the clock determining when inflation ends is played by \sm{X = 3/a^2(t)}.
Compared to the EFT of Inflation, there are however some subtleties involved when we want to construct the action at higher order in derivatives.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item First, whenever we add new operators we want to make sure that we are not strongly breaking the de Sitter dilation symmetry.
While in the EFT of Inflation this is automatically ensured if we use \sm{\partial_\mu t}, which is invariant under \sm{t\to t+c},
things are different if we use \sm{\partial_\mu x^i}, which is not invariant under scale transformations \sm{x^i\to\lambda x^i}.\footnote{Here
we have in mind that the Greek indices are all contracted in a diffeomorphism-invariant way when we construct operators to put in the Lagrangian
(e.g.~we form objects like \sm{R^{ii} = R^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu x^i\partial_\nu x^i}, and so on).
The resulting operators, then, will not be invariant under dilations unless one divides by an appropriate power of \sm{\sqrt{X}}.
Equivalently, one can think of \sm{x^i\to\lambda x^i} as an internal transformation, i.e.~a transformation of the three
scalar fields describing the Lagrangian coordinates of the solid elements.}
More prosaically, the diffeomorphism-breaking operators should
be constructed from the unit-norm one-forms \sm{\partial_\mu x^i/\sqrt{X}}, normal to the worldlines \sm{x^i={\rm const.}}
of the volume elements of the solids.
\item Second is the problem of tadpole subtraction. Once we include higher-derivative operators, it is not possible to
reabsorb their background in the leading-order action of \eq{solids-general_action}. Let us consider, for example, the
equivalent of the extrinsic curvature. Given the worldlines \sm{x^i={\rm const.}},
we can construct the unit vector parallel to them as \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solids-unit_vector}
O^\mu = \frac{\vec{e}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_\nu x^i\partial_\rho x^j\partial_\sigma x^k}{6\sqrt{\det(g^{mn})}}\,\,,
\end{equation}
where \sm{\vec{e}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}={\sqrt{-g}\,\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}}} (\sm{\vec{e}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}={-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}/\sqrt{-g}}})
is the volume form. Given the projector \sm{{\cal H}_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + O_\mu O_\nu}, the tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solids-extrinsic_curvature-A}
{\cal K}_{\mu\nu} = {\cal H}_{(\mu}^{\hphantom{(\mu}\rho}\nabla_\rho O_{\nu)}
\end{equation}
is then the equivalent of \sm{K_{\mu\nu}}, to which it would reduce if \sm{\vec{e}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}O_\nu\nabla_\rho O_\sigma=0}.\footnote{{Again,} we
refer to \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd,Endlich:2010hf,Gripaios:2014yha} for a more detailed discussion about vorticity, which is outside of the scope of this work.}
It is now impossible, however, to write its background without breaking time diffeomorphisms.
One can construct an object starting at linear order in perturbations by taking the combination
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:extrinsic_curvature-B}
\delta {\cal K}_{\mu\nu} = {\cal K}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{\nabla_\rho O^\rho}{3} {\cal H}_{\mu\nu}\,\,.
\end{equation}
However when we construct, for example, the operator \sm{{\cal K}_{\mu\nu}{\cal K}^{\mu\nu}}, we run into the issue that the operator \sm{(\nabla_\rho O^\rho)^2}
is not contained in the action of \eq{solids-general_action}. This way of phrasing the problem suggests its solution: it should be enough to add
a dependence of \sm{F} on a single additional operator, \sm{\nabla_\rho O^\rho}.
While the problem of tadpole subtraction is immaterial if one wants to study
graviton interactions only, as we will see in detail in Section~\ref{sec:main_section},
it is still worth to keep it in mind as a difference between this symmetry breaking pattern and
the EFT of Inflation. {We elaborate on this in Appendices~\ref{app:appendix-new} and \ref{app:appendix-A}.}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Type-II framid ($\supset$ type-I framid)}{Type-II framid (\textbackslash supset type-I framid)}}
\label{subsec:framids}
\noindent Let us first focus on the case of type-II framids. As it is easy to imagine, the fact that we do not have a clock tells us
that we cannot write an effective theory for perturbations around a generic FLRW spacetime.
Thus, if we wanted to use this symmetry breaking
pattern as a legit inflationary model, we should add new degrees of freedom to exit inflation (the simplest thing to do is to add a clock, which
would result in the symmetry breaking pattern of type-II superfluids).
Let us nevertheless press forward and see how one can obtain a pure de Sitter solution, since this allows us to introduce the geometric objects that will be used in
Section~\ref{sec:main_section}.
The quickest way to show this is by looking at the different operators one can write down, order-by-order in derivatives.
First, given a dreibein \sm{e^\mu_I}, we can immediately obtain the unit vector orthogonal to \sm{e^\mu_I} via the volume form as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-1}
e^\mu_0 = -\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{6}\epsilon_{IJK}\vec{e}_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}e^\alpha_Ie^\beta_Je^\gamma_K\,\,.
\end{equation}
Importantly, this unit vector is not only orthogonal to \sm{e^\mu_I}, but one can show that if we define the tetrad as \sm{e^\mu_A=\{e^\mu_0,e^\mu_I\}},
and transform \sm{e^\mu_I} as \sm{e'^\mu_I = \Lambda_I^{\hphantom{I}B}e^\mu_B} (where \sm{\Lambda_A^{\hphantom{A}B}} is a local Lorentz transformation), we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-2}
e'^\mu_0 = -\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{6}\epsilon_{IJK}\vec{e}_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}e'^\alpha_Ie'^\beta_Je'^\gamma_K = \Lambda^A_0e^\mu_A\,\,.
\end{equation}
What operators can we construct from the tetrad \sm{e^\mu_A}, then?
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item At zeroth order in derivatives, the only non-gauge-invariant quantity we can use is \sm{e^\mu_A} itself. Since greek indices must be contracted, the
only object we can use is \sm{g_{\mu\nu}e^\mu_Ae^\nu_B = \eta_{AB}},
where tetrad indices must be contracted in an \sm{SO(3)}-invariant way. These only modify the cosmological constant.
\item At first order in derivatives we have four additional building blocks. These are the tensors
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-3}
e^\nu_0\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0\,\,, \quad e^\nu_0\nabla_\nu e^\mu_J\,\,, \quad e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0\,\,, \quad e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_J\,\,.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to see that around a de Sitter spacetime we can subtract the background
of these tensors without introducing new degrees of freedom. More precisely, defining the dual one-forms
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-4}
\omega_\mu^A=\eta_{AB}g_{\mu\nu}e^\nu_B\,\,,
\end{equation}
we can isolate the fluctuations as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:framids-5}
\begin{align}
\delta(e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0) &= e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0 - H e^\mu_I\,\,, \label{eq:framids-5-1} \\
\delta(e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_J) &= e^\nu_I\nabla_\nu e^\mu_J - H\delta_{IJ}e^\mu_0
\label{eq:framids-5-2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-6}
\delta(\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0) = \nabla_\nu e^\mu_0 - H(\delta_\nu^{\hphantom{\nu}} - \omega_\nu^0 e^\mu_0)\,\,.
\end{equation}
These imply that \sm{e^\nu_0\nabla_\nu e^\mu_0} vanishes for a de Sitter metric, as does \sm{e^\nu_0\nabla_\nu e^\mu_J}.
\item At higher order in derivatives, via the product rule we can always rewrite the background of non-gauge-invariant
tensors in terms of \eqsII{framids-5}{framids-6}.
\end{itemize}
One can also check how these objects transform under the de Sitter dilation symmetry. It is easy to see that, in de Sitter spacetime,
the Lie derivative of \sm{e^\mu_I} along the vector field \sm{\delta^\mu_0 - Hx^i\delta^\mu_i} is equal to zero.
What about type-I framids? Given \eqsII{framids-1}{framids-2}, we see that this symmetry breaking pattern is a subset of the type-II framid:
for this reason we will not discuss them further. It is interesting to notice that if we require a symmetry under the global transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framids-7}
e^\mu_I\to M_I^{\hphantom{I}J}e^\mu_J\,\,,
\end{equation}
with \sm{M_I^{\hphantom{I}J}} a three-dimensional matrix having unit determinant, it seems we can single out \sm{e^\mu_0}
as the only vector from which to construct non-gauge-invariant operators. However this works only at leading (zeroth) order
in derivatives. Given that finding such symmetry is not necessary for the purposes of this paper, we leave this question to future work.
\subsection{A word on the Goldstone modes}
\label{subsec:a_word_on_Goldstone_modes}
\noindent Before proceeding, we find it useful to quickly summarize how the Stueckelberg trick
to reintroduce the Goldstone modes works for these different symmetry breaking patterns.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item In the superfluid case we are breaking time diffeomorphisms. The Stueckelberg trick, then,
simply amounts to performing a time diffeomorphism \sm{t\to t+\pi}, as explained in detail in \cite{Cheung:2007st}.
After the Stueckelberg trick, the ``flat-gauge metric'' can be written in the usual ADM decomposition, with a spatial
part that only contains the graviton (i.e.~no vector or scalar modes).
\item In the case of a solid we are breaking spatial diffeomorphisms. The Stueckelberg trick is a spatial diffeomorphism \sm{x^i\to x^i+\pi^i}, where
\sm{\pi^i} can be decomposed in a scalar and a vector part. Again, the spatial metric only contains the graviton after performing the Stueckelberg trick.
\item In the case of framids the Stueckelberg trick consists in doing a local Lorentz transformation. As we have already discussed
in Section~\ref{subsec:sixfold}, the parameters of this transformation are the rapidity and the three Euler angles, i.e.~we have six degrees of
freedom (two scalars and two vectors). Also in this case the metric after the Stueckelberg trick can be decomposed in ADM variables, with
only the graviton present in \sm{g_{ij}} (see e.g.~\cite{Delacretaz:2015edn} for the case of type-I framids).
\end{itemize}
{In this work we consider the minimal implementations of the different symmetry breaking patterns.
Consequently we never have additional spin-\sm{2} degrees of freedom besides the graviton.}
{There are scenarios where these additional degrees of freedom are present: one example is
Gaugid Inflation \cite{Piazza:2017bsd}, which belongs to the symmetry breaking pattern
of a solid. However, it is important to emphasize that in this model the additional spin-\sm{2} mode, \sm{E_{ij}},
behaves differently from the graviton: its quadratic action is not of the form
\sm{{-\int}\mathrm{d}^4x\,a^3\,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu E_{ij}\partial_\nu E_{ij}}.
For this reason we have not discussed this scenario in more detail. Regarding this, it is also worth
to emphasize that the construction of \cite{Bordin:2018pca}, in which the authors use the breaking
of de Sitter boosts to add light spinning particles to the EFT of Inflation (see e.g.~their Section 5),
could be extended to the different scenarios discussed in this paper.}
\section{Main results}
\label{sec:main_section}
\noindent In this section we collect the main results of this paper. First, we show that the
solid is the symmetry breaking that allows the most freedom for graviton interactions (Section \ref{subsec:most_general_graviton_interactions}).
Then, we study some phenomenological consequences of these interactions (Section \ref{subsec:a_bit_of_phenomenology}).
\subsection{Most general graviton interactions}
\label{subsec:most_general_graviton_interactions}
\noindent The best way to see what is the symmetry breaking pattern that allows the most
freedom is working at the level of linear fluctuations.
That is, we work directly with the graviton field \sm{\gamma_{ij}}, and check what are the
``minimal'' building blocks in the different symmetry breaking patterns.
Since we only focus on the graviton, we can take the line element to be
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-metric}
\mathrm{d} s^2=-\mathrm{d} t^2 + a^2(\mathrm{e}}%\mkern1mu^{\gamma})_{ij}\mathrm{d} x^i\mathrm{d} x^j\,\,,
\end{equation}
that is we set the lapse and shift variables to zero, together with the scalar and vector modes that are introduced by making broken diffeomorphisms or
broken local Lorentz transformations (see Section~\ref{subsec:a_word_on_Goldstone_modes} for details).\footnote{When looking at interactions higher
than cubic one also needs to include the constraints (which
otherwise need only to be solved at linear order \cite{Maldacena:2002vr}, and consequently do not contain \sm{\gamma_{ij}}). These terms
do not change the conclusions of this paper, so we leave their detailed study to future work.}
From this, we can write the tetrad as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-tetrad}
e^\mu_0 = \delta^\mu_0\,\,, \quad e^0_I = 0\,\,, \quad e^i_I = a^{-1}(\mathrm{e}}%\mkern1mu^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}})_{iI}\,\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{description}[leftmargin=0pt,labelwidth=0pt]
\item[Type-I superfluids] Let us start from looking at the building blocks for the EFT of Inflation.
At linear order, \sm{\gamma_{ij}} can only appear with derivatives: time derivatives enter
as \sm{\delta\!K_i^{\hphantom{i}j} = \dot{\gamma}_{ij}/2}, while spatial derivatives \sm{a^{-2}\partial_k\partial_l\gamma_{ij}} enter via
\sm{{^{(3)}}\!R^{ij}_{\hphantom{ij}kl}}, the Riemann curvature tensor on
constant-time hypersurfaces. More precisely, \sm{a^{-2}\partial_k\partial_l\gamma_{ij}} can only appear in the combination
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-curvature_tensor}
{^{(3)}}\!R^{ij}_{\hphantom{ij}kl} = a^{-2}\big(\partial_k\partial_{[i}\gamma_{j]l} - \partial_l\partial_{[i}\gamma_{j]k}\big)\,\,.
\end{equation}
It is then possible to take any number of spatial and time derivatives of these building blocks by
using the covariant derivative \sm{D_\mu} on the \sm{t={\rm const.}} hypersurfaces and \sm{n^\mu\nabla_\mu}, respectively.
\item[Type-II framids] We then move to the type-II framid. First, we see that using \sm{e^\mu_0} allows us to reproduce all the geometric objects of the
EFT of Inflation. Then, given that at lowest order in derivatives we cannot write any non-gauge-invariant object -- we
always end up with a cosmological constant -- it is still impossible to write \sm{\gamma_{ij}} without derivatives. Unlike the case of broken time diffeomorphisms, however, it is now possible to use
\sm{a^{-1}\partial_k\gamma_{ij}} as a building block. More precisely, we can use the combination
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-framid_christoffel}
{-\omega_\mu^K} \delta(e^\nu_J\nabla_\nu e^\mu_I) = {-\omega_\mu^K} e^\nu_J\nabla_\nu e^\mu_I = {a^{-1}}\partial_{[K}\gamma_{I]J}\,\,.
\end{equation}
Here we notice the overall factor of \sm{a^{-1}}, that we expect from the discussion on
invariance under de Sitter dilations of Section~\ref{subsec:framids}.
\item[Solids] When we break spatial diffeomorphisms we can still reproduce all the operators of the EFT of Inflation.
This is achieved by using the
vector \sm{O^\mu} defined in \eq{solids-unit_vector}. Let us go back to the problem of the cancellation of tadpoles. We know that in the EFT of
Inflation the background of all operators can be constructed from the normal vector to the constant-time hypersurfaces
(whose role here is played by \sm{O^\mu}), and the Hubble rate with its time derivatives. We have seen, e.g.~in \eq{extrinsic_curvature-B},
that the four-divergence of \sm{O^\mu} can play the role of the Hubble rate. We can then use \sm{O^\mu\nabla_\mu} to take time derivatives of this proxy for \sm{H}.
There is no loss of generality in doing this if we can show that these objects do not contain the graviton. Luckily, this is easy to prove. From the
definition of \eq{solids-unit_vector}, we see that \sm{O^\mu} does not contain \sm{\gamma_{ij}} since neither \sm{\vec{e}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}}
nor \sm{\sqrt{\det(g^{mn})}} do. Using the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-divergence_formula}
\nabla_\mu O^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{-g}}}\,\partial_\mu(\sqrt{{-g}}\,O^\mu)
\end{equation}
we see that its four-divergence also does not contain the graviton.
Then, given that to take its time derivatives we are only acting with \sm{O^\mu\nabla_\mu} on a scalar,
we can replace \sm{\nabla_\mu} with \sm{\partial_\mu} (which also does not contain \sm{\gamma_{ij}}).
What about spatial derivatives? It is straightforward to see that we can use directly \sm{{a^{-1}}\partial_{k}\gamma_{ij}} (where,
unlike \eq{most_general_graviton_interactions-framid_christoffel}, we do not need to take any antisymmetrization over \sm{k} and \sm{j}) by considering
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-solid_christoffel-1}
\Gamma^{kij}\equiv-\frac{g^{\mu k}g^{\nu (i}\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu x^{j)}}{(X/3)^{{3}/{2}}}\,\,,
\end{equation}
a quantity that starts linear in perturbations. As discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:solids}, we divide by the appropriate power of \sm{X} to ensure invariance
under spatial dilations. This in turn ensures that we reproduce the expected power of the scale factor when we have one spatial derivative acting on \sm{\gamma_{ij}}, as
in \eq{most_general_graviton_interactions-framid_christoffel}. Indeed, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-solid_christoffel-2}
\frac{1}{2a}\partial_{k}\gamma_{ij} = \Gamma^{kij}\,\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, there is one more additional freedom with respect to the case of type-II framids. While there we can only contract spatial indices
via the Kronecker delta, here we can use \sm{\gamma_{ij}} itself through
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:most_general_graviton_interactions-solid-more_freedom}
\Gamma^{ij}\equiv\delta_{ij} - \frac{3g^{ij}}{X}\,\,,
\end{equation}
which is equal to \sm{\gamma_{ij}} at linear order in perturbations.
\end{description}
\subsection{A bit of phenomenology}
\label{subsec:a_bit_of_phenomenology}
\noindent Let us then discuss the phenomenology of the solid symmetry breaking pattern. Given the large amount of freedom we have,
characterizing all the signatures is a complicated task. For this reason, we think it is more useful to compare with the EFT of Inflation.
While we have shown that the symmetry breaking pattern of a solid captures the most general graviton interactions
at \emph{all} orders in perturbations and derivatives, when discussing the phenomenology it is useful to work in a derivative expansion.
We stop at second order in this expansion. Moreover, we focus on operators that start from cubic order in perturbations at most, i.e.~we
look at the tree-level graviton bispectrum.
At lowest (zeroth) order in derivatives, we have a small mass of order
\sm{\varepsilon H^2} for the graviton, and a cubic vertex \sm{\gamma_{ij}\gamma_{jk}\gamma_{ki}} that instead
is not slow-roll-suppressed (see \cite{Endlich:2012pz,Endlich:2013jia}, for example: we review this in
Appendix~\ref{app:appendix-B}). The latter has been shown in \cite{Endlich:2013jia}
to give a graviton bispectrum that peaks in the squeezed limit, and that does not asymptote a constant at late times
even at leading order in \sm{\varepsilon} (at this order we can use de Sitter modes to compute the in-in integral: given that the interaction is purely local, it is
easy to see that there are divergences of the form \sm{\ln({-k\eta})}, where \sm{\eta} is the conformal time \sm{-1/aH}).
Let us go to second order in derivatives (i.e.~consider the new operators discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:most_general_graviton_interactions}).
At quadratic order in perturbations, we can look at the different ways in which the speed of sound of the graviton can be modified. {First, using
$O^\mu$ we can construct the operators of the EFT of Inflation} like the Ricci scalar on the constant-time hypersurfaces \sm{{{^{(3)}}\!R}}
and the square of the extrinsic curvature \sm{\delta {\cal K}_{\mu\nu}\delta {\cal K}^{\mu\nu}}{. We have already discussed
below \eq{solids-extrinsic_curvature-A} how ${\cal K}_{\mu\nu}$ reduces to the extrinsic curvature when only tensor perturbations are considered.
In a similar way it is possible to construct an object that reduces to \sm{{{^{(3)}}\!R}}: we discuss this in Appendix~\ref{app:appendix-C}.}
{Besides these,} there are many new operators that reduce to \sm{\dot{\gamma}_{ij}^2} and \sm{a^{-2}(\partial_k\gamma_{ij})^2}
at quadratic order in \sm{\gamma_{ij}}, but differ from the EFT of Inflation ones at cubic order (and higher). Two simple examples are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-simple_speed_of_sound}
(O^\mu\nabla_\mu\Gamma^{ij})(O^\nu\nabla_\nu\Gamma^{ij})\,\,,\quad\Gamma^{kij}\Gamma^{kij}\,\,.
\end{equation}
An operator that instead is essentially equivalent to the three-Ricci scalar is the one studied in \cite{Ricciardone:2016lym},
i.e.~\sm{G^{ii}}, where \sm{G_{\mu\nu}} is the four-dimensional Einstein tensor (indeed, Ref.~\cite{Ricciardone:2016lym}
shows that the resulting graviton bispectrum has the same shape as that from Einstein gravity).
A phenomenologically interesting observation comes when we turn from the quadratic action to the interactions. One of the main points of \cite{Creminelli:2014wna}
is that by appropriately redefining the lightcone and consequently putting the tensor sound speed to \sm{1}, one also removes completely
all graviton self-interactions beyond the ones from Einstein gravity. This relies on the fact that there are only two operators to remove,
\sm{{{^{(3)}}\!R}} and \sm{\delta {\cal K}_{\mu\nu}\delta {\cal K}^{\mu\nu}}, and two free coefficients in the lightcone redefinition
(those of a conformal and disformal transformation of the metric, see also \cite{Bordin:2017hal} for details).
Now the situation is different simply because we have more operators to play with, but the same number of free coefficients in the lightcone
redefinition.\footnote{Indeed, at this order in derivatives and perturbations the only objects we can use
are the vector \sm{O^\mu} and the normalized one-forms \sm{\partial_\mu x^i/\sqrt{X}}. Because we need to contract latin
indices in an \sm{SO(3)}-invariant way,
we can only use the combination \sm{\partial_\mu x^i\partial_\nu x^i/X}, which is essentially equivalent to \sm{g_{\mu\nu} + O_\mu O_\nu}.}
This tells us that, while there is no loss of generality in putting the tensor
speed of sound to \sm{1}, doing so does \emph{not} remove also the interaction terms.
Another important phenomenological difference with the EFT of Inflation is the following.
As we have seen, all interactions in that case come from operators starting quadratic in \sm{\gamma_{ij}}: there
are no operators starting at cubic order in \sm{\gamma_{ij}} at second order in derivatives.
If we break spatial diffeomorphisms the situation changes. For example, we can combine
\eq{most_general_graviton_interactions-solid-more_freedom} with \eq{a_bit_of_phenomenology-simple_speed_of_sound} to construct
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-purely_cubic_interactions}
\text{$\gamma_{jl}\dot{\gamma}_{ij}\dot{\gamma}_{il}$ \quad and \quad $a^{-2}\gamma_{kl}\partial_k\gamma_{ij}\partial_l\gamma_{ij}\,\,,$}
\end{equation}
where we notice that the second structure appears directly in the Einstein-Hilbert action
(it is contained in \sm{{{^{(3)}}\!R}} together with \sm{a^{-2}\gamma_{jl}\partial_k\gamma_{ij}\partial_k\gamma_{il}}), while the first one does not.
Most importantly, both structures contain an undifferentiated tensor mode.
This confirms that, if spatial diffeomorphisms are broken, the squeezed limit ${\cal O}(1/q^3)$ of the three-point function of the graviton is not
controlled only by coefficients entering in the graviton power spectrum. This is already apparent at the zeroth order in derivatives
(for example, we can see this by comparing \eq{appendix-B-3} with \eq{appendix-B-4} in Appendix~\ref{app:appendix-B}): here we arrive
at the same conclusion at second order. This is a fast way to see that the consistency relations are not respected if we break spatial
diffeomorphisms. We refer to \cite{Endlich:2013jia,Bordin:2017ozj,Pajer:2019jhb}
for a discussion of soft limits involving scalar and vector modes in Solid Inflation.
It is straightforward to compute the graviton three-point function from the operators of
\eq{a_bit_of_phenomenology-purely_cubic_interactions}. Using the standard Fourier decomposition for the graviton,\footnote{
This is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bispectra-A}
\gamma_{ij}(t,\vec{x}) = \int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\sum_s\epsilon^s_{ij}(\vec{k})\gamma^{s}_{\vec{k}}(t)\mathrm{e}}%\mkern1mu^{\mathrm{i}}%\mkern1mu\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\,\,,
\end{equation}
where the traceless polarization tensors \sm{\epsilon^s_{ij}} satisfy \sm{k^i\epsilon^s_{ij}(\vec{k})=0}.}
together with the three elementary symmetric polynomials
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:bispectra-B}
\begin{alignat}{3}
k_T &= e_1 &&= k_1+k_2+k_3\,\,, \label{eq:bispectra-B-1} \\
{} &\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, e_2 &&= k_1k_2+k_2k_3+k_3k_1\,\,, \label{eq:bispectra-B-2} \\
{} &\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, e_3 &&= k_1k_2k_3\,\,, \label{eq:bispectra-B-3}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
we find
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:bispectra-C}
\begin{align}
\braket{\gamma^{s_1}_{\vec{k}_1}\gamma^{s_2}_{\vec{k}_2}\gamma^{s_3}_{\vec{k}_3}}'_{\gamma\dot{\gamma}\dot{\gamma}} &=
\frac{H^4M^2}{2M_{\rm P}^6}\,\frac{k_Te^2_2+e_2e_3-2k_T^2e_3}{e_3^3k_T^2}\,
\epsilon^{s_1}_{ij}({-\vec{k}_1})\epsilon^{s_2}_{jk}({-\vec{k}_2})\epsilon^{s_3}_{ki}({-\vec{k}_3})\,\,, \label{eq:bispectra-C-1} \\
\braket{\gamma^{s_1}_{\vec{k}_1}\gamma^{s_2}_{\vec{k}_2}\gamma^{s_3}_{\vec{k}_3}}'_{\gamma\partial{\gamma}\partial{\gamma}} &=
\frac{H^4M^2}{2M_{\rm P}^6}\,\frac{k_Te_2+e_3-k_T^3}{e_3^3k_T^2}\,
\epsilon^{s_1}_{il}({-\vec{k}_1})\epsilon^{s_2}_{jm}({-\vec{k}_2})\epsilon^{s_3}_{kn}({-\vec{k}_3})\,
T_{ijk}^{lmn}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)\,\,, \label{eq:bispectra-C-2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bispectra-D}
T_{ijk}^{lmn}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3) =
k_2^ik_3^l\delta_{jk}\delta_{mn} + k_3^jk_1^m\delta_{ki}\delta_{nl} + k_1^kk_2^n\delta_{ij}\delta_{lm}\,\,.
\end{equation}
Here \sm{M^2} is a mass scale that makes the operators have mass dimension \sm{4}. We have used de Sitter
mode functions to compute these bispectra: given that the mass of the graviton is slow-roll-suppressed, this is
correct at leading order in \sm{\varepsilon}.
A final observation that is worth making is the following. If we break parity, in the EFT of Inflation it is only
possible to modify the quadratic action of the graviton starting from third order in derivatives, via operators that reduce to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-A}
\text{$a^{-1}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_i\dot{\gamma}_{jl}\dot{\gamma}_{lk}$ \quad and \quad
$a^{-3}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_i\partial_l\gamma_{jm}\partial_l\gamma_{mk}$}
\end{equation}
at quadratic order in \sm{\gamma_{ij}}. Now it is possible to write operators both at first and second order in derivatives, via
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-B}
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{ijk} \Gamma^{il}\Gamma^{jlk} &= a^{-1}\epsilon_{ijk}\gamma_{il}\partial_j\gamma_{lk}\,\,,
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-B-1} \\
\epsilon_{ijk} \Gamma^{jlk}O^\mu\nabla_\mu\Gamma^{il} &= a^{-1}\epsilon_{ijk}\dot{\gamma}_{il}\partial_j\gamma_{lk}\,\,.
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-B-2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These two operators split the graviton helicities. However, one can easily see that they lead to
serious instabilities on subhorizon scales. Given the circularly-polarized polarization tensors
\sm{\epsilon^\pm_{ij}(\vec{k})}, and using the property \sm{\mathrm{i}}%\mkern1mu k^l\epsilon_{jlm}\epsilon^s_{im}(\vec{k})
= \lambda_s k\epsilon^s_{ij}(\vec{k})}, \sm{\lambda_\pm = \pm 1}, we see that the contribution of these two operators to the dispersion
relation of the two \mbox{helicities is}
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-C}
\begin{align}
\omega^2 &= k^2 + \lambda_sMk\,\,, \label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-C-1} \\
\omega^2 &= k^2 + \mathrm{i}}%\mkern1mu c\lambda_s\omega k\,\,. \label{eq:a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-C-2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here \sm{M} and \sm{c} (of mass dimension \sm{1} and \sm{0} respectively) are the coefficients controlling the operators of
\eq{a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-B}, we have neglected the mass of the graviton since it is of order
\sm{\varepsilon H^2}, and we assume that \sm{M\gg H}.
We see that the second operator essentially gives a complex speed of sound to the graviton (one can see this in the limit \sm{c\ll 1}),
while the first operator makes the frequency of one of the two helicities purely imaginary for \sm{k\ll M}.
In summary, these operators lead to instabilities on short scales, and it is therefore unclear how to make sense
of the Bunch-Davies vacuum if we turn them on.
This is also why we do not study parity-breaking operators at higher order in perturbations:
it does not make much sense to do so while putting to zero the operators of \eqsI{a_bit_of_phenomenology-parity_violation-B},
since the cubic and higher-order operators could generate these via loop effects.\footnote{Indeed,
there is no symmetry besides parity that is recovered if we put \sm{M} or \sm{c} to zero.}
We leave a more detailed investigation of this issue for a future work.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\noindent In this paper we have studied graviton non-Gaussianities in models of the early universe
in which de Sitter boosts are spontaneously broken, showing that the case where the epoch of de Sitter
expansion is driven by a solid is the one with the more freedom for graviton self-interactions.
This freedom makes systematically studying all the possible correlation functions very complicated, and we expect
that a full characterization of non-Gaussianities involving also the Goldstone modes (a scalar and a vector for a solid)
to be even more difficult. For this reason it would be interesting to extend the approach of the ``Boostless Bootstrap''
recently put forward in \cite{Pajer:2020wxk} to this symmetry breaking pattern (recently, Ref.~\cite{Cabass:2021fnw} has made progress in this direction).
The well-known fact that cosmological perturbations are not conserved in Solid Inflation, even at leading order in the slow-roll
expansion (for the graviton this is exemplified by the unsuppressed cubic interaction
\sm{\propto\gamma_{ij}\gamma_{jk}\gamma_{ki}}, and see e.g.~\cite{Bartolo:2013msa,Akhshik:2014gja,Bartolo:2014xfa,
Dimastrogiovanni:2014ina,Akhshik:2014bla,Abolhasani:2015cve,Bordin:2016ruc,Meszaros:2019tfd}
for studies of mixed three-point functions involving curvature perturbations), makes it difficult to set up a theory
of correlators on the boundary of de Sitter: we leave investigations of such issues to future work.
Finally, we emphasize that in this work we have focused on \emph{isotropic} solids, i.e.~where we have invariance under
the full \sm{SO(3)} group. Refs.~\cite{Kang:2015uha,Kang:2018bqc,Nicolis:2020rqz} study what happens if this assumption
is relaxed to invariance under a discrete subgroup of rotations. It would be interesting to study how our results generalize
to their setup.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\noindent It is a pleasure to thank Misha Ivanov, Enrico Pajer, Gianmassimo Tasinato, Matias Zaldarriaga,
and especially Mehrdad Mirbabayi and Sadra Jazayeri for useful discussions. I also thank Mehrdad Mirbabayi
and Enrico Pajer for very useful comments on the draft. I acknowledge support from the Institute for Advanced Study.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Summary} In this paper we give an explicit description of the minimal regular model of a bihyperelliptic curve $Y$ with semistable reduction over a local field $K$ of residue characteristic $p>2$. A \textit{bihyperelliptic curve} is a smooth curve with maps to two distinct hyperelliptic curves\footnote{For us, a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ is a curve given by equations $y^2 = f(x)$ and $v^2 = u^{2g+2} f(1/u)$ glued along the maps $(x, y) \mapsto (1/x, y/x^{g+1})$.} $C_1$ and $C_2$. This is achieved using a generalisation of the\textit{ cluster picture}, an invariant of hyperelliptic curves. Cluster pictures are a relatively recent development; they are a completely combinatorial object attached to a hyperelliptic curve $C/K$ from which much of the local arithmetic of $C$ can be deduced. For example, cluster pictures have been used to calculate the Galois representation, semistable model, conductor and minimal discriminant of $C$ in \cite{DDMM18}, the minimal snc model if $C$ has tame reduction in \cite{faraggi20models}, the Tamagawa number in \cite{betts2018computation}, the root number in \cite{bisatt2019clusters} and finally differentials in \cite{kunzweiler2019differential} and \cite{muselli2020models}. A survey article is available at \cite{best2020users}. Our generalisation, the \textit{chromatic cluster picture} of $Y$, is an amalgamation of the cluster pictures of $C_1$ and $C_2$, and is mostly sufficient to determine the model of $Y$.
\subsection{Bihyperelliptic Curves, Models and Clusters} Our main objects of study will be bihyperelliptic curves, a curve $Y$ with maps to two distinct hyperelliptic curves $C_1$ and $C_2$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:bihyp}
Let $C_1 : y_1^2 = f_1(x)$ and $C_2 : y^2_2 = f_2(x)$ be hyperelliptic curves, given by their affine models, with $f_1$ and $f_2$ coprime. Then $C_h : y_h^2 = f_1(x)f_2(x)$ is their \textit{composite curve}, also hyperelliptic, and the curve $Y$, the smooth projective closure of $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{c}
y_1^2 = f_1(x) \\ y^2_2 = f_2(x)
\end{array}\right\},$$ is a \textit{bihyperelliptic curve}. The curves fit into a tower:
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzcd}
& Y \arrow[d, no head] \arrow[rd, no head] & \\
C_1 \arrow[ru, no head] \arrow[rd, no head] & C_h \arrow[d, no head] & C_2 \\
& \PP^1 \arrow[ru, no head] &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
such that $Y/\PP^1$ is a Galois cover with Galois group $C_2 \times C_2$.
\end{definition}
We would like to find the minimal regular model $\Y^{\textrm{min}}$ of $Y$ in the case where $Y$ has semistable reduction. Recently there has been a flurry of activity finding explicit descriptions for models of different classes of curves, including \cite{DDMM18}, \cite{faraggi20models}, \cite{ruth2015models}, \cite{muselli2020models} (hyperelliptic curves), \cite{bouw2017computing} (superelliptic), \cite{lercier2018reduction}, \cite{bouw2020reduction} (genus 3), \cite{dokchitser2018models} ($\Delta_v$-regular).
To a hyperelliptic curve such as $C_1$ we attach a cluster picture, following \cite{DDMM18}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:cluster}
Let $C : y^2 = f(x)$ be a hyperelliptic curve over $K$, with $\Rcal$ the set of roots of $f$. A \textit{cluster} is a non-empty subset $\s \subseteq \mathcal{R}$ of the form $\s = D \cap \Rcal$ for some disc $D = z + \pi^n \mathcal{O}_K$, where $z \in \overline{K}$ and $n \in \Q$. If $\s$ is a cluster and $|\s| > 1$, $\s$ is a \textit{proper} cluster and we define its \textit{depth} $$d_{\s} = \min_{r, r' \in \s} v_K(r-r').$$
The \textit{cluster picture} $\Sigma = \Sigma_{C/K}$ is the set of all clusters of the roots of $f$.
\end{definition}
The chromatic cluster picture $\Sigma_{\chi}$ of $Y$ is the cluster picture $\Sigma_h$ of $C_h$, the composite curve of $C_1$ and $C_2$, along with a colouring function $c : \Rcal \rightarrow \{\textrm{red, blue}\}$, such that the roots coming from $C_1$ (resp. $C_2$) are coloured red (resp. blue). This information is sufficient to calculate the dual graph of the special fibre $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ of the minimal regular model.
\begin{thm}
Let $K$ be a local field of odd residue characteristic and let $C_1 :y_1^2 = f_1(x)$ and $C_2: y_2^2 = f_2(x)$ be two hyperelliptic curves over $K$. Let $C_h$ be their composite curve. Let $Y$ be the bihyperelliptic curve arising from $C_1$ and $C_2$, such that $Y$ has semistable reduction and all the depths in the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ are integers. Then the dual graph with genera of the special fibre $\Y^{\mathrm{min}}$ of the minimal regular model of $Y$ is entirely determined by the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$.
\end{thm}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:twinintrochrom}
Let $Y$ be any bihyperelliptic curve with the chromatic cluster picture below, where the number to the bottom right of a cluster $\s$ indicates the relative depth $\delta_{\s}$ of the cluster: that is, $d_{\s} - d_{P(\s)}$ where $P(\s)$ is the cluster immediately containing $\s$. The dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ for any such $Y$ is shown below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1)(r2), clB;
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[A] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture \quad \quad
\raisebox{-1.8em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0.7, 0) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0,0) {3};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=150, in=210, looseness=8] node[left] {n} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
We prove this theorem by explicitly describing the dual graph. In order to do this, we define a colouring on the remaining clusters of $\Sigma_{\chi}$. Each cluster can be coloured red, blue, both or neither. In particular, clusters with an odd number of red (resp. blue) children are coloured \textit{red} (resp. \textit{blue}). Clusters which are coloured \textit{both} red \textit{and} blue are \textit{purple}, and clusters which are coloured neither are \textit{black}.
From here, our description of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ is very much in the spirit of \cite[Theorem~8.5]{DDMM18} --- to a cluster $\s$ we associate $1$, $2$ or $4$ components of the special fibre, and the components of $\s$ and $\s'$ are linked by a chain of $\PP^1$s if $\s'$ is a maximal subcluster (\textit{child}) of $\s$ (or vice versa). The length of this chain is determined by $\delta_{\s'} = d_{\s'} - d_{\s}$. In Theorem \ref{thm:frob}, we also give the action of Frobenius on the the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$. Before we state our theorem, let us define some of the cluster terminology used.
\begin{definition}
A cluster $\s\in \Sigma_{\chi}$ is \textit{odd} (resp. \textit{even}) if $|\s|$ is odd (resp. even). A \textit{child} $\s' < \s$ is a maximal subcluster of $\s$. The cluster $\s$ is \textit{\"ubereven} if all its children are even. It is \textit{proper} if $|\s| \geq 2$, \textit{principal} if $|\s| \geq 3$ (except in a few cases if $\s = \Rcal$, see Definition \ref{def:principal}) and a \textit{twin} if $|\s| = 2$. It is \textit{chromatic} if it is red, blue or purple. It has \textit{polychromatic children} if it has a purple child, or if it has both a red and a blue child (it can have other children as well) and \textit{monochromatic children} if all of its chromatic children are red or all of its chromatic children are blue. The \textit{relative depth} of a cluster $\s' < \s$ is $\delta_{\s'} = d_{\s'} - d_{\s}$ and the relative depth between any two clusters $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ is $\delta_{\s_1,\s_2} = d_{\s_1} + d_{\s_2} - 2d_{\s_1 \wedge \s_2}$ where $\s_1 \wedge \s_2$ is the smallest cluster containing both $\s_1$ and $\s_2$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:genusintro}
Let $\s$ be a cluster. We assign to $\s$ a \textit{chromatic genus} $g_{\chi}(\s)$ as follows: let $\s_{\chi}$ be the set of chromatic children of $\s$. If $\s$ has polychromatic children, then $g_{\chi}(\s) = |\s_{\chi}| - 3$ if $\s = \Rcal$ and $f_1$ and $f_2$ both have even degree, or $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$, $\s$ is even and $f_1$ and $f_2$ both have even degree; and $g_{\chi}(\s) = |\s_{\chi}| - 2$ otherwise. If $\s$ has monochromatic children, then $g_{\chi}(\s)$ is such that $2g_{\chi}(\s) + 1 = |\s_{\chi}|$ or $2g_{\chi}(\s) + 2 = |\s_{\chi}|$. Otherwise $g_{\chi}(\s) = 0$.
\end{definition}
If $\s$ has monochromatic children or no chromatic children then $g_{\chi}(\s) = g(\s)$, as in \cite[Section~5.3]{DDMM18}. Our main result is the following. We have excluded the cases where $\Rcal$ is not principal, but these are dealt with in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\begin{thm}[=Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
\label{thm:mainintro}
Let $K$ be a local field of odd residue characteristic and let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be two hyperelliptic curves over $K$. Let $C_h$ be their composite curve. Let $Y$ be the bihyperelliptic curve arising from $C_1$ and $C_2$, such that $Y$ has semistable reduction and all the depths in the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ are integers. Suppose further that $\Rcal$ has at least three children, none of which of size $2g(C_h)$\footnote{This is a sufficient condition for $\Rcal$ to be principal.}. Then the dual graph of $\Y^{\mathrm{min}}_k$ has the following explicit description:
Each principal cluster $\s$ contributes vertices of genus $g_{\chi}(\s)$ to the dual graph. If $\s$ is not \"ubereven: $1$ vertex $v_{\s}$ if $\s$ has polychromatic children and $2$ vertices $v_{\s}^+, v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has monochromatic children; and if \"ubereven: $2$ vertices $v_{\s}^+, v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has chromatic children and $4$ vertices $v_{\s}^{+,+}, v_{\s}^{+,-}, v_{\s}^{-,+}, v_{\s}^{-,-}$ if $\s$ has no chromatic children.
These are linked by edges as follows:
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & From & To & Length & Condition \\ \hline
$L_{\s'}^+$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s'}^{\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\s'}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\s' < \s$ both principal, $\s'$ chromatic} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^-$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $v_{\s'}^{-\sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\s'}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,+}$ & \multirow{4}{*}{$\delta_{\s'}$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$\s' < \s$ both principal, $\s'$ black} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,-}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,+}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,-}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $\delta_{\tfrak}$ & $\tfrak < \s$, $\tfrak$ chromatic twin, $\s$ principal \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}^+$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{\sigma,-\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$2\delta_{\tfrak}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\tfrak < \s$, $\tfrak$ black twin, $\s$ principal} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\tfrak}^-$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-\sigma,\sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
where $\sigma = \sigma(\s, \s')\in\{-1\}$ is defined in Definition \ref{def:gensig}; $v_{\s}^{\pm,+} = v_{\s}^{\pm,-} = v_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with monochromatic red children; $v_{\s}^{+,\pm} = v_{\s}^{-,\pm} = v_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with has monochromatic blue children; $v_{\s}^{\pm, \pm} = v_{\s}^+$, $v_{\s}^{\pm, \mp} = v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ is \"ubereven with chromatic children; and $v_{\s}^+ = v_{\s}^- = v_{\s}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with polychromatic children.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
The action of Frobenius can also be described explicitly in terms of the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$. See Theorem \ref{thm:frob} for details.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
A condition we require is that $Y$ have semistable reduction. This is hard to check directly, but it is equivalent to the curves $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_h$ having semistable reduction, which can be checked using the Semistability Criterion for hyperelliptic curves given in \cite[Theorem~1.8]{DDMM18}. This equivalence arises due to the existence of an isogeny between the Jacobians of $Y$ and $C_1 \times C_2 \times C_h$. It cannot be found in the literature (to our knowledge), but will appear in an upcoming paper of Dokchitser and Morgan.
\end{remark}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:introtwinblack}
Let $C_1 : y_1^2 = (x^2 - p^{2n})(x-1)$ and $C_2 : y_2^2 = x^3 - 2$ be two elliptic curves with composite curve $C_h: y_h^2 = (x^2 - p^n)(x-1)(x^3 - 2)$ and associated bielliptic curve $Y$. The chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ and the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ is below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[A] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1)(r2);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture\quad \quad
\raisebox{-3em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0.7, -1) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0,-1) {2};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=120, in=150, looseness=16] node[left] {2n} (A);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=210, in=240, looseness=16] node[left] {2n} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
The top cluster $\Rcal$ is not \"ubereven and has polychromatic children so contributes one component of genus $2$. The twin is black and has depth $n$ so contributes two loops of length $2n$. For a description of the action of Frobenius see Example \ref{eg:twinblack}.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:intro}
Let $C_1 : y^2_1 = ((x-1)^4 - p^{12})((x-2)^3 + p^6)$ and $C_2 : y_1^2 = (x^3 - p^{18})((x-2)^3 - p^6)$ be hyperelliptic curves over $K$ and let $Y$ be the associated bihyperelliptic curve. The chromatic cluster picture and dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ are shown below. The cluster picture $\Sigma_{\chi}$ consists of the top cluster $\Rcal$, a blue cluster $\s_1$, a black cluster $\s_2$ and a purple cluster $\s_3$. The top cluster has a purple child and hence there is one component, $v_{\Rcal}$, arising from $\Rcal$. The component is genus $0$ by Definition \ref{def:genusintro}. The cluster $\s_1$ has monochromatic (blue) children, so contributes two components, $v_{\s_1}^+$ and $v_{\s_1}^-$ of genus $1$. Furthermore, it is chromatic so there are two linking chains between the components of $\Rcal$ and $\s_1$, each of length $3$. The cluster $\s_2$ also has monochromatic (red) children, but it is black and hence there are four linking chains, each of length $3$, between $v_{\Rcal}$ and $v_{\s_2}^{\pm}$. Finally $\s_3$ is chromatic with polychromatic children so it contributes a single component with two linking chains to $v_{\Rcal}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[B] {} {first} {r1};
\Root[B] {} {r1} {r2};
\Root[B] {} {r2} {r3};
\ClusterLDName c1[][6][\mathfrak{s}_1] = (r1)(r2)(r3),clD;
\Root[A] {} {c1} {r4};
\Root[A] {} {r4} {r5};
\Root[A] {} {r5} {r6};
\Root[A] {} {r6} {r7};
\ClusterLDName c2[][3][\mathfrak{s}_2] = (r4)(r5)(r6)(r7);
\Root[A] {} {c2} {r8};
\Root[A] {} {r8} {r9};
\Root[A] {} {r9} {r10};
\Root[B] {} {r10} {r11};
\Root[B] {} {r11} {r12};
\Root[B] {} {r12} {r13};
\ClusterLDName c3[][2][\mathfrak{s}_3] = (r8)(r9)(r10)(r11)(r12)(r13),clB;
\ClusterLDName c4[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(c2)(c3),clD;
\endclusterpicture \quad \quad
\raisebox{-3em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0, -1.6) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\node at (-1.7, -0.5) {$v_{\s_1}^+$};
\node at (-1.7, -1.5) {$v_{\s_1}^-$};
\node at (1.7, -0.5) {$v_{\s_2}^+$};
\node at (1.7, -1.5) {$v_{\s_2}^-$};
\node at (0.4, 0.4) {$v_{\s_3}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0, -1) {};
\node (B) at (-1, -0.5) {1};
\node (C) at (-1, -1.5) {1};
\node (D) at (1, -0.5) {1};
\node (E) at (1, -1.5) {1};
\node (F) at (0, 0) {4};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=210, in=30] node[above, near end] {3} (C);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=150, in=-30] node[above, near end] {3} (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=45, in=195] node[above, near end] {3} (D);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=15, in=225] (D);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-45, in=165] node[below, near end] {3} (E);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-15, in=135] (E);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=105, in=-105] node[left, near end] {1} (F);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=75, in=-75] (F);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
Let $C_1 : y_1^2 = (x^3 - p^{12})(x^3 - 2)$ and $C_2 : y_2^2 = (x^4 - p^{20})(x^3 - 1)$ be two hyperelliptic curves, $C_h$ their composite hyperelliptic curve and $Y$ the associated bihyperelliptic curve. The chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ and the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ are below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[B] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\ClusterLDName c1[][1][\s_1] = (r1)(r3)(r4)(r5);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r6};
\Root[A] {}{r6}{r7};
\Root[A] {}{r7}{r8};
\ClusterLDName c2[][4][\s_2] = (c1)(r6)(r7)(r8), clC;
\Root[A] {}{c2}{r9};
\Root[A] {}{r9}{r10};
\Root[A] {}{r10}{r11};
\Root[B] {}{r11}{r12};
\Root[B] {}{r12}{r13};
\Root[B] {}{r13}{r14};
\ClusterLDName c3[][0][\mathcal{R}] = (c2)(r9)(r10)(r11)(r12)(r13)(r14), clD;
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\raisebox{-3em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0, -0.8) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\node at (-1.1, -3) {$v_{\s_1}^+$};
\node at (1.1, -3) {$v_{\s_1}^-$};
\node at (-1.1, -2) {$v_{\s_2}^+$};
\node at (1.1, -2) {$v_{\s_2}^-$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0,-1.3) {5};
\node (B) at (-0.5, -2) {1};
\node (C) at (0.5, -2) {1};
\node (D) at (-0.5, -3) {1};
\node (E) at (0.5, -3) {1};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=90] node[right, near end] {2} (C);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=180, in=90] node[left, near end] {2} (B);
\path (B) edge[very thick, out=240, in=120] node[left] {1} (D);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=300, in=60] node[right] {1} (E);
\path (B) edge[very thick, out=315, in=135] (E);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=225, in=45] (D);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
\begin{remark}
A perhaps more suitable notion of a bihyperelliptic curve would be any curve $Y$ which has a degree $2$ map to a hyperelliptic curve $C$, directly mirroring the definition for bielliptic curves. However, the cover $Y/\PP^1$ is not necessarily Galois in this case. Since we require this for our purposes, we shall restrict to the case given in Definition \ref{def:bihyp}, but the more general case is also of interest.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Structure} In Section \ref{sec:ccp} we define chromatic cluster pictures, the main object we will use in our theorem to describe the minimal regular model of a bihyperelliptic curve. Some familiarity with cluster pictures is helpful: for a comprehensive definition we direct the reader to \cite{DDMM18}, and for many examples of cluster pictures in use to \cite{best2020users}. In Section \ref{sec:results} we state our main Theorem \ref{thm:main} and illustrate it with several examples. The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} is Section \ref{sec:proof}. The strategy is to normalise a model $\X$ of $\PP^1$ associated to $\Sigma_{\chi}$ in the function field of $Y$, resulting in a model $\Y$ of $Y$ over $\Kur$. Using the results of \cite{DDMM18}, we deduce the normalisation of $\X$ in the function fields of $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_h$ and use these to give an explicit description of $\Y$.
\subsection{Notation} Throughout $K$ will be a local field with ring of integers $\OO_K$ and residue field $k$ of characteristic $p > 2$. The uniformiser of $K$ will be $\pi$, and the valuation $v_K$. A fixed algebraic closure of $K$ will be denoted $\overline{K}$ and $\Kur$ will be the maximal unramified extension of $K$. For us, a \textit{model} $\mathcal{C}$ of a curve $C$ over $K$ is a flat proper $\mathcal{O}_K$-scheme whose generic fibre is isomorphic to $C$. Furthermore, this model is \textit{regular} if $\mathcal{C}$ is regular as a scheme, it is \textit{minimal} if it is dominates no other regular model, and it is \textit{semistable} if the special fibre is reduced with at worst normal crossings such that any component isomorphic to $\PP^1$ intersects the rest of the special fibre in at least two points.
In cluster pictures, red roots will be represented by spheres \raisebox{0.5em}{\clusterpicture \Root[A] {}{first}{r1}; \endclusterpicture} and blue roots by hexagons \raisebox{0.5em}{\clusterpicture \Root[B] {}{first}{r1}; \endclusterpicture}. Red clusters will be denoted with dotted lines, blue clusters by dashed lines, purple cluster by dot-dash lines and black clusters by solid lines. Sometimes, we will need an empty cluster, which will look like this: \raisebox{0.5em}{\clusterpicture \Root[] {}{first}{r1} \ClusterLDName c1[][][] = (r1); \endclusterpicture}. The relative depth of a cluster $\s \neq \Rcal$ will be written to the lower right of $\s$, and the depth of $\Rcal$ will be written to its lower right. The name of the cluster is above it.
Special fibres will be draw as their dual graphs. Components from principal clusters will be the vertices, with their genus inside. If no genus is written, the corresponding component has genus $0$. The edges between nodes are chains of rational curves, and the number next to them indicates the number of edges in the dual graph corresponding to the linking chain (which is one more than the number of $\PP^1s$ in the linking chain). An edge of length $1$ in the dual graph indicates an intersection between the components. When there are two edges between a pair of vertices, only one edge will be labelled with its length, as the other edge will always have the same length.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements} I would like to thank my supervisor Vladimir Dokchitser for his continued advice and support. I would also like to thank Holly Green for checking and correcting many earlier versions of the theorem, and Adam Morgan for his patience answering my sporadic questions. This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council [EP/L015234/1], the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Geometry
and Number Theory (The London School of Geometry and Number Theory), and University College
London.
\section{Cluster Pictures}
\label{sec:ccp}
\subsection{The Story so Far}
A cluster picture is a set of subsets (``clusters'') of the roots of a polynomial $f$, where each cluster contains roots that are $p$-adically close together. There are many numerical invariants associated to cluster picture which are used, and in this section we recall those that we will require. Throughout this subsection, $C : y^2 = f(x) = c_f \prod_{r \in \Rcal} (x-r)$ will be a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g \geq 2$ with semistable reduction and cluster picture $\Sigma$, as in Definition \ref{def:cluster}. Denote by $\mathcal{C}$ the minimal regular model of $C$ as described in \cite[Theorem~8.5]{DDMM18}.
The cluster picture $\Sigma$ is equivalent to an \textit{admissible collection of disks}, that is a non empty set $\mathcal{D}$ of disks $D = D_{z,d} = \{ x \in \overline{K}\, |\, v(x - z_D) \geq d_D\}$ such that $z_D \in \Kur$ (called \textit{integral disks}), $d_D \in \Z$, where $\mathcal{D}$ has a maximal element with respect to inclusion and such that if $D_1 \subseteq D_2$ then any integral disk with $D_1 \subseteq D \subseteq D_2$ is in $\mathcal{D}$. This collection of disks in turn gives rise to a model $\X$ of $\PP^1$ which separates the branch points of $C \rightarrow \PP^1$. For the precise construction, see \cite[Definition~3.8]{DDMM18}. To each disk in such a collection we define a valuation extending $v_K$.
\begin{definition}
Let $D$ be a $p$-adic disk. Then $$\nu_D(f) = v_K(c_f) + \sum_{r \in \Rcal} \min(d_D, v_K(z_D - r)),$$ and $\omega_D(f) \in \{0, 1\}$ is such that $\omega_D(f) \equiv v_D(f) \mod 2$.
\end{definition}
Each proper cluster $\s$ is given a genus, which is the genus of the component in $\mathcal{C}$ arising from $\s$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\s \in \Sigma$ be a proper cluster. Then the \textit{genus} of $\s$, $g(\s)$ is such that $2g(\s) + 1$ or $2g(\s) + 2$ equals the number of odd children of $\s$.
\end{definition}
To each even cluster or \textit{cotwin}, a cluster who has a child of size $2g$ whose complement is not a twin, we assign a character of $\Gal(\overline{K}/K)$, which roughly tell us whether or not $\sigma \in \Gal(\overline{K}/K)$ swaps the points at infinity of the component arising from $\s$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\s$ be an even cluster or a cotwin. We define the character $\epsilon_{\s} : \Gal(\overline{K}/K) \rightarrow \{ \pm 1\}$ by $\epsilon_{\s}(\sigma) = \sigma(\theta_{\s^*}) / \theta_{\sigma(\s^*)}$, where for any cluster $\tfrak$, $\theta_{\tfrak}$ is a choice of square root $\sqrt{c_f \prod_{r \not \in \tfrak} (z_{\tfrak} - r)}$ and $\tfrak^*$ is the smallest cluster containing $\tfrak$ whose parent is not \"ubereven (or $\Rcal$ if no such cluster exists).
\end{definition}
Note that the definition above extends to ``empty clusters'' --- $p$-adic disks which contain no roots. This will be useful when talking about red and blue cluster pictures in the next section, which can contain empty clusters.
\subsection{Chromatic Cluster Pictures}
The combinatorial objects we will use to calculate the semistable model will be \textit{chromatic cluster pictures}. A chromatic cluster picture is similar to a cluster picture, but instead of one polynomial we take a product of coprime polynomials $f_1 f_2$, and we colour the roots red and blue to indicate whether they are roots of $f_1$ or $f_2$. In this way, the chromatic cluster picture contains the information of the cluster pictures associated to $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_1 f_2$.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{chromatic cluster picture} $\Sigma_{\chi}$ is a cluster picture $\Sigma$ on a set $\Rcal$ with a colouring function $c: \Rcal \longrightarrow \{ \textrm{red}, \textrm{ blue}\}$, assigning to each root a colour.
This induces a colouring on the remaining clusters as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item clusters with an odd number of blue children and an even number of red children (resp. an odd number of red children and an even number of blue children) are coloured blue (resp. red),
\item clusters with an odd number of blue children and an odd number of red children are coloured purple,
\item all other clusters are coloured black.
\end{enumerate}
where purple children are included in both the set of red \textit{and} blue clusters. Blue, red and purple clusters are called \textit{chromatic clusters}.
Clusters with purple children, or clusters with both blue and red children have \textit{polychromatic children}, whereas clusters whose only chromatic children are red or blue have \textit{monochromatic children}.
We define the \textit{red} (resp. \textit{blue}) cluster picture $\Sigma_1$ (resp. $\Sigma_2$) associated to $\Sigma_{\chi}$ to be the subset of $\Sigma$ where the only clusters of size $1$ are the red (resp. blue) ones. We forget the colouring on the rest of the clusters.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:colparity}
Let $\s \in \Sigma$ be a cluster. If $\s$ is odd then $\s$ is red or blue, and if $\s$ is even then $\s$ is purple or black. Furthermore, purple clusters are odd in $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ and even in $\Sigma$, red clusters are odd in $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma$ and even in $\Sigma_2$, blue clusters are odd in $\Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma$ and even in $\Sigma_1$, and finally black clusters are even in all of $\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows by induction on the size of the cluster, noting that it is trivially true for singletons.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The red and blue cluster pictures aren't cluster pictures (or chromatic cluster pictures) in the conventional sense --- they are cluster pictures with some additional $p$-adic disks. They can have ``empty'' clusters which contain no roots, or clusters which only contain another cluster and nothing else. However, they give rise to the same \textit{admissible collection of discs}, in the sense of \cite[Definition~3.4]{DDMM18}, as $\Sigma_h$. Therefore we can apply the results of \cite{DDMM18} to them.
\end{remark}
We will be interested in the chromatic cluster pictures of bihyperelliptic curves. In other words, if $Y : \{y_1^2 = f_1, y_2^2 = f_2\}$ is a bihyperelliptic curve, then its chromatic cluster picture arises from colouring the roots of $f_1$ red, the roots of $f_2$ blue and the rest of the clusters according to the rules (ii) - (iv).
\begin{eg}
Below (left) is the chromatic cluster picture of $Y:\{y_1^2 = (x-p^n)(x^2-1), y_2^2 = (x+p^n)(x^2-2)\}$. On the right is the red cluster picture, which is equivalent to the blue cluster picture.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1)(r2), clB;
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[A] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[A] {}{r3}{r4};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4);
\endclusterpicture
\end{figure}
The cluster $\s\in \Sigma_{\chi}$ contains both an odd number of red children and an odd number of blue children (one of each), and hence is purple. The cluster $\Rcal \in \Sigma_{\chi}$ contains three red children (since the purple child counts as a red and a blue child) and three blue children and hence is also purple.
The red and blue clusters are equivalent, and in both the ``cluster'' $\s$ is a $p$-adic disk containing a single root. This wouldn't be a cluster in a conventional cluster picture.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
From left to right, we have the chromatic, red and blue cluster pictures of $Y:\{y_1^2 = (x^2 - p^n)(x-1), y_2^2 = x^3 - 2\}$. The cluster $\s \in \Sigma_{\chi}$ has an even number of both red and blue children and hence is black. On the other hand, $\Rcal$ has an odd number of both red and blue children and hence is coloured purple. Note that in the blue cluster picture $\s$ is an empty cluster (i.e. it is a $p$-adic disk which contains no roots).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[A] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n/2][\s] = (r1)(r2);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[A] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n/2][\s] = (r1)(r2);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3);
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\clusterpicture
\Root[D] {}{first}{r1};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n/2][\s] = (r1);
\Root[B] {}{c1}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r4)(r5)(r6);
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
From left to right, the chromatic, red, and blue cluster picture of the bihyperelliptic curve $Y:\{y_1^2 = (x^3 - p^9)(x^3 - 2), y_2^2 = (x^4 - p^{20})(x^3 - 1)\}$. In the red cluster picture $\s_1$ is an empty cluster, and in the blue cluster picture $\s_2$ has a unique child. Neither of these are traditionally clusters.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[B] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\ClusterLDName c1[][2][\s_1] = (r1)(r3)(r4)(r5);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r6};
\Root[A] {}{r6}{r7};
\Root[A] {}{r7}{r8};
\ClusterLDName c2[][3][\s_2] = (c1)(r6)(r7)(r8), clC;
\Root[A] {}{c2}{r9};
\Root[A] {}{r9}{r10};
\Root[A] {}{r10}{r11};
\Root[B] {}{r11}{r12};
\Root[B] {}{r12}{r13};
\Root[B] {}{r13}{r14};
\ClusterLDName c3[][0][\Rcal] = (c2)(r9)(r10)(r11)(r12)(r13)(r14), clD;
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\clusterpicture
\Root[] {}{first}{r1};
\ClusterLDName c1[][2][\s_1] = (r1);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r6};
\Root[A] {}{r6}{r7};
\Root[A] {}{r7}{r8};
\ClusterLDName c2[][3][\s_2] = (c1)(r6)(r7)(r8);
\Root[A] {}{c2}{r9};
\Root[A] {}{r9}{r10};
\Root[A] {}{r10}{r11};
\ClusterLDName c3[][0][\Rcal] = (c2)(r9)(r10)(r11);
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\clusterpicture
\Root[B] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\ClusterLDName c1[][2][\s_1] = (r1)(r3)(r4)(r5);
\ClusterLDName c2[][3][\s_2] = (c1);
\Root[B] {}{c2}{r12};
\Root[B] {}{r12}{r13};
\Root[B] {}{r13}{r14};
\ClusterLDName c3[][0][\Rcal] = (c2)(r12)(r13)(r14);
\endclusterpicture \qquad
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
The following is an important definition, the clusters which will contribute principal components to the semistable model.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:principal}
Let $\s$ be a cluster. Then $\s$ is \textit{chromatically principal} if $|\s| \geq 3$, except in the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\s = \Rcal = \s_1 \sqcup \s_2$, with $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ of the same colour, or one of $\s_1$ or $\s_2$ a singleton or a twin,
\item $\s = \Rcal$ has a unique proper child $\s'$ of size $2g(C_h)$ such that either $\s'$ is purple or $\s$ and $\s'$ are both black.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We can characterise this as follows:
\begin{lemma}
A cluster $\s$ is chromatically principal if and only if it is principal in at least one of $\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2, \Sigma_h$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\s \neq \Rcal$ this is clear as its size in $\Sigma_{\chi}$ is the same as its size in $\Sigma_h$. Therefore, suppose $\s = \Rcal$. Suppose $\s = \s_1 \sqcup \s_2$ with $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ the same colour. Then $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ have the same parity in each of $\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2, \Sigma_h$ by Lemma \ref{lem:colparity}. If $\s$ has a unique proper child of size $2g(C_h)$ then $\Sigma_1$ has a child of size $2g(C_1)$, and similarly for $\Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma_h$. The other direction can be checked similarly (for example, if $\s = \s_1 \sqcup \s_2$ with $\s_1$, $\s_2$ principal of different colours, then $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ will have opposite parities in at least one of $\Sigma_1$, $\Sigma_2$ or $\Sigma_h$).
\end{proof}
We must update our definition of cotwin to exclude a case which cannot happen for classic cluster pictures:
\begin{definition}
A cluster $\s$ is a \textit{cotwin} if it has a child $\s'$ of size $2g(C_h)$ whose complement isn't a twin, unless $\s$ is purple and $\s'$ is black.
\end{definition}
We finish the section with a definition which will be needed in stating our main theorem.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:gensig}
If $\s$ is a cluster then $\s_{\chi}$ is the set of chromatic children of $\s$. If $\s, \s'$ are two proper clusters then $\sigma(\s, \s') = -1$ in the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\s$ and $\s'$ each have monochromatic children of opposite colours,
\item $\s$ is black \"ubereven and $\s'$ is black with monochromatic, blue children;
\end{enumerate}
and $1$ otherwise.
\end{definition}
\section{Statement of Results}
\label{sec:results}
Here we describe our main theorem: how to construct the minimal regular model $\Y^{\min}$ of $Y$ given the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$. The rough idea is that principal clusters give rise to components in the special fibre, and components of $\s$ are linked to the components of the children of $\s$. The number of components and linking chains, as well as the lengths of the linking chains, are determined by the properties of the clusters.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Let $K$ be a local field of odd residue characteristic and let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be two hyperelliptic curves over $K$. Let $C_h$ be their composite curve. Let $Y$ be the bihyperelliptic curve arising from $C_1$ and $C_2$, such that $Y$ has semistable reduction and all the depths in the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ are integers. Then the dual graph of $\Y^{\mathrm{min}}_k$ is entirely determined by the chromatic cluster picture of $Y$.
In particular, each principal cluster $\s$ contributes vertices of genus $g_{\chi}(\s)$ to the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$. If $\s$ is not \"ubereven: $1$ vertex $v_{\s}$ if $\s$ has polychromatic children and $2$ vertices $v_{\s}^+, v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has monochromatic children; and if \"ubereven: $2$ vertices $v_{\s}^+, v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has chromatic children and $4$ vertices $v_{\s}^{+,+}, v_{\s}^{+,-}, v_{\s}^{-,+}, v_{\s}^{-,-}$ if $\s$ has no chromatic children.
These are linked by edges as follows:
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & From & To & Length & Condition \\ \hline
$L_{\s'}^+$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s'}^{\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\s'}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\s' < \s$ both principal, $\s'$ chromatic} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^-$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $v_{\s'}^{-\sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\s'}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,+}$ & \multirow{4}{*}{$\delta_{\s'}$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$\s' < \s$ both principal, $\s'$ black} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,-}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,+}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s'}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,-}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $\delta_{\tfrak}$ & $\tfrak < \s$, $\tfrak$ chromatic twin, $\s$ principal \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}^+$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{\sigma,-\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$2\delta_{\tfrak}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\tfrak < \s$, $\tfrak$ black twin, $\s$ principal} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\tfrak}^-$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-\sigma,\sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
where $\sigma = \sigma(\s, \s')$; $v_{\s}^{\pm,+} = v_{\s}^{\pm,-} = v_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with monochromatic red children; $v_{\s}^{+,\pm} = v_{\s}^{-,\pm} = v_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with has monochromatic blue children; $v_{\s}^{\pm, \pm} = v_{\s}^+$, $v_{\s}^{\pm, \mp} = v_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ is \"ubereven with chromatic children; and $v_{\s}^+ = v_{\s}^- = v_{\s}$ if $\s$ is non-\"ubereven with polychromatic children.
\pagebreak
Moreover, if $\Rcal$ is not principal\footnote{Recall that if $\Rcal$ is purple and has a unique proper child $\s'$ of size $2g(C_h)$ which is black, then $\Rcal$ is principal and doesn't fall in this category.}, then there are the following additional edges:
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & From & To & Length & Condition \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $\delta_{\s}$ & $\s < \tfrak$, $\tfrak$ cotwin, $\s$ purple \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}^+$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{\sigma,-\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$2\delta_{\s}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\s < \tfrak$, $\tfrak$ cotwin, $\s$ black} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\tfrak}^-$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-\sigma, \sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\s,\s'}^+$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s'}^+$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$\frac12 (\delta_{\s} + \delta_{\s'})$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$, $\s, \s'$ both principal, same chromatic colour} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s,\s'}^-$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $v_{\s'}^-$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\s,\s'}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,+}$ & \multirow{4}{*}{$\delta_{\s} + \delta_{\s'}$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$, $\s, \s'$ both principal, black} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s,\s'}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{+,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{+,-}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s,\s'}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,+}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,+}$ & & \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\s,\s'}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s'}^{-,-}$ & & \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}$ & $v_{\s}^+$ & $v_{\s}^-$ & $\delta_{\s} + \delta_{\tfrak}$ & $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \tfrak$, $\s$ principal, $\tfrak$ twin, both purple \\ \hline
$L_{\tfrak}^+$ & $v_{\s}^{+,+}$ & $v_{\s}^{\sigma,-\sigma}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$2(\delta_{\s} + \delta_{\tfrak})$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\Rcal = \s \sqcup \tfrak$, $\s$ principal, $\tfrak$ twin, both black} \\ \cline{1-3}
$L_{\tfrak}^-$ & $v_{\s}^{-,-}$ & $v_{\s}^{-\sigma,\sigma}$ & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:twincomps}
Possibly after a totally ramified extension, we can still think of proper, not principal clusters as contributing components to the special fibre. However, these components may not be principal In other words, they contribute components isomorphic to $\PP^1$ which intersects the rest of the special fibre in precisely two places. So for example, a loop $L_{\tfrak}$ arising from a chromatic twin can be thought of as a component $v_{\tfrak}$ with two linking chains $L_{\tfrak}^+, L_{\tfrak}^-$ to $v_{P(\tfrak)}$ of length $ \frac12 \delta_{\tfrak}$ (i.e., the linking chains arising in the first two rows of the first table). We have chosen not to state our theorems in this way since the component $v_{\tfrak}$ sometimes only appears in the minimal regular model after a totally ramified extension (and has multiplicity $2$ otherwise), but for the purposes of our proof we will usually take this point of view. That is, we will go to a totally ramified extension, treat all proper clusters as if they give us components, and then use Lemma \ref{lem:ramextmodel} to move between totally ramified extensions.
\end{remark}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:frob}
Denote the Frobenius automorphism by $\Frobtwo$. It acts on $\Y^{\min}_k$ in the following way:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Frobtwo(\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,i}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ with chromatic children, $i \in \{1,2,h\}$ with $\s \in \Sigma_i$ \"ubereven},
\item $\Frobtwo(\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm,\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,2}(\Frobtwo),\pm\epsilon_{\s,1}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ \"ubereven with no chromatic children},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\s}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,i}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ chromatic, $i \in \{1,2,h\}$ with with $\s \in \Sigma_i$ even},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\s}^{\pm,\pm}) = L_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,2}(\Frobtwo),\pm\epsilon_{\s,1}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ black},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\tfrak}) = \epsilon_{\tfrak, h}(\Frobtwo) L_{\Frobtwo(\tfrak)}$ for $\tfrak$ a chromatic twin, where $-L$ denotes $L$ with the opposite orientation,
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\tfrak}^{\pm}) = \epsilon_{\tfrak, j}(\Frobtwo) L_{\Frobtwo(\tfrak)}^{\pm \epsilon_{\tfrak, i}(\Frobtwo)}$ for $\tfrak$ a black twin, $i,j \in \{1, 2\}$ such that $\tfrak$ is empty in $\Sigma_i$ and $i \neq j$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
For simplicity of proof, we have added the technical condition that the depth of all clusters are integers, even though there exist semistable curves with clusters of half integer depth (for example, any bihyperelliptic curve where $C_1$ is the elliptic curve given by $y_1^2 = (x^2 - p^3)(x-1))$. However, this is only a very mild restriction, since this condition can always be attained by going to the ramified extension of $K$ of degree $2$. The dual graph of $\Y_k$ over $K$ is then the same as the dual graph of $\Y_k$ over $K(\sqrt{\pi})$, except the lengths of all linking chains are halved (see Lemma \ref{lem:ramextmodel}).
\end{remark}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:twinchrom}
Recall example \ref{eg:twinintrochrom}. Let $C_1: y_1^2 = (x-p^n)(x^2 - 1)$ and $C_2 : y_2^2 = (x+p^n)(x^2 - 2)$ be elliptic curves, with composite curve $C_h: y_h^2 = (x^2 - p^{2n})(x^2 - 1)(x^2 - 2)$ and associated bielliptic curve $Y$. The chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ and the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ are below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[B] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1)(r2), clB;
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[A] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture \quad \quad
\raisebox{-1.8em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0.7, 0) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0,0) {3};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=150, in=210, looseness=8] node[left] {n} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
In order to understand the Frobenius automorphism $\phi$, we note that the twin $\s$ is only even in $\Sigma_h$, not $\Sigma_1$ or $\Sigma_2$, so the action of Frobenius $\phi$ on the loop is $\phi(L_{\s}) = \epsilon_{\s,h}(\phi)L_{\s}$. We can calculate $\epsilon_{\s,h} = \left( \frac2p \right)$ and so the loop is inverted if and only if $2$ is not a quadratic residue mod $p$.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:twinblack}
Recall example \ref{eg:introtwinblack}. Let $C_1 : y_1^2 = (x^2 - p^{2n})(x-1)$ and $C_2 : y_2^2 = x^3 - 2$ be two elliptic curves with composite curve $C_h: y_h^2 = (x^2 - p^n)(x-1)(x^3 - 2)$ and associated bielliptic curve $Y$. The chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ and the dual graph of $\Y^{\textrm{min}}_k$ are below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {}{first}{r1};
\Root[A] {}{r1}{r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][n][\s] = (r1)(r2);
\Root[A] {}{c1}{r3};
\Root[B] {}{r3}{r4};
\Root[B] {}{r4}{r5};
\Root[B] {}{r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c2[][0][\Rcal] = (c1)(r3)(r4)(r5)(r6), clB;
\endclusterpicture\quad \quad
\raisebox{-3em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (0.7, -1) {$v_{\Rcal}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (0,-1) {2};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=120, in=150, looseness=16] node[left] {2n} (A);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=210, in=240, looseness=16] node[left] {2n} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
Frobenius, $\phi$ acts on the loops of $\s$ as $\Frobtwo(L_{\s}^{\pm}) = \epsilon_{\s,1} L_{\s}^{\pm \epsilon_{\s,2}(\phi)}$, since $\s$ is empty in $\Sigma_2$. We can calculate $\epsilon_{\s,1}(\Frobtwo) = \left( \frac{-1}{p} \right)$ and $\epsilon_{\s,2} = \left( \frac{-2}{p} \right)$, and so the action of Frobenius swaps the loops if $-2$ is not a quadratic residue mod $p$, and the loops are inverted if $-1$ is not a quadratic residue mod $p$.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
\label{eg:blowdown}
Let $C_1 : y_1^2 = ((x+p^2)^2 - p^{14})(x-2+p^3)$ and $C_2 : y_2^2 = ((x-p^2)^2 - p^12)(x-2-p^3)$ be hyperelliptic curves over $K$ and let $Y$ be their associated bihyperelliptic curve. The chromatic cluster picture of $Y$ consists of the \"ubereven top cluster $\Rcal$ with chromatic children, the \"ubereven cluster $\s$ with no chromatic children, and three twins $\tfrak_1, \tfrak_2$ and $\tfrak_3$, the first two black with monochromatic children and the latter chromatic with polychromatic children. Note that $\Rcal$ is principal despite being the disjoint union of two clusters as its two children are purple and black. The most subtle part of theorem is illustrated here: that the components arising from $\Rcal$, and the loops arising from $\tfrak_1$ and $\tfrak_2$ link to different pairs of $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,+}, \Gamma_{\s}^{+,-}, \Gamma_{\s}^{-,+}$ and $\Gamma_{\s}^{-,-}$; for example, $\Gamma_{\Rcal}^{+}$ links to $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,+}$ and $\Gamma_{\s}^{-,-}$, whereas $L_{\tfrak_1}^+$ links to $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,+}$ and $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,-}$. This is because $\Rcal$ is \"ubereven with chromatic children whereas $\tfrak_1$ is not \"ubereven with monochromatic (red) children.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\clusterpicture
\Root[A] {} {first} {r1};
\Root[A] {} {r1} {r2};
\ClusterLDName c1[][5][\mathfrak{t}_1] = (r1)(r2);
\Root[B] {} {c1} {r3};
\Root[B] {} {r3} {r4};
\ClusterLDName c2[][4][\mathfrak{t}_2] = (r3)(r4);
\ClusterLDName c3[][2][\mathfrak{s}] = (c1)(c2);
\Root[A] {} {c3}{r5};
\Root[B] {} {r5}{r6};
\ClusterLDName c4[][3][\tfrak_3] = (r5)(r6), clB;
\ClusterLDName c5[][0][\Rcal] = (c3)(c4), clB;
\endclusterpicture \quad \quad
\raisebox{-5em}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\tiny]
\node at (1.5, 0.4) {$\Gamma_{\Rcal}^-$};
\node at (-1.4, 0.4) {$\Gamma_{\Rcal}^+$};
\node at (-2.5, -0.8) {$\Gamma_{\s}^{+,+}$};
\node at (-1, -0.8) {$\Gamma_{\s}^{-,-}$};
\node at (1.1, -0.8) {$\Gamma_{\s}^{+,-}$};
\node at (2.5, -0.8) {$\Gamma_{\s}^{-,+}$};
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node (A) at (-1.1,0) {};
\node (A2) at (1.1,0) {};
\node (C) at (-1.8, -1) {};
\node (D) at (-0.4, -1) {};
\node (E) at (0.4, -1) {};
\node (F) at (1.8, -1) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=60, in=120] node[above] {$L_{\tfrak_3}$} (A2);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-180, in=90] (C);
\path (A2) edge[very thick, out=0, in=90] (F);
\path (A2) edge[very thick, out=180, in=90] (E);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=90] (D);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=-60, in=-120] node[below, yshift=2.7] {$L^+_{\tfrak_1}$} (E);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=-90, in=-90] node[below] {$L^+_{\tfrak_2}$} (F);
\path (D) edge[very thick, out=-60, in=-120] node[below, yshift=2.7] {$L^-_{\tfrak_1}$} (F);
\path (D) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] node[above] {$L^-_{\tfrak_2}$} (E);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
\begin{remark}
The above is an example of a curve whose minimal regular model has a special fibre with a non-planar dual graph (its dual graph is a $K_{3,3}$). It is in fact an example of minimal genus, since the special fibre is totally degenerate (all of the components have genus $0$).
\end{remark}
\section{Proof}
\label{sec:proof}
The strategy of proof will be as follows: let $\X$ be the minimal model of $\PP^1$ which separates the branch points of the map $Y \rightarrow \PP^1$. We construct such a model from $\Sigma_h$ following the techniques of \cite[Sections~3-4]{DDMM18}. Normalising $\X$ in the function field $K(Y)$ gives a regular model $\Y$ of $Y$, which results in a semistable model $\Y^{\textrm{min}}$ after blowing down components of multiplicity greater than $1$. We also obtain models $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_h, \mathcal{C}_2$ of $C_1, C_h$ and $C_2$ respectively by normalising in the appropriate function fields. The special fibres of these intermediate models are computed using the result of \cite[Sections~5-6]{DDMM18}.
\begin{notation}
There are many cases where we shall wish to refer to some object associated to a cluster $\s$ for each of the curves $\PP^1, C_1, C_2, C_h$ and $Y$. For example, we may wish to refer to the components arising from $\s$. In this case, the component(s) in $\Y_k$ will appear without subscript: $\Gamma_{\s}$, and those in $\X_k$ (resp. $\mathcal{C}_{1,k}, \mathcal{C}_{h,k}, \mathcal{C}_{2,k}$) will be denoted $\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}$ (resp. $\Gamma_{\s,1}, \Gamma_{\s,h}, \Gamma_{\s,2}$).
\end{notation}
\begin{remark}
The models $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_2$ and $\mathcal{C}_h$ are not necessarily \textit{minimal} models, as they come from the red (resp. blue resp. chromatic) cluster picture of $Y$ - the admissible collection of disks arising from these is \textit{not} in general the same as that arising from the cluster picture of $C_1$ (resp. $C_2$, $C_h$).
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ramextmodel}
Let $C$ be a curve over $\Kur$ with semistable reduction and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a semistable model of $C$. Let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension of degree $e$. Then $\mathcal{C} \times_{\OO_K} \OO_L$ is a semistable model of $C \times_K L$ with the same dual graph as $\mathcal{C}$, but with the lengths of all edges multiplied by $e$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Corollaries~10.3.36,10.3.25]{liu2006algebraic}, noting that the thickness (\cite[Definition~10.3.23]{liu2006algebraic}) of all double points multiplies by $e$ after extending the field.
\end{proof}
This allows us to happily move between ramified extensions of $K$ when describing the semistable model, which will prove invaluable.
\begin{lemma}
Let $Y/K$ be a bihyperelliptic curve with semistable reduction. Then $\Y$, the normalisation of $\X$ in $K(Y)$, is a proper regular model of $Y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The normalisation of $\X$ in $K(Y)$ is isomorphic to the normalisation of $\mathcal{C}_1$ in $K(Y)$, so it is sufficient to prove that the latter is a proper regular model of $Y$. Let $\varphi : C_1 \rightarrow \PP^1$ be the canonical double cover and write $\mathcal{D} = (\varphi_1^{-1}(f_2)) = \sum m_i \Gamma_i$, the divisor of (the pullback of) $f_2$ on $\mathcal{C}_1$. By \cite[Lemma~2.1]{srinivasan2015conductors}, it is sufficient to prove that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\varphi_1^{-1}(f_2)$ is square-free on $\mathcal{C}_1$,
\item any two $\Gamma_i$ for which $m_i$ is odd do not intersect and,
\item any $\Gamma_i$ for which $m_i$ is odd is regular.
\end{enumerate}
Since $f_1$ and $f_2$ share no common roots, $\varphi_1^{-1}(f_2)$ is square-free on $\mathcal{C}_1$ and the horizontal components of $\mathcal{D}$ do not intersect. We are left to consider the vertical components of $\mathcal{D}$. Note that any vertical component of odd multiplicity must arise as the preimage of some $E \in (f_2)_{\mathrm{vert}}$ which appears with odd multiplicity. The component $E$ has either one or two preimages in $\mathcal{C}_1$. In the first case, the preimage $\Gamma$ is regular by \cite[Theorem~5.2]{DDMM18}. Since $E$ does not intersect any other component of $(f_2)$ of odd multiplicity, $\Gamma$ cannot intersect a component of $\mathcal{D}$. In the second case, the two components are still regular and do not intersect each other, and cannot intersect any other component $\mathcal{D}$ as $E$ does not intersect any other component of $(f_2)$ of odd multiplicity.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:comps}
Let $Y$ be a semistable bihyperelliptic curve as in Theorem \ref{thm:main} and $\Y$ the model obtained by normalising. Let $\Y^{\min}$ be the minimal regular model of $\Y$. Then each principal cluster $\s$ contributes the following components to $\Y_k^{\mathrm{min}}$: if \"ubereven, $1$ component $\Gamma_{\s}$ if $\s$ has polychromatic children and $2$ components $\Gamma_{\s}^+, \Gamma_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has monochromatic children; and if \"ubereven: $2$ components $\Gamma_{\s}^+, \Gamma_{\s}^-$ if $\s$ has chromatic children and $4$ components $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,+}, \Gamma_{\s}^{+,-}, \Gamma_{\s}^{-,+}, \Gamma_{\s}^{-,-}$ if $\s$ has no chromatic children.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider a principal cluster $\s$ and its corresponding component $\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}$ in the model of $\PP^1$. If $\s$ is not \"ubereven, then $\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}$ lifts to one component $\Gamma_{\s,h}$ in $\mathcal{C}_h$ and so lifts to either one or two components in $\Y_k$. Suppose $\s$ has polychromatic children. Then $\s$ has one corresponding component $\Gamma_{\s,1} \in \mathcal{C}_1$, and $\Gamma_{\s,1}$ contains branch points of the morphism $\Y \rightarrow \mathcal{C}_1$ (corresponding to the blue children of $\s$), and hence must lift to a single component in $\Y_k$. If $\s$ has monochromatic (e.g. red) children then it has two components in either $\mathcal{C}_1$ or $\mathcal{C}_2$ (in this case $\mathcal{C}_2$), and hence must have two associated components in $\Y$.
If $\s$ is \"ubereven, then it has two components in $\mathcal{C}_h$ so lifts to either two or four in $\Y_k$. If $\s$ has chromatic (e.g. red) children then it has a single component in either $\mathcal{C}_1$ or $\mathcal{C}_2$ (in this case $\mathcal{C}_1$), so can only lift to two components in $\Y_k$. If $\s$ has no chromatic children, then it has two corresponding components in each of $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_2$ and $\mathcal{C}_h$. Since $C_2 \times C_2$ acts on the components of $\Y_k$ arising from $\s$, and their images are the $\Gamma_{\s,i}^{\pm}$ under the quotient of the three non trivial subgroups of $C_2 \times C_2$, there must be four components corresponding to $\s$ in $\Y_k$.
Since $\s$ is principal, it is principal in one of $\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2$ or $\Sigma_h$, say $\Sigma_1$. Then by \cite[Theorem~8.5]{DDMM18}, any component $\Gamma_{\s,1} \in \mathcal{C}_1$ arising from $\s$ either has positive genus, or intersects at least three other components. Therefore the same can be said for any $\Gamma \in \Y_k$ arising from $\s$. We cannot blow such components down, and hence the same components appear in $\Y^{\min}_k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:links}
Let $Y,\Y^{\min}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:comps}, and let $\s' < \s$ be principal clusters of $Y$. Then the components of $\s$ and $\s'$ in $\Y_k$ are linked by two chains if $\s'$ is chromatic and four otherwise, as described in the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main}. Furthermore, if $\tfrak < \s$ is a twin or $\s < \tfrak$ a cotwin then there is one loop if the child is chromatic and two loops if the child is black, and if $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$ is not principal then the components of $\s$ and $\s'$ are linked as in the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume that we are in the case where $\s' < \s$ are both principal, since the other cases are checked similarly using Remark \ref{rmk:twincomps}. It is clear that components have linking chains to the components corresponding to their parents, since this is the case for the model of $\PP^1$. Therefore, we have to calculate how many linking chains there are ($2$ or $4$) and precisely which components are linked to which others. The lengths of the linking chains is proved separately in Lemma \ref{lem:linkinglengths}.
Suppose that $\s' < \s$ with $\s'$ chromatic. Then there are several cases for the different children $\s'$ can have. If $\s'$ is red, then $\Gamma_{\s,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\s',1}$ are linked by one chain and $\Gamma_{\s,2}^{\pm}$ and $\Gamma_{\s',2}^{\pm}$ are linked by two chains. Similarly if $\s'$ is blue (swapping $1$ and $2$). In either case, $\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}$ and $\Gamma_{\s'}^{\pm}$ are linked by two chains. Similarly if $\s'$ is purple then $\Gamma_{\s,h}$ and $\Gamma_{\s',h}$ are linked by two chains but $\Gamma_{\s,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\s',1}$ are linked by one chain so we get two linking chains upstairs.
Now suppose that $\s'$ is black. Then $\Gamma_{\s',1}^{\pm}$ has two linking chains up to the components of its parent, as does $\Gamma_{\s',2}$, so by a similar argument to Proposition \ref{prop:comps} the components of $\s'$ have four linking chains up to the components of $\s$. Therefore the number of linking chains is correct. We must check that the correct components are linked.
This is done on a case by case basis. First assume $\s, \s'$ are not \"ubereven. If $\s$ has polychromatic children then it only has one component and everything is correct up to relabelling. Similarly if $\s'$ has polychromatic children. So assume both $\s$ and $\s'$ have monochromatic children. If they have monochromatic children of the same colour (say red), their components are linked in the following way in the tower of models:
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzcd}
& {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s}^+}] (A) at (0,0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s'}^+}] (B) at (1,0.3) {};
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s}^-}] (C) at (0, -0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s'}^-}] (D) at (1, -0.3) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (B);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (D);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (D);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[ld, no head] \arrow[d, no head] \arrow[rd, no head] & \\ {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,1}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',1}}] (B) at (1,0) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[rd, no head] & {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,h}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',h}}] (B) at (1,0) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[d, no head] & {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,2}^+}] (A) at (0,0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',2}^+}] (B) at (1,0.3) {};
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,2}^-}] (C) at (0, -0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',2}^-}] (D) at (1, -0.3) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=180] (B);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=0, in=180] (D);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[ld, no head]\\
& {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}}] (B) at (1, 0) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=180] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
If $\s$ and $\s'$ have monochromatic children of different colours (e.g. $\s$ red and $\s'$ blue), then their components are linked in the following way in the tower of models:
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzcd}
& {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s}^+}] (A) at (0,0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s'}^+}] (B) at (1,0.3) {};
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s}^-}] (C) at (0, -0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s'}^-}] (D) at (1, -0.3) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-210] (D);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=30, in=210] (B);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (D);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[ld, no head] \arrow[d, no head] \arrow[rd, no head] & \\ {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,1}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',1}^+}] (B) at (1,0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',1}^-}] (C) at (1, -0.3) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=180] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-180] (C);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[rd, no head] & {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,h}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',h}}] (B) at (1,0) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=30, in=150] (B);
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=-30, in=-150] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[d, no head] & {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,2}^+}] (A) at (0,0.3) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s',2}}] (B) at (1,0) {};
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s,2}^-}] (C) at (0, -0.3) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=150] (B);
\path (C) edge[very thick, out=0, in=210] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}} \arrow[ld, no head]\\
& {\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,thick,draw}]
\node[label=left:{\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}}] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node[label=right:{\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}}] (B) at (1, 0) {};
\end{scope}
\path (A) edge[very thick, out=0, in=180] (B);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
From here the following notation arises: that $\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm,+} = \Gamma_{\s}^{\pm,-} = \Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ has monochromatic red children and $\Gamma_{\s}^{+,\pm} = \Gamma_{\s}^{-,\pm} = \Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}$ if $\s$ has monochromatic blue children. If $\s$ or $\s'$ is \"ubereven, the different cases can be checked similarly.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:linkinglengths}
Let $Y,\Y^{\min}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:comps}, and let $\s' < \s$ be two principal clusters. Then any linking chain $L_{\s'}$ arising from this pair has length $\frac12 \delta_{\s'}$ if $\s'$ is chromatic and $\delta_{\s'}$ otherwise. If $\tfrak < \s$ is a twin or $\s < \tfrak$ a cotwin then any loop arising from $\tfrak$ has length $\delta_{\tfrak}$ if the child is chromatic, and $2\delta_{\tfrak}$ otherwise. If $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$ is not principal, then any length of a linking chain arising from $\s$ and $\s'$ has length as described in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Possibly after a finite extension $L/\Kur$, the map $Y \rightarrow \PP^1$ extends to a map of models $\Y \rightarrow \X$ by \cite[Theorem~2.3]{liu_lorenzini_1999}. Furthermore, this map induces a harmonic morphism of augmented $\Z$-graphs, in the sense of \cite[Section~2]{amini2015lifting} (see also Sections 5,8) on the dual graphs of $\Y$ and $\X$. The length of an edge between two vertices in an augmented $\Z$-graph is the thickness of the intersection point of the components the vertices represent. Therefore the distance between two vertices of degree $\geq3$ is exactly the length of the linking chain between them.
If $\s' < \s$ are principal, the lemma follows, noting that a linking chain from a chromatic cluster to its parent has two preimages in $\Y'$ (so the length halves), but a linking chain from a black cluster to its parent has four preimages so the length stays the same.
If $\tfrak < \s$ is a chromatic twin then (possibly after a field extension), we can think of the loop $L_{\tfrak}$ as consisting of a component $\Gamma_{\tfrak}$, the unique lift of $\Gamma_{\tfrak, \PP^1}$ with two linking chains to $\Gamma_{\s}$. Since $\tfrak$ is chromatic, by the argument above the linking chains will both have length $\frac12 \delta_{\tfrak}$ and hence the total loop will have length $\delta_{\tfrak}$. A similar argument is made if $\tfrak$ is a black twin, or if $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$ is not principal.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
Let $Y,\Y^{\min}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:comps} and let $\s$ be a principal cluster of $Y$. Then the components associated to $\s$ have genus $g_{\chi}(\s)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\s$ be a principal cluster. First suppose $\s$ is not \"ubereven and has polychromatic children. In this case there is a unique component $\Gamma_{\s}$ arising from $\s$. This is then a direct application of Riemann-Hurwitz. The children of $\s$ correspond to points on the component $\Gamma_{\s, \PP^1}$ as in \cite[Definition~3.7]{DDMM18}, and by Proposition \ref{prop:links} the points arising from chromatic children are precisely the non-infinity branch points of $\Gamma_{\s} \rightarrow \Gamma_{\s,\PP^1}$. In addition, there is an extra branch point at infinity, unless $\s$ is the top cluster and $f_1$ and $f_2$ both have even degree, or the top cluster $\Rcal = \s \bigsqcup \s'$ is not principal, $\s$ is even and $f_1$ and $f_2$ both have even degree.
If $\s$ is not \"ubereven and has monochromatic children, then the components $\Gamma_{\s}^+$ and $\Gamma_{\s}^-$ are each isomorphic to $\Gamma_{\s,h}$ and so have genus $g(\s)$. The same is true if $\s$ is \"ubereven and has chromatic children, except with $\Gamma_{\s,1}$ if $\s$ has red children and $\Gamma_{\s,2}$ if blue. If $\s$ is \"ubereven with no chromatic children then its $4$ components must have genus $0=g(\s)$ as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
Denote the Frobenius automorphism by $\Frobtwo$. It acts on the dual graph of $\Y^{\min}_k$ in the following way:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Frobtwo(\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,i}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ with chromatic children, $i \in \{1,2,h\}$ with $\s \in \Sigma_i$ \"ubereven},
\item $\Frobtwo(\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm,\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,2}(\Frobtwo),\pm\epsilon_{\s,1}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ \"ubereven with no chromatic children},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\s}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,i}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ chromatic, $i \in \{1,2,h\}$ with with $\s \in \Sigma_i$ even},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\s}^{\pm,\pm}) = L_{\Frobtwo(\s)}^{\pm\epsilon_{\s,2}(\Frobtwo),\pm\epsilon_{\s,1}(\Frobtwo)}$ \textrm{for $\s$ black},
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\tfrak}) = \epsilon_{\tfrak, h}(\Frobtwo) L_{\Frobtwo(\tfrak)}$ for $\tfrak$ a chromatic twin, where $-L$ denotes $L$ with the opposite orientation,
\item $\Frobtwo(L_{\tfrak}^{\pm}) = \epsilon_{\tfrak, j}(\Frobtwo) L_{\Frobtwo(\tfrak)}^{\pm \epsilon_{\tfrak, i}(\Frobtwo)}$ for $\tfrak$ a black twin, $i,j \in \{1, 2\}$ such that $\tfrak$ is empty in $\Sigma_i$ and $i \neq j$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:comps}, the components we must blow down to obtain $\Y^{\min}_k$ from $\Y_k$ are all in linking chains, so it is sufficient to calculate the action of Frobenius on $\Y_k$ as the action on the shortened linking chains is the same as the originals. The action of Frobenius commutes with the quotient maps, so we can deduce the action of Frobenius on the components of $\Y_k$ from the corresponding action of Frobenius on $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_2$ and $\mathcal{C}_h$, which is known by \cite[Theorem~8.5]{DDMM18}. First we focus on clusters. For a principal cluster $\s$, the set $ \mathcal{E}_{\s} = \{\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm, \pm}\}$ is mapped to $\mathcal{E}_{\phi(\s)} = \{\Gamma_{\phi(\s)}^{\pm, \pm} \}$ by Frobenius, since Frobenius maps the images of $\mathcal{E}_{\s}$ to the images of $\mathcal{E}_{\phi(\s)}$ in $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_2$ and $\mathcal{C}_h$. It remains to show which component of $\mathcal{E}_{\s}$ is mapped to which of $\mathcal{E}_{\phi(\s)}$.
If $\s$ is a principal cluster with polychromatic children then $\mathcal{E}_{\s}$ consists of one component and hence there is nothing to verify. If $\s$ is a principal cluster with monochromatic, red children (so therefore $\s \in \Sigma_2$ is even) then there are two components $\Gamma_{\s}^+, \Gamma_{\s}^-$ corresponding to $\s$, which are the lifts of two components $\Gamma_{\s,2}^+, \Gamma_{\s,2}^- \in \mathcal{C}_{2,k}$. Therefore $\phi$ acts on $\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}$ as it does on $\Gamma_{\s, 2}^{\pm}$. But by \cite[Theorem~8.5]{DDMM18}, $\phi(\Gamma_{\s, 2}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\phi(\s), 2}^{\pm \epsilon_2(\phi)}$, and so $\phi(\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\phi(\s)}^{\pm \epsilon_2(\phi)}$. Similarly if $\s$ has monochromatic, blue children or is \"ubereven with polychromatic children.
Now suppose that $\s$ is an \"ubereven cluster with no chromatic children. In this case there are two components arising from $\s$ in $\mathcal{C}_{i,k}$ for $i=1,2$, $\Gamma_{\s,i}^+$ and $\Gamma_{\s,i}^-$. Consider $i=1$. In $\mathcal{C}_1$, the action of Frobenius is $\phi(\Gamma_{\s, 1}^{\pm}) = \Gamma_{\phi(\s), 1}^{\pm\epsilon_1(\phi)}$. The component $\Gamma_{\s,1}^+$ lifts to the components $\Gamma_{\s}^{+, +}$ and $\Gamma_{\s}^{-, +}$ and so the set $\{\Gamma_{\s}^{+,\pm}, \Gamma_{\s}^{-,\pm}\}$ is mapped to $\{\Gamma_{\s}^{+, \pm\epsilon_1{\phi}}, \Gamma_{\s}^{-, \pm\epsilon_1{\phi}}\}$. The same argument for $i=2$ implies that the set $\{\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm, +}, \Gamma_{\s}^{\pm, -} \} $ is mapped to the set $\{\Gamma_{\s}^{\pm \epsilon_2(\phi), +}, \Gamma_{\s}^{\pm \epsilon_2(\phi), -} \}$. Combining these gives the action of Frobenius.
For linking chains between components of principal clusters $\s' < \s$, the action on the whole linking chain is determined by the action on any component in the linking chain. Suppose $D$ is a $p$-adic disk with $\s' < D < \s$. If $\s'$ is chromatic (i.e., case (iii)) then $\Gamma_{D,\PP^1}$ has two preimages in $\Y$ and these are permuted like the principal components in (i). If $\s'$ is black (case (iv)), then $\Gamma_{D,\PP^1}$ has four preimages in $\Y_k$ and these are permuted like the principal components in case (ii).
Loops associated to twins and linking chains between $\s$ and $\s'$ when $\Rcal = \s \sqcup \s'$ are not principal can be dealt with using Remark \ref{rmk:twincomps}, as in proofs in the rest of the section.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The most basic configuration of germanium detector is the coaxial configuration in which p-type and n-type both can be designed as shown in Fig.~\ref{coax}(a) and Fig.~\ref{coax}(b) . Outer dead layer (p+) of the n-type coaxial germanium detectors are made up of very thin layer ( 0.1 $\mu m$ - 1.0 $\mu m$ ) with boron implantation as shown in Fig.~\ref{coax}(b) . Thin layer allows low energy x-rays to the active region of the detector and give fragility to the detector. In the construction of p-type coaxial germanium detectors, unlike the n-type detector a thick outer dead layer (n+) ($\sim$ 0.5$ \mu$ $mm$) is fabricated with lithium ion diffusion as shown in Fig.~\ref{coax}(a). The thick designing of outer dead layer in the p-type germanium detectors gives more robustness to the configuration as compared to the n-type germanium detectors.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.57\textwidth}
\fbox{ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{coaxial_geo.pdf}}
\caption{Coaxial detector configuration}
\label{coax}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.57\textwidth}
\fbox{ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pc_geo.pdf}}
\caption{Point contact detector configuration}
\label{pc}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Idea of utilizing point contact germanium detectors was firstly proposed in 1980s~\cite{luke} with n-type point contact germanium (nPCGe) with mass 800g in which inner core of n-type coaxial detector is replaced with a point contact as show in the Fig.~\ref{pc}(b). Designing of the p-type point contact germanium (pPCGe) detector can be achieve with the introducing the point contact structure over the coaxial shape of p-type coaxial germanium detector. Schematic diagram of p-type point contact germanium detector has been shown in the Fig.~\ref{pc}(a).
Low threshold and low background are the key features of point contact detectors for better sensitivity in neutrino and dark matter physics~\cite{Barbeau}. They can be optimized amongst the various detectors such as n-type point contact , p-type point contact in order to achieve sub KeV energy threshold. These detectors are capable to achieve low output capacitance of the order of ($\sim$ pF).
\par
Signal simulation is an important framework to understand the charge transport and charge induction takes place within the detector.
In the present article, simulation has been done to study the charge signal produced at the read out of the p-type point contact germanium (pPCGe) detector with help of several numerical techniques. The fundamental input for simulating the charge signal numerically is an electric field inside the detector. The charge signal has been simulated for the pPCGe detector based on an arbitrary detector parameters ( e,g,. detector size, bias voltage, impurity concentration of p-type Ge crystal, dimension of point contact etc.) in order to demonstrate the physics behind the charge collection with the variation in time. Additionally, for the validation of the simulation package, charge signal has been also simulated for the pPCGe detector based on Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) experiment~\cite{MJD} . Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) is an experiment planed for the search of neutrinoless double-beta decay of (${}^{76}Ge)$ isotope with the designing from the mixed array of enriched germanium detectors in the p-type point contact germanium (pPCGe) configuration.
\label{sec:intro}
\section{The p-type Point Contact Germanium (pPCGe) Detectors}
\subsection{Biasing configuration}
The pPCGe detector is fully depleted with the high voltage followed by the reverse biasing configuration. Outer dead layer of the detector is a thick n+ layer fabricated using Li-ion diffusion and biased with high voltage. The circular shaped point contact, acting as a cathode, is grounded and act as readout as shown in Fig.~\ref{detector_geo}. Grey region near the vicinity of point contact (Fig.~\ref{detector_geo}) is a layer ( $\sim$ 300 nm ) composed of boron ion diffusion having concentration of the order of $10^{16} cm^{-3}$.
\subsection{Geometry of the point contact}
Circular point contact usually used in the most of the point contact germanium detectors. Advantage of the circular point contact design over any other shape is to obtained the higher electric field within the detector. Electric field has been simulated based on the square and circular shaped point contact in the Fig.~\ref{shape_effect}(a) and Fig.~\ref{shape_effect}(b) respectively and it has been observed that the strength of the maximum electric field for circular shaped point contact detector ($\sim 10^{5}$ V/cm ) is more than that of square shaped point contact ($\sim 10^{4}$ V/cm ) detector. \par Another important key feature in using the circular point contact shape is to minimize the value of detector bias voltage.
Same magnitude of maximum electric field can be obtained at relatively lower biasing voltage for the detector having circular point contact shape than that of squared point contact shape as shown in the Fig.~\ref{adv_HV}(a) and Fig.~\ref{adv_HV}(b) respectively. Biasing voltage plays an important role in the leakage current of the germanium detectors. It has been experimentally measured~\cite{wei} that the leakage current within the germanium detectors will go on increasing with applying higher magnitude of bias voltage. As a consequence, the leakage current due to higher value of bias voltage can be minimized when the detector have been configured under the circular point contact geometry.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{circular_point_contactt.pdf}}
\caption{Schematic diagram ( sectional view) of P-PC detector having various components.}
\label{detector_geo}
\label{circular_point_contactt.pdf}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.9\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shape_effect_field_VALUEEEEEE.pdf}
\caption{Effect of the point contact geometry on the electric field strength }
\label{shape_effect}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.9\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{adv_hv}
\caption{Effect of the point contact geometry on the biasing voltage}
\label{adv_HV}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ Designing of the Guard rings }
Additional components of the detector are guard ring which protects the point contact regime from the spread of electric field to overcome the breakdown or short circuit of the point contact . Fig.~\ref{no_gr} shows the variation of electric field lines in the absence of guard rings in which field lines are spread over the point contact due to n+ biased layer. Upon introduction of guard rings(Fig.~\ref{gr} near the vicinity of point contact, spread of field lines is limited and point contact is protected from the breakdown/short circuit due to n+ biased layer. Amorphous germanium has been spattered, having concentration usually of the order of $\sim 10^{14} cm^{-3} $, in the vicinity of guard ring in the same way as the boron layer diffusion done in the vicinity of the point contact.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.9\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gr.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the electric field in the absence of guard ring }
\label{no_gr}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.9\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ggg.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the electric field in the presence of guard ring}
\label{gr}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\label{sec:heat_transfer}
\section{Simulation techinques}
\subsection{ Layout of Charge signal simulation}
The road map has been sketched in the Fig.~\ref{algo} to obtained the simulated charge signal pulse for the pPCGe detector.
Application of Numerical techniques used in each step of the layout has been discussed in the upcoming sections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{signal_simulation_algorithm}}
\caption{Flow chart of charge signal simulation}
\label{algo}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Electric Field simulation}
\subsubsection{Numerical Technique (Finite Difference Method)}
In order to simulate the 2D electric potential profile inside the detector , 2D Poisson's equation has been used. 2D Poisson's equation contains partial derivatives of electric potential ( $\phi(x,y)$ ) with respect to variable x and y respectively as given below:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^{2} \phi(x,y)}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^{2} \phi(x,y)}{\partial y^2} =- \frac{ \rho}{\epsilon}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
or, \nabla^{2}\phi(x,y) = - \frac{ \rho}{\epsilon}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the impurity charge density, which is assumed to be uniform.
\par
Electric field has been calculated from the negative gradient of the electric potential as given below:
\begin{equation}
E = -\nabla \phi(x,y)
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Analytical solution of 2D poisson's is very tidy and needs lot of approximations. Therefore, the best suitable approach to obtain the solution is Numerical Techniques.
There are several numerical techniques available to solve the 2D partial differential equations such as Finite Element Method, Finite Difference Method etc, .
In the present work, Finite Difference Method (FDM) has been used to solve the 2D Poisson's equation for electric potential inside the detector.
In this method (x,y) domain of the detector has been meshed as shown in the Fig.~\ref{gridm}(a), into uniform grid of spatial points separated by $h$ at which
electric potential will be sampled. Electric potential on each and every single point in the detector domain is contributed by the four points in its neighborhood as shown in Fig.~\ref{gridm}(b).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{gridm}
\caption{(a)Grid Meshing in 2D (b) Five-point stencil}
\label{gridm}
\end{figure}
Formation of grids are obtained by :
\begin{equation}
x_{i} = ih
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
y_{j} = jh
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
where i and j are integers.
Therefore, the partial derivatives of poisson equation can be replaced by finite differences as given below:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^{2} \phi(x,y)}{\partial x^2} = \frac{\phi(i-1,j)-2\phi(i,j)+\phi(i+1,j)}{h^{2}}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^{2} \phi(x,y)}{\partial y^2} = \frac{\phi(i,j+1)-2\phi(i,j)+\phi(i,j-1)}{h^{2}}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Following inputs has been used to solve the Poisson equation in order to determine the potential inside the detector region:
\textbf {1.} Boundary conditions depends on the detector geometry. Such
conditions defines the shape and size of detector, point contact and gaurd rings. There are several types of boundary conditions exists for solving partial differential equations.
In the present scenario, Drichilet boundary condition has been used. These boundary conditions are applied to the electric potentials $\phi(x,y)_{I}$ , $\phi(x,y)_{II}$ , $\phi(x,y)_{III}$ , $\phi(x,y)_{IV}$ , $\phi(x,y)_{V}$ on the n+ surface of the detector namely $I , II , III , IV , V$ respectively. All of these surfaces excluding $VI$ ( point contact) has been biased to the high voltage as shown in the Fig.~\ref{bound}. The surface $VI$ is the geometry of the point contact of the detector which serves as the read out and connected to the ground (zero potential) in order to work the detector in the reverse bias mode .
\textbf {2.} Ge parameters, i,e,.Impurity concentration (number density of acceptor atoms in case of p-type Ge crystal), Dielectric constant .
\textbf {3.} Reverse bias voltage ( high voltage) .
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{bound}
\caption{Drichilet boundaries for different surfaces of the pPCGe detector.}
\label{bound}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Iteration method (Gauss-Seidel Method)}
Iterative method (Gauss-Seidel Iteration) has been used to simulate potential $\phi(i,j)$.
Gauss-Seidel method, is a modified version of Jacobi method also called as Successive Displacement Method, has been developed by Carl Friedrich Gauss and Philipp Ludwig von Seidel.
Unlike the Jacobi method in which the values in each iteration obtained from the previous step, Gauss-Seidel method utilizes the value from the latest obtained value.
This method is called as successive displacement method because the second unknown has been calculated from the first unknown and third unknown has been obtained from the first as well as second unknown in the current iteration.
Similar procedure has been repeated for the further iteration cycle. Continuity of the iteration cycle breaks down when pre declared accuracy achieved. In the present simulation the value of accuracy has been set to the order of ($\sim10^{-8}$).
\subsection{Pulse Shape simulation}
\subsubsection{Numerical Technique (Shockley-Ramo Method)}
Shockley-Ramo theoram\cite{gatti} \cite{he} has been used to simulate the induce charge and induce current at the read out (point contact) of the pPCGe detetctor.
Based on \textbf {Shockley-Ramo theoram}, the induced charge $Q$ on the electrode by a point charge $q$ ( Fig.~\ref{geo.png}) located at position $x_{0}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
Q_{q} = - q \psi(\overrightarrow x_{0})
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
where $\psi(\overrightarrow x)$ is weighting potential defined as;
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{2}\psi(\overrightarrow x) = 0
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
subjected to condition that potential is unity on read out electrode and else where it is zero.
And field corresponding to weighting potential is called as weighting field given as;
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow E_{\psi(\overrightarrow x)} = -\nabla^{}\psi(\overrightarrow x)
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Induce current $I_{q}. $ to the electrode is given by:
\begin{equation}
I_{q} = \frac {dQ_{q}}{dt} = -q \big(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_{0}}\frac{\partial x_{0}}{\partial t} +\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y_{0}}\frac{\partial y_{0}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z_{0}}\frac{\partial z_{0}}{\partial t}\big)
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
or, I = q \overrightarrow E_{\psi}(\overrightarrow x_{0}) \overrightarrow v_{drift}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Iteration used}
When the radiation entered in the bulk of the the detector, energy has been deposited in the detector volume. As a consequence of energy deposition , charge carriers (electrons and holes) has been created in the detector volume and starts drifting in the presence of electric field . Drifting of charge carriers has been guided from the applied electric field of the pPCGe detector.
\par
If the charge particle created at the initial position $x_{0}$ , the next position of the charge particle has been calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
x = x_{0} + V_{d}\delta t
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
where, $V_{d}$ is the drift velocity of charge carrier and $\delta t$ is the time step taken as 1 nano seconds in the present simulation.
Each iteration cycle calculates the next position from the previous position of the charge carrier as the input keeping the same time step.
Iteration cycle remains continue till the charge carrier reached point contact.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{geo.png}}
\caption{Motion of charge towards the read out (point contact)}
\label{geo.png}
\end{figure}
\label{sec:MLI-Tech}
\section{Results and discussions}
\subsection{Variation of Weighting potential and Electric Field in P-PC germanium detector}
Consequence of Shockley-Ramo theorem simulate the variation of weighting potential within the pPCGe detector in the 2D and 3D maps as shown in Fig.~\ref{weighting_potential.png} and Fig.~\ref{weightingpotential.png}, respectively.
In the vicinity of point contact, strength of potential is found to be higher than the area which is away from it. Consequently, the charge carrier feels more drifting near the point contact and slows down as moving away from it. Therefore, the charge carriers, which are created in the nearby regime of the point contact, will reach the point contact relatively more quickly.
As a result, the rise time of charge signal found to be decreasing as the distance between point contact and the position of the charge carrier decreasing. Charge signals has been simulated for the different positions inside the detector and has been compared as shown in the Fig.~\ref{induce_charge_distance_effect}.
\par
Numerical values of electric field, simulated from Finite Difference Method, has been fitted and its variation have been shown in Fig.~\ref{pcge_field} as a function of distance from the point contact of the detector. Maximum electric field ($\sim 10^{4} V/cm$) has been observed in the close vicinity of point contact.
The contour map of electric field (Fig.~\ref{gaurd_ring_pc_boron_layer} ) shows that the region near the close vicinity of point contact have been majorly contributed with electric field and field strength becomes debilitated as moving away from the point contact.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{weighting_potential.png}
\caption{A 2D contour of weighting potential in pPCGe detector}
\label{weighting_potential.png}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{weightingpotential.png}
\caption{A 3D map of weighting potential pPCGe detector}
\label{weightingpotential.png}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{induce_charge_distance_effect.pdf}
\caption{Charge signal due to the charge carrier created at the different distances in the detector from the point contact}
\label{induce_charge_distance_effect}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pcge_field}
\caption{Variation of electric field in the pPCGe detector }
\label{pcge_field}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gaurd_ring_pc_boron_layer}
\caption{ A 2D contour plot of electric field in the pPCGe detector}
\label{gaurd_ring_pc_boron_layer}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Drift velocity profile for germanium crystal at cryogenic temperature }
Drift velocity of charge carrier inside the detector is electric field dependent parameter. Linear variation of drift velocity with applied electric field is well known at the low field.
Where as in the high field region, change in drift velocity with electric field is small and saturated at the higher value of electric field beyond the specific point~\cite{Mei}~\cite{v_sat}. Saturation of drift velocity can be described as:
\begin{equation}
V_{d} = \mu(E) E
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Where $\mu(E)$ is the field dependent mobility.
This relation can be simplified into an empirical expression as :
\begin{equation}
V_{d} = \frac{\mu_{0}E}{1 + \frac{E}{E_{sat}}}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{0}$ is the mobility in the absence of field~\cite{zero_field} ; $E_{sat} = \frac{v_{sat}}{\mu_{0}}$, where $v_{sat}$ is known as the saturation drift velocity~\cite{v_sat}
Therefore, the drift velocity ($v_{d}$) can be expressed as ;
\begin{equation}
V_{d} = \frac{\mu_{0}E}{1+ \frac{\mu_{0}E}{v_{sat}}}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Saturation velocity ($v_{sat}$) can be calculated using empirical formulae\cite{v_sat} given below:
herefore, the drift velocity ($v_{d}$) can be expressed as ;
\begin{equation}
V_{sat} = \frac{v^{sat}_{300}}{1 - A_{\nu} + A_{\nu}(\frac{T}{300})}
\label{RVsNPart}
\end{equation}
Velocity saturation model\cite{v_sat} gives the parameter values at temperature 300 K as: $v^{sat}_{300} = 0.7 x 10^{7} cm/s$ for electrons $0.63 x 10^{7} cm/s$, $A_{\nu } = 0.55 $ for electrons, $A_{\nu } = 0.6 $1or holes
\par
Drift velocity of electron and holes has been simulated for pPCGe detector as shown in the Fig.~\ref{drfit_electron_exp_sim} and Fig.~\ref{drfit_hole_exp_sim} respectively.
Maximum order of the velocity near the point contact is observed as $10^{7}$ cm$^{2}$/sec.
At the higher electric field (as moving towards point contact), the drift velocity of electrons as well hole has been found to be saturated as shown in the Fig.~\ref{drfit_electron_exp_sim} and Fig.~\ref{drfit_hole_exp_sim} respectively and compared with the experimentally measured values \cite{ge_elect}\cite {ge_hole}.
However the linear variation in the drift velocity has been also observed in the low electric field region.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{drfit_electron_exp_sim}
\caption{Drift veocity profile of electron within pCGe detector at 77 k}
\label{drfit_electron_exp_sim}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{drfit_hole_exp_sim}
\caption{Drift veocity profile of hole within pCGe detector at 77 k}
\label{drfit_hole_exp_sim}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pulse shape (charge signal and current signal)}
Charge signal and current signal based on arbitrary detector parameters( Table$\sim$\ref{arb_det_par}) has been shown in the Fig.~\ref{induce_charge_point_three.pdf} and Fig.~\ref{induce_current_point_three_copy} respectively.
The radiation which entered inside the detector volume gives rise to the energy deposition. As a consequence of energy deposition within the detector volume, charge carrier (electrons and holes) will produce due to the ionization.
These charge carrier started drifting in the presence of applied electric field of the detector and induces the charge on the read out / electrode (point contact) of the detector . At every time instant of the charge carrier trajectory, charges will induce on the electrode and induction of charges continues till the charge carriers reaches the electrode. Therefore the charge signal will increases slowly as they moves towards the electrode. Once all charge carrier reaches the electrode, the charge signal will gets maximum height and achieve the charge saturation as shown in the Fig.~\ref{induce_charge_point_three.pdf} .
Saturation of charge signal occurs because all the charges have been collected and detected on the electrode of the detector and as a consequence no further change has been observed in the charge signal irrespective of time.
Current signal can be easily obtained from the time integration of charge signal as shown in the Fig.~\ref{induce_current_point_three_copy.png}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.16em}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.37}
\centering
\caption{Parameters used in the simulation based on the arbitrary detector attributes are tabulated }
\vspace*{4pt}
\label{arb_det_par}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
Detector dimension & 1 cm x 1 cm \\ \hline
Grid dimension & 200 x 200 \\ \hline
Point contact radius & 0.5 mm \\ \hline
Impurity concentration ( p-type Ge crystal ) & 5.0 x 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ \\ \hline
Reverse bias voltage & 3500 Volts \\ \hline
Gaurd ring dimension & 1 mm x 1 mm \\ \hline
p+ ( boron diffused ) layer thickness & 300 nm \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0mm}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{induce_charge_point_three.pdf}
\caption{Normalized charge pulse of pPCGe detector}
\label{induce_charge_point_three.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{induce_current_point_three_copy.png}
\caption{Normalized current pulse of pPCGe detector}
\label{induce_current_point_three_copy}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{charge_signal_distance_effect}
\caption{Simulated charge pulses for various initial positions of charge carrier within the pPCGe detector }
\label{charge_signal.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{charge_signal}
\caption{Simulated charge signal accordance with experimental charge pulse}
\label{induce_current_point_three_copy.png}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\par
The charge signal of the pPCGe detector for Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) has been simulated based on the detector parameters~\cite{MJD} as given in the Table~\ref{MJD_par} .
Simulated and the experimentally measured charge pulses have been plotted using the dotted and continuous lines respectively as shown in the Fig.~\ref{charge_signal.pdf} and Fig.~\ref{induce_current_point_three_copy.png} .
Range of the y-axis (charge signal) has been chosen as [0,300] based on the MJD measured pulse~\cite{MJD} so that simulated and experimentally measured pulses can be compared.
Different initial position of charge carrier from the point contact has been fed into the simulation and the simulated charge signal has been shown in the Fig.~\ref{charge_signal.pdf}. It has been observed from the Fig.~\ref{charge_signal.pdf} that the charge signal, corresponds to the initial position (2.0 cm from the point contact) have been nearly superimposed with the experimentally Majorana Demonstrator pulse\cite{MJD}. Whereas the charge pulses simulated for the initial positions 3.0 cm and 4.0 cm are different from that of initial position 2.0 cm. As the initial position of charge carrier from the point contact decreases, the rise time of the signal decreases accordingly and as a consequence, the saturation of signal has been observed ahead of the time as shown in the Fig.~\ref{charge_signal.pdf} .
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.16em}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.37}
\centering
\caption{pPCGe detector parameters used in the Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) are tabulated from Ref.~\cite{MJD} }
\vspace*{4pt}
\label{MJD_par}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
Detector dimension & 5 cm x 5 cm \\ \hline
Grid dimension & 200 x 200 \\ \hline
Point contact radius & 2.5 mm \\ \hline
Impurity concentration ( p-type Ge crystal ) & 3.2 x 10$^{9}$ cm$^{-3}$ \\ \hline
Reverse bias voltage & 3000 Volts \\ \hline
Gaurd ring dimension & 1 mm x 1 mm \\ \hline
p+ ( boron diffused ) layer thickness & 300 nm \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0mm}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Summary and conclusion}
Electric field variation within the pPCGe detector has been simulated in the present simulation using the Finite Difference Method. As a consequence, the drift velocity profile of charge carrier inside the Ge crystal has also been figured out with the help of applied electric field and compared with the measured values. It has been concluded from the simulation as well as the velocity saturation model that higher value of electric field is responsible for velocity saturation and the lower field region gives the linear variation of the drift velocity within the germanium crystal respectively. Weighting potential is one of the key input in the pulse shape simulation which has been simulated using the Shockley-Ramo Modeling.
Charge signal of pCGe detector has been simulated using the present simulation based on the Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) experiment . The simulation reflects the fair agreement with the experimental results.
Various initial positions of charge carrier has been simulated and compared with the experimental pulse shape of Majorona Demonstrator (MJD) and it has been concluded that the charge signal, corresponds to the definite initial position of the charge carrier ( 3.0 cm from the point contact) matches with the experimental signal pulse. Therefore if the detector parameters ( such as impurity concentration, high voltage, detector size, point dimension) and the experimentally measured charge pulse are known then the initial distance of charge carrier, where it has been created, can be predicted with present pulse shape simulation.
\label{sec:summary}
\acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the Ministry of
Human Resource Development (MHRD), New Delhi, India for the financial support through
Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration (SPARC) project
No. SPARC/2018$-$2019/P242/SL. Authors are also thankful to the PIRE-GEMADARC COLLABORATION which is supported by NSF USA.
|
\section*{Introduction}
\noindent
\noindent
A guiding principle in Gorenstein homological algebra is to seek
analogues of results about absolute homological dimensions. For
example, the Gorenstein global dimension of a ring can equally well be
computed in terms of the Gorenstein projective or Gorenstein injective
dimensions of its modules; this was proved by Enochs and Jenda
\cite{rha} in the noetherian case and by Bennis and Mahdou
\cite{DBnNMh10} in general.
The notion of a weak global dimension has also been considered in
Gorenstein homological algebra, for example by Emmanouil
\cite{IEm12}. The weak global dimension of a ring is a left--right
symmetric invariant; that is, a ring has finite weak global dimension
on the left if and only if it enjoys the same property on the
right. In \secref{1} we prove the corresponding statement in
Gorenstein homological algebra, thus confirming a widely held
conjecture that was formally stated by Bennis \cite{DBn10}.
In \secref{2} we use this symmetry to investigate the relations
between the Gorenstein global and Gorenstein weak global
dimensions. The main result of this section, \thmref{main}, shows that
finite Gorenstein weak global dimension together with finite
projective dimension of flat modules implies finite Gorenstein global
dimension; under extra assumptions on the ring this was proved by
Bennis and Mahdou~\cite{DBnNMh09}. The same theorem relates the
Gorenstein global dimension to a new invariant: the Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion dimension, which was introduced in \cite{CELTWY-21}. In
fact, this new invariant plays a key role already in the proof of
\thmref{sym}, the main result of the first section. The invariant is
built on the theory of Gorenstein flat-cotorsion modules developed in
\cite{CET-20} as well as recent work of \v{S}aroch and
\v{S}tov{\'{\i}}{\v{c}}ek \cite{JSrJSt20}.
\begin{equation*}
\ast \ \ \ast \ \ \ast
\end{equation*}
Throughout the paper, $A$ denotes an associative ring. By an
$A$-module we mean a left $A$-module, and we treat right $A$-modules
as modules over the opposite ring~$A^\circ$. By an \emph{$A$-complex} we
mean a complex of $A$-modules. For such a complex $M$ and an integer
$n$, the hard truncation of $M$ above at $n$ is denoted $\Tha{n}{M}$
while $\Thb{n}{M}$ denotes the hard truncation of $M$ below at $n$.
For $v \in \mathbb{Z}$ the cycle module in degree $v$, i.e.\ the kernel of
$\dif[v]{M}$ is denoted $\Cy[v]{M}$, while $\Co[v]{M}$ denotes the
cokernel module in degree $v$, i.e.\ the cokernel of
$\dif[v+1]{M}$. We say that $M$ has \emph{bounded} homology if
$\H[v]{M}=0$ holds for $|v| \gg 0$.
The notation and terminology above is all standard; the only
non-standard terminology applied in this paper comes from
\cite{CELTWY-21,CET-20}: An acyclic complex $T$ of flat-cotorsion
$A$-modules is called \emph{totally acyclic} if $\Hom{T}{F}$ is
acyclic for every flat-cotorsion $A$-module $F$. A cycle in such a
complex is called a \emph{Gorenstein flat-cotorsion} module. A
semi-flat complex of flat-cotorsion modules is called
\emph{semi-flat-cotorsion.} In the derived category of $A$, every
complex $M$ is isomorphic to a semi-flat-cotorsion complex---see for
example \cite[Cnstr.~2.4]{CELTWY-21}; such a complex is called a
semi-flat-cotorsion replacement of $M$. The Gorenstein flat-cotorsion
dimension of an $A$-complex $M$ is denoted $\Gfcd{M}$; it is the least
$n \ge \sup\setof{v\in\mathbb{Z}}{\H[v]{M} \ne 0}$ such that the
$n^{\mathrm{th}}$ cokernel in a semi-flat-cotorsion replacement of $M$
is Gorenstein flat-cotorsion.
For the absolute homological dimensions we use two-letter
abbreviations---pd, id, and fd---and we write Gpd, Gid, and Gfd for
the corresponding Gorenstein dimensions. The notation for the
invariant
\begin{equation*}
\splf \:=\: \sup\setof{\pd{F}}{F \text{ is a flat $A$-module}}
\end{equation*}
is another acronym, ``splf'' stands for ``supremum of projective
lengths of flat modules.'' The invariants sfli, spli, silp, and silf
are defined similarly; see \cite[\S 1.2]{IEm12}.
\section{Symmetry of Gorenstein weak global dimension}
\label{sec:1}
\noindent
Holm proves in \thmcite[2.6]{HHl04c} that if $A$ is coherent and
$\splf[A^\circ]$ is finite, then the equality $\Gfd{M} = \fd{M}$ holds
for $A$-modules of finite injective dimension. The key to our proof of
the main result in this section is to show that this equality holds
without the assumptions on $A$. By the work done in \cite{CELTWY-21}
it suffices to prove the analogous equality for the Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion dimension, and since this is a result of independent
interest, we prove it for complexes.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Gfd-fd-for-id-finite}
Let $M$ be an $A$-complex with bounded homology. If $M$ has finite
injective dimension, then the equality $\Gfcd{M}=\fd{M}$ holds.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf*}
The equality $\Gfcd{M} = \fd{M}$ holds trivially if $M$ is acyclic,
so assume that $M$ is not acyclic and assume further, without loss
of generality, that $\id{M}=0$ holds. Set $w = \sup\setof{v\in\mathbb{Z}}{\H[v]{M} \ne 0}$ and let
$M \xra{\qis} I$ be a semi-injective resolution with $I_\d = 0$ for
$\d > w$ and $\d < 0$. There is an exact sequence of complexes
$0\to C' \to F \to I \to 0$ with $F$ semi-flat-cotorsion and $C'$ an
acyclic complex of cotorsion modules; this follows from work of
Gillespie \cite{JGl04}, see also \cite[Fact 2.2]{CELTWY-21}.
Acyclicity of $C'$ yields an exact sequence
$0\to \Cy[0]{C'}\to \Cy[0]{F}\to I_0\to 0$. Since both $\Cy[0]{C'}$
and $I_0$ are cotorsion---for the former see Bazzoni,
Cort\'es-Izurdiaga, and Estrada \thmcite[1.3]{BCE-20}---so is
$\Cy[0]{F}$. There is thus a semi-flat-cotorsion resolution
$F'\to \Cy[0]{F}$ concentrated in non-negative degrees, constructed
by taking successive flat covers. This complex glued together with
$\Tha{0}{F}$ is acyclic and semi-flat, see Christensen and Holm \cite[6.1]{LWCHHl15}, so
per \thmcite[7.3]{LWCHHl15} the module $\Cy[0]{F}$ is
flat-cotorsion, and we may assume that $F_\d=0$ holds for $\d<0$.
Fix $n\ge \Gfcd{M}$; the module $\Co[n]{F}$ is Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion by \lemcite[4.3]{CELTWY-21}. We argue next that
$\Ext{1}{G}{\Co[n]{F}} = 0$ holds for every Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion module $G$. Fix such a module $G$. By definition,
there is an exact sequence of $A$-modules,
$0\to G \to T_0 \to \cdots \to T_{-n+1} \to G' \to 0$, with each
$T_\d$ flat-cotorsion and $G'$ Gorenstein flat-cotorsion. As
$\Co[n]{F}$ is cotorsion, dimension shifting yields:
\begin{equation*}
\Ext{1}{G}{\Co[n]{F}} \:\cong\: \Ext{n+1}{G’}{\Co[n]{F}} \:.
\end{equation*}
Let $C$ be the mapping cone of the quasi-isomorphism $F\to I$; it is
concentrated in non-negative degrees and consists of sums of
modules that are flat-cotorsion or injective. Moreover, one has
$C_0 = I_0$ as $F_v = 0$ for $v<0$, and because $I_v=0$ for
$v > w$ and $n \ge w$ holds, there is an isomorphism
$\Co[n+1]{C} \cong \Co[n]{F}$. Thus dimension shifting along
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow \Co[n+1]{C} \longrightarrow C_{n} \longrightarrow \cdots \longrightarrow C_{1} \longrightarrow I_0 \longrightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
yields
\begin{equation*}
\Ext{n+1}{G’}{\Co[n]{F}} \:\cong\: \Ext{1}{G’}{I_0} \:=\: 0 \:.
\end{equation*}
Combining the displayed isomorphisms one gets
$\Ext{1}{G}{\Co[n]{F}}=0$. Now, with $g = \Gfcd{M}$ and $n=g+1$ and
$G = \Co[g]{F}$ one has $\Ext{1}{\Co[g]{F}}{\Co[g+1]{F}}=0$. This
means that the exact sequence
$0 \to \Co[g+1]{F} \to F_g \to \Co[g]{F} \to 0$ splits, whence
$\Co[g]{F}$ is flat-cotorsion. Thus one has $\fd{M} \le g$, and the
opposite inequality holds by \lemcite[5.11]{CELTWY-21}.
\end{prf*}
In particular we now have the desired strengthening of
\thmcite[2.6]{HHl04c}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Gfd-fd-for-id-finite}
Let $M$ be an $A$-complex with bounded homology. If $M$ has finite
injective dimension, then the equality $\Gfd{M}=\fd{M}$ holds.
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
The Gorenstein flat dimension is a refinement of the flat dimension,
so if $\Gfd{M}=\infty$ holds, then the equality is trivial. If
$\Gfd{M}<\infty$, then \thmcite[5.7]{CELTWY-21} yields
$\Gfcd{M}=\Gfd{M}$ and the asserted equality follows from
\thmref{Gfd-fd-for-id-finite}.
\end{prf*}
The Gorenstein global dimension of $A$, denoted $\Ggldim$, is the
supremum of the Gorenstein projective dimensions (equivalently, see
\thmcite[1.1]{DBnNMh10}, the Gorenstein injective dimensions) of all
$A$-modules.
\begin{dfn}
The
\emph{Gorenstein weak global dimension}~of~$A$ is
\begin{equation*}
\Gwgldim \:=\: \sup\setof{\Gfd{M}}{M \text{ is an $A$-module}} \:.
\end{equation*}
This is the invariant that Bennis and Mahdou denote
$l.\operatorname{wGgldim}(A)$ in \cite{DBn10,DBnNMh10} and
$\operatorname{G-wdim}(A)$ in \cite{DBnNMh09}. When $\Gwgldim$ and
$\Gwgldim[A^\circ]$ are finite, and only then, Emmanouil \cite{IEm12}
uses the symbol $\operatorname{Gw.dim}A$ for their common value.
\end{dfn}
If $\Gwgldim$ is finite then so is $\sfli[A^\circ]$; this is elementary,
see \lemcite[5.1]{IEm12}. On the other hand, if both $\sfli$ and
$\sfli[A^\circ]$ are finite, then per \thmcite[5.3]{IEm12} both
$\Gwgldim$ and $\Gwgldim[A^\circ]$ are finite. Thus, the key to prove
symmetry of the Gorenstein weak global dimension is to see that
$\Gwgldim < \infty$ implies $\sfli < \infty$. In our proof of
\thmref{sym} this follows from \corref{Gfd-fd-for-id-finite}, which
through \thmcite[5.7]{CELTWY-21} relies crucially on the work of
\v{S}aroch and \v{S}tov{\'{\i}}{\v{c}}ek \cite{JSrJSt20}. In
\rmkref{SS} we sketch how to obtain
symmetry directly from \cite{JSrJSt20}. However, there is more to
\thmref{sym}: In the next section it facilitates the comparison of
$\Gwgldim$ to $\Ggldim$, see for example \corref{comm}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:sym}
The following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{eqc}
\item $\Gwgldim < \infty$.
\item All $A$-modules have finite Gorenstein flat dimension.
\item $\sfli$ and $\sfli[A^\circ]$ are finite.
\item All $A$- and $A^\circ$-modules have finite Gorenstein flat
dimension.
\item All $A$- and $A^\circ$-modules have finite Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion dimension.
\end{eqc}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf*}
Conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ are equivalent as the class of Gorenstein
flat modules is closed under coproducts; see
for example Holm \prpcite[3.2]{HHl04a}. Conditions $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ are equivalent
by \thmcite[5.3]{IEm12}, and $(iv)$ evidently implies $(ii)$.
\proofofimp{ii}{iii} It follows from
\corref{Gfd-fd-for-id-finite} that $\sfli$ is finite and from
\lemcite[5.1]{IEm12} that $\sfli[A^\circ]$ is finite.
\proofofimp{iv}{v} The Gorenstein flat-cotorsion dimension of a
module is bounded above by its Gorenstein flat dimension, see
\thmcite[5.7]{CELTWY-21}.
\proofofimp{v}{iii} It follows from
\thmref{Gfd-fd-for-id-finite} that $\sfli$ and $\sfli[A^\circ]$ are
finite.
\end{prf*}
The next equality was formally conjectured by Bennis
\cite[Conj.~1.1]{DBn10}. For emphasis, we point out that it shows
that Emmanouil's \cite{IEm12} definition can be relaxed: It suffices
to consider finiteness of Gorenstein flat dimensions on one side of
the ring.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:sym}
One has $\Gwgldim = \Gwgldim[A^\circ]$.
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
The invariants $\Gwgldim$ and $\Gwgldim[A^\circ]$ are simultaneously
finite by \thmref{sym}, and when finite they are equal by
\thmcite[5.3]{IEm12}.
\end{prf*}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:SS}
That $\Gwgldim < \infty$ implies $\sfli < \infty$ can be deduced
directly from \cite{JSrJSt20}: In the notation of that paper, given
a module $M\in \mathcal{PGF}^\perp$, there exists by
\thmcite[4.9]{JSrJSt20} an exact sequence,
$0\to H\to T_{n-1}\to \cdots \to T_0\to M\to 0$, with each $T_v$ a
projective $A$-module and $H$ in $\mathcal{PGF}^\perp$. If
$\Gfd{M}\le n$, then $H$ is also Gorenstein flat, hence flat per
\thmcite[4.11]{JSrJSt20}.
\end{rmk}
\section{Comparing Gorenstein global dimensions}
\label{sec:2}
\noindent
In this section, we consider relations between finiteness of the
Gorenstein global dimensions. We begin with a key lemma that compares
the relevant invariants at the level of (complexes of) modules.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Gfd-Gpd}
For every $A$-complex $M$ with $\H{M} \ne 0$ one has
\begin{equation*}
\Gpd{M} \:\le\: \Gfd{M} + \splf \:.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf*}
Set $n = \splf$ and assume that it is finite. Let $M$ be an
$A$-complex with $\Gfd{M} = d$ for some integer $d$. Let $P \to M$
be a semi-projective resolution; the module $C = \Co[d]{P}$ is
Gorenstein flat---see Christensen, K\"oksal, and Liang
\prpcite[5.12]{CKL-17}\footnote{Every ring is GF-closed by
\corcite[4.12]{JSrJSt20}.}---and it suffices to show that
$\Gpd{C} \le n$ holds, as this implies that $\Co[d+n]{P}$ is
Gorenstein projective. By assumption there is an acyclic complex,
$0\to C \to F_0\to F_{-1} \to \cdots$, with each module $F_\d$ flat
and each cokernel Gorenstein flat. As in Cartan and Eilenberg's
\cite[Chapter XVII, \S1]{CarEil}, or the proof of
\lemcite[5.2]{IEm12}, construct a projective resolution of this
complex in the category of $A$-complexes:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@=1.5pc{
& \vdots\ar[d] & \vdots\ar[d] & \vdots\ar[d] & \\
0 \ar[r] & Q_1 \ar[r]\ar[d] & Q_1^{(0)} \ar[r] \ar[d]& Q_1^{(-1)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \cdots\\
0 \ar[r] & Q_0 \ar[r]\ar[d] & Q_0^{(0)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & Q_0^{(-1)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \cdots\\
0 \ar[r] &C \ar[r] \ar[d] & F_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & F_{-1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cdots\\
& 0 & 0 & 0 &
}
\end{equation*}
This induces an exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow \Co[n]{Q} \longrightarrow \Co[n]{Q^{(0)}} \longrightarrow \Co[n]{Q^{(-1)}} \longrightarrow \cdots \:.
\end{equation*}
The class of Gorenstein flat $A$-modules is resolving by
\corcite[4.12]{JSrJSt20}, so the module $\Co[n]{Q}$ is Gorenstein
flat. By assumption, $\Co[n]{Q^{(i)}}$ is projective for $i\le 0$,
and by construction the cokernels of the exact sequence are
Gorenstein flat, so $\Co[n]{Q}$ is Gorenstein projective by
\thmcite[4.4]{JSrJSt20}. Thus $\Gpd{C} \le n$ holds as desired.
\end{prf*}
Jiangsheng Hu pointed us to the following easy consequence of
\lemref{Gfd-Gpd}.
\begin{prp}
Let $n$ be an integer. The following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{eqc}
\item $\splf \le n$.
\item Every Gorenstein flat $A$-module has Gorenstein projective
dimension at most $n$ and every flat Gorenstein projective
$A$-module is projective.
\item Every flat $A$-module has Gorenstein projective dimension at
most $n$ and every flat Gorenstein projective $A$-module is
projective.
\end{eqc}
\end{prp}
\begin{prf*}
Evidently, $(ii)$ implies $(iii)$.
\proofofimp{i}{ii} For a Gorenstein flat $A$-module $M$,
\lemref{Gfd-Gpd} yields $\Gpd{M} \le n$. A flat Gorenstein
projective $A$-module $G$ is projective as $\Gpd{G} = \pd{G}$ holds
because the Gorenstein projective dimension refines the projective
dimension.
\proofofimp{iii}{i} The $n^\mathrm{th}$ syzygy of a flat $A$-module
is Gorenstein projective and flat, hence projective.
\end{prf*}
This brings us to the main result of this section; it compares to
\thmcite[2.1]{DBnNMh09} as does \corref{coh_cor}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
There are inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\sup\setof{\Gfcd{M}}{M \text{ is an $A$-module}}
\:\le\: \Ggldim \:\le\: \Gwgldim + \splf \:.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf*}
The second inequality follows immediately from \lemref{Gfd-Gpd}. To
prove the first inequality, set $n=\Ggldim$; we may assume that it
is finite. By \thmcite[4.1]{IEm12} one has $\spli=n=\silp$, and a
result of Emmanouil and Talelli~\prpcite[2.1]{IEmOTl11} yields
$\silf = n$. We first show that every cotorsion $A$-module $C$ has
$\Gfcd{C}\le n$. To see this, let $C\to I$ be an injective
resolution. For every $i \le 0$ there is an exact sequence
$0 \to \Cy[i]{I} \to I_{i} \to \Cy[i-1]{I} \to 0$ of cotorsion
modules. Construct flat resolutions $G \to C=\Cy[0]{I}$ and
$G^{(i)} \to \Cy[i]{I}$ for $i < 0$ by taking successive flat
covers. By \lemcite[8.2.1]{rha} there are flat resolutions
$F^{(i)} \to I_i$ which fit into exact sequences
$0\to G^{(i)} \to F^{(i)} \to G^{(i-1)}\to 0$, such that each module
$F^{(i)}_j$ is flat-cotorsion, and each syzygy module
$\Co[j]{F^{(i)}}$ is cotorsion. A standard construction, as in
\cite[Chap.~ XVII.\S1]{CarEil}, yields a commutative diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@=1.5pc{
& \vdots\ar[d] & \vdots\ar[d] & \vdots\ar[d] & \\
0 \ar[r] & G_1 \ar[r]\ar[d] & F_1^{(0)} \ar[r] \ar[d]& F_1^{(-1)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \cdots\\
0 \ar[r] & G_0 \ar[r]\ar[d] & F_0^{(0)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & F_0^{(-1)} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \cdots\\
0 \ar[r] & C \ar[r] \ar[d] & I_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & I_{-1} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \cdots\\
& 0 & 0 & 0 &
}
\end{equation*}
with exact rows and columns. This induces an exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow \Co[n]{G} \longrightarrow \Co[n]{F^{(0)}} \longrightarrow \Co[n]{F^{(-1)}} \longrightarrow \cdots \:.
\end{equation*}
Since $\sfli\le \spli=n$ holds, the modules $\Co[n]{F^{(i)}}$ are
flat for all $i \le 0$, and by construction they are cotorsion. The
complex $\Thb{n}{G}$ is a resolution of $\Co[n]{G}$ by
flat-cotorsion modules, so $\Co[n]{G}$ is a syzygy module in an
acyclic complex of flat-cotorsion $A$-modules. As $\silf$ is finite,
this complex is totally acyclic---indeed, for an acyclic complex $X$
of flat modules and a cotorsion module $Y$ of finite injective
dimension, a standard dimension shifting argument, as in the proof
of \thmref{Gfd-fd-for-id-finite}, shows that the complex
$\Hom{X}{Y}$ is acyclic---so the module $\Co[n]{G}$ is Gorenstein
flat-cotorsion. Thus $\Gfcd{C}\le n$.
Finally, let $M$ be an $A$-module and $F\to M$ a flat resolution
built from flat covers. Since $\Co[1]{F}$ is cotorsion, the module
$\Co[n+1]{F}$ is Gorenstein flat-cotorsion. Work of Gillespie
\cite{JGl04}, see also \cite[Fact 2.2]{CELTWY-21}, yields an exact
sequence,
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow C \longrightarrow P \longrightarrow 0 \:,
\end{equation*}
with $C$ degreewise cotorsion and $P$ an acyclic complex of flat
modules with flat cycle modules. It follows that $C$ is a semi-flat-cotorsion replacement of
$M$, see \cite[Fact 1.4]{CELTWY-21}. For $i\ge 1$ the exact
sequence \mbox{$0 \to F_i\to C_i \to P_i\to 0$} shows that $P_i$ is
cotorsion. As all the modules $\Co[i]{P}$ are flat, \cite[Lemma
5.6]{CELTWY-21} applied to $\Thb{1}{P}$ shows that $\Co[n+1]{P}$ is
flat-cotorsion. It follows that the exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \longrightarrow \Co[n+1]{F} \longrightarrow \Co[n+1]{C} \longrightarrow \Co[n+1]{P} \longrightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
splits, whence $\Co[n+1]{C}$ is Gorenstein flat-cotorsion; in
particular, $\Gfcd{M}$ is finite. There is an exact sequence of
$A$-modules, $0\to M \to C' \to F' \to 0$, with $C'$ cotorsion and
$F'$ flat. As we have shown above that $\Gfcd{C'}\le n$ holds, it
now follows from \thmcite[4.5]{CELTWY-21} that also $\Gfcd{M}\le n$.
\end{prf*}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:FPD}
Recall that the invariant
\begin{equation*}
\FPD \:=\: \sup\setof{\pd{M}}{M \text{ has finite projective dimension}}
\end{equation*}
is known as the \emph{finitistic projective dimension} of $A$. By a
result of Jensen \prpcite[6]{CUJ70} one has $\splf \le \FPD$. By
\thmcite[2.28]{HHl04a} there is an inequality $\FPD \le \Ggldim$,
and equality holds if $\Ggldim$ is finite.
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:coh_cor}
Assume that $A$ is right coherent. There are inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\Gwgldim
\:\le\: \Ggldim \:\le\: \Gwgldim + \splf \:.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{eqc}
\item $\Gwgldim$ and $\splf$ are finite.
\item $\Ggldim$ is finite.
\end{eqc}
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
Since $A$ is right coherent, the equality $\Gfcd{M}= \Gfd{M}$ holds
for every $A$-module $M$ by \corcite[5.8]{CELTWY-21}. Hence, one has
\begin{equation*}
\sup\setof{\Gfcd{M}}{M \text{ is an $R$-module}}
\:=\: \Gwgldim \;,
\end{equation*}
and the asserted inequalities follow from \thmref{main}.
It is immediate from the second inequality that \eqclbl{i} implies
\eqclbl{ii}. For the converse, assume that $\Ggldim$ is finite; it
follows from the first inequality that $\Gwgldim$ is finite, and
$\splf$ is finite by \rmkref{FPD}.
\end{prf*}
The next corollary applies, in particular, to commutative rings.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:comm}
If $A$ and $A^\circ$ are isomorphic, then the next conditions are~\mbox{equivalent.}
\begin{eqc}
\item $\Gwgldim$ and $\splf$ are finite.
\item $\Ggldim$ is finite.
\end{eqc}
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
Immediate from \thmref[Theorems~]{sym} and \thmref[]{main}, along
with \rmkref{FPD}.
\end{prf*}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:GGFPD}
If $\Gwgldim$ is finite, then $\Ggldim = \FPD$ holds, and the
invariants $\splf$ and $\FPD$ are simultaneously finite.
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
By \rmkref{FPD} the equality holds if $\Ggldim$ is finite. Assume
that $\Gwgldim$ is finite. If $\FPD$ is finite, then $\splf$ is
finite by \rmkref{FPD}, so $\Ggldim$ is finite by
\thmref{main}. This proves the equality, and the last assertion
follows as finiteness of $\splf$ by \thmref[]{main} implies
finiteness of $\Ggldim$.
\end{prf*}
Simson \cite{DSm74} shows that a ring $A$ of cardinality $\aleph_n$
has $\splf \le n+1$; for commutative rings this was shown earlier by
Jensen \thmcite[5.8]{CUJ72}. Thus, the next corollary yields, in
particular, that the Gorenstein global dimension is symmetric for
countable coherent rings.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:GorSym}
If $A$ is coherent, then the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{eqc}
\item $\Ggldim$ and $\splf[A^\circ]$ are finite.
\item $\Ggldim[A^\circ]$ and $\splf$ are finite.
\end{eqc}
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
The assertion follows from \corref{coh_cor} combined with
\corref{sym}.
\end{prf*}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:1}
For noetherian rings Beligiannis \corcite[6.11]{ABl00} proved that
the Gorenstein global dimension is symmetric. \corref{GorSym}
provides us with non-trivial new examples of rings that exhibit this
kind of Gorenstein symmetry; by non-trivial we here mean rings of
infinite global dimension. For instance, let $R$ be a
non-commutative artinian ring and $S$ a commutative coherent, but
not noetherian, ring of cardinality $\le \aleph_n$. By \cite{DSm74}
the direct product ring $R\times S$ satisfies the assumptions in
\corref{GorSym}. Coherent quotients of the product ring
$M_n(\mathbb{Q})\times\mathbb{Q}[x_0,x_1,\ldots]$ are simple
examples of such rings.
\end{rmk}
One can replace the coherent assumption in \corref{GorSym} with
assumptions of Gorenstein flatness of Gorenstein projective modules.
\begin{cor}
The next conditions are equivalent.
\begin{eqc}
\item $\Ggldim$ and $\splf[A^\circ]$ are finite and every Gorenstein
projective $A$-module is Gorenstein flat.
\item $\Ggldim[A^\circ]$ and $\splf$ are finite and every Gorenstein
projective $A^\circ$-module is Gorenstein flat.
\end{eqc}
\end{cor}
\begin{prf*}
If $\Ggldim$ is finite and every Gorenstein projective $A$-module is
Gorenstein flat, then it follows that $\Gwgldim$ is finite. By
\corref{sym} this implies that $\Gwgldim[A^\circ]$ is finite. It
follows that every cycle in an acyclic complex of flat
$A^\circ$-modules is Gorenstein flat; in particular, every Gorenstein
projective $A^\circ$-module is Gorenstein flat. Finally, \thmref{main}
yields $\Ggldim[A^\circ] < \infty$ and $\splf$ is finite by
\rmkref{FPD},
\end{prf*}
\begin{rmk}
The result of Beligiannis, \corcite[6.11]{ABl00}, mentioned in
\rmkref{1} shows that a noetherian ring is
Iwanaga--Gorenstein---that is, of finite self-injective dimension on
both sides---if it has finite Gorenstein global dimension on one
side. It follows from \thmref{sym} and \corcite[5.10]{CELTWY-21}
that a noetherian ring is Iwanaga--Gorenstein if it has finite
Gorenstein weak global dimension on one side. This improves
\thmcite[12.3.1]{rha}.
\end{rmk}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\noindent
We thank the referee for pertinent suggestions that improved the
exposition.
\def\soft#1{\leavevmode\setbox0=\hbox{h}\dimen7=\ht0\advance \dimen7
by-1ex\relax\if t#1\relax\rlap{\raise.6\dimen7
\hbox{\kern.3ex\char'47}}#1\relax\else\if T#1\relax
\rlap{\raise.5\dimen7\hbox{\kern1.3ex\char'47}}#1\relax \else\if
d#1\relax\rlap{\raise.5\dimen7\hbox{\kern.9ex \char'47}}#1\relax\else\if
D#1\relax\rlap{\raise.5\dimen7 \hbox{\kern1.4ex\char'47}}#1\relax\else\if
l#1\relax \rlap{\raise.5\dimen7\hbox{\kern.4ex\char'47}}#1\relax \else\if
L#1\relax\rlap{\raise.5\dimen7\hbox{\kern.7ex
\char'47}}#1\relax\else\message{accent \string\soft \space #1 not
defined!}#1\relax\fi\fi\fi\fi\fi\fi}
\providecommand{\MR}[1]{\mbox{\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#1}}}
\renewcommand{\MR}[1]{\mbox{\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#1}}}
\providecommand{\arxiv}[2][AC]{\mbox{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#2}{\sf
arXiv:#2 [math.#1]}}} \def$'${$'$}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
In this paper we proposed an overflow/underflow-free bit-width optimization method for fixed-point OS-ELM digital circuits.
In the proposed method affine arithmetic is used to estimate the intervals of intermediate variables
and compute the optimal number of integer bits that never cause overflow and underflow.
We clarified two critical problems in realizing the proposed method:
(1) OS-ELM's training algorithm is an iterative algorithm and the computation graph grows endlessly,
which makes interval analysis infeasible in affine arithmetic.
(2) OS-ELM's training algorithm has a division operation
and if the denominator can take zero
OS-ELM can not be represented in affine arithmetic.
We proposed an empirical solution to prevent the computation graph from growing endlessly, based on simulation results.
We also analytically proved that the denominator does not take zero at any training step,
and proposed a mathematical trick based of the proof to safely represent OS-ELM in affine arithmetic.
Experimental results confirmed that no underflow/overflow occurred in our method on multiple datasets.
Our method realized overflow/underflow-free OS-ELM digital circuits
with 1.0x - 1.5x more area cost compared to the baseline simulation method
where overflow or underflow can happen.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{
Notation rules in this paper.
}
\label{tb:notation}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}\hline\hline
Notation & Description \\\hline
$x$ (\textit{italic}) & Scaler. \\
$\hat{x}$ & Affine form of $x$. \\
$\bm{x}$ (\textbf{\textit{bold italic}}) & Vector or matrix. \\
$\hat{\bm{x}}$ & \begin{tabular}{c} Affine form of $\bm{x}$ \\ (see Equation \ref{eq:affine.matrix_interval} for details). \end{tabular}\\
$x_{[u,v]}$ & $uv$ element of $\bm{x}$. \\
$\hat{x}_{[u,v]}$ & Affine form for the $uv$ element of $\bm{x}$.\\
$\mathrm{f}$ (upright) & Function (e.g. $\mathrm{G}, \mathrm{sup}, \mathrm{inf}, \mathrm{interval}$). \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{
Description of variables that appear in this paper.
The characters used for these variables are the same as the ones used in \cite{os_elm}.
}
\label{tb:desc}
\small
\begin{tabular}{c|c}\hline\hline
Variable & Description \\\hline
$n, \tilde{N}, m \in \mathbb{N}$ & Number of input, hidden, or output nodes of OS-ELM. \\
$\bm{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times \tilde{N}}$ & Non-trainable weight matrix connecting the input and hidden layers, which is initialized with random values. \\
$\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N} \times m}$ & Trainable weight matrix connecting the hidden and output layers. \\
$\bm{P} \in \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N} \times \tilde{N}}$ & Trainable intermediate weight matrix for training $\bm{\beta}$. \\
$\bm{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times \tilde{N}}$ & Non-trainable bias vector of the hidden layer, which is initialized with random values. \\
$\mathrm{G}$ & Activation function applied to the hidden layer output. \\
$\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times n}$ & Input vector. \\
$\bm{t} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times m}$ & Target vector. \\
$\bm{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times m}$ & Output vector. \\
$\bm{h} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times \tilde{N}}$ & Output vector of the hidden layer (after activation). \\
$\bm{e} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times \tilde{N}}$ & Output vector of the hidden layer (before activation). \\
$\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times n}$ & Input matrix of batch size = $k$ ($k \in \mathbb{N}$). \\
$\bm{T} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times m}$ & Target matrix of batch size = $k$. \\
$\bm{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times m}$ & Output matrix of batch size = $k$. \\
$\bm{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times \tilde{N}}$ & Output matrix of the hidden layer with batch size = $k$ (after activation). \\
$\bm{\gamma}^{(1)}, \ldots,\bm{\gamma}^{(10)}$ & Intermediate variables that appear in OS-ELM's training algorithm. \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Evaluation}\label{sec:eval}
In this section we evaluate the proposed interval analysis method.
All the experiments here were executed on a server machine (Ubuntu 20.04, Intel Xeon E5-1650 3.60GHz, DRAM 64GB, SSD 500GB).
Table \ref{tb:datasets} lists the classification datasets used for evaluation of our method.
For all the datasets, the intervals of input $\bm{x}$ and target $\bm{t}$ are normalized into $[0, 1]$.
Parameters $\bm{b}$ and $\bm{\alpha}$ are randomly generated with the uniform distribution of $[-1, 1]$.
The model size for each dataset is shown in ``Model Size'' column.
The number of hidden nodes is set to the number that performed the best test accuracy in a given search space;
search spaces for Digits, Iris, Letter, Credit, and Drive are \{32, 48, 64, 96, 128\}, \{3, 4, 5, 6, 7\}, \{8, 16, 32, 64, 128\},
\{4, 8, 16, 32, 64\}, and \{32, 64, 96, 128\} respectively.
\begin{comment}
We developed a software twin of OS-ELM Core in double-precision format
to simulate the behavior of OS-ELM Core in infinite-precision.
``Software training module" refers to the software version of training module,
and ``software prediction module" is the software version of prediction module.
We developed OS-ELM's initialization algorithm in double-precision format
and it is referred to as ``software initialization algorithm".
\end{comment}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{
The ``Ops'' column shows the total number of arithmetic operations,
and the ``Overflow/Underflow'' column shows the number of overflow or underflows that happened during the experiment.
The rate of overflow/underflows is written in ().}
\label{tb:rate}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}\hline\hline
& Ops & Overflow/Underflow \\\hline
Digits (sim) & \multirow{2}{*}{5,512,688,688} & 0 \\
Digits (ours) & & 0 \\\hline
Iris (sim) & \multirow{2}{*}{4,714,041} & 197,342 (4.19\%) \\
Iris (ours) & & 0 \\\hline
Letter (sim) & \multirow{2}{*}{17,793,216,000} & 0 \\
Letter (ours) & & 0 \\\hline
Credit (sim) & \multirow{2}{*}{11,039,328,000} & 0 \\
Credit (ours) & & 0 \\\hline
Drive (sim) & \multirow{2}{*}{187,259,827,356} & 5,467,945,469 (2.92\%) \\
Drive (ours) & & 0 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Optimization Result}\label{sec:eval.check}
In this section we first show the result of the proposed interval analysis method for each dataset,
comparing with an ordinary simulation-based interval analysis method.
Here is a brief introduction of the simulation method:
\textcircled{\scriptsize{1}} Implement OS-ELM's initialization, prediction, and training algorithms in double-precision format.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{2}} Execute initialization algorithm using initial training samples. $\{\bm{P}_0, \bm{\beta}_0\}$ is obtained.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{3}} Execute training algorithm by one step using online training samples. $\{\bm{P}_k, \bm{\beta}_k\}$ is obtained if $i = k$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}} Generate 1,000 random training samples $\{\bm{x}, \bm{t}\}$ with uniform distribution of $[0, 1]$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{5}} Feed all the random samples into training algorithm of step = $k$ and measure the values of $\{\bm{\gamma}_k^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_k^{(10)}, \bm{P}_k, \bm{\beta}_k, \bm{e}_k, \bm{h}_k\}$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{6}} Feed all the random samples into prediction algorithm and measure the values of $\bm{y}$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{7}} Repeat 3-6 until all online training samples run out.
Table \ref{tb:check} shows the intervals obtained from the simulation method (sim)
and those from the proposed method (ours).
All the intervals obtained from our method cover the corresponding simulated interval.
Note that the simulated interval of $\bm{\gamma}_i^{(5)} = 1 + \bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T$ satisfies $\bm{\gamma}_i^{(5)} > 1$,
which is consistent with the theorem proven in Section \ref{sec:method.train_analysis.div}.
\subsection{Rate of Overflow/Underflows}\label{sec:eval.rate}
This section compares the simulation method introduced in Section \ref{sec:eval.check} and
the proposed method in terms of the rate of overflow/underflows, using OS-ELM Core.
The experimental procedure is as follows:
\textcircled{\scriptsize{1}} Execute the simulation method and convert the result into integer bit-widths using Equation \ref{eq:optim}
(an extra bit was added to each bit-width to reduce overflow/underflows).
\textcircled{\scriptsize{2}} Execute the proposed method and convert the result into bit-widths.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{3}} Synthesize two OS-ELM Cores using the bit-widths obtained from 1 and 2.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}} Execute training by one step in both OS-ELM Cores using online training samples.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{5}} Generate 250 random training samples $\{\bm{x}, \bm{t}\}$ with uniform distribution of $[0, 1]$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{6}} Feed all the random samples into the training module and the prediction module for each OS-ELM Core and check the number of overflow/underflows that arose.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{7}} Repeat 4-6 until all online training samples run out.
The result is shown in Table \ref{tb:rate}.
The simulation method caused no overflow or underflows in three datasets out of five, however,
it suffered from as many overflow/underflows as 2.92 $\sim$ 4.19\% in the other two datasets,
where a few overflow/underflows arose in an early training step and were propagated to subsequent steps,
resulting in a drastic increase in overflow/underflows.
This cannot be perfectly prevented as long as a random exploration is taken in interval analysis.
The proposed method, on the other hand, encountered totally no overflow or underflows
as it analytically derives upper and lower bounds of variables and computes sufficient bit-widths where no overflow or underflows can happen.
Although the proposed method produces some redundant bits and it results in a larger area size (see Section \ref{sec:eval.area}),
it safely realizes an overflow/underflow-free fixed-point OS-ELM circuit.
\subsection{Verification of Hypothesis}\label{sec:eval.hypothesis}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=170.0mm]{fig/iris_trans.eps}
\end{minipage} \\
\begin{minipage}{0.25\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=170.0mm]{fig/letter_trans.eps}
\end{minipage} \\
\begin{minipage}{0.25\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=170.0mm]{fig/credit_trans.eps}
\end{minipage} \\
\begin{minipage}{0.25\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=170.0mm]{fig/drive_trans.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Observed intervals of $\{\bm{\gamma}^{(1)}_i, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}^{(10)}_i, \bm{P}_i, \bm{\beta}_i, \bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$ on Iris (top row), Letter (2nd row), Credit (3rd row), and Drive (bottom row), respectively.}
\label{fig:hypothesis}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:hypothesis} shows the entire result of the experiment described in Section \ref{sec:method.train_analysis.n}.
We observed similar outcomes to Figure \ref{fig:digits} for all the datasets,
which supports our hypothesis that $\bm{A}_i \in \{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$
roughly satisfies $[\mathrm{min}(\bm{A}_1), \mathrm{max}(\bm{A}_1)] \supseteq [\mathrm{min}(\bm{A}_i), \mathrm{max}(\bm{A}_i)]$ for $2 \le i$.
In iterative learning algorithms it is known that learning parameters ($\bm{\beta}_i$ and $\bm{P}_i$ in the case of OS-ELM) gradually converge to some values as training proceeds.
We consider that this numerical property resulted in the convergence of the dynamic ranges of $\bm{\beta}_i$ and $\bm{P}_i$ as observed in Figure \ref{fig:hypothesis},
then it tightened the dynamic ranges of other variables (e.g. $\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$) too, as a side-effect via enormous number of multiplications existing in the OS-ELM algorithm.
We plan to investigate the hypothesis either by deriving an analytical proof or using a larger dataset in the future work.
\subsection{Area Cost}\label{sec:eval.area}
In this section the proposed method is evaluated in terms of area cost.
We refer to BRAM utilization of OS-ELM Core as ``area cost'',
considering that all the arrays in OS-ELM Core are implemented with BRAM blocks (i.e. the bottleneck of area cost is BRAM utilization).
The proposed method is compared with the simulation method introduced in Section \ref{sec:eval.check}
to clarify how much additional area cost arises to guarantee OS-ELM Core being overflow/underflow-free.
The experimental procedure is as follows:
\textcircled{\scriptsize{1}} Convert the simulation result into integer bit-widths using Equation \ref{eq:optim} and synthesize OS-ELM Core with the optimized bit-widths.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{2}} Execute the proposed interval analysis method. Convert the result into integer bit-widths and synthesize OS-ELM Core.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{3}} Check the BRAM utilizations of our method and the simulation method.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}} Repeat 1-3 for all the datasets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80.0mm]{fig/area_cost_v2.eps}
\caption{
Comparison of area cost.
The green bar represents the BRAM utilization of our method and the brown bar is of the simulation method.}
\label{fig:area}
\end{figure}
The experimental result is shown in Figure \ref{fig:area}.
Our method requires 1.0x - 1.5x more BRAM blocks
to guarantee that OS-ELM Core never encounter overflow and underflow, compared to the simulation method.
Remember that a multiplication in AA causes overestimation of interval;
there should be a strong correlation between the additional area cost (i.e. simulation - ours)
and the number of multiplications in OS-ELM's training and prediction algorithms.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mult}
\mathrm{M}(n, \tilde{N}, m) = 4\tilde{N}^{2} + (3m + n + 1)\tilde{N}
\end{equation}
$\mathrm{M}(n, \tilde{N}, m)$ calculates the total number of multiplications in OS-ELM's training and prediction algorithms,
where $n$, $\tilde{N}$, or $m$ is the number of input, hidden, or output nodes, respectively.
Equation \ref{eq:mult} shows that $\tilde{N}$ has the largest impact on additional area cost,
which is consistent with the result that 2.0x more additional area cost was observed in Drive
compared to Digits, with fewer inputs nodes (Drive: 48, Digits: 64), more hidden nodes (Drive: 64, Digits: 48),
and almost the same number of hidden nodes (Drive: 11, Digits: 10).
We conclude that the proposed method is highly effective especially when the model size is small,
and that the number of hidden nodes has the strongest impact on additional area cost.
\section{OS-ELM Core}\label{sec:impl}
We developed OS-ELM Core, a fixed-point IP core that implements OS-ELM algorithms, to verify the proposed interval analysis method.
All integer bit-widths of OS-ELM Core are parametrized, and the result of proposed interval analysis method is used as the arguments.
The PYNQ-Z1 FPGA board \cite{pynqz1} (280 BRAM blocks, 220 DSP slices, 106,400 flip-flops, and 53,200 LUT instances) is employed as the evaluation platform.
Figure \ref{fig:oselm_core} shows the block diagram of OS-ELM Core.
OS-ELM Core employs axi-stream protocol for input/output interface with 64-bit data width.
Training module executes OS-ELM's training algorithm
then updates $\bm{P}$ and $\bm{\beta}$ managed in parameter buffer.
Prediction module reads an input $\bm{x}$ from input buffer
and executes prediction algorithm.
The output of prediction module $\bm{y}$ is buffered in output buffer.
Both training and prediction modules use one adder and one multiplier
in a matrix product operation, and
one arithmetic unit (i.e. adder, multiplier, or divisor)
in a element-wise operation, regardless of the size of matrix,
to make hardware resource cost as small as possible.
All the arrays existing in OS-ELM Core are implemented with BRAM blocks (18 kb/block),
and all the fixed-point arithmetic units (i.e. adder, multiplier, and divisor) are with DSP slices.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80.0mm]{fig/oselm_core.eps}
\caption{Block diagram of OS-ELM Core.}
\label{fig:oselm_core}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Currently there has been increasing demand for real-time training on resource-limited IoT devices (e.g. smart sensors and micro computers),
which realizes standalone online adaptation for streaming data without transferring data to remote servers,
and avoids additional power consumption for communication \cite{os_elm_fpga_tsukada_tc}.
OS-ELM (Online Sequential Extreme Learning Machine) \cite{os_elm} has been one of promising neural-network-based online algorithms for on-chip learning
because it can perform online training at low computational cost and is easy to implement as a digital circuit.
Several papers have proposed design methodologies and implementations of OS-ELM digital circuits
and shown that OS-ELM can be implemented in a small-size FPGA and still be able to perform online training in less than one millisecond \cite{os_elm_fpga_tsukada_tc, os_elm_fpga_tsukada, os_elm_fpga_villora, os_elm_fpga_safaei}.
Existing OS-ELM digital circuits often employ fixed-point data format and the bit-widths are manually tuned according
to the requirements (e.g. resource and timing constraints), however, this may cause overflow or underflow
which can lead to unexpected behavior of the circuit.
A lot of works have proposed bit-width optimization methods that analytically derive the lower and upper bounds of intermediate variables
and automatically optimize the fixed-point data format, ensuring that overflow/underflow never happens \cite{aawlo_lee, smtwlo_kinsman, hrwlo_boland}.
For on-chip learning systems, an overflow/underflow-free design has a significant impact because
online training is continuously performed and the intervals of intermediate variables will dynamically change as time goes by.
In this paper we propose an overflow/underflow-free bit-width optimization method for fixed-point OS-ELM digital circuits.
This work makes the following contributions.
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose an interval analysis method for OS-ELM using affine arithmetic \cite{aa},
one of the most widely-used interval arithmetic models.
Affine arithmetic has been used in a lot of existing works for determining optimal integer bit-widths that never cause overflow and underflow.
\item In affine arithmetic, division is
defined only if the denominator does not include zero;
otherwise the algorithm cannot be represented in affine arithmetic.
OS-ELM's training algorithm contains one division and we analytically prove that the denominator does not include zero.
Based on this proof, we also propose a mathematical trick to safely represent OS-ELM in affine arithmetic.
\item Affine arithmetic can represent only fixed-length computation graphs and
unbounded loops are not supported in affine arithmetic.
However, OS-ELM's training algorithm is an iterative algorithm
where current outputs are used as the next inputs endlessly.
We propose an empirical solution for this problem based on simulation results, and
verify its effectiveness in the evaluation section.
\item We evaluate the performance of our interval analysis method,
using an fixed-point IP core called OS-ELM Core to demonstrate the practicality of our method.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows;
Section \ref{sec:prelim} gives a brief introduction of basic technologies behind this work.
Our interval analysis method is proposed in Section \ref{sec:method}.
Section \ref{sec:impl} briefly describes the design of OS-ELM Core.
The proposed interval analysis method is evaluated in Section \ref{sec:eval}.
Section \ref{sec:conc} concludes this paper.
Please refer to Table \ref{tb:notation} and Table \ref{tb:desc}
for the notation rules and the description description of special variables that frequently appear in this paper.
\section{AA-Based Interval Analysis for OS-ELM}\label{sec:method}
In this section we propose the AA-based interval analysis method for OS-ELM.
The process is two-fold: \textcircled{\scriptsize{1}} Build the computation graph equivalent to OS-ELM.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{2}} Compute the affine form and interval for every variable existing in OS-ELM, using Equation \ref{eq:affine.interval}.
Figure \ref{fig:graph} shows computation graphs for OS-ELM.
``Training graph'' corresponds to the training algorithm (Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train}), and ``prediction graph'' corresponds to the prediction algorithm (Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.predict}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=95.0mm]{fig/graph.eps}
\caption{Computation graphs for OS-ELM. $N$ represents the total number of training steps.}
\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=170.0mm]{fig/digits_trans.eps}
\caption{
Observed intervals of $\{\bm{\gamma}^{(1)}_i, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}^{(10)}_i, \bm{P}_i, \bm{\beta}_i, \bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$ ($1 \le i \le N = 1,079$) on Digits dataset.
The x-axis represents the training step $i$, and the y-axis plots the observed intervals (the maximum and minimum values) of each variable at training step $i$.
}
\label{fig:digits}
\end{figure*}
$\mathrm{T}(\bm{x}_i, \bm{t}_i, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{P}_{i-1}, \bm{\beta}_{i-1}) \mapsto \{\bm{P}_i, \bm{\beta}_i\}$
defined in Algorithm \ref{alg:graph.t} represents a sub-graph that computes a single iteration of the OS-ELM training algorithm.
Training graph concatenates $N$ sub-graphs, where $N$ is the total number of training steps.
Training graph takes $\{\bm{x}_1, \ldots, \bm{x}_N, \bm{t}_1, \ldots, \bm{t}_N, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{P}_0, \bm{\beta}_0\}$ as input and outputs $\{\bm{P}_N, \bm{\beta}_N\}$.
$\mathrm{P}(\bm{x}, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{\beta}) \mapsto \bm{y}$ defined in Algorithm \ref{alg:graph.p} represents prediction graph.
Prediction graph takes $\{\bm{x}, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{\beta}\}$ as input and outputs $\bm{y}$.
The goal is to obtain the intervals of $\{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$ ($1 \le i \le N$) for training graph
and $\{\bm{e}, \bm{h}, \bm{y}\}$ for prediction graph, through AA.
In this paper, the interval of a matrix $\bm{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{u \times v}$ is computed as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:affine.matrix_interval}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{interval}(\hat{\bm{A}}) &= [\mathrm{inf}(\hat{\bm{A}}), \mathrm{sup}(\hat{\bm{A}})] \\
\mathrm{inf}(\hat{\bm{A}}) &= \mathrm{min}(\mathrm{inf}(\hat{A}_{[0,0]}), \ldots, \mathrm{inf}(\hat{A}_{[u-1,v-1]}))\\
\mathrm{sup}(\hat{\bm{A}}) &= \mathrm{max}(\mathrm{sup}(\hat{A}_{[0,0]}), \ldots, \mathrm{sup}(\hat{A}_{[u-1,v-1]})),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\bm{A}}$ is the affine form of $\bm{A}$, and $\hat{A}_{[i,j]}$ is the $ij$ element of $\hat{\bm{A}}$.
\subsection{Constraints}
Remember that all input intervals must be known in AA; in other words the intervals of $\{\bm{x}_1, \ldots, \bm{x}_N$, $\bm{t}_1, \ldots, \bm{t}_N$, $\bm{\alpha}$, $\bm{b}$, $\bm{P}_0$, $\bm{\beta}_0\}$ for training graph
and $\{\bm{x}, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{\beta}\}$ for prediction graph must be given.
In this work we assume that the intervals of $\{\bm{x}, \bm{x}_1, \ldots, \bm{x}_N, \bm{t}_1, \ldots, \bm{t}_N\}$ are $[0, 1]$,
and those of $\{\bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}\}$ are $[-1, 1]$.
$\{\bm{P}_0, \bm{\beta}_0\}$ is computed by Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.init}.
The interval of $\bm{\beta}$ (an input of prediction graph) is computed in the way described in Section \ref{sec:method.predict_graph}.
\subsection{Interval Analysis for Training Graph}\label{sec:method.train_graph}
The goal of training graph is to find the intervals of $\{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$ for $1 \le i \le N$,
however, we have to deal with a critical problem; OS-ELM is an online learning algorithm and the total number of training steps $N$ is unknown
as training may occur in runtime (i.e. $N$ can increase in runtime).
if $N$ is unknown, the training graph grows endlessly and interval analysis becomes infeasible.
We need to determine a ``reasonable'' value of $N$ for training graph.
\subsubsection{Determination of $N$}\label{sec:method.train_analysis.n}
To determine $N$, we conducted an experiment to analyze
the intervals of $\{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$
for $1 \le i \le N$. The procedure is as follows:
\textcircled{\scriptsize{1}} Implement OS-ELM's initialization and training algorithms in double-precision format.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{2}} Compute initialization algorithm using initial training samples of Digits \cite{uciml_digits} dataset (see Table \ref{tb:datasets} for details).
$\{\bm{P}_0, \bm{\beta}_0\}$ is obtained.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{3}} Compute training algorithm \textit{by one step} using online training samples. $\{\bm{P}_k, \bm{\beta}_k\}$ is obtained if $i = k$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}} Generate 1,000 random training samples $\{\bm{x}, \bm{t}\}$ with uniform distribution of [0, 1].
Feed all the random samples into training algorithm of step = $k$
and measure the maximum and minimum values for each of $\{\bm{\gamma}_k^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_k^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_k$, $\bm{\beta}_k$, $\bm{e}_k, \bm{h}_k\}$.
\textcircled{\scriptsize{5}} Iterate 3-4 until all online training samples run out.
Figure \ref{fig:digits} shows the result.
We observed that all the intervals gradually converged or kept constant as $i$ proceeds.
Similar outcomes were observed on other datasets too (see Section \ref{sec:eval.hypothesis} for the entire result on multiple datasets).
From these outcomes, we make a hypothesis that $\bm{A}_i \in \{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$
roughly satisfies $[\mathrm{min}(\bm{A}_1), \mathrm{max}(\bm{A}_1)] \supseteq [\mathrm{min}(\bm{A}_i), \mathrm{max}(\bm{A}_i)]$ for $2 \le i$,
in other words, the interval of $\bm{A}_1$ can be used as those of $\bm{A}_1, \ldots, \bm{A}_N$.
This hypothesis is verified in Section \ref{sec:eval.hypothesis}, using multiple datasets.
Based on the hypothesis we set $N = 1$ in training graph.
The interval analysis method for training graph is summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Build training graph $\mathrm{T}(\bm{x}_0, \bm{t}_0, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{b}, \bm{P}_0, \bm{\beta}_0) \mapsto \{\bm{P}_1, \bm{\beta}_1\}$.
\item Compute $\{\hat{\bm{\gamma}}_1^{(1)}, \ldots, \hat{\bm{\gamma}}_1^{(10)}$, $\hat{\bm{P}}_1$, $\hat{\bm{\beta}}_1$, $\hat{\bm{e}}_1$, $\hat{\bm{h}}_1\}$ using AA.
The intervals are used as those of $\{\bm{\gamma}_i^{(1)}, \ldots, \bm{\gamma}_i^{(10)}$, $\bm{P}_i$, $\bm{\beta}_i$, $\bm{e}_i, \bm{h}_i\}$ ($i \ge 1$).
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Division}\label{sec:method.train_analysis.div}
OS-ELM's training algorithm has a division $\frac{\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}}{1+\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T}$.
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:prelim.aa}, the denominator $\gamma^{(5)}_i = 1 + \bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T$ must not take zero.
In the rest of this section $0 \notin \gamma^{(5)}_i$ is proven for $i \ge 1$.
\begin{theorem}
$\bm{P}_{i-1}$ is positive-definite for $i \ge 1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first prove that $\bm{P}_0$ is positive-definite.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bm{P}_0^{-1}$ is positive-semidefinite due to $\bm{u}\bm{P}_0^{-1}\bm{u}^T = \bm{u}\bm{H}_0^T\bm{H}_0\bm{u}^T = (\bm{u}\bm{H}_0^T) \cdot (\bm{u}\bm{H}_0^T)^T \ge 0$,
where $\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times \tilde{N}}$ represents an arbitrary vector.
\item $\bm{P}_0^{-1} = \bm{H}_0^T\bm{H}_0$ is positive-definite since $\bm{H}_0^T\bm{H}_0$ is assumed to be a regular matrix in OS-ELM.
\item $\bm{P}_0$ is positive-definite since the inverse of a positive-definite matrix is positive-definite.
\end{itemize}
Next, we prove that $\bm{P}_1$ is positive-definite.
Equation \ref{eq:morrison} is derived by applying the sherman-morrison formula\footnote{
$(\bm{V} + \bm{u}^T\bm{w})^{-1} = \bm{V}^{-1} - \frac{\bm{V}^{-1}\bm{u}^T\bm{w}\bm{V}^{-1}}{1 + \bm{w}\bm{V}^{-1}\bm{u}^T}$ ($\bm{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k}, \bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times k}, \bm{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times k}$, $k \in \mathbb{N}$).
} to Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:morrison}
\bm{P}_i = (\bm{P}_{i-1}^{-1} + \bm{h}_i^T\bm{h}_i)^{-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bm{P}_1 = (\bm{P}_{0}^{-1} + \bm{h}_1^T\bm{h}_1)^{-1}$ holds by substituting $i = 1$.
\item $\bm{h}_1^T\bm{h}_1$ is positive-semidefinite due to $\bm{u}\bm{h}_1^T\bm{h}_1\bm{u}^T = (\bm{u}\bm{h}_1^T) \cdot (\bm{u}\bm{h}_1^T)^T \ge 0$.
\item $\bm{P}_1^{-1} = (\bm{P}_0^{-1} + \bm{h}_1^T\bm{h}_1)$ is positive-definite
since it is the sum of a positive-definite matrix $\bm{P}_0^{-1}$ and a positive-semidefinite matrix $\bm{h}_1^T\bm{h}_1$.
\item $\bm{P}_1$ is positive-definite since it is the inverse of a positive-definite matrix $\bm{P}_1^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}
By repeating the above logic, $\bm{P}_0, \ldots, \bm{P}_{i - 1}$ ($i \ge 1$) are all positive-definite.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
$\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T > 0$ for $i \ge 1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
An $n \times n$ positive-definite matrix $\bm{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ satisfies the following inequality.
\begin{equation}
\bm{u}\bm{V}\bm{u}^T > 0,
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times n}$ represents an arbitrary vector.
By applying this to $\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T$,
$\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T > 0$ holds for $i \ge 1$,
which guarantees $0 \notin 1 + \bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T \Leftrightarrow 0 \notin \gamma^{(5)}_i$ for $i \ge 1$.
\end{proof}
Note that $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{\gamma}^{(5)}_i)$ can include zero
because $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{\gamma}^{(5)}_i)$ can be wider than the true interval of $\gamma^{(5)}_i$.
To tackle this problem we propose to compute $\mathrm{min}(1, \mathrm{inf}(\hat{\gamma}^{(5)}_i))$ for the lower bound of $\hat{\gamma}^{(5)}_i$ instead of $\mathrm{inf}(\hat{\gamma}^{(5)}_i)$.
This trick prevents $\hat{\gamma^{(5)}_i}$ from including zero and
at the same time makes the interval close to the true interval.
Thanks to this trick OS-ELM's training algorithm can be safely represented in AA.
\subsection{Interval Analysis for Prediction Graph}\label{sec:method.predict_graph}
Prediction graph takes $\{\bm{x}, \bm{\beta}\}$ as input.
The interval of $\bm{\beta}$ should be that of $\bm{\beta}_i$ over $0 \le i \le N$, more specifically, $0 \le i \le 1$ ($N = 1$).
We propose to compute $\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{inf}(\hat{\beta}_{0[u,v]}), \mathrm{inf}(\hat{\beta}_{1[u,v]}))$ for the lower bound of $\beta_{[u,v]}$
and $\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{sup}(\hat{\beta}_{0[u,v]}), \mathrm{sup}(\hat{\beta}_{1[u,v]}))$ as the upper bound,
where $\beta_{[u,v]}$ represents the $uv$ element of $\bm{\beta}$.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Interval Analysis for Matrix Operations}\label{sec:method.ops}
Both training and prediction graphs are composed of matrix operations,
specifically element-wise operations and matrix product.
Here we show the computation graphs for those operations and describe the interval analysis methodology.
\subsubsection{Element-wise Operations}
An element-wise operation refers to $\bm{C} = \bm{A} \diamond \bm{B}$, where $\diamond \in \{+,-,\otimes,/\}$ and $\bm{A}, \bm{B}, \bm{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{u \times v}$.
The computation graph $\mathrm{EW}(\bm{A}, \bm{B}) \mapsto \bm{C}$ is described in Algorithm \ref{alg:graph.ew}.
Note that any element-wise interval of $\bm{B}$ must not include zero when $\diamond$ is division.
\subsubsection{Matrix Product}
Algorithm \ref{alg:graph.mp} describes the computation graph $\mathrm{MP}(\bm{A}, \bm{B}) \mapsto \bm{C}$ for matrix product $\bm{C} = \bm{A} \cdot \bm{B}$, where $\bm{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{u \times w}$, $\bm{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{u \times v}$, and $\bm{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{v \times w}$.
We assume that one adder and one multiplier are used in design level for each matrix product;
the output interval of adder or multiplier is
the union of $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{sum}_{i,j,k})$ or $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{mul}_{i,j,k})$ over $0 \le i \le u-1$, $0 \le j \le w-1$, and $0 \le k \le v-1$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{
$\mathrm{EW}(\bm{A}, \bm{B}) \mapsto \bm{C}$.
$\{A_{[i,j]}, B_{[i,j]}, C_{[i,j]}\}$ represents the $ij$ element of $\{\bm{A}, \bm{B}, \bm{C}\}$.
}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]\label{alg:graph.ew}
\REQUIRE{$\bm{A}, \bm{B}$}
\ENSURE{$\bm{C} = \bm{A} \diamond \bm{B}$.}
\FOR{$i = 0 \cdots u - 1$}
\FOR{$j = 0 \cdots v - 1$}
\STATE{$C_{[i,j]} \leftarrow A_{[i,j]} \diamond B_{[i,j]}$}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN{$\bm{C}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathrm{MP}(\bm{A}, \bm{B}) \mapsto \bm{C}$}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]\label{alg:graph.mp}
\REQUIRE{$\bm{A}, \bm{B}$}
\ENSURE{$\bm{C} = \bm{A} \cdot \bm{B}$}
\FOR{$i = 0 \cdots u - 1$}
\FOR{$j = 0 \cdots w - 1$}
\FOR{$k = 0 \cdots v - 1$}
\STATE{$mul_{i,j,k} \leftarrow A_{[i,k]} \times B_{[k,j]}$}
\IF{$k = 0$}
\STATE{$sum_{i,j,0} \leftarrow 0$}
\ENDIF
\IF{$k < v - 1$}
\STATE{$sum_{i,j,k+1} \leftarrow sum_{i,j,k} + mul_{i,j,k}$}
\ELSE
\STATE{$C_{[i,j]} \leftarrow sum_{i,j,k} + mul_{i,j,k}$}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN{$\bm{C}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{ELM}\label{sec:prelim.elm}
We first introduce ELM (Extreme Learning Machine) \cite{elm} prior to OS-ELM.
ELM illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:elm} is a neural-network-based model that consists of an input layer, one hidden layer, and an output layer.
If an $n$-dimensional input $\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times n}$ of batch size = $k$ is given,
the $m$-dimensional prediction output $\bm{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times m}$ can be computed in the following formula.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elm.predict}
\bm{Y} = \mathrm{G}(\bm{X} \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})\bm{\beta}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=85.0mm]{fig/elm.eps}
\caption{
Extreme learning machine.
$n$/$\tilde{N}$/$m$ represents the number of input/hidden/output nodes.
$\bm{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times \tilde{N}}$ is a weight matrix connecting
the input and the hidden layers.
$\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N} \times m}$ is another weight matrix connecting the hidden and output layers.
$\bm{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times \tilde{N}}$ is a bias vector of the hidden layer,
and $\mathrm{G}$ is an activation function applied to the hidden layer output.
$\bm{\alpha}$ and $\bm{b}$ are non-trainable constant parameters initialized with random values.
}
\label{fig:elm}
\end{figure}
ELM uses a finite number of input-target pairs for training.
Suppose an ELM model can approximate $N$ input-target pairs $\{\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times n}, \bm{T} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times m}\}$ with zero error,
it implies there exists $\bm{\beta}$ that satisfies the following equation.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elm_zero_error}
\mathrm{G}(\bm{X} \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})\bm{\beta} = \bm{T}
\end{equation}
Let $\bm{H} \equiv \mathrm{G}(\bm{X} \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})$ then
the optimal solution $\bm{\beta}^{\ast}$ is derived with the following formula.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elm_train}
\bm{\beta}^{\ast} = \bm{H}^{\dagger}\bm{T}
\end{equation}
$\bm{H}^{\dagger}$ is the pseudo inverse of $\bm{H}$.
The whole training process finishes by replacing $\bm{\beta}$ with $\bm{\beta}^{\ast}$.
ELM takes one-shot optimization approach unlike backpropagation-based neural-networks (BP-NNs),
which makes the whole training process faster.
ELM is known to finish optimization process faster than BP-NNs \cite{elm}.
\subsection{OS-ELM}\label{sec:prelim.os_elm}
ELM is a batch learning algorithm; ELM needs to re-train with the whole training dataset, including training samples already learned in the past,
in order to learn new training samples.
OS-ELM \cite{os_elm} is an ELM variant that can perform online learning instead of batch learning.
Suppose the $i$th training samples $\{\bm{X}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{k_i \times n}, \bm{T}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{k_i \times m}\}$ of batch size $= k_i$ is given,
OS-ELM computes the $i$th optimal solution $\bm{\beta}_i$ in the following formula.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:os_elm.train.batch}
\begin{split}
\bm{P}_i &= \bm{P}_{i-1} - \bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{H}_i^T(\bm{I} + \bm{H}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{H}_i^T)^{-1}\bm{H}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\\
\bm{\beta}_i &= \bm{\beta}_{i-1} + \bm{P}_i\bm{H}_i^T(\bm{T}_i - \bm{H}_i\bm{\beta}_{i-1}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{H}_i \equiv G(\bm{X}_i \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})$.
$\bm{P}_0$ and $\bm{\beta}_0$ are computed as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:os_elm.init}
\begin{split}
\bm{P}_0 &= (\bm{H}_0^T\bm{H}_0)^{-1}\\
\bm{\beta}_0 &= \bm{P}_0\bm{H}_0^T\bm{T}_0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that OS-ELM and ELM produce the same solution as long as the training dataset is the same.
Specially, when $k_{i} = 1$ Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train.batch} can be simplified into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:os_elm.train}
\begin{split}
\bm{P}_i &= \bm{P}_{i-1} - \frac{\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}}{1+\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T} \\
\bm{\beta}_i &= \bm{\beta}_{i-1} + \bm{P}_i\bm{h}_i^T(\bm{t}_i - \bm{h}_i\bm{\beta}_{i-1}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{h}_i \equiv G(\bm{x}_i \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})$.
Note that $\bm{x}_i$/$\bm{t}_i$/$\bm{h}_i$ is a special case of $\bm{X}_i$/$\bm{T}_i$/$\bm{H}_{i}$ when $k_{i} = 1$.
Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train} is more costless than Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train.batch} in terms of computational complexity since
a costly matrix inverse $(\bm{I} + \bm{H}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{H}_i^T)^{-1}$ has been replaced with a simple reciprocal operation $\frac{1}{1+\bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T}$ \cite{os_elm_fpga_tsukada_tc}.
In this work we refer to Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.train} as ``training algorithm'' of OS-ELM.
Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.init} is referred to as ``initialization algorithm''.
The prediction algorithm is below.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:os_elm.predict}
\bm{y} = \mathrm{G}(\bm{x} \cdot \bm{\alpha} + \bm{b})\bm{\beta},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{y}$ is a special case of $\bm{Y}$ when the batch size is equal to 1.
We refer to Equation \ref{eq:os_elm.predict} as ``prediction algorithm'' of OS-ELM.
\subsection{Interval Analysis}\label{sec:prelim.ra}
To realize an overflow/underflow-free fixed-point design you need to know the interval of each variable
and allocate sufficient integer bits that never cause overflow and underflow.
Existing interval analysis methods for fixed-point design are categorized into a (1) dynamic method or a (2) static method \cite{fixed_point_refine}.
Dynamic methods \cite{wlo_dynamic_cmar, wlo_dynamic_gaffar, wlo_dynamic_keding, wlo_dynamic_shi} often take a simulation-based approach with tons of test inputs.
It is known that dynamic methods often produce a better result close to the true interval compared to static methods,
although they tend to take a long time due to exhaustive search and
may encounter overflow or underflow if unseen inputs are found in runtime.
Static methods \cite{aawlo_lee, aawlo_cong, aawlo_vakili, smtwlo_kinsman, hrwlo_boland}, on the other hand, take a more analytical approach;
they often involve solving equations and deriving upper and lower bounds of each variable without test inputs.
Static methods produce a more conservative result (i.e. a wider interval) compared to dynamic methods, although the result is analytically guaranteed.
In this work we employ a static method for interval analysis as
the goal is to realize an overflow/underflow-free fixed-point OS-ELM digital circuit with analytical guarantee.
Interval arithmetic (IA) \cite{ia} is one of the oldest static interval analysis methods.
In IA every variable is represented as an interval $[x_1, x_2]$
where $x_1$ and $x_2$ are the lower and upper bounds of the variable.
Basic operations $\{+, -, \times\}$ are defined as follows;
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ia}
\begin{split}
[x_1, x_2] + [y_1, y_2] &= [x_1 + y_1, x_2 + y_2]\\
[x_1, x_2] - [y_1, y_2] &= [x_1 - y_2, x_2 - y_1]\\
[x_1, x_2] \times [y_1, y_2] &= [\\
&\mathrm{min}(x_1y_1, x_1y_2, x_2y_1, x_2y_2),\\
&\mathrm{max}(x_1y_1, x_1y_2, x_2y_1, x_2y_2)]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
IA guarantees intermediate intervals as long as input intervals are known.
However, IA suffers from the \textit{dependency problem};
for example, $x - x$ where $x \in [x_1, x_2]\;(x_1 < x_2)$ should be 0
in ordinary algebra, although the result in IA is $[x_1 - x_2, x_2 - x_1]$,
a wider interval than the true tightest range $[0, 0]$, which
makes subsequent intervals get wider and wider.
The cause of this problem is that IA ignores
correlation of variables; $x - x$ is treated a self-subtraction in ordinary algebra
but it is regarded as a subtraction between independent intervals in IA.
Affine arithmetic (AA) \cite{aa} is a refinement of IA proposed by Stolfi \textit{et. al}.
AA keeps track of correlation of variables and is known to
obtain tighter bounds close to the true range compared to IA.
AA has been applied into a lot of fixed-point/floating-point bit-width optimization systems \cite{aawlo_lee, aawlo_fang, aawlo_cong, aawlo_pu}
and still widely used in recent works \cite{aawlo_vakili, aawlo_wang, aawlo_bellal}.
We use AA throughout this work.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=45.0mm]{fig/graph_example.eps}
\caption{
A simple tutorial of AA.
In AA all input intervals ($a, b, c$ in this tutorial) must be known.
Affine forms of $a, b, c, d, e, f$ are computed as follows; $\hat{a} = 0.5 + 4.5\epsilon_{a}\:,\hat{b} = 3.0 + \epsilon_{b}\;,\hat{c} = 4.0\;,\hat{d} = 3.5 + 4.5\epsilon_{a} + \epsilon_{b}\;,\hat{e} = -1.0 + \epsilon_{b}\;,\hat{f} = -3.5 - 4.5\epsilon_{a} + 2.5\epsilon_{b} + 5.5\epsilon_{f}$.
We can derive $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{d}) = [-2.0, 9.0]$, $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{e}) = [-2.0, 0.0]$, and $\mathrm{interval}(\hat{f}) = [-16.0, 9.0]$ from Equation \ref{eq:affine.interval}.
}
\label{fig:graph_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Affine Arithmetic}\label{sec:prelim.aa}
In AA the interval of variable $x$ is represented in an \textit{affine form } $\hat{x}$ given by;
\begin{equation}\label{eq:affine}
\hat{x} = x_0 + x_1\epsilon_1 + x_2\epsilon_2 + \cdots + x_{n}\epsilon_{n},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{i} \in [-1, 1]$. $x_{i}$ is a coefficient and $\epsilon_{i}$ is an \textit{uncertainty variable} which takes $[-1, 1]$;
an affine form is a linear combination of uncertainty variables.
The interval of $\hat{x}$ can be computed as below.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:affine.interval}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{interval}(\hat{x}) &= [\mathrm{inf}(\hat{x}), \mathrm{sup}(\hat{x})] \\
\mathrm{inf}(\hat{x}) &= x_0 - \sum_{i}{|x_{i}|}\\
\mathrm{sup}(\hat{x}) &= x_0 + \sum_{i}{|x_{i}|}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
$\mathrm{inf}(\hat{x})$ computes the lower bound of $\hat{x}$ and $\mathrm{sup}(\hat{x})$ is the upper bound.
Conversely a variable that ranges $[a, b]$ can be converted into an affine form $\hat{x} = x_0 + x_1\epsilon_{1}$ with
\begin{equation}
x_0 = \frac{b + a}{2},\; x_1 = \frac{b - a}{2}.
\end{equation}
Addition/subtraction between affine forms $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ is simply defined as $\hat{x} \pm \hat{y} = (x_0 \pm y_0) + \sum_{i}{(x_i \pm y_i)\epsilon_i}$.
However, multiplication $\hat{x} \ast \hat{y}$ is a little bit complicated.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{x} \ast \hat{y} &= x_0y_0 + \sum_{i}{(x_0y_i + y_0x_i)\epsilon_i} + Q\\
Q &= \sum_{i}{(x_i\epsilon_i)}\sum_{i}{(y_i\epsilon_i)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that $Q$ is not an affine form (i.e. $Q$ is not a linear combination of $\epsilon_{i}$) and it needs approximation to become an affine form.
A conservative approximation shown below is often taken \cite{aawlo_lee, aawlo_cong, aawlo_vakili}.
\begin{equation}
Q \approx uv\epsilon_{\ast},\; u = \sum_{i}{|x_{i}|},\; v = \sum_{i}{|y_{i}|},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\ast} \in [-1, 1]$ is a new uncertainty variable.
Note that $uv\epsilon_{\ast} \ge \sum_{i}{(x_i\epsilon_i)}\sum_{i}{(y_i\epsilon_i)}$.
See Figure \ref{fig:graph_example} for a simple tutorial of AA.
Division $\hat{z} = \frac{\hat{x}}{\hat{y}}$ is often separated into $\hat{x} \ast \frac{1}{\hat{y}}$.
There are mainly two approximation methods to compute $\frac{1}{\hat{y}}$: (1) the min-max approximation and
(2) the chebyshev approximation. Here we show the definition of $\frac{1}{\hat{y}}$ with the min-max approximation.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{1}{b^2} & (\mathrm{if}\;b > a > 0) \\
-\frac{1}{a^2} & (\mathrm{if}\;0 > b > a)
\end{array}\right. \\
q &= \frac{(a + b)^2}{2ab^2}\;,d = \frac{(a - b)^2}{2ab^2} \\
\frac{1}{\hat{y}} &= (p \cdot y_0 + q) + \sum_{i}{p \cdot (y_i\epsilon_i)} + d\epsilon_{\ast},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $a = \mathrm{inf}(\hat{y})$ and $b = \mathrm{sup}(\hat{y})$.
Note that $\frac{1}{\hat{y}}$ is defined only if $b > a > 0$ or $0 > b > a$.
The denominator $\hat{y}$ must not include zero.
\subsection{Determination of Integer Bit-Width}\label{sec:prelim.optim}
Suppose we have an affine form $\hat{x}$, the minimum number of integer bits that never cause overflow and underflow is computed by;
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optim}
\begin{split}
IB &= \lceil \log_2 (\mathrm{max}(|\mathrm{inf}(\hat{x})|, |\mathrm{sup}(\hat{x})|) + 1) + \alpha, \\
\alpha &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & (\mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{signed}) \\
0 & \mathrm{else.}
\end{array}\right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
$IB$ represents the optimal integer bit-width.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\subsection{Static Interval Analysis for Iterative Algorithms}
Existing general-use static interval analysis methods,
including AA, deal with iterative algorithms by expanding them into feed-forward computation graphs using loop unrolling\cite{ia, aa, smtwlo_kinsman, hrwlo_boland}.
There must be a termination condition for the target iterative algorithm to apply loop unrolling; otherwise it cannot be represented in a feed-forward computation graph
and interval analysis becomes infeasible.
OS-ELM's training algorithm has no termination condition
and existing methods alone cannot realize interval analysis for OS-ELM.
Kinsman \textit{et al}. proposed an SMT (satisfiability modulo theory) based
static interval analysis framework designed for iterative algorithms \cite{kinsman_2011}
and demonstrated that the method worked for famous iterative algorithms, newton-raphson method
and conjugate gradient method, however,
it still cannot handle algorithms that do not have
termination conditions like OS-ELM.
Several papers \cite{lopez_2007, sarbishei_2010, sarbishei_2012, lamini_2014, ohno_2019} proposed analytical interval analysis methods
for LTI (linear time invariant) circuits with feedback loops
which cannot be translated into feed-forward computation graphs,
but the methods are dedicated to LTI circuits and not for OS-ELM.
As far as we know this paper is the first work to realize a static interval analysis
for OS-ELM by leveraging a numerical property of OS-ELM we pointed out in Section \ref{sec:method.train_analysis.n}.
\subsection{Division on Static Interval Analysis}
Most of static interval analysis methods assume that all denominators within a target algorithm do not take zero \cite{ia, aa, hrwlo_boland},
or interval analysis becomes infeasible.
SMT-based methods proposed by Kinsman \textit{et al}. provide a mitigation solution to handle a denominator that can take zero
by forcibly adding a numerical constraint that prevents it from taking zero (e.g. $y \ge 0.01$ for $z = \frac{x}{y}$),
however, the constraint $y \ge 0.01$ is inconsistent with the fact $0 \in y$,
which can lead to overestimation or underestimation in subsequent intervals.
We took the safest strategy; we analytically proved that the denominator $\gamma^{(5)}_i = 1 + \bm{h}_i\bm{P}_{i-1}\bm{h}_i^T$ of OS-ELM
does not take zero at any $i \ge 1$, and proposed a mathematical trick based on the proof to safely represent OS-ELM in AA.
Note that the contributions can apply to not only AA but also other static interval analysis methods.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
Using a quantum state of the electromagnetic field as a probe, the presence of a target can be detected with lower probability of error than with any classical state of equal energy \cite{lloyd2008enhanced, tan2008quantum}. This approach, known as quantum illumination, exploits entanglement between photons transmitted and photons retained, even though this entanglement is destroyed by lossy reflection from the target and the influence of background noise. Quantum illumination has been the subject of extensive theoretical study \cite{shapiro2009quantum, guha2009gaussian, ragy2014quantifying, zhang2014quantum_b, weedbrook2016discord, wilde2017gaussian,zhuang2017optimum, zhuang2017entanglement, xiong2017improve, bradshaw2017overarching, de2018minimum, nair2020fundamental, Karsa2020Noisy, Karsa2020Quantum} and has been demonstrated experimentally \cite{zhang2015entanglement}. However, quantum illumination has not yet formed the basis of a practical quantum sensing technology as several barriers exist to convenient implementations \cite{shapiro2020quantum}. Nonetheless, quantum illumination is fundamentally important as the first example of a bosonic system that provides a quantum advantage in an entanglement-breaking channel subject to an energy constraint. Thus it is important to consider variations on the scheme to better understand quantum sensing in noisy, lossy environments, and to overcome the barriers to practical application \cite{zhang2014quantum, barzanjeh2014quantum, sheng2015quantum, zhuang2017quantum, liu2017discrete, lanzagorta2018virtual, fan2018quantum, jo2020quantum}.
In that spirit, this article examines the consequences of applying parametric amplification to the retained field modes (i.e. the idler). The parametric amplification considered here is phase sensitive in that it increases one quadrature component of the field while decreasing the other. This operation is shown to change the nature of the correlations between the signal and idler modes such that they become measureable in second order interference. Thus the quantum illumination receiver can be a simple combination of a beam splitter and two photodetectors.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics{Schematic_Diagram.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Schematic diagram of quantum illumination with a parametrically amplified idler. (a) The source is a spontaneous parametric down converter that produces signal and idler modes.The signal mode directly interrogates a region of interest. The idler is input to a phase-sensitive amplifier and delayed. (b) The amplified and delayed idler is combined on a beam splitter with radiation received from the region of interest. Photodetectors at each output port count photons and the difference signal is formed for comparison with the decision threshold.}
\label{fig:Schematic Diagram}
\end{figure}
This variation on the quantum illumination theme is depicted schematically in Fig. \ref{fig:Schematic Diagram}. A spontaneous parametric down conversion source, here depicted as a strong pump laser driving a nonlinear medium (see Fig. \ref{fig:Schematic Diagram}(a)), generates entangled signal and idler beams. The signal beam propagates to the target region. The idler passes through a second pumped nonlinear medium where it undergoes parametric amplification before entering a delay line for storage. Due to the inclusion of the phase-sensitive amplfication stage, the receiver architecture (see Fig. \ref{fig:Schematic Diagram}(b)) simply consists of a beam splitter and photodetectors configured much like a Brown-Twiss interferometer \cite{loudon2000quantum}. The optical implementation shown here is inspired by a recent experiment demonstrating phase-sensitive amplification of one of two correlated beams produced by four-wave mixing in a rubidium vapor cell \cite{li2017improved}. Implementation at microwave frequencies is also conceivable. Superconducting parametric converters and amplifiers for microwave signal generation are now widely used \cite{chang2019quantum, barzanjeh2020microwave}, and microwave Hanbury Brown-Twiss experiments have been conducted \cite{chen2011microwave, peng2016tuneable}.
In Sec. \ref{TMSVcorrelations}, the quantum state of the entangled fields generated by spontaneous parametric down conversion and the correlations between them, which serve as the signature of target presence, are described. In Sec.\ref{AmplifiedIdler}, the effects of parametric amplification of the idler beam on these correlations and their detection are explained. The non-separability of the state is verified. In Sec. \ref{QuantumIllumination}, this state is used as the input to the binary-hypothesis test commonly used to model quantum illumination. In Sec. \ref{QuantumAdvantage}, the probability of error in target detection with equal prior probabilities is derived and compared to a classical benchmark to establish the regime of quantum advantage. In Sec. \ref{Discussion}, the significance of these results is discussed.
\section{Correlations in the Two-Mode Squeezed Vacuum State}
\label{TMSVcorrelations}
The transmitted and retained fields in quantum illumination are entangled pulses generated by the process of spontaneous parametric down conversion \cite{shapiro2020quantum}. In this nonlinear process, photons from a strong pump pulse are converted into pairs of photons, one each in a signal mode and an idler mode, eventually producing spatially separated, correlated signal and idler pulses. Spontaneous parametric down conversion can occur at visible wavelengths, for example in certain crystals or atomic vapors, or at microwave wavelengths, in cryogenically cooled, superconducting circuits. Conversion is only efficient over a limited bandwidth. Typically, it is assumed that down conversion efficiency is roughly flat across a frequency band of width $W$, and that all other processes can be neglected within this band. Each pulse is assumed to be of duration $T$ and contain $M=TW$ temporal modes \cite{shapiro2020quantum}. Thus, $M$ is both the time-bandwidth product and the number of modes in the signal and idler pulses. Alternatively, the bandwidth can be narrowed to $1/T$ to allow only a single temporal mode. In this case, the time-bandwidth product is made equal to the same $M$ by transmitting $M$ single-temporal-mode pulses, each of duration $T$, in a total time of $MT$. This approach will be necessary in order to implement the amplification and reception scheme described below.
Each single mode in either approach is characterized by the same mean photon number $N_S$. Also, each signal mode is entangled with exactly one idler mode, and independent of all others, in the two-mode quantum state known as a two-mode squeezed vacuum. This Gaussian state can be represented by the Wigner distribution covariance matrix \cite{weedbrook2012gaussian}
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$} = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nu & 0 & c & 0 \\
0 & \nu & 0 & -c \\
c & 0 & \nu &0 \\
0 & -c & 0& \nu
\end{pmatrix}
\label{TMSVcov}
\end{align}
where $\nu = 2N_S+1$ and $c = 2\sqrt{N_S(N_S+1)}$.
The off-diagonal elements of a two-mode covariance matrix determine the correlations between the modes. Two types of correlations occur which may be distinguished by their response to a phase shift $\theta$ applied to both modes \cite{shapiro2020quantum}. The \em phase-insensitive cross correlation \em between two modes $\hat{a}_1$ and $\hat{a}_2$, given by $ \left \langle \hat{a}_1^\dagger \hat{a}_2 \right \rangle$, is invariant under a phase shift. In terms of the elements of the covariance matrix, this correlation can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\left \langle \hat{a}_1^\dagger \hat{a}_2 \right \rangle =\frac{1}{2}\left \{ (\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{13} + (\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{24} + i\left [(\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{14}-(\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{23} \right ] \right \}
\label{PICC}
\end{align}
The \em phase-sensitive cross correlation \em is $\left \langle \hat{a}_1 \hat{a}_2 \right \rangle$. This correlation changes in phase by $2 \theta$ when the modes are shifted by $\theta$. In terms of the elements of the covariance matrix.
\begin{align}
\left \langle \hat{a}_1 \hat{a}_2 \right \rangle =\frac{1}{2}\left \{ (\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{13} - (\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{24} + i\left [(\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{14} +(\mbox{\boldmath$V$})_{23} \right ]\right \}
\label{PSCC}
\end{align}
From Eq. (\ref{TMSVcov}), the two-mode squeezed vacuum has phase-sensitive cross correlation $\left \langle \hat{a}_S \hat{a}_I \right \rangle = c/2$, but zero phase-insensitive cross correlation.
As will be seen later, the phase-sensitive correlation provides the signature of target presence in quantum illumination. Unfortunately, this correlation is the more difficult of the two to detect as it does not give rise to fringes in second order interference. A receiver design based on interfering the idler field with radiation received from the target vicinity must include some additional element to produce fringes, such as a phase conjugation \cite{guha2009gaussian, jo2020quantum}. An alternative approach is to modify the two-mode squeezed vacuum state to obtain a non-zero phase-insensitive cross correlation which may then take over as the signature of target presence given an appropriate receiver design. To that end, the effect of phase-sensitive, parametric amplification of the idler field is now considered.
\section{The Parametrically-Amplified Idler}
\label{AmplifiedIdler}
Parametric or phase-sensitive amplification is a process that boosts one field quadrature while attenuating the other \cite{gardiner2004quantum}. In terms of input quadrature operators $\hat{q}_\text{in}$ and $\hat {p}_\text{in}$, parametric amplification (with appropriately chosen phase) affects a transformation giving output operators of the form
\begin{align}
\hat{q}_\text{out} = G \hat{q}_\text{in}, \\
\hat{p}_\text{out} = G^{-1}\hat{p} _\text{in}
\end{align}
where $G$ is the gain. It is assumed that the amplifier bandwidth is matched to the bandwidth $W$ of the idler beam. Applying this transformation to the single idler mode of Eq. (\ref{TMSVcov}) produces an output characterized by the covariance matrix
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$} = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nu & 0 & Gc & 0 \\
0 & \nu & 0 & -G^{-1}c \\
Gc & 0 & G^2 \nu &0 \\
0 & -G^{-1}c & 0& G^{-2} \nu
\end{pmatrix}
\label{SIcov}
\end{align}
The important consequence of parametric amplification of the idler is that it breaks the equality in magnitude of the off-diagonal terms so that Eq. (\ref{PICC}) now gives a phase-insensitive cross correlation $\left \langle \hat{a}_S^\dagger \hat{a}_I \right \rangle = \left(G - G^{-1} \right) c/4$, non-zero for any gain greater than unity. Moreover, increasing amplification boosts the correlation from zero without requiring an increase in the mean transmitted signal energy, $MN_S$. As shown below, the non-zero phase-insensitive cross correlation provides a measurable signature for target detection using second order interference.
It is important to note that other possible operations that might be performed on the idler modes, such as phase-insensitive amplification or projective measurement, can destroy the entanglement between the idler and the signal modes. The signal-idler state then becomes a classical state and the illumination is no longer `quantum', strictly speaking. In contrast, phase-sensitive amplification of the idler does not destroy the entanglement. The covariance matrix of Eq. \ref{SIcov} represents a non-separable state. This fact can be verified by the positive partial transpose test for non-separability. This test requires a symplectic eigenvalue less than 1/2 for the covariance matrix that results from a mirror reflection of the momentum operator of one mode \cite{adesso2007entanglement}. A straightforward calculation shows that for Eq. \ref{SIcov}, the relevant symplectic eigenvalue has the value $2^{-1}\left( \sqrt{N_S} + \sqrt{N_S+1} \right)^{-2}$ which is less than $1/2$ for any non-zero value of $N_S$, and independent of the amount of amplification of the idler. Thus a two-mode squeezed vacuum with a parametrically amplified idler constitutes a true quantum state for illuminating a target as described in the section that follows.
\section{Quantum Illumination}
\label{QuantumIllumination}
Target detection using quantum illumination is a binary hypothesis test where a quantum state interrogates a vicinity of interest to decide whether a target is absent (hypothesis $H_0$) or present (hypothesis $H_1$). The quantum state contains idler modes which are retained and signal modes which are transmitted. The radiation received from the vicinity of interest consists of either background thermal modes (under $H_0$) or a combination of background and weakly reflected signal modes (under $H_1$). In the latter case, noise and loss destroy the entanglement between signal and idler, but a remnant of the correlation remains that can be a stronger signature of target presence than would be achievable using any classical state \cite{tan2008quantum}.
Under hypothesis $H_0$, each mode $\hat{a}_R$ of the received field is simply a thermal state $\hat{a}_B$ with mean photon number $N_B$. Then the two-mode covariance matrix for a received mode and an idler mode is
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$}^0_{\text{R,I}} = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \omega & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & G^2 \nu &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& G^{-2} \nu
\end{pmatrix}
\label{QIcov_0}
\end{align}
where $\omega = 2N_B +1$. Under hypothesis $H_1$, the target weakly reflects the signal modes with reflectance $\kappa << 1$, so a received mode is a mix of signal $\hat{a}_S$ and background $\hat{a}_B$ such that $\hat{a}_R = \sqrt{\kappa} \hat{a}_S + \sqrt{1- \kappa}\hat{a}_B$, where the background mean photon number is set to $N_B/(1-\kappa)$ to avoid a passive target signature. In this case, the covariance matrix for a pair of received and idler modes is
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$}^1_{\text{R,I}} = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma & 0 & \sqrt{\kappa}Gc & 0 \\
0 & \gamma & 0 & -\sqrt{\kappa}G^{-1}c \\
\sqrt{\kappa}Gc & 0 & G^2 \nu &0 \\
0 & -\sqrt{\kappa}G^{-1}c & 0& G^{-2} \nu
\end{pmatrix},
\label{QIcov_1}
\end{align}
where $\gamma = 2\kappa N_S + \omega$. The off diagonal elements of this matrix represent the remnant of the correlations of the transmitted quantum state. For realistic values of $N_S$, $N_B$, and $\kappa$, these correlations are too small to constitute quantum entanglement \cite{shapiro2020quantum}. But if they are measurable, they may serve as the signature of target presence. Importantly, the inequality of magnitudes of the off-diagonal elements implies a non-zero phase-insensitive cross correlation that may be detected simply as second order interference.
A standard apparatus for measuring second order interference consists of a beam splitter with a photon-counting detector at each output port (see Fig. \ref{fig:Schematic Diagram}(a)). The difference in the photon counts is a measure of second order interference. The action of a 50-50 beam splitter combining two modes with covariance matrix $\mbox{\boldmath$V$}$ is represented by the symplectic matrix
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$B$} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 &1 & 0 \\
0 &1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 &-1 &0 \\
0 &1 & 0&-1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
where the covariance matrix of the modes at the output ports, represented by the operators $\hat{a}_+$ and $\hat{a}_-$, is
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$}_\pm = \mbox{\boldmath$B$}\mbox{\boldmath$V$}\mbox{\boldmath$B$}^T.
\end{align}
Thus, combining the received field with the idler field on a beam splitter gives the covariance matrix
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$}^0_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\omega + G^2\nu}{2} & 0 &\frac{\omega - G^{2}\nu}{2} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega + G^{-2}\nu}{2} & 0 & \frac{\omega - G^{-2}\nu}{2} \\
\frac{\omega - G^{2}\nu}{2} & 0 &\frac{\omega + G^2\nu}{2} &0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega - G^{-2}\nu}{2} & 0& \frac{\omega + G^{-2}\nu}{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{QIcov_0}
\end{align}
under hypothesis $H_0$, and
\begin{align}
\mbox{\boldmath$V$}^1_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\gamma + G^2\nu+2\sqrt{\kappa}Gc}{2} & 0 &\frac{\gamma - G^{2}\nu}{2} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\gamma +\frac{\nu}{G^2} -2\sqrt{\kappa}\frac{c}{G}}{2} & 0 & \frac{\gamma - G^{-2}\nu}{2} \\
\frac{\gamma - G^{2}\nu}{2} & 0 &\frac{\gamma + G^2\nu-2\sqrt{\kappa}Gc }{2} &0 \\
0 & \frac{\gamma - G^{-2}\nu}{2} & 0& \frac{\gamma + \frac{\nu}{G^2} +2\sqrt{\kappa}\frac{c}{G}}{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{QIcov_1}
\end{align}
under $H_1$. Photodetectors at the output ports measure $\hat{N}_+$ and $\hat{N}_-$, the photon number of the output modes $\hat{a}_+$ and $\hat{a}_-$, respectively. The difference between the counts is formed electronically.
The receiver counts photons from all modes on each output of the beam splitter. The photon count for any single mode is a non-Gaussian random variable, but all the counts are identically distributed. For large enough time-bandwidth product (i.e. number of modes) $M$, the central limit theorem implies that the total photon count difference is Gaussian with mean and variance given by
\begin{align}
\langle \hat{N}_i \rangle &= M\left( \langle \hat{ N}_{+,i} \rangle-\langle\hat{ N}_{-,i}\rangle \right)
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\langle \Delta \hat{N}_i^2 \rangle = M \left(\left\langle \left(\hat{N}_{+,i} - \hat{N}_{-,i} \right)^2\right\rangle - \left\langle \hat{N}_{+,i} - \hat{N}_{-,i} \right\rangle^2\right),
\end{align}
respectively, with $i =0,1$ referring to the corresponding hypothesis.
From the Gaussian distributions for the two hypotheses, and setting the decision threshold to
\begin{align}
\frac{M\left( \langle \hat{N}_0 \rangle\sqrt{\langle \Delta \hat{N}_1^2 \rangle}+ \langle \hat{N}_1 \rangle\sqrt{\langle \Delta \hat{N}_0^2 \rangle} \right) }{\sqrt{\langle \Delta \hat{N}_1^2 \rangle}+\sqrt{\langle \Delta \hat{N}_0^2 \rangle}},
\end{align}
the total error probability for equal probability discrimination is
\begin{align}
P_{\text{SI}} = \frac{1}{2} \text{erfc} \left( \sqrt{M \cdot \text{SNR}_{QI}} \right)
\label{P_SI}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\text{SNR}_\text{QI} = \frac{\left ( G - G^{-1} \right )^2}{\left (G^2 + G^{-2} \right )} \times\frac{ \kappa c^2 }{\left ( \sqrt{\gamma \nu + \kappa c^2} + \sqrt{\nu \omega} \right )^2}
\label{SNR_QISI}
\end{align}
is the single-mode-pair signal-to-noise ratio \cite{footnote1}. Notably, the gain-dependent leading factor is zero for unity gain. This is a direct reflection of the fact that the phase-insensitive cross correlation is zero without amplification. The leading factor is approximately unity for any gain $G>>1$ as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:G_curve}. Thus amplification of the idler beyond about 15 dB produces only a negligible improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio.
The significance of Eq. (\ref{SNR_QISI}) becomes apparent when compared to target detection schemes based on classical states. In the next section, the performance of quantum illumination with a parametrically amplified idler is shown to exceed that of a classical-state detection scheme that asymptotically matches the best possible classical-state scheme.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics{G_curve.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The gain dependent prefactor in the signal-to-noise ratio vanishes in absence of amplification but quickly rises to unity when amplification is applied.}
\label{fig:G_curve}
\end{figure}
\section{Advantage Over Classical-State Target Detection}
\label{QuantumAdvantage}
In this section, quantum illumination with a parametrically amplified idler is tested against an important classical-state benchmark. The benchmark system is a specific detection scheme with an error exponent that approaches the optimal value for coherent states in the strong background ($N_B>>1$) regime. This system uses a multi-mode coherent state as the signal and coherently integrated, mode-by-mode homodyne detection as the receiver. For brevity, this detection scheme will be referred to as \em coherent-state homodyne detection\em.
Assuming the signal pulse contains $M$ modes each with mean photon number $N_S$ (to match the energy in the quantum illumination signal), the total probability of error for detection with equal prior probabilities is of the form of Eq. (\ref{P_SI}) but with the single-mode signal-to-noise ratio \cite{shapiro2009quantum, guha2009gaussian}
\begin{align}
\text{SNR}_{\text{CSH}} = \frac{\gamma - \omega}{4\omega} = \frac{\kappa N_S}{4N_B+2}.
\label{SNR_CSH}
\end{align}
When $N_B >> 1$, $ \text{SNR}_{\text{CSH}} \approx \kappa N_S/(4N_B)$ which approximates the quantum Chernoff bound error exponent for optimum reception using a coherent state \cite{tan2008quantum}. Importantly, this bound has been shown also to be optimal for all classical state signals. Thus, coherent-state homodyne detection is significant as a benchmark insofar as it is a structured receiver that approaches optimal performance in this regime \cite{shapiro2009quantum, guha2009gaussian, Karsa2020Quantum}.
When comparing the single-mode signal-to-noise ratio in Eq. (\ref{SNR_CSH}) to Eq. (\ref{SNR_QISI}) assuming a strong background (i.e. $N_B>>1$), three regimes may be distinguished. First, consider the case where $N_S<<1$. This is the low-signal, strong-background regime originally identified as the domain where quantum illumination with a Gaussian state outperforms target detection using any classical state \cite{tan2008quantum}. Under these conditions, Eq. \ref{SNR_QISI} gives $\text{SNR}_\text{QI} \approx \kappa N_S/(2N_B)$, a 3 dB (i.e. a factor of 2) improvement over coherent-state homodyne detection. This result is comparable to the performance of phase conjugation and optical parametric amplifier receivers \cite{guha2009gaussian}.
Next, let $1<<N_S<<N_B/\kappa$. Then Eq. \ref{SNR_QISI} gives $\text{SNR}_\text{QI} \approx \kappa N_S/(4N_B)$. Quantum illumination only matches optimal classical-state detection in this regime. Since typically it is assumed $\kappa<<1$, this regime can be quite broad. Given the relative difficulty of implementing quantum illumination, it is unlikely that it would have any practical advantage over a presumably much simpler classical-state scheme for applications limited to this regime. However, for applications requiring operation in both this regime and the previous one, it could be said that quantum illumination would provide performance equal to or better than any classical state scheme.
Finally, at even greater signal brightness levels where $N_S >> N_B/\kappa$, the signal-to-noise ratio saturates with $\text{SNR}_\text{QI} \approx 1/2$. In this regime, quantum illumination with or without an amplified idler is no longer competitive with classical-state target detection. It is difficult to imagine any rationale for using quantum illumination in this regime.
To illustrate these cases, the ratio of the signal-to-noise ratio for quantum illumination with a parametrically amplified idler to that of coherent-state homodyne detection is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:QA_over_CSH} with a gain of $G= 15$ dB, background photon number $N_B = 10^2$, and reflectance $\kappa= 10^{-3}$. All three regimes are apparent as well as the transitions from a 3 dB advantage to 0 dB around $N_S \approx 1$, and from 0 dB to a quantum disadvantage around $N_S \approx N_B/\kappa = 10^5$.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics{QA_over_CSH.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Ratio of single-mode signal-to-noise ratios for quantum illumination with a parametrically amplified idler and coherent-state homodyne detection with $G = 15$ dB, $N_B = 10^{2}$, and $\kappa = 10^{-3}$.}
\label{fig:QA_over_CSH}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Discussion}
The introduction of parametric amplification to the idler beam has been shown to enable reception using a simple and familiar configuration of a beam splitter and photodetectors. Phase-sensitive amplification modifies the correlation structure of the original two-mode squeezed vacuum to produce a non-zero phase-insensitive cross correlation detectable in second order interference. The simple receiver of Fig. \ref{fig:Schematic Diagram}(b) enabled by parametrically amplifying the idler may be viewed as coming at a cost of increasing the complexity of the transmitter. This architecture trades a nonlinear process at the receiver, for example phase conjugation or sum frequency generation \cite{guha2009gaussian, zhuang2017optimum}, for a nonlinear process in the transmitter, phase-sensitive amplification. However, there may be cause to prefer the latter since it is reasonable to expect that the parameters of the idler entering the parametric amplifier can be more carefully controlled than those of received light entering a phase conjugator or other nonlinear element.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let ${\mathbb {H}}^n={\mathbb {R}}^{2n} \times {\mathbb {R}}$ be the Heisenberg group of real Euclidean dimension $2n+1$. Writing $x=({\ubar x},x_{2n+1})$ with ${\ubar x}\in {\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$, the group law is given by
\[x \cdot y =(\ubar x+\ubar y, x_{2n+1}+y_{2n+1} + {\ubar x}^\intercal J{\ubar y}), \]
where $\ubar x^\intercal J\ubar y= \frac 12\sum_{j=1}^n(x_{n+j}y_j-x_jy_{n+j})$. A natural dilation structure on ${\mathbb {H}}^n$ is given by the parabolic dilations
$\delta_t(x)=(t\ubar x, t^2 x_{2n+1}).$
These are automorphic, i.e. satisfy
$\delta_t(x\cdot y)= \delta_tx\cdot\delta_t y$, and map the horizontal subspace ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n} \times\{0\}$ into itself.
Let $\mu$ be the normalized rotation-invariant measure on the $2n-1$ dimensional sphere in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n} \times \{0\}$, centered at the origin and let $\mu_t$ denote its $t$-dilate defined by
$\inn{\mu_t}{f}= \inn{\mu}{f\circ\delta_t}$.
The spherical means on the Heisenberg group,
\[f*\mu_t(x)=\int_{S^{2n-1}} f(\ubar x-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega, x_{2n+1}-t
{\ubar x}^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega ) d\mu (\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)
\] were introduced
by Nevo and Thangavelu \cite{NevoThangavelu1997}.
In the theory of generalized Radon transforms, they can be viewed as model operators for which the incidence relation
(the support of the Schwartz kernel) has codimension two,
in contrast with the classical codimension one spherical means (\cite{SteinPNAS1976,SchlagSogge1997,Cowling1980,GangulyThangavelu}).
The original interest in \cite{NevoThangavelu1997} was in pointwise convergence and ergodic results and hence in $L^p$-estimates for the maximal function
\[{\mathfrak {M}} f=\sup_{t>0} |f*\mu_t|.\]
A sharp result was proved by M\"uller and the second author \cite{MuellerSeeger2004} and, independently and by a different method, by Narayanan and Thangavelu \cite{NarayananThangavelu2004}; namely for $n\ge 2$, the $L^p$ boundedness of ${\mathfrak {M}}$ holds if and only if $p>\frac{2n}{2n-1}$. It is conjectured that this statement holds true even when $n=1$ but this problem is currently still open (see \cite{BeltranGuoHickmanSeeger} for a recent positive result for ${\mathfrak {M}}$ acting on $L^p(
{\mathbb {H}}^1)$ functions of the form $x\mapsto f_\circ(|\ubar x|,x_3)$).
Our renewed interest is prompted by recent work of Bagchi, Hait, Roncal and Thangavelu \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu}, in which the authors consider $(p,q')$-sparse domination results for the operator ${\mathfrak {M}}$ with consequences for weighted inequalities \cite{bernicot-frey-petermichl}. The primary ingredient in the proof of such a result is an induction argument relying on an $L^p\to L^q$ estimate for the {\it local} maximal function
\[M f=\sup_{t\in I} |f*\mu_t|\] which is also of independent interest. Here
$I$ denotes a compact subinterval of $(0,\infty)$.
The objective is to find the best possible value of $q$ in such an inequality. For the sparse bounds one also needs to establish a closely related $\varepsilon$-regularity property, namely an $L^p\to L^q_\varepsilon(L^\infty(I))$ estimate for the spherical means acting on compactly supported functions ({\it cf}. \eqref{eq:eps-regularity result} below).
If $q>p$ the operator norm in such estimates will depend on $I$ and it is no loss of generality to assume $I=[1,2]$. In \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} it is proved that $M$ maps $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ to $L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ provided that $(\tfrac 1p, \tfrac 1q)$ belongs to the interior of the triangle with corners $(0,0)$, $(\tfrac{2n-1}{2n}, \tfrac{2n-1}{2n})$, $(\tfrac{3n+1}{3n+7}, \frac 6{3n+7})$. The authors ask whether this result is essentially sharp, indeed results in
\cite{Schlag1997}, \cite{SchlagSogge1997}, \cite{Lee2003} for the Euclidean analogues
suggest that it is not. In the following theorem we
provide $L^p\to L^q$ bounds that are sharp, possibly except for two endpoints at which we prove restricted weak type inequalities.
Implications on sparse bounds for the global operator ${\mathfrak {M}}$ will be discussed in \S\ref{sec:sparse}, {\it cf}. \eqref{sparse-bound}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=5]
\def1{1}
\def2{2}
\def1{1}
\def1{1}
\definecoords
\drawauxlines
\drawQbg
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The region $\mathcal{R}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:maximal}, for $n=2$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm} \label{thm:maximal} Let $n\ge 2$.
Let ${\mathcal {R}}$ be the closed quadrilateral with corners
\begin{equation}\label{quadrilateral}\begin{gathered}
Q_1=(0,0), \qquad Q_2=(\tfrac{2n-1}{2n},
\tfrac{2n-1}{2n}),
\\
Q_3=(\tfrac{n}{n+1},\tfrac{1}{n+1}), \quad
Q_4=(\tfrac{2n^2+n}{2n^2+3n+2},
\tfrac{ 2n}{2n^2+3n+2}).
\end{gathered}
\end{equation} Then
(i) $M$ is of restricted weak type $(p,q)$ for all $(\frac 1p, \frac 1q)\in {\mathcal {R}}$.
(ii) $M:L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)\to L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ is bounded if $(\frac 1p, \frac 1q)$ belongs to the interior of ${\mathcal {R}}$, or to the open boundary segments $(Q_2,Q_3)$, $(Q_3, Q_4)$, or to the half open boundary segments $[Q_1,Q_2)$, $[Q_1,Q_4)$.
(iii) $M$ does not map $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ to $L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ if $(\frac 1p, \frac 1q)\notin {\mathcal {R}}$.
(iv) $M$ does not map $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ to $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ for $(\tfrac 1p,\tfrac 1p)=Q_2$.
\end{thm}
We shall reduce the proof to estimates for standard oscillatory integrals of Carleson-Sj\"olin-H\"ormander type, in particular to a variant of Stein's theorem \cite{SteinBeijing} which was formulated in \cite{MSS93} and which relies on the maximal possible number of nonvanishing curvatures for a cone in the fibers of the canonical relation. It came as a surprise to the authors that such a simple reduction should be possible; as far as we know this has not been observed for maximal functions associated with classes of generalized Radon transforms with incidence relations of codimension two, or higher.
We shall now discuss cases with codimension greater than two.
\subsection*{Some extensions}
We extend Theorem \ref{thm:maximal} in two directions, already considered in \cite{MuellerSeeger2004}. One extension deals with the situation on ${\mathbb {H}}^n$ where the subspace ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}\times \{0\}$
is replaced by a general subspace transversal to the center; this tilted space is then no longer invariant under the automorphic dilations. Another extension is obtained by replacing the Heisenberg group with other two step nilpotent groups
with higher dimensional center; here we will consider the class of M\'etivier groups \cite{Metivier1980} which also includes the groups of Heisenberg type \cite{Kaplan1980}.
The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak {g}}$ of a two step nilpotent group $G$ splits as ${\mathfrak {g}}={\mathfrak {w}}\oplus{\mathfrak {z}}$, so that $[{\mathfrak {w}},{\mathfrak {z}}]=\{0\}$ and $[{\mathfrak {w}},{\mathfrak {w}}]\subset {\mathfrak {z}}$. The M\'etivier groups are characterized by a nondegeneracy condition, namely that
for every nontrivial linear functional $\upvartheta$ on ${\mathfrak {z}}$, the bilinear form
${\mathcal {J}}^\upvartheta$ on ${\mathfrak {w}}\times {\mathfrak {w}}$ defined by ${\mathcal {J}}^\upvartheta=\upvartheta([X,Y])$ is nondegenerate. This implies that ${\mathfrak {w}}$ is of even dimension. We set $\dim({\mathfrak {w}})=2n$, $\dim({\mathfrak {z}})=m$ and let $d=2n+m$ denote the Euclidean dimension of $G$. Identifying ${\mathfrak {w}}$ with ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$ and ${\mathfrak {z}}$ with ${\mathbb {R}}^m$, we use exponential coordinates $x=(\ubar x, \bar x) \in {\mathbb {R}}^{2n}\times {\mathbb {R}}^m$; the group multiplication is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:group-law} x\cdot y = (\ubar{x}+\ubar{y}, \bar{x}+\bar{y}+ \ubar{x}^\intercal J \ubar{y}). \end{equation}
Here
${\ubar x}^\intercal J{\ubar y} = \sum_{i=1}^m {\ubar x}^\intercal J_i {\ubar y} \,\bar e_i \in {\mathbb {R}}^m$ with $\{\bar e_1,\dots,\bar e_m\}$ being the standard basis in ${\mathbb {R}}^m$
and $J_1,\dots,J_m$ denote skew symmetric matrices acting on ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$. The nondegeneracy condition on ${\mathcal {J}}^\upvartheta$ then says that for every $\theta\in{\mathbb {R}}^m\setminus\{0\}$, the $2n\times 2n$ matrix
$J^\theta = \sum_{i=1}^m \theta_i J_i $
is invertible.
In the special case of groups of Heisenberg type we also have $(J^\theta)^2=-|\theta|^2 I$. We note that for every $m$ there are groups of Heisenberg type with an $m$-dimensional center. Kaplan \cite{Kaplan1980} points out the connection with Radon-Hurwitz numbers $\RH(k)$ defined as follows (\cite{hurwitz, radon}): if $k =(2\ell+1) 2^{4p+q}$ with $q\in \{0,1,2,3\}$ and for some $\ell\in \{0,1,2,3,\dots\}$, then $\RH(k) =8p+2^q$. By \cite{radon}, \cite{Kaplan1980} there are
($2n+m$)-dimensional groups
of Heisenberg type with an $m$-dimensional center if and only if $m<\RH(2n)$. For odd $n$, we have $\RH(2n)=2$, hence $m=1$.
The automorphic dilations on $G$ are given by
$\delta_t({\ubar x},{\bar x})=(t{\ubar x}, t^2{\bar x})$.
We now let ${\mathfrak {v}}$ be a $2n$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathfrak {g}}$ which is transversal to the center, i.e. in exponential coordinates \[V=\{({\ubar x},\Lambda {\ubar x}): \,{\ubar x}\in {\mathbb {R}}^{2n}\},\]
where $\Lambda$ is an $m\times 2n$ matrix with real entries.
Notice that $V$ is invariant under the dilation group $\{\delta_t\}$ only when $\La=0$.
Define a measure $\mu^\La\equiv\mu_1^\La $ supported on $V$ and its automorphic dilates $\mu_t^\La$ by
\[\inn{\mu_t^\La}{f}=\int_{S^{2n-1} } f(t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega, t^2\La \omega} \def\Om{\Omega) d\mu(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega).\] We consider the convolution operator $f\mapsto f*\mu_t^\La$ given explicitly by
\[ f*\mu_t^\La(x)= \int_{S^{2n-1} } f({\ubar x}-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega, {\bar x}-t^2 \La \omega} \def\Om{\Omega -t {\ubar x}^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega) d\mu(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)
\] and the associated local maximal function
\begin{equation} \label{eq:MLa}M f = \sup_{t\in I} |f*\mu_t^\La|.\end{equation} These integral operators
can be viewed as generalized Radon transforms associated to a family of surfaces of codimension $m+1$.
We note that when $m=1$ and $\La=0$, we recover the spherical means on the Heisenberg group considered in Theorem \ref{thm:maximal}. Let $\|\cdot\|$ denote the operator norm of a matrix with respect to the Euclidean norm. We state an extension of Theorem \ref{thm:maximal} under the assumption that $\La^\theta =\sum_{i=1}^m\theta_i\La_i$ is sufficiently small.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Let $n\ge 2$, $d=2n+m$, let $M$ be as in \eqref{eq:MLa}, and suppose that $\Lambda$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:smallness-Lambda}\min_{\theta\in S^{m-1}} \big[ \|(J^\theta)^{-1}\|^{-1} - \|\Lambda^\theta\|\big] >0.
\end{equation}
Let ${\mathcal {R}}$ be the closed quadrilateral with corners
\begin{equation}\label{viereck}
\begin{gathered}
Q_1=(0,0), \qquad Q_{2}=(\tfrac{d-m-1}{d-m}, \tfrac{d-m-1}{d-m}), \\
Q_{3} = (\tfrac{d-1}{d+m}, \tfrac{m+1}{d+m}),\quad Q_{4} = (\tfrac{d(d-1)}{d^2+(d+1)m+1}, \tfrac{(m+1)(d-1)}{d^2+(d+1)m+1}) .
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Then
(i) $M$ is of restricted weak type $(p,q)$ for all $(\frac 1p, \frac 1q)\in {\mathcal {R}}$.
(ii) $M:L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)\to L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ is bounded if $(\frac 1p, \frac 1q)$ belongs to the interior of ${\mathcal {R}}$, or to the open boundary segments $(Q_{2},Q_{3})$, $(Q_{3}, Q_{4})$, or to the half open boundary segments $[Q_1,Q_{2})$, $[Q_1,Q_{4})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{remarksa}
(i) For $m=1$ and $\La=0$, we recover the positive results in Theorem \ref{thm:maximal} for the spherical means on Heisenberg groups.
(ii)
Under the smallness condition \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda}, we give an alternative proof
of the result for maximal operators in \cite{AndersonCladekPramanikSeeger} which relied on decoupling estimates to prove local $L^p\to L^{p}_{(2n-1)/p'}$ regularity results for the averaging operators acting on compactly supported functions on ${\mathbb {H}}^n$, in the range $1<p<\frac{4n+2}{2n+3}$. Our approach is to use $L^p$ space-time estimates instead. However, the $L^p$-Sobolev result in \cite{AndersonCladekPramanikSeeger} is interesting in its own right, and is still needed for the $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ boundedness of the maximal operator in the range $p>\frac{2n}{2n-1}$ if one does not impose any condition on $\La$. The use of $L^2$ space-time estimates is implicit already in the work by Narayanan and Thangavelu
\cite{NarayananThangavelu2004} who use the group Fourier transform on the Heisenberg group to estimate a relevant square-function involving generalizations of spherical means. $L^2$ space-time estimates for the relevant Fourier integral operators have also been used in a more recent paper by Joonil Kim \cite{KimJoonil}; for the basic idea see also the work on variable coefficient Nikodym estimates in \cite{MSS93}.
(iii)
For $m+3\le 2n$, one can use an alternative approach to the $L^{q'}\to L^q$ estimates which does not require assumption \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda}, {\it cf}. Remark \ref{rem:antidiag-max}. One also obtains the endpoint restricted weak type estimate for the point $Q_2$ provided that $m+3<2n$.
(iv) The example in \S\ref{sec:Q3Q4} demonstrating the sharpness of the line $Q_3Q_4$ in the case $m=1$ seems to be new. It would be interesting to see whether there exists similar examples for $m\ge 2$ and to settle the problem of sharpness for those cases.
It would also be interesting to analyze what happens when the size restriction \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} on $\La$ is dropped.
\end{remarksa}
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$L^p$ improving estimates for spherical averages}{Spherical averages}} We now discuss another problem considered in \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu}, concerning sparse bounds for the lacunary spherical maximal function $\sup_k|f*\mu_{2^k}|$ on the Heisenberg groups. Again, essentially sharp sparse bounds ({\it cf}. \eqref{sparse-bound-lac}) follow from essentially sharp results on
the $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n) \to L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ boundedness for the averaging operators $f\mapsto f*\mu$
and a closely related $\varepsilon$-regularity property.
In \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} a partial result is proved; namely the $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)\to L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ boundedness holds for $n\ge 2$ if $(\frac 1p,\frac 1q)$ belongs to the triangle with corners $(0,0)$, $(1,1)$ and $(\tfrac{3n+1}{3n+4}, \frac {3}{3n+4})$; further, the method of \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} does not seem to yield a result for $n=1$.
Here we prove sharp results for all Heisenberg groups; indeed we formulate a general result for M\'etivier groups of dimension $d=2n+m$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:sphmeans}
(i) When $n\ge 2$ and $m<2n-2$, the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{sphmeans} \|f*\mu^\La\|_{L^q(G)} \lesssim \|f\|_{L^p(G) }\end{equation} holds for all $f\in L^p(G)$ if and only if $(\tfrac 1p, \tfrac 1q)$ belongs to the closed triangle $\triangle(P_1P_2P_3)$ with
$P_1=(0,0)$, $P_2=(1,1)$ and $P_3=(\frac{2n+m}{2n+2m+1}, \frac{m+1}{2n+2m+1}).$
(ii) For $m=2n-2$, inequality \eqref{sphmeans} holds if $(1/p,1/q) \in \triangle(P_1P_2P_3)\setminus P_3$. It fails for $(\tfrac1p,\tfrac1q)\notin \triangle(P_1P_2P_3)$.
(iii) For $m=2n-1$, inequality \eqref{sphmeans} holds if $(\tfrac1p,\tfrac1q)$ lies in the convex hull of
$\{(0,0)$, $(1,1)$, $(\tfrac{4m^2+3m+1}{6m^2+5m+1}, \tfrac{m+1}{3m+1})$,
$(\tfrac{6m+1}{9m+3}, \tfrac{3m+2}{9m+3})$, $(\tfrac {2m}{3m+1}, \tfrac{2m^2+2m}{6m^2+5m+1})$\}. This result is sharp at least when $m=1$.
\end{thm}
In contrast to Theorem \ref{thm:main}, no assumption on $\La$ is needed; in fact, the estimate for convolution with $\mu^\La_t$ (with {\it fixed $t$}) is equivalent to the corresponding inequality for $\La=0$, as one can see by a change of variable argument involving shear transformations.
The above result be obtained using essentially known results on generalized Radon transforms and oscillatory integral operators with fold singularities (cf. \cite{PhongStein11991}, \cite{GreenleafSeeger1994}, \cite{Cuccagna1997}).
For $m=1$ (the Heisenberg case) the pentagon in (iii) reduces to a trapezoid and we get the sharp result
\begin{cor}\label{cor:sphmeans} The inequality
\begin{equation}\label{Hsphmeans} \|f*\mu^\La\|_{L^q({\mathbb {H}}^n)} \lesssim \|f\|_{L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n) }\end{equation} holds for all $f\in L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ if and only if one of the following holds:
(i) $n\ge 2$ and
$(\tfrac 1p, \tfrac 1q)$ belongs to the closed triangle with corners
$(0,0)$, $(1,1)$ and $(\frac{2n+1}{2n+3}, \frac{2}{2n+3}).$
(ii) $n=1$ and $(\tfrac 1p, \tfrac 1q)$ belongs to the closed trapezoid with corners
$(0,0)$, $(1,1)$, $(\frac 23, \frac 12)$, $(\frac 12,\frac 13)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{remarka}
In view of the restriction $m<\RH(2n)$, only cases with $m\le 2n-1$ occur in Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans}. Observe that
$\RH(4n+2)=2$, and $\RH$ takes the values $4,8,4,8$ for $2n=4,8,12,16.$
Also
$\RH(2n)< 2\log_2 (2n) +3$, hence clearly $\RH(2n)\le 2n-2$ for $2n\ge 10$.
The only cases with $m=2n-1$ are
$(m,2n+m)=(1,3)$, $(7,15)$. In these instances, the codimension $m+1$ of our sphere in $G$ exceeds half of the dimension of $G$. The first situation ($m=1$ and $2n=2$) corresponds to the Heisenberg group ${\mathbb {H}}^1$, for which the region in part (iii) of Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans} is a trapezoid. In this case, we also establish the sharpness of our result.
In the only two cases with $m=2n-2$, namely $(m,2n+m)=(2,6)$, $(6,14)$, we do not have a definitive answer for the endpoint $P_3= (\tfrac{2n+m}{2n+2m+1}, \tfrac {m+1}{2n+2m+1})$.
All endpoints in all the other cases are covered, since part (i) of the theorem applies.
\detail{(ii) For the endpoint result at the corner $P_3$ one obtains an even stronger bound, namely that ${\mathcal {A}}_t$ maps $L^{pr} (G) $ to $L^{p'r} (G)$ for $p=\frac{d+m+1}{d}$, and $p\le r\le p'$.
For the case $n=1$ we get stronger Lorentz space estimates at the corners
$(\frac 23, \frac 12)$ and $(\frac 12,\frac 13)$, namely for $n=1$ the circular averaging operators ${\mathcal {A}}_t$ map
$L^{3/2,2}({\mathbb {H}}^1) $ to $L^2({\mathbb {H}}^1)$ and $L^2({\mathbb {H}}^1)$ to $L^{3, 2} ({\mathbb {H}}^1)$.
On the edges improvements in the Lorentz scales follow simply by real interpolation.}
\detail{ (iii) The reader may note that the numerology for the result for $n\ge 2$ is the same as in the nonvanishing rotational curvature case; this is due to the specific form of the fold surface in our example which leads to certain improvements in the $L^1\to L^\infty$ bound for localizations near the fold surface (see the discussion in \S\ref{sec:proofoftheoremaverage}). Such an improvement for localizations near the fold is also observed in the $L^p$-Sobolev bounds \cite{AndersonCladekPramanikSeeger} for the averaging operators (although the proof of those inequalities rely on more complicated decoupling technology). }
\end{remarka}
\subsection*{Further directions}
It would also be interesting to investigate $L^p\to L^q$ mapping properties of maximal functions with respect to arbitrary dilation sets $E\subset[1,2]$ (see \cite{AHRS,RoosSeeger} for the Euclidean analogue of this question). We will take up this problem in a subsequent paper \cite{rss2}.
\subsection*{Plan of the paper} The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} is contained in the next three sections. In \S\ref{sec:main-results} we describe the basic estimates and how they can be reduced to problems about oscillatory integral operators. In \S\ref{sec:oscint} and \S\ref{sec:SToscest} we show how to apply in our context two well known theorems on oscillatory integral operators acting on $L^2$ functions.
Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans} will be proved in \S\ref{sec:proofoftheoremaverage}. We establish the necessary conditions in \S\ref{sec:sharpness} and \S\ref{sec:sharpness-II}. In \S\ref{sec:sparse} we briefly discuss the implications for sparse bounds.
\subsection*{Notation}
Partial derivatives will often be denoted by subscripts.
$P$ denotes the $(2n-1)\times2n$ matrix $P=(I_{2n-1}\,\, 0)$. \detail{Then $PJ$ is a $(2n-1)\times2n$ matrix with its rows identical to the first $2n-1$ rows of $J$.}
By $A\lesssim B$ we mean that $A\le C\cdot B,$ where $C$ is a constant and $A\approx B$ signifies that $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$.
For coefficient vectors $\bar y=(\bar y_1,\dots, \bar y_m)$, and sets of $1\times 2n$ vectors $\{\La_i\}_{i=1}^m$, or $2n\times 2n$ matrices $\{J_i\}_{i=1}^m$, we abbreviate $\La^{\bar y}=\sum_{i=1}^m \bar y_i\La_i$ and $J^{\bar y} =\sum_{i=1}^m \bar y_i J_i$.
\section{Main estimates}
\label{sec:main-results}
We use the notation $*_J$ for convolution when the choice of $J$ in \eqref{eq:group-law} is emphasized. Let $\upsilon$ be a nonnegative bump function on ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$ supported in a neighborhood of $e_{2n}$, normalized so that $\int_{SO(2n)} \upsilon(R^{-1}e_{2n}) dR=1$; here $dR$ denotes the normalized Haar measure on $SO(2n)$. Then we have $\int_{SO(2n)}\upsilon(R^{-1} \omega} \def\Om{\Omega) dR=1$ for all $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega\in S^{2n-1}$, and using this, Fubini's theorem and a change of variables, we can write the convolution as
\detail{\[ \int_{R\in SO(2n) } \int f_{R}(R^\intercal x-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega, \bar x- t^2\La R\omega} \def\Om{\Omega -t (R^\intercal x)^\intercal R^\intercal JR \omega} \def\Om{\Omega ) \upsilon(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)d\sigma(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)
\] where $f_R(y)=f(Ry)$. }
\[ f*\ci J \mu^\La_t(x)=\int_{R\in SO(2n)} f_R*\ci{R^\intercal JR} [\upsilon \mu^{\Lambda R} ]_t ( R^\intercal \ubar x,\bar x) dR,
\]
where $f_R(y)=f(R\ubar y,\bar y)$.
Note that replacing $(J_i,\La_i)$ with $(R^\intercal J_i R, \La_i R)$ does not affect condition \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} and therefore, by the integral Minkowski inequality, it suffices to prove our theorems with $\mu^\La$ replaced
by $\upsilon\mu^\La$.
By a localization argument we may assume that the function $f$ is supported in a small neighborhood of the origin. To see this we use the group translation to tile $G$. Let $Q_0=[-\tfrac 12,\tfrac 12)^{2n+m}$ and, for ${\mathfrak {n}}\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{2n+m}$, let $Q_{{\mathfrak {n}}}= {\mathfrak {n}} \cdot Q_0$, i.e.
$Q_{{\mathfrak {n}}}=\{(\ubar {\mathfrak {n}}+\ubar z,\bar {\mathfrak {n}}+\bar z+\ubar {\mathfrak {n}} J\ubar z): z\in Q_0\}$.
One then verifies that $\sum_{{\mathfrak {n}}\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{2n+m} }{\mathbbm 1}_{Q_{\mathfrak {n}}}=1$.
Moreover, the measures $\mu_t$ are supported in $\{w\in G: |\ubar w|\le 2, |\bar w| \le 4\|\La\|\}$, hence in the union of $Q_{\mathfrak {k}}$ with
$|{\mathfrak {k}}_j|\le 2$, $j\le 2n$, $|{\mathfrak {k}}_{2n+i}|\le 2+4\|\La\|$, $i=1,\dots, m$. Denote this set of indices by ${\mathfrak {J}}$. Then \[{\mathrm{supp}} \big([f{\mathbbm 1}_{ Q_{\mathfrak {n}}}]*\mu_t\big) \subset
\bigcup_{{\mathfrak {k}}\in {\mathfrak {J}}} ({\mathfrak {n}}\cdot Q_0\cdot Q_{\mathfrak {k}}) \subset \bigcup_{\tilde {\mathfrak {n}}\in {\mathfrak {I}}({\mathfrak {n}})} Q_{\tilde {\mathfrak {n}}},
\]
where ${\mathfrak {I}}({\mathfrak {n}})$ is a set of indices $\tilde{\mathfrak {n}}$ with $|{\mathfrak {n}}_j-\tilde {\mathfrak {n}}_j|\le C(\La, J,n) $ for $j=1,\dots, 2n+m$. This consideration allows us to reduce to the case where $f$ is supported in a small neighborhood of the origin.
Splitting $\ubar y=(y', y_{2n})$ and using the parametrization $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega=(w', g(w')) $ with $g(w')=\sqrt{1-|w'|^2}$ near the north pole $e_{2n}$ of the sphere,
we are led to consider the generalized Radon transforms associated to the incidence relation
given by the equations
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defining equations} y_{2n}= {\mathfrak {S}}^{2n}(x,t,y'), \quad \bar y= \bar {\mathfrak {S}}(x,t,\ubar y) \end{equation} where
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:Psidefb}
\begin{align}\label{eq:Psidefb1}
{\mathfrak {S}}^{2n} (x,t,y')&= x_{2n}- tg (\tfrac{x'-y'}t)
\\
\label{eq:Psidefb2}
\overline{\mathfrak {S}} (x,t,\underline y)&=
\overline{x} +t \Lambda (\ubar{x}-\ubar{y}) +\underline{x}^\intercal J \underline{y},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $y'$
is small, $\ubar x$ is near $e_{2n}$ on the support of $\upsilon$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Psidefc}
g(0)=1,\; \nabla g(0)=0,\; g''(0)= -I_{2n-1},\; g'''(0)=0.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:defining equations} and \eqref{eq:Psidefb1} to express $y_{2n}$ in \eqref{eq:Psidefb2}, we conclude that \eqref{eq:defining equations} is equivalent with \begin{equation} \label{eq:defining equations-2} \begin{aligned} y_{2n}&= {\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}(x,t,y'):={\mathfrak {S}}^{2n}{(x,t,y')}, \\ \bar y&= \bar {\mathfrak {s}}(x,t,y')
:= \bar {\mathfrak {S}}(x,t,y', {\mathfrak {S}}^{2n}(x,t,y')).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Recall that $P= \begin{pmatrix}I_{2n-1} &0\end{pmatrix}$.
We compute for $i=1,\dots, m$,
\begin{align*}
\overline {\mathfrak {s}}_i(x,t, y')=&{\bar x}_i + t\La_i{\ubar x}
-t\La_i P^\intercal y'
+ {\ubar x}^\intercal J_i P^\intercal y'
\\&
+\big(x_{2n}-tg(\tfrac{x'-y'}{t})\big)
({\ubar x}^\intercal J_i e_{2n}- t\La_ie_{2n})
\end{align*} and also have ${\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}(x,t,y') =x_{2n}-t g(\tfrac{x'-y'}{t}).$
We can thus write, for $f$ with small support near $0$,
\[ f*(\upsilon \mu^\La)_t (x) =
\int \chi_1(x,t,y') f(y',{\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}(x,t,y'), \bar{\mathfrak {s}}(x,t, y') ) dy',\]
where $\chi_1$ is a smooth and compactly supported function so that on its support $y'$ is small and ${\ubar x}$ is near $e_{2n}$.
The right hand side represents an operator with Schwartz kernel
\[K(x,t,y)= \chi_1 (x,t,y') \delta_0( {\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}(x,t,y') -y_{2n} , \overline{\mathfrak {s}} (x,t, y')-\overline y),\] where $\delta_0$ denotes the Dirac measure at the origin in ${\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}$.
We express $\delta_0$ via the Fourier transform \begin{equation}\label{eq:delta=expansion}K(x,t,y) =
\chi_1 (x,t,y') \int_{\theta\in {\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}}
e^{i\psi(x,t,y,\theta)} \tfrac{d\theta}{(2\pi)^{m+1}} \end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Psidef} \psi(x,t,y,\theta) = \theta_{2n}({\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}(x,t,y') -y_{2n} )
+\overline \theta\cdot (\overline{\mathfrak {s}} (x,t,y')-\overline y).
\end{equation}
Note that $K$ is well defined as an oscillatory integral distribution
(indeed from definition \eqref{eq:defining equations-2} we see that
$x\mapsto K(x,t,y)$ and $y\mapsto K(x,t,y)$ are well defined as oscillatory integral distributions on ${\mathbb {R}}^d$).
We now perform a dyadic decomposition of this modified kernel.
Let $\zeta_0$ be a smooth radial function on $\mathbb{R}^{m+1}$ with compact support in $\{|\theta|< 1\}$ such that $\zeta_0(\theta)=1$ for $|\theta|\le 1/2$. Setting $\zeta_1(\theta)=\zeta_0(\theta/2)-\zeta_0(\theta)$ and $\zeta_k(\theta)= \zeta_1(2^{1-k}\theta)$ for $k\ge 1$, we define
\[ A^k_t f(x) = \int
\chi_1(x,t,y')\int_{\theta\in {\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}}\zeta_k(\theta)
e^{i\psi(x,t,y,\theta)} \tfrac{d\theta}{(2\pi)^{m+1}}\, f(y) dy \]
and let
\[ M^k f(x)= \sup_{t\in [1,2]} |A^k_t f(x)|.\] The basic estimates for $M^k$ are summarized in the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Akmax} Assume \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} holds.
(i) For $1\le p\le \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:maxLpest}
\| M^k f\|_p \lesssim 2^{\frac{k}p} 2^{-k(d-m-1)\min(\frac1p,\frac1{p'})}\|f\|_p.\end{equation}
(ii) For $2\le q\le \infty$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:maxantidiagest}
\|M^k f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} \lesssim 2^{k (m+1-\frac{d+m}{q})} \|f\|_{q'}.\end{equation}
(iii) For $q\ge q_5:=\tfrac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:maxL2qest}
\| M^k f \|_{L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^d)} \lesssim
2^{-k (\frac{d}{q} -\frac{m+1}{2}) }\|f\|_2.\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\subsection{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}, given Proposition \ref{prop:Akmax}} \label{sec:interpolpf}It suffices to show the required bounds for ${\mathcal {M}} f(x):= \sum_{k\ge 0} M^k f$.
We note that for $n\geq 2, m\geq 1$ (so $d\geq 5$) and $q_5:=\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$ we have $\tfrac{d}{q_5} -\tfrac{m+1}{2}>0$ and $m+1-\tfrac{d+m}{2}<0$.
To deduce the required restricted weak type estimates for $\mathcal{M}$ at $Q_2, Q_3, Q_4$
we recall the Bourgain interpolation argument (\cite{Bourgain-CompteRendu1986}, \cite{CarberySeegerWaingerWright1999}):
Suppose we are given sublinear operators $T_k$ so that for $k\ge 1$,
\[ \|T_k\|_{L^{p_0,1}\to L^{q_0,\infty}} \lesssim 2^{k a_0}\;\text{and}\; \|T_k\|_{L^{p_1,1}\to L^{q_1,\infty}} \lesssim 2^{-k a_1}\]
for some $p_0, q_0, p_1, q_1\in [1,\infty], a_0, a_1>0$. Then the operator $\sum_{k\ge 1} T_k$ is of restricted weak type $(p,q)$, where
\[ (\tfrac1p, \tfrac1q, 0) = (1-\vartheta) (\tfrac1{p_0},\tfrac1{q_0}, a_0) + \vartheta(\tfrac1{p_1},\tfrac1{q_1}, -a_1) \]
and $\vartheta=\tfrac{a_0}{a_0+a_1}\in (0,1)$.
The restricted weak type estimate for $\mathcal{M}$ at $Q_2=(\tfrac{d-m-1}{d-m}, \tfrac{d-m-1}{d-m})$ now follows from
\eqref{eqn:maxLpest}.
Similarly, the restricted weak type bound at $Q_3=(\tfrac{d-1}{d+m},\tfrac{m+1}{d+m})$ follows from \eqref{eqn:maxantidiagest}.
Finally, the restricted weak type bound at $Q_4=(\tfrac1{p_4},\tfrac1{q_4})$ with \[\tfrac1{p_4}=\tfrac{d(d-1)}{d(d-1)+(d+1)(m+1)},\,\tfrac1{q_4}=\tfrac{(m+1)(d-1)}{d(d-1)+(d+1)(m+1)}\]
follows from interpolating \eqref{eqn:maxL2qest} for $q=q_5$ with
the case $q=\infty$ of \eqref{eqn:maxantidiagest},
since for $n=d-m\ge 2$
\[(\tfrac{1}{p_4},\tfrac{1}{q_4},0)=\vartheta(\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac1{q_5},-\tfrac{d}{q_5} +\tfrac{m+1}{2})+(1-\vartheta)(1,0,m+1)\]
with $\vartheta=\tfrac{2(d+1)(m+1)}{d(d-1)+(d+1)(m+1)}\in (0,1)$.
Since bounds for $\mathcal{M}$ imply bounds for $M$,
this concludes the proof of part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:main}. Part (ii) is immediate by interpolation.
\subsection{\it Reduction to space-time bounds}
We use
the standard Sobolev inequality
\begin{equation} \label {eq:Sobolev1D} \sup_{t\in[1,2] } |F(t)| \lesssim \|F\|_{p} + \|F\|_p^{1/p'} \|F'\|_{p}^{1/p}, \end{equation} where the $L^p$ norms are taken on $[1,2]$, see \cite[p.499]{Stein-harmonic}. We apply it to $F(t)= A^k_tf(x)\equiv A^k f(x,t) $, integrate in $x$ and then use H\"older's inequality to obtain\detail{the first summand on the right hand side is usually given by something like $|F(t_0)|$ but averaging the $pth$ powers in $t_0$ in $t_0$ yields the stated inequality.} Proposition \ref{prop:Akmax} as a consequence of the following
\begin{prop} \label{prop:space-time-est} Assume \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} holds.
(i) For $1\le p\le \infty$
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sptimeLpest}
\| {A}^k \|_{L^p({\mathbb {R}}^d)\to L^p(\mathbb{R}^d\times [1,2])} \lesssim 2^{-k (d-m-1)\min(\frac1p,\frac1{p'})}
\end{equation}
(ii) For $2\le q\le \infty$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sptimeantidiagest}
\|{A}^k f\|_{ L^{q'}({\mathbb {R}}^d) \to L^q(\mathbb{R}^d\times [1,2])} \lesssim 2^{k (m+1-\frac{d+m+1}{q})} .
\end{equation}(iii) For $q\ge \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Q5spacetime}
\| A^k \|_{L^2({\mathbb {R}}^d)\to L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^d\times [1,2])} \lesssim
2^{-k (\frac{d+1}{q} -\frac{m+1}{2}) }\|f\|_2.
\end{equation}
(iv) The same estimates hold for $2^{-k} \frac{d}{dt} A^k$ in place of $A^k$.
\end{prop}
For later calculations it will be convenient to introduce the nonlinear shear transformation in the $x$-variables (smoothly depending on $t$)
\begin{align*}
\underline {\mathfrak {x}}(x,t)&=\underline x,
\\
\overline {\mathfrak {x}}_i (x,t)&={\bar x}_i
-t\La_i{\ubar x}-x_{2n}({\underline x}^\intercal J_ie_{2n}-t\La_ie_{2n}).
\end{align*}
By a change of variables it suffices to prove the above space-time inequalities for
$A^k_t f({\mathfrak {x}}(x,t),t) $ and
$2^{-k} \frac{d}{dt} A^k_t f({\mathfrak {x}}(x,t),t) $.
Using the homogeneity we see that both terms are linear combinations of expressions of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CalAk} \mathcal{A}^k f(x,t) = 2^{k(m+1)} \int_{{\mathbb {R}}^d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m+1}} e^{i2^k \Psi(x,t,y,\theta)} b(x,t,y',\theta) f(y)\, d\theta\,dy
\end{equation}
where
the symbol $b$ is compactly supported in ${\mathbb {R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^{d-m-1}\times {\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}$ with $y'$ near zero and ${\ubar x}$ near $e_{2n}$ on the support of $b$ and $|\theta|\in [1/2,2] $. The phase function $\Psi$ is given by \begin{equation}
\label{phasedefn}
\Psi(x,t,y,\theta)=\theta_{2n}(S^{2n}(x,t,y')-y_{2n}) +\sum_{i=1}^m \bar\theta_i (\bar S_i (x,t,y') -\bar y_i)
\end{equation}
with $(S^{2n}, \bar S)|_{(x,t,y')}= ({\mathfrak {s}}^{2n}, \bar{\mathfrak {s}})|_{ ({\mathfrak {x}}(x,t),t,y')}$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PhaseS}\begin{aligned}
S^{2n}(x,t,y')&= x_{2n}- tg(\ttf)
\\
\bar S_i(x,t,y')&=x_{2n+i} +
({\ubar x}^\intercal J_i -t\La_i) (P^\intercal y' -tg(\ttf)
e_{2n}),
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
with $g$ is as in \eqref{eq:Psidefc}.
The Schwartz kernel of ${\mathcal {A}}^k$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:K_k}
{\mathcal {K}}^k(x,t,y) =
\int_{{\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}}e^{i2^k\Psi(x,t,y,\theta)} b(x,t,y',\theta)
d\theta \end{equation} and integration by parts yields the
estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Kkptw}
|{\mathcal {K}}^k(x,t,y)|\le C_N \frac{ 2^{k(m+1)} } {(1+2^k|y_{2n} - S^{2n} ( x, t,y')|+2^k |\bar y-\bar S (x,t,y')| )^N}.
\end{equation}
This estimate (together with the specific expressions for $S^{2n}$, $\bar S$) yields
for all $k\ge 1$ the bounds
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:trivestimate}
\|{\mathcal {A}}_t^k\|_{L^1\to L^1} + \|{\mathcal {A}}_t^k \|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty} \lesssim 1,
\\ \label{eqn:trivL1infestimate}
\|{\mathcal {A}}_t^k\|_{L^1\to L^\infty} \lesssim 2^{k(m+1)}.
\end{gather}
In view of these estimates it suffices in what follows to consider the case of large $k$.
The bounds \eqref{eqn:sptimeLpest}, \eqref{eqn:sptimeantidiagest} then follow by an interpolation argument using
\eqref{eqn:trivestimate}, \eqref{eqn:trivL1infestimate} and the local $L^2$ space-time estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sptimeL2estimate}
\| {\mathcal {A}}^k f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d\times [1,2])} \lesssim
2^{-k \frac{d-m-1}{2} }
\|f\|_2.
\end{equation}
This gives a gain over the estimate
$\| {\mathcal {A}}^k_t\|_{L^2 \to L^2} \lesssim
2^{-k (\frac{d-m-1}{2} -\frac 16) }$ for fixed time $t$ established in \cite{MuellerSeeger2004} via estimates for oscillatory integrals with fold singularities in \cite{Cuccagna1997}. As mentioned before, the papers
\cite{NarayananThangavelu2004} and \cite{KimJoonil} work with similar space-time estimates.
To prove \eqref {eqn:sptimeL2estimate} we use an oscillatory integral operator
\[T_k f(x,t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} e^{i 2^k \Phi(x,t,y)} b(x,t,y) f(y) dy\]
where $b\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^d)$ is as in \eqref{eq:CalAk}, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi-phase} \Phi(x,t,y)=
y_{2n}S^{2n}(x,t,y') +\sum_{i=1}^m \bar y_i \bar S_i (x,t,y') .
\end{equation}
Setting $F_k(y)= \int_{{\mathbb {R}}^{m+1}} f(y',w_{2n}, \bar w) e^{-i2^k(y_{2n}w_{2n} + \bar y\cdot \bar w)} dw_{2n} d\bar w$ we have
\[ {\mathcal {A}}^k f(x,t)= T_k F_k (x,t)\]
and by Plancherel's theorem $\|F_k\|_2=(2^{-k}2\pi)^{(m+1)/2}\|f\|_2$. Hence \eqref {eqn:sptimeL2estimate}
follows from
\begin{prop} \label{prop:L2osc-spt} Assume \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} holds. For all $f\in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^d)$,
\begin{equation}\label{Tkest}
\|T_k f\|_{ L^2({\mathbb {R}}^d\times[1,2])} \lesssim 2^{-k\frac d2} \|f\|_2
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
The proof will be given in \S\ref{sec:oscint} using the standard H\"ormander $L^2$ estimate (\cite{Hormander1973}). By the same argument, the $L^2\to L^q$ bound \eqref{eqn:Q5spacetime} is reduced to the estimate
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Q5spacetimeTk}
Assume that \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} holds. Then for $q\ge q_5=\tfrac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$ and $f\in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^d)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Q5spacetimeTk}
\| T_k f\|_{L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^d\times [1,2])} \lesssim
2^{-k \frac{d+1}{q} }\|f\|_2.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
This will be proved in \S \ref{sec:SToscest} using a result in \cite{MSS93}.
\detail{: {\color{blue} Not necessary anymore:}
It is advantagous to work with amplitudes in product form. Choose a $C^\infty$ functions $\chi_3$ on ${\mathbb {R}}^d\times {\mathbb {R}}$, $\chi_4$ on ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n-1}$ such that $\chi_3(x,t)\chi_4(y')=1$ on the support of $\chi_1$; we may assume that $\chi_4$ is supported near $0$ and that $|\ubar x|-t$ and $x'$ are small on the support of $\chi_3$.
By a Fourier series expansion of $\chi_1$ we may then express $\chi_1 $ as $\sum_{\ell_L\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{d+1} }\sum_{\ell_R\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{2n-1} } c(\ell_L, \ell_R) e^{2\pi i \ell_L \cdot (x,t)} \chi_1(x,t)\chi_4(y') e^{2\pi i y\cdot \ell_R}$ with rapidly decaying coefficients.
By using Minkowski's inequality for the $\ell$-sums we see that for the sake of Lebesgue space estimate we can work with $\chi_3\otimes \chi_4$ in place of $\chi_1$.}
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:L2osc-spt}}
\label{sec:oscint}
By H\"ormander's classical $L^2$ bound
(\cite[ch. IX.1]{Stein-harmonic}) applied after a partition of unity and a slicing argument with a suitable subset of $d$ of the $(x,t)$-variables, it suffices to prove that the rank of the $(d+1)\times d$ mixed Hessian matrix $\Phi_{(x,t),y}''$ is equal to $d$. Equivalently, for
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Xidef}
\Xi(x,t,y):=\nabla_{x,t} \Phi (x,t,y)=
y_{2n} \nabla_{x,t}S^{2n} + \sum_{i=1}^m {\bar y}_{i} \nabla_{x,t}{\overline{S}}_{i},
\end{equation} we need to check that (using subscripts to denote partial derivatives)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rank-condition}
{\mathrm{rank}} \, (\Xi_{y_1}, \dots, \Xi_{y_d} )=d
\end{equation} for
every $(x,t,y)\in {\mathrm{supp}} (b)$; in particular,
$|{\bar y}|\approx 1$, and $x'-y'$ is small.
Recall that $P$ denotes the $(2n-1)\times2n$ matrix $P=(I_{2n-1}\,\, 0)$.
\detail{Then $PJ_i$ is a $(2n-1)\times2n$ matrix with its rows identical to the the first $2n-1$ rows of $J_i$. }
We calculate
\begin{multline*}\Xi(x,t,y)=
y_{2n} \begin{pmatrix}
-\nabla g(\ttf) \\1\\ \vec{0}_m\\ h(\ttf)
\end{pmatrix}
\\
\,+\,\sum_{i=1}^m\overline{y}_i\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_iP^\intercal y'
-tg(\ttf) PJ_ie_{2n}
-({\ubar x}^{\intercal} J_i e_{2n}-t\La_ie_{2n}) \nabla g(\ttf)
\\ e_{2n}^\intercal J_i (P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\\e_i^m
\\
h(\ttf)({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_i -t\La_i)e_{2n} -\La_i(P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\end{pmatrix}
\end{multline*}
where $e_i^m$ denotes the $i$-th standard basis vector in $\mathbb{R}^m$ and \[ h(x')=\inn{x'}{\nabla g(x')}-g(x'),\]
with
\begin{equation}\label{hderiv} h(0)=-1, \nabla h(0)=0, h''(0)= -I_{2n-1}.\end{equation}
The non-degeneracy assumption on $J$ implies that
$y_{2n}I_{2n}+ J_{\overline y}$ is invertible whenever
$(y_{2n},\overline{y})\not=0$. More precisely, we have
the following auxiliary lemma for its operator norm (taken with respect to the standard Euclidean norm in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$); this is a quantitative extension of a lemma in \cite{MuellerSeeger2004}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:skew-sym} Let $B$ be a real skew-symmetric $N\times N $ matrix and let $I_{N}$ be the $N\times N$ identity matrix.
(i) Suppose $N$ is even. Then $\rho I_{N} +B$ is invertible if and only if either $\rho\neq 0$ or $B$ is invertible. Moreover, for the Euclidean operator norm of the inverse,
\begin{equation}
\|(\rho I_{N} +B)^{-1}\|= \begin{cases} |\rho|^{-1} &\text{ if $\det B=0$} \\
(\rho^2+\|B^{-1}\|^{-2})^{-1/2} &\text{ if $\det B\neq 0$ }\end{cases}
\end{equation}
(ii) Suppose that $N$ is odd. Then
$\rho I_{N} +B$ is invertible if and only if $\rho\neq 0$ and we have
$\|(\rho I_N+ B )^{-1} \|=|\rho |^{-1} $. Moreover
$\det (\rho I_N+ B) = c(\rho,B) \rho $ where $c$ depends smoothly on $\rho,B$ and $c(\rho,B)\neq 0$
if ${\mathrm{rank}} \, B=N-1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We first consider the case $N=2n$.
When acting on ${\mathbb {C}}^{2n}$ the skew symmetric matrix $B$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, with purely imaginary eigenvalues. If $v$ is a complex eigenvector with eigenvalue $i\beta$, then $\bar v$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $-i\beta$, moreover
$B(\operatorname{Re\,} v)= -\beta \operatorname{Im\,} v$ and $B(\operatorname{Im\,} v) = \beta \operatorname{Re\,} v.$ There is then an orthonormal basis
$u_1,\dots, u_{2n}$ of ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$ such that $Bu_{2k-1}= -\beta_k u_{2k}$ and $Bu_{2k}= \beta_k u_{2k-1}$.
Also, $(\rho I\pm B)u_{2k-1} =\rho u_{2k-1}\mp \beta_k u_{2k}$ and $(\rho I\pm B)u_{2k}=\beta_k u_{2k-1}\pm \rho u_{2k}$. Thus $\rho I\pm B$ are invertible if and only if either $\rho\neq 0$ or $\min_k|\beta_k|\neq 0$.
We have $((\rho I +B)^{-1} )^\intercal (\rho I+B)^{-1}= (\rho^2 I- B^2)^{-1} $, by the skew-symmetry of $B$.
Observe that $\rho^2 I-B^2$ acts on
${\mathbb {V}}_k:=\mathrm{span} \{u_{2k-1}, u_{2k}\}$ as $(\rho^2+\beta_k^2) I_{{\mathbb {V}}_k} $ and it follows that \begin{align*} \|(\rho I+B)^{-1}\|= \|((\rho I+B)^{-1})^\intercal (\rho I+B)^{-1} \|^{1/2} &
\\=
\max_{k=1,\dots, n} (\rho^2+\beta_k^2)^{-1/2}= (\rho^2+ \min_{k=1,\dots,n} \beta_k^2)^{-1}.&\end{align*}
Since $\|B^{-1}\|^{-1}= \min_{k} |\beta_k| $ we obtain the claimed expression for the operator norm.
Next consider the case $N=2n-1$, $n\ge 2$ (the case $N=1$ is trivial). The proof uses the same argument as above. We can now find an orthonormal bases $u_1,\dots, u_{2n-1}$ such that $Bu_{2k-1}= -\beta_k u_{2k}$ and $Bu_{2k}= \beta_k u_{2k-1}$ for $k=1,\dots, n-1$, and $Bu_{2n-1}=0$.
Let $f(\rho, B) = \det (\rho I+B)$ then $f(0,B)=0$ since $N$ is odd, moreover $c(\rho,B)=f(\rho,B)/\rho$ is a polynomial in $\rho$ and the entries of $B$.
By the above computation $f(\rho,B)= \rho\prod_{k=1}^{n-1} (\rho^2+\beta_k)^2$. If the rank of $B$ is $N-1$ then the $\beta_k$ are nonzero and thus $c(\rho,B)\neq 0$. \end{proof}
We proceed to check \eqref{eq:rank-condition}. Recall the notation $J^{\overline{y}} = \sum_{i=1}^m \overline{y}_i J_i$ and $\La^{\overline y}=\sum_{i=1}^m \overline y_i \La_i.$
We compute, for $j=1,\dots, 2n-1$, the partial derivatives (using
$e_{2n}^\intercal J_{\overline{y}} e_{2n}
=0$),
\[
\Xi_{y_j}=\begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}(y_{2n}+({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J^{\overline{y}}-t\La^{\overline y})e_{2n})\partial_j\nabla g(\ttf)+PJ^{\overline{y}}( e_j+\partial_jg(\ttf) e_{2n}) \\e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline{y}} (e_j +\partial_j g(\ttf)e_{2n})
\\
\vec{0}_m
\\ -t^{-1}(y_{2n}+ ({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J^{\overline{y}}-t\La^{\overline y})e_{2n})\partial_jh(\ttf)
-\La^{{\bar y}}(e_j+\partial_jg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\end{pmatrix},\]
\[
\Xi_{y_{2n}}=\begin{pmatrix}
-\nabla g(\ttf)\\1\\\vec{0}_m\\h(\ttf)
\end{pmatrix},\] and, with $\overline y_i\equiv y_{2n+i}$,
\[\Xi_{{y}_{2n+i}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_iP^\intercal y'
-tg(\ttf) PJ_ie_{2n}
-({\ubar x}^{\intercal} J_i e_{2n}-t\La_ie_{2n}) \nabla g(\ttf)
\\ e_{2n}^\intercal J_i (P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\\e_i^m
\\
h(\ttf)({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_i -t\La_i)e_{2n} -\La_i(P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Let $\varPi : {\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m+1} \to {\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m}$ be the natural projection omitting the time variable $t=x_{2n+m+1}$.
Let \begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma}\sigma\equiv\sigma(x,t,y)= y_{2n} +({\ubar x}^\intercal J^{{\bar y}}-t\La^{{\bar y}})e_{2n}
\end{equation}
and let $B=B(x,t,y)$ be the $(2n-1)\times(2n-1)$ matrix \[B=PJ^{{\bar y}} e_{2n} (\nabla g(\ttf))^\intercal \]
with rank at most one.
We have
\[
\varPi \Xi_y
= \begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}\sigma g''(\ttf) + PJ^{\overline y} P^\intercal +B
&-\nabla g(\ttf)&*
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline y} P^\intercal&1&*
\\
0&0&I_m
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and therefore (using elementary column operations and the skew symmetry of $J_{{\bar y}}$)
\begin{align} \label{eq:PiXiy} \det \varPi \Xi_y &=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}\sigma g''(\ttf) + PJ^{\overline y} P^\intercal +B-B^\intercal
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{align}
Since $PJ^{\overline y} P^\intercal +B-B^\intercal$ is a skew-symmetric $(2n-1)\times (2n-1)$ matrix, we see from Lemma \ref{lem:skew-sym} that $\varPi \Xi_y$ is invertible if and only if $\sigma\neq 0$.
Equivalently $\det \Phi_{xy}''\neq 0$ if and only if $\sigma\neq 0$. If $\sigma=0$, then
$\varPi \Xi_y$ is not invertible and we have to use the $t$-derivatives.
\begin{rem} \label{kernel-cokernel-rem} For later reference in \S\ref{sec:proofoftheoremaverage} we include the following remarks which establish the oscillatory integral operator $f\mapsto T_k f(\cdot,t)$ as an operator with a folding canonical relation (i.e. two-sided fold singularities).
We examine the one-dimensional kernel and cokernel of the matrix in \eqref{eq:PiXiy} for $x'=y'$, $\sigma=0$.
(i) Consider $b=(b',b_{2n}, \bar b)^\intercal $ in the kernel. Then $\bar b=0$, $b_{2n} = -e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} P^\intercal b'$ and $PJ^{\bar y} P^\intercal b'=0$ with $b'\neq 0$. This also implies that $e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} P^\intercal b'\neq 0$ (since otherwise $P^\intercal b'$ would be in the kernel of the invertible matrix $J^{\bar y}$ and $b'$ would be zero).
Let $V_L = \sum_{j=1}^{2n-1} b_j \partial/\partial{y_j} + b_{2n} \partial/\partial{y_{2n} }$ with $b_{2n} = - e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} P^\intercal b'\neq 0$, then
$\tfrac{\partial\sigma}{\partial y_{2n}} =1$ and from part (ii) of Lemma \ref{lem:skew-sym} we get
$V_L(\det \varPi\Xi_y) \neq 0$.
(ii) Let $a^\intercal=(a_1,\dots, a_{2n+m})$ be in the cokernel of $\varPi\Xi_y$.
Then a right kernel vector field $V_R = \sum_{j=1}^{2n+m} a_j \partial/\partial{x_j} $ satisfies $a_{2n}=0$ (when evaluated at $x'=y'$, $\sigma=0$), $PJ^{\bar y} P^\intercal a'=0$ with $a'\neq 0$ and $\bar a$ is determined by $a'$. Note that
$V_R \sigma =- e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} P^\intercal a'\neq 0$ which leads to
$V_R (\det \varPi\Xi_y) \neq 0 $.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{The case of small $\sigma$}
We consider $\bar y$ in an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $\bar y_\circ \neq 0$, with small $\varepsilon>0$.
We look at the $(2n+m+1)\times (2n+m)$ matrix $\Xi_{y}$ for $x'=y'$ and small $\sigma$. Since $g''(0)=-I_{2n-1}$ and $h(0)=-1$, we have
\[
\Xi_y \Big|_{x'=y'}
= \begin{pmatrix}
-t^{-1}\sigma I_{2n-1} + J^{\overline y} P^\intercal
&0&*
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline y} P^\intercal&1&*
\\
0&0&I_m
\\
-\La^{\bar y}P^\intercal &-1 &*
\end{pmatrix}
\]
We recall that $J^{\bar y} $ is invertible for $\bar y\neq 0$ (and take $\bar y$ near $\bar y_\circ\neq 0$).
This implies that for $\widetilde \La^{\bar y}= (\La^{\bar y} P^\intercal, 0)$
the $2n\times 2n$ matrix with rows $e_1^\intercal J^{\bar y}$, \dots, $e_{2n-1}^\intercal J^{\bar y}$, $e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} -\widetilde \La^{\bar y} $
is invertible. To see this, let $\{c_k\}_{k=1}^{2n}$ be such that
$\sum_{k=1}^{2n-1} c_k e_k^\intercal J^{\bar y} + c_{2n} (e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} -\widetilde \La^{\bar y} )=0$.
This gives
$\sum_{k=1}^{2n} c_k e_k^\intercal = c_{2n} \widetilde \La^{\bar y} (J^{\bar y})^{-1} $
and thus $\sum_{k=1}^{2n-1} c_k^2+ c_{2n}^2(1- \|\widetilde \La^{\bar y} (J^{\bar y})^{-1}\|^2)=0 $. By \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda}, setting $\theta=\bar y/|\bar y|$,
\[\|\widetilde \La^{\bar y} (J^{\bar y})^{-1}\| \le \|\widetilde \La^{\bar \theta} \| \|(J^{\bar \theta})^{-1} \| \le \| \La^{\bar \theta} \| \|(J^{\bar \theta})^{-1} \| < 1\] which implies that the $c_k$ are all zero.
The preceding consideration also yields that $2n-1$ of the truncated rows
$e_1^\intercal J^{\bar y}P^\intercal $, \dots, $e_{2n-1}^\intercal J^{\bar y}P^\intercal$, $e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y}P^\intercal -\La^{\bar y} P^\intercal $ are linearly independent.
For $\kappa \in\{1,\dots, 2n-1\}$, we let
$P^{(\kappa)} :{\mathbb {R}}^{2n-1} \to {\mathbb {R}}^{2n-2}$ denote the map that omits the
$\kappa^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate. We also let $\varPi^{(\kappa)}$ be the corresponding linear map from ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m+1}$ to ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m} $ that omits the $\kappa^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate.
Since the skew symmetric matrix $PJ^{\bar y}P^\intercal$ is not invertible we see that there is a $\kappa \in \{1,\dots, 2n-1\}$ (depending on $\bar y$) such that the
$(2n-1)\times (2n-1)$ matrix
\[
\begin{pmatrix} P^{(\kappa)}P J^{\bar y} P^\intercal
\\
(e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} -\La^{\bar y}) P^\intercal
\end{pmatrix} \]
is invertible. By elementary row operations this implies that
\[
\varPi^{(\kappa)} \Xi_y \Big|_{x'=y'}
= \begin{pmatrix}
-t^{-1}\sigma P^{(\kappa)} PI_{2n} +P^{(\kappa)} PJ^{\overline y} P^\intercal
&0&*
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline y} P^\intercal&1&*
\\
0&0&I_m
\\
-\La^{\bar y}P^\intercal &-1 &*
\end{pmatrix}
\]
is invertible for $\sigma=0$. The above calculations for $\bar y=\bar y_\circ$, $\sigma=0$ and $x'=y'$ extend by continuity to small choices of
$|\sigma|$, $|x'-y'|$ and $|\bar y-\bar y_\circ|$, and for these we obtain that $\varPi^{(\kappa)} \Xi_y$ is invertible.
This concludes the verification of \eqref{eq:rank-condition} and thus the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:L2osc-spt}. \qed
\begin{comment}
Observe that ${\mathrm{rank}} \,J^{\overline y}P^\intercal= 2n-1$ and ........
since $B|_{x'=y'}=0$ we see that there is $\kappa\in \{1,\dots, 2n-1\}$ (depending on $\bar y$) such that
for small $x'-y'$
the $(2n-1)\times(2n-1)$ matrix
which is obtained from
$J^{{\bar y}} P^\intercal +B-B^\intercal $ by omitting the $\kappa$-th row is invertible. Let $P^{(\kappa)} $ be the projection
$P^{(\kappa)}$ from ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n-1}$ to the orthogonal complement of $ e_\kappa$ in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n-1} $ and let
$\varPi^{(\kappa)}$ be the projection of ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m+1}$ to the orthogonal complement of ${\mathbb {R}} e_\kappa$ in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n+m+1} $.
Then
\[
\varPi^{(\kappa)} \Xi_y \Big|_{x'=y'}
= \begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}\sigma P^{(\kappa)} I_{2n-1} +P^{(\kappa)} J^{\overline y} P^\intercal
&0&*
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline y} P^\intercal&1&*
\\
0&0&I_m
\\
{\color{blue}\La^{\bar y}P^\intercal} &-1 &*
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and the $(2n-1)\times (2n-1)$ matrix
\[\begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}\sigma P^{(\kappa)} I_{2n-1} +P^{(\kappa)} J^{\overline y} P^\intercal
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\overline y} P^\intercal
\end{pmatrix}
\]
is invertible if $\sigma$ is sufficiently small. Since $h(0)\neq 0$ we see that
\[\det \varPi^{(\kappa)} \Xi_y \Big|_{x'=y'} \neq 0\] if $\sigma$ is sufficiently small.
\detail{Thus $\varPi^{(\kappa)} \Xi_y$ is invertible if $x'-y'$ is sufficiently small.}
\end{comment}
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Q5spacetimeTk}} \label{sec:SToscest}
Let $\Xi=\nabla_{x,t}\Phi$ as in \eqref{eq:Xidef}, $N\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ be a unit vector, and let $\mathscr C^N(x,t,y)$ be the $d\times d$ curvature matrix with respect to $N$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{curvmatrix} \mathscr C_{jl}^N = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y_j\partial y_l} \inn{ N}{\Xi} \end{equation}
We apply an oscillatory integral result in \cite{MSS93} according to which Proposition \ref{prop:Q5spacetimeTk} holds provided that \eqref{eq:rank-condition} and the additional curvature condition
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rank-curv}\inn {N}{ \Xi_{y_j} }=0 ,\,\, j=1,\dots, d \quad \implies \quad {\mathrm{rank}}\, \mathscr C^N = d-1\end{equation}
is satisfied; i.e. the conic surface $\Sigma_{x,t}$ parametrized by $y\mapsto \Xi(x,t,y)$ has the maximal number $d-1$ of nonvanishing principal curvatures.
It remains to verify \eqref{eq:rank-curv}; here we shall use our size assumption \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} on $\La$.
Let $\sigma$ be as in \eqref{eq:sigma}.
For $x'=y'$,
using the properties of $g,h$ in
\eqref{eq:Psidefc}, \eqref{hderiv} we get
\begin{align*}
\Xi_{y_j}
\Big|_{x'=y'}
&=-t^{-1}\sigma e_j+\begin{pmatrix}
J^{\overline{y}}e_j\\\vec{0}_m\\ -\La^{{\bar y}}e_j
\end{pmatrix},\\
\Xi_{y_{2n}} \Big|_{x'=y'}&=\begin{pmatrix}
\vec{0}_{2n-1}\\1\\\vec{0}_m\\-1
\end{pmatrix},\,\, \Xi_{{y}_{2n+i}} \Big|_{x'=y'}=\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_iP^\intercal y' -t PJ_ie_{2n}\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J_i P^\intercal y'\\e_i^m\\ (t\La_i-x^\intercal J_i)e_{2n}-\La_i(P^\intercal y'-te_{2n})
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
We now consider a unit vector \[N\Big|_{x'=y'}= (\underline{\alpha},\overline{\alpha},\alpha_{d+1})^\intercal= (\alpha',\alpha_{2n},\overline{\alpha},\alpha_{d+1})^\intercal\in \mathbb{R}^{d+1}\] perpendicular to
$\Xi_{y_i}$, $\Xi_{y_{2n}} $, $\Xi_{\overline{y}_i}$.
Evaluating for $x'=y'$, we get
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align} \label{normal1}
0&=\inn {N}{\Xi_{y_j} }\Big|_{x'=y'}=-t^{-1}\sigma
\alpha_j+\underline{\alpha}^{\intercal}J^{\bar{y}}e_j-\alpha_{d+1} \La^{{\bar y}} e_j, \quad j\le 2n-1.
\\
\label{normal2} 0&=\inn{N} {\Xi_{y_{2n} }}\Big|_{x'=y'}=\alpha_{2n}-\alpha_{d+1},
\\
\label{normal3}
0&=\inn {N} {\Xi_{\overline{y}_i} }\Big|_{x'=y'}=\,
\alpha'^{\intercal}(PJ_iP^\intercal y' -t PJ_i e_{2n})
+\alpha_{2n} e_{2n}^\intercal J_i P^\intercal y' +\overline{\alpha}_i \\ \notag
&\qquad\qquad \qquad +\alpha_{d+1}((t\La_i-x^\intercal J_i)e_{2n} -\La_i(P^\intercal y'-te_{2n})), \,\, i=1,\dots,m.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Equation \eqref{normal3} above expresses $\overline{\alpha}_i$ in terms of $\underline{\alpha}$ and $\alpha_{d+1}$ and turns out to be not really relevant to our calculations. Normalizing $|N|=1$ we have $|\underline\alpha|\approx 1$.
\begin{remarka} It is instructive to see that when $\Lambda=0$ and for the special case of the Heisenberg type group, i.e. when $(J^{{\bar y}})^2=-|{\bar y}|^2 I$, the projection of the normal vector $N$ to ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$ is tangential to the sphere for $\sigma=0$, indeed in that case (as we evaluate at the northpole of the sphere with normal vector $e_{2n}$) we see from \eqref{normal1}
that $\ubar\alpha$ is perpendicular to $\mathrm{span}\{J^{\bar{y}} e_1,\dots J^{\bar y} e_{2n-1}\}$ which contains $e_{2n}$.
\end{remarka}
The second derivative vectors are given by
\[
\Xi_{y_jy_k}=\begin{pmatrix}
-t^{-2}\sigma\partial_{jk}\nabla g(\ttf)-t^{-1}(PJ^{\overline{y}}e_{2n})\partial_{jk}^2g(\ttf) \\0\\\vec{0}_m\\ t^{-2}\sigma\partial_{jk}^2h(\ttf)+t^{-1}\La^{{\bar y}}e_{2n}\partial_{jk} g(\ttf)
\end{pmatrix},\] for $1\le j,k\le 2n-1$,
and
\[ \Xi_{y_{j}y_{k}} = 0, \text{ if } 2n\le j, k\le 2n+m.
\]
Moreover,
\[
\Xi_{y_jy_{2n}}=\begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}\partial_j\nabla g(\ttf)\\0\\\vec{0}_m\\-t^{-1}\partial_jh(\ttf)
\end{pmatrix},\quad 1\le j\le 2n-1,\] and, for $i=1,\dots, m$ and $j=1,\dots, 2n-1$,
\[\Xi_{y_j{y}_{2n+i}}=\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_ie_j+ PJ_ie_{2n}\partial_jg(\ttf)+t^{-1}({\ubar x}^{\intercal} J_i -t\La_i)e_{2n}\partial_j\nabla g(\ttf) \\ e_{2n}^{\intercal}J_i e_j\\\vec{0}\\
- t^{-1}({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_i-t\La_i) e_{2n}\partial_j h(\ttf) -\La_i(e_j+\partial_j g(\ttf) e_{2n})
\end{pmatrix},
\]
\detail{
For $x'=y'$ we get (using
$g''(0)=h''(0)=-I_{2n-1}$, $g'''(0)=0$)
for $1\le j,k\le 2n-1$,
\begin{align*}
\Xi_{y_jy_j} \Big|_{x'=y'}&=\begin{pmatrix}
t^{-1}PJ_{\overline{y}}e_{2n}\ \\0\\\vec{0}_m\\ -t^{-2}
\sigma- t^{-1}\La_{{\bar y}} e_{2n}
\end{pmatrix},\\ \Xi_{y_j y_k}\Big|_{x'=y'} &=0 \text{ if } j\neq k, \qquad
\Xi_{y_jy_{2n}} \Big|_{x'=y'}=
-t^{-1}e_j,\\
\Xi_{y_j{y}_{2n+i}} \Big|_{x'=y'}&=\begin{pmatrix}
J_ie_j \\\vec{0}_{m}\\-\La_ie_j
\end{pmatrix}-t^{-1}(({\ubar x}^{\intercal} J_i -t\La_i)e_{2n})e_j
\end{align*}
and
\[ \Xi_{y_{2n}y_{2n}} = \Xi_{\overline{y}_i\overline{y}_i'}=\Xi_{y_{2n}\overline{y}_i} =\vec 0 \text{ when $x'=y'$.}\]
}
We evaluate at $x'=y'$, using $g''(0)=h''(0)=-I_{2n-1}$, $g'''(0)=0$, and see that the components
of the curvature matrix $\mathscr C^N$ at $x'=y'$
are given by
\begin{align*}
\inn{N}{\Xi_{y_jy_j}}\Big|_{x'=y'}&=(\alpha')^\intercal t^{-1}PJ^{\bar{y}}e_{2n} -\alpha_{d+1}t^{-2}\sigma
+\alpha_{d+1} (-t\La^{{\bar y}}e_{2n}),\\
&=(\ubar \alpha)^\intercal t^{-1}J^{\bar{y}}e_{2n} -\alpha_{d+1}(t^{-2}\sigma
+ t^{-1}\La^{{\bar y}}e_{2n}),
\\
\inn{N}{\Xi_{y_jy_k}}\Big|_{x'=y'}&=0,\quad \text {if } j\neq k,
\end{align*}
for $1\le j,k\le 2n-1$. Moreover for $1\le j\le 2n-1$,
\begin{align*}
\inn{N}{\Xi_{y_jy_{2n}}}\Big|_{x'=y'}&=-\alpha_j t^{-1},\\
\inn{N}{\Xi_{y_j{y}_{2n+i}}}\Big|_{x'=y'}&=\ubar{\alpha}^{\intercal} J_i e_j- \alpha_j t^{-1}(({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_i-t\La_i)e_{2n})-\alpha_{d+1}\La_i e_j, \, 1\le i\le m,
\end{align*}
and
\[ \inn{N}{\Xi_{y_{j}y_{k}}}\Big|_{x'=y'}= 0, \quad 2n\le j,k\le d
=0.\]
Thus we get for the $d\times d $ curvature matrix $\mathscr C^N$,
\[\mathscr C^N\Big|_{x'=y'}=\begin{pmatrix}
cI_{2n-1} &PA
\\
A^{\intercal}P^\intercal& 0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $c=c(t,x,y)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{cdefn}
c=t^{-1}\ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{{\bar y}}e_{2n} -t^{-2}\alpha_{d+1} \sigma
-t^{-1}\alpha_{d+1}\La^{{\bar y}}e_{2n}
\end{equation}
and $A^\intercal P^\intercal$ is the $(m+1)\times (2n-1)$ matrix obtained from the following $(m+1)\times 2n $ matrix $A^\intercal $ by deleting the last column;
here
\[A^\intercal=\begin{pmatrix}
-t^{-1}(\ubar \alpha)^\intercal
\\
\ubar {\alpha}^{\intercal} J_1 -t^{-1}(({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_1-t\La_1)e_{2n})\ubar \alpha^{\intercal}-\alpha_{d+1}\Lambda_1
\\
\vdots
\\
\ubar {\alpha}^{\intercal} J_m -t^{-1}(({\ubar x}^{\intercal}J_m-t\La_m) e_{2n})\ubar \alpha^{\intercal}-\alpha_{d+1} \Lambda_m
\end{pmatrix}.\]
We combine \eqref{cdefn}, \eqref{normal1} and \eqref{normal2} to get
\begin{equation}\label{c-nonzero}
(-t^{-1}\sigma I+J^{{\bar y}} )\ubar\alpha -\alpha_{2n}(\La^{{\bar y}})^\intercal
= ct e_{2n}.\end{equation}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:skew-sym}, and writing $\vartheta={\bar y}/|{\bar y}|$,
\begin{align*}
|c| &= t^{-1} \|(\tfrac{\sigma}{ t} I-J^{\bar y} )\ubar \alpha +\alpha_{2n}\La^{{\bar y}}\|
=
t^{-1} |\bar y| \|(\tfrac{\sigma }{|{\bar y}| t} I-J^{\bar \vartheta })\ubar \alpha +\alpha_{2n}\La^{\bar\vartheta}\|
\\ \notag
&\ge t^{-1}|\bar y| |\ubar \alpha|\big(
(\tfrac{\sigma^2 }{|{\bar y}|^2 t^2}+\|(J^{\bar \vartheta })^{-1}\|^{-2})^{1/2} - \|\La^{\bar\vartheta}\|
\big)
\end{align*}
and thus \begin{equation} \label{c-lowerbound} |c| \ge t^{-1}|\bar y||\ubar \alpha|(\|(J^{\bar \vartheta })^{-1}\|^{-1} - \|\La^{\bar\vartheta}\|) \end{equation} which is bounded away from zero by assumption \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda}.
We finish by verifying that $\mathscr C^N$ has rank $d-1=2n+m-1$.
We have the factorization
\begin{multline}\label{eq:factorization}
\begin{pmatrix} c I_{2n-1} &PA\\ 0_{m+1,2n-1}& -c^{-1} A^\intercal P^\intercal P A
\end{pmatrix}=\\
\begin{pmatrix} I_{2n-1} &0_{2n-1, m+1}
\\- c^{-1} A^\intercal P^\intercal &I_{m+1} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} cI_{2n-1} &PA\\ A^\intercal P^\intercal & 0_{m+1}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{multline}
where
$PA$ is an $(2n-1)\times (m+1)$ matrix,
$I_{2n-1}$ is the $(2n-1)\times (2n-1) $ identity matrix,
$I_{m+1}$ is the $(m+1)\times (m+1) $ identity matrix,
$0_{m+1}$ is the $(m+1)\times (m+1) $ zero matrix
and
$0_{2n-1,m+1}$ is the $(2n-1)\times (m+1) $ zero matrix.
Thus, the rank of the curvature matrix
is $2n-1+ {\mathrm{rank}}(PA)$ and the rank of $PA$ the same as the rank of the $(2n-1)\times (m+1)$ matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{curv submatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
-t^{-1}P \ubar\alpha & P\ubar v^{(1)}&\dots&P\ubar v^{(m)}
\end{pmatrix} \text{ with $\ubar v^{(k)}
= J_k^{\intercal} \ubar{\alpha}-\La_k^\intercal\alpha_{d+1}.$}
\end{equation}
We observe that the extended columns
$-t^{-1} \ubar \alpha$, $\ubar v^{(1)}$, ...., $\ubar v^{(m)} $ are linearly independent vectors in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$.
To see this let $(w_{2n},\bar {w})\in{\mathbb {R}}^{1+m}$ be such that
$-t^{-1} \ubar \alpha w_{2n} + \sum_{k=1}^m \ubar v^{(k)}w_k=0$.
This is equivalent with
$ -t^{-1} \ubar \alpha w_{2n} +
\sum_{k=1}^m J_k^\intercal \ubar \alpha w_k= \sum_{k=1}^m \La_k^\intercal w_k$.
If
$\bar w=0$ then we must also have $w_{2n}=0$ since $\ubar\alpha\neq 0$. We thus need to show that $\bar w\neq 0$ leads to a contradiction. Let $\bar \omega} \def\Om{\Omega= \bar w/\|\bar w\|$.
Since $\alpha_{d+1} =\alpha_{2n}$ we get
$\ubar \alpha=\alpha_{2n}(-t^{-1} \omega} \def\Om{\Omega_{2n} I -J^{\overline \omega} \def\Om{\Omega } )^{-1} (\La^{\overline \omega} \def\Om{\Omega})^\intercal$ and thus by Lemma \ref{lem:skew-sym}
\[|\ubar \alpha|
\le (\tfrac{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega_{2n}^2}{t^2} + \|(J^{\overline \omega} \def\Om{\Omega})^{-1}\|^{-2})^{-1/2}\| \La^{\overline \omega} \def\Om{\Omega} \| |\alpha_{2n}|
\le \|(J^{\overline\omega} \def\Om{\Omega} )^{-1}\|
\| \La^{\overline \omega} \def\Om{\Omega} \|\, |\ubar \alpha|
\]
Since by assumption $\|\La^{\bar \omega} \def\Om{\Omega}\|< \|(J^{\bar \omega} \def\Om{\Omega}) ^{-1}\|^{-1}$ for $|\bar \omega} \def\Om{\Omega|=1$ we get $\ubar \alpha=0$, a contradiction.
We have thus verified that the $m+1$ vectors
$-t^{-1} \ubar \alpha$, $\ubar v^{(1)}$, ..., $\ubar v^{(m)} $ are linearly independent
and hence the rank of the matrix \eqref{curv submatrix} is at least $m$.
This proves \eqref{eq:rank-curv} and finishes the proof of Proposition
\ref{prop:Q5spacetimeTk}.
\section{ Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans}}
\label{sec:proofoftheoremaverage}
Let $\sigma (x,t,y',\theta_{2n}, \bar \theta)= \theta_{2n}+(\ubar x^\intercal J^{\bar \theta} - t\La^{\bar \theta} )e_{2n} $
which is comparable to the `rotational curvature' of the fixed time operator.
We use the oscillatory representation of the kernel in \eqref{eq:CalAk} and split ${\mathcal {A}}^{k}_{t} =\sum_{\ell=0}^{[k/3] -1 }{\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_{t} +\widetilde {\mathcal {A}}^{k, [k/3]}_t $ where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CalAkell} \mathcal{A}^{k,\ell}_{t} f(x) = 2^{k(m+1)} \int_{{\mathbb {R}}^d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m+1}} e^{i2^k \Psi(x,t,y',\theta_{2n},\bar \theta)} b_\ell(x,t,y,\theta) \, d\theta_{2n}\,d\bar \theta\,f(y)\,dy, \end{equation}
and $b_\ell$ is supported where $|\theta_{2n} |\approx 2^{ -\ell} $ when $\ell\le [k/3] -1$ and supported where $|\theta_{2n}|\lesssim 2^{-k/3}$ if $\ell=[k/3]$.
The operators ${\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_t$ are bounded on $L^1$ and $L^\infty$ uniformly in $k$ and $\ell$.
A trivial kernel estimate yields
\begin{equation} \label{eq:L1Linfty}\|{\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_t f \|_\infty \lesssim 2^{k(m+1)} 2^{-\ell}
\|f\|_1
\end{equation}
We also have the $L^2$ estimates
\begin{equation} \label{eq:L2L2}\|{\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_t f \|_2 \lesssim 2^{-k\frac{d-m-1}{2}} 2^{\ell/2} \|f\|_2
\end{equation}
for $\ell\le[k/3].$ These follow, after an application of Plancherel's theorem, from corresponding bounds for the oscillatory integral operators with phase function $\Phi$ as in \eqref{eq:Phi-phase}
\[
T_{k,\ell} f(x,t) = 2^{k(m+1)} \int_{{\mathbb {R}}^d} e^{i2^k \Phi(x,t,y)} b_\ell(x,t,y) f(y)\, \,dy,\]
namely
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fold-oscint} \|T_{k,\ell} f(\cdot,t) \|_2 \lesssim 2^{\ell/2} 2^{-kd/2} \|f\|_2.\end{equation}
The estimate \eqref{eq:fold-oscint} follows from bounds in \cite{Cuccagna1997} (cf. Remark \ref{kernel-cokernel-rem}).
Interpolation of the trivial $L^1$ estimate and \eqref{eq:L2L2} and summing in $\ell$ yields an $L^p\to L^p$ estimate $\|{\mathcal {A}}^k_t\|_{L^p\to L^p} =O(2^{-\epsilon(p) k})$ with $\varepsilon(p)>0$ for $1<p<\infty$.
We may interpolate between \eqref{eq:L1Linfty} and \eqref{eq:L2L2} and obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:interpol-allp}
\|{\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_t f \|_q \lesssim 2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m+1}{q})} 2^{\ell(\frac 3q-1)} \|f\|_{q'} ,\quad 2\le q\le\infty
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}
\|{\mathcal {A}}^{k}_tf\|_q \le C_q \begin{cases}
2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m+1}{q})} \|f\|_{q'} ,&\quad 3< q\le\infty
\\
k 2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m+1}{q})} \|f\|_{q'} ,&\quad q=3
\\
2^{k(m+\frac 23-\frac{d+m}{q})} \|f\|_{q'} ,&\quad 2\le q<3
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For the case $q=3$, the Bourgain interpolation trick (as discussed in \S\ref{sec:interpolpf}) also yields
\begin{equation} \label{eq:q=3}
\|{\mathcal {A}}^k_t f\|_{L^{3,\infty}} \lesssim 2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m+1}{3})} \|f\|_{L^{\frac 32,1}}.
\end{equation}
In the case $m<2n-2$, we have $\frac{d+m+1}{m+1}>3$ and thus get a uniform estimate for ${\mathcal {A}}^k_t$ when $q=\frac{d+m+1}{m+1}= \frac{2n+2m+1}{m+1}$.
For $m=2n-2$, we have $\frac{d+m+1}{m+1}=3$ and obtain the restricted weak type $(q',q)$ estimate for ${\mathcal {A}}^k_t$ uniformly in $k$. For $m=2n-1$, we get a uniform $L^{q'}\to L^q$-bound
when $q=\frac{3(d+m)}{3m+2}=\frac{9m+3}{3m+2}$.
To combine the ${\mathcal {A}}^k_t$, we use standard applications of Littlewood-Paley theory, writing
${\mathcal {A}}^k_t = L_k{\mathcal {A}}^k_t L_k +E_k$ where the $L_k $ satisfy Littlewood-Paley inequalities \[\Big\| \Big(\sum_{k\ge 0}|L_k f|^2\Big )^{1/2}\Big \|_r\lesssim \|f\|_r, \quad \Big\| \sum_{k\ge 0} L_k f_k\Big \|_r\lesssim \Big\|\Big(\sum_{k\ge 0} |L_k f_k|^2\Big)^{1/2}\Big \|_r\] for $1<r<\infty$ and the error term $E_k$ has $L^p\to L^q$ operator norm $O(2^{-k})$ for all $1\le p,q\le \infty$. Since $q'\le 2\le q$, a standard application of Littlewood-Paley inequalities in conjunction with Minkowski's inequalities allows us to deduce the endpoint estimate for $P_3$ when $m<2n-2$ and the $L^{q'}\to L^q$ bound for $q=\frac{9m+3}{3m+2}$ for the case $m=2n-1.$ The inequalities for $(1/p,1/q)$ on the interior parts of the edges $P_1P_3$ and $P_2P_3$ follow by interpolation.
When $q=3$ and $m=2n-2$, we still get uniform bounds for ${\mathcal {A}}_t^k$
on the interiors of $P_1P_3$ and $P_2P_3$,
and interpolating \eqref{eq:q=3} with $L^1\to L^1$ and $L^\infty\to L^\infty$ bounds gives us sharp $L^p\to L^q$ estimates for ${\mathcal {A}}_t^k$ on these edges. The above Littlewood-Paley trick still works for those $(p^{-1},q^{-1})$ on the open edges which satisfy $p\le 2\le q$ and thus for those $(p^{-1},q^{-1})$ we get the $L^p\to L^q$ boundedness for the averages. A further interpolation finishes the argument.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:antidiag-max}
For the case $m+3<2n$ the above estimates \eqref{eq:interpol-allp} also give a sharp result for the $L^{q'} \to L^q$ estimate for the full maximal operator in Theorem \ref{thm:main}, without imposing the condition \eqref{eq:smallness-Lambda} on $\Lambda$. By applying \eqref{eq:Sobolev1D} for $q$ in place of $p$ we get \begin{equation} \label{eq:interpol-allp-max}
\|\sup_{t\in [1,2]} |{\mathcal {A}}^{k,\ell}_t f| \|_q \lesssim 2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m}{q})} 2^{\ell(\frac 3q-1)} \|f\|_{q'} ,\quad 2\le q\le\infty,
\end{equation} which implies $\|\sup_{t\in [1,2]} |{\mathcal {A}}^{k}_t f| \|_q \lesssim 2^{k(m+1-\frac{d+m}{q})} \|f\|_{q'} $ for $q>3$ and hence the $L^{q_0',1}\to L^{q_0,\infty}$ bound for the maximal operator $M$ for $q_0= \frac{d+m}{m+1}=\frac{2n+m}{m+1}$, provided that $\frac{d+m}{m+1}>3$, i.e. $m+3<2n$. Moreover one obtains the $L^{q'}\to L^q$ bound for $M$ in the range $2\le q<\frac{2(n+m)}{m+1}$ if $m+3\le 2n$.
\end{rem}
Finally we consider $L^p\to L^q$ bounds for $p\ne q'$ in
the case $m=2n-1$. To this end, we will now give a further estimate based on $L^2\to L^q$ estimates for oscillatory integral operators in \cite{GreenleafSeeger1994}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:L2-Lq-av} For $1\le p\le 2$, { $\tfrac 1q=\tfrac{d-1}{d}(1-\tfrac 1p), $}
\begin{equation}\label{eqL2Lq-av}
\|{\mathcal {A}}^k_t f\|_q \lesssim 2^{-k( d-1-\frac{d+m}{p})}\|f\|_p. \quad
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows by an interpolation between the trivial $L^1\to L^\infty$ estimate with operator norm $O(2^{k(m+1)} )$ and the $L^2\to L^{q_0}$ estimate with $q_0=\frac{2d}{d-1}$ and operator norm $\lesssim 2^{-k (d/q_0-(m+1)/2)} = 2^{-k(d-m-2)/2}$.
The $L^2\to L^{q_0} $ bound follows via Plancherel's theorem from the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{osc eqL2Lq-av}
\|T_k f(\cdot,t)\|_{q_0} \lesssim 2^{-k d/{q_0}} \|f\|_2, \quad q_0=\tfrac{2d}{d-1}. \end{equation}
This in turn is a consequence of \cite[Thm. 2.2]{GreenleafSeeger1994} once we show that
the $d-1$ dimensional conic variety $\Sigma^{\mathrm{fold}}_{x,t}= \{\nabla_x\Phi(x,t,y): \sigma(x,t,y)=0\} $ is a $d-1$ dimensional cone with $d-2$ nonvanishing principal curvatures everywhere (with $d=2n+m$).
Let $\Xi$ be as in \eqref{eq:Xidef} and let $\varPi\Xi\in {\mathbb {R}}^d $ be the spatial component of $\Xi$ (omitting the last component from $\Xi$).
Let \[y_{2n}={\mathfrak {y}}_{2n}(\bar y):= (t\La^{\bar y}-x^\intercal J^{\bar y})e_{2n}\] denote the solution of the equation $\sigma(x,t,y)=0$.
We define
\begin{align*}\xi(x,t,y',\bar y)&= \varPi\Xi(x,t,y',{\mathfrak {y}}_{2n}(\bar y), \bar y))\\&=
\begin{pmatrix}
PJ^{\bar y} P^\intercal y'- t g(\ttf)PJ^{\bar y}e_{2n}
\\
(t\La^{\bar y}-x^\intercal J^{\bar y}) e_{2n}+
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} (P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n})
\\
\bar y
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
From \eqref{eq:rank-condition} we see that
$\xi_{y_1}, \dots, \xi_{y_{2n-1} }, \xi_{y_{2n+1}},\dots, \xi_{y_{2n+m}} $ are linearly independent,
\detail{ or
\[ {\mathrm{rank}} \begin{pmatrix} xi_{y_1} &\dots& \xi_{y_{2n-1} } & \xi_{y_{2n+1}} &\dots & \xi_{y_{2n+m}}
\endpmatrix = 2n-1+m.
\]
}which establishes $\Sigma^{\mathrm{fold}}_{x,t}$ as a manifold of dimension $2n-1+m$.
\detail{We compute
\[ \xi_{y_j}
=\begin{pmatrix}
PJ^{\bar y} e_j+\partial_j g(\ttf) PJ^{\bar y} e_{2n}
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_j
\\
0
\end{pmatrix} ,\]
\[
\xi_{\bar y_i}=\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_iP^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf)PJ_ie_{2n}
\\
(t\La_i-x^\intercal J_i)e_{2n}
+ e_{2n}^\intercal J_i (P^\intercal y'-tg(\ttf) e_{2n}
\\
e_i^m
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\]}
We compute for $j,k\in\{1,\dots,2n\}$ and $i,l\in \{1,\dots,m\}$, \[
\quad \xi_{y_jy_k} = \begin{pmatrix} -t^{-1} \partial_{jk} g(\ttf) P J^{\bar y}e_{2n}\\0\\ 0\end{pmatrix}, \quad \xi_{y_j\bar y_i}=\begin{pmatrix}
PJ_i e_j+ \partial_jg(\ttf) PJ_ie_{2n}
\\
e_{2n}^\intercal J_i ( e_j +\partial_jg (\ttf) e_{2n})\\0\end{pmatrix}
\]
and $\xi_{\bar y_i\bar y_l}=0$.
Define the normal vector $\nu$ for $x'=y'$ by $\nu^\intercal =(\ubar \alpha^\intercal ,\bar \alpha^\intercal) $, and let $\alpha'=P\ubar \alpha$; so that
$\nu^\intercal \xi_{y_j}|_{x'=y'}=0$ for $j=1,\dots 2n-1$ and hence
$\ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_j=0$. Since $J^{\bar y}$ is invertible this implies that either $\ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_{2n}\neq 0$ or $\ubar \alpha=0$. But the latter possibility would also imply $\bar\alpha=0$ from the conditions $\inn{\nu}{\xi_{\bar y_i}}=0$. Hence we have $\gamma:= \ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_{2n}\neq 0$.
Let ${\mathcal {C}}$ denote the $(2n-1+m)\times (2n-1+m)$ curvature matrix with respect to the normal $\nu$, with entries
$\inn{\nu} {\xi_{y_jy_k} }$ where $j,k\in \{1,\dots, 2n+m\}\setminus\{2n\} $.
When $x'=y'$ it is given by
\begin{align*}{\mathcal {C}}|_{x'=y'}=\inn\nu{\xi_{yy}''}
&=\begin{pmatrix} -t^{-1} \gamma} \def\Ga{\Gamma I_{2n-1} &PM\\ M^\intercal P^\intercal &0\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{ with } \gamma = \ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_{2n} \neq 0,
\end{align*}
where
$M$ is the $2n\times m$ matrix with $m$ columns $\sum_{j=1}^{2n} (\alpha^\intercal J_ie_j)e_j=-J_i\ubar\alpha $ and hence
$PM$ is the $(2n-1)\times m$ matrix with columns $-PJ_i \ubar \alpha$, $i=1,\dots,m$.
Using a lower dimensional version of the factorization \eqref{eq:factorization}
we see that the rank of
${\mathcal {C}}$ at $x'=y'$ is equal to the rank of
\[
\begin{pmatrix} \gamma} \def\Ga{\Gamma I_{2n-1} &PM\\ 0_{m,2n-1}& -\gamma ^{-1} M^\intercal P^\intercal P M
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \gamma = \ubar \alpha^\intercal J^{\bar y} e_{2n}\]
that is, ${\mathrm{rank}}\,{\mathcal {C}}|_{x'=y'}=2n-1+ m-1=d-2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Conclusion of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans}] It remains to finish the argument for the
`off-diagonal' estimates in part (iii) of this theorem. Note that an $L^p\to L^q$ estimate implies an $L^{q'}\to L^{p'}$ estimate since the dual operator is similar with $J$ replaced by $-J$.
Let
$p_1=\frac{d+m}{d-1}$, and $q_1=\frac{d(d+m)}{(d-1)(m+1)}$.
Since $d=2n+m\ge m+2$, we have $p_1\le 2$ and $q_1\ge \frac{2d}{d-1}.$ Proposition \ref{prop:L2-Lq-av} yields the $L^{p_1}\to L^{q_1}$ boundedness of the operators ${\mathcal {A}}^k_t$ with norm uniform in $k$. The Littlewood-Paley arguments above also allow us to deduce the $L^{p_1}\to L^{q_1}$ boundedness of ${\mathcal {A}}_t$, since $p_1\le 2\le q_1$. For $m=2n-1$, we have $d=2n+m=2m+1$, and in this case,
$(\tfrac{1}{p_1},\tfrac 1{q_1} )= (\tfrac {2m}{3m+1}, \tfrac{2m^2+2m}{6m^2+5m+1})$
and
$(1- \tfrac{1}{q_1}, 1-\tfrac 1{p_1})= (\tfrac{4m^2+3m+1}{6m^2+5m+1}, \tfrac{m+1}{3m+1})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Necessary Conditions for maximal operators} \label{sec:sharpness}
We provide five counter-examples, corresponding to each edge of the quadrilateral $\mathcal{R}$ for the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}^n$ (in particular, $m=1$), and one for the point $Q_2$. These show the necessity of all the conditions
in Theorem \ref{thm:maximal} and of some of the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
The first four are suitable modifications of those in \cite{SchlagSogge1997} for the Euclidean case, which were in turn adapted from standard examples for spherical means and maximal functions. These examples will be presented for all M\'etivier groups. {The fifth example seems to be new; it replaces the Knapp type example in the Euclidean case.}
\subsection{The line connecting \texorpdfstring{$Q_1$ and $Q_2$}{Q1 and Q2}} This is the necessary condition $p\leq q$ imposed by translation invariance and noncompactness of the group $G$ (see \cite{hormander1960} for the analogous argument in the Euclidean case).
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{The line connecting $Q_2$ and $Q_3$}{The line connecting Q2 and Q3}} \label{sec:Q2Q3}
Let $B_{\delta}$ be the ball of radius $\delta$ centered at the origin. Let $f_{\delta}$ be the characteristic function of $B_{10\delta}$. Then \[\|f_{\delta}\|_p\approx \delta^{(2n+m)/p}.\] Let $C_\circ:=10(1+\|\La\|+\max_i\|J_i\|)$. For $1\le t\le 2$ we consider the sets
\[ R_{\delta,t}:= \{(\ubar{x}, \bar x) : ||\ubar x|-t|\le \delta/C_\circ,\,|\bar x-t\La\ubar x|\le \delta/C_\circ\}.\]
Then $|R_{\delta,t} |\gtrsim \delta^{m+1} $.
Let $\Sigma_{x,t}= \{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega \in S^{2n-1}: |\ubar x-t \omega} \def\Om{\Omega|\le \delta/4\} $ which has spherical measure $\approx \delta^{2n-1}$.
If $x\in R_{\delta,t}$ and $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega \in \Sigma_{x,t}$ then $|\ubar x-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega |\le \delta$ and
\[|\bar x- t \ubar x^\intercal J \omega} \def\Om{\Omega-t^2\La\omega} \def\Om{\Omega| \le
|\bar x-t \La\ubar x |+|\ubar x^\intercal J(t \omega} \def\Om{\Omega - \ubar x)| + t|\La(t \omega} \def\Om{\Omega- \ubar x)| \le 3\delta\]
(here we have used the skew symmetry of the $J_i$). We get
\[f_{\delta}*\sigma_t(\ubar{x},\bar{x})=\int_{S^{2n-1}} f_{\delta}(\ubar{x}-t{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega},\bar{x}-t\ubar{x}^\intercal\! J{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}-t^2\La \omega} \def\Om{\Omega)\,d\sigma({\omega} \def\Om{\Omega})\gtrsim \delta^{2n-1}\]
for $x\in R_{\delta,t}$.
Passing to the maximal operator we consider $|\ubar x|\in [1,2]$ and put $t(x)=|\ubar x|$. Then setting
\[R_\delta= \big\{x: 1\le |\ubar x|\le 2,\, \big|\bar x- |\ubar x|\Lambda \ubar x\big | \le \delta/C_\circ\big\} \]
we have $| R_\delta|\gtrsim\delta^{m} $ and $|f_\delta*\sigma_{t(x)}(x)|\ge \delta^{2n-1} $ for $x\in R_{\delta}$.
This yields the inequality
\[\delta^{2n-1}\delta^{m/q}\lesssim \delta^{(2n+m)/p},\]
and consequently, the necessary condition
\begin{equation}
\label{ball ineq}
\frac{m}{q}+2n-1\geq \frac{2n+m}{p},
\end{equation}
that is, $(1/p,1/q)$ lies on or above the line connecting $Q_2$ and $Q_3$.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{The point $Q_2$}{The point Q2}}
For $p=p_2:=\frac{2n}{2n-1}=\frac{d-m}{d-m-1}$ the $L^p\to L^p$ bound fails. Here one uses a modification of Stein's example \cite{SteinPNAS1976} for the Euclidean spherical maximal function.
One considers the function $f_\alpha$ defined by $f_\alpha(\ubar v,v_{2n+1})= |\ubar v|^{-\frac{2n}{p_2}} |\log |v||^{-\alpha} $ for $|\ubar v|\le 1/2$, $|v_{2n+1} |\le 1$ which belongs to $L^{p_2}$ for $\alpha>1/p_2$. One finds that if $t(\ubar x)=|\ubar x|$ then for
$\alpha<1$ the integrals $f*\sigma_{t(x)}(x)$ are $\infty$ on a set of positive measure. If one choose $\alpha$ close to $1$ this also shows that $M$ does not map any of the Lorentz spaces $L^{p_2,q}$ for $q<\infty$ to $L^{p_2,\infty}$.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{The line connecting $Q_1$ and $Q_4$}{The line connecting Q1 and Q4}} \label{sec:Q1Q4} For this line we just use the counterexample for the individual averaging operators, bounding the maximal function from below by an averaging operator.
Given $t\in [1,2]$, let $g_{\delta,t}$ be the characteristic function of the set
$\{(\ubar{y},\bar{y}): | |\ubar{y}|-t|\le C_0\delta, |\bar{y}-t\La\ubar y|\le C_0\delta\}$ with $C_0=10 \sum_{i=1}^m \|J_i\|$. Thus $\|g_{\delta,t}\|_p\lesssim \delta^{(m+1)/p}. $
Let $x=(\ubar{x},\bar{x})$ be such that $|\ubar x|\le \delta$ and $|\bar x-t\La \ubar x| \le \delta$. For any $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega\in S^{2n-1}$, we have that
$t|\ubar{x}^\intercal J{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}|\lesssim 2\delta$. Thus
\begin{gather*} \big||\ubar{x}-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega|-t\big|\le 2 \delta\\
\big|\bar x-t \ubar x^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega-t^2\La \omega} \def\Om{\Omega- t\La (\ubar x-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega) \big| \le |\bar x-t\La\ubar x|+t|x^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega| \le C_0 \delta \end{gather*}
implying that $|g_{\delta,t}*\sigma_t(x)|\gtrsim 1$.
This yields the inequality $\delta^{(2n+m)/q}\le \delta^{(m+1)/p} $ which leads to the necessary condition
\begin{equation}
\label{scaling ineq}
\frac {1}{q} \ge \frac{m+1}{2n+m} \frac 1p,
\end{equation} that is, $(1/p,1/q)$ lies on or above the line connecting $Q_1$ and $Q_4$.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{The line connecting $Q_3$ and $Q_4$, $m=1$}{The line connecting Q3 and Q4, m=1}} \label{sec:Q3Q4}
We now consider the case $m=1$; after a change of variables we may assume that the skew symmetric matrix $J$ satisfies the Heisenberg condition $J^2=-I$. Pick a unit vector $u\in {\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$ so that $\La^\intercal \in {\mathbb {R}} u$, and set $v= Ju/\|Ju\|$ (thus $\inn{u}{v}=0$). Let $V=\mathrm{span}\{u,v\}$ and let $V^\perp$ denote the orthogonal complement of $V$ in ${\mathbb {R}}^{2n}$. Finally, let $\pi, \pi_\perp$ be the orthogonal projection to $V, V^\perp$ respectively. Note that $J$ maps $V$ into itself, since $J^2=-I$, and since $J$ is skew-symmetric it also maps $V^\perp$ into itself.
For sufficiently large $C_1$ (say, $C_1=10(2+\|\La\|))$ and small $\delta \ll C_1^{-1}$ let \[Q_\delta=\{(\ubar y, y_d): |\pi_{\perp} (\ubar y)|\le C_1\delta^{1/2}, \,|\pi (\ubar y)|\le C_1\delta,\, |y_d|\le C_1\delta\}.
\] Let $f_\delta= {\mathbbm 1}_{Q_\delta}$, so that $\|f_\delta\|_p^p\lesssim \delta^{(2n-2)/2+3}$, i.e. $\|f_\delta\|_p\lesssim\delta^{(n+2)/p}$.
For $1\le t\le 2$, let
\begin{multline*} R^t_\delta=\big\{ ({\ubar x},x_d): |\pi_\perp( {\ubar x})|\le \delta^{1/2},\,
\big||\pi( \ubar x)|-t\big|\le \delta,\, |x_d-t\La \ubar x|\le \delta, \\
1/4 <\inn{\ubar x}{u}, \inn {\ubar x}{v}<3/4\big\}
\end{multline*} and let
$R_\delta=\cup_{9/8\le t\le 15/8} R^t_\delta$. Then $|R_\delta| \approx \delta^{(2n-2)/2 +2} \delta^{-1}=\delta^n$.
For $x\in R_\delta$,
we derive a lower bound for $\sigma_{t(x)}* f_\delta(x)$, setting $t(x):= |\pi(\ubar x)|$.
Let \[S_{x}=\{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega\in S^{2n-1}: |\pi_\perp(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)|\le \delta^{1/2}, \big|\inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{u}- \frac{\inn{\ubar x}{u}}{|\pi(\ubar x)|}\big|\le \delta , \, \inn{ \omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{v}>0\} ,\]
which has spherical measure $\gtrsim \delta^{(2n-2)/2 +1 }=\delta^n $.
For $x\in R_\delta$, $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega\in S_x$, $t(x)= |\pi(\ubar x)|$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:piperpest} |\pi_\perp(\ubar x-t(x)\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)|\le 3\delta^{1/2}\end{equation} and \[ |\inn{\ubar x-t(x)\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{u} | \le \delta. \]
Since $\omega} \def\Om{\Omega \in S^{2n-1}$, $\inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{v}>0$ and
$\inn{\ubar x}{u}, \inn{\ubar x}{v} \in [1/4, 3/4] $,
we also get
\begin{multline*}
\big|\inn{\ubar x-t(x)\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{v} \big |\le 2\Big |\frac{\inn{\ubar x}{v}}{|\pi(\ubar x)|}-\inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{v} \Big |\le 8\Big| \frac{\inn{\ubar x}{v} ^2}{|\pi(\ubar x)|^2} - \inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{v}^2\Big| \\= 8\Big|1- \frac{\inn{\ubar x}{u} ^2}{|\pi(\ubar x)|^2} -1+ \inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{u}^2+|\pi_\perp(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)|^2\Big|\le 8
\big|\inn{\omega} \def\Om{\Omega}{u}- \frac{\inn{\ubar x}{u}}{|\pi(\ubar x)|}\big|+8\delta^2 \le 9\delta.
\end{multline*}
Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:piest} |\pi(x-t(x)\omega) | \le 10 \delta, \quad \omega} \def\Om{\Omega \in S_x.\end{equation}
Now, since $J$ acts on $V$ and $V^\perp$,
\[ x^\intercal J\omega= (x-t(x) \omega)^\intercal J\omega
=
(\pi(x-t(x) \omega))^\intercal J\omega + (\pi_\perp (x-t(x)\omega))^\intercal J (\pi_ \perp \omega)
\] and thus from \eqref{eq:piperpest} and \eqref{eq:piest}.
\[ |x^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega| \le \delta+ 3\delta^{1/2} \delta^{1/2} =4\delta, \text{ $\omega\in S_x$. }
\]
From this we finally we obtain, writing $x_d-t^2\La\omega} \def\Om{\Omega= x_d-t\La(\ubar x)+t\La(\ubar x-t\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)$ and using that $\La^\intercal\in V$,
\[ |x_d-t(x){\ubar x}^\intercal J\omega} \def\Om{\Omega -t(x)^2\La \omega} \def\Om{\Omega| \le |x_d-t(x) \La\ubar x|+t(x)\|\La\|
|\pi(\ubar x-t(x)\omega} \def\Om{\Omega)| +4\delta \le C \delta.\]
These inequalities imply
\begin{align*} M f_\delta(x) \ge f_\delta*\sigma_{t(x)} (x) &=\int_{S_x} f_\delta (\ubar x-t(x)\omega} \def\Om{\Omega, x_d-t(x) \ubar x^\intercal J \omega} \def\Om{\Omega -t(x)^2 \La\omega} \def\Om{\Omega) d\sigma(\omega} \def\Om{\Omega) \\& \ge |S_x|\gtrsim \delta^n \text{ for $x\in R_\delta$}.
\end{align*} Hence we get
\[\|Mf_\delta\|_q/\|f_\delta\|_p \gtrsim |R_\delta|^{1/q} \delta^n \delta^{-(n+2)/p} \gtrsim \delta^{n/q+n-(n+2)/p}
\] and letting $\delta\to 0$, we obtain the necessary condition
\begin{equation}
\label{knapp ineq}
\frac{n}{q}+n\geq \frac{n+2}{p},
\end{equation}
that is, the necessary condition for $m=1$ is that $(1/p,1/q)$ lies on or above the line connecting $Q_3$ and $Q_4$.
\section{Necessary conditions for averaging operators} \label{sec:sharpness-II}
We now prove the necessity of the conditions in Corollary \ref{cor:sphmeans}, and of some of the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans}.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Necessary condition for $n\ge 2$ and $m\le 2n-2$}{Necessary condition in higher dimensions}} For $n\ge 2$ the sharpness of Theorem \ref{thm:sphmeans} follows from the considerations in \S \ref{sec:sharpness}.
Concerning the line $Q_2Q_3$ we use the example in \S\ref{sec:Q2Q3} to get
\[\|f_\delta*\sigma_t\|_q \ge \delta^{2n-1+ (m+1)/q-(2n+m)/p} \|f_\delta\|_p\]
which gives the necessary condition $ \frac{2n+m}{p}- \frac{m+1}q \le 2n-1.$
The calculation in \S\ref{sec:Q1Q4} only involves the averaging operator and yields
the necessary condition $\frac 1q\ge \frac{m+1}{2n+m} \frac 1p$.
\subsection{Sharpness for \texorpdfstring{$n=1$}{n=1}}
\label{sec:sharpness-n=1} Here we can assume by a change of variables that $\La=0$ and that $x^\intercal Jy=x_2y_1-x_1y_2$. We now consider the circular means on $G={\mathbb {H}}^1$ given by
\[Af(x)=\int f(x_1-\cos s, x_2-\sin s, x_3-x_2\cos s+x_1\sin s)\, ds.\]
We need to prove the necessary condition \begin{equation} \label{necH1}
6(1/p-1/q)\le 1,\end{equation} i.e. $(1/p,1/q)$ cannot lie below the line connecting the points $(1/2,1/3)$ and $(2/3,1/2)$.
This is
in analogy with the situation for integrals along the moment curve $(s,s^2,s^3)$ in the Euclidean situation of ${\mathbb {R}}^3$; there the operator is tested on indicator functions of $(\delta, \delta^2,\delta^3)$-boxes. We show how to modify that example in our situation.
Let $f_\delta$ be the indicator function of the parallelepiped \[P_\delta=\{(y: |y_1|\le (2\delta)^2,\,\, |y_2|\le 2\delta,\,\, |y_3+y_2|\le (2\delta)^3 \}
\]
and
\[ V_\delta=\{x: |x_1-1|\le \delta^2,\,\, |x_2|\le \delta, |x_3| \le \delta^3\}. \]
For $|s|\le \delta$, and $x\in V_\delta$ we have
\begin{align*}
&|x_1-\cos s| \le |x_1-1|+ \frac{s^2}{2}+ s^3\le 3\delta^2
\\
&|x_2-\sin s|\le |x_2|+|\sin s| \le 2\delta
\end{align*} and
\begin{multline*}
|x_3-x_2\cos s+x_1\sin s)+ (x_2-\sin s)|\\ \le
|x_3|+ |x_2||1-\cos s|+|\sin s||x_1-1|\le 3\delta^3
\end{multline*}
Thus if $y=
(x_1-\cos s, x_2-\sin s, x_3-x_2\cos s+x_1\sin s)$ for $0\le s\le \delta$ and $x\in V_\delta$, then $y\in P_\delta$ and thus $Af_\delta(x)\ge \delta$. Hence
\[\|Af_\delta\|_q\ge
|V_\delta|^{1/q} \delta= \delta^{1+6/q}\]
and since
$\|f_\delta\|_p=|P_\delta|^{1/p} \lesssim \delta^{6/p}$, we obtain the necessary condition \eqref{necH1}.
\section{Implications for sparse bounds}\label{sec:sparse}
As mentioned in the introduction one principal goal of \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} was to derive for the {global} maximal operator ${\mathfrak {M}}$ inequalities of the form
\begin{equation}\label{sparse-bound} \int_{{\mathbb {H}}^n} {\mathfrak {M}} f(x) w(x) dx \le C\sup\big\{ \La_{{\mathcal {S}}, p_1,p_2} (f,w) :\,{{\mathcal {S}}\, \mathrm{sparse}} \big\},
\end{equation}
where the supremum is taken over {\it sparse families } of nonisotropic Heisenberg cubes
(see \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} for precise definitions and constructions) and the sparse forms $\La_{{\mathfrak {S}},p_1,p_2} $ are
given by
\[\La_{{\mathcal {S}},p_1,p_2} (f,w) = \sum_{S\in {\mathcal {S}}} |S| \Big(\frac{1}{|S|} \int|f|^{p_1}\Big)^{1/p_1} \Big(\frac{1}{|S|} \int_S |f|^{p_2} \Big)^{1/p_2}.\]
Relying entirely on arguments in \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} and using our $L^p\to L^q$ bounds we can show
that the sparse bound \eqref{sparse-bound}
holds if $(1/p_1, 1-1/p_2)$ lies in the interior of the quadrilateral $Q_1Q_2Q_3Q_4$ in
\eqref{quadrilateral} (or on the open line segment $Q_1Q_2$), a result which is sharp up to the boundary.
For the proof of sparse bounds for the global maximal operator the relevance of $L^p\to L^q$ results of localized maximal functions was recognized by Lacey \cite{laceyJdA19} in his work on the Euclidean spherical maximal function.
Here we mention that the recent paper \cite{BeltranRoosSeeger} gives very general results about this correspondence for the Euclidean geometry; Theorem 1.4 of that paper is of particular relevance here (see also \cite{conde-alonso-etal2} for some results in spaces of homogeneous type). Moreover we refer to \cite{BeltranRoosSeeger} for general results about necessary conditions.
For the proof of \eqref{sparse-bound} we use the argument in \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu}. One needs to supplement the $L^p\to L^q$ bounds for the local maximal operator by a mild regularity result, namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eps-regularity result} \sup_{|h|\le 1}|h|^{-\varepsilon} \big\|\sup_{t\in [1,2] } |(\tau_h f-f) *\ci J\mu_t| \big\|_q \lesssim \|f\|_p
\end{equation} for some $\varepsilon>0$; here $\tau_h$
\detail{$\tau_h f(y)=f(y \cdot h^{-1})$}
is the right translation operator, i.e. $\tau_h f(y)= f(\ubar y-\ubar h, \bar y-\bar h-\ubar y^\intercal J\ubar h)$. One also needs to verify a dual condition which in our case is implied by \eqref{eq:eps-regularity result} and the symmetry of the sphere.
If $(1/p,1/q)$ belongs to the interior of the boundedness region in Theorem \ref{thm:main} then our approach yields \eqref{eq:eps-regularity result} with an $\varepsilon(p,q)>0$. To
prove this one needs to show, by the localization argument in the beginning of \S\ref{sec:main-results} and the subsequent dyadic decomposition,
that the operator ${\mathcal {A}}^k$ in \eqref{eq:CalAk} satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:regularity=spt}\|{\mathcal {A}}^k (\tau_h f-f) \|_{L^q({\mathbb {R}}^d\times[1,2])} \lesssim 2^{-k(\frac 1q+a(p,q))} (2^{k}|h|)^{\varepsilon} \|f\|_p
\end{equation}
for $|h|\ll 1$ and
functions $f$ supported near the origin,
with $a(p,q)>0$ in the interior of the boundedness region. By taking means it suffices to prove this for $\varepsilon=0$ and $\varepsilon=1$. The case for $\varepsilon=0$ is immediate from the already proven results. For the case $\varepsilon=1$ we use a change of variables, followed by the fundamental theorem of calculus, and a change of variable again, with the fact that $(\tau_{s\underline h} \ubar y)^\intercal J_i \ubar h
= \ubar y^\intercal J_i \ubar h$
to write
\begin{multline*} 2^{-k(m+1)} {\mathcal {A}}^k [\tau_h f-f](x,t)\\=
\int_0^1 \int f(\tau_{sh}y) \int e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,y,\theta) } (2^k \beta_1+\beta_2)\Big|_{(h, x,t,y,\theta)} d\theta\, dy\, ds\end{multline*}
with
\begin{align*}
\beta_1(h,x,t,y,\theta) &= ib(x,t,y',\theta) \big[ \ubar h^\intercal \nabla_{\underline{y}} \Psi +
\bar h^\intercal \nabla_{\bar y}\Psi + {\ubar y}^\intercal J^{\nabla_{\bar y}\Psi } \ubar h \big]_{(x,t,y,\theta)},\\
\beta_2(h,x,t,y,\theta) &= (h')^\intercal \nabla_{y'} b|_{(x,t,y',\theta)}.
\end{align*}
\detail{ {\bf DETAIL:}
\begin{multline*} 2^{-k(m+1)} {\mathcal {A}}^k [\tau_h f-f](x,t)\\=
\int f(\ubar y-\ubar h, \bar y -\bar h-\ubar y^\intercal J\ubar h) \int e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,y,\theta) } b(x,t, y'+h', \theta) d\theta dy
\\- \int f(\ubar y), \bar y) \int e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,y,\theta) } b(x,t, y', \theta) d\theta dy
\\ =
\int \int f(\ubar z, \bar z) e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,\ubar z+\ubar h,\bar z+\bar h+\ubar z J\ubar h, \theta) } b(x,t, y'+h', \theta) dy d\theta
\\- \int\int f(\ubar z,\bar z) e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,z,\theta) } b(x,t, z', \theta) dz d\theta
\end{multline*}
using the shear transformation
$ (\ubar z, \bar z)= (\ubar y-\ubar h, \bar y -\bar h-\ubar y^\intercal J\ubar h)$
which gives
\[(\ubar y, \bar y) =(\ubar z+\ubar h, \bar z+\bar h+(\ubar z +\ubar h)^\intercal J\ubar h)
=(\ubar z+\ubar h, \bar z+\bar h+\ubar z^\intercal J\ubar h)
\]
Fix $(x,t),\theta $ and let \[G(\ubar z,\bar z)= G(x,t,\theta, \ubar z,\bar z)=e^{i 2^k\Psi(x,t,z,\theta) } b(x,t, z', \theta)\] and we have by the above,
setting $H(\ubar z)= (\ubar H, \bar H(z))= (\ubar h, \bar h+\ubar z^\intercal J\ubar h)$
\begin{multline*}
2^{-k(m+1)} {\mathcal {A}}^k [\tau_h f-f](x,t)\\= \int\int
f(\ubar z,\bar z) [G(x,t,\theta, z+ H(z)) - G(x,t,\theta, z)] dz d\theta\\
=\int\int
f(\ubar z,\bar z) \int_0^1 \inn{H(z)}{\nabla G(x,t,\theta, ..) }\big|_{(...)= z+sH(z)} ds dz d\theta
\end{multline*}
and
\[ \nabla_z G(x,t,\theta, z)= e^{i2^k\Psi(x,t,z,\theta) } (2^k i\nabla_z \Psi(x,t,z,\theta) b(x,t,z',\theta) + \nabla_z b(x,t,z',\theta) )
\]
So we see that
\begin{multline*}
2^{-k(m+1)} {\mathcal {A}}^k [\tau_h f-f](x,t)= \int_0^1\int \int f(\ubar z, \bar z)
e^{i2^k\Psi(x,t,z+sH(z) ,\theta) } \times\\
\big (2^k i \inn {H(z)} {\nabla_z\Psi}\big|_{(x,t,z+sH(z))} + \inn {h'}{\nabla_{z'} b}_{(x,t,z'+sh) } \big)dz d\theta ds
\end{multline*}
For fixed $\theta,s $ we change variables
we set $y=z+sH(z)$ with $\det(\frac{Dy}{Dz}=1$ and yields
\[(\ubar z, \bar z)=(\ubar y-sh, \bar y-s\bar h-(\ubar y-s\ubar h)^\intercal J (sh) )
=
(\ubar y-s\ubar h, \bar y-s\bar h-\ubar y^\intercal J (sh) )
\]
and $H(z) =s^{-1} (z-y)= (\ubar h, \bar h +\ubar y^\intercal Jh)$.
Hence
\begin{multline*}
2^{-k(m+1)} {\mathcal {A}}^k [\tau_h f-f](x,t)= \int_0^1\int \int f(\ubar y-\ubar sh, \bar y-s\bar h-\ubar y^\intercal J(sh) )
e^{i2^k\Psi(x,t,y,\theta) } \times\\
\Big(
i2^k b(x,t,y',\theta) \big(\inn{\ubar h} {\nabla_{\underline y} \Psi (x,t,y,\theta) }
+\inn{\bar h} {\nabla_{\bar y} \Psi (x,t,y,\theta)} \\
+ \sum_{i=1}^m \inn{\ubar y^\intercal J_i h} {\partial_{\bar y_i} \Psi(x,t,y,\theta)} \big)
+ \inn {h'}{\nabla_{y'} b(x,t,y',\theta) }\Big)
dy d\theta ds
\end{multline*}
}
Thus, taking into account the explicit form of the phase function \eqref{phasedefn},
one can reduce the case for $\varepsilon=1$ in \eqref{eq:regularity=spt} to estimates for operators of the form \eqref{eq:CalAk} already handled (note that here $\nabla_{\bar y} \Psi=-\theta$).
Finally, by similar arguments one gets
the regularity result for fixed $t$,
\[ \|{\mathcal {A}}_t^k (\tau_h f-f) \|_{L^q({\mathbb {R}}^d)} \lesssim 2^{-kb(p,q)} (2^k|h|)^{\varepsilon} \|f\|_p
\]
where $b(p,q)>0$ in the interior of the boundedness region in Corollary \ref{cor:sphmeans}. Again, using the reasoning in \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} this yields
an improved sparse bound for the lacunary maximal function, namely
\begin{equation}\label{sparse-bound-lac} \int_{{\mathbb {H}}^n} \sup_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}|f*\mu_{2^k} (x)|
w(x) dx \le C\sup
\big\{ \La_{{\mathcal {S}}, p_1,p_2} (f,w):\, {{\mathcal {S}}\, \mathrm{sparse}} \big\}\end{equation}
whenever $(1/p_1, 1-1/p_2)$ belongs to the interior of the boundedness region in Corollary \ref{cor:sphmeans}.
\begin{remarka}
The reader may wonder whether it is necessary to use the sparse bounds as in \cite{BagchiHaitRoncalThangavelu} for the proof of $L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)\to L^p({\mathbb {H}}^n)$ bounds for the lacunary spherical maximal function, for $1<p\le\infty$ and $n\ge 1$. We are grateful to both Luz Roncal and an anonymous referee for raising this question. Indeed a more direct proof can be given; on can for example modify the arguments in \cite{MuellerSeeger2004}; alternatively one can rely on a straightforward modification of the Calder\'on-Zygmund arguments in
\cite[\S6]{AndersonCladekPramanikSeeger}.
\end{remarka}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Introduction}
Extreme examples of variability in active galactic nuclei (AGN) are
increasingly common, thanks to ground-based monitoring and soft and
hard X-ray monitoring with Swift (e.g., Frederick et al.\ 2020,
Kaastra et al.\ 2014). This poses some problems, but also some
opportunities. A growing number of AGN are classified as
``changing-look'' AGN, for instance, and it is important to understand
whether these cases represent sudden geometric changes or evolution
that is consistent with state transitions in stellar-mass black holes
(e.g., Yang et al.\ 2018). Separately, it is important but difficult
to distinguish flares due to regular accretion processes from genuine
tidal disruption events (TDEs; see, e.g., Trakhtenbrot et al.\ 2019,
van Velzen et al.\ 2021). Sources that have undergone an extreme
evolution over relatively long time scales, and/or sources that may
still exhibit transitional geometrical phases, may offer key insights
into those that change rapidly.
Markarian 817 is a nearby Seyfert galaxy ($z=0.03145$; Strauss \&
Huchra 1988). Recent work suggests that it should be classified as a
Seyfert 1.2 (e.g., Koss et al.\ 2017). The active nucleus sits within
a barred spiral that is seen close to face-on, not atypical of
optically selected unobscured Seyferts (e.g., McLeod \& Rieke 1995,
Knapen et al.\ 2000). Hubble images show evidence of dust along the
bar (Pogge \& Martini 2002). The mass of the central black hole in
Mrk 817 has been determined using optical reverberation mapping:
$M_{BH} = 4.9\pm 0.8 \times 10^{7}~M_{\odot}$ (Peterson et al.\ 2004).
Winter et al.\ (2011) showed that the X-ray flux of Mrk 817 grew by a
factor of 40 between 1990 and 2011; however, the UV flux of the source
varied by only $\sim$ 2.3 over the same period. This result is
difficult to explain in terms of standard disk and corona models,
since the disk (seen in UV) is expected to seed a Comptonizing corona
(seen in X-rays). Recent monitoring with the Neil Gehrels Swift
Observatory confirms and extends this result: the X-ray and UV
continuum fluxes are also uncorrelated on time scales of just weeks
and days (Morales et al.\ 2019).
To better understand Mrk 817, it may be instructive to consider broad
absorption line quasars (BALQSOs). The force multiplier effects that
enable radiation pressure on lines to expel gas at very high speeds
are only possible if the gas does not become too highly ionized (e.g.,
Proga 2003). It now appears that this class is comprised of some
cases wherein the intrinsic X-ray flux is extremely low, and other
cases wherein the UV flow is shielded from the X-ray corona (Luo et
al.\ 2013, 2014; also see Baskin et al.\ 2014). In the case of Mrk
817, the corona is no longer faint, but scattering or a shielding
geometry may be a plausible means of decoupling the UV and X-ray flux.
Relativistic reflection is often employed to measure black hole spin,
but it is also a powerful probe of the innermost accretion flow
geometry. In Swift J1644$+$57, for instance, a broad but blue-shifted
Fe K line likely signals reflection from an outflowing funnel, defined
by a thick hyper-Eddington accretion disk (Kara et al.\ 2016). In
less extreme cases, the emissivity profile can indicate
whether the corona is point-like or extended (see, e.g., Wilkins \&
Fabian 2012). Alternatively, if a wind from the inner disk is
responsible for dampening feedback between the corona and disk, this
may be detected in X-ray absorption.
The NuSTAR observatory (Harrison et al. 2013) has proved to be an
extremely effective means of studying both relativistic reflection
(Miller et al.\ 2013a,b; Tomsick et al.\ 2014, Walton et al.\ 2014,
Zoghbi et al.\ 2015) and X-ray winds (e.g., King et al.\ 2014, Nardini
et al.\ 2015). With the goal of understanding the innermost accretion
flow in Mrk 817, we obtained a deep observation of Mrk 817
with NuSTAR, complemented by a simultaneous Swift snapshot. Owing to
the fact that Mrk 817 was much fainter than other Seyferts in the
formative years of X-ray astronomy, our NuSTAR observation represents
the first deep exposure of this source with a modern X-ray telescope.
The following section details the observations and how the data were
reduced. The analysis and results are presented in Section 3. We
discuss our results in Section 4.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}
The long NuSTAR observation of Mrk 817 started on 18 December 2020, at
04:56:09 UTC (observation 60601007002). The contemporaneous Swift
snapshot observation started on 19 December 2020, at 00:46:15
UTC (observation 0008904001). The observations were reduced using the
tools in HEASOFT version 28, and the latest corresponding CALDB files
as of 4 January 2021.
NuSTAR data products were built from the cleaned FPMA and FPMB event
files, using the \texttt{nuproducts} routine. Source events were
extracted from circular regions with radii of 120 arc seconds,
centered on the source position. Background regions of equivalent
size were selected away from the source. After filtering, the net
exposure time was 134.7~ks and the average count rate is 0.74~c/s
(FPMA and FPMB combined).
Swift XRT products were built from the ``photon counting'' mode
data, owing to the modest flux from Mrk 817. Source events were
extracted from a circular region with a radius of 30 pixels, centered
on the source; background events were extracted from an equivalent
region away from the source. After filtering, the net exposure time
is 2.12~ks, and the average count rate is 0.095~c/s.
\section{Analysis \& Results}
The NuSTAR light curves of Mrk 817 show the variable ``flickering''
behavior that is typical of Seyferts. There are no strong flares,
dips, or overall trends in the data; this is consistent with
expectations for a fairly massive black hole not undergoing
hyper-Eddington accretion (see Figure 1). We therefore analyzed the
time-averaged spectra from the observations. Low-energy differences
between the FPMA and FPMB (Madsen et al.\ 2020) have been resolved in
recent CALDB releases, so we combined the time-averaged FPMA and FPMB
spectra and responses using the tools \texttt{addascaspec} and
\texttt{addrmf}.
The spectra from NuSTAR and Swift have very different levels of
sensitivity, and require different binning methods in order to achieve
an optimal balance between continuum and line sensitivity. After
experimenting with various schemes, we elected to bin the combined
NuSTAR spectrum to a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 20 using the
tool \texttt{ftgrouppha} (based on the work of Kaastra \& Bleeker
2016). The Swift/XRT spectrum only contains 200 counts, so we simply
grouped to require a minimum of 10 counts per bin (following Cash
1979) using the tool \texttt{grppha}. Initial fits with
simple power-law models determined that the source is likely only
detected out to 50~keV; the NuSTAR spectrum was then fit
over the 3--50~keV band. The Swift/XRT spectrum is insensitive above
7~keV, so it was fit over the 0.3--7.0~keV band. The fits minimized
the $\chi^{2}$ statistic and the F-test was used to evaluate
improvements between nested models.
Figure 2 shows the spectra and data/model ratios obtained when the
data are jointly fit with a simple power-law model over the full band,
allowing the flux normalizations to vary. The resulting fit is
unacceptable: $\chi^{2} = 710.7$ for $\nu = 154$ degrees of freedom
($\chi^{2}/\nu = 4.61$). The ratios show strong evidence of a
relativistic Fe K emission line and disk reflection, as well as
evidence of low-energy absorption. We therefore proceeded to model
the spectra in terms of relativistically blurred disk reflection,
modified by absorption that may be intrinsic to a disk wind or more
distant absorber.
To fit the reflection spectrum, we used \texttt{relxillD}, a variation
of the \texttt{relxill} model that allows the density of the disk to
vary (e.g., Garcia et al.\ 2014, Dauser et al.\ 2016). The key
parameters of this model include the inner and outer emissivity
indices and the corresponding break radius (with a sign convention
given by $J \propto r^{-q}$), the dimensionless spin of the black hole
($a = cJ/GM^{2}$), the inclination at which the disk is viewed, the
inner and outer radii of the reflector, the systemic redshift, the
power-law index of the illuminating spectrum, the log of the
ionization parameter of the disk ($\xi = L/nr^{2}$), the abundance of
Fe relative to solar, the log of the number density of the disk, the
``reflection fraction'' (the relative importance of the reflection and
continuum), and the flux normalization of the component. The
high-energy cut-off in this model is fixed at $E = 300$~keV.
Broadly following theoretical work (Wilkins \& Fabian 2012), we
constrained the inner emissivity to lie in the range $3\leq q_{in}
\leq 10$, the outer emissivity to lie in the range $0 \leq q_{out}
\leq 3$, and the break radius to lie within $2 \leq r_{br} \leq 6$ (in
units of $GM/c^{2}$). The spin and inclination were allowed to vary
freely. The inner disk radius was initially fixed at the innermost
stable circular orbit. The outer disk radius was fixed at the maximum
value allowed by the model ($r_{out} = 990~GM/c^{2}$). The power-law
index, ionization, Fe abundance, reflection fraction, and flux
normalization were all permitted to vary freely. The reflector
density was initially fixed at ${\rm log n} = 15.0$, the same value
assumed in the default version of \texttt{relxill} and the related
\texttt{xillver} model.
To model the low-energy absorption, we employed \texttt{zxipcf}
(Reeves et al.\ 2008). This is an absorption model based on
executions of XSTAR (e.g., Kallman et al.\ 2009), which is also the
basis of \texttt{relxill}. The key parameters of this component are
the absorber column density ($N_{H}$), the log of the ionization
parameter ($\xi = L/nr^{2}$), and the velocity shift of the absorber.
The maximum allowed redshift was set to that of the host galaxy, but
was allowed to vary freely in the other direction (corresponding to
outflows in the frame of the host).
This model achieves an excellent fit to the spectrum, $\chi^{2}/\nu =
150.9/142 = 1.070$. This is sufficiently close to unity that it
strongly implies that no additional model complexity is justified.
The measured X-ray flux in the 0.3--50~keV band is $F_{X} = 2.6(2)
\times 10^{-11}~ {\rm erg}~ {\rm cm}^{-2}~ {\rm s}^{-1}$ ($1\sigma$
errors are quoted throughout this work), implying an X-ray luminosity
of $L_{X} = 6.2(6) \times 10^{43}~{\rm erg}~ {\rm s}^{-1}$. Assuming
a bolometric correction of $L_{bol}/L_{X} = 15$ (Vasudevan et
al.\ 2009), this translates to $L_{bol} \sim 9.2\times 10^{44}~{\rm
erg}~ {\rm s}^{-1}$, or an Eddington fraction of $\lambda \sim
0.14$.
Table 1 lists the results of fits with this model. The fit is shown
in Figure 3, alongside the underlying model. The emissivity
parameters are fairly standard, and commensurate with expectations if
the corona is central and compact, and if the black hole has at least
a moderate spin (e.g., Wilkins \& Fabian 2012). The spin parameter is
measured to be $a = 0.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$. The $3\sigma$ upper limit on
the spin includes $a=0.99$, so maximal spin is not excluded. However,
a spin of $a=0$ lies beyond the $4\sigma$ level of confidence. The
inclination of the innermost disk is measured to be very low, $\theta
= 19^{+3}_{-4}$ degrees. At $\Gamma = 2.10^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$, the
power-law index is within the range observed in samples of Seyferts
(Nandra et al.\ 2007). The Fe abundance is found to be elevated, but
it is not strongly constrained, and this inference could be related to
the density assumed in the model (see, e.g., Jiang et al.\ 2019). The
reflection fraction is also found to have a standard value, again
pointing to a typical innermost accretion flow geometry.
When the spectra are instead fit assuming a reflector density of ${\rm
log}~n = 16.0$, the fit statistic is slightly worse ($\chi^{2} =
159.6$), but it becomes progressively worse at higher densities. In
none of these cases does the best-fit iron abundance drop below
$A_{Fe} = 2$, however, suggesting that the fit is more sensitive to
the abundance than the density. A conservative characterization of
our results is that the reflector density is in the ${\rm log}n \simeq
15-16$ range, and the Fe abundance is slightly but not dramatically
elevated relative to solar values.
When the \texttt{relxillD} model is replaced with \texttt{relxilllp},
which explicitly assumes a point-like emitter and lamp-post geometry,
with prescribed reflection fractions, an inferior fit is achieved
($\chi^{2}/\nu = 170.7/144$). However, consistent values are measured
for the spin of the black hole and the inclination at which the inner
disk is viewed ($a=0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$, $\theta=18\pm3$~deg.). The
height of the lamp-post is measured to be $6\pm 1~GM/c^{2}$. Unlike
the tests described above, this model is not nested, and it is not
clear that the F-statistic is appropriate. However, using the F-test,
the \texttt{relxillD} model is only preferred at the 3.8$\sigma$ level
of confidence. This could be regarded as tentative evidence that the
corona is not an idealized lamp-post, but still compact. We note that
it is nominally possible to fit for the cut-off energy with
\texttt{relxilllp}, but the data are unable to constrain this
parameter well, so we fit with $E=300$~keV fixed.
To evaluate the level at which relativistic reflection is required
over distant reflection (from the BLR and/or torus), we replaced the
\texttt{relxill} with its basis model, \texttt{xillver}. The
parameters of this model are the same as \texttt{relxill}, but it
lacks the spin and emissivity parameters that define relativistic
blurring. Allowing all of the reflection and absorber parameters to
vary, a very poor fit is obtained: $\chi^{2}/\nu = 475.5/145$. Again,
this model is not nested and the F-test is not necessarily
appropriate, but the difference in $\chi^{2}$ is enormous, indicating
that relativistic blurring is required at far more than the $8\sigma$
level of confidence.
The ionized absorber is strongly required by the spectra, but its
parameters are not well constrained; this is unsurprising given the
low resolution of the data. Although the fit returns a very high
outflow velocity consistent with an ``ultra-fast outflow'' or UFO
($v/c\geq 0.1$; see, e.g., Tombesi et al.\ 2010), zero velocity shift
is within the 90\% confidence errors. Moreover, it is very unlikely
that the resolution and sensitivity of the spectra could reliably
determine the velocity shift. A conservative interpretation is that
the data allow for a UFO, but are consistent with a standard
low-velocity absorber.
The significance at which the absorber is required can be evaluated in
two ways. First, dividing the best-fit column density by the
$1\sigma$ error suggests a significance of $8\sigma$.
Second, setting the column density to the minimum allowed by the model
($5\times 10^{20}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$) and re-fitting gives $\Delta\chi^{2}
= 161$ for $\Delta\nu = 1$, which is far more than the $8\sigma$ level
of confidence as determined by the F-test.
Significant low-energy absorption was not reported in the XMM-Newton
snapshot observation of Mrk 817 (Winter et al.\ 2011), nor in the
Swift monitoring exposures (Morales et al.\ 2019). We therefore
examined various means by which absorption could be falsely implied:\\
\noindent$\bullet$ Cross calibration uncertainties between NuSTAR and
Swift could potentially skew the fitting results. However, the
normalization of the \texttt{relxill} component in the Swift/XRT
spectrum is only 7\% lower than the NuSTAR spectrum in our model.
Moreover, if the normalizations are instead linked, absorption is even
more strongly required in the fit.
\noindent$\bullet$ Photon pile-up in CCD detectors leads to
artificially hard continua (Davis 2001). To assess whether or not this
effect could have created a mismatch in the instrumental continua that
falsely implies absorption, we re-reduced the Swift/XRT data accepting
only ``grade=0'' events (single pixel strikes, typically free of
pile-up). This spectrum shows no clear differences relative to
the standard spectrum. It is therefore unlikely that spectral
hardening distortions due to pile-up have artificially created a break
in the spectrum that can be fit as absorption.
\noindent$\bullet$ It is possible that a flux deficit is artificially
created by failing to fit the continuum properly at low energy (note
that Winter et al.\ 2011 included a blackbody when modeling the
XMM-Newton snapshot observation). We therefore added a disk blackbody
component to our model ($kT \leq 0.3$~keV). A component of this kind
is not required by the data, either alone or in combination with the
absorber, and it does not serve to diminish the statistical
requirement for an absorber.
Instrumental and modeling issues do not appear to create a false
signature of absorption in the spectra, so we next examined whether or
not prior snapshot observations simply lacked the sensitivity needed
to detect significant absorption. We used the Leicester Swift/XRT
spectra generator (Evans et al.\ 2009) to create a summed spectrum of
Mrk 817 from all observations taken throughout the mission, with a
total exposure of 213.4 ks. Binning to require S/N = 10 and using the
same model, a good fit is again achieved when the absorber is included
($\chi^{2}/\nu = 334.9/309$). The best-fit column density is measured
to be $N_{H} = 6.7(7)\times 10^{21}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$. The covering
factor is measured to be $f = 0.44(9)$. When the column density is
set to the model minimum (and/or when the covering factor is set to
zero), the fit statistic is markedly higher ($\Delta\chi^{2} = 107$).
The column and covering factor measured in the summed Swift/XRT
monitoring spectrum are {\it lower} than measured in the new deep
NuSTAR and Swift/XRT snapshot spectra (see Table 2). This indicates
that the absorption is likely variable and diluted when measured in
the summed monitoring data. These summed Swift/XRT spectrum also
permits no determination regarding a velocity shift; however, its
variable nature is consistent with the expected properties of a clumpy
outflow.
The absorber is most evident in the Swift/XRT band (see Figure 3), but
it has an effect even when the NuSTAR spectrum is considered alone.
When the absorber column density is set to its minimum and/or when the
covering factor is set to zero, the fit is rejected at the $7\sigma$
level of confidence ($\chi^{2}/\nu = 212.1/127$, relative to
$\chi^{2}/\nu = 139.4/126$ with absorption included). The result is
equivalent when the FPMA and FPMB spectra are examined separately,
verifying that absorption is not implied owing to a calibration
mismatch between the FPMA and FPMB.
As noted by Reynolds et al.\ (2012), \texttt{zxipcf} samples the gas
ionization very coarsely (12 steps over nine orders of magnitude).
The data that we have examined lacks the sensitivity and resolution
needed to detect individual lines that would permit tight constraints
on the ionization parameter of the absorber; however, we checked our
results using the \texttt{warmabs} model. This is a publicly
available, very high resolution model with tremendous flexibility,
also based on XSTAR (see, e.g., Kallman et al.\ 2014, Miller et
al.\ 2020). To reproduce the partial covering parameter in
\texttt{zxipcf}, we constructed the model in the following manner:
$c_{1}\times warmabs\times relxillD + c_{2}\times relxillD$ (where the
relxillD parameters are fully linked, and $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are
constants such that $c_{2} = 1.0-c_{1}$).
We find that broadly comparable fits ($\chi^{2} = 154/141$) to the
NuSTAR and Swift snapshot spectra are obtained using this model, and
that the absorption is required as strongly as before. Similar values
are found for black hole spin ($a=0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$), inclination ($i
= 15^{+3}_{-5}$~degrees), and emissivity, with overlapping confidence
intervals. This model suggests that the column density could be
slightly lower ($N_{H} = 8\pm1 \times 10^{21}~ {\rm cm}^{-2}$) and
that the absorber may be more highly ionized (log$\xi =
1.5^{+0.2}_{-0.5}$); these values are not strongly excluded by the
prior model. As before, this alternative model only weakly prefers a
high outflow velocity; it also prefers rms velocities as high as
$3000~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$. The fit statistic quoted here is for a
fit wherein the iron abundance was linked in the absorption and
reflection models, finding a value consistent with unity. This
suggests that indications of enhanced abundances are likely not
robust.
As a final check, we constructed an X-ray hardness curve, using all
prior observations of Mrk 817 obtained by Swift. We defined the soft
band as 0.3--2.0~keV, the hard band as 2.0--10.0~keV, and the hardness
as H$-$S/H$+$S. We used the counts in these bands rather than the
flux, in order to avoid any dependence on models. Neutral and
low-ionization absorption affects the low energy band, so intervals of
enhanced obscuration are marked by heightened hardness. Figure 4
shows that Mrk 817 has recently displayed an unprecedented level of
spectral hardness, fully consistent with the enhanced obscuration
implied by our spectral fits. These findings echo what may be
implicit evidence of strong, variable absorption based on changes in
the photon power-law index. Winter et al.\ (2011) report changes of
$\Delta\Gamma \sim 0.6$ over a period of years; such variations are
more easily understood in terms of a standard corona if aided by
variable absorption.
We note that a search for X-ray reverberation from the inner disk
finds no clear signal. At least in part, this is likely the result of
insufficient sensitivity: the fractional variability ($F_{var} \simeq
0.07$) and total counts obtained in the 3--10 keV band ($\sim4\times
10^{4}$) in our NuSTAR exposure are below the values typical of
observations wherein reverberation is detected (see, e.g., Figure 1 in
Kara et al.\ 2016). However, if Mrk 817 truly lacks a relativistic
reflection signature in the Fe K band of its lag spectrum, it is not
unique. The time-averaged spectra of other sources, such as
MCG-6-30-15, appear to require relativistic disk reflection but lack
the expected signal in the Fe~K band of their lag spectra (e.g. Kara
et al.\ 2016b). It is possible that outflows from the innermost disk
serve to mute reverberation signatures in the same way that outflows
from larger radii wash out reverberation there.
\section{Discussion}
We have analyzed the first deep X-ray observation of Mrk 817 made with
a modern X-ray telescope. The high sensitivity achieved with NuSTAR,
in combination with the extended pass band afforded by Swift, reveals
that the innermost accretion flow is consistent with a standard
compact hard X-ray corona and flat inner accretion disk. This is
indicated by the fact that excellent fits to the broadband spectrum
are achieved using relativistic disk reflection. Absorption is
strongly required in both the NuSTAR spectrum alone and in joint fits.
In examining the summed spectrum obtained over years of prior Swift
monitoring, there is also evidence of low-energy absorption, but at a
reduced level. This likely indicates a variable outflow; this may be
the mechanism by which the UV and X-ray flux in Mrk 817 are sometimes
decoupled. In this section, we examine these results in more detail
and place them into a broader context.
There is no indication of a funneled accretion flow or a corona with
unusual properties in Mrk 817. The reflection spectrum is typical;
none of the measured model parameters are extreme. A funneled,
outflowing inner geometry like that implied in Swift J1644$+$57 (e.g.,
Kara et al.\ 2016) and some weak emission-line quasars (e.g., Luo et
al.\ 2015) is ruled out. This is unsurprising given that Mrk 817 is
sub-Eddington (our best fit model implies $\lambda = 0.14$ with a
standard bolometric correction) whereas Swift J1644$+$57 was likely in
a super- or hyper-Eddington phase when reflection was observed. A
corona with emission that is primarily beamed away from the disk is
likely disfavored by the reflection fraction; a value well below unity
is expected if the corona is beamed away from the disk (Beloborodov
1999, Markoff \& Nowak 2005; Miller et al.\ 2012). For these reasons,
it is unlikely that the structure of the disk and corona can account
for decoupled UV and X-ray fluxes in Mrk 817.
It is more likely that the absorption found in our spectral fits
interferes with disk--coronal coupling in Mrk 817. Even in the
sources where reverberation from the optical BLR is best established,
there are periods wherein the link is broken. In NGC 5548, for
instance, Kaastra et al.\ (2014) discovered and studied a transient
obscuration event (also see Dehghanian et al.\ 2019). That
obscuration lasted for years, and was likely caused by a clumpy gas
stream that temporarily intersected our line of sight. The novel
obscurer in NGC 5548 had column densities of $N_{H} \simeq 1\times
10^{22}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$ and low ionization parameters (${\rm log}\xi =
-1.2$, and ${\rm log}\xi \leq -2.1$, for each component). Soon
thereafter, Mehdipour et al.\ (2017) reported a variable X-ray and UV
obscuring wind in NGC 3783, consistent with clumps at the base of the
optical BLR. The two components in the obscuration partially cover
the source, have column densities of $N_{\rm H} = 0.3-2.0\times
10^{23}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$, and modest ionization parameters (${\rm
log}\xi = 1.84$). Unlike the case of NGC 5548, the obscuration in
NGC 3783 was observed to last only a month, suggestive of a passing
cloud in this source.
At least in terms of its column density and moderate ionization, the
low-energy X-ray absorption that we have tentatively discovered in Mrk
817 is similar to the variable obscuring events found in other AGN.
The fact that more modest obscuration is required in fits to the
summed spectrum from long-term Swift monitoring suggests that the
absorption is transient, which is again similar to NGC 5548 and NGC
3783. It is reasonable to speculate, then, that the absorption in Mrk
817 is an outflow and potentially tied to the BLR.
This appears to be confirmed by a simple examination of the gas
properties. Taking our estimate of the bolometric luminosity,
$L_{bol} \sim 9.2\times 10^{44}~{\rm erg}~ {\rm s}^{-1}$, and assuming
a plausible BLR cloud density of $1\times 10^{10}~{\rm cm}^{-3}$
(e.g., Gallo et al.\ 2021), the ionization parameter formalism ($\xi =
L/nr^{2}$) implies the obscuration in Mrk 817 is located at $r\simeq
1.7\times 10^{17}~{\rm cm}$, or $r\simeq 2.3\times 10^{4}~GM/c^{2}$.
This is fully consistent with the BLR. The filling factor can then be
stimated via $N = n r f$ and our results imply $f\simeq 2.4\times
10^{-5}$. Low volume filling factors are frequently inferred for the
BLR (e.g. Osterbrock 1991, Sneddon \& Gaskell 1999), and this is
fundamental to the success of reverberation mapping (e.g., Goad et
al.\ 2016).
Disk winds tend to be denser close to the plane of the disk, if only
because acceleration causes the gas density to fall. We measured a
column density of $N_{H} = 4.0^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\times 10^{22}~{\rm
cm}^{-2}$, for a reflection-derived inclination of $\theta =
19^{+3}_{-4}$~degrees. An even higher density along the disk would be
even more effective at scattering or shielding interactions between
the corona and disk or BLR. During intervals of low obscuration, it
may be easier to see the response of the BLR to the central engine,
facilitating reverberation measurements and black hole mass
constraints. In other intervals, the variable obscuration may serve
to screen the disk and/or BLR from the central engine, leading to a
decouping of the UV and X-ray flux in Mrk 817.
Although our alternative model gives spin constraints that overlap
with our baseline model, it is best to combine the constraints on the
spin, and regard $0.5\leq a \leq 1$ as a confidence interval that
includes both statistical errors and small systematic errors between
related models. If the spin of the black hole in Mrk 817 is indeed
moderate, it is consistent with emerging trends for a relatively high
black hole mass ($M_{BH} = 4.9\pm 0.8 \times 10^{7}~M_{\odot}$;
Peterson et al.\ 2004). Observations tentatively indicate that
low-mass Seyferts may generally have high spin values, while
higher-mass Seyferts display a broader range of spins, perhaps
trending to lower values above $M_{BH} \geq 3\times 10^{7}~M_{\odot}$
(e.g., Reynolds 2021). This tentative finding follows the expectation
that spin is more easily changed through accretion when the black hole
mass is lower, and that higher black hole masses may be partly
influenced by black hole mergers that can drive spins to lower values
(see, e.g., Berti \& Volonteri 2008, Fiacconi et al.\ 2018).
We have not detected a reverberation lag in Mrk 817 using NuSTAR.
However, a long program with XMM-Newton, or a coordinated program with
XMM-Newton and NuSTAR may succeed, particularly if a bright phase of
the state is targeted using a monitoring program. In the future,
observations with XRISM (Tashiro et al.\ 2020) and Athena (e.g.,
Barret et al.\ 2018, Meidinger et al.\ 2020) may be able to study
reverberation lag spectra in Mrk 817 and a large number of similar
sources.
We acknowledge the anonymous referee for several helpful comments that
improved this paper. We thank the {\it NuSTAR} director, Fiona
Harrison, and its lead mission planner, Karl Forster, for executing
this observation. Similarly, we thank Brad Cenko and the {\it Swift}
team for making a supporting snapshot exposure. EK acknowledges
financial support from the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES).
JMM acknowledges helpful discussions with Jeremy Chen and Richard
Mushotzky. This work made use of data from NuSTAR, a project led by
the California Institute of Technology, managed by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, and funded by NASA.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
To gain a better understanding of the evolution of the Galaxy and therefore the Universe, it is necessary to know the evolution of the most basic units that comprise it: the chemical elements. The variety of chemical elements found in the spectra of stars is a result of multiple chemical processes and specific conditions. A study of elemental abundances and their distribution in various Galactic components therefore allows us to create Galactic chemical enrichment scenarios and trace back the cosmic events that shaped the current state of the Galaxy.
Most of the observable Universe is formed from hydrogen and helium, which originated during the Big Bang, whereas the remaining elements were formed later in stars \citep[e.g.][]{Coc17}. Nuclear fusion reactions are responsible for the production of light chemical elements, while elements heavier than $A=56$ can only be formed during the capture of free neutrons \citep{Burbidge57}.
Based on timescales of neutron capture versus $\beta^-$-decay ratio, the neutron capture processes are divided into slow ($s$-process) and rapid ($r$-process). The $s$-process takes place at low neutron fluxes (about $10^5$ to $10^{11}$ neutrons per cm$^2$ per second) when there is enough time for radioactive $\beta^-$ decay to occur before the next neutron is captured. The $r$-process occurs when the atomic nucleus captures several neutrons due to the high neutron density (about $10^{24}$ neutrons per cm$^3$) and high temperature \citep[e.g.][]{Burbidge57,Sneden08}.
The $s$-processes can occur at various sites and are subdivided into three components: weak, main, and strong \citep[e.g.][]{Kappeler89}. The weak component prevails in massive stars ($>10\,M_{\odot}$) where neutrons are provided by the $^{22}{\rm Ne}(\alpha,{\rm n})^{25}{\rm Mg}$ reaction. This component is partly responsible for the production of the elements from iron to strontium \citep[e.g.][]{Peters68, Lamb77,Pignatari10}. Low-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars are mostly responsible for the main $s$-process component, which receives free neutrons from the $^{13}{\rm C}(\alpha,{\rm n})^{16}{\rm O}$ reaction. This reaction contributes mostly to production of elements beyond $A=90$ \citep[e.g.][]{Busso99,Kappeler11,Bisterzo15}. The strong $s$-process component is believed to occur in low-metallicity and low initial mass AGB stars and produces about a half of the solar Pb abundance \citep[e.g.][]{Clayton67,Gallino98,Travaglio01}.
Estimates of $s$- and $r$-process contributions to producing specific elements in various sites vary from study to study \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Arlandini99,Travaglio04,Sneden08,Bisterzo14,Shen15,Thielemann17,Cowan19,Haynes19,Mishenina19,Siegel19}.
It is known that the $r$-process is typical in violent conditions with a high density of free neutrons, but environments in which this process takes place are still poorly understood. Several possible sites of the $r$-process have been proposed: neutrino-induced winds from core-collapse supernovae \citep{Woosley94}, polar jets from rotating core-collapse supernova \citep{Nishimura06}, ejecta from neutron star mergers \citep{Freiburghaus99} or from neutron star and black hole mergers \citep{Surman08}. The neutron star merging events were revealed in the LIGO/Virgo experiment by detecting gravitational waves (\citet[e.g.][]{Abbott17}). The neutron star mergers could be a dominant source of $r$-process dominated elements \citep{Cote18}, but $s$-process dominated elements also can be produced, as shown by the recent identification of strontium in the merger of two neutron stars by \citet{Watson19}.
The current Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) models also possess uncertainties in accounting for a contribution by the most massive AGB stars \citep[cf.][]{Karakas14}.
\citet{Travaglio04} have invoked an additional so-called light element primary process (LEPP) in their GCE model in order to solve the deficit of Sr, Y, and Zr as well as the Solar System abundances of $s$-only isotopes with $90<A<130$. Recently, the LEPP mechanism was also involved in GCE models by \citet{Bisterzo17}. However, some studies have argued that GCE models could avoid the additional LEPP contribution \citep[cf.][]{Cristallo15, Trippella16, Prantzos18, Kobayashi20}. The additional source of neutron-capture (n-capture) elements required to explain the solar abundances that led \citet{Travaglio04} to introduce the additional LEPP process could for instance apparently be explained by the contribution from rotating massive stars \citep{Prantzos18}. We compared observational results with this new model by \citet{Prantzos18} and with the semi-empirical model by \citet{Pagel97}, which was the first attempt to model the evolution of n-capture chemical elements in the Galaxy.
Many studies have been dedicated to n-capture element abundance determinations in the Galactic disc field stars \citep[][and references therein]{dasilva12,Mishenina13,Bensby14,Mishenina15, Mishenina19,Nissen15,Nissen16,Nissen20,Zhao16,Battistini16,Spina16,TucciMaia16,Delgado17,Delgado19,Luck17,Luck18a,Nissen17,Reddy17,Slumstrup17,Adibekyan18,Guiglion18,Magrini18, Forsberg19, Griffith19, Mishenina19,Titarenko19, Liu20} with more or fewer chemical elements investigated. The ages of stars, and even less frequently, Galactic radial and vertical locations of stars in the investigated samples are not always determined, however.
It is very important to interpret observational results by taking into account as many stellar characteristics as possible. We used an advantage of the new possibilities that were opened by the $Gaia$ space mission \citep{Gaia16,Gaia18} in determining accurate stellar locations in the Galaxy and computed slopes of n-capture element abundances in respect to the mean galactocentric distances and distances from the Galactic plane. We would also like to emphasise that the mean galactocentric distances of stars are much more informative than the {\it \textup{in situ}} galactocentric distances that are often used in other studies.
Recently, it was found that abundances of $s$-process dominated chemical elements are higher in young Galactic open clusters than was predicted by the chemical evolution models. This was raised by \citet{D'Orazi09}, who reported a significant barium overabundance in young open clusters, reaching [Ba/Fe]$>0.6$.
The enhancement of Ba abundances in young open clusters was confirmed by later studies, but to a lesser degree (see \citealt{Reddy17} and \citealt{Spina20} for a discussion and possible influence of stellar activity), while abundances of other $s$-process dominated elements displayed negative or flat abundance trends with increasing age that varied with studies \citep[e.g.][]{Yong12,Jacobson13,Mishenina13,Mishenina15}.
The investigations were extended to the Galactic field stars,
especially solar twins, even though the accuracy of the age determinations is less precise \citep[e.g.][]{dasilva12,Nissen17,Feltzing17}. \citet{Battistini16} suggested that the trends of abundance ratios [El/Fe] as a function of stellar ages have different slopes before and after 8~Gyr.
An increasing trend for solar twins through the entire age range of 10~Gyr was found by \citet{Reddy17} for La, Ce, Nd and Sm, and higher for barium. \citet{Spina18} also found a strong age-dependent trend for all investigated $s$-process dominated chemical elements in solar twins.
A recent homogeneous study of cluster and field stars in the $Gaia$-ESO Survey by \citet{Magrini18}, encompassing stars in an age range larger than 10~Gyr, found that an increase in abundances with decreasing object age is more clearly visible for Y, Zr, and Ba, but is less prominent for La and Ce. We compared the n-capture element -- age slopes in our sample of stars with those of the solar twins \citep{Spina18} and with results by \citet{Magrini18}, as well as with slopes computed for stars investigated by \citet{Battistini16}. In order to contribute to solving the so-called barium puzzle, we compared our results with the model by \citet{Maiorca12}, which was computed with the aim to explain the high abundances of $s$-process dominated elements in young open clusters.
In this study, we extend and complement the results of published studies with a homogeneous abundance analysis of ten neutron capture elements of diverse $s/r$-process inputs in their production (Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Pr, Sm, and Eu) in a sample of 506 FGK dwarfs, subgiants, and giants in the solar neighbourhood. The aim is to investigate how their abundances depend on metallicity, stellar age, the mean galactocentric distance, and the maximum height from the Galactic plane.
The work is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sect:2} we describe the stellar sample and analysis methods, in Section~\ref{sect:3} we discuss the elemental abundance trends relative to metallicity and compare with evolutionary models, in Section~\ref{sect:age} we present the abundance gradients with age and evaluate elemental abundance ratios such as stellar age indicators, while radial and vertical abundance gradients are presented in Section~\ref{sect:5}. We conclude this work with a summary and conclusions in Section~\ref{sect:summary}.
\section{Stellar sample and analysis}
\label{sect:2}
We used archival stellar spectra of the Spectroscopic and Photometric Survey of the Northern Sky (SPFOT) from the Mol\.{e}tai Astronomical Observatory (MAO, Lithuania) observed by \citet{Mikolaitis18, Mikolaitis19} and \citet{Tautvaisiene20}
(hereinafter called \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}).
In \citetalias{Mikolaitis18} and \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, all F, G, and K spectral type dwarf and subgiant stars with $V < 8$~mag were observed within two fields of approximately $20^{\circ}$ radii centred at $\alpha(2000) = 161^{\circ}.03552$, $\delta(2000) = 86^{\circ}.60225$
and at $\alpha(2000) = 265^{\circ}.08003$, $\delta(2000) = 39^{\circ}.58370$, respectively. These fields are preliminary targets of the upcoming ESA PLATO
space mission (\citealt{2014ExA....38..249R, Miglio17}). In \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}, all F5 and cooler stars with $V < 8$~mag were observed within a field of approximately $12^{\circ}$ radii centred at $\alpha(2000) = 270^{\circ}$, $\delta(2000) = 66^{\circ}$. This field corresponds to the continuous viewing zone of the NASA TESS space mission \citep{Ricker15,Sullivan15}. Our final list contained 247 stars in the PLATO fields (138 in the first and 109 in the second preliminary field) and 275 in the TESS field. Sixteen stars are in common in the two fields. The list contains no double-line spectroscopic binaries and no stars rotating faster than 25~km\,s$^{-1}$. The positions of all programme stars are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:plato and tess fields}.
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig1.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Positions of all selected programme stars (black dots) observed from the Mol\.{e}tai Astronomical Observatory in Lithuania. The violet areas denote the preliminary PLATO fields and all observed dwarf stars, while the red area marks the continuous viewing zone of the TESS telescope.
}
\label{fig:plato and tess fields}
\end{figure}
The observations were carried out with the Vilnius University Echelle Spectrograph (VUES) \citep{2014SPIE.9147E..7FJ, Jurgenson16} mounted on the MAO $f/12$ 1.65 meter Ritchey-Chretien telescope. The VUES is a multimode spectrograph with three spectral resolutions ($R = 36\,000, 51\,000$, and 68\,000) and covers a wavelength range from 4000 to 8800 {\AA}.
Stars in \citetalias{Mikolaitis18} were observed using the $R=68\,000$ mode, in \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} we used the $R=36\,000$ mode, and in \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20} the $R= 68\,000$ mode for the M spectral type stars and the $R= 36\,000$ mode for other objects.
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig2.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Investigated stars in a surface gravity and effective temperature diagram showing a density estimation and bivariate distribution.}
\label{fig:KD}
\end{figure}
\subsection {Stellar atmospheric parameters}
\label{sec:kinematic}
The main atmospheric parameters (effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$, surface gravity log\,$g$, metallicity [Fe/H], and microturbulence velocity $v_{\rm t}$) of the investigated stars were taken from \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}. Fig.~\ref{fig:KD} displays the investigated stars in a surface gravity and effective temperature diagram.
The stellar atmospheric parameters in these papers were determined from equivalent widths of Fe\,{\sc i} and Fe\,{\sc ii} lines using standard spectroscopic techniques. Effective temperatures were derived by minimising a slope of abundances determined from Fe\,{\sc i} lines with different excitation potentials. Surface gravities were found by requiring the Fe\,{\sc i} and Fe\,{\sc ii} lines to give the same iron abundances. The microturbulence velocity values were attributed by requiring the Fe\,{\sc i} lines to give the same iron abundances regardless of their equivalent widths. In total, 299 Fe\,{\sc i} and Fe\,{\sc ii} lines were used to compute the stellar atmospheric parameters with the tenth version of the MOOG code \citep{1973PhDT.......180S} and the MARCS grid of stellar atmosphere models \citep{Gustafsson08}.
\subsection{Line list of neutron-capture chemical elements}
\begin{table}
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Solar abundances of the investigated chemical elements as determined using two different resolution modes of the VUES spectrograph and values by \citet{Asplund09}}.
\label{tab:solar-abund}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{llccc}
\hline
\hline
El. & $\lambda$ & VUES & VUES & Asplund et al.\\ &({\AA}) & $R=68\,000$ & $R=36\,000$ & 2009\\
\hline
Sr\,{\sc i} & 4607.33 & 2.86 & 2.85 & $2.87\pm 0.07$ \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 4883.69 & 1.98 & 2.05 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 4900.12 & 2.18 & 2.22 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 4982.13 & 1.96 & 2.05 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 5087.42 & 1.98 & 2.00 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 5200.42 & 2.28 & 2.34 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 5289.81 & 2.22 & 2.26 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 5402.78 & 2.27 & 2.31 & \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & 5728.87 & 2.28 & 2.25 & \\
Y$^\ast$ & & $2.18\pm0.13$ & $2.19\pm0.12$ & $2.21\pm 0.05$ \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & 5384.96 & 2.52 & 2.50 & \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & 6127.44 & 2.60 & 2.62 & \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & 6134.20 & 2.75 & 2.81 & \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & 6143.18 & 2.62 & 2.63 & \\
Zr$^\ast$ & & $2.62\pm 0.08$ & $2.63\pm 0.10$ & $2.58\pm 0.04$ \\
Zr\,{\sc ii} & 5350.09 & 2.50 & 2.53 & $2.58\pm 0.04$ \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & 5853.67 & 2.12 & 2.19 & \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & 6141.71 & 2.21 & 2.26 & \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & 6496.91 & 2.33 & 2.37 & \\
Ba$^\ast$ & & $2.22\pm 0.09$ & $2.27\pm 0.07$ & $2.18\pm 0.09$ \\
La\,{\sc ii} & 4748.72 & 1.00 & 1.04 & \\
La\,{\sc ii} & 5123.01 & 1.16 & 1.18 & \\
La\,{\sc ii} & 5303.53 & 0.99 & 1.02 & \\
La\,{\sc ii} & 6320.41 & 1.03 & 1.06 & \\
La\,{\sc ii} & 6390.48 & 1.15 & 1.15 & \\
La$^\ast$ & & $1.07\pm 0.07$ & $1.09\pm 0.06$ & $1.10\pm 0.04$ \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & 5274.22 & 1.50 & 1.53 & \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & 5512.06 & 1.76 & 1.77 & \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & 5975.82 & 1.32 & 1.31 & \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & 6043.38 & 1.62 & 1.63 & \\
Ce$^\ast$ & & $1.55\pm 0.16$ & $1.56\pm 0.17$ & $1.58\pm 0.04$ \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & 5219.02 & 0.82 & 0.86 & \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & 5259.72 & 0.63 & 0.60 & \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & 5322.77 & 0.88 & 0.89 & \\
Pr$^\ast$ & & $0.78\pm 0.13$ & $ 0.78\pm 0.16$ & $0.72\pm 0.04$ \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & 5092.80 & 1.29 & 1.27 & \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & 5276.86 & 1.25 & 1.26 & \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & 5356.97 & 1.61 & 1.58 & \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & 5740.86 & 1.45 & 1.50 & \\
Nd$^\ast$ & & $1.40\pm 0.14$ & $1.40\pm 0.14$ & $1.42\pm 0.04$ \\
Sm\,{\sc ii} & 4854.37 & 0.87 & 0.90 & $0.96\pm 0.04$ \\
Eu\,{\sc ii} & 6645.13 & 0.49 & 0.49 & $0.52\pm 0.04$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[$^\ast$] The mean abundance and r.m.s.
\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:lines}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
The line list selection was made based on line quality in terms of their purity and depth, considering only lines that were relatively unblended.
The blue region of visible spectra contains many lines of n-capture elements, but this region is disadvantageous because of rather strong blending and lower sensitivity of the CCD detector.
Our main line list was therefore confined to the range $4740-6650$~{\AA}. An exception was made just for the Sr\,{\sc i} line, which is at 4607~{\AA}. This line is relatively clean and deep, and we did not have other good candidates in the redder spectral region. In total, 35 spectral lines were selected (Table~\ref{tab:lines}).
We used the $Gaia$-ESO Survey line-list version~5 \citep{Heiter2021}, and took the lines with flags "Yes" or "Undecided". These labels indicate that the line is "relatively unblended" or "may be useful in some stars".
Here we also give a summary of the references for transition probabilities (oscillator strengths, log\,$gf$), and where applicable, the information for the hyperfine structure and isotopic splitting (hereafter HFS and IS).
The log\,$gf$ value for the selected line of Sr\,{\sc i} was taken from \citet{Parkinson76}, and for all Y\,{\sc ii} lines we used
from \citet{Biemont11}. The values of log\,$gf$ for all Zr\,{\sc i} lines were taken from \citet{Biemont81}, and for the Zr\,{\sc ii} line, we took the values from \citet{Cowley83}.
For all Ba\,{\sc ii} lines the log\,$gf$ values were taken from \citet{Davidson92}.
The strong barium lines have a background line list containing Ba\,{\sc ii} data and are from \citet{Miles69}.
The log\,$gf$ value for the La\,{\sc ii} 6320.4\,{\AA} line was taken from \citet{Corliss62} and the values for the remaining La\,{\sc ii} lines from \citet{Lawler01La}. We took log\,$gf$ from the high-quality experimental data by \citet{Lawler09} for all Ce\,{\sc ii} lines. Experimental log\,$gf$ values for two Pr\,{\sc ii} lines at 5219 and 5322~\AA\, were taken from \citet{Li07}, and for the third line at 5259~\AA,\,no data were provided. We therefore adopted a value from \citet{Ivarsson01}. All Nd\,{\sc ii} lines were taken from \citet{DenHartog03}. The oscillator strength experimental value for the Sm\,{\sc ii} line was taken from \citet{Lawler06} and from \citet{Lawler01Eu} for the Eu\,{\sc ii} line.
The HFS effects were taken into account to investigate the lines of Ba, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, and Eu.
The HFS and IS values were taken for
all Ba\,{\sc ii} lines from \citet{Davidson92}; for the La\,{\sc ii} 5123, 5303, and 6390~{\AA}\, lines from \citet{Lawler01La}; for the Nd\,{\sc ii} 5092 and 5740~{\AA}\, lines from \citet{DenHartog03}; for the 5276~{\AA}\, line from \citet{Meggers75}; for all Pr\,{\sc ii} lines from \citet{Sneden2009}; for the Sm\,{\sc ii} line from \citet{Lawler06}; and for the Eu\,{\sc ii} line from \citet{Lawler01Eu}.
For the remaining lines, for example, La\,{\sc ii} 4748.7 and 6320.4~{\AA}, the HFS were not provided. These lines are relatively weak, however, and give abundances that are similar to those of the three other La\,{\sc ii} lines used with HFS. We therefore assume that the HFS effect on our sample stars is small regardless of the spectral resolution.
\subsection{Abundance determination}
The abundances of all investigated chemical elements were determined using spectral synthesis.
To model the synthetic spectra, we used the spectrum synthesis code TURBOSPECTRUM (v12.1.1, \citealt{1998A&A...330.1109A}).
To compute synthetic spectra, we used a set of plane-parallel, one-dimensional, hydrostatic, and constant-flux local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) model atmospheres taken from the MARCS\footnote{http://marcs.astro.uu.se/} stellar model atmosphere and flux library described by \citet{Gustafsson08}. This is the same as assuming that the atmosphere is in statistical equilibrium, homogeneous in abundances, constant in time, $R_{\rm atm} << R_{\rm star} $, and that the energy transport takes place only by radiation and convection. For the barium abundances, we applied the non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) corrections taken from \citet{Korotin15} as the strongest Ba\,{\sc ii} lines are affected by deviations from LTE. In our sample, for stars with [Fe/H]>0, the corrections are about $-0.027\pm 0.01$~dex, in the interval $-0.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}<0$ the corrections are about $-0.033\pm 0.016$~dex, and for [Fe/H]<$-0.5$ the corrections are about $-0.06\pm 0.02$~dex. In this work, we provide both the LTE and NLTE barium abundances.
The analysis was carried out differentially with respect to the Sun by applying a line-by-line investigation.
As our target stars were observed using two different resolutions (36\,000 and 68\,000),
their spectra were investigated differentially to the solar spectra observed in the corresponding resolution mode. In order to increase precision in determining the solar elemental abundances, we averaged the abundances derived from several observations. Table~\ref{tab:solar-abund} presents the solar abundance values for each investigated line and the corresponding values by \citet{Asplund09} for comparison.
For some stars, due to shallowness of lines, the abundances of some elements were not determined. This was encountered most frequently for the Zr\,{\sc i} and Sm\,{\sc ii} lines.
\subsection{Mean galactocentric distances, maximum heights from the Galactic plane, and ages} \label{sec:distances and ages}
The mean galactocentric distances ($R_{\rm mean}$) and maximum heights from the Galactic plane $|z_{\rm max}|$
were taken from \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}, where they were computed using input data (parallaxes, proper motions, and coordinates) from the {\it Gaia} DR2 catalogue \citep{Luri18, Katz18, Gaia16, Gaia18} and the python-based package for galactic-dynamics calculations {\it galpy} by \citet{Bovy15}. Our stellar sample is very well confined in the proximity of the Sun up to 0.14~kpc. We therefore applied a standard distance definition (1/parallax). As recommended, the parallax shift of $-0.029$~mas from \citet{Luri18} was adopted, although the effect of this shift on our stellar sample is very small. We did not apply any cut in parallax uncertainties either. We took them into account when we calculated the $R_{\rm mean}$ and $z_{\rm max}$ uncertainties.
We are aware that for more distant stars in the Gaia DR2, reliable distances should be delivered using a more correct inference procedure that accounts for the nonlinearity of the transformation and the asymmetry of the resulting probability distribution (cf. \citealt{Bailer-Jones2018}). Our estimates of stellar distances compared with those provided by \citet{Bailer-Jones2018} differ by just $0.0015\pm0.0048$~kpc, which is much smaller than the uncertainties on the distance estimates.
The ages of the investigated stars were taken from \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}, as determined with the UniDAM code by \citet{2017A&A...604A.108M}.
This code combines spectroscopic data with infrared photometry from 2MASS (\citealt{Skrutskie06}) and AllWISE (\citealt{Cutri14}) and compares them with PARSEC isochrones to derive probability density functions (PDFs) for ages.
The maximum uncertainty allowed for age is 3~Gyr. The mean uncertainty of the age determination as calculated from the uncertainties of individual stars is 2~Gyr, the mean uncertainty of the mean galactocentric distances is 0.2~kpc, and the mean uncertainty of the maximum height from the Galactic plane is 0.05~kpc.
\subsection{Evaluation of elemental abundance uncertainties}
\label{sec:uncertainties}
Systematic and random uncertainties should be taken into consideration.
The systematic uncertainties may occur due to uncertainties in atomic data, but they were mostly eliminated because of the differential analysis relative to the Sun.
The random uncertainties may appear because of a local continuum placement and a specific line fitting. A scatter that occurs in averaging abundances from multiple lines of the same element represents the random uncertainty quite well.
The average random uncertainties ($\sigma_{\rm rand}$) for every investigated element are presented in Table~\ref{tab:uncertainties} (the last column).
Because we used one Sr\,{\sc i}, Zr\,{\sc ii}, and Eu\,{\sc ii} line for the abundance determination, we attributed the standard deviation value of 0.07~dex, which was the average of all standard deviations from all the stars and all elements with more than one measured line.
Abundance uncertainties may also appear due to uncertainties in atmospheric parameters.
The uncertainties in abundances can be measured by calculating the abundance changes that are caused by the error of each individual atmospheric parameter, keeping other parameters fixed. The uncertainties of atmospheric parameters for every star are presented in \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}. The calculated medians of atmospheric parameter determination uncertainties from all stars in our sample are the following: $\sigma T_{\rm eff}=48$~K, $\sigma {\rm log}\,g=0.30$, $\sigma {\rm [Fe/H]}=0.11$, and $\sigma v_{\rm t}=0.28$~km\,s$^{-1}$ for dwarfs (${\rm log}\,g>3.5$) and $\sigma T_{\rm eff}=57$~K, $\sigma {\rm log}\,g=0.21$, $\sigma {\rm [Fe/H]}=0.11$, and $\sigma v_{\rm t}=0.22$~km\,s$^{-1}$ for giants (${\rm log}\,g\le3.5$).
The median dwarf star (${\rm log}\,g>3.5$) in our sample has $T_{\rm eff}=6057$~K, ${\rm log} g=4.20$, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-0.10$, and $v_{\rm t}=1.21$~km\,s$^{-1}$ and the median giant has (${\rm log}\,g\le3.5$) $T_{\rm eff}=4646$~K, ${\rm log} g=2.50$, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-0.14$, and $v_{\rm t}=1.49$~km\,s$^{-1}$. The sensitivity of the abundances to the median values of uncertainties in atmospheric parameters for stars with log\,$g$ smaller or larger than 3.5 as well as for solar twins is presented in Table~\ref{tab:uncertainties}. Because most of the investigated chemical elements are ionised, the sensitivity to the uncertainties in log\,$g$ is highest. The Ba lines, which are relatively strong, are also quite sensitive to $v_{\rm t}$.
Finally, the total uncertainty budget was estimated for every elemental abundance determination by taking the uncertainties from stellar parameters as well as random uncertainties into account.
We thus calculated $\sigma_{\rm El}$ for every given element of every given star as
\\ \\
$\sigma_{\rm El} = \sqrt{\sigma^2_{\rm atm}+\left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm rand}}{\sqrt{N}}\right)^2} $,\\ \\
where $\sigma_{\rm rand}$ is the line-to-line scatter and $N$ is the number of analysed atomic lines. If the number of lines is $N=1$, we adopted 0.07~dex for a given element as $\sigma_{\rm rand}$. The uncertainties from four stellar parameters were quadratically summed for every star and gave us $\sigma_{\rm atm}$).
The final combined uncertainty $\sigma_{\rm El}$ is provided for every element of every star in Table~\ref{tab:results}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Sensitivity of abundances to the median values of uncertainties in atmospheric parameters and random uncertainties.}
\label{tab:uncertainties}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
\hline
El. & $\Delta{T_{\rm eff}}$ & $\Delta{\rm log}\,g$ & $\Delta{\rm [Fe/H]}$ & $\Delta v_{\rm t}$ & Random \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{${\rm log}\,g>3.5$}\\
Sr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.05 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.07 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.10 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.07 & $\pm$0.06 \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.06 & $\mp$0.05 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.10 \\
Zr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.18 & $\pm$0.06 \\
La\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.10 \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.09 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.13 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Sm\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Eu\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.07 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{${\rm log}\,g\le3.5$}\\
Sr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.05 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.08 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.06 & $\mp$0.07 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.08 & $\mp$0.06 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 \\
Zr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.04 & $\pm$0.05 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.17 & $\pm$0.07 \\
La\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.13 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.12 \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.09 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.02 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.10 \\
Sm\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.11 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Eu\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.13 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.09 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Solar twins}\\
Sr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.07 & $\pm$0.08 \\
Y\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.02 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.04 & $\pm$0.04 \\
Zr\,{\sc i} & $\pm$0.07 & $\mp$0.06 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.11 \\
Zr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.10 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Ba\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.05 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.04 & $\pm$0.04 \\
La\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.03 & $\pm$0.09 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.09 \\
Ce\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.09 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.12 \\
Pr\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.07 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.02 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Nd\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.08 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.07 \\
Sm\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.04 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.05 \\
Eu\,{\sc ii} & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.09 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.06 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig3.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Observed rms scatter around the median [El/Fe] abundance (grey lines) and expected uncertainties (red lines) in four metallicity and age bins (thin vertical lines). The open circles at every bin are placed at the median value of the [Fe/H] or age of the corresponding bin.}
\label{fig:err-scat}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:err-scat} we show a comparison between the expected uncertainties (red line) and the measured dispersion (black line) in metallicity and age bins, where the bin limits are indicated by thin dashed vertical lines. The bin sizes were selected in order to have enough points (at leat five) for the statistical analysis. Because there are fewer the thick-disc stars, the comparison was made for the thin-disc component alone. If the thin disc is well mixed, homogeneous, and well defined, we expect that the scatter of the results in every bin is comparable to the expected uncertainties. In Fig.~\ref{fig:uncertainties} we show the individual uncertainties ($\sigma_{\rm El}$) as a function of $T_{\rm eff}$, log\,$g$, and [Fe/H]. Stars of the thin and thick discs (their attribution to the discs is described in the next section) are indicated by different symbols.
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig4.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Uncertainties on the abundance ratios as a function of $T_{\rm eff}$, log\,$g$, and [Fe/H]. The blue dots represent the thin-disc and the red triangles represent the thick-disc stars. See Sect.~\ref{sec:uncertainties} for details of how the uncertainties have been evaluated.}
\label{fig:uncertainties}
\end{figure*}
\section{Elemental abundance trends relative to metallicity}
\label{sect:3}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Atmospheric parameters and abundances of neutron-capture elements.}
\label{tab:results}
\begin{tabular}{lccrrccrccccl}
\hline
\hline
Star & $T_{\rm eff}$ & ${\rm log}\,g$ & [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] & [Sr\,{\sc i}/H] & $\sigma$Sr & ... & [Eu\,{\sc ii}/H] & $\sigma$Eu & Age & $R_{\rm mean}$ & $|z_{\rm max}|$ & Disc \\
& K & & & & & & & & Gyr & kpc & kpc & \\
\hline
TYC 1547-367-1 & 6221 & 3.94 & $-0.19$ & $-0.20$ & 0.13 & ... & $-0.14$ & 0.16 & 3.78 & 8.78 & 0.07 & thin \\
TYC 1563-3551-1 & 5423 & 4.51 & $-0.38$ & $-0.62$ & 0.12 & ... & $-0.16$ & 0.12 & 5.39 & 7.58 & 0.10 & thick \\
TYC 1563-3552-1 & 6199 & 3.83 & $-0.17$ & $-0.20$ & 0.09 & ... & $-0.11$ & 0.11 & 3.85 & 8.07 & 0.15 & thin\\
TYC 2057-709-1 & 5505 & 4.04 & $ 0.00$ & $ 0.06$ & 0.09 & ... & $ 0.09$ & 0.07 & 7.58 & 7.70 & 0.40 & thin \\
TYC 2070-1061-1 & 5973 & 4.20 & $-0.01$ & $-0.01$ & 0.12 & ... & $ 0.02$ & 0.15 & 4.92 & 7.91 & 0.68 & thin \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{Only a portion of this table is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content. A machine-readable version of the full table is available with the online version of this paper. The atmospheric parameters, age, and kinematic data are from \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}.}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Solar percentage of $s$-process input for the n-capture elements.}
\label{tab:percentages}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
\hline
El. & Arlandini & Sneden & Bisterzo & Prantzos\\
& et al.& et al.& et al. & et al. \\
& 1999 & 2008 & 2014 & 2020\\
\hline
Sr & 85 & 89 & 69 & 91 \\
Y & 92 & 72 & 72 & 78 \\
Zr & 83 & 81 & 66 & 82\\
Ba & 81 & 85 & 85 & 89\\
La & 62 & 75 & 76 & 80\\
Ce & 77 & 81 & 84 & 85\\
Pr & 49 & 49 & 50 & 54\\
Nd & 56 & 58 & 58 & 62\\
Sm & 29 & 33 & 31 & 33\\
Eu & 6 & 2 & 6 & 5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\end{table}
We determined the abundances of Sr (453 stars), Y (506 stars), Zr\,{\sc i} (307 stars), Zr\,{\sc ii} (476 stars), Ba (504 stars), La (504 stars), Ce (467 stars), Pr (402 stars), Nd (466 stars), Sm (257 stars), and Eu (488 stars).
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:results} (a full version is available online). The stars in our sample span an approximate range of $T_{\rm eff}$ between 3800 and 6900~K, log\,$g$ between 0.9 and 4.7, [Fe/H] between $-1.0$ and 0.5~dex, ages between 0.1 and 10~Gyr, $R_{\rm mean}$ between 5.5 and 11.8~kpc, and $|z_{\rm max}|$ between 0.03 and 3.73~kpc. These parameters are also presented in Table~\ref{tab:results} for convenience.
As follows from \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}, there are 424 stars of the Galactic thin disc and 82 of the thick disc in our sample. The [Mg\,{\sc i}/Fe\,{\sc i}] ratio was adopted to define the thin-disc ($\alpha$-poor) and thick-disc ($\alpha$-rich) stars. The last column in Table~\ref{tab:results} contains information about which of the Galactic discs a star is attributed to.
We display the elemental abundances versus metallicities\footnote{We refer to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] when talking about metallicity.} in Fig.~\ref{fig:Abundances}.
For the analysis of the Zr abundances, we used both neutral and ionised lines. The abundance of zirconium was calculated from Zr\,{\sc i} lines in 307 stars and from Zr\,{\sc ii} lines in 476 stars. In the plots, only the [Zr\,{\sc ii}/Fe\,{\sc i}] abundance distribution is depicted, while the [Zr\,{\sc i}/H] abundances can be found in Table~\ref{tab:results}.
Our results coincide well with the previous studies within the uncertainties.
\citet{Delgado17} investigated equivalent widths of Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, Nd, and Eu lines in a large sample of about 1000 FGK dwarfs using spectra of $R\sim 115\,000$. \citet{Mishenina13} investigated 276 FGK dwarfs and determined abundances of Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, and Eu (the abundances of Ba and Eu were determined from spectral synthesis). \citet{Forsberg19} investigated abundances of Zr, La, and Eu in 196 thin- and 70 thick-disc stars using spectral synthesis. In these studies, the stars were divided into thin- and thick-disc populations, which is essential when GCE models are evaluated, but no ages and kinematic parameters were determined. \citet{Bensby14} and \citet{Battistini16} analysed the n-capture element abundance and age relations in dwarf stars of the solar neighbourhood (using spectral synthesis, the Y and Ba abundances were determined in the first study, and the Sr, Zr, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, and Eu abundances in the second study).
In the study by \citet{Magrini18}, the abundances of Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Ce were homogenised from results obtained with several different methods used in the $Gaia$-ESO Survey, and their time evolution was investigated.
A remark is due about the strontium abundances. The [Sr/Fe] abundances in the \citet{Battistini16} sample of stars are systematically lower at the solar metallicity by about $-0.2$~dex.
\citet{Battistini16} and \citet{Delgado17} used the same single neutral line of strontium (4607.33\,{\AA}) as we did. \citet{Delgado17} employed the equivalent width method, while \citet{Battistini16} and we applied spectral synthesis. As the line possibly does not suffer from the HFS splitting \citep[cf.][]{Gratton94}, the method that is used should not play an important role in this case.
See \citet{Mishenina19} for a wider discussion of Sr abundance studies.
Furthermore, we discuss the abundances of n-capture chemical elements divided into groups depending on their origins as well as abundance gradients as a function of stellar age, mean galactocentric radii, and maximum heights from the Galactic plane. We compare the results with model predictions and previous studies if available.
\subsection{Sr, Y, and Zr}
Sr, Y and, Zr belong to the first $s$-process peak and are called the light $s$-process (ls) dominated chemical elements. While the $s$-process is the key contributor to their abundances, their detailed production is still debated. As displayed in Table~\ref{tab:percentages}, studies sometimes provide different contributions of $s$-process to production of these elements \citep{Arlandini99, Sneden08, Bisterzo14, Prantzos20}. Moreover, these elements are produced not only by the main but also by the weak $s$-processes and by the $r$-process.
According to \citet{Bisterzo14}, in addition to the $s$-process contributions, there are pure $r$-process contributions of 12, 8, and 15\%\ to Sr, Y, and Zr, respectively. Hence, the origin of about 8\%\ of Sr and by 18\%\ of Y and Zr is still unclear. As proposed by \citet{Travaglio04}, the missing LEPP process might be present in low-metallicity massive stars. However, this hypothesis was challenged for instance by \citet{Cristallo15}, \citet{Trippella16}, \citet{Prantzos18}, and \citet{Kobayashi20}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Abundances} we compare our observational results to the model by \citet{Prantzos18}. In this grid of models, the authors used metallicity-dependent isotopic yields from low- and intermediate-mass stars and yields from massive stars that include the combined effect of metallicity, mass loss, and rotation for a large grid of stellar masses and for all stages of stellar evolution. The yields of massive stars are weighted by a metallicity-dependent function of the rotational velocities, constrained by observations as to obtain a primary-like $^{14}{\rm N}$ behaviour at low metallicity and to avoid overproduction of $s$-elements at intermediate metallicities. The semi-empirical model by \citet{Pagel97}, the first attempt to model the evolution of the n-capture elements in the Galaxy, is also displayed to show the advancement of modern models.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Abundances}, the [Sr, Y, Zr/Fe] values follow the thin-disc models by \citet{Prantzos18} and \citet{Pagel97} quite well. Regarding the abundance values in the thick-disc stars, in our sample of stars they are quite close to those in the thin-disc stars and do not provide strong evidence to support the finding by \citet{Delgado17} that in metal-deficient thick-disc stars the zirconium abundances are much higher than in the thin-disc stars. A similar pattern to ours was reported in \citet{Mishenina13}. This question should be explored further.
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig5.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{Elemental abundance trends relative to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H]. The blue dots represent the thin-disc stars, and red triangles indicate the thick-disc stars. The continuous lines show the models by \citet{Prantzos18} (cyan) and \citet{Pagel97} (black).}
\label{fig:Abundances}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Ba, La, and Ce}
The production for barium, lanthanum, and cerium, the so-called heavy $s$-process (hs) elements belonging to the second $s$-process peak, are clearly dominated by the $s$-process (see Table~\ref{tab:percentages}).
As indicated in \citet{Kappeler11}, all isotopes beyond $A=90$, except for Pb, are mainly produced by the $s$-process main component. The remaining element yields are produced via the $r$-process component. Thus, a similar production pattern for all three elements should be reflected in their abundances.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Abundances} shows that the chemical evolution of Ba, La, and Ce is indeed very similar.
In the \citet{Prantzos18} baseline model, the LIMS contribution to Ba, La, and Ce abundances reaches its maximum at around ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-0.4$ and then starts to drop, creating a downward trend at sub-solar metallicities. Fig.~\ref{fig:Abundances} shows that a convex shape of the model should have its maximum at [Fe/H] of about $-0.2$~dex, and should start accounting for the LIMS input at higher metallicities ($\sim -0.7$~dex), as was modelled by \citet{Pagel97}. This is also very clearly seen in the Ba and Ce abundance trends. The model by \citet{Prantzos18} reflects elemental abundances in the stars of super-solar metallicities quite well.
The [Ba, La, Ce/Fe] ratios in the thick-disc stars are slightly lower than in the thin-disc sample stars of the neighbouring metallicity. They still agree with the thin-disc model by \citet{Pagel97}, however.
They also indicate that the time-delay of the main $s$-process contribution should be longer in the model by \citet{Prantzos18}.
\subsection{Pr and Nd}
Praseodymium and neodymium are attributed to the second $s$-process peak as well. They have a more mixed origin than Ba, La, and Ce, however, because about half of their abundances comes from the $s$-process main component and the other half from the $r$-process (see Table~\ref{tab:percentages}).
For praseodymium, our results agree well with the \citet{Prantzos18} model from slightly sub-solar to super-solar metallicities. [Pr/Fe] are more enhanced at metallicities lower than $-0.2$~dex, however. The lower LIMS effect on Pr compared to Ba, La, or Ce is compensated for by the $r$-process. The model by \citet{Prantzos18} therefore has no expressed peak at around $-0.4$~dex. However, our observational data for Pr indicate that the $r$-process contribution to the praseodymium production may be higher.
The model underestimation of Pr abundances at lower metallicity stars of our sample could indicate that the $r$-process effect was underestimated both by \citet{Prantzos18} and \citet{Pagel97}. The trend of [Pr/Fe] versus metallicity is quite similar to the [Sm/Fe] and [Eu/Fe] trends.
The model by \citet{Prantzos18} fits to the distribution of [Nd/Fe] ideally.
Differently from [Pr/Fe], at sub-solar metallicities [Nd/Fe] abundances show flatter behaviour. This corresponds to the high percentage of $s$-process input in Nd than in Pr.
The thick-disc stars have higher ratios of Pr and Nd to Fe than in the case of more $s$-process dominated elements, which qualitatively agree well with the GCE predictions for the thin disc. However, in the metal-deficient thick-disc stars, the abundance difference between the $s$- and $r$-process dominated chemical elements is stronger.
\subsection{Sm and Eu}
Samarium and europium are two $r$-process dominated elements we investigated. About 70\%\ of Sm is made by this process, and more than 90\%\ of Eu. The $s$-process main component is responsible for the remaining abundances of these elements.
Samarium abundances were determined for fewer stars than in the case of other chemical elements. Nevertheless, the abundances form an increasing trend towards lower metallicities, as expected for the element with a high $r$-process input. Compared with the \citet{Mishenina13} sample, some stars have higher [Sm/Fe] ratios. Compared with the sample from \citet{Battistini16}, however, the overall patterns of the samarium abundance results agree well. The [Eu/Fe] abundance results for the stars in our sample show a complete agreement with other studies discussed in this work. Recently, \citet{Forsberg19} debated that europium abundances might be super-solar at the solar metallicity. They investigated abundances of Zr, La, Ce, and Eu in a sample of 291 giants in the Galactic thin and thick discs. Their Fig.~5 shows that the abundances of zirconium, which were determined from the neutral lines, agree with the results of other studies, while the abundances of La, Ce, and Eu, which were determined from the ionised lines, are systematically higher. This may be caused by systematic uncertainties in determining a surface gravity of these stars. The authors used the stellar atmospheric parameters from \citet{Jonsson17}, who reported that the surface gravities are overestimated while comparing the results with the $Gaia$ stellar parameter benchmark values. If this is the case, the abundances of the ionised elements are overestimated as well.
The thin- and thick-disc stars show higher abundances, especially for europium, compared with the $s$-process dominated elements. This agrees with the GCE theory.
If all the stars in our sample can be correctly attributed to the thin and thick discs, which can hardly be achieved for all studies, the chemical evolution models both by \citet{Prantzos18} and \citet{Pagel97}, which agree with each other quite well, are slightly too low.
Further developments in modelling the $r$-process yields and time delays in production of these elements are continuing. New production sites are about to be revealed (see e.g. \citealt{Cote19}, \citealt{Schonrich19}).
The additional origin in Eu production could be related to neutron star mergers and other sources, as discussed in the introduction. \citet{Matteucci14}, for instance, found that the models with only neutron star mergers producing Eu or mixed with type~II supernovae can reproduce the observed Eu abundances in the Galactic disc. However, \citet{Cote19} emphasised
that the neutron star mergers cannot reproduce the observational constraints at all metallicities on their own. They proposed to consider an input of so-called magnetorotational or other rare types of supernovae acting in the early universe, but fading away with increasing metallicity.
\subsection{Comparison of the light and heavy s-process element abundances}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig6.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{Ratio of heavy (Ba, La, Ce, Nd) and light (Sr, Y, Zr) $s$-process dominated element abundances with respect to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] compared with the GCE model predictions by \citet{Prantzos18} (cyan line) and the thin-disc model by \citet{Pagel97} (black line). Our results are marked as blue circles for the thin-disc and as red triangles for the thick-disc stars.}
\label{fig:hs_ls_feh}
\end{figure}
The reliability of $s$-process yields in the GCE models can be verified by comparing the abundances of
heavy and light $s$-process dominated elements. It is common to monitor the $s$-process efficiency through
the relative abundances of the $s$-elements with neutron magic numbers $N = 50$ at the Zr peak with respect to those with the neutron magic numbers $N = 82$ at the Ba peak. These nuclei are mainly synthesised by the $s$-process and act
as bottlenecks for the $s$-process path because of their low neutron
capture cross-sections.
\citet{Prantzos18} compared in their Fig.~17 the computed [hs/ls] versus [Fe/H] evolution model with
observations for the unevolved thin- and thick-disc stars by \citet{Delgado17}. The [hs/ls] ratios were computed using the average abundance
ratios of Ba, Ce, and Nd for the [hs/Fe] ratios, while for the [ls/Fe] ratios,
the averages of Sr, Y, and Zr were taken. From the comparison, the authors concluded that the yields used in their baseline GCE model are reliable and reproduce observational trends of unevolved stars. However, they did not take into account that measurements of the specific elements considered in the observational
average [hs/Fe] and [ls/Fe] abundances were not present for every star due to the quality of the observed spectra.
If the authors had taken only the stars from the \citet{Delgado17} sample with the abundances of all the six chemical elements determined, it would be visible that the agreement is poor. This is also seen when the model is compared with our sample stars (see Fig.~\ref{fig:hs_ls_feh}). As the heavy $s$-element, we also included lanthanum. The abundances of this chemical element were absent in \citet{Delgado17}. When the plots with and without La are compared, the systematic difference in the [hs/ls] ratios is just 0.003~dex.
The model agreement with the observations appears to have been better if the convex shape of the model had its maximum not at the [Fe/H] of $-0.4$~dex, but at about $-0.2$~dex, and would start accounting for the LIMS input at higher metallicities (about $-0.7$~dex).
The GCE model by \citet{Prantzos18} still has to be further developed by investigating the roles of the yields from rotating massive stars and low- and intermediate-mass stars. This is also visible from the comparisons of the model in the [El/Fe] versus age plots that we discussed in Subsect.~\ref{sec:distances and ages}.
\subsection{Comparison of the s- and r-process dominated element abundances}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{fig7.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{[Eu/Ba] ratio with respect to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H]. Symbols are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:hs_ls_feh}. The dotted line and the shadowed area of $\pm 0.1$~dex uncertainty represent a pure $r$-process ratio derived using the percentages of \citet{Bisterzo14} and the solar abundances of \citet{Grevesse07}.}
\label{fig:euba}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{fig8.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{[Sm/Ba] ratio with respect to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H]. Symbols are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:euba}. }
\label{fig:smba}
\end{figure}
The abundance patterns of $s$- and $r$-process dominated elements allow us to show how different star formation histories are in the Galactic discs. In Fig.~\ref{fig:euba} we compare abundance ratios of $r$-process dominated element europium and $s$-process dominated element barium [Eu/Ba] versus [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] with the GCE model predictions for the thin disc by \citet{Prantzos18} and by \citet{Pagel97}, as well as with a pure $r$-process ratio derived using the percentages
of \citet{Bisterzo14} and the solar abundances of \citet{Grevesse07}. The GCE models of the thin disc clearly have to be further developed in order to account for the higher europium production and for other $r$-process dominated chemical elements such as samarium (Fig.~\ref{fig:smba}).
For the evolution of the thick disc, \citet{Guiglion18} have recently raised the idea that the abundance ratios of [Eu/Ba] might be constant with metallicity. Other $r$-process dominated elements investigated in their study, gadolinium and dysprosium, showed an abundance to barium ratios that decreased with increasing metallicity. The authors concluded that their observations clearly indicate a different nucleosynthesis history in the thick disc between Eu and Gd–Dy. In our study, we clearly see the decline of [Eu/Ba] ratio as a function of metallicity as in other studies (e.g. \citealt{Battistini16,Delgado17,Magrini18}).
The [Eu/Ba] and [Sm/Ba] ratios are close to the pure $r$-process line for metal-poor thick-disc
stars, meaning that the $r$-process was the only n-capture
process active at the beginning of the formation of the thick disc.
The difference between samarium-to-barium abundance ratios in the thin and thick discs is not as prominent as in the case of europium. This agrees with the relatively lower production of samarium in the $r$-process sites.
A comment could also be made about the [Eu/Ba] ratios in the super-solar metallicity stars. \citet{Delgado17} reported that the [Eu/Mg] ratios in the thin-disc stars start to increase with increasing metallicity. This might be caused by the underestimation of barium abundances using the equivalent width method applied in this study or other methodological reasons. Another study by \citet{Trevisan14}, which was dedicated especially to the analysis of metal-rich stars, shows a quite flat but slightly decreasing trend until [Eu/Ba] of about $-0.2$~dex at [Fe/H] of about +0.5~dex. In our study, the stars span about [Fe/H] of +0.3~dex and show the same trend as in Trevisan et al. and other studies (e.g. \citealt{Battistini16, Magrini18}).
\subsection{[Eu/Mg] ratio}
\label{sec:EuMg}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{fig9.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig9.pdf}
\caption{[Eu/Mg] ratio with respect to [Fe\,{\sc i}/H]. Symbols are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:hs_ls_feh}. }
\label{fig:eumg}
\end{figure}
The study of magnesium and europium abundances in different galactic components is essential for determining the formation and evolution of the Galaxy.
\citet{Mashonkina_2001} studied 63 cool stars with metallicities ranging from $-2.20$~dex to 0.25~dex. In their Fig.~8, the authors pointed to a tendency of [Eu/Mg] ratios to decrease with increasing metallicity both for the thin- and thick-disc stars. They also found an overabundance of Eu relative to Mg in three halo stars.
However, in 2003 they reanalysed the sample including 15 additional moderately metal-deficient stars \citep{Mashonkina_2003}, and an overabundance of Eu relative to Mg was determined only for two thick-disc and halo stars (see Fig.~5 in their paper).
Furthermore, \citet{Delgado17} also found an almost flat [Eu/Mg] (see their Fig.~15), suggesting that these two elements receive an important contribution from supernovae progenitors of similar masses. However, \citet{Guiglion18} recently addressed the topic in the AMBRE project for a large sample of FGK Milky Way stars in a range of metallicities very similar to ours. They reported a decreasing [$r/\alpha$] trend for increasing metallicity, from which one of the main conclusions in their work was derived.
The europium-to-magnesium abundance ratios versus metallicity in our sample of stars are presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:eumg}. The magnesium abundances were taken from \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}. We found that the [Eu/Mg] ratio in the investigated metallicity range tends to slightly decrease with increasing metallicity for the thin-disc stars. This is even more evident for the thick-disc stars. The abundances of Eu are higher when they are compared to the semi-empirical model by \citet{Pagel97}, which foresees the production of Eu by type~II supernova alone. The model by \citet{Prantzos18} extends far too high (mainly because of the Mg modelling uncertainties, see their Fig.~13).
We have mentioned the negative trend of [$r/\alpha$] with increasing metallicity for the thin-disc stars found by \citet{Guiglion18} in the AMBRE project. Based on 25 thick-disc stars in the AMBRE sample, however, it was difficult to make a confident conclusion about the thick disc. Our sample of 76 thick-disc stars shows an even stronger decrease of [Eu/Mg], as well as [$r/\alpha$], with increasing metallicity than in the thin-disc stars. This indicates a different chemical evolution of these two Galactic components.
\section{Abundance gradients with age}
\label{sect:age}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig10.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig10.pdf}
\caption{Elemental-to-iron abundance ratios as a function of age. The blue dots and red triangles represent the thin- and thick-disc stars of our study, respectively. The green lines represent the models by \citet{Maiorca12} and the cyan lines those by \citet{Prantzos18}. The blue lines are the linear fits for the thin-disc stars of this work and the red lines show the thick-disc stars, with a 95\% confidence interval for the ordinary least-squares regressions. The vertical dashed lines indicate the adopted age of the Sun (4.53~Gyr).}
\label{fig:abundance_age}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:abundance_age} shows distributions of element-to-iron ratios as a function of stellar ages. The figure also includes the best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] versus age and theoretical models by \citet{Prantzos18} and \citet{Maiorca12}.
The determined best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] and age relations are presented in Table~\ref{tab:slopes}. We provide the slopes, y-intercepts, Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC), and standard errors of the linear fits.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}]$-$age distributions in dex\,Gyr$^{-1}$ and the Pearson correlation coefficients for the thin disc stars and comparison with other works.}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{llrrrllc}
\hline
\hline
El. & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Present work} & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Battistini, Bensby} & \multicolumn{1}{c} {Spina et al. 2018} & \multicolumn{2}{c} {Magrini et al. 2018} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{thin disc} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{thin disc} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{solar twins} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{age < 8~Gyr} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Slope} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{PCC} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Slope$^{\ast}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{PCC$^{\ast}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Slope} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Slope$^{\ast\ast}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{PCC$^{\ast\ast}$} \\
\hline
Sr & $-0.011\pm 0.003$ & $-0.22$ & $-0.023\pm0.009$ & $-0.40 $ & $-0.032\pm 0.002$ & & \\
Y & $-0.015\pm0.002$ & $-0.30$ & $-0.011\pm0.002$ & $-0.35 $ & $-0.029\pm 0.002$ & $ -0.023\pm0.009$ & $-0.6$ \\
Zr & $-0.004\pm0.003$ & $-0.07$ & $-0.003\pm0.006$ & $+0.11 $ & $-0.026\pm 0.002$ & $-0.038\pm 0.013$ & $-0.5$ \\
Ba & $-0.010\pm0.003$ & $-0.19$ & $-0.023\pm0.003$ & $-0.43 $ & $-0.032\pm 0.002$ & $-0.027\pm 0.007 $ & $-0.8$ \\
La & $-0.002\pm0.003$ & $-0.03$ & $+0.004\pm0.005$ & $+0.09 $ & $-0.023\pm 0.002$ & $ -0.005\pm0.015$ & $-0.2$ \\
Ce & $+0.001\pm0.003$ & $+0.04$ & $-0.009\pm0.005$ & $-0.18 $ & $-0.024\pm 0.002$ & $-0.016\pm0.010 $ & $-0.5$ \\
Pr & $+0.008\pm0.004$ & $+0.13$ & $ $ & $ $ & $-0.014\pm 0.003$& & \\
Nd & $-0.000\pm0.003$ & $-0.01$ & $+0.006\pm0.004$ & $+0.14 $ & $-0.023\pm 0.002$& & \\
Sm & $+0.014\pm0.006$ & $+0.19$ & $+0.010\pm0.006$ & $+0.22$ & $-0.008\pm 0.002$ & & \\
Eu & $+0.011\pm0.003$ & $+0.22$ & $+0.011\pm0.004$ & $+0.24 $ & $-0.007\pm 0.002$ & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:slopes}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[$^{\ast}$] Computed in this work for the potential thin-disc stars with age uncertainties better than 3~Gyr from data by \citet{Bensby14} and \citet{Battistini16}.
\item[$^{\ast\ast}$] The slope was calculated including open clusters.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
For comparison, we also computed fits using data by \citet{Battistini16} for Sr, Zr, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, and Eu, and data by \citet{Bensby14} for Y and Ba. We took data of the thin-disc stars (TD/D < 0.5) with age determination uncertainties better than 3~Gyr. The determined slopes from our sample agree well with the slopes determined using the \citet{Battistini16} and \citet{Bensby14} studies, but there are more stars with higher barium abundances in the sample of \citet{Bensby14}, probably because this study included more stars with larger mean galactocentric distances.
In some of these young stars, which are often quite active, the high Ba abundances may be caused by the NLTE effects, which are under-accounted for the Ba\,{\sc ii} lines that emerge in the upper layers of stellar atmospheres (\citealt{Reddy17}).
Table~\ref{tab:slopes} also shows slopes obtained for solar twins in the recent study by \citet{Spina18} and for the Galactic thin-disc stars with ages younger than 8~Gyr computed by \citet{Magrini18}. The authors investigated abundances of Y, Zr. Ba, La, and Ce using internal data of the $Gaia$-ESO Survey.
In Fig.~\ref{comilation_age_thin} we compile all [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] trends as a function of age determined in our work. With increasing age, all the $s$-process dominated elements in the thin-disc stars of our sample show negative or flat trends (for [Sr/Fe], [Y/Fe], and [Ba/Fe], the downward trends being most clearly visible), while the $r$-process dominated elements have slightly positive or flat trends.
These patterns agree with the GCE theory, which predicts a noticeable production of $s$-process dominated elements during the evolution of the Galactic disc.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:abundance_age} we also compare the observational data with the models by \citet{Prantzos18} and \citet{Maiorca12}. The model by \citet{Maiorca12} closely follows our stars for Zr, but it has a slightly positive offset for Y at older ages. The model by \citet{Prantzos18} predicts quite flat trends for Sr, Y, and Zr from around 9~Gyr to the youngest objects, with a slightly positive offset for Sr and Y and a negative offset for Zr.
Our [Ba, La, Ce/Fe] ratios are close to the chemical evolution model by \citet{Maiorca12} for the sub-solar ages. The younger stars display not so high abundance values as are predicted by the model, however. This is expected because the model was oriented to account for the higher abundances of Ba, La, and Ce that are observed in open clusters. The authors suggested that the observed enhancements might be produced
by nucleosynthesis in AGB stars of low mass ($M <1.5\,M_\odot$) if they release neutrons
from the $^{13}{\rm C}(\alpha,n)^{16}{\rm O}$ reaction in reservoirs larger by a factor of four than assumed in more massive AGB stars. In the current literature, the same assumptions
on the formation of the $^{13}{\rm C}$ neutron source for all stars
between 1 and 3\,$M_\odot$ are reported. However, these elements are not so abundant in the field stars, and \citet{Marsakov16}, for example, discussed on the basis of 90 open clusters the reasons for the $s$-process dominated element overabundances in open clusters, which include high and elongated orbits, for instance.
The model by \citet{Prantzos18} predicts a completely different behaviour for Ba, La, and Ce than the model by \citet{Maiorca12}. The model reaches its abundance peak at around 8~Gyr and then slightly decreases with decreasing age. Compared to our results, the model overestimates the abundances in the older stars and slightly underestimates the abundances in the youngest stars.
As the [Ba/Fe] abundances in our work are very close to those of [La/Fe] and [Ce/Fe] and show close to solar abundances at young ages, we can state that our study does not support the barium puzzle anomaly (also opposed by \citealt{Reddy17}) and
does not require the additional intermediate process ($i$-process), as proposed by \citep{Cowan77,Mishenina15}.
Stars with ages younger than 2~Gyr in our sample are dwarfs and unevolved giants. The mean uncertainty in their age determination is ($+1.17;-0.62$)~Gyr.
Praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, and europium have a significant input from $r$-process in their production. As $r$-process requires quite harsh conditions to occur, a production peak of such elements took place at earlier times in the Galaxy.
For these elements the \citet{Prantzos18} model predicts a steady decline in [El/Fe] ratios with decreasing ages, but still steeper than our results suggest, especially for europium.
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig11.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig11.pdf}
\caption{Compilation of [El/Fe{\sc I}] trends as a function of age for the thin-disc stars. The continuous purple lines represent the $r$-process dominated elements Eu, Sm, and Pr. The thick dash-dotted line is an averaged trend of these element-to-iron abundance ratios. The continuous blue lines represent the $s$-process dominated elements Y, Sr, and Ba. The thick dash-dotted line is an averaged trend of these element-to-iron abundance ratios. The grey continuous lines are for elements with negligible [El/Fe{\sc I}] age trends (Nd, Ce, La, and Zr). The continuous magenta line represents the [Mg/Fe{\sc I}] age correlation. The shadowed areas show the 95\% confidence interval for the regressions. The vertical dashed line marks the solar age. }
\label{comilation_age_thin}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig12.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig12.pdf}
\caption{Compilation of [El/FeI] trends as a function of age for the thick-disc stars. The continuous purple line represents the $r$-process dominated element Sm, which alone shows a slight trend, but with a quite low accuracy. The continuous blue line represents the $s$-process dominated element Y, which has a more noticeable trend than the others. The grey continuous lines are for elements with negligible trends of [El/FeI] vs. age. The continuous magenta line represents the [Mg/FeI] age correlation. The shadowed areas show the 95\% confidence interval for the regressions. The vertical dashed line marks the solar age. }
\label{comilation_age_thick}
\end{figure}
The 76 thick-disc stars of our sample show uncertain [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] trends with age (Fig.~\ref{comilation_age_thick}).
Of the $r$-process dominated elements, only Sm shows a slightly positive trend. Its accuracy is quite low, however. In contrast, of the $s$-process dominated elements, only Y has a more noticeable but also quite uncertain trend. The [Mg/Fe\,{\sc i}] versus age slope is also presented for comparison. We address the question of age dependence of the elemental abundance rations in the following section.
\subsection{ [Y/Mg] as an age indicator for the thin-disc stars}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig13.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig13.pdf}
\caption{[Y/Mg] of the thin-disc stars colour-coded by metallicity as a function of age. The continuous line is a fit to the sample of 368 stars. The shadowed area shows a 95\% confidence interval for the ordinary least-squares regression. }
\label{fig:YMg_age_thin}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig14.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig14.pdf}
\caption{[Sr/Mg] of the thin-disc stars colour-coded by metallicity as a function of age. The continuous line is a fit to the sample of 368 stars. The shadowed area shows the 95\% confidence interval for the ordinary least-squares regression. }
\label{fig:SrMg_age_thin}
\end{figure*}
As was proven previously, [Y/Mg] is a sensitive age indicator for solar twins \citep{dasilva12,Nissen15,Nissen16,Spina16,TucciMaia16}. \citet{Feltzing17} showed that this relation depends on [Fe/H] and flattens for stars with lower than solar metallicities. They concluded that the [Y/Mg] versus age relation is unique to solar analogues.
However, \citet{Slumstrup17} confirmed that the empirical relation between [Y/Mg] and age as presented by \citet{Nissen16} also holds for the solar metallicity helium-core-burning giants. \citet{Nissen17} also confirmed that the abundances of the {\it Kepler} LEGACY stars, with asteroseismic ages, support the same relation between [Y/Mg] and stellar age as was previously found for solar twins. The sub-sample of {\it Kepler} LEGACY stars in \citet{Nissen17} has a metallicity range similar to that of solar twins ($-0.15 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < +0.15$), but the range of effective temperatures is much wider ($5700 < T_{\rm eff} < 6400$~K).
\citet{Nissen17} found that the relation [Y/Mg] versus age for the {\it Kepler} stars and solar twins has a slope of $-$0.035~dex\,Gyr$^{-1}$ with a [Y/Mg] intercept of 0.15~dex.
The \citet{Nissen17} relation was based on a mixture of ages derived from two techniques, asteroseismology and isochrone fitting, but the slope coefficients are similar to those determined for solar twins by \citet{Nissen16}.
This relation was also calculated by \citet{Delgado19} for
FGK solar-type dwarf stars from the HARPS-GTO program using Padova and Yonsei-Yale isochrones and Hipparcos and Gaia parallaxes. The authors obtained a result for the slope of $-$0.041~dex\,Gyr$^{-1}$, for the solar twins. \citet{Casali20} recently studied how the slope varies with metallicity for solar twins in the Gaia-ESO samples of open clusters and field stars, analysing this relation in four different regions of metallicity. They found a slope of $-0.018$~dex\,Gyr$^{-1}$ for ${\rm [Fe/H]} > 0.1$, $-0.040$ for $-0.1 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < +0.1$, $-0.042$ for $-0.3 < {\rm [Fe/H]} <-0.1$, and $-0.038$ for $-0.5 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < -0.3$.
In our study, we took abundances of magnesium and the thin-to-thick disc separation of the investigated stars from \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20} into account, and from the thin-disc sample of 371 stars with the mean <$T_{\rm eff}> = 5503\pm{56}$~K, <log\,$g$> = 3.51~$\pm{0.26}$, <[Fe/H]> = $-0.09\pm{0.11}$, and the UniDAM ages spanning from 0.1 to 9~Gyrs, calculated the following [Y/Mg] age relation with ${\rm PCC}=-0.41$:
\begin{equation}
{\rm [Y/Mg]_{Thin}}=0.022\,(\pm0.015)-0.027\,(\pm 0.003)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]}.
\label{eq:YM_age}
\end{equation}
The [Y/Mg] data and the computed slope with respect to age are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:YMg_age_thin}.
The slope and intercept are almost the same as those of \citet{Titarenko19}, who investigated the AMBRE project sample of 325 turn-off thin-disc stars in the solar neighbourhood.
When we compare the [Y/Mg] versus age slope obtained in this work to the slope obtained by \citet{Nissen20}, we see a difference of about 0.15~dex in the intercepts even for stars of the same metallicity. In search for the reason, we decided to compute the mean galactocentric distances for the Nissen et al. sample stars and to compare them with those of our sample.
Fig.~\ref{fig:our_Nissen_thin} shows that in the \citet{Nissen20} sample, young stars predominantly have larger $R_{\rm mean}$ . This may cause a larger intercept in the [Y/Mg] and age relation compared to our study and that of \citet{Titarenko19}. Therefore we follow \citet{Casali20} and \citet{Magrini21} in concluding that the relations between ages and abundance ratios obtained from samples of stars located in a limited region of the Galaxy cannot be translated into general relations valid for the whole disc. It is worth mentioning that differences in methods used for computing relations and accounting for uncertainties in different studies may also play a role while comparing the results.
\begin{figure}
\graphicspath{ {fig15.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig15.pdf}
\caption{$R_{\rm mean}$ and age relation for the sample of thin-disc stars investigated in this work (blue dots) and in \citet{Nissen20} (magenta diamonds). This figure shows that in the \citet{Nissen20} sample, young stars predominantly have larger $R_{\rm mean}$ . This causes a larger intercept in the [Y/Mg] and age relation in \citet{Nissen20} than in this work. }
\label{fig:our_Nissen_thin}
\end{figure}
We also tested the [Y/Al] ratio as a function of age for the thin disc, as a potential age indicator and obtained
\begin{equation}
{\rm [Y/Al]_{Thin}}=0.067\,(\pm 0.015)-0.029\,(\pm 0.003)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]}
\label{eq:YAl_age}
\end{equation}
with ${\rm PCC}=-0.42$, which is comparable with the [Y/Mg]-age relation. We also targeted other low-scatter light $s$-process dominated elements as age indicators. Sr also appears to have a good sensitivity to stellar age:
\begin{equation}
{\rm [Sr/Mg]_{Thin}}= 0.033\,(\pm 0.014)-0.023\,(\pm 0.003)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]}
\label{eq:YAl_age}
\end{equation}
with ${\rm PPC} =-0.39$, which makes the [Sr/Mg] abundance ratio a promising age indicator (displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:SrMg_age_thin}). Very recently, \citet{Nissen20} also tested the sensitivity of Sr in solar-type stars, obtaining a result very similar to that of Y, which is in agreement with our results. \citet{Nissen20} used the same single Sr\,{\sc i} 4607.34~{\AA} line as in our study.
\subsection{ [Y/Mg] as age indicator for the thick-disc stars}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig16.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig16.pdf}
\caption{[Y/Mg] of the thick-disc stars colour-coded by metallicity as a function of age. Our sample stars (triangles) are suplemented by data from \citet{Bensby14} (dots), \citet{DelgadoMena18} and \citet{Adibekyan12} (stars), and \citet{Titarenko19} (crosses). The black continuous line is a fit to the entire sample of 237 stars. For a comparison, the dashed green line represents the trend taken from \citet{Titarenko19}, who computed it for the AMBRE sample of 11 thick-disc stars; and the dashed yellow line represents the trend that we computed using Bensby et al. data alone covering the entire investigated age interval. The shadowed areas show the 95\% confidence interval for the ordinary least-squares regressions. }
\label{fig:YMg_age_thick}
\end{figure*}
Our thick-disc sample contains 76 stars with estimated ages. They have a mean $<T_{\rm eff}> = 4715\pm{77}$~K, $<{\rm log}\,g>=2.49~\pm{0.25}$ and $<{\rm [Fe/H]}>=-0.46~\pm{0.12}$, and ages from about 3 to 10~Gyr.
Using this sample, we computed a steeper (than the thin-disc stars) negative slope of $-0.041\pm 0.013$~dex\,Gyr$^{-1}$ with a [Y/Mg] intercept of $-0.115\pm{0.079}$~dex, and ${\rm PPC} =-0.35$. The [Y/Mg]-age slope given by \citet{Titarenko19} for the AMBRE sample of 11 thick-disc turn-off stars with ages from about 11.5 to 14.5~Gyrs strongly disagrees with our result.
Because of this disagreement, we decided to increase the sample of 76 thick-disc stars by including data from other studies that provided abundances of Y and Mg, as well as ages and separated components of the Galactic disc. Consequently, we included 62 stars (with age uncertainties $<3$~Gyr) from \citet{Bensby14}, 88 stars (with age uncertainties $<3$~Gyr) from \citet{Delgado17} and \citet{Adibekyan12}, and 11 stars from \citet{Titarenko19}. The final sample consisted of 237 stars that cover different ranges of metallicity and age.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:YMg_age_thick} we show the almost negligible [Y/Mg] correlation with age (${\rm PCC}=-0.04$) for the compilation of 237 thick-disc stars:
\begin{equation}
{\rm [Y/Mg]_{Thick}}=-0.303\,(\pm0.027)-0.002\,(\pm 0.003)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]}.
\label{eq:YM_age_thick}
\end{equation}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}]$-R_{\rm mean}$ and $|z_{\rm max}|$ distributions in dex\,kpc$^{-1}$ for the thin-disc stars.}
\label{tab:rmeanslopes}
\begin{tabular}{lccrccr}
\hline
\hline
El. & $R_{\rm mean}$ slope & y-intercept & $\chi^2$ & $|z_{\rm max}|$ slope & y-intercept & $\chi^2$ \\
\hline
Sr & $+0.002\pm0.007$ & $-0.032\pm 0.052$ & $+0.67$ & $-0.080\pm0.024$ & $+0.005\pm 0.007$ & $+0.65$ \\
Y & $-0.005\pm0.006$ & $+0.014\pm 0.047$ & $+1.00$ & $-0.082\pm0.024$ & $-0.010\pm 0.006$ & $+0.92$ \\
Zr & $+0.020\pm0.007$ &$-0.126\pm 0.052$ & $+0.49$ & $+0.023\pm0.023$ & $+0.026\pm 0.007$ & $+0.50$\\
Ba & $-0.013\pm 0.006$ & $+0.072\pm 0.045$ & $+1.09$ & $-0.052\pm 0.024$ & $-0.015\pm 0.007$ & $+1.09$ \\
La & $+0.025\pm0.007$ & $-0.170\pm 0.054$ & $+0.75$ & $+0.030\pm0.025$ & $+0.018\pm 0.008$ & $+0.77$ \\
Ce & $+0.015\pm0.007$ & $-0.105\pm 0.054$ & $+0.69$ & $-0.034\pm0.027$ & $+0.021\pm 0.008$ & $+0.70$ \\
Pr & $+0.045\pm0.009$ & $-0.218\pm 0.063$ & $+1.33$ & $+0.094\pm 0.035$ & $+0.124\pm 0.011$ & $+1.41$ \\
Nd & $+0.034\pm0.008$ & $-0.218\pm 0.063$ & $+1.16$ & $+0.070\pm0.034$ & $+0.028\pm 0.010$ & $+1.20$ \\
Sm & $+0.022\pm0.011$ & $-0.057\pm 0.089$ & $+1.10$ & $+0.071\pm0.039$ & $+0.100\pm 0.014$ & $+1.10$ \\
Eu & $+0.023\pm0.006$ & $-0.098\pm 0.049$ & $+0.53$ & $+0.123\pm0.023$ & $+0.048\pm 0.007$ & $+0.51$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}]$-R_{\rm mean}$ and $|z_{\rm max}|$ distributions in dex\,kpc$^{-1}$ for the thick-disc stars.}
\label{tab:rmeanslopesthick}
\begin{tabular}{lccrccr}
\hline
\hline
El. & $R_{\rm mean}$ slope & y-intercept & $\chi^2$ & $|z_{\rm max}|$ slope & y-intercept & $\chi^2$ \\
\hline
Sr & $+0.016\pm 0.011$ & $-0.203\pm 0.086$ & $+1.09$ & $-0.107\pm 0.038$ & $-0.029\pm 0.020$ & $+1.01$ \\
Y & $+0.006\pm 0.012$ & $-0.128\pm 0.092$ & $+1.53$ & $-0.062\pm 0.040$ & $-0.059\pm 0.020$ & $+1.49$ \\
Zr & $-0.001\pm 0.014$ & $+0.060\pm 0.114$ & $+0.60$ & $-0.087\pm 0.046$ & $+0.091\pm 0.024$ & $+0.58$ \\
Ba & $-0.005\pm 0.010$ & $-0.137\pm 0.079$ & $+1.10$ & $-0.080\pm 0.033$ & $-0.142\pm 0.017$ & $+1.03$ \\
La & $-0.002\pm 0.012$ & $+0.039\pm 0.096$ & $+0.86$ & $-0.034\pm 0.042$ & $+0.040\pm 0.021$ & $+0.85$ \\
Ce & $-0.002\pm 0.013$ & $-0.038\pm 0.102$ & $+0.90$ & $-0.062\pm 0.045$ & $-0.034\pm 0.021$ & $+0.88$ \\
Pr & $+0.024\pm 0.013$ & $+0.136\pm 0.099$ & $+1.20$ & $-0.046\pm 0.046$ & $+0.340\pm 0.022$ & $+1.24$ \\
Nd & $+0.001\pm 0.010$ & $+0.133\pm 0.078$ & $+0.61$ & $+0.021\pm 0.036$ & $+0.132\pm 0.017$ & $+0.61$ \\
Sm & $+0.001\pm 0.014$ & $+0.245\pm 0.109$ & $+0.67$ & $-0.009\pm 0.050$ & $+0.256\pm 0.023$ & $+0.67$ \\
Eu & $-0.004\pm 0.018$ & $+0.332\pm 0.144$ & $+1.38$ & $-0.012\pm 0.061$ & $+0.302\pm 0.031$ & $+1.38$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:YMg_age_thick} we show the trend taken from \citet{Titarenko19} for comparison, who computed this for the AMBRE sample of 11 thick-disc stars, which are all older. This slope disagrees with the results of other old thick-disc stars investigated by \citet{Delgado17}, \citet{Bensby14}, and \citet{Adibekyan12}. Having in mind that the \citet{Bensby14} sample contains thick-disc stars of a wide range of ages, we computed and displayed a slope based on the Bensby et al. stellar sample alone. This slope is also quite shallow (${\rm [Y/Mg]}=-0.168\,(\pm0.040)-0.014\,(\pm 0.004)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]})$.
Thus, our study shows that [Y/Mg] can be used as a clock to find stellar ages for the thin-disc stars. The chemical evolution of the thick disc is different, however, and it seems that the [Y/Mg] ratios cannot be used to evaluate the age. Hopefully, the number of thick-disc stars with determined n-capture element abundances will soon increase and a comprehensive study of the thick-disc evolution will proceed.
\section{Radial and vertical abundance gradients}
\label{sect:5}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig17.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig17.pdf}
\caption{Elemental-to-iron abundance ratios as a function of the mean galactocentric distances. The blue dots and red triangles represent the thin- and thick-disc stars of our study, respectively. The blue lines are the linear fits for the thin-disc stars and the red lines show the thick-disc stars. The uncertainties in [El/Fe] and $R_{\rm mean}$ were taken into account while computing the slopes. The 95\% confidence intervals for the slopes are shadowed. The dotted lines correspond to the solar mean galactocentric distance. }
\label{fig:abundance_rmean}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\graphicspath{ {fig18.pdf} }
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig18.pdf}
\caption{Elemental-to-iron abundance ratios as a function of the $|z_{\rm max}|$. Symbols are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:abundance_rmean}.}
\label{fig:abundance_zmax}
\end{figure*}
The radial and vertical abundance [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] gradients were calculated as a function of the mean galactocentric distance ($R_ {\rm mean}$) and the maximum height from the Galactic plane ($|z_{\rm max}|$).
$R_ {\rm mean}$ is a better indicator of the stellar birth place than an in situ$ $ galactocentric distance. It was used in several previous studies (e.g. \citealt{Edvardsson93,Rocha-Pinto04,Trevisan14,Adibekyan16,Mikolaitis19}), and could be used more widely, especially while investigating older stars.
The target selection strategy in the selected fields was to observe all stars in the selected magnitude and colour range. In this sense, the sample is homogeneous and minimally biased. The targeted sample is magnitude ($V < 8$~mag) and colour $((B-V)>0.39)$ limited, as described in \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20} and Sect.~\ref{sect:2}. The final sample consists of 506 F, G, and K stars distributed in wide atmospheric parameters and age space. The different populations of stars with different metallicities and ages might introduce a bias in the derived abundance radial and vertical gradients. We therefore divided our sample into thin- and thick-disc subsamples in order to avoid the potential bias in analysing gradients.
The resulting values of the radial and vertical abundance gradients for the thin- and thick-disc stars are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rmeanslopes} and Table~\ref{tab:rmeanslopesthick}, respectively. The individual uncertainties of the x- and y-axis data were taken into account when we computed the linear fits with the orthogonal distance regression
method using the Kapteyn package (\citealt{KapteynPackage}).
In Fig.~\ref{fig:abundance_rmean} we show the radial distribution of [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] abundances. The sample stars span the range 5.5~<~$R_{\rm mean}$~<~10~kpc, except for one star at 11.8~kpc.
For the thin-disc stars, the radial [El/Fe] abundance gradients are negligible for the $s$-process dominated elements and become slightly positive for the elements with stronger $r$-process domination. The same slightly positive radial [El/Fe] gradients as for the $r$-process dominated elements in our study were found for $\alpha$-elements (except odd ones) in \citetalias{Mikolaitis19} as well as in \citet{Li18}.
Studies of the radial n-capture-to-iron abundance gradients are very scarce so far. We can only search for a broad agreement of our results with several studies of abundance gradients with galactocentric distances ($R_{\sc gc}$). \citet{daSilva16} studied n-capture elements across the Galactic thin disc based on Cepheid variables. Because the Cepheids are young stars, their $R_{\sc gc}$ may be rather close to their birthplaces and $R_{\sc mean}$. da\,Silva et al. supplemented their sample of 111 Cepheids with 324 more stars from other studies and found that the [Y/Fe] distribution is flat throughout the entire disc. In our study, we confirm this finding not only based on the whole thin-disc sample of stars and on a subsample of younger $\leq 4$~Gyr stars, but also add another light $s$-process dominated element strontium. Like in our study, da\,Silva et al. also obtained positive [El/Fe] radial gradients for La, Ce, Nd, and Eu. The slopes are rather similar. For [Eu/Fe], they differ just by 0.002~dex\,kpc$^{-1}$. More recently, \citet{Luck18b} also investigated the gradients of n-capture element abundance-to-iron ratios with respect to $R_{\sc gc}$ for a sample of 435 Cepheids. It is interesting to note that the [Ba/Fe] versus $R_{\sc gc}$ slope according to this Cepheid sample is also negative, as in our study. [Ba/Fe] is the only n-capture element-to-iron ratio with a negative radial gradient in our sample of stars and in \citet{Luck18b}. \citet{Overbeek16} investigated trends of Pr, Nd, and Eu to Fe abundance ratios with respect to $R_{\sc gc}$ using 23 open clusters. As in our study, they found that these elements have positive linear trends with galactocentric radius (the linear regression slopes are of about +0.04~dex\,kpc$^{-1}$). They also suggested that the [El/Fe] relation of Pr and Nd, but not Eu, with the galactocentric radius may not be linear because the [El/Fe] of these elements appears to be enhanced around 10~kpc and drop around 12~kpc. Because only a small number of stars lie at these large radial distances, we cannot address this question. For the thick-disc stars, the radial abundance-to-iron slopes are negligible, as was found for $\alpha$-process elements by \citet{Li18}, even though the production sites of $\alpha$-elements and $s$-processes dominated elements are quite different.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:abundance_zmax} we present the vertical distribution of the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] abundances. The analysed stars are in the range of 0~<~$|z_{\rm max}|$~<~1.3~kpc, except for one star at 3.73~kpc.
For the thin-disc stars, the vertical abundance gradients are predominately negative for the $s$-process dominated elements and become slightly positive for the $r$-process dominated elements. For the thick-disc stars,
the vertical [El/Fe] gradients for the investigated n-capture elements are negative and become flatter for the $r$-process dominated elements. The y-intercepts are noticeably larger for the $r$-process dominated elements.
The vertical [El/Fe] ratio gradients have recently been studied on rather large samples of thin- and thick-disc stars (e.g. \citealt{Duong18,Li18,Yan19}), and for the thin disc in \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}. Although only $\alpha$-process elements were investigated in these studies, we can still compare these trends with the $r$-process dominated element trends in our study because the abundance-to-iron ratios of $\alpha$-elements and $r$-process dominated elements are both affected by yields of type\,II supernovae. It was found that the vertical [$\alpha$/Fe] trends are positive in the thin disc and negligible in the thick disc. This agrees with the trends of the $r$-process dominated elements in our study.
Neutron-capture elements are the least well understood in terms of nucleosynthesis and
formation environments. These elements can provide much information about the Galactic star formation and enrichment,
but observational data are limited, especially for the thick disc.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sect:summary}
With the aim of testing trends of n-capture element-to-iron abundance ratios versus stellar metallicity, age, mean galactocentric distance, and maximum height from the Galactic plane, we have analysed high-resolution spectra for a sample of 506 F, G, and K spectral-type solar vicinity ($V < 8$~mag) dwarf, subgiant, and giant stars. The investigated stars are located in the continuous viewing zone of the TESS space mission and in two neighbouring preliminary PLATO space mission fields.
With this work we complement the studies we carried out in \citetalias{Mikolaitis18}, \citetalias{Mikolaitis19}, and \citetalias{Tautvaisiene20}, where we provided stellar parameters and abundances of 24 chemical species, which together with those of the present study reach 34 elements, calculated using the same method and instrumentation. The elemental abundance values of the n-capture elements were determined in our work by a differential line-by-line synthesis of spectral lines using MARCS one-dimensional model atmospheres and accounting for the hyperfine-structure effects.
The approximate ranges of atmospheric parameters covered by the stars are the following: $3800 < T_{\rm eff} < 6900$~K, $0.9 < {\rm log}\,g < 4.7$, and $-1.0 < {\rm [Fe/ H]} < +0.5$. The stellar ages span from 0.1 to 10~Gyr, $R_{\rm mean}$ are between 5.5 and 11.8~kpc, and $|z_{\rm max}|$ are between 0.03 and 3.74~kpc.
The sample contains 424 stars attributed to the Galactic thin disc and 82 stars that belong to the thick disc.
We determined abundances of Sr (453 stars), Y (506 stars), Zr\,{\sc i} (307 stars), Zr\,{\sc ii} (476 stars), Ba (504 stars), La (504 stars), Ce (467 stars), Pr (402 stars), Nd (466 stars), Sm (257 stars), and Eu (489 stars).
We compared the observational results with the recent Galactic chemical evolution model by \citet{Prantzos18}.
The detailed evaluation of [El/Fe\,{\sc i}] versus [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] and age trends, and heavy-to-light $s$-process dominated element abundance ratios versus [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] in particular showed that
the contribution from the LIMS has to be further investigated and developed. The model agreement with the observations might be better if the convex shape of the model had its maximum not at the [Fe\,{\sc i}/H] of $-0.4$~dex, but at about $-0.2$~dex, and would start accounting the LIMS input at higher metallicities (about $-0.7$~dex).
Abundance correlations with age slopes for the thin-disc stars are slightly negative or near zero for the majority of $s$-process dominated elements. The light $s$-process elements strontium and yttrium stand out by having a strong negative abundance
correlation with age. For the $r$-process dominated elements, the abundance slopes with age become positive.
Similar slopes were also computed in our work using data by \citet{Bensby14} and \citet{Battistini16}, whereas for a sample of solar twins (\citealt{Spina18}), all slopes of the same elements were negative. Further studies of the europium abundance versus age gradients deserve special attention.
The neighbouring Galactic thin-disc stars investigated in our study do not show the barium abundance anomaly, like it was found also by \citet{Reddy17} and \citet{Marsakov16}.
They do not require the additional $i$-process as proposed by \citet{Cowan77} or \citet{Mishenina15} to act in the production of barium alone.
The relation obtained from our sample of 424 thin-disc stars is ${\rm[Y/Mg]}= 0.022(\pm0.015)-0.027(\pm 0.003)\cdot{\rm age [Gyr]}$. This slope is very similar to the one obtained by \citet{Titarenko19} for the 325 turn-off thin-disc stars in the AMBRE project.
The thick-disc sample of 76 stars with a mean ${\rm <[Fe/H]}>=-0.51\pm{0.16}$ might imply a steeper negative slope of [Y/Mg] and age relation. When we increased the sample with data from other studies for the thick disc to 237 stars including larger ages, however, we concluded that the [Y/Mg] and age slope is almost negligible. This proves different chemical evolution histories of the Galactic thin and thick disc components and shows that [Y/Mg] can be used as a clock to determine the age only for the thin-disc stars.
Our sample of 76 thick-disc stars clearly shows a visible decrease in [Eu/Mg] and [$r/\alpha$] with increasing metallicity compared to the thin-disc stars. This indicates a different chemical evolution of these two Galactic components.
We used the advantage of new possibilities that were opened by the $Gaia$ space mission \citep{Gaia16,Gaia18} to determine accurate stellar locations in the Galaxy. We computed slopes of n-capture element abundances with respect to the mean galactocentric distances and distances from the Galactic plane. The mean galactocentric distances of stars are much more informative in indicating stellar birthplaces than the {\it \textup{in situ}} galactocentric distances.
The best linear fits to the [El/Fe\,{\sc i}]$-R_{\rm mean}$ and $|z_{\rm max}|$ relations (Table~\ref{tab:rmeanslopes}) show that the radial abundance gradients in the thin disc are negligible for the light $s$-process dominated elements and become positive for the elements with stronger $r$-process domination.
The vertical abundance gradients are negative for the light $s$-process dominated elements and become positive for the $r$-process dominated elements. For the thick disc, the the radial abundance-to-iron slopes are negligible, and the vertical slopes are predominantly negative.
The Galactic chemical evolution models still have to be further developed by investigating the roles of yields from rotating massive stars and low- and intermediate-mass stars in producing $s$-process dominated elements. The relative roles of neutron star mergers and core-collapse supernova in producing $r$-process dominated elements also await further investigations. Observational data are still scarce for the thick-disc stars. More observational data should be collected for stars of different ages and Galactic locations. The first results from the Gaia-ESO Spectroscopic survey \citep{Magrini18}, the APOGEE Survey \citep{Cunha17}, the R-Alliance \citep{Hansen18,Sakari18},
the on-going GALAH \citep{Martell17,Griffith19} and up-coming WEAVE \citep{Dalton16} and 4MOST \citep{deJong2019} surveys as well as smaller projects show great potential in bringing new useful observational results. We continue observations in the SPFOT survey as well and plan to compare our expanded observational results with the new GCE models by \citet{Grisoni20}, which appear to fit the thick-disc chemical evolution rather well. With increasing numbers of stars with accurate asteroseismic ages and masses determined from the currently working NASA TESS and the upcoming ESA PLATO space missions, the detailed stellar composition results obtained in the current work and other studies will be very useful for further investigations of Galaxy formation and evolution and for characterising newly found exoplanets.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge funding from the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT) (Grant No. LAT-08/2016) and the European
Social Fund via the LMTLT grant No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0103).
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission
{\it Gaia} (\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia}), processed by the {\it Gaia}
Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC,
\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium}). Funding for the DPAC
has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions
participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral Agreement. We gratefully acknowledge Laura Magrini and Nikos Prantzos for providing the GCE models, Alexey Mints for his help with UniDAM, Mark Taylor for his help with TopCat, and Martin Vogelaar for his advises with the Kapteyn Package.
We thank the anonymous referee, whose constructive review helped to improve this paper comprehensively.
This research made use of the Stilts and Topcat \citep{2005ASPC..347...29T,2006ASPC..351..666T}, Astropy\footnote{http://www.astropy.org} \citep{2018AJ....156..123A}, {\it galpy} \citep{Bovy15} and UniDAM \citep{2017A&A...604A.108M} astronomical tools. We have made extensive use of the NASA ADS and SIMBAD databases.
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section*{}
Using data collected by NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite \citep[\emph{TESS};][]{Ricker2015} during its first year of operations, combined with ground-based follow-up observations, \citet[][hereafter N21]{Newton2021} discovered a system of three transiting planets orbiting the star TOI\,451, a member of the young (120 Myr) Pisces–Eridanus stream. As the host star is relatively bright ($V=11.02$), it is amenable to further follow-up, including Radial Velocity (RV) observations to measure the planetary masses, and transmission spectroscopy to characterise the planets' atmospheres. Further characterisation of a system like TOI\,451\ is expected to provide valuable constraints for models of planet formation and early evolution, but depends critically on our ability to predict the times of future transits accurately, and model the signals arising from active regions on the star's surface, which are important for both RV data and transmission spectra.
\emph{TESS}\ first observed TOI\,451\ (TIC 257605131) in Cycle 1 during sectors 4 and 5 (from 2018-Oct-18 to 2018-Dec-11). These observations, together with additional ground- and space-based photometry, were used by N21 to discover and validate the three transiting planets which are known around TOI\,451\ to date. Two years later, \emph{TESS}\ re-visited TOI\,451\ in its extended mission during its Cycle 3 in sector 31 (from 2020-Oct-21 to 2020-Nov-19). In this Note we analyse the \emph{TESS}\ data from Cycles 1 and 3 jointly.
We downloaded the \emph{TESS}\ light curves for the three sectors from the \href{https://archive.stsci.edu/missions-and-data/tess}{Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes}.
We use the Pre-search Data Conditioning Simple Aperture Photometry (PDC SAP) light curve as the starting point for our analysis. This light curve is corrected for known instrumental effects at the pixel level, as well as for common-mode systematics.
Before modelling the transits, we detrend the light curve with \href{https://github.com/oscaribv/citlalicue}{\texttt{citlalicue}}, which uses a quasi-periodic Gaussian Process (GP) implemented in \texttt{george} \citep[][]{george} to model the activity-induced variability in the out-of-transit data, together with \texttt{pytransit} \citep[][]{pytransit} to predict the times at which transits occur. We mask out all the transits when fitting the GP, and remove other outliers by clipping at $\pm 5$-sigma. We then divide by the GP model to obtain a detrended light curve containing transits only. Because the Cycle 1 and 3 observations were taken two years apart, we detrended them separately. Figure \ref{fig} shows the PDC SAP light curve, together with the GP model, and the detrended light curve, phase-folded at the period of each planet and zoomed in on the transits. We return to the GP model at the end of this note when discussing activity.
We then extracted sections of the detrended light curve around each transit, and modelled them using \texttt{\href{https://github.com/oscaribv/pyaneti}{\texttt{pyaneti}}} \citep{pyaneti}. We model the transits of all a three planets simultaneously, assuming circular orbits. For each planet, we vary the time of mid-transit $T_0$, orbital period $P$, impact parameter $b$, and scaled planet radius, $R_{\rm p}/R_\star$. We also vary the stellar density, and convert it to scaled semi-major axis for each planet using Kepler's third law. Finally, we model for the stellar limb darkening following a quadratic limb darkening model.
We used wide uniform priors for all the parameters. This results in the following estimates for the planet parameters (b, c, and d respectively on each line):
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_0 (\textrm{BJD}-2\,457\,000) = $\Tzerob[], \Tzeroc[], \Tzerod[];
\item $P (\textrm{days}) = $\Pb[], \Pc[], \Pd[];
\item $R_{\rm p}/R_\star = $\rrb, \rrc, \rrd;
\item $R_{\rm p} (R_\oplus) =$ \rpb[], \rpc[], \rpd[].
\end{itemize}
where we converted from $R_{\rm p}/R_\star$ to $R_{\rm p}$ using the stellar radius of \sradius\ given by N21.
All our estimates are consistent with the values reported by N21, but our ephemeris for planets b and c are significantly improved, by a factor $\sim 3$ and $\sim 2$, respectively.
We do not improve on the ephemeris for TOI\,451\,d as Sector 31 includes only two new transits of this planet, and N21 combined data from \emph{TESS}\ Sector 4 and 5 with five additional transits observed with other facilities, which we do not analyse here. The best-fit transit model for each planet is shown in the bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure.png}
\caption{Top panel: PDC-SAP light curve (grey) along with best-fit GP$+$transit model (red), for \emph{TESS}\ sectors 4 \& 5. Also shown, with a vertical offset for clarity, are the detrended light curve (blue) and the transit-only model (orange). Middel panel: same as top panel, but for sector 31. Bottom row: detrended light curves phase-folded at the period of each planet (individual data points in grey, phase-binned data in red) together with the best-fit transit model (black line), with the residuals in the lower inset.}
\label{fig}
\end{figure}
As expected for such a young star, TOI\,451\ is active, and displays significant out-of-transit variability due to the rotational modulation and evolution of the active regions on the stellar surface, which is clearly visible in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig}. It is interesting to note that this variability looks qualitatively different in \emph{TESS}\ Cycle 1 and 3. Compared to sectors 4 \& 5, the stellar variability in sector 31 has a larger amplitude and appears to be more coherent. Cycle 1 also showed hints of a `beat pattern', which is not seen in sector 31. Such beat patterns can arise when two or more active regions are present on the stellar surface, and evolve or rotate at different rates.
To quantify these differences, we explore the range of parameters of our quasi-periodic GP model which are compatible with the data in each Cycle. To speed up this process, since we are only interested variations on timescales of a day or more, we binned the data in 6 hour bins. We used \texttt{\href{https://github.com/oscaribv/pyaneti}{\texttt{pyaneti}}} to model the light curves using a GP with the Quasi-Periodic kernel:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\rm QP}(t_i,t_j) = A^2 \exp
\left[
- \frac{\sin^2\left[\pi \left(t_i - t_j \right)/P_{\rm GP}\right]}{2 \lambda_{\rm p}^2}
- \frac{\left(t_i - t_j\right)^2}{2\lambda_{\rm e}^2}
\right]
\label{eq:qp}
,
\end{equation}
where $P_{\rm GP}$ is the period of the activity signal, $\lambda_{\rm p}$ is the length scale of the periodic component, and $\lambda_{\rm e}$ is the long term evolution timescale. While $P_{\rm GP}$ and $\lambda_{\rm e}$ have units of days, $\lambda_{\rm p}$ is dimensionless.
The results of this analysis are as follows (each line reports the value for sectors 4 \& 5 first, then the value for sector 31):
\begin{itemize}
\item $A = 2.8 _{ - 0.3 } ^ { + 0.4 } \times 10^{-3}$, $9.8_{-1.9}^{+2.5} \times 10^{-3}$,
\item $\lambda_{\rm e} (\textrm{days})= 4.93 _{ - 0.32 } ^ { + 0.33 }$, $8.17 _{ - 0.72 } ^ { + 0.80 }$,
\item $ \lambda_{\rm p} = 0.359 _{ - 0.022 } ^ { + 0.025 }$, $ 0.699 _{ - 0.093 } ^ { + 0.136 }$
\item $ P_{\rm GP} (\textrm{days}) = 5.127 _{ - 0.056 } ^ { + 0.064 }$, $5.184 _{ - 0.058 } ^ { + 0.052 }$.
\end{itemize}
As expected, the GP period is consistent between both analyses, and they agree with the stellar rotation period derived by N21. However, the remaining hyper-parameters are not consistent between the two data sets. Specifically, the GP amplitude $A$, the evolutionary time-scale $\lambda_{\rm e}$, and the periodic length scale $\lambda_{\rm p}$ are all significantly larger in \emph{TESS}\ Cycle 3 than in Cycle 1. This confirms our qualitative visual assessment of the light curve, and indicates that the size and distribution of the active regions has evolved significantly during the two years separating the two sets of observations.
This may prove important when planning future follow-up observations of the target. In particular, we recommend attempting to obtain photometric monitoring contemporaneous with any future spectroscopic observations, and/or
explicitly using activity indicators extracted from the spectra themselves to disentangle between stellar and planetary signals \citep[e.g.,][]{Rajpaul2015,Barragan2019}. Relying on the light curves from previous seasons to constrain the lifetime and distribution of the active regions on the stellar surface may not be appropriate for this target.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge the use of public TESS Alert data from pipelines at the TESS Science Office and at the TESS Science Processing Operations Center.
Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center for the production of the SPOC data products.
This work received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 865624).
EG acknowledges support from the David and Claudia Harding Foundation in the form of a Winton Exoplanet Fellowship.
FGC thanks the Mexican national council for science and technology (CONACYT, CVU-1005374).
|
\section{Introduction}
We begin by providing a definition of the set-to-sequence field and outline its importance in various areas of application.
\subsection{What is Set-to-Sequence?}
Set-to-sequence encompasses a group of problems where input takes the form of unordered collections of elements and the output is an ordered sequence. These challenges can be approached as a machine learning problem, where models learn arbitrary functions for performing the set-to-sequence mapping.
Set-to-sequence covers combinatorial optimization and structure prediction problems where exhaustive search is often not tractable. Machine learning (ML) approaches to set-to-sequence combine set-encoding techniques with permutation learning and have found an exceptionally wide range of practical applications.
Many of the successful deep learning approaches take advantage of the structure in their input data. However, sets do not posses the kind of internal structure that images and natural language sentences do. In set-to-sequence our input data does not have an inherent order and therefore our models must take into consideration the \textit{permutation invariance} of sets. Obtaining meaningful permutation invariant representations is an important challenge for machine learning models in order to ensure that the same set will not result in two different outputs, due to the arbitrary initial order in which its elements were presented to the model.
\subsection{Why Does Set-to-Sequence Matter?}
Machine learning set-to-sequence methods can approximate solutions to computationally intractable problems in many areas. They have been applied to learning competitive solvers for the NP-Hard Travelling Salesman Problem \shortcite{Vinyals2015}; tackling prominent NLP challenges such as sentence ordering \cite{Wang2019} and text summarization \shortcite{Sun2019}; and in multi-agent reinforcement learning \shortcite{Sunehag2018}. A notable example is the agent employed by the AlphaStar model, which defeated a grandmaster level player in the strategy game of Starcraft II \shortcite{Vinyals2019}.
Set-to-sequence ML models also play an important role in data-intensive 3D point cloud processing \shortcite{Qi2017} and meta-learning \shortcite{Huang2018}. Set-input and set-ordering problems themselves are prominent in a wide array of applications ranging from power grid optimization \shortcite{Cui2019}, where solving them led to power usage savings of up to 30\%, through anomaly detection \shortcite{Jung2015} to measurements of contaminated galaxy clusters \shortcite{Ntampaka2016}.
This review contributes to the field in two primary ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item By providing a single point of entry for researchers interested in the set-to-sequence field and for applied practitioners solving set-input ordering challenges.
\item By comparing all the discussed methods via a number of aspects relevant for both academic and applied work and presenting this comparison in the form of easy-to-read tables, which will help guide the reader towards the most applicable method for their specific area of interest.
\end{enumerate}
The remainder of this paper is structured in the following way: firstly, we introduce the reader to the necessary background concepts and related work in section \ref{background}, including specific notes on the adopted notation. Secondly, an overview of set encoding methods is given in section \ref{set-encoding-methods}, with comparison tables and details of the underlying mathematical transformations. Thirdly, section \ref{orderingmethods} contains a survey of popular ordering methods, which use the encoded set representation to output a complex permutation. The lists provided in sections \ref{set-encoding-methods} and \ref{orderingmethods} are not exhaustive and focus primarily on deep learning approaches. Finally, a discussion of current limitations and directions for further research is given in section \ref{discussion}, followed by a short conclusive summary in section \ref{conclusion}.
\section{Background} \label{background}
In this section the reader is introduced to the key concepts related to machine learning on sets and permutation learning, with minor notes on notation throughout the rest of the paper. Additionally, a comprehensive overview of related work from other fields of machine learning is given, including natural language processing, information retrieval and set segmentation.
\subsection{Important Concepts} \label{important_concepts}
For the purposes of this review a \textit{set} can be intuitively defined as a collection of distinct elements, without a canonical order between them \cite{halmos2017naive}. An important property of sets is that they can have a varying number of elements, also referred to as their \textit{cardinality}. Whilst the intuitive definition of a set is susceptible to known paradoxes \cite{rang1981zermelo}, the machine learning methods discussed here do not require an in-depth understanding of the proper definition from axiomatic set theory. Interested readers can find further information pertaining to it in other referred publications \cite{takeuti2013axiomatic}.
As per the axiom of extensionality, sets are defined only by their elements \shortcite{hayden1968zermelo}. In practice this means that given, for example a set $A = \{x, y, z\}$ and set $B = \{ z, y, x\}$ we know that $A = B$. The order in which the elements are presented in roster notation does not matter. From now on, when we refer to a set, we specifically limit our considerations to finite sets only.
Set-to-sequence ML methods are distinctly different from earlier, encoder-decoder sequence-to-sequence model architectures \shortcite{Sutskever2014}. The difference stems from having to handle set-input data. This imposes two requirements on set-to-sequence ML methods that are not met by most neural network models:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Permutation Invariance}
The output of the model must be the same under every possible permutation of the elements from the input set.
\itemsep0.5em
\item \textit{Varying Input Length}
The same model must be able to process input sets of different lengths.
\end{enumerate}
If these criteria are not met, the ML model by definition treats its input as a sequence, not a set. Fully feed-forward methods fail to meet both criteria and the recurrent neural networks (RNNs), which form the foundation of most sequence-to-sequence autoencoders, are sensitive to alterations of the order of their input \shortcite{Vinyals2016}. To truly treat input data as an inherently unordered set we must be certain that permuting the input will not result in a different encoded set representation \shortcite{Zaheer2017}. Additionally, depending on the presence and type of a downstream task that uses this representation, we are interested in whether the final output is also permutation invariant, which is not necessarily the case with all reordering methods.
More formally, a function $f: \mathcal{P}(X) \rightarrow Y$ is permutation invariant regarding the order of the elements of its input set if for every permutation $\pi$ the following property holds: $f(\{x_1, \ldots , x_n\}) = f(\{x_{\pi(1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(n)}\})$. A related property of functions on sets, which has been formally investigated by \citeauthor{Zaheer2017} \citeyear{Zaheer2017}, is \textit{permutation equivariance}. In tasks where each set element has an associated target label, such that these individual labels depend on the entirety of the set, we would ideally want our predicted labels to remain the same per element, regardless of how the original input set is permuted. That property is permutation equivariance.
At this point it is important to distinguish between two types of set-to-sequence challenges. In the first type the output is a reordering of the input elements, with the possibility of repeating an element multiple times in the output sequence or skipping it entirely. Such permutations with potential repetition and exclusion are further denoted as \textit{complex permutations}. We can refer to the type of problems involving various kinds of permutations of the input elements as \textit{self-referential} set-to-sequence challenges.
The self-referential set-to-sequence domain includes classic combinatorial optimization problems and forms the majority of this review. There are many different ways to frame this task and formalize the resulting output, which are discussed in section \ref{orderingmethods}. They include primarily pointer-based attention (\ref{attention-based-pointing}), the generation of permutation matrices (\ref{permutation-matrices}) and ranking scores (\ref{listwise-ranking}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/pub_1a_2types.png}
\caption{Set-to-Sequence Tasks by Referentiality}
\label{illustration-1-types}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the second type of set-to-sequence challenges, the task is to generate output that is sequential in nature, but is not defined as a permutation of the original input elements. We denote this as \textit{non-referential} set-to-sequence. It encompasses for example summarization of a set of documents. Here, the input is indeed a set, with unique elements that do not have a canonical ordering to them. The output is a sequence of natural language tokens in the form of a human-readable summary, without referring directly to the elements of the input set. This area is only partially covered by this review.
For a simple visual explanation highlighting the difference between self-referential (top) and non-referential (bottom) set-to-sequence tasks, see Figure \ref{illustration-1-types}. In both cases the input is a set of 3 disks of varying shades of blue. In a self-referential setting the target might be a permutation from lightest to darkest. In a non-referential setting the target may be a sequence of word tokens describing the input set.
Specifically, all descriptions of set-input encoding methods are shared between the two types of set-to-sequence problems and therefore will be of value to readers interested in either. However, for considerations related to sequence prediction in general, areas of interest include recurrent neural network encoder-decoder models \cite{Sutskever2014}, reinforcement learning actor-critic methods \shortcite{Bahdanau2017RL} and fully-connected transformer architectures as investigated by \shortciteauthor{Vaswani2017} \citeyear{Vaswani2017}, \shortciteauthor{devlin-etal-2019-bert} \citeyear{devlin-etal-2019-bert} and \shortciteauthor{Brown2020LanguageMA} \citeyear{Brown2020LanguageMA}.
In summary, the former type of set-to-sequence ML architectures, which this review focuses on, tackle two primary challenges:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Handling varying-length set-input data in a way that ensures permutation invariance
\item Handling outputs as complex permutations or \textit{reorderings} of the original input
\end{enumerate}
The first challenge, once solved, allows us to use machine learning methods to perform set-input regression, classification, recommendation \cite{Vartak2017}, as well as clustering problems and more \cite{Edwards2016}.
Depending on the specific task at hand, the permutation invariant representation of the input set may also be required to encode higher order interactions between the input set elements, as seen in the work of \shortciteauthor{Lee2019} \citeyear{Lee2019} and \shortciteauthor{Zhang2020} \citeyear{Zhang2020}, which is a separate but important consideration in the area of encoding sets.
The second challenge of \textit{permutation learning} is made simpler by solving the first one, but has also been successfully tackled without addressing it \cite{Vinyals2015}. It focuses on learning the proper order of arbitrary input elements. As a result, the model learns to predict the best structure of the output sequence composition.
\subsection{Difficulty of Learning to Reorder}
Permutation learning is an inherently difficult challenge. Even a relatively simple application of set-to-sequence methods to the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) in a two dimensional Euclidean space involves tackling an NP-Hard problem \cite{Vinyals2015}.
Whilst highly successful, polynomial time algorithms for obtaining good approximate solutions to this task do exist, such as the ones proposed by \citeauthor{arora1996polynomial} \citeyear{arora1996polynomial} and \shortciteauthor{Karlin2020AI} \citeyear{Karlin2020AI}, it is also valuable to investigate the capacity of current machine learning techniques to learn them iteratively.
In the two dimensional Euclidean version of the TSP our input is a set of point coordinates and our desired output is a permutation of these points in a way that results in the shortest distance travelled between them. Additionally, we must not skip nor revisit any of the points. For a visual example, see Figure \ref{illustration-2-tsp}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/pub_1b_tsp.png}
\caption{Travelling Salesman Problem}
\label{illustration-2-tsp}
\end{center}
\small An example of a TSP input is given as a set of points in a 2D Euclidean space (top left) and an arbitrarily ordered array (bottom left). Individual dots represent $x, y$ coordinates. As output, we see the shortest path between points (top right) and an array representing their target order (bottom right).
\end{figure}
This challenge is difficult because the number of possible permutations increases factorially in the cardinality of the input set. It is a self-referential set-to-sequence problem due to its input having no inherent order and the desired output being a permutation of the input elements. Given the same set of points as input, we expect the output to be the same tour, regardless of the order in which they are originally presented.
Further difficulties arise when we consider how to formalize the resulting reordering. One possible method involves the use of the aforementioned permutation matrices, which are discrete and therefore do not lend themselves to direct use of gradient-based backpropagation without a relaxation of the concept \cite{Emami2018LearningPW}. This and other formulations of representing a reordering (mentioned below) are discussed in more detail in section \ref{orderingmethods}.
Such difficulties have motivated researchers to instead investigate differentiable, attention-based methods that involve pointing to the elements of the original set to define their permuted order. This approach often involves potentially computationally expensive beam search during inference.
Finally, if we forego the requirement of handling varying-length inputs, we can look to traditional learn-to-rank approaches for inspiration. In such frameworks the reordering is formulated as the assignment of a relevance score to each element, followed by sorting the elements according to that score, in monotonic order. However, sorting is a piecewise linear function, which therefore may contain many kinks where it is not differentiable. As a result, differentiable proxies to the sorting operator have been developed, but they did not achieve the expected $O(n~\textrm{log}~n)$ time complexity until a method consisting of a projection onto a \textit{permutahedron} was proposed by \shortciteauthor{Blondel2020FastDS} \citeyear{Blondel2020FastDS}.
Alternatively, in learn-to-rank, our model may be trained to return \textit{ranks}, i.e. positions of the input elements in the target (properly ordered) sequence. These ranks are piecewise constant functions, with derivatives that are either null or undefined, preventing gradient-based learning. However, significant progress has been made towards directly approximating ranking metrics \shortcite{rolinek2020optimizing} and constructing differentiable sorting and ranking operators \cite{Blondel2020FastDS}. Additionally, \shortciteauthor{engilberge2019sodeep} \citeyear{engilberge2019sodeep} propose a deep neural net which can act as a differentiable proxy for ranking, allowing the use of traditionally non-differentiable metrics such as Spearman's rank-order correlation \cite{spearman1904proof} as loss functions.
\subsection{ML on Sets and Combinatorial Optimization}
Set-to-sequence combines techniques from the field of machine learning on sets and combinatorial optimization. The former covers research areas related to both set-input and set-output problems, of which set-to-sequence is only concerned with the first kind. The latter consists of finding an optimal object from a finite set of objects and is strongly related to many forms of ordering tasks. The canonical example is the aforementioned TSP, which in itself has a long history of attempts at solving it through the most popular machine learning methods of the time, for example \citeauthor{Smith1999} \citeyear{Smith1999}, \citeauthor{pihera2014application} \citeyear{pihera2014application}, \shortciteauthor{ishaya2019comparative} \citeyear{ishaya2019comparative} and \shortciteauthor{Bengio2020} \citeyear{Bengio2020}.
Combinatorial optimization as such is of vital importance to modern industry applications. Consider the archetypal \textit{Vehicle Routing Problem} (VRP), which poses the task of finding an optimal set of routes for a fleet of vehicles aiming to deliver goods to a given set of locations. The quality of the solution is determined by the \textit{global transportation cost}. In the simplest variant of VRP, this is dependent on the sum of the lengths of tours for all vehicles. This effectively requires an ordering of the locations into optimal trips, per each vehicle. Given the scale of modern logistical challenges and the environmental impact of freight, it is understandable that there have been many attempts to apply recent machine learning developments to such problems \cite{Ibrahim2019}.
Current state-of-the-art combinatorial optimization algorithms often rely on handcrafted and hard-to-maintain heuristics for making decisions that are otherwise computationally infeasible or not well defined mathematically, for example \shortciteauthor{bello2016neural} \citeyear{bello2016neural}. It is a natural area of application for machine learning research and has been approached through the use of graph-based methods \shortcite{Dai2017}, reinforcement learning \shortcite{Nazari2018} and attention mechanisms \shortcite{Kool2019}. For a comprehensive survey of the wider intersection of combinatorial optimization and machine learning, see \citeauthor{Bengio2020} \citeyear{Bengio2020}.
\subsection{Notation}
The paper follows the notational conventions that are most common in literature. Scalar values are marked with lower case italics $x_i$, vectors with lower case bold typeface $\mathbf{x}$, matrices with capital case italics $X$. These matrices may be used to represent sets, in which case they are presented through roster notation with curly brackets, for example $X = \{ \mathbf{x_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{x_n}\}$.
However, sets may also consist of scalar elements, in which case a capital letter is still used to represent them: $A = \{a_i, \ldots, a_n\}$. Given the importance of differentiating between unordered sets and ordered sequences, the latter are represented through angled brackets $\mathbf{x} = \langle x_1, \ldots, x_n \rangle$ for additional clarity. When indicating the index of an element within a vector, whose symbol already contains a subscript (e.g. $\mathbf{v_j}$) the index of the scalar element is given in the superscript ($v^i_j$).
Individual permutations are marked as $\pi$, such that an example $\pi_i = \langle 3, 2, 1 \rangle$, consisting of integer indices referring to the original sequence $\mathbf{x} = \langle x_1, x_2, x_3\rangle$, would result in the reordered sequence $\mathbf{x^\pi} = \langle x_3, x_2, x_1 \rangle$. In some cases, if the order of elements in the original sequence is nontrivial, a permutation $\pi$ can also be given in two-line notation making both $\mathbf{x^\pi}$ and the integer indices explicit:
\begin{equation}
\pi = \begin{pmatrix}
x_3 & x_2 & x_1\\
3 & 2 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Connections with Other ML Fields}
In this section, a brief overview of other related topics from different fields of machine learning research is given. The aim is to point the reader who may only be tangentially concerned with set-to-sequence tasks to the appropriate area within their main field of interest. A reader with a decided focus on set-to-sequence is encouraged to continue reading section \ref{set-encoding-methods} directly.
\subsubsection{Natural Language Processing (NLP) }
There is a number of cases from the field of \textit{Natural Language Processing} (NLP) that require tackling similar challenges to the ones faced by set-to-sequence methods. The popular sequence-to-sequence, encoder-decoder framework proposed by \citeauthor{Sutskever2014} \citeyear{Sutskever2014} can itself, in principle, be applied to set-to-sequence problems, but does not perform well in practice. An example of such a case is the work on word ordering tasks, also known as \textit{linearizations}, towards syntactically plausible word representations \cite{Nishida2017}.
The authors use sentences of ordered words to train the network to output a binary permutation matrix. When the original input, in the form of randomly ordered words from the target sentence, gets matrix-multiplied by this permutation matrix, the proper order is recovered. The network, referred to by the authors as the \textit{Word Ordering Network} (WON), is an example of one way to formalize an ordering task. It can be seen as a simplification of the \textit{Pointer Network} encoding method \cite{Vinyals2015}, discussed in more depth in a later section, whilst more closely resembling the classic sequence-to-sequence models in the decoder (where it sequentially outputs rows of the permutation matrix).
Another example of an NLP task where permuting plays a key role is sentence ordering and order discrimination. The goal is to take a set of sentences and order them back into the original paragraph. Historically, this area of research has been dominated by hierarchical RNN-based approaches, which make use of LSTMs or GRUs in an auto-encoder framework \shortcite{Logeswaran2018}. First, a recurrent network is used to obtain the embedding of each sentence and then another to obtain the context representation of the entire paragraph.
More recent developments have seen the use of attention mechanisms to make it easier for this embedding to encode vital information regardless of the distance between information-carrying elements, as per the vanishing gradient problem. An example of this can be found in the \textit{ATTOrderNet} architecture \shortcite{Cui2018} and more recently in the \textit{Set Transformer} \cite{Lee2019}, discussed in detail in section \ref{set-transformer}.
An example of an NLP set-to-sequence challenge where the output is not a permutation is the task of summarizing multiple documents into a single sequence of text as seen in the works of \shortciteauthor{ma2016unsupervised} \citeyear{ma2016unsupervised} and \shortciteauthor{mani2018multi} \citeyear{mani2018multi}.
\subsubsection{Ranking, Information Retrieval and Content Ordering}
Another related, but succinctly distinct field comes in the form of ranking problems, information retrieval and content ordering. These encompass a family of challenges where there exists an \textit{optimal} hierarchical order to the input elements, such that given two elements there is always a proper way in which they should be placed in relation to one another, which does not change depending on the other input-set elements.
More specifically, in the context of ranking for search, if we enter the query `cats`, the returned image of a cat should always rank higher than an image of a `dog`, regardless of what the other returned images may contain. This assumption is not always true in complex set-to-sequence problems, where any new element of the input-set can change what the proper relative order or structure of the already available elements' sequence should be.
Traditionally, learn-to-rank problems have been tackled in a pairwise manner \shortcite{Cohen1998}, later approaches have applied neural methods on a list-based formulation of this problem \shortcite{cao2007learning}. Ranking has also found application in content selection \shortcite{Puduppully2019} and been employed as a useful auxiliary objective in a multitask setting for regression problems \shortcite{Liu2019ranking}. A detailed look at listwise ranking approaches to ordering and structure prediction can be found in section \ref{listwise-ranking}.
\subsubsection{Set Regression, Classification and Segmentation}
A more closely related area of work stems from set-input problems that have an output that is not a sequence. These include set regression, classification and segmentation challenges, among others. Effectively, this research field requires solving a near identical challenge to the first of two primary set-to-sequence challenges outlined at the beginning of this section, in that obtaining a proper encoding of the input set is vital.
Examples of such methods include \textit{PointNets} for 3-dimensional point cloud classification and segmentation \cite{Qi2017}, which builds on previous work by \citeauthor{Vinyals2016} \citeyear{Vinyals2016} in a specific geometric setting requiring both rotation and translation invariance (see section \ref{point-net}). Another example comes in the form of techniques for labelling objects based on a set of images from multiple viewpoints such as security cameras \shortcite{Zhao2019ARO} and even fully convolutional models for set segmentation \shortcite{Oliveira2020}.
Methods that obtain the input set representation in a way that is interesting to set-to-sequence problems are included in the main section of this review and given appropriate focus, regardless of whether their original application was in sequence-output challenges.
\subsubsection{Set-Output Tasks, Including Set-to-Set}
Conversely, a large field of work revolves around methods that learn to generate or predict a set as their output. Sets are the natural representation for many kinds of output data in machine learning tasks. These include a set of objects present in an image in an object detection setting \shortcite{Zhao2019detection}, a group of points in a point cloud \shortcite{Achlioptas2018} and a selection of nodes in a molecular graph for the problem of molecule generation \cite{DeCao2018}.
The main challenge of set-output methods mirrors the primary challenge of representing sets in a permutation invariant way in set-input problems. If the order in which the model outputs elements does not matter, there are $n!$ equivalent, correct outputs that the model has to learn to consider equally good.
For example, imagine a simple task where the model must learn to take as input a set of integers and return the set of all primes present in the input. Specifically, given the input $A = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$ the correct output should take the form of the set $B = \{2, 3, 5\}$. However, given that ML model implementations operate on ordered, multidimensional arrays, the model must learn to treat all of these possible output sequences as equally correct: $\langle 2, 3, 5 \rangle, \langle 2, 5, 3\rangle, \langle3, 2, 5\rangle, \langle 3, 5, 2\rangle, \langle 5, 2, 3\rangle, \langle 5, 3, 2\rangle$.
Failure to properly account for this property of output sets leads to discontinuities that are difficult for most modern neural architectures to learn, even on seemingly trivial synthetic datasets \cite{Zhang2020}. An example that illustrates this comes in the form of an autoencoder trained to embed and then reconstruct input consisting of a set of $n$ 2-dimensional points forming a regular polygon.
Every example in this dataset is a rotation of the same polygon around the origin. The discontinuity arises from this rotation, which forces a switch with regards to which element of the input set the model's output neurons will be responsible for decoding. This is referred to as the \textit{responsibility problem}. Proper handling of the set structure in the output requires the application of permutation invariant and permutation equivariant operations, much like in set-input problems, where the responsibility problem is not present.
Notable recent methods in the field of set prediction include the \textit{Deep Set Prediction Network} (DSPN) by \shortciteauthor{Zhang2019dspn} \citeyear{Zhang2019dspn}, which consists of a deep learning vector-to-set model that enables permutation invariance, and the \textit{Transformer Set Prediction Network} (TSPN) by \shortciteauthor{Kosiorek2020} \citeyear{Kosiorek2020}, that additionally takes advantage of the multiheaded self-attention introduced by \citeauthor{Vaswani2017} \citeyear{Vaswani2017}. The TSPN addresses the limitations of the DSPN related to set-cardinality learning. Additionally, an iterative attention mechanism referred to as \textit{Slot Attention} has been proposed by \shortciteauthor{Locatello2020} \citeyear{Locatello2020}, which decomposes input features into a set of representations, lending itself to set prediction tasks.
A sub-field of interest within set prediction is referred to as set-to-set, where both the input and output are structured as a set. Such tasks include recommendation \shortcite{Sarwar2001}, image search \shortcite{Wang2014} and person re-identification \shortcite{Zheng2015}. Set-to-set challenges require both permutation invariance in the parts of the model that encode the input set and a proper cross-similarity function for the output sets \shortcite{Saito2019DeepSM}, circumnavigating the responsibility problem.
\subsubsection{Ensuring Other Types of Invariance}
Finally, it may be of value to mention methods that obtain types of invariance other than under permutation. These methods stem from areas of application where the model's final prediction should not be dependent on such predefined transformations. Examples include translational and rotational (also known as viewpoint) invariance, common in computer vision problems, addressed in the works of \shortciteauthor{ling2016machine} \citeyear{ling2016machine} and \citeauthor{marcos2016learning} \citeyear{marcos2016learning}. Taking as illustrative case the task of object detection, to ensure the former quality the model needs to recognize the same object regardless of its position within the input image. To ensure the latter, given three dimensional images of a scene, the model must correctly identify an object regardless of the angle from which it is being perceived.
An important traditional approach to learning models that are invariant to certain transformation is data augmentation, as seen in \citeauthor{Taylor2018ImprovingDL} \citeyear{Taylor2018ImprovingDL} and \shortciteauthor{HernndezGarca2019LearningRV} \citeyear{HernndezGarca2019LearningRV}. Here, the underlying idea is that the model will be able to learn to become invariant to the chosen transformations once we augment our data with instructive examples that have been appropriately translated, rotated, partially obscured, blurred, illuminated, resized or had other applicable transformation applied to them, often in combination. More recent approaches that aim to safeguard machine learning models against relying on unintended aspects of data through adversarial strategies have also been proposed \shortcite{jaiswal2018unsupervised}. In order to apply the data augmentation approach to the set-to-sequence domain, we would increase our training set up to $n!$ times, providing the model with every possible permutation of each example set.
To prevent the costs associated with a larger training set, machine learning methods commonly employ various pooling operators after the stacked, equivariant feature extraction layers to obtain the desired invariance. However, in the case of translation invariance through pooled convolutional operations, the assumption that this completely prevents the model from exploiting the absolute location of an object in an image has been challenged \cite{kayhan2020translation}.
\section{Set Encoding Methods} \label{set-encoding-methods}
In this section, a qualitative comparison of different set encoding ML methods is provided, followed by detailed subsections devoted to the individual model architectures.
\subsection{Method Comparison} \label{method-comparison-set-encoding}
This section introduces the reader to each of the relevant set-encoding methods in turn. These are also sometimes referred to in literature as \textit{set-pooling} methods \cite{Lee2019}. Additionally, a number of comparison tables provides a summary overview: \ref{set-encoding-table-1}, \ref{set-encoding-table-2}.
It is important to note that some of the methods discussed in this section were designed specifically to handle set-to-sequence problems. As such, they contain both a set encoding module and a permutation outputting mechanism. Since it is not always immediately obvious how to combine a method that handles set encoding with a method that is designed to output a reordering, we compare various aspects of these methods in multiple places.
The models are compared with regards to the following aspects:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Permutation Invariance}: whether the model obtains a permutation invariant representation of the input set. The same set must result in the same embedded representation, regardless of how the actual input array was permuted.
\end{enumerate}
This feature does not guarantee that the final output of the model will be the same for differently ordered sequences obtained from a single set, as that may depend on the ordering method applied to the obtained permutation invariant set embedding, in order to output a sequence. This stems from the fact that these methods may require the reintroduction of the information relating to the order of the original input array and refer to it directly when outputting a permutation - particularly pointer-based attention. For more information on this, see section \ref{orderingmethods}.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\item \textbf{Multiset Input}: whether the model can distinguish between a given input set and certain examples of its corresponding multisets, with repeated elements.
\end{enumerate}
For example, the $\textrm{average}()$ pooling operator will not be able to distinguish between a set $X = \{1, 2, 3 \}$ and a multiset $X^\prime = \{1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3\}$. The $\textrm{max}()$ operator will similarly fail in the case of $X^{\prime \prime} = \{1, 1, 2, 3\}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item \textbf{Complexity}: how the model's computational complexity relates to the cardinality $n$ of the input set, and possibly other hyperparameters specific to a given architecture.
\item \textbf{Applications}: selected prominent domains which the model has been successfully applied to. Further examples can be found in the later sections devoted to each model.
\end{enumerate}
Additionally, the most prominent architectures can be split into RNN-based methods, namely the Pointer Network and Read-Process-and-Write model, and the more recent fully connected ones, primarily the foundational DeepSets method and the Set Transformer.
Alternatively, an interesting way to distinguish between them would be to consider methods that depend on a variation of the attention mechanism introduced by \shortciteauthor{bahdanau2014neural} \citeyear{bahdanau2014neural}, such as the Pointer Network and the Set Transformer, and others that do not utilize it.
\begin{table}[htb]
\vspace*{+5mm}
\label{set-encoding-table-1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Model}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Perm. Invariance}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Multiset}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Complexity}
\\ \hline \\
Pointer Network \citeyear{Vinyals2015}&No &No\footnotemark[1] &$O(n^2)$ \\
Read-Process-and-Write \citeyear{Vinyals2016}&Yes &Yes &$O(n^2)$\\
PointNet \citeyear{Qi2017}&Yes &No\footnotemark[2] &$O(n)$\\
DeepSets \citeyear{Zaheer2017}&Yes &Yes\footnotemark[3] &$O(n)$\\
Janossy Pooling \citeyear{Murphy2019}&Yes &Yes &$O(n!)$\\
Set Transformer \citeyear{Lee2019}&Yes &Yes &$O(n^2)$\\
AttSets \citeyear{yang2020robust}&Yes &Yes &$O(n)$\\
FSPooling \citeyear{Zhang2020}&Yes &Yes &$O(n~\textrm{log}^2 n)$\\
RepSet \citeyear{Skianis2020}&Yes &Yes &$O(mn + n^2~ \textrm{log}~n)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of set encoding methods, part 1}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Notes on Complexity}
\label{notes-on-complexity}
The complexity of the Read-Process-and-Write method is additionally impacted by the number $t$ of steps in the \textit{Process} block that computes the permutation invariant embedding of the input set. $t$ is constant, but an interesting area of further research would be to learn it adaptively, similar to the method described by \citeauthor{Graves2016-adaptive-time} \citeyear{Graves2016-adaptive-time}. The complexity of PointNet becomes $O(n^2)$ for 2D images and $O(n^3)$ for voxels, due to the convolutional operations. The authors of Janossy Pooling propose 3 methods of balancing tractability and the model's representational power, as outlined in section: \ref{janossy-pooling}
Regarding the Set Transformer, the use of $l$ stacked SAB layers results in quadratic complexity of $O(n^2l)$, use of a stack of $l$ proposed ISAB layers with $m$ inducing points results in complexity of $O(nlm)$. Similarly to the PointNet architecture, the complexity of AttSets grows depending on the dimensionality of the input, due to the use of convolutional layers in the encoder. However, the authors also provide a novel training paradigm, called \textit{FASet}, and benchmark its mean time consumption for a single object against a selection of simple pooling methods, with favourable performance.
Regarding the RepSet method, $m$ is the chosen number of hidden sets for the bipartite matching algorithm, represented by the columns of a trainable matrix. For more information on this and a proposed, more tractable relaxation, see section \ref{rep-set}.
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\roman{footnote}}
\begin{table}[htb]
\vspace*{+5mm}
\label{set-encoding-table-2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Model}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Applications}
\\ \hline \\
Pointer Network \citeyear{Vinyals2015}&combinatorial, multi-agent \\
Read-Process-and-Write \citeyear{Vinyals2016}&combinatorial, sorting\\
PointNet \citeyear{Qi2017}& 3D shape classification and segmentation \\
DeepSets \citeyear{Zaheer2017}&set expansion, anomaly detection\\
Janossy Pooling \citeyear{Murphy2019}& arithmetic, graph classification\\
Set Transformer \citeyear{Lee2019}&amortized clustering, anomaly detection\\
AttSets \citeyear{yang2020robust}&3D shape reconstruction\\
FSPooling \citeyear{Zhang2020}&set and graph classification\\
RepSet \citeyear{Skianis2020}&text and graph classification\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of set encoding methods, part 2}
\end{table}
\renewcommand\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}
\footnotetext[1]{The Pointer Network does not treat its input properly as a set, therefore it cannot be said to properly handle multiset input either, but it will distinguish between input vectors with repeated elements.}
\footnotetext[2]{Due to experimental results on the selected tasks, the authors of PointNet settle on max() as their recommended pooling operator, which does not distinguish between certain multiset variants. However, they report robust measurements of the performance of other pooling methods which can easily be included in the final model architecture and provide comparable results.}
\footnotetext[3]{Depends on the pooling operator used after the stacked fully-connected layers, of which the authors of DeepSets primarily focus on sum(), which does distinguish between sets and multisets. However, max(), which does not is also proposed as a problem-dependent variation. The formal proof extending DeepSets to multiset inputs was given by \shortciteauthor{Xu2019} \citeyear{Xu2019}.}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\roman{footnote}}
\subsubsection{Notes on Dataset Performance}\label{notes-on-performance}
The listed set encoding methods can be applied to a wide spectrum of tasks. As a result, their performance has been tested on a variety of datasets, often in subtly different settings, which prevents direct comparison. In lieu of a table presenting their performance on a selected subset of such datasets, we provide a short discussion of the experimental results that do lend themselves to being compared. A more comprehensive experimental analysis in this area is a possible direction for future work.
Both Pointer Networks and the Read-Process-and-Write (RPW) method have been tested on the simple task of sorting a set of five floating point numbers between 0 and 1 \cite{Vinyals2016}. The Pointer Network achieved an accuracy of 0.90 compared to 0.94 reached by the RPW. Additionally, the RPW method appeared to be better at handling larger sets of floats. Both DeepSets and Janossy Pooling \cite{Murphy2019} have been tested on simple arithmetic tasks such as sum-of-digits prediction, with each method reaching an accuracy of 1.0, albeit tested on input sets of different cardinalities. The Set Transformer has instead been tested on maximum value regression.
The Set Transformer, DeepSets and Janossy Pooling have also all been tested in terms of performance on unique count tasks. However, in the case of the Set Transformer experiments were performed on sets of handwritten characters from the Omniglot dataset \shortcite{lake2019omniglot}, in the case of DeepSets on the MNIST8m hand-written digits \shortcite{loosli2007training} and in the case of Janossy Pooling on simple integer sets.
The most commonly shared experimental task in the papers introducing and consequently utilizing the listed methods was point cloud classification. Particularly the ModelNet40 dataset \shortcite{wu20153d} has been used to test four of the mentioned models. Whilst AttSets \cite{yang2020robust} employs it to formulate a multi-view reconstruction task, the other three methods are tested on the core classification task with PointNet reaching an accuracy of 0.892 \cite{Qi2017}, DeepSets 0.900 \cite{Zaheer2017} and the Set Transformer 0.904 \cite{Lee2019}. However, the specific methods used to produce the point clouds from the provided mesh representation of objects showcased certain differences, further highlighting the need for a systematic, uniform comparison.
Both the Set Transformer and DeepSets methods have been tested on the task of set anomaly detection, specifically by way of the CelebA dataset \shortcite{liu2015faceattributes}. However, the DeepSets model was tested in terms of accuracy (0.75) and the Set Transformer in terms of the area under receiver operating characteristic curve and area under precision-recall curve, preventing direct comparison.
The FSPool technique's performance has been compared to the Janossy Pooling method through a visual question answering task, employing the CLEVR \shortcite{johnson2017clevr} dataset. The accuracy of the latter was reported as 0.97 $\pm$ 0.54, and of the former as 0.9927 $\pm$ 0.18 \cite{Zhang2020}.
Another useful task for the purposes of performance comparison is document classification, where given a document, the input to the model is the set of embeddings of its terms. DeepSets, Set Transformer and RepSet have been directly compared through their performance in this regard on 8 separate datasets \cite{Skianis2020}, with the Set Transformer consistently outperforming DeepSets, and RepSet outperforming both of the aforementioned methods.
Finally, the performance of DeepSets, Set Transformer and RepSet has been compared on the task of graph classification through the 5 datasets proposed by \shortciteauthor{kersting2016benchmark} \citeyear{kersting2016benchmark}. The classification accuracy of DeepSets on the MUTAG dataset was 0.862, Set Transformer's was 0.877 and RepSet's 0.886. However, on the arguably more difficult IMDB MULTI dataset the Set Transformer outperformed RepSet, reaching an accuracy of 0.502, compared to 0.499. For a full overview, see the paper by \citeauthor{Skianis2020} \citeyear{Skianis2020}.
Further details regarding the performance and limitations of presented methods are available in the sections devoted to them individually (below).
\subsection{Pointer Networks} \label{pointer-networks}
The Pointer Network \cite{Vinyals2015} is an encoder-decoder neural network architecture including a modified attention mechanism, which allows it to learn a target reordering of input elements. It is the first deep learning method capable of taking sets as input and learning a desired permutation, resulting in complex output sequences.
Pointer Networks were originally designed to tackle combinatorial optimization problems with varying input sizes, which was their main advantage over previous sequence-to-sequence methods. A Pointer Network can be trained on inputs of varying length and has been demonstrated to generalize reasonably well to unseen lengths \cite{Vinyals2015}.
Additionally, Pointer Networks included a modification of the content-based attention mechanism introduced by \citeauthor{bahdanau2014neural} \citeyear{bahdanau2014neural} which made it possible to treat the output of the model as pointers to elements of the input sequence. This attention-based pointing is one of the most popular methods for giving models the ability to output a permutation of the original input, regardless of the way they encode the original set. Due to its importance as a purely element-ordering technique, it is separately described in further detail in section \ref{attention-based-pointing}.
\subsubsection{Pointer Networks Limitations} \label{pointer-networks-limitations}
An important characteristic of Pointer Networks is that they do not strictly treat the input as a set, instead processing it solely through sequential recurrent neural networks. As a partial consequence they do not obtain a permutation invariant representation of the encoded set. This results in a situation where the same set can be represented as two differently ordered input arrays, leading to the model predicting two different outputs for it. Thus returning the optimal order is not guaranteed.
Another important limitation is that nothing is explicitly preventing the model from outputting an invalid reordering of the input set or sequence. This becomes apparent during early training, when the model points to the same elements of the input at various indices of the output sequence. However, this can be mitigated by the addition of a beam search mechanism to the decoder during inference or by progressive masking. In the latter case, the entry in the attention vector referring to an element that had already been pointed to is preset to an infinitely negative value at each successive iteration, preventing it from being pointed to again, at the cost of certain inductive bias being introduced into the model.
\subsubsection{Pointer Networks Details} \label{pointer-networks-details}
The Pointer Network consists of a recurrent neural network (RNN) encoder and an RNN decoder with a modified attention mechanism. The model obtains a content-based attention vector $\mathbf{a_j} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ at each decoder step $j$. This vector represents the conditional probability of each input element $x_i$ being the correct one to be pointed to at this step, conditioned on all previous steps as well as the entire input sequence $\mathbf{x} = \langle x_i, \ldots, x_n \rangle$, in the form of all encoder hidden states $E = \langle \mathbf{e_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{e_n} \rangle$ obtained when the encoder block iterates over the input array.
For simplicity, we will assume that each element $x_i$ must be pointed to exactly once, meaning that the output sequence of nonnegative integer pointers $\mathbf{y} = \langle y_i, \ldots, y_n \rangle \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ represents a valid permutation $\pi$, such that a sample target output $\mathbf{y}^\pi = \langle 0, 2, 1 \rangle$ would represent the reordered sequence $\mathbf{x}^\pi = \langle x_1, x_2, x_3 \rangle$ for the sample input $\mathbf{x} = \langle x_1, x_3, x_2 \rangle$. This will mean that when iterating over both encoder states $\mathbf{e_i}$ and decoder states $\mathbf{d_j}$, we will always be in range $1$ to $n$. The input sequence $\mathbf{x}$ can itself consist of multidimensional elements, or such embeddings of each $x_i$ can be obtained prior to the pointer network module through a chosen embedding layer.
The attention mechanism in the decoder block is as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{1}
z^i_{j} = \mathbf{v^T} \textrm{tanh}(W_1 \mathbf{e_i} + W_2 \mathbf{d_j})\qquad \quad \textrm{for}~i \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\ \mathbf{a_j} = \textrm{softmax}(\mathbf{z_j})\qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{for}~j \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3} \ P(y_i | y_1, \ldots, y_{i-1}, \mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{a_j} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{for}~j \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
Where $\mathbf{d_j}$ is the decoder's hidden state at the $j$-th output element, $\mathbf{e_i}$ is the encoder hidden state at the $i$-th input element, $W_1$, $W_2$ and $\mathbf{v}$ are trainable tensors. The $\mathbf{z_j}$ vector is of the same length as the input $\mathbf{x}$ and represents an output distribution over the dictionary of input elements. After the application of the softmax nonlinear activation function, turning it into $\mathbf{a_j}$, it becomes an attention vector. For a visual explanation, see Figure \ref{illustration-ptr-net}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images/pub_1c_ptrnet.png}
\caption{Pointer Network}
\label{illustration-ptr-net}
\end{center}
\small In Figure \ref{illustration-ptr-net}, an encoding RNN sequentially processes each element of the input array (blue dots), encoding it into a hidden state $s^e_n$ (dark gray), which is fed to the pointing decoder RNN (light gray). At every step, the second network produces a vector that represents a content-based pointer attention over the encoded inputs.
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Pointer Networks Applications}
The primary application of Pointer Networks are tasks where the target output is a reordering of the elements of the initial input. This reordering is based on pointers to indices of the original input sequence. Examples of such problems in currently active research areas include element sorting, coherence modeling \cite{Logeswaran2018}, word ordering \cite{Cui2018} and sentence ordering \cite{Wang2019}, as well as summarization \cite{Sun2019} and ranking in information extraction \shortcite{Bello2018}.
In the original paper, the Pointer Network models have been tested on challenging combinatorial optimization problems such as finding planar convex hulls, computing Delaunay triangulations and the Travelling Salesman Problem. Experiments have shown that even with computationally intractable, NP-Hard problems such as TSP, this model architecture was able to learn competitive approximate solutions, limited by the scale of the problem, with $n <= 50$ for the TSP.
Pointer Networks also found usage within the AlphaStar reinforcement learning model which defeated a grandmaster level player in the competitive real-time strategy game of Starcraft II \cite{Vinyals2019}. They were employed to help the agent manage the structured, combinatorial action space in conjunction with an auto-regressive policy.
\subsection{Read-Process-and-Write Model}
The Read-Process-and-Write (RPW) model is a neural network architecture consisting of three distinct blocks and aiming to obtain a permutation invariant representation of the input set, whilst learning a function mapping it to arbitrary target outputs \cite{Vinyals2016}.
RPW satisfies the key property of obtaining a permutation invariant representation of its input through a variation of the attention mechanism. It can be seen as a special case of a \textit{Neural Turing Machine} \shortcite{Graves2014} or a \textit{Memory Network} \shortcite{Weston2015} in that it is a recurrent neural network model that creates a memory representation of each element in the input sequence and accesses it via an attention mechanism.
In the original RPW paper its authors also demonstrated that the order in which elements are organized as input has a significant impact on the learning performance of earlier sequence-to-sequence architectures. This is an important observation given the fact that the recurrent neural networks employed in them are, in theory, universal approximators \cite{Schafer2007}.
\subsubsection{RPW Limitations}
Whilst the RPW model constitutes a significant improvement in the way machine learning methods handle input sets, it suffers from the same limitation as Pointer Networks in terms of ordering their elements into the output sequence. Namely, it is not strictly prevented from pointing to the same element of the input set multiple times in the output, effectively returning either an invalid sequence or an incomplete reordering. This is a particularly important limitation in relation to handling \textit{multisets} (also known as \textit{msets} or \textit{bags}), where the same element can occur multiple times in the input. However, it can be mitigated through beam search or progressive masking as described in the Pointer Network section. It also suffers from a significant decrease in performance as the size of the input set increases.
\subsubsection{RPW Details} \label{rpw-details}
The RPW architecture consists of three distinct blocks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Read Block} - which embeds every element of the input set using the same neural network for each $x_i \in X$.
\item \textit{Process Block} - which consists of a recurrent neural network that evolves its hidden state using a modified content-based attention mechanism to obtain a permutation invariant representation of the input over a separately predefined number of steps $t$.
\item \textit{Write Block} - which takes the form of a Pointer Network in the set-to-sequence tasks but can also be another recurrent neural network decoder for tasks where the output elements come from a fixed dictionary.
\end{enumerate}
The Process Block evolves the permutation invariant representation of the input set by repeating the following steps $t$ times:
\begin{equation}\label{4}
\mathbf{q_t} = \textrm{LSTM}(\mathbf{q_{t-1}^*}) \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{5}
z^i_{t} = f(\mathbf{m_i}, \mathbf{q_t}) \qquad \quad \
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{6}
a^i_{t} = \frac{\textrm{exp}(z^i_t)}{\sum_{j} \textrm{exp}(z^j_t)} \quad \quad \
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{7}
\mathbf{r_t} = \sum_i a^i_t~\mathbf{m_i} \qquad \quad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{8}
\mathbf{q_t^*} = \langle \mathbf{q_t}, \mathbf{r_t} \rangle \qquad \qquad
\end{equation}
where $i$ is the index over all embedded elements of the memory vector $\mathbf{m_i}$ obtained by the Read Block, $\mathbf{q_t}$ is effectively a query vector allowing us to read the permutation invariant representation $\mathbf{r_t}$ from the memories using an attention mechanism and $f()$ is any differentiable operation that takes two vectors and returns a scalar, most commonly the dot product $f(\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) = \mathbf{a} \cdot \mathbf{b} = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i b_i$.
An important implementation nuance is related to the third step, where the attention vector $\mathbf{a_t}$ is obtained via a softmax operation. Depending on weights initialization, that step can result in the undefined operation of dividing infinity by infinity. This can be prevented by bounding the value range of the $\mathbf{z_t}$ vector by the use of the tanh function \cite{Logeswaran2018}.
The $\textrm{LSTM()}$ is a recurrent neural network that takes no inputs, only evolving the hidden state $\mathbf{q_t}$. The final set encoding $\mathbf{q_t^*}$, is obtained by concatenating the previous hidden state $\mathbf{q_t}$ and the permutation invariant representation $\mathbf{r_t}$. $\mathbf{q_t^*}$ becomes the hidden state input during the next iteration $t$ of the Process Block.
\subsubsection{RPW Applications}
The RPW architecture has been applied to both continuous and discrete inputs. In the former case, the input can be a set of floating point numbers or a high-dimensional embedding of the entities of interest. In the latter, it can be dictionary entries. Considerations related to the specific structure of those input elements are out of scope for this paper as they pertain to the wider topic of representation learning.
This model architecture has also been used in few-shot object recognition \shortcite{xu2017few}, graph classification \shortcite{ying2018hierarchical} and one-shot learning in the context of drug discovery \shortcite{altae2017low}. The original paper tests it on the problem of sorting a varying-size set of floating point numbers between 0 and 1. It achieves accuracy of 94\% on sets of 5 elements, performance dropping significantly for larger ones (50\% for 10 elements, 10\% for 15).
This key property of obtaining a permutation invariant representation was further formalized in the DeepSets paper, presented in the following section.
\subsection{DeepSets} \label{deepsets}
The DeepSets framework \cite{Zaheer2017} provides a robust mathematical analysis for designing \textit{permutation invariant} and \textit{permutation equivariant} deep learning models. Both of these concepts are explained in section \ref{important_concepts}. Where the \citeauthor{Vinyals2016} \citeyear{Vinyals2016} paper focused on the former in the setting of a specific practical application, the authors of DeepSets provide a generic framework for the proper handling of set-inputs for both supervised and unsupervised learning.
The primary contribution of the DeepSets method lies in tackling the first part of the more general set-to-sequence challenge, which is to implement arbitrary set functions that result in permutation invariant representations. We have already described one example of an operation that ensured this in the RPW model's Process Block, namely a variation of the content-based attention mechanism consisting of a modified recurrent neural network. DeepSets propose a simpler, sum-based method to achieve this.
The DeepSets framework offers a simplified procedure by relying on summation of all element representations prior to further nonlinear transformations, which then transform these summed representations into the desired output (e.g. a class probability distribution or a single number for set regression). Later reimplementations of the DeepSets architecture experiment with replacing the sum operation with other permutation invariant alternatives such as taking the mean or maximum, with comparable results \cite{Lee2019}.
Additionally, the DeepSets analysis expands upon the set-input challenge by allowing for permutation equivariance, where the order of the output elements mirrors the order of the input sequence. This can be achieved, in one case, by adding a diagonal symmetry and diagonal identity constraint to the weights matrix of a fully-connected neural network layer, prior to the nonlinearity. However, set-to-sequence methods do not make extensive use of permutation equivariance therefore these are not detailed here. For more information, see the original paper.
\subsubsection{Deep Sets Details}
The proposed permutation invariant function for inference over sets takes the following general form:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each element $x_i$ in the input set is transformed \textit{independently} into an embedded representation $\phi (x_i)$, possibly through multiple layers of a feed-forward neural network.
\item The representations $\phi (x_i)$ are summed together and the result is further processed using another network $\rho$ consisting of any number of fully-connected layers with nonlinearities.
\end{enumerate}
Both $\phi$ and $\rho$ can be replaced by universal approximators, which can be learned to approximate arbitrary polynomials. In cases where additional information $q$ is available, it can be used to obtain the conditional mapping $\phi (x_i | q)$. The key to permutation invariance in this framework is simply summation of the obtained per-element representations.
\begin{equation}\label{9}
\textrm{DeepSets}(\{x_1, \ldots , x_n\}) = \rho(\textrm{sum}(\{\phi(x_1), \ldots, \phi(x_n)\})) \qquad \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/pub_1d_deepsets.png}
\caption{DeepSets}
\label{illustration-deepsets}
\end{center}
\small Every element of the two identical, shuffled sets of blue dots (leftmost) is embedded in an independent and identical way by the $\phi$ layer, resulting in a permutation equivariant transformation. These are then summed ($\Sigma$) into a permutation invariant representation and further transformed by the $\rho$ layer.
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Deep Sets Limitations}
This approach is much simpler to implement, compared to the RNN-based Pointer Networks and the RPW model. However, it generally prevents the model from learning pair-wise and higher order interactions between the elements of the set, which are lost during the summation. Additionally, significant doubts have been raised by \shortciteauthor{Wagstaff2019} \citeyear{Wagstaff2019} relating to the limits of the representational power of the DeepSets method. More precisely, the $O(n)$ computational complexity comes at the cost of the dimensionality of the latent space having to be at least equal to the cardinality of the input set $n$ to ensure universal function approximation.
\subsubsection{Deep Sets Applications}
The DeepSets framework has been applied to point cloud classification \cite{Qi2017}, generalization tasks in reinforcement learning \shortcite{karch2020deep}, outlier detection and anomaly classification \shortcite{oladosu2020meta} among others.
\subsection{Set Transformer} \label{set-transformer}
One of the most elaborate methods designed for set-input problems is the \textit{Set Transformer} \cite{Lee2019}. This method can be seen as an extension of the popular feed-forward, attention-based Transformer \cite{Vaswani2017} to the domain of machine learning on sets.
The Set Transformer consists of the expected stacked multi-head self-attention layers for both the internal encoder and decoder as seen in the classic Transformer. One aspect that separates it from the previously described set-to-sequence methods is that instead of using a fixed pooling operation such as summing or taking the average to ensure permutation invariance, it employs a parameterized pooling function that is learned and therefore much more adaptive to the particular task at hand. This is further referred to as \textit{Pooling by Multihead Attention} (PMA) and explained in more detail later in this section.
The Set Transformer is specifically designed to model higher-order interactions among elements and their subsets within the input set, whilst satisfying the permutation invariance and variable input size requirements common to set-to-sequence problems. Its key novel contribution is that it concurrently encodes the entire input set through a sequence of permutation equivariant \textit{Set Attention Blocks} (SABs). By comparison, the previously discussed DeepSets method obtained element features independently of other input set elements. This modification allows the Set Transformer to explicitly learn pairwise and even more complex interactions between set elements during the encoding step, dependent on the number of stacked SAB layers.
\subsubsection{Set Transformer Limitations}
However, the Set Transformer also introduces certain costs. The SAB, a proposed variation on the multihead attention block employed in the classic Transformer, which enables the Set Transformer to encode higher-order interactions between set elements, has the limiting quality of requiring quadratic time complexity $O(n^2)$ relative to the cardinality of the input set $n$.
The authors of the method address this limitation by proposing an \textit{Induced Set Attention Block} (ISAB). It takes advantage of a vector of \textit{inducing points}, which is of predetermined size and is used to obtain a hidden representation of the input set by attending to it. This is in effect a low-rank projection that might be familiar to readers who have experience with autoencoder models. The technique reduces the required computation time to a linear $O(mn)$, where $m$ is the chosen number of inducing points and $n$ is the set cardinality, at the cost of reduced performance and an additional hyperparameter to be tuned.
\subsubsection{Set Transformer Details}
What follows is a more detailed inspection of the SAB, ISAB and PMA methods, which assumes some familiarity with the multihead attention mechanism proposed by \cite{Vaswani2017} as per the Transformer architecture. However, to establish full clarity, we will formally define both the basic Transformer attention and its multihead variant first.
Assume we have a set of $n$ elements as our input, each with dimensions $d_e$. First, we obtain three new vectors per each element by multiplying it with three matrices, whose weights are learned during the training step. These transformed input representations are further referred to as $n$ query vectors $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_q}$, key vectors ($K \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}$) and value vectors ($V \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_v}$). These are then mapped to the desired attention outputs, applying an activation function such as softmax in the following way:
\begin{equation}\label{10}
\textrm{TransformerAttention}(Q, K, V) = \textrm{softmax} (QK^{\top})V
\end{equation}
The original implementation includes a scaling factor, which has been omitted from the above equation for the sake of simplicity. The pairwise dot product of the query $Q$ and key $K$ vectors measures how related each pair is. The final output is a weighted sum of $V$.
The multihead attention mechanism extends this further by projecting each query, key and value onto $h$ separate vectors via sets of the three parameter matrices $W_i^Q, W_i^K, W_i^V$, one per each of the $h$ heads. Then, the TransformerAttention() function is applied to each of these $h$ vectors to obtain each head's preliminary output $O_i$:
\begin{equation}\label{11}
O_i = \textrm{TransformerAttention}(Q W_{i}^{Q}, K W_{i}^{K}, V W_{i}^{V})
\end{equation}
Finally, these outputs $\{O_i\}_{i=1}^{h}$ are concatenated and then linearly transformed:
\begin{equation}\label{12}
\textrm{MultiheadAttention}(Q, K, V) = \textrm{concatenate}(O_1, \ldots, O_h) W^0
\end{equation}
Now we can begin to move on to the Set Attention Block (SAB). It is designed to take a set and perform a slightly modified self-attention operation between its individual elements, which results in an output set of the same size. It will be useful to first define a \textit{Multihead Attention Block} (MAB), which is an intermediate building block in both SAB and its less computationally intensive alternative - ISAB. MAB takes as input two matrices of the same dimensions: $A, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ and first obtains a hidden representation $Z$ using a layer normalization operation as defined by \shortciteauthor{ba2016layer} \citeyear{ba2016layer}:
\begin{equation}\label{13}
Z = \textrm{LayerNormalization}(A + \textrm{MultiheadAttention}(A, B, B))
\end{equation}
Then, it processes each element in each row of $Z$ in an independent, identical way, in the same manner we have seen as part of the DeepSets method, prior to the summation. This can be done via a row-wise feed forward layer $\phi()$:
\begin{equation}\label{14}
\textrm{MAB}(A, B) = \textrm{LayerNormalization}(Z + \phi(Z))
\end{equation}
However, in our set-to-sequence setting we do not have two separate matrices of sets $A$ and $B$ that we wish to encode into some joint representation. Therefore the actual $\textrm{SAB}()$ is defined on a single matrix of an input set $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$:
\begin{equation}\label{15}
\textrm{SAB}(X) = \textrm{MAB}(X, X)
\end{equation}
If we stack $l$ SAB layers in our set encoder, which we are able to do since both the input and output of the Set Attention Block is a set of the same size, the model's computational complexity in the cardinality of this set is $O(n^2l) \approx O(n^2)$. At the cost of quadratic computation time, stacking 2 SAB layers enables the model to encode pairwise interactions between elements. Stacking more such layers makes explicitly encoding higher-order interactions possible, which is a crucial novel contribution for tasks where such interactions define the target output.
The authors of the Set Transformer method address the computational cost of SAB by proposing a less expensive variation of it, called the Induced Set Attention Block. In ISAB, an additional array of \textit{inducing points} $I \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ is included. This vector is of predefined dimension $m$, resulting in a computational complexity $O(mn)$ or $O(lmn)$, if stacked ISAB layers are applied. The calculations within ISAB are defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{16}
\textrm{ISAB}_m(X) = \textrm{MAB}(X, \textrm{MAB}(I, X))
\end{equation}
The learned values of the inducing points $I$ are expected to encode large-scale aspects of the input set as meaningful features for the ultimate task. Similar to SAB, the output of ISAB is a set of the same size as the input set, which is why we still need a pooling operation to be applied to it at this point.
The final aspect of the Set Transformer that distinguishes it from the earlier set-encoding methods is the Pooling by Multihead Attention (PMA) stage. Unlike a simple sum, mean or max, the PMA pooling function has learnable parameters, which allows it to increase or decrease the relative importance given to the encoding of individual encoded elements of the output of the SAB and ISAB blocks. Usage of PMA requires specifying the number $k$ of seed vectors $S \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times d}$. Assuming we have already obtained the encoded set features $E \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ via stacked SAB or ISAB layers:
\begin{equation}\label{17}
\textrm{PMA}_k(E) = \textrm{MAB}(S, \phi(E))
\end{equation}
In most cases a single ($k=1$) seed vector is used, resulting in a single pooled set encoding, but certain clustering tasks may require multiple related outputs, justifying the use of a larger $k$.
\subsubsection{Set Transformer Applications}
The overall Set Transformer architecture can, in principle, be applied to any set-input problem (and therefore any set-to-sequence task). It will perform particularly well in problems where pairwise and higher-order interactions between the input set's elements are important to the task at hand. The authors of the original paper demonstrate the model's usefulness within such areas on the challenge of counting unique characters in a set of input images, amortized clustering with mixture of Gaussians, point cloud classification and set anomaly detection.
It has since been applied to set-of-sets embedding problems \shortcite{Meng2019} and transfer learning in dialogue systems \shortcite{Wolf2019}.
\subsection{Other Set-Input Methods}
Below is a list of other set encoding methods that do not necessarily lend themselves directly to set-to-sequence problems, but may be of interest to the reader. The specifics of using the learned, permutation invariant set representation to produce a sequence of set elements are discussed at the beginning of the next chapter, specifically in subsection \ref{using-set-repr-to-produce-sequence}.
\subsubsection{Featurewise Sort Pooling}
This method, also known by its abbreviation as FSPool \cite{Zhang2020}, came from the field of set prediction, in relation to a problem where both the input and output can be conceived of as sets. The authors expand upon one of the naive approaches to encoding sets in a permutation invariant way. Namely, the technique of simply sorting all the elements of the input set by the values of their single chosen feature, as seen in previous work by \shortciteauthor{Zhang2018AnED} \citeyear{Zhang2018AnED}.
In set-output problems this approach results in discontinuities in the optimisation whenever two elements swap positions after the sort. This is referred to in set prediction challenges as the \textit{responsibility problem} \cite{Zhang2020}. To avoid this difficulty, the authors have developed a novel pooling method which sorts each feature across the elements of the input set and then performs a weighted sum.
This allows the model to remember the permutation applied through the featurewise sorting and apply its inverse in the decoder. This process restores the original, arbitrary order of the input elements making the encoding a permutation equivariant operation, preventing the discontinuity in the outputs of the model.
\subsubsection{Janossy Pooling} \label{janossy-pooling}
Another interesting approach to set-encoding through the use of simpler pooling operators was proposed by \citeauthor{Murphy2019} \citeyear{Murphy2019}. In the titular \textit{Janossy Pooling}, the symmetric (permutation invariant) encoding function is expressed as the average of a mixture of permutation sensitive functions applied to all reorderings of the original input.
This approach immediately raises the question of tractability. Generating all permutations of a set results in $n!$ intermediate inputs, all of which would then require the application of the chosen permutation sensitive function. To mitigate this, the authors propose a number of strategies, among them the use of a smaller number of selected canonical orderings that are presumed to carry relevant information for the specific task at hand, such as simple sorting, \textit{betweenness centrality} and others \shortcite{niepert2016learning}.
As an alternative to canonical orderings, the authors also propose a method related to a model's ability to explicitly learn pairwise and higher-order interactions between the elements of the input set. This method is referred to as $k$-ary dependencies. It consists of projecting the input to a length $k$ sequence, for example by only keeping the first $k$ elements, limiting the number of permutations that need to be averaged to $k!$, which can be tractable for a small enough $k$. The number $k$ becomes a hyperparameter capable of balancing tractability with the model's ability to learn $k$-ary interactions in the input. Finally, the authors also experiment with permutation sampling as the third method of reducing the computational complexity of Janossy Pooling, as proposed by \citeauthor{Moore2017DeepCI} \citeyear{Moore2017DeepCI} and \shortciteauthor{Hamilton2017InductiveRL} \citeyear{Hamilton2017InductiveRL} in relation to machine learning on graphs.
\subsubsection{PointNet} \label{point-net}
Not to be confused with the Pointer Network described in section \ref{pointer-networks}, \textit{PointNet} is a set-encoding method designed to handle 3D point clouds proposed by \citeauthor{Qi2017} \citeyear{Qi2017}. The geometric setting of the problem tackled by the authors of this model shares many similarities with the set-to-sequence domain. These include the lack of order in the input, requiring the use of symmetric, permutation invariant encoding functions, and the importance of interactions between individual input elements or, specifically in this case, points. An additional requirement for this setting is invariance under certain geometric transformations of the entire point cloud. For example, if we are tasked with classifying 3D objects represented by a point cloud, we want to correctly classify a chair regardless of its rotation and translation.
In practice, PointNet first obtains an embedding of each of the input points through stacked, fully-connected layers in the form of a multilayer perceptron, such that each element is identically and independently transformed. This permutation equivariant representation is then pooled via the $\textrm{max}()$ operator (per dimension) and further transformed through an additional fully-connected layer. This is in effect a slight variation of the procedure proposed by \citeauthor{Zaheer2017} \citeyear{Zaheer2017} and discussed in section \ref{deepsets}. Other pooling operations, including an attention-based sum inspired by the RPW model \cite{Vinyals2016}, are also experimented with in the original paper..
Finally, the obtained point cloud encoding is concatenated with the embedding of each point, reminiscent of the approach seen in listwise ranking, described in section \ref{listwise-ranking}.
This combination of local and global features is shown to be crucial for point segmentation tasks. The authors also provide proof that their network is a universal approximator for continuous set functions and demonstrate its robustness to small perturbations of the input set.
\subsubsection{AttSets} \label{att-sets}
The \textit{AttSets} model, proposed by \citeauthor{yang2020robust} \citeyear{yang2020robust}, uses weighted attention to obtain a permutation invariant representation of the input set. It was originally applied to a multi-view 3D reconstruction task, where a set of images of the same object from different angles is used to estimate its true three dimensional shape.
AttSets improves the performance of previous, simpler pooling functions used for 3D object recognition. These include both first-order operators such as max(), average() and sum(), which do not have any trainable parameters, as well as higher-order statistical functions such as bilinear pooling \shortcite{lin2018second}, log-covariance pooling \shortcite{ionescu2015matrix} and harmonized bilinear pooling \shortcite{yu2018multi}, which have only few.
In order to achieve this, each element of the set is individually and independently transformed via a learned attention function, which can take the form of a fully connected layer or a multidimensional convolutional layer, depending on the form of the input. The output of this function is normalized via softmax() and then used as an attention mask over the original input elements. This allows the model to learn to pay a varying degree of attention to individual dimensions of the input elements' representations. To obtain the final, fixed-length set encoding, the original input elements are multiplied by the attention mask and summed together.
\subsubsection{RepSet} \label{rep-set}
An interesting set-encoding method, referred to as \textit{RepSet}, has been proposed by \citeauthor{Skianis2020} \citeyear{Skianis2020}. The RepSet model consists of stacked feed-forward, fully connected layers, reminiscent of the DeepSets method \cite{Zaheer2017}, followed by a custom permutation invariant layer replacing the sum() operator. This layer is inspired by concepts from the field of bipartite graph matching and has allowed the model to show promising performance on text and graph classification tasks.
The permutation invariance is achieved through a configurable number of hidden sets (potentially of different cardinalities), whose elements correspond to columns of trainable weight matrices. These are then compared with the elements of the actual input set to create matrices that are fed to a bipartite matching algorithm, specifically the Hungarian Algorithm \cite{grinman2015hungarian}. The resulting values can be further transformed through standard neural network layers for set classification and regression purposes.
A significant issue with this approach is the computational complexity $O(mn + n^2~\textrm{log}~n)$, where $n$ is the cardinality of the input set and $m$ is the chosen number of hidden sets. This characteristic, limiting the usefulness of the method regarding larger sets, stems from the bipartite matching algorithm needed to obtain the final set encoding. The authors of the method address this by proposing a relaxation of RepSet, referred to as \textit{ApproxRepSet} \cite{Skianis2020}, which removes one of the constraints on the range of values taken by the elements of the hidden sets.
\section{Ordering Methods} \label{orderingmethods}
This section focuses on the second of the two primary challenges inherent to set-to-sequence tasks, which is outputting a permutation. Assuming we are able to obtain a meaningful representation of an input set of any length, how do we use that representation to produce a reordering of the input's original elements? This is a constraint that is easy to satisfy when designing traditional combinatorial optimization algorithms, yet in deep learning it requires relatively complex model architectures \cite{Bengio2020}.
Three particular branches of ordering methods have emerged as most prominent in deep learning:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Attention-based Pointing}
In which a vector of attention weights over all elements of the input set is generated iteratively at every index of the output sequence. The highest attention value points to the element that should be placed in the current position within the sequence.
\itemsep0.5em
\item \textit{Permutation Matrices}
Where a square, binary, doubly-stochastic matrix or a relaxation thereof is generated for each input set. The index of the highest value in each row identifies the element that should take the position at the same index as the number of the row. The input can be left-multiplied by this matrix to obtain the final reordering.
\itemsep0.5em
\item \textit{Listwise Ranking}
In ranking methods the target order is represented through the assignment of a score to each element of the input set, which enables the final permutation to be obtained through sorting. Listwise ranking takes into consideration the relative scores of all other set elements when computing the score for a particular one.
\end{enumerate}
Each of these three basic frameworks is described in the following sections, with references to specific methods that expand upon them, where relevant. First, however, we must discuss how best to utilize the permutation invariant set representation, obtained via the set encoding methods discussed in section \ref{set-encoding-methods}, to output the target sequence.
\subsection{From Set Representation to a Sequence}
\label{using-set-repr-to-produce-sequence}
As stated previously, deep learning models do not directly take unordered sets as input. Instead they transform ordered arrays representing one (usually arbitrary) of $n!$ permutations of a given set's elements. Therefore, an inductive bias is introduced into the model's internal architecture to first obtain a permutation invariant representation of the underlying input set, which by definition will be the same regardless of which arbitrary permutation the model happened to receive.
However, when our prediction target is the optimal order of a given set's elements and we are directly feeding our model an array in some arbitrary order, then our target output sequence must refer to this initial, random order when predicting the preferred one. In effect, in the case of simple permuted sequences without repetition and exclusion, we are seeking a permutation equivariant function that outputs ranks, conditioned on a permutation invariant representation of the entire set. In the case of complex permutations, we also expect the same sequence to be predicted based on the same input set.
Regardless, the output sequence has to refer to the arbitrary order in which the input set elements are presented to it. In essence, whilst we assume there is one optimal order of a given set's elements, there are $n!$ target permutations relative to the $n!$ arbitrary ones that form the actual input of the model, per input set. This is because each target permutation reorders an arbitrary one that the model receives as actual input, each representing the same, singular optimal order of the underlying set's elements.
The remaining question is how to utilize the fixed-length, permutation invariant set representation when outputting the sequence representing a permutation of the arbitrarily ordered input's elements. There are two dominant approaches, namely summation and concatenation of the representation of the entire set with the learned representations of each element. In this way, every transformation of individual set elements has the chance to take into consideration the entire available set, as previously seen in the PointNet model by \citeauthor{Qi2017} \citeyear{Qi2017}.
Considerations regarding which of those two methods is preferable relate to the larger field of representation learning, with ample examples both on the side of summation \shortcite{szegedy2016rethinking_inception} and concatenation \shortcite{noreen2020deep_concatenation}. These include the \textit{ResNet} architecture by \shortciteauthor{resnet_he2016deep} \citeyear{resnet_he2016deep}, with addition used in the eponymous residual connections, and the \textit{DenseNet} model and its descendants, employing concatenation \shortcite{huang2018condensenet}, within the field of computer vision.
An alternative approach, applicable to RNN-based ordering methods, would be to utilize the set representation in the hidden state of the recurrent network. Similarly, attention-based methods could use the set representation to influence which elements the model focuses on. Finally, in ranking approaches the set representation can rather elegantly be used in place of the \textit{query} (see section \ref{listwise-ranking} for more details). Investigation of the efficacy of these methods is a possible direction for future research, as outlined in section \ref{furtherresearch}.
\subsection{Attention-Based Pointing} \label{attention-based-pointing}
The term \textit{attention} covers a wide spectrum of methods within the field of machine learning. First introduced as part of an encoder-decoder model applied to a sequence-to-sequence translation task by \citeauthor{bahdanau2014neural} \citeyear{bahdanau2014neural}, it has since been utilized in a number of other domains, including computer vision \shortcite{xu2015show}, graph-based problems \shortcite{velickovic2018try}, reinforcement learning \cite{iqbal2019actor} and many more. For a comprehensive overview, see \shortciteauthor{chaudhari2019attentive} \citeyear{chaudhari2019attentive}.
In structured output tasks that are inherent to the set-to-sequence domain, the key idea is to induce a vector of attention weights over the entire input, allowing for the selection of elements by their position, conditioned on the learned representation of the entire input and the sequentially predicted outputs. An example of such a setting from the field of natural language processing (NLP) is \textit{linearization}, which involves solving a problem that will be familiar to most readers who have tried to learn a new language. Namely, given a randomly shuffled set of words, we are tasked with ordering them into a properly structured sentence. A survey of these and other attention-based methods in NLP can be found in the work of \citeauthor{hu2019introductory} \citeyear{hu2019introductory}.
In effect, the model can learn to identify the current most pertinent position in the input through the attention weights, which we then interpret as pointers to the next preferred element for the output sequence. It may be worth mentioning that valid concerns have been raised as to the overall interpretability of attention weights in text classification and question answering tasks by \citeauthor{jain2019attention} \citeyear{jain2019attention}. However, in attention-based pointing these weights have a direct impact on the predicted permutation, leaving little room for interpretational ambiguity.
\subsubsection{Details of Attention-Based Pointing}
Attention-based pointing is an adaptation of content-based attention \cite{Graves2014} to an ordering challenge. The model learns a distribution over all input elements at each position of the output sequence. This should not be confused with self-attention, also known as intra-attention \shortcite{cheng-etal-2016-long}, where the target sequence is always the same as the input. In self-attention, the parameterized attention function learns to relate different positions of the input sequence to each other. In attention-based pointing the attention function learns to relate the elements of the input with the current positions of the output.
Assume we have a randomly ordered input sequence of varying length $n$, consisting of $d$-dimensional elements: $X = \langle \mathbf{x_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{x_n}\rangle$ such that $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, which we want to order according to some preference. This sequence is an $n$-tuple, representing a single permutation of the corresponding set $X^\prime = \{\mathbf{x_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{x_n}\}$, which we cannot represent directly as a single vector, due to the fact that vectors posses inherent order whereas sets do not.
Our target output is a sequence of integer pointers $Y = \langle y_1, \ldots, y_n : y_i \in \mathbb{Z^+} \rangle, $, satisfying the conditions: $\forall i, j: y_i \neq y_j$ and $\forall i, 1 \leq y_i \leq n$, signifying that no element from the input can take multiple positions in the output sequence and every element must be assigned a position in the final reordering. Our objective is to define a differentiable function $f : X \rightarrow Y$ that meets these criteria, with some parameters $\theta$, lending itself to gradient-based training.
The simplest effective formulation of such an attention-based ordering function requires the following learnable parameters: two square weights matrices $W_1, W_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ as well as a single vector $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 1}$. Additionally, given the sequential nature in which the ordering is generated, we also have access to a decoder state $\mathbf{s_t}$ at each step $t$, for which we calculate the attention-based probability distribution over input elements. The array of encoded set elements $X$ is processed in the following way:
\begin{equation}\label{18}
z^i_t = \mathbf{x_i} W_1 + \mathbf{s_t} W_2 \ \ \ \ \ \quad \qquad \textrm{for}~i \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{19}
a^i_t = \frac{\textrm{exp}\left(\mathbf{v}^{T} \sigma\left(z^i_t\right)\right)}{\sum_{j}^{n} \textrm{exp}\left(\mathbf{v}^{T} \sigma\left(z^j_t\right)\right)} \quad \ \textrm{for}~i \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20}
y_t = \textrm{argmax}(\mathbf{a_t}) \ \quad \qquad \qquad \ \textrm{for}~t \in (1, \ldots ,n)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is a nonlinear activation function, commonly the hyperbolic tangent \cite{Logeswaran2018}. The vector $\mathbf{z_t} = \langle z^i_t, \ldots, z^n_t \rangle$ is a representation of all input elements, adjusted by the representation of the generated output sequence at step $t$, through additive attention \cite{bahdanau2014neural}. Finally, $y_t$ is an integer pointer to the element of $X$ which received the highest attention value within the attention vector $\mathbf{a_t} = \langle a^i_t, \ldots, a^i_n\rangle$ at the current step $t$ of the sequentially predicted output sequence.
Most methods obtain the embedding of the entire input $X$ through more complex encoding methods, such as stacked bidirectional LSTMs, as seen in the work of \citeauthor{Vinyals2015} \citeyear{Vinyals2015} and \citeauthor{Vinyals2016} \citeyear{Vinyals2016}. This representation retains the information about the original arbitrary order of the elements and should be dependent on the entire set. In the above example, the length $t$ of the output sequence of pointers $Y$ is the same as the cardinality of $X^\prime$, which is the case in many combinatorial optimization problems. However, in some structured prediction tasks the optimal length of the output is also subject to the learning process, allowing for pointing to the same element $\mathbf{x_i}$ multiple times or not at all, as is the case in catalog design \shortcite{CarlsonSkalak1998UsingAE}.
It should be noted that in the above formulation nothing is explicitly preventing the model from pointing to the same element $\mathbf{x_i}$ at multiple positions of the output sequence. In practice the iterative learning process can largely prevent this from occurring, given appropriate training data. One method to explicitly prohibit repetition is progressive masking, as described in section \ref{pointer-networks-limitations}.
In practice, beam search is commonly used during inference to increase the probability that the most optimal sequence is predicted, as evidenced in the work of \citeauthor{Bahdanau2017RL} \citeyear{Bahdanau2017RL} and \citeauthor{Kool2019} \citeyear{Kool2019}. Beam search employs a heuristic search algorithm to expand a limited number of most promising vertices of the graph defined by the attention vectors over a predefined number of output steps. It tracks a small number of potential partial solutions, at the controlled cost of memory and computation. However, the exact reason why a small beam number results in qualitatively better predictions has recently been called into question \shortcite{meister2020if}. For a more detailed overview in the context of sequence prediction, see \citeauthor{wiseman-rush-2016-sequence} \citeyear{wiseman-rush-2016-sequence}.
\subsubsection{Methods Using Attention-Based Pointing}
Many neural network model architectures across distant fields of application include variations on the basic attention-based pointing mechanism. These include specifically set-to-sequence methods, such as the Pointer Networks discussed in section \ref{pointer-networks-details} and the RPW model detailed in section \ref{rpw-details}, as well as elements of complex models in reinforcement learning applied to competitive real-time strategy challenges \cite{Vinyals2019}.
Additionally, attention-based pointing found usage in identifying entailment between documents \shortcite{Rocktschel2016ReasoningAE}, abstractive text summarization \shortcite{see2017get}, rare and out-of-vocabulary word prediction \shortcite{merity2016pointer} as well as describing multimedia content \shortcite{cho2015ieee}. An interesting augmentation of attention-based pointing has been experimented with in the context of generating structured queries (in SQL) from natural language sequences \shortcite{zhong2018seq2sql}. However, the improvement stems from augmenting the input with SQL keywords to limit the output space, not from an essential adjustment to the underlying attention-based pointing mechanism.
An application of attention-based pointing to generate solutions to another classic combinatorial optimization challenge, the Vehicle Routing Problem, was proposed by \citeauthor{Kool2019} \citeyear{Kool2019}. The resulting architecture is an encoder-decoder \textit{Graph Attention Network} \cite{velickovic2018try}, employing multiheaded attention in the encoder and node masking in the decoder, which uses the embeddings of all the nodes and the entire graph at each step $t$ to point to the next node to be visited. Unlike the previously discussed methods, this model is trained using a gradient estimator from the field of reinforcement learning, first proposed by \citeauthor{williams1992simple} \citeyear{williams1992simple}.
\subsection{Permutation Matrices}\label{permutation-matrices}
A permutation matrix is a square, binary matrix $P$ having exactly one entry $p^i_j = 1$ in each row $i$ and each column $j$ \cite{STUART1991255}. All other entries are equal to $0$. $P$'s dimensions are defined by the length of the desired output sequence, most commonly equal to the length of the input. A permutation matrix is unimodal in that each of its rows has a unique, highest value. It is also doubly-stochastic, since it consists entirely of nonnegative numbers, with each row and column summing to 1.
The key property of a permutation matrix is that given an arbitrarily ordered sequence, we can left-multiply it by a permutation matrix to obtain a reordered sequence. For example, given an arbitrarily shuffled input sequence $\mathbf{x} = \langle x_1, x_5, x_3, x_4, x_2 \rangle$, which we want to permute in such a way as to restore the $i-$indexed ascending order to obtain $\mathbf{x^{\pi}} = \langle x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5 \rangle$, we can predict the permutation matrix visualized below. Our target is the permutation $\pi$, given in two-line notation:
\begin{equation}\label{21}
\pi = \begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & x_5 & x_3 & x_4 & x_2\\
1 & 5 & 3 & 4 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
We can apply this permutation to the transposed input $\mathbf{x^{\top}}$ via left-multiplication by the target permutation matrix $P$:
\begin{equation}\label{22}
\mathbf{x^{\pi}} = P \mathbf{x^{\top}} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\
x_5\\
x_3\\
x_4\\
x_2
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\
x_2\\
x_3\\
x_4\\
x_5
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
This gives us a way to represent the target permutation in the form of a matrix of numbers between 0 and 1, marking an important step towards enabling the application of machine learning methods.
\subsubsection{Making Permutation Matrices Learnable}
In order to use a permutation matrix as the target output of a machine learning model that can be trained through some form of gradient-based iterative optimization, we must introduce certain relaxations of the concept. Otherwise, we are left with the equivalent of a sorting operator which is non-differentiable \shortcite{grover2019stochastic}.
Traditionally, sorting operations result in either a permutation $\pi = \langle 1, 5, 3, 4, 2 \rangle$ (from the previous example) or a vector of reordered elements $\mathbf{x^{\pi}} = \langle x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5 \rangle$. Much like the permutation matrix, the former is non-differentiable with respect to the input due to being integer-valued and the latter due to being piecewise linear \shortcite{cuturi2019differentiable}.
The most direct way to obtain a differentiable relaxation $P^{\prime}$ of the permutation matrix $P$ is to map the input $\mathbf{x}$ to a continuous codomain, as opposed to the original discrete one. Thus, we need a relaxation such that $P^{\prime} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, lending itself to gradient-based optimization. Additionally, an efficient projection from the continuous codomain back to the discrete one must exist to allow for the use of loss functions and evaluation metrics. This can be achieved by applying the argmax() function per row of $P^{\prime}$ to find the position in which the unique $1$ would have been located in the actual permutation matrix $P$.
The resulting relaxation must retain the property of row-stochasticity, such that:
\begin{equation}\label{23}
\forall i, j \in \{1, \ldots, n\}: p^{\prime}_{ij} \geq 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{24}
\forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}:
\sum_{j=1}^{n} p^{\prime}_{ij} = 1
\end{equation}
and of unimodality, such that a vector $\mathbf{y}$ is both obtainable from the relaxation matrix $P^{\prime}$ through row-wise argmax() and a valid permutation of the input:
\begin{equation}\label{25}
\forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}: y_i = \textrm{argmax}(
\mathbf{p}^{\prime}_i)
\end{equation}
There are many possible methods of obtaining this relaxation from the input after it has been transformed by a chosen neural network architecture, such as adding elementwise Gumbel perturbations \shortcite{Mena2018}, applying the Sinkhorn operator to directly sample matrices near the Birkhoff polytope \shortcite{linderman2018reparameterizing}, which is the convex hull whose points are doubly-stochastic matrices \cite{Emami2018LearningPW}, or through the application of a softmax() operator on a derived matrix of absolute pairwise distances between the individual input elements \cite{grover2019stochastic}.
Depending on the specifics of the task at hand, the target matrix can be predicted in a single pass (if the length of the input and output is a constant, known prior to inference) or sequentially, row by row \cite{Nishida2017}. An interesting method employing permutation matrices has been proposed by \shortciteauthor{Zhang2019permcomp} \citeyear{Zhang2019permcomp}, in which a trainable, pairwise \textit{ordering cost} function is used to produce an anti-symmetric matrix $C$, whose entry $c_{ij}$ represents the cost of placing the $i$-th element before the $j$-th. This function is represented as a neural network, which is then used to continuously adjust the learned permutation matrix. This is referred to as a \textit{Permutation-Optimisation} module, and has been demonstrated to perform well on number sorting, re-assembling image mosaics and visual question answering, with one limiting feature of entailing cubic time complexity.
\subsection{Listwise Ranking} \label{listwise-ranking}
Ranking methods determine the predicted order of elements by assigning a score to each element and then sorting them according to these scores. In listwise ranking, a score is calculated based on a list of available elements and a \textit{query}, for which a specific order is to be predicted. The terminology stems from applications in information retrieval, where the task is to rank the available \textit{documents} (such as web pages) in order of relevance for a given query (e.g. a search term). For an overview of neural ranking methods, see \shortciteauthor{mitra2018introduction} \citeyear{mitra2018introduction}.
Listwise ranking is distinguished from point- and pair-wise ranking. Pointwise methods reduce the ranking problem to regression, in that the relevance score for an element is obtained only from its own representation and the query. Pairwise approaches reduce it to binary classification \shortcite{lei2017alternating}. Given a query and a pair of elements, they predict which element is the more relevant of the two. In listwise ranking, the prediction is performed on a list of objects.
Application of listwise ranking methods to set-to-sequence problems requires certain adjustments. Most importantly, in such ordering and structure prediction challenges we are not given a specific query, for which an ordering is to be generated. However, we are able to obtain a permutation invariant set representation through the set encoding methods detailed in section \ref{set-encoding-methods}. We can use this learned embedding to fill the role that a query performs in traditional learn-to-rank methods. Intuitively, the relative rank of each element in the output sequence should depend on the entire available set.
This marks an important departure from the assumption that two elements have a canonical relative order, which should remain unchanged regardless of what other elements are present in the input set. In practice, higher-order interactions between available elements can entirely change the target sequence. In order to learn such properties, a ranking method can utilize the permutation invariant set representation as the query and predict the relevance scores of all available elements in one go, in the listwise manner described in the following subsection.
\subsubsection{Details of Listwise Ranking} \label{details-of-listwise-ranking}
In order to illustrate the basic underlying mechanisms in listwise ranking methods, this subsection investigates the first method that formulated order prediction on a list of objects, namely the \textit{ListNet} model, proposed by \cite{cao2007learning}. From this point on, whenever we refer to a query, we are referring to the permutation invariant representation of the entire set obtained via the previously outlined set encoding methods. This representation can be learned in parallel with the weights of the ranking the model.
Once more, assume we are given an arbitrarily ordered input sequence $X = \langle \mathbf{x_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{x_n}\rangle$ such that $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$. This sequence is one of $n!$ possible permutations of the corresponding set $X^\prime = \{\mathbf{x_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{x_n}\}$. The objective is to transform the given $X$ vector into the best possible permutation of $X^{\prime}$, according to some preference. This target permutation is $\mathbf{\pi} = \langle \pi(1), \ldots, \pi(n) \rangle$, such that $\pi(i)$ is the object at position $i$ in the permutation. The set of all possible permutations of length $n$ is denoted as $\Omega_n$. The target permutation $\pi$ is represented by a vector of scores $\mathbf{y^\pi} = \langle y_{\pi(i)}, \ldots, y_{\pi(n)} \rangle$, where $y_{\pi(i)}$ is the predicted relevance score for the element $\mathbf{x_i}$. All elements of the original input $X$ get assigned a score by the learned neural network, in a listwise manner.
A naive approach would be to try to obtain the probability $P_y(\pi)$ of each of the $n!$ possible permutations from $\Omega_n$, given a set of scores $\mathbf{y}$:
\begin{equation}\label{26}
P_y(\pi) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\phi(y_{\pi(i)})}{\sum_{k=i}^{n} \phi(y_{\pi(k)})}
\end{equation}
where $\phi()$ is any increasing and strictly positive function applied to the scores and $y_{\pi(i)}$ is the relevance score of element $i$ in the vector $\mathbf{y_\pi}$ corresponding to some permutation $\pi$ \cite{cao2007learning}.
However, this is a computationally inefficient approach, therefore we instead calculate the \textit{top one probability} for each element $\mathbf{x_i}$. This probability is equal to the sum of the permutation probabilities of every permutation where the $i$-th element was ranked first. For the exact proof of this equivalence, see the appendix in \citeauthor{cao2007learning} \citeyear{cao2007learning}. The crucial observation is that we do not need to calculate all the permutation probabilities to obtain the correct top one probability $P_{top}(\mathbf{x_i})$ of each element, given a list of scores $\mathbf{y_\pi}$:
\begin{equation}\label{27}
P_{top}\left(\mathbf{x_i}\right) = \frac{\textrm{exp}\left(y_{\pi\left(i\right)}\right)}{\sum_{k=1}^{n} \textrm{exp}\left(y_{\pi\left(k\right)}\right)}
\end{equation}
In effect, the probability distribution over permutations is obtained by applying the softmax() function to the predicted relevance scores. Since this is a supervised learning framework, our model has access to the ground truth distribution for each example list. This allows for the use of loss functions that compare two distributions, such as the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, also referred to as relative entropy \cite{liu2003kullback}.
In order to obtain the vector of relevance scores $\mathbf{y_\pi}$, the query vector $\mathbf{q} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is concatenated with a fixed-length, learned embedding of each element of the input set $\mathbf{x_i}$, resulting in the final input $I \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times (m + d)}$, per single example list. In the original ListNet model, this input is transformed through stacked, fully-connected layers, of which the last one has a single unit outputting the relevance score per element.
As such, this transforms each concatenation of the query and the embedded element in an independent and identical manner. This is practical for ranking tasks, where two items always have the same relative target order, given a query. However, in more complex structure prediction tasks, common in set-to-sequence challenges, relying entirely on the set encoding $\mathbf{q}$ and the listwise loss to identify interactions between set elements limits the ability to approximate complex functions, in which higher-order interactions between elements have an impact on the final order \shortcite{lan2009generalization}. This limitations of ListNet is partially addressed by later methods, discussed in section \ref{methods-using-listwise-ranking}.
Additionally, a limitation of the ranking approach is that by representing the target output sequence through relevance scores per input element, we cannot learn to output sequences of any length other than $n$. This also precludes the use of listwise ranking in challenges where the output sequence is of the same length as the number of input elements $n$, but repetition and exclusion of elements is required. For a more detailed look into the underlying theoretical aspects of listwise ranking, see \shortciteauthor{xia2008listwise} \citeyear{xia2008listwise}.
\subsubsection{Methods Using Listwise Ranking} \label{methods-using-listwise-ranking}
Multiple listwise ranking methods in machine learning have been developed since the original ListNet model. A notable framework that addresses the challenge of learning pairwise interactions between elements came in the form of \textit{BoltzRank}, in which the rank probabilities are sampled from a Boltzmann distribution, employing an energy function that depends on a score influenced by both individual and pairwise potentials \cite{volkovs2009boltzrank}.
Another approach of interest is the \textit{FATE} framework proposed by \shortciteauthor{Pfannschmidt2018DeepAF} \citeyear{Pfannschmidt2018DeepAF}. The authors identify the problem of predicting a relevance score for an element and the query with only the loss function carrying the signal regarding the context of other available elements. In order to address this, they effectively employ a permutation invariant set-encoder \cite{Zaheer2017}, whose output is concatenated to the learned representation of each element, in a variation of the basic method described in section \ref{details-of-listwise-ranking}.
\shortciteauthor{ai2018learning} \citeyear{ai2018learning} propose a complex architecture combining two-stage ranking, sequential recurrent neural networks and an attention-based loss function. The proposed \textit{Deep Listwise Context Model} (DLCM) sequentially encodes the most relevant results using the corresponding feature vectors, trains an additional, local context model and employs it to re-rank the best $k$ results.
Finally, \shortciteauthor{pang2020setrank} \citeyear{pang2020setrank} employ the Set Transformer to obtain element representations that encode cross-document interactions and return a permutation invariant ranking by sorting the permutation equivariant relevance scores per each document.
\section{Discussion} \label{discussion}
In this section, the key challenges and contexts of application for set-to-sequence deep learning methods are discussed. Additionally, separate sections are devoted to the progress in set encoding and permutation learning, along with current limitations and proposed directions for future research.
\subsection{Key Challenges}
Core challenges of set-to-sequence include representing sets of varying sizes in a permutation invariant way, encoding pairwise and higher-order interactions between set elements and keeping the computational complexity moderate in the cardinality of the input set. This last requirement stems from the fact that in many important set-to-sequence problems the size of the input set can be quite large, particularly in computer vision point-cloud based tasks \shortcite{ge2018hand}. This has been addressed by various proposed set-encoding or set-pooling methods discussed in section \ref{set-encoding-methods}, such as RNN-based Pointer Networks \cite{Vinyals2015} and Read-Process-and-Write models \cite{Vinyals2016} as well as through fully connected methods such as DeepSets \cite{Zaheer2017} and the Set Transformer \cite{Lee2019}, among others.
Another set of key challenges in set-to-sequence stems from the many possible ways of formalizing the process of outputting a permutation sequence. Potential methods include learn-to-rank approaches, permutation matrices and attention-based methods discussed in section \ref{orderingmethods}. Additionally, it is not always trivial to combine the output of the specific set-encoding technique with the expected input of these permutation methods in a way that results in good model performance. Finally, we expect not just the set-encoding module but the entire set-to-sequence model to be permutation invariant and always give the optimal output regardless of how the array representing the set is reordered at input.
\subsection{Contexts of Application}
There are many contexts where the input data does not have an inherent ordering and the number of input elements varies (i.e. \textit{set-input} problems) and possibly even more where the input elements are not unique, instead repeating a meaningful number of times, in which case the task presents an \textit{mset-} or \textit{multiset-input} problem. Additionally, the set elements may be allowed to reoccur multiple times in the predicted sequence or be excluded from it entirely, forming a \textit{complex permutation}. These elements can be both continuous (e.g. word embeddings) or discrete (coming from an index-based dictionary). An example of such a problem with a strong industrial application is the question of how to order available product offers into a displayable catalogue that will keep the reader engaged and eventually inspire them to make a relevant purchase \cite{Liao2004}.
Similar challenges are faced by the experts who order news articles into a coherent publication, book authors composing chapters into a novel and by engineers tackling the challenge of \textit{catalog design}, in which a
configuration is created by assembling off-the-shelf components into a functional system \cite{CarlsonSkalak1998UsingAE}. Set-to-sequence methods can also benefit architects in their search for the best configurations of the design space, taking into consideration structural efficiency, daylight availability and other aspects of building performance \cite{Brown2017}. Whenever the elements come from a pre-existing set and the output is structured as a complex permutation, we are facing a set-to-sequence challenge.
\subsection{Progress in Set Encoding}
As machine learning methods become more and more widely used, the range of input and output data structures that these methods are applied to becomes larger. Mirroring the development and consecutive growth in popularity of methods created specifically to handle certain types of input data, such as convolutional neural networks for images and recurrent models for sequences, one of the most significant developments in set-to-sequence has been the work towards obtaining permutation invariant representations of sets of varying lengths.
Particularly, this representation can now be obtained in a way that is capable of explicitly encoding not just pairwise but also higher-order interactions between input elements. Intuitively these improvements mirror the way we as humans process input sets, in that we group the elements into meaningful collections, allowing for enough flexibility that this grouping may change entirely upon the introduction of a new element.
\subsection{Progress in Permutation Learning}
Comparative progress has been made regarding the ways in which we formalize the permutation tasks at hand. Given that the simplest form of permutation (reordering) is sorting, the early methods formalized this challenge as a ranking problem, with pointwise, pairwise and eventually listwise loss being used to train the model. These methods suffer from the assumption that any two elements have a canonical pairwise ranking, regardless of the features of the other elements in the input set.
Another alternative emerged in the form of self-attention applied in such a way as to output softmaxed pointers to the elements of the input set at each step in the output sequence, with the additional use of beam search during inference \cite{Vinyals2015}. The third dominant formalization comes in the form of learning to output a permutation matrix. This allows for the original input to then be matrix-multiplied by the row-stochastic permutation matrix, resulting in the desired reordering \cite{Nishida2017}, \cite{Emami2018LearningPW}. It is a sign of the complexity of the field that no clear preferred formalization of its core challenge has emerged, with ranking (for example) still finding useful application in active research \shortcite{Kumar2020}.
\subsection{Limitations}
A crucial limitation of many of the cutting edge set-to-sequence models, such as the Set Transformer \cite{Lee2019} and the permutation mechanism in Pointer Networks, is their reliance on self-attention. Whilst Transformer-based methods that rely solely on multiheaded self-attention have seen remarkable success, even in applications beyond a fixed-length context \shortcite{dai-etal-2019-transformer}, their ability to process hierarchical structure has hard limits. Specifically, purely self-attention architectures are entirely dependent on the number of multi-attention heads and layers growing alongside the size of the input to retain the ability to model recursion, finite-state languages and other hierarchical aspects of our data \cite{Hahn2020}.
In order to overcome this limitation, efforts have been made to combine the benefits of sequential computation, inherent to recurrent neural networks, with the advantages of parallel computation and the global receptive field of the Transformer. This method is referred to as the \textit{Universal Transformer} \shortcite{Dehghani2019}. In addition, it also includes the \textit{Adaptive Computation Time} mechanism proposed by \citeauthor{Graves2016-adaptive-time} \citeyear{Graves2016-adaptive-time}, which enables the model to dynamically learn how many computational steps to perform per the features of the input sequence. However, these advances have not yet been translated to the domain of set-input challenges.
\subsection{Directions for Further Research} \label{furtherresearch}
There are many possible directions for further investigations, pertaining to both the area of encoding sets and proposing novel permutation learning methods. As hinted in section \ref{using-set-repr-to-produce-sequence}, the question of how best to utilize the fixed length set representation within the internals of the ordering module remains open. However, we believe the areas of learning complex permutations (\ref{complex-permutations}) and differentiable loss functions (\ref{differentiable-loss-functions}) deserve separate attention, given in the following subsections.
\subsubsection{Complex Permutations}
\label{complex-permutations}
An important and natural extension of the research within set-to-sequence is to apply it to challenges where the output sequence allows for repetition and exclusion of input set elements, thus going beyond traditional permutation learning \shortcite{Diallo2020}. As such, these \textit{complex permutations} present an additional challenge of dynamically predicting the optimal sequence length without sacrificing the second of the two aforementioned prerequisites for ML methods on sets, namely the requirement that the same model must be able to process finite input sets of any cardinality. It is not immediately clear how to achieve both properties, with multiple promising approaches gaining prominence, ranging from the addition of a confidence loss for long time-series prediction \cite{Harmon2019}, to the aforementioned adaptive computation time \shortcite{wu2020don}. For an overview of dynamic neural network methods in general, see \shortciteauthor{han2021dynamic} \citeyear{han2021dynamic}.
Important tasks involving a complex target permutation include predicting a configuration representing the assembly of off-the-shelf components into a functional system \cite{CarlsonSkalak1998UsingAE} and the composition of product offers into rendered catalogues \cite{Liao2004}. Additionally, an interesting area for further research would be to extend these complex permutation sequences to grids and lattices, as suggested by \citeauthor{Zhang2019permcomp} \citeyear{Zhang2019permcomp}, or even to graphs, expanding on the work of \shortciteauthor{serviansky2020set2graph} \citeyear{serviansky2020set2graph}.
\subsubsection{Differentiable Loss Functions}
\label{differentiable-loss-functions}
Another important area for further work is centered around the problem of framing the set-to-sequence challenges in such a way as to enable the use of differentiable loss functions. A naive but often practically effective approach is to frame the problem as categorization and use a cross-entropy loss, as discussed in \citeauthor{engilberge2019sodeep} \citeyear{engilberge2019sodeep}. However, it precludes meaningful distinction between pointing to an incorrect element that is very similar to the correct one and pointing to an entirely different incorrect element.
Alternatively, if a ranking framework is applied, where a score is generated for each element and subsequently used to sort all elements into a new permutation, we gain access to well documented listwise losses, such as the ones successfully employed in the ListNet or \textit{ListMLE} \cite{Kumar2020} frameworks. Many metrics that would lend themselves to ordering challenges do not have defined derivatives for their entire domain. The development and testing of their smooth approximations is of great potential value, as seen in the works of \citeauthor{rolinek2020optimizing} \citeyear{rolinek2020optimizing} and \citeauthor{Blondel2020FastDS} \citeyear{Blondel2020FastDS}.
\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}
Set-to-sequence is currently established as a family of methods with an exceptionally wide range of applications. At its essence, it is a combination of three areas seeing a lot of attention within the machine learning and deep learning research communities, namely set-input problems, combinatorial optimization and structured prediction. As such, a number of methods that can further our understanding of this field originates from other areas of interest, sometimes without seeing immediate application to set-to-sequence challenges. Progress owes to advances in model architectures, parallel computing, hyperparameter optimization as well as the overall growing interest in applying machine learning solutions to a wider and wider gamut of industrial challenges.
We have presented an overview of set-to-sequence methods from the fields of machine learning and deep learning. The initial sections of this paper introduced the reader to the key concepts in relation to machine learning on sets, most notably the properties of permutation invariance, permutation equivariance and the requirement of handling inputs of varying lengths. In relation to this, in section \ref{set-encoding-methods}, the reader is introduced to a number of selected set-encoding model architectures, including a significantly detailed look at their underlying mathematical transformations. To facilitate comprehensive understanding, we compared these and other related methods through several summary tables presented in section \ref{method-comparison-set-encoding}.
Additionally, a survey of potential ordering methods has been provided in section \ref{orderingmethods}. This included the three primary ways of formalizing the output permutation in the set-to-sequence setting, namely listwise ranking, relaxations of permutation matrices and attention-based pointing. Once a permutation invariant set representation is obtained through one of the aforementioned set-encoding models, the ordering methods' calculations can be conditioned on this embedding to output a sequence of elements from the original input set, in one fully trainable deep learning framework.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was partly supported by an Innovation Fund Denmark research grant (number 9065-00017B) and by Tjek A/S. The authors would like to acknowledge Rasmus Pagh's assistance in the conceptualization of different set-to-sequence settings and general feedback on the early drafts of this paper.
\vskip 0.2in
|
\subsection{PoseNet vs. Classical Frame-to-Frame Odometry} \label{posenet_vs_frame_to_frame}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& \texttt{00-08}* & \texttt{09-10} \\
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet (ICP loss) & 2.24 & 7.65\\ \hline
PoseNet (Weighted ICP loss) & 1.49 & 7.19\\ \hline
NI + P-F2F & 40.1 & 30.4\\ \hline
CV + P-F2F & 1.46 & 1.7\\ \hline
EI + P-F2F & 1.47 & 1.9 \\\hline
NI + Kd-F2F & 24.18 & 14.04 \\ \hline
CV + Kd-F2F & 1.41 & 1.84 \\ \hline
EI + Kd-F2F & 1.41 & 1.87 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Absolute Translation Error (ATE) on KITTI: compares PoseNet to different Frame-to-Frame (F2F) methods / NI ="No Initialization"}
\label{table_frame_to_frame}
\end{table}
PoseNet is often compared to the default \textbf{F2F} ICP registration (using point-to-plane or point-to-point error metric) \cite{deeplo, eth_deeplo}.
However, we found the comparison unfair, as little effort is required to build a decent frame-to-frame LiDAR odometry which obtains comparable and even slightly better precision on the training and test sets.
Table \ref{table_frame_to_frame} confirms that using a naïve point-to-plane registration with no initialization (\textbf{NI}) leads to worse performances than PoseNet (rows 3 and 6 of the table).
However, using simple initialization methods (\textbf{CV, EI}), is enough to outperform PoseNet (rows 4 and 5).
This shows that frame-to-frame can be made much more robust and precise than advertised.
This is reassuring as \textbf{P-F2F} alignment is precisely the supervision signal used to train PoseNet.
Furthermore, PoseNet and geometric LiDAR odometries use very different mechanisms to predict the motion.
ICP-based methods allow for iterative refinement of an estimate.
In contrast PoseNet maps features extracted from the pair of scans to a relative pose, via spaces deformed by training data.
Thus, the precision of the latter mechanism is limited by the representative power of the network and depends notably on the number of parameters and the volume of training data, whereas the former solely depends on noise and the ability to make correct neighbor associations.
Note that the results in Table \ref{table_frame_to_frame} hint at the practical utility of PoseNet: When the motion cannot be properly initialized, either due to abrupt motion or when initializing the map, PoseNet can use all the data as a regularizer and obtains decent predictions, outperforming standard \textbf{F2F} methods with no initalization.
However, PoseNet requires a supervision signal, which in self-supervised settings is based on classical methods.
Thus we have the following paradox: when this signal is possible, classical methods typically perform well (as demonstrated on KITTI).
More insight into this subject is provided in Section \ref{understanding}, by examining the generalization capacity of PoseNet.
\subsection{Understanding the Limitations of PoseNet for RPR} \label{understanding}
PoseNet for Relative Pose Regression (\textbf{RPR}) makes the false promise of learning to find the optimal pose between consecutive LiDAR frames. \cite{understanding} showed the limits of convolutional networks for absolute pose regression, showing notably their behavior is close to image retrieval pipelines, without an understanding of the geometry of the scenes, which leads to poor generalization capacities. In this section, we show that this is also true for PoseNet for \textbf{RPR} and explore the limits of PoseNet generalization to unknown motion (label distribution) or unknown environments (input distribution).\looseness=-1
\begin{table}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& \{\texttt{00, 02-10}\} & \texttt{01} \\
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet \{\texttt{00, 02-10}\}* & 1.51 & 56.04 \\ \hline
PoseNet \{\texttt{00, 02-21}\}* & 1.63 & 13.46 \\ \hline
CV + P-F2F & 1.52 & 2.17 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Average Translation Error on sequence \texttt{01} of KITTI shows that PoseNet fails to infer unobserved motion during training / CV="Constant Velocity", P-F2F="Projective Frame-to-frame"}
\label{generalisation_motion_table}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{images/motion_pred}
\caption{Distribution of the speed (scaled in km/h) for KITTI's agglomeration sequences (\texttt{\{00, 02-10\}} in blue) and highway (\texttt{01} in red) computed from the ground truth and from PoseNet's prediction (light blue and red) for the training split \texttt{\{00, 02-10\}} (bottom). The PoseNet incapacity to generalize well to motion unobserved during training is demonstrated.}
\label{distribution_motion}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Generalization to unobserved motion:} Tables \ref{main_table_kitti} and \ref{table_frame_to_frame} show the discrepancy in performances between training and testing for PoseNet.
To complement this observation, we examine the behavior of PoseNet on motion unobserved during training.
KITTI's sequence \texttt{01} (highway) is unique among the dataset which is mainly composed of residential and city environments in the sequences \{\texttt{00, 02-10}\}. The test split \{\texttt{11-21}\} also contains several road sequences but with a maximum speed of 90 km/h.
Figure \ref{distribution_motion} presents the distribution of the motion from the ground truth and PoseNet predictions trained on the split \{\texttt{00, 02-10}\} (city, suburbs). We also trained PoseNet on the split \{\texttt{00, 02-21}\} (city, suburbs, roads), and Table
\ref{generalisation_motion_table} shows the trajectory errors for both splits.
Both trainings demonstrate the poor generalization capacity of PoseNet to the unobserved motion of sequence \texttt{01}.
The scale of the motion predicted by PoseNet does not leave the distribution observed during training (as seen in Figure \ref{distribution_motion}).
Interestingly, when roads are added to the training set, PoseNet can relate the motion of the sequence \texttt{01} to the motion of the roads (with speed greater than 80 km/h), however is unable to interpolate beyond.
This illustrates the same behavior as for absolute pose regression: at best PoseNet associates a pair of frames with the closest motion observed in the dataset.
\textbf{Generalization between datasets} We now examine whether PoseNet can generalize between comparable datasets.
The answer is essentially not yet. We trained PoseNet on KITTI and tested on Ford Campus dataset (and reciprocally). We present the results in table \ref{generalization_ford_campus}.
PoseNet showed a good performance on the training dataset, however obtains poor results on the other dataset.
This is underwhelming as both datasets were acquired using the same LiDAR in the same configuration, and PoseNet was trained using the same spherical projection.
It shows the limited generalization capacities of PoseNet to different acquisitions in comparable scenarios, and that further work is required to achieve that goal which could unlock further practical interests for PoseNet.
\begin{table}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& Ford Campus & KITTI (\texttt{00-10}) \\
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet (Ford Campus)* & 3.94 & 73.42 \\ \hline
PoseNet (KITTI \texttt{00-21})* & 71.56 & 1.54 \\ \hline
CV + P-F2F & 4.32 & 1.52\\ \hline
CV + P-F2M & 2.04 & 0.69 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Average Translation Error (ATE) shows Poor Generalization of PoseNet between KITTI and Ford Campus datasets}
\label{generalization_ford_campus}
\end{table}
\subsection{Initialization Strategies} \label{analysis_initialization}
As mentioned in Section \ref{related} PoseNet for LiDAR-based \textbf{RPR} has originally been introduced by LO-Net \cite{lo_net} as a supervised network predicting a motion estimate before mapping.
This point of view was extended in \cite{eth_deeplo} which provides unsupervised training for PoseNet.
This is a theoretically sound approach, as initialization is critical for successful \textbf{F2M} odometry, due to the small convergence domain of ICP-based registration.
However, for a more complete analysis, we need to compare it to simpler approaches, and in different and more challenging settings which we do in this section, using the algorithms presented in Section \ref{methods}.
\textbf{KITTI and Ford Campus:} Two training strategies are relevant for PoseNet + \textbf{F2M} but carry different meanings.
The first is to use all available data for training, using the regularizing effect of the data to improve PoseNet prediction.
This is relevant when the LiDAR odometry is used offline, for example, as a mapping algorithm.
The second uses only data unobserved during training and evaluates the capacity of PoseNet to be used online as an initialization method.
To evaluate both scenarios, we train PoseNet on two different splits of KITTI, sequences \texttt{00-21} for the mapping scenario and \texttt{11-21} for the online scenario. The results are presented in Table \ref{table_initialization}.
They show that PoseNet improves \textbf{P-F2M} slightly, compared to the simpler \textbf{EI} and \textbf{CV} approaches, when running on data observed during training (see rows 1 and 3 on KITTI).
However, this is not the case when PoseNet trained on unobserved data is considered, which leads to poorer performances.
We can make the connection with the previous Section : due to PoseNet's bad generalization properties, it is not yet well suited for inference, compared to simpler strategies, when either the motion or the environment differs from training.
However, for offline mapping, using all available data for a specific configuration, allows small performance gains compared to simpler strategies.
\textbf{NCLT:} Classical LiDAR odometries in driving scenarios are very good precisely because the motion is easily predictable, leading to correct registration and in turn, high map quality. We now test our methods in the more challenging scenario of the NCLT dataset. The LiDAR mounted on the Segway is sparser (only 32 channels), and subject to abrupt rotations in yaw (around its axis) and pitch (the acceleration of the segway leads to an inclination of its support rod). We considered 10 sequences to train PoseNet in supervised and unsupervised settings (for more than 200000 frames in a repeating environment). The results on the sequences \texttt{01/08} (test) and \texttt{01/22} (train) for the proposed \textbf{F2M} with the different initialization strategies are presented in Table \ref{table_initialization_michigan} and Figure \ref{michigan_initialization}.
First, they show poor performances for \textbf{CV} as an initialization method compared to \textbf{EI}.
This illustrates well the importance of proper initialization for classical methods.
\textbf{EI} provides a good first estimate of the 2D motion (notably the rotation around the $z$ axis), which allows correct registration and thus, keeps the map clean. However the standard \textbf{CV} often fails to put the new scan in the convergence window of \textbf{F2M}, leading to maps of poor quality and thus, terrible pose registrations.
Second, we can compare \textbf{P-F2M} and \textbf{Kd-F2M} in a more challenging registration setting. We see that our \textbf{Kd-F2M} behaves better than \textbf{P-F2M}. This is expected as the projective alignment leads to less precise neighbor associations. Furthermore, projective association is much more sensitive to abrupt rotations which can lead to large pixel distances between neighbors. However, the most important choice is the initialization strategy. Given an appropriate initialization strategy, even \textbf{P-F2M} provides correct results with reasonable drift as evidenced by Figure \ref{table_initialization_michigan}.
Finally, we see that PoseNet behaves poorly on the dataset in supervised and unsupervised settings, on the training and test sets.
This demonstrates the limited representative power of our current PoseNet to more challenging motions.
Despite using 10 times more data than for KITTI in a repeating environment, PoseNet is unable to learn a mapping from pairs of images to relative poses at a precision interesting enough to allow correct registrations. Due to the abrupt rotations, the motion of the sensor is located in a much greater volume of the parameters space than for driving motions. Thus, further research is required to allow neural network architectures to address these more challenging settings. \looseness=-1
\begin{figure}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{images/michigan_initialization.png}
\caption{Trajectories of sequence \texttt{01/08} of the NCLT dataset obtained by the proposed \textbf{Kd-F2M} for different initialization strategies. The figure shows that the constant velocity (\textbf{CV}) (green) model is less appropriate for this dataset than our 2D registration based estimator (\textbf{EI}). Ground Truth (GT) is in red.}
\label{michigan_initialization}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& Ford Campus & KITTI (\texttt{00-10}) \\
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet \texttt{00-21}* + P-F2M & - & 0.66\\ \hline
PoseNet \texttt{11-21}* + P-F2M & - & 0.81\\ \hline
PoseNet Ford Campus* + P-F2M & 2.41 & - \\ \hline
CV + P-F2M & 2.04 & 0.69\\ \hline
EI + P-F2M & 2.11 & 0.69\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Average Translation Error (ATE) on KITTI and Ford Campus for different initialization strategies, followed by \textbf{P-F2M} / \textbf{P-F2M}=Projective Frame-to-Model / CV="Constant Velocity", EI="Elevation Image"}
\label{table_initialization}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c }
& \texttt{01/08} (test) & \texttt{01/22}* (train) \\
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet (supervised) + Kd-F2M & 35.5 & 37.5 \\ \hline
PoseNet (unsupervised) + Kd-F2M & 48.7 & 46.3 \\ \hline
CV + Kd-F2M & 11.49 & 18.7 \\ \hline
EI + Kd-F2M & 1.84 & 3.73 \\ \hline
EI + P-F2M & 4.32 & 5.21 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Average Translation Error on sequences \texttt{01/08} and \texttt{01/22} of the NCLT dataset, shows the importance of the selection of the initialization for LiDAR odometries}
\label{table_initialization_michigan}
\end{table}
\subsection{Weaknesses of Geometric LiDAR Odometries} \label{limits_geometric}
Thus far, we have proven that registration-based \textbf{F2M} LiDAR odometries obtain superior results when a rich and dense map is constructed and when the new scan to be registered is moved into the small convergence domain of the mapping algorithm with good initialization.
The challenge is then the construction of a precise map and the prediction of the initial motion.
This hints at the weaknesses of the classical methods: elements weakening the quality of the map (mobile objects, featureless regions, bad scan registration) as well as rapid and unpredictable motion (cf section \ref{analysis_initialization}).
Another important weakness is the initial construction of the map. For the first two frames, \textbf{F2M} is equivalent to \textbf{F2F} without motion initialization.
Bad initial map construction can be recovered for methods using a sliding local map (e.g. IMLS-SLAM \cite{imls_slam}), which can forget badly registered scans, but the trajectory and map constructed will only be correct locally, and not globally.
It is much more problematic for methods relying on a global map (such as LOAM \cite{loam}).
We investigate this sensitivity in the driving datasets by counting the number of failures to align the first two initial frames.
Given a predicted pose $\mathbf{t}_{pred}=(\mathbf{t_x, t_y, t_z}),\mathbf{e}_{pred}=(\mathbf{e_x, e_y, e_z})$ and a ground truth pose $(\mathbf{t}_{gt}, \mathbf{e}_{gt})$ (using Euler representation for rotations), we categorize it as a registration failure if $||\mathbf{t}_{pred} - \mathbf{t}_{gt}||_2 > 1m$ or $|| \mathbf{e}_{pred}-\mathbf{e}_{gt}||_2>3^{\circ}$.
The number of such failure cases for different \textbf{F2F} odometries over the Ford Campus and KITTI datasets is reported in Table \ref{table_failures}.
It confirms the known limitations of classical ICP-based \textbf{F2F} alignments, which have many such failures, especially when using projective neighbor association.
Despite its simplicity, our \textbf{EI} initialization performs well on these outdoor datasets, with few failure cases.
For this metric, PoseNet also performs really well both on training data (rows 1 and 3 of Table \ref{table_failures}), and on unobserved data (row 2).
Thus, despite its weak generalization properties (see section \ref{understanding}), PoseNet (when it can be trained) can provide more often a good enough initial estimate falling into the convergence domain of our \textbf{F2M}.
Furthermore, the risk of absurd registrations is lower than for ICP-based \textbf{F2F}, as PoseNet essentially outputs poses observed during training, while ICP outside the convergence domain can potentially move in any direction of the parameter's space.
In a sense, PoseNet encodes the motion model of the training dataset and can be used to increase the robustness of \textbf{F2M} LiDAR odometries, at the cost of offline training on similar data.
\begin{table}
\centering
\vspace{10pt}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& Ford Campus & KITTI (\texttt{00-10}) \\ \hline
\toprule
\toprule
PoseNet (\texttt{00-21})* & - & 0 \\ \hline
PoseNet (\texttt{11-21})* & - & 0 \\ \hline
PoseNet (Ford Campus)* & 261 & - \\ \hline
NI + P-F2F & 1494 & 3286 \\ \hline
EI + P-F2F & 270 & 257 \\ \hline
NI + Kd-F2F & 1127 & 1845 \\ \hline
EI + Kd-F2F & 261 & 0 \\
\midrule
Number of Frames & 9996 & 23201 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Number of failure over driving datasets}
\label{table_failures}
\end{table}
\subsection{Classical registration-based SLAM}
We designed our classical odometries to be simple and modular, allowing us to test and compare different strategies for each module.
Our system uses a standard frame-to-model (\textbf{F2M}) registration method based on the ICP \cite{icp} algorithm.
At each iteration of the registration algorithm, a set of point correspondences between a new frame (see figure \ref{vertex_map}) and the model is selected, which is used to update the relative motion estimate and move the new frame before the next iteration.
The details are presented below.
\textbf{Energy minimized:}
Following \cite{imls_slam} and \cite{suma}, the relative pose between two time steps $\mathbf{\delta T} \in SE(3)$ is estimated by minimizing the point-to-plane distance between neighbor points.
Given a set of pair of points and normals $(\mathbf{p}_i, \mathbf{q}_i, \mathbf{n}_i)_{i\in[1,n]}$, where $\mathbf{p}_i$ are the points of the new scan, and $\mathbf{q}_i, \mathbf{n}_i$ the points and normals of the reference map, the point-to-plane objective is:
$$E(\mathbf{\delta T}) = \sum_{i=1}^n{ w_i \cdot ((\mathbf{\delta T} * \mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{q}_i) \cdot{} \mathbf{n}_i})^2 $$
Minimizing the objective using second-order methods (Gauss-Newton), leads to fast convergence, but is highly sensitive to outliers or imprecise neighbor pairing. IMLS-SLAM \cite{imls_slam} eliminates residuals greater than 0.5m, and \cite{suma} minimizes a robust Huber loss.
We found that using the weighting scheme $w_i = \text{exp}(- (\mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{q}_i)^2/\sigma^2)$, which gives more importance to pairs the closer they are, yields (marginally) the best results.
We set $\sigma$ to 0.5m in all the experiments.
\textbf{Local map and neighborhood:}
For the classical frame-to-model LiDAR odometry, and to investigate both projective (\textbf{P-F2M}) and KdTree-based (\textbf{Kd-F2M}) neighbor association, we propose two types of models.
The first model consists of aggregated point clouds similarly to \cite{imls_slam}.
The previous $k=30$ registered point clouds are kept in memory, and a KdTree is constructed at each time step, allowing pairing points from the new scan and the map, and building the corresponding normals for the local map.
Computing a KdTree at each iteration is slow due to the large number of points returned by the LiDAR sensor.
This can be addressed by reducing the number of queries constructed \cite{imls_slam} or using faster approximate data structures (e.g. voxel hashing \cite{voxel_hashing}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{images/vertex_map}
\caption{Example of a new frame projected into a range image (top) and normal map (bottom) from KITTI dataset \cite{kitti}.}
\label{vertex_map}
\end{figure}
A different nature of neighbor association is obtained by projection in the image plane much like SuMA \cite{suma}, and its main interest lies in its capacity to be accelerated on the GPU.
Similarly to \cite{suma}, we use a projection of the point cloud into a spherical image (named vertex map) which stores in each activated pixel (for which there exists a projected point) the three coordinates $x,y,z$ (see Figure \ref{vertex_map}).
Each new scan is projected into a vertex map and the normals are then computed using activated neighbor pixels \cite{fast_normals}.
Similarly to our KdTree-based implementation, the local map consists of the $k=30$ previous frames.
At each time step, each point cloud of the map is transformed in the reference frame of the last registered scan and then projected into a vertex map.
Each point of the new scan is associated with its closest neighbor among points of the projected map sharing the same pixel values.
We chose this scheme as it mitigates the problem of 2D projective data association, such as occlusions and mobile objects polluting the map.
\textbf{Initialization:}
As mentioned in Section \ref{related_classical} ICP has a small convergence domain, and optimal registration requires a good initial prediction.
When the moving object has strong inertia (relative to the scan acquisition frequency), for example, in driving scenarios, the simple constant velocity (\textbf{CV}) approximation consisting of using the previous relative motion estimated is often a correct initial estimate (cf \cite{imls_slam,suma}).
Additionaly, and to examine the impact of initialization on the performance of LiDAR odometries, we experiment with PoseNet as motion initialization before \textbf{F2M} alignment.
For many robotic applications, the motion of the sensor is essentially 2D, and estimating this 2D motion often provides a good initial estimate.
Thus, we propose a simple and fast 2D feature-based registration mechanism to provide this estimate.
For each new point cloud, an elevation image (\textbf{EI}) is built from points above the sensor (with a pixel size of 30 cm, and a resolution of $800\times 800$), and ORB feature points \cite{orb} are extracted.
The motion is estimated by robustly fitting an image homography between two consecutive sets of feature points (see Figure \ref{orb_matching}), setting $N_I=100$ inliers as a threshold for a correct alignment.
These three initialization strategies (PoseNet, EI, CV) are studied in detail in Section \ref{analysis_initialization}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{images/orb_matching}
\caption{Initialization strategy of two consecutive frames using elevation images (EI): Feature points are detected and robustly matched between the two images by fitting an homography between consecutive elevation images.}
\label{orb_matching}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Deep LiDAR Odometries}
We also propose a deep LiDAR odometry using ResNet-18 based PoseNet similar to \cite{deeplo}.
Two consecutive vertex maps (VMaps) are concatenated in the image channel dimension, and PoseNet outputs the six parameters of the relative transform between the two scans (using Euler angles for the rotation parameters).
\textbf{Unsupervised training:}
Similarly to \cite{deeplo, eth_deeplo}, we use a self-supervised objective to train PoseNet using a projective point-to-plane geometric alignment loss.
Given a target and a reference VMap, a reference normal map (NMap) and the estimated relative pose $\delta \mathbf{T}$ from PoseNet, the target point cloud is transformed using $\delta \mathbf{T}$ and reprojected in the reference frame.
For each of the $n_k$ pixels activated in the reference and the new target VMap, a point-to-plane residual is built leading to the following loss:
$$ L_{icp}(\delta \mathbf{T}) = \frac{1}{n_k}\sum_{i=1}^{n_k} \rho ( r_i )$$
The loss proposed by \cite{deeplo} is unstable, and an out-of-field-of-view loss was proposed to make training possible.
In contrast \cite{eth_deeplo} proposes to use a KdTree during training, for neighbor association instead, allowing them to filter outliers using a radius search.
However, we found that projective association during training is still feasible and stable and yields results comparable to \cite{eth_deeplo}.
Key to achieving this is selecting only activated pixels, and using a loss robust to outliers. Using for residuals $\rho(r_i)=|\mathbf{(\delta T * p_i - q_i)\cdot n_i}|$ allows stable training; however, we observe better results using a weighted $L_2$ loss: $\rho(r_i)=w_i \cdot | (\mathbf{\delta T * p_i - q_i) \cdot n_i}|^2$ similarly to the \textbf{F2M} energy, which suppresses the effect of bad associations.
Unlike \cite{eth_deeplo}, our method does not require precomputation of the normals for each scan before training, or the use a KdTree, allowing faster training.
\textbf{Supervised training:} Our main focus is on the use of unsupervised LiDAR odometries. However, to examine PoseNet generalization capacity on the challenging dataset NCLT (see Section \ref{datasets}) where despite our best efforts, unsupervised training of PoseNet has failed, we also propose supervised training of PoseNet similar to LO-Net \cite{lo_net}.
\subsection{Datasets and Metrics} \label{datasets}
Analyzing LiDAR odometries is a challenging task, notably due to the few publicly available and annotated LiDAR datasets.
We now present the datasets and metrics we found most relevant for this study ({\bf\texttt{pyLIDAR-SLAM}} incorporates more datasets not mentioned here due to the lack of space).
\textbf{KITTI \cite{kitti}}
is the reference dataset for LiDAR odometries in driving scenarios, and the odometry split consists of 21 suburban, highway, or city driving sequences of point clouds captured with a Velodyne HDL-64 LiDAR sensor rotating at 10Hz,
11 of which possess a ground truth.
KITTI is the principal dataset for the present studies, however, and in contrast to existing approaches, we make the most of the dataset by investigating different training splits, to find challenging scenarios for our algorithms, allowing us to draw meaningful conclusions in Section \ref{analysis}. We use principally KITTI's metric Average Translation Error (ATE), which quantifies the average translation error over segment of different lengths from 100 m to 800 m.
\textbf{Ford Campus \cite{ford_campus}} is another driving dataset consisting of two sequences, of another HDL-64 for a LiDAR rotating at 10 Hz representing 9996 frames, on the Ford Campus of Dearborn, Michigan.
The motion of the car in this dataset is much simpler than for KITTI (many fewer turns, long stops at red lights, long straight lines). However, it offers new environments (parking, small American town), as well as other challenging elements (e.g. sequences with many mobile objects).
Furthermore, the same LiDAR as KITTI is used, in the same configuration, allowing meaningful complementary analysis. \looseness=-1
\textbf{NCLT \cite{nclt}} is a large dataset designed for long-term vision and LiDAR tasks.
A rotating Velodyne HDL-32 (10Hz) mounted on a Segway makes multiple runs through Michigan University's North Campus, over the course of a year.
Each sequence is composed of $\sim$20000 motion-compensated LiDAR frames and proposes a new trajectory around the campus.
Despite the slow speed of the robot, the dataset is challenging for pure LiDAR odometry due to the fast rotations induced by the motion of the Segway.
Thus, despite a motion which is principally planar, each frame is hard to register on the previous one, which is ideal for testing odometries.
Furthermore, the large quantity of available data in a shared environment makes it an ideal candidate for evaluating the generalization of training tasks.
We used sequence \texttt{01/08} for testing and 10 other sequences for training (captured between \texttt{01/22} and \texttt{03/31} in 2012).
\subsection{Results and Comparison with State-of-the-art LiDAR Odometries} \label{methods_results}
\begin{table*}
\vspace{10pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|*{10}{c}c}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{00}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{01}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{02}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{03}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{04}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{05}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{06}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{07}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{08}*} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{09}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\texttt{10}} \\
\toprule
\toprule
\textbf{Classical Tree-Based LiDAR odometries} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{IMLS-SLAM \cite{imls_slam}} & \textbf{0.5} & 0.82 & 0.53 & 0.68 & \textbf{0.33} & 0.32 & \textbf{0.22} & 0.33 & 0.8 & 0.55 & 0.53 \\
LOAM \cite{loam} & 0.78 & 1.43 & 0.92 & 0.86 & 0.71 & 0.57 & 0.65 & 0.63 & 1.12 & 0.77 & 0.79\\
\midrule
\textit{EI + Kd-F2M} & 0.53 & 0.79 & 0.52 & 0.69 & 0.45 & 0.34 & 0.31 & 0.36 & 0.79 & 0.54 & \textbf{0.51} \\
\textit{CV + Kd-F2M} & 0.51 & \textbf{0.79} & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{0.64} &0.36 & \textbf{0.29} & 0.29 & \textbf{0.32} & \textbf{0.78} & \textbf{0.46} & 0.57 \\
\midrule
\midrule
\textbf{Projective LiDAR Odometries} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{SuMA \cite{suma}} & 0.68 & 1.70 & 1.20 & \textbf{0.74} & \textbf{0.44} & 0. 43& 0.54 & 0.74 & 1.20 & 0.62 & \textbf{0.72} \\
\midrule
\textit{EI + P-F2M} &\textbf{0,57}& \textbf{0.67}& \textbf{0.62}& 0.83&0.51 & \textbf{0.37}& \textbf{0.36}& \textbf{0.32}& \textbf{0.93}& \textbf{0.60} & 1.01 \\
\textit{CV + P-F2M} & 0.57 & 0.71 & 0.62 & 0.82& 1.12& 0.37& 0.37& 0.33& 0.93& 0.61& 1,01 \\
\midrule
\midrule
\textbf{Unsupervised Deep LiDAR Odometries} \\
\midrule
DeepLO \cite{deeplo} & 1.90 & 37.83 & 2.05 & 2.85 & 1.54 & 1.72 & \textbf{0.84} & \textbf{0.70} & \textbf{1.81} & 6.55 & 7.74 \\
Self-supervised LO \cite{eth_deeplo} & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & \textbf{6.05} & \textbf{6.44} \\
\midrule
\textit{PoseNet + ICP loss} & \textbf{1.33}& 7.11& 1.81& 3.09& 0.93& 1.38& 1.43& 0.84& 2.27& 6.31& 8.99\\
\textit{PoseNet + Weighted ICP loss} &1.36& \textbf{1.88}& \textbf{1.46}& \textbf{2.33}& \textbf{0,969}& \textbf{1.26}& 1.05 & 1.07& 2.05& 6.79& 7.6 \\
\midrule
\midrule
\textbf{Hybrid LiDAR Odometries} \\
\midrule
LO-Net \cite{lo_net} & 0.78 & 1.42 & 1.01 & \textbf{0.73} & 0.56 & 0.62 & 0.55 & 0.56 & 1.08 & 0.77 & 0.92 \\
\midrule
\textit{PoseNet + P-F2M} &0.601 & \textbf{0.67} & 0.68& 0.85& 0.56& 0.41& 0.39& 0.34& 0.96& 0.69& 1.07 \\
\textit{PoseNet + Kd-F2M} & \textbf{0.55} & 0.85 & \textbf{0.58} & 0.74 & \textbf{0.44} & \textbf{0.34} & \textbf{0.36} & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{0.88} & \textbf{0.61} & \textbf{0.83} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont Average Translation Error (ATE) as a percentage of distance traveled for KITTI's Dataset, comparing Published LiDAR Odometries and the Proposed Methods (italic)
/ EI="Elevation Image", CV="Constant Velocity", F2M="Frame-to-Model", * are training sequences for PoseNet}
\label{main_table_kitti}
\end{table*}
Algorithms presented in Section \ref{methods} were implemented in Python and PyTorch. All networks were trained using Adam with default parameters, for 100 epochs, with an initial learning rate of $10^{-4}$ divided by two every 20 epochs.
For the classical odometry, the local map is built from the last 30 pointclouds registered. To limit the number of points in the \textbf{Kd-F2M} a grid sampling is performed with a voxel size of 0.4m, and the dimension of the vertex map for \textbf{P-F2M} (and during the training of PoseNet) is 64$\times$720 (this resolution acts as a spherical sampler and reduces the inbalance of point densities).
To demonstrate that the implementations are comparable to state-of-the-art methods, we ran experiments on KITTI \cite{kitti} and present the results in Table \ref{main_table_kitti} ($*$ denotes sequences used to train PoseNet).
Our \textbf{Kd-F2M} runs at 2 Hz on KITTI and our \textbf{P-F2M} at 10 Hz, on a i7-9750H CPU @ 2.60GHz with a GeForce RTX 2080 GPU.
Table \ref{main_table_kitti} shows that we obtain near state-of-the-art results for our tree-based LiDAR odometries (Kd-F2M) and even slightly better results than the published methods in our projective method (P-F2M), in our PoseNet version with weighted L2 Loss and in the hybrid LiDAR odometry. These results legitimize the different choices we made before we launch a more constructive analysis in section \ref{analysis} of the different approaches in LiDAR SLAM based on our implementations.
More interestingly, we can already see from table \ref{main_table_kitti} that tree-based methods generally obtain better results than projective methods.
This is natural, as tree-based method offer more precise neighbor associations, at the cost of slower execution.
However, the gap is not very important (the \textbf{P-F2M} implementation obtains better results than LOAM).
In addition, we can see that PoseNet as an initialization strategy is (marginally) better than other strategies; we examine this observation in more detail in Section \ref{analysis_initialization}.
Finally, and perhaps most important, there is still a large gap between the classical \textbf{F2M} LiDAR odometries and unsupervised deep learning based odometries.
One goal of this article is to answer the following question: Despite this gap, can deep LiDAR odometries become practically useful and complement classical LiDAR odometries?
We address this point in the next section.\looseness=-1
\subsection{Classical Geometric SLAM} \label{related_classical}
Classical geometric LiDAR odometries share a common algorithmic backbone.
Point clouds are initially preprocessed, typically to select a subset of points from the scan.
The selected points are then registered into the local map, using a variant of the iterative closest point (ICP) \cite{icp} registration algorithm.
ICP requires a closest neighbor search algorithm, which must be constructed simultaneously with the map.
It allows to build at each iteration a sum of residuals from pairs of map and scan points, which is minimized with a second-order method (Levenberg Marquardt or Gauss-Newton), updating the initial motion estimate toward the final prediction.
\textbf{Motion initialization and preprocessing:}
Many different methods exist to provide an initial motion estimate, from no initialization to using a simple constant velocity model (e.g. \cite{imls_slam}) or using more complex motion models (taking into account knowledge of the robot and environment).
Other strategies take into account data from other sensors (camera \cite{vloam}, GPS, IMU \cite{locus, lio_sam}) or propose an initial frame-to-frame (\textbf{F2F}) alignment between consecutive scans \cite{loam}.
We believe that the importance of the initial motion estimate for the quality of the system is often overlooked, and we examine it in detail in Section \ref{analysis_initialization}.
The goal of preprocessing is to select good candidate points for nearest neighbor pairing. As an example, IMLS-SLAM \cite{imls_slam} removes small objects in the scan to suppress potentially mobile objects.
Semantic segmentation can also be used to eliminate arbitrary classes (persons, bicycles, cars); however the results are not yet precise enough to improve LiDAR SLAM algorithms. Another important preprocessing step is the distortion of the frame, to compensate for the motion of the sensor during acquisition and the rolling shutter effect this creates.
Most methods use the initial motion estimate \cite{imls_slam,loam} for this first step.
\textbf{Map construction:} LOAM \cite{loam} maintains a map of features extracted from each scan and saved as a voxel grid.
IMLS-SLAM generates a local map at each time step by aggregating the last k point clouds (k=5, 10, 20) and computing the normals of this large point cloud.
SuMA maintains a surfel map on the GPU which is projected at each time step using OpenGL pipelines, and achieves real time. Recently, \cite{large_scale} proposed a model maintaining a truncated signed distance function (TSDF) on a sparse voxel grid using voxel hashing \cite{voxel_hashing} for a scalable and GPU-friendly model.
\textbf{Neighbor association:} The two dominant approaches are projective neighborhood association \cite{large_scale, suma}, or tree-based neighbor search \cite{imls_slam,locus,loam}.
The former is typically addressed by projecting the new target scan and the map into the image plane using a spherical projection (in the coordinate system of the map or target) which is typically parallelizable on the GPU and allowing real-time odometry.
Tree-based search, allows more precise neighborhood computation (for neighbor search and neighborhood feature estimation, like normals), but the search and construction are often more costly in time.
Real time is achievable, with optimized implementations, and/or by reducing the number of points in the tree and the number of queries. But using all the information in the frame is a challenge for these methods, notably when considering recent LiDAR with 64 to 256 laser channels, which typically produce more than a million points per seconds.
\textbf{Energy minimization:} The standard point-to-point distance minimized by ICP has a very small convergence domain, outside of which it tends to fall into a bad local minimum.
The most popular metric is the point-to-plane distance, which takes into account the neighborhood structure and allow points to slide on the local plane tangent to the neighbor.
Increasingly popular is generalized ICP \cite{generalized_icp} which uses the covariance of the reference points to construct the residuals, which was chosen by \cite{locus} for their LiDAR odometry.
Note that both methods require the computation/estimation of a covariance on the map, and thus, require a neighborhood structure.
Despite these better objectives, the convergence domain of ICP remains small, and successful registration highly depends on a good initial estimate pushing the target scan into it.
\subsection{Deep LiDAR Odometries}
Recently, several methods were proposed to regress the parameters of the relative pose between two consecutive frames.
Many convolutional network architectures were proposed for this task (for simplicity we name all such networks PoseNet).
DeepLO \cite{deeplo} extracts features from a spherical projection of point clouds (named Vertex Map, as they preserve the x,y,z coordinates by contrast with a range image) and their associated normal maps.
Others combine features from different sources or sensors. \cite{visual_deeplo} uses a Siamese pyramid network which combines features from two pairs of sparse depth and RGB images and regresses the relative motion, and depth.
\textbf{Supervised:} LO-Net \cite{lo_net} is the first method to use consecutive LiDAR frames as input for PoseNet, to regress a relative transform.
They train PoseNet on KITTI \cite{kitti} dataset using the ground truth for supervision.
Typical of supervised methods on such datasets, their results show signs of overfitting with a large discrepancy on results from the training and test sets.
\textbf{Unsupervised:}
DeepLO \cite{deeplo} introduces a self-supervised training strategy using point-to-plane error coupled with projective neighbor association.
This approach allows PoseNet to learn LiDAR odometry without the expensive cost of generating accurate ground truth labels and was refined in \cite{eth_deeplo}.
We present and implement this approach in depth in Section \ref{methods}, proposing an improved training strategy.
Similarly to supervised methods, these approaches typically show overfitting, and perform much worse on test data than on training data.
However, and in contrast to supervised approaches, unsupervised methods allow to construct an estimate of the trajectory only from the data.
\subsection{Hybrid LiDAR Odometries}
Despite promising results for these new deep learning methods, there remains a large performance gap between classical and deep LiDAR odometries.
However, both approaches use radically different and potentially complementary mechanisms to predict the relative pose, motivating different kinds of hybrid pipelines, which we present below.
\textbf{PoseNet as initialization before mapping:} As mentioned in Section \ref{related_classical} the performance of classical methods strongly depends on good motion initialization before registration, and PoseNet is proposed as a tool to that end. LO-Net \cite{lo_net} uses PoseNet as the initial estimate before the mapping stage, trained using supervision from the ground truth.
Similarly, \cite{eth_deeplo} uses LOAM's mapping to refine their PoseNet's prediction, showing that it outperforms the default LOAM on multiple datasets.
However, work remains to be done to prove PoseNet's practical interest over standard initialization strategies, and we investigate this in more detail in Section \ref{analysis_initialization}.
\textbf{Learning methods to improve neighbor association:} DMLO \cite{dmlo} proposes a novel hybrid strategy which learns to construct direct and non-iterative registration between consecutive scans.
Their approach consists of learning to predict a neighbor association with a confidence score which allows them to robustly select the best matching pairs of points, before directly minimizing their point-to-point distance with singular value decomposition, thus avoiding the iterative refinement of the ICP.
However, this method requires ground truth labels for a supervised training scheme.
\section{Introduction}
{
Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM) is a fundamental building block for many robotic and vision applications.
Three-dimensional light detection and ranging (3D LiDAR) sensors that provide a highly detailed and precise geometry of the scene at high frequency, are ideally suited for this task, and the most precise SLAM systems are built on such sensors.
The core of these methods is the LiDAR odometry which consists of predicting the relative pose between the point cloud of the new scan acquired by the sensor and the previous one, using only the data.
Classical methods typically rely on the registration of point clouds against a map constructed from the aggregations of previous scans, and many algorithms based on this principle have been proposed.
Recently, convolutional networks were also introduced to solve this task and showed promising results.
These methods provide different options for solving the same tasks, and we found it useful to compare them with classical approaches, aiming to help the reader answer the question : "which LiDAR odometry should I use in practice ?".
The main contribution of this paper is the analysis of classical and deep learning-based LiDAR odometries and how they relate together, and show their respective strengths and weaknesses in a detailed comparative study realized on multiple LiDAR datasets. As secondary contributions, we offer some novel and simple design choices for implementations which are publicly available.}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/overview}
\caption{Overview of the LiDAR odometries implemented and compared in this article. We propose a modular implementation for initialization (red) and neighbor association (green) allowing us to compare multiple approaches: deep learning, classical and hybrid methods. (EI="Elevation Image", CV = "Constant Velocity") }
\label{overview}
\end{figure}
\section{Review of State-of-the-Art LiDAR Odometries}\label{related}
\input{related_work}
\section{Details of the Methods Implemented and Datasets Considered}
\input{method_studied}
\section{Comparative Study}
\input{analysis}
\section{Conclusion}
We analyzed, implemented, and compared classical and deep LiDAR odometry methods.
We showed that the latter can overcome some of the former's weaknesses, but that further work is required before they can realistically be incorporated into practical odometry pipelines.
Our analysis allowed us to build a modular architecture, which we make available in {\bf \texttt{pyLIDAR-SLAM}} and intend to extend and improve in future works, aiming to integrate more closely deep and classical LiDAR odometries.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{INTRODUCTION}
This template provides authors with most of the formatting specifications needed for preparing electronic versions of their papers. All standard paper components have been specified for three reasons: (1) ease of use when formatting individual papers, (2) automatic compliance to electronic requirements that facilitate the concurrent or later production of electronic products, and (3) conformity of style throughout a conference proceedings. Margins, column widths, line spacing, and type styles are built-in; examples of the type styles are provided throughout this document and are identified in italic type, within parentheses, following the example. Some components, such as multi-leveled equations, graphics, and tables are not prescribed, although the various table text styles are provided. The formatter will need to create these components, incorporating the applicable criteria that follow.
\section{PROCEDURE FOR PAPER SUBMISSION}
\subsection{Selecting a Template (Heading 2)}
First, confirm that you have the correct template for your paper size. This template has been tailored for output on the US-letter paper size.
It may be used for A4 paper size if the paper size setting is suitably modified.
\subsection{Maintaining the Integrity of the Specifications}
The template is used to format your paper and style the text. All margins, column widths, line spaces, and text fonts are prescribed; please do not alter them. You may note peculiarities. For example, the head margin in this template measures proportionately more than is customary. This measurement and others are deliberate, using specifications that anticipate your paper as one part of the entire proceedings, and not as an independent document. Please do not revise any of the current designations
\section{MATH}
Before you begin to format your paper, first write and save the content as a separate text file. Keep your text and graphic files separate until after the text has been formatted and styled. Do not use hard tabs, and limit use of hard returns to only one return at the end of a paragraph. Do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the paper. Do not number text heads-the template will do that for you.
Finally, complete content and organizational editing before formatting. Please take note of the following items when proofreading spelling and grammar:
\subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms} Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations such as IEEE, SI, MKS, CGS, sc, dc, and rms do not have to be defined. Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
\subsection{Units}
\begin{itemize}
\item Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses). An exception would be the use of English units as identifiers in trade, such as Ò3.5-inch disk driveÓ.
\item Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly state the units for each quantity that you use in an equation.
\item Do not mix complete spellings and abbreviations of units: ÒWb/m2Ó or Òwebers per square meterÓ, not Òwebers/m2Ó. Spell out units when they appear in text: Ò. . . a few henriesÓ, not Ò. . . a few HÓ.
\item Use a zero before decimal points: Ò0.25Ó, not Ò.25Ó. Use Òcm3Ó, not ÒccÓ. (bullet list)
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Equations}
The equations are an exception to the prescribed specifications of this template. You will need to determine whether or not your equation should be typed using either the Times New Roman or the Symbol font (please no other font). To create multileveled equations, it may be necessary to treat the equation as a graphic and insert it into the text after your paper is styled. Number equations consecutively. Equation numbers, within parentheses, are to position flush right, as in (1), using a right tab stop. To make your equations more compact, you may use the solidus ( / ), the exp function, or appropriate exponents. Italicize Roman symbols for quantities and variables, but not Greek symbols. Use a long dash rather than a hyphen for a minus sign. Punctuate equations with commas or periods when they are part of a sentence, as in
$$
\alpha + \beta = \chi \eqno{(1)}
$$
Note that the equation is centered using a center tab stop. Be sure that the symbols in your equation have been defined before or immediately following the equation. Use Ò(1)Ó, not ÒEq. (1)Ó or Òequation (1)Ó, except at the beginning of a sentence: ÒEquation (1) is . . .Ó
\subsection{Some Common Mistakes}
\begin{itemize}
\item The word ÒdataÓ is plural, not singular.
\item The subscript for the permeability of vacuum ?0, and other common scientific constants, is zero with subscript formatting, not a lowercase letter ÒoÓ.
\item In American English, commas, semi-/colons, periods, question and exclamation marks are located within quotation marks only when a complete thought or name is cited, such as a title or full quotation. When quotation marks are used, instead of a bold or italic typeface, to highlight a word or phrase, punctuation should appear outside of the quotation marks. A parenthetical phrase or statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated within the parentheses.)
\item A graph within a graph is an ÒinsetÓ, not an ÒinsertÓ. The word alternatively is preferred to the word ÒalternatelyÓ (unless you really mean something that alternates).
\item Do not use the word ÒessentiallyÓ to mean ÒapproximatelyÓ or ÒeffectivelyÓ.
\item In your paper title, if the words Òthat usesÓ can accurately replace the word ÒusingÓ, capitalize the ÒuÓ; if not, keep using lower-cased.
\item Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ÒaffectÓ and ÒeffectÓ, ÒcomplementÓ and ÒcomplimentÓ, ÒdiscreetÓ and ÒdiscreteÓ, ÒprincipalÓ and ÒprincipleÓ.
\item Do not confuse ÒimplyÓ and ÒinferÓ.
\item The prefix ÒnonÓ is not a word; it should be joined to the word it modifies, usually without a hyphen.
\item There is no period after the ÒetÓ in the Latin abbreviation Òet al.Ó.
\item The abbreviation Òi.e.Ó means Òthat isÓ, and the abbreviation Òe.g.Ó means Òfor exampleÓ.
\end{itemize}
\section{USING THE TEMPLATE}
Use this sample document as your LaTeX source file to create your document. Save this file as {\bf root.tex}. You have to make sure to use the cls file that came with this distribution. If you use a different style file, you cannot expect to get required margins. Note also that when you are creating your out PDF file, the source file is only part of the equation. {\it Your \TeX\ $\rightarrow$ PDF filter determines the output file size. Even if you make all the specifications to output a letter file in the source - if your filter is set to produce A4, you will only get A4 output. }
It is impossible to account for all possible situation, one would encounter using \TeX. If you are using multiple \TeX\ files you must make sure that the ``MAIN`` source file is called root.tex - this is particularly important if your conference is using PaperPlaza's built in \TeX\ to PDF conversion tool.
\subsection{Headings, etc}
Text heads organize the topics on a relational, hierarchical basis. For example, the paper title is the primary text head because all subsequent material relates and elaborates on this one topic. If there are two or more sub-topics, the next level head (uppercase Roman numerals) should be used and, conversely, if there are not at least two sub-topics, then no subheads should be introduced. Styles named ÒHeading 1Ó, ÒHeading 2Ó, ÒHeading 3Ó, and ÒHeading 4Ó are prescribed.
\subsection{Figures and Tables}
Positioning Figures and Tables: Place figures and tables at the top and bottom of columns. Avoid placing them in the middle of columns. Large figures and tables may span across both columns. Figure captions should be below the figures; table heads should appear above the tables. Insert figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation ÒFig. 1Ó, even at the beginning of a sentence.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{An Example of a Table}
\label{table_example}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|}
\hline
One & Two\\
\hline
Three & Four\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\centering
\framebox{\parbox{3in}{We suggest that you use a text box to insert a graphic (which is ideally a 300 dpi TIFF or EPS file, with all fonts embedded) because, in an document, this method is somewhat more stable than directly inserting a picture.
}}
\caption{Inductance of oscillation winding on amorphous
magnetic core versus DC bias magnetic field}
\label{figurelabel}
\end{figure}
Figure Labels: Use 8 point Times New Roman for Figure labels. Use words rather than symbols or abbreviations when writing Figure axis labels to avoid confusing the reader. As an example, write the quantity ÒMagnetizationÓ, or ÒMagnetization, MÓ, not just ÒMÓ. If including units in the label, present them within parentheses. Do not label axes only with units. In the example, write ÒMagnetization (A/m)Ó or ÒMagnetization {A[m(1)]}Ó, not just ÒA/mÓ. Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and units. For example, write ÒTemperature (K)Ó, not ÒTemperature/K.Ó
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest applications and extensions.
\addtolength{\textheight}{-12cm}
\section*{APPENDIX}
Appendixes should appear before the acknowledgment.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
The preferred spelling of the word ÒacknowledgmentÓ in America is without an ÒeÓ after the ÒgÓ. Avoid the stilted expression, ÒOne of us (R. B. G.) thanks . . .Ó Instead, try ÒR. B. G. thanksÓ. Put sponsor acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
References are important to the reader; therefore, each citation must be complete and correct. If at all possible, references should be commonly available publications.
\section{INTRODUCTION}
This template provides authors with most of the formatting specifications needed for preparing electronic versions of their papers. All standard paper components have been specified for three reasons: (1) ease of use when formatting individual papers, (2) automatic compliance to electronic requirements that facilitate the concurrent or later production of electronic products, and (3) conformity of style throughout a conference proceedings. Margins, column widths, line spacing, and type styles are built-in; examples of the type styles are provided throughout this document and are identified in italic type, within parentheses, following the example. Some components, such as multi-leveled equations, graphics, and tables are not prescribed, although the various table text styles are provided. The formatter will need to create these components, incorporating the applicable criteria that follow.
\section{PROCEDURE FOR PAPER SUBMISSION}
\subsection{Selecting a Template (Heading 2)}
First, confirm that you have the correct template for your paper size. This template has been tailored for output on the US-letter paper size.
It may be used for A4 paper size if the paper size setting is suitably modified.
\subsection{Maintaining the Integrity of the Specifications}
The template is used to format your paper and style the text. All margins, column widths, line spaces, and text fonts are prescribed; please do not alter them. You may note peculiarities. For example, the head margin in this template measures proportionately more than is customary. This measurement and others are deliberate, using specifications that anticipate your paper as one part of the entire proceedings, and not as an independent document. Please do not revise any of the current designations
\section{MATH}
Before you begin to format your paper, first write and save the content as a separate text file. Keep your text and graphic files separate until after the text has been formatted and styled. Do not use hard tabs, and limit use of hard returns to only one return at the end of a paragraph. Do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the paper. Do not number text heads-the template will do that for you.
Finally, complete content and organizational editing before formatting. Please take note of the following items when proofreading spelling and grammar:
\subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms} Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations such as IEEE, SI, MKS, CGS, sc, dc, and rms do not have to be defined. Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
\subsection{Units}
\begin{itemize}
\item Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses). An exception would be the use of English units as identifiers in trade, such as Ò3.5-inch disk driveÓ.
\item Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly state the units for each quantity that you use in an equation.
\item Do not mix complete spellings and abbreviations of units: ÒWb/m2Ó or Òwebers per square meterÓ, not Òwebers/m2Ó. Spell out units when they appear in text: Ò. . . a few henriesÓ, not Ò. . . a few HÓ.
\item Use a zero before decimal points: Ò0.25Ó, not Ò.25Ó. Use Òcm3Ó, not ÒccÓ. (bullet list)
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Equations}
The equations are an exception to the prescribed specifications of this template. You will need to determine whether or not your equation should be typed using either the Times New Roman or the Symbol font (please no other font). To create multileveled equations, it may be necessary to treat the equation as a graphic and insert it into the text after your paper is styled. Number equations consecutively. Equation numbers, within parentheses, are to position flush right, as in (1), using a right tab stop. To make your equations more compact, you may use the solidus ( / ), the exp function, or appropriate exponents. Italicize Roman symbols for quantities and variables, but not Greek symbols. Use a long dash rather than a hyphen for a minus sign. Punctuate equations with commas or periods when they are part of a sentence, as in
$$
\alpha + \beta = \chi \eqno{(1)}
$$
Note that the equation is centered using a center tab stop. Be sure that the symbols in your equation have been defined before or immediately following the equation. Use Ò(1)Ó, not ÒEq. (1)Ó or Òequation (1)Ó, except at the beginning of a sentence: ÒEquation (1) is . . .Ó
\subsection{Some Common Mistakes}
\begin{itemize}
\item The word ÒdataÓ is plural, not singular.
\item The subscript for the permeability of vacuum ?0, and other common scientific constants, is zero with subscript formatting, not a lowercase letter ÒoÓ.
\item In American English, commas, semi-/colons, periods, question and exclamation marks are located within quotation marks only when a complete thought or name is cited, such as a title or full quotation. When quotation marks are used, instead of a bold or italic typeface, to highlight a word or phrase, punctuation should appear outside of the quotation marks. A parenthetical phrase or statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated within the parentheses.)
\item A graph within a graph is an ÒinsetÓ, not an ÒinsertÓ. The word alternatively is preferred to the word ÒalternatelyÓ (unless you really mean something that alternates).
\item Do not use the word ÒessentiallyÓ to mean ÒapproximatelyÓ or ÒeffectivelyÓ.
\item In your paper title, if the words Òthat usesÓ can accurately replace the word ÒusingÓ, capitalize the ÒuÓ; if not, keep using lower-cased.
\item Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ÒaffectÓ and ÒeffectÓ, ÒcomplementÓ and ÒcomplimentÓ, ÒdiscreetÓ and ÒdiscreteÓ, ÒprincipalÓ and ÒprincipleÓ.
\item Do not confuse ÒimplyÓ and ÒinferÓ.
\item The prefix ÒnonÓ is not a word; it should be joined to the word it modifies, usually without a hyphen.
\item There is no period after the ÒetÓ in the Latin abbreviation Òet al.Ó.
\item The abbreviation Òi.e.Ó means Òthat isÓ, and the abbreviation Òe.g.Ó means Òfor exampleÓ.
\end{itemize}
\section{USING THE TEMPLATE}
Use this sample document as your LaTeX source file to create your document. Save this file as {\bf root.tex}. You have to make sure to use the cls file that came with this distribution. If you use a different style file, you cannot expect to get required margins. Note also that when you are creating your out PDF file, the source file is only part of the equation. {\it Your \TeX\ $\rightarrow$ PDF filter determines the output file size. Even if you make all the specifications to output a letter file in the source - if your filter is set to produce A4, you will only get A4 output. }
It is impossible to account for all possible situation, one would encounter using \TeX. If you are using multiple \TeX\ files you must make sure that the ``MAIN`` source file is called root.tex - this is particularly important if your conference is using PaperPlaza's built in \TeX\ to PDF conversion tool.
\subsection{Headings, etc}
Text heads organize the topics on a relational, hierarchical basis. For example, the paper title is the primary text head because all subsequent material relates and elaborates on this one topic. If there are two or more sub-topics, the next level head (uppercase Roman numerals) should be used and, conversely, if there are not at least two sub-topics, then no subheads should be introduced. Styles named ÒHeading 1Ó, ÒHeading 2Ó, ÒHeading 3Ó, and ÒHeading 4Ó are prescribed.
\subsection{Figures and Tables}
Positioning Figures and Tables: Place figures and tables at the top and bottom of columns. Avoid placing them in the middle of columns. Large figures and tables may span across both columns. Figure captions should be below the figures; table heads should appear above the tables. Insert figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation ÒFig. 1Ó, even at the beginning of a sentence.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{An Example of a Table}
\label{table_example}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|}
\hline
One & Two\\
\hline
Three & Four\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\centering
\framebox{\parbox{3in}{We suggest that you use a text box to insert a graphic (which is ideally a 300 dpi TIFF or EPS file, with all fonts embedded) because, in an document, this method is somewhat more stable than directly inserting a picture.
}}
\caption{Inductance of oscillation winding on amorphous
magnetic core versus DC bias magnetic field}
\label{figurelabel}
\end{figure}
Figure Labels: Use 8 point Times New Roman for Figure labels. Use words rather than symbols or abbreviations when writing Figure axis labels to avoid confusing the reader. As an example, write the quantity ÒMagnetizationÓ, or ÒMagnetization, MÓ, not just ÒMÓ. If including units in the label, present them within parentheses. Do not label axes only with units. In the example, write ÒMagnetization (A/m)Ó or ÒMagnetization {A[m(1)]}Ó, not just ÒA/mÓ. Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and units. For example, write ÒTemperature (K)Ó, not ÒTemperature/K.Ó
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest applications and extensions.
\addtolength{\textheight}{-12cm}
\section*{APPENDIX}
Appendixes should appear before the acknowledgment.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
The preferred spelling of the word ÒacknowledgmentÓ in America is without an ÒeÓ after the ÒgÓ. Avoid the stilted expression, ÒOne of us (R. B. G.) thanks . . .Ó Instead, try ÒR. B. G. thanksÓ. Put sponsor acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
References are important to the reader; therefore, each citation must be complete and correct. If at all possible, references should be commonly available publications.
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Ilia Tutunnikov for many useful discussions on the topic. This work was carried out under the auspices of the Canadian Center for Chirality Research on Origins and Separation (CHIROS). It was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 746/15). I.A. acknowledges support
as the Patricia Elman Bildner Professorial Chair, and thanks the UBC Department of Physics \& Astronomy for hospitality extended to him during his sabbatical stay.
|
\section{Introduction}
Genetic information is transmitted through genome and exhibits a hierarchical structure in the nucleus. The cell nucleus and the genome are organized into spatially separated sub-compartments \cite{erdel2018formation}.
For eukaryotes, genetic information is stored in DNA which is also integrated into chromosomes of a cell nucleus \cite{erdel2018formation, lee2017new,solovei2013lbr,cremer2006chromosome}.
In chromosome territory, chromatin fibers are formed when DNA molecule is wrapped around the histones, and form transcriptionally inactivated and condensed region form as heterochromatin and transcriptionally activated region form euchromatin.
The position, structure and configuration of heterochromatin and euchromatin regions are closely related to the gene expression.
For instance, it has been observed that the volume of cell nucleus is a main determinant of the overall landscape of chromatin folding~\cite{gursoy2014spatial,gursoy2017spatial,gursoy2017computational}.
Different kinds of nuclear architecture can attribute to different distribution and configuration of heterochromatin and euchromatin regions \cite{strom2017phase,cremer2001chromosome},
with additional protein-mediated specific interactions among genomic elements~\cite{perez2020chromatix,sun2021high}.
Moreover, the inverted architecture occurs where heterochromatin is located at the center of the nucleus and euchromatin is enriched at the periphery.
In contrast, when the heterochromatin is enriched at the nuclear periphery and around nucleoli, this is referred as the conventional architecture.
In \cite{solovei2009nuclear,solovei2013lbr}, Solovei et al. demonstrated that different types of nuclear architecture were
associated with different mammalian lifestyles, such as diurnal versus nocturnal. The inverted nuclear architecture can be transformed from the convention architecture in
mouse retina rod cells \cite{solovei2009nuclear,solovei2013lbr}. The reorganization process is accompanied by the relocation of chromosomes from positions enriched at nuclear periphery,
and the recreation of a single heterochromatin cluster into the inverted architecture. The difference of nuclear structure is partially attributed to the activity of lamin B, lamin A and envelope proteins \cite{paulsen2017chrom3d,solovei2009nuclear,solovei2013lbr,kinney2018chromosome,van2017lamina}. Moreover, the rate of conversion of heterochromatin to euchromatin can also be controlled by volume constraints of the nucleus.
Recently several mathematical models using the phase field approach \cite{laghmach2020mesoscale,lee2017new,seirin2017role} have been introduced to study the
mechanism of generation of different nuclear architectures, including the size and shape of the nucleus, the rate of conversion of heterochromatin to euchromatin.
These models usually include the minimization of total energy with various relevant geometric constraints.
A common method to preserve such constraints is through extra penalty terms introduced in the energy functionals
in models \cite{laghmach2020mesoscale,lee2017new}. The drawback of such methods is the presence of the large penalty parameters which results in a stiff nuclear
architecture reorganization systems, leading to significant challenge in the simulation and analysis. This is especially true in situations when the volume of chromosome must be enforced
during the reduction of nuclear size and reorganization of nuclear architectures.
The Lagrange multiplier approach is commonly used for constrained gradient dynamic systems \cite{du2006simulating,du2009energetic,du2008numerical,MR4049377,
yang2017efficient,yang2021numerical,wang2016efficient,cheng2018multiple}.
In this paper, we introduce a new Lagrange multiplier approach \cite{cheng2020new,cheng2019global,sun2020structure} to enforce the geometric constraints such as the volume constraints for both chromosome and heterochromatin.
When the volumes of each chromosome and heterochromatin are preserved as constants, the reaction-diffusion system with the Lagrange multipliers leads to a constrained
gradient flow dynamics which satisfies an energy dissipation law.
We develop several numerical schemes for nuclear architecture system with Lagrange multipliers.
One is a weakly nonlinear scheme which preserves the volume constraints but requires solving a set of $2\times 2$ nonlinear algebraic systems for the Lagrange multipliers, the second is a purely linear scheme
which approximates the volume constraints to second order and only requires solving linear systems with constant coefficient. These two schemes, while being numerically efficient, do not satisfy a discrete energy law. Hence, we construct the third scheme
which is also weakly nonlinear but is unconditionally energy stable. However, this scheme requires solving
a nonlinear algebraic system of $2N+1$ (where $N$ is the number of chromosomes in the nucleus) equations which may require smaller time steps to be well posed. One can choose to use one of these schemes in different scenarios. In our numerical simulations, we use the first scheme to control the volumes to targeted values exactly, then we switch to the second scheme which is more efficient. We can use the third scheme if we want to make sure that the scheme is energy dissipative.
For validation purpose, we present several simulations results which are consistent with those observed in the experiments.
We also demonstrate that our model and schemes are efficient and robust for investigating various nuclear architecture reorganization processes.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we present our phase field model for nuclear architecture reorganization by using a Lagrange multiplier approach.
We chose suitable energy functionals to capture the most important interactions and constraints of various biological elements, and introduce Lagrange multipliers to
capture the specific geometric constraints for the biological process.
In Section 3, we develop efficient linear and weakly nonlinear time discretization schemes for the phase field model developed earlier. We present numerical results using the proposed schemes in Section 4, and
compare them with the existing experimental literature and previous works. Finally we conclude the paper
with more discussions of our methods and results in Section 5.
\section{A phase field model for nuclear architecture reorganization (NAR)}
\label{sec:main}
To study the nuclear architecture reorganization (NAR) process, we employ a phase field/diffusive interface method. To start with this approach,
the total nucleus is defined by a phase (labeling) function $\phi_0$ such that $\phi_0=0$ and $\phi_0=1$ respectively for the interior and exterior regions of the nucleus (Fig.\;\ref{ref}). For a
ellipsoid shape domain, we can define
\begin{equation}
\phi_0(x,y,t)=\frac 12(1-\tanh(\frac{\sqrt{\frac{x^2}{r^2_x(t)}+\frac{y^2}{r^2_y(t)}}-1}{\sqrt{2}\epsilon})),\label{nuclear:3}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the interfacial (transitional domain) width, ${r}_x(t)$ and ${r}_y(t)$ describe the ellipse shape of the nucleus.
Similarly, we will introduce phase functions $\psi$ to describe the heterochromatin region and $\boldsymbol \phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2,\cdots,\phi_N)$ to describe each individual chromosome region,
where $N$ represents the total number of chromosomes in the nucleus ( Fig.\;\ref{ref}).
In particular, we will choose $N=8$ chromosomes for drosophila and $N=46$ chromosomes for human. In addition to the heterochromatin region, the rest of chromosome region is the euchromatin region.
These are the order parameter/phase field functions that will be used to determined the final nuclear architecture.
For the general phase field approaches, the configuration and distribution of various regions are the consequence of minimizing a specific energy functional
in terms of the above phase field functions, which takes into all considerations of the coupling and competition between different domains, as well as the relevant geometry constraints.
In the NAR models \cite{lee2017new,laghmach2020mesoscale}, the free energy for chromosome and heterochromatin had been chosen to include
\begin{equation}\label{orienergy}
E_0(\boldsymbol \phi,\psi)=\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\int_\Omega \frac{\epsilon_{\phi}^2}{2}|\Grad\phi_m|^2 +g(\phi_m) d\bm{x}+\int_{\Omega} \frac{\epsilon_{\psi}^2}{2}|\Grad\psi|^2 +g(\psi)d\bm{x},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\phi}$
and $\epsilon_{\psi}$ measure the interfacial thickness corresponding to $\phi$ and $\psi$, $\Omega$ is the computational domain, and $g(\phi)=\frac 14\phi^2(1-\phi)^2$ is the double well potential which possess the local minima at $\phi=0$ and $\phi=1$ (see \cite{provatas2011phase}).
This part of free energy represents the competition and coupling between various chromosome and heterochromatin regions.
Next we will consider the following geometric constraints for all these regions that are biologically relevant to our application \cite{alberts2015essential,cremer2010chromosome}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item All chromosomes are restricted within the cell nucleus region;
\item Heterochromosome of each chromosome stays within the chromosome;
\item Between all chromosomes, due to the excluded volume effects, do not self-cross or cross each other.
\end{enumerate}
These constraints could be incorporated into the model by introducing three extra terms in the free energy:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
E_1(\boldsymbol \phi,\psi)&=\underbrace{\beta_0\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\int_\Omega h(\phi_0)h(\phi_m) d\bm{x}}_1+\underbrace{\beta_{\psi}\int_{\Omega} [1-\sum\limits_{m=1}^Nh(\phi_m)]h(\psi) d\bm{x}}_2
\\&+ \underbrace{\beta_{\phi}\sum\limits_{m\neq n}\int_\Omega h(\phi_n)h(\phi_m) d\bm{x}}_3,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_0,\beta_{\psi}$ and $\beta_{\phi}$ are three positive constants which indicate the intensities of domain territories, and $h(\phi)$ is used for the induction of driving interface between $\phi=0$ and $\phi=1$ while keeping the local minima $0$ and $1$ fixed during dynamic process. The required conditions for $h(\phi)$ are
\begin{equation}\label{six}
h(0)=0,\;h(1)=1,\;h'(0)=h'(1)=h''(0)=h''(1)=0.
\end{equation}
The lowest degree polynomials satisfying the above conditions is $h(\phi)=\phi^3(10-15\phi+6\phi^2)$, see Fig.\;\ref{hphi}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,clip==]{h_phi.jpg}
\caption{The function $h(\phi)=\phi^3(10-15\phi+6\phi^2)$.}\label{hphi}
\end{figure}
Due to the expression of LBR and lamin A/C in the nuclear envelope, interactions between heterochromatin and the nuclear envelope play an important role in nuclear architecture reorganization process.
For this purpose, another term was introduced in the free energy to describe the interactions \cite{solovei2013lbr}:
\begin{equation}
E_2(\phi_0,\psi)=\gamma\int_{\Omega} \Grad h(\phi_0)\cdot \Grad h(\psi)d\bm{x},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the affinity constant, and $\gamma >0$ implies the heterochromatin will locate at the nuclear periphery, while $\gamma =0$ leads to the lack of heterochromatin and nuclear envelope interactions due to the absence of LBR or lamin A/C. More precisely, $E_2$ represents the intensity of affinity between nuclear function $\phi_0$ and heterochromatin region function $\psi$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip==]{ref_new.png}
\caption{Phase functions $\phi_m$ and $\psi$ on 1D and domain diagram on 2D. Blue region is the nuclear domain formulated by $\phi_0$. Green regions are chromosome territories for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$ defined by $\phi_m$. Red region is the heterochromatin domain defined by $\psi$. }\label{ref}
\end{figure}
\subsection{NAR model with Lagrange multipliers}
In the general nuclear reorganization process, often one need to take into account more geometric constraints.
In particular, we shall include the following constraints in our model:
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item The nuclear space is fully occupied by chromosomes;
\item Heterochromatin is converted from/to euchromatin within each chromosome.
\end{enumerate}
Notice that our approach could be extended to more general situations, especially related to those of item 4.
Our approach here is to introduce Lagrange multipliers to guarantee the constraints $4,5$ in the following NAR model with the total free energy
\begin{equation}\label{totalenergy}
E(\phi_0,\boldsymbol \phi,\psi)=E_0+E_1+E_2.
\end{equation}
The corresponding Allen-Cahn type gradient flow \cite{liu2003phase,cheng2020new,feng2003numerical,chen1998applications,
guan2014second,guan2017convergence,yang2017efficient} with respect to the above energy and the constraints 4 and 5 take the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}=-M\Big\{\frac{\delta E}{\delta \phi_m} -\lambda_m h'(\phi_m)-\eta_m h'(\phi_m)h(\psi)\Big\}, \quad m=1,2,\cdots,N,\label{nuclear:1}\\
&&\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-M\Big\{\frac{\delta E}{\delta \psi}-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_mh(\phi_m)h'(\psi)\Big\},\label{nuclear:2}\\
&&V_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)d\bm{x},\qquad v_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi)d\bm{x}, \quad m=1,2,\cdots,N, \label{nuclear:4}\\
&&\sum\limits_{m=1}^NV_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_0) d\bm{x},\label{nuclear:5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is mobility constant, $V_m(t)$ and $v_m(t)$ $(m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ represent, respectively. From \eqref{nuclear:4}, the volume of chromosome can be contracted or expanded to a given volume by using our model. The volumes of $m$-th chromosome and heterochromatin in the $m$-th chromosome at time $t$ during nuclear reorganization (growth or inversion) stage are enforced by the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_m(t)$, $\eta_m(t)$ $(m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ \eqref{nuclear:4}.
The boundary conditions can be one of the following two types
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bc:1}
&&(i)\mbox{ periodic; or } (ii)\,\,\partial_{\bf n} \phi_m|_{\partial\Omega}=\partial_{\bf n} \psi|_{\partial\Omega}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bf n$ is the unit outward normal on the boundary $\partial\Omega$.
Let $\bar{V}_m$ and $\bar{v}_m$ be, respectively, the target volumes for each chromosome and heterochromatin in each chromosome, $\rho_m(t)= v_m(t)/V_m(t)$ can be interpreted as the heterochromatin conversion rate during nuclear architecture reorganization process. We assume that they will reach the target values at time $t=t_0$ and then stay there according to:
\begin{equation}\label{rate2}
\begin{split}
&V_{m}(t) =\begin{cases}V_m(0) +\frac{(\bar{V}_m+\delta_{1m})t}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}},& 0\le t\le t_0\\
\bar{V}_m,& t\ge t_0\end{cases};\\
& v_{m}(t) =\begin{cases} v_m(0) +\frac{(\bar{v}_m+\delta_{2m})t}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}},& 0\le t\le t_0\\
\bar{v}_m,& t\ge t_0\end{cases},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{1m}$ and $\delta_{2m}$ are determined by $V_{m}(t_0)=\bar V_m$ and $v_{m}(t_0)=\bar v_m$.
and $\alpha_i$ $(i=1,2)$ are suitable positive constants related to the time scale.
Similarly, we assume that $r_x(t)$ and $r_y(t)$ evolve according to
\begin{equation}\label{rate3}
\begin{split}
&r_{x}(t) =\begin{cases}r_x(0) +\frac{(\bar{r}_x+\delta_3)t}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}},& 0\le t\le t_0\\
\bar{V}_m,& t\ge t_0\end{cases};\\
& r_{y}(t) =\begin{cases} r_y(0) +\frac{(\bar{r}_y+\delta_4)t}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}},& 0\le t\le t_0\\
\bar{v}_m,& t\ge t_0\end{cases},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_3$ and $\delta_4$ are determined by $r_{x}(t_0)=\bar r_x$ and $r_{y}(t_0)=\bar r_y$
with $\bar r_x$ and $\bar r_y$ being the targeted axis lengths for the ellipse enclosing the nucleus.
\begin{remark}
In \cite{lee2017new}, a penalty approach is introduced to satisfy the physical constraints 4 and 5 by adding the following to the free energy:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
E_2(\boldsymbol \phi,\psi)&=\underbrace{\alpha_0[\int_\Omega [ 1-h(\phi_0)] dx-\sum\limits_{m=1}^NV_m(t) ]^2}_4 +
\underbrace{\alpha_V\sum\limits_{m=1}^N[V_m(t)-\bar{V}_m(t)]^2}_5\\&+
\underbrace{\alpha_v\sum\limits_{m=1}^N[v_m(t)-\bar{v}_m(t)]^2}_{6},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_0,\alpha_V,\alpha_v$ are three positive penalty parameters. The volume of $m$-th chromosome $V_m(t)$ and volume of heterochromatin in $m$-th chromosome are defined in \eqref{nuclear:4}.
A disadvantage of the penalty approach is large penalty parameters are needed for accurate approximation of the physical constraints, and may lead to very stiff systems that are difficult to solve numerically. The Lagrange multiplier approach that we use here can enforce these non-local constraints exactly and is free of penalty parameters. Furthermore, the NAR model \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} based on the Lagrange multiplier approach can control exactly the growth rate of volume for different compartments during the nuclear reorganization (growth or inversion).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
In the phase field approaches, there are many ways to represent the volume of each individual domain.
For instance, the volume of each chromosome denoted by $V_m(t)$ and their corresponding heterochromatin
domain volume $v_m(t)$ could be computed by the integrals $\int_{\Omega}\phi_m d\bm{x}$ and $\int_{\Omega}\psi d\bm{x}$.
However this representation may have disadvantages in the minimizing procedure, especially for the penalty methods used in \cite{laghmach2020mesoscale,lee2017new,seirin2017role}, due to
its linearity with respect to the phase functions.
One way to overcome this is to use the polynomial function $h(\phi)=\phi^3(10-15\phi+6\phi^2)$ (see Fig.\;\ref{hphi}) for the computation
of the volumes for different chromosome regions.
Since $h(\phi)$ is an increasing function with respect to $\phi$ in the interval $[0,1]$ with $h(0)=0$ and $h(1)=1$.
One can adapt $V_m=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi)d\bm{x}$ and $\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi) d\bm{x}$ for the volume of $m$-th chromosome and heterochromatin in $m$-th chromosome.
\end{remark}
Let $(\cdot,\cdot)$ be the inner product in $L^2(\Omega)$, and $\|\cdot\|$ be the associated norm in $L^2(\Omega)$.
The constrained NAR model \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} with \eqref{rate2} can be interpreted as a $L^2$ gradient system which implies phase separations will happen for $t\ge t_0$.
\begin{theorem}
The constrained NAR model \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} with \eqref{rate2} satisfies the following energy dissipation law
\begin{equation}\label{law:1}
\frac{d }{d t} E(\phi_0,\boldsymbol \phi,\psi)=-\frac{1}{M}(\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\|\partial_t\phi_m\|^2+\|\partial_t \psi\|^2), \quad\forall t\ge t_0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Taking the inner product of \eqref{nuclear:1} with $\partial_t \phi_m$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{law:eq1}
\begin{split}
-\frac{1}{M}\|\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}\|^2&=(\frac{\delta E}{\delta \phi_m},\partial_t\phi_m)-\lambda_m( h'(\phi_m),\partial_t\phi_m)\\&-\eta_m (h'(\phi_m)h(\psi),\partial_t\phi_m).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Taking the inner product of \eqref{nuclear:2} with $\partial_t \psi$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{law:eq2}
\begin{split}
-\frac{1}{M}\|\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}\|^2=(\frac{\delta E}{\delta \psi},\partial_t\psi)-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m(h(\phi_m)h'(\psi),\partial_t\psi).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We derive from \eqref{nuclear:4} that
\begin{equation}\label{law:eq3}
(h'(\phi_m), \partial_t\phi_m)=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} h(\phi_m)d\bm{x}=\frac{d}{dt}\bar{V}_m=0.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{law:eq4}
(h'(\phi_m)h(\psi),\partial_t\phi_m)+(h(\phi_m)h'(\psi),\partial_t\psi)
=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi)d\bm{x}=\frac{d}{dt}\bar{v}_m=0.
\end{equation}
Summing up \eqref{law:eq1} for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$,
combing it with \eqref{law:eq2}-\eqref{law:eq4} and using equality
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{m=1}^N(\frac{\delta E}{\delta \phi_m},\partial_t\phi_m) + (\frac{\delta E}{\delta \psi},\partial_t\psi)=\frac{d }{d t} E(\phi_0,\boldsymbol\phi,\psi),
\end{equation}
we obtain the desired energy dissipation law \eqref{law:1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
In order to facilitate our next section construction algorithm, we explicitly calculate the variational derivative of the total free energy $E$ for each term, NAR model \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} is rewritten into
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}=-M\mu_{\phi_m},\label{nu:eq:1}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\mu_{\phi_m}=-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi_m+ g'(\phi_m) +\Big\{\beta_0h(\phi_0)-\beta_{\psi}h(\psi)\nonumber\\&&\hskip 2cm+\beta_\phi\{\sum\limits_{m=1}^Nh(\phi_m)-h(\phi_m)\}\Big\}h'(\phi_m)
-\lambda_m h'(\phi_m)-\eta_m h'(\phi_m)h(\psi), \quad m=1,2,\cdots,N\label{nu:eq:2}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-M\nu,\label{nu:eq:3}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\nu=-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi + g'(\psi) +\beta_\psi\Big\{1-\sum\limits_{m=1}^Nh(\phi_m)\Big\}h'(\psi)\nonumber\\&&\hskip 2cm-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_mh(\phi_m)h'(\psi) -\gamma\Delta\phi_0h'(\psi),\label{nu:eq:4}\\
&&\hskip 2cm V_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)d\bm{x},\quad v_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi)d\bm{x}, \quad m=1,2,\cdots,N\label{nu:eq:5}\\
&& \hskip 2cm \sum\limits_{m=1}^NV_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_0) d\bm{x}, \label{nu:eq:6}
\end{eqnarray}
with boundary conditions \eqref{bc:1}. For system \eqref{nu:eq:1}-\eqref{nu:eq:6}, numerical simulations are performed on a square domain with an elliptic nucleus in the center of computational domain in which the chromosomes and heterochromatin domains are manually generated initially by $\tanh$-like functions in Fig.\,\ref{ini}.
\end{comment}
\section{Numerical Schemes}
In this section, we construct several efficient time discretization schemes based on the Lagrange multiplier approach \cite{cheng2020new,cheng2019global} for the phase field NAR model \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5}. For the sake of simplicity, for any function $f$, we denote $f^{n,\dagger}=2f^n-f^{n-1}$, $f^{n,\star}=\frac 32f^n-\frac 12f^{n-1}$and $f^{n+\frac 12}=\frac{f^{n+1}+f^n}{2}$.
We split the total energy into a quadratic part and the remaining part as follows:
$$E(\phi_0,\boldsymbol\phi,\psi)=\big(\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\int_\Omega \frac{\epsilon_{\phi}^2}{2}|\Grad\phi_m|^2 d\bm{x}+\int_{\Omega} \frac{\epsilon_{\psi}^2}{2}|\Grad\psi|^2 d\bm{x}\big) +\tilde{E}(\phi_0,\boldsymbol\phi,\psi),$$ where $\tilde{E}$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\tilde{E}(\phi_0,\boldsymbol\phi,\psi)=&\beta_0\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\int_\Omega h(\phi_0)h(\phi_m) d\bm{x}+\beta_{\psi}\int_{\Omega} [1-\sum\limits_{m=1}^Nh(\phi_m)]h(\psi) d\bm{x}
\\&+ \beta_{\phi}\sum\limits_{m\neq n}\int_\Omega h(\phi_n)h(\phi_m) d\bm{x} +
\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\int_\Omega g(\phi_m)d\bm{x} + \int_{\Omega} g(\psi)d\bm{x}\\&
+ \gamma\int_{\Omega} \Grad h(\phi_0)\cdot \Grad h(\psi)d\bm{x}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Once the volume of nucleus $\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_0) d\bm{x}$ is given, volumes of each chromosome territory can be set up accordingly so that the constraint \eqref{nuclear:5} can be satisfied automatically.
\subsection{A weakly nonlinear volume preserving scheme}
\begin{comment}
We consider the original NAR model \eqref{nu:eq:1}-\eqref{nu:eq:6}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}=-M\mu_{m},\label{non:new:eq:1}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\mu_{m}=-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi_m+\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m}-\lambda_m h'(\phi_m)-\eta_m h'(\phi_m)h(\psi),\label{non:new:eq:2}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-M\nu,\label{non:new:eq:3}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\nu=-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi +\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi}-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_mh(\phi_m)h'(\psi),\label{non:new:eq:4}\\
&&\hskip 2cm V_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)d\bm{x},\quad v_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi)d\bm{x},\quad m=1,2,\cdots,N.\label{non:new:eq:5}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{comment}
Note that in the first stage, we need to increase the volumes $V_m(t)$ and $v_m(t)$ to the targeted values $\bar V_m$ and $\bar v_m$ according to \eqref{rate2}, respectively. Hence, we shall first construct below a volume preserving scheme which allows us to achieve this goal. More precisely,
a second order scheme based on the Lagrange multiplier approach is as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}&=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m\nonumber\\
&+(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star}
-\lambda^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)-\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star})),\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{scheme:1}\\
\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}&=-M(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12} +(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star} -\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}h(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h'(\psi^{n,\star})),\label{scheme:3}\\
V_m(t^{n+1})&=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^{n+1}_m)d\bm{x},\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{scheme:4}\\
v_m(t^{n+1})&=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^{n+1}_m)h(\psi^{n+1})d\bm{x},\;m=1,\cdots,N.\label{scheme:5}
\end{align}
Below we show how to efficiently solve the coupled scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5}.
Writing
\begin{equation}\label{sol:update:1}
\begin{split}
&\phi_m^{n+1} = \phi_{1,m}^{n+1} + \lambda_m^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{2,m}^{n+1} +\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{3,m}^{n+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in \eqref{scheme:1}, collecting all terms without $(\lambda_m^{n+1},\eta_m^{n+1})$, with $\lambda_m^{n+1}$ or with $\eta_m^{n+1}$, we find that, for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$,
$(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ can be determined from the following decoupled linear systems:
\begin{equation}\label{part:1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_{1,m}-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_{1,m}+(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star});
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{part:1:1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_{2,m}}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_{2,m}-
h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m));
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{part:1:2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_{3,m}}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_{3,m}-
h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star})).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, writing
\begin{equation}\label{sol:update:2}
\begin{split}
&\psi^{n+1}=\psi_1^{n+1} +\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\psi_{2,m}^{n+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in \eqref{scheme:3}, we find that $\psi_1^{n+1}$ and
$ (\psi_{2,m}^{n+1}, \,m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ can be determined from the following decoupled linear systems:
\begin{equation}\label{part:2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{ \psi^{n+1}_1-\psi^n}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi_1^{n+\frac 12} +(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star});
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{part:2:2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{ \psi^{n+1}_{2,m}}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi_{2,m}^{n+\frac 12} +
h(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h'(\psi^{n,\star})).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We observe that the above systems are all linear Poisson-type equation with constant coefficients so they can be efficiently solved.
Once we have obtained $(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ and $ \psi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2)$, we plug \eqref{sol:update:1}-\eqref{sol:update:2} into \eqref{scheme:4}-\eqref{scheme:5} to obtain a $2\times 2$ nonlinear algebraic system for $(\lambda_m^{n+1},\eta_m^{n+1})$. For $\delta t$ sufficiently small, this nonlinear algebraic system admits real solutions that be solved with an iterative method at negligible cost.
In summary, the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5} can be efficiently implemented as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Solve $\psi_1^{n+1}$ from \eqref{part:2}.
\item For $m=1,\cdots, N$:
\begin{itemize}
\item solve $(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ from \eqref{part:1}-\eqref{part:1:2} and $\psi_{2,m}^{n+1}$ from \eqref{part:2:2};
\item determine the Lagrange multipliers $(\lambda_m^{n+1},\eta_m^{n+1})$ from the coupled nonlinear algebraic system \eqref{scheme:4}-\eqref{scheme:5};
\item update $\phi_m^{n+1}$ using \eqref{sol:update:1}.
\end{itemize}
\item Update $\psi^{n+1}$ using \eqref{sol:update:2}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{A linear scheme}
In practice, the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5} should be used if we want to exactly preserve the volume dynamics of chromosome and heterochromatin. A disadvantage of the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5} is that we need to solve a nonlinear algebraic system which may require small time steps.
To accelerate the simulation,
we construct below a linear scheme for system \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} which is more efficient but only approximately preserve the volume dynamics.
To this end, we reformulate \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} into the following equivalent system:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi_m+\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m}-\lambda_m h'(\phi_m)-\eta_m h'(\phi_m)h(\psi)\big), \quad m=1,\cdots,N,\label{new:eq:1}\\
&&\hskip 2cm\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi +\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi}-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_mh(\phi_m)h'(\psi)\big),\label{new:eq:3}\\
&&\hskip 2cm V'_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h'(\phi_m)\partial_t\phi_md\bm{x}, \quad m=1,\cdots,N,\label{new:eq:5}\\
&&\hskip 2cm v'_m(t)=\int_{\Omega}h'(\phi_m)h(\psi)\partial_t\phi_{m}+h(\phi_m)h'(\psi)\partial_t\psi d\bm{x},\quad m=1,\cdots,N.\label{new:eq:6}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the last two relations are obtained by taking the time derivative of $V_m$ and $v_m$ in \eqref{nuclear:4}.
A second-order linear scheme for the new system
\eqref{new:eq:1}-\eqref{new:eq:6} is as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}&=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m+(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star}\nonumber\\
&-\lambda^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)-\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star})\big),\; m=1,\cdots,N,\label{linear:scheme:1}\\
\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}&=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12} +(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star} -\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}h(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h'(\psi^{n,\star})\big),\label{linear:scheme:3}\\
V_m(t^{n+1})-V_m(t^n)&=\int_{\Omega}h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)(\phi_m^{n+1}-\phi_m^n)d\bm{x},\; m=1,\cdots,N,\label{linear:scheme:5}\\
v_m(t^{n+1})-v_m(t^n)&=\int_{\Omega}h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star})(\phi_{m}^{n+1}-\phi_m^n)\nonumber\\ &+h(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h'(\psi^{n,\star})(\psi^{n+1}-\psi^n)d\bm{x},\; m=1,\cdots,N.\label{linear:scheme:6}
\end{align}
The above coupled scheme can be solved in essentially the same fashion as the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5}. In fact, setting
\begin{equation}\label{sol:update:1b}
\begin{split}
&\phi_m^{n+1} = \phi_{1,m}^{n+1} + \lambda_m^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{2,m}^{n+1} +\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{3,m}^{n+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in \eqref{linear:scheme:1}, we find that for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$,
$(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ are still determined from \eqref{part:1}- \eqref{part:1:2}.
Then, writing
\begin{equation}\label{sol:update:2b}
\begin{split}
&\psi^{n+1}=\psi_1^{n+1} +\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\psi_{2,m}^{n+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in \eqref{linear:scheme:3}, we find that $\psi_1^{n+1}$ and
$ (\psi_{2,m}^{n+1}, \,m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ are also determined from \eqref{part:2}- \eqref{part:2:2}.
Once we have obtained $(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ and $ \psi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2)$, we plug \eqref{sol:update:1b}-\eqref{sol:update:2b} into \eqref{linear:scheme:5}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} to obtain a $2\times 2$ linear algebraic system for $(\lambda_m^{n+1},\eta_m^{n+1})$ that can be solved explicitly.
In summary, the scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} can be efficiently implemented as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Solve $\psi_1^{n+1}$ from \eqref{part:2}.
\item For $m=1,\cdots, N$:
\begin{itemize}
\item solve $(\phi_{i,m}^{n+1}, \,i=1,2,3)$ from \eqref{part:1}-\eqref{part:1:2} and $\psi_{2,m}^{n+1}$ from \eqref{part:2:2};
\item determine the Lagrange multipliers $(\lambda_m^{n+1},\eta_m^{n+1})$ from the coupled linear algebraic system \eqref{linear:scheme:5} and \eqref{linear:scheme:6};
\item update $\phi_m^{n+1}$ using \eqref{sol:update:1}.
\end{itemize}
\item Update $\psi^{n+1}$ using \eqref{sol:update:2}.
\end{itemize}
Note that the scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} is well posed for any time step.
\subsection{A weakly nonlinear energy stable scheme}
Note that the schemes \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5} and \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} are not guaranteed to be energy dissipative.
Below we modify the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5} slightly to construct a weakly nonlinear but energy stable scheme with essentially the same computational cost for $t\ge t_0
when volumes of each chromosome $V_m(t)$ and heterochromatin $v_m(t)$ become constants.
The idea is to introduce another Lagrange multiplier to enforce the energy dissipation. To this end, we introduce another Lagrange multiplier $R(t)$ and expand the system \eqref{new:eq:1}-\eqref{new:eq:6} for $t\ge t_0$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial t}=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi_m+R(t)\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m}-\lambda_m h'(\phi_m)-\eta_m h'(\phi_m)h(\psi)\big),\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{stab:eq:1}\\
&&\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi +R(t)\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi}-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_mh(\phi_m)h'(\psi)\big),\label{stab:eq:3}\\
&&\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^0_m)d\bm{x}=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)d\bm{x},\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{stab:eq:5}\\
&& \int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m^0)h(\psi^0) d\bm{x} =\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m)h(\psi) d\bm{x}, \;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{stab:eq:6}\\
&& \frac{d}{dt}\tilde{E}=R(t)\sum\limits_{m=1}^N(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m},\partial_t\phi_m)+R(t)(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi},\partial_t\psi)\label{stab:eq:7}\\
&&\hskip 2cm +\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\{(h(\phi_m)h'(\psi), \partial_t\psi)+ (h'(\phi_m)h(\psi),\partial_t\phi_m)\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{remark}
Since volumes of each chromosome $V_m=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^0_m)d\bm{x}$ and heterochromatin $v_m=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m^0)h(\psi^0) d\bm{x}$ are constants for $t\ge t_0$, we have $\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\{(h(\phi_m)h'(\psi), \partial_t\psi)+ (h'(\phi_m)h(\psi),\partial_t\phi_m)\} =0$ for $t\ge t_0$. This zero term is critical for constructing energy stable schemes.
\end{remark}
Then, a second-order energy stable scheme based on system \eqref{stab:eq:1}-\eqref{stab:eq:7} can be constructed as follows.
\begin{align}
\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}&=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m\nonumber\\
& +R^{n+\frac 12}(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star}
-\lambda^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)-\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star})\big),\;m=1,\cdots,N, \label{stab:linear:scheme:1}\\
\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}&=-M\big(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12} +R^{n+\frac 12}(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star} -\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}h(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h'(\psi^{n,\star})\big),\label{stab:linear:scheme:2}\\
\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^0_m)d\bm{x}&=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^{n+1}_m)d\bm{x},\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{stab:linear:scheme:3}\\
\int_{\Omega}h(\phi_m^0)h(\psi^0) d\bm{x} &=\int_{\Omega}h(\phi^{n+1}_m)h(\psi^{n+1})d\bm{x},\;m=1,\cdots,N,\label{stab:linear:scheme:4}\\
\tilde{E}^{n+1}(\phi_m^{n+1},\psi^{n+1},\phi_0)&-\tilde{E}^n(\phi_m^n,\psi^n,\phi_0) = R^{n+\frac 12}\sum\limits_{m=1}^N((\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star},\phi_m^{n+1}-\phi^n_m)\nonumber\\ &+R^{n+\frac 12}((\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star},\psi^{n+1}-\psi^n)+ (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m),\phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n)\nonumber\\&
+\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\{(h(\phi_m^{n,\star})h'(\psi^{n,\star}), \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n)+ (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star}),\phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n)\}.\label{stab:linear:scheme:5}
\end{align}
The above scheme is coupled and weakly nonlinear as \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:3}--\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} lead to a system of nonlinear algebraic equations for the Lagrange multipliers. The scheme can be efficiently solved as follows:
For $m=1,2,\cdots,N$, setting
\begin{equation}\label{update:1}
\phi_m^{n+1} = \phi_{1,m}^{n+1} + \lambda_m^{n+\frac 12} \phi_{2,m}^{n+1} + \eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{3,m}^{n+1} + R^{n+\frac 12}\phi_{4,m}^{n+1},
\end{equation}
in \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:2}, we find that $\phi_{2,m}^{n+1}$ and $\phi_{3,m}^{n+1}$ are determined again by \eqref{part:1:1}-\eqref{part:1:2}, while
$\phi_{1,m}^{n+1}$ and $\phi_{4,m}^{n+1}$ can be determined by
\begin{equation}\label{part:10}
\begin{split}
\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_{1,m}-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_{1,m});
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{part:11}
\begin{split}
\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_{4,m}}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\phi\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_{4,m}+(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, setting
\begin{equation}\label{update:2}
\psi^{n+1} = \psi_1^{n+1} + \sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}\psi^{n+1}_{2,m} + R^{n+\frac 12}\psi_3^{n+1},
\end{equation}
in \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:2}, we find that $\psi^{n+1}_{2,m}$ is still determined by \eqref{part:2:2}, while
$\psi_1^{n+1}$ and $\psi_3^{n+1}$ can be determined by
\begin{equation}\label{part:20}
\begin{split}
\frac{ \psi^{n+1}_1-\psi^n}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi_1^{n+\frac 12});
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{part:21}
\begin{split}
\frac{ \psi^{n+1}_3}{\delta t}=-M(-\epsilon^2_\psi\Delta \psi_3^{n+\frac 12} +(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally, we plug \eqref{update:1} and \eqref{update:2} into \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:3}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} to obtained a coupled nonlinear algebraic system of $2N+1$ equations for $(\lambda_m^{n+\frac 12},\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}, \,m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ and $R^{n+\frac 12}$.
Hence, compared with the scheme the scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5}, \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} involves a slightly more complicated nonlinear algebraic system which may require small time steps to have suitable solutions.
In summary, we can determine $\phi_m^{n+1}$ and $\psi^{n+1}$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Solve $(\phi_{1,m}^{n+1}, \phi_{2,m}^{n+1},\phi_{3,m}^{n+1},\phi_{4,m}^{n+1})$ and $\psi_{2,m}^{n+1}$ for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$ from \eqref{part:1:1}-\eqref{part:1:2}, \eqref{part:2:2} and \eqref{part:10}-\eqref{part:11}, and solve $(\psi_1^{n+1},\psi_3^{n+1})$ from \eqref{part:20}-\eqref{part:21}.
\item Solve $(\lambda_m^{n+\frac 12},\eta_m^{n+\frac 12}, \,m=1,2,\cdots,N)$ and $R^{n+\frac 12}$ from the coupled nonlinear system \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:3}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5}.
\item Update $\phi_m^{n+1}$ ($m=1,2,\cdots,N$) and $\psi^{n+1}$ from equations \eqref{update:1} and \eqref{update:2}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem}
Let $(\phi^{n+1}_m,\psi^{n+1},\lambda^{n+1}_m,\eta^{n+1}_m,R^{n+1})$ be the solution of \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} with \eqref{rate2}.
Then the following energy dissipation law is satisfied unconditionally:
\begin{equation}
\frac{E^{n+1}-E^n}{\delta t} \leq- M(\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\|\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t} \|^2+\|\frac{ \psi^{n+1}_m-\psi_m^n}{\delta t}\|^2),\quad \forall n\ge t_0/{\delta t}
\end{equation}
where the energy $E^{n+1}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
E^{n+1}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\frac{\epsilon_{\phi}^2}{2}\|\Grad\phi^{n+1}_m\|^2 +\frac{\epsilon_{\psi}^2}{2}\|\Grad\psi^{n+1}\|^2+\tilde{E}^{n+1}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that for $ n\ge t_0/{\delta t}$, we have $V_m(t^n)=\bar V_m$ and $v_m(t^n)=\bar v_m$.
Taking inner product of equation \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1} with $-\frac{1}{M}\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{stab:1}
\begin{split}
&-\frac 1M\|\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}\|^2=-\epsilon^2_\phi(\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m,\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})\\&+(R^{n+\frac 12}(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star},\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})
-\lambda^{n+\frac 12}_m (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m),\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})\\&-\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star}),\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Taking inner product of equation \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:2} with $-\frac 1M\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}$, we derive
\begin{equation}\label{stab:2}
\begin{split}
&-\frac 1M\|\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}\|^2=-\epsilon^2_\psi(\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12},\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}) \\&+R^{n+\frac 12}((\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star},\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t})-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m(h(\phi_m^{n,\star})h'(\psi^{n,\star}),\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{equation}\label{stab:3}
(\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m,\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})=-\frac{1}{2\delta t}(\|\Grad\phi_m^{n+1}\|^2-\|\Grad\phi_m^n\|^2),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{stab:4}
(\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12},\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}) =-\frac{1}{2\delta t}(\|\Grad\psi^{n+1}\|^2-\|\Grad\psi^n\|^2).
\end{equation}
Summing up equations \eqref{stab:1} for $m=1,2,\cdots,N$ and combined with equation \eqref{stab:3}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{stab:5}
\begin{split}
&-\frac 1M\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\|\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}\|^2-\frac 1M\|\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}\|^2=\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\Big\{-\epsilon^2_\phi(\Delta \phi^{n+\frac 12}_m,\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})\\&+(R^{n+\frac 12}(\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \phi_m})^{n,\star},\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})
-\lambda^{n+\frac 12}_m (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m),\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})\\&-\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m (h'(\phi^{n,\star}_m)h(\psi^{n,\star}),\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t})\Big\}-\epsilon^2_\psi(\Delta \psi^{n+\frac 12},\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}) \\&+R^{n+\frac 12}((\frac{\delta \tilde{E}}{\delta \psi})^{n,\star},\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t})-\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\eta^{n+\frac 12}_m(h(\phi_m^{n,\star})h'(\psi^{n,\star}),\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:2}, \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:4} and combing \eqref{stab:1}--\eqref{stab:4}, equation \eqref{stab:5} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{stab:6}
\begin{split}
&-\frac 1M\sum\limits_{m=1}^N\|\frac{ \phi^{n+1}_m-\phi_m^n}{\delta t}\|^2-\frac 1M\|\frac{ \psi^{n+1}-\psi^n}{\delta t}\|^2=\sum\limits_{m=1}^N
\frac{\epsilon_\phi^2}{2\delta t}(\|\Grad\phi_m^{n+1}\|^2-\|\Grad\phi_m^n\|^2)\\&+\frac{\epsilon_\psi^2}{2\delta t}(\|\Grad\psi^{n+1}\|^2-\|\Grad\psi^n\|^2)+\tilde{E}^{n+1}(\phi_m^{n+1},\psi^{n+1},\phi_0)-\tilde{E}^n(\phi_m^n,\psi^n,\phi_0).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally, from \eqref{stab:6} we arrive at the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical simulations}
In this section, we consider the application of nuclear architecture reorganization system \eqref{nuclear:1}-\eqref{nuclear:5} to model drosophila nucleus with $8$ chromosomes and human nucleus with $46$ chromosomes. We present numerical simulations to explore the mechanisms underlying the reorganization process. The default computational domain is $\Omega=[-\pi,\pi)^2$ and $(2,2.9)$ is chosen to be the $x$-diameter and $y$-diameter of an elliptic nucleus which is located in the center of domain $\Omega$. We use a Fourier spectral method in space with $256^2$ modes, coupled with the three time discretization schemes presented in the last section. When
presenting the simulations results, nucleus is depicted in white, chromosome territories in green, and heterochromatin in red ( see Fig.\;\ref{ini}).
First, we test the convergence rate for proposed linear scheme and weakly nonlinear schemes. Then we study the conventional architectures with affinity and without affinity. Finally, we explore the mechanisms underlying the reorganization process and the pattern formation of chromatin, e.g., the effect of nucleus size and shape and different phase parameters.
\subsection{Convergence test}
We first test the convergence rate for the linear scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} and the weakly nonlinear scheme \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} with fixed nucleus. The phase parameters are set to be $\epsilon^2_{\phi}=0.01$, $\epsilon^2_{\psi}=0.05$, $\beta_0=\frac 53$, $\beta_\phi=1$, $\beta_\psi=\frac 23$ and $\gamma=0$. The initial condition is chosen as the case of (b) in Fig.\;\ref{ini} with Affinity $>0$. The reference solutions are obtained with a very small time step $\delta t=10^{-6}$ using the linear scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6}. We plot
$\max_{m=1}^N\|\phi_m-\phi_{m,Ref}\|_{L^{\infty}}$ and $\|\psi-\psi_{Ref}\|_{L^{\infty}}$ in Fig.\;\ref{Order_test}. Second order convergence rate is observed for both schemes.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,clip==]{convergence_1.jpg}}
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,clip==]{convergence_2.jpg}}
\caption{Convergence rate of linear scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} and weakly nonlinear scheme \eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} with fixed nucleus.}\label{Order_test}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Affinity test and conventional architecture with fixed nucleus}
We now demonstrate the conventional architecture for drosophila nucleus with $8$ chromosomes. The initial condition is given in Fig.\;\ref{ini} where an elliptic nucleus are generated by function $\phi_0(x,y)=\frac 12(1-\tanh(\frac{\sqrt{x^2+y^2/1.45^2}-2}{\sqrt{2}\epsilon}))$. The $8$ chromosomes are initialized by tanh-like functions :$\frac 12[1-\tanh(\frac{r}{\sqrt{2}\epsilon})]$ with centers at $(0,2.5), (-1,1.4), (-0.3,-0.5), (1,-1), (0,0.6), (1,1.3), (0,-2.5), (-1,-0.8)$. The $x$-diameter and $y$-diameter are $(0.2,0.4)$ for each elliptic nucleus. A smaller ellipse with $x$-diameter and $y$-diameter as $(0.05,0.1)$ in each chromosome is set to be heterochromatin territory. The affinity between heterochromatin and the nuclear envelope is controlled by the parameter $\gamma$. A positive affinity value indicates a tethering of heterochromatin to LBR or lamin A/C on the nuclear envelope. To demonstrate that the conventional architecture is obtained with the positive affinity, we choose $\gamma=0.02$ and $\gamma=0$ and plot in Fig.\;\ref{ini} numerical results by using the weakly nonlinear scheme \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5}. We observe from Fig.\;\ref{ini} that heterochromatin domains are fused with adjacent heterochromatin. When affinity $=0$ heterochromatin accumulates at the territories between chromosomes. But there is no interaction with the region of the nuclear envelope. With a positive affinity, heterochromatin is observed to be distributed almost homogeneously along the nuclear envelope, indicating the formation of the conventional architecture. Our numerical simulations indicate that the affinity plays important roles in forming the conventional architecture, and that the expression of LBR and lamin A/C is essential to generate the conventional architecture. These numerical results are consistent with the experiment results in \cite{solovei2013lbr}.
In Fig.\;\ref{volume}, we plot the dynamics of mean volume of chromosome $\bar{V}(t)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^NV_m}{N}$ and heterochromatin $\bar{v}(t)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Nv_m}{N}$. From Fig.\;\ref{volume}, the volumes of chromosome and heterochromain are well preserved by using our weakly nonlinear schemes \eqref{scheme:1}-\eqref{scheme:5}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[Initial condition.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_ini_cond.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$\mbox{Affinity}>0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$\mbox{Affinity}=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_no_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$\mbox{Affinity}=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]
{nuclear_in2.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\caption{The parameters for nuclear reorganization process: $\beta_0=\frac 53$, $\beta_\phi=\frac 83$, $\beta_\psi=\frac 83$ with $\gamma=0.02$ for positive affinity and $\gamma=0$ for zero affinity. Interface parameters are $\epsilon_{\phi}^2=0.01$, $\epsilon_{\psi}^2=0.05$. $\bar{V}_m=\frac{\mbox{Nuclear Volume}}{N}$ and $\bar{v}_m=V_m\times 0.23$ where $m=8$ for drosophila nucleus. Volume growth rate parameters $\alpha_1=1$, $\alpha_2=10$ in \eqref{rate2}. }\label{ini}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,clip==]{volume_dynamic2.pdf}
\caption{Evolutions of mean volume of chromosome and heterochromation $\bar{V}(t)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^NV_m}{N}$, $\bar{v}(t)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Nv_m}{N}$ with respect to time for nuclear reorganization process with affinity $\gamma=0.02$.}\label{volume}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inverted architecture and reorganization process}
In this subsection, we study the architecture reorganization process with fixed nucleus. First, we examine whether the increase of heterochromatin conversion rate and the absence of affinity between the nuclear envelope and heterochromatin are necessary for the induction of the single hetero-cluster in the inverted architecture. We fix the heterochromatin conversion rate $\rho_m=\frac{v_m}{V_m}$ for $m=1,2,\cdots, N$, and set $\gamma=0$. From the first row of Fig.\;\ref{process}, it is observed that affinity between heterochromatin and nuclear envelope vanishes gradually. Finally, four clusters of heterochromatin are formed at $t=50$ when the conversion rates are fixed for all $m$. We then examine the case with an increasing conversion rate $\rho_m(t)$ described by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{m}(t) =\rho_m(0) +\frac{\bar{\rho}_mt}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_1=150$ and $\alpha_2=0.3$. In our simulations, we set the increased conversion rate to be $\bar{\rho}_m=\{(0.35,0.4,0.4,0.35,0.15,0.15,0.35,0.35)\}$ and $\bar{\rho}_m=\{(0.35,0.4,0.4,0.45,0.15,0.15,0.35,0.45)\}$ for the second and third rows in Fig.\;\ref{process}, and set the affinity parameter to be $\gamma=0$. We observe from the second and third rows of Fig.\;\ref{process} that a single cluster of heterochromatin is formed which implies the inverted architecture. Next we keep the affinity between the nuclear and the nuclear envelope unchanged at $\gamma=0.02$, and increase the conversion rate $\rho_m$ for $m=1,2,\cdots, N$. We observe from the fourth row of Fig.\;\ref{process} that the affinity between nuclear envelope and heterochromatin are present all the time, and the heterochromatin grows on each chromosome territory gradually during architecture reorganization process.
The numerical simulations from Fig.\;\ref{process} indicate that increase of
heterochromatin conversion rate and the absence of affinity between nuclear envelope and heterochromatin are sufficient for the formation of the inverted architecture during the nuclear architecture reorganization process, which are with the previous results in \cite{lee2017new}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[$t=0$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=10$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{process1.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=20$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{process2.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=50$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{process3.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=0$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=10$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{growth0.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=20$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{growth1.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=50$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{growth2.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=0$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=5$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{invert50.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=10$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{invert10.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=50$, $\gamma=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{invert5.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=0$, $\gamma=0.02$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_nuclear_affinity.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=10$, $\gamma=0.02$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,clip==]{fix1.pdf}}
\caption{The parameters for nuclear reorganization process: $\beta_0=\frac 53$, $\beta_\phi=1$, $\beta_\psi=\frac 23$ with $\gamma=0$ for zero affinity. Interface parameters are $\epsilon_\phi^2=0.001$ and $\epsilon_{\psi}^2=0.005$. $\bar{V}_m=\frac{\mbox{Nuclear Volume}}{N}$ and $\bar{v}_m=V_m\times 0.23$ where $m=8$ and time step $\delta t=10^{-2}$ with fixed nucleus. }\label{process}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reduced nuclear size and the reorganization process}
In this subsection, we focus on the architecture reorganization process with reduced nuclear shape, and assess whether the nuclear shape is an indispensable condition for the induction of a single cluster inverted architecture.
We introduce two sigmoid functions to describe the x-radius and y-radius of nuclear shape.
\begin{equation}
r_x(t) =r_x(0) +\frac{\bar{r}_xt}{t + \alpha_1 e^{-\alpha_2 t}};\; r_y(t) =r_y(0) +\frac{\bar{r}_yt}{t + \alpha_3 e^{-\alpha_4 t}},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{r}_x$ and $\bar{r}_y$ are the decreasing rate of nuclear size and $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_4$ are four positive constants which controls the decreasing scale with respect to time. We consider that the nucleus shape will decrease to be a circular or an elliptical shape with time evolution, and investigate how the nuclear size and shape influence the nuclear architecture reorganization process.
The parameters of decreasing scale are $\alpha_1=\alpha_3=1$ and $\alpha_2=\alpha_4=0.01$. Numerical results are computed by the linear scheme
\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{stab:linear:scheme:5} with $\delta t=10^{-4}$. We also increase the volume of each chromosome $V_m$ and volume of heterochromatin in each chromosome $v_m$ with time. Snapshots at $t=0, 0.05, 1, 5$ are depicted for different nuclear pattern in Fig.\;\ref{decrease_1}. It is observed from Fig.\;\ref{decrease_1} that both circular or elliptical shape will eventually achieve the one cluster inverted architecture. The second row of Fig.\;\ref{decrease_1} displays chromosome territories of the first row. So the nuclear size or shape are not indispensable condition for the nuclear architecture reorganization process.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_decreased00.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=0.05$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{lag_decreased0.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=1$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{lag_decreased01.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=5$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{lag_decreased1.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]
{nuclear_decreased00.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=0.05$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{nuclear_decreased0.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=1$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{nuclear_decreased01.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=5$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,clip==]{nuclear_decreased1.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth,clip==]
{lag_new.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=0.05$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth,clip==]{elliptic1.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=1$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth,clip==]{elliptic2.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=5$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth,clip==]{decrease3.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\caption{Decreased Nucleus with parameters $(\beta_0,\beta_\phi,\beta_\psi)=(\frac{50}{3},50,\frac{50}{3})$. Interface width are $\epsilon^2_\phi=0.01$ and $\epsilon^2_\psi=0.05$. $\bar{V}_m=$ Nuclear volume/$m$ and $\bar{v}_m=V_m\times [0.23]$, where $m=8$.}\label{decrease_1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inverted architecture reorganization for human beings}
In the previous subsections, we only considered $8$ chromosomes for drosophila, and find that the deformation of nuclear size and shape are not sufficient conditions for the nuclear architecture conversion. The absence of both LBR and lamin A/C expression $\gamma=0$ and the increase of heterochromatin rate are indispensable for inverted nuclear architecture. Now we explore the nuclear architecture with $46$ chromosomes for human beings. We also compute the numerical results by using the linear scheme \eqref{linear:scheme:1}-\eqref{linear:scheme:6} with $\delta t=10^{-3}$ and examine the effect of affinity in Fig.\;\ref{nuclear46_1}. It is observed from Fig.\;\ref{nuclear46_1} that heterochromatin is shown to be distributed along the nuclear envelope with $\gamma=0.02$ with $46$ chromosome. However the heterochromatin accumulates at the territories between chromosome instead of in the region of nuclear envelope with $\gamma=0$. In Fig.\;\ref{nuclear46_2}, we decrease nuclear shape and eliminate the affinity of nuclear envelope, while increasing the heterochromatin conversion rate, and we observe that one cluster inverted architecture is formed at $t=2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]
{shape46.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=5$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]{bc46.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=5$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip==]{bc46_2.pdf}}
\caption{Fixed Nucleus with parameters $(\beta_0,\beta_\phi,\beta_\psi)=(\frac{5}{3},1,\frac 23)$ and $\gamma=(0,0.02)$ where $m=46$. Interface width $\epsilon_\phi^2=0.01$ and $\epsilon^2_\psi=0.01$.}\label{nuclear46_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth,clip==]
{bc46.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\subfigure[$t=2$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth,clip==]{de46_2.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=2$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth,clip==]
{de46_1.pdf}}\hskip 0cm
\caption{Decreased nucleus with parameters $(\beta_0,\beta_\phi,\beta_\psi)=(\frac{5}{3},1,\frac 23)$ and $\gamma=0$ where $m=46$. Interface width $\epsilon_\phi^2=0.01$ and $\epsilon^2_\psi=0.01$.}\label{nuclear46_2}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[$t=0$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,clip==]{bc46.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=30$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,clip==]{f46_t30.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=40$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,clip==]{f46_t40.pdf}}
\subfigure[$t=60$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,clip==]{f46_t60.pdf}}
\caption{Fixed Nucleus with parameters $(\beta_0,\beta_\phi,\beta_\psi)=(\frac{5}{3},1,\frac 23)$ and $\gamma=(0,0.02)$. $\bar{V}_m=$ Nuclear volume/$m$ and $\bar{v}_m=V_m\times [0.23]$, where $m=8$.}\label{nuclear46_3}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\section{Concluding remarks}
Specific features of nuclear architecture are closely related to the functional organization of the nucleus. Within nucleus,
chromatin consists of two forms, heterochromatin and euchromatin. The conventional nuclear architecture is observed
when heterochromatin is enriched at nuclear periphery, and it represents the primary structure in the majority of eukaryotic cells,
including the rod cells of diurnal mammals. In contrast to this, the inverted nuclear architecture is observed when the heterochromatin is
distributed at the center of the nucleus, which occurs in the rod cells of nocturnal mammals.
The conventional architecture can transform into the inverted architecture during nuclear reorganization process.
We developed in this paper a new phase field model with Lagrange multipliers to simulate the nuclear architecture reorganization process. Introducing Lagrange multipliers enables us to preserve the specific physical and geometrical constraints for the biological events.
We developed several efficient time discretization schemes for the constrained gradient system. One is a full linear scheme which can only preserve volume constrains with second order accuracy, but it is very easy to solve. The other two are weakly nonlinear scheme which can exactly preserve non-local constraints, and one of them is also unconditionally energy stable. The price we pay for the exact preservation of geometric constraints is that we need to solve a nonlinear algebraic system for the Lagrange multipliers, which can be solved at negligible cost but may require the time step to be sufficiently small. These time discretization schemes can be used with any consistent Galerkin type discretization in space.
We presented several simulations using our proposed schemes for drosophila and human beings with $8$ chromosomes and $46$ chromosomes. Our results indicate that the increase of heterochromatin conversion rate and the absence of affinity between nuclear envelope and heterochromatin are sufficient for the formation of the inverted architecture during the nuclear architecture reorganization process, while nuclear size and shape are not indispensable for the formation of the single hetero-cluster inverted architecture.
|
\section{Introduction}
Enrollment in undergraduate Computer Science (CS) courses is growing rapidly, and these classes are quickly evolving to accommodate the significant increase of students~\cite{Kay98Intro}. To handle the large influx of students, researchers and practitioners have developed a variety of bots to automate instructional tasks. For instance, tools such as CoderAssist~\cite{Kaleeswaran2016CoderAssist}, Web-CAT~\cite{Edwards08WebCAT}, and AutoGradr\footnote{https://autogradr.com} are useful for grading programs and providing feedback on students' code.
Furthermore, Wilcox shows using automated tools to facilitate student learning in programming courses is valuable for improving performance, increasing submissions, and saving instructional time~\cite{Wilcox2015Automation}.
Despite increasing enrollment in CS courses, research shows the dropout rate in programming classes is also increasing rapidly, especially among first and second year students~\cite{beaubouef2005high}. Studies suggest the inability to maintain students in CS will lead to a ``crisis'' in the software industry with necessary computing-related jobs going unfilled.\footnote{https://www.itexico.com/blog/how-to-handle-the-crisis-of-software-developer-shortage-in-the-u.s} Consequently, underrepresented minorities and female students disproportionately account for those underperforming in early programming courses and dropping out of the CS major~\cite{Payton20NC, Baer20Gender}, leading to a lack of diversity in industry.\footnote{https://news.gallup.com/reports/196331/diversity-gaps-computer-science.aspx}
Automated systems are beneficial for providing feedback efficiently, however they lack the ability to support students. The goal of this work is to explore using bots to retain students in CS. While not solely due to a lack of effort, Beaubouef and Mason suggest one reason for high withdrawal in programming courses is poor behavior on coding assignments~\cite{beaubouef2005high}. Decision-making is an important skill in software engineering,\footnote{https://hackernoon.com/decision-making-the-most-undervalued-skill-in-software-engineering-f9b8e5835ca6/} however students in programming courses frequently make poor choices and adopt bad programming behaviors when writing code for projects. For example, students often ignore software development processes, which leads to increased frustration, lower grades, and eventually abandoning CS~\cite{beaubouef2005high}.
Our prior work proposes using \textit{nudge theory} to improve the reception of automated recommendations to developers from bots~\cite{SorryToBotherYou,SorryToBotherYou2}. Nudge theory is a behavioral science concept for improving human behavior by influencing the environment surrounding decisions, or choice architecture, without providing incentives or banning alternative choices~\cite{sunstein2008nudge}. We introduced \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace, a novel framework for designing recommender bots to nudge software engineers towards better development practices~\cite{SorryToBotherYou2}. In this work, we explore implementing this framework in an innovative system to improve the software engineering behaviors of students on programming projects.
To discover the impact of this approach on student behavior, we performed a study implementing \texttt{class-bot}\xspace, a system that utilizes \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace to recommend beneficial software engineering behaviors to students on projects for a university-level introductory programming course. We evaluated the effectiveness of this system by examining the code quality of projects and productivity of students. Our results suggest automated nudges with \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace improved student behavior by increasing performance on assignments and encouraging students to make more substantial changes to their code and start work earlier. The contributions of this research are a novel bot to recommend software engineering practices to students and a preliminary evaluation examining the impact of \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace on improving the software engineering behaviors of programmers.
\section{Background}
\subsection{Nudge Theory}
Behavioral science research suggests nudges are effective for improving human decision-making. For example, studies show placing healthy options near the front of a cafeteria encourages students to purchase and consume healthier options~\cite{Hanks2012Lunchroom}. In this case, students are not rewarded for making healthy decisions nor banned choosing from junk food. Furthermore, integrating nudge theory in digital choice environments is known as \textit{digital nudging}~\cite{weinmann2016digitalnudging}. Prior work suggests digital nudges can encourage better privacy and security decisions of users online~\cite{Acquisti2017Nudges} and improve student learning and motivation~\cite{Rughini2013DigitalBadge}. We aim to explore using digital nudges to improve the programming behaviors of students on coding assignments to improve their code quality, productivity, and ultimately increase retention among early CS students.
Nudges are useful for improving human behavior because of their ability to influence the context and environment surrounding decisions, or \textit{choice architecture}~\cite{thaler2013choice}. Brown and colleagues propose \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}, a framework that applies concepts from nudge theory into automated bots to create effective developer recommendations~\cite{SorryToBotherYou2}. We incorporate this framework into \texttt{class-bot}\xspace to make recommendations encouraging students to adopt better programming behaviors while working on projects. Our goal is to discover the impact of \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace on the decision-making and behavior of students by analyzing code quality and development productivity on programming assignments in introductory CS classes.
\subsection{Computer Science Education}
CS education researchers have evaluated a variety of systems useful for automating instructional tasks. For example, Kaleeswaran et al. found CoderAssist grades C programs and provides feedback to students on their code in an average of 1.6 seconds~\cite{Kaleeswaran2016CoderAssist}. Prior work also outlines strategies for incorporating automated grading tools on coding assignments~\cite{Wilcox16AutoGradingStrategies}. Moreover, Heckman suggests incorporating real development tools in courses can improve software engineering skills~\cite{Heckman18Tools} while Hu shows integrating GitHub pull request bots on project repositories provides fast and useful feedback to students~\cite{hu2019feedback}. In this work, we seek to use bots as a means to enhance development behaviors in introductory programming courses.
Researchers have also explored improving student behavior in CS courses. For example, Edwards and colleagues summarize effective and ineffective student behaviors on programming assignments~\cite{Edwards09Behaviors}. Studies also show that non-automated approaches, such as in-class labs~\cite{Heckman15Labs}, agile practices~\cite{Schneider2020Agile}, pair learning~\cite{williams2000effects}, and other instructional techniques improve student behavior and learning in undergraduate CS courses. Additionally, prediction models~\cite{Niki19Predictive} and automated tools such as DevEventTracker~\cite{DevEventTracker} are useful for observing student programming habits to predict bad behaviors, such as procrastination. This research explores using automated notifications from bots to improve the decision-making of students while developing code on programming assignments.
\section{CLASS-BOT}
The \texttt{class-bot}\xspace system nudges students by automatically generating and updating GitHub issues on project repositories (see Figure~\ref{fig:bot}). We implemented our bot using the GitHub issue tracker because this system is useful for managing bugs, enhancements, and feedback on repositories,\footnote{https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-issues} and research suggests they are useful for making recommendations to developers~\cite{bissyande2013issues}. To improve student programming behaviors, \texttt{class-bot}\xspace encouraged them to complete the \textit{software development process}, or set of activities necessary to program software application. Beaubouef and Mason suggest students' failure to follow development processes factors into the high attrition rate in early programming courses, noting the typical student method ``\textit{minimally includes the processes of analysis, design, coding, testing, and documentation...Unsuccessful students often want to skip analysis and design and begin typing in code immediately.}''~\cite[p.~105]{beaubouef2005high}
Each \texttt{class-bot}\xspace issue contains sections for each software development process phase (i.e. \includegraphics[height=1em]{images/rq.png} in Figure~\ref{fig:bot} represents the Requirements phase) and listing relevant project rubric items for that phase. Specific tasks differed based on the assignment. In general: Requirements (Rq) focuses on understanding project specifications and functionality; Design (Ds) relates to project structure; Implementation (Im) centers on the code; Testing ensures students added passing unit tests (Ut) and functional test cases (St); and Deployment (Dp) verifies the repository is ready for submission and grading based on submission instructions. We compared our system to a baseline approach using an online rubric with a similar organization.
The \texttt{class-bot}\xspace issue updates fit the definition of a nudge because they do not provide rewards for completing tasks nor prevent students from ignoring items. To improve student programming behaviors, we designed \texttt{class-bot}\xspace using the three principles of \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace: \textit{Actionability}, \textit{Feedback}, and \textit{Locality}~\cite{SorryToBotherYou2}. Here, we explain how \texttt{class-bot}\xspace incorporates each principle to recommend better development process behaviors to students.
\paragraph{Actionability}
Actionability involves reducing user effort by automating tasks to facilitate the adoption of useful behaviors. We implemented \texttt{class-bot}\xspace to incorporate actionability by automatically analyzing repositories to determine if development process tasks are completed and update GitHub issues based on code changes. However, the baseline approach requires students to manually seek information online.
\paragraph{Feedback}
Feedback refers to the clarity of information provided to users. Our system provides a simple feedback mechanism, displaying a red x (\includegraphics[height=1em]{images/x.png}) if the requirements for an item are not met and a green check mark (\includegraphics[height=1em]{images/check.png}) if the task is completed. For instance, in the Deployment phase of the \texttt{class-bot}\xspace example in Figure~\ref{fig:bot}, the repository contains a .gitignore file but the code does not compile. With the the baseline approach, students are forced to check if project expectations are met themselves.
\paragraph{Locality}
Locality focuses on the setting of a recommendation, or when and where automated interventions occur. For \textit{spatial} locality, \texttt{class-bot}\xspace recommendations are located in an issue on the repository situated with the project. For \textit{temporal} locality, or notification timing, \texttt{class-bot}\xspace provides automated daily updates on software development processes based on students' code contributions. On the other hand, students are forced to search for information in an ad hoc manner at a separate location from their repository using the online rubric.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/class-bot.png}
\caption{Example \texttt{class-bot}\xspace recommendation}
\label{fig:bot}
\end{figure}
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Experiment Design}
\subsubsection{Participants} We integrated \texttt{class-bot}\xspace in an introductory Java programming course. All participants were undergraduate students with varying majors and levels of programming experience. For consistency in our data, we eliminated students who eventually dropped the class. Overall, we analyzed the behavior of 35 out of the initial 42 enrolled students. We use five phases to define the software development process: \textit{Requirements}, \textit{Design}, \textit{Implementation}, \textit{Test}, and \textit{Deployment}, as presented to students in the course curriculum.
\subsubsection{Projects}
The course consisted of seven programming assignments, six projects and a final comprehensive exercise. Projects 3-5 made up the control group to avoid beginning assignments, and \texttt{class-bot}\xspace was introduced on the final two assignments. All projects were submitted to individual GitHub repositories. In total, we analyzed a 151 project repositories.
\subsection{Data Collection}
To determine the impact of \texttt{class-bot}\xspace on student behavior, we mined project repositories to observe the quality of their work and development productivity. Data analysis and collection lasted over the course of approximately six weeks.
\subsubsection{Quality}
We evaluated quality by observing the \textit{grades} and number of \textit{points deducted} for project submissions. In the course, project grades were determined using realistic industry code quality metrics such as passing unit tests, functional test cases, and Checkstyle\footnote{\url{https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/}} static analysis tool warnings. Additionally, students who failed to meet certain project requirements had additional points subtracted from their grade. For instance, submitting an assignment within 24 hours after the deadline resulted in a -10\% late penalty. We aim to discover if \texttt{class-bot}\xspace impacts student behavior by improving the quality of their projects.
\subsubsection{Productivity}
We measured productivity by observing the total \textit{number of commits}, \textit{code churn}, time until the \textit{first commit}, and time of the \textit{last commit}. GitHub commits record specific changes to project files,\footnote{https://docs.github.com/en/desktop/contributing-and-collaborating-using-github-desktop/committing-and-reviewing-changes-to-your-project\#about-commits} and prior work explores using repository commits to predict student performance~\cite{sprint2019mining} and gamify contributions to projects~\cite{Singer12Race}. Research also suggests code churn, or the number of lines added, deleted, or modified in commits, is useful for measuring developer effort and code change impact~\cite{Munson98Churn}. Moreover, prior work shows students who start assignments earlier receive significantly higher grades while those who procrastinate often perform worse~\cite{Edwards09Behaviors}. To further study productivity, we measured the time until the first commit on repositories and the amount of time between the last commit and the assignment deadline.
We use these quality and productivity metrics to investigate the impact of bots incorporating \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace on the software engineering behaviors of students working on programming projects.
\begin{table}[tbh]
\centering
\caption{Quality Results}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|r|r|c| } \hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{Nudge?} & \textbf{Mean} & \textbf{Median} & \textbf{\textit{p-value}} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Grade***}} & No & 74.29 & 87.66 & - \\
& Yes & 76.89 & 95 & \textbf{\em 0.0097***} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Deductions}} & No & -20.71 & -5 & - \\
& Yes & -9.43 & 0 & 0.0672 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
Quality metrics for projects with and without \texttt{class-bot}\xspace \\ \textbf{***} denotes statistically significant results (\textit{p-value} $< 0.05$)
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:quality}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tbh]
\centering
\caption{Productivity Results}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|r|r|c| } \hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{Nudge?} & \textbf{Mean} & \textbf{Median} & \textbf{\textit{p-value}} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Commits}} & No & 9.84 & 7 & - \\
& Yes & 12.64 & 9 & 0.1646 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Code Churn***}} & No & 205.03 & 4 & - \\
& Yes & 1101.57 & 11 & \textbf{\em 0.0348***} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{}\textbf{First Commit***} & No & 8.32 & 7.41 & - \\
\textbf{(days)} & Yes & 1.99 & 5.94 & \textbf{\em $<$ 0.0001***} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{}\textbf{Last Commit} & No & -21.72 & -1.60 & - \\
\textbf{(hours)} & Yes & -9.67 & -2.47 & 0.7909 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
Productivity metrics for projects with and without \texttt{class-bot}\xspace \\ \textbf{***} denotes statistically significant results (\textit{p-value} $< 0.05$)
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:productivity}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test ($\alpha$ = .05) was used to compare project quality and student productivity metrics for assignments with and without nudges from \texttt{class-bot}\xspace.
\subsection{Project Quality}
To observe the impact of \texttt{class-bot}\xspace on code quality, we analyzed the grade and points deducted on student assignments. These findings are presented in Table~\ref{tab:quality}. We discovered students received significantly higher scores on projects with automated nudges, indicating notifications from our system improved the quality of programming assignments. Additionally, while there was not a significant difference, we noticed projects without automated nudges lost an average of 11 more points than those with \texttt{class-bot}\xspace interventions.
\subsection{Student Productivity}
To discover the impact of \texttt{class-bot}\xspace on student productivity, we analyzed total commits, code churn, first commit time, and last commit time. Our results in Table~\ref{tab:productivity} show nudges improved the productivity of students by significantly increasing the number of lines of code modified in commits and encouraging students to start development on programming assignments earlier. Additionally, we found that on average projects with automated nudges had more commits to the repositories and projects were submitted earlier with \texttt{class-bot}\xspace notifications.
\section{Discussion}
Our preliminary results suggest bots incorporating \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace can improve development behavior. By encouraging students to follow software engineering processes, we found \texttt{class-bot}\xspace improved project quality and student productivity by boosting grades, increasing code churn, and preventing procrastination. We believe these automated nudges are a step towards reducing the attrition rate in CS. Furthermore, these results provide implications for software engineers in industry where developers also ignore development processes and underestimate the time and effort required to complete coding tasks~\cite{Boehm1984SEEcon}. Despite the advantages of bots for automating programming tasks, developers find recommendations from bots ineffective and intrusive~\cite{SorryToBotherYou}. To gain insight for improving bots to effectively recommend beneficial programming behaviors, we analyzed feedback from students and found increased project validation as well as more frequent updates as reported improvements for the \texttt{class-bot}\xspace system.
\paragraph{Validation Frequency}
Even though they started assignments approximately six days earlier with \texttt{class-bot}\xspace, students still reported waiting until the end of the project to validate their work met project expectations. For example, one student noted ``\textit{I didn't really check them until the final day}'' and another mentioned ``\textit{I checked it once at the end to make sure everything was correct but thats it}''. This indicates a need to encourage students to validate their code more frequently, which research shows improves code quality~\cite{Wallace89Verification}. \texttt{class-bot}\xspace provides automated updates for students to passively check their progress, however future systems can be improved by incorporating interactive mechanisms, such as checklists~\cite{Garcia08Ten}, to encourage students to validate their code more frequently during the development of their projects.
\paragraph{Update Frequency}
Students also desired more frequent updates from \texttt{class-bot}\xspace, saying they ``\textit{would like it more if it could be updated more often, or maybe later in the day}'' and ``\textit{the class bot didn't update frequently enough}''. While \texttt{class-bot}\xspace incorporated \textit{temporal locality} by updating issues daily, students desired more frequent feedback to support them in their work. Prior work in software engineering shows that presenting recommendations to developers at ``diff time'' during code reviews encouraged developers to fix more bugs compared to less frequent notifications, i.e. after overnight builds~\cite{Distefano2019Facebook}. Based on this feedback for \texttt{class-bot}\xspace, future systems can be improved by providing frequent notifications based on student actions, such as immediately after commits, to provide convenient and persistent recommendations for useful software engineering behaviors.
\section{Conclusion}
This work explores using bots to improve student software engineering behaviors in introductory programming courses. We introduce \texttt{class-bot}\xspace, a novel system that incorporates \textit{developer recommendation choice architectures}\xspace to create automated recommendations with clear feedback in a convenient setting to encourage students to adhere to software development process phases. Our results show this system significantly improved code quality and student productivity by raising grades, increasing coding activity, and encouraging students to start earlier. We conclude by providing implications for improving \texttt{class-bot}\xspace and designing future automated systems to recommend beneficial behaviors to programmers.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section*{\refname}%
\@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\refname}{\MakeUppercase\refname}%
\list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
{\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin20p
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\setlength\itemindent{-0.25pt
\@openbib@code
\usecounter{enumiv}%
\let\p@enumiv\@empty
\renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
\sloppy
\clubpenalty4000
\@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
\widowpenalty4000%
\sfcode`\.\@m}
{\def\@noitemerr
{\@latex@warning{Empty `thebibliography' environment}}%
\endlist}
\renewcommand\newblock{\hskip .11em\@plus.33em\@minus.07em}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\end{abstract}
\blfootnote{
{<EMAIL>}}
{Keywords: double oscillator, period doubling bifurcation, surfaces of section, Poincar\'e map, chaotic behaviour}\\
Abstract
\maketitle
A classical double oscillator model, that includes in certain parameter limits, the standard harmonic oscillator and the inverse oscillator, is interpreted as a dynamical system. We study its essential features and make a qualitative analysis of orbits around the equilibrium points, period-doubling bifurcation, time series curves, surfaces of section and Poincar\'e maps. An interesting outcome of our findings is the emergence of chaotic behaviour when the system is confronted with a periodic force term like $f\cos \omega t$. \\
\section{Introduction}
\maketitle
Many years ago, Mathews and Lakshmanan \cite{Mat1} proposed a nonlinear deformation of the harmonic oscillator that is guided by a certain parameter $\lambda$ and which accounts for a non-polynomial oscillator term. They considered the Lagrangian to be given by
\begin{equation}
L = \frac{1}{2} (1 + \lambda x^2)^{-1} (\dot {x}^2 -\alpha^2 x^2), \quad -\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\lambda}|} < x < \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\lambda}|}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a non-negative real constant. Without $\lambda$ in $L$, the harmonic oscillator is recovered.
The above Lagrangian also characterizes a mechanical system endowed with a position-dependent-mass (PDM) \cite{Mat2}. The subject of PDM \cite{Roos} has evinced a lot of interest in the literature and has developed into a separate branch of research over the past few decades \cite{Bag1, Dut, Mus, Dha, Car1, Sara, Fer, Dib}. In this connection, the relevance of PDM has been noteworthy in such areas as that of compositionally graded crystals \cite{Gel}, quantum dots \cite{Ser}, liquid crystals \cite{Bar} etc. and some classical problems possessing quantum analogs, for example, in branched Hamiltonian systems \cite{Bag2}.
Returning to the Lagrangian $L$, apart from the presence of a rational non-oscillator potential
\begin{equation}
V_{ML}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\alpha^2 x^2}{1+ \lambda x^2}
\end{equation}
it also supports a PDM defined by
\begin{equation}
M(x) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{1 + \lambda x^2}
\end{equation}
Evidently with the restriction of the configuration space specified in $(1)$ the mass function $M(x)$ is free from any singularity. Such a form for $M(x)$ has been studied in different contexts \cite{Yes}. One notices that $M(x)$ asymptotically approaches a zero-value with respect to $x$.
The equation of motion resulting from $(1)$ reads
\begin{equation}
(1+\lambda x^2)\ddot{x} - \lambda x \dot{x}^2 +\alpha^2 x =0
\end{equation}
which belongs to the quadratic Li\'enard class represented by the form
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x} + r(x) \dot{x}^2 + s(x) =0
\end{equation}
where $r(x)$ and $s(x)$ stand for
\begin{equation}
r(x) = -\frac{\lambda x}{1+\lambda x^2}, \quad s(x) = \frac{\alpha^2 x}{1 +\lambda x^2}
\end{equation}
Among the properties of the above Lagrangian include the observation of
Cari\~{n}ena et al \cite{Car2, Car3} that the kinetic term is invariant under the tangent lift of the vector field $X_x (\lambda) = \sqrt{1+\lambda x^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, the setting up of a quantum analogue in the form of a PDM problem and solving it for all possible orderings and including the effects of a linear dissipative term and demonstrating that in the presence of a two-parameter deformation \cite{Que} of the guiding potential, one runs into a chaotic behaviour of the whole system if the ranges of the coupling constants are suitably adjusted \cite{Bag3}. It may be remarked that in most of the investigations (see, for instance, \cite{nay, wig}) of dynamical systems, including seeking solitary wave solutions for standard systems \cite{pan}, the prototype of a second-order nonlinear autonomous differential equations is employed even for bifurcation analysis for complicated systems under localized perturbations \cite{zno}.
Recently, Schulze-Halberg and Wang \cite{Hal} have considered modifications to the Mathews-Lakshmanan Lagrangian $(1)$ by bringing in additional terms that not only account for the interactions present in $(1)$ but feature a one-parameter harmonic or
inverse harmonic oscillator contribution. Their two-parameter Lagrangian reads\footnote{In $L_{SW}$ we changed the sign of $\lambda$ and $\beta$ without loss of generality}
\begin{equation}
L_{SW} = \frac{1}{2} (1+ \lambda x^2)^{-1} [\dot{x}^2 - (1 + \lambda)x^2] + \frac{\beta}{2} x^2, \quad \lambda \in \Re
\end{equation}
Here the mass-function is same as that in $(3)$ but the potential is modified to
\begin{equation}
V_{SW} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{(1+ \lambda) x^2}{1+\lambda x^2} - \frac{\beta}{2} x^2, \quad \beta \in \Re
\end{equation}
which represents a double oscillator expressed as a combination of the harmonic oscillator $(\beta = - 1, \lambda \rightarrow 0)$ and the inverted harmonic oscillator $(\beta = 3, \lambda \rightarrow 0)$. Mathews-Lakshamanan nonlinear oscillator is recovered when $\beta = 0$. Specifically, when $\beta = 0$ and $\alpha^2$ is set equal to $1+\lambda$ i.e. $\alpha^2 = 1+ \lambda$, one gets back the Lagrangian $(1)$ which is well known to be exactly solvable. However this is not the case when $\alpha^2 \neq 1+\lambda$ and $\beta \neq 0$. The classical dynamics for the system has been studied in detail in \cite{Hal} in connection with the existence of series solutions along with seeking suitable quantum analogs. Another paper by Blum and Elze \cite{blum} also investigated a double-well system semi-classically and pointed out the tendency of a chaotic behaviour. In this paper we pursue a different line of approach in that although we use the same Lagrangian as given by $(7)$, we treat the equation of motion resulting from it as a coupled pair to look upon them from the perspective of a dynamical system \cite{Mat2, Bag4}. Subsequently we perform a qualitative analysis for the determination of local properties following from them and then include an
external periodic forcing term to study its influence as an additional damping effect. As we show explicitly we run into a chaotic behavior apart from obtaining period doubling bifurcation, time series curves, surfaces of section and Poincar\'e map. Estimates of Lyaunov exponents are also made.
\section{Existence of fixed points and a qualitative analysis}
The equation of motion following from $L_{SW}$ reads\footnote{The second term in the equation of motion in \cite{Hal} has been corrected.}
\begin{equation}
(1+\lambda x^2) \ddot{x} - \lambda x \dot{x}^2 + (1-\beta + \lambda) x - 2\beta \lambda x^3 - \beta \lambda^2x^5 = 0
\end{equation}
It is of quintic type in the presence of a dissipative term which is present in the Mathews-Lakshmanan model as well.
By introducing an auxiliary variable $y$ let us re-write $(9)$ in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \dot{x} = y \nonumber \\
&& \dot{y} = \frac{\lambda x y^2}{1+\lambda x^2} - (1- \beta + \lambda)\frac{x}{1+\lambda x^2} + 2\beta \lambda \frac{x^3}{1+\lambda x^2} + \beta \lambda^2 \frac{x^5}{1+ \lambda x^2}
\end{eqnarray}
The solutions of $\dot{x} = 0$ and $\dot{y} = 0$ furnish the fixed points. These are easily seen to be located on the $x$-axis with the squares of the abscissa satisfying
\begin{equation}
x^2_{1,2} = \frac{-\beta \pm [(1 + \lambda)\beta]^\frac{1}{2}}{\beta \lambda}, \quad \beta, \lambda \neq 0
\end{equation}
The positivity of the discriminant leads to the restriction that $(1+\lambda)\beta > 0$. As equilibrium points are real, the sign of $(1+\lambda)$ and that of $\beta$ has to be the same. Taking both to be positive, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\lambda > - 1, \quad \beta \geq 0
\end{equation}
Specifically, taking $\beta = \frac{1}{2}$ and $\lambda = - \frac{1}{2}$, the three equilibrium points are found to be placed at
\begin{equation}
P_0^* = (0, 0), \quad P_1^* = (2, 0), \quad P_3* = (-2, 0)
\end{equation}
We now proceed to write down the Jacobian matrix which is to be evaluated at the critical points $x_c$
\begin{eqnarray}
J &=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
J_{21} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Note that is is off-diagonal with the expression for the element $J_{21}$ being
\begin{equation}
J_{21} = \frac{-(1-\beta + \lambda) + 6\beta \lambda x_c^2 +5\beta \lambda^2 x_c^4}{1+\lambda x_c^2} + \frac{2\lambda (1-\beta +\lambda)x_c^2 -4\beta\lambda^2 x_c^4 -2\beta\lambda^3 x_c^6}{(1+\lambda x_c^2)^2}
\end{equation}
where $x_c$ corresponds to the solutions $x_{1,2}$ of $(11)$. Further $J_{21}$ is an even function in $x_c$. Among the equilibrium points $P_0^* = (0, 0)$ is neutrally stable but both $P_1^*$ and $P_2^*$ are stable and of elliptic type.
Orbits and phase portrait about the equilibrium point $(2, 0)$ are presented in Figure 1.
Before we embark on the inclusion of a periodic force term in $(9)$, it is interesting to inquire into the possibility of what happens if the parameters $\beta$ and $\lambda$ satisfed the constraint
\begin{equation}
1-\beta + \lambda =0
\end{equation}
In such a case a great simplification occurs with the fixed points $x_{1,2}^2$ emerging as $x_{1,2}^2 = \frac{2}{1-\beta}$ with $J_{21}$ acquiring the form
\begin{equation}
J_{21} = \frac{\beta \lambda x^2 (6+5\lambda x_c^2)}{1+\lambda x_c^2} - \frac{2\beta \lambda^2 x_c^4 (2+\lambda x_c^2)}{(1+\lambda x_c^2)^2}
\end{equation}
With a trial value of $\beta = \frac{1}{2}$ or equivalently $\lambda = -\frac{1}{2}$, plausible solutions of $x_c$ are $\pm 2$. In both the cases $J_{21} = -4$. It signals that the eigenvalues of the matrix $J$ correspond to a pair of imaginary quantities.
A linear stability analysis for different choices of the parameter values $\beta$ and $\lambda$ reveals, that for the reality of fixed points, one has to conform to either the conditions $1+\lambda > 0$ and $\beta > 0$ or the pair $1+\lambda < 0$ and $\beta < 0$. Taking the former case without any loss of generality and choosing for illustration the numerical values $\beta = 0.5$ and $\lambda = − 0.5$, the fixed points turn out to be $(0, 0), (2, 0)$ and $(− 2, 0)$. Thus the stability analysis points to the following results:\\
(i) The point $(0, 0)$ is neutrally stable as for the case $(12)$.\\
(ii) Further, similar to the previous case, the fixed points $(2, 0)$ and $(− 2, 0)$ point to the eigenvalues $\pm 2i$ and imply that these are of elliptic (or centre) type. Hence the fixed points may be identified as stable points.\\
\section{Inclusion of a periodic forcing term}
The equation of motion when a periodic forcing term $f\cos \omega t$ is included is of the form
\begin{equation}
(1+\lambda x^2) \ddot{x} - \lambda x \dot{x}^2 + (1-\beta + \lambda) x - 2\beta \lambda x^3 - \beta \lambda^2x^5 = f\cos \omega t
\end{equation}
The above nonautonomous systems can be re-expressed in terms of a set of three
autonomous nonlinear systems as arranged below
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \dot{x} = y \nonumber \\
&& \dot{y} = \frac{\lambda x y^2}{1+\lambda x^2} - (1- \beta + \lambda)\frac{x}{1+\lambda x^2} + 2\beta \lambda \frac{x^3}{1+\lambda x^2} + \beta \lambda^2 \frac{x^5}{1+ \lambda x^2} + \frac{f \cos z}{1 + \lambda x^2} \nonumber\\
&& \dot{z} = \omega
\end{eqnarray}
In the following section the numerical simulation of the above scheme is carried out.
\section{Simulation results}
The behavior of the coupled system $(19)$ changes drastically when the periodic forcing term is included. In particular, the character of bifurcation phenomena is profoundly changed. Keeping parameters value $\beta = 0.15, \lambda = -0.1, \omega = 1$ fixed and varying forcing amplitude $f$, the period doubling phenomena (Figure 2), following chaos, is observed for the system (2.1), as shown in Figure 3.
To observe the influence of the forcing term $f\cos{\omega t}$ in equation $(18)$, we keep in mind the fact that the Poincar\'e map serves as the basic tool for the understanding of the stability and bifurcations of periodic orbits. The time series curves, surfaces of sections as well as the Poincar\'e maps are drawn by keeping fixed the values of the parameters at $\beta = 0.5, \lambda = − 0.5, \omega = 1$ and different increasing values of amplitude $f$ as shown through various plots in Figure 4. One notices the transformation of regular periodic evolution to a chaotic evolution as the amplitude is increased from the value 0.1 to 0.71. To be specific, orbits start to disintegrate around the value of f = 0.55 when the motion is of quasi-periodic type. However, at the values $\beta = 0.5, \lambda =0.01, \omega =1$ and $f = 0.65, f = 0.71$, the motion turns completely chaotic. Surfaces of sections and Poincar\'e maps at each instant are significant and interesting.
The plots of Lyapunov exponents for these two cases are given in Figure 5.\\
\section{Summary}
We have investigated in this paper a classical double oscillator model that includes in certain parameter limits, the standard harmonic oscillator and the inverse oscillator. By interpreting it as a dynamical system we have made a qualitative analysis of orbits around the equilibrium points, period-doubling bifurcation, time series curves, surfaces of section and Poincar\'e maps. The main highlight of our results is that a chaotic behaviour is noticed when a periodic force term like $f\cos \omega t$ is imposed upon the system.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Rahul Ghosh for his help in organizing the figures.
\section{Data Avaialability}
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
\newpage
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Microstructure characterization and reconstruction (MCR) is an essential component in inverse material design, a concept to accelerate materials engineering~\cite{olson1997, fullwood_microstructure_2010, mcdowell2016, kalidindi2019, bock2019c}. The key for inverse material design is to establish reliable process-structure-property (PSP) linkages. For this purpose, the wide gap between the manufacturing processes, which can often be controlled, and the material properties, which are the primal interest in practical engineering applications, is bridged by the microstructure. Given a number of microstructures, it is desirable to perform comparative analyses on them, like the detection of common cases and rare outliers, or even averaging and interpolating. Due to the general morphological randomness of heterogeneous materials, such comparative analyses require a translation-invariant microstructure description, often called microstructure descriptor or characterization. Such descriptors range from simple physical descriptors like volume fractions~\cite{xu_descriptor-based_2014} to more general approaches~\cite{torquato_statistical_2002} like the lineal-path function~\cite{lu1992}, $n$-point cluster correlation function~\cite{torquato2002} and $n$-point spatial correlation function~\cite{torquato2002, jiao_modeling_2007, kalidindi2011}. Especially the two-point correlation function, a member of the latter group, has proven valuable for various heterogeneous materials~\cite{bostanabad_computational_2018}. The potential of microstructure descriptors, however, does not fully unfold without the reconstruction of a synthetic microstructure from its descriptor. As an example, a central goal of inverse material design, namely the inversion of structure-property linkages, requires a reconstruction. However, a unified, mathematically sound and rigorous, accurate and efficient computational microstructure reconstruction framework is still a demanding task.
For decades, several reconstruction algorithms have been proposed.
A comprehensive review is provided in~\cite{li_review_2014, bostanabad_computational_2018}.
In the following, only a brief introduction is given, where a distinction is made between classical \textit{stochastic} and novel \textit{machine learning} approaches.
\emph{Stochastic} techniques approach microstructure reconstruction as a stochastic optimization problem, iterating on an intermediate microstructure until the corresponding descriptor reaches the desired value. The foundation for these techniques was laid by the Yeong-Torquato algorithm~\cite{yeong1998}, a restriction of the stochastic optimizer ``simulated annealing'' to a search space of microstructures with correct phase volume fractions.
This versatility has led to Yeong-Torquato variants based on $n$-point correlation functions~\cite{jiao_modeling_2007}, physical descriptors~\cite{xu_descriptor-based_2014}, Gaussian random fields~\cite{jiang2013} and more, allowing for the synthetic generation of a broad spectrum of heterogeneous media and attaining impressive results, see~\cite{bostanabad_computational_2018} and references therein.
The critical issue with the Yeong-Torquato algorithm is the computational cost, which scales unfavorably with the microstructure resolution and the desired accuracy. To that end, numerous contributions have been made~\cite{bostanabad_computational_2018}, ranging from superior descriptors~\cite{jiao_superior_2009, jiang2013, talukdar2002, li_review_2014, alexander2009} and only partially recomputing them in each step~\cite{yeong_reconstructing_1998, cule_generating_1999} to suitable acceptance distributions~\cite{dueck_threshold_1990, dueck_new_1993, rozman_efficient_2001}, sophisticated cool-down schedules~\cite{li_review_2014} and intelligent ways to propose pixel swaps~\cite{rozman_efficient_2001, zhao_new_2007, jiao_modeling_2008, tang_pixel_2009, pant_stochastic_2014}.
Enormous progress has been made, nevertheless, the computational cost still forms an obstacle to overcome for broader engineering application.
\textit{Machine learning} has inspired researchers to solve the problem of computational cost through a paradigm shift towards data-driven approaches. The proposed solutions come in great variety, ranging from non-parametric resampling~\cite{bostanabad_stochastic_2016, bostanabad_characterization_2016} and convolutional neural networks (CNNs)~\cite{li_transfer_2018, bostanabad_reconstruction_2020} to variational autoencoders~\cite{cang_microstructure_2017} and generative adversarial networks~\cite{yang_microstructural_2018, fokina_microstructure_2020}. Nevertheless, they are all characterized by an initial \emph{learning} or \emph{training} phase and a concomitant need for a potentially large training data set. In light of the prohibitively high effort needed to generate true microstructure data, transfer learning becomes promising, where the training phase is not omitted, but carried out on a set of different but similar data. This technique has proven its benefits in deep CNN-based synthesis, where the backpropagation gradient based on internal activations of a pre-trained network is diverted to train its input~\cite{li_transfer_2018, bostanabad_reconstruction_2020}.
Machine learning approaches are particularly attractive due to their efficiency, flexibility and applicability to generic materials.
However, they share a common shortcoming in that the descriptor is not prescribed by the user, but learned from data during (pre-) training in terms of an internal latent representation, which can neither be prescribed nor directly interpreted. For example, machine learning approaches do not yet allow the reconstruction from a given value of the two-point correlation, but only from given coordinates in their internal latent space. This inherent coupling between the (pre-) training data set, the resultant latent space replacing the descriptor and the reconstruction algorithm constitutes an impediment.
The objective of this paper is to propose a generalized framework for reconstructing random heterogeneous media based on explicitly prescribed descriptors via higher-order optimization under consideration of the gradient. The central idea is the introduction of differentiable microstructure characterization and reconstruction (differentiable MCR), requiring differentiable microstructure descriptors. As an example for suitable differentiable descriptors, we formulate a conceptually simple and robust method based on spatial correlations.
In order to deepen the understanding of this framework, its conceptual similarities with the existing \textit{stochastic} and \textit{machine learning} approaches are discussed. In this regard, it is especially emphasized that deep CNN synthesis as presented in~\cite{li_transfer_2018} emerges as a special form of differentiable MCR. The proposed approach yields accurate and scalable results, reaching a correlation error of $0\%$ in short time. With respect to the Yeong-Torquato algorithm, it constitutes a significant reduction in computational cost, several orders of magnitude, depending on the required accuracy.
After this introduction, Section~\ref{sec:Yeong-Torquato algorithm} presents the main features of the standard Yeong-Torquato algorithm, which serves as a basis for the proposed concept. Section~\ref{sec:theory} introduces the differentiable MCR approach, whose similarities to existing approaches are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:generalizations}. Section~\ref{sec:exp} presents several example reconstructions and compares the performance to the Yeong-Torquato algorithm. Conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:summary}.
The following notation is used in this work: Both upper and lower case letters ($i, \, I$) indicate scalars, $(\vec{r}, \vec{R})$ denote vectors and bold letters ($\boldsymbol{m}, \boldsymbol{M}$) represent arrays with scalar entries ($m_{ij}, M_{ij}$). The implicit summation convention is not used. $\mathbb{R}^{I\times J}$ is an open bounded domain, representing an ${I\times J}$-dimensional array.
This work is restricted to two-dimensional two-phase microstructures.
\section{Revisiting the Yeong-Torquato algorithm}
\label{sec:Yeong-Torquato algorithm}
The reconstruction of random heterogeneous media based on the seminal idea of Yeong and Torquato~\cite{yeong1998} dates back to the late ’90s. Since then, several advancements have been proposed and the literature on this topic is broad, see~\cite{li_review_2014, bostanabad_computational_2018} for a comprehensive review. The most standard form of the algorithm is presented in this section.
The Yeong-Torquato algorithm recasts microstructure reconstruction as an stochastic optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\underset{\boldsymbol{{M}} \in \{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J}}{\mathrm{argmin}} \; \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{{M}}) \,
\label{YT-Min_Prob}
\end{equation}
where~$\boldsymbol{{M}}$ is a discrete two-phase microstructure of width~$I$ and height~$J$ and can be thought of as an image with $I \times J$ pixels identified by the indices~$i = 1 .. I$ and~$j = 1 .. J$, each carrying its phase number as value, i.e.~0 or~1.
The loss function $\mathcal{L}$ in~(\ref{YT-Min_Prob}) is defined as an error measure in the Euclidean distance ($L_2$) between the current microstructure descriptor $\boldsymbol{{D}}$ and the desired descriptor $\boldsymbol{D}^{\text{des}}$ and is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{{M}}) = || \boldsymbol{{D}} - \boldsymbol{D}^{\text{des}} ||_2 \;
\label{L_func_YT}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{D}$ is obtained from a suitable characterization function
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{f_C} : \boldsymbol{M} \in \{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J} \to \boldsymbol{D} \in \mathbb{R}^K
\label{YT-fc}
\end{equation}
which maps \emph{only from discrete-valued} microstructures to the corresponding descriptors~$\boldsymbol{D}$. Herein, $K$ is independent from $I$ and $J$ in the general case. In~(\ref{L_func_YT}), both the characterization function~$\boldsymbol{f_C}$ and its value, the descriptor~$\boldsymbol{D}$, can be chosen independently, allowing to prescribe any descriptor, for example $n$-point correlations, physical descriptors or other metrics.
In the stochastic optimization procedure, to avoid possible local minima, a simulated annealing optimizer is used to solve~(\ref{YT-Min_Prob}). The pseudo-code for what the authors consider the most basic variant~\cite{torquato_statistical_2002} is presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:yt}. According to Algorithm~\ref{alg:yt}, the optimizer does not move freely through the space of possible microstructures. Instead, $\boldsymbol{M}$ is initialized with correct volume fractions and in each step, the optimizer swaps two pixel values. It includes many tuneable parameters, such as the acceptance probability distribution function (pdf)~$p$, the cooldown factor~$\alpha \in (0, \, 1)$, the initial temperature\footnote{The temperature~$\vartheta$ regulates the degree of stochasticity of the optimizer through the acceptance probability distribution function. It is decreased in each iteration and motivates the term ``annealing'', as the temperature plays a similar role in physical annealing processes.}~$\vartheta_0$ and, most importantly, as mentioned, a flexible microstructure characterization function~$\boldsymbol{f_C}$. The latter aspect decouples the reconstruction procedure from the chosen characterization metric.
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoLined
\KwIn{characterization function $\boldsymbol{f_C}$; desired descriptor $\boldsymbol{D}^\text{des}$; desired volume fractions $v_f$; tolerance $\varepsilon$; initial temperature $\vartheta_0$; cooldown factor $\alpha$; acceptance distribution pdf $p$}
$\boldsymbol{M} \gets $ random initialization using $v_f$ \;
$\boldsymbol{D} \gets \boldsymbol{f_C}(\boldsymbol{M})$ \tcp*{initial value for descriptor}
$\vartheta \gets \vartheta_0$ \;
\While(\tcp*[f]{iterate until tolerance reached}){$|| \boldsymbol{D}^\text{des} - \boldsymbol{D} ||_2 > \varepsilon$}{
$\boldsymbol{M}' \gets$ mutation of $\boldsymbol{M}$ \tcp*{propose to swap two pixels of different color}
$\boldsymbol{D}' \gets \boldsymbol{f_C}(\boldsymbol{M}')$ \tcp*{descriptor value for mutated microstructure}
$\Delta \mathcal{L} \gets || \boldsymbol{D}^\text{des} - \boldsymbol{D}' ||_2 - || \boldsymbol{D}^\text{des} - \boldsymbol{D} ||_2 $ \tcp*{change in descriptor error}
\uIf(\tcp*[f]{if mutation has not impaired solution}){$\Delta \mathcal{L} \leq 0$}{
$\boldsymbol{M}, \, \boldsymbol{D} \gets \boldsymbol{M}', \, \boldsymbol{D}'$ \tcp*{apply mutation}
}
\ElseIf(\tcp*[f]{if mutation has worsened solution}){$p(\Delta \mathcal{L}, \vartheta) < r \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$}{
$\boldsymbol{M}, \, \boldsymbol{D} \gets \boldsymbol{M}', \, \boldsymbol{D}'$ \tcp*{apply mutation only with certain acceptance probability}
}
$\vartheta \gets \alpha \cdot \vartheta$ \tcp*{decrease temperature}
}
\KwOut{Microstructure $\boldsymbol{M}$}
\caption{Yeong-Torquato algorithm: Minimization of $\mathcal{L}$ via simulated annealing method.}
\label{alg:yt}
\end{algorithm}
The crucial aspect of the Yeong-Torquato algorithm is performance. Consider a microstructure $\boldsymbol{M}$ with $I = 100$ and $J = 100$ pixels.
With the volume fraction $v_f = 50\%$ of both phases, the number of possible microstructures is given by the binomial coefficient $\binom{I \cdot J}{v_f \cdot (I \cdot J)} = \binom{10000}{5000} \approx 1.6 \cdot10^{3008}$.
This is why the Yeong-Torquato algorithm searches the space of possible microstructures not by brute force, but by using simulated annealing. However, in light of the sheer number of possibilities and the inherent randomness of the heuristic, the efficiency of the basic Yeong-Torquato algorithm is naturally insufficient.
To that end, as already mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, numerous contributions have been made, ranging from superior descriptors and only partially recomputing them in each step to suitable acceptance distributions, sophisticated cool-down schedules and intelligent ways to propose pixel swaps~\cite{bostanabad_computational_2018}. The performance gains are considerable, yet, despite highly optimized implementations and ever better heuristics, the procedure essentially remains random. This randomness affects the convergence behavior, especially in the later stages, since random mutations are increasingly unlikely to lower $\mathcal{L}$ as the microstructure evolves. This is further discussed based on the numerical examples in Section~\ref{sec:exp}.
The alternative to randomly guessing each step's microstructure mutation is to infer the optimal mutation from $\mathcal{L}$ by computing and descending its gradient. The difficulties thereby lie in the formulation of a differentiable characterization function and in avoiding local minima. Despite these challenges, the potential performance gains motivate the main hypothesis of this contribution: Microstructure reconstruction is optimization and efficient optimization requires the gradient.
\section{Central concept of differentiable MCR}
\label{sec:theory}
In this section, we first introduce the reconstruction framework for random heterogeneous media based on differentiable optimization. With this concept at hand, we develop the mathematical formulation of differentiable MCR and exemplarily apply its generic descriptor concept to spatial correlations. The key difference between the Yeong-Torquato algorithm and the suggested one lies in providing the gradient information to the optimizer, which, in turn, requires a differentiable microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$ and its descriptor~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}$. The subsequent formulation is presented in the following Sections~\ref{sec:formulation} and~\ref{sec:corrs}.
The iterative procedure to minimize the reconstruction error is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:flowchart}. Starting from a randomly initialized microstructure~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{0}$ at iteration $t=0$, a generic microstructure characterization function~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ yields the corresponding current descriptor~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}^t$, which may be freely chosen as a classical descriptor, a spatial correlation, or any other suitable metric. The current value is compared to the desired one through the loss function $\mathcal{L}$, which contains the Euclidean distance between the descriptors as well as additional penalty terms for the boundary conditions of the optimization problem. If the loss is sufficiently small, the algorithm has converged, as the reconstructed medium complies with (almost) all of the prescribed characteristics. Otherwise the current microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t$ is altered by an optimizer to decrease the loss and the next iteration begins.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{flowchart_20210111.png}
\caption{Flow chart illustrating the proposed differentiable microstructure characterization and reconstruction (MCR).}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
Here, the core idea lies in how $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{t+1}$ is computed. In differentiable MCR, the intermediate microstructure is updated considering derivatives of the loss function with respect to the microstructure
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{t+1} \gets \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{t} + \boldsymbol{\Delta \tilde{M}}^t \left( \dfrac{\text{d} \mathcal{L} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{}) }{\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{}}, \, \dfrac{\text{d}^2 \mathcal{L} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{}) }{\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^{2}}, ... \right).
\label{M-update}
\end{equation}
where the update $\boldsymbol{\Delta \tilde{M}}^t$ is applied to the current microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t$ of step $t$. Consequently, it becomes necessary to formally redefine microstructure reconstruction as a differentiable optimization problem and to reformulate the properties of microstructure descriptors such that they are differentiable. This differentiability of the descriptors allows to compute the gradients by evaluating an (exact) analytical representation, not just through numerical approximation. The specific procedure to compute $\boldsymbol{\Delta \tilde{M}}^t$ depends on the chosen optimizer. In this work, only first-order gradient terms are considered in Equation~(\ref{M-update}), although higher-order derivatives can be included.
\subsection{Formulation of differentiable MCR}
\label{sec:formulation}
In this contribution, we propose to reformulate~(\ref{YT-Min_Prob}) as differentiable optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}} \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J}}{\mathrm{argmin}} \; \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) \;
\label{dMCR-Min_Prob}
\end{equation}
where each pixel of the intermediate microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}} \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J}$ must be allowed to take any real value\footnote{Also values outside the interval $(0, \, 1)$ are allowed during iteration. Later, a penalty term is introduced to enforce the interval as a boundary condition, but nevertheless, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ must be defined for such cases.} during the reconstruction process, unlike ${\boldsymbol{{M}} \in \{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J}}$ in ~(\ref{YT-Min_Prob}). We further demand that the minimizer should use the gradient of the cost function with respect to the microstructure ${\text{d} \mathcal{L}} / {\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}}$ while updating the intermediate microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$ in~(\ref{M-update}).
For this purpose, the loss function in~(\ref{dMCR-Min_Prob}) is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) = E(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) + \lambda(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) \cdot E^{\text{bc}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) \;
\label{L_func_dMCR}
\end{equation}
where $E(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
E(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) = || \boldsymbol{\tilde{D}} - \boldsymbol{D}^{\text{des}} ||_2 \; .
\end{equation}
To obtain $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}} = \boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}})$, the concept of~(\ref{YT-fc}) must be generalized for differentiable microstructure reconstruction as $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$ can take any real value. This requires a characterization function
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C} : \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}} \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J} \to \boldsymbol{\tilde{D}} \in \mathbb{R}^K
\label{eqn:fctilde}
\end{equation}
that takes a wider range of arguments than $\boldsymbol{f_C}$.
In the special case of an integer-valued microstructure $\boldsymbol{M}$, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ should be indistinguishable from $\boldsymbol{f_C}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}(\boldsymbol{M} \in \{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J}) = \boldsymbol{D} \, .
\end{equation}
In~(\ref{L_func_dMCR}), $E^{\text{bc}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}})$ is introduced to enforce the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
0 \leq \tilde{M}_{ij} \leq 1 \quad \forall i \in 1..I \quad \forall j \in 1..J
\end{equation}
via
\begin{equation}
E^{\text{bc}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) = \sum_{i, \, j} \left[ \dfrac{(\tilde{M}_{ij}-1) \, H(\tilde{M}_{ij}-1)}{I \cdot J} + \dfrac{-\tilde{M}_{ij} \, H(-\tilde{M}_{ij})}{I \cdot J} \right]^2\;
\end{equation}
with $H(x)$ as a Heaviside-function
\begin{equation}
H(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & x \leq 0 \\
1, & x > 0 \\
\end{array}
\right. \\
\label{eqn:heavy}
\end{equation}
and ${\lambda}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}})$ as a scalar weight to the boundary condition. The weight ${\lambda}$ can be fixed to a constant, but since the boundary condition should neither dominate the cost function nor vanish at any stage of convergence, it is set as proportional to the reconstruction error term
\begin{equation}
\lambda(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}) \propto E(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}).
\end{equation}
To solve the optimization problem~(\ref{dMCR-Min_Prob}) considering the gradient term ${\text{d} \mathcal{L}} / {\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}}$ in~(\ref{M-update}) necessitates additional requirement for the characterization function~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$. It is evident that $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ should be \emph{continuously differentiable}.
In addition to this,~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ has to satisfy further requirements because gradient-based optimizers are prominently susceptible to terminating in a local minimum or on a plateau where the gradient is zero.
The latter issue can be addressed by using suitable minimizers, for instance with momentum~\cite{kingma_adam_2017} and by defining an appropriate characterization function $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ such that its gradient is non-zero for the widest possible range of arguments, ideally for all inputs (see Section~\ref{sec:corrs}). The former issue is more subtle. Local minima are the reason why the Yeong-Torquato algorithm was formulated as a stochastic procedure~\cite{torquato_statistical_2002}. However, in the Yeong-Torquato algorithm, where only microstructures in $\{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J}$ are allowed, the optimizer is restricted to swapping pairs of pixels. If, in contrast, it was allowed to swap any number of pixels at the same time, then there would always be a vanishingly small but non-zero probability of directly reaching the global minimum in the next step. Thus, local minima impede the Yeong-Torquato algorithm precisely \emph{because} the optimizer is restricted to swapping pairs of pixels. Conversely, in differentiable MCR, the optimizer may move freely in $\mathbb{R}^{I \times J}$. The existence or absence of local minima hence does not depend on $\boldsymbol{f_C}$, but only on how it is generalized to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$. This is further discussed in Section~\ref{sec:li} with empirical evidence.
\subsection{Application of differentiable MCR to spatial correlations}
\label{sec:corrs}
While the considerations in Section~\ref{sec:formulation} apply to any descriptor, we now specifically apply the process of replacing the characterization function $\boldsymbol{f_C}$ (\ref{YT-fc}) by its differentiable generalization $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$~(\ref{eqn:fctilde}) to spatial correlations.
First, a brief introduction to spatial correlations is given. Then, although there are numerous highly-efficient ways of computing spatial correlations, ranging from Fourier-based approaches~\cite{brough_materials_2017} to algorithms that benefit from only partially recomputing the correlations after a microstructure update~\cite{yeong_reconstructing_1998}, we introduce a conceptually simple and robust method which is then cast into a differentiable function suitable for the proposed differentiable MCR approach.
\subsubsection{Brief introduction to spatial correlations}
\label{sec:corrsintro}
Amongst all available microstructure descriptors, spatial $n$-point correlation functions ($n \geq 2$) belong to the most popular ones due to their simplicity and generality. A detailed definition and discussion can be found in~\cite{jiao_modeling_2007}. In the following, a brief description is provided.
Given a vector~$\vec{r}$ with components~$p$ and~$q$, the two-point correlation~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{a \to b}(\vec{r})$ yields the probability of~$\vec{r}$ starting in phase~$a$ and ending in phase~$b$ when~$\vec{r}$ is placed randomly in the microstructure. If $a = b$, one speaks of auto-correlations, otherwise of cross-correlations. In a two-phase microstructure with phases~$0$ and~$1$, it suffices to compute a single auto-correlation, for example~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 1}$, as~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{0 \to 0}$, $\boldsymbol{S}_2^{0 \to 1}$ and~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 0}$ can be derived from it. For any number of phases, the set of non-redundant correlations is described in~\cite{niezgoda_delineation_2008}. An exemplary illustration of~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 1}$ is given in Figure~\ref{fig:examplecorrelation}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\input{example_ms.pgf}
\input{example_correlation.pgf}
\caption{An exemplary microstructure generated synthetically via \emph{pyMKS}~\cite{brough_materials_2017} and its corresponding descriptor. Left: example microstructure~$\boldsymbol{M}$; right: corresponding two-point correlation~$\boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 1}\left(\vec{r} \right)$ over the vector components~$p$ and~$q$. }
\label{fig:examplecorrelation}
\end{figure}
Generalizing this concept to $n-1$ vectors yields the complete set of $n$-point correlations, which fully describes a microstructure if $n$ is sufficiently large. The high-order correlations ($n \geq 3$), however, become too much data to compute and store in practice. In this work, besides $\boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 1}(\vec{r})$, we restrict ourselves to the three-point auto-correlation of phase 1 $\boldsymbol{S}_3^{1 \to 1}(\vec{r}_a, \, \vec{r}_b)$, which maps the vectors $\vec{r}_a$ and $\vec{r}_b$ to the probability of both vectors starting and ending in phase 1, if their mutual starting point is placed randomly in the microstructure.
\subsubsection{Computing correlations from ensembles}
\label{sec:e2s}
As vectors are placed randomly in the microstructure, it is reasonable to compute a statistical ensemble for a given microstructure~$\boldsymbol{M}$ and vector~$\vec{r}$, containing realizations of~$\vec{r}$ randomly placed in~$\boldsymbol{M}$. Each realization in the ensemble takes the value~1 if both ends are in phase~1, otherwise it is~0, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:fc}. As the number of realizations $n_r$ in the ensemble grows, the ensemble average converges to the two-point correlation. As the microstructure is discretized into a finite set of pixels, the need to generate realizations randomly and letting~$n_r \to \infty$ can be avoided. It is sufficient to consider each pixel in~$\boldsymbol{M}$ as a starting point for~$\vec{r}$, so that $n_r = I \cdot J$~\cite{yeong_reconstructing_1998}.
For multiple different vectors, we define the ensemble~$\boldsymbol{e}$, where each entry~$e_{ijpq}$ stands for the realization corresponding to placing $\vec{r}= \left( p \quad q \right)^{\mathrm T}$ in the microstructure, with microstructure entry $M_{ij}$ as a starting point.
A linear ensemble average of $\boldsymbol{e}$ yields the two-point autocorrelation
\begin{equation}
S_{pq}^{1 \to 1} = \boldsymbol{S}_2^{1 \to 1}\left( \vec{r} = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ q \end{pmatrix} \right) = \sum_{i, \, j} \dfrac{e_{ijpq}}{I \cdot J} \; .
\end{equation}
Likewise, a quadratic reduction yields the two- and three-point correlations
\begin{equation}
S_{pqrs}^{1 \to 1} = \boldsymbol{S}_3^{1 \to 1}\left(\begin{pmatrix} p \\ q \end{pmatrix} , \; \begin{pmatrix} r \\ s \end{pmatrix} \right) = \sum_{i, \, j} \dfrac{e_{ijpq} e_{ijrs}}{I \cdot J} \;
\label{eqn:s3}
\end{equation}
where each element $S_{pqrs}^{1 \to 1}$ represents a two-point correlation if $p = r$ and $q = s$ and a three-point correlation otherwise.
Following the same archetype, higher-order correlations can be obtained through appending more ensembles to~(\ref{eqn:s3}).
With this strategy of obtaining correlations from ensembles, the computation of the ensembles is discussed in the next Section~\ref{sec:m2e}.
\subsubsection{Computing ensembles through convolutions}
\label{sec:m2e}
We introduce a mask $\boldsymbol{m}$ as an array with entries $m_{pqrs}$, where the first two indices identify the corresponding $\vec{r}$ and the last two span the convolution mask associated with that $\vec{r}$. For instance, a mask corresponding to the $\vec{r}$ for the chosen components $p=0$ and $q=1$ is again a two-dimensional array with entries $m_{01rs}$, where~$r$ and~$s$ identify the column and row of that particular convolution mask respectively.
Generally, such a convolution mask can be obtained by placing $\vec{r}$ on an all-zero initialized $\boldsymbol{m}$ and increasing the value by $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ at the tip and end\footnote{For $\vec{r} \neq \vec{0}$, $\boldsymbol{m}$ thus contains mostly zeros and two entries with value $0.5$. For $\vec{r} = \vec{0}$, $\boldsymbol{m}$ contains mostly zeros and one entry with value $1$} of $\vec{r}$, see Figure~\ref{fig:fc}.
\textit{Firstly}, in the \emph{convolve} step, $\boldsymbol{M}$ is convolved with this mask $\boldsymbol{m}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{M} * \boldsymbol{m} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \text{no end of $\vec{r}$ in phase 1} \\
\frac{1}{2}, & \text{exactly one end in phase 1} \\
1, & \text{both ends in phase 1} \\
\end{array}
\right. \; \\
\end{equation}
whereas, in a more general case, with the symbolic convolution operator $*$, it is given by
\begin{equation}
(\boldsymbol{M} * \boldsymbol{m})_{ijpq} = \sum_{k, l, r, s} M_{kl} \delta^k_{\text{mod}_I(i+r) + 1} \delta^l_{\text{mod}_J(j+s) + 1} m_{pqrs} \;
\label{eqn:convdef}
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ denotes the Kronecker-Delta
\begin{equation}
\delta_i^j = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & i = j \\
0, & i \neq j \\
\end{array}
\right. \; \\
\end{equation}
and \emph{mod} denotes the modulo operator.
\textit{Secondly}, in the \emph{threshold} step, to obtain
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{e} = {f}_t(\boldsymbol{{M}} * \boldsymbol{m}) \;
\end{equation}
from the convolution result, the $\nicefrac{1}{2}$-cases must be dropped to zero by applying a suitable thresholding function~$f_t(x)$, for example
\begin{equation}
f_t(x) = H(x - 0.75) \;
\label{f_t}
\end{equation}
where $H(x)$ denotes the Heaviside step-function defined in~(\ref{eqn:heavy}).
\emph{Thirdly}, in the \emph{reduce} step, as presented in Section~\ref{sec:e2s}, $\boldsymbol{S}^{1\to 1}_3$ can be obtained from $\boldsymbol{e}$ through~(\ref{eqn:s3}). Figure~\ref{fig:fc} illustrates the complete algorithm to compute two- and three-point correlations of integer-valued microstructures using a triplet pipeline of \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce}. As can be observed, the proposed method yields the exact spatial $n$-point correlation functions for $\boldsymbol{f_C}$.
In the following Section~\ref{sec:s2stilde}, this method is now extended to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ to map from a real-valued microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}} \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J}$ to a descriptor $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}$, while at the same time being continuously differentiable and recovering $\boldsymbol{D}$ for integer-valued microstructures $\boldsymbol{M}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\input{f_c_workflow.pgf}
\caption{Visualization of the \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce} pipeline for computing spatial correlations. Black corresponds to the value~1, white to~0 and grey to~\nicefrac{1}{2}.}
\label{fig:fc}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Differentiable correlations}
\label{sec:s2stilde}
In order to obtain the differentiable characterization function $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ using the \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce} pipeline described in Section~\ref{sec:m2e}, note that the convolution and the reduction operations are continuously differentiable, whereas only the thresholding function $f_t$ is non-differentiable. For the purpose of allowing it to be a differentiable function, $f_t$ is replaced by a so-called \emph{soft threshold} function $\tilde{f}_t$, see Figure~\ref{fig:ft}. We choose a shifted and scaled version of the widely used logistic function\footnote{NB: The often-used tanh-function can be expressed via setting $c_1=\alpha=2$, $c_2=0$ and $c_3=-1$}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}_t(x) = \dfrac{c_1}{1 + \text{e}^{-\alpha (x + c_2)}} + c_3 \;
\label{eqn:softthreshold}
\end{equation}
where $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ are defined by requiring
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}_{t}(0) = 0 ; \qquad \tilde{f}_{t}(1) = 1 ; \qquad \tilde{f}_{t}''(0.75) = 0 \,
\end{equation}
and $\alpha$ is a hyperparameter for the slope of $\tilde{f}_t$ which is chosen as $\alpha = 10$. Note that $\lim_{\alpha \to \infty} \tilde{f}_t = f_t$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\input{threshold_soft.pgf}
\caption{To make the \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce} pipeline differentiable, the threshold~$f_t(x)$ is replaced by the soft threshold~$\tilde{f}_t(x)$ with slope parameter~$\alpha$.}
\label{fig:ft}
\end{figure}
Alternative choices for $\tilde{f}_t$ are equally conceivable, if the requirements discussed in Section~\ref{sec:formulation} are satisfied, namely $\tilde{f}_t$ should not only be continuously differentiable and $\tilde{f}_{t}'(x) > 0 \; \forall x \in (0, 1)$ should also hold. This is the case for the chosen function (\ref{eqn:softthreshold}).
Furthermore, the latter prerequisite of forcing the gradient to be non-zero prevents the optimizer from deadlocking due to a vanishing gradient, but further implies that $\tilde{f}_t(0.5) > 0$. This disintegrates the motivation of the thresholding function~(\ref{f_t}), which is to drop all $\frac{1}{2}$-values from $\boldsymbol{M} * \boldsymbol{m}$, see Figure~\ref{fig:ft}. Consequently, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{e}} = \boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_t} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}} * \boldsymbol{m})$ loses its interpretability as an ensemble. We therefore refer to the quadratic reduction $\frac{1}{I \cdot J} \sum \boldsymbol{\tilde{e}} \boldsymbol{\tilde{e}}$ as $\boldsymbol{\bar{S}}^{1 \to 1}$ instead of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{S}}^{1 \to 1}$. Fortunately, despite different numerical values, $\boldsymbol{\bar{S}}^{1 \to 1}$ contains the same information as $\boldsymbol{\tilde{S}}^{1 \to 1}$, allowing for the definition of a mapping between the two, which is clarified in Appendix~\ref{sec:correction}. If the exact spatial correlations are to be computed, this mapping must be appended to the \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce} pipeline as a soft threshold correction step. However, as $\boldsymbol{\bar{S}}^{1 \to 1}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{S}}^{1 \to 1}$ contain the same information, the mapping step can be omitted. Such a choice constitutes a change from correlations to a different but equivalent descriptor, hence the numerical values of the desired descriptor $\boldsymbol{D}^{\text{des}}$ must be adapted accordingly.
\subsection{Parallel short-range multigrid descriptors}
\label{sec:mg}
The \emph{convolve} - \emph{threshold} - \emph{reduce} pipeline introduced in Sections~\ref{sec:m2e} and~\ref{sec:s2stilde} contains two undefined parameters, $P$ and $Q$, denoting the bounds of the indices $p, r = -P .. P$ and $q, s = -Q .. Q$ that define the correlation vectors. The natural choice to use $P = \lfloor {I} / {2} \rfloor$ and $Q = \lfloor {J} / {2} \rfloor$ leads to a highly unfavorable time complexity in the convolution step, whereas setting $P$ and $Q$ to a prescribed constant completely disregards all long-range correlations, which reduces the descriptor cost but disproportionately increases the number of iterations required for convergence. We address the issue of obtaining an optimized and suitable descriptor for differentiable MCR by suggesting a technique referred to as \emph{multigrid correlations}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\input{mg.pgf}
\caption{Illustration of multigrid descriptors. Each level contains the same microstructure in a different resolution to compute limited-length descriptors. As the structure coarsens at deeper levels, the descriptor contains longer-range but less accurate information.}
\label{fig:mg}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:mg} illustrates the concept of the multigrid correlations. The multigrid descriptor operates on different levels, each carrying a different resolution representation of the same microstructure~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$. Each level~$l$ computes the single-grid descriptor $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}_l$ with $P$ and $Q$ set to a constant. At the highest image resolution, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}$ contains the high-resolution short-range correlations. As the image resolution decreases, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}$ becomes increasingly coarse whilst long-range correlations are captured. All these different correlations $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}_l$ are then weighted and concatenated into a single descriptor
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}} = \left[ w_1 \cdot \boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}_1, \, w_2 \cdot \boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}_2, \, .. \, , w_l \cdot \boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}_l \right]
\label{eqn:mg}
\end{equation}
where $w_l$ denotes the weight of layer $l$, which is chosen\footnote{NB: In 2D, layer~$l$ summarizes~$2^{2(l-1)}$ pixels in a single one, creating an imbalance that can be compensated through choosing the layer weights as~$w_l = 2^{2(l-1)}$. However, to account for the higher importance of short-range correlations, the square root of this term is chosen in the present work. Other choices are equally conceivable.} as $w_l = 2^{l-1}$. This technique of computing $\boldsymbol{\tilde{D}}$ is directly applied to correlations presented in Section~\ref{sec:corrs} and used herein, leading a favorable time complexity without having completely omitted the long-range correlations. Unlike previous multigrid methods, which sequentially converge on each layer~\cite{alexander2009}, differentiable MCR allows to operate on all levels simultaneously and the gradient can be backpropagated through all multigrid levels simultaneously. Such a multigrid technique might be equally applicable to other descriptors.
\section{Conceptual similarities to existing approaches}
\label{sec:generalizations}
Although \textit{stochastic} MCR has been a topic of very intense research in the last two decades, the incorporation of gradient information during reconstruction has been the subject of only one publication~\cite{fullwood_gradient-based_2008}. Furthermore, a novel \textit{machine learning} approach relies on it~\cite{li_transfer_2018}. In this section, to deepen the understanding of the new differential MCR approach, we outline its conceptual similarities to previous methods. The original symbols and notations are adapted to the present notation for unification purposes.
\subsection{Stochastic approach}
\label{sec:vollholz}
Amongst the \textit{stochastic} reconstruction approaches, to the author's best knowledge, the only comparable approach in the literature is given in the work of Fullwood~et~al.~\cite{fullwood_gradient-based_2008}.
Herein emphasis is placed on two aspects. First, to compute two-point correlations, a highly efficient method using fast Fourier transforms~(FFTs) is proposed. The FFT-method is defined for real-valued microstructures~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$. It computes not $\boldsymbol{S}_2$, but $\boldsymbol{\tilde{S}}_2$, although a different version than presented in Section~\ref{sec:corrs}.
Secondly, the microstructures are reconstructed via the gradient-based optimizer ``sequential quadratic programming'' (SQP) provided by MATLAB 2006~\cite{MATLAB}. The loss function minimized in~\cite{fullwood_gradient-based_2008} is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t) = \sum_{k} \sum_{p, q} \omega_k \left[ \mathfrak{F}({\tilde{S}}_{p q}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t)) - \mathfrak{F}({\tilde{S}}_{p q}^{\text{des}}) \right]^2
\label{Loss-FFT}
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{F}$ denotes the Fourier transform, $k$ the wave number and $\omega_k$ is an unspecified weighting term.
In~(\ref{Loss-FFT}), $\mathfrak{F}(\tilde{\boldsymbol{S}})$ is not computed explicitly, but $\boldsymbol{S}$ is directly computed in Fourier space.
With the information available in~\cite{fullwood_gradient-based_2008}, the central aspect whether the optimizer needs to evaluate the gradient of~(\ref{Loss-FFT}) numerically or analytically is unclear. This computation of ${\text{d} \mathcal{L}} / {\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}}$ while updating $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$ in~(\ref{M-update}) constitutes a significant difference in high-dimensional spaces and with non-convex loss functions. In MATLAB, SQP computes the gradient numerically if it is not provided explicitly. Furthermore, a Yeong-Torquato algorithm is implemented based on the Fourier-based descriptor. However, the computational cost of the gradient-based optimizer is reported to be comparable to the Yeong-Torquato algorithm~\cite{fullwood_gradient-based_2008}.
In the present work, the exact gradient of loss function~(\ref{L_func_dMCR}) is known to the optimizer in every step. The proposed concept of differentiable MCR and its application to spatial correlations in Sections~\ref{sec:formulation} and ~\ref{sec:corrs} rigorously allows the analytical representation of ${\text{d} \mathcal{L}} / {\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}}$. This and possibly many other differences result in a significant reduction of the computational cost with respect to the available standard algorithm, as will be shown in the numerical examples in Section~\ref{sec:exp}.
\subsection{Machine learning approach}
\label{sec:li}
The present approach can also be motivated from a novel \textit{machine learning} approach of reconstructing random heterogeneous media. We compare it to a seemingly unrelated approach of characterizing and reconstructing microstructures using deep CNNs, specfically, pre-trained deep CNNs that have gained popularity to a variety of image processing tasks.
It is shown by Lubbers~et~al.~\cite{lubbers_inferring_2017} that the VGG-19~\cite{simonyan_very_2015} network's inner layer activations are indeed a powerful microstructure descriptor, although the network is trained exclusively on the imagenet dataset~\cite{russakovsky_imagenet_2015}, which contains no microstructure data at all. This descriptor information is exploited in the work of Li~et~al.~\cite{li_transfer_2018}. Based on a general-purpose texture synthesis approach of Gatys~et~al.~\cite{gatys_texture_2015}, a highly efficient algorithm is presented to reconstruct a microstructure. Starting from a randomly initialized microstructure $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$, the loss function to minimize is defined as the norm of the difference between the Gram\footnote{The Gram matrix~$G_{\bar{p} \bar{r}}^{\bar{n}} = \sum_{\bar{i}} F_{\bar{i}\bar{p}}^{\bar{n}} F_{\bar{i}\bar{r}}^{\bar{n}}$ is a translation-invariant descriptor based on the neural activations of a CNN~\cite{li_transfer_2018}. Herein, to state simply, the activation~$F_{\bar{i}\bar{p}}^{\bar{n}}$ is the value that neuron~$\bar{p}$ of layer~${\bar{n}}$ takes at the spatial position~${\bar{i}}$. The analogies reach deep into the machine learning terminology, but the following similarity between the Gram matrix and the quadratic reduction~(\ref{eqn:s3}) used to obtain $\boldsymbol{S}^{1 \to 1}$ from $\boldsymbol{e}$ may serve as an intuition: Interpreting the ensemble as a set of activations, it can be seen that the two- and three- point correlations are nothing but the Gram matrix associated with the special set of activations herein called ensemble.} matrices $\boldsymbol{G}^{l \text{, des}}$ and $\boldsymbol{G}^{l}$ of the desired and current activations, respectively. It reads as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t) = \sum_l \sum_{m, n} \frac{1}{N_l} \left[ {G}^l_{m n}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t) - {G}^{l \text{, des}}_{m n} \right]^2 \;
\label{Loss-CNN}
\end{equation}
where $N_l$ is the normalization of layer $l$ and $\boldsymbol{G}^l$ is the Gram matrix of the inner layer activations of a pre-trained VGG network.
The common backpropagation algorithm of machine learning is used to compute the gradient of the loss function from~(\ref{Loss-CNN}). However, instead of applying this gradient information to the weights of the network as it is usually done in machine learning, it is applied to refine $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}$ in~(\ref{M-update}) iteratively until the loss function is sufficiently small.
Although the concept of~\cite{li_transfer_2018} is to motivate transfer learning for microstructure reconstruction, as can be observed, the problem is approached as an optimization scheme. The gradient term ${\text{d} \mathcal{L}} / {\text{d} \boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}}$ is used to guide the optimizer. The key difference lies in the microstructure descriptor. We propose to take an arbitrary microstructure descriptor which, if necessary, can be modified to make it differentiable as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:corrs}. In contrast, a fixed choice of the microstructure descriptor $\boldsymbol{G}^l$ is made in~\cite{li_transfer_2018}, where only slight modifications are required as $\boldsymbol{G}^l$ is already essentially differentiable\footnote{Max-pooling layers were changed to average-pooling layers to achieve better derivative properties. Note, however, that the Rectified Linear Units (ReLUs), despite being differentiable, may zero the gradient in certain cases.}. As can be seen, if $\boldsymbol{G}^l$ is used as a descriptor in the differentiable MCR concept (see Section~\ref{sec:theory}), deep CNNs can be viewed as a special case.
Having identified deep CNN synthesis~\cite{li_transfer_2018} as a particular form of differentiable MCR, we revisit the local minimum problem.
As explained in Section~\ref{sec:formulation}, the presence or absence of local minima in differentiable MCR depends on the choice of the differentiable characterization function~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$.
Choosing~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ as Gram matrices leads to the specific case of deep CNN synthesis. This unique Gram matrices based~$\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ is shown to be capable of reconstructing a variety of microstructures with impressive results, even with multiple phases and in three dimensions~\cite{li_transfer_2018, bostanabad_reconstruction_2020}.
Thus, besides the theoretical considerations in Section~\ref{sec:formulation} that the local minimum problem should be solvable for differentiable MCR, the success of deep CNN synthesis provides empirical evidence that, with a suitable descriptor, local minima can indeed be avoided.
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
The implementation details of the proposed formulation (Section~\ref{sec:formulation}) are given in Appendix~\ref{sec:implementationaldetails} which considers the spatial correlations discussed in Section~\ref{sec:corrs} as a microstructure descriptor. To assess the accuracy and the performance of the proposed framework, reconstruction results of various numerical experiments are presented. The analyses begin with a classical periodic two-phase checkerboard structure. For this experiment, the reconstruction results obtained with differentiable MCR and the Yeong-Torquato algorithm are compared in terms of accuracy and computational cost. As a second example, a wide variety of complex heterogeneous structures are reconstructed. The main focus herein is to demonstrate the obtainable reconstruction accuracy for heterogeneous media with scalable computational effort.
\subsection{Checkerboard structure}
The checkerboard has become a standard test case in the MCR literature~\cite{li_review_2014}. Its clear arrangement and simple structure make it straightforward to estimate the predicted accuracy, the noise, as well as the performance of the various particular formulations.
For the domain size $64 \times 64$, Figure~\ref{fig:convergence} illustrates the convergence behavior of the proposed algorithm. The loss function $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t)$ defined in~(\ref{L_func_dMCR}) is, except for a small unstable region, a non-increasing curve as expected. For comparability, in case of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t$ rounded to obtain an integer-valued equivalent ${\boldsymbol{{M}} \in \{0, \, 1\}^{I \times J}}$,
the associated loss $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{M}^t)$ is plotted. This second loss curve increases significantly several times and, finally, after around $t = 2000$ iterations, $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{M}^t)$ drops to zero\footnote{NB: When $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{M}^t)$ drops to zero, the loss corresponding to the non-rounded structure, $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t)$, is not zero yet, as the optimizer still needs to ``round'' the entries as well. This stage can be omitted.} as $\boldsymbol{M}$ becomes perfect.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{checkerboard_64_convergence.pgf}
\caption{Differentiable MCR convergence plot for checkerboard structure of size $64 \times 64$ pixels. Besides the loss that is actually minimized, $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{M}}^t)$,
the loss of the rounded pixel values $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{{M}}^t)$ and the associated intermediate results $\boldsymbol{{M}}^t$ are also shown.}
\label{fig:convergence}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{checkerboard_64_nothreshold.pgf}
\caption{Illustration of the relevance of the asymmetric thresholding function~$\tilde{f}_t$ for a checkerboard structure of size $64 \times 64$ pixels. If it is omitted, the optimizer requires significantly more iterations in the first stage of convergence in order to find the optimal direction to start from the random initialization. This becomes especially clear through comparing the exemplary intermediate microstructures to those in Figure~\ref{fig:convergence}.}
\label{fig:nothreshold}
\end{figure}
The exemplary intermediate results $\boldsymbol{M}^t$ depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:convergence} reveal the typical strategy of the optimizer. Starting with setting almost all pixels to phase 0, the volume fraction of phase 1 is gradually increased again, whereas only very few pixels are changed from phase 1 to 0 in the later stages of convergence. This asymmetry between phase 0 and 1 is due to the asymmetry of the soft threshold function~$\tilde{f}_t$. Recall that requiring $\tilde{f}_t'(x) > 0 \; \forall x \in (0, \, 1)$ led to $\tilde{f}_t(0.5) > 0$, what can be corrected as shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:correction}. To verify the asymmetry hypothesis, the soft threshold is replaced with $\tilde{f}_t(x) = x$, omitting the thresholding step\footnote{NB: The corrections derived in Appendix~\ref{sec:correction} still hold in this scenario.}, see Section~\ref{sec:s2stilde}.
Figure~\ref{fig:nothreshold} presents the convergence behavior without and with thresholding function. Without $\tilde{f}_t$, as can be seen, the optimizer initially encounters difficulties in finding the optimal direction to start from the random initialization. Although the final result remains unaffected, in absence of the thresholding step the optimizer requires significantly more time for the initial stage of convergence, while the optimizer with thresholding function completes the initial phase within the first 500 iterations.
The same phenomenon is observed with a sine-wave threshold or other functions that are symmetric around 0.5. We conjecture that asymmetry in $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ is an essential cornerstone of efficient differentiable MCR, at least if based on the proposed differentiable correlations.
Figure~\ref{fig:convvsyt} reports a convergence comparison between differentiable MCR and the author's implementation of the Yeong-Torquato algorithm\footnote{The author's implementation precisely follows Algorithm~\ref{alg:yt} with a cool-down factor of~$\alpha=0.9$ and proposes pixel swaps between the two phases completely randomly. Note that numerous significantly more efficient variants exist.} for a checkerboard structure with $64 \times 64$ pixels. The performance of the Yeong-Torquato algorithm drops drastically in the later stages of convergence\footnote{To obtain the error~(\ref{L_func_YT}) close to zero, the same Yeong-Torquato implementation was run for an entire week ($10^7$ iterations, not shown here). With only two ``wrong'' pixels remaining in the end, the error could be reduced almost to zero, but not completely. Because only two pixels were left to be swapped, the algorithm was clearly not trapped in a local minimum. Therefore, this can not be explained by an overly fast cool-down, but only by the algorithm itself.}. As discussed previously, this behavior is inherent to its stochasticity, because as the loss decreases, randomly proposed pixel swaps become increasingly unlikely to ameliorate the result. On the contrary, the gradient-based optimizer of differentiable MCR does not stagnate at low errors. It continues to decrease the error quickly, yielding reconstruction result that show \emph{exact} statistical equivalence with the original structure. Importantly, it can be seen that differentiable MCR requires significantly fewer iterations than the Yeong-Torquato algorithm\footnote{It should be added that the necessity to compute a gradient makes each iteration in differentiable MCR more computationally expensive than an iteration of the Yeong-Torquato algorithm, but this aspect does not go near the differences shown in Figure~\ref{fig:convvsyt}.}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{checkerboard_64_vs_yt.pgf}
\caption{Convergence plot of the loss function of the Yeong-Torquato algorithm and differentiable MCR for reconstructing a checkerboard structure with~$64 \times 64$ pixels. Both results stem from the author's implementations. A zoom to the first few iterations is provided in the upper right corner.}
\label{fig:convvsyt}
\end{figure}
In general, a direct efficiency comparison between differentiable MCR and the Yeong-Torquato algorithm is difficult. It does not only depend on the implementation platform, the hyper-parameters and which of the many variants is chosen, but also strongly on the desired accuracy.
In order to reasonably compare the wall-clock time of the proposed method with the Yeong-Torquato algorithm, results from a well-optimized version are taken from the literature~\cite{li_review_2014, li_comparison_2012}. For the same checkerboard example, Figure~\ref{fig:diffmcrvsyt} reports wall-clock times for the Yeong-Torquato algorithm at different levels of accuracy. After less than $4$ minutes, the checkerboard pattern can be recognized, but with significant noise. After more than $10$ minutes, the noise is reduced but still remains. Differentiable MCR requires $12.5$ s for a perfect reconstruction.
According to Figures~\ref{fig:convvsyt} and~\ref{fig:diffmcrvsyt}, the performance gain is one order of magnitude for an error of around $10 \%$, whereas for lower or almost-zero errors, differentiable MCR is many orders of magnitude faster.
We emphasize that the reason behind this acceleration is the differentiable optimization scheme the proposed approach is based on.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{timeline.pgf}
\caption{Comparison between performance of Yeong-Torquato algorithm and differentiable MCR in reconstructing a checkerboard structure of size $64 \times 64$ pixels. The results for the former stem from a well-optimized implementation given in~\cite{li_review_2014, li_comparison_2012}. Reproduced with permission from the publisher.}
\label{fig:diffmcrvsyt}
\end{figure}
With the chosen maximum correlation length of $P=Q=31$, see Appendix~\ref{sec:implementationaldetails}, for the case of a $64\times 64$ pixel structure, the multigrid strategy discussed in Section~\ref{sec:mg} is not needed. As the microstructure resolution increases, however, computing all long-range correlations quickly becomes computationally expensive. Figure~\ref{fig:reconstructionsmg} reports the performance gains of the multigrid method for the structures with the domain size $128 \times 128$. This proposed method requires around $2$ minutes and less than~$2000$ iterations to obtain the exact reconstruction. In case of limiting the descriptor to short-range\footnote{For illustration purposes, we set $P=Q=8$ \emph{only} for this example and \emph{only} for the short-range version. The same behavior can be observed with $P=Q=32$, but less pronounced.} correlations, more iterations are required in the same time to correctly match the global correlations. The long-range version requires high computational effort. The proposed technique yields a compromise to include both highly-accurate short-range and less accurate long-range information. Figure~\ref{fig:checerboardreconstructions} shows well-reconstructed checkerboard structures at different resolutions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{recms_mg_full.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{recms_mg_normal.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{recms_mg_nomg.pgf}
\caption{Comparison between performance of the multigrid methods for checkerboard structure of size $128 \times 128$ pixels. Left: descriptor contains correlations corresponding to all vectors, also long-range vectors; right: descriptor is limited to correlations corresponding to short-range vectors only; center: proposed multigrid scheme.}
\label{fig:reconstructionsmg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{recms_c_64_0.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_c_128_00.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_c_256_00.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_c_512_00.pgf}
\caption{Reconstructing checkerboard structures of sizes $I, J \in \{64, \, 128, \, 256, \, 512 \}$ pixels with differentiable MCR using proposed multigrid scheme.}
\label{fig:checerboardreconstructions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{ogms_64.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_64_10.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_64_01.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_64_00.pgf}
\vfill
\input{ogms_128.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_128_10.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_128_01.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_128_00.pgf}
\vfill
\input{ogms_256.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_256_10.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_256_01.pgf}
\hfill
\input{recms_256_00.pgf}
\caption{Differentiable MCR results for reconstructing synthetically generated heterogeneous structures~\cite{brough_materials_2017}. The corresponding wall-clock times are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:scaling}. In the higher-resolution cases, a characteristic feature has been highlighted through a red box to show that the reconstructions are exact translations of the original microstructure.}
\label{fig:reconstructions}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Random media reconstruction}
In this example, the reconstruction performance of differential MCR is demonstrated for realistic microstructures. To begin with, synthetic heterogeneous structures generated using \emph{pyMKS}~\cite{brough_materials_2017} for the chosen domain sizes of $64 \times 64$, $128 \times 128$ and $256 \times 256$ pixels. The original and reconstructed heterogeneous structures at different stages of convergence are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reconstructions}. In addition to this, real microstructures from~\cite{li_transfer_2018} are reconstructed and shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lireconstructions}. Even with significantly more complex features in these microstructures, the original statistical characteristics are captured exactly in the reconstructed image, as the final result is nothing but a translated version of the original image. This holds not only for the synthetically generated periodic microstructures in Figure~\ref{fig:reconstructions}, but even for the non-periodic real data in Figure~\ref{fig:lireconstructions}. The computational cost associated with each image in Figure~\ref{fig:reconstructions} is reported in Figure~\ref{fig:scaling}. These findings are in line with that of the previous example, except that reconstructing the synthetic microstructure takes more time than the checkerboard structure. The computational effort of the algorithm thus depends on both the choice of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{f}_C}$ and its desired value $\boldsymbol{D}^{\text{des}}$. Furthermore, note the relatively straight lines in the double-logarithmic plot in Figure~\ref{fig:scaling}. This indicates a relation between the time~$T$ and the linear size~$I$ of the microstructure of $\ln T \propto \ln I$. In this case, $T = I^c$, where $c$ depends on the desired resolution. The general validity of this relation must, however, be confirmed through further investigations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{ogms_PMMASiO2.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{ogms_carbonate.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{ogms_ceramics.pgf}
\vfill
\input{recms_PMMASiO2.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{recms_carbonate.pgf}
\hspace{1cm}
\input{recms_ceramics.pgf}
\caption{Differentiable MCR results for reconstructing different microstructures presented by Li~et~al.~\cite{li_transfer_2018}, re-used with kind support from the authors and permission from the publisher through the \emph{Creative Commons} license~\cite{cc_licence}.}
\label{fig:lireconstructions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{scaling_behavior_diff_mcr.pgf}
\caption{Scaling behavior of differentiable MCR for synthetically generated heterogeneous structures~\cite{brough_materials_2017} shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reconstructions}.
}
\label{fig:scaling}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\label{sec:summary}
In this contribution, differentiable microstructure characterization and reconstruction is proposed. Like the classical Yeong-Torquato algorithm, it shares the central idea that microstructure reconstruction is optimization.
The novelty of this work is motivated by recognizing that, despite ever better heuristics, the Yeong-Torquato algorithm is essentially bound to moving randomly through the inconceivably large space of possible microstructures.
This randomness reduces the performance, especially at the later stages of convergence.
Thus, the concept of differentiable MCR is formulated in depth along with the requirements it brings for the descriptor and the microstructure. The difficulties thereby lie in formulating differentiable descriptors and avoiding local minima. We argue that the latter can be addressed by the former and provide empirical evidence through identifying a successful existing approach as a special case of differentiable MCR. Furthermore, spatial two- and three-point correlations are recast as a suitable differentiable descriptor.
This specific choice of descriptor defines one of many versions of differentiable MCR.
In principle one can choose \emph{any} suitable differentiable descriptor or even combine multiple descriptors.
The presented correlation-based version of differentiable MCR naturally runs on a GPU. Its scalability is ensured by a proposed multigrid scheme.
Although the code is far from fully optimized, \emph{perfect} reconstruction results are achieved in relatively short time through extremely fast convergence. In contrast, existing algorithms can equally well reduce the descriptor error norm by one or two orders of magnitude, but take incomparably more time to reduce it further.
This difference supports the central hypothesis of this work: Microstructure reconstruction is optimization and efficient optimization requires the gradient.
Overall, differentiable MCR, due to its flexibility, controllability and no requirement of training data, seems to be a unified mathematically sound framework for reconstructing random heterogeneous media. It may serve as a useful tool for establishing PSP-linkages and realizing the inverse material design concept. To achieve real-world applicability, however, several additional aspects have to be investigated.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The applicability of differentiable MCR to more complex situations should be validated or established. This includes microstructures with more than two phases, with more than one field (e.g. phase and orientation) and in three dimensions.
\item Additional descriptors should be developed. In principle, any descriptor should be generalizable to a differentiable version, but doing so is not always straightforward and involves several engineering decisions. Furthermore, different descriptors may be combined in a single loss function.
\item The implementation of differentiable MCR should be optimized for performance. For example, this includes accounting for the sparsity of the convolution masks in the proposed correlation descriptor. More generally, it also involves reformulating existing descriptors such that they are efficiently computable, like it has been done for the Yeong-Torquato algorithm. Finally, the optimizer itself may also be subject to further research.
\end{enumerate}
With the presented basis and the possible extensions, we wish to contribute to speeding up materials discovery, a key enabler for engineering progress in many fields.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research is funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and co-financed by tax funds based on the budget approved by the members of the Saxon State Parliament.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\linewidth]{logo_eu-sachsen.pdf}
\end{figure}
The authors are grateful to the Centre for Information Services and High Performance Computing [Zentrum für Informationsdienste und Hochleistungsrechnen (ZIH)] TU Dresden for providing its facilities for high throughput calculations.
\section*{Competing interests}
The authors declare no competing interests.
\section*{Author contributions}
P.S., M.A. and A.R. developed the concepts under coordination of M.K. and P.S. conducted the computations.
All authors contributed to the discussions, analyzed the simulation results and wrote the manuscript.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-3pt}\noindent
The promise of quantum computing in speeding up computations continues to attract research into exploring quantum algorithms for problems that arise in computer science, mathematics, and other scientific fields of study beyond searching and factorization.
Indeed, several quantum algorithms and circuits have been reported for a wide range of classical problems extending from algebraic computations to pattern matching and many problems in graph theory.
See for example~\cite{childs2010quantum} and \cite{mosca2008quantum} for a survey of quantum algorithms for Abelian and non-Abelian discrete Fourier transform, hidden subgroup problem, computing discrete logarithms, and several other problems in number theory, cryptography, and group theory.
Another article by Montanaro provides an overview of quantum algorithms, and in particular surveys the complexity of quantum searching and optimization algorithms~\cite{montanaro2016quantum}.
In graph theory, Grover's search algorithm and quantum walk techniques have been used to solve matching and network flow problems~\cite{AS06,ambainis2007quantum,Dor09} and graph traversals~\cite{childs2003exponential}.
In this paper, we focus our attention on a different direction, namely the application of quantum computing to developing fast quantum algorithms to realize connection requests in concentrators.
Concentration is a fundamental operation in data processing and is closely related to matchings in graph theory. Thus, we think that developing fast quantum algorithms for realizing connection requests in concentrators will likely have a significant impact on routing in packet switching networks.
Loosely speaking, concentration is a one-to-one mapping between two sets of objects, called inputs and outputs, where only inputs can be specified, and it is assumed that there are fewer outputs than inputs.
Formally, a graph with a set of vertices, representing inputs and another set of vertices, representing outputs, in which a one-to-one mapping exists between every subset of inputs and some subset of outputs over a set of non-overlapping paths is called a concentrator.
Pinsker established that concentrators with $n$ inputs, $m$ outputs, and at most $29n$ edges exist for all $m \le n$ in~\cite{pinsker73}.
Since Pinsker's seminal result, quite a few concentrator designs have been reported in the literature, see for example~\cite{pippenger77,chu78, bassalygo81,nakamuraMasson82,chienOruc94,orucHuang96, gunduzhanOruc97, GO98,ratanOruc2003, ratanOruc2010}.
The earlier designs in~\cite{pippenger77,chu78, bassalygo81} provide non-explicit solutions and can be viewed as upper bound results.
The first explicit concentrator was reported in \cite{nakamuraMasson82} using a binomial sparse crossbar design with $O(n^{1.5})$ edges.
The design given in \cite{chienOruc94} falls outside the focus of our work as it is based on binary comparators and sorters.
In this paper, we are concerned with designing classical and quantum algorithms for a particular set of concentrators that are referred to as fat-and-slim sparse crossbars. These were introduced in~\cite{orucHuang96} and developed in~\cite{gunduzhanOruc97, GO98,ratanOruc2003, ratanOruc2010}. We note that concentrators are further refined to study a family of bipartite graphs, widely-known as expanders$\!$\cite{margulis73,gabberGalil78,Alon81,tanner84,jimboMaruoka85}. Expanders provide bounded capacity concentration with $O(n)$ edges. Our work on how to route concentration assignments in such graphs using quantum algorithms will be deferred to another place. In this paper, we give classical algorithms to realize concentration assignments in sparse crossbar concentrators and use Grover's search to transform them to quantum algorithms, decreasing their time complexity.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides the preliminary concepts needed to describe our results.
In Section \ref{section:models}, we state our assumptions of classical and quantum models of computation.
Sections \ref{section:classicalRouting} and \ref{section:quantumRouting} present our main results.
The paper is concluded in Section \ref{section:conclusion} with a discussion of our results and possible directions for future research.
\vspace{-10pt}
\section{Sparse Crossbar Concentrators}
\label{section:concentrators}
An $(n,m,c)$-concentrator is a graph with a set of $n$ vertices, called inputs, a set of $m$ vertices that are disjoint from the set of inputs, called outputs, and in which a $k$-matching, i.e., a set of $k$ vertex-disjoint paths exists between every $k$ inputs and some $k$ outputs, $1\le k\le c\le m$.
Such a concentrator is referred to as a bipartite or sparse crossbar concentrator if all paths are of length one, i.e., each path consists of two vertices and an edge that is represented by a crosspoint in the fat-and-slim crossbar model\cite{orucHuang96}.
If $c < m$ then an $(n,m,c)$-concentrator is said to have bounded capacity\footnote{The maximum number of inputs that can be concentrated in unit time independent of the location of the inputs \cite{fins}.}, and if $c =m,$ it is said to have full capacity.
Henceforth, we will refer to the latter as an $(n,m)$-concentrator.
A concentrator is called explicit if all of its edges (crosspoints) are specified, inexplicit if all of its edges exist with a non-vanishing probability other than 1, and semi-explicit if only a proper subset of its edges is explicitly specified.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fat-slim-Crossbar.pdf}}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{An (11, 5) full-capacity, fat-and-slim concentrator.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Numerous explicit, semi-explicit, and inexplicit concentrators have been described in the literature as mentioned in the introduction.
In this paper, we focus on two explicit concentrator designs introduced in~\cite{orucHuang96} and one introduced in \cite{GO98}.
The first among these is a bipartite concentrator, called a full capacity fat-and-slim crossbar in which inputs are divided into two subsets of size $n-m$ and $m$.
Each of the $n-m$ inputs is connected to all the outputs, and forms the fat-part of the concentrator, whereas each of the $m$ inputs is connected to exactly one output and forms its slim part.
These concentrators are often diagrammed using a sparse crossbar representation as shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}.
As described, the left-hand side forms the fat part, and the diagonal line on right hand side forms the slim part of the concentrator.
Adding all the crosspoints (edges) together, we find that an fat-and-slim $(n,m)$-concentrator consists of $(n-m)m + m = (n-m+1)m$ crosspoints, and it was established in~\cite{orucHuang96} that every bipartite $(n,m)$-concentrator must have at least $(n-m+1)m$ crosspoints. Therefore, the full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator is minimal with respect to the number of crosspoints.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-11pt}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{bounded-capacity-Crossbar.pdf}}
\caption{A bounded capacity fat-and-slim $(9,7,2)$-concentrator, which is also a $(9,7,3)$-concentrator by our extension of its capacity.
}
\vspace{-4pt}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The second concentrator is also a sparse crossbar concentrator similar in concept to a full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator, but with a bounded capacity $c$ as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig2} for $n = 9$, $m = 7 = 5$, $c = 2$.
In this construction, the left-hand side forms the slim-part, whereas the right hand side is added to provide a minimum capacity of $c$.
This is ensured by requiring $c\le m/c$ or $c\le \sqrt{m}$.
The key idea is to provide a sufficient number of crosspoints (edges) to each input in the right part so that, if it gets blocked by as many as $c-1$ inputs from the slim part, it can still find an idle output to match with.
Requiring $c\le m/c$ secures this as each input in the right part is connected to $\lfloor m/c\rfloor$ outputs.
The constriction also assumes that $n-m\le c$.
This assumption ensures that the main diagonal of crosspoints in the slim section on the left spans the entire set of outputs.
It was shown in~\cite{orucHuang96} that the crosspoint complexity of this construction remains with a factor of two of a lower bound of $\lfloor\frac{(n-c+1)m}{m-c+1}\rfloor$ crosspoints.
We refer the reader to~\cite{orucHuang96} for a more in-depth account of these two concentrator constructions, while we note that the capacity of the second sparse crossbar concentrator is actually larger than $c$ when $m/c > c.$ In fact, the capacity of this crossbar is $\lfloor m/c\rfloor$ as each input in the fact section is connected to at least $\lfloor m/c\rfloor$ outputs. We adjust our notation to highlight this observation by replacing $c$ for the width of the inputs in the fat-section by $q,$ and letting $n-m\le q\le m,$ and $c=\lfloor m/q\rfloor.$ Therefore, $c\le \sqrt{m}$ is no longer required as described in~\cite{orucHuang96}.
For the rest of this paper, this updated construction will be referred to as ``bounded capacity fat-and-slim concentrator''.
Thus, we revise the capacity of the fat-and-slim crossbar in Figure \ref{fig2} to 3.
In addition to these two concentrators, we will also present a quantum routing algorithm for a third sparse concentrator that has a more regular structure\cite{GO98}.
This concentrator uses $n = pm$ inputs and $m$ outputs, and it is derived from the full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator.
Each output is connected to $n-m+1$ inputs as in the full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator.
On the other hand, each input is connected to between $m-\lfloor m/p\rfloor$ and $m-\lfloor m/p\rfloor + 1$ outputs, making this $(pm,m)$-concentrator nearly regular in terms of its in-degree (fan-in) as well.
In this paper, we will consider the case when $p$ divides $m$.
Additionally, we only consider cases when $p\ge3$.
Figure~\ref{fig3} illustrates this construction for $p = 3,$ and $m = 6$.
It is seen that the out-degree of the construction falls between 4 and 5.
Effectively, this construction is obtained from the full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator by (i) dividing $n = pm$ columns of crosspoints into $p$ sections, (ii) chopping the diagonal of $m$ crosspoints in the slim part into $p$ groups of $m/p$ columns, and (iii) swapping each of those $m/p$ columns with an equal number of columns in one of the remaining $p-1$ sections on the left.
Using the notation in \cite{GO98}, we denote the sets of inputs in the $p$ sections by $I_j, 1\le j\le p,$ and let $I_j =\{x_{j,1},x_{j,2},\cdots, x_{j,m}\}$.
We further let $V_j = \cap_{k=1}^{m-1} N(x_{j,k}),$ $U_j = O\backslash V_j,$ and $W_j$ denote the set of inputs that are connected to the outputs in $U_j,$ where $N(x_{j,k})$ denotes the neighbor set of input $x_{j,k}, 1\le j\le p, 1\le k\le m$.
In Figure~\ref{fig3}, $V_1 = \{z_3, z_4, z_5, z_6\} , V_2 = \{z_1, z_2, z_5, z_6\},V_3 = \{z_1, z_2, z_3, z_4\}, U_1 = \{z_1,z_2\}, U_2 = \{z_3,z_4\}, U_3 = \{z_5, z_6\}, W_1 = \{x_{1,1}, x_{1,2}\}, W_2 = \{x_{2,3}, x_{2,4}\}, W_3 = \{x_{3,5}, x_{3,6}\}$.
The crux of this construction is a transformation theorem proved in~\cite{GO98}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{5pt}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Regular-Fat-And-Slim.pdf}}
\vspace{-1pt}
\caption{A regular (18,6)-fat-and-slim concentrator.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
As we describe in the latter part of Section \ref{section:classicalRouting}, the construction of this concentrator makes the design of a classical routing algorithm for it more involved, but we establish that the time complexity of such an algorithm remains $O(m)$ once active inputs are located.
\vspace{-15pt}
\section{Classical Versus Quantum Routing Model}
\label{section:models}
\vspace{-4pt}\noindent
The algorithms presented in this paper will be run on two models of computation: (\ref{subsection:classical}) classical model and (\ref{subsection:quantum}) quantum model.
It is important to highlight the differences between these two models to make a justifiable comparison of their execution times.
\vspace{-12pt}
\subsection{The Classical Routing Model}\label{subsection:classical}
\vspace{-2pt}\noindent
In the classical model, we assume that quantities of interest are represented using classical bits of 0 and 1.
For example, we use $\lg n$ bits and $\lg m$ bits to identify the inputs and outputs of an $(n,m)$-concentrator, respectively.
We further assume that the bits within the representation of each input and/or output can be processed in parallel.
For example, we can inspect all of the bits within a representation of any input (output) in parallel to determine if it is a particular input we seek, or we can compare the bits in representations of any two inputs (outputs) or a constant number of inputs (outputs) in parallel to see if they are the same in $O(1)$ time.
Such bit-level operations can generally be carried out by logic circuits that consist of elementary logic components such as OR, AND, XOR, XNOR, and NOT gates that we assume have $O(1)$ computation time, and have a constant fan-in and fan-out, i.e., they have a constant number of inputs and outputs.
We note that two or a constant number of $\lg n$-bit numbers can be added, subtracted or compared using $O(\lg n)$ 2-input, 2-output logic gates in $O(\lg\lg n)$ time using a prefix-adder as described in~\cite{brent1982regular}.
This $O(\lg\lg n)$ time will be suppressed in our time complexity formulas, leaving us with $O(1)$ time.
It will also be assumed that $O(\lg n)$-bit operands can be written and read in and out of a random access memory in $O(1)$ time.
We will be using an array named $in$ to specify if a given input is active.
We will assume that $in$ is an array that is stored in a random access memory with $O(1)$ access time.
It is possible to relax $O(1)$ access time complexity.
However, since such a non-constant access time complexity would be a multiplicative coefficient in the time complexity of the bottleneck step of both classical and quantum algorithms, we will omit this factor from our complexity calculations, effectively assume that the access time of $in$ is $O(1).$
\vspace{-18pt}
\subsection{The Quantum Routing Model}\label{subsection:quantum}
\vspace{-3pt}\noindent
In the quantum routing model, classical bits are replaced by quantum bits (qubits), and classical logic gates are replaced by those that represent unitary transformations. We assume that unitary gates have one or two inputs. All together, we allow $O(\lg n)$ qubits in the quantum routing model. This allows us to work with possibly up to $n$ states in parallel.
We further allow any combination of quantum gates to be used on these $O(\lg n)$ qubits, but with the restriction that each qubit can source only one quantum gate at a time.
This last restriction is a corollary of the no-cloning theorem\cite{buvzek1996quantum}.
This fanout restriction of one in the quantum routing model is not imposed on the bits in the classical routing model.
However, we still assume that the fanout of each input is $O(1)$ in the classical model as well.
Therefore, the two models can be viewed to be analogous, where any quantum operation on mutually exclusive $O(\lg n)$ qubits takes $O(1)$ time much the same way each operation on $O(\lg n)$ classical bits takes $O(1)$ time.
The difference lies in the amount of parallelism afforded by the two models: in the classical model, we assume that the parallelism is limited to operations on any given pattern of $O(\lg n)$ bits, whereas in the quantum routing model, the parallelism transcends any particular or fixed pattern as quantum operations are applied to the totality of the quantum state that includes all $O(n)$ binary patterns of $O(\lg n)$ qubits.
This vast amount of parallelism inherently present in quantum mechanical systems resulted in Shor's quantum prime number factorization algorithm\cite{shor1994algorithms}, which is exponentially faster than the best-known classical algorithm.
Another key quantum algorithm, Grover's quantum search\cite{Gro96} provides a speed-up of $O(\sqrt n)$ over a sequential algorithm to search an element in an unordered list of $n$ elements.
The latter algorithm will be used in Section~\ref{section:quantumRouting} to reduce the routing time of concentration assignment on fat-and-slim concentrators using quantum algorithms.
Before we describe these algorithms, we provide their classical analogs in the next section.
\vspace{-14pt}
\section{Classical Routing On Concentrators}
\label{section:classicalRouting}
\vspace{-4pt}\noindent
Routing an assignment on a sparse crossbar concentrator amounts to constructing a matching between any given subset of inputs and some subset of outputs of equal cardinality.
The particular topologies of the three concentrators given in Section~\ref{section:concentrators} guide the design of a routing algorithm for each concentrator as we describe next.
\vspace{-12pt}
\subsection{Full-Capacity Fat-Slim (F-S) Concentrator Routing}
\vspace{-2pt}\noindent
Our first algorithm, Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalFull} is a restatement of the algorithm that was originally described in~\cite{guo96} for a full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator. We recall from Section~\ref{section:concentrators} that the set of inputs is partitioned into two sets:
those in the fat section: $X = \{x_1,x_2,\cdots\!, x_{n-m}\}$ and those in the slim section: $Y = \{y_1,y_2,\cdots\!,y_{m}\}$.
The set of outputs of the concentrator is denoted by $Z=\{z_1,z_2,\cdots\!,z_{m}\}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Classical Full-Capacity F-S Concentration}
\label{alg:classicalFull}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\vspace{2pt}
\Function{Classical Full FS Route}{$in,n,m$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $m$ active inputs\newline
//$n$: number of inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.
\State $L \gets list()$
\For{$i \gets 1:m$} //slim section
\If {$in[m-n+i] == 1$}
\State$pair (y_i, z_i);$
\Else
\State $L.insert(z_i);$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\For {$i\gets 1:n-m$} //fat section
\If {$in[i]==1$}
\State $\{z=L.remove(); pair(x_i, z);\}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent
As we stated in the earlier section, the active inputs in a routing request, i.e., those to be concentrated are specified by `1' entries in an $n$-bit array, named {\em in}.
A routing request with $k$ active inputs is first completed to a request with $m$ inputs by combining the leftmost unused $m-k$ inputs in $in$ with the given $k$ active inputs.
Moreover, the leftmost $m-k$ unused inputs in $in$ can be determined in $O(m)$ time by examining the leftmost $m$ inputs of $in$.
Effectively, the first {\em for} loop assigns each active input in the slim section to the output with the same index value, while also inserting each unused output $z_{i}$ into a list $L$ of $m$ elements as it checks if input $y_i, 1\le i\le m$ is active.
The second {\em for} loop then assigns the active inputs from left to right in the fat section to the unused outputs, i.e., those that are inserted into $L$ from top to bottom.
The time complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalFull} is easily seen to be $O(n)$ steps, given that (i) each iteration in the first loop involves checking if a bit in the list $in$ is `1', pairing an input in the slim-section with an output or inserting a value into a list of $m$ elements, and (ii) each iteration in the second loop involves checking a bit, pairing an input in the fat-section with an output, and removing an output from the list $L$.
Checking if $in[i] == 1$ clearly takes $O(1)$ time.
It is further assumed that pairing an input and output as well as inserting or removing a value in and out of a list also takes $O(1)$ time.
This is a reasonable assumption, considering that all three operations involve no more than a basic memory read or write operation.
\begin{comment}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalSparse} finds a matching of size $k$ for $k\leq c$ where $k$ is the number of active inputs.
For $k>c$, it can also find matchings up to size $m$ depending on the choice of the active inputs.
The first for loop takes $O(m)$ steps.
The second for loop repeats $O(c)$ times and has a for loop inside that repeats $O(m/c)$ times.
Therefore, this algorithm runs in time $O(n)$ which is of the same order of a maximum matching on this concentrator.
Note that the size of maximum matching on this concentrator is $m$ which is $\theta(n)$ because $c^2\leq m< n$ and $m=n-c$.
\end{comment}
\vspace{-14pt}
\subsection{Bounded Capacity Fat-Slim Concentration Routing}
\label{subsection:classicalBounded}
\vspace{-2pt}\noindent
Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalSparse} extends the main idea of Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalFull} to routing active inputs in a bounded capacity fat-and-slim concentrator\footnote{Even though we refer to this construction as a bounded capacity, fat-and-slim concentrator, the fat section on the right is not completely filled with crosspoints as in the case of full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator.}.
As in Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalFull}, the inputs are divided into fat and slim sections, but this time, the slim section is placed on the left and the pseudo-fat section is placed on the right in Figure~\ref{fig2}.
An $m$-bit array, named {\em out} is added to mark the outputs.
The first {\em for} loop pairs the active inputs in the slim section with outputs whose indices coincide with those of the active inputs, while marking those outputs by entering `0's into {\em out} in their index positions.
The second {\em for} loop finds the active inputs in the pseudo-fat section on the right.
The last nested loop pairs the active inputs in the pseudo-fat section on the right by searching for an available output from among the set of outputs to which each active is connected by a crosspoint.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalSparse} has an execution time of $O(n)=O(m)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Lines \ref{cb:slimBegin}-\ref{cb:slimEnd} take $O(m)$ time as they involve steps to check if $in[i] = 1,$ pair $x_i$ with $z_i,$ and clear a bit in the $out$ array.
\item Lines \ref{cb:fatSearchBegin}-\ref{cb:fatSearchEnd} take $O(q)$ time as they involve checking $q$ array elements and adding them to a list.
\item Lines \ref{cb:fatBegin}-\ref{cb:fatEnd} consist of a nested loop that takes $O(c)$ time.
To see this, let $c',0\le c'\le c,$ be the number of active inputs found in lines \ref{cb:slimBegin}-\ref{cb:slimEnd}.
In line \ref{cb:break}, we exit the interior {\em for} loop.
This happens when an available output is found for that input.
The number of unsuccessful checks for an available output can at most be $c'$ and successful checks for such an output can at most be $c$.
Since the number of elements in the list $L$ is also bounded by $c$, this nested loop takes $O(c)$ time.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}
{\rm It should also be noted that this algorithm achieves a concentration for any active input set of size $k$ for and integer $1\le k\le c$.}
\end{remark}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
The slim section is a bijective graph.
Matching on a bijective graph is done trivially in lines \ref{cb:slimBegin}-\ref{cb:slimEnd}.
Let $k_1$ be the number of inputs routed in these lines.
The only cases when lines \ref{cb:fatBegin}-\ref{cb:fatEnd} can route inputs are when $k_1<k$. This also implies $k_1< c$.
Since each input in the slim section can go to $c$ disjoint outputs, the lines \ref{cb:slimBegin}-\ref{cb:slimEnd} occupies less than the number each fat input is connected to.
Lines \ref{cb:fatBegin}-\ref{cb:fatEnd} finds available outputs among them and routes the active inputs there.
Since the output set of each fat input is disjoint, there are no collision conditions.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Classical Bounded Capacity F-S Concentration}
\label{alg:classicalSparse}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Function{Classical Bounded F-S Route}{$in,n,m,q$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $c$ active inputs.\newline
//$n$: number of inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.\newline
//$q$: the width of the fat section.\newline
//$c = \lfloor m/q\rfloor$: capacity.\newline
//$out$: $m$-bit array that marks available outputs (initialized to all 1's).
\For{$i \gets 1:n-q$} //slim section \label{cb:slimBegin}
\If {$in[i]==1$}
\State$pair (x_i, z_i);$ $out[i]\gets 0;$
\EndIf
\EndFor\label{cb:slimEnd}
\State $L \gets list()$ //pseudo-fat section \label{cb:fatSearchBegin}
\For{$i \gets 1:q$}
\If {$in[i+m]==1$}
\State $L.insert(i);$
\EndIf
\EndFor \label{cb:fatSearchEnd}
\While{$i\gets L.remove()$} \label{cb:fatBegin}
\For{$j \gets 0:c-1$}
\If{$out[i+qj]==1$}
\State$pair (y_i,z_{i+qj});$
\State \textbf{break} \label{cb:break}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndWhile \label{cb:fatEnd}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-5pt}\noindent
\vspace{-11pt}
\subsection{Regular Fat-Slim Concentration Routing}
\label{subsection:classicalRegular}
\vspace{-2pt}\noindent
Our third classical algorithm restates the one given in~\cite{guo96} with a tighter time complexity analysis on some steps.
This time, we have a sparse crossbar construction with $n = pm$ inputs and $m$ outputs as described in Section~\ref{section:concentrators}, where we assume that $p$ divides $m$.
A routing request with $k$ active inputs is first completed to a request with $m$ inputs by combining the first unused $m-k$ inputs in $I_1$ with the given $k$ active inputs.
This is always possible since if all $k \le m$ active inputs belong to $I_1$ then its remaining $m-k$ inputs can be combined with the $k$ active inputs to obtain an $m$-request.
On the other hand, if only some $k' < k \le m$ of the $k$ active inputs belong to $I_1$ then $I_1$ must have $m-k' > m-k$ unused inputs, the first $m-k$ of which can be combined with the given $k$ active inputs to obtain an $m$-request.
Moreover, the first $m-k$ unused inputs in $I_1$ can be determined in $O(m)$ time by examining all $m$ inputs in $I_1$ in the worst case\footnote{The selection of $I_1$ is arbitrary and simplifies our description for the completion of a $k$-assignment to an $m$-assignment.
The algorithm will work regardless of which set of inputs selected.}.
Therefore, we will assume that a $k$-request is completed to an $m$-request and specified by an array of $n$-bits named $in$, in which 0 and 1 bits represent the absence and presence of an active input respectively.
At the beginning of the algorithm, the locations of these active inputs are searched and active inputs in $I_j = \{x_{j,1},x_{j,2},\ldots,x_{j,m}\}$ are placed in a linked list $R_j, 1\le i\le p$.
\vspace{-2pt}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:regularSub} routes an $m$-request by considering two distinct cases:
(a) One of the $R_j$'s has more than $m- m/p$ active inputs.
(b) None of $R_j$'s has more than $m-m/p$ active inputs.
That there can be no other case for all $p \ge 2$ is shown as follows.
Suppose there exists $R_j$ with more than $m - m/p$ active inputs, for some $j$.
Then there remain less than $m-(m-m/p) = m/p$ active inputs in the union of all the remaining $p-1$ sets of $m$ inputs.
Therefore, another $m$-bit array, i.e., $R_{j'}$ for some $j'\ne j, 1\le j'\le p$ with more than $m - m/p$ active inputs exists only if $m/p > m - m/p,$ which implies $p < 2$ or $p = 1,$ contradicting our assumption that $p\ge 2$ as stated in Section~\ref{section:concentrators}.
Now, continuing with Algorithm~\ref{alg:regularSub}, lines 1 through 8 construct the linked lists in $O(n)$ time, assuming that we have $m$ active inputs as described above and determine the number of entries in each linked list by incrementing a size field each time an active input is found.
Next, we see that the {\em for} statement in line~\ref{step:1} is iterated at most $p$ times, which occurs either when none of $R_j, 1\le j\le p$ has more than $m-m/p$ active inputs or $R_p$ does.
During the $j$th iteration, the {\em if} statement in line~\ref{algorith3step:3} checks if $R_j$ has more than $m-m/p$ 1's.
The size of each set can be queried in $O(1)$ time with the help of the size field that has been computed in line 5.
\vspace{-3pt}
{\em Case} (a): If there exists such an $R_j$ then line~\ref{step:1.1} pairs all the active inputs in $R_j\cap W_j,$ if any, and the outputs in $U_j$ to which those active inputs are connected by crosspoints.
Line~\ref{step:1.2} then pairs as many active inputs in $R_i, 1\le i\ne j\le p$ as possible, if any, with unused outputs in $U_j$.
At this point, any active remaining inputs in $R_i, 1\le i\ne j\le p$, are paired with unused outputs in $U_l, l\ne j$ in lines~\ref{cr:vj1} and \ref{cr:vj2}.
This pairing is implemented in such a way that one of the $U_i, 1\le i\ne j$ is arbitrarily fixed ($U_{j-1}$ in the algorithm) to start the pairing.
It is possible that $U_{j-1}$ may not even have an active input, but line 13 serves to initiate pairing of the active inputs in the remaining subsets of inputs other than $I_j$.
We note that the number of active inputs in $I_{j-1}$ is less than $m/p=|U_{j+1}|$ and a full crossbar connection exists between $I_{j-1}$ and $U_{j+1}$.
Similarly, in line \ref{cr:vj2}, it is always possible to pair the number of active inputs in $\!\!\!\!\!\bigcup\limits_{\substack{i\ne j, i\ne j-1}}\!\!\!\!\!\! I_k$ with the outputs in $U_{j-1}$ as $U_{j-1}$ has $m/p$ available outputs, which are more numerous than the active inputs in $\!\!\!\!\!\bigcup\limits_{\substack{i\ne j, i\ne j-1}}\!\!\!\!\!\! I_k$, and a full crossbar connection exists between the two sets.
Here, the indexing is cyclical, and it is assumed that $j$, $j-1,$ and $j+1$ are distinct from each other and $p\ge 3$.
If $p = 2$ then line 14 is not needed.
Finally, any remaining inputs in $R_j$ are paired with the remaining unused outputs in $V_j$ in line~\ref{step:1.4} as there is a full crossbar connection between the inputs in $I_j$ and outputs in $V_j, 1\le j\le p$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Classical Regular F-S Concentration}
\label{alg:regularSub}
\label{alg:classicalRegular}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Function{Classical Regular F-S Route}{$in,p,m$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $m$ active inputs.\newline
//$n=m*p$: number of inputs.\newline
//$R_j, 1\le j\le p$: linked lists of active inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.\newline
//The size fields of $R_j, 1\le j\le p$ are cleared.
\For{$j\gets 1:p$}
\label{cr:searchStart}
\For{$i\gets 1:m$} //find active elements
\If{$in[(j-1)m + i]==1$}
\State {$R_j.insert(i); R_j.size \scriptstyle{+\!+}$}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor \label{cr:searchEnd}
\For{$j\gets1:p$}\label{step:1}\label{cr:routingStart}
\If{$R_j.size>m-m/p$} //case (a)\label{algorith3step:3}\label{cr:diagoanlStart}
\State Pair inputs in $R_j\cap W_j$ with outputs in $U_j;$\label{step:1.1}\label{cr:ujj}
\State Pair inputs in $\!\!\underset{i\ne j} {\cup} R_i$ with unpaired outputs in $U_j;$ \label{step:1.2}\label{cr:uji}
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $R_{j-1}$ with outputs in $U_{j+1};$\label{cr:vj1}
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $\!\!\underset{i\ne j, i\ne j-1} {\cup}\!\! R_i$ with outputs in $U_{j-1};$\label{step:1.3}\label{cr:vj2}
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $R_j$ with unpaired outputs in $V_j;$ \label{step:1.4}\label{cr:vj3}
\State \textbf{return}\label{cr:diagonalEnd}
\Else $\,$//case (b)\label{cr:nondiagonalStart}
\State $a[j]\gets(m/p\le |R_j|);$ \label{step:2.1}\label{step:10}\label{cr:computeA}
//$p$-bit array for reindexing\label{step:13}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $r\gets$ prefixSum$(a);$ \label{cr:prefixSumR} $s\gets $ prefixSum$(\neg a);$\label{step:14}\label{cr:prefixSumS}
\State $d[j]\gets a[j] r[j]+(\neg a[j])(s[j]+r[p]); {1\le j\le p;}$ \label{step:15}\label{cr:newIndices}
//new indices
\State $R'_{d[j]}\gets R_j$\label{cr:reindexR}; $U'_{d[j]}\gets U_j, 1\le j\le p;$ \label{cr:reindexU} \label{step:2.2}
\For{$j\gets 2:r[p]$}\label{step:4}\label{step:16}
\State Take first $m/p$ elements from $R'_j$ and place them in $P'_j;$\label{step:22}
\State Pair inputs in $P'_j$ with outputs in $U'_{j-1};$ \label{step:4.1}
\State $Q'_j\gets R'_j\backslash P'_j;$\label{step:4.2}
\EndFor
\State Pair inputs in $R'_{r[p]+1},R'_{r[p]+2},...,R'_{p}, R'_1,Q_2,Q_3,...,Q_{r[p]}$ \label{step:5}
\State with outputs in $U'_{r[p]},$ $U'_{r[p]+1},...,U'_{p};$\label{cr:routingEnd}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-2pt}
These steps are illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig4}, where the circled numbers identify the steps in the algorithm.
In this example, lines~\ref{cr:vj1} and \ref{cr:vj2} do not result in any pairing.
As another example, let $m= 12, p = 3 ,$ $R_1 = \{1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10\}$, $R_2 = \{3,8\}$, $R_3 =\{1\}$.
We have $U_1 = \{z_1, z_2, z_3, z_4\}, U_2 = \{z_5, z_6, z_7, z_8\}, U_3 =\{z_9, z_{10}, z_{11}, z_{12}\},$ and $|R_1| = 9 > 8 = m-m/p$.
Thus, $x_{1,1}, x_{1,2}, x_{1,3}$ are paired with $z_1, z_2, z_3$ in $U_1$ in line~\ref{step:1.1}, $x_{2,3}$ is paired with $z_4$ in $U_1$ in line~\ref{step:1.2}, $x_{3,1}$ in $I_3$ is paired with output $z_5$ in $U_2$ and the remaining active input $x_{2,7}$ in $I_2$ is paired with output $z_9$ in $U_2$ in lines \ref{cr:vj1} and \ref{cr:vj2}.
Finally, $x_{1,5}, x_{1,6}, x_{1,7}, x_{1,8}, x_{1,9}, x_{1,10}$ are paired with the remaining outputs all of which belong to $V_1$.
We established that any routing request in case (a) can always be realized in lines~\ref{step:1.1} through~\ref{step:1.4}.
Now suppose that the condition $|R[j]| > m-m/p$ fails for all $j, 1\le j\le p$.
The remaining part of the algorithm handles case (b) as described next.
\vspace{-3pt}
{\em Case} (b): First, in line 17, we initiate a process to identify the subsets of inputs with at most $m/p$ active inputs.
This is done to reindex the sets of inputs $I_j, 1\le j\le p$ so that those that have between $m/p$ and $m-m/p$ active inputs are given lower index values.
Effectively, the $R_j$'s and the corresponding $U_j$'s are implicitly sorted in descending order, based on whether they contain more than the threshold of $m/p$ active inputs.
To facilitate this, we follow the approach in~\cite{guo96} and form a bit-array of $p$ elements, $a$ in line~\ref{step:10} such that $a[j] = 1$ if and only if $m/p \le |R_j|\le m- m/p, 1\le j\le p$.
This array is used to split $R_j$ into two groups, those for which $m/p \le |R_j|\le m- m/p$ and those for which $|R_j| < m/p$.
This splitting is carried out by computing the prefix sums of the bits in $a$ and $\neg a$ into two $p$-element arrays $r$ and $s$ in line~\ref{cr:prefixSumR}, where $r$ ranks those $R_j$ for which $m/p \le |R_j|\le m- m/p,$ and $s$ ranks those $R_j$ for which $|R_j| < m/p$.
The ranks index the active inputs in each group separately.
The ranks are threaded together in line~\ref{step:15} to obtain a $p$-element array, $d$, which represents a permutation of the indices of $R_j$.
This step essentially involves selecting one of $r[j]$ or $r[p] + s[j]$ into $d[j]$ and is used to compute the indices of $R_j$'s.
It is not difficult to see that $d$ is a permutation of the indices of $R_j$'s and applying $d$ to the indices of $R_j$'s and $U_j$'s amounts to renaming them so that $R_j$ becomes $R_{d[j]}$ and $U_j$ becomes $U_{d[j]}, 1\le j\le p$.
For clarity, we replace $R_{d[j]}$ and $U_j$ by $R'_{d[j]}$ and $U'_j$ in the algorithm.
\vspace{-3pt}
As an example, let $m = 20, p = 5, $ and suppose that $I_1, I_2, I_3, I_4, I_5$ have $3, 4, 6, 5, 2$ active inputs, respectively.
Given that $m/p = 5, m-m/p = 20-20/5 = 16,$ $ |I_1|, |I_2|,|I_5| < m/p$ and $m/p < |I_3|, |I_4| \le m-m/p$ so that $a = [0, 0, 1, 1, 0], \neg a = [1, 1, 0, 0, 1],$ $r = [0, 0, 1, 2, 2], s = [1, 2, 2, 2, 3], d = ar + (\neg a) ( r[p] + s ) = [0, 0, 1, 2, 0] + [3, 4, 0, 0, 5] = [3, 4, 1, 2, 5]$.
Thus, $R'_3\leftarrow R_1, U'_3\leftarrow U_1, R'_4\leftarrow R_2, U'_4\leftarrow U_2, R'_1\leftarrow R_3, U'_1\leftarrow U_3, R'_2\leftarrow R_4, U'_2\leftarrow U_4, R'_5\leftarrow R_5, U'_5\leftarrow U_5$.
This gives a permuted set of registers in descending cardinalities, i.e., $R'_3, R'_4, R'_1, R'_2, R'_5$ and $U'_3, U'_4, U'_1, U'_2, U'_5$.
\vspace{-2pt}
Once this sorting process is completed in line~\ref{cr:reindexU}, we select the first $m/p$ active inputs in each of the $r[p]$ sets in which the number of active inputs lies between $m/p$ and $m-m/p-1,$ and store all, but the first $m/p$ active inputs into $P'_j,2\le j\le r[p]$ in line~\ref{step:22}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fatSlimRouting.pdf}}
\vspace{-6pt}
\caption{Routing in a regular (18,6)-fat-and-slim concentrator.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
These active inputs are paired with sets of $m/p$ outputs in $U'_{j-1}, 2\le j\le r[p]$ in line~\ref{step:4.1} using the full crossbar connection between them.
This will complete the pairing of $(r[p]-1)m/p$ active inputs and $m-(r[p]-1)m/p = (p-r[p]+1)m/p$ active inputs remain.
The remaining active inputs in $R'_j$ are saved into $Q'_j, 2\le j\le r[p]$ in line~\ref{step:4.2}.
Finally, the active inputs in $Q_j$'s are concatenated with the active inputs in $\!R_{r[p]+1},R_{r[p]+2},...,R_{[p]},R_1$ which are then paired together with the outputs in sets $U'_{r[p]+1},U'_{r[p]+2},...,U'_{p}$ in line~\ref{cr:routingEnd}.
Note that the number of active inputs in $R'_{r[p]+1},R'_{r[p]+2},...,R'_{p}, R'_1,Q_2,Q_3,...,Q_{r[p]}$ is given by $(p-r[p]+1)m/p$ and it must match the number of active outputs in in $U'_{r[p]},$ $U'_{r[p]+1},...,U'_{p}$ after the pairing in line~\ref{step:4.1}.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:regularSub} has a time complexity of $O(n)$ as shown below.
\vspace{-2pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Lines \ref{cr:searchStart}-\ref{cr:searchEnd}:
This is a linear search of active inputs out of $n$ inputs, and therefore has a time complexity of $O(n)$.
\item Lines \ref{cr:routingStart}-\ref{cr:routingEnd}:
By the time we get to these lines, we already know where the active inputs are located because $\!R_j$'s consist only of active inputs.
At this point the only task left to do is to route these active inputs.
We route in two different ways as described in cases (a) and (b) in the algorithm.
Both take $O(m)$ time as described below.
\vspace{-4pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Lines~\ref{cr:routingStart} and~\ref{cr:diagoanlStart}: We see that the {\em for} statement here is iterated at most $p$ times, which occurs either when none of $R_j, 1\le j\le p$ has more than $m-m/p$ active inputs or $R_p$ does.
During the $j$th iteration, the {\em if} statement in line~\ref{algorith3step:3} checks if $R_j$ has more than $m-m/p$ elements.
Since we can query the size of sets in $O(1)$ time and comparison of values in the if statement can also be completed in $O(1)$ time, this line has a time complexity of $O(p)$. \vspace{-2pt}
\item Lines \ref{step:1.1}-\ref{cr:diagonalEnd}:
In case (a), there are more active inputs than non-diagonals can handle alone, and therefore diagonal crosspoints must be used.
These lines execute at most once and take $O(m)$ time as explained below.
\vspace{-4pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Line \ref{cr:ujj} can be done by iterating through $R_j$ and checking if the current element is in $W_j$.
Since $W_j$ is an interval where endpoints are fixed and known, the membership decision amounts to the comparison of the current element against the two endpoints, and this takes $O(1)$ time in our classical bit-parallel processor model.
Moreover, the number of pairing operations is clearly bounded by $|W_j| = |U_j| = m/p,$ and pairing an active input with the corresponding output in $U_j$ takes $O(1)$ time.
Therefore, this line can be done in $O({\rm max }(m,m/p)) = O(m)$ time, the size limit of $R_j$.
\vspace{1pt}
\item Line \ref{cr:uji}: Let $\hat{R} = \underset{i\ne j} {\cup} R_i$.
Given that all inputs in $\hat{R}$ are connected to outputs in $U_j$ by a full crossbar connection, the active inputs in $\hat{R}$ can be paired with unused outputs in $U_j$ by scanning $\hat{R}$ from left to right and $U_j$ from top to bottom until all unused outputs in $U_j$ are paired.
As we represent $R_j, 1\le j \le p$ by linked lists and since there are $m$ active inputs at the most, the pairing can be completed in $O(m$) time in this case. \vspace{-2pt}
\item In line \ref{cr:vj1} we pair two sides of a full crossbar connection, i.e., inputs in $R_{j-1}$ and outputs in $U_{j+1}$.
We loop through these sets, removing one element from each to build a complete matching.
Given that $|R_{j-1}| \le m, 2\le j \le m+1,$ and $|U_{j+1}| = m/p,$ this line has a time complexity of $O(m)$.
\vspace{-2pt}
\item In line 14, we proceed as in line~\ref{cr:uji}, and note that $ |\!\!\underset{i\ne j, i\ne j-1}{\cup}\!\!\!\! R_i|\!\le\! m$.
Therefore this line has a time complexity of $O(m)$.
\vspace{-2pt}
\item Line~\ref{cr:vj3} involves connecting the remaining active inputs in $I_j$ and the unused outputs in $V_j$.
It is not difficult to verify that this step can be completed in $O(m - m/p)$ time as there is a full crossbar connection between the inputs in $R_j$ and $V_j, 1\le j\le p$.
It follows that the time complexity of the {\em for} loop is $O(m - m/p)$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-3pt}
\item Lines \ref{cr:nondiagonalStart}-\ref{cr:routingEnd}:
These lines are carried out in case (b) only.
In this case, non-diagonal crosspoints can handle the assignment without diagonal crosspoints.
Therefore, only the fat sections are used in the routing and these lines can be done in $O(m)$ time as explained below.
\vspace{-2pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Line \ref{cr:computeA} involves querying size of $R_j$ and comparing it to $m/p$, which can be completed in $O(1)$ time per each iteration of the {\em for} loop and in $O(p)$ time for all iterations. \vspace{-1pt}
\item Line \ref{cr:prefixSumR} has prefix sum of $p$ elements that can be done in $O(p)$ time by an iterative summation of $p$ bits.\vspace{-1pt}
\item Line \ref{cr:newIndices} involves an addition of two $O(\lg p)$-bit numbers and a $2\times 1$ multiplexer, both of which take $O(1)$ time and so the loop in this line takes $O(p)$ time. \vspace{-1pt}
\item Line \ref{cr:reindexR} involves reindexing of $R_j$'s, which clearly takes $O(p)$ time. \vspace{-1pt}
\item Lines \ref{step:16}-\ref{step:4.2} can be carried out in $O(m/p)$ time per each set of $m/p$ inputs and in $O(r[p]\times m/p) = O(m)$ time for all $r[p]$ sets of $m/p$ inputs. \vspace{-1pt}
\item Lines \ref{step:5}-\ref{cr:routingEnd} can be done by pairing the elements between the two sets described in these lines one by one in $O(m)$ time.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-7pt}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark1}
{\rm Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalFull}}, {\rm Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalSparse} and {\rm Algorithm~\ref{alg:classicalRegular}} are all optimal in terms of order of execution time as it takes $\Omega(n)$ time to read a concentration assignment.\qed}
\end{remark}
\vspace{-16pt}
\section{Quantum Routing-Grover's Search}
\label{section:quantumRouting}
\vspace{-4pt}\noindent
Now that we have established that classical routing algorithms all take $O(n)$ time for full and bounded capacity fat-and-slim concentrators described in Section \ref{section:concentrators}, we turn our attention to quantum routing for them.
Since both these concentrators require searching of active inputs out of all inputs, Grover's search \cite{Gro96} provides a possible approach to identify such inputs faster in the quantum domain.
Grover's search approach has been followed to speed up various matching and network flow problems in \cite{AS06} and \cite{Dor09}.
These two papers were among the inspirations for our approach.
We will use the version of Grover's search analyzed in Theorem 3 of \cite{BBHT98} and refer to it as {\em GroverSearch} in this paper.
We note that {\em GroverSearch} is the only quantum step in the algorithms to be presented in this section and rest of the paper.
The time complexity of {\em GroverSearch} is known to be $O(\sqrt{n/k})$ to find one of $k$ marked items out of $n$ possible items.
Thus, it takes $O(\sqrt{nk})$ time to discover all $k$ items by unmarking discovered items one at a time.
This is a widely used method even though the original source is unknown.
The proof can be found in Lemma 4.1 of \cite{CK12}.
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:monteCarlo}
{\rm As in \cite{AS06} and \cite{Dor09}, we use Monte Carlo amplification to bound the total error of the entire algorithm resulting in an increase in run-time that is a logarithmic factor in the number of calls to the quantum subroutine, i.e., $\ln k$.
Therefore, the time to discover all marked inputs is $O(\sqrt{nk}\ln{k})$.} \qed
\end{remark}
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Quantum Full F-S Concentration}
\label{alg:quantumFull}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\vspace{2pt}
\Function{Quantum Full FS Route}{$in,n,m$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $m$ active inputs\newline
//$n$: number of inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.
\State $L \gets list()$
\For{$i \gets 1:m$} //slim section
\If {$in[m-n+i] == 1$}
\State$pair (y_i, z_i);$
\Else \vspace{-1pt}
\State $L.insert(z_i);$\vspace{1pt}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\While {$i\gets GroverSearch(in[1:n-m])$}//fat section
\State$z=L.remove(); pair(x_i, z);$
\State$in[i]=0$ \vspace{1pt}
\EndWhile \vspace{1pt}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-20pt}
\subsection{Quantum Full-Capacity F-S Concentration}
\label{subsection:quantumFull}
\vspace{-3pt}\noindent
The pseudo-code of our routing algorithm for the full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:quantumFull}.
As in the classical case, this algorithm consists of two parts.
In the first part, we route all the active inputs to corresponding outputs in the slim section.
We also make a list of idle inputs in this part to identify the corresponding outputs that are not used by the inputs in the slim section.
Such outputs are then paired with the active inputs that are found by {\em GroverSearch} in the second part of the algorithm.
This part of the algorithm is classical and deterministic.
The second part of the algorithm provides us with quantum speedup.
We use {\em GroverSearch} to locate the active inputs in the fat part of the concentrator.
Once an active input is found, we pair it with one of the idle outputs that were found in the first part and unmark that input for another round of {\em GroverSearch}.
The time complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:quantumFull} is computed as follows.
First note that the slim part of the algorithm is classical and deterministic.
Since we assume that each query of the array $in$ requires a constant time, identifying the active inputs, assigning them to their respective outputs, and also identifying the unused outputs in the slim part takes $O(m)$ time.
Now, let $k$ be the number of active inputs in the fat part.
It is obvious that $k$ is upper bounded by $m$.
Hence by Remark \ref{remark:monteCarlo}, we find that the total time required for the fat part is $O(\sqrt{m(n-m)}\ln m)$.
Therefore the total time complexity of concentration in a full-capacity, fat-and-slim $(n,m)$-concentrator is $O(m+\sqrt{k(n-m)}\ln m) = O(m+\sqrt{nm}\ln m)$, and hence, given that $n \ge m, $ the total time complexity is $O(\sqrt{nm}\ln m),$ using a quantum processor with $O(\ln n)$ qubits.
For comparison, any classical-bit processor routing algorithm for a full capacity, fat-and-slim $(n,m)$-concentrator takes $\Theta(n)$ time as we established in the earlier section (See Remark~\ref{remark1}).
When $n=\Theta(m\ln^{2} m)$, we have $O(\sqrt{nm}\ln m)=O(n)$.
Therefore, our algorithm performs better in quantum domain than any known classical algorithm if $m\ln^2{m}=o(n)$.
One such value of $m$ is clearly $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$.
In general, it can easily be shown that $m = n^\mu,$ satisfies $m\ln^{2} m = o(n)$, for any $\mu, 0 < \mu < 1,$ and the time complexity of our algorithm will increase less than linearly with $n$ for such values of $m$.
\vspace{-10pt}
\subsection{Quantum Bounded-Capacity F-S Concentration}
\vspace{-2pt}\noindent
The time complexity of the classical routing algorithm for a bounded capacity fat-and-slim concentrator can also be reduced using quantum search as well, as described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:quantumSparse}.
The slim section of the algorithm finds at most $c$ marked elements out of at most $m$ total elements since $n-q\le m$.
Similarly, the fat section of the algorithm also finds $c$ marked elements out of at most $m$ total elements since $q\le m$.
The total time complexity of both parts is $O(\sqrt{mc}\ln{c})$.
Lines \ref{qb:fatBegin}-\ref{qb:fatEnd} is the same as \ref{cb:fatBegin}-\ref{cb:fatEnd} of Algorithm \ref{alg:classicalSparse}.
Therefore, the total time complexity is also $O(\sqrt{mc}\ln{c})=O(\sqrt{nc}\ln{c})$.
Once again, this algorithm perform better than it's classical counterpart when $c\ln^2{c}=o(n)$.
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Quantum Bounded FS Concentration}
\label{alg:quantumSparse}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Function{Quantum Sparse FS Route}{$in,n,m,q$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $c$ active inputs.\newline
//$n$: number of inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.\newline
//$q$: the width of the fat section.\newline
//$c = \lfloor m/q\rfloor$: capacity.\newline
//$out$: $m$-bit array that marks available outputs (initialized to all 1's).
\While {$i\gets GroverSearch(in[1:n-q])$} //slim section
\State$pair(x_i,z_i);$
\State$in[i]\gets0;$
\State$out[i]\gets0;$
\EndWhile
\State $L \gets list();$ //pseudo-fat section
\While {$i\gets GroverSearch(in[n-q+1:n])$} //slim section
\State $L.insert(i);$
\State$in[i]\gets0;$
\EndWhile
\While{$i\gets L.remove()$}\label{qb:fatBegin}
\For{$j \gets 0:c-1$}
\If{$out[i+qj]==1$}
\State$pair (y_i,z_{i+qj});$
\State \textbf{break}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndWhile\label{qb:fatEnd}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{remark}
{\rm In full capacity F-S concentrator, active inputs for the dense part are located with Grover's Search while for bounded capacity FS concentrator, all active inputs are located with Grover's Search. \qed}
\end{remark}
\vspace{-15pt}
\subsection{Quantum Regular FS Concentration}
\noindent
Our last quantum algorithm handles concentration assignments for regular fat-and-slim concentrators.
It is obtained by replacing the search for active inputs by {\em GroverSearch}.
From the analysis in subsection \ref{subsection:classicalRegular} we know that once the active inputs are found, the routing takes $O(m)$. Just like full capacity fat-and-slim concentrator, the search as well as the total time takes $O(\sqrt{nm}\ln{m})$.
Therefore the analysis done in subsection \ref{subsection:quantumFull} also applies here.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Quantum Regular F-S Concentration}
\label{alg:quantumRegular}
\small
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Function{Quantum Regular F-S Route}{$in,p,m$}\newline
//$in$: $n$-bit array that marks up to $m$ active inputs.\newline
//$n=m*p$: number of inputs.\newline
//$R_j, 1\le j\le p$: linked lists of active inputs.\newline
//$m$: number of outputs.\newline
//The size fields of $R_j, 1\le j\le p$ are cleared.
\While {$(i,j)\gets GroverSearch(in)$}
\State {$R_j.insert(i); R_j.size \scriptstyle{+\!+}$}
\EndWhile
\For{$j\gets1:p$}
\If{$R_j.size>m-m/p$} //case (a)
\State Pair inputs in $R_j\cap W_j$ with outputs in $U_j;$
\State Pair inputs in $\!\!\underset{i\ne j} {\cup} R_i$ with unpaired outputs in $U_j;$
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $R_{j-1}$ with outputs in $U_{j+1};$
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $\!\!\underset{i\ne j, i\ne j-1} {\cup}\!\! R_i$ with outputs in $U_{j-1};$
\State Pair unpaired inputs in $R_j$ with unpaired outputs in $V_j;$
\State \textbf{return}
\Else $\,$//case (b)
\State $a[j]\gets(m/p\le |R_j|);$
//$p$-bit array for reindexing
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $r\gets$ prefixSum$(a);$
\State $d[j]\gets a[j] r[j]+(\neg a[j])(s[j]+r[p]); {1\le j\le p;}$
//new indices
\State $R'_{d[j]}\gets R_j$
\For{$j\gets 2:r[p]$}
\State Take first $m/p$ elements from $R'_j$ and place them in $P'_j;$
\State Pair inputs in $P'_j$ with outputs in $U'_{j-1};$
\State $Q'_j\gets R'_j\backslash P'_j;$
\EndFor
\State Pair inputs in $R'_{r[p]+1},R'_{r[p]+2},...,R'_{p}, R'_1,Q_2,Q_3,...,Q_{r[p]}$
\State with outputs in $U'_{r[p]},$ $U'_{r[p]+1},...,U'_{p};$
\vspace{2pt}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-5pt}
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{section:conclusion}
\noindent
We have presented three quantum algorithms, all with smaller time complexity as compared to their classical counterparts.
For full-capacity fat-and-slim concentrator, our quantum algorithm has a time complexity of $O(\sqrt{nm}\log m)$ versus the classical routing algorithm complexity of $O(n)$.
Thus, in this case, our quantum algorithm has a smaller time complexity if
$m = n^\mu, 0 < \mu < 1$.
For regular fat-and-slim and bounded-capacity fat-and-slim concentrators, similar speed-up formulas apply as established in the paper.
It should be noted in both classical and quantum domains, search process can be speeded up by replicating computational resources.
In the case of a classical search algorithm, using $k$ processors results in a factor of $k$ reduction in time complexity from $O(n)$ to $O(n/k)$.
On the other hand, in the quantum domain, this reduction in time will be limited to a factor $\sqrt{k}$.
Thus, the separation in time complexities between the classical and quantum domains become more pronounced only when $k$ is small.
As for future research, we will investigate the possibility of quantum accelerations for other concentrator architectures and explore other quantum algorithms such as quantum walk in our research. Another related problem where a similar approach might be helpful is routing on packet switching networks. These and other related problems will be further explored in another paper.
\vspace{-10pt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Scalar mesons -- mesons with the quantum numbers of the vacuum -- are most fascinating objects in
the field of strong interactions. The lowest-mass scalar meson $f_0(500)$, traditionally often
called $\sigma$, reflects the symmetry breaking of strong interactions and plays the role of the
Higgs particle in quantum chromodynamics (QCD)~\cite{Nambu:1960xd,Nambu:2009zza}. The $f_0(500)$ is
accompanied by further low-mass scalar mesons filling a nonet of particles with spin $J=0$ and
parity $P=+1$: The three charge states $a_0(980)$, the four $K^*_0(700)$, and the two isoscalar
mesons $f_0(980)$, $f_0(500)$ are supposed to be {\it dynamically generated} from meson-meson
interactions~\cite{Pelaez:2003dy}. Alternatively - or complementary - these mesons are interpreted
as four-quark or tetraquark states~\cite{Jaffe:1976ig}.
The continued quest for scalar isoscalar mesons at higher masses is driven by a
prediction -- phrased for the first time nearly 50 years ago~\cite{Fritzsch:1972jv,Fritzsch:1975tx} -- that QCD
allows for the existence of quark-less particles called glueballs. Their existence is a direct
consequence of the nonabelian nature of QCD and of confinement. However, the strength of the strong
interaction in the confinement region forbids analytical solutions of full QCD. First quantitative
estimates of glueball masses were given in a bag model \cite{DeGrand:1975cf}. Closer to QCD are
calculations on a lattice. In quenched approximation, i.e. when $q\bar q$ loops are neglected, the
lowest-mass glueball is predicted to have scalar quantum numbers, and to have a mass in the 1500 to
1800\,MeV range~\cite{Bali:1993fb,Morningstar:1999rf,Athenodorou:2020ani};
unquenching lattice QCD predicts a scalar
glueball at ($1795\pm 60)$\,MeV~\cite{Gregory:2012hu}. Exploiting a QCD Hamiltonian in Coulomb
gauge generating an instantaneous interaction, Szczepaniak and Swanson~\cite{Szczepaniak:2003mr}
calculate the low-lying glueball masses with no free parameters. The scalar glueball of lowest mass
is found at $1980$\,MeV. Huber, Fischer and Sanchis-Alepuz~\cite{Huber:2020ngt} calculate the
glueball spectrum using a parameter-free fully self-contained truncation of Dyson-Schwinger and
Bethe-Salpeter equations and determine the lowest-mass scalar glueball to ($1850\pm 130$)\,MeV.
In gravitational (string) theories -- an analytic approach to QCD -- glueballs are predicted as
well~\cite{Rinaldi:2021dxh} at 1920\,MeV. Glueballs are predicted consistently within
a variety of approaches to QCD. They seem to be a safe prediction.
Scalar glueballs are embedded into the spectrum of scalar isoscalar mesons. These have isospin
$I=0$, positive $G$-parity (decaying into an even number of pions), their total spin $J$ vanishes,
their parity $P$ and their C-parity are positive: $(I^G)J^{PC}=(0^+)0^{++}$. Scalar glueballs have
the same quantum numbers as scalar isoscalar mesons and may mix with them. In quark models, mesons
are described as bound states of a quark and an antiquark. Their quantum numbers are often defined
in spectroscopic notation by the orbital angular momentum of the quark and the antiquark $L$, the
total quark spin $S$, and the total angular momentum $J$. Scalar mesons have
$^{2S+1} L_J=\,^3\hspace{-0.4mm}P_0$.
Experimentally, the scalar glueball was searched for intensively but no generally accepted view has
emerged. The most promising reaction to search for glueballs are radiative decays of $J/\psi$. In
this process, the dominant contribution to direct photon production is expected to come from
the process $J/\psi\to \gamma$ plus two gluons, where the final-state hadrons are
produced by the hadronization of the two gluons. QCD predicts the two gluons to interact
forming glueballs -- if they exist. Lattice gauge calculations predict a branching ratio
for radiative $J/\psi$ decays to produce the scalar glueball of ($3.8\pm0.9$)$10^{-3}$
\cite{Gui:2012gx}. This is a significant fraction of all radiative $J/\psi$ decays, (8.8\er1.1)\%. There was hence great excitement when a broad bump in the radiatively produced $\eta\eta$
mass spectrum~\cite{Edwards:1981ex} was discovered by the Crystal Ball collaboration at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator (even though with tensor quantum numbers). However, a resonance
with the reported properties was not reproduced by any other experiment. The DM2 collaboration
reported a strong peak at 1710\,MeV in the $K\bar K$ invariant mass
distribution~\cite{Augustin:1987fa}, a peak that is now known as $f_0(1710)$.
Data from the CLEO experiment on radiative $J/\psi$ decays into pairs of pseudoscalar mesons were studied
in a search for glueballs \cite{Dobbs:2015dwa} but no definite conclusions were obtained.
The data with the highest statistics
nowadays stem from BESIII in Bejing. The partial wave amplitudes for $J/\psi$ radiative decays
into $\pi^0\pi^0$ \cite{Ablikim:2015umt} and $K_SK_S$ \cite{Ablikim:2018izx} were determined in fits to
the data in slices in the invariant mass of the two outgoing mesons. Data on $J/\psi\to
\gamma\eta\eta$ \cite{Ablikim:2013hq} and $J/\psi\to\gamma\phi\omega$~\cite{Ablikim:2012ft} were
presented including an interpretation within a partial wave analysis. In the reactions
$J/\psi\to\gamma 2\pi^+2\pi^-$~\cite{Bai:1999mm,Bugg:2009ch} and
$J/\psi\to\gamma\omega\omega$~\cite{Ablikim:2006ca}, the
$2\pi^+2\pi^-$ and into $\omega\omega$ branching ratios of contributing
resonances were deduced from a smaller data sample.
A new understanding of the spectrum of light-quark scalar mesons emerged from the results obtained
with the Crystal Barrel experiment at the Low-Energy Antiproton Ring at CERN. In $\bar p p$
annihilation at rest, annihilation into $3\pi^0$~\cite{Amsler:1995gf},
$\pi^0\eta\eta$~\cite{Amsler:1995bz}, $\pi^0\eta\eta'$~\cite{Amsler:1994ah}, and
$\pi^0K_LK_L$~\cite{Abele:1996nn} was studied. These data established the existence of the
$f_0(1500)$ resonance; the existence of the $f_0(1370)$ had been proposed in
1966~\cite{Bettini:1966zz} but its existence was accepted only after its rediscovery at LEAR in
$\bar pp$~\cite{Amsler:1994rv} and $\bar pn$ annihilation~\cite{Abele:2001js,Abele:2001pv}.
Central production in hadron-hadron collisions is most\-ly interpreted as collision of two Pomerons,
and this process is supposed to be gluon-rich. Data on this reaction were taken at CERN by the
WA102 collaboration that reported results on $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $ K_SK_S$ \cite{Barberis:1999cq},
$\eta\eta$ \cite{Barberis:2000cd}, $\eta\eta^{\prime}$ and $\eta^{\prime}\eta^{\prime}$
\cite{Barberis:1999id}, and into four pions \cite{Barberis:2000em}. The GAMS collaboration
reported a study of the $\pi^0\pi^0$ system in the charge-exchange reactions $\pi^-p\to
\pi^0\pi^0\,n, \eta\eta\,n$ and $\eta\eta'\,n$ at 100\,GeV/c~\cite{Alde:1998mc}
in a mass range up to 3\,GeV. The charge exchange
reaction $\pi^-p\to K_SK_S\,n$ was studied at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory~\cite{Longacre:1986fh}. An energy-depen\-dent partial-wave analysis based on a slightly
increased data set was reported in Ref.~\cite{Lindenbaum:1991tq}. A reference for any analysis in
light-meson spectroscopy are the amplitudes for $\pi\pi\to\pi\pi$ elastic
scattering~\cite{Grayer:1974cr}. The low-mass $\pi\pi$ interactions are known precisely from the
$K_{\rm e4}$ of charged kaons~\cite{Batley:2010zza}. In these experiments, a series of scalar
isoscalar mesons was found. The Review of Particle Properties (RPP)~\cite{Zyla:2020zbs} lists nine
states; only the five states at lower mass are considered to be established. None of these states
sticks out and identifies itself as the scalar glueball of lowest mass.
Amsler and Close~\cite{Amsler:1995tu,Amsler:1995td} suggested that the three scalar resonances
$f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ could originate from a mixing of the scalar glueball with
a scalar $\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and a scalar $s\bar s$ state. A large number of
follow-up papers suggested different mixing schemes based on these three mesons. We mention here
one recent paper~\cite{Guo:2020akt} that takes into account the production characteristics of these
three mesons in radiative $J/\psi$ decays. However, doubts arose whether a comparatively narrow
$f_0(1370)$ exists \cite{Klempt:2007cp,Ochs:2013vxa}. Klempt and Zaitsev~\cite{Klempt:2007cp}
suggested that the resonances $f_0(1500)$, $f_0(1710)$, $f_0(2100)$ could be SU(3) octet states
while the singlet states merge to a continuous scalar background. This continuous scalar background
was interpreted as scalar glueball by Minkowski and Ochs (and called red
dragon)~\cite{Minkowski:1998mf}. In Refs.~\cite{Anisovich:1996zj,Anisovich:1997ye}, a fourth
isoscalar scalar meson was identified at $1530^{+\ 90}_{-250}$\,MeV with $560\pm 140$\,MeV width.
This broad state was interpreted as glueball. Bugg, Peardon and Zou~\cite{Bugg:2000zy} suggested
that the four known mesons $f_0(1500)$, $f_2(1980)$, $f_0(2105)$, $\eta(2190)$ should be interpreted as
scalar, tensor, excited scalar and pseudoscalar glueball. Recent reviews of scalar mesons and the scalar
glueball can be found elsewhere \cite{Klempt:2007cp,Mathieu:2008me,Crede:2008vw,Ochs:2013gi,Llanes-Estrada:2021evz}.
\section{Our data base}
It seems obvious that the scalar glueball can be identified reliably only once the spectrum of
scalar mesons is understood into which the glueball is embedded. Decisive for the interpretation
are the data on radiative $J/\psi$ decays. But many experiments contribute to our knowledge on
scalar isoscalar mesons and provide additional constraints. In this coupled-channel analysis we fit
meson-pairs in $S$-wave from radiative $J/\psi$ decays and include the $S$-wave contributions to
$\pi\pi$ elastic scattering~\cite{Alde:1998mc} and $\pi\pi\to
K_SK_S$~\cite{Longacre:1986fh,Lindenbaum:1991tq}, the CERN-Munich~\cite{Grayer:1974cr} data and the
$K_{\rm e4}$~\cite{Batley:2010zza} data. Further, we use 15 Dalitz plots for different reactions
from $\bar pN$ annihilation at rest
\cite{Amsler:1995gf,Amsler:1995bz,Abele:1996nn}, \cite{Amsler:2003bq}-\nocite{Abele:1999tf
Amsler:1994pz,Abele:1997qy,Wittmack:diss,Abele:1999en}\cite{Abele:1998qd,Abele:1999ac,Abele:1999fw}.
The real and imaginary parts of the mass-dependent $S$-wave amplitudes were derived for $J/\psi\to
\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ in Ref.~\cite{Ablikim:2015umt} and $J/\psi\to \gamma K_{S} K_{S}$ in
Ref.~\cite{Ablikim:2018izx}. Assuming dominance of resonances with spin $J=0$ and $J=2$, the
partial-wave analysis returned - for each mass bin - two possible solutions, called black ($b$) and red ($r$).
In some mass regions, the two amplitudes practically coincide. We assume continuity between regions
in which the two amplitudes are similar, and divide the full mass range into five regions: in three
regions, the two amplitudes are identical, in two regions, the red and black amplitudes are
different. Thus there are four sets of amplitudes, $(r,r); (r,b); (b,r); (b,b)$. For the data on
$J/\psi\to\gamma K_{S} K_{S}$, we again define five mass regions and four sets of amplitudes. The
amplitudes ($r,r$) give the best $\chi^2$ for $\pi\pi$, and ($b,b$) for $K_{S} K_{S}$.
\begin{figure*}[pt]
\vspace{-40mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[scale=1.35,,tics=10]{fig_jpsi}
\put(62,87){\huge\bf a}
\put(62,66){\huge\bf b}
\put(62,45){\huge\bf c}
\put(62,24){\huge\bf d}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{-10mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{jpsi}Number of events in the $S$-wave as functions of
the two-meson invariant mass from the reactions
$\jpsi\to \gamma$ $\pi^0\pi^0$ (a), $K_SK_S$~(b), $\eta\eta$ (c),
$\phi\omega$ (d). (a) and (b) are based on the analysis of
$1.3\cdot 10^9$ $J/\psi$ decays, (c) and (d) on $0.225\cdot 10^9$ $J/\psi$ decays.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[pt]
\vspace{-10mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[scale=0.6,tics=10]{fig_phase}
\put(81,82){\huge a}
\put(81,40){\huge b}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{jpsi2}Interference of two $K$-matrix poles for $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1500)$
with a relative phase of $55^\circ$ (a) and $235^\circ$ (b). Shown is the intensity in arbitrary units
as a function of the two-meson invariant mass.
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{jpsi}a,b shows the $\pi^0\pi^0$~\cite{Ablikim:2015umt} and
$K_SK_S$~\cite{Ablikim:2018izx} invariant mass distributions from radiative $J/\psi$ decays for the
best set of amplitudes. The ``data'' are represented by triangles with error bars, the solid curve
represents our fit. (i) The $\pi^0\pi^0$ invariant mass distribution shows rich structures. So far, no
attempt has been reported to understand the data within an energy-dependent partial-wave analysis.
The mass distribution starts with a wide enhancement at about 500\,MeV and a narrow peak at
975\,MeV: with $f_0(500)$ and $f_0(980)$. A strong enhancement follows peaking at 1450\,MeV, and a
second minimum at 1535\,MeV. Three more maxima at 1710\,MeV, 2000\,MeV, and 2400\,MeV are separated by a deep minimum at about 1850 MeV and a weak one at 2285\,MeV.
(ii) The $K_SK_S$ invariant mass
distribution exhibits a small peak at 1440\,MeV immediately followed by a sharp dip at 1500\,MeV.
The subsequent enhancement - with a peak position of 1730\,MeV - has a significant low-mass
shoulder. There is a wide minimum at 1940\,MeV followed by a further structure peaking at
2160\,MeV. It is followed by a valley at 2360\,MeV, a small shoulder above
2400\,MeV, and a smooth continuation. (iii) Data on $J/\psi\to \gamma\eta\eta$ \cite{Ablikim:2013hq} and
$J/\psi\to\gamma\phi\omega$~\cite{Ablikim:2012ft} were published including an interpretation within a partial
wave analysis. We extracted the $S$-wave contributions (Fig.~\ref{jpsi}c,d) (for ~\cite{Ablikim:2012ft} only
the contribution of the dominant threshold resonance), and included them in the fits. The $\eta\eta$ mass distribution
(Fig.~\ref{jpsi}d) resembles the one observed at SLAC~\cite{Edwards:1981ex}, but now greatly improved
statistics. The BESIII data show an asymmetry that reveals the presence of at least two resonances,
$f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$. The sharp drop-off above 1.75\,GeV indicates destructive interference
between two resonances. (iv) The
$\phi\omega$ mass distribution exhibits a strong threshold enhancement. It was
assigned to a scalar resonance at (1795\er 7) MeV~\cite{Ablikim:2012ft} but the data can also be
described by a resonance at 1770\,MeV that was suggested earlier~\cite{Bugg:2004xu}
and that is required in our fit.
The two figures \ref{jpsi}a,b look very different. Obviously, interference between neighboring
states plays a decisive role. Figures~\ref{jpsi2}a,b simulate the observed pattern: in
Fig.~\ref{jpsi2}a the low-mass part of $f_0(1500)$ interferes constructively with $f_0(1370)$ and leads to a
sharp drop-off at its high-mass part. In
Fig.~\ref{jpsi2}b, the $f_0(1500)$ is responsible for the dip. The phase difference between the
amplitudes for $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1500)$ in figures \ref{jpsi2}a,b changes by $180^\circ$ when going from $\pi\pi$ to
$K\bar K$. This is an important observation: these two states do not behave like a $\frac{1}{\sqrt
2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and a $s\bar s$ state but rather like a singlet and an octet state, like
$\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}(u\bar u+d\bar d+s\bar s)$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt 6}(u\bar u+d\bar d -2s\bar s)$.
This change in the sign of the coupling constant in $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar K$ decays for $f_0(1500)$ with respect to
the $f_0(1370)$ ``background'' has first been noticed in Ref.~\cite{Minkowski:2004xf}.
The two resonances $f_0(1710)$ and $f_0(1770)$ form the large enhancement in figure~\ref{jpsi}b
while their contribution to figure~\ref{jpsi}a is much smaller. This again is due to interference:
the two resonances interfere destructively in the $\pi\pi$ channel and constructively in the $K\bar K$
channel. Again, the $f_0(1710)$ and $f_0(1770)$ wave functions must contain significant
$u\bar u+d\bar d$ and $s\bar s$ contributions of opposite signs: there must one singlet-like
and one octet-like state.
In $J/\psi$ radiative decays, the final-state mesons are produced by two gluons in the initial state.
It is illuminating to compare the $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar K$ mass distributions shown
in Figs.~\ref{jpsi} with the ones produced when an
$s\bar s$ pair forms the initial state.
Ropertz, Hanhart and Kubis~\cite{Ropertz:2018stk}
analyzed the $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar K$
systems produced in the reaction $\overline{B}^0_s\to J/\psi \pi^+\pi^-$ \cite{Aaij:2014emv} and
$\overline{B}^0_s\to J/\psi K^+K^-$ \cite{Aaij:2017zgz}. Here, the $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar K$ systems
stem from an $s\bar s$ pair recoiling against the $J/\psi$.
The pion and the kaon form factors are dominated by $f_0(980)$, followed by a bump-drop-off
($\pi\pi$) or peak ($K\bar K$) structure at 1500\,MeV and a small enhancement just below
2000\,MeV. The form factors (as well as the mass spectra) are
decisively different from the spectra shown in Fig.~\ref{jpsi}
that originate from two interacting gluons and that are dominated by a large intensity in the
1700 to 2100\,MeV mass range.
\section{The PWA}
The different sets of partial-wave amplitudes were fitted with a modified $K$-matrix
approach~\cite{Anisovich:2011zz} that takes into account dispersive corrections and the Adler zero.
We fit data in which resonances are produced and data in which they are
formed in scattering processes.
The scattering amplitude between the channels $a$ and $b$ is
described as
\be
A_{ab}=\sum\limits_{\alpha,\beta} g^{R(\alpha )}_a d_{\alpha\alpha}
D_{\alpha\beta}g^{L(\beta)}_b\,,
\label{ampl}
\ee
while the production of a resonance is given by a P-vector amplitude:
\beq
\hspace{-6mm}A_{b}\!=\!\sum\limits_{\alpha,\beta} \tilde P^{(\alpha )}
d_{\alpha\alpha} D_{\alpha\beta}g^{L(\beta)}_b~~\tilde P\!=\!\left
(\Lambda_1,\ldots\Lambda_n,F_1,\ldots\right )\,.
\label{P-vector}
\eeq
The $\Lambda_\alpha$ are production couplings of the resonances,
the $F_j$ represent non-resonant transitions from the initial to
the final states, and the $g^{R(\alpha )}_a$ and $g^{L(\alpha)}_b$ are right-hand ($R$)
and left-hand ($L$) coupling constants of the state $\alpha$ into channels
$a$ and $b$. Here the ``state" represents either the bare resonant
state or a non-resonant contribution. For resonances
the vectors of right-hand and left-hand vertices are identical (but transposed), for
non-resonant contributions, the vertices can be different, even the sign can differ. The
$d_{\alpha\alpha}$ are elements of the diagonal matrix of the
propagators $\hat d$:
\be
\hat d=diag\left
(\frac{1}{M^2_1-s},\ldots,\frac{1}{M^2_N-s},R_1,R_2 \ldots\right),
\ee
where the first $N$ elements describe propagators of
resonances and $R_\alpha$ are propagators of non-resonant
contributions. Here, these are constants and or a pole well below the
$\pi\pi$ threshold.
The block $D_{\alpha\beta}$ describes the transition between the
bare state $\alpha$ and the bare state $\beta$ (with the propagator
of the $\beta$ state included). For this block one can write the
equation (with summation over the double indices $\gamma, \eta$)
\be
D_{\alpha\beta}= D_{\alpha\gamma}\sum\limits_j
B^j_{\gamma\eta}d_{\eta\beta}+d_{\alpha\beta} \label{eqbs}.
\ee
The elements $B^j_{\gamma\eta}$ describe the loop diagrams of
the channel $j$ between states $\gamma$ and $\eta$:
\be
B^j_{\alpha\beta}=
\int\frac{ds'}{\pi}\frac{g^{R(\alpha)}_j\rho_j(s',m_{1j},m_{2j})g^{L(\beta)}_j}{s'-s-i0}
\;.
\label{loop}
\ee
In matrix form, Eqn.~(\ref{eqbs}) can be written as
\be
\hat D= \hat D\hat B\hat d+\hat d \qquad \hat D= \hat
d(I-\hat B\hat d)^{-1},
\ee
where the elements of the $B_{\alpha\beta}$ matrix are equal to the sum
of the loop diagrams between states $\alpha$ and $\beta$:
\be
\hat B_{\alpha\beta}=\sum\limits_j B^j_{\alpha\beta}\;.
\ee
If only the imaginary part of the integral from Eqn.~(\ref{loop}) is
taken into account, Eqn.~(\ref{ampl})
corresponds to the standard $K$-matrix amplitude. In this case, the energy
dependent non-resonant terms can be described by left-hand
vertices only, the right-hand vertices can be set to 1.
Here, the real part of the loop diagrams is taken into account, and we
parameterize the non-resonant contributions
either as constants or as a pole below all relevant thresholds. The latter
parameterization reproduces well the projection of the $t$ and
$u$-channel exchange amplitudes into particular partial waves.
The elements of the
$B^j_{\alpha\beta}$ are calculated using one subtraction taken at the channel
threshold $M_{j}=(m_{1j}+m_{2j})$:
\be
B^{j}_{\alpha\beta}(s)&=&B^j_{\alpha\beta}(M_{j}^2)+(s-M_j^2)\nn&\times&
\int\limits_{M_j^2}^\infty \frac{ds'}{\pi}
\frac{g^{R(\alpha)}_j\rho_j(s',m_{1j},m_{2j})g^{L(\beta)}_j}{(s'-s-i0)(s'-M^2_{j})}.
\label{D9} \ee
Our parameterization of the non-resonant contributions allows us to rewrite
the $\hat B$-matrix as
\be
B^{j}_{\alpha\beta}(s)=g^{R(\alpha)}_a\left ( b_0^j+ (s-M_j^2)
b_j(s)\right ) g^{L(\beta)}_b\,,
\label{bfull}
\ee
where the parameters $b^j$ depend on decay channels only:
\be
b_j(s)=\int\limits_{M_j^2}^\infty \frac{ds'}{\pi}
\frac{\rho_j(s',m_{1a},m_{2a})}{(s'-s-i0)(s'-M^2_{j})}\,.
\label{bj}
\ee
In this form the $D$-matrix approach would be equivalent to the $K$-matrix
approach when the substitution
\be
i\rho_j(s)\to b_0^j+ (s-M_j^2) b_j(s)
\ee
is made. The Adler zero (set to $s_A=m_\pi ^2/2$) is introduced by a modification of
the phase volume, with $s_{A_0}$=0.5\,GeV$^2$:
\be
\rho_1(s,m_\pi,m_\pi)=\frac{s-s_A}{s+s_{A_0}}\sqrt{\frac{s-4m^2_\pi}{s}}\,.
\ee
Branching ratios of a resonance into the final state $\alpha$
were determined by defining a Breit-Wigner amplitude in the form
\be
A_\alpha=\frac{f\,g_{J/\psi}\ g_\alpha}{M_0 ^2-s-i\,
f\sum\limits_\alpha g_{\alpha}^2 \ \rho^{\alpha}(s)}
\ee
The Breit-Wigner mass $M_0$ and the parameter $f$ are fitted to reproduce
the $T$-matrix pole position. For all states the factor $f$ was between
0.95 and 1.10; the Breit-Wigner mass exceeded the pole mass by $10-20$\,MeV.
The decay couplings $g^{\alpha}$ and production couplings
$g_{J/\psi}$ were calculated as residues at the pole
position. Then we use the definition (Eqn.~(49.16) in \cite{Zyla:2020zbs})
\be
\hspace{-8mm}M_{0}\Gamma^{\alpha} = (g^{\alpha})^2 \ \rho^{\alpha}
({M_{0}}^{2}); &\qquad
BR^\alpha = \Gamma^{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\rm BW}.
\label{br}
\ee
Branching ratios into final states with little phase space only were determined by integration
over the (distorted) Breit-Wigner function. This procedure is used in
publications of the Bonn-Gatchina PWA group and was compared to
other definitions in Ref.~\cite{Nikonov:2018pr}.
The $K$-matrix had couplings to $\pi\pi$, $K\bar K$, $\eta\eta$, $\eta\eta'$,
$\phi\omega$, to $\omega\omega$, and to the four-pion phase-space representing unseen multibody
final states. The $\omega\omega$ and the four-pion intensities are treated as {\it missing} intensity.
Fits with $K$-matrix poles above 1900\,MeV were found to be unstable: the CERN-Munich data on elastic scattering
and the GAMS data on $\pi\pi\to \pi^0\pi^0, \eta\eta$ and $\eta\eta'$ stop at about 1900\,MeV.
For resonances above, only the product of the coupling constants for production and decay can
be determined. Therefore
we used $K$-matrix poles for resonances below and Breit-Wigner amplitudes above 1900\,MeV.
The latter amplitudes had the form
\be
A_{\rm BW}=\frac{g_{\rm BW}}{M_{\rm BW} ^2-s-i\,M_{\rm BW}\,\Gamma_{\rm BW}}\,.
\label{BW}
\ee
\begin{table}[pt]
\caption{\label{chisquare}$\chi^2/N_{\rm data}$ contribution from radiative $J/\psi$ decays, charge
exchange reactions, $K_{\rm e4}$ decays, and Dalitz plots from $\bar pN$ annihilation at rest.
Dalitz plots are given by the number of events in cells, $N$ is the number of cells. }
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{|lccc||lccc|}
\hline\hline
$J/\Psi\!\to$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} $\chi^2/N$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} $N$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} Ref. & $\bar p p(liq)\to$\hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} $\chi^2/N$ \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} $N$ \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} Ref. \\\hline
$\gamma \pi^0\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.28 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 167 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Ablikim:2015umt}& $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.40 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 7110\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm}\cite{Amsler:1995gf} \\
$\gamma K_S K_S$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.21 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 121 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Ablikim:2018izx}& $\pi^0\eta\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.28 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 3595\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm}\cite{Amsler:1995bz} \\
$\gamma \eta\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.80 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 21 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Ablikim:2013hq}& $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.23 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 3475\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Amsler:1994pz} \\
$\gamma \phi\omega$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.2 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 17 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Ablikim:2012ft}& $\pi^+\pi^0\pi^-$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.24 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm}1334\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1997qy}\\
\cline{1-4}
$\pi^-\pi^+\!\!\to$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} & $K_LK_L\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.08 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 394\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1996nn}\\
\cline{1-4}
$\pi^0\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.89 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 110 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Alde:1998mc}& $K^+K^-\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.97 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm}521\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1999en}\\
$\eta\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.67 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 15 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Alde:1998mc}& $K_SK^\pm\pi^\mp$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 2.13 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 771\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Wittmack:diss} \\
$\eta\eta'$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.23 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 9 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Alde:1998mc}&$K_LK^\pm\pi^\mp$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.76 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 737\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1998qd}\\
\cline{5-8}
$K^+K^-$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.06 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 35 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Lindenbaum:1991tq}& $\bar p n(liq)\to$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \\
\cline{5-8}
$\pi^+\pi^-$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.32 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 845 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Grayer:1974cr}& $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^-$\hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.39 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 823 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1999tf} \\
$\delta(elastic)$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 0.91 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 17 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Batley:2010zza}& $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^-$\hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.57 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 825\hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Abele:1997qy} \\
\cline{1-4}
$\bar p p(gas)\to$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} & $K_SK^-\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.33 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 378 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Wittmack:diss} \\
\cline{1-4}
$\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.36 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 4891 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Amsler:2003bq} & $K_SK_S\pi^-$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.62 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} 396 \hspace{-3mm}&\hspace{-3mm} \cite{Wittmack:diss} \\
$\pi^0\eta\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.32 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1182 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Amsler:2003bq}\hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \\
$\pi^0\pi^0\eta$ \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 1.24 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} 3631 \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \cite{Abele:1999tf}\hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \hspace{-5mm}&\hspace{-5mm} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
The total amplitude was thus written as the sum of the $P$-vector
amplitude (Eqn. \ref{P-vector}) and a summation over for Breit-Wigner amplitudes (Eqn.~\ref{BW}).
Table~\ref{chisquare} gives the $\chi^2$ of our best fit for the various data sets. This fit requires
contributions from ten resonances. Their masses and widths are given in
Table~\ref{MW}, their decay properties in Table~\ref{decays}. The errors stem from the spread of
results from different sets of $S$-wave amplitudes \cite{Ablikim:2015umt,Ablikim:2018izx}, and
cover the spread of results when the background amplitude was altered (constant transition
amplitudes or left-hand pole in the $K$-matrix), when the number of high-mass resonances was changed
(between 7 and 11), and part of the data were excluded from the fit. The resulting
values are compared to values listed in the RPP~\cite{Zyla:2020zbs}. The overall agreement is rather good. Only the five low-mass resonances are classified as
established in the RPP, the other states needed confirmation. We emphasize that the solution
presented here was developed step by step, independent from the RPP results. The comparison was
made only when the manuscript was drafted.
The sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes is not manifestly unitary. However, radiative $J/\psi$ decays
and the two-body decays of high-mass resonances are far from the unitarity limit. To check possible
systematic errors due to the use of Breit-Wigner amplitudes, we replace the four resonances
$f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$, $f_0(1710)$, $f_0(1770)$ by Breit-Wigner amplitudes (imposing
mass and width of $f_0(1370)$). The fit returns properties of these resonances within the errors
quoted in Table \ref{MW} and~\ref{decays}.
The four lower-mass resonances, one scalar state at about 1750\,MeV and the $f_0(2100)$, are
mandatory for the fit: if one of them is excluded, no acceptable description of the data is
obtained. Only one state, $f_0(1770)$, is ``new''. Based on different peak positions,
Bugg~\cite{Bugg:2004xu} had suggested that $f_0(1710)$ should have a close-by state called
$f_0(1770)$. When $f_0(1710)$ and $f_0(1770)$ are replaced by one resonance, the $\chi^2/N_{\rm
data}$ increases by 58/167 for $J/\psi\to\gamma\pi^0\pi^0$, 8/121 for $J/\psi\to\gamma K_SK_S$, 50/21
for $J/\psi\to\gamma\eta\eta$, or by (58, 8, 50) in short. When $f_0(2020)$, $f_0(2200)$, or
$f_0(2330)$ are removed, the $\chi^2$ increases by (48, 6, 5); (30,6,1); (23, 5, 0). In addition,
there is a very significant deterioration of the fit to the Dalitz plots for $\bar pp$ annihilation when
only one scalar resonance in the 1700 to 1800\,MeV range is admitted. When
high-mass poles are removed, a small change in $\chi^2$ is observed also in the data on
$\bar pp$ annihilation due to a change of the interference
between neighboring poles. All ten states contribute to the reactions studied here.
\section{The flavor wave functions}
The interference pattern in Fig.~\ref{jpsi}a,b suggests that the
two pairs of resonances, $f_0(1370)$-$f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ -$f_0(1770)$, have wave flavor functions
in which the $u\bar u+d\bar d$ and $s\bar s$ components have opposite signs.
Vector ($\omega, \phi$) and tensor ($f_2(1270), f_2'(1525)$) mesons show {\it ideal} mixing, with
approximately $1/\sqrt{2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and $s\bar s$ configurations. (We
neglect the small mixing angles in this discussion.) The mass difference is 200 to 250\,MeV, and
the $s\bar s$ mesons decay preferably into $K\bar K$. This is not the case for the scalar mesons:
The mass difference varies, and the $K\bar K / \pi\pi$ decay ratio is often less than
1 and never $\sim100$ like for $f_2'(1525)$. The decay pattern rules
out the possibility that the scalar resonances are states with a dominant
$s\bar s$ component.
Pseudoscalar mesons are different: the isoscalar mesons are better
approximated by SU(3) singlet and octet configurations. Pseudoscalar mesons have both,
$1/\sqrt{2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and $s\bar s$ components as evidenced by the comparable rates for
$J/\psi \to \eta\omega, \eta\phi, \eta^\prime\omega , \eta^\prime\phi$.
In view of these arguments and the interference pattern discussed above, we make a very simple
assumption: we assume that the upper states in Table~\ref{MW} all have large SU(3)-singlet components,
while the lower states have large octet components. For the two lowest-mass mesons, $f_0(500)$
and $f_0(980)$, Oller~\cite{Oller:2003vf} determined the mixing angle to be small,
(19\er5)$^\circ$: $f_0(500)$ is dominantly SU(3) singlet, $f_0(980)$ mainly octet.
We choose $f_0(1500)$ as reference state and plot a $(M^2, n)$ trajectory with $M_n
^2=1.483^2 + n\,a$\,GeV$^2, n=-1, 0, 1, \cdots$, where $a=1.08$ is the slope of the
trajectory. States close to this trajectory are assumed to be mainly SU(3) octet states. In
instanton-induced interactions, the separation in mass square of scalar singlet and octet mesons is
the same as the one for pseudoscalar mesons, but reversed~\cite{Klempt:1995ku}. Hence we calculate
a second trajectory $m_n^2= 1.483^2 + m_{\eta}^2 - m_{\eta'}^2 + n\,a$\,GeV$^2, n=-1, 0, 1,
\cdots$. The low-mass singlet mesons are considerably wider than their octet partners. With
increasing mass, the width of singlet mesons become smaller (except for $f_0(2020)$), those of
octet mesons increase (except for $f_0(2330)$).
Figure~\ref{regge} shows $(M^2, n)$ trajectories for ``mainly-octet'' and ``mainly-singlet'' resonances. The
agreement is not perfect but astonishing for a two-parameter prediction. The interpretation
neglects singlet-octet mixing; there could be tetraquark, meson-meson or glueball components that
can depend on $n$; final-state interactions are neglected; close-by states with the same decay
modes repel each other. There is certainly a sufficient number of reasons that may distort the
scalar-meson mass spectrum. In spite of this, the mass of none of the observed states is
incompatible with the linear trajectory by more than its half-width.
\begin{table*}[pt]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\caption{\label{MW}Pole masses and widths (in MeV) of scalar mesons. The RPP values are listed
as small numbers for comparison.\vspace{0mm}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline\hline
Name & $f_0(500)$ &$f_0(1370)$ &$f_0(1710)$ &$f_0(2020)$ &$f_0(2200)$ \\\hline
$M$ [MeV] & 410\er 20 & 1370\er 40 &1700\er 18 & 1925\er 25 & 2200\er 25 \\[-1.5ex]
&\scriptsize 400\tz 550 &\scriptsize 1200\tz 1500&\scriptsize 1704\er12&\scriptsize 1992\er 16 &\scriptsize 2187\er 14\\
$\Gamma$ [GeV] & 480\er30 & 390\er 40 & 255\er 25 & 320\er 35 & 150\er 30\\[-1.5ex]
&\scriptsize 400\tz 700 & \scriptsize 100\tz 500 &\scriptsize 123\er 18 & \scriptsize 442\er60 &\scriptsize $\sim 200$ \\
\hline\hline
Name & $f_0(980)$ &$f_0(1500)$ &$f_0(1770)$ &$f_0(2100)$ &$f_0(2330)$ \\\hline
$M$ [GeV] &1014\er 8 & 1483\,\er\,15 &1765\er 15 &2075\er 20 &2340\er 20\\[-1.5ex]
&\scriptsize 990\er 20 & \scriptsize 1506\,\er\,6& &\scriptsize 2086$^{+20}_{-24}$&\scriptsize$\sim$2330\\
$\Gamma$ [MeV]&71\er10 & 116\er 12 & 180\er 20 & 260\er 25 & 165\er 25\\[-1.5ex]
&\scriptsize 10\tz 100 & \scriptsize 112\er 9 & & \scriptsize 284$^{+60}_{-32}$ &\scriptsize 250\er 20\\
\hline\hline\vspace{-2mm}
\end{tabular}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\caption{\label{decays}$\jpsi$ radiative decay rates in $10^{-5}$ units. Small numbers represent the RPP values,
except the $4\pi$ decay modes that gives our estimates derived from~\cite{Bai:1999mm,Bugg:2009ch}.
The RPP values and those from Refs.~\cite{Bai:1999mm,Bugg:2009ch} are given
with small numbers and with two digits only; statistical and systematic errors are added
quadratically. The missing intensities in parentheses are our
estimates. Ratios for $K\bar K$ are calculated from $K_SK_S$ by multiplication with a factor 4.
Under $f_0(1750)$ we quote results listed in RPP as decays of $f_0(1710)$, $f_0(1750)$ and
$f_0(1800)$. The RPP values should be compared to the sum of our yields for $f_0(1710)$ and
$f_0(1770)$. BES~\cite{Ablikim:2018izx} uses two scalar resonances, $f_0(1710)$ and $f_0(1790)$ and
assigns most of the $K\bar K$ intensity to $f_0(1710)$. Likewise, the yield of three states at
higher mass should be compared to the RPP values for $f_0(2100)$ or $f_0(2200)$. \vspace{0mm} } \centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccccc|c|c|}
\hline\hline
$BR_{\jpsi\to\gamma f_0\to}$ & $\gamma{\pi\pi}$&$\gamma{K\bar K}$&$\gamma{\eta\eta}$&$\gamma{\eta\eta'}$&$\gamma{\omega\phi}$&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{missing}&total&unit\\[-2.ex]
&&&&&&\footnotesize$\gamma{4\pi}$&$\gamma\omega\omega$&&\\\hline\hline\\[-4ex]
$ f_0(500)$& 105\er20 &5\er 5&4\er 3 &$\sim$0&$\sim$0&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\sim$0}&114\er21&$\cdot 10^{-5}$\\\hline
$f_0(980)$&1.3\er 0.2 &0.8\er0.3&$\sim$0&$\sim$0&$\sim$0&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\sim$0}&2.1\er0.4&$\cdot 10^{-5}$\\\hline
$f_0(1370)$&38\er 10 &13\er4&3.5\er1&0.9\er 0.3&$\sim$0&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{14\er5}&69\er12&
\multirow{2}{*}{$\cdot 10^{-5}$}\\[-2.ex]
&&\scriptsize 42\er15&&&&\scriptsize 27\er9&&&\\\hline
$ f_0(1500)$&9.0\er1.7 &3\er1&1.1\er0.4&1.2\er0.5&$\sim$0&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{33\er8}&47\er9&
\multirow{2}{*}{$\cdot 10^{-5}$}\\[-1.ex]
&\scriptsize 10.9\er2.4&\scriptsize$2.9$\er1.2&\scriptsize $1.7^{+0.6}_{-1.4}$&\scriptsize 6.4$^{+1.0}_{-2.2}$&&\scriptsize 36\er9&&&\\\hline
$f_0(1710)$&6\er2 &23\er8&12\er4&6.5\er2.5&1\er 1&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{7\er3}&56\er10&
\multirow{3}{*}{$\cdot 10^{-5}$}\\
$f_0(1770)$&24\er8 &60\er20&7\er 1&2.5\er1.1&22\er4&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{65\er15}&181\er26&\\[-1.ex]
\scriptsize $f_0(1750)$&\scriptsize 38\er 5 &\scriptsize $99^{+10}_{\ -6}$&\scriptsize $24^{+12}_{\ -7}$&&\scriptsize 25\er 6&\scriptsize 97\er18&\scriptsize 31\er10&&\\\hline
$f_0(2020)$&42\er 10 &55\er25&10\er10&&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\scriptsize (38\er13)}&145\er32&
\multirow{4}{*}{$\cdot 10^{-5}$}\\
$f_0(2100)$&20\er 8 &32\er20&18\er15&&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\scriptsize (38\er13)}&108\er25&\\
$f_0(2200)$&5\er2 &5\er5&0.7\er0.4&&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\scriptsize (38\er13)}&49\er17&\\[-1.ex]
\scriptsize$ f_0(2100)/f_0(2200)$&\scriptsize 62\er10 &\scriptsize 109$^{+\ 8}_{-19}$&\scriptsize 11.0$^{+6.5}_{-3.0}$&&&\scriptsize 115\er41&&&\\\hline
$f_0(2330)$&4\er2 &2.5\er0.5&1.5\er0.4&&&&&8\er3&
\multirow{2}{*}{$\cdot 10^{-5}$}\\[-1.ex]
&&\scriptsize 20\er3&&&&&&&\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{30mm}
\end{table*}
Now we comment on the $\phi\omega$ decay mode. The prominent peak in Fig.~\ref{jpsi}d is ascribed
to $f_0(1770)\to\phi\omega$ decays. The BESIII collaboration interpreted the reaction as
doubly OZI suppressed
decay~\cite{Ablikim:2012ft}. We assume that all scalar mesons have a tetraquark component as
suggested by Jaffe \cite{Jaffe:1976ig} for the light scalar meson-nonet: the price in energy to
excite a $q\bar q$ pair to orbital angular momentum $L=1$ (to $^3P_0$) is similar to the energy
required to create a new $q\bar q$ pair with all four quarks in the $S$-state. Thus, a tetraquark
component in scalar mesons should not be surprising. The tetraquark component may decay to two mesons by
rearrangement of color; thus a small tetraquark component could have a significant impact on the
decays.
The $\phi$ and $\omega$ are orthogonal in SU(3), thus $f_0(1770)$ must have a large octet
component. The $\phi\omega$ decay is assigned to the $\frac{1}{\sqrt 6}(2u\bar ud\bar d - u\bar
us\bar s - d\bar ds\bar s)$ component that can easily disintegrate into $\phi\omega$. Scalar SU(3)
singlet mesons might have a $\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}(u\bar ud\bar d+ u\bar us\bar s+d\bar d s\bar s)$
component but their coupling to $\phi\omega$ is small since these two mesons cannot come from a
pure SU(3) singlet state.
The $\phi$ and $\omega$ are orthogonal in SU(3), thus $f_0(1770)$ must have a large octet
component. The $\phi\omega$ decay is assigned to the $\frac{1}{\sqrt 6}(2u\bar ud\bar d - u\bar
us\bar s - d\bar ds\bar s)$ component that can easily disintegrate into $\phi\omega$. Scalar SU(3)
singlet mesons might have a $\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}(u\bar ud\bar d+ u\bar us\bar s+d\bar d s\bar s)$
component but their coupling to $\phi\omega$ is small since these two mesons cannot come from a
pure SU(3) singlet state.
\begin{figure}[pt]\vspace{-5mm}
\hspace{-2mm}\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth,clip=on]{fig_traj}\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{\label{regge}Squared masses of mainly-octet and
mainly-singlet scalar isoscalar mesons as functions of a consecutive
number.}
\end{figure}
\section{Multiparticle decays}
Scalar mesons may also decay into multi-meson final states. This fraction is determined here as
missing intensity in the mass range where data on $\pi\pi$ elastic scattering are available. The
results are also given in Table~\ref{decays} and compared to earlier determinations. The reaction
$J/\psi\to \gamma \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ has been studied in Refs.~\cite{Bai:1999mm,Bugg:2009ch}.
The partial wave analyses determined $\sigma\sigma$ as main decay mode of the scalar mesons. Then,
the yields seen in $2\pi^+ 2\pi^-$ need to be multiplied by 9/4 to get the full four-pion yield.
These estimated yields for $J/\psi\to \gamma 4\pi$ are given in Table~\ref{decays} by small
numbers. Assuming different decay modes (like those reported in Table III in \cite{Abele:2001pv})
leads to small changes only in the four-pion yields. The $\omega\omega$ yield, determined in
$J/\psi\to \gamma \omega\omega$~\cite{Ablikim:2006ca}, is unexpectedly large and inconsistent with
the small $\rho^0\rho^0$ yield.
The missing intensity of $f_0(1370)$ reported here is not inconsistent with the branching ratio found in
radiative decays $J/\psi\to \gamma \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ but contradicts the findings from
$\bar pN$ annihilation into five pions and from central production of four pions. This discrepancy
can only be resolved by analyzing data on $J/\psi\to \gamma 4\pi$
and $\bar pN$ annihilation in a coupled-channel analysis. The inclusion of
both data sets seems to be of particular importance.
First analyses of the reactions $J/\psi\to \gamma \rho\rho$ and
$J/\psi\to \gamma \omega\omega$ \cite{Baltrusaitis:1985zi,Baltrusaitis:1985nd}
revealed only small scalar contributions.
A few scalar resonances found here were identified in $J/\psi\to \gamma
4\pi$~\cite{Bai:1999mm,Bugg:2009ch} and $J/\psi\to \gamma \omega\omega$~\cite{Ablikim:2006ca}.
We compare our missing intensities for $f_0(1710)$ and $f_0(1770)$ with the measured
$4\pi$ and the $\omega\omega$ decay modes assigned to $f_0(1750)$. Our
missing intensities are mostly well compatible with the measured $4\pi$ and $2\omega$ yields.
For the high-mass
states we distribute the measured $4\pi$ intensity equally among the
three resonances with masses close to the $f_0(2100)$. Our estimated intensities are
given in Table~\ref{decays}
in parentheses. Changing how the $4\pi$ intensity is distributed has little effect on the properties
of the peak shown in Fig.~\ref{fig}.
\section{The integrated yield}
Figure~\ref{fig} shows the yields of scalar SU(3)-singlet and octet resonances as functions of their mass,
for two-body decays in Fig.~\ref{fig}a and for all decay modes (except $6\pi$) in Fig.~\ref{fig}b.
SU(3)-octet mesons are produced in a limited mass range only. In this mass range, a clear peak shows up.
SU(3)-singlet mesons are produced over the full mass range but at about 1900\,MeV, their yield is enhanced.
Obviously, the two gluons from radiative $J/\psi$ decays couple to SU(3) singlet mesons in the full
mass range while octet mesons are formed only in a very limited mass range. But both,
octet and singlet scalar isoscalar mesons are formed preferentially in the 1700 to 2100\,MeV mass range.
The peak structure is unlikely to be explained as kinematics effect. Billoire {\it et al.}
\cite{Billoire:1978xt} have calculated the mass spectrum of two gluons produced in radiative
$J/\psi$ decay. For scalar quantum numbers, the distribution has a maximum at about 2100\,MeV and
goes down smoothly in both directions. K\"orner {\it et al.} \cite{Korner:1982vg} calculated the
(squared) amplitude to produce scalar mesons in radiative $J/\psi$ decays. The smooth amplitude
does not show any peak structure, neither.
\begin{figure*}[pt]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\begin{overpic}[scale=0.44]{jpsi_cont_2m}
\put(90,50){\huge a}
\end{overpic}&
\begin{overpic}[scale=0.44]{jpsi_cont_tot_eq}
\put(90,50){\huge b}
\end{overpic}
\end{tabular}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig}Yield of radiatively produced
scalar isoscalar octet mesons (open circles) and singlet (full
squares) mesons. a) Yield for $\pi\pi$, $K\bar K$, $\eta\eta$,
$\eta\eta'$, and $\phi\omega$ decays. b) Yield when $4\pi$ decays
and $\omega\omega$ are included.\vspace{5mm}
}
\end{figure*}
\section{The scalar glueball}
We suggest to interpret this enhancement as the scalar glueball of lowest mass. The scalar
isoscalar mesons that we assigned to the SU(3) octet seem to be produced only via their mixing with
the glueball. Indeed, $J/\psi\to\gamma f_0^8$ decays are expected to be suppressed: two gluons
cannot couple to one SU(3) octet meson. Mesons interpreted as singlet scalar isoscalar mesons are
produced over the full mass range. This finding supports strongly the interpretation of the scalar
mesons as belonging to SU(3) singlet and octet.
Figure~\ref{fig}a and \ref{fig}b are fitted with a Breit-Wigner amplitude. We determined the
yield of the scalar glueball as sum of the yield of ``octet" scalar mesons
plus the yield of ``singlet" scalar mesons above a suitably chosen phenomenological
background. Different background shapes were assumed. In the shown one, a background
of the form $x\cdot\exp{\{-\alpha M^2\}}$ ($x=149, \alpha=0.73$/GeV$^2$) was used.
For Fig.~\ref{fig}a, we find
$(M, \Gamma) = (1872, 332)$\,MeV, for Fig.~\ref{fig}b $(M, \Gamma) = (1856, 396)$\,MeV.
The results depend on the background chosen.
From the spread of results when the background function is changed, we estimate the uncertainty.
Our best estimate for the scalar glueball mass and width is given as
\be
\hspace{-5mm}M_G=(1865\pm 25^{\,+10}_{\,-30})\,{\rm MeV}\quad \Gamma_G= (370\pm
50^{\,+30}_{\,-20})\,{\rm MeV}\nonumber.
\ee
The integrated yields depend on the not well-known $4\pi$ and $\omega\omega$
(and unknown $6\pi$) contributions. The (observed) yield of octet scalar isoscalar mesons
plus the yield of singlet mesons above the background is determined to
\be
Y_{J/\psi\to\gamma G}=(5.8\pm 1.0)\,10^{-3}.\nonumber
\ee
The two states with the largest glueball component are $f_0(1770)$ and $f_0(2020)$. The
``mainly octet'' $f_0(1770)$ acquires a glueball component (and is no longer ``mainly octet'', only
the $q\bar q$ and tetraquarks components belong to the octet). We suggest their wave functions
could contain a small $q\bar q$ component (a $q\bar q$ {\it seed}), a small tetraquark component as
discussed above, and a large glueball component. At the present statistical level,
there seem to be no direct decays of the glueball to mesons; the
two gluons forming a glueball are seen only since the glueball
mixes with scalar mesons. We observe no ``extra'' state.
\section{Summary}
Summarizing, we have performed a first coupled-channel analysis of the $S$-wave partial-wave
amplitudes for $J/\psi$ radiative decays into $\pi\pi$, $K_SK_S$, $\eta\eta$, and $\phi\omega$
decays. The fits were constrained by a large number of further data. The observed pattern of peaks
and valleys in the $\pi\pi$ and $K \bar K$ invariant mass distributions depends critically on the
interference between neighboring states. We are convinced that only a coupled-channel analysis has
the sensitivity to identify reliably the position of resonances.
Scalar mesons seem to show up as mainly-singlet and mainly-octet states in SU(3). The masses of
both, of singlet and octet states, are compatible with a linear $(M^2, n)$ behavior.
Only the $f_0(500)$, mostly interpreted as dynamically generated $\pi\pi$ molecule,
does not fall onto the trajectory. The $\omega\phi$ decay mode of some scalar resonances suggests
that these may have a tetraquark component as it was suggested for the lowest-mass scalar-meson
nonet by Jaffe 45 years ago. Thus, a simple picture of the scalar-meson mass spectrum has emerged.
The yield of scalar mesons in radiative $J/\psi$ decays shows a significant structure that we
propose to interpret as scalar glueball.
The BESIII collaboration has recorded data with significantly improved quality and statistics.
It seems very important to repeat this analysis with the full statistics and
including all final states into which scalar mesons can decay.\\
\section*{Acknowledgement}
Funded by the NSFC and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation) through the funds provided to the Sino-German Collaborative
Research Center TRR110 “Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD”
(NSFC Grant No. 12070131001, DFG Project-ID 196253076 - TRR 110) and
the Russian Science Foundation (RSF 16-12-10267).
|
\section{Introduction}
An important application of the classical martingale representation theorem is in finance for calculating the hedging strategy when the risky asset price can be modeled as a diffusion process with a strictly positive volatility. For a portfolio of assets that are diffusions in $\mathbb{R}^n$, the volatility is captured by a diffusion matrix $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, and the hedging strategy is derived under the assumption that the matrix $\sigma\sigma^*$ is non-singular. The diffusion process is said to be non-degenerate in this case as studied extensively in prior work for hedging (see e.g. \cite{Klebaner,shreve2003}). On the other hand, recent advances in the martingale representation of degenerate diffusions \cite{ustunel1, ustunel2} make the calculation of a hedging strategy possible when the volatility matrix $\sigma\sigma^*$ is singular in view of analysis on Wiener space \cite{ustunel_book_1995}. We show that the replicating portfolio process can be characterized as a solution of a system of linear equations based on these results.
Let $(\Omega, {\cal H}, \mathbb{P})$ be a probability space, and let $X=\{ X_{t}: 0\le t \le 1 \}$ satisfy the stochastic differential equation
\begin{equation} \label{diffusion}
d X_{t}=b\left( X_t \right) d t + \sigma\left(X_t \right) d W_{t},
\end{equation}
where $\left\{W_{t}:0\le t\le 1\right\}$ is an $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued Brownian motion and $\sigma: \mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ and $b: \mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ are measurable maps. We assume that the drift $b$ and the diffusion matrix $\sigma$ are Lipschitz and of linear growth as sufficient for $X$ to be the unique strong solution of \eqref{diffusion}. The diffusion $X$ is possibly degenerate, that is, $\sigma(x)\sigma(x)^*$ can be singular for some $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
Let $\mathcal{F}(X)= \{\mathcal{F}_t(X): 0\le t \le 1\}$ denote the filtration generated by $X$. The martingale representation theorem \cite[Thm.2]{ustunel1} reveals, in particular, that an $\mathcal{F}_1$-measurable functional $F$ of $X$ can be represented as
\[
F(X)=\mathbb{E}[F(X)] + \int_0^1 P(X_s) \xi_s(X) \cdot dW_s =
\mathbb{E}[F(X)] + \int_0^1 \xi_s(X) \cdot P(X_s) dW_s
\]
with an $\mathcal{F}_t(X)$-adapted process $\xi$ taking values in $\mathbb{R}^d$, where dot product is used for simplicity of notation and $ P(X_s)$ denotes orthogonal projection to the range space of $\sigma^*$, the transpose of $\sigma$. In essence, there exists a minimal martingale, given above as
$P(X_s) dW_s$ in its infinitesimal It\^o form, with respect to which every square integrable $\mathcal{F}_1$-measurable functional can be written as an integral of an $\mathcal{F}(X)$-adapted process. The representation problem for degenerate diffusions has been settled in \cite{ustunel1} as a result.
Further in \cite{ustunel2}, Malliavin calculus for degenerate diffusions is developed, which forms the basis for the results of the present paper. Let $(W, H, \mu)$ be the classical Wiener space on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. For suitable $\mathcal{F}$-measurable functionals $F$, \cite[Thm.6]{ustunel2} provides a Clark-Hausmann-Bismut-Ocone type formula as
\begin{equation} \label{Clark}
F(X)= \mathbb{E}[F(X)]+\int_0^1 P(X_s) \mathbb{E}[\hat{D}_s F(X)|{\cal F}_s] \cdot dW_s
\end{equation}
where the operator $\hat{D}$ is defined as the density of $\hat{\nabla}$ with respect to Lebesgue measure and $\hat{\nabla}$ is an operator analogous to Gross-Sobolev derivative $\nabla$ for Wiener functionals. Starting with this formula, we consider the hedging of a stock portfolio when the prices are modeled as degenerate diffusions in this paper.
We not only solve the hedging problem for a semimartingale market model, but also find a hedging strategy to $\mathcal{F}(X)$, the filtration of the asset prices themselves, instead of the filtration $\mathcal{F}(W)$ of the driving Wiener process. More explicitly, let the price dynamics of $n$ assets $X_t$ in a market follow \eqref{diffusion} and let the equation for the risk-free asset $X^0_t$ at time $t$ be given by $d X^{0}_t=r_t X^{0}_t d t$, where $r$ is the interest rate process, for $t\in [0,1]$.
Let $\theta_t$ and $\theta^0_t$ be the number of shares of $n$ risky assets and the risk-free asset, respectively, where $\theta_t$ is taken as a row vector. Then, the value process $V^\theta_t$ is written as $
V^{\theta}_t= \theta_t\,X_t + \theta^{0}_t\, X^{0}_t
$. Assuming that the portfolio $(\theta,\theta^0)$ is self-financing, we find the hedging portfolio that replicates the terminal value function $V_1$, which is assumed to be specified by an $\mathcal{F}$-measurable random variable $G(X)$, where $G$ is the payoff function. We take $F=e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X)$ in \eqref{Clark} for our derivations of a hedging portfolio.
When there is no arbitrage, by denoting the equivalent martingale measure with $\mathbb{Q}$ and the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion under $\mathbb{Q}$ with $\widetilde{W}$, we show that the hedging strategy is obtained, in particular when $r$ is deterministic, by solving the equation
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{ \sigma^*(X_t) \theta_t^* =} \\
& \quad \quad \displaystyle{ e^{-\int_t^1 r_s ds} P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} G(X) -G(X) \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]}
\end{align*}
for $\theta$, which may not be unique although $\{P(X_t)\theta_t: 0\le t\le 1\}$ is unique for all solutions $\theta$.
We prove two fundamental results related to $\hat{\nabla}$ needed in our derivations. Namely, Proposition \ref{chain rule} as the chain rule, and Lemma \ref{LemmaFTC} as the fundamental theorem of calculus are developed as a follow up of \cite{ustunel2}, where $\hat{\nabla}$ is shown to satisfy the properties of a derivative operator.
Clearly, these properties are adopted from those of $\nabla$, but with care on the projection with $P(X_s)$ and using the cylindrical functions common in the domains of the two operators when necessary. In Theorem \ref{thm2}, we derive an equivalent representation to \eqref{Clark} using the equivalent martingale measure $\mathbb{Q}$ and Wiener process $\widetilde{W}$, in view of the properties of the operator $\hat{\nabla}$.
As for applications, we limit ourselves to demonstrating the hedging strategy as explicitly as possible with some specific examples of the payoff $G$ as the discounted terminal value. Exotic options are considered in some detail as their value at maturity depends on the prices over the whole time horizon where Gross-Sobolev derivative is applicable. The results can be useful in several finance and interdisciplinary applications where diffusion processes and hedging are considered (see e.g. \cite{ozekici2020,1999,Gobet2005,Hillairet2018,Tsoularis2018}).
On the other hand, degeneracy in stochastic volatility models is investigated from the aspect of partial integro-differential equations that appear in corresponding risk-neutral pricing problems \cite{Costantini2012,Donatucci2016}. The volatility inherits randomness only from the prices $X$ and not stochastic on its own in the present paper, where the projection $P(X_t)$ plays a crucial role in handling the degeneracy.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the essential parts of
Malliavin calculus for degenerate diffusions and prove the preliminary results useful for the present work. Then, the hedging formula is derived for the degenerate semimartingale market model in Section 3. Special cases of the payoff function are considered in Section 4 to demonstrate hedging and option pricing. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.
\section{Preliminaries}
Let $\mathcal{S}(X)$ denote the set of cylindrical functions on the Wiener space $W$, given by
$$
\mathcal{S}(X)=\left\{f\left(X_{t_{1}}^1, \ldots, X_{t_1}^n, \ldots, X_{t_m}^1, \ldots, X_{t_{m}}^n\right): 0 \leq t_{1}<\ldots<t_{m}, f \in \mathcal{S}\left(\mathbb{R}^{nm}\right), m \geq 1\right\}\
$$
where $\mathcal{S}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ denotes the space of rapidly decreasing smooth functions of Laurent Schwartz. In \cite{ustunel2}, for $h \in$ $H$ and $F(X) \in \mathcal{S}(X),$
an operator $\hat{\nabla}_h$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
\hat{\nabla}_h F(X)= \sum_{j=1}^m\sum_{i=1}^{n} \partial_{(j-1)n+i} f(X_{t_{1}}^1, \ldots, X_{t_1}^n, \ldots, X_{t_m}^1, \ldots, X_{t_{m}}^n)E[\nabla_{h}X_{t_j}^i|\mathcal{F}_1(X)].
\end{align*}
where $\nabla$ denotes Gross-Sobolev derivative defined on Wiener space $(W,H,\mu).$ It has been shown in \cite[Cor.2]{ustunel2} that $\hat{\nabla}_{h}$ is a closable operator on $L^{2}(\nu)$, where $\nu$ denotes the probability law of $X$, that is, the image of $\mu$ under $X$.
Then, also the operator $\hat{\nabla}$ can be defined by
\begin{align*}
\hat{\nabla} F(X)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \hat{\nabla}_{e_i} F(X) e_i
\end{align*}
for $F(X) \in \mathcal{S}(X),$ where $\{e_i,\ i\geq 1\}$ is is an orthonormal basis in the Cameron-Martin space $H.$ It follows that $\hat{\nabla}$ is a closable operator from $L^{p}(\nu)$ to $L^{p}(\nu;H)$, where $H$ is indicated to specify the range of $\hat{\nabla}$.
The norm
$$
\| F(X)\|_{p,1}:= \|F(X)\|_{L^p(\mu)} + \| \hat{\nabla} F(X) \|_{L^p(\mu; H)}
$$
is used for the completion of $S(X)$, which will be denoted by $\mathbb{M}_{p,1}$. Note that we use $|\cdot|$ for Euclidean norm, $\| \cdot \|$ for $L^2([0,1])$-norm, and for all others we specify the space in the notation.
For $F(X) \in \mathbb{M}_{2,1},$ define
$\hat{D}_{s} F(X) $ is through $\hat{\nabla}F(X)(t)=\int_0^{t}\hat{D}_s F(X)\ ds$, $\forall t\in [0,1]$. Note that $\hat{D}_sF(X)$ is $ds \times d\mu$-almost everywhere well-defined. Then, we have the following relation
$$
\hat{\nabla}_h F(X)=\langle \hat{\nabla} F(X), h \rangle_H=\int_0^1 \hat{D}_s F(X)h'_s\ ds= \langle \hat{D} F(X), h' \rangle_{L^2([0,1])}
$$
where $h'$ denotes the derivative of $h$.
\begin{proposition} \label{chain rule}
Assume $F\in \mathbb{M}_{p, 1}\left(\mathbb{R}^{d}\right)$, $g: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $g$ is Lipschitz continuous, then $g\circ F \in \mathbb{M}_{p, 1}$
\item If $g$ is $\mathcal{C}^1$-function such that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ |g \circ F|^q + \sum_{i}\left|\partial_{i }g\circ F \, \hat{\nabla} F_i\right|^p \right]<\infty
\end{align*}
then $g\circ F \in \mathbb{M}_{r, 1}$ for any $r < p\wedge q$, where $p$ and $q$ are conjugates.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i) is evident from Mazur Lemma which says that
closure of a convex set is the same under any topology of the dual pair and from the fact that the graph of $\hat{\nabla}$ is convex in any $L^n(\nu)$, for any $n\geq 1$. \\
(ii) Let $\theta$ be a smooth function of compact support on $\mathbb{R}^d$, $\theta(0)=1$. Let $\theta_n(x)=\theta(\frac{x}{n})$. Then
$$\mathbb{E}\left[ |\hat{\nabla}(\theta_ng)\circ F|^r\right]\leq 2^{r-1}\sum_i \mathbb{E}\left[|g\circ F|^r|\hat{\nabla} F_i|^r+K |\partial_i g\circ F|^r |\hat{\nabla} F_i|^r\right]
$$
and we have
$$
\mathbb{E}\left[|g\circ F|^r|\hat{\nabla} F_i|^r\right]\leq \mathbb{E}\Big[|g\circ F|^q \Big]^{r/q}\mathbb{E}\left[ |\hat{\nabla} F_i|^p\right]^{r/p}
$$
where $K$ is an upper bound for $\theta$ and the term with $\theta_n^\prime$ does not contribute. So, $(\theta_n g \circ F,\ n\geq 1)$ is bounded in ${\mathbb{M}}_{r,1}$; hence it has a subsequence which converges weakly and this implies that $\lim_n \theta_n g \circ F=g \circ F$ belongs to ${\mathbb{M}}_{r,1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaFTC}
If $U(X)\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}(H)$, then we have
\begin{align*}
\hat{\nabla}_h \int_0^1P(X_s)u_s(X)\cdot dW_s&=\int_0^1 P(X_s) \hat{\nabla}_h u_s(X)\cdot dW_s + \int_0^1 P(X_s)\partial P(X_s) \hat{\nabla}_h X_s u_s(X)\cdot dW_s \\ &+ \int_0^1 P(X_s)u_s(X)\cdot h'_s \ ds
\end{align*} where $u_t(X)=U'_t(X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $(u_s)$ is a step process, then
\begin{align*}
\int_0^1 P(X_s)u_s(X)\cdot dW_s&=
\int_0^1 u_s(X)\cdot P(X_s)dW_s \\
&= \sum_i u_{s_i}(X)\cdot ( M_{s_{i+1}}- M_{s_{i}})
\end{align*}
where $M_t=\int_0^t P(X_s)\ dW_s$ by the martingale representation theorem \cite[Thm.2]{ustunel1}. Therefore, we have
\begin{align*}
\hat{\nabla}_h \int_0^1 P(X_s)u_s(X)\cdot d W_s&=
\sum_i \hat{\nabla}_h u_{s_i}(X)\cdot ( M_{s_{i+1}}- M_{s_{i}})\\
&+ \sum_i u_{s_i}(X)\cdot ({\bf P}(X_{s_{i+1}})h_{s_{i+1}}-{\bf P}(X_{s_i})h_{s_i})\\
&+\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_i u_{s_i}(X)\cdot \left( \int_{s_{i}} ^{s_{i+1}} \partial P(X_{s})\nabla_h X_{s}\cdot dW_s \right) \mid \mathcal{F}_1(X) \right]
\end{align*}
where we define the action of $P(X)$ on the Cameron-Martin space $H$ as ${\bf P}(X_t)h_t=\int_0^t P(X_s)h'_s\ ds$ and use \cite[Prop.2.3.2]{ustunel2010book} for $\nabla M_t$.
It follows from \cite[Thm. 3]{ustunel2010book} that the last term is equal to
\begin{align*}
\sum_i u_{s_i}(X)\cdot \left( \int_{s_{i}} ^{s_{i+1}} P(X_s) \partial P(X_{s})\hat{\nabla}_h X_{s}\cdot dW_s \right)\; .
\end{align*}
Then, we pass to the limit in $L^2$ as the mesh of partition goes to zero. For the other terms, the result is straightforward.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{FTC}
Suppose $u(X_s)$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \ref{LemmaFTC}. Then, we have
$$
\hat{D}_{t} \int_{0}^{1} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d W_s=\int_{0}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d W(s)+P(X_t)u(X_t)
$$
$dt\times\mu$-almost everywhere, as $\hat{\nabla}_hF=\int_0^1 \hat{D}_sF h'_s \ ds$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 2.3}
Let $u(X_s)\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}(L^2([0,1]))$ be adapted to $\mathcal{F}(X)$. Then, $\| u(X_s) \|^2 \in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ and
$$
\hat{\nabla}_h \| u(X_s) \|^2 =\hat{\nabla}_h \| U(X) \|_H^2 = 2\langle\hat{\nabla}_h u, U(X) \rangle_H
$$
where $U_t(X)=\int_0^t u(X_s)\ ds$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \ref{LemmaFTC}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark 2.3}
Suppose $u(X_s)$ satisfies the assumption of Lemma \ref{lemma 2.3}. Then, $\int_{0}^{1} |P(X_s)u(X_s)|^2 \ ds$ $ \in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ and
$$
\hat{D}_{t} \int_{0}^{1} |u(X_s)|^2 \ ds= 2\int_{0}^{1} \hat{D}_{t}u(X_s)\cdot u(X_s)\ ds.
$$
\end{remark}
\section{Hedging a Stock Portfolio}
We consider a semimartingale market model with $n$ risky assets with price $X_t=(X_t^1, \ldots,X_t^n)$ and a risk-free asset $X^0_t$ at time $t$. The asset prices $X_t$ and $X^0_t$ are determined by the system of stochastic differential equations
\begin{align*}
&d X_t=b( X_t ) d t+\sigma( X_t ) d W_{t} \stepcounter{equation{model}\\
&d X^{0}_t=r_t X^{0}_t d t
\end{align*}
where $W_t=(W_t^1, \ldots, W_t^n)^*$. We assume that the drift $b$ and the diffusion matrix $\sigma$ satisfy the linear growth and Lipschitz conditions for the existence and uniqueness of a strong solution \cite[Thm. 3.1]{ikeda-watanabe86}. In \eqref{model}, the arguments of $b$ and $\sigma$ can include time $t$ separately and the analysis of this section will be still valid as this is allowed in our basic reference \cite{ustunel2}, but omitted for the sake of brevity. Examples where the coefficients are functions of only time $t$ are included in the next section among others. In this section, we will derive the hedging strategy for a given payoff.
Recall that the value process $V^\theta_t$ is given by
\begin{align*}
V^{\theta}_t= \theta^{0}_t\, X^{0}_t +\theta_t\,X_t \stepcounter{equation{value_process}
\end{align*}
where by $\theta_t, \theta^0_t$ denote the number of shares of $n$ assets and risk-free asset, respectively, and $\theta_t$ is taken as a row vector for simplicity of notation. The portfolio $(\theta,\theta^0)$ is considered to be self-financing, that is, $V^\theta_t$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
d V_{t}^{\theta}=\theta^{0}_t d X^{0}_t+\theta_t \,d X_t\stepcounter{equation{value_process_diff_0}\; .
\end{align*}
Since from \eqref{value_process}, we have
$
\theta^{0}_t=(V_{t}^{\theta}-\theta_t X_t)/X^{0}_t
$, we rewrite \eqref{value_process_diff_0} as
\begin{align*}
d V_{t}^{\theta}&= r_t\left(V_{t}^{\theta}-\theta_t X_t \right) d t+\theta_t \,d X_t\\
&= \left[ r_t V_{t}^{\theta}+ \theta_t b( X_t ) -r_t \theta_t X_t\right] d t+\theta_t \sigma(X_t)dW_t \;.
\end{align*}
Assume that the equation below has a solution
\begin{align} \label{marketprice}
\sigma(X_t) u(X_t)=b( X_t ) -r_t X_t\:.
\end{align}
Although this equation may have several solutions $u$, the orthogonal projection by $P(X_t)$ of these solutions onto the range space of $\sigma^*(t,X)$ is unique as it can be verified by simple algebra. Then, the solution $P(X_t) u(X_t)$, called \textit{market price of risk process}, satisfies
\begin{equation}
\sigma(X_t) P(X_t) u(X_t)=b( X_t ) -r_t X_t\:. \label{rewrite}
\end{equation}
Note that when \eqref{marketprice} does not have a solution, then the market is not arbitrage-free and this market cannot be used for pricing \cite[pg. 228]{shreve2003}.
Assume also that the $d$-dimensional market price of risk process $u(X_t)$ satisfies
$$
\int_{0}^{1}|P(X_t)u(X_t)|^{2} d t<\infty
$$
almost surely and the positive local martingale
$$
Z_t \triangleq \exp \left\{-\int_{0}^{t} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d W_s-\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{t}|P(X_s)u(X_s)|^{2} d s\right\}
$$
satisfies $\mathbb{E} Z_1 =1$. Then, $Z$ is a martingale with respect to the filtration generated by $X$, $\mathcal{F}(X)$, in view of the converse statement in the martingale representation theorem \cite[Thm.2]{ustunel1}. Now, define $\tilde{W}_t$ by
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{W}_t=W_t+\int_0^t P(X_s)u(X_s)\ ds. \stepcounter{equation{equl_W}
\end{align*}
Then, $\{\widetilde{W}_t,\ 0\leq t\leq 1 \} $ is a Brownian motion under the probability measure $\mathbb{Q}$ on $F_1(W)$ given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{Q}(A)=\mathbb{E}[Z_1 1_A],\;\;\; \forall A \in {\cal F}_1(W).
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{rewrite} and\eqref{equl_W}, we can write the price dynamics \eqref{model} using $\widetilde{W}$ as
\[
dX_t= r_t X_t dt + \sigma(X_t)\, d\widetilde{W}_t \; .
\]
Similarly, the discounted price $S_t:= \exp({-\int_0^t r_s ds})X_t$ satisfies
\[
dS_t=e^{-\int_0^t r_s ds}\sigma(X_t)\, d\widetilde{W}_t\; .
\]
Moreover, in view of \eqref{value_process} and \eqref{equl_W}, we can rewrite the value process as
\begin{align*}
d V_{t}^{\theta}= r_t V_{t}^{\theta} d t+\theta_t \sigma(X_t) d \widetilde{W}_t \stepcounter{equation{value_process_diff_eq}\;.
\end{align*}
Define the discounted value process
$
U^\theta_t:= e^{-\int_0^t r_s ds} V^\theta_t
$. Let $G(X)$ be an $\mathcal{F}_1(X)$-measurable and integrable payoff function. After setting $V_1^\theta=G(X)$ to find the hedging strategy, the equation
\begin{align} \label{*}
d U^\theta_t=e^{-\int_0^t r_s ds} \theta_t \sigma(X_t) \, d \widetilde{W}_t
\end{align}
can be considered as a backward stochastic differential equation with final condition
\begin{equation}
U_1^\theta =e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X) \;.\label{final}
\end{equation}
Clearly, both the discounted price process and the value process are martingales under $\mathbb{Q}$ when we assume $\int_0^1 \sigma(X_t) \sigma^*(X_t)dt$ is finite a.s. We further assume that
\[
\int \theta_t\sigma(X_t) \sigma^*(X_t)\theta_t^* \, dt < \infty \quad \quad a.s.
\]
to have an admissable strategy $\theta$ \cite[pg.302]{Klebaner}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm2}
Suppose $F \in \mathbb{M}_{2,1
}$ is $\mathcal{F}_1(X)$-measurable and the conditions
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [ Z_1^2F^2]<\infty, \quad \quad \mathbb{E}\left[Z_1^2\|\hat{D} F\|^{2} \right]<\infty,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[Z_1^2F^2 \left\|\int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D} \left(P(X_s)u_s\right)\cdot d W(s)+P(X_t)u(X_t) \right. \right.\\
\left. \left. +\int_{t}^{1} \hat{D} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot P(X_s)u(X_s) d s\right\|^{2}\right]<\infty\;.
\end{align*}
Then, we have $Z_1F\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ and
\begin{align*}
F= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F\right]+\int_0^1 P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} F -F \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t \; .
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will show that $Z_1F\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ first. Remember that $Z_1=e^{-K}$, where $$K=\int_{0}^{1} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d W_s+\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{1} | P(X_s)u (s,X) | ^{2} d s .$$
Lemma \ref{LemmaFTC} implies that $\int_{0}^{1} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d W_s\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ and Lemma \ref{lemma 2.3} implies that $\int_{0}^{1} |P(X_s)u(X_s)|^2 \ ds \in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$. Hence, $K\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}.$ Since $\mathbb{E}[F^2e^{2K}],$ $\mathbb{E}[e^{2K}|| \hat{D}F||^2]$ and $\mathbb{E}[F^2e^{2K}|| \hat{D}K||^2]$ are finite by the given assumptions, Proposition \ref{chain rule} implies that $Z_1F\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\hat{D}_t Z_1F&= Z_1 \left( \hat{D}_tF -F (\hat{D}_t K) \right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\hat{D}_t K&=- \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d W_s-P(X_t)u(X_t) \\
& \quad \quad -\int_{t}^{1} \hat{D}_{t}(P(X_s)u(X_s))\cdot P(X_s)u_s ds\; .
\end{align*}
Let
$
Y_t= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]
$ and note that
\begin{align*}
Z^{-1}_t &=\exp \left\{\int_{0}^{t} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d W_s+\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{t} | P(X_s)u (s,X) | ^{2} d s\right\}\\
&=\exp \left\{\int_{0}^{t} P(X_s)u(X_s) \cdot d \widetilde{W}_s-\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{t} | P(X_s)u (s,X) | ^{2} d s\right\}\stepcounter{equation{eq_Z_tilde}
\end{align*}
Then, we get
\begin{align*}
Y_{t} &=Z^{-1}_t \mathbb{E}\left[Z_1 F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]
\\&=Z^{-1}_t\left\{\mathbb{E}[Z_1 F]+\int_{0}^{1} P(X_s)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{s}
\mathbb{E}\left[Z_1 F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] \mid \mathcal{F}_{s}(X)\right] \cdot d W_s\right\}
\\
&=Z^{-1}_t\left\{\mathbb{E}[Z_1 F]+\int_{0}^{t} P(X_s)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{s}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{s}(X)\right] \cdot d W_s\right\} =:Z^{-1}_t A_t\stepcounter{equation{eq_Y}
\end{align*}
where we have applied the formula of \cite[Thm.6]{ustunel2} to $\mathbb{E}\left[Z_1 F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]$ and used the fact $\hat{D}_{s}
\mathbb{E}\left[Z_1 F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]$ is $\mathcal{F}_t(X)$-measurable for $t>s$ and equal to $0$ otherwise.
From \eqref{eq_Z_tilde} and \eqref{eq_Y}, we get
\begin{align*}
dZ^{-1}_t& = Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)u(X_t) \ d\widetilde{W}_t\\
dA_t &= P(X_t)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{t}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}\right] \cdot d W_t\\
dA_tdZ^{-1}_t&= Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)u(X_t) P(X_t)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{t}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}\right] \ dt
\end{align*}
Since $
d Y_t=A_t\ dZ^{-1}_t +Z^{-1}_t\ dA_t + dA_t\ dZ_t^{-1}
$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
d Y_t&= \left\{\mathbb{E}[Z_1 F]+\int_{0}^{t} P(X_s)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{s}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{s}(X)\right] \cdot d W_s\right\}Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)u(X_t) \cdot d\widetilde{W}_t\\
&\quad + Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{t}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]\cdot d W_t\\
&\quad+Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)u_t P(X_t)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{t}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]\ dt\\
&= Y_t P(X_t)u_t d\tilde{W}_t + Z^{-1}_t P(X_t)\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{D}_{t}(Z_1 F) \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t
\\
&=P(X_t)u_t \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t
\\
&+P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]\widetilde{W}_t
\\
&+P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \left\{ -\int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u_s\right)\cdot d W(s)- P(X_t)u_t \right\} \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t
\\
&+P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \left\{ -\int_{t}^{1} \hat{D}_{t} (P(X_s)u(X_s))\cdot P(X_s)u(X_s) ds \right\} \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t
\\
&=P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} F -F \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t
\end{align*}
In view of $
Y_1= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \mid \mathcal{F}_{1}\right]=F $ and
$Y_0= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F \mid \mathcal{F}_{0}\right]= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F\right]
$,
we get
\begin{align*}
F= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[F\right]+\int_0^1 P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} F -F \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t \; .
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready to find the hedging strategy for our market model, when a payoff function $G$ is given. Letting $F:=U_1^\theta =e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X)$ in \eqref{final}, which needs to hold for the aim of finding a replicating portfolio, and substituting $F$ in the result of Theorem \ref{thm2} with the assumption that its conditions are satisfied, we get
\begin{align*}
& U_1^\theta = \; \mathbb{E}_\mathbb{Q}[e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G]+ \stepcounter{equation{dis_value_process_clark} \\
& \int_0^1 P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} (e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G) -e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right] d \widetilde{W}_t \; .
\end{align*}
On the other hand, in view of \eqref{*} and as $U_0^\theta=V_0^\theta$ by definition, we have
\begin{align*}
U^\theta_1&=V^\theta_0+ \int_0^1 e^{-\int_0^t r_s ds} \theta_t \sigma(X_t) \, d \widetilde{W}_t \; .
\end{align*}
In comparison with \eqref{dis_value_process_clark}, we conclude that
\begin{align}
V_0^\theta= \mathbb{E}_\mathbb{Q}[e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X)] \label{price}
\end{align}
and the hedging strategy $\theta_t$ solves
\begin{align*}\stepcounter{equation{Hedging_str_long}
& \sigma^*(X_t) \theta_t^* =e^{\int_0^t r_s ds} P(X_t)\\
& \quad \quad \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} (e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X)) -e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X) \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]
\end{align*}
at each time $t\ge 0$, where $r_s$ can be understood as a function of the asset prices and denoted as $r(X_s)$ if it is random.
Note that $u$ appears in $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\widetilde{W}$ in the above equation, and we can obtain a unique and adapted strategy if we replace $\theta_t$ by $P(X_t)\theta_t$.
If the interest rate is non-random, then Equation \eqref{Hedging_str_long} reduces to
\begin{align*}\stepcounter{equation{Hedging_str}
& \sigma^*(X_t) \theta_t^* =e^{-\int_t^1 r_s ds} P(X_t)\\
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} G(X) -G(X) \int_{t}^{1} P(X_s) \hat{D}_{t} \left(P(X_s)u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right].
\end{align*}
\begin{remark}
If $\sigma$ is non-degenerate, then the projection map $P(X_s)$ is just the identity map, $\mathcal{F}(X)=\mathcal{F}(W)$ and $\hat{\nabla}=\nabla$. Assuming that $\sigma$ is a square matrix for simplicity, we can rewrite \eqref{Hedging_str} as
\begin{align*}
\theta_t^* =\sigma^*(X_t)^{-1}\ e^{\int_0^t r_s ds}\ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[{D}_{t}(e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X)) - e^{-\int_0^1 r_s ds}G(X) \int_{t}^{1} {D}_{t} \left(u(X_s)\right)\cdot d \widetilde{W}_s \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(W)\right]
\end{align*}
which is the same as \cite[Eq.(3.10)]{ocone1991}.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples for Payoff Function}
In this section, the hedging strategy is worked out for some examples of the payoff function to demonstrate the formulas. Here, we indicate the terminal time by $T$. From the point of view of option pricing with a claim $G(X)$, the analysis of a hedging strategy $\theta$ can readily be used. The claim $G(X)$ is attainable if $\mathbb{E} [G(X)] < \infty$ and there exists an admissable strategy $\theta_t$, $0\le t\le 1$ \cite[pg.303]{Klebaner}. Then, the price of the claim at time $t$ is given by
\[
e^{\int_t^1 r_s ds}\,\mathbb{E}_\mathbb{Q}[G\mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)]
\]
with the assumption that the interest rate $r$ is deterministic, and in particular at time 0, the price is equal to \eqref{price}. We consider various claims below as suitable for demonstration of our results.
\subsection{Black–Scholes model}
Consider the one-dimensional Black–Scholes model
\begin{align*}
dX ^{0}_t&=\rho X^{0}_t d t,\ X^{0}_0=1\\
d X^1_t&=\mu X^{1}_t d t+\sigma X^{1}_t d W^1_t,\ X_{0}^1>0
\end{align*}
where $\rho,\mu, \sigma >0$. The equivalent martingale measure for this one-dimensional model is $
\mathbb{R}(A)=\mathbb{E}[Y_1 1_A]
$,
where
\begin{align*}
Y_t=\exp \left\{-\int_{0}^{t} u\ d W_s^1-\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{t} u^{2}\ d s\right\}, \quad 0 \leq t \leq 1
\end{align*}
and $u =(\mu-\rho)/\sigma$.
For this model, the hedging strategy is given by
\begin{align} \label{oks}
\theta_{t}=e^{\rho t} \sigma^{-1} (X^1_t)^{-1} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}}\left[D_{t} G \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(W^1)\right]
\end{align}
where $D_t G=\frac{\text{d}}{dt}\nabla G$ and $\nabla$ is Gross-Sobolev derivative defined for the functionals of $W^1$ \cite[Ex.4.1.1]{nunno_2009}.
Clearly, this model is not an example of the degenerate case. However, we can rewrite it as a degenerate model by artificially taking $X^2:=X^0$ to demonstrate our formulas. In \eqref{model}, take $ r_t=\rho $
\begin{align*}
b(X_t)=(\mu X^1_t,\rho X_t^2)
\quad \quad \sigma(X_t)=\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma X^1_t & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Observe that
\begin{align*}
P(X_t)=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \quad \quad
P(X_t)u(X_t)=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\mu-\rho}{\sigma} \\
0
\end{bmatrix} \quad \quad
\hat{D}_t P(X_t)u(X_t)=(0,0).
\end{align*}
If we substitute these in \eqref{Hedging_str}, we get
\begin{align*}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma X^1_t & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}\theta_t^* =e^{\rho t} \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} G \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right].
\end{align*}
Moreover, it is easy to see that
$\mathcal{F}_t(X)=\mathcal{F}_t(W^1),$ $\mathbb{Q}(A)=\mathbb{R}(A),$ for each $A\in \mathcal{F}_t(X)$, and $\hat{D}_tG=(D_t G,0),$ where derivative $D_t G$ taken in the sense of Malliavin calculus for Brownian motion. Hence, the hedging strategy is $\theta_t^*=[\theta_t,0] $ with $\theta_t$ of \eqref{oks}. When $G$ is taken to be the European option $G=(X_T^1-K)^+$, we have $G\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ by Proposition \ref{chain rule}.
The hedging portfolio for $G$ is given by \begin{align*}
\theta_t^* = \begin{bmatrix}
e^{\rho t}\sigma^{-1}(X^1_t)^{-1}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}}[D_{t} F \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)] \\
0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
in this case, equivalent to the result in \cite[Ex 4.1.1]{nunno_2009}.
\subsection{Exotic Options}
Exotic options are a class of options contracts in that the value of an option and the time that the holder can exercise it depend on the prices of the assets on the whole period \cite{Klebaner}. Since exotic options can be customized to the needs of the investor, it provides various investment alternatives. We will examine exotic options in a two-dimensional market model with terminal time $T$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\sigma_{11}$ in \eqref{model} is away from zero. Let $\Delta=\sigma_{11}(X_s)\sigma_{22}(X_s)-\sigma_{12}(X_s)\sigma_{21}(X_s)$.
When $\Delta=0$, the projection map can be written as
$$
P\left(X_s\right)=\frac{1}{\sigma_{11}^2(X_s)+\sigma_{12}^2(X_s)}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{11}^2(X_s) & \sigma_{11}(X_s) \sigma_{1 2}(X_s) \\
\sigma_{11}(X_s) \sigma_{12}(X_s) & \sigma_{12}^2(X_s)
\end{array}\right]
$$
and the projected market price of risk process is given by
$$
P\left(X_{s}\right) u\left(X_{s}\right)=\frac{b_{1}\left(X_{s}\right)-r_{s} X_{s}^{1}}{\sigma_{11}^{2}\left(X_{s}\right)+\sigma_{1 2}^{2}\left(X_{s}\right)}\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{11}\left(X_{s}\right) \\
\sigma_{1{2}}\left(X_{s}\right)
\end{bmatrix}
$$
in view of \eqref{marketprice}.
Suppose $b$ and $\sigma$ have bounded partial derivatives, then $P\left(X_{s}\right) u\left(X_{s}\right)$ has the derivative
$\hat{D}_t P\left(X_{s}\right) u\left(X_{s}\right)=J_f(X_s)(\hat{D}_t X^1_s,\hat{D}_t X^2_s)$, where $J_f$ is the Jacobian of $f(x,y)=\frac{b_{1}\left(x,y\right)-r_{s} x}{\sigma_{11}^{2}\left(x,y\right)+\sigma_{1 2}^{2}\left(x,y\right)}\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{11}\left(x,y\right) \\
\sigma_{1{2}}\left(x,y\right)
\end{bmatrix}$ and $\hat{D}_t X_s$ solves
\begin{align*}
\hat{D}_t X_s = \int_t^s J_b(X_r) \hat{D}_t(X_r)\ d r+\int_t^s J_{\sigma_i } \hat{D}_t(X_r)\cdot P(X_r)d W_{r} + \sigma(t,X_t)
\end{align*}
$dt \times d\mu$ - a.e., where $\sigma_i$ is $i^{th}$ row of matrix $\sigma(X_s)$ \cite[Thm. 5]{ustunel2}, and $J_b$, $J_{\sigma_i}$ denote the Jacobian matrices of $b$ and $\sigma_i$, respectively.
Consider the linear case, that is, $b(X_s)=(b_1(s)X^1_s, \ b_2(s)X^2_s)$ and
\begin{align*}
\sigma =\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{11}(s)X^1_s & \sigma_{12}(s)X^1_s \\
\sigma_{21}(s)X^2_s & \sigma_{22}(s)X^2_s
\end{array}\right] \; .
\end{align*}
Then, we have
$$
P\left(X_{s}\right) u\left(X_{s}\right)=\frac{b_{1}\left({s}\right)-r_{s} }{\sigma_{11}^{2}\left({s}\right)+\sigma_{12}^{2}\left({s}\right)}\left[\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{11}\left({s}\right) \\
\sigma_{1{2}}\left({s}\right)
\end{array}\right].
$$
Clearly, $P\left(X_{s}\right) u\left(X_{s}\right)$ is deterministic, which implies
$\hat{D}_tP(X_{s}) u(X_{s})=0$ and the hedging strategy $\theta_t$ at time $t$ solves
$$\sigma^*(X_t) \theta_t^* =e^{-\int_t^T r_s ds} P(X_t)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\hat{D}_{t} G \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}(X)\right]$$ for given payoff function $G$ by \eqref{Hedging_str}.
{\em Asian options} are options where the payoff depends on the average of the underlying
assets. Pricing of Asian options have been studied in \cite{Rogers95,vecer2002} by the use of PDEs. In \cite{Yang2011}, Yang et al. have used Malliavin calculus to derive the
hedging strategy and price of Asian option. We will consider Asian call option with floating strike, which
pays at time $T,$ the payoff $G(X)= \left(\frac{1}{T} \int_0^T X_s^1\ ds- K X_T^2 \right)^+$. Proposition \ref{chain rule} implies $G\in\mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ and $\hat{D}_t G(X)=1_A \left(\frac{1}{T} \int_t^T \hat{D}_t X_s^1\ ds -K\hat{D}_t X_T^2 \right)$ for $dt \times d\mu$ - a.e., where $A=\{ \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T X_s^1\ ds- K X_T^2>0 \}$
and
$$
\hat{D}_{t} X_{s}^i=\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{i1}\left(s\right) \\
\sigma_{i2}\left(s\right)
\end{bmatrix}\exp \left(\int_{t}^{s}P(X_r)\sigma_i(r) \cdot d W_{r}+\int_t^{s} b_i(r)\ d r-\frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{s} |P(X_r) \sigma_i(r)|^2\ d r \right).$$
{\em An exchange option} gives the right to put a predefined risky
asset and call the other risky asset, as introduced in \cite{Margrabe1978}. The price and hedging strategy have been calculated in \cite{Mataramvura2012} via Malliavin calculus. The payoff function $G(X)=(X^1_T-X^2_T)^+$ has the derivative given by
$\hat{D}_t G(X)=1_A \left( \hat{D}_t X_T^1 -\hat{D}_t X_T^2 \right)$ for $dt \times d\mu$ - a.e., where $A=\{ X_T^1- X_T^2>0 \}$.
{\em Look-back options} are a particular type of path-dependent options so that the value of the payoff function depends on the minimum or maximum of the underlying asset price.
The price of option and the hedging strategy have been derived in \cite{Bermin2000,Renaud2007} with Malliavin calculus. Defining
$M_{0, T}^{X^{1}}=\sup_{0\le t \le T}X_t^1 $, we consider the payoff $G(X)=\left(M_{0, T}^{X^{1}} -KX^2_T\right)^+$, which has the derivative
\begin{align*}
\hat{D}_{t} G(X)=& 1_A \left(\hat{D}_{t}M_{0, T}^{X^{1}} -K\hat{D}_t X_T^2\right)
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
\hat{D}_{t}M_{0, T}^{X^{1}} =\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{i1}(\tau)\\ \sigma_{i2}(\tau)
\end{bmatrix}\exp
\left(\int_{t}^{\tau}P(X_s)\sigma_i(s) \cdot d W_{s}+\int_t^{\tau} b_i(s)\ d s-\frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{\tau} |P(X_s) \sigma_i(s)|^2\ d s \right)
\end{align*}
for $dt \times d\mu$ - a.e., where
$\tau=\inf \{t:\ X_t^1=M_{0, T}^{X^{1}} \}$ and $A=\{M_{0, T}^{X^{1}} -KX^2_T>0\}$. Here, we have used the approach in \cite[pg. 55]{Li_PhD2011} to calculate the derivative of $M_{0, T}^{X^{1}}$ as follows. The model considered in \cite{Li_PhD2011} is one-dimensional, has constant volatility and Malliavin calculus for Brownian motion is used to calculate the hedging portfolio. However, the idea can be applied easily to our case. For each $m \in \mathbb{N},$ choose a partition $\pi_m=\left\{0=s_{1}<\cdots<s_m=T\right\}$ so that $\pi_m \subseteq \pi_{m+1}$ and $\cup_m \pi_m$ is dense in $\left[0, T\right]$. Define $\varphi_m$ by $\varphi_m(\underline{x})=\max _{1 \leq i \leq m} x_{i}$ . Then, $\varphi_m(X^1_{\pi_m})\rightarrow M_{0,T}^{X^1}$ in $L^2$. Since the function $\varphi_m$ is Lipschitz, $\varphi_m(X^1_{\pi_m})\in \mathbb{M}_{2,1}$ by \ref{remark 2.3}. Moreover, $\sup_m\| \hat{D}_t \varphi_m(X^1_{\pi_m}) \|^2 \leq \sup_t \sigma_t T \|M_{0,T}^{X^1}\|^2_{L^2(\mu)}$ and
this implies $M_{0,T}^{X^1}\in \mathbb{M}_{p,1}$. Note that
$$\hat{D}_t \varphi_m(X^1_{\pi_m}) = \begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{i1}(\tau_m)\\ \sigma_{i2}(\tau_m)
\end{bmatrix}\exp
\left(\int_{t}^{\tau_m}P(X_s)\sigma_i(s) \cdot d W_{s}+\int_t^{\tau_m} b_i(s)\ d s-\frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{\tau_m} |P(X_s) \sigma_i(s)|^2\ d s \right) $$
where ${\tau_m}=\min \left\{t_{j}: X^1_{t_{j}}=\varphi_m(X^1_{\pi_m})\right\}$. For each $m,$ $\tau_m$ is a measurable function and $\tau_m\rightarrow\tau$ a.s. When $\sigma_{i1}$ is assumed to be continuous, the result follows as $\hat{D}$ is a closed operator.
\section{Conclusion}
We have used Malliavin calculus for degenerate diffusions to derive the hedging portfolio for a given payoff function in a semimartingale market model. The prices are assumed to follow a multidimensional diffusion process with a singular volatility matrix $\sigma \sigma^*$, where $\sigma$ is taken to be a function of the prices with no extra randomness. In applications, the estimation of the volatility $\sigma \sigma^* $ is crucial from financial data, which may be accomplished for example through estimation of the variance of the price time series, yielding an estimate for $\sigma \sigma^*$. In the case of degeneracy of the estimate, this can now be taken care of by the results of the present paper.
From a theoretical point of view, the projection operator $P$ to the range space of $\sigma^*$ plays a crucial role in our results. We have shown that the hedging portfolio can be obtained uniquely as a solution to a system of linear equations by projecting any solution of the system with $P$. For this purpose, a version of the Clark-Ocone type formula for functionals of degenerate diffusions is proved under an equivalent change of measure. As demonstration of our results, intermediate calculations for the Gross-Sobolev type derivative of the payoff function of the prices are given in the case of exotic options in a two-dimensional linear model.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
For a graph $F$ on $[k] := \{1, \dotsc, k\}$, we say that
$B$ is the \textit{$n$-blow-up of $F$}
if there exists an ordered partition $(V_1, \dotsc, V_k)$ of $V(B)$
such that $|V_1| = \dotsm = |V_k| = n$ and we have that
$uu' \in E(B)$ if and only if $u \in V_i$ and $u' \in V_{j}$ for some
$ij \in E(F)$.
For $G$ a spanning subgraph of $B$,
we call the sequence $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$ the \textit{parts} of $G$ and we define
\begin{equation*}
\delta^*_F(G) := \min_{ij \in E(F)} \delta(G[V_i, V_{j}])
\end{equation*}
where $G[V_i, V_j]$ is the bipartite subgraph of $G$ induced by the parts
$V_i$ and $V_j$.
We often drop the subscript $F$ when it is clear from the context.
For a graph $H$, we call $\mathcal{T}$ an $H$-tiling of $G$
if $\mathcal{T}$ consists of vertex disjoint copies of $H$ in $G$.
We say that $\mathcal{T}$ \textit{covers}
$V(\mathcal{T}) := \bigcup\{ V(H') : H' \in \mathcal{T} \}$ and
say that $\mathcal{T}$ is \textit{perfect} or an
\textit{$H$-factor} if it covers every vertex of $G$.
Call a subset of $V(G)$ or a subgraph of $G$
a \textit{transversal} if it intersects each
part in exactly one vertex and
a \textit{partial transversal} if it intersects each
part in at most one vertex.
An $H$-tiling is a \textit{transversal $H$-tiling}
if each copy of $H$ in $\mathcal{T}$ is a transversal.
We call a perfect transversal $H$-tiling a \textit{transversal $H$-factor}.
Fischer \cite{fischer1999} conjectured
the following multipartite version of the Hajnal-Szemer\'edi Theorem:
If $G$ is the $n$-blow-up of $K_k$, and
$\delta^*(G) \ge \left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)n$, then $G$ has
a $K_k$-factor.
In the same paper, Fischer proved that, when $k\in \{3, 4\}$, such
a graph $G$ contains a $K_k$-tiling of size at least
$n-C$, where $C$ is a constant that depends only on $k$.
Johansson \cite{johansson2000triangle} proved that,
for every $n$, if $G$ is a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $K_3$
and $\delta^*(G) \ge 2n/3 + \sqrt{n}$, then $G$ contains a $K_3$-factor,
so Johansson proved the triangle case of the conjecture asymptotically.
Later,
Lo \& M\"arkstrom \cite{lo2013} and, independently, Keevash \& Mycroft \cite{keevash2014}
proved the conjecture asymptotically for every $k \ge 4$.
The following theorem,
which was proved for $k=3$ by Magyar \& Martin \cite{magyar2002},
for $k=4$ by Martin \& Szemer\'edi \cite{martin2008},
and for $k \ge 5$ by Keevash \& Mycroft
\cite{keevash2014},
shows that Fischer's original conjecture was nearly true for $n$ sufficiently
large.
(Keevash \& Mycroft
actually proved more, see Theorem 1.1 in \cite{keevash2014} for details.)
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:fischer}
For every $k$ there exists $n_0 := n_0(k)$ such that whenever
$n \ge n_0$ the following holds
for every spanning subgraph $G$ of the $n$-blow-up of $K_k$ where
\begin{equation*}
\delta^*(G) \ge \left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)n.
\end{equation*}
The graph $G$ does not contains a $K_k$-factor if and only if
both $n$ and $k$ are odd, $k$ divides $n$ and $G$ is isomorphic to a specific
spanning subgraph $\Gamma_{n,k}$ of the $n$-blow-up of $K_k$
where $\delta^*(\Gamma_{n,k}) = \left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)n$.
\end{theorem}
The following conjecture of H\"aggkvist, which appeared in \cite{johansson2000triangle},
can be seen as a different generalization of the $k=3$
case of Theorem~\ref{thm:fischer}.
Independently, Fischer made a similar conjecture in \cite{fischer1999}.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:main}
For every $k \ge 3$, if $G$ is a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conj_degree_condition}
\delta^*(G) \ge \left(1 + \frac{1}{k}\right)\frac{n}{2} + 1,
\end{equation}
then $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{conjecture}
Our first result establishes an asymptotic version of Conjecture~\ref{conj:main}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:asymp}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$ and positive integer $k \ge 4$
there exists $n_0 := n_0(k,\varepsilon)$ such that
for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
If $G$ is a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow up of $C_k$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asymp_degree_condition}
\delta^*(G) \ge \left(1 + \frac{1}{k} + \varepsilon\right)\frac{n}{2},
\end{equation}
then $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{theorem}
Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:fischer} shows that Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} is
tight when $k = 3$.
The following example from \cite{johansson2000triangle}
shows that, for $k \ge 4$,
the minimum degree condition \eqref{eq:conj_degree_condition}
in Conjecture~\ref{conj:main}
cannot be decreased by more than $1$.
Call $Z \subseteq V(G)$ a \textit{transversal $C_k$-cover} if
every transversal $C_k$ in $G$ intersects $Z$ and let the
\textit{transversal $C_k$-cover number} of $G$ be the order
of a smallest transversal $C_k$-cover.
This example relies on the observation that the
maximum size of a transversal $C_k$-tiling is bounded above
by the transversal $C_k$-cover number.
(Note that we always view arithmetic on elements of $[k] := \{1, \dotsc, k\}$ modulo $k$.)
\begin{example}\label{exp:conj}
For $k \ge 3$ and $m \ge 1$, let $n := 2km$ and
$V_1, \dotsc, V_k$ be disjoint sets each of size $n$.
For $i \in [k-1]$, let $\{U_i, W_i, Z_i\}$ be a partition of $V_i$
such that $|U_i| = (k-1)m$, $|W_i| = (k-1)m$ and $|Z_i| = 2m$, and let $\{U_k, W_k, Z_k\}$ be a partition of $V_k$ such that $|U_k| = (k-1)m$, $|W_k| = (k-1)m+1$ and $|Z_k| = 2m-1$.
Let $G$ be the spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts
$V_1,\dotsc,V_k$ where $E(G)$ consists of the union of the
edges in the following graphs:
\begin{itemize}
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $Z_i, V_{i-1}$ and $Z_i, V_{i+1}$ for each $i \in [k]$,
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $U_i,U_{i+1}$ and $W_i,W_{i+1}$ for each $i \in [k-1]$,
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $U_k,W_1$ and $W_k,U_1$.
\end{itemize}
Note that
$\delta^*(G) = (k+1)m - 1 = \left(1 + \frac{1}{k}\right)\frac{n}{2} - 1$,
and that every transversal $C_k$ has at least one vertex in
$Z := Z_1 \cup \dotsm \cup Z_k$, i.e.,
$Z$ is a transversal $C_k$-cover of $G$.
The fact that $|Z| = 2mk - 1 < n$ then implies that $G$ does not contain a
transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{example}
\bigskip
We make the following conjecture which is strengthening of Theorem~\ref{thm:asymp}.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:strong}
For every $k \ge 3$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $n_0 := n_0(k,\varepsilon)$
such that for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
Let $G$ be a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$. If there exist $\delta_1,\delta_2, \ldots, \delta_k\ge n/2$ such that $\delta(G[V_i,V_{i+1}])\geq \delta_i$, for every $i\in[k]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac1k \sum_{i\in[k]}\delta_i \ge \left(1 + \frac{1}{k}+\varepsilon\right)\frac{n}{2},
\end{equation*}
then $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{conjecture}
Note that Theorem \ref{thm:asymp} is a special, uniform case of Conjecture \ref{conj:strong}, namely the case of $\delta_1=\delta_2=\ldots =\delta_k$. Also, note that the condition
$\delta_1, \dotsc, \delta_k \ge n/2$ is necessary
because a transversal $C_k$-factor in $G$ defines a perfect matching
in $G[V_i, V_{i+1}]$ for every $i \in [k]$ and $n/2$ is the smallest minimum degree
condition necessary to guarantee a perfect matching in a bipartite graph with parts of size $n$.
Our second result shows that that Conjecture \ref{conj:strong} holds for $k=3$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:strongk3}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $n_0 := n_0(k,\varepsilon)$ such that
for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
Let $G$ be a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of a triangle with parts $V_1,V_2,V_3$. If there exist $\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3\ge n/2$ such that $\delta(G[V_i,V_{i+1}])\geq \delta_i$, for every $i\in[3]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3}3
\ge \left(\frac{2}{3}+\varepsilon\right)n,
\end{equation*}
then $G$ has a triangle factor.
\end{theorem}
It is interesting to observe that in the case of $\delta_i\le (1 + \varepsilon)\frac n2$ for some $i\in[k]$, the problem in Conjecture \ref{conj:strong} for $k$ can be reduced to $k-1$. Indeed, let us consider a spanning subgraph $G$ of the $n$-blow-up of $C_{k}$ where $\delta_k=(1+\varepsilon) \frac n2$ (for $i\in[k]$, $\delta_i$ and $V_i$ are defined as in conjecture). Hall's Theorem implies that we can match every $v \in V_{1}$
to a unique $f_v \in V_{k}$ that is adjacent to $v$.
Let $G'$ be the graph derived from $G$ by collapsing each edge $vf_v$ into $v$ for each $v\in V_1$, i.e.,
$G'$ is $G - V_k$ with an edge between $v \in V_1$ and $u \in V_{k-1}$ if and only if $f_v$ is adjacent to $u$ in $G$.
It is easy to see that $G'$ is a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_{k-1}$
with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_{k-1}$ such that $\delta(G[V_i,V_{i+1}]) \ge \delta_i$ for each $i\in [k-1]$,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i \in [k-1]} \delta_i \ge
\sum_{i \in [k]} \delta_i - (1+\varepsilon)\frac n2 \ge
k\left(1 + \frac{1}{k} + \varepsilon\right)\frac n2 - (1+\varepsilon)\frac n2
= (k-1)\left(1 + \frac{1}{k-1} + \varepsilon\right) \frac n2,
\end{equation*}
and that any transversal $C_{k-1}$-factor in $G'$ can be extended to a transversal $C_{k}$-factor in $G$.
The above observation and Theorem \ref{thm:strongk3} imply that Conjecture \ref{conj:strong} holds if $\delta_1,\delta_2,\ldots, \delta_k\ge n/2$ and $\delta_i+\delta_j+\delta_l\ge 2n+\varepsilon$ (i.e., in the case when all the excess values of $\delta_i$ compared to $n/2$ are concentrated at $3$ members of $\delta_1,\delta_2,\ldots \delta_k$).
We also note that this observation and
a straightforward application of the absorbing method of R\"odl, Ruci\'nski, and Szemer\'edi
together imply that one only needs to prove the following weaker conjecture to establish
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong}.
(This reduction is proved in Lemma~\ref{lem:weakerstrongtostrong} in Section~\ref{sec:absorbing}.)
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:weakerstrong}
For every $k \ge 3$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $\sigma_0 := \sigma_0(k, \varepsilon)$
such that for $0 < \sigma < \sigma_0$ there exists $n_0 := n_0(k,\varepsilon, \sigma)$
such that for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
Let $G$ be a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$. If there exist $\delta_1,\delta_2, \ldots, \delta_k\ge (1 + \varepsilon) n/2$ such that $\delta(G[V_i,V_{i+1}])\geq \delta_i$, for every $i\in[k]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac1k \sum_{i\in[k]}\delta_i \ge \left(1 + \frac{1}{k}+\varepsilon\right)\frac{n}{2},
\end{equation*}
then $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-tiling of size at least $(1-\sigma)n$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{comment}
We also mention the following simple consequence of
Hall's Theorem, because it can be seen
as a version of Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} in the case when $k=2$.
That is, we can
think of a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_2$ as
consisting of two different bipartite graphs $H$ and $H'$ on the same $n$-vertex
partite sets in which the copies of $C_2$ are the edges in $E(H) \cap E(H')$.
\end{comment}
To further support the conjecture, we consider a natural extension of Conjecture \ref{conj:strong} for $k=2$.
Suppose that $H$ and $H'$ are two balanced bipartite graphs both with the same partite sets $V_1$ and $V_2$
where $|V_1| = |V_2| = n$.
If $\frac 12\left(\delta(H) + \delta(H')\right) \ge \frac{3n}{4}$,
then there exists $M \subseteq E(H) \cap E(H')$ that
is simultaneously a perfect matching of both $H$ and $H'$. Indeed, every vertex in $v \in V_1 \cup V_2$ is incident to at least $d_H(v) + d_{H'}(v) - n \ge n/2$ edges
in $E(H) \cap E(H')$, so Hall's Theorem implies the desired matching exists.
This together with the reduction argument discussed above, implies the following.
\begin{remark}\label{remark:C2}
For every $k \ge 3$ and $n$, Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} holds
whenever $\delta_1, \dotsc, \delta_k\ge n/2$ and
$\delta_i + \delta_j \ge 3n/2$ for distinct $i,j \in [k]$.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
Because of Example~\ref{exp:conj},
the condition on the average of the minimum degrees
in Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} is asymptotically sharp.
However, it might be possible to weaken the degree condition
by only placing a lower bound on the average of some
proper subset of the minimum degrees.
For example, in the triangle case, we do not have an example in
which all of the minimum degrees are at least
$n/2$ and the average of only the two largest minimum degrees is at least $2n/3$
that does not have a triangle factor.
Often one tries to find such examples
that either have an independent set which is larger than $n$
or have a triangle cover of size less than $n$, since
either one of these two conditions imply
that the graph cannot contain $n$ vertex disjoint triangles.
It is a straightforward exercise to show that, under these conditions,
the independence number must be $n$.
The following theorem proves that the triangle cover number
must be $n$ as well.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:trianglecover}
For every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the following holds for every spanning subgraph $G$ of the $n$-blow-up
of $C_3$ with parts $V_1,V_2,V_3$.
If $\delta_1 \ge \delta_2 \ge \delta_3 \ge n/2$,
$\delta(G[V_i, V_{i+1}]) \ge \delta_i$ for $i \in [3]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\delta_1 + \delta_2}2 \ge \frac{2n}{3},
\end{equation*}
then the triangle cover number of $G$ is $n$.
Moreover, for every rational $\gamma \in (\frac 34,\frac79] \cup \{\frac23\}$ there are infinitely many $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that when $\beta = 4/3 - \gamma$ there exists a spanning subgraph $G$ of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$ with parts $A$, $B$, and $C$
such that $\delta(G[A,B]) \ge \gamma n -1$, $\delta(G[A,C]) \ge \beta n$ and
$\delta(G[B,C]) \ge n/2$ that has a triangle cover of order less than $n$.
\end{theorem}
Suppose that for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$
there exists $n_0$ such that when $n \ge n_0$ there
exists a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$ with parts $V_1,V_2,V_3$
that meets the stronger degree conditions
$\delta_1 \ge \delta_2 \ge \delta_3 \ge (1 + \varepsilon)n/2$ and
$(\delta_1 + \delta_2)/2 \ge (2/3 + \varepsilon)n$ yet
does not have a triangle factor.
In Section~\ref{sec:absorbing} (Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb} and Proposition~\ref{prop:c3linked}),
we will show that, under these conditions,
we can apply the absorbing method.
This would therefore mean that, for some $\sigma > 0$
and for every sufficiently large $n$,
there would exist a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$
that meets the degree conditions of first part of Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglecover}
in which every triangle factor has order at most
$(1 - \sigma)n$,
but has triangle cover number $n$ and independence number $n$.\footnote{
It is well-known that this assumption would
also imply that there would exist a family of examples that
meet the degree conditions of first part of Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglecover} and
do not have a perfect factional triangle tiling. By the duality
theorem from linear programming, such a family of examples then
must have a fractional triangle cover of size less than the size of the parts.}
\subsection{Notation}
For a graph $G$,
$e(G)$ denotes the number of edges in $G$. For $S, T \subseteq V(G)$,
we let $N_G(S, T) := T \cap \left(\bigcap \{N_G(v) : v \in S \}\right)$
be the \textit{common neighborhood of $S$ in $T$}
and we let $d_G(S, T) := |N_G(S, T)|$.
For $v \in V(G)$, we define $N_G(v, T) := N_G(\{v\}, T)$
and $d_G(v, T) = d_G(\{v\}, T)$.
We typically drop the subscript from this notation when it is clear from
the context.
For a tiling $\mathcal{T}$,
we let $U(\mathcal{T}) := V(G) \setminus V(\mathcal{T})$ be the
vertices \textit{uncovered} by $\mathcal{T}$ and if
$v \in U(\mathcal{T})$ we say that \textit{$v$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$}.
Similarly, if $e \in E(G)$, and both endpoints of $e$ are uncovered
by $\mathcal{T}$, we say that \textit{$e$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$}.
\section{The Absorbing Method}\label{sec:absorbing}
We use a straightforward application of the
absorbing method of R\"odl, Ruci\'nski, and Szemer\'edi \cite{rodl2006dirac}.
Propositions~\ref{prop:cklinked} and \ref{prop:c3linked} are essentially
all that is necessary
to derive appropriate absorbing lemmas in this setting.
\begin{definition}
For $k \ge 3$, let $G$ be a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$.
For vertices $v,v'$ in the same part, we call a $k$-tuple
of distinct vertices
$(v_1,\ldots v_{t})$ a $(v,v', t)$-linking sequence if
both $G[\{v,v_1,\dotsc v_t\}]$ and $G[\{v',v_1,\dotsc,v_{t}\}]$ have
a transversal $C_k$-factor.
We allow $v = v'$ in this definition.
We say that $G$ is $(\eta,t)$-linked if, for every $i \in [k]$ and $v,v' \in V_i$,
the number of $(v,v',t)$-linking sequence is at least $\eta n^{t}$.
\end{definition}
The proof of the following lemma is standard (e.g.\ it is very similar to Lemma 1.1 in \cite{lo2015}), but we include a proof in the appendix for completeness.
\begin{lemma}[The Absorbing Lemma]\label{lem:absorb}
For $k \ge 3$, $t \ge k-1$, $\eta >0$ and $0 < \sigma \le \frac{0.1 \eta^{k+1}}{(k(t+1))^2 + 1}$,
there exists $n_0(k, t, \eta, \sigma)$ such that for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
Suppose that $G$ is a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$
that is $(2\eta,t)$-linked.
For some $z \le \sigma n$,
there exists $A \subseteq V(G)$ where $|A \cap V_i| = z$ for every $i \in [k]$
such that if $G - A$ has a transversal $C_k$-tiling of size at least
$n - z - \sigma^2 n$, then $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{lemma}
Note that the degree condition in the following proposition is weaker than
the degree condition in Conjecture~\ref{conj:main}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:cklinked}
For $k \ge 4$ and $\varepsilon > 0$,
if $G$ is a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ and
$\delta^*(G) \ge (1 + \varepsilon)n/2$,
then $G$ is $(\varepsilon^3/2^{k},k-1)$-linked.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$ be the parts of $G$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $v,v' \in V_1$.
We can construct $(v_2, \dotsc, v_k)$ a $(v,v')$-linking sequence
by first selecting $v_2 \in N(\{v, v'\}, V_2)$ and then
$v_k \in N(\{v, v'\}, V_k)$ each
in at least $2 \delta^*(G) - n \ge \varepsilon n$ ways.
Iteratively, for $i$ from $3$ to $k-2$
we can select $v_i \in N(v_{i-1}, V_i)$
in at least $\delta^*(G) \ge n/2$ ways.
Finally, we can select
$v_{k-1} \in N(\{v_{k-2}, v_k\}, V_{k-1})$ in one at least
$2 \delta^*(G) - n \ge \varepsilon n$ ways.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:c3linked}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exist $n_0(\varepsilon)$ such that
for every $n \ge n_0$ the following holds.
Let $G$ be a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of a triangle with parts $V_1,V_2, V_3$.
If $\delta_1 \ge \delta_2 \ge \delta_3\geq (1+\varepsilon)n/2$ are such that
$\delta(G[V_i,V_{i+1}])\ge\delta_i$ for every $i \in [3]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\delta_1 + \delta_2}{2} \geq \left(\frac23+\varepsilon\right)n,
\end{equation*}
then $G$ is $(\varepsilon^3/100,5)$-linked.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There are at least
$n \cdot \delta_3 \cdot (\delta_1 + \delta_2 - n) \ge n^3/6$
triangles in $G$, because we can pick any $w_3 \in V_3$, then any $w_1 \in N(w_3, V_1)$
and then any $w_2 \in N(w_1) \cap N(w_3) \cap V_2$ to form a triangle.
We will also need the following fact:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c3fact2}
\text{$\forall u_1,u'_1 \in V_1$ there are at least $6 \varepsilon^2 n^2$ edges $u_2u_3$
s.t.\ $u_1u_2u_3$ and $u'_1u_2u_3$ are triangles}.
\end{equation}
To see \eqref{eq:c3fact2}, note that there are
at least $2 \delta_3 - n \ge 2 \varepsilon n$ ways to pick a vertex $u_3 \in V_3$
adjacent to both $u_1$ and $u'_1$ and that then there
are at least
$2\delta_1 + \delta_2 - 2n \ge 3 (\delta_1 + \delta_2)/2 - 2n \ge 3 \varepsilon n$
ways to select a vertex $u_2 \in V_2$ that is adjacent to $u_1$, $u'_1$, and $u_3$.
The fact that there are at least $n^3/6$ triangles and \eqref{eq:c3fact2}
immediately implies that, for every $v,v' \in V_1$,
the number of $(v,v',5)$-linking sequences is at least
$\frac{\varepsilon^3 n^5}{100}$,
because the sequence $(u_2,u_3,w_1,w_2,w_3)$
is a $(v,v',5)$-linking sequence whenever $vu_2u_3$ and $v'u_2u_3$ are both
triangles and $w_1w_2w_3$ is a triangle disjoint from $\{v,v',u_2,u_3\}$.
So we are left to consider the case when $v,v' \in V_i$ for $i \in \{2, 3\}$.
Let $j \in \{2, 3\} \setminus \{i \}$ so we have that $\{i,j\} = \{2, 3\}$.
We can pick $u_j \in N(v) \cap N(v') \cap V_j$ in at least
$2\delta_2 - n \ge 2 \varepsilon n$ ways.
Then we can pick $u_1 \in N(v) \cap N(u_j) \cap V_1$ in at least $\delta_1 + \delta_3 - n \ge n/6$ ways.
Similarly, we can now pick $u'_1 \in N(v') \cap N(u_j) \cap V_1$ distinct from $u_1$
in at least $\delta_1 + \delta_3 - n - 1 \ge n/6$ ways.
Observe that $vu_ju_1$ and $v'u_ju'_1$ are both triangles.
By \eqref{eq:c3fact2}, there are at least $\frac12 \cdot 6 \varepsilon^2 n^2$ ways to
now pick $u_2$ and $u_3$ such that $u_1u_2u_3$ and $u'_1u_2u_3$ are both triangles and
such that $u_2$ and $u_3$ are disjoint from $\{v, v', u_j\}$.
All together there are at least
\begin{equation*}
2 \varepsilon \cdot \frac16 \cdot \frac16 \cdot 3 \varepsilon^2 \cdot n^5
\ge \frac{\varepsilon^3 n^5}{100}
\end{equation*}
ways to make these selection. To complete the proof,
we observe that every such selection
$(u_j, u_1, u_2, u_3, u'_1)$ is a $(v,v',5)$-linking sequence,
because $vu_ju_1$ and $u'_1u_2u_3$ are both triangles and
$v'u_ju'_1$ and $u_1u_2u_3$ are both triangles.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:weakerstrongtostrong}
Let $k \ge 3$.
If Conjecture~\ref{conj:weakerstrong} holds for $k$,
then Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} holds for $k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We can assume $\sigma$ is small enough and $n$ is large enough
so that the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\sigma^{1/2} < \varepsilon$ and
for every $n' \ge (1-\sigma^{1/2})n$
and for every $3 \le \ell \le k$, we can apply Conjecture~\ref{conj:weakerstrong}
with $\ell$, $\sigma$, $n'$ and $\varepsilon - \sigma^{1/2}$ playing the roles
of $k$, $\sigma$, $n$ and $\varepsilon$, respectively;
\item for every $4 \le \ell \le k$,
we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb} with
$\ell$, $\ell-1$, $\varepsilon^3/2^\ell$, and $\sigma^{1/2}$
playing the roles of $k$, $t$, $\eta$, and $\sigma$, respectively; and
\item
we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb} with
$3$, $5$, $\varepsilon^3/100$, and $\sigma^{1/2}$
playing the roles of $k$, $t$, $\eta$, and $\sigma$, respectively.
\end{itemize}
Let $G$ and $\delta_1, \dotsc, \delta_k$
be as in the statement of Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong}.
Let $I := \{i \in [k] : \delta_i < (1 + \varepsilon) \frac n2\}$,
let $\ell = k - |I|$, and
let $i_1 < \dotsm < i_{|I|}$ be an ordering of the elements of $I$.
In the manner described after the statement
of Theorem~\ref{thm:strongk3},
iteratively, for $j$ from $1$ to $|I|$,
we can match every $v \in V_{i_j}$ to a unique $f_v \in V_{i_j+1}$
and then collapse the edge $vf_v$ into $f_v$.
Let $G'$ be the resulting graph, so
$G'$ will be a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_\ell$
such that a transversal $C_\ell$ factor of $G'$ corresponds
to a transversal $C_k$ factor of $G$.
For convenience, we relabel the parts of $G'$ as
$V'_1,\dotsc,V'_\ell$ so that,
for $i \in [\ell]$, we have $G'[V'_i, V'_{i+1}] \ge \delta'_i$.
Note that $\delta'_i \ge (1 + \varepsilon) \frac n2$ for $i \in [\ell]$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reduction}
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \delta'_i =
\sum_{i=1}^{k} \delta_i - \sum_{j=1}^{k-\ell}\delta_{i_j}
> k\left(1 + \frac1k + \varepsilon\right)\frac n2 - (k - \ell)(1 + \varepsilon) \frac n2
= \ell\left(1 + \frac 1\ell + \varepsilon\right) \frac n2.
\end{equation}
Clearly \eqref{eq:reduction}
implies $\ell \ge 2$ and that we can assume $\ell \ge 3$ by Remark~\ref{remark:C2}.
If $\ell=3$, then Proposition~\ref{prop:c3linked} implies that
$G$ is $(\varepsilon^3/100,5)$-linked and if
$\ell \ge 4$, Proposition~\ref{prop:cklinked} implies
that $G$ is $(\varepsilon^3/2^\ell, \ell - 1)$-linked.
So by the selection of $\sigma$ and $n$,
we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb} with $G'$ and $\sigma^{1/2}$
playing the roles of $G$ and $\sigma$ to find a
set $A \subseteq V(G')$ with
$z = |V'_i \cap A| \le \sigma^{1/2}$ for $i \in [\ell]$
guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb}.
Conjecture~\ref{conj:weakerstrong} then implies that $G' - A$
has a transversal $C_\ell$-tiling of size at least $n - z - \sigma n$
which implies that $G'$ has a transversal $C_\ell$-factor.
This in turn implies that $G$ has a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:asymp}}
Informally the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:asymp} proceeds as follows:
Given a spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts
$V_1, \dotsc, V_k$
that satisfies the degree condition \eqref{eq:asymp_degree_condition},
we independently select,
for every $i \in k$ and for large $T := T(k, \varepsilon)$,
a partition of almost all of $V_i$ into $T+1$ parts
$U_{i,1}, W_{i,1}, W_{i,2}, \dotsc, W_{i,T}$ each of size $mk$.
The Chernoff and union bounds imply that, if $n$ is sufficiently large,
there exists an outcome where, for every $i \in [k]$ and
every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$, the vertex $v$
has at least $(1 + 1/k + \varepsilon/2)mk/2$ neighbors in each of
the $T+1$ parts of $V_i$.
Therefore, for $t$ from $1$ to $T$,
we can iteratively apply the following lemma (Lemma~\ref{lem:asymp})
to find a transversal $C_k$-tiling $\mathcal{T}_t$ of size $mk$ contained in $\bigcup_{i \in k} \left(U_{i,t} \cup W_{i,t}\right)$
so that, if, for $i \in [k]$, we let $U_{i,{t+1}}$ be the vertices in $U_{i,t} \cup W_{i,t}$
uncovered by $\mathcal{T}_t$, we can continue with the next iteration.
In this way, we can cover almost all of the vertices, so with absorbing
(i.e.\ Proposition~\ref{prop:cklinked} and Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb}) we can
find a transversal $C_k$-factor.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:asymp}
For $\varepsilon>0$ and integer $k \ge 3$, there exists $m_0 := m_0(k,\varepsilon)$ such
for every $m \ge m_0$ the following holds for $n \ge 2mk$.
Suppose that $G$ is a subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_k$ with parts $V_1, \dotsc, V_k$,
and that, for every $i \in [k]$, there exist disjoint
$U_i, W_i \subseteq V_i$
where $|U_i| = |W_i| = mk$ and the following conditions hold
for every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(C\arabic*)]
\item\label{C1} $d(v, U_i) \ge \left(1 + \sigma\right)mk/2$, and
\item\label{C2} $d(v, W_i) \ge \left(1 + 1/k + \sigma\right)mk/2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $G$ contains a transversal $C_k$-tiling $\mathcal{T}$ of size $mk$
contained in $\bigcup_{i \in [k]} U_i \cup W_i$
such that for every $i \in [k]$ and every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$ with
$U'_i := \left(U_i \cup W_i\right) \setminus V(\mathcal{T})$
we have
\begin{equation*}
d(v, U'_i) \ge \left(1 + \sigma\right)mk/2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For every $i \in [k]$, independently and uniformly at random select a partition of $U_i$
into parts $U_{i,1}, \dotsc, U_{i,k}$ each of size $m$.
For every $i,j \in [k]$ and every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$,
the random variable $d(v, U_{i,j})$ is
hypergeometrically distributed with expected value
$d(v, U_i) \frac{|U_{i,j}|}{|U_i|} = \frac{d(v, U_i)}{k}$.
Therefore, by \ref{C1} and the Chernoff and union bounds, there exists an outcome such that
for every $i,j \in [k]$ and every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:after_random_selection}
d(v, U_{i,j}) \ge m/2.
\end{equation}
This implies that
for every $i,j\in [k]$, the bipartite graph
$G[U_{i,j}, U_{i+1,j}]$ is balanced with parts of size $m$ and
minimum degree at least $m/2$, so, by Hall's Theorem,
it contains a perfect matching $M_{i,j}$.
For $j \in [k]$, let $H_j$ be the graph with vertex set $U_{1,j} \cup \dotsm \cup U_{k,j}$
such that
\begin{equation*}
E(H_j):=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k} M_{i,j} \setminus \left(M_{j-1,j} \cup M_{j,j}\right).
\end{equation*}
Note that $H_j$ consists of a collection
$\mathcal{P}_{j}$ of $m$ vertex disjoint paths each on $k-1$ vertices such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $V(\mathcal{P}_j) = V(H_j) \setminus U_{j,j}$;
\item every $P \in \mathcal{P}_j$ has exactly one vertex in each of the sets $U_{1,j}, \dotsc, U_{k,j}$ except
$U_{j,j}$; and
\item every $P \in \mathcal{P}_j$ has one end-vertex in $U_{j-1,j}$ and the other end-vertex in $U_{j+1,j}$.
\end{itemize}
By \ref{C2},
the number of common neighbors in $W_j$
of the endpoints of every path in $\mathcal{P}_j$ is at least
\begin{equation*}
2\left(1 + 1/k + \sigma\right)mk/2 - mk > m = |P_j|.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we can greedily select such a common neighbor for every path in $\mathcal{P}_j$ to form
$\mathcal{T}_j$ a transversal $C_k$-tiling of size $m$.
The union $\mathcal{T} := \mathcal{T}_1 \cup \dotsm \cup \mathcal{T}_k$ is a transversal $C_k$-tiling of $G$ of size $mk$.
For every $i \in [k]$, let
$U'_i := \left(U_i \cup W_i\right) \setminus V(\mathcal{T}) = U_{i,i} \cup \left(W_i \setminus V(\mathcal{T})\right)$,
so
\begin{equation*}
|U'_i| = |U_{i,i}| + |W_i| - m = mk.
\end{equation*}
With \ref{C2} and \eqref{eq:after_random_selection},
for every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
d(v, U'_i) \ge m/2 + \left(1 + 1/k + \sigma\right)mk/2 - m = \left(1 + \sigma\right)mk/2. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:asymp}]
Define
$\eta := k^{-3} \cdot 2^{-k}$ and $\sigma := \min\{\varepsilon/4, 0.1 \eta^{k+1}/(k^4 + 1)\}$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:cklinked}, $G$ is $(\eta, k-1)$-linked.
Let $A$ be the set guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb},
so there exists $z \le \sigma n$ such that $|A \cap V_i| = z$ for every $i \in [k]$.
Let $m := \floor{\frac{\sigma^2 n}{2k}}$
and let $T := \floor{\frac{n - z}{mk}}-1$ and
note that $(T+1)mk \le n - z \le (T+2)mk$ and that $T$ is bounded above by
a constant that depends only on $k$ and $\varepsilon$.
For every $i \in [k]$, let $V'_i \subseteq V_i \setminus A$ where
$|V'_i| = (T+1)mk$.
We will construct $T$ disjoint transversal $C_k$-tilings each of of
size $mk$ that each avoid $A$.
Because,
\begin{equation*}
mkT = (T+2)mk - 2mk \ge n - z - \sigma^2 n
\end{equation*}
this will imply the theorem by the properties of $A$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:absorb}.
Note that, by \eqref{eq:asymp_degree_condition}, for every $i \in [k]$ and $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nprime_degree}
d(v, V_i') \ge \delta^*(G) - (n - |V'_i|) \ge
\left(1 + 1/k + 2\sigma\right)n/2 \ge \left(1 + 1/k + 2\sigma\right)|V_i'|/2.
\end{equation}
For every $i \in [k]$, independently and uniformly at random
select a partition of $V'_i$ into $T+1$ parts $W_{i,0}, \dotsc, W_{i,T}$ each of size $mk$.
For every $i \in [k]$, every $0 \le t \le T$, and every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$,
the random variable
$d(v, W_{i, t})$
is hypergeometrically distributed with expected value
$d(v, V'_i) \frac{|W_{i,t}|}{|V'_i|}$.
Therefore, by \eqref{eq:nprime_degree} and the Chernoff and union bounds,
there exists an outcome such that
for every $i \in [k]$, $0 \le t \le T$, and $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:after_random_selection_vW}
d(v, W_{i, t}) \ge \left(1 + 1/k + \sigma\right)mk/2.
\end{equation}
We will now show by induction on $t$ from $1$ to $T+1$ that there exist $t-1$ disjoint transversal $C_k$-tilings
$\mathcal{T}_1, \dotsc, \mathcal{T}_{t-1}$ each of size $mk$ that are contained in $\bigcup_{i \in k} \bigcup_{s = 0}^{t-1} W_{i,s}$,
and that, for every $i \in [k]$,
if we let $U_{i, t} := \left(\bigcup_{s=0}^{t-1} W_{i,s}\right) \setminus \left(\bigcup_{s = 1}^{t-1} V(\mathcal{T}_s)\right)$,
then the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ut_condition}
d(v, U_{i, t}) \ge (1 + \sigma)mk/2 \qquad \text{ for every $v \in V_{i-1} \cup V_{i+1}$.}
\end{equation}
This will prove the theorem.
For the base case, note that when $t = 1$ we have that $U_{i,t} = U_{i,1} = W_{i,0}$
for every $i \in [k]$
so \eqref{eq:Ut_condition} holds by \eqref{eq:after_random_selection_vW}.
Now assume the induction hypothesis holds for some $1 \le t \le T$.
With \eqref{eq:after_random_selection_vW} and \eqref{eq:Ut_condition}
we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:asymp}
to find a tiling $\mathcal{T}_t$ of size $mk$ contained in
$\bigcup_{i \in [k]} U_{i, t} \cup W_{i, t}$ such that,
for every $i \in [k]$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
U_{i,t+1} =
\left(\bigcup_{s=0}^{t} W_{i,s}\right) \setminus \left(\bigcup_{s = 1}^{t} V(\mathcal{T}_s)\right) =
\left(U_{i, t} \cup W_{i, t}\right)\setminus V(\mathcal{T}_t)
\end{equation*}
satisfies \eqref{eq:Ut_condition} with $t$ set to $t+1$. Therefore, the induction hypothesis holds for $t+1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:strongk3}}
Because Theorem~\ref{thm:almoststrongk3} works for every $n$ and the degree
condition is weaker than Theorem~\ref{thm:strongk3},
it might have independent interest.
Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:almoststrongk3} is stronger than
the $k=3$ case of Conjecture~\ref{conj:weakerstrong}, so
Lemma~\ref{lem:weakerstrongtostrong} and Theorem~\ref{thm:almoststrongk3}
together imply Theorem~\ref{thm:strongk3}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:almoststrongk3}
The following holds for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and
every subgraph $G$ of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$ with parts $V_1, V_2, V_3$.
If there exist $\delta_1, \delta_2,\delta_3\ge n/2$ such that
$\delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3 \ge 2n$ and
\begin{equation*}
\delta(G[V_i, V_{i+1}]) \ge \delta_i \qquad\text{for every $i \in [3]$},
\end{equation*}
then $G$ has a transversal $C_3$-tiling of size at least $n-1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For brevity, in this proof we call a transversal $C_3$-tiling
a \textit{tiling}.
Let the size of a maximum tiling of $G$ be $m$ and let us assume for a
contradiction that $m \le n-2$.
Call a pair of edges $e$ and $f$ \textit{dissimilar} if
$e \in E(G[V_i, V_{i+1}])$ and $f \in E(G[V_j, V_{j+1}])$ for
distinct $i,j \in [3]$.
Call a set $F \subseteq E(G)$ a \textit{dissimilar matching} if
the edges in $F$ are disjoint and the edges in $F$ are pairwise
dissimilar.
For every maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$, let $h(\mathcal{T})$ be the maximum size of
a dissimilar matching $F \subseteq E(G[U(\mathcal{T})])$ such that
every edge in $F$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
Recall that an edge $e$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$ if both endpoints of
$e$ are disjoint from $V(\mathcal{T})$.
Let $\{\alpha, \beta, \gamma\} = \{\delta_1/n, \delta_2/n, \delta_3/n\}$
and $\{A, B, C\} = \{V_1, V_2, V_3\}$
be labellings such that $\alpha \le \beta \le \gamma$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:abccond}
\delta(G[B,C]) \ge \alpha n, \quad
\delta(G[A,C]) \ge \beta n, \quad\text{and}\quad
\delta(G[A,B]) \ge \gamma n.
\end{equation}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:dissimilar}
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a maximum tiling.
If $e \in E(G)$ is uncovered
by $\mathcal{T}$, then $d(e, U(\mathcal{T})) = 0$.
Furthermore, if $e$ and $f$ are disjoint dissimilar edges that are
uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$, then
$d(e, T) + d(f, T) \le 1$ for every $T \in \mathcal{T}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
If $e$ is an edge uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$ and $x \in U(\mathcal{T})$ is such that
$d(e, \{x\}) = 1$, then $ex$ is triangle, and adding $ex$ to $\mathcal{T}$
creates a tiling of size $m+1$, a contradiction.
Similarly, if $e$ and $f$ are disjoint and dissimilar edges
that are uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$ and $d(e, T) + d(f, T) \ge 2$
for some $T \in \mathcal{T}$, then,
because $e$ and $f$ are dissimilar, there exist distinct
$x,y \in T$ such that $ex$ and $fy$ are both triangles, so
if we replace $T$ with $ex$ and $fy$ in $\mathcal{T}$, then we have
a tiling of size $m+1$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:hle2}
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a maximum tiling
and let $F$ be a dissimilar matching with $|F|=3$.
Then either there exists $e \in F$ such that $d(e, U(\mathcal{T})) \ge 1$
or there exists $T \in \mathcal{T}$ such that
$\sum_{e \in F} d(e, T) \ge 2$.
Consequently, $h(\mathcal{T}) \le 2$ for every maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{a_1, \dotsc, a_n\}$, $\{b_1, \dotsc, b_n\}$, and $\{c_1, \dotsc, c_n\}$
be orderings of $A$, $B$, and $C$, respectively, such that
$a_ib_ic_i \in \mathcal{T}$ for every $i \in [m]$ (so, when $m + 1 \le i \le n$,
$a_ib_ic_i$ is not a triangle).
By \eqref{eq:abccond}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{e \in F} d(e, a_ib_ic_i)=
\sum_{e \in F} d(e, V(G)) \ge \\
(\alpha + \beta - 1)n + (\alpha + \gamma - 1)n + (\beta + \gamma - 1)n \ge n.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, if $0=\sum_{e \in F} d(e, U(\mathcal{T})) =
\sum_{i=m+1}^{n}\sum_{e \in F} d(e, a_ib_ic_i)$, then
there exists
$1 \le i \le m$ such that $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{F}} d(e, a_ib_ic_i) = 2$.
This proves the first statement.
To see the second statement, assume that for a contradiction
that there exists a maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$ such that $h(\mathcal{T}) = 3$.
This means that there exists a dissimilar matching
$F$ such that $|F| = 3$ and such that every edge in $F$ is uncovered
by $\mathcal{T}$. By the first part of the statement, there either exists $e \in F$ such
$d(e, U(\mathcal{T})) \ge 1$, or there exists two edges $e,f \in \mathcal{T}$ and $T \in \mathcal{T}$
such that $d(e, T) + d(f, T) \ge 1$.
Because every edge in $F$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$,
this contradicts Claim~\ref{clm:dissimilar}.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:edgeswap}
There exists a maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$ such that $h(\mathcal{T}) = 2$,
and for every maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$ there does not exist $e\in E(G[B,C])$
which is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for a contradiction that the statement is false and
assume $\mathcal{T}$ and a dissimilar matching $F$ in $G[U(\mathcal{T})]$ have both
been selected so that
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\Alph*)]
\item\label{A} there exists $e \in F$ such that $e \in G[B,C]$ if possible, and,
\item\label{B} subject \ref{A}, $|F|$ is as large as possible.
\end{enumerate}
Note that Claim~\ref{clm:hle2}, implies that $|F| \le h(\mathcal{T}) \le 2$,
so if there exists $e \in F$ such that $e \in E(G[B,C])$, then
$F$ has at most one edge that is contained in $E(G[A,B]) \cup E(G[A,C])$.
If there is no $e \in F$ that is in $E(G[B,C])$, then
by the selection of $\mathcal{T}$ and $F$ (c.f.\ \ref{A}),
for every maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}$ there does not exist $e \in E(G[B,C])$,
so our contrary assumption implies $|F| \le h(\mathcal{T}) \le 1$.
Therefore, in all cases,
$F$ has at most one edge that is contained in $E(G[A,B]) \cup E(G[A,C])$.
Let $\{X, Y\} = \{B, C\}$ be a labelling such that
$F$ does not contain an edge in $G[A,X]$.
Let $W \subseteq U$ be the set of vertices that are incident to an edge
in $F$.
The fact that $|\mathcal{T}| \le n -2$, implies that there exist nonadjacent vertices
$a \in A \setminus W$ and $x \in X \setminus W$ that are uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
Let $\{a_1, \dotsc, a_n\}$, $\{x_1, \dotsc, x_n\}$ and
$\{y_1, \dotsc, y_n\}$ be orderings of $A$, $X$, and $Y$, respectively
such that $a_n = a$, $x_n = x$ and
$a_ix_iy_i \in \mathcal{T}$ for every $i \in [m]$.
We can assume that the orderings are such that $W$
is contained in the set $\{a_{n-1}, x_{n-1}, y_{n-1}, y_n\}$ with
$x_{n-1}y_{n-1} \in F$ if $F \cap E(G[X,Y]) = F \cap E(G[B,C]) \neq \emptyset$.
Since $a$ and $x$ are nonadjacent,
$d(x, a_n) + d(a, x_n) + d(a, y_n) = d(x, a) + d(a, x) + d(a, y_n) \le 1$,
and, by \eqref{eq:abccond} and the fact that $\alpha \le \beta \le \gamma$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} d(x, a_i) + d(a, x_i) + d(a, y_i) =
d(x, A) + d(a, X) + d(a, Y) \ge \beta n + \beta n + \gamma n \ge 2n,
\end{equation*}
so there must exist $i \in [n-1]$ such that
$d(x, a_i) + d(a, x_i) + d(a, y_i) = 3$.
Note that $i \neq n-1$, because if $ax_{n-1}$ is an edge, then the
fact that $F \cap E(G[A,X]) = \emptyset$ and the maximality of $F$
imply that
$x_{n-1}y_{n-1} \in F$, but, because $\mathcal{T}$ is a maximum tiling,
$ax_{n-1}y_{n-1}$ is not a triangle.
Since $F \cap E(G[A,X]) = \emptyset$, the maximality of $F$ also
implies that that
$d(x, a_j) = 0$ for every $m+1 \le j \le n-2$, so
it must be that $i \in [m]$, i.e., that
$T = a_ix_iy_i$ is a triangle in $\mathcal{T}$.
Therefore, we can swap $T$ for the triangle $ax_iy_i$ in $\mathcal{T}$
to form the maximum tiling $\mathcal{T}'$.
Because the edge $a_ix$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}'$ and $W \subseteq U(\mathcal{T}')$,
we have a contradiction to the selection of $\mathcal{T}$ and $F$ (c.f.\ \ref{B}).
\end{proof}
Claim~\ref{clm:edgeswap} implies
that there exists a maximum tiling
$\mathcal{T}$ such that $h(\mathcal{T}) = 2$.
By Claim~\ref{clm:edgeswap},
we can assume that $\mathcal{T}$ leaves no
edge in $G[B,C]$ uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
This means that there are
disjoint edges $ab \in G[A, B]$ and
$a'c \in G[A,C]$ with $a, a' \in A$ that are uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
Since $|\mathcal{T}| = m \le n - 2$,
there also exists $b' \in B \setminus \{b\}$ and
$c' \in C \setminus \{c\}$ that are uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$.
Furthermore, the fact that no edge in
$G[B,C]$ is uncovered implies that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}} d(b', T \cap C) + d(c', T \cap B) =
d(b', C) + d(c', B) \ge 2 \delta(G[B,C]) \ge n > m = |\mathcal{T}|,
\end{equation*}
so there exists $T \in \mathcal{T}$ such that
$d(b', T \cap C) + d(c', T \cap B) = 2$.
Let $e$ be the edge incident to $c'$ and $T \cap B$
and let $e'$ be the incident to $b'$ and $T \cap C$.
If we define $F := \{ab, a'c, e\}$, then $F$ is a dissimilar matching,
so Claim \ref{clm:hle2} implies that we are in one of the following two
cases.
\noindent \textbf{Case 1}:
\textit{There exists $f \in F$ such that $d(f, U(\mathcal{T})) \ge 1$.}
By Claim~\ref{clm:dissimilar}, the fact that $ab$ and $a'c$ are
uncovered by $\mathcal{T}$ implies that $f = e$.
So, there exists a triangle $T'$ that contains
$e$ and a vertex in $U \cap A$.
This means that we can create a maximum tiling by replacing $T$ with $T'$
in $\mathcal{T}$ that leaves the edge $e' \in G[B,C]$ uncovered,
contradicting Claim~\ref{clm:edgeswap}.
\noindent \textbf{Case 2}:
\textit{There exists $T' \in \mathcal{T}$ such that $\sum_{f \in F} d(f,T') \ge 2$.}
By Claim~\ref{clm:dissimilar}, $d(ab, T') + d(a'c, T') \le 1$, so there
is $f \in \{ab, a'c\}$ such that $d(e, T') + d(f, T') \ge 2$.
This means that there exist two triangles, say $T''$, $T'''$,
in the graph induced by the vertices incident to $e$, $f$ and $T'$.
Therefore, we can create a new tiling, say $\mathcal{T}'$, by removing $T$ and $T'$
from $\mathcal{T}$ and replacing them with $T''$ and $T'''$.
Since $\mathcal{T}$ is maximum tiling, we have that $T \neq T'$ and that
$\mathcal{T}'$ is a maximum tiling.
Because $T \neq T'$, the edge $e' \in G[B,C]$ is uncovered by $\mathcal{T}'$
which contradicts Claim~\ref{clm:edgeswap}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:trianglecover}}\label{sec:triangle_covers}
The following example proves the second part of the theorem
\begin{example}
For the case $\gamma=2/3$, it can be checked that Example \ref{exp:conj} for $k=3$ satisfies the second claim of Theorem \ref{thm:trianglecover}.
For the case $\gamma \in (\frac34,\frac79]$, we assume $n$ satisfies the following: $\gamma\ge \frac34+\frac1n$ and $(1-\beta)n/2$ is an integer.
Clearly, since $\beta$ is rational and $\gamma>4/3$, there are infinitely many choices for such $n$.
Let us fix $\varepsilon\in (0,\frac1n]$ such that $(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n$ is an integer.
Take sets $A=A_0\cup A_1\cup A_2 \cup A_3$, $B=B_0\cup B_1\cup B_2 \cup B_3$ and $C=C_0\cup C_1\cup C_2 \cup C_3$, such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $|B_i|=(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n$, $|A_i|=|C_i|=(1-\beta)n/2$, for $i\in[3]$;
\item $|B_0|=n-3(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n=(3\gamma -2)n-3\varepsilon n$; and
\item $|A_0|=|C_0|=n-3(1-\beta)n/2=(3\beta-1)n/2$.
\end{itemize}
Let $G$ be the $3$-partite graph with parts $A,B$ and $C$, where $E(G)$ consists of the union of the
edges in the following graphs:
\begin{itemize}
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_0, B\cup C$ and $B_0, A\cup C$ and $C_0, A\cup B$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_1,B_2\cup B_3$ and $A_2,B_1\cup B_3$ and $A_3,B_1\cup B_2$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $B_i,C_i$ and $A_i,C_i$ for each $i\in[3]$.
\end{itemize}
Since $\gamma \le \frac 79$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, we have $(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n > (\gamma - 1/3)n/2 =(1-\beta)n/2$. So,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta(G[A,B])=n-(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n= \gamma n-\varepsilon n$,
\item $\delta(G[B,C])= n-2(1-\gamma+\varepsilon)n= (2\gamma-1) n-2\varepsilon n$, and
\item $\delta(G[A,C])= n-2(1-\beta)n/2=\beta n$.
\end{itemize}
Recall that $\varepsilon\le \frac1n$ and $\gamma\ge \frac34+\frac1n$, so $\delta(G[A,B]) \ge \gamma n -1$ and
$\delta(G[B,C]) \ge (2\gamma - 1)n - 2 \ge n/2$.
Note that $A_0 \cup B_0 \cup C_0$ is a triangle cover and
$$|A_0|+|B_0|+|C_0|=(3\beta-1)n/2+
(3\gamma -2)n-3\varepsilon n+(3\beta-1)n/2=(1-3\varepsilon)n<n.$$
\end{example}
\begin{comment}
\begin{example}
Let $5/9\le \beta \le 7/12$ and $\gamma=4/3-\beta$.
Let $A=A_0\cup A_1\cup A_2 \cup A_3$, $B=B_0\cup B_1\cup B_2 \cup B_3$ and $C=C_0\cup C_1\cup C_2 \cup C_3$.
Let $|B_i|=\lceil(1-\gamma)n+1/3\rceil$ and $|A_i|=|C_i|=\lceil(1-\beta)n/2\rceil$
Let $B_0=n-3(\lceil(1-\gamma)n\rceil+1/3)\le (3\gamma -2)n-1$
and $A_0=C_0=n-3\lceil(1-\beta)n/2\rceil\le (3\beta-1)n/2$.
Let $B_1=B_2=B_3=(n-|B_0|)/3$ and $A_1=A_2=A_3=C_1=C_2=C_3=n-|A_0|=n-|C_0|$.
Let $G$ be the spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$ with parts
$A,B,C$ where $E(G)$ consists of the union of the
edges in the following graphs:
\begin{itemize}
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_0, B\cup C$ and $B_0, A\cup C$ and $C_0, A\cup B$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_1,B_2\cup B_3$ and $A_2,B_1\cup B_3$ and $A_3,B_1\cup B_2$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $B_i,C_i$ and $A_i,C_i$ for each $i\in[3]$.
\end{itemize}
$\delta(G[A,B])\ge n-(\lceil(1-\gamma)n+1/3\rceil)\ge n-(1-\gamma)n-1=\gamma n - 4/3$
$\delta(G[B,C])\ge n-2(\lceil(1-\gamma)n+1/3\rceil)\ge (2\gamma-1) n-8/3$
$\delta(G[A,C])\ge n-2\lceil(1-\beta)n/2\rceil\ge (\beta-1)n-2$
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $n=6m-r$, for some $1\le r\le 6$.
Let $A=A_0\cup A_1\cup A_2 \cup A_3 \cup A_4$ ,$B=B_0\cup B_1\cup B_2 \cup B_3\cup B_4$ and $C=C_0\cup C_1\cup C_2 \cup C_3 \cup C_4$.
Let $|A_0|=|B_0|=|C_0|=2m-r$.
Let $|A_i|=|B_i|=|C_i|=m$ for $i\in [4]$.
Let $G$ be the spanning subgraph of the $n$-blow-up of $C_3$ with parts
$A,B,C$ where $E(G)$ consists of the union of the
edges in the following graphs:
\begin{itemize}
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_0, B\cup C$ and $B_0, A\cup C$ and $C_0, A\cup B$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $A_1,B_2\cup B_3\cup B_4$ and $A_2,B_1\cup B_3\cup B_4$ and $A_3,B_1\cup B_2\cup B_4$ and $A_4,B_1\cup B_2\cup B_3$.
\item the complete bipartite graphs with parts $B_i,C_i$ and $A_i,C_i$ for each $i\in[4]$.
\end{itemize}
$\delta(G[A,B])=2m-r+m+m+m=5m-r$
$\delta(G[B,C])=2m-r+m$
$\delta(G[A,C])\ge |C_0|+(n-|C_0|)/3=(n+|C_0|)/3$
\end{example}
\end{comment}
We now proceed with the proof of the first part of the Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglecover}.
We will use the following definition throughout the proof.
\begin{definition}
For $U, W, U' \subseteq V(G)$, let
$P_{3}(U, W, U')$ be the set of paths on $3$ vertices in which the middle
vertex is in $W$, one endpoint is in $U$ and the other endpoint is in $U'$.
When a set $\{u\}$ is a singleton,
we sometimes replace $\{u\}$ with $u$ in this notation.
\end{definition}
Let $\{\alpha, \beta, \gamma\} = \{\delta_1/n, \delta_2/n, \delta_3/n\}$
and $\{A, B, C\} = \{V_1, V_2, V_3\}$
be labellings such that $\alpha \le \beta \le \gamma$ and
\begin{equation*}
\delta(G[B,C]) \ge \alpha n, \quad
\delta(G[A,C]) \ge \beta n, \quad\text{and}\quad
\delta(G[A,B]) \ge \gamma n.
\end{equation*}
We can assume $\gamma + \beta = 4/3$ and $\alpha = 1/2$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:betagammaa}
1/2 \le \beta \le 2/3 \qquad\text{and}\qquad 2/3 \le \gamma \le 5/6.
\end{equation}
Let $U$ be a triangle cover and let $x = |A \cap U|/n$,
$y = |B \cap U|/n$ and $z = |C \cap U|/n$.
For a contradiction, assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:contrary_assumption}
x + y + z < 1.
\end{equation}
Let $A' = A \setminus U$, $B' = B \setminus U$, and $C' = C \setminus U$.
\begin{claim}\label{clm:1}
$x \ge 1/3$, $y \ge \gamma - 1/2$, and $z \ge \beta - 1/2$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $y + z \le x + y + z < 1$, one of $y$ or $z$ is less than $1/2$, so there
exists an edge $bc \in G[B',C']$. Because $G[A', B', C']$ is triangle-free,
\begin{equation*}
0 = |N(b, A') \cap N(c, A')| \ge
d(b, A) + d(c, A) - |A| - xn \ge \gamma n + \beta n - n - x n = n/3 - x n,
\end{equation*}
so $x \ge 1/3$. By considering an edge in $G[A',B']$ and
an edge in $G[A',C']$ the same argument yields
$z \ge \beta - 1/2$ and $y \ge \gamma - 1/2$, respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:2}
$x < \gamma$, $y < 1/2$, and $z < 1/2$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We first show that both $x < \gamma$ and $y < \gamma$.
To this end, note that if $x \ge \gamma$, then
$x + y \ge \gamma + \gamma - 1/2 = 2\gamma - 1/2$.
If $y \ge \gamma$, then, because $\gamma - 1/2 \le 5/6 - 1/2 = 1/3$, we also have
$x + y \ge 1/3 + \gamma \ge 2\gamma - 1/2$.
So, in either case, we have the following contradiction
\begin{equation*}
1 > x + y + z \ge 2\gamma - 1/2 + \beta - 1/2 = 1/3 + \gamma \ge 1.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, it is clear that $z < 1/2$, since otherwise
$x + y + z \ge 1/3 + (\gamma - 1/2) + 1/2 \ge 1$, a contradiction.
Assume $y \ge 1/2$ and let $b \in B'$.
Note that there are at most $(1-\gamma)n$ vertices
$a \in N_{\overline{G}}(b, A')$. For every such $a$ we can find a $4$-vertex path $ab'a'b$ in $G[A',B']$. Indeed, since $y < \gamma$, there exists
$b' \in N(a, B')$.
Then, because $2 \gamma + \beta \ge 2$ and $1 > x + y + z$,
\begin{equation*}
x < 1 - y - z \le 1/2 - z \le 1/2 - (\beta - 1/2) = 1 - \beta \le
2\gamma - 1.
\end{equation*}
Since $|N(b, A) \cap N(b', A)| \ge 2\gamma n - n>xn$, there exists
$a' \in |N(b, A') \cap N(b', A')|$, giving us the $4$-path $ab'a'b$.
Note that $N(a', C')$ and $N(b', C')$ are disjoint and that
every $c \in C'$ that is adjacent to both $a$ and $b$
is not adjacent to $a'$ and not adjacent to $b'$.
Therefore, $|P_3( b, C', a)|$ is at most
\begin{equation*}
|C' \setminus \left(N(a', C') \cup N(b', C')\right)| \le
(1 - z)n - (\beta - z)n - (1/2 - z)n = (z - \beta + 1/2)n,
\end{equation*}
and $|P_3(b, C', A')|/n^2 \le (1 - \gamma)(z - \beta + 1/2)$.
On the other hand,
\begin{equation*}
|P_3(b, C', A')| \ge \sum_{c \in N(b, C')}d(c, A')
\ge (1/2 - z)n \cdot (\beta - x)n.
\end{equation*}
The claim then follows because there are no solutions to
\begin{equation*}
(1 - \gamma)(z - \beta + 1/2) \ge (1/2 - z)(\beta - x),
\end{equation*}
when $x \ge 1/3$, $y \ge 1/2$, and $z \ge \beta - 1/2$.
(See Lemma~\ref{lem:app1} in the appendix for a proof of this fact.)
\end{proof}
Note that Claim~\ref{clm:2} implies that $\delta(G[A',B']) \ge 1$,
$\delta(G[B',C']) \ge 1$, and that every vertex in $A'$ has a neighbor
in $C'$. (We do not yet know if every vertex in $C'$ has
a neighbor in $A'$.) We will use these facts in the rest of
the argument without comment.
In particular,
the fact that every $c \in C'$ has a neighbor $b \in B'$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
d(c, A') \le |A' \setminus N(b, A')| \le |A \setminus N(b, A)| \le (1 - \gamma)n,
\end{equation*}
so
$|E(A', C')| = \sum_{c \in C'}d(c, A') \le |C'|(1 - \gamma)n = (1-z)(1-\gamma)n^2$.
On the other hand, we have that
$|E(A', C')| = \sum_{a \in A'}d(a, C') \ge |A'|(\beta - z)n = (1-x)(\beta-z)n^2$.
This yields the following useful inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:simple}
(1 - \gamma)(1 - z) \ge (1-x)(\beta - z).
\end{equation}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:A'B'path}
For every $a \in A'$ and $b \in B'$, there is an $(a,b)$-path in $G[A', B']$
with at most $4$ vertices.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary and let $a \in A'$ and $b \in B'$ be such that
there is no $(a,b)$-path in $G[A', B']$ with at most $4$ vertices.
Let $b' \in N(a, B')$ and $a' \in N(a, A')$.
By our contrary assumption, we have
that $N(a, B') \cap N(a', B') = \emptyset$ so
$y \ge |N(a, B) \cap N(a', B)|/n \ge 2\gamma - 1$,
By the same argument, $N(b, A') \cap N(b', A') = \emptyset$
and $x \ge 2\gamma - 1$.
Since $\beta \le 2/3$, we have
$2 \gamma - 1 = 2(4/3 - \beta) - 1 = 5/3 - 2\beta \ge 1 - \beta$, so
\begin{equation*}
z < 1 - x - y \le 1 - 2(2 \gamma - 1) \le
1 - 2(1 - \beta) =
2 \beta - 1 \le |N(a, C) \cap N(a', C)|/n,
\end{equation*}
therefore there exists $c \in N(a, C') \cap N(a', C')$.
But then $N(c, B')$ cannot intersect $N(a, B') \cup N(a', B')$, so
\begin{equation*}
(1/2 - y) + 2(\gamma - y) \le |N(c, B') \cup N(a, B') \cup N(a', B')|/n \le 1 - y
\end{equation*}
which implies that $y \ge \gamma - 1/4$, therefore $y\ge 5/12$. But \eqref{eq:simple} has no
solutions when $y \ge 5/12$, $x \ge 1/3$ and $z \ge \beta -1/2$.
(See Lemma~\ref{lem:app2} in the appendix for a proof of this fact.) This is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:yltonethird}
$y < 1/3$ and $x<\beta$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $a \in A'$.
We first get an upper-bound on $|P_3(a, C', B')|$.
Note that there are at most $(1 - \gamma)n$ ways to select
$b \in B'$ that is not adjacent to $a$. By Claim~\ref{clm:A'B'path},
there exists $a' \in A'$ and $b' \in B'$ such that $ab'a'b$ is a path.
Note that every vertex $c \in C'$ that is adjacent to both $a$ and $b$
cannot be in $N(a', C') \cup N(b', C')$.
Since $N(a', C')$ and $N(b', C)$ are disjoint,
we have the cardinality of $P_3(a, C', b)$ is at most
\begin{equation*}
|C'| - d(a', C') - d(b', C') \le
(1-z)n - (\beta - z)n - (1/2 - z)n = (z - \beta + 1/2)n
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $|P_3(a,C', B')|/n^2 \le (1 - \gamma)(z - \beta + 1/2)$.
We also have that
$|P_3(a, C', B')| \ge \sum_{c \in N(a, C')}d(c, B')\ge (\beta - z)n(1/2 - y)n$,
so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m1}
(1 - \gamma)(z - \beta + 1/2) \ge
|P_{3}(a,C', B')|/n^2 \ge (\beta - z)(1/2 - y).
\end{equation}
By considering $b \in B'$ and estimating $P_{3}(A',C', b$), the same arguments yield that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m2}
(1 - \gamma)(z - \beta + 1/2) \ge
|P_{3}(A',C', b)|/n^2 \ge \sum_{c \in N(b, C')}d(c,A')/n^2 \ge (\beta - x)(1/2 - z).
\end{equation}
But \eqref{eq:m1}, \eqref{eq:m2} and \eqref{eq:simple} cannot hold simultaneously
when $x \ge 1/3$, $y \ge 1/3$ and $z \ge \beta - 1/2$.
(See Lemma~\ref{lem:app3} in the appendix for a proof of this fact.)
Therefore $y < 1/3$.
Now we will show that $x<\beta$. Indeed, if $\beta\le x$, we have
\begin{equation*}
y\ge \gamma-1/2= 5/6-\beta\ge 5/6-x > y+z-1/6,
\end{equation*}
so $z < 1/6$. With \eqref{eq:m1} we get
$(\beta-1/3)(1/6 - \beta + 1/2) \ge (\beta - 1/6)(1/2 - y)$.
Plugging $y<1/3$ we get that $-\beta^2+(5/6)\beta-1/4>0$ which does not have a solution, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Note that Claims~\ref{clm:2} and ~\ref{clm:yltonethird} together
imply $\delta(G[A',B']), \delta(G[B',C']), \delta(G[C',A']) \ge 1$.
\begin{claim}\label{clm:4path}
There exists $a_1 \in A'$ and $c_1 \in C'$ such that
there is no $(a_1, c_1)$-path in $G[A', C']$ with at most $4$-vertices.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary and let $a_1 \in A'$.
Then, for every $c_1 \in C'\setminus N(a',C')$, there exists
$a_2 \in A'$ and $c_2 \in C'$ such that $a_1c_2a_2c_1$ is a path,
so, since $G[A',B',C']$ is triangle-free,
$|P_3(a_1, B', c_1)|$ is at most
\begin{equation*}
|B' \setminus (N(a_2, B') \cup N(c_2, B')| \le
|B'| - (d(a_2, B) - yn + d(c_2, B) - yn) \le
\left(y - \gamma + 1/2\right)n.
\end{equation*}
Since $a_1$ has at most $(1 - \beta)n$ non-neighbors in $C'$,
we have that
\begin{equation*}
(1 - \beta)\left(y - \gamma + 1/2\right)
\ge |P_3(a_1, B', C')|/n^2 = \sum_{b \in N(a_1, B')}d(b, C')/n^2 \ge
(\gamma - y) \left(1/2 - z\right)
\end{equation*}
which is impossible when
$x \ge 1/3$, $1/3 > y \ge \gamma - 1/2$, and $z \ge \beta - 1/2$.
(See the Lemma~\ref{lem:app4} in the appendix for a proof of this fact.)
\end{proof}
By Claim~\ref{clm:4path}, there exists $a_1 \in A'$ and $c_1 \in C'$
such that there is no $(a_1,c_1)$-path
in $G[A', C']$ with at most $4$-vertices.
Fix such vertices $a_1$ and $c_1$. By Claims \ref{clm:2} and \ref{clm:yltonethird},
we can also fix
$c_2 \in N(a_1, C')$ and $a_2 \in N(c_1, A')$.
Note that, by the selection of $a_1$ and $c_1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disjoint}
\text{$N(a_1, C') \cap N(a_2, C') = \emptyset$ and
$N(c_1, C') \cap N(c_2, C') = \emptyset$.}
\end{equation}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:largeZ}
$z \ge \beta - 1/4$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $|N(a_1, B) \cap N(a_2, B)|/n \ge 2 \gamma - 1 \ge 1/3 > y$,
there exists $b \in B'$ that is adjacent to both $a_1$ and $a_2$.
Since $G[A',B',C']$ is triangle-free \eqref{eq:disjoint} implies that
\begin{equation*}
1/2 - z \le d(b, C')/n \le
|C' \setminus (N(a_1, C') \cup N(a_2, C'))|/n \le
1 - z - 2(\beta - z) = 1 - 2\beta + z,
\end{equation*}
so $z \ge \beta - 1/4$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:3disjoint}
At least one of the following statements is true.
\begin{itemize}
\item
For every $a \in A'$, we have that
$N(a, C')$ intersects $N(a_1, C') \cup N(a_2, C')$.
\item
For every $c \in C'$, we have that
$N(c, A')$ intersects $N(c_1, A') \cup N(c_2, A')$.
\end{itemize}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary, so there exists $a_3 \in A'$ such that
$N(a_1,C')$, $N(a_2, C')$, and $N(a_3, C')$ are pairwise disjoint and
that there exists $c_3 \in C'$ such that
$N(c_1,A')$, $N(c_2, A')$, and $N(c_3, A')$ are pairwise disjoint.
This implies that
\begin{equation*}
(1-x)n = |A'| \ge d(c_1, A') + d(c_2, A') + d(c_3, A') \ge 3(\beta - x)n,
\end{equation*}
so $x \ge (3 \beta - 1)/2$, and, by considering the sets $N(a_1, C')$,
$N(a_2, C')$ and $N(a_3, C')$,
we similarly have that $z \ge (3\beta - 1)/2$.
This implies that
\begin{equation*}
y < 1 - x - z \le 1 - (3\beta - 1) = 2 - 3\left(4/3 - \gamma\right)
= 3\gamma - 2.
\end{equation*}
Note that $|N(a_1, B) \cap N(a_2, B) \cap N(a_3, B)| \ge 3 \gamma n - 2|B|
= (3 \gamma - 2)n > y n$,
so there exists $b \in N(a_1, B') \cap N(a_2, B') \cap N(a_3, B')$.
Note that $N(b, C')$ must be disjoint from
$N(a_1, C') \cup N(a_2, C') \cup N(a_3, C')$
so, since $N(a_1, C')$,$N(a_2, C')$, and $N(a_3, C')$ are pairwise disjoint,
\begin{equation*}
(1 - z)n = |C'| \ge d(b, C') + d(a_1, C') + d(a_2, C') + d(a_3, C')
\ge (1/2 - z + 3(\beta - z))n,
\end{equation*}
so $z \ge \beta - 1/6$.
But then $1 > x + y + z \ge 1/3 + \gamma - 1/2 + \beta - 1/6 = 1$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{clm:ac_ipath}
For every $a \in A'$ there exists $i \in \{1, 2\}$ such that there
is an $(a, c_i)$-path in $G[A',C']$ with at most $4$ vertices.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $c_1a_2$ and $c_2a_1$ are edges, we have the desired path if
$N(a, C')$ intersects either
$N(a_1, C')$ or $N(a_2, C')$. So assume otherwise, i.e.,
assume that the sets
$N(a, C')$, $N(a_1, C')$, and $N(a_2, C')$ are pairwise disjoint.
By Claim~\ref{clm:2}, there exists $c \in N(a, C')$.
Because $N(c_1, A')$ and $N(c_2, A')$ are disjoint,
Claim~\ref{clm:3disjoint} implies that $N(c, A')$ must intersect
one of $N(c_1, A')$ or $N(c_2, A')$ and this gives us the
desired path.
\end{proof}
For $i \in \{1,2\}$,
let $A_i = N(c_i, A')$,
let $B_i \subseteq N(c_i, B')$ such that $|B_i| = \ceiling{(1/2 - y)n}$,
and let $B_0 = B' \setminus (B_1 \cup B_2)$.
Define $\zeta = |B_1|/n = |B_2|/n$, so
$|B_0| = (1 - y - 2\zeta)n$.
\begin{claim}\label{clm:path}
Every $a \in A_1 \cup A_2$ has at most
$(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n$ non-neighbors in $B_0$.
Every $a \in A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2)$ has at most
$2(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n$ non-neighbors in $B_0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $a \in A'$.
First suppose $a \in A_i = N(c_i, A')$ for some $i \in \{1, 2\}$, then
$a$ has no neighbors in $B_i$, so
\begin{equation*}
|N_{\overline{G}}(a, B_0)| \le
|N_{\overline{G}}(a, B)| - |B_i| \le
(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n.
\end{equation*}
Now assume that $a \in A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2)$.
By Claim~\ref{clm:ac_ipath}, there exists $i \in \{1, 2\}$,
$c' \in C'$, and $a' \in A'$ such that $ac'a'c_i$ is a path.
Because $ac'$ is an edge, $a$ has no neighbors in $N_G(c', B')$, thus
the number of non-neighbors of $a$ in $B\setminus N_G(c', B')$ is at most
$$|N_{\overline{G}}(a, B)| - |N_G(c', B')| \le |N_{\overline{G}}(a, B)|- \ceiling{(1/2 - y)n}\le
(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n,$$
so the number of non-neighbors of $a$ in $B_0 \setminus N_G(c', B_0) \subseteq B \setminus N_G(c', B)$
is at most $(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n$.
To see that the number of non-neighbors of
$a$ in $N_G(c', B_0)$
is at most $(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n$ (which proves the claim),
note that
$N_G(c', B_0) \subseteq N_{\overline{G}}(a', B_0)$
(because $G$ is triangle-free) and, by the first part of
the claim, the fact that $a' \in N(c_i, A') = A_i$ implies that
$|N_{\overline{G}}(a', B_0)| \le (1 - \gamma - \zeta)n$.
\end{proof}
Now we will estimate $e(\overline{G}[A', B_0])$ from both sides. Recall that $A_1$ and $A_2$ are disjoint, so
$|A_1 \cup A_2| \ge 2(\beta - x)n$.
This with Claim~\ref{clm:path} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:no3disjoint1}
\begin{split}
e(\overline{G}[A', B_0])
&\le |A_1 \cup A_2|\cdot (1 - \gamma - \zeta)n +
|A' \setminus (A_1 \cup A_2)| \cdot 2(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n \\
& \le
2(\beta - x)(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n^2 +
(1 - 2\beta + x) \cdot 2(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n^2 \\
&= 2(1 - \beta)(1 - \gamma - \zeta)n^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
(In \eqref{eq:no3disjoint1}, we used that $1 - \gamma - \zeta \ge 0$,
which is implied by Claim~\ref{clm:path}.)
By Claim~\ref{clm:2}, for every $b \in B_0$ there exists $c \in N(b, C')$.
Since $N_{\overline{G}}(b, A') \supseteq N(c, A')$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:no3disjoint2}
e(\overline{G}[A', B_0]) \ge |B_0|(\beta - x)n =
(1 - y - 2\zeta)(\beta - x)n^2.
\end{equation}
The conclusion then follows because
\eqref{eq:no3disjoint1} and \eqref{eq:no3disjoint2} together yield
\begin{equation*}
(1 - y - 2\zeta)(\beta - x) \le 2(1 - \beta)(1 - \gamma - \zeta)
\end{equation*}
which has no solutions when $x \ge 1/3$, $1/3 > y \ge \gamma - 1/2$,
$z \ge \beta - 1/4$, and $\zeta \ge 1/2 - y$.
(See Lemma~\ref{lem:app5} in the appendix for a proof of this fact.)
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Details on ACL baselines}
\label{app:acl-details}
In this section, we give details about our implementations of ACL methods, as well as their hyperparameters tuning.
\subsection{Implementation details}
\paragraph{Random} We use as baseline a random teacher, which samples tasks using a uniform distribution over the task space.
\paragraph{ADR} \citet{OpenAI2019SolvingRC} introduced \textit{Automatic Domain Randomization} (ADR), an ACL method relying on the idea of \textit{Domain Randomization} \citep{domain_randomization, sim_to_real_domain_rand}. Instead of sampling tasks over the whole task space, ADR starts from a distribution centered on a single example easy for the student and progressively grows the distribution according to the learning agent's performance. Using this mechanism, it increases the difficulty of the tasks proposed to the student while still sampling in previously seen regions in order to try reducing potential forgetting.
This sampling distribution $P_{\phi}$ is parameterized by $\phi \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ (with $d$ the number of dimensions of the task space). For each dimension, a lower and upper boundary are set $\phi = \{\phi_i^L, \phi_i^H\}_{i=1}^d$ allowing to sample uniformly on each dimension using these boundaries and obtain a task $\lambda$:
\[P_{\phi}(\lambda) = \prod_{i=1}^d U(\phi_i^L, \phi_i^H)\]
At the beginning, $\phi$ is centered on a single example (i.e.\ $\phi^L_i = \phi^H_i \; \forall i$). Then, at each episode, 1) ADR starts by sampling a new task $\lambda \sim P_{\phi}$. Following this, 2) ADR chooses with a probability $p_b$ whether to modify $\lambda$ in order to explore the task space or not. It thus samples a value $\epsilon$ uniformly in $[0; 1]$ and checks whether $\epsilon < p_b$. If this is not the case, ADR simply sends $\lambda$ to the environment.
Otherwise, 3) ADR selects uniformly one of the dimensions of the task space, which we will call $j$ as an example. Following this, 4) one of the two boundaries $\phi_j^L$ or $\phi_j^H$ is selected ($50\%$ chances for each boundary). Finally, 5) ADR replaces the $j$-th value of $\lambda$ by the selected boundary and sends $\lambda$ to the environment.
Moreover, ADR keeps a buffer $D^L_i$ and $D^H_i$ for each dimension $i$ in the task space. Every time $\epsilon$ is greater than $p_b$ and a value of $\lambda$ is replaced by one of the selected boundary, ADR stores the episodic reward obtained at the end of the episode in the buffer associated to the selected boundary (e.g. the episodic reward is stored in $D^L_k$ if the $k$-th value of lambda was replaced by $\phi^L_k$).
Every time one of the buffers' size reaches $m$, the average $\overline{p}$ of episodic reward stored is calculated. Then, $\overline{p}$ is compared to two thresholds $t_L$ and $t_H$ (being hyperparameters of ADR) in order to know whether the boundary associated to the buffer must be reduced or increased.
As an example, let's say that $D^L_k$'s size reached $m$, meaning that $\phi^L_k$ is the associated dimension (i.e. a $\lambda$ sampled got its $k$-th value replaced by $\phi^L_k$ $m$ times). Its average episodic reward $\overline{p}$ is calculated. It is first compared to $t_L$ and, if $\overline{p} < t_l$, $\phi^L_k$ is increased by $\Delta$ (as $\phi^L_k$ is a lower boundary, this means that the task space is reduced). Similarly, if $\overline{p} > t_l$, $\phi^L_k$ is decreased by $\Delta$ (expanding the task space).
If instead of $D^L_k$ we take $D^H_k$, our task space has to be expanded or reduced in the same way: if $\overline{p} < t_L$ then $\phi^H_k$ is reduced by $\Delta$ (as it is now an upper boundary of the task space) and if $\overline{p} > t_H$ then $\phi^H_k$ is increased by $\Delta$. Finally, note that whenever one buffer's size reaches $m$, it is then emptied.
As no implementation was provided by the authors, we propose here an implementation being as close as possible to the algorithms given in \citet{OpenAI2019SolvingRC}.
\paragraph{RIAC} Proposed in \citet{riac}, Robust Intelligent Adaptive Curiosity is based on the recursive splitting of the task space in hyperboxes, called regions. One region is split in two whenever a pre-defined number $max_s$ of sampled tasks originate from the region. The split value is chosen such that there is maximal Learning Progress (LP) difference between the two regions, while maintaining a size $min_d$ (i.e. a ratio of the size of the whole task space) for each region. The number of possible split to attempt is parameterized by $n$. We reuse the implementation and the value of the hyperparameters not mentioned here from \citet{portelas2019}. RIAC does not require expert knowledge.
\paragraph{Covar-GMM} Covar-GMM was proposed in \citet{moulinfriergmm}. As for RIAC, it does not require expert knowledge and is based on learning progress. The core idea of Covar-GMM is to fit a Gaussian Mixture Model (of maximum size $max_k$) every $n$ episodes on recently sampled tasks \textit{concatenated with both a time dimension and a competence dimension}. The Gaussian from which to sample a new task is then chosen proportionally to its respective learning progress, defined as the positive correlation between time and competence. Additionally, in order to preserve exploration, Covar-GMM has a probability $r_p$ of sampling a task uniformly random instead of using one of its Gaussians. We use the implementation and hyperparameters from \citet{portelas2019} which uses Absolute Learning Progress (ALP) instead of LP.
Moreover, as aforementioned in section \ref{sec:experiments}, we modified the implementation to make it use expert knowledge (i.e. an initial distribution) when provided. Hence, instead of uniformly sampling tasks over the whole task space during the bootstrap phase at the beginning of training, Covar-GMM samples tasks from an initial Gaussian distribution of tasks provided by the expert.
\paragraph{ALP-GMM} ALP-GMM is an ACL algorithm inspired from Covar-GMM, proposed in \citet{portelas2019}. Instead of relying on time competence correlation, which only allows to compute ALP over a single GMM fit, it computes a per-task ALP from the entire history of sampled tasks using a knn-based approach similar to those proposed in \citet{imgep}. Recent tasks are periodically used to fit a GMM on recently sampled tasks \textit{concatenated with their respective ALP value}. The Gaussian from which to sample is then selected based on its mean ALP dimension. ALP-GMM does not require expert knowledge and has the same hyperparameters as Covar-GMM. We reused the implementation and hyperparameters (except $max_k$, $n$ and $r_p$) provided by \citet{portelas2019}.
Additionally, as for Covar-GMM, we added the possibility to ALP-GMM to bootstrap tasks for an initial Gaussian distribution if the latter is provided, instead of uniformly bootstrapping tasks.
\paragraph{Goal-GAN}
Another teacher algorithm we included in this benchmark is called GoalGAN, and relies on the idea of sampling goals (i.e.\ states to reach in the environment) where the agent performs neither too well nor to badly, called \textit{Goals Of Intermediate Difficulty} (GOID). However, as this goal generation introduces a curriculum in the agent's learning, one can see the goal selection process as a task selection process. We will thus call them tasks instead of goals in the following description. For sampling, \citet{goalgan} proposed to use a modified version of a \textit{Generative Adversarial Network} (GAN) \citep{goodfellow_generative_2014} where the generator network is used to generate tasks for the student given a random noise, and the discriminator is trained to classify whether these tasks are of "intermediate difficulty". To define such an "intermediate difficulty", GoalGAN uses a binary reward signal defining whether the student succeeded in the proposed task. As our environments return scalar rewards, this implies a function interpreter hand-designed by an expert (in our case we set a threshold on the scalar reward, as explained in appendix \ref{app:expe-details}). For each task sampled, the teacher proposes it multiple times ($n_{rollouts}$) to the student and then calculates the average of successes obtained (lying in $[0; 1]$). Using a lower threshold $R_{min}$ and an upper threshold $R_{max}$, GoalGAN calculates if the average lies in this interval of tasks neither too easy (with an average of successes very high) nor too hard (with an average of successes very low). If this is the case, this task is labelled as $1$ for the discriminator ($0$ otherwise). This new task is then stored in a buffer (except if it already exists in the buffer a task at an euclidean distance smaller than $\epsilon$ from our new task). Every time a task has to be sampled, in order to prevent the GAN from forgetting previously seen GOIDs, the algorithm has the probability $p_{old}$ of uniformly sampling from the buffer instead of using the GAN. Finally, the GAN is trained using the tasks previously sampled every $n$ episodes.
Note that, in order to help the GAN to generate tasks in a feasible subspace of the task space at the beginning of training, GoalGAN can also pretrain its GAN using trivial tasks. In the original paper, as tasks are states, authors proposed to use the student to interact with the environment for a few steps, and use collected states as achievable tasks. However, in our case, this is not possible. We thus chose to reuse the same trick as the one in \citep{selfpaceddrl}, that uses an initial Gaussian distribution to sample tasks and label them as positives (i.e.\ tasks of intermediate difficulty) in order to pretrain the GAN with them. See appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for the way we designed this initial distribution.
We reused and wrapped the version\footnote{\url{https://github.com/psclklnk/spdl}} of GoalGAN implemented by \citet{selfpaceddrl}, which is a slightly modified implementation of the original one made by \citet{goalgan}. Our generator network takes an input that has the same number of dimensions as our task space, and uses two layers of $256$ neurons with ReLU activation (and TanH activation for the last layer). Our discriminator uses two layers of $128$ neurons. For $\epsilon$, we used a distance of $10\%$ on each dimension of the task space. As per \citet{goalgan}, we set $R_{min}$ to $0.25$ and $R_{max}$ to $0.75$. Finally, as in the implementation made by \citet{selfpaceddrl}, we set the amount of noise $\delta$ added to each goal sampled by the generator network as a proportion of the size of the task space.
\paragraph{Self-Paced}
Proposed by \citet{selfpaceddrl}, \textit{Self-Paced Deep Reinforcement Learning} (SPDL) samples tasks from a distribution that progressively moves towards a target distribution. The intuition behind it can be seen as similar to the one behind ADR, as the idea is to start from an initial task space and progressively shift it towards a target space, while adapting the pace to the agent's performance. However here, all task distributions (initial, current and target) are Gaussian distributions. SPDL thus maintains a current task distribution from which it samples tasks and changes it over training. This distribution shift is seen as an optimization problem using a dual objective maximizing the agent's performance over the current task space, while minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the current task distribution and the target task distribution. This forces the task selection function to propose tasks where the agent performs well while progressively going towards the target task space.
Initially designed for non-episodic RL setups, SPDL, unlike all our other teachers, receives information at every step of the student in the environment. After an offset of $n_{\mathrm{OFFSET}}$ first steps, and then every $n_{\mathrm{STEP}}$ steps, the algorithm estimates the expected return for the task sampled $\mathrm{E}_{p(c)}[J(\pi, c)]$ using the value estimator function of the current student (with $p(c)$ the current task distribution, $\pi$ the current policy of the student, and $J(\pi, c)$ the expected return for the task $c$ with policy $\pi$).
With this, SPDL updates its current sampling distribution in order to maximize the following objective w.r.t. the current task distribution $p(c)$:
\[\max_{p(c)} \mathrm{E}_{p(c)}[J(\pi, c)]\]
Additionally, a penalty term is added to this objective function, such that the KL divergence between $p(c)$ and the target distribution $\mu(c)$ is minimized. This penalty term is controlled by an $\alpha$ parameter automatically adjusted. This parameter is first set to $0$ for $K_{\alpha}$ optimization steps and is then adjusted in order to maintain a constant proportion $\zeta$ between the KL divergence penalty and the expected reward term (see \citet{selfpaceddrl} for more details on the way $\alpha$ is calculated). This optimization step is made such that the shift of distribution is not bigger than $\epsilon$ (i.e. $s.t. D_{\mathrm{KL}}(p(c)||q(c)) \leq \epsilon$ with a shift from $p(c)$ to $q(c)$).
We reused the same implementation made by \citet{selfpaceddrl} and wrapped it to our teacher architecture. However, as shown in section \ref{sec:experiments}, using a Gaussian target distribution does not match with our Stump Tracks test set where tasks are uniformly sampled over the whole task space. In order to solve this issue, some adaptations to its architecture could be explored (e.g. using a truncated Gaussian as target distribution to get closer to a uniform distribution). While not provided yet in \textit{TeachMyAgent}, we are currently working along with SPDL's authors on these modifications in order to show a fairer comparison of this promising method.
For the value estimators, we used the value network of both our PPO and SAC implementations (with the value network sharing its weights with the policy network for PPO). For the calculation of $\alpha$, we chose to use the average reward, as in the experiments of \citet{selfpaceddrl}. We did not use the lower bound restriction on the standard deviation of the task distribution $\sigma_{\mathrm{LB}}$ proposed in \citet{selfpaceddrl} as our target distributions were very large (see appendix \ref{app:expe-details}).
\paragraph{Setter-Solver} Finally, the last ACL algorithm we implemented here is Setter-Solver \citep{settersolver}. In a very similar way to Goal-GAN, this method uses two neural networks: a \textit{Judge} (replacing the discriminator) and a \textit{Setter} (replacing the generator) outputting a task given a feasibility scalar in $[0; 1]$. During the training, the \textit{Judge} is trained to output the right feasibility given a task sampled, and is used in the \textit{Setter}'s losses to encourage the latter to sample tasks where the predicted feasibility was close to the real one. The \textit{Setter} is also trained to sample tasks the student has succeeded (i.e.\ using a binary reward signal as Goal-GAN) while maximizing an entropy criterion encouraging it to sample diverse tasks.
For the implementation, \citet{settersolver} provided code to help reproducibility that implements both the \textit{Setter} and \textit{Judge}, but did not include neither losses nor optimization functions. Therefore, we provide here our own implementation of the full Setter-Solver algorithm trying to be as close as possible to the paper's details. We reused the code provided for the two neural networks and modified it to add losses, optimizers, and some modifications to better integrate it to our architecture. We kept the tricks added in the code provided by authors that uses a non-zero uniform function to sample the feasibility and a clipped sigmoid in the \textit{Setter}'s output. Concerning the generator network, we kept the hyperparameters of the paper (i.e.\ a RNVP \citep{RNVP} with three blocks of three layers) except the size of hidden layers $n_{\mathrm{HIDDEN}}$ that we optimized. We also reused the three layers of $64$ neurons architecture for the \textit{Judge} as per the paper. Note that we used an Adam optimizer with a learning rate of $3\cdot 10^{-4}$ for both the \textit{Setter} and the \textit{Judge}, while this was not precised for the \textit{Judge} in \citet{settersolver}. We optimized the upper bound $\delta$ of the uniformly sampled noise that is added to succeeded tasks in the validity \textit{Setter}'s loss, as well as the update frequency $n$.
We did not use the conditioned version of the \textit{Setter} or \textit{Judge}. Indeed, first we generate the task before obtaining the first observation in our case as opposed to \citet{settersolver}, and also because the first observation of an embodiment is always the same as both our environments have a startpad (see appendix \ref{app:env-details}). Finally, we did not use the additional target distribution (called \textit{desired goal distribution} in the original paper) loss that use a Wassertein discriminator \citep{arjovsky_wasserstein_2017} to predict whether a task predicted belongs to the target distribution. Indeed, as shown in \citet{settersolver}, using the targeted version of Setter-Solver offers more sample efficiency but leads to similar final results. Moreover, in our case, a target distribution is known only in the \textit{High expert knowledge} setup of the challenge-specific experiments, in addition of having this part not implemented at all in the code provided by authors. We thus leave this upgrade to future work.
\subsection{Hyperparameters tuning}
In order to tune the different ACL methods to our experiments, we chose to perform a grid-search using our Stump Tracks environment with its original task space. As the Parkour is partly extended from it, in addition of the challenge-specific experiments, this environment offered us an appropriate setup. Each point sampled in the grid-search was trained for $7$ million steps (instead of the $20$ millions used in our experiments) with $16$ seeds in order to reduce the (already high) computational cost. At the end of training, we calculated the percentage of mastered tasks on test set for each seed. The combination of hyperparameters having the best average over its seeds was chosen as the configuration for the benchmark.
In order to make the grid-search as fair as possible between the different ACL methods, given that the number of hyperparameters differs from one method to another, we sampled the same number of points for each teacher: $70$ ($\pm 10$). The hyperparameters to tune for each teacher, as well as their values, were chosen following the recommendations given by their original paper.
Moreover, we chose to tune the teachers in what we call their “original” expert knowledge version (i.e. they have access to the same amount of prior knowledge as the one they used in their paper). Hence, teachers requiring expert knowledge use our high expert knowledge setup, and algorithms such as ALP-GMM use no expert knowledge.
Table \ref{table:hp_tuning} shows the values we tested for each hyperparameter and the combinations that obtained the best result.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Hyperparameters tuning of the ACL methods.}
\label{table:hp_tuning}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.4pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
ACL method & Hyperparameter & Possible values & Best value\\ \hline\hline
\textbf{ADR} & $t_L$ & $[0, 50]$ & $0$ \\ \hline
ADR & $t_H$ & $[180, 230, 280]$ & $180$ \\ \hline
ADR & $p_b$ & $[0.3, 0.5, 0.7]$ & $0.7$ \\ \hline
ADR & $m$ & $[10, 20]$ & $10$ \\ \hline
ADR & $\Delta$ & $[0.05, 0.1]$ & $0.1$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{RIAC} & $max_s$ & $[50, 150, 250, 350]$ & $150$ \\ \hline
RIAC & $n$ & $[25, 50, 75, 100]$ & $75$ \\ \hline
RIAC & $min_d$ & $[0.0677, 0.1, 0.1677, 0.2]$ & $0.1$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{Covar-GMM} & $n$ & $[50, 150, 250, 350]$ & $150$ \\ \hline
Covar-GMM & $max_k$ & $[5, 10, 15, 20]$ & $15$ \\ \hline
Covar-GMM & $r_p$ & $[0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3]$ & $0.1$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{ALP-GMM} & $n$ & $[50, 150, 250, 350]$ & $150$ \\ \hline
ALP-GMM & $max_k$ & $[5, 10, 15, 20]$ & $10$ \\ \hline
ALP-GMM & $r_p$ & $[0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3]$ & $0.05$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{GoalGAN} & $\delta$ & $[0.01, 0.05, 0.1]$ & $0.01$ \\ \hline
GoalGAN & $n$ & $[100, 200, 300]$ & $100$ \\ \hline
GoalGAN & $p_{old}$ & $[0.1, 0.2, 03]$ & $0.2$ \\ \hline
GoalGAN & $n_{rollouts}$ & $[2, 5, 10]$ & $2$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{SPDL} & $n_{\mathrm{OFFSET}}$ & $[100000, 200000]$ & $200000$ \\ \hline
SPDL & $n_{\mathrm{STEP}}$ & $[50000, 100000]$ & $100000$ \\ \hline
SPDL & $K_{\alpha}$ & $[0, 5, 10]$ & $0$ \\ \hline
SPDL & $\zeta$ & $[0.05, 0.25, 0.5]$ & $0.05$ \\ \hline
SPDL & $\epsilon$ & $[0.1, 0.8]$ & $0.8$ \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{Setter-Solver} & $n$ & $[50, 100, 200, 300]$ & $100$ \\ \hline
Setter-Solver & $\delta$ & $[0.005, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1]$ & $0.05$ \\ \hline
Setter-Solver & $n_{\mathrm{HIDDEN}}$ & $[64, 128, 256, 512]$ & $128$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\section{Additional results}\label{app:additional-results}
In this section, we provide additional results on experiments presented in section \ref{sec:experiments} as well as case studies. As mentioned in appendix \ref{app:expe-details}, we monitor both the episodic reward on each of the test tasks and the average episodic reward on training tasks every $500000$ steps for each seed. We use the episodic reward on test tasks to calculate our percentage of "mastered" tasks metric, which calculates the percentage of tasks on which the agent obtained an episodic reward greater than $230$. Additionally, we compare two algorithms in an experiment using Welch's t-test between their population of seeds.
\subsection{Original Stump Tracks} \label{app:additional-results_original-stump-tracks}
We trained our SAC student for $20$ millions steps on the original Stump Track task space (i.e. $\mu_s \in [0; 3]$ and $\Delta_s \in [0;6]$) with each teacher and each expert knowledge setup. We used the best performance of each prior knowledge configuration as a baseline indication in figures \ref{fig:bench-vizu} and \ref{fig:profiling_5_millions}. As in our challenge-specific experiments, we used $32$ seeds as well as the same test set of $100$ evenly distributed tasks. Results can be found in table \ref{tab:baseline_results}.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Percentage of mastered tasks after $20$ millions steps on the original Stump Tracks challenge (i.e. $\mu_s \in [0;3]$ and $\Delta_s \in [0;6]$). Results shown are averages over $32$ seeds along with the standard deviation. We highlight the best results in bold, which then acted as an upper baseline indication in the challenge-specific comparisons.}
\label{tab:baseline_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & No EK & Low EK & High EK\\ \midrule
ADR & - & 24.1 ($\pm$ 20.8) & 43.4 ($\pm$ 7.2) \\
ALP-GMM & \textbf{52.1} ($\pm$ 5.9) & \textbf{47.1} ($\pm$ 13.9) & 49.3 ($\pm$ 5.9) \\
Covar-GMM & 43.0 ($\pm$ 9.1) & 40.25 ($\pm$ 16.5) & 45.2($\pm$ 10.1) \\
GoalGAN & - & 29.9 ($\pm$ 26.2) & \textbf{51.9} ($\pm$ 7.3) \\
RIAC & 40.5 ($\pm$ 8.4) & 39.6 ( ($\pm$ 11.2) & 42.2 ($\pm$ 5.4) \\
SPDL & 20.8 ($\pm$ 19.4) & 18.5 ($\pm$ 20.8) & 34.0 ($\pm$ 10.6) \\
Setter-Solver & 25.3 ($\pm$ 10.7) & 36.6($\pm$ 10.2) & 37.4 ($\pm$ 9.8) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\subsection{Challenge-specific comparison} \label{app:additional-results_stump-tracks}
\subsubsection{Overall results}
We here show the performance after $20$ millions steps of each ACL teacher on each challenge. Results are gathered in tables \ref{tab:no_ek_results}, \ref{tab:low_ek_results} and \ref{tab:high_ek_results}, as well as in figure \ref{fig:profiling_bars} where we show the results of Welch's t-test between all methods on every challenge.
\clearpage
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Percentage of mastered tasks after $20$ millions steps with \textbf{no} prior knowledge in each challenge. Results shown are averages over all seeds along with the standard deviation. We highlight the best results in bold.}
\label{tab:no_ek_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & Mostly unf. & Mostly triv. & Forgetting stud. & Rugged dif. & Diverse stud. \\ \midrule
Random & 18.0 ($\pm$ 10.5) & 22.2 ($\pm$ 15.2) & 27.8 ($\pm$ 14.6) & 30.3 ($\pm$ 7.7) & 22.3 ($\pm$ 11.5) \\
ALP-GMM & \textbf{42.8} ($\pm$ 6.6) & \textbf{43.7} ($\pm$ 6.0) & \textbf{42.1} ($\pm$ 6.9) & \textbf{42.5} ($\pm$ 4.8) & 31.5 ($\pm$ 9.2) \\
Covar-GMM & 39.0 ($\pm$ 9.9) & 32.7 ($\pm$ 16.0) & 31.3 ($\pm$ 16.2) & 39.4 ($\pm$ 7.4) & \textbf{32.3} ($\pm$ 10.6) \\
RIAC & 22.1 ($\pm$ 14.5) & 20.0 ($\pm$ 10.9) & 36.8 ($\pm$ 6.9) & 36.4 ($\pm$ 7.9) & 25.9 ($\pm$ 11.3) \\
SPDL & 6.4 ($\pm$ 10.2) & 15.3 ($\pm$ 9.9) & 10.4 ($\pm$ 12.9) & 19.3 ($\pm$ 16.2) & 8.9 ($\pm$ 14.4) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Percentage of mastered tasks after $20$ millions steps with \textbf{low} prior knowledge in each challenge. Results shown are averages over all seeds along with the standard deviation. We highlight the best results in bold.}
\label{tab:low_ek_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & Mostly unf. & Mostly triv. & Forgetting stud. & Rugged dif. & Diverse stud. \\ \midrule
Random & 18.0 ($\pm$ 10.1) & 18.0 ($\pm$ 7.1) & 27.8 ($\pm$ 14.6) & 30.3 ($\pm$ 7.7) & 22.3 ($\pm$ 11.5) \\
ADR & 7.8 ($\pm$ 17.9) & 22.2 ($\pm$ 15.2) & 21.2 ($\pm$ 21.2) & 17.0 ($\pm$ 19.6) & 15.6 ($\pm$ 19.1) \\
ALP-GMM & \textbf{43.5} ($\pm$ 13.0) & \textbf{43.0} ($\pm$ 9.0) & \textbf{41.6} ($\pm$ 12.5) & \textbf{44.2} ($\pm$ 7.1) & 31.3 ($\pm$ 9.4) \\
Covar-GMM & 31.2 ($\pm$ 16.8) & 42.0 ($\pm$ 8.4) & 31.5 ($\pm$ 18.4) & 34.3 ($\pm$ 10.7) & \textbf{32.1} ($\pm$ 9.6) \\
GoalGAN & 12.7 ($\pm$ 16.2) & 38.4 ($\pm$ 16.1) & 9.3 ($\pm$ 15.8) & 34.7 ($\pm$ 19.1) & 16.2 ($\pm$ 17.5) \\
RIAC & 20.5 ($\pm$ 14.0) & 21.3 ($\pm$ 8.8) & 34.3 ($\pm$ 12.5) & 38.3 ($\pm$ 11.3) & 26.0 ($\pm$ 11.7) \\
SPDL & 6.7 ($\pm$ 10.2) & 17.9 ($\pm$ 12.2) & 10.6 ($\pm$ 12.2) & 18.1 ($\pm$ 15.8) & 9.2 ($\pm$ 14.2) \\
Setter-Solver & 25.3 ($\pm$ 10.7) & 35.5 ($\pm$ 8.9) & 33.9 ($\pm$ 12.5) & 31.6 ($\pm$ 11.3) & 25.4 ($\pm$ 9.0) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Percentage of mastered tasks after $20$ millions steps with \textbf{high} prior knowledge in each challenge. Results shown are averages over all seeds along with the standard deviation. We highlight the best results in bold.}
\label{tab:high_ek_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & Mostly unf. & Mostly triv. & Forgetting stud. & Rugged dif. & Diverse stud. \\ \midrule
Random & 18.0 ($\pm$ 10.1) & 18.0 ($\pm$ 7.1) & 27.8 ($\pm$ 14.6) & 30.3 ($\pm$ 7.7) & 22.3 ($\pm$ 11.5) \\
ADR & 45.3 ($\pm$ 6.7) & 32.5 ($\pm$ 6.2) & 39.8 ($\pm$ 10.8) & 17 ($\pm$ 20.9) & 32.3 ($\pm$ 9.7) \\
ALP-GMM & \textbf{48.4} ($\pm$ 11.2) & 44.3 ($\pm$ 14.2) & \textbf{43.0} ($\pm$ 9.0) & \textbf{42.5} ($\pm$ 7.3) & 29.8 ($\pm$ 8.8) \\
Covar-GMM & 38.2 ($\pm$ 11.9) & 39.6 ($\pm$ 10.3) & 39.5 ($\pm$ 12.5) & 41.3 ($\pm$ 7.0) & \textbf{32.6} ($\pm$ 10.2) \\
GoalGAN & 39.7 ($\pm$ 10.1) & \textbf{45.6} ($\pm$ 13.5) & 23.4 ($\pm$ 19.7) & 41.2 ($\pm$ 12.6) & 27.5 ($\pm$ 9.4) \\
RIAC & 25.2 ($\pm$ 12.3) & 22.1 ($\pm$ 11.1) & 37.7 ($\pm$ 12.5) & 37.7 ($\pm$ 8.8) & 25.8 ($\pm$ 11.7) \\
SPDL & 19.1 ($\pm$ 12.5) & 22.9 ($\pm$ 6.9) & 12.9 ($\pm$ 11.2) & 31.0 ($\pm$ 11.2) & 15.4 ($\pm$ 15.1) \\
Setter-Solver & 28.2 ($\pm$ 9.7) & 33.7 ($\pm$ 10.8) & 37.4 ($\pm$ 8.7) & 34.7 ($\pm$ 8.1) & 24.0 ($\pm$ 9.8) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/benchmark_bars.png}}
\caption{Performance of the different teachers at the end of training in every experiment of our challenge-specific comparison. We plot as bars the average percentage of mastered tasks for each ACL method. Additionally, we compare in every experiment all possible couples of teacher methods using Welch's t-test and annotate the significantly different ($p<0.05$) ones.}
\label{fig:profiling_bars}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Case study: Sample efficiency}
In this section, we take a look at the sample efficiency of the different ACL methods using their performance after only $5$ millions steps. We reuse the same radar chart as in section \ref{sec:experiments} in figure \ref{fig:profiling_5_millions}.
Looking at results, one can see the impact of ACL in the mostly unfeasible challenge, as some methods (e.g. ALP-GMM or ADR with high expert knowledge) already reach twice the performance of random after only $5$ million steps. This highlights how leveraging a curriculum adapted to the student's capabilities is key when most tasks are unfeasible. On the opposite, when the task space is easier (as in the mostly trivial challenge), Random samples more tasks suited for the current student's abilities and the impact of Curriculum Learning is diminished.
Having the difficulty landscape rugged makes the search for learnable and adapted subspaces harder. Figure \ref{fig:profiling_5_millions} shows that only $5$ millions steps is not enough, even for teachers like ALP-GMM or Covar-GMM theoretically more suited for rugged difficulty landscapes, to explore and leverage regions with high learning progress.
Finally, one can see the strong impact of a well set initial distribution of tasks in the beginning of learning. Indeed, both ADR and GoalGAN already almost reach their final performance (i.e. the one they reached after $20$ millions steps shown in figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}) after $5$ millions steps in the \textit{High expert knowledge} setup, as they know where to focus and do not need exploration to find feasible subspaces. Similarly, adding expert knowledge to ALP-GMM increases its performance compared to the no and low expert knowledge setups, helping it focus the bootstrapping process on a feasible region. Leveraging this initial task distribution, GoalGAN obtains the best results in 3/5 challenges after $5$ millions steps with high expert knowledge. This shows, in addition of the results from section \ref{sec:experiments}, that GoalGAN is a very competitive method, especially when it has access to high expert knowledge.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/benchmark_profiling_timestep-10.png}}
\caption{\textbf{Performance of ACL methods measured after $5$ millions steps.}
Results are presented as an order of magnitude of the performance of Random. Performance is defined as the average percentage of mastered test tasks over all $32$ seeds. We also provide the same indications ({\textcolor{red}{\ding{58}}}) of the best performance (measured after $5$ millions steps) on the original Stump Tracks experiment as in figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}. Finally, we indicate on each axis which method performed significantly better than Random ($p<0.05$) using colored stars matching each method's color (e.g. {\textcolor{Covar_orange}{\ding{72}}} for Covar-GMM, {\textcolor{ADR_green}{\ding{72}}} for ADR). \textit{EK: Expert Knowledge.}}
\label{fig:profiling_5_millions}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Case study: On the difficulty of GoalGAN and SPDL to adapt the curriculum to forgetting students}
As mentioned in section \ref{sec:experiments}, both GoalGAN and SPDL struggled on the forgetting student challenge, no matter the amount of expert knowledge. In order to better understand their behaviour in this challenge, we plot in figure \ref{fig:criteria_3} both the evolution of their percentage of mastered tasks and their average training return. We also add ALP-GMM and ADR (two students that performed well in this challenge) as baselines for comparison. While ADR and ALP-GMM make the student quickly recover from a reset (i.e. the percentage of mastered tasks quickly reaches the performance it had before the reset) and then carry on improving, both GoalGAN and SPDL suffer from resets and do not manage to recover, leading to a poor final performance.
This phenomenon could be explained by multiple factors. First, in the case of SPDL, even though the algorithm tries to shift its sampling distribution such that it maximizes the student's performance, the optimization methods also has to minimize the distance to the target distribution, which is a Gaussian spanning over the entire task space. However, resetting the student's policy requires the ACL method to revert back to the initial simple task distribution that it proposed at the beginning of training. Such a reverse process might not easily be achievable by SPDL, which optimization procedure progressively shifts its sampling distribution towards the target one.
Concerning GoalGAN, the performance impact of student resets is most likely due to its use of a buffer of "Goals of Intermediate Difficulty", used to train the goal generator. Upon student reset, this buffer becomes partially obsolete, as the student is reinitialized, making it lose all learned walking gaits, i.e. everything must be learned again. This means the goal generator will propose tasks that are too complex for a student that is just starting to learn. Because GoalGAN cannot reset its buffer of "Goals of Intermediate Difficulty" (which would require knowledge over the student's internal state), it impairs its ability to quickly shift to simpler task subspaces.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/criteria_3.png}}
\caption{Percentage of mastered test tasks and average training return of GoalGAN, SPDL, ALP-GMM and ADR on the forgetting student challenge. Curves are averages over $32$ seeds along with the standard error of the mean.}
\label{fig:criteria_3}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Case study: Impact of expert knowledge on ALP-GMM}
As aforementioned, ALP-GMM is a method initially not requiring any expert knowledge. Moreover, it relies on an exploration (bootstrap) phase to fill its buffer, usually using uniform sampling over the task space. In \textit{TeachMyAgent}, we provide an extended version of it where we added the possibility to use expert knowledge by bootstrapping from an initial distribution instead of a uniform distribution. In this case study, we take a look at the impact such a theoretical improvement had on their performance. We focus on the mostly unfeasible and forgetting student challenges, as the first highlighted the most how prior knowledge can help an ACL method (helping it start in a feasible region) and the latter showed interesting results for this case study, in addition of being easy to analyse (as it only uses a bipedal walker on the original task space of the Stump Tracks). We gather these results in figure \ref{fig:alp_ek}. Note that both the no and low expert knowledge setups are the same for ALP-GMM , meaning that any difference between their results is only due to variance in both the student's learning and ACL process.
When looking at these results, one can see that the high expert knowledge setup is significantly better than the two other setups at the beginning of the training in both challenges. These results can also be completed by our sample efficiency case study (see figure \ref{fig:profiling_5_millions}), showing that adding expert knowledge to ALP-GMM makes it more sample efficient. Then, as training advances, the difference becomes statistically insignificant ($p>0.05$). Finally, while the final results given in tables \ref{tab:no_ek_results}, \ref{tab:low_ek_results}, and \ref{tab:high_ek_results} show an improved percentage of mastered tasks in almost all challenges, with a notable difference (at least $+5$) on the mostly unfeasible challenge, results on the original Stump Tracks experiments (table \ref{tab:baseline_results}) show better results with no expert knowledge. It is thus not clear whether adding this prior knowledge to ALP-GMM benefits the whole training instead of just the beginning. Note that similar behaviours were also obtained with Covar-GMM, even though they were not as significant as the ones of ALP-GMM.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/ALP-EK.png}}
\caption{Percentage of mastered test tasks and average training return of ALP-GMM on both the mostly unfeasible and the forgetting student challenges. Curves are averages over $32$ seeds along with the standard error of the mean. We compare the impact of high expert knowledge compared to the two other setups using Welch's t-test and highlight significant ($p<0.05$) differences with stars.)}
\label{fig:alp_ek}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Case study: What ADR needs}
ADR is a very efficient and light method, that, when all its expert knowledge requirements are satisfied, competes with the best teachers. However, in order to obtain such an efficient behaviour, ADR needs certain conditions that are implied by its construction. First, as explained in appendix \ref{app:acl-details}, ADR starts its process using a single task, and makes the assumption that this latter is easy enough for the freshly initialized student. It then progressively grows its sampling distribution around this task if the student manages to "master" the proposed tasks. While this behaviour seems close to SPDL's, ADR does not have any target distribution to help it shift the distribution even if the student's performance are not good enough. Hence, ADR can get completely stuck if it is initialized on a task lying in a very hard region, whereas SPDL would still try to converge to the target distribution (even though the performance would not be as good as if its initial distribution was set in an easy subspace). Similarly, GoalGAN also uses an initial distribution at the beginning of the training which, as shown in the results, has a strong impact on the final performance. However, even without it, GoalGAN is still able to reach a decent performance in certain challenges (e.g. mostly trivial) unlike ADR. This observation can also be seen in the Parkour's experiments, where GoalGAN reaches the top $4$ while ADR obtains the worst performance. In order to highlight this explanation, we provide the results of ADR in the mostly unfeasible and mostly trivial challenges in figure \ref{fig:adr_ek}, in addition of the clear difference between expert knowledge setups showed by figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu} and tables \ref{tab:no_ek_results}, \ref{tab:low_ek_results}, and \ref{tab:high_ek_results}. Using figure \ref{fig:adr_ek}, one can see the clear and significant ($p<0.05$) difference between the two expert knowledge setups.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/ADR_ek.png}}
\caption{Percentage of mastered test tasks and average training return of ADR on both the mostly unfeasible and mostly trivial challenges. Curves are averages over $32$ seeds along with the standard error of the mean. We compare the impact of high to low expert knowledge using Welch's t-test ($p<0.05$) and highlight significant differences with stars.)}
\label{fig:adr_ek}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
In addition of an initial task well set using prior knowledge about the task space, ADR needs a difficulty landscape not too rugged to be able to expand and reach regions with high learning progress for the student. Indeed, when looking at its algorithm, one can see that the sampling distribution grows in a certain direction only if the student is able to master the tasks proposed at the edge of the distribution on this direction. If it is not the case (i.e. if this region of the task space is too hard for the current student's capabilities), the sampling distribution will shrink. This simple mechanism makes the strong assumption that if the difficulty is too hard at one edge of the distribution, there is no need to go further, implicitly saying that the difficulty further is at least as hard as the one at the edge. While this works well in the vanilla task space of our Stump Tracks environment (our difficulty is clearly smooth and even monotonically increasing), any task space with a rugged difficulty landscape would make the problem harder for ADR. Indeed, as it reaches a valley in the difficulty landscape surrounded by hills of unfeasible (or too hard for the current student's abilities) tasks, ADR can get stuck. In order to highlight this behaviour, we use our rugged difficulty landscape challenge, where we created a discontinuous difficulty landscape where unfeasible regions can lie in the middle of the task space. Figure \ref{fig:adr_rugged_dif} shows how ADR is unable to solve this challenge, no matter the amount of expert knowledge it uses, leading to the worst performance of our benchmark (significantly worse than Random at $p<0.05$). Note that this issue also happens in our Parkour experiments, as the difficulty of the task space is very rugged (see section \ref{sec:experiments}).
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/ADR_rugged_dif.png}}
\caption{Percentage of mastered test tasks and average training return of ADR on rugged difficulty landscape challenge. Curves are averages over $32$ seeds along with the standard error of the mean.}
\label{fig:adr_rugged_dif}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsection{Parkour}\label{app:additional-results_parkour}
\subsubsection{Overall results}
In this section, we present the performance of our teacher algorithms on the Parkour track experiments.
We present the final results in table \ref{tab:parkour_results} as well as a comparison in figure \ref{fig:full_parkour_comparison} using Welch's t-test. We also provide insights concerning the obtained policies at \url{http://developmentalsystems.org/TeachMyAgent/}. When looking at the overall results, one can see that ALP-GMM is the only teacher performing significantly better than Random throughout training. Covar-GMM's performance are very close to ALP-GMM, as well as RIAC, which obtains very similar results to GoalGAN. While being very close to Random, Setter-Solver's results are not significantly different from ALP-GMM's results by the end of the training. Finally, while SPDL's behavior is very similar to Random, ADR reaches a plateau very soon and eventually obtains significantly worse results than the random teacher.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Percentage of mastered tasks after $20$ millions steps on the Parkour track. Results shown are averages over $16$ seeds along with the standard deviation for each morphology as well as the aggregation of the $48$ seeds in the overall column. We highlight the best results in bold.}
\label{tab:parkour_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & BipedalWalker & Fish & Climber & Overall \\ \midrule
Random & 27.25 ($\pm$ 10.7) & 23.6 ($\pm$ 21.3) & 0.0 ($\pm$ 0.0) & 16.9 ($\pm$ 18.3) \\
ADR & 14.7 ($\pm$ 19.4) & 5.3 ($\pm$ 20.6) & 0.0 ($\pm$ 0.0) & 6.7 ($\pm$ 17.4) \\
ALP-GMM & \textbf{42.7} ($\pm$ 11.2) & 36.1 ($\pm$ 28.5) & 0.4 ($\pm$ 1.2) & \textbf{26.4} ($\pm$ 25.7) \\
Covar-GMM & 35.7 ($\pm$ 15.9) & 29.9 ($\pm$ 27.9) & 0.5 ($\pm$ 1.9) & 22.1 ($\pm$ 24.2) \\
GoalGAN & 25.4 ($\pm$ 24.7) & 34.7 ($\pm$ 37.0) & 0.8 ($\pm$ 2.7) & 20.3 ($\pm$ 29.5) \\
RIAC & 31.2 ($\pm$ 8.2) & \textbf{37.4} ($\pm$ 25.4) & 0.4 ($\pm$ 1.4) & 23.0 ($\pm$ 22.4) \\
SPDL & 30.6 ($\pm$ 22.8) & 9.0 ($\pm$ 24.2) & \textbf{1.0} ($\pm$ 3.4) & 13.5 ($\pm$ 23.0) \\
Setter-Solver & 28.75 ($\pm$ 20.7) & 5.1 ($\pm$ 7.6) & 0.0 ($\pm$ 0.0) & 11.3 ($\pm$ 17.9) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/full_comparisons_benchmark_parkour.png}}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of the ACL methods on the Parkour experiments}. Upper figure shows the average percentage of mastered tasks over the $48$ seeds with the standard error of the mean. We then extract all the possible couples of methods and compare their two curves. At each time step (i.e. every $500000$ steps), we use Welch's t-test to compare the two distributions of seeds. If a significant difference exists ($p<0.05$), we add a star above the curves at this time step.}
\label{fig:full_parkour_comparison}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/bipedal.png}}
\caption{Average percentage of mastered tasks over $16$ seeds using the \textbf{bipedal walker} along with the standard error of the mean. We calculate every $5$ millions steps which method obtained statistically different ($p<0.05$) results from Random and indicate it with a star.}
\label{fig:parkour_bipedal}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/fish.png}}
\caption{Average percentage of mastered tasks over $16$ seeds using the \textbf{fish} along with the standard error of the mean. We calculate every $5$ millions steps which method obtained statistically different ($p<0.05$) results from Random and indicate it with a star.}
\label{fig:parkour_fish}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/chimpanzee.png}}
\caption{Average percentage of mastered tasks over $16$ seeds using the \textbf{chimpanzee} along with standard error of the mean. We calculate every $5$ millions steps which method obtained statistically different ($p<0.05$) results from Random and indicate it with a star.}
\label{fig:parkour_chimpanzee}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Case study: Learning climbing locomotion}
As shown in figures \ref{fig:parkour_comparison} and \ref{fig:parkour_chimpanzee}, none of the ACL methods implemented in \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ managed to find a curriculum helping the student to learn an efficient climbing policy and master more than $1\%$ of our test set. While learning climbing locomotion can arguably appear as a harder challenge compared to the swimming and walking locomotion, we present in this case study the results of an experiment using our easy CPPN's input space (see appendix \ref{app:expe-details-parkour}), as well as no water (i.e. the maximum level is set to $0.2$, leading to no tasks with water). Using this, we show that simplifying the task space allows our Random teacher to master more than $6\%$ our test set with its best seed reaching $30\%$ at the end of learning in only $10$ millions steps. In comparison, our results in the benchmark show a best performance of $1\%$ of mastered tasks (SPDL) with its best seed reaching only $14\%$ by the end of learning.
As this simpler task space contains more feasible tasks, these results show that the poor performance obtained with the chimpanzee embodiment are due to the inability of the implemented ACL algorithms to find feasible subspaces for their student. This also hints possible better performance by future methods in this totally open challenge of \textit{TeachMyAgent}. See figure \ref{fig:parkour_chimpanzee_easy} for the evolution of percentage of mastered tasks by the Random teacher in this simpler experiment.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/results/climbing_easy.png}}
\caption{\textbf{Random teacher in the easy CPPN's input space with no water}. Average percentage of mastered tasks over $16$ seeds using our chimpanzee embodiment along with the standard error of the mean.}
\label{fig:parkour_chimpanzee_easy}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\section{Environment details}\label{app:env-details}
In this section, we give details about our two environments, their PCG algorithm, as well as some analysis about their task space. Note that our two environments follow the OpenAI Gym's interface and provide after each step, in addition of usual information (observation, reward, and whether the episode terminated), a binary value set to $1$ if the cumulative reward of the episode reached $230$. Additionally, we provide extra information and videos of our environments and embodiments, as well as policies learned at at \url{http://developmentalsystems.org/TeachMyAgent/}.
\subsection{Stump Tracks}
We present the Stump Tracks environment, an extended version of the environment introduced by \citet{portelas2019}. We only use two of the initially introduced dimensions of the procedural generation of task: stumps' height $\mu_s$ and spacing $\Delta_s$s. As in \citet{portelas2019}, $\mu_s$ is used as the mean of a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $0.1$. Each stump has thus its height sampled from this Gaussian distribution and is placed at distance $\Delta_s$ from the previous one. We bound differently this task space depending on the experiment we perform, as explained in appendix \ref{app:expe-details}.
We kept the same observation space with $10$ values indicating distance of the next object detected by lidars, head angle and velocity (linear and angular), as well as information from the embodiment (angle and speed of joints and also whether the lower limbs have contact with the ground). For information concerning the embodiment, the size of observation depends on the embodiment, as the number of joints varies (see below in \ref{app:env-details_bestiary}). We also kept the action space controlling joints with a torque.
\subsection{Parkour}
We introduce the Parkour, a Box2D parkour track inspired from the Stump Tracks and the environment introduced in \citet{poet2}. It features different milieu in a complex task space.
\subsubsection{Procedural generation}
\paragraph{CPPN-encoded terrain} First, similarly to the Stump Tracks, our Parkour features a ground (that has the same length as the one in Stump Tracks) where the agent starts at the leftmost side and has to reach the rightmost side. However, this ground is no longer flat and rather, as in \citet{poet2}, generated using a function outputted by a neural network called CPPN \citep{CPPN}. This network takes in input a $x$ position and outputs the associated $y$ position of the ground. Using this, one can slide the CPPN over the possible $x$ positions of the track in order to obtain the terrain. This method has the advantage of being able to easily generate non-linear and very diverse terrains as shown in \citet{poet2}, while being light and fast to use as this only needs inference from the network. While CPPNs are usually used in an evolutionary setup where the architecture and weights are mutated, we chose here to rather initialize an arbitrary architecture and random weights and keep them fixed. For this architecture, we chose to use a four layers feedforward neural network with $64$ units per layer and an alternation of TanH and Softplus activations (except for the output head which uses a linear activation) inspired from \citet{ha2016abstract}. Weights were sampled from a Gaussian distribution with mean $0$ and standard deviation of $1$. In addition of its $x$ input, we added to our network three inputs that are set before generating the terrain as parameters controlling the generation. This vector $\theta$ of size $3$ acts in a similar way as noise vector does in GANs for instance. Its size was chosen such that it allows to analyse the generation space and maintain the overall task space's number of dimensions quite small. As for the parameters in Stump Tracks, we bounded the space of values an ACL method could sample in $\theta$. For this, we provide three hand-designed setups (easy, medium and hard) differing from the size of the resulting task space and the amount of feasible tasks in it (see appendix \ref{app:expe-details-parkour}).
Moreover, in addition of the $y$ output of the ground, we added another output head $y_c$ in order to create a ceiling in our tracks. As in Stump Tracks, the terrain starts with a flat startpad region (with a fixed distance between the ground and the ceiling) where the agent appears. Once $Y = (y_i)_{i \in X}$ and $Y_c = (y_{c_i})_{i \in X}$ generated by the CPPN, with $X$ all the possible $x$ positions in the track, we align them to their respective startpad:
\[y_i = y_i + startpad_g - y_0 \; \forall i \in Y\]
\[y_{c_i} = y_{c_i} + startpad_c - y_{c_0} \; \forall i \in Y_c\]
with $startpad_g$, $startpad_c$ being respectively the $y$ position of the ground startpad and ceiling startpad, and $y_0$, $y_{c_0}$ respectively the first $y$ position of the ground and the ceiling outputted by our CPPN.
Using this non-linear generator (i.e. CPPN) allows us to have an input space where the difficulty landscape of the task space is rugged. Indeed, in addition of generating two non-linear functions for our ground and ceiling, the two latter can cross each other, creating unfeasible tasks (see figure \ref{fig:Ground_Ceiling_Examples}). Additionally, our CPPN also makes the definition of prior knowledge over the input space more complex, as shown in figure \ref{fig:CPPN_Input_Space_Analysis}.
Finally, as shown in figure \ref{fig:Ground_Ceiling_Examples}, we smoothed the values of $Y$ and $Y_c$ by a parameter $\delta$ ($=10$ in the training distribution) in order to make the roughness of the terrains adapted to our embodiments.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/CPPN_Input_Space_Analysis.png}}
\caption{Overview of the input space of $\theta$. First, in a) one can see the function generated when all the values of the input vector are set to zero. Secondly, in b) we can see that small changes over the space lead to similar functions and that big changes lead to very different results, showing that local similarity is maintained over the task space. Finally, c) shows how the difficulty landscape of $\theta$ can be rugged, as moving along the second dimension leads to terrains having a very different difficulty level.}
\label{fig:CPPN_Input_Space_Analysis}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/Ground_Ceiling_Examples.png}}
\caption{Here are some examples of generated tasks in the Parkour environment. While most of them seem too hard for a classic bipedal walker, the bottom left task is a good example of an unfeasible task, no matter which embodiment is used.}
\label{fig:Ground_Ceiling_Examples}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Creepers} Once the terrain generated, we add what we call "creepers". Similarly to the stumps, we create objects at distance $\Delta_c$ from one another and of height sampled using a Gaussian distribution of mean $\mu_c$ and standard deviation $0.1$ (the width can also be controlled but was fixed to $0.25$ in our experiments). However, creepers are not obstacles for agents as stumps but rather graspable objects that embodiments can go through. Moreover, even though not used in our experiments, we provide the possibility to make creepers more realistic by dividing every creeper in multiple rectangles of height at most $1$ linked with a rotating joint. As shown on our website , this creates creepers on which the climbers can swing.
\paragraph{Water} Finally, we added a last dimension to our task space controlling the "water" level. Water is simulated using a rectangle object that the agent can go through and in which physics change (see below). This rectangle's width equals the terrain's width and its height is controlled by a parameter $\tau \in [0;1]$ with $0$ being an arbitrary lower limit the ground can reach and $1$ the highest point of the current ceiling (generated by the CPPN for the current task).
\subsubsection{Physics}
As previously mentioned, we introduced creepers and water along with new physics. First, in order to make our creepers graspable by the agents, we added sensors to the end of limb of certain embodiments (see section \ref{app:env-details_bestiary} below). Every time one of these sensors enters in contact with a creeper, we look at the action in the action space of the agent that is associated to this sensor. If its value is greater than $0$, we create a rotational joint between the sensor and the creeper at the contact point. As long as this action is greater than $0$, the joint remains. As soon as the action goes negative or equals $0$, we delete the joint (releasing the agent's limb from the creeper) and start watching again for contact. Note that, in order to better see whether the agent grasps a creeper, we color its sensors in red when a joint exists and in yellow otherwise (see our website). Additionally, in order to help the learning agent, we also make the ceiling graspable.
Secondly, concerning the water, we simulated a buoyancy force (inspired from \citet{buoyancy}) when an object enters water given its density compared to the water's density (set to $1$). In addition, we implemented a "drag" and a "lift" force that simulate the resistance applied when an object moves in water and slows down the movement. Finally, we added a "push" force applied to an object having an angular velocity. This force simulates the fact that applying a torque to a rotational joint makes the object attached to the joint "push" the water and move (i.e. have a linear force applied). With these forces, we were able to simulate in a simplified way some physics of water, which resulted in very natural policies learned from our agents (see our website).
Finally, we simulated the fact that each embodiment is suited for one (or several) milieu, creating types of agents. Indeed, we first consider swimming agents that die (i.e. the actions sent by the DRL student to the environment no longer have effects on the motors of the embodiment) after spending more than $600$ consecutive steps outside water. On the contrary, the two other types named climbers and walkers cannot survive underwater more than $600$ consecutive steps.
Both walkers and swimmers are allowed to have collisions with their body (including their head in the Parkour), whereas climbers are not allowed to touch the ground with any part of their body. Note that, while walkers appear with their legs touching the ground, swimmers appear a bit above the ground and climbers appear with all of their sensors attached to the ceiling (see figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}).
All of these physics introduce the fact that an ACL teacher has to propose tasks in the right milieu for the current embodiment (i.e. mostly underwater for swimmers so that they do not die, with creepers and a ceiling high enough for climbers so that they do not touch the ground or die in water and with no water for walker so that they do not drown) in order to make the student learn.
\subsubsection{Observation and action space}
As in Stump Tracks, the agent is rewarded for moving forward and penalized for torque usage. An episode lasts $2000$ steps unless the agent reaches the end of the track before or if a part of its body touches the ground if the embodiment is a climber. We also reused the $10$ lidars per agent that were used in the Stump Tracks with all the lidars starting from the center of the head of the morphology. However, we modified them such that three configurations of covering exist (see the three tasks shown in figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}):
\begin{itemize}
\item $90\degree$ from below the agent to ahead of it (used by walkers, as in Stump Tracks)
\item $180\degree$ from below the agent to above it (used by swimmers)
\item $90\degree$ from ahead of the agent to above it (used by climbers)
\end{itemize}
Moreover, in addition of the distance to the next object detected by each lidar, we added an information concerning the type of object detected by the lidar ($-1$ if water, $1$ if creeper, $0$ otherwise) such that the agent knows whether the object detected is an obstacle or can be passed through. Note also that once their origin point overlaps an object (e.g. water), lidars no longer detect it. Hence the lidars of an agent underwater no longer detect water (which would have made lidars useless as they would have only detected water). Therefore, in order to inform the DRL student whether the embodiment is underwater, we added an observation that is set to $1$ if the agent's head is under the water level and $0$ otherwise. Similarly, we added a binary observation telling whether the agent is dead or not (i.e. the actions we send to its motors no longer have impact). In addition, we kept the same information concerning the agent's head as in Stump Tracks (angle, linear velocity and angular velocity) as well as observations for each motor (angle and speed of joint as well as contact information for some of the attached limb). Finally, we added two binary observations per sensor (if the agent has sensors) telling whether the sensor has contact with a graspable surface and whether it is already attached with a joint. Without considering the information about motors and sensors which depend on the morphology, all of the information listed above create an observation vector of size $26$. Note that, additionally, we provide the information to the teacher at each step whether the cumulative reward of the episode has reached $230$ for the users using a binary reward.
Finally, for the action space, we kept the same behaviour as the one used in Stump Tracks (i.e. each agent has motors which are controlled through a torque value in $[-1;1]$). Moreover, we added an action in $[-1;1]$ per sensor for climbers to say whether this sensor must grasp (if it has contact with a graspable surface) or release.
\subsection{Morphologies} \label{app:env-details_bestiary}
We included in our benchmark the classic bipedal walker as well as its two modified versions introduced in \citet{portelas2019}: the short bipedal and the quadrupedal. For these three agents, we kept in their implementation the additional penalty for having an angle different than zero on their head, which was already in \citet{portelas2019}. Additionally, we created new walkers such as the spider or the millipede shown in figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}. See our repository and website for the exhaustive list of embodiments we provide.
We introduce another type of morphologies: climbers. We propose two agents: a chimpanzee-like embodiment, as well as its simplified version without legs (reducing the action space to simplify the learning task). These two agents have two arms with two sensors at their extremity allowing them to grasp creepers or the ceiling.
Both walkers and climbers have a density of $1$ on their legs and arms, and a density of $5$ on their body and head, making them simply "sink" in water.
Finally, we created swimming morphologies with each of their body part having the same density as the water, making them in a zero-gravity setting when fully underwater. We propose a fish-like embodiment (see figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}) with a fin and a tale that can wave its body to move (as well as moving its fin).
Note that we also included an amphibious bipedal walker allowed to survive both underwater and outside water. This gave interesting swimming policies as shown on our website ( \url{http://developmentalsystems.org/TeachMyAgent/}).
\section{Experimental details}\label{app:expe-details}
In this section, we give details about the setups of our experiments.
\subsection{DRL Students}
We used the 0.1.1 version of OpenAI Spinningup's implementation of SAC that uses Tensorflow, as in \citet{portelas2019}. We modified it such that a teacher could set a task at each reset of the environment. We also kept the same hyperparameters as the ones used in \citet{portelas2019}:
\begin{itemize}
\item A two layers feedforward network with $400$/$300$ units per hidden layer (ReLU activation) for both the value and policy network (using TanH activation on the output layer for the latter)
\item An entropy coefficient of $0.005$
\item A learning rate of $0.001$
\item A mini-batch update every $10$ steps using $1000$ randomly sampled experiences from a buffer of size $2$ millions
\end{itemize}
For PPO, we used OpenAI Baselines' (Tensorflow) implementation. We used the same two layers neural network as in SAC for the policy and value networks (which share weights). We modified the runner sampling trajectories from the environment in order to use a single synchronous runner instead of multiple asynchronous ones. We used the environment's wrappers proposed in the OpeanAI Baselines' implementation to clip the actions and normalize the observations and rewards. We added a test environment (as well as a teacher that sets tasks) to test the agent's performance every $500000$ steps (as done with SAC). We also normalize the observations and rewards in this test environment using the same running average as the one used in the training environment, so that agent does not receive different information from both environments. We send to the teacher and monitor the original values of reward and observation sent by the environment instead of normalized ones.
We set the $\lambda$ factor of the Generalized Advantage Estimator to $0.95$, the clipping parameter $\epsilon$ to $0.2$ and the gradient clipping parameter to $0.5$.
Finally, we tuned the following hyperparameters using a grid-search on Stump Tracks for $10$ millions steps with stumps' height and spacing respectively in $[0;3]$ and $[0;6]$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Size of experiences sampled between two updates: $2000$
\item Number of epochs per update: $5$
\item Learning rate: $0.0003$
\item Batch size: $1000$
\item Value function coefficient in loss: $0.5$
\item Entropy coefficient in loss: $0.0$
\end{itemize}
Note that for both our DRL students, we used $\gamma = 0.99$.
\subsection{General experimental setup}
We call an experiment the repetition, using different seeds, of the training of a DRL student for $20$ millions steps using tasks chosen at every reset of the environment by a selected ACL teacher. The seed is used to initialize the state of random generators used in the teacher, DRL student and environment. We provide to the teacher the bounds (i.e. a $min$ and $max$ value for each dimension) of the task space before starting the experiment. The DRL student then interacts with the environment and asks the ACL teacher to set the task (i.e. a vector controlling the procedural generation) at every reset of the environment. Once the episode ended, the teacher receives either the cumulative reward or a binary reward (set to $1$ if the episodic reward is grater than $230$) for GoalGAN and Setter-Solver. Teachers like SPDL can additionally access to the information sent by the environment at every step, allowing non-episodic ACL methods to run in our testbed.
Every $500000$ steps of the DRL student in the environment, we test its performance on $100$ predefined tasks (that we call test set). We monitor the episodic reward obtained on each of these tasks. We also monitor the average episodic reward obtained on the tasks seen by the student during the last $500000$ steps. We ask the teacher to sample $100$ tasks every $250000$ steps of the DRL student and store these tasks to monitor the evolution of the generated curriculum (see at \url{http://developmentalsystems.org/TeachMyAgent/}). For this sampling, we use the non-exploratory part of our teachers (e.g. ALP-GMM always samples from its GMM or ADR never sets one value to one of its bounds) and do not append these monitoring tasks to the buffers used by some teachers to avoid perturbing the teacher's process.
In our experiments we were able to run 8 seeds in parallel on a single Nvidia Tesla V100 GPU. In this setup, evaluating one ACL method requires approximately (based on ALP-GMM’s wall-clocktime):
\begin{itemize}
\item 4608 gpu hours for all skill-specific experiments with 32 seeds.
\item 168 gpu hours for the 48 seeded Parkour experiment.
\end{itemize}
Running both experiments would require 4776 gpu hours, or 48 hours on 100 Nvidia Tesla V100 GPUs. Users with smaller compute budgets could reduce the number of seeds (e.g. divide by 3) without strong statistical repercussions.
\subsection{Stump Tracks variants}
We used the Stump Tracks environment to create our challenge-specific comparison of the different ACL methods. We leveraged its two dimensional task space (stumps' height and spacing) to create experiments highlighting each of the $6$ challenges listed in section \ref{sec:intro}. Each experiment used $32$ seeds.
\subsubsection{Test sets}
We used the same test set in all our experiments on Stump Tracks in order to have common test setup to compare and analyse the performance of our different ACL methods. This test set is the same as the one used in \citet{portelas2019} with $100$ tasks evenly distributed over a task space with $\mu_s \in [0;3]$ and $\Delta_s \in [0;6]$.
\subsubsection{Experiments}
In the following paragraphs, we detail the setup of each of our experiments used in the challenge-specific comparison.
\paragraph{Expert knowledge setups}
We allow three different amounts of prior knowledge about the task to our ACL teachers:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{No expert knowledge}
\item \textit{Low expert knowledge}
\item \textit{High expert knowledge}
\end{itemize}
First, in the \textit{No expert knowledge} setup, no prior knowledge concerning the task is accessible. Hence, no reward mastery range (ADR, GOoalGAN and Setter-Solver) is given. Additionally, no prior knowledge concerning the task space like regions containing trivial tasks for the agent (e.g. for ADR or SPDL's initial distribution) or subspace containing the test tasks (e.g. for SPDL's target distribution) are known. However, we still provide these two distribution using the following method:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Initial distribution}: we sample the mean $\mu_{INITIAL}$ of a Gaussian distribution uniformly random over the task space. We choose the variance of each dimension such that the standard deviation over this dimension equals $10\%$ of the range of the dimension (as done when expert knowledge is accessible).
\item \textit{Target distribution}: we provide a Gaussian distribution whose mean is set to the center of each dimension and standard deviation to one fourth of the range of each dimension (leading to more than $95\%$ of the samples that lie between the min and max of each dimension). This choice of target distribution was made to get closer to our true test distribution (uniform over the whole task space), while maintaining most of the sampled tasks inside our bounds. However, it is clear that this target distribution is not close enough to our test distribution to make SPDL proposing a good curriculum and lead to an agent learning an efficient policy to perform well in our test set. As mentioned in section \ref{sec:experiments} and appendix \ref{app:acl-details}, using a Gaussian target distribution is not suited to our setup and would require modifications to make the target distribution match our true test distribution.
\end{itemize}
Hence in this setup, only ALP-GMM, RIAC, Covar-GMM and SPDL (even though its initial and target distribution do not give insightful prior knowledge) can run.
In the \textit{Low expert knowledge} setup, we give access to reward mastery range. Therefore, GoalGAN, Setter-Solver and ADR can now enter in the comparison. The initial distribution is still randomly sampled as explained above. It is used by GoalGAN to pretrain its GAN at the beginning of the training process, but also by ADR which starts with a single example being $\mu_{INITIAL}$.
Finally, for the \textit{High expert knowledge} setup, we give access to the information about regions of the task space. While the standard deviation of the initial distribution is still calculated in the same way (i.e. $10\%$ of the range of each dimension), we set $\mu_{INITIAL}$ to $[0; 6]$, with the values being respectively $\mu_s$ and $\Delta_s$. Hence, ADR now uses the task $[0; 6]$ as its initial task and GoalGAN pretrains its GAN with this distribution containing trivial tasks for the walking agent (as stumps are very small with a large spacing between them). SPDL also uses this new initial distribution, but keeps the same target distribution as we could not provide any distribution matching our real test distribution (i.e. uniform).
Note that, as mentioned in appendix \ref{app:acl-details}, ALP-GMM and Covar-GMM use this initial distribution in their bootstrap phase in this setup.
\paragraph{Mostly unfeasible task space}
In this experiment, we use SAC with a classic bipedal walker. We consider stumps with height greater than $3$ impossible to pass for a classic bipedal walker. Hence, in order to make most of the tasks in the task space unfeasible, we use in this experiment $\mu_s \in [0; 9]$ (and do not change $\Delta_s \in [0; 6]$) such that almost $80\%$ of the tasks are unfeasible.
\paragraph{Mostly trivial task space}
Similarly, we use in this experiment $\mu_s \in [-3; 3]$ (the Stump Tracks environments clips the negative values with $\mu_s = \max(0, \mu_s)$). Hence $50\%$ of the tasks in the task space will result in a Gaussian distribution used to generate stumps' height with mean $0$. We also use SAC with a classic bipedal walker.
\paragraph{Forgetting students}
We simulate the catastrophic forgetting behaviour by resetting all the variables of the computational graph of our DRL student (SAC here) as well as its buffers every $7$ millions steps (hence twice in a training of $20$ millions steps). All variables (e.g. weights, optimizer's variables...) are reinitialized the same way they were before starting the training and the experience buffer used by SAC is emptied. Note that we also use the classic bipedal walker as embodiment and did not modify the initial task space ($\mu_s \in [0;3]$ and $\Delta_s \in [0;6]$).
\paragraph{Rugged difficulty landscape}
In order to create a rugged difficulty landscape over our task space, we cut it into $4$ regions of same size and shuffle them (see algorithm \ref{alg:shuffling_process}). The teacher then samples tasks in the new task space using interpolation (see algorithm \ref{alg:interpolation_process}) which is now a discontinuous task space introducing peaks and cliffs in difficulty landscape. While the cut of regions is always the same, the shuffling process is seeded at each experiments.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Cutting and shuffling of the task space.}
\label{alg:shuffling_process}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Number of dimensions $\mathcal{D}$, bounds $(min_i)_{i \in [\mathcal{D}]}$ and $(max_i)_{i \in [\mathcal{D}]}$, number of cuts $k$
\FOR{$d \in [\mathcal{D}]$}
\STATE Initialise arrays $\mathcal{O}_d, \mathcal{S}_d$
\STATE $size \gets |max_d - min_d| / k$
\FOR{$j \in [k]$}
\STATE Store pair ($min_d + j*size$, $min_d + (j+1)*size$) in $\mathcal{O}_d$ and $\mathcal{S}_d$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Shuffle order of pairs in $\mathcal{S}_d$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Interpolate sampled task in the shuffled task space.}
\label{alg:interpolation_process}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Number of dimensions $\mathcal{D}$, task vector $\mathcal{T}$, number of cuts $k$
\STATE Initialise the vector $\mathcal{I}$ of size $\mathcal{D}$
\FOR{$d \in [\mathcal{D}]$}
\FOR{$j \in [k]$}
\STATE Get pair $o_j$ in $\mathcal{O}_d$
\STATE Initialize $l$ with the first element of $o_j$
\STATE Initialize $h$ with the second element of $o_j$
\IF{$l \leq \mathcal{T}_d \leq h$}
\STATE Get pair $s_j$ in $\mathcal{S}_d$
\STATE Get $\beta$ as the interpolation of $\mathcal{T}_d$ from the interval $o_j$ to the interval $s_j$
\STATE Set $\mathcal{I}_d = \beta$
\STATE End the loop
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathcal{I}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Robustness to diverse students}
Finally, in order to highlight the robustness of an ACL teacher to diverse students, we perform $4$ experiments (each with $32$ seeds) and then aggregate results. We use the initial task space of Stump Tracks but use both PPO and SAC and two different embodiments:the short bipedal walker and the spider. Each embodiment is used both with PPO and SAC (hence $2$ experiments per embodiment and thus a total of $4$ experiments). We then aggregate the $128$ seeds into a single experiment result.
\subsection{Parkour experiments} \label{app:expe-details-parkour}
We perform a single experiment in the Parkour environment using $48$ seeds. Among these seeds, $16$ use a classic bipedal walker, $16$ a chimpanzee and $16$ a fish embodiment. We set the bounds of the task space to the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item CPPN's input vector $\theta \in [-0.35, 0.05] \times [0.6, 1.0] \times [-0.1, 0.3]$
\item Creepers' height $\mu_c \in [0; 4]$
\item Creepers' spacing $\Delta_c \in [0; 5]$
\item Water level $\tau \in [0; 1]$
\end{itemize}
Note that the above CPPN's input space is considered as our medium one. We also provide the easy space ($\theta \in [-0.25, -0.05] \times [0.8, 1.0] \times [0.0, 0.2]$) as well as the hard one ($\theta \in [-1, 1] \times [-1, 1] \times [-1, 1]$). Both the easy and medium spaces were designed from our hard task space. Their boundaries were searched such that the task space contains feasible tasks while maintaining diverse terrains. They differ in their ratio between feasible and unfeasible tasks.
\subsubsection{Test sets}
Unlike in the Stump Track experiments, we needed in the Parkour environment different test sets as our three embodiments (i.e.\ bipedal walker, chimpanzee, fish) are not meant to act and live in the same milieu (e.g.\ swimmers do not survive in tasks not containing water). Therefore, creating a test set composed of tasks uniformly sampled would not allow to assess the performance of the current embodiment. Hence, we made for the Parkour three different test sets, each constituted of $100$ tasks. As the task space previously defined is composed of mostly unfeasible tasks for any embodiment, we hand-designed each of the three test sets with the aim of showcasing the abilities of each morphology type, as well as showing the ability of the learned policy to generalize. Each test set has $60$ tasks that belong to the training task space and $40$ out-of-distribution tasks (using tasks outside the medium CPPN's input space as well as smoothing values different than $10$ for the $\delta$ parameter). They also share the same distribution between easy (1/3), medium (1/3) and hard (1/3) tasks. We chose each task such that it seems possible given the physical capacities of our embodiments. See figure \ref{fig:Test_Sets} for some examples of the test tasks.
\begin{figure}[H]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/appendices/test_sets.png}}
\caption{We show some examples of the tasks belonging to our Parkour's test sets. First line shows tasks from the walkers' test set, second line from the swimmers' one and finally last line for climbers. }
\label{fig:Test_Sets}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\section{Additional experiments}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
When looking at how structured and gradual human-learning is, one can argue that randomly presenting tasks to a learning agent is unlikely to be optimal for complex learning problems. Building upon this, curriculum learning has long been identified as a key component for many machine learning problems \citep{selfridge,elman,bengiocl,cangelosi2015developmental} in order to organize samples showed during learning.
While such a curriculum can be hand-designed by human experts on the problem, the field of Automatic Curriculum Learning \citep{graves2017automated,portelas2020-acl-drl} focuses on designing teacher algorithms able to autonomously sequence learning problem selection so as to maximize agent performance (e.g. over a set of samples in supervised learning, or game levels in DRL).
Parallel to these lines of works, DRL researchers have been increasingly interested in finding methods to train generalist agents \citep{rajeswaran2016epopt,zhang2018study,surveymetarl,coinrun} to go beyond initial successes on solving single problems, e.g individual Atari games \citep{dqn} or navigation in fixed scenarios \citep{ddpg,sac}. Many works proposed novel DRL learning architectures able to successfully infer multi-purpose action policies when given an experience stream composed of randomly sampled \textit{tasks} \citep{uvfa,rainbow,coinrun,Hessel-2019-popart}. Here and thereafter \textit{tasks} denote learning problems in general, for instance multiple mazes to solve (a.k.a environments) or, in the context of robotic manipulation, multiple state configuration to obtain (a.k.a. goals) \citep{portelas2020-acl-drl}. To compare existing and future Multi-task DRL agents, \citet{procgen} proposed a suite of 16 atari-like environments, all relying on Procedural Content Generation (PCG) to generate a wide diversity of learning situations. The high-diversity induced by PCG has been identified as particularly beneficial to foster generalization abilities to DRL agents \citep{illuminating,risiPCG,OpenAI2019SolvingRC}.
An important aspect not covered by these prior works is that they all rely on proposing randomly selected tasks to their agent, i.e. they do not consider using curriculum in learning. One can argue that random task selection is inefficient, especially when considering complex continuous task sets, a.k.a task spaces, which can feature subspaces of varying difficulties ranging from trivial to unfeasible. Following this observation, many works attempted to train given multi-task agents by pairing them with ACL algorithms \citep{portelas2020-acl-drl}. The advantages of ACL over random task sampling for DRL agents have been demonstrated in diverse experimental setups, such as domain randomization for sim2real robotics \citep{OpenAI2019SolvingRC,ADRmila}, video games \citep{montezuma-single-demo,tscllike}, or navigation in procedurally generated environments \citep{goalgan,portelas2019,settersolver}.
While this diversity of potential application domains and implementations of ACL hints a promising future for this field, it also makes comparative analysis complicated, which limits large-scale adoption of ACL. For instance, depending on the ACL approach, the amount of required expert knowledge on the task space can range from close to none -- as in \citet{portelas2019} -- to a high amount of prior knowledge, e.g. initial task sampling subspace and predefined reward range triggering task sampling distribution shifts, as in \citet{OpenAI2019SolvingRC}. Additionally, some ACL approaches were tested based on their ability to master an expert-chosen target subspace \citep{selfpaceddrl} while others were tasked to optimize their performance over the entire task space \citep{riac,goalgan,portelas2019}. Besides, because of the large computational cost and implementation efforts necessary for exhaustive comparisons, newly proposed ACL algorithms are often compared to only a subset of previous ACL approaches \cite{ADRmila,portelas2019,settersolver}. This computation bottleneck is also what prevents most works from testing their ACL teachers on a diversity of DRL students, i.e. given a set of tasks, they do not vary the student's learning mechanism nor its embodiment.
Designing a unified benchmark platform, where baselines would be shared and allow one to only run its approach and compare it to established results, could drive progress in this space.
Inspired by how the MNIST dataset \citep{mnist} or the ALE Atari games suite \citep{ALE-bench} respectively catalyzed supervised learning and single-task reinforcement learning research, we propose to perform this much-needed in-depth ACL benchmarking study. As such, we introduce \textit{TeachMyAgent}~\textit{1.0}\footnote{\footnotesize\scalefont{0.96}\url{http://developmentalsystems.org/TeachMyAgent/}}, a teacher testbed featuring a) two procedural Box2D\footnote{2D game engine, used in OpenAI gym \citep{gym}} environments with challenging task spaces, b) a collection of pre-defined agent embodiments, and c) multiple DRL student models. The combination of these three components constitutes a large panel of diverse teaching problems. We leverage this benchmark to characterize the efficiency of an ACL algorithm on the following key teaching challenges:
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=6pt,parsep=0pt,topsep=0pt]
\item \textit{Mostly unfeasible task spaces} - While using PCG systems to generate tasks allows to propose rich task spaces to DRL agents, which is good for generalization, such large spaces might contain a predominant amount of unfeasible (or initially unfeasible) tasks . A teacher algorithm must then have the ability to quickly detect and exploit promising task subspaces for its learner.
%
\item \textit{Mostly trivial task spaces} - On the contrary, the task space might be mostly trivial and contain only few challenging subspaces, which is a typical scenario when dealing with a skilled student (e.g. that is already trained, or that has an advantageous embodiment). In that case the teacher has to efficiently detect and exploit the small portion of subspaces of relevant difficulty.
%
\item \textit{Forgetting students} - DRL learners are prone to catastrophic forgetting \cite{Kirkpatrickforgetting}, i.e. to overwrite important skills while training new ones. This has to be detected and dealt with by the teacher for optimal curriculum generation.
\item \textit{Robustness to diverse students} - Being able to adapt curriculum generation to diverse students is an important desiderata to ensure a given ACL mechanism has good chances to transfer to novel scenarios.
\item \textit{Rugged difficulty landscapes} - Another important property for ACL algorithms is to be able to deal with task spaces for which the optimal curriculum is not a smooth task distribution sampling drift across the space but rather a series of distribution jumps, e.g. as in complex PCG-task spaces.
\item \textit{Working with no or little expert knowledge} - Prior knowledge over a task space w.r.t. a given student is a costly information gathering process that needs to be repeated for each new problem/student. Relying on as little expert knowledge as possible is therefore a desirable property for ACL algorithms (especially if aiming for out-of-the-lab applications).
\end{enumerate}
To precisely assess the proficiency of an ACL algorithm on each of these challenges independently, we extend a Box2D walker environment from \citet{portelas2019} into multiple unit-test variants, one per challenge, inspired by the structure of \textit{bsuite} \citep{bsuite2019}, a recent benchmark for RL agents. The second environment of our benchmark is the \textit{Parkour} environment, inspired by \citet{poet2}. It features a complex task space whose parameters seed a neural network-based procedural generation of a wide diversity of environments, in which there exists drastically different learning curricula depending on the agent's embodiment (see fig. \ref{fig:bench-vizu}). To assess the ability of existing ACL methods to robustly adapt to diverse students, we consider a random black-box student scenario in the Parkour environment, i.e. the morphology (e.g. walker or climber) of the learner is randomly selected for each new training run.
\paragraph{Scope} More precisely, we conduct an in-depth comparative study of ACL approaches suited for generalist DRL agents such as SAC \citep{sac} or PPO \citep{ppo} in single agent scenarios. We do not include works on self-play/multi-agent setups \cite{self-play-framework,ma-survey} nor single-agent population-based approaches \citep{imgep,poet2}. Also, we are interested in the problem of task selection from a continuous parameter space encoding the procedural generation of tasks. We leave the analysis of ACL methods for discrete task sets \cite{tscl,tscllike}, sets of task spaces \cite{imgep,curious}, or intrinsic reward learning \citep{icm,rnd} for future work. We assume this continuous space is given and relatively low-dimensional as it already poses strong teaching challenges: we therefore leave the analysis of approaches that autonomously learn task representations for subsequent work \cite{skewfit,metarl-carml,grimgep}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graphics/global_schema.pdf}}
\caption{\textbf{TeachMyAgent}: A benchmark to study and compare teacher algorithms in continuous procedural environments.}
\label{fig:bench-vizu}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
Our main contributions are:
\begin{itemize}[itemsep=6pt,parsep=0pt,topsep=0pt]
\item Identification of multiple challenges to be tackled by ACL methods, enabling multi-dimensional comparisons of these algorithms.
\item \textit{TeachMyAgent}~\textit{1.0}, a set of teaching problems (based on PCG environments) to study and compare ACL algorithms when paired with DRL students.
\item Comparative study of representative existing ACL approaches including both skill-specific unit-tests and global performance assessments, which highlights the competitiveness of methods not using expert knowledge and shows that our Parkour environment largely remains an open problem for current state-of-the-art ACL.
\item Release of an open-source Python package, featuring 1) all environments, embodiments and DRL students from \textit{TeachMyAgent}, 2) all studied ACL algorithms, that we either adapt to our API when code is available or re-implement from scratch if not open-sourced, 3) our experimental results as baselines for future works, and 4) tutorials \& reproducibility scripts.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related work}
Many environment suites already exist to benchmark DRL algorithms: some of them leverage video games, which provide challenging discrete action spaces, e.g. Atari 2600 Games as in \citet{ALE-bench} or Sonic The Hedgehog levels in \citet{sonic-bench}. To study and develop DRL agents suited for complex continuous control scenarios, the community predominantly used the MuJoCo physics engine \citep{mujoco}. The Deep Mind Lab \citep{DMlab} provides customizable puzzle-solving environment, particularly well suited to study goal-conditioned policies learning from pixels in rich 3D environments. At the intersection of DRL and Natural Language Processing, benchmark environments such as TextWorld \citep{textworld} or BabyAI \citep{BAbyAI} were also designed to provide a testbed to develop autonomous agent receiving linguistic goals and/or interacting using language. The \textit{bsuite} benchmark \citep{bsuite2019} leverages unit-tests to assess the core capabilities of DRL methods (e.g. generalization, memory). In all these previous works, the DRL agent is learning in one or few environments presented randomly and/or intrinsically chooses goals within those predefined environments, and the long-term community objective is to find more efficient learning architectures. On the contrary, the objective of \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ is to foster the development of new teacher algorithms whose objective is, given a task space and a DRL student, to most efficiently organize the learning curriculum of their DRL student such that its performance is maximized over the task set. In other words, it is not about finding efficient learning architectures but about finding efficient curriculum generators.
Perhaps closest to our work is the Procgen benchmark \citep{procgen}, which features several atari-like environments, all having unique procedural generation systems allowing to generate a wide diversity of learning situations, particularly well suited to assess the generalization abilities of DRL agents. While they rely on an uncontrolable, random procedural generation, we assume control over it, which enables the use of ACL methods to select parameters encoding task generation. An interesting future work, parallel to ours, would be to modify the Procgen benchmark to allow direct control over the procedural generation.
Because of the current lack of any ACL benchmark, most recently proposed ACL algorithms relied on designing their own set of test environments. \citet{goalgan} used a custom MuJoCo Ant maze in which the ACL approach is in control of which end-position to target. \citet{selfpaceddrl} used another MuJoCo Ant maze and ball-catching environment featuring a simulated Barrett WAM robot. While these previous works studied how to control goal selection in a given fixed environment, we are interested in the arguably more challenging problem of controlling a rich parametric procedural generation. \citet{portelas2019} already studied ACL in Stump Tracks, a procedural Box2D environment that we include and extend in \textit{TeachMyAgent}, however it did not perform an extensive comparative study as what we propose in the present work. \citet{settersolver} also used procedural generation to test their ACL approach, however they only compared their ACL algorithm to Goal-GAN \citep{goalgan}, and did not open-source their environments. Additionally, in contrast with all previously cited ACL works, in \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ we propose an in-depth analysis of each approaches through multiple unit-test experiments to fully characterize each teacher.
\section{ACL baselines}
In the following paragraphs we succinctly frame and present all the ACL algorithms that we compare using \textit{TeachMyAgent}. More detailed explanations are left to appendix \ref{app:acl-details}.
\paragraph{Framework} Given a DRL student $s$ and a n-dimensional task-encoding parameter space $\mathcal{T} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ (i.e. a task space), the process of Automatic Curriculum Learning aims to learn a function $\mathcal{A}: \mathcal{H} \mapsto \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{T})$ mapping any information retained about past interactions with the task space to a distribution of tasks.
One can define the optimization objective of an ACL policy given an experimental budget of $E$ episodic tasks as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:acl-obj}
\max_{\mathcal{A}} \int_{\mathrm{T}\sim \mathcal{D}_{target}} \! P_{\mathrm{T}}^E\, \mathrm{d}\mathrm{T},
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{D}_{target}$ the distribution of test tasks over the task space and $P$ the post-training performance (e.g. episodic reward, exploration score) of student $s$ on task $\mathrm{T}$ after $E$ episodes. Since it is usually difficult to directly optimize for this objective, various surrogate objectives have been proposed in the literature. See \citet{portelas2020-acl-drl} for a review and classification of recent ACL works.
\paragraph{Expert-knowledge} To ease the curriculum generation process, multiple forms of expert knowledge have been provided in current ACL approaches. We propose to gather them in three categories: 1) use of initial task distribution $\mathcal{D}_{init}$ to bootstrap the ACL process, 2) use of a target task distribution $\mathcal{D}_{target}$ to guide learning, and 3) use of a function interpreting the scalar episodic reward sent by the environment to identify mastered tasks (\textit{Reward mastery range}). For each implemented ACL method, we highlight its required prior knowledge over the task space w.r.t a given DRL agent in table \ref{acl-algo-table}. We hope that this classification will ease the process of selecting an ACL method for researchers and engineers, as available expert knowledge is (arguably) often what conditions algorithmic choices in machine learning scenarios.
\paragraph{Implemented baselines}
\label{sec:acl-algos}
We compare seven ACL methods, chosen to be representative of the diversity of existing approaches, that can be separated in three broad categories. First, we include three methods relying on the idea of maximizing the Learning Progress (LP) of the student: RIAC \citep{riac}, Covar-GMM \citep{moulinfriergmm} and ALP-GMM \citep{portelas2019}. We then add in our benchmark Goal-GAN \citep{goalgan} and Setter-Solver \citep{settersolver}, both generating tasks using deep neural networks and requiring a binary reward for mastered/not mastered tasks, pre-defined using expert knowledge. Finally, we append to our comparison two ACL algorithms using the idea of starting from an initial distribution of tasks and progressively shifting it regarding the student's capabilities: ADR \citep{OpenAI2019SolvingRC} (inflating a task distribution from a single initial task based on student mastery at each task distribution's border) and SPDL \citep{selfpaceddrl} (shifting its initial distribution towards a target distribution). We also add a baseline teacher selecting tasks uniformly random over the task space (called Random).
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Expert knowledge used by the different ACL methods. We separate knowledge required (REQ.) by algorithms, optional ones (OPT.), and knowledge not needed (empty cell).}
\label{acl-algo-table}
\vskip 0.15in
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.4pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithm} & $\mathcal{D}_{init}$ & $\mathcal{D}_{target}$ & Reward mastery range \\ \hline\hline
ADR & req. & & req. \\ \hline
ALP-GMM & opt. & & \\ \hline
Covar-GMM & opt. & & \\ \hline
Goal-GAN & opt. & & req. \\ \hline
RIAC & & & \\ \hline
SPDL & req. & req. & \\ \hline
Setter-Solver & & opt. & req. \\ \bottomrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\section{The \textit{TeachMyAgent}~benchmark}
In the following section, we describe available environments and learners in \textit{TeachMyAgent}. We propose two Box2D environments with procedural generation allowing to generate a wide variety of terrains. Both our environments are episodic, use continuous action/observation spaces and return scalar rewards. In addition, we provide two DRL algorithms as well as multiple agent morphologies. An experiment is thus constituted of an ACL method, an environment and a learner (i.e. an embodied DRL algorithm).
\subsection{Environments}
\paragraph{Stump Tracks environment} Stump Tracks is an extension of a parametric Box2D environment initially presented in \citet{portelas2019}. The learning policy is embodied into a walker agent whose motors are controllable with torque (i.e. continuous action space). The observation space is composed of lidar sensors, head position and joint positions. The walker is rewarded for going forward and penalized for torque usage. An episode lasts $2000$ steps at most, and is terminated if the agent reaches the end of the track or if its head collides with the environment (in which case a $-100$ reward is received). A $2$D parametric PCG is used for each new episode: it controls the height and spacing of stumps laid out along the track (see fig. \ref{fig:stump-tracks} and app. \ref{app:env-details}). We chose to feature this environment as its low-dimensional task space is convenient for visualizations and modifications. We derive multiple variants of Stump Tracks (e.g. by extending the task space boundaries or shuffling it) to design our unit-tests of ACL challenges (see sec. \ref{sec:intro} and sec. \ref{sec:experiments}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{graphics/compact_stump_track_vizu.png}}
\caption{\textit{Stump Tracks}, a simple parametric env. to study ACL algorithms with DRL students.}
\label{fig:stump-tracks}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Parkour environment} Inspired by both Stump Tracks and another Box2D environment from \citet{poet2}, we present the parametric Parkour environment: a challenging task space with rugged difficulty landscape, few prior knowledge definable, and requiring drastically different learning curricula depending on the agent's embodiment.
It features an uneven terrain (see figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}) composed of a ground and ceiling encoded through a Compositional Pattern-Producing Network (CPPN) \citep{CPPN}. This CPPN, whose weights and architecture are kept fixed, takes an additional input vector of bounded real numbers which acts as the parameters controlling terrain generation. This neural network based generation enables to create a task space with a rugged difficulty landscape (see appendix \ref{app:env-details}), requiring time consuming exploration from an expert to seek trivial subspaces. We propose three versions of this task space (i.e. three possible bounds for the CPPN's input vector): easy, medium (used in the experiments of this paper) and hard.
The Parkour environment also features graspable objects, called "creepers", creating a niche for climbing morphologies. Similarly to the stumps in Stump Tracks, the creepers' generation is controlled by their height and the space between them.
The Parkour's task space also contains a dimension controlling the "water" level of the track, ranging from $0$ (no water) to $1$ (entire parkour under water). Water adds new physic rules aiming to imitate (in a simplified way) physics of water.
The resulting $6$D task space (3 for the CPPN's input, 2 for creepers and 1 for water) creates a rich environment in which the optimal curriculum will largely depend on the agent's embodiment (e.g. swimming agents need high levels of water, while climbers and walkers need low levels). Note that, as in Stump Tracks, each episode lasts $2000$ steps, agents are rewarded for moving forward (and penalised for using torque) and have access to lidars, head position, joint positions, and also additional information (see appendix \ref{app:env-details}).
\subsection{Learners}
\paragraph{Embodiments} As aforementioned, we introduce new morphologies using swimming and climbing locomotion (e.g. fish, chimpanzee, see figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}). \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ also features the short walker and quadrupedal walker from \citet{portelas2019} as well as new walking morphologies such as the spider and the millipede (see figure \ref{fig:bench-vizu}).
\vspace{-0.4cm}\paragraph{DRL algorithms} To benchmark ACL algorithms, we rely on two different state-of-the-art DRL algorithms: 1) Soft-Actor-Critic \citep{sac} (SAC), a now classical off-policy actor-critic algorithm based on the dual optimization of reward and action entropy, and 2) Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) \citep{ppo}, a well-known on-policy DRL algorithm based on approximate trust-region gradient updates. We use OpenAI Spinningup's implementation\footnote{\url{https://spinningup.openai.com}} for SAC and OpenAI Baselines' implementation\footnote{\url{https://github.com/openai/baselines}} for PPO. See appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for implementation details.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
We now leverage \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ to conduct an in-depth comparative study of the ACL algorithms presented in section \ref{sec:acl-algos}. After discussing experimental details, we undergo two separate experiments, aiming to answer the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item How do current ACL methods compare on each teaching challenges proposed in sec. \ref{sec:intro} ?
\item How do current ACL methods scale to a complex task space with limited expert knowledge ?
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Experimental details}
For both our environments, we train our DRL students for $20$ million steps. For each new episode, the teacher samples a new parameter vector used for the procedural generation of the environment. The teacher then receives the cumulative episodic reward that can be potentially turned into a binary reward signal using expert knowledge (as in GoalGAN and Setter-Solver). Additionally, SPDL receives the initial state of the episode as well as the reward obtained at each step, as it is designed for non-episodic RL setup. Every $500000$ steps, we test our student on a test set composed of $100$ pre-defined tasks and monitor the percentage of test tasks on which the agent obtained an episodic reward greater than $230$ (i.e. "mastered" tasks), which corresponds to agents that were able to reach the last portion of the map (in both Stump Tracks and Parkour). We compare performance results using Welch's t-test as proposed in \citet{colas_seeds_2018}, allowing us to track statistically significant differences between two methods. We perform a hyperparameter search for all ACL conditions through grid-search (see appendix \ref{app:acl-details}), while controlling that an equivalent number of configurations are tested for each algorithm. See appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for additional experimental details.
\subsection{Challenge-specific comparison with Stump Tracks}
First, we aim to compare the different ACL methods on each of the six challenges we identified and listed in section \ref{sec:intro}. For this, we propose to leverage the Stump Tracks environment to create five experiments, each of them designed to highlight the ability of a teacher in one the first five ACL challenges (see appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for details):
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Mostly unfeasible task space}: growing the possible maximum height of stumps, leading to almost $80\%$ of unfeasible tasks.
\item \textit{Mostly trivial task space}: allowing to sample stumps with negative height introducing $50\%$ of new trivial tasks.
\item \textit{Forgetting student}: resetting the DRL model twice throughout learning (i.e. every $7$ Millions steps).
\item \textit{Diverse students}: using multiple embodiments (short bipedal and spider) and DRL students (SAC and PPO).
\item \textit{Rugged difficulty landscape}: Applying a random transformation to the task space such that feasible tasks are scattered across the space (i.e. among unfeasible ones).
\end{itemize}
Additionally, in order to compare methods on the last challenge (i.e. the need of prior knowledge), we propose to perform each of our five experiments in three conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{No expert knowledge}: None of the prior knowledge listed in table \ref{acl-algo-table} is given. Hence only methods not requiring it can run in this setup.
\item \textit{Low expert knowledge}: Only reward mastery range information is accessible. We consider this as low prior knowledge as, while it requires some global knowledge about the task space, it does not require assumptions on the difficulty of specific subspaces of the task space.
\item \textit{High expert knowledge}: All the expert knowledge listed in table \ref{acl-algo-table} is given.
\end{itemize}
Note that in the \textit{No expert knowledge} and \textit{Low expert knowledge} setups, SPDL (and ADR in \textit{Low expert knowledge}) uses an initial task distribution randomly chosen as a subset of the task space. Moreover, in order to make a fair comparison in the\textit{ High expert knowledge} condition, we modified the vanilla version of Covar-GMM and ALP-GMM such that they can use an expert-given initial task distribution.
Using these $15$ experiments ($5$ challenges in $3$ expert knowledge setups), we here introduce what is, to our knowledge, the first unit-test like experiment of ACL methods, allowing one to compare teachers in each of the challenges we previously introduced. Moreover, performing each of the five experiments in three expert knowledge setups allows to show how the (un)availability of expert knowledge impacts performance for each method, which is hard to infer from each approach's original paper as they tend to focus only on the most ideal scenario. See appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for a detailed explanation of each experimental setup.
To conduct our analysis, each ACL method is used in $15$ experiments with $32$ seeds, except ADR, GoalGAN and Setter-Solver which cannot run in the \textit{No expert knowledge} setup (i.e. only $10$ experiments). We then calculate the aforementioned percentage of mastered test tasks on our test set (identical for all experiments), and average it over seeds. Performance results of all conditions can be visualized in figure \ref{fig:radar_chart} as a ratio of the Random teachers' performance, our lower-baseline.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/benchmark_profiling.png}}
\caption{\textit{EK: Expert Knowledge}. Post-training performance of each ACL method as a ratio of Random's results on multiple teaching challenges, done with $3$ different expert knowledge levels. We use {\textcolor{red}{\ding{58}}} to show estimations of upper-bound performances in each challenge, except for \textit{Variety of students} (see appendix \ref{app:additional-results_original-stump-tracks}). On each axis, we indicate which method performed significantly better than Random ($p<0.05$) using colored stars matching each method's color (e.g. {\textcolor{Covar_orange}{\ding{72}}} for Covar-GMM, {\textcolor{ADR_green}{\ding{72}}} for ADR). See appendix \ref{app:additional-results_stump-tracks} for details.}
\label{fig:radar_chart}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Results} We gather the results in figure \ref{fig:radar_chart} as well as in appendix \ref{app:additional-results_stump-tracks}.
\textit{Expert-knowledge-free methods --~~} Using these, one can see, first, that methods not requiring any expert knowledge (e.g. ALP-GMM or Covar-GMM) obtain very similar performances in \textit{No expert knowledge} and in \textit{High expert knowledge} setups (although expert knowledge does benefit them in terms of sample efficiency, see app. \ref{app:additional-results_stump-tracks} for details). Comparing their performance without prior knowledge to the results obtained by other teachers when they have access to high expert knowledge shows how competitive expert-knowledge-free methods can be.
\textit{Expert knowledge dependency --~~} The \textit{Low expert knowledge} setup highlights the dependence of methods relying on an initial distribution of easy tasks (e.g. ADR and GoalGAN), as it is not given in this scenario. As a result, in this setup, ADR obtains end performances not significantly different from Random in all challenges, and GoalGAN only outperforms Random in the mostly trivial task space ($p<0.05$). This has to be compared with their performance on the \textit{High expert knowledge} setup, in which both approaches reach the top 3 results on 3/5 challenges.
\textit{ADR \& GoalGAN --~~} Both ADR and GoalGAN have one strong weakness in a challenge (\textit{Rugged difficulty} for ADR and \textit{Forgetting student} for GoalGAN) that lead them to a performance worse than Random (significantly for ADR with $p<0.05$) in all expert knowledge setups. For ADR, it can be explained by the fact that its expansion can get stuck by subspaces of very hard (or unfeasible) difficulty, and for GoalGAN, by its inability to adapt quickly enough to the student's regressing capabilities because of its inertia to update its sampling distribution (updating the buffer and training the GAN). We provide a more in-depth analysis of these two cases in appendix \ref{app:additional-results_stump-tracks}.
%
\textit{SPDL --~~} One can see that SPDL's performance seem very poor in our experimental setup: its end performance is significantly inferior to Random in 11/15 experiments ($p<0.05$).
This can be explained by the fact that SPDL, by design, optimizes performance over a Gaussian target distribution, while our test set is uniformly sampled over the task space.
See appendix \ref{app:acl-details} for details and potential fixes.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphics/benchmark_parkour_shade_se_nb_mastered.png}}
\caption{Averaged performance ($48$ seeds, with standard error of the mean) for each ACL method on Parkour. We calculate every $5$ millions steps which method obtained statistically different ($p<0.05$) results from Random and indicate it with a star.}
\label{fig:parkour_comparison}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Global performance analysis using the Parkour}
The second experiment we propose aims to more broadly benchmark ACL methods' performance in the Parkour environment, which features most of the previously discussed ACL challenges: 1) most tasks are unfeasible, 2) before each run, unknown to the teacher, the student's embodiment is uniformly sampled among three morphologies (bipedal walker, fish and chimpanzee), requiring the teacher to adapt curriculum generation to a diversity of student profiles, and 3) tasks are generated through a CCPN-based PCG, creating a rich task space with rugged difficulty landscape and hardly-definable prior knowledge (see appendix \ref{app:env-details}).
We perform $48$ seeded experiments (i.e.\ $16$ seeds per morphology). To evaluate performance, three test sets were hand-designed (one per embodiment) such that each contains an even distribution between easy, medium and hard tasks. In terms of expert knowledge for teachers, we only give reward mastery range. Without straightforward initial easy task distribution to give to teachers requiring such knowledge (ADR and SPDL), we set it randomly over the space for each new run. See appendix \ref{app:expe-details} for details.
\paragraph{Results} We present the evolution of performance of each teacher averaged over all seeds (and thus all embodiments) in figure \ref{fig:parkour_comparison} and gather the detailed results in appendix \ref{app:additional-results_parkour}.
Interestingly, one can observe that best-performing methods do not use expert knowledge. This is explained by the fact that few prior knowledge is provided to the teachers in these experiments and, as shown in the challenge-specific experiments, most methods using expert knowledge heavily rely on them to reach high-performance.
However, one can see that, while SPDL and Setter-Solver remain at the performance level of Random, GoalGAN's performance along training is (mostly) not significantly different from those of Covar-GMM and RIAC, two methods not relying on expert knowledge, as opposed to GoalGAN.
On his side, ADR seems to plateau very fast and finally reach an average performance significantly worse than Random ($p<0.05$, see figure \ref{fig:full_parkour_comparison}). Indeed, as the difficulty landscape of the Parkour environment is rugged, and the initial "easy" task distribution randomly set, ADR is unable to progressively grow its sampling distribution towards feasible subspaces.
Finally, when looking specifically to each embodiment type, results show the incapacity of all teachers to make the DRL student learn an efficient policy with the climbing morphology (i.e. at most $1\%$ of mastered tasks by the end of training across all teachers), although we are able to show that high-performing policies can be learned when considering a subspace of the task space (see our case study in appendix \ref{app:additional-results_parkour}). This might be due to the complexity of learning the climbing gait w.r.t walking or swimming, as it requires for instance good coordination skills between the arms and the grasping actions.
For the two other morphologies (bipedal walker and fish), results obtained are also low (respectively less than $60\%$ and $50\%$) and have a high variance (especially for the fish) considering that our test sets contain feasible tasks. This makes the Parkour environment an open challenge for future work on designing ACL algorithms.
\section{Open-Source release of \textit{TeachMyAgent}}
With the open-source release of \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ (version \textit{1.0}), we hope to provide a tool that can be used as a step towards thorough comparison and better understanding of current and future ACL methods. \textit{TeachMyAgent}'s documented repository features the code of our environments, embodiments, DRL students, as well as implementations of all ACL methods compared in this paper. All of these parts use APIs we provide such that one can easily add its ACL method, learning algorithm, and new embodiment or environment. We hope this will foster community-driven contributions to extend \textit{TeachMyAgent}~in order to broaden its impact and adapt it to the future of ACL. We also provide the code we used to reproduce our experiments, as well as Jupyter notebooks allowing to generate all the figures showed in this paper. Finally, we release the results of our benchmark, allowing one to load them and compare its ACL method against baselines without having to reproduce our large-scale experiments.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
In this article we presented \textit{TeachMyAgent}~\textit{1.0}, a first extensive testbed to design and compare ACL algorithms. It features unit-tests environments to assess the efficiency of a given teacher algorithm on multiple core skills and the Parkour environment, which provides a challenging teaching scenario that has yet to be solved. We used \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ to conduct a comparative study of existing ACL algorithms. Throughout our experiments, we identified that 1) current ACL approaches not using expert knowledge matched and even outperformed (e.g. ALP-GMM) other approaches using high amounts of expert knowledge, and 2) the Parkour environment is far from solved, which makes it a good candidate as a testbed when designing new ACL approaches.
\paragraph{Limitations \& future work.} An obvious extension of this work is the addition of recent ACL approaches proposed during or after our experimental campaign \citep{acl-value-disagreement,jiang2020prioritized}.
So far, all studied ACL algorithms struggled to detect feasible task subspaces in Parkour, hinting that more research is needed to improve the "progress niche detection" ability of current teacher algorithms.
\textit{TeachMyAgent}~currently only features environments with low-dimensional PCG systems. Designing new environments with higher-dimensional PCG, that might require to learn low dimensional representations on which to apply ACL algorithms, is an interesting avenue. Besides, our current list of environments only studies 2D locomotion tasks inspired by ALP-GMM's original paper \citep{portelas2019} as well as other works on Deep RL and 2D locomotion \citep{agentdesignha,bipwalkerSong18,NEURIPS2019_ha_weight_agnostic,poet,poet2}. While we put maximal effort in building a thorough and fair analysis of ACL methods, we believe extending \textit{TeachMyAgent}~with other environments (e.g. ProcGen \cite{procgen}, robotic manipulation) would make the benchmark even more informative.
Additionally, extending the benchmark to consider environment-conditioned goal selection \citep{settersolver,AMIGO} -- i.e. where teachers have to observe the initial episode state to infer admissible goals -- is also worth investigating. \textit{TeachMyAgent}~ provides a distribution of diverse learners. To this respect, it could also serve as a testbed for \textit{Meta ACL} \citep{meta-acl}, i.e. algorithms \textit{learning to learn to teach} across a sequence of students.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by Microsoft Research through its PhD Scholarship Programme. Experiments presented in this paper were carried out using 1) the PlaFRIM experimental testbed, supported by Inria, CNRS (LABRI and IMB), Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux INP and Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine (see https://www.plafrim.fr/), 2) the computing facilities MCIA (Mésocentre de Calcul Intensif Aquitain) of the Université de Bordeaux and of the Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, and 3) the HPC resources of IDRIS under the allocation 2020-[A0091011996] made by GENCI.
|
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelims}
In this section we formally define the estimation tasks we want to solve (Definition~\ref{def:estimator}). This requires setting up the notion of a `rounding promise' (Definition~\ref{def:roundingpromise}) which highlights an inherent complication with coherent estimation that is not present in the incoherent case. We argue that this complication is unavoidable, and should be taken into account when coherent estimation is performed in practice. Next, we set up some simple technical tools for dealing with the error analysis of uncomputation (Lemmas~\ref{lemma:garbageremove},\ref{lemma:spectraltodiamond}). These will be used several times in this paper. Finally, we give a precise description and analysis of `textbook' phase estimation (Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation}). Thus, this section clearly defines the problem and the previous state-of-the-art which we improve.
Our paper presents algorithms for phase, energy, and amplitude estimation. Amplitude estimation follows as a relativity simple corollary of energy estimation so we will only be talking about the prior two until Section~\ref{sec:blockmeas}. To talk about both phases and energies at once, we standardize input unitaries and Hamiltonians into the following form:
\begin{align}
U = \sum_{j} e^{2\pi i \lambda_j} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \hspace{2cm} H = \sum_j \lambda_j \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
We refer to the $\{\lambda_j\}$ as the `eigenvalues', and assume they live in the range $[0,1)$. While any unitary can be put into this form, the form places the constraint $0 \preceq H \prec I$ onto the Hamiltonian.
Our goal is to compute $\ket{\lambda_j}$ an `$n$-bit estimate of $\lambda_j$'. In this paper, we take this to be an $n$-qubit register containing a binary encoding of the number $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$. Since $\lambda_j \in [0,1) $ we are guaranteed that $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ is an integer $\in \{0, ..., 2^n -1\}$ and thus has an $n$-bit encoding.
Consider phase estimation using a quantum circuit composed of elementary unitaries and controlled-$e^{2\pi i\lambda_j}$. Following an argument related to the polynomial method, we see that the resulting state must be of the form:
\begin{align}
\sum_{x\in\{0,1\}^n} \sum_{y} \alpha_{x,y}(e^{2\pi i\lambda_j}) \ket{x} \ket{ \text{garbage}_{x,y} }
\end{align}
where $\alpha_{x,y}(e^{2\pi i\lambda_j})$ is some polynomial of $e^{2\pi i\lambda_j}$. We would like $\ket{x}$ to encode $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$, meaning that $\alpha_{x,y}(e^{2\pi i\lambda_j}) = 1$ if $x = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ and $\alpha_{x,y}(e^{2\pi i\lambda_j}) = 0$ otherwise. This is impossible: $\alpha_{x,y}(e^{2\pi i\lambda_j})$ is a continuous function of $\lambda_j$, but the desired amplitude indicating $x = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ is discontinuous. For energy estimation a similar argument applies, just that the amplitudes are of the form $\alpha_{x,y}(\lambda_j)$. This argument even holds in the approximate case when we demand that $\alpha_{x,y} \leq \delta$ or $\geq 1-\delta$ for some small $\delta$ - the discontinuity is present regardless.
To some extent, this issue stems from the awkwardness of the notion of an `$n$-bit estimate' since it requires rounding or flooring, a discontinuous operation, when only continuous manipulation of amplitudes is possible. A more comfortable notion is that of an additive-error estimate, used by \cite{1610.09619,1603.08675} in their estimation algorithms.
However, the primary application of our algorithms is a situation where this simplification is not possible: Szegedy walks based on Hamiltonian eigenspaces \cite{1011.1468, 1910.01659,2005.13434,2107.07365}. The original quantum Metropolis algorithm \cite{0911.3635} implements a random walk over Hamiltonian eigenspaces, where the superposition is measured at every step and it is demonstrated that an additive error estimate is sufficient. But in order to harness a quadratic speedup due to quantum walks \cite{Sze04}, the measurement of energies must be made completely coherent, which is not achieved by an additive-error estimate unless the error is smaller than the gap between any eigenvalues. Therefore, we retain the notion of an `$n$-bit estimate' in this paper. We could always fall back to an estimate with additive error $\varepsilon/2$ by computing $n = \text{ceil}(\log_2(\varepsilon^{-1}))$ bits of accuracy.
However, the above argument still applies for additive-error estimation: the amplitude of any given estimate $\ket{\hat\lambda}$ is a continuous function of the eigenvalue $\lambda_j$. This means that the amplitude cannot be 0 or 1 everywhere, there must exist points where it crosses intermediate values in order to interpolate in between the two. In both the `$n$-bit estimate' case and the additive-error case, this causes a problem for coherent quantum algorithms since the estimate cannot always be uncomputed. For some eigenvalues $\lambda_j$, the algorithm will yield an output state of the form $\alpha \ket{\hat\lambda} + \beta \ket{\hat\lambda'}$. Even if $ \hat\lambda,\hat\lambda'$ are good estimates of $\lambda_j$, the uncompute trick \cite{9701001} cannot be used for such an output state. Thus, the damage to the input superposition over $\ket{\lambda_j}$ is irreparable.
The only way to deal with this issue is to assume that the $\lambda_j$ do not take certain values. Then the amplitudes can interpolate between 0 and 1 at those points. Observe that the discontinuities in the function $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ occur at multiples of $1/2^n$. A `rounding promise' simply disallows eigenvalues near these regions.
\begin{definition} \label{def:roundingpromise} Let $n\in \mathbb{Z}^+$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$. A hermitian matrix $H$ satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-\textbf{rounding promise} if it has an eigendecomposition $H = \sum_j \lambda_j \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$, all the eigenvalues $\lambda_j$ satisfy $0 \leq \lambda_j < 1$, and for all $x \in \{0,...,2^n\}$:
\begin{align}
\lambda_j \not\in \left[ \frac{x}{2^n} , \frac{x}{2^n} + \frac{\alpha}{2^n} \right ]
\end{align}
Similarly, a unitary matrix $U$ satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise if it can be written as $U = \sum_j e^{2\pi i \lambda_j}\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$ and the phases $\lambda_j$ satisfy the same assumptions.
\end{definition}
We have $\lambda_j \in [0,1)$, and we have disallowed $\lambda_j$ from certain sub-intervals of $[0,1)$. The definition above is chosen such that the total length of these disallowed subintervals is $\alpha$, regardless of the value of $n$. We have essentially cut out an $\alpha$-fraction of the allowed eigenvalues.
Guaranteeing a rounding promise demands an enormous amount of knowledge about the eigenvalues. We do not expect many Hamiltonians or unitaries in practice to actually provably satisfy such a promise. However, we expect that the estimation algorithms discussed in this paper will still perform pretty well even if they do not satisfy such a promise. One can increase the chances of success by setting $\alpha$ to be very small, so that the vast majority of the eigenvalues do not fall into a disallowed region. Then, if the input state is close to a uniform distribution over the eigenstates, then one can be fairly confident that only an $\alpha$ fraction of the eigenvalues in the support will be disallowed. The need for a rounding promise can be also sidestepped entirely by avoiding the use of energy estimation as a subroutine and approaching the desired problem directly. This has been accomplished for ground state finding \cite{2002.12508}.
The rounding promise is not just a requirement of our work in particular - it is a requirement for any coherent phase estimation protocol. The fact that coherent phase estimation does not work for certain phases is largely disregarded in the literature: for example, works like \cite{1603.08675} neglect this issue entirely. However, there are some works that have observed this problem and attempt to mitigate it. Such methods are called `consistent phase estimation' \cite{tashma13} since the error of their estimate is supposedly independent of the phase being estimated, thus allowing amplification to make the amplitudes always close to 0 or 1. We claim that all of these attempts fail, and furthermore that achieving coherent phase estimation without some kind of promise is impossible in principle. This is due to the polynomial method argument above: any coherent quantum algorithm's output state's amplitudes must be a continuous function of the phase, and continuous functions that are sometimes $\approx 0$ and sometimes $\approx 1$ must somewhere have an intermediate value. Recall that uncomputation only works when the amplitudes are close to 0 or 1. The error depends on if the phase is close to this transition point or not, so the error must depend on the phase. This issue was not taken into account by \cite{1010.4458}, \cite{1704.04992}, and \cite{1812.03584}, since all of these either implicitly or explicitly state that there is an algorithm that approximately performs $\ket{\psi_i}\ket{0^n}\to\ket{\psi_i}\ket{\lambda_i}$ in superposition while $\lambda_i$ is a deterministic computational basis state\footnote{\cite{1010.4458} makes use of such a map in Algorithm~4. \cite{1704.04992} states this as Theorem~II.2. \cite{1812.03584} sketches but does not analyze a protocol for this after Claim~4.5.}. A more promising approach is detailed in \cite{tashma13}, which, crudely speaking, shifts the transition points by a classically chosen random amount. Now whether or not a phase is close to a transition point is independent of the phase itself, making amplification possible. \cite{1010.4458} describes a similar idea, calling it `unique-answer' eigenvalue estimation. However, we claim that this only works for a single phase. If we consider, for example, a unitary whose phases are uniformly distributed in $[0,1)$ at a sufficiently high density, then there will be a phase near a transition point for any choice of random shift. The only way to avoid the rounding promise is to sacrifice coherence and measure the output state.
All of the algorithms in this paper, including textbook phase estimation, achieve an asymptotic runtime of $O(2^n \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}))$, where $\delta$ is the error in diamond norm. Before we move on to the formal definition of the estimation task, we informally argue that the $\alpha^{-1}$ dependence is optimal, via a reduction to approximate counting. We are given $N$ items, $K$ of which are marked. Following the standard method for approximate counting \cite{0005055}, we construct a Grover unitary whose phases $\lambda_j$ encode $\arcsin(\sqrt{K/N})$. Given a $(1,\alpha)$-rounding promise, computing $\text{floor}(2^1 \lambda_j )$ amounts to deciding if $\lambda_j \leq \frac{1-\alpha/2}{2}$ or $\lambda_j \geq \frac{1+\alpha/2}{2}$ given that one of these is the case. By shifting the $\lambda_j$ around appropriately we can thus decide if $K \geq (1/2 + C\alpha )N $ or $K \leq (1/2- C \alpha)N$, for some constant $C$ obtained by linearising $\arcsin(\sqrt{K/N})$. We have achieved approximate counting with a promise gap $\sim\alpha$. Thus the $\Omega(\alpha^{-1})$ lower bound on approximate counting \cite{9804066} implies our runtime must be $\Omega(\alpha^{-1})$.
Equipped with the notion of a rounding promise, we can define our estimation tasks. Many algorithms in this paper produce some kind of garbage, which can be dealt with the uncompute trick \cite{9701001}. Rather than repeat the analysis of uncomputation in every single proof, we present a modular framework where we can deal with uncomputation separately. Furthermore, some applications may require computing some function of the final estimate, resulting in more garbage which also needs to be uncomputed. Rather than baking the uncomputation into each algorithm, it is thus more efficient to leave the decision of when to uncompute to the user of the subroutine.
\begin{definition}\label{def:estimator} A \textbf{phase estimator} is a protocol that, given some $n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$, and any error target $\delta > 0$, produces a quantum circuit involving controlled $U$ and $U^\dagger$ calls to some unitary $U$. If $U = \sum_j e^{2\pi i \lambda_j}\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$ satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise then this circuit implements a quantum channel that is $\delta$-close in diamond norm to the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{\psi_j} \to \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Similarly, an \textbf{energy estimator} is such a protocol that instead involves such calls to $U_H$ which is a block-encoding (see Definition~\ref{def:blockencoding}) of a Hamiltonian $H = \sum_j \lambda_j \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$ that satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise.
The \textbf{query complexity of an estimator} is the number of calls to $U$ or $U_H$ in the resulting circuit, as a function of $n,\alpha,\delta$.
An estimator is said to `\textbf{have garbage}' or `\textbf{have $m$ qubits of garbage}' if it is instead close to a map that produces some $j$-dependent $m$-qubit garbage state in another register:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n}\ket{0...0} \ket{\psi_j} \to \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{garbage}_j} \ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
(Note that the quantum circuit can allocate and discard ancillae, but that does not count as garbage.)
An estimator is said to `\textbf{have phases}' if the map introduces a $j$-dependent phase $\varphi_j$:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{\psi_j} \to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
If an estimator is both `with phases' and `with garbage', then we can just absorb the $e^{i\varphi_j}$ into $\ket{\text{garbage}_j}$ so the `with phases' is technically redundant. However, in our framework it makes more sense to treat phases and garbage independently since some of our algorithms are just `with phases'.
The reason we measure errors in diamond norm has to do with uncomputation of approximate computations with garbage. Consider for example a transformation $V$ acting on an answer register and a garbage register:
\begin{align}
V \ket{0} \ket{0...0} = \sqrt{1-\varepsilon} \ket{0}\ket{\text{garbage}_0} + \sqrt{\varepsilon} \ket{1} \ket{\text{garbage}_1}
\end{align}
for some small nonzero $\varepsilon$. We copy the answer register into the output register:
\begin{align}
\to \sqrt{1-\varepsilon} \ket{0} \otimes \ket{0}\ket{\text{garbage}_0} + \sqrt{\varepsilon} \ket{1} \otimes \ket{1} \ket{\text{garbage}_1}
\end{align}
and then we project the answer and garbage registers onto $V\ket{0}\ket{0...0}$:
\begin{align}
\to \sqrt{1-\varepsilon} \ket{0} \cdot \sqrt{1-\varepsilon} +\sqrt{\varepsilon} \ket{1} \cdot \sqrt{\varepsilon}
\end{align}
The resulting state $(1-\varepsilon)\ket{0} + \varepsilon\ket{1}$ is not normalized, meaning that the projection $V\ket{0}\ket{0...0}$ succeeds with some probability $< 1$. Thus the uncomputed registers are not always returned to the $\ket{0}\ket{0...0}$ state.
At this point our options are either to postselect these registers to $\ket{0}\ket{0...0}$ or to discard them. Postselection improves the accuracy, but also implies that the algorithms do not always succeed. Since many applications of coherent energy estimation demand repeating this operation many times, it is important that the algorithm always succeeds. Thus, we need to discard qubits, so we need to talk about quantum channels. Therefore, the diamond norm is the appropriate choice for an error metric. Recall that the diamond norm is defined in terms of the trace norm \cite{9806029}:
\begin{align}
\left| \Lambda \right|_\diamond := \sup_\rho \left| (\Lambda \otimes \mathcal{I}) (\rho) \right|_1
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity channel for some Hilbert space of higher dimension than $\Lambda$. The following analysis shows how to remove phases and garbage from an estimator, even in the approximate case.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:garbageremove} \textbf{Getting rid of phases and garbage.} Given a phase/energy estimator with phases and/or garbage with query complexity $Q(n,\alpha,\delta)$ that is unitary, we can construct a phase/energy estimator without phases and without garbage with query complexity $2Q(n,\alpha, \delta/2)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Without loss of generality, we assume we are given a quantum channel $\Lambda$ that implements something close in diamond norm to the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{0...0}\ket{\psi_j} \to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{garbage}_j} \ket{\psi_j} \label{eqn:idealuncompute}
\end{align}
If the channel is actually without phases then we can just set $\varphi_j =0$, and if it is actually without garbage then the following calculation will proceed without problems. Our strategy is just to use the uncompute trick, and then to discard the uncomputed ancillae. This requires us to implement $\Lambda^{-1}$, so we required that $\Lambda$ be implementable by a unitary.
\begin{align}
\hspace{5mm} \begin{array}{c}\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=1em {
\lstick{\ket{0^n}} & \qw & \targ & \qw & \qw\\
\lstick{\ket{0^n}} & \multigate{2}{\Lambda} & \ctrl{-1} & \multigate{2}{\Lambda^{-1}} & \measuretab{\text{discard}}\\
\lstick{\ket{0...0}} & \ghost{\Lambda} & \qw & \ghost{\Lambda^{-1}} & \measuretab{\text{discard}}\\
\lstick{\ket{\psi_j}} & \ghost{\Lambda} & \qw & \ghost{\Lambda^{-1}} & \qw
}\end{array} \label{eqn:uncomputechannel}
\end{align}
First, we consider the ideal case when $\Lambda$ implements the map (\ref{eqn:idealuncompute}) exactly. If we use $\ket{\psi_j}$ as input and we stop the circuit before the discards, we produce a state $\ket{\text{ideal}_j}$:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{0^n} \ket{0...0}\ket{\psi_j} &\to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{0^n}\ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{garbage}_j} \ket{\psi_j}\\
&\to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}\ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{garbage}_j} \ket{\psi_j}\\
&\to \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}\ket{0^n} \ket{0...0} \ket{\psi_j} =: \ket{\text{ideal}_j}
\end{align}
Let $\rho^\text{ideal}_{i,j} := \ket{\text{ideal}_i}\bra{\text{ideal}_j}$, so that we can write down the ideal channel:
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\text{ideal}(\sigma) := \sum_{i,j} \bra{\psi_i}\sigma\ket{\psi_j} \cdot \rho^\text{ideal}_{i,j}
\end{align}
If we apply $\Lambda$ with error $\delta/2$ instead we obtain the actual channel $\Gamma$ such that:
\begin{align}
\sup_\sigma \left| (\Gamma \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) - (\Gamma_\text{ideal} \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) \right|_1 \leq \delta
\end{align}
If $A$ refers to the subsystems that start (and approximately end) in the states $\ket{0^n}\ket{0...0}$ then the final output state satisfies:
\begin{align}
&\sup_\sigma \left|\text{Tr}_A\left((\Gamma \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma)\right) - \text{Tr}_A\left((\Gamma_\text{ideal} \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) \right) \right|_1 \\
\leq &\sup_\sigma \left|\text{Tr}_A\left((\Gamma \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) - (\Gamma_\text{ideal} \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) \right) \right|_1 \\
\leq &\sup_\sigma \left|(\Gamma \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) - (\Gamma_\text{ideal} \otimes \mathcal{I})(\sigma) \right|_1 \leq \delta
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that for all $\rho$ and subsystems $A$ we have $|\text{Tr}_A(\rho)|_1 \leq |\rho|_1$. Upon plugging in $\sigma = \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$ we can see that tracing out the middle register after applying $\Gamma_\text{ideal}$ implements the map
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n}\ket{\psi_j} \to \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j2^n)}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
so therefore the circuit in (\ref{eqn:uncomputechannel}) is an estimator without phases and garbage as desired.
The proof is complete, up to the fact that $|\text{Tr}_A(\rho)|_1 \leq |\rho|_1$ for all $\rho$ and subsystems $A$. Write $\rho$ in terms of its eigendecomposition $\rho = \sum_i \lambda_i\ket{\phi_i}\bra{\phi_i}$, and let $\rho_i := \text{Tr}_A(\ket{\phi_i}\bra{\phi_i})$:
\begin{align}
\left|\text{Tr}_A(\rho)\right|_1 &= \left|\text{Tr}_A\left( \sum_i \lambda_i \ket{\phi_i}\bra{\phi_i}\right )\right|_1=\left| \sum_i \lambda_i \rho_i \right|_1 \leq \sum_i |\lambda_i| \cdot |\rho_i|_1 = |\rho|_1
\end{align}
\end{proof}
This establishes that uncomputation works in the approximate case as expected. While we are reasoning about the diamond norm, we also present the following technical tool which will come in handy several times. In particular, we will need it for our analysis of textbook phase estimation.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:spectraltodiamond} \textbf{Diamond norm from spectral norm}. Say $U,V$ are unitary matrices satisfying $|U-V| \leq \delta$. Then the channels $\Gamma_U(\rho):= U\rho U^\dagger$ and $\Gamma_V(\rho):= V\rho V^\dagger$ satisfy $|\Gamma_U - \Gamma_V|_\diamond \leq 2\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have that:
\begin{align}
\left| \Gamma_U - \Gamma_V \right|_\diamond &:= \sup_\rho \left| (\Gamma_U \otimes \mathcal{I})(\rho) - (\Gamma_V \otimes \mathcal{I})(\rho) \right|_1\\
&= \sup_\rho \left| (U\otimes I)\rho(U \otimes I)^\dagger - (V\otimes I)\rho(V \otimes I)^\dagger \right|_1
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{I}$ was the identity channel on some subsystem of dimension larger than that of $U,V$, and $|M|_1$ is the sum of the magnitudes of the singular values of $M$.
Let $\bar U = U \otimes I$ and $\bar V = V \otimes I$. Then:
\begin{align}
\left| \bar U - \bar V \right| = \left| U \otimes I - V \otimes I \right| = \left| (U-V) \otimes I \right| = \left| U-V\right| \leq \delta
\end{align}
If we let $\bar E := \bar U - \bar V$ we can proceed with the upper bound:
\begin{align}
\left| \Gamma_U - \Gamma_V \right|_\diamond &= \sup_\rho \left| \bar U\rho\bar U^\dagger -\bar V\rho \bar V^\dagger \right|_1\\
&= \sup_\rho \left| \bar U\rho\bar U^\dagger -\bar V\rho \bar V^\dagger + \left( \bar U \rho V^\dagger - U\rho V^\dagger\right) \right|_1\\
&= \sup_\rho \left|\left(\bar U\rho\bar U^\dagger - U\rho V^\dagger\right) - \left(\bar V\rho \bar V^\dagger - \bar U \rho V^\dagger \right) \right|_1\\
&= \sup_\rho \left|\bar U \rho (\bar U - \bar V)^\dagger + (\bar U - \bar V)\rho \bar V^\dagger \right|_1\\
&\leq \delta + \delta
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Now we have all the tools required to analyze the textbook algorithm \cite{nc}. This algorithm combines several applications of controlled-$U$ with an inverse QFT to obtain the correct estimate with a decent probability. One can then improve the success probability via median amplification: if a single estimate is correct with probability $\geq \frac{1}{2} + \eta$ for some $\eta$ then the median of $\lceil \ln(\delta^{-1})/ 2\eta^2 \rceil$ estimates is incorrect with probability $\leq \delta$.
However, median amplification alone is not sufficient to accomplish phase estimation as we have defined it in Definition~\ref{def:roundingpromise}. This is because any $\lambda_i$ that is $\approx 10\% \cdot 2^{-n-1}$ close to a multiple of $1/2^{n}$, the probability of correctly obtaining $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ is actually \emph{less} than $1/2$! This means that no matter how much median amplification is performed, this approach cannot achieve $\alpha$ below $\approx 10\%$. (For reference, a lower bound $\gamma$ on the probability is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_eta}, although reading this figure demands some notation from the proof of the following proposition. We see that when $|\lambda_j^{(x)} - 1/2| \lesssim 10\% / 2 $ the probability of obtaining $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ is less than $1/2$.)
Furthermore, even if the signal obtained from the QFT could obtain arbitrarily small $\alpha$, it would not achieve the desired $\alpha^{-1}$ scaling. This is because the amplification gap $\eta$ scales linearly with $\alpha$, and median amplification scales as $\eta^{-2}$ due to the Chernoff-Hoeffding theorem. Therefore, we would obtain a scaling of $\alpha^{-2}$.
Fortunately, achieving $\sim\alpha^{-1}$ is possible, using a different method for reducing $\alpha$: we perform estimation for $r$ additional bits which are then ignored. This makes use of the fact that $\alpha$ is independent of the number of estimated bits, but the gap away from the multiples of $1/2^{n}$, which is $\alpha/2^{n+1}$, is not. Every time we increase $n$, the width of each disallowed interval is chopped in half, but to compensate the number of disallowed intervals is doubled. If we simply round away some of the bits, then we do not care about the additional disallowed regions introduced. If we estimate and round $r$ additional bits, we suppress $\alpha$ by a factor of $2^{-r}$ while multiplying our runtime by a factor of $2^r$ - so the scaling is $\sim\alpha^{-1}$.
We still need median amplification, though. In order to use the above strategy we need rounding to be successful: if an eigenvalue $\lambda_j$ falls between two bins $\text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)$ and $\text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)+1$, then it must be guaranteed to be rounded to one of those bins with failure probability at most $\delta$. Before amplification, the probability that rounding succeeds is $\geq 8/\pi^2$, a constant gap above $1/2$ corresponding to $\alpha = 1/2$. We cannot guarantee a success probability higher than $8/\pi^2$ using the rounding trick alone, and thus need median amplification to finish the job.
Below, we split our analysis into two regimes: the $\alpha \leq 1/2$ regime and the $\alpha > 1/2$ regime. When $\alpha > 1/2$ then we do not really need the rounding trick described above, and we can achieve this accuracy with median amplification alone. Otherwise when $\alpha \leq 1/2$ we use median amplification to get to the point where rounding is likely to succeed, and then estimate $r$ additional bits such that $\alpha 2^r \geq 1/2$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:phaseestimation} \textbf{Standard phase estimation.} There exists an phase estimator with phases and garbage. Consider a unitary satisfying an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise. Let:
\begin{align}
\gamma(x) := \frac{sin^2(\pi x)}{\pi^2 x^2}\hspace{1.5cm} \eta_0 := \frac{8}{\pi^2} - \frac{1}{2}\hspace{1.5cm} \delta_\text{med} := \frac{\delta^2}{6.25}
\end{align}
If $\alpha \leq 1/2$,let $ r := \left\lceil \log_2 \left(\frac{1}{2\alpha}\right) \right\rceil$.
Then the phase estimator has query complexity:
\begin{align}
(2^{n+r} -1) \cdot \left\lceil \frac{\ln(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2 \eta_0^2} \right\rceil
\end{align}
and has $(n+r)\left\lceil \frac{\ln(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2\eta_0^2}\right\rceil$ qubits of garbage.
Otherwise, if $\alpha > 1/2$, let $\eta := \gamma\left( \frac{1-\alpha}{2} \right) - \frac{1}{2}$. Then the phase estimator has query complexity:
\begin{align}
(2^{n} -1) \cdot \left\lceil \frac{\ln(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2 \eta^2} \right\rceil
\end{align}
and has $n\left\lceil \frac{\ln(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2\eta^2}\right\rceil$ qubits of garbage.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We begin with the $\alpha > 1/2$ case which is simpler, and then extend to the $\alpha \leq 1/2$ case. The following is a review of phase estimation, which has been modified to estimate $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ rather than $\text{round}\left( 2^n \lambda_j \right)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Prepare a uniform superposition over times: $\ket{+^{n}}\ket{\psi_j} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}} \sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1} \ket{t}\ket{\psi_j}$.
\item Apply $U$ to the $\ket{\psi_j}$ register $t$ times, along with an additional phase shift of $ \frac{-2\pi t(1-\alpha)}{2^{n+1}}$ to account for flooring:
\begin{align}
\to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}} \sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1} \ket{t} \otimes U^t e^{-\frac{2\pi i t(1-\alpha)}{2^{n+1}}} \ket{\psi_j} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}} \sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1} e^{2\pi i t \left(\lambda_j - \frac{1-\alpha}{2^{n+1}} \right) } \ket{t}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
\item Apply an inverse quantum Fourier transform to the $\ket{t}$ register:
\begin{align}
&\to \frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1} \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} e^{2\pi i t \left(\lambda_j - \frac{1-\alpha}{2^{n+1}} \right)} e^{- \frac{2\pi i}{2^n} tx} \ket{x}\ket{\psi_j} \\
&= \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} \left[ \frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1}e^{ 2i \pi t \left(\lambda_j - \frac{x}{2^n} - \frac{1-\alpha}{2^{n+1}} \right)}\right] \ket{x}\ket{\psi_j} \\
&= \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} \beta\left(\lambda^{(x)}_j \right) \ket{x}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where in the final line we have defined:
\begin{align}
\lambda^{(x)}_j &:= 2^n \lambda_j - x - \frac{1-\alpha}{2} \\
\beta(\lambda_j^{(x)}) &:= \frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1}e^{ 2 \pi i t \lambda^{(x)}_j/2^n }.
\end{align}
\item Let $\eta$ and $\delta_\text{med}$ be as in the theorem statement, and let:
\begin{align}
M &:= \left\lceil \frac{\log(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2\eta^2} \right\rceil
\end{align}
Repeat the above process for a total of $M$ times. If we sum $\vec x$ over $\{0,...,2^{n}-1\}^M$, then we obtain:
\begin{align}
\to \sum_{\vec x} \bigotimes_{l=1}^{M} \beta\left( \lambda^{(x_l)}_j \right) \ket{k_l} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
\item Run a sorting network, e.g. \cite{1207.2307}, on the $M$ estimates, and copy the median into the output register.
\end{enumerate}
The query complexity analysis is straightforward: each estimate requires $2^n - 1$ applications of controlled-$U$, and there are $M$ estimates. So all we must do is demonstrate accuracy. It is clear that the process above implements a map of the form:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{0...0} \ket{\psi_j} \to \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} e^{i\varphi_{j,x}} \sqrt{p_{j,x}} \ket{x} \ket{\text{gar}_{j,k}} \ket{\psi_j} \label{eqn:phaseestmap}
\end{align}
for some probabilities $p_{j,x}$ and phases $\varphi_{j,x}$, since this is just a general description of a unitary map that leaves the $\ket{\psi_j}$ register intact. This way of writing the map lets us bound the error in diamond norm to the ideal map
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n} \ket{0...0} \ket{\psi_j} \to e^{i\varphi_{j}} \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{gar}_{j}} \ket{\psi_j}\label{eqn:phaseestmapideal}
\end{align}
(selecting $\varphi_j := \varphi_{j,\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} $ and $\ket{\text{gar}_{j}}:= \ket{\text{gar}_{j,\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}} $)
without uncomputing while still employing the standard analysis of phase estimation which just reasons about the probabilities $p_{j,x}$. These can be bounded from a median amplification analysis of the probabilities $\left| \beta\left(\lambda^{(x)}_j \right)\right|^2$. Consider a vector of $M$ estimates $\vec x$. Then:
\begin{align}
p_{j,x} := \sum_{\substack{ \vec x \text{ where} \\ \text{median}(\vec x ) =x }} \prod_{l=1}^{M} \left|\beta( \lambda^{(x_l)}_j )\right|^2
\end{align}
First we show that probabilities $\left| \beta\left(\lambda^{(x)}_j \right)\right|^2$ associated with the individual estimates are bounded away from $\frac{1}{2}$. Using some identities we can rewrite:
\begin{align}
|\beta(\lambda^{(x)}_j)|^2 &= \left|\frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{t=0}^{2^n-1}e^{ 2i \pi t \lambda^{(x)}_j /2^n }\right|^2 \\
&= \left|\frac{1}{2^n} \frac{ e^{ 2i \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j } - 1 }{ e^{ 2i \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j / 2^n } - 1 } \right|^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{4^n} \frac{ \sin^2( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j ) + (\cos( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j )-1)^2 }{ \sin^2( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j / 2^n ) + (\cos( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j / 2^n )-1)^2 } \\
&= \frac{1}{4^n} \frac{ 2 - 2\cos( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j ) }{ 2 - 2\cos( 2\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j / 2^n ) } \\
&= \frac{1}{4^n} \frac{ \sin^2( \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j ) }{ \sin^2( \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j / 2^n ) }
\end{align}
Using the small angle approximation $\sin(\theta) \leq \theta$ for $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi$, we can derive:
\begin{align}
|\beta( \lambda^{(x)}_j )|^2 = \frac{1}{4^n} \frac{ \sin^2( \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j ) }{ \sin^2( \pi \lambda^{(x)}_j /2^{n}) } \geq \frac{1}{4^n} \frac{\sin^2(\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j )}{ \pi^2 (\lambda^{(x)}_j)^2 / 4^n} = \frac{\sin^2(\pi \lambda^{(x)}_j)}{\pi^2 (\lambda^{(x)}_j)^2 } =: \gamma(\lambda^{(x)}_j )
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{aug22_phase_estimation_bounds.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:alpha_eta} Sketch of $\gamma(\lambda^{(x)}_j)$, a lower bound on the magnitude of the amplitude of phase estimation $|\beta(\lambda^{(x)}_j)|^2$. Recall that the rounding promise guarantees that $\lambda_j \not\in \left[\frac{x}{2^n}, \frac{x}{2^n} + \frac{\alpha}{2^n} \right]$ for all $x$, implying that $\lambda^{(x)}_j \not\in [ \frac{1-\alpha}{2} ,\frac{1+\alpha}{2}]$ as indicated in the shaded region. From this sketch we draw two conclusions necessary for our proof. First, when $\alpha > 1/2$ then $\gamma(\lambda^{(x)}_j)$ is guaranteed to be strictly greater than 1/2, so $\eta > 0$ (in fact, $\eta > \eta_0$). Second, even when no rounding promise applies, the sum of the probabilities of two adjacent bins is at least $8/\pi^2$, which we use to define the amplification threshold $\eta_0$. Also visible in this figure is the impossibility of reducing $\alpha$ further than $\approx 10\%$ without rounding: several values of $\lambda^{(x)}_j$ near $1/2$ have probabilities less than $1/2$ and cannot be amplified. }
\end{figure}
$\gamma(\lambda^{(x)}_j )$ is a very tight lower bound to $ |\beta(\lambda^{(x)}_j)|^2$, and is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_eta}. We would like this probability to be larger than $\frac{1}{2} + \eta$ for some $\eta$ when $\lambda_j$ satisfies a rounding promise. This is guaranteed if we select:
\begin{align}
\eta := \gamma\left(\frac{1-\alpha}{2}\right) - \frac{1}{2}
\end{align}
as in the theorem statement. From the figure, we see that when $\alpha > 1/2$ then $\eta > \eta_0$. This fact actually is not necessary for this construction to work, but observing this will be useful for the $\alpha \leq 1/2$ case. However, it is necessary to observe that when $\alpha > 1/2$ we are guaranteed that $\eta$ is positive.
Then, from the rounding promise and the definition of $\lambda^{(x)}_j$, we are guaranteed that when $x = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ then $|\beta(\lambda^{(x)}_j)|^2 \geq 1/2 + \eta$. Now we perform a standard median amplification analysis. The probability of a particular estimate $x$ being `correct' is $\geq 1/2 + \eta $, so the probability of being incorrect is $\leq 1/2 - \eta$. The only way that a median of $M$ estimates can be incorrect is if more than half of the estimates are incorrect. Let $X$ be the random variable counting the number of incorrect estimates. Then we can invoke the Chernoff-Hoeffding theorem:
\begin{align}
\text{Pr}[\text{median incorrect}] &\leq \text{Pr}\left[ X \geq M/2 \right] \\ &\leq \text{Pr}\left[ X \geq M/2 + \mathbb{E}(X) - (1/2 - \eta)M \right] \\ &\leq \exp\left( - 2M\eta^2 \right)
\end{align}
We can bound the above by $\delta_\text{med}$, a constant we will fix later, if we select $M := \left\lceil \frac{\log(\delta^{-1}_\text{med})}{2\eta^2} \right\rceil$ as we did above.
We have demonstrated that $p_\text{j,x} \geq 1- \delta_\text{med}$ whenever $x = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$. Now all that remains is a bound on the error in diamond norm. We begin by bounding the spectral norm. Let $p_j := p_{j,\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)}$ and observe that $1 \geq p_j \geq 1-\delta_\text{med}$. Taking the difference between equations (\ref{eqn:phaseestmap}) and (\ref{eqn:phaseestmapideal}) we obtain:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:phase_calc} & \left| (\sqrt{p_j} - 1) e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \ket{\text{gar}_{j}} \ket{\psi_j} + \sum_{x,x\neq\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)}e^{i\varphi_{j,x}} \sqrt{p_{j,x}} \ket{x} \ket{\text{gar}_{j,x}} \ket{\psi_j} \right|\\
= & \sqrt{ | (\sqrt{p_j} - 1) e^{i\varphi_j} |^2 + \sum_{x,x\neq\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} \left| e^{i\varphi_{j,x}}\sqrt{p_{j,x}} \right|^2}\\
= & \sqrt{ (\sqrt{p_j} - 1)^2 + \sum_{x,x\neq\text{floor}(\lambda_j 2^n)} p_{j_k} }\\
\leq & \sqrt{ ( 1 - \sqrt{1 - \delta_\text{med}} )^2 + \delta_\text{med} }\\
\leq & \sqrt{ 2 - 2\sqrt{1-\delta_\text{med}} - \delta_\text{med} + \delta_\text{med} }\\
\label{eqn:phase_calc2} \leq & \sqrt{ 2 - 2\sqrt{1-\delta_\text{med}} }
\end{align}
Now we apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:spectraltodiamond} to bound the diamond norm, and since the error is $\sim \sqrt{\delta_\text{med}}$ to leading order, we construct a bound that holds whenever $\sqrt{\delta_\text{med}} \leq 1$:
\begin{align}
2\sqrt{ 2 - 2\sqrt{1-\delta_\text{med}} } \leq 2.5 \sqrt{\delta_\text{med}}
\end{align}
If we select $\delta_\text{med} := \delta^2/6.25$ then the diamond norm is bounded by $\delta$.
Having completed the $\alpha > 1/2$ case, we proceed to the $\alpha \leq 1/2$ case. As stated above, the construction we just gave actually also works when $\alpha \leq 1/2$. However, the asymptotic dependence on $\alpha$ is like $\sim\alpha^{-2}$ which is not optimal.
Looking again at Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_eta}, we see that the sum of the probability of two adjacent bins is at least $8/\pi^2$, even when $\lambda^{(x)}_j$ is in a region disallowed by the rounding promise. Therefore, if we perform median amplification with gap parameter $\eta_0$ we are guaranteed that values of $\lambda^{(x)}_j$ that fall into a rounding gap will at least be rounded to an adjacent bin.
We can use this fact to achieve an $\sim \alpha^{-1}$ dependence. Recall that $\alpha$ is the fraction of the range $[0,1)$ where $\lambda_j$ are not allowed to appear due to the rounding promise, independent of $n$. If we perform phase estimation with $n+1$ rather than $n$, then the width of each disallowed region is cut in half from $\alpha 2^{-n}$ to $\alpha 2^{-n-1}$ - but we also double the number of disallowed regions. However, if we simply ignore the final bit, then, because we are amplifying to $\eta_0$, any values of $\lambda_j$ that fall into one of the newly introduced regions will simply be rounded. Thus, we cut the gaps in half without introducing any new gaps, so $\alpha$ is cut in half. We will make this argument more formal in a moment.
So, in order to achieve a particular $\alpha$, we observe from Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_eta} that if we amplify to $\eta_0$ then the gaps have width $\frac{1}{2} \cdot 2^{-n}$. If we estimate an additional $r$ bits, then the gaps have width $\frac{1}{2} \cdot 2^{-n-r}$. Solving $\frac{1}{2} \cdot 2^{-n-r} \leq \alpha 2^{-n}$ for $r$, we obtain
\begin{align}
r := \left\lceil \log_2 \left(\frac{1}{2\alpha}\right) \right\rceil.
\end{align}
We briefly make the $n$ explicit in $\lambda^{(x)}_j$ by writing $\lambda^{(n,x)}_j$. After running the protocol at the beginning of the proof with $n+r$ bits, we obtain, for $\vec x \in \{0,...,2^{n}-1\}^M$, the state:
\begin{align}
&\sum_{\vec x} \ket{\text{median}(\vec x)} \otimes \bigotimes_{l=1}^{M} \sum_{t=0}^{2^r - 1} \beta( \lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^{r} x_l + t )} ) \ket{2^{r}k_l + t} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\\
= & \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} \ket{x} \otimes \sum_{\substack{ \vec x \text{ where} \\ \text{median}(\vec x ) =kx}} \bigotimes_{l=1}^{M} \sum_{t=0}^{2^r - 1} \beta( \lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^{r} x_l + t )} ) \ket{2^{r}x_l + t} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\\
= & \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} \sqrt{p_{j,x}} e^{i\varphi_{j,x}}\ket{x} \otimes \ket{\text{gar}_{j,x}} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where in the last step we have defined the normalized state $\ket{\text{gar}_x}$, the probability $p_{j,x}$, and the phase $\varphi_{j,x}$ via:
\begin{align}
\sqrt{p_{j,x}} e^{i\varphi_{j,x}} \ket{\text{gar}_{j,x}} := \sum_{\substack{ \vec x \text{ where} \\ \text{median}(\vec x ) =x }} \bigotimes_{l=1}^{M} \sum_{t=0}^{2^r - 1} \beta( \lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^{r} x_l + t )} ) \ket{2^{r}x_l + t}
\end{align}
Now if we can demonstrate that $p_{j,x} \geq 1- \delta_\text{med}$ when $x = \text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)$ then the same argument as in (\ref{eqn:phase_calc}-\ref{eqn:phase_calc2}) holds and we are done. Observe that:
\begin{align}
p_{j,x} := \sum_{\substack{ \vec x \text{ where} \\ \text{median}(\vec x ) =x }} \prod_{l=1}^{M} \sum_{t=0}^{2^r-1} \left|\beta( \lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x_l + t )} )\right|^2
\end{align}
Say $x = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$. Then, consider $t := \text{floor}(2^{n+r} \lambda_j) - x 2^{r} $, which is an integer $\in \{0,...,2^{r}-1\}$. Then, looking at Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_eta}, we see that:
\begin{align}
|\beta(\lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x + t)})|^2 + |\beta(\lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x + t + 1)})|^2 \geq \gamma(\lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x + t)}) + \gamma(\lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x + t)} - 1) \geq \frac{1}{2} + \eta_0
\end{align}
Therefore the probability that the first $n$ bits are $x$ is $\sum_{t=0}^{2^r-1} \left|\beta( \lambda_j^{(n+r,\hspace{1mm} 2^r x + t )} )\right|^2 \geq 1/2 + \eta_0$, which is all that was required to perform the median amplification argument above. So we can conclude that $p_{j,k} \geq 1- \delta_\text{med}$, so the modified algorithm retains the same accuracy.
\end{proof}
\section{Coherent Iterative Estimation} \label{sec:coherent}
In this section we present the novel algorithms for phase estimation and energy estimation. As described in the introduction, both of these feature a strong similarity to `iterative phase estimation' \cite{9511026}, where the bits of the estimate are obtained one at a time. Unlike iterative phase estimation however, the state is never measured and the entire process is coherent. We therefore name these algorithms as `coherent iterative estimators'.
Another similarity that these new algorithms share with the original iterative phase estimation is that the less significant bits are taken into account when obtaining the current bit. This greatly reduces the amount of amplification required for the later bits, so the runtime is vastly dominated by the estimation of the least significant bit. We will go into more detail on this later.
To permit discussion of coherent iterative estimation of phases and energies in a unified manner, we fit this idea into the modular framework of Definition~\ref{def:estimator} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}. A `coherent iterative estimator' obtains a single bit of the estimate, given access to all the previous bits. Several invocations of a coherent iterative estimator yield a regular estimator as in Definition~\ref{def:estimator}. Furthermore, we can choose to uncompute the garbage at the very end using Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}, or, as we will show, we can remove the garbage early, which prevents it from piling up.
\begin{definition} \label{def:iterativeangle} A \textbf{coherent iterative phase estimator} is a protocol that, given some $n$, $\alpha$, any $k \in \{0,...,n-1\}$, and any error target $\delta > 0$, produces a quantum circuit involving calls to controlled-$U$ and $U^\dagger$. If the unitary $U$ satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise, then this circuit implements a quantum channel that is $\delta$-close to some map that performs:
\begin{align}
\ket{0} \ket{\Delta_k} \ket{\psi_j} \to \ket{\text{bit}_k\left( \lambda_j \right)}\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Here $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$ is the $(k+1)$'th least significant bit of an $n$-bit binary expansion, and $\ket{\Delta_k}$ is a $k$-qubit register encoding the $k$ least significant bits. (For example, if $n=4$ and $\lambda_j = 0.1011...$ then $\text{bit}_2(\lambda_j) = 0$ and $\Delta_2 = 11$.) Note that the target map is only constrained on a subspace of the input Hilbert space, and can be anything else on the rest.
An \textbf{coherent iterative energy estimator} is the same thing, just with controlled-$U_H$ and $U_H^\dagger$ queries to some block-encoding $U_H$ of a Hamiltonian $H$ that satisfies an $(n,\alpha)$-rounding promise.
A coherent iterative estimator can also be with garbage and/or with phases, just like in Definition~\ref{def:estimator}.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:stitchingiterative} \textbf{Stitching together coherent iterative estimators.} Given a coherent iterative phase/energy estimator with query complexity $Q(n,k',\alpha,\delta')$, we can construct a non-iterative phase/energy estimator with query complexity:
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} Q\left(n,k,\alpha, \delta\cdot 2^{-k-1} \right)
\end{align}
The non-iterative estimator has phases if and only if the coherent iterative estimator has phases, and if the coherent iterative estimator has $m$ qubits of garbage then the iterative estimator has $nm$ qubits of garbage.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We will combine $n$ many coherent iterative phase/energy estimators, for $k = 0,1,2,..,n-1$. The diamond norm satisfies a triangle inequality so if we let the $k$'th iterative estimator have an error $\delta_k := \delta 2^{-k-1}$ then the overall error will be:
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \delta_k \leq \frac{\delta}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} 2^{-k} = \frac{\delta}{2} (2 - 2^{1-n}) \leq \delta
\end{align}
So now all that is left is to observe that the exact iterative estimators chain together correctly. This should be clear by observing that for all $k > 0$:
\begin{align}
\ket{\Delta_k} = \ket{ \text{bit}_{k-1} (\lambda_j) }\otimes ... \otimes \ket{ \text{bit}_{0} (\lambda_j)}
\end{align}
and $\ket{\Delta_0} = 1 \in \mathbb{C}$ since when $k=0$ there are no less significant bits. So the $k$'th iterative estimator takes the $k$ least significant bits as input and computes one more bit, until finally at $k = n-1$ we have:
\begin{align}
\ket{ \text{bit}_{n-1} (\lambda_j) } \ket{\Delta_{n-1}} = \ket{ \text{bit}_{n-1} (\lambda_j) }\otimes ... \otimes \ket{ \text{bit}_{0} (\lambda_j)} = \ket{\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)}
\end{align}
The total query complexity is just the sum of the $n$ invocations of the iterative estimators from $k=0,...,n-1$ with error $\delta_k$.
If the iterative estimator has garbage, then the garbage from each of the $n$ invocations just piles up. Similarly, if the estimator is with phases, and has an $e^{i\varphi_{j,k}}$ for the $k$'th invocation, then the composition of the maps will have a phase $\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}e^{i\varphi_{j,k}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} \textbf{Removing garbage and phases from iterative estimators.} Given a coherent iterative phase/energy estimator with phases and/or garbage and with query complexity $Q(n,k,\alpha,\delta')$ that has a unitary implementation, we can construct a coherent iterative phase/energy estimator without phases and without garbage with query complexity $2Q(n,k,\alpha,\delta/2)$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This argument proceeds exactly the same as Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}, just with the extra $\ket{\Delta_k}$ register trailing along. If $\Lambda$ is the channel that implements the iterative estimator with garbage and/or phases, then we obtain an estimator without garbage and phases via:
\begin{align}
\hspace{5mm} \begin{array}{c}\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=1em {
\lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw & \targ & \qw & \qw\\
\lstick{\ket{0}} & \multigate{3}{\Lambda} & \ctrl{-1} & \multigate{3}{\Lambda^{-1}} & \measuretab{\text{discard}}\\
\lstick{\ket{0...0}} & \ghost{\Lambda} & \qw & \ghost{\Lambda^{-1}} & \measuretab{\text{discard}}\\
\lstick{\ket{\Delta_k}} & \ghost{\Lambda} & \qw & \ghost{\Lambda^{-1}} & \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{\phi_j}} & \ghost{\Lambda} & \qw & \ghost{\Lambda^{-1}} & \qw
}\end{array}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
The advantage of the modular framework we just presented is that maximizes the amount of flexibility when implementing these algorithms. How exactly uncomputation is performed will vary from application to application, and depending on the situation uncomputation may be performed before invoking Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} using Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove}, after Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} using Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}, or not at all!
Of course, the idea of uncomputation combined with iterative estimation itself is quite simple, so given a complete understanding of the techniques we present the reader may be able to perform this modularization themselves. However, we found that this presentation significantly de-clutters the presentation of the main algorithms, those that actually implement the coherent iterative estimators from Definition~\ref{def:iterativeangle}. While the intuitive concept behind these strategies is not so complicated, the rigorous presentation and error analysis is quite intricate. We therefore prefer to discuss uncomputation separately.
\subsection{Coherent Iterative Phase Estimation} \label{sec:phaseestimation}
This section describes our first novel algorithm, presented in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. Before stating the algorithm in complete detail, performing an error analysis, and showing how to optimize the performance up to constant factors, we outline the tools that we will need and give an intuitive description.
As stated in the introduction, a very similar algorithm was independently discovered by \cite{2105.02859}. The techniques of the two algorithms for phase estimation feature some minor differences: our work is more interested in maintaining coherence of the input state, the algorithm's constant-factor runtime improvement over prior art, and our runtime is $O(2^n)$ rather than $O(n2^n)$ ($O(n)$ vs $O(n \log n)$ respectively in the language of \cite{2105.02859}). On the other hand, \cite{2105.02859} elegantly show how a quantum Fourier transform emerges as a special case of the algorithm, and their presentation is significantly more accessible. Both methods avoid use of ancillae entirely.
A key tool for these algorithms is the block-encoding, which allows us to manipulate arbitrary non-unitary matrices. In this paper we simplify the notion a bit by restricting to square matrices with spectral norm $\leq 1$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:blockencoding} Say $A$ is a square matrix $\in\mathcal{L}\left(\mathcal{H}\right)$. A unitary matrix $U_A$ is a \textbf{block-encoding} of $A$ if $U_A$ acts on $m$ qubits and $\mathcal{H}$, and:
\begin{align}
\left(\bra{0^m} \otimes I\right) U \left( \ket{0^m} \otimes I \right) = A
\end{align}
We can also make $m$ explicit by saying that $A$ \textbf{has a block-encoding with $m$ ancillae}. We allow the quantum circuit implementing $U$ to allocate ancillae in the $\ket{0}$ state and then to return them to the $\ket{0}$ state with probability 1. These ancillae are not postselected and do not contribute to the ancilla count $m$.
\end{definition}
A unitary matrix is a trivial block-encoding of itself. In this sense, we already have a block-encoding of the matrix:
\begin{align}
U = \sum_j e^{2\pi i \lambda_j} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Recall that the goal of the coherent iterative estimator is to compute $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$. The strategy involves preparing an approximate block-encoding of:
\begin{align}
\sum_j \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
We begin by rewriting the above expression a bit. Recall that $\Delta_k$ is an integer from $0$ to $2^{k+1}-1$ encoding the $k$ less significant bits of $\lambda_j$. If we subtract $\Delta_k/2^n$ from $\lambda_j$, we obtain a multiple of $1/2^{n-k}$ plus something $< 1/2^{n}$ which we floor away. Then, $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$ indicates if this is an even or an odd multiple. That means we can write:
\begin{align}
\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = \text{parity}\left(\text{floor}\left( 2^{n-k} \left( \lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n} \right) \right)\right)
\end{align}
Since $ \lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n}$ is a multiple of $1/2^{n-k}$ plus something $< 1/2^{n}$, we equivalently have that $2^{n-k} \left( \lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n} \right)$ is an integer plus something less than $1/2^{k}$. For such values, we can write the parity(floor($x$)) function in terms of a squared cosine that has been `amplified':
\begin{align}
\text{parity}(\text{floor}(x)) = \text{amp}\left(\cos^2\left( \frac{\pi}{2} \left[ x + \phi \right] \right)\right)\\
\text{amp}(x) = \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{cc}1 \text{ if } x > 1/2\\ 0 \text{ if } x < 1/2 \end{array}
\end{align}
where the shift $\phi$ centers the extrema of the cosine in the intervals where $x$ occurs. Therefore:
\begin{align}
\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) &= \text{amp}\left(\cos^2\left( \frac{\pi}{2} \left[ 2^{n-k} \left(\lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n}\right) + \phi \right] \right)\right) \\
&= \text{amp}\left(\cos^2\left( \pi \left[ 2^{n-k-1} \left(\lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n}\right) + \phi/2 \right] \right)\right) \\
&= \text{amp}\left(\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)\right)
\end{align}
Where we have defined:
\begin{align}
\lambda_j^{(k)} := 2^{n-k-1} \left( \lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n} \right) + \phi_k
\end{align}
for some $k$-dependent choice of phase $\phi_k = \phi/2$.
By applying a phase shift conditioned on the $\ket{\Delta_k}$ register, and then iterating it $2^{n-k-1}$ times, we can construct a block-encoding of the unitary with eigenvalues $\lambda_j^{(k)}$. Our goal is now to transform this unitary as follows:
\begin{align}
\sum_j e^{2\pi i \lambda_j^{(k)}} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \hspace{5mm}\to \hspace{5mm} \sum_j \left[ \text{amp}\left(\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)\right) \right]\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
To obtain a cosine use linear combinations of unitaries \cite{1501.01715, 1511.02306} to take a take a linear combination with the identity:
\begin{align}
\sum_j \frac{e^{2 \pi i \lambda^{(k)}_j} + 1}{2} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} &= \sum_j \cos\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \left[ e^{i \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} } \ket{\psi_j}\right]\bra{\psi_j}\\
&= \sum_j \left|\cos\left(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right)\right| \cdot \left[ \pm e^{i \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} } \ket{\psi_j}\right]\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where on the previous line $\pm$ indicates $\text{sign}\left( \cos\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right)$. This way the above is a singular value decomposition of the block-encoded matrix.
So all that is left to do is to approximately transform the singular values $a$ of the matrix above by:
\begin{align}
a \to \text{amp}(a^2)
\end{align}
We will accomplish this using singular value transformation.
\begin{lemma} \textbf{Singular value transformation.}\label{lemma:svt} Say $A$ is a square matrix with singular value decomposition $A = \sum_i a_i \ket{\psi^l_i}\bra{\psi^r_i}$, and $p(x)$ is a degree-$d$ even polynomial with real coefficients satisfying $|p(x)| \leq 1$ for $|x| \leq 1$, and suppose $A$ has a block-encoding $U_A$. Then, for any $\delta > 0$, there exists a $O(\text{poly}(d,\log(1/\delta)))$ time classical algorithm that produces a circuit description of a block-encoding of the matrix:
\begin{align}
\tilde p(A) := \sum_i \tilde p(a_i) \ket{\psi^r_i}\bra{\psi^r_i}
\end{align}
where $\tilde p(x)$ is a polynomial satisfying $|\tilde p(x) - p(x)| \leq \delta$ for $|x| \leq 1$. This block-encoding makes $d$ queries to $U_A$ or $U_A^\dagger$ (not controlled). If the block-encoding of $A$ has $m$ ancillae, then that of $\tilde p(A)$ has $m+1$ ancillae. In the special case when $m=1$ and the unitary implementing the block-encoding has the form $U_A = \sum_i V_i \otimes \ket{\psi^l_i}\bra{\psi^r_i}$ where the $V_i$ are qubit reflections, then it is possible to make the block-encoding of $\tilde p(A)$ also just have one ancilla.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a slightly simplified version of the main result of \cite{1806.01838}. The $m>1$ case involves an application of Corollary~18 which demands an extra control qubit that is also postselected. For an accessible review on the subject see \cite{2105.02859}.
We briefly elaborate on the $m=1$ special case when $U_A = \sum_i V_i \otimes \ket{\psi^l_i}\bra{\psi^r_i}$ and the $V_i$ are reflections. We find that when this is the case, the $(W_x,S_z, \bra{+} \cdot \ket{+})$-QSP convention (see Theorem 13 of \cite{2105.02859}) can actually be implemented by converting to the reflection convention and then using the circuit from Lemma~19 of \cite{1806.01838}, simply by applying a Hadamard gate to the ancilla register at the beginning and end of the circuit. This lets us implement polynomials with the constraints above without resorting to Corollary~18 of \cite{1806.01838}.
Note that the circuit from Lemma~19 of \cite{1806.01838} (which is used in both the $m=1$ and $m>1$ cases) initializes an extra qubit to perform reflections. However, this qubit is guaranteed to be returned to the $\ket{0}$ state exactly and is not postselected, so it is not an ancilla in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:blockencoding}.
\end{proof}
Singular value transformation can perform the desired conversion if we can construct a polynomial $A(x)$ such that:
\begin{align}
A(x) \approx \text{amp}(x) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \text{sign}(2x - 1)
\end{align}
If we invoke the above lemma with the even polynomial $A(x^2)$ we get an approximation to the desired block-encoding of $\sum_j \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$.
In particular, the behavior we must capture in the polynomial approximation is that $A(x) \approx 1$ when $x \in [0,1/2 - \eta]$ and $A(x) \approx 0$ when $x \in [1/2 + \eta,1]$ for some gap $\eta$ away from $1/2$. If we view the input $x$ as a probability, then $A(x)$ essentially `amplifies' this probability to something close to 0 or 1 (and additionally flips the outcome). We hence call $A(x)$ an `amplifying polynomial'.
One approach to constructing such an amplifying polynomial is to simply adapt a classical algorithm for amplification. We stated this method in the introduction: the polynomial is the probability that the majority vote of several coin tosses is heads, where each coin comes up heads with probability $x$. Then the desired properties can be obtained from the Chernoff-Hoeffding theorem \cite{0902.3757}. The number of coins we have to toss to accomplish a particular $\eta,\delta$ is the degree of the polynomial, which is bounded by $O(\eta^{-2} \log(\delta^{-1}))$.
However, this polynomial does not achieve the optimal $\eta$ dependence of $O(\eta^{-1})$. This might be achieved by a polynomial inspired by a quantum algorithm for approximate counting, which does achieve the $O(\eta^{-1})$ dependence. But rather than go through such a complicated construction we simply adapt a polynomial approximation to the $\text{sign}(x)$ function developed in \cite{1707.05391}, which accomplishes the optimal $O(\eta^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}))$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:amppoly} \textbf{Quantum amplifying polynomial.} For any $0 < \eta,\delta < 1/2 $, let:
\begin{align}
I_j(t) &:= \text{the } j\text{'th modified Bessel function of the first kind}\\
T_j(t) &:= \text{the } j\text{'th Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind}\\
k &:= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\eta} \sqrt{ \ln\left( \frac{8}{\pi \delta} \right) }
\end{align}
For some $M_{\eta\to\delta}$, consider the polynomials:
\begin{align}
p_\text{sgn}(x) &:= \frac{2ke^{-\frac{k^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left( I_0\left(\frac{k^2}{2}\right) \cdot x + \sum_{j=1}^{\frac{1}{2}M_{(\eta\to\delta)}-\frac{1}{2}} I_j\left(\frac{k^2}{2}\right) (-1)^j \left( \frac{T_{2j+1}\left(x\right)}{2j+1} - \frac{ T_{2j-1}\left(x\right) }{2j-1} \right) \right)\\
A_{\eta\to\delta}(x)&:= \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{p_{\text{sgn}}(2x-1)}{1+\delta/2}
\end{align}
Then there exists an $M_{\eta\to\delta} \in O\left( \eta^{-1} \log\left( \delta^{-1}\right) \right)$ such that $A_{\eta\to\delta}(x)$ is of degree $M_{\eta\to\delta}$ and satisfies the constraints:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:amppoly1} \text{ if } 0 \leq x \leq 1 &\text{ then } 0 \leq A_{\eta\to\delta}(x) \leq 1\\
\label{eqn:amppoly2} \text{ if } 0 \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2} - \eta &\text{ then } A_{\eta\to\delta}(x) \geq 1- \delta\\
\text{ if } \frac{1}{2} + \eta \leq x \leq 1 &\text{ then } A_{\eta\to\delta}(x) \leq \delta
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a more self-contained re-statement of Corollary~6 in Appendix~A of \cite{1707.05391}, which constructs a polynomial $p_{\text{sgn},\kappa,\delta,n}(x) \approx \text{sign}(x)$ with various accuracy parameters. The polynomial above is $\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} p_{\text{sgn},\kappa,\delta/2,n}\left(2x-1\right)$, since after all we desired $A(x) \approx \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\text{sign}(2x-1)$. To guarantee good behavior when $|x-1/2| > \eta$, we select $\kappa := 4\eta$. The value of $M_{\eta\to\delta}$ itself can be computed by combining various results from that work's Appendix~A.
\end{proof}
The method for obtaining $M_{\eta\to\delta}$ given $\eta$ and $\delta$ is complicated enough that it is not worth re-stating here. However, the complexity is by all means worth it: in our numerical analyses we found that the polynomials presented in Appendix~A of \cite{1707.05391} feature excellent performance in terms of degree. This is a major source of the query complexity speedup of our algorithms.
The value of $\delta$ is chosen such that the final error in diamond norm is bounded. The value of $\eta$ depends on how far away $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right)$ is from $\frac{1}{2}$. Of course, there are several possible values of $\lambda^{(k)}_j$ where $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right) = \frac{1}{2}$ exactly, so $\eta = 0$ and amplification is impossible. This is where the rounding promise comes in: it ensures that $\lambda_\Delta$ is always sufficiently far from such values, so that we can guarantee that $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right)$ is always either $\geq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2}$ or $\leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2}$. So we select $\eta = \alpha/2$.
When $k = 0$ then indeed the rounding promise is the only thing guaranteeing that amplification will succeed. However, if the less significant bits have already been computed then the set of values that $\lambda_j^{(k)}$ can take is restricted. This is because the previous bits of $\lambda_j$ have been subtracted off. This widens the region around the solutions of $\cos^2\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right) = \frac{1}{2}$ where $\lambda_\Delta$ cannot be found, allowing us to increase $\eta$. Furthermore, this can be done without relying on the rounding promise anymore: bits with $k \geq 1$ are guaranteed to be deterministic even if no rounding promise is present. That means that if the rounding promise is violated, then only the least significant bit can be wrong. The polynomials are sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:projectionpolys}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{aug19_polynomials.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:projectionpolys}Sketch of the polynomials used in Theorems~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}~and~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation}. In black we show a shifted $\cos^2(x)$ function that indicates if the bit is 0 or 1. Then, the amplifying polynomial from Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly} is applied to it to yield the dashed line, which is either $\leq \delta$ or $\geq 1-\delta$ depending on the bit. For the $k=0$ bit, the gaps between the allowed intervals are guaranteed by the rounding promise. But as more bits are estimated and subtracted off, the gaps for $k \geq 1$ require no rounding promise, and also become larger and larger so less and less amplification is needed. }
\end{figure}
After constructing the amplifying polynomial $A_{\eta\to\delta}$, we use singular value transformation to apply $A_{\eta\to\delta}(x^2)$ which is even as required by Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt}. Now we have an approximate block-encoding of $\sum_j \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$, which is in fact a projector. In the introduction we stated that we would use a block-measurement theorem to compute the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0}\otimes \ket{\psi} \to \ket{1} \otimes \Pi\ket{\psi} + \ket{0} \otimes (I-\Pi)\ket{\psi}
\end{align}
given an approximate block-encoding of $\Pi$. However, this general tool involves uncomputation which we specifically wanted to modularize. The fact that we are already measuring errors in terms of the diamond norm means that Lemmas~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}~and~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} are already capable of dealing with garbage. We therefore defer the proof of this general tool to Section~\ref{sec:blockmeas}, specifically Theorem~\ref{thm:blockmeasure}.
There is another reason to not use Theorem~\ref{thm:blockmeasure} in a black-box fashion, specifically for coherent iterative phase estimation. The block-encoding of $\sum_j \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$ actually features only one ancilla qubit: the qubit we used to take the linear combination of $U$ and the identity. That means that the block-encoding itself is already very close to the map $\ket{0}\otimes \ket{\psi} \to \ket{0} \otimes \Pi\ket{\psi} + \ket{1} \otimes (I-\Pi)\ket{\psi}$ (note the flipped output qubit). The details of this usage of the block-encoding will appear in the proof.
This completes the sketch of the procedure to implement the map
\begin{align}
\ket{0} \ket{\Delta_k} \ket{\psi_j} \to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{bit}_k\left( \lambda_j \right)}\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
for some phases $\varphi_j$. We can now state the protocol in detail, and perform the accuracy analysis.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:iterativephaseestimation} \textbf{Coherent Iterative Phase Estimation.} There is a coherent iterative phase estimator with phases (and no garbage) and with query complexity:
\begin{align} 2^{n-k} \cdot M_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}} \end{align}
where in the above $M_{\eta\to\delta}$ is as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly}, $\eta := \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) $ if $ k \geq 1$ and $\eta := \frac{\alpha}{2}$ if $k=0$, and $\delta_\text{amp}$ can be chosen to be $ (1-10^{-m}) \delta^2 / 8 $ for any $m > 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We construct the estimator as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Construct a unitary that performs a phase shift depending on $\Delta_k$ - we call this $e^{-2\pi i \hat\Delta_k/2^n}$ employing some notation inspired by physics literature.
\begin{align}
e^{-2 \pi i \hat\Delta_k/2^n} := \sum_{\Delta_k=0}^{2^k-1} e^{-2\pi i \Delta/2^n}\ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} = \bigotimes_{j=0}^{k-1} e^{ -2\pi i \pi 2^{j-n}}
\end{align}
\item Rewrite the oracle unitary in this notation:
\begin{align}
e^{2\pi i \hat\lambda} := U = \sum_{j} e^{2\pi i\lambda_j} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \label{eqn:lambdakunitary}
\end{align}
Then define:
\begin{align}
\phi_0 &:= 1 - \text{mean}\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} , 1 \right)\\
\phi_k &:= 1 - \text{mean}\left( \frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) \right) \text{ if } k \geq 1\\
\hat\lambda^{(k)} &:= 2^{n-k-1} \left(\hat\lambda - \frac{\hat\Delta_k}{2^n}\right) + \phi_k,
\end{align}
and implement the corresponding phase shift:
\begin{align}
e^{2\pi i \hat\lambda^{(k)}} := \left(e^{-2\pi i\hat\Delta_k/2^n} \otimes e^{2\pi i\hat\lambda}\right)^{2^{n-k-1}} \cdot e^{2\pi i \phi_k}
\end{align}
This unitary acts jointly on the $\ket{\Delta_k}$ and $\ket{\psi_j}$ inputs. Since $k \in \{0,...,n-1\}$, the exponent $2^{n-k-1}$ is always an integer.
\item Let $\tilde H := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ i & -i \end{bmatrix} $ be a slightly modified Hadamard gate, and consider the following unitary, implemented via $e^{2\pi i \hat\lambda^{(k)}}$:
\begin{align}
U^{(k)}_\text{signal} := \hspace{10mm} \begin{array}{c}\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=1em {
& \gate{\tilde H} & \ctrl{1} & \gate{\tilde H^T} & \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{\Delta_k}} & \qw & \multigate{1}{e^{2 \pi i \hat\lambda^{(k)}}} & \qw & \qw\\
\lstick{\ket{\psi_j}} & \qw & \ghost{e^{ 2 \pi i \hat\lambda^{(k)}}} & \qw & \qw
}\end{array} \label{eqn:usignal_def}
\end{align}
Observe that:
\begin{align}
U^{(k)}_\text{signal} &= \sum_{\Delta_k} \sum_j \tilde H \begin{bmatrix} \hspace{4mm}1\hspace{4mm} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{ 2 \pi i \lambda_j^{(k)}} \end{bmatrix} \tilde H^T \otimes \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}\\
&= \sum_{\Delta_k} \sum_j e^{ \pi i \lambda^{(k)}_j} \cdot \tilde H \begin{bmatrix} e^{- \pi i \lambda^{(k)}_j}& 0 \\ 0 & e^{ \pi i \lambda^{(k)}_j} \end{bmatrix} \tilde H^T \otimes \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}\\
&= \sum_{\Delta_k} \sum_j e^{ \pi i \lambda^{(k)}_j} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} \cos\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) & \sin\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)}\right) \\ \sin\left(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) & -\cos\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \end{bmatrix} \otimes \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \label{eqn:usignal}
\end{align}
In other words, $U^{(k)}_\text{signal}$ is a block-encoding of:
\begin{align}
\sum_{\Delta_k} \sum_j \left|\cos\left(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right)\right| \left[\pm e^{\pi i \lambda_j^{k}} \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}\right] \left[ \bra{\Delta_k}\bra{\psi_j}\right] \end{align}
The above is a singular value decomposition of the block-encoded matrix.
\item Choose the amplification threshold via:
\begin{align}
\eta_k &:= \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) \text{ if } k \geq 1 \\
\eta_0 &:= \frac{\alpha}{2}
\end{align}
Also, let $\delta_\text{amp} < 1$ be an error threshold we will pick later. Now, let $A_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x)$ be the polynomial from Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly}. Viewing $U^{(k)}_\text{signal}$ as a block-encoding of $\cos\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)$, apply singular value transformation as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} to $U^{(k)}_\text{signal}$ with a polynomial $\tilde p(x)$ approximating $A_{\eta\to \delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$ to accuracy $\delta_\text{svt}$, which we also pick later.
Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} applies because $A_{\eta\to \delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$ is even. Furthermore, $U^{(k)}_\text{signal}$ only has one ancilla qubit, and has the special form where the it implements a reflection on the ancilla (\ref{eqn:usignal}). Thus, the circuit from Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} also just has one ancilla.
Call the resulting circuit $U^{(k)}_\text{svt}$, which implements the unitary:
\begin{align}
U^{(k)}_\text{svt} = \sum_{\Delta_k} \sum_j \begin{bmatrix} \tilde p\left( \cos\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right) & \hspace{5mm}\cdot\hspace{5mm} \\ \gamma(\lambda^{(k)}_j) & \cdot \end{bmatrix} \otimes \left[ \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}\right] \left[ \bra{\Delta_k}\bra{\psi_j}\right]
\end{align}
for some matrix element $\gamma(\lambda^{(k)}_j)$.
\end{enumerate}
Now we prove that $U^{(k)}_\text{svt}$ is an iterative phase estimator with phases. It implements the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0}\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j} \to \left( \tilde p\left( \cos\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right)\ket{0} + \gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)} )\ket{1} \right) \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Note that $U^{(k)}_\text{svt}$ is a block-encoding with only one ancilla, and that ancilla is the output qubit of the map.
We must show that $U^{(k)}_\text{svt}$ is close in diamond norm to a map that leaves the first qubit as $\ket{\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)}$ whenever $\Delta_k$ encodes the $k$ least significant bits of an $n$-bit binary expansion of $\lambda_j$.
To study this map we will proceed through the recipe above, proving statements about the expressions encountered along the way. In step 2. we defined:
\begin{align}
\lambda^{(k)}_j &:= 2^{n-k-1} \left(\lambda_j - \frac{\hat\Delta_k}{2^n}\right) + \phi_k,
\end{align}
We discuss the relationship between $ \lambda^{(k)}_j - \phi_k $ and $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$. If $k = 0$ then $\Delta_k = 0$, and due to the rounding promise we find $\lambda_j$ in regions of the form $\frac{m}{2^n} + \left[ \frac{\alpha}{2^n}, \frac{1}{2^n} \right]$ for integers $m$. Thus, we find $\lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0 $ in regions of the form $\frac{m}{2} + \left[ \frac{\alpha}{2} , \frac{1}{2} \right]$. The function $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$ just indicates the parity of $m$. We can also write this as:
\begin{align}
\text{bit}_0(\lambda_j) = \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \text{ if } \lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0 \in \text{floor}(\lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0) +[ \frac{\alpha}{2} , \frac{1}{2} ] \\ 1 & \text{ if } \lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0 \in \text{floor}(\lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0) + [ \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} , 1 ] \end{array}
\end{align}
If $k > 0$ then we also can show a similar property. While for $k=0$ we used the rounding promise to guarantee that $\lambda^{(0)}_j - \phi_0 $ only falls into certain regions, for larger $k$ we simply use the fact that $\Delta_k$ has been subtracted off in the definition of $\lambda_j^{(k)}$. That means that the regions where $\text{bit}_{<k}(\lambda_j) = 1$ are no longer possible. We find:
\begin{align}
\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \text{ if } \lambda^{(k)}_j - \phi_k \in \text{floor}(\lambda^{(k)}_j - \phi_k) + \left[ 0 , \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) \right] \\ 1 & \text{ if } \lambda^{(k)}_j - \phi_k \in \text{floor}(\lambda^{(k)}_j - \phi_k) +\left[ \frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) \right] \end{array} \text{ when } k > 0
\end{align}
Note that the claim for $k > 0$ did not make use of the rounding promise, and is true regardless of if the rounding promise holds. These regions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:polysketch}.
In step 3. we defined $U_\text{signal}$ which is a block-encoding of $\cos\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)$. Later, this will approximately be transformed by singular value transformation via $x \to A_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$, so we employ a trigonometric identity:
\begin{align}
\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) = \frac{1 + \cos\left( 2 \pi \lambda^{k}_j \right)}{2}
\end{align}
Clearly this is a probability, and since cosine has period $2\pi$, the $\text{floor}(\lambda_j^{(k)} - \phi_k)$ term does not matter. We argue that this probability is either $\geq 1/2 + \eta_k$ or $\leq 1/2 - \eta_k$ depending on $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) $. See Figure~\ref{fig:polysketch}. The idea is that the $\phi_k$ are chosen precisely so that the troughs and peaks of $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{k}_j \right)$ line up with the centers of the intervals corresponding to $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0$ and $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1$ respectively. Then, the nodes of $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{k}_j \right)$ line up with the midpoints of the gaps between the intervals. A line of slope 2 connecting a trough to a peak then forms an upper/lower bound on $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{k}_j \right)$. If we select $ \eta_k := \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) \text{ if } $ and $\eta_0 := \frac{\alpha}{2}$ then these bounds show that $\cos^2\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right)$ is alternatingly $\leq \frac{1}{2} - \eta_k$ and $\geq \frac{1}{2} + \eta_k$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{aug19_unit_cell.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:polysketch} Sketch of the probability $ \cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)$ which appears in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. \\ We are guaranteed that $\lambda^{(k)}_j$ can only appear in the un-shaded regions: for $k = 0$ the rounding promise rules out the shaded regions, and for $k \geq 1$ we have subtracted $\Delta_k/2^n$ off of $\lambda_j$, preventing regions where previous bits are 1 .\\ We can see how the probability $ \cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right)$ is close to 1 if $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0$ and close to 0 if $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1$. To make this claim precise, we simply fit a line with slope $2$ to the points where the probability intersects $1/2$, and see that this line alternatingly gives upper or lower bounds on the probability. So if $\eta_k/2$ is equal to half the distance between allowed intervals, then the probability is either $\geq 1/2 +\eta_k$ or $\leq 1/2-\eta_k$ in the regions where $\lambda^{(k)}_j$ can appear.\\
The relationship of this figure to Figure~\ref{fig:projectionpolys} is fairly simple: the probability as a function of $\lambda_j$ can be obtained by just tiling the `unit cell' shown in this figure $2^{n-k-1}$ times. This also makes the ratio $2^{n-k-1}$ between $\lambda_j$ and $\lambda^{(k)}_j$ intuitive.
}
\end{figure}
Then we have:
\begin{align}
\cos^2(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)}) \text{ is } \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{ll} \leq \frac{1}{2} + \eta_k & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0 \\[2mm] \geq \frac{1}{2} - \eta_k & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1 \end{array}
\end{align}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly}:
\begin{align}
A_{\eta_k\to\delta_\text{amp}} \left(\cos^2(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)}) \right) \text{ is } \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{ll} \leq \delta_\text{amp} & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0 \\[2mm] \geq 1-\delta_\text{amp} & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1 \end{array}
\end{align}
And finally, since $\tilde p(x)$ approximates $A_{\eta_k\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$ to accuracy $\delta_\text{svt}$:
\begin{align}
\tilde p\left(\cos(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)}) \right) \text{ is } \Bigg\{ \begin{array}{ll} \leq \delta_\text{amp}+\delta_\text{svt} & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0 \\[2mm] \geq 1-\delta_\text{amp}-\delta_\text{svt} & \text{ if } \text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1 \end{array}
\end{align}
The circuit for $U_\text{svt}$ is completely unitary, so the resulting state is normalized. Therefore:
\begin{align}
\left| \tilde p \left(\cos\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right) \right|^2 + \left| \gamma(\lambda^{(k)}_j )\right|^2 = 1
\end{align}
Using this fact we can reason that if $\tilde p \left(\cos\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right) \leq \delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}$ then $|\gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})|^2 \geq 1 - (\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt})$.
Similarly, if $\tilde p \left(\cos\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \right) \geq 1 - \delta_\text{amp} - \delta_\text{svt}$, then:
\begin{align}
|\gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})|^2 \leq 1 - (1 - (\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}))^2 \leq 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) - (\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt})^2
\end{align}
Now that we have bounds on the amplitudes of the output state, we can bound its distance to $\ket{\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)}$ for a favorable choice of $e^{i\varphi_j}$. Say $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 0$. Then we select $\varphi_j = 0$, so that:
\begin{align}
&\left| \left( \tilde p\left( \cos\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right)\ket{0} + \gamma(\lambda^{(k)}_j)\ket{1} \right) - e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)} \right| \\
\leq& \sqrt{ \left|\tilde p \left(\cos\left(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \right)- 1\right|^2 + \left|\gamma(\lambda_\Delta) \right|^2 }\\
\leq& \sqrt{ (\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt})^2 + 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) - (\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt})^2}\\
\leq& \sqrt{ 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) }
\end{align}
Otherwise, if $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j) = 1$, then we define $\varphi_j$ by $ \gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)}) = e^{i\varphi_j}|\gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})|$. That way:
\begin{align}
&\left| \left( \tilde p\left( \cos\left( \pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \right)\ket{0} + \gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})\ket{1} \right) - e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)} \right| \\
\leq& \sqrt{ \left|\tilde p \left(\cos\left(\pi \lambda_j^{(k)} \right) \right)\right|^2 + \left|e^{i\varphi_j}( | \gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})| - 1) \right|^2 }\\
\leq& \sqrt{ \left|\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}\right|^2 + \left|\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}\right|^2 }\\
\leq& \sqrt{ 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) }
\end{align}
So either way, the output state is within $\sqrt{ 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) }$ in spectral norm of that of the ideal state. Thus, the unitary map $U_\text{svt}$ is close in spectral norm to some ideal unitary. Invoking Lemma~\ref{lemma:spectraltodiamond}, the distance in diamond norm is at most:
\begin{align}
2 \sqrt{ 2(\delta_\text{amp} + \delta_\text{svt}) } \leq \delta \label{eqn:errorbound}
\end{align}
The inequality above holds if we select, for any $m > 0$:
\begin{align}
\delta_\text{amp} := (1 - 10^{-m}) \cdot \frac{\delta^2}{8} \hspace{1cm} \delta_\text{svt} := 10^{-m} \cdot \frac{\delta^2}{8}
\end{align}
This solution to the inequality relies on the fact that only $\delta_\text{amp}$ actually enters the query complexity, so if classical resources are cheap but query complexity is expensive then we can make the classical computer do as much work as possible by making $m$ larger.
Finally, we compute the query complexity. An invocation of $e^{2\pi i \hat\lambda^{(k)}_j}$ requires $2^{n-k-1}$ invocations of $U = e^{2\pi i \hat\lambda}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt}, the number of queries made by the unitary $U_\text{svt}$ to $U_\text{signal}$ is the degree of the polynomial. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly}, the polynomial $A_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$ has degree
$2 \cdot M_{\eta\to\delta}$, so the query complexity is:
\begin{align} 2^{n-k-1} \cdot 2 \cdot M_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}}\end{align}
\end{proof}
A really nice feature of the coherent iterative phase estimator we present is that it produces no garbage qubits. All singular value transformation is performed on the final output qubit. It does still produce extra phase shifts between the eigenstates, which in some applications may still need to be be uncomputed. However, in applications where phase differences between eigenstates do not matter, like thermal state preparation, we expect that this uncomputation step can be skipped.
To finish the discussion of coherent iterative phase estimation, we stitch the iterative estimator we just defined into a regular phase estimator. In doing so, we also remark on what happens when no rounding promise is present. A summary of the construction is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:circuit}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:improvedphaseestimation} \textbf{Improved phase estimation.} The coherent iterative phase estimator from Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation} can be combined with Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} to make a phase estimator with phases with query complexity at most:
\begin{align}
O\left( 2^{n} \alpha^{-1} \log( \delta^{-1} ) \right)
\end{align}
assuming $\alpha$ is bounded away from $1$ by a constant.
Furthermore, if no rounding promise is given, then the estimator $\delta$-approximates in diamond norm a map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n}\ket{\psi_j} \to \left( \xi \ket{\text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)} + \zeta \ket{\lambda'_j} \right) \ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
for some complex amplitudes $\xi,\zeta$ and $\lambda'_j = \text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)-1 \text{ mod } 2^n$ is an erroneous estimate. The performance is the same, except that $0 < \alpha < 1$ can be any constant.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Write $\eta_k := \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2^k} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) $ if $ k \geq 1$ and $\eta_0 := \frac{\alpha}{2}$ if $k=0$, and, following Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative}, demand an accuracy of $\delta_{\text{amp},k} := (1-10^{-m}) ( \delta 2^{-k-1} )^2 /8 $ for the $k$'th bit. Recall from Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly} that $M_{\eta_k\to\delta_\text{amp}} \in O\left( \eta_k^{-1}\log(\delta_\text{amp}^{-1}) \right)$. Then, the overall query complexity is:
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} 2^{n-k} \cdot M_{\eta_k\to\delta_{\text{amp},k}} &\in O\left( \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} 2^{n-k} \eta_k^{-1} \log( \delta_{\text{amp},k}^{-1} ) \right)\\
&= O\left( \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} 2^{n-k} \eta_k^{-1} \log( 2^{k+1} \delta^{-1} ) \right)
\end{align}
When $ k = 0$ we have $\eta_0 = \frac{\alpha}{2} $, and when $k > 0$ we have $\eta_k > \frac{1-\alpha}{4}$ which is bounded from below by a constant. We can use this to split the sum:
\begin{align}
&\leq O\left( 2^{n-0} \eta_0^{-1} \log( 2^{0+1} \delta^{-1} ) + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} 2^{n-k} \eta_k^{-1} \log( 2^{k+1} \delta^{-1} ) \right)\\
&\leq O\left( 2^n \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} 2^{k} (k + \log(\delta^{-1})) \right)\\
&\leq O\left( 2^n \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) + 2(2^n - n - 1) + (2^n - 2) \log(\delta^{-1}) \right)\\
&\leq O\left( 2^{n} \alpha^{-1} \log( \delta^{-1} ) \right)
\end{align}
This completes the runtime analysis. Now we turn to the case when no rounding promise is present. Notice that when $k \geq 1$, the regions where $\lambda_j$ is assumed not to appear are guaranteed by the previous estimators \emph{definitely} outputting $1$ for previous bits regardless of the promise. Thus, the only bit that can be wrong is the first bit. When an eigenvalue $\lambda_j$ falls into a region disallowed by the rounding promise, the first bit will be some superposition $\xi\ket{0} + \zeta\ket{1}$.
Flipping the final bit of an estimate in general results in an error of $\pm 1$. However, recall that when estimating future bits the value of $\Delta_k/2^n$ is subtracted off from $\lambda_j$. That means that when we erroneously measure a $1$, the rest of the algorithm proceeds to measure $\lambda_j - 1/2^n$ instead. As a result, if the first bit is wrong, then the algorithm will output $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j) - 1$ instead. Since the algorithm is periodic in $\lambda_j$ with period $1$, the output will be $2^n-1$ if an error occurs when $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j) = 0$.
\end{proof}
Notice that if we had allocated the error evenly between the $n$ steps, then we would have incurred an extra $ O(2^n \log n)$ term in the above. Spreading the error via a geometric series avoids this, and we find that we obtain better constant factors with this choice as well. This is because the $k=0$ term dominates, so we want to make $\delta_{\text{amp},k}$ as large as possible.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{aug26_circuit_diagram.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:circuit} Circuit diagram for the algorithm in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation}. (a) and (b) are depictions of (\ref{eqn:lambdakunitary}) and (\ref{eqn:usignal_def}) respectively. (c) depicts the singular value transformation circuit obtained from Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} which interperses alternating applications of $U^{(k)}_\text{signal}$ and $U_\text{signal}^{(k)\dagger}$ with phase rotations $e^{i \theta_j Z}$, where the angles $\theta_j$ encode the polynomial approximating $A_{\eta\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x^2)$. (d) depicts the final circuit assembled via Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative}, showing how each iterative estimator's output becomes part of the $\ket{\Delta_k}$ register for the next, and how that register finally becomes the output. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Coherent Iterative Energy Estimation} \label{sec:energyestimation}
While for phase estimation we are given access to $\sum_j e^{2\pi i \lambda_j} \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$, for energy estimation we have a block-encoding of $\sum_j \lambda_j \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$. For phase estimation we could relatively easily synthesize a cosine in the eigenvalues, just by taking a linear combination with the identity. But for energy estimation we must build the cosine directly.
To do so we leverage a tool employed by \cite{1806.01838} to perform Hamiltonian simulation. The Jacobi-Anger expansion yields highly efficient polynomial approximations to $\sin(tx)$ and $\cos(tx)$. To perform Hamiltonian simulation one then takes the linear combination $\cos(tx) + i\sin(tx)$. However, we only need the cosine component.
\begin{lemma} \textbf{Jacobi-Anger expansion.} \label{lemma:jacobianger} For any $t \in \mathbb{R}^+$, and any $\varepsilon \in (0,1/e)$, let:
\begin{align}
r(t',\varepsilon') &:= \text{ the solution to } \varepsilon' = \left(\frac{t'}{r}\right)^r \text{ such that } r \in (t', \infty),\label{eq:rdef}\\
R &:= \left\lfloor r\left(\frac{et}{2} , \frac{5}{4}\varepsilon\right)/2 \right\rfloor \\
J_k(t) &:= \text{the } k\text{'th Bessel function of the first kind}\\
T_k(t) &:= \text{the } k\text{'th Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind}\\
p_{\text{cos},t}(x) &:= J_0(t) + 2\sum_{k=1}^R (-1)^k J_{2k}(t) T_{2k}(x)
\end{align}
Then $p_{\text{cos},t}(x)$ is an even polynomial of degree $2R$ such that for all $x \in [-1,1]$:
\begin{align}
\left| \cos(tx) - p_{\text{cos},t}(x) \right| \leq \varepsilon.
\end{align}
Furthermore:
\begin{align}
r(t',\varepsilon') \in \Theta\left(t' + \frac{\log \varepsilon'^{-1}}{\log(\log(\varepsilon'^{-1}))}\right)
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} These results are shown in Lemma~57 and Lemma~59 of \cite{1806.01838}, outlined in their section 5.1.
\end{proof}
Again, computation of the degree of the Jacobi-Anger expansion is a bit complicated, but the complexity is worth it due to the method's high performance. Our approach is to first synthesize $\cos\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right)$ to obtain a signal that oscillates to indicate $\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)$, and then apply $A_{\eta\to\delta}(x^2)$ to amplify the signal to $0$ or $1$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:projectionpolys}.
Actually, one might observe that synthesizing $\cos\left(\pi \lambda^{(k)}_j\right)$ first is not necessary to make polynomials that look like those in Figure~\ref{fig:projectionpolys}. Instead one can take an approach similar to the one used for making rectangle functions in \cite{1707.05391}: simply shift, scale and add several amplifying polynomials $A_{\eta\to\delta}(x)$ to make the desired shape. None of these operations affect the degree, so this approach also yields the same asymptotic scaling $O(2^n \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}))$ as phase estimation. We will see in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedenergyestimation} that the method using the Jacobi-Anger expansion actually achieves the worse scaling of $O( \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) (2^n + \log(\alpha^{-1})) )$.
The reason why we present the approach using the Jacobi-Anger expansion, despite it having worse asymptotic scaling, is that in the regime of interest ($n\approx 10, \alpha \approx 2^{-10}$) we numerically find that the Jacobi-Anger expansion actually performs better. There may be a regime where it is better to remove the Jacobi-Anger expansion from the construction, in which case the algorithm is easily adapted.
The rest of the construction of Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} strongly resembles coherent iterative phase estimation, so much so that we can re-use parts of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. One further difference is that this estimator now has garbage, because we have no guarantee that the block-encoding of the Hamiltonian only has one ancilla.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} \textbf{Coherent Iterative Energy Estimation.} Say the block-encoding of $H$ requires $a$ ancillae, that is, $U_H$ acts on $\mathbb{C}^{2^a} \otimes \mathcal{H}$. Then there is an iterative energy estimator with phases and $a+n+3$ qubits of garbage with query complexity:
\begin{align}
4 \cdot M_{ (1-10^{-m_\text{cos}})\eta_k \to \delta_\text{amp} } \cdot \left\lfloor r\left( \frac{e}{2} \pi 2^{n-k} , \frac{5}{4} \frac{\eta_k}{2} 10^{-m_\text{cos}}\right) \right\rfloor
\end{align}
where $M_{\eta\to\delta}$ and $\eta_k$ are as in Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly} and $\delta_\text{amp}$ can be chosen to be $(1 - 10^{-m_\text{svt}})\delta^2 / 8$ for any $ m_\text{svt} > 0$, and we can choose any $m_\text{cos} > 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We construct the estimator as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $W_k$ be a hermitian matrix on $k$ qubits defined by:
\begin{align}
W_k := 2 \sum_{\Delta_k =0}^{2^k - 1} \frac{\Delta_k}{2^{n}} \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k}
\end{align}
$W_k$ has a block-encoding which can be constructed as follows: First, prepare $\ket{+^{n-1}}$:
\begin{align}
\ket{\Delta_k} \to \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{+^{n-1}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n-1}}} \sum_{x=0}^{2^{n-1}-1} \ket{\Delta_k} \ket{x}
\end{align}
Next, observe that $\Delta_k \leq 2^{k} -1 \leq 2^{n-1} - 1$. Into an ancilla register compute $\ket{x < \Delta_k}$, and uncompute any garbage necessary to do so.
\begin{align}
\to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n-1}}} \sum_{x = 0}^{2^{n-1}-1} \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{x} \ket{x < \Delta_k}
\end{align}
Then postselect that the final register is in the $\ket{1}$ state:
\begin{align}
\to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n-1}}} \ket{\Delta_k} \sum_{x = 0}^{\Delta_k -1 } \ket{x}
\end{align}
Finally, postselect that the $x$ register is in the $\ket{+^{n-1}}$ state:
\begin{align}
\to \ket{\Delta_k}\sum_{x = 0}^{\Delta_k -1 } \frac{1}{2^{n-1}} = \frac{\Delta_k}{2^{n-1}} \ket{\Delta_k}
\end{align}
This process makes use of $n-1$ ancillae initialized and postselected to $\ket{+}$, and one more ancilla that is postselected to $\ket{1}$.
\item Use linear combinations of unitaries to construct a block-encoding of:
\begin{align}
H^{(k)} := \frac{1}{2}\cdot I \otimes H - \frac{1}{4}\cdot W_k \otimes I + \frac{1}{4}\cdot (4 \phi_k 2^{k-n}) \cdot I \otimes I
\end{align}
where the $\phi_k$ are selected just as in as in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. Observe that $\phi_k < 1/2$, so therefore $4 \phi_k 2^{k-n}$ is a probability which can be block-encoded. Since the block-encoding of $H$ has $a$ ancillae, and that of $W_k$ has $n$ ancillae, and the three terms in the linear combination need two control qubits, the block-encoding of $H^{(k)}$ has $a+n+2$ ancillae.
\item Use Lemma~\ref{lemma:jacobianger} to construct a polynomial approximation $p_{\text{cos}, \pi 2^{n-k} }(x)$ of $\cos( \pi 2^{n-k} x)$ to accuracy $2\delta_\text{cos}$, to be picked later.
Use Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly} to construct a polynomial $A_{(\eta-\delta_\text{cos})\to\delta_\text{amp}}$. We will pick $\delta_\text{amp}$ later and select $\eta_k$ just as in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}.
Finally, use Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} to construct $U_\text{svt}$, a block-encoding of $\tilde p(H^{(k)})$ which approximates the even polynomial:
\begin{align}
\tilde p(x) \approx A_{(\eta_k - \delta_\text{cos})\to\delta_\text{amp}}\left( p^2_{\text{cos},\pi 2^{n-k}}\left( x \right) \right)
\end{align}
To perform singular value transformation we needed one extra ancilla, so $U_\text{svt}$ has $a+n+3$ ancillae - these are the garbage output of this map.
\item Use the modified Toffoli gate $I \otimes \ket{0}\bra{0} + X \otimes (I - \ket{0}\bra{0}) $ to conditionally flip the output qubit.
\end{enumerate}
We rewrite $H^{(k)}$ in terms of its eigendecomposition:
\begin{align}
H^{(k)} &= \sum_j \sum_{\Delta_k} \left[ \frac{\lambda_j}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n} +2^{k-n} \phi_k \right] \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \\
&= \sum_j \sum_{\Delta_k} 2^{k-n} \lambda^{(k)}_j \ket{\Delta_k}\bra{\Delta_k} \otimes \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where we defined $\lambda_j^{(k)} := 2^{n-k-1}\left( \lambda_j - \frac{\Delta_k}{2^n}\right) + \phi_k$ just like in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. This protocol implements a map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0}\ket{0...0}\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j} \to \left( \tilde p\left( 2^{k-n} \lambda^{k}_j\right) \ket{0} \ket{\text{gar}_{0,j}} + \gamma(\lambda^{k}_j\ket{1} \ket{\text{gar}_{1,j}} \right)\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Here $\gamma(\lambda_j^{(k)})$ is defined such that all the other amplitudes for the failed branches of the block-encoding are absorbed into the normalized state $\ket{\text{gar}_{1,j}}$.
We see that $\tilde p\left( 2^{k-n} \lambda^{k}_j\right)$ approximates
\begin{align}
\tilde p(\lambda_\Delta/2) \approx A_{(\eta_k - \delta_\text{cos})\to\delta_\text{amp}}\left( \cos^2\left( \pi \lambda^{(k)}_j \right) \right)
\end{align}
which is the same expression encountered in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}, with the same definition of $\lambda^{(k)}_j$, up to a minor shift on $\eta_k$. Therefore, we can follow the same reasoning as in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation} up to two minor differences, and arrive at the exact same conclusion. Namely, if we select some $m_\text{svt} > 0$ and then let:
\begin{align}
\delta_\text{amp} := (1-10^{-m_\text{svt}}) \frac{\delta^2}{8}, \hspace{1cm} \delta_\text{svt} := 10^{-m_\text{svt}} \frac{\delta^2}{8},
\end{align}
Then the unitary channel we implement is at most $\delta$-far in diamond norm to a channel that implements the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0}\ket{0...0}\ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j} \to e^{i\varphi_j} \ket{\text{bit}_k(\lambda_j)} \ket{\text{gar}_{\lambda_j}} \ket{\Delta_k}\ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
whenever $\Delta_k$ encodes the last $k$ bits of $\lambda_j$.
Since the argument in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation} is lengthy and the modifications are extremely minor, we will not repeat the argument here. Instead we will articulate the two things that change.
First, Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation} gives an estimator with phases and no garbage, whereas here we also have garbage. The garbage just tags along for the entire calculation, and when we come to selecting $\varphi_j$ depending on $\lambda_j$ we can also select $ \ket{\text{gar}_{\lambda_j}} = \ket{\text{gar}_{0/1,j}}$ depending on $\text{bit}_{k}(\lambda_j)$.
Second, we incur an error of $\delta_\text{cos}$ in the approximation of $\cos(\pi 2^{n-k} x)$ with $p_{\text{cos},\pi 2^{n-k}}(x)$. Since we show that $\cos^2( \pi 2^{n-k} x)$ is bounded away from $\frac{1}{2}$ by $\pm \eta$ we therefore have that $p_{\text{cos}, \pi 2^{n-k}}(x)^2$ is bounded away from $\frac{1}{2}$ by $\pm\left(\eta - \frac{2\delta_\text{cos}}{2}\right)$. The amplifying polynomial then proceeds to amplify $(\eta - \delta_\text{cos}) \to \delta_\text{amp}$ appropriately, so the calculation proceeds the same. We just need to ensure that $\eta - \delta_\text{cos} > 0$, so we select
\begin{align}
\delta_\text{cos} := 10^{-m_\text{cos}} \cdot \eta
\end{align}
for some $m_\text{cos} > 0$. This completes the accuracy analysis.
Finally, we analyze the query complexity. The block-encoding of $H^{(k)}$ makes one query to $U_H$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} the query complexity is exactly the degree of $\tilde p(x)$ which is the degree of $A_{( \eta - \delta_\text{cos}) \to \delta_\text{amp}}\left( p^2_{\text{cos},\pi 2^{n-k}}(x) \right)$. From Lemma~\ref{lemma:jacobianger} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly}, the degree is:
\begin{align}
M_{ (\eta - \delta_\text{cos}) \to \delta_\text{amp} } \cdot 2 \cdot 2\left\lfloor r\left( \frac{e}{2} \pi 2^{n-k} , \frac{5}{4} \frac{\delta_\text{cos}}{2} \right) \right\rfloor
\end{align}
Substituting the definitions for $\eta, \delta_\text{amp}$ and $\delta_\text{cos}$ yields the final runtime. As with Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}, $\delta_\text{amp}$ can be made larger by increasing $m_\text{amp}$. By increasing $m_\text{cos}$ we can decrease $\delta_\text{cos}$, which decreases the degree of $A_{(\eta - \delta_\text{cos})\to\delta_\text{amp}}(x)$ while increasing the degree of $p_{\text{cos},\pi 2^{n-k}}(x)$. The Jacobi-Anger expansion deals with error more efficiently than the amplifying polynomial, so in practice $m_\text{cos}$ should be quite large.
\end{proof}
As with phase estimation, we also pack the coherent iterative energy estimator into a regular energy estimator using Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative}. This time, since the iterative estimator produces garbage it makes sense to uncompute the garbage using Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:improvedenergyestimation} \textbf{Improved Energy Estimation.} The iterative energy estimator with phases and garbage from Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} can be combined with Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} to make an energy estimator without phases and without garbage with query complexity bounded by:
\begin{align}
O\left( \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1})\left( 2^{n} + \log\left( \alpha^{-1} \right) \right) \right)
\end{align}
assuming that $\alpha$ is bounded away from 1 by a constant.
Furthermore, even when there is no rounding promise, there exists an algorithm that, given an eigenstate $\ket{\psi_j}$ of the Hamiltonian $\lambda_j$, for any $\delta > 0$ performs a transformation $\delta$-close in diamond norm to the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j} \to \left( p \ket{\text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)} \bra{\text{floor}(2^n\lambda_j)} + (1-p) \ket{\lambda'_j}\bra{\lambda'_j} \right) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where $p$ is some probability and $\lambda'_j = \text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j) - 1$ mod $2^n$ is an erroneous estimate. Just as in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation}, the performance is the same except that $0 < \alpha < 1$ can be any constant.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} As with Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation}, we write $\eta_k$ to make the $k$ dependence explicit and demand accuracy $\delta_{\text{amp},k} = (1-10^{-m_\text{amp}}) (\delta 2^{-k-1})^2 / 8$ for the $k$'th bit. From Lemma~\ref{lemma:jacobianger} we obtain an asymptotic upper bound $r(t,\varepsilon) \in O\left( t + \log(\varepsilon^{-1}) \right)$. Again, recall from Lemma~\ref{lemma:amppoly} that $M_{\eta_k\to\delta_\text{amp}} \in O\left( \eta_k^{-1}\log(\delta_\text{amp}^{-1}) \right)$. The asymptotic query complexity of the iterative energy estimator from Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} is then bounded by:
\begin{align}
&O\left( (\eta_k - \delta_\text{cos})^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}_{\text{amp},k}) \cdot ( 2^{n-k} + \log( \delta_{\text{cos},k} ) ) \right)\\
\leq& O\left( (1- 10^{-m_\text{cos}})^{-1} \eta_k^{-1} \log( (1 - 10^{-m_\text{amp}})^{-1} 2^{2(k+1)} \delta^{-2} 8 ) \cdot ( 2^{n-k} + \log( 10^{m_\text{cos}} \eta_k^{-1} ) ) \right)\\
\leq& O\left( \eta_k^{-1} \log( 2^{k+1} \delta^{-1} ) \cdot ( 2^{n-k} + \log( \eta_k^{-1} ) ) \right) \end{align}
Next we invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} to remove the phases and the garbage, doubling the query complexity. We do this before invoking Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative}, because Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} involves blowing up the number of garbage registers by a factor of $n$. While we could also invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} and then invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove} to obtain a map without garbage, this would involve many garbage registers sitting around waiting to be uncomputed for a long time.
If we invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} first we get rid of the garbage immediately.
Finally, we invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:stitchingiterative} to turn our iterative energy estimator without garbage and phases into a regular energy estimator without garbage and phases. As in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation}, we observe that $\eta_0 = \alpha/2$ and for $k>0$ we have $\eta_k$ bounded from below by a constant. Then, the total query complexity is:
\begin{align}
& O\left( \eta_0^{-1} \log(2^{0+1} \delta^{-1} ) \left( 2^{n-0} + \log\left( \eta_0^{-1} \right) \right) + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \eta_k^{-1} \log(2^{k+1} \delta^{-1} ) \left( 2^{n-k} + \log\left( \eta_k^{-1} \right) \right) \right) \\
\leq & O\left( \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) \left( 2^{n} + \log\left( \alpha^{-1} \right) \right) + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} (k + \log(\delta^{-1} )) 2^{n-k} \right) \\
\leq & O\left( \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) \left( 2^{n} + \log\left( \alpha^{-1} \right) \right) + 2(2^n -n -1) + (2^n - 2)\log(\delta^{-1}) \right)\\
\leq & O\left( \alpha^{-1} \log(\delta^{-1}) \left( 2^{n} + \log\left( \alpha^{-1} \right) \right) \right)
\end{align}
Next, we show that it is possible to implement a map that, given an eigenstate $\ket{\phi_j}$, measures an estimate that is either $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ or $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j) - 1$ mod $2^n$ with some probability. Note that this is not the same algorithm as above. Just as with phase estimation, it is only the first bit that actually needs the rounding promise, and all other bits are guaranteed to be deterministic.
The first bit performs a map of the form:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n}\ket{0...0}\ket{\psi_j} \to \left( \sqrt{p}\ket{0}\ket{\text{gar}_{0,j}} + \sqrt{1-p}\ket{1}\ket{\text{gar}_{1,j}} \right) \ket{\psi_j}
\end{align}
We immediately see that Lemma~\ref{lemma:iterativegarbageremove} cannot be used to perform uncomputation here, because uncomputation only works when $p = 1$ or $p = 0$. Instead, we simply measure the output register containing $\ket{0}$ or $\ket{1}$ and discard the garbage. This would damage any superposition over the $\ket{\psi_j}$, which is why this algorithm only works if the input is an eigenstate.
We then use iterative estimators for the remaining bits to compute the rest of the estimate. This time their outputs will be deterministic, but there is no point in doing uncomputation since the superposition has already collapsed. Instead, we do the same thing as for the $k=0$ estimator: compute the next bit and some garbage, and discard the garbage. The final answer is either $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j)$ or $\text{floor}(2^n \lambda_j) - 1$ for the same reason as in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation}.
\end{proof}
\section{Performance Comparison} \label{sec:performance}
Above, we have presented a modular framework for phase and energy estimation using the key ingredients in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation} and Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} respectively. These results already demonstrate several advantages over textbook phase estimation as presented in Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation}.
First, they eliminate the QFT and do not require a sorting network to perform median amplification. Instead, they rely on just a single tool: singular value transformation.
Second, they require far fewer ancillae. Our improved phase estimation algorithm requires no ancillae at all, and is merely `with phases' so arguably does not even need uncomputation for some applications. On the other hand, textbook phase estimation requires $O( (n+\log(\alpha^{-1})) \log(\delta^{-1}) )$ ancillae in order to implement median amplification.
Given a block-encoding of a Hamiltonian with $a$ ancillae, then our energy estimation algorithm requires $a+n+3$ ancillae. But in order to even compare Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation} to Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} we need a method to perform energy estimation using textbook phase estimation. This is achieved through Hamiltonian simulation.
Which method of Hamiltonian simulation is best depends on the particular physical system involved. Hamiltonian simulation using the Trotter approximation can perform exceedingly well in many situations \cite{2012.09194}. However, in our analysis we must be agnostic to the particular Hamiltonian in question, and furthermore need a unified method for comparing the performance. Hamiltonian simulation via singular value transformation \cite{1707.05391,1806.01838}, lets us compare Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation} and Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} on the same footing. After all, this method features the best known asymptotic performance in terms of the simulation time \cite{1912.08854} in a black-box setting.
Singular value transformation constructs an approximate block-encoding of $e^{iHt}$ with ancillae. Since $e^{iHt}$ is unitary, in the ideal case the ancillae start in the $\ket{0}$ state and are also guaranteed to be mapped back to the $\ket{0}$ state. But in the approximate case the ancillae are still a little entangled with the remaining registers, so they become an additional source of error. Certainly the ancillae cannot be re-used to perform singular value transformation again, because then the errors pile up with each use. Thus, we are in a similar situation to Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}, where we must discard some qubits and take into account the error.
Therefore, we must do some additional work beyond the Hamiltonian simulation method presented in \cite{1806.01838}, to turn the approximate block-encoding of a unitary into a channel that approximates the unitary in diamond norm. The main trick for this proof is to consider postselection of the ancilla qubits onto the $\ket{0}$ state. Then the error splits into two parts: the error of the channel when the postselection succeeds, and the probability that the postselection fails.
The Hamiltonian simulation method is extremely accurate, letting us obtain block-encodings with an error that decays exponentially in the query complexity to $U_H$. Thus, the error contribution of this channel is almost entirely negligible in the performance analysis. The purpose of the argument below is really to provide a Lemma analogous to Lemma~\ref{lemma:spectraltodiamond} that lets us convert error bounds in spectral norms on block-encodings to diamond norms. That way, our entire error analysis is completely formal, as it should be for a fair comparison of all algorithms involved. Notably, an $\varepsilon$-accurate block-encoding of a unitary is not the same thing as an $\varepsilon$-accurate implementation of that unitary: the latter implies a channel with diamond norm error $2\varepsilon$ while the prior yields an error $4\varepsilon$ due to the ancilla registers.
\begin{lemma} \textbf{Hamiltonian simulation.} \label{lemma:hamsim} Say $U_H$ is a block-encoding of a Hamiltonian $H$. Then, for any $t > 0$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a quantum channel that is $\varepsilon$-close in diamond norm to the channel induced by the unitary $e^{i H t}$. This channel can be implemented using
\begin{align}
3 \cdot r\left( \frac{et}{2} , \frac{\varepsilon}{24} \right) + 3
\end{align}
queries to controlled-$U_H$ or controlled-$U_H^\dagger$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is an extension of Theorem~58 of \cite{1806.01838}, which states that there exists a block-encoding $U_A$ of a matrix $A$ such that $|A - e^{iHt}| \leq \varepsilon$ with query complexity $3 r \left( \frac{et}{2} , \frac{\varepsilon}{6} \right) $. This result leverages the Jacobi-Anger expansion (Lemma~\ref{lemma:jacobianger}) to construct approximate block-encodings of $\sin(t H)$ and $\cos(t H)$ and uses linear combinations of unitaries to approximate $e^{iHt} / 2$. Then it uses oblivious amplitude amplification to get rid of the factor of $1/2$, obtaining $U_A$. If $U_H$ is a block-encoding with $a$ ancillae, then $U_A$ has $a+2$ ancillae.
All that is left to do is to turn this block-encoding into a quantum channel that approximately implements $e^{iHt}$. To do so, we just initialize the ancillae to $\ket{0^{a+2}}$, apply $U_A$, and trace out the ancillae. We can write this channel $\Lambda$ as:
\begin{align}
\Lambda(\rho) := \sum_{i} (\bra{i} \otimes I) U_A ( \ket{0^{a+2}}\bra{0^{a+2}} \otimes \rho) U_A^\dagger ( \ket{i} \otimes I)
\end{align}
To finish the theorem we must select an $\varepsilon$ so that the error in diamond norm of $\Lambda$ to the channel implemented by $e^{iHt}$ is bounded by $\delta$. To do so, we write $\Lambda$ as a sum of postselective channels $\Lambda_i(\rho)$:
\begin{align}
\Lambda_i(\rho) &:= (\bra{i} \otimes I) U_A ( \ket{0}\bra{0} \otimes \rho) U_A^\dagger ( \ket{i} \otimes I)
\end{align}
That way $\Lambda = \sum_i \Lambda_i$. If we let $\Gamma_{e^{iHt}} := e^{iHt}\rho e^{-iHt}$, then we can bound the error in diamond norm using the triangle inequality:
\begin{align}
\left| \Lambda - \Gamma_{e^{iHt}} \right|_\diamond \leq \left| \Lambda_0 - \Gamma_{e^{iHt}} \right|_\diamond + \left| \sum_{i > 0} \Lambda_i \right|_\diamond
\end{align}
Now we proceed to bound the two terms individually. Observe that:
\begin{align}
\Lambda_0(\rho) &:= (\bra{0} \otimes I) U_A ( \ket{0}\bra{0} \otimes \rho) U_A^\dagger ( \ket{0} \otimes I) = A \rho A^\dagger
\end{align}
Since $|A - e^{iHt}| \leq \varepsilon$, we can invoke Lemma~\ref{lemma:spectraltodiamond} and see that $\left| \Lambda_0 - \Gamma_{e^{iHt}} \right|_\diamond \leq 2\varepsilon $, and we are done with the first term.
To bound $\left| \sum_{i > 0} \Lambda_i \right|_\diamond$, we first observe that $\sum_{i > 0 }\Lambda_i = \Lambda - \Lambda_0$. Second, we observe that the $\Lambda_i$ are all positive semi-definite, so $|\Lambda_i(\rho)|_1 = \text{Tr}(\Lambda_i(\rho) )$. Plugging in the definition of the diamond norm, we can compute:
\begin{align}
\left| \sum_{i > 0} \Lambda_i \right|_\diamond &= \sup_\rho \left| \sum_i (\Lambda_i \otimes \mathcal{I})(\rho) \right|_1\\
&\leq \sup_\rho \text{Tr}\left( \sum_i (\Lambda_i \otimes \mathcal{I})(\rho) \right)\\
&= \sup_\rho \text{Tr}\left( (\Lambda \otimes \mathcal{I})(\rho) - (\Lambda_0\otimes\mathcal{I})(\rho) \right)\\
&= 1 - \inf_\rho \text{Tr}( A\rho A^\dagger )
\end{align}
If we let $E := e^{iHt} - A $ so that $|E| \leq \varepsilon$, and plug into the above expression, we get:
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}(A\rho A^\dagger) = \text{Tr}( e^{iHt} \rho e^{-iHt} - E\rho e^{-iHt} - e^{iHt} \rho E^\dagger + E\rho E^\dagger ) \geq 1 - 2\varepsilon + \varepsilon^2
\end{align}
Putting everything together we obtain $ \left| \Lambda - \Gamma_{e^{iHt}} \right|_\diamond \leq 2\varepsilon + 2\varepsilon - \varepsilon^2 \leq 4\varepsilon$. So if we select $\varepsilon := \delta/4$ we obtain the desired bound.
\end{proof}
The above proof uses the trick for the proof of the block-measurement theorem that we mentioned in the introduction. We will need it again in the proof Theorem~\ref{thm:blockmeasure}. Thus, while we are at it, we may as well state the generalization of this result to any block-encoded unitary as a proposition.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:blocktochannel} Say $U_A$ is a block-encoding of $A$, which is $\varepsilon$-close in spectral norm to a unitary $V$. Then there exists a quantum channel $4\varepsilon$-close in diamond norm to the channel $\rho \to V\rho V^\dagger$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Lemma~\ref{lemma:hamsim} proved this result with $V = e^{iHt}$. The exact same argument holds for abstract $V$.
\end{proof}
Returning to the ancilla discussion, say that the block-encoding of the input Hamiltonian has $a$ ancillae. Then we see that Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativeenergyestimation} requires $a+n+3$ ancillae, while textbook phase estimation combined with Lemma~\ref{lemma:hamsim} requires $O( a + (n + \log(\alpha^{-1})) \log(\delta^{-1}) )$. This is because the extra ancillae required to perform the procedure in Lemma~\ref{lemma:hamsim} can be discarded and reset after each application of $e^{iHt}$. Also note that despite the fact that the above implementation of $e^{iHt}$ is not unitary, the overall protocol in Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation} is still approximately invertible as required by Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove}, since we can just use Lemma~\ref{lemma:hamsim} to implement $e^{-iHt}$ instead.
Next, we compare the algorithms in terms of their query complexity to the unitary $U$ or the block-encoding $U_H$. Note that this is \emph{not} the gate complexity: the number of gates from some universal gate set used to implement the algorithm. The reason for this choice is that the gate complexity of $U$ or $U_H$ depends on the application, and is likely much much larger than any of the additional gates used to implement singular value transformation. The algorithms' query complexities depend on three parameters: $\alpha, n $, and $\delta$. In the following we discuss the impact of these parameters on the complexity and show how we arrive at the 14x and 10x speedups stated in the introduction.
\clearpage
The following jupyter notebook contains the code we used to evaluate the query complexities of the algorithms:
\begin{center}
\url{https://github.com/qiskit-community/improved-phase-estimation/blob/main/phase_estimation_performance.ipynb}
\end{center}
The implementation of the algorithms follows the constructions in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation} and Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedenergyestimation} with only one minor optimization: rather than setting $\eta_k$ based on a linear lower bound on $\cos(\pi\lambda^{(k)})$, we simply evaluate $\cos(\pi\lambda^{(k)})$ at the relevant point.
The performance in terms of $\alpha$ is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:performance_comparison}, for fixed $n=10$ and $\delta = 10^{-30}$. This comparison shows several features. First, we see that the novel algorithms in this paper are consistently faster than the traditional methods in this regime. The only exception is Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedphaseestimation} combined with Lemma~\ref{lemma:garbageremove} to remove the phases, which is outperformed by traditional phase estimation for some value of $\alpha > 1/2$. Such enormous $\alpha$ is obviously impractical: even traditional phase estimation does not round to the nearest bit in this regime.
Second, the performance of Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation} exhibits a ziz-zag behavior. This is because we reduce $\alpha$ by estimating more bits than we need and then rounding them away, a process that can only obtain $ \alpha $ of the form $2^{-1-r}$ for integer $r$. When $\alpha > \frac{1}{2}$ then we no longer use the rounding strategy since we can achieve these values with median amplification alone. Therefore, for large enough $\alpha$ the line is no longer a zig-zag and begins to be a curve with shape $\sim \alpha^{-2}$.
The zig-zag behavior makes comparison for continuous values of $\alpha$ complicated. In our analysis we would like to compare against the most efficient version of traditional phase estimation, so we continue our performance analysis where $\alpha$ is a power of two, maximizing the efficiency (but minimizing our speedup). In Figure~\ref{fig:speedup} we show the performance when vary $\alpha,n$ and $\delta$ independently.
We see that once $n \gtrsim 10$, $\alpha \lesssim 2^{-10}$ and $\delta \lesssim 10^{-30}$ the speedup stabilizes at about 14x for phase estimation and 10x for energy estimation. Our method therefore shows an significant improvement over the state of the art.
Of course, several assumptions needed to be made in order to claim a particular multiplicative speedup. Many of these assumptions were made specifically to maximize the performance of the traditional method. For example, we count performance in terms of query complexity rather than gate complexity, which neglects all the additional processing that phase estimation needs to perform for median amplification. This method of comparison favors the traditional method, since it neglects the fact that our new methods require significantly less ancillary processing. Furthermore, we select $\alpha$ to be a power of two, so that phase estimation is maximally efficient. However, we also assume that $n$ is large enough and that $\alpha$ and $\delta$ are small enough that the speedup is stable. If the accuracy required is not so large, then the speedup is less significant.
Which method is best in reality will depend on the situation. In particular, the appropriate choice of $\alpha$ when studying real-world Hamiltonians remains an interesting direction of study. In reality it will not be possible to guarantee a rounding promise, so one's only option is to pick a small value of $\alpha$ and hope for the best. How small of an $\alpha$ is required?
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{query_complexities.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:performance_comparison} Performance of estimation algorithms presented in this paper. Phase estimation algorithms are presented with slim lines on the left, and energy estimation algorithms are presented with thick lines on the right. The zig-zag behavior of phase estimation is explained by the method by which Proposition~\ref{prop:phaseestimation} reduces $\alpha$: by estimating more bits than needed and then rounding them. Thus, the $\alpha$ achieved by phase estimation is always a power of two. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{query_complexity_speedups.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:speedup} Speedup over traditional methods by our new methods for phase and energy estimation. When $n \gtrsim 10$, $\delta \lesssim 10^{-30}$ and $\alpha \lesssim 2^{-10}$ the speedups become stable. Together with Figure~\ref{fig:performance_comparison} we can conclude that the speedup for phase estimation is about 14x and the speedup for energy estimation is about 10x. }
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Block-Measurement} \label{sec:blockmeas}
We have presented improved algorithms for phase and energy estimation. In this section we prove the block-measurement theorem from the introduction. The goal of the block-measurement protocol is the following: given an approximate block-encoding of a projector $\Pi$, implement a channel close to the unitary:
\begin{align}
\ket{1} \otimes \Pi + \ket{0} \otimes (I - \Pi)
\end{align}
When the block-encoding of $\Pi$ is exact, then the above is easily accomplished through linear combinations of unitaries and oblivious amplitude amplification. In particular, we can rewrite the above as $\ket{0}\otimes I -\sqrt{2}\ket{-}\otimes\Pi $, so we need to amplify away a factor of $1/(1+\sqrt{2})$ from the linear combination. Following Theorem~28 of \cite{1806.01838}, we observe that $T_5(x)$ is the first Chebyshev polynomial that has a solution $T_5(x) = \pm 1$ such that $x < 1/(1+\sqrt{2})$. We nudge the factor down to the solution $x$ with some extra postselection, and then we meet the conditions of this theorem. This demands five queries to the block-encoding of $\Pi$. Then we invoke our Proposition~\ref{prop:blocktochannel} to turn the block-encoding of $\ket{1} \otimes \Pi + \ket{0} \otimes (I - \Pi)$ into a channel.
However, the above strategy is both more complicated and more expensive than necessary - we can do this in just two queries. Say $U_\Pi$ is a block-encoding of $\Pi$ with $m$ ancillae. Then, let $V_\Pi$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:blockmeasure} V_\Pi := \hspace{5mm} \begin{array}{c}\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=1em {
& \qw & \targ & \qw & \qw\\
& \multigate{1}{U_\Pi} & \ctrl{-1} & \multigate{1}{U_\Pi^\dagger} & \qw \\
& \ghost{U_A} & \qw & \ghost{U^\dagger_A} & \qw
}\end{array}
\end{align}
where the CNOT above refers to $X \otimes \ket{0^m}\bra{0^m} + I \otimes (I - \ket{0^m}\bra{0^m})$. Then, $V_\Pi$ satisfies:
\begin{align}
&(I \otimes \bra{0^m} \otimes I) V_\Pi (\ket{0} \otimes \ket{0^m} \otimes I)\\
= & \ket{1} \otimes \Pi + \ket{0} \otimes (I - \Pi )
\end{align}
So viewing the $\ket{0^m}$ register as the postselective part of a block-encoding, we see that $V_\Pi$ is a block-encoding of the desired operation. Then we invoke Proposition~\ref{prop:blocktochannel} to construct a channel $\Lambda_\Pi$ from $V_\Pi$. Now all that is left to do is the error analysis.
In fact, when $m=1$, then there is an extent that we do not even need the modified CNOT gate and can get away with just a single query. We used this fact in Theorem~\ref{thm:iterativephaseestimation}. This is because if $\Pi = \sum_j \alpha_j \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}$, then we can write:
\begin{align}
U_\Pi (\ket{0} \otimes I) &= \sum_j \left( \alpha_j \ket{0} + \beta_j \ket{1} \right) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
where $\beta_j$ is some amplitude satisfying $|\beta_j|^2 + |\alpha_j|^2 = 1$. To compare, the desired operation is:
\begin{align}
\sum_j \left( \alpha_j \ket{1} + (1 - \alpha_j) \ket{0} \right) \ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}
\end{align}
Since $\alpha_j \in \{0,1\}$, we know that $\beta_j = e^{i\phi_j}(1-\alpha_j)$ for some phase $\phi_j$ that may depend on $\ket{\psi_j}$. So, with the exception of the phase correction, we are already one $X$ gate away from the desired unitary.
Is it possible to remove this phase correction without uncomputation? If $U_\Pi$ is obtained through singular value transformation of some real eigenvalues $\lambda_j$ then we actually have more control than Lemma~\ref{lemma:svt} would indicate. Looking at Theorem~3 of \cite{1806.01838}, we can actually select polynomials $P,Q$ such that $\alpha_j = P(\lambda_j)$ and $\beta_j = Q(\lambda_j)$, provided that $P,Q$ satisfy some conditions including $|P(x)|^2 + (1-x^2)|Q(x)|^2 = 1$. For what positive-real-valued polynomials $P(x)$ is it possible to choose a positive-real-valued $Q(x)$ that satisfies this relation, thus removing the phases $e^{i\phi_j}$? We leave this question for future work.
Now we proceed to the formal statement and error analysis of the block-measurement theorem.
\begin{theorem} \textbf{Block-measurement.} \label{thm:blockmeasure} Say $\Pi$ is a projector, and $A$ is a hermitian matrix satisfying $|\Pi - A^2| \leq \varepsilon $. Also, $A$ has a block-encoding $U_A$. Then the channel $\Lambda_A$, constructed in the same way as $\Lambda_\Pi$ above just with $U_A$ instead of $U_\Pi$, approximates $\Lambda_\Pi$ in diamond norm:
\begin{align}
\left| \Lambda_A - \Lambda_\Pi \right|_\diamond \leq 4\sqrt{2}\varepsilon
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Just like $V_\Pi$, $V_A$ is a block-encoding of the unitary:
\begin{align}
X \otimes A^2 + I \otimes (I - A^2)
\end{align}
The distance in spectral norm to $V_\Pi = X \otimes \Pi + I \otimes (I - \Pi)$ is:
\begin{align}
& \Big| \ket{1} \otimes \Pi + \ket{0} \otimes (I - \Pi) - \ket{1} \otimes A^2 - \ket{0} \otimes (I - A^2) \Big|\\
= & \Big| \ket{1} \otimes (\Pi - A^2) + \ket{0} \otimes (A^2 - \Pi) \Big|\\
= & \sqrt{2} \left| \frac{\ket{0} - \ket{1}}{\sqrt{2}} \otimes (\Pi - A^2) \right|\\
= & \sqrt{2} \left|\Pi - A^2 \right| \leq \sqrt{2}\varepsilon
\end{align}
So we have a block-encoding of a matrix $\sqrt{2}\varepsilon$-close in spectral norm to the unitary $ X \otimes \Pi + I \otimes (I - \Pi)$. Now we just use Proposition~\ref{prop:blocktochannel}, which gives a channel with diamond norm accuracy $4\sqrt{2}\varepsilon$. Then we get the desired operation by initializing an extra qubit to $\ket{0}$ before applying the channel.
\end{proof}
What happens when $A$ is not a projector? For simplicity, say the input state to the circuit is $\ket{\Psi}$, which happens to be an eigenstate of $A$. Then:
\begin{align}
V_A \left( \ket{0} \otimes \ket{0^m} \otimes \ket{\Psi} \right) &= (\ket{1} \otimes U_A^\dagger\ket{0^m}\bra{0^m} U_A \ket{0^m}+ \ket{0} \otimes U_A^\dagger \left(I - \ket{0^m}\bra{0^m} \right) U_A \ket{0^m} ) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\\
&= (-\sqrt{2}\ket{-} \otimes U_A^\dagger\ket{0^m}\bra{0^m} U_A \ket{0^m} + \ket{0} \otimes U_A^\dagger U_A \ket{0^m} ) \otimes \ket{\Psi}
\end{align}
We are interested in the state obtained by tracing out the $\ket{0^m}$ register above. For $j \in \{0,1\}^m$, we let $\gamma_j$ abbreviate a matrix element of $U_A$:
\begin{align}
\gamma_j \ket{\Psi} &:= (\bra{0^m} \otimes I) U_A \left( \ket{j} \otimes \ket{\Psi} \right)\\
\left( I \otimes \bra{j} \otimes I \right) V_A \left( \ket{0} \otimes \ket{0^m} \otimes \ket{\Psi} \right) &= \left( -\gamma_j^\dagger \gamma_0\sqrt{2} \ket{-} + \delta_{j,0} \ket{0} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}
\end{align}
Note that $\gamma_0$ is the eigenvalue of $A$ corresponding to $\ket{\Psi}$. Then, the reduced density matrix after tracing out the middle register is:
\begin{align}
& \sum_{j \in \{0,1\}^m} \left(- \gamma_j^\dagger \gamma_0\sqrt{2} \ket{-} + \delta_{j,0} \ket{0} \right) \left( - \gamma_j \gamma_0^\dagger \sqrt{2} \bra{-} + \delta_{j,0} \bra{0} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}\\
=& \sum_{j \in \{0,1\}^m} \left( 2 |\gamma_j|^2 |\gamma_0|^2 \ket{-}\bra{-} - \sqrt{2} \delta_{j,0} \gamma_j \gamma_0^\dagger \ket{0}\bra{-} - \sqrt{2} \delta_{j,0} \gamma_j^\dagger \gamma_0\ket{-}\bra{0} + \delta_{j,0} \ket{0}\bra{0} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}\\
=& \left( 2 |\gamma_0|^2 \ket{-}\bra{-} - \sqrt{2 }|\gamma_0|^2 \ket{0}\bra{-} - \sqrt{2} |\gamma_0|^2\ket{-}\bra{0} + \ket{0}\bra{0} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}\\
=& \left( |\gamma_0|^2 \ket{1}\bra{1} + (1-|\gamma_0|^2) \ket{0}\bra{0} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}
\end{align}
This somewhat complicated calculation produced a simple result: tracing out the $\ket{0^m}$ register collapses the superposition on the output register. A more general version of this calculation where the input state is not an eigenstate of $A$ demonstrates that this collapse also damages the superposition on the input register (although it does not fully collapse it). Intuitively, we can see why this is the case even without doing the full calculation: since measuring the middle register collapses the superposition that encodes the eigenvalues, the environment that traced out the middle register thus learns information about the eigenvalues. But the distribution over eigenvalues also contains information about the input superposition over eigenvectors, so therefore the input state will be damaged.
In essence, we have re-derived the fact that uncomputation is impossible unless the output of the computation is deterministic.
\section{Non-Destructive Amplitude Estimation} \label{sec:ampest}
In this section we show how to use our energy estimation algorithm to perform amplitude estimation. The algorithms for energy and phase estimation demanded a rounding promise on the input Hamiltonian, which guarantees that they do not damage the input state even if it is not an eigenstate of the unitary or Hamiltonian of interest. However, as we shall see, this is not a concern for amplitude estimation. This is because we can construct a Hamiltonian whose eigenstate is the input state.
Say $\Pi$ is some projector and $\ket{\Psi}$ is a quantum state. Non-destructive amplitude estimation obtains an estimate of $a = |\Pi\ket{\Psi}|$ given exactly one copy of $\ket{\Psi}$, and leaves that copy of $\ket{\Psi}$ intact. This subroutine is explicitly required by the algorithms in \cite{1907.09965, 2009.11270}, which can be used to perform Bayesian inference, thermal state preparation and partition function estimation. However, it is also quite useful in general when $\ket{\Psi}$ is expensive to prepare. For example, when estimating the expectation of an observable on the ground state of a Hamiltonian, preparing the ground state can be very expensive. Thus, it may be practical to only prepare it once.
The only previously known algorithm for non-destructive amplitude estimation is given in \cite{1907.09965}. It works via several invocations of amplitude estimation according to \cite{0005055}, which is based on phase estimation. We argue that our new algorithm has several performance advantages over the prior art. However, these advantages are not very quantifiable, preventing us from computing a numerical constant-factor speedup. The advantages are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Our new algorithm requires dramatically fewer ancillae. This is because \cite{1907.09965} relies on phase estimation with median amplification. As argued above, median amplification requires $O(n \log(\delta^{-1}))$ ancillae. In contrast, we simply use the protocol for energy estimation which requires $n + O(1)$ ancillae.
\item Our new algorithm runs in a fixed amount of time: one application of our energy estimation algorithm suffices. In contrast, \cite{1907.09965}'s algorithm works by repeatedly attempting to `repair' the input state. This process succeeds only with probability $1/2$, so while the expected number of attempts is constant, the resulting algorithm is highly adaptive and may need a variable amount of time.
\item Our new algorithm does not require knowledge of a lower bound on the amplitude $a$. The `repair' step in \cite{1907.09965} itself involves another application of phase estimation, which must produce an estimate with enough accuracy to distinguish $\arcsin(a)$ and $-\arcsin(a)$. This also implies that \cite{1907.09965} can only produce relative-error estimates, even when an additive-error estimate might be sufficient, as it is in \cite{2009.11270}.
\item While, due to the above differences, it is not really possible to perform a side-by-side constant-factor comparison of the algorithms, we do expect to inherit a modest constant-factor speedup from our energy estimation algorithm. \cite{0005055} has no need to perform Hamiltonian simulation, so we expect the speedup to look more like the one in the case of phase estimation. Since no rounding promise is required, making $\alpha$ tiny is not really necessary. But it \emph{is} necessary that $\alpha < 1/2$ since this makes traditional phase estimation round correctly. Looking at Figure~\ref{fig:performance_comparison}, we already see constant factor speedups in this regime.
\end{itemize}
Another minor advantage of our method over \cite{1907.09965} is that it estimates $a^2$ directly, rather than going through the Grover angle $\theta := \arcsin(a)$. Coherently evaluating a sine function in superposition to correct this issue, while possible, will have an enormous ancilla overhead. $a^2$ is the probability with which a measurement of $\ket{\Psi}$ yields a state in $\Pi$, which may be useful directly.
We note that an additive error estimate of $a$ is slightly stronger than an additive error estimate of $a^2$. Moreover this accuracy seems to be necessary for some versions of quantum mean estimation: see for example Appendix~C of \cite{2009.11270}. If the amplitude $a$ is desired rather than $a^2$, then, since the algorithm proceeds by obtaining a block-encoding of $a^2$, one can use singular value transformation to make a block-encoding of $a$ instead. A polynomial approximation of $\sqrt{x}$ could be constructed from Corollary~66 of \cite{1806.01838}. We leave a careful error analysis of a direct estimate of $a$ to future work.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:ampest} \textbf{Non-destructive amplitude estimation.} Say $\Pi$ is a projector and $R_\Pi$ is a unitary that reflects about this projector:
\begin{align}
R_\Pi := 2\Pi - I
\end{align}
Let $\ket{\Psi}$ be some quantum state such that $a := |\Pi \ket{\Psi}|$. Let $M := \text{floor}(a^2 2^{n})$. Then for any positive integer $n$ and any $\delta > 0$ there exists a quantum channel that implements $\delta$-approximately in diamond norm the map:
\begin{align}
\ket{0^n}\bra{0^n} \otimes \ket{ \Psi }\bra{\Psi} \to \left(p \ket{M}\bra{M} + (1-p) \ket{M-1 \text{ mod }2^n}\bra{M-1 \text{ mod }2^n} \right) \otimes \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}
\end{align}
for some probability $p$ (i.e., there is some probability that instead of obtaining $\text{floor}(a^2 2^{n})$ we obtain $\text{floor}(a^2 2^{n}) - 1$ ). This channel uses $O\left(2^n \log(\delta^{-1}) \right)$ controlled applications of $R_\Pi$ and $R_{\ket{\Psi}} := 2\ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi} - I$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} We use linear combinations of unitaries to make block-encodings of $\Pi$ and $\ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}$.
\begin{align}
\Pi = \frac{I + R_\Pi}{2}, \hspace{1cm} \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi} = \frac{I + R_{\ket{\Psi}}}{2}
\end{align}
Then, we multiply these projectors together to make a block-encoding of $A$:
\begin{align}
A := \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi} \cdot \Pi \cdot \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi} = a^2 \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}
\end{align}
Now we simply invoke the algorithm described in Corollary~\ref{cor:improvedenergyestimation} for the case when no rounding promise is present, and apply it to the input state $\ket{\Psi}$. Since $\ket{\Psi}$ is an eigenstate of $A$, we are guaranteed to measure either $\text{floor}(a^2 2^{n-1})$ or $\text{floor}(a^2 2^{n-1}) - 1$ mod $2^n$.
\end{proof}
Observe that the random error only occurs for particular values of $a^2$, which is where the rounding promise is violated. We can ignore the rounding promise precisely because the input state $\ket{\Psi}$ is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian: an incorrect estimate does not damage the input state.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks Scott Aaronson, Andrew Tan, Pawel Wocjan, William Zeng, Yosi Atia, Andr\'as Gily\'en, Sukin Sim, Philip Jensen, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen and Al\'an Aspuru-Guzik for helpful conversations. This work was supported by Scott Aaronson's Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship from the US Department of Defense. The v4 updates were performed while the author was at IBM Quantum.
\input{mar8_bibl.tex}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Humans have the cognitive capacity to process multi-modal data (e.g. vision, language) and make cross-references between parts of the two modalities in real-time effortlessly.
They are also very capable of identifying such cross-references in degenerate cases where one modality suffers from noise. However, this is not the case in robotics, where most commonly the visual perception and HRI modules are treated separately.
In this regime, when verbal input is given to the robot (e.g. in the context of grasping: ``Grasp the \textit{mug}'') the referring phrases that correspond to objects to be segmented (aka \textit{grounded}, e.g. ``\textit{Mug}'') must be predefined explicitly and hard-coded in the agents behaviour.
As a result, the agent is unable to comprehend variants of the predefined object category from the verbal input as it is often the case in real-world scenarios, where objects might be referred by their visual attributes or spatial relation to another object (e.g. ``Grasp the \textit{red mug}'' or ``Grasp the \textit{mug} that is \textit{next to} the \textit{laptop}'' in the case of multiple mug objects within view).
A more \textit{natural} HRI setting would require a bridging between the two modules, allowing the model to interpret ambiguous verbal references and generalize over unseen object categories.
This paper proposes such a bridging that tackles the problem by employing an end-to-end multi-modal deep learning model, able to make predictions for image-phrase pairs that were never seen in the training data.
The task at hand is described in literature as \textit{single-query visual grounding} or \textit{referring expression comprehension}. In this task, given an input image and a natural language phrase referring to a specific entity, the model has to localize the entity inside the frame (see Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}). Several research has been done to address this task, both solely and as a proxy task for \textit{visual question-answering} (VQA) and \textit{visual reasoning} downstream applications. Section~\ref{sota} provides a brief overview of such research directions.
In this work, we aim to design a grounding agent that can be utilized in a practical HRI scenario, such as grasping household objects based on verbal commands given by a human supervisor. To be efficient for this application, our agent needs to be able to infer groundings at high speed. Also, when a broad variation of object categories, as well as robustness to the phrasing of the referring expressions describing them, is desired, the system should be able to provide predictions for object - phrase instances that it has never encountered during training. These considerations guide our choice of deep learning model and the architecture of the implemented system, both of which are described in Section~\ref{methods}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/5.png}&
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/4.png}&
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/aa.png}\\
\scriptsize{\texttt{barbecue}} & \scriptsize{\texttt{ice cream}} & \scriptsize{\texttt{beer}} \\
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/8.png}&
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/7.png}&
\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{imgs/0.png}\\
\scriptsize{\texttt{soda can}} &\scriptsize{ \texttt{bowl}} & \scriptsize{\texttt{bottle}} \\
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Examples of grounding predictions made by our model for real (top) and simulated (bottom) scenes along with the corresponding input phrase queries.}
\label{fig:examples}
\end{figure}
We explore the robustness of the proposed approach to variations of the natural language input by probing it in test time with extensive captions of multiple levels of reference, namely: a) multiple instances of the same entity (plural) or b) a specific instance of an entity appeared multiple times in the scene by referring to its visual attribute (color) or some other property (e.g. gender in the case of humans). Additionally, as most benchmarks for visual grounding evaluate on domain-agnostic datasets, in this work we opt to explore the grounding models performance on an HRI-oriented data domain, by evaluating its zero/few-shot performance in two tiny-scale datasets of image-query pairs respecting the assumed HRI scenario mentioned above. The image samples are collected from sub-sets of two RGB-D datasets, namely: \textit{RGBD-Scenes} \cite{rgbd-scenes}, used most popularly for 3D vision learning and the \textit{Objects Cluttered Indoors Dataset (OCID)} \cite{ocid}, used for manipulation planning. Details about the evaluation data and some results are presented in section~\ref{Results}. Conclusion and some interesting potential future research directions are given in section~\ref{Conclusion}.
\section{Related work}
\label{sota}
Visual grounding architectures typically use object detectors such as Faster-RCNN \cite{faster-r-cnn} as a pre-processing step to extract bounding box proposals and corresponding object features, thus limiting the categories that the model is able to learn to the ones pre-specified by the pre-trained detector \cite{sadhu2019zero}. Refined versions use cross-modal self-attention mechanisms to capture long range dependencies in the two modalities \cite{cross-modal-self-attn}. More recent approaches extract scene graphs from images-text and tackle grounding as a structure prediction task where visual and textual {Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)} are used to contextualize each modalitys representations and a graph similarity metric is introduced to prune the two graphs appropriately \cite{context-graphs}.
Another family of state-of-the-art models is that of pre-trained representation learners, such as {VisualBERT}~\cite{visual-bert} and {ViLBERT}~\cite{vilbert}. Such models are very parameter-heavy, trained on massive-scale datasets with self-supervised objectives, such as language modeling, masked region modeling, word-region alignment and image-text matching. They often also apply a \textit{multi-task setting} \cite{12in1}, in which supervision from multiple tasks-domains is injected during self-supervised pre-training. Single-task performance is then benefited from attempting to solve all tasks at once. On the downside, the enormous scale of these models grant them potentially inefficient for real-time application.
Several robotics-grounded works attempt to explicitly model natural language input for HRI applications, either as a purely textual or as an end-to-end multi-modal system.
In some works, the system maps input natural language instructions into action sequences for task handling~\cite{tellmedave, hr-dialogue}.
Special care is given so that the model handles variations of natural language input and is able to generalize over unseen environment and task settings.
Paul et. al.~\cite{spatial_concepts} implemented a probabilistic model that parses natural language input into object/region proposals as well as motion constraints by incorporating notions of abstract spatial concepts. Shridhar et. al.~\cite{hri_} presented an HRI-applied multi-modal system for visual grounding, where the model was able to handle variations of natural language input (for situations of multiple object instances) by interacting with the user through an ambiguity-resolution question, generated by an auto-regressive RNN which is trained jointly with the grounding network. One drawback of their work is that they employed a two-stage approach for providing groundings, intensifying computational requirements in inference time. In this work, we attempt to address this limitation by employing a one-stage zero-shot model.
\section{System Architecture}
\label{methods}
In this section we present the visual grounding architecture that is developed as well as the technical details of the overall architecture of the system.
\subsection{Learning Model}
\label{model}
The deep learning model that is chosen as a baseline for our implementation is the \textit{Zero-Shot Grounding (ZSG)} network~\cite{sadhu2019zero}. Similar to single-shot architectures employed in object localization, such as \cite{ssd}, the proposed model generates bounding box proposals that refer to the input query based entirely on the size of the input image. As a result, an end-to-end trainable image encoder for capturing image representations can replace pre-trained object descriptors. For each image-query input pair, the model generates a set of bounding box proposals $B = \{b_1,b_2,...,b_N\}$ and outputs the best candidate box $b_i$, as well as four regression parameters $\{x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2\}$ that correspond to the updated top-left and bottom-right box coordinates in the input image frame. Since this is an end-to-end architecture, the visual features extracted by this model are independent of the trained object intra-class variance. Therefore, the proposed method departs from the limitations posed by other pre-trained visual grounding systems, and is suitable for real-time applications due to its single stage design and computational efficiency, especially during inference.
The model consists of five main components, including: (\textit{1}) a language module that encodes the query phrase into a continuous vector space, (\textit{2}) a visual module that extracts multiple image feature maps, (\textit{3}) an anchor generator for proposing multiple scale bounding boxes, (\textit{4}) a multi-modal fusion scheme for injecting all features into a single representation and a linear layer that predicts the most likely box proposal, (\textit{5}) as well as the array of regression parameters for its fixed coordinates. For coherence purposes, we provide a brief overview of these modules in the following sub-sections~\cite{sadhu2019zero}.
\subsubsection{{Language module}} This module consists of an embedding layer followed by a recurrent neural encoder for encoding the input query phrase. The embedding layer is responsible for mapping each word $W_i$ in our vocabulary to a dense vector $\vec{w_i} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_w}$. The encoder is a uni-layered bi-directional LSTM architecture \cite{bi-lstm} that processes sequentially the entire input word vector sequence $\{\vec{w_i}\}, i=1,...,T,$ in both directions (start to end and vice-versa) and at each step outputs a hidden state vector $\vec{h_i} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d_w}$ that is informed by the context of the entire phrase in both directions at this point. The encoding that we use for representing the entire phrase is the hidden state vector $\vec{h_T}$ produced in the last time step.
Alternatively, we implement phrase contextualization using a single \textit{Transformer Encoder} layer~\cite{attention} and aggregate the hidden representations $\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times d_w}$ for the entire sequence with average pooling.
\subsubsection{{Visual module}} This module consists of a deep \textit{Convolutional Neural Network} (CNN) that learns how to represent the input 2D image into a dense feature map. This is a standard CNN architecture used for object recognition without the linear layers that are used for cross-entropy classification. In our version, $K$ feature maps $\mathbf{V_j} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_v \times d_v} , j=1,...,K,$ are extracted at different resolutions. The model used for encoding is a ResNet-50 \cite{resnet50}, augmented into the \textit{Feature Pyramid Network} (FPN) architecture \cite{FPN} for extracting multi-scale hierarchical feature maps. The feature maps are normalised across the channel dimension.
\subsubsection{{Anchor generation}} The first step is to form a grid. For each cell of the grid, anchors of different shapes are proposed. The convention of the grid is (-1,-1) to (1,1), similar to the one defined for bounding boxes. Anchors are defined in terms of ratios and scales. The ratio is the ratio of the height of an anchor box to its width. The scale is used to calculate the unit of the height and width of each anchor box. Given a scale ($s$) and a ratio ($r$), the aspect is [$s\sqrt{r}$, $ \frac{s}{\sqrt{r}}$]. These aspects are then resized according to the size of each cell of the grid. The center of each anchor box is considered the centre of the grid cell.
\subsubsection{{Multi-modal fusion}} The language feature vector extracted by the neural encoder is expanded to fit the dimensions of the $K$ extracted visual feature maps and it is concatenated along the channel dimension of each feature map, so that $\mathbf{H_T} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_v \times d_w}, \; \mathbf{H_T}=\begin{pmatrix}
\vec{h_t}& \vec{h_t} & ... & \vec{h_t}
\end{pmatrix}^T$. The generated anchor box centres are also appended at each cell of the feature maps. The resulting multi-modal feature representations $\mathbf{M_j} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_m \times d_m}$ are then given for $j=1,...,K$ by:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{ M_j}(x,y) = \mathbf{V_j}(x,y) \; ; \; \mathbf{H_T}(x,y) \; ; \; \frac{c_x}{W} \; ; \; \frac{c_y}{H}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where $;$ operator denotes the concatenation, $c_x,$ and $c_y$ represent the center locations of the normalised feature maps at each $(x,y)$ location. The initial size of the input image is represented by $W$, and $H$. The scaling operation is performed in order to aid location-based grounding, when input query phrases contain location information, providing functionality for making spatial references between recognised objects in the input image frame.
\subsubsection{Anchor matching} Each generated anchor proposal of different size is matched to every cell of the produced multi-modal feature maps. For each box, a linear layer maps the multi-modal features into a 5-dimensional vector containing the prediction score (confidence) and the regression box parameters that update the coordinates to bound the referenced object tightly.
\subsection{Online Object Segmentation}
\label{system}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{imgs/Selection_075.png}
\caption{A schematic of the implemented \textit{ROS} system. The inference pipeline is implemented through an action client that given an input RGB frame and a caption sends a request to our network and outputs the coordinates of the most probable bounding box. A 3D Extraction node extracts a \textit{PointCloud} by combining the RGB box with the corresponding depth box from the registered depth frame.}
\label{fig:system}
\end{figure}
In this section, we describe the design of the implemented software architecture, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:system}.
Our system receives a stream of RGB-D topics produced real-time from a depth sensor along with a natural language caption given by a human user and produces an RGB image with the predicted bounding box drawn into the frame, as well as a \textit{PointCloud} containing 3D information of the segmented object.
The images on the RGB-D buffer are refreshed with each new pair and only when a caption is given the last entry is grabbed and used as input to the network.
For real-time visual grounding, we have implemented an action server that functions as the communication side between the sensor data and the implemented ZSG network. At its spawn, the server loads all the necessary utilities (word embeddings etc.) and loads a pre-trained instance of the ZSG network. When a caption is buffered, a client request for a grounding inference is published. The action server appropriately pre-processes the input raw RGB frame in order to enhance it's contrast, by applying \textit{Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalisation} (CLAHE) \cite{CLAHE} in the \textit{YUV} colourspace. The query phrase is embedded and the resulting image-query pair is passed as input to the network for a single forward pass. After inference, some post-processing steps for drawing the predicted box and segmenting the foreground for 3D extraction are applied and the resulting frames are published. The server responses are executed in $>30$Hz, even without utilizing GPU-enabled acceleration like during training (tested in an \textit{Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 @ 2.50GHz} CPU).
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{Results}
\subsection{Training}
\label{data}
We trained our model using two benchmark visual grounding datasets.
The first training dataset {was} \textit{Flickr30k Entities} \cite{flickrentitiesijcv}, comprised of $30\,000$ annotated images associated with five sentences, each having multiple entity queries referring to the image with an average of $3.6$ queries per sentence. As a result, each sentence {has been} split to provide more grounding samples for the respective image. The annotations are bounding boxes containing the category labels of the grounded entity.
The second dataset was the \textit{RefClef} strain of the \textit{ReferIt} dataset \cite{referit}, itself being a subset of \textit{Imageclef} \cite{imageclef}, enumerating approximately $20\,000$ images with a total of $85k$ single-query caption sentences. For both datasets, we used the same training-validation-test splits as in \cite{splits}.
We considered two options for embedding input language semantics into word vectors for English, namely: (\textit{i}) pre-trained \textit{GloVe} embeddings \cite{GloVe} and (\textit{ii}) the last hidden layers representations of a pre-trained BERT-BASE \cite{bert}, followed by a trainable linear layer down-scaling the vectors to desired dimensionality. For extracting visual features we utilized a \textit{RetinaNet} \cite{focal_loss} network with a \textit{ResNet-50} \cite{resnet50} backbone. The image samples were resized to $300\times300$ and the word embeddings size as well as the hidden size of the bi-LSTM contextualizing the input phrase was set to $300$, so that both feature vectors could be appended to fit the dimensionality of the multi-modal feature maps. The input query phrases were padded to a maximum length of $50$ words per phrase. Following \cite{sadhu2019zero}, a total of $9$ candidate anchor proposals of different sizes is generated.
For formulating the supervision signal as well as quantifying the evaluation performance, we utilised the \textit{Intersection over Union} (IoU) metric, calculated as the total overlapping area between the proposed box and the ground truth box. Following the original implementation, we used an \textit{IoU} threshold of 0.5, meaning that only proposals that fit the ground truth box's area over 50\% are considered candidate:
\begin{equation*}
g_{b_i} \doteq 1 \cdot [ IoU(b_i,gt)\geq 0.5] \; + \; 0 \cdot [IoU(b_i,gt)<0.5],
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
G \doteq \{b_i \; | \; g_{b_i}=1\}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where $B=\{b_i, \; i=1,...,9\}$ represents the set of all proposals and $gt$ states the ground truth box. The set $G$ is the collection of all candidate proposals $(g_{b_1}=1)$.
The training loss is then calculated as the sum of the focal loss $L_F$ described in \cite{focal_loss} (applied for deciding the prediction score of the i-th proposal $p_{b_i}$ for its binary classification as foreground that possibly contains the query vs. background), with parameters $\alpha=0.25, \; \gamma=2$ and the smooth-L1 loss $L_S$ \cite{smooth_L1_loss} (used for regressing the parameters $r_{b_{i}}$ of a tighter matching bounding box for the most probable proposal):
\begin{equation*}
L = \frac{1}{\left |G \right |}\sum_{i=1}^{\left |B \right |}L_F(p_{b_i}, g_{b_i}) + \frac{1}{\left |G \right |}\sum_{i=1}^{\left |B \right |}g_{b_i} \cdot L_S(r_{b_i},gt)
\end{equation*}
The reported accuracies are measured as the total average of correctly classified samples with an \textit{IoU} $>0.5$.
The end-to-end model was trained for a total of $12$ hours for each dataset (around $7-8$ epochs), where the validation loss had already saturated. We utilised the Adam optimizer \cite{Adam} with a learning rate of $10^{-4}$ and a weight decay of $10^{-4}$ for regularisation. The model was trained on a \textit{NVidia Tesla v100} GPU node for parallel processing of batches of $128$ image-query pairs. All code is written in \textit{Python} using the \href{https://pytorch.org/}{\textit{PyTorch}} deep learning framework. Training results compared with several baselines are reported in Table~\ref{tab:zsg}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\resizebox{0.75\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| }
\hline \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Flickr30k}& \textbf{RefClef} \\
\hline
\hline
{QRC$^{\star}$ \cite{iou_ref}} & 60.21\% & 44.10\% \\
\hline
{CITE$^{\star}$ \cite{CITE}} & 61.89\% & 34.13\%\\
\hline
{QRG$^{\star}$ \cite{iou_ref}} & 60.1\% & -\\
\hline
{ZSG \cite{sadhu2019zero}} & 63.39\% & \textbf{58.64}\% \\
\hline
{VilBERT \cite{12in1}} & \textbf{64.61\%} & - \\
\hline
\hline
{ZSG (Glove-LSTM)} & 62.73\% & 53.44\%\\
\hline
{ZSG (Glove-TRM)} & 61.74\% & 50.41\%\\
\hline
{ZSG (BERT-LSTM)} & \textbf{63.09\%} & \textbf{54.21}\%\\
\hline
{ZSG (BERT-TRM)} & 62.13\% & 52.12\%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{ Best top-1 accuracies @{IoU = $0.5$} of the implemented model variants after 12 hours of training in both datasets. Results compared to original implementation and other state-of-the-art methods. Methods with $\star$ further fine-tune their network on the entities of the {Flickr30k} dataset.}
\label{tab:zsg}
\end{table}
Even though the pre-trained BERT language module provides marginally better embeddings for visual grounding, its massive scale sets a huge computational bottleneck to the system. Therefore, we implement our agent based on the pre-trained Glove model.
\subsection{Evaluation}
In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed system, we conducted multiple experiments, aiming to test not only the predictive accuracy but also the generalisation potential of the proposed model in variants of the standard input query phrases. In this vein, we performed online interactive sessions with our implemented agent, during which humans provide captions for arbitrary images and evaluate the system's predicted segmentation qualitatively. Different depicted objects are queried in free linguistic fashion, also including ambiguous query phrases (plural, referring to a visual cue etc.) that challenge our system in regards to the natural HRI element that we strive for. Figure~\ref{fig:FirstItem} demonstrates some examples of such experiments and a live recorded demo of a session is available online at \href{https://youtu.be/kgQgaghf71o}{\cblue{\texttt{\small{https://youtu.be/kgQgaghf71o}}}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/h0_.png}\\
\scriptsize{(a) Correctly segmented objects}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/h1_.png}\\
\scriptsize{(b) Correctly segmented objects with low number of occurrences in training data}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/h3_.png}\\
\scriptsize {(c) Incorrectly segmented objects}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Several examples of correct and some of incorrect bounding box predictions for image-query pairs. Queries are from left to right: (a) ice cream, hat, guitar, rope, (b) microscope, necklace, barbecue, roulette, (c) cup of coffee, watermelon, beer, bottle.}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{fig:FirstItem}
\end{figure}
Real-time sensory data streamed from a depth sensor, often suffer from various forms of noise compared to the digitally pre-processed images of the training data. To investigate the performance of the proposed system in sensor data, we collected two small-scale datasets of pre-recorded RGB-D images. The scenes included in our samples respect the assumed HRI scenario, i.e., they always comprise of a collection of objects in arbitrary spatial arrangements on top of a planar surface in clear front view of the RGB-D sensor.
\begin{table}[!b]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c| c| c| c|}
\hline\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{\#Img.} & \textbf{avg.QPI} & \textbf{\#Samp.} & \textbf{Mult.Inst. (\%) } \\
\hline
{RGBD-Scenes} & 67& 3.13& 210 & 17.97\%\\
\hline
{OCID} & 18& 2.94& 53& 22.22\%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Total number of image samples. average number of query phrases per image, total number of samples (query-phrase pairs) and percentage of samples that include multiple instances of the same object category.}
\label{tab:stats}
\end{table}
The first dataset is a sub-set of the \textit{RGBD-Scenes} dataset \cite{rgbd-scenes}, which has a total of $67$ RGB-D pairs depicting $22$ different typical household object instances from $6$ different categories (bowl, cap, cereal box, coffee mug, flashlight, soda can) in $8$ different scenes (including multiple desk settings, kitchen, meeting room, small and large table). Bounding box annotations come packed with the dataset. We appropriately sub-sampled the raw training data to include scenes that only contain different object categories or the same objects but viewed from a different angle, resulting in different spatial relationships between them. The second dataset is a curated sub-set of OCID \cite{ocid}, containing a total of $89$ different object categories in two scene settings (table and floor) and two different camera placements (front and top view). As this dataset is originally intended for learning motion planning of a robotic actuator in scenes with highly cluttered objects, we filter the raw data to include only samples with none to minimal cluttering. Statistics about the collected RGB-D datasets are described in Table~\ref{tab:stats}.
We again qualitatively evaluated and reported accuracy scores representing the zero-shot performance of our system in both domains. We performed preliminary experiments for evaluating the \textit{domain adaptation} potential of our system, where we fine-tuned our model in one RGB-D-scene (e.g. desk) and evaluated in another (e.g. kitchen). By this we aimed to simulate the fine-tuning step that a potential user of our system can employ after gathering minimal samples from the specific object catalogue / environment they wish their agent to operate. Fine-tuning had been implemented identically to the training process with the exception of using a batch size of $32$. The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:res} and examples of real-time inferences are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SecondItem}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/h2_.png}\\
\scriptsize{(a) Correctly segmented objects from {RGBD-Scenes}} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/_b.png}\\
\scriptsize{(b) Correctly segmented objects with relative cluttered environments}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/_a.png}\\
\scriptsize {(c) Correctly segmented objects in synthetic data simulated in {Gazebo}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Several examples of bounding box predictions for real-time RGB-D sensory data from real/synthetic scenes. Queries are from left to right: (a) cereal box, paper, bowl, hat, (b) envelope, tortellini, soda can, bowl, (c) bowl, bottle, box, cup.}
\label{fig:SecondItem}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!b]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline & \textbf{OCID} & \textbf{RGB-D} & \textbf{RGB-D} & \textbf{RGB-D} \\
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{(full)} & \textbf{(full)} & \textbf{(kitchen)} & \textbf{(tables)} \\
\hline
{ZSG-Flickr30k} & 32.13\%& 34.19\%& 32.50\% & 34.13\%\\
\hline
{ZSG-RefClef} & 31.37\%& 33.50\%& 36.35\% & 34.13\%\\
\hline
{+desk} & -& -& 49.49\%& 50.15\%\\
\hline
{+desk+meeting} & -& -& 55.90\%& 58.20\%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Evaluation results for both pre-trained models in HRI-specific data, collected from sub-sets of the \textit{RGBD-scenes} and \textit{OCID} datasets. The $+$ rows denote few-shotting results of the ZSG-Flickr30k model in specific scenes after fine-tuning in similar examples from different scenes}
\label{tab:res}
\end{table}
As expected, we observe a performance drop in the sensory input datasets. In such data, images suffer from potentially high amount of noise (reflections, bad illumination etc.) resulting in noisy visual representations. At the same time, potential cluttering of objects in real-life scenarios also degrades the quality of the proposal generation. These limitations grant our model practically unreliable without any fine-tuning, as we observe by the poor zero-shot performance (below $50\%$). However, the few-shotting experiments suggest a significant performance boost even with minimal fine-tuning. Moreover, we observe that due to its single-stage nature, our model is capable of unravelling ambiguities of reference in the input phrase. Specifically, there are non-sensory examples where the model responds to use of plural, use of definitive pronouns, as well as visual cues, e.g. colour (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ThirdItem}).
\begin{figure}[]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/hh0_.png}\\
\scriptsize{(a) Comprehension of plural} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/hh1_.png}\\
\scriptsize{(b) Comprehension of pronouns}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{imgs/hh2_.png}\\
\scriptsize {(c) Comprehension of visual cues (colour)}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The system is capable of generalising over variants of the natural language input (plural, pronouns, visual cues). Queries are from left to right: (a) sandal(s), human(s) (b) his/the girls face, his/her shoulder (c) green/black top, blonde/brunette girl.}
\label{fig:ThirdItem}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion}
In this work, we employ a state-of-the-art multi-modal deep learning model and develop an HRI agent for real-time visual grounding. The focus of this work is not on improving the zero-shot model but rather exploiting its single-stage nature, which allows for predictions in unseen data, in order to achieve interaction with humans in dynamic environments (potentially unknown objects) and in natural fashion (robustness to ambiguities of reference). The segmented 3D information of the object can serve as a perceptive utility assisting in navigation, planning, and manipulation actions. We test our methodology by gathering RGB-D data from two robotics-oriented datasets and perform several rounds of experiments to evaluate the systems performance in both zero-shot and few-shot scenarios.
Experimental results showed that our approach works well in the fine-tuning scenario, both in terms of accuracy and speed.
In the continuation of this work, we would like to investigate the possibility of ameliorating the low quality of visual representations in sensory images by applying \textit{Synthetic2Real Domain Adaptation}, in effect generating synthetic scenes similar to the setup of our HRI scenario and utilizing them as a fine-tuning resource.
Another interesting direction is the replacement of the current scene-level visual module with an object-level one, as bounding box extraction can be managed in an RGB-D sensor with the aid of depth data.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Using power meters to study cycling performance combines two distinct realms absent of an explicit relation: mechanical measurements and physical conditions.
A hypothetical relation between them is offered by mathematical modelling.
For instance from power metres alone, it is not possible to determine whether or not a high power measurement that results in a low ground speed is the consequence of a strong headwind, a steep climb, their combination, or a completely different factor, such as an unpaved road.
Any determination can only be postulated, under various assumptions, as a model, without a claim to uniqueness of solution.
Many studies examine the physics of cycling.
For instance, there are wind-tunnel studies to measure the aerodynamics of bicycle wheels~\citep[e.g.,][]{GreenwellEtAl1995}, and the studies to estimate the accuracy of power measurements based on the frequency of the pedal-speed measurements~\citep[e.g.,][]{Favero2018}.
There are studies to examine power required to overcome the effect of winds, taking into account tire pressure, wheel radius, altitude and relative humidity~\citep[e.g.,][]{OldsEtAl1995}, as well as the aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and friction in the drivetrain~\citep[e.g.,][]{MartinEtAl1998}.
There are studies to estimate model parameters from measurements on the road~\citep[e.g.,][]{Chung2012} and to devise optimal speeds for time trials on closed circuits in the presence of wind~\citep[e.g.,][]{Anton2013}.
There are studies to investigate the aerodynamics of track cycling to predict the individual-pursuits times~\citep[e.g.,][]{UnderwoodJermy2014} and to simulate cyclist slip and steer angles necessary to navigate turns on a banked track~\citep[e.g.,][]{FittonSymons2018}.
There are graduate theses in mechanical engineering~\citep[e.g.,][]{Moore2008,Underwood2012}.
It is evident that the science of cycling is a rich field that combines theoretical, computational and experimental aspects of such disciplines as mathematical physics, fluid mechanics, as well as the optimization and approximation theories.
We begin this article by formulating a mathematical model that accounts for the power generated by a cyclist to propel the motion of a bicycle-cyclist system, in terms of the forces that oppose its motion.
Next, we present power-meter and GPS measurements for a flat and inclined course in Northwestern Italy: the former is between Rivalta Bormida and Pontechino, in Piedmont; the latter is between Rossiglione and Tiglieto, in Liguria.
We use the model and data to estimate parameter values of air, rolling and drivetrain resistance by seeking an acceptable agreement between obtained measurements and model retrodictions, as well as examining their uncertainties.
Then, by invoking the implicit function theorem, we derive explicit expressions for the rates of change between the model parameters and use their values to make model and physical inferences.
We proceed by considering various aspects of the model, such as the one-to-one relationship between power and speed, derivations of terms used in the model and the effects of wheel rotation.
We conclude by a discussion of results.
This article contains two appendices.
In the first appendix, we discuss the discrepancies of power-meter calculations based on instantaneous cadence as opposed to its revolution average.
In the second, we perform optimizations of ground speed based on physical constraints using the method of Lagrange multipliers, which are familiar to mathematical physicists, but might be less so to a broad range of sport scientists.
The same is true of Sections~\ref{sec:AirDens} and \ref{sec:AirResCoeff}.
We include them as auxiliary material to enhance and facilitate the understanding of the presented material.
\section{Formulation}
\subsection{Mathematical model}
We consider a mathematical model of the power required to overcome the forces, $F_{\!\leftarrow}$, that oppose the translational motion, for ground speed $V_{\!\rightarrow}$, of a bicycle-cyclist system.
Herein,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:model}
P
&=
F_{\!\leftarrow}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}
\\
\nonumber
&=
\quad\frac{
\overbrace{\vphantom{\left(V\right)^2}\,m\,g\sin\theta\,}^\text{change in elevation}
+
\!\!\!\overbrace{\vphantom{\left(V\right)^2}\quad m\,a\quad}^\text{change in speed}
+
\overbrace{\vphantom{\left(V\right)^2}
{\rm C_{rr}}\!\!\!\underbrace{\,m\,g\cos\theta}_\text{normal force}
}^\text{rolling resistance}
+
\overbrace{\vphantom{\left(V\right)^2}
\,\tfrac{1}{2}\,{\rm C_{d}A}\,\rho\,
(
\!\!\underbrace{
V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}
}_\text{air-flow speed}\!\!
)^{2}\,
}^\text{air resistance}
}{
\underbrace{\quad1-\lambda\quad}_\text{drivetrain efficiency}
}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}\,,
\end{align}
where $F_{\!\leftarrow}$ consists of the following quantities\footnote{%
For consistency with power meters, whose measurements are expressed in watts, which are $\rm{kg\,m^2/s^3}$\,, we use the {\it SI} units for all quantities.
Mass is given in kilograms,~$\rm{kg}$\,, length in meters,~$\rm{m}$\,, and time in seconds,~$\rm{s}$\,; hence, speed is in $\rm{m/s}$\,, change in speed in $\rm{m/s^2}$\,, and force in newtons,~$\rm{kg\,m/s^2}$\,; angles are in radians.
Also, for the convenience of the reader, we round all presented values to four significant figures.}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$m$\,: combined mass of the bicycle and cyclist, whose units are kg;
\item
$g$\,: acceleration due to gravity, whose effects are illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigNewton} and units are ${\rm m/s}^2$;
\item
$\theta$\,: slope of an incline, whose units are rad;
\item
$a$\,: temporal rate of change of ground speed, $V_{\!\rightarrow}$, whose acceleration units are ${\rm m/s}^2$;
\item
$\rho$\,: air density, formulated in Section~\ref{sec:AirDens}, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DenAlt}
\rho = 1.225\exp(-0.0001186\,h)\,,
\end{equation}
whose units are ${\rm kg}/{\rm m}^3$, and where $h$ is the altitude, in metres, above the sea level;
\item
$w_{\leftarrow}$\,: wind component opposing the motion, whose units are m/s;
\item
$\rm C_{rr}$\,: unitless rolling-resistance coefficient; in a manner analogous to the friction on the plane inclined by~$\theta$, $\rm C_{rr}$ is a proportionality constant between the maximum force,~$mg$\,, and the force normal to the surface,~$mg\cos\theta$;
\item
$\rm C_{d}A$\,: air-resistance coefficient, whose formulated is discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec:AirResCoeff}, which is the product of a unitless drag coefficient,~$\rm C_{d}$\,, and a frontal surface area,~$\rm A$, whose units are $\rm m^2$;
\item
$\lambda$\,: unitless drivetrain-resistance coefficient to account for the loss of power between the power meters and the propelling rear wheel; if power meters are in the pedals, $\lambda$ includes the resistance of bottom bracket, chain, rear sprocket and rear-wheel hub; it also includes losses due to the flexing of the frame; if power meters are in the rear-wheel hub,~${\lambda\approx 0}$.
\end{itemize}
In keeping with the translational motion of the bicycle-cyclist system, we omit the effects due to the rotation of wheels in model~\eqref{eq:model}.
Implicitly, these effects are included in coefficients $\rm C_dA$, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$.
However, we discuss how to accommodate explicitly their effects on air resistance in Section~\ref{sec:AirResRot} and on change in speed in Section~\ref{sec:RotEff}.
Furthermore, to include air density as an input parameter, we do not explicitly invoke humidity or atmospheric pressure.
The four summands in the numerator of model~\eqref{eq:model} are forces to account for
\begin{itemize}
\item
change in elevation: increases the required power if $\theta>0$\,, decreases if $\theta<0$ and has no effect if $\theta=0$\,; it is associated with the change in potential energy,
\item
change in speed: increases the required power if $a>0$\,, decreases if $a<0$ and has no effect if $a=0$\,; it is associated with the change in kinetic energy, which is not lost unless the rider brakes,
\item
rolling resistance: increases the required power,
\item
air resistance: increases the required power if the speed of the air flow relative to the cyclist is positive, $(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow})>0$\,, decreases if $(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow})<0$ and has no effect if $(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow})=0$.
\end{itemize}
Similar models\,---\,exhibiting a satisfactory empirical adequacy\,---\,are used in other studies~\citep[e.g.,][]{MartinEtAl1998}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FigNewton.pdf}
\caption{\small Isaac Newton subject to the effects of gravity in model~\eqref{eq:model}.}
\label{fig:FigNewton}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Physical measurements}
\label{sec:PhysMeas}
Power is the rate at which work is done; hence, it is equal to the amount of work divided by the time it takes to do it, which is tantamount to the product of force and speed,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:formula}
p
=
f_{\circlearrowright} v_{\circlearrowright}
\,.
\end{equation}
In the context of cycling, $f_{\circlearrowright}$ is the force applied to pedals and $v_{\circlearrowright}$ is the speed with which the rotating pedals cover the distance along the circumference of their rotation, which means that $v_{\circlearrowright}$ is proportional to the length of the crank.
As stated in the very first sentence of Section~\ref{sec:Introduction}, our study combines two distinct realms: mechanical measurements and physical conditions.
We assume that\,---\,at any instant\,---\,the measured value of~$p$\,, in expression~\eqref{eq:formula}, is tantamount to the value of $P$ used in model~\eqref{eq:model}.
This is not the case if, for instance, pedalling is not continuous.
Nor it needs to be the case for a fixed-gear bicycle, as discussed in Section~\ref{sub:Qualifier}\,; $v_{\circlearrowright}$ might not be only an immediate consequence of $f$\,, but also of the momentum of bicycle-cyclist system.
For all measurements, we use Assioma DUO (art. 772-02) power meters, which measure power on both pedals.
The power meters use the Assioma IAV Power system~\citep{Favero2018}, which relies on a three-axis gyroscope along with proprietary algorithms to measure the angular velocity variation during each pedal stroke and, thus, results in a $\pm1\%$ accuracy rating~\citep[Technical features]{Favero2017}.
Herein, with the method used by \citeauthor{Favero2018}, $v_{\circlearrowright}$ is recorded as an instantaneous speed, not an average per revolution.
The importance of this distinction is detailed in Appendix~\ref{app:AvgPedSpeed}.
At the same time that the power-meter information is collected, the altitude and ground speed of the bicycle-cyclist system is collected using the Polar M460 GPS bike computer, which is mounted on top of the handlebars.
The GPS samples data once per second, with altitude and ascent/descent resolution rated at one and five metres, respectively~\citep[Technical Specification]{PolarM460}.
The information is collected for a flat and inclined course, for which the respective details are discussed in Sections~\ref{sec:FlatCourseVals} and~\ref{sec:InclinedCourse}.
To relate the measured power to the surrounding conditions, we mediate between the two sources of information by model~\eqref{eq:model}.
The power meter provides information regardless of the external conditions.
GPS provides partial information about the surroundings independently of the power output.
The model\,---\,based on physical principles\,---\,serves as a hypothetical relation between them.
It must remain hypothetical since there is no explicit relation between the two sources of information.
\section{Extraction of resistance coefficients}
\label{sec:NumEx}
In general, obtaining a unique result for the values of the resistance coefficients by minimizing the misfit between the right-hand side of expression~(\ref{eq:formula}), which represents measurements, and the right-hand side of model~\eqref{eq:model}, which represents a model, is impossible.
Namely, the misfit function might have several minima, with the global one not necessarily localized in the region for which the values have any physical interpretations.
For instance, $\rm C_dA$ is an area and, as such, it cannot have a negative value~\citep[e.g.,][]{Chung2012}.
Consequently\,---\,even though it is possible that a combination of model parameters that includes $\rm C_dA\leqslant0$ might lead to the best numerical result\,---\,we only consider positive values of $\rm C_dA$, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ to maintain a physical meaning to the results.
Moreover, the optimization relies on measurements, which are subject to experimental errors, including limitations of the GPS accuracy.
Also, different combinations of values may give the same result or the obtained values may differ between flat or hilly conditions.
To that end, we consider measurements collected on a mainly flat and nearly constant incline course in Northwestern Italy, whose relief maps and elevation plots are provided in Figure~\ref{fig:CronoMaps}.
Herein, both relief maps are sourced from~\citet{OpenStreetMap} and the altitude data, used for the elevation plots, from~\citeauthor{StravaRivaltaPontechino}.
The flat course~\citep{StravaRivaltaPontechino} consists of a 5.5-kilometre stretch on SP201, in an open valley from Rivalta Bormida to Pontechino, in Piedmont.
As indicated by the elevation plot in Figure~\ref{fig:CronoRivaltaPontechino}, the course has a little change in altitude, which is verified by comparing the small discrepancy between the average, \mbox{$\overline h = 145.4\,{\rm m}\pm5.355$\,m}\,, and median, 146.154\,m, altitudes of the course.
The inclined course~\citep{StravaRossiglioneTiglieto} consists of a 8-kilometre climb of a nearly constant inclination on SP41, between Rossiglione and Tiglieto, in Liguria.
For the elevation plot in Figure~\ref{fig:CronoRossiglioneTiglieto}, the grade of the slope of the line of best fit of altitudes is 4.3\%.
Both courses are well-maintained roads that provide open coverage for good signals and data collection.
A carbon fiber Cinelli XLE8R 5 road bike, with time-trial aero bars, is used for data collection on both courses.
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:PhysMeas}, the power-meter measurements are acquired using Assioma Duo power meters and the GPS measurements are acquired using the Polar M460 GPS bike computer.
To increase the reliability of the parameter estimation, the cyclist remained in the saddle throughout both courses, did not use breaks, and pedalled continuously.
For the flat course, the cyclist maintained an aerodynamic position using the time-trial bars, whereas, for the inclined course, an upright position with hands on top of the handlebars.
Finally, for both courses, we set $m=111$\,kg, as the mass of the bicycle-cyclist system was the same, $w_\leftarrow=0$\,m/s, as the data collection was performed in windless conditions, and $g=9.81$\,m/s${}^2$, as both courses are in midlatitude and not at a significant altitude.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\hspace*{\fill
\includegraphics[width=0.925\textwidth]{FigMap1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{FigAltCronoRivaltaPontechino.pdf}
\caption{\small Flat course}
\label{fig:CronoRivaltaPontechino}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\hspace*{\fill}
\includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth]{FigMap2.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FigAltCronoRossiglioneTiglieto.pdf}
\caption{\small Inclined course}
\label{fig:CronoRossiglioneTiglieto}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Relief maps and elevation plots for the flat course between Rivalta Bormida and Pontechino and the inclined course between Rossiglione and Tiglieto.
The map scales are different, and so are the scales of plot axes.}
\label{fig:CronoMaps}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Flat-course values}
\label{sec:FlatCourseVals}
The flat-course measurements pertain to a steady ride in an aerodynamic position using time-trialing bars, beginning with a flying start.
The measurements of the force applied to and the circumferential speed of the pedals obtained during the ride are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPedalVF}.
These measurements contain only the values between the first and third quartile of recorded speeds.
This restriction eliminates the data associated with the lowest and highest speeds.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigPedalVF.pdf}
\caption{\small
Flat-course measurements.
Left-hand plot: force applied to pedals, $\bar f_{\circlearrowright}=193.1\,{\rm W}\pm 39.75\,{\rm W}$\,; right-hand plot: circumferential speed of pedals, $\bar v_{\circlearrowright}=1.354\,{\rm m/s}\pm 0.07448\,{\rm m/s}$
}
\label{fig:FigPedalVF}
\end{figure}
The power, which, according to expression~\eqref{eq:formula}, is the product of $v_{\circlearrowright}$ and $f_{\circlearrowright}$, is illustrated in the left-hand plot in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerVel}.
Using the ground-speed values obtained by the GPS, we group the speeds in thirty-three $0.1$-second intervals, whose centres range from $8.9$\,m/s to $12.7$\,m/s, and contain five-hundred and thirty-one speed values.
To avoid spurious results, the speed groups are restricted further to those that contain at least five values.
We present the remaining ground-speed values in the right-hand plot of Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerVel}; the mode of the values, represented by twenty-five values, is~$9.8$\,m/s.
This approach stabilizes the search, by smoothing the measurements through averaging them over these intervals, and results in statistical information that gives an insight into the uncertainty of obtained results.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigPowerFlat.pdf}\quad
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigSpeedFlat.pdf}
\caption{\small
Flat-course measurements.
Left-hand plot: power, from power meters, $\overline{P}=258.8\,{\rm W}\pm57.3\,{\rm W}$\,; right-hand plot: ground speed, from GPS, $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=10.51\,{\rm m/s}\pm0.9816\,{\rm m/s}$\,.
}
\label{fig:FigPowerVel}
\end{figure}
The measured power\,---\,within such a grouping\,---\,is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerErr}; therein, standard deviations are illustrated by error bars.
To provide the values required for model~\eqref{eq:model}, we require $a$\,, $\theta$ and $\rho$\,, for each group.
They are obtained from the GPS measurements: $a$ and $\theta$ as the temporal and spatial derivatives of the measured speed and altitude, respectively, and $\rho$ by using expression~(\ref{eq:DenAlt}); these values are illustrated in Figures~\ref{fig:FigAccVel}--\ref{fig:FigDenAir}, with standard deviations illustrated by error bars.
Their average values, taken over the entire segment, are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ave_a_theta_rho_flat}
\overline{a}=0.006922\,{\rm m/s}^2\pm0.1655\,{\rm m/s}^2,\quad
\overline{\theta} = 0.002575\,{\rm rad}\pm0.04027\,{\rm rad},\quad
\overline\rho=1.204\,{\rm kg/m}^3\pm 0.0007652\,{\rm kg/m}^3;
\end{equation}
respectively.
They indicate a steady ride, a flat course and constant atmospheric conditions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FigPowerVel.pdf}
\caption{\small Power}
\label{fig:FigPowerErr}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace*{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FigAccVel.pdf}
\caption{\small Change of speed}
\label{fig:FigAccVel}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FigIncVel.pdf}
\caption{\small Slope}
\label{fig:FigIncVel}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace*{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FigDenAir.pdf}
\caption{\small Air density}
\label{fig:FigDenAir}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Flat-course measurements of power, change of speed, slope and air density grouped into thirty-three 0.1-second intervals
}
\end{figure}
To estimate the values of ${\rm C_{d}A}$\,, ${\rm C_{rr}}$ and $\lambda$\,, we write model~\eqref{eq:model} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:misfit}
f
=
P
-
\underbrace{
\frac{
mg\sin\theta
+
m\,a
+
{\rm C_{rr}}mg\cos\theta
+
\tfrac{1}{2}\,{\rm C_{d}A}\,\rho
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)^{2}
}{
1-\lambda
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
}_{F_{\!\leftarrow}V_{\!\rightarrow}}
\,,
\end{equation}
and minimize the misfit,~$\min f$\,, using the Nelder-Mead algorithm, implemented in R.
The grouped values, with their standard deviations, are used as inputs for a local optimization.
Each group is treated separately and, hence, the statistics of its input parameters are different than for the entire set.
In view of the expected values, a starting point for the local optimization is ${\rm C_{d}A}=0.3\,{\rm m}^2$, ${\rm C_{rr}}=0.005$ and $\lambda=0.035$.
The process is repeated ten thousand times.
The input values are perturbed in accordance with their Gaussian distributions, since\,---\,according to the central limit theorem\,---\,measurements affected by many independent processes tend to approximate such a distribution.
We obtain optimal values with their standard deviations,
\begin{equation*}
{\rm C_{d}A} = 0.2607\,{\rm m}^2\pm0.002982\,{\rm m}^2
\,,\,\,
{\rm C_{rr}} = 0.002310\pm0.005447
\,,\,\,
\lambda = 0.03574\pm0.0004375
\,,
\end{equation*}
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:FigParFlat}.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Figfflat}, these values result in a satisfactory minimization of misfit for expression~(\ref{eq:misfit}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigParFlat.pdf}
\caption{\small
Flat-course optimal values;
left-hand plot:~${\rm C_{d}A}=0.2607\,{\rm m}^2\pm0.002982\,{\rm m}^2$\,;
middle plot: \mbox{${\rm C_{rr}}=0.002310\pm0.005447$}\,;
right-hand plot:~$\lambda=0.03574\pm0.0004375$}
\label{fig:FigParFlat}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figfflat.pdf}
\caption{\small
Flat-course misfit of equation~(\ref{eq:misfit}): $f=0.4137\,{\rm W}\pm6.321\,{\rm W}$
}
\label{fig:Figfflat}
\end{figure}
Using these values, together with the average values, over the entire segment, assuming \mbox{$\overline{a}=\overline{\theta}=0$}\,, we obtain, in accordance with model~\eqref{eq:model}, \mbox{$P = 255.3$\,W}\,, which is consistent with \mbox{$\overline{P}=258.8$\,W}\,, stated in the caption of Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerVel}.
\subsection{Inclined-course values}
\label{sec:InclinedCourse}
The average slope of the inclined-course, recorded by the GPS, is $\overline\theta=0.04592\,{\rm rad}\pm0.1106\,{\rm rad}$, which corresponds to $2.63^\circ$ or 4.60\% and is consistent with the 4.3\% grade of the slope of the line of best fit of altitudes.
The measurements pertain to a steady ride, while remaining in the saddle throughout and hands on top of the handlebars, which is supported by an average acceleration of \mbox{$\overline a=0.001101\,{\rm m/s}^2\pm0.1015\,{\rm m/s}^2$}.
In view of the constancy of slope and steadiness of ride, we set, $\overline\theta=0.04592\,{\rm rad}$ and $\overline a = 0\,{\rm m/s^2}$\,, respectively.
Since the change of altitude is negligible\,---\,in the context of air density\,---\,we set $\overline\rho=1.168\,{\rm kg/m}^3\pm0.001861\,{\rm kg/m}^3$\,, which\,---\,under standard meteorological conditions\,---\,corresponds to the altitude of~$400$\,m\,.
For the estimation of $\rm C_dA$, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ on the inclined course, we apply the same restriction strategies used in for the flat course.
We restrict the force and circumferential speed measurements to contain only the values between the first and third quartile of recorded speed, and present their product, which is the power, in the left-hand plot of Figure~\ref{fig:FigSpeedPowerSteep}.
Also, we apply the same ground-speed grouping strategy, which results in eleven~$0.1$-second speed intervals, whose centres range from $3.7$\,m/s to $4.7$\,m/s, and contain three-hundred and ninety-two values.
We present these speeds in the right-hand plot of Figure~\ref{fig:FigSpeedPowerSteep}, wherein the mode is $4.2$\,m/s, represented by seventy-eight data points; their respective means are $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=4.138\,{\rm m/s}\pm0.2063\,{\rm m/s}$ and $\overline P=286.6\,{\rm W}\pm33.11\,{\rm W}$.
Proceeding with the same optimization as the flat course, using the same starting values as input, with random perturbations within their standard deviations, the process is repeated ten thousand times to obtain the distribution of \mbox{$\rm C_dA$, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$}, which we illustrate in Figure~\ref{fig:FigParSteep}; their values are
\begin{equation}
{\rm C_dA} = 0.2702\,{\rm m}^2\pm0.002773\,{\rm m}^2,\quad
{\rm C_{rr}}=0.01298\pm0.011,\quad
\lambda=0.02979\pm0.004396.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigPowerSteep.pdf}\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigSpeedSteep.pdf}
\caption{\small
Inclined-course measurements.
Left-hand plot: power, from power meters, $\overline{P}=286.6\,{\rm W}\pm33.07\,{\rm W}$\,;
right-hand plot: ground speed, from GPS measurements, $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=4.138\,{\rm m/s}\pm0.2063\,{\rm m/s}$\,.
}
\label{fig:FigSpeedPowerSteep}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigParSteep.pdf}
\caption{\small
Inclined-course optimal values.
left-hand plot:~${\rm C_{d}A}=0.2702\,{\rm m}^2\pm0.002773\,{\rm m}^2$\,;
middle plot:~\mbox{${\rm C_{rr}}=0.01298\pm0.01100$}\,;
right-hand plot:~$\lambda=0.02979\pm0.004396$}
\label{fig:FigParSteep}
\end{figure}
\section{Rates of change of model parameters}
\label{sec:RatesOfChange}
\subsection{Implicit function theorem}
\label{sec:ImplFuncThm}
We seek relations between the ratios of quantities on the right-hand side of model~\eqref{eq:model}.
To do so\,---\,since $f$\,, stated in expression~\eqref{eq:misfit}, possesses continuous partial derivatives in all its variables at all points, except at ${\lambda=1}$\,, which is excluded by mechanical considerations, and since ${f=0}$\,, as a consequence of equation~(\ref{eq:formula})\,---\,we invoke the implicit function theorem to write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Thm}
\dfrac{\partial y}{\partial x}
=
-\dfrac{
\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial x}
}{
\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial y}
}
=:
-\dfrac{\partial_{x}f}{\partial_{y}f}
\,,
\end{equation}
where $x$ and $y$ are any two quantities among the arguments of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:f}
f(P,m,g,\theta,a,{\rm C_{rr}},{\rm C_{d}A},\rho,V_{\!\rightarrow},w_{\leftarrow},\lambda)
\,.
\end{equation}
To use formula~(\ref{eq:Thm}), in the context of expression~\eqref{eq:misfit}, we obtain all partial derivatives of $f$\,, with respect to its arguments:
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{P}f = 1
,\quad
\partial_{m}f
=
-\dfrac{
a
+
g\left({\rm C_{rr}}\cos\theta+\sin\theta\right)
}{
1-\lambda
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,\quad
\partial_{\theta}f
=
-\dfrac{
m\,g\left(\cos\theta-{\rm C_{rr}}\sin\theta\right)
}{
1-\lambda
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,\quad
\partial_{a}f = -\dfrac{m\,V_{\!\rightarrow}}{1-\lambda}
\,,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\rm C_{rr}}f
=
-\dfrac{m\,g\cos\theta}{1-\lambda}V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,\quad
\partial_{\rm C_{d}A}f
=
-\dfrac{
\rho
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)^{2}
}{
2\,(1-\lambda)
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,\quad
\partial_{\rho}f
=
-\dfrac{
{\rm C_{d}A}
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)^{2}
}{
2\,(1-\lambda)
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{V_{\!\rightarrow}}f
=
-\dfrac{
2\,m\left(a+g\left({\rm C_{rr}}\cos\theta+\sin\theta\right)\right)
+
\rho\,{\rm C_{d}A}
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)
\left(3\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)
}{
2\,(1-\lambda)
}
\,,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{w_{\leftarrow}}f
=
-\dfrac{
\rho\,{\rm C_{d}A}
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)
}{
1-\lambda
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,,\quad
\partial_{\lambda}f
=
-\dfrac{
m\left(a+g\left({\rm C_{rr}}\cos\theta+\sin\theta\right)\right)
+
\tfrac{1}{2}\rho\,{\rm C_{d}A}
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}\right)^{2}
}{
(1-\lambda)^2
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,.
\end{equation*}
In accordance with the definition of a partial derivative, all variables in expression~(\ref{eq:f}) are constant, except the one with respect to which the differentiation is performed.
This property is apparent in Appendix~\ref{app:LagrangeMultipliers}, where we examine a relation between differences and derivatives.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Partial derivative & Units & Flat course & Inclined course \\
\bottomrule\\[-1em]
$\partial_{P}f$ & --- & 1 & 1
\\
$\partial_{m}f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm kg}^{-1}$ &
$-0.2470\,\pm\,0.5829$ & $-2.463\,\pm\,4.644$
\\
$\partial_{\theta}f$ & W &
$-11870\,\pm\,1109$ & $-4637\,\pm\,234.1$
\\
$\partial_a f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-1}\,{\rm s}^2$ &
$-1210\,\pm\,113.0$ & $-473.4\,\pm\,23.70$
\\
$\partial_{\rm C_{rr}}f$ & W &
$-11870\,\pm\,1109$ & $-4639\,\pm\,233.4$
\\
$\partial_{\rm C_{d}A}f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-2}$ &
$-724.8\,\pm\,203.2$ & $-42.66\,\pm\,6.384$
\\
$\partial_{\rho}f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm kg}^{-1}\,{\rm m}^3$ &
$-157.0\,\pm\,44.01$ & $-9.866\,\pm\,1.480$
\\
$\partial_hf$ & W &
$0.02240\,\pm\,0.006282$ & $0.001367\,\pm\,0.0002050$
\\
$\partial_{V_{\!\rightarrow}}f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-1}\,{\rm s}$ &
$-56.55\,\pm\,11.82$ & $-74.43\,\pm\,124.5$
\\
$\partial_{w_{\leftarrow}} f$ & ${\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-1}\,{\rm s}$ &
$-35.96\,\pm\,6.729$ & $-5.571\,\pm\,0.5591$
\\
$\partial_{\lambda}f$ & W &
$-224.4\,\pm\,88.39$ & $-293.7\,\pm\,531.4$
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Values of partial derivatives for flat and inclined courses, rounded to four significant figures}
\label{table:Partials}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\subsection{Interpretation}
\label{sec:Interpretation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figfflat.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figfsteep.pdf}
\caption{\small Misfit of equation~\eqref{eq:misfit}: left-hand plot: flat course, $f=0.4137\,{\rm W}\pm6.321\,{\rm W}$\,; right-hand plot: inclined course, $f=2.03\,{\rm W}\pm4.911\,{\rm W}$}
\label{fig:Figf}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Preliminary comments}
To use the partial derivatives tabulated in Table~\ref{table:Partials}, we consider the measurements collected as well as optimized values from the two rides discussed in Sections~\ref{sec:FlatCourseVals} and~\ref{sec:InclinedCourse}.
As required by the implicit function theorem and as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Figf}, $f=0$\,, in the neighbourhood of the maxima of the distributions, for both the flat and inclined courses.
Also, as required by the theorem, in formula~(\ref{eq:Thm}), and as shown in Table~\ref{table:Partials}, $\partial_{y}f\neq0$\,, in the neighbourhoods of interest, for either course.
Notably, the similarity of a horizontal spread for both plots of Figure~\ref{fig:Figf} indicates that the goodness of fit of a model is similar for both courses.
The spread is slightly narrower for the inclined course; this might be a result of a lower average speed,~$\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,, which allows for more data points for a given distance and, hence, a higher accuracy of information.
\subsubsection{Model inferences}
\label{sec:ModelInferences}
The misfit minimization of equation~\eqref{eq:misfit}, $\min f$\,, treats $\rm C_{d}A$\,, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ as adjustable parameters.
The values in Table~\ref{table:ModelRates} are the changes of $\rm C_{d}A$ due to a change in $\rm C_{rr}$ or $\lambda$\,; in either case, the other quantities are kept constant.
Let us examine the first row.
For the flat course\,---\,in the neighbourhood of $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=10.51\,{\rm m/s}$ and $\overline P=258.8\,{\rm W}$\,, wherein ${\rm C_{d}A}=0.2607\,{\rm m}^2$ and ${\rm C_{rr}}=0.002310$\,---\,$\partial_{\rm C_{rr}}{\rm C_{d}A}=-16.37\,{\rm m}^2$ and, in accordance with expression~(\ref{eq:Thm}), its reciprocal is \mbox{$\partial_{\rm C_{d}A}{\rm C_{rr}}=-0.06107\,{\rm m}^{-2}$}.
We write the corresponding differentials as
\begin{equation*}
{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
=
\dfrac{\partial{\rm C_{d}A}}{\partial{\rm C_{rr}}}\,
{\rm d(C_{rr})}
=
{-16.37}\,{\rm d(C_{rr})}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\rm d(C_{rr})}
=
\dfrac{\partial{\rm C_{rr}}}{\partial{\rm C_{d}A}}\,
{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
=
{-0.06107}\,{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
\,;
\end{equation*}
in other words, an increase of $\rm C_{rr}$ by a unit corresponds to a decrease of $\rm C_{d}A$ by $16.37$ units, and an increase of $\rm C_{d}A$ by a unit corresponds to a decrease of $\rm C_{rr}$ by ${0.06107}$ of a unit.
For the inclined course\,---\,in the neighbourhood of $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=4.138\,{\rm m/s}$ and $\overline P=286.6\,{\rm W}$\,, wherein ${\rm C_{d}A}=0.2702\,{\rm m}^2$ and ${\rm C_{rr}}=0.01298$\,---\,the differentials are
\begin{equation*}
{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
=
\dfrac{\partial{\rm C_{d}A}}{\partial{\rm C_{rr}}}\,
{\rm d(C_{rr})}
=
{-0.009195}\,{\rm d(C_{rr})}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\rm d(C_{rr})}
=
\dfrac{\partial{\rm C_{rr}}}{\partial{\rm C_{d}A}}\,
{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
=
{-108.8}\,{\rm d(C_{d}A)}
\,;
\end{equation*}
Remaining within a linear approximation, an increase of $\rm C_{d}A$ by $1\%$ corresponds to a decrease of $\rm C_{rr}$ by $6.89\%$\,, for the flat course, and a decrease of only $0.19\%$\,, for the inclined course.
This result quantifies that the dependence between $\rm C_{d}A$ and $\rm C_{rr}$\,, within adjustments of the model, is more pronounced for the flat course than for the inclined course, as expected in view of model~\eqref{eq:model}, whose value\,---\,for the inclined course\,---\,is dominated by the first summand in the numerator, which includes neither $\rm C_{d}A$ nor $\rm C_{rr}$\,.
This result provides a quantitative justification for the observation that the dependance of the accuracy of the estimate of power on the accuracies of $\rm C_{d}A$ and $\rm C_{rr}$ varies depending on the context; it is more pronounced on flat and fast courses.
Similar evaluations can be performed using the values of derivatives contained in the second row of Table~\ref{table:ModelRates}.
Therein, an increase in $\lambda$ results in a decrease of $\rm C_{d}A$\,, with different rates, for the flat and inclined courses.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Partial derivative & Units & Flat course & Inclined course \\
\bottomrule\\[-1em]
$\partial_{\rm C_{rr}}{\rm C_{d}A}$ & ${\rm m}^2$ &
$-16.37\,\pm\,3.059$ & $-108.8\,\pm\,10.86$
\\
$\partial_\lambda{\rm C_{d}A}$ & ${\rm m}^2$ &
$-0.3096\,\pm\,0.09284$ & $-6.884\,\pm\,12.47$
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Model rates of change following formula~(\ref{eq:Thm}) and values, rounded to four significant figures, in Table~\ref{table:Partials}.
}
\label{table:ModelRates}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\subsubsection{Physical inferences}
\label{sec:PhysicalInferences}
Physical inferences\,---\,based on minimization of expression~\eqref{eq:misfit}\,---\,are accurate in a neighbourhood of $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}$ and $\overline P$\,, wherein the set of values for ${\rm C_{d}A}$\,, ${\rm C_{rr}}$ and $\lambda$ is estimated, since, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ModelInferences}, these values\,---\,in spite of their distinct physical interpretations\,---\,are related among each other by the process of optimization of the model.
In view of model~\eqref{eq:model}, power as a function of ground speed is cubic.
As stated in Proposition~\ref{prop:one-to-one}, below, and shown in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerSpeed}, for a steady ride along a flat or an uphill, the relationship between power and speed is one-to-one and results in a concave-up curve for~$V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$\,.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigPowerSpeed.pdf}
\caption{\small
Power as a function of speed}
\label{fig:FigPowerSpeed}
\end{figure}
The values in Table~\ref{table:PhysicalRates} are the changes of ground speed due to a change in power, mass, slope and wind; in each case, the other quantities are kept constant.
These values allow us to answer such questions as what is the required increase of power to increase speed by 1 metre per second?
To answer this question, let us examine the first row.
Corresponding to their respective neighbourhoods and reciprocals from Table~\ref{table:PhysicalRates}, we have \mbox{$\partial_{V_{\!\rightarrow}}P=56.55\,{\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-1}\,{\rm s}$} for the flat course and \mbox{$\partial_{V_{\!\rightarrow}}P=74.43\,{\rm W}\,{\rm m}^{-1}\,{\rm s}$} for the inclined course.
Thus, an increase of $V_{\!\rightarrow}$ by 1~metre per second requires an increase of $P$ of about 57~watts for the former and 74~watts for the latter.%
\footnote{$\partial P/\partial V$ can be also found by differentiating model~\eqref{eq:model} with respect to $V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,.
However, the implicit function theorem allows us to obtain relations between quantities, without explicitly expressing one in terms of the other.
Also, in accordance with the inverse function theorem, $\partial V/\partial P=1/(\partial P/\partial V)$\,, which is justified by the fact that, for model~\eqref{eq:model}, $\partial P/\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}\neq 0$\,, in the neighbourhood of interest, as required by the theorem.
However, expression~(\ref{eq:Thm}), which states the implicit function theorem, provides a convenience of examining the relations between the rates of change of any two quantities without invoking the inverse function theorem and requiring an explicit expression for either of them.}
However, this speed increase corresponds to just 9.5\% on the flat course, but 24\% on the inclined course.
Thus, remaining within a linear approximation, an 1\%-increase of speed requires about a 2.3\%-increase in power on the former course, but only 1.1\% on the latter.
This result provides a quantitative justification for a time-trial adage of pushing on the uphills and recovering on the flats, to diminish the overall time.
Since, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerSpeed}, the slope of the tangent line changes along the curve, the value of expression~(\ref{eq:Thm}) corresponds to a given neighbourhood of $(\overline V_{\!\rightarrow},\overline P)$ pairs.
Our interpretation is tantamount to comparing the slopes of two such curves\,---\,one corresponding to the model of the flat course and the other of the inclined course\,---\,at two distinct locations, $(\overline V_{\!\rightarrow},\overline P)=(10.51,258.8)$ and $(\overline V_{\!\rightarrow},\overline P)=(4.138,286.6)$\,.
Even though the slope of the tangent line changes, it is positive for all values.
This means that the function is monotonically increasing, even though it is a third degree polynomial.
In other words, the relation of power and speed is a bijection, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerSpeed} and as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:one-to-one}.
Now, let us consider another question: remaining within a linear approximation, what percentage decrease in mass is required to result in a 1\%-increase in speed for both the flat and inclined courses?
To do so, we examine the second row of Table~\ref{table:PhysicalRates}, where, for the flat course, $\partial_{m}V_{\!\rightarrow}=-0.004368\,{\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kg}^{-1}$ and, for the inclined course, $\partial_{m}V_{\!\rightarrow}=-0.03309\,{\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kg}^{-1}$.
Using the corresponding differentials, the 1\%-increase in speed requires a decrease of mass of about 22\% on the flat, but only 1\% on the incline.
This is supportive evidence of an empirical insight into the importance of lightness for climbing; in contrast to flat courses, in the hills, even a small loss of weight results in a noticeable advantage.
Also, this result can be used to quantify the importance of the power-to-weight ratio, which plays an important role in climbing, but a lesser one on a flat.
Similar evaluations can be performed using the values of derivatives contained in the third and fourth rows of Table~\ref{table:PhysicalRates}.
In both cases, the sign is negative; hence, as expected, the increase of steepness or headwind results in a decrease of speed.
These rates of decrease, which are different for the flat and inclined courses, can be quantified in a manner analogous to the one presented in this section.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Partial derivative & Units & Flat course & Inclined course \\
\bottomrule\\[-1em]
$\partial_{P}V_{\!\rightarrow}$ & ${\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm W}^{-1}$ &
$0.01768\,\pm\,0.003697$ & $0.01344\,\pm\,0.02248$
\\
$\partial_{m}V_{\!\rightarrow}$ & ${\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kg}^{-1}$ &
$-0.004368\,\pm\,0.009832$ & $-0.03309\,\pm\,0.007120$
\\
$\partial_{\theta}V_{\!\rightarrow}$ & ${\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ &
$-209.9\,\pm\,29.04$ & $-62.30\,\pm\,104.7$
\\
$\partial_{w_{\leftarrow}}V_{\!\rightarrow}$ & --- &
$-0.6359\,\pm\,0.06939$ & $-0.07485\,\pm\,0.1254$
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Physical rates of change following formula~(\ref{eq:Thm}) and values, rounded to four significant figures, in Table~\ref{table:Partials}.
}
\label{table:PhysicalRates}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\section{Model considerations}
\subsection{Relation between power and speed}
\label{sec:one-to-one}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:one-to-one}
According to model~\eqref{eq:model}, with $a=0$\,, $V_{\!\rightarrow}>w_{\leftarrow}$ and $0\leqslant\theta\leqslant\pi/2$\,, the relation between the measured power,~$P$\,, and the bicycle speed,~$V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$\,, is one-to-one.
Also, $P$ as a function of $V_{\!\rightarrow}$ is concave-up.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that $\partial P/\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$ and $\partial^2P/\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}^2>0$\,, for $a=0$\,, $V_{\!\rightarrow}>w_{\leftarrow}$\,, $0\leqslant\theta\leqslant\pi/2$ and $V_{\!\rightarrow}\in(0,\infty)$\,, where
\begin{equation*}
P=\frac{(\sin\theta+{\rm C_{rr}}\cos\theta)\,m\,g\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+\tfrac{1}{2}\,{\rm C_{d}A}\,\rho\,\left(V_{\!\rightarrow}^3+2\,w_{\leftarrow}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}^2+w_{\leftarrow}^2\,V_{\!\rightarrow}\right)}{1-\lambda}\,.
\end{equation*}
The first and second derivatives are
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{\partial P}{\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}}
=\frac{(\sin\theta+{\rm C_{rr}}\cos\theta)\,m\,g+\tfrac{1}{2}\,{\rm C_{d}A}\,\rho\,\left(3V_{\!\rightarrow}^2+4\,w_{\leftarrow}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}^2\right)}{1-\lambda}
\quad{\rm and}\quad
\dfrac{\partial^2P}{\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}^2}
=\frac{{\rm C_{d}A}\,\rho\,\left(3\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+2\,w_{\leftarrow}\right)}{1-\lambda}\,.
\end{equation*}
Since, in physically meaningful situations, $\lambda<1$\,, a sufficient condition for a one-to-one relation is for both summands in the numerator of the first derivative,~$\partial P/\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,, to be positive.
Since, $m>0$\,, $g>0$\,, $\rm C_{rr}>0$ and $\sin\theta\geqslant0$\,, $\cos\theta\geqslant0$\,, for $0\leqslant\theta\leqslant\pi/2$\,, the first summand is positive.
Since ${\rm C_{d}A}>0$\,, $\rho>0$\,, the second summand is positive if and only if
\begin{equation*}
3V_{\!\rightarrow}^2+4\,w_{\leftarrow}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow}^2> 0\,.
\end{equation*}
Considering a headwind\,---\,for which $w_{\leftarrow}$ is positive\,---\,we obtain $V_{\!\rightarrow}< -w_{\leftarrow}$ and $V_{\!\rightarrow}> -w_{\leftarrow}/3$\,.
Since both correspond to $V_{\!\rightarrow}<0$\,, there are outside the domain of interest.
Hence, for any headwind, the second summand is positive.
Considering a tailwind\,---\,for which $w_{\leftarrow}$ is negative\,---\,we obtain $V_{\!\rightarrow}< w_{\leftarrow}/3$ and $V_{\!\rightarrow}>w_{\leftarrow}$\,.
To include the entire domain of $V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$\,, we consider only the latter interval: the ground speed must be greater than the tailwind.
For convexity, we need $3\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+2\,w_{\leftarrow}>0$\,.
Considering a headwind, both summands are positive, which entails $\partial^2P/\partial V_{\!\rightarrow}^{\,2}>0$\,.
Considering a tailwind, the accepted condition, $V_{\!\rightarrow}>w_{\leftarrow}$\,, ensures that $3\,V_{\!\rightarrow}+2\,w_{\leftarrow}>0$\,, for $V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$\,.
Thus, under conditions stated in Proposition~\ref{prop:one-to-one}, the relation between power and speed is one-to-one and $P$ as a function of $V_{\!\rightarrow}$ is concave-up.
\end{proof}
This bijection means that\,---\,for steady rides along flats or uphill\,---\,the power generated by a cyclist and the ground speed of the bicycle-cyclist system are related by an invertible function, which is consistent with unique physical solutions obtained in Appendices~\ref{app:ConstraintWork} and \ref{app:ConstraintPower}.
Let us state two corollaries of Proposition~\ref{prop:one-to-one}.
\medskip
\begin{corollary}
Ceteris paribus, an increase of speed requires an increase of power, and an increase of power results in an increase of speed.
\end{corollary}
Also, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerSpeed}, the higher the value of $V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,, the more power is required for the same increase of speed.
\medskip
\begin{corollary}
\label{corr:2}
Ceteris paribus, a constant power results in a constant speed, an increase of power results in an instantaneous increase of speed, a decrease of power results in an instantaneous decrease of speed.
\end{corollary}
This corollary is illustrated by \citet[Figure~17]{BSSS}, for a velodrome.
To conclude this section, let us comment on the requirement for the ground speed to be greater than the tailwind.
If the ground speed is equal to the tailwind, there is no air resistance.
Since, for tailwinds, $w_{\leftarrow}$ is negative, it follows that the last summand in model~(\ref{eq:model}), which corresponds to the air resistance, is zero.
If the tailwind is greater than the ground speed, the wind does not oppose the movement but contributes to the propulsion.
To accommodate this effect within the model, it would be necessary to, at least, put the negative sign in front on the last summand.
However, ${\rm C_{d}A}$ refers to a frontal surface area; hence, the model requires the positive sign in front on the aforementioned summand.
\subsection{Fixed-wheel drivetrain}
\label{sub:Qualifier}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FigCadence.pdf}
\caption{\small Measured cadence}
\label{fig:FigCadence}
\end{figure}
Let us illustrate the difference between the power generated instantaneously by a cyclist and the measured power, for a fixed-wheel drivetrain.
The measured value of $P$ corresponds to the power generated instantaneously by a cyclist only if the pedal speed,~$v_{\circlearrowright}$\,, is an instantaneous consequence of the force applied to the pedals,~$f_{\circlearrowright}$\,, which is the case of a free-wheel drivetrain; if no force is applied to pedals, the pedals do not rotate, regardless of the bicycle speed.
Given a crank length, $v_{\circlearrowright}$ is obtained from measurements of cadence.
For a fixed-wheel drivetrain, for which there is a one-to-one relation between $v_{\circlearrowright}$ and the wheel speed, the momentum of the bicycle-cyclist system\,---\,which results in a pedal rotation, even without any force applied by a cyclist\,---\,might affect the value of~$v_{\circlearrowright}$\,.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FigPower.pdf}
\caption{\small Measured power,~$P$}
\label{fig:FigPowerFixed}
\end{figure}
To illustrate this issue, let us examine Figures~\ref{fig:FigCadence}, \ref{fig:FigPowerFixed} and \ref{fig:FigForce}, which correspond to the fixed-wheel measurements of, respectively, cadence, power and force from the second lap of a 1000-metre time trial on an indoor velodrome~(Mehdi Kordi, {\it pers.~comm.}, 2020).
Allowing for inaccuracies of measurements, we see that the first figure exhibits a steadiness of cadence,%
\footnote{Strictly speaking, unless a sufficient force is applied to the pedals, there is necessarily a decrease of cadence.
Only hypothetically\,---\,with no internal or external resistance on the flats\,---\,the cadence would remain constant.}
which entails the steadiness of~$v_{\circlearrowright}$ and the steadiness of the wheel speed.
The second figure exhibits a decrease of power, which\,---\,in view of the steadiness of~$v_{\circlearrowright}$ and in accordance with expression~\eqref{eq:formula}\,---\,is a consequence of the decrease of~$f_{\circlearrowright}$\,, shown in the third figure.
The behaviours observed in these figures are confirmed by the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test \citep{DickeyFuller}.
However, $F_{\!\leftarrow}$\,, in model~\eqref{eq:model}, need not decrease, since\,---\,in view of the steadiness of the wheel speed\,---\,$V_{\!\rightarrow}$ is approximately steady,%
\footnote{On a velodrome, $V_{\!\rightarrow}$ is equivalent to the wheel speed along the straights but not along the curves, due to the leaning of the bicycle-cyclist system.
Along the curves, and in general, $V_{\!\rightarrow}$ corresponds to the centre-of-mass speed~\citep{BSSS}.}
and so can be the power of the bicycle-cyclist system, for which we do not have direct measurements.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FigForce.pdf}
\caption{\small Measured force,~$f_{\circlearrowright}$}
\label{fig:FigForce}
\end{figure}
In general, the measurements of power connected to the drivetrain and the power of the system itself are distinct from one another.
For instance, for a free-wheel drivetrain, on a downhill on which a cyclist does not pedal, $f_{\circlearrowright}\,v_{\circlearrowright}=0\neq F_{\!\leftarrow}\,V_{\!\rightarrow}>0$\,.%
\footnote{On a downhill, due to gravitation, the bicycle-cyclist system can accelerate even if the cyclist does not apply any force to the pedals.
On a flat, {\it ceteris paribus}, the system, albeit gradually, must slow down.}
Similarly, for a fixed-wheel drivetrain, the instantaneous measurements of power need not represent the power generated by a cyclist at these instances, since the rotation of the pedals might be partially due to the force exerted by the cyclist, at a given moment, and partially due to the momentum of the already moving bicycle-cyclist system.
The issue remains even if the sensors are not incorporated within the pedals but in the cranks, a bottom bracket or a rear hub.
In each case, the sensors are connected to the drivetrain.
Thus, for a fixed-wheel drivetrain, the power-meter measurements represent an instantaneous power generated by a cyclist if the power and cadence are in a dynamic equilibrium.
Such an equilibrium is reachable\,---\,following an initial acceleration\,---\,during a steady effort, as is the case of a $4000$\,-metre individual pursuit on a velodrome~\citep[e.g.,][Section~5]{BSSS} or the Hour Record, in contrast to accelerations followed by decelerations.
In the context of expression~\eqref{eq:formula}, a dynamic equilibrium means that changes of $v_{\circlearrowright}$ are immediate responses solely to changes in~$f_{\circlearrowright}$\,.
\subsection{Air-density formula}
\label{sec:AirDens}
The air-density formula in model~\eqref{eq:model} is formulated from the ideal gas law with the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, which is a standard procedure outlined in works concerning atmospheric physics~(e.g., \citet[Chapter 2.2]{BohrenAlbrecht1998} or~\citet{Berberan-SantosEtAl2009}).
The experiment requires considering a thin slab of air of cross-sectional area~$A$ and thickness~$\Delta z$\,, whose total mass is the product of the mass density,~$\rho$\,, and volume,~$A\,\Delta z$\,, of the air contained therein.
The assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium requires the net sum of the forces acting on it amount to zero.
Thus, the so-called pressure-gradient force is directed upward\,---\,the upward pressure at the bottom of the slab, $p(z)$, is greater than the downward pressure at the top of the slab, $p(z+\Delta z)$\,---\,and is balanced by the downward weight of the slab, which results in
\begin{equation*}
p(z) - p(z+\Delta z) - \rho\,A\,\Delta z\,g = 0\,,
\end{equation*}
where $g$ is the gravitational acceleration.
Dividing both sides by $A\,\Delta z$ and taking the limit of $\Delta z\to0$, we obtain the so-called hydrostatic equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:HySteq}
\frac{{\rm d}p}{{\rm d}z} = -\rho\,g\,.
\end{equation}
Invoking the ideal gas law, $p\,V = n\,R\,T$\,, where $V$ is volume, $n$ is the number of moles, $R$ is the universal gas constant, $T$ is the temperature of the air in the slab, as well as considering the mass of the air,~$m$\,, with $n=m/M$\,, where $M$ is the molar mass of the air, and using $\rho = m/V$\,, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rhoIGL}
\rho = \frac{p\,M}{R\,T}\,.
\end{equation}
To solve equation~\eqref{eq:HySteq} using separation of variables, we substitute expression~\eqref{eq:rhoIGL} and divide both sizes by $p$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{{\rm d}p}{p} = -\frac{gM}{RT}\,{\rm d}z\,.
\end{equation*}
Setting the base of the slab at sea level, whereby $z_0=0\,{\rm m}$ and $p_0:=p(z_0)$, and integrating along the thickness of the slab, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{p_0}^{p(\Delta z)}\frac{{\rm d}p}{p}
=
-\int\limits_{0}^{\Delta z}\frac{gM}{RT}\,{\rm d}z\,,
\end{equation*}
whose solution is
\begin{equation*}
\log p(\Delta z) - \log p_0 = -\frac{gM}{RT}\,\Delta z\,.
\end{equation*}
Taking the exponential of both sides and solving for $p(\Delta z)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
p(\Delta z) = p_0\,\exp\left(-\frac{gM}{RT}\,\Delta z\right).
\end{equation*}
which is the barometric formula.
Defining altitude as $h:=\Delta z$ and substituting the barometric formula in expression~\eqref{eq:rhoIGL}, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhoIGL}
\rho = \frac{pM}{RT} = \frac{M}{RT}\left(p_0\exp\left(-\frac{gM}{RT}\,h\right)\right).
\end{align}
Upon substituting standard values~\citep[Table~1]{ICAO1993},
\begin{equation*}
p_0 = 101325\,{\rm Pa},\quad
g = 9.80665\,\frac{\rm m}{{\rm s}^2},\quad
M = 0.02895442\,\frac{\rm kg}{\rm mol},\quad
R = 8.3132\,\frac{\rm J}{{\rm mol}\,{\rm K}},\quad
T = 288.15\,{\rm K} = 15^\circ{\rm C},
\end{equation*}
expression~\eqref{eq:rhoIGL} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\rho(h)
=
\left(1.225\,\frac{\rm kg}{{\rm m}^3}\right)
\exp\left(-\frac{0.0001186}{\rm m}\,h\right)
,
\end{equation*}
which is air-density formula~\eqref{eq:DenAlt} used in model~\eqref{eq:model}.
\subsection{Air-resistance coefficient}
\label{sec:AirResCoeff}
To formulate the air-resistance force in model~\eqref{eq:model}, we assume that it is proportional to the frontal area,~$A$\,, and to the pressure,~$p$\,, exerted by air on this area,~$F_a\propto p\,A$\,, where $p=\tfrac{1}{2}\rho\,V^2$ has a form of kinetic energy and $V=V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_\leftarrow$ is the relative speed of a cyclist with respect to the air; $p$ is the energy density per unit volume.
We write this proportionality as
\begin{equation*}
F_a=\tfrac{1}{2}\,{\rm C_d}\,A\,\rho\,V^2\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\rm C_d$ is a proportionality constant, which is referred to as the drag coefficient.
A more involved justification for the form of the air-resistance force in model~\eqref{eq:model} is based on dimensional analysis \citep[e.g.,][Chapter~3]{Birkhoff}.
We consider the air-resistance force, which is a dependent variable, as an argument of a function, together with the independent variables, to write
\begin{equation*}
f(F_a,V,\rho,A,\nu)=0\,;
\end{equation*}
herein, $\nu$ is the viscosity coefficient.
Since this function is zero in any system of units, it is possible to express it only in terms of dimensionless groups.
According to the Buckingham theorem \citep[e.g.,][Chapter~3, Section~4]{Birkhoff}\,---\,since there are five variables and three physical dimensions, namely, mass, time and length\,---\,we can express the arguments of~$f$ in terms of two dimensionless groups.
There are many possibilities of such groups, all of which lead to equivalent results.
A common choice for the two groups is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{F_a}{\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho\,A\,V^2}\,,
\end{equation*}
which is referred to as the drag coefficient, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{V\,\sqrt{A}}{\nu }\,,
\end{equation*}
which is referred to as the Reynolds number.
Thus, treating physical dimensions as algebraic objects, we can reduce a function of five variables into a function of two variables,
\begin{equation*}
g\left(\frac{F_a}{\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho\,A\,V^2}\,,\,\frac{V\,\sqrt{A}}{\nu }\right)\,=\,0\,,
\end{equation*}
which we write as
\begin{equation*}
\frac{F_a}{\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho\,A\,V^2}=h\left(\frac{V\,\sqrt{A}}{\nu }\right)\,,
\end{equation*}
where the only unknown is~$F_a$\,, and where $h$ is a function of the Reynolds number.
Denoting the right-hand side by $\rm C_d$\,, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
F_a=\tfrac{1}{2}{\rm C_d}\,A\,\rho\,V^2\,,
\end{equation*}
as expected.
In view of this derivation, $\rm C_d$ is not a constant; it is a function of the Reynolds number.
In our study, however\,---\,within a limited range of speeds\,---\,$\rm C_d$ is treated as a constant.
Furthermore, since $A$ is difficult to estimate, we include it within this constant, and consider their product,~$\rm C_dA$\,.
\subsection{Rotation effects: air resistance}
\label{sec:AirResRot}
To include the effect of air resistance of rotating wheels in model~\eqref{eq:model}, another summand would need to be introduced in the numerator,
\begin{equation*}
\tfrac{1}{2}{\rm C_w}\pi r^2\rho\,(V_{\!\rightarrow}+w_{\leftarrow})^2\,,
\end{equation*}
where $r$ is the wheel radius.
Such a summand is formulated by invoking dimensional analysis in a manner analogous to the one presented in Section~\ref{sec:AirResCoeff}.
To combine rotational air resistance with the translational one, we use $v=\omega\,r$\,, where $v$ is the circumferential speed and $\omega$ is the angular speed, and the fact that\,---\,as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:RotEff} and illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigNoSlip}\,---\,the circumferential speed, under the assumption of rolling without slipping, is the same as the ground speed of the bicycle,~$V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,.
Considering two standard wheels, we write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:model2}
P
=
\frac{
mg\sin\theta
+
(m+2\,m_{\rm w})\,a
+
{\rm C_{rr}}m g\cos\theta
+
\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho
\,(
2\,{\rm C_w}\overbrace{\pi r^2}^{A_\circ}
+
{\rm C_{d}A_f}
)
\left(V_{\!\rightarrow} + w_{\leftarrow}\right)^2
}{
1-\lambda
}
V_{\!\rightarrow}
\,;
\end{equation}
herein, in contrast to model~\eqref{eq:model} and as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:RotEff}, the change of speed, expressed by the second summand, contains effects of the moment of inertia due to rolling wheels.
The air resistance, expressed by the fourth summand, distinguishes between the air resistance due to translation of a bicycle from the air resistance due to its rolling wheels; $\rm A_f$ is the entire frontal area and $\rm A_\circ$ is the wheel side area.%
\footnote{Using model~\eqref{eq:model2} and the implicit function theorem, ${\partial\,{\rm C_dA_f}/\partial\,{\rm C_wA_\circ}=-2}$\,, which is indicative of the behaviour of a model; there is no physical relation between $\rm C_dA_f$ and $\rm C_wA_\circ$\,.
We expect, $\rm C_wA_o \ll C_dA_f$\,; however, the optimization programs treat them as two adjustable parameters of equal importance.}
An examination of the effect of two different wheels requires the introduction of two coefficients, one for each wheel.
In this study, the quality of available information renders the extraction of values for the resistance coefficients difficult.
Even though the data obtained from the power meter exhibit high accuracy, the data based on the GPS measurements introduce the uncertainty that renders an accurate extraction of even three parameters a numerical challenge.
Extraction of four or five parameters requires more accurate data.
In the meantime, however, we can consider forward models to gain an insight into the effect of a disk wheel.
Following model~\eqref{eq:model2}\,---\,for a steady ride,~$a=0$\,, under windless conditions,~$w_{\leftarrow}=0$\,, on a flat course,~$\theta=0$\,---\,we write the required powers as
\begin{equation*}
P_{\rm n}=\dfrac{{\rm C_{rr}}mg+\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho\left(2\,{\rm C_{w_n}A_w}+{\rm C_{d}A_f}\,\right)V_{\!\rightarrow}{}^2}{1-\lambda}V_{\!\rightarrow}
\quad{\rm and}\quad
P_{\rm d}=\dfrac{{\rm C_{rr}}mg+\tfrac{1}{2}\,\rho\left(({\rm C_{w_n}}+{\rm C_{w_d}}){\rm A_w}+{\rm C_{d}A_f}\,\right)V_{\!\rightarrow}{}^2}{1-\lambda}V_{\!\rightarrow}\,,
\end{equation*}
where we distinguish between the drag coefficients of a normal wheel and a disk wheel.
The difference in required power is
\begin{equation*}
\Delta P
=
\dfrac{{\rm C_{w_n}}-{\rm C_{w_d}}}{2\left(1-\lambda\right)}\,{\rm A_w}\,\rho\,{V_{\!\rightarrow}}^{3}\,.
\end{equation*}
Letting \mbox{${\rm C_{w_n}}\approx 0.05$} and \mbox{${\rm C_{w_d}}\approx 0.035$}~\citep{GreenwellEtAl1995} means that, for a standard wheel, \mbox{${\rm C_wA_\circ}\approx 0.015\,{\rm m}^2$}\,, and for a disk wheel,~\mbox{${\rm C_wA_\circ}\approx 0.01\,{\rm m}^2$}\,.
Both values are significantly smaller than $\rm C_dA_f$\,, as expected.
Letting $r=0.31\,{\rm m}$\,, $\rho=1.204\,{\rm kg/m}^3$\,, $\lambda=0.03574$\,, we obtain $\Delta P\approx0.0028\,V_{\!\rightarrow}{}^3$\,.
For $\overline V_{\!\rightarrow}=10.51\,{\rm m/s}$\,, we have $\Delta P\approx 3.3\,{\rm W}$\,.
Thus, for the present study, in the neighbourhood of $\overline P=258.8\,{\rm W}$\,, the replacement of a regular wheel by a disk wheel results in the decrease of required power of $\Delta P/\overline P\approx 1.3\%$\,, to maintain the same speed.
\subsection{Rotation effects: moment of inertia}
\label{sec:RotEff}
To include the effect of rotation upon change of speed in model~\eqref{eq:model}, we would need to consider the moment of inertia, which is $m\,r^2$\,, for a thin circular loop, and $m\,r^2/2$\,, for a solid disk, where $r$ stands for their radii.
Relating the angular change in speed to the circumferential one\,---\,by a temporal derivative of $v=\omega r$\,, where $v$ is the circumferential speed and $\omega$ is the angular speed\,---\,the magnitudes of the corresponding rotational force are $Fr=mra$ and $Fr=mra/2$\,, respectively; hence, $F=ma$ and $F=ma/2$ are the corresponding linear forces.
In the preceding paragraph, $v=\omega r$ is the circumferential speed.
To show that it is equal to the ground speed of the bicycle,~$V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,, let us consider the point of contact of the wheel and the road.
The ground speed of that point is the sum of the circumferential speed of the wheel, at that point, and the speed of the bicycle.
Since\,---\,under assumption of no slipping\,---\,the ground speed of that point is zero and the other two speeds refer to velocities in the opposite directions, we have $v=V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,.
Thus, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:FigNoSlip}, the circumferential speed of the wheel is the same as the ground speed of the bicycle; the same is true for the change of speed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigNoSlip.pdf}
\caption{\small Rolling without slipping: angular speed,~$\omega$\,, circumferential speed,~$v=\omega\,r$\,, where $r$ is radius, and bicycle speed,~$V_{\!\rightarrow}=v$}
\label{fig:FigNoSlip}
\end{figure}
To consider a bicycle with one standard wheel and one disk wheel, we denote the mass of the former by~$m_{\rm w}$\,, and the mass of the latter by~$m_{\rm d}$\,.
Thus, the second summand in the numerator of model~\eqref{eq:model}, which is a linear force, becomes $(m+m_{\rm w}+m_{\rm d}/2)\,a$\,.
Note that $m$ contains both $m_{\rm w}$ and $m_{\rm d}$ to account for the translational and rotational effects; the former depends on the total mass and the latter on the mass of the wheels only.
For a standard wheel, $m_{\rm w}\approx 0.8\,{\rm kg}$\,, and for a disk wheel,~$m_{\rm d}\approx 1.3\,{\rm kg}$\,; for both~$r=0.31\,{\rm m}$\,.
\section{Discussion}
One of the main purposes of this article is to estimate the effects of air, rolling and drivetrain resistance.
To estimate the corresponding parameters, we restrict the study to ranges of speeds that are consistent with time trialing on either a flat course or a course with a steady inclination.
In either case, a rider pedals without interruptions and in the same position.
Also, there are no tight corners that would require braking.
These restrictions allow us\,---\,for either case\,---\,to treat $\rm C_{d}A$\,, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ as constants, even though, in general, they are functions of speed.
The force of the air resistance, which is expressed by the fourth summand of model~\eqref{eq:model}, is proportional to the square of speed and, hence\,---\,for flat courses\,---\,it becomes dominant.
For climbs, in contrast, the expression is dominated by the first summand, which accounts for the force against gravity.
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:RatesOfChange}, the effect of the air resistance can be quantified by relations between $\rm C_{d}A$ and $V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,.
The effect of gravity can be quantified by relations among $m$\,, $\theta$ and $V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,.
For instance, for any cyclist\,---\,with a given power output\,---\,the dependence of speed on mass is greater on a climb than on a flat course, and this dependence can be quantified, using $\partial_mV_{\!\rightarrow}$ and the implicit function theorem, discussed in Section~\ref{sec:PhysicalInferences}.
In estimating the effects of the air, rolling and drivetrain resistance, we recognize that the right-hand side of model~\eqref{eq:model}, which is a forward problem, invokes $\rm C_{d}A$\,, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ with their independent physical meanings.
The misfit minimization of expression~\eqref{eq:misfit}, however\,---\,for which the left-hand side is the measured value and the right-hand side is the retrodiction of a model\,---\,treats $\rm C_{d}A$\,, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ as adjustable parameters.
Relations between the rates of change of any two quantities, in expression~\eqref{eq:misfit}\,---\,resulting from the implicit function theorem\,---\,are insightful for interpreting the behaviour of the model.
For instance, $\rm C_{d}A$ and $\rm C_{rr}$\,, which\,---\,as physical quantities\,---\,are independent of one another, become inversely proportional to one another, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ModelInferences}.
Maintaining the physical meaning of $\rm C_{d}A$\,, $\rm C_{rr}$ and $\lambda$ is a challenge.
To extract~$\lambda$\,, one might consider the placement of the power meter and its effect on drivetrain loss.
As indicated by \citet{Chung2012}, a power meter in the rear hub provides readings absent of drivetrain loss.
This is not the case for power measured elsewhere.
To accommodate this issue, \citet{MartinEtAl1998} suggests a fixed wattage or percentage loss.
Setting, {\it a priori}\,, $\lambda$ to be a fixed value increases the stability of extracting the remaining two coefficients in model~\eqref{eq:model}.
Otherwise, a division of the entire expression is a scaling that contributes to nonuniqueness.
Even so, ``prying apart'' \mbox{$\rm C_dA$ and~$\rm C_{rr}$} remains a challenge, for which \citeauthor{Chung2012} suggests testing the same tires and tubes on the same roads on the same day at the same pressure so that $\rm C_{rr}$ is a constant, and then concentrate on estimating changes in $\rm C_dA$\,.
Another purpose of this article is to use the results derived herein as sources of information for optimizing the performance in a time trial under a variety of conditions, such as the strategy of the distribution of effort over the hilly and flat portions or headwind and tailwind sections.
For instance, examining $\partial_{w_{\leftarrow}}V_{\!\rightarrow}$\,, for a flat course, we could quantify a time-trial adage of pushing against the headwind and recovering with the tailwind, to diminish the overall time, under a constraint of cyclist's capacity; such a conclusion is illustrated in Appendix~\ref{app:LagrangeMultipliers}.
A further insight into this statement is provided by the following example.
Let us consider a five-kilometre section against the headwind,~$w_{\leftarrow}=5\,{\rm m/s}$\,, and, following a turnaround, the same five-kilometre section with the tailwind, $w_{\leftarrow}=-5\,{\rm m/s}$\,.
If we keep a constant power,~$P=258.8\,{\rm W}$\,, and use model~\eqref{eq:model} to find the corresponding speed, we achieve the total time of $946$~seconds, for ten kilometres, with the upwind speed of $V_{\!\rightarrow}=8.273\,{\rm m/s}$ and the downwind speed of $V_{\!\rightarrow}=14.63\,{\rm m/s}$\,.
If we maintain the same average power, over ten kilometres, but increase the power on the upwind section by $10\%$ and decrease the power on the downwind section by $10\%$\,, we reduce the total time by about $16$~seconds, with the upwind speed of $V_{\!\rightarrow}=8.647\,{\rm m/s}$ and the downwind speed of $V_{\!\rightarrow}=13.78\,{\rm m/s}$\,.
For reliable results\,---\,in view of Figure~\ref{fig:FigPowerSpeed} and the linear approximation within a neighbourhood of the average speed for which the flat-course model is established\,---\,one should not consider excessive increases or decreases of speed or power.
To conclude this example, let us consider the case of keeping a constant speed,~$V_{\!\rightarrow}=11.43\,{\rm m/s}$\,, which is the average for the latter scenario, for ten kilometres.
Such a strategy requires the power for the upwind section to be $P=531.6\,{\rm W}\gg 258.8\,{\rm W}$\,.
Thus, even though we should push harder against the wind than with the wind, we should not try to keep the same speed for both the upwind and downwind sections.
This conclusion is consistent with the partial-derivative values of Table~\ref{table:PhysicalRates}.
This conclusion is\,---\,only in part\,---\,consistent with a ``Rule of Thumb'' of \citet{Anton2013}, which amounts to expending some extra energy when riding against the wind and conserving some energy when riding with the wind.
A quantification of this, and another, rule of thumb of \citet{Anton2013} is presented in Appendix~\ref{app:LagrangeMultipliers}, where we question their generality.
\section{Summary}
In this article, we present a mathematical model that accounts for the power required to overcome the forces opposing the translational motion of a bicycle-cyclist system.
The model permits the estimation of physical parameters, such as air, rolling and drivetrain resistances.
Under various conditions, there are different relations between the rates of change of the model parameters in question. As a consequence of the implicit function theorem, relations between the rates of change of all quantities that are included in a model are explicitly stated, and each relation can be evaluated for given conditions.
Furthermore, the derived expressions allow us to interpret the obtained measurements in a quantitative manner, since the values of these expressions entail concrete issues to be addressed for a given bicycle course.
The reliability of information\,---\,which depends on the accuracy of measurements and the empirical adequacy of a model\,---\,is quantified by a misfit and by standard deviations of model parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We wish to acknowledge Len Bos, Yves Rogister and Rapha\"el Slawinski, for fruitful discussions, Mehdi Kordi for providing the measurements used in Section~\ref{sub:Qualifier}, David Dalton, for his scientific editing and proofreading, Elena Patarini, for her graphic support, and Roberto Lauciello, for his artistic contribution of famous mathematicians riding modern bicycles.
Furthermore, we wish to acknowledge Favero Electronics, including their Project Manager, Francesco Sirio Basilico, and R\&D engineer, Renzo Pozzobon, for inspiring this study by their technological advances and for supporting this work by insightful discussions and providing us with their latest model of Assioma Duo power meters.
Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from \href{https://www.openstreetmap.org}{\tt https://www.openstreetmap.org}.
\bibliographystyle{apa}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Human Evaluation Datasheet (HEDS) is a template for describing single human evaluation experiments (see Section~\ref{sec:kind} for explanation of this term). It uses multiple-choice questions where possible, for ease of comparability across experiments.
The HEDS template is intended to be generally applicable to human evaluations across NLP. Some of the questions in Version 1.0 are geared towards systems that produce language as output, but have `Other' options for entering alternative information. The plan is to generalise this and other aspects of the template in future versions of HEDS.
Questions 2.1--2.5 relating to evaluated system, and 4.3.1--4.3.8 relating to response elicitation, are based on \citet{howcroft-etal-2020-twenty}, with some significant changes. Questions 4.1.1--4.2.3 relating to quality criteria, and some of the questions about system outputs, evaluators, and experimental design (3.1.1--3.2.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.6, 4.3.9--4.3.11) are based on \citet{belz-etal-2020-disentangling}.
HEDS was also informed by \citet{van2019best, vanderlee2021} and by \citet{gehrmann2021gem}'s\footnote{\footnotesize \url{https://gem-benchmark.com/data\_cards/guide}} data card guide.
More generally, the original inspiration for creating a `datasheet' for describing human evaluation experiments of course comes from seminal papers by \citet{bender-friedman-2018-data}, \citet{mitchell2019modelcards} and \citet{gebru2018datasheets}.
We envisage this datasheet to undergo changes in the future, as more teams of authors complete it and we discover more ways of improving it. Changes will be indicated in the title by increments to the version number, and a change log in the body of the paper.
In its template form as well as in this paper, HEDS is divided into five sections:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item Paper and Resources (Questions 1.1--1.3, covered in Section~\ref{sec:paper-resources} of this paper);
\item Evaluated System (Questions 2.1--2.5, Section~\ref{sec:system} below);
\item Output Sample, Evaluators and Experimental Design (Questions 3.1.1--3.3.8, Section~\ref{sec:design} below);
\item Quality Criteria (Questions 4.1.1--4.3.11, Section~\ref{sec:criteria} below);
\item Ethics (Questions 5.1--5.4, Section~\ref{sec:ethics} below).
\end{enumerate}
\section{Package Resources}\label{sec:resources}
The Human Evaluation Datasheet 1.0 package (HEDS 1.0) consists of the following three resources:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item The HEDS 1.0 form: available at \url{https://forms.gle/MgWiKVu7i5UHeMNQ9};
\item Description and completion guidance: this document;
\item Scripts for automatically converting between the HEDS 1.0 online form and alternative Markdown and LaTeX template formats: available (from May 2021) at \url{https://github.com/Shimorina/human-evaluation-datasheet}.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent A repository of completed HEDS datasheets is also planned.
\section{What kind of evaluation experiment can this sheet be used for?}\label{sec:kind}
Our aim is to make this sheet suitable for all \emph{single} human evaluation experiments in NLP. Human evaluations in NLP typically get participants to assess system outputs, but the HEDS sheet also accommodates what we call `human-authored stand-ins' below, i.e.\ manually created `system outputs' (e.g.\ in a wizard-of-oz scenario or when reference outputs are included in an evaluation) evaluated in a way that can at least in principle be used to evaluate actual system outputs.
By `single human evaluation experiment' we mean one that evaluates a single set of directly comparable systems in a single experimental design, but may assess multiple quality criteria. We refer to the single human evaluation experiment that the template is being completed for simply as `the evaluation experiment' in questions below.
It should soon become apparent if you're trying to complete the sheet for something that isn't a single evaluation experiment, because you will end up wanting to put `in one part of the experiment we did A, in another we did B', for the experimental design and other questions in Part~3.
\section{Paper and Supplementary Resources (Questions 1.1--1.3)}\label{sec:paper-resources}
Questions 1.1--1.3 record bibliographic and related information. These are straightforward and don't warrant much in-depth explanation.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 1.1: Link to paper reporting the evaluation experiment. If the paper reports more than one experiment, state which experiment you're completing this sheet for. Or, if applicable, enter `for preregistration.'}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: a link to an online copy of the main reference for the human evaluation experiment, identifying which of the experiments the form is being completed for if there are several. If the experiment hasn't been run yet, and the form is being completed for the purpose of submitting it for preregistration, simply enter `for preregistration'.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 1.2: Link to website providing resources used in the evaluation experiment (e.g.\ system outputs, evaluation tools, etc.). If there isn't one, enter `N/A'.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: link(s) to any resources used in the evaluation experiment, such as system outputs, evaluation tools, etc.\ If there aren't any publicly shared resources (yet), enter `N/A’.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 1.3: Name, affiliation and email address of person completing this sheet, and of contact author if different.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: names, affiliations and email addresses as appropriate.
\section{System (Questions 2.1--2.5)}\label{sec:system}
Questions 2.1--2.5 record information about the system(s) (or human-authored stand-ins) whose outputs are evaluated in the Evaluation experiment that this sheet is being completed for.
The input, output, and task questions in this section are closely interrelated: the value for one partially determines the others, as indicated for some combinations in Question 2.3.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 2.1: What type of input do the evaluated system(s) take? Select all that apply. If none match, select `Other' and describe.}}\label{sec:input}
\vspace{-.1cm}
Describe the type of input, where input refers to the representations and/or data structures shared by all evaluated systems.
This question is about input type, regardless of number. E.g.\ if the input is a set of documents, you would still select \textit{text: document} below.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{raw/structured data}: numerical, symbolic, and other data, possibly structured into trees, graphs, graphical models, etc. May be the input e.g.\ to Referring Expression Generation (REG), end-to-end text generation, etc. {NB}: excludes linguistic structures.
\item \egcvalue{deep linguistic representation (DLR)}: any of a variety of deep, underspecified, semantic representations, such as abstract meaning representations \citep[AMRs;][]{banarescu-etal-2013-abstract} or discourse representation structures \citep[DRSs;][]{kamp-reyle2013discourse}.
\item \egcvalue{shallow linguistic representation (SLR)}: any of a variety of shallow, syntactic representations, e.g.\ Universal Dependency (UD) structures; typically the input to surface realisation.
\item \egcvalue{text: subsentential unit of text}: a unit of text shorter than a sentence, e.g.\ Referring Expressions (REs), verb phrase, text fragment of any length; includes titles/headlines.
\item \egcvalue{text: sentence}: a single sentence (or set of sentences).
\item \egcvalue{text: multiple sentences}: a sequence of multiple sentences, without any document structure (or a set of such sequences).
\item \egcvalue{text: document}: a text with document structure, such as a title, paragraph breaks or sections, e.g.\ a set of news reports for summarisation.
\item \egcvalue{text: dialogue}: a dialogue of any length, excluding a single turn which would come under one of the other text types.
\item \egcvalue{text: other}: input is text but doesn't match any of the above \textit{text:*} categories.
\item \egcvalue{speech}: a recording of speech.
\item \egcvalue{visual}: an image or video.
\item \egcvalue{multi-modal}: catch-all value for any combination of data and/or linguistic representation and/or visual data etc.
\item \egcvalue{control feature}: a feature or parameter specifically present to control a property of the output text, e.g.\ positive stance, formality, author style.
\item \egcvalue{no input (human generation)}: human generation\footnote{\label{human-generation}We use the term `human generation' where the items being evaluated have been created manually, rather than generated by an automatic system.}, therefore no system inputs.
\item \egcvalue{other (please specify)}: if input is none of the above, choose this option and describe it.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 2.2: What type of output do the evaluated system(s) generate? Select all that apply. If none match, select `Other' and describe.}}\label{sec:output}
Describe the type of input, where input refers to the representations and/or data structures shared by all evaluated systems.
This question is about input type, regardless of number. E.g.\ if the output is a set of documents, you would still select \textit{text: document} below.
Note that the options for outputs are the same as for inputs minus the \textit{control feature} option.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{raw/structured data}: numerical, symbolic, and other data, possibly structured into trees, graphs, graphical models, etc. May be the input e.g.\ to Referring Expression Generation (REG), end-to-end text generation, etc. {NB}: excludes linguistic structures.
\item \egcvalue{deep linguistic representation (DLR)}: any of a variety of deep, underspecified, semantic representations, such as abstract meaning representations \citep[AMRs;][]{banarescu-etal-2013-abstract} or discourse representation structures \citep[DRSs;][]{kamp-reyle2013discourse}.
\item \egcvalue{shallow linguistic representation (SLR)}: any of a variety of shallow, syntactic representations, e.g.\ Universal Dependency (UD) structures; typically the input to surface realisation.
\item \egcvalue{text: subsentential unit of text}: a unit of text shorter than a sentence, e.g.\ Referring Expressions (REs), verb phrase, text fragment of any length; includes titles/headlines.
\item \egcvalue{text: sentence}: a single sentence (or set of sentences).
\item \egcvalue{text: multiple sentences}: a sequence of multiple sentences, without any document structure (or a set of such sequences).
\item \egcvalue{text: document}: a text with document structure, such as a title, paragraph breaks or sections, e.g.\ a set of news reports for summarisation.
\item \egcvalue{text: dialogue}: a dialogue of any length, excluding a single turn which would come under one of the other text types.
\item \egcvalue{text: other}: select if output is text but doesn't match any of the above \textit{text:*} categories.
\item \egcvalue{speech}: a recording of speech.
\item \egcvalue{visual}: an image or video.
\item \egcvalue{multi-modal}: catch-all value for any combination of data and/or linguistic representation and/or visual data etc.
\item \egcvalue{human-generated `outputs'}: manually created stand-ins exemplifying outputs.\footnoteref{human-generation}
\item \egcvalue{other (please specify)}: if output is none of the above, choose this option and describe it.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 2.3: How would you describe the task that the evaluated system(s) perform in mapping the inputs in Q2.1 to the outputs in Q2.2? Occasionally, more than one of the options below may apply. If none match, select `Other' and describe.}}\label{sec:task}
\vspace{-.1cm}
This field records the task performed by the system(s) being evaluated. This is independent of the application domain (financial reporting, weather forecasting, etc.), or the specific method (rule-based, neural, etc.) implemented in the system. We indicate mutual constraints between inputs, outputs and task for some of the options below.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{content selection/determination}: selecting the specific content that will be expressed in the generated text from a representation of possible content. This could be attribute selection for REG (without the surface realisation step). Note that the output here is not text.
\item \egcvalue{content ordering/structuring}: assigning an order and/or structure to content to be included in generated text. Note that the output here is not text.
\item \egcvalue{aggregation}: converting inputs (typically \textit{deep linguistic representations} or \textit{shallow linguistic representations}) in some way in order to reduce redundancy (e.g.\ representations for `they like swimming', `they like running' $\rightarrow$ representation for `they like swimming and running').
\item \egcvalue{referring expression generation}: generating \textit{text} to refer to a given referent, typically represented in the input as a set of attributes or a linguistic representation.
\item \egcvalue{lexicalisation}: associating (parts of) an input representation with specific lexical items to be used in their realisation.
\item \egcvalue{deep generation}: one-step text generation from \textit{raw/structured data} or \textit{deep linguistic representations}. One-step means that no intermediate representations are passed from one independently run module to another.
\item \egcvalue{surface realisation (SLR to text)}: one-step text generation from \textit{shallow linguistic representations}. One-step means that no intermediate representations are passed from one independently run module to another.
\item \egcvalue{feature-controlled text generation}: generation of text that varies along specific dimensions where the variation is controlled via \textit{control feature}s specified as part of the input. Input is a non-textual representation (for feature-controlled text-to-text generation select the matching text-to-text task).
\item \egcvalue{data-to-text generation}: generation from \textit{raw/structured data} which may or may not include some amount of content selection as part of the generation process. Output is likely to be \textit{text:*} or \textit{multi-modal}.
\item \egcvalue{dialogue turn generation}: generating a dialogue turn (can be a greeting or closing) from a representation of dialogue state and/or last turn(s), etc.
\item \egcvalue{question generation}: generation of questions from given input text and/or knowledge base such that the question can be answered from the input.
\item \egcvalue{question answering}: input is a question plus optionally a set of reference texts and/or knowledge base, and the output is the answer to the question.
\item \egcvalue{paraphrasing/lossless simplification}: text-to-text generation where the aim is to preserve the meaning of the input while changing its wording. This can include the aim of changing the text on a given dimension, e.g.\ making it simpler, changing its stance or sentiment, etc., which may be controllable via input features. Note that this task type includes meaning-preserving text simplification (non-meaning preserving simplification comes under \textit{compression/lossy simplification} below).
\item \egcvalue{compression/lossy simplification}: text-to-text generation that has the aim to generate a shorter, or shorter and simpler, version of the input text. This will normally affect meaning to some extent, but as a side effect, rather than the primary aim, as is the case in \textit{summarisation}.
\item \egcvalue{machine translation}: translating text in a source language to text in a target language while maximally preserving the meaning.
\item \egcvalue{summarisation (text-to-text)}: output is an extractive or abstractive summary of the important/relevant/salient content of the input document(s).
\item \egcvalue{end-to-end text generation}: use this option if the single system task corresponds to more than one of tasks above, implemented either as separate modules pipelined together, or as one-step generation, other than \textit{deep generation} and \textit{surface realisation}.
\item \egcvalue{image/video description}: input includes \textit{visual}, and the output describes it in some way.
\item \egcvalue{post-editing/correction}: system edits and/or corrects the input text (typically itself the textual output from another system) to yield an improved version of the text.
\item \egcvalue{other (please specify)}: if task is none of the above, choose this option and describe it.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 2.4: Input Language(s), or `N/A'.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
This field records the language(s) of the inputs accepted by the system(s) being evaluated.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: any language name(s) that apply, mapped to standardised full language names in ISO 639-1\footnote{\label{iso}\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes}}. E.g.\ English, Herero, Hindi.
If no language is accepted as (part of) the input, enter `N/A'.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 2.5: Output Language(s), or `N/A'.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
This field records the language(s) of the outputs generated by the system(s) being evaluated.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: any language name(s) that apply, mapped to standardised full language names in ISO 639-1 (2019)\footnoteref{iso}. E.g.\ English, Herero, Hindi.
If no language is generated, enter `N/A'.
\section{Output Sample, Evaluators, Experimental Design}\label{sec:design}
\subsection{Sample of system outputs (or human-authored stand-ins) evaluated (Questions 3.1.1--3.1.3)}
Questions 3.1.1--3.1.3 record information about the size of the sample of outputs (or human-authored stand-ins) evaluated per system, how the sample was selected, and what its statistical power is.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.1.1: How many system outputs (or other evaluation items) are evaluated per system in the evaluation experiment? Answer should be an integer.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: The number of system outputs (or other evaluation items) that are evaluated per system by at least one evaluator in the experiment, as an integer.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.1.2: How are system outputs (or other evaluation items) selected for inclusion in the evaluation experiment? If none match, select `Other' and describe.}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{by an automatic random process from a larger set}: outputs were selected for inclusion in the experiment by a script using a pseudo-random number generator; don't use this option if the script selects every $n$th output (which is not random).
\item \egcvalue{by an automatic random process but using stratified sampling over given properties}: use this option if selection was by a random script as above, but with added constraints ensuring that the sample is representative of the set of outputs it was selected from, in terms of given properties, such as sentence length, positive/negative stance, etc.
\item \egcvalue{by manual, arbitrary selection}: output sample was selected by hand, or automatically from a manually compiled list, without a specific selection criterion.
\item \egcvalue{by manual selection aimed at achieving balance or variety relative to given properties}: selection by hand as above, but with specific selection criteria, e.g.\ same number of outputs from each time period.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: if selection method is none of the above, choose this option and describe it.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.1.3: What is the statistical power of the sample size?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: The results of a statistical power calculation on the output sample: provide numerical results and a link to the script used (or another way of identifying the script). See, e.g., \citet{card-etal-2020-little}.
\subsection{Evaluators (Questions 3.2.1--3.2.4)}
Questions 3.2.1--3.2.4 record information about the evaluators participating in the experiment.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.2.1: How many evaluators are there in this experiment? Answer should be an integer.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: the total number of evaluators participating in the experiment, as an integer.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.2.2: What kind of evaluators are in this experiment? Select all that apply. If none match, select `Other' and describe. In all cases, provide details in the text box under `Other'.}}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{experts}: participants are considered domain experts, e.g.\ meteorologists evaluating a weather forecast generator, or nurses evaluating an ICU report generator.
\item \egcvalue{non-experts}: participants are not domain experts.
\item \egcvalue{paid (including non-monetary compensation such as course credits)}: participants were given some form of compensation for their participation, including vouchers, course credits, and reimbursement for travel unless based on receipts.
\item \egcvalue{not paid}: participants were not given compensation of any kind.
\item \egcvalue{previously known to authors}: (one of the) researchers running the experiment knew some or all of the participants before recruiting them for the experiment.
\item \egcvalue{not previously known to authors}: none of the researchers running the experiment knew any of the participants before recruiting them for the experiment.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators include one or more of the authors}: one or more researchers running the experiment was among the participants.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators do not include any of the authors}: none of the researchers running the experiment were among the participants.
\item \egcvalue{Other} (fewer than 4 of the above apply): we believe you should be able to tick 4 options of the above. If that's not the case, use this box to explain.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.2.3: How are evaluators recruited?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Please explain how your evaluators are recruited. Do you send emails to a given list? Do you post invitations on social media? Posters on university walls? Were there any gatekeepers involved? What are the exclusion/inclusion criteria?
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.2.4: What training and/or practice are evaluators given before starting on the evaluation itself?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Use this space to describe any training evaluators were given as part of the experiment to prepare them for the evaluation task, including any practice evaluations they did. This includes any introductory explanations they're given, e.g.\ on the start page of an online evaluation tool.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.2.5: What other characteristics do the evaluators have, known either because these were qualifying criteria, or from information gathered as part of the evaluation?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Use this space to list any characteristics not covered in previous questions that the evaluators are known to have, either because evaluators were selected on the basis of a characteristic, or because information about a characteristic was collected as part of the evaluation. This might include geographic location of IP address, educational level, or demographic information such as gender, age, etc. Where characteristics differ among evaluators (e.g.\ gender, age, location etc.), also give numbers for each subgroup.
\subsection{Experimental design (Questions 3.3.1--3.3.8)}
Questions~3.3.1--3.3.8 record information about the experimental design of the evaluation experiment.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.3.1: Has the experimental design been preregistered? If yes, on which registry?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: State `Yes' or `No'; if `Yes' also give the name of the registry and a link to the registration page for the experiment.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.3.2: How are responses collected? E.g.\ paper forms, online survey tool, etc.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Use this space to describe how you collected responses, e.g.\ paper forms, Google forms, SurveyMonkey, Mechanical Turk, CrowdFlower, audio/video recording, etc.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.3.3: What quality assurance methods are used? Select all that apply. If none match, select `Other' and describe. In all cases, provide details in the text box under `Other'.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{evaluators are required to be native speakers of the language they evaluate}: mechanisms are in place to ensure all participants are native speakers of the language they evaluate.
\item \egcvalue{automatic quality checking methods are used during/post evaluation}: evaluations are checked for quality by automatic scripts during or after evaluations, e.g.\ evaluators are given known bad/good outputs to check they're given bad/good scores on MTurk.
\item \egcvalue{manual quality checking methods are used during/post evaluation}: evaluations are checked for quality by a manual process during or after evaluations, e.g.\ scores assigned by evaluators are monitored by researchers conducting the experiment.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators are excluded if they fail quality checks (often or badly enough)}: there are conditions under which evaluations produced by participants are not included in the final results due to quality issues.
\item \egcvalue{some evaluations are excluded because of failed quality checks}: there are conditions under which some (but not all) of the evaluations produced by some participants are not included in the final results due to quality issues.
\item \egcvalue{none of the above}: tick this box if none of the above apply.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: use this box to describe any other quality assurance methods used during or after evaluations, and to provide additional details for any of the options selected above.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 3.3.4: What do evaluators see when carrying out evaluations? Link to screenshot(s) and/or describe the evaluation interface(s).}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Use this space to describe the interface, paper form, etc.\ that evaluators see when they carry out the evaluation. Link to a screenshot/copy if possible. If there is a separate introductory interface/page, include it under Question 3.2.4.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{3.3.5: How free are evaluators regarding when and how quickly to carry out evaluations? Select all that apply. In all cases, provide details in the text box under `Other'.}}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{evaluators have to complete each individual assessment within a set time}: evaluators are timed while carrying out each assessment and cannot complete the assessment once time has run out.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators have to complete the whole evaluation in one sitting}: partial progress cannot be saved and the evaluation returned to on a later occasion.
\item \egcvalue{neither of the above}: Choose this option if neither of the above are the case in the experiment.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: Use this space to describe any other way in which time taken or number of sessions used by evaluators is controlled in the experiment, and to provide additional details for any of the options selected above.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{3.3.6: Are evaluators told they can ask questions about the evaluation and/or provide feedback? Select all that apply. In all cases, provide details in the text box under `Other'.}}
\noindent\textit{Check-box options (select all that apply)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\small $\square$}]
\item \egcvalue{evaluators are told they can ask any questions during/after receiving initial training/instructions, and before the start of the evaluation}: evaluators are told explicitly that they can ask questions about the evaluation experiment \textit{before} starting on their assessments, either during or after training.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators are told they can ask any questions during the evaluation}: evaluators are told explicitly that they can ask questions about the evaluation experiment \textit{during} their assessments.
\item \egcvalue{evaluators are asked for feedback and/or comments after the evaluation, e.g.\ via an exit questionnaire or a comment box}: evaluators are explicitly asked to provide feedback and/or comments about the experiment \textit{after} their assessments, either verbally or in written form.
\item \egcvalue{None of the above}: Choose this option if none of the above are the case in the experiment.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: use this space to describe any other ways you provide for evaluators to ask questions or provide feedback.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{3.3.7: What are the experimental conditions in which evaluators carry out the evaluations? If none match, select `Other’ and describe.}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out by evaluators at a place of their own choosing, e.g.\ online, using a paper form, etc.}: evaluators are given access to the tool or form specified in Question 3.3.2, and subsequently choose where to carry out their evaluations.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out in a lab, and conditions are the same for each evaluator}: evaluations are carried out in a lab, and conditions in which evaluations are carried out \textit{are} controlled to be the same, i.e.\ the different evaluators all carry out the evaluations in identical conditions of quietness, same type of computer, same room, etc. Note we're not after very fine-grained differences here, such as time of day or temperature, but the line is difficult to draw, so some judgment is involved here.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out in a lab, and conditions vary for different evaluators}: choose this option if evaluations are carried out in a lab, but the preceding option does not apply, i.e.\ conditions in which evaluations are carried out are \textit{not} controlled to be the same.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out in a real-life situation, and conditions are the same for each evaluator}: evaluations are carried out in a real-life situation, i.e.\ one that would occur whether or not the evaluation was carried out (e.g.\ evaluating a dialogue system deployed in a live chat function on a website), and conditions in which evaluations are carried out \textit{are} controlled to be the same.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out in a real-life situation, and conditions vary for different evaluators}: choose this option if evaluations are carried out in a real-life situation, but the preceding option does not apply, i.e.\ conditions in which evaluations are carried out are \textit{not} controlled to be the same.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out outside of the lab, in a situation designed to resemble a real-life situation, and conditions are the same for each evaluator}: evaluations are carried out outside of the lab, in a situation intentionally similar to a real-life situation (but not actually a real-life situation), e.g.\ user-testing a navigation system where the destination is part of the evaluation design, rather than chosen by the user. Conditions in which evaluations are carried out \textit{are} controlled to be the same.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation carried out outside of the lab, in a situation designed to resemble a real-life situation, and conditions vary for different evaluators}: choose this option if evaluations are carried out outside of the lab, in a situation intentionally similar to a real-life situation, but the preceding option does not apply, i.e.\ conditions in which evaluations are carried out are \textit{not} controlled to be the same.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: Use this space to provide additional, or alternative, information about the conditions in which evaluators carry out assessments, not covered by the options above.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{3.3.8: Unless the evaluation is carried out at a place of the evaluators' own choosing, briefly describe the (range of different) conditions in which evaluators carry out the evaluations.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: use this space to describe the variations in the conditions in which evaluators carry out the evaluation, for both situations where those variations are controlled, and situations where they are not controlled.
\vspace{.3cm}
\section{Quality Criterion \textit{n} -- Definition and Operationalisation}
\label{sec:criteria}
Questions in this section collect information about the $n$th quality criterion assessed in the single human evaluation experiment that this sheet is being completed for. The HEDS 1.0 form allows this section to be completed repeatedly, for up to 10 different quality criteria (see further explanation at the end of the section).
For more information, in particular about quality criterion properties and evaluation mode properties, see \citet{belz-etal-2020-disentangling}.
\subsection{Quality criterion properties (Questions 4.1.1--4.1.3)}
Questions 4.1.1--4.1.3 capture the aspect of quality that is assessed by a given quality criterion in terms of three orthogonal properties. They help determine e.g.\ whether or not the same aspect of quality is being evaluated in different evaluation experiments. The three properties characterise quality criteria in terms of (i) what type of quality is being assessed; (ii) what aspect of the system output is being assessed; and (iii) whether system outputs are assessed in their own right or with reference to some system-internal or system-external frame of reference.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.1.1: What type of quality is assessed by the quality criterion?}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Correctness}: select this option if it is possible to state, generally for all outputs, the conditions under which outputs are maximally correct (hence of maximal quality). E.g.\ for Grammaticality, outputs are (maximally) correct if they contain no grammatical errors; for Semantic Completeness, outputs are correct if they express all the content in the input.
\item \egcvalue{Goodness}: select this option if, in contrast to correctness criteria, there is no single, general mechanism for deciding when outputs are maximally good, only for deciding for two outputs which is better and which is worse. E.g.\ for Fluency, even if outputs contain no disfluencies, there may be other ways in which any given output could be more fluent.
\item \egcvalue{Features}: choose this option if, in terms of property $X$ captured by the criterion, outputs are not generally better if they are more $X$, but instead, depending on evaluation context, more $X$ may be better or less $X$ may be better. E.g.\ outputs can be more specific or less specific, but it’s not the case that outputs are, in the general case, better when they are more specific.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.1.2: Which aspect of system outputs is assessed by the quality criterion?}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Form of output}: choose this option if the criterion assesses the form of outputs alone, e.g.\ Grammaticality is only about the form, a sentence can be grammatical yet be wrong or nonsensical in terms of content.
\item \egcvalue{Content of output}: choose this option if the criterion assesses the content/meaning of the output alone, e.g.\ Meaning Preservation only assesses output content; two sentences can be considered to have the same meaning, but differ in form.
\item \egcvalue{Both form and content of output}: choose this option if the criterion assesses outputs as a whole, not just form or just content. E.g.\ Coherence is a property of outputs as a whole, either form or meaning can detract from it.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.1.3: Is each output assessed for quality in its own right, or with reference to a system-internal or external frame of reference?}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Quality of output in its own right}: choose this option if output quality is assessed without referring to anything other than the output itself, i.e.\ no system-internal or external frame of reference. E.g.\ Poeticness is assessed by considering (just) the output and how poetic it is.
\item \egcvalue{Quality of output relative to the input}: choose this option if output quality is assessed relative to the input. E.g.\ Answerability is the degree to which the output question can be answered from information in the input.
\item \egcvalue{Quality of output relative to a system-external frame of reference}: choose this option if output quality is assessed with reference to system-external information, such as a knowledge base, a person’s individual writing style, or the performance of an embedding system. E.g.\ Factual Accuracy assesses outputs relative to a source of real-world knowledge.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Evaluation mode properties (Questions 4.2.1--4.2.3)}
Questions 4.2.1--4.2.3 record properties that are orthogonal to quality criteria, i.e.\ any given quality criterion can in principle be combined with any of the modes (although some combinations are more common than others).
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.2.1: Does an individual assessment involve an objective or a subjective judgment?}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Objective}: Examples of objective assessment include any automatically counted or otherwise quantified measurements such as mouse-clicks, occurrences in text, etc. Repeated assessments of the same output with an objective-mode evaluation method always yield the same score/result.
\item \egcvalue{Subjective}: Subjective assessments involve ratings, opinions and preferences by evaluators. Some criteria lend themselves more readily to subjective assessments, e.g.\ Friendliness of a conversational agent, but an objective measure e.g.\ based on lexical markers is also conceivable.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.2.2: Are outputs assessed in absolute or relative terms?}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Absolute}: choose this option if evaluators are shown outputs from a single system during each individual assessment.
\item \egcvalue{Relative}: choose this option if evaluators are shown outputs from multiple systems at the same time during assessments, typically ranking or preference-judging them.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.2.3: Is the evaluation intrinsic or extrinsic?}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Intrinsic}: Choose this option if quality of outputs is assessed \textit{without} considering their \textit{effect} on something external to the system, e.g.\ the performance of an embedding system or of a user at a task.
\item \egcvalue{Extrinsic}: Choose this option if quality of outputs is assessed in terms of their \textit{effect} on something external to the system such as the performance of an embedding system or of a user at a task.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Response elicitation (Questions 4.3.1--4.3.11)}
Questions 4.3.1--4.3.11 record information about how responses are elicited for the quality criterion this section is being completed for.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.1: What do you call the quality criterion in explanations/interfaces to evaluators? Enter `N/A' if criterion not named.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: the name you use to refer to the quality criterion in explanations and/or interfaces created for evaluators. Examples of quality criterion names include Fluency, Clarity, Meaning Preservation. If no name is used, state `N/A'.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.2: What definition do you give for the quality criterion in explanations/interfaces to evaluators? Enter `N/A' if no definition given.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Copy and past the verbatim definition you give to evaluators to explain the quality criterion they're assessing. If you don't explicitly call it a definition, enter the nearest thing to a definition you give them. If you don't give any definition, state `N/A'.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.3: Size of scale or other rating instrument (i.e.\ how many different possible values there are). Answer should be an integer or `continuous' (if it's not possible to state how many possible responses there are). Enter `N/A' if there is no rating instrument.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: The number of different response values for this quality criterion. E.g.\ for a 5-point Likert scale, the size to enter is 5. For two-way forced-choice preference judgments, it is 2; if there's also a no-preference option, enter 3. For a slider that is mapped to 100 different values for the purpose of recording assessments, the size to enter is 100. If no rating instrument is used (e.g.\ when evaluation gathers post-edits or qualitative feedback only), enter `N/A'.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.4: List or range of possible values of the scale or other rating instrument. Enter `N/A', if there is no rating instrument.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: list, or give the range of, the possible values of the rating instrument. The list or range should be of the size specified in Question 4.3.3. If there are too many to list, use a range. E.g.\ for two-way forced-choice preference judgments, the list entered might be \textit{A better, B better}; if there's also a no-preference option, the list
might be \textit{A better, B better, neither}. For a slider that is mapped to 100 different values for the purpose of recording assessments, the range \textit{1--100} might be entered. If no rating instrument is used (e.g.\ when evaluation gathers post-edits or qualitative feedback only), enter 'N/A'.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.5: How is the scale or other rating instrument presented to evaluators? If none match, select `Other’ and describe.}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{Multiple-choice options}: choose this option if evaluators select exactly one of multiple options.
\item \egcvalue{Check-boxes}: choose this option if evaluators select any number of options from multiple given options.
\item \egcvalue{Slider}: choose this option if evaluators move a pointer on a slider scale to the position corresponding to their assessment.
\item \egcvalue{N/A (there is no rating instrument)}: choose this option if there is no rating instrument.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: choose this option if there is a rating instrument, but none of the above adequately describe the way you present it to evaluators. Use the text box to describe the rating instrument and link to a screenshot.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.6: If there is no rating instrument, describe briefly what task the evaluators perform (e.g.\ ranking multiple outputs, finding information, playing a game, etc.), and what information is recorded. Enter `N/A' if there is a rating instrument.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: If (and only if) there is no rating instrument, i.e.\ you entered `N/A' for Questions 4.3.3--4.3.5, describe the task evaluators perform in this space. Otherwise, here enter `N/A' if there \textit{is} a rating instrument.
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.7: What is the verbatim question, prompt or instruction given to evaluators (visible to them during each individual assessment)? }}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Copy and paste the verbatim text that evaluators see during each assessment, that is intended to convey the evaluation task to them. E.g.\ \textit{Which of these texts do you prefer?} Or \textit{Make any corrections to this text that you think are necessary in order to improve it to the point where you would be happy to provide it to a client.}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.8: Form of response elicitation. If none match, select `Other' and describe.}}
\noindent\textit{Multiple-choice options (select one)}:\footnote{Explanations adapted from \citet{howcroft-etal-2020-twenty}.}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0cm,leftmargin=0.5cm,label={\LARGE $\circ$}]
\item \egcvalue{(dis)agreement with quality statement}: Participants specify the degree to which they agree with a given quality statement by indicating their agreement on a rating instrument. The rating instrument is labelled with degrees of agreement and can additionally have numerical labels. E.g.\ \textit{This text is fluent --- 1=strongly disagree...5=strongly agree}.
\item \egcvalue{direct quality estimation}: Participants are asked to provide a rating using a rating instrument, which typically (but not always) mentions the quality criterion explicitly. E.g.\ \textit{How fluent is this text? --- 1=not at all fluent...5=very fluent}.
\item \egcvalue{relative quality estimation (including ranking)}: Participants evaluate two or more items in terms of which is better.
E.g.\ \textit{Rank these texts in terms of fluency}; \textit{Which of these texts is more fluent?}; \textit{Which of these items do you prefer?}.
\item \egcvalue{counting occurrences in text}: Evaluators are asked to count how many times some type of phenomenon occurs, e.g.\ the number of facts contained in the output that are inconsistent with the input.
\item \egcvalue{qualitative feedback (e.g.\ via comments entered in a text box)}: Typically, these are responses to open-ended questions in a survey or interview.
\item \egcvalue{evaluation through post-editing/annotation}: Choose this option if the evaluators' task consists of editing or inserting annotations in text. E.g.\ evaluators may perform error correction and edits are then automatically measured to yield a numerical score.
\item \egcvalue{output classification or labelling}: Choose this option if evaluators assign outputs to categories. E.g.\ \textit{What is the overall sentiment of this piece of text? --- Positive/neutral/negative.}
\item \egcvalue{user-text interaction measurements}: choose this option if participants in the evaluation experiment interact with a text in some way, and measurements are taken of their interaction. E.g.\ reading speed, eye movement tracking, comprehension questions, etc. Excludes situations where participants are given a task to solve and their performance is measured which comes under the next option.
\item \egcvalue{task performance measurements}: choose this option if participants in the evaluation experiment are given a task to perform, and measurements are taken of their performance at the task. E.g.\ task is finding information, and task performance measurement is task completion speed and success rate.
\item \egcvalue{user-system interaction measurements}: choose this option if participants in the evaluation experiment interact with a system in some way, while measurements are taken of their interaction. E.g.\ duration of interaction, hyperlinks followed, number of likes, or completed sales.
\item \egcvalue{Other (please specify)}: Use the text box to describe the form of response elicitation used in assessing the quality criterion if it doesn't fall in any of the above categories.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.9: How are raw responses from participants aggregated or otherwise processed to obtain reported scores for this quality criterion? State if no scores reported.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: normally a set of separate assessments is collected from evaluators and is converted to the results as reported. Describe here the method(s) used in the conversion(s). E.g.\ macro-averages or micro-averages are computed from numerical scores to provide summary, per-system results.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.10: Method(s) used for determining effect size and significance of findings for this quality criterion.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: A list of methods used for calculating the effect size and significance of any results, both as reported in the paper given in Question 1.1, for this quality criterion. If none calculated, state `None'.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 4.3.11: Has the inter-annotator and intra-annotator agreement between evaluators for this quality criterion been measured? If yes, what method was used, and what are the agreement scores?}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: the methods used to compute, and results obtained from, any measures of inter-annotator and intra-annotator agreement obtained for the quality criterion.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent The section ends with the question \textbf{Is there another quality criterion in the evaluation experiment that you haven't completed this section for yet?} If \textbf{Yes} is selected, another copy of the quality criterion section opens up, to be completed for the next criterion. If \textbf{No}, the next section will be the Ethics section below. The maximum number of criteria the form can currently be completed for is 10. We can add more on request.
\section{Ethics}\label{sec:ethics}
The questions in this section relate to ethical aspects of the evaluation. Information can be entered in the text box provided, and/or by linking to a source where complete information can be found.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 5.1: Has the evaluation experiment this sheet is being completed for, or the larger study it is part of, been approved by a research ethics committee? If yes, which research ethics committee?}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Typically, research organisations, universities and other higher-education institutions require some form ethical approval before experiments involving human participants, however innocuous, are permitted to proceed. Please provide here the name of the body that approved the experiment, or state `No' if approval has not (yet) been obtained.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 5.2: Do any of the system outputs (or human-authored stand-ins) evaluated, or do any of the responses collected, in the experiment contain personal data (as defined in GDPR Art. 4, §1: https://gdpr.eu/article-4-definitions/)? If yes, describe data and state how addressed.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: State `No' if no personal data as defined by GDPR was recorded or collected, otherwise explain how conformity with GDPR requirements such as privacy and security was ensured, e.g.\ by linking to the (successful) application for ethics approval from Question 5.1.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 5.3: Do any of the system outputs (or human-authored stand-ins) evaluated, or do any of the responses collected, in the experiment contain special category information (as defined in GDPR Art. 9, §1: https://gdpr.eu/article-9-processing-special-categories-of-personal-data-prohibited/)? If yes, describe data and state how addressed.}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: State `No' if no special-category data as defined by GDPR was recorded or collected, otherwise explain how conformity with GDPR requirements relating to special-category data was ensured, e.g.\ by linking to the (successful) application for ethics approval from Question 5.1.
\vspace{-.3cm}
\subsection*{\qsecbox{Question 5.4: Have any impact assessments been carried out for the evaluation experiment, and/or any data collected/evaluated in connection with it? If yes, summarise approach(es) and outcomes.}}
\noindent\textit{What to enter in the text box}: Use this box to describe any \textit{ex ante} or \textit{ex post} impact assessments that have been carried out in relation to the evaluation experiment, such that the assessment plan and process, as well as the outcomes, were captured in written form. Link to documents if possible. Types of impact assessment include data protection impact assessments, e.g.\ under GDPR.\footnote{\footnotesize \url{https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/accountability-and-governance/data-protection-impact-assessments/}}Environmental and social impact assessment frameworks are also available.
\section{Future Work}
We welcome feedback on any aspect of the Human Evaluation Datasheet. We envisage the template and questions to evolve over time partly in response to such feedback. Currently planned work includes (i) increasing the generality of the template to make it equally suitable for all forms of human evaluation in NLP, and (ii) creating a repository of completed datasheets.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-0.75em}
There is a conceptual gap~\cite{FR07} in the systems engineering domain between the
expertise of participating domain experts (biologists, chemists, mechanical
engineers, etc.) and the challenges of systems engineering.
Consequently, with the advance of various systems engineering domains from
documents to models, we are seeing a shift in the way modelling is
introduced at early stages of the systems engineering processes.
The ubiquitous General-Purpose Languages (GPLs) used for software
development present difficulties in system modelling \cite{mci/Proper2020} as
they focus on technical implementation details, aggravate analysing the
systems under development holistically, and prevent domain experts from
contributing solutions directly.
Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs)~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/0034522} instead
aim to reduce the gap by being aimed at a particular domain, supporting
domain-specific abstractions, and are better accessible to analysis and
synthesis of systems and their parts.
In the context of this paper, we use the term \textit{developer} to refer to industrial language engineers and \textit{user} to refer to industrial practitioners and domain experts.
Various graphical DSLs have been developed to support modelling in different
domains, such as MATLAB Simulink~\cite{Cha15} or SysML \cite{FMS14}.
Yet, these are still overly generic and do not reflect domain concepts.
However, systematically developing truly domain specific languages, e.g., a
systems engineering language for the Italian railway
system~\cite{356ac9c6461040a79c84fa1ebf6815e0}, that captures this
particular domain's terminology (syntax), rules (well-formedness
constraints), and meaning (semantics) is complicated.
Reusing encapsulated DSL parts systematically can facilitate engineering new
DSLs and ultimately foster truly domain-specific systems modelling.
Additionally, the deployment of such DSLs to their users can be challenging.
Often, the users the DSLs are developed for, model quite rarely,
maybe once a week or less. Another challenge of graphical DSLs is to effectively represent DSL elements visually \cite{10.1109/TSE.2009.67, nielsen} that improves usability heuristics and aids users in deriving hints to the meaning of such elements with the use of icons, colours and appearances.
Hence, despite employing domain terminology, concepts, rules, and meaning,
modelling with many DSLs can be less effective than expected.
Industrial DSL engineering, therefore, needs to consider that users are perhaps
modelling less often than expected and integrate modelling support and
usability considerations into reusable language components, the DSL Building
Blocks.
Addressing the above challenges is essential to achieving modelling goals
effectively. Therefore, this paper presents an approach, DSL Building
Blocks, which supports developers in building better usable graphical DSLs more efficiently and helps users achieve modelling more efficiently.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/DSL_BB_Structure.pdf}
\vspace*{-1.75em}
\caption{A conceptual model for the development and usage of a graphical DSL describing the different levels in the development process including defining the DSL Building Block consisting of the method, language and nucleus at the concept level. Different traffic signals layouts for City X and City Y are depicted at the usage level for different cities.}
\label{fig:dslbb_structure}
\vspace{-2.05em}
\end{figure}
Our approach, summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:dslbb_structure}, separates the concerns of industrial engineering and deployment
of DSLs along three different levels that relate to different skill sets and
activities:
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
\item Concept level: in this level, developers define three parts: (i) the language, where abstract syntax, graphical concrete syntax and the translational semantic mapping is defined for developers; (ii) the method, where certain constraints and methodical steps are described for users to help achieve intended modelling goals; and (iii) the nucleus, where visual representations and notations on DSL elements are described by developers to help users relate to commonly used visual designs;
\item Tool-specific implementation level: in this level, developers realize the concepts described in the concept level by developing the DSL Building Blocks and the DSLs using a graphical modelling tool;
\item Usage level: this is the level where users understand the methodical steps, documentation and visual representations of DSL elements to achieve their modelling goals.
\end{inparaenum}
Leveraging this separation enables a systematic development of graphical DSL for developers who can reuse common parts for similarly structured DSLs. Further, it is beneficial to users as they can follow methodical steps and derive meaning from visual representation of DSL elements simplifying their modelling experience and efficiently reaching their modelling goals.
Our focus on this paper is on the concept level, as developers could use different graphical modelling tools to build their DSLs. By defining DSL constraints, steps to reach a modelling goal, language syntaxes and nucleus nuances, we separate the language, method and nucleus of a DSL Building Block enabling developers to re-use these parts during the development of similarly structured graphical DSLs.
The concept of DSL Building Blocks is supported with a running example of a
state machine and investigated through a case study and a qualitative focus
group research~\cite{krueger2009focus}.
Overall, our approach builds on years of experience in developing graphical DSLs for various industrial projects. By separating the concerns of industrial DSL engineering across different levels, developers achieve reuse of encapsulated parts in a systematic way. Effective visual representation of DSL elements and a structured guidance to achieving modelling goals is beneficial for users in optimizing their modelling experience.
In the remainder, \ref{bg} provides some background and related work, before
\ref{md} presents our approach with a running example.
Afterward, \ref{cs} describes a case study based on the example and
\ref{eval} describes the evaluation.
Finally, \ref{discussion} provides a discussion of the approach and \ref{con} concludes the paper.
\section{Background}
\label{bg}
\vspace{-.6em}
DSLs are software languages and software languages are software
too~\cite{FGD+10}.
Hence, their engineering is subject to the usual challenges of software
engineering in addition to considering multiple (meta)languages to define
the language's constituents.
Generally, a software language consists of~\cite{CGR09,CBCR15}:
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
\item an abstract syntax that defines the structure of its models, e.g., in
form of grammars~\cite{HR17} or metamodels~\cite{CBW17};
\item a concrete syntax that defines how the models are presented, e.g.,
graphical~\cite{DCB+15}, textual~\cite{Bet16}, or projectional~\cite{Cam14}; and
\item semantics, in the sense of meaning~\cite{HR04}, often realized through
model-to-text~\cite{Bet16} or model-to-model transformations~\cite{JFB+08}.
\end{inparaenum}
To address this complexity, the research area of Software Language
Engineering (SLE)~\cite{Kle08,HRW18} has emerged and with it, language
workbenches~\cite{ESV+13}, specialized tools for the creation of software
languages.
Many of these provide advanced language engineering support, such as the
generation of debuggers~\cite{DCB+15}, editors~\cite{Bet16}, or reusable
language modules~\cite{HR17} from abstract syntax descriptions.
Yet, methodologies for systematic SLE in the large are rare.
And where studies detail how industrial graphical DSLs are implemented
\cite{Mendez-AcunaGDC16, TolvanenK05}, the
reported methodologies are highly specific to individual departments and
require repeated, time-consuming effort in language engineering. Either central research units, such as in Siemens Technology, must become more common in developing truly domain-specific or users in companies not having such units, such as Siemens Healthineers, must be trained with software and language engineering.
Moreover, the language engineering and reuse methods proposed so far focus
solely on technical improvements, such as explicit language
interfaces~\cite{BPR+20}, merging of language parts~\cite{DCB+15}, or
language types~\cite{SJ07}.
Usability of languages and language parts, in the form of modelling
documentation, guidance, or automated modelling assistants as part of graphical DSL development are still missing.
In our literature review, we found two aspects that are
often neglected: a systematic approach to developing graphical DSLs that fosters re-usability of common language elements combining guidelines for modelling and ways to achieve efficient user experience (UX) for users of such DSLs.
Despite the efforts in previous research \cite{KKP+09, CzechMP20}, there is a lot to consider when building DSLs. We have not come across a methodology for developing graphical DSLs that takes into consideration how
to reach a certain modelling goal and ways to improve the UX for users.
One possible explanation could be that modelling goals vary for different
projects and usability heuristics are not considered part of the language
definition.
In our experience of developing a diverse set of graphical DSLs for
industrial projects, there is a need for a methodology that can be
described independent of a specific implementation or graphical modelling tool that eventually benefits
users.
\section{DSL Building Blocks}
\label{md}
\vspace{-.25em}
In this section, we introduce the approach and terminology of a DSL Building
Block with the help of a running example of a state machine. A state machine
consists of \textit{states} (the information of a system at an
instant), \textit{transitions} (translations from a source to a target
state), and \textit{triggers} (actions or inputs that hold to enable a
transitions).
\textit{Initial} states describe where the state machine begins its
execution or gets reset to.
\textit{Final} states describe where the state machine ends its execution.
All other states are \textit{intermediate} states.
\vspace{-0.6em}
\subsection{DSL Building Block Structure}
\vspace{-.35em}
Our approach, summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:dslbb_structure} as a conceptual model, starts from a classical domain-driven approach where users define the business requirements such as number of states and transitions in a state machine. The systematic approach to developing graphical DSLs is based on domain-driven design \cite{evans2004ddd}, allowing developers to create graphical DSLs aimed at better modelling software and system architectures. These business requirements, specific to each project, are first translated into a \textit{DSL Building Block} that primarily consists of three parts:
(1) the \textit{language}, which defines the abstract syntax, graphical concrete syntax and semantics of the language;
(2) the \textit{method}, which describes how to reach a modelling goal; and
(3) the \textit{nucleus}, which describes the visual representations and notations for better UX on model elements.
In our example, defining these parts leads to a structured definition of a state machine DSL Building Block, which is then extended to specific industrial examples such as different traffic signalling systems, an oven or a heater, or systems that require sequential control logic.
The outcome of this developmental approach is to prevent the reinvention of the same method, language and nucleus parts of similar graphical DSLs more than once.
The development and usage of a graphical DSL based on DSL Building Blocks is segregated into three logical levels and is performed by three actors whose tasks and activities are described in Fig. \ref{fig:actors_ad}.
At the \textit{concept} level, a \textit{DSL Building Block Developer}, who is a modelling expert
with additional expertise in UX, and language engineering (such as key expert engineers in software and systems research units at Siemens), describes the constraints and method of use of the DSL, the abstract syntax, the graphical concrete syntax along with a structured documentation of model elements and the nucleus consisting of visual notations and representations of the model elements in accordance with the requirements specified by users. As well as defining the parts generically, such as for a state machine, they also identify and define project specific DSL Building Block requirements, such as for a traffic signal system.
The \textit{tool-specific implementation} level is where a \textit{DSL Developer}, equipped with sufficient programming skills needed for building graphical DSLs, selects the relevant graphical modelling tool in accordance to their organization and develops the DSL Building Block and its corresponding DSL.
The \textit{usage} level is where users understand the steps, documentation and visual representations of DSL elements to ultimately achieve their modelling goals on the selected graphical modelling tool. This is performed by a \textit{DSL User}, who does not need to be proficient in UX, modelling or programming, but possess expert knowledge in their respective domains. They also provide subsequent feedback and improved requirements to DSL Building Block Developers corresponding to agile principles of immediate feedback and continuous integration \cite{Beck00}. As DSL Users represent a diverse set of users, it is important for a DSL Building Block Developer to describe the parts of a DSL Building Block in a meaningful and easy to understand manner using appropriate documentation and visual designs and notations belonging to a particular domain. While developers could also possess domain expertise, they are rather uncommon in Siemens.
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/Actors_ActivityDiagram.pdf}
\vspace*{-1.75em}
\caption{An activity diagram describing the tasks and activities of the three actors in the DSL Building Block approach.}
\label{fig:actors_ad}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
We now describe each of the parts based on the state machine example. It is worth mentioning that we represent the state machine model elements within square brackets such as [State: X], [Transition: y]. X and y are the names or an identification number for the respective model element in a derived DSL Building Block. For a state machine DSL Building Block the main model elements are defined as {[State]}, {[Transition]} and {[Trigger]}.
\vspace{-.70em}
\subsection{The Language}
\vspace{-0.35em}
The \textit{language} part of the DSL Building Block describes the abstract syntax, the graphical concrete syntax and the translational semantic mapping for the language. Fig. \ref{fig:dslbb_2_sm_cd} shows the abstract syntax of a state machine describing the necessary concepts and structure of the language. The model elements {[State Machine]}, {[State]}, {[Transition]}, {[Trigger]} and the {[StateType]} are defined along with the list of attributes. In our example, the method list is left empty for the class diagram, but can be modified later to allow for specific business requirements. The DSL Building Block Developer initially defines a default graphical form without any specific visualization properties, for each model element as part of the concrete syntax. E.g., a state is defined to be a rectangle corresponding to a UML object and a transition is defined to be a straight line. These model elements are visually defined and improved later in the nucleus to complete a better graphical concrete syntax aimed for a more visually understandable and easy to use DSL. The structured documentation from the defined model elements to the semantic domain essentially provides meanings to those model elements. For the state machine, a structured documentation of the model elements and their attributes along with detailed description is shown in Table \ref{tab:semantic-mapping-sm}, for DSL Users to easily understand and relate each model element.
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=5.5cm]{images/StateMachine_Language.pdf}
\vspace*{-1em}
\caption{A class diagram showing the abstract syntax of a state machine DSL Building Block as well as the relationships between them.}
\label{fig:dslbb_2_sm_cd}
\vspace{-1.7em}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{The structured documentation of syntax elements for a state machine DSL Building Block.}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{@{}|l|l|l|@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Syntax Element} &
\textbf{Attribute} &
\textbf{Description} \\ \midrule
\textbf{State Machine} &
&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}A finite state machine with a fixed number of [State]s and [Transition]s.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{State} &
&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Representation of information of a system at a given point.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
name &
Name of the [State]. \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
type &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Type of a [State]: \textit{Initial}, \textit{Intermediate}, \textit{Final}.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{Transition} &
&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}A path between two [State]s based on an action.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
source &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}A [Transition] starts at this [State]. \end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
target &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}The [State] where the [Transition] ends.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
action &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}The [Trigger] that switches the [Transition] from a source to a target [State].\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{Trigger} &
&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}A logical condition for a [Transition] running for a definite period of time.\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\textbf{} &
condition &
A string holding the condition requirement. \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:semantic-mapping-sm}
\vspace{-2.9em}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{The Method}
\vspace{-0.35em}
The \textit{method} part of the DSL Building Block describes the modelling goal for a business use case, which serves as a guide to a DSL User, and addresses the question "how-to" reach that goal. Modelling goals vary for DSL Users and include representations of target systems and their behaviour, ideas, simulations as well as specific business requirements for a wide variety of projects. An example of a business use-case would be to design a traffic signal system that follows a sequential control logic. Given the variety of domains and projects, there is a need for a comprehensive guide for DSL Users to reach their goals in an effortless manner. The DSL Building Block Developer describes a suitable approach to reach these modelling goals using a sequence of methodical steps, specified textually and using an activity diagram. The inputs and outputs at each step consists of an actual model, parts of a model or trivial and non-trivial business requirements in relation to the composition of the system in consideration. In addition, a list of constraints is defined for the DSL Developer to ensure that the basic, yet critical, conditions for a DSL Building Block, that may otherwise be overlooked, are pre-checked and validated. The methodical steps provide a helping guide to DSL Users in reaching their modelling goals.
The list of constraints for a finite state machine, which consists of a finite number of [State]s and [Transition]s, are described as follows by the DSL Building Block Developer. \textit{Constraint 1:} All the [State]s described in the State Machine DSL Building Block must be reachable by [Transition]s, except the initial [State] which may or may not be reachable by a [Transition] but is the starting point of the machine. \textit{Constraint 2:} A [State] can have more than one incoming [Transition]s, each from different [State]s. Similarly, a [State] can have more than one outgoing [Transition]s, each to different [State]s. \textit{Constraint 3:} The initial [State] has either zero or one incoming [Transition] from an intermediate [State] and the final [State]s will not have any outgoing [Transition]s. \textit{Constraint 4:} A [Transition] between two [State]s must execute within a defined time frame.
Fig. \ref{fig:dslbb_sm_ad} describes the steps needed to reach a modelling goal for a state machine making it beneficial for a DSL User to easily understand and follow the process needed to reach their modelling goals.
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/StateMachine_BB_Method_ActDiag.pdf}
\vspace*{-1.4em}
\caption{A method activity diagram that describes the sequence of methodical steps needed to reach the modelling goal for the state machine DSL Building Block example.}
\label{fig:dslbb_sm_ad}
\vspace{-1.25em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Nucleus}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The \textit{nucleus} part of the DSL Building Block consists of various characteristics of model elements for the language, termed \textit{nucleus nuances}, that help provide a coherent UX to users based on context conditions, visual representations, transformations and validation rules. Context conditions are boolean predicates on a language's abstract syntax to checking its consistency and is used to determine if a model is well-formed \cite{HR17}. Visual representations are representations of model elements in the form of icons, colours, appearance, dialogs and its properties in relation to shape, size and opacity. Transformations allow model elements to be automatically instantiated and validation rules enable better error detection with model elements, including checking redundant model elements or misconfigured types that are hard to be detected manually. Certain studies have explored generating graphical syntax for better visual representation \cite{SATG15, NastovP14}. A \textit{nucleus nuance} is a characteristic of a model element describing the model element's intent, motivation and consequences based on reasoning to enhance UX for DSL Users. The usability aspects in building graphical DSLs is often neglected which leads to users struggling in understanding complex DSLs \cite{Mosqueira-ReyA20, RodriguesZBC18}. Therefore, nuances are described by the DSL Building Block Developer for effective usability and visual notation conventions \cite{GreenP96, Blackwell08, 10.1109/TSE.2009.67} in making better design decisions with respect to each individual domain. Each nuance is described with a reasoning as a textual template, that the DSL Developer builds into the DSL Building Block and the DSL. Users can thus easily understand the notations and importance of these nuances for effectively using a graphical DSL. We now list a few nucleus nuances for the state machine example.
\textit{Nuance 1:} On creation of a [State Machine], an initial [State] is also created automatically on a graphical modelling tool canvas. \textit{Reason}: Users often forget to create or mark the initial state or remove it without marking another initial state during model creation or refactoring.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 2:} [State]s are oval or circular in shape and [Transition]s are denoted with curved black arrows. \textit{Reason}: Representing different model elements in particular shapes allows for easy visual identification of model elements on the graphical modelling tool.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 3:} The initial [State] is marked with an \faInfo \space (alphabet i) symbol whereas the final [State]s are marked with an \faFacebook \space (alphabet f) symbol. \textit{Reason}: Visualizations with different symbols prevent users from creating multiple such [State]s or confuse them with other [State]s in a complex system with multiple model elements.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 4:} All instances of a [State] are filled with a distinct colour, except intermediate [State]s, where two such intermediate [State]s can be filled with the same colour. \textit{Reason}: Visualizations with different colours help distinguish [StateType]s.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 5:} A [State] without an incoming or outgoing [Transition]s is marked with a red exclamation mark \textcolor{red}{\faExclamation} at its top right corner. \textit{Reason}: Often in complex models, changes in the model leads to the unwanted removal of model elements leading to errors in model. This nuance, thus, helps in validation and error detection.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 6:} A [Transition] between two [State]s is represented by a curved black line. If a [Transition] does not contain a [Trigger], the link is coloured red along with an exclamation mark \textcolor{red}{\faExclamation}. \textit{Reason}: This nuance also helps in detecting errors and validates certain rules that may be thought of initially as an implied behaviour.
\vspace{-.2em}
\textit{Nuance 7:} Each [State]s can also be marked with any additional relevant icon that represents visually aiding information about the [State]. \textit{Reason}: Complex industrial systems consists of multiple hardware and software resources. Using relevant icons helps identify model elements with ease.
\vspace{-.2em}
\section{Extended Example as a Case Study}
\label{cs}
\vspace{-.5em}
A local government of a city is holding an exhibition (expo) inviting industrial manufacturers to foster innovation around mobility and sustainability. To effectively manage traffic during the event, an intelligent traffic management system is needed serving different purposes. For example, one area of the expo calls for a traffic signal serving pedestrians and cars, while another area of the expo needs a traffic signal catering to fully autonomous cars, thus requiring fewer states and transitions and standardised traffic signal lights that the autonomous cars can detect to either proceed or stop. With a state machine DSL Building Block defined earlier, deriving such traffic signal DSL Building Blocks, that also require sequential control logic, becomes significant for re-usability. This reduces repetitive tasks such as defining constraints, states and transitions and defining syntax related to the language during the graphical DSL development.
We extend the example of a state machine to a traffic signal in this case study. A traffic signal DSL Building Block consists of three state instances: {[State: Go]} (Initial State), {[State: Slow]} (Intermediate State), {[State: Stop]} (Intermediate State). The transitions and triggers for these states are shown in Table \ref{tab:traffic-transitions}. The times in the trigger column are filled in by DSL Users when building models, thus simplifying the use of a DSL. The method, language and nucleus parts are adapted by the DSL Building Block Developers for a specific traffic signal and do not influence the state machine DSL Building Block. However, an advantage of exploring different case studies allows common adaptations to also be incorporated directly in a parent DSL Building Block for future re-use, thus allowing quick and continuous improvements. An example of such commonality could be a sensor that is used in all instances of all traffic signal implementation. Finally, nuances help in relating to better visual representations allowing DSL Users to design traffic signal models that are similar to real-world traffic signals as shown Fig. \ref{fig:ts_impl}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\caption{Transitions and trigger conditions for a traffic signal DSL Building Block.}
\vspace*{-.75em}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{@{}|l|l|l|l|@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Transition} & \textbf{Source State} & \textbf{Target State} & \textbf{Trigger Condition} \\ \midrule
{[}Transition: 1{]} & {[}State: Go{]} & {[}State: Slow{]} & "Wait t$_1$ seconds"$^{\mathrm{a}}$ \\ \midrule
{[}Transition: 2{]} & {[}State: Slow{]} & {[}State: Stop{]} & "Wait t$_2$ seconds"$^{\mathrm{a}}$ \\ \midrule
{[}Transition: 3{]} & {[}State: Stop{]} & {[}State: Go{]} & "Wait t$_3$ seconds"$^{\mathrm{a}}$ \\ \bottomrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$t$_1$, t$_2$, t$_3$ are the times defined by a DSL user when using the DSL.}
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:traffic-transitions}
\vspace{-1.7em}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/CaseStudy_TrafficSignal_Impl.pdf}
\vspace*{-1.9em}
\caption{A traffic signal model for pedestrians and cars (left) and a model for autonomous cars with fewer states and transitions (right).}
\label{fig:ts_impl}
\vspace{-1.85em}
\end{figure}
We now discuss modifications to the state machine example to support the traffic signal DSL Building Block. The following constraint is added to the method. \textit{Constraint 5:} As a traffic signal is intended to run indefinitely, the final state will not exist. The methodical steps from the state machine example is updated to include the following transitions. {[Transition: 1]}: {[State: Go] -\textgreater [State: Slow]}; {[Transition: 2]}: {[State: Slow] -\textgreater [State: Stop]}; {[Transition: 3]}: {[State: Stop] -\textgreater [State: Go]}. The class diagram representing the abstract syntax is updated to reflect traffic signal specifics, such as two state types: Initial and Intermediate, and three states. The documentation of the model elements described in Table \ref{tab:semantic-mapping-sm} is updated to reflect the changes. Transitions and triggers for this traffic signal example are described in the Table \ref{tab:traffic-transitions}. To further improve visual aspects for the traffic signal, the following nuances are updated or added. \textit{Nuance 2 (updated):} The states must be circular in shape and are arranged vertically in this order (top to bottom): {[State: Stop]}, {[State: Slow]} and {[State: Go]}. \textit{Nuance 8:} {[State: Go]} is filled with green colour and contains a green tick (\textcolor{green}{\faCheck}) icon. \textit{Nuance 9:} {[State: Slow]} is filled with yellow colour and contains an orange (\textcolor{orange}{\faAlignJustify}) icon. Finally, \textit{Nuance 10:} {[State: Stop]} is filled with red colour and contains a red cross (\textcolor{red}{\faTimes}) icon. The reasoning for these nuances is to effectively represent important model elements visually by defining colours, shapes and layouts that are commonly used in real world traffic signals. This case study shows methodical steps, structured documentation and better visual notations of model elements that help DSL Users model systems with a greater degree of confidence and show how parts of a similarly structured graphical DSL can be re-used with minimal adaptations.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{eval}
\vspace{-.4em}
The proposed approach was subject to a qualitative assessment using focus group methods \cite{krueger2009focus}. The purpose of this evaluation was to bring together a group of experienced practitioners and researchers to collectively understand the challenges of the approach, discuss possible solutions and define a systematic graphical DSL developmental approach that would be beneficial for both practitioners and researchers alike. In this section, we describe the evaluation pre-processing, discussions and the results. The evaluation was initially planned for two in-person phases, however due to travel and contact restrictions surrounding COVID-19, the second phase was conducted online using video conferencing tools.
\vspace{-.8em}
\subsection{Participants}
\vspace{-.4em}
To assess the approach, five participants with varying modelling and programming knowledge were chosen. Two participants from the industry were domain modelling experts with 8-12 years experience in developing graphical DSLs. Two participants were researchers from the software engineering domain with limited programming, but 6-12 years experience in software and systems modelling. The final participant was a software developer with limited modelling experience, but 5 years of programming and UX skills. The moderator, a research group manager with experience as a scrum master, was briefed with the proposed approach before each phase.
\vspace{-.9em}
\subsection{Phase 1}
\vspace{-.6em}
Phase 1 was held in-person. The focus group was guided by the moderator who prepared a list of questions and activities on the proposed approach with the discussion lasting two hours.
\textbf{Pre-processing.} The moderator was given three weeks to prepare the content of the discussion, the scripts and the technical setup. The outcome of this phase was to provide a first look into the problems faced by domain experts in building graphical DSLs for industrial projects, and to foster lively discussions and feedback on the proposed approach. The moderator proposed the prepared set of questions and activities, including whiteboard discussions, and took hand-written notes while guiding the discussion.
\textbf{Discussion and results.} The discussion was held over three stages: introduction, main stage and the follow-up phase. In the introduction stage, the moderator introduced the participants and presented the elementary question: (1) \textit{What is the single most difficult challenge when designing DSLs?} The practitioners and researchers unanimously agreed on the need to have proper guidelines in developing graphical DSLs. In the main stage, the following questions were asked: (2) \textit{Which steps in designing graphical DSLs consumes the most of your time?} (3) \textit{Is the usage of visual notations beneficial when using a graphical DSL?} In this stage, there were mixed opinions. While practitioners favoured UX as being more beneficial, the researchers said re-usability helps in reducing time-consuming tasks. Then, the difference between the language and nucleus parts was discussed as certain nuances could be part of the syntax of the language. However, one researcher opined that segregating the nuances and classifying them with reasoning would be more structured for developers. The software developer advocated the use of common visual notations and representations making DSL elements easier for any user to understand. In the follow-up phase, all participants believed more clarifications were needed for phase two as some issues of this approach were insufficiently addressed.
\vspace{-.6em}
\subsection{Phase 2}
\vspace{-.5em}
Phase 2, initially planned for in-person, was conducted online, three months later, due to restrictions surrounding COVID-19 with the same participants and moderator. Building on the experience in the first phase and being updated with an improved version of the approach, the moderator framed a diverse set of questions and activities for this phase.
\textbf{Pre-processing.} The moderator prepared the content of the discussion and set up the audio and video conferencing in Microsoft Teams \cite{MSTeams}. The whiteboard discussion was held over Conceptboard \cite{Conceptboard}. The outcome of this phase was to reach a systematic approach beneficial for both users and developers of graphical DSLs.
\textbf{Discussion and results.} The discussion was held over three stages: introduction, main stage and the follow-up phase. In the introduction, the moderator presented the approach and the initial question: (1) \textit{What strengths or weaknesses does this improved approach carry?} This was followed by a creative discussion in the main stage which included virtual whiteboard discussions. In this stage, participants came up with an approach to define various constraints in the method part and reasoning for each nuance based on the state machine example. At times the audio and video distorted, however, the moderator noted that there was no real disruption in the outcome as all topics were well articulated. The inability to use an offline whiteboard was a challenge for participants as more time was needed here than planned. In the follow-up phase, participants were asked to describe and rate the further improved approach and list prospective work. The participants agreed this final systematic approach is beneficial for both developers and users as well as practitioners and researchers. The final approach presented in this paper is a three layered developmental approach incorporating various suggestions and feedback based on both focus group discussions.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
\vspace{-.35em}
The presented methodology enables DSL Developers to systematically develop graphical DSLs. We achieve re-usability of common aspects during graphical DSL development by separating the concerns of industrial DSL engineering along three different levels relating to different skill sets and activities. The approach, DSL Building Blocks, assists DSL Building Block Developers in defining constraints and methodical steps intended to help DSL Users achieve their modelling goals. The business requirements for each project specific DSL is gathered by DSL Building Block Developers in consultation with DSL Users. The developer then extracts commonalities from requirements in the form of a DSL Building Block definition. Project specific use-cases of DSL Building Blocks can extend and adapt the method, language and nucleus parts, thereby providing adequate flexibility to domain experts in realizing problems of a specific domain. Furthermore, visual representation of various DSL elements is beneficial for DSL Users in simplifying their DSL modelling experience, as users can relate such elements to real world domain specific examples. The combination of providing methodical steps to reach a modelling goal and the focus on UX for DSL Users has been addressed with our approach. Our approach presents a structured graphical DSL development process including adaptation and continuous integration of DSL requirements from DSL Users, who closely interact and suggest feedback to DSL Building Block Developers. Our approach to DSL engineering is limited to graphical DSLs, as large corporations such as Siemens, mostly focus on visualization concepts for representing DSLs. We note that graphical modelling tools such as MetaEdit+ \cite{Tolvanen06} and MagicDraw \cite{Neuendorf06} have different technical capabilities, which therefore poses a challenge towards adopting this methodology seamlessly across all tools. Other language engineering tools such as MPS \cite{VolterV10}, Spoofax \cite{WKV14}, and Melange \cite{DCB+15} provide certain means for language composition and customization, but fail to provide methods for systematic reuse for similarly structured DSLs. While our focus group evaluation was limited to a few practitioners and researchers, we are currently building an extensive survey to gather ways on improving UX for domain experts within Siemens. As part of the ongoing research, we plan to categorize and structure various nuances allowing for them to be easily analyzed to make it more machine-processable and accessible to automation. Further, we plan to work on challenges to introduce inheritance support for multiple DSL Building Blocks in enabling re-use support across a wider variety of domains not structurally related to each other.
Overall, our approach builds upon our experience of developing graphical DSLs for various industry projects as well as the qualitative evaluation of the approach using focus groups that included experienced practitioners and researchers. In this vision, the need to have a proper set of guidelines and documentation is important. We, therefore, propose this systematic approach that not only fosters re-use of language parts for DSL Developers, but also focuses on visual representation of model elements that help DSL Users understand and use graphical DSLs with simplicity. We are unaware of any other similar methodologies for the development of graphical DSLs that helps realize this vision.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{con}
\vspace{-.5em}
We have presented a systematic approach for developing graphical DSLs, DSL Building Blocks, through separation of concerns of industrial DSL engineering among developers and users with different skill sets and activities. This approach solves challenges related to re-usability of common DSL elements for developers and is intended for a better user experience for domain experts who possess different skill sets in DSL language use and engineering. While our approach is currently limited to graphical DSLs, they greatly facilitate the re-use of DSL parts and provide robust guidance, documentation and effective visual representations to users helping them achieve modelling goals with simplicity. Continuous feedback by users to developers help in constantly adapting and improving the DSL Building Blocks and subsequent DSLs. This fosters the adoption of the systematic development of graphical DSLs among developers and narrows the gap between practitioners and researchers. As part of our ongoing research, we are building an extensive feedback survey to collect experiences from users in improving our methodology. We also plan to apply our approach to different domains by introducing inheritance support between DSL Building Blocks and integrate further language definition dimensions.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\vspace{-.5em}
The authors would like to thank Ambra Calà and Jérôme Pfeiffer for their inputs during the course of writing this paper.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetran}
|
\section{Introduction}
A {\em triple system } $H=(V,E)$ has vertex set $V$ and $E$ consists of some triples of $V$ (repeated triples are excluded). For any fixed family ${\cal{H}}$ of triple systems, the Tur\'an number ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{H}})$ is the maximum number of triples in a triple system of $n$ vertices that is $\cal{H}$-free, i.e., does not contain any member of ${\cal{H}}$ as a subsystem.
Our interest here is the family ${\cal{F}}$ of {\em special four cycles}: they have four distinct base vertices $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ and four triples $w_iv_iv_{i+1}$ (indices are understood $\pmod 4$) where the $w_j$s are not necessarily distinct but $w_i\ne v_j$ for any pair of indices $1\le i,j\le 4$.
There are seven non-isomorphic special four cycles. The linear (loose) four cycle $F_1$ is obtained when all $w_j$-s are different and in $F_2$ all $w_j$s coincide. When two pairs coincide we get either $F_3$ ($w_1=w_2,w_3=w_4$) or $F_4$ ($w_1=w_3,w_2=w_4$). The $F_4$ is the Pasch configuration. We define $F_5$ with $w_1=w_2=w_3$ (but $w_4$ is different). In $F_6$ we have $w_1=w_3$ (and $w_2,w_4$ are different from $w_1$ and from each other). When only $w_1,w_2$ coincide we get $F_7$. Set ${\cal{F}}=\{F_1,\dots,F_7\}$. For the convenience of the reader, the special four cycles are shown on Figure~\ref{f1f3} and Figure~\ref{f4f7}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f1.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f2.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The family of special four cycles $F_1,F_2,F_3$ of Theorem~\ref{main}}\label{f1f3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f4.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f5.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f6.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The family of the other four special four cycles $F_4,\dots, F_7$}\label{f4f7}
\end{figure}
Tur\'an numbers of various members of ${\cal{F}}$ have been investigated before. F\"uredi \cite{FU1} proved that ${\rm ex}(n,F_3)\le {7\over 2}{n\choose 2}$. Mubayi \cite{MU} showed that ${\rm ex}(n,F_2)=\Theta(n^{5/2})$. R\"odl and Phelps \cite{ROPH} gave the bounds $c_1n^{5/2}\le {\rm ex}(n,F_4)\le c_2n^{11/4}$. In fact, the upper bound is Erd\H os' upper bound \cite{E} for ${\rm ex}(n,K^3_{2,2,2})$. The lower bound comes from a balanced $3$-partite triple system where every vertex of the third partite class form a triple with the edges of a bipartite $C_4$-free graph between the first two partite classes.
We prove that ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{F}})=\Theta(n^{3/2})$, thus has the same order of magnitude as ${\rm ex}(n,C_4)$ for graphs. In fact, it is enough to exclude three of the special four cycles.
\begin{theorem}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ } \label{main} ${\rm ex}(n,\{F_1,F_2,F_3\})=\Theta(n^{3/2})$.
\end{theorem}
The family ${\cal{F}}$ of special four cycles is a subfamily of a wider class, the class of {\em Berge four cycles}, where the vertices $w_i$ can be selected from the base vertices as well, requiring only that the four triples $w_iv_iv_{i+1}$ are different. Theorem \ref{main} extends previous similar upper bounds (F\"uredi and \"Ozkahya \cite{FO}, Gerbner, Methuku, Vizer \cite{GMV}) where the family of Berge four cycles were forbidden.
The appearance of the set $\{F_1,F_2,F_3\}$ is not accidental. If any of $F_1,F_2,F_3$ is missing from ${\cal{A}}\subset {\cal{F}}$ then ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})$ is essentially larger than $n^{3/2}$.
\begin{itemize}\label{constr}
\item (C1) Ruzsa and Szemer\'edi \cite{RUSZ} constructed triple systems on $n$ vertices that do not carry three triples on six vertices and have more than $n^{2-\varepsilon}\def\ffi{\varphi}$ triples for any fixed $\varepsilon}\def\ffi{\varphi$. This provides an example which contains only $F_1$ from ${\cal{F}}$,
\item (C2) The ${n-1\choose 2}$ triples containing a fixed vertex from $n$ vertices contains only $F_2$ from ${\cal{F}}$,
\item (C3) Partition $n$ vertices evenly into three parts, take a pairing between two equal parts and extend each pair with all vertices of the third class to a triple. This gives a triple system with approximately $n^2/9$ triples and contains only $F_3$ from ${\cal{F}}$.
\end{itemize}
In Section 3 we discuss ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})$ for all ${\cal{A}}\subseteq {\cal{F}}$. It turns out that in 92 cases ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$ and 18 cases remain unsolved.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}
Assume $H$ is a triple system with $n$ vertices containing no subsystem from the set $F_1,F_2,F_3$. Applying the standard approach (based on \cite{EK}), we may assume that $H$ is $3$-partite with vertex partition $[A_1,A_2,A_3]$ where $|A_i|\in \{\lfloor n/3 \rfloor, \lceil n/3 \rceil\}$ and contains at least $2/9$ of the triples of the original triple system.
The triples of $H$ define a bipartite graph $B=[A_1,A_2]$ as follows. If $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ is a triple of $H$ with $a_i\in A_i$ then $a_1a_2$ is considered as an edge of $B$. Define the label $L(a_1,a_2)$ of $a_1a_2\in E(B)$ as the set $\{z\in A_3: a_1a_2z\in E(H)\}$. Then
\begin{equation}}\def\eeq{\end{equation} \label{size} |E(H)|=\sum_{a_1a_2\in E(B)} |L(a_1,a_2)|. \eeq
\begin{lemma}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ } \label{simple} The bipartite graph $B$ has at most $O(n^{3/2})$ edges.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof of Lemma \ref{simple}.} We denote by $N(x,y)$ the set of common neighbors (in $B$) of $x,y\in A_2$ in $A_1$. Similarly, let $N(u,v)$ be the set common neighbors of $u,v\in A_1$ in $A_2$.
For distinct vertices $x,y\in A_2$, define the digraph $D=D(x,y)$ with vertex set $A_3$. For every $u\in A_1$ such that $u\in N(x,y)$ and $a_i\in L(u,x), a_j\in L(u,y)$, a directed edge $a_ia_j$ is defined in $D(x,y)$. We claim that $D(x,y)$ is a very special digraph.
\begin{claim}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{spec}
\begin{itemize}
\item (1.1) There are no multiple loops or parallel directed edges in $D(x,y)$,
\item (1.2) There is at most one loop in $D(x,y)$,
\item (1.3) Two non-loop edges of $D(x,y)$ either intersect or $|N(x,y)|\le 4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{claim}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} A multiple loop $a_ia_i$ in $D(x,y)$ would give a $C_4$ in $B$ with all edges containing $a_i$ in their labels, this corresponds to an $F_2$ in $H$ -- a contradiction. A multiple edge $a_ia_j$ would give a $C_4=(x,u_1,y,u_2)$ in $B$ where $u_1,u_2\in N(x,y), u_1\ne u_2$ such that the consecutive edges of $C_4$ contain $a_i,a_j,a_j,a_i\in A_3$ in their labels. This would give an $F_3$ in $H$ -- a contradiction again, proving (1.1).
Two distinct loops $a_ia_i,a_ja_j$ in $D(x,y)$ can appear in two ways. Either we have a $C_4=(x,u_1,y,u_2)$ in $B$ where $u_1,u_2\in N(x,y), u_1\ne u_2$ such that the consecutive edges of $C_4$ contain $a_i,a_i,a_j,a_j\in A_3$ in their labels, this would give an $F_3$ in $H$, a contradiction. Otherwise $u=u_1=u_2$ and we have two multiedges $xu,yu$ both containing $a_i,a_j$ in their labels, this gives an $F_2$ in $H$ with $u$ in its center, a contradiction again, proving (1.2).
Suppose that there exists two non-intersecting non-loop edges $a_ia_j,a_ka_l$ in $D(x,y)$. If these edges are defined by $u_1,u_2\in N(x,y), u_1\ne u_2$, we have a $C_4=(x,u_1,y,u_2)$ in $B$ with four distinct elements in their labels, giving an $F_1$ in $H$, a contradiction. Thus we may assume that $u_1=u_2=u$ and we have $xu,yu$ in $B$ with $a_i,a_k$ and with $a_j,a_l$ in their labels. Set
$$M=\{v\in N(x,y): v\ne u, |L(v,x)\cup L(v,y)|\ge 2\}.$$ We claim that $|M|\le 2$. Indeed, consider $v\in M$, there is $a_s,a_t\in A_3$ such that $a_s\ne a_t$ and $xv,yv$ have labels containing $a_s,a_t$, respectively.
Observe that either $\{s,t\}=\{i,k\}$ or $\{s,t\}=\{j,l\}$ otherwise there is a $C_4=(x,u,y,v)$ with four distinct labels, giving an $F_1$ in $H$, a contradiction. This implies that $|M|\le 4$. However, it cannot happen that for two distinct vertices $v,v'\in M$ the coincidence of the index pairs are $\{i,k\}$ and $\{j.l\}$, respectively, because it would result again in a $C_4=(x,v,y,v')$ with four distinct labels, a contradiction as above.
Thus $|M|\le 2$ (equality is possible with edge pairs $a_ia_k,a_ka_i$ or $a_ja_l,a_la_j$), proving the claim.
Observing that every vertex of $N(x,y)\setminus (\{u\}\cup M)$ defines a loop in $D(x,y)$, (1.1) and (1.2) implies that $|N(x,y)|\le 4$, proving (1.3) and Claim \ref{spec}. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
A {\em cherry } on $x\in A_2$ is defined as an incident edge pair, $ux,vx\in E(B)$ such that $u,v\in A_1,u\ne v$ and $L(u,x)\cap L(v,x)\ne \emptyset$. Let $C(x,y)$ be the number of cherries in the subgraph of $B$ induced on $\{x,y\}\cup N(x,y)$.
We claim
\begin{equation}}\def\eeq{\end{equation} \label{cxy} C(x,y)\ge \sum_{a\in V(D(x,y))} d^+(a)+d^-(a)-2, \eeq
because there are atleast
$d^+(a)-1$ cherries on $x$ with $L(u,x)\cap L(v,x)=\{a\}$ and $d^-(a)-1$ cherries on $y$ with $L(u,y)\cap L(v,y)=\{a\}$.
\begin{claim}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{lowb} For any two distinct vertices $x,y\in A_2$, $C(x,y)\ge |N(x,y)|-4.$
\end{claim}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} It is certainly true for $|N(x,y)|\le 4$. Otherwise, using (1.3) from Claim \ref{spec}, we have pairwise intersecting edges in $D(x,y)$.
\noindent {\bf Case 1.} The edges of $D(x,y)$ form a triangle (edges oriented two ways are allowed) plus at most one loop. Therefore $D(x,y)$ has at most seven edges thus $5\le |N(x,y)|\le 7$.
by (1.1) of Claim~\ref{spec}, $d^+(a)\le 2$ for any vertex of the triangle. There are at least $|N(x,y)|-1$ edges on the triangle, so there exists at least $|N(x,y)|-4$ vertices $a$ with $d^+(a)\ge 2$ resulting in at least $|N(x,y)|-4$ cherries on $x$.
\noindent {\bf Case 2.} All edges of $D(x,y)$ (apart from a possible loop) contain $a\in A_3$. For every $u\in N(x,y)$ (apart from one possible vertex which defines a loop) either $ux$ or $uy$ has label $a$. Thus $\sum_{a\in V(D(x,y))} d^+(a)+d^-(a)\ge |N(x,y)|-1$ so (\ref{cxy}) results in at least $|N(x,y)|-3$ cherries on $x$ or on $y$, completing the proof of Claim \ref{lowb}. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\begin{claim}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{ub} $\sum_{x,y\in A_2} C(x,y)\le {|A_1|\choose 2}$.
\end{claim}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Every cherry counted on the left hand side is on some pair of $A_1$. At most one cherry can be on any $(u,v)\in A_1$, otherwise (by (1.1) in Claim \ref{spec}) we have one of $F_2,F_3$. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\smallskip
Applying Claims \ref{lowb}, \ref{ub} we get
$$\sum_{x,y\in A_2}\left(|N(x,y)| -4\right) \le \sum_{x,y\in A_2} C(x,y)\le {|A_1|\choose 2},$$
thus
$$\sum_{x,y\in A_2} |N(x,y)|\le 4{|A_2|\choose 2}+{|A_1|\choose 2}\le O(n^{2}).$$
By convexity we get
$$|A_1|{{|E(B)|\over |A_1|}\choose 2} \le \sum_{u\in A_1} {d(u)\choose 2}=\sum_{x,y\in A_2} |N(x,y)|\le O(n^2),$$
therefore $|E(B)|=O(n^{3/2})$, proving Lemma \ref{simple}. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\bigskip
To finish the proof of Theorem \ref{main}, we need to show that the presence of labels does not affect strongly the edge count of Lemma \ref{simple}. Let $B^*$ denote the subgraph of $B$ with the edges of at least three-element labels.
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{multi} If $H$ is $\{F_1,F_2,F_3\}$-free then $B^*$ is $C_4$-free.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Assume $C=(x,u,y,v,x)$ is a four-cycle in $B^*$. From the definition of $B^*$ there are three distinct elements, say $a,b,c$ from the labels of three edges of $C$. The only way to avoid $F_1$ is that the fourth edge has label $\{a,b,c\}$. However, the same argument forces that all labels on $C$ are equal to $\{a,b,c\}$ giving (many) $F_3$'s. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\smallskip
We can consider $B^*$ as a bipartite multigraph obtained as the union of $|A_3|$ simple bipartite graphs as follows. Set
$$E(z)=\{(u,x): u\in A_1, x\in A_2, (u,x,z)\in E(H)\text{ and } |L(u,x)|\ge 3\},$$
then $E(B^*)=\cup_{z\in A_3} E(z)$.
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{nop5} For every $z\in A_3$ there is no path in $B^*$ with four edges such that its first and last edge is in $E(z)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Suppose that edges $e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4$ form such a path for some $z\in A_3$. Since each edge of $B^*$ has multiplicity at least three, we can replace $e_2$ by $f_2$ and $e_3$ by $f_3$ so that $f_2\in E(z_1), f_3\in E(z_2)$ and $z_1,z_2$ are distinct and both different from $z$. Then the four triples of $H$, $$e_1\cup \{z\},f_2\cup \{z_1\},f_3\cup \{z_2\},e_4\cup \{z\}$$
form an $F_1$, contradiction.
\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\smallskip
For any vertex $x\in A_2$ let $L(x)$ denote the subset of $A_3$ that appears in some of the labels on edges of $B^*$ incident to $x$.
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{noreppair} For distinct vertices $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 \in A_2$,
$$|L(x_1)\cap L(x_2)\cap L(x_3)\cap L(x_4)|\le 1.$$
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Suppose on the contrary that we have $z_1,z_2\in A_3$ such that for $i=1,2,3,4$, $e_i=\{z_1,x_i,u_{2i-1}\}, f_i=\{z_2,x_i,u_{2i}\}$ are all triples of $H$.
An $F_1$ is formed by the triples $e_i,f_i,e_j,f_j$ if there is a pair $i,j$ such that \\$u_{2i-1},u_{2i},u_{2j-1},u_{2j}$ are all different. Thus, we may assume that for any pair $1\le i<j\le 4$ there is an equality between elements $u_{2i-1},u_{2i},u_{2j-1},u_{2j}$.
Let us call an equality $u_{2i-1}=u_{2i}$ \emph{horizontal}, an equality $u_{2i}=u_{2j}$ or $u_{2i-1}=u_{2j-1}$ (for $i\ne j$) \emph{vertical}, finally an equality $u_{2i-1}=u_{2j}$ (for $i\ne j$) \emph{diagonal}. The terms to distinguish equalities refer to an arrangement of the vertices $u_i$ into a $4\times 2$ matrix with $u_{2i-1}, u_{2i}$ in row $i$. Observe the following facts.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{label:2horiz}$F_3$ or $F_2$ is formed by the triples $e_i,f_i,e_j,f_j$ if the pair $i\ne j$ have both horizontal equalites holding. Thus, at most one horizontal equality may hold.
\item \label{label:2vert} If there is pair $i\ne j$ such that both vertical equalities hold, then a $C_4$ can be found in $B^*$ contradicting to Proposition~\ref{multi}. Similarly,
\item \label{label:2diag} if there is pair $i\ne j$ such that both diagonal equalities hold, we get a contradiction with Proposition~\ref{multi}.
\item \label{label:1vert} We get a four edge path contradicting to Proposition \ref{nop5} if there are is a pair $i,j$ such that exactly one vertical equality holds, that is $u_{2i}=u_{2j}$ and $u_{2i-1},u_{2j-1}$ are different and different from $u_{2i}$ as well. (Symmetrically, if there are $x_i,x_j$ such that $u_{2i-1}=u_{2j-1}$ and $u_{2i},u_{2j}$ are different and different from $u_{2i-1}$ as well.)
\end{enumerate}
Facts \ref{label:2horiz}--\ref{label:1vert} imply that there exists a triple of indices, $i,j,k$ such that we have exactly one diagonal equality on each pair of them. These are either in the form $u_{2i-1}=u_{2k},u_{2i}=u_{2j-1},u_{2j}=u_{2k-1}$
defining a six-cycle in $B$ on the vertices $x_i,x_j,x_k,u_{2i},u_{2j},u_{2k}$, giving (three) $F_1$, for example $e_i,f_k,f_j,e_j$, or in the form $u_{2i-1}=u_{2k},u_{2i}=u_{2j-1},u_{2j-1}=u_{2k}$ that implies horizontal equality $u_{2i-1}=u_{2i}$, a contradiction.
This proves Proposition \ref{noreppair}.\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\smallskip
By Propositions \ref{multi}, \ref{nop5} the simple bipartite graph $B(z)$ with edge set $E(z)$ has no cycles or paths with four edges. Therefore each component of $B(z)$ is a double star. Thus each $B(z)$ can be written as the union of two graphs, $S(z),T(z)$ where each vertex of $S(z)\cap A_2$ and each vertex of $T(z)\cap A_1$ has degree one in $B(z)$. Set $$S=\cup_{z\in A_3} S(z), T=\cup_{z\in A_3} T(z).$$
By the definition of $S$, for every vertex $x\in A_2$, we have $|L(x)|=d_S(x)$ where $d_S(x)$ is the degree of vertex $x$ in the (multi) graph
$S$. By Proposition \ref{noreppair} $$\sum_{x\in A_2} {|L(x)|\choose 2}\le 3{|A_3|\choose 2}$$ therefore $$\sum_{x\in A_2} {d_S(x)\choose 2}\le 3{|A_3|\choose 2}.$$
Applying the same argument symmetrically for vertices of $A_1$ and for the graph $T$, we get
$$\sum_{u\in A_1} {d_T(u)\choose 2}\le 3{|A_3|\choose 2}.$$
By the convexity argument, $|E(B^*)|=|E(S)|+|E(T)|=O(n^{3/2})$. By Lemma \ref{simple}, we also have $|E(B)|=O(n^{3/2})$. Thus by (\ref{size}) and the definition of $B^*$,
$$|E(H)|=\sum_{a_1a_2\in E(B)} |L(a_1,a_2)|\le 2|E(B)|+|E(B^*)|=O(n^{3/2}),$$
concluding the proof of Theorem \ref{main}.
\section{Concluding remarks}
Theorem \ref{main} determines the order of magnitude ($\Theta(n^{3/2})$) for the 16 subsets of $\cal{F}$ containing $F_1,F_2,F_3$ and we pointed out that for all other choices ${\cal{A}}\subset {\cal{F}}$, ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})$ must be essentially larger. In this section we summarize what we know about these cases. There is a trivial case, when $\cal{A}$ is empty and ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})={n\choose 3}$. Furthermore, as mentioned before, ${\rm ex}(n,F_2)=\Theta(n^{5/2})$ was proved by the first author (see in Mubayi \cite{MU}). Thus we have $2^7-2^4-2=110$ cases to consider. It turns out that in 92 cases the order of magnitude is $\Theta(n^2)$ (see Subsection \ref{quadratic}) and only the remaining 18 cases are left unsolved (see Subsection \ref{unsolved}).
A simple but useful lemma compares Tur\'an numbers of closely related triple systems. Assume $G$ is a triple system and $v,w\in V(G)$ is covered by $e\in E(G)$. The triple system obtained from $G$ by removing $e$ and adding the triple $v,w,x$ where $x\notin V(G)$ is called a {\em fold out} of $G$. For example $F_7$ is a fold out of $F_3$, $F_6$ is a fold out of $F_4$.
\begin{lemma}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{fold} (Fold out lemma.) If $G$ is a triple system and $G_1$ is a fold out of $G$ then ${\rm ex}(n,G_1)\le ex(n,G)+(|V(G)|-2){n\choose 2}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Suppose that a triple system $H$ has $n$ vertices and has more than ${\rm ex}(n,G)+(|V(G)|-2){n\choose 2}$ triples. A triple of $H$ is called bad if it contains a pair of vertices that covered by at most $|V(G)|-2$ triples of $H$, otherwise it is a good triple. Then $H$ has more than ${\rm ex}(n,G)$ good triples thus contains a copy of $G$ with all triples good. By definition, any pair of vertices in any triple of this copy of $G$ is in more than $|V(G)|-2$ triples of $H$ so some of them is suitable to define the required fold out $G_1$ of $G$. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\subsection{ When ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$}\label{quadratic}
Here we collect all cases of ${\cal{A}}\subset {\cal{F}}$ when we can prove that ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$.
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{nsq1} Assume that ${\cal{A}} \subset {\cal{F}}\setminus F_2$ and ${\cal{A}} \cap \{F_1,F_3,F_7\}\ne \emptyset$. Then ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} The first condition ensures that the members of ${\cal{A}}$ cannot be pierced by one vertex, thus
Construction~(C3) shows that ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Omega(n^2)$. On the other hand, $F_7$ is a fold out of $F_3$ and $F_1$ is a fold out of $F_7$ thus by Lemma \ref{fold} (and by the second condition of the proposition)
$${\rm ex}(n,F_1)\le {\rm ex}(n,F_7)+O(n^2)\le {\rm ex}(n,F_3)+O(n^2)\le {7\over 2}{n\choose 2}+O(n^2)$$ where the upper bound of ${\rm ex}(n,F_3)$ is F\"uredi's result \cite{FU1}. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ } \label{nsq2} Assume that ${\cal{A}} \subset {\cal{F}}\setminus F_3$ and ${\cal{A}} \cap \{F_1,F_7\}\ne \emptyset$. Then ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} To show that ${\rm ex}(n,F)=\Omega(n^2)$, consider the Construction (C3), it contains only $F_3$ from $\cal{F}$. The upper bound follows by the argument of Proposition \ref{nsq1}. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ } \label{nsq3} Assume that $\{F_2,F_3\} \subset {\cal{A}} \subset \{F_2,F_3,F_4,F_5,F_7\}$. Then ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} To show that ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Omega(n^2)$, consider
\begin{itemize}
\item (C4) Steiner triple systems without $F_4$ (the Pasch configuration), they do not contain any member of $\cal{A}$.
\end{itemize}
The upper bound follows from \cite{FU1} since $F_3\in {\cal{A}}$. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ } \label{nsq4} Assume that $\{F_2,F_3,F_6\} \subset {\cal{A}} \subset \{F_2,F_3,F_5,F_6,F_7\}$. Then ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} To show that ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Omega(n^2)$, consider
\begin{itemize}
\item (C5) Steiner triple systems without $F_6$ (projective Steiner triple systems), they do not contain any member of $\cal{A}$.
\end{itemize}
The upper bound follows again from \cite{FU1} since $F_3\in {\cal{A}}$. \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else$\Box$\fi
Note that Proposition \ref{nsq1} covers 56 cases, Proposition \ref{nsq2} adds 24 further cases, Propositions \ref{nsq3}, \ref{nsq4} add 8 plus 4 further cases. These 92 cases are the ones when ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=\Theta(n^2)$ follows from known results.
\subsection{Unsolved cases}\label{unsolved}
The 18 unsolved cases are grouped as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item 1. ${\rm ex}(n,\{{\cal{A}}\cup F_6\})$ where ${\cal{A}}\subseteq \{F_2,F_4,F_5\}$ ( 8 cases )
\item 2. ${\rm ex}(n,\{F_2,F_5\}), {\rm ex}(n,F_5)$
\item 3. ${\rm ex}(n,\{F_2,F_4,F_5\}), {\rm ex}(n,\{F_4,F_5\})$
\item 4. ${\rm ex}(n,\{F_2,F_4\}), {\rm ex}(n,F_4)$
\item 5. ${\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})$ where $\{F_2,F_3,F_4,F_6\}\subseteq {\cal{A}} \subseteq \{F_2,F_3,F_4,F_5,F_6,F_7\}$ (4 cases)
\end{itemize}
The upper bounds for the unknown cases can be compared by using Lemma \ref{fold}. For example, observing that $F_6$ is a fold out of $F_4$ and of $F_5$, moreover $F_5$ is a fold out of $F_2$, Lemma \ref{fold} implies
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{f6} Let $\cal{A}$ be any subset of $\{F_2,F_4,F_5\}$. Then $${\rm ex}(n,F_6) \leq {\rm ex}(n,\{{\cal{A}}\cup F_6\})\le {\rm ex}(n,F_6)+7{n\choose 2}.$$
\end{proposition}
A lower bound $\Omega (n^2)$ for the first four groups of unknown cases can be obtained from Construction~(C3).
Lower bounds for the fifth group of unknown cases can be given by well studied functions introduced in \cite{BES}. Let ${\rm ex}(n,(6,3))$ be the maximum number of triples in a triple system that does not contain three triples inside any six vertices. Since all members of ${\cal{F}}$ except $F_1$ contain three triples inside six vertices an almost quadratic lower bound of Construction (C1) comes from~\cite{RUSZ} for the four unsolved cases in group 5. A quadratic upper bound is from \cite{FU1} since $F_3\in {\cal{A}}$. Thus we get
\begin{proposition}\hspace{-6pt}{\bf.\ }\label{lb} If $\{F_2,F_3,F_4,F_6\}\subseteq {\cal{A}} \subseteq \{F_2,F_3,F_4,F_5,F_6,F_7\}$ then $${\rm ex}(n,(6,3))\le {\rm ex}(n,{\cal{A}})=O(n^2)$$.
\end{proposition}
In fact, the lower bound of Proposition \ref{lb} can be changed to ${\rm ex}(n,(7,4))$ (the maximum number of triples in a triple system that does not contain four triples inside any seven vertices).
\begin{paragraph}{Acknowledgement}
The authors are indebted to an unknown referee for pointing out some inaccuracies in the manuscript.
{\small The research of the first author was supported in part by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office NKFIH grant KH-130371 and NKFI–133819.}
\end{paragraph}
|
\section*{Statement of Significance}
Our research studies whether amplification effects of sampling can be exploited systematically to improve the accuracy of the privatized estimate. Specifically, assuming the agency has information for the full population, we investigate under which circumstances accuracy gains could be expected, if the privatized estimate would be computed on a random sample instead of the full population. We find that accuracy gains can be achieved for certain regimes. However, gains can typically only be expected, if the sensitivity of the output with respect to small changes in the database does not depend too strongly on the size of the database. We see our research as a first step towards understanding the conditions required for accuracy gains in practice and we hope that these findings will stimulate further research broadening the scope of differential privacy algorithms and outputs considered.
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
In the era of digitisation, in which massive amounts of data are collected permanently about all aspects of our lives, ensuring confidentiality regarding the collected information becomes increasingly difficult. One strategy to address this challenge is to rely on formal privacy concepts, such as differential privacy \citep{Dwork:2006:CNS:2180286.2180305,dwork2008}, which offer mathematically provable privacy guarantees. Under the formal privacy framework, privacy is guaranteed irrespective of the assumptions regarding the additional information that might be available to an attacker trying to learn sensitive information.
The level of the privacy guarantee is expressed through \emph{privacy parameters}, for example, the parameter $\epsilon$ used in the original definition of differential privacy \citep{Dwork:2006:CNS:2180286.2180305}, where a smaller value of $\epsilon$ implies a higher level of protection.
However, an increased level of privacy protection comes at the price of reduced accuracy of the protected results. Thus, data providers have to carefully decide which value of $\epsilon$ to pick to ensure that the data still provide meaningful information while achieving a sufficient level of protection.
In recent years, some studies focused on quantifying the gains in the protection level, when computing the privatized output using only a sample of the original data.
Intuitively, it seems reasonable that using only a sample of the original database will increase the level of protection, as the uncertainty about whether a specific target unit from the original database is included in the sample will increase. Statistical agencies have relied on this intuition for decades, for example, when releasing only a 1\% or 5\% sample of their census as public use microdata samples (PUMS), such as those available through IPUMS International. The rationale is that sampling itself offers so much protection that additional protection measures can be substantially reduced compared to releasing data for the full population. See, for example, \citet{drechsler2010,drechsler2012}, which illustrate this argument in the context of synthetic data \citep{Drechsler2011book}.
Previous research \citep{KasiviswanathanLNRS11,LiQardajiSu2011,BunNSV15,WangLF16b,Abadi16,WangBK19,Balle:2018} found that the extra level of protection offered through sampling can indeed be formalized in the context of differential privacy. The privacy amplification effects from sampling are directly related to the sampling rate, that is, the smaller the sampling rate $n/N$, the higher the level of protection for the same value of $\epsilon$.
Since most of the data collected by statistical agencies are based on sample surveys, these findings could be important for agencies willing to adopt the differential privacy approach as their data dissemination strategy.
However, these encouraging findings
only seem to hold for simple sampling designs, such as simple random sampling with or without replacement or Poisson sampling. Early research \citep{bun2020} indicates that privacy amplifications for commonly used sampling designs such as cluster sampling or stratified sampling are often small if they exist at all. The problem arises as these
designs typically rely on some characteristics of the target units when setting up the sampling plan and thus the fact that a unit is included in the sample might leak additional information.
In this paper, we focus on another aspect of privacy amplification through sampling.
Motivated by the fact that statistical agencies already rely on
sampling
for data protection, we look at the problem from an accuracy perspective.
Using the theoretical result that sampling allows for a larger $\epsilon$
to achieve a fixed level of protection, we ask whether there are any regimes under which the accuracy of the reported results based on the sample will increase relative to the accuracy of the protected results computed on the full population.
Obviously, there are two competing forces at play: reducing the sample size will increase the sampling error, while at the same time it will reduce the random error from data protection as larger values for $\epsilon$ can be used to protect the data, which implies less noise infusion.
However, as we illustrate in the paper, there are other aspects that also need to be considered. For example, a key component of most differential privacy algorithms is the sensitivity of the statistic of interest with respect to small changes in the data.
The specified statistic and the selected sensitivity concept (further discussed below)
will influence how strongly the sensitivity depends on the sample size.
Thus, when hoping for accuracy gains through sampling, it is important to pick algorithms whose sensitivity only weakly depends on the size of the data. We note that sampling might also be desirable for computational efficiency reasons in some cases. In such scenarios, trade-offs exist between computational complexity and accuracy of the results. Therefore, sampling might be considered useful even if some accuracy is sacrificed. As the trade-offs will be context specific in most cases, we will not consider the implications of computational efficiency in this paper.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{dp}, we review some important concepts of differential privacy in the context of official statistics and provide some illustrations. Section \ref{amplification} provides a theorem regarding amplification effects of sampling, which is a rephrased version of previously published theorems looking at the problem from a survey statistics perspective. We then investigate accuracy gains from sampling in Section \ref{accuracy}, including illustrations for the mean and median. We end in Section \ref{conclusion} with some concluding remarks.
\section{Review of differential privacy}
\label{dp}
\subsection{$\epsilon$-Differential Privacy and $(\epsilon,\delta)$-Differential Privacy}
\label{dp:versions}
The original definition of $\epsilon$-differential privacy ($\epsilon$-DP) was given by \cite{Dwork:2006:CNS:2180286.2180305}.
Here we directly quote the definition of $\epsilon$-DP from \citet{dwork2008}:
\begin{definition}
A randomized function $\mathcal{K}$ gives $\epsilon$-differential privacy if for all data sets $D$ and $D'$ differing on at most one element, and all $K \subset Range(\mathcal{K})$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:originalDP}
\Pr[ \mathcal{K}( D ) \in K ] \le e^\epsilon \Pr[ \mathcal{K}( D' ) \in K ].
\end{equation}
The probability is taken over the coin tosses of $\mathcal{K}$.
\end{definition}
In this definition, the condition is written as ``differing on \emph{at most} one element,'' but it suffices to consider the case that \emph{exactly} one element of each dataset differs because datasets that differ in no element always satisfy Equation \eqref{eq:originalDP} for any $\epsilon > 0$. Then, ``differing on exactly one element" covers two scenarios, typically known as bounded differential privacy and unbounded differential privacy. In the bounded case, the neighboring datasets $D$ and $D'$ are assumed to have the same number of elements, and exactly one element differs between the two datasets. The unbounded case assumes that $D'$ contains exactly one less (or one more) element than $D$ while all other elements are the same. In this paper, we discuss differential privacy under the bounded case
To clarify the meaning of Definition \ref{eq:originalDP}, we adapt the definition to the context in which a statistical agency aims at disseminating summary statistics or microdata to the public in a differentially private way.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ denote units in a population of interest and $\bmY_N = \{ y_i : i \in \mathcal{U} \}$ denote a set of variables $y_i$ for these population units, where the size of the population is given by $N = |\mathcal{U}|$.
A statistical agency often disseminates summary statistics $g(\bmY_N) \in \Omega$.
For example, the population mean and the population median are the solutions of the estimating equation $\sum_{i=1}^N U(\theta;y_i) = 0$ where the estimating functions are set as $U(\theta;y) = y - \theta$ and $U(\theta;y) = 0.5 - I[ y < \theta]$, respectively.
If an $\epsilon$-DP mechanism is considered for generating a privatized summary statistic, the randomized function $\mathcal{K}$ in the original definition is parameter-specific and can be written as a composite function $\mathcal{K}(\cdot) = \mathcal{A}(g(\cdot))$ where $\mathcal{A}$ is a randomized function $\mathcal{A}: \Omega \to \Omega$ representing the algorithm used for, for example by
adding noise or smoothing.
Using this perspective, we rephrase the original $\epsilon$-DP definition as follows:
\begin{definition}
A randomized function $\mathcal{A}: \Omega \to \Omega$ gives $\epsilon$-differential privacy for the population parameter $g(\bmY_N) \in \Omega$ if for a fixed value of $\epsilon > 0$ and for all $\omega \in \Omega$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definition2}
\Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N)) \le \omega \ \right] \le e^\epsilon \Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N')) \le \omega \ \right]
\end{equation}
for any $\bmY_N = \{ y_1, \ldots, y_N \}$ and $\bmY_N' = \{ y'_1, \ldots, y'_N \}$ differing on at most one pair of variables $y_i \neq y'_i$ for any $y_i, y'_i \in \mathcal{Y}$, where $\mathcal{Y}$ is the support of $\bmY$.
\end{definition}
This alternative definition emphasizes that the randomized function in Definition 1 is a composite function, composed of randomization for data protection and the analysis model or summary statistic of interest. The effect of the data protection varies with the statistic or the size of the protected data to be released to the public. We also hope that the alternative definition is more intuitive for the statistical community as it directly compares the CDFs of outputs of the randomized functions computed on two neighboring datasets $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$. We note that while this notation is most intuitive in the context of aggregate statistics, it also covers more general settings such as randomized response, in which the data are already altered at the time of collection. In this context $g(\cdot)$ would be the identity function and any analysis conducted on the collected data would be treated as post-processing.
This definition adopts the bounded version of differential privacy, which defines neighboring datasets as datasets having the same size but differing in one record. We believe this definition is more reasonable in settings where the data comprise the full target population. As the size of the population is fixed, it seems counter-intuitive to consider scenarios in which the population contains additional or fewer units. Arbitrary changes for one single record for a fixed-size database as considered in the bounded case seem more plausible in this context. While the size of the population is fixed, the data collected about this population do not need to be fixed.
Similarly, $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy ($(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP) \citep{dwork2006our}, a relaxed version of $\epsilon$-DP,
is defined for finite population parameter dissemination as follows.
\begin{definition}
A randomized function $\mathcal{A}: \Omega \to \Omega$ gives $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy for the population parameter $g(\bmY_N)$ if for fixed values of $\epsilon > 0$ and $\delta \ge 0$ and for all $\omega \in \Omega$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def:epsilon_delta}
\Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N)) \le \omega \ \right] \le e^\epsilon \Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N')) \le \omega \ \right] + \delta
\end{equation}
for any $\bmY_N = \{ y_1, \ldots, y_N \}$ and $\bmY_N' = \{ y'_1, \ldots, y'_N \}$ differing on at most one pair of variables $y_i \neq y'_i$ for any $y_i, y'_i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
\end{definition}
The definition of $\epsilon$-DP can be considered as a special case of the $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP with $\delta$ set to zero.
\subsection{Sensitivity: global, local, and smooth}
\label{dp:sensitivity}
A key quantity used in differential privacy algorithms, which governs how much a specific output needs to be perturbed to offer a target level of protection, is the sensitivity of the output. Intuitively, it measures the maximum change in the output given small changes in the database. Here, we review three definitions of sensitivity, each of which can be used with certain differential privacy mechanisms to achieve a given differential privacy definition for a specific statistic of interest.
Using our notation introduced in Section \ref{dp:versions}, we formally define the \emph{global sensitivity} as follows:
\begin{definition}[Global Sensitivity]
For any $g:\mathcal{Y}^N \to \Omega$, the global sensitivity is
\[
\Delta^G = \max_{\{ \forall \bm Y_N, \bm Y_N' \in \mathcal{Y}^N: \xi(\bm Y_N,\bm Y_N')\le1 \}}|g(\bmY_N) - g(\bmY_N')|,
\]
\end{definition}
where $\xi(\bmY_N,\bmY_N')\le1$ denotes that $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$ differ on at most one element.
In other words, the global sensitivity quantifies the maximum possible change of the statistic of interest if changing one record in the database.
Intuitively, for a fixed privacy parameter,
a larger value of $\Delta^G$ means that
$g$ is \emph{more sensitive} to changes in one record,
so we need to introduce more uncertainty into the privatized output.
In fact, a popular general approach for achieving $\epsilon$-DP
is the Laplace mechanism (described in more detail below), which simply adds random noise to the output with variance proportional to $\Delta^G$.
It is important to note that $\Delta^G$ is not tailored to a specific set of collected data, but applied to any possible dataset of size $N$. This implies that the global sensitivity can be large. To illustrate, we look at two common statistics that we will continue to use as illustrative examples throughout this paper: the mean and the median.
Suppose that our data are bounded, that is, we can specify a range $R$ for which we know without looking at the data that no values will ever be outside this range.
To find the global sensitivity of the mean, we need to quantify the maximum possible change in the mean, if only a single record is changed. This maximum change occurs, if a value located at the lower bound of $R$ is changed to the upper bound of $R$. In this case, the change of the single value is $R$ and the change of the mean, that is, its global sensitivity, is $R/N$.
For the median assuming an odd number of observations, the global sensitivity is calculated based on the worst case scenario that the first $(N+1)/2$ values including the median $m_N$ are located at the lower bound of $R$ and the remaining $N-(N+1)/2$ values are located at the upper bound of $R$. Under this scenario, if any value located at the lower bound is replaced by a value at the upper bound, the median switches from the lower bound to the upper bound. Thus, the maximum change of the median, that is, its global sensitivity, is the range $R$.
These examples highlight that the global sensitivity $\Delta^G$
depends on the functional form of $g$, but not on a specific dataset.
Unfortunately, when aiming at ensuring $\epsilon$-DP based on the global sensitivity, large values of $\Delta^G$ typically require introducing so much uncertainty that the privatized output will be useless. Also note that the global sensitivity for both of our illustrative statistics, mean and median, will be infinite if no natural bound can be specified.
For these reasons it seems natural to search for alternatives to the global sensitivity. One obvious candidate is the \emph{local sensitivity} defined as follows:
\begin{definition}[Local Sensitivity]
For any $g:\mathcal{Y}^N \to \Omega$, the local sensitivity for the dataset $\bmY_N$ is
\[
\Delta^L(\bmY_N) = \max_{\{ \forall \bm Y_N' \in \mathcal{Y}^N: \xi(\bm Y_N,\bm Y_N')=1 \}}|g(\bmY_N) - g(\bmY_N')|.
\]
\end{definition}
The definition looks almost similar to the global sensitivity. However, the local sensitivity is a function of the input dataset $\bmY_N$
and quantifies the maximum possible change of the output if we change one record in the collected data. This value can be substantially smaller than the global sensitivity. However, the local sensitivity can often not be used directly to achieve differential privacy, because the local sensitivity is data dependent. Because of this dependence, infusing noise proportional to the local sensitivity
would already leak information regarding the underlying data \citep{DworkRoth2014}. To still be able to benefit from the substantial reduction in sensitivity compared to $\Delta^G$, \citet{DworkLei2009STOC} developed the Propose-Test-Release approach, which first proposes a bound, $b$, on the local sensitivity, followed by a differentially private test to ensure the adequacy of the bound $b$. If the test is passed, one can use a differential privacy mechanism, such as the Laplace mechanism with a $b$-dependent scale parameter, to achieve $(\epsilon, \delta)$-DP for several commonly used statistics.
Coming back to our running examples, the local sensitivity of the mean is $R(\bmY_N)/N$, with $R(\bmY_N)=\max_{\{ \forall \bm Y_N \in \mathcal{Y}^N \}}\left( max(\mathcal{Y}) - min(\bmY_N), max(\bmY_N) - min(\mathcal{Y})\right)$. Assuming an odd number of observations, the local sensitivity of the median is \\
$\max \left( y_{ \left(\frac{N + 1}{2}+1\right) }- y_{\left(\frac{N + 1}{2}\right)}, y_{ \left(\frac{N + 1}{2}\right)} - y_{\left(\frac{N + 1}{2}-1\right)} \right)$, where $y_{(k)}$ denotes the $k$th smallest value in $\bmY_N$. There might be reductions when moving from $\Delta^G$ to $\Delta^L(\bmY_N)$ for the mean, if $R(\bmY_N)< R$. However, the effect will always be more substantial for the median, as we move from considering the entire (potentially unbounded) range $R$ to only considering the difference between the median and its two neighboring values.
Another approach to overcoming the challenge of local sensitivity being disclosive was proposed by \citet{NissimRaskhodnikovaSmith2007ACM}. The authors introduced the concept of \emph{smooth sensitivity}, which is an upper bound on the local sensitivity. Under the smooth sensitivity scheme, we still use the information from the collected data, but ensure that the information leakage is bounded by the defined privacy parameters.
Here, we focus on an algorithm, which achieves $(\epsilon, \delta)$-DP for the median, as we will use this algorithm in the remainder of the paper.
Interested readers are referred to \citet{NissimRaskhodnikovaSmith2007ACM} for a general definition of smooth sensitivity, as well as algorithms that can achieve $\epsilon$-DP for the median based on this concept. The following smooth sensitivity is used to guarantee $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP
for the median based on a dataset with an odd number of observations:
\begin{equation}
\Delta^\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N) = \textrm{max}_{k = 0, \cdots, N}\left(e^{-k\beta} \cdot \textrm{max}_{t = 0, \cdots, k+1} \left( y_{\frac{N + 1}{2} + t} - y_{\frac{N + 1}{2} + t - k - 1} \right) \right),
\label{eq:smooth_sensitivity_median}
\end{equation}
where $\beta = \epsilon / \left( 2 \log(2 / \delta) \right)$.
To achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the median, one can add Laplace noise to the confidential median with scale parameter proportional to $\Delta^\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$.
\iffalse
By now we have presented definitions of $\epsilon$-DP and $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP in the context of protecting a finite population $\bmY_N$. In addition, we have discussed the composite function $\mathcal{A}(g(\cdot))$ applied to $\bmY_N$ for privacy protection, as in $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$. Specifically, $g$ is a deterministic function to represent the population parameter of interest (e.g. $g$ is taking the average if the parameter of interest is the population mean), and $\mathcal{A}$ is a perturbation scheme to be applied to the parameter of interest. In this paper, we consider $\mathcal{A}$ as mechanisms for adding noise for privacy protection. \jd{I think we should not limit the discussion already to mechanisms that add noise. For example, the exponential mechanism cannot be described as output + noise, still one of its parameters is the sensitivity.} As a first step to describe how to add such noise to guarantee $\epsilon$-DP or $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the population $\bmY_N$, we need to discuss an important concept: sensitivity.
As we have seen in definitions of $\epsilon$-DP and $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for finite population $\bmY_N$ in Section \ref{dp:versions}, we consider all populations $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$ differing by one record, and the privacy-guaranteed outputs (in short privatized outputs, hereafter) $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$ and $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N'))$ need to be similar enough (exact bounds are in Definitions \ref{eq:definition2} and \ref{eq:def:epsilon_delta}) so that the data user would not gain information about that particular differing record between $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$. In other words, we need to consider the maximum change to the parameter $g(\bmY_N)$ that a change of one record from $\bmY_N$ to $\bmY_N'$. This leads to the definition of $\ell_1-$sensitivity as in \citet{DworkRoth2014}, where we adapt below for finite population $\bmY_N$.
\begin{definition}
\label{df:sensitivity}
The $\ell_1-$sensitivity of a function $g: \mathbb{N}^{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ is:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definition:sensitivity}
\Delta^G = \textrm{max}_{||\bmY_N - \bmY_N'|| = 1} ||g(\bmY_N) - g(\bmY_N')||_1,
\end{equation}
where $||\bmY_N - \bmY_N'|| = 1$ is the Hamming-1 distance between $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$ (i.e. $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$ differ by one record).
\end{definition}
As can be seen in its definition mathematically, the $\ell_1-$sensitivity is specific to function $g$ and captures the magnitude a single record can change the function $g$. Once $\Delta^G$ is calculated and available, we will use it to determine the amount of noise to be added to $g(\bmY_N)$ to achieve certain level of privacy guarantee. Intuitively, for a fixed privacy level, if $\Delta^G$ is higher, meaning that $g$ is \emph{more sensitive} to the change in one record, we will need to add \emph{larger} noise for privacy protection.
All to say, $\ell_1$-sensitivity is an important concept in understanding differential privacy, as well as an important piece in implementing random algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ to add random noise to achieve a certain differential privacy guarantee. There are other definitions of sensitivity, such as the $\ell_2-$sensitivity. In this paper, we focus on $\ell_1-$sensitivity as the main algorithm we introduce is the Laplace mechanism (to be introduced in Section \ref{dp:Laplace}) and it uses $\ell_1-$sensitivity for adding noise to achieve $\epsilon$-DP or $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP in our illustrations. We refer interested readers to \citet{DworkRoth2014} for additional sensitivity definitions and additional mechanisms.
There are a few variations of $\ell_1-$sensitivity, which are highly relevant for our purpose of official statistics dissemination. As Definition \ref{df:sensitivity} shows, the $\ell_1-$sensitivity is specific to function $g$. In our context of population parameter of interest $g(\bmY_N)$, we focus our discussion and illustrations of two widely used population parameters: mean and median. In our discussion and illustration, we consider finite population $\bmY_N$ of uni-variate data with range $R$, i.e. there are a lower bound and an upper bound of the data.
\jd{I think it would be better to introduce global and local sensitivity in general terms first, before discussing them specifically for the mean and median.}
\subsubsection{Mean: global and local sensitivity}
\label{dp:sensitivity:mean}
Let's start with population mean, let $\bar{y}_N$ be the population mean parameter of $\bmY_N$, where $\bar{y}_N = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{U}} y_i / N= \sum_{i=1}^{N} y_i / N$. In this case, the function $g$ is $g(\bmY_N) = \bar{y}_N$. What is its $\ell_1-$sensitivity? In other words, what is the change to $|g(\bmY_N)| = |\bar{y}_N|$ that one record in $\bmY_N$ would have in the worst case? Or similarly, what is the maximum change $|g(\bmY_N)| = |\bar{y}_N|$ would have due to one record's change? One way to answer this question is to focus on the knowledge that the data has a range of $R$. Therefore, the biggest change one record could have is either moving from the lower bound to the upper bound or moving from the upper bound to the lower bound, which results in a change of this record of $R$ or $-R$, respectively. When we consider its impact on $|g(\bmY_N)|$, which is the mean, then the maximum change is $\frac{R}{N}$, where $N$ is the population size.
Since this calculation is based on the global range $R$ of the data, we call this $\ell_1-$sensitivity as the \emph{global} $\ell_1-$sensitivity for the mean of population of size $N$ and range $R$, denoted as $\Delta^G^{G} = \frac{R}{N}$. Note that for a global $\ell_1-$sensitivity to exist, the data range $R$ needs to known and available.
In some cases, data might not have a global range. For example, for income data, it is usually challenging to know the upper bound (sometimes lower bound too). When global $R$ is not known, then the maximum change one record could have is either moving from the minimum to the maximum or vice versa, which results in a change of this record of $\max_{i=1}^{N}(y_i) - \min_{i=1}^{N}(y_i)$ or $\min_{i=1}^{N}(y_i) - \max_{i=1}^{N}(y_i)$, respectively. Its impact on $|g(\bmY_N)|$ would then be $\frac{\max(y_i) - \min(y_i)}{N}$. Since this calculation is based on the local range $\max_{i=1}^{N}(y_i) - \min_{i=1}^{N}(y_i)$ of the data, we call this $\ell_1-$sensitivity as the \emph{local} $\ell_1-$sensitivity, denoted as $\Delta^G^{L} = \frac{\max(y_i) - \min(y_i)}{N}$
However, it is important to note that the global $\ell_1-$sensitivity is what the phrase of ``for all populations $\bmY_N$ and $\bmY_N'$ differing at one record" in the definitions of $\epsilon$-DP and $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP refers to. These definitions focus not on the particular population $\bmY_N$, but all populations $\bmY_N$, and subsequently all $\bmY_N$ that differs from $\bmY_N$ by one record. That said, the global $\ell_1-$sensitivity for the population mean is what we need to achieve $\epsilon$-DP and $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP privacy guarantee, not the local $\ell_1-$sensitivity.
\subsubsection{Median: global, local, and smooth sensitivity}
\label{dp:sensitivity:median}
Now let's move to population median. For data points $y_1, \cdots, y_N$ in the finite population $\bmY_N$, assume without loss of generality, $y_1 \leq y_2 \leg \cdots \leq y_N$ and bounded within range $R$. Let $m_N$ be the population median, which is $y_{\frac{N + 1}{2}}$ when $N$ is odd and $\frac{y_{N/2} + y_{N/2+1}}{2}$ when $N$ is even. Without loss of generality, we work with the case where $N$ is odd. In the case of median, the function $g$ is $g(\bmY_N) = m_N$. To calculate its $\ell_1-$sensitivity, we need to evaluate the maximum change to $|g(\bmY_N)| = |m_N|$ that one record's change could have.
As with the case of population mean, there exists a global $\ell_1-$sensitivity and a local $\ell_1-$sensitivity for the population median, again depending on whether the global data range $R$ is known or not. When $R$ is known and available, the extreme case of $N$ records as $N$ being odd is to have $\frac{N + 1}{2}$ records exactly at the lower bound and the remaining $\frac{N - 1}{2}$ records exactly at the upper bound. When one record moves from the lower bound to the upper bound, the median $m_N$ also moves from the lower bound to the upper bound, resulting in change of $R$ in $|g(\bmY_N)| = |m_N|$. The same reasoning applies to the opposite direction as well (i.e. $\frac{N - 1}{2}$ records exactly at the lower bound and the remaining $\frac{N + 1}{2}$ records exactly at the upper bound, and a record moves from the upper bound to the lower bound). We therefore call this $\ell_1-$sensitivity as the global $\ell_1-$sensitivity for the median of population size $N$ and range $R$, denoted as $\Delta^G^G = R$.
The local $\ell_1-$sensitivity, as we know by now, depends on the local population $\bmY_N$. When $N$ is odd, the maximum change the median would take $\max \left( y_{ \frac{N + 1}{2}+1 }- y_{\frac{N + 1}{2}}, y_{ \frac{N + 1}{2}} - y_{\frac{N + 1}{2}-1} \right)$. In other words, it is the maximum between the two differences: the middle point with its next and larger point, and the middle point with its previous and smaller point. We call this $\ell_1-$sensitivity as the local $\ell_1-$sensitivity for the median, denoted as $\Delta^G^L = \max \left( y_{ \frac{N + 1}{2}+1 }- y_{\frac{N + 1}{2}}, y_{ \frac{N + 1}{2}} - y_{\frac{N + 1}{2}-1} \right)$.
As with the case of population mean, only when we work with the global $\ell_1-$sensitivity do we achieve $\epsilon$-DP or $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP, as it considers all possible populations $\bmY_N$ and its neighbor $\bmY_N'$ differing by one record. However, compared to the global sensitivity of $\frac{R}{N}$ of the mean, the global sensitivity of the median, $R$, appears to be large, which would result in adding too much noise. In other words, the median parameter is very sensitive to any one record change, which is reflected in its large magnitude of global $\ell_1-$sensitivity. In fact, for parameter such as median, among other quantiles or extreme quantities such as the minimum and the maximum, its global $\ell_1-$sensitivity is usually too large to be useful.
To solve these challenges, \citet{NissimRaskhodnikovaSmith2007ACM} proposed the concept of smooth sensitivity. Smooth sensitivity still depends on the local population $\bmY_N$, or to be more exact, it is related to the local sensitivity. However, coupled with special algorithms (which we will illustrate in the sequel), adding noise according to smooth sensitivity achieves $\epsilon$-DP or $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP. We now introduce the one version of the smooth sensitivity for the population median, which achieves $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP:
\begin{equation}
\Delta^S_{g, \epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N) = \textrm{max}_{k = 0, \cdots, N}\left(e^{-k\beta} \cdot \textrm{max}_{t = 0, \cdots, k+1} (y_{(N + 1) / 2 + t} - y_{(N + 1) / 2 + t - k - 1} \right),
\label{eq:smooth_sensitivity_median}
\end{equation}
where $\beta = \epsilon / \left( 2 \log(2 / \delta) \right)$.
One immediate observation of this smooth sensitivity is the fact that its calculation depends on $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, in addition to the local population $\bmY_N$. On the contrary, the global or local sensitivities we have seen so far for the mean and the median do not depend on privacy parameters $\epsilon$ or $(\epsilon, \delta)$.
\fi
\subsection{The Laplace mechanism}
\label{dp:Laplace}
Among various differential privacy mechanisms, the Laplace mechanism is one of the most popular choices as it is simple to implement and works for any output for which the global sensitivity is known. With the Laplace mechanism the privacy guarantee defined in Equation \eqref{eq:definition2} is achieved by adding random Laplace noise to the output of interest. As the name suggests, the noise is drawn from a Laplace distribution with parameters based on the global sensitivity $\Delta^G$ and the privacy parameter $\epsilon$.
\begin{definition}[Laplace mechanism]\label{def:Laplace}
For any $g:\mathcal{Y}^N \to \Omega$, the Laplace mechanism is defined as
\[
\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N)) =
g(\bmY_N) + \eta_N, \B \eta_N \sim \textrm{Laplace}(0, \Delta^G / \epsilon)
\]
where $\Delta^G$ is the global sensitivity of $g(\cdot)$.
\end{definition}
A proof that the Laplace mechanism satisfies $\epsilon$-DP can be found in \citet{DworkRoth2014}.
The variance of the specified Laplace distribution is $2\left(\Delta^G / \epsilon \right)^2$.
Intuitively, this makes sense: the larger $\Delta^G$, the more sensitive the output, requiring more noise to be added to the output to achieve a target level of protection. Similarly, the smaller the privacy parameter $\epsilon$, the higher the target level of privacy, again requiring larger amounts of Laplace noise. We note that Definition \ref{def:Laplace} focuses on univariate outputs. When privatizing a multi-dimensional output, independent Laplace noise can be added to each component.
\subsection{Illustrations}
\label{dp:illustrations}
We close this section with a few illustrations of the impact of the sensitivity on the accuracy of the privatized mean and median as the outputs of interest. We simulate a database comprising $N=10,001$ records from a Beta(2,10) distribution which has a range of $R=1$. Hence, the global sensitivity of the mean is $R/N=1/10,001$ and that of the median is $R=1$. The empirical density of the generated data is shown in Figure \ref{fig:beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}.
To illustrate the amount of noise that needs to be added to achieve
a target level of privacy,
we repeatedly ($T= 1,000$ times) apply the Laplace mechanism for different levels of $\epsilon$
$\in\{0.1,0.5,1\}$ to obtain privatized means and medians. We use violin plots to visualize our results.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Density_beta2and10.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMean_beta2and10_eDP_pop.jpeg}
\caption{Density plot of the simulated population of size $N = 10,001$ generated from Beta(2, 10) (left panel) and violin plots of the privatized means via the Laplace mechanism for $\epsilon \in \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$
based on 1,000 realizations (right panel). The true mean is plotted as the horizontal dashed line for comparison.
}
\label{fig:beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}
\end{figure}
The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}
shows the distribution of the privatized means from the repeated simulations.
Not surprisingly the violin plots become more concentrated around the mean of the non-privatized data $\bar{y}_N$ (the horizontal dashed line) as $\epsilon$
increases. In other words, lower privacy protection levels result in privatized means with higher accuracy. The relatively small global sensitivity value scaled to the inverse of the population size, $1 / N$, helps produce privatized means with relatively high utility overall, even if the privacy parameter $\epsilon$
is small.
This does not hold if the Laplace mechanism
is used for the median. As can be seen in
the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedian_beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}, the amount of noise that needs to be added is so large especially for small $\epsilon$
that the privatized medians become useless: when $\epsilon = 0.1$,
the privatized median ranges from about -50 to 100, for data bounded in [0, 1].
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianGS_beta2and10_eDP_pop.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP_pop.jpeg}
\caption{Violin plots of the privatized medians using global sensitivity (left panel) and smooth sensitivity (right panel) for $\epsilon \in \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$ (and $\delta = 4.9995 \times 10^{5}$ for smooth sensitivity) based on 1,000 realizations. The simulated population of size $N = 10,001$ is generated from Beta(2, 10). The median of the original data is plotted as the horizontal dashed line.
}
\label{fig:PopulationMedian_beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}
\end{figure}
To avoid excessive amounts of noise,
one may consider protecting the median based on its smooth sensitivity
as discussed in Section \ref{dp:sensitivity}. Results based on the smooth sensitivity with $\delta = 1/(2N) = 4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$
are shown in
the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedian_beta2and10_eDP_pop_all}.
The reduction in the variability of the privatized estimate is striking. Even for $\epsilon=0.1$, almost all estimates are within the support of the data and the level of uncertainty in the noisy estimates seems to be acceptable for practical purposes for $\epsilon=0.5$ or higher.
Our illustrations demonstrate that for
privatized medians, using the smooth sensitivity instead of the global sensitivity can offer large gains in accuracy if the global sensitivity is high. Of course, it must be noted that the price for these gains is the move from strict $\epsilon$-DP to
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP.
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{Half-half bi-modal population}
\label{dp:illustrations:bimodal}
Our Beta(2, 10) population clearly demonstrates the advantages of using smooth sensitivity over global sensitivity for creating privatized median. Would these advantages hold in other scenarios? In general, yes, as the smooth sensitivity is based on the data and related to the local sensitivity, which could be very small. However, there are scenarios where the advantages of smooth sensitivity diminish. Such scenarios provide valuable lessons, especially as we will see in the sequel, that we might want to consider releasing privatized median estimates from samples instead of releasing privatized medians from the population, from the utility point of view.
Our second population is simulated from two beta distributions to create a bi-modal distribution of $N = 10,001$ with range $R = 1$. Among all records, $5001$ of the records come from the first mode and the remaining $5000$ records come from the second mode. Figure \ref{fig:Density_twobetas} shows its density plot, and we can see that the two modes are relatively far away from each other. We call this our half-half bi-modal population.
For creating privatized means, we follow the same procedure as in our uni-modal population illustration, where we consider $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$ to achieve $\epsilon$-DP. As before, the global sensitivity is $1/N$. Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMean_twobetas_eDP_pop} shows the 1000 repetitions of adding Laplace noise with scale $1 / ( N \epsilon )$ at different $\epsilon$ values. Once again, we observe decreasing amount of noise as $\epsilon$ increases, and overall the utility of privatized means are reasonably high.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Density plot of simulated population]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Density_twoBetas.jpeg}
\label{fig:Density_twobetas}}
\subfloat[Population mean]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMean_twobetas_eDP_pop.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMean_twobetas_eDP_pop}}\\
\caption{Density plot of the simulated population and violin plots of comparison of privatized population means at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$ with 1000 realizations. Population is half-half bi-modal and bounded in [0, 1] of size $N = 10,001$.}
\label{fig:twobetas_eDP_pop_all}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Global sensitivity for $\epsilon$-DP]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianGS_twobetas_eDP_pop.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianGS_twobetas_eDP_pop}}
\subfloat[Smooth sensitivity for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP_pop.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP_pop}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of comparison of privatized population medians, global sensitivity for $\epsilon$-DP vs smooth sensitivity for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP, at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$ (and {\color{red}\st{$\delta = 0.001$}} {\color{blue}{\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}} for smooth sensitivity), with 1000 realizations (true population median is plotted as the horizontal dashed line for comparison). Population is half-half bi-modal and bounded in [0, 1] of size $N = 10,001$.}
\label{fig:PopulationMedian_twobetas_eDP_pop_all}
\end{figure}
For privatized medians, we use the same set of $\epsilon$ for $\epsilon$-DP guarantee and same set of $(\epsilon, \delta)$ for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP guarantee as in our uni-modal population illustration. Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianGS_twobetas_eDP_pop} shows violin plots of privatized medians using global sensitivity for $\epsilon$-DP, and Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP_pop} shows violin plots of privatized medians using smooth sensitivity for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP.
While the general trend of larger $\epsilon$ corresponding to smaller amount of added noise remains, this time using smooth sensitivity to achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP also ends up adding a large amount of noise, although compared to global sensitivity for $\epsilon$-DP it is still smaller. Nevertheless, the resulted privatized median could be useless and meaningless, especially when $\epsilon$ is small. It must be that the calculated smooth sensitivity values based on this population $\bmY_N$, are much larger than the previous uni-modal population, so that the added noise according to smooth sensitivity increases. Indeed, compared to $\{0.0015, 0.0004, 0.0002\}$ in the uni-modal case, now we have calculated smooth sensitivity values as $\{0.4152, 0.3970, 0.3908\}$ for the three $\epsilon$ values. It is these large smooth sensitivity values that the added noise is increased.
Intuitively, smooth sensitivity is related to the local sensitivity, and we know that the local sensitivity of median for an odd number of records, as in our case of $N = 10,001$, is $\max \left( y_{ \left(\frac{N + 1}{2}+1\right) }- y_{\left(\frac{N + 1}{2}\right)}, y_{ \left(\frac{N + 1}{2}\right)} - y_{\left(\frac{N + 1}{2}-1\right)} \right)$. Compared to our uni-modal population where this maximum can be small, our half-half bi-modal population has this impacting feature that this maximum could be large. In fact, its calculated smooth sensitivity $\Delta^\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$ could be as large as 0.4 out of a range of $R = 1$, and it does not seem to decrease much as $\epsilon$ increases. Nevertheless, the final added noise is also scaled by $2 / \epsilon$, as in $2 \Delta^\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N) \eta / \epsilon$ where $\eta$ comes from $\textrm{Laplace}(0, 1)$, larger $\epsilon$ still results in privatized medians with much higher utility than smaller $\epsilon$.
\subsubsection{Discussions}
\label{dp:illustrations:discussions}
The half-half bi-modal population illustration confirms our observation of privatized mean with $\epsilon$-DP guarantee, that it has overall reasonably high utility and the utility decreases as $\epsilon$ increases. It is the scale of $1/N$ in its global sensitivity $\Delta^G = 1 / ( N \epsilon )$ that helps producing privatized mean with high utility. As for creating privatized median with $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP guarantee, although the calculated smooth sensitivity $\Delta^\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$ is data-dependent and could be small, for certain population with important feature, such as our half-half bi-modal population, we could still end up adding too much noise. The resulted privatized median with $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP guarantee will still be more useful than privatized median with $\epsilon$-DP guarantee using global sensitivity; however, when $\epsilon$ is small it could be useless and meaningless.
These observations prompt us to investigate alternative privatization approaches to releasing parameters such as median. We now turn to amplification effects of sampling, where instead of releasing a privatized population parameter, we can take a simple random sample from the population and add noise to that sample estimate to produce and release a privatized parameter estimate. We will see that for the challenging scenario of half-half bi-modal population, we could be better off by releasing a privatized median estimate as opposed to a privatized population median.
\end{comment}
\section{Amplification effects of sampling}
\label{amplification}
Previous research showed that sampling can \emph{amplify} the level of the differential privacy guarantee \citep{LiQardajiSu2011,Balle:2018}.
In this section, we will reiterate some of the previous findings using notation from the survey sampling literature. Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote a probability sampling mechanism that assigns inclusion indicators $Z_i$ to all population units in $\mathcal{U}=\{1,\ldots,N\}$ such that $Z_i=1$ if unit $i$ is selected in the sample and $Z_i=0$ otherwise. Given the selected sample, a finite population parameter of interest $g(\bmY_N)$ is estimated by the sample estimate $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$.
The following theorem introduced in \cite{LiQardajiSu2011} and \cite{Balle:2018}
shows the \emph{amplification effects} of sampling if we consider
drawing a sample of size $n$ using simple random sampling without replacement.
\begin{theorem} \label{eq:amp_theorem}
Suppose that a randomized function $\mathcal{A}$ gives $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the population parameter $g(\bmY_N)$.
Then, $\mathcal{A}$ satisfies $(\epsilon_n,\delta_n)-$DP for the estimator $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$ where $\epsilon_n = \log( 1 + n/N ( e^\epsilon - 1 ))$ and $\delta_n = (n/N)\delta$, that is,
for fixed values of $\epsilon > 0$ and $\delta \ge 0$ and for all $\omega \in \Omega$
$$
\Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))) \le \omega \ \right] \le \left( 1 + \frac{n}{N} ( e^\epsilon - 1 )) \right) \Pr \left[ \ \mathcal{A}(g(S(\bmY_N'))) \le \omega \ \right] + \frac{n}{N} \delta
$$
for any $\bmY_N = \{ y_1, \ldots, y_N \}$ and $\bmY_N' = \{ y'_1, \ldots, y'_N \}$ differing on at most one record $y_i \neq y'_i$ with any $y_i, y'_i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem 1 under the bounded version of differential privacy is provided in Appendix A. Our proof differs from the proofs given in previous papers. While \cite{LiQardajiSu2011} only focus on the unbounded case, \cite{Balle:2018} use the ideas of coupling and total variation distance for their proof. We believe that our proof is more intuitive for the statistical community.
Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem} shows that the privacy parameters for releasing $\mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$ are smaller than those for $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$, that is, the simple random sampling scheme $S$ \emph{amplifies} the data protection level.
This result can be useful for two data collection and dissemination scenarios.
The most obvious application would be in the context of sample surveys in which the statistical agency collects a survey sample, $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$, to obtain a sample estimate of the finite population parameter, $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$. If the agency aims at a target level of protection specified through fixed values $(\epsilon,\delta)$, the actual values of the privacy parameters will be calculated based on $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$, not $g(\bmY_N)$.
These values will generally be larger than $(\epsilon,\delta)$.
Specifically, for simple random sampling without replacement, Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem} shows that privatizing the sample estimates with $\epsilon_n = \log(1 + (N/n)(e^\epsilon - 1))$ and $\delta_n = (N/n)\delta$ suffices to ensure the target level of the privacy guarantee, $(\epsilon,\delta)$. This would be attractive as less noise would need to be infused to achieve a target level of protection.
Figure \ref{fig:epsilon_s_sampling_rate} illustrates that the amplification effects for $\epsilon$ can be substantial for small sampling rates. For example, to achieve $\epsilon=1$ based on a 1\% simple random sample it would be sufficient to use $\epsilon_n=5.15$ when protecting the output based on the sample. Also note that the amplification effects of $\delta$ are always linear in the sampling rate.
However, as noted in Section \ref{intro}, more complex designs than simple random sampling will typically be used in practice and it is by no means obvious that similar amplification results are achievable for these sampling designs. In fact, early research \citep{bun2020} indicates that amplification might be difficult to achieve for stratified and cluster sampling designs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figure/epsilon_s_sampling_rate.jpeg}
\caption{
Amplification effects for
different values of the target privacy parameter
($\epsilon \in \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$)
and sampling rate $n/N \in (0, 1]$.}
\label{fig:epsilon_s_sampling_rate}
\end{figure}
An alternative scenario of using the amplification effects of sampling, which will be the focus of this paper, arises, if the statistical agency collects data for the entire population $\bmY_N$, either through administrative processes or by conducting a census, and considers sampling from these data for confidentiality reasons relying on the amplification effects. However, this approach would come at the expense of introducing sampling variance and possibly an increased sensitivity of the estimate to changes of the input data. Under this scenario, the focus shifts from understanding the privacy implications, which are directly quantifiable based on Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem} assuming simple random sampling, to measuring the impacts on accuracy. For a target level of protection specified through ($\epsilon$, $\delta$), the agency can search for the optimal sampling rate that minimizes the overall variance of the final estimate. To obtain this rate, the accuracy gains from the amplification effects need to be balanced against the increased sampling variance and the potential increase of the sensitivity of the desired output.
\iffalse
As an illustrative example, suppose that a statistical agency uses the Laplace mechanism $\mathcal{A}$ to achieve an $\epsilon$-DP privacy guarantee of $\epsilon = 0.1$. is selected, the statistical agency can release the privatized parameter $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$ where $\epsilon = 0.1$ is used for adding Laplace noise to $g(\bmY_N)$. If the agency releases the privatized estimate, the size of the Laplace noise is determined based on $\epsilon_n = \log(1 + (N/n)(e^\epsilon - 1))$ and $\delta_n = (N/n)\delta$ because $\log( 1 + (n/N) ( e^{\epsilon_n} - 1 )) = \epsilon$ and $(n/N)\delta_n = \delta$ by Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem}.
If the sampling rate is $n/N = 10\%$, then $\epsilon_n = \log(1 + 10 \times (e^{0.1} - 1)) = 0.72$; if the sampling rate is $n/N = 1\%$, then $\epsilon_n = \log(1 + 100 \times (e^{0.1} - 1)) = 2.44$. That is, the smaller the sampling rate $n/N$, the larger the value of $\epsilon_n$ used to add noise to parameter estimate $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$. Figure \ref{fig:epsilon_s_sampling_rate} provides illustrations of amplification effects of sampling on $\epsilon_n$ with different values of $\epsilon$ and sampling rate $n/N$. As can be seen, $\epsilon_n$ is a decreasing function of sampling rate $n/N$ regardless of the value of $\epsilon$, illustrating the amplification effects of sampling on $\epsilon_n$.
For $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP, it is straightforward to see the amplification effects on $\delta$ and $\delta_n$, since their relationship is linear in $N/n$ as in $\delta_n = (N/n)\delta$.
\fi
\section{Accuracy gains from sampling}
\label{accuracy}
The variance of the privatized output $\mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$ will always depend on two components: the sampling variance and the variance from noise infusion. When focusing on the class of differential privacy algorithms based on noise addition such as the Laplace mechanism,
accuracy gains can only be expected
if the reduction of the variance from noise infusion is larger than the increase in sampling variance.
While there is an inverse proportional relationship between the sample size and the sampling variance for most
estimators
(if we ignore the finite population correction factor), this relationship is more nuanced for the noise component. Figure \ref{fig:epsilon_s_sampling_rate} already reveals the non-linear relationship between the sampling rate and the privacy amplification. This non-linear relationship implies that we will likely only see accuracy gains for small sampling rates.
For many outputs, this discussion is further complicated by the fact that the sensitivity will depend on the size of the database. Thus, the gains in accuracy from increasing $\epsilon_n$ will be counter balanced by the increase in sensitivity, which intuitively will always require more noise infusion for any differential privacy algorithm.
So the natural question arises: Under which circumstances can accuracy gains be expected? In this section, we will discuss some aspects that need to be considered in this context focusing primarily on the Laplace mechanism. We also illustrate through simple examples that it is critical to ensure that the sensitivity of the output does not depend too strongly on the size of the database, when hoping for accuracy gains.
\subsection{Some results for the Laplace mechanism}
\label{amplification:variance}
Let $V_n$ denote the variance of the privatized estimate $\mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))))$ and let $V_N$ denote the variance of the privatized
population
parameter $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N)))$.
Using the Laplace mechanism we have $\mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))) = g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)) + \eta_n$, where $\eta_n \sim \textrm{Laplace}(0, \Delta_n^{G} / \epsilon_n)$ and $\Delta_n^G$ is the global sensitivity of the output in the sample. The variance of the privatized estimate
is given by
\[
V_n
= \Var(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))) + \Var(\eta_n) = \Var(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))) + \frac{2 (\Delta_n^{G})^2 }{\epsilon_n^2}, \label{eq:variance_sum}
\]
where $\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$ is the sampling variance of the estimate and $2 (\Delta_n^{G} / \epsilon_n)^2$ is the variance of the Laplace noise.
Making general statements when to expect $V_n \leq V_N$ is difficult, as both the sampling variance as well as the variance from noise infusion will depend on the functional form of $g$. However, $V_n \leq V_N$ implies that
the sampling variance always needs to be smaller than $V_N$ (as Var$(\eta_n)$ $> 0$), that is, the sampling variance always needs to be smaller than the variance of the noise added to protect the population parameter. In many cases, this might already imply that the sampling rate cannot be too small to avoid large sampling variances.
However, large sampling rates imply that the variance from noise infusion will not be substantially reduced compared to the population. Thus, it is important to also account for the noise infusion for the sample estimate.
Tighter bounds for the sampling variance which also account for
Var$(\eta_n)$ can be found, if we notice that it is reasonable to assume that the global sensitivity $\Delta^G$ will typically only increase if the size of the database is decreasing. Thus, the best case scenario from an accuracy gains perspective would be that the sensitivity is \emph{independent} of the sampling rate, that is $\Delta^G_n = \Delta^G_N$, as this would maximize $(V_N - V_n)$. Under this scenario, we can rewrite the bound of the sampling variance as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:samp_var_bound}
\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))&\leq& V_N-Var(\eta_n)
\ \leq \ \left(1-\frac{Var(\eta_n)}{V_N}\right)V_N\\
\nonumber&\leq&\left(1-\frac{2(\Delta^G_n/\epsilon_n)^2}{2(\Delta^G_N/\epsilon)^2}\right)V_N
\ \leq \ \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_n^2}\right)V_N \\
\nonumber& \leq & q \ V_N.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figure/q_sampling_rate.jpg}
\caption{Relationship between $q$ and the sampling rate for various levels of $\epsilon$.}
\label{fig:q_vs_rate}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:q_vs_rate} illustrates the relationship between the sampling rate and $q$ for various levels of $\epsilon$. The figure reveals several important findings.
For $\epsilon>1$, $q$ increases at a less than linear rate as sampling rates decrease (except for very small sampling rates).
For example, the solid curve in the figure suggests that
the sampling rate would need to be less than $16.77\%$ to still see accuracy gains for $\epsilon=3$ if the sampling variance is $60\%$ of $V_N$.
For values of $\epsilon<1$ the relationship is reversed. The parameter $q$ increases quickly when sampling rates are large but the rate of increase slows down with decreasing sampling rates. Thus, the same benchmark of $0.6 V_N$ could be achieved with a sampling rate of $61.4\%$ for $\epsilon=0.1$. Given that $V_N$ with $\epsilon=0.1$ will
be 900 times larger than $V_N$ based on $\epsilon=3$, it is obvious that it will be much more likely to find regimes that offer accuracy gains for smaller values of $\epsilon$. However, Figure \ref{fig:q_vs_rate} also reveals that there is a bound to this effect. For $\epsilon$ values less than 0.1, the curve hardly changes, that is, for a fixed sampling rate, the value of $q$ would be almost the same for $\epsilon=0.01$ and $\epsilon=0.001$. This effect can be explained if we notice that for small $x$ it holds that $e^{x}\approx 1+x$, which implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
q&=&\left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_n^2}\right)
\ = \ \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{(\log(1 + (N/n)(e^\epsilon - 1)))^2}\right) \\
& \approx & \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{(\log(1 + (N/n)(1+\epsilon-1)))^2}\right)
\ = \ \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{(\log(1 + (N/n)\epsilon))^2}\right) \\
& \approx & \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{(\log(e^{N/n\epsilon}))^2}\right)
\ = \ \left(1-\frac{\epsilon^2}{(N/n\epsilon)^2}\right) \\
&=& 1-\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $q$ will only depend quadratically on the sampling rate, but will no longer depend on $\epsilon
. Of course, it will still remain true that reducing $\epsilon$ will increase $V_N$. Thus, further decreasing $\epsilon$ will still make it more plausible to find regimes which offer accuracy gains.
However, these results only give an upper bound for the sampling variance, assuming that the sensitivity of the output is independent of the sample size. The bound will be tighter if the sensitivity depends on the size of the database since
Var$(\eta_n)/V_N$ will get larger. A more general finding can be obtained, if we restate Equation (\ref{eq:samp_var_bound}) as a negative result. Noting that $V_N=2 (\Delta_N^{G} / \epsilon)^2$, we find that we can never expect to see accuracy gains whenever
\[
\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))\geq 2 (\Delta_N^{G})^2\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}}-\frac{1}{\epsilon_n^{2}}\right).
\]
This result holds for any $g$ as long as the Laplace mechanism is used to protect the output.
To get a better understanding under which circumstances accuracy gains could be expected in practice, we evaluate the amplification results for two specific examples, assuming
interest lies in privatizing the mean and the median of the population.
\iffalse
The first variance component $\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$ expresses the variability from sampling, which depends on the parameter of interest $g(\bmY_N)$ and the sampling rate $n/N$. For example, if the statistical agency takes a sample from finite population and use the sample mean as the estimate for population mean parameter, then the variance of this parameter estimate is $\left(1 - n/N\right) S_N^2 / n$
where $S_N^2$ denotes the population variance.
If the statistical agency is interested in other quantities, such as population total or population median, this variance component will be derived / approximated accordingly.
The second variance component $\textrm{Var}(\eta)$ expresses the variability from adding noise for privacy protection.
The variance of noise is determined by
a sensitivity of $g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$ to the change of a unit denoted by $\Delta_n$, the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$, and the privacy parameter pair $(\epsilon_n, \delta_n)$, all based on the selected sample except for $\mathcal{A}$. We have seen how $(\Delta, \mathcal{A}, \epsilon, \delta)$ influence the variance of a privatized population parameter $\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$ in Section \ref{dp}. Now on $\mathcal{A}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$, we take the same approach and calculate $(\Delta_n, \epsilon_n, \delta_n)$ based on the selected sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$. Among them $\Delta_n$ depends on the parameter of interest, while $(\epsilon_n, \delta_n)$ are calculated based on results of Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem}.
As both the sampling variance $\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))$ and sensitivity $\Delta_n$ depend on the parameter of interest $g(\cdot)$, we now turn to detailed analysis of two parameters: population mean and population median. For each, we consider the Laplace mechanism $\mathcal{A}$ for either $\epsilon$-DP or $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for illustration.
\fi
\subsection{Accuracy gains for the population mean}
\label{amplification:mean}
Let $\bar{y}_N$ be the population mean, $S_N^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_i - \bar{y}_N)^2 / (N-1)$ be the population variance, and $R$ be a known upper bound for the range of $\mathcal{Y}$ which is not data-specific. For this illustration, we assume the statistical agency relies on the Laplace mechanism with global sensitivity $\Delta^G = R/N$.
Then, the variance of the privatized population parameter
$\mathcal{A}(g(\bmY_N))$ will be
\begin{equation}
V_N =
\textrm{Var}\left(\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_N)\right) = 2 \left(\frac{R}{\epsilon N}\right)^2,
\label{eq:pop_mean_var_pop}
\end{equation}
which accounts only for the Laplace noise component because the sampling variance is zero.
If the agency draws a simple random sample without replacement from the population and releases a privatized sample mean $\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_n)$,
its global sensitivity is $\Delta_n^G = R / n$.
The amplified privacy parameter is given by $\epsilon_n = \log(1 + (N/n)(e^\epsilon - 1))$, which implies that the Laplace noise has variance $\Var(\eta_n) = 2 R^2 / (\epsilon_n n )^2$. Therefore, the total variance of the privatized sample mean is
\begin{equation}
V_n =
\textrm{Var}\left(\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_n)\right) =
\left(1 - \frac{n}{N}\right)\frac{S_N^2}{n} + 2 \left(\frac{R}{\epsilon_n n}\right)^2,
\label{eq:pop_mean_var_sample}
\end{equation}
where the first term is the sampling variance of the sample mean and the second term is the Laplace noise component.
Making general statements regarding the accuracy gains or losses when using $\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_n)$ instead of $\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_N)$ is again difficult, as the results will depend on the population variance $S_N^2$ and the range $R$. However, we can gain some insights by only comparing the noise component of the two algorithms.
Specifically, the ratio of the noise component for the population parameter to the noise component of the sample estimate is given by:
\begin{equation}
r \left(\epsilon, \frac{n}{N} \right) = \frac{2 \left(\frac{R}{\epsilon N}\right)^2}{2 \left(\frac{R}{\epsilon_n n}\right)^2}
= \left( \frac{n}{N} \frac{\log(1 + \frac{N}{n}(e^\epsilon - 1))}\epsilon \right)^2.
\label{eq:pop_ratio}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
[ TBD ]
Solution $\epsilon > 0$ when $r$ is given as $(0.01, 0.02, \ldots, 0.99)$
$$
r^2 \ \frac{(\log(1 + \frac{e^\epsilon - 1}{r}))^2}{\epsilon^2} = 1
$$
\end{comment}
Note that as long as this ratio is smaller than one, we cannot hope for any accuracy gains when releasing the privatized sample mean, $\mathcal{A}(\bar{y}_n)$, as its variance from noise addition would be larger than that in the population. Thus, we would not see any accuracy gains even if we ignore the sampling variance. We also note that the ratio approaches 1, if we let $(N/n)\epsilon\rightarrow0$, since at least asymptotically it holds that
\[
\log\left(1 + \frac{N}{n}(e^\epsilon - 1)\right)\approx \log \left(1 + \frac{N}{n}(1+\epsilon - 1)\right)=\log\left(1 + \frac{N}{n}\epsilon\right)\approx \log(e^{(N/n)\epsilon})=\frac{N}{n}\epsilon.
\]
Thus, as $(N/n)\epsilon\rightarrow0$,
the amount of noise that needs to be added will always be the same irrespective of the sampling rate, and accuracy gains would be impossible.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/mean_r.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/mean_r_n.jpeg}
\caption{Dot plots of
the log of the target privacy parameter $\epsilon$ (left panel) and the log of amplified $\epsilon_n$ used for Laplace noise generation (right panel) for specific sampling rates $n/N$. The depicted values ensure that the amount of noise added to $\bar{y}_N$ matches the amount of noise added to $\bar{y}_n$, that is, $r(\epsilon, n / N) = 1$.}
\label{fig:mean_r}
\end{figure}
Still, given that the ratio $r(\epsilon, n/N)$ is only a function of $\epsilon$ and the sampling rate $n/N$, we can evaluate analytically, that is, without relying on asymptotics, which combinations of sampling rates and $\epsilon$ would lead to $r(\epsilon, n/N)=1$.
This relationship is depicted in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:mean_r}. Note that $r(\epsilon, n/N)>1$ (implying that $Var(\eta_n)<V_N$) could only be achieved for $\epsilon$ values below the depicted curve.
The figure reveals that the required value of $\epsilon$ decreases with the sampling rate. Even more importantly, we find that the required level of $\epsilon$ needs to be extremely small to achieve $r(\epsilon, n/N)\leq1$ for all sampling rates. The values of $\epsilon$ are depicted on the log scale and a value of $\log(\epsilon)=-8$ already corresponds to $\epsilon\approx 0.0003$ whereas a value of $\log(\epsilon)=-20$ implies that $\epsilon\approx2 \times 10^{-9}$.
However, since smaller sampling rates imply larger amplifications effects, it might arguably be more relevant to focus on the relationship between the sampling rate and $\epsilon_n$, which represents the actual value of the privacy parameter that is used for a given sampling rate. This relationship is depicted in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:mean_r}. We see that because of the amplification effects, the value of $\epsilon_n$ starts to increase again once we reach sampling rates less than 10\%. Still, even for a sampling rate of 0.0001 (the left most dot in the figure), $\epsilon_n<
1.66 \times 10^{-6}$ would be required to ensure that the ratio is less than one.
It seems unlikely that statistical agencies will ever use such small values for $\epsilon_n$ in practice. While the privacy guarantees would obviously be high, the amount of noise that would need to added would be so large that any results obtained would no longer be meaningful.
We also emphasize that $r(\epsilon, n/N)<1$ only ensures that the variance of the noise component will be smaller for the sample mean than for the population mean. These evaluations still completely ignore the sampling variance. Thus, it seems unlikely that the accuracy of the protected sample mean can ever be higher than the accuracy of the protected population mean.
These results illustrate that accuracy gains are difficult to achieve if the sensitivity strongly depends on the sample size. Thus, to even hope for accuracy gains form sampling, it is fundamental to use algorithms which show little dependence between the sensitivity and the sample size. In the next sections we illustrate that accuracy gains are indeed possible for certain combinations of outputs and algorithms.
\subsection{Accuracy gains for the population median}
\label{amplification:median}
The median is another popular statistic to offer insights regarding the location of the distribution. For skewed distributions such as income, the median is preferred to the mean because of its robustness to rare events in the tail. For data points $y_1, \cdots, y_N$ in the finite population $\bmY_N$ bounded within range $R$, let $y_{(k)}$ denote the $k$-th smallest value of $\bmY_N$.
Let $m_N$ be the population median, which is $y_{\left(\frac{N + 1}{2}\right)}$ when $N$ is odd and $( y_{\left(\frac{N}{2} \right)} + y_{\left(\frac{N}{2}+1\right)}) / 2$ when $N$ is even. For notational convenience, we work with the case where $N$ is odd for our illustration
Since the global sensitivity of the median is $\Delta^G = R$ as explained in Section \ref{dp:sensitivity}, it does not depend on the sample size. Hence, using the standard Laplace mechanism would be an ideal candidate to illustrate potential accuracy gains from sampling. However, as discussed in Section \ref{dp:illustrations}, due to the high global sensitivity of the median, this approach will hardly ever be useful in practice. Thus, we instead consider achieving $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the population median by adding Laplace noise based on smooth sensitivity.
To create a privatized population median $\mathcal{A}(m_N)$, we consider its smooth sensitivity $\Delta^S_{\epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N) = \textrm{max}_{k = 0, \cdots, N}\left(e^{-k\beta} \cdot \textrm{max}_{t = 0, \cdots, k+1} \left(y_{\frac{N + 1}{2} + t} - y_{\frac{N + 1}{2} + t - k - 1} \right)\right)$, where $\beta = \epsilon / \left( 2 \log(2 / \delta) \right)$. We use the randomized algorithm $\mathcal{A}(m_N) = m_N + \eta_N$ with $\eta_N \sim \textrm{Laplace}(0, 2\Delta^S_{\epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N) / \epsilon)$.
To create a privatized sample median, we draw a sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$ of $n$ data points $y_1, \cdots, y_n$,
and then apply the same procedure using the sample as input instead of the population, as well as the amplified privacy parameters $(\epsilon_n, \delta_n)$ from Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem}.
Unlike the global sensitivity, the smooth sensitivity is data dependent, which implies that we cannot analytically compare the variances of the noise component between the sample and the population as we have done in Section \ref{amplification:mean} for the mean. To illustrate this point, we note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
Var(\mathcal{A}(m_n))&=&E(Var(\mathcal{A}(m_n)|\mathcal{S}(Y_N)))+Var(E(\mathcal{A}(m_n)|\mathcal{S}(Y_N)))\\
&=&E(Var(m_n+\eta_n|\mathcal{S}(Y_N)))+Var(E(m_n+\eta_n|\mathcal{S}(Y_N)))\\
&=&E(Var(\eta_n|\mathcal{S}(Y_N)))+Var(m_n).
\end{eqnarray*}
The second component is just the variance of the sample median, which is easy to estimate at least approximately. However, the first component is more difficult, as the variance of the noise depends on the smooth sensitivity, which will change from sample to sample, making it difficult to compute the expectation over different samples.
Therefore, we will rely on simulations instead to illustrate that accuracy gains can be expected under certain regimes. We acknowledge that this implies that our findings will be specific to the distributional assumptions of the data in our simulations. This limitation seems to be unavoidable given that the amount of noise that is added will be data dependent. We still offer some general insights in which situations accuracy gains could be expected in Section \ref{sec:amplification:bi-modal}. To mimic a realistic scenario in which the median would typically be preferred over the mean, we assume that the variable of interest has a skewed distribution. Specifically, we generate a population of $N = 10,001$ records from a log-normal distribution with $\mu = 5$ and $\sigma = 0.5$. From this population we repeatedly ($T = 1,000$) draw simple random samples without replacement with varying sample sizes ($n\in \{1001,101\}$) and evaluate whether accuracy gains can be expected for different levels of protection ($\epsilon \in \{0.1,0.5,1\}$). We fix $\delta = 1/2N=4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$. For any of the six combinations of sample size and privacy parameters, the simulation consists of the following steps at each iteration $t=1,\ldots,T$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate a privatized median $\tilde{m}_N^{(t)}=\mathcal{A}(m_N)$ using the population and the target values of $\epsilon$ and $\delta$.
\item
Draw a simple random sample without replacement with sample size $n$ and calculate the sample median $m_n^{(t)}$.
\item
Generate a privatized median $\tilde{m}_n^{(t)}=\mathcal{A}(m_n^{(t)})$ using the drawn sample and the amplified values $\epsilon_n$ and $\delta_n$.
\end{enumerate}
To evaluate the losses or gains in accuracy, we can compare the variability of $\tilde{m}_N$ and $\tilde{m}_n$ across the simulation runs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP_ratio_e0p1.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP_ratio_e0p5.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP_ratio_e1.jpeg}
\caption{Violin plots of the ratio of the smooth sensitivity of the sample over the smooth sensitivity of the population for $\epsilon = 0.1$ (left panel), $\epsilon = 0.5$ (middle panel), and $\epsilon = 1$ (right panel) and $n \in \{1001, 101\}$, based on 1,000 simulation runs. The parameter $\delta$ is fixed at $4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$ in all settings.
The population of size $N= 10,001$ is simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5).
}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all3_sensitivity}
\end{figure}
However, before presenting these comparisons, we empirically investigate the dependence between the smooth sensitivity of the median and the sample size. Figure \ref{fig:Lognormal_all3_sensitivity} depicts the ratio of the smooth sensitivity calculated from the $T = 1,000$ samples divided by the smooth sensitivity of the population. The sensitivity of the samples tends to be larger than the sensitivity in the population and it increases with smaller sample sizes and larger values of $\epsilon$ (note the different ranges of the $y$-axis for the three panels). To explain the inverse relationship between the smooth sensitivity and sample size, we note that the smooth sensitivity looks at the maximum of the weighted distance between neighboring records around the median, where the weights decrease with rank distance between the compared records. With smaller sample sizes, the distances between neighboring records will generally increase even if the data are generated from the same distribution. Hence we expect the smooth sensitivity to increase for smaller sampling rates.
Increasing the value of $\epsilon$ implies that the weights decay more quickly, which generally means that the smooth sensitivity decreases for a fixed sample size with increasing values of $\epsilon$. However, the effective relative change of $\epsilon$ varies between the different datasets because of the amplification effects. While the underlying $\epsilon$ changes from 0.1 to 1, that is, it changes by a factor of 10, when going from the left panel to the right panel in Figure \ref{fig:Lognormal_all3_sensitivity}, the amplified $\epsilon_n$ for $n=101$ only changes from 2.43 to 5.14, that is, roughly by a factor of 2. Hence, the faster the sensitivity decreases, the smaller the amplification effects. Since the sensitivity will always decrease fastest in the population, we see that the ratio of the sensitivities as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:Lognormal_all3_sensitivity} will always increase with increasing values of $\epsilon$. Moreover, the increase will be more pronounced for smaller sampling rates.
However, we find that the increase in sensitivity is generally small, especially for small $\epsilon$. The median of the ratios for $\epsilon=0.1$ is 1.28 for $n=1,001$ and 3.72 for $n=101$ and even for $\epsilon=1$ the median of the ratios only increases to 4.24 and 23.30 respectively. Note that the global sensitivity for the mean discussed in Section \ref{amplification:mean} would increase by a factor of 10 for $n=1,001$ and by a factor of $100$ for $n=101$, irrespective of the selected level of $\epsilon$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p1.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p5.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e1.jpeg}
\caption{Violin plots showing the distribution for the amount of noise added for privacy protection
for $\epsilon = 0.1$ (left panel), $\epsilon = 0.5$ (middle panel), and $\epsilon = 1$ (right panel) and $n \in \{1001, 101\}$, based on 1,000 simulation runs. The parameter $\delta$ is fixed at $4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$ in all settings. The population of size $N= 10,001$ is simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5).}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all3_added_noise}
\end{figure}
As a first step to compare the variability of $\tilde{m}_N$ and $\tilde{m}_n$ across the simulation runs, Figure \ref{fig:Lognormal_all3_added_noise} contains violin plots showing the distribution for the amount of noise added for privacy protection across the simulation runs. For $\epsilon = 0.1$, we find a substantial reduction in the amount of noise when going from the population to the sample of size $n=1,001$. The noise is even further reduced for $n=101$.
However, these accuracy gains are lost once we increase the level of $\epsilon$. While the variance of the noise is reduced for all settings as expected if $\epsilon$ increases (note the different scales of the three panels), introducing a sampling step before adding the Laplace noise for privacy protection does no longer offer any advantages in terms of accuracy. Only for $\epsilon=0.5$ and a sample size of $n=1,001$ we still see a small reduction in the noise variance compared to the population. For all other scenarios, reducing the sample size will always increase the variance, indicating that the potential noise reduction from amplification is overcompensated by the increase in sensitivity.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/median_lognormal_master.jpeg}
}\\
\caption{Line plots showing log(MSE) as a function of sampling rate for noisy medians with $\epsilon \in \{0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 3, 5\}$ and $\delta = 4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$, with sampling rates of \{$0.01, 0.1, 0.2, \cdots, 0.9$\}. The crosses at a sampling rate of 1 refer to the log(MSE) value of the population. The empirical log(MSE) is calculated based on 1,000 simulation runs. The population of size $N = 10,001$ is simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5).}
\label{fig:median_lognormal_master}
\end{figure}
These results have not yet accounted for the additional variance from sampling that will only increase with smaller sample sizes. Figure \ref{fig:median_lognormal_master} shows the empirical mean squared error (on the log-scale) of the final estimates $\tilde{m}_n$ as a function of the sampling rate for various values of $\epsilon$. We see that for small values of $\epsilon$ ($\epsilon\le 0.1$) accuracy gains from subsampling can be achieved. The gains are most pronounced for small sampling rates for $\epsilon\leq0.1$. However, for $\epsilon=0.5$, the accuracy starts decreasing again for sampling rates less than 10\%. For $\epsilon\ge 0.5$ no accuracy gains are achievable by subsampling the data
However, there are specific data situations where accuracy gains can be achieved for larger values of $\epsilon$, as we will illustrate next.
\iffalse
Our goals again are to investigate in what situations 1) the level of the added noise to the median estimate would be smaller than that to the population median; and more importantly 2) the variance of a privatized median estimate would be smaller than that of a privatized population median, resulting in real gains of amplification effects with higher utility. In Section \ref{amplification:mean} for protecting population mean, we have closed form expression of the sampling variance of the mean estimate, as well as data-independent expressions of the two types of added noise. All of these help facilitate our investigations and allow us to ask questions such as for a given population of size $N$ and a fixed sample size $n$, what values of $\epsilon$ are needed to add less noise to a parameter estimate compared to a population parameter; and vise versa if $\epsilon$ is fixed and the statistical agency is interested in learning about the values of $n$. Now for population median, we do not have a generic closed form expression of the sampling variance. Moreover, the variances of the added noise to the median estimate and to the population median depend on the particular population $\bmY_N$ and the particular selected sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$, since the smooth sensitivity is calculated based on data.
We therefore focus on numerically illustrating the comparisons. We continue with the two simulated populations, previously considered: a finite population of size $N = 10,001$ simulated from Beta(2, 10), and a finite population of the same size with a bi-modal shape, bounded in [0, 1]. For each simulated population, we consider the combinations of $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, {\color{blue}{\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}}, and sample sizes $n = \{1001, 101\}$. For a given $\epsilon$, to achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the population, we add Laplace noise given $\Delta^S_{\epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N)$ to $m_N$ to obtain a privatized population median. To obtain a privatized sample median of given size $n$ and satisfy $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for the population, we first take a sample of size $n$. Next, we calculate amplified $(\epsilon_n, \delta_n)$ based on Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem}. Finally, we add Laplace noise given $\Delta^S_{\epsilon_n, \delta_n}(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$ to $m_n$.
We repeat noise addition to the population median for 1000 times and sampling and noise addition to the median estimate for 1000 times. We create violin plots of added noise in both cases, and the privatized population medians vs privatized median estimates in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP_all1} for uni-modal population simulated from Beta(2, 10), and in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_eDP_all1} for bi-modal population bounded in [0, 1].
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Added noise]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_beta2and10_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_beta2and10_edDP}}
\subfloat[Privatized medians and median estimates]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of comparison of added noise and the privatized population medians vs privatized median estimates, at $\epsilon = \{ 0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, {\color{blue}{\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}}, and $n = \{1001, 101\}$, with 1000 realizations. Population simulated from Beta(2, 10) of size $N = 10,001$.}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP_all1}
\end{figure}
{\color{blue} [ In Figure 7, we use four values of $\epsilon$. It MAY be good to use the same sets of $\epsilon$ for Figures 7 and 8? Maybe not? :) ] }
{\color{red} Good point. The reason we did not include $\epsilon = 0.01$ here is that the added noise is too much so the other $\epsilon$ results might be hard to read on a single plot. Back in Figure 7, we included $\epsilon = 0.01$ as it shows some gains of sampling, justifying our statements of ``only when $\epsilon$ is very small". Maybe we could add a sentence here saying that ``we do not include $\epsilon = 0.01$ for the population median because the added noise is too large to make the figure readable". Update: After our meeting today, we probably don't need to worry about this anymore, once the specific $\epsilon$ and $n$ results of the mean are commented out. Joerg - feel free to comment out these comments when you get here.}
The results of our uni-modal population indicate that the added noise is larger for the population median than for the median estimate when $\epsilon$ is small, and the comparison is reversed as $\epsilon$ increases, as we can see in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_beta2and10_edDP}. Once the sampling variance is taken into account to evaluate the gains of amplification effects in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP}, we can see that for each panel of $\epsilon$ value, the sampling variance increases as sample size $n$ decreases, not surprisingly. When $\epsilon = 0.1$, the variance of Laplace noise dominates the total variance for $n = 1001$ and $n = 101$, that we have real gains of amplification effects as the privatized median estimates enjoy smaller variance compared to the privatized population medians. However, for larger $\epsilon$ values, such as $\epsilon = 0.5$ and $\epsilon = 1$, the added noise to the population median is already smaller than those to the median estimate, for both sample sizes $n = \{1001, 101\}$. The additional sampling variance of the median estimates would further increase its total variance, resulting in lower utility compared to the privatized population medians. Overall, for our uni-modal population, the utility of a privatized population median and a privatized median estimate is relatively high, i.e. not very far from the true population median (horizontal dashed line in each panel of Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP}). The utility is especially high for privatized population parameter with relatively large $\epsilon$ (e.g. $\epsilon = \{0.5, 0.1\}$), and also for privatized estimate with relatively large $\epsilon$ and large sample size $n$ (e.g. $\epsilon = \{0.5, 0.1\}$ and $n = 1001$).
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Added noise]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP}}
\subfloat[Privatized medians and median estimates]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of comparison of added noise and the privatized population medians vs privatized median estimates, at $\epsilon = \{ 0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, {\color{blue}{\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}}, and $n = \{1001, 101\}$, with 1000 realizations. Population is bi-modal and bounded in [0, 1] of size $N = 10,001$.}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_eDP_all1}
\end{figure}
\fi
\subsection{When sensitivity decreases with sample size}
\label{sec:amplification:bi-modal}
In Section \ref{amplification:variance} we claimed that in most scenarios the best we could hope for is that the sensitivity is independent of the sample size. This is certainly true for the global sensitivity. However, once we move to algorithms for which the sensitivity depends on the data, it is possible to construct scenarios in which the sensitivity actually decreases with sample size. We illustrate this phenomenon in this section using the smooth sensitivity of the median again. To ensure that the sensitivity in the sample will typically be smaller than in the population, we use a bi-modal distribution for which the true median lies in an area with low density between the two modes. Specifically, we generate our population of size $N = 10,001$ from a mixture of two scaled and shifted beta distributions where 5,001 records are drawn from the first mixture component and 5,000 records are drawn from the second mixture component. The R code used for simulating this bi-modal distribution is included in Appendix B
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Density_twoBetas.jpeg}
}
\caption{Density plot of the simulated population of size $N=10,001$ based on a mixture of two scaled and shifted Beta distributions. The pink dot highlights the median of the distribution.}
\label{fig:Density_twobetas}
\end{figure}
The resulting distribution is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:Density_twobetas} with the value of the median, which is 0.21, highlighted as a dot. Note that the exact specification of the distributions is irrelevant for our illustrations as long as the two mixtures do not overlap and the median is equal to the largest value of the first mixture component (or the smallest value of the second mixture component). This will ensure that the smooth sensitivity will always be high in the population as the distance between the median and one of its neighbors will be large.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_twobetas_edDP_ratio_e0p1.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_twobetas_edDP_ratio_e0p5.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_twobetas_edDP_ratio_e1.jpeg}
\caption{Violin plots of the ratio of the smooth sensitivity of the sample over the smooth sensitivity of the population for $\epsilon = 0.1$ (left panel), $\epsilon = 0.5$ (middle panel), and $\epsilon = 1$ (right panel) and $n \in \{1001, 101\}$, based on 1,000 simulation runs. The parameter $\delta$ is fixed at $4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$ in all settings. The population of size $N= 10,001$ is simulated from a mixture of two scaled and shifted Beta distributions.}
\label{fig:twobetas_all3_ratios}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!]
\centering
{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/SampleMedian_twobetas_e1.jpeg}
}\\
\caption{Violin plots of the sample medians across 1,000 simulation runs. The population median is indicated by the dotted red line.}
\label{fig:SampleMedian_twobetas_e1}
\end{figure}
Based on this population, we conduct the same simulation as in Section \ref{amplification:median}.
Results for the ratio of the sensitivity of the sample to the sensitivity in the population are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:twobetas_all3_ratios}. It is obvious that the sensitivity of the sample median is smaller than the sensitivity of the population median for most of the simulation runs.
Figure \ref{fig:SampleMedian_twobetas_e1} showing the distribution of the (unprivatized) sample medians helps to explain this somewhat unexpected result.
The true median in the population is indicated by the dashed line. We find that the distribution of the sample medians is also bi-modal in this case with low density in the area of the true median. Comparing these distributions with the distribution of the data from Figure \ref{fig:Density_twobetas}, we note that most of the sample medians are in an area of the bi-modal distribution with much higher density than the area of the true median. Since the smooth sensitivity of the median increases with increasing sparsity of the data around the media
, the sensitivity of the population median is higher than the sensitivity for most of the sample medians.
Such a data scenario is ideal from an accuracy gain perspective, as both the reduced sensitivity and the amplified values of ($\epsilon_n, \delta_n$) will reduce the amount of noise that needs to be added to the sample data to achieve a target value for ($\epsilon, \delta$).
This is confirmed in Figures \ref{fig:twobetas_all3_added_noise} and \ref{fig:median_twobetas_master}
which show the variability in the amount of noise and the mean squared error of the final estimates for the same scenarios considered in Section \ref{amplification:median} for the log-normal population.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP_e0p1.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP_e0p5.jpeg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP_e1.jpeg}
\caption{Violin plots showing the distribution for the amount of added noise for privacy protection for $\epsilon = 0.1$ (left panel), $\epsilon = 0.5$ (middle panel), and $\epsilon = 1$ (right panel) and $n \in \{1001, 101\}$, based on 1,000 simulation runs. The parameter $\delta$ is fixed at $4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$ in all settings. Population of size $N= 10,001$ simulated from a mixture of two scaled and shifted Beta distributions.}
\label{fig:twobetas_all3_added_noise}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/median_twobetas_master.jpeg}
}\\
\caption{Line plots showing log(MSE) as a function of sampling rate for noisy medians with $\epsilon \in \{0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 3, 5\}$ and $\delta = 4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$, with sampling rates of \{$0.01, 0.1, 0.2, \cdots, 0.9$\}. The crosses at a sampling rate of 1 refer to the log(MSE) value of the population. The empirical log(MSE) is calculated based on 1,000 simulation runs. Population of size $N = 10,001$ simulated from a mixture of two scaled and shifted Beta distributions.}
\label{fig:median_twobetas_master}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:median_twobetas_master} illustrates that gains can still be observed for $\epsilon$ values as large as 3. Moreover, the empirical log(MSE) values indicate that sampling is desirable even if we also account for the bias that is introduced by sampling in this scenario.
Admittedly, the substantial accuracy gains are only achievable as the simulation design ensures that the smooth sensitivity in the population is unusually large. Other differential privacy algorithms that are less sensitive to the sparsity of the data around the median might produce more accurate results
for this scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely
that similar gains would be achievable with these algorithms. The aim of this small illustration is to demonstrate that at least in principle, there could be scenarios in practice in which accuracy gains could be expected even for large values of $\epsilon$ that might be considered acceptable from an accuracy perspective. Some interesting questions for future research include whether such situations are likely to occur in practice, how a user would identify such a situation without spending privacy budget, and whether adding Laplace noise would still be a good protection strategy for such a scenario.
\iffalse
However, when we move to our bi-modal population, where about half of the records come from the first mode and the other half come from the second mode (recall Figure \ref{fig:Density_twobetas} in Section \ref{dp} for the density plot), the added noise to the population median is much larger than that to the median estimate, especially for small $\epsilon$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_twobetas_edDP}. Moreover, as sample size $n$ decreases, the added noise becomes smaller, as we can see that the noise is more concentrated around 0 for $n = 101$ compared to $n = 1001$. Once we consider the sampling variance together with the variance of added noise in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP}, we observe that for our half-half bi-modal population, the added noise for privacy protection clearly dominates the total variance, as our privatized median estimates are closer to the true population median
(horizontal dashed line in each panel of Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_edDP}) than our privatized population medians. Moreover, if we compare $n = 1001$ and $n = 101$ in each panel of a given $\epsilon$, $n = 101$ has higher utility as the violin plots are more concentrated around the true population median, which indicates that the sampling variance has little influence on the total variance. The real gains of amplification effects of sampling are huge for small $\epsilon$, such as $\epsilon = 0.1$, due to the fact that the added noise to the population median is really large. Even for larger $\epsilon$, we clearly see gains of amplification effects, for example for $\epsilon = 1$ in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_e1_edDP} for a closer examination.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Privatized medians and median estimates]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_e1_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_e1_edDP}}
\subfloat[Sample medians]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/SampleMedian_twobetas_e1.png}}
\caption{Violin plots of (a) privatized medians vs median estimates and (b) sampled medians, for $\epsilon = 1$ and {\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}, with 1000 realizations. Population is bi-modal and bounded in [0, 1] of size $N = 10,001$.}
\label{fig:twobetas_median}
\end{figure}
In addition to illustrating the gains of amplification effects, Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_e1_edDP} reveals something interesting and important for us to understand the smooth sensitivity of population $\bmY_N$ and sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$. First of all, the obvious bi-modal shape of the violin plots of privatized median estimates with $n = 1001$ and $n = 101$ indicates that the distribution of 1000 repeated samples of either size $n$ is bi-modal, as supported by Figure \ref{fig:SampleMedian_twobetas_e1}, which shows the violin plots of the sampled medians for $\epsilon = 1$ and {\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}. The bi-modal feature of sampled medians comes from the fact that the population is bi-modal, and such feature remains for other $\epsilon$ values, and we include these plots in the Appendix for further reading. The violin plots of sampled medians for our uni-modal population show a uni-modal and relatively symmetric feature (IS THERE ANYTHING SUCH AS A CLT FOR MEDIAN; BOOTSTRAP?), and they are included in the Appendix for comparison.
Moreover, Figure \ref{fig:SampleMedian_twobetas_e1} and its counterpart for the uni-modal distribution (in the Appendix) help us evaluate the amount of influence the sampling variance has on the total variance of a privatized median estimate. Between the two finite populations we have considered, the uni-modal population has a much smaller estimated sampling variance of sample median, which results in its much smaller influence on the total variance. Table \ref{tab:sampled_medians} in the Appendix presents the estimated sampling variance based on our simulations of the bi-modal and the uni-modal finite populations for further reading.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Bi-modal]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_twobetas_edDP.png}
\label{fig:MedianSS_twobetas_edDP}}
\subfloat[Uni-modal]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_beta2and10_edDP.png}
\label{fig:MedianSS_beta2and10_edDP}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of calculated smooth sensitivity of 1000 samples: (a) bi-modal and (b) uni-modal.}
\label{fig:MedianSS_edDP}
\end{figure}
Now we move to investigate the amount of noise added for privacy protection. Recall Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_twobetas_eDP_all1} shows that the variance of the added noise dominates the total variance of a privatized median estimate, and it is smaller than that of the added noise to the population median. To further investigate our findings, Figure \ref{fig:MedianSS_twobetas_edDP} plots the violin plots of the calculated smooth sensitivity value, $\Delta^S_{E, \epsilon_n, \delta_n}(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$, for each selected sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$, under combinations of $(\epsilon, \delta, n)$ in our simulation design. Moreover, we include a horizontal dashed line of the calculated smooth sensitivity value, $\Delta^S_{E, \epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N)$, for our bi-modal finite population, $\bmY_N$, under different pairs of $(\epsilon, \delta)$. Clearly, the majority of the calculated smooth sensitivity values for the sample median is below than that of the population median, partially explaining why we have added much larger amount of noise to the population median. As we have seen in Equations (\ref{eq:pop_median_var_pop}) and (\ref{eq:pop_median_var_sample}), the variance of added noise not only depends on calculated smooth sensitivity: it is positively correlated with smooth sensitivity and negatively correlated with $\epsilon$ for population and $\epsilon_n$ for sample. From Theorem \ref{eq:amp_theorem}, we know that $\epsilon < \epsilon_n$. Therefore, the variance of added noise to the population median is further increased by the scaling effects of $(1 / \epsilon) ^ 2$. These two pieces, a larger smooth sensitivity in the numerator and a smaller $\epsilon$ in the denominator, together explain the larger amount of noise added to the population median, compared to the median estimate.
The calculated smooth sensitivity values for the sample median in our uni-modal finite population, on the other hand, is almost always larger than that of the population median, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:MedianSS_beta2and10_edDP}. Especially for a smaller sample size $n$, the smooth sensitivity values for sample medians are much larger than that for population median. Its effects outweigh $\epsilon_n > \epsilon_n$, resulting in our observations in variance comparison in Figure \ref{fig:PopulationMedianSS_beta2and10_edDP_all1}: the amount of noise added to the median estimate is larger than that to the population median.
In summary, we have numerically illustrated in what situations there exists gains of amplification effects of sampling for population median. The keys, as with the population mean case, lie at the comparison of added noise to the population parameter and that to the sample parameter estimate. To achieve $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP for population median, we can use Laplace mechanism with smooth sensitivity. The smooth sensitivity values, $\Delta^S_{\epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N)$ for the population $\bmY_N$ and $\Delta^S_{\epsilon_n, \delta_n}(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$ for a selected sample $\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)$, are data-dependent. Moreover, the comparison also depends on the comparison between $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_n$, as the variance expression includes smooth sensitivity $\Delta^S_{\epsilon, \delta}(\bmY_N)$ or $\Delta^S_{\epsilon_n, \delta_n}(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N))$ in the numerator and $\epsilon$ or $\epsilon_n$ in the denominator. We need to consider all these pieces to determine which one adds larger noise for privacy protection, the privatized population parameter or the privatized estimate. Last but not least, we need to consider the sampling variance of a parameter estimate in the total variance of a privatized estimate. The sampling variance of a median estimate is also data-dependent and needs to be estimated. Depending on the finite population, the sampling variance of a median estimate could have varying degrees of influence in the total variance of a privatized median estimate.
ADD SHORT DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS OF GLOBAL SENSITIVITY.
ADD TEXT FOR LOGNORMAL SIMULATION RESULTS.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Density plot]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Density_ln5and0p5.png}
\label{fig:Density_ln5and0p5}}
\subfloat[Population median (smooth sensitivity)]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP_pop.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP_pop}}\\
\caption{Density plot of the lognormal population and violin plots of privatized population medians (with smooth sensitivity) at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$ and {\color{blue}$\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$}, with 1000 realizations. Population is Lognormal(5, 0.5) of size $N = 10,0001$.}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all1}
\end{figure}
{\color{red} Monika to Joerg: This Figure \ref{fig:Lognormal_all1} is what we need to swap into Section 2, if you decide to use lognormal not beta for demonstration of median.}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Added noise]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP}}
\subfloat[Privatized medians and median estimates]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP.png}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of comparison of added noise and the privatized population medians vs privatized median estimates, at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, $\delta = 4.9995 $\times$ 10^{-5}$, and $n = \{1001, 101\}$, with 1000 realizations. Population simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5) of size $N= 10,001.$}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[$\epsilon = 0.1$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p1.jpeg}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p1}}
\subfloat[$\epsilon = 0.5$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p5.jpeg}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e0p5}}
\subfloat[$\epsilon = 1$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figure/PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e1.jpeg}
\label{fig:PopulationMedianSSNoise_ln5and0p5_edDP_e1}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of comparison of added noise at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, $\delta = 0.001$, and $n = \{1001, 101\}$, with 1000 realizations. Population simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5) of size $N= 10,001.$}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all2_additional}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[Sample medians]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/SampleMedian_ln5and0p5.png}
\label{fig:SampleMedian_ln5and0p5}}
\subfloat[Smooth sensitivity]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/MedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP.png}
\label{fig:MedianSS_ln5and0p5_edDP}}\\
\caption{Violin plots of (a) sample medians, and (b) calculated smooth sensitivity of 1000 samples at $\epsilon = \{0.1, 0.5, 1\}$, $\delta = 0.001$, and $n = \{1001, 101\}$. Population simulated from Lognormal(5, 0.5) of size $N= 10,001.$}
\label{fig:Lognormal_all3}
\end{figure}
\fi
\section{Concluding Remarks}
\label{conclusion}
Most research on differential privacy focuses on ensuring formal privacy guarantees for various information release scenarios. In this paper, we took a different perspective. We started from the assumption that the target level of protection has already been selected and that differential privacy algorithms exist that could be used to achieve this level of protection for the statistic to be released. Borrowing from the literature on privacy amplification through sampling, we asked the question whether it would be possible to improve the accuracy of the privatized estimates, if a sample is drawn first and the
differentially private algorithm is run on the sample instead of the entire dataset.
Beyond the obvious competing effects -- increasing sampling variance against decreasing variance from noise infusion because of privacy amplification -- we identified a third component that is critical when hoping for accuracy gains through sampling: the sensitivity, more specifically, the relationship between the sensitivity and the size of the database. As we illustrated using the Laplace mechanism for the mean, accuracy gains typically can not be expected if the sensitivity strongly depends on the size of the database. While the amplification effects imply that larger values of $\epsilon$ could be used to decrease the noise, this effect will often be compensated by the increase in sensitivity, resulting in increased level of noise. Since the sampling variance will also increase, very small values of $\epsilon$ would be required to see accuracy gains for this scenario.
However, we also demonstrated that accuracy gains could be achieved in certain settings, if the sensitivity does not strongly depend on the sample size. Using smooth sensitivity coupled with Laplace noise to protect the median, we found that gains could be observed for values of ($\epsilon, \delta$) that might be considered realistic in practical applications.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l }
\hline \hline
Param. & Distribution & Sensitivity & DP def. & Conclusion \\ \hline \hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{3}{*}{Any} & \multirow{3}{*}{Any} & \multirow{3}{*}{Global} & \multirow{3}{*}{$\epsilon$} & No gains if\\
&&&&$\textrm{Var}(g(\mathcal{S}(\bmY_N)))\geq$\\
&&&&$2 (\Delta_N^{G})^2(\epsilon^{-2}-\epsilon_n^{-2})$\\ \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Mean & Any & Global & $\epsilon$ &No gains \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{3}{*}{Median}
& Lognormal(5, 0.5) & Smooth & $(\epsilon, \delta)$ & Gains for $\epsilon \le 0.1$ \\[0.1cm]
& Mixture of scaled and &\multirow{2}{*}{Smooth} & \multirow{2}{*}{$(\epsilon, \delta)$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Gains for $\epsilon \leq 3$}\\
&shifted Beta distributions \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of findings from the paper. The results based on global sensitivity assume that the Laplace mechanism is used. The $(\epsilon, \delta)-$DP in the table is with $\delta = 4.9995 \times 10^{-5}$.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Table \ref{tab:results} summarizes the results from our simulation studies. We note that even if the results for the median are specific to the selected distributions, accuracy gains will generally be more likely if the data are sparse around the median, as it will be more likely that the smooth sensitivity will decrease when going from the population to the sample. Nevertheless, the research presented in this paper is limited in several dimensions. We only focus on mechanisms that rely on noise addition to protect the data and while we offer some general insights for such algorithms in Section \ref{amplification:variance}, we discuss amplification effects only for the mean and the median using only two differential privacy algorithms from the long list of mechanisms that could be considered to protect these two statistics. It would certainly be interesting, to study other popular mechanisms such as, for example, the Gaussian mechanism \citep{DworkRoth2014}, the exponential mechanism \citep{McSherryTalwar2007} or the Propose-Test-Release algorithm \citep{DworkLei2009STOC}.
However, understanding the complex relationship between the selected privacy parameters, the sensitivity, and the resulting noise is beyond the scope of this introductory paper.
We also note that we only focus on the accuracy gains for a single statistic. In practice, statistical agencies will release a large number of statistics from their data. If gains could be expected for some of them but not for others, questions arise how to measure the overall gains to decide whether sampling strategies should be employed or not. Such a measure would not only have to account for different variances of the different estimates, it would also need to reflect that some of the estimates would be considered more important than others. Given that no accuracy gains can be expected in most of the scenarios that we considered in this paper, we feel that a discussion on how to optimally weight the accuracy gains and losses for different estimates when releasing multiple estimates seems premature.
Furthermore, we emphasize that once multiple means are released from the same dataset, the Laplace mechanism might no longer be the best approach to protect the output \citep{steinke2016}. It would be interesting to study the privacy amplification of the two stage procedure proposed in \citet{steinke2016}, which was further developed in \citet{dagan2020} and \citet{ghazi2021}, to see whether accuracy gains from sampling might be possible under these regimes.
Another possible extension of our work would be to explore potential accuracy gains for other quantiles beyond the median.
Our results for the median are not directly generalizable to other quantiles as both the smooth sensitivity as well as the sampling variance will change. Given that both quantities are data dependent, accuracy gains or losses will always be instance specific. As a general rule, accuracy gains will be more likely if the quantile of interest is in a low density area of the distribution as illustrated in Section \ref{sec:amplification:bi-modal}, as this will increase the chances of reducing the smooth sensitivity through sampling.
Another interesting area for future research would be to try to derive the optimal sampling rate from an accuracy perspective, that is, finding the sampling rate that minimizes the final variance of the privatized estimate. It must be noted, however, that since the final variance of many estimators depends on the variance in the population, this will typically not be possible without making further assumptions regarding the distribution of the data.
Despite focusing on specific examples, this paper clearly illustrates that accuracy gains can only be expected if the sensitivity of the output does not depend too strongly on the size of the database. Thus, as a general recommendation, finding combinations of outputs and differential privacy algorithms for which the sensitivity does not depend on the data is key to achieve accuracy gains through (sub)sampling.
\bibliographystyle{natbib}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The Hubble constant $H_0$ quantifies the current expansion rate of
our Universe. It can be predicted based on observations of
anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and other
early universe physics such as baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO).
Assuming the standard cosmological model ($\Lambda$CDM), the
Planck collaboration has reported $H_0=67.4\pm0.5$km/s/Mpc
\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}. Recently, $H_0$ has been also measured by
lots of local observations (up to percent level accuracy).
However, almost all yield $H_0\sim 73$km/s/Mpc, which is in
stark ($>4\sigma$) tension with that reported by Planck
collaboration based on the $\Lambda$CDM model \cite{Verde:2019ivm,
Riess:2020sih}, usually dubbed the Hubble tension. The origin of
this tension is still under investigation, but it is unlikely to
be explained by unknown systematic errors \cite{Bernal:2016gxb,
Feeney:2017sgx, Aylor:2018drw}.
Recently, it has been widely thought that the Hubble tension is
suggesting new physics beyond $\Lambda$CDM \cite{Verde:2019ivm,
Riess:2020sih,Knox:2019rjx,DiValentino:2020zio,Lyu:2020lwm,Haridasu:2020pms},
see Ref.\cite{DiValentino:2021izs} for a thorough review on
various ideas, see also, e.g, Ref.\cite{AresteSalo:2021wgb,AresteSalo:2021lmp,Dainotti:2021pqg} for some more recent discussions. Reducing the sound horizon $r^*_s=\int_{z_*}^\infty
c_s/H(z) dz$ ($z_*$ is the redshift at recombination), as in early
dark energy \cite{Poulin:2018cxd, Agrawal:2019lmo, Lin:2019qug,
Ye:2020btb, Alexander:2019rsc, Smith:2019ihp, Niedermann:2019olb,
Sakstein:2019fmf, Chudaykin:2020acu, Ye:2020oix, Braglia:2020iik,
Lin:2020jcb, Niedermann:2020dwg,
Chudaykin:2020igl,Fujita:2020ecn,Seto:2021xua,Tian:2021omz,Sabla:2021nfy,Nojiri:2021dze}
(non-negligible only for a short epoch decades before
recombination) or early modified gravity models \cite{
Zumalacarregui:2020cjh,
Ballesteros:2020sik,Braglia:2020bym,Braglia:2020auw,Odintsov:2020qzd},
is a promising road towards the complete resolution of the Hubble
tension. Since probes of the early universe, such as CMB and BAO,
set the angular scales $\theta^*_s\equiv r_s^*/D_A^*$ ($D_A^*\sim
1/H_0$ is the angular diameter to last scattering surface), a
smaller $r_s^*$ naturally brings a larger $H_0$. It should be
mentioned that the beyond-$\Lambda$CDM modifications after
recombination are difficult to reconcile with low redshift data
(light curves and BAO) \cite{Aylor:2018drw, Feeney:2017sgx,Lemos:2018smw, Efstathiou:2021ocp}; see
also e.g.
\cite{Vagnozzi:2019ezj,DiValentino:2019jae,Yang:2020zuk,Ye:2020btb,
yang20212021h0,Yang:2021eud}.
In corresponding early dark energy (EDE) models, $H_0\gtrsim
70$km/s/Mpc, moreover, the existence of anti de-Sitter (AdS) vacua
around recombination can further lift $H_0$ to $\sim
73$km/s/Mpc \cite{Ye:2020btb,Ye:2020oix}. Although many of the early
resolutions of the Hubble tension have been found to fit with CMB,
BAO and light curve observations as well as $\Lambda$CDM does, the cost
of compensating for the impact of new physics before recombination
is that the values of relevant parameters $\omega_{cdm}$,
$\omega_{b}$ and $n_s$ must be shifted \cite{Poulin:2018cxd,
Agrawal:2019lmo, Lin:2019qug, Ye:2020oix}. The parameter shifts
not only make the corresponding early resolution models tested by
upcoming CMB experiments, but also have potential implications to
the inflation and primordial Universe, see also
\cite{Benetti:2013wla,Gerbino:2016sgw,Zhang:2017epd,Benetti:2017gvm,Benetti:2017juy}
for relevant studies. Thus it is significant to have a full
insight into the shift patterns of parameters, specially the shift
of the spectral index $n_s$ (the primordial perturbation spectrum
$P_s\sim (k/k_{pivot})^{n_s}$).
To identify the common pattern of parameter shifts in different
models, we first have to marginalize over the model-specific
information. We focus on the prerecombination resolutions
(referred to as early resolutions) of the Hubble tension satisfying the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item Reduce $r_s^*$ to lift $H_0$ ($r_s^*H_0\sim const.$).
\item The evolution after recombination is described by
$\Lambda$CDM.
\item The recombination process is not modified \footnote{There
are also proposals modifying the recombination process, e.g.
\cite{Chiang:2018xpn, Hart:2019dxi, Sekiguchi:2020teg}, see also
\cite{Jedamzik:2020krr} for the primordial magnetic fields.}.
\end{itemize}
We show how the parameter shifts in early resolution models
are related scalingly with $H_0$. Specially, for $n_s$, we get
\begin{equation}
{\delta n_s}\simeq 0.4{\delta H_0\over H_0}, \label{ns-H0}
\end{equation}
see also Fig.\ref{H0-ns} for the Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC)
analysis with joint Planck2018+BAO+Pantheon+R19 dataset, as well
as recent Keck Array/BICEP data \cite{Array:2015xqh}.
(\ref{ns-H0}) explains how the early resolutions of the Hubble
tension bring about a larger $n_s$ than $\Lambda$CDM, as observed
in e.g. Refs. \cite{Poulin:2018cxd, Agrawal:2019lmo, Lin:2019qug,
Ye:2020oix}, in which $n_s\gtrsim 0.98$ for $H_0\gtrsim
71$km/s/Mpc.
The exact scale invariant primordial spectrum ($n_s=1$), i.e. the
Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum proposed first in
\cite{Harrison:1969fb, Zeldovich:1972zz, Peebles:1970ag}, has been
strongly ruled out in $\Lambda$CDM (suffering Hubble tension) at
8.4$\sigma$ \cite{Akrami:2018odb}. However,
Refs. \cite{Benetti:2017gvm,Benetti:2017juy,DiValentino:2018zjj}
point out the possibility of fully ruling out $n_s=1$ is actually
connected with the solution to the Hubble tension by noticing
qualitatively some possible correlation between a larger $n_s$ and
a larger $H_0$ in $N_{\textbf{eff}}$ (and/or
$Y_{\textbf{He}}$)+$\Lambda$CDM models. According to
(\ref{ns-H0}), the novel point of our result is that if the
current $H_0$ measured locally is correct, complete resolution of
the Hubble tension seems to be pointing to a scale invariant
Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum, i.e.$n_s\simeq 1$ for $H_0\sim
73$km/s/Mpc, see also Fig.\ref{r-ns}.
In section-\ref{sec:par shift}, we identify the physical sources
behind the parameter shifts and show the corresponding scaling
relations, which are then confronted with the MCMC results of
early resolution models in section-\ref{sec:num}. We conclude our
results in section-\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{H0-ns.pdf}
\caption{The Hubble constant vs. $n_s$ plot. The EDE models:
the $n=3$ Axion model \cite{Poulin:2018cxd}, the $n=2$ Rock `n'
model \cite{Agrawal:2019lmo} (called $\phi^4$ for simplicity) and
the AdS-EDE model \cite{Ye:2020oix}. Dataset: Planck2018+Keck
Array/BICEP2015+BAO+Pantheon+R19, also for
Figs.\ref{r-ns},\ref{MID} and Tables \ref{ede tab}, \ref{chi2}. We
see that the $\Lambda$CDM and EDE models are consistent with the
$n_s$-$H_0$ scaling relation \eqref{ns-H0}. }\label{H0-ns}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{r-ns.png}
\caption{The tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ vs. $n_s$ plot. The pivot
scale $k_{pivot}=0.05\text{Mpc}^{-1}$. Scattered points correspond
to the AdS-EDE model with a color coding for $H_0$. As indicated
by the contours and scattered points, $n_s\simeq1$ for
$H_0\sim73$km/s/Mpc.} \label{r-ns}
\end{figure}
\section{Parameter shift}\label{sec:par shift}
In this section we identify the physics relevant to the
shifts of $\omega_{cdm}$, $\omega_{b}$, and $n_s$ in the early
resolutions (refer to section-\ref{sec:intro} for our definition
of ``early resolution"). Parameters in early resolutions are
expected to shift by $\lesssim15\%$ to fully resolve the Hubble
tension; thus it is sufficient to work around the
fiducial $\Lambda$CDM bestfit point. Regarding CMB
power spectra, we look for cosmological parameter shifts in
early resolutions that restore the shapes of spectra to those in
the fiducial model.
\subsection{Shift in $\omega_{cdm}$}\label{subsec:omegam}
The reason behind the $\omega_{cdm}$ shift has been presented in
Ref.\cite{Ye:2020oix}, see also \cite{Pogosian:2020ded} and the
result is $\omega_{cdm}H_0^{-2}\sim const.$ (applicable to any
early resolutions compatible with CMB and BAO data
e.g.\cite{Ye:2020oix}), or equivalently $\Omega_{cdm}\sim const.$.
Thus considering $\theta_s^*=r_s^*/D_A^*\sim const.$ and
$r_s^*H_0\sim const.$, we have
\begin{gather}
\frac{\delta H_0}{H_0}\simeq -\frac{\delta D_A}{D_A}\sim
0.5\frac{\delta \omega_{cdm}}{\omega_{cdm}}.\label{omegam-H}
\end{gather}
\subsection{Shift in $n_s$}\label{subsec:ns}
In this subsection we show how $n_s$ is shifted in response
to the change in $\omega_{b}$.
Suppose $\omega_{b}$ has some fractional deviation from its
$\Lambda$CDM value, it changes the effectiveness of baryon drag,
particularly the relative heights between even and odd TT acoustic
peaks. Baryon drag is affected by $\Psi_*$, the Newtonian
potential near last scattering, as well, but $\Psi_*$ is also
constrained independently by the (integrated) SW effect(s). Thus
$\Psi_*$ at the last-scattering surface is preserved in the early
resolutions. The peak height (PH) of the first two (1 and 2) TT
peaks numerically respond to $\omega_{b}$ according to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta PH_1}{PH_1}\simeq0.3\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b},\qquad \frac{\delta PH_2}{PH_2}\simeq-0.4\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b}.
\label{PH}\end{equation} Data fitting will pin the pivot
$C_l^{TT}(k=k_{pivot})$, which is close to the second peak, to the
observed value by adjusting $A_s$ and $\tau_{reion}$ \footnote{The
overall amplitude at $l\gtrsim1500$ is suppressed by the streaming
of extra non-tightly coupled degree of freedom (e.g. $\Delta
N_{eff}$ or scalar field) in the early resolutions, so that the
increment in $A_se^{-2\tau_{reion}}$ does not spoil the fit at
high $l$.}, resulting in a cumulative excess of power in the first
peak $\frac{\delta
PH_1}{PH_1}\simeq0.7\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b}$. This is
compensated by $n_s$ according to
\begin{equation}
\left(1+0.7\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b}\right)\left(\frac{k_1}{k_{pivot}}\right)^{\delta n_s}\sim1
\end{equation}
where $k_1\sim0.021\text{Mpc}^{-1}$ corresponds to the first TT
peak while $k_{pivot}=0.05\text{Mpc}^{-1}$ is the pivot scale.
This suggests
\begin{equation}\label{ns shift}
\delta n_s \sim 0.8\frac{\delta \omega_b}{\omega_b}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Shift in $\omega_b$}\label{subsec:omegab}
The damping angular scale $l_D\sim k_D D_A$ is fixed by CMB
observation \cite{Hu:1995kot}, thus $k_D$ must respond to the
fractional change in $D_A$ according to
\begin{equation}\label{kd}
\frac{\delta k_D}{k_D}\simeq-\frac{\delta D_A}{D_A}.
\end{equation}
To have an insight into the sensitivity of $k_D$ to the background
evolution brought by the new physics shortly before recombination,
we look at a simple example. Consider new physics (e.g.dark
radiation, EDE) excited at $z_c>z_*$, which can be approximated as
a fluid with $p=w\rho$ ($w>1/3$ so it redshifts faster than radiation) at the background level, we have
\begin{equation}\label{kd int}
\begin{aligned}
k_D^{-2}&=\int_0^{\eta_*}\frac{d\tilde{\eta}}{6(1+R)n_e\sigma_Ta(\tilde{\eta})}\left[\frac{R^2}{1+R}+\frac{8}{9}\right]\\&\simeq k_D^{-2}(z_{c})+(27\lambda\omega_{b}
\sigma_T/4)^{-1}\int_{a_{c}}^{a_*}\left[\omega_r(a/a_0)^{-4}+\omega_m(a/a_0)^{-3}+f_c(a/a_{c})^{-3(w+1)}\right]^{-1/2}da.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $R\equiv3\rho_b/4\rho_\gamma$ is the baryon-to-photon energy
ratio, and $f_c$ is the energy fraction of new physics at $z_c$. $n_e\simeq\lambda\omega_{b}(a/a_0)^{-3}$, $\lambda$ being a dimensionful proportional coefficient, and $\sigma_T$ are the free electron density and Thomson cross-section respectively.
We approximately have $R=0$ since $z_c>z_*$. We set
$a_c=a_0 \omega_r/\omega_m\simeq a_{eq}$ (the matter-radiation
equality point), and expand around the $\Lambda$CDM model
\begin{equation}\label{EDE kd}
\left|\frac{\delta k_D}{k_D}\right|\lesssim f_c\frac{\int_{1}^{y_*}y^{6-3(w+1)}(1+y)^{-3/2}dy}{\int_{1}^{y_*}y^2(1+y)^{-1/2}dy}\ll f_c
\end{equation}
where $y_*=a_*/a_c$, which shows that $k_D$ is insensitive to the
background evolution brought by the new physics before
recombination. Physically, eq.\eqref{EDE kd} represents the fact
that, whatever the new physics, its energy density redshifts fast
enough that it is negligible on the last scattering surface. The
major contribution to the integration determining $k_D$,
eq.\eqref{kd int}, comes from the last scattering surface thus the
background modification induced by the new physics has negligible
effect on $k_D$. This suggests that the shift in $k_D$ required
by Eq.\eqref{kd} is essentially encoded in shifts of cosmological
parameters. According to $k_D\propto
\omega_b^{1/2}\omega_{cdm}^{1/4}$ (within $\Lambda$CDM) and
Eq.\eqref{omegam-H}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{omega_b tmp}
\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b}\simeq -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta\omega_{cdm}}{\omega_{cdm}}-2\frac{\delta D_A}{D_A}\sim -\frac{\delta D_A}{D_A}.
\end{equation}
In $\Lambda$CDM, both the sound horizon $r_s$ (corresponding to angular scale $l\sim200$) and the damping scale $k_D$ (important for the damping tail $l>1500$) are tuned by one single parameter $\omega_{b}$. Early resolutions break this correlation by introducing new physics before recombination which only prominently affects the larger scale, i.e. $r_s$. Actually, the increment in $\omega_{b}$ will be less than
Eq.\eqref{omega_b tmp}, since compared with the $\Lambda$CDM model
some extra damping is needed to compensate for the excess power at
high $l$ brought by a larger $n_s$. However, since the high $l$
CMB data is not as precise as the first few acoustic peaks, it is
difficult to speculate the corresponding effects in an analytical
way. To this end, we marginalize over this effect with the
parameter $0<\alpha<1$ and rewrite (\ref{omega_b tmp}) as
\begin{equation}\label{omega_b}
\frac{\delta\omega_b}{\omega_b}\sim-(1-\alpha)\frac{\delta D_A}{D_A}.
\end{equation}
\section{$n_s$-$H_0$ scaling relation and MCMC results}\label{sec:num}
We confront the scaling relations shown in
section-\ref{sec:par shift} with the MCMC results. As concrete
examples of early resolution models, we limit ourself to the EDE.
The EDE models we consider are the $n=3$ Axion model
$V(\phi)=V_0(1-\cos(\phi/f))^3$
\cite{Poulin:2018cxd,Smith:2019ihp}, the $n=2$ Rock `n' model
$V=V_0(\phi/M_p)^4$ \cite{Agrawal:2019lmo} (called $\phi^4$ for
simplicity) and the AdS-EDE model with fixed AdS depth, see
\cite{Ye:2020btb} for details. In addition to the six $\Lambda$CDM
cosmological parameters $\{\omega_{b},\omega_{cdm},H_0,
\ln10^{10}A_s,n_s,\tau_{reion}\}$, all EDE models have two
additional MCMC parameters $\{\ln(1+z_c),f_{ede}\}$, with $z_c$
being the redshift at which the field $\phi$ starts rolling and
$f_{ede}$ the energy fraction of EDE at $z_c$. The Axion
model varies yet one more MCMC parameter $\Theta_i$, the
initial position of the scalar field, see \cite{Poulin:2018cxd}
for details.
According to Eqs.\eqref{omegam-H}, \eqref{ns shift} and
\eqref{omega_b}, the shift of parameters
$\{\omega_{cdm},\omega_b,n_s\}$ can be straightly related to
$f_{ede}$. Generally, all components (baryon, dark matter,
radiation\footnote{The radiation energy density is fixed by the
$T_{0,FIRAS}$ \cite{Fixsen:1996nj,Fixsen:2009ug}, which is
compatible with EDE \cite{Ye:2020oix}.} and early dark energy)
contribute to $r_s^*$. Assuming the energy injection near
matter-radiation equality $z_c\approx z_{eq}$, which is valid for
almost all EDE models, we numerically evaluate the response of $r_s$ to
$f_{ede}$, $\omega_{cdm}$ and $\omega_{b}$ around the $\Lambda$CDM
bestfit ($f_{ede}=0$)
\begin{equation}\label{rs-ede}
-\frac{\delta r_s}{r_s}\simeq 0.3f_{ede}+0.2\frac{\delta
\omega_{cdm}}{\omega_{cdm}}+0.1\frac{\delta
\omega_{b}}{\omega_{b}}.
\end{equation}
Compatibility with \eqref{omegam-H} implies $\frac{\delta
\omega_{cdm}}{\omega_{cdm}}\simeq f_{ede}+0.33\frac{\delta
\omega_{b}}{\omega_{b}}$. This is equivalent to adjusting $f_{ede}$
and $\omega_{cdm}$ such that near recombination
$\Phi^{EDE}(l)\simeq\Phi^{LCDM}(l)$ up to data uncertainty for the
first few peaks. Thus we have
\begin{gather}
\frac{\delta\omega_{b}}{\omega_{b}}\sim0.6f_{ede}(1-1.2\alpha),\label{omegab_ede}\\
\delta n_s\sim0.5f_{ede}(1-1.2\alpha),\quad \frac{\delta
H_0}{H_0}\simeq 0.5\frac{\delta\omega_{cdm}}{\omega_{cdm}}\sim
0.6f_{ede}(1-0.2\alpha).\label{ede parshift}
\end{gather}
Thus $H_0$ is lifted proportionally to $f_{ede}>0$. However, the
cost of making EDE still fit CMB, BAO and light curve
observations as well as $\Lambda$CDM does (as is confirmed with
the MCMC analysis) is that the relevant parameters must be shifted
($\sim f_{ede}$).
To clearly see the effect of the Hubble tension on the parameters
$n_s$ and $r$ of the primordial Universe, where the
tensor-to-scalar ratio $r=A_T/A_s$
($k_{pivot}=0.05\text{Mpc}^{-1}$), we use Planck low-$l$ EEBB
and Keck Array/BICEP 2015 data \cite{Array:2015xqh}, and set
recent SH0ES result $H_0=74.03\pm 1.42$km/s/Mpc
\cite{Riess:2019cxk} (R19) as a Gaussian prior. In addition, our
datasets consist of the Planck18 high-$l$ TTTEEE and low-$l$ TT
likelihoods as well as Planck lensing \cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}, the
BOSS DR12 \cite{Alam:2016hwk} with its full covariant matrix for
BAO as well as the 6dFGS \cite{Beutler:2011hx} and MGS of SDSS
\cite{Ross:2014qpa} for low-$z$ BAO, and the Pantheon data
\cite{Scolnic:2017caz}.
It should be underlined that the fiducial model we consider is
$\Lambda$CDM with its six cosmological parameters and the MCMC
results for $\Lambda$CDM depend on dataset. Our results in
section-\ref{sec:par shift} are based on Eq.(\ref{omegam-H}),
which suggests that the corresponding MCMC dataset must include
CMB and BAO data at least \cite{Ye:2020oix}.
We modified the Montepython-3.3
\cite{Audren:2012wb,Brinckmann:2018cvx} and CLASS
\cite{Lesgourgues:2011re,Blas:2011rf} codes to perform the MCMC
analysis. Table-\ref{ede tab} presents the MCMC results for
$\Lambda$CDM and EDE models (Axion, $\phi^4$ and AdS-EDE), see
also the corresponding $H_0$-$n_s$ and $r$-$n_s$ contours in
Figs.\ref{H0-ns} and \ref{r-ns}, respectively. As expected, all
early resolution models fit to CMB and BAO as well as $\Lambda$CDM
does, see Table.\ref{chi2} for the bestfit $\chi^2$ per
experiment. The existence of the AdS region in AdS-EDE actually
sets a physical lower bound on the EDE energy fraction $f_{ede}$,
because the field would fail to climb out of the AdS region if
$f_{ede}$ is too small. However, as is clear in Fig.\ref{H0-ns},
\ref{r-ns}, \ref{MID} and Table.\ref{chi2}, the MCMC chain is not
hard capped by this bound and converges around the bestfit point
well. The upper bound on $r$ in the AdS-EDE model is slightly smaller
than that in other models, see Fig.\ref{r-ns} and Table-\ref{ede
tab}.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|}
\hline
&$f_{ede}$&$100\omega_b$&$\alpha$&$H_0$&$\omega_{cdm}$&$n_s$&$r$\\
\hline
$\Lambda$CDM&-&2.246&-&68.1&0.1184&0.969&$<0.0636$\\
\hline
$\phi^4$&0.070&2.274&0.59&70.3(70.6)&0.1271(0.127)&0.980(0.979)&$<0.0603$\\
\hline
Axion&0.094&2.295&0.51&70.9(71.5)&0.1295(0.13)&0.987(0.987)&$<0.066$\\
\hline
AdS-EDE&0.115&2.336&0.35&72.6(72.5)&0.1346(0.134)&0.997(1)&$<0.0574$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The mean values of parameters in corresponding models and
the 95\% upper bounds on the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$. In the
parenthesis are the analytic estimations made by Eq.\eqref{ede
parshift}, which are consistent with the MCMC results. }
\label{ede tab}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering \subfigure[$\omega_{cdm}-H_0$] { \label{MID-mh}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{omegam-H0.pdf}}
\subfigure[$\omega_{b}-n_s$] { \label{MID-nb}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{omegab-ns.pdf}}
\caption{Analytic approximations \eqref{omegam-H} and \eqref{ns
shift} confronted with MCMC 68\% and 95\% contours for EDE models.
\textit{Left panel}: $\omega_{cdm}$ vs. $H_0$. Yellow line plots
Eq.\eqref{omegam-H}. \textit{Right panel}: $\omega_b$ vs. $n_s$.
Yellow line plots Eq.\eqref{ns shift}.} \label{MID}
\end{figure}
Actual numerical results of parameter shifts are plotted in
Fig.\ref{MID}, which are consistent with Eqs.\eqref{omegam-H} and
\eqref{ns shift}. Though the detailed shape of CMB spectra is
affected by all cosmological parameters in complicated ways, the
analytic approximations Eqs.\eqref{omegam-H} and \eqref{ns shift}
have clearly captured the common pattern of parameter shifts.
As representative early resolutions models, all EDE models in
Figs.\ref{H0-ns} and \ref{r-ns} show $n_s\gtrsim 0.98$, which is
actually a ``\textit{universal}" prediction of early resolutions
of the Hubble tension, in particular the AdS-EDE model allows
$n_s=1$ at 1$\sigma$ region. To see this, Eqs.\eqref{omegam-H},
\eqref{ns shift} and \eqref{omega_b} in combination relates $n_s$
with $H_0$
\begin{equation}\label{ns-H}
\delta n_s\sim 0.8(1-\alpha)\frac{\delta H_0}{H_0}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha$ can be set by Eq.(\ref{omegab_ede}) with MCMC
results of $f_{ede}$ and $\omega_b$, see Table-\ref{ede tab}.
Generally, we have $0.4\lesssim \alpha\lesssim 0.6$. According to
(\ref{ns-H}), we approximately get (\ref{ns-H0}).
The argument in section-\ref{sec:par shift} is valid for early
resolutions, as defined in section-\ref{sec:intro}, with rather
weak dependence on the specific physical model. According to
(\ref{ns-H}), we have $n_s\simeq 1$ for $H_0\sim 73$km/s/Mpc. Thus
it is intriguing to speculate that, contrary to $\Lambda$CDM,
early resolutions of the Hubble tension might play well with
$n_s\simeq 1$.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Experiment&$\Lambda$CDM&$\phi^4$&Axion&AdS-EDE\\
\hline
Planck high $l$ TTTEEE&2347.1&2347.1&2346.4&2349.9 \\
\hline
Planck low $l$ TT&22.7&21.9&20.8&21.1 \\
\hline
Planck low $l$ EEBB&785.9&785.7&785.9&785.5 \\
\hline
Planck lensing&10.2&9.7&10.9&10.4 \\
\hline
BK15&736.5&737.8&738.8&734.1 \\
\hline
BOSS DR12&3.4&4.3&3.9&3.5 \\
\hline
BAO low-$z$&1.9&1.3&1.4&1.8 \\
\hline
Pantheon&1026.9&1027.3&1027.2&1026.9 \\
\hline
$H_0$ prior&15.6&8.3&6.2&1.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Bestfit $\chi^2$ per experiment.}
\label{chi2}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
The early resolutions of the Hubble tension, such as EDE, have
been found to fit with CMB, BAO and light curve observations as
well as $\Lambda$CDM does, however, the cost of compensating for the
impact of new physics before recombination is that the values of
relevant parameters must be shifted. We have identified the major
physical source behind the parameter shifts. The patterns of
parameter shifts are represented by a set of linear response
equations \eqref{omegam-H}, \eqref{ns shift}, \eqref{omega_b} and
\eqref{ns-H}, which are confirmed by performing the MCMC analysis
with Planck2018+BAO+Pantheon+R19 dataset as well as Keck
Array/BICEP data. Our results are common to early resolutions
defined in section-\ref{sec:intro}, which not only bring new
insight into the physics behind the early resolutions, but also
highlight the significance of other model-independent probes of
$n_s$, $\omega_{cdm}$, etc. for falsifying early resolutions,
e.g.\cite{Lucca:2020fgp, Krishnan:2020vaf, Bernal:2021yli, Fanizza:2021tuh}.
Specially, the shift of $n_s$ with respect to $\delta H$ implies
that data (Planck2018+Keck Array/BICEP+BAO+Pantheon+R19) allow
for much larger $n_s$ in the early resolutions than in
$\Lambda$CDM. Interestingly, if the current local measurement
$H_0\sim73$km/s/Mpc is correct, it seems to favor an $n_s=1$
cosmology in the early resolutions, which has been strongly ruled
out in $\Lambda$CDM \cite{Akrami:2018odb}. This might have
profound implication to inflation and the early Universe physics.
Compared with Planck 2018 result \cite{Akrami:2018odb}, a
scale-invariant primordial spectrum together with the current
upper bound on tensor-to-scalar ratio $r\lesssim0.06$
(Fig.\ref{r-ns}) does not favor e.g. Starobinski inflation,
hilltop inflation. Theoretical implications of our observation is
yet to be explored, however, it would be expected that the
primordial universe with $n_s=1$ might be radically different from
the popular paradigm of slow-roll inflation.
Another potentially interesting point is the degeneracy between
$n_s$ and diffusion damping, as mentioned in
section-\ref{subsec:omegab}. Precise CMB power spectra
observations at $l\gtrsim2000$ might help break this degeneracy.
See, for example,
Refs.\cite{Chudaykin:2020acu,Chudaykin:2020igl,Lin:2020jcb} for
current proceedings with SPT \cite{Henning:2017nuy} or ACT
\cite{Choi:2020ccd}.
\paragraph*{Acknowledgments}
YSP is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants Nos.12075246, 11690021.
BH is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants No. 11973016.
To produce
results of the $\phi^4$ and Axion model we make use of the
publicly available codes class\_rnr
(\url{https://github.com/franyancr/class_rnr}) and AxiCLASS
(\url{https://github.com/PoulinV/AxiCLASS}).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
The six Painlev\'e equations were discovered by \cite{Fuchs,Gam, Pain} as a result of the search for second-order ordinary differential equations in the complex plane, whose only movable singularities are poles, and are not generally solvable in terms of elementary functions. These equations were subject of extensive scrutiny by mathematicians and physicists, and they find a wide range of applications. These equations also arise as reductions of
soliton equations~\cite{Flas}, which are solvable by inverse scattering. Other
applications include quantum gravity and string
theory~\cite{Brez,Doug,Gros}, $\beta$-models~\cite{Boro}, topological field theories~\cite{Dub}, random matrices~\cite{ForWi, TW} and
stochastic growth processes~\cite{Lee}.
Historically, the Hamiltonian structure of the Painlev\'e equations was studied in
\cite{DubMaz,Mal,Oka} and they all can be written as a time-dependent Hamiltonian system
\begin{equation*}
\Ddot{q}=-V(q;t),
\end{equation*}
for some potential function $V$ of dependent and independent variables.
On the other hand, these equations admit a natural generalization to multi-particle Hamiltonian systems with an interaction of Calogero type (rational, trigonometric, or elliptic). This approach was pioneered by K.~Takasaki \cite{Tak} as an attempt at de-autonomization of a result by Inozemtsev~\cite{Inoz}. The result yields a new system of multi-component Hamiltonian operators that was named {\it Calogero--Painlev\'e correspondence.}
The integrability of this system was conjectured by Takasaki and was shown in \cite{BerCafRub} via an isomonodromic formulation in terms of a Lax pair of $2N\times 2N$ matrices, where $N$ is the number of particles.
On a parallel track, the integrability of the classical Calogero--Painlev\'e equations has attracted increasing interest about their quantization. As a result, the discussion about the integrability of such a system and their corresponding solutions has appeared in the work of mathematicians and mathematical physicists such as H.~Nagoya \cite{Nag}, K.~Okamoto \cite{Oka}, A.~Zabrodin and A.~Zotov~\cite{ZZ}.
In \cite{ZZ}, A.~Zabrodin and A.~Zotov show that all Painlev\'e equations {I}--{VI} can be presented in the form of the non-stationary Schr\"odinger equation in imaginary time
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t\Psi =H \Psi
\end{equation*}
with $H$ the standard Schr\"odinger operator
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2+V(z,t),\label{Schro}
\end{equation}
which is a natural quantization of the classical Calogero--Painlev\'e Hamiltonian operator
\begin{equation*}
H(p,q,t)=\frac{p^2}{2}+V(q;t).
\end{equation*}
In this article, we follow a similar logic starting from the Hamiltonian formulation of the multi-particle Hamiltonians in \cite{BerCafRub}, with a different approach to the system that is called the quantum Calogero--Painlev\'e Hamiltonian system. This task is achieved by applying the canonical quantization of the form (described in details in Section~\ref{sec2})
\begin{gather*}
q_{ij} \longrightarrow q_{ij} \qquad \text{and} \qquad p_{ij} \longrightarrow \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{ji}}
\end{gather*}
to the Hamiltonian operators in isomonodromic formulation introduced in \cite{BerCafRub}. As a result of this quantization, we obtain a multi-particle quantized Hamiltonian system that satisfies the Schr\"odinger equation of the same form as~\eqref{Schro}.
We also compare the result of this quantization to what H.~Nagoya \cite{Nag} introduces as quantum Painlev\'e Hamiltonian system for a single particle wave function with coordinate $z$.
We generalize these Hamiltonian operators to the case of $N$ particles with coordinates $z_\rho$, $\rho=1,\dots ,N$.
We extend the integral representation of solutions given in~\cite{Nag} to the multi-component integral solution of the Schr\"odiner equation for $N$-particle quantum Painlev\'e equations. These integral representations are defined only for the quantum Painlev\'e equation II--VI; these solutions should be understood as the quantum counterpart of rational solutions and it is well known that the first Painlev\'e equation does not admit rational solutions, which heuristically explains the absence of integral representations for solutions thereof. Intriguingly, these integral representations are presented as some type of $\beta$ integrals that appear in other areas such as conformal field theory~\cite{JimNag}, $\beta$-ensembles~\cite{Burger}, the theory of orthogonal polynomials, and hypergeometric functions.
Finally, we show that under some constraints on the parameters of the Hamiltonian operators obtained in the first two sections of this article these generalized Nagoya integrals provide solutions for the quantization of the multi-particle Hamiltonian systems described in the first part.
\section{Isomonodromic formulation and quantization}\label{sec2}
In \cite{BerCafRub} the authors provided the answer to a conjecture proposed by K.~Takasaki in~\cite{Tak}; Takasaki considered the de-autonomization of the Calogero systems proposed by Inozemtsev~\cite{Inoz} by observing that for Painlev\'e VI the rank-one Inozemtsev system reduces to the autonomous version of the Hamiltonian form of Painlev\'e VI that was first written by Gambier and then rediscovered by Manin. This leads to the postulation of the deautonomized versions, and the conjecture that they should be describing isomonodromic deformations of an appropriate system. For this reason, Takasaki coined the term ``Painlev\'e--Calogero correspondence''.
The core idea of \cite{BerCafRub} is as follows; they consider a (complexified) phase space consisting of pairs of $N\times N$ matrices $\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$, identified with the cotangent bundle of $X = {\rm Mat}_{N\times N}(\mathbb C)$. The (complex) symplectic form is then
\begin{equation}
\label{sympstr}
\omega = \operatorname{Tr} ( \d \mathbf p \wedge \d \mathbf q) = \sum_{i,j} \d p_{ij} \wedge \d q_{ji} \quad \Leftrightarrow\quad \{p_{ab}, q_{cd}\} = \delta_{ad} \delta_{bc}.
\end{equation}
Consider an Hamiltonian $H(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)$ which is conjugation invariant, namely
\begin{gather*}
H(\mathbf p,\mathbf q) = H\big(C\mathbf p C^{-1} ,C\mathbf q C^{-1}\big) \qquad \hbox{with} \quad C\in {\rm GL}_N(\mathbb{C}).
\end{gather*}
Then Noether's theorem guarantees the conservation of the associated momenta $M = [\mathbf p,\mathbf q]$ for this group hamiltonian action. This allows us to fix a particular value of the momentum $M$ and investigate the reduced system on the leaf of this value.
If the momentum $M$ is fixed to be of the form
\begin{gather}\label{mom}
M=[\mathbf p,\mathbf q] = {\rm i}g\big(\mathbf{1}-v^{\rm T} v\big),\qquad \hbox{with} \quad v:= (1,\dots, 1),
\end{gather}
then one can apply a theorem used in the classical theory of Calogero system and due to Kazhdan, Kostant, and Sternberg \cite{KKS}. It states that we can diagonalize $\mathbf q = CXC^{-1}$ with $X= \operatorname{diag} (x_1,\dots, x_n)$ in such a way that the matrix $Y = C^{-1} \mathbf p C$ is of the form
\begin{gather*}
Y = \operatorname{diag} (y_1,\dots, y_N) + \le[\frac {{\rm i}g}{x_j-x_k}\right]_{j,k=1}^N.
\end{gather*}
The variables $y_j$'s are the momenta conjugated to the eigenvalues $x_j$ in the reduced system.
Then the first result of~\cite{BerCafRub} was that all the Calogero--Painlev\'e systems of~\cite{Tak} are the reduction on the particular value of the momentum~\eqref{mom} of a list of conjugation-invariant Hamiltonian systems:
\begin{gather}
\widetilde{H}_{\rm I}
= \operatorname{Tr}\left(\frac{\mathbf p^2}{2}-\frac{\mathbf q^3}{2}-\frac{t\mathbf q}{4}\right),\nonumber\\
\widetilde{H}_{\rm II}
=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\frac{\mathbf p^2}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf q^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2-\theta \mathbf q\right),\nonumber \\
t\widetilde{H}_{\rm III}
= \operatorname{Tr}\left(\mathbf p^2\mathbf q^2 -\big(\mathbf q^2+(\theta_0-\theta_1)\mathbf q-t\big)\mathbf p-\theta_1 \mathbf q\right),
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{H}_{\rm IV}
=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\mathbf p\mathbf q (\mathbf p-\mathbf q-t )+\theta_0 \mathbf p-(\theta_0+\theta_1)\mathbf q\right),\nonumber \\
t\widetilde{H}_{\rm V}
=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\mathbf p(\mathbf p+t)\mathbf q(\mathbf q-1)+(\theta_0-\theta_2)\mathbf p\mathbf q+\theta_2 \mathbf p+(\theta_0+\theta_1)t\mathbf q\right),\nonumber \\
t(t-1)\widetilde{H}_{\rm VI}
=\operatorname{Tr}\bigg(\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q-t\mathbf p\mathbf q^2\mathbf p+t\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p-\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q-\theta \mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q
+t(\theta_0+\theta_1)\mathbf p\mathbf q
\nonumber \\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\widetilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{} +(\theta_0+\theta_t)\mathbf p\mathbf q-\theta_0 t\mathbf p
-\frac{1}{4}\big(k^2-\theta^2\big)\mathbf q\bigg),\label{IsoHamil}
\end{gather}
where $\theta$, $\theta_0$, $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, $\theta_t$, and $k$ are arbitrary parameters in~$\mathbb{C}$.
These Hamiltonians should be thought of as non-commutative polynomials in $\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$ generalizing the Okamoto Hamiltonians for the six Painlev\'e equations.
They showed that these Hamiltonians describe the isomonodromic deformations of an ODE in the $z$-plane for a matrix $\Phi(z)$ of size $2N\times 2N$, which reduces, for $N=1$, to the classical Lax pair formulation for Painlev\'e equations (see, e.g.,~\cite{JMU}).
To give a meaningful nontrivial example, we consider the Painlev\'e VI case:
\begin{equation*
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z} = \left( \frac{A_0}{z} + \frac{A_1}{z - 1} + \frac{A_t}{z-t} \right)\Phi= {\bf A}(z) \Phi,\vspace{1mm}\\
\displaystyle \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t} = -\left(\frac{A_t}{z-t} + B\right)\Phi = {\bf B}(z) \Phi,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where the matrices are explicitly given by
\begin{gather*}
A_0 := \left[ \begin{matrix} -1-\theta_{{t}}&\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf q }{t} -1
\\ 0&0\end{matrix} \right],
\qquad
A_1 := \left[ \begin{matrix} -\mathbf q \mathbf p + \displaystyle\frac{1}2(k + \theta) & 1 \vspace{1mm}\\
(\theta - \mathbf q \mathbf p)\mathbf q \mathbf p + \displaystyle\frac{1}4\big(k^2 - \theta^2\big) & \mathbf q \mathbf p + \displaystyle\frac{1}2(k - \theta)
\end{matrix} \right], \nonumber
\\
A_t := \left[ \begin{matrix} \mathbf q \mathbf p -\theta_0 & -\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf q }t \\
t(-\theta_0 + \mathbf p\mathbf q )\mathbf p & -\mathbf p\mathbf q \end{matrix} \right], \qquad
B := \left[ \begin{matrix} \displaystyle\frac{t([\mathbf q ,\mathbf p]_+ -\theta_0) + \theta \mathbf q - [\mathbf q \mathbf p,\mathbf q ]_+}{t(t-1)} & 0 \\
-\theta_0 \mathbf p + \mathbf p\mathbf q \mathbf p & 0 \end{matrix} \right],
\end{gather*}
where $\theta=\theta_0+\theta_1+\theta_t$. The expression $[X,Y]_+$ stands here for the anti-commutator of the noncommutative symbols $X$, $Y$, namely $[X,Y]_+ = XY+YX$.
The partitioning is in $N\times N$ block, and all scalars are automatically considered mutliple of the identity matrix of size $N$.
The isomonodromic equations consist in the ``zero-curvature'' equations for the pair
\begin{gather*}
\frac {\partial {\bf A}(z)}{\partial t} -\frac {\partial {\bf B}(z)}{\partial z} +[{\bf A}(z), {\bf B}(z)]=0,
\end{gather*}
and, with some elementary algebra, they become the following evolutionary system for the operators $\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$:
\begin{gather}\label{dynamicsPVI}
\begin{cases}
\dot{\mathbf q } = \mathcal A(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p), \\
\dot{\mathbf p} = \mathcal B(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p),
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
where the non-commutative polynomials $\mathcal A$, $\mathcal B$ are given by
\begin{gather}
t(t-1)\mathcal A(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p) := -\theta_0 t + (\theta_0 + \theta_t)\mathbf q + (\theta_0 + \theta_1)t\mathbf q -\theta \mathbf q ^2 -2 \mathbf q \mathbf p\mathbf q \nonumber \\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\mathcal A(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p) :=}{} + t[\mathbf p,\mathbf q ]_+ - \big[t\mathbf p,\mathbf q ^2\big]_+ + [\mathbf q \mathbf p\mathbf q ,\mathbf q ]_+, \nonumber \\
t(t-1)\mathcal B(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p) := \frac{1}4\big(k^2 - \theta^2\big) -(\theta_0 + \theta_t)\mathbf p - (\theta_0 + \theta_1)t\mathbf p + \theta[\mathbf q ,\mathbf p]_+ - t\mathbf p^2 \nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\mathcal B(\mathbf q ,\mathbf p) :=}{} + t\big[\mathbf q ,\mathbf p^2\big]_+ + \mathbf p\big(2\mathbf q - \mathbf q ^2\big)\mathbf p - [\mathbf q ,\mathbf p\mathbf q \mathbf p]_+ .\label{defABPVI}
\end{gather}
The key observation, which is the initial thrust of our present paper, is the following: in the above derivation of the zero curvature equations the symbols $\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$ can be taken in some arbitrary non-commutative algebra. In the case of \cite{BerCafRub} where~$\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$ are matrices, the above equations turn out, by inspection, to be Hamiltonian equations with respect to the symplectic structure~\eqref{sympstr} with an Hamiltonian given by
\begin{gather*}
t(t-1)H =
\operatorname{Tr} \bigg( \mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q - t \mathbf p\mathbf q^2 \mathbf p + t \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p - \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q - \theta\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q + t(\theta_0 + \theta_1) \mathbf p\mathbf q\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)H =}{} + (\theta_0 + \theta_t)\mathbf p\mathbf q - \theta_0 t \mathbf p - \frac{1}{4} \big(k^2- \theta^2\big) \mathbf q\bigg).
\end{gather*}
Analogous considerations apply to each of the other cases, with the Hamiltonians given in \eqref{IsoHamil}.
{\bf Quantization.}
In view of the considerations above, we want to consider the canonical quantization of the symplectic structure \eqref{sympstr}. The main logic is that we keep equations \eqref{dynamicsPVI} (and the other equations corresponding to each of the other cases listed in~\cite{BerCafRub}) and seek a Hamiltonian formulation with {\it quantum} Hamiltonians. The canonical quantization in ``Schr\"odinger'' representation amounts to considering the entries of $\mathbf q$ as multiplication operators and the entries of~$\mathbf p$ corresponding differential operators as follows
\begin{equation}
q_{ij} \longrightarrow q_{ij} \qquad \text{and} \qquad p_{ij} \longrightarrow \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{ji}}.
\label{quan}
\end{equation}
The effect of this canonical quantization is that we cannot simply take the expressions~\eqref{IsoHamil} as Hamiltonians generating the relevant equations of motions like \eqref{dynamicsPVI} because there are issues of normal ordering. To explain the issue we point out that in the classical case the expressions $\operatorname{Tr} (\mathbf p\mathbf q)$ and $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q\mathbf p)$ coincide, but if $\mathbf p$,~$\mathbf q$ are quantum operators~\eqref{quan} then these two expressions differ. This should explain why the {\it quantum} version of the Hamiltonians~\eqref{IsoHamil} will be slightly different due to the fact that the correct scheme depends on the non-commutativity of the traces in this case. Note that the commutation relations that lead to these Hamiltonian operators read the following equations for each of the Calogero--Painlev\'e equations:
\begin{gather*}
\hbar \dot{\mathbf q}=[H_J,\mathbf q] \qquad \text{and} \qquad \hbar \dot{\mathbf p}=[H_J,\mathbf p], \qquad J \in \{{\rm I},\dots, {\rm VI}\}.
\end{gather*}
The correct Hamiltonian operators to which we apply the quantization, are the following ope\-rators
\begin{gather}
t\widetilde H_{\rm III}= \operatorname{Tr}\bigg(\frac{\mathbf p^2\mathbf q^2+\mathbf q^2\mathbf p^2}{2}-\frac{\mathbf q^2\mathbf p+\mathbf p\mathbf q^2}{2} -(\theta_0-\theta_1)\mathbf q\mathbf p+t\mathbf p-\theta_1\mathbf q\bigg),
\nonumber\\
\widetilde H_{\rm IV} =\operatorname{Tr}\bigg(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p-\frac{\mathbf p\mathbf q^2+\mathbf q^2\mathbf p}{2}-t\mathbf p\mathbf q+\theta_0p-(\theta_0+\theta_1)\mathbf q\bigg),\nonumber\\
t\widetilde H_{\rm V}=\operatorname{Tr}\bigg(\frac{\mathbf p^2\mathbf q^2+\mathbf q^2\mathbf p^2}{2}-\frac{\mathbf p^2\mathbf q+\mathbf q\mathbf p^2}{2}+\frac{t\big(\mathbf p\mathbf q^2+\mathbf q^2\mathbf p\big)}{2} \nonumber\\
\hphantom{t\widetilde H_{\rm V}=}{}
+(\theta_0-\theta_2-t)\mathbf p\mathbf q+\theta_2\mathbf p+(\theta_0+\theta_1)t\mathbf q\bigg),\nonumber\\
t(t-1) \widetilde H_{\rm VI}
=\operatorname{Tr}\bigg(\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q-t\mathbf p\mathbf q^2\mathbf p+t\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p-\frac{\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q+\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p}{2}-\theta \mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q
\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1) \widetilde H_{\rm VI}=}{}+t(\theta_0+\theta_1)\mathbf p\mathbf q+(\theta_0+\theta_t)\mathbf p\mathbf q-\theta_0t\mathbf p-\frac{1}{4}\big(k^2-\theta^2\big)\mathbf q\bigg),\label{revisedCP}
\end{gather}
whereas the Painlev\'e I and Painlev\'e II Hamiltonians remain formally the same. Note that we use $\mathbf p$,~$\mathbf q$ here and below to denote the {\it quantum} operators, without further notice.
The operators above are determined, by inspection, requiring that the evolution equations for $\mathbf p$,~$\mathbf q$ remain of the same form as those in \cite{BerCafRub}.
\begin{Example}We compute $[\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)]$ both quantistically and classically to show the origin of the difference in the quantum Hamiltonians~\eqref{revisedCP}. We start with the classical computation where $\{p_{ij}, q_{k\ell}\}= \delta_{i\ell} \delta_{jk}$:
\[
\big\{\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)\big\} = 2 \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p.
\]
In computing this we have used also the cyclicity of the trace.
Viceversa, considering the quantized operators, the same
expression yields
\begin{gather*}
[\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)]_{ij} =
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\mu,\nu} \le[p_{ij},p_{\alpha\beta}q_{\beta \mu}p_{\mu \nu}q_{\nu \alpha}\right]
\nonumber \\
\hphantom{[\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)]_{ij}}{}
= \sum_{\alpha,\beta,\mu,\nu} p_{\alpha\beta}\le(p_{ij}q_{\beta \mu}p_{\mu \nu}q_{\nu \alpha}-q_{\beta \mu}p_{\mu \nu}q_{\nu \alpha}p_{ij}\right)
\end{gather*}
we add and subtract $q_{\beta \mu}p_{ij}p_{\mu \nu}q_{\nu \alpha}$ to the expression inside the bracket, combining the terms and using the commutation relation $[p_{ij},q_{kl}]=\hbar \delta_{il}\delta_{jk}$:
\begin{gather*}
[\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)]_{ij}= \hbar \sum_{\alpha,\beta,\mu,\nu} p_{\alpha\beta}\le( \delta_{i\mu}\delta_{j\beta}p_{\mu\nu}q_{\nu\alpha}+ \delta_{i\alpha} \delta_{j\nu}q_{\beta\mu}p_{\mu\nu}\right) \nonumber \\
\hphantom{[\mathbf p,\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)]_{ij}}{} = \big( \hbar \mathbf p^2\mathbf q+ \hbar\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p \big)_{ij}= \big(2\hbar \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p + \hbar^2 \mathbf p\big)_{ij}.
\end{gather*}
Since the desired term in the equation of motion is $2\hbar \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p$ we need to replace the term $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)$ in the Hamiltonian with a ``symmetrized'' version $\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q+\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p)$. Indeed, one then similarly computes:
\begin{gather*}
\le[\mathbf p,\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q+\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p)\right] = 2 \hbar \mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p,
\end{gather*}
which is one of the terms that appears in the expression of $\mathcal A$ in equation of motion~\eqref{defABPVI}.
\end{Example}
\subsection{Quantization in radial form}
Having established the correct context of the quantization of the isomonodromic equations we proceed now to the quantum version of the Kazhdan--Kostant--Sternberg reduction \eqref{mom}. The first step is to express the quantum Hamiltonians~\eqref{revisedCP} in terms of the eigenvalues. The fact that this is at all possible is simply a consequence of the invariance of the Hamiltonians under conjugations.
To do so, we need to use the Harish-Chandra homomorphism \cite{Etin}.
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathcal M$ be the manifold of diagonalizable matrices and denote
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{D}(\mathcal M)^{\rm G}\qquad \text{and} \qquad \mathcal{D}({\rm Diag}({\rm GL}_n))^{\rm W}
\end{equation*}
the adjoint-invariant subalgebra of the algebra of differential operators over $\mathcal M$ and the Weyl-invariant subalgebra of the algebra of differential operators over diagonal matrices, respectively.
The canonical isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm c}\colon \ \mathcal{D}(M)^{\rm G}\longrightarrow \mathcal{D}({\rm Diag}({\rm GL}_n))^{\rm W}\label{HCmap}
\end{equation} is called the Harish-Chandra map.
\end{Definition}
This means the following: for a character function $\Psi(Q)$ (i.e., $\Psi(Q)=\Psi\big(GQG^{-1}\big)$, $G\in {\rm GL}_n$) and $\mathcal{L}$ a differential operator invariant under the adjoint map we have
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{L}\Psi)|_{\rm Diag}=\mathcal{H}_{\rm c}(\mathcal{L})(\Psi|_{\rm Diag}),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{H}_{\rm c}(\mathcal{L})$ is a differential operator on the eigenvalues.
Our goal now is to make this isomorphism completely explicit and subsequently express all Hamiltonians in~\eqref{revisedCP} as differential operators acting on the eigenvalues when applied to character functions or pseudo-character functions, namely $\Psi(\mathbf q)= \Psi\big(G\mathbf q G^{-1}\big) {\rm e}^{\theta(G,\mathbf q)}$, with $\theta$ an appropriate cocycle.
{\bf Explicit construction of Harish-Chandra isomorphism.}
To make the Harish-Chandra homomorphism \eqref{HCmap} explicit, we write the matrix $Q=Z+M$ with $Z$ diagonal and $M$ off-diagonal: we then act with an infinitesimal conjugation up to order two in $M$ to diagonalize it.
Concretely this means the following; we conjugate the matrix $Q= Z + M$ by a matrix of the form $G:= {\rm e}^{A^{(1)} + A^{(2)}}$ where $A^{(1)}$ is assumed to be of first order in the entries of $M$ and $A^{(2)}$ of second order and both are off-diagonal matrices.
We then impose that the conjugation of $Q$ by $G$ is diagonal up to order $2$.
Then
\begin{gather}
{\rm e}^{{\rm ad}_{A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}}}(Z+M) =
Z+M+\big[A^{(1)}+A^{(2)},Z+M\big]+\frac{1}{2}\big[A^{(1)},\big[A^{(1)},Z\big]\big]+\mathcal{O}(3) \nonumber \\
\qquad{} =
Z+M+\big[A^{(1)},Z\big]+\big[A^{(1)},M\big]+\big[A^{(2)},Z\big]+\frac{1}{2}\big[A^{(1)},\big[A^{(1)},Z\big]\big]+\mathcal{O}(3),\label{Zad}
\end{gather}
where $\mathcal O(3)$ denotes terms of order $3$ or higher in the entries of $M$. We need to impose that the result is a diagonal matrix up to the indicated order. Separating the equations according to their order in $M$ we obtain
\begin{gather}
\big[Z,A^{(1)}\big] =M \qquad \text{at order 1},\label{A1}\\
\big[Z,A^{(2)}\big] = \big[A^{(1)},M\big] + \frac 12 \big[A^{(1)},\big[A^{(1)},Z\big]\big] \qquad \text{at order 2}.\label{A2}
\end{gather}
The matrices $A^{(1,2)}$ are off-diagonal, and the ${\rm ad}_Z$ operator is invertible on the subspace of off-diagonal matrices so that we can solve the two equations above to obtain
\begin{gather}
A^{(1)}_{ab}=\frac{M_{ab}}{z_a-z_b}, \nonumber\\ A^{(2)}_{ab}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\big[A^{(1)},\big[A^{(1)},Z\big]\big]_{ab}}{z_a-z_b}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\big[A^{(1)},M\big]_{ab}}{z_a-z_b} =\frac{M_{ac}M_{cb}}{(z_a-z_c)(z_a-z_b)}.\label{A12}
\end{gather}
Substituting \eqref{A12} into \eqref{Zad} we obtain a diagonal matrix $\widetilde Z$ which is a shift of the matrix $Z$ as follows
\begin{gather}
\widetilde{Z}= Z+\frac{1}{2}\big[A^{(1)},M\big]_{D}+\mathcal{O}(3)\nonumber\\
\hphantom{\widetilde{Z}}{} =A^{(2)}+\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{diag}\left(\sum_{c}\frac{M_{\bullet c}}{z_\bullet -z_c}M_{c\bullet}-M_{\bullet c}\frac{M_{c\bullet}}{z_c-z_\bullet}\right)_{\bullet=1}^{N}+\mathcal{O}(3)\nonumber \\
\hphantom{\widetilde{Z}}{} =
Z+\operatorname{diag}\left(\sum_{d}\frac{M_{\bullet d} M_{d\bullet}}{z_\bullet- z_d}\right)_{\bullet=1}^N.\label{diag2}
\end{gather}
We now show how to use the above diagonalization to second order \eqref{diag2} to construct the Harish-Chandra homomorphism; we anticipate that the reason why we expand up to order $2$ is that all the operators we consider are at most quadratic in the momenta $\mathbf p$ and hence translate to differential operators of order $2$. If we had to consider the Harish-Chandra homomorphism for operators of the higher order, we would have to perform the above diagonalization up to the corresponding order.
{\bf Space of radial functions.}
When considering the quantum version of the Kazhdan--Kostant--Sternberg reduction, the choice of the special value of the momentum $M$ \eqref{mom} is replaced by the requirement that the quantum operators act on specific representations. We start with a general discussion on equivariant functions.
Let $\mathbb V$ be a vector space carrying a representation $\gamma$ of $G = {\rm GL}_N$ and let $\Psi\colon {\rm Mat}_{N\times N}(\mathbb{C})= \operatorname{Lie}(G) \to \mathbb V$ an {\it $\gamma$-equivariant} function in the sense that
\begin{gather*}
\Psi(Q) = \gamma\big(g^{-1}\big) \Psi\big(gQ g^{-1}\big),
\end{gather*}
where $g\in {\rm GL}_ N(\mathbb{C})$ and $\gamma\colon {\rm GL}_N(\mathbb{C}
) \to \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb V)$ is a representation. Let us denote
\begin{gather*}
H_\gamma:= \big\{\Psi\colon {\rm Mat}_{N\times N}(\mathbb{C}) \to V, \, \text{$\gamma$-equivariant}\big\}.
\end{gather*}
For \looseness=-1 simplicity, we denote by the same symbol $\gamma$ the representation of ${\rm SL}_n$, the corresponding representation of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak g= \mathfrak {sl}_N$ as well as its natural extension to the universal enveloping algebra~$U(\mathfrak g)$.
We recall that the zero-weight subspace of the ${\rm SL}_N$-representation~$\mathbb V$ is
\begin{gather*}
\mathbb V(0) := \bigcap_{H\in \mathfrak h} \operatorname{Ker} \gamma(H),
\end{gather*}
where $\mathfrak h$ is the Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sl}_N$ (traceless diagonal matrices).
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemmazero}
Let $\mathcal D\subset {\rm Mat}_{N\times N}(\mathbb{C})$ consist of the subspace of diagonal matrices. Then any equivariant function $\Psi$ restricts to a function from $\mathcal D$ to $\mathbb V(0)$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a matrix $g ={\rm e}^{\epsilon H}$ with $H\in \mathfrak h$; then $\Psi(Q) = \gamma\big({\rm e}^{\epsilon H}\big) \Psi\big({\rm e}^{\epsilon H} Q{\rm e}^{-\epsilon H}\big)$. Restricting $Q=Z\in \mathcal D$ we have $\Psi(Z) = \gamma\big({\rm e}^{\epsilon H}\big) \Psi( Z)$. We now take the derivative with respect to $\epsilon$ at $\epsilon=0$ and we obtain $\gamma(H) \Psi(Z)=0$. Since~$H$ is arbitrary in $\mathfrak h$ it follows that $\Psi(Z) \in \mathbb V(0)$.
\end{proof}
Following \cite{Etin} the quantum Hamiltonian reduction that corresponds to the Kazhdan--Kostant--Sternberg orbit consists in taking a particular representation $\gamma$ of $\mathfrak {sl}_N$; the main feature of the $\mathfrak g$-module (which we denote by $\mathbb V_\kappa$) is that the zero weight space $\mathbb V_\kappa(0)$ is unidimensional. We denote with ${\mathbf c}$ a spanning element.
Specifically, $\mathbb V_\kappa$ consists of the space of functions of the form
\[
F(\xi_1,\dots, \xi_N)= \left(\prod_{j=1}^N \xi_j\right)^\kappa f\big( \vec \xi\,\big),
\]
where $f\big(\vec \xi\,\big)$ is a rational function with zero degree of homogeneity. The representation of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak {sl}_N$ is then the one obtained by restriction of the following $\mathfrak {gl}_N$ representation
\begin{gather}
\label{Vk}
\gamma(\mathbb E_{ab}) = \xi_a \frac {\partial}{\partial \xi_b}, \qquad a, b=1,\dots, N.
\end{gather}
It is easy then to see that $\mathbb V_\kappa(0) = \mathbb{C}\big\{\prod_{j=1}^N \xi_j^\kappa\big\}$.
Keeping this in mind we illustrate the type of computations needed to compute the extended Harish-Chandra homomorphism in the following example.
\begin{Example}
To illustrate the type of computations necessary, we consider the quantum radial reduction of the operator $\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)$.
Using the form of the quantum operators $\mathbf p$, $\mathbf q$ we obtain
\[
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)\Psi(Q)
=
\bigg(\sum_{\rho,\sigma,\tau}\big(q^k\big)_{\rho \sigma}p_{\sigma \tau}p_{\tau \rho}\bigg)\Psi(Q)=
\bigg(\hbar^2 \sum_{\rho,\sigma,\tau}\big(q^k\big)_{\rho \sigma}\partial_{q_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{q_{\rho\tau}}
\bigg)\Psi(Q).
\]
Since the function $\Psi$ is $\gamma$-equivariant and the operator is ${\mathrm{Ad}}$-invariant we can write $\Psi(Q) = \gamma(g)\Psi(Z)$ where $g$ is the matrix diagonalizing $Q$, and $Z$ is the diagonal matrix of its eigenvalues (this can be done on the set of diagonalizable matrices $Q$ whose complement of non-diagonalizable matrices is of zero measure and hence inessential to our considerations). We then consider matrices of the form $Q = Z+M$ with $Z$ diagonal and $M$ off-diagonal and its diagonalization up to order $2$ as in \eqref{Zad}. We then need to perform the derivatives and, at the end of the computation, restrict to the locus of diagonal matrices $Q=Z$. Using equation \eqref{diag2} and the matrices $A^{(1,2)}$ introduced in \eqref{A1} and \eqref{A2} we can continue the above computation by noticing that the terms involving the multiplication operator $\mathbf q$ can be directly evaluated at $Q= Z$ setting $M=0$:
\begin{gather}
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2 \big)\Psi(Q)=
\le(\hbar^2 \sum_{\rho,\sigma,\tau}\delta_{\rho \sigma}{z}^k_\sigma \partial_{q_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{q_{\rho\tau}}
\right)\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\tilde{Z}\big)=
\nonumber \\
\hphantom{\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2 \big)\Psi(Q)}{} =
\le(\hbar^2 \sum_{\sigma,\tau}z^k_\sigma \partial_{q_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{q_{\sigma\tau}}
\right)\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\tilde{Z}\big).
\label{223}
\end{gather}
The second-order operator $\sum_{\rho,\sigma}z^k_\sigma \partial_{q_{\sigma\rho}} \partial_{q_{\rho\sigma}}$ written in terms of $Z$, $M$ becomes the operator $ \sum_{\rho} z_\rho^k\partial_{z_\rho}^2 + \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}z^k_\rho \partial_{M_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{M_{\rho \sigma}}$; the part involving the derivatives with respect to $z_\rho$ can be directly evaluated at $Q=Z$ while we postpone the evaluation of the part involving the derivatives in~$M_{\rho,\sigma}$:
\begin{gather}
\eqref{223}=
\hbar^2 \sum_{\sigma}z^k_\sigma \partial_{z_{\sigma}}^2 \Psi(Z)
+
\hbar^2 \underbrace{\sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}z^k_\sigma \partial_{M_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\tilde{Z}\big)}_{*},
\label{quan2}
\end{gather}
where $\widetilde Z = Z+\operatorname{diag}\Big(\sum_{d}\frac{M_{\bullet d} M_{d\bullet}}{z_\bullet- z_d}\Big)_{\bullet=1}^N
$ as in~\eqref{diag2}.
Consider now the term marked with an asterisk: since $\widetilde Z-Z$ is a quadratic expression in the entries of~$M$, if we differentiate {\it} once~$\Psi$ or~$\gamma$ by $M_{\rho\sigma}$, by the chain rule there will be a multiplication by entire of~$M$ in the result. Thus, subsequent evaluation at $M=0$ will eliminate these terms. Therefore we need to consider the second-order operator acting on~$\gamma$ or~$\Psi$ separately. When acting on~$\Psi$ we have
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}z^k_\sigma\partial_{M_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{M_{\rho \sigma}} \Psi\big(\widetilde{Z}\big)\bigg|_{M=0}
=
\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}z^k_\sigma\frac \partial{\partial{M_{\sigma \rho}}}\le( \frac {M_{\sigma \rho} \partial_{z_{\sigma} }\Psi}{z_\sigma - z_\rho} +\frac { M_{\sigma\rho} \partial_{z_\rho}\Psi}{z_\rho-z_\sigma}\right) \bigg|_{M=0} \\
\hphantom{\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}z^k_\sigma\partial_{M_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{M_{\rho \sigma}} \Psi\big(\widetilde{Z}\big)\bigg|_{M=0}}{} =
\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}z^k_\sigma\le(\frac {\partial_{z_\sigma} -\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}\right)\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
For the computation of the second term involving the representation $\gamma$, we note that
\begin{gather*}
\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(1)} = \sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}\frac{E_{\sigma \tau}}{z_\sigma-z_\tau} , \quad \partial_{M_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(1)}=0,
\\
\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(2)}= \sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau, \nu \\ \nu\neq \sigma\neq \tau}} \frac{M_{\tau \nu}E_{\sigma\nu}}{(z_\sigma-z_\tau)(z_\sigma-z_\nu)}+\sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau, \mu \\ \mu\neq \sigma\neq\tau}}\frac{M_{\mu\sigma}E_{\mu\tau}}{(z_\mu-z_\sigma)(z_\mu-z_\tau)} , \qquad \partial_{M_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(2)}=0.
\end{gather*}
Therefore the action of these differential operators on the group element ${\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}$ gives (retaining the terms up to order $2$ in $M$ in the expansion of the exponential, since all higher order terms will give zero contribution when evaluated at $M=0$)
\begin{gather*}
\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}{\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}} = -\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(1)}-\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(2)}+\frac{\big[\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}A^{(1)},A^{(1)}\big]_+}{2}, \\
\partial_{M_{\tau\sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \tau}}{\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\bigg |_{M=0}=-\frac{[\mathbb E_{\tau\sigma},\mathbb E_{\sigma \tau}]_+}{2(z_\sigma-z_\tau)^2}.
\end{gather*}
Here $\mathbb E_{\tau\sigma}$ denote the elementary matrices. Note also that $\mathbb E_{\tau\sigma}\mathbb E_{\sigma\tau} = \mathbb E_{\tau\tau}$ are diagonal matrices and $[\mathbb E_{\tau\sigma}, \mathbb E_{\sigma \tau}]_+ = \mathbb E_{\tau\tau} + \mathbb E_{\sigma\sigma}$. Hence, the equation \eqref{quan2} yields
\begin{gather*}
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)\Psi(Q)=
\hbar^2 \sum_{\sigma}z_\sigma^k \partial_{z_{\sigma}}^2 \Psi(Z)
\\
\qquad{} +
\hbar^2 \sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}z_\sigma^k \left(-\frac{\gamma([\mathbb E_{\tau \sigma},\mathbb E_{\sigma\tau}]_+)}{2(z_\sigma-z_\tau)^2}\Psi\big(\tilde{Z}\big) +
\left(\frac{\partial_{z_\sigma}-\partial_{z_\tau}}{z_\sigma-z_\tau}\right)\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\tilde{Z}\big)\right)\bigg|_{M=0}.
\end{gather*}
To complete the computation, we recall that under the assumption for the representation space~$\mathbb V_\kappa$ (see~\eqref{Vk}) we easily see that $\gamma( \mathbb E_{\sigma\tau} \mathbb E_{\tau\sigma}) = \kappa(\kappa+1) {\rm Id}_{\mathbb V_\kappa(0)}$. Recall also (Lemma~\ref{lemmazero}) that $\Psi$ evaluated on diagonal matrices takes values in the zero weight space $\mathbb V_\kappa(0)$.
Therefore we conclude that $\gamma([\mathbb E_{\tau\sigma},\mathbb E_{\sigma\tau}]_+)$ reduces simply to the multiplication by $2\kappa(\kappa+1)$.
This leads finally to the result
\begin{gather*}
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)\Psi(Q)= \bigg(\hbar^2 \!\sum_{\sigma}z^k_\sigma \partial_{z_{\sigma}}^2-\hbar^2 \kappa (\kappa+1)\sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}\frac{z^k_\sigma}{(z_\sigma-z_\tau)^2}
+\hbar^2 \!\sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}
\frac{z_\sigma^k (\partial_{z_\sigma}- \partial_{z_\tau})}{z_\sigma-z_\tau}\bigg)\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
To make the last term more symmetric we can add and subtract $z_{\tau}^k\partial_{z_\tau}$ and obtain
\begin{gather*}
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)\Psi(Q)=
\bigg(\hbar^2 \!\sum_{\sigma}z^k_\sigma \partial_{z_{\sigma}}^2-
\hbar^2 \kappa (\kappa+1)
\sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}} \frac{z^k_\sigma}{(z_\sigma-z_\tau)^2}
+\hbar^2\! \sum_{\substack{\sigma ,\tau \\ \sigma\neq \tau}}
\frac{z_\sigma^k \partial_{z_\sigma}-z_\tau^k \partial_{z_\tau}} {z_\sigma-z_\tau}\bigg)\Psi(Z)
\\
\hphantom{\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^k\mathbf p^2\big)\Psi(Q)=}{} -\hbar^2 \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \sum_{\sigma} z_\sigma^j \sum_{\tau} z_\tau^{k-j-1} \partial_{z_\tau}\Psi(Z) +\hbar^2 k \sum_{\tau} z_\tau^{k-1} \partial_{z_\tau}\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
\end{Example}
Throughout the following section, we use this method to obtain the quantized Calogero--Painlev\'e {II}--{VI} Hamiltonian operators.
\subsubsection{Quantization of Calogero--Painlev\'e Hamiltonians I--VI}
We apply the quantum Hamiltonian KKS reduction explained in the previous sections to the list of Hamiltonians~\eqref{revisedCP}.
Moreover note that unlike the classic case, in the quantum case we have non-commutative operator-valued matrices $\mathbf p$ and $\mathbf q$ so that $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q)$ is not equal to $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q\mathbf p)$. For example, we have the following
\begin{gather*}
\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q)= \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q\mathbf p)+\hbar N^2, \nonumber \\
\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p)= \operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q\mathbf p^2\big)+\hbar N \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p), \nonumber\\
\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q\mathbf p\mathbf q)= \operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^2 \mathbf p\big)+ \hbar N \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q),\nonumber \\
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf p\mathbf q^2\big)= \operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^2 \mathbf p\big)+2\hbar N \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q),\nonumber \\
\operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf p^2 \mathbf q^2\big) = \operatorname{Tr}\big(\mathbf q^2 \mathbf p^2\big)+2\hbar N \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q\mathbf p)+2\hbar \operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf q)\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p)+\hbar^2 N\big(1+N^2\big) .
\end{gather*}
We start from the Hamiltonian operator corresponding to Calogero--Painlev\'e~II (more complicated case than Calogero--Painlev\'e~I) and we apply it to the $\gamma$-equivariant wave func\-tion~$\Psi(Q)$, and then we apply the quantization \eqref{quan} to the result:
\begin{gather}
\tilde{H}_{\rm II}\Psi(Q)=
\operatorname{Tr}\le(\frac{\mathbf p^2}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\le(\mathbf q^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2-\theta \mathbf q\right)\Psi(Q)
\nonumber\\
\hphantom{\tilde{H}_{\rm II}\Psi(Q)}{} =
\le(\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\rho,\sigma}\partial_{q_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{q_{\rho \sigma}}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\rho,\sigma}\le(\big(\delta_{\sigma\rho}^2q_{\rho\sigma}^2\big)+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2-\theta \delta_{\sigma\rho}q_{\rho\sigma}
\right)\Psi(Q).
\label{227}
\end{gather}
Following the same logic used in the illustrative example of the operator $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf p\mathbf q\mathbf p)$ we can continue the computation
\begin{gather}
\eqref{227}=
\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\!\sum_{\rho,\sigma}\partial_{q_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{q_{\rho \sigma}} \gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\widetilde{Z}\big)-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\rho}\!\left(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2\!\Psi(Z)-\theta \sum_{\rho}z_{\rho}\Psi(Z),\!\!\!
\label{228}
\end{gather}
where $\widetilde Z = Z+\operatorname{diag}\Big(\sum_{d}\frac{M_{\bullet d} M_{d\bullet}}{z_\bullet- z_d}\Big)_{\bullet=1}^N
$ as in~\eqref{diag2}.
Note that the terms involving only the multiplication operator $\mathbf q$ can be directly evaluated at $Q= Z$ setting $M=0$. The second-order operator $\sum_{\rho,\sigma} \partial_{q_{\sigma\rho}} \partial_{q_{\rho\sigma}}$ in terms of~$Z$,~$M$ becomes the operator $\sum_{\rho} \partial_{z_\rho}^2 + \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{M_{\rho \sigma}}$; once again, the part involving the derivatives with respect to $z_\rho$ can be directly evaluated at $Q=Z$ while we postpone the evaluation of the part involving the derivatives in $M_{\rho,\sigma}$:
\begin{gather*}
\eqref{228}=
\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2\Psi(Z)+\frac{\hbar^2}{2}
\underbrace{
\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\partial_{M_{\sigma \rho}}\partial_{M_{\rho \sigma}}\big(\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\Psi\big(\widetilde{Z}\big)\big)
}_{*} \\
\hphantom{\eqref{228}=}{}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\rho}\left(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2\Psi(Z) -\theta \sum_{\rho}z_{\rho}\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
The term indicated by the asterisk is dealt with in complete analogy to the similarly marked term in~\eqref{quan2}. We thus obtain
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2\Psi(Z)+\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\
\rho\neq \sigma}}\left(-\frac{1}{2}\gamma\le(\frac{[\mathbb E_{\rho \sigma},\mathbb E_{\sigma \rho}]_+}{(z_\sigma-z_\rho)^2}\right)
+
\gamma\big({\rm e}^{-A^{(1)}-A^{(2)}}\big)\le(\frac{\partial_{z_\rho}-\partial_{z_\sigma}}{z_\rho-z_\sigma}\right)\right)\Psi\big(\widetilde{Z}\big) \\
\qquad{} -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\rho}\left(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2\Psi(Z)-\theta \sum_{\rho}z_{\rho}\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
Hence, putting these all together, we obtain
\begin{gather*}
\tilde{H}_{\rm II}\Psi(Q)
=
\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2\Psi(Z)-\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}} \frac{1}{(z_\rho-z_\sigma)^2}\Psi(Z)
+ \frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{\partial_{z_\rho}-\partial_{z_\sigma}}{z_\rho-z_\sigma}\Psi(Z) \\
\hphantom{\tilde{H}_{\rm II}\Psi(Q)=}{}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\rho}\left(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)^2\Psi(Z)-\theta\sum_{\rho}z_{\rho}\Psi(Z).
\end{gather*}
The equation takes a more convenient form if we apply to the wave function a gauge transformation of the form
\begin{equation*}
\Psi(Z)=\exp\le[-\frac{1}{\hbar}\sum_{\alpha}\le(\frac{z_{\alpha}^3}{3}+\frac{t}{2}z_{\alpha}\right)\right]\Phi(Z).
\end{equation*}
As a result, the Schr\"odinger equation $\hbar \partial_t \Psi(Z)=\widetilde H_{\rm II}\Psi(Z)$ is transformed into the one with the new Hamiltonian
\begin{gather}
\hat{H}_{\rm II}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{\partial_{z_\sigma}-\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}-\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{1}{\le(z_\sigma-z_\rho\right)^2}
+\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_\rho \partial_{z_\rho}^2-\hbar\sum_\rho\le(z_\rho^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)\partial_{z_\rho} \nonumber\\
\hphantom{\hat{H}_{\rm II}=}{}
+\le(\frac{1}{2}-\theta-\hbar N\right)\sum_\rho z_\rho.\label{H2_2}
\end{gather}
As a result of a similar computation for Calogero--Painlev\'e I Hamiltonian operator in~\eqref{IsoHamil}, and each of the Hamiltonian operators in the system \eqref{revisedCP} (no gauge transformation required), we obtain the following Hamiltonian system for the quantized Calogero--Painlev\'e system:
\begin{gather} \label{H1}
\tilde{H}_{\rm I} = \frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{\partial_{z_\sigma}-\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}-\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{1}{\le(z_\sigma-z_\rho\right)^2}
+\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_\rho \partial_{z_\rho}^2 -\sum_{\rho} \le(\frac{z_{\rho}^3}{2}+\frac{tz_{\rho}}{4}\right),\!\!\!
\\
t\tilde{H}_{\rm III} =
\hbar^2\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\sigma^2\partial_{z_\sigma}-z_\rho^2\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}+\sum_\rho \big(\hbar^2 z_\rho^2\partial_{z_\rho}^2-\hbar\big(z_\rho^2-(2\hbar-\theta_0+\theta_1)z_\rho-t\big)\partial_{z_\rho} \nonumber \\
\hphantom{t\tilde{H}_{\rm III} =}{}-(\hbar N+\theta_1) z_\rho\big)
-\frac{\hbar^2\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2} \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\rho^2+z_\sigma^2}{(z_\sigma-z_\rho)^2}+\frac{\hbar^2N\big(1+N^2\big)}{2},\label{H3}
\\
\tilde{H}_{\rm IV}
=
\hbar^2\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\sigma\partial_{z_\sigma}-z_\rho\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}+\sum_\rho \big(\hbar^2z_\rho\partial_{z_\rho}^2-\hbar\big(z_\rho^2+tz_\rho-\theta_0-\hbar\big)\partial_{z_\rho}\big) \nonumber \\
\hphantom{\tilde{H}_{\rm IV}}{} -\frac{\hbar^2\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2} \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\rho+z_\sigma}{(z_\sigma-z_\rho)^2} -(\hbar N+\theta_0+\theta_1)\sum_\rho z_\rho-t\hbar N^2, \label{H4}
\\
t\tilde{H}_{\rm V}=
\hbar^2\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\sigma(z_\sigma-1)\partial_{z_\sigma}-z_\rho(z_\rho-1)\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}+\hbar^2\sum_\rho z_\rho(z_\rho-1)\partial_{z_\rho}^2 \nonumber \\
\hphantom{t\tilde{H}_{\rm V}=}{}
-\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2} \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\rho(z_\rho-1)+z_\sigma(z_\sigma-1)}{(z_\sigma-z_\rho)^2}\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t\tilde{H}_{\rm V}=}{}
+\hbar \sum_\rho\big(t z_\rho^2+\big(2\hbar+\theta_0-\theta_2-t\big) z_\rho+\theta_2-\hbar \big)\partial_{z_\rho}
+ t(\hbar N+\theta_0+\theta_1)\sum_\rho z_\rho\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t\tilde{H}_{\rm V}=}{}
+\le((\theta_0-\theta_2-t)N^2\hbar+\frac{N\hbar^2\big(1+N^2\big)}{2}\right),\label{H5}
\\
t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=
\hbar^2\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\sigma(z_\sigma-1)(z_\sigma-t)\partial_{z_\sigma}-z_\rho(z_\rho-1)(z_\rho-t)\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{}
+\hbar^2\sum_\rho z_\rho(z_\rho-1)(z_\rho-t)\partial_{z_\rho}^2 \nonumber
\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{}
+\hbar\sum_\rho \big((3\hbar-\theta)z_\rho^2
+ \big(-\hbar(1+t)+t(\theta_0+\theta_1)+\theta_0+\theta_t\big)z_\rho+t(\hbar -\theta_0)\big)\partial_{z_\rho} \nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{} -\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2} \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{z_\rho(z_\rho-1)(z_\rho-t)+z_\sigma(z_\sigma-1)(z_\sigma-t)}{(z_\sigma-z_\rho)^2} \nonumber
\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{}
+\left(N^2\hbar^2-\theta N\hbar-\frac{1}{4}\big(k^2-\theta^2\big)+(N-1)\kappa(\kappa+1)\hbar^2\right)\sum_\rho z_\rho \nonumber \\
\hphantom{t(t-1)\tilde{H}_{\rm VI}=}{}
-\frac{N^3\hbar^2}{2}+t\hbar N^2(\theta_0+\theta_1)+\hbar N^2(\theta_0+\theta_t)-\frac{\hbar^2 N(N-1)\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2}.\label{H6}
\end{gather}
\setcounter{footnote}{1}
\section{Generalization of the quantum Painlev\'e equations}\label{sec3}
Nagoya in \cite{Nag}, introduced the Hamiltonian operators corresponding to the quantum Painlev\'e equations in the case of a single particle, satisfying the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi (z,t)=H_J \left(z, \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial z},t\right)\Phi(z,t), \qquad J={\rm II},{\rm III},{\rm IV},{\rm V},{\rm VI},\label{Schreq}
\end{equation}
where Hamiltonian operators $H_J$ are obtained from the polynomial Hamiltonian operators of the Painlev\'e equations by substituting the operators~$z$, $\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ into the canonical coordinates. These operators are defined as\footnotetext{The coefficient of $z$ in \cite{Nag} is shifted by the parameter $b$, however, based on our generalization, the generated coefficient of $z$ is only $a$.}\addtocounter{footnote}{-1}
\begin{gather}
H_{\rm II} =
\frac{1}{2}(\hbar \partial_{z})^2-\left(z^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)\hbar\partial_{z}+a z, \nonumber \\
t H_{\rm III} = z^2(\hbar \partial_z)^2- (z^2+bz+t)\hbar \partial_z +a z, \footnotemark \nonumber\\
H_{\rm IV} =
z(\hbar \partial_{z})^2-\big(z^2+tz+b\big)\hbar\partial_{z}+a (z+t), \nonumber\\
tH_{\rm V}
=
z(z-1)(\hbar\partial_{z})^2+\big(tz^2-(b+c+t)z+b\big)\hbar\partial_{z}
+a(b+c-a+\hbar+t-tz), \nonumber\\
t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=
z(z-1)(z-t)(\hbar\partial_{z})^2-\big((a+b)(z-1)(z-t)
+cz(z-t) +dz(z-1)\big)\hbar\partial_{z}\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=}{} +(b+c+d+\hbar)a(z-t).\label{NagHamil}
\end{gather}
He showed that the quantum Hamiltonians \eqref{NagHamil} admit special solutions in integral form when the parameters take certain specific values: in fact, the wave function $\Phi$ in~\eqref{Schreq} can be taken in the following form
\begin{equation}
\Phi_m^J(z,t)=\int_{\Gamma} \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq m}(u_i-u_j)^{2\hbar} \prod_{i}(z-u_i)\Theta_J(u_i,t)\d u_i.
\label{phi1p}
\end{equation}
Here $\Gamma = \prod_j \gamma_j$ is a cartesian product of ``admissible'' contours $u_j\in \gamma_j$ that can be chosen on the Riemann surface of the ``master'' function $\Theta_{J}$. By this we mean that
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item $\Theta_J(u_j)$ is single valued along $\gamma_j$;
\item $\int_{\gamma_j}u_j^k \Theta_J(u_j)\d u_j$ is a convergent integral and not identically zero (as an expression in $k\in \mathbb N$);
\item The contours are pairwise non-intersecting if $\hbar \not\in \frac 1 2\mathbb N$.
\end{itemize}
For example for $J={\rm II}$ the contours can be taken as contours starting from infinity along one of the three directions $\arg(u_j)=\frac {2\pi}3 k$, $k=0,1,2$ and ending at infinity along any of the remaining ones. We could also take a circle, but then the Cauchy theorem would imply that the integral $\int u^\ell \Theta_{\rm II}(u)\d u$ is zero.
The requirement that the different $\gamma_j$'s do not intersect is due to the fact that if $\hbar\not\in \frac 1 2 \mathbb N$ then the power of the Vandermonde term in the integrand~\eqref{phi1p} yields a~non-single valued function.
The master functions $\Theta_J(u_i,t)$ ($J={\rm II},{\rm III},{\rm IV},{\rm V},{\rm VI}$) are the weight functions defined below:
\begin{gather}
\Theta_{\rm II} = \exp \left(-\left( u_it+\frac{2}{3}u_i^3\right)\right), \nonumber \\
\Theta_{\rm III} =
u_i^{-b-1} \exp \left(\frac{t}{u_i}-u_i\right), \nonumber \\
\Theta_{\rm IV} =
u_i^{-b-1} \exp \left(-\left(u_it+\frac{u_i^2}{2}\right)\right), \nonumber
\\
\Theta_{\rm V} =
u_i^{-b-1}(1-u_i)^{-c-1} \exp (u_it), \nonumber \\
\Theta_{\rm VI} =
u_i^{-a-b-1}(1-u_i)^{-c-1}(t-u_i)^{-d}.\label{masters}
\end{gather}
With the positions \eqref{masters} and formula \eqref{phi1p} the functions $\Phi_m^J$ satisfy the Schr\"odinger equations~\eqref{Schreq} provided that the parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ satisfy the following condition
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
a=m\hbar \quad \text{and} \quad b+c+d=(m-1)\hbar, & J={\rm VI},\\
a=m\hbar, & J={\rm II},{\rm III},{\rm IV},{\rm V}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
We want to generalize this result of Nagoya's to our multi-particle quantum Hamiltonians \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} by providing a multi-particle extension of the integral formul\ae~\eqref{phi1p}.
\subsection[Integral representations for the quantum Painlev\'e--Calogero Schr\"odinger wave functions]{Integral representations for the quantum Painlev\'e--Calogero Schr\"odinger\\ wave functions}
We now explain the general approach behind the extension of Nagoya's formul\ae. We start from an Ansatz of the form
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\vec z;t)=\int_{\Gamma} \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq m}(u_i-u_j)^{2\hbar} \prod_{\rho=1}^N\prod_{i=1}^m(z_{\rho}-u_i)\Theta_J(u_i) \d u_i.
\label{phiNp}
\end{equation}
Observe that, similarly to Nagoya's result, these are polynomials in the $z_\rho$'s of total degree~$Nm$ and of degree $m$ in each of the variables $z_\rho$.
With the Ansatz~\eqref{phiNp} in place, we verify by a direct calculation on a case-by-case basis, that they satisfy a multi-variate generalization of~\eqref{Schreq} and identify the corresponding Hamiltonian operator.
The result of these computations, whose details are reported in the appendix section, are summarized in the following theorem (for readability, the range of greek indices is assumed to be $1,\dots, N$ without explicit mention).
\begin{Theorem}
The equation \eqref{phiNp}, with $\Theta_J$ given by \eqref{masters}, is a solution to the multi-variable version of Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{Schreq}, where the Hamiltonians $H_J$, $J={\rm II}, {\rm III}, {\rm IV}, {\rm V}, {\rm VI}$ are given by the following operators:
\begin{gather}
H_{\rm II}= \frac{\hbar}{2}\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}} \frac{\partial_{z_{\rho}}-\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}} +\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \sum_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2 -\hbar\sum_{\rho} \left(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)\partial_{z_{\rho}} +m\hbar \sum_{\rho} z_{\rho},
\label{CP2}
\\
tH_{\rm III}= \hbar\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}}\frac{z_{\rho}^2\partial_{z_{\rho}}-z_{\sigma}^2\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}}+ \sum_{\rho}\big(\hbar^2 z_{\rho}^2\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2-\hbar \big(z_{\rho}^2+(b+N-1)z_{\rho}+t\big)\partial_{z_{\rho}}+m\hbar z_{\rho}\big),
\label{CP3}
\\
H_{\rm IV}= \hbar\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}}\frac{z_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}-z_{\sigma}\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}}+ \sum_{\rho}\big(\hbar^2 z_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2-\hbar \big(z_{\rho}^2+tz_{\rho}+b\big)\partial_{z_{\rho}}+m\hbar z_{\rho}\big) + \hbar Nmt,
\label{CP4}
\\
tH_{\rm V}=
\hbar\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}}\frac{z_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-1)\partial_{z_{\rho}}-z_{\sigma}(z_{\sigma}-1)\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}}
+
\hbar Nm\big(b+c+t -\hbar(m-1)- N+1\big)
\nonumber\\
\hphantom{tH_{\rm V}=}{}
+\sum_{\rho}\big(\hbar^2 z_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-1)\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2+\hbar \big(tz_{\rho}^2-(b+c+t)z_{\rho}+b\big)\partial_{z_{\rho}}
- m\hbar tz_{\rho}\big),
\label{CP5}
\\
t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=
\hbar\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}}\frac{z_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-1)(z_{\rho}-t) \partial_{z_{\rho}}-z_{\sigma}(z_{\sigma}-1)(z_{\sigma}-t)\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}}\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=}{}
+ \sum_{\rho}\hbar^2 z_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-1)(z_{\rho}-t)\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2
\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=}{} -\hbar \sum_{\rho}\left((a+b)(z_{\rho}-1)(z_{\rho}-t)+cz_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-t)+(d+N-1)z_{\rho}(z_{\rho}-1)\right)\partial_{z_{\rho}}
\nonumber\\
\hphantom{t(t-1)H_{\rm VI}=}{} - \hbar m(N-1-\hbar m)\sum_{\rho}z_{\rho}
- \hbar m N(\hbar m+1-N)t.
\label{CP6}
\end{gather}
\end{Theorem}
{\bf Quantum Calogero Hamiltonians and integral solutions.}
We now examine the relationship between the Hamiltonians (differential operators) \eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6}, whose integral solutions are given~\eqref{phiNp} and the quantum Calogero Hamiltonians \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} constructed by canonical quantization of the non-commutative Hamiltonians of the classical isomonodromic noncommutative equations of~\cite{BerCafRub}.
By way of this identification, we identify the parameter $\kappa$ of the quantum radial reduction up to an appropriate gauge transformation of the Hamiltonians. At the end of this computation, we can see that the Hamiltonians
\eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} reduce to
\eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6} for particular choice of the parameters. The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tablecalogero}.
Consider for example \eqref{H2_2} and \eqref{CP2}:
\begin{gather*}
\tilde{H}_{\rm II}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{\partial_{z_\sigma}-\partial_{z_\rho}}{z_\sigma-z_\rho}-\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa(\kappa+1)}{2}\sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma
\\ \rho\neq \sigma}}\frac{1}{\le(z_\sigma-z_\rho\right)^2}
+\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_\rho \partial_{z_\rho}^2-\hbar\sum_\rho\le(z_\rho^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)\partial_{z_\rho}\nonumber\\
\hphantom{\tilde{H}_{\rm II}=}{} +\le(\frac{1}{2}-\theta-\hbar N\right)\sum_\rho z_\rho,
\\
H_{\rm II}= \frac{\hbar}{2}\underset{\rho\neq\sigma}{\sum_{\rho,\sigma}} \frac{\partial_{z_{\rho}}-\partial_{z_{\sigma}}}{z_{\rho}-z_{\sigma}} +\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \sum_{\rho}\partial_{z_{\rho}}^2 -\hbar\sum_{\rho} \le(z_{\rho}^2+\frac{t}{2}\right)\partial_{z_{\rho}} +m\hbar \sum_{\rho} z_{\rho}.
\end{gather*}
The first observation is that in the two Hamiltonians the second and first-order differential parts have different powers of $\hbar$; they coincide only for $\hbar =1$ (we exclude the trivial case $\hbar=0$). We will comment on the $\hbar=1$ case later on.
The second observation is about the Calogero-like potential term in~\eqref{H2_2} which is absent in~\eqref{CP2}; the term disappears for $\kappa=0,-1$. These values mean that the ${\rm GL}_n$ representation in~$\mathbb V$ is the trivial one in the radial quantization scheme.
Then the other parameters in the equations can be easily matched and then we need $\theta=\frac{1}{2}-N-m$.
A more general family of matching between the two sets of operators is obtained by gauging the Hamiltonians \eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6} by means of an appropriate power of the Weyl denominator, namely, the Vandermonde determinant. We indicate this in the following lemma:
\begin{Lemma}\label{le31}
Let $\Delta(\vec z)=\prod_{1\leq \alpha<\beta\leq N}(z_\alpha -z_\beta)$ be the Vandermonde polynomial in $\Vec{z}$. Then the action of the quantum Hamiltonian operator $H_{\rm II}$ on the generalized wave functions, is equivalent to the action of $\Delta^{-R}\widetilde H_{\rm II} \Delta^R$:
\begin{gather} \label{HHtilde}
\Delta^{-R}\widetilde H_{\rm II}\Delta^R \Phi(Z)=H_{\rm II} \Phi(Z)
\end{gather}
for $R$ and the scalar $\kappa$ determined as one of the two choices below:
\begin{gather*}
\left(R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 ,\, \kappa=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1\right), \qquad
\left(R=\frac 1\hbar -1 , \,
\kappa = -\frac 1\hbar \right) ,\qquad \hbar \neq 0.
\end{gather*}
Under this circumstances, the parameter $\theta$ is determined as $($in either case$)$:
\begin{gather*}
\theta = \hbar(1-m) + N(1-2\hbar)-\frac{1}{2}.
\end{gather*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} The proof is obtained by a direct computation of the equations in~\eqref{HHtilde}.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{le31} is actually the manifestation of a more general result which is contained in the following theorem:
\begin{Theorem}\label{thmgauge}
Define the two sequences of differential operators
\begin{gather*}
H_a := \hbar^2 \sum_{\rho} z_\rho^a \partial_{z_\rho}^2 + 2\hbar \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma\\ \rho<\sigma}} \frac {z_\rho^a \partial_{z_\rho} - z_\sigma^a\partial_{z_\sigma}}{z_\rho-z_\sigma}, \\
\widetilde H_a := \hbar^2 \sum_{\rho} z_\rho^a \partial_{z_\rho}^2 + 2\hbar^2 \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho<\sigma}} \frac {z_\rho^a \partial_{z_\rho} - z_\sigma^a\partial_{z_\sigma}}{z_\rho-z_\sigma} - \hbar^2\kappa(\kappa+1) \sum_{\substack{\rho,\sigma \\ \rho<\sigma}} \frac {z_\rho^a + z_\sigma^a}{(z_\rho-z_\sigma)^2} \\
\hphantom{\widetilde H_a :=}{} +
\begin{cases}
0, & a= 0,1,\\
\dfrac {N(N-1)(N-2)}3, & a=2,\\
\displaystyle (N-1)(N-2)\sum_{\rho} z_\rho, & a=3 .
\end{cases}
\end{gather*}
Then we have the following identity
\[
H_a = \Delta^{-R}\circ \widetilde H_a \circ \Delta^R
\]
provided that
$R= \frac 1 \hbar-1$ and
$\kappa = \frac 1 \hbar -1$ or $\kappa=-\frac 1 \hbar$.
\end{Theorem}
We do not report here the straightforward proof.
Using Theorem~\ref{thmgauge} in the various cases of the Hamiltonian Calogero--Painlev\'e operators and direct computations, allows to express the Hamiltonians \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} as special cases of \eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6} and allows us to identify the parameters $\theta_0$, $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, $\theta_t$, $\theta$, $k$, $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$. The result of the computations is summarized in Table \ref{tablecalogero}.
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\caption{The correspondence of parameters between the differential operators \eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6} and \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} with the relationship for the parameters.}\label{tablecalogero}
\vspace{1mm}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|}
\hline
&$H\Psi(Z)=\widetilde H \Psi(Z)$ & $\Delta^{-R} \widetilde H \Delta^R \Psi(Z)= H \Psi(Z)$ \\
\hline \hline
Calogero--Painlev\'e II & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =0, \quad \hbar=1, \\ \theta =\frac{1}{2}-N-m \end{matrix}$ & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa =-\frac{1}{\hbar}, \quad R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1, \\ \theta = \hbar(1-m) + N(1-2\hbar)-\frac{1}{2} \end{matrix}$ \\
\hline
Calogero--Painlev\'e III & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =0, \quad \hbar=1, \\ \theta_0=b-m+1, \\ \theta_1=-N-m \end{matrix}$ & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa =-\frac{1}{\hbar}, \quad R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1, \\ \theta_0=b+\hbar(1-m), \\ \theta_1=-\hbar(m+1)-N+1 \end{matrix}$ \\
\hline
Calogero--Painlev\'e IV & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =0, \quad \hbar=1, \\ \theta_0=-b-1, \\ \theta_1=b+1-m-N \end{matrix}$ & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa =-\frac{1}{\hbar}, \quad R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1, \\ \theta_0=-b-\hbar, \\ \theta_1=b+1-N- m\hbar \end{matrix}$\\
\hline
Calogero--Painlev\'e V & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =0, \quad \hbar=1, \\ \theta_0=-c-1, \\ \theta_1=-N-m+c+1, \\ \theta_2= b+1 \end{matrix}$ & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa =-\frac{1}{\hbar}, \quad R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1, \\ \theta_0=-c-\hbar, \\ \theta_1=c+1-N-m \hbar, \\ \theta_2=b+\hbar \end{matrix}$\\
\hline
Calogero--Painlev\'e VI & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =0, \quad \hbar=1, \\ \theta_0=a+b+1, \\
\theta_1=c+1, \\ \theta_t=d+N, \\
k=\pm \sqrt{A} \\
A=(\theta-2N)^2+4 m(N-1-m) \end{matrix}$ & $\begin{matrix} \kappa =\frac{1}{\hbar}-1 \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa =-\frac{1}{\hbar}, \quad R=\frac{1}{\hbar}-1, \\ \theta_0=a+b+\hbar, \\ \theta_1=c+\hbar, \\ \theta_t=d+N+\hbar-1, \\ k=\pm \sqrt{B} \\
B=(\theta-2N\hbar)^2+4\hbar m(N-1-\hbar m)\\
{}+4(N-1)(1-\hbar) +N(N-1)(1-\hbar)(3\hbar-\theta) \end{matrix}$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
With these values of the parameters then quantum Calogero--Painlev\'e and generalized quantum Painlev\'e equations {II}--{VI} yield the same Hamiltonians, and the integral representation~\eqref{phiNp} provides solutions of the corresponding Schr\"odinger equations~\eqref{Schreq}.
We now briefly comment on the value of the Heisenberg constant $\hbar=1$: observing the original integral representation of Nagoya~\eqref{phi1p} and the generalized one~\eqref{phiNp}, we see that for $\hbar=1$ the integrand contains the square of the Vandermonde determinant of the variables~$u_j$. This type of expression is very familiar in the context of random matrices~\cite{Mehta}: it is the Jacobian of the change of variables from the Lebesgue measure on Hermitian matrices (or normal matrices) to the unitary-radial coordinates. Specifically, if $M$ is a Hermitean matrix of size $m\times m$, we write it as $M = V D V$ with $D =\operatorname{diag} (u_1,\dots, u_m)$ and $V\in U(m,\mathbb{C})$, then the Lebesque measure (up to inessential multiplicative constant) is
\[
\d M = \Delta(u)^2 \d V \prod_j \d u_j ,
\]
where $\Delta(u) = \prod_{i<j} (u_i-u_j)$. This expression is also valid if the $u_j$'s are allowed to take complex values along specified curves (but now $\d M$ is the measure on $m\times m$ normal matrices).
This allows us to rewrite the integral formul\ae\ as matrix integrals; for example for Painlev\'e II we have
\begin{gather}
\Phi_m^{\rm II}(\vec z, t) = \int \prod_{\rho} \det(z_\rho - M) {\rm e}^{-\operatorname{Tr}\le(\frac 2 3 M^3 + tM\right)} \d M,
\label{matrixint}
\end{gather}
which expresses the wave function as the expectation value of the product of characteristic polynomials. Similar expressions hold for the other cases.
Therefore it appears that the class of generalized Nagoya solutions~\eqref{phiNp} and the wave-functions of the quantum Calogero--Painlev\'e Hamiltonians intersect on the class of solutions that are related to matrix integrals of the form~\eqref{matrixint} only (and their similar expressions for the other master functions~\eqref{masters}).
We conclude by observing that we can write \eqref{matrixint} in terms of the matrix variable $Q$ (with eigenvalues $z_1,\dots, z_N$) as follows
\[
\Phi_m^{\rm II}(Q, t)=\int \prod_{\rho} \det(Q\otimes \mathbf{1}_m -\mathbf{1}_N\otimes M) {\rm e}^{-\operatorname{Tr}\le(\frac 2 3 M^3 + tM\right)} \d M.
\]
For different values of $\hbar$ we need to use the substitution indicated in Theorem~\ref{thmgauge}; the resulting integral representation is what is known as a ``$\beta$-integral''. Thus, we obtain the following
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\Phi_J(\vec z;t)$ be the wave function \eqref{phiNp} solving the Schr\"odinger equations with Hamiltonians \eqref{CP2}--\eqref{CP6}. Then $\Psi_J(\vec z,t)= \Delta^{ \frac 1 \hbar -1} \Phi_J(\vec z;t)$ is a solution of the corresponding Painlev\'e $J$ Hamiltonians $(J={\rm II},\dots, {\rm VI})$ \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6}, i.e.,
\[
\Psi_J(\vec z;t)=
\Delta(\vec z)^{\frac 1 \hbar-1} \int \Delta(\vec u)^{2\hbar} \prod_{\rho,j} (z_\rho - u_j) \Theta_{J}(u_j,t)\d u_i
\]
give solutions to the multi-particle quantized Calogero--Painlev\'e equations with Hamiltonians \eqref{H2_2}, \eqref{H3}--\eqref{H6} for $\kappa=-\frac 1 \hbar, \frac 1 \hbar-1$ $($respectively$)$ and the values of parameters indicated in Table~{\rm \ref{tablecalogero}}.
\end{Theorem}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec4}
In recent years, there have been different approaches to ``quantum Painlev\'e equations'' using as starting point the linear differential equation of rank~$2$ classically associated to the Painlev\'e equations, or the theory of topological recursion associated to semiclassical spectral curves.
In \cite{ZZ}, the authors start from the system of linear equations (Lax system) associated to the Painlev\'e equations {I}--{VI} written in the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\partial_{z}\Psi= U(z,t)\Psi,\\
\partial_{t}\Psi= V(z,t)\Psi.
\end{cases}
\label{laxpp}
\end{equation}
After applying a suitable change of variables and gauge transformation, they obtain a pair of compatible PDEs for a scalar wave function $\psi$ (obtained from the $(1,1)$ entry of the matrix $\Psi$)
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\big(\frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2 -\frac{1}{2}(\partial_z \log b)\partial_z+W(z,t)\big)\psi=0, \\
\partial_t\psi=\big(\frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2+\mathcal U(z,t)\big)\psi,
\end{cases}\label{ZZ-lds}
\end{equation}
where $W$ and $\mathcal U$ are described explicitly in terms of the entries of the matrices $U$,~$V$.
The first equation in \eqref{ZZ-lds} has apparent singularities but otherwise exhibits the same (generalized) mo\-no\-dromy associated to \eqref{laxpp} (in $\mathbb P {\rm SL}_2$), while the second equation describes the isomonodromic deformation of the former and is presented in the form of a non-stationary Schr\"odinger equation with imaginary time.
The Hamiltonian operators corresponding to each Painlev\'e equation {I}--{VI} from the second equation of the system~\eqref{ZZ-lds} are, in particular, a natural quantization of those corresponding to the Calogero-like Painlev\'e equations (those obtained from the first equation of the system~\eqref{ZZ-lds}). These operators that are called the quantum Calogero--Painlev\'e Hamiltonian system, are obtained in single variable representation.
The question then arises as to whether a similar description is possible in the multi-particle case; the na\"ive approach of considering the matrices as $2\times 2$ blocks does not lead to equations of the same type as \eqref{ZZ-lds}. The quantization of the Hamiltonians from~\cite{BerCafRub} does not seem to be the direct analog of~\eqref{ZZ-lds} because it is an equation where the wave equation plays the role rather of the (scalar) ``quantum tau function''.
Also, in \cite{Eyn}, the authors use the topological recursion on spectral curves of different genuses which results in wave functions that satisfy a family of partial differential equations. In fact, these PDEs are the quantization of the original spectral curves. As an application of their theorem, they introduce a system of PDEs corresponding to Painlev\'e transcendents whose assigned Hamiltonian system has significant similarities to the system of Hamiltonian operators that we introduced in this paper for the quantum Calogero--Painlev\'e system.
Finally, we comment on the possible relationship with equations of the Knizhnik--Zamo\-lod\-chi\-kov (KZ) type. For the single-particle case, in \cite{Nag}, H.~Nagoya provides a representation-theoretic correspondence between the Schr\"odinger equation for quantum Painlev\'e~{VI} (single-particle) and the Knizhnik--Zamolodchikov (KZ) equation, and between the Schr\"odinger equation for quantum Painlev\'e {II--V} (single-particle) and the confluent KZ equations that are defined in~\cite{JimNag}. These correspondences are proved directly by showing relations between the integral representations for the solutions to the quantum Painlev\'e equations and solutions to the (confluent) KZ equations. In this case, the present paper should play a similar role for $\mathfrak{sl}_n$ special solutions of the KZ equations.
We plan to address this possible relationship in a subsequent publication.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro_sec}
\subsection{Fragmenting rectangles}
A fragmentation process describes the breaking up of a structure into pieces, and occurs naturally in many situations. Mathematically, fragmentation processes have been a subject of active research in probability for at least 20 years, incorporating several varieties, including homogeneous fragmentations \cite{bertoin:homogeneous_frags}, self-similar fragmentations \cite{bertoin:self_sim_frags}, and growth fragmentations \cite{bertoin:growth-frags}. The textbook of Bertoin \cite{bertoin:fragmentation_coagulation} gives an excellent introduction to this rich mathematical theory. It begins by listing some real-world examples of phenomena that might be considered fragmentation processes, including ``stellar fragments in astrophysics, fractures and earthquakes in geophysics, breaking of crystals in crystallography, degradation of large polymer chains in chemistry, DNA fragmentation in biology, fission of atoms in nuclear physics, fragmentation of a hard drive in computer science,'' and particularly valid from a mathematical point of view, ``evolution of blocks of mineral in a crusher.''
However, the traditional mathematical definition of a fragmentation process insists that (again quoting Bertoin \cite{bertoin:fragmentation_coagulation}) ``each fragment can be characterized by a real number that should be thought of as its size. This stops us from considering the spatial position of a fragment or further geometrical properties like its shape; physicists call such models mean field.'' In \cite{bertoin:multitypefrag}, Bertoin does analyse a multitype model where fragments can take finitely many types, but in applications there is often a continuum of possible shapes.
We consider a spatially-dependent fragmentation process as follows. Begin with a square of side length $1$. After a random time, the square breaks into two rectangular pieces, uniformly at random. Each of these pieces then repeats this behaviour independently, except that long, thin rectangles break more quickly, and are more likely to break along their longest side. This model is designed to mimic a physical crushing process, where long, thin pieces of rock are likely to break more easily than more evenly-proportioned pieces. See Figures \ref{simplefig} and \ref{fig:comparison}.
\begin{figure}[h!] \centering \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect1.png} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect2.png} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect3.png} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect_4.png} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect_5.png} \includegraphics[width=2.3cm]{rect_6.png} \caption{We begin with a square, which splits vertically into two rectangles. One of these then splits horizontally, and the process continues. Thinner rectangles are more likely to split first.} \label{simplefig} \end{figure}
We work in two dimensions to keep notation manageable, but our proofs should work in three or more dimensions with little additional work. For the same reason, we make a particular choice for the splitting rule---that is, the functions that decide how a fragment's shape affects its branching rate and the direction in which it breaks---but our methods should be adaptable to a variety of spatially-dependent fragmentation models.
Understanding spatially-dependent branching systems is an important problem in its own right, since almost any real-world application of branching tools---from nuclear reactors \cite{harris_et_al:stochastic_NTE_II, horton_et_al:stochastic_NTE_I} to the spread of disease \cite{durrett_foo_leder:spatial_moran, foo_leder_schweinsberg:mutation_timing_spatial_evolution}---involves spatial inhomogeneity. One purpose of this paper is to contribute new techniques to the rigorous mathematical investigation of spatially-dependent branching structures more generally.
A key observation in the study of (mathematical) fragmentation processes is that they satisfy the branching property, in that the future evolution of one fragment, given its current state, does not depend on the other fragments. This enables us to use branching tools in the analysis of fragmentation processes. For example, if we consider the negative logarithm of the sizes of the fragments of a homogeneous fragmentation, then we obtain a continuous-time branching random walk. Bertoin's multitype fragmentation, under the same transformation, becomes a multitype branching random walk. In the same way, our system of fragmenting rectangles can also be thought of as a multitype branching random walk, but one with uncountably many types.
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{homogeneous2}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{inhomogeneous3}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3 cm}
\caption{On the left: a homogeneous model, where every rectangle splits at rate $1$ and splits horizontally or vertically with probability $1/2$ each. On the right: our model where long, thin rectangles split faster, and are more likely to split along their longest side. Tall rectangles are coloured red, fat rectangles are coloured green, and squares are coloured yellow.} \label{fig:comparison}
\end{figure}
Analysing branching systems with uncountably many types is notoriously difficult. Even multitype Galton-Watson processes with countably many types are beyond the scope of standard tools, hence the restriction to finitely many types in most papers on multitype branching systems, including \cite{bertoin:multitypefrag}. Our model includes not just a continuum of types, but a two-dimensional set of possibilities. To add to the difficulty, since we split our rectangles using uniform random variables and then take negative logarithms, and $-\log U$ is exponentially distributed, the jump distribution of our multitype branching random walk does not satisfy the strong Cram\'er condition, and even when rescaled the sample paths include macroscopic jumps. Our analysis is therefore highly technically challenging.
\subsection{The model}
As mentioned above, we work in continuous time, and begin with a square of side-length $1$. At any time, each rectangle of base $b$ and height $h$ independently splits at rate $r(b,h)$ into two smaller rectangles. The probability that it splits vertically is $p(b,h)$, and if so then it splits at a uniform point along its base; otherwise it splits horizontally at a uniform point along its height. The functions $r$ and $p$ are given by
\[r(b,h) = \Big(\frac{1-\log b}{1-\log h}\Big) \vee \Big(\frac{1-\log h}{1-\log b}\Big)\]
and
\[p(b,h) = \frac{1-\log h}{2(1-\log b)} \mathbbm{1}_{b \le h} + \left( 1-\frac{1-\log b}{2(1-\log h)} \right) \mathbbm{1}_{b > h}.\]
It is easy to see that rectangles with either large base relative to their height, or large height relative to their base, split faster, and are more likely to split along their longer side. The appearance of $1-\log b$ and $1-\log h$, rather than $b$ and $h$, is because splitting events have a multiplicative effect: the distribution of the ratio of each rectangle's measurements to its parent's is invariant. Thus the logarithm of the measurements behaves additively, which ensures that the functions $r$ and $p$ remain non-trivial when we rescale space and time. On the other hand, our choices of $r$ and $p$ are not the only choices with this property, and our methods appear to be fairly robust: it should be possible to adapt them to other sensible splitting rules. We propose this model as a proof of concept that spatial fragmentations (with uncountably many types) can be analysed mathematically.
For a rectangle $v$, we denote its base by $B_v$ and its height by $H_v$. We let $X_v = -\log B_v$ and $Y_v = -\log H_v$. As suggested above, $X_v$ and $Y_v$ are more useful parameterisations of size than $B_v$ and $H_v$ from a mathematical point of view, simply because rectangles' sizes will decay exponentially with time. Under this transformation, our system has the following alternative description.
Begin with one particle at $(0,0)\in\mathbb{R}^2$. Each particle, when at position $(x,y)$ with $x,y \ge 0$, branches at rate
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rate2}
R(x,y)= \frac{x+1}{y+1} \vee \frac{y+1}{x+1}.
\end{equation}
At a branching event, the particle is replaced by two children: letting $\mathcal{U}$ be a uniform random variable on $(0,1)$, independent of everything else, then with probability
\begin{equation}\nonumber
P(x,y) = \frac{y+1}{2(x+1)} \mathbbm{1}_{x \ge y} + \left( 1-\frac{x+1}{2(y+1)} \right) \mathbbm{1}_{x < y}.
\end{equation}
the two children have positions $(x - \log \mathcal{U}, y)$ and $(x-\log(1-\mathcal{U}), y)$, and with probability $1-P(x,y)$ they have positions $(x, y - \log \mathcal{U})$ and $(x, y-\log(1-\mathcal{U}))$.
We let $R_X(x,y)=R(x,y)P(x,y)$ and $R_Y(x,y)=R(x,y)(1-P(x,y))$. Then $R_X$ and $R_Y$ denote the rates at which a particle at position $(x,y)$ moves in the first spatial dimension, or the second, respectively.
From now on, we mostly use the second description, and refer to particles and their positions, rather than rectangles and their sizes. As seen above, the two descriptions are entirely equivalent.
\subsection{Main theorem}\label{thm_sec}
Let $E$ be the set of non-decreasing c\`adl\`ag functions $f:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ with $f(0)=0$. Set $f'(s)= \infty$ if $f \in E$ is not differentiable at the point $s\in[0,1]$. By Lebesgue's decomposition theorem, for any function $f\in E$ we may write $f = \tilde f + \hat f$ where $\tilde f$ is absolutely continuous and $\hat f$ is singular.
Our main theorem aims to quantify how many particles have paths which, when rescaled appropriately, fall within a given subset of $E^2$. It is written in the style of a large deviations result, although it is not actually a large deviations result since it is concerned with the almost-sure behaviour of the system rather than events of small probability.
Since we are interested in rescaled paths for large times, $R$ and $P$ are essentially governed by the ratios $x/y$ and $y/x$. We define the functions $R^*:[0,\infty)^2\to[0,\infty]$ and $P^*:[0,\infty)^2\to[0,1]$ by
\[R^*(x,y) := \begin{cases} \frac{x}{y} \vee \frac{y}{x} &\text{ if } x>0 \text{ or } y>0\\
1 &\text{ if } x=y=0\end{cases}\]
and
\[P^*(x,y) := \begin{cases} \frac{y}{2 x}\mathbbm{1}_{x \ge y} + \big(1-\frac{x}{2 y}\big) \mathbbm{1}_{x < y} &\text{ if } x>0 \text{ or } y>0 \\
1/2 &\text{ if } x=y=0.\end{cases}\]
Although our splitting rule is described by the functions $R$ and $P$ (or equivalently $r$ and $p$), which are continuous at $0$, at large times the constant terms in those functions become insignificant and the behaviour when the system is rescaled appropriately is captured instead by $R^*$ and $P^*$. We let
\[R^*_X(x,y) := \begin{cases} R^*(x,y)P^*(x,y) &\text{ if } y>0 \\
1/2 &\text{ if } y=0\end{cases}\]
and
\[R^*_Y(x,y) := \begin{cases} R^*(x,y)(1-P^*(x,y)) &\text{ if } x>0 \\
1/2 &\text{ if } x=0. \end{cases} \]
Suppose that $f=(f_X,f_Y) \in E^2$ and $0\le a\le b\le 1$. Define the functionals
\[I(f,a,b)= \int_a^b \big(2^{1/2} R^*_X(f(s))^{1/2} - f_X'(s)^{1/2} \big)^2 \d s + \int_a^b \big(2^{1/2} R^*_Y(f(s))^{1/2} - f_Y'(s)^{1/2} \big)^2 \d s,\]
\[J(f,a,b) = I(f,a,b) + \hat f_X(b) - \hat f_X(a) + \hat f_Y(b) - \hat f_Y(a)\]
and
\[\tilde K(f,a,b) = \begin{cases} \int_a^b R^*(f(s)) ds - J(f,a,b) & \text{ if } J(f,a,b)<\infty;\\
-\infty & \text{ otherwise.}\end{cases}\]
Note that any $f\in E^2$ is necessarily continuous at $0$, and therefore if $\lim_{t\to 0}\tilde K(f,0,t)\neq -\infty$ then $\tilde K(f,0,t)$ is differentiable (in $t$) at $0$. If $\lim_{t\to 0}\tilde K(f,0,t) = -\infty$ then write $\frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} = -\infty$. Define
\[K(f) = \begin{cases} \tilde K(f,0,1) & \text{ if }\, \frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} > 0 \,\text{ and }\, \tilde K(f,0,s)> 0 \,\,\,\,\forall s\le 1;\\
-\infty & \text{ if $\exists s\le 1$ such that } \tilde K(f,0,s)<0;\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}\end{cases}\]
The functional $\tilde K(f,0,1)$ will be our expected growth rate, in that the expected number of particles at time $T$ whose paths, when rescaled by a factor $T$, are ``near'' $f$ should look something like $e^{\tilde K(f,0,1)T}$. However, the actual number of particles behaving in this way will only look like $e^{\tilde K(f,0,1)T}$ if $\tilde K(f,0,\theta)> 0$ for all $\theta\in[0,1]$. If there exists $\theta\in[0,1]$ such that $\tilde K(f,0,\theta)<0$ then (with high probability) there will be no particles whose $T$-rescaled paths look like $f$, essentially because this point on $f$ acts as a bottleneck; at this point, it is too difficult for particles to follow $f$, and the population near $f$ dies out.
In order to make this discussion precise we need to specify a topology on our space of functions $E^2$. Since the jumps in our process are exponentially distributed, it is possible for particles to make macroscopic jumps in the sense that their rescaled paths will not be continuous. In fact, it is possible for particles to make two (or more) macroscopic jumps in quick succession. This means that the usual Skorohod topology---the $J_1$ topology, generated by the Skorohod metric---is not suitable, as the rescaled set of paths that our particles take will not be compact in this topology. Instead we use the L\'evy metric \cite{levy1954theorie} on the set of increasing functions on $[0,1]$, which generates Skorohod's $M_2$ topology. We will recall the definition shortly, but first point out that the L\'evy metric has been extended to a metric on the set of c\`adl\`ag functions, known as the graph metric or Borovkov metric, which again generates the $M_2$ topology on this larger space. This metric was introduced in \cite{borovkov:convergence_distn}, and used for example in \cite{mogulskii:large_devs_CPP} to give a large deviations result for compound Poisson processes under only a weak moment Cram\'er condition, because of similar incompatibility with the $J_1$ topology.
The L\'evy metric on $E$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{metricdefn}
d(f,g) = \inf\big\{r>0 : f(x-r)-r < g(x) < f(x+r)+r \,\,\,\,\forall x\in[-r,1+r]\big\}
\end{equation}
where $f(x)$ is interpreted to equal $f(0)$ for $x<0$ and $f(1)$ for $x>1$, and similarly for $g$. The metric space $(E,d)$ is complete and separable. In an abuse of notation, we will also write $d$ to mean the product metric on $E^2$ defined by $d((f_X,f_Y),(g_X,g_Y))=\max\{d(f_X,g_X),d(f_Y,g_Y)\}$.
Take $T\ge0$ and let $\mathcal{N}_T$ be the set of particles that are alive at time $T$. For $u\in\mathcal{N}_T$ and $t\le T$, let $Z_u(t) = (X_u(t),Y_u(t))$ be the position of the unique ancestor of $u$ in $\mathcal{N}_t$. For $u\in\mathcal{N}_T$ and $s\in[0,1]$, write
\[Z_u^T(s) = Z_u(sT)/T;\]
we call $(Z_u^T(s),\, s\in[0,1])$ the $T$-rescaled path of $u$. For $F\subset E^2$, define
\[N_T(F) = \#\{u\in \mathcal{N}_{T} : Z_u^T \in F\},\]
the number of particles at time $T$ whose $T$-rescaled paths have remained within $F$.
Throughout the article we use the convention that $\inf \emptyset = + \infty$ and $\sup \emptyset = - \infty$.
\begin{thm}\label{mainthm}
If $F\subset E^2$ is closed and $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) \neq 0$, then
\[\limsup_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log N_T(F) \le \sup_{f\in F} K(f) \,\,\,\, \text{almost surely,}\]
and if $F\subset E^2$ is open and $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) \neq 0$, then
\[\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log N_T(F) \ge \sup_{f\in F} K(f)\,\,\,\,\text{almost surely.}\]
\end{thm}
The case when $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)=0$ is extremely delicate. If, for some function $f$, we have $K(f)=0$ then at some point along the path $f$, the population remaining near $f$ is ``critical'', in the sense of a critical branching process. When $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)=0$, this means that amongst all paths in $F$, the easiest path for particles to follow is a critical one. In general, critical branching processes are significantly more challenging to analyse than non-critical processes, and our situation is made more complex by the inhomogeneity of our branching system. Indeed, we do not even know if there are open sets $F\subset E^2$ that satisfy $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = 0$. If not, then the condition that $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)\neq 0$ could essentially be removed, subject to a slight alteration to the definition of $K(f)$.
\subsection{Heuristics}
At a basic level, our theorem says that the number of particles whose $T$-rescaled paths remain close to a function $f$ is roughly $\exp(K(f)T)$. The growth rate $K(f)$ consists of two parts: the growth of the population along the path, which is simply $\int_0^1 R^*(f(s)) ds$, and the cost of a typical particle following the path, which is $J(f,0,1)$. However, if the cumulative cost is ever larger than the cumulative growth at any point along the path---that is, if $\tilde K(f,0,s)$ is ever negative---then particles are unable to follow $f$ and therefore $K(f)=-\infty$.
The main strategy for the proof is to break time up into small intervals. On each small interval, we know roughly the location and gradient of $f$ and the rate $R(f(s))$, so we can control both the growth and the cost of following $f$. We bound the largest and smallest values that $R(z)$ can take when $z$ is within a small ball around $f(s)$, and use a coupling to trap a typical particle in our process between two compound Poisson processes that have jump rates corresponding to these maximum and minimum values of $R(z)$. First and second moment bounds then allow us to translate the behaviour of this typical particle into estimates for the whole branching system.
As mentioned in the introduction, this simple explanation disguises a highly technically demanding proof. One of the difficulties that does not usually appear in work on branching structures is the behaviour at early times. A standard approach would be to let the system evolve freely for some time so that there are a large number of particles alive, and then treat each of these particles as a blank canvas, essentially starting its own copy of the original process, using the independence of these copies to improve the accuracy of initial bounds on a single population. We cannot do this, since our rate function $R$ is not only spatially dependent, but once scaled by $T$, it becomes discontinuous at $0$ (reflected in the discontinuity of $R^*$ at $0$). Instead we are forced to use a discrete-time moment bound to show that there are many particles near one particular path---a straight line corresponding to rectangles that are roughly square---at small times, and then show that this collection of particles can ``feed'' a population at future times that is easier to control.
Another non-standard element in our proof is the appearance of the L\'evy metric. As mentioned in Section \ref{thm_sec}, since our particles take jumps whose sizes are exponentially distributed, there are (many) particles whose $T$-rescaled paths are not continuous. Indeed, every particle branches at rate at least $1$, so at time $tT$ there are at least of order $e^{tT}$ particles, and the probability that one particle performs a jump larger than $aT$---which corresponds to size $a$ in the rescaled picture---is $e^{-aT}$. Thus we expect to see many such jumps when $t>a$. (And since particles can branch faster than rate $1$, we will in fact see such jumps significantly earlier.) In order to bound the total number of particles from above, we therefore need to control particles whose paths are discontinuous; hence the appearance of the L\'evy metric.
\subsection{Growth rate in expectation}
A relatively minor modification of our proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} would yield the growth rate in expectation mentioned after the definition of $K(f)$, namely that if $F\subset E^2$ is closed then
\begin{equation}\label{expectgrowth1}
\limsup_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log \mathbb{E}[N_T(F)] \le \sup_{f\in F} \tilde K(f,0,1)
\end{equation}
and if $F\subset E^2$ is open then
\begin{equation}\label{expectgrowth2}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log \mathbb{E}[N_T(F)] \ge \sup_{f\in F} \tilde K(f,0,1).
\end{equation}
In particular one may note that there are many sets $F$ such that the expected number of particles whose rescaled paths fall within $F$ is exponentially large, since $\sup_{f\in F^\circ}\tilde K(f,0,1)>0$, and yet almost surely no particles have rescaled paths that fall within $F$, since $\sup_{f\in \bar F} K(f) = -\infty$.
In order to keep this article to a manageable length, we do not include full proofs of \eqref{expectgrowth1} and \eqref{expectgrowth2} here, although they are significantly simpler than the proofs of the upper and lower bounds in Theorem \ref{mainthm}. We will sketch the main points of the arguments in Sections \ref{mainUBproofsec} and \ref{lower_bd_sec}, shortly after the respective proofs of the upper and lower bounds in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
\subsection{Related work}
A similar model to ours has been considered by Cesana and Hambly \cite{cesana_hambly:probabilistic_martensitic}, and Ball, Cesana and Hambly \cite{ball_et_al:martensitic_avalanches}, motivated by applications to a martensitic phase transition observed in a class of elastic crystals. They consider different splitting rule variants, and work in both two and three dimensions; but rectangles always split at rates that depend only on their area, with a constant probability $p$ (or $1-p$) of splitting horizontally (or vertically), ensuring that their models, suitably transformed, fit into the framework of generalised branching random walks. They give almost sure growth rates for the number of fragments of different shapes, and, motivated by predictions from the physics literature, they study the lengths of the horizontal ``interfaces'' between fragments, obtaining that in certain cases the total number of interfaces larger than $x$ behaves like a random variable multiplied by an explicit power of $x$.
The methods seen in this paper are related to those of Berestycki \emph{et al.}~\cite{berestycki_et_al:growth_rates} on a branching Brownian motion (BBM) with inhomogeneous breeding potential. In that paper, the authors considered a BBM in $\mathbb{R}$ where a particle at position $z$ branched at infinitesimal rate $|z|^p$, for $p\in[0,2)$. Their main result was roughly analogous to ours, giving almost sure growth rates along paths, and they also gave growth rates in expectation analogous to \eqref{expectgrowth1} and \eqref{expectgrowth2}. They analysed their growth rates in some detail, giving implicit equations for the optimal paths and the location of the bulk of the population (which became explicit in the cases $p=0$ and $p=1$). This was a difficult analytic task even for the relatively simple, monotone growth rate seen in \cite{berestycki_et_al:growth_rates}. Our growth rate $K$ is much more complex and it would take a substantial amount of further work to analyse the optimal paths; in order to keep this paper to a manageable length we do not attempt this here.
There are three main difficulties in our model relative to that in \cite{berestycki_et_al:growth_rates}. Firstly, in the BBM, all particles move as standard Brownian motions, independent of their location and their branching rate, whereas in our model particles jump and branch simultaneously. Indeed, it is worth noting that if the branching Brownian motion in \cite{berestycki_et_al:growth_rates} were replaced by an analogous branching random walk, then if we started with one particle at $0$, the initial particle would never branch or move; whereas if we started with a particle at any other site, then even with bounded jump sizes, the collection of particles would colonise space dramatically faster than the BBM (subject to the initial population not returning to $0$ quickly), since a particle branching at rate $|z|^p$ would also be moving at rate $|z|^p$. This highlights the challenge of controlling the dependencies between particles' positions and the growth of the population in our model.
On top of this initial difference, our branching rate $R(z)$ is much more difficult to control than the smooth, symmetric, monotone (on each half-space) function $|z|^p$. And thirdly, our particles are able to make large jumps, meaning that standard large deviations apparatus is more difficult to apply, and we must use a non-standard topology.
Roberts and Schweinsberg \cite{roberts_schweinsberg:gaussian_BBM_inhom} also consider branching Brownian motion in an inhomogeneous potential, this time with a biological application in mind, where the position of a particle represents its fitness and fitter individuals branch more quickly. They used the tools from \cite{berestycki_et_al:growth_rates} to give a heuristic explanation of some of their results, but used a more precise truncation argument for their proofs, based on techniques from \cite{berestycki_et_al:genealogy} and \cite{berestycki_et_al:critical_bbm_absorp_sp}.
For homogeneous spatial branching processes, obtaining a full picture of the spread of the population has been a subject of interest for more than 45 years. To give just a few highlights, the position of the extremal particle in BBM was studied by McKean \cite{mckean:application_bbm_kpp} and Bramson \cite{bramson:maximal_displacement_BBM, bramson:convergence_Kol_eqn_trav_waves}, with more detailed recent studies on the behaviour near the extremal particle by A{\"\i}d{\'e}kon \emph{et.~al.}~\cite{aidekon_et_al:BBM_tip} and Arguin, Bovier and Kistler \cite{arguin_et_al:extremal_BBM}. For non-lattice branching random walks, A{\"\i}d{\'e}kon \cite{aidekon:convergence_law_min_brw} proved convergence in law for the re-centered position of the extremal particle under fairly weak conditions. Bramson, Ding and Zeitouni \cite{bramson_ding_zeitouni:convergence_nonlattice} gave a shorter proof using a second moment method and indicated that it should be possible to adapt their proof to branching random walks that take values on a lattice.
\subsection{Layout of the article}
We begin, in Sections \ref{outlinesec} and \ref{lower_bd_sec}, with outlines of the proofs of the upper and lower bounds in Theorem \ref{mainthm} respectively. In these sections we state several results that are needed for the proof of the main theorem without proving them. The proofs of these intermediate results are then given in later sections.
In Section \ref{GMTsec}, we give a full construction of our system in terms of a marked binary tree. This discrete setting is useful for decoupling some of the dependency structure between the jump times and jump sizes, and allows us to show that particles remain within some compact set with high probability, which will be an important ingredient, especially for the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
In Section \ref{small_times_sec} we aim to control the system at small times, which is a difficult task partly due to the discontinuity of $R^*$ at $0$. We again use the discrete setup described in Section \ref{GMTsec}, and use moment estimates that take advantage of the fact that our particles prefer to split along their longest edge. This work is used for the proof of the lower bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
One of the main tools in our proof is a coupling between compound Poisson processes, which we describe in Section \ref{coupling_sec} and then apply to give upper and lower bounds on the probability that a typical particle remains near a given function.
In Section \ref{finaldetailssec} we put many of the previous results together, move from lattice times to continuous time, and complete the final details of the proof of the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
In Appendix \ref{det_bds_rate} we give deterministic bounds that relate the maximum and minimum of $R$ on small balls to the value of $R^*$ at the centre of the ball, and therefore allow us to link the probabilistic estimates obtained in Section \ref{coupling_sec} to our growth rate $\tilde K$.
An elementary but somewhat intricate bound on compound Poisson processes is required in Section \ref{coupling_sec}, and we prove this in Appendix \ref{CPP_append}.
Finally, in Appendix \ref{techsec} we carry out some technical work, ensuring that our state space and our growth rate behave sensibly.
\section{Proof outline for the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}}\label{outlinesec}
Since the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} is rather long, we break it into upper and lower bounds. In this section we state a series of results that together enable us to complete the upper bound. We will then prove those results in later sections.
\subsection{Three probabilistic ingredients}\label{probabilistic_ingredients}
The first step in our proof of the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm} is to rule out certain paths that it is difficult for particles to follow, thereby reducing the paths of interest to a compact set. We define, for $M>1$,
\[G_M = \left\{f \in E : s/M \le f(s) \le Ms \,\,\forall s\in[0,1]\right\} \subset E.\]
If $f\in G_M^2$ then we say that $f$ is ``$M$-good''. We note that if $f$ is $M$-good then $R^*_X(f(s))\le M^2$ for all $s\in[0,1]$ and similarly for $R^*_Y$.
We would like to say that the rescaled paths of all particles fall within $G_M^2$ for sufficiently large $M$ , but there is a complication near $s=0$ in that particles will not jump immediately and therefore their paths will fall, however briefly, outside $G_M^2$. Expanding $G_M^2$ by any fixed distance $\varepsilon>0$ would not allow us to control the jump rate sufficiently well, and we instead define, for $M>0$ and $T>1$,
\[G_{M,T} := \left\{f \in E : s/M - 2T^{-2/3} \le f(s) \le M(s+2T^{-2/3}) \,\,\forall s\in[0,1]\right\}.\]
If $f\in G_{M,T}^2$ then we say that $f$ is ``$(M,T)$-good''. We can then show that for large $M$ all particles are $(M,T)$-good with high probability as $T\to\infty$. We note here that the choice of $-2/3$ is not essential; we could choose any power of $T$ in $(-1,-1/2)$.
\begin{lem}\label{AlwaysGMT}
There exist $M_0>1$ and $\delta_0>0$ such that for any sufficiently large $T$,
\[\P\big(\exists v\in\mathcal{N}_T : Z_v^T \not\in G_{M_0,T}^2\big) \le e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}.\]
\end{lem}
\noindent
We will prove this lemma in Section \ref{GMTsec}.
Next we give a version of the many-to-one formula, which translates expectations over all particles in our system into calculations involving just one particle. For $z_0\in[0,\infty)^2$, write $\mathbb{Q}_{z_0}$ for a probability measure under which $\xi_t$ is a Markov process living in $\mathbb{R}^2$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\xi_0=z_0$;
\item when the process is in state $z$, jumps occur at rate $2R(z)$;
\item when a jump occurs from state $z$, it is of the form $(\mathbbm{e},0)$ with probability $P(z)$ and $(0,\mathbbm{e})$ with probability $1-P(z)$, where $\mathbbm{e}$ is an independent exponentially-distributed random variable with parameter $1$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, the process under $\mathbb{Q}_{z_0}$ behaves like a single particle under $\P_{z_0}$ except that it jumps at twice the rate. We write $\mathbb{Q}_{z_0}$ both for the measure and for its corresponding expectation operator. We will often take $z_0=0$, and in this case we sometimes write $\mathbb{Q}$ rather than $\mathbb{Q}_0$.
The measure $\mathbb{Q}_{z_0}$ described above is precisely the measure $\mathbb{Q}_{z_0}^1$ that appears in \cite{harris_roberts:many_to_few}. The following result is \cite[Lemma 1]{harris_roberts:many_to_few} in the case of our model when $k=1$.
\begin{lem}[Many-to-one, Lemma 1 of \cite{harris_roberts:many_to_few} with $k=1$] \label{MtO}
Suppose that $z\in\mathbb{R}^2$ and $t\ge0$. For any measurable function $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\mathbb{E}_z \left[ \sum_{u \in \mathcal N_t} f(Z_u(t)) \right] = \mathbb{Q}_z \left[ f(\xi_t) e^{\int_0^t R(\xi_s) ds} \right].
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
This, combined with Markov's inequality, allows us to give upper bounds on the number of particles whose paths fall within a particular set $F$ simply by bounding $R(f)$ over all $f\in F$ and then estimating the probability that $\xi$ falls within $F$. Estimating this probability will be our next task, but our estimates will not be exactly in terms of the quantities $R_X^*$ and $R_Y^*$ seen in Theorem \ref{mainthm}. Instead they will involve taking the worst and best possible values of $R_X$ and $R_Y$ over small balls about appropriately chosen functions, during a small time interval. We will need several definitions. The reader may like to think of $F=B(f,\varepsilon)$ for some suitably nice function $f$ and small $\varepsilon>0$.
For a non-empty interval $I\subset [0,1]$, $F\subset E^2$ and $T\ge1$, define
\begin{equation*}
R_X^-(I,F,T) = \inf\big\{R_X(Tg(s)) : s\in I,\, g\in F\big\}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
R_X^+(I,F,T) = \sup\big\{R_X(Tg(s)) : s\in I,\, g\in F\big\},
\end{equation*}
and similarly for $R_Y^-(I,F,T)$ and $R_Y^+(I,F,T)$. These correspond to the maximal and minimal possible jump rates over the interval $I$ for particles whose $T$-rescaled paths fall within $F$. For $s\in[0,1]$, we also let
\[x^-(s,F) = \inf\{g_X(s) : g\in F\}, \hspace{4mm} x^+(s,F) = \sup\{g_X(s) : g\in F\},\]
and similarly for $y^-(s,F)$ and $y^+(s,F)$.
Writing $|I|$ for the length of $I$ and $I^-$ and $I^+$ for the infimum and supremum of $I$ respectively, say that we are in the ``$X-$ case'' if $2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I| > x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)$; and in the ``$X+$ case'' if $x^-(I^+,F) - x^+(I^-,F) > 2R^+_X(I,F,T)|I|$. Note that these two cases are mutually exclusive, and roughly correspond to whether the drift of the process on the interval $I$ multiplied by the length of the interval is larger or smaller than the distance we would like it to travel. Note also that it is possible to be in neither case. Define
\[\mathcal E^+_X(I,F,T) = \begin{cases} \Big(\sqrt{2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)}\Big)^2 & \text{in the $X-$ case;}\\
\Big(\sqrt{2R^+_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^-(I^+,F) - x^+(I^-,F)}\Big)^2 & \text{in the $X+$ case;}\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}\]
Similarly define $\mathcal E^+_Y(I,F,T)$. We note that for one function $f\in E^2$, the quantity $\mathcal E^+_X([a,b],\{f\},T) + \mathcal E^+_Y([a,b],\{f\},T)$ should be an approximation to---but a little bit bigger than---the functional $I(f,a,b)$ seen in Section \ref{intro_sec}. We similarly define a quantity that should be an approximation to $I(f,a,b)$ from below, namely
\[\mathcal E^-_X(I,F,T) = \begin{cases} \Big(\sqrt{2R^+_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^-(I^+,F) - x^+(I^-,F)}\Big)^2 & \text{in the $X-$ case;}\\
\Big(\sqrt{2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)}\Big)^2 & \text{in the $X+$ case;}\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}\]
Write $\|z_1-z_2\| = \max\{|x_1-x_2|,|y_1-y_2|\}$ when $z_i = (x_i,y_i)\in \mathbb{R}^2$ for $i=1,2$. To help us to break the time interval $[0,1]$ into smaller chunks, for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we define a new metric $\Delta_n$ on $E^2$ by
\[\Delta_{n}(f,g) := \max \left\{ \|f(i/n)- g(i/n)\| : i=0,\dots, n\right\}.\]
For $T>1$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $M>1$ and $f\in E^2$, we let
\[\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n) = B_{\Delta_n}(f,1/n^2)\cap B_d(f,1/n)\cap G_{M,T}^2\]
and for $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$, let $I_j=[j/n,(j+1)/n]$.
We also need to extend our rescaling notation to $\xi$ in the natural way. Write $\xi^T$ for the rescaled process $(\xi(sT)/T,\,s\in[0,1])$, and for $I\subset[0,1]$ write $\xi^T|_{I}$ for the restriction to $I$, $(\xi(sT)/T,\,s\in I)$. If $F\subset E^2$ and a function $f$ is defined on a subinterval $I$ of $[0,1]$---for example $\xi^T \lvert_{[0,\theta]}$ with $I=[0,\theta]$---then say that $f\in F|_I$ if there exists $g\in F$ such that $f(s)=g(s)$ for all $s\in I$.
\begin{prop}\label{Qprobcor}
Suppose that $f\in E^2$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $T>1$ and $M>1$. Then for any $\theta\in(0,1]$, $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,\lfloor\theta n\rfloor -1\}$, and $z$ such that $\|z-f(i/n)\|<1/n^2$,
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{[i/n,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{[i/n,\theta]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_{i/n}=z\big)\\
\le \exp\bigg(-T\sum_{j=i}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor-1} \big(\mathcal E^+_X(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T) + \mathcal E^+_Y(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T)\big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
\end{prop}
The proof of Proposition \ref{Qprobcor} will be the most interesting part of this paper, and involves coupling the process $\xi$ with two other processes, which---as long as $\xi$ remains within $\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)$---will stay above and below $\xi$ respectively. We carry out this part of the argument in Section \ref{coupling_sec}.
\subsection{Deterministic bounds}\label{det_bds_upper_statement}
The three results Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}, Lemma \ref{MtO} and Proposition \ref{Qprobcor} form the main part of our argument, and contain all of the probability required for the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
Our next task is to translate the quantities $\mathcal E^+_X$ and $\mathcal E^+_Y$ into the more palatable rate functions seen in our main theorem. The deterministic arguments required are not particularly interesting. It will sometimes be useful to note
that if $\int_a^b R^*(f(s)) ds<\infty$, then $\tilde K(f,a,b)$ has the following alternative representation:
\begin{multline}\label{Kalt}
\tilde K(f,a,b) = -\int_a^b R^*(f(s)) ds + 2\sqrt2\int_a^b \sqrt{R^*_X(f(s))f'_X(s)} ds + 2\sqrt2\int_a^b \sqrt{R^*_Y(f(s))f'_Y(s)} ds\\
- f_X(b) + f_X(a) - f_Y(b) + f_Y(a).
\end{multline}
This can be seen by expanding out the quadratic terms in the definition of $I(f,a,b)$ and simplifying.
Let $\PL_n$ be the subset of functions in $E$ that are linear on each interval $[i/n,(i+1)/n]$ for all $i=0,\ldots,n-1$ and continuous on $[0,1]$.
\begin{prop}\label{detboundratefn}
Suppose that $\theta\in(0,1]$, $M>1$, $n\ge 2M$ and $f\in\PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$. Then for any $k\in\{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil,\ldots,\lfloor \theta n\rfloor-1\}$,
\[\sum_{j=k}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor -1} \mathcal E^+_X(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T) \ge \int_{k/n}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R_X^*(f(s))} - \sqrt{f'_X(s)}\Big)^2 ds - O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/4}}+\frac{M^3n}{T^{1/2}}\Big).\]
\end{prop}
We do not aim to give best possible bounds on the error term. Similarly for the sum on the left-hand side, small values of $j$ give rise to larger errors, so there should be some cut-off, but the choice of $\lceil\sqrt n\rceil$ is convenient rather than optimal. We will prove Proposition \ref{detboundratefn} in Appendix \ref{dbrf_sec}.
We will also need the following bound to control the $\exp(\int_0^t R(\xi_s) ds)$ term seen in Lemma \ref{MtO}.
\begin{lem}\label{finaldetRbd}
Suppose that $\theta\in(0,1]$, $M>1$, $n\ge 2M$, $T^{2/3}\ge 3Mn^{1/2}$, $f\in G_M^2$ and $g\in\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)$. Then
\[\int_0^\theta R(Tg(s)) ds \le \int_0^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + \eta(M,n,T)\]
and for any $k\in \{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil, \lceil\sqrt n\rceil +1, \ldots, \lfloor\theta n\rfloor\}$,
\[\int_{k/n}^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds - \eta(M,n,T)\le \int_{k/n}^\theta R(Tg(s)) ds \le \int_{k/n}^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + \eta(M,n,T)\]
where
\[\eta(M,n,T) = O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/2}} + \frac{M^3n}{T^{1/3}}\Big).\]
\end{lem}
\noindent
This result will be proved in Appendix \ref{fdrsec}. Again we make little effort to make $\eta(M,n,T)$ the best possible bound.
\subsection{Completing the proof of the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}}\label{mainUBproofsec}
Recall that if $F\subset E^2$, and $g:[0,\theta]\to\mathbb{R}^2$, we say that $g\in F|_{[0,\theta]}$ if there exists a function $h\in F$ such that $h(u)=g(u)$ for all $u\in [0,\theta]$. We also generalise our rescaling notation slightly: for $t\in[0,T]$, $v\in\mathcal{N}_{t}$ and $s\in[0,t/T]$, write
\[Z_v^T(s) = Z_v(sT)/T;\]
again we call $(Z_v^T(s), s\in[0,t/T])$ the $T$-rescaled path of $v$ (previously this was only defined when $t=T$). We can then define
\[N_T(F,\theta) = \#\{v\in\mathcal{N}_{\theta T} : Z_v^T\in F|_{[0,\theta]}\},\]
the number of particles at time $\theta T$ whose $T$-rescaled paths have remained within $F$ up to time $\theta$.
\begin{prop}\label{fixedgprop}
Suppose that $M>1$, $\theta\in(0,1]$, $n\ge 2M$ and $T\ge 6M^{3/2}n^{3/4}$. Then for any $g\in G_M^2\cap \PL_n^2$ and $\kappa>0$,
\[\P\big(N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),\theta)\ge \kappa\big) \le \frac{1}{\kappa}\exp\bigg(T\tilde K\Big(g,0,\frac{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor}{n}\Big) + O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg).\]
\end{prop}
\noindent
We will prove Proposition \ref{fixedgprop}, which forms the heart of the argument to prove the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}, in Section \ref{fixedTsec}.
Our next result applies Proposition \ref{fixedgprop} to show that for $F\subset E^2$, at any large time $T$, the number of particles whose $T$-rescaled paths fall within $F$ is unlikely to be much larger than $\tilde K(f,0,1)$. Recall the definition of $M_0$ and $\delta_0$ from Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}.
\begin{prop}\label{fixedTprop}
Suppose that $F\subset E^2$ is closed and $M\ge 4M_0$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\[\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T^{1/3}}\log \P\bigg( N_T(F) \ge \exp\Big(T\sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + T\varepsilon\Big)\bigg) \le -\delta_0.\]
\end{prop}
\noindent
The proof of this result will use Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT} together with some technical lemmas to ensure that we can cover $F$ with finitely many small balls around piecewise linear functions, and then apply Proposition \ref{fixedgprop}. The proof is also in Section \ref{fixedTsec}.
There are many paths $f$ that satisfy $K(f)=-\infty$ but $\tilde K(f,0,1)>0$. These are paths where there exists $\theta\in(0,1)$ such that $\tilde K(f,0,\theta)<0$, and therefore the population of particles whose rescaled paths are near $f$ becomes extinct around time $\theta T$. Since a population cannot recover once it becomes extinct, no particles follow such paths up to time $T$ even though the expected growth by the end of the path, $\tilde K(f,0,1)$, can be positive. For sets $F$ that only contain such paths, Proposition \ref{fixedTprop} does not provide a useful bound, and we therefore need a slightly different approach.
\begin{lem}\label{supKnull}
If $F\subset E^2$ is closed and $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = -\infty$, then
\[\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T^{1/3}}\log \P\big( N_T(F) \ge 1\big) \le -\delta_0.\]
\end{lem}
\noindent
The proof of Lemma \ref{supKnull} is in Section \ref{sKn_sec}. We can then upgrade Proposition \ref{fixedTprop} and Lemma \ref{supKnull}, which are both statements about a particular large time $T$, to get the same result at \emph{all} large times simultaneously.
\begin{prop}\label{thetaUBprop}
Suppose that $F\subset E^2$ is closed and $M\ge 4M_0$. Then
\[\limsup_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log N_T(F)\le \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1)\]
almost surely. If moreover $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = -\infty$, then $\limsup_{T\to\infty} N_T(F) = 0$ almost surely.
\end{prop}
\noindent
The proof of this result will appear in Section \ref{tUBsec}. We can now complete the proof of the upper bound in our main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}: upper bound]
Since $K(f)\in\{-\infty\}\cup[0,\infty)$, if $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)<0$ then we must have $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)=-\infty$. In this case the second part of Proposition \ref{thetaUBprop} tells us that almost surely, $N_T(F)=0$ for all large $T$, and therefore $\lim_{T\to\infty}\log N_T(F) = -\infty$. On the other hand if $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) > 0$ then we have
\[\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = \sup_{f\in F} \tilde K(f,0,1),\]
and then applying the first part of Proposition \ref{thetaUBprop} tells us that
\[\limsup_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\log N_T(F)\le \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in F} \tilde K(f,0,1) = \sup_{f\in F} K(f)\]
almost surely, and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof of \eqref{expectgrowth1}]
The upper bound in expectation \eqref{expectgrowth1} follows more or less directly from estimates derived above. In particular, much of the proof of Proposition \ref{fixedgprop} involves bounding $\mathbb{E}[N_T(F)]$ from above when $F$ is a small ball around a suitably nice function. From there it is a relatively simple task, similarly to the proof of Proposition \ref{fixedTprop}, to apply Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT} to reduce $F$ to a compact set, Lemma \ref{coverGMT} to cover this set with finitely many balls around suitably nice functions, and Corollary \ref{uppersemictscor} to check that the resulting bound does not significantly overshoot \eqref{expectgrowth1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof outline for the lower bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}}\label{lower_bd_sec}
Let $\rho$ be the metric defined by
\[\rho(f,g) = \sup_{s\in[0,1]} \|f(s)-g(s)\| = \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\big\{|f_X(s)-g_X(s)|\vee |f_Y(s)-g_Y(s)|\big\}.\]
Rather than the set $\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)$ seen in the proof of the upper bound, for the lower bound we will instead often use the set
\[\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n) = B_\rho(f,1/n^2)\cap G_{M,T}^2.\]
For $F\subset E^2$ and $T>0$, recall that
\[N_T(F) = \#\{u\in \mathcal{N}_{T} : Z_u^T \in F\},\]
and for $t\in[0,1]$ and $u\in\mathcal{N}_{tT}$, define
\begin{equation}\label{NtTunotation}
N_{t,T}^u(F) = \#\{v\in \mathcal{N}_{T} : u\le v,\, Z_v^T|_{[t,1]} \in F|_{[t,1]}\}.
\end{equation}
Also let $(\mathcal{F}_t, t\ge0)$ be the natural filtration for the process.
The main part of our proof relies on a standard second moment argument, and Propositions \ref{1mlbprop} and \ref{2mubprop} give the first and second moment bounds necessary to carry out that argument. However, this strategy on its own cannot give strong enough estimates to be able to prove an almost sure statement, as required for Theorem \ref{mainthm}. We therefore give bounds conditionally given $\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}$ for $\sqrt n < k \ll n$, with the aim of using the branching structure at time $kT/n$ to increase the accuracy of our estimates.
\begin{prop}\label{1mlbprop}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 6M$, $\sqrt n\le k\le n$, $T \ge 27M^{3/2}n^{9/2}$ and $f\in \PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$. Suppose also that $u\in\mathcal{N}_{kT/n}$ satisfies $\|Z_u^T(k/n) - f(k/n)\|\le \frac{1}{2n^2}$. Then
\[\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big] \ge \exp\Big(T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) - O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 nT^{2/3}\Big)\Big).\]
\end{prop}
We will prove Proposition \ref{1mlbprop} in Section \ref{1mlbsec}.
\begin{prop}\label{2mubprop}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 6M$, $\sqrt n\le k\le n$, $T\ge 27 M^{3/2} n^{9/2}$ and $f\in PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$. Suppose also that $u\in\mathcal{N}_{kT/n}$ satisfies $\|Z_u^T(k/n) - f(k/n)\| < \frac{1}{n^2}$. Then
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))^2\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big]\\
\le \int_{k T/n}^T \exp\big(- T\tilde K(f,k/n,t/T)\big) dt \cdot 12M^2n\exp\bigg(2T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg)\\
+ \exp\bigg(T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
\end{prop}
We will prove Proposition \ref{2mubprop} in Section \ref{2mubsec}. We now use a standard second moment method to turn Propositions \ref{1mlbprop} and \ref{2mubprop} into a lower bound on the probability that the number of particles whose rescaled paths remain near $f$ is roughly $\tilde K(f,k/n,1)T$, again conditionally on $\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}$.
\begin{cor}\label{PZcor}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 6M$, $k\ge\sqrt n$, $T \ge 27M^{3/2}n^{9/2}$ and $f\in PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$. Suppose also that $u\in\mathcal{N}_{kT/n}$ satisfies $\|Z_u^T(k/n) - f(k/n)\|\le \frac{1}{2n^2}$, and that $\tilde K(f,k/n,t)\ge 0$ for all $t\ge k/n$. Then
\[\P\big(N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)) \ge e^{T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) - O(M^4T/n^{1/4} + M^3 n T^{2/3})}\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big) \ge e^{-O(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3})}.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The Paley-Zygmund inequality says that, for any non-negative random variable $X$ and $\theta\in[0,1]$,
\[P\big(X\ge \theta E[X]\big) \ge (1-\theta)^2\frac{E[X]^2}{E[X^2]}.\]
Taking $P$ to be the conditional probability measure $\P(\,\cdot\, |\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n})$ with $X = N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))$ and $\theta=1/2$, we have
\begin{multline}\label{PZconsequence}
\P\big(N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)) \ge (1/2)\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big]\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big)\\
\ge \frac{\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big]^2}{4\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))^2\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big]}.
\end{multline}
Proposition \ref{1mlbprop} tells us that
\[\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big] \ge \exp\Big(T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) - O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 nT^{2/3}\Big)\Big)\]
and Proposition \ref{2mubprop} gives
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))^2\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big]\\
\le \int_{k T/n}^T \exp\big(- T\tilde K(f,k/n,t/T)\big) dt \cdot 12M^2n\exp\bigg(2T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg)\\
+ \exp\bigg(T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
and since $\tilde K(f,k/n,t)\ge 0$ for all $t\ge k/n$, this reduces to
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\big[N_{k/n,T}^u(\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n))^2\,\big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\big] &\le 12M^2 n T \exp\bigg(2T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg)\\
&= \exp\bigg(2T\tilde K(f,k/n,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg).
\end{align*}
Substituting these estimates into \eqref{PZconsequence} gives the result.
\end{proof}
By Corollary \ref{PZcor}, each particle near $f(kT/n)$ at time $kT/n$ has a not-too-small probability of having roughly $\exp (\tilde K(f,k/n,1)T)$ descendants whose rescaled paths remain near $f$ up to time $1$. If we can ensure that there is a reasonably large number of particles near $f(kT/n)$ at time $kT/n$, then subject to some technicalities (for example Corollary \ref{PZcor} assumes that $f$ is piecewise linear, whereas there is no such condition in Theorem \ref{mainthm}) we will be able to prove the lower bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
The discontinuity of $R^*$ at $0$ makes controlling the growth of the system at small times difficult. The first few particles in the system can have wildly different values of $R$ in different realisations of the process, and it is not \emph{a priori} clear that this cannot have a large effect on the long-term evolution of the system. Our method for showing that particles do in fact spread out in a predictable way is the following. First we show that there are many particles near the line $(s/2,s/2)$ at time $s$, for suitable values of $s$. The idea is that our jump distribution prefers to create ``almost square'' rectangles (since rectangles are more likely to break along their longest side) and therefore we should see many particles near $(s/2,s/2)$. However, since particles away from this line branch and jump more quickly, we use a discrete-time argument to keep control of the dependence between the jump locations and the jump times. A rough estimate using moments in discrete time can then be translated back into continuous time, giving the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{ctssquareprop}
Define
\[V'_{n,T} = \{u\in\mathcal N_{\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n} : \|Z_u(s) - (s/2,s/2)\|\le \sfrac{T}{2n^2} \,\,\forall s\le \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n\}.\]
There exists a finite constant $C$ such that for any $T\ge Cn^{48}$,
\[\P\big(|V'_{n,T}| < 2^{T/n^{1/8} - 2T/n^2}\big) \le 1/T^{3/2}.\]
\end{prop}
We will prove this result in Section \ref{ctssquaresec}. The choice of $\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil$ is somewhat arbitrary, but ensures that there are enough particles at time $\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n$ to outweigh the error arising from Corollary \ref{PZcor}. The bound of $1/T^{3/2}$ is not the best possible, but is enough to use a Borel-Cantelli argument at the end of the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}. The requirement that $T\ge Cn^{48}$ is also certainly not optimal, but since we will take $T\to\infty$, it is sufficient for our needs.
Once we have shown that there are particles near $(s/2,s/2)$ at small times $s$, then we need to show that these particles ``feed'' other directions $(\lambda s',\mu s')$ for suitable $\lambda$ and $\mu$ and $s'>s$. Given $f\in G_M^2$, we will construct a function $h$ that begins by moving along the line $(s/2,s/2)$, so that we can guarantee large numbers of particles near $h$ at small times using Proposition \ref{ctssquareprop}, but which then gradually changes its gradient to be closer and closer to our given function $f$. At the same time we will ensure that $h$ is piecewise linear, so that we can then use Corollary \ref{PZcor} to ensure appropriate growth of particles along the whole path $h$. We then show that for $k=\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil < nt$ we have $\tilde K(h,k/n,t) \approx \tilde K(f,k/n,t)$. This is part of Proposition \ref{hfmnprop} below, which will be proved in Section \ref{hfmnsec}.
\begin{prop}\label{hfmnprop}
Suppose that $f\in G_M^2$ satisfies $\frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} > 0$ and $\tilde K(f,0,t)>0$ for all $t\in(0,1]$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists $h_{f,n}\in E^2$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{hfmnprop0}
h_{f,n}(s)=(s/2,s/2) \,\,\,\,\text{ for all } s \le \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n
\end{equation}
and if $n$ is sufficiently large,
\begin{equation}\label{hfmnprop1}
h_{f,n}\in\PL_n^2\cap G_M^2\cap B(f,\varepsilon),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{hfmnprop2}
\tilde K(h_{f,n},\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n,s)>0 \,\,\,\,\text{ for all } s\in(\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n,1]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{hfmnprop3}
\tilde K(h_{f,n},\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n,1)\ge \tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
We will prove this in Section \ref{hfmnsec}. We are now able to finish the proof of our main result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}: lower bound]
Fix $\varepsilon>0$. Recall $M_0$ from Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}. Since $K(f)\in\{-\infty\}\cup[0,\infty)$, if $\sup_{f\in F} K(f)\le 0$ then there is nothing to prove. We therefore assume that there exists $f \in F$ with $K(f)>0$. In this case, since $F$ is open and all functions $f$ with $K(f)>0$ are in $G_M^2$ for some $M$, we can choose $M\ge M_0$, $\varepsilon'>0$ and $f\in G_M^2$ such that $B(f,2\varepsilon')\subset F$ and
\[K(f) \ge \max\Big\{ \sup_{g\in F} K(g)-\varepsilon, \, \frac{1}{2}\sup_{g\in F} K(g) \Big\} > 0.\]
Since $K(f)>0$, we have $\frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} > 0$ and $\tilde K(f,0,t)>0$ for all $t\in(0,1]$. Therefore by Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}, for all sufficiently large $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the function $h_{f,n}$ satisfies \eqref{hfmnprop1}, \eqref{hfmnprop2} and \eqref{hfmnprop3} with $\min\{\varepsilon/2,\varepsilon'/2\}$ in place of $\varepsilon$.
Take $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and write $k=\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil$. From Proposition \ref{ctssquareprop}, if we define
\[V'_{n,T} = \big\{u\in\mathcal N_{kT/n} : \|Z_u(s) - (s/2,s/2)\|\le \sfrac{T}{2n^2} \,\,\,\forall s\le kT/n\big\},\]
then for $T\ge Cn^{48}$ and $C$ large, we have $\P(|V'_{n,T}| \ge 2^{T/n^{1/8}-2T/n^2})\ge 1- 1/T^{3/2}$.
Since $h_{f,n}$ satisfies \eqref{hfmnprop1}, \eqref{hfmnprop2} and \eqref{hfmnprop3} with $\min\{\varepsilon/2,\varepsilon'/2\}$ in place of $\varepsilon$,
\begin{align*}
\P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big) &\le \P\big(N_T(B(h_{f,n},\varepsilon'/2))<e^{(\tilde K(h_{f,n},k/n,1)-\varepsilon/2)T}\big)\\
&\le \mathbb{E}\Big[\P\Big(N_T(B(h_{f,n},\varepsilon'/2))<e^{(\tilde K(h_{f,n},k/n,1)-\varepsilon/2)T}\,\Big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Big)\Big].
\end{align*}
Recalling the notation \eqref{NtTunotation}, note that if $u\in V'_{n,T}$ and $N^u_{k/n,T}(\Lambda_{3M,T}(h_{f,n},n)) \ge r$, and $n$ is sufficiently large, then $N_T(B(h_{f,n},\varepsilon'/2))\ge r$, for any $r\ge 0$. Indeed if $u \in V'_{n,T}$ and $u \le v$ is such that $Z_v^T\lvert_{[k/n,1]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(h_{f,n},n)\lvert_{[k/n,1]}$ then using \eqref{hfmnprop0}
\[ \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \big\| Z_v^T(s)-h_{f,n}(s) \big\| \le \sup_{s \in [0,k/n]} \big\| Z_u^T(s)-(s/2,s/2) \big\| + \sup_{s \in [k/n,1]} \big\| Z_v^T(s)-h_{f,n}(s) \big\| \le \frac{1}{2n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}, \]
so $Z_v^T \in B(h_{f,n}, \varepsilon'/2)$ when $n$ is large. Thus
\begin{multline}\label{produVprime}
\P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big)\\
\le \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\prod_{u\in V'_{n,T}}\P\Big(N^u_{k/n,T}(\Lambda_{3M,T}(h_{f,n},n))<e^{(\tilde K(h_{f,n},k/n,1)-\varepsilon/2)T}\,\Big|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Big)\Bigg].
\end{multline}
For $n$ and $T$ sufficiently large, we check that we may apply Corollary \ref{PZcor}: indeed, by \eqref{hfmnprop2}, we have $\tilde K(h_{f,n},k/n,t)\ge 0$ for all $t\ge k/n$, and for $u\in V'_{n,T}$ we have
\[\|Z_u^T(k/n) - h_{f,n}(k/n)\| = \frac{1}{T}\big\|Z_u(kT/n) - (\sfrac{kT}{2n},\sfrac{kT}{2n})\big\| \le \frac{1}{2n^2}.\]
Thus, applying Corollary \ref{PZcor} to bound the conditional probability in \eqref{produVprime} from above, we obtain that
\[\P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big) \le \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\prod_{u\in V'_{n,T}}\Big(1-e^{-O(M^4 T/n^{1/4} + M^3 n T^{2/3})}\Big)\Bigg].\]
Recalling that $|V'_{n,T}|\ge 2^{T/n^{1/8}-2T/n^2}$ with probability at least $1-1/T^{3/2}$, we get
\[\P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big) \le \big(1-e^{-O(M^4 T/n^{1/4} + M^3 n T^{2/3})}\big)^{2^{T/n^{1/8}-2T/n^2}} + 1/T^{3/2}\]
and using that $1-x\le e^{-x}$ for all $x$,
\begin{equation}\label{mainlbprobT}
\P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big) \le \exp\big(-2^{T/n^{1/8}-2T/n^2}e^{-O(M^4 T/n^{1/4} + M^3 n T^{2/3})}\big) + 1/T^{3/2}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{rescalingcts} with $s=T$, for $T\ge 3M$, whenever $t-1\le T\le t$ we have
\[N_T(B(f,\varepsilon')\cap G_{M,T}^2) \le N_t(B(f,\varepsilon'+6M/t))\]
and therefore if $T\ge 6M/\varepsilon'$, then we have
\[N_T(B(f,\varepsilon')\cap G_{M,T}^2) \le \inf_{t\in[T,T+1]} N_t(B(f,2\varepsilon')).\]
Thus
\begin{align*}
&\P\Big(\inf_{t\in[T,T+1]} N_t(B(f,2\varepsilon'))e^{-(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)t}<1\Big)\\
&\hspace{40mm}\le \P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon')\cap G_{M,T}^2)<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big)\\
&\hspace{40mm}\le \P\big(N_T(B(f,\varepsilon'))<e^{(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)T}\big) + \P\big(N_T((G_{M,T}^2)^c) \ge 1\big).
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}, since $M\ge M_0$, the last term is at most $e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}$, and then applying \eqref{mainlbprobT}, we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\P\Big(\inf_{t\in[T,T+1]} N_t(B(f,2\varepsilon'))e^{-(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)t} < 1\Big)\\
\le \exp(-2^{T/n^{1/8}}e^{-O(M^4 T/n^{1/4} + M^3 n T^{2/3})}) + \frac{1}{T^{3/2}} + e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}.
\end{multline*}
Taking $n$ large enough that the $2^{T/n^{1/8}}$ term dominates the exponent when $T$ is large, we see that this is summable in $T$, and therefore by the Borel-Cantelli lemma,
\[\P\Big(\liminf_{t\to\infty} N_t(B(f,2\varepsilon')) e^{-(\tilde K(f,0,1)-\varepsilon)t} < 1 \Big) = 0.\]
Since $B(f,2\varepsilon')\subset F$ and $\tilde K(f,0,1) = K(f) \ge \sup_{g\in F}K(g) - \varepsilon$, the statement of the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof of \eqref{expectgrowth2}]
Proving the lower bound in expectation \eqref{expectgrowth2} involves slightly more work than the upper bound \eqref{expectgrowth1}. Proposition \ref{hfmnprop} creates a function that approximates a given $f$ for much of its path, but begins by following the lead diagonal $(s/2,s/2)$ for a short period. Unfortunately it is designed to work for functions $f$ that satisfy $\frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} > 0$ and $\tilde K(f,0,s)>0$ for all $s\in(0,1]$. To prove \eqref{expectgrowth2} we cannot make these assumptions on $f$, but can instead take a simpler approach than Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}. We define a function $\hat h_{f,n}$ that follows the lead diagonal $(s/2,s/2)$ until time $\lceil \sqrt n\rceil/n$, then satisfies
\[\hat h_{f,n}(j/n) = \Big(\frac{\lceil \sqrt n\rceil}{2n},\frac{\lceil \sqrt n\rceil}{2n}\Big) + f(j/n) - f(\lceil \sqrt n\rceil/n)\]
for every $j\in\{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil, \ldots, n\}$, and interpolates linearly between these values. Following a similar proof to that of Proposition \ref{lowersemicts}, one can show that
\[\liminf_{n\to\infty} \tilde K(\hat h_{f,n},0,1) \ge \tilde K(f,0,1),\]
and then combining Propositions \ref{1mlbprop} and \ref{ctssquareprop} yields \eqref{expectgrowth2}.
\end{proof}
In the proofs of the results above, it will be useful several times to note that since, for any $f$, $n$, $M$ and $T$,
\begin{equation}\label{LambdaGamma}
\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n) \subset \Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}\label{Rtrap}
R_X^-(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T) \le R_X^-(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) \le R_X^+(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) \le R_X^+(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T)
\end{equation}
and therefore by \eqref{detRbdeq}, if $M,T>1$, $n\ge 2M$, $f\in G_M^2$, $j\ge n^{1/2}$ and $s\in I_j$,
\begin{equation}\label{Rtrap2}
R_X^+(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) - \delta_{M,T}(j,n) \le R_X^*(f(s)) \le R_X^-(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) + \delta_{M,T}(j,n).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Lower bound on the first moment: proof of Proposition \ref{1mlbprop}}\label{1mlbsec}
Our aim in this section is to outline a proof of Proposition \ref{1mlbprop}. Fix $f$ as in the statement of the proposition. Let $\mathcal Z_0 = \{(0,0)\}$ and, for $j\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$, define
\[\mathcal Z_j = \{z\in[0,\infty)^2 : \|z-f(j/n)\|\le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}\}.\]
Lemma \ref{MtO} combined with Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd} will reduce the problem to bounding
\[\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\]
for $w\in\mathcal Z_k$, so we concentrate on estimating this quantity.
Fix $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $M,T>1$, and consider $f\in\PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$ and $j\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$. We will use the coupling mentioned in Section \ref{probabilistic_ingredients}, with details given in Section \ref{coupling_sec}. We will apply this coupling with $I=I_j$ and $F=\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)$. Define
\begin{align*}
&q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\\
&= Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T}\Big(\big|X_-(s)- f_X(s)\big| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \,\,\forall s\in I_j,\, \big|X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}, \, X_-|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}|_{I_j}\hspace{-0.5mm}\Big)
\end{align*}
and
\[\hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) = Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T}\Big( X_+(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) =0\Big)\]
and similarly for $q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)$ and $\hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)$.
\begin{lem}\label{BigQtolittleqprod}
Suppose that $n\ge 3$, $f\in\PL_n^2$ and $T>1$. Then for any $k\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $w\in\mathcal Z_k$,
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\\
\ge \prod_{j=k}^{n-1} \inf_{z\in\mathcal Z_j} q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f).
\end{multline*}
\end{lem}
We carry out the proof of Lemma \ref{BigQtolittleqprod}, which consists of applying the properties of the coupling defined in Section \ref{CPP_sec}. We then need to bound the terms on the right-hand side. Bounding the $\hat q$ terms is fairly straightforward.
\begin{lem}\label{qhatlb}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 2M$, $T>1$ and $f\in \PL_n^2 \cap G_M^2$. Then for any $k\ge\lceil n^{1/2}\rceil$,
\[\prod_{j=k}^{n-1} \inf_{z\in\mathcal Z_j} \hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) \hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\Big(-O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/2}} + M^3 n\Big)\Big).\]
\end{lem}
Again we will prove Lemma \ref{qhatlb} in Section \ref{CPP_sec}. Bounding the $q$ terms is much more delicate. In the following lemma, the precise form of $\Delta(j)$ is not important; we consider it a small term.
\begin{lem}\label{qlblem}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 2M$, $T>8n^{9/2}M^{3/2}$ and $f\in \PL_n^2 \cap G_M^2$. Then for any $j\in\{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $z=(x,y)\in\mathcal Z_j$,
\[q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\Big(-T\int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))}-\sqrt{f'_X(s)}\Big)^2 ds - T\Delta(j)\Big)\]
where
\[\Delta(j) = \frac{2(M+1)}{n^{3/2}} + \frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}\]
and $\delta_{M,T}(j,n)$ is defined in Lemma \ref{detRbd}.
\end{lem}
We again delay the proof of Lemma \ref{qlblem} to Section \ref{CPP_sec}. Putting the above ingredients together and bounding $\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n}^{n-1}\Delta(j)$ gives us our main bound, which we now state.
\begin{prop}\label{Qlbprop}
Suppose that $M>1$, $n\ge 2M$, $T>8n^{9/2}M^{3/2}$ and $f\in\PL_n^2\cap G_M^2$. Then for any $k\ge \lceil\sqrt n\rceil$ and $w\in\mathcal Z_{k}$,
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\\
\ge \exp\bigg( -TI(f,k/n,1) - O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 n T^{1/2}\Big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Combining Lemmas \ref{BigQtolittleqprod}, \ref{qhatlb} and \ref{qlblem}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\\
\ge \exp\bigg( -TI(f,k/n,1) - 2T\sum_{j=k}^{n-1}\Delta(j) - O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/2}} + M^3 n\Big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
Recall that
\[\Delta(j) = \frac{2(M+1)}{n^{3/2}} + \frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n} + \sqrt{\frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n}\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}.\]
By \eqref{sumdeltaeq},
\[\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1}\frac{\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n} = O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/2}}+\frac{M^3 n}{T}\Big).\]
By Cauchy-Schwarz,
\[\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1} \sqrt{\frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n}\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)} \le \bigg(\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1} \frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n}\sum_{i=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1} \big(f_X(\sfrac{i+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{i}{n})\big)\bigg)^{1/2}.\]
Using \eqref{sumdeltaeq} again, together with the fact that $f\in G_M^2$, and that $\sqrt{a+b}\le\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}$ for $a,b\ge 0$, we have
\[\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sqrt{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)} = O\Big(\frac{M^2}{n^{1/4}} + \frac{M^{3/2}n^{1/2}}{T^{1/2}}\Big)M^{1/2} = O\Big(\frac{M^{5/2}}{n^{1/4}} + \frac{M^2n^{1/2}}{T^{1/2}}\Big).\]
Therefore
\[\sum_{j=k}^{n-1} \Delta(j) \le \sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{n-1} \Delta(j) = O\Big(\frac{M}{n^{1/2}} + \frac{M^4}{n^{1/2}}+\frac{M^3 n}{T} + \frac{M^{5/2}}{n^{1/4}} + \frac{M^2n^{1/2}}{T^{1/2}}\Big).\]
Combining error terms gives the result.
\end{proof}
As promised, we can now easily prove Proposition \ref{1mlbprop}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{1mlbprop}]
For $u \in \mathcal{N}_{kT/n}$, let $\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}$ be the set of descendants of $u$ in $\mathcal{N}_T$. Since $u \in \mathcal{N}_{kT/n}$, by the Markov property and Lemma \ref{MtO}, for any $k\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$,
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}\,\Bigg|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Bigg]\\
= \mathbb{Q}\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\{\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}e^{\int_{kT/n}^T R(\xi_s)ds} \,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n)=w \Big]\Big|_{w=Z_u^T(k/n)}.
\end{multline*}
Now, since $k\ge \lceil\sqrt n\rceil$ and $f\in G^2_M\subset G^2_{3M}$, by \eqref{LambdaGamma} and Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd}, if $\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}$, then
\[\int_{kT/n}^T R(\xi_s)ds = T\int_{k/n}^1 R(T\xi^T(s)) ds \ge T\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds - T\eta(3M,n,T),\]
and therefore
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}\,\Bigg|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Bigg]\\
\ge e^{T\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds - T\eta(3M,n,T)}\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]} \,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n)=w \Big)\Big|_{w=Z_u^T(k/n)}.
\end{multline*}
We also know from Proposition \ref{Qlbprop} that if $w\in\mathcal Z_{k}$, then
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\\
\ge \exp\bigg( -TI(f,k/n,1) - O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 nT^{1/2}\Big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
Combining these estimates and recalling that $\eta(3M,n,T)=O(M^4n^{-1/2} + M^3nT^{-1/3})$ gives the result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Upper bound on the second moment: proof of Proposition \ref{2mubprop}}\label{2mubsec}
For our first moment bounds we used the many-to-one lemma, Lemma \ref{MtO}, which gives a method for calculating expectations of sums over all the particles in our population at a fixed time. For our second moment bound, we will need an analogue for calculating expectations of squares of sums over particles. This will involve another measure $\mathbb{Q}^2$, whose description is again adapted from \cite{harris_roberts:many_to_few}, this time in the case $k=2$.
Let $\mathbb{Q}^2$ be a probability measure under which $\xi^1_t$ and $\xi^2_t$ are Markov processes each living in $\mathbb{R}^2$ constructed in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item Take an exponential random variable $\mathbbm{e}$ of parameter $1$.
\item Let $(\chi_t,t\ge0)$ be a pure jump Markov process in $\mathbb{R}^2$ independent of $\mathbbm{e}$ such that $\chi_0=0$ and when $\chi_t$ is in state $z$, jumps occur at rate $2R(z)$. When there is a jump from state $z$, it is of the form $(\mathcal{E},0)$ with probability $P(z)$ and $(0,\mathcal{E})$ with probability $1-P(z)$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is an independent exponentially-distributed random variable with parameter 1.
\item Let $\tau = \inf\{t>0 : \int_0^t 2R(\chi_s) ds > \mathbbm{e}\}$.
\item Let $\xi^1_t = \xi^2_t = \chi_t$ for $t<\tau$.
\item Let $\xi^1_\tau$ equal $\chi_\tau$ plus a jump of the form $(-\log\mathcal{U},0)$ with probability $P(\chi_\tau)$ and $(0,-\log\mathcal{U})$ with probability $1-P(\chi_\tau)$, where $\mathcal{U}$ is an independent uniformly distributed random variable on $(0,1)$; let $\xi^2_\tau$ equal $\chi_\tau$ plus either $(-\log(1-\mathcal{U}),0)$ or $(0,-\log(1-\mathcal{U}))$ respectively.
\item Conditionally on $\tau$, $(\xi_t^1)_{t\le \tau}$ and $(\xi_t^2)_{t\le\tau}$, the processes $(\xi_{\tau+t}^1, t\ge 0)$ and $(\xi_{\tau+t}^2, t\ge 0)$ behave independently as if under $\mathbb{Q}_{\xi_\tau^1}$ and $\mathbb{Q}_{\xi_\tau^2}$ respectively.
\end{itemize}
We write $\mathbb{Q}^2$ both for the measure and for its corresponding expectation operator.
\begin{lem}[Many-to-two, Lemma 1 of \cite{harris_roberts:many_to_few} with $k=2$] \label{mt2}
Suppose that $t\ge0$. For any measurable function $f:(\mathbb{R}^2)^2\to\mathbb{R}$,
\[\mathbb{E} \Bigg[ \sum_{u_1, u_2 \in \mathcal{N}_t} f(Z_{u_1}(t), Z_{u_2}(t)) \Bigg] = \mathbb{Q}^2 \left[ f(\xi_t^1, \xi_t^2) e^{3 \int_0^{\tau \wedge t} R(\xi^1_s) ds +\int_{\tau \wedge t}^t R(\xi^1_s) ds + \int_{\tau \wedge t}^t R(\xi^2_s) ds} \right].\]
\end{lem}
In fact, by using the description of $\mathbb{Q}^2$ above, the key to the second moment bound will be to estimate terms of the form
\[\mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{[a,b]}\in\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{[a,b]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_a=z\big)\]
where $\mathbb{Q}=\mathbb{Q}_0$ is the measure seen in Section \ref{probabilistic_ingredients}. The same coupling used for Proposition \ref{Qprobcor} will yield the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{Qprobcor2}
Suppose that $f\in E^2$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $T>1$ and $M>1$. Then for any $0\le a<b\le 1$ and $z$ such that $\|z-f(a)\|<1/n^2$,
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{[a,b]}\in\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{[a,b]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_a=z\big)\\
\le \exp\bigg(-T\sum_{j=\lfloor an\rfloor}^{\lceil bn\rceil-1} \big(\mathcal E^+_X(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) + \mathcal E^+_Y(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T)\big)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
\end{prop}
We postpone the details of the proof to Section \ref{coupling_sec}. We then need to relate the right-hand side in Proposition \ref{Qprobcor2} to our rate function, in the form of the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{Esum2mlb}
Suppose that $M,T>1$, $n\ge 2M$ and $f\in PL_n^2 \cap G_M^2$. Then for any $a,b$ such that $\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n\le a<b\le 1$,
\[\sum_{j=\lfloor an\rfloor}^{\lceil bn\rceil -1} \Big(\mathcal E_X^+(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T)+\mathcal E_Y^+(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T)\Big) \ge I(f,a,b) - O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/4}}+\frac{M^3 n}{T^{1/2}}\Big).\]
\end{lem}
The proof of Lemma \ref{Esum2mlb} is similar to the deterministic bounds required for the upper bound in Section \ref{det_bds_upper_statement}, but also uses the uniform structure of $\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)$ and therefore requires slightly different estimates. We carry this out in Appendix \ref{det_bds_rate_2}, and for now continue to the proof of Proposition \ref{2mubprop}. The proof is fairly long, but uses only the ingredients above together with bounds already developed for the upper bound on the first moment.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{2mubprop}]
Recall the construction of $\mathbb{Q}^2$ together with the Markov processes $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$ above. For $s\ge 0$ and $T>0$, write $\xi^{1,T}_s = \xi^1_{sT}/T$ and $\xi^{2,T}_s = \xi^2_{sT}/T$. For $i=1,2$, define the event
\[\mathcal B_i = \{\xi^{i,T}|_{[k/n,1]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}\]
and for the single spine $\xi$ defined under $\mathbb{Q}$, define
\[\mathcal B(a,b) = \{\xi^T|_{[a,b]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[a,b]}\}\]
By Lemma \ref{mt2},
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\Bigg(\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[k/n,1]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}\Bigg)^2\,\Bigg|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Bigg]\\
= \mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2} e^{3\int_{kT/n}^{T\wedge \tau} R(\xi^1_s)ds + \int_{T\wedge\tau}^T R(\xi^1_s)ds + \int_{T\wedge\tau}^T R(\xi^2_s)ds} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big]\Big|_{z=Z_u(kT/n)/T}.
\end{multline*}
From the construction of $\mathbb{Q}^2$ before Lemma \ref{mt2}, it is clear that $\tau$ has a density, and that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2} e^{3\int_{kT/n}^{T\wedge \tau} R(\xi^1_s)ds + \int_{T\wedge\tau}^T R(\xi^1_s)ds + \int_{T\wedge\tau}^T R(\xi^2_s)ds} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big]\\
&\le \int_{kT/n}^T \mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2\cap\{\tau\in dt\}} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big] \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3\int_{kT/n}^t R(Tg(s/T))ds + 2\int_t^T R(Tg(s/T))ds}\\
& \hspace{20mm} + \mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2\cap\{\tau>T\}} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big] \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3\int_{kT/n}^T R(Tg(s/T))ds}.
\end{align*}
It also follows from the construction of $\mathbb{Q}^2$ before Lemma \ref{mt2} that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2\cap\{\tau\in dt\}} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big]\\
&\le \mathbb{Q}\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B(k/n,t/T)} 2R(\xi_t)e^{-2\int_{kT/n}^t R(\xi_s)ds}dt\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big] \sup_{\|w-f(t/T)\|<1/n^2} \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(t/T,1)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{t/T}=w\Big)^2\\
&\le \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(k/n,t/T) \,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big)\sup_{\|w-f(t/T)\|<1/n^2} \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(t/T,1)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{t/T}=w\Big)^2\\
&\hspace{70mm}\cdot \sup_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} 2R(Th(t/T))e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Th(s))ds}
\end{align*}
and that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{Q}^2\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B_1\cap\mathcal B_2\cap\{\tau>T\}} \,\Big|\, \tau>\sfrac{kT}{n},\, \xi^{1,T}_{k/n} = z\Big]\\
&\hspace{25mm}= \mathbb{Q}\Big[\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal B(k/n,1)}e^{-2\int_{kT/n}^T R(\xi_s)ds}\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big]\\
&\hspace{25mm}\le \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(k/n,1)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big) \sup_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^1 R(Th(s))ds}.
\end{align*}
Combining these bounds, we have shown that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\Bigg(\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[k/n,1]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}\Bigg)^2\,\Bigg|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&\le \int_{kT/n}^T \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(k/n,t/T)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big)\Big|_{z=Z_u(kT/n)/T} \cdot \sup_{\|w-f(t/T)\|<1/n^2} \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(t/T,1)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{t/T}=w\Big)^2\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}\cdot \sup_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} 2R(Th(t/T))e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Th(s))ds} \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3T\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Tg(s))ds + 2T\int_{t/T}^1 R(Tg(s))ds}dt\nonumber\\
& \hspace{5mm} + \mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(k/n,1)\,\Big|\,\xi^T_{k/n} = z\Big)\Big|_{z=Z_u(kT/n)/T}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{20mm}\cdot \sup_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^1 R(Th(s))ds} \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3T\int_{k/n}^1 R(Tg(s))ds}.\label{2momubmaster}
\end{align}
Recall that $k\ge \lceil\sqrt n\rceil$. By \eqref{LambdaGamma} and Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd}, for any $t\in[kT/n,T]$,
\[\sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)}\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Tg(s))ds \le \int_{k/n}^{\lfloor nt/T\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + \eta(3M,n,T)\]
and
\[\inf_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)}\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Th(s))ds \ge \int_{k/n}^{\lfloor nt/T\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds - \eta(3M,n,T).\]
Thus
\begin{multline*}
\sup_{h\in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Th(s))ds} \cdot \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3T\int_{k/n}^{t/T} R(Tg(s))ds + 2T\int_{t/T}^1 R(Tg(s))ds}\\
\le \exp\bigg( -T\int_{k/n}^{\lfloor nt/T\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + 2T\int_{ k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds + 7T\eta(3M,n,T)\bigg).
\end{multline*}
Similarly,
\begin{multline}\label{2momexpterms2}
\sup_{h\in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{-2T\int_{k/n}^1 R(Th(s))ds} \cdot \sup_{g\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} e^{3T\int_{k/n}^1 R(Tg(s))ds}\\
\le \exp\bigg(T\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds + 5T\eta(3M,n,T)\bigg).
\end{multline}
By the definition of $G_{M,T}$, plus the assumption that $T^{2/3}\ge 9Mn^{1/2}$, for any $t\in [kT/n,T]$ we also have
\[\sup_{h\in\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)} 2R(Th(t/T)) \le 2\frac{TM(t/T+2T^{-2/3})+1}{T(t/(MT)-2T^{-2/3})} \le \frac{6MT}{Tk/(2Mn)} \le 12M^2n.\]
The above estimates bound the non-probabilistic terms in \eqref{2momubmaster}. For the other terms we apply Proposition \ref{Qprobcor2} and Lemma \ref{Esum2mlb} to obtain the bound
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{Q}\Big(\mathcal B(a,b) \,\Big|\,\xi^T_{a}=z\Big)\\
&\hspace{15mm}\le \exp\bigg(-T\sum_{j=\lfloor an\rfloor}^{\lceil bn\rceil-1} \big(\mathcal E^+_X(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n),T) + \mathcal E^+_Y(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n),T)\big)\bigg)\\
&\hspace{15mm}\le \exp\Big(-TI(f,a,b) + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{1/2}\Big)\Big).
\end{align*}
Putting all these ingredients together, we obtain that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\Bigg(\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T^{(u)}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[k/n,1]} \in \Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\}}\Bigg)^2\,\Bigg|\,\mathcal{F}_{kT/n}\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&\le \int_{kT/n}^T \exp\bigg(-TI(f,k/n,t/T)-2TI(f,t/T,1)+ O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{1/2}\Big)\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{15mm}\cdot 12M^2n \exp\bigg( -T\int_{k/n}^{\lfloor nt/T\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + 2T\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds + 7T\eta(3M,n,T)\bigg) dt\nonumber\\
& \hspace{5mm} + \exp\bigg(-TI(f,k/n,1)+ O\Big(\frac{M^4 T}{n^{1/4}}+ M^3 n T^{1/2}\Big) + T\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds + 5T\eta(3M,n,T)\bigg).\label{2momubmaster2}
\end{align}
Using that $f\in\PL_n^2$ and therefore is absolutely continuous, we see that
\begin{multline*}
-I(f,k/n,t/T) - 2I(f,t/T,1) - \int_{k/n}^{\lfloor nt/T\rfloor/n} R^*(f(s))ds + 2\int_{k/n}^1 R^*(f(s))ds\\
\le 2\tilde K(f,k/n,1) - \tilde K(f,k/n,t/T) + O(M^2/n).
\end{multline*}
The result follows from substituting this into \eqref{2momubmaster2} and recalling from Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd} that
\[\eta(3M,n,T) = O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/2}} + \frac{M^3n}{T^{1/3}}\Big).\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\section{Detailed construction and ruling out difficult paths: proof of Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}}\label{GMTsec}
In this section, we prove Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}, which said that for large $M$ all particles are $(M,T)$-good with high probability as $T\to\infty$. We will begin by defining a discrete tree with labels to represent the positions and split times of particles, which besides being a necessary step in our proof, also provides a formal construction of the process introduced in Section \ref{intro_sec}.
Take an infinite binary tree $\mathbb T$ and let $\mathbb T_n$ be the vertices in the $n$th generation of $\mathbb T$, so that $|\mathbb T_n|=2^n$. Attach to each vertex $v\in \mathbb T$ two independent random variables $\mathcal U^{\text{split}}_v$ and $\mathcal U^{\text{dir}}_v$, both uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$. Also attach another independent random variable $\mathbbm{e}_v$ which is exponentially distributed with parameter $1$.
We recursively define random variables $B_v$, $H_v$ and $T_v$ for each vertex $v\in\mathbb T$, which represent the base, height and birth time of the rectangle corresponding to $v$. Write $\rho$ for the unique vertex in $\mathbb T_0$, which we call the root. Under the probability measure $\P_{a,b}$, set $B_\rho = a$, $H_\rho = b$ and $T_\rho=0$. We write $\P$ as shorthand for $\P_{1,1}$.
Now take an integer $n\ge0$ and suppose that we have defined $B_u$, $H_u$ and $T_u$ for all vertices $u$ in generations $0,\ldots,n$. For a vertex $v\in \mathbb{T}_n$, define
\[D_v = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } \mathcal U^{\text{dir}}_v\le P(-\log B_v, -\log H_v)\\
0 & \text{ if } \mathcal U^{\text{dir}}_v > P(-\log B_v, -\log H_v).\end{cases}\]
Write $v1$ and $v2$ for the two children of $v$ in generation $n+1$. If $D_v=1$, then set
\[B_{v1} = \mathcal U^{\text{split}}_v B_v, \,\,\,\, B_{v2} = (1-\mathcal U^{\text{split}}_v) B_v, \,\,\,\,\text{ and } \,\,\,\, H_{v1}=H_{v2}=H_v;\]
if on the other hand $D_v=0$, then set
\[H_{v1} = \mathcal U^{\text{split}}_v H_v, \,\,\,\, H_{v2} = (1-\mathcal U^{\text{split}}_v) H_v, \,\,\,\,\text{ and } \,\,\,\, B_{v1}=B_{v2}=B_v.\]
Then, for each $v\in\mathbb T$, define
\[X_v = -\log B_v \,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\, Y_v = -\log H_v.\]
Finally, set
\[T_{v1} = T_{v2} = T_v + \frac{\mathbbm{e}_{v}}{R(X_v,Y_v)}.\]
We now translate this discrete-time process (with continuous labels) into the continuous-time model described in the introduction. For each $t\ge0$, define
\[\mathcal{N}_t = \Big\{v\in\mathbb T : T_v\le t<T_v+\frac{\mathbbm{e}_{v}}{R(X_v,Y_v)}\Big\},\]
the set of particles that are alive at time $t$. Then for $v\in\mathcal{N}_t$ and $s\le t$, if $u$ is the unique ancestor of $v$ in $\mathbb T$ that satsfies $T_u\le s<T_u+\mathbbm{e}_{u}/R(X_u,Y_u)$, then set $B_v(s) = B_u$, $H_v(s)=H_u$, $X_v(s) = X_u$ and $Y_v(s) = Y_u$. We call $Z_v(s) = (X_v(s),Y_v(s))$ the \emph{position} of particle $v$ at time $s$. For $T>0$, we can also consider particles' paths rescaled by $T$, by which we mean, for $s\le t$ and $v\in\mathcal{N}_{tT}$,
\[X_v^T(s) = \frac{X_v(sT)}{T}, \,\,\,\, Y_v^T(s) = \frac{Y_v(sT)}{T}, \,\,\,\, Z_v^T(s) = (X_v^T(s),Y_v^T(s)).\]
If we have $v\in\mathcal{N}_T$ then we may refer to $X_v^T$ to mean the function $X_v^T:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$, and similarly for $Y_v^T$ and $Z_v^T$.
\begin{lem}\label{discretedifficult}
For any $\kappa>0$, there exists $M>1$ and $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{multline*}
\P\Big(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v \not\in[n/M, Mn] \,\text{ or }\, Y_v \not\in[n/M, Mn] \,\text{ or }\, T_v < n/M \,\text{ or }\, T_v+\frac{\mathbbm{e}_{v}}{R(X_v,Y_v)} > Mn\Big)\\
\le e^{-\kappa n}
\end{multline*}
for all $n\ge N$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that for any $u\in\mathbb T_n$,
$X_u$ is the sum of $n$ random variables, each of which is (stochastically) bounded above by an independent exponential random variable with parameter $1$ (this is the distribution of $-\log U$ when $U$ is $U(0,1)$). Thus, if $E\sim \text{Exp}(1)$,
\[\P(X_u > Mn) \le \mathbb{E}[e^{X_u/2}]e^{-Mn/2} \le \mathbb{E}[e^{E/2}]^n e^{-Mn/2} = 2^n e^{-Mn/2}\]
and, since there are $2^n$ vertices in $\mathbb T_n$, a union bound gives
\[\P(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v > Mn) \le 4^n e^{-Mn/2}.\]
By choosing $M$ large enough, we can make this smaller than $e^{-\kappa n}$. By symmetry we also have
\[\P(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : Y_v > Mn) \le e^{-\kappa n}.\]
For a lower bound on $X_v$ and $Y_v$, we first give a lower bound on $X_v+Y_v$. Indeed, note that for $u\in\mathbb T_n$, $X_u+Y_u$ is a sum of $n$ independent random variables, each of which is exponentially distributed with parameter $1$. Thus, for any $\lambda>0$ and any $u\in\mathbb{T}_n$,
\[\P(X_u+Y_u < n/M) \le \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda (X_u+Y_u)}]e^{\lambda n/M} = \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda E}]^n e^{\lambda n/M} = \frac{1}{(1+\lambda)^n} e^{\lambda n/M},\]
so that we can choose $M_0$ large enough that
\begin{equation}\label{XplusYlb}
\P(X_u+Y_u < n/M_0) \le 2^{-2n-2}e^{-2\kappa (n+1)}.
\end{equation}
Take $u\in\mathbb{T}_n$, let $u'$ be the unique ancestor of $u$ in $\mathbb T_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ and take $M>M_0$. Note that, applying \eqref{XplusYlb}, if $n \ge 6$
\begin{align}
&\P(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v\wedge Y_v < n/M - 1)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}\le \mathbb{E}[\#\{v\in \mathbb T_n : X_v\wedge Y_v < n/M-1\}]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}= 2^n\P(X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}\le 2^n\P(X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1 \text{ and } X_{u'}+Y_{u'}\ge \lfloor n/2 \rfloor /M_0) + 2^n\P(X_{u'}+Y_{u'}< \lfloor n/2 \rfloor /M_0)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}\le 2^n\P(X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1 \text{ and } X_{u'}+Y_{u'}\ge n/(3M_0)) + 2^n\cdot 2^{-2\lfloor n/2\rfloor-2}e^{-2\kappa(\lfloor n/2 \rfloor +1)}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5mm}\le 2^n\P(X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1 \text{ and } X_{u'}+Y_{u'}\ge n/(3M_0)) + e^{-\kappa n}/2.\label{XminYtoX+Y}
\end{align}
Now, if $X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1$ and $X_{u'}+Y_{u'}\ge n/(3M_0)$, then for all vertices $v$ on the path from $u'$ to $u$, we have
\[\frac{X_v\vee Y_v + 1}{X_v\wedge Y_v+1} \ge \frac{X_v+Y_v - X_v \wedge Y_v + 1}{X_v\wedge Y_v+1} \ge \frac{X_v+Y_v}{X_v\wedge Y_v+1} -1 \ge \frac{M}{3M_0}-1.\]
Recalling the definition of $P$, this means that
\[ P(X_v, Y_v) \ge 1- \frac{X_v \wedge Y_v+1}{2(X_v \vee Y_v +1)} \ge 1- \frac{1}{2M/(3M_0)-2} \]
and the same holds for $1-P(X_v,Y_v)$.
This means that $X_u\wedge Y_u - X_{u'}\wedge Y_{u'}$ consists of $\lceil n/2\rceil$ random variables, each of which is (stochastically) bounded below by an independent random variable $E'$ which is zero with probability $1/(2M/(3M_0)-2)$ and equals an independent copy of $E$ with probability $1-1/(2M/(3M_0)-2)$. Thus, for any $\lambda>0$,
\begin{align*}
&\P(X_u\wedge Y_u < n/M-1 \text{ and } X_{u'}+Y_{u'}\ge n/M_0)\\
&\hspace{35mm}\le \mathbb{E}\Big[e^{-\lambda X_u\wedge Y_u} \mathbbm{1}_{\big\{\frac{X_v\vee Y_v + 1}{X_v\wedge Y_v+1} \ge \frac{M}{3M_0}-1 \big\}}\Big]e^{\lambda n/M}\\
&\hspace{35mm}\le \mathbb{E}\Big[e^{-\lambda (X_u\wedge Y_u - X_{u'}\wedge Y_{u'} )} \mathbbm{1}_{\big\{\frac{X_v\vee Y_v + 1}{X_v\wedge Y_v+1} \ge \frac{M}{3M_0}-1\big\}}\Big]e^{\lambda n/M}\\
&\hspace{35mm}\le \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda E'}]^{\lceil n/2 \rceil}e^{\lambda n/M}\\
&\hspace{35mm}\le \Big(\frac{1}{2M/(3M_0)-2} + \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda E}]\Big(1-\frac{1}{2M/(3M_0)-2}\Big)\Big)^{\lceil n/2 \rceil}e^{\lambda n/M}\\
&\hspace{35mm}\le \Big(\frac{1}{2M/(3M_0)-2} + \frac{1}{\lambda+1}\Big)^{\lceil n/2 \rceil}e^{\lambda n/M}.
\end{align*}
By choosing $\lambda$ large and then $M$ large, we can ensure that this is smaller than $2^{-n} e^{-\kappa n}/2$, which when combined with \eqref{XminYtoX+Y}, shows that for $n$ sufficiently large,
\begin{equation}\label{preUps}
\P\big(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v \not\in[n/M, Mn] \,\text{ or }\, Y_v \not\in[n/M, Mn]\big)\le e^{-\kappa n}.
\end{equation}
We now turn to $T_v$. As for $X_v$ and $Y_v$, the upper bound is easy: since $R(x,y)\ge 1$ for all $x$ and $y$, for any fixed $u\in\mathbb{T}_n$ we have
\begin{align*}
\P\Big(T_u + \frac{\mathbbm{e}_u}{R(X_u,Y_u)} > Mn\Big) &= \P\bigg(\sum_{w\le u} \frac{\mathbbm e_w}{R(X_w,Y_w)} > Mn\bigg)\\
&\le \P\bigg(\sum_{w\le u} \mathbbm e_w > Mn\bigg) \le \mathbb{E}[e^{E/2}]^{n+1} e^{-Mn/2} = 2^{n+1}e^{-Mn/2},
\end{align*}
so a union bound gives
\[\P\Big(\exists v\in \mathbb{T}_n : T_v + \frac{\mathbbm{e}_v}{R(X_v,Y_v)} > Mn \Big) \le 2\cdot 4^n e^{-Mn/2}\]
which can be made smaller than $e^{-\kappa n}$ by choosing $M$ large.
For a lower bound on $T_v$, define the event
\[\Upsilon_{n,M} = \{X_v \in[k/M, Mk] \,\text{ and }\, Y_v \in[k/M, Mk] \,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb{T}_k,\,\,\forall k\ge n\}.\]
By \eqref{preUps}, for any $\kappa>0$, we may choose $N$ and $M_0$ sufficiently large that
\begin{equation}\label{Upsbd}
\P(\Upsilon_{n,M_0}^c) \le \sum_{j=n}^\infty \P\big(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v \not\in[n/M_0, M_0n] \,\text{ or }\, Y_v \not\in[n/M_0, M_0n]\big) \le 2^{-2n-3}e^{-2\kappa (n+1)}
\end{equation}
for all $n\ge N$. Fix $u\in\mathbb{T}_n$ and let $\rho = u_0,u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n = u$ be the unique path from the root $\rho$ to $u$ in the tree. Then for $n\ge 2N$,
\begin{align}
\P(T_u < n/M) &= \P\bigg(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \frac{\mathbbm e_{u_j}}{R(X_{u_j},Y_{u_j})} < \frac{n}{M}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\le \P(\Upsilon_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor,M_0}^c) + \P\bigg(\Upsilon_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor,M_0}\cap\bigg\{\sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \frac{\mathbbm e_{u_j}}{R(X_{u_j},Y_{u_j})} < \frac{n}{M}\bigg\}\bigg).\label{splitUps}
\end{align}
Since $n\ge 2N$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Upsbd2}
\P(\Upsilon_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor,M_0}^c) \le 2^{-2\lfloor n/2\rfloor -3} e^{-2\kappa(\lfloor n/2\rfloor+1)}/2 \le 2^{-n-1}e^{-\kappa n}.
\end{equation}
On the event $\Upsilon_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor,M_0}$, we have
\[R(X_{u_j},Y_{u_j})\le \frac{M_0 j + 1}{j/M_0 +1} \le M_0^2\]
for all $j\ge \lfloor n/2\rfloor$; therefore
\[\P\bigg(\Upsilon_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor,M_0}\cap\bigg\{\sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \frac{\mathbbm e_{u_j}}{R(X_{u_j},Y_{u_j})} < \frac{n}{M}\bigg\}\bigg) \le \P\bigg(\sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \frac{\mathbbm e_{u_j}}{M_0^2} < \frac{n}{M}\bigg).\]
But for any $\lambda>0$,
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \frac{\mathbbm e_{u_j}}{M_0^2} < \frac{n}{M}\bigg) &= \P\big(e^{-\lambda \sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \mathbbm e_{u_j}} > e^{-\lambda M_0^2 n/M}\big)\\
&\le \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda \sum_{j=\lfloor n/2\rfloor}^n \mathbbm e_{u_j}}]e^{\lambda M_0^2 n/M}\\
&\le \mathbb{E}[e^{-\lambda E}]^{n/2} e^{\lambda M_0^2 n/M} = \frac{1}{(1+\lambda)^{n/2}} e^{\lambda M_0^2 n/M}.
\end{align*}
Substituting this and \eqref{Upsbd2} into \eqref{splitUps}, we have
\[\P(T_u < n/M) \le 2^{-n-1}e^{-\kappa n} + \frac{1}{(1+\lambda)^{n/2}} e^{\lambda M_0^2 n/M}.\]
Finally, taking a union bound over all $2^n$ vertices in $\mathbb{T}_n$, we obtain
\[\P(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : T_v < n/M) \le e^{-\kappa n}/2 + \Big(\frac{2e^{\lambda M_0^2/M}}{\sqrt{1+\lambda}}\Big)^n\]
which can be made smaller than $e^{-\kappa n}$ by choosing $\lambda$ large and then $M$ large.
\end{proof}
Fix $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and define the event
\begin{multline*}
\mathcal G_M(T) = \Big\{X_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha, Mn+T^\alpha\Big],\, Y_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha, Mn+T^\alpha\Big] ,\\
T_v \ge \frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le Mn +T^\alpha\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_n \,\,\,\,\forall n\ge 0\Big\}.
\end{multline*}
\begin{cor}\label{calGcor}
There exist $M>1$ and $\delta>0$ such that for any $T\ge 0$,
\[\P(\mathcal G_M(T)^c) \le \exp(-\delta T^\alpha).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{discretedifficult} we may choose $M\in(1,\infty)$ such that for all $n$ large enough,
\[\P(\exists v\in\mathbb T_n : X_v \not\in[n/M, Mn] \,\text{ or }\, Y_v \not\in[n/M, Mn] \,\text{ or }\, T_v < n/M \,\text{ or }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v > Mn) \le e^{-n}.\]
Let
\begin{multline*}
\mathcal G_{M,n}(T) = \Big\{X_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha, Mn+T^\alpha\Big],\, Y_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha, Mn+T^\alpha\Big] ,\\
T_v \ge \frac{n}{M}-T^\alpha \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le Mn +T^\alpha\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_n\Big\},
\end{multline*}
so that
\[\mathcal G_M(T) = \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal G_{M,n}(T).\]
For $n \le T^\alpha/M$, since $n/M-T^\alpha \le 0$, we have
\[\mathcal G_{M,n}(T) = \big\{X_v\le Mn+T^\alpha,\, Y_v\le Mn+T^\alpha \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le Mn +T^\alpha\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_n\big\}\]
and therefore
\[\mathcal G_{M,n}(T) \supset \big\{X_v\le T^\alpha,\, Y_v\le T^\alpha \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le T^\alpha\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_n\big\}.\]
By monotonicity
\[\bigcap_{n=0}^{\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor} \mathcal G_{M,n}(T) \supset \big\{X_v\le T^\alpha,\, Y_v\le T^\alpha \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le T^\alpha\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_{\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor}\big\}.\]
and thus, by our choice of $M$,
\[\P\bigg(\bigcup_{n=0}^{\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor} \mathcal G_{M,n}(T)^c\bigg) \le \P\big(\exists v\in\mathbb T_{\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor} : X_v> T^\alpha,\,\text{ or }\, Y_v> T^\alpha \,\text{ or }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v > T^\alpha\big) \le e^{-\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor}.\]
On the other hand, for $n>T^\alpha/M$,
\[\mathcal G_{M,n}(T) \supset \Big\{X_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}, Mn\Big],\, Y_v\in\Big[\frac{n}{M}, Mn\Big] ,\, T_v \ge \frac{n}{M} \,\text{ and }\, T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le Mn\,\,\,\,\forall v\in\mathbb T_n\Big\}\]
so by our choice of $M$,
\[\P(\mathcal G_{M,n}(T)^c) \le e^{-n}.\]
Combining the bounds for $n\le T^\alpha/M$ and $n> T^\alpha/M$, we have
\[\P\bigg(\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal G_{M,n}(T)^c \bigg) \le e^{-\lfloor T^\alpha/M\rfloor} + \sum_{n>T^\alpha/M} e^{-n}\]
and choosing $\delta < 1/M$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We can now prove our main result for this section, Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}]
For $t\ge0$, suppose that $u\in\mathcal N_{t}$ and let $n(u)$ be the unique $n$ such that $u\in\mathbb T_n$. By the definition of $\mathcal{N}_{t}$, we have $T_u\le t<T_u+\mathbbm{e}_u$. On $\mathcal G_M(T)$, we have $T_v+\mathbbm{e}_v \le t$ for all $v\in\mathbb T_n$ with $Mn+T^\alpha\le t$; so we must have $n(u)>(t-T^\alpha)/M$. Similarly, on $\mathcal{G}_M(T)$, we have $T_v>t$ for all $v\in \mathbb T_n$ with $n/M-T^\alpha>t$; so we must have $n(u)\le M(t+T^\alpha)$. Thus, on $\mathcal{G}_M(T)$, we have
\[\frac{t-T^\alpha}{M} < n(u)\le M(t+T^\alpha)\]
and therefore also
\[\frac{t-T^\alpha}{M^2}-T^\alpha < X_u \le M^2 (t+T^\alpha) + T^\alpha \,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\, \frac{t-T^\alpha}{M^2}-T^\alpha < Y_u \le M^2 (t+T^\alpha) + T^\alpha.\]
Since this holds for any particle $u\in\mathcal{N}_t$ for any $t\ge0$, taking $\alpha=1/3$ and rescaling by $T$ we deduce that on $\mathcal G_M(T)$, the paths of all particles fall within $G_{M^2,T}^2$, and the result follows from Corollary \ref{calGcor}.
\end{proof}
\section{Growth of the population at small times}\label{small_times_sec}
In this section we prove two results that are essentially concerned with showing that the number of particles near any reasonable straight line $(\lambda s,\mu s)$, $s\ge 0$, grows exponentially fast. The first of these results is Proposition \ref{ctssquareprop}, which considers the case $\lambda=\mu=1/2$; the idea in this case is that our rectangles prefer to be ``roughly square'', and relatively simple moment bounds will show that there are indeed many particles near this line. This will be the content of Section \ref{ctssquaresec}. We then move on to proving Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}, which concerns a function that begins by moving along the line $(s/2,s/2)$ but then gradually shifts its gradient towards a general slope $(\lambda s,\mu s)$. This is done in Section \ref{hfmnsec}.
\subsection{The lead diagonal: proof of Proposition \ref{ctssquareprop}}\label{ctssquaresec}
Recall the discrete-time setup from Section \ref{GMTsec}. In order to initially remove the dependence between time and space, let $\tilde T_\rho = 0$, and recursively for each $v\in\mathbb{T}$ let $\tilde T_{v1} = \tilde T_{v2} = \tilde T_v + \mathbbm{e}_v$.
For $v\in\mathbb T_k$ and $j\le k$, write $X_v(j)$ to mean $X_u$ where $u$ is the unique ancestor of $v$ in $\mathbb T_j$. Similarly write $Y_v(j)$, $T_v(j)$, $\tilde T_v(j)$ and $Z_v(j)$. Also define
\[\Delta_v(j) = X_v(j)-Y_v(j) \;\;\text{ and }\;\; S_v(j) = X_v(j) + Y_v(j) - j,\]
and let $(\mathcal{G}_j, j\ge 0)$ be the natural filtration of the discrete-time process. We begin with sixth moment estimates on $\Delta_v(j)$ and $S_v(j)$. The reason for using the sixth moment is that this eventually gives us a decay of order $1/T$, which will be strong enough for our purposes. We could use higher moments if we wanted to get a better rate of decay.
\begin{lem}\label{4momlem}
There exists a finite constant $C$ such that for any vertex $v\in\mathbb T_k$ and $0\le j\le k$, we have
\[\mathbb{E}\big[(X_v(j) - Y_v(j))^6\big] \le Cj^3\]
and
\[\mathbb{E}[(X_v(j) + Y_v(j) - j)^6] \le Cj^3.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $v_j$ be the vertex in $\mathbb T_j$ consisting of all $1$s, i.e.~$v_j = v_{j-1}1$ for all $j$. By symmetry it suffices to consider $v=v_k$. Letting $E_j = -\log\mathcal U_{v_j}^{\text{split}}$, we see by construction that
\[X_{v_j} - X_{v_{j-1}} = D_{v_{j-1}}E_{j-1}\;\;\text{ and }\;\;Y_{v_j} - Y_{v_{j-1}} = (1-D_{v_{j-1}})E_{j-1}.\]
We also note that $\{E_j : j\ge 0\}$ is a collection of independent exponentially distributed random variables of parameter $1$, such that $E_j$ is independent of $D_{v_j}$ for each $j$.
Let $\Delta_j = X_{v_j} - Y_{v_j}$. We begin by bounding the second moment of $\Delta_j$, then the fourth moment, before we tackle the sixth moment. By the above,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^2\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big] &= \mathbb{E}\big[\big(\Delta_{j-1} + (2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)E_{j-1}\big)^2\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big]\nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{j-1}^2 + 2\Delta_{j-1}\mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)E_{j-1}|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]+ \mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^2E_{j-1}^2|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]\nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{j-1}^2 + 2\Delta_{j-1}\mathbb{E}[2D_{v_{j-1}}-1|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]+ 2,\label{Deltarecurse}
\end{align}
where the last line follows from the independence of $E_{j-1}$ from $D_{v_{j-1}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{j-1}$ and the fact that $(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^2 = 1$. Now we note that, from the definition of $D_{v_j}$, if $\Delta_j\ge 0$ then $D_{v_j}$ equals $1$ with probability at most $1/2$, whereas if $\Delta_j \le 0$ then $D_{v_j}$ equals $1$ with probability at least $1/2$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{Deltanegcorrel}
\Delta_{j-1}\mathbb{E}[2D_{v_{j-1}}-1|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}] \le 0,
\end{equation}
so that \eqref{Deltarecurse} becomes
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^2\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big] \le \Delta_{j-1}^2 + 2.\]
Taking expectations and summing over $i\le j$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Del2mom}
\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^2\big] \le 2j.
\end{equation}
We now move on to the fourth moment, following a very similar argument:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^4\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big] &= \mathbb{E}\big[\big(\Delta_{j-1} + (2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)E_{j-1}\big)^4\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big]\nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{j-1}^4 + 4\Delta_{j-1}^3\mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)E_{j-1}|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]+ 6\Delta_{j-1}^2\mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^2E_{j-1}^2|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{25mm}+ 4\Delta_{j-1}\mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^3E_{j-1}^3|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}] + \mathbb{E}[(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^4E_{j-1}^4|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}] \nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{j-1}^4 + 4\Delta_{j-1}^3\mathbb{E}[2D_{v_{j-1}}-1|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]+ 6\Delta_{j-1}^2\mathbb{E}[E_{j-1}^2]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{25mm} + 4\Delta_{j-1}\mathbb{E}[2D_{v_{j-1}}-1|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}]\mathbb{E}[E_{j-1}^3] + \mathbb{E}[E_{j-1}^4],\label{Deltarecurse2}
\end{align}
where again for the last line we used the independence of $E_{j-1}$ from $D_{v_{j-1}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{j-1}$ and the fact that $(2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)^2 = 1$. By \eqref{Deltanegcorrel} and the facts that $\mathbb{E}[E_{j-1}^2]=2$ and $\mathbb{E}[E_{j-1}^4]=24$, we obtain
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^4\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big] \le \Delta_{j-1}^4 + 12\Delta_{j-1}^2 + 24.\]
Taking expectations and using \eqref{Del2mom}, we have
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^4\big] \le \mathbb{E}[\Delta_{j-1}^4] + 24(j-1) + 24 = \mathbb{E}[\Delta_{j-1}^4] + 24j.\]
Summing over $i\le j$, this gives
\begin{equation}\label{Del4mom}
\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^4\big] \le \sum_{i=1}^j 24j = 12j(j+1).
\end{equation}
For the sixth moment, the same strategy, expanding out $\Delta_j^6 = (\Delta_{j-1} + (2D_{v_{j-1}}-1)E_{j-1})^6$ and using the independence of $E_{j-1}$ from $D_{v_{j-1}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{j-1}$, and then applying \eqref{Deltanegcorrel}, works again. Omitting the calculations, the upshot is that
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^6\big|\mathcal{G}_{j-1}\big] \le \Delta_{j-1}^6 + 30\Delta_{j-1}^4 + 360\Delta_{j-1}^2 + 720.\]
Taking expectations and using \eqref{Del2mom} and \eqref{Del4mom}, we have
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^6\big] \le \mathbb{E}[\Delta_{j-1}^6] + 360j(j+1) + 720j + 720 = \mathbb{E}[\Delta_{j-1}^6] + 360(j+1)(j+2).\]
Summing over $i\le j$, we have
\[\mathbb{E}\big[\Delta_j^6\big] \le 360\sum_{i=1}^j (i+1)(i+2) = 120j(j^2+6j+11)\]
which proves the first part of the lemma.
The second statement of the lemma is much simpler to prove, since $X_{v_j} + Y_{v_j} = \sum_{i=0}^{j-1}E_i$. Either by direct calculation or by using the moment generating function, one may write down an expression for every moment of $X_v(j) + Y_v(j) - j$; in particular one may check that
\[\mathbb{E}[(X_v(j) + Y_v(j) - j)^6] \le Cj^3\]
for some constant $C$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{UnT}
Let $K(n,T) = \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil$ and let
\[U_{n,T} = \big\{v\in\mathbb{T}_{K(n,T)} : \| Z_v(k) - (k/2,k/2)\|\le \sfrac{T}{32n^4} \text{ and } |\tilde T_v(k)-k|\le \sfrac{T}{4n^2} \,\,\forall k\le K(n,T)\big\}.\]
Then there exists a finite constant $C$ such that for any $T\ge Cn^{48}$,
\[\P\big(|U_{n,T}|\ge \sfrac{1}{2T^2} 2^{K(n,T)}\big) \ge 1-T^{-3/2}.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that, for any $k\ge 0$ and $u\in\mathbb T_k$, by the triangle inequality we have
\[|X_u-k/2| = \frac{1}{2}|X_u+Y_u-k + X_u-Y_u| \le \frac{1}{2}|X_u+Y_u-k| + \frac{1}{2}|X_u-Y_u|,\]
and similarly for $|Y_u-k/2|$. Thus
\[\P\big(\|Z_u - (k/2,k/2)\| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4}\big) \le \P(|X_u +Y_u - k| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4}) + \P(|X_u -Y_u| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4}).\]
Applying Markov's inequality and the sixth moment estimates from Lemma \ref{4momlem}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\P\big(\|Z_u - (k/2,k/2)\| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4}\big) &\le \mathbb{E}\big[|X_u +Y_u - k|^6\big]\big(\sfrac{32 n^{4}}{T}\big)^6 + \mathbb{E}\big[|X_u -Y_u|^6\big]\big(\sfrac{32 n^{4}}{T}\big)^6\\
&\le 2Ck^3\big(\sfrac{32 n^{4}}{T}\big)^6
\end{align*}
where $C$ is a finite constant. Thus, for $K\ge 0$, $v\in\mathbb{T}_{K}$ and $k\le K$,
\[\P\big(\|Z_v(k) - (k/2,k/2)\| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4}\big) \le 2Ck^3\big(\sfrac{32n^4}{T}\big)^6.\]
Now note that $\tilde T_v(k)$ is a sum of $k$ independent exponential random variables of parameter $1$, and therefore has the same distribution as $X_v(k)+Y_v(k)$. Thus, again by Lemma \ref{4momlem},
\[\mathbb{E}\big[|\tilde T_v(k) - k|^6\big] \le Ck^3\]
and therefore
\[\P\big(|\tilde T_v(k)-k| > \sfrac{T}{4n^2}\big) \le \mathbb{E}\big[|\tilde T_v(k) - k|^6\big]\big(\sfrac{4 n^{2}}{T}\big)^6 \le Ck^3\big(\sfrac{4 n^{2}}{T}\big)^6.\]
We deduce that, for some finite constant $C'$,
\begin{equation}\label{ZTKsum}
\P\big(\exists k\le K : \|Z_v(k) - (k/2,k/2)\| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4} \text{ or } |\tilde T_v(k)-k| > \sfrac{T}{4n^2}\big) \le \sum_{k=1}^{K} \frac{C' k^3 n^{24}}{T^6}.
\end{equation}
Summing over $k$, this is at most $C'K^4 n^{24}/T^6$, and since $K(n,T) = O(n^{-1/8} T) \le O(T)$, we have
\[\P\big(\exists k\le K(n,T) : \|Z_v(k) - (k/2,k/2)\| > \sfrac{T}{32n^4} \text{ or } |\tilde T_v(k)-k| > \sfrac{T}{4n^2}\big) \le \frac{C'' n^{24}}{T^2}\]
for some finite constant $C''$.
Converting the above to a statement about $U_{n,T}$, we have shown that
\[\P(v\in U_{n,T}) \ge 1 - \frac{C'' n^{24}}{T^2},\]
and since there are $2^{K(n,T)}$ vertices in $\mathbb{T}_{K(n,T)}$,
\[\mathbb{E}\big[|U_{n,T}|\big] \ge 2^{K(n,T)}\Big(1 - \frac{C'' n^{24}}{T^2}\Big).\]
Obviously we also have
\[\mathbb{E}\big[|U_{n,T}|^2\big] \le 2^{2K(n,T)},\]
and therefore by the Paley-Zygmund inequality,
\[\P\bigg(|U_{n,T}|\ge \frac{1}{T^2} 2^{K(n,T)}\Big(1 - \frac{C'' n^{24}}{T^2}\Big) \bigg) \ge \bigg(1-\frac{1}{T^2}\bigg)^2\frac{\mathbb{E}\big[|U_{n,T}|\big]^2}{\mathbb{E}\big[|U_{n,T}|^2\big]} \ge \bigg(1-\frac{2}{T^2}\bigg)\Big(1 - \frac{C'' n^{24}}{T^2}\Big)^2.\]
The result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{VnT}
Define
\[V_{n,T} = \big\{v\in\mathbb{T}_{K(n,T)} : \|Z_v(k) - (k/2,k/2)\|\le \sfrac{T}{32n^4} \text{ and } |T_v(k)-k|\le \sfrac{7T}{8n^2} \,\,\,\forall k\le K(n,T)\big\},\]
where $K(n,T) = \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil$ as in Lemma \ref{UnT}.
Then there exists a finite constant $C$ such that for any $T\ge Cn^{48}$,
\[\P\big(|V_{n,T}|\ge \sfrac{1}{2T^2} 2^{K(n,T)}\big) \ge 1-T^{-3/2}.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We claim that every $v\in U_{n,T}$ is also in $V_{n,T}$. By Lemma \ref{UnT} this is sufficient to complete the proof.
Take $v\in U_{n,T}$. In particular, for each $k\le K(n,T)$, we have $\|Z_v(k)-(k/2,k/2)\|\le \sfrac{T}{32n^4}$. This ensures that $v$ satisfies the first condition required to be in $V_{n,T}$, but it also implies that
\[R(X_v(k),Y_v(k)) \le \frac{\frac{k}{2} + \frac{T}{32 n^4} + 1}{\frac{k}{2} - \frac{T}{32 n^4} + 1} = \frac{1+\frac{T}{32n^4(k/2+1)}}{1-\frac{T}{32n^4(k/2+1)}},\]
and so for $k\ge \frac{T}{4n^2}-2$,
\begin{equation}\label{VnTRbd}
R(X_v(k),Y_v(k)) \le \frac{1+\frac{1}{4n^2}}{1-\frac{1}{4n^2}} \le \frac{1}{(1-\frac{1}{4n^2})^2} \le \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{2n^2}},
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $1+x\le 1/(1-x)$ for $x\in[0,1)$.
Now, $\tilde T_v(k)$ consists of a sum of $k$ independent exponential random variables of parameter $1$, which we call $\mathbbm{e}_v(0),\ldots,\mathbbm{e}_v(k-1)$. For $k\ge \lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor$ we then have, by definition,
\[T_v(k) = \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \frac{\mathbbm{e}_v(i)}{R(X_v(i),Y_v(i))} \ge \sum_{i=\lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor}^{k-1} \frac{\mathbbm{e}_v(i)}{R(X_v(i),Y_v(i))}.\]
Applying \eqref{VnTRbd}, this is at least
\[\Big(1-\frac{1}{2n^2}\Big) \sum_{i=\lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor}^{k-1} \mathbbm{e}_v(i) = \Big(1-\frac{1}{2n^2}\Big)\big(\tilde T_v(k) - \tilde T_v(\lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor)\big).\]
Since $v\in U_{n,T}$, whenever $k\le K(n,T)$ we have $|\tilde T_v(k) - k|\le T/4n^2$, and we obtain
\[T_v(k) \ge \Big(1-\frac{1}{2n^2}\Big)\big(k-T/4n^2 - (\lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor + T/4n^2)\big) \ge \Big(1-\frac{1}{2n^2}\Big)\Big(k-\frac{3T}{4n^2}\Big) \ge k-\frac{7T}{8n^2}.\]
We also obviously have $T_v(k) \ge 0 \ge k-\frac{7T}{8n^2}$ when $k<\lfloor T/4n^2\rfloor$; and since $R(x,y)\ge 1$ for all $x$ and $y$, we have $T_v(k)\le \tilde T_v(k)$ for all $k$. Thus we have shown that if $v\in U_{n,T}$ then $|T_v(k)-k|\le 7T/8n^2$ for all $k\le K(n,T)$, and we deduce that also $v\in V_{n,T}$, as required.
\end{proof}
We now want to move from discrete to continuous time. We need some more notation. For $v\in\mathcal N_t$ and $s\le t$, let $v(s)$ be the unique ancestor of $v$ that is in $\mathcal N_s$. Also let $\gen(v)$ be the unique integer such that $v\in\mathbb{T}_{\gen(v)}$.
\begin{lem}\label{genlem}
Recall the definition of $V_{n,T}$ from Lemma \ref{VnT}. If $v\in V_{n,T}$ then $v\in\mathcal N_t$ for some $t\ge \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2$, and
\[\big|\gen(v(s)) - s\big| \le \frac{7T}{8n^2} + 1\]
for all $s\le \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2 - 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $v\in V_{n,T}$ then $|T_v(k)-k|\le 7T/8n^2$ for all $k\le K(n,T)$. In particular
\[T_v\ge K(n,T)-T/n^2 = \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2,\]
and therefore $v\in\mathcal N_t$ for some $t\ge \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2$.
Now, for any $s\le \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2 - 1$, since $v\in V_{n,T}$,
\[T_{v(s)} = T_v(\gen(v(s))) \ge \gen(v(s)) - 7T/8n^2,\]
so since $T_{v(s)}\le s$ (because $v(s)\in\mathcal N_s$) we have
\begin{equation}\label{genvs}
\gen(v(s))\le s+7T/8n^2.
\end{equation}
Since $s\le \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - T/n^2 - 1$, the above implies in particular that $\gen(v(s))+1\le K(n,T) = \gen(v)$ and therefore we also have (again since $v\in V_{n,T}$)
\[T_{v(s)}+\mathbbm{e}_{v(s)} = T_v(\gen(v(s))+1) \le \gen(v(s))+1+7T/8n^2.\]
Combining this with the fact that $T_{v(s)}+\mathbbm{e}_{v(s)} > s$ (because $v(s)\in\mathcal N_s$), we obtain
\[s<\gen(v(s))+1+7T/8n^2,\]
and combining this with \eqref{genvs} gives the result.
\end{proof}
We can now prove the main result of this section.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{ctssquareprop}]
By Lemma \ref{VnT}, with probability at least $1-1/T^{3/2}$, we have $|V_{n,T}|\ge \sfrac{1}{2T^2} 2^{K(n,T)}$. Suppose that $v\in V_{n,T}$ and let $t=\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n$. Then by Lemma \ref{genlem}, $\gen(v(t)) \ge t-7T/8n^2-1$, and of course $\gen(v) = K(n,T) = \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil$. Thus the number of descendants that $v(t)$ has in $V_{n,T}$ is at most
\[2^{\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n + \lceil 2T/n^2\rceil - (\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil T/n - 7T/8n^2 - 1)} \le 2^{3T/n^2}.\]
We deduce that if $|V_{n,T}|\ge \frac{1}{2T^2} 2^{K(n,T)}$ then the number of \emph{distinct} ancestors of particles in $V_{n,T}$ that are in $\mathcal N_t$ must be at least
\[\frac{2^{K(n,T)}}{2T^2 \cdot 2^{3T/n^2}} \ge 2^{T/n^{1/8} - T/n^2 - 2\log_2 T - 1}.\]
For $T\ge Cn^{48}$ and $C$ large the right-hand side is certainly larger than $2^{T/n^{1/8} - 2T/n^2}$.
Now, if $u\in\mathcal N_t$ is an ancestor of a particle $v\in V_{n,T}$, and $s\le t$, then
\begin{align*}
\|Z_u(s)-(s/2,s/2)\| &= \|Z_v(s)-(s/2,s/2)\|\\
&\le \big\|Z_v(s) - \big(\sfrac{\gen(v(s))}{2},\sfrac{\gen(v(s))}{2}\big)\big\| + \|\big(\sfrac{\gen(v(s))}{2},\sfrac{\gen(v(s))}{2}\big) - (s/2,s/2)\big\|\\
&\le \frac{T}{32n^4} + \frac{1}{2}|\gen(v(s))-s|\\
&\le \frac{T}{32n^4} + \frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{7T}{8n^2} + 1\Big)
\end{align*}
where for the first inequality we used the triangle inequality, for the second we used that $v\in V_{n,T}$, and for the third we again used that $v\in V_{n,T}$ together with Lemma \ref{genlem}. For $T\ge Cn^{48}$ and $C$ large this is smaller than $T/2n^2$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{From the lead diagonal to other gradients: proof of Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}}\label{hfmnsec}
We will build up to the proof of Proposition \ref{hfmnprop} gradually, first constructing a suitable candidate function $h_{f,n}$, and then proving several lemmas that establish the required properties of $h_{f,n}$.
For $\mu\ge \lambda>0$ let
\[\kappa(\lambda,\mu) = \frac{\mu}{\lambda} - \Big(\sqrt2\Big(\frac{\mu}{\lambda}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2} - \lambda^{1/2}\Big)^2 - (1-\mu^{1/2})^2.\]
We have defined $\kappa$ in such a way that, for $\mu\ge\lambda>0$, if $g(s)=(\lambda s,\mu s)$ for $s\in[0,1]$ then
\[\tilde K(g,0,t) = \kappa(\lambda,\mu)t.\]
We would like our function $h_{f,n}$ to begin with gradient $(1/2,1/2)$, but then to transition in small steps to having gradient $(f'_X(0),f'_Y(0))$. In order to ensure that $\tilde K(h_{f,n},0,t)$ remains positive for all small $t$, we need to check that $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)$ is strictly positive for all the gradients $(\lambda,\mu)$ that $h_{f,n}$ passes through at small times. If $\kappa$ was concave (or even concave on the region where it is positive) then this would be trivial since we could ask $h_{f,n}$ to transition linearly. Unfortunately there is a small region on which $\kappa$ is positive and not concave, so we have to use a more complicated argument. This is done in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{kappaconcave}
For every $0 < \lambda \le \mu$ such that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)>0$, there exists a path $\gamma(t)=(\gamma_X(t), \gamma_Y(t))$, $t \in [0,1]$ and $\kappa_0>0$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{concave1} $(\gamma_X(0), \gamma_Y(0))=(1/2, 1/2)$ and $(\gamma_X(1), \gamma_Y(1))=(\lambda, \mu)$;
\item \label{concave2} $\kappa(\gamma(t)) \ge \kappa_0>0$ for all $t \in [0,1]$;
\item \label{concave3} $\gamma$ is piecewise linear and $|\gamma_X'(t)|\le 20$ and $|\gamma_Y'(t)|\le 20$ for all $t \in [0,1]$ such that $\gamma$ is differentiable at $t$;
\item \label{concave4} $\gamma_X(t) \in [ 3/2 - \sqrt2, 10]$ and $\gamma_Y(t) \in [ 3/2 - \sqrt2, 10]$ for all $t\in[0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\hspace{0.02 cm}
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[ scale=2]
\draw (0, 0) coordinate(O)node[below left]{};
\draw (-3.8, -4) coordinate(A)node[below]{\hspace{-2mm}$3/2-\sqrt{2}$};
\draw (-3.3, -4) coordinate(B)node[below]{$1/2$};
\draw (-2.5, -4) coordinate(C)node[below]{$3/2+\sqrt{2}$};
\draw (-2.7, -0.3) coordinate(C')node[above]{$3/2+\sqrt{2}/2$};
\draw (-1, -4) coordinate(D)node[below]{$10$};
\draw (-4, -3.8) coordinate(E)node[left]{$3/2-\sqrt{2}$};
\draw (-4, -3.3) coordinate(F)node[left]{$1/2$};
\draw (-4, -2.5) coordinate(G)node[left]{$3/2+\sqrt{2}$};
\draw (-4, -1) coordinate(H)node[left]{$10$};
\coordinate (I) at (-3.8,-3.8);
\coordinate (II) at (intersection of -1,-9--D and 0,-1--H);
\coordinate (III) at (intersection of 0,-1--H and -3.8,0--A);
\coordinate (IV) at (intersection of 0,-2.5--G and -3.8,0--A);
\coordinate (V) at (-2.5,-2.5);
\coordinate (VI) at (-2.5,-1);
\fill[green!10](I)--(V)--(VI)--(III)--(IV)--cycle;
\fill[orange!10](V)--(VI)--(II)--cycle;
\filldraw [gray] (I) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [gray] (II) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [gray] (-2.5,-2.5) circle (1pt);
\draw[<-, line width=1pt] (-4,0) node[left]{$\mu$}--(-4,-4);
\draw[<-, line width=1pt] (0,-4) node[below]{$\lambda$} --(-4,-4);
\path[draw,line width=1pt] (0,0) -- (-4,-4);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-3.8,0) -- (A);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-3.3,-3.3) -- (B);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-2.5,-1) -- (C);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-2.7,-2.7) -- (C');
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-1,0) -- (D);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-3.8,-3.8) -- (E);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-3.3,-3.3) -- (F);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-2.5,-2.5) -- (G);
\path[draw,line width=0.7pt, dashed, gray] (-1,-1) -- (H);
\coordinate (VI) at (intersection of -3.3,-3.3--B and -3.3,-3.3--F);
\draw (-2.1,-1.6) coordinate(L)node[above]{$(\lambda, \mu)$};
\path[draw,line width=2pt, dotted, red] (L) -- (-2.7,-1.6);
\path[draw,line width=2pt, dotted, red] (-2.7,-1.6)--(-2.7,-2.7);
\path[draw,line width=2pt, dotted, red] (-2.7,-2.7)--(VI);
\draw (-3.5,-3) coordinate(LL)node[above]{$(\lambda, \mu)$};
\filldraw [cyan] (-3.5,-3) circle (1pt);
\path[draw,line width=2pt, blue] (LL) -- (-3.5,-3.5);
\path[draw,line width=2pt, blue] (-3.5,-3.5)--(VI);
\filldraw [black] (L) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (LL) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (VI) circle (1pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The pale green region is $\Upsilon_1$ and the pale orange region is $\Upsilon_2$. The thick blue (solid) and red (dotted) paths show our definition of $\gamma$ when $(\lambda, \mu)$ is in $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$ respectively.}
\label{fig:regionplot}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.2 cm}
\begin{proof}
We define $\Upsilon = \Upsilon_1\cup \Upsilon_2$ where
\[ \Upsilon_1 = \{(\lambda,\mu) : \lambda\in(3/2-\sqrt{2}, 3/2+\sqrt{2}),\, \mu\in[\lambda, 10)\} \]
and
\[ \Upsilon_2 = \{(\lambda,\mu) : \mu\in(3/2+\sqrt{2}, 10),\, \lambda\in[3/2+\sqrt{2},\mu]\}. \]
Figure \ref{fig:regionplot} shows $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$ in pale green and pale orange respectively.
We show that the statement of the Lemma holds for all the points ($\lambda, \mu) \in \Upsilon$ and that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)<0$ if $(\lambda, \mu) \notin \Upsilon$.
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{posdiag}
\kappa(\lambda,\lambda )= -2\lambda+4 \sqrt{\lambda}-1>0 \,\,\,\,\text{ for }\,\,\,\, \lambda \in (3/2-\sqrt{2}, 3/2+\sqrt{2}).
\end{equation}
and this is concave as a function of $\lambda$. Since for $0<\lambda\le\mu$ we have
\[\frac{\partial^2 \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \lambda^2} = -(1/2)(2\mu-\lambda)^{-3/2} - (2 \mu)\lambda^{-3/2} <0\]
and
\[\frac{\partial^2 \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \mu^2} = -2(2\mu-\lambda)^{-3/2} - (1/2)\mu^{-3/2} <0,\]
the functions $\kappa(\cdot,\mu)$ on $(0,\mu]$ and $\kappa(\lambda,\cdot)$ on $[\lambda,\infty)$ are concave for each fixed $\lambda$ and $\mu$ respectively. This means that if we move parallel to either axis, we have the concave property; and so if for example $\kappa(\lambda_1,\mu)>0$ and $\kappa(\lambda_2,\mu)>0$ with $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\le \mu$, then $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$ for all $\lambda\in[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]$.
We now take advantage of this concavity parallel to the axes. For every $(\lambda, \mu) \in \Upsilon_1$ such that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)>0$ we choose $\gamma$ to be the union of the linear paths connecting $(1/2,1/2)$ to $(\lambda, \lambda)$ and then to $(\lambda, \mu)$.
Then clearly $\gamma$ satisfies \eqref{concave1} and \eqref{concave4}. Since $0<\lambda\le\mu\le 10$ throughout $\Upsilon$, the total length of the linear paths described is at most $20$, and therefore we may choose a time parameterization of $\gamma$ such that $|\gamma_X'(t)|\le 20$ and $|\gamma_Y'(t)|\le 20$, so that $\gamma$ satisfies \eqref{concave3}. We claim that $\gamma$ also satisfies \eqref{concave2}. Indeed, by \eqref{posdiag} $\kappa(\gamma(t))$ is positive on the first linear segment; in particular $\kappa(\lambda,\lambda)>0$, and since by assumption $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$, by concavity parallel to the axes $\kappa(\gamma(t))$ is positive on the second linear segment too and $\kappa (\lambda,\mu) \ge \kappa_0$ where $\kappa_0 :=\min\{ \kappa(1/2,1/2), \kappa(\lambda, \lambda), \kappa(\lambda, \mu)\} >0$.
Now consider $(\lambda, \mu) \in \Upsilon_2$ such that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)>0$. Since $\lambda \ge 3/2+\sqrt{2}/2$ and $\mu<10$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{derivpos}
\frac{\partial \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \lambda} = \frac{\mu}{\lambda^2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mu-\lambda}}-1 \le \frac{4 \mu}{(3+\sqrt{2})^2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mu-\lambda}}-1 <0,
\end{equation}
so $\kappa(\lambda', \mu)> \kappa(\lambda, \mu)>0$ for every $\lambda' \in [3/2+\sqrt{2}/2, \lambda]$. In particular, $\kappa (3/2+\sqrt{2}/2, \mu)>0$ and $(3/2+\sqrt{2}/2, \mu) \in \Upsilon_1$, so we can define $\gamma$ as the union of the linear paths connecting $(1/2,1/2)$ to $(3/2+\sqrt{2}/2, 3/2+\sqrt{2}/2)$, then to $(3/2+\sqrt{2}/2, \mu)$, and then to $(\lambda, \mu)$. Then as above, $\gamma$ clearly satisfies \eqref{concave1} and \eqref{concave4} and can be parameterized such that it satisfies \eqref{concave3}. Also $\kappa(\gamma(t))$ is positive on the first and second linear segments by the analysis of the $\lambda \in (3/2-\sqrt{2}, 3/2+\sqrt{2})$ case above, it is positive on the third linear segment by \eqref{derivpos} and $\kappa(\lambda, \mu) \ge \kappa_0$. Thus $\gamma$ satisfies \eqref{concave2} too.
To complete our proof, it remains to show that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)<0$ for $(\lambda,\mu) \notin \Upsilon$. If $0< \lambda \le \mu \le 3/2-\sqrt{2}$, this follows from the fact that for every $\lambda \le 3/2-\sqrt{2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{kapneg1}
\kappa(\lambda, 3/2-\sqrt{2}) = -\frac{3/2-\sqrt{2}}{\lambda}-\lambda+2 \sqrt{3-2\sqrt{2}-\lambda}-\frac{3}{2} +\sqrt{2}+2 \sqrt{3/2-\sqrt{2}}<0,
\end{equation}
and for every $t \in [0,3/2-\sqrt{2}-\mu]$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \kappa(\lambda+t,\mu+t) &= \left( \frac{\partial \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \lambda} + \frac{\partial \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \mu} \right) \bigg\lvert_{(\lambda, \mu) =(\lambda+t, \mu+t)} \\
&=\frac{\mu-\lambda}{(\lambda+t)^2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mu+t-\lambda}} +\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu+t}} -2 \\
&\ge \frac{1}{\sqrt{3/2-\sqrt{2}}} -2 >0.
\end{align*}
Secondly, if $0<\lambda\le 3/2-\sqrt 2 < \mu$, then we use \eqref{kapneg1} plus the fact that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \mu} = -\frac{1}{\lambda} + \frac{2}{\sqrt{2 \mu-\lambda}} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} -1 \le -\frac{1}{3/2-\sqrt 2} + \frac{3}{\sqrt{3/2-\sqrt 2}}-1 < 0.
\end{equation*}
Finally, when $0< \lambda \le \mu$ and $\mu \ge 10$, the key fact is to observe that for every $\mu \ge 10$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mu_derivative}
\frac{\partial \kappa(\lambda, \mu)}{\partial \mu} = -\frac{1}{\lambda} + \frac{2}{\sqrt{2 \mu-\lambda}} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} -1 \le -\frac{1}{\mu} + \frac{3}{\sqrt{\mu}}-1 < 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\kappa(\lambda, 10)<0$ for $\lambda \le 10$, \eqref{eqn:mu_derivative} gives that $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)<0$ for any $\mu \ge 10$ and $\lambda \le 10$; and since $\kappa(\lambda,\lambda)<0$ for $\lambda\ge 10$, \eqref{eqn:mu_derivative} gives that $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)<0$ whenever $\mu\ge 10$ and $\lambda\ge 10$.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Take $f\in G_M^2$ such that $\frac{d}{dt} \tilde K(f,0,t)|_{t=0} > 0$ and $\tilde K(f,0,t)>0$ for all $t\in(0,1]$. Also fix $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $n\ge m$. We now construct a function $h=h_{f,n,m}$ which depends on $n$ and $m$; we will later show that for $m$ sufficiently large (and $n$ even larger) the resulting function satisfies the properties of Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}.
Let $\tau = m^m \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n$. We will eventually choose $n$ much larger than $m$, so that $\tau$ is small. Also let $\lambda = f'_X(0)$ and $\mu = f'_Y(0)$. Take $\gamma$ as in Lemma \ref{kappaconcave} and for $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$ define
\begin{equation}\label{lambdajmuj}
\lambda_j = \lambda_j^{(m)} = \gamma_X(j/m), \hspace{8mm} \mu_j = \mu_j^{(m)} = \gamma_Y(j/m)\hspace{4mm}\text{ and }\hspace{4mm}\tau_j = \tau m^{j-m}.
\end{equation}
Begin by defining $h(s) = (s/2,s/2) = (\lambda_0 s,\mu_0 s)$ for $s\le \tau_0$. Then recursively, for each $j=1,\ldots,m$, suppose that $h(s)$ is defined for $s\le \tau_{j-1}$ and set
\[h(s) = h(\tau_{j-1}) + \big(\lambda_j(s-\tau_{j-1}),\,\mu_j(s-\tau_{j-1})\big) \,\,\,\, \text{ for } s\in(\tau_{j-1},\tau_j].\]
Also define
\[h(s) = h(\tau) + \big(f(2\tau)-h(\tau))\Big(\frac{s-\tau}{\tau}\Big) \,\,\,\,\text{ for } s\in(\tau,2\tau].\]
Finally, for each $j\in\{2\tau n,2\tau n+1,\ldots,n\}$ let $h(j/n)=f(j/n)$ and interpolate linearly between these values.
Note that, since $\tilde K$ has only downward jumps and $\tilde K(f,0,t)>0$ for all $t\in(0,1]$, we have $\inf_{s\in[\nu,1]} \tilde K(f,0,s) > 0$ for every $\nu>0$. Thus we may choose $\nu = \nu_{f,m}\in(0,1]$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\|f(s)-(\lambda s,\mu s)\|\le s/m$ for all $s\le \nu$, \label{fnearlinearitem}
\item $\tilde K(f,s,t)>0$ for all $s\le\nu$ and $t\ge s$, and \label{Kpositem}
\item $\tilde K(f,\nu,1) \ge \tilde K(f,0,1)-1/m$. \label{Kapprox1item}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lem}\label{hnearlinearlem}
Suppose that $\mu\ge\lambda>0$ and $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$. For any $m\ge 2$, $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ and any $s\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$,
\[\|h_{f,n,m}(s)-(\lambda_j s,\mu_j s)\| \le 40\tau_{j-1}/m.\]
Moreover, if $2\tau\le\nu$, then for any $s\in[\tau,\nu]$,
\[\|h_{f,n,m}(s)-(\lambda s,\mu s)\| \le 40 s/m.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We begin by noting that for $s\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$,
\begin{equation}\label{hconst}
h(s)-(\lambda_j s,\mu_j s) = h(\tau_{j-1})-(\lambda_{j}\tau_{j-1},\mu_{j}\tau_{j-1}),
\end{equation}
so
for the first part of the lemma it suffices to show that for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{lammuj}
\|h(\tau_{j-1})-(\lambda_{j}\tau_{j-1},\mu_{j}\tau_{j-1})\|\le 40\tau_{j-1}/m.
\end{equation}
We prove \eqref{lammuj} by induction. Recall that for each $j$, $\lambda_j = \gamma_X(j/m)$, and by Lemma \ref{kappaconcave} \eqref{concave3}, $|\lambda_{j-1} - \lambda_{j}|\le 20/m$ and $\lvert \mu_{j}- \mu_{j-1} \lvert \le 20/m$. Thus we first have
\[\|h(\tau_0)-(\lambda_1 \tau_0,\mu_1 \tau_0)\| = \max \{ \lvert \lambda_0-\lambda_1 \lvert \tau_0, \lvert \mu_0-\mu_1 \lvert\tau_0 \} \le 20 \tau_0/m.\]
Suppose that $j\in\{1,\ldots,m-1\}$ and \eqref{lammuj} holds for $j$. By the triangle inequality,
\[|h_X(\tau_j)-\lambda_{j+1}\tau_j| \le |h_X(\tau_j) - \lambda_j\tau_j| + |\lambda_j\tau_j - \lambda_{j+1}\tau_j|\]
and then by \eqref{hconst}, this equals
\[|h_X(\tau_{j-1}) - \lambda_j\tau_{j-1}| + |\lambda_j-\lambda_{j+1}|\tau_j.\]
Applying \eqref{lammuj} and using the fact that $|\lambda_{j-1} - \lambda_{j}|\le 20/m$, we obtain that
\[|h_X(\tau_j)-\lambda_{j+1}\tau_j| \le \frac{40\tau_{j-1}}{m} + \frac{20\tau_j}{m} \le \frac{40\tau_j}{m}.\]
By symmetry we also have $|h_Y(\tau_{j})-\mu_{j+1} \tau_{j}|\le 40\tau_j/m$. Hence, by induction, \eqref{lammuj} holds for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, proving the first part of the lemma.
For the second part, suppose that $2\tau\le \nu$. Note first that for $s\in[\tau,2\tau]$, $h$ is linear and therefore
\[\|h(s)-(\lambda s,\mu s)\| \le \max\big\{\|h(\tau)-(\lambda \tau,\mu \tau)\|,\,\|h(2\tau)-(2\lambda\tau,2\mu\tau)\|\big\}.\]
By the first part of the lemma,
\[\|h(\tau)-(\lambda \tau,\mu \tau)\|\le 40\tau_{m-1}/m \le 40\tau/m\]
and since $h(2\tau) = f(2\tau)$, by property (\ref{fnearlinearitem}) of $f$,
\[\|h(2\tau)-(2\lambda \tau,2\mu \tau)\| \le 2\tau/m.\]
This proves the second part of the lemma for $s\in[\tau,2\tau]$; for $s\in [2\tau,\nu]$, we note that $h$ linearly interpolates between values of $f$, and therefore for $j$ such that $s\in[j/n,(j+1)/n]$,
\[\|h(s)-(\lambda s,\mu s)\| \le \max\big\{\|f(\sfrac{j}{n})-(\lambda \sfrac{j}{n},\mu \sfrac{j}{n})\|,\,\|f(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-(\lambda \sfrac{j+1}{n},\mu \sfrac{j+1}{n})\|\big\} \le \frac{j+1}{nm} \le \frac{s+1/n}{m} \le \frac{2s}{m}\]
where we used (\ref{fnearlinearitem}) and the fact that $2\tau\ge 1/n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{hnearlinearcor}
Suppose that $\mu\ge\lambda>0$, $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$ and $m\ge 1600$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Then for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ and any $s\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$,
\[\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1-\frac{1600}{m}\Big) \le R^*(h_{f,n,m}(s)) \le \frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1+\frac{3200}{m}\Big),\]
and if $2\tau\le\nu$ then for any $s\in[\tau,\nu]$
\[\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\Big(1-\frac{1600}{m}\Big) \le R^*_X(h_{f,n,m}(s))+1/2 \le R^*(h_{f,n,m}(s)) \le \frac{\mu}{\lambda}\Big(1+\frac{3200}{m}\Big).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We begin with the lower bound on $R^*(h(s))$ for $s\in [\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$. Since $\mu\ge\lambda$, we have $h_Y(s)\ge h_X(s)$, and therefore by the first part of Lemma \ref{hnearlinearlem},
\[R^*(h(s)) = \frac{h_Y(s)}{h_X(s)} \ge \frac{\mu_j s - 40\tau_{j-1}/m}{\lambda_j s + 40\tau_{j-1}/m} = \frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(\frac{1 - 40\tau_{j-1}/(m\mu_j s)}{1 + 40\tau_{j-1}/(m\lambda_j s)}\Big).\]
Using the fact that $s\ge\tau_{j-1}$, and then that $1/(1+x)\ge 1-x$ for $x\ge0$, this is at least
\[\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1 - \frac{40}{m\mu_j}\Big)\Big(1 - \frac{40}{m\lambda_j}\Big).\]
By Lemma \ref{kappaconcave} \eqref{concave4}, we have $\lambda_j\ge 3/2-\sqrt{2} \ge 1/20$ and similarly for $\mu_j$, so the above is at least $\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}(1-1600/m)$,
and the first lower bound on $R^*(h(s))$ follows. The first upper bound is similar, using that $1/(1-x) \le 1+2x$ for $x\in[0,1/2]$; since $m\ge 1600$ and $\lambda_j\ge 1/20$ we have $40/(m\lambda_j) \le 1/2$, and we obtain
\[R^*(h(s)) \le \frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1 + \frac{40}{m\mu_j}\Big)\Big(1 + \frac{80}{m\lambda_j}\Big);\]
then since $\lambda_j\ge 1/20$, $\mu_j\ge 1/20$ and $m\ge 1600$, the product of the last two terms reduces to the desired form.
The proof of the second part of the corollary, when $s\in[\tau,\nu]$, is almost identical. Indeed, if $h_Y(s)\ge h_X(s)$ then $R^*_X(h(s))+1/2 = R^*(h(s))$ and we use the same argument but apply the second part of Lemma \ref{hnearlinearlem} rather than the first part. The same applies to the lower bound even when $h_Y(s)<h_X(s)$, since in any case $R^*_X(h(s)) +1/2 \ge h_Y(s)/h_X(s)$. However, we have to make a slight modification to the upper bound when $h_Y(s)<h_X(s)$; in this case, we instead have $R^*_X(h(s))+1/2 \le R^*(h(s))$ where
\[R^*(h(s)) = \frac{h_X(s)}{h_Y(s)}, \]
and then the argument above gives
\[R^*(h(s)) = \frac{h_X(s)}{h_Y(s)} \le \frac{\lambda s + 40s/m}{\mu s - 40s/m} \le \frac{\lambda}{\mu}\Big(1+\frac{40}{\lambda m}\Big)\Big(1+\frac{80}{\mu m}\Big) \le \frac{\lambda}{\mu}\Big(1+\frac{3200}{m}\Big).\]
However, since $\lambda\le\mu$, we have $\lambda/\mu \le 1 \le \mu/\lambda$ and so the same conclusion holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Ktildekappacor}
Suppose that $\mu\ge\lambda>0$, $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$ and $m\ge 1600$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$. There exists a finite constant $C$ such that for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ and any $s,t\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$ with $s\le t$, we have
\[\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},s,t) \ge \kappa(\lambda_j,\mu_j)(t-s) - \frac{C}{m}(t-s),\]
and if $2\tau\le\nu$ then for any $s,t\in[\tau,\nu]$ with $s\le t$, we have
\[\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},s,t) \ge \kappa(\lambda,\mu)(t-s) - \frac{C}{m}(t-s).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We begin with the first statement. Using \eqref{Kalt}, since $h(t)-h(s) = (\lambda_j(t-s),\mu_j(t-s))$, we have
\begin{multline*}
\tilde K(h,s,t) = -\int_s^t R^*(h(u))du + 2\sqrt2 \int_s^t \sqrt{R^*_X(h(u))\lambda_j}\, du\\
+ 2\sqrt2 \int_s^t \sqrt{R^*_Y(h(u))\mu_j}\, du - \lambda_j(t-s) - \mu_j(t-s).
\end{multline*}
Since $\mu\ge\lambda$, we have $h_Y(u)\ge h_X(u)$ for all $u\le\tau$ and therefore $R^*_X(h(u))=R^*(h(u))-1/2$ and $R^*_Y(h(u))=1/2$ for all $u\le\tau$. Thus
\begin{multline}\label{tildeKnearlinear1}
\tilde K(h,s,t) = -\int_s^t R^*(h(u))du + 2\sqrt2 \int_s^t \sqrt{(R^*(h(u))-1/2)\lambda_j}\, du\\
+ 2\sqrt{\mu_j} (t-s) - \lambda_j(t-s) - \mu_j(t-s).
\end{multline}
By Corollary \ref{hnearlinearcor}, for any $u\in[s,t]$ we have
\[ \frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1-\frac{1600}{m}\Big) \le R^*(h(u)) \le \frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1+\frac{3200}{m}\Big)\]
and, using also that $(1-x)^{1/2}\ge 1-x$ for $x\in[0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{(R^*(h(u))-1/2)} &\ge \bigg(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1-\frac{1600}{m}\Big) - 1/2\bigg)^{1/2}\\
&= \Big(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2}\Big(1-\frac{1600\mu_j}{m\lambda_j(\mu_j/\lambda_j-1/2)}\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\ge \Big(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2}\Big(1-\frac{3200}{m}\Big).
\end{align*}
Substituting these estimates into \eqref{tildeKnearlinear1}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\tilde K(h,s,t) \ge -\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}\Big(1+\frac{3200}{m}\Big)(t-s) + 2\sqrt2 \Big(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2}\lambda_j^{1/2}\Big(1-\frac{3200}{m}\Big)(t-s)\\
+ 2 \sqrt{\mu_j} (t-s) - \lambda_j(t-s) - \mu_j(t-s).
\end{multline*}
Recognising that
\[\kappa(\lambda_j,\mu_j) = -\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j} + 2\sqrt2\Big(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2}\lambda_j^{1/2} + 2\mu_j^{1/2}-\lambda_j-\mu_j,\]
we see that
\[\tilde K(h,s,t) \ge \kappa(\lambda_j,\mu_j) (t-s)- \frac{3200\mu_j}{\lambda_j m}(t-s) - 2\sqrt2 \Big(\frac{\mu_j}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{1/2}\lambda_j^{1/2}\frac{3200}{m}(t-s)\]
and the first part of the result follows using Lemma \ref{kappaconcave} \eqref{concave4}.
The proof of the second part is almost identical, though since for $u\in[\tau,\nu]$ we do not have exactly $h'_X(u) = \lambda$ and $h'_Y(u)=\mu$, we must additionally use the bounds
\[h'_X(u) = \frac{f(2\tau)-h(\tau)}{\tau} \le \frac{2\lambda \tau + 2\tau/m^2 - \lambda\tau + 40\tau/m}{\tau} \le \lambda + \frac{42}{m}\]
and similarly
\[h'_X(u) \ge \lambda - \frac{42}{m}\]
and
\[\mu - \frac{42}{m} \le h'_Y(u) \le \mu + \frac{42}{m}.\]
With the addition of these estimates, the proof proceeds as before.
\end{proof}
Corollary \ref{Ktildekappacor} essentially guarantees that $\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},s,t)$ is positive for $0\le s<t\le \nu$, provided that $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$. We now need to show that $\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,t)$ is not too negative for $t\ge\nu$. The following result will be used to check that $\tilde K(f,\nu,t)$ is closely approximated by $\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,t)$.
\begin{prop}\label{lowersemicts}
Suppose that $0\le s\le t\le 1$ and that $f\in G_M^2$. Let $f_n$ be the function in $\PL_n$ constructed by setting $f_n(j/n)=f(j/n)$ for each $j=0,\ldots,n$ and interpolating linearly. Then
\[\liminf_{n\to\infty}\tilde K(f_n,s,t) \ge \tilde K(f,s,t).\]
\end{prop}
We prove this in Appendix \ref{lsc_sec}. Later, in Proposition \ref{uppersemicts}, we will also show that the opposite inequality holds in certain circumstances. We now have the pieces in place to prove Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{hfmnprop}]
As usual let $\lambda = f'_X(0)$, $\mu = f'_Y(0)$ and $\tau = m^m\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n$, with $\lambda_j$ and $\mu_j$ as in \eqref{lambdajmuj} and $\tau_j = \tau m^{j-m}$, for $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$. We will check that $h_{f,n,m}$ satisfies the desired properties when $m$ and $n$ are sufficiently large. Without loss of generality we assume that $\mu\ge\lambda$.
Since $\tau_0 n$ is an integer we have $h_{f,n,m}\in\PL_n^2$, and since $f\in G_M^2$ it is easy to see that $h_{f,n,m}\in G_M^2$ too. Since $\|h_{f,n,m}(s)\|\le Ms$ and $\|f(s)\|\le Ms$ for $s\le 2\tau = 2m^m\lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n$, and $h_{f,n,m}(j/n)=f(j/n)$ for $j\ge 2\tau n$, by choosing $n$ large enough that $2\tau M\le \varepsilon$ we have $h_{f,n,m}\in B(f,\varepsilon)$. This proves that $h_{f,n,m}$ satisfies \eqref{hfmnprop1} when $n$ is large.
For \eqref{hfmnprop2}, note first that $\tau_0 = \lceil n^{7/8}\rceil/n$. Take $n$ large enough that $2\tau<\nu$. Then we claim that since $\lim_{t\to 0}\tilde K(f,0,t)/t > 0$, we have $\kappa(\lambda,\mu)>0$. To see why the claim holds, for small $s$ we have $\|f'(s)-(\lambda,\mu)\|\le 1/m$ and $\|f(s)-(\lambda s,\mu s)\|\le s/m$. The same argument as in Corollary \ref{hnearlinearcor} then shows that for some finite constant $C$,
\[\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\Big(1-\frac{C}{m}\Big) \le R^*_X(f(s)) + \frac{1}{2} \le R^*(f(s)) \le \frac{\mu}{\lambda}\Big(1+\frac{C}{m}\Big)\]
and plugging these estimates into \eqref{Kalt} with $a=0$ and $b=t$ and using standard approximations shows that $\tilde K(f,0,t) \le \kappa(\lambda,\mu)t + C't/m$ for some finite constant $C'$. This implies the claim.
Since $\kappa(\lambda, \mu)>0$, by Lemma \ref{kappaconcave} we may choose $\kappa_0>0$ such that $\kappa(\gamma(t))\ge \kappa_0$ for all $t\in[0,1]$, and then $\kappa(\lambda_j,\mu_j)\ge \kappa_0$ for all $j\in\{0,\ldots,m\}$. Corollary \ref{Ktildekappacor} then tells us that for $s\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_j]$ we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,s) &\ge \sum_{i=1}^{j-1}(\kappa(\lambda_i,\mu_i)-C/m)(\tau_i-\tau_{i-1}) + (\kappa(\lambda_j,\mu_j)-C/m)(s-\tau_{j-1})\\
&\ge (\kappa_0-C/m)(s-\tau_0),
\end{align*}
and for $s\in[\tau,\nu]$ we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,s) &\ge \sum_{i=1}^{m}(\kappa(\lambda_i,\mu_i)-C/m)(\tau_i-\tau_{i-1}) + (\kappa(\lambda,\mu)-C/m)(s-\tau)\\
&\ge (\kappa_0-C/m)(s-\tau_0).
\end{align*}
Thus, by choosing $m$ large enough, we may ensure that $\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,s)\ge \kappa_0(s-\tau_0)/2$ for all $s\in[\tau_0,\nu]$.
For $s>\nu$, by the above argument we have
\begin{equation}\label{finalKeq}
\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,s) \ge \tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,\nu) + \tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,s) \ge \kappa_0(\nu-\tau_0)/2 + \tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,s),
\end{equation}
and since $\kappa_0(\nu-\tau_0)/2$ increases to $\kappa_0\nu/2$ as $n\to\infty$ and $\tilde K(f,\nu,s)>0$ by \eqref{Kpositem}, to show \eqref{hfmnprop2} it suffices to show that for large $n$,
\[\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,s) \ge \tilde K(f,\nu,s) - \kappa_0\nu/4.\]
But since $h$ is the piecewise linear interpolation of $f$ on the interval $[\nu,1]$, this follows from Proposition \ref{lowersemicts}.
Finally, for \eqref{hfmnprop3}, applying \eqref{finalKeq} with $s=1$, we certainly have
\[\tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\tau_0,1) \ge \tilde K(h_{f,n,m},\nu,1);\]
by Proposition \ref{lowersemicts} the right-hand side converges to $\tilde K(f,\nu,1)$ as $n\to\infty$; and by \eqref{Kapprox1item} we know that $\tilde K(f,\nu,1) \ge \tilde K(f,0,1)-1/m$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Coupling $\xi^T$ with simpler processes}\label{coupling_sec}
One problem we face is that $\xi_X$ and $\xi_Y$ are not independent, because their jump rates at time $t$ are functions of the pair $(\xi_X(t),\xi_Y(t))$. However, if we already know that $\xi^T$ has remained near a fixed function $f$, then the jump rates are ``almost deterministic'' and therefore $\xi_X$ and $\xi_Y$ are ``almost independent''. In order to take advantage of this idea, we will construct new processes $Z_+$ and $Z_-$ which have the maximal and minimal jump rates (respectively) that $\xi^T$ may have if it remains near $f$. We will couple these processes with another process, $Z$, which will have the same distribution as $\xi^T$ but will be trapped between $Z_+$ and $Z_-$, as long as $Z$ remains near $f$.\\
Recall the definitions of $R_X^-(I,F,T)$, $R_X^+(I,F,T)$, $R_Y^-(I,F,T)$, $R_Y^+(I,F,T)$, $|I|$, $I^+$, $I^-$, $x^-(s,F)$, $x^+(s,F)$, $y^-(s,F)$, $y^+(s,F)$, $\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)$ and $I_j$ from Section \ref{probabilistic_ingredients}. In what follows, the reader can think of the case $I=I_j$ and $F=\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)$ for some function $f$.
Let
\[V(I,F) = [x^-(I^-,F),x^+(I^-,F)]\times [y^-(I^-,F),y^+(I^-,F)].\]
Take $z=(x,y)\in V(I,F)$. Under a probability measure $Q_z = Q^{I,F,T}_z$, let $(X_+(I^-+s), s\in |I|)$ be a compound Poisson process started from $x$ with rate $2R_X^+(I,F,T)T$ and jumps that are exponentially distributed with parameter $T$, and let $(Y_+(I^-+s), s\in |I|)$ be an independent compound Poisson process started from $y$ with rate $2R_Y^+(I,F,T)T$ and jumps that are exponentially distributed with parameter $T$. Let $Z_+ = (X_+,Y_+)$.
We now construct---again under $Q_z^{I,F,T}$---two more (pure jump) processes $Z(I^-+s)$ and $Z_-(I^-+s)$ for $s\in |I|$ recursively as follows. Start by setting $Z(I^-)=z$ and $Z_-(I^-) = z$. The jumps of both $Z$ and $Z_-$ are subsets of the jumps of $Z_+$. Suppose that $Z_+$ has a jump at time $s$, and that $Z(s-) = z'$. Let $U$ be an independent Uniform$[0,1]$ random variable. Since $X_+$ and $Y_+$ are independent, exactly one of $X_+$ or $Y_+$ jumps at time $s$. Suppose for a moment that $X_+$ has a jump of size $x'>0$. Then accept the jump for $Z$ if $U\le R_X(z')/R_X^+(I,F,T)$ and reject it otherwise; in other words, set $Z(s) = z'+(x',0)$ with probability $R_X(z')/R_X^+(I,F,T)$ and $Z(s) = z'$ otherwise. Accept the jump for $Z_-$ if $U\le R_X^-(I,F,T)/R_X^+(I,F,T)$ and reject it otherwise. Similarly, if $Y_+$ has a jump of size $y>0$, then accept the jump for $Z$ if $U\le R_Y(z')/R_Y^+(I,F,T)$, and accept it for $Z_-$ if $U\le R_Y^-(I,F,T)/R_Y^+(I,F,T)$.
Recall that for $F\subset E^2$, $g\in E$ and an interval $I\subset[0,1]$, we say that $g|_I\in F|_I$ if there exists a function $h\in F$ such that $h(u)=g(u)$ for all $u\in I$. Let
\[\mathcal A_\xi(I,F,T) = \big\{\xi^T|_I \in F|_I\big\}\]
and
\[\mathcal A(I,F,T) = \big\{Z|_I \in F|_I\big\}.\]
Note that for any $z\in V(I,F)$, on the event $\mathcal A(I,F,T)$, under $Q_z^{I,F,T}$ we always have
\[R_X(Z(s))\in [R_X^-(I,F,T),R_X^+(I,F,T)] \hspace{4mm}\text{ and }\hspace{4mm} R_Y(Z(s))\in [R_Y^-(I,F,T),R_Y^+(I,F,T)],\]
for all $s\in I$. Thus, by our construction:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item under $Q^{I,F,T}_z$, on the event $\mathcal A(I,F,T)$, we have $X_-(s) \le X(s)\le X_+(s)$ and $Y_-(s)\le Y(s)\le Y_+(s)$ for all $s\in I$;
\item the process $(Z(s)\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal A(I\cap[0,s],F,T)})_{s\in I}$ under $Q_z^{I,F,T}$ is equal in distribution to the process\\
$(\xi^T(s)\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal A_\xi(I\cap[0,s],F,T)})_{s\in I}$ conditionally on $\xi^T(I^-)=z$ under $\mathbb{Q}$;
\item under $Q^{I,F,T}_z$, the processes $(X_-,X_+)$ and $(Y_-,Y_+)$ are independent.
\setcounter{enumeratecounter}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, by the thinning property of Poisson processes,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{enumeratecounter}}
\item under $Q^{I,F,T}_z$, the processes $X_-$ and $X_+-X_-$ are independent, as are $Y_-$ and $Y_+-Y_-$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Applying the coupling to the upper bound: proof of Propositions \ref{Qprobcor} and \ref{Qprobcor2}}
Recall the terminology ``$X+$ case'' and ``$X-$ case'' from Section \ref{probabilistic_ingredients}, and the definitions of $\mathcal E^+_X(I,F,T)$ and $\mathcal E^+_Y(I,F,T)$.
The main part of the proof of Proposition \ref{Qprobcor} is the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{QtoEub}
Suppose that $F\subset E^2$ and $T>1$. Then for any $I\subset[0,1]$ and $z\in V(I,F)$,
\[\mathbb{Q}\big(\mathcal A_\xi(I,F,T) \,\big|\,\xi^T(I^-)=z\big) \le \exp\big(-T\mathcal E^+_X(I,F,T)-T\mathcal E^+_Y(I,F,T)\big).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For $z\in V(I,F)$, using (ii), (i) and (iii) in that order,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{Q}\big(\mathcal A_\xi(I,F,T) \,\big|\,\xi^T(I^-)=z\big) &= Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(\mathcal A(I,F,T) \big)\\
&\le Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_-(I^+)\le x^+(I^+,F),\; Y_-(I^+)\le y^+(I^+,F) \big)\\
&= Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_-(I^+)\le x^+(I^+,F)\big)Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(Y_-(I^+)\le y^+(I^+,F) \big).
\end{align*}
We will apply this bound when we are in the $X-$ and $Y-$ cases. Of course, we were not forced to concentrate on the two upper boundaries $x^+(I^+,F)$ and $y^+(I^+,F)$, and by considering the other permutations of boundaries we obtain upper bounds on the same quantity of the form
\[Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_+(I^+)\ge x^-(I^+,F)\big)Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(Y_+(I^+)\ge y^-(I^+,F) \big),\]
\[Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_+(I^+)\ge x^-(I^+,F)\big)Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(Y_-(I^+)\le y^+(I^+,F) \big)\]
and
\[Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_-(I^+)\le x^+(I^+,F)\big)Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(Y_+(I^+)\ge y^-(I^+,F) \big)\]
which we can apply in other cases as appropriate.
Now, for any $\lambda>0$, by Markov's inequality,
\begin{align*}
Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_-(I^+)\le x^+(I^+,F)\big) & = Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(e^{-\lambda X_-(I^+)} \ge e^{-\lambda x^+(I^+,F)}\big)\\
&\le Q^{I,F,T}_z\big[e^{-\lambda(X_-(I^+)-X_-(I^-))}\big]e^{\lambda(x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F))}\\
&= \exp\Big(-2R^-_X(I,F,T)T|I|\frac{\lambda}{T+\lambda}+\lambda (x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F))\Big).
\end{align*}
In the $X-$ case we have $2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I| > x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)$, so we can choose the optimal value
\[\lambda = T\sqrt{\frac{2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I|}{x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)}} - T >0.\]
Simplifying gives
\[Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_-(I^+)\le x^+(I^+,F)\big)\le \exp\Big(-T\Big(\sqrt{2R^-_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^+(I^+,F) - x^-(I^-,F)}\Big)^2\Big)\]
which equals $\exp\big(-T\mathcal E^+_X(I,F,T)\big)$ in the $X-$ case. Similarly, in the $X+$ case, by using
\[Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_+(I^+)\ge x^-(I^+,F)\big) \le Q^{I,F,T}_z[\exp\big(\mu(X_+(I^+)-X_+(I^-))\big) - \mu(x^-(I^+,F) - x^+(I^-,F))]\]
for $\mu>0$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
Q^{I,F,T}_z\big(X_+(I^+)\ge x^-(I^+,F)\big) &\le \exp\Big(-T\Big(\sqrt{2R^+_X(I,F,T)|I|}-\sqrt{x^-(I^+,F) - x^+(I^-,F)}\Big)^2\Big)\\
&= \exp\big(-T\mathcal E^+_X(I,F,T)\big)
\end{align*}
and when we are in neither the $X-$ nor $X+$ case we can use a trivial upper bound of $1$. By symmetry we obtain the same bounds in terms of $Y$. Applying these bounds in the appropriate cases completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Our main results in this section are now easy corollaries of Lemma \ref{QtoEub}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Qprobcor}]
Recall that $I_j = [j/n,(j+1)/n]$ and let $V(j) = V(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n))$. Note that the restrictions on $z$ ensure that $z\in V(i)$, and therefore by the Markov property,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{Q} \big(\xi^T|_{[i/n,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{[i/n,\theta]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_{i/n} = z\big) &\le \prod_{j=i}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor-1} \sup_{z'\in V(j)} \mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{I_j}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n)|_{I_j} \,\big|\, \xi^T_{j/n} = z'\big)\\
&= \prod_{j=i}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor -1} \sup_{z'\in V(j)} \mathbb{Q}\big(\mathcal A_\xi(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T) \,\big|\, \xi^T_{j/n} = z'\big).
\end{align*}
The result now follows from Lemma \ref{QtoEub}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Qprobcor2}]
Let $i=\lfloor an\rfloor$ and $\ell=\lceil bn\rceil$. Let $V_i = \{w : \|w-f(a)\|<1/n^2\}$, and for $j \in\{i+1,\ldots,\ell\}$ let $V_j = \{w : \|w-f(j/n)\|<1/n^2\}$. Note that, by the Markov property,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{Q} \big(\xi^T|_{[a,b]}\in\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{[a,b]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_a = z\big) &\le \prod_{j=i}^{\ell-1} \sup_{w\in V_j} \mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{I_j\cap[a,b]}\in\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)\big|_{I_j\cap[a,b]}\,\big|\,\xi^T_{j/n} = w\big)\\
&= \prod_{j=i}^{\ell-1} \sup_{w\in V_j} \mathbb{Q}\big(\mathcal A_\xi(I_j\cap[a,b],\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) \,\big|\, \xi^T_{j/n} = w\big).
\end{align*}
The result now follows from Lemma \ref{QtoEub}, together with \eqref{LambdaGamma} and \eqref{Rtrap}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Applying the coupling to the lower bound: proofs of Lemmas \ref{BigQtolittleqprod}, \ref{qhatlb} and \ref{qlblem}}\label{CPP_sec}
We begin this section with the proof of Lemma \ref{BigQtolittleqprod}, which links the probability that we want to bound with our coupled compound Poisson processes.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{BigQtolittleqprod}]
We begin by splitting $[0,1]$ into its subintervals $I_j$, $j=0,\ldots,n-1$. By applying the Markov property at each time $j/n$,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{Q}\Big(\xi^T|_{[k/n,1]}\in \Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)|_{[k/n,1]}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(k/n) = w\Big)\\
& \ge \mathbb{Q}\Big( \|\xi^T(s)-f(s)\|<\sfrac{1}{n^2}\;\;\forall s\in I_j, \; \xi^T(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \\
&\hspace{50mm} \xi^T|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j} \;\; \forall j\in\{k,\ldots,n-1\}\,\Big|\, \xi^T(\sfrac{k}{n}) = w\Big)\\
&\ge \prod_{j=k}^{n-1} \inf_{z \in \mathcal Z_j} \mathbb{Q}\Big( \big\|\xi^T(s)-f(s)\big\| <1/n^2 \;\; \forall s\in I_j, \; \xi^T(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \; \xi^T|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j} \,\Big|\, \xi^T(\sfrac{j}{n})=z\Big).
\end{align*}
It therefore remains to show that for each $j$ and any $z\in\mathcal Z_j$,
\begin{multline}\label{Qlbremains}
\mathbb{Q}\Big( \big\|\xi^T(s)-f(s)\big\| <1/n^2 \;\; \forall s\in I_j, \; \xi^T(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \; \xi^T|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j} \,\Big|\, \xi^T(\sfrac{j}{n})=z\Big)\\
\ge q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f).
\end{multline}
We now use the coupling from Section \ref{coupling_sec}, with $I=I_j$ and $F=\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n)$. We simply write $Q_z$ as shorthand for $Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T}$. By property (ii) of the coupling, we have
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\Big( \big\|\xi^T(s)-f(s)\big\| <1/n^2 \;\; \forall s\in I_j, \; \xi^T(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \; \xi^T|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j} \,\Big|\, \xi^T(\sfrac{j}{n})=z\Big)\\
= Q_z\Big( \big\|Z(s)-f(s)\big\| \le 1/n^2\;\;\forall s\in I_j, \; Z(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \; Z|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j}\Big)
\end{multline*}
which, by property (i), is at least
\[Q_z\Big(\big\|Z_-(s)- f(s)\big\| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \,\,\forall s\in I_j, \, Z_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \, Z_-|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j},\, Z_+(s)-Z_-(s) =0\,\,\forall s\in I_j\Big).\]
By property (iv), this equals
\begin{multline*}
Q_z\Big(\big\|Z_-(s)- f(s)\big\| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \;\;\forall s\in I_j, \; Z_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\in \mathcal Z_{j+1}, \; Z_-|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}^2|_{I_j}\Big)\\
\cdot Q_z\Big( Z_+(s)-Z_-(s) =0\;\;\forall s\in I_j\Big)
\end{multline*}
and finally, by property (iii), the above equals
\begin{multline*}
Q_z\Big(\big|X_-(s)- f_X(s)\big| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \;\;\forall s\in I_j,\; \big|X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}, \; X_-|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}|_{I_j}\Big)\\
\cdot Q_z\Big(\big|Y_-(s)- f_Y(s)\big| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \;\;\forall s\in I_j,\; \big|Y_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})- f_Y(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}, \; Y_-|_{I_j}\in G_{M,T}|_{I_j}\Big)\\
\cdot Q_z\Big( X_+(s)-X_-(s) =0\;\;\forall s\in I_j\Big) \cdot Q_z\Big( Y_+(s)-Y_-(s) =0\;\;\forall s\in I_j\Big).
\end{multline*}
Noting that $X_+-X_-$ and $Y_+-Y_-$ are increasing, this is exactly
\[q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f)\, \hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f).\]
Thus we have shown \eqref{Qlbremains} and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The proof of Lemma \ref{qhatlb}, which bounds the $\hat q$ terms, is elementary.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{qhatlb}]
Recall that
\[\hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) = Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T}\Big( X_+(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) =0\Big).\]
Also recall that under $Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T}$, the process $X_+ - X_-$ jumps at rate
\[2\big(R_X^+(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T) - R_X^-(I_j,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T)\big)T.\]
Therefore, for each $j\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $z\in\mathcal Z_j$, using \eqref{Rtrap},
\[\hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\Big(-2\big(R_X^+(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T) - R_X^-(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T)\big)T/n\Big).\]
Since $f\in G_M^2$, for $j\ge\sqrt n$, by \eqref{Rtrap2} we have
\[\hat q^X_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\big(-4\delta_{M,T}(j,n)T/n\big),\]
and by symmetry
\[\hat q^Y_{n,M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\big(-4\delta_{M,T}(j,n)T/n\big).\]
The result then follows from \eqref{sumdeltaeq}.
\end{proof}
The proof of Lemma \ref{qlblem} is much more delicate. Our next result provides a bound on compound Poisson processes, which we prove using standard arguments in Appendix \ref{CPP_append}. This will then be applied to prove Lemma \ref{qlblem}.
\begin{lem}\label{CPPfollowtubecor}
Suppose that $\delta,t,A>0$ and $a\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfy $a<tA/2$ and $|a|\le\delta/2$. Suppose also that $R\ge 1/2$. Let $(X(s),s\ge0)$ be a compound Poisson process of rate $RT$ whose jumps are exponentially distributed with parameter $T$. Then for $T>\frac{2(A-a/t)^{3/2}(4t+\delta)}{R^{1/2}\delta^{2}((A-a/t)\wedge 1)^2}$,
\begin{multline*}
\P(|a+X(s)-As|<\delta \,\, \forall s\le t, \,\, |a+X(t)-At|<\delta/2)\\
\ge \frac{1}{2}\exp\Big(-tT(\sqrt R - \sqrt A)^2 - \delta\Big(1+\sqrt{R}\big(\sqrt{2t/\delta}+1/2\big)\Big)T\Big).
\end{multline*}
\end{lem}
We now apply Lemma \ref{CPPfollowtubecor} to prove Lemma \ref{qlblem}. However we still need to consider two cases: if $f_X$ does not change much over the interval $I_j$ then we may simply ask our process not to jump over that interval, and a bound similar to that in the proof of Lemma \ref{qhatlb} is better than the estimate provided by Lemma \ref{CPPfollowtubecor}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{qlblem}]
Recall that
\begin{multline*}
q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) = Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n),T}\Big(\big|X_-(s)- f_X(s)\big| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \,\,\forall s\in I_j,\\
\big|X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2},\, X_-|_{I_j}\in G_{3M,T}|_{I_j}\Big)
\end{multline*}
Write $Q_z$ as shorthand for $Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n),T}$.
Since $f\in G_M^2$, $j\ge 1$ and $n\ge 2M$, under $Q_z$ we also have, for any $s\in I_j$,
\[X_-(s)\ge x \ge f_X \Big(\frac{j}{n}\Big)-\frac{1}{2n^2} \ge \frac{j}{Mn} - \frac{1}{2n^2} \ge \frac{3j}{3Mn} - \frac{1}{3Mn} \ge \frac{j+2}{3Mn} - \frac{1}{3Mn} = \frac{j+1}{3Mn} \ge \frac{s}{3M},\]
and if $\big|X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}$ then also
\[X_-(s)\le X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) \le f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) + \sfrac{1}{2n^2} \le M\sfrac{j+1}{n} + \sfrac{1}{2n^2} \le 3Ms.\]
Thus in fact, under the conditions of the lemma, $X_-|_{I_j}$ is always in $G_{3M,T}|_{I_j}$, so
\begin{equation}\label{slimq}
q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) = Q_z^{I_j,\Lambda_{3M,T}(f,n),T}\Big(\big|X_-(s)- f_X(s)\big| \le \sfrac{1}{n^2} \;\;\forall s\in I_j,\; \big|X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})\big| \le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}\Big).
\end{equation}
For the remainder of this proof, for $I\subset[0,1]$, we write $\hat R^-_X(I)$ as shorthand for the quantity $R^-_X(I,\Lambda_{M,T}(f,n),T)$, and similarly for $\hat R^+_X(I)$, $\hat R^-_Y(I)$ and $\hat R^+_Y(I)$. (Recall that we wrote $R^-_X(I)$ in Section \ref{coupling_sec} to mean $R^-_X(I,\Gamma_{M,T}(f,n),T)$.)
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
\textbf{Case 1:} $f_X(\frac{j+1}{n})\le x + \frac{1}{2n^2}$.\\
Note that since $z\in\mathcal Z_j$, we have $x\le f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})+\sfrac{1}{2n^2} \le f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})+\sfrac{1}{2n^2}$, and therefore $|x-f_X(s)|\le \sfrac{1}{2n^2}$ for all $s\in I_j$.
Thus \eqref{slimq} can be bounded in the following trivial way:
\[q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) \ge Q_z\big(X_-(s) = x \;\;\forall s\in I_j) = Q_z\big(X_-(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) = x).\]
Under $Q_z$, $X_-$ jumps at rate $2\hat R_X^-(j)T$, so we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{lbqtoR-case1}
q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \exp\Big(-\frac{2\hat R_X^-(j)T}{n}\Big).
\end{equation}
On the other hand we have
\begin{align*}
&\int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))}-\sqrt{f'_X(s)}\Big)^2 ds\\
&\ge 2\int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} R^*_X(f(s)) ds - 2\int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)} ds + f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) - f_X(\sfrac{j}{n}).
\end{align*}
By \eqref{Rtrap2},
\[R_X^*(f(s)) \ge \hat R_X^+(j) - \delta_{M,T}(j,n) \ge \hat R_X^-(j) - \delta_{M,T}(j,n),\]
so since $f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) - f_X(\sfrac{j}{n}) \le \sfrac{1}{n^2}$ and $R_X^*(f(s))\le M$ for all $s$,
\[\int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))}-\sqrt{f'_X(s)}\Big)^2 ds \ge \frac{2\hat R^-_X(j) - 2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n} - \frac{2 \sqrt{2}M^{1/2}}{n^{3/2}} .\]
The result now follows from this and \eqref{lbqtoR-case1}.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
\textbf{Case 2:} $f_X(\frac{j+1}{n})> x+\frac{1}{2n^2}$.\\
Note that $X_-$ jumps at rate $2\hat R_X^-(j)T$ and has exponential jumps of parameter $T$ under $Q_z$. We therefore aim to apply Lemma \ref{CPPfollowtubecor}, with $A=n(f_X(\frac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\frac{j}{n}))$, $\delta = 1/n^2$, $t=1/n$ and $a=x-f_X(j/n)$. We need to check that $a<tA/2$; to see this, note that since $z\in\mathcal Z(j)$ and we are in Case 2,
\[2a=2\big(x-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)\le \sfrac{1}{2n^2} + x-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n}) < f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n}) - f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})=tA.\]
It is also easy to check that for $T>8n^{9/2}M^{3/2}$, $T$ is large enough that the conclusion of Lemma \ref{CPPfollowtubecor} holds. Thus applying Lemma \ref{CPPfollowtubecor} to \eqref{slimq} gives
\begin{multline*}
q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f)\\
\ge \frac{1}{2} \exp\bigg(-\frac{T}{n}\Big(\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)}- \sqrt{n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}\Big)^2 - \frac{1}{n^2}\Big(1+\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)}\big(\sqrt{2n}+1/2\big)\Big)T\bigg).
\end{multline*}
Since $f\in G_M^2$, we have $\hat R_X^-(j)\le M$ and therefore
\[1+\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)}\big(\sqrt{2n}+1/2\big) \le 1 + \sqrt{2M}\big(\sqrt{2n}+1/2\big) \le 2(M+1)n^{1/2}.\]
Thus
\begin{equation}\label{case2lbpt1}
q^X_{n,3M,T}(z,j,f) \ge \frac{1}{2} \exp\bigg(-\frac{T}{n}\Big(\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)} - \sqrt{n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}\Big)^2 - \frac{2(M+1)T}{n^{3/2}}\bigg).
\end{equation}
Noting that since $f\in \PL_n^2$ we have $n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big) = f'(s)$ for all $s\in I_j$, and by \eqref{Rtrap2}
\[\big(R^*_X(f(s))-\delta_{M,T}(j,n)\big)\vee 0 \le \hat R_X^-(j) \le \hat R_X^+(j) \le R_X^*(f(s))+\delta_{M,T}(j,n),\]
we deduce that
\[\frac{2}{n}\hat R_X^-(j) \le \int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} 2R^*_X(f(s))ds + \frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n}\]
and using also that $\sqrt{(a-b)\wedge 0} \ge \sqrt a - \sqrt b$ for $a,b\ge0$,
\begin{multline*}
\frac{1}{n}\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}\\
\ge \int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))f'_X(s)}ds - \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sqrt{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}.
\end{multline*}
Thus
\begin{multline*}
\frac{1}{n}\Big(\sqrt{2\hat R_X^-(j)} - \sqrt{n\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}\Big)^2 \le \int_{j/n}^{(j+1)/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R^*_X(f(s))} - \sqrt{f'(s)}\Big)^2 ds + \frac{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)}{n}\\
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sqrt{2\delta_{M,T}(j,n)\big(f_X(\sfrac{j+1}{n})-f_X(\sfrac{j}{n})\big)}.
\end{multline*}
This combines with \eqref{case2lbpt1} to give the result.
\end{proof}
\section{The final details for the upper bound}\label{finaldetailssec}
\subsection{Compactness and semicontinuity}\label{cpctsemisec}
There are a few more technical issues that must be resolved in order to complete the proof of the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm}. One of the remaining ingredients is to prove that the set of functions that we are interested in can be covered by a finite collection of small balls around suitably chosen functions. Recall that $\PL_n$ is the subset of functions in $E$ that are linear on each interval $[i/n,(i+1)/n]$ for all $i=0,\ldots,n-1$ and continuous on $[0,1]$. For $F\subset E$ and $r>0$, write $B_d(F,r) = \bigcup_{f\in F} B_d(f,r)$, where $B_d(f,r)$ is the ball of radius $r$ about $f$ in the metric $d$.
\begin{lem}\label{coverGMT}
Suppose that $F\subset E^2$ and $M>1$. For any $n\ge 4M$, there exist $N\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in G_{4M}^2\cap\PL_n^2$ such that
\[F\cap G_{M,T}^2\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^N \big( B_{\Delta_n}(g_i,1/n^2) \cap B_d(g_i,1/n)\big)\subset B_d(F,2/n)\]
for all $T\ge (4Mn)^{3/2}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent
We will prove this in Appendix \ref{rel_cpct_sec}.
In order to check that the supremum of our rate function $\tilde K$ over $f\in B_d(F,\varepsilon)$ is close to the supremum over $f\in F$ when $\varepsilon$ is small, we will need to show that $\tilde K$ has some form of upper semi-continuity.
\begin{prop}\label{uppersemicts}
Suppose that $0<\theta\le 1$ and there exists $M\in(1,\infty)$ such that $f,f_n\in G_M^2$ for all $n$. Suppose also that either $f$ is continuous at $\theta$, or $\theta=1$. If $d(f_n,f)\to 0$ then
\[\limsup_{n\to\infty} \tilde K(f_n,0,\theta) \le \tilde K(f,0,\theta).\]
\end{prop}
The following simple corollary of Proposition \ref{uppersemicts} is written in a more convenient form.
\begin{cor}\label{uppersemictscor}
Suppose that $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $F\subset E^2$ is closed. Then
\[\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \sup_{f\in B_d(F,\varepsilon) \cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in F \cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1).\]
\end{cor}
We will prove Proposition \ref{uppersemicts} and Corollary \ref{uppersemictscor} in Appendix \ref{usc_sec}.
\subsection{The result for fixed $T$: proof of Propositions \ref{fixedgprop} and \ref{fixedTprop}}\label{fixedTsec}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{fixedgprop}]
By Markov's inequality, for any $\kappa>0$,
\[\P\Big(N_T\big(\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),\theta\big) \ge \kappa\Big)\le \mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}\}}\bigg]\frac{1}{\kappa},\]
and by Lemma \ref{MtO},
\[\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{v\in\mathcal{N}_T} \mathbbm{1}_{\{Z_v^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}\}}\bigg] = \mathbb{Q}\big[\mathbbm{1}_{\{\xi^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}\}}e^{\int_0^{\theta T} R(\xi_s)ds}\big].\]
Now, if $\xi^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}$, then by Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd},
\[\int_0^{\theta T} R(\xi_s)ds = T\int_0^\theta R(T\xi^T(s)) ds \le T\int_0^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(g(s))ds + T\eta(M,n,T),\]
and therefore
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{Q}\big[\mathbbm{1}_{\{\xi^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}\}}e^{\int_0^{\theta T} R(\xi_s)ds}\big]\\
\le \mathbb{Q}\big(\xi^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}\big) e^{T\int_0^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(g(s))ds + T\eta(M,n,T)}.
\end{multline*}
We also know from Proposition \ref{Qprobcor} that
\[\mathbb{Q}(\xi^T|_{[0,\theta]}\in\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n)|_{[0,\theta]}) \le \exp\bigg(-T\sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor\theta n\rfloor-1} \big(\mathcal E^+_X(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),T) + \mathcal E^+_Y(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),T)\big)\bigg),\]
and by Proposition \ref{detboundratefn} that, if $g = (g_X,g_Y)$,
\[\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor-1} \mathcal E^+_X(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),T) \ge \int_{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R_X^*(g(s))} - \sqrt{g_X'(s)}\Big)^2 ds - O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/4}} + \frac{M^3n}{T^{1/2}}\Big).\]
Since $g\in G_{M}^2$, we also have
\begin{align}
\int_0^{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R_X^*(g(s))} - \sqrt{g'_{X}(s)}\Big)^2 ds &\le \int_0^{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n} 2R_X^*(g(s)) ds + \int_0^{\lceil\sqrt n\rceil/n} g'_{X}(s) ds\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{2M^2\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}{n} + \frac{M\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}{n} \le \frac{4M^2}{\sqrt n}\label{smallsIbd}
\end{align}
so
\[\sum_{j=\lceil\sqrt n\rceil}^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor-1} \mathcal E^+_X(I_j,\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),T) \ge \int_0^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} \Big(\sqrt{2R_X^*(g(s))} - \sqrt{g_X'(s)}\Big)^2 ds - O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/4}} + \frac{M^3n}{T^{1/2}}\Big)\]
and by symmetry the same bound holds for $Y$. Recalling from Lemma \ref{finaldetRbd} that $\eta(M,n,T) = O\Big(\frac{M^4}{n^{1/2}} + \frac{M^3n}{T^{1/3}}\Big)$, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
&\P\Big(N_T\big(\Gamma_{M,T}(g,n),\theta\big) \ge \kappa\Big)\\
&\hspace{10mm}\le e^{-T\int_0^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} \big(\sqrt{2R_X^*(g(s))} - \sqrt{g_X'(s)}\big)^2 ds - T\int_0^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} \big(\sqrt{2R_Y^*(g(s))} - \sqrt{g_Y'(s)}\big)^2 ds}\\
&\hspace{50mm}\cdot e^{O\left(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3nT^{2/3}\right) + T\int_0^{\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n} R^*(g(s))ds}\cdot \frac{1}{\kappa}\\
&\hspace{10mm} = \frac{1}{\kappa} e^{T \tilde K(g,0,\lfloor \theta n\rfloor/n) + O\left(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3n T^{2/3}\right)}
\end{align*}
as required, where for the last equality we used the fact that $g\in G_M^2\cap \PL_n^2$, and therefore $\tilde K(g,0,s)=\int_0^s R^*(g(u))du - I(g,0,s)$ for all $s$.
\end{proof}
Proposition \ref{fixedTprop} essentially establishes the upper bound in Theorem \ref{mainthm} with high probability for a fixed (large) $T$. The proof mostly involves using Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT} and the technical results stated in Section \ref{cpctsemisec} to ensure that we can cover our set in a suitable way with finitely many balls around piecewise linear functions, and then applying Proposition \ref{fixedgprop}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{fixedTprop}]
Take $M\ge M_0$ and the other parameters as in the statement of the Proposition. By Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT},
\[\P(\exists v\in\mathcal{N}_T : Z^T_v\not\in G_{M,T}^2) \le e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}.\]
By Corollary \ref{uppersemictscor}, since $F$ is closed we may choose $n$ large enough such that $n\ge 4M$ and
\[\sup_{f\in B_d(F,2/n)\cap G_{4M}^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in F\cap G_{4M}^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon/3.\]
By Lemma \ref{coverGMT} we may choose $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in G_{4M}^2\cap\PL_n^2$ such that
\[F\cap G_{M,T}^2 \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^N \big(B_{\Delta_n}(g_i,1/n^2)\cap B_d(g_i,1/n)\big) \subset B_d(F,2/n)\]
for all $T\ge (4Mn)^{3/2}$. Recall that $\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n) = B_{\Delta_n}(g_i,1/n^2)\cap B_d(g_i,1/n)\cap G_{M,T}^2$. Then for any $A\ge 0$,
\begin{align}
\P\big(N_T(F) \ge e^{A T}\big) &\le \P\big(\exists v\in\mathcal{N}_T : Z_v^T \not\in G_{M,T}^2\big) + \sum_{i=1}^N \P\Big(N_T\big(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n)\big) \ge \frac{e^{A T}}{N}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\le e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}} + \sum_{i=1}^N \P\Big(N_T\big(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n)\big) \ge \frac{e^{A T}}{N}\Big).\label{decompFeq}
\end{align}
By Proposition \ref{fixedgprop}, for each $i$ we have
\[\P\Big(N_T\big(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n)\big) \ge \frac{e^{A T}}{N}\Big) \le \frac{N}{e^{AT}}\exp\bigg(T \tilde K(g_i,0,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg),\]
and combining this with \eqref{decompFeq} we see that
\[\P\big(N_T(F) \ge e^{A T}\big) \le e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}} + \frac{N^2}{e^{A T}}\max_{i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}} \exp\bigg(T \tilde K(g_i,0,1) + O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg).\]
By our choice of $g_1,\ldots,g_N$ and $n$, we have
\[\max_{i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}} \tilde K(g_i,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in B_d(F,2/n)\cap G^2_{4M}}\tilde K(f,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in F\cap G^2_{4M}} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon/3\]
and therefore
\[\frac{1}{T^{1/3}}\log\P\big(N_T(F) \ge e^{A T}\big) \le (-\delta_0)\vee \bigg(\sup_{f\in F\cap G^2_{4M}} \tilde K(f,0,1) T^{2/3}- A T^{2/3} + \frac{\varepsilon T^{2/3}}{3} + O\Big(\frac{M^4 T^{2/3}}{n^{1/4}}\Big)\bigg).\]
Increasing $n$ if necessary so that the $O(\frac{M^4 T^{2/3}}{n^{1/4}})$ term is smaller than $\sfrac{\varepsilon T^{2/3}}{3}$, and choosing
\[A = \sup_{f\in F\cap G_{4M}^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon,\]
we have
\[\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T^{1/3}}\log \P\big(N_T(F,\theta) \ge e^{A T}\big) \le -\delta_0.\]
This is precisely the statement of the proposition, but with $4M$ in place of $M$. Since we only assumed that $M\ge M_0$ in the proof, the proposition holds when $M\ge 4M_0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection[Paths with $K(f)$ negative are unlikely: proof of Lemma \ref{supKnull}]{Paths with $K(f)=-\infty$ are unlikely: proof of Lemma \ref{supKnull}}\label{sKn_sec}
Before proving Lemma \ref{supKnull}, we need to relate $K$ to $\tilde K$.
\begin{lem}\label{supKneg}
Suppose that $M>1$. If $F\subset E^2$ is closed and $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = -\infty$, then there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that
\[\sup_{f\in B(F,\varepsilon)\cap G_{M,1}^2} \inf_{\theta\in[0,1]} \tilde K(f,0,\theta) < 0.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If the result is not true, then for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we may choose $f_n\in B(F,1/n)\cap G_{M,1}^2$ such that
\[\inf_{\theta\in[0,1]} \tilde K(f_n,0,\theta) \ge -1/n.\]
It is easy to check that $G_{M,1}^2$ is closed and totally bounded. Since $(E^2,d)$ is complete, $G_{M,1}^2$ is compact. We may therefore find a subsequence $(f_{n_j})_{j\ge 1}$ such that $d(f_{n_j},f_\infty)\to 0$ as $j\to\infty$ for some $f_\infty\in G_{M,1}^2$. Since $F\cap G_{M,1}^2$ is closed, and $d(f_\infty,F\cap G_{M,1}^2)=0$, we must in fact have $f_\infty\in F\cap G_{M,1}^2$. On the other hand, by Proposition \ref{uppersemicts}, for any $\theta\in[0,1]$ such that $f_\infty$ is continuous at $\theta$,
\[\tilde K(f_\infty,0,\theta) \ge \limsup_{j\to\infty}\tilde K(f_{n_j},0,\theta) \ge 0.\]
But $f_\infty$ is non-decreasing and therefore continuous almost everywhere, and $t\mapsto\tilde K(f,0,t)$ has only downward jumps, so we must have $\tilde K(f_\infty,0,\theta)\ge 0$ for all $\theta\in[0,1]$. Thus $K(f_\infty)\ge 0$, which contradicts the hypothesis of the lemma.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Lemma \ref{supKnull}, which says that if $F$ is closed and $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = -\infty$, then with high probability $N_T(F)$ is zero.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{supKnull}]
Choose $M\ge M_0$. Since $G_{4M}\subset G_{4M,1}$, by Lemma \ref{supKneg} we may choose $n_0\ge 4M$ such that
\[\sup_{f\in B(F,2/n_0)\cap G_{4M}^2} \inf_{\theta\in[0,1]} \tilde K(f,0,\theta)<0.\]
Let
\begin{equation}\label{supKnulleta}
\eta = -\sup_{f\in B(F,2/n_0)\cap G_{4M}^2} \inf_{\theta\in[0,1]} \tilde K(f,0,\theta) > 0.
\end{equation}
Then take $n\ge n_0$ such that the error term in Proposition \ref{fixedgprop} is smaller than $\eta T/3$ for $T$ sufficiently large, and such that $(4M)^2/n \le \eta/3$.
By Lemma \ref{coverGMT} we may choose $N\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in G_{4M}^2\cap \PL_n^2$ such that
\[F\cap G_{M,T}^2 \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^N \big( B_{\Delta_n}(g_i,1/n^2) \cap B_d(g_i,1/n)\big)\subset B_d(F,2/n)\]
for all $T\ge (4Mn)^{3/2}$.
For each $i=1,\ldots,N$, note that since $g_i\in G_{4M}^2$, by the definition of $\tilde K$, for any $0\le s\le t\le 1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{Krcts}
\tilde K(g_i,0,t) \le \tilde K(g_i,0,s) + (4M)^2(t-s).
\end{equation}
In particular, the function $t\mapsto \tilde K(g_i,0,t)$ has only downward jumps, and therefore its infimum is achieved. Thus, by \eqref{supKnulleta}, we may choose $\theta_i$ such that
\[\tilde K(g_i,0,\theta_i) = \inf_{\theta\in[0,1]} \tilde K(g_i,0,\theta)\le -\eta.\]
Let $\hat\theta_i = \lceil\theta_i n\rceil/n$. Using \eqref{Krcts} again, we then have
\begin{equation}\label{hatthetai}
\tilde K(g_i,0,\hat\theta_i) \le -\eta + (4M)^2/n \le -2\eta/3
\end{equation}
where the last inequality holds because we chose $n$ such that $(4M)^2/n\le \eta/3$.
Now, by our choice of $g_1,\ldots,g_N$, we have
\[N_T(F) \le N_T((G_{M,T}^2)^c) + \sum_{i=1}^N N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n))\]
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{NTFge1}
\P(N_T(F)\ge 1) \le \P\big(N_T((G_{M,T}^2)^c)\ge 1\big) + \sum_{i=1}^N \P\big(N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n))\ge 1\big).
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}, the first term on the right-hand side above is at most $e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}$. Also, since a population that is extinct at time $\theta$ must also be extinct at time $1$, for each $i$ we have
\[\P\big(N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n))\ge 1\big) \le \P\big(N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n),\hat\theta_i)\ge 1\big).\]
Since $\hat\theta_i$ is an integer multiple of $1/n$, by Proposition \ref{fixedgprop} we have
\[\P\big(N_T(\Gamma_{M,T}(g_i,n),\hat\theta_i)\ge 1\big) \le \exp\bigg(T\tilde K\Big(g,0,\hat\theta_i\Big) + O\Big(\frac{M^4T}{n^{1/4}} + M^3 n T^{2/3}\Big)\bigg) \le \exp\Big(-\frac{\eta T}{3}\Big),\]
where the last inequality follows from \eqref{hatthetai} and our choice of $n$. Returning to \eqref{NTFge1}, we have shown that
\[\P(N_T(F)\ge 1) \le e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}} + N e^{-\eta T/3},\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lattice times to continuous time: proof of Proposition \ref{thetaUBprop}}\label{tUBsec}
Before moving on to the proof of Proposition \ref{thetaUBprop}, we state and prove two lemmas that will check that paths of particles are not drastically changed by rescaling by a slightly different value of $T$.
\begin{lem}\label{rescalingcts}
Suppose that $M>1$, $t\ge 3M$ and $t-1\le s\le t$. For any $F\subset E^2$, we have
\[N_s(F\cap G_{M,s}^2)\le N_t\big(B(F, 3M/t)\big).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $u\in\mathcal{N}_{s}$ satisfies $Z_u^s\in F\cap G_{M,s}^2$. Take any $v\in\mathcal{N}_{t}$ such that $v$ is a descendant of $u$. We claim that $d(X_u^s, X_v^t)\le 3M/t$, which means that for all $\tau\in[-3M/t,1+3M/t]$,
\[X_v^{t}(\tau-3M/t)-3M/t \le X_u^s(\tau) \le X_v^{t}(\tau+3M/t) + 3M/t\]
where $f(\tau)$ is interpreted to equal $f(0)$ for $\tau<0$ and $f(1)$ for $\tau>1$. Since $Z_u^s\in F$, the claim plus its equivalent $Y$ statement ensure that $Z_v^t\in B(F, 3M/t)$, which is enough to complete the proof.
To prove the claim, first note that it holds when $\tau\le 0$, since in this case $X_u^s(\tau)=X_u^s(0)=X_v^t(0) = X_v^t(\tau)$. If $\tau >0$, since $s\le t$ and
\[\tau s \ge \tau(t-1) = t(\tau - \tau/t) \ge t\Big(\tau-\frac{1+3M/t}{t}\Big) \ge t\Big(\tau - \frac{3M}{t}\Big),\]
we have
\[X^s_u(\tau) = X^s_v(\tau) \ge X_v^t(\tau - \sfrac{3M}{t}).\]
Also, since $X_u^s\in G_{M,s}^2$, for any $\tau\in[0,1]$ we have
\begin{align*}
X^s_u(\tau) = \frac{1}{s}X_u(\tau s) &= \frac{1}{t}X_u(\tau s) + \Big(1-\frac{s}{t}\Big)X_u^s(\tau)\\
&\le \frac{1}{t}X_v(\tau t) + \Big(\frac{t-s}{t}\Big) M(1+2s^{-2/3})\\
&\le X_v^{t}(\tau) + \frac{M}{t}(1+2s^{-2/3}) \le X_v^{t}(\tau) + \frac{3M}{t}
\end{align*}
as required. If $\tau>1$ then $X^s_u(\tau) = X^s_u(1)$ and then the argument above gives that that $X^s_u(1)\le X^t_v(1) + 3M/t = X^t_v(\tau) + 3M/t$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{rescalingbadpaths}
Suppose that $M>2$, $T\ge 2$ and $t\in[T-1,T]$. If $N_t((G_{M,t}^2)^c)\ge 1$ then either $N_T((G_{M/2,T}^2)^c)\ge 1$ or $N_{T-1}((G_{M/2,T-1}^2)^c)\ge 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there exists $v\in\mathcal{N}_{t}$ such that $Z^t_v\in (G_{M,t}^2)^c$. It is possible that either $X^t_v$ or $Y^t_v$ (or both) is the reason for $Z^t_v$ falling outside $G_{M,t}^2$; without loss of generality assume that it is $X^t_v$. Then there exists $s\in[0,1]$ such that either $X^t_v(s) > M(s+2t^{-2/3})$, or $X^t_v(s)<s/M - 2t^{-2/3}$. In the first case, take $w\in\mathcal{N}_{T}$ such that $w$ is a descendant of $v$. Then
\[X^T_w(s) = \frac{1}{T}X_w(sT) \ge \frac{t}{T}\frac{1}{t}X_v(st) > \frac{1}{2}M(s+2t^{-2/3}) \ge \frac{M}{2}(s+2T^{-2/3})\]
so $Z^T_w\in (G_{M/2,T}^2)^c$. In the second case, let $u$ be the ancestor of $v$ in $\mathcal{N}_{T-1}$. Then
\[X^{T-1}_u(s) = \frac{1}{T-1}X_u(s(T-1)) \le \frac{t}{T-1}\frac{1}{t}X_v(st) < \frac{t}{T-1}\Big(\frac{s}{M}-2t^{-2/3}\Big) \le \frac{2s}{M} - 2(T-1)^{-2/3}\]
so $Z^{T-1}_u \in (G_{M/2,T-1}^2)^c$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{thetaUBprop}]
We begin with the first part of the result. Take $\varepsilon>0$. We start by noting that
\begin{multline}\label{splitFoverG}
\P\Big(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : \frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon \Big)\\
\le \P\Big(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : \frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F\cap G_{M,t}^2)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon \Big)\\
+ \P\big(\exists t\in [T-1,T] : N_t((G_{M,t}^2)^c)\ge 1\big).
\end{multline}
We show that the right-hand side is exponentially small in $T$. By Corollary \ref{uppersemictscor}, we can choose $\varepsilon'\in(0,1)$ such that
\[\sup_{f\in \overline{B(F,\varepsilon')}\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) \le \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon/3.\]
By Lemma \ref{rescalingcts}, provided that $3M/T\le \varepsilon'$, we have
\[N_t(F\cap G_{M,t}^2) \le N_T(B(F,\varepsilon'))\]
for all $t\in[T-1,T]$. Therefore for large $T$
\begin{align*}
&\P\Big(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : \frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F\cap G_{M,t}^2)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon \Big)\\
&\hspace{30mm}\le \P\Big(\frac{1}{T-1}\log N_T(B(F,\varepsilon'))\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon \Big)\\
&\hspace{30mm}\le \P\Big(\frac{1}{T}\log N_T(B(F,\varepsilon'))\ge \sup_{f\in \overline{B(F,\varepsilon')}\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon/3 \Big).
\end{align*}
Then Proposition \ref{fixedTprop} tells us that this is at most $\exp(-\delta_0 T^{1/3}/2)$ for large $T$. Substituting this into \eqref{splitFoverG}, we have
\begin{multline}\label{splitFoverG2}
\P\Big(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : \frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon \Big)\\
\le \exp(-\delta_0 T^{1/3}/2) + \P\big(\exists t\in [T-1,T] : N_t((G_{M,t}^2)^c)\ge 1\big).
\end{multline}
For the remaining term, Lemma \ref{rescalingbadpaths} tells us that for $T\ge2$,
\[\P(\exists t\in [T-1,T] : N_t((G_{M,t}^2)^c)\ge 1) \le \P(N_T((G_{M/2,T}^2)^c)\ge 1) + \P(N_{T-1}((G_{M/2,T-1}^2)^c)\ge 1).\]
By Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT}, this is at most $2 \exp \big( \! -\delta_0 (T-1)^{1/3} \big)$. Returning to \eqref{splitFoverG2}, we have
\[\P\Big(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : \frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon\Big)\le \exp(-\delta_0 T^{1/3}/2) + 2 \exp \big( \! -\delta_0 (T-1)^{1/3} \big).\]
By the Borel-Cantelli lemma,
\[\P\Big(\limsup_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\log N_t(F)\ge \sup_{f\in F\cap G_M^2} \tilde K(f,0,1) + \varepsilon\Big) = 0,\]
and since $\varepsilon>0$ was arbitrary, we deduce the first part of the result.
The proof when $\sup_{f\in F} K(f) = -\infty$ is very similar. By Lemma \ref{supKneg}, we may choose $\varepsilon'' >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{supexpanded}
\sup_{f\in \overline{B(F,\varepsilon'')}\cap G_{M,1}^2} K(f) = -\infty.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{multline}\label{thetaUBpropfinal}
\P(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : N_t(F) \ge 1 ) \le \P(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : N_t(F\cap G_{M,t}^2) \ge 1 )\\
+ \P(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : N_t((G_{M,t}^2)^c) \ge 1 ).
\end{multline}
As argued above, by Lemmas \ref{rescalingbadpaths} and \ref{AlwaysGMT} the last term on the right-hand side is at most $2 \exp \big( \! -\delta_0 (T-1)^{1/3} \big)$ provided that $T\ge 2$. For the first term on the right-hand side, by Lemma \ref{rescalingcts}, provided that $3M/T\le \varepsilon''$ we have
\begin{align*}
\P(\exists t\in[T-1,T] : N_t(F\cap G_{M,t}^2) \ge 1 ) &\le \P(N_T( \overline{B(F,\varepsilon'')}) \ge 1)\\
&\le \P(N_T(\overline{B(F,\varepsilon'')}\cap G_{M,1}^2)\ge 1) + \P(N_T((G_{M,1}^2)^c)\ge 1).
\end{align*}
Due to \eqref{supexpanded}, we can apply Lemma \ref{supKnull} to tell us that the first term on the right-hand side above is at most $e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}/2}$, and Lemma \ref{AlwaysGMT} to tell us that the second term on the right-hand side is at most $e^{-\delta_0 T^{1/3}}$. Returning to \eqref{thetaUBpropfinal}, and applying the Borel-Cantelli lemma, we have
\[\P(\limsup_{t\to\infty} N_t(F) \ge 1 ) = 0.\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Fibonacci numbers, $F_n$, and the Lucas numbers, $L_n$, are defined, for all integers $n$ by the Binet formulas:
\begin{equation}
F_n = \frac{{\alpha ^n - \beta ^n }}{{\alpha - \beta }},\quad L_n = \alpha ^n + \beta ^n\,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the zeros of the characteristic polynomial, $x^2-x-1$, of the Fibonacci sequence. Thus $\alpha+\beta=1$ and $\alpha\beta=-1$; so that $\alpha=(1+\sqrt5)/2$ (the golden ratio) and $\beta=-1/\alpha=(1-\sqrt5)/2$.
Koshy \cite{koshy} and Vajda \cite{vajda} have written excellent books dealing with Fibonacci and Lucas numbers.
\medskip
Our purpose in writing this paper is to employ the properties of the polygamma functions to derive infinite series identities involving Fibonacci numbers, Lucas numbers and the Riemann zeta numbers. We will obtain sums such as
\[
\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{(j + 1)(j + 2)}}{{3^j }}\zeta (j + 3)F_{2j} } = \frac{{2\pi ^3 }}{{\sqrt 5 }}\tan \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right)\sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right)\,,
\]
and
\[
\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j - 1} j\zeta (j + 1)L_{j - 1} } = \pi ^2 \sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right) - 3\,,
\]
and, in fact, more general series. Here $\zeta(n)$ is the Riemann zeta function.
\medskip
The digamma function, $\psi(z)$, is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function:
\[
\psi (z) = \frac{d}{{dz}}\log \Gamma (z) = \frac{{\Gamma '(z)}}{{\Gamma (z)}}\,,
\]
where the Gamma function is defined for $\Re(z)>0$ by
\[
\Gamma (z) = \int_0^\infty {e^{ - t} t^{z - 1}\, dt} = \int_0^\infty {\left( {\log (1/t)} \right)^{z - 1}\, dt}\,,
\]
and is extended to the rest of the complex plane, excluding the non-positive integers, by analytic continuation. The Gamma function has a simple pole at each of the points $z=\cdots,-3,-2,-1,0$. The Gamma function extends the classical factorial function to the complex plane: $\Gamma(z)=(z-1)!$
\medskip
The nth polygamma function $\psi^{(n)}(z)$ is the nth derivative of the digamma function:
\[
\psi ^{(n)} (z) = \frac{{d^{n + 1} }}{{dz^{n + 1} }}\log \Gamma (z) = \frac{{d^n }}{{dz^n }}\psi ^{(n)} (z),\quad\psi ^{(0)} (z) = \psi (z)\,.
\]
The polygamma functions satisfy the recurrence relation,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.iow3v9r}
\psi ^{(m)} (z + 1) = \psi ^{(m)} (z) + ( - 1)^m \frac{{m!}}{{z^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{equation}
and the reflection relation,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ebduq6i}
( - 1)^m \psi ^{(m)} (1 - z) - \psi ^{(m)} (z) = \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)\,.
\end{equation}
The Taylor series for the polygamma functions is
\begin{equation}\label{eq.vj6pc4s}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{m + j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\zeta (m + j + 1)z^j } = \psi ^{(m)} (z + 1),\quad m\ge1\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.dicv5wt}
- \gamma + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \zeta (j + 1)z^j } = \psi (z + 1)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant and $\zeta(n)$, $n\in\C$, is the Riemann zeta function, defined by
\[
\zeta (n) = \sum_{j = 1}^\infty {\frac{1}{{j^n }}},\quad\Re(n)>1\,,
\]
and analytically continued to all $n\in\C$ with $\Re(n)>0$, $n\ne1$ through
\[
\zeta (n) = \frac{1}{{1 - 2^{1 - n} }}\sum_{j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{( - 1)^{j + 1} }}{{j^n }}}\,.
\]
Further information on the polygamma functions can be found in the books by Erd\'elyi~et~al.~\cite[\S1.16]{erdelyi} and Srivastava and Choi~\cite[p.~33]{srivastava12}. The book by Edwards~\cite{edwards74} is a good treatise on the Riemann zeta function.
\medskip
Infinite series involving Fibonacci numbers and Riemann zeta numbers were also derived by Frontczak~\cite{frontczak20a,frontczak20c,frontczak20d}, Frontczak and Goy~\cite{frontczak20b} and Adegoke~\cite{adegoke20x}.
\section{Preliminary results}
Here we derive more functional equations for the polygamma functions. We also evaluate required linear combinations of the polygamma function at appropriate arguments.
\subsection{Functional equations}
Writing $-z$ for $z$ in the recurrence relation~\eqref{eq.iow3v9r} and making use of the reflection relation~\eqref{eq.ebduq6i}, we obtain the duplication formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq.bbzg3c9}
\psi ^{(m)} ( - z) - ( - 1)^m \psi ^{(m)} (z) = ( - 1)^m \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z) + \frac{{m!}}{{z^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{equation}
and consequently,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} ( - x) - \psi ^{(m)} ( - y) &= \psi ^{(m)} (x) - \psi ^{(m)} (y) + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\\
&\qquad+ \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = x} - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} ( - x) + \psi ^{(m)} ( - y) &= -(\psi ^{(m)} (x) + \psi ^{(m)} (y)) + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} + \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\\
&\qquad- \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = x} - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In particular, if $x+y=1$, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.wosq31s}
\psi ^{(m)} ( - x) - \psi ^{(m)} ( - y) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ed8n3gz}
\psi ^{(m)} ( - x) + \psi ^{(m)} ( - y) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} + \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{equation}
Writing $1/2-z$ for $z$ in~\eqref{eq.ebduq6i} gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.jbtkz4p}
( - 1)^m \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + z} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} - z} \right) = \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dx^m }}\cot (\pi x)} \right|_{x = 1/2 - z}\,.
\end{equation}
Eliminating $\psi^{(m)}(z)$ between \eqref{eq.iow3v9r} and \eqref{eq.ebduq6i} gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.owmf0ko}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + z) - ( - 1)^m \psi ^{(m)} (1 - z) = - \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z) + \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{z^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{equation}
If $x-y=1$, then the recurrence relation gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.qx2q4bx}
\psi ^{(m)} (x) - \psi ^{(m)} (y) = \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{equation}
while if $x+y=1$, the reflection relation gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.nep5z0n}
\psi ^{(m)} (x) - ( - 1)^m \psi ^{(m)} (y) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = x}\,.
\end{equation}
The recurrence relation has the following consequences:
\begin{equation}\label{eq.n0r48hk}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} (x + 1) - \psi ^{(m)} (y + 1) &= \psi ^{(m)} (x) - \psi ^{(m)} (y)\\
&\qquad- ( - 1)^m m!\frac{{x^{m + 1} - y^{m + 1} }}{{(xy)^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.a6idmpt}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} (x + 1) + \psi ^{(m)} (y + 1) &= \psi ^{(m)} (x) + \psi ^{(m)} (y)\\
&\qquad+ ( - 1)^m m!\frac{{x^{m + 1} + y^{m + 1} }}{{(xy)^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For any $x$ and $y$ such that $1-x\notin\Z^{-}$, $1-y\notin\Z^{-}$ and $x\ne1$, $y\ne1$, relation~\eqref{eq.owmf0ko} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq.tu58ve4}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) &= ( - 1)^m \left( {\psi ^{(m)} (1 - x) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 - y)} \right)\\
&\quad- \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dx^m }}\cot (\pi x) + \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dy^m }}\cot (\pi y)\\
&\qquad+ \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.jbsc0ez}
\begin{split}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) &= ( - 1)^m \left( {\psi ^{(m)} (1 - x) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 - y)} \right)\\
&\quad- \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dx^m }}\cot (\pi x) - \pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dy^m }}\cot (\pi y)\\
&\qquad+ \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} + \frac{{( - 1)^m m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From the functional equation~\eqref{eq.tu58ve4}, it follows that if $m$ is even and $x+y=1$, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.qvsfpnz}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) = \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{equation}
From the functional equation~\eqref{eq.jbsc0ez}, it follows that if $m$ is odd and $x+y=1$, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.csjls8y}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) = \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} - \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{equation}
If $m$ is an even number and $x+y=2$, equation~\eqref{eq.tu58ve4} gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.i9bj8xc}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) =- \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = x} + \frac{{m!}}{{(1 - y)^{m + 1} }} + \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{equation}
while if $m$ is an odd number and $x+y=2$, equation~\eqref{eq.jbsc0ez} gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq.cd0jgko}
\psi ^{(m)} (1 + x) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 + y) =- \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = x} - \frac{{m!}}{{(1 - y)^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{x^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{y^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that we used
\[
\pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} + \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1 - y}=0,\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\]
and
\[
- \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = y} + \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1 - y}=0,\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}
\]
From~\eqref{eq.jbtkz4p} we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.wemv3k4}
\begin{split}
( - 1)^m \left( {\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + x} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + y} \right)} \right) &= \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} - x} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} - y} \right)\\
&\qquad + \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - x} - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - y}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.mqjw8dw}
\begin{split}
( - 1)^m \left( {\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + x} \right) + \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + y} \right)} \right) &= -\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} - x} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} - y} \right)\\
&\qquad + \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - x} + \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - y}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus, if $m$ is even and $x+y=1$, then from~\eqref{eq.wemv3k4} and the duplication formula, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ptlkzfr}
\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + x} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + y} \right) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - y} + \frac{{m!}}{{(x - {1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2})^{m + 1} }}\,,
\end{equation}
and if $m$ is odd and $x+y=1$, then from~\eqref{eq.mqjw8dw} and the duplication formula, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.h46a6f3}
\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + x} \right) + \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{1}{2} + y} \right) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 1/2 - y} - \frac{{m!}}{{(x - {1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2})^{m + 1} }}\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Evaluation at various arguments}
\begin{lemma}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.f078k0u}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ) - \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = \alpha },\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.liqqoev}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ) + \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = \alpha },\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.t3bna0c}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^2 ) - \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^2 ) = \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = \beta } + m!F_{m + 1} \sqrt 5,\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.fn3e46b}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^2 ) + \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^2 ) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = \beta } - m!L_{m + 1},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.upo3xfi}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^3 ) - \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^3 ) = \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 2\beta } + \frac{{m!}}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }} + \frac{{m!}}{{2^{m + 1} }}F_{m + 1} \sqrt 5,\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.uunsu5d}
\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^3 ) + \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^3 ) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = 2\beta } - \frac{{m!}}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!}}{{2^{m + 1} }}L_{m + 1},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.e4vm6jo}
\psi ^{(m)} ({{\alpha ^3 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^3 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}) - \psi ^{(m)} ({{\beta ^3 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^3 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = \sqrt 5 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = \sqrt 5 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} + \frac{{m!2^{m + 1} }}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.azxwtdt}
\psi ^{(m)} ({{\alpha ^3 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^3 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}) + \psi ^{(m)} ({{\beta ^3 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^3 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = \sqrt 5 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = \sqrt 5 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} - \frac{{m!2^{m + 1} }}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.kgq089n}
\psi ^{(m)} ({{\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) - \psi ^{(m)} ({{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) = -\pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = \alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = \alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.n4oblb2}
\psi ^{(m)} ({{\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) + \psi ^{(m)} ({{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) = - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = \alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = \alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ef1at22}
\psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{{\alpha ^r }}{{F_r \sqrt 5 }}} \right) - \psi ^{(m)} \left( {\frac{{\beta ^r }}{{F_r \sqrt 5 }}} \right) = ( - 1)^{rm + r + m} m!F_r^{m + 1} (\alpha ^r \sqrt 5 )^{m + 1}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.hm02cnz}
\begin{split}
&\psi ^{(m)} (1 + {{2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 + {{2\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }})\\
&\qquad= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = 2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = 2\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}}+ \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} }}{{(F_r \sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{( - 1)^r m!L_r^{m + 1} F_{r(m + 1)} \sqrt 5 }}{{2^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.lk3xiqf}
\begin{split}
&\psi ^{(m)} (1 + {{2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 + {{2\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }})\\
&\qquad= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{{{z = 2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{z = 2\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}}- \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} }}{{(F_r \sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} L_{r(m + 1)}}}{{2^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.st4ngz1}
\begin{split}
&\psi ^{(m)} ( - {{\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) - \psi ^{(m)} ( - {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }})\\
&\qquad= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} - m!L_r^{m + 1} ( - 1)^r F_{r(m + 1)} \sqrt 5,\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.vnyktlk}
\begin{split}
&\psi ^{(m)} ( - {{\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}) + \psi ^{(m)} ( - {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }})\\
&\qquad= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} + m!L_r^{m + 1} L_{r(m + 1)},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove~\eqref{eq.f078k0u} and~\eqref{eq.liqqoev}, set $x=\alpha$, $y=\beta$ in~\eqref{eq.nep5z0n}. To prove~\eqref{eq.t3bna0c} and~\eqref{eq.fn3e46b}, set $x=\alpha$, $y=\beta$ in~\eqref{eq.qvsfpnz} and~\eqref{eq.csjls8y}. Setting $x=2\alpha$, $y=2\beta$ in~\eqref{eq.i9bj8xc} and~\eqref{eq.cd0jgko} gives~\eqref{eq.upo3xfi} and~\eqref{eq.uunsu5d}. To prove~\eqref{eq.e4vm6jo} and~\eqref{eq.azxwtdt} set $x=\alpha$, $y=\beta$ in~\eqref{eq.ptlkzfr} and~\eqref{eq.h46a6f3}. Use of $x=\alpha^r/L_r$ and $y=\beta^r/L_r$ in~\eqref{eq.nep5z0n} gives~\eqref{eq.kgq089n} and~\eqref{eq.n4oblb2}. Identity~\eqref{eq.ef1at22} is obtained by setting $x=\alpha^r/(F_r\sqrt 5)$ and $y=\beta^r/(F_r\sqrt 5)$ in~\eqref{eq.qx2q4bx}. Identities~\eqref{eq.hm02cnz} and~\eqref{eq.lk3xiqf} follow from~\eqref{eq.i9bj8xc} and~\eqref{eq.cd0jgko}, upon setting $x=2\alpha^r/L_r$ and $y=2\beta^r/L_r$. Identities~\eqref{eq.st4ngz1} and~\eqref{eq.vnyktlk} are obtained from~\eqref{eq.wosq31s} and~\eqref{eq.ed8n3gz}, with $x=\alpha^r/L_r$ and $y=\beta^r/L_r$.
\end{proof}
\section{Main results}
\begin{theoremUn}
If $r$ and $m$ are integers, then,
\[\tag{F}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\zeta (m + j + 1)F_{rj} z^j }\\
&\qquad= \frac{(-1)^m}{{\sqrt 5 }}\left\{ {\psi ^{(m)} (1 + \alpha ^r z) - \psi ^{(m)} (1 + \beta ^r z)} \right\},\quad\mbox{$m\ge0$}\,,
\end{split}
\]
\[\tag{L}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\zeta (m + j + 1)L_{rj} z^j }\\
&\qquad = (-1)^{m - 1}\left\{\psi ^{(m)} (1 + \alpha ^r z) + \psi ^{(m)} (1 + \beta ^r z)\right\},\quad\mbox{$m\ge1$}\,.
\end{split}
\]
\end{theoremUn}
\begin{proof}
Writing $\alpha^rz$ for $z$ in the Taylor series~\eqref{eq.vj6pc4s}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq.xowv2u9}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\zeta (m + j + 1)\alpha ^{rj} z^j } = (-1)^m\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^r z + 1)\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.br32tgi}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\zeta (m + j + 1)\beta ^{rj} z^j } = (-1)^m\psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^r z + 1)\,.
\end{equation}
Subtraction of~\eqref{eq.br32tgi} from~\eqref{eq.xowv2u9} gives {(F)} while their addition produces~{(L)}, on account of the Binet formulas.
\end{proof}
Note that, in view of identities~\eqref{eq.n0r48hk} and~\eqref{eq.a6idmpt}, the right hand side of {(F)} and {(L)} can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq.e6t45xd}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{{\sqrt 5 }}\left\{ {\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^r z + 1) - \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^r z + 1)} \right\}\\
&\qquad= \frac{1}{{\sqrt 5 }}\left\{ {\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^r z) - \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^r z)} \right\} - \frac{{( - 1)^r m!}}{{z^{m + 1} }}F_{r(m + 1)},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.d4l10zr}
\begin{split}
&\psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^r z + 1) + \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^r z + 1)\\
&\qquad= \psi ^{(m)} (\alpha ^r z) + \psi ^{(m)} (\beta ^r z) - \frac{{m!}}{{z^{m + 1} }}L_{r(m + 1)},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{corollary}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.nkfpd7u}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\frac{{\zeta (m + j + 1)}}{{2^j }}F_{3j} }\\
&\qquad= - \frac{1}{{\sqrt 5 }}\left( {\left. {\pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\sqrt 5 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\sqrt 5 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} - \frac{{m!\,2^{m + 1} }}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }}} \right) + m!\,2^{m + 1} F_{3m + 3},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.me7icdg}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!}}\frac{{\zeta (m + j + 1)}}{{2^j }}L_{3j} }\\
&\qquad= - {\left. {\pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\sqrt 5 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\sqrt 5 } 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} - \frac{{m!\,2^{m + 1} }}{{(\sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }}} - m!\,2^{m + 1} L_{3m + 3},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $r=3$, $z=1/2$ in {(F)} and {(L)}, noting \eqref{eq.e6t45xd} and \eqref{eq.d4l10zr} and using~\eqref{eq.e4vm6jo} and~\eqref{eq.azxwtdt}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.s1a2ufl}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(j + 1)(j + 2)}}{{2^j }}\zeta (j + 3)F_{3j} }\\
&\qquad = - \frac{{2\pi ^3 }}{{\sqrt 5 }}\cot \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right)\csc ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right) + \frac{{13616}}{{25}}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ew630ib}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^j \frac{{(j + 1)}}{{2^j }}\zeta (j + 2)L_{3j} } = \pi ^2 \csc ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right) - \frac{{364}}{5}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
To prove~\eqref{eq.s1a2ufl}, set $m=2$ in~\eqref{eq.nkfpd7u}, while $m=1$ in~\eqref{eq.me7icdg} proves~\eqref{eq.ew630ib}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $r$ is an integer, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.yx19wd0}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!\,L_r^j }}\zeta (m + j + 1)F_{rj} }\\
&\qquad = \frac{\pi }{{\sqrt 5 }}\left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} - ( - 1)^r m!L_r^{m + 1} F_{r(m + 1)},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.s0dig90}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!\,L_r^j }}\zeta (m + j + 1)L_{rj} }\\
&\qquad= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} - m!L_r^{m + 1} L_{r(m + 1)},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $z=1/L_r$ in {(F)} and {(L)}, noting \eqref{eq.e6t45xd} and \eqref{eq.d4l10zr} and using~\eqref{eq.kgq089n} and~\eqref{eq.n4oblb2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.s1u6y4q}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(j + 1)(j + 2)}}{{3^j }}\zeta (j + 3)F_{2j} }\\
&\qquad= \frac{{2\pi ^3 }}{{\sqrt 5 }}\tan \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right)\sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right) - 432\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.fc0zaz6}
\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j - 1} j\zeta (j + 1)L_{j - 1} } = \pi ^2 \sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right) - 3\,.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
Set $m=2$, $r=2$ in~\eqref{eq.yx19wd0} to prove~\eqref{eq.s1u6y4q} and $m=1$, $r=1$ in~\eqref{eq.s0dig90} to prove~\eqref{eq.fc0zaz6}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $r$ is an integer with $|r|>1$, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.z19fv58}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!\,L_r^j }}2^j \zeta (m + j + 1)F_{rj} }\\
&\qquad = - \frac{1}{{\sqrt 5 }}\left\{ {\left. {\pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} - \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} }}{{(F_r \sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }}} \right\} - ( - 1)^r \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} F_{r(m + 1)} }}{{2^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.wx8xhdm}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^{j} \frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!L_r^j }}2^j \zeta (m + j + 1)L_{rj} }\\
&\qquad= - \left. {\pi \frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{2\alpha ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\alpha ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}} - \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} }}{{(F_r \sqrt 5 )^{m + 1} }} - \frac{{m!L_r^{m + 1} L_{r(m + 1)} }}{{2^{m + 1} }},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $z=2/L_r$ in {(F)} and {(L)} and use~\eqref{eq.hm02cnz} and~\eqref{eq.lk3xiqf}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.wi3ql4i}
\begin{split}
&\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {( - 1)^{j + 1} \frac{{(j + 1)(j + 2)}}{{2^j }}\zeta (j + 3)F_{3j} }\\
&\qquad= \frac{{13616}}{{25}} - \frac{{2\pi ^3 }}{{\sqrt 5 }}\cot \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right)\csc ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right)\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.allakva}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {( - 1)^j \frac{{(j + 1)}}{{2^j }}\zeta (j + 2)L_{3j} } = \pi ^2 \csc ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{2}} \right) - \frac{{364}}{5}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
Set $m=2$, $r=3$ in~\eqref{eq.z19fv58} to prove~\eqref{eq.wi3ql4i} and $m=1$, $r=3$ in~\eqref{eq.wx8xhdm} to prove~\eqref{eq.allakva}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $r$ is an integer with $|r|>1$, then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.vxo2yt0}
\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!\,L_r^j }}\zeta (m + j + 1)F_{rj} }= \frac{\pi }{{\sqrt 5 }}\left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}},\quad\mbox{$m$ even}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.xk99wvg}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {\frac{{(m + j)!}}{{j!\,L_r^j }}\zeta (m + j + 1)L_{rj} }= - \pi \left. {\frac{{d^m }}{{dz^m }}\cot (\pi z)} \right|_{z = {{\beta ^r } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\beta ^r } {L_r }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {L_r }}},\quad\mbox{$m$ odd}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $z=-1/L_r$ in {(F)} and {(L)} and use~\eqref{eq.st4ngz1} and~\eqref{eq.vnyktlk}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq.pnj960x}
\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{(j + 1)(j + 2)}}{{3^j }}\zeta (j + 3)F_{2j} } = \frac{{2\pi ^3 }}{{\sqrt 5 }}\tan \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right)\sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{\pi \sqrt 5 }}{6}} \right)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq.gluacxg}
\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty {\frac{{(j + 1)}}{{7^j }}\zeta (j + 2)L_{4j} } = \pi ^2 \sec ^2 \left( {\frac{{3\pi \sqrt 5 }}{{14}}} \right)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
To prove~\eqref{eq.pnj960x}, set $m=2$, $r=2$ in~\eqref{eq.vxo2yt0}. To prove~\eqref{eq.gluacxg}, set $m=1$, $r=4$ in~\eqref{eq.xk99wvg}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is a tribute to the genius of the legendary Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan (22 December 1887 - 26 April 1920) in the centenary year of his death. The life story of Ramanujan is so well known that it needs no elaboration not even a summarisation. In his short life period he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results in the form of identities and equations. Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research. Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.
The focus of the paper is the increasing influence of the ideas propounded by Ramanujan in the development of computing technology. We shall discuss the application of certain infinite series discovered by Ramanujan in computing the value of the mathematical constant $\pi$. We shall also consider certain special graphs known as Ramanujan graphs and the reason for designating them as such. We shall examine how certain researchers are attempting to create an abstract machine which they call Ramanujan machine which is thought of as simulating the hypothesised thought process of Ramnujan. We shall also have a brief look at the applications of Ramanujan's discoveries in signal processing.
\section{Some milestones in the history of computation of $\pi$}
The value of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter has been of interest to mankind since the beginning of civilisations. However, the modern notation for the value of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, namely $\pi$, was first used in print in a work of an English mathematician William Jones (1675-1749) published in 1706. However, it became a widely accepted notation only when Euler used it in his famous 1748 publication "{\em Introductio in analysin infinitorum}" (Introduction to the Analysis of the
Infinite).
\subsection{Ancient times}
The Rhind Papyrus dated around 1650 BCE says:
``Cut off 1/9 of a diameter and construct a square upon the remainder; this has the same area as the circle". This gives a value of
$$
4(8/9)^2 = 3.16049
$$
to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, which is fairly accurate. The {\em Shulba Sutras} composed during the period 800 - 200 BCE and considered to be appendices to the Vedas give several different approximations to the ratio the circumference of a circle to its diameter and among them the value closest to the actual value is 3.088 (see \cite{HistoryOfPi}). In the earliest existing Chinese mathematical texts, {\em Zhoubi suanjing} (The Mathematical Classic of the Zhou Gnomon), a book dated to the period of the Zhou dynasty (1046 - 256 BCE) and {\em Jiuzhang suanshu} (Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art), the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter was taken to be three (see \cite{China}).
\subsection{Geometric algorithms}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{ArchimedesAlg}
\caption{Archimedes' idea for computing the value of $\pi$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The first algorithm for calculating the value of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter was a geometrical approach using polygons, devised around 250 BCE by the Greek mathematician Archimedes. Archimedes computed upper and lower bounds of the value of this ratio by drawing a regular hexagon inside and outside a circle, and successively doubling the number of sides until he reached a 96-sided regular polygon. By calculating the perimeters of these polygons, he proved that the ratio lies between $223/71$ and $22/7$. Mathematicians using polygonal algorithms calculated $39$ digits of the value of the ratio in 1630, a record only broken in 1699 when infinite series were used to reach 71 digits (see \cite{Unleashed}).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{MadhavaBW}
\caption{Sangamagrama Madhava (c.1340 – c.1425). This is a digital image of Madhava drawn up with inputs provided by his descendants and released in 2014 by the Madhava Ganitha Kendram, a Kochi based voluntary association working to revive his works.}\label{Mad}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sangamagrama Madhava}
Sangamagrama Madhava (c.1340 - c.1425), an Indian mathematician and astronomer considered the founder of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics, calculated the value of $\pi$ correct to $11$ decimal places as
$$
\pi= 3.14159265359.
$$
Madhava obtained this value probably by taking the first 21 terms in the following infinite series discovered by him (see \cite{Gupta}):
$$
\pi
={\sqrt {12}}\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(-3)^{-k}}{2k+1}}
={\sqrt {12}}\left(1-{1 \over 3\cdot 3}+{1 \over 5\cdot 3^{2}}-{1 \over 7\cdot 3^{3}}+\cdots \right)
$$
\subsection{William Shanks}
The British amateur mathematician William Shanks spending over 20 years attempted to calculate $\pi$ to $707$ decimal places. He did calculate 707 digits, but only the first $527$ were correct. This was accomplished in 1873 and this was the longest expansion of $\pi$ until the advent of the electronic digital computer.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{Shanks}
\caption{William Shanks (1812 - 1882)}\label{Shanks}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To compute the value of $\pi$ Shanks used the following result known as Machin formula (discovered by John Machin, an English astronomer, in 1706)
$$
\frac{\pi}{4}=4 \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{5}\right)-\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{239}\right),
$$
and the Maclaurin's series expansion
$$
\tan^{-1}x=x - \frac{x^3}{3}+\frac{x^5}{5}-\frac{x^7}{7}+\cdots
$$
This formula has a significantly increased rate of convergence, which makes it a much more practical method of calculation and it remained as the primary tool of $\pi$ calculations for centuries (well into the computer era). Machin himself used this formula to compute $\pi$ to $100$ decimal places.
\subsection{Computer programmes}
Shank's computation is only child's play in the computer era as illustrated by the fact that the following code written in the C language prints out as much as $800$ digits of $\pi$ accurately (for a detailed analysis of why the program does as claimed, see \cite{pi800}):
\begin{verbatim}
int a=10000,b,c=2800,d,e,f[2801],g;
main()
{
for( ;b-c;) f[b++]=a/5;
for( ;d=0,g=c*2;c=14,printf(
for(b=c; d+=f[b]*a,f[b]=
}
\end{verbatim}
It is even simpler if we use a computer algebra system to get 800 digits of $\pi$. For example, in Maxima we need only issue the following commands to get 800 digits of $\pi$:
\begin{verbatim}
fpprintprec:800$
set_display(ascii)$
bfloat
\end{verbatim}
The current world record for the number of calculated digits of $\pi$ is $50$ trillion and it was created by Timothy Mullican on 29 January 2020 (see \cite{ycruncher}).
\subsection{Do we ever need all these digits?}
The largest number of digits of $\pi$ that we will ever need is 42, at least for computing circumferences of circles (see \cite{piday}). To compute the circumference of the known universe with an error less than the diameter of a proton, we need only 42 digits of $\pi$, assuming that the diameter of the known universe is $93$ billion light years and that the diameter of a proton is $1.6\time 10^{-15}$ metres. Thus, in the fifty trillion digits of $\pi$ computed for the current record, all digits beyond the 42nd have no practical value.
Here are all the digits of $\pi$ we will ever need:
$$
\pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169.
$$
\section{Ramanujan's series for computing $\pi$}
In the long journey covering the milestones in the computation of digits of $\pi$, Srinivasa Ramanujan's name appears sometime around the late 1970's and early 1980's and his name appears via a much celebrated infinite series known as the ``Ramanujan series''.
\subsection{Ramanujan's series}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{RamanujanSeriesSmallBW}
\caption{The series used by Bill Gosper as it appears in Ramanujan's Notebook 3}\label{Series1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{RamanujanPiSeriesSmall}
\caption{The series used by Bill Gosper (see equation (44)) and comments on it in Ramanujan's paper (see \cite{Ramanujan1914})}\label{Series2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In 1903, or perhaps earlier, while in school, Ramanujan began
to record his mathematical discoveries in notebooks. He continued this practice till his departure to England in 1914. There are three such notebooks the originals of which are now preserved in Madras University, Chennai. A fourth notebook, which had been thought to have been lost and hence referred to as ``The Lost Notebook'' was later unearthed in 1974. It turned out to be not a notebook but a collection of loose sheets of paper. In the last page of the third of these notebooks Ramanujan listed a large number of series expansions for $\frac{1}{\pi}$ (see Figure \ref{Series1}).
After his arrival in England, Ramanujan published a
paper in 1914 (see \cite{Ramanujan1914}) containing all these expansions for $\frac{1}{\pi}$ (see Figure \ref{Series2}). Interestingly all of them remained unproven for nearly half a century.
The following is the series given by Ramanujan and used by Gosper to compute the digits of $\pi$:
$$
{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\pi }}={\frac {2{\sqrt {2}}}{99^{2}}}\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(4k)!}{k!^{4}}}{\frac {26390k+1103}{396^{4k}}}}
$$
\subsection{Using Ramanujan's series for $\pi$ computation}
In 1977, Bill Gosper took the last of Ramanujan’s series from the list referred to, and used it to compute a record number of digits of $\pi$. There soon followed other computations, all based directly on Ramanujan’s idea.
Ralph William Gosper Jr (born April 26, 1943), known as Bill Gosper, is an American mathematician and programmer. Gosper was one among the first few persons to realize the possibilities of symbolic computations on a computer as a mathematics research tool whereas computer methods were previously limited to purely numerical methods. He made major contributions to Macsyma, Project MAC's computer algebra system.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{GosperBW}
\caption{Bill Gosper}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In November, 1985, Gosper employed a lisp machine at Symbolics
and Ramanujan's
series to calculate 17,526,100 digits of $\pi$, which at that
time was a world record (see \cite{maa}). It was only 1n 1987, the Ramanujan series for $1/\pi$ was finally
proved and the proof was accomplished by Jonathan and Peter
Borwein (see \cite{maa}).
\subsection{Comments on the computations}
There were a few interesting things about Gosper's
computation.To put these computations in perpective, it is better to quote verbatim from a reference document on $\pi$ calculations published by Princeton University (see \cite{HistoryofPiCalculations}):
\begin{itemize}
\item
First, when he decided to use that particular formula, there was no
proof that it actually converged to $\pi$! Ramanujan never gave the
math behind his work, and the Borweins had not yet been able to
prove it, because there was some very heavy math that needed to be
worked through. It appears that Ramanujan simply observed the
equations were converging to the 1103 in the formula, and then
assumed it must actually be 1103. (Ramanujan was not known for
rigor in his math, or for providing any proofs or intermediate math
in his formulas.) The math of the Borwein's proof was such that
after he had computed 10 million digits, and verified them against a
known calculation, his computation became part of the proof.
Basically it was like, if you have two integers differing by less
than one, then they have to be the same integer.
\item
The second interesting thing is that he chose to use continued
fractions to do his calculations. Most calculations before and
since were done by direct calculation to the desired precision.
Before you did any calculations, you had to decide how many digits
you wanted, and later if you wanted more, you had to start over from
the beginning. By using continued fractions, and a novel coding
style, he was able to make his resumable. He could add more digits
any time he felt like it and had the spare time. This was a major
breakthrough at the time, because all previous efforts required
starting over from the beginning if you wanted more.
\item
The third interesting thing about his calculations was the other
reason he chose to use infinite simple continued fractions. It is
still not known whether pi has any 'structure' or patterns to it.
It is known that it's irrational and transcendental, but it still
might have some pattern to it that would allow us more easily
calculate its digits. We just don't know. And patterns show up
more readily as a continued fraction rather than in some arbitrary
base that we humans call 'base 10'. As an example, 'e' and the
square root of two both have very simple, obvious patterns in their
continued fractions, even though they appear to be non-repeating in
base 10.
\end{itemize}
\section{Chudnovsky algorithm}
\subsection{Chudnovski's formula for computing $\pi$}
Further developing the ideas on which the Ramanujan series was proved, Chudnovsky brothers (David Volfovich Chudnovsky (born 1947) and Gregory Volfovich Chudnovsky (born 1952)) developed another series for $1/\pi$:
$$
{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\pi }}=12\sum _{q=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(-1)^{q}(6q)!(545140134q+13591409)}{(3q)!(q!)^{3}\left(640320\right)^{3q+3/2}}}}
$$
This formula was used in the world record calculations of 2.7 trillion digits of $\pi$ in December 2009, 10 trillion digits in October 2011, 22.4 trillion digits in November 2016, 31.4 trillion digits in September 2018 - January 2019 (see \cite{Google}), and 50 trillion digits on 29 January 2020 (see \cite{ycruncher}).
The computer algebra system {\em Matheamtica} widely used in many scientific, engineering, mathematical, and computing fields uses this formula to compute $\pi$ (see \cite{Unleashed}, \cite{Wolfram}).
\subsection{Chudnosky brothers}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{ChudnovskiBW}
\caption{Chudnovski brothers}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
David Volfovich Chudnovsky and Gregory Volfovich Chudnovsky are American mathematicians and engineers known for their world-record mathematical calculations and developing the Chudnovsky algorithm used to calculate the digits of $\pi$ with extreme precision. They were born in Kiev in Ukraine which at the time of their births was part of the erstwhile Soviet Union. In part to avoid religious persecution and in part to seek better medical care for Gregory, who had been diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disease, the Chudnovsky family emigrated to the United states in 1977-78 and settled in New York. Gregory works on problems of diophantine geometry and transcendence theory, high-performance computing and computing architecture, and mathematical physics and its applications. A 1992 article in The New Yorker quoted the opinion of several mathematicians that Gregory Chudnovsky was one of the world's best living mathematicians (see \cite{NewYorker}).
\subsection{The computational procedure}
For a high performance iterative implementation, Chudnovski's series may have to be put in different forms. We present below one of these approaches (see \cite{Wiki}). In this approach, firstly, the series is recast in the following form.
$$
{\frac {426880{\sqrt {10005}}}{\pi }}=\sum _{q=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(6q)!(545140134q+13591409)}{(3q)!(q!)^{3}\left(-262537412640768000\right)^{q}}}
$$
There are three big integer terms in the series, namely, a multinomial term $M_q$, a linear term $L_q$, and a exponential term $X_q$ as shown below:
$$
{\displaystyle \pi =C\left(\sum _{q=0}^{\infty }{\frac {M_{q}\cdot L_{q}}{X_{q}}}\right)^{-1}},
$$
where
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle C &=426880{\sqrt {10005}}\\
\displaystyle M_{q}&={\frac {(6q)!}{(3q)!(q!)^{3}}}\\
\displaystyle L_{q}& =545140134q+13591409\\
\displaystyle X_{q}&=(-262537412640768000)^{q}.
\end{align*}
The terms $M_q$, $L_q$, and $X_q$ can be computed by using the following recurrence relations
\begin{align*}
L_{q+1}&=L_{q}+545140134\\
X_{q+1}&=X_{q}\cdot (-262537412640768000)\\
M_{q+1}&=M_{q}\cdot \left({\frac {(12q+2)(12q+6)(12q+10)}{(q+1)^{3}}}\right)
\end{align*}
with
$$
L_{0}=13591409, \quad X_0=1, \quad M_0=1.
$$
The computation of $M_q$ can be further optimized by introducing an additional term $K_q$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
K_{q+1}&=K_{q}+12\\
M_{q+1}&=M_{q}\cdot \left({\frac {K_{q}^{3}-16K_{q}}{(q+1)^{3}}}\right)
\end{align*}
with
$$
K_0=6, \quad M_0=1.
$$
\section{Ramanujan graphs}
Ramanujan graphs are graphs having a very special property.
The terminology ``Ramanujan graph'' was first coined by Lubotzky, Phillips and Sarnak in a paper published in 1988 (see \cite{RGraph}). Though Ramanujan had no special interest in graph theory and these graphs are not due to Ramanujan, they are named after Srinivasa Ramanujan because the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture is used in proving that an important class of graphs have the special property. First let us see what are Ramanujan graphs.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an undirected graph, $V$ being the set of vertices and $E$ the set of edges. The degree of a vertex $v$ in $G$ is the number of edges connecting it to other vertices in the graph. We say that a graph $G$ is $k$-regular if every vertex $v G$ has degree $k$. A path in a graph is a sequence of edges which joins a sequence of vertices. A graph is connected if there is a path between every pair of vertices.
We can associate a matrix called an adjacency matrix with every graph $G$. Let $V=\{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$. The adjacency matrix of $G$ is the $n\times n$ matrix $A=[a_{ij}]$ where
$$
a_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if an edge joining $v_i$ and $v_j$ exists}\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$$
Since $G$ is undirected, $A$ is a symmetric matrix and all of its eigenvalues are real. Moreover, if $G$ is $k$-regular, the largest eigen value of $A$ is $k$.
\subsection{Definition}
A $k$-regular connected graph $G$ is called a Ramanujan graph\footnote{The terminology {\em Ramanujan Graph} was suggested by Peter Sarnak (see \cite{Sarnak}).} if
the second largest (in absolute value) eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix $A$ of $G$, denoted by $\lambda(G)$, satisfies the property
$$\lambda(G) \le 2\sqrt{k-1}.$$
The graphs shown in Figure \ref{RG} are examples of Ramnujan graphs.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm, height=2.5cm]{graph1}
\qquad
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm, height=2.5cm]{graph2}
\caption{Examples of Ramanujan Graphs}\label{RG}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ramanujan conjecture}
Ramanujan studied the function $\Delta(z)$ defined by
\begin{align*}
\Delta(z
&=q\prod_{n>0}\left (1-q^n \right)^{24}\\
&= q-24q^2+252q^3- 1472q^4 + 4830q^5-\cdots\\
&= \sum_{n>0}\tau(n)q^n
\end{align*}
where $ q=e^{2\pi iz}$. The function $\tau(n)$ is called the Ramanujan $\tau$-function. Ramanujan computed the values of $\tau(p)$ when $p$ is assigned the first $30$ prime numbers as values. These values are shown in Table \ref{tauvalues}.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{ValuesOfTauFunction}
\caption{Values of $\tau(p)$ calculated by Ramanujan}\label{tauvalues}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Based on these values of $\tau(p)$ Ramanujan made the following observations regarding the properties of the function $\tau(n)$ (see \cite{tau}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $m$ and $n$ are relatively prime, then $$\tau(mn)=\tau(m)\tau(n).$$
\item
For a prime number $p$ and an integer $j$ we have:
$$
\tau(p^{j+1})=\tau(p)\tau(p^j)-p^{11}\tau(p^{j-1}).
$$
\item
For a prime number $p$ we have:
$$
|\tau(p)| \leq 2p^{\frac{11}{2}}.
$$
\end{enumerate}
Ramanujan did not prove these results. In 1917, L. Mordell proved the first two observations using techniques from complex analysis. The third observation remained unproven for a long time and it came to be referred to as the {\em Ramanujan conjecture} (see \cite{Murti}).
It was finally proven in 1974 by Deligne\footnote{Pierre Deligne is a Fields medal winning Belgian mathematician best known for his work on the Weil conjectures. For a layman's introduction to Deligne's work, one may read \cite{Gowers}.}.
Let $p, q$ be prime numbers and $x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4$ be integers. Consider the expression
$$
Q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) = x_1^2 + (2qx_2)^2 +(2qx_3)^2 + (2qx_4)^2
$$
Given a nonnegative integer $n$, let $r_Q(n)$ denote the number of representations of $n$ in the form $Q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$. There is no explicit formula for $r_Q(n)$. But using the Ramnujan conjecture we get a good approximation for $r_Q(n)$ in the form
$$
r_Q(p^k) = C(p^k) + O(p^{k(1/2+\epsilon)})
$$
where
$$
C(p^k) = c
\frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}
$$
for some constant $c$, and $O$ denote the well known Big-O notation.
\section{Construction of Ramanujan graph}
\subsection{Cayley graph}
Let $G$ be a group and $S$ be some symmetric set of elements
of G (that is, $S$ is a subset of $G$ such that if $x\in S$ then $x^{-1}\in S$). Then the Cayley graph generated by $(G, S)$ is the graph whose vertices are the elements of $G$, and given $g, h \in G$, the edge $(g, h)$ exists if and only if there
exists some $s \in S$ such that $gs = h$.
As an example, consider the group whose set of elements is
$$
\mathbb Z_6=\{0,1,2,3,4,5\}
$$
and the binary operation is addition modulo $6$. If we choose $=\{-1,1\}$ we get the graph in Figure \ref{graph3}(a) and if we set $S=\{-2,2\}$ we get the graph in Figure \ref{graph3}(b).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{Cayley1}\qquad\qquad&
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{Cayley2}\\
(a) $S=\{-1,1\}$ & (b) $S=\{-2,2\}$\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cayley graphs with the group $\mathbb Z_6$}\label{graph3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The groups $PGL(2,q)$ and $PSL(2,q)$}
Let $q$ be a prime number.
We denote by $Z_q$ the field whose set of elements is the set $\{0,1,2, \ldots, q-1\}$, the addition operation is addition modulo $q$ and multiplication operation is multiplication modulo $q$. Let $Z_q^2$ be the 2-dimensional vector space over $Z_q$ and $GL(2,q)$ be the set of nonsingular linear transformations of $Z_q^2$ ($GL$ for {\em General Linear}). Each such linear transformation can be represented by a square matrix of order $2$ whose elements are in $Z_q$ and whose determinant is nonzero (modulo $q$). The set $GL(2,q)$ is a group under operation of multiplication of matrices.
For $A,B\in GL(2,q)$, we write $A\sim B$ if there is a scalar matrix $C\in GL(2,q)$ such that $A=BC$. (A scalar matrix is a diagonal matrix with equal-valued elements along the diagonal.) This is an equivalence relation in $GL(2,q)$ and the set of equivalence classes is denoted by $PGL(2,q)$ ($PGL$ for {\em }Projective General Linear). It can be easily seen that $PGL(2,q)$ is also a group under an obvious multiplication operation.
The subset of $PGL(2,q)$ consisting of matrices with determinant equal to $1$ is also a group and is denoted by $PSL(2,q)$ ($PSL$ for {\em Projective Special Linear}).
\subsection{A set for generating a Cayley graph of $PGL(2,q)$ and $PSL(2,q)$}
Let us now assume that $p,q$ satisfy the conditions
$$
p\equiv 1\,\, (\text{mod } 4), \quad q \equiv 1 \,\,(\text{mod }4).
$$
The second of these conditions imply that there is an integer $i$ such that
$$
i^2\equiv -1\,\, (\text{mod } q).
$$
We choose such an $i$ and keep it fixed.
Next we consider the equation:
$$
a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2 =p.
$$
The condition $p\equiv 1\,\, (\text{mod } 4)$ implies that there are precisely $p+1$ solutions to this equation with $a_0>0$ and $a_1, a_2, a_3$ even. We now form the set $S$ of $p+1$ matrices with the following form using these $p+1$ solutions:
$$
\alpha =\begin{bmatrix}\phantom{-}a_0+ia_1 & a_2+ia_3\\-a_2+ia_3 & a_0-ia_1\end{bmatrix}
$$
It can be seen that $S$ is a symmetrical set in $PGL(2, q)$.
\subsection{The graph $X^{p,q}$}
Let $m,n$ be positive integers. We say that {\em $m$ is a quadratic residue $\text{mod } n$} if there is an integer $x$ such that
$$
x^2\equiv m\,\, (\text{mod } n).
$$
If there is no such integer $x$ we say that {\em $m$ is a quadratic nonresidue $\text{mod }n$}.
For example, $1,3,4,5,9$ are quadratic residues mod $11$ and $2,6,7,8,10$ are quadratic nonresidues mod $11$.
The graph $X^{p,q}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $p$ is a quadratic residue mod $q$, then the Cayley
graph of
$$
PSL(2, q)
$$
with $S$ as described above as the generating set is defined as $X^{p,q}$. In this case, we have a $(p + 1)$-regular graph on $q(q^2 - 1)/2$ vertices.
\item
If $p$ is a quadratic non-residue mod $q$, then the Cayley
graph of
$$
PGL(2, q)
$$
with $S$ as described above as the generating set is defined as $X^{p,q}$. This gives a $(p + 1)$-regular graph on $q(q^2 - 1)$ vertices.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{$X^{p,q}$ is a Ramanujan graph}
A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips and P. Sarnak, in 1988 (see \cite{RGraph}) proved that $X^{p,q}$ is a Ramanujan graph, that is,
$$
\lambda(X^{p,q})\le 2 \sqrt{p+1}.
$$
The proof of this required an application of the Ramanujan conjecture. So, A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips and P. Sarnak named any graph having such a property as a Ramanujan graph.
\subsection{Numerical example}
First of all we have to choose two prime numbers satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$p\equiv 1 (\text{mod } 4)$
\item
$q\equiv 1 (\text{mod } 4)$
\item
$p$ is a quadratic residue mod $q$, that is, there exists an integer $x$ such that $x^2\equiv p (\text{mod } q)$.
\end{itemize}
It can be shown that smallest such prime numbers are $p=5$ and $q=29$. Note that $11^2\equiv 5\,\, (\text{mod } 29)$.
Next we consider the diophantine equation
$$
a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 +a_4^2=5.
$$
The $p+1 =6$ solutions to this equation with $a_0>0$ and $a_1, a_2, a_3$ even are
$$
\{(1,\pm 2, 0, 0), (1,0,\pm 2,0), (1,0,0,\pm2)\}.
$$
We have to choose an integer $i$ such that $i^2\equiv -1 \,\,(\text{mod } q)$. We may choose $i=12$
because $12^2 \equiv -1 \,\,(\text{mod } 29$. (A second possible value of $i$ is $17$.)
The elements of the generating set $S$ of $PGL(2,29)$ are given by
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
\phantom{-}a_0+ia_1 & a_2+ia_3\\-a_2+ia_3 & a_0-ia_1
\end{bmatrix}
$$
Substituting for $a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3$ and $i$, and making computations modulo $29$ we get the following generating set for $PGL(2,29)$:
$$
S=\left\{
\begin{bmatrix} 25 & 0 \\ 0 & 6 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 6 & 0 \\ 0 & 25\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2\\ 27 & 1\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 27 \\ 2 & 1\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 24\\ 24 & 1\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 5\\ 5 & 1\end{bmatrix}
\right\}.
$$
To get a generating set for $PSL(2,29)$, we need a set of matrices whose determinants are equal to $1$ modulo $29$. To get such a set we have to multiply the elements of the set $S$ by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\,\,(\text{mod } q$. There are two values for $\sqrt{5}\,\,(\text{mod } 29$, namely, $11$ and $18$. We choosing $11$ arbitrarily, we have
$$
\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{11}}\equiv 8\,\, (\text{mod } 29).
$$
Multiplying the elements in $S$ by $8$ modulo $29$ we get the following generating set for $PSL(2,29)$.
$$
S^\prime=\left\{
\begin{bmatrix} 26 & 0 \\ 0 & 19 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 19 & 0 \\ 0 & 26\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 8 & 16\\ 13 & 8\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 8 & 13 \\ 16 & 8\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 8 & 18\\ 18 & 8\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 8 & 11\\ 11 & 8\end{bmatrix}
\right\}.
$$
The number of elements in the set $PSL(5,29)$ is
$$
\tfrac{1}{2}q(q^2-1)=\tfrac{1}{2}\times 29(29^2-1)=12180.
$$
Thus the Ramanujan graph $X^{5,29}$ is a $6$-regular graph with $12180$ vertices!
\section{Applications of Ramanujan graphs}
Most applications of Ramanujan graphs are a consequence of the fact that Ramanujan graphs are good examples of a certain class of graphs known as {\em expander graphs}. So we give here a quick review of the concept of expander graphs.
\subsection{Expander graphs}
Let $X=(V,E)$ be an undirected connected graph where $V$ is the set of vertices and $E$ is the set of edges. Let $F$ be a set of vertices in $X$. The {\em boundary} $\partial F$ is the set of edges connecting vertices in $F$ to vertices in $V-F$. For example, in the graph shown in Figure \ref{Boundary} let $F$ be the verices surrounded by squares. The set of edges shown by thick line segments is the boundary $\partial F$ of $F$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Boundary}
\caption{A set of vertices (surrounded by squares) and its boundary (thick edges)}\label{Boundary}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The {\em expanding constant}, or {\em isoperimetric constant} of $X$, is
$$
h(X)=\inf\left\{\frac{|\partial F|}{\min \{|F|,|V-F|\}}:
F\subseteq V,\,\, 0<|F|<+\infty\right\}.
$$
If we view $X$ as a network transmitting information (where information retained by some vertex propagates, say in $1$ unit of time, to neighboring vertices), then $h(X )$ measures the ``quality'' of $X$ as a network: if $h(X )$ is large, information propagates well. For example, if $X=K_n$ is the highly connected complete graph on $n$ vertices then $h(X)\sim \frac{n}{2}$ which grows proportionally with the number of edges. On the other hand if $X=C_n$ is the minimally connected cyclic graph on $n$ vertices then $H(X)\le \frac{4}{n}$ which tends to zero as the $n$ increases to infinity. Thus $h(X)$ is a measure of the connectivity of $X$ as a network.
An expander family of graphs is defined as follows.
Let $(X_m )_{m\ge 1}$ be a family of graphs $X_m = (V_m , E_m )$ indexed
by $m \in \mathbb N$ (set of natural numbers). Furthermore, fix $k \ge 2$. Such a family $(X_m )_{ m\ge 1}$ of finite, connected,
$k$-regular graphs is a family of expanders if $|V_m | \rightarrow +\infty$ for $m \rightarrow +\infty$, and
if there exists $\epsilon > 0$, such that $h(X_m ) \ge \epsilon$ for every $m \ge 1$.
\subsection{Network theory}
Consider the construction
of a new telephone network and
we want the network to have a high degree of connectivity. However, laying lines will be expensive, so we want
to achieve this high degree of connectivity using as few edges in the network as possible. This problem can be modeled as one related to expander graphs. An expander graph is a sparse graph (a graph having only a few edges) that has strong connectivity properties, quantified using vertex, edge or spectral expansion. Ramanujan graphs has applications in the construction and study of expander graphs.
\subsection{Pseudo-random number generators}
The following text summarised from a patent application publication (see \cite{patent}) clearly explains the application of Ramanujan graphs in the design of pseudorandom number generators.
Pseudorandom numbers may be generated using expander graphs. Expander graphs are a collection of vertices that are interconnected via edges. Generally, a walk around an expander graph is determined responsive to an input seed, and a pseudorandom number is produced based on vertex names.
Generally, any type of expander graph may be employed to generate pseudorandom numbers. Expander graphs are usually characterized as having a property that enables them to grow quickly from a given vertex to its neighbors and onward to other vertices. An example of a family of graphs that are considered to have good expansion properties are the so-called Ramanujan graphs.
Expander graphs that are so-called $k$-regular graphs are particularly amenable for use in generating pseudorandom numbers. These $k$-regular graphs are graphs that have the same number of edges emanating from each vertex. The $k$-regular Ramanujan graphs are particularly amenable for use in generating pseudorandom numbers.
\subsection{Construction of hash functions}
Ramanujan graphs have also been used in constructing secure cryptographic hash functions. If finding cycles in such graphs is hard, then these hash functions are provably collision resistant. As an example, there is a specific family of optimal expander graphs for provable collision resistant hash function constructions, namely, the family of Ramanujan graphs constructed by Pizer (see \cite{Microsoft}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{hash}
\caption{Image of a Ramanujan graph that could be used for constructing a cryptograph hash function (for details see \cite{RamHash})}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Ramanujan machines}
The Ramanujan machine is not actually a machine; it is only a concept. It exists as a network of computers running algorithms and the algorithms outputs conjectures! In his published papers and in his famous Note Books, Ramanujan has sated a large number of results and formulas in the form of conjectures. Most of these conjectures have been proved true by later mathematicians. Because of his propensity to produce conjectures as if from thin air, Ramanujan has been sometimes called the ``conjecture machine'' (see \cite{ConjectureMan}). So it is only appropriate that a machine, whether actual or conceptual, that produces conjectures be called the ``Ramanujan machine''.
Presently what the algorithms do is to come up with probable infinite continued fraction expansions of the constants $e$ and $\pi$. The creators of the machine claim that the algorithm have already generated several such expansions which are conjectured to be true. So, we begin our discussion by explaining what a continued fraction is and then having a look at some of the continued fractions conjectured by Ramanujan. Finally we shall state some of the continued fractions conjectured by the Ramanujan machine.
\section{Continued fractions}
\subsection{Definitions}
An expression of the following form is called a {\em continued fraction}:
$$
a_0+\cfrac{b_1}{ a_1+\cfrac{b_2}{ a_2+\cfrac{b_3}{ a_3+\cdots}}}
$$
It is often expressed in the following form:
$$
a_0 + \cfrac{b_1}{a_1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{b_2}{a_2} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{b_3}{a_3} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
$$
Here $a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3,\cdots$ and $b_1,b_2,b_3,\cdots$ may in general be integers, real numbers, complex numbers, or functions.
If $a_1,a_2,a_3,\cdots$ are positive integers and $b_1=b_2=b_3=\ldots = 1$ and then it is called a {\em simple continued fraction}. In a simple continued fraction $a_0$ may be any integer negative, zero or positive.
A continued fraction may have a finite or an infinite number of terms. For example, we have
$$
\frac{100}{2.54} = 39 + \cfrac{1}{2} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{1}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{1}{2} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{1}{2} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{1}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cfrac{1}{4}.
$$
Also, it can be shown that the golden ration $\phi$ has the following infinite simple continued fraction expansion:
\begin{align*}
\phi
&= \frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}\\
&= 1+ \frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
\end{align*}
\subsection{Continued fraction expressions for $\pi$ and $e$}
Several continued fraction expressions for $\pi$ are well known. For example, we have the following simple continued fraction expression for $\pi$:
$$
\pi= 3 + \frac{1}{7}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1}{15}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{292}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{3}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
$$
Unfortunately, the numbers $7,15,1,292,1,\ldots$ have no obvious pattern! But there are continued fraction expressions which are not simple in which the numbers have simple patterns. The oldest such expression is the following one due to William Brouncker (ca. 1660's):
$$
{\pi} = \frac{4}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1^2}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{3^2}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{5^2}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{7^2}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
$$
There is an infinite continued fraction expression for $e$ discovered by Euler (see \cite{Euler, Olds1970}), namely
$$
e=2 + \frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1}{2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1}{4}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1}{6}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
$$
\section{Ramanujan and continued fractions}
Ramanujan in his life time published only one continued fraction, the famous Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction. But his notebooks and the letters he sent to G. H. Hardy before his departure to England contain enough materiel indicating Ramanujan's early interest in continued fractions. These provide ample testimony to the fact that he had studied and used continued fractions extensively (see \cite{RCF1}).
\subsection{Some early results}
In his first letter to Hardy dated 16 January 1913 Ramanujan has stated the following continued fractions without proof (see \cite{Bruce}). These also appear in his Note Book 2.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We have
$$
\displaystyle
\left\{ \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{4}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{x+3}{4}\right)}\right\}^2
=
\frac{4}{x} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{1^2}{2x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{3^2}{2x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{5^2}{2x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{7^2}{2x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
$$
\item
If $ u = x+m+n+1$ and
$$
P=\frac%
{\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}u\}\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2n)\}
\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2(m-1))\}\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2(m+n-1))\}}%
{\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u+2)\}\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2m)\}
\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2(n-1))\}\Gamma\{\frac{1}{4}(u-2(m+n))\}}%
$$
then
$$
\frac{1-P}{1+P}=\frac{m}{x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{1^2-n^2}{x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{2^2-m^2}{x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{3^2-n^2}{x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{4^2-m^2}{x}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
$$
\item
If
\begin{align*}
z&=1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2x +\left(\frac{1\cdot3}{2\cdot4}\right)^2\cdots\\
y&=\frac{\pi}{2}%
\frac%
{1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2(1-x) +\left(\frac{1\cdot3}{2\cdot4}\right)^2 (1-x)^2 \cdots}%
{1+\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2x +\left(\frac{1\cdot3}{2\cdot4}\right)^2 x^2\cdots}
\end{align*}
then
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{(1+a^2)\cosh y} + \frac{1}{(1+9a^2)\cosh 3y} + \frac{1}{(1+25a^2)\cosh 5y} + \cdots\\
&\qquad =
\frac{1}{2}\frac{z\sqrt{x}}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{(az)^2}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{(2az)^2 x}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{(3az)^2}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{(4az)^2x}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
\end{align*}
where $a$ is any quantity.
\item
If
\begin{align*}
u &= \frac{x}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x^5}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x^{10}}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x^{15}}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots\\
v &= \frac{\sqrt[5]{x}}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x^2}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{x^3}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
\end{align*}
then
$$
v^5 =u\cdot\frac{1-2u+4u^2-3u^3+u^4}{1+3u+4u^2+2u^3+u^4}.
$$
\item
We have
$$
\displaystyle
\frac{1}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{e^{-2\pi}}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{e^{-4\pi}}{1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{e^{-6\pi}}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots
=
\left( \sqrt{\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{2}} - \frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}\right)\sqrt[5]{e^{2\pi}}.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction}
The Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction was first discovered by Rogers and published with proof in 1888 and then rediscovered independently and published without proof by Ramanujan in 1914. If we write
\begin{align*}
G(q)
& = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{q^{n^2}}{(1-q)(1-q^2)\cdots (1-q^n)}\\
H(q)
& = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{q^{n^2+n}}{(1-q)(1-q^2)\cdots (1-q^n)}
\end{align*}
then the following continued faction is known as the Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction: can
\begin{align*}
R(q)
& = q^{1/5}\frac{H(q)}{G(q)}\\
&= \frac{q^{1/5}}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{q}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{q^2}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{q^3}{1}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
\end{align*}
In his very first letter to Hardy, Ramanujan has stated several properties of the function $R(q)$ (see \cite{RCF2}).
\section{Conjectures by Ramanujan machine}
The Ramanujan machine was initially designed to output conjectures regarding continued fraction expressions for the mathematical constants $\pi$ and $e$. The machine has produced several such conjectures and most of the early ones have been proved to be correct. The capability of the machine has now been expanded to generate such expressions for other constants like the Catatlan constant, values of the Reimann zeta function, etc.
``Fundamental constants like $e$ and $\pi$ are ubiquitous in diverse fields of science, including physics, biology, chemistry, geometry, and abstract mathematics. Nevertheless, for centuries new mathematical formulas relating fundamental constants are scarce and are usually discovered sporadically by mathematical intuition or ingenuity.'' (see \cite{RamanujanMachineWebsite})
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Conjectures for $\pi$
The following is a conjecture involving $\pi$ discovered by the ramanujan machine and which has been proved to be true.
$$
\frac{4}{3\pi - 8}=3 +\frac{-1\cdot 1}{6}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-2\cdot 3}{9}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-3\cdot 5}{12}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{-4\cdot 7}{15}\cdots
$$
\item
Conjectures for $e$
Here is an elegant continued fraction representation for $e$ discovered by the Ramanujan machine.
$$
e=3 + \frac{-1}{4}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\frac{-2}{5}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-3}{6}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-4}{7}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
$$
\item
Conjectures for $\log 2$:
The following conjecture involving $\log 2$ was discovered after 1 May 2020 and has not yet been proven.
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{1-\log 2}
& = a_0 + \frac{a_1}{b1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_2}{b_2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_n}{b_n}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots\\
& = 4 + \frac{-8}{14}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-72}{30}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
\end{align*}
where
$$
a_n=3n^2+7n+4, \quad b_n=-2n^2(n+1)^2.
$$
\item
Conjectures on Catalan's constant
The Catalan's constant $G$ is defined by
$$
G=\frac{1}{1^2}-\frac{1}{3^2}+\frac{1}{5^2}-\frac{1}{7^2}=\cdots
$$
It is not known whether G is irrational, let alone transcendental. There is Ramanujan connection to this constant. Ramanujan has extensively studied the following inverse tangent integral function
$$
\text{Ti}(x)=\int_0^x\frac{\tan^{-1} x}{x}\, dx.
$$
It can be shown that $G=\text{Ti}(1)$.
The Ramanujan machine has produced several conjectures regarding $G$ most of whichh have not yet been proven. The following is a typical conjecture on $G$ discovered by the machine:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2G}
& = a_0 + \frac{a_1}{b_1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_2}{b_2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_n}{b_n}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots\\
& = 1 + \frac{-2}{7}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{-32}{19}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
\end{align*}
where
$$
a_n=-2n^4\quad b_n=3n^2+3n+1.
$$
\item
Conjectures on Apery's constant
The Reimann zeta function, $\zeta(s)$, is defined by
$$
\zeta(s)=\frac{1}{1^s}+\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{3^s}+\cdots
$$
The number $\zeta(3)$ is defined as the Apery's constant. It is named after Roger Apéry (1916 - 1994), a Greek-French mathematician. This constant appears in several physical problems including in the study of quantum electrodynamics.
The Ramanujan machine has generated several conjectures regarding the Apery's constant. For example,
$$
\frac{1}{\zeta(3)}= a_0 + \frac{a_1}{b_1} \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_2}{b_2}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \cdots \,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\, \frac{a_n}{b_n}\,\begin{matrix} \\ +\end{matrix}\,\cdots
$$
where
$$
a_n = -n^6, \quad b_n = n^3+(n+1)^3.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\section{Ramanujan in digital signal processing}
First some background regarding digital signal processing. A signal is an electrical or electromagnetic current that is used for carrying data from one device to another.
It is the key component behind virtually all communication computing, networking and electronic devices.
Any quality, such as a physical quantity that exhibits variation in space or time can be used as a signal. A signal can be audio, video, speech, image, sonar and radar-related and so on.
Signal processing is a subfield of electrical engineering that deals with analysing, modifying, and synthesizing signals such as sound, images, and scientific measurements. Digital signal processing (DSP) is the process of analyzing and modifying a signal to optimize or improve its efficiency or performance. It involves applying various mathematical and computational algorithms to analog and digital signals to produce a signal that is of higher quality than the original signal. Digital signal processing is primarily used to detect errors, and to filter and compress analog signals in transit.
\section{Ramanujan sum}
\subsection{Definiton}
In a paper published in 1918 (see \cite{R1918}), Ramanujan introduced the following sum where $n,d,k$ are positive integers and where $(k,d)$ denotes the greatest common divisor of $k$ and $d$:
$$
c_q(n) = \sum_{k=1\atop (k,q)=1}^n \cos \frac{2kn\pi}{q}.
$$
The expression on the right can be rewritten in the following form:
$$
c_q(n)=\sum_{k=1\atop (k,q)=1}^n e ^{\frac{2kn\pi}{q}i}.
$$
The complex number $e^{-\frac{2\pi}{q}i}$ is a $q$-th root of unity and it is sometimes denoted by $W_q$. Using this notation, we also have
$$
c_q(n)= \sum_{k=1\atop (k,q)=1}^n W_q^{-kn}.
$$
The sum $c_q(n)$ is now generally referred to as the {\em Ramanujan sum}.
For example let $q=6$. The integers $k$ lying in the range $1,2,3,4,5,6$ and satisfying $(k,q)=1$ are $1,5$ only. Hence we have
\begin{align*}
c_6(n)& = \cos \frac{4\pi n}{6} + \cos \frac{10\pi n}{6}\\
&=e^{\frac{4\pi n}{6}i}+e^{\frac{10\pi n}{6}i}.
\end{align*}
A few values of $c_6(n)$ are given in Table \ref{c6n}. It may be noted that $c_6(n+6)=c_6(n)$ for all $n$.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccccc}
\hline
$n$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & $\cdots$ \\
\hline
$c_6(n)$ & $2$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $-2$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $-2$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $\cdots$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $c_6(n)$}\label{c6n}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Some properties}
A few of the many interesting properties of the Ramanujan sum are listed below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The Ramanujan sum $c_q(n)$ is a period function of $n$ with period $q$, that is,
$$
c_q(n+q)=c_q(n)\quad \text{for all $n$}.
$$
\item
$c_q(n)$ is an integer valued function.
\item
The function $c_q(n)$ is a multiplicative function of $q$, that is, if $(q_1,q_2)=1$ (in other words, if $q_1$ and $q_2$ are relatively prime), then
$$
c_{q_1q_2}(n)=c_{q_1}(n)c_{q_2}(n).
$$
\item
Using the Mobius function $\mu(n)$ there is an explicit formula for $c_q(n)$:
$$
c_q(n)=\sum_{d\atop(\text{$d$ divisor of $(q,n)$})} \mu(q/d)d.
$$
Note that the Mobius function is defined as follows:
$$
\mu(n)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $n=1$}\\
(-1)^k & \text{if $n$ is a product of $k$ distinct prime numbers}\\
0&\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$$
\item
Let $q_1\ne q_2$ and let $l$ be any common multiple of $q_1$ and $q_2$. Then
$$
\sum_{n=0}^{l-1}c_{q_1}(n)c_{q_2}(n)=0.
$$
\item
The Euler's totient function $\phi(n)$ is an arithmetic function which takes the number of positive integers not exceeding $n$ and relatively prime to $n$ as its value. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
\displaystyle{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{x}}\sum_{n\le x}c_r(n)c_s(n)
=
\begin{cases}
c_r(h)&\text{if $r=s$}\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$
\item
$
\displaystyle{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{x}}\sum_{n\le x}c_r(n)c_s(n+h)
=
\begin{cases}
\phi(r)&\text{if $r=s$}\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Ramanujan-Fourier series}
An arithmetic function is a function defined on the set of positive integers which takes real or complex numbers as values. For example, the {\em divisor function} $d(n)$ whose value is the number of divisors of $n$ is an arithmetic function. Ramanujan's principal objective in studying the properties of the function $c_q(n)$ was to obtain an expression for an arithmetic function $x(n)$ in the form of a series as follows.
$$
x(n) = \sum_{q=1}^\infty a_q c_q(n).
$$
A series of this form is called {\em Ramanujan series} (or {\em Ramanujan expansion} or some-
times {\em Ramanujan-Fourier series} or {\em Ramanujan-Fourier Transform}) (see \cite{Murty}).
As an example, Ramanujan discovered the following expansion for the divisor function $d(n)$:
$$
d(n) = - \sum_{q=1}^\infty \frac{\log q}{q} c_q(n).
$$
As another example, consider the arithmetic function $\sigma(n)$ which takes the sum of the divisors of $n$ as its value. Thus $$
\sigma(6)=1+2+3+6=12, \quad \sigma(7)=1+7=8.
$$
Ramanujan obtained the following series expansion for the function $\sigma(n)$:
$$
\sigma(n)=\frac{\pi^2n}{6}\sum_{q=1}^\infty \frac{c_q(n)}{q^2}.
$$
\subsection{An early application of Ramanujan sums to signal processing}
The discrete and fast Fourier transforms are suited for the analysis of periodic and quasiperiodic sequences. But they are not suitable to discover the features of aperiodic
sequences such as low-frequency noise. The Ramanujan-Fourier transform has been applied to examine whether there are any hidden patterns in such sequences. The general idea is to compare the observed patterns and properties in experimental data with the properties of the Ramanujan-Fourier transforms of well known arithmetical functions in number theory and to see whether there is any match between the two sets of properties.
This idea was tested using certain observed data from the study of black holes in astronomy and the general
conclusion was that many of these
processes may be described using prime number theory. It has also been suggested that Ramanujan-Fourier transform could also be used in the study of radio-frequency oscillators close to phase locking (see \cite{Planat}).
\section{Ramanujan spaces}
For a fixed positive integer $q$, consider the matrix:
$$
B_q
=
\begin{bmatrix}
c_q(0) & c_q(q-1) & c_q(q-2) & \cdots & c_q(1)\\
c_q(1) & c_q(0) & c_q(q-1) & \cdots & c_q(2)\\
c_q(2) & c_q(1) & c_q(0) & \cdots & c_q(3)\\
\vdots & & & & \\
c_q(q-1) & c_q(q-2) & c_q(q-3) & \cdots & c_q(0)
\end{bmatrix}
$$
Let $\mathbb C^q$ be the $q$-dimensional complex vector space whose vectors are represented as column vectors. The subspace of $\mathbb C^q$ generated by the columns of $B_q$ is called the {\em Ramanujan space} (or sometimes, the {\em Ramanujan subspace}) and is denoted by $S_q$. It is shown that the space $S_q$ has dimension $\phi(q)$ where $\phi$ is the Euler's totient function. Also, any $\phi(q)$ consecutive columns in $B_q$, in particular the first $\phi(q)$ columns of $B_q$, form a basis for $S_q$.
As a concrete example, let us consider $B_6$ using the values of $c_6(n)$ given in Table \ref{c6n}.
$$
B_6
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 & -1 & -2 & -1 & \phantom{-}1 \\
\phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 & -1 & -2 & -1 \\
-1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 & -1 & -2 \\
-2 & -1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 & -1 \\
-1 & -2 & -1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 \\
\phantom{-}1 & -1 & -2 & -1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}2
\end{bmatrix}
$$
It may be noted that $\phi(6)=2$ and the first two columns are linearly independent, and further any other column is a linear combination of the first two columns.
We defined $S_q$ as a $q$-dimensional subspace of vectors in
$\mathbb C^q$, spanned by
columns of $B_q$. However, the
elements of $S_q$ are sometimes regarded as period-$q$ sequences. So, when
we say that $x(n)\in S_q$, it is understood that the vector of size $q$
is extended periodically to obtain the sequence $x(n)$.
The Ramanujan spaces has an important periodicity property. A discrete-time signal $x(n)$ is said to be periodic if there exists an integer $R$ such that
$$
x(n) = x(n + R)
$$
for all $n$, and the integer $R$ is called a repetition interval. The period $P$ (an integer) is the smallest
positive repetition interval. It can be shown that any repetition interval is an integer multiple
of $P$. If $x_1 (n)$ and $x_2 (n)$ have periods $P_1$ and $P_2$, their
sum $x_1 (n) + x_2 (n)$ has a repetition interval $R = \text{lcm}\, (P_1, P_2 )$, so its period $P$ is either this lcm or a
proper divisor of it.
It has been shown that all vectors in the Ramanujan space $S_q$ has period exactly equal to $q$, in particular, it cannot be smaller than $q$. More generally, let us consider a set of $K$ Ramanujan spaces $S_{q_m}$, $m=1,\ldots,K$ and $x_m(n)\in S_{q_m}$. Let $N$ be the lcm of $q_1, \ldots, q_K$. Then the vector
$$
x(n)=\sum_{m=1}^K x_m(n)
$$
is periodic with period exactly equal to $N$; in particular, it cannot be smaller (see \cite{Vaidya})
Let $x(n)$ be finite sequence of length. Let us assume that the sequence is extended for all values of $n$ by stipulating that
$$
x(n+N)=x(n), \text{ for all $n$.}
$$
It can be shown that such a sequence, considered as a vector $\mathbf x$ in $\mathbb C^N$, can be expressed as a sum of vectors in the Ramanujan spaces $S_{q_1}, S_{q_2}, \ldots, S_{q_K}$ where $q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_K$ are the divisors of $N$:
$$
\mathbf x = \sum_{q_i|N} \mathbf x_{q_i}, \text{ where $\mathbf x_{q_i} \in S_{q_i}$}.
$$
This has been called the {\em Ramanujan FIR Representation}\footnote{FIR is an acronym for Finite Impulse Response.} of the signal $x(n)$. These representations can be used to determine hidden periodicities in signals and also for denoising of signals. For more details the reader may refer to \cite{Vaidya2}.
\subsection{Applications}
The following quote from the concluding section of Vaidyanathan's paper on Srinivasa Ramanujan and
signal-processing problems (see \cite{Vaidya3}) gives an indication of the various fields where the ideas of Ramanujan sums and Ramanujan subspaces have been successfully applied.
''In this paper, we presented an overview of the impact of Ramanujan sums in signal processing,
especially integer-period estimation in real or complex signals. These methods have recently been
used in identification of integer periodicities in DNA molecules and in protein molecules. These new methods are quite competitive and often work better than
existing state of the art methods. Ramanujan filter banks have also been shown to be applicable in
the identification of epileptic seizures in patients, which are characterized by sudden appearance
of periodic waveforms in the measured EEG records. Other interesting applications have
recently been reported by a number of authors such as, for example in source-separation,
RF communications, ECG signal processing and brain-computer interfacing. More
recently, a well-known algorithm called the MUSIC algorithm, which is popularly used for
identifying sinusoids in noise, has been extended to the case of integer period identification using
Ramanujan-subspace ideas. This method, known as iMUSIC, has also been compared with
other well-known methods for multipitch estimation.''
\section{Conclusion}
``It is satisfying indeed when one finds that a well-known mathematical concept has practical
impact in engineering, even though the original mathematical ideas may not have been inspired
by any such application. Engineers have seen this happening over and over again in disciplines
such as information theory, coding, digital communications, system theory and machine learning.
Indeed, the classical view that pure mathematics of the highest quality is bound to be `useless'
for real-life applications is evidently not valid as the last several decades of science and
engineering have amply demonstrated. What is often regarded as pure mathematics sometimes
impacts engineering in wonderful ways. A classic example is the theory of finite fields and
rings, which has impacted the practice of error-correction coding in digital communications, data
compression, and digital storage. Other examples include graph theory which has had many
engineering, network and signal processing applications. Yet another is number theory which has
impacted nearly all aspects of science and engineering such as acoustical hall designs, computer
music, and so forth.'' (see \cite{Vaidya3})
|
\section{Introduction}
Software quality assurance forms an important part of the software development cycle.
Its importance is accepted throughout the software engineering community.
Verification and validation of an application are essential steps in software testing.
The increasing complexity of present-day software and the use of machine learning techniques presents new challenges to test software sufficiently.
However, machine learning techniques are used in research and in developing solutions for real-world applications \cite{Reichstein2019,EcoInf2017}.
Besides this, the nature of research software is exploratory.
The output for such software is usually unknown and cost-intensive to compute.
The unknown output of the application is known as the test oracle problem in software engineering.
There have been many approaches to test software that pose the test oracle problem.
Metamorphic testing (MT) is the most prominent approach among these, as seen by the increase in number of papers published and increased research efforts in recent times.
MT was first introduced by \cite{Chen1998}.
It has seen an increase adoption in research and real-world applications.
Comprehensive surveys of metamorphic testing may be found in~\cite{Zhang2020,Segura2020,Lin2020,Segura2019a,Segura2018,Segura2016}.
Metamorphic testing is based on the idea that most of the time it is easier to predict relations between outputs of a program, than understanding its input-output behavior \cite{Saha2020}.
The central element of metamorphic testing is the metamorphic relation (MR). An MR is a necessary property of the target application in relation to multiple inputs and their corresponding outputs \cite{Chen2018b}.
Identifying metamorphic relations is labor-, time-, and cost-intensive.
Experienced domain experts require a thorough understanding of the application and the desired behavior of MRs to identify metamorphic test scenarios.
Automating this process would reduce the cost and increase the probability of widespread adoption.
Using the available automated test case generation methods, we can develop test cases once the MRs are available as shown by Hui et al.~\cite{Hui2020}.
We can harness testing frameworks to automate application testing using the generated test cases and test suites.
MT is not without its limitations.
A major limit is that MT by itself cannot prove that the output of the application is correct~\cite{Segura2019a}.
It is also challenging to quantify the effectiveness of MT.
Since the basis of MT relies on comparing multiple successive outputs with respect to each other and the morphed inputs. If the initial outputs themselves were wrong and the successive outputs were within an expected variation satisfying the MR, MT would not detect the error in the software under test.
The other limitation of the MT approach is that for comprehensive testing the number of MRs required is large and thus leads to an extensive test suite.
MT finds faults in the application but does not point to the function with the bug, thus debugging the software under test is challenging.
One method is to follow the changes to input parameters for failed metamorphic tests, find the parameters with high covariance, and investigate their path for debugging.
Section~\ref{motivation} explains the motivation behind our research.
In Section~\ref{s-application} we introducing an example application, before formulating the problem to be solved in Section~\ref{s-problem}.
In Section~\ref{s-method}, we explain our proposed method and sketch the solution employing machine learning.
Section~\ref{s-future} of the paper highlights the challenges and an outlook to future work.
Section~\ref{data_availability} provides the details of the resources available for this paper.
\section{Motivation}\label{motivation}
Our application domain are ocean system models.
Currently, there are no papers based on MT focused on ocean modeling, to the best of our knowledge.
However, there are a few papers on applying MT to geographic information systems \cite{Lin2020,Hui2020}
Ocean system modeling software is often based on legacy code that has over the years undergone multiple development cycles leading to complex intertwined code.
They rarely employ a standard systematic testing approach to verify the software.
The challenges to this have been explained by \cite{Johanson2018}, \cite{Kanewala2014b}, and \cite{Kelly2008}.
The focus is on assimilating functions that work rather than developing the software adhering to the principles of software engineering.
Verification is based on the modeler's undocumented plausibility check to see if the output lies within the output range, the researcher is expecting.
Though researchers accept software testing as a value-adding step in developing software, they rarely identify or maintain separate test cases to verify their functions and software.
Some recent developments of ocean simulation software are collaborative, open-source, and in newer programming languages.
This has led to refactoring some existing components and modular addition of new functions to the existing codebase.
Testing efforts are focused on regression tests as part of the continuous integration framework in most collaborative open-source scientific software development~\cite{OSRS2020}. A goal should be to follow the FAIR principles not only for research data but also for research software~\cite{FAIR_Software_2020}.
The increasing use of machine learning techniques to compute intermediate input data points demands non-traditional software techniques to ensure the correctness of the software in use.
There is a substantial gap between adopting artificial intelligence in software development and testing capabilities for valid implementations of artificial intelligence methodologies.
Testing these systems has proven to be challenging.
Though there is an increase in the solution's effectiveness by adopting these techniques, the lack of methods to verify and the inability to explain the improvement in effectiveness has resulted in cautious adoption of these software development techniques.
With the increasing assimilation of artificial Intelligence methodologies as a part of software engineering, the need for better testing approaches for validating software posing test oracle problems has increased.
From our current knowledge, there does not exist an established standard testing procedure for verifying the developed scientific software.
Most of the verification efforts are based on unit tests written, managed, and executed by contributors at their discretion.
A structured quality assurance framework would help with the adoption of the testing capabilities across the research facility and lead to more reliable software development.
One of the major hurdles to adopting MT is the cost associated with identifying metamorphic relations.
The central idea of this short paper is to present an approach to automate identifying metamorphic tests.
This will increase the widespread application of MT as an efficient verification technique for the software that poses test oracle problems.
The future of Software Engineering will revolve around harnessing artificial intelligence techniques for solving real-world complex and interdependent problems.
Automated identification of metamorphic tests will lead to improved adoption of MT-based test suit development for automated program repair as shown by Jiang et al.~\cite{Jiang2020}.
\section{Example Application}\label{s-application}
We use a simple but realistic ocean-modeling application to show our approach~\cite{Rath2019}.
We can access the application on Binder ~\cite{Jupyter2018BinderScale.}.
The example application is to calculate a time series of Kinetic energy of the surface ocean for randomly generated data for a grid of ($10 \times 20$) for $30$ temporal resolutions
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:energy}
e(t, y, x) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\int{\rm d}y{\rm d}x (u(t, y, x)^2 + v(t, y, x)^2)}{\int{\rm d}y{\rm d}x}
\end{equation}
where $e$ represents the time series of Kinetic energy, $t$ the time, $y$ and $x$ are spatial coordinates, and horizontal surface-velocities $u$ and $v$ are calculated from the sea-level $\eta$ using
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:uv}
(u, v)(t, y, x) = \frac{G}{F} \left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right) \eta(t, y, x)
\end{equation}
where $G$ represents the gravitational acceleration (in $meters/second^2$) and $F$ the Coriolis parameter (in $1/second$) at $30$\textdegree\ North.
The two functions of Equation~\eqref{eq:energy} are coded in the sample application, one of which is not respecting cyclic boundary conditions.
To numerically implement Equation~\eqref{eq:energy}, we discretize the integral in \eqref{eq:energy} and the partial derivatives in \eqref{eq:uv} by applying the method of finite differences and link it back to Equation~\eqref{eq:metamorphic_relation}.
Thus, the input data $\myvec{x}$ contains all discretized values of sea level $\eta$, of all coordinates $t$, $y$, $x$, and the physical constants $G$ and $F$.
A metamorphic transformation $g(x)$ could change all or some of the atomic data points in $\myvec{x}$ such that all $e(g(\myvec{x})) = e(\myvec{x})$ for all discrete values of time~$t$.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Fig_with_high.png}
\caption{Time series outputs of Kinetic energy of surface ocean calculated using the function not respecting the cyclic boundary conditions for (x,y) coordinates for multiple applied MRs.}
\label{fig:appied-MRs}
\end{figure*}
Fig.\ref{fig:appied-MRs} shows the time series output for multiple applied MRs calculated using the function in which the cyclic boundary condition is not implemented.
These MRs were manually identified based on the symmetries of the energy equation.
The bottom most plot is that of the original input data.
The applied MRs are multiplying $g$ and $h$ by the same constant, Keeping $G/F$ as constant, scaling $\eta, x$ and $y$ by a constant, transposing $x$ and $y$, reversing the direction of $x$, reversing the direction $y$, transposing the $x$ coordinates cyclically and transposing the $y$ coordinates cyclically.
We observe that for applied initial MRs the time series outputs are in accordance with the applied MRs.
Time series out puts for transposing the $x$ coordinates cyclically and transposing the $y$ coordinates cyclically differs from the rest as highlighted in Fig.~\ref{fig:appied-MRs} by red arrows.
\section{Problem Formulation}\label{s-problem}
For the given application domain, we may define the function under test $f: X \to Y$, where both $X$ and $Y$ are finite dimensional normed vector spaces.
Then a metamorphic relation $(g, h)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:metamorphic_relation}
f(g(\myvec{x})) = h(f(\myvec{x}))
\end{equation}
where $\myvec{x} \in X$, $g: X \to X$ is the input mapping from source input to follow-up (morphed) input, and $h: Y \to Y$ is the output mapping from the source output to the follow-up output, that is the output associated with the morphed input.
Throughout this paper, we limit $h$ to be the identity map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:metamorphic_relation_identiy_assumption}
f(g(\myvec{x})) = f(\myvec{x})
\end{equation}
and we constrain $g$ to be an affine transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:affine_transformation}
g(\myvec{x}) = \Gamma\cdot\myvec{x} + \myvec{\beta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma$ is a matrix associated with an endormophism of $X$, and $\myvec{\beta} \in X$ is an offset.
Note that the limitation of $g$ being an affine transformation is motivated by retaining the ability of capturing physical properties related to symmetries of the governing equations, such as invariance under translation or rotation, while greatly reducing the soultion space.
\section{Proposed Method}\label{s-method}
There may exist an infinite number of possible $g$ satisfying \eqref{eq:metamorphic_relation_identiy_assumption} but one always is the identity map.
The task is then to find new $g$, or at least approximations to $g$, which differ from all $g$ known so far.
For this we use an iterative approach.
We represent the set of identified metamorphic relations associated with $f$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:g}
G^f_{n-1} = \{g_0, g_1, \ldots, g_{n-1}\}
\end{equation}
We seek to find a new possible $g_n$ by minimizing a cost function that rewards a $g_n$ which minimizes the distance between source output and follow-up output $|f(g_n(\myvec{x})) - f(\myvec{x})|$ and penalizes if $g_n$ is already known.
Throughout the text, we take the norm $\left|\cdot\right|$ to be the Euclidean distance.
The cost function for a candidate $g_n$ and a given $G^f_{n-1}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cost_function}
J(g_n, G^f_{n-1}) = \int_{X}\frac{|f(g_n(\myvec{x})) - f(\myvec{x})|}{\epsilon + \prod_{g \in G^f_{n-1}}\left|g_n(\myvec{x}) - g(\myvec{x})\right|^2} dx
\end{equation}
where $g_n$ represents a potential morphing to $\myvec{x}$ such that it satisfies~\eqref{eq:metamorphic_relation_identiy_assumption} and $\epsilon$ is a small machine precision constant to avoid division by zero when $g_n$ is identical to a previously identified $g \in G^f_{n-1}$.
Note that in the denomiator we write the product of squared differences to ensure $\lim_{g_n \to g} J(g_n, G^f_{n-1}) = \infty$ which heavily penalizes $g_n$ for being close to an element of $G^f_{n-1}$.
We apply a modified algorithm loosely based on the genetic algorithm with a Monte Carlo optimization to find a $g_n$ that minimizes the cost function~\eqref{eq:cost_function}.
We start the iteration with $G^f_0 = \{\mathrm{id}_X\}$ containing only the identity map on $X$.
Initially, we assign random values to $\{\Gamma, \myvec{\beta}\}$ and in each step a mutation $\{\delta\Gamma, \myvec{\delta\beta}\}$ is proposed.
An acceptance threshold $p$ is set which determines at what rate a mutation that would increase the cost function is still not rejected.
If the cost after the application of the mutation is smaller than before the mutation, the applied mutation is always accepted.
The process is repeated to move towards a global minimum.
After converging to a minimum, we update the solution set $G^f_n = G^f_{n-1} \cap \{g_n\}$.
Then a new $g_{n+1}$ is created with randomly assigned $\{\Gamma, \myvec{\beta}\}$ and the process is restarted, this time minimizing $J(g_{n+1}, G^f_n)$.
With this method we are able to identify multiple metamorphic transformations which satisfy equation \eqref{eq:metamorphic_relation_identiy_assumption}.
\section{Challenges and Future Work}\label{s-future}
We identify multiple MRs using the approach proposed in Section \ref{s-method}.
We suspect the identified MRs are a chain of multiple elementary constituent MRs.
Hence, it will be challenging to explain identified MRs in terms of physical symmetries that hold in the real oceans.
We propose dimensionality reduction techniques to decompose the identified chained MRs.
The decomposed MRs will be closer to the constraints of the Physical Ocean and easier to interpret.
Since the resulting MRs will be distinct after decomposing, we expect test cases constructed with these MRs to be effective in uncovering defects.
They will also increase the test coverage of the application.
Since we assume input and output mapping relations, MRs corresponding to functional states of the software are not identified by the method proposed in Section \ref{s-method}.
Further work is to relax the restriction to $h$ in~\eqref{eq:metamorphic_relation} being the identity map.
Next steps will explore other optimization methods for the cost function constructed in Section\ref{s-method} including deep learning frameworks.
\section{Data Availability}\label{data_availability}
The sample application presented in Section~\ref{s-application} and the data generated are available in \cite{Rath2019}.
The published artifact contains a link to an interactive session where the example application can be executed.
\section*{Acknowledgments}\label{affiliations}
The first author is funded through the Helmholtz School for Marine Data Science (MarDATA), Grant No. HIDSS-0005.
We have developed the approach in collaboration of the Computer Science Department at Kiel University and the Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics Department at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{S}{oftware} engineering research requires real software artifacts either to study their properties or to evaluate new techniques. Software datasets have emerged in the community as an effort to standardize and increase the reproducibility of software studies and the comparison between contributions.
Each dataset focuses on one specific goal and has specific properties.
For example, some datasets focus on the source code of different projects \cite{Pietri2019}, others focus on software that compiles correctly \cite{Martins2018}, or even focus on specific characteristics such as having known and reproducible bugs \cite{Just2014, Madeiral2019}.
This paper presents a new dataset of software projects: \duets.
Its name reflects the spirit of the library-client relationship.
It consists of a collection of Java libraries, which build can be successfully reproduced, and Java clients that use those libraries.
\duets aims to simplify research that focuses on behavioral analysis of Java software. In particular we want to encourage studies that analyze library behavior in a context.
The availability of a set of clients for each library supports studies about the actual usage of the library.
The dataset can be used both for static analyses and for dynamic analyses by executing the tests of the clients.
For that purpose, we take a special care to build a dataset for which we ensure that both the library and the clients have a passing test suite.
This new dataset supports a wide range of usage purposes. In general, many program analyses require a list of compilable and testable software packages, which we provide with \duets. The dataset also supports more specific use cases, such as analyzing the API usage by the clients of a particular library \cite{Saied2015}, or debloating based on dynamic analysis \cite{jdbl, JShrink}.
We provide a framework with the dataset. It can be used, for example, to detect projects that have flaky builds or study the reasons for flakiness or the build~\cite{Pinto2020}.
In addition, the reproducible property of the project builds provides a sound ground for empirical studies on how \pom files (Maven build configuration file) are engineered \cite{Wang2018,McIntoshAH12, Valero2020}.
We design \duets to contain a large diversity of projects and focus on the reproducibility of the build.
We select only single-module Maven projects to simplify the reproducibility.
Multi-module projects tend to increase the complexity and the fragility of the build and make it harder to analyze, study, and instrument.
We also build each project three times, as an effort to ensure the reproducibility of the build.
The test suite of the project has to pass and only have passing tests.
To summarize the contributions of this paper are the follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item \duets, a dataset of \np{\nbLibVersion} libraries and \np{\nbClientAll} clients. Both the libraries and the clients build successfully with Maven, i.e.\@\xspace all the test pass and a compiled artifact is produced as a result of the build.
\item A framework to generate the dataset. It includes scripts for the collection of data and execution of the tests in a sandboxed environment.
\item Raw data files from the dataset generation that can be reused for further researches, e.g., \np{34560} \pom files, \np{33513} Travis CI configuration files, and \np{17403} Dockerfiles.
\end{itemize}
\section{Data Collection Methodology}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[origin=c,width=0.90\textwidth]{figures/overview.pdf}
\caption{Overview of the data collection methodology: from a collection of Java projects on GitHub, it produces reproducible sets of libraries and clients.}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we describe the methodology that we follow to construct this dataset of open-source \mv Java projects extracted from GitHub.
\duets is composed of two parts: a set of libraries, i.e.\@\xspace, Java projects that are declared as a dependency by other Java projects, and a set of clients, i.e.\@\xspace, Java projects that use the libraries from the first set.
The construction of this dataset is performed in $5$ steps.
The process is illustrated in \autoref{fig:overview} and detailed in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Collection of Java projects from GitHub}
First, we use the list of Java projects extracted from GitHub by Loriot et al. \cite{styler}. The authors queried the GitHub API on June 9th of 2020, to find all the projects that use Java as the primary programming language.
The projects found were subsequently filtered, discarding those that have less than $5$ stars.
This initial dataset includes \np{\nbTotalProject} Java projects.
\subsubsection{Identification of single-module projects}
Second, we select the subset of single-module projects among the \np{\nbTotalProject}~Java projects.
We choose single-module projects to have a clear mapping between client and library and have more reliable build reproduction.
We download the complete list of files for each project using the GitHub API
We consider that a project is a single-module project when it has a single \mv build configuration file, i.e.\@\xspace, \pom.
We exclude the \pom files that are in \texttt{resource} folders and \texttt{test} folders.
At the end of this step, we keep \ChartSmall[p]{34560}{147991} single-module \mv projects.
The list of all the files is also part of our dataset and is available in the repository of the dataset.
\subsubsection{Identification of libraries and clients}
In the third step, we analyze each \pom from the \np{34560} projects.
During the analysis, we first extract the \texttt{groupId} and \texttt{artifactId} qualifiers of each project.
This pair of ids is used by \mv to identify a project.
In the case where two projects declare the same pair of \texttt{groupId} and \texttt{artifactId}, we select the project that has the largest number of stars on GitHub.
Second, we map the \texttt{groupId} and \texttt{artifactId} to the dependency declared in the \pom.
At the end of this step, we obtain a list of projects that are used as dependency, i.e.\@\xspace, libraries and a list of clients that use the libraries.
During this step, we ignore the projects that do not declare JUnit as a testing framework, and we exclude the projects that do not declare a fixed release, e.g.\@\xspace, \texttt{LAST-RELEASE}, \texttt{SNAPSHOT}.
After this third step, we identify \ChartSmall[p]{155}{34560} libraries, and \ChartSmall[p]{25557}{34560} clients that use \np{2103} versions of the libraries.
\subsubsection{Identification of commits for each library release}
The purpose of the fourth step is to identify the commit SHA identifier that determines each version of the library, i.e.\@\xspace, the commit change in the \pom that assigns a new version.
For example, the version $3.4$ of the library \texttt{commons-net} is defined in the commit SHA \texttt{74a2282b7e4c6905581f4f1b5a2ec412310cd5e7}.
To perform this task, we download all revisions of the \mv build configuration files since their creation.
Then, we analyze the \mv build configuration files, and identify which commit declares a specific release of the library.
We successfully identify the commit for \ChartSmall[q]{1026}{2103} versions for \ChartSmall[q]{143}{155} libraries. \ChartSmall[q]{16964}{25557} clients have been mapped to a specific commit of one of their dependencies.
\looseness=-1
\subsubsection{Execution of the tests}\label{sec:reproduice}
As the fifth and last step, we execute three times the test suite of all library versions and all clients, as a sanity check to filter out libraries with flaky tests or projects that cannot be built.
We keep the libraries and clients that have at least one test and have all tests passing: \ChartSmall[q]{94}{143} libraries, \ChartSmall[q]{395}{1026} library versions, and \ChartSmall[q]{2874}{16964} clients passed this verification.
From this point, we consider each library version as a unique library for clarification purpose.
\section{Description of the dataset}
\input{tables/benchmark.tex}
\autoref{tab:benchmark} summarizes the descriptive statistics of the dataset.
The number of lines of code (\#LOC) and the coverage are computed with JaCoCo.
\duets includes \np{\nbLib} different libraries, with a total of \np{\nbLibVersion} versions, as well as \np{\nbClientAll} clients.
Those libraries and clients are maintained by \np{1669} different GitHub organizations.
The libraries include \np{\nbTest} test cases that cover \np[\%]{\medianCoverageLib} of the \np{\nbLineLib} LOC. The libraries have a median maintenance time of $9.49$ years from $623$ commits created by $29$ contributors.
The clients have \np{\nbTestClient} test cases that cover \np[\%]{\medianCoverageClient} of the \np{\nbLineClient} LOC. The clients have a median maintenance time of $2.65$ years from $86$ commits created by $4$ contributors.
The dataset and the scripts to generate the dataset are publicly available in our experiment repository: \url{https://github.com/castor-software/Duets}.
\subsection{Dataset format}
\duets is available on GitHub and is composed of a JSON file.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/castor-software/Duets/tree/master/dataset/dataset-info.json}}
An excerpt of this JSON file is presented in the README of our repository.
It contains the repository name, the SHA of the commit, the \texttt{groupId}, \texttt{artifactId}, the list of clients for each version of the library, and a list of commits that defines the different releases of the library.
\duets also contains the logs corresponding to the test execution for each version of the libraries and for each client.
As previously mentioned, we executed three times the tests to increase the likelihood of the reproducibility of the dataset.
In addition to the dataset itself, we include all scripts that generate the dataset. Those scripts can be used to reproduce the same dataset, to create a similar dataset for a different language or reusing too mine Github.
\subsection{Execution framework}
In addition to the JSON file, we provide a Docker image that contains our execution framework.
This framework adds an abstraction on top of Git repositories. It automatizes the cloning, checkout, execution of the test, and parsing the test results without requiring to specify and additional information than the URL of the repository.
All those tasks are simplified into the following command line: \texttt{docker run --rm -v `pwd`:/results castorsoftware/duets:latest compile --repository https://github.com/radsz/jacop --commit 8f09fd977a}.
This framework can be extended to perform additional tasks, we provide an API that allows to execute the main Maven tasks and to manipulate the \pom files easily (e.g.\@\xspace, to add or remove plugins). We extended the framework to perform static analysis and to collect the test suite coverage. Those examples are provided in the \duets repository as guidelines.
\section{Dataset Usage}
\subsection{Pairs of libraries and clients}
The clients in \duets can be used to identify APIs usage patterns between different clients \cite{Saied2015}, or to explore how the API evolution of the libraries affects their clients \cite{Eilertsen2018}.
For example, \autoref{fig:sankey} shows a weighted bipartite graph of the relationship between $10$ clients (on the left) and the packages belonging to one library, Apache Commons Codec (on the right).
The width of the edges between a client and a package represents the number of classes in the package that are executed (either directly called or invoked internally in the library) when running the clients' tests.
This type of figure allows to visualize the parts of the library that are more used by its clients, which is valuable information for both the library users and the library maintainers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[origin=c,width=0.40\textwidth]{figures/sankey.pdf}
\caption{Sankey diagram representing the number of classes in the packages of the library Apache Commons Codec (v. $1.12$) that are used by $10$ clients}
\label{fig:sankey}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
The test-suite of the clients can also be used as further validation of modifications performed on the library.
This is the type of usage that we leverage in our recent work \cite{jdbl}, where we debloat libraries and verify that the compilation and the execution of their clients' tests are not affected.
Hence, having information regarding library usage by clients is useful for validating program transformation since it provides dynamic data that helps to overcome the limitations of static analysis in Java.
\looseness=-1
Another potential usage of the clients of the library is to use the client tests to generate tests for the libraries or to verify that changes in the libraries do not break the clients. This idea is developed in a recent study performed by Chen and colleagues \cite{Chen2020}.
\duets allows to compare the characteristics of libraries with respect to other software artifacts. For example, during our data collection, we observed that libraries have much more tests and have a higher test coverage than the clients (see \autoref{tab:benchmark}).
A detailed analysis of the test part of the dataset could highlight differences between libraries and other types of applications.
Finally, \duets can be used to compare the coverage of the library with its own test suite and the test suites of the clients, to identify the intersection and difference between the two test suites, similar to the work of Wang et al.\@\xspace~\cite{wang2017behavioral} that checks the similarity between test and production behavior.
\subsection{Buildable and testable Java projects}
If the relations between the clients and the libraries are not required for a specific evaluation.
\duets can be used as a list of projects that successfully build and have a passing test suite.
This can be used as a dataset for dynamic analysis such as identifying API usage based on the client or libraries test suites.
This dataset contains a large diversity of projects, large and small, from different fields.
\subsection{Build results of the projects}
During the creation of \duets, we verified that \np{7293} projects are reproducible and have only passing tests (see \autoref{sec:reproduice}). We saved the test results of those executions.
This data can be used to identify projects with failing tests, flaky tests or flaky builds.
Identifying flaky builds is a hard task. This data could have simplified the work of studies like \cite{luo2014empirical,eck2019understanding,durieux2020flaky}.
\autoref{tab:builds_metrics} presents some metrics of our reproduction attempts.
We identify \ChartSmall[p]{221}{7293} projects that have flaky tests, \ChartSmall[p]{1009}{7293} projects with at least one failing test case.
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Reproducibility metrics report}
\label{tab:builds_metrics}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lr@{}}
\toprule
Metrics & Value\\\midrule
\# Reproduction attempts & \np{7293}\\
\# Buidable projects & \ChartSmall{3642}{7293}\\
\# Unbuidable projects & \ChartSmall{3418}{7293}\\
\# Failing-test builds & \ChartSmall{1009}{7293}\\
\# Flaky builds & \ChartSmall{221}{7293}\\
\# Timeout & \ChartSmall{12}{7293}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\subsection{List of files of Java projects}
We downloaded the complete list of files for \np{34560} Java projects from GitHub. This list of files can be used to identify the usage of specific technologies such as Docker, continuous integration, build management systems, or investigating the adoption of some development practice such as including binaries in the repositories.
\autoref{tab:project-files} shows the rate of occurrence of these particular files in \duets.
This data could be used for study like the one of Cito et al.\@\xspace \cite{cito2017empirical}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Occurrence of Java files and configuration files in the dataset of file lists}
\label{tab:project-files}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lr@{}}
\toprule
Metrics & Values\\\midrule
\# Files & \np{71768708} \\
\# Java files & \ChartSmall{21519119}{71768708} \\
\# \pom files & \ChartSmall{363220}{71768708} \\
\# Gradle files & \ChartSmall{229690}{71768708} \\
\# Travis files & \ChartSmall{33513}{71768708} \\
\# GitHub Workflow files & \ChartSmall{33513}{71768708} \\
\# Dockerfiles & \ChartSmall{17403}{71768708} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\subsection{Analysis of \pom files}
\duets contains \np{34560} \pom files. Those files can be used to analyze the common usage of \pom in open source repositories.
This dataset of \pom files has several advantages compared to a dataset of \pom created directly from Maven Central.
The \pom in \duets are directly associated with a Git repository and therefore additional information is available, such as the source code, the history of the project, or issues. This provides a solid starting point to analyze the co-evolution of build files and other artifacts \cite{mcintosh2014mining}.
\section{Related Work}
Building software is a complex task.
Indeed, Kerzazi et al.\@\xspace \cite{kerzazi2014automated} observe that $17.9\%$ of CI builds in an industrial web application are failing during a period of $6$ months.
Durieux et al.\@\xspace \cite{durieux2020flaky} shows that only $70\%$ of the builds are passing on Travis CI.
Reproducing builds is even an harder task.
Sulir et al.\@\xspace \cite{sulir2016quantitative} show that $40\%$ of the builds in their dataset are not reproducible. Almost $40\%$ of the build problems are related to missing dependencies, followed by compilation errors in $22\%$ of the cases.
Gkortzis et al.\@\xspace
\cite{gkortzis2020software} observe a very similar build failure rate ($33.7\%$), with the same causes.
Neitsch et al.\@\xspace \cite{neitsch2012build} analyze the build systems of $5$ open-source multi-language Ubuntu packages.
They observe that $4$ of the $5$ packages cannot build or be rebuilt. They find that many build problems can be addressed, and note that build quality is rarely the subject of research, even though it is an important part of maintaining and reusing software.
The software engineering research community came up with several benchmarks of Java projects that focus on reproducibility of the build.
Sulir et al.\@\xspace \cite{sulir2016quantitative} attempted to build \np{7264} Java projects from GitHub, from which around $60\%$ of the builds succeeded.
Martins et al.\@\xspace~\cite{Martins2018} presented in 2018 a dataset that follows the same idea but with \np{50000} compilable and compiled Java projects.
Dacapo by Blackburn et al.\@\xspace~\cite{Dacapo} consists of a set of open source, real world applications with non-trivial memory loads.
The difference between those datasets and \duets is that we constructed a up-to-date benchmark with recent and diverse projects, we also focus on Mavven that have a test suite and all tests are passing.
There are several datasets of buggy Java programs that generally also come with the non-buggy version of the program, such as \cite{Just2014,Madeiral2019,tomassi2019bugswarm,saha2018bugs,durieux2016introclassjava}.
Datasets that only focus on source code also exist, such as Boa, a dataset of queryable Java AST presented by Dyer et al.\@\xspace \cite{dyer2013boa}. Spinellis et al.\@\xspace \cite{spinellis2020dataset} focus on identifying duplicated repositories on GitHub.
The closest work that focuses on studying libraries and their clients is the work from Leuenberger et al.\@\xspace \cite{Leuenberger2017}.
They analyze the binaries of artifacts in Maven Central to identify API clients.
In contrast, we focus on the projects' source code and to allow to build and test the software where Leuenberger et al.\@\xspace are interested to mine the API usage of compiled projects.
The major difference between all those datasets and \duets is that we focus on pairs of libraries and clients. To our knowledge, this has never been done.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we presented \duets, a dataset of \np{\nbLibVersion} libraries and \np{\nbClientAll} clients extracted from open-source projects on GitHub.
\duets aims to simplify studies that rely on dynamic and static analysis of libraries' usage in the Java ecosystem.
In our previous work, we have used this dataset to study the impact of debloatig libraries on their clients.
However, \duets also provides a fertile ground for other types of empirical studies, such as those that analyze the impact of API changes on library clients.
Alongside the dataset itself, we provide a framework that aims to facilitate the data mining.
Both the dataset and the necessary tools to reproduce it are open-source and publicly available online.
We also provide the raw data that we use to generate \duets, including \np{34560} \pom files and the complete file list of \np{34560} Java projects.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is partially supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems, and Software Program (WASP) funded by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and by
the TrustFull project funded by the Swedish Foundation for
Strategic Research.\looseness=-1
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the rapid economic development and improvement of living standards, the high-quality demands of medical health and care are gradually increasing. The full set of qualified health services are provided in highly urbanized areas, which are very well covered by communication networks. However, it is non-trivial to cover the sparsely populated rural areas. The fifth-generation and beyond (5GB) wireless networks have evoked a great deal of attention, due to its ability to reflect a large diversity of communication requirements and application domains\cite{Saad20196G,Liu8114722Beyond}. The 5GB is more ambitious than only supporting ultra-reliable and secure communication links, but also aims for providing uninterrupted and ubiquitous connectivity, which meet the requirements of remote-e-Health systems such as 5G platform based tele-medicine/tele-surgery, autonomous robotics enabled medical resource delivery and mobile health monitoring\cite{Di20195Ghealth}.
\begin{figure*} [t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{3C.pdf}
\caption{Applications of 5GB in remote-e-Health systems.}\label{3C}
\end{figure*}
Fig. \ref{3C} illustrates several typical applications of 5GB in remote-e-health systems. In Fig. \ref{3C}(a), a remote surgery can be operated safely and smoothly with the aid of 5GB cellular networks. Thus, physicians in hospitals of highly urbanized areas can perform an operation on patients in areas where Internet cables are difficult to lay or cannot be laid. Fig. \ref{3C}(b) characterizes the application of 5GB in remote diagnosis. Real-time data derived from electroencephalography and electrocardiography can be transmitted from a rural hospital or community clinic to a remote center, where online diagnosis are made by experienced physicians. Fig. \ref{3C}(c) shows how physicians in a remote center can monitor individuals' health condition by invoking smart-phones and smart-watches to record their position and physical data (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature) and transmit these data to physicians via 5GB cellular networks. In Fig. \ref{3C}(d), medical images, which are usually with jumbo size and are often regarded as burdens for cloud networks, can be processed by offloading computing resources to edge devices via 5GB networks, since 5GB networks are expected to carry a significantly higher volume of data while maintaining reliability. Fig. \ref{3C}(e) illustrates the employment of autonomous robotics (ARs) to collect individuals' biological data. The 5GB networks enables medical groups or related organizations to collect pedestrians's body temperature through forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) empowered unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or collect samples of individuals who are self-isolated. In Fig. \ref{3C}(f), cellular-connected ARs are employed for delivering medical resources from hospital to individuals in a time-saving and energy-saving manner.
Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA), whose key idea is to superimpose the signals of two users at different powers for exploiting the spectrum efficiently by opportunistically exploring the users' different channel conditions, is capable of satisfying the requirements of massive connectivity, as well as high access speed and low latency in remote-e-Health systems. The goal of this article is to provide a potential solution to realize the application of 5GB in remote-e-Health systems through the NOMA technique. Before fully reap the benefits of NOMA-enabled 5GB networks in remote-e-Health systems, several research challenges have to be tackled, ranging from investigating the performance limits of NOMA-enabled 5GB networks, jointly designing the control policy and resource allocation policy for ARs, as well as determining the computing resource offloading policy in remote-e-Health systems. Motivated by the aforementioned challenges, the main contributions of this articles are integrating communication, control and computing (3C) in 5GB-enabled remote-e-Health systems. In contrast to the recent research contributions, we highlight how NOMA technique copes with the challenges and improves the performance of remote-e-Health systems. The application of the proposed NOMA-enabled 5GB networking framework is discussed in the context of NOMA-AR and NOMA-mobile edge computing (MEC) case studies.
\section{NOMA enabled remote-e-Health systems}
In this section, we first describe the NOMA-enabled 5GB remote-e-Health structure. Then the application of a unified NOMA framework is introduced to the remote-e-Health systems.
\subsection{NOMA for remote-e-Health}
Due to supporting the enhanced spectrum efficiency and massive connectivity, NOMA technology has received an increased attention for the rising emergence of remote e-Healthcare services in the recent years. The remote-e-Health is an effective approach to solve the lack of health infrastructures and resources for the community, suburban and remote territories. The focus on the interoperability of personal health devices has intensified especially in the context of medical healthcare environments, which is capable of supporting the habitants of remote locations, chronic patients and independent living of elderly people. Currently, the remote-e-Health is still in the development stage, and it needs to satisfy the requirements of larger connectivity and individualization. Hence the application of NOMA to remote-e-Health system is one of better choices for the development of healthcare. As shown in Fig. \ref{Mg_system_model}, the total remote-e-Health network is deployment of multiple cells (e.g. macro, micro and intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) etc.). In NOMA-enabled remote-e-Health system, the NOMA protocol is adopted in each small cells and massive multiple-input and multiple-output technologies are employed by macro cells. For the macro cells, base stations (BSs) are equipped with multiple antennas and transmit the signals to carry out the remote surgery for patients. Meanwhile, the macros can be connected to medical center by utilizing optical fiber or wireless cloud networks. In particular, assuming that the transmitting antennas of macro BSs is much larger than the number of users. For the micro cells, users are equipped with single-antenna monitoring device and are allocated with the different power levels to carry out NOMA protocol. In the following subsection, we will discuss a unified NOMA frameworks for remote-e-Health in detail.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\subfigure[NOMA-enabled remote-e-Health structure.]{
\label{Mg_system_model}
\includegraphics[width=3.1 in]{Mgsystem.pdf}}
\subfigure[A unified NOMA for remote-e-Health systems.]{
\label{Uplink NOMA for remote-e-Health system}
\includegraphics[width=2.5 in]{Mguplinknew.pdf}}
\caption{NOMA enabled remote-e-Health systems.}
\label{Fig. 1}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{A unified NOMA framework for remote-e-Health}
The superior spectral efficiency of NOMA has been demonstrated by extensive theoretic studies as well as experimental trials executed by academia and industry. Up to now, multiple NOMA proposals have been examined by different industrial companies \cite{Ding2017Mag}. Based on spreading signature of proposals, NOMA schemes can be classified as two categories: power-domain NOMA (PD-NOMA) and code-power NOMA (CD-NOMA). The superposed signals of multiple users are mapped into a single resource element (RB) for PD-NOMA, while the superposed signals are mapped into multiple subcarriers for CD-NOMA. Based on this property, a unified NOMA framework was discussed in \cite{Qin8387207UDN}, which can be reduced into PD/CD-NOMA according to the changes of scenario and business. The remote-e-Health combined with the unified NOMA framework is further capable of supporting its diversified remote businesses flexibly. As shown in Fig. \ref{Uplink NOMA for remote-e-Health system}, we take the uplink PD-NOMA enabled remote-e-Health as an example. Assuming that a pair of remote users are served by the PD-NOMA scheme, where the medical center needs to monitor or inquiry elderly people's health profile in their own home. According to the requirements of quality of service (QoS), the inquired user i.e., the $n$-th user is seemed as a delay-sensitive user with a low target data rate, which needs to send the urgent health status changes. On the other hand, the monitored user i.e., the $m$-th user is served in a delay-tolerant mode with sending the personal health records. Finally, the QoS-based successive interference cancellation (SIC) scheme is carried out to first detect the inquired user's signal and then decode the monitored user's information. Certainly this procedure can also be easily extend to general case with more than two remote users, while ensuring the users' QoS requirements.
\section{NOMA-enabled Autonomous Robotics for Remote-E-Health: Integrated Communication and Control}
To validate the distinguished capabilities of NOMA for remote-e-Health systems, a NOMA-enabled autonomous robotics architecture is presented in this section.
\subsection{Key features of NOMA-enabled autonomous robotics for remote-e-Health}
Autonomous robotics, which has brought tremendous changes in various socio-economic aspects in our society, has also been the focal point of the e-Health research field. Autonomous robots are partitioned into three categories: aerospace robot (e.g., small intelligent satellite, airship/airplane, high-altitude platform (HAP), and unmanned aerial vehicle); ground robot (e.g., autonomous vehicle (AV), smart home robot, and mobile robot); marine robot (e.g., unmanned ship, unmanned submarine, underwater robot)\cite{Tzafestas2020robotics}.
\begin{figure*} [t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{ARscenario.pdf}
\caption{NOMA-enabled autonomous robotics for 5GB remote-e-Health.}\label{ARscenario}
\end{figure*}
In previous research contributions, ARs are found to be extremely useful to replace humans or manned aircrafts/vehicles in missions that are dull (e.g., extended surveillance), dirty (e.g., pesticide spray), and dangerous (e.g., rescue and search after disaster)\cite{liu2019trajectory}. With the aid of ARs, revolutionary benefits have been witnessed in the area of e-Health. As shown in Fig.~\ref{ARscenario}, UAVs and ground mobile robots are already used for medical service delivery and biological information monitoring, while ground social robots are used for dealing with the mental health. ARs can make decision without the intervene from human, because that they can receive reliable real-time traffic information from the cellular network via access point (AP)/BS-ARs wireless links. It is worth mention that ARs invoked in e-health are danger-intolerable and delay-sensitive. It means that it is of the upmost importance to guarantee that ARs can move safely, which requires ultra-reliable and secure communication links for them. To provide uninterrupted and ubiquitous connectivity for ARs, as well as provide massive connectivity in ARs networks, power-domain NOMA can be adopted to support different users over the same time/frequency slot by exploring their different channel conditions.
\subsubsection{NOMA-enabled autonomous robotics for making available drugs and vaccines}
UAVs/AVs-based delivery systems have attracted remarkable attention in recent years due to the reason that a faster delivery speed and a lower cost can be obtained than the conventional manned delivery services, especially when the destination areas are inaccessible. In remote-e-Health system, ARs can be invoked for making available drugs, vaccines and other medical resource to un-reached individuals. During the delivery process, critical control information has to be transmitted from BSs/APs to ARs, which requires the communication signal to be ultra-reliable and low-latency. In the NOMA-enabled ARs systems, ARs with different channel conditions can be partitioned into a same NOMA cluster. Additionally, a particular AR can also be partitioned into the same cluster with other cellular network users. Since the wireless service quality for ARs has to be guaranteed at each timeslot, the trajectory of ARs needs to be designed based on the radio map. The movement of ARs affects the decoding order among ARs and user clustering, which makes the decoding
order design, user clustering and resource allocation highly coupled in the NOMA-enabled ARs systems.
\subsubsection{NOMA-enabled autonomous robotics for collecting biological samples/data}
In the previous research contributions, UAVs/robots are capable of collecting data from ground Internet of Things (IoT) devices in a given geographical area, in which constructing a complete cellular infrastructure is unaffordable. Sparked by this application, ARs are capable of being used for collecting biological samples/data from small sensors carried by individuals, which are used to monitoring individuals physical conditions (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature) in both outdoor and indoor scenarios. Since these sensors/devices cannot support long distance transmission due to their power constraints, ARs can be helpful to collect the data and then efficiently transmit the data to other linked devices or directly to the data center. Additionally, ARs can also be invoked to collect individuals' biological samples in an efficient and non-touch manner. Given the position of all individuals, ARs are capable of automatically designing the most energy-efficient trajectory or fulfilling tasks within minimal flight duration. Since aerial robotics are battery-powered, their energy consumption is one of the gravest challenges. The limited flight-time of aerial robotics (usually under 30 minutes) hampers the wide commercial roll-out of AR-aided networking. Hence, improving the transmission efficiency from sensors to ARs is of utmost importance. With the aid of NOMA technique, the reliability of the wireless link can be improved due to superior spectrum efficiency of NOMA-aided networks. The information age can be minimized by jointly optimizing the sub-channel assignment, the decoding order, the uplink transmit power of medical nodes, as well as ARs' trajectory.
\subsection{NOMA for autonomous robotic communication: a machine learning approach}
We consider the multiple aerial autonomous robotics aided wireless networking scenario, where multi-ARs are invoked as aerial base stations for epidemic information broadcasting with the aid of NOMA technique. It is assumed that all ARs are deployed in the cellular utilizing the same frequency band, as a result, inter-cell interference has to be considered in this multi-cell network. Ground users are individuals who would like to receive real-time epidemic information in both video and text formats. Ground users are considered as roaming continuously instead of keeping static. Therefore, ARs have to be re-deployed based on the movement of users for guaranteeing high quality of wireless services. Intending to maximize the total throughput, we optimize the ARs's trajectory and power allocation
policy, subject to the maximum power constraint, decoding order constraints, and the QoS constraint. It is worth noting that the dynamic decoding order has to be determined at each time slot to guarantee the successful SIC, since the position of both UAVs and users is time-varying.
Users are typically considered to be stationary in the conventional convex optimization based ARs-aided wireless networks and the data demand of users is also considered to be time-invariant, hence only static communication environments are considered in conventional ARs-aided wireless networks. Hence, the control policy can indeed be analyzed based on tractable models, but ARs are not capable of learning from the environment or from the feedback of the users for enhancing their ability to cope with the dynamically fluctuating propagation and tele-traffic environment. In an effort to tackle the aforementioned challenges, reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are adopted due to the reason that they are capable to indicate a near-optimal solution through an experience-based method but not a functional express. The ARs accumulate certain experiences through continuous exploration of the current environment and obtains high reward solutions by learning and remembering these fruitful or dreadful experiences.
The advantage of online RL model is that it can adapt the control policy of autonomous robots to the dynamic environment in real-time. However, online RL model requires additional communication resource for uploading each autonomous robot's real-time mobility information or feedback to base stations. In contrast to online RL model, offline RL model does not require additional communication resource, user mobility/QoS requirement can be predicted offline. However, performance loss cannot be avoid compared to online RL model. Since ARs are battery-powered, their energy consumption is one of the gravest challenges, especially when on-board data processing and on-line computation are used.
\begin{figure} [t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{ARs.pdf}
\caption{Throughput enhancement of NOMA in ARs-aided wireless networks.}\label{ARs}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{ARs} characterizes the throughput of the network over episodes. The results are derived from both the deep Q-network (DQN) algorithm and the mutual deep Q-network (MDQN) algorithm, in which multiple ARs are permitted to connect with the same neural network during the training process with the assistance of state abstraction. One can observe that the NOMA-enabled ARs network is capable of achieving roughly 23\% enhancement than OMA case in terms of throughput. It can also be observed that in the NOMA case, the dynamic decoding order and the power allocation policy derived from the proposed MDQN algorithm are capable of achieving gains of approximately 12\% and 14\%.
\section{NOMA-enabled Edge Intelligence for 5GB Remote-E-Health: Integrated Communication and Computing}
In this section, we present the network structure of the NOMA-enabled edge intelligence (NOMA-EI) framework in remote-e-Health under consideration. Subsequently, the associated key modules are detailed.
\subsection{Network structure for NOMA-EI in remote-e-Health}
Recent proliferation of edge smart devices in remote-e-Health have been growing exponentially, e.g., smart watches or other portable sensing equipments. The prosperity of health services in remote-e-Health require the integration of communication and computing resource in network edge. To fulfill these requirements, EI is proposed to push network functions from the network centre to the network edge~\cite{Zhou2019ei}.
Fig.~\ref{framework} illustrates the network structure of NOMA-enabled EI. NOMA strategy has shown great potential for circumventing the limitation of massive connectivity compared to conventional OMA techniques~\cite{Liu8114722Beyond}, it is anticipated that the unprecedented high access speed and low latency requirements could be well addressed by NOMA enabled EI. The marriage of NOMA and EI has given rise to a new research area, namely, NOMA-EI. In NOMA-EI, the data offloading between edge devices and edge server can be conducted by NOMA strategy, to fulfill the stringent data rate and delay requirements of data offloading and task computation using the limited energy and computation resource.
\begin{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{eif2.pdf}\\
\caption{NOMA-enabled Edge Intelligence Framework in Remote-E-Health. (D2D denotes device-to-device, F-AP represents fog access point, SAQ-learning is single-agent Q-learning)}\label{framework}
\end{figure*}
In NOMA-EI, high-computation capabilities is required for edge devices to fulfill the computing demand for remote-e-Health. To meet this demand, MEC is proposed to push the computation function of the network centre to the network edge of remote-e-Health. The motivation of NOMA-MEC for remote-e-Health is to take advantages of the massive connectivity characteristic of NOMA and the delay reducing property of MEC. The computation services requested by smart devices are transmitted to the BSs for emancipating smart equipments from onerous computing and reducing computation latency. The core of MEC is to promote plentiful computing capabilities at the edge of networks by integrating MEC servers at BSs. The NOMA-enabled MEC (NOMA-MEC) is capable of offloading the tasks simultaneously to reduce task transmission delay. This motivated extensive researches from both academia and industry. In~\cite{Liu2019ieeewc}, a novel framework of cooperative NOMA-MEC is proposed to exploit parallel task transmission on the whole NOMA transmission resource block.
\subsection{Reinforcement learning for NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health}
The motivation of using RL for NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health is to obtain a long-term offline solution for the optimization problem. The advantage of RL is that the agent of RL, differs from supervised learning algorithms, such as deep neural networks, do not needing labelled input/output pairs during the training process, therefore, the patients' privacies are preserved. The application of RL has been widely employed in various scenarios to obtain a best trajectory or path for a given environment. The aim of RL in remote-e-Health systems is to obtain the best trajectory from the experience of intelligent agent, and measure the best state-action value function in the environments of remote-e-Health. The advantage of RL is that the intelligent agent does not estimate all the state-action pairs, which is capable of reducing the computation complexity. By maximizing the long-term reward of the intelligent agent in NOMA-MEC, the associated stochastic optimization problems in NOMA-MEC are solved. However, the performance of the conventional RL is restricted by the dimensions of the action space and state space.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\subfigure[The structure of DRL for NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health.]{
\label{MEC}
\includegraphics[width=2.8 in]{Qlearningflowmag.pdf}}
\subfigure[The performance of the proposed NOMA-MEC framework in remote-e-Health on the energy consumption~\cite{zhong2020twc}.]{
\label{DRLframework}
\includegraphics[width=3.1 in]{figures9.pdf}}
\caption{NOMA-enabled MEC for remote-e-Health.}
\label{offloading}
\end{figure*}
In order to overcome the dimension curse of the conventional RL, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) is proposed, which uses deep learning and RL principles to create more efficient algorithms compared with RL, because deep neural networks are integrated with RL to fit the complex relationship between the action space and state space. Fig.~\ref{DRLframework} shows the structure of DRL for NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health. In~\cite{Zhai2020iwc}, a DRL approach is proposed for MEC to deploy the computation services to the network edge, in which the users' request models and resource limitations is considered.
\subsection{Case study: NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health}
We continue by providing case studies of NOMA-MEC in remote-e-Health. The major advantage of NOMA-MEC is to obtain speedy task computing taking advantages of both NOMA strategy and MEC. In this section, RL based solutions to sufficiently utilize the computing capabilities in NOMA-MEC network are studied.
In the proposed NOMA-MEC framework in e-Health, a long-term optimization problem is formulated that indicates a joint optimization of transmission decisions and computation resource allocation. Instead of solving a sophisticated joint optimization problem, we propose a modified RL algorithm, in which, the intelligent agent is capable of learning the optimal resource allocation scheme according to the history information and searching for the optimal trajectory automatically.
The performance of the proposed NOMA-MEC framework is shown in Fig.~\ref{offloading}. We can see from Fig.~\ref{offloading} that the proposed NOMA-MEC framework achieves lower energy consumption than the conventional OMA-MEC scheme. Also can be noted that the NOMA/OMA gain is higher with the increase of the task input size, which means that the benefit of NOMA is larger when we transmit larger computation tasks. In Fig.~\ref{offloading}, the computation tasks' MEC computing outperforms conventional local computing, because there are abound computing capabilities in the network edge. Also, we note that the proposed RL algorithm outperforms conventional schemes.
\section{CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS}
\subsection{Concluding remarks}
In this paper, we have investigated the application of NOMA-enabled 5GB networks in remote-e-Health systems. Both NOMA-empowered ARs networks and NOMA-empowered EI networks are discussed by comparing to the conventional communication-based e-Health networks. A pair of case studies are provided to verify the performance of the proposed architecture, while the research challenges and future directions are also presented in terms of practical implementation.
\subsection{Challenges of integrating 3C into remote-e-Health}
\subsubsection{Cooperative NOMA-5GB design by exploiting heterogeneous mobility}
With the explosive development of mobile ARs in remote-e-Health systems, devices are expected to communicate with each other in an environment with heterogeneous mobility profiles. Nevertheless, there exist many mobility-related problems, which may become obstacles to the future 5GB networks, especially for the scenarios that massive devices access the wireless networks simultaneously. In practice, it is likely that the high-mobility users' channel conditions are worse than the low-mobility users' channel conditions, which is beneficial for the implementation of NOMA technique. However, how to reap the benefits of this channel difference is challenging.
\subsubsection{Pareto-optimization for meeting multiple objectives}
In contrast to the conventional wireless networks, NOMA-enabled 5GB in remote-e-Health systems are characterized by more rapidly fluctuating network topologies and more vulnerable communication links. Furthermore, NOMA-enabled 5GB rely on the seamless integration of heterogeneous network segments with the goal of providing improved QoS. Hence, it operates in a complex time-variant hybrid environment, where the classic mathematical models have limited accuracy~\cite{Wang2017taking}. Additionally, the challenging optimization problems encountered in remote-e-Health systems have to meet multiple objectives (delay, throughput, BER, power) in order to arrive at an attractive solution. However, determining the entire Pareto-front of optimal solutions is still challenging.
\subsection{Future directions}
\subsubsection{COVID-19 related applications}
COVID-19 pandemic has spread globally and resulted in an ongoing pandemic that not only has placed people at risk of illness and death, but also impacted the global economy and daily life. Quick individual screening is an effective method to protect citizens and make the best use of resources as the COVID-19 test kits are far from enough to provide nucleic acid testing for everyone and people may get infected anytime. Since fever is one of the common symptoms of being infected by COVID-19, identifying individuals with elevated body temperature (EBT) in public areas has been recognized as one of the most efficient methods to distinguish suspected infected individuals from the general public. Since the COVID-19 is highly infectious, it is expected to accomplish EBT detection missions without participation of trained staff or medical personnel.
By deploying thermal imaging empowered ARs in a particular public area for identifying individuals with high EBT, individuals who need additional screening can be detected and alerted. Thus, the spread of COVID-19 virus and infections in the public area can be slowed down or cut off dramatically. In addition, by integrating ARs instead of face-to-face detection, the staff or medical personnel can obtain people's body temperature data, as well as coordinate individuals with high EBT without approaching them in person for safety purposes, which could reduce the infection risk and save life of a large number of personnel working in public areas.
However, it is of the upmost importance to guarantee that all thermal imaging empowered ARs can move safely, which requires ultra-reliable and secure communication links between UAVs and their ground control stations (GCSs). Furthermore, high-rate and massive-connected NOMA ARs-BS communication links are also needed for sending back real-time thermal images from ARs to GCSs. To this end, a 5G-driven NOMA-ARs platform, which integrates ARs into the existing and future-generation wireless networks as new users, is a promising approach to tackle the aforementioned fundamental challenges.
\subsubsection{Federated learning for individuals' privacy preserving}
Since healthcare is a sensitive issue, medical data privacy preserving should be considered carefully. Federated learning (FL) is capable of achieving distributed network training utilizing large amount of local data, but update only network parameters instead of the sensitive raw data. The advantage of FL is that the central networks do not need local data of the patients for training, only the local networks' parameters are shared with the central networks. The local sensitive data of the patients is kept in the local storage units. Therefore, the privacy of the patients and hospitals are preserved while enabling excellent network training performance~\cite{Konecny2016nips}. According to the functions of FL, medical image classification (MIC) and medical big data prediction (MBDP) are also important application of EI in e-Health.
\begin{enumerate}
\item MIC: MIC plays an important role in the computer version area. The goal of MIC is to recognize hidden information from medical image and provide fundamental information for doctors and researchers in disease diagnosis. Recent advancements in medical image collection and processing enable large volumes of medical images and medical data possible for complex network training. With the assist of FL, the neural network for MIC can be trained in a distributed manner. NOMA strategy can be adopted for parameters updating in FL based MIC, which provides a low-latency multiple access medical service to patients~\cite{Steven2006icml}.
\item MBDP: The massive medical data collected from hospitals and health-care organization provide a new era for the medical services. The MBDP hold excellently values for the patients and hospitals. However, the complexity of clinic data require novel data processing techniques to extract useful features and information. High efficient AI technologies are needed for processing large volume of medical big data. The role of MBDP is to provide better health care services for individuals and communities.~\cite{chen2018icm}.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Geometric packing problems have many important
applications in cutting stock \cite{gilmore1965multistage}, VLSI
design \cite{Hochbaum1985}, logistics \cite{CKPT17}, smart-grids
\cite{GGIK16}, etc. Two-dimensional geometric knapsack (2GK),
a multidimensional generalization of the classical knapsack problem,
is one of the central problems in this area. We are given a set of
$n$ axis-aligned (open) rectangles (also called {\em items}) $I:=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$,
where rectangle $i$ has integral width $w\aw{(i)}$, integral height
$h\aw{(i)}$ and an associated integral profit $p(i)$. We
are also given an axis-aligned square knapsack $K:=[0,N]\times[0,N]$,
where $N\in\mathbb{N}$. The goal is to select a subset of items $I'\subseteq I$
of maximum total profit $p(I'):=\sum_{i\in I'}p(i)$ so
that they can be packed in the knapsack. The packing needs to be {\em
axis-parallel} and {\em non-overlapping}, i.e., such packing maps
each rectangle $i\in I'$ to a new translated open rectangle $R(i):=(left\aw{(i)},right\aw{(i)})\times(bottom\aw{(i)},top\aw{(i)})$
where $right\aw{(i)}=left\aw{(i)}+w\aw{(i)}$, $top\aw{(i)}=bottom\aw{(i)}+h\aw{(i)}$,
$left\aw{(i)}\ge0,bottom\aw{(i)}\ge0$, $right\aw{(i)}\le N,top\aw{(i)}\le N$
and for any $i,j\in I'$, we must have $R(i)\cap R(j)=\emptyset$.
In 2GK, items are not allowed to be rotated. There is another variant
with rotations \aw{that we denote by 2GK(R)}, where items are allowed to be rotated by $90$
degrees.\awr{removed definitions of cardinality versions, not relevant for this paper I believe}
2GK~has rich connections with many important problems, such as
maximum independent set of rectangles (MISR) \cite{AW2013}, 2-D bin packing
\cite{bansal2014binpacking}, strip packing \cite{HarrenJPS14, Galvez0AJ0R20}, storage
allocation \cite{MomkeW20}, unsplittable flow \cite{GMW018}, mixed packing \cite{KSS21}, fair resource allocation \cite{PKL21}, etc.
Leung et al.~\cite{leung1990packing} showed that the problem is
strongly NP-hard. Jansen and Zhang \cite{Jansen2004} gave $(2+\varepsilon)$-approximation
algorithms for both 2GK~and 2GK(R), where $\varepsilon>0$ is an arbitrarily small constant.
Finally, G{á}lvez et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
broke the barrier of $2$ by giving a $1.89$-approximation algorithm
for 2GK~and $(3/2+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for 2GK(R).
Furthermore, if the input data is quasi-polynomially
bounded (i.e., $N \aw{\le} n^{(\log n)^{c}}$ \aw{for some $c>0$}~) then there exists a quasi-polynomial
time approximation scheme (QPTAS) \aw{for both problems} \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}. Polynomial
time approximation schemes (PTASs) are known for many special cases:
if all items are small \cite{FishkinGJ05}, if all items are squares
\cite{jansen2008ipco,HeydrichWiese2017}, if the profit of each item equals
its area \cite{bansal2009structural}, and if we allow resource augmentation
(i.e., the size of the knapsack can be slightly increased) \cite{fishkin2005packing,jansen2007new}.
However, it is an open problem to construct a PTAS, \aw{even with pseudo-polynomial running time}.
One can view geometric packing as a cutting problem where we are given
a large sheet or stock unit (maybe metal, glass, wood, rubber, or
cloth), which should be cut into pieces out of the given input set.
Cutting technology often only allows axis-parallel end-to-end
cuts called {\em guillotine cuts}. See \cite{sweeney1992cutting,BansalLS05}
for practical applications and software related to guillotine packing.
\aw{In this setting, we seek for solutions in which we can cut out
the individual objects by a recursive sequence of guillotine cuts that
do not intersect any item of the solution.}
The related notion of {\em $k$-stage packing} was originally introduced
by Gilmore and Gomory \cite{gilmore1965multistage}. Here each stage
consists of either vertical or horizontal guillotine cuts (but not
both). On each stage, each of the sub-regions obtained on the previous
stage is considered separately and can be cut again by using horizontal
or vertical guillotine cuts. In $k$-stage packing, the number of
cuts to obtain each rectangle from the initial packing is at most
$k$, plus an additional cut to trim (i.e., separate the rectangles
itself from a waste area). Intuitively, this means that in the
cutting process we change the orientation of the cuts $k-1$ times.
The case where $k=2$, usually referred to as {\em shelf packing}, has
been studied extensively.
\begin{figure}[!tbh]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering} \hspace{20pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.23\textwidth} \centering \resizebox{!}{2.8 cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (.97,1.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,0) rectangle (3.97,1.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5,0) rectangle (6,1.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,2.05) rectangle (1.45,3.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.55,2.05) rectangle (2.95,3.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.05,2.05) rectangle (4.45,3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.55,2.05) rectangle (5.95,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,4.05) rectangle (3,5.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4,4.05) rectangle (5.75,5.75);
\draw[thick, blue] (-0.2,2.0) -- ( 6.2, 2.0);
\draw[thick, blue] (-0.2,4.0) -- ( 6.2, 4.0);
\draw[thick, red] (1.3,0) -- ( 1.3, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (4.8, 0) -- ( 4.8, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (1.5,4.0) -- ( 1.5, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (4.5, 4.0) -- ( 4.5, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (3,4.0) -- ( 3, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (3.5,4.0) -- ( 3.5, 6.0);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{figa} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[t]{.23\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.8cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4, 2) rectangle (4.5, 2.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.3, 2.4) rectangle (4.5, 3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.4, 3) rectangle (4.5, 3.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.5, 2) rectangle (4.8, 3.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.8, 2) rectangle (5.3, 3.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.3, 2) rectangle (5.8, 3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.75, 5) rectangle (5.6, 5.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1, 5) rectangle (4.7, 5.6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5, 0) rectangle (5.6,1.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1, .75) rectangle (4.8, 1.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1, 4.1) rectangle (5.24,4.82);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.34, 4.4) rectangle (5.94,4.92);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.05, 3) rectangle (2.25,3.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.05, 2) rectangle (2.5,3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.05, 1) rectangle (2.7,2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.05, 0) rectangle (2.95,1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.05,0) rectangle (3.2, 2.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,0 ) rectangle (3.45, 1.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.55,0) rectangle (3.7, 2.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.8,0) rectangle (3.95, 3.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.05,2.9) rectangle (3.65, 3.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2, 4.75) rectangle (2.45,5.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.52, 4.9) rectangle (3.7,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2, 3.8) rectangle (3.45,4.45);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.6, 3.7) rectangle (3.9,4.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0, 4.5) rectangle (1.2,4.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.3, 4.6) rectangle (2,5.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0, 5.1) rectangle ( 1.23, 5.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.25, 1.7) rectangle (1.95,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1, 2.5) rectangle (1.95,3.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.5, 3.1) rectangle (1.95,3.65);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0, 3.7) rectangle (1.95,4.45);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0, 1.65) rectangle (.5,0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.5, 1.65) rectangle (1,.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1, 1.65) rectangle (1.45,0.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.55, 0) rectangle (1.95,.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.55, .4) rectangle (1.7,.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.55, .8) rectangle (1.6,1.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.55, 1.2) rectangle (2,1.65);
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[thick, blue] (2.0,0) -- ( 2.0, 6);
\draw[thick, blue] (2.0,0) -- ( 2.0, 6);
\draw[thick, blue] (4.0,0) -- ( 4.0, 6);
\draw[thick, blue] (4.0,0) -- ( 4.0, 6);
\draw[thick, red] (4.0,2.0) -- ( 6.0, 2.0);
\draw[thick, red] (4.0,4.0) -- ( 6.0, 4.0);
\draw[thick, red] (4.0,5.0) -- ( 6.0, 5.0);
\draw[thick, red] (0.0,4.5) -- ( 2.0, 4.5);
\draw[thick, red] (0.0,1.7) -- ( 2.0, 1.7);
\draw[thick, red] (0,2.5) -- ( 2.0, 2.5);
\draw[thick, red] (0, 3.1) -- ( 2.0, 3.1);
\draw[thick, red] (0,3.7) -- ( 2.0, 3.7);
\draw[thick, red] (2.0,4.75) -- ( 4.0, 4.75);
\draw[thick, red] (2.0,3.7) -- ( 4.0, 3.7);
\draw[thick, green] (1.25,4.5) -- (1.25, 6);
\draw[thick, green] (1.5,0) -- ( 1.5, 1.7);
\draw[thick, green] (1,0) -- ( 1, 1.7);
\draw[thick, green] (.5,0) -- ( .5, 1.7);
\draw[thick, green] (3.,0) -- (3, 3.7);
\draw[thick, green] (3.5,3.7) -- ( 3.5, 4.75);
\draw[thick, green] (2.5,4.75) -- ( 2.5, 6);
\draw[thick, green] (4.5, 2) -- ( 4.5, 4);
\draw[thick, green] (4.8, 2) -- ( 4.8, 4);
\draw[thick, green] (5.3, 2) -- ( 5.3, 4);
\draw[thick, green] (4.75, 5) -- ( 4.75, 6);
\draw[thick, green] (5, 0) -- ( 5, 2);
\draw[thick, green] (5.25, 4) -- (5.25, 5);
\draw[thick, green] (3.75, 0) -- (3.75, 3.7);
\draw[thick, brown] (0,5) -- ( 1.25, 5);
\draw[thick, brown] (1.5,0.4) -- ( 2, .4);
\draw[thick, brown] (1.5,0.8) -- ( 2, .8);
\draw[thick, brown] (1.5,1.2) -- ( 2, 1.2);
\draw[thick, brown] (3,1) -- ( 2, 1);
\draw[thick, brown] (3,2) -- ( 2, 2);
\draw[thick, brown] (3,3) -- ( 2, 3);
\draw[thick, brown] (4,2.4) -- ( 4.5, 2.4);
\draw[thick, brown] (4,3) -- ( 4.5, 3);
\draw[thick, brown] (3, 2.8) -- (3.75, 2.8);
\draw[thick, yellow] (3.5, 0) -- (3.5, 2.8);
\draw[thick, yellow] (3.25, 0) -- (3.25, 2.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{figb} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[t]{.2\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.8cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (0.25,0.25) rectangle (.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.5,0.5) rectangle (.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (0.75,0.75) rectangle (1,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1,1) rectangle (1.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (1.25,1.25) rectangle (1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.5,1.5) rectangle (1.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (1.75,1.75) rectangle (2,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,2) rectangle (2.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (0.25,0) rectangle (6,.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.5,0.25) rectangle (6,.5);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (0.75,0.5) rectangle (6,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1,0.75) rectangle (6,1);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (1.25,1) rectangle (6,1.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.5,1.25) rectangle (6,1.5);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (1.75,1.5) rectangle (6,1.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,1.75) rectangle (6,2);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (2.25,2) rectangle (6,2.25);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{figc} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[t]{.23\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.8cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (3.75,2);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (0,6) rectangle (2,2.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (6,6) rectangle (2.25,4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (6,0) rectangle (4,3.75);
\draw[thick, dashed, red] (-0.2,3.85) -- (6.2, 3.85 );
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{figd} \end{subfigure} \caption{The first three packing are guillotine separable packings of 2-stages, 5-stages, and many stages, respectively. The last packing is not a guillotine packing as any end-to-end cut in the knapsack intersects at least one of the packed rectangles.}
\label{fig:guillotinestages1}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we study the two-dimensional knapsack problem under
guillotine cuts (2GGK). The input is the same as for 2GK,
but we require additionally that the items in the solution can be
separated by a sequence of guillotine cuts, and we say that then they
are \emph{guillotine separable}.
NP-hardness of 2GGK~follows from a reduction from the \aw{(one-dimensional) knapsack problem}.
Christofides et al.~\cite{christofides1977algorithm} studied the
problem in 1970s. Since then many heuristics have been developed to
efficiently solve benchmark instances, based on tree-search \cite{viswanathan1988exact},
branch-and-bound \cite{hadjiconstantinou1995exact}, dynamic optimization
\cite{beasley1985exact}, tabu search \cite{alvarez2002tabu}, genetic
algorithms \cite{parada1995hybrid}, etc. Despite a staggering number
of recent experimental papers \cite{dolatabadi2012exact,wei2015bidirectional,borgulya2019eda,lodi2017partial,di2013algorithms,clautiaux2018combining,furini2016modeling, clautiaux2019pattern},
there was little theoretical progress for 2GGK, due to limitations
of past techniques. Since 2004, the $(3+\varepsilon)$-approximation for
2GK~by Jansen and Zhang~\cite{Jansen2004} has been the best-known
approximation algorithm for 2GGK. Recently, Abed et al.~\cite{AbedCCKPSW15}
have studied approximation algorithms for the cardinality cases of 2GGK~and 2GGK(R)~and
have given a QPTASs, assuming the input data to be quasi-polynomially
bounded.
Most algorithms for 2GK~utilize a {\em container packing} (see
Section \ref{sec:prelim}) which arranges the items in the knapsack
such that they are packed inside a constant number of axis-aligned
boxes (containers). The best sizes and locations of these containers
can be guessed efficiently since there are only a constant number
of them. Then inside each container the items are packed either
\aw{in} one-stage packings or \aw{in} two-stage packings~ (if items are small). However, G{á}lvez
et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} show that \aw{one cannot obtain a better approximation
ratio than $2$ with container-based
packings with only $O(1)$ many containers,} due to interaction between \emph{horizontal} (wide and thin)
and \emph{vertical} (tall and narrow) items. To break this barrier,
they use a {\em corridor-decomposition} where the knapsack is divided
into axis-parallel polygonal regions called {\em corridors} with
constant number of regions called {\em subcorridors}.
Vertical (resp. horizontal) items are packed in only vertical (resp.
horizontal) subcorridors. After simplifying the interaction between
vertical and horizontal items, they define two types of packings.
In one packing, they {\em process} the subcorridors to obtain a
container-based packing. In the other, a profitable subset of long
horizontal and long vertical items are packed in an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-shaped
region. They prove that the best of these two packings achieves
a better approximation ratio than $2$. However, it is not clear how
to use this approach for 2GGK: even if we start with an optimal
guillotine packing, the rearrangements of items may not preserve guillotine
separability, and hence they might not lead to a feasible solution
to 2GGK.
\subsection{Our contribution}
In this paper, we obtain $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithms \aw{with pseudo-polynomial running time for both 2GGK~and 2GGK(R), i.e., the running time is a polynomial if
the (integral) input numbers are all polynomially bounded in $n$}.
The key idea is to show that there
are $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate solutions in which the knapsack is
divided into simple {\em compartments} that each have the shape of a rectangular
box or an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, see Figure \ref{fig:packing}. Inside each compartment, the items are
placed in a very simple way, e.g., all horizontal items are simply
stacked on top of each other, all vertical items are placed side
by side, and all small items are packed greedily with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height
algorithm \cite{coffman1980performance}, see Figure \ref{fig:packing}.
To establish this structure,
we crucially exploit that the optimal solution is guillotine separable;
in particular, in 2GK~(where the optimal solution might not be
guillotine separable) more complicated compartments may be necessary
for near-optimal solutions, e.g., with the form of a ring.
While the items in our structured solution are guillotine separable,
we cannot separate the compartments by guillotine cuts since we cannot
cut out an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-shaped compartment with such cuts. This makes it difficult
to compute a solution of this type since it is not sufficient to ensure
that (locally) within each compartment the items are guillotine separable
(which is immediately guaranteed by our simple packings inside them).
Therefore, our compartments have an important additional property:
they can be separated by a \emph{pseudo guillotine cutting sequence.}
This is a cutting sequence in which each step is either a guillotine
cut, or a cut along two line segments that separates a rectangular
area into an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-shaped compartment and a smaller rectangular area,
see Figure \ref{fig:pseudonice}.
We prove a strong property for compartments that admit
such a pseudo guillotine cutting sequence: we show that
\aw{if we pack items into such compartments in the simple way mentioned above,}
\aw{this will \emph{always}} yield a solution that is \emph{globally }guillotine separable.
This property and our structural result might have applications also
in other settings where we are interested in solutions that are guillotine
separable.
Our strong structural result allows us to construct algorithms (for
the cases with and without rotations) that are relatively simple:
we first guess the constantly many compartments in the structured
solution mentioned above. Then we compute up to a factor $1+\varepsilon$,
the most profitable set of items that can be placed nicely into them,
using a simplified version of a recent algorithm in \cite{GalSocg21}.
The resulting
solutions use \aw{up to $\Theta(\log (nN))$} stages (unlike e.g.,
solutions of the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height algorithm \cite{coffman1980performance} that
need only two stages). We \aw{prove a lower bound, showing}
that there is a family of instances of 2GGK~that does not admit $(2-\varepsilon)$-approximate
solutions with only $o(\log N)$-stages.
\amar{if this fig hasn't been referred for color-coding, we can probably remove the colors, make all items gray?}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid] (0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0,0)rectangle(.15,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.15,.15)rectangle(.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.3,.3)rectangle(.45,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.45,.45)rectangle(.6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.6,1.5)rectangle(1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.1,2)rectangle(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.17,0)rectangle(6,.13);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.32,.17)rectangle(6,.28);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.47,0.32)rectangle(6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.62,0.47)rectangle(6,.58);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.03,.61)rectangle(6,1.11);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.53,1.12)rectangle(6, 1.5);
\draw [solid] (6,6)rectangle(2.3,2.3);
\draw [solid] (1.6,6)rectangle(2.2,3.1);
\draw [solid] (6,1.6)rectangle(3.1,2.2);
\draw[solid, fill=red] (1.6,3.15)rectangle(1.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill=red] (1.75,3.25)rectangle(1.9,6);
\draw[solid, fill=red] (1.9,3.35)rectangle(2.05,6);
\draw[solid, fill=red] (2.05,3.45)rectangle(2.2,6);
\draw[solid, fill=cyan] (3.15,1.6)rectangle(6,1.75);
\draw[solid, fill=cyan] (3.25,1.75)rectangle(6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=cyan] (3.35,1.9)rectangle(6,2.05);
\draw[solid, fill=cyan] (3.45,2.05)rectangle(6,2.2);
\draw [ultra thick, magenta](6,6)rectangle(4,4);
\draw[solid, fill=magenta] (5.9,5.9)rectangle(4.1,4.1);
\draw [ultra thick, yellow](2.3,3.7) rectangle (3.7,6);
\draw[solid, fill=yellow] (2.3,3.7)rectangle(2.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=yellow] (2.85,3.7)rectangle(3.2,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=yellow] (3.25,3.7)rectangle(3.7,5);
\draw[ultra thick, green] (3.9,2.3) rectangle (6,3.7);
\draw[solid, fill=green] (3.95,2.3)rectangle(6,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=green] (3.95,2.85)rectangle(5.5,3.2);
\draw[solid, fill=green] (3.95,3.25)rectangle(5,3.7);
\draw [ultra thick, blue] (2.3,2.3) rectangle (3.5,3.5);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (2.3,2.3)rectangle(2.8,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (2.85,2.3)rectangle(3.2,2.65);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (3.25,2.3)rectangle(3.5,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (2.3,2.85)rectangle(2.5,3.1);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (2.55,2.85)rectangle(3,3.2);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (3.05,2.85)rectangle(3.2,3.3);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (3.25,2.85)rectangle(3.5,3.5);
\draw [ultra thick, red] (1.6,6)rectangle(2.2,3.1);
\draw [ultra thick, cyan] (6,1.6)rectangle(3.1,2.2);
\draw[ultra thick, gray] (0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{\aw{A structured packing of items into compartments that each have the shape of an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- or a rectangular box.}}
\label{fig:packing}
\end{figure}
\awr{changed the caption of Figure 2, was not understandable at this point IMO.}
\subsection{Other related work}
\aw{There are many well-studied geometric packing problems.}
In the 2D bin packing problem~(2BP), we are given a set of rectangular items and unit square bins, and the goal is to pack all the items into a minimum number of bins. The problem is APX-hard \cite{bansal2006bin} and the \aw{currently} best
\aw{known}
approximation ratio is $1.405$ \cite{bansal2014binpacking}. In the 2D strip packing problem (2SP), we are given a set of rectangular items and a fixed-width unbounded-height strip, and the goal is to pack all the items into the strip such that the height of the strip is minimized. Kenyon and R{\'{e}}mila gave an APTAS for the problem \cite{kenyon2000near} using a 3-stage packing.
Both 2BP and 2SP are well-studied \aw{in the} guillotine \aw{setting} \cite{pietrobuoni2015two}.
Caprara \cite{caprara2002packing} gave a 2-stage $T_{\infty} (\approx 1.691)$-approximation for 2BP.
Afterwards, Caprara et al.~\cite{caprara2005fast} gave an APTAS for 2-stage 2BP and 2-stage 2SP.
Later, Bansal et al.~\cite{BansalLS05} showed an APTAS for guillotine 2BP.
Bansal et al.~\cite{bansal2014binpacking} conjectured that the worst-case ratio between the best guillotine 2BP and the best general 2BP is $4/3$. If true, this would imply a $(\frac43+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for 2BP.
Seiden et al.~\cite{seiden2005two} gave an APTAS for guillotine 2SP. Both the APTAS for guillotine 2BP and guillotine 2SP are based on the fact that general guillotine 2BP or guillotine 2SP can be approximated arbitrarily well by $O(1)$-stage packings, and such $O(1)$-stage packings can be found efficiently. Interestingly, we showed that this property is not true for 2GGK.
Pach and Tardos \cite{pach2000cutting} conjectured that, for any set of $n$ non-overlapping axis-parallel rectangles, there is a guillotine cutting sequence separating $\Omega(n)$ of them.
Recently, the problem has received attention in \cite{AbedCCKPSW15, KMR20} \aw{since} a proof of this conjecture \aw{would} imply a $O(1)$-approximation for \aw{the Maximum Independent Set of Rectangles problem, which is
a long-standing open problem.}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
Let $\mathbb{N}$ (resp.~$\mathbb{N}_0$) be the set of positive (resp.~non-negative) integers.
Let $[n]:=\{1, 2, \dots, n\}$.
A {\em piece} is an axis-aligned rectangular region with non-overlapping axis-aligned rectangles $\mathcal{R}:=[n]$ embedded on it.
A {\em guillotine cut} for a piece $P$ is an end-to-end axis-parallel cut along a straight line $\ell$ dividing the piece into two nonempty {\em subpieces} $P_1$, $P_2$.
\begin{obs} \label{endtoend}
Given a piece containing a set of guillotine separable rectangles, there must exist an end-to-end guillotine cut in the piece.
\end{obs}
A {\em pseudorectangle} (or pseudoitem) is a guillotine-separable rectangular region with embedded items inside it. Sometimes we will treat this whole region as a single item.
A horizontal cut $l_{h}$ is said to be {\em intercepted} by a vertical cut $l_{v}$ if $l_{v}$ occurs before $l_{h}$ in the guillotine cutting sequence and $l_{h}$ touches $l_{v}$ at point $p$ but does not cross it. If an edge $e$ of a pseudorectangle (resp. rectangle) coincides with $l_{v}$ and point $p$ is part of edge $e$, then we say that the pseudorectangle (resp. rectangle) {\em intercepts} the cut $l_{h}$.
\subsection{Classification of rectangles}
We classify the input items according to their heights and widths, as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}.
For two given constants $1 \geq \varepsilon_{{large}} > \varepsilon_{{small}} > 0$, we classify an item $i$ as:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Large}: $w_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $h_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$;
\item {\em Small}: $w_{i} \leq \varepsilon_{{small}} N$ and $h_{i} \leq \varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Horizontal}: $w_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $h_{i} \leq \varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Vertical}: $h_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $w_{i} \leq \varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Intermediate:} Either $\varepsilon_{{large}} N \geq h_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{small}} N$ or $\varepsilon_{{large}} N \geq w_{i} \ > \varepsilon_{{small}} N$.
\end{itemize}
Using standard shifting arguments, one can show that we can ignore intermediate items.
\begin{lem} \label{class}
\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $f(.)$ be any positive increasing function such that $f(x)<x$ $\forall x \in (0,1]$. Then we can efficiently find $\varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{small}} \in \Omega_\varepsilon(1)$, with $\varepsilon \ge f(\varepsilon) \ge \varepsilon_{{large}} \ge f(\varepsilon_{{large}}) \ge \varepsilon_{{small}}$ so that the total profit of intermediate rectangles is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$.
\end{lem}
\noindent We define {\em skewed} items to be items that are horizontal or vertical.
An item is {\em wide} if $w_{i} > \frac{N}{2}$ and {\em tall} if $h_{i} > \frac{N}{2}$.
{\em Long} items are either tall or wide. Items that are not long are called {\em short}.
Long and skewed items play a special role in our algorithms.
Let $I_{{large}}$, $I_{{small}}$, $I_{{hor}}, I_{{ver}}, I_{{skew}}, I_{{wide}}, I_{{tall}}, I_{{long}}, I_{{short}}$ be the set of large, small, horizontal, vertical, intermediate, skewed, wide, tall, long and short rectangles, respectively. The corresponding intersections with $OPT$ (the optimal guillotine packing) defines the sets $OPT_{{large}}$, $OPT_{{small}}$, $OPT_{{hor}},$ $OPT_{{ver}}, OPT_{{skew}},$ $OPT_{{wide}}, OPT_{{tall}}, OPT_{{long}}, OPT_{{short}}$, respectively.
\subsection{Corridor decomposition}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3)--(3,3)--(3,1)--(5,1)--(5,3)--(6,3)--(6,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,3);
\draw[dotted] (2,0)--(3,1);
\draw[dotted] (2,2)--(3,3);
\draw[dotted] (6,0)--(5,1);
\draw[dashed] (1,2)--(1,3);
\draw (1.2,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$l_{1}$}};
\draw[dashed] (2,1.5)--(3,1.5);
\draw (2.5,1.7) node {\large \textbf{$l_{2}$}};
\draw[dashed] (5,2)--(6,2);
\draw (5.5,2.3) node {\large \textbf{$l_{4}$}};
\draw[dashed] (4,0)--(4,1);
\draw (4.3,.5) node {\large \textbf{$l_{3}$}};
\draw (-.3,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$e_{0}$}};
\draw (1,1.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_{1}$}};
\draw (1.7,1) node {\large \textbf{$e_{2}$}};
\draw (4,-.5) node {\large \textbf{$e_{3}$}};
\draw (6.3,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$e_{4}$}};
\draw (5.5,3.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{5}$}};
\draw (4.7,2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{6}$}};
\draw (4,1.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{7}$}};
\draw (3.2,2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{8}$}};
\draw (1.5,3.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{9}$}};
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(a)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c11}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.22\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.05cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0)--(0,4)--(2,4)--(2,6)--(6,6)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw[thick](1,1)--(1,3)--(3,3)--(3,5)--(5,5)--(5,1)--(1,1);
\draw[dotted](0,0)--(1,1);
\draw[dotted](6,0)--(5,1);
\draw[dotted](5,5)--(6,6);
\draw[dotted](0,4)--(1,3);
\draw[dotted](2,4)--(3,3);
\draw[dotted](2,6)--(3,5);
\draw (-.3,2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{0}$}};
\draw (3,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{1}$}};
\draw (6.3,3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{2}$}};
\draw (4,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{3}$}};
\draw (1.7,5) node {\large \textbf{$e_{4}$}};
\draw (1,4.3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{5}$}};
\draw (1.3,2) node {\large \textbf{$e_{0}'$}};
\draw (3,1.3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{1}'$}};
\draw (4.7,3) node {\large \textbf{$e_{2}'$}};
\draw (4,4.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_{3}'$}};
\draw (3.3,4) node {\large \textbf{$e_{4}'$}};
\draw (2,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_{5}'$}};
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(b)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c12}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.22\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(6,0)--(6,2.8)--(1.5,2.8)--(1.5,6)--(0,6)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (.7,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,0.7) rectangle (1.5,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,1.4) rectangle (2,2.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,2.1) rectangle (2.5,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0,6) rectangle (.5,.3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.5,6) rectangle (1,1.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1,6) rectangle (1.5,2);
\draw (6.5,1.4) node {\large \textbf{$K_{1}$}};
\draw (.7,6.5) node {\large \textbf{$K_{2}$}};
\draw (5.6,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$K\times K$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (0,6) -- (1.5,6);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,2.8) -- (6,0);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(c)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c13}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.22\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.89cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(6,0)--(6,1.8)--(1.5,1.8)--(1.5,6)--(0,6)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (.7,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,0.7) rectangle (1.5,1.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,1.1) rectangle (2,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (6,1.4) rectangle (2.5,1.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0,6) rectangle (.5,.3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.5,6) rectangle (1,1.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1,6) rectangle (1.5,2);
\draw[fill=lightgray](1.5,1.8) rectangle (3.8,3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,1.805) rectangle (2.05,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.05,1.805) rectangle (2.55,2.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.55,1.805) rectangle (2.95,2.3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.95,1.805) rectangle (3.35,2.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.35,1.805) rectangle (3.65,2);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,2.5) rectangle (1.85,3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.85,2.5) rectangle (2.35,2.9);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.35,2.5) rectangle (2.65,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.65,2.5) rectangle (2.95,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.95,2.5) rectangle (3.35,2.6);
\draw[fill=lightgray](1.5, 3.8) rectangle (3.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,3.8)rectangle(3.25,4.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,4.1)rectangle(3.2,4.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,4.4)rectangle(3.1,4.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,4.7)rectangle(3,5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,5)rectangle(2.9,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,5.2)rectangle(2.8,5.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,5.4)rectangle(2.7,5.6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,5.6)rectangle(2.6,5.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.55,5.8)rectangle(2.5,5.9);
\draw[fill=lightgray](3.6,3.5) rectangle (5.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.65,5.96)rectangle(3.78,3.55);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.78,5.96)rectangle(4,3.68);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (4,5.96)rectangle(4.28,3.9);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (4.28,5.96)rectangle(4.5,4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (4.5,5.96)rectangle(4.85,4.15);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (4.85,5.96)rectangle(5.1,4.26);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (5.1,5.96)rectangle(5.45,4.36);
\draw [solid, fill=gray] (4.5,1.9) rectangle (5.7,3.4);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(d)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c14}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Open corridor ($b=5$), (b) Closed corridor ($b=6$), (c) Boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (height $K_{1}$, width $K_{2}$), (d) $L\&C$-packing: long \& short items packed in boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ \& containers (4 types), resp.}
\label{fig:c1}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.02\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (1,4);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(a)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c21}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.11\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray](0,0)--(0,4)--(1,4)--(1,1)--(4,1)--(4,0)--(0,0);
\draw[dotted] (0,0)--(1,1);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(c)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c22}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.13\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray](0,0)--(3,0)--(3,2)--(2.3,2)--(2.3,.5)--(.7,.5)--(.7,2)--(0,2)--(0,0);
\draw[dotted](0,0)--(.7,.5);
\draw[dotted](3,0)--(2.3,.5);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(c)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c23}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray](0,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(3,3)--(3,2)--(4,2)--(4,1)--(1,1)--(1,2)--(0,2)--(0,0);
\draw[dotted](0,0)--(1,1);
\draw[dotted](5,0)--(4,1);
\draw[dotted](4,2)--(5,3);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(d)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c24}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,3)--(3,3)--(3,1)--(5,1)--(5,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,3);
\draw[dotted] (2,2)--(3,3);
\draw[dotted] (2,0)--(3,1);
\draw (1,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{i}$}};
\draw (2.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{i'}$}};
\draw (4,.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{i''}$}};
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(e)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c25}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.7cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray](0,0)--(6,0)--(6,6)--(0,6)--(0,0)--(.1,0)--(.1,.1)--(.2,.1)--(.2,.2)--(.3,.2)--(.3,.3)--(.4,.3)--(.4,.4)--(.5,.4)--(.5,.5)--(.5,5.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(5.5,.5)--(.5,.5);
\draw[dotted](0,6)--(0.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted](6,6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted](6,0)--(5.5,0.5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3,.7)--(.7,.7)--(.7,5.1)--(5.1,5.1)--(5.1,1.5)--(1.5,1.5)--(1.5,4.3)--(4.3,4.3)--(4.3,2.2)--(2.2,2.2)--(2.2,3.5)--(2.5,3.5)--(2.5,2.6)--(3.9,2.6)--(3.9,3.9)--(1.9,3.9)--(1.9,1.9)--(4.7,1.9)--(4.7,4.7)--(1.1,4.7)--(1.1,1.1)--(3,1.1)--(3,.7);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(f)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c26}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{1.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,3)--(3,3)--(3,1)--(5,1)--(5,3)--(6,3)--(6,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,3);
\fill[pattern=north west lines] (2,0)rectangle(3,1);
\fill[pattern=north west lines] (2,2)rectangle(3,3);
\fill[pattern=north west lines] (6,0)rectangle(5,1);
\draw (1,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (2.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (4,.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.5,2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (3.2,3.2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{12}$}};
\draw (1.8,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{23}$}};
\draw (6.2,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{34}$}};
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(g)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:c27}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Types of corridors: (a):$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$, (b):$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, (c):$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, (d):$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, (e):$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$, (f): {\em spiral} (darkgray), {\em ring} (gray), (g): $S_{1}, S_{2}, S_{3}$ form $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend, $S_{4}$ is a spiral subcorridor. Shaded region $S_{i,i+1}=S_i \cap S_{i+1}$ for $i \in [3]$.}
\label{fig:c2}
\end{figure}
\noindent Adamaszek et al. \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack} introduced corridor decomposition to decompose the optimal solution into simpler substructures, called {\em corridors}, without losing much profit. Corridors are then {\em processed} to obtain {\em containers}, which can be found efficiently.
G{\'a}lvez et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} build on this idea and we will also follow similar notations and definitions (see Figure \ref{fig:c1} and \ref{fig:c2}).
\begin{definition}[Open corridor]
An open corridor is a subregion of knapsack bounded by simple rectilinear polygon with $2b$ edges $e_0, e_1, \dots, e_{2b-1}$ for $b \ge 2, b \in \mathbb{N}$, so that for each pair of horizontal (resp. vertical) edges $e_i, e_{2b-i}, i \in [b-1]$ there exists a vertical (resp. horizontal) line segment $\ell_i$ such that both $e_i$ and $e_{2b-i}$ intersect $\ell_i$ but no other edges intersect $\ell_i$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Closed corridor]
A closed corridor (or {\em cycle}) is a subregion of knapsack bounded by two simple rectilinear polygon
defined by edges $e_0, e_1, \dots, e_{b-1}$ and $e'_0, e'_1, \dots, e'_{b-1}$ for $b \ge 2, b \in \mathbb{N}$, so that
the second polygon is contained within the first polygon and
for each pair of horizontal (resp.~vertical) edges $e_i, e'_{i}, i \in [b-1]$, there exists a vertical (resp.~horizontal) line segment $\ell_i$ such that $e_i$ and $e'_{i}$ intersect $\ell_i$ but no other edges intersect $\ell_i$. \end{definition}
The {\em width} of a corridor is the maximum length of any such $\ell_i$ for $i \in [b-1]$.
An open (resp.~closed) corridor of the above kind has $b-2$ (resp.~$b$) {\em bends}.
\begin{lem}[Corridor Packing Lemma \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}]\label{lem:corridorPack}
There exists a corridor partition \footnote{In \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}, $OPT$ was optimal 2GK~packing. However, it also works when $OPT$ is optimal 2GGK~packing.} and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each corridor has width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and has at most $1/\varepsilon$ bends.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\noindent A {\em subcorridor} $S_i$ of an open (resp.~closed) corridor is the maximally large rectangle contained in the corridor, containing edges $e_i,e_{2b-i}$ (resp.~$e_i,e_{i'}$) on its boundary.
An open (resp.~closed) corridor is the union of $b-1$ (resp.~$b$) such rectangular regions.
Region $S_{i,j}$ is the shared rectangular region between two consecutive subcorridors $S_i$ and $S_j$.
{\em Unshared region} of $S_i$ is the region not shared with any other subcorridors.
The boundary between the regions containing only vertical or only horizontal items in two consecutive subcorridors $S_i$ and $S_j$, is a monotone axis-parallel curve in $S_{i,j}$, which we call {boundary curve} (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}).
We define $S_{j}$ to be the right (resp.~left, top, bottom) of $S_i$ if there exists a point in $S_i$ to the left (resp.~right, bottom, top) of every point in $S_{j}\setminus S_{i,j}$.
A pair $(S_i,S_{j})$ forms a {\em clockwise} bend if $S_i$ is horizontal and $S_{j}$ is to either bottom-right or top-left of $S_i$, and the complementary cases if $S_i$ is vertical. Otherwise, they form a counter-clockwise bend.
A corridor with no bends (resp.~one bend), is called a $Box$($\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$)-corridor (resp.~$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor).
An open corridor whose bends are all clockwise (resp.~counter-clockwise) is a \emph{spiral}.
Spirals with $2,3$ bends are called $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$-corridors, respectively. A closed corridor with $b=4$ is a \emph{ring}.
We call a triple $(S_{i},S_{i'},S_{i''})$ of consecutive subcorridors to be a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend if $S_{i},S_{i'}$ form clockwise (resp.~counterclockwise) bend and $S_{i'},S_{i''}$ form counterclockwise (resp.~clockwise) bend, and the subcorridors $S_{i},S_{i'},S_{i''}$ are called $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridors.
We call $S_{i'}$ to be the \emph{center-sc} of the bend, and $S_{i},S_{i''}$ its \emph{side-sc}.
A spiral corridor can not have $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends.
A subcorridor that is not a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridor is called a {\em spiral subcorridor}.
A $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor is a corridor formed by union of 3 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridors.
In \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack, GalvezGHI0W17} the subcorridors are processed (see Section \ref{prosec} for proof of Lemma \ref{lem:subcpr}) so that by rearranging and removing some items, the rest can be packed into constant number of boxes. However, these rearrangements may violate guillotine separability.
\begin{lem}[\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}]
\label{lem:subcpr}
For appropriate constant $\varepsilon_{{box}}, \varepsilon>0$, given a spiral subcorridor $S$, we can remove two sets of rectangles {\em kill} and {\em thin} and rearrange the remaining rectangles (we call them {\em fat}) such that all fat rectangles are completely packed into $O_{\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$ boxes, $|kill|=O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$ and the total area of thin rectangles $\le \varepsilon_{{box}} N^2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{definition}[Container]
Containers are axis-aligned rectangular regions labeled as {\em large, horizontal, vertical,} or {\em area}. In a {\em container packing}, all items are packed inside containers:
(a) next to each other if items are vertical (vertical container), (b) above each other if items are horizontal (horizontal container), (c) single item if the item is large (large container), (d) each item packed in a container of size $a \times b$ must have $w_i \le \varepsilon a, h_i \le \varepsilon b$ (area container).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{orien}
If all {\em skewed} items completely contained in a subcorridor (or container) $S_{1}$ are horizontal (resp.~vertical) then $S_1$ (or its orientation) is called horizontal (resp.~vertical).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Boundary corridors]
A {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$} of height $N_1$ and width $N_2$ in a $[l,r] \times [b, t]$ box, is the region $\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_1]) \cup ([l,l+N_2] \times[b, t])\big)$. Similarly, a {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$} (resp.~{\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$}) occupies the region
$\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_1]) \cup ([l,l+N_2] \times[t, b]) \cup ([r-N_3,r] \times[b, t]) \big)$ (resp.~
$\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_1]) \cup ([l,l+N_2] \times[t, b]) \cup ([r-N_3,r] \times[b, t]) \cup ([l,r]\times[t-N_4,t]) \big)$). Ring, {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$} are termed as {\em boundary} corridors.
\end{definition}
The number of bends in a corridor $C$ is denoted by $b(C)$.
A box $\mathcal{B}$ is said to be a {\em bounding box } of $C$ or {\em bounding} $C$, if $b(C)\ge1$ and the outermost corners at the bends of the corridor coincides with the corners of the box. Also, $\mathcal{B}$ should be guillotine separable when considered as a pseudoitem.
Note that a corridor $C'$ inside $\mathcal{B}$ may not be a boundary corridor of $\mathcal{B}$.
In $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$, the goal is to pack maximum profit subset of long items into a {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:lpack} \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
There is a PTAS for the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ problem.
\end{lem}
\begin{definition}[$L\&C$ Packing]
In $L\&C$ packing, we have a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with width $N_1$ and height $N_2$ in $[0, N] \times [0, N]$-box and $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of non-overlapping containers contained in the space not occupied by the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Only {\em long} rectangles are packed in the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
In this paper, we have an additional constraint that the containers (and the items therein) in $L\&C$ packing are guillotine separable.
\end{definition}
\subsection{One Sided Resource Augmentation}
In resource augmentation we allow slightly larger sized knapsack.
The resource augmentation algorithm of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} can easily be adapted to satisfy the property of guillotine separability.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{lemma1}
Let $I'$ be packed in a box of size $a\times b$, and $\varepsilon_{{ra}}>0$. Then there exists a container packing of $I''\subseteq I'$ inside a box of size $a\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})b$ (resp.~$(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})a\times b$) with:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(I'')\geq (1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}))p(I')$,
\item The number of containers is $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)$ and their sizes belong to a set of cardinality $n^{O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)}$,
\item The total area of the containers is at most $a(I')+\varepsilon_{{ra}} ab$;
\item If the initial packing of $I'$ in the $a\times b$ box is guillotine separable then the container packing of $I''$ inside the $a\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})b$ box (resp.~$(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})a\times b$) remains guillotine separable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\section{Methodology\label{sec:prelim}}
\awr{moved this part}
We first present our algorithm for the cardinality case, i.e.,
assuming that $p(i)=1$ for each item $i\inI$. In Appendix \ref{apx:algo-weighted}
we \aw{will present a generalization} to arbitrary item profits.
For each $n\in \mathbb{N}$ we define $[n]:=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$.
We classify the input
items according to their heights and widths. For two constants $1\geq\varepsilon_{{large}}>\varepsilon_{{small}}>0$
to be defined later, we classify each item $i\in I$ as:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Large}: $w_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $h_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$;
\item {\em Small}: $w_{i}\leq\varepsilon_{{small}} N$ and $h_{i}\leq\varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Horizontal}: $w_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $h_{i}\leq\varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Vertical}: $h_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $w_{i}\leq\varepsilon_{{small}} N$;
\item {\em Intermediate:} Either $\varepsilon_{{large}} N\geqh_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{small}} N$
or $\varepsilon_{{large}} N\geqw_{i}\ >\varepsilon_{{small}} N$.
\end{itemize}
Using standard shifting arguments, one can show that we can ignore
intermediate items.
\begin{lem} \label{class} \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} Let $\varepsilon>0$ and
$f(.)$ be any positive increasing function such that $f(x)<x$ $\forall x\in(0,1]$.
Then we can efficiently find $\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{small}}\in\Omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$, with
$\varepsilon\ge f(\varepsilon)\ge\varepsilon_{{large}}\ge f(\varepsilon_{{large}})\ge\varepsilon_{{small}}$ so that the total profit
of intermediate rectangles is at most $\varepsilonp(OPT)$. \end{lem}
\noindent We define {\em skewed} items to be items that are horizontal
or vertical. Let $I_{{large}}$, $I_{{small}}$, $I_{{hor}},I_{{ver}},I_{{skew}}$ be the set of
large, small, horizontal, vertical, and skewed rectangles, respectively.
The corresponding intersections with $OPT$ (the optimal guillotine
packing) defines the sets $OPT_{{large}}$, $OPT_{{small}}$, $OPT_{{hor}},$ $OPT_{{ver}},OPT_{{skew}}$,
respectively.
\subsection{Compartments}
Our goal is to partition the knapsack into compartments, such that there
is an $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate solution whose items are placed
in a structured way inside these compartments. We will use two types
of compartments: \emph{box-compartments} and \emph{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments}.
\begin{definition}
[Box-compartment] A \emph{box-compartment} $B$ is an axis-aligned rectangle
that satisfies $B\subseteq K$. \amar{we may have used $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ instead of box- at some places, if $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ is no longer needed we can change the command itself $\backslash Bc := 'box'$}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
[$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment] An $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ is a subregion of $K$ bounded
by a simple rectilinear polygon with six edges $e_{0},e_{1},\dots,e_{5}$
such that for each pair of horizontal (resp. vertical) edges
$e_{i},e_{6-i}$ with $i\in\{1,2\}$ there exists a vertical (resp.
horizontal) line segment $\ell_{i}$ of length less than $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/2}$
such that both $e_{i}$ and $e_{6-i}$ intersect $\ell_{i}$ but no
other edges intersect $\ell_{i}$.
\end{definition}
Since the length of the line segments $\ell_{i}$ is less
than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N/2$, this implies that inside an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ we cannot
place large items, inside the horizontal part of $L$ we cannot place
vertical items, and inside the vertical part of $L$ we cannot
place horizontal items.
We seek for a structured packing inside of these compartments according
to the following definitions. Inside box-compartments, we want only
one type of items and we want that the skewed items are placed in
a very simple way, see Figure \ref{fig:packing}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:structured-boxes}Let $B$ be a box-compartment and let $I_{B}\subseteq I$
be a set of items that are placed non-overlappingly inside $B$. We
say that the placement of $I_{B}$ is \emph{nice} if the items in
$I_{B}$ are guillotine separable and additionally
\begin{itemize}
\item $I_{B}$ contains only one item, or
\item $I_{B}\subseteq I_{hor}$ and the items in $I_{B}$ are stacked on
top of each other inside $B$, or
\item $I_{B}\subseteq I_{ver}$ and the items in $I_{B}$ are placed side
by side inside $B$, or
\item $I_{B}\subseteq I_{small}$ and for each item $i\in I_{B}$ it holds
that $w_{i}\le\varepsilon \cdot w(B)$ and $h_{i}\le\varepsilon \cdot h(B)$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Inside $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments we allow only skewed items and we want them to be placed in a similar
way as in the boxes, see Figure \ref{fig:packing} and \ref{fig:lguil}.
\begin{definition}
Let $L$ be an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment and let $I_{L}\subseteq I$ be a set of
items that are placed non-overlappingly inside $L$. We say that the
placement of $I_{L}$ is \emph{nice }if
\begin{itemize}
\item $I_{L}\subseteqI_{{skew}}$, and
\item the items in $I_{L}\cap I_{hor}$ are stacked on top of each other
inside $L$, and
\item the items in $I_{L}\cap I_{ver}$ are stacked side by side inside
$L$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
A nice placement inside an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment yields
a guillotine separable packing.
\begin{lem}\label{Lguillotine}
Consider a set of items $I_{L}\subseteq I$ that is placed nicely
inside an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$. Then $I_{L}$ is guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
\aw{One can show that there always exists a guillotine cut that separates one or more horizontal
or vertical items in $~I_{L}$ from the other items in $I_{L}$, see Figure \ref{fig:lguil}. Then this argument
is applied recursively.} \ama{See Appendix \ref{sec:omit} for full proof.}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.06);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\draw[dashed, thick] (0.35, 6.2)--(0.35,-0.2);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,.18) -- (6,0);
\draw (6.7,.09) node {\large \textbf{$I_{hor}'$}};
\draw (0.15,6.2) node {\large \textbf{$i_v$}};
\draw (0.35,6.5) node {\large \textbf{$l_v$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:lguil1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.06);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\draw[dashed, thick] (0.35, 6.2)--(0.35,-0.2);
\draw[thick] (-0.2, .18) -- (6.2, .18);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,.18) -- (6,0);
\draw (6.7,.09) node {\large \textbf{$I_{hor}'$}};
\draw (-.5,.18) node {\large \textbf{$l_h$}};
\draw (0.15,6.2) node {\large \textbf{$i_v$}};
\draw (0.35,6.5) node {\large \textbf{$l_v$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:lguil2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0.18)--(0,0.18)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\draw[thick] (-0.2, .18) -- (6.2, .18);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,-.22) -- (6,-.4);
\draw (6.7,-.31) node {\large \textbf{$I_{hor}'$}};
\draw (-.5,.18) node {\large \textbf{$l_h$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (0,-.4) rectangle (6,-.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,-.4) rectangle (6,-.34);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,-.34) rectangle (6,-.28);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,-.28) rectangle (6,-.22);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:lguil3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) \aw{A nicely packed set of skewed items inside an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. The vertical cut $l_v$
separates the leftmost vertical item $i_v$ from the other vertical items but it intersects the horizontal items in $I_{hor}'$. (b) However, then the horizontal cut $l_h$ separates the items in $I_{hor}'$ from the other horizontal items without intersecting any vertical item. (c) The corresponding guillotine cut that partitions the
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment into a box-compartment and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment.
}
}
\label{fig:lguil}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pseudo-guillotine separable compartments}
We seek to partition the knapsack into box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments and
then place items into these compartments. We also want to
ensure that the resulting solution is guillotine separable. We could
guarantee this if there was a guillotine cutting sequence that separates
all compartments and require that the items inside the compartments are
placed nicely. Then, we could first separate all compartments by the
mentioned cutting sequence and then separate the items inside
of each compartment by guillotine cuts (as they are packed nicely).
However, there is no guillotine cutting sequence that cuts out an
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment from the knapsack since no guillotine cut can separate
the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment from the area at the ``inner'' part of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Therefore, we require for the compartments in our knapsack
only that there is a \emph{pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence}. A
pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence has the following two operations
(see Figure \ama{\ref{fig:pseudonice}}): given a rectangle $R\subseteq K$ it
\begin{itemize}
\item applies a horizontal or vertical guillotine cut that separates $R$
into two disjoint rectangles $R_{1},R_{2}$ and then continues recursively
with $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$, or
\item for an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L\subseteq R$ such that $R\setminus L$ is a
rectangle, it partitions $R$ into $L$ and $R\setminus L$ and then
continues recursively with $R\setminus L$ (but not with $L$). Note
that we cannot do this operation with every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L'\subseteq R$
since possibly $R\setminus L'$ is not a rectangle.
\end{itemize}
We formalize this in the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:pseudoGc}
A \emph{pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence }(for compartments)\emph{
}for a set of compartments $\C$ is a binary tree $T=(V,E)$ where for
each vertex $v\in V$ there is an associated shape $S_{v}\subseteq K$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item for the root $r\in V$ of $T$ it holds that $S_{r}=K$,
\item for each internal vertex $v$ with children $u,w$ it holds that
\begin{itemize}
\item $S_{v}$ is a rectangle with $S_{v}=S_{u}\dot{\cup}S_{w}$ (so in
particular $S_{u}$ and $S_{w}$ are disjoint),
\item either $S_{u}$ and $S_{w}$ are both rectangles or one of them is
an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment and the other is a rectangle,
\end{itemize}
\item for each compartment $C\in\C$ there is a leaf $v\in V$ such that $S_{v}=C$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Observe that each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment corresponds to a leaf node in $T$. \amar{doesn't the line above tell the same thing?}
Now the important insight is that if a set of compartments $\C$ admits
a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence, then \emph{any} \underline{nice}
placement of items inside these compartments is guillotine separable
(globally). In particular, given such compartments $\C$, we can place
items inside the compartments in $\C$ without needing to worry whether
the resulting packing will be guillotine separable globally, as long
as we place these items nicely. Intuitively, this is true since we
can use the cuts of the pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence as a template
for a global cutting sequence for the items: whenever the former sequence
\begin{itemize}
\item makes a guillotine cut we simply do the same cut,
\item when it separates an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ from a rectangular region $R$,
we separate the items inside $L$ by a sequence of guillotine cuts;
it turns out that we can do this since all items inside $L$ are placed
nicely and skewed.
\end{itemize}
Finally, we separate the items inside each box-compartment $B$ by guillotine
cuts, using the fact that the items inside $B$ are placed nicely.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:pseudo-enough}Let $\C$ be a set of compartments inside
$K$ that admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. Let $I'\subseteqI$
be a set of items that are placed nicely inside the compartments in
$\C$. Then there is a guillotine cutting sequence for $I'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch.]
\aw{Let $P$ denote the pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence.
We construct a guillotine cutting sequence for $I'$ based on $P$. We follow the cuts of $P$.
Whenever $P$
makes a guillotine cut, then we also do this guillotine cut. When $P$ separates
an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ from a rectangular region $R$, then we apply a sequence of guillotine
cuts that step by step separates all items in $L$ from $R\setminus L$. Since inside $L$ the items are placed nicely, one can show that there exist such cuts
that don't intersect any item in $R\setminus L$} \ama{(see Figure~\ref{fig:seqL}). See Appendix \ref{sec:omit} for full proof.}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ thick ] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.2)--(6,1.2)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,.36) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.73) rectangle (6,1.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\draw[dashed, thick] (6.2, .245)--(-.2,0.245);
\draw (6.3, .245) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_0$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (0.355, 6.2)--(0.355,.245);
\draw (.355, 6.3) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_1$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (6.2, .635)--(.355, .635);
\draw (6.3, .635) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_2$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (0.605, 6.2)--(0.605,.635);
\draw (.605, 6.3) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_3$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (0.855, 6.2)--(0.855,.635);
\draw (.855, 6.3) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_4$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (1.105, 6.2)--(1.105,.635);
\draw (1.105, 6.3) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_5$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (1.5, 6.2)--(1.5,.635);
\draw (1.5, 6.3) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_6$}};
\draw[dashed, thick] (6.2, 1.2)--(1.5,1.2);
\draw (6.3, 1.2) node {\tiny \textbf{$\ell_7$}};
\draw (3.75,3.6) node {\large \textbf{$R \setminus L$}};
\draw (1.4,1.1) node {\large \textbf{$L$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:seqL1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick] (2.5, 2.2) rectangle (7,7);
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.2)--(6,1.2)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,.36) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.73) rectangle (6,1.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\draw (4.75,4.6) node {\large \textbf{$R \setminus L$}};
\draw (1.4,1.1) node {\large \textbf{$L$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:seqL2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\ama{Partition of rectangle $R$ into $L$ and $R\setminus L$ when items inside $L$ are packed nicely. $\ell_0, \dots, \ell_7$ (dashed lines) are a sequence of guillotine cuts that ultimately separate out the items in $L$ from $R$.}
}
\label{fig:seqL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.47\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (3,-0.2)--(3,6.05);
\draw (3,-.5) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_1$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (-.2,3.2)--(3,3.2);
\draw (-.4, 3.2) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_6$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (0, .5)--(2.5,.5)--(2.5,3.2);
\draw (2.3,.7) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_7$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (3,2)--(6.2,2);
\draw (6.5,2) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_2$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (3.7, 6)--(3.7,2.7)--(6,2.7);
\draw (3.9,2.9) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_3$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (3.7,4.5)--(6.2, 4.5);
\draw (6.5,4.5) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_4$}};
\draw[ultra thick] (5.5, 4.5)--(5.5, 5.5)--(3.7, 5.5);
\draw (5.3,5.3) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_5$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:pseudocut}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.47\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{8.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (-3, -3) rectangle (3,3);
\draw[dashed] (0,-3)--(0,3);
\draw (0,0) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_1$}};
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](0,-3.2)--(-6, -4.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](0,-3.2)--(6, -4.9);
\draw[thick] (-7.5,-5) rectangle (-4.5, -11);
\draw[dashed] (-7.5,-7.8)--(-4.5,-7.8);
\draw (-6,-7.8) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_6$}};
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](-6,-11.2)--(-4.5, -12.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](-6,-11.2)--(-8.5, -12.9);
\draw[thick] (4.5, -5) rectangle (7.5, -11);
\draw[dashed] (7.5,-9)--(4.5,-9);
\draw (6,-9) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_2$}};
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](6,-11.2)--(8.5, -12.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](6,-11.2)--(5, -12.9);
\draw[thick] (-6,-13) rectangle (-3, -16.2);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](-4.5,-16.4)--(-6.25, -18.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](-4.5,-16.4)--(-3, -18.9);
\draw[dashed](-6,-16.2)--(-6, -15.7)--(-3.5, -15.7)--(-3.5, -13);
\draw (-3.7,-15.5) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_7$}};
\draw[thick] (-10,-13) rectangle (-7, -15.8);
\draw[thick] (6,-13) rectangle (4, -15);
\draw[thick] (10,-13) rectangle (7, -17);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](8.5,-17.2)--(5.5, -18.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](8.5,-17.2)--(11.15, -18.9);
\draw[dashed](7,-13)--(7.7, -13)--(7.7, -16.3)--(10, -16.3);
\draw (7,-12.5) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_3$}};
\draw[thick] (-7.5, -19)rectangle(-5,-21.5);
\draw[thick] (-.5, -19)--(-.5,-22.2)--(-3.5,-22.2)--(-3.5,-21.7)--(-1, -21.7)--(-1,-19)--(-.5,-19);
\draw[thick] (4, -19)--(4, -23)--(7, -23)--(7, -22.3)--(4.7, -22.3)--(4.7,-19)--(4,-19);
\draw[thick] (10, -19) rectangle (12.3, -22.3);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](11.15,-22.5)--(10.15, -23.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](11.15,-22.5)--(13.15, -23.9);
\draw[dashed](10,-20.5)--(12.3, -20.5);
\draw (11.15,-20.5) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_4$}};
\draw[thick] (9, -24) rectangle (11.3, -25.8);
\draw[thick] (12, -24) rectangle (14.3, -25.5);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](13.15,-25.7)--(10.9, -26.9);
\draw[-{Latex[length=7mm, width=6mm]}](13.15,-25.7)--(15.15, -26.9);
\draw[dashed](12,-24)--(14.3, -24)--(14.3, -25.5)--(13.8, -25.5)--(13.8,-24.5)--(12, -24.5);
\draw (13.75,-24.55) node {\Huge \textbf{$\ell_5$}};
\draw[thick] (10, -27.5) rectangle (11.8, -28.5);
\draw[thick] (14, -27)--(16.3, -27)--(16.3, -28.5)--(15.8,-28.5)--(15.8, -27.5)--(14,-27.5)--(14,-27);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig:tree}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) A pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. The first cut is $l_1$, and then the resulting right piece is further subdivided by $\ell_2$, $\ell_3$, $\ell_4$ and $\ell_5$. Similarly, $\ell_6$, $\ell_7$ subdivide the left piece. Note that $\ell_3$, $\ell_5$ and $\ell_7$ are not guillotine cuts, but they cut out the corresponding $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments.
(b) step by step pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence corresponding to Figure (a). Dashed line at each level indicates a partition of a rectangle into two regions (two boxes, or one box and one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-shaped).}
\label{fig:pseudonice}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Near-optimal structured solutions}
Our main technical contribution is to show that there exists a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate
solution whose items can be placed nicely inside a set of compartments
$\C$ that admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. By Lemma~\ref{lem:pseudo-enough}
there is a guillotine cutting sequence for them.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:structured-OPT}There exists a set $OPT'\subseteqI$ and
a partition of $K$ into a set of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
\footnote{The notation $O_{\varepsilon}(f(n))$ means that the implicit constant hidden by the big $O$ notation can depend on $\varepsilon$.}
compartments $\C$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $|OPT'|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|OPT|$,
\item the compartments $\C$ admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence,
\item the items in $OPT'$ can be placed nicely inside the compartments $\C$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
We will prove Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT} in Section \ref{sec:bldecom-1}. Our
main algorithm works as follows. First, we guess the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
compartments $\C$ due to Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT} in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
(note that we can assume w.l.o.g.~that they have integral coordinates).
Then we place items nicely inside $\C$ while maximizing the cardinality
of the placed items. For this we use a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation
algorithm which is a slight adaptation of a recent algorithm in \cite{GalSocg21}
for the 2GK problem (i.e., without requiring that the computed solution
is guillotine separable). In fact, we simplify some steps of that
algorithm since our compartments are very simple.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:algorithm}Given a set of compartments $\C$. In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
we can compute a set of items $ALG\subseteqI$ that \aw{are} placed
nicely inside $\C$ such that $|ALG|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|OPT'|$ for any
set of items $OPT'$ that can be placed nicely inside the compartments
$\C$.
\aw{Inside each compartment $C\in \C$ the set $ALG$ admits an $O_\varepsilon(\log (nN))$-stage packing}.
\end{lem}
We will prove Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm} in Section~\ref{sec:algorithm} and Appendix~\ref{apx:algo-weighted}. Then, Lemmas~\ref{lem:pseudo-enough},
\ref{lem:structured-OPT}, and \ref{lem:algorithm} imply our main
theorem for the cardinality case.
\ari{\aw{Due to Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT},}
our pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence has $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ leaf nodes \aw{and each of them is} either a box- or an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment.
The packing algorithm due to Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm} gives a $O_{\varepsilon}(\log (nN))$-stage packing inside each compartment.
This yields globally a $O_{\varepsilon}(\log (nN))$-stage packing.}
As mentioned before, we will describe
our $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the weighted case
in Appendix \ref{apx:algo-weighted}.
\begin{thm}
There is a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for 2GGK~with a running time of $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
\aw{that computes an $O_\varepsilon(\log (nN))$-stage packing.}
\end{thm}
\aw{We obtain a similar result also for the rotational case: our structural result from Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT}
still holds and the algorithm due to Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm} needs only some minor modifications.}
\begin{thm}
There is a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for 2GGK(R)~with a running time of $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
\aw{that computes an $O_\varepsilon(\log (nN))$-stage packing.}
\end{thm}
\section{Guillotine $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$}
\label{glp}
G{\'a}lvez et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} showed that one could pack $\frac34 OPT_{{long}}$ profit using $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$.
Now we show an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ of {\em all} long rectangles in $OPT$. Using simple induction, we can prove that every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ arrangement is guillotine separable.
We define a rearrangement operation {\em mirroring} that preserves guillotine separability.
Given a piece $P:= [l_i, r_i]\times [b_i, t_i]$ with embedded rectangles, mirroring of $P$ creates a packing that is a mirror image. $Mirror(P, y)$ (resp. $Mirror(P,x)$) is mirroring of $P$ w.r.t. $y$-axis (resp. $x$-axis) that maps rectangle $R(i):=(left_i, right_i) \times (bottom_i, top_i)$ to the position $(l_i+r_i-right_i, l_i+r_i-left_i)\times (bottom_i, top_i)$ (resp. $(left_i, right_i) \times (b_i+t_i-top_i, b_i+t_i-bottom_i)$).
\begin{lem}\label{lpackinglem}
There exists an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ of rectangles in $OPT_{{long}}$ into an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-region: ([0,N] $\times$ [0,$h_{wide}$]) $\cup$ ([0,$w_{tall}$] $\times$ [0,N]), where $h_{wide}$ is the total height of all wide items in $OPT_{{long}}$ and $w_{tall}$ is the total width of all tall items in $OPT_{{long}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove it by induction on the number of items. The base case is trivial.
For the induction step, consider the guillotine cut sequence of $OPT_{{long}}$.
W.l.o.g.~assume the first cut is a horizontal cut $y=h_1$ that divides the $N\times N$ knapsack piece $P$ into two subpieces $P_1:=[0,N]\times[0,h_1]$ and $P_2:=[0,N]\times[h_1, N]$.
W.l.o.g. let us assume that both $P_1$ and $P_2$ contains long rectangles (otherwise, we can take the first guillotine cut that separates two long rectangles).
Then, either $h_1 \le N/2$ or $(N-h_1)\le N/2$. W.l.o.g. assume the latter case. We will discuss the rearrangement steps for this case. The other cases are symmetric.
Let $h_{wide}(P_1)$ (resp. $h_{wide}(P_2)$ ) and $w_{tall}(P_1)$ (resp. $w_{tall}(P_2)$) be the total height of tall rectangles in $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$) and the total width of wide rectangles in $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$).
Now, using induction on $P_1$, we obtain a packing of all long rectangles in $P_1$ in a region
$L_1:= ([0,N] \times [0, h_{wide}(P_1)]) \cup ([0,w_{tall}(P_1)] \times [0,h_1])$.
Note that $P_2$ can not have tall rectangles, and can only consist wide rectangles. So, $w_{tall}(P_2)=0$. Thus using induction on $P_2$, we obtain a packing in a region
$L_2:=([0,N] \times [h_1, h_1+h_{wide}(P_2)])$.
Now use $Mirror(P_2, x)$ to shift the long rectangles in $P_2$ to the region $([0,N] \times [N -h_{wide}(P_2),N])$.
Clearly, $y=N -h_{wide}(P_2)$ does not intersect any items.
Now define $P_1':=[0,N]\times[0, N -h_{wide}(P_2)]$ and use $Mirror(P_1',x)$.
This gives a packing of $OPT_{{long}}$ in $\big([0, N]\times [0,N]\big) \setminus \big([w_{tall}(P_1),N]$$\times$$[0, $$N-h_{wide}(P_1)-h_{wide}(P_2)]\big)$.
Finally, the desired $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ is obtained using $Mirror(P,x)$ (see Figure \ref{fig:lstages} for the procedure).
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:PTASL}
In polynomial time, we can find an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{long}})$. \end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follows from Lemma \ref{lpackinglem} and PTAS for $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:lpack}) on $I_{long}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!tbh]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{20pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.21\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.4 cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[dashed] (0,4.5) -- ( 6, 4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.4,5.1) rectangle (4.3,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.5,5.5) rectangle (5.9,5.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.2,4.6) rectangle (5.3,4.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.2,.6) rectangle (.9,4.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.3,.3) rectangle (1.6,3.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.2,.1) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.8,2.6) rectangle (4.9,3.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.7,3.6) rectangle (4.7,3.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.65,.55) rectangle (5.1,1.1);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(a)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.21\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[dashed] (0,4.5) -- ( 6, 4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.1,5.1) rectangle (6,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.6,4.5) rectangle (6,4.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,4.8) rectangle (6,5.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,1) rectangle (1.6,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.4,1.1) rectangle (.9,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,.2) rectangle (.4,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.55,0) rectangle (6,.55);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.9,0.55) rectangle (6,1.05);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3,1.05) rectangle (6,1.35);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(b)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.21\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, color = red] (0,0) rectangle (6,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.1,5.2) rectangle (6,5.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.6,5.7) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,5.4) rectangle (6,5.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,1) rectangle (1.6,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.4,1.1) rectangle (.9,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,.2) rectangle (.4,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.55,0) rectangle (6,.55);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.9,0.55) rectangle (6,1.05);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3,1.05) rectangle (6,1.35);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(c)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.21\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, color = red] (0,0) rectangle (6,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.1,5.2) rectangle (6,5.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.6,5.7) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,5.4) rectangle (6,5.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.9,0) rectangle (1.6,3.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.4,0) rectangle (.9,3.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (.4,4.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.55,5.2) rectangle (6,4.65);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.9,4.65) rectangle (6,4.15);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3,4.15) rectangle (6,3.85);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(d)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Stages of obtaining guillotine $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ (a)Horizontal Cut (b)Applying induction (c)$Mirror(P_2, x)$ (d)$Mirror(P_1', x)$. Final stage following (d) is $Mirror(P, x)$.}
\label{fig:lstages}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Obtaining corridors of type B,L,U,G}
\label{subsec43}
\begin{lem}
\label{ringlem}
Every ring $R$ obtained after the previous corridor decomposition, can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends and possibly a box which is guillotine separable and the box contains a smaller ring. All items in this decomposition remain guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We call a function Algo-Box-Creation($R$) (see Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} and its explaination ). This function now takes the ring and bounds a certain portion of it with a box which is guillotine separable. The function also ensures that only $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ additional spiral corridors with at most 3 bends are created during this entire process.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{3max}
Any corridor $C$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}W.l.o.g. assume $C$ has no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends (else apply Lemma \ref{noz}) and more than 3 bends. There are 2 cases.
\noindent {\em Case 1. } $C$ is an open corridor with more than 3 bends. Call the function Algo-Spiral($C$)(see the Algorithm \ref{spialgo} and its explaination). The function Algo-Spiral($C$) takes corridor $C$ as input and converts it into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ spiral corridors with at most 3 bends.
\\
\noindent {\em Case 2.} $C$ is a ring. Then consider the bounding box $\mathcal{B}$ (if any) which contains a smaller ring as shown in Lemma \ref{ringlem}.
We now call the function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) (see Algorithm \ref{balgo} and its explaination). The function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) converts a portion of the ring $C$ into another ring $C'$ whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$ and is bounded by the box $\mathcal{B}$.
We then call the function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C'$) (see the Algorithm \ref{Lalgo} and its explaination). The function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C'$) coverts the ring $C'$ into a the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$) by appropriately shifting the items of $C'$.
The functions used in this subcase also have the property that only $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ additional spiral corridors with at most 3 bends are created during this entire process.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Obtaining corridors with at most 2 bends}
\label{sub:bldec}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lem} \label{structure}
Given an optimal guillotine packing of a set of skewed rectangles $I$, we can partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and place $I' \subseteq I$ rectangles in these corridors such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$p(I') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))p(I)$ and $|I \setminus I'|=O_{\varepsilon}(1)$.
\item Each vertical (resp. horizontal) rectangle is completely contained in a vertical (resp. horizontal) subcorridor.
\item Each rectangle is guillotine separable
\item Each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor is a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ for a rectangular box.
\item $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and rectangular boxes (which bound the items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors ) when considered as a pseudo rectangle are guillotine separable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
The remainder of the section is dedicated to the proof of Lemma \ref{structure}.
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Creation of Bounding Boxes}\label{box_11}
Given an optimal guillotine packing of skewed rectangles $I$, using lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack} and Theorem \ref{3max}, we partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors with at most three bends and obtain a guillotine packing of $I'$. By proper shifting argumentation as done in Subsection \ref{subsec:shifting}, we can ensure that $p(I \setminus I') \leq O(\varepsilon)p(I)$. We now provide a construction of finding the rectangular box for each type of corridor with at least one bend such that the corridor is at the boundary of the box and the box is guillotine separable. For this we will be taking the help of Algo-Box-Creation(.) (see Algorithm \ref{boxalgo}). Whenever we call Algo-Box-Creation(.) we consider only those guillotine cuts to find a bounding box which don't pass through the interior of the boxes which are created before we called Algo-Box-Creation(.). Let the set $S$ of corridors with one or more bends which are not bounded by box be $\{ C_{1},...,C_{k'}\}$ where $k'$ is at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. We now call the function Algo-Box-Creation($C_{1}$) to construct a bounding box for $C_1$. We then update the set $S$ if some other corridor also gets bounded by a box after the function Algo-Box-Creation($C_{1}$) completes its job. Run this function on the rest of the corridors in $S$ one by one. This process terminates as the size of $S$ decreases after each call to the function Algo-Box-Creation(.). The function Algo-Box-Creation(.) ensures that the entire process leads to the creation of $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ boxes and $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ extra corridors in total.
\subsection{BL-arrangement}\label{ssss}
\subsubsection{Handling L,U,G corridors which are bounded by a box}\label{sssl}
Let a box $\mathcal{B}$ bound a corridor such that $b(C)>0$. We call the function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) (see the Algorithm \ref{balgo}). The function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) by appropriately shifting the items inside it creates a boundary corridor $C'$ (whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$). We then call the function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C'$) (see the Algorithm \ref{Lalgo}). The function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C'$) by appropriately shifting the items of $C'$ coverts it to a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$). So now we have a box $\mathcal{B}$ such that it bounds a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. So using the results of this subsubsection and subsubsection \ref{finalB} we satisfy the properties of Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) -- ( 5,4) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4) -- ( .5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4) -- ( .25,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (0.25,.5) -- ( 6,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0.5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Guillotine Cuts (dashed lines) through a corridor $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) -- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,6) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,1.5)--(6.5,5)--(7,5)--(7,1.5)--(6.5,1.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5) -- (7,1) --(1,1) -- (1,4);
\draw (1.25,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$L_{1}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (4,4) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Depiction of Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} for a 2-bend corridor}
\label{figtwobends}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (0,4)--(1,4)--(1,1)--(5,1)--(5,4)--(6,4)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,4);
\draw [solid, fill=lightgray](2.5,2) rectangle (3.5,3);
\draw [solid, fill=lightgray](2.5,3.5) rectangle (3.5,4.7);
\draw (0,6) rectangle (3.4,5.5);
\draw (6,6)--(6,4.5)--(5,4.5)--(5,5.3)--(4,5.3)--(4,6)--(6,6);
\draw (0,4.5) rectangle (1.5,5);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.5)--(6,5.5);
\draw[dashed] (5.75,5.5)--(5.75,0);
\draw[dashed] (5.25,5.5)--(5.25,0.25);
\draw[dashed] (5.75,0.25)--(0.25,.25);
\draw[dashed] (.25,0)--(.25,5.5);
\draw[dashed] (.5,5.5)--(.5,.25);
\draw[dashed] (.5,.5)--(5.25,.5);
\draw[dashed] (0.5,3.25)--(5.25,3.25);
\draw[dashed] (0.5,1.9)--(5.25,1.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:c41}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (0.5,4.5)--(1,4.5)--(1,1.5)--(5,1.5)--(5,4.5)--(5.25,4.5)--(5.25,1)--(.5,1)--(.5,4.5);
\draw [solid, fill=lightgray](2.5,2.5) rectangle (3.5,3.5);
\draw [solid, fill=lightgray](2.5,4) rectangle (3.5,5.2);
\draw (5.25,5)--(5,5)--(5,5.8)--(4,5.8)--(4,6)--(5.25,6)--(5.25,5);
\draw (.5,5) rectangle (1.5,5.5);
\draw (5.25,6)--(5.25,1);
\draw (.5,6)--(.5,1);
\draw (.5,1)--(5.25,1);
\draw (0.5,3.75)--(5.25,3.75);
\draw (0.5,2.4)--(5.25,2.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:c42}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Depiction of Algorithm \ref{balgo}. (a) Dashed lines denote guillotine cuts. (b) Creation of Boundary Corridor and additional boxes.}
\label{fig:c43}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.35\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 2,4)--(2,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,0.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (3,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4) -- ( .5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4) -- ( .25,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (0.25,.5) -- ( 5.75,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.75,4.5) -- ( 5.75,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (0.5,3.5) -- ( 5.5,3.5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{figthreebends}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.34\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) --(3,5)--(3,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(3,5)--(3,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,4);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{figthreebends1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw [fill=white] (1,2.5) rectangle (3,3.5);
\draw [thick,pattern=north east lines,pattern color=gray] (1,2.5) rectangle (3,3.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,2.5)--(6,2.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,3.5)--(6,3.5);
\draw[dashed] (3,0)--(3,6);
\draw (2.3,1.5) rectangle (3.7,4.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:c4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Figure(a)$\&$(b): Depiction of Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} for a 3-bend corridor. (a) Guillotine Cuts (dashed lines) through a corridor $S$. (b) Final Bounding Box of $S$. Figure(c): Box (Region which has north-east lines) divides the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into 6 parts.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{B-Corridor} \label{finalB}
In this subsection we deal with the items inside a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor in 2 ways. In first way, the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors can be either divided into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors as a pseudo rectangle are guillotine separable. In second way, the items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors are merged with a corridor and later become a part of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Given a knapsack, first we construct the guillotine separable boxes as mentioned in the previous subsections. Note that one box may lie completely inside another box. Now consider the set of outermost boxes which are not part of any other box in the original knapsack. Note that the boundaries of outermost boxes may divide the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors into smaller parts. The number of such smaller parts is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ as the guillotine cuts which are part of the boundary of a single box can divide a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into at most 6 parts (as shown in Figure \ref{fig:c4}) and number of such boxes is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Now we have to deal with 2 cases.\\
\\ In the first case, a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor say $S$ lies inside a box $\mathcal{B}$. Algorithm \ref{balgo} merges a part of $S$ in boundary corridor $C$ that is being created. Then after this we convert $C$ to a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. The region in the box $\mathcal{B}$ which doesn't contain the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ can be thought of as a smaller knapsack and we repeat our case analysis depending whether the portion of $S$ which isn't merged in the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ is part of any box in the new knapsack or not. We satisfy all the properties of Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom}. \\
\\Now in the second case the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors lie outside any box in the original knapsack. Now consider the set of guillotine cuts which separates out the boxes when considered as a pseudoitem and the rectangles in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors. Note that the way we have constructed the outermost boxes the guillotine cuts don't pass through the boxes except its edges. Let the first stage cuts be horizontal. These cuts divide the knapsack into horizontal strips. Merge adjacent strips if they contain only horizontal rectangles. Make a horizontal strip a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor if it contains atleast one rectangle and all of them are horizontal. Now take the strip which contains vertical items and repeat above step by considering the vertical cuts and appropriately creating new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors in the similar fashion. Continue this process repeatedly until we are left with a subpiece containing only one type of rectangles or a pseudoitem. Make the subpiece containing one type of rectangles a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor. Now we claim that the number of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors created is at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$. Note that during the first stage of cutting, the number of strips containing vertical items is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. Therefore number of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors created during the first stage of cutting is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. By similar logic we can show that during any stage of cutting, only $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors were created. So to prove our claim it suffices to show that the number of the stages is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$. Also number of stages where more than one horizontal strip contains vertical items is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$. We can draw similar conclusions for vertical stage cuts. So let us assume that only one horizontal (resp. vertical) strip during any horizontal (resp. vertical) stage cutting contains vertical (resp. horizontal ) items. Since we had only $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and pseudo items before we started this process, no two consective stage cuts extracts rectangles from the same corridor (this wouldn't have been the case if there were $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors) . Due to maximality conditions of the strips being created it easy to observe that for $2k$ stages of cuts, we have extracted rectangles from atleast $k$ corridors (see Figure \ref{bcorO1}). Since there are atmost $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors, therefore the number is stages is also $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$.
Now the procedure mentioned above is recursively applied to those portion of the outermost boxes which doesn't have items from its boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. This process stops when there is no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which when considered as a pseudoitem isn't guillotine separable. Number of such boxes bounding the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor or items of a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. This follows from constructive procedures in subsection \ref{ssss} and the fact that we started the section with $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and corridors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,8);
\draw (4,6) rectangle (7,7.8);
\draw (1,1) rectangle (3,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,7.5) -- ( 8,7.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.5,7.5) -- ( 1.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.5,7.2) -- ( 8,7.2) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.8,7.2) -- ( 1.8,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.8,6.5) -- ( 8,6.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (2.5,6.5) -- ( 2.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (2.5,6) -- ( 8,6) ;
\draw[dotted] (3,6) -- ( 3,0) ;
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (3.1,0) rectangle (7.9,5.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{C01a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,8);
\draw (4,6) rectangle (7,7.8);
\draw (1,1) rectangle (3,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,6) -- ( 8,6) ;
\draw[dotted] (3,0) -- ( 3,6) ;
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (3.1,0) rectangle (7.9,5.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{ }\label{C01b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,8);
\draw[dotted] (0,7.5) -- ( 8,7.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.5,7.5) -- ( 1.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.5,7.2) -- ( 8,7.2) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.8,7.2) -- ( 1.8,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (1.8,6.5) -- ( 8,6.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (2.5,6.5) -- ( 2.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (2.5,6) -- ( 8,6) ;
\draw[dotted] (3,6) -- ( 3,0) ;
\draw[thick] (3,5)--(8,5);
\draw[thick] (4,0)--(4,5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.1,5.2) rectangle (7.9,5.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.2,0.1) rectangle (3.4,4.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.1,5.2) rectangle (7.9,5.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.2,0.1) rectangle (3.4,4.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,0.1) rectangle (2.8,5.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{C01c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Creating guillotine separable $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors. Figure \ref{C01a}: Assume that the rectangles are in the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and the pseudoitem. Here we have 8 stages of cuts but we are extracting rectangles from 2 corridors. But the way these corridors are getting it can happen only when we dont consider all the first stage cuts. Hence we won't end up with such corridors and instead we will end up with corridors as shown in Figure \ref{C01b} Figure \ref{C01c} : Here the dotted the lines denote the $2k$ stages of cuts and the 2 thick lines denote the $2k+1$ and $2k+2$ stage cuts. Now observe that a rectangle extracted from a new corridor in $2k+2$-th stage cut as the rectangle in the $2k$-th stage cut belonged to a different corridor. Instead if the belonged to the same corridor, the rectangle in $2k$-th stage cut must be below the rectangle in $2k+1$-th stage and therefore we can merge $2k+1$ and $2k+2$ strips with their adjacent strips and can end up with $2k$ stage cuts. Similar idea works for the other arrangements too}
\label{bcorO1}
\end{figure}
This completes the proof of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement.
\subsection{Functions used in BL-arrangement}
\label{subsec42}
Now we describe functions used in the processing of spiral corridors to obtain $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement.
\subsubsection{Algo-separate(C, {\em List}, {\em Halting conditions},{\em Type})}
\noindent Algo-separate(.) is one of the main subroutines in our decomposition. We explain it here briefly ( see Algorithm \ref{sepalgo} for the exact details).
Algo-separate(.) takes as input a spiral corridor $C$ with $k$ subcorridors $\{ S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},...,S_{k}\}$ such that $\forall i \in [k-1]$, $S_{i}$ and $S_{i+1}$ share a region $S_{i,i+1}$ with each other. We are also given a {\em List}, a set of the subcorridors of $C$. Algo-separate(.) tries to extract a smaller corridor from the main corridor $C$ using the cuts of the type $C_p$ such that the items belong to the subcorridors mentioned in the {\em List}.
The function also takes {\em Halting conditions} as input which denote the scenarios under which the Algo-separate(.) halts the process of extracting any item from a subcorridor.
Depending on the cases, the halting conditions can be as follows: (i) presence of cut $l$ of Type $C_b$ or $C_{u}$ in $C$, and (ii) at least one rectangle is obtained from each subcorridor of $C$.
First Halting condition takes care of the situation where we separated out all the rectangles from one subcorridor say $S_{i'}$ as in this case we have cut which passes through the boundary of $S_{i'}$ which is also a cut of Type $C_b$ which passes through the subcorridor which shares region with $S_{i'}$. First Halting Condition also takes care of the situation where we no longer have any cuts left of Type $C_p$ or $C_b$ passing through the subcorridors in the {\em List} which implies that the next has to be a cut of Type $C_u$.
There are two {\em types}: {\em Boundary} and {\em Ordinary}, according to which we
separate out different types (either boundary-corridor or corridors that are not boundary-corridors) of smaller spiral corridor $C'$
with at most 3 bends from the corridor $C$ (e.g., we separate out a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}'$ corridor in Figure \ref{bends}).
We now give an intuitive idea how exactly the smaller corridors are extracted.
Consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through subcorridors $S_{i_1}, \dots, S_{i_{b(C')+1}}$ (these are part of the {\em List}) such that these cuts are of Type $C_p$ and $C_b$ and these occurred until one of the halting conditions in the parameter {\em Halting conditions} in Algo-separate(.) was satisfied. Consider the set of cuts which occurred last in their respective subcorridors. These cuts clearly extracts $C'$ from $C$. This process is clearly depicted in Figure \ref{sepi1} and Figure \ref{sepi2} where we want to extract an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor from the original corridor.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-separate($C$, {\em List}, {\em Halting conditions},{\em Type})}\label{sepalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $C'$ be the corridor which will be separated.
\STATE $k \gets 1$
\WHILE {(No {\em Halting condition} is satisfied)}
\STATE Do guillotine cuts of stage-$k$
\STATE $k \gets k+1$
\ENDWHILE
\STATE Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of cuts of Type $C_p $ and $C_b$ passing through the subcorridors\\ in {\em List} which occurred last in their respective subcorridors.\label{stepcut}
\IF {(`Type' is {\em Boundary})}
\STATE Use $\mathcal{C}$ to separate out a boundary spiral corridor $C'$ from Box $\mathcal{B}$, bounding $C$.
\ELSIF {(`Type' is {\em Ordinary})}
\STATE Use $\mathcal{C}$ to separate out the spiral corridor $C'$ (contains items from subcorridors \\in the {\em List}, some subcorridors in $C'$ can be degenerate too. This may lead to \\$O(1)$ spiral corridors) from $C$
\ENDIF
\STATE Return the Halting Condition which got satisfied in {\em while} loop along with the $C'$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection {Algo-Spiral(C)}
\noindent Using the function Algo-Spiral($C$) we divide a spiral corridor $C$ with more than 3 bends into spiral corridors with at most 3 bends (see Algorithm \ref{spialgo} for more details). We extract the rectangles from the leftmost, bottom most, rightmost and topmost subcorridor in $C$ using the function Algo-separate(.). If we extract all the rectangles from any one of the four subcorridors, then we have a cut of type $C_b$ which divides the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ (whose rectangles are not extracted yet) into $O_\varepsilon(1)$ corridors with lesser number of bends than $C$. Instead if we had some cut of type $C_u$ in $C$ then it would divide the remaining portion of $C$ (whose rectangles are not extracted yet) into $O_\varepsilon(1)$ corridors with lesser number of bends than $C$. We repeat the same procedure on the smaller corridors created and this procedure stops if there is no corridor with more than 3 bends.
{\em Technical Details of Algorithm:} The number of new spiral corridors created is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. The reason is that the number of cuts of type $C_u$ or $C_b$ is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ as $C$ has at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})$ bends and each rectangle is greater than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ in one dimension. Plus each cut of type $C_u$ or $C_b$ creates $O_\varepsilon(1)$ extra corridors.The Algorithm terminates because after each such cut of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ we get corridors of lesser number of bends than the original spiral corridor. Algorithm \ref{spialgo} is depicted in Figure \ref{bends}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Spiral($C$)}\label{spialgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let {\em List} be the set of subcorridors containing the leftmost, bottom-most,\\ rightmost and topmost subcorridor.
\STATE Call Algo-separate($C$, {\em List}, {\em presence of cut $l$ of Type $C_u$ or $C_b$ in $C$}, {\em Ordinary})\label{spi2}
\STATE Partition the existing corridors after the previous step into smaller corridors \\using the cut $l$\label{spi1}.
\STATE Call Algo-Spiral($C''$) for all newly created corridor $C''$ with $b(C'')>3$.
\end {algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,4) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 0,4);
\draw[thick] (1,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (2.5,3.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4.5) -- ( .5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4.5) -- ( .25,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (0.25,.5) -- ( 6,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.75,4.5) -- ( 5.75,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0.5,3.25) -- (5.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Guillotine cuts parallel to the orientation of subcorridors}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,5) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) --(1,5);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) ;
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,5) -- (1.5,5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,5);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Separating out a ring corridor which is then partitioned into $U'$,$C'$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Creating Bounding Box of $S$}
\label{ringproc}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Algo-Box-Creation(C)}
\noindent Using the function Algo-Box-Creation($C$), we bound a corridor $C$ ($b(C)>0$) using a bounding box which is guillotine separable (see Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} for more details). We use Algo-separate(.) to extract items from $C$. During this if we extracted at least one rectangle from each corridor in $C$ then we bound the remaining portion of corridor $C$ using the edges of the subpiece which contains it. Clearly the bounding box created is guillotine separable. If we are not able to bound $C$, it implies that we get a cut of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ in $C$. Then divide the corridor $C$ into corridors of smaller number of bends and then bound the corridors with smaller number of bends (should be non-zero) using guillotine separable boxes by recursively calling the function Algo-Box-Creation(.).\\
\\
{\em Technical Details of Algorithm \ref{boxalgo}:} If the function Algo-separate(.) halts due to the presence of cut $l$ of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ in $C$, then such cuts are $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ in number and each such cut leads to the creation of $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ corridors. If the function Algo-separate(.) halts due to the fact that one rectangle is obtained from each subcorridor in $C$, then we are creating O(1) extra corridors of lesser number of bends than $C$ and bounding a part of $C$ with a box. See Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} for the exact procedure on how we are doing this. So the function Algo-Box-Creation(.) recursively calls itself at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ times which leads to the creation of $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes which bound the $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors. Algorithm \ref{boxalgo} is depicted in Figures \ref{ringproc}, \ref{figtwobends}, \ref{figthreebends}, \ref{figthreebends1}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Box-Creation($C$)}\label{boxalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $c$ be the number of subcorridors in $C$.
\STATE Call Algo-separate($C$, {\em all subcorridors in $C$}, {\em \{ at least one rectangle obtained from \\each subcorridor in $C$, presence of cut $l$ of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ in $C$ \}}, {\em Ordinary}).\label {st1abc}
\STATE Let {\em halting condition} denotes the reason why Algo-separate(.) halted.
\IF {({\em halting condition} is {\em at least one rectangle obtained from each subcorridor in $C$})\\}
\STATE Create a bounding box using the edges of the subpiece which contains the \\ portion of $C$ excluding $C'$ when at least one rectangle from each corridor \\ of $C$ was separated out into $C'$ in Step \ref{st1abc}.
\STATE Let $S_{i}$ be the last subcorridor from which a rectangle was separated in Step \ref{st1abc}.\\ Make $S_{i}'=S_{i}\cap C'$ as a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor.\\ Let the corridor formed due to $S_{1}', \dots, S_{i-1}'$ be $C_{1}$ if $i>1$.\\ Let the corridor formed due to $S_{i+1}', \dots, S_{c}'$ be $C_{2}$ if $i<c$.
\IF{$i >2$}
\STATE Call Algo-Box-Creation($C_{1}$).
\ENDIF
\IF{$i<c-1$}
\STATE Call Algo-Box-Creation($C_{2}$).
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{({\em halting condition} is {\em presence of cut $l$ of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ in $C$})}
\STATE Partition the existing corridors into smaller corridors using the cut $l$.
\STATE Call Algo-Box-Creation($C''$) for all corridor $C''$ created from $C$ after \\cut $l$ except the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors, if any.
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$)}
\noindent Using the function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$), we create boundary corridor in the box $\mathcal{B}$ with an additional property that the rectangles in the boundary corridor that are being created can be separated out using cuts of type $C_p$ (See Algorithm \ref{balgo} for more details). The function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) takes a part of corridor $C$ and extends it by including rectangles from other corridors to create a boundary corridor (whose items can be separated by cuts of type $C_p$). The basic procedure involves extracting rectangles (including those rectangles which are part of other corridors) using the cuts in $C$ of type $C_p$ by calling Algo-separate(.) . The extracted rectangles form a part of the boundary corridor. Now consider the region $R$ which doesn't contain the boundary corridor which we extracted using the function Algo-separate(.). Let the next stage of cuts in $R$ be horizontal. The horizontal strips (similarly vertical) which are separated using a cut which isn't of type $C_p$ (w.r.t $C$) by appropriately shifting are merged into our boundary corridor . Note that we merge these horizontal strips if the height of the strip is at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ which would ensure that all the rectangles in it are horizontal. Merging of horizontal strip in this way ensures that other corridors which are bounded by $\mathcal{B}$ get automatically incorporated in our boundary corridor. If we get 2 horizontal strips with heights more than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ then there is a chance that these strips can contain a vertical rectangle and hence we divide the region $R$ into at most 3 parts and repeat our procedure on each such part. See Algorithm \ref{balgo} for the exact process.\\
\\
{\em Technical Details of Algorithm \ref{balgo}:} If the box $\mathcal{B}$ bounds more than one corridor of type either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, then by arbitrarily choosing one corridor and calling the function Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$) would merge some rectangles from other corridors (including some rectangles from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors) into boundary corridor that is being created (which happens when the condition $d_1\leq\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ or $d_2\leq\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ holds true) and the merging is stopped, if both the conditions $d_1>\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $d_2 >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ holds true. At most 3 new boundary corridors are created each time both the conditions $d_1>\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $d_2 >\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ holds true, which can happen at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ times in a given knapsack as the at least one of the dimension of in the new boxes decreases by at least $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. Algorithm \ref{balgo} is depicted in Figure \ref{fig:c43}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Process($\mathcal{B},C$)}\label{balgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Box $\mathcal{B}$ bounds corridor $C$.
\STATE Consider other smaller boxes inside the $\mathcal{B}$ as pseudoitems so that the \\guillotine cuts do not pass through it.
\STATE Algo-separate($C$, {\em every subcorridor of $C$}, \{{\em presence of cut $l$ of type $C_b$ or $C_u$ in $C$\\ or does not pass through $C$} \}, {\em Boundary}).\label{stepcreate}
\STATE Let $R$ be the rectangular region in $\mathcal{B}$ which does not contain the boundary \\corridor obtained from Step \ref{stepcreate}.
\STATE Let us assume that there is a horizontal subcorridor in the boundary corridor \\created in the Step \ref{stepcreate} which is below $R$.
\STATE Let us assume that the next stage cuts in $R$ be horizontal (similar steps if it was vertical). Let cut $l_{1}$ (resp., $l_2$) be topmost (resp., bottommost) horizontal cut in $R$ .\\ Let $l_1$ be at a distance of $d_1$ (resp., $d_2$) from the top (resp., bottom) edge in $R$.
\STATE Divide $R$ into three boxes $\mathcal{B}_{1},\mathcal{B}_{2},\mathcal{B}_{3}$ using the cuts $l_1,l_2$ where $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ is below $\mathcal{B}_{1}$\\ and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ is below $\mathcal{B}_{2}$.
\IF{($d_2 \le \varepsilon_{{large}} N$)}
\STATE Let $\mathcal{B}_{5}$ be a box such that $\mathcal{B}_{5}=\mathcal{B}_{1}\cup \mathcal{B}_{2}$.
\STATE Merge $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ with the boundary corridor created in Step \ref{stepcreate}. \label{stpc11}
\STATE Call Algo-Process($\mathcal{B}_{5},C'$), if $\mathcal{B}_{5}$ bounds a corridor $C'$ and $b(C')>0$. \label{stpb5}
\STATE Merge the boundary corridor of $\mathcal{B}_{5}$ created in the Step \ref{stpb5} with the boundary \\corridor of $\mathcal{B}$ created in Step \ref{stpc11}.
\ELSIF{($d_1 \le \varepsilon_{{large}} N$)}
\STATE Let $\mathcal{B}_{4}$ be a box such that $\mathcal{B}_{4}=\mathcal{B}_{2}\cup \mathcal{B}_{3}$.
\STATE Remove $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ and push the box $\mathcal{B}_{4}$ upwards by a distance $d_1$.
\STATE Place $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ in the empty space created in $R$ due to movement of $\mathcal{B}_{4}$.
\STATE Merge $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ with the boundary corridor created in Step \ref{stepcreate}. \label{stpc1}
\STATE Call Algo-Process($\mathcal{B}_{4},C'$), if $\mathcal{B}_{4}$ bounds a corridor $C'$ and $b(C')>0$.\label{stpb4}
\STATE Merge the boundary corridor of $\mathcal{B}_{4}$ created in the Step \ref{stpb4} with the boundary \\corridor of $\mathcal{B}$ created in Step \ref{stpc1}.
\ELSIF {($d_1> \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $d_2> \varepsilon_{{large}} N$)}
\STATE Call Algo-Process($\mathcal{B}_{i},C'$), if $\mathcal{B}_{i}$ bounds a corridor $C'$ and $b(C')>0$ for $i \in [3]$.
\ENDIF
\STATE Return Boundary Corridor of $\mathcal{B}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C$)}
\noindent Using the function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C$), in the box $\mathcal{B}$, we convert a boundary corridor $C$ (whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$) into boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (whose items can be separated out using the cuts of type $C_p$). See Algorithm \ref{Lalgo} for the exact procedure.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B},C$)}\label{Lalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Consider the rectangular region $R$ in the box $\mathcal{B}$ which does not contain the \\boundary corridor $C$. Consider $R$ as a pseudoitem and remove it from $\mathcal{B}$.
\STATE Consider the first stage of guillotine cuts passing through some corridors of $C$ \\and having the same orientation as the subcorridor.
\IF {(First stage cuts are vertical)}
\IF {(there is a vertical subcorridor $S_{i}$ of $C$ which touches the left edge of $\mathcal{B}$ \\such that there is a first-stage vertical cut $l$ through $S_{i}$)}
\STATE Let $l$ divide $\mathcal{B}$ into 2 regions $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ such that $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ is left of $\mathcal{B}_{2}$.
\STATE Call Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B}_{2},C'$) where $C'$ is that portion of corridor $C$ which \\doesn't contain items from $\mathcal{B}_{1}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ has at least one rectangle in it.\label{stp12}
\STATE Merge the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ from Step \ref{stp12} with $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ to create the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of $\mathcal{B}$.
\ELSIF {(there is vertical subcorridor $S_{i}$ of $C$ which touches the right edge of \\$\mathcal{B}$ such that there is a first-stage vertical cut $l$ through $S_{i}$)}
\STATE Let $l$ divide $\mathcal{B}$ into 2 regions $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ such that $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ is left of $\mathcal{B}_{2}$.
\STATE Remove $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ and push $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ to the right until it touches the right edge of $\mathcal{B}$.
\STATE Place $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ to the left of $\mathcal{B}_{1}$.
\STATE Call Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B}_{1},C'$) where $C'$ is that portion of corridor $C$ which \\doesn't contain items from $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ has at least one rectangle in it. \label{stp13}
\STATE Merge the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ from Step \ref{stp13} with $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ to create the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of $\mathcal{B}$.
\ENDIF
\ELSIF{(First stage cuts are horizontal)}
\STATE Do analogous procedure to obtain a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with its horizontal subcorridor \\touching the bottom edge of $\mathcal{B}$.
\ENDIF
\STATE Place $R$ in the empty region left in $\mathcal{B}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Guillotine property}
\label{subs:guilp}
The construction of boxes and shifting of rectangle does not disturb the guillotine property. Now we show that the processing which we do in Subsection \ref{prosec} doesn't disturb the guillotine property if it is done to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which we obtain in the previous section. W.l.o.g.~assume that we are processing (as done in Subsection \ref{prosec}) a vertical subcorridor of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which is placed top-left with respect to horizontal subcorridor. Note that this processing does not create any conflict in terms of guillotine separability with elements in boxes and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors outside the box bounding this boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ since by construction the boxes and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors are guillotine separable when considered as a pseudorectangle. Also the way in which we have constructed the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we always have a sequence of vertical (resp., horizontal) cuts through the vertical (resp., horizontal) subcorridor of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which separates the rectangles in the vertical (resp., horizontal) subcorridor. This ensures that as long we can separate out the items in the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ from the rest of box using cuts which do not pass through the rest of the box, then the items in the rest of box can be separated as we have not changed their orientation. Now we need to focus on the boundary curve of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor. Consider the strip containing the thin items. Let the length of the shorter vertical edge be $l$. Now the vertical strip which replaces this strip has rectangles of length at most $l$. So the horizontal rectangles which interacted with the thin items can be directly separated as there is no vertical rectangle intercepting the cut. Similar analogy for other strips shows that there is no conflict with horizontal rectangles. So we can conclude that the processing in Subsection \ref{prosec} does not disturb guillotine property.
\subsection{Obtaining corridors with at most 2 bends}
\label{sub:bldec}
\begin{lem} \label{structure}
Given an optimal guillotine packing of $I$ rectangles and the rectangles are either horizontal or vertical, we can partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ L corridors and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and place $I' \subseteq I$ rectangles in these corridors and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$p(I') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))p(I)$ provided we can drop $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ rectangles without loosing any profit
\item Each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor or subcorridor contains only one type of rectangle(i.e, either horizontal or vertical)
\item Each rectangle is guillotine separable
\item Each L corridor is a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ for a rectangular box.
\item Rectangular boxes (which bound the items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors ) when considered as a pseudorectangle are guillotine separable and number of such boxes is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$
\item Each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor when considered as a pseudorectangle are guillotine separable and the number of such corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given an optimal guillotine packing $I$ (these rectangles are skewed) and using lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack} and Theorem \ref{3max} we partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors with no Z bends and the number of bends is at most 3. Also the packing $I'$ is guillotine separable and $p(I') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))p(I)$. We now provide a construction of finding the rectangular box for each type of corridor with at least one bend such that the corridor is at the boundary of the box and the box is guillotine separable. For the remainder of the section we assume that a given corridor $S$ can't be divided into smaller corridors with cuts perpendicular to the orientation of any subcorridor. If there were such corridors then we can divide our corridor into smaller corridor and $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors which are obtained by these perpendicular cuts \end{proof}. In the following subsections we show a construction of boxes
\begin{obs} \label{endtoend}
Given a piece containing a set of guillotine separable rectangles, there must exist an end-to-end guillotine cut in the piece. In other words, the first level of guillotine cuts in the piece is end-to-end.
\end{obs}
We follow some terminologies in the remainder of the section. We define subpiece $P$ completely containing corridor $C$ as \textit{smallest} iff the piece $P$ which is obtained from the sequence of guillotine cuts has no previous cut that passed through the corridor $C$ and the next end to end cut in $P$ passes through $C$. We also define \textit{box $B$ bounding} a set of rectangles as a subpiece which is guillotine separable from the rest of the piece. In other ways $B$ if considered as a pseudorectangle, forms a guillotine separable arrangement with the rest of the items of knapsack. In the rest of the section, by freezing a rectangle, we mean that the rectangle is not moved while shifting other rectangles. A subcorridor $S_{1}$ is said to be exhausted if there is no rectangle from $S_{1}$ in the smaller subpiece on which we would running our recursive procedure in the following section. A box $B$ is said to be bounding a corridor with at least one bend if the outermost corners at the bends of the corridor coincides with the corners of the box. Now in the following section we provide a construction of boxes and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors which satisfy Lemma \ref{structure}.
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor}\label{L corridor}
Consider a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor $S$. W.l.o.g.~we can assume that vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ of $S$ is placed to the top left w.r.t the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. We consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$.
Next consider the first stage guillotine cuts in the $P$. W.l.o.g.~let the first stage cuts be vertical.
Then we have the following cuts which can occur to a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor during the recursive procedure to bound the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor which we are going to describe later:
\begin{itemize}
\item Cut 1:Rightmost vertical Guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$
\item Cut 2:Horizontal Guillotine cut passing through $S_{1}$ and not through the interior of $S_{12}$
\item Cut 3: Horizontal Guillotine cut passing through $S_{2}$
\item Cut 4: Cut which doesn't pass through $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor.
\end{itemize}
Now we describe the recursive procedure. According to our assumption we begin with Cut 1. If we have Cut 1 then make a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor out of the rectangles separated from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor in our subpiece and consider the right subpiece to be the new subpiece. Merge all the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors obtained due to Cut 1 provided that these cuts occurred before the first cut 2. For the rest of cuts which are of type cut 1 make a corridor for rectangles separated by these cuts. If we have Cut 2 then make a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor out of the rectangles separated from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor in our subpiece and consider the bottom subpiece to be the new subpiece.
We stop the recursive procedure if either $S_{1}$ has exhausted or we obtain cut 2. If we obtain a cut 2 then we clearly have a bounding box with the edges being cut 1,cut 2 and the top and the right edges of the smaller subpiece $P'$ we are in after the last step of the recursive procedure. In the whole procedure we obtain only $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ extra $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors.
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corrdor}\label{twobends}
Let $S$ be a corridor with $2$ bends. Let the top left vertical, horizontal and top right vertical subcorridors of $S$ be $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$ and $S_{3}$ respectively as shown in Figure \ref{figtwobends}. Consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$. We define three types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$.The rightmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ is termed as \textit{Type $1$}. The leftmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{3}$ is termed as \textit{Type $3$}. The topmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ is termed as \textit{Type $2$}. Figure \ref{figtwobends} shows all the three types of cuts defined. We then follow a recursive approach to define bounding box using the cuts in guillotine cutting sequence. Clearly, obtaining all three type of cuts, i.e., type $1,2,3$ will result in a bounding box where the box is bounded by these cuts and upper boundary of subpiece $P'$ containing a subset of items of $S$. Subpiece $P'$ is that subpiece which contains smaller corridor with 2 bends after we obtain the last of the three type cut. \\
\\Basic idea follows dividing $S$ into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with at most 1 bend) consisting of some items from $S_{1}$ ( w.l.og it can be $S_{3}$ but we assume for the remainder of the section that $S_{1}$ is the one contributing to $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}'$) and $S_{2}$, $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ from a subset of items of $S_{3}$ and a corridor (with at most 2 bends) with the remaining set of items. Note that $C_{i+1}$ is left of $C_{i}$ and $C_{i+1}$ has height less than $C_{i}$. Similarly $L_{i+1}$ is place to the top right of $L_{i}$ and $L_{i+1}$ is smaller in size than $L_{i}$ \\
\\We now formally define the algorithm for processing corridor $S$ with $2$ bends. From observation \ref{endtoend} we know that the first cut in any guillotine separable piece is end-to-end. In the remainder of the subsection by closing a corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor we mean that no more items will be packed in that corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor. And, by opening a corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor we mean that we are allowed to pack rectangles in this corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor only. Initially corridor $L_{1}$ is open and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C_{1}$ is open. Depending on the type of this cut we do the following processing :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Scenario $1$:Let's assume that corridor $L_{i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C_{j}$ is open right now. If we have a horizontal cut through $S_{1}$ or $S_{3}$ but not through $S_{2}$ then we pack the items of $S_{1}$ above the cut in one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and pack the items of $S_{3}$ above the cut in another $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor. Then we continue our recursive procedure for the smaller portion of our original corridor present in the subpiece below this cut. If the horizontal cut passes through $S_{1}$ then we close $L_{i}$ and open $L_{i+1}$. Similarly if the horizontal cut passes through $S_{3}$ then we close $C_{j}$ and open $C_{j+1}$. Such kind of cuts can have $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of occurrences as the larger dimension of any rectangle is at least $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. So when the recursive procedure halts scenario 1 would be contributing at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors.
\item Scenario $2$ : (Type $1$ cut) Add the items of $S_{1}$ which is left of cut 1 to the vertical subcorridor of $L'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of cut 1. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $3$ : (Type $2$ cut) Add the items of $S_{2}$ below the cut 2 to the horizontal subcorridor of $L'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the top-subpiece. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $4$ : (Type $3$ cut) Pack the items of $S_{3}$ which is right of cut 3 in a new vertical $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of cut 3. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
We halt if one of the following three cases happens. First case occurs if at some iteration at least one cut from each type of cut is obtained. The boundaries of subpiece at this step along with the cut considered define the bounding box for remaining set of items of $S$. Thus we get a box surrounded by corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ . Figure \ref{figtwobends} shows final bounding box $B$ formed after the algorithm alongwith $L_{1}$ formed after considering sequence of type $1$ and type $2$ cuts in subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$ and the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C_{1}$ formed from type $3$ cuts in $S_{3}$. Second case occurs if one or more subcorridors in the piece exhausts i.e. all the items of these subcorridors are already packed in corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ or in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$. In this case we are left with at most 2 corridors with at most 1 bend who rectangles are not part of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors or corridors created during the recursive procedure. We can use the previous section results to bound this corridor with the a box (Except for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which will be dealt in the later subsections). Third Case occurs when the next guillotine cut in the sequence is vertical and passes through subcorridor $S_{2}$ only. This leaves us with 2 corridors of at most 1 bend. So, we can use the previous section results to bound the corridors with the boxes (Except for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which will be dealt in the later subsections).\\
\\Now we observe that using the algorithm defined above we add only a $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of new corridors and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors. The proof follows from the fact that if it is the case that all algorithm halts when at least one of each type of cuts is obtained then in the end we have corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with at most 1 bend) and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$. This accounts to $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and corridors as new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor or corridor is created only when we have scenario 1 and as we have shown there the number of times this scenario occurs is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Else if it is the case that algorithm halts when one or more of subcorridors is exhausted, then also we have either corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with at most 1 bend) or we have $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ and we have already shown that the number of such $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors are $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. We then run the algorithm on remaining corridors which has lesser number of bends than $S$, i.e., at most 1 bend(if there is any such corridor). As it follows from section \ref{L corridor}, we get $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors from processing in this case. For the third type of halting due to vertical cuts which passes through $S_{2}$ only, we have already shown in the previous paragraph that we obtain only $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and corridors.
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) -- ( 5,4) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (1,3.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.7,.6) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,3.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,3) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.2,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) -- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,6) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,1.5)--(6.5,5)--(7,5)--(7,1.5)--(6.5,1.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5) -- (7,1) --(1,1) -- (1,4);
\draw (1.25,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$L_{1}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (4,4) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 2-bend corridor}
\label{figtwobends}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ Corridor}\label{threebends}
The approach is similar to section \ref{twobends}. Let $S$ be a corridor with $3$ bends. Let the top left vertical, bottom horizontal, top right vertical subcorridors and top horizontal subcorridors of $S$ be $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ respectively as shown in Figure \ref{figthreebends}. Consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$. We define four types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$. The rightmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ is termed as Type $1$. The leftmost end-to-end guillotine cut passing during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence through $S_{3}$ is termed as Type $3$. The topmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ is termed as Type $2$. The bottommost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{4}$ is termed as Type $4$. Figure \ref{figthreebends} shows all the four types of cuts defined.
\\Basic idea follows divinding $S$ into a corridor $U'$ (with at most $2$ bends) consisting of some items from $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ ( w.l.og it can be $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ but for the rest of the proof we assume that it's the former case not the latter), a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C$ from a subset of items of $S_{4}$ and a corridor (with at most 3 bends) with the remaining set of items. We follow a recursive approach to define bounding box $B$. Clearly, obtaining all four type of cuts will result in a box bounded by these cuts. \\
We now formally define the algorithm for processing corridor $S$ with $3$ bends. From observation \ref{endtoend} we know that the first cut in any guillotine separable piece is end-to-end. Depending on the type of this cut we do the following processing :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Scenario $1$ : (Type $1$ cut) Add the items of $S_{1}$ which is left of Cut 1 to the left-vertical subcorridor of the 3-bend corridor $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of Cut 1. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $2$ : (Type $2$ cut) Add the items of $S_{2}$ which is below Cut 2 to the horizontal subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be subpiece which is above Cut 2. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $3$ : (Type $3$ cut) Add the items of $S_{3}$ which is right of Cut 3 to the right-vertical subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is left of Cut 3. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $4$ : (Type $4$ cut) Pack the items of $S_{4}$ which is above Cut 4 in a new horizontal $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is below Cut 4. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
We halt if one of the following three cases happens. First case occurs if at some iteration at least one cut from each type of cut is obtained. The boundaries of subpiece at this step along with the cut considered define the bounding box for remaining set of items of $S$. Thus we get the box $B$ surrounded by $U'$ on three edges and a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C$ on the fourth. Figure \ref{figthreebends} shows final bounding box $B$ formed after the algorithm alongwith $U'$ formed after considering sequence of type $1$ ,type $2$ and type $3$ cuts in subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor formed from type $4$ cuts in $S_{4}$. Second case occurs if one or more of the subcorridors in the piece exhausts, i.e., all the items of subcorridor are already packed in $U'$ or in $C$. In this case we are left with at most 2 corridors with at most 2 bends whose items are not part of either $U'$ or $C$. Using the previous section we get that the corridor with at most two bends is bounded by a box (Except for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which will be dealt in the later subsections) . Third Case occurs when the next guillotine cut in the guillotine cutting sequence passes completely through any subcorridor perpendicular to its longer sides. This divides $S$ into at most three corridors with at most 2 bends each. Using the previous section results each corridor with at most two bends is bounded by a box (Except for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which will be dealt in the later subsections) .\\
\\Now we observe that using the algorithm defined above we add only a $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of new corridors and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors. The proof follows from the fact that if it the case that all algorithm halts when at least one cut from each type of cuts is obtained then in the end we have a corridor ( with at most 3 bends) , a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and a bounding box. This accounts to $O(1)$ new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and corridors. Else if it is the case that algorithm halts when one or more of subcorridors is exhausted, i.e., packed in either $U'$ or $C$, then we have a new corridor (with at most 2 bends) or one new $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $C$. We then run the algorithm on remaining corridors which has lesser number of bends than $S$ i.e. at most 2 bends (Except for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which will be dealt in the later subsections) . As it follows from subsections \ref{twobends} and \ref{L corridor}, we get $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors from processing in both the cases. In the third case of halting, $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ extra $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors follows from the results of subsections \ref{twobends} and \ref{L corridor}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 2,4)--(2,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,0.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (3,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (1,3.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.9,.45) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw (6.9,3.2) node {\large \textbf{Type 4}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,3.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,3) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (2,3.5) -- ( 6,3.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (2,3.25) -- ( 6.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) --(3,5)--(3,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(3,5)--(3,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,4);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 3-bend corridor}
\label{figthreebends}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-Corridor}
In this subsection we deal with the items inside a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor in 2 ways. In first way, the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors can be either divided into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors as a pseudo rectangle are guillotine separable. In second way, the items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors is merged with a corridor and later become a part of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ . Given a knapsack, first we construct the boxes as mentioned in the previous subsections. Note that one box may lie completely inside another box. Now consider the set of outermost boxes which are not part of any other box in the original Knapsack. Note that the boundaries of outermost boxes may divide the corridors with zero bends into smaller parts. The number of such smaller parts is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ as the guillotine cuts which are part of the boundary of a single box can divide a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into at most 6 parts and number of such boxes is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Now we have to deal with 2 cases.\\
\\ In the first case, a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor say $S$ lies inside a box and if a part or the complete $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S$ lies between the lines along the two longer edges of a subcorridor say $S_{1}$ of a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and the orientation of the corridor is same as that of the subcorridor $S_{1}$. This case is appropriately handled in the subsubsection \ref{sssl} and we satisfy all the properties of the lemma \ref{structure}. Suppose instead that the longer edges of the rectangles in the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S$ was perpendicular to the longer edges of subcorridor $S_{1}$ of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ then this case is approriately handled in the subsubsection \ref{sssl} and we satisfy all the properties of the lemma \ref{structure}. Similar argument holds for corridors with 2 or 3 bends instead of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor and after all the similar processing as done in subsubsection \ref{sssl} we convert them into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor by appropriate shifting as mentioned in the subsubsections \ref{sss2} and \ref{sss3}.\\
\\Now in the second case the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors lie outside any box in the original knapsack. Now consider the set of guillotine cuts that separates the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and the boxes. Note that the way we have constructed the outermost boxes the guillotine cuts don't pass through the boxes except its edges. Consider one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S_{1}$ and let its orientation be horizontal. Then we can divide into the following subcases based on the type of cut through $S_{1}$ and the interaction of the cuts with other cuts or rectangles:
\begin{itemize}
\item Subcase 1: Now consider the horizontal cuts (which are not entirely inside the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S_{1}$) through $S_{1}$. If 3 or more horizontal cuts are intercepted by the same vertical cut in the guillotine cutting sequence then consider the topmost and the bottom cut as the cuts and ignore the rest. This subcase is depicted in Figure \ref{C01b}.
\item Subcase 2: Now consider set of vertical cuts which intercept the horizontal cuts through $S_{1}$. If these vertical cuts are edges of an outermost box which we created then there can be at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ of them. Now if these vertical cuts are edges of vertical rectangle which belonged to different corridors then these can be at most $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ of them. Both of the scenarios are depicted together in Figure \ref{C01c}.
\item Subcase 3:Supposed the rectangles which intercept the horizontal cuts through $S_{1}$ belonged to the same corridor $S_{2}$. Now assume 2 or more than 2 consecutive horizontal cuts dont have space more than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ between them (otherwise, the cuts are intercepted by at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles) . Then we take that cut $l$ among the consecutive cuts such that $|l\bigcap S_{2}|$ is maximum and shift vertically those rectangles which intercepted these consecutive cuts other than $l$ and make them touch $l$. Hence we consider $l$ as valid guillotine cut and deal with the rest of the consecutive cuts using the Subcase 1. Subcase 3 is depicted in Figure \ref{C02a} and Figure \ref{C02b}.
\item Subcase 4: Using the same techniques of Subcase 1 and 3 and applying it to the vertical cuts which pass through some vertical corridor $S_{3}$ with zero bends (repeat the same for other set of cuts which pass through the same vertical $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor) and are intercepted by the rectangles in $S_{2}$ we get that there can be at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ vertical cuts (which are not entirely inside the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S_{1}$) passing through $S_{1}$ since width of each rectangle is at least $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. This subcase is depicted in Figure \ref{C01a}.
\end{itemize}
Now we argue that at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ horizontal cuts (which are not entirely inside the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S_{1}$) pass through the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $S_{1}$. Subcase 2 and Subcase 3 ensure that the number of vertical cuts which intercept the horizontal cuts passing through $S_{1}$ is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. And for each such vertical cut we end up keeping at most 2 horizontal cuts which pass through $S_{1}$ as explained in Subcase 1. Now these horizontal cuts along with the vertical cuts of Subcase 4 and vertical edges of $S_{1}$ results into partition of $S_{1}$ into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and these corridors when considered as a pseudo rectangle is guillotine separable
\\
\\ Now the procedure mentioned above is recursively applied to those portion of the outermost boxes which doesn't have items from its boundary $L$. This process stops when there is no corridor with at least one bend which is not bounded by any box or there is no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which when considered as a pseudo item isn't guillotine separable. Number of such boxes bounding the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor or items of a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. This follows from constructive procedures in subsection \ref{ssss} and the fact that we started the section with $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors and corridors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,8);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 8,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(8,4.6);
\draw [dotted] (3,4.6)--(3,8);
\draw [dotted] (2.3,4.3)--(2.3,0);
\draw [dotted] (2,4)--(2,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.5,4)--(2.5,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.6,4)--(2.6,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.7,4)--(2.7,0);
\draw[dotted](3.6,4.3)--(3.6,0);
\draw [dotted] (1,0)--(1,8);
\draw [dotted] (5,0)--(5,8);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{C01a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dashed] (0,4.3) -- ( 7,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7,4.6);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.9)--(7,4.9);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.2)--(7,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7,5.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.8)--(7,5.8);
\draw[dotted](7,0)--(7,10);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (8,5) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{ }\label{C01b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (6,5) rectangle (8,7);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (8.3,1) rectangle (9,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(8.3,4.6);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(6,5.8);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (8.6,3) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (7,6) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{C01c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Handling Corridors with 0 bends Part-1. Figure \ref{C01a} : Constant number of vertical cuts through a corridor $C$ which has horizontal orientation. Figure \ref{C01b} : We choose the topmost and bottommost horizontal cuts(shown as dashed lines in this figure ) if more than 3 horizontal cuts are intercepted by the same vertical cut as shown in this figure. Then these chosen cuts along with the portion of the boundary vertical edges of $C$ form the edges of a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor which is guillotine separable. Rest of the cuts which were not chosen is divided into 2 parts and pass through rectangles which are outside $C$. Figure \ref{C01c} : Horizontal cuts intercepted by different boxes or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 7.3,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7.6,4.6);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.2)--(7.9,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7.6,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(7.3,5.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.3,5.7) rectangle (7.5,6.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.6,5.4) rectangle (7.8,6.5);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.9,4) rectangle (8.1,6.2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.5,4.8) rectangle (7.7,3.7);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.2,4.5) rectangle (7.4,3.4);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$l$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{ }\label{C02a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 7.3,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7.3,4.6);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.2)--(7.9,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7.3,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(7.3,5.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.3,5.2) rectangle (7.5,6.3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.6,5.2) rectangle (7.8,6.3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.9,4) rectangle (8.1,6.2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.5,5.2) rectangle (7.7,4.1);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.2,5.2) rectangle (7.4,4.1);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$l$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}\label{C02b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Handling Corridors with 0 bends Part-2. Figure \ref{C02a} : Horizontal cuts are intercepted by vertical rectangles belonging to same $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor. Identify the horizontal cut $l$ (dashed line in this figure)which has maximum intrusion into corridor $C_{1}$. Figure \ref{C02b} : Then shift all the rectangles which are intercepting other cuts which are under consideration so that it touches cut $l$. Cuts other than $l$ are bow divided into 2 group and are now dealt in the same way as we dealt the cuts intercepted by same vertical cut.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shifting Procedure}\label{ssss}
In this subsection by boundary corridor we mean that the corridor is bounded by a box which is obtained by the recursive procedure in the subsection \ref{L corridor}, \ref{twobends}, \ref{threebends}. Also we assume that the cuts which we are considering in a box $B$ don't pass through the smaller boxes inside $B$ except through its edges.
\subsubsection{Handling rectangles or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors interacting with a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor}\label{sssl}
Consider a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor $S$ with vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ placed top left with respect to the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. Now consider a sequence of guillotine cuts (cut is parallel to the orientation of the subcorridor and the rectangles which are being separated in that subcorridor) which separates the rectangles in the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Continue this process till there doesn't exist any such cut. Either we have separated all the rectangles of a subcorridor of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or still we have a portion of the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ left. In the former case we fix the rectangles which got separated due to guillotine cuts as the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the original box. In the later case w.l.o.g.~let the next stage of cuts be horizontal and these cuts passes though $S_{1}$ only . Now consider the lowermost cut among these horizontal cut. Let it be $l$. Let $l$ be at a distance of $h$ from the top of the box. If $h \leq \varepsilon_{{large}} N$,we remove the items in the strip above $l$, then we shift upwards the rectangles below the cut $l$ except those rectangles which got separated due to previous guillotine cuts by a distance of $h$ and then place the rectangles from the strip which we removed initially in the empty region created due to shifting. Otherwise, if $h > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$, then we consider the items separated due to cuts before $l$ as the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the original box and we divide the rest of region of the box into 2 smaller boxes with cut $l$ being the common edge between both the smaller boxes. Now that an original boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ along with some $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors gets divided into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ smaller boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. The reason being that a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and some $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors get divided into smaller boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ only if the height of the new box which we are about to create is greater than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and therefore number of such boxes is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Similar processes can be done to corridors with 2 or 3 bends.
\subsubsection{Converting boundary corridor with $2$ bends to a single Boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in a box}\label{sss2}
Let us consider a boundary corridor with $2$ bends with two vertical subcorridors $S_{1}, S_{3}$ on top of the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$ with $S_{3}$ being placed to the right of $S_{1}$. W.l.o.g.~ let us assume that the first stage cuts in the guillotine cutting sequence in the box is vertical. Now consider the cut $l$ through $S_{3}$. Let the distance between $l$ and edge of the boundary be $d$. Now remove the strip to the right of $l$ and shift the rest of items of box to the right by a distance of $d$. Now in the empty region created near the left edge of the box we place the strip which we removed. Now consider the rectangles in this strip, rectangles to the left of cut through $S_{1}$ before the shifting procedure and set of horizontal rectangles whose guillotine cut is intercepted by the former rectangles mentioned in this sentence. We now freeze these rectangles after shifting and consider the rest of the box as a new box and recursively apply the process to the remaining part of the corridor till we don't have any vertical guillotine cuts left. If we have exhausted the corridor then we are done and we have a single boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Otherwise, we must have horizontal cut through the remaining portion of the box to separate the rectangles because there no end to end vertical cut. We handle this in sub-subsection \ref{sssl}. The boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ achieved due to the sequence of guillotine cuts forms the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the box. Also this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ smaller boundary $L$ with width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ by dropping at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items as shown in Figure \ref{divL}.
\subsubsection{Converting boundary corridor with 3 bends to a single Boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$}\label{sss3}
Consider a boundary corridor $S$ with 3 bends. Let us consider vertical subcorridors $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ which are on top of horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. $S_{3}$ is right of $S_{1}$ and below horizontal subcorridor $S_{4}$. Consider the horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{4}$ and remove the rectangles above this cut and place it below corridor $S_{2}$ by shifting rectangles below the cut upwards. Now freeze this set of rectangles from $S_{4}$ which were moved down. Now in the remaining portion of the box take the vertical guillotine cut through $S_{3}$ and remove the rectangles to the right of this cut and place it to the left of $S_{1}$. Now freeze the rectangles in the similar fashion as done in the Sub-subsection \ref {sss2} and recursively repeat the process for the rectangles in subcorridors $S_{3}, S_{4}$ which aren't freezed yet till we exhaust these both the corridors. Note that we stop if there is no vertical cut through $S_{3}$ or a horizontal cut through $S_{4}$ then there must exist which divides the remaining portion of the box into 2 parts each containing corridors with at most 2 bends. If any one of them has a corridors of 2 bends then we can use the results of sub-subsection \ref{sss2} to get a box with boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Otherwise, we are done and the rectangles which got freezed before this step form the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of our original box with which we started initially. Also this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ smaller boundary $L$ with width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ by dropping at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items as shown in Figure \ref{divL}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(0,10)--(3,10)--(3,3)--(10,3)--(10,0)--(0,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,10)--(1,1)--(10,1);
\draw [dashed] (2,10)--(2,2)--(10,2);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Dividing a boundary $L$ (shaded region) into smaller boundary using dashed lines as shown in this figure. Vertical and horizontal dashed lines meet at the boundary curve. Dashed lines also form the edges of the smaller boxes which bound the new $L$ corridors being created}\label{divL}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Guillotine property}
The construction of boxes and shifting of rectangle doesn't disturb the guillotine property. Now we show that the processing which we do in Subsection \ref{prosec} doesn't disturb the guillotine property if it is done to the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which we obtain in the previous section. Now consider w.l.o.g.~that we are processing (as done in Subsection \ref{prosec}) a vertical subcorridor of the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which is placed top-left with respect to horizontal subcorridor. Note that this processing does not create any conflict in terms of guillotine separability with elements in boxes and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors outside the box bounding this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ since by construction the boxes and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors are guillotine separable when considered as a pseudorectangle. Also the way in which we have constructed the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we always have a sequence of vertical (resp.~horizontal) cuts through the vertical (resp.~horizontal) subcorridor of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which separates the rectangles in the vertical (resp.~horizontal) subcorridor. This ensures that as long we can separate out the items in the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ from the rest of box using cuts which do not pass through the rest of the box, then the items in the rest of box can be separated as we have not changed their orientation. Now we need to focus on the boundary curve of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor. Consider the strip containing the thin items. Let the length of the shorter vertical edge be $l$. Now the vertical strip which replaces this strip has rectangles of length at most $l$. So the horizontal rectangles which interacted with the thin items can be directly separated as there is no vertical rectangle intercepting the cut. Similar analogy for other strips shows that there is no conflict with horizontal rectangles. So we can conclude that the processing in Subsection \ref{prosec} doesn't disturb guillotine property.
\section{BL-arrangement for guillotine packing} \label{sec:bl}
In this section, we prove our main structural result.
\begin{thm}[$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement (restatement of Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom})]
Given an optimal guillotine packing, there is a rearrangement of items into another guillotine packing and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each horizontal (resp. vertical ) subcorridor has only horizontal (resp. vertical) items.
\item Every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor is a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ for some guillotine separable bounding box and every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor is guillotine separable as a box.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, first we will start with the corridor decomposition from Lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack} (see Figure \ref{fig:3a}).
Then we apply Lemma \ref{noz}, remove all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends and obtain only spiral corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:3b}).
In Section \ref{subsec42}, we describe some subroutines that we use in the rest of the proof.
Thereafter, in Section \ref{subsec43} we will further process to obtain spiral corridors with bends at most 4 (see Figure \ref{fig:3c}).
In Section \ref{sub:bldec} we obtain bounding boxes for these corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:3e}).
Finally, in Section \ref{ssss} we obtain boundary corridors and then the final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement (see Figure \ref{fig:3f}).
Section \ref{subs:guilp} finished the proof with a discussion on why the guillotine property was preserved in the rearrangement.
For the remainder of the section we divide the cuts passing through the interior region of the subcorridors in a corridor $C$ into 3 types which are $C_p,C_b,C_u$. $C_p$ is a type of cut that passes through the interior region of a subcorridor $S_{i}$ and is parallel to the orientation of a $S_{i}$. $C_b$ is a type of cut that passes through a subcorridor $S_i$, is perpendicular to the orientation of a $S_i$ and passes through the boundary between one of the shared regions and the unshared region of $S_i$. $C_u$ is a type of cut which passes through a subcorridor $S_i$, is perpendicular to the orientation of a $S_i$ and passes through the unshared region of $S_i$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6) -- (0,0) -- (12,0) -- (12,10) -- (4,10) -- (4,4) -- (6,4) -- (6,8) -- ( 10,8) -- (10,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,6) -- (0,6);
\draw[thick,pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0,6) -- (0,0) -- (12,0) -- (12,10) -- (4,10)--(4,9)--(11,9)--(11,1)--(1,1)--(1,6)--(0,6);
\draw (1.5,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (10.5,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (8,8.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (4.5,7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{5}$}};
\draw [dashed] (5,9)--(5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{bends}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0)--(6,0)--(6,2)--(2,2)--(2,6)--(0,6)--(0,0);
\draw (1.5,3) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.5) node { \large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw [dashed] (0.5,6)--(0.5,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,6)--(1,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,0.5)--(6,0.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{sepi1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0)--(6,0)--(6,2)--(2,2)--(2,6)--(0,6)--(0,0);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0,0)--(6,0)--(6,0.5)--(1,0.5)--(1,6)--(0,6)--(0,0);
\draw (1.5,3) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.5) node { \large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw [dashed] (0.5,6)--(0.5,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,6)--(1,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,0.5)--(6,0.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{sepi2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Cut of type $C_u$ (dashed lines) and with the corridor separated out (region having north-west lines) partition the original corridor with 4 bends into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ corridors with less than 4 corridors. (b) Consider the last cuts through each corridor to separate out an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor. (c) $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor separated out (region with north west lines)}
\end{figure}
\section{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition for guillotine packing} \label{sec:bl}
In this section we will show that we can have a better decomposition of the optimal guillotine packing.
We will show the existence of a corridor-decomposition where all corridors are either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$s.
We will prove the main strcutural result as follows:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:ldecom}
There exists a corridor partition (we call it $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition) and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each corridor is either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor with width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, first we will start with the corridor decomposition from Lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack}. Then process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends in the corridors to obtain only spiral corridors. Thereafter, we will further process to obtain spiral corridors with bends at most 4. Finally we will process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridors to obtain only $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors.
\subsection{Obtaining corridors of types $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$}
\label{subsec:blug}
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid] (0,6) rectangle (2,10);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,4) rectangle (2,6);
\draw[solid] (2,4) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (8,4) rectangle (10,6);
\draw[solid] (8,0) rectangle (10,4);
\draw (1,8) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{12}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{23}$}};
\draw (9,2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridor C consisting of subcorridors $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$ and overlapping regions of the subcorridors $S_{12}$ and $S_{23}$.}
\label{zstructure}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Obtaining spiral corridors}
First, we show how to process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends.
\begin{lem}
\label{theorem1}
Any $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor $C$ can be decomposed into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
W.l.o.g.~assume the center-sc of $C$ to be horizontal (See Figure \ref{zstructure}).
Consider the guillotine cutting sequence of all rectangles in the knapsack.
Let $P$ be the smallest piece containing $C$, i.e., the next guillotine cut in $P$ passes through $C$.
Now we will consider the guillotine cutting sequence of rectangles in $P$ to iteratively decompose the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor into one of the three subcases: ($i$) into two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors, or ($ii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor, or ($iii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
We stop when we reach subcases ($i$) or ($ii$). Otherwise in subcase ($iii$), we continue iteratively.
This sequence can have five types of cuts:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em HS}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc but doesn't pass through center-sc,
\item {\em VS}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc,
\item {\em VC}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through center-sc but doesn't pass through any side-sc,
\item {\em HC}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through center-sc,
\item {\em NC}: cut which doesn't pass through $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
\end{itemize}
Now, if we get cuts of type {\em VC} (or {\em HC}) at any subpiece, we are in case $(i)$ as we obtain 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors.
On the other hand, if we get {\em NC}-type cut we just focus on the subpiece containing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor of the present iteration.
If we have either cuts of type {\em VS} (or {\em HS}) passing through a side-sc then we are dividing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend into a rectangular region and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
If there are no rectangle left in one of the side-sc of the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor, we call the subcorridor to be {\em exhausted}. In case of exhaustion of a subcorridor, we reach case $(ii)$ as the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor can be considered as an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor by ignoring the exhausted side-sc.
Otherwise, we are in case $(iii)$.
The rectangles in side-sc have height $\ge \varepsilon_{{large}} N$, so the consecutive cuts of {\em HS} creating $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor have to be at a distance of atleast $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. This ensures that the number of such corridors is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
Note that we can merge all the adjacent rectangular regions obtained due to successive cuts of {\em VS} into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor of same height till we arrive at a cut of different type (excluding {\em NC}). And since the number of cuts excluding {\em VS} and {\em NC} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$, therefore number of such $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors created due to successive cuts of {\em VS} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
\end{proof}
\arir{need to add a figure. }
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6)--(2,6)--(2,5.5)--(4,5.5)--(4,6)--(6,6)--(6,4)--(5,4)--(5,3)--(4.5,3)--(4.5,4.5)--(5.5,4.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(4.5,5.5)--(4.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,5.5)--(.5,5.5)--(.5,4)--(2,4)--(2,3)--(4,3)--(4,2.5)--(1.5,2.5)--(1.5,3.5)--(0,3.5)--(0,6);
\draw[dotted] (6,4)--(5.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (5,4)--(4.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (6,6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4,6)--(4.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (2,6)--(1.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,6)--(.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0.25,3.6)--(.5,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5,2.5)--(2,3);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 3.5)--(2,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 5)--(2,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4.5 , 5)--(4,5.5);
\draw[->] (.25,4.5) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,3.5); \draw (-.75,3.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+2}$}};
\draw[->] (1,5.75) edge[out=90,in=0,->] (.8,6.5); \draw (.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+1}$}};
\fill [lightgray] (0,3.5) rectangle (0.5,4);
\draw[->] (.2,3.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,2.5); \draw (-.75,2.5) node {\textbf{$S_{i'+2,i'+3}$}};
\draw[dashed] (4.75,3) -- ( 4.75 ,4.25) -- ( 5.75, 4.25) -- ( 5.75, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.75) -- (.25, 5.75) -- (.25, 3.5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{k-bend Corridor Processing}
\label{fig:kbend}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw[dashed] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,5)--(0.75,5)--(0.75,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,5);
\draw (.75,4.5)--(1.25,4.5)--(1.25,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}\label{closedcor2}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{noz}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\arir{write this proof and figure appropriately.}
\begin{proof}
There are two cases.
\noindent \textit{Case 1: $C$ is open corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $C$ have $k$ subcorridors $\{ S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},...,S_{k}\}$ such that $\forall i \in [k-1]$, $S_{i}$ and $S_{i+1}$ share a region $S_{i,i+1}$ with each other. Assume there are 5 subcorridors (If there are less than 5 subcorridors the following proof would still hold) $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$ such that $\{S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend. Let $S_{i'+3}$ be a horizontal subcorridor and $S_{i'+2}$ be situated to the top left of $S_{i'+3}$. Let us consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through the five subcorridors $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$.\\
After a sequence of guillotine cuts through corridor $C$ (including those which is coincident with the edges of $C$) , we get our first cut $l'$ which passes through the unshared region of $S_{i'+3}$. Now consider the guillotine cuts which occured before the cut $l'$. Let $l_{i'+2}$ be the rightmost vertical cut (including those which pass through the boundary of $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ if any) through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$. Extend the cut $l_{i'+2}$ so that it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+2}$ at point $P$. Now draw a line $l_{i'+1}$ from point $P$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{i'+1}$ till it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'}$. Continue the same process by drawing lines $l_{j}$ through corridors $S_{j}$ where $1 \leq j \leq i'$ in similar fashion. Stop drawing these lines when we draw a line $l_{1}$ through $S_{1}$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{1}$ and reach its boundary edge. Lines $\{l_{1},l_{2},..,l_{i'+2}\}$ partitions the corridor $C$ into atmost 2 smaller corridors $C_{1},C_{2}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:kbend}. $C_{1}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$ only. $C_{2}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). In a similar way we can partition $C_{2}$ into atmost 2 corridors $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ where $C_{3}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},..,S_{k}$ only and $C_{4}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). During this process of partitioning we drop atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles. Now suppose that the first cut through $S_{3}$ only is a horizontal cut. This divides the $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$. Note that the reason for choosing $l_{i'+2}$ and extending it to partition the corridor $C$ is that $l_{i'+2}$ is the cut which intercepts the horizontal cut $l'$ in the shared region $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ and hence it enables us to partition $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors using $l'$. Similarly if the first cut through $S_{3}$ only was vertical, then we can partition $C_{4}$ using the vertical cut into 2 corridors, each containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$.\\
Doing the above procedure for all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends concludes the proof for case 1.
\noindent \textit{Case 2: $C$ is a closed corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $S_{1}$ be the leftmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{2}$ be the bottommost horizontal subcorridor in $C$, $S_{3}$ be the rightmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{4}$ be the topmost subcorridor in $C$. Depending on the arrangement of these four subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ we separate out the rectangles from these 4 subcorridors during guillotine cutting sequence into atmost 4 spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend} and Figure \ref{closedcor2}. Items are packed into $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor if the 4 subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor among themselves. Similarly items are packed into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors depending upon the arrangement of corridors among themselves. During the sequence of guillotine cuts if there cut which passes through the unshared region of subcorridor perpendicular to it's orientation then it clearly divides the subcorridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ open corridors with atmost $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ which is handled in Case 1 as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend}. Otherwise if we don't have such cut then eventually one of the subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ is exhausted as the items are being added continuously to the $O(1)$ spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends. So, we are left with $O(1)$ open corridors as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend2} which is again dealt in Case 1. This concludes our proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{no_z}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follows from Lemma \ref{noz} and Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6) -- (0,0) -- (12,0) -- (12,10) -- (4,10) -- (4,4) -- (6,4) -- (6,8) -- ( 10,8) -- (10,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,6) -- (0,6);
\draw (1,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,1) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (11,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (8,9) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (5,7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{5}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridors with more than 3 bends is not possible}
\label{bends}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (12,12);
\draw[thick](2,2) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (11,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (6,1) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,11) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Ring can be converted into corridors without any z bend and consisting of atmost 3 bends.}
\label{rings}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{cor}
Every closed corridor $C$ in corridor decomposition of guillotine separable set of items, obtained after the processing done in Theorem \ref{theorem1} and Lemma \ref{noz}, is a ring.
\end{cor}
\subsubsection{Obtaining corridors with at most three bends}
\begin{lem}
\label{ringlem}
Every ring $R$ obtained after the previous corridor decomposition, can be converted into $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends and possibly a box which is guillotine separable and the box contains a smaller ring. All items in this decomposition remain guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the guillotine cuts sequence on the knapsack. Let $P$ be the smallest subpiece such that ring $R$ lies completely inside $P$ and the next guillotine cut in $P$ is the first cut which passes through $R$. As in Figure \ref{rings}, we call the left vertical, bottom horizontal, right vertical, top horizontal subcorridors of $R$ as $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ respectively.
If any cut in $P$ cuts the smaller vertical (resp. horizontal) edges of $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ (resp. $S_{2}$ and $S_{4}$), then we are done as $R$ gets divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Thus we can assume that first cut passes through a subcorridor and is parallel to its longer edges.
We now define four types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$. The rightmost (resp. leftmost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ ($S_{3}$) is termed as Type $1$ (resp. Type $3$). The topmost (resp. bottommost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ ($S_{4}$) is termed as Type $2$ (resp. Type $4$). These cuts may pass through the edges of the ring too.
The basic idea is to bound all the items of a ring to a bounding box $B$ and $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends such that the box is itself guillotine separable from the rest of the knapsack with guillotine cuts along the edges of $B$. We follow an iterative approach to define bounding box $B$. Clearly obtaining all four type of cuts will result in a box bounded by these cuts which contains a smaller boundary ring. Thus our iterative algorithms halts when either ($i$) all four type of cuts are obtained, or ($ii$) when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (as previously, by exhausted we mean that there is no rectangle left in that subcorridor after a step of our iterative procedure in the new smaller subpiece), or ($iii$) the corridor is divided into smaller open corridors by different type of cut other than the four types defined above.\\
We now formally define the iterative approach to find the bounding box. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a 3 bend corridor $U'$(can be degenerate too) which we assume w.l.o.g.~to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$, as in Figure \ref{ringproc}. That is w.l.o.g.~we assume that Type 4 cut doesn't come before other type of cuts. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut in the subpiece do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: (Type $1$ cut) Add the items on left subpiece that are part of the ring, to the left-vertical subcorridor of the 3-bend corridor $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the right-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $2$: (Type $2$ cut) Add the items on bottom subpiece that are part of the ring, to the horizontal subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the top-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $3$: (Type $3$ cut) Add the items on the right subpiece that are part of the ring, to the right-vertical subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the left-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $4$: (Type $4$ cut) Pack the items of top subpiece in a new horizontal container $C$. Stop the iterative procedure. In this case we have $O(1)$ corridors and a box bounding the smaller ring whose edges are formed due to type cuts.
\item Case $5$: (Cuts perpendicular to the orientation of the subcorridors) Ring in the current subpiece is divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Stop the iterative procedure.
\item Case $6$: (Cuts which don't pass through the ring) Continue only on the newly created subpiece that contains the ring, ignore the other subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
The iterative algorithm stops in Case 5 or Case 4 or when one of the subcorridors get eventually exhausted by a type of cut.
Each of the halting conditions results into $O(1)$ number of open corridors and possibly a box bounding a ring.
\arir{I guess, in case 5 we get 2-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, case 4 we get 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ and a Box, Other cases 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ but no box.}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,4) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 0,4);
\draw[thick] (1,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (2.5,3.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (1,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.9,.45) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw (6.9,3.2) node {\large \textbf{Type 4}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4.5) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.5) -- ( 6,3.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.25) -- ( 6.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,5) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) --(1,5);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) ;
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,5) -- (1.5,5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,5);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 3-bend corridor}
\label{ringproc}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm}
\label{3max}
Any corridor $C$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}W.l.o.g. assume $C$ has no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends (else apply Lemma \ref{}) and more than 3 bends. There are 2 cases.
\noindent {\em Case 1. } $C$ is an open corridor. W.l.o.g~assume $C$ has 4 bends. \ari{Similar argument holds for other corridors with greater than 4 bends.} We also assume $S_{1}$ to be longer in length than $S_{3}$ (see Figure \ref{bends}). We follow an iterative approach to partition the corridor $C$ into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ open corridors with at most 3 bends. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$-corridor $G'$ (can be degenerate too) which we assume to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}$. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut through the corridor $C$ do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: Cut passes through a subcorridor perpendicular to the orientation of that subcorridor.
We get two corridors with smaller number of bends. If they have at most 3 bends, we stop. Otherwise, we continue iteratively with the smaller corridors.
\item Case $2$ : $V_{S_1}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{1}$). Add the items left of $V_{S_1}$ cut which are part of the corridor $C$ to the leftmost-vertical subcorridor of the 4-bend corridor $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $3$ : $H_{S_2}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{2}$). Add the items below $H_{S_2}$ cut to the bottommost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $4$ : $V_{S_3}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{3}$). Add the items right of $V_{S_3}$ cut to the rightmost-vertical subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new subpieces.
\item Case $5$ : $H_{S_4}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{4}$). Add the items above $H_{S_4}$ cut to the topmost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{4}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus our iterative algorithms halts when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (by exhausted we mean that there is all rectangles of that subcorridor is packed in $G'$ after a step of our iterative procedure) or when the portion of corridor $C$ which isn't part of $G'$ is divided into at most 4 open corridors with at most 3 bends as in Case 1. This iterative algorithm halts otherwise one of the type cuts will eventually exhaust a subcorridor as the number of cuts in the guillotine cutting sequence is finite. Each of the halting conditions results into $O(1)$ open corridors.
\noindent {\em Case 2.} $C$ is a ring (see Figure \ref{rings}). Then consider the bounding box $\mathcal{B}$ (if any) which contains a smaller ring as shown in Lemma \ref{ringlem}. For the remainder of the proof by {\em freezing} a rectangle we mean that the rectangle is not moved while rearranging other rectangles.
If there is any end to end cut which passes through only two subcorridors of same orientation then we can divide the corridor into 2 corridors each having 3 bends. So we now assume that there is no such end to end cut in $\mathcal{B}$.
Now consider the sequence of guillotine cuts which separate the rectangles in the ring. If we are cutting through leftmost vertical subcorridor or bottom most horizontal subcorridors then we freeze these rectangles. Now in the remaining portion of the box if there is a cut $l_{1}$ through rightmost vertical subcorridor and the distance between $l_{1}$ and edge of the boundary to the right of it be $d$ then we remove the strip $S$ to the right of $l_{1}$. Then we shift the rest of items of box to the right which isn't frozen by a distance of $d$. Now in the empty region created near the left edge of the box we place the strip $S$ which we removed. Now freeze the rectangles in the strip $S$. Do the same process if there is a cut through the upper most horizontal corridor and now instead of shifting the strip situated above the cut to the left we shift it down by appropriating shifting the remaining portion of the box upwards which isn't still frozen. Note that guillotine separability remains preserved by this rearrangement.
Continue this process till we convert these into single boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. We stop when we exhaust all rectangles or we find a cut that divides the ring into two corridors with 3 bends at most. Then we have a box with boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and possibly 2 smaller boxes each containing corridors with at most 3 bends. This completes our proof.
\end{proof}
\section{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition for guillotine packing} \label{sec:bl}
In this section we will show that we can have a better decomposition of the optimal guillotine packing.
We will show the existence of a corridor-decomposition where all corridors are either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$s.
We will prove the main strcutural result as follows:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:ldecom}
There exists a corridor partition (we call it $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition) and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each corridor is either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor with width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, first we will start with the corridor decomposition from Lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack}. Then process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends in the corridors to obtain only spiral corridors. Thereafter, we will further process to obtain spiral corridors with bends at most 4. Finally we will process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridors to obtain only $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors.
\begin{obs} \label{endtoend}
Given a piece containing a set of guillotine separable rectangles, there must exist an end-to-end guillotine cut in the piece. In other words, the first level of guillotine cuts in the piece is end-to-end.
\end{obs}
We follow some terminologies in the remainder of the section. We define subpiece $P$ completely containing corridor $C$ as \textit{smallest} if the piece $P$ which is obtained from the sequence of guillotine cuts has no previous cut that passed through the corridor $C$ and the next end to end cut in $P$ passes through $C$. We also define \textit{box $B$ bounding} a set of rectangles as a subpiece which is guillotine separable from the rest of the piece. In other ways $B$ if considered as a pseudo-rectangle, forms a guillotine separable arrangement with the rest of the items of knapsack. In the rest of the section, by \emph{freezing} a rectangle, we mean that the rectangle is not moved while shifting other rectangles. A subcorridor $S_{1}$ is said to be \emph{exhausted} if there is no rectangle from $S_{1}$ in the smaller subpiece on which we would running our recursive procedure in the following section. A box $B$ is said to be \emph{bounding} a corridor with atleast one bend if the outermost corners at the bends of the corridor coincides with the corners of the box.
\subsection{Explaination of Algorithm \ref{sepalgo}}
Let $C$ have $k$ subcorridors $\{ S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},...,S_{k}\}$ such that $\forall i \in [k-1]$, $S_{i}$ and $S_{i+1}$ share a region $S_{i,i+1}$ with each other. Suppose that we are asked to separate out a smaller spiral corridor $C'$ with atmost 3 bends (number of bends in $C'$ is denoted by $b(C')$) from a corridor $C$ with $C'$. $\forall c\in[b(C')]$, subcorridor $S_{i'+c}$ contributes items to the subcorridor $S_{c}'$ of $C'$ . Consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through subcorridors $S_{i'},..S_{i'+c}$ such that these cuts are parallel to the orientation of the subcorridor and these occured before the halting condition was satisfied. Consider the set of cuts which occured last in their respective subcorridors. These cuts clearly divide separates $C'$ from $C$. This process clearly depicted in Figure \ref{ringproc} where we want to seperate out $U'$ from the original corridor.
Still work left to be done in this subsection.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-separate($C,List,Halting Conditions$)}\label{sepalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE $k \gets 1$
\WHILE {(No Halting Condition is satisfied)}
\STATE Do Guillotine cuts of Stage-$k$
\ENDWHILE
\STATE Consider the set of cuts parallel to the orientation of Subcorridors in $List$ which occured last in their respective subcorridors.
\STATE Use the cuts in the previous step to separate out the spiral corridor $C'$ (contains from the items in $List$, some corridors can be degenerate too which when not considered may lead to $O(1)$ spiral corridors) from $C$
\STATE Return the Halting Condition which got satisfied in While Loop along with the $C'$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Box-Creation($C$)}\label{boxalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Separate out rectangles into corridor $C'$ until you get one rectangle from each subcorridor of $C$
\IF {(Halting Condition == One rectangle obtained from each subcorridor in $C$)}
\STATE Create a bounding box using the edges of the subpiece which contains the portion excluding $C'$ when atleast one rectangle from each corridor of $C$ was separated out into $C'$.
\STATE Let $S_{i}$ be the last corridor from which a rectangle was separated. Make $S_{i}'$ (\ama{Please define what you mean by $S_{i}'$, i guess $S_{i}'=S_{i}\cap C'$}) as a $B-Corridor$ . Let the corridor formed due to $S_{1}',..,S_{i-1}'$ (\ama{same here please define whats S'}) be $C_{1}$ if $i>1$. Let the corridor formed due to $S_{i+1}',..,S_{c}'$ be $C_{2}$ if $i<c$.
\IF{$i >2$}
\STATE Algo-Box-Creation($C_{1}$)
\ENDIF
\IF{$i<c-1$}
\STATE Algo-Box-Creation($C_{2}$)
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{(Halting Condition == Presence of Cut $l$ perpendicular to the orientation of a subcorridor (doesn't pass through interior of shared region) in $C$)}
\STATE Partition the existing corridors into smaller corridors using the cut $l$
\STATE Call the function Algo-Box-Creation($C''$) for all corridor $C''$ created from $C$ after cut $l$ except the $B-Corridor$.
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Boundary-L($Box,C$)}\label{Lalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Consider a sequence of guillotine cuts to separate the rectangles in $C$ where $C$ is a boundary corridor.
\STATE While doing Step 1, consider consider each strip separated due to cut as a pseudo item. Consiser the subpiece left after all the guillotines in Step 1 as a pseudoitem $B$.
\STATE Remove $B$ and rearrange the remaining pseudoitems to get a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ as done in Section \ref{glp}.
\STATE Place $B$ in the empty region left.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algo-Spiral($C$)}\label{spialgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $List$ be the set of subcorridors containing the leftmost, bottommost, rightmost and topmost subcorridor
\STATE Algo-separate($C,List$,Presence of Cut $l$ perpendicular to the orientation of a subcorridor (doesn't pass through interior of shared region) in $C$)\label{spi2}
\STATE Partition the existing corridors after the previous step into smaller corridors using the cut $l$\label{spi1}
\STATE Call the function Algo-Spiral($C''$) for all corridor $C''$ created from $C$ after Step \ref{spi1} and Step \ref{spi2} iff $b(C'')>3$.
\end {algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Obtaining corridors of types $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$}
\label{subsec:blug}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid] (0,6) rectangle (2,10);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,4) rectangle (2,6);
\draw[solid] (2,4) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (8,4) rectangle (10,6);
\draw[solid] (8,0) rectangle (10,4);
\draw (1,8) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{12}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{23}$}};
\draw (9,2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridor C consisting of subcorridors $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$ and overlapping regions of the subcorridors $S_{12}$ and $S_{23}$.}
\label{zstructure}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Obtaining spiral corridors}
\begin{comment}
First, we show how to process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends.
\begin{lem}
\label{theorem1}
Any $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor $C$ can be decomposed into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
W.l.o.g.~assume the center-sc of $C$ to be horizontal (See Figure \ref{zstructure}).
Consider the guillotine cutting sequence of all rectangles in the knapsack.
Let $P$ be the smallest piece containing $C$, i.e., the next guillotine cut in $P$ passes through $C$.
Now we will consider the guillotine cutting sequence of rectangles in $P$ to iteratively decompose the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor into one of the three subcases: ($i$) into two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors, or ($ii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor, or ($iii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
We stop when we reach subcases ($i$) or ($ii$). Otherwise in subcase ($iii$), we continue iteratively.
This sequence can have five types of cuts:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em HS}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc but doesn't pass through center-sc,
\item {\em VS}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc,
\item {\em VC}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through center-sc but doesn't pass through any side-sc,
\item {\em HC}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through center-sc,
\item {\em NC}: cut which doesn't pass through $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
\end{itemize}
Now, if we get cuts of type {\em VC} (or {\em HC}) at any subpiece, we are in case $(i)$ as we obtain 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors.
On the other hand, if we get {\em NC}-type cut we just focus on the subpiece containing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor of the present iteration.
If we have either cuts of type {\em VS} (or {\em HS}) passing through a side-sc then we are dividing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend into a rectangular region and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
If there are no rectangle left in one of the side-sc of the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor, we call the subcorridor to be {\em exhausted}. In case of exhaustion of a subcorridor, we reach case $(ii)$ as the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor can be considered as an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor by ignoring the exhausted side-sc.
Otherwise, we are in case $(iii)$.
The rectangles in side-sc have height $\ge \varepsilon_{{large}} N$, so the consecutive cuts of {\em HS} creating $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor have to be at a distance of atleast $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. This ensures that the number of such corridors is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
Note that we can merge all the adjacent rectangular regions obtained due to successive cuts of {\em VS} into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor of same height till we arrive at a cut of different type (excluding {\em NC}). And since the number of cuts excluding {\em VS} and {\em NC} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$, therefore number of such $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors created due to successive cuts of {\em VS} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\arir{need to add a figure. }
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6)--(2,6)--(2,5.5)--(4,5.5)--(4,6)--(6,6)--(6,4)--(5,4)--(5,3)--(4.5,3)--(4.5,4.5)--(5.5,4.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(4.5,5.5)--(4.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,5.5)--(.5,5.5)--(.5,4)--(2,4)--(2,3)--(4,3)--(4,2.5)--(1.5,2.5)--(1.5,3.5)--(0,3.5)--(0,6);
\draw[dotted] (6,4)--(5.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (5,4)--(4.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (6,6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4,6)--(4.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (2,6)--(1.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,6)--(.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0.25,3.6)--(.5,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5,2.5)--(2,3);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 3.5)--(2,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 5)--(2,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4.5 , 5)--(4,5.5);
\draw[->] (.25,4.5) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,3.5); \draw (-.75,3.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+2}$}};
\draw[->] (1,5.75) edge[out=90,in=0,->] (.8,6.5); \draw (.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+1}$}};
\fill [lightgray] (0,3.5) rectangle (0.5,4);
\draw[->] (.2,3.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,2.5); \draw (-.75,2.5) node {\textbf{$S_{i'+2,i'+3}$}};
\draw[dashed] (4.75,3) -- ( 4.75 ,4.25) -- ( 5.75, 4.25) -- ( 5.75, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.75) -- (.25, 5.75) -- (.25, 3.5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{k-bend Corridor Processing}
\label{fig:kbend}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw[dashed] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,5)--(0.75,5)--(0.75,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,5);
\draw (.75,4.5)--(1.25,4.5)--(1.25,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Bounding Box of $S$ and Corridors with lesser number of bends}
\label{fig:zbend4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}\label{closedcor2}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{noz}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\arir{write this proof and figure appropriately.}
\begin{proof}
There are two cases.
\noindent \textit{Case 1: $C$ is open corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $C$ have $k$ subcorridors $\{ S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},...,S_{k}\}$ such that $\forall i \in [k-1]$, $S_{i}$ and $S_{i+1}$ share a region $S_{i,i+1}$ with each other. Assume there are 5 subcorridors ( if there are less than 5 subcorridors the following proof would still hold \ama{Please explain a bit, why?} ) $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$ such that $\{S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend. Let $S_{i'+3}$ be a horizontal subcorridor and $S_{i'+2}$ be situated to the top left of $S_{i'+3}$. Let us consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through the five subcorridors $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$.\\
After a sequence of guillotine cuts through corridor $C$ (including those which is coincident with the edges of $C$) , we get our first cut $l'$ which passes through the unshared region of $S_{i'+3}$ ( \amar{cut should be along the orientation of $S_{i'+3}$, else we already get smaller corridors}). Now consider the guillotine cuts which occured before the cut $l'$. Let $l_{i'+2}$ be the rightmost vertical cut (including those which pass through the boundary of $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ if any) through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$. Extend the cut $l_{i'+2}$ so that it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+2}$ at point $P$. Now draw a line $l_{i'+1}$ from point $P$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{i'+1}$ till it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'}$. Continue the same process by drawing lines $l_{j}$ through corridors $S_{j}$ where $1 \leq j \leq i'$ in similar fashion. Stop drawing these lines when we draw a line $l_{1}$ through $S_{1}$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{1}$ and reach its boundary edge. Lines $\{l_{1},l_{2},..,l_{i'+2}\}$ partitions the corridor $C$ into atmost 2 smaller corridors $C_{1},C_{2}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:kbend}\amar{seems like the figure's missing some notations}. $C_{1}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$ only. $C_{2}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). In a similar way we can partition $C_{2}$ into atmost 2 corridors $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ where $C_{3}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},..,S_{k}$ only \amar{we can have items from $S_{i'+3}$ here} and $C_{4}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). During this process of partitioning we drop atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles. Now suppose that the first cut through $S_{3}$ \amar{$S_{3} or S_{i'+3}$?} only is a horizontal cut. This divides the $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$. Note that the reason for choosing $l_{i'+2}$ and extending it to partition the corridor $C$ is that $l_{i'+2}$ is the cut which intercepts the horizontal cut $l'$ in the shared region $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ and hence it enables us to partition $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors using $l'$. Similarly if the first cut through $S_{3}$ only was vertical, then we can partition $C_{4}$ using the vertical cut into 2 corridors, each containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$.\\
Doing the above procedure for all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends concludes the proof for case 1.
\noindent \textit{Case 2: $C$ is a closed corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $S_{1}$ be the leftmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{2}$ be the bottommost horizontal subcorridor in $C$, $S_{3}$ be the rightmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{4}$ be the topmost subcorridor in $C$. Depending on the arrangement of these four subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ we separate out the rectangles from these 4 subcorridors during guillotine cutting sequence into atmost 4 spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend} and Figure \ref{closedcor2}. Items are packed into $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor if the 4 subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor among themselves. Similarly items are packed into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors depending upon the arrangement of corridors among themselves. During the sequence of guillotine cuts if there is a cut which passes through the unshared region of subcorridor perpendicular to it's orientation then it clearly divides the subcorridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ open corridors with atmost $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ which is handled in Case 1 as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend}. Otherwise if we don't have such cut then eventually one of the subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ is exhausted as the items are being added continuously to the $O(1)$ spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends. So, we are left with $O(1)$ open corridors as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend2} which is again dealt in Case 1. This concludes our proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lem}\label{no_z}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follows from Lemma \ref{noz} and Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6) -- (0,0) -- (12,0) -- (12,10) -- (4,10) -- (4,4) -- (6,4) -- (6,8) -- ( 10,8) -- (10,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,6) -- (0,6);
\draw (1,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,1) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (11,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (8,9) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (5,7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{5}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridors with more than 3 bends is not possible}
\label{bends}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (12,12);
\draw[thick](2,2) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (11,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (6,1) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,11) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Ring can be converted into corridors without any z bend and consisting of atmost 3 bends.}
\label{rings}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{cor}
Every closed corridor $C$ in corridor decomposition of guillotine separable set of items, obtained after the processing done Lemma \ref{noz}, is a ring.
\end{cor}
\subsubsection{Obtaining corridors with at most three bends}
\begin{lem}
\label{ringlem}
Every ring $R$ obtained after the previous corridor decomposition, can be converted into $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends and possibly a box which is guillotine separable and the box contains a smaller ring. All items in this decomposition remain guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{comment}
Consider the guillotine cuts sequence on the knapsack. Let $P$ be the smallest subpiece such that ring $R$ lies completely inside $P$ and the next guillotine cut in $P$ is the first cut which passes through $R$. As in Figure \ref{rings}, we call the left vertical, bottom horizontal, right vertical, top horizontal subcorridors of $R$ as $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ respectively.
If any cut in $P$ cuts the smaller vertical (resp. horizontal) edges of $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ (resp. $S_{2}$ and $S_{4}$), then we are done as $R$ gets divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Thus we can assume that first cut passes through a subcorridor and is parallel to its longer edges.
We now define four types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$. The rightmost (resp. leftmost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ ($S_{3}$) is termed as Type $1$ (resp. Type $3$). The topmost (resp. bottommost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ ($S_{4}$) is termed as Type $2$ (resp. Type $4$). These cuts may pass through the edges of the ring too.
The basic idea is to bound all the items of a ring to a bounding box $B$ and $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends such that the box is itself guillotine separable from the rest of the knapsack with guillotine cuts along the edges of $B$. We follow an iterative approach to define bounding box $B$. Clearly obtaining all four type of cuts will result in a box bounded by these cuts which contains a smaller boundary ring. Thus our iterative algorithms halts when either ($i$) all four type of cuts are obtained, or ($ii$) when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (as previously, by exhausted we mean that there is no rectangle left in that subcorridor after a step of our iterative procedure in the new smaller subpiece), or ($iii$) the corridor is divided into smaller open corridors by different type of cut other than the four types defined above.\\
We now formally define the iterative approach to find the bounding box. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a 3 bend corridor $U'$(can be degenerate too) which we assume w.l.o.g.~to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$, as in Figure \ref{ringproc}. That is w.l.o.g.~we assume that Type 4 cut doesn't come before other type of cuts. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut in the subpiece do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: (Type $1$ cut) Add the items on left subpiece that are part of the ring, to the left-vertical subcorridor of the 3-bend corridor $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the right-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $2$: (Type $2$ cut) Add the items on bottom subpiece that are part of the ring, to the horizontal subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the top-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $3$: (Type $3$ cut) Add the items on the right subpiece that are part of the ring, to the right-vertical subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the left-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $4$: (Type $4$ cut) Pack the items of top subpiece in a new horizontal container $C$. Stop the iterative procedure. In this case we have $O(1)$ corridors and a box bounding the smaller ring whose edges are formed due to type cuts.
\item Case $5$: (Cuts perpendicular to the orientation of the subcorridors) Ring in the current subpiece is divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Stop the iterative procedure.
\item Case $6$: (Cuts which don't pass through the ring) Continue only on the newly created subpiece that contains the ring, ignore the other subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
Call the function Algo-Box-Creation($R$) in the Algorithm \ref{boxalgo}.
Each of the halting conditions in Algo-Box-Creation($R$) results into $O(1)$ (\ama{$O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$}) number of spiral corridors which are with atmost 3 bends bounded by a box and possibly a box bounding a ring.
\arir{I guess, in case 5 we get 2-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, case 4 we get 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ and a Box, Other cases 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ but no box.}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,4) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 0,4);
\draw[thick] (1,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (2.5,3.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (1,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.9,.45) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw (6.9,3.2) node {\large \textbf{Type 4}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4.5) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.5) -- ( 6,3.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.25) -- ( 6.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,5) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) --(1,5);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) ;
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,5) -- (1.5,5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,5);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 3-bend corridor}
\label{ringproc}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm}
\label{3max}
Any corridor $C$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}W.l.o.g. assume $C$ has no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends (else apply Lemma \ref{noz}) and more than 3 bends. There are 2 cases.
\noindent {\em Case 1. } $C$ is an open corridor with more than \amar{incomplete}. Call the function Algo-Spiral($C$) in the Algorithm \ref{spialgo}. The function Algo-Spiral($C$) results into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ spiral corridors with atmost 3 bends.
\begin{comment}
W.l.o.g~assume $C$ has 4 bends. \ari{Similar argument holds for other corridors with greater than 4 bends.} We also assume $S_{1}$ to be longer in length than $S_{3}$ (see Figure \ref{bends}). We follow an iterative approach to partition the corridor $C$ into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ open corridors with at most 3 bends. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$-corridor $G'$ (can be degenerate too) which we assume to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}$. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut through the corridor $C$ do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: Cut passes through a subcorridor perpendicular to the orientation of that subcorridor.
We get two corridors with smaller number of bends. If they have at most 3 bends, we stop. Otherwise, we continue iteratively with the smaller corridors.
\item Case $2$ : $V_{S_1}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{1}$). Add the items left of $V_{S_1}$ cut which are part of the corridor $C$ to the leftmost-vertical subcorridor of the 4-bend corridor $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $3$ : $H_{S_2}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{2}$). Add the items below $H_{S_2}$ cut to the bottommost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $4$ : $V_{S_3}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{3}$). Add the items right of $V_{S_3}$ cut to the rightmost-vertical subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new subpieces.
\item Case $5$ : $H_{S_4}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{4}$). Add the items above $H_{S_4}$ cut to the topmost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{4}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus our iterative algorithms halts when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (by exhausted we mean that there is all rectangles of that subcorridor is packed in $G'$ after a step of our iterative procedure) or when the portion of corridor $C$ which isn't part of $G'$ is divided into at most 4 open corridors with at most 3 bends as in Case 1. This iterative algorithm halts otherwise one of the type cuts will eventually exhaust a subcorridor as the number of cuts in the guillotine cutting sequence is finite. Each of the halting conditions results into $O(1)$ open corridors.
\end{comment}\\
\noindent {\em Case 2.} $C$ is a ring (see Figure \ref{rings}). Then consider the bounding box $\mathcal{B}$ (if any) which contains a smaller ring as shown in Lemma \ref{ringlem}.
If the width of the ring inside the bounding box $\mathcal{B}$ divide it into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ smaller rings such that the width of every ring is atmost $\frac{\varepsilon_{{large}} N}{2}$. Call the function Algo-Boundary-L($\mathcal{B'},C'$) in the Algorithm \ref{Lalgo} for all the smaller rings $C'$ created from $C$ along with their bounding box $\mathcal{B'}$. For inner rings the outermost edges is itself the bounding box. After this we get $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
\begin{comment}
For the remainder of the proof by {\em freezing} a rectangle we mean that the rectangle is not moved while rearranging other rectangles.
If there is any end to end cut which passes through only two subcorridors of same orientation then we can divide the corridor into 2 corridors each having 3 bends. So we now assume that there is no such end to end cut in $\mathcal{B}$.
Now consider the sequence of guillotine cuts which separate the rectangles in the ring. If we are cutting through leftmost vertical subcorridor or bottom most horizontal subcorridors then we freeze these rectangles. Now in the remaining portion of the box if there is a cut $l_{1}$ through rightmost vertical subcorridor and the distance between $l_{1}$ and edge of the boundary to the right of it be $d$ then we remove the strip $S$ to the right of $l_{1}$. Then we shift the rest of items of box to the right which isn't frozen by a distance of $d$. Now in the empty region created near the left edge of the box we place the strip $S$ which we removed. Now freeze the rectangles in the strip $S$. Do the same process if there is a cut through the upper most horizontal corridor and now instead of shifting the strip situated above the cut to the left we shift it down by appropriating shifting the remaining portion of the box upwards which isn't still frozen. Note that guillotine separability remains preserved by this rearrangement.
Continue this process till we convert these into single boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. We stop when we exhaust all rectangles or we find a cut that divides the ring into two corridors with 3 bends at most. Then we have a box with boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and possibly 2 smaller boxes each containing corridors with at most 3 bends. This completes our proof.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\section{$(\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK-C}\label{sec:tggkcfull}
\subsection{Simplification of Input}\label{sec:inputsimplification}
For 2GGK-C, due to the following lemma, we will assume that remove $O(1)$ number of items without losing too much profit.
\begin{lem}\cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}
\label{lem:drop}
If there is an algorithm for 2GK-C~which outputs a solution with at least $(1-\varepsilon)OPT-\beta^{O_\varepsilon(1)}$ items in time $O(f(n))$,
then there is also a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm with running time $O(f(n)+n^{{\beta}^{O_\varepsilon(1)}})$.
\end{lem}
Thus for 2GGK-C, large items can be dropped as there are at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{2}})$ large rectangles in any given packing.
In fact, for now we assume that there are only skewed items in the packing. At the end of the section, we show how to repack the small items.
\subsection{Processing of subcorridors from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement}
From Lemma \ref{thm:ldecom}, we obtain $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors are boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of a guillotine separable box.
Now we {\em process} the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors in 2 different ways (see Section \ref{prosec} and for processing of corridors) to obtain $L\&C$-packing, as in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}.
As they are part of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of a guillotine separable box, the processing preserves guillotine separability.
For now we briefly define processing vertical subcorridor (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}). We first divide the subcorridor with $\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{box}}$ strips of equal width. Items intersected by these lines are termed as \emph{kill}, items in the leftmost strip are termed as \emph{thin} and the remaining set of items in the subcorridor as \emph{fat}. We then remove \emph{thin} and \emph{kill} items from the subcorridor and form boxes with maximal rectangular subregions formed between the boundary curve and the subcorridor. We then shift the remaining items in the boxes from other subregions to left to fill in the empty subregion formed by the removal of thin items. The projections from intersection of boxes and boundary curve are used to divide the horizontal subcorridor into similar strips. We again classify the items in this corridor as \emph{kill} for the items being intersected by the lines used to form strips and remove these items. Remaining items are packed as it is in the subregions.
Intuitively, one can view the creation of boxes in {\em processing of a subcorridor} as a series of guillotine cuts.
The rearrangement of boxes can be viewed as movement of subpieces without violating guillotine separability. These movements do not disturb other parts of the bounding box as these cuts do not pass through the rest of the boxes.
After {\em processing} of all vertical subcorridors, we get a partition of $OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ (i.e., items contained inside the initial corridor decomposition) into three sets: $OPT_{{thin}}$, $OPT_{{kill}}$ and $OPT_{{fat}}$.
Now we can use resource augmentation (see Lemma \ref{tool:container}) to get $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont} \subseteq OPT_{{fat}}$ such that all items in $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$ are packed into containers and $p(OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}) \ge (1-\varepsilon)p(OPT_{{fat}})$.
In second way, we process the horizontal subcorridors (analogous to the vertical corridor processing) of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors, where we only remove {\em thin} items from horizontal subcorridors.
Each of these two different processing gives different sets $OPT_{{thin}}$, $OPT_{{kill}}$ and $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$. Based on these sets we classify the rectangles as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $OPT_{T}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{thin}}$ in one of the cases.
\item $OPT_{K}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{kill}}$ in one of the cases.
\item $OPT_{F}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$ in both cases.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{ering}
If we take any one of the cases of processing the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|OPT_{kill}|=O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$;
\item For any given constant $\varepsilon_{{ring}}>0$ there is a sufficiently small $\varepsilon_{{box}}>0$ such that the total height(resp.,width)of items in $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{hor}}$ (resp. $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{ver}}$) is at most $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Now we classify items in the optimal packing into four sets: $OPT_{LT}, OPT_{ST}$ (long and short items in $OPT_T$, resp.), $OPT_{LF}, OPT_{SF}$ (long and short items in $OPT_F$, resp.). \footnote{This notation is different from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, e.g., in our notation $|OPT_{LT}|$ can even be the same as $|OPT_{L}|$.}
\begin{lem}[restatement of Lemma \ref{algo1}]
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{F})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\end{lem}
Now we show the detailed proof of Lemma \ref{algo3}.
\begin{lem}[restatement of Lemma \ref{algo3}]
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+(1-O_{\varepsilon}(1))p(OPT_{F})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_L N$ (resp. $w_{LT} N$) be the total width of vertical items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$) and
$h_L N$ (resp. $h_{LT} N$) be the total height of horizontal items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$).
Then $w_L, h_L \le 1$, $w_{LT},h_{LT} \le \varepsilon_{{ring}}$, and all long items can be packed in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $w_L N$ and height $h_L N$. W.l.o.g.~assume $w_L \le h_L$ (the other case is analogous).
Consider some small positive constant $\tilde{\varepsilon}\le \frac12$ that we will choose later.
Now if $w_L \ge \varepsilon_{{ring}}/\tilde{\varepsilon}$, then from vertical arm of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we
choose a random vertical strip $[\tilde{x}, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L}{2} N+w_{LT} N\le w_L N$) or two random strips $([\tilde{x}, w_L N] \times [0,N]) \cup ([0, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N -w_L N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N> w_L N$), where $\tilde{x}$ is chosen uniformly at random from $[w_L]$. We remove all fat items intersecting with this strip.
If $w_L <\varepsilon_{{ring}}/\tilde{\varepsilon}$, we do not remove any items.
Similarly, if $h_L \ge \varepsilon_{{ring}}/\tilde{\varepsilon}$, we do similar operation on horizontal arm and remove all fat items intersecting random horizontal strip(s) of total width $\frac{h_L}{2} N+h_{LT} N$, and if $h_L < \varepsilon_{{ring}}/\tilde{\varepsilon}$, we do not remove any items.
Now we analyze these three cases separately. \\
\noindent {\em Case 1:} $w_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$.
By averaging argument, the remaining items have profit $\frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{ring}}, \tilde{\varepsilon}}(1)\big)}{2}\cdot OPT_{LF}+OPT_{LT}$ and packed in boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $\le w_L N/2$ and height $\le h_L N/2$ ( as shown in figure \ref{fig:c6}a).
In the remaining rectangular region of the box, we will place containers.
Now we place items in $OPT_{ST}$ in two containers next to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
First, we place a container of height $N/2$ and width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $(\frac{w_L N}{2}, \frac{N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from vertical subcorridors in the processing and then we place a container of width $N/2$ and height $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $(\frac{N}{2}, \frac{h_L N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from horizontal subcorridors in the processing.
As $w_L\le 1/2$, i.e., $1-w_L/2\ge 3/4$, these two containers do not overlap.
Now we are left with a rectangular region of width $N\big(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$ and height $N\big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$. We will use of slightly smaller region of width $N\big(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)$ and height $N\big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)$ to show existence of a guillotine packing by Steinberg's Algorithm (Lemma \ref{lem:steinbeg}). However, Steinberg's algorithm may not give a container-based packing. Hence, we use resource augmentation (Lemma \ref{lemma1}) using the extra $\varepsilon$-strips to obtain a container-based guillotine packing. This along with boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ will give a $L\&C$-packing.
Using Steinberg's algorithm, we can pack any subset of items in $OPT_{SF}$ of total area at most
$\Big(\big(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)\big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)-\big(\frac{w_L}{2}+O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon\big)\big(\frac{h_L}{2}+O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon\big)\Big)N^2/2 \le \frac{N^2}{2}\big(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1)\big)$.
On the other hand, the total area of rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ is at most $N^2\big(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$.
So, consider rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ in non-decreasing order of area till they reach $N^2\big(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$.
These items can be packed in the remaining region and have total profit $\ge p(OPT_{SF}) \Big(\frac{N^2}{2}\big(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}, \varepsilon}(1)\big)\Big) / \Big(N^2\big(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)\Big) \ge ( p({OPT_{SF}}) \cdot \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1)\big)/2$.
Thus we have $L\&C$-packing with profit $p(OPT_{LT})+p(OPT_{ST})+p(OPT_{LF}) \cdot \frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)}{2}+p(OPT_{SF}) \cdot \frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1)\big)}{2}$ ( as shown in figure \ref{fig:c6}b).\\
\noindent {\em Case 2:} $w_L < \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$.
The remaining items have profit at least $\frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)}{2}\cdot OPT_{LF}+OPT_{LT}$ and packed in boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $\le w_L N$ and height $\le h_L N/2$.
In the remaining rectangular region of the box, we will place containers.
Now we place items in $OPT_{ST}$ in two containers next to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
First, we place a container of height $N/2$ and width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $({w_L N}, \frac{N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from vertical subcorridors in the processing and then we place a container of width $N/2$ and height $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $( \frac{N}{2}, \frac{h_L N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from horizontal subcorridors in the processing.
As in this case $w_L=O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)$, we are left with a rectangular region of width $N \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$ and height $N \big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$. We will use a region of width $N \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big)$ and height $N \big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big)$ to pack items from $OPT_{SF}$.
Using Steinberg's algorithm, we can pack any subset of items in $OPT_{SF}$ of total area at most
$\Big((1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon)(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon)-(O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon)(\frac{h_L}{2}+O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon)\Big)N^2/2 \le \frac{N^2}{2}(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1))$.
On the other hand, the total area of rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ is at most $N^2 \big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$.
So, consider rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ in non-decreasing order of area till they reach $N^2 \big(1-\frac{(h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$. These items can be packed in the remaining region and have total profit $\ge p(OPT_{SF}) \Big(\frac{N^2}{2} \big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}, \varepsilon}(1) \big)\Big) / \Big(N^2 \big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)\Big) \ge ( p({OPT_{SF}}) \cdot \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1) \big)/2$.
Thus we have $L\&C$-packing with profit $p(OPT_{LT})+p(OPT_{ST})+p(OPT_{LF}) \cdot \frac{(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))}{2}+p(OPT_{SF}) \cdot \frac{ \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1) \big)}{2}$.
\\
\noindent {\em Case 3:} $w_L < \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_L < \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$.
We do not remove any items from $OPT_L$. We place a container of height $N/2$ and width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $( w_L N, \frac{N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from vertical subcorridors in the processing and then we place a container of width $N/2$ and height $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $( \frac{N}{2}, h_L N)$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from horizontal subcorridors in the processing. Then as above we will use remaining area to obtain a container-based guillotine packing.
Now $w_L, h_L=O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}$ and thus we can use a region of width $N \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big)$ and height $N \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big)$ to pack items from $OPT_{SF}$.
Using Steinberg's algorithm, we can pack any subset of items in $OPT_{SF}$ of total area at most
$\Big( \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big) \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon \big)- \big(O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon \big) \big(O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)+\varepsilon \big)\Big)N^2/2 \le \frac{N^2}{2} \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1) \big)$.On the other hand, the total area of rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ is at most $N^2 \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$.
So, consider rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ in nondecreasing order of area till they reach $N^2 \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)$.
These items can be packed in the remaining region and have total profit $\ge p(OPT_{SF}) \Big(\frac{N^2}{2} \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}, \varepsilon}(1) \big)\Big) / \Big(N^2 \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1) \big)\Big) \ge ( p{OPT_{SF}} \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1) \big)/2$.
Thus we have $L\&C$-packing with profit $p(OPT_{LT})+p(OPT_{ST})+p(OPT_{LF}) +p(OPT_{SF}) \cdot \frac{ \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1) \big)}{2}$. \end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo3}, we get $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
The worst case is obtained when $p(OPT_{T})=p(OPT_{F})$. The resulting packing is guillotine separable as both the packings from Lemma \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo3} are guillotine separable. Lemma \ref{algo1} follows deletion of items from corridors obtained from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement which preserves guillotine property. Lemma \ref{algo3} packs a subset of long items in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and remaining items in the rest of the subpiece using Steinberg's algorithm, followed by a resource augmentation to obtain a container-based packing. It follows by a simple inductive argument that $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-packing can be guillotine separated from the rest of the subpiece. From Lemma \ref{lem:steinbeg} and Lemma \ref{lemma1}, it follows that Steinberg's algorithm and resource augmentation respectively maintain guillotine separability. This concludes that the resulting packing is guillotine separable.
\begin{thm}
\label{LC}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable solution that is packed by a guillotine separable $L\&C$ packing and $OPT$ be optimal packing for 2GGK-C. Then $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection {Previous part, might be removed if above is true.}
\begin{lem}
\label{algo2}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{SF})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
From the optimal packing we remove all the items except the items in $OPT_{SF}$. Now in this new packing consider a horizontal (resp., vertical) random strip of height (resp., width) $3\varepsilon N$. Remove the items which overlap with these vertical and horizontal strips. Let the items which remain be $OPT_{SF}'$. Due to horizontal strip, a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. Similarly, due to vertical strip, a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. From linearity of expectation we get that $p(OPT_{SF}' )\geq (\frac{1}{2}-13\varepsilon)p(OPT_{SF})$. \\
\\Also clearly $OPT_{SF}'$ can be packed in a square of side length $(1-3\varepsilon)N$. So by doing one sided resource augmentation we can get a packing with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ in a square with side length $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. In $N \times N$ knapsack we can pack all items in $OPT_{LT}$ in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Two containers of dimensions $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N \times \frac{N}{2}$ and $\frac{N}{2} \times \varepsilon_{{ring}} N$ are created and kept just beside the subcorridors of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in such a way that the 2 created subcorridors don't overlap with each other. We pack all the items in $OPT_{ST}$ in these two containers. In the remaining square region which doesn't have items from $OPT_{T}$ we can pack the items from $OPT_{SF'}$ with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ as the square region has side length at least $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. This concludes the proof of this Lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{idea}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{LF})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [thick] (0,0) rectangle ( 20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- (20,0) -- ( 20,16) -- ( 6,16) -- ( 6, 20) -- ( 0, 20) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (9,7) rectangle (20,9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,8) rectangle (26,8.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- ( 20,0) -- ( 20, 12) -- ( 4, 12) -- ( 4,20 ) -- ( 0 , 20 ) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw ( 0, 10 ) -- ( 20 , 10) ;
\draw ( 1, 0) -- ( 1, 6) -- ( 2, 6) -- ( 2, 8 ) -- ( 4, 8) -- ( 4, 12) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- ( 20,0) -- ( 20, 10) -- ( 4, 10) -- ( 4,20 ) -- ( 0 , 20 ) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw[solid , fill = darkgray] ( 5, 11 ) rectangle ( 6 , 19) ;
\draw[solid , fill = darkgray] ( 7, 10.5 ) rectangle ( 19 , 12) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case2}
\label{case2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}\label{prop1}
\end{figure}
$Case$ $1$: In this case, total width of items in $OPT_{{ver}} \cap I_{long}$ is greater than or equal to $(\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon_{{ring}})N$ and less than $\frac{N}{2}$ and total height of items in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ is more than $\frac{N}{2}$. Since we have excluded large items in this section, the L packing of long items doesn't have large items. Now by averaging argument we can identify a strip of height $\varepsilon N$ and loose profit of at most $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT_{LF})$ in the L-packing by removing only the items of $OPT_{LF} \cap I_{{hor}}$ which overlaps with this strip. If there are any items of $OPT_{LT}$ in the strip then we push it down. In the remaining space we identify a rectangular region which is doesn't cross the boundary curve (as shown in Figure \ref{prop1}(a)) to pack all the items in $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{hor}}$ on top of each other. In a similar fashion we can pack all the rectangles in $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{ver}}$
\\
\\$Case$ $2$: In this case, total width of items in $OPT_{{ver}} \cap I_{long}$ is less than $(\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon_{{ring}})N$ and total height of items in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ is more than $\frac{N}{2}$. We now cannot pack the items of $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{ver}}$ in a vertical strip of width $\varepsilon N$ in the vertical subcorridor as the strip may contain huge profit irrespective of the way it is being chosen. Now consider a horizontal line $l$ at the height of $\frac{N}{2}$ in the knapsack. Let the rectangles in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ above $l$ be $I_{1}$ and the rectangles below $l$ be $I_{2}$. Now, if $p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{2} > p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{1}$ then we remove the items in $I_{1}$ and pack the items of $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{1}$ by removing the least profitable strip of height $\varepsilon N$ of $I_{2}$ in the similar way as done in Case 1. Otherwise if $p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{1} > p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{2}$, then remove the items in $I_{2}$ and remove the least profitable strip of height $\varepsilon N$ from $I_{1}$ by assuming the rectangles of $I_{1}$ to be part of a container of dimension $\frac{N}{2} \times \frac{N}{2}$. Then we place the items in $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{{hor}}$ at bottom right of the knapsack on top of each other in the decreasing order of width. Then place the remaining items of $I_{1}$ on top of the items in $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{{hor}}$ . Now we have a new L packing and an empty square region with height at least $\frac{N}{2}$ and width at least $(\frac{1}{2} + \varepsilon_{{ring}})N$. Therefore we can pack every item belonging to $OPT_{ST}$ in 2 separate containers as shown in Figure \ref{prop1}(b) and (c) .
\\We ignore other cases as they are symmetric to the above two cases.
\\
\\ The profit we can pack is at least $p(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{LF})$
\end{proof}
Now combining Lemma \ref{idea} with Lemmas \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo2} we get $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{7}{10}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.The worst case is obtained when $p(OPT_{T})=3p(OPT_{LF})=3p(OPT_{SF})$.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Adding small rectangles}\label{smallrec}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{dead}
In the packings mentioned in Lemma \ref{algo1} (and Lemma \ref{algo2}), if we build a grid of width $\varepsilon'N=\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}\cdot N$ and delete any cell of the grid that overlaps with the container or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ then total area of the deleted (also called {\em dead}) grid cells is min$\{ (1-\varepsilon) N^{2},a(OPT_{corr})+3\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}\}$ where $a(OPT_{corr})$ denotes the total area of items in $OPT_{corr}$.
\end{lem}
We denote the cells which are not dead as free cells. Now take the knapsack and find the regions which are guillotine separable and do not overlap with any container or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Let us denote these regions as guillotine free region. By appropriate choosing $\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{box},\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ (as shown in subsection \ref{cnt}) we can ensure that the total area of guillotine free regions which don't have both the dimensions greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$ is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{box},\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)\cdot \frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}\cdot N^{2}$ which is at most $O(\varepsilon^{2} N^{2})$. Now the total area of guillotine free region is greater than or equal to the total area of free cells. So the total area of guillotine free regions with both dimensions greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$ is at least $\max \{ (\varepsilon N^{2},a(OPT_{small})\}-O(\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$)). We have sufficient area to pack small rectangles of the packings in Lemma \ref{algo1} (and Lemma \ref{algo2}).
\begin{lem}\label{bigL}
In the packing mentioned in Lemma \ref{algo3}, consider a similar grid as created in Lemma \ref{dead}. Then the total area of deleted grid cells is at most $a(OPT_{L})+a(OPT_{ST})+5\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2}$+min$\{(1-\varepsilon)a(R'),a(OPT_{corr})+3\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}\}$ where $R'$ is the maximal rectangular region in the knapsack which doesn't contain items from $OPT_{L}$ and $OPT_{ST}$. Grid cells are considered to be dead if they overlap with any rectangle
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Remove the containers in $R'$. Consider a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in the packing (the region not containing $R'$) under consideration such that the vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ is top-left of horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. In the packing of Lemma \ref{algo3}, we can ensure that width of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ is at most $\frac{N}{2}$. Now consider the first column of grid cells from left. The area of dead cells in first column is at most $\varepsilon'N^{2}$. In the second column of grid cells from left if there are $x$ grids cells which are dead then the length of all the long rectangles in the first column is at least $(x-1)\cdot \varepsilon' N$ due to Lemma \ref{lpackinglem}. So the area of dead cells in second column is at most area of rectangles in the first column plus $\varepsilon'^{2}N^{2}$. Adding up the area of all the dead cells in this manner and repeating the same for horizontal rectangles we get total area of deleted grid cells to be at most $a(OPT_{L})+a(OPT_{ST})+3\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2}$. Now restore the containers which were removed from $R'$ to their original position. Applying Lemma \ref{dead} to $R'$, we get that the area of dead cells
inside $R'$ is at most $\min \{(1-\varepsilon)a(R'),a(OPT_{corr})+3\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}\}$. Additional $2\varepsilon' N^{2}$ can be lost if the gridcell intersects with the boundary of $R'$.
\\A box is said to be $\varepsilon'$-large if both dimensions are greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$. Now there are {\em $\varepsilon'$-large} guillotine free regions in the rectangular region $R'$ which has total area of at least area(free cells in $R'$)-$O(\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$)).\\
Now we describe a procedure to obtain $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes (to pack the small rectangles) from the free cells in the region excluding $R'$ which is the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Note that these $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes when considered as pseudorectangles are guillotine separable. Consider the first column of grid cells from the left and assume that we have free cells in this column. Separate the horizontal rectangle, if any (using a horizontal guillotine cut), which overlaps with this first column. Now consider the rightmost vertical cut which passes through this column. The distance of this cut from the right-hand side of this column is at most $\varepsilon_{{small}} N$. So we obtain $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes in the first column which are guillotine separable. Continue the same process for other columns which overlap with the vertical subcorridor of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Free cells which are in the horizontal subcorridor at the end of this process are guillotine separable.
\end{proof}
Area of guillotine separable boxes obtained from free cells is at least\\ $(1-\varepsilon)(\max\{ (\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4},a(OPT_{small})\}-O(\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}))$. So if $a(OPT_{small})\geq \frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$ we can pack almost all the small rectangles using NFDH in the guillotine separable $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$-large boxes created and the guillotine free regions present in the region which doesn't contain boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. If $a(OPT_{small})$<$\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$, we can pack all the small rectangles as area of guillotine separable regions and boxes is at least $\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$.
This ensures a packing of profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{small})$ from small items.
\subsection{Relationship between different constants}\label{cnt}
We set $\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ to be $\varepsilon^{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'=\varepsilon_{{ra}}/2$. By choosing a big enough constant $\lambda$ such that number of corridors obtained is far less than $\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \cdot (1/\varepsilon_{{large}}')^{\lambda}$ given that at least one of the dimension of the rectangles while corridor decomposition is greater than $\varepsilon_{{large}}' N$, we set function $f(x)$ in the lemma \ref{class} to be $\frac{x^{3\lambda}}{(2K'(\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}})+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})^{2}}$. Note than $\lambda$ doesn't depend on $\varepsilon_{{large}}'$. Here $K'(x)=(\frac{2}{x^{10}}+(\frac{3}{x^{2}}(M(x))^{2}2^{2M(x)})^{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})$ $\lceil \log_{1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1/x)\rceil/\varepsilon^{2}$ where $M(x)=\frac{1+2x}{x^{2}}$. We set $\varepsilon_{box}$ to be $\varepsilon^{3}\varepsilon_{{large}}^{\lambda}$. This ensures that sum of the heights of the rectangles in $OPT_{thin} \cap I_{hor}$ is less than $\varepsilon^{2} N$. Now we show that all our constraints are satisfied. By lemma \ref{class} we get a pair $(\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{{large}})$ such that $\varepsilon_{{small}} \leq \frac{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{3\lambda}}{(2K'(\varepsilon^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}})+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}}$. Let the total area of guillotine free regions with at least one of the dimensions less than $\varepsilon' N$ be $A_{< \varepsilon'}$. Then $A_{< \varepsilon'} < \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{box}}\cdot(2K'(\delta)+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{\lambda}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}N^{2}<\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$. Here $\delta > \varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}}$. Loose upper bound for $A_{< \varepsilon'}$ is found by multiplying the total number of containers by maximum area of guillotine free region which isn't $\varepsilon'$ large. Here as we said before $\lambda$ is a very large constant such that it satisfies all the inequalities which can be found by finding largest constant $c_{1}$ which arises in our equation which we can safely assume to be say greater than 5 and keeping $\lambda=c_{1}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot 10^{10}}$.
\subsection{Finding the packing in polynomial time} \label{sec:findpack
From Theorem \ref{LC}, we establish that there is a guillotine separable $L\&C$-packing with profit at least $(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$. Now we describe how to guess similar profit packing in polynomial time. From Lemma \ref{class}, we can have $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ number of guesses for the values of $\varepsilon_{{large}}$ and $\varepsilon_{{small}}$. We fix all other constants with the values as specified in Section \ref{cnt}.
Now we consider two packings as from Lemma \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo3}.
For the former case, we have a corridor decomposition with $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of containers. Intuitively, we will first guess the containers from all possible sets of containers, then we will be reducing the problem instance to \emph{Generalized Assignment Problem (GAP)} to assign rectangles to the set of containers and then pack the rectangles assigned in respective containers. Thus we state the following lemma:
\begin{lem}\label{lem:findPacking}
[adapted from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}]
Given a set $C$ of $O(1)$ containers and a set $I$ of rectangles, there is a PTAS to pack a subset $I' \subseteq I$ into $C$ maintaining guillotine property, whether rotations are allowed or not.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that we can can check whether a given packing of items in a knapsack is guillotine separable or not (see Lemma \ref{polygil}).
So we enumerate all the possible choices of container packing and only consider those that are guillotine separable.
This takes polynomial time as the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and possible size set for containers has cardinality $n^{O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)}$. Once we get the containers we assign rectangles to individual containers by reducing to GAP. For every container there is a corresponding bin and for every rectangle there is a corresponding item with profits and sizes assigned w.r.t the type of the containers. After reduction we use PTAS from Lemma \ref{lem:GAP} to assign item to the bins. This gives a corresponding assignment of rectangles to containers. For placing the rectangles in assigned containers we use Lemma \ref{lem:NFDH} to pack them using \emph{Next Fit Decreasing Height (NFDH)} in a guillotine separable arrangement. We claim that in the end of packing guillotine property is maintained as containers are chosen to be guillotine separable and items packed inside them are packed using NFDH which is $2$-stage packing.
\end{proof}
In the latter case, we have packing of a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ containing only long rectangles and in the remaining sub-piece we have a container packing with $O(1)$ containers. We obtain the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-packing of rectangles in the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ using PTAS from Lemma \ref{lem:PTASL}. For the remaining sub-piece we proceed with the same arguments as in first case for finding the packing for a constant number of containers and use lemma \ref{lem:findPacking} for packing them in polynomial time along with maintaining the guillotine separability.\\
Thus considering the best packing of above two, we can find a packing of a subset of given items in the given knapsack in time $n^{O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)}$ such that the items have profit at least $(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\section{One Sided Resource Augmentation}
In this section we show that the proof techniques used in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} for packing rectangles with resource augmentation maintain the guillotine separability of the rectangles.
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma1}
(Resource Augmentation Packing Lemma\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}) Let $I'$ be a collection of rectangles that can be packed into a box of size $a\times b$, and $\varepsilon_{{ra}}$>0 be a given constant. Here $a$ denotes the height of the box and $b$ denotes the width. Then there exists a container packing of $I''\subseteq I'$ inside a box of size $a\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})b$(resp. $(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})a\times b$)such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(I'')\geq (1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}))p(I')$
\item the number of containers is $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)$ and their sizes belong to a set of cardinality $n^{O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)}$ that can be computed in polynomial time;
\item the total area of the the containers is atmost $a(I')+\varepsilon_{{ra}} ab$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
In the following subsections we show how to extend the above lemma using the same proof techniques and show at the end of each proof technique that the set of rectangles is still guillotine separable. Also we consider a=1 and b=1.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon$>0 and let $f(\cdot)$ be any positive increasing function such that $f(x)<x$ for all x. Then, $\exists \delta,\mu \in \Omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$,with $f(\varepsilon)\geq\mu$ such that the total profit of all rectangles whose width or height lies in $(\mu,\delta]$ is atmost $\varepsilon\cdot p(I')$.
\end{lem}
For now we use the value of $\varepsilon$ required in this lemma as $\varepsilon'_{ra}$ and later on define the function $f$ used. By choosing appropriate $\mu,\delta$ we classify the rectangles for this section as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item short if $w \leq \mu$;
\item narrow if $h \leq \mu$;
\item wide if $w > \delta$;
\item high if $h >\delta$;
\item Vertical is the item which is short as well as high i.e. $h >\delta$ and $w \leq \mu$;
\item Horizontal is the item which is wide as well as narrow i.e. $h \leq \mu$ and $w > \delta$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Shifting Argument\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}
The procedure defined in this subsection is used as a tool at various steps of our proof of Resource Augmentation Lemma. Thus we define the processing and establish that it maintains guillotine property with losing no more than a small profit fraction as follows:
\label{shifting1}
\subsubsection{Process}
\begin{figure}[!tbh]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.08,6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.12,.33) rectangle (.12,2.03);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.15,2.49) rectangle (.15,3.89);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.09, 4.3) rectangle (.09,5.93);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.45,.45) rectangle (1.465,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.99, 4.47) rectangle (1.89,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.29, 1.07) rectangle (2.09,3.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.99, 4.97) rectangle (2.19,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (3.04,.75) rectangle (3.34,2.15);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (2.68,2.34) rectangle (2.98,3.74);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (2.3,3.92) rectangle (2.6,5.32);
\draw[dashed] (2.45,0) -- ( 2.45, 6.08);
\draw[dashed] (3.19, 0) -- ( 3.19, 6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.92,.75) rectangle (4.56,3.04);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.39,2.29) rectangle (5.81,4.29);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.71,3.89) rectangle (5.13,5.89);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{figure2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.08,6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.45,.45) rectangle (1.465,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.99, 4.47) rectangle (1.89,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.29, 1.07) rectangle (2.09,3.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.99, 4.97) rectangle (2.19,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.48,.33) rectangle (2.72,2.03);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.45,2.49) rectangle (2.75,3.89);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.51, 4.3) rectangle (2.69,5.93);
\draw[dashed] (2.45,0) -- ( 2.45, 6.08);
\draw[dashed] (3.19, 0) -- ( 3.19, 6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.92,.75) rectangle (4.56,3.04);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.39,2.29) rectangle (5.81,4.29);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.71,3.89) rectangle (5.13,5.89);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{figure1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{For each packing originally arranged as in (a), we can remove a low profit subset of rectangles (darkgray in the picture), to make space for short-high rectangles that cross the left edge of the box (mediumgray)}
\label{shifting}
\end{figure}
Consider a box $B$ with width $\delta^{2}$ consisting of vertical items only and leftmost edge intersecting some vertical items as shown in Figure \ref{figure2}. Also assume that the items in the box are guillotine separable Divide the box in vertical strips of width $\mu$. Using averaging argument, there must exist a strip where the weight of items which overlaps with it is atmost 2$\mu p(B)$ $\leq \varepsilon_{{ra}}'p(B)$ where $p(B)$ denotes the total profit inside the box $B$. Now remove this low profit strip and place the items intersected by the leftmost edge of the box in the space created by the strip on top of one another.
\subsubsection{Guillotine Separability}
The new set of items completely belonging to the strip processed in Section 6.1.1, can be separated with guillotine cuts along the boundary of the strip. Since we delete all the rectangles lying either partially or completely on the strip, there is no rectangle which intercepts the cuts along the boundary of strip. Thus the strip can be guillotine separated from the rest of the knapsack. Given that the rest of the plane is already guillotine separable, it follows that the process of shifting maintains the guillotine structure.
\subsection{Rounding wide rectangles}\label{roundwiderects}
We descirbe a procedure for rounding width and cordinates of wide items to nearest integral multiples of $\delta^{2}$ in this subsection. In the subsequent subsection \ref{box} we descirbe the procedure for packing vertical items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} thereby maintaining the guillotine property in the processing. We thus will be proving the following lemma in:
\begin{lem}\label{verticalandbox}
Let $I'$ be the set of guillotine separable items that can be packed into a $1\times1$ box. Then there exists a guillotine separable packing of a profitable subset $I^{+}$ $\subset$ $I'$ with profit of $I^{+}$ is atleast $(1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}')$$.p(I')$ in a $1\times(1+2\delta)$ box such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every wide item in $I^{+}$ has width rounded up to the nearest multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and is shifted such that its leftmost ordinate is also an integral multiple of $\delta^{2}$.
\item Every box in $B$ has width $\delta^{2}$ and stores atleast one vertical item packed in at most $1/\delta^{7}$ containers.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
We prove the second point of Lemma \ref{verticalandbox} in the next subsection \ref{box}. For now we will be defining the processing done and prove the first point of the lemma.
\subsubsection{Process}
\begin{figure}[b]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (26,18);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (10,14);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (10,8) rectangle (18,16);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (18,4) rectangle (26,10);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (18,12) rectangle (26,18);
\draw[dashed] (0,2) -- ( 26,2);
\draw[dashed] ( 10,2) -- (10,18);
\draw[dashed] ( 18,2) -- ( 18,18);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig h}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (30,18);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (10,14);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14,8) rectangle (22,16);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,4) rectangle (30,10);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,12) rectangle (30,18);
\draw[dashed] (10,11) -- ( 14,11);
\draw(12,12) node {\Huge \textbf{$2\delta^{2}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\label{fig h}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Strips which share boundary with vertical cuts are shifted by $2\delta^{2}$}
\label{rounding}
\end{figure}
We start with optimal packing of rectangles belonging to $R'$. For now we remove the vertical rectangles in $R'$ which will be repacked later.
Partition the wide rectangles into the groups $\{ $$R_{0}$,$R_{1}$,....,$R_{k-1}$$\}$ where $k=1/\delta$. Let $g(R)$ denote the distance between the leftmost edge of the knapsack and the leftmost vertical cut in the guillotine cutting sequence which separates the rectangles $R$ from the items left to it. Rectangles $R\in R_{i}$ have $\lfloor g(R)\rfloor=i\delta$. Now we describe a procedure on how to round the wide rectangles to the nearest integer multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and shift them horizontally so that the starting and ending coordinates is an integral multiple of $\delta^{2}$. Now consider rectangles in group $R_{0}$ from top to bottom and let these be $\{ R_{0_{1}},R_{0_{2}},...,R_{0_{m}}\}$ where $R_{0_{1}}$ is the topmost and $R_{0_{m}}$ is the bottom-most rectangle. Now consider the first vertical cut which separates $R_{0_{1}}$ from the rectangles right to it.
Now take the strips obtained after the guillotine cutting sequence which share a boundary with the previous vertical cut and shift these strips together to the right by $2\delta^{2}$ and repeat the procedure by considering each strip as pseudo rectangle and by considering the vertical strips in the same manner as before, shift the new strips which share boundary with these new strips as done in Figure \ref{rounding}. This process eventually terminates and the total increase in width is $2\delta^{2}$. Now we show that if we repeat the same procedure for the rest of the rectangles in $R_{0}$ there won't be any increase in the width of the knapsack. If the subsequent rectangle $R_{0_{2}}$ shares a vertical cut in the original $1\times1$ knapsack then we already have $2$$\delta^{2}$ space for the rectangles in the new $1\times(1+2\delta^{2})$ knapsack. Otherwise we continue with the same shifting process as done in case of the rectangle $R_{0_{1}}$. If there is any vertical cut which is shared with the vertical cuts obtained in the case of $R_{0_{1}}$ then there is no need to shift the strips which shared the boundary in the original $1\times1$ knapsack as they have been already shifted and there is $2\delta^{2}$ space left. Otherwise we continue and eventually reach the right most boundary where we have $2\delta^{2}$ space left. So there is no increase in the width. Now repeat the same procedure for the rest of the group of wide rectangles in the increasing order of the group numbers.
\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
When we apply the above procedure to the group $R_{i}$ the groups $\{R_{0},R_{1},.....R_{i-1}\}$ remain unaffected.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Rectangles in group $R_{i}$ is shifted atmost $i$ times. So maximum number of times a rectangle is shifted is atmost $1/\delta$ and hence the extra width required is $1/\delta\cdot2\delta^{2}=2\delta$. So we can round the wide rectangles to the nearest integer multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and shift them horizontally so that the starting and ending coordinates are integral multiples of $\delta^{2}$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{ Guillotine Separability }
Basic idea considers the fact that we consider the strip of rectangles immediately right adjacent to $R$ as a pseudo item. The shifting of this pseudo item is done horizontally right to the nearest integral multiple of $2$$\delta^{2}$. Shifting horizontally doesn't disturb the guillotine separability as the guillotine cuts are always along the boundary of pseudo rectangle. We shift the entire guillotine partition (strip) to the immediate right of given rectangle. It follows from Remark \ref{rem1} that in every iteration the rectangles to the left of rectangle being processed remain unaffected. Since every iteration involves same shifting of pseudo rectangles horizontally to the right, the resulting rectangles in extended knapsack maintains guillotine structure.
\subsection{Containers for vertical rectangles\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}
\label{box}
Now we will descirbe the procedure for packing vertical items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and thus establishing the safety of guillotine property in the processing. We will thus be establishing the proof of second point of lemma \ref{verticalandbox} thereby completing the proof of same as follows:
\subsubsection{ Process }
Draw vertical lines spaced equally by $\delta^{2}$. In each vertical strip consider the maximal region which doesn't contain or overlap with any wide rectangle. We define a box for each such region which consists at least one vertical rectangle and denote such a set of boxes by $B$. Also consider $M:=(1+2\delta)/\delta^{2}$. A vertical rectangle can overlap with atmost $2$ vertical boxes and by considering these rectangles to be part of right of the two boxes and by the shifting argument as explained in subsection \ref{shifting1} we can have vertical boxes with no rectangle intersecting the boundary. By using the strip packing mentioned in \cite{kenyon2000near} we repack vertical items in a vertical box into atmost $1/\delta^{7}$ containers.
\subsubsection{ Guillotine Separability }
The argument follows similarly as in subsection \ref{shifting1}. Consider each of these box as a pseudo-item. It can be separated by a sequence of guillotine cuts as there are no items intersecting the boundary after processing by shifting argument. So on a whole the knapsack is still guillotine separable. The repacking of vertical items maintains guillotine property as mentioned in \cite{kenyon2000near}. A pseudo-item can either be a single wide rectangle which is already guillotine separable or it can be strip packing of vertical rectangle which also follows guillotine property or it can be a set of items which follows guillotine property from original knapsack. Thus the new arrangement obtained maintains guillotine separability property.
\subsection{Packing wide rectangles into O(1) containers }
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Given rectangles at the end of subsection \ref{box} and considering the vertical boxes as pseudo-item there exists a packing of wide rectangles with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(OPT)$ into $(K+3/\delta^{3})M2^{M}$ containers where $K\leq O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$
\end{lem}
Intuitively the proof involves obtaining a fractional packing with $O(1)$ containers and then showing an existence of an integral packing with a profitable set of items.
\subsubsection{Fractional Packing}\label{fracpack}
We follow the same procedure of fractionally packing the items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}. Following the processing in section \ref{box}, we obtain a set of guillotine separable items packed in boxes and a set of wide rectangles. Since the items inside the boxes are guillotine separable, we can consider a box as a single pseudo item and process it along with wide rectangles. Let us denote set of pseudo-items as $B$ and the set of wide items as $W$. The algorithm $Alg_{frac}$ takes in input a subset $K$ of $B$ and returns their fractional packing as follows. We have $R_{slice}$ as the set $K$ $\bigcup$ $W$. Draw end to end horizontal lines along horizontal edges of all the items $I$ $\in$ $R_{slice}$ slicing the rest of the rectangles of knapsack. Each such end to end horizontal slice so formed is termed as a slice. We then define $configuration$ as the set of intercepts of vertical edges of items with the horizontal line at the given $y$-coordinate. We slice the rectangles suitably to arrange stripe with same configuration together. We then pack sliced rectangles into $M:=(1+2\delta)/\delta^{2}$ number of containers. Each stripe can have atmost $2^{M-1}$ configurations, which implies each stripe can contain at most $M2^{M-1}$ containers. Thus the total number of containers is atmost $2\times(|R_{slice}|+1)$$\times$$M2^{M-1}$. Since $|W|$$\leq$$\frac{1}{\delta^{2}}$ which follows from subsection \ref{box}, we get $|R_{slice}| \leq |K| + \frac{1}{\delta^{2}} $. Thus total number of containers cannot exceed $ (|K| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : While slicing and rearranging of rectangles during the fractional packing, the slided rectangles remains within the initial stripe created by extending the top and bottom edges of pseudoitems and some wide items and therefore vertical boxes as pseudoitems and some wide items which are never sliced are guillotine separable. Also the containers obtained at the end of this stage are guillotine separable as the container's height is equal to the height of the configuration\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and no container is part of 2 different configuration.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection { Integral Packing }
We follow a greedy - recursive approach to convert the fraction packing obtained in section \ref{fracpack} to an integral packing without loosing much profit from optimal packing same as in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}. The greedy algorithm $Alg_{G}$ run at each iteration proceeds as follows. Given a set of items obtained after fractional packing, pick items with same widths and try packing them in the same container. Either all items can be packed or single item can be left outside, we just discard the item ,close our current container and start packing in the other containers. We now propose the recursive formulation for integral packing. Consider set of items $S_{0}$ s.t. $S_{0}= \phi$. Run $Alg_{frac}$ on $S_{0}$, followed by $Alg_{G}$ on the output of fractional packing. Analyze the profit of set of items discarded say $S_{1}$ in greedy algorithm and it is clear that the number is bounded by the number of corridors. Thus the number of items $S_{1}$ i.e. $|(S_{1})|$ $\leq$$ (|S_{0}| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$. Check if $p(S_{1})$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon'_{ra}$$p(OPT)$. If yes we have our set $S$$=$$S_{0}$ and an integral packing with the set $S_{0}\bigcup W$$\backslash$$S_{1}$. If not we recursively run $Alg_{frac}$ on $S$$=$$S_{0}\bigcup S_{1}$, followed by $Alg_{G}$ on the output of fractional packing. Same as before we consider the set of discarded items as $S_{3}$ which is bounded by number corridors ( $\leq $$ (|S| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$). Proceeding recursively every set $S_{k}$ is bounded by $|S_{k}|$ $\leq$ $ (|S_{0}+S_{1}+S_{2}+...+S_{k-2}+S_{k-1}|$ + $\frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$ which implies $|S_{k}|$ $\leq$ ($\frac{3}{\delta^{3}} $$M2^{M}$ $\times$$M2^{M}$$)^{k}$. Thus k can at most be $\frac{1}{\varepsilon'_{ra}} - 1$. Therefore number of containers is atmost $|S_{\frac{1}{\varepsilon'_{ra}} - 1}|$ = $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$. Thus we are packing subset $I'$ of given set of items $I$ in $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$ containers without losing no more than constant fraction of profit i.e. $p(I')$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon'_{ra}$$p(I)$
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : During integral packing, the rectangles of same width are packed on top of each other in the guillotine separable containers. So after the integral packing the rectangles are still guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Rounding down horizontal and vertical containers}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $C$ be a horizontal (resp. vertical) container defined above, and let $I_{C}$ be the set of rectangles packed in $C$. Then, it is possible to pack a set $I_{C}'\subseteq I_{C}$ of profit at least $(1-3\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(I_{C})$ in a set of at most $\lceil \log_{1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1/\delta) \rceil /\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{2}$ horizontal (resp. vertical) containers that can be packed inside $C$ and such that their total area is at most $a(I_{C})$.
\end{lem}
We begin with processing horizontal rectangles first (similar proof holds for vertical rectangles). Define a group of horizontal rectangles $I_{1},I_{2},...,$ in a single horizontal container $C$ where the width of the widest rectangle $I_{j}$ is bigger than the smallest one by a factor of 1+$\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and define container $C_{j}$ for each such group. Then in each such new container $C_{j}$ the operations done are either removing a set of low profit rectangles or making one container for a certain set of rectangles and shrinking the container with remaining rectangles.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : Operations performed in the processing in this section involve deleting of items and shrinking of containers. It is trivial that deleting items doesn't disturb the guillotine property of remaining set of items. All containers when considered as pseudo-rectangles can be separated by guillotine cuts. Shrinking of any such pseudo-rectangle doesn't disturb this guillotine structure. In fact guillotine separability inside such a pseudo item isn't affected as shrinking of plane (shrinking along axis parallel directions doesn't affect the existing guillotine cuts inside it). Therefore the packing obtained after the whole processing follows guillotine separability.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Packing small rectangles}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
In a $1\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}')$ knapsack, there exists a packing of small rectangles into atmost $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1)$ area containers such that the property (3) of Lemma \ref{lemma1} is satisfied.
\end{lem}
We process the knapsack by creating a non-uniform grid by extending each side of the containers until they hit the boundary or the other containers. Plus a uniform grid is created by adding vertical and horizontal rectangles which are spaced by a distance of $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$. Now cells which do not overlap with any other container are defined to be free cell. Then the small rectangles are packed into free cells with both dimensions at least $8\mu/\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and possibly an extra container $C_{S}$ with height and width $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'/2$ using NFDH. Then items $R'_{D}\subseteq R_{D}$ in an area container $D$ is taken and repacked into a container $D'$ such that $p(R'_{D})\geq(1-4\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(R_{D})$ and width of $D'$ is $w(D)$ and height is $(1-\varepsilon_{{ra}}')h(D)$. The previous procedure is not applied to $C_{S}$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : During construction only we get the sequence of guillotine cuts along the grid which separated out the containers individually. Since the grid is formed by extending the boundaries of the containers, we can claim that they form guillotine cuts because containers so obtained from previous subsection were guillotine separable. Moreover the packing of small rectangles inside the grid cells can be isolated from same sequence of cuts. Since items within such a packing are packed using NFDH the arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we conclude that the arrangement so obtained follows guillotine property.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Rounding containers to a polynomial set of sizes}
\begin{definition}
For a set $I$ of rectangles, we define $WIDTHS(I)=\{w_{j}|R_{j}\in I\}$ and $HEIGHTS(I)=\{h_{j}|R_{j}\in I\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Given a finite set $P$ of real numbers and a fixed natural number $k$, we define the set $P^{(k)}=\{(p_{1}+p_{2}+...+p_{l}\}+ip_{l+1}|p_{j}\in P \forall j,l\leq k,0\leq i\leq n, i \in I \}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma2}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon$>0, and let $I$ be set of rectangles packed in a horizontal or vertical container $C$. Then for any $k\geq 1/\varepsilon$, there is a set $I' \subseteq I$ with profit $p(I')\geq(1-\varepsilon)p(I)$ that can be packed in a container $C'$ smaller than $C$ such that $w(C)\in WIDTHS(I)^{(K)}$ and $h(C)\in HEIGHTS(I)^{(K)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We prove the argument for vertical containers and the similar construction follows for horizontal case. The basic sketch revolves around linear grouping of items according to widths and further rounding to a given set of choices. Consider set of items $R$ in the container in sorted order of widths. If $|R|$ is sufficiently small, i.e., $\leq$ $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ then we already meet the condition $\sum_{r \in R}w_{r}$ $\in$ $WIDTHS(I)^{(K)}$. If not, we consider the set of items, say $R'$, with largest width from the set of sorted items such that $|R'|$ $\leq$ $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$. Using averaging argument, there must exist an item $r$ $\in$ $R'$ such that $p(r)$$\leq$$\varepsilonp(R')$. We can safely discard $r$ without losing no more than constant $O(\varepsilon)$ profit. Consider the set $R\backslash R'$, every item in the set has width almost $w(r)$, sum of widths of all items in $R\backslash {r}$ is at most $(n - \frac{1}{\varepsilon})w(r)$. Thus we can pack all the items in $R \backslash {r} $ in a new container. The sum of widths of items in the container is $w( R \backslash {r})$ $=$ $w(R') + (\lceil \frac{w(R\backslash R')}{w(r)} \rceil ) w(r) $ $\leq$ $w(R') + n$$w(r) $. Thus width of the new container belongs to the set $WIDTHS(R)^{(K)}$. The given choice of factor $(\lceil \frac{w(R\backslash R')}{w(r)} \rceil )$ $\leq$ $n$ implies that the width of new container formed is at most width of original container considered.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : Applying processing done in Lemma \ref{lemma2} to a vertical container maintains guillotine separability as items are stacked beside each other, i.e., items are packed side by side sharing at most one common vertical edge and can thus be separated by single stage vertical guillotine cuts. Similar argument follows for proving guillotine separability of horizontal containers. Thus Lemma \ref{lemma2} maintains guillotine separability.
\end{remark}
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma3}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon$>0, and let $I$ be a set of rectangles that are assigned to an area container $C$. Then there exists a subset $I'\subseteqI$ with profit $p(I')\geq(1-3\varepsilon)p(I')$ and a container $C'$ smaller $C$ such that: $a(I')\leqa(C)$,$w(C')\in WIDTHS(I)^{(0)}$,$h(C')\in HEIGHTS(I)^{(0)}$,and each $R_{j}\inI'$ is $\frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}$-small for $C'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the initial assumption that items in any container $C$ are $\varepsilon$-small for $C$, i.e., $\forall R \in I$ which are packed inside $C$ $w(R)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilonw(C)$ and $h(R)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilonh(C)$. Thus $a(R) \leq \varepsilon^{2} a(C)$. We first shrink the container C such that boundaries of C coincide with extreme edges of items in the set of packed items $I$. Let $w_{max}(I)$ and $h_{max}(I)$ be respectively be the maximum height and width of items in $I$. We further reduce the dimension of C by rounding off to maximum multiple of maximum item width ( resp. height ) less than the original dimension. The new container $C_{1-\varepsilon}$ formed is such that the $w(C_{1-\varepsilon})$ $=$ $w_{max}(I)$ $ \lfloor \frac{w(C)}{w_{max}(I)} \rfloor$ and $h(C_{1-\varepsilon})$ $=$ $h_{max}(I)$ $ \lfloor \frac{h(C)}{h_{max}(I)} \rfloor$.
We then follow a greedy approach to pack a subset $I'$ $\subset $ $I$ in container $C_{1-\varepsilon}$. Pack the item in order of non-increasing area-density ( profit/area ) using NFDH.
Now we analyze the process followed above and prove the bounds. We get $a(C') = ( 1 - \varepsilon )^{2} a(C)$ $\geq$ $a(C)$. Since we pack as many items as possible in the area and the area of each item in $I$ is at most $\varepsilon^{2}$, the area of items $I'$ packed in $C'$ is $a(I')$ $\geq$ $(1-\varepsilon - \varepsilon^{2} ) a(C) $. Thus we get $p(I') \geq (1 - 3$$\varepsilon) p(I)$. The items in $I'$ are $\frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}$-small for the new container. Also by rounding the dimensions of container to integral multiple of maximum dimensions of items packed inside, we get $w(C')$ $\in$ $WIDTHS(I)^{(0)}$ and $h(C')$ $\in$ $HEIGHTS(I)^{(0)}$. This concludes the proof of lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : All containers when considered as pseudo-rectangles can be separated by guillotine cuts. Shrinking of any such pseudo-rectangle doesn't disturb this guillotine structure. In fact guillotine inside such a pseudo item isn't affected as shrinking of plane ( shrinking along axis parallel directions doesn't affect the existing guillotine cuts inside it ). Since items within such a packing are packed using NFDH the arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we conclude that the arrangement so obtained follows guillotine property.
\end{remark}
By considering $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and applying Lemma \ref{lemma2} and Lemma \ref{lemma3} to all containers, we have completed the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1} as $\frac{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}{1-\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}\leq\varepsilon_{{ra}}$. Also we have proved that Lemma \ref{lemma1} can be extended to the case of guillotine separable rectangle and hence we get one sided resource augmentation for guillotine separable rectangles.
\section{$(\frac{5}{4}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK(R)-C}\label{sec:tggkcrfull}
We will continue to assume that we have only skewed items and we can remove $O(1)$ number of items, we use the same notations as the previous section.
Let $APX$ be the best container-based packing.
As in Lemma \ref{algo1}, the processing of subcorridors give:
\begin{lem}
$|APX|\geq |OPT_{F}|+|OPT_{T}|/2$.
\label{rlem1}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
$|APX|\geq \frac{2|OPT_{F}|}{3}+|OPT_{T}|$.
\label{rlem2}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{rlem2} holds even in the case of guillotine setup as the proof techniques used in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} don't disturb the guillotine property. Only processing done during the proof include deletion of items and replacement (rotating sub-pieces and \emph{mirroring}) of sub-pieces containing items completely inside it. The deletion of items from optimal guillotine packing cannot disturb the guillotine property. Replacement of sub-pieces with items completely inside it, can be considered as rotation or mirroring of a pseudoitem which is guillotine separable. Removing this pseudoitem from packing leaves another guillotine separable sub-piece and then augmenting it back to the already guillotine separable plane maintains guillotine property. Thus summing up, guillotine separability is maintained after the processing.
\end{proof}
From Lemmas \ref{rlem1}, \ref{rlem2}, we get $p(APX)\geq(\frac{4}{5}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
The worst case is obtained when $p(OPT_{T}):p(OPT_{F})=2:3$.
\begin{thm}
\label{LCR}
Let $APX$ be the most profitable solution that is packed by a guillotine separable container packing and $OPT$ be optimal packing for 2GGK-C. Then $p(APX)\geq(\frac{4}{5}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Finding the packing in polynomial time
This section is analogous to section \ref{sec:findpack}. We know that the there is a packing with $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of containers of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Also from Theorem \ref{LCR}, we establish that the given packing has a profit of at least $(\frac{4}{5}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ which gives us an approximation factor of $\frac{5}{4}+O(\varepsilon)$. We appropriately set all other constants as done in \ref{sec:findpack} in $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ time. We take into account two packings as from \ref{rlem1} and \ref{rlem2} to pack the rectangles and consider the best of two. Since both the packings are container packing with constant number of containers and a possible size set for containers has cardinality $n^{O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)}$, we guess a near optimal guillotine separable container packing. Then we use PTAS from Lemma \ref{lem:findPacking} since it is applicable to rotated case as well and conclude that we can find both the packings in polynomial time.
\section{Weighted case}\label{w2dgk}
\subsection{Shifting Argumentation\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}
\label{subsec:shifting}
We aim to pack back the items dropped in all the previous steps of processing. Reconsidering the items dropped, i.e., $OPT_{kill}$, $OPT_{{large}}$, $OPT_{corr}^{cross}$, we give a similar processing as devised in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} for packing these items with just losing a small fraction of profit. Intuitively we divide the knapsack into a grid iteratively and observe the profit of items dropped as a result of processing the items which are classified depending on the grid. Using standard averaging argument, we can claim that recursively doing the same procedure for $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times we get a set of items which can be dropped and have a profit of $O(\varepsilon)$.
\subsubsection{Grid and Corridor Partition}\label{gridpartition}
We define $K(t)$ to be the set of items dropped in $i^{th}$ iteration and $\kappa(t)$ as the union of first $t$ sets $K(0),..., K(t)$. We initiate $K(0)$ to be the union of set of all items dropped in all the processing steps before (e.g., $OPT_{large}$, $OPT_{K}$, $OPT_{corr}^{cross}$). If the profit of items in $K(t)$ at any iteration $t$ is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$ we get the desired set of items and halt.
Consider $t^{th}$ iteration, we denote $G(t)$ as the grid formed by extending the $x$, $y$ coordinates of the items in $\kappa(t)$. Consider $C_{t}$ to be the set of grid cells of $G(t)$. We classify items in the knapsack as small, large, horizontal, vertical as before depending on its intersection with the cells it overlaps. \\
An item $i$ having non-zero intersection with a cell $C$ $\in$ $C_{t}$ is classified inside $C$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $OPT^{t}_{ver}(C)$, if $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{hor}(C)$, if $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{large}(C)$, if $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{small}(C)$, if $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{intermediate}(C)$, if $h(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)]$ or $w(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)]$
\item $OPT^{t}_{skew}(C)$ $=$ $OPT^{t}_{hor}(C) \cup OPT^{t}_{ver}(C)$.
\end{enumerate}
As done in previous sections, we can fix $\varepsilon_{small}$ and $\varepsilon_{large}$ such that the profit of items classified as intermediate for any cell is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$. $\varepsilon$ $\geq$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $\geq$ $f(\varepsilon_{small})$ $\geq$ $\omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$, for some positive increasing function $f(.)$ .\\
We add items not contained in $\kappa(t)$ in $OPT_{large}(C)$ to $K(t+1)$ for all $C$ not fully covered by any item in $\kappa(t)$. We do corridor decomposition as in section \ref{sec:bldecom}, considering only skew items in all the cells.\\%put the reference
Although this corridor decomposition might kill some of the items in $\kappa(t)$ which we want to save. Thus we apply Lemma \ref{focsagain} and \ref{againfocs} which uses further decomposition of corridors with constant number of line segments dropping a $ \varepsilon$ fraction from optimal.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{focsagain}
Let $S$ be an open corridor with $b(S)$ bends. Let $I' \subseteq OPT$ be a collection of items which intersect the boundary of $S$ with $I' \cap OPT_{skew}(C_{t}) = \phi$. Then there is a collection of $|I'| \cdot b(S)$ line segments $L$ within $S$ which partition $S$ into sub-corridor with at most $b(S)$ bends each such that no item from $I'$ is intersected by $L$ and there are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(|I'| \cdot b(S))$ items of $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ intersected by line segments in $L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{againfocs}
Let $S$ be a closed corridor with $b(S)$ bends. Let $OPT_{skew}(S)$ denote the items in $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ that are contained in $S$. Let $I'$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ be a collection of items which intersect the boundary of $S$ with $I' \cap OPT_{skew}(C_{t}) = \phi$. Then there is a collection of $O_{\varepsilon}(\frac{|I'|^{2}}{\varepsilon})$ line segments $L$ within $S$ which partition $S$ into a collection of closed corridors with at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ bends each and possibly an open corridor with $b(S)$ bends such that no item from $I'$ is intersected by $L$ and there is a set of items $OPT'_{skew}(S) \subseteq OPT_{skew}(S)$ with $|OPT'_{skew}(S)|\leq O_{\varepsilon}(|I'|^{2})$ such that the items in $OPT_{skew}(S) \setminus OPT'_{skew}(S)$ intersected by the line segments in $L$ have a total profit of at most $O(\varepsilon) \cdot p(OPT_{skew}(C_{t}))$.
\end{lem}
Using Lemmas \ref{focsagain} and \ref{againfocs} we partition the piece in $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors (open and closed) packing all the items in $OPT_{skew}(S)$ $\backslash$ $OPT'_{skew}(S)$. We augment the remaining set of items $OPT'_{skew}(S)$ with small profit to $K(t+1)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : All the processes used to obtain the bends and corridor decomposition follow deletion of items only. Thus the remaining subset of items should be guillotine separable given that the initial packing was guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Box Partition}\label{boxpart}
We follow the same process as in original corridor decomposition section \ref{prosec} on all the items completely lying inside the strips formed from the subcorridor processing in the previous section. The difference from previous section \ref{prosec} is the set $OPT_{fat}$ being considered for packing i.e. we don't drop large items while forming the set $OPT_{ fat}$ in this section section. Then by using similar shifting procedure as in section \ref{prosec} we shift items from one subcorridor to other to pack all but $OPT_{kill}$ of them. For now let us ignore the items in $OPT_{small}$ that cross a subcorridor (handled in section \ref{smallitems}). We add all the items in $OPT_{kill}$ into $K(t+1)$ which actually refers to the items killed in the $t^{th}$ iteration. From section \ref{prosec} it follows that only $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{large},\varepsilon_{box}}(1)$ of items are killed in partition of subcorridors to boxes. Also the killed items do not belong to the set $\kappa(t)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: The division of subcorridors into boxes involves partition of subcorridor with $1/\varepsilon_{box}$ lines. We remove all the items killed by these lines and pack the rest completely into the strips formed. The strips can be themselves separated by the same set of lines. Also since we begin from a guillotine separable arrangement, shifting the horizontal (resp. vertical) items vertically (resp. horizontally) doesn't disturb the guillotine property. Thus guillotine separability is maintained after the processing of subcorridors into boxes.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Container Partition}
\label{containerweighted}
We follow resource augmentation from Lemma \ref{lemma1}. The process borrows technique from partitioning box into containers as done in section \ref{prosec} with the only difference that we also include $OPT_{small}$ this time while processing. We classify an item as $OPT_{small}(C_{t}))$ if for every cell $C$ in $C_{t}$ intersecting with the item, the item is classified as $OPT_{small}(C)$. In other words any item which is small in all the cells intersecting it, is classified as $OPT_{small}(C_{t})$. Now consider a horizontal box, using averaging argument there exits a strip with width $3\varepsilon$ such that it intersects with items with total profit less than or equal to $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT_{box})$. We neglect the small items intercepted by the strip for now and pack them later as mentioned in section \ref{smallitems}. Let the items killed be $OPT_{kill,box}$. We add items in $OPT_{kill,box}$ to the set of items dropped in the $t^{th}$ iteration, i.e., $K(t+1)$. We then apply resource augmentation to the set of remaining small items say $OPT'_{small}(C_{t})$ and pack subset $OPT''_{small}(C_{t})$.
This gives us an $L\&C$ packing of a profitable subset $OPT'_{skew}(C_{t})$ $\subseteq$ $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ and a subset of small items not intersected by the $3\varepsilon$ strip, i.e., $OPT''_{small}(C_{t})$ $\subseteq$ $OPT'_{small}(C_{t})$. Total profit of items, i.e., $p(OPT'_{skew}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(OPT''_{small}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(K(t+1))$ $\geq$ ($1-O(\varepsilon)$) $($ $p(OPT_{skew}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(OPT'_{small}(C_{t}))$ $)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: The only process we do in this section is deleting some items intersecting a strip. Since deleting items doesn't affect guillotine separability the remaining items are guillotine separable given the original arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we get a guillotine separable arrangement after doing the processing as given in this section.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Packing Small Items}\label{smallitems}
Now we repack the small items killed by lines of corridor decomposition in section \ref{boxpart}. Consider the set $OPT_{small,killed}(C_{t})$ as the given set of items. We assign each item in $OPT_{small,killed}(C_{t})$ to the cell it was contained maximally in the original packing. Consider a cell $C$ and the items assigned to $C$ as $OPT_{small,killed}(C)$. By appropriately choosing the factor $\varepsilon_{small}$, we can force area of small items assigned to $C$, i.e., $a(OPT_{small,killed}(C))$ to be at most $\varepsilon a(C)$. This follows from the fact that number of boxes intersecting $C$ would be $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{large}}(1)$. Next we claim that the free area in cell $C$, i.e. total area not-occupied by containers in the cell is at most $(1-2\varepsilon)a(C)$ (Lemma \ref{areafocs}). Thus following the same argument as in Lemma \ref{dead}, the total area of guillotine free region is greater than or equal to the total area of free cells, and thus we have sufficient area to pack small rectangles using NFDH. Thus we can pack a profitable fraction of items $OPT'_{small,killed}(C)$ $\subseteq$ $OPT_{small,killed}(C)$ such that $p(OPT_{small,killed}(C)) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT_{small,killed}(C))$.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{areafocs}
Let $C$ be a cell. The total area of $C$ occupied by containers is at most $(1-2\varepsilon)a(C)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: The processing in the section involves deleting a subset of rectangles which doesn't affect the guillotine separability of items. We use NFDH to pack the items in the cells. Since NFDH is 2-stage guillotine separable packing, inside each cell items are guillotine separable. If we consider each cell as a pseudoitem, we claim that the whole knapsack is guillotine separable. The claim follows from the fact that cells are formed from extending the edges in $\kappa(t)$. The guillotine cuts will always follow the corresponding edges of the items. Thus the arrangement in whole after the processing is guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{L$\&$C Packing}\label{lc}
Following the same iterative process we get $k$ subsets; $K(1), K(2), \cdots, K(k-1), K(k)$ such that $k\leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ and $p(K(k))$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon OPT$. Now consider the grid $G_{k}$ corresponding to the set $\kappa(k)$ with the set of cells $C_{k}$. We do the corridor, subcorridor, box processing subroutines as defined in previous sections. We now apply routines of Lemma \ref{algo1} and prove the same result for weighted version of the problem. We keep the notations same as used in the unweighted version, thus we have the sets $OPT_{ST}$, $OPT_{SF}$, $OPT_{LF}$, $OPT_{LT}$. We augment items in $\kappa(k-1)$ to the set $OPT_{LF}$. We also define set $OPT_{small}$ to be $OPT_{small}(C(k))$ which is the set of items classified as small in each non-zero intersection cell of $C_k$.\\
Since we have followed the modified corridor decomposition from previous sections for packing $OPT_{small}$ which $O(\varepsilon)$ loss in the profit, we can extend lemma \ref{algo1} to the weighted case.\\
Now to improve bounds further let us show another $L\&C$ packing.
First we show the following lemma for the unweighted case. Then we will extend it to the weighted case.
\begin{lem}
\label{algo2}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{SF})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
From the optimal packing we remove all the items except the items in $OPT_{SF}$. Now in this new packing consider a horizontal (resp., vertical) random strip of height (resp., width) $3\varepsilon N$. Remove the items which overlap with these vertical and horizontal strips. Let the items which remain be $OPT_{SF}'$. Due to horizontal strip, a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. Similarly, due to vertical strip, a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. From linearity of expectation we get that $p(OPT_{SF}')\geq (\frac{1}{2}-13\varepsilon)p(OPT_{SF})$. \\
\\Also clearly $OPT_{SF}'$ can be packed in a square of side length $(1-3\varepsilon)N$. So by doing one sided resource augmentation we can get a packing with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ in a square with side length $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. In $N \times N$ knapsack we can pack all items in $OPT_{LT}$ in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Two containers of dimensions $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N \times \frac{N}{2}$ and $\frac{N}{2} \times \varepsilon_{{ring}} N$ are created and kept just beside the subcorridors of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in such a way that the 2 created subcorridors don't overlap with each other. We pack all the items in $OPT_{ST}$ in these two containers. In the remaining square region which doesn't have items from $OPT_{T}$ we can pack the items from $OPT_{SF'}$ with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ as the square region has side length at least $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. This concludes the proof of this Lemma.
\end{proof}
For extending the weighted argument to lemma \ref{algo2} (non-degenerate-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ case), intuitively we follow the same striping argument to remove items and make space for items to be packed by resource augmentation. Thus we remove all the items from $\kappa(k-1)$, because any item in $\kappa(k-1)$ can be large in both dimensions and has a high probability of being cut by a strip. We further add small items as in previous sections without losing more than a constant profit. We then remove a $3\varepsilon N$ strip as done in section \ref{containerweighted}. Any item in $OPT_{small}$ is cut by the strip with a probability $3\varepsilon$ and any other item is cut with probability $\frac{1}{2} + O(\varepsilon)$. We construct the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ as done in unweighted case. Thus we get the following result:
\begin{lem}
\label{weightall}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable guillotine packing solution that is packed by an $L\&C$ packing and $OPT$ be the optimal solution of $2GGK$. Then following lemmas hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{F})+p(OPT_{T})/2$ + $p(OPT_{small})$,
\item $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{SF})$ + $p(OPT_{{small}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
All the inequalities follows from the processing done above. We also claim that the solution follows guillotine property as we use results and lemmas from previous sections which are already established to maintain guillotine separability. Another processing done is deleting of items intersecting with the strip, since deleting items doesn't disturb guillotine cuts we have a guillotine separable packing as a result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable solution that is packed by an $L\&C$ packing which is guillotine separable and $OPT$ be optimal guillotine packing. Then $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{2}{3}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Lemma \ref{weightall}, we thus get a factor of $3/2$, i.e., $p(OPT_{L\&C})$ $\geq$ $ (2/3 - O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ for weighted case.
\end{proof}
\subsection{ $(\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK(R)}
\label{subs:tggkr}
An item is called {\em massive} if $w_{i} \geq (1-\varepsilon)N$ and $h_{i} \geq (1-\varepsilon)N$, given the dimensions of original knapsack as $N \times N$. Chose $\varepsilon > \varepsilon_{{ring}}$ and $\varepsilon < \frac{1}{10}$. Idea is to devise two packings; one when such a massive item is present and other when it is absent; and analyze the worst bound from both of them to get a bound for the weighted rotated case.
\begin{lem}
Given $OPT$ is the set of guillotine separable items that can be optimally packed in a $N \times N$ knapsack with associated profit $p(OPT)$, if rotations are allowed. Then there exits a guillotine separable packing of items $APX \subseteq OPT$ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers such that the profit of items $p(APX)\geq (\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the result by a case analysis. We subdivide the problem in two cases as discussed above on the basis of presence or absence of a massive item. The result follows from Lemma \ref{lem:present} (packing when massive item is present) and Lemma \ref{lem:absent} (case when there exits no massive item). The worst case packing from among two gives us a factor of $4/3$, i.e., $p(APX)$ $\geq$ $ (3/4 - O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ for weighted case given rotations are allowed.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:present}
Given $OPT$ be the set of items in the optimal guillotine separable packing into a $N\times N$ knapsack and there is a massive item $m \in OPT$. Then, there exists a set $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ which can be packed with rotations allowed in a container packing with $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers.
\end{lem
\begin{proof}
Consider the optimal packing of items in $OPT$. Irrespective of the initial arrangement inductively we can show that it is possible to place $m$ on the top-right corner of the knapsack with the remaining items forming a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in the remaining region $\big(([0,N]\times[0,h_{L}]) \cup ([0,w_{L}] \times[0,N])\big)$, where $h_{L} = N-h(m)$ and $w_{L} = N-w(m)$. The proof follows constructively by considering the sequence of guillotine cuts on the knapsack and following similar {\em mirroring} arguments as done in section \ref{glp}.
We propose three different packings and consider the maximum profit packing from the three of them. Process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor as done Section \ref{prosec} and then use shifting argumentation \ref{subsec:shifting} to get a corridor decomposition. We define items to be thin ($T$), and fat ($F$) (excluding $m$) as defined previously. Items completely lying in the horizontal arm of $L$ defined by the region $([0,N]\times[0,h_{L}])$ are defined as $OPT_{H}$. Similarly items completely lying the in vertical arm of $L$ defined by the region $([0,w_{L}] \times[0,N])$ are defined as $OPT_{V}$. Thus we get $OPT_{HF}$, $OPT_{HT}$, $OPT_{VF}$, $OPT_{VT} $ as the fat-horizontal, thin-horizontal, fat-vertical, thin-vertical items respectively. W.l.o.g.~we can assume that $w_{L} \geq h_{L}$. \\
\noindent {\em Packing 1:}
We remove the lesser profit set among $OPT_{VT}$ and $OPT_{HT}$, and process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor to obtain a container packing of the remaining items of $OPT_{T}$ and all items from $OPT_{F}$ as done in Section \ref{prosec}. Since $OPT_{VT} \cup OPT_{HT} = OPT_{T}$, from averaging principle we get the profit of thin items packed as at least $p(OPT_{T})/2$. This gives us a packing of a set of items $P_{1}$ with $p(P_{1})$ $\geq$ $(1-O(\varepsilon))(p(m) + p(OPT_{T})/2 + p(OPT_{F}))$.\\
\noindent {\em Packing 2:}
From corridor decomposition it follows that the total width (resp. height) of thin items in vertical (resp. horizontal) subcorridor of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor is at most $\varepsilon_{{ring}} w_{L}$ (resp. $\varepsilon_{{ring}} h_{L} $) which on the other hand is upper bounded by $\varepsilon w_{L}$ (resp. $\varepsilon h_{L} $) .We now rotate the items in $OPT_{HT}$ and pack the items in $OPT_{VT} \cup OPT_{HT}$ in region $([0,\varepsilon(h_{L}+w_{L})]\times[0,N])$.
We then remove all the items in $OPT_{F}$. Thus the remaining set of items $I'$ have a width $w(I') \leq$ $\varepsilon (h_{L} + w_{L})$ and a profit $p(I') =$ $p(OPT_{T})$. Using resource augmentation (Lemma \ref{lemma1}) we obtain a packing of these items $I'' \subseteq I'$ in a region $([0,w_{L}]\times[0,N])
such that $p(I'') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(I')$. Thus we get a packing of $I'' \cup \{ m\}$ such that $p(P_{2}) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(I') + p(m) = (1-O(\varepsilon))(p(OPT_{T})) + p(m)$.\\
\noindent {\em Packing 3:}
We consider the packing without $m$. Next we rotate $OPT_{H}$, to obtain a packing of $OPT_{H} \cup OPT_{V}$ in region $R'=$ $([0,h_{L}+w_{L}]\times[0,N])$. Clearly $R'$ $\subseteq$ $([0,2\varepsilon]\times[0,1])$. Using resource augmentation lemma \ref{lemma1} we can pack a set of items $P_{3} \subseteq (OPT_{H} \cup OPT_{V})$ such that $p(P_{3}) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))(p(OPT_{H}) + p(OPT_{V})) = (1-O(\varepsilon))(p(OPT_{F}) + p(OPT_{T}))$.\\
Considering the maximum profit packing from $P_1, P_2, P_3$, we obtain a packing of set of items $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1) $ containers. The worst case corresponds the packing where profits are $p(OPT_{T}):p(OPT_{F}):p(m)=2:1:1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Lemma \ref{weightall}]
\label{lem:wr1}
$p(APX)\geqp(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:absent}
Given $OPT$ be the set of items in the optimal guillotine separable packing into a $N \times N$ knapsack and there exists no massive item in $ OPT$. Then, there exists a set $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT)$ which can be packed with rotations allowed in a container packing with $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We consider $2$ different packings and consider the most profitable of them for final packing. We first perform the basic corridor decomposition and classify items as $LT$, $ST$ and $LF$, $SF$. We define three different packings as follows:\\
\noindent{\em Packing 1:} Consider items in $OPT \backslash OPT_{T}$. Using resource contraction (Lemma \ref{lem:rsrccontraction}), we can pack items with profit at least $p(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})/2$ in a $(N\times(1-\varepsilon/2)N)$ piece. We then pack $OPT_{T}$ in the remaining $(N \times \varepsilon N/4)$ region and then apply resource augmentation Lemma \ref{lemma1} to get the packing without losing more then $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ profit of total items in a $N \times N$ piece. Thus we get a packing of a set of items $P_1$ with profit $p(P_1)\geq p(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})/2 + p(OPT_{T})$.\\
\noindent{\em Packing 2:} Using Lemma \ref{lem:wr1} we get a packing of set of items $P_2$ such that $p(P_2)\geqp(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\\
Considering the maximum profit packing from $P_1, P_2$, we obtain a packing of set of items $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1) $ containers. The worst case corresponds the packing where profits are $p(OPT_{T})=p(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{lem:rsrccontraction}
(Resource Contraction Lemma) If a set of guillotine separable items $M$ contains no massive item and can be packed into a $1\times1$ bin, then it is possible to pack a set $M'$ of profit at least $p(M)/2$ into a $N \times (1 - \varepsilon/2)N$ bin (or a $(1- \varepsilon /2)N\times N $ bin), maintaining guillotine property, given rotations are allowed.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed along the same proof as in Lemma 51 of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and prove that the processing done maintains guillotine property of items.\\
Intuitively we consider two disjoint subsets of $M$, say $M'$ and $M \backslash M'$, and pack them individually in a $N \times (1- \varepsilon/2)N$ bin. The best of two packings will give us a packing of profit at least half the profit of $M$. We define set of items completely to the right, left, top, bottom of a given item $i$ as $Right(i)$, $Left(i)$, $Top(i)$, $Bottom(i)$ respectively. Formally, given item $i$ with bottom left coordinates as $(x_{i}, y_{i})$, we define $Right(i) = \{ i' \in M | x_{i'} \geq (x_{i}+w(i))\}$, $Left(i) = \{ i' \in M | x_{i'} \leq x_{i}\}$, $Top(i) = \{ i' \in M | y_{i'} \geq (y_{i}+h(i))\}$, $Bottom(i) = \{ i' \in M | y_{i'} \leq y_{i}\}$. We consider $4$ boundary strips $S_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} := [0,N] \times [(1-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon)N, N]$, $S_{B,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} := [0,N] \times [0,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N]$, $S_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} := [0,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N] \times [0,N]$, $S_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} := [1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N, N] \times [0,N]$. The set of items fully contained in and intersected by the strip $S_{X,Y}$ are denoted by $C_{X,Y}$ and $E_{X,Y}$ respectively. Also define $D_{X,Y} = E_{X,Y} \backslash C_{X,Y}$. We now consider following cases :
\\
\noindent{\em Case 1:} $D_{B,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} = \phi$. \\
Define $M'=E_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$, which can be packed in a $[0,N] \times [0,(1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N]$ region. This gives us our first packing which is guillotine separable as the operation performed here is just deletion of items in an already guillotine separable arrangement. For second packing we consider the items in $M\backslash (M' \cup C_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} $. Pack $C_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ by rotating and packing them on the top of $M\backslash (M' \cup C_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} $ in two horizontal strips of width $\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N$ each. This adds up to a packing of $M\backslash M'$ in the region $[0,N] \times [0, (1- \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N]$. The processing involves mirroring and rearrangement of {\em disjoint} sub-pieces which doesn't disturb the guillotine property.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2:} $D_{B,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \neq \phi$.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.1:} There exists item $i$ intersecting none of $S_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $S_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$. \\
W.l.o.g.~ assume $x_{i} \leq 1/2 N$. We consider completely disjoint partitions of items created by $i$, i.e., $Left(i)$, $Right(i)$, $\{i\}$, $C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$. Let $M'$ = $C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup Left(i)$. Consider optimal packing with just $Left(i)$, we pack the items in $C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ to the right of it by rotating them. This gives us a packing of $M'$ in a $(N \times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$ plane. Now we show a packing for $M\backslash M' = Right(i) \cup {i}$. From the assumption that $i$ doesn't intersect $S_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$, we trivially get a packing of $M \backslash M'$ in a $(N\times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Since only operations to obtain both the packings are deletion of items from optimal guillotine packing and replacement of disjoint subpieces, we can claim that guillotine property is maintained.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.2:} There exists item $i$ intersecting both $S_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $S_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$.\\
We define $M' = (C_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup C_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup Top(i))$.
For packing $M'$, consider $Top(i)$ in optimal packing and rotate and pack $C_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ on the top of it.Total height of the packing is $(N-y_{i}-h(i)+\varepsilon N) \leq (1-\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq .1$. For packing in the second case, i.e., for packing $M\backslash M'$, since there is no massive item it follows trivially that it can packed in a $(N \times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Thus we get both the packing and following the same argument as before the packings are guillotine separable.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3:} There exists item $i$ intersecting both $S_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $S_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$.\\
\noindent {\em Case 2.3.1:} There exists item $i$ $\in (D_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon})$ and $x_{i}+w(i) \leq \frac{1}{2}N $ (similar argument holds for $D_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$) ] Since there is no massive item, $i$ can intersect at most one of $S_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} and S_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$. We define $M'= Right(i)$. By rotating $M'$ we get a packing in $(N\times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Now we devise a packing for second set $M\backslash M'$. Consider packing of $M \backslash (C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup Right(i)$ as in optimal packing and pack $C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ to the right of it by rotating them and packing in two vertical strips of $\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon$ and $\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N$ widths respectively. This gives us the total width of the packing as less than or equal to $(1/2 + 2\varepsilon)N \leq (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq .1$ from our initial assumption. Again the only operations during entire processing of both the packings are deletion of items from optimal guillotine packing and replacement of disjoint sub-pieces.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3.2:} There exists item $i$ $\in (D_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon})$ and $x_{i}+w(i) > \frac{1}{2}N $ (similar argument holds for $D_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$). \\
Define $M'= Left(i) \cup {i}$. Consider the packing of $M'$ in optimal packing, which clearly gives us a packing in a $(N\times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$. Now we define second packing for items in $M\backslash M'$. Consider the packing of $M \backslash (C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ $\cup M'$ as in optimal packing and pack $C_{T, \frac{3}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ to the left of it by rotating them and packing in two vertical strips of $\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon N$ and $\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon N$ widths respectively. This gives us the total width of the packing as less than or equal to $(1/2 + 2\varepsilon)N \leq (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq \frac{1}{10}$. Sole operations involved are deletion of items from already guillotine separable packing and replacement of disjoint pieces. thus maintaining guillotine separability.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3.3:} There exists no item $i$ $\in (D_{B, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} \cap (D_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup D_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}))$.\\
W.l.o.g.~let $i \in C_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$. We define $M'=E_{T,\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon} \backslash (C_{L,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon})$, which clearly gives us a packing in a $(N\times (1-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)N)$. Consider $M \backslash (M' \cup C_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon} \cup C_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ in optimal packing and rotate and pack $C_{L, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R, \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon}$ on the top of it. Total height of the packing is at most $ (1-\varepsilon)$. Operations involved in are deletion of items from already guillotine separable packing and replacement of disjoint pieces. thus maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{proof}
\section{Limitation of small stage guillotine cutting}
\label{sec:smallstage}
\begin{figure}[b]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (64,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (0,0) rectangle (64,1);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (1,1) rectangle (64,3);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (3,3) rectangle (64,7);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (7,7) rectangle (64,15);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (15,15) rectangle (64,31);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (0,1) rectangle (1,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (1,3) rectangle (3,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (3,7) rectangle (7,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (7,15) rectangle (15,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (15,31) rectangle (31,64);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:bad_container}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw[dashed] (1,0)--(1,10);
\draw[dashed] (2,0)--(2,10);
\draw [dashed] (8,0)--(8,10);
\draw [dashed] (9,0)--(9,10);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (0.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (1.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (8.2,0.2) rectangle (8.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (9.2,0.2) rectangle (9.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (7.9,1);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (2.1,9.9) rectangle (7.9,9);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (2.2,1.2) rectangle (3.2,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (3.5,1.2) rectangle (4.5,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.8,1.2) rectangle (5.8,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (6,1.2) rectangle (7,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (7.2,1.2) rectangle (7.8,8.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{k_a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw[dashed] (1,0)--(1,10);
\draw[dashed] (2,0)--(2,10);
\draw [dashed] (3,0)--(3,10);
\draw [dashed] (4,0)--(4,10);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (0.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (1.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (2.2,0.2) rectangle (2.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (3.2,0.2) rectangle (3.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (9.9,1);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.1,9.9) rectangle (9.9,9);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.2,1.2) rectangle (5.2,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (5.5,1.2) rectangle (6.5,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (6.8,1.2) rectangle (7.8,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (8,1.2) rectangle (9,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (9.2,1.2) rectangle (9.8,8.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{k_b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw [solid,red] (0,0) rectangle (4,10);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (0.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (1.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (2.2,0.2) rectangle (2.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (3.2,0.2) rectangle (3.8,9.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (9.9,1);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.1,9.9) rectangle (9.9,9);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (4.2,1.2) rectangle (5.2,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (5.5,1.2) rectangle (6.5,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (6.8,1.2) rectangle (7.8,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (8,1.2) rectangle (9,8.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (9.2,1.2) rectangle (9.8,8.8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{k_c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a): Arrangement of items in set $I$, (b): Dashed lines represent 1st stage of guillotine cutting, (c): Rearrangement of vertical strips, (d): Red box denotes the created container. }
\end{figure}
Let $N=2^{k+1}, k \in \mathbb{N}$. Let us define a set $I$ of long rectangles consisting of $2k$ rectangles. \\
For each $j \in [k]$, we have a vertical rectangle $V_{j}$ of height $N - (2^{j}-1)$ and width $2^{j-1}$, and a horizontal rectangle $H_{j}$ of height $2^{j-1}$ and width $N-(2^{j-1}-1)$. In an $N \times N$ knapsack place $V_{j}$ in an axis-parallel fashion such that the topmost horizontal edge of $V_{j}$ touches the topmost horizontal edge of knapsack and the left vertical edge of $V_{j}$ is at a distance of $2^{j-1}-1$ from the left vertical edge of the knapsack. Similarly, place $H_{j}$ in an axis-parallel fashion such that the right vertical edge of $H_{j}$ touches the right vertical edge of knapsack and the bottom-most horizontal edge of $H_{j}$ is at a distance of $2^{j-1}-1$ from the bottom-most horizontal edge of knapsack. This packing consists of all the rectangles in $I$ and is guillotine separable as shown in Figure \ref{fig:bad_container}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem_k1} \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
For any constant $0 <\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}$ and a 2GGK-C~instance $I$ to packed in an $N \times N$ knapsack, any container packing of $I' \subseteq I$ such that $|I|\leq(2 - \varepsilon)|I'|$ must use $\Omega (\varepsilon \log N)$ containers.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem_k2}
Given a $k$-stage packing of a set of {\em long} rectangles $I' \subseteq I$, there exists a container packing of $I'$ which uses $k$ containers and the rectangles are guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider a $k$-stage packing of a set of rectangles $I' \subseteq I$. Let the first stage cuts be vertical. Let the vertical cuts in the first stage cuts divide the knapsack into vertical strips as shown in Figure \ref{k_a}. At most one vertical strip has width greater than $\frac{N}{2}$. Now rearrange the strips in such a way that the vertical strip $S_{1}$ with width greater than $\frac{N}{2}$ touches the right edge of the knapsack as shown in Figure \ref{k_b}. Then merge the vertical strips to the left of strip $S_{1}$ into a single container $C_{1}$ as shown in Figure \ref{k_c}. Note that the container $C_{1}$ touches both the left edge of the knapsack and the left edge of $S_{1}$. Now freeze the rectangles in $C_{1}$. Now consider the horizontal cuts through the vertical strip $S_{1}$ during the second stage of guillotine cutting sequence. These cuts divide $S_{1}$ into horizontal strips with same width as that of $S_{1}$. At most one horizontal strip has height greater than $\frac{N}{2}$. Now rearrange the horizontal strips in such a way that the horizontal strip $S_{2}$ with height greater than $\frac{N}{2}$ touches the topmost edge of the $S_{1}$. Then merge the vertical strips below the strip $S_{2}$ into a single container $C_{2}$. Note that the container $C_{2}$ touches both the bottom-most edge of the knapsack and the bottom-most edge of $S_{2}$. Now freeze the rectangles in $C_{2}$. Now consider $S_{2}$ as a smaller version of the original knapsack and iteratively create containers in similar way as mentioned above during each stage in the guillotine cutting sequence. So, during each stage we create exactly one new container and therefore in total we create a container packing $I'$ which uses $k$ containers and the rectangles are guillotine separable.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
For any constant $0 <\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}$, any $k$-stage packing of $I' \subseteq I$ such that $|I|\leq(2 - \varepsilon)|I'|$ is possible only if $k=\Omega (\varepsilon \log N)$ , where $N$ is the width of the knapsack.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem_k1} and \ref{lem_k2} together imply that for any constant $0 <\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}$, any $k$-stage packing of $I' \subseteq I$ such that $|I|\leq(2 - \varepsilon)|I'|$ is possible only if $k=\Omega (\varepsilon \log N)$ , where $N$ is the width of the knapsack.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.25,0.25) rectangle (.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.5,0.5) rectangle (.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.75,0.75) rectangle (1,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1,1) rectangle (1.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.25,1.25) rectangle (1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.5,1.5) rectangle (1.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.75,1.75) rectangle (2,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,2) rectangle (2.25,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.25,0) rectangle (6,.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.5,0.25) rectangle (6,.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0.75,0.5) rectangle (6,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1,0.75) rectangle (6,1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.25,1) rectangle (6,1.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.5,1.25) rectangle (6,1.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.75,1.5) rectangle (6,1.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,1.75) rectangle (6,2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.25,2) rectangle (6,2.25);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Arrangement of items in set $I$. Picture not drawn to scale}
\label{worstL}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\section{Gap between Guillotine and Non-Guillotine Knapsack}
\section{QPTAS for 2GGK-C}
\label{sec:qptas}
\subsection{Unweighted case}
\label{subsec:uqptas}
From Lemma \ref{structure} we get that there are corridors of at most 1 bend and if we move items in a corridor in such a way that locally within a corridor the items are guillotine separable then the packing in the entire knapsack is guillotine separable.
We will use couple of lemmas from \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}.
\begin{lem}\label{qptas1}\cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}
For an optimal solution $OPT$ to 2GGK-C, there is a partition of the $N \times N$ knapsack into at most $(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}(\frac{\log n}{\varepsilon})^{O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})}$ rectangular boxes $\mathcal{B}$ with integral coordinates, a set of items $I' \subseteq OPT \cap (V \cup H)$ with $|I'| \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))|OPT\cap(V\cup H)|-(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}(\frac{\log n}{\varepsilon})^{O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})}$, and an assignment $f:I'\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ such that for each box $B \in \mathcal{B}$ all items in $f^{-1}(B)$ fit into $B$. Moreover, each box $B \in \mathcal{B}$ has height or width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. Note a rectangle belongs to the set $V$ (resp. $H$) if it has height (resp. width) more than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}\label{copylem}
If there is an algorithm for 2GGK-C~which outputs a solution with at least $(1-\varepsilon)|OPT|-\log n)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ items in time $O(f(n))$, then there is also a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm with running time $O((f(n)+\log n)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)})$.
\end{lem}
Lemma \ref{qptas1} can be extended to the guillotine case as the procedure used to create the boxes is similar to the process described in subsection \ref{prosec} and it is guillotine separable. Since the number of bends in any corridor is at most one, we have $(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}O_{\varepsilon}(\log n)$ rectangular boxes instead of $(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}(\frac{\log n}{\varepsilon})^{O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})}$. If we do resource augmentation on every box we have $(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)$ containers which can be guessed in $n^{(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)} $ time. So by Lemma \ref{copylem} and due to the maximum number of bends being one in any corridor, we have QPTAS with running time $n^{(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)} $, improving the previous best QPTAS. Small rectangles can be added in the similar fashion as that of subsection \ref{smallrec} \amar{bug}. This gives us the following theorem:
\begin{thm}
Given $N$ is $O(n^{O(\log n)})$, we have a QPTAS for $2GGK-C$ with running time $n^{(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{O(1)}O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)} $, whether rotations are allowed or not.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Weighted case}
\label{subsec:wqptas}
\ama{Work by Abed et al \cite{AbedCCKPSW15} proves a QPTAS for $2GGK-C$, although it cannot be extended to weighted case. Their procedure used to create boxes considers droppig $O(1)$ number of items, which cannot be extended to weighted case as the items dropped might carry a huge profit. Overcoming this, corridor decomposition from \ref{prosec} can repack those $O(1)$ items using the simple shifting argumentation without losing more than a subset of items with constant profit.} We use the same shifting argumentation techniques as mentioned in Section \ref{subsec:shifting} on the optimal packing. Suppose we are in the $k$th iteration of the shifting argument process. First we create grid cells and do corridor decomposition as mentioned in the Section \ref{gridpartition}. Then by Lemma \ref{structure} we get corridors with atmost 1 bend and any movement of rectangles within the corridor which ensures guillotine separability inside the corridor ensures guillotine separability in the entire knapsack. Then we create $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(\log n)$ boxes according to Lemma \ref{qptas1} and then we do resource augmentation to each box in the $k$th iteration where $k<1/\varepsilon$ and in this process we get a set of items $K(k)$ which have profit atmost $\varepsilon\cdotp(OPT)$ and we remove them. Then we pack the small items which were not packed earlier in the process in the same way as we do in Section \ref{smallitems}. The packing is guillotine separable as the shifting argumentation techniques are guillotine separable. Now we have $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)$ containers which can be guessed in $n^{O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)}$ time. Hence we have a QPTAS as stated:
\begin{thm}
Given $N$ is $O(n^{O(\log n)})$, we have a QPTAS for $2GGK$ with running time $n^{O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(\log n)}$, whether rotations are allowed or not.
\end{thm}
\section{Omitted parts from Sections \ref{sec:intro}, \ref{sec:prelim}, \ref{glp}}
\subsection{Guillotine stages}
\label{subsec:guill}
We define a {\em stage} of guillotine cuts as a set of end to end, equal, axis-parallel cuts separating piece $P$ into further sub-pieces. A guillotine stage packing is represented by guillotine stage tree $\mathcal{T}$ where each non-leaf node $v\in V(\mathcal{T})$ is equipped with a piece $P_v$ and the set of straight lines $\mathcal{L}_v$ corresponding the stage of the cut such that cutting $P_v$ along the straight lines in $\mathcal{L}_v$ gives us subpieces $P_{v_1}, P_{v_2}, \dots, P_{v_{|\mathcal{L}_v|}}$, where $v_1, v_2, \dots, v_{|\mathcal{L}_v|}$ are the children of $v$.
None of the guillotine cuts are allowed to cut any of the rectangles in the piece.
Note that two consecutive levels of $\mathcal{T}$ correspond to two different type of stages, one being horizontal (parallel to $x$-axis) cuts and the other being vertical cuts (parallel to $x$-axis). A guillotine packing strategy has $k$-stages if the tree $\mathcal{T}$ has height $k$ (e.g. the guillotine stage tree for the 5-stage packing in \ref{figb} is shown below).
\begin{forest}
[,circle,draw
[,circle,draw, fill = blue
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = red]
[,circle,draw, fill = red]
[,circle,draw, fill = red]
[,circle,draw, fill = red]
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
]
]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = blue
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = green
[,circle,draw, fill = brown
[,circle,draw, fill = yellow]
[,circle,draw, fill = yellow]
[,circle,draw, fill = yellow]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = blue
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = red]
[,circle,draw, fill = red
[,circle,draw, fill = green
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
[,circle,draw, fill = brown]
]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
[,circle,draw, fill = green]
]
]
]
\end{forest}
Now we show that we can check whether a given packing of items in a knapsack is guillotine separable or not. We state the following result:
\begin{lem}
\label{polygil}
Given a packing of $n$ items in a $N\times N$ knapsack, we can verify if it guillotine separable or not in $O(n^{2})$-time.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first claim that given a set of guillotine separable items, with their end coordinates, there exists an end-to-end guillotine cut passing along the edge of at least one item, not intersecting any item. This claim trivially follows by considering an end-to-end guillotine cut on the piece and appropriately shifting it to touch edge of the nearest item. Now we devise the following procedure to check if a given packing is guillotine separable or not. Search for an end-to-end guillotine cut along end points of items which leaves us with $4n$ choices ($2n$ each for vertical and horizontal end points of items). If such a cut is obtained, we recurse over the two smaller sub-pieces formed and apply the same procedure. Otherwise, if there is no such possible cut, the algorithm returns a NO instance. The algorithm halts when all the items are on distinct sub-pieces, or if a NO instance is obtained at any recursive step. Clearly this recursive procedure takes $O(n^2)$-time.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Processing of subcorridor}\label{prosec}
In \cite{adamaszek2015knapsack, GalvezGHI0W17} the subcorridors are processed so that by removing some items the remaining items in that subcorridor can packed into a constant number of boxes.
\begin{lem}
For appropriate constant $\varepsilon_{{box}}, \varepsilon>0$, given a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor in a guillotine separable box, we can process one subcorridor and remove two sets of rectangles {\em kill} and {\em thin} and rearrange the remaining rectangles (we call them {\em fat}) such that all fat rectangles are completely packed into $O_{\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$ boxes, $|kill|=O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$ and total area of thin rectangles $\le \varepsilon_{{box}} N^2$. More over, the packing remains guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will use similar {\em processing} as shown in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}.
W.l.o.g we show the processing for a vertical subcorridor (processing for horizontal subcorridor follows analogous process).
Consider the vertical subcorridor $S_{V}$.
Let the width of the $S_{V}$ be $w$. Divide the region of $S_{V}$ in $1/\varepsilon_{{box}}$ subregions by introducing vertical lines equally spaced between left and right edges of the subcorridor by a distance of $\varepsilon_{{box}} w$. Items that are cut by the vertical lines are marked as $kill$. Items in the left-most subregion are marked as $thin$ and the items in the remaining subregions are marked as $fat$ (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}(a)).
Clearly, the total area of thin rectangles $\le \varepsilon_{{box}} N^2$.
Now create a maximal rectangular box in each sub region. Remove the items marked as $kill$ and $thin$ and shift the remaining items to the boxes in the lower subregions. Consider the boundary curve $C$ of the corridor between $S_V$ and $S_H$, the horizontal subcorridor, as shown in We then consider the set of points $Q$ on $C$ which are a part of the rectangular boxes created.
Now project the points $Q$ via horizontal lines through the horizontal subcorridor $S_{H}$ until they hit the vertical edge of $S_{H}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}(b)).
Items that are cut by these horizontal lines are too marked as $kill$.
As all rectangles in kill have length $\varepsilon_{{large}}$ in the direction of cut, $|kill|=O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$.
This ends the procedure of processing as we get $O_{\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$ boxes (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}(c)).
Also by loosing a small profit from the items marked as $fat$ we can find a container packing in polynomial time using Lemma \ref{tool:container}. Let the items packed in the container packing be $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$.
Similar procedure can be repeated for processing of horizontal subcorridors.
Intuitively, one can view the creation of boxes in {\em processing of a subcorridor} as a series of guillotine cuts.
The rearrangement of boxes can be viewed as movement of subpieces without violating guillotine separability. These movements do not disturb other parts of the bounding box as these cuts do not pass through the rest of the boxes.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{definition}[Container]
Containers are axis-aligned rectangular regions whose sizes can be guessed in polynomial time. They are labeled as {\em large, horizontal, vertical,} or {\em area}. In a container packing, all Items can be packed inside containers in the following ways:
\begin{itemize}
\item Next to each other if items are tall (vertical container),
\item Above each other if items are wide (horizontal container),
\item Each item packed in an area container of size $a \times b$ must have $w_i \le \varepsilon a, h_i \le \varepsilon b$.
\item Single item if the item is large (large container).
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{orien}
If all the {\em skewed} items in a subcorridor (resp. container) $S_{1}$ is horizontal (resp., vertical) then we say that the orientation of $S_{1}$ is horizontal (resp., vertical) .
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
A {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$} of height $N_1$ and width $N_2$ is the region $\big(([0,N]\times[0,N_1]) \cup ([0,N_2] \times[0,N])\big)$.
\end{definition}
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ plays a crucial role in our paper. In $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$, we are given a set of long items and a {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$} of height $N_1$ and width $N_2$ and the goal is to pack a maximum profit subset of long items into the {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$} region.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:lpack} \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
There is a PTAS for the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ problem.
\end{lem}
\begin{definition}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
An $L\&C$ packing is defined as follows. We are given two integer parameters $N' \in [0,N/2]$ and $l \in (N/2,N]$. We define a boundary $L$ of width $N'$, and a collection of non-overlapping containers contained in the space not occupied by the boundary L. We let $I_{long}\subseteqI$ be the items whose longer side has length longer than $l$, and $I_{short}=I\backslashI_{long}$ be the remaining items. We can pack only items from $I_{long}$ in the boundary $L$, and only items from $I_{short}$ in the containers. Plus we also ensure that the items are guillotine separable.
\end{definition}
\arir{Do we use L\&C PACKING? we should change this definition. As we have defined long and wide earlier.}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (12,2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,2) rectangle (10,4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,4) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (6,8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (12,2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1,2) rectangle (11,4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,4) rectangle (10,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3,6) rectangle (9,8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (6,0) rectangle (12,2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4,2) rectangle (10,4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2,4) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (6,8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Different types of subcorridors.Subcorridor as shown in (c) is not possible as z bend doesn't occur as shown in Theorem \ref{theorem1}}
\label{subcorridor}
\end{figure}
\label{subcorr}
\end{comment}
\section{Tools}
\subsection{Generalized Assignment Problem}\label{sec:GAP}
\emph{Maximum Generalized Assignment Problem (GAP)} states as follows:
Given $m$ bins with capacities $C_{j}$, $\forall j\in [m]$, a set of $n$ items is to be packed in bins with different sizes and profits for different bins. Thus each item $i \in [n]$ is given with an associated profit $p_{ij}$ and size $s_{ij}$ corresponding to bin $j$, $\forall j\in [m]$. The goal is to find a packing of a subset $I\subseteq [n]$ into the bins maximizing the total profit of items packed.
In our case we will be using a specific variant when there is only constant number of bins, i.e., $m=O(1)$. We adapt the following lemma from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} which gives a PTAS for the variant:
\begin{lem}\label{lem:GAP}
\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
There is an algorithm for maximum generalized assignment problem with $k$ bins that runs in time $O\big( (\frac{1+\varepsilon}{\varepsilon})^kn^{k/\varepsilon^2+k+1})\big)$ and returns a solution that has profit at least $(1-3\varepsilon)p(OPT)$, for any fixed $\varepsilon > 0$.
\end{lem}
\subsection{NFDH}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:NFDH}
[NFDH\cite{coffman1980performance}]Given a $N\times N$ knapsack and set of small items $I_{small}$ ( $\forall i \in I_{small}$, $w(i)\leq \varepsilon N$ and $h(i)\leq \varepsilon N)$, we can pack a subset of items $I' \subseteq I$ such that $a(I') \geq min\{ a(I), (1-2\varepsilon)N^{2}\}$ and the packing is $2$-stage guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For complete proof we refer the reader to \cite{coffman1980performance}. We now prove that resulting packing from procedures in the proof forms a $2$-stage guillotine separable packing. The processing in the proof packs items in horizontal strips each of width $N$. Further in each strip, items are packed side by side sharing vertical edge with the next item. This gives us a $2$-stage packing, with first stage cuts separating horizontal strips from each other and items within second stage cuts separating items separating items in individual strips as shown in Figure \ref{NFDH:fig}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (4,3.75);
\draw (0,2)--(4,2);
\draw (0,3)--(4,3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (2,2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (2,0) rectangle (3.5,1.2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,2) rectangle (1.5,3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (1.5,2) rectangle (3,2.9);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (3,2) rectangle (3.8,2.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,3) rectangle (2,3.75);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,3) rectangle (2,3.75);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (2,3) rectangle (3,3.6);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (3,3) rectangle (3.5,3.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{2 Stage Packing using NFDH}
\label{NFDH:fig}
\end{figure}
\section{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition for guillotine packing} \label{sec:bl}
In this section we will show that we can have a better decomposition of the optimal guillotine packing.
We will show the existence of a corridor-decomposition where all corridors are either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$s.
We will prove the main strcutural result as follows:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:ldecom}
There exists a corridor partition (we call it $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition) and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each corridor is either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor with width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, first we will start with the corridor decomposition from Lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack}. Then process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends in the corridors to obtain only spiral corridors. Thereafter, we will further process to obtain spiral corridors with bends at most 4. Finally we will process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridors to obtain only $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors.
\subsection{Obtaining corridors of types $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$}
\label{subsec:blug}
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid] (0,6) rectangle (2,10);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,4) rectangle (2,6);
\draw[solid] (2,4) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (8,4) rectangle (10,6);
\draw[solid] (8,0) rectangle (10,4);
\draw (1,8) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (1,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{12}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{23}$}};
\draw (9,2) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridor C consisting of subcorridors $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$ and overlapping regions of the subcorridors $S_{12}$ and $S_{23}$.}
\label{zstructure}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Obtaining spiral corridors}
First, we show how to process $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends.
\begin{lem}
\label{theorem1}
Any $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor $C$ can be decomposed into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
W.l.o.g.~assume the center-sc of $C$ to be horizontal (See Figure \ref{zstructure}).
Consider the guillotine cutting sequence of all rectangles in the knapsack.
Let $P$ be the smallest piece containing $C$, i.e., the next guillotine cut in $P$ passes through $C$.
Now we will consider the guillotine cutting sequence of rectangles in $P$ to iteratively decompose the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor into one of the three subcases: ($i$) into two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors, or ($ii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor, or ($iii$) a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
We stop when we reach subcases ($i$) or ($ii$). Otherwise in subcase ($iii$), we continue iteratively.
This sequence can have five types of cuts:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em HS}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc but doesn't pass through center-sc,
\item {\em VS}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through a side-sc,
\item {\em VC}: vertical guillotine cut which passes through center-sc but doesn't pass through any side-sc,
\item {\em HC}: horizontal guillotine cut which passes through center-sc,
\item {\em NC}: cut which doesn't pass through $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
\end{itemize}
Now, if we get cuts of type {\em VC} (or {\em HC}) at any subpiece, we are in case $(i)$ as we obtain 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors.
On the other hand, if we get {\em NC}-type cut we just focus on the subpiece containing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor of the present iteration.
If we have either cuts of type {\em VS} (or {\em HS}) passing through a side-sc then we are dividing the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend into a rectangular region and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor.
If there are no rectangle left in one of the side-sc of the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor, we call the subcorridor to be {\em exhausted}. In case of exhaustion of a subcorridor, we reach case $(ii)$ as the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor can be considered as an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor by ignoring the exhausted side-sc.
Otherwise, we are in case $(iii)$.
The rectangles in side-sc have height $\ge \varepsilon_{{large}} N$, so the consecutive cuts of {\em HS} creating $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor have to be at a distance of atleast $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. This ensures that the number of such corridors is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
Note that we can merge all the adjacent rectangular regions obtained due to successive cuts of {\em VS} into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor of same height till we arrive at a cut of different type (excluding {\em NC}). And since the number of cuts excluding {\em VS} and {\em NC} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$, therefore number of such $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors created due to successive cuts of {\em VS} is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$.
\end{proof}
\arir{need to add a figure. }
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{10cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,4)--(0,10)--(7.5,10)--(7.5,4)--(6.5,4)--(6.5,8)--(2,8)--(2,6)--(6,6)--(6,2)--(8,2)--(8,6)--(10,6)--(10,0)--(4,0)--(4,4)--(0,4);
\draw (1.5,7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (4,8.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (7.3,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{0}$}};
\draw (2,4.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (5,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (7,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{5}$}};
\draw (9.6,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{6}$}};
\draw [dashed] (0,9.8)--(7.4,9.8);
\draw [dashed] (0.2,9.8)--(0.2,4);
\draw [dashed] (0.2,9.6)--(7.3,9.6);
\draw [dashed] (0.4,9.6)--(0.4,4);
\draw [dashed] (0.4,9.4)--(7.2,9.4);
\draw [dashed] (0.6,9.4)--(0.6,4);
\draw [dotted] (6.5,8)--(7.5,10);
\draw [solid] (0.6,4)--(0.6,9.4)--(7.1,9.4)--(7.1,4);
\draw[solid](4.5,6)--(4.5,0.6);
\draw [dashed] (4,0.2)--(9.8,0.2);
\draw[dashed] (4,0.4)--(9.6,0.4);
\draw[solid](4,0.6)--(9.4,0.6)--(9.4,6);
\draw[dotted](10,0)--(8,2);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Shaded region is corridor $C$. Dashed lines are sequence of guillotine cuts. Boundary curve is depicted by dotted lines. Solid line inside the corridor $C$ divides it into O(1) corridors. Except atmost 1 corridor, rest of the $O(1)$ corridors have lesser number of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends than $C$ }
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{noz}
A non-spiral corridor $C$ can be decomposed into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridors by dropping atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles.
\end{lem}
\arir{write this proof and figure appropriately.}
\begin{proof}
There are two cases.
\noindent \textit{Case 1: $C$ is open corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $C$ have $k$ subcorridors $\{ S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},...,S_{k}\}$ such that $\forall i \in [k-1]$, $S_{i}$ and $S_{i+1}$ share a region $S_{i,i+1}$ with each other. Assume there are 5 subcorridors (If there are less than 5 subcorridors the following proof would still hold) $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$ such that $\{S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend. Let $S_{i'+3}$ be a horizontal subcorridor and $S_{i'+2}$ be situated to the top left of $S_{i'+3}$. Let us consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through the five subcorridors $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4} $ and $S_{i'+5}$. We now have 3 subcases.\\
In the first subcase, after a sequence of guillotine cuts through corridor $C$ (including those which is coincident with the edges of $C$) , we get our first cut $l'$ which passes through $S_{i'+3}$ only. Now consider the guillotine cuts which occured before the cut $l'$. Let $l_{i'+2}$ be the rightmost vertical cut through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$. Extend the cut $l_{i'+2}$ so that it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+2}$ at point $P$. Now draw a line $l_{i'+1}$ from point $P$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{i'+1}$ till it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'}$. Continue the same process by drawing lines $l_{j}$ through corridors $S_{j}$ where $1 \leq j \leq i'$ in similar fashion. Stop drawing these lines when we draw a line $l_{1}$ through $S_{1}$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{1}$ and reach its boundary edge. Lines $\{l_{1},l_{2},..,l_{i'+2}\}$ partitions the corridor $C$ into atmost 2 smaller corridors $C_{1},C_{2}$. $C_{1}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$ only. $C_{2}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). In a similar way we can partition $C_{2}$ into atmost 2 corridors $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ where $C_{3}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},..,S_{k}$ only and $C_{4}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},...,S_{k}$ (maynot contain rectangles from every subcorridor). During this process of partitioning we drop atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles. Now suppose that the first cut through $S_{3}$ only is a horizontal cut. This divides the $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$. Similarly if the first cut through $S_{3}$ only was vertical, then we can partition $C_{4}$ into 2 corridors containing atleast one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend when compared to $C$.\\
Now let us consider the second subcase where we dont have any cut in the guillotine cutting sequence which passes through the region of $S_{3}$ which is not part of any other subcorridor and neither $S_{i'+2}$ nor $S_{i'+4}$ has a horizontal cut passing through the unshared regions of these subcorridors. If $S_{i'+2}$ gets exhausted during the guillotine cutting sequence then we simply divide the corridor $C$ into 2 corridors $C_{1'}$ and $C_{2'}$ such that $C_{1'}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$ only and $C_{2'}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+3},...,S_{k}$ only. Similar partitioning can be done if $S_{i'+4}$ gets exhausted. Otherwise eventually due to the sequence of guillotine cuts $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+5}$ will be exhausted. Then we can partition $C$ into 3 corridors $C_{1''}$,$C_{2''}$ and $C_{3''}$ in similar fashion as we did in the previous subcase (which was done previously using the lines $\{l_{1},l_{2},..,l_{i'+2}\}$). $C_{1''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$, $C_{2''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},..,S_{k}$, $C_{3''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}$.\\
Now let us consider the last case where we dont have any cut in the guillotine cutting sequence which passes through the region of $S_{3}$ which is not part of any other subcorridor and either $S_{i'+2}$ or $S_{i'+4}$ has a horizontal cut passing through the unshared regions of these subcorridors.Let us assume that we have a horizontal cut through the unshared region of $S_{i'+2}$. Let $l_{v'}$ be the last vertical cut through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ before the first horizontal cut $l_{h}$ through $S_{i'+2}$ only. Let $l_{h'}$ be the part of $l_{h}$ which is inside $S_{i'+2}$. Extend $l_{v'}$ to meet the boundary curve between $S_{i'+2}$ and $S_{i'+1}$. Then continue making lines parallel to the orientation to the subcorridors $S_{i'+1},S_{i'},...,S_{1}$ as done in the previous subcase. Then using the lines created and $l_{h'}$ we can divide $C$ into 3 corridors $C_{1'''},C_{2'''},C_{3'''}$. $C_{1'''}$ and $C_{2'''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},..,S_{i'+2}$ only. $C_{3'''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridor $S_{i'+2},...,S_{k}$. If there is a horizontal cut through the unshared region of $S_{i'+4}$ then we can partition $C_{3'''}$ into $C_{4'''}, C_{5'''},C_{6'''}$ where $C_{4'''}$ and $C_{5'''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},..,S_{k}$, $C_{6'''}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}$. Otherwise $C_{3'''}$ is handled appropriately in subcase 2.\\
This concludes the proof for Case 1.\\
\noindent \textit{Case 2: $C$ is a closed corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $S_{1}$ be the leftmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{2}$ be the bottommost horizontal subcorridor in $C$, $S_{3}$ be the rightmost vertical subcorridor in $C$, $S_{4}$ be the topmost subcorridor in $C$. Depending on the arrangement of these four subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ we separate out the rectangles from these 4 subcorridors during guillotine cutting sequence into atmost 4 spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends. Items are packed into $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor if the 4 subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor among themselves. Similarlary items are packed into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ corridor or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors or corridor with 0 bends depending upon the arrangement of corridors among themselves. During the sequence of guillotine cuts if there cut which passes through the unshared region of subcorridor perpendicular to it's orientation then it clearly divides the subcorridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ open corridors with atmost $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ which is handled in Case 1. Otherwise if we don't have such cut then eventually one of the subcorridors $\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}\}$ as the items are being added to the $O(1)$ spiral corridors with atmost 4 bends. So, we are left with $O(1)$ open corridors which is again dealt in Case 1. This concludes our proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{no_z}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follows from Lemma \ref{noz} and Theorem \ref{thm:ldecom}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6) -- (0,0) -- (12,0) -- (12,10) -- (4,10) -- (4,4) -- (6,4) -- (6,8) -- ( 10,8) -- (10,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,6) -- (0,6);
\draw (1,3) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (6,1) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (11,5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (8,9) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (5,7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{5}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Corridors with more than 3 bends is not possible}
\label{bends}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick](0,0) rectangle (12,12);
\draw[thick](2,2) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (11,6) node { \large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (6,1) node { \large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (6,11) node { \large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Ring can be converted into corridors without any $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$ bend and consisting of atmost 3 bends.}
\label{rings}
\end{figure}
\begin{cor}
Every closed corridor $C$ in corridor decomposition of guillotine separable set of items, obtained after the processing done in Theorem \ref{theorem1} and Lemma \ref{noz}, is a ring.
\end{cor}
\subsubsection{Obtaining corridors with at most three bends}
\begin{lem}
\label{ringlem}
Every ring $R$ obtained after the previous corridor decomposition, can be converted into $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends and possibly a box which is guillotine separable and the box contains a smaller ring. All items in this decomposition remain guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the guillotine cuts sequence on the knapsack. Let $P$ be the smallest subpiece such that ring $R$ lies completely inside $P$ and the next guillotine cut in $P$ is the first cut which passes through $R$. As in Figure \ref{rings}, we call the left vertical, bottom horizontal, right vertical, top horizontal subcorridors of $R$ as $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ respectively.
If any cut in $P$ cuts the smaller vertical (resp. horizontal) edges of $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ (resp. $S_{2}$ and $S_{4}$), then we are done as $R$ gets divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Thus we can assume that first cut passes through a subcorridor and is parallel to its longer edges.
We now define four types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$. The rightmost (resp. leftmost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ ($S_{3}$) is termed as Type $1$ (resp. Type $3$). The topmost (resp. bottommost) end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ ($S_{4}$) is termed as Type $2$ (resp. Type $4$). These cuts may pass through the edges of the ring too.
The basic idea is to bound all the items of a ring to a bounding box $B$ and $O(1)$ number of open corridors with at most 3 bends such that the box is itself guillotine separable from the rest of the knapsack with guillotine cuts along the edges of $B$. We follow an iterative approach to define bounding box $B$. Clearly obtaining all four type of cuts will result in a box bounded by these cuts which contains a smaller boundary ring. Thus our iterative algorithms halts when either ($i$) all four type of cuts are obtained, or ($ii$) when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (as previously, by exhausted we mean that there is no rectangle left in that subcorridor after a step of our iterative procedure in the new smaller subpiece), or ($iii$) the corridor is divided into smaller open corridors by different type of cut other than the four types defined above.\\
We now formally define the iterative approach to find the bounding box. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a 3 bend corridor $U'$(can be degenerate too) which we assume w.l.o.g.~to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$, as in Figure \ref{ringproc}. That is w.l.o.g.~we assume that Type 4 cut doesn't come before other type of cuts. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut in the subpiece do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: (Type $1$ cut) Add the items on left subpiece that are part of the ring, to the left-vertical subcorridor of the 3-bend corridor $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the right-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $2$: (Type $2$ cut) Add the items on bottom subpiece that are part of the ring, to the horizontal subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the top-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $3$: (Type $3$ cut) Add the items on the right subpiece that are part of the ring, to the right-vertical subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the left-subpiece. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new-subpiece.
\item Case $4$: (Type $4$ cut) Pack the items of top subpiece in a new horizontal container $C$. Stop the iterative procedure. In this case we have $O(1)$ corridors and a box bounding the smaller ring whose edges are formed due to type cuts.
\item Case $5$: (Cuts perpendicular to the orientation of the subcorridors) Ring in the current subpiece is divided into 2 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corridors. Stop the iterative procedure.
\item Case $6$: (Cuts which don't pass through the ring) Continue only on the newly created subpiece that contains the ring, ignore the other subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
The iterative algorithm stops in Case 5 or Case 4 or when one of the subcorridors get eventually exhausted by a type of cut.
Each of the halting conditions results into $O(1)$ number of open corridors and possibly a box bounding a ring.
\arir{I guess, in case 5 we get 2-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, case 4 we get 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ and a Box, Other cases 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, 1 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ but no box.}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,4) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 0,4);
\draw[thick] (1,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (2.5,3.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (1,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.9,.45) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw (6.9,3.2) node {\large \textbf{Type 4}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,4.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,4.5) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.5) -- ( 6,3.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,3.25) -- ( 6.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,5) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) --(1,5);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) ;
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,5) -- (1.5,5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,5);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 3-bend corridor}
\label{ringproc}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm}
\label{3max}
Any corridor $C$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}W.l.o.g. assume $C$ has no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends (else apply Lemma \ref{}) and more than 3 bends. There are 2 cases.
\noindent {\em Case 1. } $C$ is an open corridor. W.l.o.g~assume $C$ has 4 bends. \ari{Similar argument holds for other corridors with greater than 4 bends.} We also assume $S_{1}$ to be longer in length than $S_{3}$ (see Figure \ref{bends}). We follow an iterative approach to partition the corridor $C$ into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ open corridors with at most 3 bends. During the iterative procedure we will be adding rectangles to a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$-corridor $G'$ (can be degenerate too) which we assume to be coming from $S_{1},S_{2},S_{3},S_{4}$. Considering the type of end-to-end guillotine cut through the corridor $C$ do the following processing:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Case $1$: Cut passes through a subcorridor perpendicular to the orientation of that subcorridor.
We get two corridors with smaller number of bends. If they have at most 3 bends, we stop. Otherwise, we continue iteratively with the smaller corridors.
\item Case $2$ : $V_{S_1}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{1}$). Add the items left of $V_{S_1}$ cut which are part of the corridor $C$ to the leftmost-vertical subcorridor of the 4-bend corridor $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{1}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $3$ : $H_{S_2}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{2}$). Add the items below $H_{S_2}$ cut to the bottommost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{2}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\item Case $4$ : $V_{S_3}$ cut (Vertical guillotine cut through $S_{3}$). Add the items right of $V_{S_3}$ cut to the rightmost-vertical subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{3}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise run the algorithm iteratively on the new subpieces.
\item Case $5$ : $H_{S_4}$ cut (Horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{4}$). Add the items above $H_{S_4}$ cut to the topmost-horizontal subcorridor of $G'$. Stop the iterative procedure if $S_{4}$ has exhausted and in this case we have $O(1)$ corridors. Otherwise continue the iterative procedure on the remaining portion of the corridor $C$ which is not part of $G'$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus our iterative algorithms halts when one of the subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ is exhausted (by exhausted we mean that there is all rectangles of that subcorridor is packed in $G'$ after a step of our iterative procedure) or when the portion of corridor $C$ which isn't part of $G'$ is divided into at most 4 open corridors with at most 3 bends as in Case 1. This iterative algorithm halts otherwise one of the type cuts will eventually exhaust a subcorridor as the number of cuts in the guillotine cutting sequence is finite. Each of the halting conditions results into $O(1)$ open corridors.
\noindent {\em Case 2.} $C$ is a ring (see Figure \ref{rings}). Then consider the bounding box $\mathcal{B}$ (if any) which contains a smaller ring as shown in Lemma \ref{ringlem}. For the remainder of the proof by {\em freezing} a rectangle we mean that the rectangle is not moved while rearranging other rectangles.
If there is any end to end cut which passes through only two subcorridors of same orientation then we can divide the corridor into 2 corridors each having 3 bends. So we now assume that there is no such end to end cut in $\mathcal{B}$.
Now consider the sequence of guillotine cuts which separate the rectangles in the ring. If we are cutting through leftmost vertical subcorridor or bottom most horizontal subcorridors then we freeze these rectangles. Now in the remaining portion of the box if there is a cut $l_{1}$ through rightmost vertical subcorridor and the distance between $l_{1}$ and edge of the boundary to the right of it be $d$ then we remove the strip $S$ to the right of $l_{1}$. Then we shift the rest of items of box to the right which isn't frozen by a distance of $d$. Now in the empty region created near the left edge of the box we place the strip $S$ which we removed. Now freeze the rectangles in the strip $S$. Do the same process if there is a cut through the upper most horizontal corridor and now instead of shifting the strip situated above the cut to the left we shift it down by appropriating shifting the remaining portion of the box upwards which isn't still frozen. Note that guillotine separability remains preserved by this rearrangement.
Continue this process till we convert these into single boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. We stop when we exhaust all rectangles or we find a cut that divides the ring into two corridors with 3 bends at most. Then we have a box with boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and possibly 2 smaller boxes each containing corridors with at most 3 bends. This completes our proof.
\end{proof}
\section{$(\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK-C}
For 2GGK-C, due to the following lemma we will assume that remove $O(1)$ number of items, without loosing too much profit.
\begin{lem}\cite{adamaszek2015knapsack}
\label{lem:drop}
If there is an algorithm for 2GK-C~which outputs a solution with at least $(1-\varepsilon)OPT-\beta^{O_\varepsilon(1)}$ items in time $O(f(n))$,
then there is also a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm with running time $O(f(n)+n^{{\beta}^{O_\varepsilon(1)}})$.
\end{lem}
Thus for 2GGK-C, large items can dropped as there are at most $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{2}})$ large rectangles in any given packing.
In fact, for now we assume that there is only skewed items in the packing. At the end of the section, we show how to repack the small items.
\subsection{Processing of subcorridors from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition}
From Lemma \ref{structure}, we obtain O(1) number of corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, where they are in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of a guillotine separable box as obtained. Now we process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors in 2 different ways (see Figure \ref{process} for processing of corridors). As they are part of boundry-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of a guillotine separable box, the processing preserves guillotine separability.
In first way, we process the vertical subcorridors as done in subsection \ref{prosec}. In second way, we process the horizontal subcorridors. Each of these different processing gives different sets $OPT_{{thin}}$, $OPT_{{kill}}$ and $OPT_{{fat}}^{corr}$. Based on these sets we classify the rectangles as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $OPT_{T}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{thin}}$ in one of the case.
\item $OPT_{K}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{kill}}$ in one of the case.
\item $OPT_{F}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{fat}}^{corr}$ in both cases.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{ering}
If we take any one of the cases of processing the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|OPT_{kill}|=O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$;
\item For any given constant $\varepsilon_{{ring}}>0$ there is a sufficiently small $\varepsilon_{{box}}>0$ such that the total height(resp.,width)of items in $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{hor}}$ (resp. $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{ver}}$) is at most $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Now we classify items in the optimal packing into four sets: $OPT_{LT}, OPT_{ST}$ (long and short items in $OPT_T$, resp.), $OPT_{LF}, OPT_{SF}$ (long and short items in $OPT_F$, resp.).
\begin{lem}
\label{algo1}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{F})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the sum of profit in both the ways of processing a subcorridor of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor as mentioned above. By definition every item in $OPT_{F}$ is included in both the cases. Items belonging to $OPT_{T}$ is saved in at least one of the cases. The lemma follows as a result of averaging argument.
\end{proof}
Now we show a more involved $L\&C$-packing that packs almost $|T|+|F|/2$ items.
\begin{lem}
\label{algo2}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+(1-O_{\varepsilon}(1))p(OPT_{F})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_L N$ (resp. $w_{LT} N$) be the total width of vertical items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$) and
$h_L N$ (resp. $h_{LT} N$) be the total height of horizontal items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$).
Then $w_L, h_L \le 1$, $w_{LT},h_{LT} \le \varepsilon_{{ring}}$, and all long items can be packed in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $w_L N$ and height $h_L N$.
Now from vertical arm of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we
choose a random vertical strip $[\tilde{x}, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L}{2} N+w_{LT} N\le w_L N$) or two random strips $([\tilde{x}, w_L N] \times [0,N]) \cup ([0, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N -w_L N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N> w_L N$), where $\tilde{x}$ is chosen uniformly at random from $[w_L]$. We remove all short items intersecting with this strip.
We do similar operation on horizontal arm and remove all short items intersecting random horizontal strip(s) of total width $\frac{h_L}{2} N+h_{LT} N$.
By averaging argument, the remaining items have profit $\frac{(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))}{2}\cdot OPT_{LF}+ST$ and packed in boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $\le w_L/2$ and height $\le h_L/2$.
In the remaining rectangular region of the box, we will place containers.
W.l.o.g. assume $w_L \le h_L$ (the other case is analogous).
Now we place items in $OPT_{ST}$ in two containers next to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
First, we place a container of height 1/2 and width $\varepsilon_{{ring}}$, touching top boundary and $x= w_L N/2$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from vertical subcorridors in the processing and then we place a container of width 1/2 and height $\varepsilon_{{ring}}$, touching right boundary and $y=h_L N/2$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from horizontal subcorridors in the processing.
As $w_L\le 1/2$, i.e., $1-w_L/2\ge 3/4$, these two containers do not overlap.
Now we are left with a rectangular region of width $N(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))$ and height $N(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))$.
So, using Steinberg's algorithm \cite{??} (which is a guillotine packing, see Section \ref{??}), we can pack any subset of items in $OPT_{SF}$ of total area at most
$\Big((1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))-(\frac{w_L}{2}+O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))(\frac{h_L}{2}+O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))\Big)N^2/2 \le \frac{N^2}{2}(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))$.
On the other hand, the total area of rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ is at most $N^2(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))$.
So, consider rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ in nondecreasing order of area till they reach $N^2(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))$.
These items can be packed in the remaining region and have total profit $\ge p(OPT_{SF}) \Big(\frac{N^2}{2}(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))\Big) / \Big(N^2(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))\Big) \ge ( p{OPT_{SF}} (1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))/2$.
Thus we have $L\&C$-packing with profit $p(OPT_{LT})+p(OPT_{ST})+p(OPT_{LF}) \cdot \frac{(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))}{2}+p(OPT_{SF}) \cdot \frac{(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1))}{2}$, concluding our proof.
\end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo2}, we get $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
The worst case is obtained when $p(OPT_{T})=p(OPT_{F})$.
\begin{thm}
\label{LC}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable solution that is packed by a guillotine separable $L\&C$ packing and $OPT$ be optimal packing for 2GGK-C. Then $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{thm}
\subsubsection {Previous part, might be removed if above is true.}
\begin{lem}
\label{algo2}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{SF})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
From the optimal packing we remove all the items except the items in $OPT_{SF}$. Now in this new packing consider a horizontal (resp., vertical) random strip of height (resp., width) $3\varepsilon N$. Remove the items which overlap with these vertical and horizontal strips. Let the items which remain be $OPT_{SF}'$. Due to horizontal strip, a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. Similarly, due to vertical strip, a vertical item gets removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$ and a horizontal item gets removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2}+6\varepsilon$. From linearity of expectation we get that $p(OPT_{SF}' )\geq (\frac{1}{2}-13\varepsilon)p(OPT_{SF})$. \\
\\Also clearly $OPT_{SF}'$ can be packed in a square of side length $(1-3\varepsilon)N$. So by doing one sided resource augmentation we can get a packing with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ in a square with side length $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. In $N \times N$ knapsack we can pack all items in $OPT_{LT}$ in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Two containers of dimensions $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N \times \frac{N}{2}$ and $\frac{N}{2} \times \varepsilon_{{ring}} N$ are created and kept just beside the subcorridors of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in such a way that the 2 created subcorridors don't overlap with each other. We pack all the items in $OPT_{ST}$ in these two containers. In the remaining square region which doesn't have items from $OPT_{T}$ we can pack the items from $OPT_{SF'}$ with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{SF}')$ as the square region has side length at least $(1-2\varepsilon)N$. This concludes the proof of this Lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{idea}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{LF})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [thick] (0,0) rectangle ( 20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- (20,0) -- ( 20,16) -- ( 6,16) -- ( 6, 20) -- ( 0, 20) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (9,7) rectangle (20,9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,8) rectangle (26,8.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- ( 20,0) -- ( 20, 12) -- ( 4, 12) -- ( 4,20 ) -- ( 0 , 20 ) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw ( 0, 10 ) -- ( 20 , 10) ;
\draw ( 1, 0) -- ( 1, 6) -- ( 2, 6) -- ( 2, 8 ) -- ( 4, 8) -- ( 4, 12) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (20,20);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0) -- ( 20,0) -- ( 20, 10) -- ( 4, 10) -- ( 4,20 ) -- ( 0 , 20 ) -- ( 0,0) ;
\draw[solid , fill = darkgray] ( 5, 11 ) rectangle ( 6 , 19) ;
\draw[solid , fill = darkgray] ( 7, 10.5 ) rectangle ( 19 , 12) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{case2}
\label{case2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}\label{prop1}
\end{figure}
$Case$ $1$: In this case, total width of items in $OPT_{{ver}} \cap I_{long}$ is greater than or equal to $(\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon_{{ring}})N$ and less than $\frac{N}{2}$ and total height of items in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ is more than $\frac{N}{2}$. Since we have excluded large items in this section, the L packing of long items doesn't have large items. Now by averaging argument we can identify a strip of height $\varepsilon N$ and loose profit of at most $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT_{LF})$ in the L-packing by removing only the items of $OPT_{LF} \cap I_{{hor}}$ which overlaps with this strip. If there are any items of $OPT_{LT}$ in the strip then we push it down. In the remaining space we indentify a rectangular region which is doesn't cross the boundary curve (as shown in Figure \ref{prop1}(a)) to pack all the items in $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{hor}}$ on top of each other. In a simlar fashion we can pack all the rectangles in $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{ver}}$
\\
\\$Case$ $2$: In this case, total width of items in $OPT_{{ver}} \cap I_{long}$ is less than $(\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon_{{ring}})N$ and total height of items in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ is more than $\frac{N}{2}$. We now cannot pack the items of $OPT_{ST} \cap I_{{ver}}$ in a vertical strip of width $\varepsilon N$ in the vertical subcorridor as the strip may contain huge profit irrespective of the way it is being chosen. Now consider a horizontal line $l$ at the height of $\frac{N}{2}$ in the knapsack. Let the rectangles in $OPT_{{hor}} \cap I_{long}$ above $l$ be $I_{1}$ and the rectangles below $l$ be $I_{2}$. Now, if $p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{2} > p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{1}$ then we remove the items in $I_{1}$ and pack the items of $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{1}$ by removing the least profitable strip of height $\varepsilon N$ of $I_{2}$ in the similar way as done in Case 1. Otherwise if $p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{1} > p(OPT_{LF}) \cap I_{2}$, then remove the items in $I_{2}$ and remove the least profitable strip of height $\varepsilon N$ from $I_{1}$ by assuming the rectangles of $I_{1}$ to be part of a container of dimension $\frac{N}{2} \times \frac{N}{2}$. Then we place the items in $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{{hor}}$ at bottom right of the knapsack on top of each other in the decreasing order of width. Then place the remaining items of $I_{1}$ on top of the items in $OPT_{LT} \cap I_{{hor}}$ . Now we have a new L packing and an empty square region with height at least $\frac{N}{2}$ and width at least $(\frac{1}{2} + \varepsilon_{{ring}})N$. Therefore we can pack every item belonging to $OPT_{ST}$ in 2 separate containers as shown in Figure \ref{prop1}(b) and (c) .
\\We ignore other cases as they are symmetric to the above two cases.
\\
\\ The profit we can pack is at least $p(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{LF})$
\end{proof}
Now combining Lemma \ref{idea} with Lemmas \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo2} we get $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{7}{10}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.The worst case is obtained when $p(OPT_{T})=3p(OPT_{LF})=3p(OPT_{SF})$.
\subsection{Adding small rectangles}\label{smallrec}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{dead}
In the packings mentioned in Lemma \ref{algo1} and Lemma \ref{algo2}, if we build a grid of width $\varepsilon'N=\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}\cdot N$ and delete any cell of the grid that overlaps with the container or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ then total area of the deleted grid cells is min$\{ (1-\varepsilon) N^{2},a(OPT_{corr})+3\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}\}$ where $a(OPT_{corr})$ denotes total area of corridors.
\end{lem}
We denote the cells which are not dead as free cells. Now take the knapsack and and find the regions which are guillotine separable and doesn't overlap with any container or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Let us denote these regions as guillotine free region. By appropriate choosing $\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{box},\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ as shown in subsection \ref{cnt} we can ensure that the total area of guillotine free regions which don't have both the dimensions greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$ is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{box},\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)\cdot \frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}\cdot N^{2}$ which is at most $O(\varepsilon^{2})N^{2}$. Now total area of guillotine free region is greater than or equal to the total area of free cells. So the total area of gullotine free regions with both dimensions greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$ is at least (max$\{ (\varepsilon N^{2},a(OPT_{small})-3\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}\}-O(\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$)). We have sufficient area to pack small rectangles of the packings in Lemma \ref{algo1} and Lemma \ref{algo2}.
\\
\begin{lem}\label{bigL}
In the packing mentioned in Lemma \ref{idea} and consider the grid created in Lemma \ref{dead}, total area of deleted grid cells is at most $a(OPT_{L})+a(OPT_{ST})+3\varepsilon'\cdot N$. Grid cells are considered to be dead if they overlap with any rectangle.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Consider a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ such that the vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ is top-left of horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$.In the packing of Lemma \ref{idea} we can ensure that width of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ is at most $\frac{N}{2}$ (using similar techniques as used in Case 2 of Lemma \ref{idea}) and still satisfy Lemma \ref{idea}. Now consider the first column of grid cells from left. Area of dead cells in first column is at most $\varepsilon'N^{2}$. In the second column of grid cells from left if there are $x$ grids cells which are dead then length of \ari{all the $L$ rectangles }in the first column is at least $(x-1)\cdot \varepsilon' N$ due to Lemma \ref{lpackinglem}. So area of dead cells in second column is at most area of rectangles in first column plus $\varepsilon'^{2}N^{2}$. Adding up the area of all the dead cells in this manner and repeating the same for horizontal rectangles we get total area of deleted grid cells to be at most $a(OPT_{L})+a(OPT_{ST})+3\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2}$.
\\
\\A box is said to be $\varepsilon'$ large if both dimensions are greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$. Now the free grid cells in the rectangular region which doesn't contain boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ are guillotine separable. Now we describe a procedure to obtain $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes (to pack the small rectangles) from the free cells in the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Note that these $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes when considered as pseudorectangles are guillotine separable. Consider the first column of grid cells from the left and assume that we have free cells in this column. Separate the horizontal rectangle if any (using a horizontal guillotine cut) which overlaps with this first column. Now consider the rightmost vertical cut which passes through this column. Distance of this cut from the right-hand side of this column is at most $\varepsilon_{{small}} N$. So we obtain $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes in the first column which are guillotine separable. Continue the same process for other columns which overlap with the vertical subcorridor of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Free cells which are in the horizontal subcorridor at the end of this process are guillotine separable. Area of guillotine separable boxes obtained from free cells is at least $(1-\varepsilon)(a(OPT_{small})-3\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2})$. So if $a(OPT_{small})\geq \frac{N^{2}}{4}-2\varepsilon' \cdot N^{2}$ we can pack almost all the small rectangles using NFDH in the guillotine separable $(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon'$ large boxes created and the guillotine separable free cells present in the region which doesn't contain boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. If $a(OPT_{small})$<$\frac{N^{2}}{4}-2\varepsilon' \cdot N^{2}$ we can pack all the small rectangles as area of guillotine separable free cells is at least $\frac{N^{2}}{4}-2\varepsilon' \cdot N^{2}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Relationship between different constants}\label{cnt}
We set $\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ to be $\varepsilon^{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'=\varepsilon_{{ra}}/2$. By choosing a big enough constant $\lambda$ such that number of corridors obtained is far less than $\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \cdot (1/\varepsilon_{{large}}')^{\lambda}$ given that at least one of the dimension of the rectangles while corridor decomposition is greater than $\varepsilon_{{large}}' N$, we set function $f(x)$ in the lemma \ref{class} to be $\frac{x^{3\lambda}}{(2K'(\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}})+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})^{2}}$. Note than $\lambda$ doesn't depend on $\varepsilon_{{large}}'$. Here $K'(x)=(\frac{2}{x^{10}}+(\frac{3}{x^{2}}(M(x))^{2}2^{2M(x)})^{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})$ $\lceil log_{1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1/x)\rceil/\varepsilon^{2}$ where $M(x)=\frac{1+2x}{x^{2}}$. We set $\varepsilon_{box}$ to be $\varepsilon^{3}\varepsilon_{{large}}^{\lambda}$. This ensures that sum of the heights of the rectangles in $OPT_{thin} \cap I_{hor}$ is less than $\varepsilon^{2} N$. Now we show that all our constraints are satisfied. By lemma \ref{class} we get a pair $(\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{{large}})$ such that $\varepsilon_{{small}} \leq \frac{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{3\lambda}}{(2K'(\varepsilon^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}})+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}}$. Let the total area of guillotine free regions with at least one of the dimensions less than $\varepsilon' N$ be $A_{< \varepsilon'}$. Then $A_{< \varepsilon'} < \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{box}}\cdot(2K'(\delta)+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})^{\lambda}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}N^{2}<\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$. Here $\delta > \varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}}$. Loose upper bound for $A_{< \varepsilon'}$ is found by multiplying the total number of containers by maximum area of guillotine free region which isn't $\varepsilon'$ large. Here as we said before $\lambda$ is a very large constant such that it satisfies all the inequalities which can be found by finding largest constant $c_{1}$ which arises in our equation which we can safely assume to be say greater than 5 and keeping $\lambda=c_{1}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot 10^{10}}$.
\subsection{Finding the packing in polynomial time} \arir{write more details.}
Using GAP(as mentioned in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}) and brute forcing among polynomial number of options we can find the packing which gives the desired approximation factor in polynomial time.
\subsection{Obtaining corridors with at most 2 bends}
\label{sub:bldec}
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-15pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{6cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6)--(2,6)--(2,5.5)--(4,5.5)--(4,6)--(6,6)--(6,4)--(5,4)--(5,3)--(4.5,3)--(4.5,4.5)--(5.5,4.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(4.5,5.5)--(4.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,5.5)--(.5,5.5)--(.5,4)--(2,4)--(2,3)--(4,3)--(4,2.5)--(1.5,2.5)--(1.5,3.5)--(0,3.5)--(0,6);
\draw[dotted] (6,4)--(5.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (5,4)--(4.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (6,6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4,6)--(4.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (2,6)--(1.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,6)--(.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,3.5)--(.5,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5,2.5)--(2,3);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 3.5)--(2,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 5)--(2,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4.5 , 5)--(4,5.5);
\draw[->] (.25,4.5) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.5,3.5); \draw (-.75,3.5) node {\textbf{$l_{V}$}};
\draw[->] (1,5.75) edge[out=90,in=0,->] (.75,6.5); \draw (.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l$}};
\draw (1.75,5.25) node {\textbf{$l_{1}$}};
\draw (4.25, 5.25) node {\textbf{$l_{2}$}};
\draw[->] (5,5.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (4.75,6.5); \draw (4.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l$}};
\draw[dashed] (4.75,3) -- ( 4.75 ,4.25) -- ( 5.75, 4.25) -- ( 5.75, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.75) -- (.25, 5.75) -- (.25, 3.5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{k-bend Corridor Processing}
\label{fig:kbend}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem} \label{structure}
Given an optimal guillotine packing of $I$ rectangles and the rectangles are either horizontal or vertical, we can partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ L corridors and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors with 0 bends and place $I' \subseteq I$ rectangles in these corridors and corridors with 0 bends such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$p(I') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))p(I)$ provided we can drop $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ rectangles without loosing any profit
\item Each corridor with 0 bends or subcorridor contains only one type of rectangle(i.e, either horizontal or vertical)
\item Each rectangle is guillotine separable
\item Each L corridor is a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ for a rectangular box.
\item Rectangular boxes (which bound the items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors ) when considered as a pseudo rectangle are guillotine separable and number of such boxes is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$
\item Each corridor with 0 bends when considered as a pseudo rectangles are guillotine separable and number of such corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given an optimal guillotine packing $I$ (these rectangles are skewed) and using lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack} and Theorem \ref{3max} we partition the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors with no Z bends and the number of bends is atmost 3. Also the packing $I'$ is guillotine separable and $p(I') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))p(I)$. We now a provide a construction of finding the rectangular box for each type of corridor with atleast one bend such that the corridor is at the boundary of the box and the box is guillotine separable. For the remainder of the section we assume that a given corridor $S$ can't be divided into smaller corridors with cuts perpendicular to the orientation of any subcorridor. If there were such corridors then we can divide our corridor into smaller corridor and $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors with 0 bends which are obtained by these perpendicular cuts \end{proof}. In the following subsections we show a construction of boxes
\begin{obs} \label{endtoend}
Given a piece containing a set of guillotine separable rectangles, there must exist an end-to-end guillotine cut in the piece. In other words, the first level of guillotine cuts in the piece is end-to-end.
\end{obs}
We follow some terminologies in the remainder of the section. We define subpiece $P$ completely containing corridor $C$ as \textit{smallest} iff the piece $P$ which is obtained from the sequence of guillotine cuts has no previous cut that passed through the corridor $C$ and the next end to end cut in $P$ passes through $C$. We also define \textit{box $B$ bounding} a set of rectangles as a subpiece which is guillotine separable from the rest of the piece. In other ways $B$ if considered as a pseudo-rectangle, forms a guillotine separable arrangement with the rest of the items of knapsack. In the rest of the section, by freezing a rectangle, we mean that the rectangle is not moved while shifting other rectangles. A subcorridor $S_{1}$ is said to be exhausted if there is no rectangle from $S_{1}$ in the smaller subpiece on which we would running our recursive procedure in the following section. A box $B$ is said to be bounding a corridor with atleast one bend if the outermost corners at the bends of the corridor coincides with the corners of the box. Now in the following section we provide a construction of boxes and corridors with 0 bends which satisfy Lemma \ref{structure}.
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor}\label{L corridor}
Consider a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor $S$. W.l.o.g we can assume that vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ of $S$ is placed to the top left w.r.t the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. We consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$.
Next consider the first stage guillotine cuts in the $P$. W.l.o.g let the first stage cuts be vertical.
Then we have the following cuts which can occur to a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor during the recursive procedure to bound the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor which we are going to describe later:
\begin{itemize}
\item Cut 1:Rightmost vertical Guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$
\item Cut 2:Horizontal Guillotine cut passing through $S_{1}$ and not through the interior of $S_{12}$
\item Cut 3: Horizontal Guillotine cut passing through $S_{2}$
\item Cut 4: Cut which doesn't pass through $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor.
\end{itemize}
Now we describe the recursive procedure.According to our assumption we begin with Cut 1. If we have Cut 1 then make a corridor with 0 bends out of the rectangles separated from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor in our subpiece and consider the right subpiece to be the new subpiece. Merge all the corridors with 0 bends obtained due to Cut 1 provided that these cuts occured before the first cut 2.For the rest of cuts which are of type cut 1 make a corridor for rectangles separated by these cuts. If we have Cut 2 then make a corridor with 0 bends out of the rectangles separated from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor in our subpiece and consider the bottom subpiece to be the new subpiece.
We stop the recursive procedure if either $S_{1}$ has exhausted or we obtain cut 2. If we obtain a cut 2 then we clearly have a bounding box with the edges being cut 1,cut 2 and the top and the right edges of the smaller subpiece $P'$ we are in after the last step of the recursive procedure. In the whole procedure we obtain only $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ extra corridors with 0 bends.
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$-corrdor}\label{twobends}
Let $S$ be a corridor with $2$ bends. Let the top left vertical, horizontal and top right vertical subcorridors of $S$ be $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$ and $S_{3}$ respectively as shown in Figure \ref{figtwobends}. Consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$. We define three types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$.The rightmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ is termed as \textit{Type $1$}. The leftmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{3}$ is termed as \textit{Type $3$}. The topmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ is termed as \textit{Type $2$}. Figure \ref{figtwobends} shows all the three types of cuts defined. We then follow a recursive approach to define bounding box using the cuts in guillotine cutting sequence. Clearly obtaining all three type of cuts, i.e., type $1,2,3$ will result in a bounding box where the box is bounded by these cuts and upper boundary of subpiece $P'$ containing a subset of items of $S$. Subpiece $P'$ is that subpiece which contains smaller corridor with 2 bends after we obtain the last of the three type cut. \\
\\Basic idea follows dividing $S$ into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with atmost 1 bend) consisting of some items from $S_{1}$ ( w.l.og it can be $S_{3}$ but we assume for the remainder of the section that $S_{1}$ is the one contributing to $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}'$) and $S_{2}$, $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors with 0 bends $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ from a subset of items of $S_{3}$ and a corridor (with at most 2 bends) with the remaining set of items. Note that $C_{i+1}$ is left of $C_{i}$ and $C_{i+1}$ has height less than $C_{i}$. Similarly $L_{i+1}$ is place to the top right of $L_{i}$ and $L_{i+1}$ is smaller in size than $L_{i}$ \\
\\We now formally define the algorithm for processing corridor $S$ with $2$ bends. From observation \ref{endtoend} we know that the first cut in any guillotine separable piece is end-to-end. In the remainder of the subsection by closing a corridor or corridor with 0 bends we mean that no more items will be packed in that corridor or corridor with 0 bends. And, by opening a corridor or corridor with 0 bends we mean that we are allowed to pack rectangles in this corridor or corridor with 0 bends only. Initially corridor $L_{1}$ is open and corridor with 0 bends $C_{1}$ is open. Depending on the type of this cut we do the following processing :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Scenario $1$:Let's assume that corridor $L_{i}$ and corridor with 0 bends $C_{j}$ is open right now. If we have a horizontal cut through $S_{1}$ or $S_{3}$ but not through $S_{2}$ then we pack the items of $S_{1}$ above the cut in one corridor with 0 bends and pack the items of $S_{3}$ above the cut in another corridor with 0 bends. Then we continue our recursive procedure for the smaller portion of our original corridor present in the subpiece below this cut. If the horizontal cut passes through $S_{1}$ then we close $L_{i}$ and open $L_{i+1}$. Similarly if the horizontal cut passes through $S_{3}$ then we close $C_{j}$ and open $C_{j+1}$. Such kind of cuts can have $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of occurences as the larger dimension of any rectangle is atleast $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. So when the recursive procedure halts scenario 1 would be contributing atmost $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new corridors with 0 bends.
\item Scenario $2$ : (Type $1$ cut) Add the items of $S_{1}$ which is left of cut 1 to the vertical subcorridor of $L'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of cut 1. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $3$ : (Type $2$ cut) Add the items of $S_{2}$ below the cut 2 to the horizontal subcorridor of $L'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the top-subpiece. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $4$ : (Type $3$ cut) Pack the items of $S_{3}$ which is right of cut 3 in a new vertical corridor with 0 bends $C$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of cut 3. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
We halt if one of the following three cases happens. First case occurs if at some iteration at least one cut from each type of cut is obtained. The boundaries of subpiece at this step along with the cut considered define the bounding box for remaing set of items of $S$. Thus we get a box surrounded by corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ and corridors with 0 bends $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ . Figure \ref{figtwobends} shows final bounding box $B$ formed after the algorithm alongwith $L_{1}$ formed after considering sequence of type $1$ and type $2$ cuts in subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$ and the corridor with 0 bends $C_{1}$ formed from type $3$ cuts in $S_{3}$. Second case occurs if one or more subcorridors in the piece exhausts i.e. all the items of these subcorridors are already packed in corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ or in corridors with 0 bends $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$. In this case we are left with atmost 2 corridors with atmost 1 bend who rectangles are not part of the corridors with 0 bends or corridors created during the recursive procedure. We can use the previous section results to bound this corridor with the a box (Except for a corridor with 0 bends which will be dealt in the later subsections). Third Case occurs when the next guillotine cut in the sequence is vertical and passes through subcorridor $S_{2}$ only. This leaves us with 2 corridors of atmost 1 bend. So, we can use the previous section results to bound the corridors with the boxes (Except for a corridor with 0 bends which will be dealt in the later subsections).\\
\\Now we observe that using the algorithm defined above we add only a $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of new corridors and corridors with 0 bends. The proof follows from the fact that if it is the case that all algorithm halts when atleast one of each type of cuts is obtained then in the end we have corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with atmost 1 bend) and corridors with 0 bends $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$. This accounts to $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new corridors with 0 bends and corridors as new corridor with 0 bends or corridor is created only when we have scenario 1 and as we have shown there the number of times this scenario occurs is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Else if it is the case that algorithm halts when one or more of subcorridors is exhausted, then also we have either corridors $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{k}\}$ (with atmost 1 bend) or we have corridors with 0 bends $\{C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{l}\}$ and we have already shown that the number of such corridors with 0 bends are $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. We then run the algorithm on remaining corridors which has lesser number of bends than $S$, i.e., atmost 1 bend(if there is any such corridor). As it follows from section \ref{L corridor}, we get $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors from processing in this case. For the third type of halting due to vertical cuts which passes through $S_{2}$ only, we have already shown in the previous paragraph that we obtain only $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ new corridors with 0 bends and corridors.
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) -- ( 5,4) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (1,3.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.7,.6) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,3.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,3) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.2,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) -- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,6) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,1.5)--(6.5,5)--(7,5)--(7,1.5)--(6.5,1.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (7,1.5) -- (7,1) --(1,1) -- (1,4);
\draw (1.25,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$L_{1}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (4,4) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 2-bend corridor}
\label{figtwobends}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ Corridor}\label{threebends}
The approach is similar to section \ref{twobends}. Let $S$ be a corridor with $3$ bends. Let the top left vertical, bottom horizontal, top right vertical subcorridors and top horizontal subcorridors of $S$ be $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ respectively as shown in Figure \ref{figthreebends}. Consider the smallest subpiece $P$ containing $S$. We define four types of end-to-end cuts possible in $P$ or in any of the subpieces formed by a sequence of cuts in $P$. The rightmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{1}$ is termed as Type $1$. The leftmost end-to-end guillotine cut passing during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence through $S_{3}$ is termed as Type $3$. The topmost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{2}$ is termed as Type $2$. The bottommost end-to-end guillotine cut during a single stage of guillotine cutting sequence passing through $S_{4}$ is termed as Type $4$. Figure \ref{figthreebends} shows all the four types of cuts defined.
\\Basic idea follows divinding $S$ into a corridor $U'$ (with atmost $2$ bends) consisting of some items from $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ ( w.l.og it can be $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ but for the rest of the proof we assume that it's the former case not the latter), a corridor with 0 bends $C$ from a subset of items of $S_{4}$ and a corridor (with at most 3 bends) with the remaining set of items. We follow a recursive approach to define bounding box $B$. Clearly obtaining all four type of cuts will result in a box bounded by these cuts. \\
We now formally define the algorithm for processing corridor $S$ with $3$ bends. From observation \ref{endtoend} we know that the first cut in any guillotine separable piece is end-to-end. Depending on the type of this cut we do the following processing :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Scenario $1$ : (Type $1$ cut) Add the items of $S_{1}$ which is left of Cut 1 to the left-vertical subcorridor of the 3-bend corridor $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is right of Cut 1. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $2$ : (Type $2$ cut) Add the items of $S_{2}$ which is below Cut 2 to the horizontal subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be subpiece which is above Cut 2. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $3$ : (Type $3$ cut) Add the items of $S_{3}$ which is right of Cut 3 to the right-vertical subcorridor of $U'$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is left of Cut 3. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\item Scenario $4$ : (Type $4$ cut) Pack the items of $S_{4}$ which is above Cut 4 in a new horizontal corridor with 0 bends $C$. Consider the new-subpiece to be the subpiece which is below Cut 4. Run algorithm recursively on the new-subpiece.
\end{enumerate}
We halt if one of the following three cases happens. First case occurs if at some iteration at least one cut from each type of cut is obtained. The boundaries of subpiece at this step along with the cut considered define the bouding box for remaing set of items of $S$. Thus we get the box $B$ surrounded by $U'$ on three edges and a corridor with 0 bends $C$ on the fourth. Figure \ref{figthreebends} shows final bounding box $B$ formed after the algorithm alongwith $U'$ formed after considering sequence of type $1$ ,type $2$ and type $3$ cuts in subcorridors $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$ and the corridor with 0 bends formed from type $4$ cuts in $S_{4}$. Second case occurs if one or more of the subcorridors in the piece exhausts, i.e., all the items of subcorridor are already packed in $U'$ or in $C$. In this case we are left with atmost 2 corridors with at most 2 bends whose items are not part of either $U'$ or $C$. Using the previous section we get that the corridor with atmost two bends is bounded by a box (Except for a corridor with 0 bends which will be dealt in the later subsections) . Third Case occurs when the next guillotine cut in the guillotine cutting sequence passes completely through any subcorridor perpendicular to its longer sides. This divides $S$ into atmost three corridors with atmost 2 bends each. Using the previous section results each corridor with atmost two bends is bounded by a box (Except for a corridor with 0 bends which will be dealt in the later subsections) .\\
\\Now we observe that using the algorithm defined above we add only a $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ number of new corridors and corridors with 0 bends. The proof follows from the fact that if it the case that all algorithm halts when atleast one cut from each type of cuts is obtained then in the end we have a corridor ( with atmost 3 bends) , a corridor with 0 bends and a bounding box. This accounts to $O(1)$ new corridors with 0 bends and corridors. Else if it is the case that algorithm halts when one or more of subcorridors is exhausted, i.e., packed in either $U'$ or $C$, then we have a new corridor (with atmost 2 bends) or one new corridor with 0 bends $C$. We then run the algorithm on remaining corridors which has lesser number of bends than $S$ i.e. atmost 2 bends (Except for a corridor with 0 bends which will be dealt in the later subsections) . As it follows from subsections \ref{twobends} and \ref{L corridor}, we get $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ corridors from processing in both the cases. In the third case of halting, $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ extra corridors with 0 bends follows from the results of subsections \ref{twobends} and \ref{L corridor}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,3) -- (0,0) -- (6,0) -- (6,4) --( 2,4)--(2,3)--(5,3) -- (5,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,3) -- (0,3);
\draw (.5,1.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw (3,0.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{2}$}};
\draw (5.5,2.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{3}$}};
\draw (3,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$S_{4}$}};
\draw (1,3.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 1}};
\draw (6.9,.45) node {\large \textbf{Type 2}};
\draw (6,4.7) node {\large \textbf{Type 3}};
\draw (6.9,3.2) node {\large \textbf{Type 4}};
\draw[dotted] (.5,3.5) -- ( .5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (.25,3) -- ( .25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.5) -- ( 6.5,0.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,.25) -- ( 6,0.25) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.5,4.5) -- ( 5.5,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (5.25,4) -- ( 5.25,0) ;
\draw[dotted] (2,3.5) -- ( 6,3.5) ;
\draw[dotted] (2,3.25) -- ( 6.5,3.25) ;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Types of cuts}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,6);
\draw[thick] (1,4) -- (1,1) -- (7,1) -- (7,5) -- ( 6,5) --(3,5)--(3,4)--(6,4)-- (6,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (1,4);
\draw[thick] (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,6)
\draw[thick] (6.5,1.5)-- (6.5,6);
\draw[thick] (6.5,4.5)--(1.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=black] (6.5,4.5)--(6.5,5)--(3,5)--(3,4.5)--(6.5,4.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (1,4) -- (1.5,4) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (6.5,1.5) -- (6.5,5) --(7,5) -- (7,1)--(1,1)--(1,4);
\draw (4,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$U'$}};
\draw (5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (4,3) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Final Bounding Box of $S$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing 3-bend corridor}
\label{figthreebends}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-Corridor}
In this subsection we deal with the items inside a corridor with 0 bends in 2 ways. In first way, the corridors with 0 bends can be either divided into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ corridors with 0 bends and the corridors with 0 bends as a pseudo rectangle are guillotine separable. In second way, the items in corridors with 0 bends is merged with a corridor and later become a part of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ . Given a knapsack, first we construct the boxes as mentioned in the previous subsections. Note that one box may lie completely inside another box. Now consider the set of outermost boxes which are not part of any other box in the original Knapsack. Note that the boundaries of outermost boxes may divide the corridors with zero bends into smaller parts. The number of such smaller parts is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ as the guillotine cuts which are part of the boundary of a single box can divide a corridor with 0 bends into atmost 6 parts and number of such boxes is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Now we have to deal with 2 cases.\\
\\ In the first case, a corridor with 0 bends say $S$ lies inside a box and if a part or the complete corridor with 0 bends $S$ lies between the lines along the two longer edges of a subcorridor say $S_{1}$ of a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and the orientation of the corridor is same as that of the subcorridor $S_{1}$. This case is approriately handled in the subsubsection \ref{sssl} and we satisfy all the properties of the lemma \ref{structure}. Suppose instead that the longer edges of the rectangles in the corridor with 0 bends $S$ was perpendicular to the longer edges of subcorridor $S_{1}$ of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ then this case is approriately handled in the subsubsection \ref{sssl} and we satisfy all the properties of the lemma \ref{structure}. Similar argument holds for corridors with 2 or 3 bends instead of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor and after all the similar processing as done in subsubsection \ref{sssl} we convert them into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor by appropriate shifting as mentioned in the subsubsections \ref{sss2} and \ref{sss3}.\\
\\Now in the second case the corridors with 0 bends lies outside any box in the original knapsack. Now consider the set of guillotine cuts which separates the corridors with 0 bends and the boxes. Note that the way we have constructed the outermost boxes the guillotine cuts don't pass through the boxes except it's edges. Consider one corridor with 0 bends $S_{1}$ and let it's orientation be horizontal. Then we can divide into the following subcases based on the type of cut through $S_{1}$ and the interaction of the cuts with other cuts or rectangles:
\begin{itemize}
\item Subcase 1: Now consider the horizontal cuts (which are not entirely inside the corridor with 0 bends $S_{1}$) through $S_{1}$. If 3 or more horizontal cuts are intercepted by the same vertical cut in the guillotine cutting sequence then consider the topmost and the bottom cut as the cuts and ignore the rest. This subcase is depicted in Figure \ref{C01b}.
\item Subcase 2: Now consider set of vertical cuts which intercept the horizontal cuts through $S_{1}$. If these vertical cuts are edges of an outermost box which we created then there can be atmost $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ of them. Now if these vertical cuts are edges of vertical rectangle which belonged to different corridors then these can be atmost $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ of them. Both of the scenarios are depicted together in Figure \ref{C01c}.
\item Subcase 3:Supposed the rectangles which intercept the horizontal cuts through $S_{1}$ belonged to the same corridor $S_{2}$. Now assume 2 or more than 2 consecutive horizontal cuts dont have space more than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ between them (otherwise the cuts are intercepted by atmost $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles) . Then we take that cut $l$ among the consecutive cuts such that $|l\bigcap S_{2}|$ is maximum and shift vertically those rectangles which intercepted these consecutive cuts other than $l$ and make them touch $l$. Hence we consider $l$ as valid guillotine cut and deal with the rest of the consecutive cuts using the Subcase 1. Subcase 3 is depicted in Figure \ref{C02a} and Figure \ref{C02b}.
\item Subcase 4: Using the same techniques of Subcase 1 and 3 and applying it to the vertical cuts which pass through some vertical corridor $S_{3}$ with zero bends (repeat the same for other set of cuts which pass through the same vertical corridor with 0 bends) and are intercepted by the rectangles in $S_{2}$ we get that there can be atmost $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ vertical cuts (which are not entirely inside the corridor with 0 bends $S_{1}$) passing through $S_{1}$ since width of each rectangle is atleast $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. This subcase is depicted in Figure \ref{C01a}.
\end{itemize}
Now we argue that atmost $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ horizontal cuts (which are not entirely inside the corridor with 0 bends $S_{1}$) pass through the corridor with 0 bends $S_{1}$. Subcase 2 and Subcase 3 ensure that the number of vertical cuts which intercept the horizontal cuts passing through $S_{1}$ is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. And for each such vertical cut we end up keeping atmost 2 horizontal cuts which pass through $S_{1}$ as explained in Subcase 1. Now these horizontal cuts along with the vertical cuts of Subcase 4 and vertical edges of $S_{1}$ results into partition of $S_{1}$ into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ corridors with 0 bends and these corridors when considered as a pseudo rectangle is guillotine separable
\\
\\ Now the procedure mentioned above is recursively applied to those portion of the outermost boxes which doesn't have items from its boundary $L$. This process stops when there is no corridor with atleast one bend which is not bounded by any box or there is no corridor with 0 bends which when considered as a pseudo item isn't guillotine separable. Number of such boxes bounding the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor or items of a corridor with 0 bends is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. This follows from constructive procedures in subsection \ref{ssss} and the fact that we started the section with $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ corridors with 0 bends and corridors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (8,8);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 8,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(8,4.6);
\draw [dotted] (3,4.6)--(3,8);
\draw [dotted] (2.3,4.3)--(2.3,0);
\draw [dotted] (2,4)--(2,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.5,4)--(2.5,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.6,4)--(2.6,0);
\draw[dotted] (2.7,4)--(2.7,0);
\draw[dotted](3.6,4.3)--(3.6,0);
\draw [dotted] (1,0)--(1,8);
\draw [dotted] (5,0)--(5,8);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Constant number of vertical cuts through a corridor $C$ which has horizontal orientation}\label{C01a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dashed] (0,4.3) -- ( 7,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7,4.6);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.9)--(7,4.9);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.2)--(7,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7,5.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.8)--(7,5.8);
\draw[dotted](7,0)--(7,10);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (8,5) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{We choose the topmost and bottommost horizontal cuts(shown as dashed lines in this figure ) if more than 3 horizontal cuts are intercepted by the same vertical cut as shown in this figure. Then these chosen cuts along with the portion of the boundary vertical edges of $C$ form the edges of a corridor with 0 bends which is guillotine separable.Rest of the cuts which were not chosen is divided into 2 parts and pass through rectangles which are outside $C$ }\label{C01b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (6,5) rectangle (8,7);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (8.3,1) rectangle (9,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(8.3,4.6);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(6,5.8);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (8.6,3) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (7,6) node {\large \textbf{$B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Horizontal cuts intercepted by different boxes or corridors with 0 bends}\label{C01c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Handling Corridors with 0 bends Part-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 7.3,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7.6,4.6);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.2)--(7.9,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7.6,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(7.3,5.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.3,5.7) rectangle (7.5,6.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.6,5.4) rectangle (7.8,6.5);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.9,4) rectangle (8.1,6.2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.5,4.8) rectangle (7.7,3.7);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.2,4.5) rectangle (7.4,3.4);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$l$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Horizontal cuts are intercepted by vertical rectangles belonging to same corridor with 0 bends. Identify the horizontal cut $l$ (dashed line in this figure)which has maximum intrusion into corridor $C_{1}$. }\label{C02a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw (1,4) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[solid] (7,3) rectangle (10,7);
\draw[dotted] (0,4.3) -- ( 7.3,4.3) ;
\draw[dotted] (0,4.6)--(7.3,4.6);
\draw[dashed] (0,5.2)--(7.9,5.2);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.5)--(7.3,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0,5.8)--(7.3,5.8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.3,5.2) rectangle (7.5,6.3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.6,5.2) rectangle (7.8,6.3);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.9,4) rectangle (8.1,6.2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.5,5.2) rectangle (7.7,4.1);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (7.2,5.2) rectangle (7.4,4.1);
\draw (4.5,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$C$}};
\draw (9,5) node {\large \textbf{$C_{1}$}};
\draw (6,5) node {\large \textbf{$l$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Then shift all the rectangles which are intercepting other cuts which are under consideration so that it touches cut $l$. Cuts other than $l$ are bow divided into 2 group and are now dealt in the same way as we dealt the cuts intercepted by same vertical cut}\label{C02b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Handling Corridors with 0 bends Part-2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shifting Procedure}\label{ssss}
In this subsection by boundary corridor we mean that the corridor is bounded by a box which is obtained by the recursive procedure in the subsection \ref{L corridor}, \ref{twobends}, \ref{threebends}. Also we assume that the cuts which we are considering in a box $B$ don't pass through the smaller boxes inside $B$ except through it's edges.
\subsubsection{Handling rectangles or corridors with 0 bends interacting with a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor}\label{sssl}
Consider a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor $S$ with vertical subcorridor $S_{1}$ placed top left with respect to the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. Now consider a sequence of guillotine cuts (cut is parallel to the orientation of the subcorridor and the rectangles which are being separated in that subcorridor) which separates the rectangles in the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Continue this process till there doesn't exist any such cut. Either we have separated all the rectangles of a subcorridor of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or still we have a portion of the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ left. In the former case we fix the rectangles which got separated due to guillotine cuts as the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the original box. In the later case w.l.o.g let the next stage of cuts be horizontal and these cuts passes though $S_{1}$ only . Now consider the lowermost cut among these horizontal cut. Let it be $l$. Let $l$ be at a distance of $h$ from the top of the box. If $h \leq \varepsilon_{{large}} N$,we remove the items in the strip above $l$, then we shift upwards the rectangles below the cut $l$ except those rectangles which got separated due to previous guillotine cuts by a distance of $h$ and then place the rectangles from the strip which we removed initially in the empty region created due to shifting. Otherwise if $h > \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ then we consider the items separated due to cuts before $l$ as the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the original box and we divide rest of region of the box into 2 smaller boxes with cut $l$ being the common edge between both the smaller boxes. Now that an original boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ along with some corridors with 0 bends gets divided into $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$ smaller boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. The reason being that a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and some corridors with 0 bends get divided into smaller boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ only if the height of the new box which we are about to create is greater than $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and therefore number of such boxes is $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}})$. Similar processes can be done to corridors with 2 or 3 bends.
\subsubsection{Converting boundary corridor with $2$ bends to a single Boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in a box}\label{sss2}
Let us consider a boundary corridor with $2$ bends with two vertical subcorridors $S_{1}, S_{3}$ on top of the horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$ with $S_{3}$ being placed to the right of $S_{1}$. W.l.o.g let us assume that the first stage cuts in the guillotine cutting sequence in the box is vertical. Now consider the cut $l$ through $S_{3}$. Let the distance between $l$ and edge of the boundary be $d$. Now remove the strip to the right of $l$ and shift the rest of items of box to the right by a distance of $d$. Now in the empty region created near the left edge of the box we place the strip which we removed. Now consider the rectangles in this strip, rectangles to the left of cut through $S_{1}$ before the shifting procedure and set of horizontal rectangles whose guillotine cut is intercepted by the former rectangles mentioned in this sentence. We now freeze these rectangles after shifting and consider the rest of the box as a new box and recursively apply the process to remaining part of the corridor till we don't have any vertical guillotine cuts left. If we have exhausted the corridor then we are done and we have a single boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Otherwise we must have horizontal cut through the remaining portion of the box to separate the rectangles because there no end to end vertical cut. We handle this in sub-subsection \ref{sssl}. The boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ achieved due to the sequence of guillotine cuts forms the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of the box. Also this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ smaller boundary $L$ with width atmost $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ by dropping atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items as shown in Figure \ref{divL}.
\subsubsection{Converting boundary corridor with 3 bends to a single Boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$}\label{sss3}
Consider a boundary corridor $S$ with 3 bends. Let us consider vertical subcorridors $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ which are on top of horizontal subcorridor $S_{2}$. $S_{3}$ is right of $S_{1}$ and below horizontal subcorridor $S_{4}$. Consider the horizontal guillotine cut through $S_{4}$ and remove the rectangles above this cut and place it below corridor $S_{2}$ by shifting rectangles below the cut upwards. Now freeze this set of rectangles from $S_{4}$ which were moved down. Now in the remaining portion of the box take the vertical guillotine cut through $S_{3}$ and remove the rectangles to the right of this cut and place it to the left of $S_{1}$. Now freeze the rectangles in the similar fashion as done in the Sub-subsection \ref {sss2} and recursively repeat the process for the rectangles in subcorridors $S_{3}, S_{4}$ which aren't freezed yet till we exhaust these both the corridors. Note that we stop if there is no vertical cut through $S_{3}$ or a horizontal cut through $S_{4}$ then there must exist which divides the remaining portion of the box into 2 parts each containing corridors with atmost 2 bends. If any one of them has a corridors of 2 bends then we can use the results of sub-subsection \ref{sss2} to get a box with boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Otherwise, we are done and the rectangles which got freezed before this step form the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of our original box with which we started initially. Also this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ can be converted into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ smaller boundary $L$ with width atmost $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ by dropping atmost $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items as shown in Figure \ref{divL}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (10,10);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(0,10)--(3,10)--(3,3)--(10,3)--(10,0)--(0,0);
\draw [dashed] (1,10)--(1,1)--(10,1);
\draw [dashed] (2,10)--(2,2)--(10,2);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Dividing a boundary $L$ (shaded region) into smaller boundary using dashed lines as shown in this figure. Vertical and horizontal dashed lines meet at the boundary curve. Dashed lines also form the edges of the smaller boxes which bound the new $L$ corridors being created}\label{divL}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Guillotine property}
The construction of boxes and shifting of rectangle doesn't disturb the guillotine property. Now we show that the processing which we do in Subsection \ref{prosec} doesn't disturb the guillotine property if it is done to the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which we obtain in the previous section. Now consider w.l.o.g that we are processing (as done in Subsection \ref{prosec}) a vertical subcorridor of the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which is placed top-left with respect to horizontal subcorridor. Note that this processing does not create any conflict in terms of guillotine separability with elements in boxes and corridors with 0 bends outside the box bounding this boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ since by construction the boxes and corridors with 0 bends are guillotine separable when considered as a pseudorectangle. Also the way in which we have constructed the boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we always have a sequence of vertical (resp., horiztonal) cuts through the vertical (resp., horiztonal) subcorridor of boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ which separates the rectangles in the vertical (resp., horiztonal) subcorridor. This ensures that as long we can separate out the items in the boundary $L$ from the rest of box using cuts which doesn't pass through the rest of the box, then the items in the rest of box can be separated as we have not changed their orientation. Now we need to focus on the boundary curve of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor. Consider the strip containing the thin items. Let the length of the shorter vertical edge be $l$. Now the vertical strip which replaces this strip has rectangles of length atmost $l$. So the horizontal rectangles which interacted with the thin items can be directly separated as there is no vertical rectangle intercepting the cut. Similar analogy for other strips shows that there is no conflict with horizontal rectangles. So we can conclude that the processing in Subsection \ref{prosec} doesn't disturb guillotine property.
\section{Weighted case}\label{w2dgk}
\subsection{Shifting Argumentation\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}\label{shifting}
We aim to pack back the items dropped in all the previous steps of processing. Reconsidering the items dropped, i.e., $OPT_{kill}$, $OPT_{Large}$, $OPT_{corr}^{cross}$, we give a similar processing as devised in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} for packing these items with just losing a small fraction of profit. Intuitively we divide the knapsack into a grid iteratively and observe the profit of items dropped as a result of processing the items which are classified depending on the grid. Using standard shifting argument we can claim that recursively doing the same procedure for $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times we get a set of items which can be dropped and have a profit of $O(\varepsilon)$.
\subsubsection{Grid and Corridor Partition}\label{gridpartition}
We initiate $k(0)$ to the union of set of all items dropped in all the processing steps before (e.g., $OPT_{large}$, $OPT_{K}$, $OPT_{corr}^{cross}$ ). If the profit of items in $k(t)$ at any iteration $t$ is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$ we get the desired set of items and halt.
Consider $t^{th}$ iteration, we denote $G(t)$ as the grid formed by extending the $x$, $y$ coordinates of the items in $\kappa(t)$. Consider $C_{t}$ to be the set of grid cells of $G(t)$. We classify items in the knapsack as small, large, horizontal, vertical as before depending on its intersection with the cells it overlaps. \\
An item $i$ having non-zero intersection with a cell $C$ $\in$ $C_{t}$ is classified inside $C$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $OPT^{t}_{ver}(C)$ if $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{hor}(C)$ if $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{large}(C)$ if $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{small}(C)$ if $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$,
\item $OPT^{t}_{intermediate}(C)$ if $h(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)]$ or $w(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)]$
\item $OPT^{t}_{skew}(C)$ $=$ $OPT^{t}_{hor}(C) \cup OPT^{t}_{ver}(C)$.
\end{enumerate}
As done in previous sections, we can fix $\varepsilon_{small}$ and $\varepsilon_{large}$ such that the profit of items classified as intermediate for any cell is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$. $\varepsilon$ $\geq$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $\geq$ $f(\varepsilon_{small})$ $\geq$ $\omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$, for some positive increasing function $f(.)$ .\\
We add items not contained in $\kappa(t)$ in $OPT_{large}(C)$ to $k(t+1)$ for all $C$ not fully covered by any item in $\kappa(t)$. We do corridor decomposition as in section \ref{subcorr}, considering only skew items in all the cells.\\%put the reference
Although this corridor decomposition might kill some of the items in $\kappa(t)$ which we want to save. Thus we apply Lemma \ref{focsagain} and \ref{againfocs} which uses further decomposition of corridors with constant number of line segments dropping a $ \varepsilon$ fraction from optimal.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{focsagain}
Let $S$ be an open corridor with $b(S)$ bends. Let $I'$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ be a collection of items which intersect the boundary of $S$ with $I'\bigcap OPT_{skew}(C_{t}) = \phi$. Then there is a collection of $|I'|.b(S)$ line segments $L$ within $S$ which partition $S$ into sub-corridor with at most $b(S)$ bends each such that no item from $I'$ is intersected by $L$ and there are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(|I'|.b(S))$ items of $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ intersected by line segments in $L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{againfocs}
Let $S$ be a closed corridor with $b(S)$ bends. Let $OPT_{skew}(S)$ denote the items in $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ that are contained in $S$. Let $I'$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ be a collection of items which intersect the boundary of $S$ with $I'\bigcap OPT_{skew}(C_{t}) = \phi$. Then there is a collection of $O_{\varepsilon}(\frac{|I'|^{2}}{\varepsilon})$ line segments $L$ within $S$ which partition $S$ into a collection of closed corridors with at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ bends each and possibly an open corridor with $b(S)$ bends such that no item from $I'$ is intersected by $L$ and there is a set of items $OPT'_{skew}(S) \subseteq OPT_{skew}(S)$ with $|OPT'_{skew}(S)|\leq O_{\varepsilon}(|I'|^{2})$ such that the items in $OPT_{skew}(S) \backslash OPT'_{skew}(S)$ intersected by the line segments in $L$ have a total profit of at most $O(\varepsilon).p(OPT_{skew}(C_{t}))$.
\end{lem}
Using Lemmas \ref{focsagain} and \ref{againfocs} we partition the piece in $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ corridors (open and closed) packing all the items in $OPT_{skew}(S)$ $\backslash$ $OPT'_{skew}(S)$. We augment the remaining set of items $OPT'_{skew}(S)$ with small profit to $K(t+1)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : All the processes used to obtain the bends and corridor decomposition follow deletion of items only. Thus the remaining subset of items should be guillotine separable given that the initial packing was guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Box Partition}\label{boxpart}
We follow the same process as in original corridor decomposition section \ref{subcorr} on all the items completely lying inside the strips formed from the subcorridor processing in the previous section. The difference from previous section \ref{subcorr} is the set $OPT_{fat}$ being considered for packing i.e. we don't drop large items while forming the set $OPT_{ fat}$ in this section section. Then by using similar shifting procedure as in section \ref{subcorr} we shift items from one subcorridor to other to pack all but $OPT_{kill}$ of them.For now let us ignore the items in $OPT_{small}$ that cross a subcorridor (handled in section \ref{smallitems}). We add all the items in $OPT_{kill}$ into $K(t+1)$ which actually refers to the items killed in the $t^{th}$ iteration. From section \ref{subcorr} it follows that only $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{large},\varepsilon_{box}}(1)$ of items are killed in partition of subcorridors to boxes. Also the killed items do not belong to the set $\kappa(t)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : Since items the division of subcorridors into boxes involves partition of subcorridor with lines. We remove all the items killed by these lines and pack the rest completely into the strips formed. The strips can be themselves separated by the same set of lines. Also since we begin from a guillotine separable arrangement, shifting the horizontal ( resp. vertical) items vertically ( resp. horizontally ) doesn't disturb the guillotine property. Thus guillotine separability is maintained after the processing of subcorridors into boxes.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Container Partition}
\label{containerweighted}
We follow resource augmentation from Lemma \ref{lemma1}. The process borrows technique from partitioning box into containers as done in section \ref{subcorr} with the only difference that we include $OPT_{small}$ this time while processing. We classify an item as $OPT_{small}(C_{t}))$ if for every cell $C$ in $C_{t}$ intersecting with the item, the item is classified as $OPT_{small}(C)$. In other words any item which is small in all the cells intersecting it, is classified as $OPT_{small}(C_{t})$. Now consider a horizontal box, using averaging argument there exits a strip with width $3\varepsilon$ such that it intersects with items with total profit less than or equal to $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT_{box})$. We neglect the small items intercepted by the strip for now and pack them later as mentioned in section \ref{smallitems}. Let the items killed be $OPT_{kill,box}$. We add items in $OPT_{kill,box}$ to the set of items dropped in the $t^{th}$ iteration, i.e., $K(t+1)$. We then apply resource augmentation to the set of remaining small items say $OPT'_{small}(C_{t})$ and pack subset $OPT''_{small}(C_{t})$.
This gives us an $L\&C$ packing of a profitable subset $OPT'_{skew}(C_{t})$ $\subseteq$ $OPT_{skew}(C_{t})$ and a subset of small items not intersected by the $3\varepsilon$ strip, i.e., $OPT''_{small}(C_{t})$ $\subseteq$ $OPT'_{small}(C_{t})$. Total profit of items, i.e., $p(OPT'_{skew}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(OPT''_{small}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(K(t+1))$ $\geq$ ($1-O(\varepsilon)$) $($ $p(OPT_{skew}(C_{t}))$ $+$ $p(OPT'_{small}(C_{t}))$ $)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : The only process we do in this section is deleting some items intersecting a strip. Since deleting items doesn't affect guillotine separability therefore the remaining items are guillotine separable if the original arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we get a guillotine separable arrangement after doing the processing as given in this section.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Packing Small Items}\label{smallitems}
Now we repack the small items killed by lines of corridor decomposition in section \ref{boxpart}. Consider the set $OPT_{skew,killed}(C_{T})$ as the given set of items. We assign each item in $OPT_{skew,killed}(C_{T})$ to the cell it was contained maximally in the original packing. Consider a cell $C$ and the items assigned to $C$ as $OPT_{skew,killed}(C)$. By wisely choosing the factor $\varepsilon_{small}$ we can force area of small items assigned to $C$, i.e., $a(OPT_{skew,killed}(C))$ to be at most $\varepsilon a(C)$. This follows from the fact that number of items intersecting $C$ would be $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{large}}(1)$. Thus by using Lemma
\ref{areafocs}
we can pack a profitable fraction of items $OPT'_{skew,killed}(C)$ $\subseteq$ $OPT_{skew,killed}(C)$ such that $p(OPT_{skew,killed}(C)) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT_{skew,killed}(C))$.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{areafocs}
Let $C$ be a cell. The total area of $C$ occupied by containers is at most $(1-2\varepsilon)a(C)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : The processing in the section involves deleting a subset of rectangles which doesn't affect the guillotine separability of items. We use NFDH to pack the items in the cells. Since NFDH is 2-stage guillotine separable packing, inside each cell items are guillotine separable. If we consider each cell as a pseudo-item, we claim that the whole knapsack is guillotine separable. The claim follows from the fact that cells are formed from extending the edges in $\kappa(T)$. The guillotine cuts will always follow the corresponding edges of items. Thus the arrangement in whole after the processing is guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{L$\&$C Packing}\label{lc}
Following the same iterative process we get $k$ subsets; $K(1), K(2),... K(k-1), K(k)$ such that $k\leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ and $p(K(k))$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon OPT$. Now consider the grid $G_{k}$ corresponding to the set $\kappa(k)$ with the set of cells $C_{k}$. We do the corridor, subcorridor, box processing subroutines as defined in previous sections. We now apply routines of theorem \ref{LC} and prove the same result for weighted version of the problem. We keep the notations same as used in unweighted version, thus we have sets $OPT_{ST}$, $OPT_{SF}$, $OPT_{LF}$, $OPT_{LT}$. We augment items in $\kappa(k-1)$ to the set $OPT_{LF}$. We also define set $OPT_{small}$ to be $OPT_{small}(C(k))$ which is the set of items classified as small in each non-zero intersection cell of $C_k$.\\
Since we have followed the modified corridor decomposition from previous sections for packing $OPT_{small}$ which $O(\varepsilon)$ loss in the profit, we can extend lemmas \ref{sumprofit}, \ref{algo1}, \ref{idea} to the weighted cases.\\
For extending the weighted argument to lemma \ref{algo2} (non-degenerate-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ case), intuitively we follow the same striping argument to remove items and make space for items to be packed by resource augmentation. Thus we remove all the items from $\kappa(k-1)$, because any item in $\kappa(k-1)$ can be large in both dimensions and has a high probability of being cut by a strip. We further add small items as in previous sections without losing more than a constant profit. We then remove a $3\varepsilon N$ strip as done in section \ref{containerweighted}. Any item in $OPT_{small}$ is cut by the strip with a probability $3\varepsilon$ and any other item is cut with probability $\frac{1}{2} + O(\varepsilon)$. We construct the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ as done in unweighted case. Thus we get the following result :
\begin{lem}
\label{weightall}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable guillotine packing solution that is packed by an $L\&C$ packing and $OPT$ be the optimal solution of $2GGK$. Then following lemmas hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{F})+p(OPT_{T})/2$ + $p(OPT_{small})$
\item $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+\frac{1-O(\varepsilon)}{2}p(OPT_{SF})$ + $p(OPT_{{small}})$
\arir{3 is not established and removed T+F/2}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
All the inequalities follows from the processing done above. We also claim that the solution follows guillotine property as we use results and lemmas from previous sections which are already established to maintain guillotine separability. Another processing done is deleting of items intersecting with the strip, since deleting items doesn't disturb guillotine cuts we have a guillotine separable packing as a result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable solution that is packed by an $L\&C$ packing which is guillotine and $OPT$ be optimal guillotine packing. Then $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{2}{3}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from lemma \ref{weightall}, we thus get a factor of $3/2$, i.e., $p(OPT_{L\&C})$ $\geq$ $ (2/3 - O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ for weighted case.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Weighted Rotated Case : 2GGK(R)}
An item is called {\em massive} if $w_{i} \geq (1-\varepsilon)N$ and $h_{i} \geq (1-\varepsilon)N$, given the dimensions of original knapsack as $N \times N$. Chose $\varepsilon > \varepsilon_{{ring}}$ and $\varepsilon < \frac{1}{10}$. Idea is to devise two packings; one when such a massive item is present and other when it is absent; and analyze the worst bound from both of them to get a bound for the weighted rotated case.
\begin{lem}
Given $OPT$ is the set of guillotine separable items that can be optimally packed in a $N \times N$ knapsack with associated profit $p(OPT)$, if rotations are allowed. Then there exits a packing of items $APX \subseteq OPT$ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers such that the profit of items $p(APX)\geq (\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the result by a case analysis. We subdivide the problem in two cases as discussed above on the basis of presence or absence of a massive item. The result follows from Lemma \ref{lem:present} ( packing when massive item is present ) and Lemma \ref{lem:absent} ( case when there exits no massive item ). The worst case packing from among two gives us a factor of $4/3$, i.e., $p(APX)$ $\geq$ $ (3/4 - O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ for weighted case given rotations are allowed.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:present}
Given $OPT$ be the set of items in the optimal guillotine separable packing into a $N\times N$ knapsack and there is a massive item $m \in OPT$. Then, there exists a set $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{4}{5} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ which can be packed with rotations allowed in a container packing with $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers.
\end{lem} \amar{tight case : (T,F,m) = ( .4, .4, .2)}
\begin{proof}
Consider the optimal packing of items in $OPT$. Irrespective of the initial arrangement inductively we can show that it is possible to place $m$ on the top-right corner of the knapsack with the remaining items forming a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ in the remaining region $\big(([0,N]\times[0,h_{L}]) \cup ([0,w_{L}] \times[0,N])\big)$, where $h_{L} = N-h(m)$ and $w_{L} = N-w(m)$. The proof follows constructively by considering the sequence of guillotine cuts on the knapsack and following similar {\em mirroring} arguments as done in section \ref{glp}. \amar{do we need a rigorous proof show existence of an L}. \\
We propose three different packings and consider the maximum profit packing from the three of them. Process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor to get a corridor decomposition as done Section \ref{subcorr}. We define items to be thin ($T$), and fat ($F$) ( excluding $m$ ) as defined previously. Items completely lying in the horizontal arm of $L$ defined by the region $([0,N]\times[0,h_{L}])$ are defined as $OPT_{H}$. Similarly items completely lying the in vertical arm of $L$ defined by the region $([0,w_{L}] \times[0,N])$ are defined as $OPT_{V}$. Thus we get $OPT_{HF}$, $OPT_{HT}$, $OPT_{VF}$, $OPT_{VT} $ as the fat-horizontal, thin-horizontal, fat-vertical, thin-vertical items respectively. W.l.o.g.~we can assume that $w_{L} \geq h_{L}$. \\
\noindent {\em Packing 1:}
We remove the lesser profit set among $OPT_{VT}$ and $OPT_{HT}$, and process the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor to obtain a container packing of the remaining items of $OPT_{T}$ and all items from $OPT_{F}$ as done in Section \ref{subcorr}. Since $OPT_{VT} \cup OPT_{HT} = OPT_{T}$, from averaging principle we get the profit of thin items packed as at least $p(OPT_{T})/2$. This gives us a packing of a set of items $P1$ with $p(P1)$ $\geq$ $(1-O(\varepsilon))(p(m) + p(OPT_{T})/2 + p(OPT_{F}))$.\\
\noindent {\em Packing 2:}
From corridor decomposition it follows that the total width ( resp. height ) of items in vertical ( resp. horizontal ) subcorridor of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor is atmost $\varepsilon_{{ring}} w_{L}$ ( resp. $\varepsilon_{{ring}} h_{L} $) which on the other hand is upper bounded by $\varepsilon w_{L}$ ( resp. $\varepsilon h_{L} $) .We now rotate the items in $OPT_{HT}$ and pack the items in $OPT_{VT} \cup OPT_{HT}$ in region $([0,\varepsilon(h_{L}+w_{L})]\times[0,N])$. Items in $OPT_{HF}$ are rotated and then packed besides $OPT_{VF}$ so as to obtain a packing of $OPT_{F} = OPT_{VF} \cup OPT_{HF}$ in the plane of height $N$ and width $w_{F}$ atleast $(1-\varepsilon)(w_{L} + h_{L})$. We remove a random vertical strip of width $h_{L}$ from this plane. From averaging principle any item of $OPT_{F}$ is saved by the random strip with probability atleast $\frac{(1-\varepsilon)(w_{L}) - \varepsilon h_{L}}{(1-\varepsilon)(w_{L} + h_{L})} = \frac{w_{L}}{w_{L} + h_{L}} - \frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}.\frac{h_{L}}{w_{L} + h_{L}} \geq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\varepsilon}{2(1-\varepsilon)} = \frac{1}{2} - O(\varepsilon)$. Thus the remaining set of items $I'$ after removal of vertical strip have a $w(I') \leq$ $w_{L} - \varepsilon (h_{L} + w_{L})$ and a profit $p(I') \geq$ $p(OPT_{T}) + p(OPT_{F})/2$. Using resource augmentation (Lemma \ref{lemma1}) we obtain a packing of these items $I'' \subseteq I'$ in a region $([0,w_{L}]\times[0,N])$ using $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$, with $p(I'') \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(I')$. Thus we get a packing of $I'' \cup \{ m\}$ such that $p(P2) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon)) p(I') + p(m) = (1-O(\varepsilon))( p(OPT_{T})/2 + p(OPT_{F})) + p(m)$.\\
\noindent {\em Packing 3:}
We consider the packing without $m$. Next we rotate $OPT_{H}$, to obtain a packing of $OPT_{H} \cup OPT_{V}$ in region $R'=$ $([0,h_{L}+w_{L}]\times[0,N])$. Clearly $R'$ $\subseteq$ $([0,2\varepsilon]\times[0,1])$. Using resource augmentation lemma \ref{lemma1} we can pack a set of items $P3 \subseteq (OPT_{H} \cup OPT_{V})$ such that $p(P3) \geq (1-O(\varepsilon))(p(OPT_{H}) + p(OPT_{V})) = (1-O(\varepsilon))(p(OPT_{F}) + p(OPT_{T}))$.\\
Considering the maximum profit packing from $P1, P2, P3$, we obtain a packing of set of items $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{4}{5} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1) $ containers.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Lemma \ref{weightall}]
\label{lem:wr1}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:wr2}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq p(OPT_{T})+\frac{3 OPT_{SF}}{4} + \frac{OPT_{LF}}{2}+p(OPT_{small})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We extend the weighted argument to Lemma \ref{strip_improvement_with_cardinality}. We first consider packing of items in $OPT_{SF}$ and add small items as in section \ref{smallitems} without losing more than a constant profit.
We follow the same striping argument to remove the least profitable $3\varepsilon N$ strip ( either horizontal or vertical ) and make space for items in $T$ to be packed in a $\varepsilon N$ strip and then pack the items by resource augmentation. Any item in $OPT_{small}$ is cut by the strip with a probability $3\varepsilon$.
This gives us a packing with profit atleast $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq p(OPT_{T})+3(OPT_{SF}/4) + p(OPT_{{small}})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:absent}
Given $OPT$ be the set of items in the optimal guillotine separable packing into a $N \times N$ knapsack and there exists no massive item in $ OPT$. Then, there exists a set $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ which can be packed with rotations allowed in a container packing with $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ containers.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We consider $3$ different packings and consider the most profitable of them for final packing. We first perform the basic corridor decomposition and classify items as $LT$, $ST$ and $LF$, $SF$. We define three different packings as follows:\\
\noindent{\em Packing 1:} Consider items in $OPT \backslash OPT_{T}$. Using resource contraction (Lemma \ref{lem:rsrccontraction}), we can pack items with profit atleast $p(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})/2$ in a $(N\times(1-\varepsilon/2)N)$ piece. We then pack $OPT_{T}$ in the remaining $(N \times \varepsilon N/4)$ region and then apply resource augmentation Lemma \ref{lemma1} to get the packing without losing more then $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ profit of total items in a $N \times N$ piece. Thus we get a packing of a set of items $P1$ with profit $p(P1)\geq p(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})/2 + p(OPT_{T})$.\\
\noindent{\em Packing 2:} Using Lemma \ref{lem:wr2} we get a packing of set of items $P2$ such that $p(P2)\geq p(OPT_{T})+3(OPT_{SF}/4) + (OPT_{LF}/2) +p(OPT_{small})$.
\noindent{\em Packing 3:} Using Lemma \ref{lem:wr1} we get a packing of set of items $P3$ such that $p(P3)\geqp(OPT \backslash OPT_{T})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\\
Considering the maximum profit packing from $P1, P2, P3$, we obtain a packing of set of items $APX$ $\subseteq$ $OPT$ with $p(APX) \geq (\frac{3}{4} - O(\varepsilon)) p(OPT) $ in $O_{\varepsilon}(1) $ containers. \amar{Tight case : F=.5, T=.5}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{lem:rsrccontraction}
(Resource Contraction Lemma) If a set of guillotine separable items $M$ contains no massive item and can be packed into a $1\times1$ bin, then it is possible to pack a set $M'$ of profit at least $p(M)/2$ into a $N \times (1 - \varepsilon/2)N$ bin (or a $(1- \varepsilon /2)N\times N $ bin), maintaining guillotine property, given rotations are allowed.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed along the same proof as in Lemma 51 of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and prove that the processing done maintains guillotine property of items.\\
Intuitively we consider two disjoint subsets of $M$, say $M'$ and $M \backslash M'$, and pack them individually in a $N \times (1- \varepsilon/2)N$ bin. The best of two packings will give us a packing of profit atleast half the profit of $M$. We define set of items completely to the right, left, top, bottom of a given item $i$ as $Right(i)$, $Left(i)$, $Top(i)$, $Bottom(i)$ respectively. Formally, given item $i$ with bottom left coordinates as $(x_{i}, y_{i})$, we define $Right(i) = \{ i' \in M | x_{i'} \geq (x_{i}+w(i))\}$, $Left(i) = \{ i' \in M | x_{i'} \leq x_{i}\}$, $Top(i) = \{ i' \in M | y_{i'} \geq (y_{i}+h(i))\}$, $Bottom(i) = \{ i' \in M | y_{i'} \leq y_{i}\}$. We consider $4$ boundary strips $S_{T,1.5\varepsilon} := [0,N] \times [(1-1.5\varepsilon)N, N]$, $S_{B,.5\varepsilon} := [0,N] \times [0,.5\varepsilon N]$, $S_{L,.5\varepsilon} := [0,.5\varepsilon N] \times [0,N]$, $S_{R,.5\varepsilon} := [1-.5\varepsilon N, N] \times [0,N]$. The set of items fully contained in and intersected by the strip $S_{X,Y}$ are denoted by $C_{X,Y}$ and $E_{X,Y}$ respectively. Also define $D_{X,Y} = E_{X,Y} \backslash C_{X,Y}$. We now consider following cases :
\\
\noindent{\em Case 1:} $D_{B,.5\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,1.5\varepsilon} = \phi$. \\
Define $M'=E_{T,1.5\varepsilon}$, which can be packed in a $[0,N] \times [0,(1-.5\varepsilon)N]$ region. This gives us our first packing which is guillotine separable as the operation performed here is just deletion of items in an already guillotine separable arrangement. For second packing we consider the items in $M\backslash (M' \cup C_{L,.5\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,.5\varepsilon} $. Pack $C_{L,.5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R,.5\varepsilon}$ by rotating and packing them on the top of $M\backslash (M' \cup C_{L,.5\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,.5\varepsilon} $ in two horizontal strips of width $.5\varepsilon N$ each. This adds up to a packing of $M\backslash M'$ in the region $[0,N] \times [0, (1-.05\varepsilon)N]$. The processing involves mirroring and rearrangement of {\em disjoint} sub-pieces which doesn't disturb the guillotine property.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2:} $D_{B,.5\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,.5\varepsilon} \neq \phi$.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.1:} There exists item $i$ intersecting none of $S_{L, .5\varepsilon}$ and $S_{R, .5\varepsilon}$. \\
W.l.o.g.~ assume $x_{i} \leq 1/2 N$. We consider completely disjoint partitions of items created by $i$, i.e., $Left(i)$, $Right(i)$, $\{i\}$, $C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$. Let $M'$ = $C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ $\cup Left(i)$. Consider optimal packing with just $Left(i)$, we pack the items in $C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ to the right of it by rotating them. This gives us a packing of $M'$ in a $(N \times (1-.5\varepsilon)N)$ plane. Now we show a packing for $M\backslash M' = Right(i) \cup {i}$. From the assumption that $i$ doesn't intersect $S_{L,.5\varepsilon}$, we trivially get a packing of $M \backslash M'$ in a $( N\times (1-.5\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Since only operations to obtain both the packings are deletion of items from optimal guillotine packing and replacement of disjoint subpieces, we can claim that guillotine property is maintained.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.2:} There exists item $i$ intersecting both $S_{L, .5\varepsilon}$ and $S_{R, .5\varepsilon}$.\\
We define $M' = (C_{R, .5\varepsilon} \cup C_{L, .5\varepsilon} \cup Top(i))$.
For packing $M'$, consider $Top(i)$ in optimal packing and rotate and pack $C_{L, .5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R, .5\varepsilon}$ on the top of it.Total height of the packing is $(N-y_{i}-h(i)+\varepsilon N) \leq (1-\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq .1$. For packing in the second case, i.e., for packing $M\backslash M'$, since there is no massive item it follows trivially that it can packed in a $(N \times (1-.5\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Thus we get both the packing and following the same argument as before the packings are guillotine separable.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3:} There exists item $i$ intersecting both $S_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ and $S_{T,1.5\varepsilon}$.\\
\noindent {\em Case 2.3.1:} There exists item $i$ $\in (D_{B, .5\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,1.5\varepsilon} \cap D_{L,.5\varepsilon})$ and $x_{i}+w(i) \leq \frac{1}{2}N $ ( similar argument holds for $D_{R,.5\varepsilon}$) ] Since there is no massive item, $i$ can intersect at most one of $S_{L, .5\varepsilon} and S_{R, .5\varepsilon}$. We define $M'= Right(i)$. By rotating $M'$ we get a packing in $(N\times ( 1-.5\varepsilon)N)$ piece. Now we devise a packing for second set $M\backslash M'$. Consider packing of $M \backslash ( C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ $\cup Right(i)$ as in optimal packing and pack $C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ to the right of it by rotating them and packing in two vertical strips of $1.5\varepsilon$ and $.5\varepsilon N$ widths respectively. This gives us the total width of the packing as less than or equal to $(1/2 + 2\varepsilon)N \leq (1-.5\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq .1$ from our initial assumption. Again the only operations during entire processing of both the packings are deletion of items from optimal guillotine packing and replacement of disjoint sub-pieces.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3.2:} There exists item $i$ $\in (D_{B, .5\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,1.5\varepsilon} \cap D_{L,.5\varepsilon})$ and $x_{i}+w(i) > \frac{1}{2}N $ ( similar argument holds for $D_{R,.5\varepsilon}$ ). \\
Define $M'= Left(i) \cup {i}$. Consider the packing of $M'$ in optimal packing, which clearly gives us a packing in a $(N\times (1-.5\varepsilon)N)$. Now we define second packing for items in $M\backslash M'$. Consider the packing of $M \backslash ( C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ $\cup$ $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ $\cup M'$ as in optimal packing and pack $C_{T, 1.5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{B, .5\varepsilon}$ to the left of it by rotating them and packing in two vertical strips of $1.5\varepsilon N$ and $.5\varepsilon N$ widths respectively. This gives us the total width of the packing as less than or equal to $(1/2 + 2\varepsilon)N \leq (1-.5\varepsilon)N$ since $\varepsilon \leq .1$. Sole operations involved are deletion of items from already guillotine separable packing and replacement of disjoint pieces. thus maintaining guillotine separability.\\
\noindent{\em Case 2.3.3:} There exists no item $i$ $\in (D_{B, .5\varepsilon} \cap D_{T,1.5\varepsilon} \cap (D_{L,.5\varepsilon} \cup D_{R,.5\varepsilon}))$.\\
W.l.o.g.~let $i \in C_{L,.5\varepsilon}$. We define $M'=E_{T,1.5\varepsilon} \backslash (C_{L,.5\varepsilon} \cup C_{R,.5\varepsilon})$, which clearly gives us a packing in a $(N\times (1-.5\varepsilon)N)$. Consider $M \backslash (M' \cup C_{L, .5\varepsilon} \cup C_{R, .5\varepsilon}$ in optimal packing and rotate and pack $C_{L, .5\varepsilon}$ and $C_{R, .5\varepsilon}$ on the top of it. Total height of the packing is at most $ (1-\varepsilon)$. Operations involved in are deletion of items from already guillotine separable packing and replacement of disjoint pieces. thus maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{proof}
\section{Guillotine $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$}
\label{glp}
In this section we show that given an existential guillotine separable packing of only tall and wide items we can obtain a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ arrangement of all the items. It is worth to notice that using simple mathematical induction we can prove that every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ arrangement is guillotine separable.
We follow the same classification convention and definition of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ arrangement as in section \ref{lpackingfocs}.
\begin{lem}\label{lpackinglem}
Given set $OPT_{{long}}$ of all tall and wide item (with height and width greater than $\frac{N}{2}$ respectively) as subsets of some feasible solution of guillotine knapsack. There exists an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ of $OPT_{{long}}$ without loosing any profit into a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ region defined by area $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ = ([0,N] $\times$ [0,$h_{wide}$]) $\cup$ ([0,$w_{tall}$] $\times$ [0,N]) where $h_{wide}$ is the total height of all wide items and $w_{tall}$ is the total width of all tall items.
\end{lem}
$\textit{Proof:}$ The proof follows from a constructive argument (iterative algorithm) to pack rectangles in $OPT_{{long}}$ into $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$
- region defined in \ref{lpackingfocs}. Basic idea is rearranging optimal packing of items into an L-packing which consequently can be guessed in polynomial time as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}. \\
Let $OPT_{{long}} \subseteq OPT$ be a set of guillotine separable tall and wide items. It follows from the classification \ref{lpackingfocs} each item $I$ height and width strictly greater than $\frac{N}{2}$. Consider the guillotine cut sequence of the original arrangement of $OPT_{{long}}$. Every horizontal (resp. vertical) cut divides the $N\times N$ knapsack plane $P$ into two sub-planes. The sub-planes are of same width (reps.height) but heights (resp. vertical) smaller than the original plane, we annotate the sub-planes as $P_{h1}$ and $P_{h1}$ (resp. $P_{w1}$ and $P_{w2}$). The nomenclature is such that $P_{h1}$ (resp. $P_{w1}$) is smaller (consider any if both are equal) among the two horizontal sub-planes $P_{h1}$ and $P_{h2} $(resp. $P_{w1}$ and $P_{w2}$) . We can claim that every $P_{h1}$ (resp. $P_{w1}$) consists of only wide (resp. tall) rectangles. [ The proof follows from the fact that width (resp. height) of horizontal (resp. vertical) is strictly greater than $\frac{N}{2}$ ]. For the proof we use some basic rearrangement techniques which maintain the guillotine separability of the given configuration of items :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compression
\\We define compression as a process of reordering the set of items in planes obtained after a guillotine cut (either horizontal or vertical).
The horizontal (resp. vertical items) are piled such that they share a common vertical (resp. horizontal) edge .
\item Sorting
\\Given a set of compressed items, i.e, horizontal items(resp. vertical items) sharing a common vertical (resp. horizontal) edge . For sorting the rearrangement follows as below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Decreasing height from left to right with every item having topmost edge at the same horizontal level : In case of vertical items.
\item Decreasing width from bottom to top with every item having rightmost edge at same vertical level : In case of horizontal items.
\end{itemize}
\item Plane Flipping
\\ Given two planes $P_{h1}$ and $P_{h1}$ (resp. $P_{w1}$ and $P_{w2}$), we change relative configuration of the two planes with respect to horizontal (resp. vertical) orientation i.e bring the top plane to bottom and bottom plane to top (resp. right plane to left and left plane to right).
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lem}
\label{arr_techniques}
Resulting arrangement using techniques of Compression and flipping follows guillotine separability globally as well as locally if items inside the plane being processed are only horizontal or vertical. In other words the resulting plane following the given rearrangement techniques is guillotine separable from the rest of the knapsack (global separability) with the same number of guillotine cuts as required to separate the original plane before arrangement. Also each item inside the plane is also guillotine separable (local separability) with the same number of guillotine cuts as inside original plane.
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor_arr}
It follows immediately from Lemma \ref{arr_techniques} we can always consider that in a horizontal (resp. vertical) cut, the bottom (resp. left) sub-plane is the shorter one among the two resulting sub-planes [if it is not we can use flipping and rearrange the relative configuration of two planes, making them follow the given property] .
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
It follows from Lemma \ref{arr_techniques} that compression of a sub-plane results in a sub-plane smaller in width (or height) if every item inside is vertical (resp. horizontal).
\end{cor}
We now define the main rearrangement algorithm to form the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$ from given initial optimal packing. Consider the sequence of guillotine cuts of optimal configuration and rearrange as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case: Horizontal cut : From Corollary \ref{cor_arr} we can claim that out of the two sub-planes $P_{h1}$ and $P_{h2}$ obtained from the cut, $P_{h1}$ i.e. the bottom sub-plane is shorter. It is clear that $P_{h1}$ contains only horizontal items [ height of $P_{h1}$ is smaller than $\frac{N}{2}$ since it is the smaller sub-plane ]. We then use compression on sub-plane $P_{h1}$. The rearranged $P_{h1}$ shares bottom edge with the horizontal leg of L obtained so far (except the first one which shares bottom-edge with bottom boundary of knapsack ). We merge $P_{h1}$ into the horizontal leg of L and apply compression on the leg.
\item Case: Vertical cut : Following similar process as done in previous case. From corollary \ref{cor_arr} we can claim that out of the two sub-planes $P_{w1}$ and $P_{w2}$ obtained from the cut, $P_{w1}$ i.e. the left sub-plane is shorter. It is clear that $P_{w1}$ contains only vertical items [ width of $P_{w1}$ is smaller than $\frac{N}{2}$ since it is the smaller sub-plane ]. We then use compression on sub-plane $P_{w1}$. The rearranged $P_{w1}$ shares left edge with the vertical leg of L obtained so far(except the first one which shares left-edge with left boundary of knapsack). We merge $P_{w1}$ into the vertical leg of L and apply compression on the leg.
\end{itemize}
Following the same flipping and compression procedures we constructively form the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ - shaped region from $OPT_{{long}}$ following properties as defined in Lemma \ref{lpackinglem}.
\begin{figure}[!tbh]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale =-1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.4,4.2) rectangle (5.5,55.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (7.4,15) rectangle (8.2,61.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (12.4,5) rectangle (14.5,24.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (18.3,15.8) rectangle (26.6,44.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (28.3, .2) rectangle (28.31,70);
\draw[dashed] (28.3,0) -- ( 28.3, 70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,2.7) rectangle (33.3,40.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (35.8,6.9) rectangle (37.88,24.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,5.2) rectangle (69.2,6.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.9,14.4) rectangle (66.6,16.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,18.7) rectangle (61.4,32.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,35.8) rectangle (68.7,38.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,44.4) rectangle (69.1,46.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (38,49.4) rectangle (66.3,51.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (28.4,53.5) rectangle (55.9,58.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (33.3,60.2) rectangle (50,61.9);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Horizontal cut separating horizontal only items on bottom sub-plane.}
\label{fig a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale =-1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,50) rectangle (6.6,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (6.6,41.7) rectangle (14.9,70);
\draw[dotted] (15,0) -- (15,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,2.7) rectangle (33.3,40.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (35.8,6.9) rectangle (37.88,24.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,5.2) rectangle (69.2,6.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.9,14.4) rectangle (66.6,16.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,18.7) rectangle (61.4,32.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,35.8) rectangle (68.7,38.3);
\draw[dotted] (15, 42) -- ( 70, 42);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,44.4) rectangle (69.1,46.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (38,49.4) rectangle (66.3,51.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (28.4,53.5) rectangle (55.9,58.1);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (33.3,60.2) rectangle (50,61.9);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Compression of items on bottom subplane}
\label{fig b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale = -1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,41.7) rectangle (12.4,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (12.4,50) rectangle (14.9,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.9,0) rectangle (15,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,2.7) rectangle (33.3,40.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (35.8,6.9) rectangle (37.88,24.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,5.2) rectangle (69.2,6.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.9,14.4) rectangle (66.6,16.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,18.7) rectangle (61.4,32.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,35.8) rectangle (68.7,38.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,67.5) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,65.8) rectangle (70,67.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,61.4) rectangle (70,65.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,59.5) rectangle (70,61.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (15,59.4) rectangle (70,59.5);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Vertical cut compressing and sorting rectangles in left subplane}
\label{fig c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale =-1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,41.7) rectangle (12.4,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (12.4,50) rectangle (14.9,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.9,0) rectangle (15,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (31.6,13.3) rectangle (33.3,50.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (35.8,17.5) rectangle (37.88,35);
\draw[dashed] (39,10.6) -- (39,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,15.8) rectangle (69.2,17.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.9,25) rectangle (66.6,27.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,29.3) rectangle (61.4,43.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,46.4) rectangle (68.7,48.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,0) rectangle (70,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,2.5) rectangle (70,4.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,4.2) rectangle (70,8.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,8.8) rectangle (70,10.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (15,10.5) rectangle ( 70, 10.6);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Flipping to form vertical leg of L, followed by compression and sorting to form Horizontal leg of L-structure}
\label{fig d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90 ,yscale = -1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,32.5) rectangle (5.8,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.8,41.7) rectangle (14.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.1,50) rectangle (16.6,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (16.6,52.5) rectangle (19.4,70);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,0) -- (19.5,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,15.8) rectangle (69.2,17.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.9,25) rectangle (66.6,27.5);
\draw[dashed] (19.5, 28) -- ( 70, 28);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,29.3) rectangle (61.4,43.3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,46.4) rectangle (68.7,48.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,0) rectangle (70,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,2.5) rectangle (70,4.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,4.2) rectangle (70,8.8);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,8.8) rectangle (70,10.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (19.5,10.5) rectangle ( 70, 10.6);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Compression of items obtained by horizontal cut and sorting all items of horizontal leg of L-structure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale = -1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,32.5) rectangle (5.8,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.8,41.7) rectangle (14.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.1,50) rectangle (16.6,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (16.6,52.5) rectangle (19.4,70);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,0) -- (19.5,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,29.3) rectangle (61.4,43.3);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,45) -- (70,45);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (39.5,46.4) rectangle (68.7,48.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,0) rectangle (70,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,2.5) rectangle (70,4.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,4.2) rectangle (70,5.9);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,5.9) rectangle (70,10.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,10.5) rectangle (70,12.2);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,12.2) rectangle (70,14.7);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,14.7) -- ( 70, 14.7);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Compression of items obtained by vertical cut followed by sorting all items of vertical leg of L-structure}
\label{fig f}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale = -1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,32.5) rectangle (5.8,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.8,41.7) rectangle (14.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.1,50) rectangle (16.6,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (16.6,52.5) rectangle (19.4,70);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,0) -- (19.5,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (58.5,29.3) rectangle (61.4,43.3);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,45) -- (70,45);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,0) rectangle (70,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,2.5) rectangle (70,5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,5) rectangle (70,6.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,6.7) rectangle (70,8.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,8.4) rectangle (70,12.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,12.7) rectangle (70,14.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,14.7) rectangle (70,17.2);
\draw[dotted] (19.5,17.2) -- ( 70, 17.2);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Compression of items obtained by vertical cut followed by sorting all items of vertical leg of L-structure}
\label{fig g}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.23\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}\node[rotate = 90, yscale = -1] at (0,0){\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (70,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,16.7) rectangle (3.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.3,23.3) rectangle (4.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.1,32.5) rectangle (5.8,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.8,41.7) rectangle (14.1,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14.1,50) rectangle (16.6,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (16.6,52.5) rectangle (19.4,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (19.4,56) rectangle (22.3,70);
\draw[dotted] (22.3,0) -- (22.3,70);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22.5,0) rectangle (70,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,2.5) rectangle (70,5);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (40.8,5) rectangle (70,6.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (41.7,6.7) rectangle (70,8.4);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (42.5,8.4) rectangle (70,12.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,12.7) rectangle (70,14.7);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (43.3,14.7) rectangle (70,17.2);
\draw[dotted] (22.3,17.2) -- ( 70, 17.2);
\end{tikzpicture}};\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Compression of item obtained by horizontal cut followed by sorting all items of horizontal leg of L-structure}
\label{fig h}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Step wise construction of L from guillotine separable optimal packing. }
\label{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}\textrm{-packing}$}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}
Given a set of items $I$, there is a PTAS for L-packing with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{long}})$, where $OPT_{{long}}$ is the profit of long items in optimal packing.
\end{lem}
\textit{Proof: }
Using the Lemma \ref{lpackinglem} of our paper and PTAS for L-packing from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} on the input set $I$ of all long items $I_{long}$ (with width or height $\> \frac{N}{2}$),we get the packing (in polynomial time) with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{long}})$ for 2-D guillotine knapsack case.
\section{$(\frac{5}{4}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK(R)-C}
\begin{lem}
$|OPT_{L\&C}|\geq |OPT_{F}|+|OPT_{T}|/2$.
\label{rlem1}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Lemma \ref{rlem1} follows from Lemma \ref{algo1} by considering profit of each item to be 1.\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
$|OPT_{L\&C}|\geq \frac{2|OPT_{F}|}{3}+|OPT_{T}|$.
\label{rlem2}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{rlem2} holds even in the case of Guillotine setup as the proof techniques used in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} don't disturb the guillotine property.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.47,.25) rectangle (.97,3.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.17,4.66) rectangle (1.59,5.41);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.13,.38) rectangle (4.01,1.45);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.33,2.81) rectangle (2.83,5.81);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.29,2.2) rectangle (4.47,3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.21,4.17) rectangle (5.66,4.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.5,5.16) rectangle (5.5,5.80);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.83,.5) rectangle (5.66,3.4);
\draw[dashed] (1.75,0) -- ( 1.75, 6.0);
\draw[dashed] (2.50, 0) -- ( 2.50, 6.0);
\draw (2.125,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$3\varepsilon N$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.47,.25) rectangle (.97,3.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.17,4.66) rectangle (1.59,5.41);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.54,2.2) rectangle (3.72,3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.31,4.17) rectangle (4.91,4.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.75,5.16) rectangle (4.75,5.80);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.08,.5) rectangle (4.91,3.4);
\draw[dashed] (5.25,0) -- ( 5.25, 6.0);
\draw (5.625,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$2\varepsilon N$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.0,6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.47,.25) rectangle (.97,3.25);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.17,4.66) rectangle (1.59,5.41);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.54,2.2) rectangle (3.72,3);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.31,4.17) rectangle (4.91,4.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (2.75,5.16) rectangle (4.75,5.80);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.08,.5) rectangle (4.91,3.4);
\draw[dashed] (5.25,0) -- ( 5.25, 6.0);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.95,1) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.85,1.1) rectangle (5.95,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.80,1.2) rectangle (5.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.75,1.25) rectangle (5.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.65,1.3) rectangle (5.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.55,1.4) rectangle (5.65,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.45,1.9) rectangle (5.55,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.35,2.1) rectangle (5.45,6);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (5.30,2.4) rectangle (5.35,6);
\draw (5.625,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$2\varepsilon N$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Case: T+3/4SF processing}
\label{T+3/4SF-}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}
\label{strip_improvement_with_cardinality}
$|OPT_{L\&C}|\geq |OPT_{T}|+3|OPT_{SF}/4|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the optimal packing of $I_{SF}$ in the $N \times N$ knapsack. Chose a random horizontal strip $H$ of width $3\varepsilon N$ at a random offset $r$ from the left boundary of knapsack where $r \in [0, (1-3\varepsilon)N]$. The region is defined by $ H = [0 , N ] \times [ r, r + \varepsilon N ]$. Delete all items intersecting strip $H$. Since each item in $OPT_{SF} \cap I_{{ver}}$ is of height at most $h_{ver} \leq \frac{1}{2} $, it is removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2} + 6\varepsilon$. Each item of $OPT_{SF} \cap I_{{hor}}$ is of height at most $h_{ver} \leq \varepsilon_{{small}} N \leq \varepsilon N $, it is removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$. Thus the items remaining after removal of strip $H$ have profit atleast $(\frac{1}{2} - 6\varepsilon)(p(OPT_{SF})\capp(OPT{ver})) + ( 1- 7\varepsilon) (p(OPT_{SF})\capp(OPT{hor}))$ .\\
\\Similarly considering a vertical strip $V$ = $[ r, r + 3 \varepsilon N ] \times [0 , N ]$ . Following arguments similar to horizontal case. Each item in $OPT_{SF} \cap I_{{hor}}$ is removed with probability at most $\frac{1}{2} + 6\varepsilon$. Each item of $OPT_{SF} \cap I_{{ver}}$ is removed with probability at most $7\varepsilon$. Thus the items remaining after removal of strip $V$ have profit at-least $(\frac{1}{2} - 6\varepsilon)(p(OPT_{SF})\capp(OPT{hor}) )+ ( 1- 7\varepsilon) (p(OPT_{SF})\capp(OPT{ver}))$ .\\
\\We obtain a packing of atleast $(\frac{3}{4} - \frac{13}{2}\varepsilon)(p(OPT_{SF}))$ items by considering the best of above two cases in a region $[0 , N- 2\varepsilon N] \times [0,N] $ after doing resource augmentation(assuming that the vertical strip removes less items in expectation).\\
The total width ( resp., height) of items in $OPT_{T} \cap I_{hor}$ (resp., $OPT_{T} \cap I_{ver}$) is at most $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N $.
It is also given that $\varepsilon_{{ring}} \leq \varepsilon$. We then rotate every item in $OPT_{T} \cap I_{hor}$ to make it vertical . The set of item $OPT_{T}$ is now of total width at most $2\varepsilon_{{ring}} N $. Now we place every item in $OPT_{T}$ beside each other in the rectangular region $ [ N- 2\varepsilon N ,N] \times [0,N] $ obtained from removing the vertical strip from $OPT_{SF}$ packing as shown in Figure \ref{T+3/4SF-}. It is worth mentioning that the proof indeed applies to a general weighted case also as every equation is in terms of profit of items. For our cardinality proof however we consider profit of each item to be 1 which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (8.0,8.0);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0)-- ( 8.0, 0) -- ( 8.0 , 6.2 ) -- ( 6.2, 6.2 ) -- ( 6.2, 8.0 ) -- ( 0 , 8.0 ) -- ( 0,0 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .2,8.0) -- (.2 ,.2 ) -- ( 8.0, .2) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .6,8.0) -- ( .6, .6) -- ( 8.0, .6) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 1.4,8.0) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 8.0,1.4 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 3.0,8.0) -- ( 3.0, 3.0) -- ( 8.0,3.0 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 6.2,8.0) -- (6.2 ,6.2 ) -- ( 8.0, 6.2) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 6.2,6.2) -- ( 6.2, 5.0) -- ( 5.0,5.0) -- ( 5.0, 4.0 ) -- ( 4.0 , 4.0 ) --( 4.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.5, 3.5) --( 3.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.0 , 3.0) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 3.0 , 3.0 ) -- ( 3.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 1.0 , 1.4) -- ( 1.0 , 1.0 ) -- ( .6, 1.0 ) --( .6, .6) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .6,.6) -- ( .6 , .4) -- ( .4, .4) -- ( .4, .2) -- ( .2, .2);
\draw [dashed] ( .2, .2) -- ( .1 ,.2 ) -- ( .1, .1) -- ( 0 , .1) -- ( 0,0);
\draw (0,8.3) node { \textbf{$2\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (.5,8.3) node { \textbf{$6\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (1.0,8.3) node { \textbf{$12\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (2.2,8.3) node { \textbf{$24\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (4.6,8.3) node { \textbf{$\geq 3 \times 2^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{rot}} - 1}$}};
\draw (8.5,.1) node { \textbf{$\leq 2\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,.4) node { \textbf{$\leq 6\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,1) node { \textbf{$\leq 12\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,2.2) node { \textbf{$\leq 24\varepsilon'$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (8.0,8.0);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] (0,0)-- ( 8.0, 0) -- ( 8.0 , .6 ) --( .6,.6) -- ( .6, 8.0 ) -- ( 0, 8.0 ) -- ( 0,0);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] ( 8.0, 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 8.0 ) -- ( 6.2 , 8.0) -- ( 6.2, 6.2) -- ( 8.0 , 6.2) ;
\draw[dashed] ( 1.2, .6) --( 1.2, 8.0) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .2,8.0) -- (.2 ,.2 ) -- ( 8.0, .2) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .6,8.0) -- ( .6, .6) -- ( 8.0, .6) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 1.4,8.0) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 8.0,1.4 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 3.0,8.0) -- ( 3.0, 3.0) -- ( 8.0,3.0 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 6.2,8.0) -- (6.2 ,6.2 ) -- ( 8.0, 6.2) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 6.2,6.2) -- ( 6.2, 5.0) -- ( 5.0,5.0) -- ( 5.0, 4.0 ) -- ( 4.0 , 4.0 ) --( 4.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.5, 3.5) --( 3.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.0 , 3.0) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 3.0 , 3.0 ) -- ( 3.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .6,.6) -- ( .6 , .4) -- ( .4, .4) -- ( .4, .2) -- ( .2, .2);
\draw [dashed] ( .2, .2) -- ( .1 ,.2 ) -- ( .1, .1) -- ( 0 , .1) -- ( 0,0);
\draw (0,8.3) node { \textbf{$2\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (.5,8.3) node { \textbf{$6\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (1.0,8.3) node { \textbf{$12\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (2.2,8.3) node { \textbf{$24\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (4.6,8.3) node { \textbf{$\geq 3 \times 2^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{rot}} - 1}$}};
\draw (8.5,.1) node { \textbf{$\leq 2\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,.4) node { \textbf{$\leq 6\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,1) node { \textbf{$\leq 12\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (8.5,2.2) node { \textbf{$\leq 24\varepsilon'$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (8.0,8.0);
\draw[solid , fill = lightgray] ( 8.0, 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 8.0 ) -- ( 6.2 , 8.0) -- ( 6.2, 6.2) -- ( 8.0 , 6.2) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .2,8.0) -- (.2 ,2 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( .6,8.0) -- ( .6, 6) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 1.4,8.0) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 3.0,8.0) -- ( 3.0, 3.0) -- ( 8.0,3.0 ) ;
\draw [dashed] ( 6.2,8.0) -- (6.2 ,6.2 ) -- ( 8.0, 6.2) ;
\draw [solid , fill = lightgray] ( 6.2,6.2) -- ( 6.2, 5.0) -- ( 5.0,5.0) -- ( 5.0, 4.0 ) -- ( 4.0 , 4.0 ) --( 4.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.5, 3.5) --( 3.0, 3.5) -- ( 3.0 , 3.0) -- ( 3.0, 8.0) -- ( 6.2, 8.0 ) -- ( 6.2, 6.2) ;
\draw [solid , fill = lightgray] ( 3.0 , 3.0 ) -- ( 3.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 2.0 ) -- ( 2.0 , 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 1.4) -- ( 1.4, 8.0 ) -- ( 3.0, 8.0) -- ( 3.0, 3.0) ;
\draw [solid, fill = lightgray] ( 1.07, 8.0) -- ( 1.07, 1.0 ) -- ( 1.0 , 1.0) -- ( 1.0, .6) -- ( .6, .6) -- ( .6, 8.0) -- ( 1.07, 8.0);
\draw [solid , fill = lightgray] ( .6,.6) -- ( .6 , .4) -- ( .4, .4) -- ( .4, .2) -- ( .2, .2) -- ( .2, 8.0) -- ( .6, 8.0 ) -- ( .6, .6) ;
\draw [solid , fill = lightgray] ( .2, 8.0) -- ( .2, .2) -- ( .1 ,.2 ) -- ( .1, .1) -- ( 0 , .1) -- ( 0,0) -- ( 0 , 8.0) -- ( .2, 8.0) ;
\draw[ solid , fill = darkgray] (1.1,5.0) rectangle (1.2,7.5);
\draw[ solid , fill = darkgray] (1.15,1.4) rectangle (1.24,3.0);
\draw[ solid , fill = darkgray] (1.25,2.0) rectangle (1.3,6.0);
\draw [ dashed ] ( 1.3, 0 ) -- ( 1.3, 8.0) ;
\draw [ dashed ] ( 1.4, 0 ) -- ( 1.4, 8.0) ;
\draw (0,8.3) node { \textbf{$2\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (.5,8.3) node { \textbf{$6\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (1.0,8.3) node { \textbf{$8\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (2.2,8.3) node { \textbf{$24\varepsilon'$}};
\draw (4.6,8.3) node { \textbf{$\geq 3 \times 2^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{rot}} - 1}$}};
\draw (8.5,2.2) node { \textbf{$\leq 24\varepsilon'$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Case : L+ST processing [$\varepsilon' = \varepsilon_{{ring}}]$}
\label{L+ST Processing}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}
$|OPT_{L\&C}|\geq (1-O(\varepsilon))|OPT_{LF}|+|OPT_{ LT}|+|OPT_{ST}|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the optimal packing and remove the items of $OPT_{SF}$. Now pack the items in $OPT_{LF}\cup OPT_{ LT}$ in the boundary $L$. Now partition the boundary L into $\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}$ smaller $L$ regions placed on top of each in the non-decreasing order of width of $L$, where width of $L$ is the maximum of the height of the horizontal subcorridor and width of the vertical subcorridor. Here we assume that the sum of width of vertical subcorridor and height of horizontal subcorridor is more than $N$ otherwise we can rotate one of the subcorridor and place it to the side of the subcorridor and remove least profitable strip of width $\varepsilon N$ and place all the items of $OPT_{ST}$. Let $\{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{ \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}}\}$ be the set of smaller $L$ such that $L_{1}$ is the leftmost $L$ and $L_{ \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}}$ is the rightmost $L$. We now define the width of the smaller L regions and let us denote width by $w_{l}(.)$. $w_{l}(L_{1})$ is $2\varepsilon_{{ring}}$ and $w_{l}(L_{i})=\sum_{l=1}^{i-1}w_{l}(L_{l})+4\varepsilon_{{ring}}$ for $2\leq i\leq \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}-1$. Note that $L_{\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}}$ automatically gets defined. If we choose $\varepsilon_{rot}$ such that $\varepsilon_{rot}\geq \frac{1}{2(1+\frac{1}{log_{2}(\frac{1}{12\varepsilon_{{ring}}})})} $ then we can ensure that $w_{l}(L_{\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}})\geq \sum_{l=1}^{i-1}w_{l}(L_{l})+4\varepsilon_{{ring}}$. Now by averaging argument there exists a $L_{k}$ where $k \in [\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}]$ such that the number of rectangles intersecting $L_{k}$ is atmost $O(\varepsilon_{rot})|OPT_{LF}\cup OPT_{ LT}|$. Now remove the rectangles intersecting this $L_{k}$. Without loss of generality we assume that the width of vertical subcorridor of $L_{k}$ is equal to $w_{l}(L_{k})$. Now rotate the horizontal subcorridors of $L_{i}$ where $1\leq i \leq k-1$ and place in the empty space created by removing $L_{k}$. Now there exists a vertical strip of width atleast $4\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Now place the items of $OPT_{ST}$ and $OPT_{LT}$ in this strip. Now we are left with a strip of width atleast $2\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Now we process the complete L region comprising of $L_{k+1},...,L_{\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{rot}}}$ as done in subsection \ref{prosec}. The least profitable strip which we remove as done in Lemma \ref{rlem1} can be packed in the vertical strip which is previously empty. This strip has width of atmost $2\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$. Now we have a container packing. Hence our claim is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Finding the packing in polynomial time}
Using GAP(as mentioned in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}) and brute forcing among polynomial number of options we can find the packing which gives the desired approximation factor in polynomial time.
\section{BL-arrangement for guillotine packing}
\label{sec:bldecom}
Now we show the existence of a guillotine packing where all items are packed into $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors.
\begin{thm}[$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement]
\label{thm:ldecom}
Given an optimal guillotine packing, there is a rearrangement of items into another guillotine packing and $OPT_{{corr}} \subseteq OPT_{{skew}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep0pt
\item there is a subset $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross} \subseteq OPT_{{corr}}$ with $|OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}| \le O_\varepsilon(1)$ such that each $i\in OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ is fully contained in some corridor,
\item $p(OPT_{{corr}}) \ge (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{{skew}})$,
\item the number of corridors is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ and each corridor is either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor of width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. Every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor is a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ for some bounding box and every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor is guillotine separable as a box.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, first we will start with the corridor decomposition from Lemma \ref{lem:corridorPack} (see Figure \ref{fig:3a}). Then we remove $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends to obtain only spiral corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:3b}). Thereafter, we will further rearrange to obtain only $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:3c}). Finally, we will rearrange further to obtain only {\em special} $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:3f}).
\begin{lem}\label{noz}
A corridor with one or more $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends can be partitioned into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors by removing $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items, maintaining guillotine separability.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
There are two cases.
\noindent \textit{Case 1: $C$ is an open corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.}
Assume $C$ has 5 subcorridors (also works for fewer subcorridors) $S_{i'+1}, S_{i'+2}, S_{i'+3}, S_{i'+4}, S_{i'+5}$ such that $\{S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend. W.l.o.g.~assume $S_{i'+3}$ be a horizontal subcorridor and $S_{i'+2}$ be situated to the top left of $S_{i'+3}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:kbend}). Let us consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through these five subcorridors.
Consider the unshared region of $S_{i'+3}$: $\overline{S_{i'+3}}:= S_{i'+3}$ $\setminus \{S_{i'+2} \cup S_{i'+4}\}$. Then from Observation \ref{endtoend}, there exists an end-to-end cut $l'$ in $\overline{S_{i'+3}}$.
If this cut $l'$ through $\overline{S_{i'+3}}$ is vertical, then we can partition $C$ along $l'$ into $2$ new corridors, each containing at least one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend, compared to $C$.
If the cut $l'$ is horizontal, then consider the guillotine cuts which occurred before the cut $l'$. Let $l_{i'+2}$ be the rightmost vertical cut (including those which pass through the vertical boundary of $S_{i'+2}$, if any) through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$.
Extend the cut $l_{i'+2}$ so that it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+2}$ at point $p$. Now draw a line $l_{i'+1}$ from point $p$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{i'+1}$ till it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'}$. Continue the same process by drawing lines $l_{j}$ through corridors $S_{j}$, where $1 \leq j \leq i'$, in a similar fashion.
Drop items that are cut by these lines.
Stop when we obtain a line $l_{t}$ through $S_{t}$ parallel to the orientation of $S_{t}$, $t\ge 1$, that reaches a boundary edge of $C$. Lines $\{l_{t},l_{t+1}, \dots ,l_{i'+2}\}$ partition the corridor $C$ into at most 2 smaller corridors $C_{1},C_{2}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:kbend}. $C_{1}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{t}, \dots,S_{i'+2}$ only. $C_{2}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1}, \dots,S_{k}$. In a similar way, we choose $l_{i'+4}$ be the leftmost vertical cut through $S_{i'+3,i'+4}$ and we can partition $C_{2}$ into at most 2 corridors $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ where $C_{3}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4}, \dots,S_{t'}$ for $t' \le k$ and $C_{4}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1}, \dots,S_{k}$. During this process of partitioning we drop at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ rectangles (these are also included in $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$), as at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ items are dropped in at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ subcorridors. Note that $l'$ divides $C_{4}$ into 2 new corridors containing at least one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend when compared to $C$. The reason for choosing $l_{i'+2}$ (resp.~$l_{i'+4}$) and extending it to partition the corridor $C$ is that $l_{i'+2}$ (resp.~$l_{i'+4}$) is the cut which intercepts the horizontal cut $l'$ in $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$ (resp.~$S_{i'+3,i'+4}$) .
Repeating the above procedure for all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends concludes the proof for this case.
\noindent \textit{Case 2: $C$ is a closed corridor with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $S_{L}$ (resp. $S_{B}$, $S_{R}$, $S_{T}$) be the leftmost vertical (resp. bottom-most hor., rightmost vert., topmost hor.) subcorridor in $C$.
These four subcorridors can form following types of corridors among themselves: (i) one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend1}), (ii) two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend}), (iii) one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend3}), (iii) one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ and two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend2}) and (v) four $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend4}).
We call a cut to be a {\em good cut} if it passes through the unshared region of subcorridor perpendicular to its orientation.
A good guillotine cut divides a corridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ open corridors which can then be handled as in Case 1 (see Figure \ref{fig:zbend}).
Now, consider the sequence of guillotine cuts in the smallest piece containing $C$. If there is a good guillotine cut, we stop the sequence of guillotine cuts and we are done as we get $O_\varepsilon(1)$ open corridors. Else from Observation
\ref{endtoend}, we get an end-to-end cut passing through one of the subcorridors $\{S_{L}, S_{B}, S_{R}, S_{T}\}$, parallel to the orientation of the subcorridor.
We continue separating items from these four subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$ according to these end-to-end cuts, till either (i) we get a good cut or (ii) all the rectangles from one of these four subcorridors get completely separated from the rest. We now create at most 4 spiral corridors containing items from subcorridors $\{S_{L}, S_{B}, S_{R}, S_{T}\}$ only by using the last cut (excluding the good cut) in each of the subcorridors $\{S_{L}, S_{B}, S_{R}, S_{T}\}$.
In the first case, we separate out the rectangles from these 4 subcorridors into the newly created $O(1)$ spiral corridors with at most three bends and then using the good cut we divide rest of the closed corridor into $O_\varepsilon(1)$ open corridors as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend} and Figure \ref{closedcor2}.
In the second case, if we don't have such a good cut then eventually all the items in one of the subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$ will have been separated out (we say that the subcorridor is {\em exhausted}) into the newly created $O(1)$ spiral corridors with at most $4$ bends. W.l.o.g.~assume that the subcorridor $S_{B}$ gets exhausted. Then the last cut through $S_{B}$ leaves us with $O(1)$ open corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:zbend2}). The open corridors are again dealt using Case 1, finally giving $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4.3 cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6)--(2,6)--(2,5.5)--(4,5.5)--(4,6)--(6,6)--(6,4)--(5,4)--(5,3)--(4.5,3)--(4.5,4.5)--(5.5,4.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(4.5,5.5)--(4.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,5.5)--(.5,5.5)--(.5,4)--(2,4)--(2,3)--(4,3)--(4,2.5)--(1.5,2.5)--(1.5,3.5)--(0,3.5)--(0,6);
\draw[dotted] (6,4)--(5.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (5,4)--(4.5,4.5);
\draw[red] (6,6)--(5.9,6)--(5.9,5.9)--(5.8,5.9)--(5.8,5.8)--(5.7,5.8)--(5.7,5.7)--(5.6,5.7)--(5.6,5.6)--(5.5,5.6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4,6)--(4.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (2,6)--(1.5,5.5);
\draw[red] (0,6)--(.1,6)--(.1,5.9)--(.2,5.9)--(.2,5.75)--(.25,5.75)--(.3,5.75)--(.3,5.67)--(.5,5.67)--(.5,5.6)--(.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0.25,3.6)--(.5,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5,2.5)--(2,3);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 3.5)--(2,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 5)--(2,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4.5 , 5)--(4,5.5);
\draw[->] (.25,4.5) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,3.5); \draw (-.75,3.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+2}$}};
\draw[->] (.25,5.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,5.4); \draw (-.6,5.4) node {\textbf{$p$}};
\draw[->] (1,5.75) edge[out=90,in=0,->] (.8,6.5); \draw (.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+1}$}};
\fill [lightgray] (0,3.5) rectangle (0.5,4);
\draw[->] (.2,3.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,2.5); \draw (-.75,2.5) node {\textbf{$S_{i'+2,i'+3}$}};
\draw[dashed] (4.75,3) -- ( 4.75 ,4.25) -- ( 5.75, 4.25) -- ( 5.75, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.75) -- (.25, 5.75) -- (.25, 3.5) ;
\draw(4.75,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw(.75,3.8) node {\large \textbf{$l'_{H}$}};
\draw(1.2,4.7) node {\large \textbf{$l'_{V}$}};
\draw [thick, blue] (.25,3.5)--(.25,5.75);
\draw [thick, blue] (1.75,4)--(1.75,2.5);
\draw[thick, green] (.25,3.6)--(1.75,3.6);
\draw[thick, brown] (1.2,4.5)--(1.2,3);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Removal of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend in an open corridor. $l_{i'+2}$, $l_{i'+4}$ are shown in blue. Vertical (resp.~horizontal) (if any) $l'$ is shown as $l'_{V}$(resp.~$l'_{H}$), boundary curves are shown in red or dotted.
$l'$ separates the corridors into two corridors with lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends.}
\label{fig:kbend}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill =lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [solid, fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[dashed] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\draw[dashed] (5,.5)--(6.7,.5);
\draw[dashed] (6.5,.5)--(6.5,4);
\draw[dashed] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5);
\draw[dashed] (.3,6.5)--(2,6.5);
\draw[dashed] (5,.3)--(6.9,.3);
\draw[dashed] (6.7,.3)--(6.7,4);
\draw[dashed] (.3,3)--(.3,6.7);
\draw[dashed] (.1,6.7)--(2,6.7);
\draw[dashed] (5,.1)--(7,.1);
\draw[dashed] (6.9,.1)--(6.9,4);
\draw[dashed] (.1,3)--(.1,6.9);
\draw[dashed] (0,6.9)--(2,6.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{A sequence of guillotine cuts (shown as dashed lines) until we get a good cut}
\label{fig:zbend-lines}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill =lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [solid, fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{A good cut is shown by bold line. Shaded regions show two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors created before we obtained the good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw [fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,6.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor created before we obtain a good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors created before corridor $S_B$ gets exhausted.}
\label{fig:zbend2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill= lightgray] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,6.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridor created before we obtain a good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill=lightgray] (0,5)--(0.75,5)--(0.75,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,5);
\draw[fill=white] (.75,4.5)--(1.25,4.5)--(1.25,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,4.5);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[fill=white] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Four $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors created before we obtain a good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Good cuts are shown as bold lines.}\label{closedcor2}
\end{figure}
\begin{cor}
Every closed corridor obtained after the processing in Lemma \ref{noz}, is a {\em ring}.
\end{cor}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.3,5.4) rectangle (5.4,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,5.1) rectangle (4.7,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,5.4) rectangle (0.6,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,5.1) rectangle (1.4,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.2,.8) rectangle (5.8,0.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.7,.6) rectangle (5.5,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,.6) rectangle (0.6,0.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.8,.8) rectangle (0.2,0.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,6.8) rectangle (5.5,6.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,-0.7) rectangle (5.5,-0.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (-0.7,0) rectangle (-0.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (6.7,0) rectangle (6.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,6.3) rectangle (5.5,6.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,-0.2) rectangle (5.5,-0.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (-0.2,0) rectangle (-0.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (6.2,0) rectangle (6.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.5,1.5) rectangle (3,1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.5,5) rectangle (3,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.8,5.35) rectangle (4.2,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2,5.15) rectangle (4.2,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.67,4.45) rectangle (1.85,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.95,4.45) rectangle (2.1,5.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.97,4.45) rectangle (4.15,5.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.25,4.45) rectangle (4.35,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.8,.65) rectangle (4.2,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2,.85) rectangle (4.2,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.67,1.55) rectangle (1.85,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.95,1.55) rectangle (2.1,.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.97,1.55) rectangle (4.15,.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.25,1.55) rectangle (4.35,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.65) rectangle (4.7,3.77);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.95) rectangle (4.9,4.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,4.1) rectangle (5.2,4.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.4,3.5) rectangle (4,3.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.6,3.4) rectangle (4,3.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,3.2) rectangle (4,3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.1,3.2) rectangle (4.2,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,2.6) rectangle (4,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,2.5) rectangle (4,2.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.3,3.2) rectangle (4.4,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.6,3.2) rectangle (4.7,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.7,3.2) rectangle (1.8,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.2) rectangle (1.6,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.2,3.2) rectangle (1.3,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.2,3.3) rectangle (1.3,3.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.5,3.1) rectangle (.7,3.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.8,3.1) rectangle (1,3.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,4.2) rectangle (5.3,1.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.2,3.6) rectangle (5,2.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,1.7) rectangle (4,1.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0.5,1.7) rectangle (0.6,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,0.25) rectangle (4,0.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,5.75) rectangle (4,5.85);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0.25,2) rectangle (0.35,4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.65,2) rectangle (5.75,4);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1,-1) rectangle (7,7);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](-1,-1)rectangle(7,7);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,-1)--(-.5,7);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6.5,-1)--(6.5,7);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,-0.5)--(6.5,-0.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.4);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](-1,6)--(6,6)--(6,-1)--(-1,-1)--(-1,6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](0,4.4)--(.5,4.4)--(.5,5.3)--(0,5.3)--(0,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](5.5,4.4)--(5.5,5.3)--(6,5.3)--(6,4.4)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](.2,1.2)--(1,1.2)--(1,.4)--(.2,.4)--(.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick, orange] (1.6,4.4)--(1.6,5.6)--(4.4,5.6)--(4.4,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1.6,3.2)--(1.6,2.6)--(4.3,2.6)--(4.3,3.2)--(1.6,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,3.4) rectangle (4.6,2.6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3e}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (2,3.2) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](2,3.2)--(5.6,3.2)--(5.6,4.4)--(2,4.4)--(2,4.2)--(5.4,4.2)--(5.4,3.4)--(2.2,3.4)--(2.2,4)--(2,4)--(2,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](3.5,3.6) rectangle (5.1,4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,4.2)--(2.4,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick](4.8,4)--(5.1,4)--(5.1,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.8,4.4)--(2.8,5)--(4.4,5)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (2,4.4)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (2.2,4.2)--(2.2,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.4,4)--(5.4,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2.2,1.6)--(3.4,1.6)--(3.4,1)--(5,1)--(5,1.6)--(5,.4)--(2.2,.4)--(2.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](-1,6)--(6,6)--(6,-1)--(-1,-1)--(-1,6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](0,4.4)--(.5,4.4)--(.5,5.3)--(0,5.3)--(0,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](5.5,4.4)--(5.5,5.3)--(6,5.3)--(6,4.4)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](.2,1.2)--(1,1.2)--(1,.4)--(.2,.4)--(.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2,3.2) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](2.4,4)--(2.4,3.4)--(5.1,3.4)--(5.1,4)--(2.4,4);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,4.4)--(1.6,5.6)--(4.4,5.6)--(4.4,4.4)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](2,3.2)--(2,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick, orange](2.8,4.4)--(2.8,5)--(4.4,5);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2.4,4.2) rectangle (5.4,3.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3f}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a): Corridor decomposition, (b): Blue lines convert corridors into open corridors with no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends, red lines bound rings into boxes, (c): Red lines also divide spiral corridors into corridors with at most $3$ bends, we convert outermost ring to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, (d): brown lines denote guillotine cuts dividing a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into $O(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors which are guillotine separable, (e): Orange lines define the bounding boxes, (f): Final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition. See Section \ref{sec:bl} for details.}
\label{fig:cnew}
\end{figure}
In G{\'a}lvez et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, it was noted that spiral corridors are easier to {\em process} to obtain container-based packing. However, the processing as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, rearranges items and may violate guillotine separability.
Hence, we carefully decompose and rearrange further so that we can {\em process} simpler substructures without violating the guillotine separability.
First, we show that any spiral open corridor and ring can be rearranged into $O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}, \boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ only (see Figure \ref{fig:3a}, \ref{fig:3b}, \ref{fig:3c}). Then we show guillotine separable bounding boxes for each of the corridors (Figure \ref{fig:3d}). However, these corridors may not be boundary-corridors. Thereafter, we convert all corridors into boundary-corridors with an additional property that the rectangles in the boundary corridor can be separated out using cuts parallel to the orientation of the subcorridors in the boundary corridor (Figure \ref{fig:3e}). Boundary-corridors are then converted so that finally all corridors are either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors (which are also guillotine separable as a pseudoitem) or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors bounded by a guillotine separable box, giving us the final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement (Figure \ref{fig:3f}). Final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement is guillotine separable and now we can {\em process} the subcorridors of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ to obtain a guillotine separable container-based packing, as described in the next section.
\section{Existence of near-optimal structured solutions}
\label{sec:bldecom} In this section we prove Lemma~?? in the cardinality
case, i.e., assuming that $p_{i}=1$ for each item $i\inI$,
we prove that that there exists a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate solution
whose items can be placed nicely inside a set of compartments $\C$
that admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. We will give the
proof of the weighted case in Appendix~??.
Our strategy is to start with a partition of the knapsack into thin
corridors as defined in \cite{AHW19}. Intuitively, a corridor
is a path or cycle of width at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$, see Figure~??.
\noindent \begin{definition}[Open corridor] An open corridor is
a subregion of knapsack bounded by simple rectilinear polygon with
$2b$ edges $e_{0},e_{1},\dots,e_{2b-1}$ for $b\ge2,b\in\mathbb{N}$,
so that for each pair of horizontal (resp. vertical) edges $e_{i},e_{2b-i},i\in[b-1]$
there exists a vertical (resp. horizontal) line segment $\ell_{i}$
\aw{of length at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$} such that both $e_{i}$ and $e_{2b-i}$
intersect $\ell_{i}$ but no other edges intersect $\ell_{i}$. \end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Closed corridor] A closed corridor (or {\em
cycle}) is a subregion of knapsack bounded by two simple rectilinear
polygon defined by edges $e_{0},e_{1},\dots,e_{b-1}$ and $e'_{0},e'_{1},\dots,e'_{b-1}$
for $b\ge2,b\in\mathbb{N}$, so that the second polygon is contained
within the first polygon and for each pair of horizontal (resp.~vertical)
edges $e_{i},e'_{i},i\in[b-1]$, there exists a vertical (resp.~horizontal)
line segment $\ell_{i}$ \aw{of length at most $\varepsilon_{{large}} N$} such
that $e_{i}$ and $e'_{i}$ intersect $\ell_{i}$ but no other edges
intersect $\ell_{i}$. \end{definition}
\begin{lem}
[\cite{AHW19,adamaszek2015knapsack}] \label{lem:corridor-partition}There exists a solution
$\overline{OPT}\subseteqOPT$ with $\left|OPT\right|\le(1+\epsilon)\left|\overline{OPT}\right|$
and a partition of $K$ into a set of corridors $\bar{\C}$ with $|\bar{\C}|\le O_{\epsilon}(1)$
where each corridor $C\in\bar{\C}$ has at most $1/\epsilon$ bends
each and such that each item $i\in\overline{OPT}$ is contained in
one corridor of $\bar{\C}$.
\end{lem}
Our strategy is to partition the corridors in $\bar{\C}$ step by
step, while moving some of the items, until the resulting packing
satisfies the properties claimed in Lemma~??. In the process, we
might drop an $\epsilon$-fraction of the items in $\overline{OPT}$.
For this, we need some definitions for the parts of a corridor (which
we will call subcorridors) and its bends. Given an open (resp.~closed)
corridor $C$, we define that a {\em subcorridor} $S_{i}$ is the
maximally large rectangle contained in the corridor containing the
edges $e_{i},e_{2b-i}$ (resp.~$e_{i},e_{i'}$) on its boundary.
Hence, an open (resp.~closed) corridor is the union of $b-1$ (resp.~$b$)
such rectangular regions.
We say that the region $S_{i,j}$ is the shared rectangular region
between two consecutive subcorridors $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$, \aw{i.e.,
$S_{i,j}=S_{i}\cap S_{j}$}. The {\em unshared region} of $S_{i}$
is the part of $S_{i}$ that \aw{is not contained in any other subcorridor}.
For two two consecutive subcorridors $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$ we \aw{can
find a monotone axis-parallel curve in $S_{i,j}$ that separates the
parts of $S_{i,j}$ containing only vertical or only horizontal items;
we call this curve the {boundary curve} of $S_{i,j}$} (see Figure
\ref{fig:lproc}).
We define $S_{j}$ to be \aw{on} the right (resp.~left, top, bottom)
of $S_{i}$ if there exists a point in $S_{i}$ to the left (resp.~right,
bottom, top) of every point in $S_{j}\setminus S_{i,j}$. A pair $(S_{i},S_{j})$
forms a {\em clockwise} bend if $S_{i}$ is horizontal and $S_{j}$
is to either bottom-right or top-left of $S_{i}$, and the complementary
cases if $S_{i}$ is vertical. Otherwise, they form a counter-clockwise
bend. A corridor with no bends (resp.~one bend), is called a box-
or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor (resp.~$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor). \aw{Observe that they
are also box-compartments (resp. L-compartments).}
An open corridor whose bends are all clockwise (resp.~counter-clockwise)
is a \emph{spiral}. Spirals with $2,3$ bends are called $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$-corridors,
respectively. A closed corridor with $b=4$ is a \emph{ring}.
We call a triple $(S_{i},S_{i'},S_{i''})$ of consecutive subcorridors
a\emph{ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend} if $S_{i},S_{i'}$ form a clockwise (resp.~counterclockwise)
bend and $S_{i'},S_{i''}$ form a counterclockwise (resp.~clockwise)
bend, and the subcorridors $S_{i},S_{i'},S_{i''}$ are called $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridors.
We call $S_{i'}$ the \emph{center-subcorridor} of the bend, and $S_{i},S_{i''}$
its \emph{side-subcorridors}. A spiral corridor can not have $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$
bends. A subcorridor that is not a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridor is called a
{\em spiral subcorridor}. A $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-corridor is a corridor formed
by the union of 3 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-subcorridors.
For transforming $\overline{OPT}$ and the corridors in $\bar{\C}$,
we first apply the following lemma to each corridor with a \emph{$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$}-bend.
Note that Lemma~?? trivially holds if $\left|\overline{OPT}\right|\le O_{\epsilon}(1)$
and hence we assume for the remainder of this section that $\left|\overline{OPT}\right|$
is larger than any given constant (which in particular implies that
we can drop any set of $O_{\epsilon}(1)$ items from $\overline{OPT}$
while losing only a factor of $1+\epsilon$).
\begin{lem}\label{lem:noz} Let $C\in\bar{\C}$ be a corridor with
at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend and let $\overline{OPT}(C)$ denote the
items from $\overline{OPT}$ inside $C$. We can be partition $C$
into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral corridors into which we can place at least
$\overline{OPT}(C)-O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items from $\overline{OPT}(C)$,
such that globally the resulting solution is guillotine separable
(including the items in $\overline{OPT}\setminus\overline{OPT}(C)$).
\end{lem} \begin{proof} There are two cases.
\noindent \textit{Case 1: $C$ is an open corridor with at least one
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Assume $C$ has 5 subcorridors (also works for fewer
subcorridors) $S_{i'+1},S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4},S_{i'+5}$ such
that $\{S_{i'+2},S_{i'+3},S_{i'+4}\}$ form a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend. W.l.o.g.~assume
$S_{i'+3}$ be a horizontal subcorridor and $S_{i'+2}$ be situated
to the top left of $S_{i'+3}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:kbend}). Let
us consider a sequence of guillotine cuts through these five subcorridors.
Consider the unshared region of $S_{i'+3}$: $\overline{S_{i'+3}}:=S_{i'+3}$
$\setminus\{S_{i'+2}\cup S_{i'+4}\}$. Then from Observation \ref{endtoend},
there exists an end-to-end cut $l'$ in $\overline{S_{i'+3}}$.
If this cut $l'$ through $\overline{S_{i'+3}}$ is vertical, then
we can partition $C$ along $l'$ into $2$ new corridors, each containing
at least one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend, compared to $C$.
If the cut $l'$ is horizontal, then consider the guillotine cuts
which occurred before the cut $l'$. Let $l_{i'+2}$ be the rightmost
vertical cut (including those which pass through the vertical boundary
of $S_{i'+2}$, if any) through $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$. Extend the cut $l_{i'+2}$
so that it touches the boundary curve between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'+2}$
at point $p$. Now draw a line $l_{i'+1}$ from point $p$ parallel
to the orientation of $S_{i'+1}$ till it touches the boundary curve
between $S_{i'+1}$ and $S_{i'}$. Continue the same process by drawing
lines $l_{j}$ through corridors $S_{j}$, where $1\leq j\leq i'$,
in a similar fashion. Drop items that are cut by these lines. Stop
when we obtain a line $l_{t}$ through $S_{t}$ parallel to the orientation
of $S_{t}$, $t\ge1$, that reaches a boundary edge of $C$. Lines
$\{l_{t},l_{t+1},\dots,l_{i'+2}\}$ partition the corridor $C$ into
at most 2 smaller corridors $C_{1},C_{2}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:kbend}.
$C_{1}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{t},\dots,S_{i'+2}$
only. $C_{2}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},\dots,S_{k}$.
In a similar way, we choose $l_{i'+4}$ be the leftmost vertical cut
through $S_{i'+3,i'+4}$ and we can partition $C_{2}$ into at most
2 corridors $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ where $C_{3}$ contains rectangles
from the subcorridors $S_{i'+4},\dots,S_{t'}$ for $t'\le k$ and
$C_{4}$ contains rectangles from the subcorridors $S_{1},\dots,S_{k}$.
During this process of partitioning we drop at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$
rectangles (these are also included in $OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$), as at most
$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$ items are dropped in at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$
subcorridors. Note that $l'$ divides $C_{4}$ into 2 new corridors
containing at least one lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend when compared to $C$.
The reason for choosing $l_{i'+2}$ (resp.~$l_{i'+4}$) and extending
it to partition the corridor $C$ is that $l_{i'+2}$ (resp.~$l_{i'+4}$)
is the cut which intercepts the horizontal cut $l'$ in $S_{i'+2,i'+3}$
(resp.~$S_{i'+3,i'+4}$) .
Repeating the above procedure for all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends concludes the proof
for this case.
\noindent \textit{Case 2: $C$ is a closed corridor with at least
one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend.} Let $S_{L}$ (resp. $S_{B}$, $S_{R}$, $S_{T}$)
be the leftmost vertical (resp. bottom-most hor., rightmost vert.,
topmost hor.) subcorridor in $C$. These four subcorridors can form
following types of corridors among themselves: (i) one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ (Figure
\ref{fig:zbend1}), (ii) two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend}), (iii)
one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend3}), (iii) one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$
and two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:zbend2}) and (v) four $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ (Figure
\ref{fig:zbend4}). We call a cut to be a {\em good cut} if it
passes through the unshared region of subcorridor perpendicular to
its orientation. A good guillotine cut divides a corridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
open corridors which can then be handled as in Case 1 (see Figure
\ref{fig:zbend}). Now, consider the sequence of guillotine cuts in
the smallest piece containing $C$. If there is a good guillotine
cut, we stop the sequence of guillotine cuts and we are done as we
get $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ open corridors. Else from Observation \ref{endtoend},
we get an end-to-end cut passing through one of the subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$,
parallel to the orientation of the subcorridor. We continue separating
items from these four subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$
according to these end-to-end cuts, till either (i) we get a good
cut or (ii) all the rectangles from one of these four subcorridors
get completely separated from the rest. We now create at most 4 spiral
corridors containing items from subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$
only by using the last cut (excluding the good cut) in each of the
subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$. In the first case, we
separate out the rectangles from these 4 subcorridors into the newly
created $O(1)$ spiral corridors with at most three bends and then
using the good cut we divide rest of the closed corridor into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
open corridors as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zbend} and Figure \ref{closedcor2}.
In the second case, if we don't have such a good cut then eventually
all the items in one of the subcorridors $\{S_{L},S_{B},S_{R},S_{T}\}$
will have been separated out (we say that the subcorridor is {\em
exhausted}) into the newly created $O(1)$ spiral corridors with
at most $4$ bends. W.l.o.g.~assume that the subcorridor $S_{B}$
gets exhausted. Then the last cut through $S_{B}$ leaves us with
$O(1)$ open corridors (see Figure \ref{fig:zbend2}). The open corridors
are again dealt using Case 1, finally giving $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ spiral
corridors. \end{proof}
Let $\overline{OPT}'$ and $\bar{\C}'$ denote the resulting solution
after applying Lemma~\ref{lem:noz} to each corridor in $\bar{\C}$
with at least one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend. Then $\bar{\C}'$ contains only rings
and spirals, since if a closed corridor is not a ring, it has at least
one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend, and if an open corridor does not have a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend
then it must be a spiral.
\begin{lem}
Every corridor in $\bar{\C}'$ is a ring or a spiral.
\end{lem}
We process the corridors in $\bar{\C}'$ and their items further.
Consider a ring corridor $C\in\bar{\C}'$, let $\overline{OPT}'(C)$
denote the items of $\overline{OPT}'$ placed inside $C$, and let
$\overline{OPT}'_{in}(C)$ denote the items of $\overline{OPT}'$
that are placed in the area of $K$ that is surrounded by $C$. Also,
let $R(C)$ denote the smallest rectangle that contains $C$. We rearrange
the items in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ and $\overline{OPT}'_{in}(C)$
such that we move the items in $\overline{OPT}'_{in}(C)$ uniformly
towards the top right of $R(C)$ and rearrange the items in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$
such that they fit into an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor at the boundary of within
$R(C)$.
\begin{lem}
Given a ring corridor $C\in\bar{\C}'$, we can rearrange the items
in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ and $\overline{OPT}'_{in}(C)$ inside $R(C)$
such that the items in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ are placed inside an
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor $L$ such that $R(C)\setminus L$ is a rectangle,
and the items in $\overline{OPT}'_{in}(C)$ are placed inside $R(C)\setminus L$.
Moreover, globally the resulting solution is guillotine separable
(including the items in $\overline{OPT}'\setminus\overline{OPT}'(C)$).
\end{lem}
Next, we partition every spiral corridor $C\in\bar{\C}'$ and rearrange
its items $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ of $\overline{OPT}'$ such that
each of the resulting corridors has at most three bends, which are
hence of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}},$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$.
\begin{lem}
Given a spiral corridor $C\in\bar{\C}'$, we can rearrange the items
in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ inside $C$ and partition $C$ into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$
open corridors with at most three bends each, such that each item
in $\overline{OPT}'(C)$ is contained in one of the resulting corridors.
Moreover, globally the resulting solution is guillotine separable
(including the items in $\overline{OPT}'\setminus\overline{OPT}'(C)$).
\end{lem}
Let $\bar{\C}''$ denote the resuling set of corridors, each of them
having at most three bends, and denote by $\overline{OPT}''$ the
corresponding solution (i.e., the items in $\overline{OPT}'$ in
their new placement). We want to show that for each corridor $C\in\bar{\C}''$
we can define a rectangle $R(C)$ with $C\subseteq R(C)$ such that
these rectangles $\left\{ R(C)\right\} _{C\in\bar{\C}''}$ form a
laminar family and for each $C\in\bar{\C}''$ it holds that $C$ is
a boundary corridor of $R(C)$ according to the following definition.
These rectangles $R(C)$ will help us later to define a pseudo-guillotine
cutting sequence.
\noindent \begin{definition}[Boundary corridors] Given a rectangle
$[l,r]\times[b,t]\subseteq K$. A {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$} of height
$N_{1}$ and width $N_{2}$ is the region $\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_{1}])\cup([l,l+N_{2}]\times[b,t])\big)$.
Similarly, a {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$} (resp.~{\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$})
occupies the region $\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_{1}])\cup([l,l+N_{2}]\times[t,b])\cup([r-N_{3},r]\times[b,t])\big)$
(resp.~ $\big(([l,r]\times[b,b+N_{1}])\cup([l,l+N_{2}]\times[t,b])\cup([r-N_{3},r]\times[b,t])\cup([l,r]\times[t-N_{4},t])\big)$).
Such a {\em boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$, boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$}
is also called a {\em boundary corridors} for $[l,r]\times[b,t]$.
\noindent \end{definition}
\begin{lem}
There is a family of rectangles $\left\{ R(C)\right\} _{C\in\bar{\C}''}$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item for each $C\in\bar{\C}''$, $C$ is a boundary corridor for $R(C)$
(and hence $C\subseteq R(C)$), and each item $i\in\overline{OPT}''$
is contained in $R(C)$ or in $K\setminus R(C)$,
\item for any $C,C'\in\bar{\C}''$ it holds that $R(C)\subseteq R(C')$,
or $R(C')\subseteq R(C)$, or $R(C)\cap R(C')=\emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
Now we adjust the corridors in $\bar{\C}''$ and the items contained
in them further such that we obtain only corridors with at most one
bend each. To this end, we process the corridors in $\bar{\C}''$
in an order induced by the laminar family $\left\{ R(C)\right\} _{C\in\bar{\C}''}$
and move the items contained in the respective rectangles $R(C)$,
such that at the end we can replace each corridor $C\in\bar{\C}''$
by a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor for $R(C)$ that contains the same items
as $C$ previously.
\begin{lem}
Let $C\in\bar{\C}''$. We can rearrange the items from $\overline{OPT}''$
inside $R(C)$ such that there exists a partition of $C$ into a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$
$L$ and a rectangle $R\setminus L$ such that $L$ contains all items
that were contained in $C$ previously and $R\setminus L$ contains
a uniform translation of the items that were contained in $R(C)\setminus C$
previously.
\end{lem}
Finally, we subdivide each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into $O_{\epsilon}(1)$
box-compartments, while losing at most a factor of $1+\epsilon$ in
the profit of the contained items.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:compartments-boxes}Given a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor $B$ containing
a set of items $I(B)$. There exists a partition of $B$ into $O_{\epsilon}(1)$
box-compartments $\B(B)$ that are guillotine separable and a nice
placement of a set of items $I'(B)\subseteqI(B)$ with $p(I'(B))\ge(1-\epsilon)p(I'(B))$
inside $\B(B)$.
\end{lem}
Similarly, we subdivide each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor into one L-compartment
and $O_{\epsilon}(1)$ box-compartments, while losing at most a factor
of $1+\epsilon$ in the profit of the contained items.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:compartments-L}Given a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor $L$ containing
a set of items $I(L)$. There exists a partition of $L$ into one
L-compartment $L'$ and $O_{\epsilon}(1)$ box-compartments $\B(L)$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $L'$ is a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor for $R(L)$,
\item the box-compartments in $\B(L)$ are guillotine separable, and
\item there is a nice placement of a set of items $I'(L)\subseteqI(L)$
with $p(I'(L))\ge(1-\epsilon)p(I'(L))$ inside $\B(L)$
and $L'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
Let $\C$ denote the compartments constructed in Lemmas~\ref{lem:compartments-boxes}
and \ref{lem:compartments-L}. We can show that they admit a pseudo-guillotine
cutting sequence since the constructed box-compartments are guillotine
separable and each constructed L-compartment $L'$ for an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor
$L$ is a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridor for $R(L)$.
\begin{lem}
There is a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence for the compartments
in $\C$.
\end{lem}
This completes the proof of Lemma~?? in the cardinality case. We
will prove the weighted case in Appendix~??.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering} \hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1\textwidth} \centering \resizebox{!}{4.3 cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,6)--(2,6)--(2,5.5)--(4,5.5)--(4,6)--(6,6)--(6,4)--(5,4)--(5,3)--(4.5,3)--(4.5,4.5)--(5.5,4.5)--(5.5,5.5)--(4.5,5.5)--(4.5,5)--(1.5,5)--(1.5,5.5)--(.5,5.5)--(.5,4)--(2,4)--(2,3)--(4,3)--(4,2.5)--(1.5,2.5)--(1.5,3.5)--(0,3.5)--(0,6);
\draw[dotted] (6,4)--(5.5,4.5);
\draw[dotted] (5,4)--(4.5,4.5);
\draw[red] (6,6)--(5.9,6)--(5.9,5.9)--(5.8,5.9)--(5.8,5.8)--(5.7,5.8)--(5.7,5.7)--(5.6,5.7)--(5.6,5.6)--(5.5,5.6)--(5.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4,6)--(4.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (2,6)--(1.5,5.5);
\draw[red] (0,6)--(.1,6)--(.1,5.9)--(.2,5.9)--(.2,5.75)--(.25,5.75)--(.3,5.75)--(.3,5.67)--(.5,5.67)--(.5,5.6)--(.5,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (0.25,3.6)--(.5,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5,2.5)--(2,3);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 3.5)--(2,4);
\draw[dotted] (1.5, 5)--(2,5.5);
\draw[dotted] (4.5 , 5)--(4,5.5);
\draw[->] (.25,4.5) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,3.5); \draw (-.75,3.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+2}$}};
\draw[->] (.25,5.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,5.4); \draw (-.6,5.4) node {\textbf{$p$}};
\draw[->] (1,5.75) edge[out=90,in=0,->] (.8,6.5); \draw (.5,6.5) node {\textbf{$l_{i'+1}$}};
\fill [lightgray] (0,3.5) rectangle (0.5,4);
\draw[->] (.2,3.75) edge[out=180,in=0,->] (-.4,2.5); \draw (-.75,2.5) node {\textbf{$S_{i'+2,i'+3}$}};
\draw[dashed] (4.75,3) -- ( 4.75 ,4.25) -- ( 5.75, 4.25) -- ( 5.75, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.75) -- ( 4.25, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.25) -- ( 1.75, 5.75) -- (.25, 5.75) -- (.25, 3.5) ;
\draw(4.75,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$S_{1}$}};
\draw(.75,3.8) node {\large \textbf{$l'_{H}$}};
\draw(1.2,4.7) node {\large \textbf{$l'_{V}$}};
\draw [thick, blue] (.25,3.5)--(.25,5.75);
\draw [thick, blue] (1.75,4)--(1.75,2.5);
\draw[thick, green] (.25,3.6)--(1.75,3.6);
\draw[thick, brown] (1.2,4.5)--(1.2,3);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{Removal of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bend in an open corridor. $l_{i'+2}$, $l_{i'+4}$
are shown in blue. Vertical (resp.~horizontal) (if any) $l'$ is
shown as $l'_{V}$(resp.~$l'_{H}$), boundary curves are shown in
red or dotted. $l'$ separates the corridors into two corridors with
lesser $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends.}
\label{fig:kbend} \end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth} \centering \resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill =lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [solid, fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[dashed] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\draw[dashed] (5,.5)--(6.7,.5);
\draw[dashed] (6.5,.5)--(6.5,4);
\draw[dashed] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5);
\draw[dashed] (.3,6.5)--(2,6.5);
\draw[dashed] (5,.3)--(6.9,.3);
\draw[dashed] (6.7,.3)--(6.7,4);
\draw[dashed] (.3,3)--(.3,6.7);
\draw[dashed] (.1,6.7)--(2,6.7);
\draw[dashed] (5,.1)--(7,.1);
\draw[dashed] (6.9,.1)--(6.9,4);
\draw[dashed] (.1,3)--(.1,6.9);
\draw[dashed] (0,6.9)--(2,6.9);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{A sequence of guillotine cuts (shown as dashed lines) until we get
a good cut}
\label{fig:zbend-lines} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill =lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [solid, fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7) --(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.5,.5)--(6.5,4)--(7,4)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{A good cut is shown by bold line. Shaded regions show two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ corridors
created before we obtained the good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend} \end{subfigure} \caption{}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering} \hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth} \centering \resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw [fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,0.5)--(5,0.5)--(5,0)--(7,0)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3)--(.5,3);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,6.5);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$ corridor created before we obtain a good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend1} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw[fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.75)--(6.25,.75)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.75);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, two $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors created before corridor $S_{B}$
gets exhausted.}
\label{fig:zbend2} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill= lightgray] (0,7)--(7,7)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,7);
\draw [fill=white] (.75,6.25)--(6.25,6.25)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,6.25);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5)--(6.5,2)--(7,2)--(7,7)--(0,7)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,6.5);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{One $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}}$ and one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridor created before we obtain a good
cut.}
\label{fig:zbend3} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{3.3cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick, fill=lightgray] (0,5)--(0.75,5)--(0.75,7)--(2,7)--(2,4)--(7,4)--(7,2)--(6.25,2)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,3)--(0,3)--(0,5);
\draw[fill=white] (.75,4.5)--(1.25,4.5)--(1.25,6.25)--(1.75,6.25)--(1.75, 3.7)--(6.25,3.7)--(6.25,2.5) --(5.75,2.5)--(5.75,0.75)-- ( 5.25,.75)--(5.25,3.25)--(.75,3.25)--(.75,4.5);
\draw[fill=white] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[fill=white] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[fill=white] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[fill=white] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (.5,3)--(.5,5)--(0,5)--(0,3);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (0.75,6.5)--(2,6.5)--(2,7)--(0.75,7)--(0.75,6.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (7,4)--(7,2)--(6.5,2)--(6.5,4)--(7,4);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (5,.5)--(6.25,.5)--(6.25,0)--(5,0)--(5,.5);
\draw (.3,4.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{L}$}};
\draw (1.25,6.75) node {\large \textbf{$S_{T}$}};
\draw (6.75,2.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{R}$}};
\draw (5.75,.25) node {\large \textbf{$S_{B}$}};
\draw[thick] (5.6,.5)--(5.6,4);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{Four $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ corridors created before we obtain a good cut.}
\label{fig:zbend4} \end{subfigure} \caption{Good cuts are shown as bold lines.}
\label{closedcor2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering} \hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth} \centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.3,5.4) rectangle (5.4,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,5.1) rectangle (4.7,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,5.4) rectangle (0.6,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,5.1) rectangle (1.4,5.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.2,.8) rectangle (5.8,0.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.7,.6) rectangle (5.5,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.7,.6) rectangle (0.6,0.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.8,.8) rectangle (0.2,0.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,6.8) rectangle (5.5,6.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,-0.7) rectangle (5.5,-0.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (-0.7,0) rectangle (-0.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (6.7,0) rectangle (6.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,6.3) rectangle (5.5,6.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,-0.2) rectangle (5.5,-0.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (-0.2,0) rectangle (-0.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (6.2,0) rectangle (6.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.5,1.5) rectangle (3,1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.5,5) rectangle (3,4.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.8,5.35) rectangle (4.2,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2,5.15) rectangle (4.2,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.67,4.45) rectangle (1.85,5.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.95,4.45) rectangle (2.1,5.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.97,4.45) rectangle (4.15,5.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.25,4.45) rectangle (4.35,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.8,.65) rectangle (4.2,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2,.85) rectangle (4.2,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.67,1.55) rectangle (1.85,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.95,1.55) rectangle (2.1,.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.97,1.55) rectangle (4.15,.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.25,1.55) rectangle (4.35,.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.65) rectangle (4.7,3.77);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.95) rectangle (4.9,4.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,4.1) rectangle (5.2,4.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.4,3.5) rectangle (4,3.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.6,3.4) rectangle (4,3.3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,3.2) rectangle (4,3);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.1,3.2) rectangle (4.2,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,2.6) rectangle (4,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.6,2.5) rectangle (4,2.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.3,3.2) rectangle (4.4,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.6,3.2) rectangle (4.7,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.7,3.2) rectangle (1.8,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.5,3.2) rectangle (1.6,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.2,3.2) rectangle (1.3,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.2,3.3) rectangle (1.3,3.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.5,3.1) rectangle (.7,3.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.8,3.1) rectangle (1,3.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,4.2) rectangle (5.3,1.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.2,3.6) rectangle (5,2.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,1.7) rectangle (4,1.8);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0.5,1.7) rectangle (0.6,2.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,0.25) rectangle (4,0.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1,5.75) rectangle (4,5.85);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0.25,2) rectangle (0.35,4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.65,2) rectangle (5.75,4);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1,-1) rectangle (7,7);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3a} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](-1,-1)rectangle(7,7);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,-1)--(-.5,7);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6.5,-1)--(6.5,7);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,6.5)--(6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-.5,-0.5)--(6.5,-0.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3b} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3c} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,blue]( 5,1.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.4);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3d} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.33\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.4);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](.4,3)--(1.2,3);
\draw[ultra thick](1.2,2.4)--(4.8,2.4)--(4.8,3.6)--(1.2,3.6)--(1.2,3.4)--(4.6,3.4)--(4.6,2.6)--(1.4,2.6)--(1.4,3.2)--(1.2,3.2)--(1.2,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,2.8) rectangle (4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.6,3.4)--(1.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick](4,3.2)--(4.3,3.2)--(4.3,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.6,3.2)--(2.4,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (1.2,3.6)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.2,3.6)--(0.4,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1.4,3.4)--(1.4,2.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (4.6,3.2)--(4.6,2.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](-1,6)--(6,6)--(6,-1)--(-1,-1)--(-1,6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](0,4.4)--(.5,4.4)--(.5,5.3)--(0,5.3)--(0,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](5.5,4.4)--(5.5,5.3)--(6,5.3)--(6,4.4)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](.2,1.2)--(1,1.2)--(1,.4)--(.2,.4)--(.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick, orange] (1.6,4.4)--(1.6,5.6)--(4.4,5.6)--(4.4,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,4.4)--(2.2,4.4)--(2.2,5)--(3.8,5)--(3.8,4.4)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.2,2.4) rectangle (4.8,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1.6,1.6)--(2.2,1.6)--(2.2,1)--(3.8,1)--(3.8,1.6)--(4.4,1.6)--(4.4,.4)--(1.6,.4)--(1.6,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1.6,3.2)--(1.6,2.6)--(4.3,2.6)--(4.3,3.2)--(1.6,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,3.4) rectangle (4.6,2.6);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3e} \end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering \resizebox{!}{2.5cm}{ \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.6)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.5,5.6)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,.4)--(.8,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown](5,.2)--(5,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ ultra thick](-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (6.5,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (2,3.2) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,5.3) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,5.3) rectangle (0,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.2,.7) rectangle (6,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (.8,.7) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[ultra thick](2,3.2)--(5.6,3.2)--(5.6,4.4)--(2,4.4)--(2,4.2)--(5.4,4.2)--(5.4,3.4)--(2.2,3.4)--(2.2,4)--(2,4)--(2,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick](3.5,3.6) rectangle (5.1,4);
\draw[ultra thick](2.4,4.2)--(2.4,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick](4.8,4)--(5.1,4)--(5.1,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.6,4.4)--(2.8,4.4)--(2.8,5)--(4.4,5)--(4.4,4.4)--(4.4,5.6)--(1.6,5.6)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.5,5.3)--(.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,5.6)--(5.2,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.5,5.3)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.2,.7)--(5.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5.2,.5)--(5,.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.5,5)--(.2,5)--(.2,.7);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.2,1.2)--(1,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (.8,.4)--(1,.4);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.2)--(5.8,1.2)--(5.8,4.8)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (2,4.4)--(1.2,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (,5.6)--(6,5.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (0,4.4)--(6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (.2,4.4)--(.2,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,4.4)--(5.8,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.8,1.6)--(.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (1,1.6)--(1,0);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (2.2,4.2)--(2.2,3.2);
\draw[ultra thick,brown] (5.4,4)--(5.4,3.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2.2,1.6)--(3.4,1.6)--(3.4,1)--(5,1)--(5,1.6)--(5,.4)--(2.2,.4)--(2.2,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](-1,6)--(6,6)--(6,-1)--(-1,-1)--(-1,6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](0,4.4)--(.5,4.4)--(.5,5.3)--(0,5.3)--(0,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](5.5,4.4)--(5.5,5.3)--(6,5.3)--(6,4.4)--(5.5,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](.2,1.2)--(1,1.2)--(1,.4)--(.2,.4)--(.2,1.2);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](1,1.6)--(1,.2)--(5,.2)--(5,1.6);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (.4,1.6) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2,3.2) rectangle (5.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](2.4,4)--(2.4,3.4)--(5.1,3.4)--(5.1,4)--(2.4,4);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1.5)--(-1,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (6,-1.5)--(6,6.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,6)--(6,6);
\draw[ultra thick,red] (-1,-1)--(6,-1);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (1.6,4.4)--(1.6,5.6)--(4.4,5.6)--(4.4,4.4)--(1.6,4.4);
\draw[ultra thick,orange](2,3.2)--(2,3.6);
\draw[ultra thick, orange](2.8,4.4)--(2.8,5)--(4.4,5);
\draw[ultra thick,orange] (2.4,4.2) rectangle (5.4,3.4);
\end{tikzpicture}} \caption{}
\label{fig:3f} \end{subfigure} \caption{(a): Corridor decomposition, (b): Blue lines convert corridors into
open corridors with no $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Z}}$-bends, red lines bound rings into boxes,
(c): Red lines also divide spiral corridors into corridors with at
most $3$ bends, we convert outermost ring to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, (d):
brown lines denote guillotine cuts dividing a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridor into
$O(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors which are guillotine separable, (e): Orange
lines define the bounding boxes, (f): Final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-decomposition.
See Section \ref{sec:bl} for details.}
\label{fig:cnew}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
In G{á}lvez et al.~\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, it was noted that spiral
corridors are easier to {\em process} to obtain container-based
packing. However, the processing as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17},
rearranges items and may violate guillotine separability. Hence, we
carefully decompose and rearrange further so that we can {\em process}
simpler substructures without violating the guillotine separability.
First, we show that any spiral open corridor and ring can be rearranged
into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{U}},\boldsymbol{\mathsf{G}}$
only (see Figure \ref{fig:3a}, \ref{fig:3b}, \ref{fig:3c}). Then
we show guillotine separable bounding boxes for each of the corridors
(Figure \ref{fig:3d}). However, these corridors may not be boundary-corridors.
Thereafter, we convert all corridors into boundary-corridors with
an additional property that the rectangles in the boundary corridor
can be separated out using cuts parallel to the orientation of the
subcorridors in the boundary corridor (Figure \ref{fig:3e}). Boundary-corridors
are then converted so that finally all corridors are either $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-corridors
(which are also guillotine separable as a pseudoitem) or boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$
corridors bounded by a guillotine separable box, giving us the final
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement (Figure \ref{fig:3f}). Final $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement
is guillotine separable and now we can {\em process} the subcorridors
of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ to obtain a guillotine separable container-based packing,
as described in the next section.
\end{comment}
\section{Improved Approximation}
\subsection{$(\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK-C}
\label{sec:tggkcal}
In this section, we give an overview of our algorithm for 2GGK-C.
Using standard assumptions (see Section \ref{sec:inputsimplification}), we will assume that we can drop a constant number of items, and we have only skewed rectangles. For the general case, see Section \ref{w2dgk}.
\subsection{Processing of subcorridors from $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement}
From Lemma \ref{thm:ldecom}, we obtain $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of corridors of type $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$ or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors are boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of a guillotine separable box, which will help us to preserve the guillotine separability.
Now we {\em process} the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors in 2 different ways (see Section \ref{prosec} for processing of corridors) to obtain $L\&C$-packing, as in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}.
First, we briefly define the processing of vertical subcorridor (see Figure \ref{fig:lproc}). We divide the subcorridor into $\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{box}}$ strips of equal width (Figure \ref{fig:lproc}a). Items intersected by these lines are termed as \emph{kill}, items completely contained in the leftmost strip are termed as \emph{thin} and the remaining set of items in the subcorridor as \emph{fat}. We then remove \emph{thin} and \emph{kill} items from the subcorridor and form boxes with maximal rectangular subregions formed between the boundary curve and the subcorridor (Figure \ref{fig:lproc}b). We then shift the remaining items in the boxes from other subregions to left to fill in the empty subregion formed by the removal of thin items (Figure \ref{fig:lproc}c). The projections from the intersection of boxes and boundary curve are used to divide the horizontal subcorridor into similar strips. We again classify the items in this subcorridor as \emph{kill} for the items being intersected by these horizontal lines and remove them. The remaining items remain packed as they were. Note that we only remove thin items in the vertical subcorridor. These rearrangements do not violate guillotine separability of any items in the bounding box.
After {\em processing} of all vertical subcorridors, we get a partition of $OPT_{{corr}} \setminus OPT_{{corr}}^{cross}$ (i.e., items contained inside the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-arrangement) into three sets: $OPT_{{thin}}$, $OPT_{{kill}}$ and $OPT_{{fat}}$.
Now we can use resource augmentation (see Lemma \ref{tool:container}) to get container packing of $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont} \subseteq OPT_{{fat}}$ s.t. $p(OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}) \ge (1-\varepsilon)p(OPT_{{fat}})$.
In second way, we process the horizontal subcorridors (analogous to the vertical corridor processing) of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridors, where we only remove {\em thin} items from horizontal subcorridors.
Each of these two different processing gives different sets $OPT_{{thin}}$, $OPT_{{kill}}$ and $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$. Based on these sets we classify the rectangles as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $OPT_{T}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{thin}}$ in one of the cases.
\item $OPT_{K}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{kill}}$ in one of the cases.
\item $OPT_{F}$ is the set of items which are in $OPT_{{fat}}^{cont}$ in both cases.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (.5,0.24) -- (.5,6.2);
\draw[ultra thick] (1,0.73) -- (1,6.2);
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,0.98) -- (1.5,6.2);
\draw[ultra thick](2,1.48) -- (2,6.2);
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,1.98)--(2.5,6.2);
\draw[thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.06)--(.28,.06)--(.28,.12)--(.34,.12)--(.34,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.24)--(.51,.24)--(.51,.35)--(.6,.35)--(.6,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.49)--(.76,.49)--(.76,.63)--(.88,.63)--(.88,.73)--(1.01,.73)--(1.01,.87)--(1.25,.87)--(1.25,.98)--(1.51,.98)--(1.51,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.06); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.43) rectangle (6,1.7); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.75) rectangle (6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.52,1.95) rectangle (6,2.3);
\draw[solid, pattern=north west lines] (0.05,0.15) rectangle (.15,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray, pattern=north west lines] (.2,.2) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw [solid, pattern=north east lines] (.45,.6) rectangle (.65,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (.8,.8) rectangle (.95,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (1.1,1.12) rectangle (1.4,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (1.62,1.62) rectangle (1.9,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (2.22,2.12) rectangle (2.4,6);
\draw[ultra thick, red](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.06)--(.28,.06)--(.28,.12)--(.34,.12)--(.34,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.24)--(.51,.24)--(.51,.35)--(.6,.35)--(.6,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.49)--(.76,.49)--(.76,.63)--(.88,.63)--(.88,.73)--(1.01,.73)--(1.01,.87)--(1.25,.87)--(1.25,.98)--(1.51,.98)--(1.51,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(a)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.06); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray, pattern=north east lines] (2.01,1.43) rectangle (6,1.7); \draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.75) rectangle (6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray, pattern=north east lines] (2.52,1.95) rectangle (6,2.3);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,.24)--(.5,0.24) -- (.5,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (0.5,.73)--(1,0.73) -- (1,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1,.98)--(1.5,0.98) -- (1.5,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.5,1.48)--(2,1.48) -- (2,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (2,1.98)--(2.5,1.98)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.8,.8) rectangle (.95,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.1,1.12) rectangle (1.4,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.62,1.62) rectangle (1.9,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.22,2.12) rectangle (2.4,6);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6.2,.24)--(.5,0.24) ;
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6.2,.73)--(1,0.73);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6.2,.98)--(1.5,0.98);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6.2,1.48)--(2,1.48);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6.2,1.98)--(2.5,1.98);
\draw[ultra thick, red](0,0)--(0,.24)--(.5,0.24)-- (0.5,.73)--(1,0.73) --(1,.98)--(1.5,0.98)--(1.5,1.48)--(2,1.48)--(2,1.98)--(2.5,1.98)--(2.5,2.5);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(b)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.26,0) rectangle (6,.06); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19); \draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.25,1.75) rectangle (6,1.9);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,.24)--(.5,0.24) -- (.5,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (0.5,.73)--(1,0.73) -- (1,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1,.98)--(1.5,0.98) -- (1.5,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (1.5,1.48)--(2,1.48) -- (2,6);
\draw[ultra thick] (2,1.98)--(2.5,1.98)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.0,.8) rectangle (.15,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.5,1.12) rectangle (.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1,1.62) rectangle (1.18,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.5,2.12) rectangle (1.68,6);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6,.24)--(.5,0.24) ;
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6,.73)--(1,0.73);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6,.98)--(1.5,0.98);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6,1.48)--(2,1.48);
\draw[ultra thick, blue] (6,1.98)--(2.5,1.98);
\draw[ultra thick, red](0,0)--(0,.24)--(.5,0.24)-- (0.5,.73)--(1,0.73) --(1,.98)--(1.5,0.98)--(1.5,1.48)--(2,1.48)--(2,1.98)--(2.5,1.98)--(2.5,2.5);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(c)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Processing of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor.}
\label{fig:lproc}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
\label{ering}
For any one of the cases of processing, the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|OPT_{kill}|=O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{box}}}(1)$;
\item For any given constant $\varepsilon_{{ring}}>0$, there is a sufficiently small $\varepsilon_{{box}}>0$ such that the total height (resp.~width)of items in $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{hor}}$ (resp. $OPT_{{thin}}\capI_{{ver}}$) is at most $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Now we classify items in the optimal packing into four sets: $OPT_{LT}, OPT_{ST}$ (long and short items in $OPT_T$, resp.), $OPT_{LF}, OPT_{SF}$ (long and short items in $OPT_F$, resp.). \footnote{This notation is different from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, e.g., in our notation $|OPT_{LT}|$ can even be the same as $|OPT_{L}|$.}
\begin{lem}
\label{algo1}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{F})+p(OPT_{T})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the sum of profit in both the ways of processing a subcorridor of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-corridor as mentioned above. By definition every item in $OPT_{F}$ is included in both the cases. Items belonging to $OPT_{T}$ is saved in at least one of the cases.
\end{proof}
Now we show a more involved $L\&C$-packing that packs almost $|T|+|F|/2$ items.
\begin{lem}
\label{algo3}
$p(OPT_{L\&C})\geqp(OPT_{T})+(1-O_{\varepsilon}(1))p(OPT_{F})/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
We give a proof sketch here, for the detailed proof, see Section \ref{sec:tggkcfull}.
Let $w_L N$ (resp. $w_{LT} N$) be the total width of vertical items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$) and
$h_L N$ (resp. $h_{LT} N$) be the total height of horizontal items in $OPT_{{long}}$ (resp. $OPT_{LT}$).
W.l.o.g.~assume $w_L \le h_L$ (the other case is analogous).
Then $w_L \le 1/2, h_L \le 1$, $w_{LT},h_{LT} \le \varepsilon_{{ring}}$ (from Lemma \ref{ering}), and all long items can be packed in a boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ with width $w_L N$ and height $h_L N$ in $[0,N]\times [0,N]$ box (from Lemma \ref{lpackinglem}). Consider some small positive constant $\tilde{\varepsilon}\le \frac12$ that we will choose later.
For simplicity, we assume $w_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$.
Now from vertical arm of boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$, we
choose a random vertical strip $[\tilde{x}, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L}{2} N+w_{LT} N\le w_L N$) or two strips $([\tilde{x}, w_L N] \times [0,N]) \cup ([0, \tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N -w_L N] \times [0,N]$ (if $\tilde{x}+\frac{w_L N}{2}+w_{LT} N> w_L N$), where $\tilde{x}$ is chosen uniformly at random from $[w_L]$. We remove all fat items intersecting with this strip.
We do similar operation on horizontal arm and remove all fat items intersecting such random horizontal strip(s) of total width $\frac{h_L}{2} N+h_{LT} N$.
By averaging argument, the remaining items have profit $\frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}, \varepsilon_{{ring}}, \tilde{\varepsilon}}(1)\big)}{2}\cdot OPT_{LF}+OPT_{LT}$ and packed in boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ of width $\le w_L N/2$ and height $\le h_L N/2$ (as shown in figure \ref{fig:c6}a).
In the remaining rectangular region of the box, we will place containers.
Now we place items in $OPT_{ST}$ in two containers next to boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$.
First, we place a container of height $N/2$ and width $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $(\frac{w_L N}{2}, \frac{N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from vertical subcorridors in the processing and then we place a container of width $N/2$ and height $\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$, with its bottom-left corner at $(\frac{N}{2}, \frac{h_L N}{2})$, containing items in $OPT_{ST}$ coming from horizontal subcorridors in the processing.
As $w_L\le 1/2$, i.e., $1-w_L/2\ge 3/4$, these two containers do not overlap.
Now we are left with a rectangular region of width $N\big(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$ and height $N\big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$. We will use slightly smaller region of width $N\big(1-\frac{w_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)$ and height $N\big(1-\frac{h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)-\varepsilon\big)$ to show existence of a guillotine packing by Steinberg's Algorithm (Lemma \ref{lem:steinbeg}). However, Steinberg's algorithm may not give a container-based packing. Hence, we use resource augmentation (Lemma \ref{lemma1}) using the extra $\varepsilon$-strips to obtain a container-based guillotine packing. This along with boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ will give an $L\&C$-packing.
Using Steinberg's algorithm, we can pack any subset of items in $OPT_{SF}$ of total area at most
$\frac{N^2}{2}\big(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1)\big)$.
On the other hand, the total area of rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ is at most $N^2\big(1-\frac{w_L+h_L}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$.
So, consider rectangles in $OPT_{SF}$ in non-decreasing order of area till they reach $N^2\big(1-\frac{(w_L+h_L)}{2}-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}(1)\big)$.
These items can be packed in the remaining region and have total profit $\ge ( p({OPT_{SF}}) \cdot \big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}},\varepsilon}(1)\big)/2$.
Thus we have an $L\&C$-packing (as shown in figure \ref{fig:c6}b) with profit $p(OPT_{LT})+p(OPT_{ST})+(p(OPT_{LF}+p(OPT_{SF}))\cdot \frac{\big(1-O_{\varepsilon_{{ring}}, \varepsilon}(1)\big)}{2}$.
\end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{algo1} and \ref{algo3}, we get $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\begin{thm}
Let $OPT_{L\&C}$ be the most profitable guillotine separable $L\&C$ packing solution and $OPT$ be the optimal packing for 2GGK-C. Then $p(OPT_{L\&C})\geq(\frac{3}{4}-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (0,0)rectangle(.15,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (.15,.15)rectangle(.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (.3,.3)rectangle(.45,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (.45,.45)rectangle(.6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.61,.75)rectangle(1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.1,1)rectangle(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.7,1.5)rectangle(2.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.1,2.13)rectangle(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (0.17,0)rectangle(6,.13);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (0.32,.17)rectangle(6,.28);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (0.47,0.32)rectangle(6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=darkgray] (0.62,0.47)rectangle(6,.58);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.03,.59)rectangle(6,1.09);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.53,1.1)rectangle(6,1.6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.13,1.71)rectangle(6,2.11);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.53,2.12)rectangle(6, 2.5);
\draw [thick, pattern=north west lines] (.6,6)--(1.7,6)--(1.7, 1.61)--(1.5,1.61)--(1.5,1.09)--(1,1.09)--(1,.75)--(.6,.75)--(.6,6);
\draw[thick, pattern = north west lines] (6,.59)--(6,1.71)--(2.13,1.71)--(2.13,1.61)--(1.53,1.6)--(1.53,1.1)--(1.03,1.1)--(1.03,.59)--(6,.59);
\draw (7,1.3) node {\large \textbf{$h_{L}N$}};
\draw (1.3,7.4) node {\large \textbf{$w_{L}N$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (0,6.7) -- (2.5,6.7);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.3,2.5) -- (6.3,0);
\draw (7.2,4.2) node {\large \textbf{$h_{LT}N + \frac{h_{L}}{2}N$}};
\draw [->](6.3,1.15)--(6.3,4);
\draw (5.3,6.3) node {\large \textbf{$w_{LT}N + \frac{w_{L}}{2}N$}};
\draw [->](1.15,6.3)--(4,6.3);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (.6,6) -- (1.7,6);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,1.71) -- (6,0.59);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(a)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0,0)rectangle(.15,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.15,.15)rectangle(.3,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.3,.3)rectangle(.45,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.45,.45)rectangle(.6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (.6,1.5)rectangle(1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.1,2)rectangle(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.17,0)rectangle(6,.13);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.32,.17)rectangle(6,.28);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.47,0.32)rectangle(6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (0.62,0.47)rectangle(6,.58);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.03,.61)rectangle(6,1.11);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.53,1.12)rectangle(6, 1.5);
\draw [solid, fill= lightgray] (6,6)rectangle(2.3,2.3);
\draw [solid, fill= lightgray] (1.6,6)rectangle(2.2,3.1);
\draw [solid, fill= lightgray] (6,1.6)rectangle(3.1,2.2);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.6,3.15)rectangle(1.75,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.75,3.25)rectangle(1.9,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.9,3.35)rectangle(2.05,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.05,3.45)rectangle(2.2,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.15,1.6)rectangle(6,1.75);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.25,1.75)rectangle(6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.35,1.9)rectangle(6,2.05);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.45,2.05)rectangle(6,2.2);
\draw (6,6)rectangle(4,4);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (5.9,5.9)rectangle(4.1,4.1);
\draw(2.3,3.7) rectangle (3.7,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.3,3.7)rectangle(2.8,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.85,3.7)rectangle(3.2,5.5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.25,3.7)rectangle(3.7,5);
\draw(3.9,2.3) rectangle (6,3.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.95,2.3)rectangle(6,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.95,2.85)rectangle(5.5,3.2);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.95,3.25)rectangle(5,3.7);
\draw (2.3,2.3) rectangle (3.5,3.5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.3,2.3)rectangle(2.8,2.5);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.85,2.3)rectangle(3.2,2.65);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.25,2.3)rectangle(3.5,2.8);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.3,2.85)rectangle(2.5,3.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.55,2.85)rectangle(3,3.2);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.05,2.85)rectangle(3.2,3.3);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.25,2.85)rectangle(3.5,3.5);
\draw [ultra thick, red] (1.6,6)rectangle(2.2,3.1);
\draw [ultra thick, red] (6,1.6)rectangle(3.1,2.2);
\draw [ultra thick, blue] (6,6)rectangle(2.3,2.3);
\draw[ultra thick, green] (0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw (1.9,6.5) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$}};
\draw (7,1.9) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{{ring}} N$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (1.6,6) -- (2.2,6);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,2.2) -- (6,1.6);
\node[below,scale=2] at (2,0) {(b)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Depiction of Case where $w_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ and $h_L \ge \frac{\varepsilon_{{ring}}}{\tilde{\varepsilon}}$ in Lemma \ref{algo3}. (a) Packing of long items. Strips with north west lines are dropped. (thin items are shown in darkgray and fat in gray) (b) Final Packing with $LF/2+LT$ in green, $ST$ in red, $SF$ in blue.}
\label{fig:c6}
\end{figure}
Small items are handled using standard arguments (see Section \ref{smallrec}). We find the best guillotine $L\&C$ packing using PTAS for Generalized Assignment Problem (see Section \ref{sec:findpack})
\subsection{$(\frac{5}{4}+\varepsilon)$-approximation 2GGK(R)-C}
Using a similar approach as above and techniques based on resource contraction from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}, we obtain the following theorem.
See Section \ref{sec:tggkcrfull} for the proof.
\begin{thm}
\label{LCR}
For any constant $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a polynomial time $\frac54+\varepsilon$-approximation algorithm for $2GGK(R)-C$.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Weighted case}
In weighted case, we can no longer drop $O(1)$ number of items. So we use standard shifting argumentation \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and exploit guillotine cuts to obtain slightly weaker improved approximation. See Section \ref{w2dgk} and \ref{subs:tggkr} for the proof for 2GGK, 2GGK(R), respectively.
\begin{lem}
For any constant $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a polynomial time $\frac32+\varepsilon$-approximation and $\frac43+\varepsilon$-approximation algorithm for $2GGK$, $2GGK(R)$, respectively.
\end{lem}
\subsection{Limitation of stage packing}
We show that for 2GK, unlike 2BP or 2SP, any guillotine packing can not be approximated arbitrarily well by $O(1)$-stage packing. See Section \ref{sec:smallstage} for the proof.
\begin{thm}
For any $\varepsilon \in (0, \frac{1}{2})$, $k=O(\varepsilon \log N)$,
there exists a 2GGK~instance $I$ so that for any $I' \subseteq I$ with $|I|\leq(2 - \varepsilon)|I'|$, $I'$ can not have a $k$-stage packing into $N \times N$ knapsack.
\end{thm}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice}}
In this section, we give a detailed proof of Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice}.
First, we prove the following lemma, which will be useful in the proof.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:A}
[9A] There exists a set $OPT'\subseteq OPT$, $p(OPT') > (1-\varepsilon)p(OPT)$ and a partition of $K$
into a set of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments such that for every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ it holds that
for each item $i$ contained in the horizontal $P_H$ (resp. vertical arm $P_V$) of $L$, $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)$
(resp. $w(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P)$).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ compartment $L$, we use $P_H$ (resp. $P_V$) to denote the horizontal (resp. vertical) arm of $L$.
In the cardinality case, we simply drop all the items of $h(i) > \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$.
Number of such items can be at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon^4 \varepsilon_{large}}$ which is a constant.
Thus we get the required packing of rest of the items $OPT'$ s.t. $|OPT'| \leq (1-O_{\varepsilon \varepsilon_{large}}(1))|OPT|$.
For weighted case, we cannot drop these $\frac{1}{\varepsilon^4 \varepsilon_{large}}$ as they might actually carry most of the profit of knapsack. Thus, we now aim to pack back this constant number of items dropped. We do this by dividing the knapsack into a non-uniform grid along the boundary of these items and observing the profit of items dropped as a result of processing the items which are classified depending on the grid. Using standard averaging argument, we can claim that recursively doing the same procedure for $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times, we get a set of items which can be dropped and have a profit of at most $O(\varepsilon).p(OPT)$.
Formally, we employ a shifting argumentation. We define a family of disjoint sets of items $\{ K(0), K(1), ... , K(t) \}$, $t < \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$, each containing at most $O_{\varepsilon \varepsilon_{large}}(1)$ number of items. We also define $\kappa(t) = \cup_{i=0}^{t}K(i)$. Intuitively, $\kappa(t)$ will be the set of items which are not allowed to be dropped in the $t^{th}$ iteration. For base case, we begin by adding all the items $\{ i | h(i) > \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)~or~w(i) > \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P_V) \}$ to $K(0)$, which are at most $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ in number. If $p(K(0)) \leq \varepsilon.p(OPT)$, then we stop and drop all items of $K(0)$ as the rest of items will have profit at least $(1-\varepsilon)p(OPT)$. Otherwise, we perform the procedure recursively. Consider that we are at the $t^{th}$ iteration, denote $G(t)$ as the non-uniform grid formed by extending the $x$, $y$ coordinates of the items in $\kappa(t)$(which we obtained from previous $t-1$ iterations). Consider $C_{t}$ to be the set of grid cells of $G(t)$. We classify items in the knapsack as small, large, horizontal, vertical as before depending on its intersection with the cells it overlaps. Let $OPT(C)$ denote the set of items from $OPT$ intersecting with grid cell C. This gives us the following partition of items inside cell $C$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $OPT_{ver}(C) = \{ i~|~ \forall i\in C$ s.t. $ h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{hor}(C)= \{ i~ | ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{large}(C)$ $= \{ i~ |~ \forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{small}(C)$ $= \{ i ~| ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{intermediate}(C)$ $= \{ i ~| ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)]$ or $w(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)]$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{skew}(C)$ $=$ $OPT_{hor}(C) \cup OPT_{ver}(C)$.
\end{enumerate}
Using Lemma~\ref{class}, we can fix $\varepsilon_{small}$ and $\varepsilon_{large}$ according to our convenience ensuring that the
profit of items classified as intermediate for any cell is at most
$\varepsilon. p(OPT)$ such that $\varepsilon$ $\geq$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $\geq$ $f(\varepsilon_{small})$ $\geq$ $\omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$,
for some positive increasing function $f(.)$ . We add items from $OPT_{large}(C_t)$ (not contained in $\kappa(t)$) to $K(t+1)$ for all $C$
not fully covered by any item in $\kappa(t)$. This adds a constant number of items to $K(t+1)$. For simplification, we can stretch this non-uniform
grid to a uniform $1\times1$ grid where each cell is of same dimension. Clearly, we can map any decomposition done in this uniform grid back to original knapsack, mapping back any guillotine cuts in the uniform grid as well, thereby conserving guillotine separability of items. In this process, skew items may stretch by a factor of $\frac{1}{1+|2.\kappa(t)|}$ or more i.e. for each cell $C$, each item in $OPT_{skew}(C)\setminus \kappa(t)$
has its longer dimension (width for $OPT_{hor}$ and height for $OPT_{ver}$) at least $\varepsilon_{large}.\frac{1}{1+2.|\kappa(t)|}$.
Now we can do a decomposition into box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments as done in previous sections, considering only skew items in the cells i.e. $OPT_{skew}(C_t) = \cup_{\forall C \in C_t}OPT_{skew}(C)$. We add the items dropped during the decomposition to $K(t+1)$, which is again a constant number of items. After obtaining the compartments, we may have a set of troublesome items (disjoint from $\kappa(t)$) containing every item $i$ inside $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ such that $h(i) > \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$ for horizontal arm $P_H$ of $L$ (analogous statement for vertical arms). We directly add these items to $K(t+1)$. As claimed in cardinality case, number of such items can be at most $O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$.
This way we repeatedly perform the same process for at most ${1}/{\varepsilon}$ iterations ensuring $\kappa(t)$ being untouchable set of items in $t^{th}$ iteration as before. Now, we exploit the fact that sets $K(0), K(1), ..., K(t)$ are pairwise disjoint and have constant number of items. If the profit of items in $K(t)$ at any iteration $t$ is at most $\varepsilon p(OPT)$ we get the desired set of items and halt. Otherwise, using a averaging argument, we can claim that $p(K(t+1)) \leq \varepsilon. p(OPT)$. This way we drop $K(t+1)$ obtaining the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments satisfying the given condition. Thus we obtain a packing of items $OPT'$ with profit at least $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ in at most ${1}/{\varepsilon}$ iterations.
\end{proof}
Hence, we assume now on that for every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ it holds that
for each item $i$ contained in the horizontal $P_H$ (resp. vertical arm $P_V$) of $L$, $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)$
(resp. $w(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P)$).
Let $P_H$ and $P_V$ be the horizontal and vertical arms $L$, respectively.
So $P_H$ is defined via two horizontal edges $e_{1}=\overline{p_{1}p'_{1}}$
and $e_{2}=\overline{p_{2}p'_{2}}$, and additionally one monotone
axis-parallel curves connecting $p_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1})$ with $p_{2}=(x_{2},y_{2})$.
Assume w.l.o.g. that $x_{1}\le x_{2}$ and that $y_{1}<y_{2}$.
Let $h(P_H)$ denote the the height of $P_H$ which we define as the distance
between $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$. Intuitively, we place $1/\varepsilon^{2}$
boxes inside $P_H$ of height $\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$ each, stacked one
on top of the other, and of maximum width such that they are contained
inside $P_H$. Formally, we define $1/\varepsilon^{2}$ boxes $B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}$
such that for each $j\in\{0,...,1/\varepsilon^{2}-1\}$ the bottom
edge of box $B_{j}$ has the $y$-coordinate $y_{1}+j\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$
and the top edge of $B_{j}$ has the $y$-coordinate $y_{1}+(j+1)\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$.
For each such $j$ we define
the $x$-coordinate of the left edge of $B_{j}$ maximally small
such that $B_{j}\subseteq P_H$.
In the weighted
case, from Lemma \ref{lem:A} each item $i$ contained in $P_H$ satisfies that $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)$
and therefore each item $i$ contained in $P_H$ intersects at most
2 stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $.
Therefore, by the pigeon hole principle, the exists two boxes $B_{j^{*}}, B_{j^{*}+1} \in\left\{ B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon-1}\right\} $
have the property that the stripe $S'_{j^{*}}:=[0,N]\times[y_{1}+j^{*}\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H),y_{1}+(j^{*}+2)\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)]$
(containing $B_{j^{*}}, B_{j^{*}+1}$) intersects at most $2\varepsilon|OPT'(P_H)|$
of the remaining items in $OPT'(P_H)$. We drop all items in $OPT'(P_H)$
that are intersected by $S'_{j^{*}}$. Next, we move down all items
in $OPT'(P_H)$ that intersect the boxes $B_{j^{*}+1},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}$
by $\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$ units. Note that then they fit into the area
defined by the union of the boxes $B_{j^{*}},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-2}$.
We assign to $B_{j^{*}}$ all items that intersect
a horizontal edge of a box in $\left\{ B_{j^{*}+1},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $.
This can be done since each such item has a height of at most $\varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$
which implies that $\varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)/\varepsilon^{2}\le\varepsilon^{2}\cdoth(P_H)$.
Let $w(P_H)$ and $w'(P_H)$ be the length of $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$, resp.
Due to the definition of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment, $w(P_H)\ge \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $w'(P_H)\ge w(P_H)-\varepsilon_{{large}} N/2 \ge w(P_H)/2$.
Next, we would
like to ensure that below the box $B_{j^{*}}$ there is no item $i$
with $w(i)<w'(P_H)$ (we want to achieve this since then we can
stack the items underneath $B_{j^{*}}$ on top of each other) and
no small item intersects the boundary of a box.
Therefore, consider the topmost $1/\varepsilon^{2}-1/\varepsilon$ boxes.
We group them into $1/6\varepsilon-1$ groups with $6/\varepsilon$ boxes
each, i.e., for each $k\in\{0,...,1/6\varepsilon-2\}$ we define a group
$\B_{k}:=\{B_{j}|j\in\{1/\varepsilon+6k/\varepsilon,...,1/\varepsilon+6(k+1)/\varepsilon-1\}\}$.
Note that each group $\B_{k}$ contains exactly $6/\varepsilon$ boxes
and below $B_{j^{*}}$ there are at most $1/\varepsilon$ boxes. By the
pigeon hole principle, there is a value $k^{*}\in\{0,...,1/\varepsilon-2\}$
such that the the boxes in the group $\B_{k^{*}}$ intersect with
items of total weight of $O(\varepsilon)w(OPT'(P_H))$ where $w(OPT'(P_H))$
denotes the weight of the remaining items in $OPT'(P_H)$. Therefore,
we drop all items that intersect a box in $\B_{k^{*}}$.
Consider all items $i\inOPT'(P_H)\capI_{{skew}}$ that intersect at least
one of the stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{j^{*}-1}\right\} $ and
that satisfy that $w(i)\le w'(P_H)$. Due to Steinberg's algorithm~\cite{steinberg1997strip}
they fit into a box of height $3\varepsilon\cdot h(P_H)$ and width $w'(P_H)$.
Therefore, all but $O(1/\varepsilon_{{large}}\cdot1/\varepsilon)$ of them fit into $3/\varepsilon$
boxes in $\B_{k^{*}}$. We assign them to these boxes $3/\varepsilon$
boxes in $\B_{k^{*}}$.
In the weighted case, the total area of items $i$ that intersect
the boundary of a box in $\left\{ B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $
or that are contained in one of the stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{j^{*}-1}\right\} $
with $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$ and $w(i)\le\varepsilon_{{small}}\cdotw(P_H)$
is bounded by $\varepsilon\cdot h(P_H)\cdot w(P_H)+O(w(P_H)h(P_H)\varepsilon_{{small}}/\varepsilon^{2})\le O(\varepsilon)\cdot h(P_H)\cdot w'(P_H)$.
Hence, we can pack them into the boxes $\B_{k^{*}}$ like before using Steinberg's algorithm~\cite{steinberg1997strip}.
Now we define $P'_H$ as the acute piece induced by $e_{1}$, the bottom
edge of $B_{j^{*}}$, and the respective part of the two monotone
axis-parallel curves connecting $p_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1})$ with $p_{2}=(x_{2},y_{2})$
and the right boundary edge of $P_H$,
respectively. Each remaining item $i\inOPT'(P_H)$ intersecting $P'_H$
satisfies that $w(i)\ge w'(P_H)$. Therefore, we can stack these
items on top of each other (using that $w'(P_H)>w(P_H)/2$).
We obtain that each remaining item from $OPT'(P_H)$ is assigned to
a box in $\left\{ B_{j^{*}},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $ or
lies in $P'_H$. We define $OPT'_{1}(P_H)$ to be the former set of items
and $OPT'_{2}(P_H)$ to be the latter set. Finally, we apply Lemma \ref{lem:make-boxes-nice}
to each box $B\in\left\{ B_{j^{*}},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $
in order to partition $B$ further and such that the items assigned
to $B$ are nicely packed inside $B$.
We do a symmetric procedure for $P_{V}$, yielding a set of boxes
$\B_{ver}$. Intuitively, we want to define $L'$ as $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$.
However, $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$ might not have exactly the shape of
an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Nevertheless, one can show that we can subdivide
one of these polygons, say $P'_{H},$ along a horizontal line into
two subpolygons $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}},P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$ (with
$P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ lying on the top of $P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$)
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item we can place the items in $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ into another set
of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $\B'_{hor}$ that are non-overlapping
with $\B_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$ and
\item $L':=P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}\cup P'_{V}$ forms an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment,
see Figure~??.
\end{itemize}
Then the items in $L'$ are nicely placed inside $L'$. To each of
the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $B\in\B_{hor}\cup\B'_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$
we apply a standard routine that removes some of the items inside
$B$ and partitions $B$ into smaller boxes, such that inside these
smaller boxes the remaining items are nicely placed.
It is easy to check that the resulting packing satisfy guillotine separability.
\section{Assigning items into compartments}\label{sec:algorithm}
For proving Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm}, we need to provide an algorithm
that, given a set of compartments $\C$, computes a solution $ALG\subseteqI$
with $p(ALG)\ge(1-\varepsilon)p(OPT')$ that can also be
placed nicely in $\C$ (where $OPT'\subseteqI$ is the subset of
$I$ of maximum profit that can be placed nicely in the compartments
in $\C$).
First, we guess for each box-compartment $B\in\C$ which case of Definition~\ref{def:structured-boxes}
applies, i.e., whether $B$ contains only a single large item, or only
horizontal items, or only vertical items, or only small items. For
each box-compartment $B\in\C$ for which we guessed that it contains
only one large item, we simply guess this item. We can do this deterministically in time $O(n^{|\C|})=n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
for all such box-compartments $B\in\C$.
Then, for assigning the small items, we use a standard reduction
to the Generalized Assignment Problem (GAP) \ama{[Lemma~\ref{lem:GAP}]} for selecting a near-optimal
set of small items and an assignment of these items into the corresponding
box-compartments. Inside of each box-compartment $B$ we place the
items with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height algorithm~\cite{coffman1980performance} which
results in a \ama{$2$-stage} guillotine separable packing for the items inside $B$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:small-items}Given a set of box compartments $\B$
such that a set of items $I_{small}^{*}\subseteq I_{small}$ can be
placed non-overlappingly inside $\B$, in $n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ time
we can we can compute a set of items $I'_{small}\subseteq I_{small}$
with $p(I'_{small})\ge(1-\varepsilon)p(I{}_{small}^{*})$
and a nice placement of the items in $I'_{small}$ inside $\B$
which is guillotine separable with $O_\varepsilon(1)$ stages.
\end{lem}
Let $\C_{skew}\subseteq\C$ denote the compartments in $\C$ into
which skewed items are placed in $OPT'$ (which in particular contains
all $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments in $\C$). It remains to select a profitable
set of items from $I_{{skew}}$ that can be placed nicely in the compartments
in $\C_{skew}$. For this task, we use a recent algorithm in~\cite{GalSocg21}
which is a routine for 2GK~which takes as input (in our terminology)
a set of box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments, and also compartments of more
general shapes (e.g., with the shapes of a U or a Z). In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$,
it computes a subset of the input items of maximum total profit, up
to a factor of $1+\varepsilon$, that can be placed non-overlappingly
inside the given compartments. In fact, it first partitions the given
compartments such that there exists a profitable solution for the
smaller compartments inside of which the items are placed nicely (according
to our definition). Then it computes a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation
of the most profitable subset of items that can be placed nicely.
In our setting, we can skip the first step since also in $OPT'$
the items are placed nicely inside the compartments $\C_{skew}$.
Hence, we execute directly the second part the algorithm in~\cite{GalSocg21}.
In fact, a simpler version of that routine is sufficient for our purposes
since we have only box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments.
\ari{The algorithm in~\cite{GalSocg21} \aw{can handle also the case where rotations by 90 degree are allowed, and the same holds
for the routine in Lemma~\ref{lem:small-items}}. Thus our result works for the case with rotations as well.}
We refer to Appendix~\ref{apx:algo-weighted}
for a complete and self-contained description of this routine, adapted to the guillotine setting.
In particular, inside each compartment its solution is guillotine separable
with $O_\varepsilon(\log nN)$ stages.
\section{Unweighted Case}
In this section we give detailed prove of Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm}. Given a set
of compartments $\C$, let $OPT'\subseteqI$ denote the largest subset
of $I$ such that the items in $OPT'$ can be placed nicely in the
compartments in $\C$. Our goal is to compute a solution $ALG\subseteqI$
with $|ALG|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|OPT'|$ that can also be placed nicely
in $\C$. Our algorithm is an adaptation of an algorithm in \cite{GalSocg21}
for 2GK.
First, we guess for each box-compartment $B\in\C'$ whether $B$ contains
only large, only skewed, or only small items in $OPT'$ (see Definition~\ref{def:structured-boxes}).
Denote by $\C'_{large},\C'_{skew},\C'_{small}\subseteq\C'$ the respective
set of box-compartments. For the compartments in $\C'_{large}$, we
can compute the optimal way to assign items into them by an easy reduction
to bipartite matching.
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:large-items})Given a set $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$ of box-compartments
such that a set of items $I_{large}^{*}\subseteq I_{large}$ can be
placed non-overlappingly inside the compartments $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$.
Then in time $n^{O(1)}$ we can we can compute a set of items $I'_{large}\subseteq I_{large}$
with $|I'_{large}|\ge|I{}_{large}^{*}|$ and a nice placement of the
items in $I'_{large}$ inside the compartments $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given a set $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$ of box-compartments and set of items $I_{large}$, we show how to pack maximum number of items in these compartments. Note that in each compartment we place exactly one large item. Now we reduce this problem to the problem of finding maximum matching in a bipartite graph. Let us create a bipartite graph $G$ in the following manner. For each compartment $C$, we create a node $X_C$ in $G$. Similarly for each large item $I$ we create a node $Y_I$ in $G$. If we can place an item in a compartment such that the item doesn't cross the boundary of the compartment, then we add between between their corresponding nodes in $G$. Clearly $G$ is a bipartite graph. Now we show that there is a feasible packing of $k$ items if and only if there is a matching of size $k$ in $G$.
In one direction, let there be a feasible packing of $k$ items. Now consider the set of edges $E':=\{(X_C,Y_I)|\text{ $C$ contains $I$ in the feasible packing } \}$. This forms a matching of size $k$ as each compartment can contain at most $1$ item in a feasible solution and each item is in at most $1$ compartment.
In other direction, let there be a matching of size $k$. Let the set of edges in the matching be $E'$. For each edge $(X_C,Y_I)\in E'$, we add item $I$ to compartment $C$. This is a feasible solution as degree of every vertex in a matching is $1$. Also number of items which is packed is $k$.
So in order to pack maximum number of items, it suffices to find the maximum matching in $G$. Since maximum matching in any bipartite graph can be found in time polynomial with respect to number of vertices and edges \cite{cormen2009introduction}, the statement in the Lemma follows.
\end{proof}
For the small items, we use a standard reduction to the generalized
assignment problem for selecting a near-optimal set of small items
and an assignment of these items into the mentioned boxes. Inside
of each box-compartment $B$ we place the items with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height
algorithm \cite{coffman1980performance} which results in a guillotine separable packing
for the items inside $B$.
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:small-items}) Suppose we are given a set of boxes $\B$ such that a set
of items $I_{small}^{*}\subseteq I_{small}$ can be placed non-overlappingly
inside the boxes $\B$. Then in time $n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
we can compute a set of items $I'_{small}\subseteq I_{small}$ with
$|I'_{small}|\ge(1-6\varepsilon)|I{}_{small}^{*}|$ and a nice placement
of the items in $I'_{small}$ inside the boxes $\B$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us first formulate an instance of generalized assignment problem (GAP). For each compartment $C_j$ we create a bin $j$ in the GAP instance with capacity equal to its area. For each item $i\in I_{small}$, we create an item in the GAP instance with $p_{ij}=1$ and $s_{ij}$ equal to area of item $i$ if $w(i)\leq \varepsilon w(C_j)$ and $h(i)\leq \varepsilon h(C_j)$ and equal to some arbitrary large greater than area of $C_j$ otherwise. Now by applying Lemma \ref{sec:GAP} on the GAP instance, we get a subset $I_{small}''\subseteq I_{small}$ to the boxes in $\B$ such that $|I_{small}''|\geq (1-3\varepsilon)|I_{small}^{*}|$, and sum of areas of items assigned to a box $B$ doesn't cross the area of $B$. Also for $\forall i \in I_{small}''$, $w(i)\leq \varepsilon w(C)$ and $h(i)\leq \varepsilon h(C)$ where $C$ is the box to which $i$ is assigned to. Let the items assigned to a box $B\in \B$ be $I_B$. In the non-increasing order of profit by area ratio we choose items from $I_B$ until the total area of chosen items crosses $(1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)\cdot w(B)\cdot h(B)$. Let the set of items which were chosen be $I_B'$. Clearly $|I_B'|\geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2) |I_B|$. Now by applying Lemma \ref{lem:NFDH}, we can pack all the items of $I_B'$ in $B$ and the packing is a 2 stage packing which is guillotine separable. Applying this procedure to every box, we get a packing of set of items $I_{small}'$ into the boxes such that $|I_{small}'|\geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)|I_{small}''| \geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)(1-3\varepsilon)|I_{small}^{*}|\geq (1-6\varepsilon)|I_{small}^{*}|$
\end{proof}
The harder part is the assignment of the skewed items. For this we
distinguish whether $|OPT'_{corr}|=O(\log N)$ or not.
\subsection{Few items in optimal solution}
Assume first that $|OPT'_{corr}|\le c\cdot\log N$ for some constant $c$.
In this case we show that in time $(nN)^{O(c)}$ we can compute a
set of $|OPT'_{corr}\capI_{{skew}}|$ items from $I_{skew}$ and place them nicely
inside the compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:color-coding}) In time $N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ we can guess
a partition $\left\{ I_{skew}(C)\right\} _{C\in\C_{skew}'}$ of $I_{skew}$
such that for each $C\in\C'_{skew}$ the set $I_{skew}(C)$ contains all
items in $OPT'$ that are placed inside $C$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We employ the color coding technique \cite{alon1995color} where we seek to color the items in
$I_{skew}$ such that no two items in $OPT'_{corr}$ have the same color. Let us denote $k'=|OPT'_{corr}|$
If we color the items randomly with $k=c\cdot\log N$ colors, then the probability that no items in $OPT'_{corr}$ have the same color is ${k \choose k'}\frac{k'!k^{n-k'}}{k^n} \geq \big(\frac{k}{k'}\big)^{k'}\cdot \frac{k'!}{k^{k'}}\geq \frac{k'!}{k'^{k'}}\geq e^{-|OPT'_{corr}|}\ge\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{O(c)}$.
Using splitters \cite{cygan2015parameterized} we can derandomize this to guess such a coloring
deterministically in time $N^{O(c)}$. Once we have guessed the coloring in which item of $OPT'_{corr}$ is colored different, then, for each color $d\in\{1,...,c\cdot\log N\}$
we guess which of the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments in $\C'$ contains
an item of color $d$ so that the condition in the lemma is guaranteed to be achieved, which can be done deterministically in time $2^{O_{\varepsilon}(c\cdot\log N)}=N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ by exploring all possibilities.
\end{proof}
In other words, the condition in Lemma~\ref{lem:color-coding} is guaranteed to be achieved in time $N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ as we explore all the possibilities. Since we try to pack the items in all the possibilities which we mentioned previously and then choose the best packing, we are guaranteed to get near optimal solution.
Hence, Lemma~\ref{lem:color-coding} reduces the general case to
one independent subproblem for each compartment in $\C'_{skew}$.
For each box-compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$ the problem is simple: we
first guess whether horizontal or vertical items are placed inside
$C$ by $OPT'$. Then the remaining problem is equivalent to an instance
of knapsack in the cardinality case which can be solved by ordering
the items non-decreasingly by their heights/widths and selecting them
greedily in this order. For each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$ we
essentially invoke an algorithm from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} as a black-box (after
some straight forward adjustments of the input items).
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:pseudoL})
Given an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$ and a set of items $I_{skew}(C)\subseteq I{}_{skew}$.
In time $(nN)^{O(1)}$ we can compute the subset $I_{skew}^{*}(C)\subseteq I{}_{skew}(C)$
of maximum cardinality that can be placed nicely inside $C$ and the
corresponding packing.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$ and a set of items $I_{skew}(C)\subseteq I_{skew}$. Let the height and width of the vertical subcorridor of $C$ be $h_v$ and $w_v$ respectively. Similarly let the height and width of the vertical subcorridor of $C$ be $h_h$ and $w_h$ respectively. Now we redefine the height of a vertical item $i$ as max$( h(i), h_v-h_h)$. If $h(i)< h_v-h_h$, then
\begin{align*}
h_v&>h(i)+h_h\\
h_v&>2h_h \text{ (as $h(i)> h_h$ )}\\
h_v/2&>h_h\\
h_v-h_v/2&>h_h\\
h_v-h_h&>h_v/2
\end{align*}
Similarly if $h(i)\geq h_v-h_h$ then $h(i)> h_v-h(i)$ as $h(i)>h_h$. This implies that $h(i)>h_v/2$. Similarly we can redefine the width of a horizontal item $j$ as max$( w(j), w_h-w_v)$ and we would get similar inequalities as we got for item $i$. In order to correctly apply the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm (\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}) of nice-packing the items in an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$, the items have to be long (that is if the item is horizontal then the width is greater than $w_h/2$, similar analogy for the vertical items) with respect to the compartment which we are ensuring by redefining the dimensions and also we have ensure that the items whose dimension was increased after redefining it don't interact with the items in the other subcorridor. Now applying the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} on the items with redefined dimension concludes the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
Thus, we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:OPT-small}) Let $c\in \mathbb{N}$. If $|OPT'|\le c\cdot\log N$
then in time $(nN)^{O(c)}$ we can compute a set of items of size
$\left|OPT'\cap I_{skew}\right|$ that can be placed nicely in the
box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the color coding techinque Lemma \ref{lem:small-items}, we can explore all possibilities in pseudo-polynomial time. One of the possibilities has a near-optimal solution in it. This near-optimal solution contains $\left|OPT'\cap I_{skew}\right|$ items and we depicted how to pack items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments(Lemma \ref{lem:pseudoL} ) and box-compartments (special case of knapsack) to get this near-optimal solution if we are in the possibility where the near-optimal solution exists. Since we don't know which possiblility contains the near-optimal, just considering the packing with maximum number of items serves our purpose.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{6cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (2,2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,3) rectangle (2,5);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (2,8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (13,0) rectangle (15,2);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (13,3) rectangle (15,5);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (13,6) rectangle (15,8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (13,9) rectangle (15,11);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (2,7)--(13,10);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (2,4)--(13,7);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(13,4);
\draw[thick] (2,4)--(13,1);
\draw[thick] (2,1)--(13,10);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (2,1)--(13,4);
\draw (1,1) node { \large\textbf{$C_3$}};
\draw (1,4) node { \large \textbf{$C_2$}};
\draw (1,7) node { \large \textbf{$C_1$}};
\draw (14,1) node { \large \textbf{$I_4$}};
\draw (14,4) node { \large \textbf{$I_3$}};
\draw (14,7) node { \large \textbf{$I_2$}};
\draw (14,10) node { \large \textbf{$I_1$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{bip:large}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,1.5)--(6,1.5);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{bip:large}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.12);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (6,.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (6,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (6,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (6,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (6,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (6,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (6,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (6,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (6,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (6,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.4,.8) rectangle (.60,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.65,1) rectangle (.85,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.9,1.2) rectangle (1.1,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.15,1.45) rectangle (1.35,6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{bip:large}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](1.5,6)--(1.5,1.5)--(6,1.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(1.5,6);
\draw (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw[solid, fill=blue] (.28,.06) rectangle (6,.36);
\draw[solid, fill=green] (2,.58) rectangle (6,1);
\draw[solid, fill=orange] (.15,.6) rectangle (.35,6);
\draw[solid, fill=yellow] (1,.8) rectangle (1.2,6);
\draw (1.5,5)--(6,5);
\draw[solid, fill=red] (1.6,5.1) rectangle (5.8,5.9);
\draw[solid, fill=violet] (2.15,1.6) rectangle (3.35,4.8);
\draw[solid, fill=pink] (4,1.8) rectangle (5.2,4.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{bip:large}
\end{figure}
\noindent {\bf Lemma B:} A Box-compartment containing skewed items can be converted to $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ nicely packed box compartments that are guillotine separable with $(1-O(\varepsilon))$ fraction of profit.
\begin{proof}
Let us consider a box-compartment $B$ which contains only horizontal rectangles. Now we remove the cheapest strip $S_1$ of height of $3\varepsilon\cdot h(B)$. Note that the profit of a strip is calculated by adding the profits of the items lying completely inside the strip. So the profit of the strip $S_1$ is at most $O(\varepsilon)\cdot p(B)$. Now remove the items in the strip $S_1$ and also the items which partially overlap with $S_1$. Note that the number of items which partially overlap with $S_1$ is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$. Now by using the techinque of resource augmentation, we can repack $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(B)$ in a region of size $w(B)\times (1-2\varepsilon)h(B)$ such that this region contains $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ nicely packed box compartments that are guillotine separable. Now this works well in the unweighted case. But if we are dealing with a weighted case then we can't drop the $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items which we were dropping as it might contain a lot of profit. So instead we try to consider these $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ as a single compartment and then divide the compartment $B$ into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ guillotine separable box compartments and repeat the process of removing strip on these compartments recursively until we find a set of items with low profit which partially overlap with the least profitable strips and this leads to the statement in the lemma as shown in the unweighted case. Now we formally describe this process. We define a pairwise disjoint set of items $K(t)$ where $0\leq t < 1/\varepsilon$. Also for $0\leq t < 1/\varepsilon$, let $\mathcal{K}(t):=\bigcup \limits _{i=1}^t K(t)$. Note that we begin with $t=0$. Assume that we have computed $\mathcal{K}(t-1)$ and using it partitioned $B$ into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ guillotine separable box compartments (for $t=0$, assume that $\mathcal{K}(t-1)=\phi$ and the box $B$ itself is the partition about which we talked about). Now for each compartment not containing an item from $\mathcal{K}(t-1)$, we consider the least profitable strip whose height is $3\varepsilon$ times the height of the compartment. Now add all the items which partially overlap with these strips in the set $K(t)$. Let the top most and bottom most item in $\mathcal{K}(t)$ be $I_1$ and $I_2$ respectively. Now consider minimal strip $S_t^1$ containing both $I_1$ and $I_2$. Now make the strips above and below $S_t^1$ as box compartments. Add the items which partially overlaps with this strip to $K(t+1)$. Let consider the minimal guillotine separable rectangular region $R_t^1$ inside $S_t^1$ which contains all the items of $\mathcal{K}(t)$. Note that $R_t^1$ has same height as that of $S_t^1$. Now make the rectangular region to the left and right of $R_t^1$ as box compartments. Now consider a cut through the $R_t^1$ which divides it into 2 parts $R_t^2$ and $R_t^3$. Now recursively repeat the process done on $B$ on each of the parts $R_t^2$ and $R_t^3$ by considering the items of $\mathcal{K}(t)$ in it until we obtain a region which contains only one item and that item belongs to $\mathcal{K}(t)$. The number of compartments created is $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ as in order to create $R_t^2$ and $R_t^3$ we added 4 extra compartments and number of items in $R_t^2$ (similarly for $R_t^3$) which are part of $\mathcal{K}(t)$ is less than that of $R_t^1$ (similarl stuff happens for each recursive call) and $|\mathcal{K}(t)|\leq O_{\varepsilon.\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$. These set of compartments will be used in the timestep $t+1$. Now due to averaging argument, there will exist a timestep $t$ such that $p(K(t)\leq O(\varepsilon)p(B)$. So the procedure of creating $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ nicely packed box compartments in unweighted case can now be applied to the compartments created for the timestep $t$ and hence we will get $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ nicely packed box compartments that are guillotine separable with $(1-O(\varepsilon))$ fraction of profit.
\end{proof}
\section{Weighted case}\label{apx:algo-weighted}
Before we start this section, we would like to introduce some terminologies. Vertical part of an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment is the maximal vertical rectagular region which can be included in the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Similarly the horizontal part of an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment is the maximal horizontal rectagular region which can be included in the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment.
We prove Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm} in the weighted case. Our algorithm is an adaptation
of an algorithm in \cite{GalSocg21} for 2GK (in fact, it is a simpler version
of that algorithm, using that all our compartments are box- or $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments
and hence they are relatively simple).
First, we guess for each box-compartment $B\in\C$ which case of Definition~\ref{def:structured-boxes}
applies, i.e., whether $B$ contains only one single item, or only
horizontal items, or only vertical items, or only small items. For
each box-compartment $B\in\C$ for which we guessed that it contains
only one item, we simply guess this item. We can do this in time $n^{|\C|}=n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
for all box-compartments $B\in\C$.
Then, for assigning the small items, we use a standard reduction
to the generalized assignment problem for selecting a near-optimal
set of small items and an assignment of these items into the corresponding
box-compartments. Inside of each box-compartment $B$ we place the
items with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height algorithm \cite{coffman1980performance} which
results in a guillotine separable packing for the items inside $B$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:small-items-1}Given a set of box-compartments $\B$ such
that a set of items $I_{small}^{*}\subseteq I_{small}$ can be placed
non-overlappingly inside $\B$. Then in time $n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
we can we can compute a set of items $I'_{small}\subseteq I_{small}$
with $p(I'_{small})\ge(1-6\varepsilon)p(I{}_{small}^{*})$ and a nice placement
of the items in $I'_{small}$ inside $\B$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us first formulate an instance of generalized assignment problem (GAP). For each compartment $C_j$ we create a bin $j$ in the GAP instance with capacity equal to its area. For each item $i\in I_{small}$, we create an item in the GAP instance with $p_{ij}=p(i)$ and $s_{ij}$ equal to area of item $i$ if $w(i)\leq \varepsilon w(C_j)$ and $h(i)\leq \varepsilon h(C_j)$ and equal to some arbitrary large value greater than area of $C_j$ otherwise. Now by applying Lemma \ref{lem:GAP} on the GAP instance, we get a subset $I_{small}''\subseteq I_{small}$ which are assigned to the boxes in $\B$ such that $p(I_{small}'')\geq (1-3\varepsilon)p(I_{small}^{*})$, and sum of areas of items assigned to a box $B$ doesn't cross the area of $B$. Also for $\forall i \in I_{small}''$, $w(i)\leq \varepsilon w(C)$ and $h(i)\leq \varepsilon h(C)$ where $C$ is the box to which $i$ is assigned to. Let the items assigned to a box $B\in \B$ be $I_B$. In the non-increasing order of profit by area ratio we choose items from $I_B$ until the total area of chosen items crosses $(1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)\cdot w(B)\cdot h(B)$. Let the set of items which were chosen be $I_B'$. Clearly $p(I_B')\geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2) p(I_B)$. Now by applying Lemma \ref{lem:NFDH}, we can pack all the items of $I_B'$ in $B$ and the packing is a 2 stage packing which is guillotine separable. Applying this procedure to every box, we get a packing of set of items $I_{small}'$ into the boxes such that $p(I_{small}')\geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)p(I_{small}'') \geq (1-2\varepsilon-\varepsilon^2)(1-3\varepsilon)p(I_{small}^{*})\geq (1-6\varepsilon)p(I_{small}^{*})$
\end{proof}
The hard part is the assignment of the skewed items. Let $\C_{skew}\subseteq\C$
denote the compartments in $\C$ into which skewed items are placed
in $OPT'$. We partition $I_{{skew}}$ into two subsets $\Rh$ and $\Rl$
where intuitively $\Rh$ contains input items with relatively high
profit, and $\Rl=I_{{skew}}\setminus\Rh$. Let $c=O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ be a
constant to be defined later.
\ari{W.l.o.g. assume $|OPT'| \ge c \cdot \log(nN)$. Otherwise, we can add dummy items $i$ with
$p(i)=0$.}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:shifting-weighted}There is a solution $OPT''\subseteqOPT'$
and an item $i^{*}\in I$ such that $\Rh=\{i\inI_{{skew}}|p(i)>p(i^{*})\}$
and $\Rl=\{i\inI_{{skew}}|p(i)\le p(i^{*})\}$ satisfy that
\begin{itemize}
\item $p(OPT'')\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT')$,
\item $p(OPT'')\ge c\cdot\log(nN)\cdot p(i^{*})$,
\item $\left|OPT''\cap\Rh\right|\le c\cdot\log(nN)$, and
\item for each item $i\inOPT''\capI_{{skew}}$ it holds that $p(i)\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{2n}\max_{i'\inI}p(i')$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the items in $OPT' $ in the order of non-increasing profits.
Let $i^{*}$ to be the first item in $OPT'$ in this order such that the total profit from items $i\inOPT'$ with $p(i)>p(i^{*})$ is $\ge c\cdot\log(nN)\cdot p(i^{*})$.
Then trivially, the second and third property is true.
Also, we know that $p(OPT')\ge\frac{1}{2}\max_{i'\inI}p(i')$
since otherwise $OPT'$ could not be a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate
solution. We drop each item $i\inOPT'$ for which $p(i)<\frac{\varepsilon}{2n}\max_{i'\inI}p(i')$
holds. The total profit of these dropped items is thus at most $n\cdot\frac{\varepsilon}{2n}\max_{i'\inI}p(i')\le\varepsilon\cdotp(OPT')$.
We define $OPT''$ to be the resulting solution.
\end{proof}
We guess $i^{*}$ and hence know the sets $\Rh$ and $\Rl$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:color-coding-1}In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ we can
guess a partition $\left\{ \Rh(C)\right\} _{C\in\C}$ of $\Rh$ such
that for each $C\in\C$ the set $\Rh(C)$ contains all items in $OPT''$
that are placed inside $C$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We employ the color coding technique \cite{alon1995color} where we seek to color the items in
$\Rh$ such that no two items
in $OPT''\cap\Rh$ have the same color. Let us denote $k'=|OPT''\cap\Rh|$
If we color the items randomly with $k=c\cdot\log N$ colors, then the probability that no items in $OPT''\cap\Rh$ have the same color is ${k \choose k'}\frac{k'!k^{n-k'}}{k^n} \geq \big(\frac{k}{k'}\big)^{k'}\cdot \frac{k'!}{k^{k'}}\geq \frac{k'!}{k'^{k'}}\geq e^{-k'}\ge\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{O(c)}$.
The last inequality follows from Lemma \ref{lem:shifting-weighted}.
Using splitters \cite{cygan2015parameterized} we can derandomize this to guess such a coloring
deterministically in time $N^{O(c)}$. Once we have guessed the coloring in which each item of $OPT''\cap\Rh$ is colored differently, then for each color $d\in\{1,...,c\cdot\log N\}$
we guess which of the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments in $\C'$ contains
an item of color $d$ so that the condition in the lemma is guaranteed to be achieved, which can be done deterministically in time $2^{O_{\varepsilon}(c\cdot\log N)}=N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ by exploring all possibilities.
\end{proof}
We group the items in $\Rl$ into $O_{\varepsilon}(\log(nN))$ groups
with one set of groups for the items in $\Rl\capI_{{hor}}$ and another
set of groups for the items in $\Rl\capI_{{ver}}$. We group the items
in $\Rl\capI_{{hor}}$ (resp. in $\Rl\capI_{{ver}}$) according to their densities
which are defined as the ratio between their profit and heights (resp. widths).
Formally, for each $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}$ we define $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}:=\{i\in\Rl\capI_{{hor}}|\frac{p(i)}{h(i)}\in[(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell},(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1})\}$
and $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}:=\{i\in\Rl\capI_{{ver}}|\frac{p(i)}{w(i)}\in[(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell},(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1})\}$
and observe that for only $O(\log(nN)/\varepsilon)$ values $\ell$ the
respective sets $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)},I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ are non-empty
as $p(i)\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{2n}\max_{i'\inI}p(i')$ and $w(i) \in [N]$. Intuitively,
for each $\ell$ the items in $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ (in $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$)
essentially all have the same density. Next, for each group $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$,
$I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ we guess an estimate for $p\left(I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}\capOPT''\right)$
and $p\left(I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}\capOPT''\right)$, respectively.
We call these estimates $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$, respectively.
We do
this in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ adapting a technique from \cite{chekuri2005polynomial}.
\begin{lem}
In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$, we can guess values $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)},\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
for each $\ell$ with $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}\cupI_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}\ne\emptyset$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sum_{\ell}\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}+\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT'')$
and
\item $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\le p\left(OPT''\capI_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}\right)$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}\le p\left(OPT''\capI_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}\right)$
for each $\ell$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First, as $p(OPT'')$ is a value between $p_{\max}:=\max_{i'\inI}p(i')$
and $n\cdot p_{\max}$ we can guess a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation
$P^{*}$ for $p(OPT'')$ in time $O(\log_{1+\varepsilon}n)$, i.e.,
$(1-\varepsilon)p(OPT'')\le P^{*}\le p(OPT'')$. Assume w.l.o.g.~that
for some $\hat{L}=O(\log(nN)/\varepsilon)$ it holds that for each $\ell\notin[\hat{L}]$
the sets $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ and $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ are empty.
Now, for each $\ell\in[\hat{L}]$ let $\hat{k}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ be
be the biggest integer such that $\hat{k}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\frac{\varepsilon}{\hat{L}}\cdot P^{*}\leq p(OPT''\cap I_{hor}^{\ell})$.
We define $\hat{k}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$ accordingly. We guess all $O(\hat{L})$
values $\hat{k}_{hor}^{(\ell)},\hat{k}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$ for each $\ell$
as follows. Let $w_{hor}$ be a binary string with at most $O(\hat{L}/\varepsilon)$
digits, out of which exactly $\hat{L}+1$ entries are 1's and for
each $\ell$ the substring of $w_{hor}$ between the $\ell$-th and
$(\ell+1)$-th 1 has exactly $k_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ digits (all 0's).
We can guess $w_{hor}$ in time $2^{O(\hat{L}/\varepsilon)}=(nN)^{O(1/\varepsilon)}$,
infer all values $\hat{k}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ from it, and define $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}=\hat{k}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cdot\varepsilon P^{*}/\hat{L}$
for each $\ell$. We have that $p(OPT'')-\left(\sum_{\ell}opt_{hor}^{(\ell)}+opt_{ver}^{(\ell)}\right)\le O(\varepsilon)p(OPT'')$,
since we make a mistake of at most $\frac{\varepsilon}{\hat{L}}\cdot P^{*}\le\frac{\varepsilon}{\hat{L}}\cdot p(OPT'')$
for each of the $\hat{L}$ groups.
We guess the values $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$ in a similar fashion.
\end{proof}
In other words, one can show that in order to obtain a $(1+O(\varepsilon))$-approximation,
it suffices to pack, for each $\ell$, items from $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ with
a total profit of $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ (for which items
of a total height of $\frac{\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}}{(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}}$
suffice) and items from $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ with a total profit of $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
(resp. a total width of $\frac{\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}}{(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}}$ suffice).
For each $\ell$, consider the items in $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ ordered non-decreasingly
by width. We slice these items into slices of height 1 each, i.e.,
for each item $i\inI_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ we introduce $h_{i}$ items of
height 1 and profit $(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell}$ each. Note that the sum
of the profits of the slices introduced for $i$ is in $[\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}p(i),p(i))$
(and hence this quantity is essentially $p(i)$). In the resulting
order of the slices (i.e., the order inherited from our ordering of
the items in $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$) we select the first $\frac{\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}}{(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}}$
slices, i.e., the $\frac{\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}}{(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}}$
slices of smallest width. Let $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ denote the
resulting set of slices. We do a similar procedure with the items
in $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ for each $\ell$, resulting in a set of slices
$\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:slices-fit}There exists a nice packing for the slices
in $\bigcup_{\ell}\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cup\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
inside $\C_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider a value $\ell$. For each item $i\inI_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ we
have that $\frac{p(i)}{h(i)}\in[(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell},(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1})$
and thus in particular $p(i)\le(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}h(i)$.
Therefore, $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\lep(I_{hor}^{(\ell)}\capOPT'')\le(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}h(I_{hor}^{(\ell)}\capOPT'')$
and thus $h(I_{hor}^{(\ell)}\capOPT'')\ge\frac{\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}}{(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}}$.
A similar statement holds for $I_{ver}^{(\ell)}$.
\end{proof}
Next, we do standard linear grouping \cite{vl81} with the slices in each set $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}/\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
so that the resulting slices have only $1/\varepsilon$ different widths/heights,
respectively. Formally, consider a set $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$.
We sort the slices in $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ non-increasingly
by width and then partition them into $1/\varepsilon+1$ groups such
that each of the first $1/\varepsilon$ groups contains $\left\lceil \frac{1}{1/\varepsilon+1}|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}|\right\rceil $
slices and the last group contains the remaining slices (which might
be less than $\left\lceil \frac{1}{1/\varepsilon+1}|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}|\right\rceil $
but not more). Let $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}=\hat{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}\dot{\cup}...\dot{\cup}\hat{I}_{hor,1/\varepsilon+1}^{(\ell)}$
denote the resulting partition. We drop the slices in $\hat{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}$
(which are at most $\varepsilon\cdot\left|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\right|$
many). Then, for each $j\in\{2,...,1/\varepsilon+1\}$ we increase the
width of the slices in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ to the width of
the widest slice in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$. By construction,
the resulting slices have $1/\varepsilon$ different widths. Let $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
denote the resulting set and let $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}=\tilde{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}\dot{\cup}...\dot{\cup}\tilde{I}_{hor,1/\varepsilon}^{(\ell)}$
denote a partition of $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ according to the
widths of the slices, i.e., for each $j\in\{1,...,1/\varepsilon\}$ the
set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ contains the rounded slices from
$\hat{I}_{hor,j+1}^{(\ell)}$. We do this procedure for each $\ell$
and a symmetric procedure for the group $\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
for each $\ell$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:rounded-slices-fit}There exists a nice packing for the
slices in $\bigcup_{\ell}\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cup\tilde{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
inside $\C_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that for each $\ell$ and $j$, each slice in $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$
is at most as long as any slice in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ and
$|\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}|\ge|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}|$. Hence,
we can assign the slices in $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ to the
space that was occupied by the slices in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$
in the packing due to Lemma~\ref{lem:slices-fit}.
\end{proof}
Finally, for each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ and each $C\in\C{}_{skew}$
we denote by $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ the number of slices
from $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ that are assigned to $C$ in the
solution due to Lemma~\ref{lem:rounded-slices-fit}. We define $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
similarly for each set $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}$ and each $C\in\C{}_{skew}$.
We would like to construct this solution and then use it as a template
for assigning the items in $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ and $I_{ver}^{(\ell)}$.
If we could guess all the values $\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
and $\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$ we would know exactly
which slices need to be assigned into each compartment in $\C{}_{skew}$,
since the slices in each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ and
$\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ are identical. It is not clear how
to guess these $O(\log(nN))$ values exactly in polynomial time, but
we can guess them approximately in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
while losing only a factor of $1+\varepsilon$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:guess-slices-1}In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ we can
guess values $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C),\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$,
$j\in\{1,...,1/\varepsilon\}$, and $C\in\C{}_{skew}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\le\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\le\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j,C$, and
\item $\sum_{C\in\C{}_{skew}}\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\ge(1-\varepsilon)\sum_{C\in\C{}_{skew}}\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j$, and
\item $\sum_{C\in\C{}_{skew}}\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\ge(1-\varepsilon)\sum_{C\in\C{}_{skew}}\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For each $\ell,j$ we define $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ and
$\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ to be the largest integral multiple
of $\frac{\varepsilon}{|\C|}\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ and $\frac{\varepsilon}{|\C|}\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}$,
respectively. Then for each $\ell,j$ we can guess $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ in time $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$,
and hence we can guess these values for all $\ell,j$ in parallel
in time $2^{O_{\varepsilon}(\log(nN))}$.
\end{proof}
Consider a compartment $C\in\C{}_{skew}$. From each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$
we assign exactly $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ slices to $C$.
\ari{We group these items to $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)/\varepsilon_{{small}} N$
\emph{pseudo-items}, each of height at most $\varepsilon_{{small}} N$. This pseudo-items are
skewed and will have total profit $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\cdot(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell}$.}
We do a similar procedure for the vertical items for $C$. Denote
by $\Rlp(C)$ the constructed set of pseudo-items. Our goal is now
to pack the most profitable subset of $\Rh(C)\cup\Rlp(C)$ into $C$
such that they yield a nice packing.
\arir{made pseudo-items skewed.}
If $C$ is a box-compartment then this is very simple: assume w.l.o.g.~that
in $C$ horizontal items are placed. Then, we discard all items in
$\Rh(C)$ that are wider than $C$ (if we guessed correctly, no item
in $\Rlp(C)$ is wider than $C$). The remaining problem is equivalent
to an instance of knapsack where the capacity of the knapsack is the
height of $C$ and for each item $i\in\Rh(C)\cup\Rlp(C)$ there is
an item with size $h_{i}$ and profit $p_{i}$. We solve this problem
with an FPTAS for knapsack.
If $C$ is an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment we essentially invoke an algorithm from
\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} as a black-box (after some straight forward adjustments of
the input items).
\begin{lem}[\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}]
Given an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ compartment $C$ and a set of skewed items $I'_{skew}$.
In time $(nN)^{O(1)}$ we can compute the subset $I_{skew}^{*}\subseteq I'{}_{skew}$
of maximum profit that can be placed nicely inside $C$ and the corresponding
packing.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$ and a set of items $I_{skew}'$. Let the height and width of the vertical part of $C$ be $h_v$ and $w_v$ respectively. Similarly let the height and width of the vertical part of $C$ be $h_h$ and $w_h$ respectively. Now we redefine the height of a vertical item $i$ as max$( h(i), h_v-h_h)$. If $h(i)< h_v-h_h$, then
$h_v>h(i)+h_h > 2h_h$ (as $h(i)> h_h$).
So, $h_v/2>h_h$.
Thus, $h_v-h_h>h_v/2$.
Similarly if $h(i)\geq h_v-h_h$ then $h(i)> h_v-h(i)$ as $h(i)>h_h$. This implies that $h(i)>h_v/2$. Similarly we can redefine the width of a horizontal item $j$ as max$( w(j), w_h-w_v)$ and we would get similar inequalities as we got for item $i$. In order to correctly apply the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} of finding a nice-packing in an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$ with maximum profit, the items have to be long (that is if the item is horizontal then the width is greater than $w_h/2$, similar analogy for the vertical items) with respect to the compartment which we are ensuring by redefining the dimensions and also we have ensured that the items whose dimension was increased after redefining it, don't interact with the items in the other part. Now applying the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} on the items with redefined dimension concludes the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
This yields a packing for some items in $\Rh(C)\cup\Rlp(C)$ inside
$C$, for each $C\in\C{}_{skew}$. For each $\ell$ denote by $\Rlph^{(\ell)}$
and $\Rlpv^{(\ell)}$ the horizontal and vertical pseudo-items that
resulted from slices in $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ and $\tilde{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$,
respectively, and that are included in the computed packing. Since
for each compartment $C\in\C_{skew}$ we computed the (essentially)
most profitable solution for the input items $\Rh(C)\cup\Rlp(C)$,
we have that the total profit of all packed (pseudo-)items is at least
$(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT'')$.
Finally, we assign items from $\Rl$ into the space occupied by the
items in $\bigcup_{\ell}\Rlph^{(\ell)}\cup\Rlpv^{(\ell)}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:round-slices}For each $\ell$, we can assign items from $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
with a total profit of at least {$\frac{1}{1+O(\varepsilon)}p(\Rlph^{(\ell)})$$-O_{\varepsilon_{{small}}, \varepsilon}(1) |\C| p(i^{*})$}
nicely into the space occupied by the pseudo-items in $\Rlph^{(\ell)}$.
A symmetric statement holds for $I_{ver}^{(\ell)}$ for each $\ell$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}\arir{check the proof.}
Consider a group $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$.
For a $C\in\C{}_{skew}$, let $\Rlph^{(\ell)} \cap C$ also denote the set of pseudo-items inside $C$.
$\Rlph^{(\ell)}$ be the union of all such pseudo-items.
We interpret each pseudo-item in $\Rlph^{(\ell)}$
as a container into which we can assign items from $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$,
stacked on top of each other. One can show that there is a fractional
solution that assigns items from $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ with a total
profit of at least $\frac{1}{1+O(\varepsilon)}p(\Rlph^{(\ell)})$.
This follows since we have such a solution
for the slices, which in fact represents a fractional solution.
Let $X_{ij}$ denote the fractional extent to which item $i \in I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ is assigned
to the container $j$ (corresponding to $j$th pseudo-item $s_j$).
then the following LP has a feasible solution:
\begin{align}
\sum_{i \in I_{hor}^{(\ell)}} h(i) \cdot X_{ij} &\le h(s_j)
&& \forall s_j \in \Rlph^{(\ell)} \nonumber \\
\sum_{i \in I_{hor}^{(\ell)}} p(i) \cdot X_{ij} &\ge \frac{1}{1+O(\varepsilon)}p(\Rlph^{(\ell)}) && \nonumber \\
\sum_{s_j \in \Rlph^{(\ell)}} X_{ij} &\le 1 && \forall i \in I_{hor}^{(\ell)}, \nonumber \\
0\le X_{ij} &\le 1 && \forall i \in I_{hor}^{(\ell)}, s_j \in {\Rlph^{(\ell)} } \nonumber
\end{align}
The first type of constraints ensures a feasible packing, second type ensures a high profit solution, third type ensures
each item is packed at most once.
Now using rank lemma, number of variables in the support of the LP solution is at most (the number of items in $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ + number of psedo-items in $\Rlph^{(\ell)}$ + 1).
Now we drop all items that are assigned fractionally to two or more pseudo-items (as well as those who are not appearing in the support) and remove them from the LP. Then for each pseudo-item we have only one item fractionally assigned. Otherwise, we can take the convex combination of the fractionally assigned items to obtain another feasible solution and the solution is not an extreme point solution. Thus each pseudo-item has only one fractionally assigned item in it.
Hence, in total only $O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{small}}}(1)|\C|$
number of items are fractionally assigned.
we simply drop all items that are assigned fractionally to some container.
In total, we drop $O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{small}}}(1)|\C|$ items for the group $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$.
\end{proof}
We define a similar procedure for groups of vertical items $I_{ver}^{(\ell)}$.
We apply Lemma~\ref{lem:round-slices} to each group $I_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
and $I_{ver}^{(\ell)}$ for each $\ell$. Thus, the total profit
of the obtained solution is at least
\[
\sum_{\ell}\left(\frac{1}{1+O(\varepsilon)}\left(p(\Rlph^{(\ell)})+p(\Rlpv^{(\ell)})\right)- O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{small}}}(1)|\C|p(i^{*})\right).
\]
By choosing $c$ sufficiently large, we can ensure that $\sum_{\ell} O_{\varepsilon, \varepsilon_{{small}}}(1)|\C|p(i^{*})\le\varepsilon\cdotp(OPT'')$.
Therefore, our packing has a total profit at least $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT'')$.
\section{Assigning items into compartments\label{sec:algorithm}}
In this section we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm}. Given a set
of compartments $\C$, let $OPT'\subseteqI$ denote the largest subset
of $I$ such that the items in $OPT'$ can be placed nicely in the
compartments in $\C$. Our goal is to compute a solution $ALG\subseteqI$
with $|ALG|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|OPT'|$ that can also be placed nicely
in $\C$. Our algorithm is an adaptation of an algorithm in \cite{GalSocg21}
for 2GK.
First, we guess for each box-compartment $B\in\C'$ whether $B$ contains
only large, only skewed, or only small items in $OPT'$ (see Definition~\ref{def:structured-boxes}).
Denote by $\C'_{large},\C'_{skew},\C'_{small}\subseteq\C'$ the respective
set of box-compartments. For the compartments in $\C'_{large}$, we
can compute the optimal way to assign items into them by an easy reduction
to bipartite matching.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:large-items}Given a set $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$ of box-compartments
such that a set of items $I_{large}^{*}\subseteq I_{large}$ can be
placed non-overlappingly inside the compartments $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$.
Then in time $n^{O(1)}$ we can we can compute a set of items $I'_{large}\subseteq I_{large}$
with $|I'_{large}|\ge|I{}_{large}^{*}|$ and a nice placement of the
items in $I'_{large}$ inside the compartments $\hat{\C}{}_{large}$.
\end{lem}
For the small items, we use a standard reduction to the generalized
assignment problem for selecting a near-optimal set of small items
and an assignment of these items into the mentioned boxes. Inside
of each box-compartment $B$ we place the items with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height
algorithm \cite{coffman1980performance} which results in a guillotine separable packing
for the items inside $B$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:small-items}Given a set of boxes $\B$ such that a set
of items $I_{small}^{*}\subseteq I_{small}$ can be placed non-overlappingly
inside the boxes $\B$. Then in time $n^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ we can
we can compute a set of items $I'_{small}\subseteq I_{small}$ with
$|I'_{small}|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|I{}_{small}^{*}|$ and a nice placement
of the items in $I'_{small}$ inside the boxes $\B$.
\end{lem}
The harder part is the assignment of the skewed items. For this we
distinguish whether $|OPT'_{corr}|=O(\log N)$ or not.
\subsection{Few items in optimal solution}
Assume first that $|OPT'|\le c\cdot\log N$ for some constant $c$.
In this case we show that in time $(nN)^{O(c)}$ we can compute a
set of $|OPT'\capI_{{skew}}|$ items from $I_{skew}$ and place them nicely
inside the compartments in $\C'_{skew}$. To this end, we employ the
color coding technique \cite{alon1995color} where we seek to color the items in
$I_{skew}$ such that no two items in $OPT'$ have the same color.
If we color the items randomly with $c\cdot\log N$ colors, one can
show that we obtain such a coloring with probability $e^{-|OPT'|}\ge\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{O(c)}$.
Using splitters \cite{cygan2015parameterized} we can derandomize this to guess such a coloring
deterministically in time $N^{O(c)}$. Then, for each color $d\in\{1,...,c\cdot\log N\}$
we guess which of the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments in $\C'$ contains
an item of color $d$, which can be done in time $2^{O_{\varepsilon}(c\cdot\log N)}=N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:color-coding}In time $N^{O_{\varepsilon}(c)}$ we can guess
a partition $\left\{ I_{skew}(C)\right\} _{C\in\C'}$ of $I_{skew}$
such that for each $C\in\C'$ the set $I_{skew}(C)$ contains all
items in $OPT'$ that are placed inside $C$.
\end{lem}
Hence, Lemma~\ref{lem:color-coding} reduces the general case to
one independent subproblem for each compartment in $\C'_{skew}$.
For each box-compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$ the problem is simple: we
first guess whether horizontal or vertical items are placed inside
$C$ by $OPT'$. Then the remaining problem is equivalent to an instance
of knapsack in the cardinality case which can be solved by ordering
the items non-decreasingly by their heights/widths and selecting them
greedily in this order. For each $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$ we
essentially invoke an algorithm from \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} as a black-box (after
some straight forward adjustments of the input items).
\begin{lem}\label{lem:pseudoL}
Given an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $C$ and a set of items $I_{skew}(C)\subseteq I{}_{skew}$.
In time $(nN)^{O(1)}$ we can compute the subset $I_{skew}^{*}(C)\subseteq I{}_{skew}(C)$
of maximum cardinality that can be placed nicely inside $C$ and the
corresponding packing.
\end{lem}
Thus, we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:OPT-small}Let $c\in \mathbb{N}$. If $|OPT'|\le c\cdot\log N$
then in time $(nN)^{O(c)}$ we can compute a set of items of size
$\left|OPT'\cap I_{skew}\right|$ that can be placed nicely in the
box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
\subsection{Many items in optimal solution}
Assume now that for a constant $c_{\varepsilon}$ to be defined later,
it holds that $|OPT'|>c_{\varepsilon}\cdot\log N$. We group the items
in $I_{{hor}}$ into $O_{\varepsilon}(\log N)$ groups each such that within
each group the items have essentially the same height. We do a similar
grouping with the items in $I_{{ver}}$. Formally, for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
we define $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}:=\{i\inI_{{hor}}|h(i)\in[(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell},(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1})\}$
and $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}:=\{i\inI_{{ver}}|w(i)\in[(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell},(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1})\}$.
For each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
we round the heights of the items in $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ to $(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}$,
i.e., to the maximum height of the items in the group. Similarly,
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
we round the widths of the items in $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ to $(1+\varepsilon)^{\ell+1}$.
For each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
we denote by $\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ and $\Rbve^{(\ell)}$ the resulting
set of items and we define $\bar{\R}_{hor}:=\bigcup_{\ell}\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
and $\Rbve:=\bigcup_{\ell}\Rbve^{(\ell)}$. Since in the compartments
in $\C'_{skew}$ the items in $OPT'\capI_{{skew}}$ are packed in a very
simple way, we can show that we can find a solution $\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\subseteq\bar{\R}_{hor}\cup\Rbve$
which contains almost as many items as $OPT'\capI_{{skew}}$. Do to the
rounding, the items from $OPT'_{corr}$ might not fit anymore. However,
we can repair this if for each compartment $C\in\C'$ and for each
set $I_{{hor}}^{(\ell)}$ or $I_{{ver}}^{(\ell)}$ we sacrifice an $O(\varepsilon)$-fraction
of the items from that set placed in $C$; if between 1 and $1/\varepsilon$
items of that set are placed inside $C$ then we still sacrifice one
item.
\begin{lem}
There exists a solution $\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\subseteq\bar{\R}_{hor}\cup\Rbve$
with $\left|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\right|\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))\left|OPT'\capI_{{skew}}\right|-|\C'|\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor $
that can be nicely placed into compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
By choosing $c_{\varepsilon}$ sufficiently large, we will later ensure
that $|\C'|\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \le\varepsilon\left|OPT'\capI_{{skew}}\right|$
and hence $\left|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\right|\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))\left|OPT'\capI_{{skew}}\right|$.
We would like to guess for each group $\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ and $\Rbve^{(\ell)}$
the quantity $|\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cap\overline{OPT}'_{skew}|$ and $|\Rbve^{(\ell)}\cap\overline{OPT}'_{skew}|$,
respectively. However, there are too many options for this. Instead,
we guess estimates $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)},\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
for these values which we can guess in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
for all groups in parallel, by adapting a technique from~\cite{chekuri2005polynomial}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:estimate-sizes}In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ we can
guess values $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)},\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sum_{\ell}\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}+\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}\ge(1-\varepsilon)|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}|$
and
\item $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\le|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\cap\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}|$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}\le|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\cap\Rbve^{(\ell)}|$
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
Since in each group $\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ all items have the same height,
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$
we select the $\mathrm{opt}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ items in $\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
of the smallest width, let $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\subseteq\bar{\R}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
denote the resulting set. Similarly, we select the $\mathrm{opt}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
shortest items from $\Rbve^{(\ell)}$ for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$,
let $\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}\subseteq\Rbve^{(\ell)}$ denote the resulting
set.
Next, we do standard linear grouping \cite{vl81} with the items in the sets $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}/\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
so that the resulting items have only $1/\varepsilon$ different widths/heights
respectively. Formally, consider a group $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$.
We sort the items in $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ non-increasingly by
width and then partition them into $1/\varepsilon+1$ groups such that
each of the first $1/\varepsilon$ groups contains $\left\lceil \frac{1}{1/\varepsilon+1}|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}|\right\rceil $
items and the last group contains the remaining items (which might
be less than $\left\lceil \frac{1}{1/\varepsilon+1}|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}|\right\rceil $
but not more). Let $\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}=\hat{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}\dot{\cup}...\dot{\cup}\hat{I}_{hor,1/\varepsilon+1}^{(\ell)}$
denote the resulting partition. We drop the items in $\hat{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}$
(which are at most $\varepsilon\cdot\left|\hat{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\right|$
many). Then, for each $j\in\{2,...,1/\varepsilon+1\}$ we increase the
width of the items in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ to the width of
the widest item in $\hat{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$. By construction,
the resulting items have $1/\varepsilon$ different widths. Let $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$
denote the resulting set and let $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}=\tilde{I}_{hor,1}^{(\ell)}\dot{\cup}...\dot{\cup}\tilde{I}_{hor,1/\varepsilon}^{(\ell)}$
denote a partition of $\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}$ according to the
widths of the items, i.e., for each $j\in\{1,...,1/\varepsilon\}$ the
set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ contains the rounded items from
$\hat{I}_{hor,j+1}^{(\ell)}$. We do this procedure for each $\ell$
and a symmetric procedure for the group $\hat{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
for each $\ell$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:tilde-skew-solution}There exists a solution $\widetilde{OPT}'_{skew}\subseteq\bigcup_{\ell}\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cup\tilde{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
with $\left|\widetilde{OPT}'_{skew}\right|\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))\left|\overline{OPT}'_{skew}\right|$
that can be nicely placed into the compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
Finally, for each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ and each $C\in\C'_{skew}$
we denote by $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ the number of items
from $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$ that are assigned to $C$ in the
solution due to Lemma~\ref{lem:tilde-skew-solution}. We define $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
similarly for each set $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}$ and each $C\in\C'_{skew}$.
If we could guess all the values $\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
and $\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$ we would know exactly
which items need to be assigned into which compartment in $\C'_{skew}$,
since the items in each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ and
$\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ are identical. It is not clear how
to guess these values $O(\log N)$ values exactly in polynomial time,
but we can guess them approximately in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
while losing only a factor of $1+\varepsilon$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:guess-slices}In time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$ we can
guess values $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C),\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
for each $\ell\in\{0,...,\left\lfloor \log_{1+\varepsilon}N\right\rfloor \}$,
$j\in\{1,...,1/\varepsilon\}$, $C\in\C'_{skew}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\le\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\le\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j,C$, and
\item $\sum_{C\in\C'_{skew}}\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\ge(1-\varepsilon)\sum_{C\in\C'_{skew}}\left|\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j$, and
\item $\sum_{C\in\C'_{skew}}\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\ge(1-\varepsilon)\sum_{C\in\C'_{skew}}\left|\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right|$
for each $\ell,j$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
Consider a compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$. From each set $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}$
we assign exactly $\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ items to $C$
and from each set $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}$ we assign exactly
$\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ items to $C$. If $C$ is a box-compartment then it is very simple to pack the items assinged to $C$:
if they are horizontal then we simply stack them on top of each other,
if they are vertical then we stack them side by side. If $C$ is an
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment the packing is also quite easy: assume w.l.o.g.~that
$e_{0}$ is adjacent to a vertical subcompartment and that $e_{3}$
is adjacent to a horizontal subcompartment, see Figure~??. We stack
the horizontal items on top of each other, ordered non-increasingly
by width starting at $e_{2}$, and pushed as far as possible towards
$e_{3}$. Similarly, we stack the vertical items side by side ordered
non-increasingly by by height, starting at $e_{1}$, and pushed as
far as possible towards $e_{0}$. One can show that this yields a
feasible packing (assuming that one such packing exists) and by construction
it yields a nice placement inside $C$.
\begin{lem}
Consider a compartment $C\in\C'_{skew}$. Given the values $\left\{ \mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C),\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)\right\} _{\ell,j}$,
in time $(nN)^{O(1)}$ we can pack items into $C$ such that they
are nicely placed inside $C$ and for each $\ell,j$ we place exactly
$\mathrm{opt}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ items from $\tilde{I}_{hor,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$
and $\mathrm{opt}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$ items from $\tilde{I}_{ver,j}^{(\ell)}(C)$.
\end{lem}
Finally, we take our packing for the items in $\tilde{I}:=\bigcup_{\ell}\tilde{I}_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cup\tilde{I}_{ver}^{(\ell)}$
and replace these items by items from $\bigcup_{\ell}I_{hor}^{(\ell)}\cupI_{ver}^{(\ell)}$.
This is easily possible since we constructed the items in $\tilde{I}$
by increasing the heights and widths of items in $I_{{skew}}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:OPT-large}There exists a constant $c_{\varepsilon}\in \mathbb{N}$
such that if $|OPT'|>c_{\varepsilon}\cdot\log N$ then in time $(nN)^{O_{\varepsilon}(1)}$
we can compute a set of items of size $(1-\varepsilon)\left|OPT'\cap I_{skew}\right|$
that can be placed nicely in the box- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments in $\C'_{skew}$.
\end{lem}
Now Lemma~\ref{lem:algorithm} follows from Lemmas~\ref{lem:large-items}, \ref{lem:small-items},
\ref{lem:OPT-small}, and \ref{lem:OPT-large},
i.e., we guess if $|OPT'|\le c_{\varepsilon}\cdot\log N$ and in this
case we invoke Lemma~\ref{lem:OPT-small} for the skewed items and
otherwise Lemma~\ref{lem:OPT-large}.
\section{Omitted Proofs }\label{sec:omit}
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{Lguillotine})
Consider a set of items $I_{L}\subseteq I$ that is placed nicely
inside an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$. Then $I_{L}$ is guillotine separable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
W.l.o.g. assume the vertical arm of $L$ is on top and left of the horizontal arm of $L$ as shown in figure \ref{fig:lguil}.
Consider $w(L)$ and $h(L)$ to be the width of vertical arm and height of horizontal arm of $L$, respectively. We use strong induction to the prove the claim. Base case, considers all degenerate $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments with just one arm i.e. $w(L) = 0 $ or $h(L) = 0$. These are just stacks of items which is trivially guillotine separable. For induction hypothesis assume that all nicely packed $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments $L'$ are guillotine separable for width $w(L')$ and height $h(L')$ such that $w(L') < w(L)$ and $h(L') \leq h(L)$ or $h(L') < h(L)$ and $w(L') \leq w(L)$. For this, we first prove that there exists an item touching the boundary of $L$ which can be separated by a guillotine cut. Consider the left-most vertical item $i_v$ in the vertical arm of $L$. We extend the right boundary of $i_v$ to obtain an end-to-end cut $l_v$ (may be cutting one or more items in $L$). If $l_v$ doesn't cut through any items of $L$, then the we stop as the claim follows trivially. Otherwise, we observe that since the items are placed \emph{nicely} inside $L$, no items in $I_L \cap I_{ver}$ can be cut by $l_v$. This implies $l_v$ intersects only with a non-empty subset of items in $I_{hor}'\subseteq I_L \cap I_{hor}$. Let the top-most intersected horizontal item in $I_{hor}'$ be $i_h$. We then extend the top boundary of $i_h$ to obtain an end-to-end cut $l_h$. Clearly because of nice packing $l_h$ doesn't intersect any items in $I_L \cap I_{hor}$. Also, from the construction it follows that $l_h$ cannot intersect any item of $I_L \cap I_{ver}$ as all items are above it. This gives us a guillotine cut separating a rectangle containing items in $I_{hor}'$ and $L \backslash I_{hor}'$ (can be a degenerate $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment with just one leg). We consequently get a smaller, nicely packed $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L' =L \backslash I_{hor}'$ with $w(L') =w(L) - w(I_{hor}') < w(L)$ and $h(L') = h(L)$. From induction assumption we deduce that $L'$ is guillotine separable. Appending $l_h$ to the guillotine cut-sequence of $L'$ gives us a guillotine cutting sequence for $L$. Clearly nice packing of skew items ensures that all the cuts in this guillotine cutting sequence lie completely inside the area of $L$ (maybe coincident with boundary of $L$). This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:pseudo-enough})
Let $\C$ be a set of compartments inside
$K$ that admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. Let $I'\subseteqI$
be a set of items that are placed nicely inside the compartments in
$\C$. Then there is a guillotine cutting sequence for $I'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We now justify the two operations of pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. First operation applies a horizontal or vertical guillotine cut, say $l$, that separates rectangle $R$ into two disjoint rectangles $R_{1},R_{2}$ and then continues recursively with $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$. This operation trivially maintains the guillotine cutting sequence with first cut being $l$ and each of $R_{1}$ and $R_2$ can be considered independently for a guillotine cutting. Harder part is to define a guillotine sequence for second operation which partitions $R$ into a boundary $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ and $R\setminus L$. For that we first observe that any sequence of guillotine cuts inside $R$ can be considered independently of rest of the plane. Now, we use Lemma \ref{Lguillotine} to obtain a guillotine cutting sequence $S_L$ separating nicely packed items in $L$ with guillotine cuts completely lying inside the area of $L$-region. This separates out $L$ from $R\setminus L$ without intersecting any items of $R \setminus L$. Now the guillotine cutting sequence of $R\setminus L$ can be considered independently. This proves our claim. Furthermore to obtain the complete guillotine cutting sequence, say $S_K$, for the given set of items $I'$, we do a Depth First Search (DFS) of the tree of pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. Every internal node of tree represents an operation. For node labelled as first operation, we can add the considered cut $l$ to the $l_K$ and continue with its child nodes in a DFS fashion. For a node labelled as second operation, we can add the corresponding guillotine sequence $S_L$ of $L$ to $S_K$ and continue to the other child representing $R \setminus L$ in a DFS manner. By the end of DFS run, we get the guillotine cutting sequence $S_K$ of items $I'$ in $K$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:make-boxes-nice})
Given a box-compartment $B$
containing a set of items $I(B)$ with $h(B)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ or $w(B)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$.
There exists a partition of $B$ into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments
$\B(B)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item the box-compartments in $\B(B)$ are guillotine separable, and
\item there is a nice placement of a set of items $I'(B)\subseteqI(B)$
with $|I'(B)|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|I'(B)|-O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ inside $\B(B)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If the box-compartment contains only one rectangle we don't do anything. Otherwise let us consider a box-compartment $B$ which contains more than one horizontal rectangle (similar procedure can be applied to compartments with vertical rectangles). Now we remove the cheapest strip $S_1$ of height of $3\varepsilon\cdot h(B)$. Note that the profit of a strip is calculated by adding the profits of the items lying completely inside the strip. So the profit of the strip $S_1$ is at most $O(\varepsilon)\cdot p(B)$. Now remove the items in the strip $S_1$ and also the items which partially overlap with $S_1$. Note that the number of items which partially overlap with $S_1$ is $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}$. Now by using the techinque of resource augmentation (See Lemma \ref{lemma1_old}), we can repack $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(B)$ in a region of size $w(B)\times (1-2\varepsilon)h(B)$ such that this region contains $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ nicely packed box compartments that are guillotine separable. See figure \ref{box-to-comp} for more clarity of the process. Now this works well in the unweighted case. But if we are dealing with a weighted case then we can't drop the $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ items which we were dropping as it might contain a lot of profit. To handle the weighted case we use the shifting argumentation and for this we refer the reader to Section \ref{shift-arg}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[b]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [fill=yellow,yellow] (0,2.25)rectangle (6,3.75);
\draw (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (3,3.5) rectangle (5.7,4);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,2.5) rectangle (2.7,2);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,2.7) rectangle (5.7,2.9);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,3) rectangle (5.7,3.2);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,5.5) rectangle (5.7,5.7);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,0.6) rectangle (5.7,0.8);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,1.5) rectangle (5.7,1.7);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0.2,4.5) rectangle (5.7,4.7);
\draw[dashed] (0,2.25) -- (6,2.25);
\draw[dashed] (0,3.75)--(6,3.75);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{20pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (4,2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.28,.06) rectangle (4,.12);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.34,.12) rectangle (4,.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.18) rectangle (4,.24);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.51,.26) rectangle (4,.35);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.6,.35) rectangle (4,.43);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.43) rectangle (4,.49);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.76,.51) rectangle (4,.63);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.88,.63) rectangle (4,.73);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.76) rectangle (4,.87);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.25,.87) rectangle (4,.98);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.51,1.01) rectangle (4,1.19);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.19) rectangle (4,1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{40pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (9,9);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (6,5.5) rectangle (8,8);
\draw[solid,fill=lightgray] (2,3) rectangle (4,6);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (0,8)--(9,8);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (0,3)--(9,3);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (2,8)--(2,3);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (5,8)--(5,3);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (2,6)--(5,6);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (4,6)--(4,3);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (5,5.5)--(9,5.5);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (6,5.5)--(6,8);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (8,5.5)--(8,8);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a): Yellow strip is the least profitable strip and the items which overlap partially or completely will be removed.(b): Items are nicely packed in a box compartment (c): Gray items can not be dropped. So using the blue guillotine cuts, we divide the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ box compartments.}
\label{box-to-comp}
\end{figure}
In this section, we give a detailed proof of Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice}.
First, we prove the following lemma, which will be useful in the proof.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:A}
There exists a set $OPT'\subseteq OPT$, $p(OPT') > (1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT)$ and a partition of $K$
into a set of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments such that for every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ it holds that
for each item $i$ contained in the horizontal $P_H$ (resp. vertical arm $P_V$) of $L$, $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$
(resp. $w(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P_V)$).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$ compartment $L$, we use $P_H$ (resp. $P_V$) to denote the horizontal (resp. vertical) arm of $L$.
In the cardinality case, we simply drop all the items of $h(i) > \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$.
Number of such items can be at most $\frac{1}{\varepsilon^4 \varepsilon_{large}}$ which is a constant.
Thus we get the required packing of rest of the items $OPT'$ s.t. $|OPT'| \leq (1-O_{\varepsilon \varepsilon_{large}}(1))|OPT|$.
For weighted case, we cannot drop these $\frac{1}{\varepsilon^4 \varepsilon_{large}}$ items as they might actually carry most of the profit of knapsack. Thus, we now aim to pack back this constant number of items dropped. We do this by employing an averaging argument, that recursively partitions the knapsack for $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times, obtainig a set of items which can be dropped and have a profit of at most $O(\varepsilon).p(OPT)$. Formally, we employ the Shifting Argumentation as defined in Section \ref{shift-arg} which recursively procesess the partitioning such that all the profitable items lie completely inside box compartments. We refer to Section \ref{shift-arg} for the Shifting Argmuntation for further details of the procedure. This way we ensure that for every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment, items contained in the horizontal arm $P_H$ (resp. vertical arm $P_V$) have $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$ (resp. $w(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P_V)$) without losing more that $O(\varepsilon)$ fraction of profit.
\end{proof}
Hence, we assume from now on that for every $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$, it holds that
for each item $i$ contained in the horizontal arm $P_H$ (resp. vertical arm $P_V$) of $L$, $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)$
(resp. $w(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdotw(P)$).
\begin{lem
(Restatement of Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice})
Given an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ containing a set
of items $I(L)$. There exists a partition of $L$ into one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment
$L'\subseteq L$ and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments $\B(L)$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $L'$ lies at the outer boundary of $L$,
\item the box-compartments in $\B(L)$ are guillotine separable, and
\item \arn{there is a nice placement of a set of items $I'(L)\subseteqI(L)$
with $p(I'(L))\ge(1-O(\varepsilon))p(I'(L))$ inside $\B(L)$}
and $L'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $P_H$ and $P_V$ be the horizontal and vertical arms $L$, respectively.
So $P_H$ is defined via two horizontal edges $e_{1}=\overline{p_{1}p'_{1}}$
and $e_{2}=\overline{p_{2}p'_{2}}$, and additionally one monotone
axis-parallel curves connecting $p_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1})$ with $p_{2}=(x_{2},y_{2})$.
Assume w.l.o.g. that $x_{1}\le x_{2}$ and that $y_{1}<y_{2}$.
Let $h(P_H)$ denote the the height of $P_H$ which we define as the distance
between $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$. Intuitively, we place $1/\varepsilon^{2}$
boxes inside $P_H$ of height $\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$ each, stacked one
on top of the other, and of maximum width such that they are contained
inside $P_H$. Formally, we define $1/\varepsilon^{2}$ boxes $B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}$
such that for each $j\in\{0,...,1/\varepsilon^{2}-1\}$ the bottom
edge of box $B_{j}$ has the $y$-coordinate $y_{1}+j\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$
and the top edge of $B_{j}$ has the $y$-coordinate $y_{1}+(j+1)\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$.
For each such $j$ we define
the $x$-coordinate of the left edge of $B_{j}$ maximally small
such that $B_{j}\subseteq P_H$.
In the weighted
case, from Lemma \ref{lem:A} each item $i$ contained in $P_H$ satisfies that $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)$
and therefore each item $i$ contained in $P_H$ intersects at most
2 stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $.
Therefore, by pigeon hole principle, there exist two boxes $B_{j^{*}}, B_{j^{*}+1} \in\left\{ B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon-1}\right\} $
with the property that the stripe $S'_{j^{*}}:=[0,N]\times[y_{1}+j^{*}\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H),y_{1}+(j^{*}+2)\cdot\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)]$
(containing $B_{j^{*}}, B_{j^{*}+1}$) intersects at most $2\varepsilon|OPT'(P_H)|$
of the remaining items in $OPT'(P_H)$. We drop all items in $OPT'(P_H)$
that are intersected by $S'_{j^{*}}$. Next, we move down all items
in $OPT'(P_H)$ that intersect the boxes $B_{j^{*}+2},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}$
by $\varepsilon^{2}h(P_H)$ units. Note that then they fit into the area
defined by the union of the boxes $B_{j^{*}+1},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-2}$.
We assign to $B_{j^{*}}$ all items that intersect
a horizontal edge of a box in $\left\{ B_{j^{*}+1},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $.
This can be done since each such item has a height of at most $\varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$
which implies that $\varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P)/\varepsilon^{2}\le\varepsilon^{2}\cdoth(P_H)$.
Let $w(P_H)$ and $w'(P_H)$ be the length of $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$, resp.
Due to the definition of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment, $w(P_H)\ge \varepsilon_{{large}} N$ and $w'(P_H)\ge w(P_H)-\varepsilon_{{large}} N/2 \ge w(P_H)/2$.
Next, we would
like to ensure that below the box $B_{j^{*}}$ there is no item $i$
with $w(i)<w'(P_H)$ (we want to achieve this since then we can
stack the items underneath $B_{j^{*}}$ on top of each other) and
no small item intersects the boundary of a box.
Therefore, consider the topmost $1/\varepsilon^{2}-1/\varepsilon$ boxes.
We group them into $1/6\varepsilon-1$ groups with $6/\varepsilon$ boxes
each, i.e., for each $k\in\{0,...,1/6\varepsilon-2\}$ we define a group
$\B_{k}:=\{B_{j}|j\in\{1/\varepsilon+6k/\varepsilon,...,1/\varepsilon+6(k+1)/\varepsilon-1\}\}$.
Note that each group $\B_{k}$ contains exactly $6/\varepsilon$ boxes
and below $B_{j^{*}}$ there are at most $1/\varepsilon$ boxes. By the
pigeon hole principle, there is a value $k^{*}\in\{0,...,1/\varepsilon-2\}$
such that the the boxes in the group $\B_{k^{*}}$ intersect with
items of total weight of $O(\varepsilon)w(OPT'(P_H))$ where $w(OPT'(P_H))$
denotes the weight of the remaining items in $OPT'(P_H)$. Therefore,
we drop all items that intersect a box in $\B_{k^{*}}$.
Consider all items $i\inOPT'(P_H)\capI_{{skew}}$ that intersect at least
one of the stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{j^{*}-1}\right\} $ and
that satisfy that $w(i)\le w'(P_H)$. Due to Steinberg's algorithm~\cite{steinberg1997strip}
they fit into a box of height $3\varepsilon\cdot h(P_H)$ and width $w'(P_H)$.
Therefore, all but $O(1/\varepsilon_{{large}}\cdot1/\varepsilon)$ of them fit into $3/\varepsilon$
boxes in $\B_{k^{*}}$. We assign them to these boxes $3/\varepsilon$
boxes in $\B_{k^{*}}$.
In the weighted case, the total area of items $i$ that intersect
the boundary of a box in $\left\{ B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $
or that are contained in one of the stripes in $\left\{ S_{0},...,S_{j^{*}-1}\right\} $
with $h(i)\le \varepsilon^{4} \cdoth(P_H)$ and $w(i)\le\varepsilon_{{small}}\cdotw(P_H)$
is bounded by $\varepsilon\cdot h(P_H)\cdot w(P_H)+O(w(P_H)h(P_H)\varepsilon_{{small}}/\varepsilon^{2})\le O(\varepsilon)\cdot h(P_H)\cdot w'(P_H)$.
Hence, we can pack them into the remaining boxes in $\B_{k^{*}}$ like before using Steinberg's algorithm~\cite{steinberg1997strip}.
Now we define $P'_H$ as the acute piece induced by $e_{1}$, the bottom
edge of $B_{j^{*}}$, and the respective part of the two monotone
axis-parallel curves connecting $p_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1})$ with $p_{2}=(x_{2},y_{2})$
and the right boundary edge of $P_H$,
respectively. Each remaining item $i\inOPT'(P_H)$ intersecting $P'_H$
satisfies that $w(i)\ge w'(P_H)$. Therefore, we can stack these
items on top of each other (using that $w'(P_H)>w(P_H)/2$).
We obtain that each remaining item from $OPT'(P_H)$ is assigned to
a box in $\left\{ B_{j^{*}},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $ or
lies in $P'_H$. We define $OPT'_{1}(P_H)$ to be the former set of items
and $OPT'_{2}(P_H)$ to be the latter set. Finally, we apply Lemma \ref{lem:make-boxes-nice}
to each box $B\in\left\{ B_{j^{*}},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $
in order to partition $B$ further and such that the items assigned
to $B$ are nicely packed inside $B$.
We do a symmetric procedure for $P_{V}$, yielding a set of boxes
$\B_{ver}$. Intuitively, we want to define $L'$ as $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$.
However, $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$ might not have exactly the shape of
an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Nevertheless, one can show that we can subdivide
one of these polygons, say $P'_{H},$ along a horizontal line into
two subpolygons $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}},P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$ (with
$P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ lieing on the top of $P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$)
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item we can place the items in $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ into another set
of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $\B'_{hor}$ that are non-overlapping
with $\B_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$ and
\item $L':=P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}\cup P'_{V}$ forms an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment,
see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice6}.
\end{itemize}
Then the items in $L'$ are nicely placed inside $L'$. To each of
the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $B\in\B_{hor}\cup\B'_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$
we apply a standard routine that removes some of the items inside
$B$ and partitions $B$ into smaller boxes, such that inside these
smaller boxes the remaining items are nicely placed.
It is easy to check that the resulting packing satisfy guillotine separability.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Adding small rectangles}\label{smallrec}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}\label{dead}Consider a rectangular region $R$ of size $a\times b$ where $a,b\leq N$. Now assume that $R$ consists of only box compartments in which the skewed items are nicely packed. Now if we build a grid of width $\varepsilon'N=\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}\cdot N$ (as shown in Figure \ref{fig:small-grid-1}) and delete any cell of the grid that overlaps with the compartment or intersects with one of the boundaries of $R$, then total area of the deleted (also called {\em dead}) grid cells is min$\{ (1-\varepsilon)a(R),a(OPT_{com}')+(\varepsilon_{{ra}}+2\varepsilon')a(R)\}$ where $a(OPT_{com}')$ denotes the total area of items in the compartments in $R$.
\end{lem}
Note that Lemma \ref{dead} is applicable when there are no large items. If now if we have a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-region $L'$ consisting of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments $\B(L)$ (for example in the packing mentioned in Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice}) then we can consider a dummy minimal rectangular region (see Figure \ref{fig:small-grid-2}, the smaller rectangular region to the right of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment can be considered as a pseudo item in order to apply the above lemma) that can contain the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-region $ L'$ and apply Lemma \ref{dead} and we can get similar results.
We denote the cells which are not dead as free cells. Now take the knapsack consider those regions which don't contain $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Now find the regions which are guillotine separable and do not overlap with any compartment. Let us denote these regions as guillotine free region. By appropriately choosing $\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ (as shown in subsection \ref{cnt}) we can ensure that the total area of guillotine free regions which don't have both the dimensions greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$ is at most $O(\varepsilon^{2} N^2)$. Also the total area of guillotine free region is greater than or equal to the total area of free cells.
\begin{lem}\label{bigL}
Consider an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- compartment $C$ such that the items in it are nice packed and the length of any of its 6 edges is atmost $N$. Now we build a grid of width $(\varepsilon'+\varepsilon_{{small}} )N$ in a dummy minimal rectangular region that can contain (see Figure \ref{fig:small-grid-2}). We delete a cell if it overlaps with a rectangle or intersects with one of the 6 edges of $C$. Then the total area of deleted grid cells is at most $a(OPT_{C}')+O(\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2})$ where $a(OPT_{C}')$ is the total area of items in $C$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Let us assume that the vertical part $S_{1}$ of $C$ is top-left of horizontal part $S_{2}$ of $C$. Also assume the items in $S_1$ are placed in non-increasing order of height from left to right (similar analogy for vertical rectangles). Now consider the first column of grid cells from left. The area of dead cells in first column is at most $(\varepsilon'+\varepsilon_{{small}})N^{2}$. In the second column of grid cells from left if there are $x$ grids cells which are dead then the length of all the long rectangles in the first column is at least $(x-1)\cdot (\varepsilon'+\varepsilon_{{small}})\cdot N$. So the area of dead cells in second column is at most area of rectangles in the first column plus $(\varepsilon'+\varepsilon_{{small}})^{2}N^{2}$. Adding up the area of all the dead cells in this manner and repeating the same for horizontal rectangles we get total area of deleted grid cells to be at most $a(OPT_{C}')+O(\varepsilon'\cdot N^{2})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (9,9);
\draw[dashed] (0,9) rectangle (10,-1);
\draw[dashed](0,7)--(10,7);
\draw[dashed](0,5)--(10,5);
\draw[dashed](0,3)--(10,3);
\draw[dashed](0,1)--(10,1);
\draw[dashed](2,9)--(2,-1);
\draw[dashed](4,9)--(4,-1);
\draw[dashed](6,9)--(6,-1);
\draw[dashed](8,9)--(8,-1);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:small-grid-1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,9)--(3,9)--(3,4)--(9,4)--(9,0)--(0,0)--(0,9);
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (9,9);
\draw[dashed] (0,9) rectangle (10,-1);
\draw[dashed](0,7)--(10,7);
\draw[dashed](0,5)--(10,5);
\draw[dashed](0,3)--(10,3);
\draw[dashed](0,1)--(10,1);
\draw[dashed](2,9)--(2,-1);
\draw[dashed](4,9)--(4,-1);
\draw[dashed](6,9)--(6,-1);
\draw[dashed](8,9)--(8,-1);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:small-grid-2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a): Grid made for a rectangular region (b): Grid for a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-region}
\end{figure}
A box is said to be $\varepsilon'$-large if both dimensions are greater than or equal to $\varepsilon' N$. Now we describe a procedure to obtain $\varepsilon'$ large boxes (to pack the small rectangles) from the free cells in an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- compartment $C$. Note that these $\varepsilon'$ large boxes when considered as pseudorectangles are guillotine separable. Consider the first column of grid cells from the left and assume that we have free cells in this column. Separate the horizontal rectangle, if any (using a horizontal guillotine cut), which overlaps with this first column. Now consider the rightmost vertical cut which passes through this column. The distance of this cut from the right-hand side of this column is at most $\varepsilon_{{small}} N$. So we obtain $\varepsilon'$ large boxes in the first column which are guillotine separable. Continue the same process for other columns which overlap with the vertical part of the boundary-$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$. Free cells which are in the horizontal part at the end of this process are guillotine separable. Now the guillotine cuts which we used to separate out the $\varepsilon'$ large boxes can be used to divide $C$ into $O_{\varepsilon'}(1)$ guillotine separable box compartments in which the items are nice packed and possibly a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- compartment in which the items are nicely packed.
Now $\varepsilon'$-large boxes and guillotine free regions which were created have an area of at least $(\max\{ N^2-a(OPT_{comp})-a(OPT_L)+\varepsilon a(OPT_{comp}),a(OPT_{small})\}-O(\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}))$. Here $a(OPT_{comp})$ denotes the total area of box compartments and $a(OPT_L)$ denotes the total area of items in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments. So if $a(OPT_{small})\geq \frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$ we can pack almost all the profitable small rectangles using NFDH in the guillotine separable $\varepsilon'$-large boxes created. If $a(OPT_{small})$<$\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$ and $N^2-a(OPT_{comp})-a(OPT_L)+\varepsilon a(OPT_{comp})>\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$, we can pack all the small rectangles as area of guillotine separable regions is more than $\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$. Now if $a(OPT_{small})$<$\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$ and $N^2-a(OPT_{comp})-a(OPT_L)+\varepsilon a(OPT_{comp})\leq\frac{\varepsilon N^{2}}{4}$, then we can remove some least profitable items from $OPT_L$ (profit of such items is at most $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT)$ as $a(OPT_L)\geq N^2/2$ and number of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments is at most $O(1/\varepsilon_{{large}})$) and create enough space to pack all the items in $OPT_{small}$.
This ensures a packing of profit $(1-O(\varepsilon))p(OPT_{small})$ from small items.
Lemma \ref{dead} is applicable when there are no large items and the constant number of items which we remove have a profit of at most $O(\varepsilon)p(OPT)$. So if these items are profitable then we can use the shifting argumentation of \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and create a box compartment for each such item and repeat the entire process of adding small items in the remaining regions of knapsack which don't contain the box compartments which we created for the profitable items which can't be dropped. The analysis now is same as in the case of the cardinality case. The only difference is that $N^2$ will get replaced by $N^2/c'$ where $c'$ is a constant which depends only on $\varepsilon_{{large}}$ and $\varepsilon$ only. See section \ref{shift-arg} for a brief overview of shifting argumentation.
\subsection{Relationship between different constants}\label{cnt}
We set $\varepsilon_{{ra}}$ to be $\varepsilon^{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'=\varepsilon_{{ra}}/2$. By choosing a big enough constant $\lambda$ we set function $f(x)$ in the lemma \ref{class} to be $\frac{x^{120+1/\varepsilon}}{2^{1/\varepsilon}(2K'(\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}})+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})^{2}}$. Note than $\lambda$ doesn't depend on $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ or $\varepsilon$. Here $K'(x)=(\frac{2}{x^{10}}+(\frac{3}{x^{2}}(M(x))^{2}2^{2M(x)})^{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'})$ $\lceil \log_{1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1/x)\rceil/\varepsilon^{2}$ where $M(x)=\frac{1+2x}{x^{2}}$. Now we show that all our constraints are satisfied. By lemma \ref{class} we get a pair $(\varepsilon_{{small}},\varepsilon_{{large}})$ such that $\varepsilon_{{small}} \leq \frac{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{120+1/\varepsilon}}{2^{1/\varepsilon}(2K'(\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}})+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}}$. Let the total area of guillotine free regions with at least one of the dimensions less than $\varepsilon' N$ be $A_{< \varepsilon'}$. Then $A_{< \varepsilon'} < c\cdot (2/\varepsilon_{{large}})^{1/\varepsilon}\cdot(2K'(\delta)+1/\varepsilon_{{ra}}')^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{c_1}}\cdot\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{{large}}^{c_2}}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{{small}}}{\varepsilon}N^{2}<\varepsilon^{2}N^{2}$. Here $\delta > \varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{\lambda^{1/\varepsilon}}$, $c$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$ and $c_1,c_2\leq 10$. Loose upper bound for $A_{< \varepsilon'}$ is found by multiplying a multiple of total number of compartments by maximum area of guillotine free region which isn't $\varepsilon'$ large.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:concl}
We conjecture that the worst-case ratio between the optimal profit of 2GGK~and 2GK~is 4/3. Bansal et al.~\cite{bansal2014binpacking} conjectured that a similar ratio is $4/3$ for 2BP.
If our conjecture is true, then any $\alpha$-approximation for 2GGK~will imply a ${4 \alpha}/{3}$-approximation for 2GK. For example, our PPTAS will then imply a pseudo-polynomial time ${4}/{3}+\varepsilon$-approximation for 2GK, matching the approximation guarantee in \cite{GalSocg21}.
\section{One Sided Resource Augmentation}\label{resource_aug}
In this section we show that the proof techniques used in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} for packing rectangles with resource augmentation maintain the guillotine separability of the rectangles. This is one of the key techniques which was used to prove Lemma \ref{lem:make-boxes-nice}. We will be using compartments and containers interchangeably for the rest of this paper.
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma1_old}
(Resource Augmentation Packing Lemma\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}) Let $I'$ be a collection of rectangles that can be packed into a box of size $a \times b$, and $\varepsilon_{{ra}} > 0$ be a given constant. Here $a$ denotes the height of the box and $b$ denotes the width. Then there exists a nice packing of $I''\subseteq I'$ inside a box of size $a\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})b$ (resp.~$(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}})a\times b$) such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(I'')\geq (1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}))p(I')$;
\item the number of containers is $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)$ and their sizes belong to a set of cardinality $n^{O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}}(1)}$ that can be computed in polynomial time;
\item the total area of the the containers is at most $a(I')+\varepsilon_{{ra}} ab$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
In the following subsections, we show how to extend the above lemma using the same proof techniques and show at the end of each proof technique that the set of rectangles is still guillotine separable. For simplicity, we assume $a=1$ and $b=1$, and all widths and heights of rectangles are in $(0,1]$.
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon > 0$ and let $f(\cdot)$ be any positive increasing function such that $f(x)<x$ for all $x$. Then, $\exists \delta, \mu \in \Omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$,with $f(\varepsilon)\geq\mu$ such that the total profit of all rectangles whose width or height lies in $(\mu,\delta]$ is at most $\varepsilon\cdot p(I')$.
\end{lem}
For now we use the value of $\varepsilon$ required in this lemma as $\varepsilon'_{ra}$ and later on define the function $f$ that is being used. By choosing appropriate $\mu,\delta$ we classify the rectangles for this section as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item short if $w \leq \mu$;
\item narrow if $h \leq \mu$;
\item wide if $w > \delta$;
\item high if $h >\delta$;
\item Vertical is the item which is short as well as high, i.e., $h >\delta$ and $w \leq \mu$;
\item Horizontal is the item which is wide as well as narrow, i.e., $h \leq \mu$ and $w > \delta$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Shifting Argument\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}
\label{sec:reshift}
The procedure defined in this subsection is used as a tool at various steps of our proof of Resource Augmentation Lemma. Thus we define the processing and establish that it maintains guillotine property with losing no more than a small profit fraction as follows:
\label{shifting1}
\subsubsection{Process}
\begin{figure}[!tbh]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.08,6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.12,.33) rectangle (.12,2.03);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.15,2.49) rectangle (.15,3.89);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (-.09, 4.3) rectangle (.09,5.93);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.45,.45) rectangle (1.465,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.99, 4.47) rectangle (1.89,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.29, 1.07) rectangle (2.09,3.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.99, 4.97) rectangle (2.19,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (3.04,.75) rectangle (3.34,2.15);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (2.68,2.34) rectangle (2.98,3.74);
\draw[solid, fill = darkgray] (2.3,3.92) rectangle (2.6,5.32);
\draw[dashed] (2.45,0) -- ( 2.45, 6.08);
\draw[dashed] (3.19, 0) -- ( 3.19, 6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.92,.75) rectangle (4.56,3.04);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.39,2.29) rectangle (5.81,4.29);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.71,3.89) rectangle (5.13,5.89);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{figure2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6.08,6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.45,.45) rectangle (1.465,.75);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (.99, 4.47) rectangle (1.89,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.29, 1.07) rectangle (2.09,3.67);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (1.99, 4.97) rectangle (2.19,5.67);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.48,.33) rectangle (2.72,2.03);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.45,2.49) rectangle (2.75,3.89);
\draw[solid, fill = gray] (2.51, 4.3) rectangle (2.69,5.93);
\draw[dashed] (2.45,0) -- ( 2.45, 6.08);
\draw[dashed] (3.19, 0) -- ( 3.19, 6.08);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (3.92,.75) rectangle (4.56,3.04);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (5.39,2.29) rectangle (5.81,4.29);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (4.71,3.89) rectangle (5.13,5.89);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{figure1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (26,18);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (10,14);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (10,8) rectangle (18,16);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (18,4) rectangle (26,10);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (18,12) rectangle (26,18);
\draw[dashed] (0,2) -- ( 26,2);
\draw[dashed] ( 10,2) -- (10,18);
\draw[dashed] ( 18,2) -- ( 18,18);
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (26,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{rounding}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{2.3cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (30,18);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (0,6) rectangle (10,14);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (14,8) rectangle (22,16);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,4) rectangle (30,10);
\draw[solid, fill = lightgray] (22,12) rectangle (30,18);
\draw[dashed] (10,11) -- ( 14,11);
\draw[dashed] (0,2) -- ( 30,2);
\draw[dashed] ( 14,2) -- (14,18);
\draw[dashed] ( 22,2) -- ( 22,18);
\draw(12,12) node {\Huge \textbf{$2\delta^{2}$}};
\draw [solid,fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (26,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig h}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Figure (a),(b) : Shifting - From original packing we remove a low profit subset of rectangles (dark gray). Then we make space for short-high rectangles that cross the left edge of the box (medium gray). Figure (c),(d) : Rounding - Strips which share boundary with vertical cuts are shifted by $2\delta^{2}$.}
\end{figure}
Consider a box $\mathcal{B}$ in a knapsack with width $\delta^{2}$ consisting of vertical items only and leftmost edge intersecting some vertical items as shown in Figure \ref{figure2}. Let us assume that the box as a pseudoitem is guillotine separable if we remove the vertical items intersecting the leftmost edge of $\mathcal{B}$ . Also assume that the items in the box are guillotine separable. Divide the box in vertical strips of width $\mu$. Using averaging argument, there must exist a strip $S$ where the weight of items which overlaps with it is at most 2$\mu p(\mathcal{B})$ $\leq \varepsilon_{{ra}}'p(\mathcal{B})$, where $p(\mathcal{B})$ denotes the total profit inside the box $\mathcal{B}$. Now remove this low profit strip and place the items intersected by the leftmost edge of the box in the space created by the strip on top of one another.
\subsubsection{Guillotine Separability}
Since we delete all the rectangles lying either partially or completely on the strip $S$ in the box $\mathcal{B}$, there is no rectangle which intercepts the cuts along the boundary of strip $S$. Thus the strip $S$ can be guillotine separated from the rest of the box. Given that the box $\mathcal{B}$ is already guillotine separable, it follows that the process of shifting maintains the guillotine structure.
\subsection{Rounding wide rectangles}\label{roundwiderects}
We describe a procedure for rounding width and coordinates of wide items to the nearest integral multiples of $\delta^{2}$ in this subsection. In the subsequent subsection \ref{box} we describe the procedure for packing vertical items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} thereby maintaining the guillotine property in the processing. We thus will be proving the following lemma:
\begin{lem}\label{verticalandbox}
Let $I'$ be the set of guillotine separable items that can be packed into a $1\times1$ box. Then there exists a guillotine separable packing of a profitable subset $I^{+}$ $\subset$ $I'$ with profit of $I^{+}$ is at least $(1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}')$$.p(I')$ in a $1\times(1+2\delta)$ box such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every wide item in $I^{+}$ has width rounded up to the nearest multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and is shifted such that its leftmost coordinate is also an integral multiple of $\delta^{2}$.
\item Every box in $B$ has width $\delta^{2}$ and stores at least one vertical item packed in at most $1/\delta^{7}$ containers.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
We prove the second point of Lemma \ref{verticalandbox} in the next subsection \ref{box}. For now we will be defining the processing done and prove the first point of the lemma.
\subsubsection{Process}
We start with optimal packing of rectangles belonging to $I'$. For now we remove the vertical rectangles in $I'$ which will be repacked later.
Partition the wide rectangles into the groups $\{R_{0}, R_{1}, \dots, R_{k-1}\}$, where $k=\frac{1}{\delta}$. Let $g(R)$ denote the distance between the leftmost edge of the knapsack and the leftmost edge of $R$. Rectangles $R\in R_{i}$ have $\lfloor \frac{g(R)}{\delta}\rfloor=i$. Now we describe a procedure on how to round the wide rectangles to the nearest integer multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and shift them horizontally so that the starting and ending coordinates are integral multiple of $\delta^{2}$. Now consider rectangles in group $R_{0}$ from top to bottom and let these be $\{ R_{0_{1}}, R_{0_{2}}, \dots ,R_{0_{m}}\}$ where $R_{0_{1}}$ is the topmost and $R_{0_{m}}$ is the bottom-most rectangle.\\
Consider the sequence of guillotine cuts to separate all the rectangles in the original knapsack. Let us denote the set of cuts used in the sequence of guillotine cuts by $G_{c}$. Now using the cuts in $G_{c}$ we create some pseudoitems as follows. During some stage of our cutting sequence we are doing horizontal (resp.~vertical) cuts in the subpiece $P$ containing $R_{0_{1}}$ then consider the topmost (resp.~leftmost) cut below (resp. right of) $R_{0_{1}}$ and divide the subpiece into 2 parts $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ such that $P_{1}$ contains $R_{0_{1}}$. Then make $P_{2}$ a pseudoitem. Create these pseudoitems and stop this process if we get a subpiece $P'$ which has only $R_{0_{1}}$ in it. Now consider the psuedoitem $P_{1}$ to the right of subpiece $P'$ which shares a boundary vertically with subpiece $P'$. Similarly we define a set of pseudoitems $\{ P_{2}, \dots ,P_{k''}\}$ where $\forall i \in \{2, \dots ,k\}$ and $P_{i}$ is right of $P_{i-1}$ and shares a boundary vertically with $P_{i-1}$. Note that $k'' \leq \frac{1}{\delta}$. Now shift these pseudoitems in the set $\{ P_{1},...,P_{k''}\}$ together to the right by $2\delta^{2}$ as done in Figure \ref{rounding} and Figure \ref{fig h}.\\
Now we show that for the rest of the rectangles in $R_{0}$ we can create a similar gap of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right of it such that there won't be any increase in the width of the $1\times(1+2\delta^{2})$ knapsack. Suppose we have created a space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right of the rectangles$\{ R_{0_{1}}, \dots ,R_{0_{i-1}}\}$ such that the width of $1\times(1+2\delta^{2})$ knapsack has not increased. Consider the largest guillotine separable subpiece (using only the cuts in $G_{c}$ to separate it) $P''$ in $1 \times 1$ knapsack which contains $R_{0_{i}}$ and does not contain any rectangle from the set $\{ R_{0_{1}}, \dots ,R_{0_{i-1}}\}$. Now consider the $P''$ as a knapsack and do the same procedure of creating pseudoitems in $P''$ using the cuts of $G_{c}$ and shifting pseudoitems to the right by $2\delta^{2}$ as we did for the original knapsack which contained $R_{0_{1}}$ (Basically $R_{0_{i}}$ takes the role of $R_{0_{1}}$ in $P''$). If right edge of $P''$ touches the right edge of the original $1 \times 1$ knapsack, then we already have an extra space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right in the $1\times(1+2\delta^{2})$ knapsack. Otherwise, let $P_{1}''$ be the largest guillotine separable subpiece (using only the cuts in $G_{c}$ to separate it) in $1 \times 1$ knapsack which is of same width as that of $P''$, is top of $P''$ and shares boundary with $P''$. Let $P_{2}''$ be the largest guillotine separable subpiece such it is of same height as height of $P''$ and $P_{1}''$ combined, is right of $P_{1}''$ and shares boundary with both $P''$ and $P_{1}''$. Then there is empty space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right of $P''$ due to the similar shifting procedure (by creating pseudoitems using the cuts in $G_{c}$ which includes $P_{2}''$ and shifting them to the right by $2\delta^{2}$) we did to create the space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right of the rectangles in the set $\{ R_{0_{1}}, \dots, R_{0_{i-1}}\} \cap P_{1}''$ for which we have to shift $P_{2}''$ to the right by $2\delta^{2}$ compulsorily. So we can create a space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right of $R_{0_{i}}$ without increasing the width of the original knapsack.\\
Now repeat the same procedure for the rest of the group of wide rectangles in the increasing order of the group numbers. Assuming that we have shifted items in $\{ R_{0}, \dots,R_{i-1}\}$ we demonstrate now how to shift the items in $R_{i}$. Find all the maximal guillotine separable subpieces (using only the cuts in $G_{c}$ to separate it) which contains rectangles from $R_{i}$ and doesn't contain rectangles from the set $\{ R_{0}, \dots, R_{i-1}\}$. Now considering each maximal subpiece as knapsack we can shift the items appropriately to it's right by $2\delta^{2}$ in the same way as we did for the items in $R_{0}$ for the original knapsack.
\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
When we shift the items in $P_{i}'$ the groups $\{R_{0},R_{1}, \dots, R_{i-1}\}$ remain unaffected.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Rectangles in group $R_{i}$ is shifted at most $i$ times. So maximum number of times a rectangle is shifted is at most $1/\delta$ and hence the extra width required is $1/\delta\cdot2\delta^{2} = 2\delta$. So we can round the wide rectangles to the nearest integer multiple of $\delta^{2}$ and shift them horizontally so that the starting and ending coordinates are integral multiples of $\delta^{2}$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{ Guillotine Separability}
Basic idea considers the fact that we create pseudoitems using the cuts in $G_{c}$. The shifting of these pseudoitems is done horizontally right. Shifting horizontally doesn't disturb the guillotine separability as the guillotine cuts are always along the boundary of pseudoitems in the larger $1\times(1+2\delta)$ knapsack that is being created. Also when we create a space of $2\delta^{2}$ to the right for the rectangle, say $R'$, then the width of largest guillotine separable subpiece (using only the cuts in $G_{c}$ to separate it) $P_{R'}$ containing $R'$ in the original $ 1 \times 1$ knapsack increases by $2\delta^{2}$ in the larger $1\times(1+2\delta)$ knapsack. So we can round and shift the rectangle $R'$ so that the starting and ending coordinates are integral multiples of $\delta^{2}$ without disturbing the guillotine property.
\subsection{Containers for vertical rectangles\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}}
\label{box}
Now we will describe the procedure for packing vertical items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and thus establishing the safety of guillotine property in the processing. We will thus be establishing the proof of second point of lemma \ref{verticalandbox} thereby completing the proof.
\subsubsection{ Process }
Draw vertical lines spaced equally by $\delta^{2}$. In each vertical strip consider the maximal region which doesn't contain or overlap with any wide rectangle. We define a box for each such region which consists of at least one vertical rectangle and denote such a set of boxes by $B$. Also consider $M:=(1+2\delta)/\delta^{2}$. A vertical rectangle can overlap with at most $2$ vertical boxes and by considering these rectangles to be part of right of the two boxes and by the shifting argument as explained in subsection \ref{shifting1}, we can have vertical boxes with no rectangle intersecting the boundary. By using the strip packing mentioned in \cite{kenyon2000near}, we repack vertical items in a vertical box into at most $1/\delta^{7}$ containers.
\subsubsection{ Guillotine Separability }
The argument follows similarly as in subsection \ref{shifting1}. Consider each of these box as a pseudoitem. It can be separated by a sequence of guillotine cuts as there are no items intersecting the boundary after processing by shifting argument. So on a whole, the knapsack is still guillotine separable. The repacking of vertical items maintains guillotine property as mentioned in \cite{kenyon2000near}. A pseudoitem can either be a single wide rectangle which is already guillotine separable or it can be strip packing of vertical rectangle which also follows guillotine property or it can be a set of items which follows guillotine property from original knapsack. Thus the new arrangement maintains guillotine separability property.
\subsection{Packing wide rectangles into O(1) containers }
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Given rectangles at the end of subsection \ref{box} and considering the vertical boxes as pseudoitem there exists a packing of wide rectangles with profit $(1-O(\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(OPT)$ into $(K+3/\delta^{3})M2^{M}$ containers where $K\leq O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$
\end{lem}
Intuitively the proof involves obtaining a fractional packing with $O(1)$ containers and then showing an existence of an integral packing with a profitable set of items.
\subsubsection{Fractional Packing}\label{fracpack}
We follow the same procedure of fractionally packing the items as done in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}. Following the processing in section \ref{box}, we obtain a set of guillotine separable items packed in boxes and a set of wide rectangles. Since the items inside the boxes are guillotine separable, we can consider a box as a single pseudoitem and process it along with wide rectangles. Let us denote the set of pseudoitems as $B$ and the set of wide items as $W$. The algorithm $Alg_{frac}$ takes in input a subset $K$ of $B$ and returns their fractional packing as follows. We have $R_{slice}$ as the set $K \cup W$. Draw end-to-end horizontal lines along horizontal edges of all the items $I$ $\in$ $R_{slice}$ slicing the rest of the rectangles of knapsack. Each such end-to-end horizontal slice so formed is termed as a slice. We then define $configuration$ as the set of intercepts of vertical edges of items with the horizontal line at the given $y$-coordinate. We slice the rectangles suitably to arrange stripe with the same configuration together. We then pack sliced rectangles into $M:=(1+2\delta)/\delta^{2}$ number of containers. Each stripe can have at most $2^{M-1}$ configurations, which implies each stripe can contain at most $M2^{M-1}$ containers. Thus the total number of containers is at most $2\times(|R_{slice}|+1)$$\times$$M2^{M-1}$. Since $|W|$$\leq$$\frac{1}{\delta^{2}}$ which follows from subsection \ref{box}, we get $|R_{slice}| \leq |K| + \frac{1}{\delta^{2}} $. Thus total number of containers can not exceed $ (|K| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: While slicing and rearranging of rectangles during the fractional packing, the slided rectangles remain within the initial stripe created by extending the top and bottom edges of pseudoitems and some wide items and therefore vertical boxes as pseudoitems and some wide items which are never sliced are guillotine separable. Also the containers obtained at the end of this stage are guillotine separable as the container's height is equal to the height of the configuration\cite{GalvezGHI0W17} and no container is part of 2 different configurations.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection { Integral Packing }
We follow a greedy recursive approach to convert the fraction packing obtained in section \ref{fracpack} to an integral packing without loosing much profit from optimal packing same as in \cite{GalvezGHI0W17}. The greedy algorithm $Alg_{G}$ at each iteration proceeds as follows. Given a set of items obtained after fractional packing, pick items with same widths and try packing them in the same container. Either all items can be packed or single item can be left outside, we just discard the item, close our current container and start packing in the other containers. We now propose the recursive formulation for integral packing. Consider a set of items $S_{0}$ s.t. $S_{0}= \phi$. Run $Alg_{frac}$ on $S_{0}$, followed by $Alg_{G}$ on the output of fractional packing. Analyze the profit of set of items discarded, say $S_{1}$, in greedy algorithm and it is clear that the number is bounded by the number of compartments. Thus the number of items $S_{1}$ i.e. $|(S_{1})|$ $\leq$$ (|S_{0}| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) $$\times$$M2^{M}$. Check if $p(S_{1})$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon'_{ra}$$p(OPT)$. If yes we have our set $S = S_{0}$ and an integral packing with the set $S_{0} \cup W \setminus S_{1}$. If not we recursively run $Alg_{frac}$ on $S = S_{0} \cup S_{1}$, followed by $Alg_{G}$ on the output of fractional packing. Same as before. we consider the set of discarded items as $S_{3}$ which is bounded by number of compartments $\leq (|S| + \frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) \times M2^{M}$. Proceeding recursively every set $S_{k}$ is bounded by $|S_{k}|$ $\leq$ $ (|S_{0}+S_{1}+S_{2}+...+S_{k-2}+S_{k-1}|$ + $\frac{3}{\delta^{3}}) \times M2^{M}$, which implies $|S_{k}| \leq (\frac{3}{\delta^{3}} M2^{M}\times M2^{M} )^{k}$. Thus $k$ can at most be $\frac{1}{\varepsilon'_{ra}} - 1$. Therefore the number of containers is at most $|S_{\frac{1}{\varepsilon'_{ra}} - 1}| = O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$. Thus we are packing subset $I'$ of given set of items $I$ in $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}',\delta}(1)$ containers without losing no more than constant fraction of profit, i.e., $p(I') \leq \varepsilon'_{ra}$$p(I)$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: During integral packing, the rectangles of same width are packed on top of each other in the guillotine separable containers. So after the integral packing the rectangles are still guillotine separable.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Rounding down horizontal and vertical containers}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $C$ be a horizontal (resp. vertical) container defined above, and let $I_{C}$ be the set of rectangles packed in $C$. Then it is possible to pack a set $I_{C}'\subseteq I_{C}$ of profit at least $(1-3\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(I_{C})$ in a set of at most $\lceil \log_{1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1/\delta) \rceil /\varepsilon_{{ra}}'^{2}$ horizontal (resp. vertical) containers that can be packed inside $C$ and such that their total area is at most $a(I_{C})$.
\end{lem}
We begin with processing horizontal rectangles first (similar proof holds for vertical rectangles). Define a group of horizontal rectangles $I_{1},I_{2},...,$ in a single horizontal container $C$ where the width of the widest rectangle $I_{j}$ is bigger than the smallest one by a factor of 1+$\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and define container $C_{j}$ for each such group. Then in each such new container $C_{j}$ the operations done are either removing a set of low profit rectangles or making one container for a certain set of rectangles and shrinking the container with remaining rectangles.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: Operations performed in the processing in this section involve deletion of items and shrinking of containers. It is trivial that deleting items doesn't disturb the guillotine property of the remaining set of items. All containers when considered as pseudorectangles can be separated by guillotine cuts. Shrinking of any such pseudo-rectangle doesn't disturb this guillotine structure. In fact guillotine separability inside such a pseudoitem isn't affected as shrinking of piece (shrinking along axis parallel directions doesn't affect the existing guillotine cuts inside it). Therefore the packing obtained after the whole processing follows guillotine separability.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Packing small rectangles}
\begin{lem}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
In a $1\times(1+\varepsilon_{{ra}}')$ knapsack, there exists a packing of small rectangles into at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}(1)$ area containers such that the property (3) of Lemma \ref{lemma1_old} is satisfied.
\end{lem}
We process the knapsack by creating a non-uniform grid by extending each side of the containers until they hit the boundary or the other containers. Plus a uniform grid is created by adding vertical and horizontal rectangles which are spaced by a distance of $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$. Now cells which do not overlap with any other container are defined to be free cell. Then the small rectangles are packed into free cells with both dimensions at least $8\mu/\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and possibly an extra container $C_{S}$ with height and width $\varepsilon_{{ra}}'/2$ using NFDH. Then items $R'_{D}\subseteq R_{D}$ in an area container $D$ is taken and repacked into a container $D'$ such that $p(R'_{D})\geq(1-4\varepsilon_{{ra}}')p(R_{D})$ and width of $D'$ is $w(D)$ and height is $(1-\varepsilon_{{ra}}')h(D)$. The previous procedure is not applied to $C_{S}$.
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: During construction only we get the sequence of guillotine cuts along the grid which separated out the containers individually. Since the grid is formed by extending the boundaries of the containers, we can claim that they form guillotine cuts because containers so obtained from previous subsection were guillotine separable. Moreover the packing of small rectangles inside the grid cells can be isolated from same sequence of cuts. Since items within such a packing are packed using NFDH the arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we conclude that the obtained arrangement follows guillotine property.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Rounding containers to a polynomial set of sizes}
\begin{definition}
For a set $I$ of rectangles, we define $WIDTHS(I)=\{w_{j}|R_{j}\in I\}$ and $HEIGHTS(I)=\{h_{j}|R_{j}\in I\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Given a finite set $P$ of real numbers and a fixed natural number $k$, we define the set $P^{(k)}=\{(p_{1}+p_{2}+...+p_{l}\}+ip_{l+1}|p_{j}\in P \forall j,l\leq k,0\leq i\leq n, i \in I \}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma2}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon > 0$, and let $I$ be set of rectangles packed in a horizontal or vertical container $C$. Then for any $k\geq 1/\varepsilon$, there is a set $I' \subseteq I$ with profit $p(I')\geq(1-\varepsilon)p(I)$ that can be packed in a container $C'$ smaller than $C$ such that $w(C)\in WIDTHS(I)^{(K)}$ and $h(C)\in HEIGHTS(I)^{(K)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We prove the argument for vertical containers and the similar construction follows for horizontal case. The basic sketch revolves around linear grouping of items according to widths and further rounding to a given set of choices. Consider set of items $R$ in the container in sorted order of widths. If $|R|$ is sufficiently small, i.e., $\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ then we already meet the condition $\sum_{r \in R}w_{r} \in WIDTHS(I)^{(K)}$. If not, we consider the set of items, say $R'$, with largest width from the set of sorted items such that $|R'| \leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$. Using averaging argument, there must exist an item $r \in R'$ such that $p(r) \leq \varepsilonp(R')$. We can safely discard $r$ without losing no more than constant $O(\varepsilon)$ profit. Consider the set $R \setminus R'$, every item in the set has width almost $w(r)$, sum of widths of all items in $R\setminus \{r\}$ is at most $(n - \frac{1}{\varepsilon})w(r)$. Thus we can pack all the items in $R \backslash {r} $ in a new container. The sum of widths of items in the container is $w( R \backslash {r})$ $=$ $w(R') + (\lceil \frac{w(R\backslash R')}{w(r)} \rceil ) w(r) $ $\leq$ $w(R') + n$$w(r) $. Thus width of the new container belongs to the set $WIDTHS(R)^{(K)}$. The given choice of factor $(\lceil \frac{w(R\backslash R')}{w(r)} \rceil )$ $\leq$ $n$ implies that the width of new container formed is at most width of original container considered.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability: Applying processing done in Lemma \ref{lemma2} to a vertical container maintains guillotine separability as items are stacked beside each other, i.e., items are packed side by side sharing at most one common vertical edge and can thus be separated by single stage vertical guillotine cuts. Similar argument follows for proving guillotine separability of horizontal containers. Thus Lemma \ref{lemma2} maintains guillotine separability.
\end{remark}
\begin{lem}
\label{lemma3}\cite{GalvezGHI0W17}
Let $\varepsilon >0$, and let $I$ be a set of rectangles that are assigned to an area container $C$. Then there exists a subset $I'\subseteqI$ with profit $p(I')\geq(1-3\varepsilon)p(I')$ and a container $C'$ smaller $C$ such that: $a(I')\leqa(C)$,$w(C')\in WIDTHS(I)^{(0)}$, $h(C')\in HEIGHTS(I)^{(0)}$, and each $R_{j}\inI'$ is $\frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}$-small for $C'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the initial assumption that items in any container $C$ are $\varepsilon$-small for $C$, i.e., $\forall R \in I$ which are packed inside $C$ $w(R)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilonw(C)$ and $h(R)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilonh(C)$. Thus $a(R) \leq \varepsilon^{2} a(C)$. We first shrink the container C such that boundaries of C coincide with extreme edges of items in the set of packed items $I$. Let $w_{max}(I)$ and $h_{max}(I)$ be the maximum height and width of items in $I$, respectively. We further reduce the dimension of C by rounding off to maximum multiple of maximum item width (resp.~height) less than the original dimension. The new container $C_{1-\varepsilon}$ formed is such that the $w(C_{1-\varepsilon})$ $=$ $w_{max}(I)$ $ \lfloor \frac{w(C)}{w_{max}(I)} \rfloor$ and $h(C_{1-\varepsilon})$ $=$ $h_{max}(I)$ $ \lfloor \frac{h(C)}{h_{max}(I)} \rfloor$.
We then follow a greedy approach to pack a subset $I'$ $\subset $ $I$ in container $C_{1-\varepsilon}$. Pack the item in order of non-increasing area-density (profit/area) using NFDH.
Now we analyze the process followed above and prove the bounds. We get $a(C') = ( 1 - \varepsilon )^{2} a(C)$ $\geq$ $a(C)$. Since we pack as many items as possible in the area and the area of each item in $I$ is at most $\varepsilon^{2}$, the area of items $I'$ packed in $C'$ is $a(I')$ $\geq$ $(1-\varepsilon - \varepsilon^{2} ) a(C) $. Thus we get $p(I') \geq (1 - 3$$\varepsilon) p(I)$. The items in $I'$ are $\frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}$-small for the new container. Also by rounding the dimensions of container to integral multiple of maximum dimensions of items packed inside, we get $w(C')$ $\in$ $WIDTHS(I)^{(0)}$ and $h(C')$ $\in$ $HEIGHTS(I)^{(0)}$. This concludes the proof of lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Guillotine Separability : All containers when considered as pseudo-rectangles can be separated by guillotine cuts. Shrinking of any such pseudo-rectangle doesn't disturb this guillotine structure. In fact, guillotine inside such a pseudoitem isn't affected as shrinking of piece (shrinking along axis parallel directions doesn't affect the existing guillotine cuts inside it). Since items within such a packing are packed using NFDH the arrangement is guillotine separable. Thus we conclude that the arrangement so obtained follows guillotine property.
\end{remark}
By considering $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{{ra}}'$ and applying Lemma \ref{lemma2} and Lemma \ref{lemma3} to all containers, we have completed the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1_old} as $\frac{\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}{1-\varepsilon_{{ra}}'}\leq\varepsilon_{{ra}}$. Also we have proved that Lemma \ref{lemma1_old} can be extended to the case of guillotine separable rectangles.
\section{Shifting Argumentation }\label{shift-arg}
In the cardinality case, we can simply drop a $O_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon_{{large}}}(1)$ number of items and thereby obtain a packing of rest of the items $OPT'$ s.t. $|OPT'| \leq (1-O_{\varepsilon}(1))|OPT|$.
But if we are dealing with a weighted case then we can't drop the $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ items which we were dropping as it might contain a lot of profit. So instead we employ a shifting argumentation very similar to the one used in \cite{GalSocg21}. We define a pairwise disjoint set of items $K(t)$ where $0\leq t < 1/\varepsilon$. Also for $0\leq t < 1/\varepsilon$, let $\mathcal{K}(t):=\bigcup \limits _{i=0}^t K(t)$. Note that we begin with iteration $t=0$ and $K(0)$ is the set of items of $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ items which we dropped in the cardinality. If $p(K(0)) \leq \varepsilon\cdotp(OPT)$, then we stop and drop all items of $K(0)$ as the rest of items will have profit at least $(1-\varepsilon)p(OPT)$. Otherwise, we perform the following procedure recursively. Assume that we are at the $t^{th}$ iteration and we have computed $\mathcal{K}(t)$. Denote $G(t)$ as the non-uniform grid formed by extending the $x$, $y$ coordinates of the items in $\mathcal{K}(t)$(which we obtained from previous $t-1$ iterations). Consider $C_{t}$ to be the set of grid cells of $G(t)$. We classify items in the knapsack as small, large, horizontal, vertical as before depending on its intersection with the cells it overlaps. Let $OPT(C)$ denote the set of items from $OPT$ intersecting with grid cell C. This gives us the following partition of items inside cell $C$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $OPT_{ver}(C) = \{ i~|~ \forall i\in C$ s.t. $ h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{hor}(C)= \{ i~ | ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{large}(C)$ $= \{ i~ |~ \forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $>$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{small}(C)$ $= \{ i ~| ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$ and $w(i \cap C)$ $\leq$ $\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{intermediate}(C)$ $= \{ i ~| ~\forall i\in C$ s.t. $h(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $h(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $h(C)]$ or $w(i \cap C)$ $\in$ $(\varepsilon_{small}$ $w(C)$, $(\varepsilon_{large}$ $w(C)]$ $\}$,
\item $OPT_{skew}(C)$ $=$ $OPT_{hor}(C) \cup OPT_{ver}(C)$.
\end{enumerate}
Using Lemma~\ref{class}, we can fix $\varepsilon_{small}$ and $\varepsilon_{large}$ according to our convenience ensuring that the
profit of items classified as intermediate for any cell is at most
$\varepsilon. p(OPT)$ such that $\varepsilon$ $\geq$ $\varepsilon_{large}$ $\geq$ $f(\varepsilon_{small})$ $\geq$ $\omega_{\varepsilon}(1)$,
for some positive increasing function $f(.)$ . We add items from $OPT_{large}(C_t)$ (not contained in $\mathcal{K}(t)$) to $K(t+1)$ for all $C$
not fully covered by any item in $\mathcal{K}(t)$. This adds a constant number of items to $K(t+1)$. For simplification, we can stretch this non-uniform
grid to a uniform $N\times N$ grid where each cell is of same dimension. Clearly, we can map any decomposition done in this uniform grid back to original knapsack, mapping back any guillotine cuts in the uniform grid as well, thereby conserving guillotine separability of items. After this process, each item in $OPT_{skew}(C)\setminus \mathcal{K}(t)$
has its longer dimension (width for $OPT_{hor}$ and height for $OPT_{ver}$) at least $\frac{\varepsilon_{large}N}{1+2\dot|\mathcal{K}(t)|}$.
Now we start the process of partitioning the knapsack into $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments as mentioned in Section \ref{sec:bldecom-1} by considering only skew items in the cells i.e. $OPT_{skew}(C_t) = \cup_{\forall C \in C_t}OPT_{skew}(C)$ and the items in $\mathcal{K}(t)$. Next we show how to the handle the items in $\mathcal{K}(t)$. If there is an item $i'$ from $\mathcal{K}(t)$ which is in a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment, then let's first separate the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment using the pseudo guillotine cuts and then consider a guillotine cut such that you are left with a rectangular strip and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. If the guillotine cut was vertical (resp. horizontal) then the height (resp. width) of the rectangular strip must be equal to the height (resp. width) of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Recursively repeat this procedure until you find a rectangular strip $S$ which contains the item $i'$. Merge the strips which were removed before the strip $S$ into a single $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment and make $S$ a box-compartment. Repeat this for every item of $\mathcal{K}(t)$ which is in a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment and it will lead to additional $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$- and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments.
Next we show how to handle the items from $\mathcal{K}(t)$ packed in $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments created till now. W.l.o.g let $i'$ be such an item in a horizontal $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment, say $B_1$. Let the first stage cuts be horizontal. Consider the topmost cut below $i'$ and the bottom most cut above $i'$ (these cuts are allowed to coincide with the edges of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment $B_1$). Using these two cuts we divide the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment into at most 3 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments. Now consider the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment; say $B_2$; which contains $i'$. The first stage cuts in $B_2$ will be vertical and by using 2 vertical cuts. Consider the rightmost cut to the left of $i'$ and the leftmost cut to the right of $i'$ (these cuts are allowed to coincide with the edges of the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment $B_2$). Using these two cuts we divide the $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment into at most 3 $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments. Now recursively perform the procedure described on the smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment $B_3$ which contains $i'$ until item $i'$ becomes a container. See Figure \ref{box-to-comp}(c) for more clarity. Note that there can be at most $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ number of stage cuts in $B_1$ and each stage cut we create 2 extra box compartments. Repeat this for every item of $\mathcal{K}(t)$ which is in a $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartment and it will lead to additional $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments.
Now we can apply the same procedure which we applied during the cardinality case on the current set of $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartments and $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{B}}$-compartments. If it is ensured that the $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ items which we will drop now is disjoint from $\mathcal{K}(t)$, then we consider these $O_{\varepsilon_{{large}},\varepsilon}(1)$ items as $K(t+1)$ and proceed to the next iteration.
This way we repeatedly perform the same process for at most ${1}/{\varepsilon}$ iterations ensuring $\mathcal{K}(t)$ being untouchable set of items in $t^{th}$ iteration as before. Now, we exploit the fact that sets $K(0), K(1), ..., K(t)$ are pairwise disjoint and have constant number of items. Due to averaging argument, we can claim that there is a $t<1/\varepsilon$ such that $p(K(t)) \leq \varepsilon\cdot p(OPT)$. Then we drop $K(t)$ and we have the required packing in the weighted case.
\section{Power of stages in guillotine packing}
\label{sec:stages}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{!}{4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick] (0,0) rectangle (64,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (0,0) rectangle (64,1);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (1,1) rectangle (64,3);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (3,3) rectangle (64,7);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (7,7) rectangle (64,15);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (15,15) rectangle (64,31);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (0,1) rectangle (1,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (1,3) rectangle (3,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (3,7) rectangle (7,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (7,15) rectangle (15,64);
\draw[fill=lightgray!40] (15,31) rectangle (31,64);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Hard example for Theorem \ref{thm:hardstage}.}
\label{hardStages}
\end{figure}
\aw{Recall that our two algorithms compute packings with $O_{\varepsilon}(\log (nN))$-stages. This raises the question whether one can obtain $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate solutions with fewer stages. In particular, for the related guillotine 2BP and guillotine 2SP problems there are APTASs
whose solutions use $O(1)$-stage packings \cite{BansalLS05,seiden2005two}.}
\aw{However, we show that in contrast for 2GGK~sometimes $\Omega(\log N)$ stages are necessary already for a better approximation ratio than $2$, even if there are only skewed items.}
\awr{shortened discussion such that it does not look too much like related work}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:hardstage}
For any constant $0 <\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}$, \aw{there is a family of instances of 2GGK~with only skewed items for which any $(2-\varepsilon)$-approximate solution
requires $k=\Omega (\varepsilon \log N)$ stages.
}
\end{thm}
Figure \ref{hardStages} shows the hard example, see Appendix \ref{sec:smallstage} for more details.
\section{Existence of near-optimal structured solutions}
\label{sec:bldecom-1} In this section, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT}
in the cardinality case, i.e., assuming that \ama{$p(i)=1$} for
each item $i\inI$. We prove that there exists a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximate
solution whose items can be placed nicely inside a set of compartments
$\C$ that admit a pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence. Note that Lemma~\ref{lem:structured-OPT}
trivially holds if $\left|OPT\right|\le O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ and hence we
assume for the remainder of this section that $\left|OPT\right|$
is larger than any given constant (which in particular implies that
we can drop any set of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items from $OPT$ while losing
only a factor of $1+\varepsilon$).
\arir{changed $\varepsilon_{{large}} N/2$ to $\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4$}
Consider an optimal solution $OPT$ and a corresponding guillotine
cutting sequence $S$. \aw{Temporarily, we remove from the packing the
items in $OPT_{{small}}$; we will put back most of them later.} We identify a set of cuts of $S$ as follows.
Let $\ell_{0}$ denote the first cut of $S$. Assume w.l.o.g.~that
$\ell_{0}$ is vertical. If the distance of $\ell_{0}$ to the left
\emph{and }to the right edge of $K$ is at least $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ then we
stop. Otherwise $\ell_{0}$ cuts $K$ into two rectangles $R_{1},R_{2}$
and assume w.l.o.g.~that the width of $R_{1}$ is at most $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$.
Now we consider how $S$ continues within $R_{2}$. We continue recursively.
Assume inductively that we identified a set of cuts $\ell_{0},...,\ell_{k-1}$
of $S$ and suppose that $\ell_{k-1}$ is vertical cut with distance
less than $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ to the left or the right edge of $K$, or that
$\ell_{k-1}$ is horizontal cut with distance less than $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$
to the top or the bottom edge of $K$. Assume w.l.o.g.~that $\ell_{k-1}$
is vertical with distance less than $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ to the left edge of
$K$. Then the cut $\ell_{k-1}$ yields two rectangles $R_{1},R_{2}$,
and assume that $R_{1}$ lies on the left of $R_{2}$. Then we define
$\ell_{k}$ to be the next cut of $S$ within $R_{2}$. If the distance
of $\ell_{k}$ to the top \emph{and }the bottom edge of $K$ is at
least $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ then we stop. Otherwise we continue iteratively.
Eventually, this procedure must stop, let $\ell_{0},...,\ell_{k}$
denote the resulting sequence. Let $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$ denote the
rectangles that are cut off by $\ell_{0},...,\ell_{k-1}$ and into
which we did \emph{not }recurse when we defined $\ell_{1},...,\ell_{k}$.
Let $B_{k}$ denote the rectangle that is cut by $\ell_{k}$. Then
each rectangle $B_{i}$ with $i\in\{1,...,k-1\}$ satisfies that $w(B_{i})\le \ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$
or $h(B_{i})\le \ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ and in particular cannot contain both horizontal
and vertical items. Also, the items of $OPT$ inside $B_{i}$ are
guillotine separable. The important insight is that we can rearrange
the rectangles $B_{0},...,B_{k}$ (while moving their items accordingly)
such that $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$ lies in an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L\subseteq K$
such that $K\setminus L$ is a rectangle, i.e., $L$ lies at the boundary
of $K$ \ama{as shown in the Figure~\ref{fig:Lrearrange}.}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:move-items}There exists an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L\subseteq K$
such that $K\setminus L$ is a rectangle and we can \ama{rearrange} the
rectangles $B_{0},...,B_{k}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$ fit non-overlappingly into $L$,
\item there is a guillotine cutting sequence for $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$,
\item $B_{k}$ fits into $K\setminus L$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (1,1) rectangle (5,5.5);
\draw (0.5, 0)--(0.5, 6.2);
\draw (5.5, 0)--(5.5, 6.2);
\draw (.5, .5)--(5.5, .5);
\draw (.5, 1)--(5.5, 1);
\draw (5, 1)--(5, 6);
\draw (0.5, 5.5)--(5,5.5);
\draw[dashed] (3, 1)--(3,5.5);
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (-0.2,0) -- (-.2,1);
\draw (-.8,.5) node {\large \textbf{$h_B$}};
\draw (3.5,.5) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_2$}};
\draw (3.75,1) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_3$}};
\draw (3.7,5.5) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_5$}};
\draw (2,.25) node {\large \textbf{$B_2$}};
\draw (2.2,.75) node {\large \textbf{$B_3$}};
\draw (5,3) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_4$}};
\draw (5.75,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$B_1$}};
\draw (5.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$B_4$}};
\draw (.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$B_0$}};
\draw (.75,2.2) node {\large \textbf{$B_6$}};
\draw (1,3) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_6$}};
\draw (0.5,5) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_0$}};
\draw (5.5,5.3) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_1$}};
\draw (2.3,5.75) node {\large \textbf{$B_5$}};
\draw (2.3,3) node {\large \textbf{$B_7$}};
\draw (3,3) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_7$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (-0.2,5.5) -- (-.2,6);
\draw (-.8,5.75) node {\large \textbf{$h_T$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (0,6.2) -- (1.5,6.2);
\draw (.75,6.8) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{large}N/4$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (1,4.7) -- (0,4.7);
\draw (.75,4.2) node {\large \textbf{$w_L$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6,4.7) -- (5,4.7);
\draw (5.75,4.2) node {\large \textbf{$w_R$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (4.5,6.2) -- (6,6.2);
\draw (5.25,6.8) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{large}N/4$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, 1.5) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (7.2, .75) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{large}N/4$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, 6) -- (6.05, 4.5);
\draw (7.2, 5.25) node {\large \textbf{$\varepsilon_{large}N/4$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lrearrange1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (0.5,0) -- (.5, 6);
\draw (1,0) -- (1, 6);
\draw (1.5,1) -- (1.5, 6);
\draw (2,1.5) -- (2, 6);
\draw (1,.5) -- (6, .5);
\draw (1,1) -- (6, 1);
\draw (1.5,1.5) -- (6, 1.5);
\draw[dashed] (4,1.5) -- (4, 6);
\draw (.25,3) node {\large \textbf{$B_0$}};
\draw (.75,3) node {\large \textbf{$B_1$}};
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$B_4$}};
\draw (1.75, 3.75) node {\large \textbf{$B_6$}};
\draw (3.5,.25) node {\large \textbf{$B_2$}};
\draw (3.5,.75) node {\large \textbf{$B_3$}};
\draw (3.75,1.25) node {\large \textbf{$B_5$}};
\draw (3.5,3.75) node {\large \textbf{$B_7$}};
\draw (4,3.75) node {\large \textbf{$\ell_7$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (0,6.2) -- (2,6.2);
\draw (1,6.8) node {\large \textbf{$w_L+w_R$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, 1.5) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (7, .75) node {\large \textbf{$h_T+h_B$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lrearrange2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Transformation to obtain an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment.}
\label{fig:Lrearrange}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
\aw{Following the cutting sequence $S$ as described, let us assume that $B_k:= [w_L, N-w_R] \times [h_B, N-h_T]$, where $0 \le w_R, w_L, h_T, h_B \le \varepsilon_{{large}} N/4$.
Therefore, the cuts $\ell_{1},...,\ell_{k-1}$ separate of a ring-like region $Q:= ([0,w_L]\times[0,N]) \cup ([N-w_R, N]\times[0,N]) \cup ([0, N]\times[0, h_B]) \cup ([0, N]\times[N-h_T, h_T])$ (see Figure \ref{fig:Lrearrange}).
Note that some of the values $w_R, w_L, h_T, h_B$ might be 0.}
The rectangles $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$ fit in $Q$ and we \aw{want to show} that we can rearrange the rectangles in $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$ into an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L\subseteq K$ such that $L:=([0, w_L+w_R]\times[0,N] )\cup ([0,N]\times[0, h_B+h_T])$ and there is a guillotine cutting sequence for $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$.
Clearly, $B_{k}$ fits into $K\setminus L$.
We prove the claim by induction on $k$. The base case is trivial.
W.l.o.g. assume the vertical cut $\ell_0$ that divides $K$ into $B_0, R'$, where $B_0$ lies on the left of $R'$.
Hence, $B_0 := [0,b_0]\times [0, N]$ and $R':=K \setminus B_0$.
We use induction on $R'$ to find a packing of $B_{1},...,B_{k-1}$ in $L':=[b_0, w_L+w_R]\times[0,N] \cup [0,N]\times[0, h_B+h_T]$. Therefore, adding $B_0$ to $L'$ yields the desired $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$. For the guillotine cutting sequence for $B_{0},...,B_{k-1}$, we follow $\ell_0$ \aw{and afterwards} the guillotine cutting sequence for $B_{1},...,B_{k-1}$ \aw{obtained by} induction \aw{from} $R'$.
\aw{The other cases, i.e., when $B_0$ lies right or top or bottom of $R'$, follow analogously.}
\end{proof}
We adjust the packing of $OPT$ according to Lemma~\ref{lem:move-items},
i.e., for each rectangle $B_{i}$ with $i\in\{0,...,k\}$ we move
its items according to where $B_{i}$ was moved due to the lemma.
The resulting packing inside $L$ might not be nice. However, we can fix this by dropping at
most $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items and subdividing $L$ into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
box-compartments and a smaller $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L'\subseteq L$ that
\emph{lies at the outer boundary of }$L$, i.e., such that $L\setminus L'$
is again an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment and $h(L')=h(L)$ and $w(L')=w(L)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:make-L-nice}Given an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment $L$ containing a set
of items $I(L)$. There exists a partition of $L$ into one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment
$L'\subseteq L$ and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments $\B(L)$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $L'$ lies at the outer boundary of $L$,
\item the box-compartments in $\B(L)$ are guillotine separable, and
\item there is a nice placement of a set of items $I'(L)\subseteqI(L)$
with $|I'(L)|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|I'(L)|-O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ inside $\B(L)$
and $L'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch.] \awr{Wrote this proof sketch. Since it is less technical than the real proof, I hope that it is easier to digest.}
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\hspace{-10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.41,0) rectangle (4.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.5,.09) rectangle (5.4,.26);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,.12) rectangle (6,.29);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.01,.79) rectangle (2.3,1.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.45,.91) rectangle (3.3,1.18);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (3.7,.8) rectangle (6,1.11);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.25) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.43) rectangle (6,1.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.75) rectangle (6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.52,1.95) rectangle (6,2.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.54,2.25) rectangle (6,2.45);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (.4,0.25)--(6.5, .25);
\draw [thick, dashed] (.67,.5)--(6.5, .5);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.01,.75)--(6.5, .75);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.01,1)--(6.5, 1);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.75,1.25)--(6.5, 1.25);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.01,1.5)--(6.5, 1.5);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.25,1.75)--(6.5, 1.75);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.25,2)--(6.5, 2);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.5,2.25)--(6.5, 2.25);
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\draw (6.4,.03) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$B_{\tiny 0}$}};
\draw (6.7,2.38) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$B_{\tiny 1/\varepsilon^2-1}$}};
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.41,0) rectangle (4.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.5,.09) rectangle (5.4,.26);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,.12) rectangle (6,.29);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.01,.79) rectangle (2.3,1.1);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.45,.91) rectangle (3.3,1.18);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (3.7,.8) rectangle (6,1.11);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,1.25) rectangle (6,1.4);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.43) rectangle (6,1.6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.75) rectangle (6,1.9);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.52,1.95) rectangle (6,2.1);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.54,2.25) rectangle (6,2.45);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (.4,0.25)--(6, .25);
\draw [thick, dashed] (.67,.5)--(6, .5);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.01,.75)--(6, .75);
\draw [pattern = north west lines] (1.01,.75)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.25)--(6,1.25)--(6,.75)--(1.01,.75);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.01,1)--(6, 1);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.75,1.25)--(6, 1.25);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.01,1.5)--(6, 1.5);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.25,1.75)--(6, 1.75);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.25,2)--(6, 2);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.5,2.25)--(6, 2.25);
\draw (6.4,.03) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$B_{\tiny 0}$}};
\draw (6.7,2.38) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$B_{\tiny 1/\varepsilon^2-1}$}};
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, 1.25) -- (6.05, .75);
\draw (7.1,1) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$2.\varepsilon^2.h(P_H)$}};
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.41,0) rectangle (4.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.5,.09) rectangle (5.4,.26);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,.12) rectangle (6,.29);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.8) rectangle (6,.95);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.03) rectangle (6,1.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.3) rectangle (6,1.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.52,1.55) rectangle (6,1.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.54,1.8) rectangle (6,2);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [pattern = north east lines] (0.25,0)--(.25, .18)--(.4,.18)--(.4, .43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(6,.74)--(6,0)--(.4,0);
\draw [thick] (1.01,1)--(6, 1);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.25)--(6, 1.25);
\draw [thick] (2.01,1.5)--(6, 1.5);
\draw [thick] (2.25,1.75)--(6, 1.75);
\draw [thick] (2.25,2)--(6, 2);
\draw [thick] (2.5,2.25)--(6, 2.25);
\draw [thick] (2.5,1.75)--(2.5, 2);
\draw [thick] (2.25,1.5)--(2.25, 1.75);
\draw [thick] (2.01,1.25)--(2.01, 1.5);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.)--(1.75, 1.25);
\draw (6.7,2.38) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$B_{\tiny 1/\varepsilon^2-1}$}};
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, .75) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (6.7,.375) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_H'$}};
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.41,0) rectangle (4.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.5,.09) rectangle (5.4,.26);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.5,.12) rectangle (6,.29);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.8) rectangle (6,.95);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.03) rectangle (6,1.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.3) rectangle (6,1.45);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.52,1.55) rectangle (6,1.7);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (2.54,1.8) rectangle (6,2);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.01,.75)--(6.2, .75);
\draw [thick] (0.25,0)--(.25, .18)--(.4,.18)--(.4, .43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(6,.74)--(6,0)--(.4,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (1.75,1.5)--(6.2, 1.5);
\draw [thick, dashed] (2.5,2.25)--(6.2, 2.25);
\draw[pattern = north west lines] (2.01, 1.5)--(2.01, 1.75)--(2.25, 1.75)--(2.25, 2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.25)--(6,2.25)--(6, 1.5)--(2.01,1.5);
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.25, 2.25) -- (6.25, 1.5);
\draw (7.1,1.875) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$\frac{6}{\varepsilon}~boxes$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, .75) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (6.7,.375) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_H'$}};
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice4}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.41,0) rectangle (5.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.45,1.6) rectangle (5.35,1.79);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.4,1.6) rectangle (5.9, 1.79);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.8) rectangle (6,.95);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.03) rectangle (6,1.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.3) rectangle (6,1.45);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [thick] (0.25,0)--(.25, .18)--(.4,.18)--(.4, .43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(6,.74)--(6,0)--(.4,0);
\draw (2.01, 1.5)--(2.01, 1.75)--(2.25, 1.75)--(2.25, 2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.25)--(6,2.25)--(6, 1.5)--(2.01,1.5);
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.25, 2.25) -- (6.25, 1.5);
\draw (7.1,1.875) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$\frac{6}{\varepsilon}~boxes$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, .75) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (6.7,.375) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_H'$}};
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\draw [thick] (1.01,1)--(6, 1);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.25)--(6, 1.25);
\draw [thick] (2.01,1.25)--(2.01, 1.5);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.)--(1.75, 1.25);
\draw[->] (5.5,1.7) edge[out=90,in=270,->] (4,4); \draw (4,4.2) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$Steinberg~Packing$}};/
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice5}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{!}{3.2cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thick](2.5,6)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0)--(0,6)--(2.5,6);
\draw[solid, fill=gray] (1.41,0) rectangle (5.45,.22);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (4.45,1.6) rectangle (5.35,1.79);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (5.4,1.6) rectangle (5.9, 1.79);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.40,.3) rectangle (6,.45);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (.67,.52) rectangle (6,.7);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (1.75,.8) rectangle (6,.95);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.01,1.03) rectangle (6,1.2);
\draw[solid, fill=lightgray] (2.25,1.3) rectangle (6,1.45);
\draw[ultra thick](0,0)--(.25,0)--(.25,.18)--(.4,.18)--(.4,.43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(1.01,.74)--(1.01,1.19)--(1.75,1.19)--(1.75,1.48)--(2.01,1.48)--(2.01,1.75)--(2.25,1.75)--(2.25,2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.5)--(6,2.5)--(6,0)--(0,0);
\draw [thick] (0.25,0)--(.25, .18)--(.4,.18)--(.4, .43)--(.67,.43)--(.67,.74)--(6,.74)--(6,0)--(.4,0);
\draw (2.01, 1.5)--(2.01, 1.75)--(2.25, 1.75)--(2.25, 2.02)--(2.5,2.02)--(2.5,2.25)--(6,2.25)--(6, 1.5)--(2.01,1.5);
\draw [thick] (1.01,1)--(6, 1);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.25)--(6, 1.25);
\draw [thick] (2.01,1.25)--(2.01, 1.5);
\draw [thick] (1.75,1.)--(1.75, 1.25);
\draw[thick] (.35, 0.18)--(.35,6);
\draw[thick] (.7, 0.74)--(.7,6);
\draw[thick] (1.05, 1.19)--(1.05,6);
\draw[thick] (1.4, 1.19)--(1.4,6);
\draw[thick] (1.75, 1.48)--(1.75,6);
\draw[thick] (2.1, 1.75)--(2.1,6);
\draw[thick] (0, .18)--(.4,.18);
\draw[thick] (.35, .74)--(2.1,.74);
\draw[thick] (.7, 1.19)--(1.01,1.19);
\draw[thick] (1.4, 1.48)--(1.75,1.48);
\draw[thick] (1.75, 1.75)--(2.1,1.75);
\draw[ultra thick, dashed] (.35,.18)--(6.1,.18);
\draw (1.25,3.5) node {\large \textbf{$P_V$}};
\draw (4.35,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$P_H$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, .75) -- (6.05, 0.18);
\draw (6.9,.465) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_{H,top}'$}};
\draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=8pt}] (6.05, .18) -- (6.05, 0);
\draw (7.2,.09) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_{H, bottom}'$}};
\draw (.185,5.5) node {\scriptsize \textbf{$P_V'$}};
\draw (3,-.2) node {\large \textbf{$e_1$}};
\draw (5,2.7) node {\large \textbf{$e_2$}};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw (2.5,2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (-.2,-.3) node {\large \textbf{$p_1$}};
\draw (2.75,2.75) node {\large \textbf{$p_2$}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Lnice6}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\ama{Processing done in Lemma \ref{lem:make-L-nice} to obtain a nice packing in L-compartment }
}
\label{fig:Lnice}
\end{figure}
\aw{Since it is sufficient to place $(1-\varepsilon)|I'(L)|-O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
items, we can} drop $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items. So w.l.o.g. assume that
$I(L)$ contains only skewed items \aw{(i.e., we remove all large
items)}. Intuitively, we partition $L$ into two polygons $P_{H}$
and $P_{V}$ that are separated via a monotone axis-parallel curve
connecting the two vertices of $L$ at the bend of $L$, such that
$P_{H}$ contains all horizontal items placed inside $L$ and $P_{V}$
contains all vertical items inside $L$, see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice1}. We rearrange
the items in $P_{H}$ and $P_{V}$ separately, starting with $P_{H}$.
Denote by $I(P_{H})\subseteqI(L)$ the items of $I(L)$ placed
inside $P_{H}$.
We place $1/\varepsilon^{2}$ boxes inside $P_{H}$ of height $\varepsilon^{2}h(P_{H})$
each, stacked one on top of the other. We define their width maximally
large such that they are still contained inside $P_{H}$ (note that
some area of $P_{H}$ is then not covered by these boxes), see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice2}.
Denote by $\left\{ B_{0},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}\right\} $ these boxes
in this order, such that $B_{0}$ touches the longer horizontal edge
of $P_{H}$. With a shifting argument, we can show that there are
two consecutive boxes $B_{j^{*}},B_{j^{*}+1}$ with $j^{*}\le1/\varepsilon$
that intersect with at most an $O_{\varepsilon}(1)+\ari{O(\varepsilon|I(P_{H})|)}$
items in $I(P_{H})$. We remove these items. Let $P'_{H}\subseteq P_{H}$
denote the part of $P_{H}$ underneath $B_{j^{*}}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice3}).
We move down by $\varepsilon^{2}h(P)$ units each item in $I(P_{H})$ that
intersect one of the boxes $B_{j^{*}+2},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-1}$ and
we remove all $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items from $I(L)$ that intersect
more than one box. Note that then the moved items fit into the boxes
$\B':=\left\{ B_{j^{*}+1},...,B_{1/\varepsilon^{2}-2}\right\} $.
Using another shifting step, we delete all items in $6/\varepsilon$
consecutive boxes of $\B'$; since there are $\Omega(1/\varepsilon^{2})$
boxes in $\B'$ this costs only a factor $1+O(\varepsilon)$ in the profit.
We use the empty space to place in it all items in $P'_{H}$ that
are shorter than the shorter horizontal edge of $P_{H}$, see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice5}.
One can show that they can be placed into this empty space using Steinberg's
algorithm~\cite{steinberg1997strip} (maintaining guillotine separability) since the available space is
much larger than the area of the items to be placed. For the remaining
items in $P'_{H}$ one can show that the width of each of them is
more than half of the width of $L$. Hence, we can assume w.l.o.g.
that they are placed nicely within $P'_{H}$. Again, we remove all
items that intersect more than one box after this movement, which
are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items. Denote by $\B_{hor}$ the resulting
set of boxes.
We do a symmetric procedure for $P_{V}$, yielding a set of boxes
$\B_{ver}$ and a nicely packed region $P'_{V}$. Intuitively, we want to define $L'$ as $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$.
However, $P'_{H}\cup P'_{V}$ might not have exactly the shape of
an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment. Nevertheless, one can show that we can subdivide
one of these polygons, say $P'_{H},$ along a horizontal line into
two subpolygons $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}},P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$ (with
$P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ lying on the top of $P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}$)
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item we can place the items in $P'_{H,\mathrm{top}}$ into another set
of $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $\B'_{hor}$ that are non-overlapping
with $\B_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$, and
\item $L':=P'_{H,\mathrm{bottom}}\cup P'_{V}$ forms an $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment,
see Figure~\ref{fig:Lnice6}.
\end{itemize}
Then the items are nicely placed inside $L'$. To each of
the $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ boxes $B\in\B_{hor}\cup\B'_{hor}\cup\B_{ver}$
we apply a standard routine that removes some of the items inside
$B$ and partitions $B$ into smaller boxes, such that the remaining items
inside these smaller boxes are nicely placed.
\end{proof}
\awr{another figure or a different figure for Lemma 8 would be good}
Therefore, we define that the first cuts of our pseudo-guillotine
cutting sequence $S'$ looks as follow: we first separate $K$ into
$L'$ and $K\setminus L'$ and then separate the boxes in $\B(L)$.
Then we apply a guillotine cut to the rectangular area $K\setminus L$ that corresponds
to $\ell_{k}$ (since we moved the items in $B_{k}$ we need to adjust
$\ell_{k}$ accordingly), which yields two rectangular areas $R_{1},R_{2}$.
With each of them we continue recursively, i.e., we apply the same
routine that we had applied to $K$ above.
\aw{
We do
not recurse further if for a considered rectangular area $R$ it
holds that $h(R)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ or $w(R)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$. In this case $R$ contains
only horizontal or only vertical items, respectively. However, these
items might not be packed nicely. Thus, we apply to $R$ a similar routine
as in Lemma~\ref{lem:make-L-nice}. In a sense, $R$ behaves like a degenerate $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment with only
four edges. Also note that $R$ is a box-compartment.}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:make-boxes-nice}Given a box-compartment $B$
containing a set of items $I(B)$ with $h(B)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$ or $w(B)<\varepsilon_{{large}} N$,
there exists a partition of $B$ into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments
$\B(B)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item the box-compartments in $\B(B)$ are guillotine separable, and
\item there is a nice placement of a set of items $I'(B)\subseteqI(B)$
with $|I'(B)|\ge(1-\varepsilon)|I'(B)|-O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ inside $\B(B)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\aw{
It remains to put back the (small) items in $OPT_{{small}}$. Intuitively,
we assign them to the empty space in our $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ constructed
compartments. More formally, we subdivide our compartments further
into smaller compartments by guillotine cuts, some of the resulting
compartments are empty, and into those we assign the small items
with the Next-Fit-Decreasing-Height algorithm} \ama{ [Lemma~\ref{lem:NFDH}]}. \aw{
For each of these compartments we
ensure that their height and width is $\varepsilon_{{small}} N/\varepsilon$.
There might be empty space that is not used in this way, however,
we can ensure that its total
area is very small, e.g., at most $O(\varepsilon^2 N^2)$. This allows us to pack essentially
all items in $OPT_{{small}}$ (handling a few special cases differently, e.g., if
the total area of the items in
$OPT_{{small}}$ is very small)}. \ama{See Appendix~\ref{smallrec} for details.
}
Let $S'$ denote the resulting pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence.
We need to argue that this yields in total $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ compartments.
This follows easily since every time we identify a sequence of cuts
$\ell_{0},...,\ell_{k}$ of $S$, we construct exactly one $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{L}}$-compartment
and $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments. Also, after each such operation,
we recurse on rectangular areas $R_{1},R_{2}$ that are at least by
$\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N/4}$ units thinner or shorter (i.e., by at least $\ari{\varepsilon_{{large}} N}/4$
units smaller in one of the two dimensions) than the rectangular area
that we had started with when we constructed $\ell_{0},...,\ell_{k}$
(which is the whole knapsack $K$ in the first iteration).
Also, when we do not recurse further we subdivide the remaining region
into $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ box-compartments. Each resulting compartment is subdivided into
$O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ smaller compartments when we place the small items.
Hence, the depth
of the binary tree $T$ defining the pseudo-guillotine cutting sequence
$S'$ is $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ and thus we define at most $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$
compartments in total. In particular, we applied Lemmas~\ref{lem:make-L-nice} and \ref{lem:make-boxes-nice}
at most $O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ times and, therefore, the constructed solution
contains at least $(1-\varepsilon)|OPT|-O_{\varepsilon}(1)$ items.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
We are entering the prime time era of photometric cosmological surveys. A number of these surveys have reported results over the past few years, including the Dark Energy Survey (DES)\footnote{\url{https://www.darkenergysurvey.org}.} \citep{1708.01530}, the Hyper Suprime-Cam survey (HSC)\footnote{\url{https://hsc.mtk.nao.ac.jp/ssp}.} \citep{1809.09148} and the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS)\footnote{\url{http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl}.} \cite{2007.15632}, and several experiments are currently in construction, most notably the Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST)\footnote{\url{https://www.lsst.org}.}, Euclid\footnote{\url{https://www.euclid-ec.org}.} and the Roman Telescope\footnote{\url{https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov}.}.
The analysis of photometric survey data is challenging, both in terms of avoiding biases in cosmological parameters from observational systematics, as well as in terms of theoretical modeling of the expected signal. In order to mitigate modeling uncertainties, the analysis of the DES Year 1 galaxy clustering data, alone \citep{1708.01536} or in combination with cosmic shear \citep{1708.01530}, was limited to large scales, where a linear bias relation could be safely used. In this model, it is assumed that the contrast in the number densities of galaxies is proportional to that of the dark matter. While deceptively simple, this model can be shown to be exact in the limit of infinitely large scales under rather general assumptions, as long as the galaxy formation process is local on some finite scale. It is therefore sufficient on large enough scales, but requires that the information on the best measured intermediate and small scales be discarded. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the implications of a re-analysis of the DES Y1 data by employing a more sophisticated bias model.
There are two main difficulties in modeling data on smaller scales. On one hand, the dark matter clustering becomes non-linear, and on the other hand, the manner in which galaxies trace the underlying dark matter fluctuations (which are assumed to be the dynamically dominant component) is also non-linear. The dark matter clustering can be modelled through high-accuracy dark matter $N$-body simulations; this modeling would be exact if it were not for the hydrodynamical effects of baryons, which are luckily confined to scales $k\gtrsim1$ $h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and whose residual effects on large scales can be emulated with numerous approximate schemes \cite{1104.1174,1105.1075,1405.7423,1809.01146,1810.08629}. The tracing of dark matter by galaxies, however, is a more difficult problem. It is hopeless to model the richness of galaxy formation physics completely ab-initio in cosmologically relevant volumes, and even the most precise small-scale hydro simulations need to model subgrid physics phenomenologically \cite{1801.08559}. Nevertheless, there are numerous phenomenological models, which can be surprisingly successful at explaining galaxy clustering to deeply non-linear scales. Many of these models mostly rely on the notion of halo occupation distribution (HOD) \citep{astro-ph/0206508,astro-ph/0005010}, namely the idea that galaxies occupy dark matter halos with statistics that mostly depend on halo mass. The issue is that, while these are very successful in explaining the observed clustering at 10-percent level, it is hard to set up models that are precise at the percent level without at least some a-posteriori tuning of the model to fit the data. The basic difficulty lies in the fact that these models are under little theoretical control, and are instead based on heuristic models of halo occupation, rather than fundamental principles. Thus there are no strict rules on when to turn left and when to step forward in this dance.
On the other end of the spectrum of modeling approaches lie purely analytical models that start with a linear-biasing scheme and use perturbative expansion to model both the non-linear dark matter structure growth and the galaxy tracing, integrating any residual small-scale effects into renormalization of the large-scale quantities. This is known as the effective theory of large-scale structure (see e.g. \cite{1406.7843,1611.09787}). While this approach is exact and under full theoretical control, it has the downside that it leads to only a modest gain in the smallest scales that one can still model.
In this paper we employ a method first proposed in \cite{1910.07097} that combines the accuracy of $N$-body simulations with the theoretical robustness of analytical bias expansions. In this approach $N$-body simulations provide accurate information about statistics of dark matter clustering that are required to calculate the galaxy clustering for an analytical bias model in Lagrangian space. In particular, the $N$-body simulations are used to calculate 15 ``basis'' power spectra which multiply the bias coefficients when modeling the galaxy signal. The beauty of this approach is that it maintains the near-exactness of $N$-body simulations for dark matter clustering with the theoretical control of an analytical bias expansion. We refer to this model as the Hybrid EFT (HEFT) model.
The HEFT method is most naturally expressed in Fourier space, because any analytic Taylor expansion will break down on sufficiently small Fourier scales. Therefore, on the data side, the main difference with the DES Y1 analysis is that we perform a power spectrum rather than a correlation function analysis. We re-measure the auto- and cross-power spectra and covariance matrix, but otherwise leave the DES analysis largely unchanged, we use the same input catalogs, tomographic bins, and systematic models.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec:data-power-spectrum} we discuss how we measure auto- and cross-power spectra of the DES Y1 data, including estimation of the covariance matrix. This section relies heavily on our previous works using galaxy and shear data from HSC and DES \cite{1912.08209,2010.09717}. In Section \ref{sec:theory} we discuss the theoretical underpinning of the HEFT model, and method used to build an emulator of the HEFT basis power spectra from the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} simulations. We then proceed to analyze the DES Y1 data using the HEFT model in Section \ref{sec:res}, where we also spend some time addressing variations of the parameter inference to investigate the sensitivity to various analysis choices. We conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusions} with a recap of our main results and list of potential caveats.
\section{Data and power spectrum measurement}\label{sec:data-power-spectrum}
\subsection{Data}\label{ssec:data.data}
We make use of the Dark Energy Survey's first-year (Y1) public data release \cite{2018ApJS..239...18A}. In particular, we use the publicly available key {\tt Y1KP} catalogs\footnote{\url{https://des.ncsa.illinois.edu/releases/y1a1/key-catalogs}}, used to derive cosmological constraints from the joint analysis of galaxy clustering and cosmic shear data (the so-called ``$3\times2$-point'' analysis), presented in \cite{1708.01530} (DY1 hereon). The resulting clustering and shear samples cover an area of $\sim1320\,{\rm deg}^2$.
As a galaxy clustering sample we use the \textsc{redMaGiC}{} catalog described in \cite{1708.01536}. The \textsc{redMaGiC}{} algorithm selects luminous red galaxies in a way that minimizes photometric redshift uncertainties, producing samples with small redshift distribution tails, well-suited for cosmological galaxy clustering studies. We divide the sample into the same 5 redshift bins used in DY1, and use the same galaxy weights to correct for sky systematics. In the analysis of these data, we make use of the fiducial redshift distributions published with the Y1 dataset, as well as the same model to marginalize over photo-$z$ uncertainties in them (see Section \ref{ssec:params}). Further details can be found in \cite{1708.01536}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{mask.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{nzs.pdf}
\caption{{\sl Top:} one of the angular window functions for the DES Y1 data analysed here. {\sl Bottom:} normalized redshift distribution of the galaxy clustering (\textsc{redMaGiC}{}) and cosmic shear (\textsc{Metacalibration}{}) samples.}
\label{fig:data}
\end{figure}
The DES Y1 analysis was carried out using two different shape-measurement algorithms: \textsc{Metacalibration}{}~\cite{1702.02600,1702.02601} and \textsc{IM3SHAPE}~\cite{1708.01533}. We restrict the current analysis to the \textsc{Metacalibration}{} sample, applying the same cuts used in \cite{1708.01533}, including its division into four tomographic reshift bins (see also \cite{2010.09717}). We use the redshift distributions provided with the Y1 release for these bins, details for which can be found in \cite{1708.01532}. Details regarding the calibration of galaxy ellipticities, including mean subtraction and the inclusion of selection effects in the \textsc{Metacalibration}{} response tensor, can be found in \citep{2010.09717}, and follow the same prescriptions used by DY1.
Fig. \ref{fig:data} shows one of the angular window functions and redshift distributions of the DES Y1 samples used here.
\subsection{Power spectra and covariances}\label{ssec:data.cls}
Starting from the official Y1 catalogs described in the previous section, we compute a set of angular auto- and cross-power spectra between the clustering and shear samples. Thus, although our analysis is based on the same samples as DY1, we construct an independent data vector, instead of using the summary statistics (real-space angular correlation functions). We do this in order to take advantage of recent improvements in the algorithms used for the estimation of angular power spectra of LSS data and their covariance \citep{1809.09603,1906.11765,2010.09717}, which allow us to produce robust goodness-of-fit tests, vital for this analysis (see Section \ref{ssec:res.main}). The use of angular power spectra also allows us to impose simple scale cuts that are more directly connected with a comoving Fourier scale $k_{\rm max}$. Finally, our analysis can also validate the results found by the DES Y1 analisis in real space with an independent harmonic-space pipeline (see also \citep{2011.06469}).
Power spectra were calculated using a pseudo-$C_\ell$ approach \citep{astro-ph/0105302} as implemented in \textsc{NaMaster}{}. The details of the pseudo-$C_\ell$ algorithm are described in detail in \cite{1809.09603}, and we provide only a succinct summary here. Pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimators are a fast implementation of the optimal quadratic estimator \citep{astro-ph/9611174}. The algorithm is based on assuming a diagonal map-level covariance matrix, such that inverse-variance weighting is equivalent to a simple multiplication of the sky map by a ``weights map'' or ``mask'' $w(\hat{\bf n})$. Calculating the power spectrum of two weighted maps is then reduced to averaging the product of their spherical harmonic coefficients over the multipole order $m$, and the time-consuming mode-coupling matrix $M_{\ell\ell'}$ can be computed analytically using fast algorithms to calculate Wigner 3-$j$ symbols. The method works for fields of arbitrary spin, including the galaxy overdensity (spin-0) and cosmic shear (spin-2). We compute all auto- and cross-correlations between the 5 \textsc{redMaGiC}{} and 4 \textsc{Metacalibration}{} redshift bins. Note that, as done in DY1, we discard cross-correlations between different galaxy clustering bins in the likelihood analysis, given their sensitivity to photometric redshift systematics. All maps were generated using \texttt{HEALPix}\footnote{\url{http://healpix.sourceforge.net}.}~\cite{astro-ph/0409513} with resolution parameter $N_{\rm side}=4096$, corresponding to pixels of size $\delta\theta_{\rm pix}\sim1'$. This is small enough that, as described in \cite{2010.09717}, all pixelization effects can be ignored on the scales used in this analysis (see Section \ref{ssec:params}).
The galaxy overdensity maps are estimated using the same method described in \cite{1912.08209}. The overdensity $\delta_p$ at pixel $p$ is computed as $\delta_p=N_p/(w_p\,\bar{N})-1$, where $N_p$ is the weighted number of objects in the pixel, $\bar{N}$ is the mean weighted number of objects per pixel, and $w_p$ is the unmasked fractional area of pixel $p$. The mean is computed as $\bar{N}=\sum_p N_p/\sum_p w_p$. The fractional area map $w_p$, which we also use as the weights map for the galaxy overdensity in the pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimator, is provided in the Y1 data release. The overdensity is set to zero in all fully masked pixels. Furthermore, to avoid noise in strongly masked pixels, we set the weights map to zero for pixels where $w_p<0.5$. Finally, the galaxy noise power spectrum is estimated as described and validated in \cite{1912.08209}, with an extra correction factor \citep{2017MNRAS.467.2085G} to account for effect of galaxy weights. This is then subtracted from all auto-correlations.
The auto- and cross-correlations involving shear maps only were computed using the procedure described in \cite{2010.09717}. The weights map associated with a shear redshift bin is simply proportional to the sum of shape-measurement weights of all galaxies in the pixel, and the associated shear map is the weighted mean calibrated ellipticity in each pixel. The resulting shear power spectra were presented and validated in \cite{2010.09717}. The clustering-shear cross-correlations were simply estimated as the pseudo-$C_\ell$ between the corresponding galaxy overdensity and shear maps. As a sanity check, we verify that all cross-correlation involving shear $B$-modes are compatible with zero by examining the probability-to-exceed (PTE) of their $\chi^2$ with respect to the null hypothesis.
All power spectra were calculated for a set of $\ell$-bins (bandpowers) covering the range $\ell\in[0, 12288)$. We use a linear spacing with $\Delta\ell=30$ up to $\ell=240$, and a logarithmic spacing thereafter with $\Delta\log_{10}\ell=0.055$. Even after correcting for the effects of survey geometry by inverting the binned mode-coupling matrix, residual mode-coupling remains as a result of binning. We account for this exactly by convolving the theory prediction with the bandpower window functions as described in \cite{1809.09603}.
The covariance matrix of these measured power spectra is computed using analytical methods. As discussed in \cite{0810.4170,1302.6994}, the main contributions to the covariance of power spectra of large-scale structure tracers can be written as:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cov}_{\ell\ell'}={\rm Cov}^{\rm G}_{\ell\ell'}+{\rm Cov}^{\rm cNG}_{\ell\ell'}+{\rm Cov}^{\rm SSC}_{\ell\ell'},
\label{eq:cov}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm Cov}^{\rm G}_{\ell\ell'}$ is the ``Gaussian'' covariance matrix, associated with the fields' disconnected trispectrum, and ${\rm Cov}^{\rm cNG}_{\ell\ell'}$ and ${\rm Cov}^{\rm SSC}_{\ell\ell'}$ are non-Gaussian terms, sourced by the non-linear evolution of the matter overdensities under gravity.
${\rm Cov}^{\rm G}_{\ell\ell'}$ dominates the error budget, and therefore must be carefully calculated, accounting for the effects of survey geometry in the form of mode-coupling. To do so, we follow the approximate methods of \cite{astro-ph/0307515,1906.11765,2010.09717}. The exact calculation of the covariance matrix scales as $O(\ell_{\rm max}^6)$, and is therefore unfeasible for the range of scales used in this work. The calculation can be reduced to $O(\ell_{\rm max}^3)$ under the approximation of a narrow mode-coupling kernel and a sufficiently flat underlying power spectrum. While this is a good approximation for galaxy clustering, the large inhomogeneity of the weak lensing mask (effectively proportional to the galaxy density) breaks these assumptions and can lead to $O(1)$ errors in the cosmic shear covariance. To remedy this, we make use of the improved narrow-kernel approximation presented in \cite{2010.09717}, which is able to accurately recover the true power spectrum uncertainties up to a few percent on the scales used here, including the different noise and signal contributions.
We estimate the SSC and cNG contributions to the total covariance, following the halo model based approach of Ref.~\cite{1601.05779}, as was done in Refs.~\cite{1912.08209, 2006.00008, 2010.09717}. For a more detailed description, we refer the reader to these works and the references therein. As the total covariance matrix given in Eq.~\ref{eq:cov} is dominated by the Gaussian part, we model finite sky effects for the non-Gaussian corrections using the approximations given in Ref.~\cite{1601.05779} and do not fully account for mode-coupling as we do for the Gaussian part. Note that, within the range of scales used here, the effect of the non-Gaussian terms on the $\chi^2$ is smaller than 2\%, and therefore this should be a good approximation as long as survey geometry effects are accurately accounted for in the Gaussian part.
\section{Modeling the signal}\label{sec:theory}\label{sec:modeling-signal}
\subsection{Projected statistics}\label{ssec:theory.cls}
We will extract constraints on cosmological parameters from the two-point statistics of two fields projected on the celestial sphere: the galaxy overdensity $\delta_g^\alpha(\hat{\bf n})$ and the weak lensing shear $\gamma^\alpha(\hat{\bf n})$ for galaxies in redshift bin $\alpha$. These are related to the three-dimensional fluctuations in the galaxy number density $\Delta_g({\bf x})$ and the matter density $\Delta_m({\bf x})$ via \citep{astro-ph/9912508,1706.09359}
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\delta_g^\alpha(\hat{\bf n})=\int_0^{\chi_H}d\chi\,q^\alpha_g(\chi)\,\Delta_g(\chi(z)\hat{\bf n}, z),\hspace{12pt}
\gamma^\alpha(\hat{\bf n})=\int _0^{\chi_H}d\chi\,q^\alpha_\gamma(\chi)\,\left[-\chi^{-2}\eth\eth\nabla^{-2}\Delta_m(\chi\hat{\bf n},z)\right],\\\label{eq:deltagamma}
&q^\alpha_g(\chi)\equiv\frac{H(z)}{c}p_\alpha(z),\hspace{12pt}q^\alpha_\gamma(\chi)\equiv\frac{3}{2}H_0^2\Omega_m\frac{\chi}{a(\chi)}\int_{z(\chi)}^\infty dz' p_\alpha(z')\frac{\chi(z')-\chi}{\chi(z')},
\end{align}
where $c$ is the speed of light, $\hat{\bf n}$ is the sky direction, $\chi$ is the comoving radial distance at redshift $z$, $\chi_H$ is the distance to the horizon, $H(z)$ is the Hubble expansion rate, $H_0\equiv H(z=0)$, $\Omega_m$ is the matter density parameter today, $p_\alpha(z)$ is the redshift distribution in bin $\alpha$, and $\eth$ is the spin-raising differential operator, acting on a spin-$s$ quantity as:
\begin{equation}
\eth\,_sf(\theta,\varphi)=-(\sin\theta)^s\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}+\frac{i}{\sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}\right)(\sin\theta)^{-s}\,_sf
\end{equation}
and turning it into a spin-$(s+1)$ quantity.
The power spectrum between quantities $X$ and $Y$ ($\delta_g$ or $\gamma$) in bins $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively, $C_\ell^{(X,\alpha)(Y,\beta)}$ is the covariance of the spherical harmonic coefficients of both fields, and can be related to the power spectrum of the three-dimensional quantities associated with $X$ and $Y$ ($\Delta_g$ or $\Delta_M$) $P_{XY}(k,z)$ via:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:limber}
C_\ell^{(X,\alpha),(Y,\beta)}=\int\frac{d\chi}{\chi^2}\,q_X^\alpha(\chi)\,q_Y^\beta(\chi)\,P_{XY}\left(k=\frac{\ell+1/2}{\chi},z(\chi)\right).
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{eq:limber} uses Limber's approximation \citep{1953ApJ...117..134L,astro-ph/0308260}, valid for the wide radial kernels considered here. In order to account for the difference between angular and three-dimensional derivatives in Eq. \ref{eq:deltagamma} (i.e. $\chi^2\eth^2\nabla^{-2}\not\equiv1$), the lensing kernel must be multiplied by an $\ell$-dependent prefactor
\begin{equation}
G_\ell\equiv\sqrt{\frac{(\ell+2)!}{(\ell-2)!}}\frac{1}{(\ell+1/2)^2},
\end{equation}
which becomes irrelevant (sub-percent) for $\ell>11$ \citep{1702.05301}.
Thus, given a set of cosmological parameters, and the redshift distributions of all bins considered, all that remains to specify is the 3-dimensional power spectra between $\Delta_m$ and $\Delta_g$. For the matter power spectrum $P_{mm}(k,z)$, we use the non-linear prediction from \texttt{HALOFIT} \cite{astro-ph/0207664,1208.2701}, as was done in DY1. We describe the model used to describe the galaxy-matter connection in the next section.
\subsection{Hybrid EFT model for galaxy clustering}\label{ssec:theory.heft}
We follow a perturbative effective field theory (EFT) approach to galaxy biasing in Lagrangian space, coupled with the non-linear dynamical evolution of $N$-body simulations as prescribed in \cite{1910.07097}. We describe the logic behind this Hybrid EFT method here, and refer readers to \cite{1910.07097,1611.09787,0807.1733} for a detailed description of galaxy bias.
The complex physical processes that govern the formation and evolution of galaxies necessarily imply a complex relationship between their distribution and that of the matter inhomogeneities they trace. In general, this relation should be non-linear, non-local and, without exact knowledge of the small-scale physics, stochastic. Non-local and stochastic effects are sourced by the dependence of the galaxy abundance at a given point in space on the small-scale physical processes in a region around it, and therefore should become negligible on scales larger than the size of this region (e.g. the Lagrangian radius of a typical dark matter halo).
On scales where galaxy formation can be modelled as a local process, it is then possible to invoke the equivalence principle, in terms of which the leading gravitational effects are associated with the Hessian of the gravitational potential $\partial_i\partial_j\Phi$. This can be split into its scalar trace, proportional to the matter overdensity $\delta$, and the traceless tidal tensor $s_{ij}\equiv(\partial_i\partial_j\nabla^{-2}-1/3)\delta$. On these scales, we can therefore describe the number overdensity of galaxies found at redshift $z$ in the Lagrangian initial conditions as a general functional of the local $\delta$ and $s_{ij}$. Expanding this functional up to second order:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lbexp}
1+\Delta_{g,L}=1+b_1\delta_L+b_2(\delta_L^2-\langle\delta_L^2\rangle)+b_s(s^2_L-\langle s^2_L\rangle)+b_{\nabla}\nabla^2\delta_L,
\end{equation}
where we have only kept scalar combinations of $s_{ij}$, $s^2\equiv s_{ij}s^{ij}$, and we have included a leading-order non-local contribution $\propto\nabla^2\delta_L$. The subscript $L$ is a reminder that all quantities are evaluated at the initial Lagrangian coordinates ${\bf q}$. One can then evolve $\Delta_{g,L}$ to its observed redshift by advecting the Lagrangian $\Delta_g$ to the final Eulerian coordinates:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lpt}
1+\Delta_g({\bf x})=\int d^3{\bf q}\,[1+\Delta_{g,L}({\bf q})]\,\delta^D({\bf x}-{\bf q}-\Psi({\bf q})),
\end{equation}
where $\Psi$ is the Lagrangian displacement vector.
This calculation can be done using Lagrangian perturbation theory (e.g. \cite{2012.04636}) or, as proposed in \cite{1910.07097}, solving the full non-linear evolution in an $N$-body simulation. Substituting Eq. \ref{eq:lbexp} into \ref{eq:lpt}, the final galaxy overdensity is a linear combination of the individual operators in Eq. \ref{eq:lbexp} ($\delta_L$, $\delta_L^2$, $s^2_L$ and $\nabla^2\delta_L$) advected to the Eulerian positions. These fields can be calculated in the simulation by weighting each matter particle in a given snapshot by the value of the corresponding operator in the initial conditions at the original Lagrangian coordinates. The cross-power spectrum between the galaxy and matter overdensities, as well as the galaxy-galaxy power spectrum are then given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pkexp}
P_{gm}(k)=\sum_{\alpha\in{\cal O}}b_\alpha P_{1\alpha}(k),\hspace{12pt}
P_{gg}(k)=\sum_{\alpha\in{\cal O}}\sum_{\beta\in{\cal O}}b_\alpha b_\beta P_{\alpha\beta}(k)
\end{equation}
where ${\cal O}\equiv\{1,\delta_L,\delta_L^2,s_L^2,\nabla^2\delta_L\}$ is the full set of second-order operators in Eq. \ref{eq:lbexp}, $P_{\alpha\beta}(k)$ is the power spectrum of the advected fields $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and $b_\alpha$ are the corresponding bias coefficients. In this formalism $P_{11}(k)$ is the non-linear matter power spectrum, and its corresponding bias parameter (called $b_0$ here) is $b_0=1$. Our bias model then reduces to computing a set of 15 different power spectrum templates $P_{\alpha\beta}(k)$ for the five different operators. We construct these from the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite of simulations, described in the next section.
We note that while formally Lagrangian and Eulerian models are both valid and complete descriptions, their predictions do not match at any given order. Therefore, even the simplest linear analysis will give different results in Eulerian and Lagrangian spaces for a finite maximum wavenumber $k_{\rm max}$.
Finally, it is also common to include an additive stochastic term $\epsilon$ in the bias expansion (Eq. \ref{eq:lpt}), to account for the impact of small-scale density fluctuations on galaxy formation. In the simplest case, this effect can be modelled by treating galaxies as a Poisson sampling of an underlying smooth galaxy density field, in which case the contribution to the galaxy auto-correlation is $P_{\epsilon\epsilon}=1/\bar{n}_g$, where $\bar{n}_g$ is the comoving number density of galaxies. In our analysis, we will also consider the effect of departures from this pure shot-noise contribution, of the form $P_{\epsilon\epsilon}=A_\epsilon/\bar{n}_g$, with $A_\epsilon\neq1$ (see Section \ref{ssec:params} and Section \ref{ssec:res.tests}).
\subsection{Abacus simulations}\label{ssec:theory.abacus}
To build a model for the different power spectrum templates $P_{\alpha\beta}(k)$ in Eq. \ref{eq:pkexp} we use the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite of $N$-body simulations \cite{1712.05768,Maksimova:2021xxx,Garrison:2021xxx}.
\textsc{AbacusSummit}{} was designed to meet the cosmological simulation requirements of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey and run on the Summit supercomputer at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The simulations are run with the highly accurate \textsc{Abacus} cosmological $N$-body simulation code \citep{2019MNRAS.485.3370G}, optimized for GPU architectures and large-volume, moderately clustered simulations. The \textsc{Abacus} code is extremely fast, performing 70 million particle updates per second on each of the Summit nodes, and also extremely accurate, with typical force accuracy below $10^{-5}$. The output halo catalogs and particle subsamples (\texttt{A} and \texttt{B}, amounting to 10\% of the total particle population) are organized into 12 primary redshift snapshots ($z = $ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0). The data products have been designed with the aim of supporting mock catalogs to be constructed using halo occupation distributions, as well as efficient access to measurements of the density fields. In this work, we use the 7 redshift snapshots at $z \leq 1.1$, $z = 0.1$, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, covering the redshift range of the DES Y1 clustering sample, and the particle subsample \texttt{A}, which contains 3\% of the total particle content.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline\hline
Sim. name & $\Omega_b h^2$ & $\Omega_c h^2$ & $n_s$ & $\sigma_8$ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
\texttt{c000} & 0.02237 & 0.1200 & 0.9649 & 0.811355 \\ [1ex]
\texttt{c100}$/$\texttt{c101} & 0.02282$/$0.02193 & -- & -- & -- \\ [1ex]
\texttt{c102}$/$\texttt{c103} & -- & 0.1240$/$0.1161 & -- & -- \\ [1ex]
\texttt{c104}$/$\texttt{c105} & -- & -- & 0.9749$/$0.9549 & -- \\ [1ex]
\texttt{c112}$/$\texttt{c113} & -- & -- & -- & 0.8276$/$0.7954 \\ [1ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Simulations from the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite used to generate the power spectrum templates used in this analysis.}\label{tab:sims}
\end{table}
The \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite contains simulations for various cosmologies. Here, we employ the fiducial simulation \texttt{AbacusSummit\_base\_c000\_ph000} at base resolution (6912$^3$ dark matter particles in a box of length 2000 Mpc$/h$), and some of the ``linear derivatives'' simulations at the same resolution. These are used to account for the parameter dependence of the power spectrum templates as described below. The simulations used are listed in Table \ref{tab:sims}. The parameters that define the fiducial cosmology are the baryon energy density ($\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02237$), the cold dark matter energy density ($\Omega_c h^2 = 0.1200$), the primordial tilt ($n_s = 0.9649$), the amplitude of matter fluctuations ($\sigma_8 = 0.811355$), and the distance to last scatter ($100 \theta_\ast = 1.041533$). The ``linear derivative'' simulations vary each of these in turn, as indicated by the columns in the table.
For each simulation and redshift bin we produce 15 power spectrum templates, corresponding to the auto- and cross-correlation between the 5 operators of the Lagrangian bias expansion (Eq. \ref{eq:lpt}) following the method outlined in \cite{1910.07097}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We use the initial conditions to calculate 4 fields: $\delta_L$, $\delta_L^2$, $s^2_L$ and $\nabla^2\delta_L$. These fields are computed on a cubic grid of size $2304^3$. Following \citep{1910.07097,2101.11014} we do not apply any smoothing and so our results must depend weakly on cell size.
\item At each snapshot, we evolve the initial condition fields to the corresponding redshift assuming a linear growth factor. Then, for each of the 5 bias operators ($1,\,\delta_L,\,\delta_L^2,\,s_L^2,\,\nabla^2\delta_L$), we compute their advected version by assigning each dark matter particle a weight given by the value of the corresponding operator at the particle's position in the initial conditions.
\item Finally, we compute and store the auto- and cross-power spectra between all advected fields.
\end{enumerate}
The power spectrum templates thus calculated are noisy on large scales due to cosmic variance. To avoid this, we combine the simulated power spectra with theoretical predictions from Lagrangian perturbation theory (LPT) using the \texttt{velocileptors} code \cite{2012.04636,2005.00523} on large scales. We use the following combination of both predictions to enforce a smooth transition between them at $k\sim k_{\rm pivot}$:
\begin{equation}
P_{\alpha\beta}(k)=(1-w(k))P^{\rm sim}_{\alpha\beta}(k)+w(k)\,P^{\rm LPT}_{\alpha\beta}(k),
\end{equation}
where $P^{\rm sim}_{\alpha\beta}$ and $P^{\rm LPT}_{\alpha\beta}$ are the predictions from \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} and LPT respectively, and weighting function
\begin{equation}
w(k)\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left[1-{\rm tanh}\left(\frac{k-k_{\rm pivot}}{\Delta k_w}\right)\right],
\end{equation}
which ensures smooth interpolation between the two limits. We use $\Delta k_w=0.01\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, but manually fine-tune values of $k_{\rm pivot}$ for the different operator combinations, based on their large-scale behavior:
\begin{align}
&k_{\rm pivot}^{0,s}=k_{\rm pivot}^{1,s}=k_{\rm pivot}^{\nabla,s}=0.2\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1},\hspace{12pt}
k_{\rm pivot}^{2,s}=k_{\rm pivot}^{s,s}=0.03\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1},\\
&k_{\rm pivot}^{2,\nabla}=0.3\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1},\hspace{12pt}
k_{\rm pivot}^{1,\nabla}=0.07\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1},\hspace{12pt}k_{\rm pivot}^{\rm other}=0.09\,h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}.
\end{align}
The power spectrum templates thus produced for the fiducial \texttt{c000} simulation at $z=0.5$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:templates}, which also illustrates the procedure outlined above. The code used to generate these templates is available at \url{https://github.com/boryanah/hybrid_eft_nbody}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{templates_c000_ph000_z0.500}
\caption{Power spectrum templates at $z = 0.5$ for the fiducial \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} simulation (\texttt{c000}). The dotted lines correspond to the 1-loop LPT power spectra computed using \texttt{velocileptors} \citep{2005.00523}, while the dashed lines are derived from \textsc{AbacusSummit}{}. In solid lines, we show the combined power spectra, obtained by smoothly interpolating between both. As expected, the 1-loop LPT theory lacks small-scale power compared with the $N$-body result. We note that 1-loop LPT makes no prediction for the templates involving cross-correlations with the $\nabla^2 \delta_L$ field, for which we assume $P_{X \nabla}(k) \approx k^2 P_{X \delta}$ on large scales and the numerical values on small scales. We model the $P_{\nabla \nabla}(k)$ as approximately constant on large scales.}\label{fig:templates}
\end{figure}
In order to account for the dependence of the power spectrum templates on cosmological parameters, we use a linear Taylor expansion around the fiducial \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} cosmology (first row of Table \ref{tab:sims}). We first compute an estimate of the derivative of the power spectrum templates with respect to the four cosmological parameters $(\Omega_bh^2,\Omega_ch^2,\sigma_8,n_s)$ via numerical differentiation of the templates found for the fiducial \texttt{c000} simulation and the linear derivative simulations. I.e. for a given parameter $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
\partial_\theta P_{\alpha\beta}(k)=\frac{P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\theta_F+\delta\theta)-P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\theta_F-\delta\theta)}{2\delta\theta},
\end{equation}
where $P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\theta_F+\delta\theta)$ are the templates calculated in the two linear-derivative simulations for which this parameter is varied (by an amount $\delta\theta$), and $\theta_F$ is the value of the parameter in the fiducial \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} cosmology. The power spectrum template at a set of cosmological parameters $\vec{\theta}$ is then given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pktaylor}
P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\vec{\theta})= P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\vec{\theta}_*)+(\vec{\theta}-\vec{\theta}_*)\cdot\nabla_\theta P_{\alpha\beta}(k),
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\theta}_*$ is the fiducial \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} cosmology.
Note that the initial conditions of all simulations we use are produced for the same phase (\texttt{ph000}). Thus, when taking finite differences, we eliminate some of the cosmic variance noise. We verified the validity of the linear Taylor expansion by comparing the prediction from Eq. \ref{eq:pktaylor} with power spectrum templates calculated directly from the extended grid of ``linear derivative'' \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} simulations at redshifts $0.5 \leq z \leq 1.1$ (labelled \texttt{c117-120}, \texttt{c119, c120}). The prediction is found to be accurate at the $\sim1\%$ level on all scales of interest $k \leq 1$ $h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
For parameter values sufficiently far away from the fiducial \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} cosmology, we expect the linear Taylor expansion to break down. Thus, in order to recover some of the true parameter dependence, we combine \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} predictions for the \emph{ratio} between $P_{\alpha\beta}(k)$ and the matter power spectrum $P_{mm}(k)\equiv P_{11}(k)$, with the \texttt{HALOFIT} prediction for the latter as follows:
\begin{equation}
P_{\alpha\beta}(k;\vec{\theta})=\frac{P^{\tt HF}_{mm}(k;\vec{\theta})}{P^{\tt AB}_{11}(k;\vec{\theta})} P^{\tt AB}_{\alpha\beta}(k;\vec{\theta}),
\end{equation}
where $P^{\tt HF}$ and $P^{\tt AB}$ are the \texttt{HALOFIT} and \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} predictions respectively. By taking the ratio of the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} predictions we thus mitigate the impact of residual noise on the templates, and some of the error made in assuming a linear dependence on cosmological parameters around the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} fiducial model. In particular, this approach recovers the \texttt{HALOFIT} matter power spectrum exactly.
An important caveat must be noted. The linear derivative simulations available in the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite use a value of the Hubble parameter $h$ determined by holding the comoving angular diameter distance to the last-scattering surface, $\theta_\ast$, constant, and equal to the value inferred by {\it Planck}{} \cite{1807.06209}. Effectively, this means that our parametrization of the cosmological dependence of $P_{\alpha\beta}$ is ``missing'' the Hubble parameter, which is assumed to reproduce the position the peak position in the {\it Planck}{} CMB power spectrum. This is one of the best and most robustly measured quantities in cosmology; however, it complicates the direct comparison between our results and those of DY1. Although we find that our results are not strongly sensitive to this (see Section \ref{sec:res}), a robust implementation of this method should allow for variation of all basic cosmological parameters.
As stated above, our ability to account for the dependendence of the power spectrum templates on cosmological parameters accurately is limited by the range of cosmologies covered by the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite. Although combining the simulation data with \texttt{HALOFIT} should allow us to capture some of the dependence beyond the linear Taylor expansion, the current model could clearly be improved by building a more complete power spectrum emulator covering a wider region of the cosmological parameter space. This has recently been done in \cite{2021arXiv210111014K} and \cite{2021arXiv210112187Z}. Nevertheless, as we show in Section \ref{sec:res} by switching off the cosmological dependence of the power spectrum templates completely, our final constraints on $(S_8,\Omega_m)$ are insensitive to the inaccuracy of the linear expansion for the data used here.
\section{Results}\label{sec:res}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{nested_0}
\caption{Contour plots showing the constraints on cosmological parameters using a linear bias model, also adopted in the DES Y1 analysis, in gray and the hybrid model presented in this work with $k_{\rm max} = 0.3$ and 0.5 ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}${} in red and blue, respectively. In green, we also show the parameter constraints obtained by the DES collaboration in their $3 \times 2$-point analysis \cite{1708.01530}. We see that the hybrid approach is able to place tighter constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$, while $n_s$ and $\Omega_b$ remain largely unconstrained, in agreement with \cite{1708.01530} (see Section \ref{ssec:res.tests} for a more detailed discussion about $n_s$). The DY1 linear bias constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$ are consistent with each other and exhibit certain differences attributable to the following: our analysis is performed in harmonic space; it uses a different cosmological parametrization, and additionally does not vary massive neutrino energy density. For a more quantitative assessment, see Table~\ref{tab:constraints}.}\label{fig:nested_0}
\end{figure}
In this section, we present the cosmological constraints extracted from the DES Y1 galaxy clustering and cosmic shear data for different choices of bias parametrization and scale cuts.
\subsection{Likelihood analysis}\label{ssec:params}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c c | c c |}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Prior & Parameter & Prior \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
$\Omega_ch^2$ & [0.08, 0.16] & $A_\epsilon$ & ${\cal N}(1,0.1)$\\
$\Omega_bh^2$ & [0.013, 0.031] & $A_{\rm IA}$ & [-5, 5] \\
$\sigma_8$ & Free & $\eta_{\rm IA}$ & [-5, 5] \\
$n_s$ & [0.87, 1.07] & $m_i$ & Table I in \cite{1708.01530}\\
$100 \theta_\ast$ & 1.041533 & $\Delta z_g^i$ & Table I in \cite{1708.01530} \\
$b_0^i,b_1^i,\,b_2^i,\,b_s^i,\,b_\nabla^i$ & [-5, 5] & $\Delta z_s^i$ & Table I in \cite{1708.01530} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Model parameters and priors. An index $i$ denotes parameters with independent copies in each galaxy clustering or shear redshift bin. The definition of the nuisance parameters $(A_{\rm IA},\eta_{\rm IA},m_i,\Delta z_g^i,\Delta_s^i)$ can be found in DY1 \citep{1708.01530}. Square brackets denote a flat prior, whereas ${\cal N}$ denotes a Gaussian prior. In addition to $A_\epsilon$, the latter is adopted also for $m_i,\Delta z_g^i,\Delta_s^i$. The comoving angular distance to last scatter, $ \theta_\ast$, is held fixed in the fiducial case and loosened in one of our tests (see Table~\ref{tab:constraints}).}\label{tab:params}
\end{table}
In order to derive constraints on cosmological and bias parameters we use a Gaussian likelihood of the form:
\begin{equation}
\log p(\vec{\theta}|{\bf d})=-\frac{1}{2}[{\bf d}-{\bf t}(\vec{\theta})]^T{\sf C}^{-1}[{\bf d}-{\bf t}(\vec{\theta})]+\log p_p(\vec{\theta})+K
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\theta}$ is the set of parameters to be constrained, ${\bf d}$ is a data vector of power spectra, ${\sf C}$ is its covariance matrix, ${\bf t}(\vec{\theta})$ is the theory prediction, $p_p(\vec{\theta})$ is the prior distribution, and $K$ is a normalization constant. We sample this likelihood with a modified version of the MCMC sampler \texttt{MontePython}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/boryanah/montepython\_public}}
\citep{2019PDU....24..260B}, using the Core Cosmology Library \citep{1812.05995} to calculate all angular power spectra contributing to ${\bf t}(\vec{\theta})$.
In our fiducial case, ${\bf d}$ contains all galaxy auto-correlations, and all galaxy-shear and shear-shear correlations. We impose the following scale cuts: in all cases, shear-shear power spectra are used on scales $\ell<2000$, to avoid the impact of baryonic effects \citep{1809.09148}. Galaxy-galaxy and galaxy-shear correlations, on the other hand, are cut on $\ell<k_{\rm max} \bar{\chi}$, where $\bar{\chi}$ is the distance to the mean redshift of the corresponding galaxy clustering sample, and $k_{\rm max}$ is a comoving cutoff scale. The fiducial value of $k_{\rm max}$ is $0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, but we will consider values in the range $[0.15, 0.6]$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
Our model is described by a number of cosmological, bias and nuisance parameters. We consider variations in five cosmological parameters: the cold dark matter and baryon densities $(\Omega_ch^2,\Omega_bh^2)$, the primordial tilt $n_s$, the amplitude of density fluctuations $\sigma_8$, and the distance to the surface of last scattering $\theta_\ast$. In the fiducial case we fix the latter to the value used in the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} $100\, \theta_\ast=1.041533$, but we also explore the impact of freeing this parameter.
Our fiducial bias model is defined by the set of EFT bias parameters $(b_1,b_2,b_s,b_\nabla)$. We assign different bias parameters for the 5 different galaxy redshift bins, for a total of 20 free parameters. In order to reproduce the linear bias model used in DY1, we also consider a single free bias parameter $b_0$ per redshift bin, while keeping all other bias parameter fixed to zero (note that $b_0=1$ in the HEFT model). When reproducing the DY1 analysis we used a scale cut $k_{\rm max}=0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, roughly corresponding to the inverse of the minimum comoving separation used in DY1. As an extension to the 4-parameter HEFT model, we also marginalized over a stochastic bias parameter with a flat power spectrum. We do so by scaling the shot noise power spectrum with a free amplitude parameter $A_\epsilon$ with a $10\%$ Gaussian prior centered on $A_\epsilon=1$. The width of the prior was determined by comparing the noise power spectrum estimated as described in Section \ref{ssec:data.cls} with the galaxy power spectrum at the high-$\ell$, noise-dominated regime.
Apart from the bias and cosmological parameters, we also vary 15 nuisance parameters, describing other sources of systematic uncertainty in the DES Y1 data. These include shifts in the mean of the redshift distribution in each tomographic bin, multiplicative shear bias parameters, and a two-parameter intrinsic alignment model. The details are described in the DY1 paper \cite{1708.01530}, and we use the same priors specified there. The full set of model parameters and priors used are listed in Table \ref{tab:params}.
\subsection{Comparison between the linear and HEFT bias models}\label{ssec:res.main}
One of our main goals is comparing the final constraints achievable through a linear bias model in a reduced range of scales (as done e.g. in DY1), with those found using the HEFT model using data on smaller, mildly non-linear scales. For concreteness, the parameter space in both cases is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item DY1: we vary a single linear bias parameter $b_0$ in each galaxy clustering redshift bin. We also vary four cosmological parameters ($\Omega_ch^2,\,\Omega_bh^2,\,n_s,\,\sigma_8$), and 15 nuisance parameters, for a total of 24 free parameters.
\item HEFT: we vary four bias parameters ($b_1$, $b_2$, $b_s$, $b_\nabla$) in each redshift bin, while keeping $b_0=1$, leading to a 39-dimensional parameter space when combined with the cosmological and nuisance parameters.
\end{itemize}
The linear bias model will be restricted to comoving scales $k_{\rm max}\lesssim0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, while we will present results for the HEFT case as a function of $k_{\rm max}$. Note that, although we label it ``DY1'', the linear bias model is slightly different from that used by \cite{1708.01530} since, while the Hubble constant was a free parameter in their analysis, in the fiducial case we determine it by holding $\theta_\ast$ fixed.
We will quantify the goodness of fit of a given bias model in terms of the probability-to-exceed (PTE) of the model's minimum $\chi^2$ value. The PTE depends on the total number of degrees of freedom $\nu$, which in turn depends on the number of free parameters in the model. For a linear model with $N_\theta$ linearly independent free parameters with unconstrained priors, $\nu$ would be simply $N_{\rm data}-N_\theta$. In the presence of non-linear parameters and tight priors, the definition of $\nu$ is less clear. Here we use an effective number of degrees of freedom $\nu_{\rm eff}$ determined as follows. We generate a synthetic data vector drawn from a multi-variate Gaussian distribution with a mean given by the theoretical prediction for a set of fiducial parameters $\theta_{\rm fid}$, and the power spectrum covariance described in Section \ref{ssec:data.cls}. We then run a $\chi^2$ minimizer varying the cosmological, bias and nuisance parameters, to find the best fit parameters $\theta_{\rm bf}$, and compute the difference in $\chi^2$ between both sets of parameters $\Delta\chi^2\equiv\chi^2(\theta_{\rm fid})-\chi^2(\theta_{\rm bf})$. $\nu_{\rm eff}$ is then given by the median of $\Delta\chi^2$ for several realizations of the synthetic data vector. Through this method we find that $\nu_{\rm eff}$ is well approximated by $\nu_{\rm eff}\simeq N_{\rm data} - (N_b+3)$, where $N_b$ is the number of bias parameters in the model and $N_{\rm data}$ is the number of data points. Each bias parameter is effectively an independent parameter with a broad flat prior affecting the model at the linear level, and thus should add $+1$ to the total $\nu_{\rm eff}$. The contribution from all other parameters is effectively $\Delta\nu_{\rm eff}=3$, either due to their tight priors (in the case of calibrated nuisance parameters), or their limited or correlated impact on the predicted cosmic shear and galaxy clustering observables.
The main result of this analysis is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nested_0}, which presents the constraints on the four cosmological parameters $\Omega_b$, $\Omega_c$, $S_8\equiv\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{1/2}$, and $n_s$, for both bias models, with the HEFT results shown for $k_{\rm max}=0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ (fiducial case) and $k_{\rm max}=0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In the $(\Omega_m,S_8)$ projection, we observe a notable improvement in the constraints on $\Omega_m$. The 68\% confidence interval shrinks from $\Omega_m = 0.298^{+0.033}_{-0.045}$ in the linear bias case to $\Omega_m = 0.273^{+0.030}_{-0.036}$ (15\% improvement from DY1) and $\Omega_m=0.266^{+0.024}_{-0.027}$ (35\% improvement from DY1) using HEFT with $k_{\rm max}=0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ and $0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ respectively. The improvement on $S_8$ is less striking (about 10\%). The figure also shows that the scalar spectral index $n_s$ is pushed significantly towards its lower prior bound. As we show in Section \ref{ssec:res.tests}, this is most likely due to the incorrect parameter dependence of the power spectrum templates used, although this does not alter the results found for $(\Omega_m,S_8)$. These results are also summarized in Table~\ref{tab:constraints}, together with the constraints founds for all other data and model configurations explored here.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{gcgc} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{gcwl}
\caption{Measured galaxy-galaxy (``g$i$-g$j$'', top panel) and galaxy-shear (``g$i$-s$j$'', bottom panel) power spectra (blue). Here, $i$ and $j$ denote the different tomographic bins (see Fig.~\ref{fig:data}). The solid black and dashed red lines show the theoretical predictions adopting the Hybrid EFT (HEFT) and the DY1 linear bias models respectively. Although we show these predictions up to scales corresponding to $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, the red dotted vertical line shows the scale cut $k_{\rm max} = 0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}${} used for the linear bias analysis. The gray dashed horizontal line indicates the Poisson shot-noise of the autocorrelations.}\label{fig:bestfit}
\end{figure}
It is important to note that, although our results are based on an independent reanalysis of the DY1 dataset in Fourier space, our constraints using a linear bias model are in excellent agreement with those reported by DES \citep{1708.01530}. The estimated power spectra and best-fit predictions for the linear bias and HEFT model are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bestfit}. Results are shown for the galaxy auto-correlations (labelled $gg$ here) and the cross-correlations with cosmic shear (labelled $gs$). Overall the agreement on large scales is good. The HEFT bias model is able to describe the data on small scales, while the linear model does not capture the small-scale clustering. In the case of the $gs$ we find specific cross-correlations that the model has difficulty fitting, particularly in the lower-left part of the figure, corresponding to cross-correlations where a significant fraction of the lens sample lies behind the source bin. This is likely due to residual systematics in the characterization of the source and lens redshift distributions that are not well captured by the nuisance parameters. Nevertheless, the overall goodness of fit is acceptable, with PTEs above $4.5\%$ (see Section \ref{ssec:res.tests}). The upper panel of Fig. \ref{fig:bestfit} shows, in gray, the shot-noise contribution to the clustering auto-correlations. As we go to higher redshifts, the extended scale range used here lies partially within the noise-dominated regime, limiting the amount of information that can be extracted from the small-scale regime. The use of denser samples, at the cost of broader photomeric redshift uncertainties will likely benefit photometric clustering analyses making use of mildly non-linear scales \citep{2011.03411}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{chi2_gcgc} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{chi2_gcwl}
\caption{As in Fig. \ref{fig:bestfit}, we show the power spectrum residuals, for the galaxy-galaxy and shear-shear power spectra normalized by their 68\% uncertainties. In solid black and dashed red, we show the residuals for the Hybrid EFT (HEFT) and the DY1 linear bias models respectively. Both agree on large scales, but the linear model is not able to fit the clustering data on scales smaller than the $0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}${} scale cut (marked by the vertical dotted red line).}\label{fig:chi2_bestfit}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_bestfit} shows the power spectrum residuals as a fraction of the $1\sigma$ uncertainties in the same cases. The linear bias analysis assumes $k_{\rm max} = 0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, while the HEFT model has $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In the majority of cases, the data lie within 1-2$\sigma$ of the theory in their respective scale ranges, with a small number of exceptions that do not spoil the overall goodness of fit of the HEFT and linear bias models. Importantly, the linear DY1 model shows a significant deviation from the $gg$ data on small scales, which HEFT is able to capture adequately.
We next explore our results as a function of the scale cut $k_{\rm max}$. The recently developed HEFT $N$-body emulators \citep{2101.11014,2021arXiv210112187Z} was found to fit the halo power spectrum to sub-percent accuracy down to scales $k_{\rm max}\sim0.6$ $h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, drilling significantly deeper into the non-linear regime, where various assembly bias effects, related to halo concentration, occupation, local environment, and spin, are known to affect the clustering properties \citep{astro-ph/0108151,astro-ph/0506510,astro-ph/0512416,1911.02610}. In particular, the hybrid approach has been shown to be effective in describing the clustering of more complex tracer populations (see Section 6.3 of \citep{2101.11014}), whereas more traditional methods lead to errors larger than 1\% at $k \approx 0.2$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The improvement in final constraints due to the additional information gained from these modes is offset by the extra freedom allowed by the HEFT model, and eventually limited by the ability of the model to describe the clustering of galaxies. Therefore it is interesting to explore the evolution of the parameter uncertainties and goodness of fit with $k_{\rm max}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:money}, we present the joint constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$ for the HEFT model with $k_{\rm max}$ in the range $[0.3,0.6]$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, compared with the constraints found with the linear bias model up to $k_{\rm max}=0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. As found before, the uncertainties, particularly on $\Omega_m$, shrink steadily as $k_{\rm max}$ is increased. This improvement, however, seems to asymptote on scales $k_{\rm max}=0.6$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, where we recover constraints essentially equivalent to the $k_{\rm max}=0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}${} case, in spite of adding 35 additional data points. These results are also summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:evolve}, which shows the marginalized constraints on cosmological and bias parameters as a function of bias model and $k_{\rm max}$. The constraints found for different models and scale cuts are broadly consistent with each other. Other than $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$, all other parameters do not benefit significantly from the extended scale range. The bias parameters, however, particularly $b_2$ and $b_\nabla$, are significantly better constrained by the small-scale modes.
The bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:evolve} shows the $\chi^2$ PTE for the different cases explored here. Based on the results of \cite{2101.11014} we do not expect the HEFT model to be valid far beyond $k_{\rm max}\simeq0.6$ $h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Nevertheless, we find that the HEFT model is able to describe the data down to the smallest scale explored, which expressed in the \emph{little-h} units of \cite{2101.11014} corresponds to a bone shaking $k_{\rm max}\simeq0.86$ $h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Of course, this statement depends on the statistical power of the data used, and will likely change with future more precise datasets.
\begin{table}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline\hline
Model & $\chi^2/\nu_{\rm eff}$ & $S_8$ & $\Omega_m$ & $n_s$ & $H_0$ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
DY1 & 470.9/467 & $0.778\pm 0.019$ & $0.298^{+0.033}_{-0.045}$ & $0.956^{+0.042}_{-0.055}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, fiducial & 583.5/577 & $0.786\pm 0.020$ & $0.273^{+0.030}_{-0.036}$ & $0.910^{+0.012}_{-0.038}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.4$ & 650.0/632 & $0.781\pm 0.017$ & $0.279^{+0.025}_{-0.032}$ & $0.913^{+0.013}_{-0.041}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ & 702.8/682 & $0.786^{+0.015}_{-0.018}$ & $0.266^{+0.024}_{-0.027}$ & $0.914^{+0.014}_{-0.040}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.6$ & 733.2/717 & $0.790^{+0.016}_{-0.018}$ & $0.261^{+0.021}_{-0.032}$ & $0.914^{+0.017}_{-0.040}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.15$ & 458.8/452 & $0.785\pm 0.020$ & $0.294^{+0.037}_{-0.050}$ & $0.916^{+0.017}_{-0.042}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, fixed $P_{ij}(k)$ & 585.4/577 & $0.788\pm 0.021$ & $0.265^{+0.023}_{-0.026}$ & $0.920^{+0.024}_{-0.039}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, marg. stochastic & 585.0/577 & $0.784\pm 0.019$ & $0.279^{+0.028}_{-0.039}$ & $0.913^{+0.015}_{-0.039}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, {$b_1$, $b_2$, $b_s$} & 584.4/582 & $0.782\pm 0.018$ & $0.270^{+0.026}_{-0.034}$ & $0.925^{+0.021}_{-0.049}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, {$b_1$, $b_2$} & 589.2/587 & $0.775\pm 0.017$ & $0.267^{+0.023}_{-0.033}$ & $0.945^{+0.034}_{-0.053}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
DY1, $gg$, $gs$ & 258.3/227 & $0.781\pm 0.042$ & $0.279^{+0.031}_{-0.061}$ & $0.995^{+0.074}_{-0.026}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $gg$, $gs$ & 382.9/337 & $0.777^{+0.032}_{-0.038}$ & $0.299^{+0.038}_{-0.045}$ & $0.9132^{+0.0099}_{-0.043}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
DY1, $H_0$ & 470.3/467 & $0.777\pm 0.019$ & $0.299^{+0.036}_{-0.057}$ & $0.960^{+0.043}_{-0.061}$ & $68.6\pm 6.6$ \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $H_0$, $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ & 703.6/682 & $0.785\pm 0.017$ & $0.264^{+0.025}_{-0.032}$ & $0.913^{+0.015}_{-0.040}$ & $70.7^{+3.0}_{-3.5}$ \\ [1ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Constraints (68\% confidence level) on the cosmological parameters $S_8$, $\Omega_m$, and $n_s$ for the different data and model configurations considered in this study. We also list the best-fit $\chi^2$ values and effective degrees of freedom $\nu_{\rm eff}$ for each case as a measure of goodness of fit. The definition of $\nu_{\rm eff}$ is discussed in the main text. Rows marked ``DY1'' use a linear bias parametrization, while the others use the HEFT model. The main result is an improvement of $\sim(35\%,10\%)$ in the parameter uncertainties for $(\Omega_m,S_8)$ when using the HEFT model on an extended range of scales. The quoted values of the scale cut $k_{\rm max}$ are in units of ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.} \label{tab:constraints}
\end{table}
\iffalse
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline\hline
Model & $\chi^2/\nu_{\rm eff}$ & $S_8$ & $\Omega_m$ & $n_s$ & $H_0$ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
DY1 & 470.6/467 & $0.778\pm 0.019$ & $0.294^{+0.031}_{-0.038}$ & $0.958^{+0.041}_{-0.052}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.3$ (fiducial) & 584.0/577 & $0.782\pm 0.018$ & $0.279^{+0.023}_{-0.033}$ & $0.908^{+0.012}_{-0.036}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.4$ & 649.5/632 & $0.781\pm 0.017$ & $0.278^{+0.023}_{-0.029}$ & $0.912^{+0.013}_{-0.039}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ & 702.0/682 & $0.784\pm 0.016$ & $0.270^{+0.019}_{-0.029}$ & $0.912^{+0.014}_{-0.039}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.6$ & 734.8/717 & $0.785\pm 0.015$ & $0.268^{+0.018}_{-0.028}$ & $0.910^{+0.014}_{-0.037}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $k_{\rm max} = 0.15$ & 458.4/452 & $0.786\pm 0.019$ & $0.290^{+0.028}_{-0.040}$ & $0.917^{+0.015}_{-0.043}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, fixed $P_{ij}(k)$ & 587.5/577 & $0.784^{+0.016}_{-0.018}$ & $0.267^{+0.020}_{-0.028}$ & $0.925^{+0.025}_{-0.045}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, marg. stochastic & 583.4/577 & $0.783\pm 0.017$ & $0.277^{+0.019}_{-0.034}$ & $0.912^{+0.017}_{-0.040}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, {$b_1$, $b_2$, $b_s$} & 583.7/582 & $0.780\pm 0.017$ & $0.270^{+0.018}_{-0.031}$ & $0.919^{+0.018}_{-0.043}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, {$b_1$, $b_2$} & 588.4/587 & $0.775\pm 0.017$ & $0.273^{+0.022}_{-0.032}$ & $0.938^{+0.027}_{-0.055}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
DY1, $gg$, $gs$ & 257.9/227 & $0.776\pm 0.031$ & $0.280^{+0.024}_{-0.038}$ & $0.995^{+0.071}_{-0.031}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $gg$, $gs$ & 385.2/337 & $0.776\pm 0.028$ & $0.294\pm 0.030$ & $0.912^{+0.011}_{-0.041}$ & -- \\ [1ex]
DY1, $H_0$ & 470.5/467 & $0.777\pm 0.018$ & $0.282^{+0.025}_{-0.048}$ & $0.945^{+0.027}_{-0.069}$ & $72^{+8}_{-7}$ \\ [1ex]
HEFT, $H_0$, $k_{\rm max} = 0.5$ & 699.4/682 & $0.785\pm 0.016$ & $0.277^{+0.019}_{-0.042}$ & $0.922^{+0.015}_{-0.049}$ & $69.03_{-5.0}^{+7.0}$ \\ [1ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Constraints (68\% confidence level) on the cosmological parameters $S_8$, $\Omega_m$, and $n_s$ for the different data and model configurations considered in this study. We also list the best-fit $\chi^2$ values and effective degrees of freedom $\nu_{\rm eff}$ for each case as a measure of goodness of fit. The definition of $\nu_{\rm eff}$ is discussed in the main text. Rows marked ``DY1'' use a linear bias parametrization, while the others use the HEFT model. The main result is an improvement of $\sim(35\%,10\%)$ in the parameter uncertainties for $(\Omega_m,S_8)$ when using the HEFT model on an extended range of scales. The quoted values of the scale cut $k_{\rm max}$ are in units of ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.} \label{tab:constraints}
\end{table}
\fi
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{money_s8}
\caption{Constraints on the matter fraction $\Omega_m$, and the amplitude of matter fluctuations, parametrized by $S_8\equiv\sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_m/0.3}$. Results are shown using the linear bias model with $k_{\rm max}=0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ (dark blue), and the HEFT model with $k_{\rm max} = 0.3, \ 0.4, \ 0.5, \ 0.6$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, (green, gray, red and blue respectively). As we go to higher $k_{\rm max}$, the hybrid approach is able to extract additional cosmological information, especially on $\Omega_m$.}\label{fig:money}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{evolve}
\caption{68\% confidence level constraints on four cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m$, $S_8$, $n_s$, $\Omega_b$) and four bias parameters ($b_1$, $b_2$, $b_s$, $b_\nabla$) for the median tomographic redshift bin of the DES Y1 galaxy sources (see Fig.~\ref{fig:data}). The lowermost plot shows the best-fit $\chi^2$ PTEs for the 5 models considered: the linear bias model of the DY1 analysis \cite{1708.01530} and the hybrid model (HEFT) with $k_{\rm max} = 0.3$, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Although the PTEs decrease, as we go to higher $k_{\rm max}$, they remain above $30\%$ throughout. Overall the parameter constraints get tighter, as we go from left to right, implying that the hybrid approach is able to place stricter constraints on both the cosmological parameters (most noticeably $\Omega_m$) and the bias parameters. Note that the Lagrangian bias parameters are set to zero in the DES Y1 linear model.}\label{fig:evolve}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tests and validation}\label{ssec:res.tests}
To validate the results presented in the previous section we have carried out a number of additional tests, exploring the contents of the HEFT bias model, the parameter dependence of the power spectrum templates used, and the impact of stochastic bias terms.
\subsubsection{The HEFT ingredients}\label{sssec:res.tests.bias}
The HEFT model adds 3 additional free parameters compared with the linear bias parametrization. However, some of these additional degrees of freedom may not be necessary to describe the data on a given range of scales, and it is therefore interesting to explore the possibility of simplifying the model by excluding some of these parameters. In particular, the tidal bias and non-local bias terms ($b_s$ and $b_\nabla$) describe the impact of the local tidal forces, and of physical processes on scales smaller than the characteristic scale for galaxy formation (e.g. the Lagrangian halo size), both of which are arguably subdominant to the impact of the local environmental density \citep{1406.4159,1801.04878}.
To explore this, we repeated our analysis removing $b_\nabla$ alone and together with $b_s$ in our fiducial case with $k_{\rm max}=0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The results from this exercise are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:constraints}. The full-bias model does not provide any significant improvement in the fit ($\Delta\chi^2=(0.9,5.7)$ for 5 and 10 additional parameters respectively). Nevertheless, we find compatible constraints in all cases, which reassures that the additional complexity of the full HEFT model does not degrade the final cosmological constraints significantly. This is to be expected, since non-local effects are likely subdominant these scales.
\subsubsection{The parameter dependence of HEFT templates}\label{sssec:res.tests.pardep}
One of the caveats of the analysis carried out here is the simplified method used to characterize the dependence of the HEFT power spectrum templates on cosmological parameters. As described in Section \ref{ssec:theory.abacus}, the ratios of the templates with respect to the matter power spectrum are only allowed to vary linearly with respect to the cosmological parameters around the fiducial cosmology of the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} suite.
To quantify the impact of this approximation we repeat our analysis for $k_{\rm max}=0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}${} removing this linear parameter dependence altogether, and assuming constant power spectrum template ratios. In this cruder approximation, all parameter dependence of the power spectrum templates is captured by the matter power spectrum. The results, listed in Table \ref{tab:constraints}, show that the constraints on the primary large-scale structure parameters $S_8$ and $\Omega_m$ are in good agreement with those found in the fiducial analysis, and that the parameter dependence of the template ratios does not improve them significantly. The reduction in uncertainties found before is therefore not artificially caused by incorrectly accounting for this parameter dependence.
However, we find that the constraints on $n_s$ in both cases, although still compatible at $1\sigma$, show significantly different uncertainties. We believe this effect is indeed caused by an inaccurate modeling of the $n_s$ dependence, where the linear approximation assumed here breaks down more readily. To confirm that the improved uncertainties on $n_s$ are indeed artificial, and not caused by the additional small-scale information enabled by the HEFT model, we repeat our analysis in the reduced scale range $k<0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$\ used with the linear bias model. The results of this test are also listed in Table \ref{tab:constraints}, and show that, even in this reduced range, we obtain tighter constraints on $n_s$ than those found with the simpler linear bias model. This confirms that the dependence of the power spectrum template ratios on $n_s$ is not correctly captured with our simplified setup. All future analyses using the HEFT model should therefore rely on full emulators where this dependence is correctly captured. We emphasize, however, that the constraints found in the $(\Omega_m,S_8)$ plane are unaffected by this approximation, and indeed the HEFT results in the reduced scale range agree rather well with those found for the linear bias model for these parameters.
Another aspect of the cosmological dependence not captured by our current implementation is the dependence on the local expansion rate $H_0$. Since $\theta_\ast$ is the same for all the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} simulations used here, $H_0$ was treated as a derived parameter, determined in terms of the other cosmological parameters by fixing $\theta_\ast$ to the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} value. Although we do not expect this to impact our results significantly, since the DY1 analysis was not able to constrain $H_0$, we have repeated our analysis treating $H_0$ as a free parameter. This was done for the DY1 linear bias model with $k_{\rm max}=0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and for the HEFT model with $k_{\rm max}=0.5$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Due to the limitation we just described, we are not able to account for this parameter dependence in the HEFT power spectrum ratios, and therefore the dependence is only included in the \texttt{HALOFIT} matter power spectrum. The results, listed in Table \ref{tab:constraints}, show that the constraints on $(\Omega_m,S_8)$ are not affected by the additional parameter freedom. Interestingly, we find that we are able to recover tighter constraints on $H_0$ ($\sigma(H_0)\simeq3.3\,{\rm km}\,s^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$) than those found in the linear analysis ($\sigma(H_0)\simeq6.6\,{\rm km}\,s^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$). Since the dependence on $H_0$ may be imperfectly captured by our implementation, we cannot make a claim regarding this result. However, the possibility of constraining $H_0$ from the joint analysis of galaxy clustering and weak lensing on the smaller scales enabled by the HEFT bias model, should be explored in the future.
\subsubsection{Stochasticity}\label{sssec:res.tests.stochastic}
As described in Section \ref{ssec:theory.heft}, we expect the galaxy overdensity to receive a stochastic contribution sourced by the small-scale physics governing galaxy formation and evolution. This contribution should dominate the galaxy power spectrum on small scales and, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:data}, dominates the deterministic signal on angular scales $\ell\gtrsim1000$. By inspecting the measured power spectra on these scales, we find that the stochastic contribution is well described by a Poisson-like process, with $C^{\rm SN}_\ell=1/\bar{n}_\Omega$ after accounting for the effects of inhomogeneous sky coverage, where $\bar{n}_\Omega$ is the number of galaxies per steradian. Nevertheless, to allow for possible residual stochastic contributions, we repeat our analysis allowing for an additional free amplitude parameter $A_\epsilon$ per redshift bin multiplying this shot-noise contribution, and marginalize over it with a conservative 10\% Gaussian prior centered on $A_\epsilon=1$. Since $A_\epsilon$ is a linear parameter, this marginalization is done analytically by simply modifying the covariance matrix as:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cov}_{\ell\ell'}\longrightarrow
{\rm Cov}_{\ell\ell'}+\sigma_A^2C_\ell^{\rm SN}C_{\ell'}^{\rm SN},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_A=0.1$.
The result of this test, listed in Table \ref{tab:constraints}, shows that the effect of residual stochastic contributions is negligible, both in the best-fit parameters and their uncertainty.
\subsubsection{Excluding shear}\label{sssec:res.tests.ss}
The three main components of the data vector used here are the galaxy-galaxy, galaxy-shear, and shear-shear correlations ($gg$, $gs$ and $ss$ respectively). Of these, $ss$ is not sensitive to any modeling improvement brought about by the use of the HEFT model. In order to better isolate the parameter constraint enhancement, and the goodness of fit associated with the HEFT model, we repeated our analysis excluding the $ss$ component from the data. This was done both for the DY1 linear bias model with $k<0.15$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and for the HEFT model with $k_{\rm max}=0.3$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The results are shown in Table \ref{tab:constraints}.
When excluding the shear-shear data, the uncertainty on $S_8$ grows by $\sim60\%$ for both bias models, while the constraints on $\Omega_m$ grow by about $\sim20\%$. This shows that the inclusion of galaxy clustering information plays a vital role in constraining $\Omega_m$ \citep{1708.01530}. The relative improvement in constraints associated with the HEFT model is similar in both cases. Excluding the effects of intrinsic alignments, cosmic shear is an unbiased tracer of the matter fluctuations. Thus, in spite of its significantly lower signal-to-noise ratio compared with galaxy clustering, the shear power spectrum is able to obtain comparatively tighter constraints.
It is worth noting that the goodness of fit of the $gg$-$gs$ sector is notably lower for both bias models than that of the full data vector, with a minimum PTE of 4.5\%. Although the statistical significance is not high, this may be a sign of unmodelled systematics in the data. A visual inspection of the data suggests that it is impossible for the model to fit some of the galaxy-shear power spectra corresponding to lens samples partially behind the sources (e.g. ``g2-s0'' or ``g3-s0'' in Fig. \ref{fig:data}). This is a feature of both the linear and HEFT models, and could be ascribed to an imperfect model of the source or lens redshift distributions.
\section{Discussion \& Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
This paper presents the first application of the Hybrid EFT (HEFT) bias model of \cite{1910.07097} to observational data. In particular, we re-analyzed the combination of lensing shear and projected galaxy clustering from the DES Y1 data release. This methods holds promise to be the method of choice for next generation surveys, since it efficiently combines the reach of $N$-body simulations deep into the non-linear regime with the analytical exactness and theoretical control of bias expansions. We note that photometric surveys are especially well suited for the first application of this method, since we do not require a precise model for redshift-space distortions.
We calibrated our HEFT basis power spectra from the \textsc{AbacusSummit}{} $N$-body simulations, smoothly interpolating into large-scale analytical solutions and using a linear expansion around the fiducial model to account for the cosmology dependence. In this preliminary work we have focused on the goodness-of-fit as basic quantity by which to choose whether a model produces a reliable fit.
Our results can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item HEFT models offer a good fit to the data. Nominally, the $\chi^2$ is good all the way to $k_{\rm max} = 0.6$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$
\item HEFT models offer a stable fit to the data. While the uncertainties decrease, the inferred values of all parameters remain consistent as we push to higher $k_{\rm max}$;
\item Given the enormous increase in signal-to-noise, as we increase the $k_{\rm max}$, the improvement on the cosmological parameters of interest is rather modest. The standard interpretation is that all the new information is going mostly into determining the bias parameters rather than the cosmology. In some sense this method offers ``graceful transition to ignorance'', where the information in the 2-point function is being exhausted and the results do not depend strongly on the choice of scale cut. This observation also implies that a 3-point function over the same scales could break further degeneracies and bring concrete improvements in our determination of cosmological parameters.
\item While the constraint on $S_8$ improves modestly (about $\sim 10$\%) for $k_{\rm max}=0.5\,$${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, we do notice a significant improvement in the uncertainty on $\Omega_m$, which shrinks by about 35\% to $\Omega_m=0.266^{+0.024}_{-0.027}$. This implies that HEFT starts to break the degeneracy in the less constraining direction of the ``weak-lensing banana'' contour on the $\sigma_8-\Omega_m$-plane. Interestingly, our results are $\sim2\sigma$ away from the central value found by {\it Planck}, $\Omega_m=0.315\pm0.007$ \citep{1807.06209}.
\item In our fits, we have left $\Omega_b$, $n_s$ and $H_0$ (with fixed angular diameter distance to the last scattering) as free parameters. While it is not expected that the combination of cosmic shear and galaxy clustering at the level of two-point functions can measure these with significant precision, it is nevertheless re-assuring that the parameters were bound by the data, rather than the prior and that Planck-determined values lie well withing the posteriors spanned by them.
\item While analyzing the data, we noticed that the $\chi^2$ values for the $gg$ and $gs$ power spectra are somewhat high. However, the statistical significance is small when accounting for the effective number of fitted degrees of freedom.
\end{itemize}
We reiterate that the work presented here is fundamentally exploratory in nature and our constraints should not be taken to be as robust as those supported by extensive testing on realistic mock datasets. There are numerous steps where our method can be improved.
Most importantly, the exact $k_{\rm max}$ limits should be obtained based on mock galaxy catalogs populated with realistic distribution of galaxies, rather than relying solely on the goodness of fit. Ideally, such mock catalogs should be based on an independent suite of $N$-body simulations spanning plausible cosmologies and recipes for populating halos with galaxies. Methodologically, the way templates are created leaves several open questions in terms of how basis spectra are generated and interpolated. At the moment we have chosen the pivot points for interpolation between analytic and $N$-body solutions essentially ``by hand''. Basis spectra involving $\delta^2_L$ and $\nabla\delta_L$ are noisy and may show a weak dependence on the smoothing scale (not used in this paper). The sample variance in the basis spectra is poorly understood. As we were building our prediction scheme, independent emulators were developed by \cite{2101.11014} and \cite{2021arXiv210112187Z}. Repeating our analysis by replacing our simple linear parametrization (see Eq. \ref{eq:pktaylor} with such an emulator would be a very interesting cross-check that would quantify the systematic errors in our theory model. We leave this, and the other caveats listed in this paragraph, for future work. As the power of the HEFT approach becomes apparent, we expect that the coming years will bring about more sophisticated methods to measure and interpolate the relevant quantities from $N$-body simulations.
Despite these caveats, HEFT worked on DES Y1 data ``out of the box'', producing a good and stable fit without any tweaking. Our results confirm the robustness of DES Y1 data and demonstrate the promise of the upcoming generation of photometric galaxy surveys when analyzed with state-of-the-art theory prediction tools.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Shi-Fan Chen, Lehman Garrison, Daniel Eisenstein, Yu Feng, Heather Kelly, Chirag Modi, and Martin White for fruitful conversations and helpful advice, which was much needed at the initial stages of the project.
CGG acknowledge support from the European Research Council Grant No: 693024 and the Beecroft Trust. DA is supported by the Science and Technology Facilities Council through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship, grant reference ST/P004474. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, for computing the power spectrum templates, $P_{\alpha \beta}(k)$, which constitute a sizeable portion of the project. We also made extensive use of computational resources at the University of Oxford Department of Physics, funded by the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund.
We made extensive use of the {\tt numpy} \citep{oliphant2006guide, van2011numpy}, {\tt scipy} \citep{2020SciPy-NMeth}, {\tt astropy} \citep{astropy:2013, astropy:2018}, {\tt healpy} \citep{Zonca2019}, \texttt{nbodykit} \citep{2018AJ....156..160H}, \texttt{GetDist} \citep{2019arXiv191013970L}, \texttt{pyccl} \citep{1812.05995}, \texttt{MontePython} \citep{2019PDU....24..260B}, \texttt{velocileptors} \citep{2005.00523}, and {\tt matplotlib} \citep{Hunter:2007} python packages.
This paper makes use of software developed for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. We thank the LSST Project for making their code available as free software at \url{http://dm.lsst.org}.
This project used public archival data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES). Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain, the Science and Technology FacilitiesCouncil of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University, the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A\&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, Funda{\c c}{\~a}o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo {\`a} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient{\'i}fico e Tecnol{\'o}gico and the Minist{\'e}rio da Ci{\^e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova{\c c}{\~a}o, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey.
The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energ{\'e}ticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol{\'o}gicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh, the Eidgen{\"o}ssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Z{\"u}rich, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ci{\`e}ncies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC), the Institut de F{\'i}sica d'Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universit{\"a}t M{\"u}nchen and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe, the University of Michigan, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the OzDES Membership Consortium, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, and Texas A\&M University.
Based in part on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of this paper and its companion paper \cite{NVW} is the kinetic description of interacting particle systems in the mathematical framework of scaling limits. The main emphasis is on the physically important case of long-range interaction, including the Coulomb case.
The currently available mathematical tools do not allow for a fully rigorous derivation of the corresponding kinetic equations from a scaling limit of particle systems. Indeed, even in the case of short-range interaction such a result has not been achieved for kinetic equations different from the Boltzmann equation, although only for short times. Instead we present a formalism in which the equations of motion for an interacting particle system, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{dX_{j}}{d\tau}=V_{j}\ \ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV_{j}}{d\tau}=-\sum_{k}\nabla
\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X_{j}-X_{k}\right) \ \ ,\ \ j\in S \label{eq:IntNew},
\end{equation}
or for a Rayleigh-gas system (see for instance \cite{S1, S2} and also \cite{NWL19})
\begin{equation} \label{eq:RayNew}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{dX}{d\tau }& =V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tau }=-\sum_{j\in S}\nabla \Phi
_{{\epsilon} }\left( X-Y_{j}\right), \\
\frac{dY_{k}}{d\tau }& =W_{k}\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dW_{k}}{d\tau }=-\nabla \Phi
_{{\epsilon} }\left( Y_{k}-X\right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
are approximated by a stochastic system of Langevin type which describes the evolution of the tagged particle $(X,V)$. We will assume that the initial positions and velocities $\left\{ \left(
X_{j},V_{j}\right) :j\in S\right\} $ in~\eqref{eq:IntNew} are chosen according to
some probability distribution which is spatially homogeneous and with a
distribution of velocities $g=g\left( v\right) .$
Then this system is of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{dX}{d\tau}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tau}=-\Lambda_{{\epsilon}}\left(
V;g\right) +F_{{\epsilon}}\left( X,\tau;\omega;g\right) \label{eq:TagFric},
\end{equation}
where $F_{{\epsilon}}$ is a random force field defined for $\omega$ in a
suitable probability space $\Omega$ and $\Lambda_{{\epsilon}}\left(
V;g\right) $ is a function which can be thought of as a
friction term depending only on the particle velocity $V.$ In Section~\ref{KinRanForcFields}, we recall some of the notations and properties of random force fields.
In this paper we will restrict to classes of long-range potentials for which the evolution is driven by weak deflections of particles. In Section \ref{sec:TimeScale} this is formulated precisely, in terms of the Landau- and Boltzmann-Grad timescales $T_{L}$ and $T_{BG}$, as $T_{L}\ll T_{BG}$.
The main content of the paper is a rigorous derivation of the friction- and diffusion coefficients resulting from \eqref{eq:TagFric} on a suitable timescale. The results of this analysis will be presented in Section~\ref{KineLimit}, while the proofs are postponed to Section~\ref{Sec:Pfs}.
A formal validation of the approximation \eqref{eq:TagFric} is the content of Section~\ref{ss:JustR}.
Due to the long-range nature of the interaction potentials considered here, collective effects and screening play a crucial role. In the case of Coulomb interaction, the contribution of interactions over distances between the interparticle distance and the Debye screening length yield the dominant contribution, by a logarithmic factor in the scaling parameter ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$. The onset of this so-called Coulomb-logarithm is one of the main difficulties which present in this paper. The results presented here clarify the connection between the mathematical kinetic theory in the framework of scaling limits and the physical theory of plasmas. In the latter case, the higher order corrections of size $|\log {\epsilon}|^{-1}$ might not be small enough to be neglected, while they disappear in the scaling limit ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$. In the companion paper \cite{NVW}, we give an overview of scaling limits and their resulting kinetic equations for a large class of long-range potentials.
\section{Mathematical framework}
\label{KinRanForcFields}
\subsection{Generalities about random force fields}
As indicated in the Introduction one of our goals is to approximate the
dynamics of (\ref{eq:IntNew}), through suitable scaling limits, by means of the dynamics of
a tagged particle in some families of random force fields. In this Section,
we describe some general properties of random force fields as well as some
specific random force fields generated by sets of moving particles. Other
random force fields will not be directly related to fields generated by
point particles, but they will be useful in order to approximate the
dynamics (\ref{eq:IntNew}) by (\ref{eq:TagFric}).
Since we want to consider random force fields having singularities at the
particle centers, we will introduce some notation to deal with this case. We
will denote as $\Lambda $ the space of particle configurations in $\mathbb{R}%
^{3}$. More precisely, the elements of $\Lambda $ are locally finite
subsets of ${\mathbb R}^3,$ or more precisely, sequences with the form $%
\left\{ x_{k}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $\#\left[ \left\{
x_{k}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N}}\cap B_{R}\left( 0\right) \right] <\infty $
for any $R<\infty .$ Notice that we do not need to assume that $x_{k}\neq
x_{j}$ for $k\neq j.$ In order to allow force fields which diverge at some
points we define $\mathbb{R}_{\ast }^{3}$ as the compactification of $%
{\mathbb R}^3$ using a single infinity point $\infty .$ For a function $%
F\in C\left( {\mathbb R}^3;\mathbb{R}_{\ast }^{3}\right) $ we write $%
F\left( x_{0}\right) =\infty $ for some $x_{0}\in {\mathbb R}^3$, if the
function satisfies $\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{0}}\left\vert F\left( x\right)
\right\vert =\infty .$
We then introduce the following notation:%
\begin{equation*}
C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) =C\left( {\mathbb R}^3;\mathbb{R}%
_{\ast }^{3}\right).
\end{equation*}
Since $\mathbb{R}_{\ast }^{3}$ is a metric space, we can endow $C_{\ast
}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) $ with a metric topology in the usual manner.
Most of the random force fields used in this paper will be more regular than
just continuous. We then define:%
\begin{equation*}
C_{\ast }^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) =\left\{ F\in C_{\ast }\left(
{\mathbb R}^3\right) :F\in C^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\setminus F^{-1}\left(
\infty \right) \right) \right\} \ \text{for}\quad k=1,2,...
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the elements of $C_{\ast }^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) $ are
just $C^{k}$ functions at the points where they are bounded. We will not
need to define any topology on the spaces $C_{\ast }^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}%
^{3}\right) .$
We are interested in time-dependent random force fields. We then define the
metric space $C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right)
\right) .$ We could define similarly $C\left( \left[ 0,T\right] :C_{\ast
}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) ,$ but we will use in this paper only
time-dependent random force fields defined globally in time.
Therefore we define:%
\begin{equation*}
C^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right)
=\left\{ F\in C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right)
\right) :F\in C^{k}\left( \left( \mathbb{R}\times {\mathbb R}^3\right)
\diagdown F^{-1}\left( \infty \right) \right) \right\} \ \text{for}\quad k=1,2,\dots
\end{equation*}%
Notice that $C^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }^{k}\left(
{\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $ is the subset of the set of functions of $%
C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $ which
have $k$ continuous derivatives at the points where $F$ is bounded. We will
use the shorthand notation $F\in C^{k}$ for $F\in C^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}%
:C_{\ast }^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) .$
We introduce a $\sigma -$algebra on the space $C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast
}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $ generated by the cylindrical sets,
i.e. the $\sigma -$algebra generated by the sets $\left\{ Y(t_0,x_0)\in B
\right\} $ where $B$ is a Borel set of ${\mathbb R}^3_{\ast }$ and $\left(
t_{0},x_{0}\right) \in \mathbb{R}\times {\mathbb R}^3$. We will denote this
$\sigma -$algebra as $\mathcal{B}$.
All the random force fields in which we are interested in this paper are
contained in the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{RandForField}Let $\left( \Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mu \right) $ be a measure
space where $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\sigma -$algebra of subsets of $\Omega $ and
$\mu $ is a probability measure. A random force field is a measurable
mapping $F$ from $\Omega $ to the set of functions $C\left( \mathbb{R}%
:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $ with respect to the $\sigma
-$algebra $\mathcal{B}$.
\end{definition}
Notice that a random force field defines a probability $\mathbb{P}$ on the $%
\sigma -$algebra $\mathcal{B}$, which consists of subsets of $C\left(
\mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $, by means of:%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{P}\left( A\right) =\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :F\left(
\omega \right) \in A\right\} \right) \ \ ,\ \ A\in \mathcal{B}.
\end{equation*}%
A random force field can be characterized by the family of random variables
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\omega \rightarrow F\left( X,\tau ;\omega \right),\ X\in \mathbb{R}%
^{3},\ \tau \in \left[ 0,T\right] \right\}.
\end{equation*}
We can define the action of the group of spatial translations on $%
C^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $
by means of:%
\begin{equation*}
T_{a}F\left( X,\tau \right) =F\left( X+a,\tau \right) \text{ for each }a\in
{\mathbb R}^3
\end{equation*}%
and the group of time translations by means of:%
\begin{equation*}
U_{b}F\left( X,\tau \right) =F\left( X,\tau +b\right) \text{ for each }b\in
\mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}
We will say that a random force field $F$ is invariant under spatial
translations (or just invariant under translations) if we have:%
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :F\left( \cdot ;\omega \right) \in
A\right\} \right) =\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :T_{a}F\left( \cdot
;\omega \right) \in A\right\} \right)
\end{equation*}%
for each $A\in \mathcal{B} $ and any $a\in {\mathbb R}^3.$ We will say that
a random force field $F$ is invariant under time translations (or
stationary) if:%
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :F\left( \cdot ;\omega \right) \in
A\right\} \right) =\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :U_{b}F\left( \cdot
;\omega \right) \in A\right\} \right)
\end{equation*}%
for each $A\in \mathcal{B} $ and any $b\in \mathbb{R}$.
\bigskip
Actually, all the random force fields considered in this paper will be also
invariant under rotations. Given $M\in SO\left( 3\right) $ we define the
action of the group $SO\left( 3\right) $ on $C^{k}\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast
}^{k}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) $ by means of:%
\begin{equation*}
R_{M}F\left( X,\tau \right) =F\left( MX,\tau \right) \text{ for each }M\in
SO\left( 3\right).
\end{equation*}
Then, the random force field $F$ is invariant under the group $SO\left(
3\right) $ if:
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :F\left( \cdot ;\omega \right) \in
A\right\} \right) =\mu \left( \left\{ \omega \in \Omega :R_{M}F\left( \cdot
;\omega \right) \in A\right\} \right)
\end{equation*}%
for each $A\in \mathcal{B}$ and any $M\in SO\left( 3\right) .$
\subsection{Time-dependent particle configurations and random force fields
\label{TimeDepConf}}
\subsubsection{Random particle configurations}
In this Section we describe a family of random force fields that are
generated by particles distributed randomly in the phase space according to
the Poisson distribution at time $t=0$ which move at constant velocity for
positive times. We will take as unit of length the typical distance between
particles $d,$ i.e. $d=1.$ The particle velocities are distributed according
to a finite nonnegative measure $g=g\left( dv\right) $, independently from
the particle positions. Note that $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}g\left( dv\right) $
is the spatial particle density. We will choose the unit of time $\tau$ in
such a way that the average particle velocity is of order one. Each particle
is the center of a radial potential $\Phi=\Phi\left( \left\vert y\right\vert
\right) \in C^{2}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\diagdown\left\{ 0\right\} \right) .$
We will consider two different types of potentials. First we will consider
potentials of order one with short ranges, i.e. smaller range than the
particle distance $d.$ Secondly, we will consider weak potentials with
arbitrary range, but typically larger or equal than the particle distance $%
d. $
More precisely, we will denote as $\Lambda_{p}$ the space of locally finite
particle configurations in the phase space ${\mathbb R}^3\times\mathbb{R}%
^{3}.$ Each of these particle configurations can be represented by a
sequence $\left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ with
$x_{k}\in{\mathbb R}^3$ and $v_{k}\in{\mathbb R}^3$ where all the
sequences which can be obtained from another by means of a
permutation of the particles are equivalent and represent the same particle
configuration. We consider the $\sigma-$algebra $\Sigma_{p}$ generated by
the sets:%
\begin{equation*}
U_{B,n}=\left\{ \left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N}%
}\in\Lambda_{p}:\#\left[ \left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} \cap B%
\right] =n\right\}
\end{equation*}
for each $n\in\mathbb{N}_{\ast}$ any Borel set $B\subset{\mathbb R}^3\times%
{\mathbb R}^3.$ We define a measure in $\mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}^{d}$
by means of the product measure $dxg\left( dv\right) .$ We then define a
probability measure $\nu_{g}$ on $\Sigma_{p}$ by means of:%
\begin{equation}
\nu_{g}\left( \bigcap_{j=1}^{J}U_{B_{j},n_{j}}\right) =\prod_{j=1}^{J}\left[
\frac{\left\vert \int_{B_{j}}dxg\left( dv\right) \right\vert ^{n_{j}}}{%
\left( n_{j}\right) !}e^{-\int_{B_{j}}dxg\left( dv\right) }\right]
\label{S4E2}
\end{equation}
where $B_{j}$ is a Borel set of ${\mathbb R}^3\times{\mathbb R}^3$ and $%
n_{j}\in\mathbb{N}_{\ast}$ for each $j\in\left\{ 1,2,...,J\right\} $ with $%
B_{j}\cap B_{k}=\varnothing$ if $j\neq k.$
We define the free flow evolution group $T\left( \tau\right) $, $\tau \in%
\mathbb{R}$, on the space of particle configurations $\Lambda_{p}$ as
follows. Suppose that we represent a particle configuration $\xi\in\Lambda
_{p}$ by the sequence $\left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} _{k\in%
\mathbb{N}}.$ Then we define:
\begin{equation}
T\left( \tau\right) \xi=\left\{ \left( x_{k}+v_{k}\tau,v_{k}\right) \right\}
_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\ \ ,\ \ \tau\in\mathbb{R} \ . \label{S4E3}
\end{equation}
This definition yields a mapping $T\left( \tau\right) :\Lambda
_{p}\rightarrow\Lambda_{p}$ which is independent of the specific sequence
used to label $\xi\in\Lambda_{p}.$ It is not hard to exhibit examples of
particle configurations $\xi\in\Lambda_{p}$ for which the configuration
defined by means of (\ref{S4E3}) is not locally finite for $\tau\neq0$. This
can be achieved giving to some particles placed very far away from the
origin large velocities which transport infinitely many particles to a
bounded region for some times $t_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$. However, this does not
happen with probability one if the particles are chosen according to the
probability measure $\nu_{g}$ defined in (\ref{S4E2}). More precisely, we
have the following result:
\begin{proposition}
\label{PoissonEvolution}Let $\left( \Lambda_{p},\Sigma_{p},\nu_{g}\right) $ be
the measure space of particle configurations, with $\nu_{p}$ as in (\ref%
{S4E2}). Then, the evolution group $T\left( \tau\right) :\Lambda
_{p}\rightarrow\Lambda_{p}$ defined by means of (\ref{S4E3}) is well defined
(i.e. $T\left( \tau\right) \xi$ is locally finite) for any $\tau \in\mathbb{R%
}$, for $a.e.$ $\xi\in\Lambda_{p}.$
The pushforward measure $\nu_{g}\circ T\left( - \tau\right) $ satisfies $%
\nu_{g}\circ T\left( -\tau\right) =\nu_{g}$ for each $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First we note that $T(\tau)\xi\in\Lambda_{p}$ holds $\nu_{g}$ a.e. for every
$\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\nu_{g}({\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: T(\tau)\xi\text{ not loc. finite}}) \leq\sum
_{n=1}^{\infty}\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: T(\tau)\xi\cap B_{n} \text{
infinite}),
\end{align*}
therefore it suffices to show $\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: T(\tau)\xi\cap
B_{R} \times{\mathbb{R}}^{3} \text{ infinite}) = 0$ for every $R>0$. To this
end we observe that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: \exists k\in S,
n\leq|v_{k}|\leq n+1, x_{k} \in B_{R} -\tau v_{k})< \infty.
\end{align*}
Hence by Borel-Cantelli we have $\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: \exists N>0\,
x_{k} +\tau v_{k} \in B_{R} \Rightarrow x_{k} \in B_{N})=1$, so $%
\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p}: T(\tau)\xi\cap B_{R} \times{\mathbb{R}}^{3} \text{
infinite}) = 0$ as claimed.
Furthermore, for any Borel sets $A,B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ and $n\in{%
\mathbb{N}}$ we have
\begin{align*}
\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p} : |\{T(\tau) \xi\cap A \times B\}| = n) & =
\nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p} : |\{k \in S: v_{k} \in B, x_{k} \in A-\tau
v_{k}\}| = n) \\
& = \nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p} : |\{k \in S: v_{k} \in B, x_{k} \in A\}| = n)
\\
& = \nu_{g}(\xi\in\Lambda_{p} : |\xi\cap A \times B\}| = n).
\end{align*}
Repeating the same computation for the cylinder sets shows $\nu_{g} =
\nu_{g} \circ T(-\tau)$.
\end{proof}
Actually several of the random force fields considered in this paper will
contain at least two different types of particles having different types of
charges. This is due to the fact that in order to define some of the long
range potentials, in particular those behaving for large values as
Coulombian potentials, an electroneutrality condition is required in order to
be able to define spatially homogeneous random force fields (cf. \cite{NSV},
Theorem 2.13). On the other hand, there is no reason to assume that in
multicomponent systems all the particles have the same velocity
distribution. Suppose that we consider systems with $L$ different types of
particles having respectively the charges $\left\{ Q_{\ell}\right\}
_{\ell=1}^{L}$ and velocity distributions $\left\{ g_{\ell}\left( dv\right)
\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}$ where $g_{\ell}$ are finite Radon measures in $%
{\mathbb R}^3.$ We can then generalize (\ref{S4E2}) as follows. We define a
set of configurations $\Lambda _{p}^{\left( L\right) }$ by means of:
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{p}^{\left( L\right) }=\left\{ \omega=\left\{ \left(
x_{k,1},v_{k,1};x_{k,2},v_{k,2};...;x_{k,L},v_{k,L}\right) \right\} _{k\in%
\mathbb{N}}:\left\{ \left( x_{k,\ell},v_{k,\ell}\right) \right\} _{k\in%
\mathbb{N}},\ \ell\in\left\{ 1,2,...,L\right\} \right\} / {\sim}
\label{S5E5}
\end{equation}
where the equivalence relation $\sim$ identifies all the sequences which can
be obtained from another by means of a permutation of the particles within a
single species. Now, given Borel sets $B_{j}\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}\times%
\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and integers $n_{j,\ell}\in\mathbb{N}_{\ast}$ for $%
j\in\left\{ 1,2,...,J\right\} ,\ \ell\in\left\{ 1,2,...,L\right\} $ we
define sets:%
\begin{equation*}
U_{B_{j},n_{j,\ell}}^{\left( \ell\right) }=\left\{ \omega\in\Lambda
_{p}^{\left( L\right) }:\#\left[ \left\{ \left( x_{k,\ell},v_{k,\ell
}\right) \right\} \cap B_{j}\right] =n_{j,\ell}\right\}
\end{equation*}
where we assume that $\omega$ is as in (\ref{S5E5}) and $\ell\in\left\{
1,2,...,L\right\} .$ We define the $\sigma-$algebra $\mathcal{F}_{L}$ of
subsets of $\Lambda_{p}^{\left( L\right) }$ as the smallest $\sigma-$algebra
containing all the sets $U_{B_{j},n_{j,k}}^{\left( k\right) }.$ We then
define a measure space $\left( \Lambda_{p}^{\left( L\right) },\mathcal{F}%
_{L},\nu_{\left\{ g_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}}\right) $ by means of:%
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\left\{ g_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}}\left(
\bigcap_{j=1}^{J}\bigcap_{\ell=1}^{L}U_{B_{j},n_{j,\ell}}\right)
=\prod_{j=1}^{J}\prod _{\ell=1}^{L}\left[ \frac{\left\vert
\int_{B_{j}}dxg_{\ell}\left( dv\right) \right\vert ^{n_{j,\ell}}}{\left(
n_{j,\ell}\right) !}e^{-\int_{B_{j}}dxg_{\ell}\left( dv\right) }\right] .
\label{S5E6}
\end{equation}
We will say that the distribution of particles defined by means of the
probability measure $\nu_{\left\{ g_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}}$ satisfies
the electroneutrality condition (with charges $\left\{ Q_{\ell}\right\}
_{\ell=1}^{L}$) if the following identity holds:%
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}Q_{\ell}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}g_{\ell}\left( dv\right) =0.
\label{ElNeut}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Random force fields generated by freely moving random
particle distributions}
We can define now a family of random force fields taking as starting point
the random particle configurations defined in the previous section. Given a
family of radially symmetric interaction potentials $\phi=\phi\left(
\left\vert x\right\vert \right) $ such that $\nabla\phi\in
C_{\ast}^{2}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) ,$ we want to give a meaning to the
following expressions in order to define suitable random force fields. In
the case of particle configurations in $\Lambda_{p}:$%
\begin{equation}
F\left( x,\tau;\omega;g\right) =-\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\nabla\phi\left(
x-x_{k}-v_{k}\tau\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ \omega=\left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right)
\right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}\in\Lambda_{p} \label{S5E7}
\end{equation}
and in the case of particle configurations with different types of charges $%
\left\{ Q_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}$ and velocity distributions $\left\{
g_{\ell}\left( dv\right) \right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}$ the goal is to give a
meaning to expressions like:%
\begin{equation}
F\left( x,\tau;\omega;\left\{ g_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}\right)
=-\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}Q_{\ell}\nabla\phi\left( x-x_{k,\ell
}-v_{k,\ell}\tau\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ \omega\in\Lambda_{p}^{\left( L\right) }
\label{S5E8}
\end{equation}
with $\omega$ as in (\ref{S5E5}). Similarly, we define truncations of the
expressions above, defined by
\begin{align}
F^{R}\left( x,\tau;\omega;g\right) & =-\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}: |x_{k}|\leq
R}\nabla\phi\left( x-x_{k}-v_{k}\tau\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ \omega=\left\{ \left(
x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}\in\Lambda _{p}
\label{S5E7trunc} \\
F^{R}\left( x,\tau;\omega;\left\{ g_{\ell}\right\} _{\ell=1}^{L}\right) &
=-\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}: |x_{k,l}|\leq R}Q_{\ell}\nabla
\phi\left( x-x_{k,\ell}-v_{k,\ell}\tau\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ \omega\in
\Lambda_{p}^{\left( L\right) } . \label{S5E8trunc}
\end{align}
\medskip
The convergence of the series on the right-hand side of (\ref{S5E7}), (\ref%
{S5E8}) for $\tau=0$ and a large class of interaction potentials $\phi$ has
been considered in \cite{NSV}. Given that the distribution of points $%
\left\{ x_{k}+v_{k}\tau\right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ is given by a Poisson
distribution (cf.~\ref{PoissonEvolution}) in ${\mathbb R}^3$ these results
hold for any $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$. The convergence of the series in (\ref%
{S5E7}), (\ref{S5E8}) is not immediate for potentials $\phi\left( \left\vert
x\right\vert \right) $ decreasing like nonintegrable power laws for large
values of $\left\vert x\right\vert .$ Using the methods in \cite{NSV} we
might then see that the right-hand side of (\ref{S5E7}) can be given a
meaning for any $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$ with probability one and $\phi\left(
\left\vert x\right\vert \right) \sim\frac{C}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{s}},\
s>1$ defining the right-hand side of (\ref{S5E7}) as the limit as $%
R\rightarrow\infty$ of the sum over points contained in a sphere $%
B_{R}\left( 0\right) .$ In the case $s=1$ it has been proved in \cite{NSV}
that such limits exist and they define a random force field invariant
under translations if the electroneutrality condition (\ref{ElNeut}) holds.
The type of arguments used in \cite{NSV} can be adapted to prove that the
random force fields in (\ref{S5E7}), (\ref{S5E8}) are defined for all $\tau
\in\mathbb{R}$ with probability one. The following set of conditions for the
function $\phi$ will be used in the definition of the random force fields $F.
$
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \phi\left( x\right) \right\vert +\left\vert x\right\vert
\left\vert \nabla\phi\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\left\vert
x\right\vert ^{s}}\ \ \ \text{for }\left\vert x\right\vert \geq1\text{ with }%
s>2 \label{phiDec_slarge}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \phi\left( x\right) -\frac{A}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{s}}%
\right\vert +\left\vert x\right\vert \left\vert \nabla\phi\left( x\right) +%
\frac{Ax}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{s+2}}\right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\left\vert
x\right\vert ^{s+1}}\ \ \ \text{for }\left\vert x\right\vert \geq1\text{
with }s\in(1,2) ,\ A\in\mathbb{R} \label{phiDec_sInt}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \phi\left( x\right) -\frac{A}{\left\vert x\right\vert }%
\right\vert +\left\vert x\right\vert \left\vert \nabla\phi\left( x\right) +%
\frac{Ax}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{3}}\right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\left\vert
x\right\vert ^{2+\delta}}\ \ \ \text{for }\left\vert x\right\vert \geq1\text{
with } \ A\in\mathbb{R}\text{,\ }\delta>0. \label{phiDec_sOne}
\end{equation}
In the three formulas (\ref{phiDec_slarge})-(\ref{phiDec_sOne}) we assume
that $C>0.$
We will further assume that the functions $g$, $g_{l}$ satisfy:
\begin{align}
\int g(v)|v|^{6+\kappa }\;\mathrm{d}{v}& <\infty , \label{Momentg} \\
\int g_{l}(v)|v|^{6+\kappa }\;\mathrm{d}{v}& <\infty , \label{Momentgl}
\end{align}%
for some $\kappa >0$. We then have the following result:
\begin{proposition}
\label{RandForFieldMovPart} Let $\phi :{\mathbb R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R}%
_{\ast }$ be a radially symmetric interaction potential such that $\phi
,\nabla \phi ,\nabla ^{2}\phi \in C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) $. Let $B_{1}\left( 0\right) $ be the unit ball in ${\mathbb R}^3$.
The following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Suppose that $\phi $ satisfies (\ref{phiDec_slarge}) and that $\nabla
^{2}\phi $ is bounded in $L^{p}\left(
B_{1}\left( 0\right) \right) $ for some $p>1$. Let $\nu _{g}$ be the
probability measure in the measure space $\left( \Lambda _{p},\Sigma
_{p},\nu _{g}\right) $ defined by means of (\ref{S4E2}) where $g$ satisfies %
\eqref{Momentg}. Then for any $x\in {\mathbb R}^3$ the series in (\ref{S5E7}%
) converges absolutely for all $\tau \in \mathbb{R}$ for $\nu _{g}-$almost $%
\omega \in \Lambda _{p}.$ Moreover, the series (\ref{S5E7}) defines a random
force field in $C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right)
\right) .$
\item[(ii)] Suppose that $\phi $ satisfies (\ref{phiDec_sInt}) and that $%
\nabla ^{2}\phi $ is bounded in $L^{p}\left(
B_{1}\left( 0\right) \right) $ for some $p>1$. Let $\nu _{g}$ be the
probability measure in the measure space $\left( \Lambda _{p},\Sigma
_{p},\nu _{g}\right) $ defined by means of (\ref{S4E2}) where $g$ satisfies %
\eqref{Momentg}. Then, for each $x\in {\mathbb R}^3$ the following limit
exists for all $\tau \in \mathbb{R}$ for $\nu _{g}-$almost $\omega \in
\Lambda _{p}:$
\begin{equation}
F\left( x,\tau ;\omega ;g\right) =-\lim_{R\rightarrow \infty }\sum_{\left\{
\left\vert x_{k}\right\vert \leq R\right\} }\nabla \phi \left(
x-x_{k}-v_{k}\tau \right) \ . \label{S9E9}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the series in (\ref{S9E9}) defines a random force field in $%
C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) .$
\item[(iii)] Suppose that $\phi $ satisfies (\ref{phiDec_sOne}) and that $%
\nabla \phi $ is in the
Sobolev space $H^{s}\left( B_{1}\left( 0\right) \right) $ with $s>\frac{1}{2}
$. Let $\left( \Lambda _{p}^{\left( L\right) },\mathcal{F}_{L},\nu
_{\left\{ g_{\ell }\right\} _{\ell =1}^{L}}\right) $ be the measure space
defined by means of (\ref{S5E5}), (\ref{S5E6}) where the functions $\left\{
g_{\ell }\right\} _{\ell =1}^{L}$ satisfy \eqref{Momentgl} and the
electroneutrality condition (\ref{ElNeut}) holds. Then, for each $x\in
{\mathbb R}^3$ the following limit exists for all $\tau \in \mathbb{R}$ for
$\nu _{\left\{ g_{\ell }\right\} _{\ell =1}^{L}}-$almost $\omega \in \Lambda
_{p}^{\left( L\right) }:$%
\begin{equation}
F\left( x,\tau ;\omega ;\left\{ g_{\ell }\right\} _{\ell =1}^{L}\right)
=-\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\sum_{\ell =1}^{L}\sum_{\left\{ \left\vert
x_{k,\ell }\right\vert \leq 2^{N}\right\} }Q_{\ell }\nabla \phi \left(
x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) \ . \label{T8E2}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the series in (\ref{T8E2}) defines a random force field in $%
C\left( \mathbb{R}:C_{\ast }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) \right) .$
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will only sketch the proof of Proposition \ref{RandForFieldMovPart} in
the case (iii) since it is the most involved. The generalization to (ii) and
(iii) can be made along similar lines using ideas analogous to the ones in the proof of
Theorem 2.6 in \cite{NSV}.
We first split $F$ into the contribution due to the close particles and the
long-range contribution. To this end we split $\phi $ as $\phi =\phi
_{1}+\phi _{2}$ where $\phi _{1}$ is supported in the unit ball and it is
smooth away from the origin. The function $\phi _{2}$ is smooth in the whole
space ${\mathbb R}^3.$ More precisely we introduce a cutoff
$\eta\in C^{\infty}\left({\mathbb R}^3\right)$ such that $\eta\left( x\right)=\eta\left(
\left\vert x\right\vert \right),$ $0\leq\eta\leq1,$ $\eta\left( x\right)
=\frac 1 2$ if $\left\vert x\right\vert \leq1,$ $\eta\left( x\right) =0$ if
$\left\vert x\right\vert \geq 1$. We set %
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{1}\left(x\right) :=\phi\left( x \right)
\eta\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right)
\ \ ,\ \ \phi_{2}\left( x \right) :=\phi\left( x
\right) \left[ 1-\eta\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right) \right]\;. \ \label{S4E5}%
\end{equation*}
We then define the random force fields $F_{1},\ F_{2}$, as in (%
\ref{T8E2}), using the potentials $\phi _{1},\ \phi _{2}$, so that $F=F_1+F_2$. We estimate first
the contribution $F_{2}.$ To this end we define the random variables%
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{(2)}_{0}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) &=&-\sum_{\ell =1}^{L}\sum_{\left\{
\left\vert x_{k,\ell }\right\vert \leq 1\right\} }Q_{\ell }\nabla \phi
_{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) \label{fPiecesDef} \\
f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) &=&-\sum_{\ell =1}^{L}\sum_{\left\{
2^{j-1}<\left\vert x_{k,\ell }\right\vert \leq 2^{j}\right\} }Q_{\ell
}\nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) \ \ ,\ \
j=1,2,3,... \notag
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
-\sum_{\ell =1}^{L}\sum_{\left\{ \left\vert x_{k,\ell }\right\vert \leq
2^{N}\right\} }Q_{\ell }\nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau
\right) =\sum_{j=0}^{N}f_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \ . \label{FfarFract}
\end{equation}
Notice that using the probability measure $\nu _{\left\{ g_{\ell }\right\}
_{\ell =1}^{L}}$ defined by means of (\ref{S5E6}) as well as (\ref{ElNeut})
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \right] =0.
\end{equation}
We now observe that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:corf2jf2m}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_{0}^{T}f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \otimes
f^{(2)}_{m}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) d\tau \right]
=\delta _{j,m}\int_{0}^{T}d\tau \mathbb{E}\left[ f_{j}\left( x,\tau
;\omega \right) \otimes f_{m}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \right] .
\end{equation}
Using that the distributions of particles in the sets $\left\{ 2^{j-1}<\left\vert x_{k,\ell
}\right\vert \leq 2^{j}\right\} $ (and $\left\{ \left\vert x_{k,\ell
}\right\vert \leq 2\right\} $) are mutually independent, which implies that the random
variables $f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) $ are mutually independent as well, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}\left[ f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \otimes f^{(2)}_{m}\left(
x,\tau ;\omega \right) \right] \\
&=&\sum_{\ell =1}^{L}\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<|x_{k,\ell }|
\leq 2^{j}\right\} }\left( Q_{\ell }\right) ^{2}\left[ \nabla \phi
_{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) \otimes \nabla \phi
_{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) \right]\right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
We now use the fact that the Poisson distributions for the different charges have rate $\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}g_{\ell }\left( dv\right) $ and that they are invariant under translations. Then:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<|x_{k,\ell }|
\leq 2^{j}\right\} } \nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau
\right) \otimes \nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau \right) %
\right] \\
&=&\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<\left\vert y\right\vert \leq
2^{j}\right\} }\left[ \nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-y-v\tau \right) \otimes
\nabla \phi _{2}\left( x-y-v\tau \right) \right] g_{\ell }\left( dv\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\phi _{2}$ is smooth near the origin and $\nabla\phi_2(\vert y\vert )\sim \frac{1}{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}$ for
large distances, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left\vert \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<|x_{k,\ell }|
\leq 2^{j}\right\} }\nabla \phi_{2}\left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell
}\tau _{1}\right) \otimes \nabla \phi_{2} \left( x-x_{k,\ell }-v_{k,\ell }\tau
_{2}\right) \right] \right\vert \\
&\leq &\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<\left\vert y\right\vert
\leq 2^{j}\right\} }\frac{g_{\ell }\left( dv\right) }{\left( 1+\left\vert
x-y-v\tau _{1}\right\vert ^{2}\right) \left( 1+\left\vert x-y-v\tau
_{2}\right\vert ^{2}\right) }.
\end{eqnarray*}
We assume that $\left\vert x\right\vert $ is bounded, and that $%
\tau _{1},\ \tau _{2}$ are bounded. We estimate separately the contributions due to the region where $\left\vert v\right\vert \leq
2^{\frac{j}{2}}$ and the region where $\left\vert v\right\vert >2^{\frac{j}{2}}$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{\left\{ 2^{j-1}<\left\vert y\right\vert
\leq 2^{j}\right\} }\frac{g_{\ell }\left( dv\right) }{\left( 1+\left\vert
x-y-v\tau _{1}\right\vert ^{2}\right) \left( 1+\left\vert x-y-v\tau
_{2}\right\vert ^{2}\right) }\leq C\left(\frac{1}{2^{j}}+2^{-\frac{\kappa j}{2}}\right).
\end{equation*}
Hence, from \eqref{eq:corf2jf2m} using the estimates above, we otain
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_{0}^{T}f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) \otimes
f^{(2)}_{\ell }\left( x,\tau ;\omega \right) d\tau \right] =\left[
\int_{0}^{T}K_{j}\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right] \delta _{j,\ell }
\end{equation*}
for $j=0,1,2,...,$ where:%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert K_{j}\left( \tau \right) \right\vert \leq C2^{- \frac{\kappa }{2} j}\ \ \text{for }\tau \in \left[ 0,T\right]
\end{equation*}
for some $C>0,$ which depends only on $T.$
Arguing similarly, we can obtain estimates for the derivatives of the
functions $f^{(2)}_{j}.$ More precisely, we have the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_{0}^{T}\left\vert \partial _{\tau }f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau
;\omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}d\tau \right] \leq \tilde{C}_{T}2^{-\frac{\kappa }{2} j}\ \ ,\ \ j=0,1,2,...
\end{equation*}%
whence, using Morrey's Theorem, we obtain that%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\left\vert f^{(2)}_{j}\left( x,\tau ;\omega
\right) \right\vert \right] \leq C_{T}2^{-\frac{\kappa }{4}j}\ \ ,\ \ j=0,1,2,...
\end{equation*}
We can then prove, using Borel-Cantelli Theorem as in \cite{NSV}, that the
limit as $N\rightarrow \infty $ of the right-hand side of (\ref{FfarFract})
exists for all $\tau \in \left[ 0,T\right] .$
We now prove the existence of the random force field $F_1$ associated to the
localized part of the potential $\phi _{1}.$ To this end we define random
functions $f^{(1)}_{0},\ f^{(1)}_{j}$ as in (\ref{fPiecesDef}) replacing $\phi _{2}$ by $%
\phi _{1}.$ Arguing as before and using the fact that $\phi _{2}\in H^s({\mathbb R}^3)$ we obtain the estimate%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_{0}^{T}\left\vert \partial _{\tau }^{s}f^{(1)}_{j}\left(
x,\tau ;\omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}d\tau \right] \leq C_{T}2^{-
\frac{\kappa }{2} j}\ \ ,\ \ j=0,1,2,...
\end{equation*}%
with $p>1,$ where $\partial _{\tau }^{s}$ is the fractional derivative of
order $s$ defined by means of incremental quotiens (see for instance \cite{Ad, Br}). Then, using that $s>\frac{1}{2}$ we obtain%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \sup_{0\leq \tau \leq T}\left\vert f^{(1)}_{j}\left( x,\tau
;\omega \right) \right\vert \right] \leq C_{T}2^{- \frac{\kappa }{4} j}\ \ ,\ \ j=0,1,2,...
\end{equation*}
We can then argue as in the estimate of the random force field $F_2$
due to $\phi _{2}$ to prove the convergence of the corresponding series
uniformly for all $\tau \in \left[ 0,T\right] .$ Then the convergence of the
right hand side of (\ref{T8E2}) follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We could also define random force fields as in Proposition \ref%
{RandForFieldMovPart} for interaction potentials $\phi$ satisfying $%
\phi\left( x\right) \sim\frac{A}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{s}}$ as $%
\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ for $\frac{1}{2}<s<1,$ as it was
made in \cite{NSV} for stationary particle distributions. The kinetic
equations that can arise for this class of potentials for interacting
particle systems has been discussed in \cite{NVW}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We can define also singular potentials $\phi$ taking only the values $0$ and
$\infty$ in the case of hard-sphere interactions with simple modifications
of the previous arguments.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Notice that if we assume additional regularity for $\phi,$ say $\phi\in C^{k}
$ we obtain a similar regularity for the random force field $F.$
\end{remark}
\bigskip
\subsubsection{Different classes of random force fields}
We now introduce some classes of random force fields which can be obtained
as in Proposition~\ref{RandForFieldMovPart} by means of suitable choices of
potentials $\phi =\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ with ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$
The resulting random force fields will be of two different types which will
be denoted as Boltzmann and Landau random force fields respectively.
We will introduce both of them below for the sake of completeness but in this paper we will just consider Landau random force fields.
\paragraph{Boltzmann random force fields.}
We will say that a family of random force fields defined by means of (\ref%
{S5E7}) or (\ref{S5E8}) in the sense of Proposition \ref{RandForFieldMovPart}
is a family of Boltzmann random force fields if the functions $\phi
_{{\epsilon} }$ have the form:%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) =\Phi \left( \frac{\left\vert
x\right\vert }{{\epsilon} }\right) \ \ ,\ \ x\in {\mathbb R}^3\diagdown
\left\{ 0\right\} ,\ {\epsilon} >0 \label{S4E4}
\end{equation}%
where $\Phi \left( s\right) $ is compactly supported.
The force fields with the form (\ref{S4E4}) will yield a kinetic limit as $%
{\epsilon}\rightarrow0.$ Their key feature is that they yield particle
deflections of order one if the interacting particles approach at distances
of order ${\epsilon}.$
\begin{remark}
It would be possible to make less restrictive assumptions on $\Phi ,$ for
instance that $\Phi $ decreasing exponentially or $\Phi \left( s\right) \sim
\frac{C}{s^{a}}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty $ with $a>1$ (cf. \cite{NSV}). (The
critical exponents depend on the space dimension).
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Landau random force fields.}
The families of Landau random force fields are characterized by the fact
that the interactions generated by each individual particle are small and
tend to zero as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ We will say that a family of
random force fields with anyone of the forms (\ref{S5E7}) or (\ref{S5E8}) is
a family of Landau random force fields if the function $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$
has the form:%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert x\right\vert }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \ \ ,\ \ x\in \mathbb{R}%
^{3},\ {\epsilon} >0 \label{S4E6}
\end{equation}%
where $\Phi \in C^{2}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) .$ We can choose the
characteristic length $L_{{\epsilon} }$ in one of the two possible ways.
Either:%
\begin{equation}
L_{{\epsilon} }\gg 1 \label{S4E7}
\end{equation}%
or%
\begin{equation}
L_{{\epsilon} }\sim 1\ \ \text{or \ }L_{{\epsilon} }\ll 1 \ . \label{S4E7b}
\end{equation}
In order to be able to define the random force fields $F_{{\epsilon} }$ by
means of (\ref{S5E7}) or (\ref{S5E8}) (or in the more precise forms (\ref%
{S9E9}), (\ref{T8E2}) in Proposition \ref{RandForFieldMovPart}) we need to
assume a sufficiently fast decay of $\Phi \left( s\right) $ as $s\rightarrow
\infty $ or to impose suitable electroneutrality conditions if, say (\ref%
{phiDec_sOne}) holds.
\bigskip
We have seen in \cite{NSV} how to obtain a kinetic limit for tagged
particles moving in stationary random force fields. Using analogous
arguments it is possible to derive kinetic equations describing the
evolution of a tagged particle moving in time-dependent random force fields
with the form (\ref{S5E7}) or (\ref{S5E8}) and (\ref{S4E6}) in the limit $%
{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ Some additional assumptions on $L_{{\epsilon} }$
are also required, in order to obtain uncorrelated velocity deflections over
distances of the order of the mean free path. The case (\ref{S4E7b})
corresponds to the so-called grazing collisions limit. In this case,
although the limit kinetic equation is a Landau equation, we can interpret
the dynamics as a sequence of weak, Boltzmann-like, binary collisions. In
the case in which $L_{{\epsilon} }\gg 1$ the resulting limit kinetic
equation is a linear Landau equation.
\subsection{Scatterer distributions in Rayleigh gases \label{ScattRayl}}
\bigskip
In the case of the dynamics (\ref{eq:RayNew}) the evolution of the tagged
particle cannot be described only by means of the action of the random force
field generated by the scatterers. This can be seen most clearly is the case
in which the mass of the tagged particle is the same as the mass of the
scatterers (or comparable) and the interaction between the tagged particle
and the scatterers are as in the case of the Boltzmann random force fields
(cf. (\ref{S4E4})). Also in the case of Landau interaction potentials (cf. \ref{S4E6}) the
dynamics of the tagged particle depends on whether the scatterers are
affected by the tagged particle or not. This may be seen by studying the
binary interaction (cf.~\cite{NVW}, Section 5.2).
\bigskip
The information that we need to keep about the system of scatterers in order
to compute the evolution of a tagged particle which evolves according to (%
\ref{eq:RayNew}) is the whole configuration of positions and velocities of the
scatterers at any time (i.e. $\left\{ \left( X_{k}\left( t\right)
,V_{k}\left( t\right) \right) \right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ as well as their
charges, if there are different types of particles, and the form of the
potentials yielding the interactions. If the tagged particle and the
scatterers have a different mass, the ratio between these masses would also
play a role in the determination of the dynamics. We could also consider
different types of scatterers having different masses. The distribution of
velocities of the different scatterers then plays also a role in the
dynamics of the tagged particle $\left( X\left( t\right) ,V\left( t\right)
\right) .$
\bigskip
\section{Computation of the kinetic timescale and limit equation}\label{sec:TimeScale}
As indicated in the Introduction, the paper \cite{NSV} describes how to
obtain kinetic limits for the dynamics of tagged particles moving in a field
of fixed scatterers (Lorentz Gases). There are basically two different types of kinetic
limits, namely the ones leading to the Boltzmann and the Landau equations. It has been seen in \cite{NSV} that it
is possible to define two time scales $T_{BG}$ and $T_{L}$ which are the
characteristic times for the velocity of the tagged particle to experience a
deflection of order one due to a binary collision and to the accumulation of
many small random deflections due to weak interactions with many particles
respectively.
\smallskip
In the case of more complicated particle dynamics, like (\ref{eq:IntNew}) or (\ref%
{eq:RayNew}) we can also define kinetic time scales. We consider first the case
of a tagged particle moving in a Rayleigh gas, i.e. the dynamics of the
tagged particle is described by means of (\ref{eq:RayNew}). In the case of
systems described by means of (\ref{eq:IntNew}) we will compute the kinetic time
scales approximating the dynamics of a tagged particle by means of (\ref%
{eq:TagFric}). This approximation will be obtained in Section \ref{ss:JustR}.
The kinetic time scale associated to equations with the form (\ref{eq:TagFric})
can be readily obtained and this will provide a method to obtain the kinetic
time scale for systems described by (\ref{eq:IntNew}).
In the case of tagged particles moving in a Rayleigh gas (cf.~(\ref{eq:RayNew}))
we can define a characteristic kinetic time and also the mean free path for
a particle moving in a Rayleigh gas as follows. Suppose that $\left(
X,V\right) $ is the position and velocity of a tagged particle whose
dynamics is given by (\ref{eq:RayNew}) where the initial velocity distribution of
the scatterers is given by the measure $g$ in the case of particles of a
single type, or a set of measures $\left\{ g_{\ell }\right\} _{\ell =1}^{L}$
in the case of particles of different types as discussed in Subsection \ref%
{ScattRayl}. We define the mean free path associated to the family of
potentials $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ and to the set of particle distributions
as the value $T_{{\epsilon} }$ such that:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\vert V_{{\epsilon} }\left( T_{{\epsilon} }\right)
-V_{{\epsilon} }\left( 0\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right] =\frac{1}{4}%
\left\vert V_{{\epsilon} }\left( 0\right) \right\vert ^{2} \label{MFP}
\end{equation}%
where we assume that $\left\vert V_{{\epsilon} }\left( 0\right) \right\vert
$ is the characteristic speed of the tagged particle.
\bigskip
It has been seen in \cite{NSV} how to estimate $T_{{\epsilon}}$ in the case
of static scatterers, splitting the random force field in the sum of a
Boltzmann part and a Landau part. We can then define a Boltzmann-Grad limit
time scale $T_{BG}$ by means of (\ref{MFP}) for the Rayleigh gas associated
to the Boltzmann part of the potential and the Landau time scale $T_{L}$
which is computed applying (\ref{MFP}) to the Landau part of the potential.
In most of the interaction potentials considered in \cite{NSV} one of the
two time scales is much larger than the other as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow0.$
Then, given that in the kinetic limit the deflections are additive we obtain:%
\begin{equation*}
T_{{\epsilon}}\sim\min\left\{ T_{BG},T_{L}\right\} \text{ as }%
{\epsilon}\rightarrow0.
\end{equation*}
A similar decomposition in Boltzmann part and Landau part can be made in the
case of arbitrary Rayleigh gases. We can then use the same approach to
estimate $T_{{\epsilon} }$ as in \cite{NSV} in the kinetic limit $%
{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ We then recall the decomposition of the
interaction potentials obtained in \cite{NSV}.
Suppose that $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ is an interaction potential as it appears in (\ref{eq:RayNew}). The potentials
for which there is a Boltzmann part are characterized by the existence of a
collision length $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }$ satisfying $\lim_{{\epsilon}
\rightarrow 0}\lambda _{{\epsilon} }=0$ and such that:%
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0}\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \lambda
_{{\epsilon} }y\right) =\Psi \left( y\right)
\end{equation*}%
uniformly in compact sets of ${\mathbb R}^3\setminus \left\{ 0\right\} ,$
where $\Psi \left( y\right) \neq 0.$ The distance $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }$
is the characteristic distance at which the tagged particle experiences
deflections of order one due to the interaction with one of the scatterers.
We then split $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ as:%
\begin{equation}
\phi _{B,{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) =\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right)
\eta \left( \frac{\left\vert x\right\vert }{M\lambda _{{\epsilon} }}\right)
\ \ ,\ \ \phi _{L,{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) =\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left(
x\right) \left[ 1-\eta \left( \frac{\left\vert x\right\vert }{M\lambda
_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \right] \label{S1E5}
\end{equation}%
where $\eta \in C^{\infty }\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) $ is a radially
symmetric cutoff function satisfying $\eta \left( y\right) =1$ if $%
\left\vert y\right\vert \leq 1,\ \eta \left( y\right) =0$ if $\left\vert
y\right\vert \geq 2,\ 0\leq \eta \leq 1.$ We assume that $M$ is a large
number, which eventually might be sent to infinity at the end of the
argument. It would be also possible to take $M=M_{{\epsilon} }$ with $%
M_{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow \infty $ as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$ at a
sufficiently slow rate to control the transition region between Boltzmann
and Landau collisions. In (\ref{S1E5}), $\phi _{B,{\epsilon} }$ stands for
Boltzmann and $\phi _{L,{\epsilon} }$ for Landau.
\bigskip
We now compute the characteristic time scales $T_{BG}$ and $T_{L}$ which
yield the expected time to have velocity deflections comparable to the
tagged particle velocity itself for the Boltzmann part of the interaction $%
\phi _{B,{\epsilon} }$ and the Landau part of the interaction $\phi
_{L,{\epsilon} }$ for a tagged particle moving in a Rayleigh gas. We notice that the time scale for the change of the velocity distribution for a Lorentz Gas with moving scatterers is the same time scale of the Rayleigh Gas, in the case in which the mass of the tagged particle and the scatterers are comparable. For this reason, to compute the kinetic time scale for the Rayleigh Gas it is enough to compute the time scale for a Lorentz Gas with moving scatterers. This is the strategy we will use in the sections below.
\bigskip
\subsection{Computation of $T_{BG}$ for a tagged particle in a Rayleigh gas
\bigskip
We first compute the characteristic time scale to obtain relevant
deflections for a tagged particle moving in a Rayleigh gas generated by
potentials with the form $\phi _{B,{\epsilon} }$ in (\ref{S1E5}). To
compute the deflection time using the definition (\ref{MFP}) would require
some involved computations, since it would require to compute the
contributions to the deflection of having multiple collisions, something
that would require some tedious computations. Therefore, instead of using
the definition (\ref{MFP}) we will compute a simpler quantity, namely the
length of a tube in which the probability of finding one particle is of
order one.
\bigskip
We will restrict ourselves to the case in which the velocity of the tagged
particle experiences deflections of order one at distances of order $%
{\epsilon} $ of one scatterer. Suppose that a tagged particle moves at
speed $V.$ We assume that the initial positions of the scatterers $x_{j}$,
as well as their velocities $v_{j}$, denoted as $\omega =\left\{ \left(
x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} _{k\in J}$ are determined by means of the
Poisson measure defined in (\ref{S4E2}). Suppose without loss of generality
that the initial position of the tagged particle is the origin. Since its
initial velocity is $V$ we have that the position of the tagged particle at
time $t$ is $Vt.$ We then define $T_{BG}$ in the following way:%
\begin{equation*}
T_{BG}=\inf \left\{ \tau :\mathbb{P}\left( \exists k:\min_{0\leq s\leq \tau
}\left\vert Vs-\left( x_{k}+v_{k}s\right) \right\vert \leq {\epsilon}
\right) \geq \frac{1}{2}\right\} .
\end{equation*}%
To compute $T_{BG}$, we compute the probability above for each $\tau >0$. To
this end, we decompose the velocity space ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ into disjoint
cubes $Q_{\ell }$:
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb{R}}^{3}=\cup _{\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}}Q_{\ell },\quad Q_{\ell
}=\{v\in {\mathbb{R}}^{3}:x=c_{\ell }+p,p\in \lbrack 0,{{\epsilon} }/\tau
)^{3}\},
\end{equation*}%
for some appropriately chosen centers $c_{\ell }\in {\mathbb{R}}^{3}$. Then
for $\tau >0$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left( \exists k:\min_{0\leq s\leq \tau }\left\vert Vs-\left(
x_{k}+v_{k}s\right) \right\vert \leq {\epsilon} \right) & =\sum_{\ell \in {%
\mathbb{N}}}\mathbb{P}\left( \exists k:\min_{0\leq s\leq \tau }\left\vert
Vs-\left( x_{k}+v_{k}s\right) \right\vert \leq {\epsilon} ,v_{k}\in Q_{\ell
}\right) \\
& \sim \sum_{\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}}\mathbb{P}\left( \exists k,s\in \lbrack
0,\tau ]:|x_{k}-s(V-c_{\ell })|\leq {{\epsilon} },v_{k}\in Q_{\ell }\right)
\\& \sim \tau \lambda _{{\epsilon} }^{2},
\end{align*}%
where $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }$ is the collision length. Therefore, the
Boltzmann-Grad timescale $T_{BG}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
T_{BG}\sim \lambda _{{\epsilon} }^{-2},
\end{equation*}%
as in the Lorentz gas with fixed obstacles, see \cite{NSV}. We notice that in the case of potentials of the form \eqref{S4E4}, namely $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) =\Phi \left( \frac{\left\vert x\right\vert }{{\epsilon} }\right)$ with $\Phi \left( s\right)$ compactly supported, the collision length $\lambda_{{\epsilon}}={\epsilon}$.
\bigskip
\subsection{Computation of $T_{L}$ for a tagged particle in a Rayleigh gas \label{CharTimeRayl}}
\bigskip
We now compute the characteristic time in which the deflections of the
velocity are of order one for one tagged particle moving in a time-dependent
Landau random force field with the form (\ref{S5E7}) (or (\ref{S5E8}))
generated by potentials with the form (\ref{S4E6}) with $\Phi \left(
r\right) \sim \frac{1}{r^s}$ as $r\rightarrow \infty$, $s\geq 1$. To this end we compute
the variance of the velocity deflections experienced by a particle moving in
a straight line during the time $T.$ This deflection is given by:%
\begin{equation}\label{def:deflection}
d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T;\omega \right) =\int_{0}^{T}F_{{\epsilon} }\left(
Vt,t;\omega \right) dt
\end{equation}%
where we assume that the initial position of the tagged particle is $X=0$
and the velocity is $V.$ We have $\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{{\epsilon} }\left(
T\right) \right] =0.$ We now compute:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T\right) \otimes d_{{\epsilon}
}\left( T\right) \right] =\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\mathbb{E}%
\left[ F_{{\epsilon} }\left( Vt_{1},t_{1};\omega \right) \otimes
F_{{\epsilon} }\left( Vt_{2},t_{2};\omega \right) \right] \ . \label{T8E3}
\end{equation}
In order to indicate how to compute (\ref{T8E3}) we consider the case of
random force fields (\ref{S5E7}) with $\Phi =\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ given by:%
\begin{equation*}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{x}{%
L_{{\epsilon} }}\right)
\end{equation*}%
where $\Phi \left( \xi \right) $ decreases sufficiently fast as $\left\vert
\xi \right\vert \rightarrow \infty ,$ for instance as in (\ref{phiDec_slarge}%
). In order to compute (\ref{T8E3}) we approximate it assuming that we have $%
N$ particles independently distributed in $B_{R_{N}}\left( 0\right) \times
{\mathbb R}^3\subset \ \mathbb{R}^{6}$ with $N=\frac{4\pi \left(
R_{N}\right) ^{3}}{3}$ with the probability density $\frac{1}{\left\vert
B_{R_{N}}\left( 0\right) \right\vert }g\left( v\right) .$ (It would be also
possible to use a macrocanonical distribution, but the result is equivalent
in the limit $N\rightarrow \infty $). We will denote as $d_{{\epsilon}
}^{N}\left( T\right) $ the corresponding deflections and:
\begin{equation*}
F\left( x,\tau ;\omega ;g\right) =-\sum_{k=1}^{N}\nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon}
}\left( x-x_{k}-v_{k}\tau \right)\ .
\end{equation*}
We now compute \eqref{T8E3} and using the equation above we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[ d_{{\epsilon} }^{N}( T) \otimes d_{{\epsilon} }^{N}\left(
T\right) ] =\sum_{k,j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}%
\mathbb{E}\left[ \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left(
Vt_{1}-x_{k}-v_{k}t_{1}\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left(
Vt_{2}-x_{j}-v_{j}t_{2}\right) \right] \\
&=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \nabla
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( Vt_{1}-x_{k}-v_{k}t_{1}\right) \otimes \nabla
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( Vt_{2}-x_{k}-v_{k}t_{2}\right) \right] \\
&=\frac{N}{\left\vert B_{R_{N}} \right\vert }\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}%
\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\int_{B_{R_{N}} }dy\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dvg\left( v\right)
\nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left( V-v\right) t_{1}-y\right) \otimes
\nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left( V-v\right) t_{2}-y\right) \\
&=\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\int_{B_{R_{N}}\left( 0\right)
}dy\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dvg(v) \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left(
V-v\right) t_{1}-y\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left(
V-v\right) t_{2}-y\right).
\end{align*}
Taking the limit $N\rightarrow \infty $ we obtain:%
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[ d_{{\epsilon} }( T) \otimes d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T\right) ]
\\&=\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dvg\left( v\right) \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left( V-v\right)
t_{1}-y\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \left( V-v\right)
t_{2}-y\right) \\
&=\frac{{\epsilon} ^{2}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}%
\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dvg\left( v\right) \nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \frac{y-\left( V-v\right)
\left( t_{1}-t_{2}\right) }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \otimes \nabla _{\xi
}\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( \frac{y}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \\
&={\epsilon} ^{2}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right)
^{2}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{-\frac{t_{1}}{L_{{\epsilon} }}}^{\frac{T-t_{1}}{%
L_{{\epsilon} }}}K\left( V;\tau \right) d\tau
\end{align*}%
where:%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( V;\tau \right) =\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\xi \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dvg\left( v\right) \nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi +\left( V-v\right)
\tau \right) \otimes \nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi \right).
\end{equation*}
We will now assume that $T\gg L_{{\epsilon} }.$ Then, for most of the
values of $t_{1}$ in the integral we have that $\frac{T-t_{1}}{%
L_{{\epsilon} }}\gg 1$ and $\frac{t_{1}}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\gg 1.$ On the
other hand, the function $K\left( V;\tau \right) $ is integrable in $\tau $
under the assumption (\ref{phiDec_slarge})-(\ref{phiDec_sInt}), namely for $s>1$. There are some boundary effects
in the integrals if $t_{1}$ or $\left( T-t_{1}\right) $ are of order $%
L_{{\epsilon} }.$ We then obtain the approximation:%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T\right) \otimes d_{{\epsilon}
}\left( T\right) \right] \sim {\epsilon} ^{2}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right)
^{2}T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }K\left( V;\tau \right) d\tau.
\end{equation*}
Hence, the characteristic time scale is
$T=\frac{1}{{\epsilon} ^{2}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}$
and the diffusion coefficient for the tagged particle is the matrix
$
D\left( V\right) =\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }K\left( V;\tau \right) d\tau
$
which is diagonal if $g$ is isotropic.
Notice that in order to obtain a
dynamics without correlations (and also in order to have self-consistency of
the previous argument), we need to have $T\gg L_{{\epsilon} },$ i.e.:%
\begin{equation*}
{\epsilon} ^{2}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\ll 1\ .
\end{equation*}
It is interesting to compute the characteristic time in the case of
potentials decreasing as Coulombian potentials $\Phi(r)\sim \frac 1 r$ as $r\to\infty$. In this case we need to take
at least two types of charges in order to have electroneutrality. We
consider a family of rescaled potentials $\Phi_\epsilon(x)=\epsilon \Phi(x)$ and random force fields that are the limit as $N\rightarrow \infty $ of
fields with the form:%
\begin{equation*}
F\left( x,\tau ;\omega ;g\right) =-{\epsilon} \sum_{k=1}^{N}\nabla \Phi
\left( x-x_{k}-v_{k}\tau \right) +{\epsilon} \sum_{k=1}^{N}\nabla \Phi
\left( x-y_{k}-w_{k}\tau \right)
\end{equation*}%
where the particles $\left\{ \left( x_{k},v_{k}\right) \right\} $ and $%
\left\{ \left( y_{k},w_{k}\right) \right\} $ are chosen independently and $%
\Phi $ is a smooth function satisfying:%
\begin{equation*}
\Phi \left( x\right) \sim \frac{1}{\left\vert x\right\vert }\text{ as }%
\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty \text{ and }\nabla \Phi \left(
x\right) \sim -\frac{x}{\left\vert x\right\vert ^{3}}\text{ as }\left\vert
x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty.
\end{equation*}
We can then compute the variance of the deflections arguing as above. We
then obtain:%
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T\right) \otimes d_{{\epsilon}
}\left( T\right) \right]
&=2{\epsilon} ^{2}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{-t_{1}}^{T-t_{1}} ds K\left(
V;s\right),
\end{align*}%
where:%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( V;s\right) =\int_{(\mathbb{R}^3)^2}dy dv g\left( v\right) \nabla
\Phi \left( y+\left( v-V\right) s\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi \left( y\right).
\end{equation*}
Notice that the function $K\left( V;s\right) $ is well defined for each $%
s\in \mathbb{R}$. We can compute the asymptotics of $K\left( V;s\right) $ as
$\left\vert s\right\vert \rightarrow \infty .$ We can assume without loss of
generality that $s>0$ since the case $s<0$ would be similar. We rescale $%
y=s\xi$, then:
\begin{equation*}
K\left( V;s\right) =s^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\xi \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dvg\left( v\right) \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( s\left( \xi +\left(
v-V\right) \right) \right) \otimes \nabla \Phi \left( s\xi \right).
\end{equation*}
Taking the limit as $s\rightarrow \infty $ and using the asymptotics of $%
\nabla \Phi \left( y\right) $ we obtain:
\begin{equation}
K\left( V;s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\xi \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dvg\left( v\right) \frac{\left( \xi +\left( v-V\right) \right) }{%
\left\vert \xi +\left( v-V\right) \right\vert ^{3}}\otimes \frac{\xi }{%
\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{3}}\ . \label{Kdef}
\end{equation}
This integral exists. Indeed, the integrals on $\xi $ are well defined if $%
v\neq V.$ On the other hand, if $v\rightarrow V$ we obtain a divergence like
$\frac{1}{\left\vert v-V\right\vert }.$ We will assume that $g\left(
v\right) $ is smooth enough to have integrability of $\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dv%
\frac{g\left( v\right) }{\left\vert v-V\right\vert }.$ Then the integral is
well defined and we obtain the asymptotics:%
\begin{equation}
K\left( V;s\right) \sim \frac{\Gamma \left( V,\func{sgn}\left( s\right)
\right) }{s}\text{ as }\left\vert s\right\vert \rightarrow \infty
\label{Gammadef}
\end{equation}%
for some function $\Gamma :{\mathbb R}^3\times \left\{ -1,+1\right\}
\rightarrow M_{3}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) .$ We then obtain:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{{\epsilon} }\left( T\right) \otimes d_{{\epsilon}
}\left( T\right) \right] \sim 2{\epsilon}
^{2}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{-t_{1}}^{T-t_{1}}ds \frac{\Gamma \left( V,\func{sgn}%
\left( s\right) \right) }{\left\vert s\right\vert } \sim D\left( V\right)
{\epsilon} ^{2}T\log \left( T\right) \label{DiffRay}
\end{equation}%
where $D\left( V\right) \in M_{3}\left( {\mathbb R}^3\right) $ is a
nonnegative matrix.
\bigskip
This yields the characteristic time scale:%
\begin{equation}
T_
\sim \frac{1}{{\epsilon} ^{2}\log \left( \frac{1}{%
{\epsilon} }\right) } \label{TimeCoulLog}
\end{equation}%
which is exactly the same time scale obtained in \cite{NSV} for random force
fields generated by static distributions of particles (Lorentz gases).
The logarithmic term $\log \left( \frac{1}{{\epsilon} }\right) $ is a well
known correction appearing in systems with Coulombian interactions. It is
usually termed as Coulombian logarithm (cf.~\cite{LL2}).
\bigskip
\section{Kinetic limits for approximate models \label{KineLimit}}
In this Section we show how to approximate the dynamics of the systems \textcolor{blue}{\eqref{eq:IntNew}-}\eqref{eq:RayNew} by means of an equation of the form (\ref{eq:TagFric}), at
least during small macroscopic times in suitable scaling limits. The method
can be applied in systems in which the range of the potential is much larger
than the average distance between particles. The rationale behind the method
is to decompose the force made by the scatterers on the tagged particle in a
friction term, which is the reaction to the force made by the tagged
particle on the scatterers and yields their deflection, plus a random force
term which is the sum of the forces produced by the scatterers in the tagged
particle assuming that they are not affected by it. The friction term is due
to the fact that the tagged particle is moving against the mean velocity of
the surrounding medium.
We will restrict our analysis
to three types of potentials, namely weak potentials with a finite range
much larger than the distance between particles, potentials behaving for
large distances as Coulomb potentials and finally the case of so-called
``grazing collisions" in which the interactions between particles are very
weak and have a range smaller or similar to the particle distance.
\subsection{Derivation of the kinetic equations for Rayleigh gases and interacting particle systems by means of the evolution of a tagged particle} \label{KinEquInteractCase}
Our strategy for obtaining, in a suitable scaling limit, kinetic equations from particle systems, both for Rayleigh gases and interacting particle systems, consists in approximating the evolution of a tagged particle by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Langevin}
\frac{dx}{dt}=w\ ,\ \ \ \frac{dw}{dt}=\eta_g \left( t;w\right) -\Lambda
_{g}\left( w\right) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_g$ is a Gaussian noise with
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}[\eta_g(t,w)]&= 0,\\
{\mathbb E} [\eta_g(t_1,w)\eta_g(t_2,w)] &= D_g(w) \delta(t_1-t_2).
\end{align}
The function $g$ describes the velocity distribution of scatterers in the Rayleigh gas case, and the initial one-particle function in the case of interacting particle systems.
Therefore, if we denote the probability density describing the distribution
of the tagged particle as $f\left( x,w,t\right) $ we obtain the following
evolution equation for it%
\begin{equation}
\partial _{t}f+w\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{w}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}%
D_{g}\left( w\right) \partial _{w}f+\Lambda _{g}\left( w\right) f\right) .
\label{KinFastDec}
\end{equation}
In the case of interacting particle systems, an approximation of the form \eqref{eq:Langevin} is valid only for infinitesimal macroscopic times with $g=f_0$.
For positive macroscopic times, we need to take into account the change of the one-particle distribution function $f(t,v)$. The kinetic equation can then be obtained through the closure assumption $g(t,x,v)=f(t,x,v)$. Therefore, the kinetic equation reads:
\begin{equation}
\partial _{t}f+w\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{w}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}%
D_{f}\left( w\right) \partial _{w}f+\Lambda _{f}\left( w\right) f\right) .
\label{Nonlinear}
\end{equation}
Notice however, that the dependence of $\Lambda_g$ and $D_g$ in the case of interacting particle systems is in general different from the form of the same operators for the Rayleigh gas.
\paragraph{Rayleigh gases}
We first present the kinetic equations and the corresponding scaling
limits that we will obtain in this Section for a
tagged particle evolving according to the equations (\ref{eq:RayNew}) (i.e.~Rayleigh gases).
\smallskip
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of potentials with the form%
\begin{equation}\label{pot1}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert x\right\vert }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \ \ \text{with\ \ }%
L_{{\epsilon} }\gg 1
\end{equation}%
and $\Phi \left( s\right) $ decreasing faster than $\frac{1}{s^{\alpha }}$
with $\alpha >1$ (cf. (\ref{S4E6}), (\ref{S4E7})) we have seen that the
distribution of particle velocities $f\left( x,w,t\right) $ evolves
according to the equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial_{v}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}%
D_{g}\left( v\right) \partial _{v}f+\Lambda _{g}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}%
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}\left( v\right) $ and the friction term $\Lambda _{g}\left(
v\right) $ will be given in {Theorem \ref{thm:FiniteRange}}. The formula relating the microscopic $%
\tilde{t}$ and macroscopic variable $t$ is $t=\left( \theta _{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}\tilde{t}$ with $\theta _{{\epsilon} }={\epsilon} \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}.$
\end{itemize}
\bigskip
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of Coulombian potentials, i.e potentials with one of the
forms%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) =\Phi \left( \frac{\left\vert
x\right\vert }{{\epsilon} }\right) \ \ \text{or\ \ }\phi _{{\epsilon}
}\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right)
\label{CoulPot}
\end{equation}%
with $\Phi \left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty $ (cf. (%
\ref{S8E5})) we obtain the following kinetic equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{v}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}%
D_{g}\left( v\right) \partial _{v}f+\Lambda _{g}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}%
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}\left( v\right) $ and the friction term $\Lambda _{g}\left(
v\right) $ will be given in Theorem \ref{thm:Coulomb}. The relation between the microscopic time
scale $\tau $ and the macroscopic time scale is given by $\tau =\frac{t}{%
2{\epsilon} ^{2}\log \left( \frac{1}{{\epsilon} }\right) }.$
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of potentials with the form (weak coupling case)%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert x\right\vert }{\ell _{{\epsilon} }}\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ell
_{{\epsilon} }\lesssim 1 \label{WeakCoupling}
\end{equation}%
where $\Phi \left( s\right) $ decreases faster than $\frac{1}{s^{\alpha }}$
with $\alpha >1$ we can approximate the distribution of
particle velocities $f$ by means of the solutions of the kinetic equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{v}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}%
D_{g}\left( v\right) \partial _{v}f+\Lambda _{g}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}%
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}\left( v\right) $ and the friction term $\Lambda _{g}\left(
v\right) $ will be given in Theorem \ref{thm:Grazing}.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Interacting particle systems}
We now present the precise scaling limit in which a system of particles
described by the system of equations (\ref{eq:IntNew}) can be approximated by
means of Landau and Balescu-Lenard equations.
\smallskip
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of interaction potentials with the form%
\begin{equation*}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert x\right\vert }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \ \ \text{with\ \ }%
{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\rightarrow 1
\end{equation*}%
and $\Phi \left( s\right) $ decreasing faster than $\frac{1}{s^{\alpha }}$
with $\alpha >1$ (cf. (\ref{S4E6}), (\ref{S4E7})) the kinetic equation
yielding the evolution of the distribution function $f$ is given by the
Balescu-Lenard equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{v}\left( \frac 1 2 D_{f}\left(
v\right) \partial _{v}f +\Lambda_{f}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}%
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{f}\left( v\right)$ and the friction term $\Lambda_{f}\left(v\right)$ will be given in Theorem \ref{thm:FiniteRange} with $f=g$. The formula relating the
microscopic time scale $\tilde{t}$ with the macroscopic time scale $t$ is $%
\tilde{t}={\epsilon} ^{2}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}t.$
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of Coulombian potentials as in (\ref{CoulPot}) (cf. also (%
\ref{S8E5})) the evolution of the distribution function $f$ is given by the
Landau equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{v}\left(\frac{1}{2} D_{f}\left(
v\right) \partial _{v}f+\Lambda_{f}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}%
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{f}\left( v\right)$ and the friction term $\Lambda_{f}\left(v\right)$ will be given in Theorem \ref{thm:Coulomb} with $f=g$.
The microscopic time scale $%
\tau $ and the macroscopic time scale are related by means of the formula $%
\tau =\frac{t}{2{\epsilon} ^{2}\log \left( \frac{1}{{\epsilon} }\right) }.$ The fact that the kinetic equation for Coulombian potentials is the Landau equation instead of the Balescu-Lenard equation, due to the presence of the Coulombian logarithm, has been originally noticed by Landau and Lenard (cf.~\cite{LL2, Le}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item We consider one version of the weak coupling case with potentials of
the form (\ref{WeakCoupling}) with $\ell _{{\epsilon} }=1.$ The kinetic
equation describing the evolution of the particle distribution $f$ is the
following version of the Landau equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}f+v\cdot \partial _{x}f=\partial _{v}\left( \frac{1 }{2 }D_{f}(v) %
\partial _{v}f+\Lambda_{f}\left( v\right) f\right)
\end{equation*}
where the precise form of the diffusion coefficient $D_{f}\left( v\right)$ and the friction term $\Lambda_{f}\left(v\right)$ will be given in Theorem \ref{thm:Grazing} with $f=g$.
The relation between the microscopic time scale $\tilde{t}
$ and the macroscopic time scale $t$ is $t={\epsilon} ^{2}L_{{\epsilon} }%
\tilde{t}.$
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
A few rigorous results deriving kinetic equations of Landau or Balescu-Lenard form for interacting particle systems have been recently obtained. In these results the particles interact by means of weak potentials with a range comparable or larger than the average particle distance. See for instance \cite{BPS, Du, DuS} for some partial results for the full particle system and the time of validity of the kinetic equation is shorter than the macroscopic time scale. In \cite{VW1, W2} the kinetic equation is derived for macroscopic times of order one but the particle system is approximated by a truncated BBGKY hierarchy.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Main results}
We will now provide the precise form of the diffusion coefficient for a tagged particle in a Rayleigh gas and the diffusion coefficient for an interacting particle system. To this end, we consider approximate equations for the fluctuations of the particle density. The justification for this approximation will be given in Section~\ref{ss:JustR}. Both the approximation and the resulting diffusion coefficient depend on the scaling and choice of potential, therefore we consider separately potentials with finite range, Coulomb interaction, and grazing collision limits.
In the following, for a function or measure $h(x,v)$ on the phase space, we denote the
associated spatial density by $\rho[h]$ by:
\begin{equation}
\rho(x)= \rho [ h]\left( x\right) =\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}h\left( x,w\right) dw.
\label{eq:Spdensity}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Particle interactions with finite range much larger than the
particle distance } \label{sec:finRanTh}
Let $\theta>0$, we consider the following system that, as we will justify in Section \ref{ss:JustR}, is an approximation of the original particle systems for times scales much shorter than the mean free flight times. More precisely, we argue that on an intermediate scale $\tilde{t}=\frac{\tau }{L_{{\epsilon} }}.$ and $\xi =\frac{X}{L_{{\epsilon} }}$ between the microscopic scale and the kinetic scale, the empirical measure can be approximated by a Gaussian process. A careful linearization then leads to a system of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=\theta F_g(\xi, \tilde{t};\omega) \label{eq:MotionFiniteCombined},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_g(\xi, \tilde{t};\omega):=-\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -\eta
\right) \tilde{\rho}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta . \label{eq:ForceFiniteCombined}
\end{equation}
Here $\tilde{\rho}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right)=\tilde{\rho}\left[\zeta\left( \cdot,\tilde{t}\right)\right](\eta)$ with $\zeta$ a Gaussian noise defined as follows.
Let $N\left(\cdot,\cdot\right)$ be a Gaussian random field such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N\left( y,w\right) \right] =0\ \ ,\ \ \mathbb{E}\left[
N\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N\left( y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right]
=g\left( w_{a}\right) \delta \left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right). \label{S7E1}
\end{equation}
An approximation of this form can (formally) be obtained both for particle systems of the form \eqref{eq:RayNew} describing a Rayleigh Gas and interacting particle systems \eqref{eq:IntNew}.
The Gaussian noise $\zeta$ in the Rayleigh-case is given by
\begin{align}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla_{y})\zeta \left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
-\theta \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) \cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) & =0,\quad \zeta \left( y,w,0\right) =N\left(
y,w\right) , \label{eq:zetaFiniteRayleigh}
\end{align}
whereas in the interacting case it is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla _{y})\zeta \left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -%
\left[ \theta \nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) +\sigma (\nabla _{y}\Phi \ast \tilde{\rho%
})\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta \right] \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right)
&=0,\\ \zeta \left( y,w,0\right) &=N\left(
y,w\right) .
\end{aligned} \label{eq:zetaFiniteInteracting}
\end{equation}
We obtain the following Theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:FiniteRange}
We consider the system \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}-\eqref{eq:ForceFiniteCombined}. Let the interaction
potential be a radial function $\Phi \left( s\right)\sim \frac{1}{s^{a}}$ with $a>1$ as $s\rightarrow \infty$ (cf.~\eqref{phiDec_slarge}, \eqref{phiDec_sInt}). Under the following rescaling:
\begin{equation*}
t=\theta^{2}\tilde{t}\ \ ,\ \ x= \theta^{2}\xi\ \ ,\ \ v=V_0
\end{equation*}
and setting $F_g(\xi,\tilde{t})=\mathcal{F}_g(x,t)$ we then obtain for $t_1>0$, $t_2>0$
\begin{align*}
&\ \lim_{\theta\to 0}\mathbb{E}\left[ \mathcal{F}_g(vt, t;\omega)\right]=-\Lambda_{g}(v), \\
&\ \lim_{\theta\to 0}\mathbb{E}\left[ (\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_1,{t}_{1}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \otimes
(\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_2, {t}_{2}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \right]
=D_{g}\left( v\right) \delta \left( t_{1}-t_{2}\right) .
\end{align*}
More precisely,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(I)]{\textbf{Rayleigh Gas case}}\\
The diffusion coefficient $D_{g}$ and the friction term $\Lambda_g $ are given by:%
\begin{align}
D_{g}\left( v\right) &=\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \left( k\otimes k\right) |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 \delta(k\cdot (v-w)) g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w}\;\mathrm{d}{k} , \label{eqthm:Rayleigh} \\
\Lambda_g(v)&= -\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}} (k\otimes k) |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 \delta (k\cdot(v-w))\nabla g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w} \;\mathrm{d}{k}
\end{align}
\item[(II)]{\textbf{Interacting particle case}}\\
We assume that the function $G_{\sigma }\left( y,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) $ defined as the solution of the problem \eqref{T2E2}-\eqref{T2E4} below is such that $\left\vert \sup_{y,w_0}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}G_{\sigma }\left( y,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right)dw\right\vert \leq e^{-\kappa\tilde{t}}$, $\kappa>0$. Then, the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}$ and the friction term $\Lambda_g $ are given by:
\begin{align}
D_{g}\left(v\right) &=\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}}%
\frac{\left( k\otimes k\right) \left\vert \hat{\Phi}(k)
\right\vert ^{2}\delta(k\cdot (v-w))}{\left\vert \Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,-i\left( k\cdot w\right)
\right) \right\vert ^{2}} g\left( w\right)\;\mathrm{d}{k}\;\mathrm{d}{w} \ , \label{eqthm:nonlin1}\\
\Lambda_g(v)&= -\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}
\frac{ (k \otimes k) \left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right)
\right\vert ^{2}\delta(k\cdot (v-w))}{|\Delta_\sigma(k,-i\left( k\cdot w\right)|^2}\nabla g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{k} \;\mathrm{d}{w} . \label{eqthm:nonlin2}
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The exponential decay of the function $G_{\sigma}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:FiniteRange} is closely related to the stability of a spatially homogeneous Vlasov medium with underlying distribution of particle velocities $g(w)$. The physical meaning and the relevance of the stability of the Vlasov medium, as well as of the dielectric function will be discussed in Appendix \ref{app:B}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We will see in the proof that the particle density around the tagged particle stabilizes
to a stationary distribution (in a coordinate system moving with the tagged
particle) in the microscopic time scale, which is much shorter than the
macroscopic time scale. This was noticed first by Bogoliubov.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The earliest study of systems with long range interactions can be found in
\cite{Bo}. The approach introduced there is based on the BBGKY hierarchy,
arguing that the truncated correlation function $g_2$ and truncated
correlations of higher order stabilize on a much shorter timescale than the
one-particle distribution function $f_1$. In our approach this corresponds
to the stabilization of the function $\Lambda_g$, as well as of the covariance of the noise $D_g$ to
a stationary process on the short time scale introduced by Bogoliubov.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
\subsubsection{Coulombian interactions \label{RaylCoulomb}}
We now consider the case of interaction potentials decreasing as the Coulomb potential at large
distances. We recall that in this case, in order to be able to define the
random force field we need to impose suitable electroneutrality conditions.
To be concise, we restrict our analysis to the case in which we have only
two types of charges having opposite signs, namely we assume that they have charges $+1$
and $-1$ respectively, but it would be possible to
adapt the arguments to more complicated charge distributions. We will
consider the following types of interaction potentials:%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( X\right) =\Phi \left( \frac{\left\vert
X\right\vert }{{\epsilon} }\right) \ \ \text{or \ }\Phi _{{\epsilon}
}\left( X\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \left\vert X\right\vert \right),
\label{S8E5}
\end{equation}%
where $\Phi $ is a smooth function which behaves for large values as $\Phi
\left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty$ (cf.~\eqref{phiDec_sOne}), as well as the
corresponding asymptotic formulas for the derivatives of $\Phi .$ The first
type of potential in (\ref{S8E5}) includes for instance the Landau part
associated to Coulomb potentials (cf. (\ref{S1E5})).
Following the same reasoning of the previous Section we are left to consider the following approximating system of equations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:appCoul}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}F_g(\xi,\tilde{t};\omega),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_g(\xi,\tilde{t};\omega):=-\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }%
\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \left[ \zeta^+
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\zeta^- _{{\epsilon}
}\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) \right] d\eta dw. \label{T1E3bis}
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tildephiep}
\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \xi\right) = \Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( L_\epsilon \xi\right) \quad \text{with}\ \ L_\epsilon \gg 1
\end{equation}
where $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ is as in \eqref{S8E5} with $\Phi \left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty$, i.e. \eqref{phiDec_sOne} holds for some $A>0$.
\smallskip
In the so-called Rayleigh gas case, the evolution of $\zeta_\epsilon$ is given by
\begin{align} \label{T1E4a}
\partial _{\tilde{t}}\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
\mp L_{\epsilon}^\frac32 \nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-\xi\right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g^\pm\left(
w\right) & =0 ,
\end{align}
whereas in the interacting case the evolution is given by
\begin{align}
& \partial _{\tilde{t}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) +w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right)\nonumber \\
& - L_{{\epsilon} }^{\frac{3}{2}}\left[ L_{\epsilon}^2 \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\left\vert y-\eta \right\vert \right) (\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }-%
\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }^{\mp })(\eta ,\tilde{t})d\eta \pm {\epsilon}
L_{{\epsilon} }\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\xi
\right\vert \right) \right] \cdot \nabla g^\pm\left( w\right) =0 \label{A1E5}
\end{align}
with random initial data $\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }(y,w,0)=N^\pm(y,w)$
satisfying:%
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N^\pm\left( y,w\right) \right] = 0, \quad ,& \mathbb{E}%
\left[ N^+ _{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N^-\left(
y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] =0 \label{T1E1} \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ N^\pm\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left(
y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] & =g^\pm\left( w_{a}\right) \delta \left(
y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left( w_{a}-w_{b}\right) . \label{T1E2}
\end{align}
For simplicity, in what follows, we will assume $g^+=g^{-}=g$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Coulomb}
We consider the system \eqref{eq:appCoul}-\eqref{T1E3bis}. Let the interaction
potential $\tilde{\phi}_\epsilon$ be defined as in \eqref{eq:tildephiep}. We consider the following rescaling:
\begin{equation*}
t=\theta_{\epsilon}^2 \tilde{t}\ \ ,\ \ x= \theta_{\epsilon}^2 \xi\ \ ,\ \ v=V_0
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}
\theta_\epsilon^2 =\frac{L_\epsilon}{T_{\epsilon}}\quad \text{with}\quad T_{{\epsilon} }= \frac{1}{2{\epsilon} ^{2}\log \left( \frac{1}{%
{\epsilon} }\right) }\ \ \text{as\ \ }{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.
\label{TCoulRay}
\end{equation}
Setting $F_g(\xi,\tilde{t})=\mathcal{F}_g(x,t)$ we then obtain
\begin{align*}
&\ \lim_{\theta\to 0}\mathbb{E}\left[ \mathcal{F}_g(vt, t;\omega)\right]=-\Lambda_{g}(v), \\
&\ \lim_{\theta\to 0}\mathbb{E}\left[ (\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_1,{t}_{1}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \otimes
(\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_2, {t}_{2}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \right]
=D_{g}\left( v\right) \delta \left( t_{1}-t_{2}\right) .
\end{align*}
More precisely,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(I)]{\textbf{Rayleigh Gas case}}\\
Let $L_\epsilon=\epsilon^{-\beta}$ with $\beta\in(0,2)$. Then, the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}$ and the friction term $\Lambda_g $ are given by:
\begin{align}
D_{g}\left( v\right) &=\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{ds}{s^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}d\eta _{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta _{2}\nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left(
\eta _{1}\right) \otimes \nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left( \eta _{2}\right) g\left(
v+\frac{\eta _{1}-\eta _{2}}{s}\right) \ , \label{Coulomb:RayleighRandom}\\
\Lambda_{g}(v) &= -\int_{\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right)
^{2}}dwdy \frac{1}{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}\left\vert y+\left(
w-v\right) \right\vert ^{2}}\left( \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \frac{%
y+\left( w-v\right) }{\left\vert y+\left( w-v\right) \right\vert }\right)
\frac{y}{\left\vert y\right\vert }, \label{Coulomb:RayleighFriction}
\end{align}
\item[(II)]{\textbf{Interacting particle case}}\\
Let $L_\epsilon=\epsilon^{- \frac 1 2 }$, namely $L_\epsilon$ of the order of the Debye length scale.
We assume the Penrose stability condition of the medium, i.e. that the
function $\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,\cdot \right)$ defined as in \eqref{def:dielectric} below is analytic in $\left\{ \func{Re}\left( z\right) >0\right\} $ for each $k\in {\mathbb R}^3.$
Then, the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}$ and the friction term $\Lambda_g$ are given by:
\begin{align}
D_{g}\left( v\right)= & \frac{\pi A^2}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0} \frac{g(w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(v-w_{0})\otimes
(v-w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|^{2}}\right), \label{Coulomb:InterRandom}\\
\Lambda_{g}(v) =& -\frac{\pi A^2}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0} \frac{\nabla g(w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(v-w_{0})\otimes
(v-w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|^{2}}\right), \label{Coulomb:InterFriction}
\end{align}
where $A$ is as in \eqref{phiDec_sOne}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We notice that the function $\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,\cdot \right)$ has additional analyticity properties due to the fact that \eqref{def:dielectric} is obtained by means of a Coulombian potential. These properties will be discussed in detail in the proof (cf.~Section \ref{RaylCoulomb}).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We observe that a difference between the case of Coulomb potentials and the case of
potentials considered in Subsection \ref{sec:finRanTh} is that in this second
case, there is a well defined friction coefficient acting over a tagged
particle moving at speed $V=V_0$ (cf.~\eqref{eqthm:nonlin1}) and a well defined stationary random force field
acting on the tagged particle (cf. (\ref{eq:ForceFiniteCombined}), (\ref{S7E1})). Both the
friction term and the stationary random force field stabilize to their asymptotic behaviour in large
microscopic times. In the case of Coulombian interactions such stabilization
of the friction and the random force field in macroscopic times does not take place. On
the contrary, they increase logarithmically. It is well known that there is
not a large difference in practice between a magnitude converging to a value
or increasing logarithmically. Nevertheless, the main consequence of this
logarithmic behaviour will be the onset in the macroscopic time scale of the
Coulombian logarithm as it might be expected in a system with Coulombian
interactions.
Finally, it is interesting to remark that there is a difference between the
interacting particle systems and the case of Rayleigh gases
with Coulombian interactions. In
this second case, some of the logarithmic factors are due to the fact that
all the dyadic scales between the cutoff length for the Coulombian potential
and the macroscopic scale yield contributions of a similar size in the
computation of the friction term and the noise term. (See the discussion in
Subsection \ref{ThresholdCoulomb} below about the contributions due to dyadics for
Coulombian potentials). In the case of interacting particle systems the
"dyadic" scales contributing to the friction and noise term are those
between the particle size and the Debye length. Due to this, some of the
numerical factors appearing in the formula of the macroscopic scale are
different for Rayleigh gases and interacting particle systems. \end{remark}
\subsubsection{Grazing Collisions} \label{ss:RayGrazing}
We now consider the case which is usually termed with the name of grazing collisions. This corresponds
to the case of
particles which interact weakly with a tagged particle, with an interaction
range smaller or similar to the average particle distance.
We study the Rayleigh gas dynamics (cf.~(\ref{eq:RayNew})) as well as the interacting particles dynamics (cf.~\eqref{eq:IntNew}).
We will assume that there is only one type of
scatterers. We assume that the interaction potential $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }$ is given as in \eqref{WeakCoupling}, i.e. $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( X\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert X\right\vert }{\ell _{{\epsilon} }}\right)$ with $\ell _{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow \sigma,$ for some $\sigma \geq 0$.
Here $\Phi =\Phi \left( s\right) $ is a smooth function which decreases
sufficiently fast as $s\rightarrow \infty ,$ together with
the asymptotic formulas for its derivatives. We can assume for
instance that $\Phi \left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s^{\alpha }}$ as $%
s\rightarrow \infty $ with $\alpha >1,$ or that $\Phi \left( s\right) $
decreases exponentially.
Following the same strategy of the previous sections we consider the following approximating system for both Rayleigh Gases and interacting particle systems:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3} F_g(\xi,\tilde{t};\omega) . \label{T4E7}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_g(\xi,\tilde{t};\omega):=\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla
_{\xi }\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \zeta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) dwd\eta \label{T4E7bis}.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{phitildeepgraz}
\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \frac{X}{%
L_{{\epsilon}}}\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \xi\right) \ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(\partial_{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot\nabla_y)\zeta_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) -\left( L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla_{y}\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-\xi\right) \cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right) =0, \,\,
\zeta_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,0\right) =N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w\right)
\label{T4E4}
\end{equation}
where the (random) initial data is characterized by:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w\right) \right] &=0
\nonumber \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N_{{\epsilon}
}\left( y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] &=\frac{g\left( w_{a}\right) }{\left(
L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{3}}\delta\left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta\left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right). \label{T4E6}
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Grazing}
Let the interaction
potential $\tilde{\phi}_{\epsilon} $ be as in \eqref{phitildeepgraz} and $L_\epsilon=\epsilon^{-\beta}$ with $\beta\in(0,2)$. We consider the following rescaling:
\begin{equation*}
t=\big(\epsilon\ell_{\epsilon}\big)^2 L_{\epsilon}\tilde{t}\ \ ,\ \ x=\big(\epsilon\ell_{\epsilon}\big)^2 L_{\epsilon} \xi\ \ ,\ \ v=V_0.
\end{equation*}
Setting $F_g(\xi,\tilde{t})=\mathcal{F}_g(x,t)$ we then obtain the following formulas for the diffusion coefficient $D_{g}$ and the friction term $\Lambda_g $:
\begin{align}
D_g(v)=& \int_{0}^{\infty }ds\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw\nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( \left\vert y+(w_0-w)s\right\vert \right) \otimes \nabla _{y}\Phi
\left( \left\vert y\right\vert \right) g\left( w_0\right) ,
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{g}\left( v\right) =-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}dy\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( \left\vert y\right\vert \right) \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{-\infty }^{0}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left(
\left\vert y+\left( v-w\right) s\right\vert \right) ds . \label{T4E8a}
\end{equation}%
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection*{The threshold between short and long range potentials in the
decay $\frac{1}{\left\vert x\right\vert }.$}\label{ThresholdCoulomb}
Something that was seen in \cite{NSV} is that in the case of Lorentz gases
and interaction potentials with the form $\frac{{\epsilon} }{\left\vert
x\right\vert ^{s}}$ the threshold which separates between short range and
long range potentials corresponds to $s=1,$ i.e. to potentials decreasing
like Coulombian potentials. Actually, the same separation between long range
and short range potentials holds in the case of Rayleigh gases.
The rationale behind this difference between short and long range potentials
can be easily understood at the physical level (cf.~\cite{BT} for an
explanation of the onset of the Coulombian logarithm in the case of
Coulombian potentials). Suppose that we consider a tagged particle moving
along a rectilinear path which will be denoted as $\ell $ during a length $%
L. $ We consider the deflections of the tagged particle induced by a set of
scatterers distributed according to the Poisson distribution with an average
distance $1.$ More precisely, we distinguish the deflections produced by the
scatterers at dyadic distances, i.e. at a distance $2^{n}$ and $2^{n+1}$
from $\ell $ for each $n\in \mathbb{Z}$, where we assume that $2^{n}$ is
smaller than the range of the potential. We will denote the distances
between $2^{n}$ and $2^{n+1}$ for each $n$ as a "dyadic". The deflection
experienced by the tagged particle is a random variable with zero average,
due to the fact that the scatterers are symmetrically distributed with
respect to the line $\ell .$ On the other hand if we estimate the variance
of the deflections produced by the particles at distances between $2^{n}$
and $2^{n+1}$ it can be readily seen that the magnitude of this variance
decreases exponentially with $n$ if $s>1$ and increases exponentially with $%
n $ (as long as $2^{n}\lesssim L$) for $s<1$. The contribution to the
deflections of the scatterers at distances larger than $L$ is negligible if $%
s>\frac{1}{2}$ (cf. \cite{NSV} for a detailed proof of this in the case of
static scatterers). Notice that for these ``far-away" scatterers the change
of angle subtended by the tagged particle is very small, i.e. we can say
that no collision is taking place. In the case of $s=1$ the magnitude of the
deflections is the same for all the values of $n$ as long as $2^{n}\lesssim
L $. Actually, this is the reason for the onset of the Coulombian logarithm,
namely the fact that we need to add the deflections produced by the
different dyadic cylinders and the number of these cylinders is of order $%
\log \left( L\right) $, if we assume that the potential $\frac{1}{\left\vert
x\right\vert }$ is cut at distances of order $\left\vert x\right\vert \simeq
1.$
It turns out that a similar picture takes place in the case of moving
scatterers, i.e. for Rayleigh gases. The onset of the logarithmic correction
for potentials behaving like Coulomb for large distances has been seen
above. Seemingly nonkinetic models, with long range correlations due to the
long range of the potentials arise for $s\in \left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) $
as it happens in the Lorentz gases considered in \cite{NSV}, in spite of the
fact that for Rayleigh gases the scatterers move. However, we will not
continue the study of this case in this paper. (Nevertheless, the case $s\in
\left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) $ is discussed in \cite{NVW} Section 3.3,
in the case of interacting particle systems).
\section{Justification of the approximation by a tagged particle in an evolving Gaussian field}\label{ss:JustR}
The goal of this section is to provide a formal derivation of the Langevin equation \eqref{eq:TagFric} used to formulate Theorems \ref{thm:FiniteRange}, \ref{thm:Coulomb}, \ref{thm:Grazing}, starting from the Newton equations for the Rayleigh Gas (cf.~\eqref{eq:RayNew}) as well as from the Newton equations for the interacting particle system (cf.~\eqref{eq:IntNew}), at least during small macroscopic times, in suitable scaling limits.
\subsection{The case of interactions with finite range much larger than the particle distance} \label{ssec:Jfinrange}
\smallskip
The goal of this section is to justify the system of equations \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}-\eqref{eq:zetaFiniteRayleigh} starting from the Newton equations for the Rayleigh Gas (cf.~\eqref{eq:RayNew}). We also justify the system of equations \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}-\eqref{S7E1}, \eqref{eq:zetaFiniteInteracting} starting from the Newton equations for the interacting particle system (cf.~\eqref{eq:IntNew}). \bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Rayleigh Gas case}
\noindent Suppose that the position and velocity of a tagged particle $\left(
X,V\right) $ evolve according to (\ref{eq:RayNew}) where the interaction
potential $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( x\right) $ is as in (\ref{S4E6}), (\ref%
{S4E7}). We will assume that $\Phi \left( s\right) $ decreases fast enough
as $s\rightarrow \infty ,$ say exponentially, although in space dimension
three a decay like $\frac{1}{s^{a}}$ with $a>1$ would be enough. As a first
step we approximate the distribution of scatterers as the sum of a constant
density plus some Gaussian fluctuations in some suitable topology. To this
end we introduce a new variable $y_{k}=\frac{Y_{k}}{L_{{\epsilon} }}$ which
will be useful to describe the system on a scale where this Gaussian
approximation is valid, but that is smaller than the mean free path. In
order to keep the particle velocities of order one we introduce a new time
scale by means of $\tilde{t}=\frac{\tau }{L_{{\epsilon} }}.$ We write also $%
\xi =\frac{X}{L_{{\epsilon} }}.$ Then (\ref{eq:RayNew}) becomes:%
\begin{equation} \label{S6E1}
\begin{aligned} \frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}& =V\ \ ,\ \
\frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon} \sum_{j\in S}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -y_{j}\right) \\ \frac{dy_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}& =W_{k}\ \ ,\ \
\frac{dW_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon} \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{k}-\xi \right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S \ . \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The goal is to approximate the dynamics of the scatterers by means of a
continuous density. To this end we introduce the following particle density
in the phase space:%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:feps}
f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =\frac{1}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{3}}\sum_{k}\delta \left( y-y_{k}\right) \delta \left(
w-W_{k}\right).
\end{equation}
We can then rewrite the first two equations of (\ref{S6E1}) as:%
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon} \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left(
\xi -\eta \right) \rho _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta
\label{S6E2a}
\end{equation}%
where $\rho _{{\epsilon} }(y,\tilde{t})=\rho \lbrack f_{{\epsilon} }(\cdot
,\tilde{t})](y)$ is the spatial density. On the other hand, the second set of equations of (\ref{S6E1}) implies
that:%
\begin{equation}
\partial _{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot
\nabla _{y}f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -{\epsilon} \nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) \cdot \nabla _{w}f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,%
\tilde{t}\right) =0 \ . \label{S6E3}
\end{equation}
We have then reformulated (\ref{S6E1}) as (\ref{S6E2a}), (\ref{S6E3}).
We can now take formally the limit ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ To this end,
notice that $f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,0\right) $ is of order one and it
converges in the weak topology to $g\left( w\right) .$ In order to obtain
the evolution for different rescalings of $L_{{\epsilon} }$ with $%
{\epsilon} $ we compute the asymptotic behaviour in law of $f_{{\epsilon}
}\left( y,w,0\right) $ as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ The following
Gaussian approximation will be used repeatedly in the
following:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{a},w_{a},0\right) -g\left(
w_{a}\right) \right) \left( f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{b},w_{b},0\right)
-g\left( w_{b}\right) \right) \right] =\frac{g\left( w_{a}\right) }{\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}}\delta \left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right) . \label{S6E4}
\end{equation}
This approximation will be justified in Appendix A where it will be seen how
to derive it from the empirical densities associated to particle
distributions given by the Poisson measure.
Assuming (\ref{S6E4}), it is natural to look for solutions of (\ref{S6E3})
with the form:%
\begin{equation}
f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =g\left( w\right) +\frac{1}{%
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left(
y,w,\tilde{t}\right). \label{S6E4a}
\end{equation}
Then, using the fact that the contribution to the integral $\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -\eta \right) \rho _{{\epsilon} }\left(
\eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta $ due to the term $g\left( w\right) $ vanishes,
we obtain that $\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) $ solves
the following problem:
\begin{align}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}&=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon}
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla
_{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -\eta \right) \tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,%
\tilde{t}\right) d\eta, \label{S6E5} \\
\partial _{\tilde{t}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+&w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
-{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla _{y}\Phi
\left( y-\xi \right) \cdot \nabla _{w}\left( g\left( w\right) +\frac{\zeta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}} \right) =0 , \label{S6E6}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) = \rho[%
\zeta_{{\epsilon}}(\cdot,\tilde{t})](y)$ is the associated spatial density.
Notice that we assume that the potential $\Phi $ decreases sufficiently fast
to guarantee that the integral $\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi
\left( \xi -\eta \right) \tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}%
\right) d\eta $ is well defined for the random field
$\zeta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) $ given by (\ref{S6E4}), (\ref%
{S6E4a}). In the case of potentials $\Phi $ decreasing as some power laws it
is possible to give a meaning to this integral by means of a limit procedure.
Then, using the fact that $L_{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow \infty $ we obtain
the following limit problem formally. We write
\begin{equation}
\theta _{{\epsilon} }={\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{%
2}}. \label{thetaRay}
\end{equation}
Given that the range of the interaction potentials is of order $\left\vert
y\right\vert \approx 1$ we need to have $\theta _{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow 0$
as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$ in order to obtain a kinetic limit. On the
other hand, since $L_{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow \infty ,$ making the Gaussian
approximation $\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\rightharpoonup \zeta ,$ we can
approximate the problem (\ref{S6E5}), (\ref{S6E6}) as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\theta
_{{\epsilon} }\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -\eta
\right) \tilde{\rho}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta \label{S6E7}
\end{equation}%
where $\tilde{\rho}\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack \zeta (\cdot ,%
\tilde{t})](y)$ and
\begin{align}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla) _{y}\zeta \left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
-\theta _{{\epsilon} }\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) \cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) & =0,\quad \zeta \left( y,w,0\right) =N\left(
y,w\right) . \label{S6E8}
\end{align}%
Using (\ref{S6E4}) we obtain:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N\left( y,w\right) \right] =0\ \ ,\ \ \mathbb{E}\left[
\left( N\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) \right) N\left( y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right]
=g\left( w_{a}\right) \delta \left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right). \label{S7E1bis}
\end{equation}
This approximation is valid for infinitesimally small macroscopic times, where the approximation $V(t)\approx V_0$ is valid. This justifies the set of equations \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}-\eqref{eq:zetaFiniteRayleigh}.
\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Interacting particle system}
\noindent We now justify the system of equations \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}-\eqref{S7E1}, \eqref{eq:zetaFiniteInteracting} starting from the Newton equations for the interacting particle system (cf.~\eqref{eq:IntNew}), at least during small macroscopic times in suitable scaling limits.
We begin considering the case of interaction potentials with the form (\ref%
{S4E6}), (\ref{S4E7}). We consider the dynamics of a distinguished particle $%
\left( X,V\right) $ in an interacting particle system. Denoting as $\left(
Y_{k},W_{k}\right) ,\ k\in S$ the position and velocity of the remaining
particles of the system, using the change of variables (\ref{S8E6a}) as well
as (\ref{eq:IntNew}) we obtain:%
\begin{align}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}& =V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon}
\sum_{j\in S}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -y_{j}\right) \label{S9E2} \\
\frac{dy_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}& =W_{k}\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dW_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}%
=-{\epsilon} \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{k}-\xi \right) -{\epsilon}
\sum_{j\in S}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{k}-y_{j}\right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S \ .
\notag
\end{align}
In order to approximate this system by an evolution equation of the form (%
\ref{eq:TagFric}), first recall the empirical measure $f_{{\epsilon}}$ defined in %
\eqref{eq:feps}. Then, the first equation of (\ref{S9E2}) can be rewritten
as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi}{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon}\left(
L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla_{\xi}\Phi\left(
\xi-\eta\right) \rho_{{\epsilon}}\left( \eta,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta
\label{S9E3}
\end{equation}
with $\rho_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho[f_{{\epsilon}}(%
\cdot,\tilde{t})](y)$ (cf. \eqref{eq:Spdensity}).
The second set of equations in (\ref{S9E2}) becomes:%
\begin{equation}
\frac{dy_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}=W_{k}\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dW_{k}}{d\tilde{t}}%
=-{\epsilon}\nabla_{y}\Phi\left( y-\xi\right) -{\epsilon}\left(
L_{{\epsilon}}\right)^3(\nabla_{y}\Phi *\rho_{{\epsilon}})(y_k,\tilde{t})
\ ,\ \ k\in S \ . \label{S9E4}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{S9E4}) we can derive, arguing as in Subsection \ref%
{RaylCompSuppPot}, the following evolution equation for the particle density
$f_{{\epsilon}}:$
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot
\nabla_{y}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) - {{\epsilon}} \left[
\nabla_{y}\Phi\left( y-\xi\right) +\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}
(\nabla_{y}\Phi * \rho_{{\epsilon}})( y,\tilde{t})\right] \cdot\nabla
_{w}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =0 \ . \label{S9E5}
\end{equation}
Using the change of variables (\ref{S6E4a}), we can rewrite (\ref{S9E5}) as:%
\begin{align*}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}& +w\cdot \nabla _{y})\zeta _{{{\epsilon} }}\left(
y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \\
-& \left[ {\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) +{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right)
^{3}(\nabla _{y}\Phi \ast \tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} })(y,\tilde{t})\right]
\cdot \nabla _{w}\left( g\left( w\right) +\frac{1}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
\right) =0
\end{align*}%
where $\tilde{\rho}\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack \zeta (\cdot ,%
\tilde{t})](y)$. Neglecting the term $\frac{1}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }$ which might be expected to be
small compared with $g$ we obtain the following approximation for the
fluctuations of the density of scatterers:%
\begin{equation}
\left( \partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla _{y}\right) \zeta _{{\epsilon}
}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\left[ {\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) +{\epsilon}
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}(\nabla _{y}\Phi \ast \tilde{\rho}%
_{{\epsilon} })\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) \right] \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left(
w\right) =0. \label{S9E5a}
\end{equation}
The term $\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }$ has the same order of magnitude as $%
\zeta _{{\epsilon} }.$ Then, the terms $w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) $ and ${\epsilon} \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\left[ \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{y}\Phi
\left( y-\eta \right) \tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}%
\right) d\eta \right] \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) $ yield a comparable
contribution if ${\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}$ is of
order one. To consider the general case, we will assume that ${\epsilon}
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\rightarrow \sigma $ as ${\epsilon}
\rightarrow 0,$ where $\sigma $ can be zero, a positive number or infinity.
(In this last case the dependence of $\sigma $ on ${\epsilon} $ must be
preserved, but it will not be explicitly written for the sake of
simplicity). We can then expect that $\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\sim \zeta $ as $%
{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$ where $\zeta $ solves the equation \eqref{eq:zetaFiniteInteracting}.
\color{black}
\bigskip
\subsection{The case of Coulombian interactions}\label{ssec:JCoulomb}
The goal of this section is to justify the system of equations \eqref{eq:appCoul}-\eqref{T1E4a} starting from the Newton equations for the Rayleigh Gas (cf.~\eqref{eq:RayNew}). We also justify the system of equations \eqref{eq:appCoul}-\eqref{T1E3bis}, \eqref{A1E5} starting from the Newton equations for the interacting particle system (cf.~\eqref{eq:IntNew}). \bigskip
\textbf{Rayleigh Gas case}\\
\noindent
We now consider the evolution of a tagged particle $\left( X,V\right) $
evolving according to the Rayleigh gas dynamics (cf. (\ref{eq:RayNew})) with
interaction potentials decreasing as the Coulomb potential at large
distances. We recall that in this case, in order to be able to define the
random force field we need to impose suitable electroneutrality conditions.
To be concise, we restrict our analysis to the case in which we have only
two types of charges, having opposite signs, but it would be possible to
adapt the arguments to more complicated charge distributions. We will
consider the following types of interaction potentials:%
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( X\right) =\Phi \left( \frac{\left\vert
X\right\vert }{{\epsilon} }\right) \ \ \text{or \ }\phi _{{\epsilon}
}\left( X\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \left\vert X\right\vert \right),
\label{S8E5bis}
\end{equation}%
where $\Phi $ is a smooth function which behaves for large values as $\Phi
\left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty ,$ as well as the
corresponding asymptotic formulas for the derivatives of $\Phi .$ The first
type of potential in (\ref{S8E5bis}) includes for instance the Landau part
associated to Coulomb potentials (cf. (\ref{S1E5})).
We will assume that there are two types of scatterers, having charges $+1$
and $-1$ respectively. We will denote them as $\left\{ Y^\pm_{k}\right\}
_{k\in S}$ respectively. Then, the evolution equation for the tagged
particle is described by the following set of equations:
\begin{align}
\frac{dX}{d\tau} & =V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tau}=-\sum_{j\in
S}\nabla_{X}\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X-Y^+_{j}\right) +\sum_{j\in\tilde{S}%
}\nabla_{X}\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X-Y^-_{j}\right) \notag \\
\frac{dY^\pm_{k}}{d\tau} & =W^\pm_{k}\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dW^\pm_{k}}{d\tau}%
=\mp\nabla_{Y}\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( Y^\pm_{k}-X\right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S.
\label{S8E6}
\end{align}
Arguing as in Subsection \ref{RaylCompSuppPot}, we can approximate these
equations replacing the particle distributions by
random fields on the
phase space. We have two different types of charges and therefore we need to
introduce two different densities. We define new variables by means of:%
\begin{equation}
y^\pm_{k}=\frac{Y^\pm_{k}}{L_{{\epsilon}}}\ \ ,\ \ \xi=\frac{X}{%
L_{{\epsilon}}}\ \ ,\ \ \tilde {t}=\frac{\tau}{L_{{\epsilon}}} \ .
\label{S8E6a}
\end{equation}
We will then denote as $%
f^\pm_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)$ the empirical densities defined as in \eqref{eq:feps}.
In this case there is no canonical choice of the characteristic length $%
L_{{\epsilon} }.$ The first type of potentials in (\ref{S8E5bis}) has a
characteristic length ${\epsilon} $ and the second one has a characteristic
length of order one. However, on these length scales we cannot approximate
the distributions by continuous densities. In the case of interacting
particle systems, which will be considered right after,
there will be a natural choice of length scale $L_{{\epsilon} },$ namely the so-called
Debye screening length. However, in the case of the Rayleigh gas under
consideration here such a natural choice does not exists since the power law
does not have any characteristic length. We will then assume a length scale $%
L_{{\epsilon} }$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
L_{{\epsilon} }=\epsilon^{-\beta}, \ \ \beta\in (0,2).
\end{equation*}
We define also a rescaled potential $\tilde{\phi}$ by means of:%
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \frac{X}{%
L_{{\epsilon}}}\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \xi\right).
\label{S8E5a}
\end{equation}
Then, the equations for the tagged particle in (\ref{S8E6}) can be rewritten
as:%
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \left[ \rho^-_{{\epsilon} }\left(
\eta ,\tilde{t}\right) -\rho^+ _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) %
\right] d\eta , \label{S8E7a}
\end{equation}%
where $\rho^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) = \rho[%
f_{{\epsilon}}^\pm(\cdot,\tilde{t})]$. On the other hand the equations for
the scatterers in (\ref{S8E6}) imply:
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tilde{t}}f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot
\nabla_{y}f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \mp\nabla_{y}\tilde{%
\phi }_{{\epsilon}}\left( y-\xi\right)
\cdot\nabla_{w}f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =0 .
\label{S8E7}
\end{equation}
Suppose that the distribution of velocities of the scatterers $\left\{
Y^\pm_{k}\right\} _{k\in S}$ are given by functions $g^\pm \left( w\right) $%
. Then arguing as in Subsection \ref{ssec:Jfinrange} we can approximate the
initial data for (\ref{S8E7}) by means of Gaussian stochastic processes with
average $g^+\left( w\right) $ and $g^-\left( w\right) $ respectively which
satisfy:%
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,0\right) -g^\pm\left(
w\right) \right) \left( f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}\left( y^{\prime },w^{\prime
},0\right) -g^\pm\left( w^{\prime }\right) \right) \right] &=\frac{%
g^\pm\left( w\right) }{\left( L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{3}}\delta\left(
y-y^{\prime }\right) \delta\left( w-w^{\prime }\right) \label{S8E9} \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( f^+_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,0\right) -g^{+}\left(
w\right) \right) \left( f^-_{{\epsilon}}\left( y^{\prime },w^{\prime
},0\right) -g^{-}\left( w^{\prime }\right) \right) \right] &=0 .
\label{S8E9b}
\end{align}
The last equation ensures that the distributions of scatterers are mutually
independent.
It is then natural, arguing as in Subsection \ref{ssec:Jfinrange}, to look
for solutions with the form:%
\begin{equation}
f^\pm_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =g^\pm\left( w\right) +\frac{%
1}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon}
}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right). \label{S8E9c}
\end{equation}
Then, neglecting higher order terms, we obtain the the particle fluctuations
satisfy approximately the following problems:%
\begin{align}
\partial _{\tilde{t}}\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
\mp\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-\xi \right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g^\pm \left( w\right) &
=0 \label{S9E1a}
\end{align}%
with random initial data $\zeta^\pm _{{\epsilon} }(y,w,0)=N^\pm(y,w)$
satisfying:%
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N^\pm\left( y,w\right) \right] = 0, \quad ,& \mathbb{E}%
\left[ N^+ _{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N^-\left(
y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] =0
\\
\mathbb{E}\left[ N^\pm\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N^\pm _{{\epsilon} }\left(
y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] & =g^\pm\left( w_{a}\right) \delta \left(
y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left( w_{a}-w_{b}\right) .
\end{align*}
The electroneutrality condition requires that:%
\begin{equation*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}g^+\left( w\right) dw=\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} g^- \left(
w\right) dw.
\end{equation*}
Then (\ref{S8E7a}) can be rewritten as:%
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }%
\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \left[ \zeta^+
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\zeta^- _{{\epsilon}
}\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) \right] d\eta . \label{T1E3}
\end{equation}
Summarizing, we have reduced the original problem to (\ref{S9E1a})-(\ref%
{T1E3}). It is natural, in order to derive a kinetic limit, to consider the
previous model as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0.$ Moreover, we will assume that
$\tilde{t}$ is sufficiently small so that we can assume that $V(t)\approx V_0$, i.e.~it is
constant. This concludes the justification.
\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Interacting particle system}\\
\noindent
We now consider interacting particle systems with the form (\ref{eq:IntNew}) in
which the interaction potentials are as in (\ref{S8E5}) (where $\Phi \left(
s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s}$ as $s\rightarrow \infty $). This question has
been extensively studied in the physical literature due to his relevance in
astrophysics and the in the theory of plasmas (cf. for instance \cite{RMcDJ, Trub}). In this case we cannot assume as in Subsection \ref{ssec:Jfinrange} that the interaction potential has a large, but finite
range. On the contrary, in this case, the range of the potential is
infinity. However, it turns out that, assuming some stability conditions for
the Vlasov medium similar to the ones discussed above, there exists a
characteristic length, namely the so-called Debye length which yields the
effective interaction length between the particles of the system. This
length is characterized by the fact that the potential energy of a particle is comparable to its kinetic energy.
A precise definition will be given in (\ref%
{DebDef}).
We now study the evolution of a system of particles with interactions that behave at large distances as Coulombian potentials. We will
assume in most of the following that the potentials are smooth and in
particular, that the deflection experienced by two colliding particles which
interact by means of this potential is small. In the case of point charges,
it is possible to cut the potential as it was made in \cite{NSV} in order to
separate the Boltzmann collisions (due to close binary encounters between
particles) and weak deflections due to the effect of many random collisions.
Given that the Boltzmann collisions take place in a larger time scale than
the small deflections (due to the presence of the Coulombian logarithm) we
will ignore that part of the potential in the following.
Assume that there are two types of scatterers with opposite charges, namely $%
\left\{ Y_{k}\right\} _{k\in S}$ and $\left\{ \tilde{Y}_{k}\right\} _{k\in
\tilde{S}}$ having opposite charges. The main difference between the case
considered in Subsection \ref{ssec:Jfinrange} and the case considered here, besides the fact that we need to include in the dynamics at
least two types of particles in order to have electroneutrality, is the fact
that due to the power law behaviour of the potential, there is not any
intrinsic length scale that we can call the range of the potential.
More precisely, we will assume that the interaction potential between the
particles has the form in (\ref{S8E5}). We can assume in particular that $%
\Phi \left( \xi \right) \simeq \frac{1}{\left\vert \xi \right\vert }$ for
large values, introducing a cutoff near the origin in order to avoid large
deflections as indicated above. We rescale the variables as in (\ref{S8E6a}%
), where $L_{{\epsilon} }$ will be chosen now as the so-called Debye length
which will be chosen shortly. We will just assume for the moment that $%
L_{{\epsilon} }\gg 1,$ i.e.~that it is larger than the average particle
distance. Then, the evolution of the rescaled system of particles (in which
we distinguish a tagged particle) is given by:\
\begin{align}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}& =V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\sum_{j\in
S}\nabla _{\xi }\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -y_{j}^{+}\right)
+\sum_{j\in \tilde{S}}\nabla _{\xi }\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi
-y_{j}^{-}\right) ,\quad \frac{dy_{k}^{\pm }}{d\tilde{t}}=W_{k}^{\pm }
\label{T5E7} \\
\frac{dW_{k}^{\pm }}{d\tilde{t}}& =\mp \nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}
}\left( y_{k}^{\pm }-\xi \right) -\sum_{j\in S,\ j\neq k}\left( \nabla _{y}%
\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{k}^{\pm }-y_{j}^{\pm }\right) -\nabla
_{y}\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{k}^{\pm }-y_{j}^{\mp }\right)
\right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S. \notag
\end{align}
Notice that we assume that all the particles have the same mass. It would be
possible to consider more general situations.
We approximate the system of equations (\ref{T5E7}) by a Vlasov equation. To this end we introduce particle densities as it was made in (\ref{S8E7a}). Then,
arguing as above we obtain the following evolution
equation for the tagged particle
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \left[ \rho _{{\epsilon}
}^{+}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) -\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{-}\left( \eta ,%
\tilde{t}\right) \right] d\eta , \label{A2E7}
\end{equation}%
and for the scatterers distributions:%
\begin{align} \label{eq:f1}
&\partial _{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm
}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot \nabla _{y}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm
}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \nonumber\\ &-\left[ \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right)
^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-\eta
\right) (\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }-\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{\mp })\left( \eta
,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta \pm \nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left(
y-\xi \right) \right] \cdot \nabla _{w}f_{{\epsilon} }\left(
y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =0
\end{align}
where $\rho^\pm _{{\epsilon} } = \rho[f^\pm_{{\epsilon}}]$.
We can now define the Debye screening length $L_{{\epsilon} }.$ This length
will be chosen in order to make the terms associated to particle transport
(i.e. $w\cdot \nabla _{y}f_{{\epsilon} },\ w\cdot \nabla _{y}\tilde{f}%
_{{\epsilon} }$) and the terms describing the self-interactions between
scatterers (i.e. $\left[ \nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\ast \rho
_{{\epsilon} }\right] \cdot \nabla _{w}f_{{\epsilon} }$ and similar ones)
comparable. To find the correct scale, we use that $\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi \right) =\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\xi \right) \sim \frac{{\epsilon} }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\frac{1}{\left\vert
\xi \right\vert }$ if $\left\vert \xi \right\vert $ is of order one we
obtain the following approximation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sec5approx}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-{\epsilon} \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\left( \frac{1%
}{\left\vert \xi -\eta \right\vert }\right) \left[ \rho^+_{{\epsilon}
}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) -\rho^- _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}%
\right) \right] d\eta \ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\partial _{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+w\cdot \nabla _{y}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \\
&&-\left[ {\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\nabla _{y}\left( \frac{1}{\left\vert y-\eta \right\vert }\right) (\rho
_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }-\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{\mp })\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}%
\right) d\eta \pm \frac{{\epsilon} }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\nabla _{y}\left(
\frac{1}{\left\vert y-\xi(\tilde{t}) \right\vert }\right) \right] \cdot
\nabla _{w}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, choosing
\begin{equation}
{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}=1 \label{DebDef}
\end{equation}
the self consistent force term is of the same order of magnitude as the
convective term.
With this choice of scaling, the system \eqref{A2E7}- \eqref{eq:f1} reads:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V\ \ ,\ \
\frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{X}\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert \xi -\eta \right\vert \right) \left[ \rho^+_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) -\rho^- _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) \right] d\eta \\ & 0=\partial _{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot \nabla _{y}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \\ -&\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\left[ \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{Y}\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\eta \right\vert \right) (\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }-\rho _{{\epsilon} }^{\mp })\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta \pm \frac{{\epsilon} }{L_{{\epsilon} }}\nabla _{Y}\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\xi \right\vert \right) \right] \cdot \nabla _{w}f_{{\epsilon} }^{\pm }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) .
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:system1}
\end{equation}%
where we use the fact that $\Phi =\Phi \left( X\right) $ and we denote as $%
\nabla _{X}\Phi $ the usual gradient with respect to the variable $X.$
The system \eqref{eq:system1} must be solved with the initial conditions (%
\ref{S8E9})-(\ref{S8E9b}), where the average $\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\left[
f^+_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,0\right) -f^-_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,0\right) %
\right] dw$ vanishes. This justifies the system \eqref{eq:appCoul}-\eqref{T1E3bis}, \eqref{A1E5} as claimed.
\color{black}
\bigskip
\subsection{The case of grazing collisions}
The goal of this section is to justify the system of equations \eqref{T4E7}-\eqref{T4E7bis}, \eqref{T4E4} starting from the Newton equations for the Rayleigh Gas (cf.~\eqref{eq:RayNew}) in the grazing collisions regime. We will assume that there is only one type of
scatterers. More precisely
\begin{align}
\frac{dX}{d\tau }& =V\ \ , \ \
\frac{dV}{d\tau }=-\sum_{j\in S}\nabla_{X}\Phi _{{\epsilon} } \left( X-Y_{j} \right) \label{T3E8} \\
\frac{dY_{k}}{d\tau }& =W_{k}\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dW_{k}}{d\tau }=-\nabla _{Y}\phi
_{{\epsilon} }\left( Y_{k}-X\right) \ \ ,\ \ k\in S
\end{align}
with the interaction potential $\Phi _{{\epsilon} }\left( X\right) ={\epsilon} \Phi \left( \frac{%
\left\vert X\right\vert }{\ell _{{\epsilon} }}\right) $ .
Here $\Phi =\Phi \left( s\right) $ is a smooth function which decreases
sufficiently fast as $s\rightarrow \infty ,$ together with
the asymptotic formulas for its derivatives. We can assume for
instance that $\Phi \left( s\right) \sim \frac{1}{s^{\alpha }}$ as $%
s\rightarrow \infty $ with $\alpha >1,$ or that $\Phi \left( s\right) $
decreases exponentially. We assume that $\ell _{{\epsilon} }\lesssim 1.$ In
particular we might assume that $\ell _{{\epsilon} }\rightarrow 0.$ We then
argue as in Subsections \ref{ssec:Jfinrange}, \ref{ssec:JCoulomb} and
introduce a new set of variables by means of:%
\begin{equation*}
y_{k}=\frac{Y_{k}}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\ \ ,\ \ \xi =\frac{X}{L_{{\epsilon} }}%
\ \ ,\ \ \tilde{t}=\frac{\tau }{L_{{\epsilon} }} \ .
\end{equation*}
The length $L_{{\epsilon}}$ is only an auxiliary length $L_{{\epsilon}}
\gg 1$ that enables us to approximate the background distribution by a
Gaussian. Notice that in this case it is not convenient to take $%
L_{{\epsilon}}=\ell_{{\epsilon}}$ because, since $\ell_{{\epsilon}}%
\lesssim1$, we would not obtain an approximation of the distribution of
particles by means of a random field. Consider again the empirical
density defined by \eqref{eq:feps}. We also define a rescaled potential by
means of
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{{\epsilon}}\left( X\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \frac{X}{%
L_{{\epsilon}}}\right) =\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon}}\left( \xi\right) \ .
\end{equation*}
Using the change of variables $\tilde{t}=\frac{\tau }{L_{{\epsilon} }},\ \xi =%
\frac{X}{L_{{\epsilon} }}$ we can rewrite (\ref{T3E8}) as:%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V,\quad \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\sum_{j\in S}\nabla
_{\xi }\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -y_{j}\right) =-\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{\xi }\tilde{\phi}
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \rho _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,
\tilde{t}\right) d\eta,
\end{equation*}
where $\rho _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack
f_{{\epsilon} }(\cdot ,\tilde{t})](y)$ as defined in \eqref{eq:Spdensity}.
On the other hand, using the equations for the scatterers in (\ref{T3E8}) we
obtain:
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tilde{t}}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot
\nabla_{y}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\nabla_{y}\tilde{\phi }%
_{{\epsilon}}\left( y-\xi\right) \cdot\nabla_{w}f_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,%
\tilde{t}\right) =0 \ . \label{T4E2}
\end{equation}
Arguing as in the previous Subsections it is
natural to require that the initial value for (\ref{T4E2}) satisfies
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{a},w_{a},0\right) -g\left(
w_{a}\right) \right) \left( f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{b},w_{b},0\right)
-g\left( w_{b}\right) \right) \right] =\frac{g\left( w_{a}\right) }{\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}}\delta \left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right) \label{T4E3}
\end{equation}%
where $g\left( w\right) $ is the distribution of velocities of the
scatterers $\left\{ Y_{k}\right\} _{k\in S}.$ We then look for a solution (%
\ref{T4E2}), (\ref{T4E3}) with the form:%
\begin{equation*}
f_{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =g\left( w\right) +\frac{1}{%
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\zeta _{{\epsilon} }\left(
y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \ .
\end{equation*}
Then, approximating (\ref{T4E2}) by the leading order terms we obtain \eqref{T4E4}, namely
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot\nabla_y)\zeta_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) -\left( L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla_{y}\tilde{\phi}%
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-\xi\right) \cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right) =0, \ \ \
\zeta_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w,0\right) =N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w\right)
\end{equation*}
where the (random) initial data is characterized by (cf.~\eqref{T4E6})
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y,w\right) \right] &=0
\nonumber \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ N_{{\epsilon}}\left( y_{a},w_{a}\right) N_{{\epsilon}
}\left( y_{b},w_{b}\right) \right] &=\frac{g\left( w_{a}\right) }{\left(
L_{{\epsilon}}\right) ^{3}}\delta\left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta\left(
w_{a}-w_{b}\right).
\end{align*}
On the other hand, the evolution of the tagged particle (cf. (\ref{T3E8}))
can be approximated as:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d\xi }{d\tilde{t}}=V_0\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}=-\left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla
_{\xi }\tilde{\phi}_{{\epsilon} }\left( \xi -\eta \right) \zeta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) dwd\eta,
\end{equation*}
where we used that $V(t)\approx V_0$ for short macroscopic times.
We further notice that in the case of grazing collisions the justification of the approximating dynamics starting from the interacting particle system works analogously.
\section{Proofs} \label{Sec:Pfs}
\subsection{Interactions with finite range much larger than the particle distance\label{RaylCompSuppPot}}
We now prove Theorem \ref{thm:FiniteRange}. We will first prove the result for the Rayleigh Gas systems and later for interacting particle systems. \medskip
\begin{proofof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:FiniteRange}]
\textit{Part I: Rayleigh Gas} \medskip
Due to the linearity of (\ref{S7E1})-(\ref{eq:zetaFiniteRayleigh}) we can write
$$\zeta\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) = \zeta_{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +\zeta
_{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) ,$$ where:%
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tilde{t}}\zeta_{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot\nabla
_{y}\zeta_{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =0\ \ ,\ \ \zeta_{1}\left(
y,w,0\right) =N\left( y,w\right) \label{S7E2}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tilde{t}}\zeta_{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot\nabla
_{y}\zeta_{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
-\theta\nabla_{y}\Phi\left( y-\xi\right)
\cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right) =0\ \ ,\ \ \zeta _{2}\left( y,w,0\right) =0.
\label{S7E3}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{S7E2}) can be solved explicitly using characteristics:%
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =N\left( y-w\tilde{t},w\right).
\label{S7E4}
\end{equation}
The stochastic process in (\ref{S7E4}) has non
trivial correlations in time. On the other hand, it is easily seen using (%
\ref{S7E1}) that for any $\tilde{t}\in \mathbb{R}$ the stochastic process $%
\zeta _{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) $ is the same in law as $N\left(
y,w\right) .$
Thanks to \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined} we have that $V_0$
is a constant and $\xi \left( \tilde{t}\right) =\xi \left( 0\right) +V_0
\tilde{t}$. Assuming that $\xi \left( 0\right) =0$
without loss of generality, we can write (\ref{S7E3}) as:%
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{\tilde{t}}\zeta _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot \nabla
_{y}\zeta _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\theta\nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y-V_0)\tilde{t}\right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) =0\ \
,\ \ \zeta _{2}\left( y,w,0\right) =0,
\end{equation*}
whose solution is given by:
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =\theta\nabla_{w}g\left(
w\right) \cdot\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}\nabla_{y}\Phi\left( y-w\left( \tilde {t}%
-s\right) -V_0s\right) ds . \label{S7E5}
\end{equation}
Using the decomposition into $\zeta_{1}, \zeta_2$ (cf.~\eqref{S7E2}-\eqref{S7E3})
we can decompose the force acting on the tagged particle in \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined}
two pieces. The one associated to $\zeta_{1}$ is a time-dependent random
force field which is not affected by the tagged particle. The term
associated to $\zeta_{2}$ yields a deterministic term which depends only on
the velocity of the tagged particle. Let $\tilde{\rho}_{1,2 }\left( y,\tilde{%
t}\right) = \rho[\zeta_{1,2}(\cdot,\tilde{t})](y)$, then $\tilde{\rho}%
_{1}\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) $ is a Gaussian random variable which can be
characterized by means of the following set of expectations and correlations
(cf.~Appendix \ref{appA}):%
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \tilde{\rho}_{1}\left( y,\tilde{t}\right) \right] =0
\end{equation*}%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \tilde{\rho}_{1}\left( y_{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) \tilde{%
\rho}_{1}\left( y_{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =\frac{1}{\left( \tilde{t}%
_{1}-\tilde{t}_{2}\right) ^{3}}g\left( \frac{y_{1}-y_{2}}{\tilde{t}_{1}-%
\tilde{t}_{2}}\right) \ \ ,\ \ \ \tilde{t}_{1}>\tilde{t}_{2} \ . \label{S7E7}
\end{equation}
We can then rewrite \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined} as
\begin{align}
\theta F_g(\xi, \tilde{t};\omega)&= -\theta \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\nabla _{\xi }\Phi \left( \xi -\eta \right) \tilde{\rho}_{1}\left( \eta
,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta -\theta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla
_{\xi }\Phi \left( \eta \right) \tilde{\rho}_{2}\left( \eta +V_0\tilde{t},%
\tilde{t}\right) d\eta \nonumber \\
&= \theta F_{g}^{(1)}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) + \theta ^2 H_{g}\left(\tilde{t};V_0\right) . \label{S8E1a}
\end{align}
For $\tilde{t} \rightarrow \infty$, the friction term $H_g$ converges to:
\begin{align}
\lim_{\tilde{t}\to \infty}\theta ^2 H_{g}\left(\tilde{t};V_0\right) &=
- \theta^2 \Lambda _{g}\left( V_0\right), \quad
\text{with} \notag \\
\Lambda _{g}\left( V_0\right) & =-\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw\nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left( \eta \right) \left[ \nabla _{w}g\left(
w\right) \cdot \int_{-\infty }^{0}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( \eta +\left(
w-V_0\right) s\right) ds\right] \nonumber\\
&=-\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{3}} (k\otimes k) |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 \delta (k\cdot(v-w))\nabla g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w} \;\mathrm{d}{k} . \label{S8E1}
\end{align}
The random force field $F_{g}^{(1)}\left( \xi \right) $ is a Gaussian field with
zero average. The correlations between the values of the field at different
points can be computed using (\ref{S7E7}) and (\ref{S8E1a}). We have:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ F_{g}^{(1)}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) \otimes
F_{g}^{(1)}\left( \xi _{2},,\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}d\eta _{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta _{2} \frac{\nabla \Phi \left( \eta
_{1}\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi \left( \eta _{2}\right) }{\left( \tilde{t}%
_{1}-\tilde{t}_{2}\right) ^{3}}g\left( \frac{\eta _{1}+\xi _{1}-\eta
_{2}-\xi _{2}}{\tilde{t}_{1}-\tilde{t}_{2}}\right).
\end{equation*}
For $\mathcal{F}_g(x,t):=F_g(\xi,\tilde{t})$ this yields for $v=V_0$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:Rayclaim1}
\lim_{\theta\to 0}\mathbb{E}\left[ (\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_1,{t}_{1}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \otimes
(\mathcal{F}_{g}\left( v t_2, {t}_{2}\right)+\Lambda_{g}(v)) \right] = D_{g}(v) \delta(t_1-t_2),
\\
D_{g}\left( v\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{ds}{s^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}d\eta _{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta _{2}\nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left(
\eta _{1}\right) \otimes \nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left( \eta _{2}\right) g\left(
v+\frac{\eta _{1}-\eta _{2}}{s}\right) \nonumber \\
=\pi \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dk_1 dk_2 (k \otimes k) |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 \delta(k\cdot (v-w)) g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w}, \label{eq:Rayclaim2}
\end{align}
where in the last line we have made use of Plancherel's identity.
This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:FiniteRange} for the Rayleigh gas case.
\bigskip
\noindent \textit{Part II: Interacting particle systems} \medskip
We can then decompose $\zeta$ in (\ref{S7E1})-(\ref{eq:zetaFiniteRayleigh}) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\zeta \left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =\zeta _{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+\zeta _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) . \label{S9E7}
\end{equation}%
Here $\zeta _{1}$ solves
\begin{align}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla _{y}\zeta _{1})\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) -\sigma \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot (\nabla _{y}\Phi \ast
\tilde{\rho}_{1})\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) d\eta & =0 \label{T1E5} \\
\zeta _{1}\left( y,w,0\right) & =N\left( y,w\right) \label{T1E6}
\end{align}%
with $\tilde{\rho}_{1}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack \zeta
_{1}(\cdot ,\tilde{t})](y)$. On the other hand, $\zeta _{2}$
solves:
\begin{align}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla _{y})\zeta _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) -\sigma \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot (\nabla _{y}\Phi \ast
\tilde{\rho}_{2})(y,\tilde{t})& =\theta \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y-V_0\tilde{t}\right) \cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \label{T1E8} \\
\zeta _{2}\left( y,w,0\right) & =0 \label{T1E9}
\end{align}%
with $\tilde{\rho}_{2}\left( \eta ,\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack \zeta
_{2}(\cdot ,\tilde{t})](y)$.
The set of equations (\ref{S9E7})-(\ref{T1E9}) yields the fluctuations of
the scatterer density in the phase space. The contribution $\zeta _{1}$
contains the ``noisy" part of the fluctuations. The contribution $\zeta
_{2} $ yields the perturbation to the scatterers density induced by the
presence of the distinguished particle $\left( X,V\right)$. It is crucial
to notice that if $\sigma $ is of order one, the resulting densities $\zeta
_{1},$ $\zeta _{2}$ would be different from those obtained for Rayleigh
gases (cf.~(\ref{S7E4}), (\ref{S7E5})). The terms proportional to $\sigma $
give the contribution due to the interactions of the scatterers with
themselves. The problems (\ref{T1E5})-(\ref{T1E6}) and (\ref{T1E8})-(\ref%
{T1E9}) are linear and can be solved using Fourier and Laplace transforms
(cf.~\cite{La, LL2}).
In order to solve the problems (\ref{T1E5})-(\ref{T1E6}) and (\ref{T1E8})-(%
\ref{T1E9}) we define a fundamental solution associated to the operator on
the left hand side of (\ref{T1E5}), (\ref{T1E8}). We define the function $%
G_{\sigma }\left( y,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) $ as the solution of the
problem:%
\begin{align}
(\partial _{\tilde{t}}+w\cdot \nabla _{y}G_{\sigma })\left( y,w,w_{0},\tilde{%
t}\right) -\sigma \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y-\eta \right) \Xi _{\sigma }\left( \eta ,w_{0},%
\tilde{t}\right) d\eta & =0 \label{T2E2} \\
G_{\sigma }\left( y,w,w_{0},0\right) =\delta \left( y\right) &\delta \left(
w-w_{0}\right), \label{T2E4}
\end{align}%
where $\Xi _{\sigma }\left( y,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) =\rho \lbrack G_{\sigma
}\left( \cdot ,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) ](y)$.
We can then write $\zeta_{1},\ \zeta_{2}$ in terms of $G_{\sigma}$ as:%
\begin{align}
\zeta_{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) &=\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta \int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}G_{\sigma}\left( y-\eta,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right)
N\left( \eta,w_{0}\right) \label{T2E5} \\
\zeta_{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) &=\theta
\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}G_{\sigma}\left( y-\eta,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}-s\right) \left[
\nabla_{y}\Phi\left( \eta-V_0 s\right) \cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w_{0}\right) %
\right] d\eta dw_{0}ds \ . \label{T2E6}
\end{align}
Using now (\ref{S9E7}), (\ref{T2E5}), (\ref{T2E6}) we can rewrite $F_{g}$ in \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined} as
\begin{equation}
\theta {F}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) = \theta
{F}^{(1)}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}%
\right) +\theta^{2} H_{g}\left(
\tilde{t};V_0\right) \label{eq:med1}
\end{equation}%
where:%
\begin{align*}
{F}^{(1)}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) & =\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^3}\nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y-\xi \right) \Xi _{\sigma }\left( y-\eta ,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) N\left( \eta
,w_{0}\right) \;\mathrm{d}{y} \;\mathrm{d}{w_0} \;\mathrm{d}{\eta} \\
H_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) & =\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}ds\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^3}\nabla \Phi
\left( y-V_0\tilde{t}\right) \Xi _{\sigma }\left( y-\eta ,w_{0},\tilde{t}-s\right) \left[
\nabla\Phi \left( \eta -V_0s\right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left(
w_{0}\right) \right] d\eta dw_{0}dy,
\end{align*}
which describe the friction and the random force field terms.
We are interested in the dynamics given by \eqref{eq:MotionFiniteCombined} with $F_g$ as in \eqref{eq:med1}, in times
of the order of the mean free time between collisions. In those times we
have $\tilde{t}\gg 1.$ Therefore it is natural to study the asymptotic
behaviour of ${F}^{(1)}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) $ and the friction
coefficient $H_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) $ as $\tilde{t}\rightarrow
\infty .$ We define $ \lim_{\tilde{t}\to \infty} H_{g}\left(\tilde{t};V_0\right) = - \Lambda _{g}\left( V_0\right)$. Then
\begin{equation}
-\Lambda_g\left(V_0\right) =\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^3}\nabla\Phi \left( y\right) \int_{0}^{\infty }ds \Xi_{\sigma }\left( y-\eta
,w_{0},s\right) \left[ \nabla\Phi \left( \eta +V_0s\right) \cdot
\nabla _{w}g\left( w_{0}\right) \right] d\eta dw_{0}dy. \label{T2E8}
\end{equation}
Notice that since $G_{\sigma }$ decays sufficiently fast in $\tilde{t}$, the friction term is well defined by means of (\ref{T2E8}%
).
We compute now the statistical properties of the noise term. Notice that $F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) $ is a
Gaussian noise with zero average. Therefore, in order to characterize $%
F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) $ we just need to compute the covariance
function which is given by:%
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}& \left[ F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi
_{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty }\int_{\mathbb{R%
}^{3}}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla
_{y}\Phi \left( y_{1}\right) \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{1}\right)
dy_{1}dy_{2}dw_{1}dw_{2}\cdot \\
& \cdot \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta _{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0,1}\int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta _{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0,2}G_{\sigma }\left(
y_{1}-\eta _{1},w_{1},w_{0,1},\tilde{t}_{1}+T\right) G_{\sigma }\left(
y_{2}-\eta _{2},w_{2},w_{0,2},\tilde{t}_{2}+T\right) \cdot \\
& \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[ N\left( \eta _{1}+\xi _{1},w_{0,1}\right) N\left(
\eta _{2}+\xi _{2},w_{0,2}\right) \right] .
\end{align*}%
Using (\ref{S7E1}) and evaluating the integrals using the dirac masses, we
obtain%
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} &\mathbb{E}\left[ F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right)
\otimes F^{(1)}_{g,\infty}\left( \xi _{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right]
=\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty }\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^2}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left(
y_{1}\right) \otimes \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{2}\right) dy_{1}dy_{2}\cdot
\\ &\cdot \int_{(\mathbb{R}^3)^2}d\eta_1 dw_{0,1}\Xi_\sigma \left(
y_{1}-\eta _{1},w_0,\tilde{t}_{1}+T\right) \Xi_\sigma \left( y_{2}-\eta
_{1}+\xi _{2}-\xi _{1},w_0,\tilde{t} _{2}+T\right) g\left( w_0\right) ,
\end{aligned} \label{eq:FFCorr}
\end{equation}%
where $\Xi _{\sigma}$ is the velocity marginal of $G_{\sigma }$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:Xisigma}
\Xi _{\sigma }(y,w_{0},t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{3}}G_{\sigma }(y,w,w_{0},t)\;%
\mathrm{d}{w}.
\end{equation}
The simplest way of solving (\ref{T2E2})-(\ref{T2E4}) is applying Fourier in
the $x$ variable and Laplace in the time variable $\tilde{t},$ as it was
made in \cite{La, LL2}. We define the following Fourier-Laplace transform:%
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F}\left( k,v,z\right) =\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}%
\int_{0}^{\infty }dz\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dxe^{-ix\cdot k}e^{-z\tilde{t}%
}F\left( x,v,\tau \right)\ .
\end{equation*}
As it will be proved in Lemma \ref{Lemma:FouLap} below, the fundamental solution $G_\sigma$ and its marginal $\Xi _{\sigma }(y,w_{0},t)$ can be explicitly represented as
\begin{align}
\tilde{G}_{\sigma }\left( k,w,w_{0},z\right) &=\frac{\sigma \left( \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot ik\right) \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) }{\left( z+i
k\cdot w \right) \left( z+i k\cdot w_{0} \right) \Delta _{\sigma }\left(
k,z\right) } +\frac{\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) } \label{eq:GSigma}\\
\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}\left( k,w_{0},z\right) &=\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) \Delta_{\sigma
}\left( k,z\right) } \label{eq:Xirepresentation}\\
\Delta_{\sigma}\left( k,z\right) &=1- \sigma(2\pi)^\frac32 \hat{\Phi}\left(
k\right) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{\left( ik\cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right)
\right) }{z+i\left( k\cdot w\right) }dw . \label{T3E5}
\end{align}
In order to avoid the exponential growth of the disturbances we need the
following stability condition:%
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) \neq 0\text{ for }\func{Re}\left(
z\right) \geq 0\text{ and any }k\in {\mathbb R}^3. \label{PenrStab}
\end{equation}
We remark that in case of a smooth decaying potential $\phi $, this
criterion can be satisfied choosing for example $0<\sigma \ll 1$ small.
Notice that in the formulas of $\tilde{F}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) $
and $H_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V\right) $ we only make use of $\Xi_{\sigma}$.
Inverting the Fourier-Laplace transform in \eqref{eq:Xirepresentation}, we can rewrite $\Xi _{\sigma}$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gsigma}
\Xi_{\sigma}\left( x,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\frac{e^{ik\cdot x}dk}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}\int_{\gamma }\frac{e^{z%
\tilde{t}}dz}{\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta
_{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) }.
\end{equation}
We can consider possible analyticity properties of the function $\Delta
_{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) $ \eqref{T3E5} in the variable $z,$ in order to
obtain a possible decay of the integral above in time.
We rewrite the function in terms of the Radon transform $H(s,\theta)$ of $g$, which for $\theta\in S^2$ and $s\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
H\left( s;\theta \right) =\int_{\left\{ \theta \cdot w=s\right\} }g\left(
w\right) dS\left( w\right).
\end{equation*}
With this definition, the integral appearing in \eqref{T3E5} can be
rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{\left( i\theta \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right)
\right) }{\zeta +i\left( \theta \cdot w\right) }dw=i\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }%
\frac{ds}{\zeta +is}\frac{\partial H\left( s;\theta \right) }{\partial s}.
\end{equation*}
We will assume that $H\left( s;\theta \right) $ is analytic in a strip $%
\left\{ \left\vert \func{Im}\left( s\right) \right\vert <\delta _{0}\right\}
$ for all the values of $\theta \in S^{2}.$ Then $\Delta _{\sigma }\left(
k,z\right) $ would be analytic in a strip $\left\{ \left\vert \func{Im}%
\left( \zeta \right) \right\vert <\delta _{0}\right\} .$ Initially we assume
that $\func{Re}\left( \zeta \right) >0.$ We can move the line of integration
from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}-\frac{\delta _{0}}{2}i.$ It then follows
that
\begin{equation} \label{Psidef}
\Psi \left( \zeta ;\theta \right) := \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{\left( {i}\theta
\cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \right) }{\zeta +i\left( \theta \cdot
w\right) }dw={i}\int_{\mathbb{R}-\frac{\delta _{0}}{2}i}\frac{ds}{\zeta +is}%
\frac{\partial H\left( s;\theta \right) }{\partial s}
\end{equation}
is analytic for $\func{Re}\left( \zeta \right) >-\frac{\delta _{0}}{2}.$
\bigskip
Now suppose that for (a possibly smaller value) $\delta _{0}>0$ we can
further ensure that $\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) $ does not vanish
for $\func{Re}\left( \zeta \right) >-\frac{\delta _{0}}{2}.$ Then the
function
\begin{equation*}
\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) =1-\sigma {(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) \Psi
\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert k\right\vert };\frac{k}{\left\vert k\right\vert }%
\right)
\end{equation*}
is analytic in $z$ in a region of the form $\left\{ \func{Re}\left( z\right)
\geq -\delta _{1}\left\vert k\right\vert \right\} .$
With this we return to the friction term $\Lambda_g\left(V_0\right)$ given by \eqref{T2E8}.
Inserting the Fourier-Laplace representation of $\Xi_\sigma$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
-\Lambda_g\left(V_0\right) =\int_{(\mathbb{R}^3)^4}\int_{0}^{\infty}ds%
\left[ \frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{e^{ik\cdot \left( y-\eta \right) }}{\left( 2\pi
\right) ^{3}}\int_{\gamma }dz \frac{e^{zs} \nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y\right) %
\left[ \nabla _{\eta }\Phi \left( \eta +V_0s\right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left(
w_{0}\right) \right]}{\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) \Delta
_{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) }\right] d\eta dw_{0}dy \ .
\end{equation*}
The integrals in $y,\eta$ are explicit and yield by definition of $\Psi$ \eqref{Psidef}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\Lambda_g\left(V_0\right) = \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{ik\cdot V_0s}ds\int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}k\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left(
k\right) \right\vert ^{2}dk\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma }\frac{e^{zs}dz}{%
\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) }\left[ \Psi \left( \frac{z}{\left\vert
k\right\vert };\theta \right) \right] \ .
\end{eqnarray*}
The analyticity properties of $\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z\right) $ and $%
\Psi \left( \frac{z}{\left\vert k\right\vert };\theta \right) $ allow to
deform $\gamma $ to a contour contained in $\func{Re}\left( z\right) <0.$ We
then obtain exponential decay of the integral as $s\rightarrow \infty .$
This gives
\begin{equation}
-\Lambda_g\left(V_0\right) =-\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}%
(k \otimes k) \left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right)
\right\vert ^{2} \frac{ \delta(k(V_0-w)) }{|\Delta_\sigma(k,-ikV_0)|^2}\nabla g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w}\;\mathrm{d}{k} \label{FricBLFastDec}.
\end{equation}
This is the friction coefficient associated to Balescu-Lenard.
We now use the Fourier-Laplace representation of $\Xi _{\sigma }$ (cf.~\eqref{eq:Gsigma}) to compute the time correlation of the forces \eqref{eq:FFCorr}. Specifically:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ F_{g}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right)\otimes F_{g}\left( \xi
_{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =& \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty }\int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{1}\right)
\nabla _{y}\Phi \left( y_{2}\right) dy_{1}dy_{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta
_{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}g\left( w_{0}\right) dw_{0}\cdot \\
\cdot & \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{e^{ik_{1}\cdot \left(
y_{1}-\eta _{1}\right) }dk_{1}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}\int_{\gamma }\frac{%
e^{z_{1}\left( \tilde{t}_{1}+T\right) }dz_{1}}{\left( z_{1}+i\left(
k_{1}\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta _{\sigma }\left(
k_{1},z_{1}\right) }\cdot \\
& \cdot \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{e^{ik_{2}\cdot \left(
y_{2}-\eta _{1}+\xi _{2}-\xi _{1}\right) }dk_{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}%
\int_{\gamma }\frac{e^{z_{2}\left( \tilde{t}_{2}+T\right) }dz_{2}}{\left(
z_{2}+i\left( k_{2}\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta _{\sigma
}\left( k_{2},z_{2}\right) }.
\end{align*}
In Fourier variables we obtain
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}& \left[ F_{g}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) \otimes
F_{g}\left( \xi _{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty
}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}g(w_{0})dw_{0}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}k\otimes
k\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) \right\vert ^{2}e^{-ik\cdot \left( \xi
_{2}-\xi _{1}\right) }dk\cdot \nonumber \\
& \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma }\frac{e^{z_{1}\left( \tilde{t}_{1}+T\right)
}dz_{1}}{\left( z_{1}+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta
_{\sigma }\left( k,z_{1}\right) }\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma }\frac{%
e^{z_{2}\left( \tilde{t}_{2}+T\right) }dz_{2}}{\left( z_{2}-i\left( k\cdot
w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta _{\sigma }\left( -k,z_{2}\right) } \ .
\end{align}
We will assume that $\Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,z_{1}\right) $ is analytic in
the regions indicated above. We can then compute the integrals along the
circuits $\gamma $ using residues. The contribution to the integral in the
region $\func{Re}\left( z_{j}\right) <0$ converges exponentially to zero as $%
T\rightarrow \infty .$ The exponent depends on $\left\vert k\right\vert $
but due to the integrability in $k$ we can take the limit of those terms.
Therefore, we are left only with the contributions due to residues at $%
z_{1}=-i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) ,\ z_{2}=i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) .$
We then obtain, using the identity $\Delta _{\sigma }(-k,z^{\ast })=(\Delta _{\sigma
}(k,z))^{\ast }$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ F_{g}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) \otimes
F_{g}\left( \xi _{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}g\left( w_{0}\right) dw_{0}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\left[ k\otimes k\right]
\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) \right\vert ^{2}\frac{e^{ik\cdot \left[
w_{0}\left( \tilde{t}_{2}-\tilde{t}_{1}\right) -\left( \xi _{2}-\xi
_{1}\right) \right] }}{\left\vert \Delta _{\sigma }\left( k,-i\left( k\cdot
w_{0}\right) \right) \right\vert ^{2}}dk. \label{NoiseBLFastDec}
\end{equation}
We can now argue as in the Rayleigh gas case (cf.~\eqref{eq:Rayclaim1}-\eqref{eq:Rayclaim2}) and hence \eqref{eqthm:nonlin1} follows. This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:FiniteRange} for the interacting particle case.
\end{proofof}
We now state the Lemma which provides the representation formulas \eqref{eq:GSigma}, \eqref{eq:Xirepresentation}, \eqref{T3E5} we used in the above proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:FouLap}
The fundamental solution $G_\sigma$ and its marginal $\Xi _{\sigma }(y,w_{0},t)$ can be explicitly represented in Fourier-Laplace variables as
\begin{align}
\tilde{G}_{\sigma }\left( k,w,w_{0},z\right) &=\frac{\sigma \left( \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot ik\right) \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) }{\left( z+i
k\cdot w \right) \left( z+i k\cdot w_{0} \right) \Delta _{\sigma }\left(
k,z\right) } +\frac{\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) } \label{eq:GSigma_1}\\
\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}\left( k,w_{0},z\right) &=\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) \Delta_{\sigma
}\left( k,z\right) } \label{eq:Xirepresentation_1}\\
\Delta_{\sigma}\left( k,z\right) &=1- \sigma(2\pi)^\frac32 \hat{\Phi}\left(
k\right) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{\left( ik\cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right)
\right) }{z+i\left( k\cdot w\right) }dw . \label{T3E5_1}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking the transform of (\ref{T2E2})-(\ref{T2E4}) we obtain:
\begin{align}
(z +i\left( k\cdot w\right) ) \tilde{G}_{\sigma }\left( k,w,w_{0},z\right)
-&\sigma(2\pi)^\frac32 \left( \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot ik\right)
\hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) \tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma }\left( k,w_{0},z\right) =%
\frac{\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}} \ .
\label{T3E1}
\end{align}
We can rewrite (\ref{T3E1}) as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}_{\sigma}\left( k,w,w_{0},z\right) =\frac{\sigma (2\pi)^\frac32
\left( \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot ik\right) \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right)
}{ (z+i\left( k\cdot w\right)) }\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}\left( k,w_{0},z\right) +%
\frac{\delta\left( w-w_{0}\right) }{( 2\pi ) ^{\frac{3}{2}} (z+i\left(
k\cdot w\right)) } \ . \label{T3E2a}
\end{equation}
Integrating in $w$ we obtain:%
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}\left( k,w_{0},z\right) =\left(\sigma (2\pi)^\frac32
\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}\left( k,w_{0},z\right) \hat{\Phi}\left( k\right) \int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{ ik\cdot\nabla_{w}g\left( w\right) }{z+i k\cdot w }dw+%
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^\frac32 (z+i k w_0) }\right). \label{T3E3}
\end{equation}
Then we can represent $\tilde{\Xi}_{\sigma}$ explicitly by \eqref{eq:Xirepresentation_1}. Using (\ref{T3E2a}) we also obtain the representation \eqref{eq:GSigma_1}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\subsection{Coulombian interactions \label{RaylCoulomb}}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:Coulomb}. To avoid repetition of similar arguments we will only prove the Theorem for the interacting particle case which is technically more involved. Concerning the Rayleigh Gas case the proof can be done following similar arguments to the ones used in Subsection~\ref{RaylCompSuppPot}. We just notice that contrary to the case studied in Subsection~\ref{RaylCompSuppPot}, the
friction term $H_{g}$ and the noise $B_{g}$ do not stabilize on a short
Bogoliubov time scale, but they exhibit a logarithmic divergence as ${{\epsilon} }\rightarrow 0$. This logarithmic
divergence yields the logarithmic correction of the time scale
characteristic of Coulombian interactions.\medskip
\begin{proofof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Coulomb}]
\noindent \textit{Part II: Interacting Particle systems} \smallskip
\noindent We consider \eqref{A1E5} with initial conditions (\ref{T1E1}), (\ref{T1E2}). We can formulate a
problem for the difference $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}%
\right) =\zeta _{{\epsilon} }^{+}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -\zeta
_{{\epsilon} }^{-}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) .$ Due to the
electroneutrality condition we have:
\begin{equation}
(\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }^{+}-\tilde{\rho}_{{\epsilon} }^{-})\left( \eta
,\tilde{t}\right) =\frac{1}{L_{\epsilon}^{\frac{3}{2}}}%
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\left[ (\zeta _{{\epsilon} }^{+}-\zeta _{{\epsilon}
}^{-})\left( \eta ,w,\tilde{t}\right) \right] dw=\frac{1}{L_{\epsilon}^\frac32 }\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\lambda
_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,v,\tilde{t}\right) dv. \label{A1E7}
\end{equation}%
Then from (\ref{A1E5}) we obtain
\begin{align*}
& 0=\partial _{\tilde{t}}\lambda_{\epsilon} \left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right)
+w\cdot \nabla _{y}\lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) - \\
-2& \left[ L_{\epsilon}^2 \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert
y-\eta \right\vert \right) \lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta ,v,\tilde{t}%
\right) dv+{\epsilon} L_{\epsilon} ^{\frac52}\nabla\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\xi \right\vert \right) \right]
\cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right)
\end{align*}%
where $\xi=V_0\tilde{t}$. From (\ref{T1E1}), (\ref{T1E2}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,0\right) \right] &=&0
\notag \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ \lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{a},w_{a},0\right) \lambda
_{{\epsilon} }\left( y_{b},w_{b},0\right) \right] &=&2g\left( w_{a}\right)
\delta \left( y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left( w_{a}-w_{b}\right) .
\label{NoiseInData}
\end{eqnarray}%
Using the linearity of the problem we can decompose $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }$
as:
\begin{equation}
\lambda _{{\epsilon} }=\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2} \label{A2E6}
\end{equation}%
where we do not write explicitly the dependence of $\lambda _{1},\lambda
_{2} $ in ${\epsilon} $ and $\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2}$ solve the following
problems:%
\begin{equation}
\partial _{\tilde{t}}\lambda _{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot \nabla
_{y}\lambda _{1}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) -2 L_{\epsilon}^2 \nabla g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla \Phi
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\eta \right\vert \right) d\eta \int_{%
{\mathbb R}^3}\lambda _{1}\left( \eta ,v,\tilde{t}\right) dv=0 , \label{A1E8}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \lambda _{1}\left( y,w,0\right) \right] =0\ \ ,\ \ \mathbb{E%
}\left[ \lambda _{1}\left( y_{a},w_{a},0\right) \lambda _{1}\left(
y_{b},w_{b},0\right) \right] =2g\left( w_{a}\right) \delta \left(
y_{a}-y_{b}\right) \delta \left( w_{a}-w_{b}\right) \label{A1E9}
\end{equation}%
and:%
\begin{align}
& \partial _{\tilde{t}}\lambda _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot
\nabla _{y}\lambda _{2}\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) \notag \\
& =2\left[ \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-\eta \right\vert \right) d\eta
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\lambda _{2}\left( \eta ,v,\tilde{t}\right)
dv+{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{5}{2}}\nabla \Phi
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-V_0\tilde{t} \right\vert \right) \right] \cdot
\nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \label{A2E1}, \\
& \lambda _{2}\left( y,w,0\right) =0 \ .\label{A2E2}
\end{align}%
In order to obtain $\lambda _{1}$ and $\lambda _{2}$ we need to study the
fundamental solution for the linearized Vlasov system given by the solution
of:%
\begin{align}
& \partial _{\tilde{t}}G\left( y,w;w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) +w\cdot \nabla
_{y}G\left( y,w;w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) \notag \\
& -2\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert
y-\eta \right\vert \right) d\eta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}G\left( \eta ,v;w_{0},%
\tilde{t}\right) dv=0 , \label{A2E3} \\
& G\left( y,w;w_{0},0\right) =\delta \left( y\right) \delta \left(
w-w_{0}\right) \ . \label{A2E4}
\end{align}
We can solve (\ref{A2E3}), (\ref{A2E4}) applying Fourier in the variable $y$
and Laplace in $\tilde{t}.$ If we denote this transform as $\tilde{G}=\tilde{%
G}\left( k,w;w_{0},z\right) .$ Then:
\begin{align*}
(z+i\left( k\cdot w\right))\tilde{G}& \left( k,w;w_{0},z\right) -\frac{%
2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}%
\hat{\Phi}\left( \frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \left( ik\cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \right) \tilde{\Xi} \left( k;w_{0},z\right) =\frac{%
\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}} ,
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\Xi}\left( k;w_{0},z\right) =\rho[\tilde{G}(\cdot;w_{0},z)](k)$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}\left( k,w;w_{0},z\right) =\frac{\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{%
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right)
\right) }+\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( \frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \left(
ik\cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w\right) \right) \frac{\tilde{\Xi} \left(
k;w_{0},z\right) }{z+i\left( k\cdot w\right) } \ . \label{eq:GLaplace}
\end{equation}
Therefore, after integrating in $w$ we find an explicit representation of $%
\tilde{\Xi}$:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Xi}\left( k;w_{0},z\right) =\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2%
}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) \Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left(
k,z\right) } \label{eq:Xi}
\end{equation}%
where:%
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,z\right) =1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( \frac{k}{%
L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\frac{\left( ik\cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \right) }{z+i\left( k\cdot w\right) }dw \ .
\label{def:dielectric}
\end{equation}
Inserting \eqref{eq:Xi} back into \eqref{eq:GLaplace} we obtain the
representation:
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{G}\left( k,w;w_{0},z\right) =\frac{\delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) }{%
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right)
\right) }+\frac{2}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}\frac{\hat{\Phi}%
\left( \frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \left( ik\cdot \nabla _{w}g\left(
w\right) \right) }{\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w\right) \right) \left( z+i\left(
k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) \Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,z\right) }\ .
\end{equation*}
We will assume the usual stability condition of the medium, i.e. that the
function $\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,\cdot \right) $ is analytic in $%
\left\{ \func{Re}\left( z\right) >0\right\} $ for each $k\in {\mathbb R}^3.$
We can now obtain $\lambda _{{\epsilon} }$ using (\ref{A2E6}) as well as
the fundamental solution. We then obtain
\begin{align*}
& \lambda _{{\epsilon} }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}d\eta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}G\left( y-\eta ,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}%
\right) \lambda _{1}\left( \eta ,w_{0},0\right) + \\
& +2{\epsilon} \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{\frac{5}{2}}\int_{0}^{%
\tilde{t}}ds\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}G\left(
y-\eta ,w,w_{0},\tilde{t}-s\right) \nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\left\vert \eta -V_0s\right\vert \right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w_{0}\right)
\end{align*}
and, using the first equation in \eqref{eq:appCoul},
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{L_{\epsilon}^\frac32 } {F}_{g}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) =\frac{1}{L_{\epsilon}^\frac32 }F_g^{(1)}( \xi ,\tilde{t})+\frac{1}{L_{\epsilon}^3}H_g(\tilde{t};V_0). \label{A3E2}
\end{equation}%
Here $F_g^{(1)}$, $H_g$ are given by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} F_g^{(1)}( \xi ,\tilde{t})
&=-\int_{(\mathbb{R}^3)^3}L_{\epsilon}^2\nabla \Phi
\left( L_{\epsilon} \left\vert y-\xi \right\vert \right) \Xi\left( y-\eta
,w_{0},\tilde{t}\right) \lambda _{1}\left( \eta ,w_{0},0\right)d\eta dw_{0} dy \\ H_g( \tilde{t};V_0) &=-2
\int_{(\mathbb{R}^3)^3} L_{\epsilon}^2 \nabla \Phi
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y-V_0\tilde{t}\right\vert \right)
\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}ds\ \Xi\left( y-\eta ,w_{0},\tilde{t}-s\right) d\eta dw_{0} dy \\ &\qquad\qquad L_{\epsilon}^2\nabla \Phi
\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert \eta -V_0s\right\vert \right) \cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w_{0}\right) . \end{aligned} \label{eq:FHrepr}
\end{equation}
Notice that $F_g^{(1)}( \xi ,\tilde{t}) $ is a Gaussian
random force field. Using (\ref{A1E9}) we obtain:%
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ F_g^{(1)}\left( \xi ,\tilde{t}\right) \right] =0 \ .
\label{A2E9}
\end{equation}%
Similarly, the covariance has the form:
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ F_g^{(1)}\left( \xi _{1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) \otimes
F_g^{(1)}\left( \xi _{2},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) \right] =2\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy_{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dy_{2}L_{\epsilon}^2 \nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{1}-\xi
_{1}\right\vert \right) \otimes \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\nabla\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{2}-\xi _{2}\right\vert \right)
\cdot \notag \label{A3E1} \\
& \cdot \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}g\left( w_{0,1}\right) dw_{0,1}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}d\eta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{1}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{2}G\left(
y_{1}-\eta ,w_{1},w_{0,1},\tilde{t}_{1}\right) G\left( y_{2}-\eta
,w_{2},w_{0,1},\tilde{t}_{2}\right) . \notag
\end{align}
We now compute the asymptotics of the friction term $H_{g}\left(
\tilde{t};V\right) $ given in \eqref{eq:FHrepr} as $\tilde{t}\rightarrow
\infty $, i.e. for times for which the tagged particle moves at distances
much larger than the Debye screening length. Using \eqref{eq:Xi} we obtain:
\begin{align*}
H_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) & =-\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi \right)
^{3}\pi i}\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^{3}}dyd\eta dw_{0}\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left( y-V\tilde{t}%
\right) \right) \int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}ds\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{3}}dk\ e^{ik\cdot
\left( y-\eta \right) } \\
& \cdot \int_{\gamma }dz\frac{e^{z\left( \tilde{t}-s\right) }}{\left(
z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right) \right) }\frac{1}{\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left(
k,z\right) }\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}\nabla \Phi \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\left( \eta -V_0s\right) \right) \cdot \nabla _{w}g\left(
w_{0}\right) \ .
\end{align*}
Then, rewriting the equation above in terms of the Fourier transform of $%
\Phi $, the friction term becomes
\begin{equation*}
H_g\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) =\frac{1}{\pi i}\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}%
}ds\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dk\ k\frac{e^{ik\cdot V_0s}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{4}}\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( \frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right)
\right\vert ^{2}\int_{\gamma }dz\frac{e^{zs}}{\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left(
k,z\right) }\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}\frac{\left[ k\cdot \nabla
_{w}g\left( w_{0}\right) \right] }{\left( z+i\left( k\cdot w_{0}\right)
\right) } \ .
\end{equation*}
We define, analogously as in the case considered in the previous
Subsections,
\begin{equation}
\Psi \left( z,k\right) =\Psi \left( \frac{z}{\left\vert k\right\vert },\frac{%
k}{\left\vert k\right\vert }\right) =\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}\frac{\left[
k\cdot \nabla _{w}g\left( w_{0}\right) \right] }{\left( z+i\left( k\cdot
w_{0}\right) \right) } \label{T8E6}
\end{equation}%
whence, using \eqref{def:dielectric},
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{{\epsilon} }\left( k,z\right) =1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{%
\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( \frac{k}{%
L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \Psi \left( \frac{z}{\left\vert k\right\vert },%
\frac{k}{\left\vert k\right\vert }\right) . \label{T8E6a}
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) =\frac{1}{\pi i} \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}%
\frac{dk \, k}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{4}}\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left(
\frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }}\right) \right\vert ^{2}\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}ds%
\left[ \int_{\gamma }\frac{e^{\left( ik\cdot V_0+z\right) s}dz}{\Delta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( k,z\right) }\Psi \left( \frac{z}{\left\vert
k\right\vert },\frac{k}{\left\vert k\right\vert }\right) \right].
\label{A3E8}
\end{equation}
We will assume that the function $g$ has analyticity properties analogous to
the ones assumed in Subsection~\ref{RaylCompSuppPot}. Moreover, we will
also assume that the Penrose stability condition holds, i.e. $\Delta
_{{\epsilon} }\left( k,z\right) \neq 0$ for $\func{Re}\left( z\right) \geq
0 $ and $k\in {\mathbb R}^3\diagdown \left\{ 0\right\} .$
Using the changes of variables $k=L_{{\epsilon} }p,\ z=L_{{\epsilon}
}\zeta ,\ s=\frac{\tau }{L_{{\epsilon} }}$, which allow to return to the
microscopic variables in Fourier, we can rewrite (\ref{A3E8}) as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) =\frac{1}{\pi i}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dp\, p\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \right\vert
^{2}\int_{0}^{L_{{\epsilon} }\tilde{t}}d\tau \left[ \int_{\gamma }\frac{%
e^{\left( ip\cdot V_0+\zeta \right) \tau }d\zeta }{\Delta _{{\epsilon}
}\left( L_{{\epsilon} }p,L_{{\epsilon} }\zeta \right) }\Psi \left( \frac{%
\zeta }{\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) %
\right] . \label{T8E7}
\end{equation}
Using also (\ref{T8E6a}) we obtain:
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) =\frac{1}{\pi i}\int_{0}^{L_{%
{\epsilon} }\tilde{t}}d\tau \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dp\, p e^{ip\cdot V_0\tau
}\left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \right\vert ^{2}\int_{\gamma }\frac{%
\Psi \left( \frac{\zeta }{\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert
p\right\vert }\right) e^{\zeta \tau }d\zeta }{\left( 1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi
\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon} }\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left(
p\right) \Psi \left( \frac{\zeta }{\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{%
\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) \right) }\ .
\end{equation*}
Then, due to the Penrose stability condition the function $\Psi$ is analytic and we can perform a contour
deformation for the integration in $\zeta $ to bring the contour to the
region $\left\{ \func{Re}\left( \zeta \right) <0\right\} $. More precisely, if $|p|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}$, we can move the contour to $\func{Re}(\zeta)<0$, $|\func{Re}(\zeta)|\sim 1$. Physically this is related to the fact that the Landau damping of disturbances with a wavelength smaller or equal than the Debye length scale $L_{\epsilon}$, takes place in microscopic scales of order $\tau \sim 1$.
Hence, in the region $\{|p|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}$ we can replace the integral $\int_0^{L_{\epsilon} \tilde{t}} $ by $\int_0^\infty$ with a negligible error. On the other hand, estimating the contribution due to the region $|p|\leq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}$ is more involved. The reason for this is the fact that the function $1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \Psi \left( \frac{\zeta }{\left\vert
p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right)$ has two roots with $\func{Re}(\zeta)<0$ but $|\func{Re}(\zeta)|$ exponentially small as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$.
Physically, these roots are related to the so-called Langmuir waves that are oscillatory solutions of the Vlasov-Poisson equation with wavelength much larger than the Debye length and very slow Landau damping (for a discussion see \cite{NVW,VW2}). The contribution to the integrals $\int_0^{L_{\epsilon}\tilde{t}} \int_\gamma d\zeta \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dp [\ldots ]$ can be estimated computing first the integral $\int d\zeta$ using residuals. It is then possible to prove that this contribution is bounded as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$, and we obtain
\begin{align*}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \tilde{t};V_0\right) &= H_g\left( \infty ;V_0\right)+ O(1), \quad \text{where } \\
H_g\left( \infty ;V_0\right) &=\frac{1}{\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dp\, p \left\vert \hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \right\vert ^{2}{\mathbbm 1}_{\{|p|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}\int_{\gamma }%
\frac{1}{\left( \zeta +ip\cdot V_0\right) }\frac{\Psi \left( \frac{\zeta }{%
\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) d\zeta }{%
\left( 1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \Psi \left( \frac{\zeta }{\left\vert
p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) \right) }\ .
\end{align*}
We will now prove that $H_g\left( \infty ;V_0\right)\sim |\log {\epsilon}|$, so it is the dominant term.
Using now residues to compute the integral along the contour $\gamma $ we
arrive at
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \infty ;V_0\right) =2\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dp\, p {\mathbbm 1}_{\{|p|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}\left\vert
\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \right\vert ^{2}\frac{\Psi \left( -\frac{ip\cdot V_0}{\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) }{%
\left( 1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \Psi \left( -\frac{ip\cdot V_0}{%
\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right) \right) } \
\label{T8E8}
\end{equation}
and hence, using \eqref{T8E6},
\begin{align}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \infty ;V\right) = -\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}
(p \otimes p) |\hat{\Phi}( p)|^2\frac{ {\mathbbm 1}_{\{|p|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}\delta(p(v-w)) }{|1-\frac{2\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \Psi \left( -\frac{ip\cdot V}{%
\left\vert p\right\vert },\frac{p}{\left\vert p\right\vert }\right)|^2}\nabla g(w) \;\mathrm{d}{w}\;\mathrm{d}{p} .
\end{align}
This formula yields the asymptotic friction coefficient acting on a particle
which moves at speed $V_0$. We first notice that the integral in the right
hand side of \eqref{T8E8} is convergent. Indeed, if $|p|\rightarrow \infty $
we can assume that $|\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) |$ decays sufficiently fast,
say exponentially, due to the cutoff for small distances we made for the
potential. On the other hand, since the potential $\Phi $ is behaving at
large distances as Coulombian potential $\hat{\Phi}\left( p\right) \sim
\frac{c}{\left\vert p\right\vert ^{2}}$, $c>0$ as $\left\vert p\right\vert
\rightarrow 0$ then at a first glance the terms $p\left\vert \hat{\Phi}%
\left( p\right) ^{2}\right\vert $ would yield a logarithm divergence as $%
|p|\rightarrow 0$. Nevertheless, this divergence does not take place due to
the presence of the term $\frac{1}{L_{{\epsilon} }^{2}}\hat{\Phi}\left(
p\right) $ in the denominator of \eqref{T8E8}. This provides a suitable
cutoff of the singularities for $\left\vert p\right\vert $ of order $\frac{1%
}{L_{{\epsilon} }}.$
We remark that some care is needed in the deformation of the contour $\gamma
$ appearing in the integral in (\ref{T8E7}). This is due to the fact that
the region of analyticity of the function $\left( \Delta _{{\epsilon}
}\left( k,z\right) \right) ^{-1}$ in the $z$ variable, becomes very small as
$\left\vert k\right\vert \rightarrow 0.$ This is very closely related to the
so-called Langmuir waves, which have been discussed in \cite{NVW} and therefore, we refer there for more details about this issue.
It is relevant to remark that the relevant contributions in the integral (%
\ref{T8E8}) are those with $\left\vert p\right\vert \approx 1.$ Using
Plancherel's formula it follows that these contributions are those between
the region where we cut the potential (i.e. $\left\vert X\right\vert $ of
order one), until regions of the order of the Debye length (i.e. $\left\vert
X\right\vert \approx L_{{\epsilon} }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon} }}$).
Moreover, all the dyadic regions within this range of values yield
contributions of a similar size as it might be expected for Coulombian
potentials (cf. Subsection \ref{ThresholdCoulomb}). The asymptotic behaviour
of (\ref{T8E8}) as ${\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$ contains then, as it might be
expected, the Coulombian logarithm:%
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{H}_{g}\left( \infty ;V_0\right) \sim 2c^{2}\log \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\right) \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0} \frac{\nabla g(w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(v-w_{0})\otimes
(v-w_{0})}{|v-w_{0}|^{2}}\right) ,
\end{equation*}
where $c=\frac{A}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$, and $A$ is given by \eqref{phiDec_sOne}.
Using \eqref{TCoulRay} we can compute the friction force on the macroscopic unit of time which reads
\begin{equation}
H_{g}\left( \infty ;V_0\right) \sim \frac{\pi}{2} c^2 \Lambda_{g}\left( V_0\right)\ ,
\label{FrictAsy}
\end{equation}
as claimed.
In order to obtain the diffusion coefficient we first define the random variable:
\begin{equation*}
d_{g}\left( t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}F_{g}\left( V_0 s,s\right) ds\ .
\end{equation*}
which measures the particle
deflections for small $t.$ We have:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t\right) \right] =0 \label{T8E4a}
\end{equation}%
and, denoting for simplicity $\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }=\frac{1}{\theta_{{\epsilon} }^{2}}$,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] =2L_{{{\epsilon} }}\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }^2\int_{0}^{t_{1}}%
\int_{0}^{t_{2}}ds_{1}ds_{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}d\eta \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0}g\left( w_{0}\right) \Xi \left( y_{1}-\eta ,w_{0},\tilde{T}%
_{{\epsilon} }s_{1}\right) \cdot \\
& \cdot \Xi \left( y_{2}-\eta ,w_{0},\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }s_{2}\right)
\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^{2}}dy_{1}dy_{2}\nabla \Phi \left(
L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{1}-\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }V_0s_{1}\right\vert
\right) \otimes \nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{2}-%
\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }V_0 s_{2}\right\vert \right) .
\end{align*}
We insert the Fourier-Laplace representation of $\Xi $ (cf.~\eqref{eq:Xi}) and
obtain:
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] =\frac{2L_{{{\epsilon} }}\tilde{T}_{{{\epsilon} }}^{2}}{(2\pi )^{3}%
}\int_{0}^{t_{1}}\int_{0}^{t_{2}}ds_{1} ds_{2}\int_{(\mathbb{R}%
^{3})^{3}}dw_{0}dk \int_{\gamma }\;\mathrm{d}{z_{1}}\int_{\gamma }\;\mathrm{%
d}{z_{2}}\frac{e^{z_{1}\tilde{T}_{{{\epsilon} }}s_{1}}}{z_{1}+ikw_{0}}\cdot
\\
& \cdot g(w_{0})\int_{({\mathbb R}^3)^{2}}dy_{1} dy_{2}\frac{\nabla\Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{1}-\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon}
}V_0 s_{1}\right\vert \right) \otimes \nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\left\vert y_{2}-\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }V_0 s_{2}\right\vert \right) }{\Delta
_{{{\epsilon} }}(k,z_{1})\Delta _{{{\epsilon} }}(-k,z_{2})}\frac{e^{z_{2}%
\tilde{T}_{{{\epsilon} }}s_{2}}}{z_{2}-ikw_{0}}.
\end{align*}
We perform the contour integrals in $\gamma $ and we get
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] =\frac{2L_{{{\epsilon} }}\tilde{T}_{{{\epsilon} }}^{2}}{(2\pi )^{3}%
}\int_{0}^{t_{1}}\int_{0}^{t_{2}}ds_{1} ds_{2} \int_{(\mathbb{R}%
^{3})^{2}}dw_{0}dk \mathrm{d}{z_{2}}e^{-ik\cdot w_{0}\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon}
}(s_{1}-s_{2})} {\mathbbm 1}_{\{|k|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}\cdot \\
& \cdot e^{ikL_{{\epsilon} }k(y_{1}-y_{2})}g(w_{0})\int_{(\mathbb{R}%
^{3})^{2}}dy_{1} dy_{2}\frac{\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon}
}\left\vert y_{1}-\tilde{T}_{{\epsilon} }V_0 s_{1}\right\vert \right) \otimes
\nabla \Phi \left( L_{{\epsilon} }\left\vert y_{2}-\tilde{T}%
_{{\epsilon} }V_0 s_{2}\right\vert \right) }{\Delta _{{\epsilon}
}(k,ikw_{0})\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(-k,-ikw_{0})}+o(1).
\end{align*}
Using the identity $\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(a,ib)=\Delta _{{\epsilon}
}^{\ast }(-a,-ib)$ for $b\in \mathbb{R}$ and changing to microscopic variables $x=L_\epsilon y$, $\tau= T_\epsilon t$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] =\frac{2L_{{{\epsilon} }}\tilde{T}_{{{\epsilon} }}^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}L_{{\epsilon} }^{6}T_{{\epsilon} }^{2}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon}
}t_{1}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon} }t_{2}}d\tau _{1}d\tau _{2} \int_{(\mathbb{R%
}^{3})^{2}}dw_{0}dk \mathrm{d}{z_{2}}e^{i/L_{{\epsilon} }k\cdot
(V_0-w_{0})(\tau _{1}-\tau _{2})}\cdot \\
& \cdot e^{ik/L_{{\epsilon} }k(x_{1}-x_{2})}g(w_{0})\int_{(\mathbb{R}%
^{3})^{2}}dx_{1}dx_{2} \frac{\nabla \Phi (x_{1})\otimes \nabla \Phi (x_{2})%
}{|\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(k,ikw_{0})|^{2}} {\mathbbm 1}_{\{|k|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}+o(1).
\end{align*}%
Performing the integral in $x_{1},x_{2}$ leads to the Fourier
representation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] \\
=&\frac{2}{L_{{\epsilon} }^{4}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon}
}t_{1}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon} }t_{2}}d\tau _{1}d\tau _{2}\int_{(\mathbb{R%
}^{3})^{2}}dw_{0} dk \frac{g(w_{0})(k\otimes k)|\hat{\phi}(k)|^{2}e^{ik\cdot
(V_0-w_{0})(\tau _{1}-\tau _{2})}}{|\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(L_{{\epsilon}
}k,iL_{{\epsilon} }kw_{0})|^{2}}{\mathbbm 1}_{\{|k|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}}+o(1). \label{DiffDebCont}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To determine the asymptotics of this expression for ${{\epsilon} }%
\rightarrow 0$ we observe that the integral in $k$ behaves like%
\begin{align}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dk\frac{(k\otimes k)|\hat{\phi}(k)|^{2}e^{ik\cdot
(V_0-w_{0})(\tau _{1}-\tau _{2})}}{|\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(L_{{\epsilon}
}k,iL_{{\epsilon} }kw_{0})|^{2}} {\mathbbm 1}_{\{|k|\geq L_{\epsilon}^{-1}\}} \notag \\
& \quad = \frac{c^{2}\frac{\pi^2}{2}}{|V_0-w_{0}||\tau _{1}-\tau _{2}|}%
\left( I-\frac{(V_0-w_{0})\otimes (V_0-w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|^{2}} \right) \left( {\mathbbm1}%
_{|V_0-w_{0}||\tau _{1}-\tau _{2}|\leq L_{{\epsilon} }|\log^\frac12 ({\epsilon})|}+o(1)\right), \label{eq:kAsym}
\end{align}
Here the factor $|\log^\frac12 ({\epsilon})|$ could be replaced by any slowly diverging factor.
Here we use that the dielectric function \eqref{def:dielectric} behaves as:
\begin{equation*}
|\Delta _{{\epsilon} }(L_{{\epsilon} }k,iL_{{\epsilon}
}kw_{0})|^{-1}\approx
\begin{cases}
1,\quad & \text{for $k\gtrsim 1/L_{{\epsilon} }$}\ , \\
\frac{k}{L_{{\epsilon} }},\quad & \text{for $k\lesssim 1/L_{{\epsilon} }$}\ .%
\end{cases}%
\end{equation*}
A simple way to see this is
to use the tensor structure of the integral and to compute this tensor in
the case in which $(V_0-w_0)$ is parallel to the $x_1$ coordinate axis.
Using the asymptotic formula \eqref{eq:kAsym} we finally obtain
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] \\
& =\frac{ \pi^2 c^{2}}{L_{{\epsilon} }^{4}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon}
}t_{1}}\int_{0}^{T_{{\epsilon} }t_{2}}d\tau _{1} d\tau _{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0}\frac{{\mathbbm1}%
_{|V_0-w_{0}||\tau _{1}-\tau _{2}|\leq L_{{\epsilon} } |\log^\frac12 ({\epsilon} )|}g(w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}||\tau _{1}-\tau _{2}|}\left( I-\frac{%
(V_0-w_{0})\otimes (V_0-w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|^{2}}\right) \\
& = 2 \pi^2 c^{2}{\epsilon} ^{2}( \log (L_{{\epsilon} })+o(1))T_{{\epsilon}
} t_2 \wedge t_1\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} dw_{0} \frac{g(w_{0})}{%
|V_0-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(V_0-w_{0})\otimes (V_0-w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|^{2}}\right) \\
& = \pi^2 c^{2}{\epsilon} ^{2}T_{{\epsilon} }(\log({\epsilon}^{-1})+o(1)) t_2 \wedge t_1 \int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}%
\frac{g(w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(V_0-w_{0})\otimes (V_0-w_{0})}{%
|V_0-w_{0}|^{2}}\right)
\end{align*}%
where we use $L_{\epsilon}={\epsilon}^{-\frac12 }$ and $t_1 \wedge t_2 = \min\{t_1,t_2\}$. Notice that $%
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3}dw_{0}\frac{g(w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|}<\infty .$We then arrive at
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[ d_{g}\left( t_{1}\right) \otimes d_{g}\left( t_{2}\right) %
\right] &\sim\pi^2 c^{2}t_2 \wedge t_1\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw_{0} \frac{g(w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|}\left( I-\frac{(V_0-w_{0})\otimes
(V_0-w_{0})}{|V_0-w_{0}|^{2}}\right) \notag \\
& = t_2 \wedge t_1 D_{g}\left( V_0\right). \label{DiifBL}
\end{align}
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Coulomb}.
\end{proofof}
\medskip
We collect here some remarks that help to understand some steps of the above proof or provide some physical intuition.
\begin{remark}
It is possible to interpret the asymptotics of the inverse Fourier
transforms in \eqref{eq:kAsym} in terms of the correlations of a random
force field evaluated at two different points $V_0 \tau _{1}$ and $V_0\tau _{2}.$
The correlations between two points $x_{1},\ x_{2}$ decrease then as $\frac{1%
}{\left\vert x_{1}-x_{2}\right\vert }$ for distances smaller than the Debye
length. For distances larger than the Debye length $L_{{\epsilon} }$ the
decay of the correlations is much faster and therefore, the Coulombian
logarithm is due only to the range of distances between the particle size $%
\epsilon$ and the Debye length $L_{\epsilon }.$ This is different in
the case of Rayleigh gases with Coulombian interactions, where the range of
distances contributing to the kinetic regime goes from the particle size $%
{\epsilon}$ to the mean free path.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Notice that, differently from the case of Rayleigh gases with Coulombian
interactions, after rescaling out the logarithmic term both the friction
coefficient and the diffusion $D_{g}\left( V_0\right) $ yield a well defined
limit as $\tilde{t}\rightarrow \infty ,$ where $\tilde{t}$ is the mesoscopic
limit. In the case of Rayleigh gases both quantities diverge logarithmically
as $\tilde{t}\rightarrow \infty .$
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Notice that a heuristic explanation of (\ref{DiifBL}) is that the Vlasov
evolution of the white noise which describes the fluctuations of the
particle density yields a ``coloured noise" which decorrelates on distances
of the order of the Debye length.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Grazing collisions\label{GrazingRayl} }
\begin{proofof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Grazing}]
The strategy to prove this result has many analogies with the arguments used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:FiniteRange}. Due to this reason, for simplicity, we will provide the main steps of the proof for Rayleigh Gas systems.
We can solve the equations \eqref{T4E4}-\eqref{T4E6} as in Subsection \ref{RaylCompSuppPot}. We then
obtain:
\begin{equation*}
\zeta _{\varepsilon }\left( y,w,\tilde{t}\right) =N_{\varepsilon }\left( y-w%
\tilde{t},w\right) +\left( L_{\varepsilon }\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}\nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}\nabla _{y}\tilde{\phi}%
_{\varepsilon }\left( y-w\left( \tilde{t}-s\right) -V_0s\right) ds .
\end{equation*}%
Then,
\begin{align*}
\frac{dV}{d\tilde{t}}& =\left( L_{\varepsilon }\right) ^{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\nabla _{\eta }\tilde{\phi}_{\varepsilon }\left(
V_0 \tilde{t}-\eta \right) N_{\varepsilon }\left( \eta -w\tilde{t},w\right) dwd\eta + \\
& +\left( L_{\varepsilon }\right) ^{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}\nabla _{\eta }\tilde{\phi}_{\varepsilon }\left( \eta \right) \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{-\infty }^{0}\nabla _{\eta }\tilde{\phi}%
_{\varepsilon }\left( \eta +\left( V_0-w\right) s\right) dsdwd\eta \ .
\end{align*}%
We can now rewrite the equation above using a macroscopic time and spacial scale, keeping the velocity unscaled $v=V_0$. More precisely, we set
\begin{equation}
t=\big(\epsilon\ell_{\epsilon}\big)^2 L_{\epsilon}\tilde{t}
, \qquad x=\big(\epsilon\ell_{\epsilon}\big)^2 L_{\epsilon}\xi
\end{equation}
Then, we obtain the following system of equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{dx}{dt}=v\ \ ,\ \ \frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{1}{\theta _{\varepsilon }\sqrt{%
\ell _{\varepsilon }}}B_{g}\left( \frac{t}{\left( \theta _{\varepsilon
}\right) ^{2}\ell _{\varepsilon }}\right) -\Lambda _{g}\left( v\right) \label{A1E4}
\end{equation}%
where $\theta _{\varepsilon }=\varepsilon \ell _{\varepsilon }$, the friction term $\Lambda _{g}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Lambda _{g}\left( V_0\right) =-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}dY\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dw\nabla _{Y}\Phi \left( \left\vert Y\right\vert \right) \nabla
_{w}g\left( w\right) \cdot \int_{-\infty }^{0}\nabla _{Y}\Phi \left(
\left\vert Y+\left( V_0-w\right) s\right\vert \right) ds \label{T4E8a}
\end{equation}%
and $B_{g}\left( \cdot \right)$ is a Gaussian stationary stochastic process
defined in the time variable such that%
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ B_{g}\left( w,s\right) \right] =0\ \ \ ,\nonumber \\& \mathbb{E}\left[
B_{g}\left(w, 0\right) B_{g}\left( w,s\right) \right] =\int_{\mathbb{R}%
^{3}}dY\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}dw\nabla _{Y}\Phi \left( \left\vert
Y+(w-V)s\right\vert \right) \otimes \nabla _{Y}\Phi \left( \left\vert
Y\right\vert \right) g\left( w\right) \ . \label{T4E8c}
\end{align}
We notice that the noise $B_g$ decorrelates in times of order $\ell
_{\varepsilon }$ as it might be expected.
Moreover, we set $\tilde{B}^{\epsilon}_{g}\left(v, t\right)= \frac{1}{\theta _{\varepsilon }\sqrt{%
\ell _{\varepsilon }}}B_{g}\left( \frac{t}{\left( \theta _{\varepsilon
}\right) ^{2}\ell _{\varepsilon }}\right) $. Hence
$\tilde{B}^{\epsilon}_{g}$ converges to $\tilde{B}^{\epsilon}_{g}$ in the limit ${\epsilon}\to 0$, which satisfies
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \tilde{B}_{g}\left( s\right) \right] =& 0\ \ \ ,\ \ \
\mathbb{E}\left[ \tilde{B}_{g}\left( s_{1}\right) \tilde{B}_{g}\left(
s_{2}\right) \right] =D_g(V_0)\delta \left( s_{1}-s_{2}\right) \notag \\
D_g(V_0)=& \int_{0}^{\infty }ds\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}dY\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}dw\nabla
_{Y}\Phi \left( \left\vert Y+(w-v)s\right\vert \right) \otimes \nabla _{Y}\Phi
\left( \left\vert Y\right\vert \right) g\left( w\right) . \label{A1E4a}
\end{align}%
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Grazing}.
\end{proofof}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Remote sensing (RS) ship detection has attracted extensive attention in recent years due to its large potential in both civilian and military applications (e.g., port management, target surveillance). As a key factor of ship detection, high-resolution (HR) images can provide abundant appearance information and thus introduce improvement to the detection accuracy \cite{shermeyer2019effects}. However, obtaining an HR image posts a high requirement on the satellite sensors and generally results in an expensive cost. Consequently, using image super-resolution (SR) techniques to recover the missing details in RS images has become a popular research topic and has been widely investigated in recent years.
In the area of RS object detection, several methods have been proposed to use image SR as a pre-processing approach to improve the detection accuracy. Dong et al. \cite{dong2020remote} proposed a second-order multi-scale SR network, and demonstrated its effectiveness to RS object detection. Rabbi et al. \cite{rabbi2020small} proposed an edge-enhanced generative adversarial network (EESRGAN) to improve the quality of RS images, and combined EESRGAN and SSD detector in an overall framework to perform end-to-end fine-tuning. Courtrai et al. \cite{courtrai2020small} tailored a GAN-based SR network with a detection network to develop an object-focused detection framework. Note that, although these methods have shown their effectiveness, the benefits introduced by image SR has not been fully exploited since only super-resolved images are fed to the detectors while the informative feature representation extracted by SR networks has been overlooked.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{Figs/01.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{{Visual results achieved by our \textit{ShipSRDet} on the HRSC dataset \cite{HRSC}. Our method recovers missing details in the input image and achieves promising detection performance.}
\label{fig:thumbnail}}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
Aiming at the aforementioned issue, in this paper, we propose an end-to-end network named \textit{ShipSRDet} to fully use the super-resolved feature representation for RS ship detection. Different from existing SR-based detection methods, we not only feed the super-resolved images to the detector, but also integrate the intermediate features of the SR network with those of the detection network. In this way, more informative cues can be transferred from the SR network to the detection network to enhance the detection performance. Experiments on the HRSC dataset \cite{HRSC} demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:thumbnail}, our \textit{ShipSRDet} achieves notable improvements on detection performance, and recovers the missing details in the input image.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{Figs/network.pdf}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\caption{{An overview of our \textit{ShipSRDet}.}
\label{fig:ShipSRDet}}
\end{figure*}
In summary, the contributions of this paper are as follows: \textit{1)} We quantitatively investigate the influence of image quality to RS ship detection. \textit{2)} We proposed a \textit{ShipSRDet} to exploit the potential benefits introduced by HR images and their feature representation to RS ship detection. \textit{3)} Our \textit{ShipSRDet} can recover the missing details in the input images while achieving remarkable detection performance.
\section{Network Architecture}
In this section, we introduce our \textit{ShipSRDet} in details. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ShipSRDet}(a), our \textit{ShipSRDet} consists of two parts including an SR module and a detection module, which will be described in the following subsections, respectively.
\subsection{SR module}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ShipSRDet}(a), our SR module takes a medium-low resolution image $\mathcal{I}_{LR}\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 3}$ as its input to produce an SR image $\mathcal{I}_{SR}\in\mathbb{R}^{\alpha H\times \alpha W\times 3}$ and two intermediate features $\mathcal{F}^{LR}_{out}\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 64}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{out}\in \mathbb{R}^{\alpha H\times \alpha W\times 64}$, where $H$ and $W$ represent the height and width of the input image, and $\alpha$ denotes the upscaling factor. Here, we use the residual dense block (RDB) \cite{RDN} as the basic block in our SR module since it can fully use features from all preceding layers to generate hierarchical representations, which is demonstrated beneficial to SR reconstruction \cite{iPASSR}.
Specifically, the input image $\mathcal{I}_{LR}$ is first fed to a $3\times3$ convolution to generate initial feature $\mathcal{F}_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 64}$. Then, $\mathcal{F}_0$ is fed to 8 cascaded RDBs for deep feature extraction. Within each RDB, we use $5$ convolutions with a growth rate of $32$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ShipSRDet}(b), features from all the layers in an RDB are concatenated and fed to a $1\times1$ convolution for local fusion. Similarly, features from all the RDBs in our SR module are concatenated for global fusion. Afterwards, the fused feature $\mathcal{F}^{LR}_{out}$ is added with the initial feature $\mathcal{F}_0$ and fed to a sub-pixel layer \cite{PixelShuffle} to generate the upsampled feature $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{out}$. Finally, $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{out}$ is fed to a $3\times3$ convolution to produce the residual prediction which is further added with the bicubicly upsampled input image to generate the final SR image $\mathcal{I}_{SR}$.
\subsection{Detection module}
Single shot multi-box detector (SSD) \cite{SSD} is used as the detection module in our \textit{ShipSRDet}. In our detection module, VGG-16 network \cite{VGG16} is used to extract multi-scale features from the input SR image $\mathcal{I}_{SR}$. Simultaneously, feature adaption is performed to integrate features from the SR module with those extracted by the VGG network. Specifically, two transition convolutions are performed on $\mathcal{F}^{LR}_{out}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{out}$ to adjust their feature depth to 256 and 64 to produce feature $\mathcal{F}^{LR}_{SSD}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{SSD}$, respectively. Then, $\mathcal{F}^{HR}_{SSD}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{LR}_{SSD}$ are added to the features in the $2^{nd}$ and $7^{th}$ layer of the VGG network to achieve feature integration. After initial feature extraction with the VGG network, an encoder is further employed for high-level feature extraction. Finally, seven feature maps of different resolutions are generated and fed into the detector$\&$classifier to predict the location and category candidates. The final prediction is produced by performing fast non-maximum suppression (fast NMS) on the candidates.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiment}
In this section, we first introduce the dataset and implementation details. Then, we present ablation studies to investigate our network. Finally, we present the visual results produced by our \textit{ShipSRDet}.
\subsection{Datasets and implementation details}
We used the HRSC dataset \cite{HRSC} for both training and test. We followed the original dataset split and performed $2\times$ and $8\times$ bicubic downsampling to generate training and test image pairs. Consequently, each HR image has a resolution of $512\times512$ and its corresponding medium-low resolution conterpart has a resolution of $128\times128$. Random horizontal flipping, random vertical flipping and random rotation were performed for data augmentation.
Our \textit{ShipSRDet} was implemented in PyTorch on a PC with an RTX 2080Ti GPU, and trained in a two-stage pipeline. In the first stage, we followed \cite{LF-InterNet,LF-DFnet} to train our SR module using the generated image pairs with an $L_1$ loss. Adam method \cite{Adam} is used for optimization. The batch size was set to 4 and the learning rate was was initially set to $1\times10^{-4}$ and halved for every 200 epochs. The training was stopped after 450 epochs. In the second stage, we concatenated the SR module with the pre-trained detection module\footnote{We used the publicly available SSD network which was pre-trained on the COCO \cite{COCO} dataset.}, and performed end-to-end finetuning for global optimization. In the finetuning stage, the learning rate was initially set to $1\times10^{-4}$ and decreased by a factor of 0.1 for every 10 epochs. The finetuning process was performed for 24 epochs.
For evaluation, we followed \cite{voc2012} to use the mean average precision (mAP) as the quantitative metric with the Intersection over Union (IoU) being set to $0.5$.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
We compare our \textit{ShipSRDet} with several variants to investigate the potential benefits introduced by our network modules and design choices. Here, we validate the effectiveness of our method by introducing the following three variants:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Bicubic+SSD}: We use the bicubic interpolation approach to upsample the input image, and use the SSD method for ship detection. This variant is used as a baseline method for comparison.
\item \textbf{SRnet+SSD}: We use the pretrained SR module (i.e., SRnet) to super-resolve the input image, and perform ship detection on the super-resolved images by using the SSD method. In this variant, image SR and ship detection are performed separately without end-to-end finetuning.
\item \textbf{(SRnet+SSD)\_ft}: We canceled the feature integration in our \textit{ShipSRDet} and perform end-to-end finetuning on the variant \textit{SRnet+SSD}. In this way, only super-resolved images are transferred from the SR module to the detection module for ship detection.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\small
\caption{Comparisons of the mAP and average running time (Avg time) achieved by different variants of our network. Note that, Avg time is calculated based on an input image of size 128$\times$128. `\_ft' denotes end-to-end finetuning.} \label{tab:ablation}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Model & mAP & Avg time \\
\hline
Bicubic$+$SSD & 58.80 \% & 81 ms \\
\hline
SRnet$+$SSD & 60.10 \% & 163 ms \\
\hline
(SRnet$+$SSD)\_ft & 63.80 \% & 163 ms \\
\hline
\textit{ShipSRDet} (proposed) & 64.50 \% & 190 ms \\
\hline
HR$+$SSD & 68.80 \% & 81 ms \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:ablation} shows the comparative results achieved by our \textit{ShipSRDet} and its variants. It can be observed in the table that using the super-resolved images as the input of SSD, \textit{SRnet+SSD} achieves an improvement of $1.30\%$ in mAP as compared to \textit{Bicubic+SSD}. It demonstrates that the details recovered by the SRnet are contributive to the detection performance to some degree. Note that, a further $3.70\%$ improvement in mAP can be achieved if end-to-end finetuning is performed on the variant \textit{SRnet+SSD}. That is because, by performing end-to-end finetuning, the SRnet can successfully learn to super-resolve an image in a detection-driven manner. The above experimental results also demonstrate that the end-to-end finetuning is significantly beneficial to the overall detection performance. As compared to \textit{(SRnet+SSD)\_ft} which only transfers an image from the SR module to the detection module, our proposed \textit{ShipSRDet} can further achieve an improvement of $0.70\%$ in mAP by integrating feature representations of these two modules, and approximates the upper bound (i.e., $68.80\%$) produced by performing SSD on the HR image. This clearly demonstrates that the super-resolved feature representation is beneficial to the performance of ship detection.
Besides the detection accuracy, we also report the average running time in Table~\ref{tab:ablation}. As shown in the table, directly performing an SSD detector on the HR image takes $0.81$ ms while using our SR module as a pre-processing step will lead to an increase of 0.82 ms in average running time. When the feature representation is transferred in the two modules, the average running times achieves $190$ ms. That is because, the feature integration operation decreases the parallel processing capability of the network. In summary, our \textit{ShipSRDet} can achieve improved detection accuracy at the cost of minor decrease of the efficiency.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{Figs/02.pdf}
\caption{Visual results achieved by our \textit{ShipSRDet} on the HRSC dataset \cite{HRSC}.} \label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Visual Results}
Visual results achieved by the bicubic interpolation approach and our \textit{ShipSRDet} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:visual}. As compared to bicubicly interpolated images, the images generated by our network have finer details and are more faithful to their HR groundtruths. Since more details are provided in the super-resolved images and their feature representations, our network achieves a superior detection performance. In contrast, directly performing SSD detectors on the bicubicaly upsampled images will lead to miss detections (the $4^{th}$ row in Fig.~\ref{fig:visual}) and false alarms (the $2^{nd}$ and $3^{rd}$ rows in Fig.~\ref{fig:visual}).
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a \textit{ShipSRDet} to super-resolved remote sensing images for ship detection. Experimental results have demonstrated that both reconstructed high-resolution images and their feature representations are beneficial to ship detection. In the future, we will apply this scheme to more state-of-the-art detectors, and validate its effectiveness on more challenging scenarios such vehicle detection and tiny person detection.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62071474.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the developments of intelligent context-aware systems (CAS), the safety and quality of modern operating rooms have significantly been improved~\cite{maier2017surgical}.
One underlying task of CAS is surgical phase recognition, which facilitates surgery monitoring~\cite{bricon2007context}, surgical protocol extraction~\cite{zisimopoulos2018deepphase}, and decision support~\cite{padoy2019machine}.
However, purely vision-based recognition is quite tricky due to similar inter-class appearance and scene blur of recorded videos~\cite{jin2017sv,padoy2019machine}.
Essentially, online recognition is even more challenging because future information is not allowed to assist current decision-making~\cite{yi2019hard}.
Moreover, processing high-dimensional video data is still time-consuming, given the real-time application requirement.
Temporal information has been verified as a vital clue for various surgical video analysis tasks, such as robotic gesture recognition~\cite{funke2019using,gao2020automatic}, surgical instrument segmentation~\cite{jin2019incorporating,zhao2020learning}.
Initial methods for surgical workflow recognition, utilized statistical models, such as conditional random field~\cite{quellec2014real,charriere2017real} and hidden Markov models (HMMs)~\cite{padoy2008line,dergachyova2016automatic,twinanda2016endonet}.
Nevertheless, temporal relations among surgical frames are highly complicated, and these methods show limited representation capacities with pre-defined dependencies~\cite{jin2017sv}.
Therefore, long short-term memory (LSTM)~\cite{hochreiter1997long} network was combined with ResNet~\cite{he2016deep} in SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv} to model spatio-temporal dependences of video frames in an end-to-end fashion.
Yi et al.~\cite{yi2019hard} suggested an Online Hard Frame Mapper (OHFM) based on ResNet and LSTM to focus on the pre-detected rigid frames.
Gao et al.~\cite{gao2020automatic} devised a tree search algorithm to consider future information from LSTM for surgical gesture recognition.
With additional tool presence labels, multi-task learning methods are proposed to boost phase recognition performance.
Twinanda~\cite{twinanda2017vision} replaced the HMM of EndoNet~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} with LSTM to enhance its power of modeling temporal relations.
MTRCNet-CL~\cite{jin2020multi}, the best multi-task framework, employed a correlation loss to strengthen the synergy of tool and phase predictions.
To overcome limited temporal memories of LSTMs, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are leveraged to extract temporal features.
Funke et al.~\cite{funke2019using} used 3D CNN to learn spatial and temporal features jointly for surgical gesture recognition.
Zhang et al.~\cite{zhang2020symmetric} devised a Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN)~\cite{lea2016temporal,lea2017temporal} bridged with a self-attention module for offline surgical video analysis.
Czempiel et al.~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} designed an online multi-stage TCN~\cite{farha2019ms} called TeCNO to explore long-term temporal relations in pre-computed spatial features.
TMRNet~\cite{jin2021temporal}, a concurrent work, integrated multi-scale LSTM outputs via non-local operations.
However, these methods process spatial and temporal features successively, as shown in \autoref{fig:overview} (a), which leads to losses of critical visual attributes.
Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention} allows concurrently relating entries inside a sequence at different positions rather than in recurrent computing styles, which facilitates the preservation of essential features in overlong sequences.
Therefore, it can enable the discovery of long-term clues for accurate phase recognition in surgical videos whose average duration spans minutes or hours.
Moreover, thanks to its parallel computing fashion, high speed in both training and inference stages is realized.
Besides strong capacity in sequence learning, Transformer also demonstrates outstanding ability in visual feature representation~\cite{han2020survey,khan2021transformers}.
Recently, Transformer was employed to fuse multi-view elements in point clouds and illustrated excellent outcomes~\cite{wang2019deep}, which implies its potential to promote the synergy of spatial and temporal features in surgical videos.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/overview.pdf}
\caption{(a) Previous methods extract spatio-temporal features successively for surgical phase recognition; (b) We propose to reuse extracted spatial features together with temporal features to achieve more accurate recognition.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we propose a novel method, named Trans-SVNet, for accurate phase recognition from \textbf{s}urgical \textbf{v}ideos via Hybrid Embedding Aggregation \textbf{Trans}former.
As shown in \autoref{fig:overview} (b), we reconsider the spatial features as one of our hybrid embeddings to supply missing appearance details during temporal feature extracting.
Specifically, we employ ResNet and TCN to generate spatial and temporal embeddings, respectively, where representations with the same semantic labels cluster in the embedding space.
Then, we introduce Transformer, for the first time, to aggregate the hybrid embeddings for accurate surgical phase recognition by using spatial embeddings to attend supporting information from temporal embedding sequences.
More importantly, our framework is parameter-efficient and shows extraordinary potential for real-time applications.
We extensively evaluate our Trans-SVNet on two large public\footnote{http://camma.u-strasbg.fr/datasets} surgical video datasets.
Our approach outperforms all the compared methods and achieves a real-time processing speed of 91 fps.
\section{Method}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/framework1.pdf}
\caption{Overview of our proposed Trans-SVNet for surgical phase recognition.
(a) Extracted spatial embeddings enable the generation of temporal embeddings, (b) and are fused with the temporal information for refined phase predictions in our aggregation model, with the architecture of (c) Transformer layer presented in detail.
}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:framework} presents an overview of our proposed Trans-SVNet, composed of embedding and aggregation models.
Our embedding model first represents surgical video frames with spatial embeddings $l$ and temporal embeddings $g$. The aggregation model fuses the hybrid embeddings by querying $l$ from $g$ to explore their synergy for accurate phase recognition.
\subsection{Transformer Layer}
Rather than only employed for temporal feature extraction, spatial features are reused to discover necessary information for phase recognition via our introduced Transformer.
As depicted in~\autoref{fig:framework} (c), a Transformer layer, composed of a multi-head attention layer and a feed-forward layer, fuses a query $q$ with a temporal sequence $s_{1:n}=[s_1, \dots, s_{n-1}, s_n]$.
Each head computes the attention of $q$ with $s_{1:n}$ as key and value:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Attn}(q,s_{1:n})=\mathrm{softmax}(\frac{W_qq (W_ks_{1:n})^\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{d_k}})W_vs_{1:n},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W$ are linear mapping matrices and $d_k$ is the dimension of $q$ after linear transformation.
The outputs of all heads are concatenated and projected to enable the residual connection~\cite{he2016deep} with $q$ followed by a layer normalization~\cite{ba2016layer}.
Since each attention head owns different learnable parameters, they concentrate on respective features of interest and jointly represent crucial features.
We find it necessary to utilize multiple heads rather than a single head to produce a much faster convergence speed.
The feed-forward layer is made up of two fully connected layers connected with a ReLU activation.
The residual connection and layer normalization are applied in a similar way as the multi-head attention layer.
Finally, the output of the Transformer layer is denoted as $\mathrm{Trans}(q,s_{1:n})$, which contains synthesized information of $q$ and $s_{1:n}$.
\subsection{Video Embedding Extraction}
Given the discrete and sequential nature of video frames, we suggest two kinds of embeddings to represent their spatial and temporal information, which extends the spirit of word embeddings~\cite{mikolov2013distributed} to surgical video analysis.
Let $x_t\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times C}$ and $y_t\in\mathbb{R}^N$ denote the $t$-th frame of a surgical video with $T$ frames in total and the corresponding one-hot phase label, respectively.
We first employ a very deep ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} to extract discriminative spatial embeddings, which is realized by training a frame-wise classifier using the cross-entropy loss.
Note that we only utilize phase labels because additional annotations like tool presence labels are not widely available, and single-task methods are more practical in real-world applications.
Then, outputs of the average pooling layer of ResNet50 are made as our spatial embeddings, i.e., $l_t\in \mathbb{R}^{2048}$, and high-dimensional video data are converted into low-dimensional embeddings.
To save memory and time, temporal embeddings are directly extracted from the spatial embeddings generated by the trained and fixed ResNet50.
We first adjust the dimension of $l_t$ with a 1$\times$1 convolutional layer and generate $l'_t\in\mathbb{R}^{32}$.
Then, we exploit TCN to process the embedding sequence of a whole video without touching future information as illustrated in \autoref{fig:framework} (a).
For easy comparison, we employ TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno}, a two-stage TCN model, to generate temporal embeddings using $l'_{1:T}$.
Owing to multi-layer convolutions and dilated kernels, its temporal receptive field is increased to several minutes.
Since $l_t$ is not updated, spatial embeddings of a whole video could be processed in a single forward computation, and the network converges quickly.
Moreover, the outputs of the last stage of the TeCNO are used as our temporal embedding $g_{t}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$.
\subsection{Hybrid Embedding Aggregation}
Our aggregation model, consisting of two Transformer layers, aims to output the refined prediction $p_t$ of frame $x_t$ by fusing the pre-computed hybrid video embeddings only available at time step $t$.
The intuition is that a fixed-size representation encoded with spatio-temporal details is insufficient to express all critical features in both spatial and temporal dimensions, thus information loss is inevitably caused.
Hence, we propose to look for supportive information based on a spatial embedding $l_t$ from an $n$-length temporal embedding sequence $g_{t-n+1:t}$ (see \autoref{sec:ablation} for ablation study), which allows for the rediscovery of missing yet crucial details during temporal feature extraction.
In other words, our aggregation model learns a function $\mathbb{R}^{2048}\times\mathbb R^{n\times N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}$.
Before synthesizing the two kinds of embeddings, they first conduct internal aggregation, respectively.
On the one hand, dimension reduction is executed for the temporal embedding $l_t$ to generate $\tilde{l}_t\in\mathbb R^N$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{l}_{t}=\mathrm{tanh}(W_ll_t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W_l\in\mathbb R^{N\times2048}$ is a parameter matrix.
On the other hand, the temporal embedding sequence $g_{t-n+1:t}$ is processed by one of our Transformer layer to capture self-attention and an intermediate sequence $\tilde{g}_{t-n+1:t}\in\mathbb R^{n\times N}$ is produced.\footnote{Zero padding is applied if necessary.}
Specifically, each entry in $[g_{t-n+1},\dots,g_{t-1},g_t]$ attends all entries of the sequence, which is denoted as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_{i}=\mathrm{Trans}(g_{i}, g_{t-n+1:t}),~~i=t-n+1,\dots, t.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Given self-aggregated embeddings $\tilde{l}$ and $\tilde{g}$, we employ the other Transformer layer to enable $\tilde l_t$ to query pivotal information from $\tilde g_{t-n+1:t}$ as key and value while fuse with the purified temporal features through residual additions (red arrow in \autoref{fig:framework} (b)).
Next, the output of the second Transformer layer is activated with the Softmax function to predict phase probability:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p_{t}=\mathrm{Softmax}(\mathrm{Trans}(\tilde{l}_{t}, \tilde{g}_{t-n+1:t})).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Although the fused embeddings have a dimension of $N$, they still contain rich information for further processing.
Lastly, our aggregation model is trained using the cross-entropy loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_C=-\sum_{t=1}^{T}y_t \log(p_t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\section{Experiments}
\subsubsection{Datasets.}
We extensively evaluate our Trans-SVNet on two challenging surgical video datasets of cholecystectomy procedures recorded at 25 fps, i.e., Cholec80~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} and M2CAI16 Challenge dataset~\cite{mi2cai}.
Cholec80 includes 80 laparoscopic videos with 7 defined phases annotated by experienced surgeons.
Its frame resolution is either 1920$\times$1080 or 854$\times$480.
This dataset also provides tool presence labels to allow for multi-task learning.
We follow the same evaluation procedure of previous works~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,jin2017sv,yi2019hard} by separating the dataset into the first 40 videos for training and the rest for testing.
The M2CAI16 dataset consists of 41 videos that are segmented into 8 phases by expert physicians.
Each frame has a resolution of 1920$\times$1080.
It is divided into 27 videos for training and 14 videos for testing, following the split of~\cite{twinanda2016single,jin2017sv,yi2019hard}.
All videos are subsampled to 1 fps following previous works~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,jin2017sv}, and frames are resized into 250$\times$250.
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics.}
We employ four frequently-used metrics in surgical phase recognition for comprehensive comparisons.
These measurements are accuracy (AC), precision (PR), recall (RE), and Jaccard index (JA), which are also utilized in~\cite{jin2017sv,yi2019hard}.
The AC is calculated at the video level, defined as the percentage of frames correctly recognized in the entire video.
Since the video classes are imbalanced, the PR, RE, and JA are first computed towards each phase and then averaged over all the phases.
We also count the number of parameters to indicate the training and inference speed to a certain degree.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Phase recognition results (\%) of different methods on the Cholec80 and M2CAI16 datasets. The best results are marked in bold. Note that the * denotes methods based on multi-task learning that requires extra tool labels.}
\label{tab:comparison}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|cccc|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Cholec80} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{M2CAI16} & \multirow{2}{*}{\#param} \\ \cline{2-9}
& ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ & ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ \\ \midrule
EndoNet*~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} & $81.7\pm4.2$ & $73.7\pm16.1$ & $79.6\pm7.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & 58.3M \\
EndoNet+LSTM*~\cite{twinanda2017vision} & $88.6 \pm 9.6$ & $84.4 \pm 7.9$ & $84.7 \pm 7.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} &68.8M \\
MTRCNet-CL*~\cite{jin2020multi} & $89.2 \pm 7.6$ & $86.9 \pm 4.3$ & $88.0 \pm 6.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} &29.0M\\ \midrule
PhaseNet~\cite{twinanda2016single,twinanda2016endonet} & $78.8 \pm 4.7$ & $71.3 \pm 15.6$ & $76.6 \pm 16.6$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $79.5 \pm 12.1$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $64.1 \pm 10.3$ &58.3M \\
SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv} & $85.3 \pm 7.3$ & $80.7 \pm 7.0$ & $83.5 \pm 7.5$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $81.7 \pm 8.1$ & $81.0 \pm 8.3$ & $81.6 \pm 7.2$ & $65.4 \pm 8.9$ &28.8M \\
OHFM~\cite{yi2019hard} & $87.3 \pm 5.7$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $67.0 \pm 13.3$ & $85.2 \pm 7.5$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $68.8 \pm 10.5$ &47.1M \\
TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} & $88.6 \pm 7.8$ & $86.5 \pm 7.0$ & $87.6 \pm 6.7$ & $75.1 \pm 6.9$ & $86.1 \pm 10.0$ & $85.7 \pm 7.7$ &$\mathbf{88.9\pm4.5}$ & $74.4 \pm 7.2$ &24.7M \\
Trans-SVNet (ours) & $\mathbf{90.3\pm7.1}$ & $\mathbf{90.7\pm5.0}$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3\pm6.6}$ &$\mathbf{87.2\pm9.3}$ & $\mathbf{88.0\pm6.7}$ & $87.5 \pm 5.5$ &$\mathbf{74.7 \pm 7.7}$ &24.7M \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Implementation Details.}
Our embedding and aggregation models are trained one after the other on PyTorch using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU.
We initialize the parameters of the ResNet from a pre-trained model on the ImageNet~\cite{he2016deep}.
It employs an SGD optimizer with a momentum of 0.9 and a learning rate of 5e-4 except for its fully connected layers with 5e-5.
Its batch size is set to 100, and data augmentation is applied, including 224$\times$224 cropping, random mirroring, and color jittering.
We re-implement TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} based on their released code with only phase labels and directly make outputs of its second stage as our temporal embeddings.
We report the re-implemented results of TeCNO, and this well-trained model directly generates our temporal embeddings without further tuning.
Our aggregation model is trained by Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-3 and utilizes a batch size identical to the length of each video.
The number of attention heads is empirically set to 8, and the temporal sequence length $n$ is 30. $N$ is set to the dimension of the one-hot phase label.
Our code is released at: \url{https://github.com/xjgaocs/Trans-SVNet}.
\subsubsection{Comparison with State-of-the-arts.}
\autoref{tab:comparison} presents comparisons of our Trans-SVNet with seven existing methods without a post-processing strategy.
Using extra tool presence annotations of the Cholec80 dataset, multi-task learning methods~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,twinanda2017vision,jin2020multi} generally achieve high performances, and MTRCNet-CL beats all single-task models except ours.
As for methods using only phase labels, PhaseNet is far behind all other models due to its shallower network.
Thus the much deeper ResNet50 becomes a standard visual feature extractor since SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv}.
As a multi-step learning framework like OHFM, our approach gains a significant improvement by 6\%-12\% in JA with a much simpler training procedure.
Compared to the state-of-the-art TeCNO with the same backbones, our Trans-SVNet gains a boost by 4\% in PR and JA on the larger Cholec80 dataset with a negligible increase in parameters ($\sim$30k).
In a word, our Trans-SVNet outperforms all the seven compared methods, especially on the enormous Cholec80 dataset.
Our method is observed to achieve a more remarkable improvement on the Cholec80 dataset than the M2CAI16 dataset.
The underlying reason is that the M2CAI16 dataset is smaller and contains less challenging videos.
The robustness of our method yields a better advantage on the more complicated Cholec80 dataset.
Thanks to the designed low-dimensional video embeddings, our model generates predictions at 91 fps with one GPU, which vastly exceeds the video recording speed.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/colorbar1.pdf}
\caption{Color-coded ribbon illustration for two complete surgical videos. The time axes are scaled for better visualization.}
\label{fig:colorbar}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Qualitative Comparison.}
In \autoref{fig:colorbar}, we show the color-coded ribbon of two complete laparoscopic videos from the two datasets.
Due to the lack of temporal relations, ResNet suffers from noisy patterns and generates frequently jumped predictions.
TeCNO achieves smoother results by relating long-term temporal information in spatial embeddings generated by ResNet. However, its predictions for P2 in both videos still need to be improved.
We also visualize some of the misclassified frames of TeCNO and find they are negatively influenced by excessive reflection, where bright but trivial parts might dominate the extracted spatial features, making it easy to miss pivotal information.
Aggregating embeddings from ResNet and TeCNO elegantly, our Trans-SVNet contributes to more consistent and robust predictions of surgical phases, which highlights its promotion towards the synergy between the hybrid embeddings.
\subsubsection{Ablation Study.}
\label{sec:ablation}
We first analyze the effect of different length $n$ of our temporal embedding sequence on the Cholec80 dataset, and the results are reported in \autoref{tab:ablation_len}.
It is observed that our design of temporal sequence is undoubtedly necessary to gain a notable boost relative to not using temporal embeddings, i.e., $n=0$.
We also notice that gradually increasing the temporal sequence length produces improvements towards all metrics, and our approach behaves almost equally well with the length $n\in[20, 40]$.
The boost tends to be slower because adding $n$ by one increases the temporal sequence span by one second (only for $n>0$) and over-long sequences bring too much noise.
Therefore, we choose $n=30$ as the length of our temporal embedding sequence.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Ablative testing results (\%) for increasing length of our temporal embedding sequence on the Cholec80 dataset.}
\label{tab:ablation_len}
\resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
Length ($n$) & ~Accuracy~ & ~Precision~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ \\ \midrule
0 & $82.1\pm7.8$ & $78.0\pm6.4$ & $78.5\pm10.8$ & $61.7\pm11.3$ \\
10 & $89.9 \pm 7.2$ & $89.6 \pm 5.2$ & $88.4 \pm 7.9$ & $78.4 \pm 6.6$ \\
20 & $90.2 \pm 7.1$ & $90.2 \pm 5.1$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.7}$ & $79.1 \pm 6.6$ \\
30 & $\mathbf{90.3 \pm 7.1}$ & $90.7 \pm 5.0$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3 \pm 6.6}$ \\
40 & $\mathbf{90.3 \pm 7.0}$ & $\mathbf{90.8 \pm 4.9}$ & $88.5 \pm 7.2$ & $79.0 \pm 6.8$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Phase recognition results (\%) of different architectures and their P-values in JA towards our proposed method on the Cholec80 dataset.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{Architecture} & ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ & P-values \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{3}{*}{PureNet}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ResNet} & $82.1\pm7.8$ & $78.0\pm6.4$ & $78.5\pm10.8$ & $61.7\pm11.3$ & 2e-8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TeCNO} & $88.6\pm7.8$ & $86.5\pm7.0$ & $87.6\pm6.7$ & $75.1\pm6.9$ & 2e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ResNet $cat$ TeCNO} & $87.9\pm7.5$ & $86.6\pm5.9$ & $85.3\pm8.2$ & $73.0\pm7.8$ & 2e-8 \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{5}{*}{Transformer}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{~~~Query~~~} & Key & Accuracy & Precision & Recall & Jaccard & P-values \\ \cline{2-8}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$l_t$} & $l_{t-n+1:t}$ & $81.9\pm9.2$ & $78.0\pm12.5$ & $78.3\pm12.8$ & $60.8\pm12.4$ & 2e-8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$g_t$} & $g_{t-n+1:t}$ & $89.1\pm7.8$ & $87.6\pm6.3$ & $87.7 \pm 6.9$ & $76.2\pm6.6$ & 4e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$g_t$} & $l_{t-n+1:t}$ & $89.2\pm7.5$ & $87.7\pm6.7$ & $87.7\pm7.0 $ & $76.1\pm7.0$ & 3e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$l_t$} & $g_{t-n+1:t}$ & $\mathbf{90.3\pm7.1}$ & $\mathbf{90.7\pm5.0}$ & $\mathbf{88.8\pm7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3\pm6.6}$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\autoref{tab:ablation} lists the results of different network structures, i.e., letting embeddings from ResNet and TeCNO be query or key in every possible combination, to identify which one makes the best use of information.
We first show baseline methods without Transformer denoted as PureNet.
ResNet $cat$ TeCNO employs a superficial linear layer to process concatenated $l_t$ and $g_t$, whose performance unsurprisingly falls between ResNet and TeCNO.
As for Transformer-based networks, there are no advancements to use spatial embedding $l_t$ to query $l_{t-n+1:t}$.
The reason is that spatial embeddings cannot indicate their orders in videos and bring ambiguity in the aggregation stage.
Better performances are achieved than PureNet by letting TeCNO embeddings $g$ with sequential information be either query or key, which justifies Transformer rediscovers necessary details neglected by temporal extractors.
Our Trans-SVNet uses $l_t$ to query $g_{t-n+1:t}$ and generates the best outcomes with a clear margin, which confirms the effectiveness of our proposed architecture.
We also calculate P-values in JA using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for compared settings towards our Trans-SVNet.
It is found that P-values are substantially less than 0.05 in all cases, which indicates that our model learns a formerly non-existent but effective policy.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a novel framework to fuse different embeddings based on Transformer for accurate real-time surgical phase recognition.
Our novel aggregation style allows the retrieval of missing but critical information with rarely additional cost.
Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art models while maintains a breakneck processing speed.
The excellent performance and parameter efficiency of our method justify its promising applications in real operating rooms.
\subsubsection{Acknowledgements.}
This work was supported by Hong Kong RGC TRS Project T42-409/18-R, and National Natural Science Foundation of China with Project No. U1813204.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\section{Introduction}
With the developments of intelligent context-aware systems (CAS), the safety and quality of modern operating rooms have significantly been improved~\cite{maier2017surgical}.
One underlying task of CAS is surgical phase recognition, which facilitates surgery monitoring~\cite{bricon2007context}, surgical protocol extraction~\cite{zisimopoulos2018deepphase}, and decision support~\cite{padoy2019machine}.
However, purely vision-based recognition is quite tricky due to similar inter-class appearance and scene blur of recorded videos~\cite{jin2017sv,padoy2019machine}.
Essentially, online recognition is even more challenging because future information is not allowed to assist current decision-making~\cite{yi2019hard}.
Moreover, processing high-dimensional video data is still time-consuming, given the real-time application requirement.
Temporal information has been verified as a vital clue for various surgical video analysis tasks, such as robotic gesture recognition~\cite{funke2019using,gao2020automatic}, surgical instrument segmentation~\cite{jin2019incorporating,zhao2020learning}.
Initial methods for surgical workflow recognition, utilized statistical models, such as conditional random field~\cite{quellec2014real,charriere2017real} and hidden Markov models (HMMs)~\cite{padoy2008line,dergachyova2016automatic,twinanda2016endonet}.
Nevertheless, temporal relations among surgical frames are highly complicated, and these methods show limited representation capacities with pre-defined dependencies~\cite{jin2017sv}.
Therefore, long short-term memory (LSTM)~\cite{hochreiter1997long} network was combined with ResNet~\cite{he2016deep} in SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv} to model spatio-temporal dependences of video frames in an end-to-end fashion.
Yi et al.~\cite{yi2019hard} suggested an Online Hard Frame Mapper (OHFM) based on ResNet and LSTM to focus on the pre-detected rigid frames.
Gao et al.~\cite{gao2020automatic} devised a tree search algorithm to consider future information from LSTM for surgical gesture recognition.
With additional tool presence labels, multi-task learning methods are proposed to boost phase recognition performance.
Twinanda~\cite{twinanda2017vision} replaced the HMM of EndoNet~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} with LSTM to enhance its power of modeling temporal relations.
MTRCNet-CL~\cite{jin2020multi}, the best multi-task framework, employed a correlation loss to strengthen the synergy of tool and phase predictions.
To overcome limited temporal memories of LSTMs, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are leveraged to extract temporal features.
Funke et al.~\cite{funke2019using} used 3D CNN to learn spatial and temporal features jointly for surgical gesture recognition.
Zhang et al.~\cite{zhang2020symmetric} devised a Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN)~\cite{lea2016temporal,lea2017temporal} bridged with a self-attention module for offline surgical video analysis.
Czempiel et al.~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} designed an online multi-stage TCN~\cite{farha2019ms} called TeCNO to explore long-term temporal relations in pre-computed spatial features.
TMRNet~\cite{jin2021temporal}, a concurrent work, integrated multi-scale LSTM outputs via non-local operations.
However, these methods process spatial and temporal features successively, as shown in \autoref{fig:overview} (a), which leads to losses of critical visual attributes.
Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention} allows concurrently relating entries inside a sequence at different positions rather than in recurrent computing styles, which facilitates the preservation of essential features in overlong sequences.
Therefore, it can enable the discovery of long-term clues for accurate phase recognition in surgical videos whose average duration spans minutes or hours.
Moreover, thanks to its parallel computing fashion, high speed in both training and inference stages is realized.
Besides strong capacity in sequence learning, Transformer also demonstrates outstanding ability in visual feature representation~\cite{han2020survey,khan2021transformers}.
Recently, Transformer was employed to fuse multi-view elements in point clouds and illustrated excellent outcomes~\cite{wang2019deep}, which implies its potential to promote the synergy of spatial and temporal features in surgical videos.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/overview.pdf}
\caption{(a) Previous methods extract spatio-temporal features successively for surgical phase recognition; (b) We propose to reuse extracted spatial features together with temporal features to achieve more accurate recognition.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we propose a novel method, named Trans-SVNet, for accurate phase recognition from \textbf{s}urgical \textbf{v}ideos via Hybrid Embedding Aggregation \textbf{Trans}former.
As shown in \autoref{fig:overview} (b), we reconsider the spatial features as one of our hybrid embeddings to supply missing appearance details during temporal feature extracting.
Specifically, we employ ResNet and TCN to generate spatial and temporal embeddings, respectively, where representations with the same semantic labels cluster in the embedding space.
Then, we introduce Transformer, for the first time, to aggregate the hybrid embeddings for accurate surgical phase recognition by using spatial embeddings to attend supporting information from temporal embedding sequences.
More importantly, our framework is parameter-efficient and shows extraordinary potential for real-time applications.
We extensively evaluate our Trans-SVNet on two large public\footnote{http://camma.u-strasbg.fr/datasets} surgical video datasets.
Our approach outperforms all the compared methods and achieves a real-time processing speed of 91 fps.
\section{Method}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/framework1.pdf}
\caption{Overview of our proposed Trans-SVNet for surgical phase recognition.
(a) Extracted spatial embeddings enable the generation of temporal embeddings, (b) and are fused with the temporal information for refined phase predictions in our aggregation model, with the architecture of (c) Transformer layer presented in detail.
}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:framework} presents an overview of our proposed Trans-SVNet, composed of embedding and aggregation models.
Our embedding model first represents surgical video frames with spatial embeddings $l$ and temporal embeddings $g$. The aggregation model fuses the hybrid embeddings by querying $l$ from $g$ to explore their synergy for accurate phase recognition.
\subsection{Transformer Layer}
Rather than only employed for temporal feature extraction, spatial features are reused to discover necessary information for phase recognition via our introduced Transformer.
As depicted in~\autoref{fig:framework} (c), a Transformer layer, composed of a multi-head attention layer and a feed-forward layer, fuses a query $q$ with a temporal sequence $s_{1:n}=[s_1, \dots, s_{n-1}, s_n]$.
Each head computes the attention of $q$ with $s_{1:n}$ as key and value:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Attn}(q,s_{1:n})=\mathrm{softmax}(\frac{W_qq (W_ks_{1:n})^\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{d_k}})W_vs_{1:n},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W$ are linear mapping matrices and $d_k$ is the dimension of $q$ after linear transformation.
The outputs of all heads are concatenated and projected to enable the residual connection~\cite{he2016deep} with $q$ followed by a layer normalization~\cite{ba2016layer}.
Since each attention head owns different learnable parameters, they concentrate on respective features of interest and jointly represent crucial features.
We find it necessary to utilize multiple heads rather than a single head to produce a much faster convergence speed.
The feed-forward layer is made up of two fully connected layers connected with a ReLU activation.
The residual connection and layer normalization are applied in a similar way as the multi-head attention layer.
Finally, the output of the Transformer layer is denoted as $\mathrm{Trans}(q,s_{1:n})$, which contains synthesized information of $q$ and $s_{1:n}$.
\subsection{Video Embedding Extraction}
Given the discrete and sequential nature of video frames, we suggest two kinds of embeddings to represent their spatial and temporal information, which extends the spirit of word embeddings~\cite{mikolov2013distributed} to surgical video analysis.
Let $x_t\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times C}$ and $y_t\in\mathbb{R}^N$ denote the $t$-th frame of a surgical video with $T$ frames in total and the corresponding one-hot phase label, respectively.
We first employ a very deep ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} to extract discriminative spatial embeddings, which is realized by training a frame-wise classifier using the cross-entropy loss.
Note that we only utilize phase labels because additional annotations like tool presence labels are not widely available, and single-task methods are more practical in real-world applications.
Then, outputs of the average pooling layer of ResNet50 are made as our spatial embeddings, i.e., $l_t\in \mathbb{R}^{2048}$, and high-dimensional video data are converted into low-dimensional embeddings.
To save memory and time, temporal embeddings are directly extracted from the spatial embeddings generated by the trained and fixed ResNet50.
We first adjust the dimension of $l_t$ with a 1$\times$1 convolutional layer and generate $l'_t\in\mathbb{R}^{32}$.
Then, we exploit TCN to process the embedding sequence of a whole video without touching future information as illustrated in \autoref{fig:framework} (a).
For easy comparison, we employ TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno}, a two-stage TCN model, to generate temporal embeddings using $l'_{1:T}$.
Owing to multi-layer convolutions and dilated kernels, its temporal receptive field is increased to several minutes.
Since $l_t$ is not updated, spatial embeddings of a whole video could be processed in a single forward computation, and the network converges quickly.
Moreover, the outputs of the last stage of the TeCNO are used as our temporal embedding $g_{t}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$.
\subsection{Hybrid Embedding Aggregation}
Our aggregation model, consisting of two Transformer layers, aims to output the refined prediction $p_t$ of frame $x_t$ by fusing the pre-computed hybrid video embeddings only available at time step $t$.
The intuition is that a fixed-size representation encoded with spatio-temporal details is insufficient to express all critical features in both spatial and temporal dimensions, thus information loss is inevitably caused.
Hence, we propose to look for supportive information based on a spatial embedding $l_t$ from an $n$-length temporal embedding sequence $g_{t-n+1:t}$ (see \autoref{sec:ablation} for ablation study), which allows for the rediscovery of missing yet crucial details during temporal feature extraction.
In other words, our aggregation model learns a function $\mathbb{R}^{2048}\times\mathbb R^{n\times N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}$.
Before synthesizing the two kinds of embeddings, they first conduct internal aggregation, respectively.
On the one hand, dimension reduction is executed for the temporal embedding $l_t$ to generate $\tilde{l}_t\in\mathbb R^N$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{l}_{t}=\mathrm{tanh}(W_ll_t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W_l\in\mathbb R^{N\times2048}$ is a parameter matrix.
On the other hand, the temporal embedding sequence $g_{t-n+1:t}$ is processed by one of our Transformer layer to capture self-attention and an intermediate sequence $\tilde{g}_{t-n+1:t}\in\mathbb R^{n\times N}$ is produced.\footnote{Zero padding is applied if necessary.}
Specifically, each entry in $[g_{t-n+1},\dots,g_{t-1},g_t]$ attends all entries of the sequence, which is denoted as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_{i}=\mathrm{Trans}(g_{i}, g_{t-n+1:t}),~~i=t-n+1,\dots, t.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Given self-aggregated embeddings $\tilde{l}$ and $\tilde{g}$, we employ the other Transformer layer to enable $\tilde l_t$ to query pivotal information from $\tilde g_{t-n+1:t}$ as key and value while fuse with the purified temporal features through residual additions (red arrow in \autoref{fig:framework} (b)).
Next, the output of the second Transformer layer is activated with the Softmax function to predict phase probability:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p_{t}=\mathrm{Softmax}(\mathrm{Trans}(\tilde{l}_{t}, \tilde{g}_{t-n+1:t})).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Although the fused embeddings have a dimension of $N$, they still contain rich information for further processing.
Lastly, our aggregation model is trained using the cross-entropy loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_C=-\sum_{t=1}^{T}y_t \log(p_t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\section{Experiments}
\subsubsection{Datasets.}
We extensively evaluate our Trans-SVNet on two challenging surgical video datasets of cholecystectomy procedures recorded at 25 fps, i.e., Cholec80~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} and M2CAI16 Challenge dataset~\cite{mi2cai}.
Cholec80 includes 80 laparoscopic videos with 7 defined phases annotated by experienced surgeons.
Its frame resolution is either 1920$\times$1080 or 854$\times$480.
This dataset also provides tool presence labels to allow for multi-task learning.
We follow the same evaluation procedure of previous works~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,jin2017sv,yi2019hard} by separating the dataset into the first 40 videos for training and the rest for testing.
The M2CAI16 dataset consists of 41 videos that are segmented into 8 phases by expert physicians.
Each frame has a resolution of 1920$\times$1080.
It is divided into 27 videos for training and 14 videos for testing, following the split of~\cite{twinanda2016single,jin2017sv,yi2019hard}.
All videos are subsampled to 1 fps following previous works~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,jin2017sv}, and frames are resized into 250$\times$250.
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics.}
We employ four frequently-used metrics in surgical phase recognition for comprehensive comparisons.
These measurements are accuracy (AC), precision (PR), recall (RE), and Jaccard index (JA), which are also utilized in~\cite{jin2017sv,yi2019hard}.
The AC is calculated at the video level, defined as the percentage of frames correctly recognized in the entire video.
Since the video classes are imbalanced, the PR, RE, and JA are first computed towards each phase and then averaged over all the phases.
We also count the number of parameters to indicate the training and inference speed to a certain degree.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Phase recognition results (\%) of different methods on the Cholec80 and M2CAI16 datasets. The best results are marked in bold. Note that the * denotes methods based on multi-task learning that requires extra tool labels.}
\label{tab:comparison}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|cccc|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Cholec80} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{M2CAI16} & \multirow{2}{*}{\#param} \\ \cline{2-9}
& ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ & ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ \\ \midrule
EndoNet*~\cite{twinanda2016endonet} & $81.7\pm4.2$ & $73.7\pm16.1$ & $79.6\pm7.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & 58.3M \\
EndoNet+LSTM*~\cite{twinanda2017vision} & $88.6 \pm 9.6$ & $84.4 \pm 7.9$ & $84.7 \pm 7.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} &68.8M \\
MTRCNet-CL*~\cite{jin2020multi} & $89.2 \pm 7.6$ & $86.9 \pm 4.3$ & $88.0 \pm 6.9$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} &29.0M\\ \midrule
PhaseNet~\cite{twinanda2016single,twinanda2016endonet} & $78.8 \pm 4.7$ & $71.3 \pm 15.6$ & $76.6 \pm 16.6$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $79.5 \pm 12.1$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $64.1 \pm 10.3$ &58.3M \\
SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv} & $85.3 \pm 7.3$ & $80.7 \pm 7.0$ & $83.5 \pm 7.5$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $81.7 \pm 8.1$ & $81.0 \pm 8.3$ & $81.6 \pm 7.2$ & $65.4 \pm 8.9$ &28.8M \\
OHFM~\cite{yi2019hard} & $87.3 \pm 5.7$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $67.0 \pm 13.3$ & $85.2 \pm 7.5$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} & $68.8 \pm 10.5$ &47.1M \\
TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} & $88.6 \pm 7.8$ & $86.5 \pm 7.0$ & $87.6 \pm 6.7$ & $75.1 \pm 6.9$ & $86.1 \pm 10.0$ & $85.7 \pm 7.7$ &$\mathbf{88.9\pm4.5}$ & $74.4 \pm 7.2$ &24.7M \\
Trans-SVNet (ours) & $\mathbf{90.3\pm7.1}$ & $\mathbf{90.7\pm5.0}$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3\pm6.6}$ &$\mathbf{87.2\pm9.3}$ & $\mathbf{88.0\pm6.7}$ & $87.5 \pm 5.5$ &$\mathbf{74.7 \pm 7.7}$ &24.7M \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Implementation Details.}
Our embedding and aggregation models are trained one after the other on PyTorch using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU.
We initialize the parameters of the ResNet from a pre-trained model on the ImageNet~\cite{he2016deep}.
It employs an SGD optimizer with a momentum of 0.9 and a learning rate of 5e-4 except for its fully connected layers with 5e-5.
Its batch size is set to 100, and data augmentation is applied, including 224$\times$224 cropping, random mirroring, and color jittering.
We re-implement TeCNO~\cite{czempiel2020tecno} based on their released code with only phase labels and directly make outputs of its second stage as our temporal embeddings.
We report the re-implemented results of TeCNO, and this well-trained model directly generates our temporal embeddings without further tuning.
Our aggregation model is trained by Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-3 and utilizes a batch size identical to the length of each video.
The number of attention heads is empirically set to 8, and the temporal sequence length $n$ is 30. $N$ is set to the dimension of the one-hot phase label.
Our code is released at: \url{https://github.com/xjgaocs/Trans-SVNet}.
\subsubsection{Comparison with State-of-the-arts.}
\autoref{tab:comparison} presents comparisons of our Trans-SVNet with seven existing methods without a post-processing strategy.
Using extra tool presence annotations of the Cholec80 dataset, multi-task learning methods~\cite{twinanda2016endonet,twinanda2017vision,jin2020multi} generally achieve high performances, and MTRCNet-CL beats all single-task models except ours.
As for methods using only phase labels, PhaseNet is far behind all other models due to its shallower network.
Thus the much deeper ResNet50 becomes a standard visual feature extractor since SV-RCNet~\cite{jin2017sv}.
As a multi-step learning framework like OHFM, our approach gains a significant improvement by 6\%-12\% in JA with a much simpler training procedure.
Compared to the state-of-the-art TeCNO with the same backbones, our Trans-SVNet gains a boost by 4\% in PR and JA on the larger Cholec80 dataset with a negligible increase in parameters ($\sim$30k).
In a word, our Trans-SVNet outperforms all the seven compared methods, especially on the enormous Cholec80 dataset.
Our method is observed to achieve a more remarkable improvement on the Cholec80 dataset than the M2CAI16 dataset.
The underlying reason is that the M2CAI16 dataset is smaller and contains less challenging videos.
The robustness of our method yields a better advantage on the more complicated Cholec80 dataset.
Thanks to the designed low-dimensional video embeddings, our model generates predictions at 91 fps with one GPU, which vastly exceeds the video recording speed.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/colorbar1.pdf}
\caption{Color-coded ribbon illustration for two complete surgical videos. The time axes are scaled for better visualization.}
\label{fig:colorbar}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Qualitative Comparison.}
In \autoref{fig:colorbar}, we show the color-coded ribbon of two complete laparoscopic videos from the two datasets.
Due to the lack of temporal relations, ResNet suffers from noisy patterns and generates frequently jumped predictions.
TeCNO achieves smoother results by relating long-term temporal information in spatial embeddings generated by ResNet. However, its predictions for P2 in both videos still need to be improved.
We also visualize some of the misclassified frames of TeCNO and find they are negatively influenced by excessive reflection, where bright but trivial parts might dominate the extracted spatial features, making it easy to miss pivotal information.
Aggregating embeddings from ResNet and TeCNO elegantly, our Trans-SVNet contributes to more consistent and robust predictions of surgical phases, which highlights its promotion towards the synergy between the hybrid embeddings.
\subsubsection{Ablation Study.}
\label{sec:ablation}
We first analyze the effect of different length $n$ of our temporal embedding sequence on the Cholec80 dataset, and the results are reported in \autoref{tab:ablation_len}.
It is observed that our design of temporal sequence is undoubtedly necessary to gain a notable boost relative to not using temporal embeddings, i.e., $n=0$.
We also notice that gradually increasing the temporal sequence length produces improvements towards all metrics, and our approach behaves almost equally well with the length $n\in[20, 40]$.
The boost tends to be slower because adding $n$ by one increases the temporal sequence span by one second (only for $n>0$) and over-long sequences bring too much noise.
Therefore, we choose $n=30$ as the length of our temporal embedding sequence.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Ablative testing results (\%) for increasing length of our temporal embedding sequence on the Cholec80 dataset.}
\label{tab:ablation_len}
\resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
Length ($n$) & ~Accuracy~ & ~Precision~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ \\ \midrule
0 & $82.1\pm7.8$ & $78.0\pm6.4$ & $78.5\pm10.8$ & $61.7\pm11.3$ \\
10 & $89.9 \pm 7.2$ & $89.6 \pm 5.2$ & $88.4 \pm 7.9$ & $78.4 \pm 6.6$ \\
20 & $90.2 \pm 7.1$ & $90.2 \pm 5.1$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.7}$ & $79.1 \pm 6.6$ \\
30 & $\mathbf{90.3 \pm 7.1}$ & $90.7 \pm 5.0$ & $\mathbf{88.8 \pm 7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3 \pm 6.6}$ \\
40 & $\mathbf{90.3 \pm 7.0}$ & $\mathbf{90.8 \pm 4.9}$ & $88.5 \pm 7.2$ & $79.0 \pm 6.8$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Phase recognition results (\%) of different architectures and their P-values in JA towards our proposed method on the Cholec80 dataset.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{Architecture} & ~~Accuracy~~ & ~~Precision~~ & ~~~~Recall~~~~ & ~~Jaccard~~ & P-values \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{3}{*}{PureNet}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ResNet} & $82.1\pm7.8$ & $78.0\pm6.4$ & $78.5\pm10.8$ & $61.7\pm11.3$ & 2e-8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TeCNO} & $88.6\pm7.8$ & $86.5\pm7.0$ & $87.6\pm6.7$ & $75.1\pm6.9$ & 2e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ResNet $cat$ TeCNO} & $87.9\pm7.5$ & $86.6\pm5.9$ & $85.3\pm8.2$ & $73.0\pm7.8$ & 2e-8 \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{5}{*}{Transformer}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{~~~Query~~~} & Key & Accuracy & Precision & Recall & Jaccard & P-values \\ \cline{2-8}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$l_t$} & $l_{t-n+1:t}$ & $81.9\pm9.2$ & $78.0\pm12.5$ & $78.3\pm12.8$ & $60.8\pm12.4$ & 2e-8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$g_t$} & $g_{t-n+1:t}$ & $89.1\pm7.8$ & $87.6\pm6.3$ & $87.7 \pm 6.9$ & $76.2\pm6.6$ & 4e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$g_t$} & $l_{t-n+1:t}$ & $89.2\pm7.5$ & $87.7\pm6.7$ & $87.7\pm7.0 $ & $76.1\pm7.0$ & 3e-7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$l_t$} & $g_{t-n+1:t}$ & $\mathbf{90.3\pm7.1}$ & $\mathbf{90.7\pm5.0}$ & $\mathbf{88.8\pm7.4}$ & $\mathbf{79.3\pm6.6}$ & \rule[2pt]{0.35cm}{0.05em} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\autoref{tab:ablation} lists the results of different network structures, i.e., letting embeddings from ResNet and TeCNO be query or key in every possible combination, to identify which one makes the best use of information.
We first show baseline methods without Transformer denoted as PureNet.
ResNet $cat$ TeCNO employs a superficial linear layer to process concatenated $l_t$ and $g_t$, whose performance unsurprisingly falls between ResNet and TeCNO.
As for Transformer-based networks, there are no advancements to use spatial embedding $l_t$ to query $l_{t-n+1:t}$.
The reason is that spatial embeddings cannot indicate their orders in videos and bring ambiguity in the aggregation stage.
Better performances are achieved than PureNet by letting TeCNO embeddings $g$ with sequential information be either query or key, which justifies Transformer rediscovers necessary details neglected by temporal extractors.
Our Trans-SVNet uses $l_t$ to query $g_{t-n+1:t}$ and generates the best outcomes with a clear margin, which confirms the effectiveness of our proposed architecture.
We also calculate P-values in JA using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for compared settings towards our Trans-SVNet.
It is found that P-values are substantially less than 0.05 in all cases, which indicates that our model learns a formerly non-existent but effective policy.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a novel framework to fuse different embeddings based on Transformer for accurate real-time surgical phase recognition.
Our novel aggregation style allows the retrieval of missing but critical information with rarely additional cost.
Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art models while maintains a breakneck processing speed.
The excellent performance and parameter efficiency of our method justify its promising applications in real operating rooms.
\subsubsection{Acknowledgements.}
This work was supported by Hong Kong RGC TRS Project T42-409/18-R, and National Natural Science Foundation of China with Project No. U1813204.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Jennifer Cano, Antoine Georges, Chandra Varma, Tomo Uemura, T. Senthil, Ivan Bozovic, Matt Yankowitz, Sankar Das Sarma, Qimiao Si, Alex Wietek and Jie Wang for fruitful discussions. AG, AJM and LW are supported in part by Programmable Quantum Materials, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), under award DE-SC0019443. EMS, DAR, BK, JH and CRD are supported by the Columbia MRSEC on Precision-Assembled Quantum Materials (PAQM) - DMR-2011738. ANP is supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research via grant FA9550-16-1-0601. The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation.
\bigskip
\section{Author Contributions}
A.G., L.W., E.-M.S. and D.A.R. fabricated the samples. A.G., L.W. and E.-M.S. performed the transport measurements. A.G. and G.S.S.G.P. analysed the data. D.A.R., B.K. and J.H. grew the WSe$_2$ crystals. K.W. and T.T. grew the hBN crystals. J. W. and A.J.M. supervised the theoretical aspects of this work. A.G., A.N.P., C.R.D. and A.J.M wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors.
\bigskip
\section{Competing interest declaration}
The authors declare no competing interest.
\section{Methods}
Sample preparation is discussed in detail in Wang et al. \cite{Wang2020}. Twisted WSe$_2$ samples were prepared using the dry stamp and 'tear-and-stack' technique \cite{wang_contact,tutuc_theta}. tWSe$_2$ is first picked up using the top hBN flake and then placed on top of pre-patterned Cr/Pt contacts \cite{tutuc_contact} on the bottom hBN. A combination of metal and/or graphite is used as top and bottom gates as shown in fig. 1a.
Doping and displacement field values are obtained from linear extrapolations of Landau fans projecting from the band edge and full-filling of the moiré unit cell. We find these Landau levels to be two-fold degenerate. Then, the capacitance for the top and bottom gates are obtained as well as the full-filling density (or conversely, the twist angle). By assuming a linear gate response of the system, the number of holes per moiré unit cell can be obtained across all dopings \cite{Wang2020}.
\section{Data availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.
\newpage
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figs/Fig1_v5b.pdf}
\caption{ \textbf{Continuous metal-insulator transition in twisted WSe$_2$ }\\
\textbf{a} Illustration of a dual--gated twisted--bilayer WSe$_2$ device. Biasing the top gate ($V_{TG}$) and bottom gate ($V_{BG}$) allows independent control of the transverse displacement field and carrier density. \textbf{b} Cartoon representation of bilayer WSe$_2$, twisted to angle $\theta$. The resulting moiré pattern acts like a superlattice potential with triangular symmetry. \textbf{c} Low temperature resistance ($T=1.5 K$) plotted versus displacement field, $D$, and band filling, $\nu$, for a sample with twist angle $\theta=4.2$\degree. The band filling is defined in units of electrons per unit cell of the moiré superlattice. Varying the displacement field allows in-situ bandwidth tuning at fixed filling \cite{Wang2020}. This makes it possible to map the metal-insulator phase diagram through both band filling and band tuning control mechanisms \cite{Imada}. \textbf{d,e}. Plot of the insulating gap, measured along the lines of corresponding color shown in \textbf{c}. For both sets of measurements, gaps are extracted from Arrhenius fits to the resistivity. At the metal-insulator boundary, it is observed that the insulating gap goes to zero continuously.
}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figs/fig2_v5.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Doping-driven metal-insulator transition in twisted WSe$_2$ } \\
\textbf{a,} color plot of resistivity versus temperature and doping for a 4.2˚ device at a fixed top gate value of -6.75V.
\textbf{b,} First derivative in temperature of the resistivity from \textbf{a}. All values below zero are set to zero (white color). At the boundaries of the insulating region, $T$-linear resistivity is observed at low temperature.
\textbf{c,d} Line plots of the resistivity for doping ranges near the zero-temperature metal-insulator transitions. The green highlighted curves display insulating behaviour, with a metal-insulator transition defined by the blue dashed lines. At the metal-insulator boundary, the low temperature transport is $T$-linear (black curves). Further into the metal, the resistance starts to develop $T^2$ behaviour at low temperature (red curve in panel \textbf{c}).
}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figs/fig2_v4.png}
\caption{
\textbf{Quantum critical fan in twisted WSe$_2$} \\
\textbf{a,} Color plot of resistivity versus temperature and doping for a 4.2˚ device at a fixed top gate value of -8V.
\textbf{b,} The upper panel shows a summary of the different temperature dependences observed in this measurement. Blue color denotes $T^2$ behaviour, red indicates $T$-linear behaviour and grey indicates insulating behaviour. Two quantum critical fans are seen to emerge on either side of the insulating state near half-filling, but no such behaviour is observed near the trivial insulator at full filling. The bottom panel shows the evolution of fit parameters with doping. The magnitude of the $T^2$ coefficient $\alpha_Q$ is plotted in shades of blue (left y-axis), and the magnitude of the $T$-linear coefficient $\alpha_L$ is plotted in red (right y-axis). $\alpha_Q$ shows a critical enhancement by over an order of magnitude as the quantum critical point is approached from the metallic phase. $\alpha_L$ a maximum at the quantum critical points where linear-in-T resistivity is observed down to lowest measured temperature.
\textbf{c,} Plots of resistivity (black) versus temperature as well as quadratic (blue) and linear (red) fits for different dopings. At temperatures above 100 K the resistivity starts to saturate to a doping dependent, but temperature-independent, behaviour.
}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figs/fig4_v4.png}
\caption{
\textbf{Anomalous magnetotransport}
\textbf{a,} Doping dependence of the longitudinal magnetoresistance for a sample at a twist angle of 4.5˚, in the metallic region in the vicinity of the quantum critical point. At low fields (0-1T) the resistivity smoothly evolves in doping from a $B^2$ form deep in the metallic phase (lowest curve) to $B$-linear behaviour in the vicinity of the quantum critical point (upper curves).
\textbf{b,} Doping dependence of the Hall resistance over the same range shown in \textbf{a}. The Hall resistivity shows dramatic changes associated with the collapse of the Fermi surface on approaching the quantum critical point.
\textbf{c,} Fit results of longitudinal resistivity in \textbf{a} from 0 to 1T to $\sqrt{\gamma +\beta B^2}$ with a confidence interval greater than 95\%. We observe a critical increase in the parameter $\beta$ as it nears half-filling, corresponding to a transition from $B^2$ to $B$-linear behaviour. Sample fits are displayed in the inset.
}
\label{fig:figS1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figs/fig3_v3-01.png}
\caption{
\textbf{Bandwidth-driven quantum criticality} \\
\textbf{a,} Resistivity versus temperature at half-filling for a range of displacement fields over which a metal-insulator transition is observed at half-filling. Inset: Detailed dependence at low temperature in the metallic phase near the quantum critical point. At the quantum critical point (D=0.33 V/nm, top curve) T-linear behaviour is seen down to low temperature, while at higher displacement fields $T^2$ behaviour is observed.
\textbf{b,} Color plot of insulating gaps (red colors) as a function of density and displacement field. The boundary of the insulating region is shown by the dashed line. The position of the van Hove singularity obtained from Hall measurements is also plotted.
\textbf{c,} Linear coefficient $\alpha_L$ versus displacement field and doping over the same range as \textbf{b}. Both $\alpha_L$ and the magnitude of the insulating gap itself are controlled by the displacement field, indicating a common origin. The boundary of the gapped region in \textbf{b} is denoted by the dashed line in \textbf{c}.
\textbf{d,} $\rho_0$ defined from extrapolation to $T=0$ of high T region of ``metallic" resistivity for insulating regions of the phase diagram.
\textbf{e,} The evolution of $\rho_0$ for doping and displacement field. $\rho_0$ is strongly correlated with the magnitude of the insulating gap shown in \textbf{b}.
\textbf{f,} Gap versus $\rho_0$ at half-filling. The insulating regions display a $\rho_0$ of at least 2.5 k$\Omega$ while in the metallic phase $\rho_0$ quickly approaches zero.
}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}
A number of general purpose filters are available for Bayesian filtering in the literature. The parameterized Bayesian filters include the Extended Kalman Filters \cite{Kal}, the Cubature Kalman Filters \cite{AH}, the Unscented Kalman Filters \cite{JU}, the Gauss–Hermite filters \cite{DSG}, the central difference filters \cite{NOR}, and the Gaussian sum filters \cite{AS,IX}. The non-parameterized Bayesian filters include the particle filters \cite{AMGC}, the ensemble Kalman filters \cite{EVE}, the particle flow filters \cite{DH2007}, and other exact nonlinear filters \cite{Daum,LJ}. A number of comprehensive surveys or tutorials of these different methods are available in the literature, e.g., \cite{AMGC,CR,RAG, SLB}, and are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper focuses on a specific type of non-parametric density based nonlinear filters-the particle flow filters.
Particle filters have been widely used to solve a wide range of nonlinear filtering problems. Particle filters are sequential Monte Carlo methods that approximate conditional distributions by weights associated with a set of random sample points. The weights are updated sequentially. A long-standing problem with particle filtering is “particle degeneracy", referring to a situation in which all but usually one particle weights are close to zero. There have been numerous attempts to address this problem such as resampling. However, such efforts have not adequately resolved the problem of particle degeneracy \cite{DJ,PS,RAG}. For example, resampling introduces a new problem of particle impoverishment: During resampling particles with large weights are likely to be drawn multiple times whereas particles with small weights are not likely to be drawn at all, leading to a lack of particle diversity. Moreover, particle filters generally suffer from the “curse of dimensionality" as discussed in \cite{DH2011,QMG}.
The particle flow filtering was first introduced in \cite{DH2007} to mitigate the problem of particle degeneracy in particle filters. Instead of updating weights at fixed sample points of states (particles), particle flow filters seek to move all particles along dynamic flows (which will be described in more detail later), which effectively avoids the issue of particle degeneracy. It has been reported that filtering performance of particle flow filters is among the top ones in a wide range of applications \cite{CP,DOT,GYM,KKS,KB,MC,MCC,PC,PMZC,Port,SLC,Wu,Zhao}.
Despite abundant empirical evidences showing the top performance, a theoretical foundation for particle flow filters is yet to be developed.
Part of the reason is that particle flow filters are motivated to address issues in nonlinear filtering which has proven to be highly challenging for theoretical analysis. The relatively short history of particle flow filters may be another contributing factor.
This paper is intended to serve two purposes. First, a number of particle flows have been proposed in the literature for the implementation of particle flow filters \cite{DH2015}. Those flows offer different benefits, but appear disconnected from each other. In this paper, we derive a new general form of particle flows as a parameterized family of stochastic flows. The “parameter" is resulted from introducing a nonzero diffusion process to drive the flows as a scheme to improve numerical stability in implementation. We show that the new form of particle flows includes all linear flows driven by a non-zero diffusion process with noises independent of the state. Several existing stochastic flows are special cases of this general form, thus providing a unifying form of stochastic particle flows.
Our second motivation is the desire to build a theoretical foundation for the particle flow filtering framework. Significant amount of theoretical studies has been devoted to Kalman filters and particle filters over the last sixty years since R.E. Kalman proposed the Kalman filter in \cite{Kal}. A theoretical foundation is yet to be established for particle flow filters. We start with basic properties in estimation and filtering: unbiasedness, consistency and numerical stability. We show that the particle flows are unbiased under the assumption of Gaussian distributions and that estimates constructed from particle flows are consistent. Connection with the broadly-adopted linear minimum variance estimation is established. Our contributions are significant because they provide a theoretical guarantee that particle flow filters indeed give correct answers. For numerical stability, we adopt a Lyapunov-like approach to the stability analysis of particle flows. Particularly, we establish bounded error stability for general stochastic flows, and provide mild conditions that ensure contractive stability. Conventional concepts of stability are concerned with asymptotic behaviors as time goes to infinity. Particle flows are derived from homotopy with finite “time". Finite time stability concepts are adopted in this paper while we also provide quantitative characterization on the dynamic behaviors of error system.
Particle flow filters are constructed for sequential state estimation, updating state estimate as new data is collected. To keep notations as simple as possible and without loss of generality, we are mainly concerned with one-step Bayesian estimation. In practice, its implementation is sequential consisting of multiple one-step estimation. The analysis is applicable to general Bayesian inference problems that go beyond filtering.
The rest of the paper is organized as the following. In Section 2, we derive a parameterized family of stochastic particle flow filters. In Sections 3, we establish basic statistical properties of the stochastic particle flows. In Section 4, we show that several stochastic flows and one deterministic flow existing in the literature can be recast as special cases of the parameterized family of stochastic flows we derive. In Section 5, we establish several Lyapunov-like stability results for error system in numerical implementation. To keep continuity of reading, all proofs are moved to the Appendix.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\em Notations}.
We use $\mathbb{R}^n$ to denote the real valued $n$ dimensional Euclidean space, $\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}^1$, $\mathbb{R}^+$ is the set of non-negative real numbers, and $\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ is the real valued $n\times m$ matrix space.
We use lowercase letters to denote column vectors or scalars, uppercase letters to denote matrices. An identity matrix is $I$ or $I_{n\times n}$ if we need to specify its $n\times n$ dimension. For a vector $a$ or matrix $A$, its transpose is $a^T$ or $A^T$, respectively. For symmetric matrices $A$ and $B$, $A\geq 0$ or $A>0$ denotes that $A$ is positive semi-definite or positive definite, respectively, and $A\geq B$ or $A>B$ denotes $A-B\geq 0$ or $A-B>0$, respectively. For a square matrix $A$, its determinant is $|A|$, its minimum eigenvalue is $\lambda_{min}(A)$.
For a random variable $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, its mean is $E[x]$. For a scalar function $f(x): \mathbb{R}^n\ra \mathbb{R}$, its gradient is ${\nabla}_x f(x)=[\partial f/\partial x_1, \partial f/\partial x_2, ..., \partial f/\partial x_n]^T\in\mathbb{R}^n$, and its divergence is $div(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n\partial f/\partial x_i\in\mathbb{R}$.
Finally, we use “$A\Rightarrow B$" as a concise form of the statement “$A$ leads to $B$".
\section{Derivation of Parameterized Stochastic Particle Flows}
Assume a given probability space, on which a random variable $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is defined and takes values in a $n$ dimensional real space $\mathbb{R}^n$ and a measurement of $x$, $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, defined in a $d$ dimensional real space. Let $p_x(x)$ denote the prior probability density function of $x$ and $p_z(z|x)$ the likelihood of a measurement $z$. The Bayes' Theorem states that the posterior conditional density function of $x$ for a given measurement $z$, $p_x(x|z)$, is given by\footnote{To keep notations as simple as possible, in this paper we focus on one-step Bayesian estimation which can be applied to filtering or inference problems. For multi-step sequential filtering, the Bayes' Theorem is as the following \cite{DH2007,Jaz}.
\[
p(x,t_k|Z_k)=p(z_k|x,t_k)p(x,t_k|Z_{k-1})/p(z_k|Z_{k-1})
\]
in which $z_k$ is the $k$-th measurement at time $t_k$, $Z_k=\{z_1,z_2,...,z_k\}$, and $p(z_k|x,t_k)$ is the probability density of measurement $z_k$ at time $t_k$ conditioned on $x$. The probability density functions $g(x)$, $h(x)$, and $p(x)$ in (\ref{homotopy}) need to be replaced, respectively, with the following.
\[
p(x)=p(x,t_k|Z_k), \hspace{5mm} g(x)=p(x,t_k|Z_{k-1}), \hspace{5mm} h(x)=p(z_k|x,t_k).
\]
The rest of discussion follows.
}
\bq
p_x(x|z) = \frac{p_x(x)p_z(z|x)}{p_z(z)}
\label{bayes}
\eq
in which $p_z(z)=\int_x p_z(z|x)p_x(x)dx$ is also known as the normalization factor. Without loss of generality, it is assumed throughout this paper that all probability density functions exist, sufficiently (second order) differentiable, and are non-vanishing everywhere. Otherwise we restrict discussions to the supports of the density functions.
For simplicity, we denote
\[ p(x)=p_x(x|z), \hspace{5mm} g(x) = p_x(x), \hspace{5mm} h(x) = p_z(z|x).
\]
In the framework of particle flow filters, particle flows are defined through homotopy. Toward that end, we define a new conditional probability density function as the following
\bq
p(x,\lambda) = \frac{g(x)h^\lambda(x)}{c(\lambda)}
\label{homotopy}
\eq
for all $\lambda\in[0, 1]$. In (\ref{homotopy}), $c(\lambda)$ is the normalization factor so that $p(x,\lambda)$ remains a probability density function for all $\lambda\in[0, 1]$. It's clear from (\ref{homotopy}) that
\[ p(x,0) = g(x), \hspace{5mm} p(x,1)=p(x). \]
In other words, $p(x,0)$ is the density function of the prior distribution and $p(x,1)$ is that of the posterior distribution. Therefore, the mapping $p(x,\lambda): \mathbb{R}^+\times [0, 1]\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ in (\ref{homotopy}) defines a homotopy from $g(x)$ to $p(x)$. By taking the natural logarithm on both sides of (\ref{homotopy}), we obtain
\bq
\log p(x,\lambda) = \log g(x)+ \lambda \log h(x) -\log c(\lambda).
\label{loghom}
\eq
Recall that a major problem with particle filters is particle degeneracy \cite{DH2007,DJ,PS,RAG}. To mitigate this issue, particle flow filters move (change) $x$ as a function of $\lambda$, $x(\lambda)$, so that (\ref{homotopy}), or equivalently (\ref{loghom}), is always satisfied as $\lambda$ changes from $0$ to $1$. The value of $x(\lambda)$ at $\lambda=1$ is used for estimation in problems such as filtering or Bayesian inference. It turns out that there exists much freedom in the choice of $\{x(\lambda), \lambda\in[0, 1]\}$ \cite{DH2015}.
The $x(\lambda)$ could be driven by a deterministic process as in the Exact Flow \cite{DHN2010,DHN2018}, or by a stochastic process as in stochastic flows \cite{DH2013,DHN2016,DHN2018}. In this paper, we consider a stochastic flow in which $x(\lambda)$ is driven by the following stochastic process
\bq
dx = f(x,\lambda)d\lambda+q(x,\lambda)dw_{\lambda}
\label{flow}
\eq
where $f(x,\lambda)\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a drift function, $q(x,\lambda)\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ is a diffusion matrix, and $w_{\lambda}\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is a $m$ dimensional Brownian motion process in $\lambda$ with $E[dw_\lambda dw_\lambda^T ]=\sigma(\lambda)d\lambda$. The stochastic differential equation (\ref{flow}) is a standard diffusion process \cite{Jaz}. Note that $\{x(\lambda), \lambda \in [0, 1]\}$ is a stochastic process in $\lambda$. In this problem formulation, the diffusion matrix $q(x,\lambda)$ serves as a design parameter which should not be confused with the process noise matrix of the underlying stochastic system. For clarity, we drop its dependence on $\lambda$ but add the dependence back when it is beneficial or necessary to emphasize its dependence on $\lambda$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\sigma(\lambda)=I_{m\times m}$. We denote
\[ Q(x,\lambda) = q(x,\lambda)q(x,\lambda)^T \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}. \]
Note that the matrix $Q(x,\lambda)$ is always symmetric positive semi-definite for any $x$ and $\lambda$. Again, this matrix $Q$ should not be confused with the covariance matrix of the process noise of the underlying system.
Our goal is to select $f(x,\lambda)$ and $q(x,\lambda)$, or equivalently $Q(x,\lambda)$, such that (\ref{loghom}) is maintained for the particle $x(\lambda)$ driven by the stochastic process (\ref{flow}) for all $\lambda\in [0, 1]$. To that end, we start with the following lemma.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Lemma 2.1.}\cite{DH2013} For the particle flow $x(\lambda)$ defined in (\ref{flow}) to satisfy (\ref{loghom}), $f(x,\lambda)$ and $Q(x,\lambda)$ must satisfy the following condition
\bq
{\nabla}_x\log h =-({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)f - {\nabla}_x div(f)-({\nabla}_x f)^T({\nabla}_x\log p)+{\nabla}_x[\frac{1}{2p}{\nabla}_x^T(pQ){\nabla}_x]
\label{cond1}
\eq
in which all derivatives are assumed to exist. For simplicity and without causing confusion, in (\ref{cond1}) and for the rest of discussion in this paper, we omit all variables involved.
\vspace{2mm}
Since the introduction of particle flows in \cite{DH2007}, there have been steady efforts in the literature either to solve (\ref{cond1}) for a special $Q$ or to find an approximate solution for general $Q$ \cite{Daum2016}. In this paper, we focus on finding the exact solution $f$ for arbitrary symmetric positive semi-definite (or positive definite) matrix $Q$ as long as $Q$ is not a function of $x$. The matrix $Q$ could be a function of $\lambda$.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 2.1.} {\em Assume that
\bi
\item[(A1).] ${\nabla}_x \log g$ and ${\nabla}_x \log h$ are linear in $x$, and
\item[(A2).] ${\nabla}_x {\nabla}_x^T \log p$ is non-singular for all $\lambda \in [0, 1]$.
\ei
Then for any matrix $K(\lambda) \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, independent of $x$, (\ref{cond1}) is satisfied by the following $f$ and $Q$
\bq
f = ({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}[-{\nabla}_x\log h+K({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}({\nabla}_x\log p)],
\label{f1}
\eq
\bq
Q = ({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}(-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h+K+K^T)({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}.
\label{q1}
\eq
provided that $Q$ is positive semi-definite.}
\vspace{2mm}
Note that the $Q$ defined in (\ref{q1}) is always symmetric for any $K$ since ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p$ and ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h$ are symmetric by definition (recall that $g(x)$, $h(x)$, and consequently $p(x)$ are assumed sufficiently differentiable).
Under the assumptions (A1) and (A2) in Theorem 2.1, (\ref{f1}) shows that the function $f$ is a linear combination of prior knowledge ${\nabla}_x\log g$ and measurement likelihood information ${\nabla}_x\log h$. The assumptions (A1) is satisfied if $g$ and $h$ are Gaussian or exponential.
Such Gaussian assumption is widely adopted initially as a local approximation to nonlinear problems in the analysis of extended Kalman filters or particle filters, as well as in many fields of studies. It should be pointed out that (\ref{flow}), (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q1}) define a general purpose nonlinear filter without the assumption (A1)
Theorem 2.1 gives a family of stochastic particle flows $x(\lambda)$ parameterized by the matrix $K$. The following corollary states that for any matrix $Q(\lambda)\in R^{n\times n}$ independent of $x$, we can find a corresponding stochastic particle flow $\{x(\lambda), \lambda \in [0, 1]\}$.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Corollary 2.1.} {\em Assume the assumptions (A1) and (A2) in Theorem 2.1. For any symmetric positive semi-definite matrix $Q(\lambda)\in R^{n\times n}$, (\ref{cond1}) is satisfied by the $f$ defined in (\ref{f1}) with $K(\lambda)$ chosen as
\bq
K(\lambda) = \frac{1}{2}({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)Q(\lambda)({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)+\frac{1}{2}({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h).
\label{q2}
\eq
}
\vspace{2mm}
Corollary 2.1 states that we can find a drift function $f$ for any given matrix $Q$ as long as $Q$ is positive semi-definite and independent of $x$. In other words, $Q$ is a parameter matrix. It has been observed that a nonzero $Q$ could improve numerical stability for solving (\ref{flow}) in practice \cite{DH2014}. We will discuss in Section 5 how choices of $Q$ affect numerical stability of the particle flow (\ref{flow}) for practical implementation. In this sense, $Q$ acts as a stabilizer.
Note that the drift function $f$ (\ref{f1}) is a linear combination of prior and measurement information for any $Q$. We may ask if there are other linear functions that may also solve (\ref{cond1}). Note that (\ref{f1}) is a parameterized solution. We could not simply adopt conventional definition of solution uniqueness which often refers to {\em the} solution. We need to define a new concept of solution equivalence.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Definition 2.1.} {\em For given density functions $g(x)$ and $h(x)$, we define the constrained parameter space as ${\cal K}\df\{K\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n} | K+K^T-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h \geq 0\}$, and the solution space ${\cal F}$ as
\[
{\cal F}\df\{f\in \mathbb{R}^n | f=({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}[-{\nabla}_x\log h+K({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}({\nabla}_x\log p)], K\in {\cal K} \}.
\]
Then ${\cal F}$ actually defines a solution manifold.
}
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 2.2.} {\em Assume the assumptions (A1) and (A2) in Theorem 2.1. Then for any linear solution to (\ref{cond1}) of the form $f= A(\lambda)x+b(\lambda)$, we must have $f\in{\cal F}$.}
\vspace{2mm}
Therefore, the drift function $f$ given by (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q1}) is the "unique" linear solution to (\ref{cond1}) with possible difference in the choice of the parameter matrix $K$.
\section{Properties of Particle Flows}
When particle flows are used for example in filtering or Bayesian inference, one typically considers a number of particles, $\{x_i(\lambda), i=1, 2, ..., N\}$, starting with initial conditions (prior) and driven by the stochastic process (\ref{flow}). Then the average
\bq \hat{x}_N=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_i(\lambda)|_{\lambda=1}
\label{est_mean}
\eq
could be used as an estimate of the posterior mean. The estimate of the posterior covariance matrix could be constructed as
\cite{MKB},
\bq
\hat{P}_N = \frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{i=1}^N (x_i(\lambda)-\hat{x}_N)(x_i(\lambda)-\hat{x}_N)^T|_{\lambda=1}.
\label{est_var}
\eq
One question is whether the estimates are unbiased and their limiting behavior as the number of particles increases.
Under the assumption (A1) in Theorem 2.1, ${\nabla}_x\log g$ and ${\nabla}_x\log h$ are linear in $x$. Therefore, we may re-write (\ref{flow}) as the following.
\bq
dx = [A(\lambda)x+b(\lambda)]d\lambda+q(x,\lambda)dw_{\lambda}
\label{lin1}
\eq
in which
\bq A(\lambda) = ({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}[-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T \log h+K],
\label{lin1_A}
\eq
\bq b(\lambda) = f-A(\lambda)x,
\label{lin1_b}
\eq
and
\[ Q(\lambda)= ({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}(-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h+K+K^T)({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}.
\]
The linear system (\ref{lin1}) defines a $\lambda$-varying linear stochastic differential equation from which we can derive its mean and covariance matrix for $\lambda\in [0, 1]$.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Lemma 3.1.}\cite{Arn,Jaz} {\em Let $\bar{x}(\lambda)=E[x]$ and $P(\lambda)=E[(x-\bar{x})(x-\bar{x})^T]$ be the mean and the covariance matrix of $x(\lambda)$, respectively. Then we have
\bq
\frac{d\bar{x}}{d\lambda} = A(\lambda)\bar{x}+b(\lambda), \hspace{5mm} \bar{x}|_{\lambda=0}=x_0
\label{mean1}
\eq
and
\bq
\frac{dP}{d\lambda} = A(\lambda)P+PA^T(\lambda)+Q(\lambda), \hspace{5mm} P|_{\lambda=0}=P_0.
\label{cov1}
\eq
where $x_0$ and $P_0$ are the mean and the covariance matrix of prior and determined by prior density function $g(x)$.}
\vspace{2mm}
The Gaussian distribution plays a critical role in the development of the theory of filtering and estimation. It has been broadly used in the modeling and analysis in virtually every field, either engineering, natural science, or social studies.
We next establish that, under Gaussian assumptions, the particle flow defined in (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}) indeed has $p(x,\lambda)$ as its density function with correct mean and covariance matrix for all $\lambda\in[0, 1]$.
\vspace{2mm}
For a flow $x$ determined by the stochastic differential equation (\ref{flow}), its density $p(x,\lambda)$ satisfies the following Kolmogorov's forward equation (also known as the Fokker–Planck equation) \cite{Jaz}
\bq
\frac{\partial p}{\partial\lambda}=-div(pf)+\frac{1}{2}{\nabla}_x^T(pQ){\nabla}_x.
\label{kfe}
\eq
If $g(x)$ and $h(x)$ are Gaussian distributed, we know that $p(x,\lambda)$ is also Gaussian according to (\ref{homotopy}). We only need to verify that it satisfies (\ref{kfe}).
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 3.1}. {\em Assume that the density function for the prior is Gaussian as the following.
\bq
g(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^n|P_g|}} exp\{-\frac{1}{2} (x-x_{prior})^TP_g^{-1}(x-x_{prior})\}
\label{Gau_g}
\eq
and the measurement is linear
\bq
z = Hx+v
\label{lin_meas}
\eq
with $H\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n}$ (independent of $x$), $v\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is Gaussian with zero mean and covariance matrix $E[vv^T]=R\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ that is positive definite.
Then $p(x,\lambda)$ is Gaussian such that
\bq
p(x,\lambda) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^n|P_p|}} exp\{-\frac{1}{2} (x-x_p)^TP_p^{-1}(x-x_p)\}.
\label{Gau_p}
\eq
Furthermore, $x_p$ and $P_p$ are unique solutions to (\ref{mean1}) and (\ref{cov1}), respectively, with
$x_0=x_{prior}$ and $P_0=P_g$.
}
\vspace{2mm}
Note that, for the stochastic particle flow (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}), the matrix $Q(\lambda)$ (or $K$) does not appear in the density function $p(x,\lambda)$, the mean $\bar{x}(\lambda)$, and the covariance matrix $P(\lambda)$ at all. We will see in Section 5 that $Q(\lambda)$ plays an important role in stabilizing the flow and error reduction for applications in filtering and Bayesian inference.
A Gaussian distribution is completely determined by its mean and covariance matrix. With the establishment Theorem 3.1, we know that the particle flow $x(\lambda)$ defined by (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}) has distribution $p(x,\lambda)$ for all $\lambda\in [0, 1]$, which says that the particle flows are unbiased with correct covariance matrix. Because the density function of a linear stochastic differential equation is Gaussian \cite{Arn}, Theorem 3.1 effectively establishes the equivalence, up to a free parameter $K$, of linear flow and the posterior distribution for all $\lambda \in [0, 1]$ under the Gaussian assumption.
With the establishment of Theorem 3.1, we know that $\hat{x}_N$ in (\ref{est_mean}) and $\hat{P}_N$ in (\ref{est_var}) are unbiased estimates of the posterior mean and covariance matrix, respectively. Furthermore, the average is taken over i.i.d. random variables in (\ref{est_mean}) and (\ref{est_var}) with finite mean and finite covariance matrix. As the number of particles $N$ goes to infinity, for given $x_{prior}$ and $z$, their convergence is guaranteed by the strong law of large numbers \cite{Shi}, i.e.,
\[
\lim_{N\ra\infty}\hat{x}_N = \bar{x}(\lambda)|_{\lambda=1}, \hspace{5mm} a.s.
\]
and
\[
\lim_{N\ra\infty}\hat{P}_N = P(\lambda)|_{\lambda=1}, \hspace{5mm} a.s.
\]
In other words, the estimates are consistent.
\vspace{2mm}
Linear minimum variance estimation plays a foundational role in estimation and filtering. Kalman filtering could be recast as a recursive implementation of the linear minimum variance estimate for linear dynamic systems under Gaussian assumptions. Given two random variables $x$ and $z$, the linear minimum variance estimate is \cite{Shi}
\[
\hat{x}^* = \mu_x + R_{xz}R_{zz}^{-1}(z-\mu_z)
\]
in which $\mu_x, \mu_z$ are the mean of prior, the mean of measurement, respectively, $R_{xz}$ is the covariance matrix between $x$ and $z$, and $R_{zz}$ is the covariance matrix of $z$. When both $x$ and $z$ are Gaussian distributed, and if the measurement $z$ is linear in $x$, the linear minimum variance estimate coincides with the posterior mean of $x$ \cite{Shi}. Theorem 3.1 indicates that the mean of the particle flow (\ref{flow}) at $\lambda=1$ is the same as the linear minimum variance estimate, which is another way of establishing the consistency of the estimates (\ref{est_mean}) and (\ref{est_var}).
It should be emphasized that the particle flow (\ref{flow}), (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}) defines a general form of flow for nonlinear filtering. No Gaussian assumption is required. The only requirement is the assumption (A2), which is mild. It has been observed that its performance, for nonlinear filtering problems, is superior or among the best in a wide range of applications \cite{CP,DOT,GYM,KKS,KB,MC,MCC,PC,PMZC,Port,SLC,Wu,Zhao}. The linear Gaussian case is only used for obtaining theoretical guarantees, which is important to ensuring that particle flow filters give correct answers. These results represent a major progress for particle flow filters.
\section{Special Cases}
Since the concept of particle flow filters was first introduced in \cite{DH2007}, there have been a number of particle flows proposed in the literature \cite{Daum2016}. In this section, we examine the relationship of the new parameterized family of stochastic flow (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}) with those existing in the literature.
We first introduce several particle flows that are relevant to the topic of this paper. We exclude deterministic flows but the Exact Flow because they are rather different in nature from stochastic flows. Those interested in various particle flows, deterministic or stochastic, can find them in \cite{CL,Daum2016, DHN2018}.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\em 1. The Exact Flow} \cite{DHN2010}. Assume that the prior $g(x)$ has probability density function (\ref{Gau_g}), the measurement is linear (\ref{lin_meas}), and $R$ is positive definite (and independent of $x$). The Exact Flow is a deterministic linear flow, for a given deterministic initial condition, and constructed as the following
\bq
\frac{dx}{d\lambda}=A_1(\lambda)x+b_1(\lambda)
\label{exactflow}
\eq
in which
\bq
A_1(\lambda) = -\frac{1}{2}P_gH^T(\lambda HP_gH^T+R)^{-1}H,
\label{ef_A}
\eq
\bq
b_1(\lambda) = (I+2\lambda A_1)[(I+\lambda A_1)P_gH^TR^{-1}z+A_1x_{prior}].
\label{ef_b}
\eq
Because an initial condition is random (a particle), the deterministic flow is actually a stochastic process without the diffusion term. The Exact Flow allows the measurement $z$ to be a nonlinear function of $x$.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\em 2. Stochastic Flow with Fixed $Q$} \cite{DHN2016,DHN2018}. This flow is defined by (\ref{flow}) with $f$ and $Q$ as a pair jointly chosen as the following
\[
f = -({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}({\nabla}_x\log h),
\]
\[
Q = -({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h)({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}.
\]
Note that, under the assumption that $g(x)$ and $h(x)$ are sufficiently (second order) differentiable, ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p$ is symmetric by definition. Under the assumptions (A1) and (A2) in Theorem 2.1, $Q$ is positive semi-definite and independent of $x$.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\em 3. The Diagnostic Noise Flow} \cite{Daum2016}. The Diagnostic Noise Flow does not provide an exact solution, rather an approximation. The starting point is to choose a known flow function $\hat{f}$ such that ${\nabla}_x div(\hat{f})\approx {\nabla}_x div(f)$ and ${\nabla}_x\hat{f}\approx {\nabla}_x f$. With $\hat{f}$ chosen, the Diagnostic Noise Flow is defined as
\bq
f = -({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}[{\nabla}_x\log h+{\nabla}_x div(\hat{f})+({\nabla}_x\hat{f})^T({\nabla}_x\log p)-\beta],
\label{diag_f}
\eq
\bq
Q =\al I_{n\times n},
\label{diag_Q}
\eq
in which
\[
\beta = \frac{\alpha}{2}{\nabla}_x[div({\nabla}_x\log p)+({\nabla}_x\log p)^T({\nabla}_x\log p)],
\]
and $\al>0$ is a constant (independent of $x$) chosen using an approximation procedure such as using the least squares method \cite{CL,Daum2016}.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\em 4. The Approximate Flow} \cite{Daum2016}. For an arbitrary positive semi-definite matrix $Q$, the drift function is approximated as
\bq
f\approx -({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}\{{\nabla}_x\log h+{\nabla}_x div(\hat{f})+({\nabla}_x\hat{f})^T({\nabla}_x\log p)-{\nabla}_x[\frac{1}{2p}{\nabla}_x^T(pQ){\nabla}_x]\}
\label{approx_f}
\eq
in which $\hat{f}$ is a known flow function such as the Exact Flow. This is a general flow in the sense that the matrix $Q$ could be a function of both $x$ and $\lambda$, and $\hat{f}$ could be nonlinear in $x$.
\vspace{2mm}
Approximating flows, the Diagnostic Noise Flow and the Approximate Flow, are intended to improve from a known flow with an analytic form. We next establish relationships between the stochastic flow (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q2}) with the four flows listed above.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 4.1}. {\em The following relationships hold.
\bi
\item[(1).] The Exact Flow is the same as the stochastic flow (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q2}) when $Q=0$.
\item[(2).] The Stochastic Flow with Fixed $Q$ is the same as (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q2}) with $K=0$.
\item[(3).] The Diagnostic Noise Flow is a special case of (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q2}), if $\hat{f}$ and ${\nabla}_x\log p$ are linear in $x$.
\item[(4).] The Approximate Flow can be recast as a special case of (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q2}) if $\hat{f}$ is linear in $x$ and $Q$ is independent of $x$.
\ei
}
\vspace{2mm}
In other words, Theorem 4.1 states that the stochastic flow defined by (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{q1}) indeed has a general form. It unifies several flows existing in the literature. Therefore, these seemingly different flows are actually the same flow with different design choices (parameters). Both the existing Diagnostic Noise Flow and the Approximate Flow are approximate flows.
It should be pointed out that both the Diagnostic Noise Flow and the Approximate Flow are rather general. The Diagnostic Flow allows general ${\nabla}_x\log p$ and $\hat{f}$ that may be nonlinear in $x$. The Approximate Flow allows for general $Q$ that could be a function of $x$, or nonlinear $\hat{f}$. However, both provide approximations of $f$ only. In this paper, we focus on exact solutions to (\ref{cond1}) and their analytical properties.
\section{Stability Analysis}
A major advantage of introducing the diffusion term in the particle flow is to stabilize particle flows (for potential error reduction) and prevent particles from diverging.
Using noise to stabilize a system is an established approach in control systems and other applications \cite{ACW,Kha2012,Mao,Sha}. Applications to filtering problems in engineering such as target tracking have demonstrated that stochastic particle flows with nonzero diffusion significantly increase the stability of filtering performance and reduce error. Despite abundant empirical evidences there are few results on theoretical guarantees that introducing $Q$ indeed improves stability. Part of the issue is that the linearized form of the stochastic differential equation that governs the particle flows is $\lambda$-varying, which invalidates approaches to stability analysis based on eigenvalue assignments.
To illustrate the stabilizing effect of noise in stochastic systems, we consider the following examples in time \cite{Kha2012,Koz}. For any $a>0$, the deterministic differential equation
\bq
\frac{dx}{dt} = ax, x(0)=x_0
\label{example}
\eq
is unstable and $\lim_{t\ra\infty}x(t)=\infty$ if $x_0\neq 0$. However, consider the following stochastic differential equation by adding noise to it.
\[
dx(t) = axdt+\si xdw(t)
\]
in which $\sigma$ is a constant and $w(t)$ is a one dimensional Brownian motion with $E[(dw)^2]=1$. Its solution is
\[
x(t) = x_0e^{(a-\si^2/2)t+\si w(t)}.
\]
Then $\lim_{t\ra\infty}x(t)= 0, a.s.$ for any $x_0$
if $a<\si^2/2$. The stochastic differential equation is stable. In other word, adding noise stabilizes an unstable deterministic system (\ref{example}) provided that the noise is sufficiently strong.
\vspace{2mm}
Another issue is time span. Traditionally, stability is concerned with the limiting behavior of a dynamical system near an equilibrium as time goes to infinity. Such stability concept does not directly apply to particle flows in a homotopy because $\lambda$ is limited to $[0, 1]$. Therefore, we consider finite time stability. Furthermore, the stochastic differential equation (\ref{flow}) governed by (\ref{f1})-(\ref{q1}) is $\lambda$-varying and does not take a stationary equilibrium unless for special cases (e.g., $x_{prior}=0$, $z=0$, $Q=0$). From a practical point of view, we are mostly concerned with numerical stability in implementing particle flows for nonlinear filtering or other inference problems for decision-making. Therefore, we focus on the stability of the error system.
Assume that $x_1(\lambda)$ and $x_2(\lambda)$ are two different solutions to (\ref{flow}) starting with different initial conditions. Under the assumption (A1) in Theorem 2.1, the error $\tilde{x}(\lambda)=x_1(\lambda)-x_2(\lambda)$ satisfies
\bq
d\tilde{x} = A(\lambda)\tilde{x}d\lambda, \hspace{5mm} \tilde{x}(0)=\tilde{x}_{0}.
\label{error}
\eq
where $\tilde{x}_0=x_1(0)-x_2(0)$ and
\bq
A(\lambda) = ({\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p)^{-1}[-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T \log h+K].
\label{error_A}
\eq
We next examine the stability of (\ref{error}) which is in fact a deterministic system for given initial condition $\tilde{x}_0$. In practice, the initial condition $\tilde{x}_0$ represents error in estimation or prediction, thus a random variable. It is necessary to consider the stochastic aspect of the stability also.
In (\ref{error}), the coefficient matrix $A(\lambda)$ is $\lambda$-varying and related to the parameter matrix $K$ through (\ref{error_A}). For a given $\lambda \in [0, 1]$, the eigenvalues of $A(\lambda)$ may potentially be changed by choosing appropriate $K$ for each fixed $\lambda$. However, it's well established that negative eigenvalues may not guarantee stability of a time-varying system \cite{Kha}. Lyapunov-like approaches are often adopted.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Definition 5.1.}\cite{AACC2006,Dor2006,Kam1953} {\em Given two positive scalars $\al, \be$, with $\al < \be$, and a symmetric positive definite constant matrix $S\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ (independent of both $x$ and $\lambda$), the system (\ref{error})
is said to be finite time stable with respect to $(\al, \be, S)$, if
\bq
\tilde{x}_0^T S\tilde{x}_0<\al \Rightarrow \tilde{x}^T(\lambda) S \tilde{x}(\lambda) < \be, \forall \lambda\in [0, 1].
\label{fts1}
\eq
}
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Definition 5.2.}\cite{WI1965} {\em Given three positive scalars $\al, \be, \ga$, with $\al < \ga, \be<\al$, and a symmetric positive definite matrix $S \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ (independent of both $x$ and $\lambda$), the system (\ref{error})
is said to be finite time contractively stable with respect to $(\al, \be, \ga, S)$, if it is finite time stable with respect to $(\al,\ga,S)$ and there exists a $\lambda_1\in (0,1)$ such that
\bq
\tilde{x}^T(\lambda) S\tilde{x}(\lambda) < \be, \forall \lambda\in [\lambda_1, 1].
\label{fts2}
\eq
}
The concepts of finite time stability and finite time contractive stability are analogous (finite time version) to conventional bounded stability and asymptotic stability, respectively. However, conventional Lyapunov stabilities and the finite time stabilities are in general independent concepts \cite{AACC2006}.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Definition 5.3.}\cite{Kus} {\em Given three positive scalars $\al, \be, \ep, 0<\ep<1$, and a symmetric positive definite matrix function $S\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, the system (\ref{error}) is said to be finite time stochastically stable with respect to $(\al, \be, \ep, S)$, if
\bq
E[\tilde{x}_0^T S \tilde{x}_0] \leq \al \Rightarrow \mbox{Prob}[\tilde{x}^T(\lambda) S \tilde{x}(\lambda)\leq\be, \forall \lambda\in [0, 1]]\geq 1-\ep.
\label{fts3}
\eq
}
In practice, we prefer both $\beta$ and $\ep$ in (\ref{fts3}) as small as possible.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Lemma 5.1}. {\em Assume the assumptions (A1) and (A2) in Theorem 2.1. Let $M(\lambda)=-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p$ and define a continuous function
\bq
V(\lambda,\tilde{x}) = \tilde{x}^TM\tilde{x} \in R^+.
\label{V}
\eq
Then for the stochastic particle flow defined by (\ref{flow}), (\ref{f1}), (\ref{q1}), we have
\bq
dV(\lambda,\tilde{x})= - (M\tilde{x})^TQ(M\tilde{x})d\lambda.
\label{dV}
\eq
}
Under the assumptions (B1) and (B2) in Theorem 5.1 below, $V(\lambda,\tilde{x})$ defines a Lyapunov function \cite{Kal}. However, there usually does not exist a constant $\dt>0$ such that $V(\lambda,\tilde{x})\leq \dt||\tilde{x}||$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$ if $\lambda$ is allowed to go to infinity because $M$ increases linearly in $\lambda>0$.
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 5.1.} {\em Assume that
\bi
\item[(B1).] ${\nabla}_x\log g$ and ${\nabla}_x\log h$ are linear in $x$,
\item[(B2).] ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log g$ is negative definite and ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h$ is negative semi-definite.
\ei
Then there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $S\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that the error system (\ref{error}) is finite time stable with respect to $(\al,\beta,S)$ for any $\al>0, \beta>0, \al<\beta$.
}
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 5.2.} {\em Assume the assumptions (B1) and (B2) in Theorem 5.1 and
\bi
\item[(B3).] $Q(\lambda)\geq Q_0$ for all $\lambda\in[0, 1]$ and $Q_0$ is a constant positive definite matrix,
\ei
then there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $S\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and a positive scalar $\si>0$ such that the error system (\ref{error}) is finite time contractively stable with respect to $(\al,\beta,\ga,S)$ for all positive scalars $\al, \beta, \ga$ satisfying $\al<\ga, \beta<\al$ as long as $\al e^{-\si}<\beta<\al$.
}
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 5.3.} {\em Under the assumptions (B1)-(B3), there exists a symmetric positive matrix $S\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that for any positive scalars $\al>0, \beta>0, \ep>0$,
(\ref{error}) is finite time stochastically stable with respect to $(\al, \beta, \ep, S)$ as long as $\al<\beta, \al/\beta \leq\ep<1$.
}
\vspace{2mm}
Theorems 5.1-5.3 are general stability results. The equation (\ref{dV}) reveals details about the dynamic behaviors of particle flows. Denote $S=-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log g\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$. Then $S$ is symmetric positive definite under the assumption (B2). Note that ${\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log p = {\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log g+\lambda{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h$. We may write
\[
M(\lambda) = S+\lambda (-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h), \forall \lambda \in [0, 1]
\]
which shows that $M$ increases linearly in $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^+$ since $-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log h$ is positive semi-definite under the assumption (B2). For the Exact Flow, $Q(\lambda)=0$. The follow conclusion follows directly from (\ref{dV}).
\vspace{2mm}
{\sc Theorem 5.4}. {\em Assume the assumption (B2) in Theorem 5.1. For the Exact Flow, we have
\[
\tilde{x}(\lambda)^TM(\lambda)\tilde{x}(\lambda) = \tilde{x}_0^T S\tilde{x}_0, \forall \lambda \in [0, 1],
\]
in other words, if we start with $N$ particles, $x_i(0), i=1, 2, ...,N$, and if the errors for all particles start on an ellipsoid $E_0\df\{x \in \mathbb{R}^n | x^TSx=\al, \al>0\}$, they will remain on the same but smaller ellipsoid $E_\lambda\df\{x \in \mathbb{R}^n | x^TM(\lambda)x=\al, \al>0\}$ for all $\lambda\in [0, 1]$.}
\vspace{2mm}
It is sometimes useful to have a Lyapunov-like quantity to characterize the behavior of $\tilde{x}$. Under the assumptions (B1)-(B3) in Theorems 5.1-5.2, we know from (\ref{a_V3}) in the Appendix that
\[
\tilde{x}^T(\lambda) S \tilde{x}(\lambda) \leq
e^{-\si\lambda}\tilde{x}_0^T S \tilde{x}_0, \forall \lambda \in [0, 1].
\]
where $S=-{\nabla}_x{\nabla}_x^T\log g>0, \si=\lambda_{min}(Q_0)\lambda_{min}(S)>0$. Note that $\tilde{x}_0$ represents error in initial condition. This equation states that the error contracts exponentially at least at the rate of $\si$. In assumption (B3), $Q_0$ is the lower bound of $Q$. Increasing the minimum eigenvalue of $Q_0$ increases the guaranteed speed at which the error system (\ref{error}) goes to zero.
\vspace{2mm}
Note that $M(\lambda)\geq S$. We know that,
\[
\tilde{x}^TM(\lambda)\tilde{x}\leq 0 \Rightarrow \tilde{x}^TS\tilde{x}\leq 0.
\]
Table 1 summarizes the relationship between $Q$ and error dynamics due to initial conditions.
\begin{table}[h!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{center}
\caption{Relationship between $Q(\lambda)$ values and error dynamics}
\vspace{2mm}
\label{tab:table1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Lyapunov function & Error dynamics over $\lambda\in[0, 1]$\\
\hline
$Q(\lambda)=0$ & $\tilde{x}^TM(\lambda)\tilde{x}$ & $=$ constant \\
\hline
$Q(\lambda)=0$ & $\tilde{x}^TS\tilde{x}$, $E[\tilde{x}^TS\tilde{x}]$ & non-increasing \\
\hline
$Q(\lambda)\geq 0$ & $\tilde{x}^TM(\lambda)\tilde{x}$, $\tilde{x}^T S\tilde{x}$, $E[\tilde{x}^TS\tilde{x}]$ & non-increasing \\
\hline
$Q(\lambda)\geq Q_0>0$ & $\tilde{x}^T S\tilde{x}$, $E[\tilde{x}^TS\tilde{x}]$ & exponentially decreasing at rate $\geq\sigma>0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table 1 shows that the flow is “more" stable for $Q\geq 0$ than that for $Q=0$, which explains observations that have been reported in the implementations of particle flow filters in several important applications \cite{CL,DH2007,DHN2016,DHN2018,GYM}. Furthermore, a strictly positive definite $Q>0$ is generally desirable to minimize the propagation/accumulation of errors in initial conditions for the flow. In this sense, our results in this section provide guidelines to the design of particle flow filters to ensure robust performance.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have addressed two aspects of stochastic particle flows: (1) derivation of a new parameterized family of stochastic flows driven by a nonzero diffusion process. It is shown that several existing stochastic flows and the deterministic Exact Flow are special cases of this family. This family includes all possible stochastic flow of linear forms driven by constant noise that is independent of state. (2) initial work toward laying a theoretical foundation for the particle flow filters. In particular, we established unbiasedness of the particle flows with correct covariance matrix, the consistency of estimates derived from stochastic particle flows, its connection with linear minimum variance estimation theory, and numerical stability in implementation.
The contributions of this paper are (1) theoretical proofs that particle flow filters give correct answers, (2) a parameterized form of particle flow that unifies seemingly disconnected particle flows in the literature as special choices of design parameters, and (3) guidelines on the stability of particle flows to ensure robust performance for nonlinear filtering. The contributions are significant in themselves and also in that for the first time we demonstrated the feasibility toward establishing a comprehensive theoretical foundation for particle flow filters. There are multiple possibilities for future efforts. A comprehensive list of topics for future research is provided in \cite{DH2015,DH2016}. Here we just point out a few directly relevant to the topic of this paper. In this paper we focus on stochastic flows. The results should be extended to deterministic flows that are derived using other methods such as Gromov's method. Details about deterministic flows can be found in \cite{DH2015,DHN2018}.
In Section 5, we demonstrated the role of $Q$ in stabilizing the error system (\ref{error}) and in error reduction. The parameter matrix $K$ or $Q$ may be exploited to change the dynamics of the flow equation (\ref{flow}) to address issues such as stiffness of (stochastic/ordinary) differential equations toward improving numerical stability of filtering performance. Stiffness of differential equations is an important issue in, for example, certain tracking problems \cite{DH2014}. The linearized form of the stochastic differential equation (\ref{flow}) is (\ref{lin1}) in which the eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix $A(\lambda)$ can be changed by choosing appropriate $K$ or $Q$, which in turn affects the stiffness of the flow. Further research is warranted to characterize the exact relationship between the choice of $K$ and the stiffness of the flow.
\section{Acknowledgment}
LD would like to thank Timothy Zajic for inspiring discussions regarding finding all possible solutions to (\ref{cond1}).
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last decade AMS-02 has acquired precise measurements of cosmic-ray electrons and positrons
as well as multiple nuclei from protons to iron \cite{Aguilar:2021tos}. These data are provided with unprecedented precision
at the level of a few percent in a large energy range between 1~GeV and a few TeV and have triggered numerous
studies \cite{Korsmeier:2016kha,Tomassetti:2017hbe,Liu:2018ujp,Genolini:2019ewc,Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb,Evoli:2019wwu,Evoli:2019iih,Boschini:2018baj,Boschini:2019gow,Luque:2021nxb,Luque:2021joz,Schroer:2021ojh}.
The propagation of cosmic rays (CR) in the Galaxy can be modeled as a diffusive process within a halo
extending a few kpc above and below the Galactic plane.
While electrons and positrons lose energy quickly and can thus be used to study the local Galactic environment
(up to few kpc) CR nuclei sample a much larger volume of the diffusion halo up to about $10$~kpc. Beside diffusion
and energy losses, other ingredients like convective winds or reacceleration might be important.
These processes can be constrained by using secondary CRs like Boron (B), Beryllium (Be) and Lithium (Li),
i.e., CRs produced by the fragmentation of primary CRs, mainly Carbon (C), Nitrogen (N) and Oxygen (O), on the interstellar medium (ISM)
during propagation\footnote{The N flux contains a significant secondary component.}.
Historically, B has been the most investigated secondary nucleus. Nonetheless, AMS-02 has now provided excellent measurements
of Li and Be \cite{Aguilar:2018njt}, which have been indeed studied in recent analyses.
Beryllium is particularly important because its isotope $^{10}\mathrm{Be}$ has a life time of $\sim$ 1 Myr, similar to the propagation time scale of CR nuclei.
Precise measurements of this isotope would, thus, allow to disentangle the well-known degeneracy between the
normalization of the diffusion coefficient and the height of the diffusive halo.
Current measurements of this isotope are still not very precise and bound to very low energies.
Nonetheless, in the absence of precise $^{10}\mathrm{Be}$ measurements also the total Be flux might allow to draw some conclusions on the height of the diffusive halo.
Deuterium and Helium 3 are also secondaries sensitive to propagation, with $^3\mathrm{He}$ also recently measured by AMS-02 \cite{Aguilar:2019eiz}.
Further heavier secondaries are important, in particular sub-Iron species like Scandium (Sc), Titanium (Ti), Vanadium (V),
Chromium (Cr) and Manganese (Mn), whose measurements from AMS-02 are not yet available.
The aim of the present analysis is to combine the information of multiple primary CRs C, N and O and
secondary CRs Li, Be and B in order to derive constraints on the diffusion properties of CR nuclei and
systematically explore the role of the additional components which might impact in the process of CR propagation.
We will consider two main complementary propagation frameworks. In the first, CR diffusion is described
by a smoothly broken power law in rigidity with a break at about $\sim$ 5--10~GeV and no reacceleration.
The second one, instead, includes reacceleration but it does not assume a break in diffusion, which is instead replaced by a break in the injection spectrum of primaries.
Beside these two scenarios, we consider three further frameworks, making it a total of five, that extend the previous analyses in various ways.
In the most general case we explore a scenario with both reacceleration, a break in diffusion, and a break in injection.
The other ingredient which we will investigate thoroughly is the systematic uncertainty in
the nuclear cross-section production of secondaries.
Most of these cross sections are poorly measured and thus the effect of their uncertainties on the prediction of the abundance of secondary
elements is significant.
This aspect has been stressed in several recent works on CR nuclei
\cite{Genolini:2018ekk,Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb,Evoli:2019wwu,Evoli:2019iih,Schroer:2021ojh,Boschini:2018baj,Boschini:2019gow}
as well as for CR antiprotons \cite{Korsmeier:2018gcy,Donato:2017ywo,Winkler:2017xor,Kachelriess:2015wpa}.
Recently, there has been some experimental effort to gather new measurements of these cross sections \cite{Aaij:2018svt,Unger:2019nus}.
Furthermore, there is some effort to measure nuclear cross sections directly with the AMS-02 detector itself, see \cite{Aguilar:2021tos}.
As we will show, taking into account these uncertainties is crucial. In particular, propagation scenarios
which seem excluded at first remain viable once these uncertainties are considered.
The important element of novelty which we will include in the following will be the simultaneous exploration of the propagation and
cross-section uncertainties in a global fit, with the latter uncertainties included via a parametrization of the cross sections themselves.
The exploration of the large joint parameter space given by propagation and cross-section parameters is a delicate task which we perform
through the use of Monte Carlo scanning techniques.
Furthermore, we check the impact of possible correlations in the AMS-02 data on our results.
The manuscript is structured in the following way: In Sec.~\ref{sec::CR_prop} we give a more general introduction to CR propagation of nuclei in our Galaxy. Then, in Sec.~\ref{sec::data}
we summarize the CR data used in this analysis. Section~\ref{sec::xsc} explains in more detail the importance of fragmentation cross sections for this analysis.
The methods of the global fits using Monte Carlo scanning techniques are detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec::methods}.
In this work we will consider 5 different scenarios for CR propagation, which are specified in Sec.~\ref{sec::frameworks}.
Finally, results are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec::results}. More specific results on the halo half-height $z_\mathrm{h}$ are given in \ref{sec::zh}.
Before concluding in Sec.~\ref{sec::conclusions} we discuss and compare our analysis to other works in Sec.~\ref{sec::comparison}.
\section{Cosmic-ray propagation} \label{sec::CR_prop}
Galactic CRs are well described by diffusion within a cylindrical halo extending a few kpc above and below the Galactic plane.
In general, we distinguish primary and secondary CRs. While primaries are produced and injected into the diffusion halo by
astrophysical sources like supernova remnants or pulsars, the latter are produced during the process of CR propagation,
mostly by fragmentation of heavier CR nuclei on the ISM.
The ISM mostly consists of Hydrogen ($\sim 90$\%) and Helium ($\sim10$\%) gas located in the Galactic disc.
The whole process of CR propagation can be modeled by a diffusion equation in phase-space densities~\cite{StrongMoskalenko_CR_rewview_2007}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::propagationEquation}
\frac{\partial \psi_i (\bm{x}, p, t)}{\partial t} =
q_i(\bm{x}, p) &+&
\bm{\nabla} \cdot \left( D_{xx} \bm{\nabla} \psi_i - \bm{V} \psi_i \right) \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\partial}{\partial p} p^2 D_{pp} \frac{\partial}{\partial p} \frac{1}{p^2} \psi_i -
\frac{\partial}{\partial p} \left( \frac{\mathrm{d} p}{\mathrm{d} t} \psi_i
- \frac{p}{3} (\bm{\nabla \cdot V}) \psi_i \right) -
\frac{1}{\tau_{f,i}} \psi_i - \frac{1}{\tau_{r,i}} \psi_i.
\end{eqnarray}
In addition to diffusion several further processes are incorporated in this equation.
We will briefly mention and define each process in the following.
The term $q_i(\bm{x}, p)$ denotes the source term of each CR species $i$. For primaries, we factorize the source term
into a space- and a rigidity-dependent part. Assuming that our Galaxy is cylindrically symmetric we obtain
\begin{equation}
q_i(\bm{x},p) = q_i(r,z,R) = q_{0,i} \, q _{r,z}(r,z) \, q_{i,R}(R)\,,
\end{equation}
where $r$ and $z$ are cylindrical coordinates with respect to the Galactic center and $R=p/Z$ is the rigidity.
The rigidity-dependent part, $q_{i,R}(R)$, is modeled by a smoothly broken power-law
with a break positioned at $R_{\mathrm{inj},0}$. The spectral indices above and below the break are denoted $\gamma_{1,i}$ and $\gamma_{2,i}$, respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::SourceTerm_2}
q_R(R) &\sim& R^{-\gamma_1}
\left( 1+\left( \frac{R}{R_{\mathrm{inj},0}} \right)^{1/s}
\right)^{-s (\gamma_2-\gamma_1)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The parameter $s$ allows for a smoothing of the power law around the break: the larger $s$ the smoother is the transition
from $\gamma_{1,i}$ to $\gamma_{2,i}$. For completeness, we state also the adopted spatial form of the source term,
which is the same for all primaries:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::SourceTerm_distribution}
q_{r,z}(r,z) = \left( \frac{r}{r_s} \right)^\alpha \exp \left( -\beta \, \frac{r-r_s}{r_s} \right)
\exp \left( - \frac{|z|}{z_0} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
with parameters $\alpha = 0.5$, $\beta=2.2$, $r_s=8.5$~kpc, and $z_0=0.2$ kpc.\footnote{These are the default values in \texttt{Galprop v56},
which slightly differ from the values obtained from supernova remnants \cite{Case:1998qg,Green:2015isa}.
However, it was already pointed out in~\cite{Korsmeier:2016kha} that the spatial dependence of
the source term distribution has only a minor impact on the local CR fluxes.} \\
On the other hand, the source term of secondary CRs is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::secondary_source_term}
q_{i}(R_i) &=& \sum\limits_{k>i}\;\sum\limits_{j= \lbrace \mathrm{p,He}\rbrace }
4\pi \, n_{\mathrm{ISM},j} \,
\phi_k(R_k)
\, \sigma_{k+j\rightarrow i}(T_k)\; _{ \Big\rvert_{ \frac{T_k}{A_k}=\frac{T_i}{A_i}} }
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\sigma_{k+j\rightarrow i}$ denotes the fragmentation cross section of species $k$ into $i$ on the ISM component $j$.
Furthermore, $\phi_k$ is the primary CR flux, and $n_{\mathrm{ISM},j}$ is the density of the ISM gas component $j$.
The rigidities of the secondary CR $i$ and primary CR $k$ are related by the assumption that the
kinetic-energy-per nucleon ($T/A$) is conserved during the fragmentation, which is a good approximation~\cite{1995ApJ...451..275T}.
In the above expression for simplicity the spatial dependence of the various quantities has been suppressed but it is taken into account in the calculations.
\bigskip
At the heart of Eq.~\eqref{eqn::propagationEquation} we find the spatial diffusion term.
The diffusion coefficient $D_{xx}$ is modeled by a smoothly broken power law as function of rigidity $R$ with up to two breaks:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::diffusionConstant}
D_{xx} & \sim& \beta R^{\delta_l}
\cdot \left( 1 + \left(\frac{R}{R_{D,0}}\right)^{1/s_{D,0}} \right)^{s_{D,0}\,( \delta - \delta_l) }
\cdot \left( 1 + \left(\frac{R}{R_{D,1}}\right)^{1/s_{D,1}} \right)^{s_{D,1}\,( \delta_h - \delta) } .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\delta_l$, $\delta$ , $\delta_h$ are the three power law indices below the first break at $R_{D,0}$, between the two breaks, and above the second break at $R_{D,1}$.
Furthermore, $s_{D,0}$ and $s_{D,1}$ describe the amount of smoothing of the two breaks, respectively, and $\beta=v/c$ is the velocity of the CRs.
The diffusion coefficient is normalized to $D_0$ at a reference rigidity of 4~GV, $D_{xx}( R=4\;\mathrm{GV}) = D_0$.
The first break, if included in the model, is typically in the range of 1--10 GV. The existence of a second break at higher rigidities
is suggested by the recent observations of secondary lithium, beryllium, and boron~\cite{Aguilar:2018njt}.
We will thus include a break around $R_{D,1} \sim 300$~GV with a negligible amount of smoothing, $s_{D,1} \rightarrow 0$.
Next to diffusion, reacceleration, convection and energy losses play an important role.
The amount of diffusive reacceleration is parametrized in terms of the velocity $v_{\rm A}$ of Alfv\`en magnetic waves as \cite{Ginzburg:1990sk,1994ApJ...431..705S}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::DiffusivReaccelerationConstant}
D_{pp} = \frac{4 \left(p \, v_\mathrm{A} \right)^2 }{3(2-\delta)(2+\delta)(4-\delta)\, \delta \, D_{xx}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The parameter $\delta$ is the power-law index between the breaks from Eq.~\eqref{eqn::diffusionConstant}.
We assume that the velocity of convective winds, $\bm{V}(\bm{x})$, is constant and orthogonal to the Galactic plane,
$\bm{V}(\bm{x})= {\rm sign}(z)\, v_{0,{\rm c}}\,{\bm e}_z$.
Finally, we consider energy losses. These might be continuous, adiabatic or catastrophic.
Continuous energy losses are encoded in the term $\mathrm{d} p/\mathrm{d} t$ and include processes like ionization
and Coulomb losses, while adiabatic energy losses originate from a nonzero gradient of convective winds.
Catastrophic energy losses are encoded in the lifetime for fragmentation or decay as described by the parameters $\tau_f$ and $\tau_r$.
We note that the catastrophic loss terms give rise to the source term of secondaries (see Eq.~\eqref{eqn::secondary_source_term}).
\medskip
All in all, Eq.~\eqref{eqn::propagationEquation} provides a chain of coupled differential equations,
where the flux of heavier nuclei (partly) define the source term of lighter secondary CR species.
It can be solved by starting with heavier species gradually evolving to lighter nuclei.
We use the \texttt{Galprop} code\footnote{http://galprop.stanford.edu/} \cite{Strong:1998fr,Strong:2015zva} in order to solve the diffusion equation numerically.
More specifically, we use \texttt{Galprop} version~56.0.2870 combined with \textsc{Galtoollibs}~855\footnote{https://galprop.stanford.edu/download.php}
as basis for our analysis and implement some custom modifications.
We employ a grid in kinetic energy per nucleon and in the two spatial dimensions $r$ and $z$, namely we assume cylindrical
symmetry.\footnote{We note that the diffusion equation can also be solved analytically under various simplifying assumption \cite{Putze:2010zn,Maurin:2018rmm}.
Moreover, there are further numerically codes like \texttt{Dragon}~\cite{Evoli:2008dv,Evoli:2017vim} and \texttt{Picard}~\cite{Kissmann:2014sia}.}
It is assumed that CRs are in a steady state. Our diffusion halo has a maximal extension of $r=20$~kpc and $z=\pm z_\text{h}$.
Given the well-known degeneracy between $z_\text{h}$ and $D_0$ we will keep $z_\text{h}$ fixed to a benchmark value of 4\;kpc for most of the analysis.
In a specific paragraph we will vary also $z_\text{h}$ and discuss its constraints.
\bigskip
Beside propagation in the Galaxy, CRs also propagate in the Solar system. This affects CR spectra only at relatively low rigidities,
below $\sim 50$ GV, through the effect of solar winds and the solar magnetic field.
This is commonly referred to as solar modulation and varies in strength in a 22-year cycle.
A propagation equation similar to the one of interstellar CR propagation, but adjusted to the heliospheric conditions, can be used to describe Solar modulation.
The equation can be solved numerically~\cite{Kappl:2015hxv,Maccione:2012cu,Vittino:2017fuh,Boschini:2017gic}.
There are also approaches to solve approximated versions with semi-anlytical methods\cite{Kuhlen:2019hqb}.
Progress in the understanding of CR propagation in the heliosphere has been made ~\cite{Tomassetti:2017hbe,Cholis:2015gna}
particularly thanks to the data of the Voyager~I probe which left the heliosphere a few years ago and
is thus sampling CRs fluxes before they are affected by the solar modulation.
Beside this, time-dependent measurements of CR fluxes both by PAMELA and
AMS-02~\cite{Aguilar:2018wmi,Aguilar:2018ons} are also very useful to constrain the properties of heliospheric propagation.
Nonetheless, a detailed understanding is still missing at the moment.
For this reason we resort to the commonly employed force-field approximation~\cite{Fisk:1976aw},
where the CR flux near Earth is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::solarModulation}
\phi_{\oplus,i}(E_{\oplus,i}) &=& \frac{E_{\oplus,i}^2 - m_i^2}{E_{\text{LIS}, i}^2 - m_i^2} \phi_{\text{LIS}, i}(E_{\text{LIS}, i}) \,,\\
E_{\oplus,i} &=& E_{\text{LIS}, i} - e|Z_i|\varphi_{{\rm SM},i}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $e$
is the elementary charge, and $Z_i$, $m_i$, and $\varphi_{{\rm SM},i}$ are the atomic number, mass, and solar modulation potential of species $i$, respectively.
$E_{\text{LIS,i}}$ is the CR energy of the local interstellar spectrum, while
$E_{\oplus,i}$ is the energy effectively measured at the top of the Earth's atmosphere after propagation in the Solar system.
In the force-field approximation $\varphi_{{\rm SM},i}$ is species-independent. Nonetheless, it might be necessary to consider different potentials
if the measurements for different species are not simultaneous. Fortunately, the measurements provided by AMS-02 of Li, Be, B, C, N, O which we will use
in the analysis all refer to the same period of time, thus we will use a single modulation potential for all of the species.
\section{CR Data}\label{sec::data}
In the following we will use the recent AMS-02 measurements of lithium, beryllium and boron \cite{Aguilar:2018njt},
carbon and oxygen \cite{Aguilar:2017hno}, and nitrogen \cite{Aguilar:2018keu}.
All the data refer to the same period of time, namely the first five years of operation.
This, as mentioned above, allows us to simplify the treatment of solar modulation and assume a single modulation potential for all the species.
For Li, Be and B absolute, fluxes are available. Nonetheless, we will perform fits on the ratios B/C, Li/C and Be/B since in the ratio
some measurement systematics cancel out and the overall error is smaller.
Furthermore, while the absolute secondary spectrum depends on the spectrum of the primary and thus on the injection parameters,
the secondary over primary ratios are very weakly dependent on them, and this helps to speed-up the convergence of the fit.
In Table \ref{tab::data_sets} we report a list of the employed data.
In the following also VOYAGER data on carbon, oxygen and boron-over-carbon ratio~\cite{2017arXiv171202818W} are shown,
but it is only used for plotting purposes and not actually included in the analysis.
\begin{table*}
\caption{CR data sets used in the fits. For each data set we state the experiment, the number of data points, and the reference.
}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{c @{\hspace{25px}} c @{\hspace{25px}} c @{\hspace{25px}} c @{\hspace{25px}}c @{\hspace{25px}} c}
\hline \hline
{CR species} & {experiment} & {number of data points} & {Ref.} \\ \hline
C & AMS-02 & 68 & \cite{Aguilar:2017hno} \\
N & AMS-02 & 66 & \cite{Aguilar:2018keu} \\
O & AMS-02 & 67 & \cite{Aguilar:2017hno} \\
B/C & AMS-02 & 67 & \cite{Aguilar:2018njt} \\
Li/C & AMS-02 & 67 & \cite{Aguilar:2018njt} \\
Be/B & AMS-02 & 66 & \cite{Aguilar:2018njt} \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\label{tab::data_sets}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{Summary of cross section related nuisance parameters included in the CR fits. The first column contains
the name of the effective fit parameter name. The second column lists the physical parameters related to the effective one and effectively varied in the fit
(notation corresponding to Eq.~\ref{eqn::nuisance_XS}). The third
column states the sampling procedure, \emph{i.e.}, whether the parameter is sampled by \texttt{MultiNest} or on-the-fly.
The last column reports the range of values scanned in the fit.
Each nuisance parameter is only included if the product species
is included in the CR fit. We assume that the fragmentation cross sections
$X+\mathrm{H}\rightarrow Y$ and $X+\mathrm{He}\rightarrow Y$ are proportional to each other.
Thus, we omit the `$+\mathrm{H}$' and `$+\mathrm{He}$' from the notation.
}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{c @{\hspace{15px}} c @{\hspace{15px}} c @{\hspace{15px}} c}
\hline\hline
{fit parameter} & {nuisance parameters} & {sampling} & {prior} \\ \hline
$\delta_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{B}}$ &
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{10}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{10}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{11}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{11}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [-0.3, 0.3] \\
$\delta_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{Li}}$ &
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{6}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{6}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [-0.3, 0.3] \\
$\delta_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{Be}}$ &
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [-0.3, 0.3] \\
$\delta_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{C}}$ &
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{13}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [-0.3, 0.3] \\
$\delta_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{N}}$ &
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$\delta_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{15}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [-0.3, 0.3] \\
$A_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{B}}$ &
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{10}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{10}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{11}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{11}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B} } $ &
on-the-fly & [0.1, 10] \\
$A_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{Li}}$ &
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{6}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{6}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{3}\mathrm{Li} } $ &
on-the-fly & [0.1, 10] \\
$A_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{Be}}$ &
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C } \rightarrow \,^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be} } $ &
on-the-fly & [0.1, 10] \\
$A_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{C}}$ &
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{13}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [0.5, 1.5] \\ \vspace{0.3em}
$A_{\mathrm{XS}\rightarrow \mathrm{N}}$ &
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N} } $ \hspace{0.3cm}
$A_{\,^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O } \rightarrow \,^{15}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N} } $ &
\texttt{MultiNest} & [0.5, 1.5] \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\label{tab::nuisance_param}
\end{table*}
\section{Nuclear Cross-section}\label{sec::xsc}
The precision of fragmentation cross sections to produce secondary CRs is in many cases significantly worse compared to the precision of recent CR measurements
provided by the AMS-02 experiment~\cite{Genolini:2018ekk}. Uncertainties are very often at the level of 20-30\% or even more in the cases of cross sections
for which data are very scarce.
Thus, we allow some flexibility in the default fragmentation cross sections in order to take into account the related uncertainties.
More specifically, we allow for a freedom in the overall normalization and in the low-energy slope of each fragmentation cross section:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::nuisance_XS}
\sigma_{k+j\rightarrow i}(T_k/A) = \sigma^{\mathrm{default}}_{k+j\rightarrow i} (T_k/A) \cdot A_{k+j\rightarrow i} \cdot
\begin{cases}
(T_k/A)^{\delta_{k+j\rightarrow i}} & T_k/A < T_\mathrm{ref}/A\\
1 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $A_{k+j\rightarrow i}$ is an overall renormalization factor and $\delta_{k+j\rightarrow i}$ adjusts the slope
of the cross section below a reference kinetic energy-per-nucleon chosen to be $ T_\mathrm{ref}/A = 5 \,\mathrm{GeV/nuc}$.
This choice for $ T_\mathrm{ref}/A$ is justified by the fact that all the cross-section models predict a break around this energy,
and a flat behavior above it.
As a default model for the cross section we use the \texttt{Galprop} parametrization.\footnote{This corresponds to the option \texttt{kopt=12} in the galdef file.}
The network of reactions involved in the production of the secondary species is extremely large~\cite{Genolini:2018ekk}.
In order to keep the analysis feasible we thus allow additional freedom only in the cross section of the main reactions contributing to the secondaries,
namely the ones involving fragmentation of carbon and oxygen~\cite{Genolini:2018ekk},
which are the most abundant primary species. Below we briefly list the reactions considered for each species. We also provide
approximate numbers for the relative isotopic abundances of each species, which result from a typical run of \texttt{Galprop}
using the default network of cross sections.
Lithium has two stable isotopes $^{6}_{3}\mathrm{Li} $ and $^{7}_{3}\mathrm{Li}$, roughly equally abundant in CRs.
We thus consider the four reactions producing these two isotopes from the fragmentation of $^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O }$ and $^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$.
There is one subtlety, in fact one should consider eight fragmentation reactions: four on H and four on He.
The uncertainty on the fragmentation cross sections on He are even larger than the ones involving H. On the other hand, the abundance of He in the ISM is a
factor of 10 smaller than the one of H. We follow the typical assumption, as implemented in \texttt{Galprop}, that the two reactions on H and He are related by a
rescaling factor.\footnote{The rescaling factor is typically chosen between $A^{2/3}$ and $A$}
Thus, we only introduce one common nuisance parameter for the spallation on H and He.
Beryllium has 3 isotopes $^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$, $^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$ and $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$.
We notice that $^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$ decays by electron capture and is very short lived in atomic form.
However, the nuclear form as in CRs is stable, apart from a possible capture of electrons in the ISM.
The electron capture process is implemented in \texttt{Galprop} and we tested that it has a negligible impact on the Be spectrum.
$^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$ and $^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$ are the most abundant CR isotope making between 30\% and 50\% of total beryllium each.
The less abundant is $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$ composes only about 10\% at low energies and 20\% above 100\;GV.
Thus, we consider nuisance parameters for the production cross sections only for the two most abundant species, $^{7}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$ and $^{9}_{4}\mathrm{Be}$.
Boron has two stable isotopes $^{10}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B}$ and $^{11}_{\phantom{1}5}\mathrm{B}$ contributing about 1/3 and 2/3, respectively.
We consider the four related production channels.
CR C is mainly made of the isotope $^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$ with a subdominant part of up to 10\% of $^{13}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$, and it is mainly primary.
Nonetheless, it has a small secondary component, at the level of $\sim 20$ \%, coming from fragmentation of oxygen.
The primary part is almost entirely made of $^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$ since $^{13}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$ is
produced in star synthesis or primordial nucleosynthesis only at the percent level. The secondary part, though, has roughly equal abundances of the two isotopes.
We thus consider the two reactions producing the two carbon isotopes from oxygen.
Nitrogen also has two stable isotopes, $^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N}$ and $^{15}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N}$ and
has both a primary and secondary component roughly equal in abundance below 50\;GV. At higher energies $^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N}$ is dominant.
Similarly to what happens for C, the primary component is almost entirely made of $^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N}$ since $^{15}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N}$
is only found in nature at the sub-percent level. The secondary component coming from the O fragmentation though has contributions to both isotopes.
We thus consider the two fragmentation reactions.
Finally, O is almost purely the isotope $^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O}$ and can be considered almost entirely as primary,
with very small traces coming from the fragmentation of heavier nuclei (at the level of less than percent).
Thus, we do not consider any freedom in the reactions producing oxygen, although in the network we include all the reactions producing it which involve nuclei up to silicon.
In this respect we stress that all the reactions listed above are the ones in which we allow freedom in the cross sections, and which give the main contribution to the secondaries,
typically at the level of 70-80\%. The remaining reactions in the network (which are up to several hundreds, but give overall a subdominant contribution)
are all included, although the related cross sections are fixed to the original model.
Table \ref{tab::nuisance_param} lists the nuclear reactions which we will vary in the fit and the related normalization and slope parameters.
We note that even though we have reduced the number of reactions to a few crucial ones, the number of related parameters is still too large for the analysis to be feasible.
We thus employ a further simplification and we force the parameters relative to the same element to be all equal.
In this way we have in total five normalizations and five slopes, i.e. one for each element which is secondary or has a significant secondary component.
This simplification is justified by the fact that, at the moment, we only have measurements of the global abundance of each element,
but not yet separate spectra for each isotope. Varying independently the parameters for each isotope would thus give rise to strong
degeneracies in the parameter space with no added physical value.
These parameters will be sampled in the fit simultaneously with the CR propagation parameters.
Just for three of them, listed in the last column of Tab. \ref{tab::nuisance_param} a simplified treatment is possible.
In fact, the cross-section normalizations of Li, Be and B are basically equivalent to the overall normalization of the spectra itself.
Thus, they can be marginalized on-the-fly during the fit. This procedure is explained in more detail in the next section.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{Summary of free CR parameters in the five different frameworks adopted to describe CR propagation.
}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{c @{\hspace{10px}} c @{\hspace{10px}} c @{\hspace{10px}} c @{\hspace{10px}}c @{\hspace{10px}} c @{\hspace{10px}} c}
\hline \hline
& BASE & BASE+$v_A$ & BASE+inj & BASE+inj+$v_A$ & BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk. & prior \\ \hline
$\gamma_1 $ & $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$& $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ & free & free & free & [0.0, 2.0] \\
$\gamma_2 $ & free & free & free & free & free & [2.1, 2.5] \\
$R_{\mathrm{inj},0} $ & - & - & free & free & free & [1, 10] GV \\
$s $ & - & - & free & free & free & [0.1, 0.7] \\
$D_0 $ & free & free & free & free & free & [1e28, 1e29] cm$^2$s$^{-1}$ \\
$\delta_l $ & free & free & free & free & $\delta_l=\delta$ & [-1, 0] \\
$\delta $ & free & free & free & free & free & [0.2, 0.7] \\
$\delta_h $ & free & free & free & free & free & [0.2, 0.7] \\
$R_{D,0} $ & free & free & free & free & - & [1, 10] GV \\
$R_{D,1} $ & free & free & free & free & free & [1e5, 5e5] GV \\
$s_{D,0} $ & free & free & free & free & - & [0.1, 0.7] \\
$v_{0,c} $ & free & free & free & free & free & [0, 50] km/s \\
$v_{A} $ & - & free & - & free & free & [0, 50] km/s \\
Iso. Ab. $^{12}_{\phantom{1}6}\mathrm{C }$ & free & free & free & free & free & [3300, 4000] \\
Iso. Ab. $^{14}_{\phantom{1}7}\mathrm{N }$ & free & free & free & free & free & [200, 500] \\
Iso. Ab. $^{16}_{\phantom{1}8}\mathrm{O }$ & free & free & free & free & free & [4200, 5000] \\
$\varphi_{\text{AMS-02}}$ & free & free & free & free & free & 600$\pm$30 MV \\
\#par & 13 & 14 & 16 & 17 & 14 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\label{tab::frameworks}
\end{table*}
\section{Methods}\label{sec::methods}
The methods used to perform CR fits in this work are very similar to those introduced
in \cite{Korsmeier:2016kha} and \cite{Cuoco:2019kuu}. While \cite{Korsmeier:2016kha} and several followup
applications \cite{Cuoco:2016eej, Cuoco:2017rxb, Cuoco:2017iax, Cuoco:2019kuu, Heisig:2020nse} have focused
on fitting the light CR nuclei, \emph{i.e.}\ protons, helium and antiprotons, here we apply this methodology
for the first time to heavier nuclei. In particular, we will focus on the nuclei from lithium to oxygen which
have been measured precisely by the AMS-02 experiment. We will briefly remind the main ingredients of our method as detailed in \cite{Cuoco:2019kuu}
and then describe the necessary extensions required for this analysis.
As log-likelihood we use a simple $\chi^2$ summed over the various CR species:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::likelihood_CR}
-2\,\log({{\cal L}_{{\rm CR}} }) = \chi^2_{\rm CR} = \sum\limits_{s} \sum\limits_{i,j}
\left(\phi^{}_{{ s},i}- \phi^{(\text{m})}_{ s} (R_i)\right)
\left(\left(\mathcal{V}^{\left(s\right)}\right)^{\!-1} \right)_{ij}
\left(\phi^{}_{s,j}- \phi^{(\text{m})}_{s} (R_j)\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi^{}_{{ s}, i}$ is the experimentally measured flux of the CR species $s$
at the rigidity $R_i$ and $\phi^{(\text{m})}_{s}$ is the corresponding model prediction.
The covariance matrix $\mathcal{V}^{\left(s\right)}$ contains the uncertainty of the flux measurement. In the
our fiducial setup we assume uncorrelated uncertainties, i.e.,
$\mathcal{V}_{ij}^{\left( s\right)} = \delta_{ij} \left[\sigma^{}_{{s},i}\right]^2$,
where $\sigma^{}_{{s},i}$ is the error measurement reported by AMS-02 for species $s$ in the rigidity bin $i$.
More precisely, we sum in quadrature the statistical and the systematic error.
However, we will also explore, in a few selected cases, the impact of correlated systematics in the experimental uncertainties.
To derive the full correlation matrix for these cases we will follow the approach of
Refs.~\cite{Heisig:2020nse}.\footnote{
In more detail, we take the correlations for the B/C ratio from Ref.~\cite{Heisig:2020nse} and derive the covariance matrices for Li/C and Be/B following the same recipe.
The covariance matrices for C, N, and O are derived in analogy to cases of $p$ and He in Ref.~\cite{Heisig:2020nse}.
}
A similar approach was also used in \cite{Derome:2019jfs}.
We will not summarize the procedure here and refer the reader to Refs.~\cite{Derome:2019jfs,Heisig:2020nse} for further details.
The $\chi^2$ and $\phi^\text{(m)}$ have a dependence on the model parameters that for simplicity we have
suppressed in the above formula. There are two types of parameters.
The first set pertains to CR propagation and is given by a total of 17 parameters.
They are partly described in Sec.~\ref{sec::CR_prop}, but, for convenience, we list them again below.
Four parameters are used to describe the injection spectrum of primaries,
i.e., the slopes below and above the rigidity break, $\gamma_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}$,
the rigidity break $R_0$ and a smoothing parameter $s$.
Nine more parameters describe propagation, i.e., the normalization $D_0$ and the slopes
$\delta_l$, $\delta$, and $\delta_h$ of the diffusion coefficient, the break positions and their smoothing
$R_{D,0}$, $R_{D,1}$, and $s_{D,0}$,\footnote{The smoothing at the second break $s_{D,1}$ is assumed equal to zero and not varied in the fit.}
the velocity of Alfv\`en magnetic waves, $v_A$, and the convection velocity, $v_{0c}$.
Furthermore, there are 3 parameters to determine the isotopic
abundance of primary C, N, and O, measured relative to the hydrogen abundance, whose value is arbitrarily fixed to $1.06\times10^6$.
The last parameter is the solar modulation potential $\varphi_{\text{AMS-02}}$.
During several preliminary fits we left these parameters completely free to vary and we found that the preferred value is about 600 MV.
For better stability of the subsequent fits, we then decided to
apply a Gaussian prior on $\varphi_{\text{AMS-02}}$, \emph{i.e.}, we add to the main likelihood the term
$-2\,\log({{\cal L}_{{\rm SM}} }) = (\varphi_{\text{AMS-02}}- 600\,\mathrm{MV} )^2 / \sigma_\varphi^2$
where $\sigma_\varphi = 30$ MV.
Not all of these parameters are present in each fit. Depending on the propagation scenario under consideration (see below) only a subset might be present.
These parameters, together with the prior ranges explored in the fit are reported in Tab.~\ref{tab::frameworks}.
The second set of parameters is related to the nuclear fragmentation cross sections.
As described in Sec.~\ref{sec::xsc} we consider a total of 10 cross-section parameters.
Also in this case, not all of the parameters are necessarily present in each fit.
A fit with BCNO for example only will use 6 parameters, while the fit with all of the species will include all 10 parameters.
As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec::xsc} the 3 normalization parameters of Li, Be and B
are treated as on-the-fly marginalization parameters, as explained further below.
To scan this large combined propagation-cross-section parameter space (up to 27-dimensional in the largest case)
we use \texttt{MultiNest}~\cite{Feroz:2008xx}.
For the \texttt{MultiNest} setup we use 400 live points, an enlargement factor \textsc{efr=0.7},
and a stopping criterion of \textsc{tol=0.1}.
As mentioned above some parameters are treated in a simplified way, namely the modulation potential and three cross-section normalizations.
We profile over these four parameters together on-the-fly at each \texttt{MultiNest} likelihood evaluation following~\cite{Rolke:2004mj}.
More precisely, for each evaluation in the fit within the parameter space scanned by \texttt{MultiNest}
the likelihood is maximized over the four remaining simplified parameters. This maximization is performed
with \texttt{Minuit}~\cite{James:1975dr}.
We remark that the parameter scans performed in this analysis require a large computational effort. A typical \texttt{MultiNest} scan requires 0.5 to 1\;M likelihood evaluations.
However, depending on the complexity of the fit this number can increase significantly. For example, when the half-height of the diffusion halo is further included as free parameter (\emph{cf.}\ Sec.~\ref{sec::zh}),
the fit has to explore the additional $D_0-z_\text{h}$ degeneracy. Thus, in some cases the number of required likelihood evaluations can exceed 3\;M.
A single likelihood evaluation takes between 150 and 200 sec on a single core.
\texttt{MultiNest} formally explores the Bayesian posterior and thus naturally provides sample from it. Nonetheless, these samples can also be used
to perform a frequentist statistical analysis of the results.
As default choice to interpret the scan result we use a frequentist framework, and we build one and two-dimensional
profile likelihoods in the different parameters, from which we derive contours which are shown in the
various figures in the following. Nonetheless, we also check the analysis results given by a Bayesian approach.
We find that two interpretations give almost indistinguishable constraints indicating that the data are constraining enough
to make the results basically prior-independent, and statical interpretation independent.
An explicit example comparison is given in the Appendix.
\section{Five frameworks to describe CR propagation}\label{sec::frameworks}
In Sec.~\ref{sec::CR_prop} we have described a very general approach to model CR propagation in this work.
However, one of the key motivations of this analysis is to check whether the new precise AMS-02 measurements of several CR secondary spectra
can point to a more specific framework of CR propagation.
Therefore, we define, select and study five propagation scenarios, four of which are sub-cases of the most general one. The parameters of the various scenarios
together with the range of variation explored in the fits are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab::frameworks}.
The most simple framework used in this analysis, \emph{i.e.}, the one with the smaller number of parameters, is called BASE.
In this framework there is no break in the injection spectrum of primary CRs which thus follows a simple power law in rigidity with spectral index $\gamma_2$.
On the other hand, the diffusion coefficient is modeled by a double-broken power law. The first break is at a few GVs.
A break in this range is motivated by various theoretical studies \cite{Ptuskin:2005ax,Blasi:2012yr}.
While a second break around few hundreds of GVs is favoured by the recent measurements of AMS-02 of Li, Be and B \cite{Aguilar:2018njt}.
Finally, in this scenario we also allow for convection, while reacceleration is forced to be zero.
In total this model has 9 free propagation parameters. To them we then need to add C, N, and O abundances,
the solar modulation potential and the cross-section uncertainty parameters.
The BASE scenario is gradually complicated by adding further ingredients. We consider the BASE+$v_A$ scenario
which is identical to the BASE one but further includes reacceleration. It thus have one additional parameter.
The BASE+inj scenario, instead, it goes beyond the BASE scenario including a break in the injection spectrum of primaries.
It thus has three parameters more, namely $\gamma_1$, $R_{\mathrm{inj},0}$ and $s$.
The most general model is given by an extension of the BASE framework by both reacceleration and
a break in the injection spectrum which we dub BASE+inj+$v_A$.It has four more parameters with respect to BASE.
Finally, the last scenario we consider includes reacceleration and a break in the injection spectrum
but we remove the break in the diffusion coefficient at rigidities of a few GV.
We refer to this framework as BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk. This last scenario corresponds to the one explored
in our previous analyses~\cite{Korsmeier:2016kha, Cuoco:2016eej, Cuoco:2017rxb, Cuoco:2017iax, Cuoco:2019kuu, Heisig:2020nse}
as well as in other works~\cite{Trotta:2010mx,Johannesson:2016rlh,Boschini:2018baj}.
Regarding the dataset employed, every fit includes AMS-02 data on C, N and O. Fits can then be grouped into two categories:
In the first one we include the B/C ratio dubbing this configuration BCNO,
while in the second group we include also the Li/C ratio and the Be/B ratio, \emph{i.e.}, all the nuclei considered in this work, dubbing this
configuration as LiBeBCNO.
All in all, this gives 10 CR fits corresponding to 5 different frameworks of CR propagation and 2 CR data set configurations.
Finally, only for the BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk frameworks with BCNO and LiBeBCNO data configurations we consider four more fits,
to study the effect of correlated systematic uncertainties. In total we will thus perform 14 fits.
\begin{sidewaystable}
\caption{
Fit results. For all 14 fits we report the total $\chi^2$, the contribution to the $\chi^2$ form each single species,
the number of degrees of freedom, and the best-fit value and 1 $\sigma$ error for each parameter\@.
}
\centering
\scalebox{0.77}{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccccc}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE (corr)}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}+v_A$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}+\mathrm{inj}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}+\mathrm{inj}+v_A$ } &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}+\mathrm{inj}+v_A-\mathrm{diff.brk.}$ } &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ $\mathrm{BASE}+\mathrm{inj}+v_A-\mathrm{diff.brk.}$ (corr) } \\ \hline
data set & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO & BCNO & LiBeBCNO \\
$\#\mathrm{dof} $& $ 252$ & $ 383$ & $ 252$ & $ 383$ & $ 251$ & $ 382$ & $ 249$ & $ 380$ & $ 248$ & $ 379$ & $ 251$ & $ 382$ & $ 251$ & $ 382$ \\
$\chi^2 $& $ 72.4$ & $ 170.0$ & $ 423.2$ & $ 593.6$ & $ 72.8$ & $ 169.0$ & $ 67.9$ & $ 160.7$ & $ 67.3$ & $ 158.9$ & $ 74.2$ & $ 168.9$ & $ 415.4$ & $ 590.2$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{N} $& $ 15.9$ & $ 18.7$ & $ 148.1$ & $ 146.9$ & $ 19.3$ & $ 17.2$ & $ 14.8$ & $ 15.2$ & $ 19.3$ & $ 16.5$ & $ 17.2$ & $ 20.0$ & $ 151.5$ & $ 149.1$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{O} $& $ 14.0$ & $ 13.7$ & $ 61.8$ & $ 63.0$ & $ 11.3$ & $ 14.8$ & $ 12.8$ & $ 13.8$ & $ 11.2$ & $ 12.4$ & $ 14.8$ & $ 12.1$ & $ 62.1$ & $ 62.2$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{C} $& $ 13.1$ & $ 15.2$ & $ 127.8$ & $ 124.9$ & $ 12.7$ & $ 12.7$ & $ 16.0$ & $ 16.9$ & $ 11.7$ & $ 15.6$ & $ 13.7$ & $ 15.4$ & $ 122.4$ & $ 122.5$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{Be/B} $& - & $ 42.2$ & - & $ 82.9$ & - & $ 42.0$ & - & $ 43.3$ & - & $ 42.4$ & - & $ 40.6$ & - & $ 83.3$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{Li/C} $& - & $ 46.5$ & - & $ 82.5$ & - & $ 47.5$ & - & $ 39.1$ & - & $ 39.2$ & - & $ 41.2$ & - & $ 85.3$ \\
$\chi^2_\mathrm{B/C} $& $ 27.8$ & $ 30.2$ & $ 78.4$ & $ 80.5$ & $ 28.7$ & $ 29.5$ & $ 24.1$ & $ 26.9$ & $ 24.0$ & $ 28.1$ & $ 25.8$ & $ 33.4$ & $ 75.8$ & $ 82.7$ \\
$\gamma_1 $& - & - & - & - & - & - & $ {2.18}^{+0.04}_{-0.51}$ & $ {2.21}^{+0.04}_{-0.07}$ & $ {2.08}^{+0.10}_{-0.30}$ & $ {2.10}^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ & $ {1.20}^{+0.42}_{-0.16}$ & $ {1.64}^{+0.04}_{-0.07}$ & $ {1.15}^{+0.08}_{-0.12}$ & $ {1.14}^{+0.24}_{-0.11}$ \\
$\gamma_2 $& $ {2.357}^{+0.003}_{-0.005}$ & $ {2.365}^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$ & $ {2.34}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $ {2.360}^{+0.014}_{-0.009}$ & $ {2.353}^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$ & $ {2.361}^{+0.009}_{-0.002}$ & $ {2.368}^{+0.002}_{-0.017}$ & $ {2.371}^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$ & $ {2.360}^{+0.008}_{-0.004}$ & $ {2.378}^{+0.003}_{-0.005}$ & $ {2.362}^{+0.016}_{-0.004}$ & $ {2.389}^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ & $ {2.365}^{+0.008}_{-0.020}$ & $ {2.373}^{+0.013}_{-0.005}$ \\
$R_{inj,0} \;\mathrm{[10^{3}\; MV]} $& - & - & - & - & - & - & $ {8.85}^{+1.15}_{-4.33} $ & $ {8.31}^{+0.91}_{-1.05} $ & $ {6.20}^{+1.87}_{-1.84} $ & $ {6.98}^{+2.10}_{-0.33} $ & $ {3.28}^{+1.82}_{-0.59} $ & $ {5.18}^{+0.65}_{-0.30} $ & $ {2.93}^{+0.20}_{-0.37} $ & $ {2.61}^{+1.01}_{-0.10} $ \\
$s $& - & - & - & - & - & - & $ {0.48}^{+0.02}_{-0.27}$ & $ {0.45}^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.45}^{+0.03}_{-0.20}$ & $ {0.487}^{+0.006}_{-0.043}$ & $ {0.490}^{+0.009}_{-0.052}$ & $ {0.493}^{+0.007}_{-0.044}$ & $ {0.39}^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.494}^{+0.005}_{-0.038}$ \\
$D_0\;\mathrm{[10^{28}\; cm^2/s]} $& $ {5.05}^{+0.99}_{-1.34} $ & $ {4.24}^{+0.96}_{-0.44} $ & $ {4.08}^{+0.33}_{-0.55} $ & $ {4.01}^{+0.32}_{-0.45} $ & $ {4.62}^{+1.28}_{-0.46} $ & $ {4.52}^{+1.94}_{-0.39} $ & $ {3.82}^{+1.03}_{-0.30} $ & $ {3.73}^{+0.69}_{-0.20} $ & $ {3.65}^{+0.87}_{-0.18} $ & $ {3.53}^{+0.25}_{-0.10} $ & $ {4.16}^{+0.33}_{-0.88} $ & $ {4.34}^{+0.14}_{-0.66} $ & $ {3.24}^{+0.94}_{-0.36} $ & $ {3.60}^{+0.19}_{-0.33} $ \\
$\delta_l $& $ {-0.98}^{+0.22}_{-0.01}$ & $ {-0.997}^{+0.111}_{-0.001}$ & $ {-0.98}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {-0.97}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {-0.91}^{+0.11}_{-0.07}$ & $ {-0.91}^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & $ {-0.57}^{+0.22}_{-0.37}$ & $ {-0.70}^{+0.09}_{-0.28}$ & $ {-0.88}^{+0.36}_{-0.06}$ & $ {-0.91}^{+0.13}_{-0.04}$ & - & - & - & - \\
$\delta $& $ {0.49}^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.499}^{+0.002}_{-0.033}$ & $ {0.48}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.47}^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.498}^{+0.007}_{-0.045}$ & $ {0.496}^{+0.004}_{-0.056}$ & $ {0.47}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.48}^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.47}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.471}^{+0.009}_{-0.014}$ & $ {0.45}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.414}^{+0.013}_{-0.005}$ & $ {0.47}^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.43}^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ \\
$\delta_h $& $ {0.315}^{+0.045}_{-0.008}$ & $ {0.340}^{+0.007}_{-0.033}$ & $ {0.32}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.293}^{+0.032}_{-0.009}$ & $ {0.33}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.331}^{+0.008}_{-0.027}$ & $ {0.31}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.33}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.31}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.31}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.30}^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.271}^{+0.026}_{-0.007}$ & $ {0.31}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.311}^{+0.007}_{-0.044}$ \\
$R_{D,0} \;\mathrm{[10^{3}\; MV]} $& $ {3.94}^{+0.52}_{-0.35} $ & $ {4.05}^{+0.43}_{-0.14} $ & $ {3.87}^{+0.14}_{-0.12} $ & $ {3.85}^{+0.16}_{-0.05} $ & $ {3.97}^{+0.21}_{-0.36} $ & $ {4.25}^{+0.10}_{-0.35} $ & $ {4.07}^{+0.20}_{-0.53} $ & $ {4.01}^{+0.14}_{-0.37} $ & $ {3.02}^{+0.81}_{-0.23} $ & $ {3.37}^{+0.43}_{-0.41} $ & - & - & - & - \\
$R_{D,1} \;\mathrm{[10^{5}\; MV]} $& $ {1.80}^{+0.13}_{-0.30} $ & $ {1.52}^{+0.48}_{-0.08} $ & $ {2.00}^{+0.25}_{-0.22} $ & $ {2.09}^{+0.14}_{-0.42} $ & $ {1.88}^{+0.12}_{-0.35} $ & $ {1.63}^{+0.19}_{-0.07} $ & $ {1.65}^{+0.35}_{-0.13} $ & $ {1.49}^{+0.36}_{-0.06} $ & $ {2.02}^{+0.09}_{-0.46} $ & $ {1.68}^{+0.12}_{-0.08} $ & $ {2.14}^{+0.16}_{-0.40} $ & $ {2.33}^{+0.16}_{-0.46} $ & $ {1.96}^{+0.62}_{-0.11} $ & $ {2.12}^{+0.25}_{-0.29} $ \\
$s_{D,0} $& $ {0.38}^{+0.06}_{-0.11}$ & $ {0.32}^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.15}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.16}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.36}^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.31}^{+0.13}_{-0.05}$ & $ {0.12}^{+0.19}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.13}^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.13}^{+0.20}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.109}^{+0.033}_{-0.004}$ & - & - & - & - \\
$v_{0,c}\;\mathrm{[km/s]} $& $ {3.34}^{+21.76}_{-2.49}$ & $ {1.81}^{+17.74}_{-0.70}$ & $ {9.09}^{+7.89}_{-8.68}$ & $ {12.11}^{+5.83}_{-6.91}$ & $ {0.27}^{+23.83}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.84}^{+27.41}_{-0.22}$ & $ {13.18}^{+14.33}_{-12.26}$ & $ {4.92}^{+10.66}_{-4.85}$ & $ {5.02}^{+18.32}_{-2.27}$ & $ {2.30}^{+6.45}_{-1.31}$ & $ {0.34}^{+3.88}_{-0.23}$ & $ {0.004}^{+1.515}_{-0.000}$ & $ {0.89}^{+5.05}_{-0.75}$ & $ {1.81}^{+2.30}_{-1.63}$ \\
$v_{A}\;\mathrm{[km/s]} $& - & - & - & - & $ {8.65}^{+3.51}_{-7.81}$ & $ {0.54}^{+6.04}_{-0.24}$ & - & - & $ {10.68}^{+2.94}_{-9.29}$ & $ {10.85}^{+3.55}_{-4.79}$ & $ {19.23}^{+3.65}_{-3.77}$ & $ {24.04}^{+0.91}_{-2.90}$ & $ {16.24}^{+5.30}_{-1.35}$ & $ {20.14}^{+1.44}_{-1.49}$ \\
$\mathrm{Iso. Ab.\,C \;[10^{3}]} $& $ {3.59}^{+0.08}_{-0.02} $ & $ {3.59}^{+0.04}_{-0.02} $ & $ {3.48}^{+0.03}_{-0.14} $ & $ {3.37}^{+0.11}_{-0.06} $ & $ {3.63}^{+0.02}_{-0.04} $ & $ {3.60}^{+0.03}_{-0.02} $ & $ {3.58}^{+0.05}_{-0.03} $ & $ {3.59}^{+0.03}_{-0.04} $ & $ {3.640}^{+0.009}_{-0.068} $ & $ {3.57}^{+0.03}_{-0.02} $ & $ {3.58}^{+0.06}_{-0.04} $ & $ {3.54}^{+0.05}_{-0.01} $ & $ {3.47}^{+0.08}_{-0.12} $ & $ {3.36}^{+0.16}_{-0.02} $ \\
$\mathrm{Iso. Ab.\,N} $& $ {325.38}^{+17.75}_{-6.27}$ & $ {306.87}^{+17.12}_{-7.38}$ & $ {276.35}^{+44.56}_{-20.91}$ & $ {280.12}^{+23.61}_{-35.03}$ & $ {348.86}^{+7.40}_{-25.27}$ & $ {323.27}^{+9.25}_{-17.15}$ & $ {333.27}^{+23.85}_{-21.66}$ & $ {307.74}^{+18.80}_{-8.56}$ & $ {327.91}^{+14.14}_{-8.92}$ & $ {313.82}^{+8.68}_{-16.42}$ & $ {337.18}^{+26.21}_{-38.86}$ & $ {300.77}^{+14.11}_{-14.55}$ & $ {308.24}^{+16.04}_{-49.55}$ & $ {228.85}^{+61.43}_{-7.77}$ \\
$\mathrm{Iso. Ab.\,O \;[10^{3}]} $& $ {4.35}^{+0.18}_{-0.02} $ & $ {4.41}^{+0.05}_{-0.04} $ & $ {4.40}^{+0.05}_{-0.10} $ & $ {4.40}^{+0.05}_{-0.08} $ & $ {4.41}^{+0.05}_{-0.05} $ & $ {4.41}^{+0.03}_{-0.09} $ & $ {4.38}^{+0.05}_{-0.04} $ & $ {4.37}^{+0.04}_{-0.07} $ & $ {4.42}^{+0.03}_{-0.09} $ & $ {4.34}^{+0.07}_{-0.01} $ & $ {4.313}^{+0.181}_{-0.004} $ & $ {4.34}^{+0.11}_{-0.02} $ & $ {4.32}^{+0.23}_{-0.01} $ & $ {4.41}^{+0.12}_{-0.05} $ \\
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{C} $& $ {-0.08}^{+0.23}_{-0.08}$ & $ {0.03}^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & $ {0.17}^{+0.09}_{-0.13}$ & $ {0.13}^{+0.14}_{-0.07}$ & $ {-0.05}^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$ & $ {-0.12}^{+0.18}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.17}^{+0.06}_{-0.21}$ & $ {0.11}^{+0.12}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.23}^{+0.03}_{-0.24}$ & $ {0.15}^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.28}^{+0.02}_{-0.09}$ & $ {0.25}^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.26}^{+0.03}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.22}^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ \\
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{N} $& $ {-0.08}^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ & $ {-0.06}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.15}^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.12}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {-0.10}^{+0.06}_{-0.01}$ & $ {-0.06}^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$ & $ {0.02}^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.01}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.05}^{+0.02}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.050}^{+0.009}_{-0.032}$ & $ {0.10}^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.110}^{+0.005}_{-0.034}$ & $ {0.189}^{+0.008}_{-0.037}$ & $ {0.189}^{+0.004}_{-0.045}$ \\
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Li} $& - & $ {0.00}^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & - & $ {0.16}^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & - & $ {-0.02}^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & - & $ {0.14}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & - & $ {0.16}^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & - & $ {0.193}^{+0.007}_{-0.005}$ & - & $ {0.190}^{+0.005}_{-0.014}$ \\
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Be} $& - & $ {0.07}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & - & $ {0.186}^{+0.010}_{-0.044}$ & - & $ {0.07}^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ & - & $ {0.22}^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & - & $ {0.23}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & - & $ {0.280}^{+0.008}_{-0.012}$ & - & $ {0.27}^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ \\
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{B} $& $ {-0.065}^{+0.084}_{-0.008}$ & $ {-0.06}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.07}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.066}^{+0.009}_{-0.025}$ & $ {-0.05}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {-0.07}^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.05}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $ {0.04}^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.09}^{+0.01}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.05}^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.16}^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.117}^{+0.005}_{-0.014}$ & $ {0.12}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.12}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ \\
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{C} $& $ {0.55}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.57}^{+0.03}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.63}^{+0.37}_{-0.07}$ & $ {0.81}^{+0.11}_{-0.27}$ & $ {0.54}^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $ {0.54}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.51}^{+0.15}_{-0.01}$ & $ {0.53}^{+0.05}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.511}^{+0.074}_{-0.006}$ & $ {0.514}^{+0.031}_{-0.006}$ & $ {0.54}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $ {0.52}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $ {0.500}^{+0.334}_{-0.000}$ & $ {0.83}^{+0.06}_{-0.28}$ \\
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{N} $& $ {1.18}^{+0.04}_{-0.16}$ & $ {1.11}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $ {1.18}^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ & $ {1.15}^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & $ {1.09}^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.13}^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & $ {1.07}^{+0.13}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.15}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $ {1.14}^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & $ {1.13}^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.19}^{+0.03}_{-0.17}$ & $ {1.20}^{+0.01}_{-0.13}$ & $ {1.02}^{+0.17}_{-0.05}$ & $ {1.15}^{+0.04}_{-0.15}$ \\
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Li} $& - & $ {1.27}^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$ & - & $ {1.22}^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & - & $ {1.32}^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ & - & $ {1.33}^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & - & $ {1.31}^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ & - & $ {1.36}^{+0.02}_{-0.15}$ & - & $ {1.14}^{+0.04}_{-0.07}$ \\
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Be} $& - & $ {0.990}^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$ & - & $ {0.946}^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$ & - & $ {0.992}^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$ & - & $ {0.990}^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$ & - & $ {0.991}^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$ & - & $ {0.992}^{+0.001}_{-0.005}$ & - & $ {0.941}^{+0.007}_{-0.009}$ \\
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{B} $& $ {1.11}^{+0.04}_{-0.13}$ & $ {1.03}^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.05}^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $ {1.01}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $ {1.08}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $ {1.06}^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.04}^{+0.11}_{-0.02}$ & $ {1.06}^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.08}^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.05}^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $ {1.16}^{+0.01}_{-0.17}$ & $ {1.08}^{+0.01}_{-0.10}$ & $ {0.95}^{+0.11}_{-0.06}$ & $ {0.95}^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$ \\ \vspace{0.3em}
$\varphi_\mathrm{AMS-02} $& $ {613.67}^{+44.11}_{-13.66}$ & $ {615.56}^{+34.46}_{-16.99}$ & $ {678.15}^{+16.99}_{-21.33}$ & $ {697.68}^{+2.03}_{-21.99}$ & $ {608.98}^{+34.11}_{-7.58}$ & $ {614.39}^{+24.90}_{-17.40}$ & $ {594.81}^{+31.64}_{-11.66}$ & $ {614.82}^{+12.74}_{-40.06}$ & $ {618.80}^{+15.41}_{-25.78}$ & $ {593.84}^{+13.47}_{-8.50}$ & $ {590.95}^{+56.33}_{-13.03}$ & $ {600.02}^{+12.65}_{-23.88}$ & $ {655.17}^{+17.48}_{-45.23}$ & $ {658.61}^{+27.11}_{-36.18}$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\label{tab::fit_results}
\end{sidewaystable}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,0.75)
\put(-0.025, -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth ]{comparison_col1.pdf}}
\put( 0.24 , -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth ]{comparison_col2.pdf}}
\put( 0.505, -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth ]{comparison_col3.pdf}}
\put( 0.77 , -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth ]{comparison_col4.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\caption{
For each CR propagation, cross-section nuisance, and solar modulation parameter we compare the best-fit value for the different CR propagation frameworks and
data sets. Circles refer to the BCNO data set, while squares mark the LiBeBCNO data set. Filled data points refer to our fiducial case with uncorrelated AMS-02 systematic
uncertainties. Open symbols in the cases $\mathrm{BASE}$ (corr.) and $\mathrm{BASE}+\mathrm{inj}+v_A-\mathrm{diff.brk}$ (corr.) refer to the cases where the
impact of correlated systematic uncertainties is considered. The error-bars display 2$\sigma$ uncertainties.
\label{fig:Summary_param}
}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results} \label{sec::results}
The results of the fits are summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab::fit_results}, which,
for each fit, reports the total $\chi^2$ and the contribution to the $\chi^2$ for each single species,
the number of degrees of freedom, the best-fit value for each parameter and the 1 $\sigma$ error.
We can draw several conclusions:
\begin{itemize}
\item
We can see that the fits are all very good with typical $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ of about 0.3 for the BCNO
fits and 0.45 for LiBeBCNO fits.
For better readability the same results are reported in graphical form in Fig.~\ref{fig:Summary_param},
while Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_spectra} and Fig.~\ref{fig:LiBeBCNO_spectra}, instead, show the data for
the spectra of each species together with the best-fit model predictions for each framework,
with the bottom panels of each figure showing the residuals.
The quality of the fits can also be seen from the residuals which are all compatible
with the size of the error bars themselves and thus at the level of 3-4\%.
Actually, the $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ is a bit small, a result also seen in previous analyses~\cite{Korsmeier:2016kha,Cuoco:2019kuu}
and related to the fact that the systematic uncertainty reported by AMS-02 is probably slightly overestimated or correlated.
While this typically indicates that the derived constraints should be conservative,
one can also try to be more aggressive and model more explicitly the systematic uncertainty and its energy correlation,
as we did for the four fits also reported in Tab.~\ref{tab::fit_results} and labeled ``(corr)''.
One can see that indeed in these cases the $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ increases to values a bit above one while the constraints on the parameters are slightly stronger.
A similar behavior is indeed also observed in Refs.~\cite{Cuoco:2019kuu,Heisig:2020nse}.
For better clarity we do not display the residuals for the fits of correlated systematic uncertainties in Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_spectra} and~\ref{fig:LiBeBCNO_spectra}.
As can be seen in the main panels, the best-fit lines of the fits with correlated uncertainties are often offset with respect to the data points. However, this is expected and due to the fact
that correlations in the data allow for an offset in normalization and/or small tilts. Therefore, in these cases is more difficult or even misleading
to judge the fit from the residuals and one should rather rely on the $\chi^2$ values themselves reported in the tables and Fig.~\ref{fig:Summary_param}.
\item
We are able to obtain good fits with very similar best-fit $\chi^2$ for all the five framework explored.
This means that the frameworks with fewer parameters should be preferred. For example, we see that the BASE framework in the BCNO case has a best-fit $\chi^2$ of 72.4.
Adding one parameter more in the BASE+$v_A$ case leaves the $\chi^2$ basically unchanged. Adding three parameters more in the BASE+inj case improves the $\chi^2$ only by $\sim$ 4.5, while with four parameters more
in the BASE+inj+$v_A$ case the $\chi^2$ improves only by $\sim$ 5.0. Using a likelihood ratio test, which in this case is equivalent to calculating the $\Delta \chi^2$,
shows that all the improvements are at the level of about only 1 $\sigma$, and thus not significant.
The BASE framework and the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk cannot be compared directly since they are not nested models.
We can, however, compare the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk and BASE+inj+$v_A$ cases, which are nested. In this case,
BASE+inj+$v_A$ has three parameters more than BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk and the $\chi^2$ is better by $\Delta \chi^2=7$.
Based on the likelihood ratio and a $\chi^2$ distribution with 3 degrees of freedom, this is at the level of less than 2 $\sigma$, and thus again not significant.
All in all, the two simplest models compatible with the data which emerge from this discussion are the BASE one and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk.
Checking the $\chi^2$ values of the LiBeBCNO cases one can see that similar conclusions are reached. Also assuming correlated systematic uncertainties
does not change these conclusions.
Indeed, as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_propagation_triangle} which collects all the 2D contours related to the propagation parameters
as well as the 1D profile $\chi^2$, the parameters of the BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework are generally well-constrained,
while the more general framework BASE+inj+$v_A$, where all the parameters are considered, only appears to produce several degeneracies among the parameters and loose constraints,
indicating, indeed, that the model has too many parameters with respect to the constraining power of the data.
These two models, as we already mentioned, are quite complementary and physically very different, since in the BASE case a break in diffusion
is present at few GV which is not present in the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework. This break is the crucial feature which in the BASE case
allows us to fit the flattening and turning down observed at few GVs in the spectra of secondary-over-primary ratios as can be seen in
Figs.~\ref{fig:BCNO_spectra}-\ref{fig:LiBeBCNO_spectra}. At the same time, contrary to the BASE case, the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework includes reacceleration,
which is in this case the important feature allowing to fit the low-energy secondary-over-primary ratios.
It is quite remarkable that these two very different models can both provide good fits and are thus both valid models.
Still, there is actually an important catch to this result regarding cross-section uncertainties, as discussed further below.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,0.85)
\put(0.00, 0.35 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{BCNO_carbon_5y1.pdf}}
\put(0.50, 0.35 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{BCNO_oxygen_5y2.pdf}}
\put(0.00, -0.05){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{BCNO_nitrogen3.pdf}}
\put(0.50, -0.05){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{BCNO_boverc_5y4.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\caption{
Comparison of AMS-02 measurements with the best-fit spectra for the BCNO data set.
The solid lines correspond to best-fit model for each of the five CR propagation frameworks.
The dotted lines are the best-fit models for the BASE and the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk scenario
with correlated systematic uncertainties.
Dashed lines represent the interstellar CR spectra, \emph{i.e.},\ the spectra before solar modulation is applied.
Residuals are only shown for the cases with uncorrelated AMS-02 uncertainties.
For comparison we display Voyager data at low energies.
}
\label{fig:BCNO_spectra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,1.25)
\put(0.00, 0.75 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_carbon_5y1.pdf}}
\put(0.50, 0.75 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_nitrogen3.pdf}}
\put(0.00, 0.35 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_oxygen_5y2.pdf}}
\put(0.50, 0.35 ){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_lioverc_5y5.pdf}}
\put(0.00, -0.05){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_beoverb_5y6.pdf}}
\put(0.50, -0.05){\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_boverc_5y4.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\caption{
Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_spectra}, but for the fits with the LiBeBCNO data set.
}
\label{fig:LiBeBCNO_spectra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,0.51)
\put(0.00, -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth ]{BCNO_D_xx.pdf}}
\put(0.50 ,-0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth ]{LiBeBCNO_D_xx.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\caption{
Diffusion coefficient as function of rigidity for different fit configurations. The shaded band marks the $2 \sigma$ uncertainty.
In the fits the half-height of the propagation region is fixed to a value of $z_\mathrm{h}=4\:\mathrm{kpc}$.
Left: fits with BCNO data. Right: fits with LiBeBCNO data.
}
\label{fig:Dxx}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth, trim={3cm 3cm 3cm 3cm},clip ]{BCNO_triangle_propagation.pdf}
\caption{
Triangle plot with the fit results for the CR propagation frameworks
BASE (blue), BASE+inj+$v_A$ (green), and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk (red), and using the BCNO data set.
The triangle plot shows only the subset of fit parameters related to CR propagation.
The 2D plots show the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ contours for each combination of two parameters, which
are derived from the 2D $\chi^2$-profiles. The diagonal shows the 1D $\chi^2$-profiles (the $y$-axis is always the
$\Delta \chi^2$ and ranges from 0 to 10).
\label{fig:BCNO_propagation_triangle}
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth, trim={1.7cm 1.7cm 1.7cm 1.7cm},clip ]{BCNO_triangle_XS.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_propagation_triangle}, but for the subset of cross section nuisance parameters.
\label{fig:BCNO_XS_triangle}
}
\end{figure*}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Results on CR propagation parameters}
\begin{itemize}
\item
From Fig.~\ref{fig:Summary_param} we can see that all the propagation parameters are compatible in all the 14 fits,
which is quite reassuring regarding the robustness of the result. There is one notable exception,
regarding the $D_0-\delta$ plane which we will discuss in more detail below. Apart from this,
it means that the three secondary nuclei Li, Be and B point to compatible propagation parameters
and can be combined in a single global fit, a result which is certainly not trivial.
\item
As mentioned above, the BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk models point to compatible parameter values for all parameters they have in common.
At first glance, though, there seems to be a slight offset in the $D_0-\delta$ contours, as shown in the triangle plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_propagation_triangle}.
However, this is mostly related to the normalization rigidity scale of the diffusion coefficient chosen at 4~GV, which is very close to the rigidity of the break in the BASE framework.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Dxx} we show the diffusion coefficient as function of rigidity for the BASE, BASE+inj+$v_A$, and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk models.
Above 10\;GV the diffusion coefficients of all models agree well within the uncertainty. Furthermore, the diffusion coefficients derived from the BCNO and LiBeBCNO
data sets match well, underlining again the compatibly of the three secondary CR species considered in this work.
We note that Fig.~\ref{fig:Dxx} is produced for a fixed $z_\mathrm{h}$ of 4\;kpc. If instead $z_\mathrm{h}$ were allowed to vary in the fits, the uncertainty band around the best-fit
diffusion coefficient would be enlarged significantly due to the well-known degeneracy between $D_0$ and $z_\mathrm{h}$.
\item
We can see that for all of the fits convection is compatible with zero. This is actually due to a strong degeneracy between $v_{0,c}$, $D_0$, $\delta$ and, partly, $s_{D,0}$,
at least for the models with a break in diffusion, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_propagation_triangle}.
For this reason, values of $v_{0,c}$ up to 50 km/s are still possible at the price of larger ranges allowed for $D_0$ and $\delta$.
The framework BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk, instead, prefers no convection allowing values only up to $\sim 10$ km/s.
At the moment, it is thus more economical to consider a model with no convection, since it fits the data equally well.
In this case lower values of $D_0$ are selected together with higher values of $\delta$ (since the degeneracy between $v_{0,c}$ and $\delta$ has a negative slope).
We note, nonetheless, that we are exploring only a simple model of convection with constant winds,
but more complex models with wind gradients as function of $z_\mathrm{h}$ are possible and might give different results.
A systematic study of convection goes beyond the aims of the current analysis.
\item
Due to the degeneracy discussed above for the BASE case, $\delta$ is constrained in the fairly large range 0.4-0.5 when convection is included,
while assuming zero convection would give a preference for $\delta \simeq 0.5$ with a quite small error of the order of 0.01.
For the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework this degeneracy is weaker and the error on $\delta$ is thus smaller, but smaller values
of $\delta$ are preferred, namely $\delta \simeq 0.45$ and $\delta \simeq 0.41$ for the BCNO and LiBeBCNO fits, respectively.
We thus see that without convection the framework with reacceleration tends to prefer smaller values of $\delta$.
These values of $\delta$ are in line with the results of \cite{Korsmeier:2016kha,Cuoco:2019kuu} where the \mbox{BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk} model is analyzed,
but with different CR data, namely proton, helium and antiproton. Also in this case, it is remarkable and not trivial
that light nuclei and heavier nuclei point to a compatible propagation scenario.
Other recent analyses \cite{Genolini:2019ewc} of AMS-02 data, which consider a break in diffusion, also tend to find higher values of $\delta$
with respect to a scenario with reacceleration and no break in diffusion.
From the point of view of diffusion theory this means that the latest AMS-02 data point to Kraichnan ($\delta\sim 0.5$) model of turbulence
while Kolmogorov turbulence ($\delta = 1/3$) seems disfavored.
\item
The models with a break in diffusion find a position of the break at around 4 GV,
compatible with the predictions of theoretical studies~\cite{Ptuskin:2005ax,Blasi:2012yr}. The slope $\delta_l$ below the break is not well constrained.
There is a preference for a negative value, but, conservatively only an upper limit of about $\delta_l \lesssim 0$ can be derived.
A negative value of $\delta_l$ is present, for example, in models of turbulence with damping of Alfven waves at low energies~\cite{Ptuskin:2005ax}.
All of the frameworks include a second break in diffusion at higher energies and this is robustly detected in all of the fits,
with a break around 200 GV and amount of breaking of about $\Delta \delta \sim 0.15$.
This confirms the findings of the AMS-02 analysis \cite{Aguilar:2018njt} where this result is derived
modeling directly the observed spectra rather than from a diffusion model. It is also in agreement with the results of \cite{Genolini:2019ewc}.
In absolute value the slope of diffusion at high energy becomes $\delta_h \sim 0.33$, which seems to indicate a transition
from Kraichnan turbulence to Kolmogorov turbulence at few hundreds GVs.
\item
Reacceleration is a common ingredient in CR propagation models. However, typically, the amount of reacceleration required to fit the CR data
is fairly large and might be in disagreement with energy considerations, as discussed recently in \cite{Drury:2016ubm}.
It is thus important to understand whether CR spectra do indeed require reacceleration for a good fit.
In the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework reacceleration is quite tightly constrained with a value of about 20 km/s.
The BASE framework does not include reacceleration but is nonetheless able to fit the data well.
The more general framework BASE+inj+$v_A$ where both reacceleration and break in diffusion are included also allows values of $v_A$ up to 20 km/s,
but due to the presence of degeneracies, $v_A$ is also compatible with zero. To understand if a certain amount of reacceleration is
indeed physically present would thus require us to demonstrate the model BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk is preferred over the ones without reacceleration.
However, at the moment, both models provide a good fit to the data, thus a definitive conclusion is not possible yet.
\item
The abundances of primaries C, N, O are all well-constrained in the fit. There is, nonetheless, an expected degeneracy between the C and O normalization.
No clear correlation between the abundances of the primaries at the source and CR propagation parameters is observed,
although it would be expected at some level.
This is probably due to complicated degeneracies in the high-dimensional parameter space, which blur single 2D correlations. However,
we note that there is an anti-correlation with the B production cross-section $A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{B}$.
The values of C and O abundances preferred by the fit are about 20-30\% larger than typical values used in \texttt{Galprop}~\cite{Strong:2001fu}. While the N abundance is larger by a factor of $\sim 2$. The result reflects the fact that the C and O flux normalizations measured by AMS-02 are about 20-30\% larger than pre-AMS-02 determinations (e.g. \cite{Adriani:2014xoa}, \cite{Aguilar:2017hno} and references therein).
These abundances can be also compared with measurements from the Sun or meteorites \cite{Lodder:2003zy,Anders:1989zg}.
In this respect the O/N$\sim 10$ ratio found here is very similar to the value observed in the Solar system given in \cite{Lodder:2003zy,Anders:1989zg}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{The role of cross-section uncertainties}
\begin{itemize}
\item
A crucial role is played by the cross-section uncertainties that we have included in the fits. The triangle plots containing
the 2D contours and 1D $\chi^2$ profiles of the relevant parameters are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BCNO_XS_triangle} (and also for the LiBeBCNO in the appendix: Fig.~\ref{fig:LiBeBCNO_XS_triangle}).
One can see that in all of the frameworks containing a break in diffusion, and thus in particular in the BASE framework,
all of the cross-section parameters are compatible with having no deviations from the benchmark cross-section model (with a couple of notable exceptions to be discussed better below),
\emph{i.e.}, the normalizations $A$ are compatible with 1 and the slopes $\delta_\mathrm{XS}$ are compatible with 0.
Thus, this means that the CR spectra can be fit while only assuming the benchmark cross-section model,
which is in this case the \texttt{Galprop} one, without any modification.
The important point to notice is that this is
not valid for the reacceleration model BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk. In this case significant deviations are seen.
For example, the slope for B production needs to be modified to a value
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{B} \simeq 0.15$ and it is incompatible with zero.
Results are similar for the other slopes:
$\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{N} \simeq 0.1$, $\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Be} \simeq 0.25$,
and $\delta_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Li} \simeq 0.2$.
The normalization parameters $A$, on the other hand, are compatible among all of the models.
The conclusion is that it would not have been possible to achieve a good fit for the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework
if cross-section uncertainties were not included in the analysis.
However, we cannot conclude that this favors the BASE model, since
these deviations are only at the level of 20\% and are within the systematic uncertainties present in the cross sections.
Thus, the conclusion is rather the fact that the cross-section uncertainties are at the moment significantly limiting
the inference of ISM propagation properties from CRs. If the uncertainties were much smaller, at the level of few percent,
\emph{i.e.}, at the same level as the AMS-02 uncertainties, we would be able to select a specific propagation scenario over the others.
As also discussed in other works~\cite{Genolini:2018ekk,Evoli:2019iih,Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb,Boschini:2019gow,Luque:2021nxb,Donato:2017ywo,Korsmeier:2018gcy},
this further confirms that a community effort is needed in order
to carry out specific campaigns of measurements to reduce nuclear cross-section uncertainties, in such a way to have then the
possibility to exploit the full potential of CR data to study the properties of the ISM.
\item
As mentioned above, some deviation of the cross-section parameters from the benchmark model is present in all of the frameworks explored.
The most evident case is the normalization of the cross-section for the secondary production of carbon, $A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{C}$,
which always saturates the lower bound of our prior, \emph{i.e.}, a value of 0.5.
Although uncertainties in the cross sections are typically quite large, a downward deviation at the level of 50\%
or more of the cross sections involving the production of carbon, in particular the ones coming from fragmentation of oxygen, seems unlikely.
This deviation thus seems to indicate some underlying problem in fitting carbon. A possible solution is to allow different injections for carbon and oxygen.
We verified with a specific fit that in this case $A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{C}$ becomes indeed again compatible with 1,
and the fit gives slightly different injections for C and O. A different injection for C and O may be justified
in the light of the fact that also H and He are already observed to give indications of different injections. We stress, nonetheless, that in both cases
this has a negligible impact on the propagation parameters, which is the main focus of this analysis.
Another parameter which presents a systematic deviation from the benchmark in all the fits is the normalization of the Li production cross section,
$A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{Li}$, with a preferred value of $\simeq 1.3\pm0.15$.
In this case, however, the deviation is within the expected uncertainties and thus acceptable.
Similarly, although less pronounced, a systematic deviation is present in $A_\mathrm{XS} \rightarrow \mathrm{N}$
with a value of $\simeq 1.1\pm0.05$, again perfectly acceptable.
\end{itemize}
\section{Constraints on the Halo Half-Height $\bf z_\mathrm{h}$} \label{sec::zh}
In the previous section we have assumed a fixed halo half-height of $z_\mathrm{h}=4\;\mathrm{kpc}$,
which is justified because of the well-known degeneracy between $z_\mathrm{h}$ and $D_0$.
As discussed in the introduction, this degeneracy can be broken with the use of \textit{radioactive clocks} (most notably $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$).
Measurements of $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$ from AMS-02 are not yet available, however, the total Be spectrum measured by AMS-02 has
small error bars at the level of few percent. The contribution of the $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$ isotope to the total Be spectrum is at a level between
10\% and 20\%. So, given the small uncertainties of AMS-02 measurement, the total Be spectrum might be able to break the
$D_0$--$z_\mathrm{h}$ degeneracy.
In this section we thus explore the possible constraints on $z_\mathrm{h}$. To this end we perform a total of 8 additional fits
using the same setup as in the previous fits but with a further free parameter, namely $z_\mathrm{h}$, left free to vary in the range between 2\;kpc and 10\;kpc.
For these fits we only consider the BASE and the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk frameworks with the two data sets BCNO and LiBeBCNO.
Furthermore, we consider both the case with uncorrelated uncertainties and the case with correlated ones. In total this gives eight different fits to explore.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,0.51)
\put(0.00, -0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth ]{BASE_profiles_z.pdf}}
\put(0.50 ,-0.0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth ]{BASE+inj+Va-Db_profiles_z.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\caption{
Constraints on the halo half-height $z_\mathrm{h}$.
The left panel refers to the BASE framework, while the right one refers to the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework.
}
\label{fig:zprofile}
\end{figure*}
The $\chi^2$-profiles as function of $z_\mathrm{h}$ for all fits are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:zprofile}. As expected,
the BCNO data set is not able to provide constraints on the halo height, and the $\chi^2$-profiles have a flat behavior and do not rise
above the 2$\sigma$ level both for the BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk scenario.
The picture changes with the LiBeBCNO dataset, \emph{i.e.}, when the Be spectrum is included also in the fits. In the BASE
scenario (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:zprofile}) a robust lower limit on $z_\mathrm{h}\gtrsim 4\;\mathrm{kpc}$ at 2$\sigma$ (\emph{i.e.}, $\Delta \chi^2=4$)
can be derived, which is valid both when correlations in the data are considered and when they are not included.
No upper bounds on the halo height can be placed.
The situation is slightly different for the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk scenario. With uncorrelated uncertainties a lower bound on $z_\mathrm{h}\gtrsim 3\;\mathrm{kpc}$ at 2$\sigma$ is still present,
which is a bit less stringent than the BASE case. With correlated uncertainties, however, the lower bound appears to further weaken going down to 2 kpc.
A weakening of the constraints when correlated uncertainties are considered is in principle possible since correlations introduce some freedom in the normalization
and long rigidity-scale tilt in the data which can be somehow degenerate with the effect of varying some parameters, such as $z_\mathrm{h}$. Indeed, this effect seems to be present
also in the BASE case, although in that case it seems to be less prominent.
Finally, an upper bound of $z_\mathrm{h}\lesssim 8\;\mathrm{kpc}$ at 2$\sigma$ is given in the correlation case, which also does not appear to be very robust since it is
not present in the uncorrelated case.
Overall, we conclude that the constraints on $z_\mathrm{h}$ appear to be both propagation-scenario dependent and dependent on the assumptions
regarding the correlation properties of data systematics, and thus they should be taken with some care.
Nonetheless, from the above analysis we can infer a strong indication, although not a conclusive one, for a lower limit of about
3 kpc on $z_\mathrm{h}$. The situation might likely change and become more constraining once AMS-02 data on the $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$ isotope becomes available.
\section{Discussion and comparison with other works} \label{sec::comparison}
In this section we discuss and compare our results with previous works.
The analysis in Refs.~\cite{Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb}, similarly to this work, takes into account nuclear cross-section uncertainties.
A main difference is the fact that we include primaries in the fit to constrain the diffusion framework
while Refs.~\cite{Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb} consider only secondaries for this purpose.
Another difference is the use of a simplified semi-analytical framework for propagation as opposed
to our fully numerical treatment through the \texttt{Galprop} code.
Nonetheless, overall our results are in reasonable agreement. We both find a value of $\delta \sim 0.5$ in models without reacceleration
and with a break in diffusion, and a tendency to get a smaller value of $\delta$ in the complementary case with reacceleration but without break in diffusion.
A further common conclusion is that the inclusion of cross-section uncertainties is crucial to achieve a good fit
and that sizable deviations from the benchmark models are observed.
Ref.~\cite{Weinrich:2020ftb} constrains the $z_\mathrm{h}$ to $5\pm3\;\mathrm{kpc}$ at 1$\sigma$. The lower limit is in agreement with our findings.
In Refs.~\cite{Evoli:2019wwu,Evoli:2019iih,Schroer:2021ojh} a simplified analytical approach similar to that of Refs.~\cite{Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb} is used.
They perform the fit only above 20 GV to exclude the rigidity region most strongly affected by Solar modulation.
They do not include nuclear cross section uncertainties, although they employ an updated parametrization from a refit of the relevant processes.
They find a constrain on $z_\mathrm{h}$ in the range 3-6 kpc when using only the AMS-02 statistical error bars.
When systematic uncertainties are included, the constraint is softened to approximately $z \gtrsim 2$ kpc.
They find a best fit for $\delta = 0.54$ (in Ref.~\cite{Evoli:2019iih} fitting to B/C, Be/C, B/O, and Be/O data) and
$\delta = 0.63$ (in Ref.~\cite{Evoli:2019wwu} fitting to B/C, C, N, and O data)
which is in principle incompatible with our findings, although they
do not report any error so a proper comparison is not possible.
In Refs.~\cite{Boschini:2018baj,Boschini:2019gow} the authors use a propagation framework equivalent to the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk
one together with a fully numerical treatment both for Galactic propagation using the \texttt{Galprop} code and
for Solar System propagation using the Helmod code. Nuclear cross-section uncertainties are not included.
The main finding is the need to consider primary Li in order to achieve a reasonable fit for Li CR data.
This is possibly related to the choice of not allowing freedom in the cross-section normalization.
As we have shown, we are able to fit Li well but with some substantial deviation in the Li production
cross section from the benchmark model. A similar deviation for the Li cross-section is indeed found
also in Refs.~\cite{Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb} and Refs.~\cite{Luque:2021nxb,Luque:2021joz}. Finally, they find a value of $\delta= 0.415\pm0.025$ which is compatible
with the value $\delta= 0.41\pm0.01$ we find for our LiBeBCNO fit in the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk framework.
In Refs.~\cite{Luque:2021nxb,Luque:2021joz}, the authors study the CR spectra of Li, Be, and B also taking cross section uncertainties into account.
They use the \texttt{Dragon2} code to model CR propagation in a framework similar to BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk. To model cross section uncertainties they compare the two
default cross section options of \texttt{Dragon2} and \texttt{Galprop} and, furthermore, they iteratively adjust the normalization of the secondary production
cross sections within uncertainties to obtain a better fit to the AMS-02 data. They confirm that different models of cross sections have a significant impact on the final predicted CR spectra.
In agreement with our results, they also report a preferred normalization of the Li production cross section around $\sim$1.3 when using the \texttt{Galprop} model.
As in Refs.~\cite{Weinrich:2020cmw,Weinrich:2020ftb} they use only secondary species to constrain propagation.
Regarding the slope of diffusion they find a value of $\sim 0.4$ in agreement with what we find for the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk case.
\section{Summary and Conclusions} \label{sec::conclusions}
In the present work, we have performed global fits on the recently published AMS-02 measurements of secondary nuclei
Li, Be, B, primaries C and O and mixed secondary/primary N, in order to study the propagation properties of CRs
in the ISM.
We consider five different propagation frameworks differing with respect to the inclusion of a diffusion break at few GVs, the presence
of reacceleration, and the presence of a break in the injection spectra of primaries.
The first one, which we dub BASE, has the injection spectrum of primaries modeled as a simple power law, no reacceleration
and a break in the diffusion coefficient at about few GVs in rigidity.
The BASE+$v_A$ one, as the name suggests, enlarges the first one including reacceleration. Similarly, BASE+inj
includes a break in the injection of primaries, while BASE+inj+$v_A$ includes both of them and it is the most general model.
Finally, the model BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk
has reacceleration, a break in injection also at a few GVs, but no break in the diffusion coefficient.
In particular, among these, BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk are the ``minimal'' two, in the sense that
they have the minimal number of parameters. Furthermore they are also the ones which differ the most from the physical point of view.
In the rest of the conclusions we will thus focus on discussing these two models.
It is well known, however, that the production cross section of secondary CRs are affected by sizable uncertainties
and this can lead to a bias in the inferred propagation properties. To properly take into account this uncertainty
we consider nuisance parameters in the cross sections in the form of overall normalizations and tilts in the low energy regime
below few GeVs. We thus extend our formalism in order to perform a global fit where both propagation parameters and
cross-section nuisances are included together so that to properly consider all these uncertainties and their correlations.
We use Monte Carlo scanning techniques in order to handle the large ($> 20$) dimensionality of the parameter space.
Finally, a further uncertainty we explore is the presence of correlation in the systematic error bars of AMS-02, a possibility which has
been discussed recently.
The main result of our analysis is that all the five propagation scenarios we examine are able to provide good fits to the AMS-02 data,
including both the BASE and BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk scenarios, which is remarkable, since, as stressed above, they describe quite
different physical scenarios.
Crucial to this result, however, is the fact that we have taken into account the cross section uncertainties.
While in the BASE scenario the preferred values of the cross-section nuisance parameters are in line with the default cross-section model we use,
namely the \texttt{Galprop} model, in the BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk scenario sizable deviations are required, especially in
the tilt at low energy, at the level up to 20-30\%. However, these larger cross sections are currently
within the level of uncertainties of these cross sections, and thus acceptable.
Thus, the conclusion is that, at the moment, the nuclear cross section uncertainties are significantly limiting our capacity to
study the properties of the ISM and the propagation of CRs. In fact, since the AMS-02 data are in principle stringent enough to discriminate
among different scenarios, the cross section systematics are able to introduce enough uncertainty to make them degenerate.
It is thus desirable to have experimental efforts in order to reduce these uncertainties with proper measurement campaigns in the laboratory.
Nonetheless, several conclusions can still be drawn which are robust to the inclusion of the cross-section uncertainties.
For example, the slope of the diffusion coefficient at intermediate energies is well constrained
in the range $\delta\simeq0.45-0.5$ in models without convection, or
$\delta\simeq0.4-0.5$ if convection is included in the fit, pointing to a Kraichnan model of turbulence of the ISM.
We also find that convection is not required in any of the five considered CR propagation scenarios,
although we did not perform a systematic exploration of different convection models but we only considered a simple model with constant convective winds.
The BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk requires reacceleration with Alfven waves of about $v_A\simeq 20$ km/s.
However, since the BASE model does not require reacceleration and fits the data equally well, at the moment
the data are inconclusive about the presence of reacceleration. This is an example of the physics
limitation introduced by the nuclear cross-section uncertainties.
Finally, since Be data are sensitive to the vertical size of the propagation halo $z_\mathrm{h}$, due to the contribution
of the radioactive isotope $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$, in the fits including Be data we are able to derive a lower limit on $z_\mathrm{h}$
of about $z_\mathrm{h}\gtrsim 3\;\mathrm{kpc}$ at 2$\sigma$.
However, while all of the previous results are robust with respect to the inclusion of correlation in the AMS-02 data systematics
this last result gets weakened to $z_\mathrm{h}\gtrsim 2\;\mathrm{kpc}$ when correlations are included,
especially in the case of BASE+inj+$v_A$$-$diff.brk. On the other hand, the BASE scenario provides a more robust and stringent lower limit
of $z_\mathrm{h}\gtrsim 4\;\mathrm{kpc}$. Given the dependence of these constraints on the propagation scenario
and the correlation properties of the data, the Be spectrum does not seem optimal to study $z_\mathrm{h}$.
Thus, precise measurements of the $^{10}_{\phantom{1}4}\mathrm{Be}$ isotope are awaited, while a better understanding of the correlation properties of the AMS-02 uncertainties is desirable.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Jan Heisig and Tim Linden very helpful discussions and comments as well as for a carful reading of the manuscript.
The work of A.C. and M.K is supported by: ``Departments of Excellence 2018-2022'' grant awarded by the Italian Ministry of Education,
University and Research (MIUR) L. 232/2016; Research grant ``The Dark Universe: A Synergic Multimessenger Approach''
No. 2017X7X85K, PRIN 2017, funded by MIUR; Research grant TAsP (Theoretical Astroparticle Physics) funded by INFN.
M.K further acknowledges support by Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN),
by the Italian Space Agency through the ASI INFN agreement No.\ 2018-28-HH.0: "Partecipazione italiana al GAPS -- General AntiParticle Spectrometer", and the grant `The Anisotropic Dark Universe' No.\ CSTO161409, funded by Compagnia di Sanpaolo and University of Turin.
Furthermore, MK is partially supported by the Swedish National Space Agency under contract 117/19 and the European Research Council under grant 742104.
The majority of computations in this work were performed with computing resources granted by RWTH Aachen University under the project No. rwth0085.
Furthermore, computations were enabled by resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) under the project No. 2020/5-463
partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2018-05973.
|
\section{Introduction}
In their seminal paper \cite{FS}, Friedman and Stanley define and develop a notion of {\em Borel reducibility} among classes of structures with universe $\omega$ in a fixed, countable language $L$ that are Borel and invariant under permutations of $\omega$. It is well known (see e.g., \cite{KechrisDST} or \cite{GaoIDST}) that such classes are of the form ${\rm Mod}(\Phi)$, the set of models of $\Phi$ whose universe is precisely $\omega$ for some sentence $\Phi\in L_{\omega_1,\omega}$, but here we concentrate on
first-order, countable theories $T$. For countable theories $T,S$ in possibly different language, a {\em Borel reduction} is a Borel function $f:{\rm Mod}(T)\rightarrow {\rm Mod}(S)$ that satisfies $M\cong N$ if and only if $f(M)\cong f(N)$. One says that $T$ is {\em Borel reducible} to $S$ if there is a Borel reduction $f:{\rm Mod}(T)\rightarrow {\rm Mod}(S)$.
As Borel reducibility is transitive, this induces a quasi-order on the class of all countable theories, where we say $T$ and $S$ are
{\em Borel equivalent} if there are Borel reductions in both directions.
In \cite{FS}, Friedman and Stanley show that among Borel invariant classes (hence among countable first-order theories) there is a maximal class with respect to $\le_B$. We say $\Phi$ is {\em Borel complete} if it is in this maximal class. Examples include the theories of graphs, linear orders, groups, and fields.
The intuition is that Borel complexity of a theory $T$ is related to the complexity of invariants that describe the isomorphism types of countable models of $T$.
Given an $L$-structure $M$, one naturally thinks of the reducts $M_0$ of $M$ to be `simpler objects' hence the invariants for a reduct `should' be no more complicated than
for the original $M$, but we will see that this intuition is incorrect. As a paradigm, let $T$ be the theory of `independent unary predicates' i.e., $T=Th(2^\omega,U_n)$, where
each $U_n$ is a unary predicate interpreted as $U_n=\{\eta\in 2^\omega:\eta(n)=1\}$. The countable models of $T$ are rather easy to describe.
The isomorphism type of a model is specified by which countable, dense subset of `branches' is realized, and how many elements realize each of those branches. However, with Theorem~\ref{1types}, we will see that $T$ has a Borel complete reduct.
To be precise about reducts, we have the following definition.
\begin{Definition} \label{reduct} {\em Given an $L$-structure $M$, a {\em reduct $M'$ of $M$} is an $L'$-structure with the same universe as $M$, and for which the interpretation every atomic $L'$-formula $\alpha(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ is an $L$-definable subset of $M^k$ (without parameters).
An $L'$-theory $T'$ is a {\em reduct of an $L$-theory $T$} if $T'=Th(M')$ for some reduct $M'$ of some model $M$ of $T$.}
\end{Definition}
In the above definition, it would be equivalent to require that the interpretation in $M'$ of every $L'$-formula $\theta(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ is a 0-definable subset of $M^k$.
\section{An engine for Borel completeness results}
This section is devoted to proving Borel completeness for a specific family of theories. All of the theories $T_h$, are in the same language $L=\{E_n:n\in\omega\}$
and are indexed by strictly increasing functions $h:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$. For a specific choice of $h$, the theory $T_h$ asserts that
\begin{itemize}
\item Each $E_n$ is an equivalence relation with exactly $h(n)$ classes; and
\item The $E_n$'s cross-cut, i.e., for all nonempty, finite $F\subseteq\omega$, $E_F(x,y):=\bigwedge_{n\in F} E_n(x,y)$ is an equivalence relation with
precisely $\Pi_{n\in F} h(n)$ classes.
\end{itemize}
It is well known that each of these theories $T_h$ is complete and admits elimination of quantifiers. Thus, in any model of $T_h$,
there is a unique 1-type. However, the strong type structure is complicated.\footnote{Recall that in any structure $M$,
two elements $a,b$ have the same {\em strong type}, ${\rm stp}(a)={\rm stp}(b)$, if $M\models E(a,b)$ for every 0-definable equivalence relation.
Because of the quantifier elimination, in any model $M\models T_h$, ${\rm stp}(a)={\rm stp}(b)$ if and only if $M\models E_n(a,b)$ for every $n\in\omega$.}
So much so, that the whole of this section is devoted to the proof of:
\begin{Theorem} \label{big} For any strictly increasing $h:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$, $T_h$ is Borel complete.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof} Fix a strictly increasing function $h:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$. We begin by describing representatives ${\cal B}$ of the strong types
and a group $G$ that acts faithfully and transitively on ${\cal B}$.
As notation, for each $n$, let $[h(n)]$ denote the $h(n)$-element set $\{1,\dots,h(n)\}$ and let $Sym([h(n])$ be the (finite) group of permutations of $[h(n)]$.
Let $${\cal B}=\{f:\omega\rightarrow\omega:f(n)\in[h(n)] \ \hbox{for all $n\in\omega\}$}$$
and let $G=\Pi_{n\in\omega} Sym([h(n)])$ be the direct product. As notation, for each $n\in\omega$, let $\pi_n:G\rightarrow Sym([h(n)])$ be the natural projection map.
Note that $G$ acts coordinate-wise on ${\cal B}$ by: For $g\in G$ and $f\in {\cal B}$, $g\cdot f$ is the element of ${\cal B}$ satisfying
$g\cdot f(n)=\pi_n(g)(f(n))$.
Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on ${\cal B}$ by:
$$f\sim f'\quad \hbox{if and only if} \quad \{n\in\omega:f(n)\neq f'(n)\}\ \hbox{is finite.}$$
For $f\in{\cal B}$, let $[f]$ denote the $\sim$-class of $f$ and, abusing notation somewhat, for $W\subseteq{\cal B}$
$$[W]:=\bigcup\{[f]:f\in W\}.$$
Observe that for every $g\in G$, the permutation of ${\cal B}$ induced by the action of $g$ maps $\sim$-classes onto $\sim$-classes, i.e., $G$ also acts transitively on ${\cal B}/\sim$.
We first identify a countable family of $\sim$-classes that are `sufficiently indiscernible'. Our first lemma is where we use the fact that the function $h$ defining
$T_h$ is strictly increasing.
\begin{Lemma} \label{Claim1} There is a countable set $Y=\{f_i:i\in\omega\}\subseteq {\cal B}$ such that whenever $i\neq j$, $\{n\in\omega: f_i(n)=f_j(n)\}$ is finite.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} We recursively construct $Y$ in $\omega$ steps. Suppose $\{f_i:i<k\}$ have been chosen. Choose an integer $N$ large enough so that $h(N)>k$ (hence $h(n)>k$ for all
$n\ge N$). Now, construct $f_k\in{\cal B}$ to satisfy $f_k(n)\neq f_i(n)$ for all $n\ge N$ and all $i<k$.
\end{proof}
{\em Fix an enumeration $\<f_i:i\in\omega\>$ of $Y$ for the whole of the argument.} The `indiscernibility' of $Y$ alluded to above is formalized by the following definition and lemma.
\begin{Definition} \label{respect} {\em Given a permutation $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$, a group element $g\in G$ {\em respects $\sigma$} if
$g\cdot [f_i]=[f_{\sigma(i)}]$ for every $i\in\omega$.}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma} \label{Claim2} For every permutation $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$, there is some $g\in G$ respecting $\sigma$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Note that since $h$ is increasing, $h(n)\ge n$ for every $n\in\omega$. Fix a permutation $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$ and we will
define some $g\in G$ respecting $\sigma$ coordinate-wise.
Using Lemma~\ref{Claim1}, choose a sequence
$$0=N_0\ll N_1\ll N_2\ll \dots$$ of integers such that for all $i\in\omega$, both $f_i(n)\neq f_j(n)$ and $f_{\sigma(i)}(n)\neq f_{\sigma(j)}(n)$ hold for all $n\ge N_i$ and
all $j<i$.
Since $\{N_i\}$ are increasing, it follows that for each $i\in\omega$ and all $n\ge N_i$, the subsets $\{f_j(n):j\le i\}$ and $\{f_{\sigma(j)}(n):j\le i\}$ of $[h(n)]$
each have precisely $(i+1)$ elements. Thus, for each $i<\omega$ and for each $n\ge N_i$, there is a permutation $\delta_n\in Sym([h(n)])$ satisfying
$$\bigwedge_{j\le i} \delta_n(f_j(n))=f_{\sigma(j)}(n)$$
[Simply begin defining $\delta_n$ to meet these constraints, and then complete $\delta_n$ to a permutation of $[h(n)]$ arbitrarily.]
Using this, define $g:=\<\delta_n:n\in\omega\>$, where each $\delta_n\in Sym([h(n)])$ is constructed as above.
To see that $g$ respects $\sigma$, note that for every $i\in\omega$, $(g\cdot f_i)(n)=f_{\sigma(i)}(n)$ for all $n\ge N_{i}$, so $(g\cdot f_i)\sim f_{\sigma(i)}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Definition} {\em For distinct integers $i\neq j$, let $d_{i,j}\in{\cal B}$ be defined by:
$$d_{i,j}(n):=\begin{cases} f_i(n) & \text{if $n$ even;}
\\ f_j(n) & \text{if $n$ odd.}\end{cases}$$
Let $Z:=\{d_{i,j}:i\neq j\}$.
}
\end{Definition}
Note that $d_{i,j}\not\sim f_k$ for all distinct $i,j$ and all $k\in\omega$, hence $\{[f_i]:i\in\omega\}$ and $\{[d_{i,j}]:i\neq j\}$ are disjoint.
\begin{Lemma} \label{Claim3}
For all $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$, if $g\in G$ respects $\sigma$, then $g\cdot [d_{i,j}]=[d_{\sigma(i),\sigma(j)}]$
for all $i\neq j$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Choose $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$, $g$ respecting $\sigma$, and $i\neq j$. Choose $N$ such that $(g\cdot [f_i])(n)=[f_{\sigma(i)}](n)$ and
$(g\cdot [f_j])(n)=[f_{\sigma(j)}](n)$ for every $n\ge N$.
Since $d_{i,j}(n)=f_i(n)$ for $n\ge N$ even,
$$(g\cdot d_{i,j})(n)=\pi_n(g)(d_{i,j}(n))=\pi_n(g)(f_i(n))=(g\cdot f_i)(n)=f_{\sigma(i)}(n)$$
Dually, $(g\cdot d_{i,j})(n)=f_{\sigma(j)}(n)$ when $n\ge N$ is odd, so $(g\cdot d_{i,j})\sim d_{\sigma(i),\sigma(j)}$.
\end{proof}
With the combinatorial preliminaries out of the way, we now prove that $T_h$ is Borel complete.
We form a highly homogeneous model $M^*\models T_h$ and thereafter, all models we consider will be countable, elementary substructures of $M^*$.
Let
$A=\{a_f:f\in{\cal B}\}$ and $B=\{b_f:f\in{\cal B}\}$ be disjoint sets and let
$M^*$ be the $L$-structure with universe $A\cup B$ and each $E_n$ interpreted by the rules:
\begin{itemize}
\item For all $f\in{\cal B}$ and $n\in\omega$, $E_n(a_f,b_f)$; and
\item For all $f,f'\in{\cal B}$ and $n\in\omega$, $E_n(a_f,a_{f'})$ iff $f(n)=f'(n)$.
\end{itemize}
with the other instances of $E_n$ following by symmetry and transitivity.
For any finite $F\subseteq\omega$, $\{f\mr{F}:f\in{\cal B}\}$ has exactly $\Pi_{n\in F} h(n)$ elements,
hence $E_F(x,y):=\bigwedge_{n\in F} E_n(x,y)$ has $\Pi_{n\in F} h(n)$ classes in $M^*$.
Thus, the $\{E_n:n\in\omega\}$ cross cut and
$M^*\models T_h$.
Let $E_\infty(x,y)$ denote the (type definable) equivalence relation $\bigwedge_{n\in\omega} E_n(x,y)$.
Then, in $M^*$, $E_\infty$ partitions $M^*$ into 2-element classes $\{a_f,b_f\}$, indexed by $f\in{\cal B}$.
Note also that every $g\in G$ induces an $L$-automorphism $g^*\in Aut(M^*)$ by
$$g^*(x):=\begin{cases} a_{(g\cdot f)} & \text{if $x=a_f$ for some $f\in{\cal B}$}\\ b_{(g\cdot f)} & \text{if $x=b_f$ for some $f\in{\cal B}$}\end{cases}$$
Recall the set $Y=\{f_i:i\in{\cal B}\}$ from Lemma~\ref{Claim1}, so $[Y]=\{[f_i]:i\in\omega\}$.
Let $M_0\subseteq M^*$ be the substructure with universe $\{a_f:f\in [Y]\}$. As $T_h$ admits elimination of quantifiers and as $[Y]$ is dense
in ${\cal B}$, $M_0\preceq M^*$.
Moreover, every substructure $M$ of $M^*$ with universe containing $M_0$ will also be an elementary substructure of $M^*$, hence a model of $T_h$.
To show that $Mod(T_h)$ is Borel complete, we define a Borel mapping from $\{$irreflexive graphs ${\cal G}=(\omega,R)\}$ to $Mod(T_h)$ as follows:
Given ${\cal G}$, let $Z(R):=\{d_{i,j}\in Z:{\cal G}\models R(i,j)\}$, so $[Z(R)]=\bigcup\{[d_{i,j}]:d_{i,j}\in Z(R)\}$. Let
$M_G\preceq M^*$ be the substructure with universe
$$M_0\cup\{a_d,b_d:d\in [Z(R)]\}$$
That the map ${\cal G}\mapsto M_G$ is Borel is routine, given that $Y$ and $Z$ are fixed throughout.
Note that in $M_G$, every $E_\infty$-class has
has either one or two elements. Specifically,
for each $d\in [Z(R)]$, the $E_\infty$-class $[a_d]_\infty=\{a_d,b_d\}$,
while the $E_\infty$-class $[a_f]_\infty=\{a_f\}$ for every $f\in[Y]$.
We must show that for any two graphs ${\cal G}=(\omega,R)$ and ${\cal H}=(\omega,S)$,
${\cal G}$ and ${\cal H}$ are isomorphic if and only if the $L$-structures $M_G$ and $M_H$ are isomorphic.
To verify this, first choose a graph isomorphism $\sigma:(\omega,R)\rightarrow (\omega,S)$.
Then $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$ and, for distinct integers $i\neq j$, $d_{i,j}\in Z(R)$ if and only if $d_{\sigma(i),\sigma(j)}\in Z(S)$.
Apply Lemma~\ref{Claim2} to get $g\in G$ respecting $\sigma$ and let $g^*\in Aut(M^*)$ be the $L$-automorphism induced
by $g$. By Lemma~\ref{Claim3} and Definition~\ref{respect}, it is easily checked that the restriction of $g^*$ to $M_G$
is an $L$-isomorphism between $M_G$ and $M_H$.
Conversely, assume that $\Psi:M_G\rightarrow M_H$ is an $L$-isomorphism. Clearly, $\Psi$ maps $E_\infty$-classes in $M_G$ to $E_\infty$-classes in $M_H$. In particular,
$\Psi$ permutes the 1-element $E_\infty$-classes $\{\{a_f\}:f\in [Y]\}$ of both $M_G$ and $M_H$, and maps the 2-element $E_{\infty}$-classes $\{\{a_d,b_d\}:d\in [Z(R)]\}$ of $M_G$
onto the 2-element $E_{\infty}$-classes $\{\{a_d,b_d\}:d\in [Z(S)]\}$ of $M_H$. That is, $\Psi$ induces a bijection $F:[Y\sqcup Z(R)]\rightarrow [Y\sqcup Z(S)]$ that permutes $[Y]$.
As well, by the interpretations of the $E_n$'s, for $f,f'\in [Y\sqcup Z(R)]$ and $n\in\omega$,
$$f(n)=f'(n)\quad\hbox{if and only if}\quad F(f)(n)=F(f')(n).$$
From this it follows that $F$ maps $\sim$-classes onto $\sim$-classes.
As $F$ permutes $[Y]$ and as $[Y]=\bigcup\{[f_i]:i\in\omega\}$, $F$ induces a permutation $\sigma\in Sym(\omega)$ given by
$\sigma(i)$ is the unique $i^*\in\omega$ such that $F([f_i])=[f_{i^*}]$.
We claim that this $\sigma$ induces a graph isomorphism between ${\cal G}=(\omega,R)$ and ${\cal H}=(\omega,S)$. Indeed, choose any $(i,j)\in R$.
Thus, $d_{i,j}\in Z(R)$. As $F$ is $\sim$-preserving, choose $N$ large enough so that $F(f_i)(n)=F(f_{\sigma(i)})(n)$ and
$F(f_j)(n)=F(f_{\sigma(j)})(n)$ for every $n\ge N$. By definition of $d_{i,j}$, $d_{i,j}(n)=f_i(n)$ for $n\ge N$ even, so
$F(d_{i,j})(n)=F(f_i)(n)=f_{\sigma(i)}(n)$ for such $n$. Dually, for $n\ge N$ odd, $F(d_{i,j})(n)=F(f_j)(n)=f_{\sigma(j)}(n)$.
Hence, $F(d_{i,j})\sim d_{\sigma(i),\sigma(j)}\in [Z(S)]$. Thus, $(\sigma(i),\sigma(j))\in S$. The converse direction is symmetric
(i.e., use $\Psi^{-1}$ in place of $\Psi$ and run the same argument).
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark} {\em If we relax the assumption that $h:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$ is strictly increasing, there are two cases.
If $h$ is unbounded, then the proof given above can easily be modified to show that the associated $T_h$ is also Borel complete. Conversely, with Theorem~6.2 of
\cite{LU} the authors
prove that if
$h:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$ is bounded, then $T_h$ is not Borel complete.
The salient distinction between the two cases is that when $h$ is bounded, the associated group $G$ has bounded exponent.
However, even in the bounded case
$T_h$ has a Borel complete reduct by Lemma~\ref{cross} below.
}
\end{Remark}
\section{Applications to reducts}
We begin with one easy lemma that, when considering reducts, obviates the need for the number of classes to be strictly increasing.
\begin{Lemma} \label{cross} Let $L=\{E_n:n\in\omega\}$ and let $f:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0,1\}$ be any function.
Then every model $M$ of $T_f$, the complete theory asserting that each $E_n$ is an equivalence relation with $f(n)$ classes, and that the $\{E_n\}$ cross-cut,
has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Given any function $f:\omega\rightarrow\omega\setminus\{0,1\}$, choose
a partition $\omega=\bigsqcup\{F_n:n\in\omega\}$ into non-empty finite sets for which $\Pi_{k\in F_n} f(k)< \Pi_{k\in F_m} f(k)$ whenever $n<m<\omega$.
For each $n$, let $h(n):=\Pi_{k\in F_n} f(k)$ and let $E^*_n(x,y):=\bigwedge_{k\in F_n} E_k(x,y)$. Then, as $h$ is strictly increasing
and $\{E^*_n\}$ is a cross-cutting set of equivalence relations with each $E_n^*$ having $h(n)$ classes.
Now let $M\models T_f$ be arbitrary and let $L'=\{E^*_n:n\in\omega\}$. As each $E_n^*$ described above is 0-definable in $M$,
there is an $L'$-reduct $M'$ of $M$. It follows from Theorem~\ref{big} that $T'=Th(M')$ is Borel complete, so $T_f$ has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{proof}
\begin{Theorem} \label{1types} Suppose $T$ is a complete theory in a countable language with uncountably many 1-types.
Then every model $M$ of $T$ has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M\models T$ be arbitrary.
As usual, by the Cantor-Bendixon analysis of the compact, Hausdorff Stone space $S_1(T)$ of complete 1-types, choose a set
$\{\varphi_\eta(x):\eta\in 2^{<\omega}\}$ of 0-definable formulas, indexed by the tree $(2^{<\omega},\trianglelefteq)$ ordered by initial segment,
satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M\models\exists x\varphi_\eta(x)$ for each $\eta\in 2^{<\omega}$;
\item For $\nu\trianglelefteq\eta$, $M\models\forall x(\varphi_\eta(x)\rightarrow\varphi_\nu(x))$;
\item For each $n\in\omega$, $\{\varphi_\eta(x):\eta\in 2^n\}$ are pairwise contradictory.
\end{enumerate}
By increasing these formulas slightly, we can additionally require
\begin{enumerate}\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item For each $n\in\omega$, $M\models\forall x( \bigvee_{\eta\in 2^n} \varphi_\eta(x))$.
\end{enumerate}
Given such a tree of formulas, for each $n\in\omega$, define
$$\delta^0_n(x):=\bigwedge_{\eta\in 2^n} [\varphi_\eta(x)\rightarrow\varphi_{\eta{\char'136} 0}(x)]\quad \hbox{and}\quad \delta^1_n(x):=\bigwedge_{\eta\in 2^n} [\varphi_\eta(x)\rightarrow\varphi_{\eta{\char'136} 1}(x)]$$
Because of (4) above, $M\models\forall x(\delta^0_n(x)\vee\delta^1_n(x))$ for each $n$. Also, for each $n$, let
$$E_n(x,y):=[\delta_n^0(x)\leftrightarrow \delta_n^0(y)]$$
From the above, each $E_n$ is a 0-definable equivalence relation with precisely two classes.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim.} The equivalence relations $\{E_n:n\in\omega\}$ are cross-cutting.
\begin{proof} It suffices to prove that for every $m>0$, the equivalence relation $E^*_m(x,y):=\bigwedge_{n<m} E_n(x,y)$ has $2^m$ classes.
So fix $m$ and choose a subset $A_m=\{a_\eta:\eta\in 2^m\}\subseteq M$ forming a set of representatives for the formulas $\{\varphi_\eta(x):\eta\in 2^m\}$.
It suffices to show that $M\models\neg E^*_m(a_\eta,a_\nu)$ whenever $\eta\neq \nu$ are from $2^m$.
But this is clear. Fix distinct $\eta\neq\nu$ and choose any $k<m$ such that $\eta(k)\neq \nu(k)$. Then $M\models \neg E_k(a_\eta,a_\nu)$, hence
$M\models\neg E^*_m(a_\eta,a_\nu)$.
\end{proof}
Thus, taking the 0-definable relations $\{E_n\}$, $M$ has a reduct that is a model of $T_f$ (where $f$ is the constant function 2).
As reducts of reducts are reducts, it follows from Lemma~\ref{cross} and Theorem~\ref{big} that $M$ has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{proof}
We highlight how unexpected Theorem~\ref{1types} is with two examples.
First, the theory of `Independent unary predicates' mentioned in the Introduction has a Borel complete reduct.
Next, we explore the assumption that a countable, complete theory $T$ is not small, i.e., for some $k$ there are uncountably many $k$-types.
We conjecture that some model of $T$ has a Borel complete reduct.
If $k=1$, then by Theorem~\ref{1types}, every model of $T$ has a Borel complete reduct. If $k>1$ is least, then it is easily seen that there is some complete
$(k-1)$ type $p(x_1,\dots,x_{k-1})$ with uncountably many complete $q(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ extending $p$. Thus, if $M$ is any model of $T$ realizing $p$, say by $\bar{a}=(a_1,\dots,a_{k-1})$,
the expansion $(M,a_1,\dots,a_{k-1})$ has a Borel complete reduct, also by Theorem~\ref{1types}. Similarly, we have the following result.
\begin{Corollary} \label{small} Suppose $T$ is a complete theory in a countable language that is not small.
Then for any model $M$ of $T$, $M^{eq}$ has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof} Let $M$ be any model of $T$ and choose $k$ least such that $T$ has uncountably many complete $k$-types consistent with it.
In the language $L^{eq}$, there is a sort $U_k$ and a definable bijection $f:M^k\rightarrow U_k$. Hence $Th(M^{eq})$ has uncountably many 1-types
consistent with it, each extending $U_k$. Thus, $M^{eq}$ has a Borel complete reduct by Theorem~\ref{1types}.
\end{proof}
Finally, recall that a countable, complete theory is not $\omega$-stable if, for some countable model $M$ of $T$, the Stone space $S_1(M)$ is uncountable.
From this, we immediately obtain our final corollary.
\begin{Corollary} \label{omegastable} If a countable, complete $T$ is not $\omega$-stable, then for some countable model $M$ of $T$, the elementary diagram of
$M$ in the language $L(M)=L\cup\{c_m:m\in M\}$ has a Borel complete reduct.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof} Choose a countable $M$ so that $S_1(M)$ is uncountable. Then, in the language $L(M)$, the theory of the expanded structure $M_M$ in the language $L(M)$
has uncountably many 1-types, hence it has a Borel complete reduct by Theorem~\ref{1types}.
\end{proof}
The results above are by no means characterizations. Indeed, there are many Borel complete $\omega$-stable theories. In \cite{LSh}, the first author and Shelah
prove that any $\omega$-stable theory that has eni-DOP or is eni-deep is not only Borel complete, but also $\lambda$-Borel complete for all $\lambda$.\footnote{Definitions of
eni-DOP and eni-deep are given in Definitions~2.3 and 6.2, respectively, of \cite{LSh}, and
the definition of $\lambda$-Borel complete is recalled in Section~\ref{obs} of this paper.}
As well, there are $\omega$-stable theories with only countably many countable models that have Borel complete reducts. To illustrate this, we introduce three interrelated
theories. The first, $T_0$ in the language $L_0=\{U,V,W,R\}$ is the paradigmatic DOP theory. $T_0$ asserts that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $U,V,W$ partition the universe;
\item $R\subseteq U\times V\times W$;
\item $T_0\models \forall x\forall y\exists^\infty z R(x,y,z)$; [more formally, for each $n$, $T_0\models \forall x\forall y\exists^{\ge n} z R(x,y,z)$];
\item $T_0\models \forall x\forall x'\forall y\forall y'\forall z [R(x,y,z)\wedge R(x',y',z)\rightarrow(x=x'\wedge y=y')]$.
\end{itemize}
$T_0$ is both $\omega$-stable and $\omega$-categorical and its unique countable model is rather tame.
The complexity of $T_0$ is only witnessed with uncountable models, where one can code arbitrary bipartite graphs
in an uncountable model $M$ by choosing the cardinalities of the sets $R(a,b,M)$ among $(a,b)\in U\times V$ to be either $\aleph_0$ or $|M|$.
To get bad behavior of countable models, we expand $T_0$ to an $L=L_0\cup\{f_n:n\in\omega\}$-theory $T\supseteq T_0$ that additionally asserts:
\begin{itemize}
\item Each $f_n:U\times V\rightarrow W$;
\item $\forall x\forall y R(x,y,f_n(x,y))$ for each $n$; and
\item for distinct $n\neq m$, $\forall x\forall y (f_n(x,y)\neq f_m(x,y))$.
\end{itemize}
This $T$ is $\omega$-stable with eni-DOP and hence is Borel complete by Theorem~4.12 of \cite{LSh}.
However, $T$ has an expansion $T^*$ in a language $L^*:=L\cup\{c,d,g,h\}$ whose models are much better behaved.
Let $T^*$ additionally assert:
\begin{itemize}
\item $U(c)\wedge V(d)$;
\item $g:U\rightarrow V$ is a bijection with $g(c)=d$;
\item Letting $W^*:=\{z:R(c,d,z)\}$, $h:U\times V\times W^*\rightarrow W$ is an injective map that is the identity on $W^*$ and, for each $(x,y)\in U\times V$,
maps $W^*$ onto $\{z\in W: R(x,y,z)\}$; and moreover
\item $h$ commutes with each $f_n$, i.e., $\forall x\forall y (h(x,y,f_n(c,d))=f_n(x,y))$.
\end{itemize}
Then $T^*$ is $\omega$-stable and two-dimensional (the dimensions being $|U|$ and $|W^*\setminus\{f_n(c,d):n\in\omega\}|$), hence $T^*$ has only countably many countable models.
However, $T^*$ visibly has a Borel complete reduct, namely $T$.
\section{Observations about the theories $T_h$} \label{obs}
In addition to their utility in proving Borel complete reducts, the theories $T_h$ in Section 2 illustrate some novel behaviors.
First off, model theoretically, these theories are extremely simple. More precisely, each theory $T_h$ is weakly minimal with the geometry of every strong type trivial
(such theories are known as mutually algebraic in \cite{MA}).
Additionally, the theories $T_h$ are the simplest known examples of theories that are Borel complete, but not $\lambda$-Borel complete for all cardinals $\lambda$.
For $\lambda$ any infinite cardinal, $\lambda$-Borel completeness was introduced in \cite{LSh}. Instead of looking at $L$-structures with universe $\omega$, we consider
$X_L^\lambda$, the set of $L$-structures with universe $\lambda$. We topologize $X_L^\lambda$ analogously; namely a basis consists of all sets
$$U_{\varphi(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)}:=\{M\in X_L^\lambda:M\models \varphi(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)\}$$
for all $L$-formulas $\varphi(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and all $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)\in\lambda^n$. Define a subset of $X_L^\lambda$ to be {\em $\lambda$-Borel} if it is is the smallest
$\lambda^+$-algebra containing the basic open sets, and call a function $f:X_{L_1}^\lambda\rightarrow X_{L_2}^\lambda$ to be {\em $\lambda$-Borel} if the inverse image of
every basic open set is $\lambda$-Borel. For $T,S$ theories in languages $L_1,L_2$, respectively we say that ${\rm Mod}_\lambda(T)$ is {\em $\lambda$-Borel reducible} to
${\rm Mod}_\lambda(S)$ if there is a $\lambda$-Borel $f:{\rm Mod}_\lambda(T)\rightarrow {\rm Mod}_\lambda(S)$ preserving back-and-forth equivalence in both directions (i.e.,
$M\equiv_{\infty,\omega} N\Leftrightarrow f(M)\equiv_{\infty,\omega} f(N)$).
As back-and-forth equivalence is the same as isomorphism for countable structures, $\lambda$-Borel reducibility when $\lambda=\omega$ is identical to Borel reducibility.
As before, for any infinite $\lambda$, there is a maximal class under $\lambda$-Borel reducibility, and we say a theory is {\em $\lambda$-Borel complete} if it is in this maximal class.
All of the `classical' Borel complete theories, e.g., graphs, linear orders, groups, and fields, are $\lambda$-Borel complete for all $\lambda$. However, the theories $T_h$ are not.
\begin{Lemma} If $T$ is mutually algebraic in a countable language, then there are at most $\beth_2$ pairwise $\equiv_{\infty,\omega}$-inequivalent models (of any size).
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} We show that every model $M$ has an $(\infty,\omega)$-elementary substructure of size $2^{\aleph_0}$, which suffices.
So, fix $M$ and choose an arbitrary countable $M_0\preceq M$. By Propositon~4.4 of \cite{MA}, $M\setminus M_0$ can be decomposed into countable components,
and any permutation of isomorphic components induces an automorphism of $M$ fixing $M_0$ pointwise.
As there are at most $2^{\aleph_0}$ non-isomorphic components over $M_0$, choose a substructure $N\subseteq M$ containing $M_0$ and, for each isomorphism type of
a component, $N$ contains either all of copies in $M$ (if there are only finitely many) or else precisely $\aleph_0$ copies if $M$ contains infinitely many copies.
It is easily checked that $N\preceq_{\infty,\omega} M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary} No mutually algebraic theory $T$ in a countable language is $\lambda$-Borel complete for $\lambda\ge \beth_2$. In particular, $T_h$ is Borel complete, but not $\lambda$-Borel complete for large $\lambda$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof} Fix $\lambda\ge \beth_2$. It is readily checked that there is a family of $2^{\lambda}$ graphs that are pairwise not back and forth equivalent.
As there are fewer than $2^{\lambda}$ $\equiv_{\infty,\omega}$-classes of models of $T$, there cannot be a $\lambda$-Borel reduction of graphs into ${\rm Mod}_\lambda(T)$.
\end{proof}
In \cite{URL}, another example of a Borel complete theory that is not $\lambda$-Borel complete for all $\lambda$ is given (it is dubbed $TK$ there) but the $T_h$ examples
are cleaner. In order to understand this behavior, in \cite{URL} we call a theory $T$ {\em grounded} if every potential canonical Scott sentence $\sigma$ of a model of $T$ (i.e.,
in some forcing extension ${\mathbb V}[G]$ of ${\mathbb V}$, $\sigma$ is a canonical Scott sentence of some model, then $\sigma$ is a canonical Scott sentence of a model in ${\mathbb V}$.
Proposition~5.1 of \cite{URL} proves that every theory of refining equivalence relations is grounded. By contrast, we have
\begin{Proposition} If $T$ is Borel complete with a cardinal bound on the number of $\equiv_{\infty,\omega}$-classes of models,
then $T$ is not grounded. In particular, $T_h$ is not grounded.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $\kappa$ denote the number of $\equiv_{\infty,\omega}$-classes of models of $T$. If $T$ were grounded, then $\kappa$ would also bound the number of potential canonical Scott sentences. As the class of graphs has a proper class of potential canonical Scott sentences, it would follow from Theorem~3.10 of \cite{URL} that $T$ could not be Borel complete.\end{proof}
|
\subsection{Simple ZSL}
We individually tune model hyperparameters for three different types of auxiliary data: class names with word2vec features, Wikipedia articles with either ALBERT-base or ALBERT-xxlarge features.
We use Adam optimizer and a random search to generate 40 different hyperparameter settings and choose the best setting for each model variant.
The ranges of values used for different hyperparameters were as following:
batch size $\in \{ 32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 \}$,
target projection dimension defined by the shapes of $W_t$ and $W_x$ $\in \{ 32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 \}$,
margin $m$ $\in (0.1, 100.)$ or with equal probability $m = 1$,
$\beta_1$ (for Adam) $\in \{0.5, 0.9\}$
learning rate $\in (0.00003, 0.01)$.
The values are sampled uniformly in the $\log$ space of the ranges.
The best configurations of hyperparameter values for each model variant are attached in the supplementary material together with the model weights.
\subsection{CADA-VAE}
\label{app:model_details_cada}
\paragraph{Implementation details}
We use our own implementation of CADA-VAE~[35] and verify that it performs similarly to the original. However, we there are two modification that we do.
The official implementation of CADA-VAE\footnote{\url{https://github.com/edgarschnfld/CADA-VAE-PyTorch}} appears to incorrectly implement reparameterization trick of Variation Auto-Encoders~[11].
It misses the factor of $0.5$ when transforming $\log (\sigma^2)$ into $\sigma$.
Instead, we use $\sigma = \exp (0.5 \cdot \log (\sigma^2))$.
Also, unlike the original authors, instead of using a sum to aggregate loss function over samples in a batch, we use a mean.
However, this difference should not be important as it can be compensated for by different learning rate or scaling factors of the loss function.
\paragraph{Hyperparameters}
Like for Simple ZSL, the best values of hyperparameters are chosen individually for each of the three different auxiliary data sources.
However, for CADA-VAE we use a combination of manual and random search over hyperparameter values.
The random search consisted of 42 runs on each of the model variant using the following ranges:
batch size $\in \{ 32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 \}$,
VAE latent space dimension $\in \{32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 \}$,
VAE image features encoder $\in \{ [1560, 1560], [2048, 1024], [1560], [1024, 512] \}$,
VAE image features decoder $\in \{ [1660], [1024, 2048], [1560], [512] \}$,
VAE auxiliary features encoder $\in \{ [1560, 1560], [2048, 1024], [1560], [1024, 512] \}$,
VAE auxiliary features decoder $\in \{ [1660], [1024, 2048], [1560], [2048], [512] \}$,
$\beta$ factor $\in (0.1, 30)$ or with probability $0.3$ fixed $\beta = 1$,
cross reconstruction loss factor $\in (0.25, 50.)$,
distributional alignment loss factor $\in (0.25, 100.)$.
Same as for Simple ZSL, the values were sampled uniformly in the $\log$ space of the ranges.
The loss function factors were used for linearly increasing loss function coefficients. The schedules for the coefficients were the same as in the original work, that is:
$\beta$ (for scaling VAE KL-divergence loss) was increased from epoch 0 to 93 (or fixed $\beta = 1$, cross reconstruction loss from epoch 21 to 75, and distribution alignment from epoch 6 to 22.
The rest of the hyperparameters were constant for the random search. We used AMSGrad optimizer, learning rate of VAEs of $0.00015$.
For the linear classifier we use: learning rate of $0.001$, Adam optimizer, batch size of $32$ and $200$ sampled latent space vectors from each class.
Additionally, we tried 58 evaluation runs on the variant using word2vec features, and only a subset of those settings on the models using ALBERT-base (21 runs), or ALBERT-xxlarge (19 runs) features.
The best configurations of hyperparameter values for each model variant are attached in the supplementary material together with the model weights.
\section{Introduction}
\input{introduction}
\section{Related works}
\input{related_works}
\section{ImageNet--Wikipedia correspondences}
\input{zsl_imagenet_wikipedia_correspondences}
\section{Encoding textual descriptions for zero-shot learning}
\input{zsl_textual_descriptions}
\section{Experiments}
\input{experiments}
\section{Limitations \& future work}
The performance of our approach is likely to depend on some general quality of Wikipedia articles. Although we have not evaluated this dependence directly in our work,
at least the article's length indeed correlates with the corresponding class's accuracy (Appendix~\ref{app:text_length}).
Therefore, the adaptability of the general approach to some particular domains not well-covered in Wikipedia can also be limited.
Additionally, we assume that the classes used are possible to match with Wikipedia articles. With very few exceptions, this is true for the ImageNet classes we consider. However, it is possible to find cases where this would not be possible due to the different granularities of the classes and Wikipedia pages.
The ZSL methods we use can utilize the information from our textual descriptions effectively, however, they only rely on features from pretrained, off-the-shelf models. Given that the textual descriptions are complex and contain only a sparse amount of visually relevant information, future research is needed to find methods more effective at fully utilizing our textual descriptions.
Additionally, there is a potential of using our textual descriptions for different purposes, such as pretraining of image recognition models, similarly to the recent works by \citet{desai2020virtex} and \citet{radford2021learning}.
Finally, the issue of generalization to groups of classes remains an open challenge.
\section{Conclusions}
\input{conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
\subsection{Zero-shot learning models}
We run experiments with a state-of-the-art
CADA-VAE~\cite{schonfeld2019generalized} model.
Although it was initially proposed for GZSL, we found that it also works well for the standard ZSL setup.
To compare the relative importance of the quality of the model vs. the quality of information contained in auxiliary data, the second model we use is a simple approach based on linear projections. We refer to it as \textit{Simple ZSL}.
\paragraph{CADA-VAE~\cite{schonfeld2019generalized}}
The model is based on two Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs)~\cite{diederik2014auto} - one for image features and another for auxiliary data.
It aligns the latent spaces of the two VAEs, such that the latent features of an image encoded with the image feature VAE and its class features encoded with auxiliary data VAE should be close to each other.
After training the VAEs,
a linear classifier is trained from the latent space vectors, obtained from the text description of the unseen classes, to the class labels of these unseen classes.\footnote{This describes the ZSL setting. Originally for GZSL, the latent features from the image samples are also used.}
At test time the latent space features obtained from the image VAE are passed to the classifier.
We use our own implementation of the model which yields similar results to those reported in the original paper.
The details can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:model_details},
along with a discussion on the small differences between our and the original implementation.
\paragraph{Simple ZSL model}
We also create a simple zero-shot learning model inspired by DeViSE~\cite{frome2013devise}.
Unlike the original work, we do not fine-tune the visual model and use two separate linear transformations for image features and auxiliary data to map the different modalities to a joint embedding space.
The transformations are trained using a hinge loss which is defined:
Assume there
are $K$ classes and $\vect{x}$ is the visual feature representation of a
sample with class label $1 \leq y \leq K$ then the loss is
\begin{align}
\sum_{\substack{i=1 \\ i \neq y}}^K
\max \left(0,
m
-
\phi_x (\vect{x})^T \phi_t (\vect{t}_y)
+
\phi_x (\vect{x})^T \phi_t (\vect{t}_i)
\right)
\end{align}
where $\vect{t}_i$ is the feature vector for the auxiliary data of class $i$, $m \geq 0$ is a scalar corresponding to the margin,
$\phi_x(\vect{x}) = W_x\,\vect{x} + \vect{b}_x$ and $\phi_t(\vect{t}_i) = W_t\,\vect{t}_i + \vect{b}_t$.
Then $W_x, W_t, \vect{b}_x$ and $\vect{b}_t$ are the trainable parameters in the model.
At test time, to classify samples, we use the nearest neighbors between projected visual features and text labels.
\subsection{Experimental setup}
Our textual descriptions are assessed by comparing them to using word2vec embeddings~\cite{mikolov2013distributed} of class names as the auxiliary data provided by \citet{changpinyo2016synthesized}.
The latter is a standard feature used in zero-shot learning on ImageNet~\cite{xian2018zero,xian2019f,schonfeld2019generalized}.
These word2vec representations were also learned on Wikipedia data.
However, this is different from encoding explicit textual descriptions of classes.
\paragraph{Data}
We use standard splits between ImageNet classes proposed by \citet{xian2018zero}.
The \textit{train} and \textit{val} splits consist of 750 and 250 classes, which contain images from ILSVRC-2012~\cite{russakovsky2015imagenet}.
Even though the original setup consists of multiple sets of separate test classes, we only use one of them: \textit{mp500} - the 500 most populated classes.
We leave studying other splits for future work since it requires providing the corresponding Wikipedia articles for the additional classes in those splits.
\paragraph{Features}
To represent images we use the 2048-dimensional features provided by \citet{xian2018zero}, which come from the last layer of a ResNet-101 before pooling. The model was pre-trained on ILSVRC 2012 part of ImageNet, which corresponds to the \textit{trainval} ZSL split we use.
Word2vec vector features of ImageNet class names (refered to as word2vec*) are from \citet{changpinyo2016synthesized} have 500-dimensions and were trained on Wikipedia data.
These are standard features used on ImageNet and were used by all the models we compare against.
For encoding the article text with word2vec, we instead use standard pre-trained 300-dimensional vectors provided by \citet{mikolov2013distributed}. GloVe features are also 300-dimensional and are from \citet{pennington2014glove}.
In all the experiments, we keep both image and auxiliary features fixed.
\paragraph{Choice of the hyper-parameters}
The hyperparameter values of the models are selected independently for each model and type of auxiliary data feature.
The models are trained on the set of \textit{train} classes and their performance evaluated on the \textit{val} classes.
We use both random and manual searches over possible settings, and the same number of runs was made on each model variant. More details are in Appendix~\ref{app:model_details}.
The \textit{val} set consists of a subset of classes that were used to train the image feature extractor,
which violates ZSL assumptions. Although that is likely to lead to over-optimistic numbers, \textit{val} performance is used only for the hyperparameter selection.
\paragraph{Evaluation}
We evaluate the models using the mean per class top-1 and top-5 accuracy which are standard ZSL metrics.
All the hyperparameter values used for evaluation on \textit{mp500} set were solely determined based on \textit{val} performance of the models. For the final evaluation, we train the models on \textit{train}+\textit{val} with 1000 classes (750 \textit{train} + 250 \textit{val}) and use separate 500 classes from \textit{mp500} for measuring performance.
Since \textit{ImageNet-Wiki}{} contains auxiliary features for 489 out of 500 classes from \textit{mp500}, unless stated differently, for a fair comparison, we compute the accuracies of the models using Wikipedia articles assuming 0 accuracy on the remaining classes.
\subsection{Results}
\paragraph{Comparison of different auxiliary data encodings}
First, in Table~\ref{tbl:val_results_aux_features}, we compare ways to encode the auxiliary data on the \textit{val} set only. We observe that using the whole Wiki articles works better than using just the abstracts (first paragraphs of the articles before any section starts). Also, word embedding encoding of the text appears to work better than the more complex ALBERT model~\cite{lan2019albert} with GloVe~\cite{pennington2014glove} being the best feature extractor.
For completeness of the comparison, we also try to encode class names with ALBERT and GloVe, although ALBERT was designed to work with longer sequences, therefore it can perform poorly with simple class names.
\input{tables/val_results_aux_features}
\input{tables/test_results}
\input{imgs/figures/figure_zsl_methods_accuracy}
\input{imgs/figures/zsl/figure_excluding_groups}
\paragraph{Evaluating models and feature types on the test set}
In Table~\ref{tbl:test_results}, we compare zero-shot learning accuracies of various models on the \textit{mp500} test split. Our experiments compare two different types of auxiliary information, class names encoded with word2vec, which is a standard approach on ImageNet, as well as using Wikipedia articles that we extract, encoded with two variants of ALBERT and two variants of word embedding encodings.
The results show that models using the textual descriptions consistently achieve higher accuracies. The increased performance is even more prominent on the simple ZSL model. When using textual descriptions, such a simple model outperforms much more complex and generally better CADA-VAE trained with word2vec features of class names.
This demonstrates not only the high quality of information the Wikipedia articles convey about the classes but also that the information can be effectively extracted even by simple models.
In Figure~\ref{fig:zsl_test_results}, we additionally compare the results we achieve with those reported by \citet{xian2018zero} of different zero-shot learning methods. The general setup we used is the same and uses the same image features, data splits and word2vec vectors of the class names.
The comparison demonstrates that the models using Wikipedia articles outperform all the prior methods, highlighting the relative importance of the auxiliary data type and algorithmic development.
\paragraph{Generalization outside the seen groups of classes}
The hierarchical structure of WordNet entities, used as ImageNet classes, allows us to study different groups of classes separately.
In Figure~\ref{fig:exclude_groups}, we split the set of both train and test classes into three disjoint partitions: \textit{animals}, \textit{plants}, and \textit{remaining} and compare the test performance on all subgroups when some of them are excluded from the training set.
First of all, the performance on \textit{plants} is generally much lower than the much more populated \textit{animals} group.
Moreover, we see that all the models have poor accuracy on \textit{animals} when that group is excluded from the training set.
These results show the models' inability to generalize to unseen classes that are semantically far from seen classes.
Therefore, they also suggest that studying ZSL on ImageNet might be more practical than datasets with a less diverse set of classes.
\input{tables/exclude_overlap}
\paragraph{Analyzing the impact of class similarity}
Even though ImageNet classes represent distinct concepts, since WordNet and Wikipedia were created independently, naturally, the granularity of the concepts they define can be different.
As a consequence, some of the classes can be mapped to multiple articles.
For example, class (n02965783, ``car mirror'') was assigned two more detailed articles: ``Rear-view mirror'', ``Wing mirror''.
In fact, WordNet synsets used as ImageNet classes consist of one or more (closely related) concepts that are considered equivalent.
On the other hand, two different classes can be assigned the same set of articles.
Potential overlap of sources of auxiliary information (Wiki pages or class phrases) can be present due to a high degree of similarity between corresponding classes, or compound classes being defined on other classes (e.g. \textit{wagon wheel} being a \textit{wheel} of a \textit{wagon}).
This phenomenon is associated not only with the particular auxiliary data we propose. As we observe in Table~\ref{tbl:exclude_overlap}, models using both sources of data have lower performance on subsets of test classes which exclude those that are similar to the training classes under various criteria defined for those types of auxiliary data.
As shown in the last row, the model using Wikipedia text still outperforms the one using class phrases on the subset of test classes that exclude those that are similar to training classes in either Wikipedia pages or class phrases.
However, as demonstrated in our results in Figure~\ref{fig:exclude_groups}, certain degree of similarity between seen and unseen classes is necessary for reasonable performance.
\input{imgs/figures/confusion_matrix}
\paragraph{Qualitative evaluation of prediction}
To provide further insight into models' performance, we analyze confusion matrices with predictions of different models.
Due to the immense size, the full confusion matrices are included only in the supplementary material.
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_confusion_matrices} shows only a selected subset of the confusion matrices, only with classes that were often confused.
The mispredictions are mainly within relatively semantically similar classes -- different types of furniture in this case.
Generally, the pattern for models using Wiki articles seems more diagonal, with more values close to 0.
This suggests that Wiki articles are richer in discriminative information.
More figures are available in Appendix~\ref{app:confusion_matrices}.
\paragraph{Text length vs. performance}
Finally, we also analyse the impact of the length of textual descriptions of classes and performance on them.
Longer descriptions tend to lead to higher accuracy. The trend is not strong, however.
The details are discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:text_length}.
|
\section{Introduction.}
Suppose that on a probability space we observe $X+Y$, where $X$ and $Y$ are independent random variables, $X$ being a square-integrable random variable of interest, and $Y$ being an additive noise perturbation.
The prediction error
\begin{equation}
E\{X-E(X|X+Y)\}^2 ={\rm var}X- {\rm var}E(X|X+Y)
\label{prederr}
\end{equation}
depends on $Y$ of course, and thus a natural question is `What would be the {\em worst} noise $Y$ we could add to $X$?' In other words, given the law of $X$, how would we choose the law of $Y$ to maximize the prediction error in equation \eqref{prederr}, or equivalently, how would we find
\begin{equation}
\inf_Y \hbox{\rm var} E(X|X+Y) \;?
\end{equation}
Since the mean of $E[X|X+Y]$ is fixed and equal to $EX$, an equivalent question is to choose the law of $Y$ so as to achieve
\begin{equation}
\inf_Y E \bigl\lbrace \; E[X|X+Y]^2 \; \bigr\rbrace.
\label{min2}
\end{equation}
If we think of what happens when $Y = \lambda Z$, where $Z \sim N(0,1)$, we quickly realize that as $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$ we have
\begin{equation}
E[X|X+\lambda Z] \rightarrow EX \qquad \hbox{\rm a.s.,}
\label{normnoise}
\end{equation}
so that the minimization in \eqref{min2} has a trivial solution unless we bound the variance of $Y$. So we will focus on the problem
\begin{equation}
\inf\bigl\lbrace \; E \bigl( \; E[X|X+Y]^2 \; \bigr):
\; \hbox{\rm var} (Y) \leq \varepsilon \; \bigr\rbrace,
\label{min3}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon >0$ is given. We then have a number of questions:
\begin{description}
\item[Question 1:]Can we find an explicit solution to \eqref{min3}?
\item[Question 2:] Can we characterize the solution to \eqref{min3}?
\item[Question 3:] Are there situations with explicit solutions?
\item[Question 4:]Does more noise mean worse prediction?
\end{description}
\indent \indent The fact that we asked Question 2 means that the answer to Question 1 has to be `No'; however, the answer to Question 2 is `Yes', and we deal with this in Section \ref{S1}. The answer to Question 3 is also `Yes', as we show in Section \ref{S2}; if the law of $X$ is infinitely divisible, then we can find the minimizing $Y$. Simple examples show that the answer to Question 4 is `No', but if $Y$ is self-decomposable we have a partial result in this direction; see Section \ref{S2a}. In Section \ref{S3}, we present an analysis of the case where $X$ is binomial and $Y$ is integer-valued, and we give a number of numerical examples which point to the diversity and complexity of the solutions in general. \\
\indent We conclude with some brief remarks about the broader literature. The spirit of this work is most closely aligned with the lines of inquiry in \cite{Bryc0,Bryc,Dembo}. We also note that the focus of the present work largely moves in the opposite direction of stochastic filtering, in which one (usually) seeks to get as close as possible to $X$ (see, e.g., \cite{Crisan}, and references therein). This being said, the answer to Question 4 should be of interest to those in stochastic filtering.
\section{Characterizing the solution.}\label{S1}
Firstly, we observe that the objective to be minimized,
\begin{equation}
\hbox{\rm var} \bigl( \; E[X|X+Y] \; \bigr)
\label{obj1}
\end{equation}
is unaltered if we shift $X$ or $Y$ by a constant, so we may and shall assume that the means of $X$ and $Y$ are set to be zero, unless otherwise stated.\\
\indent If $f$ is the density of $X$ and $g$ is the density of $Y$, then the objective \eqref{min2} is to minimize $\Phi(g)$, where
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(g) \equiv \int \; \lambda_*(s)^2\, (f*g)(s) \; ds,
\label{obj2}
\end{equation*}
and where
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_*(s) \equiv \frac{ \int xf(x)g(s-x) \; dx }{(f*g)(s)}\;\;
\label{ladef}
\end{equation*}
is $E[X|X+Y=s]$. We notice firstly that
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(g) =\sup_\lambda \int \bigl\{\; 2 \lambda(s)\, \int xf(x)g(s-x) \; dx
-\lambda(s)^2 (f*g)(s) \; \bigr\} \; ds,
\label{phi2}
\end{equation*}
which tells us in particular that $\Phi$ is a convex function. We aim to minimize $\Phi(g)$ over feasible $g$, that is, $g$ in the set ${\mathcal P}$ of primal-feasible functions:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P} = \{ g\geq 0, \int g(y)dy = 1, \int yg(y) dy = 0, \int y^2 g(y) dy \leq \varepsilon\}.
\end{equation}
Writing $\sigma^2$ for the second moment of $X$, we then have that for any $\alpha, \beta \in {\mathbb R}$ and $\gamma \geq 0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{g \in {\mathcal P}} \Phi(g) &\geq & \inf_{g \in {\mathcal P}, z \geq 0}
\bigl\{ \Phi(g) + \alpha (\int g dy -1) + \beta\int y g dy
+\gamma(\int y^2 g dy + z - \varepsilon) \bigr\}
\nonumber\\
&\geq&\inf_{g \geq 0, z \geq 0}
\bigl\{ \Phi(g) + \alpha (\int g dy -1) + \beta\int y g dy
+\gamma(\int y^2 g dy + z - \varepsilon) \bigr\}
\nonumber \\
&\geq&\inf_{g \geq 0, z \geq 0} \sup_\lambda \biggl[
\int \bigl\{\; 2 \lambda(s)\, \int xf(x)g(s-x) \; dx
-\lambda(s)^2 (f*g)(s) \; \bigr\} \; ds
\nonumber \\
&& \qquad + \alpha (\int g dy -1) + \beta\int y g dy
+\gamma(\int y^2 g dy + z - \varepsilon)
\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&\geq& \sup_\lambda \inf_{g \geq 0, z \geq 0}
\biggl[
\int \bigl\{\; 2 \lambda(s)\, \int xf(x)g(s-x) \; dx
-\lambda(s)^2 (f*g)(s) \; \bigr\} \; ds
\nonumber \\
&& \qquad + \alpha (\int g dy -1) + \beta\int y g dy
+\gamma(\int y^2 g dy + z - \varepsilon)
\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&=& \sup_\lambda \inf_{g \geq 0, z \geq 0}
\biggl[
\int g(y)\bigl\{\alpha + \beta y + \gamma y^2
- \int f(s-y)(s-y-\lambda(s))^2
\; ds
)
\bigr\}\; dy
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad+\sigma^2-\alpha + \gamma (z-\varepsilon)
\biggr].
\label{end}
\end{eqnarray}
From this, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\inf_{g \in {\mathcal P}} \Phi(g)\geq
\sup_{(\alpha, \beta,\gamma, \lambda) \in {\mathcal D}}\bigl[ \;
\sigma^2 -\alpha - \gamma\varepsilon
\; \bigr],
\label{primal_dual}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal D}$ is the space of dual-feasible variables $(\alpha,
\beta,\gamma, \lambda) $ satisfying $\gamma \geq 0$ and the condition
\begin{equation}
0 \leq \alpha + \beta y + \gamma y^2
- \int f(s-y)(s-y-\lambda(s))^2
\; ds \qquad\forall y.
\label{df1}
\end{equation}
The inequality in \eqref{primal_dual} is a primal-dual inequality familiar
from constrained optimization problems. We expect that under technical conditions
it is possible to prove that the inequality is in fact an equality, but
we avoid attempting to prove this. We do so because establishing this (if true)
does not help us to {\em identify} an optimal solution in any particular
example; to do that we will have to exploit the special features of the solution,
and by so doing we will be able to pass directly to a proof of optimality. We now proceed to do so.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Suppose that $g_* \in {\mathcal P}$ and $(\alpha_*, \beta_*, \gamma_*, \lambda_*) \in {\mathcal D}$
satisfy the complementary slackness conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &\equiv& \biggl[\alpha_* + \beta_* y + \gamma_* y^2
- \int f(s-y)(s-y-\lambda_*(s))^2
\; ds \biggr] \; g_*(y)
\label{cs1}
\\
0 &=& \gamma_* z_*,
\label{cs2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $z_* = \varepsilon - \int y^2 g_*(y) \; dy $; and that
\begin{equation}
\lambda_*(s) = \frac{ \int xf(x)g_*(s-x) \; dx }{(f*g_*)(s)}.
\label{ladef2}
\end{equation}
Then $g_*$ is optimal.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\sc Proof.} Consider $q \equiv \sigma^2 - \alpha_* - \gamma_* \varepsilon$, which is a lower bound for the right-hand side of \eqref{primal_dual}, since $(\alpha_*, \beta_*, \gamma_*, \lambda_*) \in {\mathcal D}$. Now we return to \eqref{end} and work back through the steps, putting $g_*$ for $g$ and $\lambda_*$ for $\lambda$, ignoring the $\sup$ and $\inf$ everywhere. Because of the conditions in \eqref{cs1} and \eqref{cs2}, the value we start from at \eqref{primal_dual} is $q$. At every step, we have equality, so we end up with $\Phi(g_*) = q$. Since $g_* \in {\mathcal P}$, $g_*$ is optimal. This concludes the proof.
\hfill$\square$
It might appear that the conditions of Theorem \ref{thm1} are too complicated to verify in practice, but upon inspection of \eqref{cs1} we realize that {\em if for some $a, b \in {\mathbb R}$}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_*(s) = a + bs,
\label{good}
\end{equation}
{\em there may be a chance}. Indeed, if we continue to assume that $EX=EY=0$, then the condition
\begin{equation}
\alpha_* + \beta_* y + \gamma_* y^2 = \int f(x) (x-\lambda_*(x+y))^2 dx \qquad\forall y,
\label{cs1b}
\end{equation}
combined with \eqref{good} implies that $a=0$, $\beta_*=0$, $b^2 = \gamma_*$, and $\alpha_* = (1-b)^2 \sigma^2$.
\section{Explicitly soluble situations.}\label{S2}
If we took $X$, $Y$ to be independent with the {\em same} distribution, then it is obvious that
\begin{equation}
E[X|X+Y] = (X+Y)/2.
\label{IID}
\end{equation}
\indent Let us now apply Theorem \ref{thm1} to this situation, taking $\lambda_*(s) = s/2$, $\alpha_* = \sigma^2/4$, $\beta_*=0$, and $\gamma_*=1/4$, and $g = f$. If the bound on the variance of $Y$ is $\varepsilon = \sigma^2 \equiv \hbox{\rm var} (X)$, then $g=f$ is primal-feasible, $(\alpha_*, \beta_*, \gamma_*, \lambda_*)$ is dual-feasible, and the complementary slackness conditions \eqref{cs1b} and \eqref{cs2} hold. Hence by Theorem \ref{thm1} the law which minimizes $ \hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+Y]$ subject to the bound $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) \leq \hbox{\rm var} (X)$ is $g=f$. The lower bound from \eqref{primal_dual} is seen to be $\sigma^2/2$, which is indeed the variance of $(X+Y)/2$.\\
\indent By similar reasoning, it is straightforward to see that if $X = \xi_1 + \ldots + \xi_n$, where the $\xi_j$ are IID with zero mean and common variance $\sigma^2$, and where we bound $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) \leq m \sigma^2$, then the optimal law of $Y$ is given by $Y = \xi_1+ \ldots + \xi_m$. But this result now points towards a wider result for infinitely divisible distributions, which we state as Proposition \ref{Prop1} below.
\begin{proposition} \label{Prop1}
Suppose that $(Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a zero-mean square-integrable L\'evy process, with $EZ_t = t$. Suppose that $X \sim Z_t$ for some fixed $t>0$. Then the minimum in \eqref{min3} is achieved when $Y \sim Z_\varepsilon$.
\end{proposition}
\bigbreak\noindent
{\sc Proof.} If we let $Y = Z_\varepsilon$, then $E[X|X+Y] = t(X+Y)/(t+\varepsilon)$, so by setting $\lambda_*(s) = bs$ with $b=t/(t+\varepsilon)$ we ensure that \eqref{ladef2} holds. The complementary slackness condition \eqref{cs1} holds for all $y$ if we take $\gamma_* = b^2$, $\beta_* =0$, and $\alpha_* = (1-b)^2 t$, as before. With $z_* = 0$, the complementary slackness condition \eqref{cs2} holds. The law of $Y$ is primal feasible, and so by Theorem \ref{thm1} the result follows.
\hfill $\square$
\section{Does more noise mean worse prediction?}\label{S2a}
As we saw at \eqref{normnoise}, if $Y \sim N(0,1)$ is independent of $X$, then
\begin{equation}
E[X|X+\lambda Y] \rightarrow EX \qquad \hbox{\rm a.s.,}
\label{normnoise2}
\end{equation}
so in this situation, {\em adding a larger-variance noise to $X$ decreases the variance of $E[X|X+Y]$.} One might conjecture that this holds more generally, but a little thought shows that this is not so. Indeed, if $X,Y \sim B(1, {\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}} } )$, then we have $E[X|X+2Y] = X$, which has larger variance than $E[X|X+Y]$. This being said, a result in the direction of \eqref{normnoise2} is valid if $Y$ is {\em self-decomposable}, as defined in Definition \ref{def1} below.
\begin{defin} \label{def1}
A random variable $Y$ is self-decomposable (belongs to class $\cal L$), if for any $c,\:0<c<1$ there exists a random variable $U_c$ independent of $Y$ such that $Y$ is equal in law to $cY+U_c$.
\end{defin}
All $Y\in{\cal L}$ are infinitely divisible. Not all infinitely divisible random variables are in $\cal L$, but the random variables having stable distributions are in $\cal L$. See Chapter 5 of \cite{Lukacs} for properties of the class $\cal L$.\\
\indent Before stating Theorem \ref{thm2} below, we pause to record a couple of simple facts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any random variables $U,\:V,\:W$ with $E|U|<\infty$ and $(U,\:V)$ independent of $W$,
\begin{equation}
E(U|V,\:W)= E(U|V).
\label{fact1}
\end{equation}
\item For any $U,\:V,\:W$ with $E(U^2)<\infty,$
\begin{equation}
{\rm var}E(U|V,\:W)\geq {\rm var}E(U|V+W).
\label{fact2}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
From these, we conclude that if $Z$ is independent of $(X,Y)$ then
\begin{equation}
{\rm var}E(X|X+Y)\geq {\rm var}E(X|X+Y+Z),
\label{needed}
\end{equation}
where we have applied \eqref{fact1} and \eqref{fact2} with $U=X$, $V=X+Y$, $W=Z$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $X$ be a random variable with ${\rm var}X <\infty$ and $Y\in{\cal L}$. Let $V(\lambda):={\rm var}E(X|X+\lambda Y)$. Then $V(\lambda)$ is monotone decreasing on $(0,\:\infty)$ and monotone increasing on $(-\infty,\:0)$.
\end{theorem}
\medskip\noindent
{\sc Proof}. Let $0<\lambda_1 <\lambda_2$ and set $\lambda_1 =c\lambda_2$ with $0<c<1$. Suppose that $X$, $Y$, $U_c$ are independent random variables with the self-decomposable property
\begin{equation*}
Y \sim c Y + U_c.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+\lambda_2 Y] &=& \hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+\lambda_2 cY + \lambda_2 U_c]
\\
&=& \hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+\lambda_1 Y + \lambda_2 U_c]
\\
&\leq& \hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+\lambda_1 Y],
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last step follows by \eqref{needed}. Monotonicity in $(-\infty,0)$ follows because $-Y \in \mathcal L$.
\hfill$\square$
\section{Examples.}\label{S3}
Our first example is $X \sim B(1,p)$, which is simple enough to allow fairly complete analysis for small $\varepsilon$. Thereafter we take a few examples where $X$ has a symmetric discrete distribution and present numerical solutions. Notice that if $X$ is an integer-valued random variable, and $Y$ is an independent random variable for which $ \hbox{\rm var} E[X|X+Y]$ is minimized, then if we use the integer part $[Y]$ of $Y$ instead, the variance of $E[X|X+Y]$ will be the same. Thus if $X$ is integer-valued, we need only search for minimizing $Y$ among integer-valued $Y$.
\subsection{Binomial distribution.}\label{ss22}
Suppose that $P(X=1) = p = 1-q = P(X=0)$, and that the variance of $Y$ is bounded by $\varepsilon >0 $ as before. We shall assume without loss of generality that $p \geq q$. If $\varepsilon$ is small enough (see \eqref{veps_star}), we conjecture that the optimal $Y$ will take only values 0 and 1, $P[Y=1] = p'=1-q'$, and we will prove that this conjecture is true. As is easily checked,
\begin{equation*}
E[X|X+Y=0] = 0,\quad E[X|X+Y=1] = \frac{pq'}{pq'+qp'},\quad E[X|X+Y=2] = 1.
\end{equation*}
Hence
\begin{equation}
E\bigl( \; E[X|X+Y]^2 \;\bigr) = pp' + \frac{(pq')^2}{pq'+qp'}.
\label{bin1}
\end{equation}
Some routine calculus shows that this is minimized over $p' \equiv 1-q'$ when
\begin{equation}
p' = p^* \equiv \frac{\sqrt{p}}{\sqrt{p} + \sqrt{q}},
\label{pdash}
\end{equation}
which is at least $ {\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}} } $ by our assumption that $p \geq q$.
Bearing in mind that the variance of $Y$ is bounded by $\varepsilon$, it may be that the value $p^*$ for $p'$ obtained at \eqref{pdash} is not achievable; if the variance of the $B(1,p')$ random variable $Y$ is bounded by $\varepsilon$, then
\begin{equation}
P[Y=1] \geq {\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}} } \{1+\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}\}.
\label{PYlb}
\end{equation}
We see that this lower bound is greater than or equal to $p^*$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon \leq {\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{4}} } (1 - (2p^*-1)^2 ) \equiv \varepsilon_*.
\label{veps_star}
\end{equation}
If $ \varepsilon> \varepsilon_*$, the optimal $Y$ will put positive probability on more than two integer values. {\em So we proceed on the assumption that $\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon_*$}. With a view to applying Theorem \ref{thm1},
we see from \eqref{ladef2} that we must take $\lambda_*$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\lambda_*(0) =0, \quad \lambda_*(1) = \frac{pq'}{pq' + qp'},
\quad \lambda_*(2) = 1,
\label{lambda_star}
\end{equation}
and now we must check for suitable choices of $\alpha_*$, $\beta_*$, $\gamma_*$, $\lambda$ that the dual-feasibility condition \eqref{df1} holds for {\em all} integer $y$:
\begin{equation}
q \lambda_*(y)^2 + p (1-\lambda_*(1+y))^2 \leq Q(y) \equiv \alpha_* + \beta_* y + \gamma_* y^2,
\label{DF}
\end{equation}
with equality when $y=0,1$. We have from \eqref{PYlb} that $p' = {\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}} } (1+\theta)$, where for brevity $\theta \equiv \sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}$. From the fact that \eqref{DF} must hold with equality at $y = 0, 1$, straightforward algebra yields
\begin{equation}
Q(0) = q B, \qquad Q(1) = p B,
\label{Q01}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B \equiv \frac{pq (1+\theta)^2}{( q(1+\theta) + p(1-\theta))^2}.
\label{Bdef}
\end{equation}
The quadratic
\begin{equation}
Q_*(x) = B(pq + (x-q)^2) + A x(x-1)
\label{Qstar}
\end{equation}
fits the conditions \eqref{Q01} for any $A \geq 0$. Moreover, if we define
\begin{equation}
\lambda_*(y) = 0 \quad \forall y <0, \qquad \lambda_*(y) = 1 \quad \forall y > 2,
\end{equation}
we see that by choosing $A>0$ large enough we can ensure \eqref{DF} for all $y \in {\mathbb Z}$ with equality for $y=0,1$.
\medskip
To illustrate the kind of solutions we arrive at, we show in Figures \ref{figbin0}, \ref{figbin1} and \ref{figbin2} below the probability mass functions for $X$ and the optimal $Y$ in the case where $X \sim B(1,0.6)$ and $Y$ has to satisfy a low variance bound $\varepsilon = 0.5 \varepsilon_*$, the critical variance bound $\varepsilon_*$, and a higher variance bound $2 \varepsilon_*$ respectively. The probability mass function (PMF) of $Y$ is shown shifted to the left for clarity - as we have already remarked, such a shift makes no difference to the objective. Notice how the objective decreases as the bound on the variance of $Y$ becomes more relaxed, as it should do. Notice also that the PMF of $Y$ in the final plot gives non-zero weight to {\em more than two} values, again as we should expect from the preceding analysis.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.32 ]{Bin0.pdf}
\caption{$X\sim B(1,0.6)$ with low bound on $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y)$.}
\label{figbin0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.32 ]{Bin1.pdf}
\caption{$X\sim B(1,0.6)$ with critical bound on $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y)$.}
\label{figbin1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.32 ]{Bin2.pdf}
\caption{$X\sim B(1,0.6)$ with high bound on $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y)$.}
\label{figbin2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{$X$ is uniform.}\label{ss52}
Here we compute the optimal distribution for $Y$ when $X$ is uniform. We consider two cases: the first low-variance case has $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = 2 \hbox{\rm var} (X)/\pi$ and the second high-variance case has $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = \pi \hbox{\rm var} (X)/2$. The two corresponding figures, Figures \ref{fig2lo} and \ref{fig2hi} below, display the PMFs of $X$ and $Y$, along with a diagnostic plot\footnote{... scaled to fit the plot of the PMFs...} in red and green markers of the computed function
\begin{equation*}
y \mapsto \int f(v) \lambda_*(y-v) \{ \; \lambda_*(y-v) + 2v\;\} \; dv,
\end{equation*}
which according to \eqref{df1} must be dominated by a quadratic\footnote{Recall that $f$ is symmetric.}, and equal to that quadratic wherever the PMF of $Y$ is positive. From our discussion in Section \ref{S2}, if we set $\varepsilon = 2 \hbox{\rm var} (X)$ then the optimal choice would be to take $Y$ to be the sum of two independent copies of $X$, which in this case would be the sum of two independent uniforms; the resulting PMF would be a symmetric piecewise-linear `tent', and looking at Figure \ref{fig2hi} we something that looks approximately like that.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG2_lo.pdf}
\caption{$X$ uniform, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = 2 \hbox{\rm var} (X)/\pi$ .}
\label{fig2lo}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG2_hi.pdf}
\caption{$X$ uniform, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = \pi \hbox{\rm var} (X)/2$.}
\label{fig2hi}
\end{figure}
\subsection{$X$ is the sum of two uniforms.}\label{ss53}
Again we compute the optimal $Y$ for two values of $\varepsilon$. Notice how strange the solution is in both cases, particularly for the high variance case, where we see that the distribution of the optimal $Y$ has a hole at the center!
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG3_lo.pdf}
\caption{$X$ is the sum of two uniforms, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = 2 \hbox{\rm var} (X)/\pi$ .}
\label{fig3lo}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG3_hi.pdf}
\caption{$X$ is the sum of two uniforms, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = \pi \hbox{\rm var} (X)/2$.}
\label{fig3hi}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The density of $X$ is the square of that in section \ref{ss53}}\label{ss54}
This time we take the density of $X$ from Section \ref{ss53} and square it (of course, renormalizing to sum to 1). Once again, the distribution of the optimal $Y$ has a form which would be difficult to guess - the PMF is not monotone in ${\mathbb Z}^+$, for example.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG4_lo.pdf}
\caption{The density of $X$ is the square of the example in Figure \ref{fig3lo}, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = 2 \hbox{\rm var} (X)/\pi$ .}
\label{fig4lo}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace*{-2.0cm}\includegraphics[scale=0.3 ]{EG4_hi.pdf}
\caption{The density of $X$ is the square of the example in Figure \ref{fig3hi}, with $ \hbox{\rm var} (Y) = \pi \hbox{\rm var} (X)/2$.}
\label{fig4hi}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgments}\\
We thank Professor Dan Crisan and Dongzhou Huang for helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Moduli spaces of semistable sheaves on a complex projective K3 surface $X$ are a well studied class of algebraic varieties, and they are among the only known examples of compact hyperk\"{a}hler (or irreducible holomorphic symplectic) varieties. Classically, we consider the moduli space $M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ of Gieseker-stable coherent sheaves with fixed topological invariants, encoded in the Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$. Recall that, given a polarization $H$, a coherent sheaf $E$ is Gieseker semistable if it is pure and
\[
p(F,m) \leq p(E,m)
\]
for every proper subsheaf $F \subset E$, where $p(E,m)$ is the reduced Hilbert polynomial. It is stable if the strict inequality holds.
The stability condition gives a GIT construction of $M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, which is then projective. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive, and $H$ is generic, i.e. it is in the complement of a union of hyperplanes in the ample cone, then $M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is smooth and parameterizes stable sheaves.
In \cite{Bridgeland_triangulated} and \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006} Bridgeland defined the notion of a stability condition on a triangulated category, and constructed stability conditions on the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves $D^b(X)$ on a K3 surface $X$. These stability conditions form a complex manifold $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$, and given a Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ there is a set of real-codimension one submanifolds, such that stability of objects with class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is constant in each chamber, i.e. in each connected component of the complement of the walls. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive, we say that a stability condition $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic if it varies in a chamber for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. In this case, every $\sigma$-semistable object is $\sigma$-stable. Moreover, there is a chamber, near the ``large volume limit", where Bridgeland stability recovers Gieseker stability. The connected component of $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ containing this chamber is called the \textit{distinguished component} and denoted by $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$.
Moduli stacks of semistable complexes were studied by many people: Toda \cite{Toda_Moduli}, Abramovich-Polishchuk \cite{AP:tstructures}, and finally a complete treatment can be found \cite[Part II]{bayer2019stability}. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive, and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic there exists a coarse moduli space as an algebraic space, and it parameterizes stable complexes.
Moreover, under these assumptions the coarse moduli space is a smooth and proper algebraic space, by results of Inaba \cite{inaba_stable,inaba_smoothness_2010} and Lieblich \cite{Lieblich_complexes}. In contrast to the classical Gieseker moduli spaces, these have no obvious GIT construction. Projectivity was shown in \cite{bayer_projectivity_2013}. The idea is to use a Fourier-Mukai argument to reduce to the classical case of (twisted) Gieseker stability for which a GIT construction is available.
The goal of this paper is to give a new proof of the following result.
\begin{Thm}[Main Theorem]
Let $X$ be a K3 surface. Let ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ be its extended Mukai lattice, together with the Mukai Hodge structure.
Assume that $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}\in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ is a primitive vector and let $\sigma\in\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^\dagger(X)$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition on $X$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}[{\rm (1)}]
\item The moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is non-empty if and only if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2\geq-2$.
Moreover, it is a smooth projective hyperk\"{a}hler variety of dimension $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 + 2$, deformation-equivalent to a Hilbert scheme of points on a K3 surface.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2\geq 0$, then there exists a natural Hodge isometry
\[
\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}^{-1}\colon H^2(M_\sigma(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})\xrightarrow{\quad\sim\quad}
\begin{cases}\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^\perp & \text{if }\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0\\ \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^\perp/\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\ensuremath{\mathbf v} & \text{if } \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0,\end{cases}
\]
where the orthogonal is taken in $H^{*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Here $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}$ is the \textit{Mukai homomorphism}, see Definition \ref{Def:MukaiHom} for the precise definition.
The analogous result for Gieseker stable sheaf is a celebrated theorem due to the work of many people: Beauville \cite{beauville_1983}, Mukai \cite{mukai_symplectic_1984,Muk:K3}, Kuleshov \cite{kuleshov90}, O'Grady \cite{ogrady_weight-two_1995}, Huybrechts \cite{huybrechts_birational}, Yoshioka \cite{Yoshioka_main}, and others. The complete proof is in \cite{Yoshioka_main}, a recent account and a generalization to the non-primitive case is given in \cite{perego_moduli_2018}. Thanks to the work of Toda \cite{Toda_Moduli} and Bayer and Macr\`i \cite{bayer_projectivity_2013} the classical result is enough to deduce the Main Theorem for moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable complexes. Nevertheless, we feel that giving a complete proof from scratch in this generality is conceptually better. For example, in our argument there is no need to study preservation of Gieseker stability under Fourier-Mukai. This was a difficult technical step in the classical proof, and was investigated by several people \cite{bartocci_1997}, \cite{Muk:FM}, \cite{Yoshioka_FM1,Yoshioka_FM2}. This step gets simplified by Bridgeland stability conditions: we only need to check that the equivalences we use preserve the distinguished component $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$. Of course, since Gieseker stability can be recovered via Bridgeland stability in the large volume limit, the classical result follows from the Main Theorem.
Now we briefly explain the idea of the proof, the complete argument will be in Section \ref{sec:Deformation}. We start with a K3 surface $X$, a primitive Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 \geq -2$ and a generic stability condition $\sigma$ in the distinguished component $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$. The basic geometric input is that the Main Theorem holds for Hilbert schemes of points on a K3 surface, this is a classical result due to Beauville \cite{beauville_1983}. So, we want to reduce from our starting moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ on $X$, to the Hilbert scheme $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(Y)$ on another K3 surface $Y$, in such a way that the Main Theorem remains true at every step.
For this reduction we will use the following tools:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Derived equivalences:
\begin{itemize}
\item Shifts $E \mapsto E[1]$,
\item Tensor product with $L \in \mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)$,
\item The spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}$ around the structure sheaf,
\item The Fourier-Mukai transform $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ with kernel the universal family of a fine, two-dimensional, projective moduli space parameterizing Gieseker-stable sheaves.
\end{itemize}
\item Existence of relative stability conditions on a smooth projective family $\ensuremath{\mathcal X} \rightarrow C$ of K3 surfaces over a smooth quasi-projective curve, and existence of the corresponding relative moduli spaces, this is done in \cite{bayer2019stability}.
\item Wall-crossing for moduli spaces of spherical and isotorpic objects on any K3 surface, and for the Hilbert scheme $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$ on a K3 surface $X$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H$ with $H^2=2k^2(n-1)$.
\end{enumerate}
In the first five sections we show that the statement of the Main Theorem is invariant under operations of the above type, and in Section \ref{sec:Deformation} we combine them to conclude the argument.
The argument goes roughly as follows: we begin with a sequence of autoquivalences of type $(1)$ to modify the Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. This is done for the following reason. We can choose a polarization $H$ on $X$ with $H^2=2d$ and the new Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$, so that its Hodge locus in the moduli space of polarized K3 surfaces of degree $2d$ contains a polarized K3 surface $(Y,H')$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Its Picard group $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(Y)$ is an hyperbolic plane.
\item There is an algebraic class $\ensuremath{\mathbf w} \in H_{\mathrm{alg}}^*(Y,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ such that the moduli space $M:=M_{H'}(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$ is fine, non-empty, and a K3 surface.
\item The product of the classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}$ is $(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, we deform to this K3 surface $Y$, and consider the Fourier-Mukai transform given by the universal family $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ of $M$. The transformed vector is, up to tensoring with line bundles on $M$, the Mukai vector of the Hilbert scheme.
If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$ or $-2$ we argue as follows. We connect the resulting stability condition on $M$ to the Gieseker chamber with a path. This path meets finitely many walls, so we only need to study wall-crossing at each of them. For this, we prove the following result.
\begin{Thm}[Theorem \ref{semirigid1}]
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ be a primitive vector, with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ be a wall for the wall and chamber decomposition for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, and denote by $\sigma_{\pm}$ two generic stability conditions, one on each side of the wall, and $\sigma_0 \in \ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ a generic stability condition on the wall.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$, then $M_{\sigma_{+}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \neq \emptyset $ implies $M_{\sigma_{-}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \neq \emptyset$.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=0$, then there exists a spherical, $\sigma_{0}$-stable object $S$ such that either $\mathrm{ST}_{S}: M_{\sigma_{+}} \rightarrow M_{\sigma_{-}}$ or $\mathrm{ST}_{S}^{\pm 2}: M_{\sigma_{+}} \rightarrow M_{\sigma_{-}}$ are isomorphism.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
By applying the above Theorem finitely many times we complete the proof of the Main Theorem in the case where $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$ or $-2$.
A similar statement holds for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$ but is much more complicated, and it is the main result of \cite{mmp}. In general, wall-crossing induces birational maps $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \dashrightarrow M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, which are not necessarily isomorphisms. Moreover, showing that this birational map is defined in codimension one requires a detailed analysis, and it relies on existence of stable complexes.
Instead, for the positive square case we use a different argument. We note that the Picard group $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(M)$ of the Fourier-Mukai partner $M$ is again an hyperbolic plane, hence is has polarizations of any degree. In particular, we can deform to a K3 surface $X'$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X')=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H'$ with $(H')^2=2k^2(n-1)$. Up to changing the Fourier-Mukai partner $M$ with an isomorphic one obtained by wall-crossing via the above theorem, we can assume that the resulting stability condition on $X'$ lies in a domain $V(X') \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X')$. This can be characterized as the locus of stability conditions where all the skyscraper sheaves are stable of phase one, see Definition \ref{def:V(X)} and Lemma \ref{UandV}. Under these assumptions, the Main Theorem will be established in Section \ref{subsec:Positivesquare}, where we prove the following result.
\begin{Thm}[Corollary \ref{Cor:unigonal}]
Let $X$ be a K3 surface with $Pic(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H$ with $H^2=2d$ and $d=k^2(n-1)$ for $k>1$ integer. There is only one wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$ in $V(X)$, and the shifted derived dual $\mathrm{R}\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}(-,\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X)[2]$ induces an isomorphism
\[ M_{\sigma_{+}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_{-}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\]
where $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ are two generic stability conditions in the two chambers. In particular, the Main Theorem holds for both of them.
\end{Thm}
\subsection*{Structure of the paper}
In Section \ref{sec:bridgelandstability} we review the theory of Bridgeland stability conditions on K3 surfaces. We pay particular attention to those results in \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006} which rely on existence of stable sheaves. The main purpose of this section is to recall the definition of the distinguished component $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ of stability conditions. We also recall a result by Hartmann: the derived equivalences above preserve the distinguished component $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$.
In Section \ref{sec:geometry} we review some aspects of theory of moduli of stable complexes, and hyperk\"{a}hler varities. In Section \ref{sec:Wall crossing} we study the wall-crossing behavior for Mukai vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 \leq 0$, and prove Theorem \ref{semirigid1}. In Section \ref{subsec:Positivesquare} we study wall-crossing for the Hilbert scheme on a K3 surface with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\cdot H$ and degree $H^2=2k^2(n-1)$. In this section we restrict our attention to stability conditions of the form $\sigma_{\alpha H,\beta H}$, with $\alpha>0$. In Section \ref{sec:Deformation} we complete the proof of the Main Theorem, by reducing to the case of the Hilbert scheme.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
I want to thanks my advisors Emanuele Macr\`{i} and Antonio Rapagnetta for suggesting the problem and for many useful and instructive discussions. I am partially supported by the MIUR Excellence Department Project awarded to the Department of Mathematics, University of Rome Tor Vergata, CUP E83C18000100006 and the ERC Synergy Grant ERC- 2020-SyG-854361-HyperK.
\section{Review: Bridgeland stability conditions}
\label{sec:bridgelandstability}
In this section we review the theory of Bridgeland stability on K3 surfaces, as introduced in \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006}. The main objective is to define the \textit{distinguished component} $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ of the space of stability conditions and to show that (some) derived equivalences preserve this component. All of the results here are well known, due to Bridgeland and Hartmann, but some proofs in the literature use existence of slope stable spherical sheaves. Here we give a treatment that avoids that problem by slightly modifying the standard definitions.
\subsection{Basic definitions and results}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, denote by $D^b(X)$ the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $X$, and by \[{H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}:=H^0(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits(X) \oplus H^4(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})\] the algebraic part of the cohomology. It comes equipped with an integral even bilinear form of signature $(2,\rho(X))$, called \textit{Mukai pairing} and defined by:
\[ (\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf v}')=\Delta.\Delta' - rs'-r's, \]
where we write $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'=(r',\Delta',s')$. Recall that given an object $E \in D^b(X)$, its \textit{Mukai vector} $v(E) \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ is defined as \[v(E):=\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(E).\sqrt{\mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits_X}=(\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits_0(E),\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits_1(E),\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits_2(E)+\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits_0(E)).\]
\begin{Defi}
A (full, numerical) stability condition is a pair $\sigma=(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal A})$, where $Z: {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ is a group homomorphism (called \textit{central charge}), and $\ensuremath{\mathcal A} \subset D^b(X)$ is a heart of a bounded t-structure, satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $0 \neq E \in D^b(X)$, the central charge $Z(E)$ lies in the semi-closed upper half-plane
\[ \ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}:=\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}e^{(0,1]i\pi} \]
\item Given an object $0 \neq E \in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}$ we define the slope as $\nu_{\sigma}(E):=\frac{-\Re Z(E)}{\Im Z(E)}$. A non-zero object $E$ is said (semi)stable if for every proper subobject $F \subset E$ the following inequality holds:
\[ \nu_{\sigma}(F) < (\leq) \nu_{\sigma}(E). \]
Then, every $0 \neq E\in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}$ has a Harder-Narasimhan filtration, i.e. a filtration
\[ 0=E_0 \subset E_1 \subset \dots \subset E_n=E, \]
with semistable quotients of decreasing slope.
\item Fix a norm $\norm *$ on ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$. Then there is a constant $C >0$, such that for every semistable object $E \in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}$, we have
\[ \norm E < C|Z(E)|\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{Defi}
Given a pair $(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal A})$ as above, we can extend the notion of stability to the full derived category $D^b(X)$ in the following way. For every ${\varphi} \in (0,1]$ define $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})$ as the full subcategory of semistable objects $E \in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}$ with $Z(E) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}e^{i{\varphi}}$. Then extend this definition to every ${\varphi} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ by the compatibility condition $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi}+n)=\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})[n]$.
Every non-zero object $E \in D^b(X)$ has a Harder-Narasimhan filtration, i.e. a sequence of maps
\[0=E_{0} \rightarrow E_1 \rightarrow \dots \rightarrow E_{n-1}\rightarrow E_{n}=E, \]
with cones $A_i$ that are semistable of decreasing phases.
The phases of the first and last Harder-Narasimhan factors are denoted by ${\varphi}_{\sigma}^+(E)$ and ${\varphi}_{\sigma}^-(E)$.
The category $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})$ is abelian of finite lenght, so every semistable object has a Jordan-Holder filtration, i.e. a finite filtration with stable cones of the same phase. Two semistable objects with the same associated graded are called $S$-equivalent.
It is shown in \cite[Proposition $5.3$]{Bridgeland_triangulated} that the data of $(Z,\{\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})\}_{{\varphi} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is equivalent to the data of the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}$ and the central charge $Z$. The inverse equivalence is given by forming the category $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}(0,1]$, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}((a,b])$ is the full subcategory of $D^b(X)$ with objects
\[ \{ E \in D^b(X) \mid {\varphi}^{-}(E),{\varphi}^+(E) \in (a,b]\}.\]
The definition was extended in \cite{bayer2019stability} to include openness of stability in families and existence of moduli spaces. Precisely we add the conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(4)] For every scheme $T$ and for every $T$-perfect complex $E \in D_{T-\textrm{perf}}(S \times T)$ the set
\[
\{ t \in T \mid E_t \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi}) \}
\]
is open.
\item[(5)] for every $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ and every ${\varphi} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $Z(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}e^{i\pi{\varphi}}$ the functor
\[
T \rightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi}):=\{ E \in D_{T-\textrm{perf}}(S \times T) \mid E_t \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi}) \textrm{ and } v(E_t)=\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \}
\]
is bounded.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ be the set of all stability condition. It has a natural topology induced by a metric, see \cite[Section $6$]{Bridgeland_triangulated} for the precise form of the metric. This topology can be characterized as the coarsest topology that makes the functions \[\sigma \mapsto Z \ \mathrm{and} \ \sigma \mapsto {\varphi}_{\sigma}^{\pm}(E)\] continuous, for every $0 \neq E \in D^b(X)$.
The main result in \cite{Bridgeland_triangulated} is the following.
\begin{Thm}[Bridgeland Deformation Theorem]
The map
\begin{align*}
\pi:\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X) &\rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits({H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})},\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})\\
\sigma=(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal A})& \mapsto Z
\end{align*}
is a local homeomorphism. In particular, every connected component of $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ is a complex manifold of dimension $\mathrm{rk}({H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})})$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{Rem}[{{\cite[Lemma $8.2$]{Bridgeland_triangulated}}}]
There are two natural actions on the space of stability conditon: a left action by the group $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}\nolimits(D^b(X))$ of exact autoequivalences of $D^b(X)$, and a right action by $\widetilde{GL}^+_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$, the universal cover of the group ${GL}^+_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$. Given an autoequivalence $\Phi$ and a stability condition $\sigma=(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal P})$ we set $\Phi(\sigma):=(Z \circ \Phi^{-1},\ensuremath{\mathcal P}')$, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}'(t):=\Phi(\ensuremath{\mathcal P}(t))$. The action of $\widetilde{GL}^+_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ is given by lifting the right action of $GL_2^+(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ on $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits({H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})},\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$.
\end{Rem}
We are interested in knowing how stability varies when we deform $\sigma$; this was first done in \cite[Proposition $9.3$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}. See also \cite[Proposition $3.3$]{bayer_local} and \cite[Proposition $2.8$]{Toda_Moduli}.
\begin{Prop}\label{walls}
Fix a class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$. There exists a locally finite set of real codimension one manifold with boundary, called walls, in $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$, such that when $\sigma$ varies within a chamber (a connected component of the complement of the set of walls), the set of $\sigma$-semistable and $\sigma$-stable objects does not change. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive and $\sigma$ varies in a chamber, every semistable object is stable.
\end{Prop}
\begin{Defi}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$. We say a stability condition $\sigma$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ generic if is not on a wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. We say a stability condition is generic on a wall if it lies on only one wall.
\end{Defi}
\begin{Rem}
If an object $E$ is semistable in a chamber, it continues to be semistable on a wall of that chamber. Indeed, the condition for $E$ to be semistable is given by the equality ${\varphi}^{+}_{\sigma}(E)={\varphi}^{-}_{\sigma}(E)$, which is a closed condition on the space of stability conditions.
\end{Rem}
\subsection{Construction of stability conditions on K3 surfaces.}\label{subsec:stabilityK3} We review the construction of stability conditions on K3 surfaces, given in \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006}.
Let $\omega \in NS(X) \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ ample.
Recall the definition of the slope of a coherent sheaf $E \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X)$,
\[ \mu_{\omega}(E):=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\omega.c_1(E)}{\omega^2r(E)} & \text{if } r(E)>0,\\
+\infty & \mathrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
where $r(E)$ denotes the rank of $E$.
\begin{Defi
A coherent sheaf $E \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X)$ is slope (semi)stable if for every proper subsheaf $A \subset E$ we have
\[ \mu_{\omega}(A) < (\leq) \mu_{\omega}(E/A). \]
\end{Defi}
For later use we also recall the definition of $B$-twisted Gieseker stability, for $B$ a rational divisor. Note that if $B=0$ we recover the classical notion of Gieseker stability.
\begin{Defi}
Let $\omega, B \in \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits(X)_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$, with $\omega$ ample. We define the $B$-twisted Hilbert polynomial of a coherent sheaf $E$ as
\[ P(E,m):=\int_X{e^{m\omega-B}}.v(E). \]
A pure $d$-dimensional coherent sheaf $E$ is $B$-twisted Gieseker (semi)stable if, for every proper non trivial subsheaf $F \subset E$ we have
\[ \frac{P(F,m)}{\alpha_d(F)} < (\leq) \frac{P(E,m)}{\alpha_d(E)}, \]
for $m >>0$, where $\alpha_d(E)$ is the degree $d$ coefficient of $P(E,m)$.
\end{Defi}
\begin{Rem}
Similarly to Bridgeland stability, both slope stability and Gieseker stability satisfy the existence of Harder-Narasimhan filtrations. That is every non-zero coherent sheaf $E \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X)$ has a filtration with slope-semistable (resp. Gieseker semistable) quotients of decreasing slope (resp. decreasing reduced Hilbert polynomial).
\end{Rem}
Now consider the pair $\sigma_{\omega,B}=(Z_{\omega,B},\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\omega,B})$ where
\[ Z_{\omega,B}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}):=(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\exp(B+i\omega)),\]
and $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\omega,B}(X)$ is the tilt of $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X)$ with respect to the torsion pair $(\ensuremath{\mathcal T}^{\beta},\ensuremath{\mathcal F}^{\beta})$, defined as follows
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathcal T}^{\beta}&:=\{ T \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X) \mid \textrm{All HN factors $A_{i}$ of $T$ satisfy}\ \mu_{\omega}(A_{i})>\frac{\omega.B}{\omega^{2}} \};\\
\ensuremath{\mathcal F}^{\beta}&:=\{ F \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X) \mid \textrm{All HN factors $A_{i}$ of $F$ satisfy} \ \mu_{\omega}(A_i) \leq \frac{\omega.B}{\omega^2} \},
\end{align*}
where the Harder-Narasimhan factors are with respect to slope stability.
\begin{Defi}
An object $E \in D^b(X)$ is spherical if
\[
\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^i(E,E)=
\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} & \text{if } i=0,2 \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{Defi}
\begin{Thm}[{{\cite[Lemma $6.2$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}}}]
The above construction gives a stability condition $\sigma_{\omega,B}$ on $D^b(X)$, provided $Z_{\omega,B}(E) \not \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$ for every spherical torsion-free sheaf $E$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{Defi}\label{def:V(X)}
The set of stability conditions $\sigma_{\omega,B}=(Z_{\omega,B},\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\omega,B})$, with $Z_{\omega,B}(E) \not \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$ for every spherical sheaf $E$ is denoted by $V(X)$. We define the \textit{geometric chamber} $U(X)$ as the subset \[\widetilde{GL_{2}}^{+}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}).V(X) \subseteq \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)\] obtained from $V(X)$ via the action of $\widetilde{GL_{2}}^{+}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$. A stability condition is \textit{geometric} if it belongs to $U(X)$.
\end{Defi}
To define the distinguished component we need to show that the sets $V(X)$ and $U(X)$ are connected. To show this we follow the proof in \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006} and introduce several auxiliary spaces. Using the Mukai pairing form on ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ we can identify the central charge $Z$ of a stability condition with a vector $\Omega_Z \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$.
Define $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}(X) \subset {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ as the set of vectors $\Omega$ whose real and imaginary parts span positive definite two-planes in ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Define $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X)$ as the subset of $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}(X)$ of classes not orthogonal to any spherical class:
\[ \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X):=\{ \Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}(X) \mid (\Omega,\delta) \neq 0 \textrm{ for every } \delta \in \Delta(X)\}\]
where $\Delta(X):=\{\delta \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \mid \delta^2=-2\}$.
Consider the subset of $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X)$ given by the vectors $\Omega$ obtained by the construction above:
\[ \ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X):=\{ \Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X) \mid \Omega=\exp(B+i\omega) \textrm{ with } \omega \in \mathrm{Amp}(X) \textrm{ and } B \in \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits(X) \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \} \]
The set $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X)$ has two connected components, we call $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^+_0(X)$ the one containing $\ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X)$.
\begin{Prop}[{{\cite[Proposition $8.3$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}}}]
The set $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0} \subset \ensuremath{\mathcal N}(X) \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ is open, and the restriction
\[ \pi: \pi^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0}(X)) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0}(X)\]
is a covering map.
\end{Prop}
To show that $V(X)$ and $U(X)$ are connected, we need to introduce two more subsets:
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X):=\{\Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}(X) \mid (\Omega,\Omega)=0, (\Omega,\bar{\Omega})>0, r(\Omega)=1\}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X):=\{\Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X) \mid (\Omega,\delta) \not\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0} \ \ \forall \delta \in \Delta^{+}(X)\},
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta^{+}(X):=\{\delta \in \Delta(X) \mid r(\delta) >0\}$, and $r:{H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \rightarrow H^0(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})\cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ is the first component.
\begin{Lem}\label{UandV}
We have
\[V(X) = \{\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits (X) \mid \ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{x}\ \mathrm{is \ stable \ of\ phase\ } 1\ \forall x \in X\mathrm{,\ and\ } \pi(\sigma) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X)\}\]
and
\[ U(X)=\{\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X) \mid \ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{x} \ \mathrm{is\ stable\ } \forall x \in X\mathrm{,\ and\ } \pi(\sigma) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}^{+}_{0}(X)\} \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Without the condition $\pi(\sigma) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0^+(X)$ this follows from the proof of \cite[Proposition $10.3$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}. In the third step of the proof, Bridgeland shows, using existence of slope stable spherical sheaves, that if all the skyscraper sheaves are $\sigma$-stable, then the central charge is in $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^+_0(X)$. Since we explicitly ask for the central charge to be in $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^+_0(X)$, we can skip this step. The rest of the proof works verbatim and gives the Lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}\label{lem:covering}
The restriction $\pi|_{V(X)}: V(X) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X)$ has open image and it is an homeomorphism onto its image.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Since every stability condition in $V(X)$ is obtained by tilting, the map $\pi$ is injective when restricted to $V(X)$. So it is enough to show that it remains a covering on $V(X)$. Notice that Lemma \ref{UandV} and \cite[Proposition $9.4$]{bridgeland_stability_2006} imply that $U(X) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ is an open subset. Since $\pi(U(X)) \subset \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0(X)$ by definition and $U(X)$ is open, the map $\pi$ restricted to $U(X)$ is a covering onto its image. Moreover, a stability condition $\sigma \in U(X)$ is determined by its central charge $\pi(\sigma)$ up to even shifts, because the even shifts are the only elements of $\widetilde{GL_2^+}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ that fix the central charge. Let $A$ be a small neighborhood of $\pi(\sigma)$, since $\pi$ is a cover on $U(X)$, the inverse image $\pi^{-1}(A) \cap U(X)$ is homeomorphic to $A \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$, where the second factors records the shift. Restricting to $\ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X) \cap A$ we see that $\pi^{-1}(A \cap \ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X)) \cap V(X)$ is contained in one component of $\pi^{-1}(A) \cap U(X)$, so $\pi|_{V(X)}$ induces an homeomorphism onto its image.
\end{proof}
It is easy to see that the pairing $(-,\delta)|_{\ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X)}: \ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ with any class $\delta$ is submersive when restricted to $\ensuremath{\mathcal K}(X)$. In particular the preimage of a real half-line is a locally closed submanifold of real codimension one. These submanifolds are contained in real hyperplanes of ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Bridgeland shows that the union of these hyperplanes is locally finite, and it uses this to show the following.
\begin{Lem}[{{\cite[Lemma $11.1$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}}}]\label{Lcontractible}
The set $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X) \subset \ensuremath{\mathcal Q}(X)$ is open and contractible.
\end{Lem}
The proof of the following Proposition is the same as \cite[Proposition $11.2$]{bridgeland_stability_2006} with an extra step, but we reproduce the entire proof for readability.
\begin{Prop}
The spaces $V(X)$ and $U(X)$ are connected.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
First we claim that
\[ \ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X) \subseteq \pi(V(X)). \]
Lemma \ref{lem:covering} implies that $\pi(V(X))$ is an open subset of $Q(X)$ and $\pi|_{V(X)}:V(X) \rightarrow \pi(V(X))$ is an homemorphism. From Lemma \ref{Lcontractible} we get that $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X) \cap \pi(V(X))$ is open in $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$. Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is connected, we only need to show that the intersection is closed in $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$.
Let $\Omega \in \overline{\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X) \cap \pi(V(X))} \subset \ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$. Since
$\pi$ is an homeomorphism restricted to $V(X)$,
there exists a stability condition $\sigma \in \overline{V(X)}$ such that $\pi(\sigma)=\Omega$. If $\sigma$ is not in $V(X)$, Lemma \ref{UandV} implies that there is a strictly semistable skyscraper sheaf $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x$; consider its Jordan-Holder factors $A_i$. From the definition of the category $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\omega,B}(X)$, and the fact that $\omega$ is ample, it follows that if $\Im Z(A_i)=0$ and $r(A_i)=0$, then $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(A_i)$ is a multiple of $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x)$. This implies that there is a Jordan-Holder factor $A$ with positive rank. Since $A$ has the same phase as $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x$ we have $Z(A) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{<0}$, and we claim that $A$ is spherical. Recall that
\[ \Re Z(A)=\frac{1}{2r}((\Delta^2 -2rs)+r^2\omega^2-(\Delta-rB)^2),\]
where $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(A)=(r,\Delta,s)$.
We have $\Im Z(A)=(\Delta-rB).\omega=0$, which implies $(\Delta-rB)^2 \leq 0$ by the Hodge index Theorem. Hence $\Delta^2 -2rs <0$, which means $A$ spherical, because it is stable. We found a spherical class $\delta:=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(A) \in \Delta^+(X)$ such that $(\Omega,\delta) < 0$, which contradicts the assumption that $\Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$.
To finish the proof, it is enough to show that $V(X)$ is connected. Since $\pi$ is a homeomorphism restricted to $V(X)$, we need to show that $\pi(V(X))$ is connected. Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is connected, it is enough to show that $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is dense in $\pi(V(X))$. If we assume non-emptiness of moduli stable of slope stable spherical sheaves, we have equality, as showed in \cite[Proposition $11.2$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}. If we do not have the non-emptiness, it could happen that for an $\Omega \in \pi(V(X))$ we have $(\Omega,\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(E)) \not \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$ for every spherical torsion-free sheaf $E$, but $(\Omega, \delta) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$ for some spherical class $\delta$ for which there are no corresponding sheaves. That is, the difference $\pi(V(X))-\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is contained in a locally finite union of locally closed submanifolds of real codimension one. Hence $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is dense in $\pi(V(X))$ and $V(X)$ is connected because $\ensuremath{\mathcal L}(X)$ is.
\end{proof}
\begin{Defi}
Define the distinguished component $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ as the connected component of the preimage $\pi^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^+_0(X)) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ containing $U(X)$.
\end{Defi}
\begin{Rem}
As mentioned above, our definition differs from Bridgeland's original definition in \cite{bridgeland_stability_2006}. In ibidem it is defined as the connected component of $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ containing the geometric chamber $U(X)$, and it is a Theorem that it gets mapped onto $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0}^+(X)$ via $\pi$. The proof requires existence of slope stable sheaves. In any case, our definition is sufficient to prove existence of slope stable shaves, because $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ contains the Gieseker chamber. So, once we prove the Main Theorem with our definition, it will also follow the Main Theorem for the standard definition of $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$.
\end{Rem}
\subsection{Equivalences preserving $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$.}\label{subsec:preserveStab}
To conclude this section we want to show that there are enough equivalences between derived categories of K3 surfaces preserving $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$. Every result here has already been shown by Hartmann in the appendix of \cite{hartmann_cusps_2012}. The idea is simple: since $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ is connected and contains the geometric chamber $U(X)$ it is enough to find a point $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ that goes to the geometric chamber. This is easy to check thanks to the explicit description of $U(X)$ in Lemma \ref{UandV}. In our argument, there is the extra check that the equivalences preserve the domain $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0^+(X)$, which (in the generality needed in this paper) is due to Huybrechts and Stellari \cite{Huybrechts_2005}.
We start by recalling some generalities about Fourier-Mukai equivalences between K3 surfaces. Let $H$ be a polarization on $X$, let $\ensuremath{\mathbf w} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ be a Mukai vector, and consider the moduli space $M:=M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$ of Gieseker stable sheaves of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}$. Assume that it is a smooth projective surface, and that it is fine, i.e. it has a universal family $\ensuremath{\mathcal E} \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits(X \times M)$. We can consider the Fourier-Mukai transform with kernel the universal family:
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}:D^b(M) &\rightarrow D^b(X) \\
F &\mapsto q_*(\ensuremath{\mathcal E} \otimes p^*F),
\end{align*}
where we denoted by $p,q$ the projections from $X \times M$ on the first and second factor, and where every functor is derived.
\begin{Prop}[{{\cite{Muk:K3},\cite[Proposition $10.25$]{Huybrechts_FM}}}]\label{prop:FMequivalence}
If $M$ a smooth projective surface, and it is a fine moduli space, then the functor $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ is an equivalence.
\end{Prop}
Recall that if $X$ is a K3 surface the structure sheaf $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X$ is a spherical object. In particular we can consider the spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}$ around $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X$ defined as follows.
\begin{Defi}
Let $S \in D^b(X)$ be a spherical object. The \textit{spherical twist} around $S$, denoted by $\mathrm{ST}_S(-)$ is defined, for every $E \in D^b(X)$, as the cone of the evaluation map:
\[ \mathop{\mathrm{RHom}}\nolimits(S,E) \otimes S \rightarrow E \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_S(E) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{RHom}}\nolimits(S,E) \otimes S[1]. \]
\end{Defi}
\begin{Prop}[{{\cite[Proposition $2.10$]{seidel_2001},\cite[Proposition $8.6$]{Huybrechts_FM}}}]
The spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_S$ around a spherical object $S$ is an equivalence.
\end{Prop}
Every Fourier-Mukai equivalence $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}: D^b(X) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^b(X')$ between derived categories of K3 surfaces induces a map in integral cohomology. It is the cohomological Fourier-Mukai transform with kernel the Mukai vector $v(\ensuremath{\mathcal P})$:
\[ \Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}^H(x)=q_*(v(\ensuremath{\mathcal P}).p^*(x)), \]
where $p$ and $q$ are the projections $X \times X'$ on the first and second factor. It is well known that it is a Hodge isometry, if we equip the integral cohomology with the following weight two Hodge structure :
\[ H^*(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})=H^{2,0}(X) \oplus (H^0(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \oplus H^{1,1}(X) \oplus H^{4}(X)) \oplus H^{0,2}(X).\]
In particular it induces an isometry $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}^H:{H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \xrightarrow{\sim} H^*_{\textrm{alg}}(X',\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ between the algebraic parts. Every derived equivalence $\Phi: D^b(X) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^b(X')$ is of Fourier-Mukai type, and the induced isometry does not depend on the kernel. If the kernel is not given, we will denote the induced isometry by $\Phi^H$.
The equivalences we are interested in are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Tensor product by a line bundle: $E \mapsto E \otimes L$;
\item Shift: $E \mapsto E[1]$
\item The spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}$ around $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X$;
\item Fourier-Mukai transforms $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ associated to a fine two dimensional moduli space of Gieseker stable sheaves.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{Prop}[{{\cite[Remark $5.4$ and Proposition $5.5$]{Huybrechts_2005}}}]\label{prop:orientation}
The isometries induced by the equivalences of type $(1)-(4)$ preserve the set $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0^+(X)$.
\end{Prop}
An equivalence $\Phi: D^{b}(X) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^{b}(X')$ induces an isomorphism of spaces of stability conditions
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{*}:\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X) &\xrightarrow{\sim} \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X')\\
(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal P}) &\mapsto (Z\circ \Phi^{-1},\ensuremath{\mathcal P}')
\end{align*}
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}'(t)=\Phi(\ensuremath{\mathcal P}(t))$. We say that $\Phi$ preserves the distinguished component if \[\Phi_*(\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X))=\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X').\]
\begin{Lem}\label{preservation_condition}
Let $\Phi: D^{b}(X) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^{b}(X')$ be a derived equivalence of K3 surfaces of type $(1)-(4)$. Assume that there exists $\sigma'=(Z',\ensuremath{\mathcal P}') \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X')$ such that the objects $\Phi(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{x})$ are $\sigma'$-stable and such that $\Omega_{Z'} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0}^+(X').$ Then $\Phi$ preserves the distinguished component.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that a point of $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ gets mapped to $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X')$. Consider $(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal P})=\sigma:=\Phi_*^{-1}(\sigma')$. By assumption the skyscraper sheaves $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{x}$ are all $\sigma$-stable. Proposition \ref{prop:orientation} shows that the induced isometry in cohomology sends $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^{+}_{0}(X)$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}^+_0(X')$. In particular $\Omega_{Z}=(\Phi^H)^{-1}(\Omega_{Z'})$ is in $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{0}^{+}(X)$. Then, Lemma \ref{UandV} implies $\sigma \in U(X) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$.
\end{proof}
In order to show that the equivalences we are interested in preserve the distinguished component, we need a standard result about the large volume limit. Let $H \in \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits(X)$ be an ample class, and $B \in \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}(X)$ a rational class. Consider the stability condition $\sigma_{\alpha H,B}$.
\begin{Thm}[{{\cite[Proposition $14.1$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}}} and {{\cite[Section 6]{Toda_Moduli}}}]\label{large_volume}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ be a primitive Mukai vector, with either $r >0 $ or $r=0$ and $\Delta \neq 0$ effective. Then there exists an $\alpha_{0}$ such that, for every $\alpha \geq \alpha_{0}$, an object $E \in D^{b}(X)$ of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is $\sigma_{\alpha H,B}$-stable if and only if it is a shift of a $B$-twisted $H$-Gieseker stable sheaf.
\end{Thm}
\begin{Cor}[{{\cite[Lemma $7.2$, Propositions $7.5$ and $7.6$]{hartmann_cusps_2012}}}]\label{preserve}
The equivalences of type $(1)-(4)$ preserve the distinguished component.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
The equivalences of type $(1)$ and $(2)$ send skyscraper sheaves to (shifts of) skyscraper sheaves, so by Lemma \ref{UandV} and Proposition \ref{prop:orientation} they preserve the geometric chamber $U(X)$ and, a fortiori, the distinguished component.
For the remaining two $(3)$ and $(4)$ we use Lemma \ref{preservation_condition}: it is enough to find a stability condition $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ such that $\Phi(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x)$ are $\sigma$-stable, and whose central charge satisfies $\Omega_Z \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0^+(X)$.
For the spherical twist, notice that $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x)=\mathrm{m}_x$, the ideal sheaf of the point $x$. These are Gieseker stable, so by choosing $\sigma_{\alpha H,B}$ appropriately as in Theorem \ref{large_volume} we find a $\sigma \in V(X)$ that works. Similarly, if $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ is a universal family over a Gieseker moduli space, the objects $\Phi(\ensuremath{\mathcal E})(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_x)$ are Gieseker stable, and again we conclude by Theorem \ref{large_volume}.
\end{proof}
\section{Review: Hyperk\"{a}hler varieties and Moduli spaces}
\label{sec:geometry}
In this section we give a short review on hyperk\"{a}hler varieties, and basic facts about moduli spaces of stable sheaves and stable complexes.
\begin{Defi}
A projective hyperk\"{a}hler variety is a smooth projective complex variety, which is simply connected and such that $H^0(X,\Omega_X^2)$ is one dimensional and spanned by a symplectic $2$-form.
\end{Defi}
On the $H^2(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ there is a natural integral quadratic form $q_X$, called Fujiki-Beauville-Bogomolov form. It is a deformation invariant, and has signature $(3,b_2(X)-3)$. It satisfies the Fujiki relation
\begin{equation*}
\int_X{\alpha^n}=\lambda_Xq_X(\alpha)^n, \qquad \alpha \in H^2(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}).
\end{equation*}
The constant $\lambda_X$ is called Fujiki constant, and it is deformation invariant.
Fix $\sigma=(Z,\ensuremath{\mathcal P}) \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ a stability condition, a phase ${\varphi} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ and a Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$. Consider the moduli stack $\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$ of $\sigma$-semistable objects of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ and phase ${\varphi}$. Its objects over $S$ are $S$-perfect complexes $\ensuremath{\mathcal E} \in D^b_{S-\textrm{perf}}(S \times X)$, whose restriction over a closed point $s \in S$ belongs to $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})$ and has class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. The following is a collection of result by Toda \cite{Toda_Moduli}, Inaba \cite{inaba_smoothness_2010}, and Lieblich \cite{Lieblich_complexes}.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:symp}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$. Then $\mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$ is an Artin stack of finite type over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Denote by $\mathfrak M_{\sigma}^s(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi}) \subseteq \mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$ the open substack parametrizing $\sigma$-stable objects. If $\mathfrak M_{\sigma}^s(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi}) = \mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$, then $\mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$ is a $\mathbb{G}_m$-gerbe over its coarse moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$, which is a smooth, proper, symplectic algebraic space with expected dimension $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2+2$.
\end{Thm}
In particular the assumptions are satisfied if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive and $\sigma$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic. The phase ${\varphi}$ is determined by the rest of the data, up to an even integer. Since the corresponding moduli spaces are isomorphic via shifts, from now on we drop the ${\varphi}$ from the notation, and denote a moduli space simply by $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$.
The moduli spaces $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ are not necessarily fine, but if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic, they are equipped with a quasi-universal family unique up to equivalence, by \cite[Theorem A$.5$]{mukai_symplectic_1984}.
\begin{Defi}\label{quasi-universal}
Let $M=M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})$ be a coarse moduli space.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A flat family $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ on $M \times X$ is called a quasi-family of objects in $\mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ if, for all closed points $m \in M$, there exists an integer $\rho >0$, and an element $E \in \mathfrak M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},{\varphi})(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}|_{{t}\times X} \cong E^{\oplus \rho}$. If $M$ is connected $\rho$ is independent of $m$, and is called the similitude of $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$.
\item Two quasi-families are equivalent if there exists vector bundles $V$ and $V'$ on $M$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}' \otimes p_M^*V \cong \ensuremath{\mathcal E} \otimes p_M^*V'$.
\item a quasi-family $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ is called quasi-universal if, for every scheme $T$ and for any quasi-family $\ensuremath{\mathcal T}$ on $M \times X$, there exists a unique morphism $f: M \rightarrow T $ such that $f^*\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal T}$ are equivalent.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Defi}
Projectivity of the coarse moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ was proved in \cite{bayer_projectivity_2013}. The problem is that in general for moduli spaces of stable complexes there is no obvious GIT construction. Bayer and Macr\`i constructed a divisor class $l_{\sigma} \in \mathop{\mathrm{NS}}\nolimits(M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}))_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ as follows:
\[ C \mapsto l_{\sigma}.C:= \Im (-\frac{Z(v(\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_C)))}{Z(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})}), \]
where $C \in M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a curve, and $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ is a quasi-universal family.
\begin{Thm}[{{\cite[Theorem $4.1$ and Remark $4.6$]{bayer_projectivity_2013}}}]\label{nefdivisor}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ be a primitive Mukai vector, $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition. Then the class $l_{\sigma}$ defined above is ample.
\end{Thm}
One of the key steps in the proof is the use of \cite[Lemma $7.3$]{bayer_projectivity_2013} to reduce to to the classical case of Gieseker stable sheaves. The same reduction argument also shows irreducibility of $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. The following statement summarizes the discussion above.
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor:projectivity}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ a primitive vector with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 \geq -2$. Let $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition. Then if $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is non-empty, it is a smooth, projective symplectic variety of dimension $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2+2$ and it consists of stable objects.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Rem}
There is a subtlety here. To use the arguments in \cite[Lemma $7.3$]{bayer_projectivity_2013} we need to know the Main Theorem for the case of a primitive vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. This is not a problem for us, because we will not use projectivity in the arguments at all, and in fact we will also reprove irreducibility via a deformation argument. Moreover, the Main Theorem for the square zero case will be proved separately from the positive square case, so we will be able to apply the above corollary to get projectivity in the latter case.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Defi}\label{Def:MukaiHom}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ a primitive class with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$, and let $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition, in particular every $\sigma$-semistable object is $\sigma$-stable. We define the Mukai homomorphism $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}:\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp} \rightarrow H^{2}(M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mukai_hom}
\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf x})=\frac{1}{\rho}[\Phi^{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf x}^{\vee})]_1
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ is a quasi-universal family of similitude $\rho$, and $[-]_1$ is the component belonging to $H^{2}(M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$, the same formula gives a well defined map $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}:\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp}/\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}.\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \rightarrow H^{2}(M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$
\end{Defi}
It can be shown that it does not depend on the quasi-universal family $\ensuremath{\mathcal E}$ if we restrict to $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp}$.
\begin{Rem}
The definition of Mukai homomorphism in \cite{ogrady_weight-two_1995} and \cite{Yoshioka_main} is
\[ \frac{1}{\rho}[p_{M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})*}\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(\ensuremath{\mathcal E})p_X^*(\sqrt{\mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits_X}x^{\vee})]_1. \]
This is equivalent to ours. Indeed, recall the definition of the Mukai vector \[v(\ensuremath{\mathcal E})=\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(\ensuremath{\mathcal E})p^*_{M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})}\left(\sqrt{\mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits_{M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})}}\right)p^*_{X}\left(\sqrt{\mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits_X}\right).\] The degree two component of Todd class $\mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits_{M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})}$ is $0$, because $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ has trivial canonical bundle, so its square root does not contribute to the degree two component.
\end{Rem}
Recall that an anti-equivalence is an equivalence from the opposite category $D^b(X)^{\textrm{op}}$ to $D^b(X')$. Every anti-equivalence is given by a composition of an equivalence and the dualizing functor $\mathrm{R}\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}(-,\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X')$.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop:equivalences}
Let $X,X'$ be two K3 surfaces, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$ two Mukai vectors on $X$ and $X'$ respectively. Let $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition on $X$, and $\sigma' \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X')$ a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$-generic stability condition on $X'$. Assume that there is an (anti)-equivalence $\Phi: D^{b}(X) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^{b}(X')$ that induces an isomorphism $M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{X',\sigma'}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}')$. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$ we have a commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp} \arrow[d, "\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}"'] \arrow[r, "\Phi^H"] & \ensuremath{\mathbf v}'^{\perp} \arrow[d, "\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'}"'] \\
{H^{2}(M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[equal]{r} & {H^2(M_{X',\sigma'}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
The analogous statement holds if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. In particular, if $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}$ is a Hodge isometry then so it is $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'}$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the same computations of \cite[Propositions $2.4$ and $2.5$]{Yoshioka_main}.
\end{proof}
We conclude this section with two concrete examples. These will be the main geometric input in the proof of the Main Theorem: the Hilbert scheme is the base case to which we want to reduce, and moduli spaces of vector bundles on the fibers of an elliptic K3 surface will be Fourier-Mukai partners.
\begin{Ex}\label{ex:hilbert_scheme}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, consider the vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$ with $n\ \geq 2$. A sheaf with class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ has trivial double dual, and the natural map $\ensuremath{\mathcal F} \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal F}^{\vee \vee} \cong \ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X $ has cokernel of length $n$. Every such sheaf is torsion free with rank one, so it is Gieseker stable with respect to any polarization $H$. The natural map
\begin{align*}
M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) &\rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)\\
\ensuremath{\mathcal F} &\mapsto (\ensuremath{\mathcal F} \ensuremath{\twoheadrightarrow} \ensuremath{\mathcal F}^{\vee \vee}/\ensuremath{\mathcal F})
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism, where $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$ is the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points. The Mukai homomorphism is compatible with such identification, and for $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$ it is an isometry \cite[Section $6$]{beauville_1983}.
\end{Ex}
\begin{Ex}\label{ex:Fm_partner}
Let $X$ be an elliptic K3 surface, assume that $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits X=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$, where $f$ is the class of a fiber, and $s$ is the class of a section. The intersection form with respect to this basis is
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-2 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
\]
so the Picard group is an hyperbolic plane. Consider a Mukai vector
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf w}=(0,\alpha f,\beta), \textrm{ with } \alpha>0, \beta \neq 0 \textrm{ and } \gcd (\alpha,\beta)=1.
\]
Let $H$ be a generic polarization, i.e. one for which all the $H$-semistable sheaves are stable, they exist because we are assuming $\beta \neq 0$. It follows from the definition and the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch Theorem that if $E$ is a slope-stable bundle of rank $\alpha$ and degree $\beta$ supported on a smooth fiber $C \in |f|$, then it is $H$-stable as a torsion sheaf on $X$. So the Gieseker moduli space $M:=M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$ is a smooth, projective, symplectic surface.
\end{Ex}
\section{Wall-crossing: Semirigid case}
\label{sec:Wall crossing}
The objective of this section is to show that the statement of the Main Theorem is preserved under wall-crossing, when the Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is spherical ($\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$) or isotropic ($\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$). The precise setup is the following. We fix a K3 surface $X$, a primitive Mukai vector with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$, and $\ensuremath{\mathcal W} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ a wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. We denote the adjacent chambers with $\ensuremath{\mathcal C}_+$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal C}_-$, we also denote with $\sigma_{\pm}$ a generic stability condition in $\ensuremath{\mathcal C}_{\pm}$, and with $\sigma_0=(Z_0,\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_0)$ a generic stability condition on the wall. The following is the main result of this section.
\begin{Thm}
\label{semirigid1}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ be a primitive vector, with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ be a wall for the wall and chamber decomposition for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$, then $M_{\sigma_{+}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \neq \emptyset $ implies $M_{\sigma_{-}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \neq \emptyset$.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=0$, then there exists a spherical, $\sigma_{0}$-stable object $S$ such that either $\mathrm{ST}_{S}$ or $\mathrm{ST}_{S}^{\pm 2}$ induce an isomorphism $M_{\sigma_{+}} \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_{-}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
This immediately implies the invariance of the Main Theorem under wall-crossing for spherical and isotropic classes, see Corollary \ref{yoshiokaez}.
\subsection{Lattice associated to the wall}
The key tool to study wall-crossing is a rank two lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ associated to our setup. It was introduced in \cite[Section $5$]{mmp}, for the case of a vector with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$. In that case, $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is always hyperbolic, while if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 \leq 0$ it can also be negative semi-definite.
\begin{Defi}\label{def:lattice}
Define the lattice associated to $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ as
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal H}:=\{\ensuremath{\mathbf w} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})} \mid \Im \frac{Z_0(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})}{Z_0(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})}=0 \}.
\]
\end{Defi}
\begin{Prop}[{{\cite[Proposition $5.1$]{mmp}}}]
The lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item It is a rank $2$ primitive sublattice of ${H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$.
\item For every $\sigma_{+}$-stable object $E$ of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, the Mukai vectors of its Harder-Narasimhan factors with respect to $\sigma_{-}$ are contained in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$.
\item If $E$ is $\sigma_{0}$-semistable of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, then the Mukai vectors of its Harder-Narasimhan factors with respect to $\sigma_{-}$ are contained in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$.
\item If $E$ is $\sigma_{0}$-semistable of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}(E) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal H}$, then its Jordan-Holder factors have Mukai vector in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{Lem}\label{signature}
The lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is either hyperbolic or negative semi-definite
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Acting with $\widetilde{GL_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})}$ we can assume $\sigma_0$ be such that $Z_0(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=-1$. Write $Z_0=(-,\Omega)$, since $\sigma_0 \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ we have $\Omega \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}(X)$, in particular $(\Im\Omega)^{2}>0$. By definition, the lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is contained in the orthogonal complement to $\Im \Omega_{Z}$. The Mukai lattice has signature $(2,\rho(X))$, hence the orthogonal to $\Im \Omega$ has signature $(1,\rho(X))$. This implies that $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ cointains classes with negative square, hence the thesis.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}
Notice that if $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ were negative definite, there would be at most two spherical classes up to sign, and no isotropic class. It is easy to see that in this case every spherical object with class in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ remains stable on the wall.
\end{Rem}
We are going to need a couple of technical lemmas, that we recall here.
\begin{Lem}[Mukai's Lemma, {{\cite[Lemma $5.2$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}}}]\label{Mukailemma}
Let $0 \rightarrow A \rightarrow E \rightarrow B \rightarrow 0$ be a short exact sequence inside a heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A} \subset D^{b}(X)$. If $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(A,B)=0$, then
\[ \mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(E,E) \geq \mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(A,A) + \mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(B,B). \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{Lem}\label{simpleext}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal W} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$ be a wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, $\sigma_0 \in \ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ a generic stability condition, and $\sigma_+$ a stability condition on one of the adjacent chambers. Consider a short exact sequence in $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_+}$
\[ 0\rightarrow S \rightarrow E \rightarrow T \rightarrow 0, \]
where $S$ and $T$ are $\sigma_0$-stable of the same phase, and $v(E)=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. Assume that ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S)<{\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(E)<{\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(T)$, and $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(T,E)=0$, then $E$ is $\sigma_+$-stable.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $E$ is not $\sigma_+$-stable, and consider a stable destabilizing subobject $A \hookrightarrow E$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_+}$. By assumption we have
${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(A) > {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(E) > {\varphi}_{\sigma_+} (S).$
If ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(A) \geq {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(T)$ we would get $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(A,T)=0$ by stability. Then, the morphism $A \hookrightarrow E$ would factor via $S$, but $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(A,S)=0$ by stability. So we have
\[ {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S) < {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(A) < {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(T). \]
This implies that $A$ is $\sigma_0$-semistable of the same $\sigma_0$-phase as $S$ and $T$. Since $S$ and $T$ are simple objects in the abelian category of $\sigma_0$-semistable objects of their phase (i.e. they do not have proper subobjects), we see that $A=S$ or $A=T$. The first case contradicts ${\varphi}(A) > {\varphi}(E)$ and the second one $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(T,E)=0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Spherical Mukai vector}\label{subsec:spherical}
Here we prove part $(1)$ of Theorem \ref{semirigid1}. Fix a Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$. Given a $\sigma_+$-stable spherical object $E$ with $v(E)=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, we want to construct a $\sigma_-$-stable spherical object $E'$ with the same Mukai vector. The idea is to deform the stability condition $\sigma_+$ to a generic stability condition $\sigma_0$ on the wall $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ and take the Jordan-Holder filtration of $E$. It turns out (Proposition \ref{jhforspherical}) that $E$ has only two Jordan-Holder factors, although they can appear multiple times. Call this two Jordan-Holder factors $S$ and $T$, and their classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$. They are $\sigma_0$-stable spherical objects, so they are $\sigma_-$-stable too, since the condition that an object is stable is open in $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits(X)$. To construct the desired object $E'$, we will construct inductively, starting from $S$ and $T$, a $\sigma_-$-stable spherical object with class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$ for every spherical $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$ that is a linear combination of $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$ with positive coefficients. Since $E$ has a Jordan-Holder filtration with factors $S$ and $T$, its class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is of that form.
\begin{Prop}\label{jhforspherical}
Let $E \in M_{\sigma_{+}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. Assume that it is not stable on the wall. Then there are two $\sigma_{0}$-stable spherical objects that appear as Jordan-Holder factors of $E$, possibly with multiplicity.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $E$ gets destabilized. From Lemma \ref{Mukailemma} it follows that its Jordan-Holder factors with respect to $\sigma_{0}$ are all spherical. Since $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive, it must have at least two different factors $S,T$, call their classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$. Since $S,T$ are stable and non isomorphic we have $(s,t)=\mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,T) \geq 0$. This in turn implies that $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$ are linearly independent over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Indeed, if we could write $s= \lambda t$, then $\lambda$ would be positive, because $S$ and $T$ have the same $\sigma_0$-phase, hence $(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t})=-2\lambda <0$. The argument to show that these are the only Jordan-Holder factors is different in the case when $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is semi-definite and in the case when it is hyperbolic.
{\textbf{Semi-definite case.}}
From the linear independence it follows that $(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t})=2$. The spherical classes of $\sigma_0$-stable objects of the same phase as $E$ lie on two parallel half-lines, as shown in Figure \ref{lattices}(A). Furthermore, the product of two classes is positive if and only if they lie on different lines. We conclude that, up to shifts, $S$ and $T$ are the only two $\sigma_{0}$-stable spherical objects with classes in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$.
{\textbf{Hyperbolic case.}}
In this case we have $m:=(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}) \geq 3$. Then, by the following argument from \cite{mmp}, we see again that, up to shifts, $S$ and $T$ are the only two $\sigma_{0}$-stable spherical objects. Assume $\ensuremath{\mathbf r}$ is the class of another $\sigma_{0}$-stable spherical object, we can write $\ensuremath{\mathbf r}=x\ensuremath{\mathbf s}+y\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$. We see that
\begin{align*}
(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf r}) \geq 0 &\implies y \geq \frac{2x}{m} \\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf t},\ensuremath{\mathbf r}) \geq 0 & \implies y \leq \frac{mx}{2} \\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf r},\ensuremath{\mathbf r})=-2 & \implies -2x^{2}+2mxy-2y^{2}=-2,
\end{align*}
which is easily seen to be contradictory.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}\label{twospherical}
Assume that $E$ is $\sigma_+$-stable, spherical and not stable on the wall. Proposition \ref{jhforspherical} gives two spherical classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$. They are a basis for $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and the class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=v(E)$ is a linear combination of $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$ with positive coefficients. Writing the quadratic form with respect to the basis $\{\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}\}$ we get:
\begin{align*}
& -2x^2+4xy-2y^2 \quad \textrm{in the semi-definite case},\\
& -2x^2+2mxy-2y^2 \textrm{, with } m:=(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}) >2 \quad \textrm{in the hyperbolic case}.
\end{align*}
In both cases there are infinitely many spherical classes in the lattice $\langle \ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t} \rangle$ spanned by $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$. In the hyperbolic case there are no isotropic classes, because $\sqrt{m^2-4}$ is irrational if $m\geq 3$. The spherical classes live on two branches of an hyperbola in the hyperbolic case, and on two parallel lines in the semi-definite case.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{semidefLattice.png}
\caption{Semi-definite case}
\label{fig:semidefLattice}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.92\linewidth]{hyperbolicLattice2.png}
\caption{Hyperbolic case}
\label{fig:hyperbolicLattice}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Spherical classes in $\langle \ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t} \rangle$}
\label{lattices}
\end{figure}
Assume without loss of generality that ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf t}) > {\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf s})$. Consider the spherical classes that are linear combination of $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$ with positive coefficient, ordered with respect to $\sigma_+$ phase. Call $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_i$ for $i\geq 1$ the classes on the upper branch, and $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_i$ for $i \leq 0$ the classes on the lower branch, as shown in the Figure \ref{lattices}. They can also be defined inductively by
\[
\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_1=\ensuremath{\mathbf t}\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_2=\rho_{\ensuremath{\mathbf t}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf s}),\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_{i+1}=-\rho_{\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_i}(\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_{i-1}).
\end{cases}
\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_0=\ensuremath{\mathbf s}\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-1}=\rho_{\ensuremath{\mathbf s}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf t}),\\
\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i-1}=-\rho_{\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i+1}).
\end{cases}
\]
where $\rho_{\ensuremath{\mathbf s}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}):=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}+(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$. This is clear in the semi-definite case, because $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_i$ is the midpoint of the segment $\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_{i-1},\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_{i+1}}$, and is also easy to see in the hyperbolic case by writing down the previous reflections in coordinates with respect to $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$.
\end{Rem}
With this we are ready to show the first part of Theorem \ref{semirigid1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{semirigid1}(1)]
Let $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, we want to show that there exists a $\sigma_-$-stable object with Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. Let ${\varphi}$ be the phase of $E$ with respect to $\sigma_0$; we can assume up to shifts that $0<{\varphi} \leq 1$. Assume $E$ is not stable on the wall, otherwise we are done. From Proposition \ref{jhforspherical} and Remark \ref{twospherical} we get that $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_i$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i}$ for some $i$. Assume $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i}$, the other case is analogous. We prove existence of $\sigma_-$-stable objects of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_{-i}$ by induction on $i$. Lemma \ref{jhforspherical} implies that there is a $\sigma_0$-stable object $S$ of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}_0=\ensuremath{\mathbf s}$, and a $\sigma_0$-stable object $T$ of class $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}_1$. Define $S^-_{-i}$ inductively as
\[ S^{-}_{-i-1} :=
\begin{cases}
\mathrm{ST}_{S}(T) & \text{if $i=0$} , \\
\mathrm{ST}_{S^{-}_{-i}}(S_{-i+1}^{-})[-1] & \text{if $i>0$}
\end{cases}
\]
By stability of $S$ and $T$ we have a short exact sequence in $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})$
\[
0 \rightarrow T \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(T) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,T) \otimes S \rightarrow 0.
\]
Since $S,T$ are simple in the abelian category $\ensuremath{\mathcal P}({\varphi})$ and ${\varphi}_{-}(T)<{\varphi}_-(S)$, we can apply Lemma \ref{simpleext} and conclude that $S^-_{-1}$ is $\sigma_{-}$-stable. Furthermore, if we take $\sigma_-$ close to the wall, $S$ and $T$ lie in the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_-}=\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{\sigma_-}(0,1]$, and so does $S^-_{-1}$.
Now, assume by induction that $S^-_{-j}$ is $\sigma_-$-stable for every $j \leq i$, and that it lies in the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_-}$. We want to
show that the same holds for $S^-_{-i-1}$. First we claim that $\mathop{\mathrm{RHom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1})$ is concentrated in degree zero.
Indeed $S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1}$ are two $\sigma_{-}$-stable objects with ${\varphi}_{\sigma_{-}}(S^{-}_{-i})<{\varphi}_{\sigma_{-}}(S^{-}_{-i+1})$. Therefore $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits^{2}(S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1})$ vanishes by stability and Serre duality. From the inductive definition and Serre duality we get
\begin{align*}
\mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1}) &= \mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S^{-}_{-i+1},S^{-}_{-i}) \\
&= \mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i+1},\mathrm{ST}_{S^{-}_{-i+1}}(S^{-}_{-i+2})) \\
&= \mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits(\mathrm{ST}_{S^{-}_{-i+1}}^{-1}(S^{-}_{-i+1}),S^{-}_{-i+2})\\
&=\mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i+1}[1],S^{-}_{-i+2})
\end{align*}
which is zero because it is a negative Ext between two objects of a heart.
This shows that we have the exact triangle
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inductiveTwist}
S^{-}_{-i-1} \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1}) \otimes S^{-}_{-i} \rightarrow S^{-}_{-i+1} \rightarrow S^{-}_{-i-1}[1]
\end{equation}
Taking the long exact sequence of cohomology with value in the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_-}=\ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{\sigma_-}(0,1]$, we see that $S_{-i-1} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal P}_{\sigma_-}(0,2]$.
Now let $F$ be a $\sigma_{-}$-stable object with bigger phase ${\varphi}_{\sigma_{-}}(F) > {\varphi}_{\sigma_{-}}(S^{-}_{-i-1})$, we want to show that $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,S_{-i-1})=0$, which will prove $\sigma_-$-semistability of $S_{-i-1}$.
Assume that $F \in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_{-}}[n]$ with $n>0$. Applying the functor $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,-)$ to the triangle \ref{eq:inductiveTwist} we get the exact sequence:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exactSeqF}
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,S^{-}_{-i+1}[-1]) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,S^{-}_{-i-1}) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i},S^{-}_{-i+1}) \otimes \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,S^-_{-i}).
\end{equation}
By induction hypotesis $S^-_{-i+1}$ and $S^-_{-i}$ lie in the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_-}$. the first and the third terms vanish because they are negative Ext between objects of a heart, so the middle one does too.
If $F \in \ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_-}$ is an object of the heart with bigger $\sigma_{-}$-phase, then its class $\ensuremath{\mathbf f}$ lies under the lower branch of the hyperbola in Figure \ref{lattices}(B), in particular, outside of the closed positive cone, so it has negative square $\ensuremath{\mathbf f}^2<0$. Since $F$ is stable, it must be spherical, because $\ensuremath{\mathbf f}^2 \geq -2$. So $F \in \{S_{0},\dots,S^{-}_{-i}\}$. If $F \{S_{0},\dots,S^{-}_{-i+1}\}$ we conclude by induction and the exact sequence \ref{eq:exactSeqF}, so the only case to check is $F=S^{-}_{-i}$. We have
\[\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S_{-i},\mathrm{ST}_{S_{-i}^{-}}(S^{-}_{-i+1})[-1])=\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S^{-}_{-i}[2],S^{-}_{-i+1}) \]
which is again zero because it is a negative Ext between objects of a heart. This shows that $S_{-i-1}$ is $\sigma_{-}$-semistable, since ${\varphi}_{\sigma_-}(T) < {\varphi}_{\sigma_-}(S_{-i-1})< {\varphi}_{\sigma_-}(S)$ it also lies in $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma}$. Now to show that is $\sigma_-$-stable, consider its Jordan-Holder filtration. Every factor must be a spherical object of the same phase, by Mukai's Lemma. Since the line connecting the origin to $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ meets the lower branch of the hyperbola only in $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, there is only one $\sigma_-$-stable spherical object of that phase up to shifts, so the Jordan-Holder filtration is trivial.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Isotropic Mukai vector}\label{subsec:isotropic}
Now we turn our attention on moduli spaces $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ with vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. The lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ can be negative semi-definite or hyperbolic, and in the latter case there is only one spherical class up to sign. Indeed, if there were two linearly independent spherical classes, the argument in Remark \ref{twospherical} would show that there could be no isotropic classes. In contrast to the spherical case, where the proof works the same in both cases, if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is isotropic the signature of the lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ matters. In Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic} we describe the Jordan-Holder filtration of a stable object $E$ with $v(E)=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ with respect to $\sigma_0$. This result is analogous to \cite[Theorem $12.1$]{bridgeland_stability_2006}, where Bridgeland studies wall-crossing for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(0,0,1)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ a wall on the boundary of the geometric chamber $U(X)$. In fact, assuming non-emptiness of moduli spaces with isotropic vector, Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic} follows from Bridgeland's result via a Fourier-Mukai argument, as shown in \cite[Lemma $8.1$]{mmp}.
\begin{Prop}\label{jhforisotropic}
Keeping notation as above we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is semi-definite then there is a smooth rational $C$ curve inside $M_{\sigma_{+}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ that becomes $\sigma_-$-unstable, and the Jordan-Holder filtration for $E \in C$ with respect to $\sigma_0$ is of the form
\[ 0 \rightarrow S \rightarrow E \rightarrow T \rightarrow 0,\]
where $S$ and $T$ are two $\sigma_0$-stable spherical objects.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is hyperbolic the wall $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ is totally semistable, i.e. every object $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ becomes $\sigma_0$-semistable. The Jordan-Holder filtration of an object $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is \[ 0 \rightarrow S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow E \rightarrow F \rightarrow 0 \quad \textrm{ or } \quad 0 \rightarrow F \rightarrow E \rightarrow S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow 0, \]
where $S$ is a $\sigma_0$-stable spherical object, and $F$ is a $\sigma_0$-stable isotropic object.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, in both cases the Jordan-Holder filtration with respect to $\sigma_0$ coincides with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration with respect to $\sigma_-$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
We begin by proving part $(1)$. Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is a negative semi-definite lattice of rank two, the isotropic classes in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ form a one dimensional subspace, which is the radical of the Mukai pairing. Therefore there is at most one, up to a sign, primitive isotropic class in $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$. Assume that $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ becomes semistable. From Lemma \ref{Mukailemma} it follows that its Jordan-Holder factors are spherical and isotropic, with at most one being isotropic.
Since there is just one primitive isotropic class, this means that all the Jordan-Holder factors are spherical, in particular there are two distinct $\sigma_0$-stable spherical objects $S,T$. The only isotropic class is $\ensuremath{\mathbf s}+\ensuremath{\mathbf t}$, hence the Jordan-Holder filtration is
\[ 0 \rightarrow S\rightarrow E \rightarrow T \rightarrow 0,\]
where we assume ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S)<{\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(T).$
We have $\mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,T)=(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf t})=2$, and every non trivial extension gives a $\sigma_+$-stable object by Lemma \ref{simpleext}. So there is a rational curve $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^1(S,T)) \subset M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ of objects that become semistable on the wall. Notice also that the Jordan-Holder filtration with respect to $\sigma_0$ coincides with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration with respect to $\sigma_-$, because $S,T$ are $\sigma_-$-stable with ${\varphi}_{\sigma_-}(S)>{\varphi}_{\sigma_-}(T)$.
Now we prove part $(2)$. First we show the second part of the statement, so let $E$ be $\sigma_0$-semistable. Lemma \ref{Mukailemma} implies that the only objects that can appear as Jordan-Holder factors are spherical and isotropic, with at most one being isotropic. Furthermore, from the discussion in Remark \ref{twospherical}, we see that if $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ contains an isotropic class, then it contains at most one spherical class up to a sign. Therefore there is a unique $\sigma_0$-stable spherical object of the same phase as $E$. Hence all the Jordan-Holder spherical factors are of the form $S^{\oplus a}$. This implies that the Jordan-Holder filtration is of the form
\[ 0 \rightarrow S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow E \rightarrow F \rightarrow 0 \quad \textrm{ or } \quad 0 \rightarrow F \rightarrow E \rightarrow S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow 0, \]
with $F$ isotropic and $\sigma_0$-stable. Which one it is depends on the ordering of the phases: it is the first one if ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S)<{\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(E)$ and the second one if ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(E)>{\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S)$.
As in the previous case, since $S$ and $F$ are $\sigma_0$-stable, they are also $\sigma_-$-stable, so the Harder-Narasimhan filtration coincides with the Jordan-Holder filtration on the wall.
To show that the wall is totally semistable we argue as follows. We have \[\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=0=-2a^{2}+2a(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf w}),\] hence $a=(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$. The spaces $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,F)$ and $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(F,S)$ vanish for $\sigma_{0}$-stability, hence $a=\mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,F)$. Applying $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,-)$ to the Jordan-Holder filtration we see that $\mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits(S,E)=a$ and we get the exact sequence:
\begin{equation}\label{exactseq}
0\rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,E) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,F) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,S)^{\oplus a} \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(E,S).
\end{equation}
By $\sigma_+$-stability the last space is $0$, which implies that $\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,F) \cong \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,S)^{\oplus a}$ because they have the same dimension. Therefore $\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,E)=0$, and $\mathop{\mathrm{RHom}}\nolimits(S,E)=\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E)$. This implies $(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=-\mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits(S,E)=-a<0$. In particular for every object $E' \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ there are non zero morphisms $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E) \neq \emptyset$, so every $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is $\sigma_0$-semistable.
\end{proof}
We can finish the proof of the main theorem of this section.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{semirigid1}(2)]
We separate the proof in two cases, depending on the signature of $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$. If $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is negative semi-definite, we want to show that the spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_S$ induces an isomorphism $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, where $S$ is the spherical object of Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic}. If $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is hyperbolic, we want to show that $\mathrm{ST}_S^{\pm 2}$ induces an isomorphism $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, where $S$ is the spherical object of Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic} and the sign depends on the ordering of the phases ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(S)$ and ${\varphi}_{\sigma_+}(E)$.
\textbf{Semi-definite case.} Consider the destabilizing spherical object $S$ of Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic}. We claim that
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ remains stable on the wall, then $\mathrm{ST}_S(E)=E$,
\item If $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ becomes semistable on the wall, then $\mathrm{ST}_S(E)$ is $\sigma_-$-stable.
\end{enumerate}
To show $(1)$ observe that if $E$ remain stable on the wall, then $\sigma_0$-stability gives $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(E,S)=\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E)=0$. Since $(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=0$, we also get $\mathop{\mathrm{RHom}}\nolimits(S,E)=0$. It follows from the definition of spherical twist that then $\mathrm{ST}_{S}(E)=E$.
To show $(2)$, consider the Jordan-Holder filtration
\[0 \rightarrow S \rightarrow E \rightarrow T \rightarrow 0.\]
Applying $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,-)$ to the Jordan-Holder filtration we see that $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E) \cong \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,S)$ is one dimensional. By $\sigma_{+}$-stability we get $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(E,S)=0$, and from $(\ensuremath{\mathbf s},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=0$ we see $\mathop{\mathrm{ext}}\nolimits^{1}(S,E)=1$. The definition of spherical twist gives a distinguished triangle:
\[ S \oplus S[-1] \rightarrow E \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(E) \rightarrow S[1] \oplus S \]
Taking the long exact sequence with respect to the heart $\ensuremath{\mathcal A}_{\sigma_{0}}$ we get the two short exact sequences:
\begin{align*}
&0\rightarrow S \rightarrow E \rightarrow R \rightarrow 0\\
&0\rightarrow R \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(E) \rightarrow S \rightarrow 0
\end{align*}
The first one shows $R=T$ and it is the Jordan-Holder filtration. The second one then becomes $T \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(E) \rightarrow S$ which shows that $\mathrm{ST}_{S}(E)$ is $\sigma_{-}$-stable using Lemma \ref{simpleext}. Starting from $F \in M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, the filtration is reversed, and the analogous argument shows that $\mathrm{ST}_{S}^{-1}(F)$ is $\sigma_+$-stable. In conclusion, passing to moduli spaces we see that $\mathrm{ST}_S$ induces an isomorphism
$ M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}).$
{\textbf{Hyperbolic case.}} Let $E \in M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic} gives the Jordan-Holder filtration with respect to $\sigma_0$:
\[ 0 \rightarrow S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow E \rightarrow F \rightarrow 0.\]
Applying $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,-)$ to it we get the exact sequence \eqref{exactseq}. The steps in the proof of Proposition \ref{jhforisotropic} also show that the map $S^{\oplus a} \rightarrow E$ in the Jordan-Holder filtration has the universal property of the evaluation map, hence $F$ is canonically isomorphic to $\mathrm{ST}_S(E)$.
Now, we have the two distinguished triangles
\begin{align*}
&\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E) \otimes S \rightarrow E \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(E)\rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E) \otimes S[1]\\
&\mathrm{ST}_{S}(E) \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}^{2}_{S}(E) \rightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(S,E) \otimes S \rightarrow \mathrm{ST}_{S}(E)[1],
\end{align*}
where the first one is obtained by definition, and the second one applying $\mathrm{ST}_S$ to the first.
Since $\mathrm{ST}_{S}(E) \cong F$, we conclude that $\mathrm{ST}^{2}_{S}(E)$ is $\sigma_{-}$-stable by Lemma \ref{simpleext}. An analogous argument shows that $\mathrm{ST}^{-2}_S$ sends $\sigma_-$-stable objects with vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ to $\sigma_+$-stable objects with vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. Passing to moduli spaces we see that $\mathrm{ST}_S^2$ induces an isomorphism
$ M_{\sigma_+} \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_-}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{yoshiokaez}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ primitive with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 =-2$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal W} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ be a wall, $\sigma_0 \in \ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ a generic stability condition on the wall, and $\sigma_{\pm}$ generic stability conditions on the adjacent chambers. Then the Main Theorem holds for $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ if and only if it holds for $M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$ we have to show that if $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a single point, the same is true is $M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. Point $(1)$ of Theorem \ref{semirigid1} gives $M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \neq \emptyset$, so we only have to show uniqueness of stable spherical objects with class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. Assume that there are two non isomorphic spherical stable objects $E,E'$ with the same vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. Up to shift we can assume they are both in the heart of $\sigma_{-}$. By stability, we have $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits(E,E')=\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits^{2}(E,E')=0$. Since they are in the heart, we have $0 \leq \mathop{\mathrm{hom}}\nolimits^1(E,E')=\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$, which is a contradiction.
If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$ and primitive, we want to show that if $M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a K3 surface, and \[ \theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}:\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp}/\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbf v} \rightarrow H^2(M_{\sigma_+}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}) \] is a Hodge isometry, the same is true for $M_{\sigma_-}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. This follows from part $(2)$ of Theorem \ref{semirigid1} combined with Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences}.
\end{proof}
\section{Wall-crossing for the Hilbert Scheme}
\label{subsec:Positivesquare}
In this section we study wall-crossing for the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on a K3 surface of Picard rank one when the degree is high with respect to the number of points. Of course, this setting is less general than the previous one; nevertheless thanks to the argument in Section \ref{sec:Deformation} we will be able to reduce to this case. Throughout this section we assume $X$ is a K3 surface with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H$ with $H^2=2d$ and $d=k^2(n-1)$, where $k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}},k>1$, the Mukai vector is $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$, and the stability condition is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta} \in V(X)$. The notation $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$ denotes the stability condition $\sigma_{\alpha H,\beta H} \in V(X)$, see Section \ref{subsec:stabilityK3} for the definition. In particular, the heart is $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\alpha H,\beta H}(X)$ and the central charge is
\[ Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}):=(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\exp(\beta H+i\alpha H))=dr(\alpha^2-\beta^2)+2dc\beta-s+2id(c-r\beta)\alpha.\]
One can check that the heart does not depend on $\alpha$; in this section we will denote it just by $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$.
It is a stability condition for $(\beta,\alpha) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $, provided that $\Im Z(E)\neq 0$ for every spherical torsion-free sheaf $E$. Hence, the domain $V(X)$ is identified with the upper half plane $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ with some isolated points removed. The following is the main result of this section.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:hilbert_scheme}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface with $Pic(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H$ with $H^2=2d$ and $d=k^2(n-1)$ for $k>1$ integer. Then $M_{\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$ for every $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta} \in V(X)$ with $\beta <0$, and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$.
\end{Thm}
For convenience in this section we work with the slope $\nu_{\alpha,\beta}$, instead of the phase ${\varphi}_{\alpha,\beta}$. It is defined for objects $E \in \mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$ as
\[ \nu_{\alpha,\beta}(E):=
\begin{cases}
-\frac{\Re Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})}{\Im Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})}=\frac{dr(\beta^2-\alpha^2)-2dc\beta+s}{2d(c-r\beta)\alpha} & \textrm{if } \Im Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u}) \neq 0\\
+\infty & \textrm{if } \Im Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u}) = 0\\
\end{cases}
,\]
where $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}=v(E)=(r,cH,s)$.
It is related to the phase via ${\varphi}_{\alpha,\beta}(E)=\frac{1}{\pi}\cot^{-1}(\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(E))$, so it gives the same notion of stability on $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$.
If $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ is a wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, and $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ is the class of a destabilizing object, we can recover the equation of the wall by $\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})=\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. Writing $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}=(r,cH,s)$ and expanding this equation we get
\[ cd(\alpha^2+\beta^2)-\beta(r(n-1)+s)+c(n-1)=0.\]
The following is a well know fact, see \cite[Proposition $3.7$]{macri2020stability}.
\begin{Thm}[Bertram Nested Wall Theorem]
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,cH,s) \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$, with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$. The walls in $V(X)$ are either semicircles with center in the $\beta$-axis or lines parallel to the $\alpha$-axis. If $r\neq 0$ there is a unique vertical wall at $\beta=\mu(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, and there are two sets of nested semicircular walls, one on each side of the vertical wall.
\end{Thm}
We are interested in the walls for the vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$ of the Hilbert scheme. In this case the above Theorem tells us that there is a vertical wall on the line $\beta=0$; this wall corresponds to the Hilbert-Chow contraction. The moduli space $M_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ with $\alpha >>0$ and $\beta <0$ is the Hilbert scheme of points $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$, thanks to Theorem \ref{large_volume}. It parameterizes ideal sheaves of subschemes $Y \subset X$ of dimension 0 and lenght $n$. On the vertical wall two ideal sheaves become $S$-equivalent if and only if the corresponding subschemes have the same support.
Recall that to a wall $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$ we associate the rank two lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ given by all the classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ with $Z(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})$ on the same line of $Z(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$, see Definition \ref{def:lattice}. Lemma \ref{signature} implies that $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is hyperbolic, since it contains the class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, which has positive square by assumption.
The idea of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hilbert_scheme} is simple. First, we show that the vertical line $\beta=-\frac{1}{k}$ does not meet any semicircular wall. This is because the imaginary part $\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(E)$ takes non-negative integer values (up to a constant) when $E$ varies in $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$, and $\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is the minimal positive value. This is completely analogous to the fact that rank one torsion free sheaves are Gieseker stable with respect to any polarization.
Then we show that, in fact, the line $\beta=-\frac{1}{k}$ meets every semicircular wall in the left quadrant. This implies that there are no semicircular walls in the left quadrant.
\begin{Lem}[{{\cite[Examples $9.7$ and $10.5$]{bayer_projectivity_2013}}}]
The stability condition $\sigma_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}$ exists for every $t>0$, and the moduli space $M_{\sigma_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}}(1,0,1-n)$ is equal to the Hilbert scheme $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(X)$
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imaginaryPart}
\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(r,cH,s)=2dt\frac{ck+r}{k} \in \frac{2td}{k}\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}},
\end{equation}
for any vector $(r,cH,s)$. First we show that the stability condition $\sigma_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}$ is defined for every $t>0$. This means that there is no spherical class $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}=(r,cH,s)$ such that $\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})=0$. If there were one, it would satisfy
\[
\begin{cases}
r=-ck\\
2dc^2=2rs-2
\end{cases}
\]
Substituting $d=k^2(n-1)$ gives a contradiction with $k>1$.
Now assume that an object $E$ of class $(1,0,1-n)$ becomes semistable for some stability condition $\sigma_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}$. We have a destabilizing short exact sequence in $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$
\[ 0 \rightarrow F \rightarrow E \rightarrow G \rightarrow 0,\]
with $\nu_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(F)=\nu_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(E)=\nu_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(G)<+\infty.$
By definition of Bridgeland stability condition, we have
\[ 0 \leq \Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(F) \leq \Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(E)=\frac{2dt}{k}, \]
and similarly for $G$.
The equality \eqref{eq:imaginaryPart} implies that $\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(F)=0$ or $\Im Z_{t,-\frac{1}{k}}(G)=0$. In both cases this contradicts the finiteness of the slopes.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}
The vertical line $\beta=-\frac{1}{k}$ meets every semicircular wall in the left quadrant $\beta<0$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider a destabilizing exact sequence on the wall $\ensuremath{\mathcal W}$:
\[ 0 \rightarrow F \rightarrow E \rightarrow G \rightarrow 0.\]
The equation of the wall is $\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(F)=\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(E)$. Call $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}=v(F)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$. To simplify the computations we change $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ in the lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ with a vector of rank zero, such that the equation of the wall is still given by $\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=\nu_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u})$. To do this is sufficient to take $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ as the Mukai vector of a semistable object in the heart $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$ of the same slope as $E$, we do it as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $r=0$, we do not change $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$.
\item If $r>0$ take $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}:=v(E^{\oplus{r-1}}\oplus G)$.
\item If $r<0$ take $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}:=v(E^{\oplus -r} \oplus F)$.
\end{itemize}
Write $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}=(0,cH,s)$, the equation of the wall and the $\beta$ coordinate of the center become:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
cd(\alpha^2+\beta^2)-\beta s+c(n-1)=0,\\
\beta_0=\frac{s}{2cd}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Since $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ is the class of an object in the heart $\mathop{\mathrm{Coh}}\nolimits^{\beta}(X)$, it satisfies
\[ \Im Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\ensuremath{\mathbf u}) = 2dc\alpha \geq 0. \]
Since $\alpha >0$ this gives $c \geq 0$. If $c=0$ we would get the Hilbert-Chow wall, so we have $c > 0$. The center of any semicircular wall is on the negative $\beta$-axis, hence $\beta_0<0$. The above equation gives $s < 0$.
The lattice $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$ is hyperbolic, and $\ensuremath{\mathbf u}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ are linearly independent over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, so
\[
\det \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 & (\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf u}) \\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf u},\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) & \ensuremath{\mathbf u}^2
\end{array}
\right)<0,
\]
where
\[
\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=2(n-1), \\
\ensuremath{\mathbf u}^2=2dc^2, \\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf u},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=-s.
\end{cases}
\]
This implies
\[
4d(n-1)c^2 -s^2 <0.
\]
Substituting $d=k^2(n-1)$, and taking square roots we get:
\[ s<-2k(n-1)c \quad \textrm{or} \quad s>2k(n-1)c.\]
The second inequality contradicts $s<0$ and $c>0$, so we must have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hyperbolictyInequality}
s<-2k(n-1)c
\end{equation}
The condition for the wall to meet the vertical line $\beta=-\frac{1}{k}$ is for the equation
\[ cd(\alpha^2+\frac{1}{k^2})+\frac{s}{k}+c(n-1)=0,\]
to have a solution for $\alpha>0$. Substituting $d=k^2(n-1)$ and rearranging we get:
\[ ck^2(n-1)\alpha^2=-\frac{s}{k}-2(n-1)c.\]
Since $c>0$ a solution exists if and only if
$\frac{s}{k}+2(n-1)c<0,$
which is \eqref{eq:hyperbolictyInequality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor:unigonal}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface with $Pic(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cdot H$ with $H^2=2d$ and $d=k^2(n-1)$ for $k>1$ integer. The vertical wall $\beta=0$ is the only wall for $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$ in $V(X)$, and the shifted derived dual $\mathrm{R}\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}(-,\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X)[2]$ induces an isomorphism
\[ M_{\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \xrightarrow{\sim} M_{\sigma_{\alpha,-\beta}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\]
for $\beta \neq 0$.
In particular, the Main Theorem holds for both of them.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
The functor $\mathrm{R}\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}(-,\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X)[2]$ induces the desired isomorphism by \cite[Proposition $2.11$]{mmp}. Combined with Theorem \ref{thm:hilbert_scheme} this implies that $\beta=0$ is the only wall in $V(X)$. The moduli space $M_{\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ for $\beta<0$ is the Hilbert scheme, so the Main Theorem holds for it (Example \ref{ex:hilbert_scheme}) and $\mathrm{R}\mathcal{H}\!{\it om}(-,\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X)[2]$ is an anti-autoequivalence, so it preserves the Mukai homomorphism by Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences}.
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction to the Hilbert scheme}
\label{sec:Deformation}
In this section we conclude the proof of the Main Theorem. We fix a K3 surface $X$, a primitive Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$, with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2} \geq -2$, and a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$. Recall the statement of the Main Theorem
\begin{Thm}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v} \in {H^{*}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Z})}$ primitive, and $\sigma\in\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^\dagger(X)$
a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}[{\rm (1)}]
\item $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is non-empty if and only if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2\geq-2$.
Moreover, it is a smooth projective hyperk\"{a}hler variety of dimension $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 + 2$, deformation-equivalent to the Hilbert scheme of points on a K3 surface.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2\geq 0$, then the Mukai Homomorphism $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}$ gives a Hodge isometry
\[
\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}^{-1}\colon H^2(M_\sigma(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})\xrightarrow{\quad\sim\quad}
\begin{cases}\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^\perp & \text{if }\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0\\ \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^\perp/\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\ensuremath{\mathbf v} & \text{if } \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0,\end{cases}
\]
where the orthogonal is taken in $H^{*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
The proof is in several steps. First, we apply a sequence of autoequivalences to get a Mukai vector of the form $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ with $r>0$ and $\Delta$ ample. Since $\Delta$ is ample, the Hodge locus of $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ contains an ellitpic K3 surface $X'$ with a section. We deform to $X'$, where we can find a vector of the form $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}=(0,\alpha f,\beta)$, where $f$ is the class of an elliptic fiber, such that $(\ensuremath{\mathbf w},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=-1$. The moduli space $M=M_H(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$ is non-empty: a generic point is just a vector bundle supported on a smooth fiber. Moreover, it is a fine moduli space, and the Fourier-Mukai $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ with the universal family as kernel is an equivalence $D^b(X') \xrightarrow{\sim} D^b(M)$. Via this equivalence $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ gets mapped to $(1,0,1-n)$, up to tensoring with line bundles. Now assume $n \leq 1$ or equivalently $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 = -2$ or $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$. The moduli space of Gieseker stable shaves with vector $(1,0,0)$ is a point, and with vector $(1,0,1)$ is the K3 surface itself. To conclude the proof of the Main Theorem in this case we apply the wall-crossing results of Section \ref{sec:Wall crossing}.
If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$, we take a different K3 surface as a Fourier-Mukai partner: $M=M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}$ is the same vector as before, but the stability condition is the same one we are studying. We are allowed to do this, because we proved the Main Theorem for isotropic vectors first. As before, via the Fourier-Mukai transform $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ the vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ goes to $(1,0,1-n)$, but $\sigma$ goes to the geometric chamber $U(X)$. Moreover, we show that $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(M)$ is an hyperbolic plane, so we can deform to a K3 surface $Y$ of the type studied in Section \ref{subsec:Positivesquare}. Being in the geometric chamber is an open condition, so the deformed stability condition remains in the geometric chamber for $Y$. If we act with $\widetilde{GL_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})}$ we end up in the setting of Section \ref{subsec:Positivesquare}, where the moduli space is just the Hilbert scheme $\mathop{\mathrm{Hilb}}\nolimits^n(Y)$ up to a shifted derived dual.
In the argument, we apply Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences} to equivalences of type $(1)-(4)$ of Section \ref{subsec:preserveStab}, which preserve the distinguished component (Corollary \ref{preserve}). It is useful to recall their action in cohomology:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Tensor product with $L \in \mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)$ acts via multiplication with $\exp(c_1(L))$
\[ \big(r,\Delta,s\big) \left(1,c_{1}(L),\frac{c_{1}(L)^2}{2}\right)=\left(r,\Delta+rc_{1}(L),r\frac{c_{1}(L)^2}{2}+\Delta.c_{1}(L)+s\right).\]
\item The shift $[1]$ acts as $-\mathop{\mathrm{id}}\nolimits$.
\item The spherical twists acts like the reflection around $(1,0,1)$
\[ \rho_{(1,0,1)}((r,\Delta,s))=(-s,\Delta,-r).\]
\item The Fourier-Mukai $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}$ acts like the cohomological Fourier-Mukai, with kernel the Mukai vector $v(\ensuremath{\mathcal E})$.
\end{enumerate}
For the deformation arguments we use the notion of a relative stability condition $\underline{\sigma}$ over a base $C$. It was introduced in \cite{bayer2019stability}, and it consists, given a family $\ensuremath{\mathcal X} \rightarrow C$, of a collection $\underline{\sigma_c}$ of stability conditions on the fibers $\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_c$ satisfying some technical conditions. There is also a well-behaved notion of relative moduli space. The following is the result we use, it is stated in \cite[Corollary $32.1$]{bayer2019stability} for cubic fourfolds, but the same proof works for polarized K3 surfaces.
\begin{Thm}\label{families}
Let $(X,H)$ be a polarized K3 surface of degree $2d$, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ a primitive vector, and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition . Let $(X',H')$ be another polarized K3 surface of the same degree, in the Hodge locus where $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ stays algebraic inside the moduli space of polarized K3 surfaces of degree $2d$. Then, there exists a smooth family $\ensuremath{\mathcal X} \rightarrow C$ over a smooth connected quasi-projective curve, and a stability condition $\underline{\sigma} \in D^{b}{(\ensuremath{\mathcal X})}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The class $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ stays algebraic for all $c \in C$.
\item The stability condition $\underline{\sigma}_{c}$ is in $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_c)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ generic for all $c \in C$.
\item $\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_{c_{0}}=X$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_{c_1}=X'$ and $\underline{\sigma}_{c_0}$ is a small deformation of $\sigma$ such that $M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=M_{X,\sigma_{c_0}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$.
\item The relative moduli space $M_{\underline{\sigma}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ exists as a smooth and proper algebraic space over $C$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
The first step in the reduction to the Hilbert scheme is to apply a sequence of autoequivalences to change the Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$.
\begin{Lem}\label{change_vector}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ primitive, and let $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ be $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic. Then, there exist a primitive $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'=(r',\Delta',s')$ with $r'>0$ and $\Delta'$ ample, a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$-generic stability condition $\sigma' \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X')$, and an isomorphism $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}) \cong M_{\sigma'}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}')$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
First we reduce to $r>0$. If $r<0$ then a shift suffices. If $r=0$ and $\Delta=0$, then $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(0,0,\pm1)$ so after applying either $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}[1]$ or $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}$ we get $(1,0,0)$. If $\Delta \neq 0$, then, up to a shift, we can assume it to be effective. If $H$ is an ample line bundle, tensor product with $nH$ sends $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ to $(0,\Delta,s+nH.\Delta)$. By taking $n>>0$ we can assume $s>0$. Applying the shifted spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}[1]$ we get $r>0$.
If $r>0$, to get a $\Delta$ ample we can tensor with powers of an ample line bundle. Indeed, $\Delta$ goes to $\Delta + rnH$, which is ample if $n>>0$. The distinguished component is preserved due to Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences}.
\end{proof}
The next step is a deformation to an elliptic K3 surface. Consider $(X,\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\sigma)$ as in the conclusion of the lemma above, i.e. $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ with $r >0 $ and $\Delta$ ample. We write $\Delta=mH$ with $m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and $H$ a primitive polarization on $X$ of degree $H^2=:2d$
\begin{Lem}\label{first_deformation}
Let $(X,\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\sigma)$ be as in the conclusion on the lemma above. Then, there exists an elliptic K3 surface $X'$ in the hodge locus of $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$, with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X')=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$, where $f$ is the class of the elliptic fiber and $s$ the class of a section, and a stability condition $\sigma'$ on $X'$ such that $M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is deformation equivalent to $M_{X',\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We only need to check the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{families}. First assume $d>1$. By the surjectivity of the period map, there exists a K3 surface with Picard group as in the statement. Equipping it with the polarization $s+(d+1)f$, it defines a point in the moduli space of polarized K3 surfaces of degree $2d$. Since $\Delta$ is a multiple of a polarization $H$ it remains algebraic on $Y$, so we are in the hypotesis of Theorem \ref{families}. The relative moduli space of point $(4)$ gives us the desired deformation.
If $d=1$, the class $s+(d+1)f$ is not ample. In this case, we can apply Theorem \ref{families} to first deform to a K3 surface $X''$ with $\rho(X'')>1$. Indeed, such K3 surfaces are dense in the Hodge locus of $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$. On $X''$ we can tensor by an ample line and obtain a Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}''=(r'',\Delta'',s'')$ with $\Delta''=mH''$ and $(H'')^2>>0$. So we reduced to the case $d>1$, and the argument above concludes the proof of the Lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}\label{rem:defMukai}
Since the previous deformation is given by a relative moduli space, the quasi-universal family deforms, and so does the Mukai homomorphism. In particular, the function
\[ \theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}: \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp} \cap H^{*}(\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_c,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}) \rightarrow H^{2}(M_{\ensuremath{\mathcal X}_c,\sigma_c}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})\]
is a locally constant on $C$. Since $C$ is connected, and the Beaville-Bogomolov form is deformation invariant, $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}$ is a Hodge isometry on $X'$ if and only if it is on $X$.
\end{Rem}
Now we prove the Main Theorem for spherical and isotropic classes $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Yoshioka_semirigido}
Let $X$ be a K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ primitive and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}$ generic. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$, the moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a reduced point. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=0$, the moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a projective K3 surface, and the map $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}: \ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{\perp}/\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbf v} \rightarrow H^{2}(M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}),\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ is a Hodge isometry.
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
As a preliminary remark, notice that if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$, then $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is a two-dimensional smooth and proper algebraic space, hence projective, and moreover it is symplectic. So, to prove the Theorem it is enough to show that $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is deformation equivalent to a point if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$ or to a K3 surface if $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$.
From Lemmas \ref{change_vector} and \ref{first_deformation} we can assume that $X$ is an elliptic K3 surface, with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$, where $f$ is the class of a fiber and $s$ is the class of a section. Moreover, from Lemma \ref{coprime} and an application of the shifted spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_X}[1]$ we can assume that the Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ has rank positive rank $r>0$ and coprime with $\Delta.f$.
Consider a vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}=(0,\alpha f,\beta)$; we have $(\ensuremath{\mathbf w},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=\alpha \Delta.f - \beta r$. Since $r$ and $\Delta.f$ are coprime, we can find $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=-1$. Since $r>0$ we can assume also that $\alpha >0$ and $\beta \neq 0$. Let $H$ be a polarization such that $M:=M_{H}(w)$ is non-empty and parameterizes stable sheaves, as in Example \ref{ex:Fm_partner}. The moduli space $M$ is fine because $(-\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=1$, see \cite[Remark $4.6.8$]{huybrechts_lehn_2010}.
Consider the Fourier-Mukai transform
\[\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}:D^{b}(M) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^{b}(X)\]
given by the universal family; it is an equivalence by Proposition \ref{prop:FMequivalence}. Since $M$ is a projective symplectic surface, derived equivalent to a K3 surface, it is a K3 surface itself. At the level of cohomology $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}^{H}$ is an isometry, and $(\Phi^H_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}})^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=(0,0,1)$. Define $\sigma':=\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E},*}^{-1}(\sigma)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}':=(\Phi^H_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}})^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$. Then \[r(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}')=-(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}',(0,0,1))=-(\ensuremath{\mathbf v},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=1\]
Up to twisting for a line bundle we can assume $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'=(1,0,1-n)$, with $n=\frac{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}+2}{2} \geq 0$. By Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences} the moduli space $M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is isomorphic to the moduli space $M_{M,\sigma'}((1,0,1-n))$, and the morphism $\theta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}$ is compatible with this isomorphism.
Consider the wall and chamber decomposition for the vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'$ on $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(M)$. Let $H'$ be a polarization on $M$. From Theorem \ref{large_volume} there is a chamber where Bridgeland stability is the same as Gieseker $H'$-stability. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=-2$, then $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}'=(1,0,1)$. The moduli space for this vector in the Gieseker chamber is a reduced point corresponding to $\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{X}$. If $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}=0$, the new vector is $(1,0,0)$ and the moduli space in the Gieseker chamber parameterizes ideal sheaves of points, so it is isomorphic to the underlying K3 surface. Moreover, the Mukai homomorphism is just the identity on $H^2(X,\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$.
Since $\mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(M)$ is connected by definition, we can find a path that connects the Gieseker chamber with the stability condition $\sigma'$. This will intersect finitely many walls, because they are locally finite. From Corollary \ref{yoshiokaez} and Remark \ref{rem:defMukai} we get the thesis.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}\label{coprime}
Let $X$ be an elliptic K3 surface with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(S)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$ where $f$ is the class of an elliptic fiber, and $s$ is the class of a section. Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,m(s+df),s)$ primitive, with $d > 0$ and $r>0$. Then, there exists $k$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}.\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(kf)=(r,\Delta_{k},s_{k})$ has $\gcd(\Delta_{k},s_{k})=1$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{k}&=ms + (md+kr)f;\\
s_{k}&=s+mk.
\end{align*}
In particular $\gcd(s_{k},m)=\gcd(s,m)$. Since $s$ and $f$ are primitive we get
\[ \gcd(s_{k},\Delta_{k})=\gcd(\gcd(s_{k},m),\gcd(s_{k},md+rk)) \mid \gcd(\gcd(s,m),md+rk).\]
Since $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ is primitive, we have $\gcd(\gcd(s,m),\gcd(md,r))=1$, because no prime can divide $\gcd(s,m)$ and $r$. Call $c=\gcd(md,r)$, and write $md+kr=c(\frac{md}{c}+k\frac{r}{c})$.
By the Dirichlet Theorem on arithmetic progressions, we can find $k$ such that $(\frac{md}{c}+k\frac{r}{c})$ is a prime bigger than $\gcd(s,m)$. This implies $md+kr$ is coprime with $\gcd(s,m)$ hence the thesis.
\end{proof}
The last step is to prove the Main Theorem for Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2>0$. We first show that the Picard group of Fourier-Mukai partner $M$ is an hyperbolic plane, and then deform to a K3 surface of Picard rank one.
\begin{Lem}\label{fm}
Let $X$ be an elliptic K3 surface with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$, let $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,m(s+(d+1)f),s)$ primitive, with $r>0$ and $\sigma$ generic. There exists another elliptic K3 surface $M$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(M)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s'\oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f'$, and an isomorphism $M_{X,\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})\cong M_{M,\sigma'}((1,0,1-n))$ where $n=\frac{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2}+2}{2}$ and $\sigma' \in U(M)$ is generic for $(1,0,1-n)$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We begin as in the proof of Theorem \ref{Yoshioka_semirigido}: we apply Lemma \ref{coprime} and a spherical twist to reduce to $r$ and $\Delta.f$ coprime, and we consider a vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}=(0,\alpha f,\beta)$ such that $(\ensuremath{\mathbf w},\ensuremath{\mathbf v})=-1$. Deforming $\sigma$ if necessary, we can assume it to be $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}$-generic too. Theorem \ref{Yoshioka_semirigido} applied to the moduli space $M:=M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf w})$, implies that it is non-empty and a K3-surface. It is fine because wall-crossing preserves the universal family, and the universal family induces a derived equivalence
\[\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}: D^b(M) \xrightarrow{\sim} D^b(X). \]
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{Yoshioka_semirigido}, define
\[\sigma':=\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E},*}^{-1}(\sigma)\ \mathrm{and} \ \ensuremath{\mathbf v}':=(\Phi^H_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}})^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v}).\]
Up to twisting with a line bundle on $M$ we can assume $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$. To conclude the proof, it remains to show that $\sigma'$ is in $U(M)$ and that $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(M)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} s' \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f'$.
From Lemma \ref{UandV} and Proposition \ref{prop:orientation}, we only have to show that the skyscraper sheaves $\{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{m} \mid m\in M \}$ are $\sigma'$ stable. This is true because $\Phi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal O}_{m})$ are precisely the objects of the moduli space $M$, which by construction are $\sigma$-stable.
For the second statement, consider the two vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf w}':=(\alpha,\beta s + (\alpha +\beta)f,\beta)$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf t}:=(\alpha,\beta s + (\beta-r)f,-\Delta.f)$ on $X$, where $\beta r - \alpha \Delta.f=1$. It is a computation to check that they satisfy the following relations.
\[
\begin{cases}
(\ensuremath{\mathbf w}',\ensuremath{\mathbf w}')=0,\\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf w}',\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=0.
\end{cases}
\qquad
\begin{cases}
(\ensuremath{\mathbf t},\ensuremath{\mathbf t})=-2,\\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf t},\ensuremath{\mathbf w})=0,\\
(\ensuremath{\mathbf t},\ensuremath{\mathbf w}')=-1.
\end{cases}
\]
This implies that $(\Phi^{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}})^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbf w}')=(0,l,a)$ and $(\Phi^{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal E}})^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathbf t})=(0,t,b)$, with
\[
\begin{cases}
(l,l)=0,\\
(t,t)=-2,\\
(l,t)=-1.
\end{cases}
\]
which means that $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(M)$ contains an hyperbolic plane. Since the Picard rank is a derived invariant for K3 surfaces, the Picard group is an hyperbolic plane.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the Main Theorem]
Consider $X$ any K3 surface, $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(r,\Delta,s)$ a primitive vector with $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^{2} \geq -2$, and $\sigma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Stab}}\nolimits^{\dagger}(X)$ a $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}$-generic stability condition. The cases $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=-2$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2=0$ were proved in Theorem \ref{Yoshioka_semirigido}, so we assume $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}^2 >0$. By Corollary \ref{Cor:projectivity} we see that $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is smooth, symplectic and projective. Since the Hodge numbers are invariant under deformations of projective varieties it is enough to show that $M_{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\mathbf v})$ is deformation equivalent (via a relative moduli space) to the Hilbert scheme of points on a K3 surface.
Applying Lemma \ref{change_vector} we can assume $r>0$ and $\Delta$ ample. Under this assumptions, using Lemma \ref{first_deformation} we deform to an elliptic K3 with a section and using Lemma \ref{coprime} we can assume $r$ and $\Delta$ to be coprime. Finally with Lemma \ref{fm} we reduce to $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$ with $n>1$, a generic $\sigma \in U(X)$, and $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits(X)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbf e} \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} f$.
Let $d=k^2(n-1)$, the class $s+(d+1)f$ is ample on $X$ of degree $2d$. With a small deformation we reduce to the case of a K3 surface $X'$ of Picard rank one, degree $2d$ and Mukai vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf v}=(1,0,1-n)$. Since stability is an open property for families of objects, every skyscraper sheaf is still stable with respect to the deformed stability condition. So the deformed stability condition lies in the geometric chamber $U(X')$ by Lemma \ref{UandV}. By definition of $U(X')$ we can act by the group $\widetilde{GL_2(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})}$ and get a stability condition $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta} \in V(X')$. This brings us in the setting of Corollary \ref{Cor:unigonal}, and we conclude the proof. Indeed, at every step of the reduction we get either isomorphisms that preserve the Mukai homomorphism by Proposition \ref{prop:equivalences}, or deformations that also preserve the Mukai homomorphism by Remark \ref{rem:defMukai}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A \emph{hypergraph} is a generalization of a graph in which an edge can connect any number of nodes. Formally, a hypergraph $H$ is a tuple $(V,E)$ where $V$ is the set of \emph{nodes} and $E$ is a set of nonempty subsets of $V$ called {\em hyperedges}. Nodes and hyperedges may have weights. Graphs are a special case of hypergraphs in which each hyperedge connects exactly two nodes.
Hypergraphs arise in many application domains. For example, Giurgiu et al. ~\cite{crum} model protein interaction networks as hypergraphs; nodes in the hypergraph represent the proteins and hyperedges represent {\em protein complexes} formed by interactions between multiple proteins. The DisGeNET knowledge platform \cite{disgenet} represents a disease genomics dataset as a hypergraph in which nodes represents genes and hyperedges represent diseases associated with certain collections of genes. Algorithms for solving hypergraph problems are then used to predict new protein complexes or to predict that a cluster of genes is associated with an as-yet undiscovered disease.
\subsection{Hypergraph Embedding}
Bengio et al. \cite{rl} show that one way to solve prediction problems in graphs is to find an embedding of the graph using {\em representation learning}. Formally, an embedding of a network is a mapping of the vertex set into $\mathcal{R}^d$ where $n$ is the number of nodes in the network and $d << n$. There is a rich literature on graph embedding methods that use a variety of techniques ranging from random walks \cite{deepwalk,line,node2vec} to matrix factorization \cite{fact} and graph neural networks \cite{graphsage,gin}. Graph embedding techniques can be extended to hypergraphs in two ways but neither of them is satisfactory.
One approach is to represent the hypergraph as a graph by replacing each hyperedge with a clique of edges connecting the vertices of that hyperedge, and then use graph embeddings to solve the prediction problems. This approach has been explored in HGNN \cite{hgnn} and HyperGCN \cite{hypergcn}. However, the clique expansion is lossy because the hypergraph cannot be recovered from the clique expansion in general. This information loss persists even if the dual of the hypergraph is considered~\cite{lossy}.
Zien et al. \cite{star} show that another approach is to work with the \textit{star expansion} of the hypergraph.
Given a hypergraph $H {=} {(}V{,}E {) }$ where $V$ is the set of nodes and $E$ is the set of hyperedges, we create a bipartite graph $H^{\ast} = (V^{\ast},E^{\ast})$ by (i) introducing a node $v_e$ for each hyperedge $e \in E$ so in final graph $V^{\ast} = V \cup E$, and (ii) introducing an edge between a node $u \in V$ and a hyperedge node $v_e \in E$ if $u \in e$ in the hypergraph, so
{\em i.e.,} $E^{\ast} = {(u,v_e) : u \in e, e \in E}$. Unlike the clique expansion of a hypergraph, the star expansion is not lossy provided nodes representing hyperedges are distinguished from nodes representing hypergraph nodes. However, graph representation learning approaches do not distinguish between the two types of nodes in the bipartite graph, which lowers accuracy for prediction problems as we show in this paper.
These problems motivated us to develop \textit{HyperNetVec}, a {\em parallel multi-level framework for constructing hypergraph embeddings}. HyperNetVec leverages existing graph embedding algorithms and it performs hypergraph embedding in a much faster and more scalable manner than current methods. We evaluate HyperNetVec on a number of data sets for node classification and hyperedge prediction. Our experiments show that our hierarchical framework can compute the embedding of hypergraphs with millions of nodes and hyperedges in just a few minutes without loss of accuracy in downstream tasks, while all existing hypergraph embedding techniques either fail to run on such large inputs and or take days to complete.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\columnwidth,page=3]{sepideh_hypergraph2.pdf}}
\caption{Multi-level embedding. \textbf{Top left}: original hypergraph. \textbf{Top right}: contracting nodes of a hypergraph to create a coarser hypergraph. \textbf{Bottom left}: initial embedding. \textbf{Bottom right}: iterative refinement of embeddings.}
\label{fig:multilevel}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
Our main technical contributions are summarized below.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{HyperNetVec:} We describe \emph{HyperNetVec}, a hierarchical hypergraph embedding framework that is designed to handle variable-sized hyperedges.
\item \textbf{Node features:} Unlike many other systems in this space, \textbf{HyperNetVec} can exploit the topology of the graph as well as node features, if they are present in the input data.
\item \textbf{Unsupervised hypergraph embedding system:} To the best of our knowledge, HyperNetVec is the first unsupervised hypergraph embedding system. The embeddings obtained from this framework can be used in downstream tasks such as hyperedge prediction and node classification.
\item \textbf{Scalability:} HyperNetVec is the first hypergraph embedding approach that can generate embeddings of hypergraphs with millions of nodes and hyperedges.
Our approach can significantly reduce run time while producing comparable and in some cases, better accuracy than state-of-the-art techniques.
\end{itemize}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
Given a hypergraph $H {=} {(}V{,}E{) }$, the algorithms described in this paper use the star expansion of the hypergraph and assign a vector representation $h_u$ to each $u {\in} {(}V {\cup} E{)}$. Intuitively, these embeddings attempt to preserve {\em structural similarity} in the hypergraph: if two hyperedges have many nodes in common or if two nodes are in many of the same hyperedges, the algorithm attempts to assign the two hyperedges/nodes to points that are \textit{close} in the vector space. \textit{Closeness} can be computed using distance or other measures of vector similarity. Embedding should also exploit the \textit{transitivity} property of similarity: if $a$ and $b$ are similar, and $b$ and $c$ are similar, we want the embedding of $a$ and $c$ to be close to each other as well. Finally, if nodes have features, the embeddings should also exploit {\em functional similarity} between nodes.
Figure~\ref{fig:multilevel} illustrates the high-level idea of multi-level hypergraph embedding. This framework consists of three phases: (i) {\em Coarsening}, which iteratively merges nodes of the hypergraph to shrink the size of the hypergraph until the hypergraph is small enough that any network embedding algorithm can quickly obtain the embedding of the smallest hypergraph; (ii) {\em Initial embedding}, in which a network embedding algorithm is used on the coarsest hypergraph to generate the embedding, and (iii) {\em Refinement}, in which the embedding vectors of the coarser hypergraph are projected onto a finer hypergraph and a refinement algorithm is used to refine these embedding vectors. In the rest of this section, we describe these phases in more detail. HyperNetVec is a parallel implementation of the multilevel approach.
\subsection{Coarsening}
\label{sec:coarsening}
Intuitively, coarsening finds nodes that are \textit{similar} to each other and merges them to obtain a coarser hypergraph. To obtain a high quality embedding, we need to explore both structural similarity and functional similarity. The connectivity of nodes and hyperedges of a hypergraph determines structural similarity while node features determine functional similarity.
The first step in coarsening a hypergraph is to find nodes that are similar to each other and merge them. This is accomplished by ``assigning'' each node to one of its hyperedges, and then merging all nodes $\{n_1,n_2,...,n_k\}$ assigned to a given hyperedge to produce a node $n^\prime$ of the coarser hypergraph. We refer to $n^\prime$ as the {\em representative} of node $n_i$ in the coarse hypergraph, and denote it as rep($n_i$). If all nodes of a hyperedge $h_j$ are merged, we remove that hyperedge from the hypergraph. Otherwise, we add the hyperedge to the next level and refer to it as rep($h_j$). If a node $n_i$ is contained in hyperedge $h_j$ in the finer hypergraph and $h_j$ is present in the coarse hypergraph, then rep($n_i$) is made a member of rep($h_j$).
If nodes of a hypergraph have features, this information can be used to find similar nodes and merge them together.
In a hypergraph with node features, the feature vector of a hyperedge is the mean aggregation of the features of its nodes. In this scenario, metrics of vector similarity or distance between a feature vector of a hyperedge and a node can be used for assigning nodes to hyperedges. However, if the hypergraph has no features, HyperNetVec can use other measures such as weights or degrees of a hyperedge to assign nodes to hyperedges. The datasets used in experiments in this paper for node classification are citation networks and the node feature vectors come from bag-of-words encoding. In these datasets, \textit{cosine similarity} aligns well with class labels. However, other metrics of vector similarity or distance such as L2 norm, correlation distance, etc. can also be used.
In summary, at each level of coarsening, HyperNetVec computes a feature vector for a hyperedge by finding the mean aggregation of the feature vectors of its nodes. Then it assigns each node $v$ in the current hypergraph to a hyperedge $c(v)$, defined (for cosine similarity) as $ c(v) = \argmaxB_{e \in \mathcal{N}(v)}~ \dfrac{f(e) \cdot f(v)}{\vert f(e) \vert \cdot \vert f(v) \vert}$
where $\mathcal{N}(v)$ is the set of hyperedges that node $v$ belongs to, $f(e)$ is the feature vector of hyperedge $e$ and $f(v)$ is the feature vector of node $v$.
Nodes that are assigned to the same hyperedge are merged together and the resulting node is added to the coarse hypergraph. In case of a tie, HyperNetVec randomly chooses a hyperedge in the neighborhood of the node.
\begin{algorithm}[tbh]
\caption{$\mathsf{Coarsening}$}
\label{alg:coarse}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $\text{fineGraph}$, node feature matrix $X \in \mathcal{R}^{V \times k}$,\text{neighborhood function} $\mathcal{N}(u)$, \text{depth} $K$
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} $\text{coarseGraph}$, node feature matrix $X^{\prime} \in \mathcal{R}^{V^{\prime} \times k}$
\FOR{$i=1$ to $K$}
\FORALL{hyperedges $e \in fineGraph$ \textbf{in parallel} }
\STATE {$\mathsf{ComputeEdgeFeature}(e)$}
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{nodes $v \in fineGraph$ in parallel}
\STATE {$\mathsf{AssignHyperedge}(v)$}
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{hyperedges $e \in fineGraph$ \textbf{in parallel} }
\STATE {$M \leftarrow \mathsf{FindAssignedNodes}(e)$}
\STATE {$m \leftarrow \mathsf{Merge}(M)$}
\STATE {$\mathsf{coarseGraph.addNode}(m)$} \# m is representative of each node in M
\IF{ $|M| \not= |e|$}
\STATE {$\mathsf{coarseGraph.addHedge}(e)$} \# representative of e
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{hyperedges $e \in fineGraph$ \textbf{in parallel} }
\IF {rep($e$) exists}
\FOR{$v$ $\in$ $\mathcal{N}(e)$}
\STATE {$\mathsf{coarseGraph.addEdge}$(rep($e$),rep($v$))}
\ENDFOR
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Initial Embedding}
\label{sec:initial}
We coarsen the hypergraph until it is small enough that {\em any} unsupervised embedding method can generate the embedding of the coarsest hypergraph in just a few seconds. We use the edgelist of the coarsest bipartite graph (star expansion) as the input to this embedding method.
\subsection{Refinement}
\label{sec:refinement}
The goal of this phase is to improve embeddings by performing a variation of Laplacian smoothing \cite{laplacian} that we call the {\em refinement} algorithm. The basic idea is to update the embedding of each node $u$ using a weighted average of its own embedding and the embeddings of its immediate neighbors $\mathcal{N}(u)$. Intuitively, smoothing eliminates high-frequency noise in the embeddings and tries to assign similar embeddings to nodes that are close to each other in the graph, which improves the accuracy of downstream inference tasks. A simple iterative scheme for smoothing is:
$\Tilde{z}_{u}^{i} = \sum_{v \in \mathcal{N}(u)} ( \frac{w_{uv}}{\sum_{v {\in}\mathcal{N}(u)}w_{uv}} )z_v^{i-1}$. In this formula, $z_u^i$ is the embedding of node $u$ in iteration $i$, and $w_{uv}$ is the weight on the outgoing edge from $u$ to $v$; if there no weights in the input hypergraph, a value of 1 is used and the denominator is the degree of node $u$. This iterative scheme can be improved by introducing a hyper-parameter $\omega$ that determines the relative importance of the embeddings of the neighboring nodes versus the embedding of the node itself, to obtain the following iterative scheme: $z_{u}^{i} = (1-\omega)z^{i-1}_u + \omega\Tilde{z}_{u}^{i}$. The initial embeddings for the iterative scheme are generated as follows. For the coarsest graph, they are generated as described in section~\ref{sec:initial}. For the other hypergraphs, if a set of nodes $S$ in hypergraph $H_{i{-}1}$ was merged to form a node $n$ in the coarser hypergraph $H_i$, the embedding of $n$ in $H_i$ is assigned to all the nodes of $S$ in $H_{i{-}1}$.
Abstractly, this iterative scheme uses \textit{successive over-relaxation} (SOR) with a parameter $\omega$ to solve the linear system $Lz = 0$ where $L$ is the Laplacian matrix of $H^\ast$, the bipartite (star) representation of the hypergraph. The Laplacian is defined as ($D{-}A$) where $D$ is the diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $d_{uu}$ equal to the degree of node $u$ for unweighted graphs (for weighted graphs, the sum of weights of outgoing edges), and $A$ is the adjacency matrix of $H^\ast$.
To avoid oversmoothing, we do not compute the exact solution of this linear system but if we start with a good initial embedding $z^{0}$, a few iterations of the iterative scheme lead to significant gains in the quality of the embedding, as we show experimentally in Section~\ref{sec:experiment}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{$\mathsf{Refinement}$}
\label{alg:refinement}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} \text{Bipartite graph representation} $H^{\ast}=(V^{\ast},E^{\ast},W)$ \text{of hypergraph} $H = (V,E,W)$, \text{vector representation} $z_u$ \text{for all} $u$ $\in$ $(V^{\ast})$, \text{neighborhood function} $\mathcal{N}(u)$, \text{parameter} $\omega$, parameter $k$ for max iteration
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} \text{Refined vector representation} $h_u$, $\forall{u}$ $\in$ $(V^{\ast})$
\STATE {$z^0_u \leftarrow z_u,\forall{u}\in (V^{\ast})$}
\STATE {$iter=0$}
\WHILE{$iter < k$}
\FOR{$u \in V^*$ in parallel}
\STATE {$\Tilde{z}_{u}^{i} \leftarrow \sum_{v{\in}\mathcal{N}(u)} w_{uv}z^{i-1}_v / \sum_{v{\in}\mathcal{N}(u)}w_{uv}$}
\STATE {$z_{u}^{i} \leftarrow (1-\omega)z^{i-1}_u + \omega\Tilde{z}_{u}^{i}$}
\ENDFOR
\STATE{$iter$ += $1$}
\ENDWHILE
\STATE {$h_u \leftarrow z^k_u,\forall{u}\in (V^{\ast})$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:refinement} shows the psuedocode for refinement. The inputs to this algorithm are $H^*$, the bipartite representation of the hypergraph, $z_u$, the initial embedding for each node and hyperedge, and a relaxation parameter $\omega$ between 0 and 1. Embeddings of the hyperedges are updated using the embeddings of the nodes, and the embeddings of nodes are updated using the embeddings of hyperedges. Note that if $u$ represents a hyperedge, $\mathcal{N}(u)$ is the set of nodes in that hyperedge, and if $u$ represents a node in the hypergraph, $\mathcal{N}(u)$ represents the set of hyperedges that $u$ is contained in. Each iteration of the refinement algorithm has a linear time complexity in the size of the bipartite representation of the hypergraph.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We describe HyperNetVec, a multi-level hypergraph embedding framework, which can process hypergraphs with millions of nodes and hyperedges in just a few minutes, producing high-quality embeddings for node classification and hyperedge prediction. Our experimental results show that it significantly outperforms multi-level graph embedding approaches such as MILE and GraphZoom in both accuracy and running time (some of these approaches fail for the large datasets in our studies). We also showed that our refinement algorithm can be used on its own to improve the quality of embeddings for hypergraphs by up to 23\%.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiment}
HyperNetVec provides an unsupervised method for representation learning for hypergraphs. We show these representations perform well for both node classification and hyperedge prediction. Prior works such as HyperGCN and Hyper-SAGNN have been evaluated for one or the other of these tasks but not both.
\textbf{Experimental settings.} We implement \textit{HyperNetVec} in Galois 6.0~\cite{pingali}. All experiments are done on a machine running CentOS 7 with 4 sockets of 14-core Intel Xeon Gold 5120 CPUs at 2.2 GHz, and 187 GB of RAM. All the methods used in this study are parallel implementations and we use the maximum number of cores available on the machine to run the experiments. The embedding dimension is 128. The hyperparameter $\omega$ in the refinement algorithm is set to 0.5 for all experiments. Once node embeddings are obtained, we apply logistic regression with cross-entropy loss for our downstream tasks.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Datasets used for node classification.}
\label{nodeclass}
\vskip -0.3in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccr}
\toprule
Dataset & Nodes & Hyperedges & Edges & Classes & Features\\
\midrule
Citeseer & 1,458& 1,079& 6,906&6&3,703 \\
PubMed &3,840 & 7,963 &69,258 &3&500\\
DBLP & 41,302& 22,363& 199,122& 6&1,425\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{table}
\subsection{Node Classification}
Given a hypergraph and node labels on a small subset of nodes, the task is
to predict labels on the remaining nodes.
We used the standard hypergraph datasets from prior works, and these are listed in Table~\ref{nodeclass}. We are given 4\% of node labels and predict the remaining 96\%.
{\bf Methods Compared.} We explore a number of popular methods for graph embedding. We also compare our results with hypergraph convolutional networks approaches for semi-supervised classification.
\textit{Random-walk methods:} We select node2vec~\cite{node2vec} (high performance implementation \cite{fastnv}) for this group. This method is properly tuned. We explored window size \{10,20\}, walk length \{20, 40, 80, 120\}, number of walks per vertex \{10,80,40\}, p \{1,4,0.5\}, and q \{1,4,0.5\}. The results reported in the paper are for the best hyper-parameter values, which are 10,80,10,4,1 respectively.
\textit{Graph convolutional network:} We compare with GraphSAGE~\cite{graphsage}. We use GraphSAGE in unsupervised manner with the mean aggregator model.
\textit{Multi-level based embedding methods:} We compare against unsupervised approaches MILE~\cite{mile}, and GraphZoom~\cite{graphzoom}. MILE is a multi-level graph embedding framework. We used the default refinement technique, MD-gcn. GraphZoom is also a multi-level graph embedding framework. For the coarsening, we used \textit{simple}.
\textit{Semi-supervised classification on hypergraphs.} We compare with HyperGCN. Given a hypergraph, HyperGCN~\cite{hypergcn} approximates the hypergraph by a graph where each hyperedge is approximated by a subgraph. A graph convolutional network (GCN) is then run on the resulting graph. We used 200 epochs and learning rate of 0.01.
For the multi-level approaches, we use node2vec, and GraphSAGE as the initial embedding methods. Since MILE cannot utilise node features, we do not run GraphSAGE as an initial embedding method for MILE.
We report the mean test accuracy and standard deviation over 100 different train-test splits. We optimize hyperparameters of all the baselines. For HyperNetVec, we use 80 iterations of refinement. Alternatively, other stopping criteria such as epsilon difference between two consecutive iterations can be used.
\textbf{Running time.} For HyperNetVec and other multi-level approaches, running time includes all three phases: coarsening, initial embedding, and refinement. For the rest of the baselines, we use the time for hypergraph embedding. For each approach to computing the initial embeddings (node2vec, GraphSAGE), we have a row showing the accuracy and running times when that approach is used, and rows below those showing the accuracy and running times if that approach is used in conjunction with HyperNetVec or other multilevel approaches. For example, the first row in Table~\ref{tb:small} shows the running times and accuracy when node2vec is used on the star expansion of the hypergraph, while the second row (HyperNetVec + nv \textit{(l=0)}) shows the total running time and accuracy if HyperNetVec is used without coarsening but with the output of node2vec being post-processed using our refinement algorithm. The line below that \textit{(l=2)} shows the results if two levels of coarsening are used in addition.
{\bf Datasets.} We used the following standard hypergraph datasets in our study. Nodes not connected to any hyperedge, as well as hyperedges containing only one node, were removed. \textit{Citeseer (co-citation)}: scientific publications classified into six classes. All documents cited by a document are connected by a hyperedge. ~\cite{cora}. \textit{PubMed (co-citation)}: scientific publications from PubMed Diabetes database. All documents cited by a document are connected by a hyperedge~\cite{cora}.
\textit{DBLP (co-authorship)}: scientific publications consist of 6 conference categories. All documents co-authored by an author are in one hyperedge~\cite{dblp}.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Node classification. Accuracy in \% and time in seconds. $l$ is the number of coarsening levels. $0$ means without coarsening. }
\label{tb:small}
\vskip -0.9in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Citeseer}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{PubMed}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{DBLP}} \\
&
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Accuracy} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Accuracy} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Accuracy} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} \\
\midrule
node2vec (nv) & 51.3 $\pm 1.$ & 14&$65.3 \pm2.$ & 66 & $64.3 \pm .4$ & 470 \\
HyperNetVec + nv ($l$=$0$)& $59.1$ $\pm 1.$&16&$79.7$ $\pm 1.$ & 70 &$72.4\pm .4$&490\\
HyperNetVec + nv ($l$=$2$)&\textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{60.6 $\pm 1.$}} & 17&80.7 $\pm 1.$ &69&78.9 $\pm .5$ & 216 \\
GraphZoom + nv ($l$=$2$) & 54.4 $\pm 1.$& 15 & $74.9 \pm .1$ & 100&$70.2 \pm .5$& 434\\
MILE + nv ($l$=$2$) & 52.2 $\pm 1.$ & 14& $68.7 \pm .2 $& 60 &71.8 $\pm 1.$& 402\\
\hline
GraphSAGE (gs) & 45.6 $\pm 1.$ &1,167& $60.7 \pm .2$ & 277 & $67.7 \pm .1$ & 925\\
HyperNetVec + gs ($l$=$0$)& 60.3 $\pm 3.$ &1,170& $80.4$ $\pm .1$ & 296 &\textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{79.9 $\pm .1$}}&1,055\\
HyperNetVec + gs ($l$=$2$)& 60.2 $\pm 1.$ & 843& \textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{80.8 $\pm .1$}} & 120 &79.4 $\pm .4$ & 530 \\
GraphZoom + gs ($l$=$2$) & 52.7 $\pm 1.$&853&$72.4 \pm .1$ & 137 & $75.6 \pm .4$& 593\\
\hline
HyperGCN & 54.1 $\pm 10$ & 12 &$64.3 \pm 10$&60 &$63.3 \pm 10$& 480 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.32in
\end{table*}
These are the main takeaways from Table~\ref{tb:small}. HyperNetVec generates the highest quality embeddings for the node classification task. HyperNetVec outperforms HyperGCN in terms of quality for all datasets by up to 15\%. The refinement algorithm improves the quality of embeddings for all the datasets by up to 23\%.
This can be seen by comparing the statistics for HyperNetVec without coarsening ($l=0$) with those for node2vec, and GraphSAGE. The initial embedding for HyperNetVec is obtained from node2vec, and GraphSAGE so differences in the statistics arise entirely from the fact that HyperNetVec performs refinement. HyperNetVec outperforms prior multi-level graph embedding approaches (MILE and GraphZoom) for all the datasets by up to 11\% for MILE and up to 9\% for GraphZoom. Coarsening reduces the overall running time of the embedding for larger hypergraphs. Since coarsening reduces the size of the hypergraph, the initial embedding and refinement can be done faster. This can be seen by comparing the statistics for HyperNetVec with 2 levels of coarsening ($l=2$) with those for slower initial embedding approach such as GraphSAGE.
\subsection{Hyperedge Prediction}
In hyperedge prediction, we are given a hypergraph with a certain fraction of hyperedges removed, and given a proposed hyperedge (i.e. a set of nodes) our goal is to predict if this is likely to be a hyperedge or not. Formally, given a $k$-tuple of nodes $(v_1, v_2, ..., v_k)$, our goal is to predict if this tuple is likely to be a hyperedge or not.
We compare our method with the \textit{supervised hyperedge prediction method} Hyper-SAGNN \cite{hypersagnn} on four datasets listed in Table~\ref{tb:link}, and with the graph method node2vec. Hyper-SAGNN is a self-attention based approach for hyperedge prediction. We used their encoder-based approach with learning rate of 0.001 and 300 epochs.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Datasets used for hyperedge prediction.}
\label{tb:link}
\vskip -0.8in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Nodes}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Hyperedges}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Edges}} \\
\midrule
\textbf{GPS} & 221 & 437&1,436 \\
\textbf{MovieLens} & 17,100&46,413 &47,957 \\
\textbf{Drug} & 7,486& 171,757 & 171,756 \\
\textbf{Wordnet} & 81,073& 146,433 & 145,966\\
\textbf{Friendster} & 7,458,099& 1,616,918 & 37,783,346\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{table*}
{\bf Datasets.} We used the following datasets in our study.
\textit{GPS}: a GPS network. Hyperedges are based on (user, location, activity) relations~\cite{gps5}.
\textit{MovieLens}: a social network where hyperedges are based on (user, movie, tag) relations, describing peoples’ tagging activities~\cite{movielens}.
\textit{Drug}: a medicine network. The hyperedges are based on (user, drug, reaction) relations~\cite{drug}.\textit{Wordnet}: a semantic network from WordNet 3.0. The hyperedges are based on (head entity, relation, tail entity), expressing the relationships between words~\cite{Wordnet}. \textit{Friendster}: an on-line gaming network. Users can form a group on Friendster social network which other members can then join. These user-defined groups are considered as communities. Communities larger than 500 were removed~\cite{friendster}.
We used the same training and test data setups as Hyper-SAGNN (except for Friendster, which Hyper-SAGNN could not run). For this task, they randomly hide $20$ percentage of existing hyperedges and use the rest of the hypergraph for training. The negative samples are $5$ times the amount of positive samples. We downloaded their code and datasets from their GitHub repository. We used the encoder-based approach to generate the features.
For HyperNetVec, we use two levels of coarsening and two levels of refinement. We first obtain the embedding of the hypergraphs with node2vec as the initial embedding technique. To train our classifier, we used the same positive samples as Hyper-SAGNN. For negative samples we used only the negative samples of a *single* epoch of Hyper-SAGNN. We then use the vector of the variances of each dimension of the embedding for hyperedge prediction. The intuition is that if nodes are spread out (high variance in the embedding), then they probably do not form a hyperedge whereas nodes that are close to each other are likely to constitute a hyperedge. Various operators such as average, min, and max can be used instead of variance.
\textbf{Experimental results.} Table~\ref{tb:auc} summarizes the hyperedge prediction results for HyperNetVec, node2vec, and Hyper-SAGNN. HyperNetVec achieves the best AUC and running time compared to Hyper-SAGNN. Hyper-SAGNN took almost a day for wordnet whereas HyperNetVec completed the task in less than a minute. HyperNetVec achieves better AUC compared to node2vec on all datasets except drug, and it is always faster.
\textbf{HyperNetVec for large hypergraphs.} We study the scalability of HyperNetVec on a large hypergraph (Friendster) and compare HyperNetVec's accuracy and running time with that of MILE, and DeepWalk (a random-walk based method ~\cite{deepwalk}). (Hyper-SAGNN, GraphZoom and node2vec failed to generate results for Friendster).
We randomly hide $20\%$ of existing hyperedges and use the rest of the hypergraph to generate the embeddings for the nodes of the hypergraph and finally, use the variance operator for prediction. Since the hypergraph is large, we used five levels of coarsening and ten levels of refinement. The other baseline that was able to run Friendster was MILE with 15 levels of coarsening, and it failed for smaller numbers of coarsening levels. It took MILE 8 hours to generate embeddings for Friendster with an accuracy of 90.4 while it took HyperNetVec only fifteen minutes to do the same task with better accuracy (92.3\%). DeepWalk was also able to generate the embeddings for Friendster after 17 hours with accuracy 84.9\%.
Figure~\ref{fig:friend} compares MILE, DeepWalk, and HyperNetVec in terms of accuracy for different levels of coarsening for HyperNetVec (for MILE, we used 15 levels of coarsening). The main takeaway from Figure~\ref{fig:friend} is that using more levels of coarsening reduces the running time of the overall algorithm, as one would expect. However, a large number of coarsening levels may reduce the accuracy. While this is a fact in most multi-level approaches, Figure~\ref{fig:friend} shows that the loss of accuracy for HyperNetVec is negligible and we are able to get more than 13x speed up by using 5 levels of coarsening instead of 3 levels, while losing less than 3\% in accuracy.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Area Under Curve (AUC) scores. Time in seconds.}
\label{tb:auc}
\vskip -0.35in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{GPS}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MovieLens}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Drug}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Wordnet}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Friendster}} \\
&
\multicolumn{1}{l}{AUC} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{AUC} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{AUC} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{AUC} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{AUC} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Time} \\
\midrule
HyperNetVec & \textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{94.5}} & 1 & \textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{94.8}}& 6.4 &96.5 & 295 &\textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{93.0}}& 43.4& \textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{93.2}} & 897\\
Hyper-SAGNN & 90.6 & 1,800 & 90.8& 11,160 & 95.9 & 39,540 &87.7& 82,800 & -& - \\
node2vec & 94.0 & 10 & 79.8 & 19 & \textbf{\colorbox{blue!20}{97.4}}& 895 & 89.0 & 940&-&-\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{friendster_auc.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f_time.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance on Friendster } \label{fig:friend}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{figure}
We also study the behaviour of HyperNetVec for the largest hypergraph, Friendster. In Table~\ref{tb:friends_c}, we see the effect of the coarsening on the size of the hypergraph as well as accuracy and running time. Without coarsening, initial partitioning using DeepWalk takes 17 hours (61,260 seconds) but with 8 levels of coarsening, the end-to-end running time is only 474 seconds. Therefore, using 8 levels of coarsening improves running time by 130X. The table also shows the breakdown of time in different kernels of HyperNetVec. If the coarsest hypergraph is small, most of the time is spent in refinement whereas if the coarsest hypergraph is large, the time is spent mostly in initial embedding.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Behavior of HyperNetVec at different levels of coarsening on Friendster. COARSE-N is the number of levels of coarsening, time is in seconds.}
\label{tb:friends_c}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
COARSE-N &0& 3 & 4& 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
\midrule
Hyperedges & 1,616,918&564,262&460,830 & 419,588& 404,857 & 399,194 &396,333\\
Nodes & 7,458,099&436,099&154,418 &85,371& 67,682 &61,669&59,359\\
Coarse Time &0&31&34 &36& 43& 41 & 39 \\
Init Time &61,260&11,760& 4,620&600& 120& 51 &29\\
Refine Time &0&181&237&261& 261 &349&406\\
Accuracy &84.9&95.8&95.3& 93.2 &92.7&92.3&92.3\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{table}
\section{Ongoing work}
\label{sec:ongoing}
In our ongoing research, we want to automatically learn the values of important hyper-parameters such as the number of coarsening levels and the value of $\omega$ that should be used in refinement. For very large hypergraphs, it may be necessary to use distributed-memory machines, which requires partitioning the hypergraph between the memories of the machines in the cluster. Our prior work on BiPart can be used for this task~\cite{bipart,Mateev00,Rogers94}.
\section{Related Work}
There is a large body of work on graph and hypergraph embedding techniques so we discuss only the most closely related work.
\subsection{Network Embedding}
\label{sec:emb}
There are relatively few efforts on hypergraph embedding that treat hyperedges as first-class entities. As mentioned above, one popular approach to hypergraph embedding is to convert the hypergraph to a graph and then use a graph embedding technique\cite{hypergraph2,hypergraph3,hgnn}. For example, each hyperedge can be replaced with a clique connecting the nodes of that hyperedge to produce a graph representation. Other approaches such as HyperGCN ~\cite{hypergcn} use a graph convolution on a modified clique expansion technique where they \textit{choose} what edges to keep in the graph representation.
While this method keeps more structure than methods based on the clique expansion of a hypergraph, existing methods fail to scale to large networks as we show in this paper.
\subsubsection{Multi-level Embedding}
Multi-level (hierarchical) approaches attempt to improve the run-time and quality of existing or new embedding techniques.
Multi-level graph embedding consists of three phases: coarsening, initial embedding, and refinement.
~\textit{Coarsening}: A coarsened graph $G^{\prime}$ is created by merging pairs of nodes in input graph $G$. This process is applied recursively to the coarser graph, creating a sequence of graphs. in which the final graph is the coarsest graph that meets some termination criterion ({\em e.g.}, its size is below some threshold).
~\textit{Initial embedding}: Any unsupervised embedding methods for networks can be used to generate an initial embedding.
~\textit{Refinement}: For graphs $G^{\prime}$ and $G$, the embedding of $G^{\prime}$ is projected onto $G$ and then refined,
starting from the coarsest graph and finishing with the original graph.
There is a large body of research on multi-level \textit{graph} embedding. For example, \textit{HARP} \cite{harp} generates a hierarchy of coarsened graphs and perform embedding from the coarsest level to the original one. MILE \cite{mile} uses heavy edge matching \cite{metis1} to coarsen the graph and leverages GCN as a refinement method to improve embedding quality. However, training a GCN model is very time consuming for large graphs and leads to poor performance when multiple GCN layers are stacked together \cite{deeper}. These multi-level embedding methods only utilise structural information (topology) of a graph. However, in many datasets such as citations, nodes of a graph have attributes. For a high quality embedding, it is important to exploit node attributes as well as structural information of a graph. GraphZoom\cite{graphzoom} first performs graph fusion to generate a new graph that encodes the topology of the original graph and the node attribute information and then uses a coarsening algorithm that merges nodes with high spectral similarity. Finally, they apply a local refinement algorithm. While GraphZoom outperforms previous multi-level embedding systems, it still takes hours, in some cases days, to generate embeddings for a graph with millions of nodes and edges.
In general, hypergraphs are a more complicated topic and the corresponding algorithms are typically more compute and memory intensive. Multi-level approaches for \textit{hypergraphs} have been used mainly for hypergraph partitioning \cite{hmetis,phmetis,bipart}. In principle, ideas from multi-level graph embedding approaches can be adopted for hypergraphs.
For example, for the coarsening algorithm, we can merge pairs of nodes that have a hyperedge in common (heavy edge matching). While this approach is able to produce coarser hypergraphs, it reduces the number of hyperedges in the coarser graphs only
for those pairs of matched nodes that are connected by a hyperedge of size two. As a result, the coarsest hypergraph is still large in terms of the size of the hyperedges which increases the running time of the overall algorithm. In our experience, the coarsening and refinement algorithms proposed in multi-level graph embedding systems are not adequate for solving inference problems on hypergraphs, as we discuss in this paper. These limitations led us to design HyperNetVec, which scales to hypergraphs with millions of nodes and hyperedges while producing high-quality embeddings.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Muskat equation is an important model in the analysis of free surface flows, which
describes the dynamics of two incompressible and immiscible fluids with different densities and viscosities separated by a porous media whose velocities obey
Darcy's law (see \cite{darcy1856fontaines},\cite{Mus34}).
Its main feature is that it is a fractional degenerate parabolic equation.
This feature is shared by several equations
which have attracted a lot of attention in recent years, like the surface quasi-geostrophic equation,
the Hele-Shaw equation and the fractional porous media equation.
Let us introduce the Muskat problem. We consider the dynamics of a time-dependent curve $\Sigma(t)$ separating two domains $\Omega_1(t)$ and $\Omega_2(t)$.
Under the supposition that $\Sigma(t)$ is the graph of some function, we introduce the following notations
\begin{align*}
\Omega_1(t)&=\left\{ (x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}\,;\, y>f(t,x)\right\},\\
\Omega_2(t)&=\left\{ (x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}\,;\, y<f(t,x)\right\},\\
\Sigma(t)&=\left\{ (x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}\,;\, y=f(t,x)\right\}.
\end{align*}
Assume
that each domain~$\Omega_j$, $j=1,2$,
is occupied by an incompressible fluid with constant density~$\rho_j$ and
denote $\rho=\rho_1\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_1(t)}+\rho_2\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_2(t)}$.
Then the motion is determined by the incompressible porous media equations, where the velocity
field $v$ is given by Darcy's law:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\rho+\text{div}(\rho v)=0,\quad\text{ (transport equation)}\\
& \text{div}(v)=0,\quad \quad \quad \ \quad \text{(incompressible condition)}\\
&v+\nabla (P+\rho gy)=0,\quad~\text{ (Darcy's law)}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where $g>0$ is the acceleration of gravity.
Changes of unknowns, reducing the problem to an evolution
equation for the free surface parametrization,
have been known for quite a long time (see~\cite{CaOrSi-SIAM90,EsSi-ADE97,Siegel2004}).
These approaches were further developed by C\'ordoba and Gancedo \cite{Cordoba2007Contour}
who obtained a beautiful compact formulation of the Muskat equation. Indeed,
they showed that the Muskat problem is equivalent to the following
equation for the free surface elevation:
\[
\partial_t f(t,x)=\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{2^{d}\pi}\text{ P.V.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{\alpha\cdot\nabla_x\Delta_\alpha f(t,x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f(t,x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d},
\]
where
the integral is understood in the sense of principal values, $\Delta_\alpha f$ is the slope defined by $
\Delta_\alpha f(x)=\frac{f(x)-f(x-\alpha)}{|\alpha|},$
and $\langle a \rangle=(1+a^2)^\frac{1}{2}$.\\
At a linear level, the Muskat equation reads
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t f(t,x)=\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{2^{d}\pi}\text{ P.V.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\alpha\cdot\nabla_x\Delta_\alpha f(t,x)\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}=-\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{2}|D| f(t,x).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The problem is said to be in stable regimes (heavier
fluid below) if $\rho_2>\rho_1$ and unstable regimes (heavier
fluid on the top) if $\rho_2<\rho_1$. In this paper,
we consider the problem in stable regimes, i.e. $\rho_2>\rho_1$.
In order to simplify the exposition we take $\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{2^{d}\pi}=1$. This leads to the equation
\begin{equation}\label{E1}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t f(t,x)=\text{ P.V.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{\alpha\cdot\nabla_x\Delta_\alpha f(t,x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f(t,x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Recall that the Muskat equation is invariant under the change of unknowns:
\[
f(t,x)\rightarrow f_\lambda(t,x):=\frac{1}{\lambda}f(\lambda t,\lambda x).
\]
By a direct calculation, one verifies that the spaces $\dot H^{1+\frac{d}{2}}(\mathbb{R}^d),\dot W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ are two critical spaces for the Cauchy problem of the Muskat equation \eqref{E1}.
The analysis of the Cauchy problem for the Muskat equation is now well developed,
including global existence results under mild smallness assumptions and blow-up
results for some large enough initial data.
Local well-posedness results can be traced back to the works of Yi~\cite{Yi2003},
Ambrose~\cite{Ambrose2004,Ambrose2007},
C\'ordoba and Gancedo~\cite{Cordoba2007Contour,Cordoba2009}, C\'ordoba, C\'ordoba and Gancedo~\cite{Cordoba2011},
Cheng, Granero-Belinch\'on,
Shkoller~\cite{21}.
Local well-posedness results in
the sub-critical spaces were obtained by
Constantin, Gancedo, Shvydkoy and Vicol~\cite{25}
for initial data in the Sobolev space
$W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R})$ for some $p>1$, Ables-Matioc \cite{Ables-Matioc} for $W^{s,p}$ with $s>1+\frac{1}{p}$, and Nguyen-Pausader \cite{43}, Matioc~\cite{Matioc1,Matioc2}, Alazard-Lazar~\cite{Alazard2020Paralinearization} for initial data
in $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ with $s>3/2$.
Since the Muskat equation is parabolic, the proof of the local well-posedness
results also gives global well-posedness results under a smallness assumption, see Yi~\cite{Yi2003}.
The first global well-posedness results
under mild smallness assumptions, namely assuming
that the Lipschitz semi-norm is smaller than $1$, was
obtained by Constantin, C{\'o}rdoba, Gancedo, Rodr{\'\i}guez-Piazza
and Strain~\cite{Constantin2010,Constantin2013,25} (see also \cite{Cameron2019}). They also proved the existence of global classical solution when the initial data $f_0\in H^3(\mathbb{R})$ with the Wiener norm $\|f_0\|_{\mathcal{L}^{1,1}}=\||\xi|\hat f_0(\xi)\|_{L^1_\xi(\mathbb{R})}$ less than some explicit constant (see also \cite{Constantin2010} which improved the constant to $\frac{1}{3}$). Note that there exists finite time blow up solution for the general non-graph interface(see \cite{CCF+12,Castro2013}). However,
it is possible to solve the Cauchy problem for initial
data whose slope can be arbitrarily large.
Deng, Lei and Lin in~\cite{33} obtained the first result in this direction, under the assumption that the
initial data are monotone (see also Remark \ref{rem1}). C\'ordoba and Lazar in ~\cite{Cordoba-Lazar-H3/2} proved global well-posedness for the 2D Muskat equation in critical space $H^{1+\frac{d}{2}}\cap W^{1,\infty}$ with $\dot H^{1+\frac{d}{2}}$ norm small, then Gancedo and Lazar \cite{Gancedo} extended the result to 3D. Recently, Alazard and the second author \cite{ ThomasHfirst,Alazard2020,Alazard2020endpoint,TH4} proved well-posedness for the Muskat equation with unbounded slopes. In particular, in \cite{Alazard2020endpoint} they obtained global well-posedness with $\dot H^{\frac{3}{2}}$ norm of initial data small and local well posedness for large data in $\dot H^{\frac{3}{2}}$, where they used a null-type structure to compensate the degeneracy of the parabolic behavior. In 3D, the existence of global classical solutions was established when the initial data satisfies $\|f_0\|_{\mathcal{L}^{1,1}}\leq \frac{1}{5}$. We also note that this result has been extended in \cite{viscojump} to a more general scenario where the viscosity of the two fluids can be different. More recently, the global existence was proved in \cite{Cameron2020}, under the assumption $\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty}\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}$. The existence of self-similar solutions with small initial data can be found in \cite{Self}. We also refer interested readers to \cite{TH5}, \cite{peskin} for other non-local parabolic equations.
At the moment, there is no result about local well-posedness for large data in $\dot W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ or Wiener space $\mathcal{L}^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. So it is quite interesting to study whether the problem is wellposed in the critical space $\dot C^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ without any smallness assumptions on the data.
We state the main result of our paper as follows
\begin{theorem} \label{mainthm1}For any $c_0>0$, there exists $\sigma=\sigma(c_0)\in (0,1]$ such that for any initial data $f_0\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap \dot W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty}\leq c_0$, and $f_0$ can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}\label{initialdecompose}
f_0=f_{0,1}+f_{0,2}, \quad\text{with}\quad \quad\|\nabla f_{0,1}\|_{L^\infty}\leq \sigma\quad and \quad f_{0,2}\in H^{10d},
\end{equation}
there exists a solution $ f$ of the Cauchy problem \eqref{E1} in $[0,T]$ for $T=T(\|f_{0,2}\|_{H^{10d}},c_0)>0$, satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}||f(t)||_{L^2}\leq ||f_0||_{L^2},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty} +\sup_{t\in [0,T]} t||f(t)||_{\dot C^{\frac{3}{2}}}\leq C(\|f_{0,2}\|_{H^{10d}},c_0).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the solution $f$ can be decomposed as
\begin{align*}
f=F_1+F_2, \quad\quad\text{with} \quad\| F_1\|_{L^\infty([0,T];\dot W^{1,\infty})}\leq 10 d\sigma \quad\text{and}\quad F_2\in L^\infty([0,T], H^{10d}).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We remark that using the standard regularity theory, we can prove that the solution $ f$ of \eqref{E1} in the class $L^\infty_{\text{loc}} ((0,T],C^{1+})$ will belong to $L^\infty_{\text{loc}} ((0,T],C^{\infty})$. Therefore, the solution in Theorem \ref{mainthm1} satisfies $f(t)\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for any $0<t\leq T$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
It is possible that $f_{0,2}\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for $s>1+\frac{d}{2}$ is enough for our results. But in this paper we will not discuss this in detail.
\end{remark}
Note that the decomposition \eqref{initialdecompose} holds for any $f_0\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap \dot C^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, hence we have
\begin{corollary}
The statement in Theorem \ref{mainthm1} holds for initial data $f_0\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap \dot C^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
\end{corollary}
The following proposition implies that the solution in Theorem \ref{mainthm1} is unique.
\begin{proposition}\label{propunique}
For any $c>0$, there exists $\sigma=\sigma(c)>0$ such that, if $f, \bar f\in L^\infty ([0,T], \dot W^{1,\infty})$ are solutions of the Muskat equation \eqref{E1} with $\|\nabla f\|_{L^\infty_{t,x}}\leq c$ and the solution $\bar f$ can be decomposed as
\begin{align*}
\bar f=\bar f_1+\bar f_2, \quad\quad \text{with} \quad\quad \|\nabla\bar f_1\|_{L^\infty([0,T;\dot W^{1,\infty}])}\leq \sigma \quad\ \text{and}\quad\ \bar f_2\in L^\infty([0,T], H^{10d}).
\end{align*}
Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}||f(t)-\bar{f}(t)||_{L^\infty}\leq C ||(f-\bar{f})|_{t=0}||_{L^\infty},
\end{equation*}
where the constant $C$ depends on $c$ and $||\nabla\bar{f}_2||_{L^\infty_{t,x}}$.
\end{proposition}
We note that unless specified, all the integrals in this paper are understood as principal value integrals over $\mathbb{R}^d$.
We reformulate the equation as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t f(t,x)=\int\frac{\alpha\cdot\nabla f(t,x)-\delta_\alpha f(t,x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f(t,x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}},
\end{equation*}
where $\delta_\alpha f(t,x)=f(t,x)-f(t,x-\alpha)$.
\vspace{0.2cm}\\
We organize the paper as follows. In the rest of this section, we will introduce the regularized system and notations which will be used throughout the paper. In Section \ref{secprioriest} we will establish $L^2$ and Lipschitz estimates for the regularized system. Section \ref{ImproveREG} is devoted to improve the regularity, which helps to control the remainder terms in Section \ref{secprioriest}. We complete the proof of the main theorem in Section \ref{sectcomplete} and prove the uniqueness result Proposition \ref{propunique} in Section \ref{sectionunique}. Finally, we prove the Proposition \ref{thm1} in the appendix.
\subsection{Regularization}
In order to rigorously justify the computations, we want to deal with smooth solutions. To achieve this, we introduce an approximate Muskat equation for which the Cauchy problem is easily studied, and whose solutions are expected to converge to solutions of the original Muskat equation.
In this section, we follow the strategy introduced in \cite{Alazard2020}, which regularizes the Muskat equation depending on some parameters $\mu_1, \mu_2\in (0,1]$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Add a parabolic term of order 2 with a small viscosity of size $\mu_1$.
\item Introduce a cut-off function in the singular integral to remove wave-length shorter than some parameter $\mu_2$.
\end{itemize}
More precisely, we introduce the following Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{appMuskat}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t f(t,x)-\mu_1\Delta f(t,x)=\int\frac{\alpha\cdot\nabla f(t,x)-\delta_\alpha f(t,x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f(t,x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}(1-\chi\left({\alpha}/{\mu_2}\right))\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}},\\
&f(0,x)=f_0(x),
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\chi: \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow [0,1]$ is a smooth radial function such that
\begin{align*}
\chi(y)=1 \quad\text{if}\quad 0\leq |y|\leq 1,\quad \chi(y)=0 \quad\text{if}\quad |y|\geq 2.
\end{align*}
Denote $\chi'(y)=\partial_r\chi(y)$.
It is easy to verify that $x\cdot\nabla\chi(x)=\chi'(x)|x|$. For simplicity we denote $\chi_{\mu_2}(y)=\chi\left(\frac{y}{\mu_2}\right)$. We also assume that $-2\leq\chi'(x)\leq 0$.
We have the following basic results\cite[Proposition 2.1]{Alazard2020}, \cite[Proposition 2.3]{Constantin2010}:
\begin{proposition}
For any $\mu_1, \mu_2\in (0,1]$ and any initial data $f_0\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d) \cap \dot C^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, the Cauchy problem \eqref{appMuskat} has a unique global solution $f\in C^1([0,+\infty);H^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} \label{Cauchyofapp}
Let $f_0\in H^{10d}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ satisfy $||f_0||_{H^{10d}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq c_0$. There exists $T=T(c_0)$ such that for any $\mu_1,\mu_2\in (0,1]$, the Cauchy problem \eqref{appMuskat} has a unique classical solution $f$ in $(0,T]$ satisfying $f(t)\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for any $t\in (0,T]$. In particular,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}||f(t)||_{H^{10d}}\leq C(c_0).
\end{align*}
\begin{remark}\label{Linfty}
Let $x_t$ satisfy $f(t,x_t)=\sup_{x} f(t,x)$. Then we have $\nabla f(x_t)=0$, $\Delta f(x_t)\leq 0$ and $\delta_\alpha f(x_t)>0$. From \eqref{appMuskat} one has $\frac{df(t,x_t)}{dt}\leq 0$. A similar argument holds for $\inf_{x} f(t,x)$. Hence the $L^\infty$ norm of the solution is non-increasing. By standard interpolation, $\|f\|_{L^\infty}$ can be controlled by $\|f_0\|_{L^2}$ and $\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty}$.
\end{remark}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Notations}
From Proposition \ref{Cauchyofapp}, there exists a smooth solution of the equation \eqref{appMuskat} in $[0,T^\star]$ with smooth initial data $f_{0,2}$, we denote it by $F_2$. We also denote $f$ as the solution with initial data $f_0$. Without loss of generality, we assume there exists a constant $R>1$ depending on $\sigma$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{F2smooth}
\sup_{t\in [0,T^\star]}\|F_2(t)\|_{H^{10d}}\leq R.
\end{equation}
Denote
\[
F_1=f-F_2.
\]
The main idea in this paper is to estimate $F_1$.
For any $t\in [0,T^*]$, denote
\begin{align}\label{defxtj}
M_j(t)=\partial_j F_1(t,x_{t,j})=\sup_x \partial_j F_1(t,x),
\end{align}
\[
m_j(t)=-\partial_j F_1(t,\tilde{x}_{t,j})=\sup_x (-\partial_jF_1(t,x)), ~j=1,\cdots,d.
\]
We set
\begin{equation}\label{defA}
A(t)=\sum_{j=1}^d(|m_j(t)|+|M_j(t)|),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{defBj}
B_j(t)=\int\frac{\Delta_\alpha \partial_jF_1(t,x_{t,j})}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}} \left(1-\chi\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)\right)\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}.
\end{equation}
The key estimate of the Lipschitz norm is that for any $t\in (0,T^\star]$
\begin{equation}\label{Ke}
\frac{dM_j}{dt}+\frac{1}{2}B_j\leq C_0R^3 (1+A)+C_1AB_j+C R A [\log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})],
\end{equation}
where $C_0=C(\| f_0\|_{L^2},\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty})$ and $C_1,C$ are constants depend on dimension $d$. We note that we can estimate $m_j(t)$ in a similar manner. The above estimate is established in Section \ref{sectionLip}. To control $[\log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})]$ in $L^1$ in time, in Section \ref{ImproveREG} we use ideas in \cite{ ThomasHfirst,Alazard2020,Alazard2020endpoint,TH4} to obtain an energy inequality (see \eqref{z11}) in $H^{s}$ with $s$ large.
We note that without specified, we use $C$ to denote constants only depend on the dimension $d$, the value of $C$ may be different from line to line. We introduce the notation $a\lesssim b$, which means that there exists a constant $C$ such that $a\leq Cb$. We denote $a\lesssim_m b$ if the implicit constant also depends on $m$.
We introduce the following elementary inequality which will be used frequently in our estimates.
\begin{lemma}\label{Cm}
For any $a, b\in\mathbb{R}$ and any $m\geq 1$, we have the following inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{eqCm}
\left|\frac{1}{\langle a\rangle^m}- \frac{1}{\langle b\rangle^ m}\right|+
\left|\frac{a}{\langle a\rangle^{m+3}}- \frac{b}{\langle b\rangle^ {m+3}}\right|\lesssim_m|a-b|.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to verify that functions $\frac{1}{\langle z\rangle^m}$ and $\frac{z}{\langle z\rangle^{m+3}}$ are both uniformly Lipschitz on $\mathbb{R}$. Then we get the results.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\section{A priori estimates}\label{secprioriest}
In this section, we establish a priori estimates for smooth solutions of the regularized Muskat equation \eqref{appMuskat}.
\subsection{Estimate of the $L^2$ norm}
\begin{lemma}
Assume $0<\mu_2\ll \mu_1<1$, let $f$ be a solution of the Cauchy problem \eqref{appMuskat} with initial data $f_0$, then for any $t>0$, there holds
\begin{align}\label{L2max}
\|f(t)\|_{L^2}\leq e^{ t}\|f_0\|_{L^2}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We refer the readers to \cite{Constantin2010} and \cite{Constantin2013} for the $L^2$ maximum principle of the original Muskat equation.
For simplicity, we denote $\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}(\alpha)=1-\chi\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)$. We can rewrite \eqref{appMuskat} as
$$
\partial_t f(x)-\mu_1\Delta f(x)
=\int(x-\alpha)\cdot\nabla_x G(\Delta_{x-\alpha}f(x))\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}\left(x-\alpha\right)\frac{d\alpha }{|x-\alpha|^{d}}
$$
with $
G(a)=\int_0^a\frac{1}{\langle s\rangle^{d+1}}ds.
$\\
We multiply the above equation by $f$, integrate over $dx$, and use integration by parts to observe
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|f\|_{L^2}^2+\mu_1\|\nabla f\|_{L^2}^2&=-\iint G(\Delta_{x-\alpha} f)(x-\alpha)\cdot\nabla_x f(x)\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}\left(x-\alpha\right)\frac{d\alpha }{|{x-\alpha}|^d} dx\\
&\quad\quad+\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{x-\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)G(\Delta_{x-\alpha} f)f(x)\frac{d\alpha }{|{x-\alpha}|^{d-1}} dx\\
&=:K_1+K_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Define the function $H$ by
$
H(a)=\int_0^aG(s)ds.
$
It is easy to observe that
\begin{align*}
K_1=&-\iint(x-\alpha)\cdot\nabla_x H(\Delta_{x-\alpha}f(x))\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}\left(x-\alpha\right)\frac{d\alpha }{|x-\alpha|^{d-1}} dx\\
&-\iint G(\Delta_{x-\alpha} f(x))\Delta_{x-\alpha} f(x)\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}\left(x-\alpha\right)\frac{d\alpha }{|x-\alpha|^{d-1}} dx.
\end{align*}
Integrate by parts we obtain
\begin{align*}
K_1=&\iint [H(\Delta_{\alpha}f(x))-G(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))\Delta_{\alpha} f(x)]\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}\left(\alpha\right)\frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d-1}}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad-\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)H(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))\frac{d\alpha dx}{|{\alpha}|^{d-2}} .
\end{align*}
Since
$
\sup_{s} \left(H(s)-sG(s)\right)\leq 0$, one gets
\[
K_1\leq -\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)H(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))\frac{d\alpha }{|{\alpha}|^{d-2}} dx.
\]
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|f\|_{L^2}^2+\mu_1\|\nabla f\|_{L^2}^2
\leq&\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)[G(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))f(x)-H(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))]\frac{d\alpha dx}{|{\alpha}|^{d-2}}.
\end{align*}
Note that $G(s)$ is an odd function, by a change of variable we have
\begin{align*}
&\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)G(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))f(x)\frac{d\alpha dx}{|{\alpha}|^{d-1}}\\&\quad\quad\quad =\frac{1}{2}\iint\mu_2^{-1}\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)G(\Delta_{\alpha} f(x))\Delta_{\alpha}f(x)\frac{d\alpha dx}{|{\alpha}|^{d-2}} .
\end{align*}
Then we combine $
\sup_{s} \left(H(s)-sG(s)\right)\leq 0$ and the fact that $-2\leq\chi'\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)\leq 0$ to conclude that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|f\|_{L^2}^2+\mu_1\|\nabla f\|_{L^2}^2&\lesssim\iint_{\mu_2\leq|\alpha|\leq 2\mu_2}\mu_2^{-1}G(\Delta_\alpha f(x))\Delta_\alpha f(x)\frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d-2}} \\
&\lesssim\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\iint_{\mu_2\leq|\alpha|\leq 2\mu_2}|\delta_\alpha f(x)|^2\frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+\frac{3}{2}}} \\
&\lesssim\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\|f\|_{\dot H^\frac{3}{4}}^2.
\end{align*}
Combining this with Sobolev interpolation inequality and Young's inequality we obtain
$$
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|f\|_{L^2}^2+\mu_1\|f\|_{\dot H^1}^2\leq C\mu_2^\frac{2}{3}\|f\|_{\dot H^1}^2+\frac{1}{2}\|f\|_{L^2}^2.
$$
Note that $\mu_2\ll \mu_1$, we can absorb the contribution of $ C\mu_2^\frac{2}{3}\|f\|_{\dot H^1}^2$ by the left hand side, then
$$
\frac{d}{dt}\|f\|_{L^2}^2\leq\|f\|_{L^2}^2.
$$
By Gronwall's inequality, we get \eqref{L2max}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\subsection{Estimate of the Lipschitz norm}\label{sectionLip}
In this subsection, we will prove the Lipschitz estimate \eqref{Ke}. \\
For simplicity, we denote $\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}(\alpha)=1-\chi\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)$ and $d\eta(\alpha)=\tilde\chi_{\mu_2}(\alpha)\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}$. We define
$$E_\alpha f(x)=\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla f(x)-\Delta_\alpha f(x).$$ Assume $t\in(0,T^\star].$
By taking one derivative $\partial_j=\partial_{x_j}$ in equation \eqref{appMuskat} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\partial_jf-\mu_1\partial_j\Delta f=&\int\frac{\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla\partial_j f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)-\int\frac{\Delta_\alpha \partial_jf}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad-(d+1)\int\frac{E_\alpha f \Delta_\alpha f\Delta_\alpha\partial_j f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+3}} d\eta(\alpha),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we denote $\hat\alpha=\frac{\alpha}{|\alpha|}$.
Now we look at the above equation with $x=x_{t,j}$, where $x_{t,j}$ is defined in \eqref{defxtj}. Recall the definition of $B_j$ in \eqref{defBj}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqinfty}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d M_j}{dt}+B_j
\leq&\int\frac{E_\alpha \partial_jF_2}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}} d\eta(\alpha)-(d+1)\int\frac{E_\alpha F_2\Delta_\alpha f\partial_j\Delta_\alpha f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+3}} d\eta(\alpha)\\
&\quad\quad\quad-(d+1)\int\frac{E_\alpha F_1\Delta_\alpha f\partial_j\Delta_\alpha f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+3}} d\eta(\alpha)-\frac{dF_2}{dt}+\mu_1\partial_j\Delta F_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $\nabla\partial_jF_1(t,x_{t,j})=0$ and $-\mu_1\partial_j\Delta F_1(t,x_{t,j})\geq0$. From \eqref{F2smooth} it is easy to check that
\[
\left|\frac{dF_2(t,x_{t,j})}{dt}\right|+\left|\mu_1\partial_j\Delta F_2(t,x_{t,j})\right|\lesssim R.
\]
We denote the first three terms in \eqref{eqinfty} by $J_1,J_2,J_3$.
For $J_1$, we have,
\begin{align*}
\int_{|\alpha|\leq1}\frac{\left|E_\alpha \partial_jF_2\right|}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}\lesssim \|F_2\|_{\dot C^3}\int_{|\alpha|\leq1}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d-1}}\lesssim R.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, for $|\alpha|\geq1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\int_{|\alpha|\geq1}\frac{\hat{\alpha}\cdot\nabla\partial_j F_2}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}} d\eta(\alpha)\right|
&=\frac{1}{2}\left|\int_{|\alpha|\geq1}\hat{\alpha}\cdot\nabla\partial_j F_2\left(\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}-\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_{-\alpha} f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)d\eta(\alpha)\right|\\
&\overset{\eqref{eqCm}}\lesssim R\int_{|\alpha|\geq1}|\Delta_\alpha f-\Delta_{-\alpha}f|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}\\
&~~\lesssim R\|f\|_{L^\infty},
\end{align*}
and
\[
\left|\int_{|\alpha|\geq1}\frac{\Delta_\alpha \partial_jF_2}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)\right|\leq\|F_2\|_{\dot C^1}\int_{|\alpha|>1}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\lesssim R.
\]
By Remark \ref{Linfty} we have $\|f\|_{L^\infty}\leq C_0=C(\|f_0\|_{L^2},\|f_0\|_{\dot W^{1,\infty}})$.
Then we get
\begin{equation}\label{firstterm}
J_1\leq C_0R.
\end{equation}
Similarly, for any $\delta>0$, it is easy to verify that
\begin{align*}
|E_\alpha F_2 \Delta_\alpha\partial_j f|
&\lesssim|\alpha| R(R+\Delta_\alpha\partial_j F_1)\mathbf{1 }_{|\alpha|\leq\delta}+|\alpha|^{-1}R(R+A)\mathbf{1 }_{|\alpha|\geq\delta}.
\end{align*}
Hence we obtain
\begin{align}
J_2&\lesssim \delta R\int_{|\alpha|\leq \delta}\frac{|\Delta_\alpha\partial_j F_1|}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\eta(\alpha)}{|\alpha|^d}+R^2\int_{|\alpha|\leq \delta}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d-1}}+R(R+A)\int_{|\alpha|\geq \delta}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \delta RB_j+\delta R^2+\delta^{-1}R(R+A).\label{secondterm}
\end{align}
We can choose $\delta\leq CR^{-1}$ small enough such that the contribution of $\delta RB_j$ can be absorbed by $\frac{1}{2}B_j$ in the left hand side.
For $J_3$ we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber&J_3\lesssim \int\frac{| E_\alpha F_1 \Delta_\alpha\partial_j F_1|}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}} d\eta(\alpha)+\left(\int_{|\alpha|\leq 1}
+\int_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\right)\frac{ |E_\alpha F_1 \Delta_\alpha \partial_jF_2|}{\left\langle\Delta_\alpha f \right\rangle^{d+1}} d\eta(\alpha)\\
&\quad\lesssim AB_j+R\int_{|\alpha|\leq 1}|E_\alpha F_1| \frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}+ R A. \label{third term}
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{firstterm}, \eqref{secondterm} and \eqref{third term} we get
\begin{equation}\label{finalest}
\frac{d M_j}{dt}+\frac{1}{2}B_j\leq C_0R^3 (1+A)+C_1AB_j+CR\int_{|\alpha|\leq 1}|E_\alpha F_1| \frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}
\end{equation}
for any $t\in (0,T^\star]$, where $C_0=C(\| f_0\|_{L^2},\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty})$ and $C_1,C$ are constants depend on dimension $d$.
Combining \eqref{finalest} and Lemma \ref{Interpolation} below we obtain \eqref{Ke}.\vspace{0.1cm}\\
\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
We note that the Lipschitz estimate in 2D is simpler. In 2D, equation \eqref{eq} reads
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_tf_x+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\delta_\alpha f_x}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{2}}\frac{d\alpha}{\alpha^2}=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{f_{xx}}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{2}}\frac{d\alpha}{\alpha}-2\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{E_\alpha f \Delta_\alpha f\delta_\alpha f_x}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{4}} \frac{d\alpha}{\alpha^2},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta_\alpha f(x)=\frac{f(x)-f(x-\alpha)}{\alpha}$.
Let $x_t\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $f_x(x_t)=\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}} f_x(x)$. Then we have $f_{xx}(x_t)= 0$ and $\delta_\alpha f_x(x_t)\geq 0$. If $\|f\|_{Lip}$ is small, then $|E_\alpha f \Delta_\alpha f|$ is small. Hence the last term in the right hand side can be absorbed by the left hand side term, which leads to the desired estimate $\partial_t\|f_x\|_{L^\infty}\leq 0$. We also mention the result of \cite{33}. For large monotone increasing initial data, we have $E_\alpha f(x_t)\geq 0$ and $\Delta_\alpha f(x_t)\geq 0$. Hence we have $\partial_t\|f_x\|_{L^\infty}\leq 0$. Similar arguments hold for monotone decreasing initial data.
\end{remark}
In order to control the remainder term in \eqref{finalest}, we introduce the following lemma
\begin{lemma}\label{Interpolation}
For any function $g$, we have the following interpolation inequality
\begin{align*}
\sup_{x} \int_{|\alpha|\leq 1} |E_\alpha g(x)|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}\log(2+\|\nabla g\|_{\dot C^{\frac{1}{2}}})+1.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, we can further split the integration into $|\alpha|\leq \lambda$ and $\lambda\leq|\alpha|\leq 1$, then
\begin{align*}
\text{LHS}\leq\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}\|\nabla g\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}} +\log (\lambda^{-1})\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}\log(2+\|\nabla g\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})+1,
\end{align*}
where we take $\lambda=(1+\|\nabla g\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})^{-2}$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
We observe from the above lemma that, if we want to control the $\dot W^{1,\infty}$ norm of $F_1$, we need to improve the regularity. Before that, we first estimate the $L^\infty$ norm of $\nabla f$. More precisely, we have the following result
\begin{proposition}\label{pro3}
Assume $||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\leq \frac{1}{100d(d+1)}$. There exists $t_1=t_1(R,||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty})$ such that if $ \sup_{\tau\in [0,T_1]}||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty} $
with $0<T_1\leq T^\star$, then
\begin{align*}
\sup_{\tau\in[0,\min\{T_1,t_1\}]}||\nabla f(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 1+2||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $y_{t,j}$ satisfy $\partial_j f(t,y_{t,j})=\sup_{x}\partial_j f(t,x)$. Then one has $\nabla\partial_j f(y_{t,j})=0$, $\delta_\alpha\partial_j f>0$, and $\partial_j\Delta f(y_{t,j})\leq0$. We substitute $x=y_{t,j}$ in \eqref{eq}, then
\begin{align*}
&\partial_t\partial_j f+\int\frac{\delta_\alpha \partial_jf}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{ d\eta(\alpha)}{|\alpha|}\leq-(d+1)\int\frac{E_\alpha f\Delta_\alpha f\Delta_\alpha\partial_j f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+3}} d\eta(\alpha).
\end{align*}
We split the integral right hand side into small scales $|\alpha|\leq\kappa$ and large scales $|\alpha|\geq\kappa$ for some $\kappa>0$. As in previous discussions, we have
\begin{align*}
|E_\alpha f \Delta_\alpha\partial_j f|&\leq C|\alpha|^{-1}\|\nabla f\|_{L^\infty}^2\mathbf{1}_{|\alpha|\geq \kappa}+(2\|\nabla F_1\|_{L^\infty}+\kappa R)|\Delta_\alpha\partial_jf|\mathbf{1}_{|\alpha|\leq \kappa}.
\end{align*}
Hence one obtains for $x=y_{t,j}$
\begin{align*}
&\partial_t\partial_j f+\int\frac{\delta_\alpha \partial_jf}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{ d\eta(\alpha)}{|\alpha|}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\leq C\kappa^{-1}||\nabla f||_{L^\infty}^2+(20d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}+\kappa R)(d+1)\int\frac{\delta_\alpha\partial_j f}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha)}{|\alpha|}.
\end{align*}
Let $\kappa=(4(d+1)R)^{-1}$, then $(20d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}+\kappa R)(d+1)\leq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, the last term of RHS can be absorbed by LHS, one obtains
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t\partial_j f\lesssim
||\nabla f||_{L^\infty}^2R.
\end{equation*}
Similar arguments hold for $\inf_x\partial_j f(t,x)$.
Take sum in $j$ we get
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}\leq
CR(||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}+1)^2.
\end{equation*}
Let $t_1>0$ satisfy
$
CRt_1=1/(2(1+||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty})).$
We observe that for any $t\leq \min\{T_1,t_1\}$, one has
$$
\int_{0}^{t}\partial_t\left(\frac{-1}{1+||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}}\right)dt=\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\partial_t||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}}{(||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}+1)^2}dt\leq CRt_1.
$$
Hence we obtain
$$
\frac{1}{1+||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty}}-\frac{1}{1+||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}}\leq\frac{1}{2(1+||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty})}.$$
We get the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\tau\in[0,\min\{T_1,t_1\}]} ||\nabla f(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 1+2||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty},
\end{equation*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\section{Improve the regularity}\label{ImproveREG}
This section is devoted to improve the regularity of the solution, which helps us to control the remainder terms in the Lipschitz estimate \eqref{finalest}. The main result is the following proposition
\begin{proposition}\label{propyiran}
For any $r_0>0$, there exists $\sigma=\sigma(r_0)\in(0,1)$ such that, for any $T\in[0,T^\star]$, if
\begin{align*}
\sup_{\tau\in [0,T]}||\nabla f(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq r_0 \quad\quad\text{and}\quad\quad \sup_{\tau\in [0,T]}\|\nabla F_1(\tau)\|\leq\sigma,
\end{align*}
then
\begin{align}\label{z12}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}t^{2(7d-2)}||\Delta^{2d}f(t)||_{L^2}^2+\int_{0}^{T}s^{2(7d-2)}||\Delta^{2d} f(s)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2ds\leq C(r_0,R).
\end{align}
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqinthm}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}t||\nabla f(t)||_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}\leq C(r_0,R),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Calpha}
\int _0^{T} \log(2+\|\nabla F_1(t)\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}) dt \leq C(r_0,R) T^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Multiply equation \eqref{appMuskat} by test function $2\Delta^{2d}f$, and substitute $g=f$, $g_1=F_1$, $g_2=F_2$ in
Proposition \ref{thm1} below, we obtain that for any $t\in[0,T]$, there holds
\begin{align}\nonumber
\frac{d}{dt}||\Delta^{2d}f||_{L^2}^2+2\mu_1\|\Delta^{2d}\nabla f\|_{L^2}^2+&\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} f(x)|^2}{\left\langle r_0 \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\\
&\lesssim_{r_0} (\sigma^{\frac{1}{8d-1}}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} f||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(R+\varepsilon^{-1})\label{z11}
\end{align}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, where we denote $\mathcal{F}:(1,\infty)\to (1,\infty)$ to be some functions increasing and $\mathcal{F}(r)\to \infty$ as $r\to \infty$. The definition of $\mathcal{F}$ may be different from line to line.
Note that
\begin{align*}
\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} f(x)|^2}{\left\langle r_0 \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx
&=\frac{1}{\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}\|\Delta^{2d}f\|_{\dot{F}_{2,2}^\frac{1}{2}}-\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} f(x)|^2{\chi}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)}{\left\langle r_0 \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to verify that
\begin{align*}
\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} f(x)|^2{\chi}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_2}\right)}{\left\langle r_0 \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\alpha }{|\alpha|^{d+1}}dx&\leq\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\int_{|\alpha|\leq\mu_2} \|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} f(x)\|_{L^2}^2\frac{d\alpha }{|\alpha|^{d+\frac{3}{2}}}\\
&\lesssim \mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\|\Delta^{2d} f(t)\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}\|\Delta^{2d} f(t)\|_{\dot H^{1}}\\
&\lesssim \mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\|\Delta^{2d} f(t)\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\|\Delta^{2d} f(t)\|_{\dot H^{1}}^2,
\end{align*}
where we also used H\"{o}lder's inequality and Young's inequality. Note that $\mu_2\ll\mu_1$, hence the contribution of $\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}\|\Delta^{2d} f(t)\|_{\dot H^{1}}^2$ can be absorbed by the viscosity terms.
Then \eqref{z11} leads to
$$
\frac{d}{dt}||\Delta^{2d}f||_{L^2}^2+\frac{1}{\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}||\Delta^{2d} f||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2\leq C(r_0) (\sigma^{\frac{1}{8d-1}}+\varepsilon+\mu_2^\frac{1}{2}) ||\Delta^{2d} f||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2
+\mathcal{F}(r_0+R+\varepsilon^{-1}).
$$
We can take $\sigma, \varepsilon, \mu_2$ small enough such that
$$
C(r_
0)(\sigma^{\frac{1}{8d-1}}+\varepsilon+\mu_2^\frac{1}{2})\leq \frac{1}{2\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}.
$$
Then
$$
\partial_t||\Delta^{2d}f||_{L^2}^2+\frac{1}{2\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}||\Delta^{2d} f||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2\leq \mathcal{F}(r_0+R)
$$
for any $t\leq T$. For any $0\leq s<t\leq T$, integrate the above inequality in time we get
$$
||\Delta^{2d}f(t)||_{L^2}^2+\frac{1}{2\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}\int_{s}^{t}||\Delta^{2d} f(\tau)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2 d\tau\lesssim ||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{L^2}^2+\mathcal{F}(r_0+R) T.
$$
Then we multiply the above equation by $s^{m-1}$ and integrate for $s\in[0,t]$ to get
\begin{align}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}t^{m}||\Delta^{2d}f(t)||_{L^2}^2+&\frac{1}{2\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}\int_{0}^{T}s^m||\Delta^{2d} f||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2ds\nonumber\\
&\leq C\int_{0}^{T}s^{m-1}||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{L^2}^2ds+\mathcal{F}(r_0+R) T^{m+1}.\label{ineqintertime}
\end{align}
Applying the standard Sobolev interpolation inequality and the $L^2$ estimates \eqref{L2max}, one has
\[
||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{L^2}^2\lesssim ||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{16d}{8d+1}}||f(s)||_{L^2}^{\frac{2}{8d+1}}\lesssim||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{16d}{8d+1}}||f_0||_{L^2}^{\frac{2}{8d+1}}.
\]
By H\"{o}lder's inequality and Young's inequality,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{T}s^{m-1}||\Delta^{2d}f(s)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{16d}{8d+1}}ds\leq \frac{\int_{0}^{T}s^m||\Delta^{2d} f(s)||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2ds}{4\langle r_0\rangle^{d+1}}+C(r_0)\int_0^{T}s^{m-8d-1}ds,
\end{equation*}
Note that the first term can be absorbed by the left hand side of \eqref{ineqintertime}.
To make the last term finite, we choose $m=2(7d-2)>8d$, which leads to \eqref{z12}.
The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality implies that
$$
||\nabla f(t)||_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}\lesssim||\Delta^{2d}f(t)||_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{7d-2}}||\nabla f(t)||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{7d-3}{7d-2}}\lesssim_{r_0}||\Delta^{2d}f(t)||_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{7d-2}}.
$$
Combining this with \eqref{z12} and the definition of $R$ in \eqref{F2smooth}, we obtain
\eqref{eqinthm} and \eqref{Calpha}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Denote
\begin{align}\label{defN}
N(f,g)=\int\frac{\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla f(x)-\Delta_\alpha f(x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha g\right\rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha).
\end{align}
We have the following proposition
\begin{proposition}\label{thm1} For any function $g=g_1+g_2$ with $||g_1||_{Lip}\leq 1$ and $||\nabla g||_{L^\infty}\leq r_0$, there holds
\begin{align*}\nonumber
&\left|\iint\Delta^{2d}(N(g,g))\Delta^{2d} g(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|\\&\quad\qquad\quad\quad\qquad\quad\lesssim_{r_0} (||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{1}{8d-1}}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})
\end{align*}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{proposition}
We postpone the proof in the Appendix.
\section{Complete the Proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm1} }\label{sectcomplete}
\begin{proof} Assume $||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\leq \frac{1}{800 d^2(C_1+1)}$, where $C_1$ is the constant in the inequality \eqref{Ke}. Let $T_1\leq T^\star$ be such that
\begin{equation}
\label{xu1}\sup_{\tau\in [0,T_1]}||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}.
\end{equation} By Proposition \ref{pro3}, there exists $t_1$ independent of $T_1$ such that
\begin{align}\label{resultforf}
\sup_{\tau\in [0,\min\{T_1,t_1\}]} ||\nabla f(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 1+2||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty}.
\end{align}
By the Lipschitz estimate \eqref{Ke}, we have for any $0\leq t\leq T_1$
\begin{align*}
\frac{dM_j}{dt}+\frac{1}{2}B_j&\leq C_0R^3 (1+A)+C_1AB_j+C R A \log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})\\ &\leq 2C_0R^3 +\frac{1}{10}B_j+C R \log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}).
\end{align*}
Here we have used the definition of $A$ in \eqref{defA} to get
\begin{align*}
A(t)\leq 2d ||\nabla F_1(t)||_{L^\infty}\leq 20d^2||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\leq \frac{1}{40 (C_1+1)}.
\end{align*}
So, for any $0\leq t\leq T_1$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{dM_j}{dt}\leq 2C_0R^3+C R \log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^{\frac{1}{2}}}).
\end{align*}
Note that the same arguments are valid for $m_j(t)$. Recalling the definition \eqref{defA}
and summing in $j$ we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{dA}{dt}\leq 4dC_0R^3+C R \log(2+\|\nabla F_1\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}).
\end{align*}
This implies that for any $0\leq t\leq T_1$,
\begin{align}\nonumber
\sup_{\tau\in[0,t]} ||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}&\leq \sup_{\tau\in[0,t]} A(\tau)\\&\nonumber\leq A(0)+4dC_0R^3t+C R \int_{0}^{t}\log(2+\|\nabla F_1(\tau)\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})d\tau\\& \leq 2d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}+4dC_0R^3t+C R \int_{0}^{t}\log(2+\|\nabla F_1(\tau)\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}})d\tau \label{xu2}.
\end{align}
Let $r_0=1+2||\nabla f_0||_{L^\infty}$ and $\sigma_1$ be in Proposition \ref{propyiran} associated to $r_0$. Assume
$||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\leq \frac{\sigma_1}{800 d(C_1+1)}$. Then by \eqref{xu1}
$$ \sup_{\tau\in [0,T_1]}||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\leq \sigma_1.$$
Now we can apply Proposition \ref{propyiran} to $T=t\leq \min\{T_1,t_1\}$ and obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int _0^{t} \log(2+\|\nabla F_1(\tau)\|_{\dot C^\frac{1}{2}}) d\tau \leq C(r_0,R) t^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation*}
Combining this with \eqref{xu2} yields
\begin{align}\nonumber
\sup_{\tau\in[0,t]} ||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 2d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}+4dC_0R^3t+C(r_0,R) t^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align}
Set $$t_2= \frac{||\nabla f_{0,1}||^2_{L^\infty}}{4\left(C(r_0,R)+R^2+10d(C_0+1)\right)^2},$$
then we have
$$
4dC_0R^3t_2+C(r_0,R) t_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq ||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}.
$$
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{xu4}
\sup_{\tau\in[0,\min\{T_1,t_1,t_2\}]} ||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq (2d+1)||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}.
\end{equation}
Now we will prove that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\tau\in[0,\min\{T^\star,t_1,t_2\}]} ||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}.
\end{equation*}
In fact, set
\begin{align*}
\tau_0=\sup\left\{t\in [0,\min\{T^\star,t_1,t_2\}] :\sup_{\tau\in [0,t]}|\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq 10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}\right\}.
\end{align*}
If $\tau_0<\min\{T^\star,t_1,t_2\}$, using \eqref{xu1} and\eqref{xu4} with $T_1=\tau_0$, we have
\begin{align*} \sup_{\tau\in[0,\tau_0]} ||\nabla F_1(\tau)||_{L^\infty}\leq (2d+1)||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty}<10d||\nabla f_{0,1}||_{L^\infty},
\end{align*}
which contradicts the definition that $\tau_0$ is a
supremum. Hence $\tau_0=\min\{T^\star,t_1,t_2\}$. Then \eqref{resultforf} implies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in[0,\tau_0]}\|\nabla f\|_{L^\infty}\leq 1+2\|\nabla f_0\|_{L^\infty}.
\end{align*}
Combining this with \eqref{eqinthm} and the standard compactness argument, we are able to pass the limit $\mu_2\rightarrow0$ and then $\mu_1\rightarrow 0$ to get a solution of the Cauchy problem \eqref{E1}, which also satisfy the above estimates. Thus we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm1} with $\sigma=\frac{\sigma_1}{800 d^2(C_1+1)}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Uniqueness}\label{sectionunique}
In this section, we give a proof of Proposition \ref{propunique}.\\
\begin{proof}
Set $g=f-\bar{f}$, then we have
$$
\partial_t g=\int\frac{E_\alpha g}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^d}+\int E_\alpha \bar{f}\left(\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d+1}}-\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha \bar{f}\right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}.
$$
From Lemma \ref{Cm}, we have
$$
\partial_t g\leq \int\frac{E_\alpha g}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha f\right\rangle^{d}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}+C\int\left|E_\alpha \bar{f}\right||\Delta_\alpha g|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d}}.
$$
Let $x_t$ satisfy $\mathbf{g}(t):=g(t, x_t)=\sup_{x}g(t,x)$. Then we have $\nabla g(x_t)=0$ and $\delta_\alpha g(x_t)\geq0$. Hence we have for $x=x_t$
$$
\frac{d \mathbf{g}}{dt}+\tilde C\int|\delta_\alpha g|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\leq C\int\left|E_\alpha \bar{f}\delta_\alpha g\right|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}
$$
where
$
\tilde C=1/(\langle ||\nabla f||_{L^\infty_{t,x}}\rangle^{d+1}).
$\vspace{0.1cm}\\
Recall that $\bar f$ can be decomposed that
$
\bar{f}= \bar{f}_1+ \bar{f}_2
$
with
$
||\bar{f}_1||_{\dot W^{1,\infty}}\leq \sigma $ and $\bar f_2\in L^\infty([0,T], H^{10d}).
$\\
Then for $\sigma\leq\frac{\tilde C}{8C}$, we have for $x=x_t$
\begin{align*}
\frac{d \mathbf{g}}{dt}+\frac{\tilde C}{2}\int\frac{\delta_\alpha g}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}d\alpha&\lesssim \epsilon_0\int_{|\alpha|\leq \epsilon_0}|\delta_\alpha g|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}+||g||_{L^\infty}\int_{|\alpha|\geq \epsilon_0} \left|E_\alpha \bar{f}_2\right|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}
\\&\lesssim \epsilon_0\int_{|\alpha|\leq \epsilon_0}|\delta_\alpha g|\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}+\epsilon_0^{-1}||g||_{L^\infty}||\nabla\bar{f}_2||_{L^\infty_{t,x}}.
\end{align*}
Choosing $\epsilon_0>0$ small enough, the first term on the right hand side can be absorbed by the left hand side. Then one has
$$
\frac{d \mathbf{g}}{dt}\leq C(||\nabla\bar{f}_2||_{L^\infty_{t,x}},||\nabla f||_{L^\infty_{t,x}}) ||g||_{L^\infty}.
$$
Replace $g$ by $-g$, a similar discussion shows that the estimate holds for $\inf_xg(t,x)$. Thus we can conclude that
$$
\frac{d}{dt}||g(t)||_{L^\infty}\leq C(||\nabla\bar{f}_2||_{L^\infty_{t,x}},||\nabla f||_{L^\infty_{t,x}}) ||g(t)||_{L^\infty}.
$$
Finally, combining this with Gronwall's inequality we get Proposition \ref{propunique}.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix}
In this section, we will prove Proposition \ref{thm1}.
We first review some elementary results about Triebel-Linzorkin spaces following Triebel \cite{triebel}.
\begin{definition} (Triebel-Lizorkin norms)\\
For any integer $m\geq 0$, and real number $s\in(m,m+1)$ and $p,q\in[1,\infty)$, the homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin space $\dot F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ consists of those tempered distributions $f$ whose Fourier transform is integrable on a neighborhood of the origin and such that
\[
\|f\|_{\dot F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^d)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\delta_\alpha D^mf(x)|^q\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d+q(s-m)}}\right)^\frac{p}{q}dx\right)^\frac{1}{p}< +\infty.
\]
We also define
\[
\|f\|_{\dot F^s_{p,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\left(\sup_{\alpha}\frac{|\delta_\alpha D^mf(x)|}{|\alpha|^{s-m}}\right)^pdx\right)^\frac{1}{p}.
\]
We note that $\|\cdot\|_{\dot H^s}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\dot F^s_{2,2}}$ are equivalent. Moreover, for any $2<p<\infty$ and $0<q\leq\infty$, we have
\[
\|f\|_{\dot F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim\|f\|_{\dot H^r (\mathbb{R}^d) }\quad\quad\text{for} ~~r=s-\frac{d}{p}+\frac{d}{2}.
\]
\end{definition}
More generally, we introduce the following Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality for the Triebel-Lizokin spaces:\\
Let $1<q\leq\infty$ and $s>0$. There holds
\begin{align}\label{GNinterpolation}
\|f\|_{\dot F^{\theta s}_{\frac{2}{\theta},q}}\lesssim\|f\|_{\dot H^{s}}^\theta\|f\|_{L^\infty}^{1-\theta}
\end{align}
for any $\theta\in(0,1)$.
\vspace{0.5cm}\\
To prove Proposition \ref{thm1}, we first observe that
\begin{equation}\label{coro}
\begin{aligned}
&\left|\iint\Delta^{2d}(N(g,g))\Delta^{2d} g(x)d\eta(\alpha)dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|\\
&\quad\lesssim\left|\iint\frac{E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad+ \left|\iint\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla_x V (\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)| \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2 dx\right|+\left|\iint M(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x) dx\right|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left|\iint\Delta_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x) dx\right|\\
&\quad=:I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{defM}
M(\alpha,x)=\Delta^{2d}\left(\frac{E_\alpha g(x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha g(x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)-\frac{E_\alpha(\Delta^{2d} g)(x)}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha g(x)\right\rangle^{d+1}},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{defV}
V(\alpha,x)=\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha g(x)\right\rangle^{d+1}}-\frac{1}{\left\langle \hat \alpha\cdot\nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}}.
\end{equation}
In fact, recall the definition of $N$ in \eqref{defN}, direct calculation leads to
\begin{align}
\Delta^{2d}(N(g,g))
=&\int \frac{E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)+\int E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+\int M(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha).\label{impdeconm}
\end{align}
Note that
\begin{align*}
&\int E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\\
&\quad\quad\quad=\int\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla \Delta^{2d} g(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)
-\int\Delta_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha).
\end{align*}
Take the $L^2$ inner product of \eqref{impdeconm} with $\Delta^{2d}g$ and integrate by parts, one has
\begin{align*}
&\iint\Delta^{2d}(N(g,g))\Delta^{2d} gdx\\
&=\iint\frac{E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x)dx-\frac{1}{2} \iint\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla_x V (\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha) | \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2 dx\\
&\quad-\iint\Delta_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x)dx +\iint M(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x) dx,
\end{align*}
which leads to \eqref{coro}.
\vspace{0.5cm}\\
To simplify the notations, we set
$$
p_1=\frac{8d-1}{4d-1},\quad\ p_2=\frac{32d-4}{16d-3}, \quad\ p_3=\frac{32d-4}{3},\quad\ p_4=16d-2, \quad\ p_5=\frac{4(8d-1)}{5}.
$$
We recall that $\mathcal{F}:(1,\infty)\to (1,\infty)$ denote some increasing functions and $\mathcal{F}(r)\to \infty$ as $r\to \infty$. The definition of $\mathcal{F}$ may be different from line to line.
To prove Proposition \ref{thm1}, it remains to estimate the four terms in the right hand side of \eqref{coro}. We finish this in Lemma \ref{le1}$-$Lemma \ref{le3}.
\begin{lemma} \label{le1} (Estimate for $I_1$)\\
Let $g$, $r_0$ as defined in Proposition \ref{thm1}, there holds
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\left|\iint\frac{E_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\lesssim_{r_0} (||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})\label{z5}
\end{align}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Set $h=\Delta^{2d} g$. Note that $\int\frac{\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla h(x)}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha) =0$, hence
\begin{align*}
\iint\frac{E_\alpha h(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)h(x)dx&=-\frac{1}{2}\iint \Delta_\alpha h(x)\delta_\alpha\left(\frac{ h(\cdot)}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(\cdot) \right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)(x)d\eta(\alpha) dx.
\end{align*}
Then one has
\begin{align*}
|I_1|&=\left| \iint\frac{E_\alpha h(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot \nabla g(x) \rangle^{d+1}}d\eta(\alpha)h(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint \frac{|\delta_\alpha h(x)|^2}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(x) \right\rangle^{d+1}} \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|\\
&\lesssim\left|\iint \delta_\alpha h(x)h(x-\alpha)\delta_\alpha\left(\frac{ 1}{\left\langle \hat \alpha \cdot \nabla g(\cdot) \right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)(x) \frac{d\eta(\alpha) }{|\alpha|}dx\right|.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{Cm},
we obtain
\begin{align*}
|I_1|&\lesssim\iint |\delta_\alpha h(x)||h(x-\alpha)||\delta_\alpha\nabla g(x)| \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\\
&\lesssim\iint |\delta_\alpha h(x)||\delta_\alpha\nabla g(x)||h(x)| \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}+\iint |\delta_\alpha h(x)|^2|\delta_\alpha\nabla g(x)| \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\\
&:=I_{1,1}+I_{1,2}.
\end{align*}
For the first term $I_{1,1}$, we apply the H\"{o}lder's inequality to get
$$
I_{1,1}
\leq ||\Delta^{2d}g||_{L^{p_1}} ||\Delta^{2d}g||_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{4}}_{p_2,2}} \left(||\nabla g_1||_{\dot F^{\frac{3}{4}}_{p_3,2}}+||\nabla g_2||_{\dot F^{\frac{3}{4}}_{p_3,2}}\right).
$$
We apply H\"{o}lder's inequality again to $I_{1,2}$, then
\begin{align*}
I_{1,2}&\leq\iint |\delta_\alpha h(x)|^2|\delta_\alpha\nabla g_1(x)| \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}+\iint |\delta_\alpha h(x)|^2|\delta_\alpha\nabla g_2(x)| \frac{d\alpha dx}{|\alpha|^{d+1}}\\
&\lesssim||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+||\Delta^{2d} g||^2_{\dot F ^{\frac{1}{4}}_{p_2,4}}||\nabla g_2||_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{2}}_{p_4,2}}.
\end{align*}
By the interpolation inequality \eqref{GNinterpolation}, one obtains for any $1< q\leq+\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{GNineqs}
\begin{aligned}
||\Delta^{2d}g||_{L^{p_1}} &\lesssim ||\nabla g||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{1}{8d-1}} || g||_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}} }^{\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}},\quad\quad
||\Delta^{2d}g||_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{4}}_{p_2,q}}
\lesssim ||\nabla g||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{1}{16d-2}} || g||_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}} }^{\frac{16d-3}{16d-2}},\\
||\nabla g||_{\dot F^{\frac{3}{4}}_{p_3,q}}&\lesssim ||\nabla g||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}} || g||_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}} }^{\frac{3}{16d-2}},\quad\quad
\|\nabla g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{2}}_{p_4,q}}\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{1}{8d-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that $\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}\leq r_0$, thus we have
\begin{align*}
I_{1,1}&\lesssim
||\nabla g||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{3}{16d-2}}\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{32d-7}{16d-2}(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}\|g_1\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2}+\|\nabla g_2\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}\|g_2\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2})\\
&\lesssim_{r_0}\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{32d-7}{16d-2}\left(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}(\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2}+\|g_2\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2})+\|\nabla g_2\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}\|g_2\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2}\right)\\
&\lesssim_{r_0}\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^2\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}+\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{32d-7}{16d-2}\|g_2\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{3}{16d-2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
I_{1,2}
&\lesssim||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+ || g||_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}} }^{\frac{16d-3}{8d-1}}\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{1}{8d-1}.
\end{align*}
Combining the above results with Young's inequality we obtain
\begin{align*}
I_{1}
\leq&\left(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-5}{16d-2}+\varepsilon\right)\|g\|_{\dot H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})
\end{align*}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{lemma} \label{le2}(Estimate for $I_2$)\\
Let $g$, $r_0$ as defined in Proposition \ref{thm1}, and $V$ as defined in \eqref{defV}, there holds
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\left|\iint_{\mathbb{R}^d}\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla V (\alpha,x) | \Delta^{2d} g(x)|^2 d\eta(\alpha)dx\right|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\lesssim_{r_0} (||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^\frac{2}{8d-1}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using H\"older's inequality we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{I2decompose}
I_2\leq\|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{L^{p_1}}^2
\left\|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla V (\alpha,\cdot) d\eta(\alpha)\right\|_{L^{8d-1}}.
\end{equation}
Note that
$$
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\langle\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla g(x)\rangle^{d+1}}\right)d\eta(\alpha)=0.
$$
Recall the definition \eqref{defV} of $V$ and Lemma \ref{Cm}, we directly have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int\hat\alpha\cdot\nabla V (\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \right|\lesssim\left|\int\frac{\Delta_\alpha g(x)}{\langle \Delta_\alpha g(x)\rangle^{d+3}}\hat\alpha\cdot \nabla \Delta_\alpha g(x) d\eta(\alpha)\right|\\&\lesssim \int\left|E_\alpha g(x)\right||\Delta_\alpha \nabla g(x)| \frac{d\alpha}{ |\alpha|^{d}}+\left|\int\frac{\hat \alpha\cdot\nabla g(x)}{\langle \hat \alpha\cdot\nabla g(x)\rangle^{d+3}}\hat \alpha \cdot\nabla \Delta_\alpha g(x) d\eta(\alpha) \right|\\
&=:L_1+L_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Using H\"{o}lder's inequality one has
$$
L_1
\lesssim \left(\int|E_\alpha g(x)|^2\frac{d\alpha}{ |\alpha|^{d+1}}\right)^\frac{1}{2}\left(\int|\delta_\alpha \nabla g(x)|^2 \frac{d\alpha}{ |\alpha|^{d+1}}\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
$$
By standard interpolation one has
\begin{align}\label{Ealpha}
\left(\int|E_\alpha g(x)|^2\frac{d\alpha}{ |\alpha|^{d+1}}\right)^\frac{1}{2}+\left(\int|\delta_\alpha \nabla g(x)|^2\frac{d\alpha}{ |\alpha|^{d+1}}\right)^\frac{1}{2}\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{3}\left(\sup_{\alpha} \frac{| E_\alpha g(x)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{3}{4}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}.
\end{align}
Use the condition $\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}\leq r_0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{J1}
\|L_1\|_{L^{8d-1}} \lesssim_{r_0}\left\|\left(\sup_{\alpha} \frac{|\delta_\alpha \nabla g(\cdot)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{3}{4}}}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}\right\|_{L^{8d-1}}\lesssim_{r_0}
\|\nabla g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{3}{4}}_{p_3,\infty}}^\frac{4}{3}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we have
$$
L_2\lesssim \left(\sup_{\alpha}\frac{|\delta_\alpha \nabla g(x)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \left(\sup_{\alpha} \frac{| E_\alpha\nabla g(x)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{1}{4}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}.
$$
Applying H\"older's inequality again, one has
\begin{equation}\label{J2}
\begin{aligned}
\|L_2\|_{L^{8d-1}} &\lesssim\left\|\left(\sup_{\alpha}\frac{|\delta_\alpha \nabla g(x)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\right\|_{L^{6(8d-1)}}\left\|\left(\sup_{\alpha} \frac{| E_\alpha\nabla g(x)|}{|\alpha|^{\frac{1}{4}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\right\|_{L^{6(8d-1)/5}}\\
&\lesssim
\|\nabla g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{2}}_{p_4,\infty}}^\frac{1}{3} \|\nabla^2 g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{4}}_{p_5,\infty}}^\frac{2}{3}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality \eqref{GNinterpolation}, we have
$$
\|\nabla^2 g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{4}}_{p_5,\infty}}\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{16d-7}{16d-2}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{5}{16d-2}.
$$
Combining this with \eqref{GNineqs}, \eqref{I2decompose}, \eqref{J1} and \eqref{J2}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
I_2&\lesssim_{r_0}\left(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_1\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{16d-4}{8d-1}+\|\nabla g_2\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\right)\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{2}{8d-1}}\\
&\lesssim_{r_0}\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{2}{8d-1}(\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^2+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{16d-4}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{2}{8d-1}})\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{2}{8d-1}}.
\end{align*}
Applying Young's inequality, we get
$$
I_2\lesssim_{r_0}(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{2}{8d-1}+\varepsilon)\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^2++\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1}).
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{le4}(Estimate for $I_3$)\\
Let $g$, $r_0$ as defined in Proposition \ref{thm1}, and $M$ as defined in \eqref{defM}, there holds
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\left|\iint M(\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \Delta^{2d} g(x) dx\right|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\lesssim_{r_0} (||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^{\frac{1}{8d-1}}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Applying H\"{o}lder's inequality one has
\begin{align*}
\left|\iint M(\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \Delta^{2d} g(x) dx\right|\lesssim ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{L^{p_1}} \left\|\int M(\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \right\|_{L ^{\frac{8d-1}{4d}}}.
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $M(\alpha,x)$ in \eqref{defM},
we have
\begin{align*}
|M(\alpha,x)|&\lesssim \sum_{m_1+m_2=4d,m_2>0}|\alpha||\Delta_\alpha D^{1+m_1}g(x)|\left|D^{m_2}\left(\frac{1}{\left\langle \Delta_\alpha g\right\rangle^{d+1}}\right)\right|\\&\lesssim
\sum_{m_1+m_2=4d,m_2>0}\sum_{k=1}^{m_2}|\alpha||\Delta_\alpha D^{1+m_1}g(x)||D^k\Delta_\alpha g(x)|^{\frac{m_2}{k}}.
\end{align*}
Applying H\"{o}lder's inequality one obtains
\begin{align*}
&\left\|\int M(\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \right\|_{L^{\frac{8d-1}{4d}}}\\
&\quad\quad\lesssim
\sum_{m_1+m_2=4d,m_2>0}\sum_{k=1}^{m_2}\left\|\int |\Delta_\alpha D^{1+m_1}g||D^k\Delta_\alpha g|^{\frac{m_2}{k}}\frac{d\alpha}{|\alpha|^{d-1}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{8d-1}{4d}}}\\
&\quad\quad\lesssim\sum_{m_1+m_2=4d,m_2>0}\sum_{k=1}^{m_2}\|D^{1+m_1}g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{2}}_{p_6,2}}\|D^jg\|_{\dot F^{\beta}_{p_7,2m_2/k}}^\frac{m_2}{j},
\end{align*}
where
\[
{p_6}={\frac{2(8d-1)}{2m_1+1}},\qquad{p_7}={\frac{2(8d-1)m_2}{k(2m_2-1)}}, \qquad \beta=1-\frac{k}{2m_2}.
\]
By the interpolation inequality \eqref{GNinterpolation}, we know that
\begin{align*}
\|D^{1+m_1}g\|_{\dot F^{\frac{1}{2}}_{p_6,2}}&\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^{\frac{8d-1-2m_1-1}{8d-1}}\|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{2m_1+1}{8d-1}},\\
\|D^kg\|_{\dot F^{\beta}_{p_7,2m_2/k}}&\lesssim\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^{1-\frac{(2m_2-1)k}{(8d-1)m_2}}\|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{(2m_2-1)k}{(8d-1)m_2}}.
\end{align*}
Then one has
\begin{align*}
\left\|\int M(\alpha,x) d\eta(\alpha) \right\|_{L^{\frac{8d-1}{4d}}}\lesssim\|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}}\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^{\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}}.
\end{align*}
Combining this with \eqref{GNineqs} we have
\begin{align*}
I_3&\lesssim \left(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_1\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}+\|\nabla g_2\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\right)
\|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}}\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^{\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}}\\
&\lesssim_{r_0}\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}(\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^2+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}})+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}}.
\end{align*}
Applying Young's inequality we have
\begin{align*}
I_3\lesssim_{r_0}(||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1}),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{le3}(Estimate for $I_4$)\\
Let $g$ as defined in Proposition \ref{thm1}, and $V$ as defined in \eqref{defV}, there holds
\begin{align*}
&\left|\iint\Delta_\alpha (\Delta^{2d} g)(x)V(\alpha,x)d\eta(\alpha)\Delta^{2d} g(x) dx\right|\\
&\quad\quad\lesssim_{r_0} (||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(||g_2||_{ H^{4d+\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1})
\end{align*}
for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Applying Lemma \ref{Cm}, H\"{o}lder's inequality and \eqref{Ealpha} one has
\begin{align*}
I_4&\lesssim ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{L^{p_1}} \|\Delta^{2d} g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}\|\nabla g\|_{\dot F_{p_3,\infty}^\frac{3}{4}}^\frac{2}{3}\|\nabla g\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{3}.
\end{align*}
By the interpolation inequalities \eqref{GNineqs} we obtain
\begin{align*}
I_4&\lesssim_{r_0}\left(\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_1\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}+\|\nabla g_2\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\right)\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}}\\
&\lesssim_{r_0}\|\nabla g_1\|_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}(\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}})\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad+\|\Delta^{2d}g_2\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^\frac{8d-2}{8d-1}\|\Delta^{2d}g\|_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{\frac{8d}{8d-1}}.
\end{align*}
Applying Young's inequality we have
\begin{align*}
I_4\lesssim_{r_0}(||\nabla g_1||_{L^\infty}^\frac{1}{8d-1}+\varepsilon) ||\Delta^{2d} g||_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^2+\mathcal{F}(\|\Delta^{2d} g_2\|_{ H^{\frac{1}{2}}}+\varepsilon^{-1}),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) has been proven to be the fundamental theory of strong interaction between quarks and gluons, although it is still ambiguously at the low-energy region. The study of multiquarks could enrich our knowledge of hadron structures and hadron interactions, and provide more information about the nonperturbative behavior of QCD.
In the past decades, there have been impressive progress on the search for multiquark states, especially after the observations of hidden-charm XYZ and $P_c$ states~\cite{Liu:2019zoy,2016-Chen-p1-121,2016-Esposito-p1-97,2016-Richard-p1185-1212,2017-Ali-p123-198,2017-Lebed-p143-194,2018-Guo-p15004-15004,2018-Olsen-p15003-15003}.
Dibaryons are bound states of two color-singlet baryons with $B=2$.
The deuteron is the first dibaryon as a loosely bound state of a proton and a neutron observed in 1932~\cite{deuteron}. Until recent years, $d^*(2380)$ as another candidate was discovered in the two-pion production reaction $pn \to d\pi^0\pi^0$ and confirmed in $pn$ scattering by the COSY/CELSIUS and WASA-at-COSY Collaborations~\cite{Bashkanov:2008ih, 2011-Adlarson-p242302-242302,2013-Adlarson-p229-236,2014-Adlarson-p202301-202301,2015-Adlarson-p325-332}. The observation of such a resonance has inspired a lot of theoretical studies on its structure, such as the $\Delta\Delta$ bound state with the $I(J^P)=0(3^+)$ assignment proposed in Refs.~\cite{1999-Yuan-p45203-45203,2013-Gal-p172301-172301,2015-Chen-p25204-25204,2014-Huang-p34001-34001,2015-Huang-p71001-71001,dibaryon-sextet}. Besides, this structure was explained by a triangle singularity without invoking a dibaryon in Refs.~\cite{Molina:2021bwp,Ikeno:2021frl}. There the authors also explained why the peak is not observed in other reactions where it has been searched for. Moreover, the famous H state was first predicted by Jaffe as a genuine bound state with strangeness $S=-2$ well below the $\Lambda\Lambda$ threshold~\cite{H-dibaryon}. Although numerous efforts have been done in the past several decades, there has been no any evidence for the existence of such an H dibaryon to date~\cite{dibaryon-review}.
Besides the above octet-octet systems, the $N\Omega$ dibaryon in the octet-decuplet representation is also expected to have a bound state~\cite{Goldman:1987ma,Li:1999bc,Pang:2003ty,Chen:2011zzb,Sekihara:2018tsb,Xiao:2020alj,Etminan:2014tya,Iritani:2018sra}, since the Pauli exclusion principle does not operate and the color-magnetic interaction is attractive in this system. For the S-wave $N\Omega$ dibaryons, they can be in $^{3}S_1$ and $^{5}S_2$ (symbol $^{2S+1}L_{J}$, where $S, L, J$ are the total spin, relative orbit angular momentum and total angular momentum, respectively) channels with $I(J^P)=\frac{1}{2}(1^+)$ and $\frac{1}{2}(2^+)$, respectively. The couplings of the $^{5}S_2$ $N\Omega$ dibaryon to the S-wave octet-octet channels, e.g., $\Lambda\Xi$, $\Sigma\Xi$, are strongly suppressed in D-wave. However, the $^{3}S_1$ $N\Omega$ dibaryon can strongly couple to the S-wave octet-octet channels in S-wave.
In Ref.~\cite{Goldman:1987ma}, an $N\Omega$ state with $S=-3,\, I=1/2,\, J=2$ was first proposed as a deeply bound dibaryon candidate with binding energy $E_{N\Omega}=140$ MeV and 250 MeV in two different quark models.
Under the chiral SU(3) constituent quark model, the same $N\Omega$ bound state was suggested with much smaller binding energy ranging from 3.5 MeV to 12.7 MeV~\cite{Li:1999bc}. This dibaryon was also studied in the extended quark delocalization and color screening model, in which the binding energy was obtained around 62 MeV~\cite{Pang:2003ty}. In Ref.~\cite{Chen:2011zzb}, a chiral quark model and a quark delocalization color screening model were employed to calculate the baryon-baryon scattering phase shifts to look for dibaryon resonances. For the $N\Omega$ system, they found a bound state about 53 MeV lower than the $N\Omega$ threshold in the quark delocalization color screening model, while no bound state exist in the chiral quark model.
Based on a baryon-baryon interaction model with meson exchanges, a quasibound state of $N\Omega(^5S_2)$
was obtained with the binding energy 0.1 MeV and the decay width 1.5 MeV mainly into $\Lambda\Xi$ mode~\cite{Sekihara:2018tsb}. Such D-wave decay properties of $d_{N\Omega}\to\Lambda\Xi$ and $d_{N\Omega}\to\Sigma\Xi$ were recently studied in a phenomenological Lagrangian approach and their result showed that the total decay width of the $N\Omega(^5S_2)$ dibaryon bound state was in the range of a few hundred
keV~\cite{Xiao:2020alj}.
The HAL QCD Collaboration also studied the $N\Omega$ interaction in the $^{5}S_2$ channel in (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD simulations~\cite{Etminan:2014tya}. By employing the quark masses corresponding to $m_{\pi}=875$ MeV and $m_K=916$ MeV, they found that the interaction between $N$ and $\Omega$ was attractive in all distances, and the binding energy is $B_{N\Omega}=18.9$ MeV. Recently, they improved their LQCD simulations near the physical points ($m_{\pi} \sim 146\ \mathrm{MeV}$, $m_K\sim525\ \mathrm{MeV}$)~\cite{Iritani:2018sra} and found that the interaction between the two baryons is still attractive in all distances. A shallow quasi-bound state below the $N\Omega$ threshold was found having much smaller binding energy $B_{N\Omega}=1.54$ MeV (2.46 MeV) without (with) the Coulomb attraction.
In Ref.~\cite{Morita:2016auo}, the proton-omega two-particle momentum correlation function in relativistic heavy ion collisions was
studied. They extracted the strong $p\Omega$ attractive interaction for the spin-2 channel by measuring the ratio of correlation functions between small and large collision systems. Experimentaly, such $p\Omega$ correlation function in relativistic heavy ion collisions was also measured by the STAR experiment at RHIC~\cite{STAR:2018uho}. The measured ratio of the correlation function slightly favored a $p\Omega$ bound state with a binding energy of $\sim 27$ MeV.
In this work, we shall study the existence of the $N\Omega$ dibaryons in both $^{3}S_1$ and $^{5}S_2$ channels by using the method of QCD sum rules, following the previous investigation of the $\Omega\Omega$ system~\cite{Chen:2019vdh}. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the formalism of QCD sum rules and construct the dibaryon interpolating currents with $J^P=1^+, 2^+$. In Sec. III, we perform the numerical analyses for all channels and predicted their masses and coupling constants. The last section is a short summary.
\section{QCD Sum Rules for Dibaryon Systems}
QCD sum rule is a powerful non-perturbative approach to investigate the hadron properties, such as the hadron masses, decay widths, magnetic moments and so on~\cite{Shifman:1978bx, QCD-sum-rule-Reinders}. To establish the dibaryon QCD sum rules, we first need to construct the interpolating currents for the $N\Omega$ system. We shall use the two local Ioffe currents to represent the nucleon~\cite{1981-Ioffe-p317-341,1983-Ioffe-p67-67}
\begin{align}
J^N_1(x) &= \epsilon^{abc} \left[ u^T_a(x) C\gamma_\mu u_b(x) \right] \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 d_c(x),
\\
J^N_2(x) &= \epsilon^{abc} \left[ u^T_a(x) C\gamma_5 d_b(x) \right] u_c(x),
\end{align}
and the current for $\Omega$ baryon is written as
\begin{equation}
J_\mu^\Omega(x)=\epsilon^{abc}\left[s^T_a (x) C\gamma_\mu s_b (x) \right]s_c (x),
\end{equation}
in which $u,d,s$ represent the up, down and strange quark field respectively, $a, b, c$ are the color indices, $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix and $T$ the transpose operation. Note that the currents $J^N_1(x)$ and $J^N_2(x)$ contain the quark configuration of proton, and the current of neutron can be obtained by the replacement $u \leftrightarrow d$. However, such difference does not affect the sum rule analyses since we shall work in the SU(2) isospin symmetry without considering the effect of isospin breaking in the following calculation.
In the molecular picture, we can construct two $N\Omega$ dibaryon interpolating currents as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x) &= \epsilon^{abc}\epsilon^{def} \left[ u^T_a(x) C\gamma_\lambda u_b(x) \right] \left( \gamma^\lambda \gamma^5 d_c(x) \right)^T \cdot
\\ &\quad
C\gamma_\mu \cdot s_f(x) \left[ s^T_d(x) C\gamma_\nu s_e(x) \right],
\label{J1}
\end{split}
\\
\begin{split}
J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x) &= \epsilon^{abc}\epsilon^{def} \left[ u^T_a(x) C\gamma_5 d_b(x) \right] u^T_c(x) \cdot
\\ &\quad
C\gamma_\mu \cdot s_f(x) \left[ s^T_d(x) C\gamma_\nu s_e(x) \right].
\label{J2}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Both of these two interpolating currents can couple to the $^{3}S_1$ and $^{5}S_2$ channels with $I(J^P)=\frac{1}{2}(1^+)$ and $\frac{1}{2}(2^+)$ respectively. The two-point correlation functions induced by the above currents are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\mu\nu,\,\rho\sigma}(q^2) &=& i \int\mathrm{d^4} x \ \mathrm{e}^{iq\cdot x} \left< 0 \left| \mathrm{T} \left\{ J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu}(x) J^{N\Omega\dag}_{\rho\sigma}(0) \right\} \right| 0 \right>.
\label{tensorCF}
\end{eqnarray}
In general, the correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu,\,\rho\sigma}(q^2)$ contains several different invariant functions $\Pi(q^2)$ referring to different, spin-1 and spin-2 hadron states. One can pick out these invariant functions by using the projectors introduced in Ref.~\cite{2014-Chen-p201-215,2017-Chen-p114005-114005,2017-Chen-p114017-114017}. For the $J^P=1^+$ and $2^+$ pieces, the corresponding invariant functions $\Pi_{1}(q^2)$ and $\Pi_{2}(q^2)$ can be extracted via the following projectors
\begin{align}
\notag
P_{1A}&=\left[\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}-(\rho \leftrightarrow \sigma) \right]\, , &~\mbox{for}\, J^P=1^+,\\
P_{2S}&=\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}+\eta_{\mu\sigma}\eta_{\nu\rho}-\frac{2}{3}\eta_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\rho\sigma}\, , &~\mbox{for}\, J^P=2^+, \label{projectors}
\end{align}
where the $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\eta_{\mu\nu}&=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^2}-g_{\mu\nu}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
At the QCD side, the correlation functions can be calculated via the operator product expansion (OPE) method as a series of various QCD condensates, such as the quark condensate, gluon condensate, quark-gluon mixed condensate and some other higher dimension condensates, parameterize the QCD non-perturbative effect. In this work, the correlation functions shall be calculated up to dimension-16 condensates at the leading order of $\alpha_s$.
At the hadronic level, the invariant function $\Pi(q^2)$ can also be expressed as a dispersion relation
\begin{equation}
\Pi\left(q^{2}\right)=\left(q^{2}\right)^{N}\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}s\frac{\rho_{phen}\left(s\right)}{s^{N}\left(s-q^{2}-\mathrm{i}\epsilon\right)}+\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}b_{n}\left(q^{2}\right)^{k}\,
, \label{eq:dispersion relation}
\end{equation}
where $b_n$ is an unknown subtraction constant. The spectral density $\rho_{phen}(s)$ can be usually obtained by inserting intermediate states $|X\rangle$ of which the quantum numbers are the same as the interpolating current. We adopt the duality ansatz ``one narrow resonance + continuum''
as the spectral function parametrization
\begin{align}
\notag
\rho_{phen}(s) &\equiv \frac{ \mathrm{Im}\Pi(s) }{\pi} =
\sum_X \delta (s-m_{X}^{2}) \langle 0|J|X \rangle \langle X|J^{\dagger}|0 \rangle
\\
&=f_L^2\delta(s-m_L^2)+\theta(s-s_0) \rho_H(s),
\label{eq:spectral density}
\end{align}
where the $\delta(s-m_L^2)$ function describes the lowest-lying hadron state and the second part contains the contributions from excited states and continuum. A continuum threshold $s_0$ is introduced here to describe the cutoff between the lowest-lying resonance and continuum. The coupling constants for axial-vector and tensor states are defined as
\begin{align}
\langle0|J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu}|X_A\rangle&=f_{A}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon^{\alpha}q^{\beta},
\label{vectorcoupling}
\\
\langle0|J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu}|X_T\rangle&=f_{T} \epsilon_{\mu\nu},
\label{tensorcoupling}
\end{align}
in which $\epsilon^{\alpha}$ and $\epsilon_{\mu\nu}$ are the corresponding polarization vector and tensor, and $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ is the fully symmetric tensor.
Due to the quark-hadron duality, the correlation functions obtained at the QCD side and phenomenological side can be equal to each other. To suppress the contributions from excited states and continuum, and also to remove the unknown subtraction constants $b_n$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:dispersion relation}, one usually performs the Borel transform to the correlation functions at both sides
\begin{equation}
\Pi(s_0,\, M_B^2)=\int_{t_c}^{s_0} \rho(s) e^{-s/M_B^2} \,\mathrm{d}s= f_L^2 e^{ -m_L^2/M_B^2 },
\label{sumrules}
\end{equation}
in which the spectral function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spectral density} is considered, and $t_c=(3m_s)^2$ is the physical threshold. The parameter $M_{B}$ is the Borel mass introduced by Borel transform, which is an unphysical parameter and should be irrelevant to the hadron mass. According to Eq.~\eqref{sumrules}, the lowest-lying hadron mass can be extracted as
\begin{equation}
m_L^2\left(s_0,\, M_B^2\right)=\frac{ \int_{t_c}^{s_0} s\cdot\rho(s) e^{-s/M_B^2}\,\mathrm{d}s }
{ \int_{t_c}^{s_0} \rho(s) e^{-s/M_B^2}\,\mathrm{d}s }.
\label{hadronmass}
\end{equation}
The spectral density $\rho(s)$ for the interpolating currents $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ and $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x)$ are calculated and listed in the Appendix~\ref{spectraldensities} since these expressions are complicate and lengthy to show here.
\section{Analyses for dibaryon systems}
We shall apply the following values for the various QCD condensates and quark masses in the following numerical analyses~\mycite{PDG, condensates1, condensates2, condensates3, condensates4, condensates5, condensates-chenhuaxing,QCD-sum-rule-chenhuaxing}
\begin{gather}
\nonumber
\duu=\ddd=\dqq= -(0.24\pm0.03)^3 \,\unit^3, \\
\nonumber
\dss=-(0.8\pm0.1) \times (0.24\pm0.03)^3 \,\unit^3, \\
\nonumber
\dGG=(0.48 \pm 0.14) \, \unit^4, \\
\dqGq=-M_0^2 \dqq, \label{QCDparameters} \\
\nonumber
\dsGs= -M_0^2 \dss, \\
\nonumber
M_0^2= (0.8 \pm 0.2) \, \unit^2, \\
\nonumber
m_s= 95 ^{+9} _{-3} \, \mathrm{MeV},
\end{gather}
in which we don't distinguish the up and down quarks in the SU(2) chiral symmetry and $m_u=m_d=m_q=0$.
As mentioned above, the tensor correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu,\,\rho\sigma}(q^2)$ can couple to both $J^P=1^+$ and $2^+$ diabryon states. We shall study the $N\Omega$ dibaryon with $J^P=2^+$ at first, by using the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ in Eq.~\eqref{J1} as an example.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{J12+ope.pdf}
\caption{OPE convergence in the $J^P=2^+$ tensor channel for the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$.}
\label{fig:J1&2+@ope}
\end{figure}
It is shown that the correlation function in Eq.~\eqref{sumrules} is the function of the continuum threshold $s_0$ and the Borel mass $M_B$.
To perform the QCD sum rule analysis, one should determine the suitable working regions for these two parameters. The lower bound on the Borel mass $M_B^{2}$ can be obtained by ensuring the OPE convergence of the correlation function. For this purpose, we investigate the tensor correlation function for the current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$
\begin{align}
\begin{autobreak}
\Pi(\infty,\,\Msq)=
1.49 \times 10^{-10} \M^{16}
+4.72 \times 10^{-10} \M^{12}
+3.78 \times 10^{-9} \M^{10}
-7.30 \times 10^{-9} \M^8
+4.51 \times 10^{-9} \M^6
+4.55 \times 10^{-9} \M^4
-8.06 \times 10^{-9} \M^2
+4.95 \times 10^{-10}\, ,
\end{autobreak}
\end{align}
where the continuum threshold $s_0$ tends to infinity and the parameter values in Eq.~\eqref{QCDparameters} are adopted.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{J12+s0fig.pdf}
\caption{Extracted hadron mass with respect to $s_0$ in the $J^P=2^+$ tensor channel for the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$.}
\label{fig:J1&2+_s0}
\end{figure}
It is shown that the correlation function $\Pi(\infty,\,\Msq)$ is the polynomial of the Borel mass $M_B$ up to dimension sixteen. We plot the $\Pi (\infty,\, \Msq)$ term by term from the perturbative contribution to various nonperturbative condensate contribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:J1&2+@ope}. We can find that the contributions from quark condensates and four-quark condensates are much larger than those from any other condensates while $M_B^2$ is large enough, indicating they are the dominant nonperturbative contributions. To ensure the convergence of the OPE series, we require that the quark condensates and the four-quark condensates be less than one half of the perturbative term. The lower bound on the Borel mass is thus obtained as $M_{Bmin}^{2}= 4.0$ GeV$^2$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{J12+M2fig.pdf}
\caption{Extracted hadron mass with respect to $M_B^2$ in the $J^P=2^+$ tensor channel for the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$.}
\label{fig:J1&2+_MB}
\end{figure}
We show the variation of the extracted hadron mass with respect to the continuum threshold $s_0$ with Borel mass $4.0 \,\text{GeV}^{2}<M_{B}^{2}< 6.0 \, \text{GeV}^{2}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:J1&2+_s0}. In principle, the extracted hadron mass should not dependent to the unphysical parameter $M_B^2$. To eliminate such a dependence, we choose the working region of the continuum threshold as 7.4 GeV$^2 $$\leq s_0\leq 8.4$ GeV$^2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:J1&2+_s0}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:J1&2+_MB}, we give the Borel curves of the extracted hadron mass with respect to $M_B^2$, which reveals very good stability in the above parameter regions. The mass of the $N\Omega$ dibaryon with $J^P=2^+$ is then obtained as
\begin{align}
m_{N\Omega,\, 2^+}=(2.59\pm 0.17)\, \mbox{GeV}\, , \label{massTtensor}
\end{align}
and the corresponding coupling constant is
\begin{align}
f_{N\Omega,\, 2^+}=\left( 6.68\pm0.46 \right) \times 10^{-4}\, \mbox{GeV}^8\, .
\end{align}
where the errors come from the uncertainties of the Borel mass $M_B$, the threshold $s_0$ and the QCD parameters in Eq.~\eqref{QCDparameters}. The central value of the mass prediction is about 21 MeV below the $N{\Omega}$ two-baryon threshold~\cite{PDG}, which may suggest the existence of a loosely bound molecular state of the tensor $N\Omega$ dibaryon with $J^P=2^+$. The prediction of the binding energy is roughly agreement with
the result of recent HAL QCD calculation near the physical points~\cite{Iritani:2018sra}.
For the $J^P=1^+$ channel, we perform similar sum rule analyses and obtained the parameter working regions as 8.8 GeV$^2$ $\leq s_0\leq 9.8$ GeV$^2$, and 3.0 GeV$^2$ $\leq M_B^2 \leq 5.0$ GeV$^2$. Within these parameter regions, the mass curves are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:J1&1+_MB}
with reasonable Borel stabilities. Finally, the hadron mass and the coupling constant for the $N\Omega$ dibaryon with $J^P=1^+$ can be extracted as
\begin{align}
m_{N\Omega,\, 1^+}&=(2.79\pm 0.13)\, \mbox{GeV}\, ,\\
f_{N\Omega,\, 1^+}&=\left( 5.19\pm 1.20 \right) \times 10^{-4}\, \mbox{GeV}^8\, .
\end{align}
The obtained mass is much higher than the mass of tensor state in Eq.~\eqref{massTtensor}. This mass is above the $N\Omega$ and $\Lambda\Xi$ two-baryon thresholds, which means that the $N\Omega$ system can not form a bound state in the $^3S_1$ channel.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{J11+M2fig.pdf}
\caption{Extracted hadron mass with respect to $M_B^2$ in the $J^P=1^+$ channel for the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$.}
\label{fig:J1&1+_MB}
\end{figure}
We also study the $N\Omega$ states by using the interpolating current $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x)$ in Eq.~\eqref{J2}, with the same procedure as the above analyses. The extracted hadron masses for the $N\Omega$ states with $J^{P}=1^{+}$ and $2^{+}$ are around 2.9 GeV, which is much higher than those obtained from the $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$.
We collect the numerical results for the both the $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ and $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x)$ in Table~\ref{NR} and compare with the $N\Omega$ threshold in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra} for convenience. It shows that only one $N\Omega$ dibaryon with $J^P=2^+$ lies below the two-baryon threshold, and thus form a bound state.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{spectra.pdf}
\caption{Mass predictions for the $N\Omega$ states with $J^{P}=1^{+}$ and $2^{+}$, comparing with the $N\Omega$ two-baryon threshold.}
\label{fig:spectra}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{Numerical results for the $J^P=1^+$ and $J^P=2^+$ channels in both $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ and $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x)$.}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.em}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline \hline
current & $J^P$ & $\text{mass}/\mbox{GeV}$ & $\text{coupling}/10^{-4}\,\mbox{GeV}^8$ & $s_0/\mbox{GeV}^2$ & $M_B^2/\mbox{GeV}^2$
\\ \hline
\multirow{2}*{ $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,1}$ } & $2^+$ & $2.59\pm0.17$ & $6.68\pm0.46$ & $[7.4,8.4]$ & $[4.0,6.0]$
\\ \cline{2-6}
& $1^+$ & $2.79\pm0.13$ & $5.19\pm1.20$ & $[8.8,9.8]$ & $[3.0,5.0]$
\\ \hline
\multirow{2}*{ $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,2}$ } & $2^+$ & $2.91\pm0.23$ & $5.58\pm1.16$ & $[9.2,10.2]$ & $[5.0,7.0]$
\\ \cline{2-6}
& $1^+$ & $2.95\pm0.13$ & $2.84\pm0.17$ & $[9.5,10.5]$ & $[4.0.6.0]$
\\ \hline \hline
\label{NR}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary}
In this work, we investigate the $N\Omega$ dibaryon systems with spin-parity $J^P=1^+, 2^+$, isospin $I=1/2$ and strangeness $S=-3$ in the framework of QCD sum rules. After constructing two tensor $N\Omega$ dibaryon interpolating currents in the molecular picture, we evaluate the correlation functions and the spectral densities up to dimension-16 nonperturbative condensates at the leading order of $\alpha_s$ via the operator product expansion method.
We establish Laplace sum rules for the interpolating currents $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ and $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,2}(x)$ in suitable
working regions of the continuum threshold $s_0$ and Borel mass $M_B^2$. The hadron masses are then extracted reliably for both of them and four $N\Omega$ dibaryons are predicted. Among these four predicted states, the dibaryon with $J^P=2^+$ from $J^{N\Omega}_{\mu\nu,\,1}(x)$ lies about
21 MeV below the $N\Omega$ threshold, implying the possible existence of a bound state. Within errors, this binding energy is roughly agreement with the prediction by recent LQCD calculation (2.46 MeV) near the physical points~\cite{Iritani:2018sra}, and the measurement of the $p\Omega$ correlation function by STAR Collaboration ($\sim 27$ MeV)~\cite{STAR:2018uho}.
The other three dibaryon states predicted in Table~\ref{NR} are all above the $N\Omega$ and $\Lambda\Xi$ thresholds. All of them can directly decay into the $N\Omega$ final states in S-wave. For the two $N\Omega$ dibaryons in $^3S_1$ channel with $J^P=1^+$, they can also decay into the $\Lambda\Xi$ and $\Sigma\Xi$ final states with larger phase spaces in S-wave via the quark rearrangement mechanism.
Although in D-wave, the $\Lambda\Xi$ channel was considered as the dominant decay mode for the $N\Omega$ dibaryons with $J^P=2^+$~\cite{Sekihara:2018tsb,Xiao:2020alj}. The $N\Omega (^{5}S_2)\to\Lambda+\Xi+\pi$ process may be also an interesting decay channel for the weakly bound state of $N\Omega (^{5}S_2)$ dibaryon, while the two-body $\Lambda\Xi, \Sigma\Xi$ decays are strongly suppressed in D-wave. These decay processes may be identified in the heavy-ion collision experiments like STAR, RHIC and J-PARC, where plenty of hyperons will be produced~\cite{Cho:2010db,Cho:2011ew}. Moreover, the measurement of the energy and width of the lowest $p\Omega^-$ atomic state in these experiments could be rather instructive, as it gives access to the $p\Omega^-$ scattering length, which would indicate that the hadronic $p\Omega^-$ system is almost bound or weakly bound~\cite{STAR:2018uho}. Recently, a new source of baryons and antibaryons has been proposed at a tau-charm factory like BESIII, or a super tau-charm factory like STCF or SCTF, where the numerous $J/\psi$ and $\psi^\prime$ event data will be able to supply copious hyperons such as $\Lambda, \Xi, \Omega$ and so on~\cite{Yuan:2021yks}.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
This work is supported in part by National Key R$\&$D Program of China under Contracts No. 2020YFA0406400, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11722540 and No. 12075019, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-centrosymmetric B20 chiral magnets have been reported to have the interesting property of breaking inversion symmetry, leading to various types of magnetic structures, ranging from spin spirals over skyrmions~\cite{Muhlbauer2009,Neubauer2009, Yu2010, Yu2011} and bobbers~\cite{Zheng2018,Rybakov2015} to the three-dimensional (3D) lattice of 3D magnetic textures~\cite{Tanigaki2015}, and thus holding great potential for innovative spintronic applications~\cite{Fert2013}.
Due to the advent of different magnetic phases that can be tuned by temperature, magnetic fields, and other material parameters~\cite{Wilhelm2011, Pedrazzini2007, Shibata2015, Lee2009, Ritz2013, Deutsch2014, Rosler2012, Shibata2013, Grigoriev2013, Spencer2018, Huang2012}, the B20 systems not only host a rich phase diagram but their complex magnetic order and nontrivial topology in momentum space imprint also on unique transport and optical phenomena~\cite{Jonietz2011, Neubauer2009, Kanazawa2011, Chang2017, Takane2019, Yao2020, Sanchez2019}.
Irrespective of the crucial relevance for explaining chiral magnetism in B20 compounds, however, a complete understanding of the underlying magnetic structures and magnetic interactions stabilizing them has been remarkably elusive.
While, for instance, the magnetic order at the ground state of many B20 compounds is often interpreted as a homogeneous helix~\cite{Ludgren1970, Bak1980} caused by relativistic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interactions~\cite{Dzyaloshinskii}, such a model ignoring higher-order magnetic interactions~\cite{Okumura2020} and temperature effects~\cite{Mendive2021} fails to explain the 3D texture of a few nanometers observed in B20 MnGe. Furthermore, a now well-known and well-accepted assumption made by Bak and Jensen 40 years ago~\cite{Bak1980} that DM interaction stabilizes a homogeneous helix in B20 materials is incomplete.
In particular, as shown by Chizhikov and Dmitrienko~\cite{Dmitrienko2012, Chizhikov2012, Chizhikov2013}, the DM vector that is perpendicular to the component responsible for helical spiraling gives rise to intersublattice canting in B20 compounds.
Such an effect can be viewed as the superposition of several helical spin-density waves in each sublattice propagating in the same direction but having different phases and different directions of the rotation axes (see Fig.~\ref{model}).
In this work, we derive an advanced micromagnetic energy equation describing the exchange and DM interactions for the spin spirals with twists formed by the magnetic moments of different sublattices in a crystal.
While the micromagnetic energies of the exchange ($E^\text{ex}$) and DM interaction ($E^\text{dm}$) for the trivial (without twist) spin spirals have well-known dependencies on their wave vector ${\bf q}$,
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
E^\text{ex}&=& E^\text{ex}(
q^{0},
{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{2}},\cdots), \\
E^\text{dm}&=& E^\text{dm}(
{\bf q}^{1},
{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{3}},\cdots),
\end{array}
$$
where ${\bf q}^{\bigotimes{p}}$ is the $p$-fold tensor product of ${\bf q}$ vector with itself, we show that the coupling between different sublattices gives rise to the twist of spin spirals with new contributions in ${\bf q}$ to the energies of magnetic interactions:
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
E^\text{ex}&=& E^\text{ex}(q^0,{\bf q}^1,{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{2}},{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{3}},\cdots), \\
E^\text{dm}&=& E^\text{dm}(q^0,{\bf q}^1,{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{2}},{\bf q}^{\bigotimes{3}},\cdots).
\end{array}
$$
Interestingly, the last expression implies also that even when $|{\bf q}|=q=0$, the ground state magnetic order might not be ferromagnetic (FM).
To substantiate the importance of such an effect in real materials, we employ density functional theory calculations for B20 FeGe since the energies without and with spin-orbit coupling in this compound are well described by the exchange and DM interactions~\cite{Grytsiuk2019}, in contrast to MnGe, for which higher-order interactions are expected to be pivotal~\cite{Grytsiuk2020}. We compute the atomistic interaction parameters via multiple-scattering theory as implemented in the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (KKR) Green's function method~\cite{kkr,Bauer2013, Papanikolaou2002}, and from them we determine the corresponding intersublattice micromagnetic parameters entering the advanced micromagnetic energy equation. By minimization of the micromagnetic energy, we determine the strength of global spiraling, as well as local twist between helices in different sublattices.
We show that the magnitude of the spin spiral twist in B20 FeGe is of the same order as global spiraling and it reduces, by three times, the energy difference between the helical ground state and the FM state, resulting in good agreement with the experimentally measured saturation magnetic field.
Finally, we verify the results of our micromagnetic model by employing spin-dynamics simulations, that in addition to the twist of the spin spiral in B20 structures, indicate their small nonhomogeneity.
However, since the energy gain due to the nonhomogeneity of the spin waves is much smaller than that due to their twist, for the sake of simplicity we ignore this effect in our micromagnetic model.
\section{Spin-spiral twist: Micromagnetic model}
\label{theory}
We consider a one-dimensional spin-wave formed by conical homogeneous spin spirals in each sublattice $A$ of a crystal. For each spin spiral we assume the same wave vector ${\bf q}$ but a different rotation axis
${\bf e}_\text{rot}^A(\beta^A,\alpha^A)$, cone angle $\theta^A$, and phase $\phi^A$ (see Fig.~\ref{model} and Appendix~\ref{sec:spirit}).
We define the orientation of any classical spin ${\bf S}_{i}^A$ of atom $i$ in sublattice $A$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{ss}
{\bf S}^A_i =
{\bf e}_1^A \cos ({\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}^A_i)
+ {\bf e}_2^A \sin ({\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}^A_i)
+ {\bf e}_3^A\,,
\end{equation}
where orthogonal vectors ${\bf e}_n^A = {\bf e}_n(\beta^A,\alpha^A,\theta^A, \phi^A)$ ($n=1,2,3$) characterize the spin-spiral twist in sublattice $A$ with a condition that $\vert{\bf S}_i^A\vert = 1$ (see Fig.~\ref{model}(c) and Appendix~\ref{rotation}).
The upper index $A$ enumerates also the basis atom ($i=1$) with its atomic position ${\bf r}^A = {\bf R}_1^A$ in the chemical unit cell. ${\bf R}_{i}^A = {\bf r}^A + \boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ defines the position of atom $i$ in sublattice $A$, where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ is a translation vector.
\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{
(a) Superposition of twisted spin-density waves formed by different sublattices ($A,B,C, \ldots $) of the crystal. Such spirals propagate in the same directions but with different (b) directions of the rotation axes ${\bf e}_\text{rot}(\beta,\alpha)$ and (c) cone angles $\theta$ and phases $\phi$.
The magnetic moment ${\bf S}$ in (c) is defined by cone angle $\theta$ with respect to
${\bf e}_\text{rot} = \ro{R}{}{}(\beta,\alpha){\bf e}_z$
and by phase $\phi$ and ${\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}$
with respect to
${\bf e}_x' = \ro{R}{}{}(\beta,\alpha){\bf e}_x$, where
$\ro{R}{}{}(\beta,\alpha)$ is a rotation matrix mapping the ${\bf e}_z$ axis to the rotation axis ${\bf e}_\text{rot}$.
A spin spiral with twist $\Omega= \{\beta,\alpha,\theta,\phi\}$
can be characterized by orthogonal vectors ${\bf e}_m(\Omega)$, $m=1,2,3$ [see Eq.~\eqref{ss}].
%
}
\label{model}
\end{figure}
We examine the effect of spin-spiral twist on the exchange and DM interactions following the effective spin-lattice Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
\label{en1}
E^{AB} =
-\dfrac{1}{N_A}
\displaystyle
\sum_{i=1}^{N_A}
\sum_{j=1}^{N_B} {\bf S}^A_i \,
\ro{J}{AB}{ij} \,
{\bf S}^B_j ,
\end{equation}
where the sum over $i$ is restricted to the number of magnetic atoms $N_A$ in sublattice $A$ of the magnetic unit cell and $j$ runs over atoms in sublattice $B$ of whole crystal structure.
Tensor $\ro{J}{AB}{ij}$ represents the strength of the exchange ${J}_{ij}^{AB}$ and DM interaction ${\bf D}_{ij}^{AB}$ between two sites $i$ and $j$ of sublattices $A$ and $B$, respectively:
\begin{equation}\label{jij}
\ro{J}{AB}{ij}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\ph{-}{J} & \ph{-}D_{z} & -D_{y}\\
-D_{z} & \ph{-}J & \ph{-}D_{x} \\
\ph{-}D_{y} & - D_{x} & \ph{-}J
\end{pmatrix}_{ij}^{AB}.
\end{equation}
If the magnetic structure in each sublattice has characteristic length scales much larger than the underlying crystal lattice, then the sum over $N_A$ (over the magnetic unit cell) in Eq.~\eqref{en1} can be approximated by the integral
\footnote{
Since
${\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}_i^A =
{\bf q}\cdot({\bf r}^A + \boldsymbol{\tau}_i) = {\bf q}\cdot{\bf r}^A + {\omega_i}$
and
${\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}_j^B =
{\bf q}\cdot({\bf R}^B_{j'} + \boldsymbol{\tau}_i) = {\bf q}\cdot{\bf R}^B_{j'} + {\omega_i}$, where ${\bf R}^B_{j'} = {\bf R}_j^B + \boldsymbol{\tau}_i$, $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ is translation vector (along the magnetic unit cell) and
$\omega_i$ is an angle between two spins separated by $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$,
the summation over the magnetic unit cell can be approximated by an integral
$\approx1/(2\pi) \int_0^{2\pi} \partial \omega{\bf S}({\bf q}\cdot {\bf r}^A +{\omega})\ro{J}{AB}{1j}{\bf S}({\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}^B_j +{\omega})$ assuming that $\omega_i \ll 2\pi$.
},
and the energy density of the magnetic interactions (between atoms in the chemical unit cell ${\bf r}^A$ and all other atoms ${\bf R}^B_j$) has a form
\begin{equation}
\label{en2}
\begin{array}{lr}
&E^{AB}({\bf q})
\approx \ensuremath\displaystyle
-\frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_j^{N_B} \int_0^{2\pi}\hspace{-5px} \partial \omega \,
{\bf S}^A({\bf q} \cdot {\bf r}^{A} +\omega) \\
&\times \ro{J}{AB}{1j}
{\bf S}^B({\bf q} \cdot {\bf R}_{j}^{B} + \omega)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Considering the magnetic structure given by Eq.~\eqref{ss}, the total energy after taking an integral in Eq.~\eqref{en2} has a form
\begin{equation}
\label{en3}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{0}
\begin{array}{ll}
E^{AB}({\bf q}) \approx
\ensuremath\displaystyle
-\sum_{j=1}^{N_B}
\ro{J}{AB}{1j}\!:\!&\!
\bigg[\bigg.
\ro{C}{AB}{} +\ensuremath\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}
\ro{C}{AB}{+}
\cos ({\bf q}\!\cdot\!{\bf R}_{1j}^{AB}) \\
&
+\ensuremath\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}
\ro{C}{AB}{-}
\sin({\bf q}\!\cdot\!{\bf R}_{1j}^{AB})
\bigg.\bigg]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf R}_{1j}^{AB} = {\bf R}_{j}^{B} - {\bf r}^{A}$, the notation ``$:$" stands for the inner product of tensors of the same rank, and tensors
$\ro{C}{AB}{+} = {\bf e}_1^A \otimes {\bf e}_1^B + {\bf e}_2^A \otimes {\bf e}_2^B$,
$\ro{C}{AB}{-} = {\bf e}_1^A \otimes {\bf e}_2^B - {\bf e}_2^A \otimes {\bf e}_1^B$, and
$\ro{C}{AB}{} = {\bf e}_3^A \otimes {\bf e}_3^B$ characterize a twist between spin spirals in sublattices $A$ and $B$. By expanding cosine and sine
functions in Tailor series with respect to ${\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}$ (see Appendix~\ref{trig}) we arrive at the following micromagnetic expression for the total energy of spin spirals with twist:
\begin{equation}\label{en4}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{lcl}
E^{AB}({\bf q}) &\approx&
\mi{M}{0}{AB}{} :
\ro{C}{AB}{} \\
&&+\ensuremath\displaystyle \dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{p=0}\!
\mi{M}{p}{AB}{}\!:\!
\bigg(\ro{C}{AB}{p} \otimes \mi{Q}{p}{}{}\bigg),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the sum over $p$ defines the order of Tailor expansion, $\ro{C}{AB}{2p}=\ro{C}{AB}{+}$, $\ro{C}{AB}{2p+1}=\ro{C}{AB}{-}$, and $\mi{Q}{p}{}{} = {\bf q}^{\bigotimes{p}}$ is the $p$-fold tensor product of ${\bf q}$ vector with itself.
The tensor $\mi{M}{p}{AB}{}$ of rank $(p+1)$ characterizes the exchange and DM interactions between all sites of sublattices $A$ and $B$:
\begin{equation}
\label{micro1}
\mi{M}{p}{AB}{} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\ph{-}\mi{A}{p}{}{} &
\ph{-}\mi{D}{p}{}{z} &
-\mi{D}{p}{}{y} \\
-\mi{D}{p}{}{z} &
\ph{-}\mi{A}{p}{}{} &
%
\ph{-}\mi{D}{p}{}{x}\\
\ph{-}\mi{D}{p}{}{y} &
-\mi{D}{p}{}{x} &
\ph{-}\mi{A}{p}{}{}
\end{pmatrix}^{AB}.
\end{equation}
The components of $\mi{M}{p}{AB}{}$ are tensors of rank $(p)$ and they are related to $\ro{J}{AB}{ij}$ and ${\bf R}^{AB}_{ij}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{kf1}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\mi{M}{2p}{AB}{kk'} &=&
\ensuremath\displaystyle
\frac{(-1)^{p+1}}{(2p)!}
\sum_{j=1}^{N_B}
\ro{J}{AB}{1j(kk')}
\mi{R}{2p}{AB}{1j}\, ,
\\
\mi{M}{2p+1}{AB}{kk'}
&=&
\ensuremath\displaystyle
\frac{(-1)^{p+1}}{(2p+1)!}
\sum_{j=1}^{N_B}
\ro{J}{AB}{1j(kk')}
\mi{R}{2p+1}{AB}{1j}\, ,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\mi{R}{p}{AB}{1j} = ({\bf R}^{AB}_{1j})^{\bigotimes{p}}$ is the $p$-fold tensor product of $ {\bf R}_{1j}^{AB}$ with itself (see Appendix~\ref{trig}).
The micromagnetic tensors $\mi{A}{p}{AB}{}$ and $\mi{D}{p}{AB}{}=(\mi{D}{p}{AB}{x},\mi{D}{p}{AB}{y},\mi{D}{p}{AB}{z})$
in Eq.~\eqref{micro1} describe the micromagnetic exchange and DM interactions, respectively, between all ions of sublattices $A$ and $B$.
Also, those tensors for different pairs of sublattices are related by symmetries of the underlying crystal structure and for B20 FeGe we list them in Appendix~\ref{sym}.
The micromagnetic energy given by Eq.~\eqref{en4} is a central equation of this work and it can be decomposed into the exchange and DM interactions (see Appendix~\ref{energies}).
From this equation it is clear that the twist of the spin spirals gives rise to the energies of the exchange and DM interactions, which are both functions of $\mi{Q}{p}{}{} = {\bf q}^{\bigotimes{p}}$, where $p=0,1,2,\cdots$.
This is in sharp contrast to trivial spin spirals, for which the exchange and DM interactions are functions of only $\mi{Q}{2p}{}{}$ and $\mi{Q}{2p+1}{}{}$, respectively.
The main challenge is to find the twist tensors $\ro{C}{AB}{\pm}$ and $\ro{C}{AB}{}$ minimizing the total energy.
Using this model, we examine the twist of the spin-density waves in B20 FeGe, noting that it becomes difficult to carry out with full rigor, because of the 16 independent parameters ($\phi^A,\beta^A,\alpha^A, \theta^A$) characterizing the spin spiral’s twist in four sublattices ($A=1,2,3,4$) of the crystal. On the other hand, the proposed micromagnetic model has many attractive qualitative features since it gives solutions in terms of a few micromagnetic multisublattice parameters taking into account the symmetries of the crystal structure, whereas the atomistic model becomes too difficult to carry out for a large supercell in which the magnetic structure is commensurate and due to the long-range character of the magnetic interactions in the itinerant magnets.
For our micromagnetic model, we assume homogeneous spin density waves in each sublattice of the crystal; as we demonstrate by means of spin-dynamics simulations (see Appendix~\ref{sec:spirit}), the gain in total energy due to the inhomogeneity of the spin-density waves is much smaller than that due to the twist.
\section{Computational details}
We compute the microscopic parameters of Heisenberg exchange $J_{ij}$ and DM ${\bf D}_{ij}$ interaction for B20 FeGe by employing first-principles calculations via multiple-scattering theory as implemented in the KKR Green's function method~\cite{kkr,Bauer2013, Papanikolaou2002}.
In this framework, $J_{ij}$ and ${\bf D}_{ij}$ are obtained from the collinear state by applying infinitesimal rotations of the magnetic moments~\cite{Liechtenstein1987, Ebert2009}.
All electronic structure calculations are performed for the experimental lattice parameter and atomic positions of FeGe~\cite{Wappling1968, Lebech1989} in the local density approximation~\cite{Perdew92},
using $72\times72\times72$ ${\bf k}$-points in the full Brillouin zone with Fermi broadening of $100$K.
The micromagnetic parameters are computed using Eq.~\eqref{kf1},
for which the summation is truncated above a maximal interaction radius of $R_\text{max}=12a$, where $a$ is the lattice parameter.
\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
(a) Exchange interaction parameters $J_{ij}$ and
(b) absolute values of DM interaction vectors
$\vert{\bf D}_{ij}\vert$ between Fe atoms
as a function of the interatomic distance (between Fe atoms) $\vert{\bf R}_{ij}\vert$ (in units of the lattice parameter $a$).
(c) Micromagnetic spin stiffness $A^{(2)}$ and
(d) micromagnetic spiralization $D^{(1)}$
as a function of $R_\text{max}$ (in units of the lattice parameter $a$), up to which contributions from the atomistic parameters ($J_{ij}$ and ${\bf D}_{ij}$ corresponding to all $\vert{\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}\vert<R_\text{max}$) are included. Note that parameters $J_{ij}$ and $\vert{\bf D}_{ij}\vert$ in (a) and (b) are multiplied by $\vert{\bf S}_i\vert\vert{\bf S}_j\vert$.
The inset in (b) presents $\cos \theta_{ij}$ for the first few shells, where $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between
${\bf R}_{ij}$ and ${\bf D}_{ij}$.
}
\label{dft1}
\end{figure}
\section{First-principles results and discussions}
\begin{figure*}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\caption{
(a) The total energy (per unit cell) of (b) the exchange and DM interactions, computed using the atomistic (circles) and micromagnetic (solid lines) models for the superposition of helical spin-density waves in B20 FeGe without twist (in black) and with twist (in blue and red) as a function of $q=|{\bf q}|$.
The twist parameters of the spirals in each sublattice $A$ minimizing the total energy $\{\phi^A\}$ (blue curve) and $\{\phi^A,\beta^A,\alpha^A\}$ (red curves) for
(c) ${\bf q}_{001}$ and (d) ${\bf q}_{111}$.
(e) Illustration showing the relative orientations of the rotation axes ${\bf e}_\text{rot}^A$ of the spin spirals in each sublattice $A$ for ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$.
Vertical arrows in (a) show the energy difference between the helical ground state and the FM state, corresponding to saturation magnetic fields of 0.04 and 0.12 T for spin spirals without and with twists, respectively. The solid green line stands for the experimental pitch $|{\bf q}^\text{exp}|=9\mu$m$^{-1}$.
$\delta E$ is the total energy difference of the spin spiral with twist at ${\bf q}^\text{min}$ (the theoretical pitch) and ${\bf q}^\text{exp}$.
}
\label{dft2}
\end{figure*}
The atomistic parameters of the exchange interaction $J_{ij}$ and the absolute values of the DM interaction vectors $|{\bf D}_{ij}|$ as a function of the distance $\vert {\bf R}_{ij}\vert$ between interacting pairs in B20 FeGe are shown in Figs.~\ref{dft1} (a) and (b).
While both atomistic interaction parameters decay fast with $\vert {\bf R}_{ij}\vert$, their corresponding micromagnetic parameters, $A^{(2)}= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij}J_{ij}R_{ij}^2$ and $D^{(1)}=- \sum_{ij} {\bf R}_{ij}\cdot{\bf D}_{ij}$, respectively (for more details see Sec.~\ref{ss_identical}) have diminishing oscillatory behavior with respect to the summation cutoff $|{\bf R}_{ij}|< R_\text{max}$, see Figs.~\ref{dft1} (c) and (d).
The calculated value of the magnetic moment per Fe atom is ~$1.11~\mu_\text{B}$~\cite{Grytsiuk2019}, which is slightly larger than experimental value of $\sim 1.0$~$\mu_\text{B}$~\cite{Wappling1968, Ludgren1970, Spencer2018}.
\subsection{Spin wave formed by identical spirals}
\label{ss_identical}
We first consider the simplest case in which the spin spirals in all sublattices are flat ($\theta^A=\pi/2$), have the same phase $\phi$ and the same direction of their rotation axes
(${\bf e}^A_\text{rot} = {\bf e}_\text{rot} \parallel {\bf q}$).
In this case $\vert{\bf e}_3^A\vert = 0$, ${\bf e}_m^A \parallel {\bf e}_m^B\perp{\bf e}_\text{rot}$, and Eq.~\eqref{en4} after the summation over all pairs of sublattices in the B20 structure gives
\begin{equation}\label{en5}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{lcl}
E_\text{I}({\bf q}) &=& \ensuremath\displaystyle
\sum_{p=0} \ro{A}{(2p)}{}{} \! :\! \mi{Q}{2p}{}{} +
\ro{D}{(2p+1)}{}{} \!:\!
[\hat{\bf e}_\text{rot} \otimes \mi{Q}{2p+1}{}{} ]
\\
&=&\ensuremath\displaystyle
A^{(0)} + D^{(1)} q + A^{(2)} q^2 + O_\text{I}({\bf q})
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $q=\vert {\bf q}\vert$
and $O_\text{I}({\bf q})$ depicts the anisotropic higher-order contributions to the exchange and DM interaction, see Eq.~\eqref{en5ho}.
Tensors $\ro{A}{(2p)}{}{}=\sum_{AB}\ro{A}{(2p)AB}{}{}$ and $\ro{D}{(2p+1)}{}{}=\sum_{AB}\ro{D}{(2p+1)AB}{}{}$ characterize the micromagnetic exchange and DM interactions of order $p$, respectively, between magnetic ions in whole crystal.
Note that since $\ro{A}{(2p+1)AB}{}{}=-\ro{A}{(2p+1)BA}{}{}$ and $\ro{D}{(2p)AB}{}{}=-\ro{D}{(2p)BA}{}{}$, these odd contributions to the total energy after the summation over all pairs of sublattices for such trivial spin spirals cancel out. The energy contributions from the even terms $\ro{A}{(2p)AB}{}{}=\ro{A}{(2p)BA}{}{}$ and $\ro{D}{(2p+1)AB}{}{}=\ro{D}{(2p+1)BA}{}{}$ for such magnetic order remain. For $p\leq2$ the obtained micromagnetic interactions tensors reduce to the identity matrices (see Appendix~\ref{sym}),
\begin{align}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\label{aa}
\ro{A}{(2)}{}{} & =
\dfrac{1}{2} \ro{I}{}{2}{}
\sum_{AB}
\sum_{i\ne j} J_{ij}^{AB} |{\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}|^2 = A^{(2)}\ro{I}{}{2}{},\\
\label{dd}
\ro{D}{(1)}{}{} &=
-\displaystyle \ro{I}{}{2}{}
\sum_{AB}
\sum_{i\ne j} {\bf D}_{ij}^{AB}\cdot{\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}= D^{(1)}\ro{I}{}{2}{}.
\end{align}
As follows from Eq.~\eqref{dd}, each bond ${\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}$ has the largest contribution to the spiralization parameter $D^{(1)}$ if ${\bf D}_{ij}^{AB} \parallel {\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}$, and it is zero if ${\bf D}_{ij}^{AB} \perp\ {\bf R}_{ij}^{AB}$.
Note that while $|{\bf D}_{ij}|$ are largest for the first few nearest neighbors, see Fig.~\ref{dft1}(b), their contribution to the total energy of the homogeneous flat spin spiral $\sim {\bf R}_{ij}\cdot{\bf D}_{ij} \sim \cos \theta_{ij}$, where $\theta_{ij}$ is an angle between ${\bf R}_{ij}$ and ${\bf D}_{ij}$, is negligibly small, see the inset in Fig.~\ref{dft1} (b) and Fig.~\ref{dft1} (d).
In contrast, as demonstrated by Chizhikov and Dmitrienko~\cite{Dmitrienko2012, Chizhikov2012, Chizhikov2013}, such normal components of the DM vectors, ${\bf D}_{ij} \perp\ {\bf R}_{ij}$, might give rise to the twist between spin spirals formed by different sublattices, which we discuss in the following sections.
While the lower-order contributions to the total energy, Eq.~\eqref{en5}, of the exchange ($p=0,2$) and DM ($p=1$) interactions do not depend on the direction of the wave vector ${\bf q}$
\footnote{ Note, $\ro{A}{(2)}{}{}\!:\!\mi{Q}{2}{}{}\!=A^{(2)}\ro{I}{}{2}{}\!:\!\mi{Q}{2}{}{}=A^{(2)}q^2$ and for ${\bf e}_\text{rot}\parallel {\bf q}$ $\ro{D}{(1)}{}{}\!:\!\mi{Q}{1}{}{}\otimes {\bf e}_\text{rot}\!=D^{(1)}\ro{I}{}{2}{}:\mi{Q}{1}{}{}\otimes {\bf e}_\text{rot}\!=\!D^{(1)}q$, where $\ro{I}{}{p}{}$ is identity matrices of rank $p$.},
the higher-order contributions are anisotropic
\begin{equation}\label{en5ho}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{lcl}
O_\text{I}({\bf q}) &=& \ensuremath\displaystyle
D^{(3)}_1
\begin{pmatrix}
q_x^2, q_y^2, q_z^2
\end{pmatrix}\cdot {\bf q}
+D^{(3)}_2
\begin{pmatrix}
q_z^2,q_x^2,q_y^2
\end{pmatrix}\cdot {\bf q}
\\
&+&
D^{(3)}_3
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2,q_z^2,q_x^2
\end{pmatrix}\cdot {\bf q}
+
A^{(4)}_1 (q_x^4 + q_y^4 + q_z^4) \\
&+& A^{(4)}_2 (q_x^2 q_y^2 + q_x^2q_z^2 + q_y^2 q_z^2) + \cdots\, .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The corresponding micromagnetic parameters for these higher-order terms, $D^{(3)}_n$ and $A^{(4)}_n$, are given in Appendix~\ref{sym}.
Since the contribution to the total energy of these terms for small values of $|{\bf q}|$ is small, $|O_\text{I}({\bf q}_\text{min})| < 0.1$~($\mu$eV) $\ll |E_\text{I}({\bf q}_\text{min})| \approx 9$~($\mu$eV), we neglect them. Also, as follows from Fig.~\ref{dft2}(a), energies obtained for ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$ using Eq.~\eqref{en5} without $O_\text{I}({\bf q})$ contributions (black solid lines) are in good agreement with the atomistic model (black symbols) given by Eq.~\eqref{en1}.
\subsection{Spin spirals with a phase difference}
\label{ss_phase}
Now we consider a case in which flat spirals ($\theta^A=\pi/2$) in each sublattice $A$ are allowed to have different phases $\phi^A$ while the directions of the rotation axes ${\bf e}_\text{rot}^A = {\bf e}_\text{rot}(\beta,\alpha) = {\bf q}/\vert {\bf q}\vert$ remain the same.
For such a choice of the magnetic structure the total energy of the magnetic interactions between atoms in sublattices $A$ and $B$, Eq.~\eqref{en4}, has the form
\begin{equation}\label{phase1}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{rlcr}
E^{AB}_\text{II}({\bf q}, \!&\!\phi^{AB}) = &
\cos \phi^{AB} \sum_p \Big( \mi{A}{2p}{AB}{}: \mi{Q}{2p}{}{} \Big.\\
&&+\mi{D}{2p+1}{AB}{} :\mi{Q}{2p+1}{}{} \otimes {\bf e}_\text{rot} \Big.\Big)\\
+&\sin \phi^{AB} & \sum_p
\Big(\!-\!\mi{A}{2p+1}{AB}{}: \mi{Q}{2p+1}{}{} \Big.\\
&&+\mi{D}{2p}{AB}{}
: \mi{Q}{2p}{}{} \otimes {\bf e}_\text{rot} \Big.\Big)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\phi^{AB} = \phi^{B} -\phi^{A}$ is the phase difference between spin spirals in sublattices $A$ and $B$.
Note that if $\phi^{AB}=0$, then $E_{II}^{AB}({\bf q}) = E_{I}^{AB}({\bf q})$, see Eq.~\eqref{en5}. As follows from Eq.~\eqref{phase1}, the phase difference $\phi^{AB}$ corresponding to the lowest total energy of the magnetic interactions between two sublattices
$$
\phi^{AB}_\text{min}({\bf q}) = \arctan \left[ \dfrac{\mi{D}{0}{AB}{} \cdot {\bf e}_\text{rot} - \mi{A}{1}{AB}{} \cdot {\bf q} + \cdots
}{\mi{A}{0}{AB}{} + {\bf e}_\text{rot}^T\cdot \mi{D}{1}{AB}{} \cdot {\bf q} + \cdots
}\right]
$$
is nonzero if
$\mi{D}{2p}{AB}{}$ or $\mi{A}{2p+1}{AB}{}$ are nonzero tensors.
\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{
(a) and (b) Illustrations of the spin-density wave formed by spin spirals in sublattices $A$ and $B$.
Spin spirals in (a) are identical, and those in (b) have phase difference $\phi^{AB} = \boldsymbol{\delta} \cdot {\bf q}$
due to the displacement of atoms in sublattice $B\rightarrow B'$ by $\delta$ such that ${\bf S}_i^B = {\bf S}_i^{B'}$.
(c) Displacements of Fe and Ge ions from high-symmetry sites of the NaCl structure (smaller spheres) to lower-symmetry sites of the B20 structure (larger spheres) along cube diagonals ${\bf n}^A$, as shown in (d).
}
\label{model2}
\end{figure}
To explain the emergence of the phase difference let us assume first only two spin spirals formed by sublattices $A$ and $B$. When each atom $i$ in sublattices $A$ and $B$ possesses an inversion symmetry with respect to their relative positions, ${\bf R}_{ii}^{AB} = - {\bf R}_{ii-1}^{AB}$, and magnetic interactions, $\ro{J}{AB}{ij} = (\ro{J}{AB}{ii-1})^T$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{model2}(a), then the summation in Eq.~\eqref{kf1} gives $\mi{D}{2p}{AB}{} = \mi{A}{2p+1}{AB}{} = 0\ro{I}{}{2p+1}{}$; therefore, $\phi_\text{min}^{AB}({\bf q})=0$.
However, when atoms in one of the sublattices are displaced from their symmetric positions by $\boldsymbol{\delta}$, see Fig.~\ref{model2} (b), then $\phi_\text{min}^{AB} ({\bf q}) = \boldsymbol{\delta}\cdot {\bf q}$ if $\ro{J}{AB}{ii} = (\ro{J}{AB}{ii-1})^T$ and the magnetic moments remain the same directions as before the displacement (${\bf S}_i^B = {\bf S}_i^{B'}$). If $\ro{J}{AB}{ij}\neq (\ro{J}{AB}{ii-1})^T$, then ${\bf S}_i^B \neq {\bf S}_i^{B'}$, and $\phi_\text{min}^{AB} ({\bf q})\neq \boldsymbol{\delta}\cdot {\bf q}$ in general.
Similarly, the emergence of the relative phases $\phi^{AB}$ between spin spirals in different sublattices of the B20 structure is expected because atoms in this structure are displaced with respect to the high-symmetry sites [given by space group $Fm3m$, see Fig.~\ref{model2}(c)].
Such displacement of atoms in each sublattice $A$ can be defined as $\boldsymbol{\delta}^A = {\bf n}^A u^{M}$, where the parameter $u^\text{M}$ stands for the Wyckoff positions of magnetic ions in the B20 structure (space group $P2_13$) and ${\bf n}^A$ is the symmetry direction at each site in sublattice $A$ (see Appendix~\ref{sym}).
Finding phase $\phi^{A}$ for each spiral $A$ in a B20 chiral magnet for a given direction of ${\bf q}$ requires taking into account the magnetic interactions between all pairs of sublattices.
Since only a phase difference $\phi^{AB}$ enters Eq.~\eqref{phase1}, we are allowed to choose $\phi^{1}=0$.
Assuming ${\bf e}_\text{rot}\parallel {\bf q}$ and minimizing (numerically) the total energy, Eq.~\eqref{phase1}, for ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$ with respect to the phases $\phi^{A}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{phi_min}
\begin{array}{ll}
& \phi^1=\phi^2=0,\, \phi^3=\phi^4=\varphi_{001} ({\bf q}_{001}),\\
& \phi^1=0,\, \phi^2=\phi^3=\phi^4=\varphi_{111} ({\bf q}_{111})\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Therefore, due to the symmetries of the B20 structure the only unknown parameter $\varphi({\bf q})$ remains for the two cases of ${\bf q}$.
The above equations indicate also that the phase difference $\phi^{AB}$ between spirals in sublattices $A$ and $B$ can be defined in terms of the relative atomic displacements from the high-symmetry sites projected on
${\bf e}_\text{rot}\parallel {\bf q}$:
$$
\phi_\text{min}^{AB} ({\bf q})=
{\bf e}_\text{rot}
\cdot ({\bf n}^B-{\bf n}^A) \,
\varphi({\bf q})
$$
Since, due to the symmetries, the only unknown parameter $\varphi({\bf q})$ remains, the total energy in Eq.~\eqref{phase1} can be easily minimized, and $\varphi_\text{min}({\bf q})$ that includes the interactions between magnetic atoms in all sublattices of the crystal can be computed.
The energies of the exchange and DM interactions as a function of $\vert{\bf q}\vert$ and $\varphi_\text{min}({\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}_{001}$ or ${\bf q}_{111}$ are shown as blue circles (atomistic model) and blue lines (micromagnetic model) in Figs.~\ref{dft2}(a) and (b). The corresponding $\varphi_\text{min}({\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$ are shown in Figs.~\ref{dft2}(c) and \ref{dft2}(d), respectively.
As follows from Fig.~\ref{dft2} the energies corresponding to $\varphi_\text{min}({\bf q})$ for the two directions of ${\bf q}$ are almost the same (a small difference is due to the higher-order contributions; see Sec.~\ref{ss_identical}).
The obtained energies are lower than in the case of $\varphi({\bf q})=0$,
$
E^{AB}_\text{II}({\bf q}_\text{min}, \varphi_\text{min})<
E^{AB}_\text{I}({\bf q}_\text{min})
$,
as the energy gain of the DM interaction dominates the energy loss of the exchange contribution, see Fig~\ref{dft2} (b).
Also, the obtained phase difference $\varphi_\text{min}({\bf q}_\text{min})\approx -0.8^\circ$, is of the same order as the angle between magnetic moments of nearest atoms formed due to the global spiraling of $\approx 1.28^\circ$
\footnote{The angle between magnetic moments of nearest atoms formed due to the global spiraling can be defined as $\approx 2\pi a/(4 \lambda) = 1.28^\circ$, where $a$ is lattice parameter, $\lambda \approx 70 a$ is an experimental period of the spin-spiral modulation and factor $4$ counts 4 magnetic ions in the unit cell.}.
\subsection{Spirals with different cones}
\label{ss_cone}
Now we consider a case in which in addition to the phase difference $\phi^{AB}$ between spin spirals each of them is allowed to have a cone angle $\theta^A$ between each ${\bf S}_i^A$ and ${\bf e}_\text{rot}^A$ that might differ from $\pi/2$, see Fig.~\ref{model3}~(a). The total energy of the magnetic interactions for such magnetic structure has the form
\begin{equation*}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{lcl}
E^{AB}_\text{III}({\bf q},\phi^{AB}, \theta^A,\theta^B) &=&
\cos \theta^A \cos \theta^B E_\text{FM}^{AB} \\
& +&\sin \theta^A \sin \theta^B E^{AB}_\text{II}({\bf q}, \phi^{AB})
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
where $E_\text{FM}^{AB}= - \sum_{ij} J_{ij}^{AB} = \mi{A}{0}{AB}{}$ and $E^{AB}_\text{II}({\bf q}, \phi^{AB})$ are the total energies, respectively, of the FM state and spin-spiral state with phase difference $\phi^{AB}$, see Eq.~\eqref{phase1}.
In such a case the chirality vectors $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij}^{AB}={\bf S}_i^A\times {\bf S}_j^B$ of the spin-spiral state have components that are normal and parallel to the direction of the wave vector ${\bf q}$, $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij}^{AB} = \boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\parallel {\bf q}}^{AB} + \boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$, see Fig.~\ref{model3}~(a).
Case $\theta^A=\theta^B=0^\circ$ ($\theta^A=\theta^B=90^\circ$) corresponds to the FM (flat spin spiral) state.
Any deviations of the cone angles $\theta^A$ and $\theta^B$ from $\pi/2$ reduces the energy contribution of $E^{AB}_\text{II}({\bf q}, \phi^{AB})$ and the total energy is in between the total energy of the FM state and the total energy of the flat spin spirals.
This is in particular because conical spin spirals reduce the contribution to the total energy of the DM vectors parallel to ${\bf q}$, as ${\bf D}_{ij}\cdot \boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\parallel {\bf q}}^{AB}= \sin \theta^A \sin \theta^B {\bf D}_{ij}\cdot \boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij}^{AB}$.
Also, the components of DM vectors normal to ${\bf q}$ on average over the magnetic unit cell give zero contribution to the total energy, as vector chirality components $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ rotate by $2\pi$ over the whole magnetic unit cell, see Fig.~\ref{model3} (a). From this, we conclude that the competition between the exchange and DM interactions favors the emergence of flat spin spirals rather than those with $\theta^A \neq \pi/2$.
\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the superposition of spin spirals $A$ and $B$ with:
(a) different cone angles and (b) different orientations of the rotation axes.
The rainbow colors for the vectors represent different orientations of the vector chirality
$\boldsymbol{\chi}^{AB}_{i} = {\bf S}^A_i\times {\bf S}^B_i$ component normal to ${\bf q}$.
}
\label{model3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spirals with different rotation axes}
\label{ss_rot}
Finally, we consider a case in which flat spirals in each sublattice in addition to the phase difference $\phi^{AB}$ are allowed to have different orientations of their rotation axes ${\bf e}^A_\text{rot}$,
characterized by angles $\beta^A$ and $\alpha^A$ as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{model}.
Like in the case discussed above, different orientations of the rotation axes in two sublattices give rise to $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\parallel {\bf q}}^{AB}$ and $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ vector chirality components, see Fig.~\ref{model3} (b).
While the component $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\parallel {\bf q}}^{AB}$ caused by the DM interaction vectors parallel to ${\bf q}$ gives rise to the global spiraling, the components $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ might arise due to the DM interaction vectors ${\bf D}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ normal to ${\bf q}$.
Although the contribution of DM interaction from $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ varies over the magnetic unit cell, it does not vanish as $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij\perp {\bf q}}^{AB}$ rotates around ${\bf q}$ by only $\pi$.
The directions of the spin-spirals rotation axes formed by different sublattices of the B20 structure can be obtained from the minimization of the total energy, Eq.~\eqref{en4}, for a given wave vector ${\bf q}$. In this case the total energy of the magnetic interactions is a function of $13$ parameters (${\bf q}$, $\phi^A$, $\beta^A$, and $\alpha^A$ for $A=1,2,3,4$). As we will demonstrate, the number of unknown parameters can be reduced due to symmetries, but let us first briefly discuss the case $\vert{\bf q}\vert=0$, for which the total energy given by Eq.~\eqref{en4} has the form
\begin{equation}
\arraycolsep=1pt\def1.25{1}
\begin{array}{ll}
E^{(0)}_\text{IV} &=\ensuremath\displaystyle
\frac{1}{2} \ensuremath\displaystyle \sum_{AB}
\Big(
{\bf e}_1^A \cdot {\bf e}_1^B +
{\bf e}_2^A \cdot {\bf e}_2^B
\Big)
\mi{A}{0}{AB}{} \\
&+\ensuremath\displaystyle
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{AB}
\Big(
{\bf e}_1^A \times {\bf e}_1^B +
{\bf e}_2^A \times {\bf e}_2^B
\Big) \cdot
\mi{D}{0}{AB}{}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
From this equation it follows that the contribution from the DM interaction takes maximal values when ${\bf e}_m^A \perp {\bf e}_m^B \perp \mi{D}{0}{AB}{}$. Note that in the case with ${\bf e}_\text{rot}^A = {\bf e}_\text{rot}^B$ we have $({\bf e}_m^A \times {\bf e}_m^B) = {\bf e}_\text{rot}^A\sin \phi^{AB}$, and only $\mi{D}{0}{AB}{}\parallel {\bf e}_\text{rot}^A$ contributes to the total energy for $|{\bf q}|=0$ (see Sec.~\ref{ss_phase}). However, since $\mi{D}{0}{AB}{} \nparallel \mi{D}{0}{AC}{}$ in B20 FeGe (see Table~\ref{sym3} in Appendix~\ref{sym}), the DM interaction, in addition to the phase $\phi^{AB}$, might lead to ${\bf e}_\text{rot}^B \nparallel {\bf e}_\text{rot}^C$.
The energies (neglecting small higher-order anisotropic contributions) of the magnetic interactions in B20 FeGe minimized numerically with respect to the twist angles ($\phi^A$, $\beta^A$, and $\alpha^A$) as a function of ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$ are shown as red lines in Fig.~\ref{dft2}(a) and \ref{dft2}(b). While the minimized total energy does not depend on the direction of ${\bf q}$, the corresponding twist's angles of the spirals in each sublattice $A$ depend on it, such that
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
&\ensuremath\displaystyle
\sum_A^4 {\bf n}^A \cdot {\bf e}_\text{rot}^A = 0, \quad
\big(\sum_A^4 {\bf e}_\text{rot}^A \big) \parallel {\bf q}\\
&\ensuremath\displaystyle
\phi_\text{min}^{AB} ({\bf q}) =
({\bf n}^B\cdot {\bf e}_\text{rot}^B -
{\bf n}^A \cdot {\bf e}_\text{rot}^A) \,
\varphi({\bf q})
\end{array}
$$
As the result, only three parameters ($\phi,\beta,\alpha$) out of 12 $\{\phi^A,\beta^A,\alpha^A\}$ remain independent. As an example, in the case of ${\bf q}_{001}$ we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{erot_min}
\begin{array}{ll}
&
\phi^1=\phi^2 = 0,\, \quad \phi^3=\phi^4=\phi(q),\\
&
\beta^1=\beta^2=\beta^3=\beta^4 = \beta(q),\\
&
\begin{array}{lcrcr}
\alpha^{1} &=& \alpha(q),\quad
\alpha^{2} &=& \alpha(q)+\pi,\\
\alpha^{4} &=& -\alpha(q),\quad
\alpha^{3} &=& -\alpha(q)-\pi,
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
A similar result can be shown for ${\bf q}_{111}$. In this case
${\bf e}^1_\text{rot} \parallel {\bf q} \parallel {\bf n}^1$,
${\bf e}^2_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf q} = {\bf e}^3_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf q} = {\bf e}^4_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf q}$ and ${\bf e}^2_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf n}^2 =
{\bf e}^3_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf n}^3 = {\bf e}^4_\text{rot} \cdot {\bf n}^4$.
The orientations of the rotation axes for the spin spirals in each sublattice of B20 FeGe for ${\bf q}_{001}$ and ${\bf q}_{111}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{dft2}(e).
The energy difference of about $0.028$~meV between the helical ground state with twist and the FM state is three times lower than in the case without twist, corresponding to a saturation magnetic field of $B=0.12$~T
~\footnote{The saturation magnetic field ${\bf B}\parallel {\bf q}$ corresponds to the Zeeman energy $E_\text{Z}({\bf q}_\text{min}) = -{\bf m}\cdot {\bf B}= E({\bf q}_\text{min}) - E_\text{FM}$, where $|{\bf m}|= 4\mu_B = 4\times 57.8838\, (\mu eV T^{-1})$ is the total magnetic moment in the unit cell. Since the saturation magnetic filed leads to ${\bf m}\parallel {\bf B}$ we get $|{\bf B}| = -E_Z({\bf q}_\text{min})/|{\bf m}|$}, which is in good agreement with the experimental value obtained for FeGe~\cite{Bauer2016, Spencer2018, Ludgren1970}.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work, we studied the magnetic interactions between sublattices of non-centrosymmetric crystal using the micromagnetic model. In particular, we showed that due to the exchange and DM interactions the ground state spin spirals formed by sublattices of B20 FeGe have different phases and different orientations of their rotation axis (see Eq.~\eqref{ss}). We developed a micromagnetic model describing the exchange and DM interactions for such twisted spin-density waves (Eq.~\eqref{en4}), which gives a solution in terms of a few micromagnetic multi-sublattice interaction parameters taking into account symmetries of the crystal structure, whereas the atomistic model becomes too difficult to carry out due to the long range of the magnetic interactions. To uncover the importance of the spin-spiral twist for the energetics of the materials with multi-sublattices without inversion symmetry we compute the micromagnetic exchange and DM interaction parameters for B20 FeGe, as other higher-order interactions in this compound are expected to be small~\cite{Grytsiuk2019, Grytsiuk2020}. From the minimization of the micromagnetic total energy, we obtain the ground state parameters characterizing the twist of the spin-density waves in each sublattice of the crystal. In particular, we show that the magnitude of this effect in B20 FeGe is of the same order as global spiraling and, it lowers the total energy (compare to the FM state) three times compared to the case when it is ignored.
While the twist of the spin spirals in B20 FeGe significantly reduces the total energy of the exchange and DM interactions, the obtained period of the magnetic modulations $\lambda_\text{min}^\text{DFT} = 2\pi/q_\text{min}^\text{DFT}$ remains two times larger than the experimental observation $\lambda_\text{min}^\text{exp} = 2\pi/q^\text{exp}_\text{min}$, see Fig.~\ref{dft2}(a).
A possible reason for this discrepancy might stem from the failure of DFT to capture the effect of electronic correlations which can dramatically change the overall behavior of the system, as was recently demonstrated
using dynamical mean-field theory~\cite{Borisov2020}.
While the exchange interaction parameters $J_{ij}$ obtained by DFT explain the experimental Curie temperature of FeGe very well ~\cite{Grytsiuk2019}, the electronic correlations might have a stronger impact on the strength of the DM interaction.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fi:scale} in Appendix~\ref{sec:spirit}, not only does the period of the spin spiral become shorter when the strength of the DM interaction is increased, but also the corresponding twist angles $\phi_\text{min}$ and $\beta_\text{min}$ become larger, lowering the total energy more prominently compared with the case when the twist is ignored. On the other hand, since the difference in total energy for ${\bf q}_\text{min}^\text{DFT}$ and ${\bf q}^\text{exp}_\text{min}$ due to the twist is small, $E({\bf q}_\text{min}^\text{DFT},\Omega)-E({\bf q}_\text{min}^\text{exp},\Omega) = 8\mu$eV (see Fig.~\ref{dft2}(a)), we speculate that it can be overtaken by higher-order magnetic interactions~\cite{Grytsiuk2020} or by quantum fluctuations~\cite{Povzner} shifting ${\bf q}_\text{min}^\text{DFT}$ towards ${\bf q}_\text{min}^\text{exp}$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank F. Rybakov and N.~Kiselev for fruitful discussions.
We acknowledge financial support from the DARPA TEE program through a MIPR grant (\#HR0011831554) from DOI and from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SPP 2137 ``Skyrmionics" (Project BL 444/16) and the Collaborative Research Centers SFB 1238 (Project C01), as well as computing resources at the supercomputers JURECA at J\"ulich Supercomputing Centre and JARA-HPC from RWTH Aachen University (Projects jara0224 and jara3dmagic).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved great success in various vision tasks \citep{DBLP:conf/cvpr/SzegedyVISW16,redmon2016you,DBLP:conf/iccv/HeGDG17}. The key to such success is the powerful ability of feature representations to input images, where network units\footnote{Regarding the term unit, a unit is the perceptive node in networks, which generally refers to the activated feature map outputted by a convolutional filter in CNNs.} play a critical role. But impacted by the diverse training deployments and huge hypothesis space, networks even with the same architecture may converge to different minima on a given task. Although units between these networks could present similar function for the same task, yet they may have completely different activation magnitudes. Consequently, this makes it fairly hard to give a general indication of the status for a given network unit with respect to how well features are represented by it from images in the same class.
Being rough indicators in practice, magnitude responses of units are usually chosen simply \citep{zhang2018interpretable} or processed statistically (such as average mean) \citep{li2016pruning, luo2017thinet} based on the idea of matched filtering. However, firstly these indicators are apparently sensitive to rescaling operations in magnitude. If performing a simply rescaling operation to the weights such as the strategy introduced in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/NeyshaburSS15}, the results of the network and the function of each unit would all remain unchanged, but these indicators would vary along with the rescaling coefficient. Secondly, as the spatial information in the unit is completely discarded, they could not give discrimination between units with and without random patterns, for example units separately outputted by a well-trained and random-initialized CNN filter. Without a valid indication regarding the mentioned situations, these indicators fail to ensure the universal applicability for units in different network models.
In this paper, we attempt to investigate the status of units from a new perspective. Roughly speaking, natural images in the same class have common features, and meanwhile the locations of these features are spatially correlated in global. For effective units, features are picked out and represented by high activation values in the units. And due to the locality nature in feature extraction by convolution, this global spatial pattern between the common features would be preserved synchronously in the counterpart representations in the effective units. In contrast, for ineffective units, being incapability of effectively representing these common features, representations would be in chaos and marks of this pattern is vague. This provides a valid road for performance assessment of individual units, and critically it is rescaling-invariant and universally applicable to any CNN architecture.
The investigation of such pattern could naturally lead to topological approaches because knowledge of topological data analysis such as barcodes \citep{ghrist2008barcodes} provides valuable tools to resolve the intrinsic patterns in raw data. Along this line, firstly we introduce a method for characterizing the spatial pattern of feature representations in units for a single sample by incorporating with the topological tools, and then use information entropy to evaluate the stability of this spatial characterizations for various images sampled from the same class, where we call it feature entropy. In this way, a unit is judged to be effective if its feature entropy is high, otherwise ineffective.
In our experiments, we find that feature entropy would gradually decrease as the layer goes deeper and the evolution trends of feature entropy and losses are almost the same during network training. We show that the feature entropy could provide reliable indication of unit status in situations like weight-rescaling and the emergence of random pattern. Finally, we show the value of feature entropy in giving discrimination between networks with different generalization ability by investigating only the training set.
\begin{figure}
\label{fig: example}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{introduction.pdf}
\caption{Comparisons between the effective units and ineffective units. For effective units, since the spatial pattern of the features in the images would be preserved, units should stably present this regularized spatial pattern. We propose a topological-based quantity called feature entropy to indicate the unit status, giving reliable indication in various situations like rescaling the values.}
\vskip -0.15in
\end{figure}
\section{Related Works}
One line of research that attracts many researchers is seeking solutions in a way of visualizing what features have learned by the units \citep{zeiler2014visualizing, zhou2014object, mahendran2015understanding, simonyan2013deep}. Status is generally identified depending on the degree of alignment between the visualized features and the human-visual concepts \citep{bau2017network, zhou2018interpreting, bau2020understanding}. On the one hand, they meanwhile give excellent visual interpretation of each unit; on the other hand, it hinders its universal application to arbitrary tasks and models in which units' functionalities may be unrecognized to human \citep{wang2020high}.
Another related research trace lies in the field of network pruning, where they concentrate on using simple methods to roughly select less important units within a network. Typical approaches include the L1-Norm of units \citep{luo2017thinet}, Average Percentage of Zeros (APoZ) in units \citep{hu2016network}, some sparse-based methods \citep{li2019exploiting, yoon2017combined}, and so on. Despite commonly used in practice, since without a specific processing on units in diverse situations, they are unable to provide a general indication for units in different networks.
Besides, \cite{morcos2018importance} introduce the class selectivity from neuroscience to investigate the selectivity over classes for a specific unit, on the basis of calculating the mean units. \cite{alain2016understanding} propose linear classifier probe, where they report the degree of linear classification of units in intermediate layers could somehow characterize the status of units.
Lastly, we would like to discuss some recent works related to topological approaches in deep learning. \cite{naitzat2020topology} demonstrate the superiority of using ReLu activation by studying the changes in Betti numbers of a two-class neural network. \cite{montufar2020can} use neural networks to predict the persistent homology features. In \cite{gabrielsson2019exposition}, by using barcode, they show the topological structure changes during training which correlates to the generalization of networks. \cite{rieck2018neural} propose the neural persistence, a topological complexity measure of network structure that could give a criterion on early stopping. \cite{guss2018characterizing} empirically investigate the connection between neural network expressivity and the complexity of dataset in topology. In \cite{hofer2017deep}, topological signatures of data are evaluated and used to improve the classification of shapes.
\section{Method}
In general, input images for a network model are commonly resized to be square for processing. For input image sample ${\bm{I}}$ of a given class with size $n \times n$ to be represented by a unit ${\bm{U}}$ with size $m \times m$ via feature extraction processing $f$ in CNN, we have,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:convolution}
f : {\bm{I}} \rightarrow {\bm{U}}
\end{equation}
For image ${\bm{I}}$, features are specifically arranged, where each feature has an associated spatial location in the image. After perceived by ${\bm{U}}$, features are represented by high activation values at the corresponding locations in the unit. Basically, there are two steps in our assessment of unit performance: firstly, characterize the spatial pattern hidden in these high activation values in a unit for a single image; secondly, evaluate the stability of this characterization when giving multiple image samples.
\subsection{Characterizing the spatial pattern of feature representations in a unit}
For ${\bm{U}}_{i, j}$ with a grid structure, the location of an element generally refers to its coordinate index $(i, j)$. And intuitively, the spatial pattern hidden in the elements denotes certain regular relationship among their coordinate indices. So, it is natural to model such relationship with graph structure and tackle it with topological tools in the following.
\paragraph{Unit and graph}
We use the edge-weighted graphs \citep{Aktas2019Persistent} as our basic model and construct the weighted graph ${\mathcal{G}}=(V,E)$ from unit ${\bm{U}}_{i, j}$, where $V$ is the vertex set and $E$ is the edge set. Define the adjacency matrix ${\bm{A}}$ of ${\mathcal{G}}$ as follows,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{A}} \in\mathbb{R}^{m \times m}: {\bm{A}}_{i, j}= {\bm{U}}_{i, j}
\end{equation}
\noindent It should be noted that the individual element of ${\bm{A}}$ is the weight of edge in ${\mathcal{G}}$, which conveys the intensity of corresponding point in the ${\bm{U}}$.
A family of undirected graphs ${\mathcal{G}}^{(v)}$ with adjacency matrices ${\bm{A}}^{(v)}$ could be constructed by following the typical implementation of the sublevel set,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn: top set}
{\bm{A}}_{i, j}^{(v)} = \bm{1}_\mathrm{{\bm{A}}_{i, j} \geq a^{(v)}}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $a^{(v)}$ is the $v$th value in the descend ordering of elements of ${\bm{A}}$ and $\bm{1}_\mathrm{(\cdot)}$ is indicator function. Here, we take the adjustment of ${\bm{A}}^{(v)} = max({\bm{A}}^{(v)}, ({\bm{A}}^{(v)})^T)$ to ensure the adjacency matrices ${\bm{A}}^{(v)}$ of undirected graphs to be symmetric.
So ${\mathcal{G}}^{(v)} = (V^{(v)}, E^{(v)})$ is the subgraph of ${\mathcal{G}}$ where $V^{(v)} = V$ and $E^{(v)} \subset E$ only includes the edges whose weights are greater than or equal to $a^{(v)}$. We have the following graph filtration,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn: graph filtration}
{\mathcal{G}}_1 \subset {\mathcal{G}}_2 \subset {\mathcal{G}}_3 \subset \cdots \subset {\mathcal{G}}
\end{equation}
To be more specifically, in this sublevel set filtration, it starts with the vertex set, then rank the edge weights from the maximum $a_{max}$ to minimum $a_{min}$, and let the threshold parameters decrease from $a_{max}$ to $a_{min}$. At each step, we add the corresponding edges to obtain the threshold subgraph ${\mathcal{G}}{(v)}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{feature_topology_nips.pdf}}
\vskip -0.05in
\caption{Example of the conversion from a unit to its clique complex.}
\label{fig:feature topology}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology} illustrates the construction of certain subgraph through a toy example. Consider the unit ${\bm{U}}_{i, j}$. We circle the locations of the top $4$ largest elements in ${\bm{U}}_{i, j}$ (Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology}A). Then the nonzero elements in adjacency matrix ${\bm{A}}^{(4)}$, $\{(1,2),(4,3),(2,4),(3,1)\}$ , is located (Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology}B) and corresponding subgraph ${\mathcal{G}}^{(4)}$ is constructed (Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology}C).
\paragraph{Complex filtration}
To further reveal the correlation structure in the graphs, they are typically converted into certain kinds of topological objects, where topological invariants are calculated for capturing the high-level abstraction of correlation structure. Here, by following the common method in \citep{horak2009persistent, Petri2013Strata}, each graph ${\mathcal{G}}^{(v)}$ is converted to simplicial complex (also called clique complex) $\tau^{(v)}$, as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology}D. In this way, we have complex filtration corresponding to graph filtration (Eq.\ref{eqn: graph filtration}).
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn: complex filtration}
\tau^{(1)} \subset \tau^{(2)} \subset \tau^{(3)} \subset \cdots \subset \tau
\end{equation}
\noindent This filtration describes the evolution of correlation structure in graph ${\mathcal{G}}$ along with the decreasing of threshold parameter. Fig.\ref{fig:filtration}A shows the complex filtration of the previous example (Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{filtration.pdf}}
\vskip -0.05in
\caption{Instance of complex filtration (A) and Betti curve (B).}
\label{fig:filtration}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
So far, we have completed the characterization from unit to the topological objects. Other than our strategy, we also discuss other alternative method, which maps the unit to the cubical complex \citep{kaczynski2004computational}. See Appendix for more details.
\paragraph{Betti curve and its charaterization}
Next, $k$th Betti number \citep{Hatcher2002} of each element in the complex filtration could be calculated using the typical computational approach of persistent homology \citep{Otter2017Roadmap}.
\begin{equation}
\tau^{(v)} \mapsto \beta(\tau^{(v)})
\end{equation}
Intuitively, $k$th Betti number $\beta(\tau^{(v)})$ could be regarded as the number of $k$-dimensional 'circle's or 'hole's or some higher order structures in complex $\tau^{(v)}$. On the other hand, many meaningful patterns in the unit would lead to the 'circle's or 'hole's of complexes in the filtration (Eq.\ref{eqn: complex filtration}), see Fig.\ref{fig:feature topology} for illustration. In particular, the number of 'hole's is typically used as an important quantitative index for featuring such patterns. Hence, the $k$th Betti numbers $\beta(\tau^{(v)}), v\in\{1,\cdots,n\}$ could be arranged into so called $k$th Betti curves $\beta({\bm{U}}, v, k)$ for the unit ${\bm{U}}$. Fig.\ref{fig:filtration}B shows the $1$th Betti curve of filtration in Fig.\ref{fig:filtration}A.
Once having obtained the Betti curve, one needs to interpret the Betti curve and extract its core characterization. Although there exists many choices of distance between two topological diagrams such as persistence images \citep{adams2017persistence}, persistence landscape \citep{bubenik2015statistical} and persistence entropy\citep{Otter2017Roadmap}, we find that the simple birth time of the Betti curves $\beta({\bm{U}}, v, k)$ is sufficient in this characterization,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:birth time}
b({{\bm{U}}, k}) = \inf\{v | \beta({\bm{U}}, v, k) \neq 0\}
\end{equation}
\noindent We call $b({{\bm{U}}, k})$ the birth time. Birth time is the indication of the critical element in complex filtration that begins to carry "hole" structure (Betti number is nonzero). It is an important sign that some essential change has occurred in complex filtration, which implies the appearance of regularized spatial pattern of notable components in the unit. Meanwhile, in some cases, no spatial pattern appear in the components in the unit, so $\beta({\bm{U}}, v, k)$ constantly equals to zero, meaning that birth time doesn't exist. In general, this would happen when the unit is unable to give representations for the image, where its values are almost all zeros.
\subsection{Assessing the unit performance using feature entropy}
For image samples in the same class $\mathcal{C}$, an \emph{ideal} unit ${\bm{U}}$ could perceive their common features. So, the spatial pattern of this unit should be similar between different image samples. In other words, the birth time obtained from each realization of units should be relatively close. That is to say, the performance of \emph{good} unit for certain target class should be \emph{stable} over all the samples of this class. It is the key idea for performance assessment of network unit.
\paragraph{Birth distribution} Essentially, birth time ${\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k)$ is a random variable since sampling images from the specific class $\mathcal{C}$ could be regarded as statistical experiments. In fact, the probability space $(\Omega, \Sigma, P)$ could be constructed. The elements in sample space $\Omega$ are the unit ${\bm{U}}$ resulted from the image samples in dataset of class $C$. $\Sigma$ could be set as common discrete $\sigma$-field and probability measure $P$ is uniformly distributed on $\Omega$. In other words, every image sample has an equal chance to be chosen as the input of network model. Afterwards, ${\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k)$ is defined as a random variable on $\Omega$ (where the argument is $i$, and ${\bm{U}}$ and $k$ are parameters),
\begin{equation}
{\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k)(\cdot): \Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}
\end{equation}
with the probability distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:BD Distribution}
P_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}(x) = P({\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k) = x) = \frac{b_{x}}{\#(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
b_{x} = \sum_{j=1}^{\#(\Omega)}{\bm{1}_\mathrm{{\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k) = x}}
\end{equation}
Here the composite mapping ${\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, {\bm{U}}, k)(\cdot)$ from $\Omega$ to $\mathbb{Z}$ is composed of all the operation mentioned above, including construct weighted graphs, building complex filtration, calculating Betti curve and extracting birth time.
The degree of concentration of $P_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}(x)$ gives a direct view about the performance of unit ${\bm{U}}$ on class $\mathcal{C}$, as illustrated in Fig.\ref{fig: example}. More specifically, if the distribution presents close to a degenerate-like style, it means that the underlying common features of the class $\mathcal{C}$ could be \emph{stably} perceived by the unit ${\bm{U}}$. On the contrary, the distribution presents close to a uniform-like style when features are perceived almost blindly, indicating that unit ${\bm{U}}$ is invalid for $\mathcal{C}$. In summary, the degree of concentration of $P_{C,{\bm{U}},k}(x)$ is supposed to be an effective indicator of the performance of unit ${\bm{U}}$.
\paragraph{Feature entropy} To further quantize the degree of concentration of birth distribution $P_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}(x)$, we introduce its entropy $H_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}$ and call it feature entropy,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn: entropy}
H_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k} = -\sum_{x}P_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}(x)\log P_{\mathcal{C},{\bm{U}},k}(x)
\end{equation}
It should be noted that the birth time in Eq.\ref{eqn:birth time} may not exist for some input images in class $\mathcal{C}$ and unit ${\bm{U}}$. For unit ${\bm{U}}$, the percentage of images in class $\mathcal{C}$ having birth times, termed as selective rate $\epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}}$, is also a crucial factor to the effectiveness of ${\bm{U}}$ on $\mathcal{C}$. If the $\epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}}$ is too low, it indicates that the unit could not perceive most of the image samples in this class. In this situation, extremely low $\epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}}$ would cause the feature entropy approach to zero, but the unit should be judged as completely invalid. Therefore, we rule out this extreme case by setting a threshold $p$ and for completeness, and assign the feature entropy associated with the maximum of feature entropy $\Omega$ for the set of samples,
\begin{align}\label{eqn: effectiveness assessment}
H_{\mathcal{C},U,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
H_{\mathcal{C},U,k} & \epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}} \geq p \\
(1 - \epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}}) \cdot \log \vert \Omega \vert & \epsilon_{\mathcal{C}, {\bm{U}}} < p
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\noindent Here, $p$ is prescribed as 0.1 in our computation.
\section{Experiments}
For experiments, we use the VGG16 network architecture to perform the image classification task on the ImageNet dataset. Unless otherwise stated, the exampled VGG16 model is trained from scratch with the hyperparameters deployed in \cite{simonyan2014very}. For clarity, we only calculate birth times ${\textnormal{b}}_\mathcal{C}(i, U, 1)$ based on 1th betti curve for all the units. Also, it should be noted that our method focuses on the behaviors of feature extraction operations and has not utilized any kind of particular nature of VGG network architecture, and all our investigation could be applicable to other network architectures effortlessly.
\subsection{Calculation Flow}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{calculation_flow.pdf}}
\caption{Calculation flow of feature entropy.}
\label{fig: calculation flow}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.15in
\end{figure}
As an example, the class partridge (wnid n01807496) in ImageNet is chosen for illustration. Here, we sample 100 images from its training set as the image set for building the birth distribution. Fig.\ref{fig: calculation flow} shows the calculation flow. It starts from extracting all the units for each image sample. By characterizing the unit with graph model, each unit corresponds to a specific filtration. Then, using formular \ref{eqn:birth time}, we can obtain the birth time of each unit. In this way, the distribution of birth time could be set up via Eq.\ref{eqn:BD Distribution} over the sampled images. Fig.\ref{fig: calculation flow} shows the histogram of the birth time distribution for a specific unit in the the last convolution layer "block5\textunderscore conv3". Likewise, the feature entropy can be calculated via Eq.\ref{eqn: entropy} for all other units.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{training_analysis.pdf}}
\caption{(A) Comparisons of feature entropy (1) and selective rate (2) of different layers between the convergence model and random-initialized model, where (3) shows the results over 100 classes. (B) Simultaneous evolution of training loss and feature entropy during training for the chosen class (1-2) and for the 100 classes (3-4).}
\label{fig: training analysis}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Layer and Training Analysis}
\paragraph{Layer analysis} Here, we check the status of units in each convolutional layer, where we average the feature entropy across all the units within the layer to indicate the overall status of units in this layer. Using the same image set in the previous section, Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}A(1-2) give comparisons of results between the convergence model and the random-initialized model.
In Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}A(1), we could clearly see that for the convergence model, the feature entropy continually decrease as the layers go deeper. This is as expected because as the layer goes deeper, units are considered to perceive more advanced features than previous layers, so the spatial pattern in these features would be more significant. As for the random-initialized model, since units are incapable to perceive the common features, we could not observe a clear decrease of feature entropy, and meanwhile the feature entropy in every layer is higher than that in the convergence model. In Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}A(2), we could also find that each layer in the convergence model would present a higher selective rate than the corresponding layer in the random-initialized model, except for the last convolutional layer "block5\textunderscore conv3". Also, the selective rate of the last convolutional layer is much more lower than other layers. The low feature entropy and fairly high selective rate indicate that comparing to units in other layers, units at the last convolutional layer in the convergence model would present strong specialization and exhibit the most effective representations of features to this class.
Then, we randomly choose 100 classes in ImageNet and average the feature entropy across all these classes on the convergence model. Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}A(3) shows the results. We could see that the results are very similar to Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}A(1-2), which confirms the fact further.
\paragraph{Training analysis} Then, we investigate the variation of feature entropy of the last convolutional layer during training. Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}B(1-2) show the results on the same example class used previously, and Fig.\ref{fig: training analysis}B(3-4) show the results across 100 classes chosen previously. In both situations, we could find that the feature entropy would decrease during training, indicating that units are gradually learned to be able to perceive the common features in the class. And remarkably, the decreasing pattern of feature entropy and that of training cross-entropy loss coincide approximately. Both of them experience a comparable big drop in the first epoch and gradually down to the convergence level. This means that feature entropy is a valid indicator of network performance.
\subsection{Indicator of status of network unit}
\label{sec: indicator}
To investigate the ability of feature entropy as indicator of unit status, we make comparisons with some commonly-used analogous network indicators including L1-norm \citep{li2016pruning}, APoZ \citep{he2017channel}, and a more generalized form of class selectivity used in \cite{zhou2018revisiting}. Here, the unit and the image set in the previous subsection are still used in the following demonstration.
\paragraph{Rescaling investigation} The comparison is implemented by rescaling the magnitude of values to half for all the input images or all the CNN filters connecting to the layer. Both the two implementations could potentially cause the values in units within the layer vary with the same scale, but in general have no substantial impact on the network performance and the function of each unit. In other words, units should be indicated as almost the same with or without such implementation.
\begin{table}[ht]
\vskip -0.1in
\caption{Comparisons of unit status by rescaling the values in images or CNN filters}
\label{table: comparison}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
Images & CNN filters & Accuracy & L1-norm & APoZ & Class selectivity &
\textbf{Feature entropy} \\
\midrule
\ding{53} & \ding{53} & 0.83 & 29.5 & 17.14\% & 0.58 & 1.87 \\
Half scale & \ding{53} & 0.81 & \textcolor{red}{14.7} & 17.15\% & \textcolor{red}{0.31} & 1.90 \\
\ding{53} & Half scale & 0.83 & \textcolor{red}{14.6} & 17.14\% & \textcolor{red}{0.30}& 1.87 \\
Half scale & Half scale & 0.79 & \textcolor{red}{7.2} & 17.16\% & \textcolor{red}{0.03} & 1.92 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table: comparison} shows the results where \ding{53} denotes no rescaling operation for the item. As half scaling the magnitude in input images or units, the performance of the model fluctuates slightly. We could find that APoZ and feature entropy vary in the similar way with the performance, but L1-norm and class selectivity vary terribly. Apparently, despite little effect for the network, rescaling operations would have a major impact on these magnitude-based indicators, like L1-norm and class selectivity. These indicators fail to give accurate and stable measure of unit status especially when facing images or units with different value scales.
\paragraph{Detecting randomness in units} Next, we compare the status of this unit with random units (units yielded by random-initialized models). Table \ref{table: comparison with random} presents the results. The random units are sampled 100 times and the presented results are averaged over the 100 samples where the value in the brackets denotes the standard deviation. Since random units are clearly incapable to perceive features well like those trained units, they are expected to be indicated as ineffective units. We could see that when using L1-norm and APoZ indicators, they are impossible to give a stable indication as the standard deviation is extremely large. In some samples, the random units are judged as much "better" than the trained units, which is obviously incorrect. Accordingly, it could be also misleading using APoZ as the indicator of unit status. In contrast, the feature entropy would consistently be very high when random pattern exists in the unit, providing a well discrimination between trained units and random ones.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparisons of unit status with respect to well-trained units and random units}
\label{table: comparison with random}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
& L1-norm & APoZ & Class selectivity & \textbf{Feature entropy} \\
\midrule
Well-trained unit & 29.5 & 17.14\% & 0.58 & 1.87 \\
Random initialized units & \textcolor{red}{32.2(30.9)} &
\textcolor{red}{41\%(40\%)} & 0.01(0.003) & 2.87(0.21), 0.83(0.22) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Using feature entropy to indicate networks with different generalization}
\label{sec : generalization}
In general, due to the large hypothesis space, CNNs could converge to a variety of minima on the dataset. Since feature entropy could reliably indicate the status of network units, it is natural to use it to discriminate which minima could provide more effective feature representations.
\paragraph{Models}
In this subsection, we prepare two sets of VGG16 models. Model set A consists of four models trained from scratch with different hyperparameters on ImageNet dataset, and Model set B consists of five models trained from scratch to almost zero training error with the same hyperparameters but on ImageNet dataset with different fractions of randomly corrupted labels as introduced in \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/ZhangBHRV17}. Table 3 and 4 separately show the performance of models in the two model sets. In model set B, we use Model AD in Model set A as the first model Model BA with no corruption rate. Besides, it should be noted that all the calculation in this section is based on the image sampled from the training dataset.
\begin{table}[h]
\vskip -0.1in
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\columnwidth}
\caption{Model set A}
\vskip 0.02in
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
& Train Acc & Test Acc \\
\midrule
Model AA & 0.732 & 0.657 \\
Model AB & 0.818 & 0.532 \\
Model AC & 0.828 & 0.444 \\
Model AD & 0.996 & 0.378 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.54\columnwidth}
\caption{Model set B}
\vskip 0.02in
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
& Train Acc & Test Acc & Corrupted \\
\midrule
Model BA & 0.996 & 0.378 & 0.0 \\
Model BB & 0.992 & 0.297 & 0.2 \\
Model BC & 0.994 & 0.166 & 0.4 \\
Model BD & 0.992 & 0.074 & 0.6 \\
Model BE & 0.993 & 0.010 & 0.8 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Model set A} Using the same image set in previous section, we start by investigating the feature entropy of units at different layers in the four models. Here, we still use the averaged feature entropy across all the units within a layer to indicate the overall level of how well the units in this layer could perceive the features. Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}A(1-2) shows the results of this class. We could see in the figure that there would not be significant difference of feature entropy between these models in layers except for the last convolutional layer. And in the last convolutional layer, for models with better generalization, their feature entropy would be lower than those with poor generalization, indicating that they would provide more effective feature representations. Besides, as for the selective rate, the four models are quite close.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{generalization.pdf}}
\caption{Comparisons between models in separately model set A (A) and model set B (B). Compare the feature entropy (1) and selective rate (2) of units at different layers between models in the corresponding model set on the exampled class. (3) shows the scatter plot between feature entropy and selective rate of units at the last convolutional layer on the 100 sampled classes. }
\label{fig: gen comparison}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure*}
Then, we randomly choose 100 classes in the ImageNet dataset and calculate the feature entropy of the units in the last convolutional layer. Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}A(3) presents the scatter plot for the four models, where each point stands for the feature entropy and selective rate of a specific class. For each model, its points locate at an area separately from other models, giving a discrimination between models. Also similarly, models with better generalization have points with lower feature entropy.
\paragraph{Model set B} For model set B, we use the same implementation as applied previously in the model set A, where the results are shown in Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}B. Comparing to the Model set A, since using the partially corrupted labels, units in the Model Set B are unable to perceive the common features between samples in the same class, which causes that the selective rate of most units are extremely low as shown in Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}B(2). Due to such low selective rate, we could also find in Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}B(1) that feature entropy of the units in the last convolutional layer may abruptly reach to a very high point. The more fraction the labels are corrupted, the higher feature entropy the units are and in the meantime the lower the selective rate the units are. This could be observed as well in Fig.\ref{fig: gen comparison}B(3) where the 100 classes are used for calculation.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a novel method that could give quantitative identification of individual unit status, called feature entropy, for a specific class using algebraic topological tools. We show that feature entropy is a reliable indicator of unit status that could well cope with various cases such as rescaling values or existence of randomness. Also we show that feature entropy behaves in the similar way as loss during the training stage and presents a descending trend as convolutional layers go deeper. Using feature entropy, we show that CNNs with different generalization could be discriminated by the effectiveness of feature representations of the units in the last convolutional layer. We suppose this would be helpful for further understanding the mechanism of convolutional neural networks.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Brain-Inspired Research Team at Tsinghua University for the discussions. We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding the epoch of reionization, when the first stars and galaxies in the Universe ionized the hydrogen and helium in the intergalactic medium, is a key priority in observational cosmology today by virtue of its inherent connection between large-scale cosmological structure and early Universe astrophysics. The observable poised to provide the most detailed constraints on reionization is the power spectrum of the 21 cm hyper-fine structure line of neutral hydrogen (e.g. \citealt{Madau97,Furlanetto06,MW10}), which radio interferometers such as the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA; \citealt{DeBoer17}), the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA; \citealt{Tingay13}), and the LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR; \citealt{vanHaarlem13}) are aiming to detect in the near future. Indeed, substantial progress has recently been made towards mitigating systematic uncertainties in the analysis, leading to progressively lower upper limits on the 21 cm power spectrum (e.g. \citealt{Trott20,Mertens20}). Interpretation of such measurements, however, requires a detailed theoretical understanding of the patchy reionization process \citep{Furlanetto04}.
Modeling the evolving topology of reionization is an extremely challenging problem due to the large dynamic range required to probe all of the relevant physical scales. Features in the ionization field are evident up to scales of $\sim100$ Mpc, while the dominant sources of ionizing photons are likely to be hosted by dark matter halos with virial radii $r_{\rm vir}\la1$ kpc. While enormous progress has been made in high-resolution large-volume cosmological simulations of reionization (e.g. \citealt{Iliev14,Gnedin14,Dixon16,Ocvirk16,Ocvirk20,Doussot19,Trebitsch20,Garaldi21}), such undertakings are computationally expensive, and thus do not allow much freedom to explore variations in model parameters. So-called ``semi-numerical'' simulations (e.g. \citealt{MF07,Thomas09,Choudhury09,Santos10,Zahn11,Mesinger11,Majumdar14,Hutter18}), bypass the need for (hydro-)dynamical or radiative transfer calculations, instead relying on linear theory (often augmented by the Zel'dovich approximation; \citealt{Zel'dovich70}) and the excursion set formalism to construct reasonably accurate ionization fields with minimal computational expense. Such ``cheap'' simulations will allow for statistical parameter inference from future measurements of the reionization-epoch 21 cm power spectrum (e.g. \citealt{GM15,GM17,GM18,Greig20}).
One of the model parameters in the original \texttt{21cmFAST} code \citep{Mesinger11} and some other semi-numerical reionization codes (e.g. \citealt{Zahn11,AA12,Majumdar14}) is $R_{\rm max}$, an imposed upper limit to the excursion set filtering scale meant to characterize the attenuation of photons inside of reionized regions\footnote{Alternative prescriptions have also been employed which take into account integrated (e.g. \citealt{Choudhury09,Hutter18}) or instantaneous (e.g. \citealt{Hassan16}) recombination rates, or which employ an absorption-regulated ionizing background to clear out neutral islands at the end of reionization \citep{Xu17,Wu21Island}.} due to residual neutral hydrogen \citep{FO05}. But this only crudely describes absorption within ionized gas: while the attenuation along a given line of sight may be well-approximated by a step function at the location of an optically thick absorption system in the ionized gas, the attenuation when averaged over all lines of sight from a source will instead be exponential with distance, i.e. $\propto e^{-r/\lambda}$ where $\lambda$ is the mean free path (MFP) of ionizing photons. Thus the $R_{\rm max}$ prescription both underestimates the effect of absorption on scales smaller than $\lambda$, and over-suppresses the photons' ability to travel further than $\lambda$. In recent works using the Markov chain Monte Carlo reionization parameter inference code \texttt{21CMMC} \citep{GM15} (e.g. \citealt{Park19}), the constant $R_{\rm max}$ parameter has been eschewed entirely in favor of the inhomogeneous recombination prescription from \citet{SM14}. However, the underlying method by which the absorption is implemented is effectively a spatially variable $R_{\rm max}$. In addition, while the prescription from \citet{SM14} takes into account additional physics from the history and spatial variations in the recombination rate, it relies on a particular sub-grid model for density fluctuations \citep{MHR00} -- indeed, the physics of the mean free path may be far more complicated due to the relaxation of clumpy gas following photoheating by ionization fronts \citep{Park16,D'Aloisio20}. Inhomogeneous recombinations also do not explicitly account for the \emph{distance} between sources of ionizing photons and the regions being ionized. The mean free path offers the advantage of physical transparency over these more detailed approaches, matches more smoothly onto descriptions of the ionizing background after reionization, and it can be more easily included in the parameter inference process. The development of a robust and accurate mean free path scheme in semi-numerical simulations is therefore of crucial importance for interpreting the science from future observations.
In this work, we present two new methods for implementing the mean free path of ionizing photons in semi-numerical simulations of reionization topology. Our new methods are motivated by a direct correspondence between how the excursion set method is employed by \texttt{21cmFAST} -- i.e., via central pixel flagging -- and an accounting of the number of ionizing photons that reach any given point from surrounding sources. The first method is a straightforward adjustment of the ionization criterion that can be applied to any semi-numerical model, while the second method uses a modified excursion set filter shape which is only suitable for semi-numerical models with discrete sources. To facilitate use of the latter method in halo-free simulations, we also introduce an ionization field prescription (``FFRT-P'') that treats ionizing sources as discrete without explicitly forming or accounting for individual dark matter halos.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:count}, we describe how excursion set methods are connected to simple photon counting. In Section~\ref{sec:mfp} we use this counting analogy to derive our smooth mean free path implementations and show how they affect the resulting structure of the ionization field. In Section~\ref{sec:obs} we show the implications for future observations of the 21 cm power spectrum. We then conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conc}.
In this work we assume cosmological parameters from \emph{Planck} with $(h,\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda,\Omega_b,\sigma_8,n_s) = (0.6736, 0.3153, 0.6847, 0.0493, 0.8111, 0.9649)$ \citep{Planck18}. Distance units are comoving unless specified otherwise.
\section{Photon Counting in Semi-Numerical Simulations} \label{sec:count}
Semi-numerical simulations of reionization were inspired by a simple ``photon-counting" argument originally presented by \citet{Furlanetto04}. If we assume that all of the ionizing photons generated in a region are absorbed within that region, then the condition for the region to be ionized is simply $\zeta f_{\rm coll}\geq1$, where $\zeta$ is the number of ionizing photons emitted\footnote{Note that we neglect the contribution of recombinations in our definition of $\zeta$ to avoid double-counting them when accounting for absorption.} per collapsed mass (also known as the ionizing efficiency) and $f_{\rm coll}$ is the fraction of mass in collapsed objects above some minimum halo mass $M_{\rm min}$. The excursion set formalism can then be used to find the maximum scale for which the criterion is satisfied, which the analytic model then identifies as an ionized region. The condition on the collapsed fraction is often referred to as ``photon counting" because it depends on the cumulative production of photons over cosmic history. Unfortunately, that approach makes it difficult to incorporate photons that are absorbed by neutral gas into the criterion (aside from in an average sense).
In the excursion set formalism, when a region reaches the critical threshold for collapse, the entirety of the mass (i.e., the region in Lagrangian space) is then contained in the collapsed structure \citep{Bond91}. \citet{MF07} implemented this concept in a semi-numerical reionization code by ionizing entire spherical regions corresponding to the first filter size (starting from the size of the simulation box and going to smaller scales) at which they crossed the ionization threshold. However, naive methods of painting these spherical regions onto three dimensional grids become quite slow when the total ionized volume is large, i.e. after the midpoint of reionization. To compute ionization fields more efficiently, \citet{Zahn11} instead chose to only ionize individual pixels of the filtered density (or halo mass) field which crossed the ionization threshold, the so-called ``central pixel flagging'' method (see also \citealt{Mesinger11}). Such methods compare favorably to full radiative transfer simulations (e.g. \citealt{Majumdar14}). As we show below, the central pixel flagging implementation is essentially identical to asking whether the \emph{time-integrated ionizing photon flux} reaching the central pixel is enough to ionize the gas -- a subtle but conceptually important shift from the standard photon-counting argument.
The fundamental idea of semi-numerical simulations is to count the number of ionizing photons produced in some volume, and if the number of ionizing photons exceeds the number of hydrogen atoms in the same volume, the region is then ionized. In the simplest case, we first consider the photons that reach a cell of volume $\Delta V = \Delta r^3$ from a neighboring region a comoving distance $r$ away. Neglecting absorption, the ionizing flux reaching the cell is
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{\dot{N}_{\rm ion}}{4\pi r_p^2},
\end{equation}
where $r_p=r/(1+z)$ is the proper distance, $\dot{N}_{\rm ion}=\epsilon\Delta V$ is the rate at which ionizing photons are produced in the neighboring region, and $\epsilon$ is the emissivity of ionizing photons. The number of photons entering the cell from the neighboring region per unit time $\dot{N}_1$ is then the flux multiplied by the surface area of the cell $\Delta r_p^2$,
\begin{equation}
\dot{N}_1 = \frac{\epsilon\Delta V}{4\pi}\,\frac{\Delta r_p^2}{r_p^2} = \frac{\epsilon\Delta V}{4\pi}\,\frac{\Delta r^2}{r^2}.
\label{eqn:n1}
\end{equation}
Now we sum the emissivity from all regions at a constant comoving distance $r$ from the cell of interest, located in a shell of radius $r$ and thickness $\Delta r$. The shell's comoving volume is $4 \pi r^2 \Delta r$, so in equation~(\ref{eqn:n1}) the total number of incident photons per unit time emitted from these sources is
\begin{equation}
\dot{N}_{\rm sh} = \epsilon \Delta r^3.
\end{equation}
If we now integrate this ionizing photon emission over the entire history of the Universe, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:shell}
N_{\rm sh} = \zeta f_{\rm coll} n_b^{\rm sh} \Delta r^3,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta$ is the number of ionizing photons produced per baryon in dark matter halos, $n_b^{\rm sh}$ is the baryon density inside the shell, and $f_{\rm coll}$ is the fraction of baryons inside dark matter halos within the shell.\footnote{Note that, for simplicity, we have assumed here that the ionizing efficiency is time-independent.} The total number of baryons within the cell under consideration is $n_b^0\Delta r^3$, so the cell will be ionized if
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:shell2}
\zeta f_{\rm coll} > \frac{n_b^0}{n_b^{\rm sh}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the steps leading to equation~(\ref{eqn:shell}) show that the contribution to the ionizing photon budget from each radial shell is constant. We can therefore make the simple ansatz that, on average, spherical symmetry is a good approximation. Then we can replace the contribution from each shell with the average contribution over an entire spherical region. If we generalize our cell to be that entire region, so $n_b^0=n_b^{\rm sh}$, we then recover the standard ionization criterion \citep{Furlanetto04},
\begin{equation}
\zeta f_{\rm coll} > 1.
\end{equation}
This is identical to the standard photon-counting argument.
In summary, the standard central-pixel-flagging semi-numerical method for approximating reionization topology is more or less identical to simply integrating the \emph{ionizing flux} from surrounding sources. In the next section, we show how this analogy allows us to implement the mean free path of ionizing photons in a novel way.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{mfp_crit.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Scale-dependent ionization thresholds (equation~\ref{eqn:newcrit}) for $\lambda=$ 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 Mpc from top to bottom (solid curves) compared to the standard static threshold (dotted line). The required $\zeta f_{\rm coll}$ increases roughly linearly with $R$ when $R>\lambda$.}
\label{fig:mfpcrit}
\end{figure}
\section{New Semi-Numerical Implementations of the Mean Free Path} \label{sec:mfp}
In the previous section, we neglected the absorption of ionizing photons by residual neutral hydrogen in the ionized medium as those photons travel through the ionized gas to the central cell. This absorption attenuates the ionizing flux by a factor of $e^{-r/\lambda}$ on average, where $\lambda$ is the mean free path of ionizing photons. Equation~(\ref{eqn:shell}) then becomes
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm sh} = \zeta f_{\rm coll} n_b^{\rm sh} \Delta r^3 e^{-r/\lambda}.
\end{equation}
Unlike the original derivation, this criterion does depend on the shell's distance from the central cell. Nevertheless, assuming that the counting argument described in the previous section holds, we can estimate the effect of attenuation by comparing the integrated number of ionizing photons from spherical shells of width $dr$ that reaches the central cell with and without attenuation. If $N_{\rm tot}$ is the total number of ionizing photons reaching the central cell out to a distance $R$ in the absence of absorption, while $N_{\rm tot}^\lambda$ is the total number with absorption, this comparison yields
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:atten}
\frac{N_{\rm tot}}{N_{\rm tot}^{\lambda}} = \frac{\int_0^R \zeta f_{\rm coll} n_b^{\rm sh} \Delta r^2 dr}{\int_0^R \zeta f_{\rm coll} n_b^{\rm sh} \Delta r^2 e^{-r/\lambda} dr} = \frac{R}{\lambda \left[1-e^{-R/\lambda}\right]}.
\end{equation}
This ratio shows the number of ``excess" ionizing photons required in a spherical region to account for uniform absorption within that region.
We note that while the derivation of equation~(\ref{eqn:atten}) relies on rough approximations derived in the previous section, we have confirmed that the expression is accurate in simple 3D numerical experiments of uniform emissivity spheres with uniform opacity.
From the previous expression we can then define a scale-dependent ionization criterion that accounts for the absorption of ionizing photons inside the ionized bubble,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:newcrit}
\zeta f_{\rm coll} > \frac{R}{\lambda \left[1-e^{-R/\lambda}\right]} \qquad \qquad \mbox{(MFP-}\bar{\epsilon} \ \mbox{method})
\end{equation}
This equation provides a revised ionization threshold for semi-numerical schemes, with the key assumptions of uniform absorption, uniform emissivity, and a constant $\lambda$. In particular, the derivation assumes that sources of ionizing photons are uniformly distributed inside of the radius $R$, i.e. that the ionizing emissivity $\epsilon$ (or equivalently, the halo mass density) averaged on spherical shells is independent of radius. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mfpcrit}, when $R\ll\lambda$ we recover the standard criterion, while for $R>\lambda$ the cell becomes more and more difficult to ionize, as expected. In the following, we will refer to this implementation of the MFP as the ``MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$'' method.
In practice, however, the radial distribution of sources around a given cell will be non-uniform, and this inhomogeneity will affect how many ionizing photons are absorbed along the way. For example, if there is only one source of ionizing photons, the degree of attenuation will depend on its distance from the center. In this more general case, the integral in the denominator of equation~(\ref{eqn:atten}) does not have a simple analytic solution, and must be instead explicitly computed at every location.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{mfp_filter.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Exponential spherical top-hat filters in real space ($W(r;R,\lambda)$, top panel) and in $k$-space ($\hat{W}(k;R,\lambda)$, bottom panel) for $\lambda$\,=\,10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 Mpc from top to bottom (solid curves) compared to the standard spherical top-hat filter (dotted line), assuming a filter scale $R=20$\,Mpc.}
\label{fig:mfpfilter}
\end{figure}
Fortunately, if we think of the semi-numeric procedure to calculate the ionization field, we can see how to approach this problem in a straightforward manner. At each step in the standard semi-numerical process, the density field is filtered over a spherical region subtending a scale $R$ and then converted into a number of emitted ionizing photons via $f_{\rm coll}$ and $\zeta$. The integral for the general ionizing source distribution is equivalent to a convolution of the ionizing emissivity field with a spherical top-hat filter multiplied by the factor $e^{-r/\lambda}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
W(r; R,\lambda) = \begin{cases}
\frac{3}{4\pi R^3} e^{-r/\lambda} &\text{if } r < R\\
0 &\text{if } r \geq R,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for filter scale $R$, so the integration can be efficiently computed in Fourier space. The Fourier transform of this ``exponential spherical top-hat filter'' has an analytic solution,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:mfpfilt}
\begin{split}
\hat{W}(k;R,\lambda) &= \frac{-3\lambda}{kR^3 (k^2\lambda^2+1)^2}\\
&\times \Big(e^{-R/\lambda}\big[(k^2\lambda^2R+2\lambda+R)k\lambda\cos{(kR)} \\
&+(-k^2\lambda^3+k^2\lambda^2R+\lambda+R)\sin{(kR)}\big]-2k\lambda^2\Big),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is convenient (although not explicitly required) for semi-numerical calculations. In Figure~\ref{fig:mfpfilter}, the solid curves show examples of this filter at a fixed filter scale $R=20$ Mpc with varying $\lambda$ in real space (top panel) and in $k$-space (bottom panel) compared to the standard spherical top-hat, shown by the dotted curve.
We can thus build the ionization field while explicitly incorporating the emissivity fluctuations by replacing the standard spherical top-hat filter by this modified version at each filter scale, in effect solving the following barrier,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mfp-ebar}
\int_0^\infty \langle \zeta f_{\rm coll} \Delta \rangle_r W(r; R,\lambda)4\pi r^2dr > \langle \Delta(<R) \rangle,\ \mbox{(MFP-}\epsilon(r)\ \mbox{method})
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\equiv\rho/\bar{\rho}$ is the matter overdensity, $\langle \zeta f_{\rm coll} \Delta \rangle_r$ represents the average product of the three quantities in all cells within a spherical shell at radius $r$, and $\langle \Delta(<R) \rangle$ is the mean overdensity of the entire spherical volume within the filter of radius $R$. In the following we will refer to this implementation as the ``MFP-$\epsilon(r)$'' method.
While this second method should in general capture the effect of ionizing photon absorption better than the first, it requires knowledge of the \emph{spatial distribution} of sources inside the filter. The distribution of sources is not captured by the most efficient semi-numerical reionization method ``FFRT'' \citep{Zahn05,Zahn07,Zahn11}, popularized by the public code \texttt{21cmFAST} \citep{Mesinger11}, which computes $f_{\rm coll}$ directly from the filtered density field following a conditional Press-Schechter prescription \citep{LC93}. The MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method should instead only be applied to methods that can produce the $f_{\rm coll}$ field derived from discrete halos (e.g. \texttt{DexM}, \citealt{MF07}, see also \citealt{Choudhury09,Santos10,Majumdar14,Hutter18}). However, these halo-based methods tend to have limited dynamic range due to the requirement that the initial conditions resolve the minimum halo mass (although arbitrarily low mass halos can in principle be ``painted on'' as in \citealt{McQuinn07}). To partially overcome this limitation we have developed a method -- which we dub ``FFRT-P'' -- to bridge the gap between the techniques of \texttt{21cmFAST} and \texttt{DexM}. The FFRT-P approach computes $f_{\rm coll}$ in the same way as \texttt{21cmFAST}, but only once, at the \emph{pixel scale} of the evolved density field in the semi-numerical simulation. The resulting collapsed mass field is then filtered as in, e.g., \texttt{DexM}. The detailed implementation of FFRT-P, a direct comparison to FFRT and \texttt{DexM}, and some of its limitations are described in the Appendix.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{11.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{ffrt_diff_slices.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Comparison between slices of a semi-numerical reionization simulation using the standard FFRT method with a maximum filter scale $R_{\rm max}=20$ Mpc (top row) and our modified ionization criterion (MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$) with $\lambda=20$ Mpc (second row), where black regions are neutral and white regions are ionized. The third row highlights the difference between the two slices: white and black regions are the same for both, while blue and red areas highlight regions which are only ionized in the standard FFRT and MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ methods, respectively. From left to right the panels show models with volume-averaged neutral fractions of $\langle x_{\rm HI}\rangle=0.8$, 0.5, and 0.2, at $z=7.5$, 7.0, and 6.5, respectively. The slices shown are 0.5 Mpc thick and 256 Mpc on a side.}
\label{fig:ffrt_slices}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{8.0cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{dxdr_ffrt.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Change in neutral fraction due to each filter scale in 21cmFAST using the standard FFRT+$R_{\rm max}$ approach (blue) and our new FFRT+MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method (green). The size of $R_{\rm max}$ and $\lambda$ is shown by the vertical dash-dotted line.}
\label{fig:dxdr}
\end{figure}
\subsection{21cmFAST implementation}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{11.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{dexm_diff_slices.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices} but now comparing the halo-based approaches with a maximum filter scale $R_{\rm max}=20$ Mpc (top row) and the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method with $\lambda=20$ Mpc (second row). The third row shows the difference between the two, similar to the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices}. The bottom row shows our new FFRT-P method with MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ filtering ($\lambda=20$ Mpc). The slices shown are 0.5 Mpc thick and 256 Mpc on a side.}
\label{fig:dexm_slices}
\end{figure*}
We have implemented both of the mean free path methods described above by modifying the semi-numerical reionization code \texttt{21cmFAST} \citep{Mesinger11}. Here we present comparison tests from a simulation 256 Mpc on a side with $4096^3$ initial conditions and $512^3$ evolved fields (i.e. density, ionization, and 21 cm brightness temperature). We assume a minimum halo mass of $M_{\rm min}=10^9 M_\odot$ and tune the ionizing efficiency of each method to achieve volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fractions of $\langle x_{\rm HI}\rangle =$ 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 at $z=$ 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5, respectively, following a reionization history consistent with the latest constraints from the CMB optical depth \citep{Planck18} and other recent astrophysical constraints (e.g. \citealt{Greig17b,Mason18,Davies18b}). As in \citet{DF16}, we smooth the evolved density field by oversampling the initial conditions and interpolating the displacement field when computing the Zel'dovich approximation. This smoothing procedure substantially reduces the impact of shot noise close to the pixel scale of the evolved density field, as will be evident in the power spectra presented below, but it does not otherwise change any of our primary results. For each redshift we also constructed distributions of discrete dark matter halos down to $M_{\rm min}$ from the initial conditions using the excursion set halo finder originally developed for the \texttt{DexM} code \citep{MF07}, and updated their positions using the Zel'dovich approximation displacements (see \citealt{MF07} for details). In the following we will refer to the ionization field method utilizing these halos as ``DexM,'' and we will refer to the default \texttt{21cmFAST} ionization field method, derived directly from the density field, as ``FFRT.''
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{sizes_redshift.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Ionized bubble sizes for $\langle x_{\rm HI}\rangle=0.8$, 0.5, and 0.2 at $z=7.5$, 7.0, and 6.5, respectively, from left to right, assuming a mean free path of 20 Mpc (shown by the vertical line). Dotted curves show models which use $R_{\rm max}$ to approximate the effect of the mean free path, while dashed and solid curves use the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ and MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ methods, respectively, introduced in this work. The top panels show the ``halo-free'' methods FFRT (black) and FFRT-P (blue), while the lower panels show methods with \texttt{DexM} halos (orange). The smooth mean free path methods tend to shift the distributions to smaller sizes.}
\label{fig:sizes_redshift}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{pxx_redshift.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:sizes_redshift} but now showing the ionization field power spectra. The vertical line corresponds to the mean free path scale, $k=2\pi/\lambda$ where $\lambda=20$ Mpc. The new smooth mean free path methods tend to shift power from large to small scales at fixed $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle$.}
\label{fig:pxx_redshift}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices} we show slices from the ionization fields employing the standard FFRT approach with $R_{\rm max}=20$ Mpc (top panels), FFRT with MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ (equation~\ref{eqn:newcrit}) and $\lambda=20$ Mpc (middle panels), and the difference between the two (bottom panels). This mean free path is somewhat smaller than the extrapolation from observations of stacked quasar spectra\footnote{We note that the mean free path along quasar sightlines at $z\sim5$ could be biased high due to the proximity effect \citep{D'Aloisio18,Davies20ghost}, but this has not yet been detected by observations (see \citealt{Becker21}).} at $z\lesssim5$ by \citet{Worseck14}, somewhat larger than the recent mean free path measurement at $z\sim6$ by \citet{Becker21}, but consistent with the range of possible values for $z\sim7$ from the high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of \citet{D'Aloisio20} (see also \citealt{Cain21}). At high neutral fraction when the ionized bubbles are still small compared to $R_{\rm max}$ or $\lambda$, the ionization fields are nearly identical, as expected. However, at lower neutral fractions, differences begin to arise, namely it is apparent that the sizes of large ionized regions are suppressed when the ionization threshold of the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method is employed. This may be a surprise given that the $R_{\rm max}$ prescription more harshly decreases the impact of distant photons, but the smooth attenuation of photons at scales smaller than $\lambda$ appears to have a stronger effect on the resulting ionization field. The increased size of smaller ionized regions when applying the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method, shown by the red regions in the bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices}, is then simply a consequence of the increased $\zeta$ required to keep the global neutral fraction constant.
Recall that the application of the excursion set formalism in \texttt{21cmFAST} involves convolutions of the density field with a series of filters, defining discrete spatial scales at which the ionization barrier is tested. In Figure~\ref{fig:dxdr}, we show the sequential change in the volume-averaged neutral fraction -- i.e., the number of ionizations -- due to each excursion set filtering scale for the FFRT+$R_{\rm max}$ and FFRT+MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ approaches. Note that the excursion set method works from large to small scales, and hence the horizontal axis has been flipped such that the progression is from left to right. The hard cutoff scale of the standard method leads to a sharp excess in ionization at $R_{\rm max}$, whereas in our new method the effect is much smoother, as expected. The end result is that a wider range of scales provide substantial contributions to the ionization field.
Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices}, in Figure~\ref{fig:dexm_slices} we compare ionization fields from the halo-based \texttt{DexM}-like simulations, this time showing the difference between the $R_{\rm max}$ prescription (top row) and the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method (second row). The effect of the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method on the ionization field is qualitatively similar to MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$, i.e. the largest ionized regions shrink. The difference slices shown in the third row of Figure~\ref{fig:dexm_slices} demonstrate that the net impact is much stronger than the corresponding panels in Figure~\ref{fig:ffrt_slices}; this is mostly due to the more strongly clustered nature of the halo-based ionizing sources in \texttt{DexM} vs. FFRT. The additional small-scale clustering enhances the effect of both of our new smooth MFP prescriptions, although MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ suppresses large ionized regions somewhat more effectively than MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$. In the bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:dexm_slices} we show the corresponding slices using the MFP-$\epsilon$ method applied to our FFRT-P approach, demonstrating that it appears nearly identical to the more computationally involved halo-based approach.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={0.7em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{D21_redshift_2.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Similar to Figures~\ref{fig:sizes_redshift} and \ref{fig:pxx_redshift} but for the 21 cm power spectrum.}
\label{fig:D21_redshift}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={0.7em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{D21_ffrt_mfps.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Simulated 21 cm power spectrum using FFRT as a function of $R_{\rm max}$ (left panel) and as a function of $\lambda$ using the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method (right panel). The vertical dotted lines show the corresponding $k$ values for the $\lambda$ scales shown. Note that the 40--160\,Mpc curves almost entirely overlap in the left panel, demonstrating the relative lack of sensitivity to large values of $R_{\rm max}$.}
\label{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={0.7em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{D21_dexm_mfps.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps} but instead comparing the \texttt{DexM} method with varying $R_{\rm max}$ (left panel) to varying $\lambda$ using the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method (right panel).}
\label{fig:D21_dexm_mfps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{17cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={0.7em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{D21_obs_compare.pdf}}
\end{center}
\vskip -2em
\caption{Comparison between our new mean free path prescriptions (blue) and $R_{\rm max}$ (black) in the context of the anticipated $1\sigma$ sensitivity of HERA to the 21 cm power spectrum (shaded regions). The top panels show FFRT and the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method (equation~\ref{eqn:newcrit}), while the bottom panels show \texttt{DexM} and the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method (equation~\ref{eqn:mfp-ebar}), all with $\lambda$ or $R_{\rm max}$\,=\,20\,Mpc. From left to right, the columns show $\langle x_{\rm HI}\rangle=0.8$, $0.5$, and $0.2$ at $z=7.5$, $7.0$ and $6.5$, respectively.}
\label{fig:D21_obs_compare}
\end{figure*}
To quantify the differences in the sizes of ionized regions between these methods, in Figure~\ref{fig:sizes_redshift} we show the ionized bubble size distributions calculated via the ``mean free path'' method\footnote{Note that this mean free path refers to the distance to the first intersection with large-scale patches of neutral gas, and not the absorption by residual neutral hydrogen in ionized regions that the mean free path refers to in the rest of the text.} from \citet{MF07}. The top panels show the FFRT methods (including FFRT-P), while the bottom panels show the \texttt{DexM} methods. As discussed above, once the ionized regions reach sizes comparable to $\lambda$, the bubble sizes are suppressed, shifting the distributions to somewhat smaller sizes. This behaviour is similar to the effect of inhomogeneous recombinations in \citet{SM14}, and similar to the radiative transfer simulations from \citet{Shukla16} which imposed additional opacity to ionizing photons from unresolved structures via an assumed $\lambda(z)$. In Figure~\ref{fig:pxx_redshift} we show the corresponding dimensionless ionization power spectra, which demonstrate the same behavior: with our new MFP implementations, power is shifted more efficiently from large to small scales, and the difference is generally larger when the spatial distribution of sources (MFP-$\epsilon(r)$) is taken into account.
\section{Implications for the 21 cm power spectrum} \label{sec:obs}
We compute the 21 cm brightness temperature assuming that the spin temperature of the gas is much higher than the CMB temperature \citep{Furlanetto06},
\begin{equation}
\delta T_b \approx 27 x_{\rm HI} (1+\delta) \left(\frac{\Omega_b h^2}{0.023}\right) \left(\frac{1+z}{10} \frac{0.15}{\Omega_m h^2}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{H}{dv_{||}/dr_{||}+H}\right) \rm{mK},
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the evolved (i.e. Zel'dovich approximation) density, $H=H(z)$ is the Hubble parameter, and $dv_{||}/dr_{||}$ is the velocity gradient along one axis of the simulation volume chosen to represent the line of sight. In Figure~\ref{fig:D21_redshift} we show the dimensionless 21 cm power spectrum $\Delta^2_{21}(k)$ multiplied by $\bar{\delta T}_b^2$, similar to Figure~\ref{fig:pxx_redshift}. The 21 cm power spectrum shows the same behavior as the ionization field, i.e. suppression of large-scale power by the new smooth mean free path prescriptions which increases towards smaller $\langle x_{\rm HI}\rangle$ as the typical ionized regions grow in size. Perhaps more interestingly, in Figure~\ref{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps} and Figure~\ref{fig:D21_dexm_mfps} we show how the 21 cm power spectrum changes with $R_{\rm max}$ or $\lambda$ for FFRT with MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ and \texttt{DexM} with MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ methods, respectively. Whereas adjusting $R_{\rm max}$ below 40 Mpc causes an abrupt change in the power spectrum (e.g. \citealt{Pober14}) with no variations at larger values, adjusting $\lambda$ in both new methods deforms the power spectrum more continuously. While this may imply a possible mapping between $R_{\rm max}$ and $\lambda$ to reproduce the same power spectra, the range of scales over which power is transferred is broader as well, resulting in a less prominent peak in the power spectrum for short $\lambda$ values and reducing the degeneracy between the two models.
In Figure~\ref{fig:D21_obs_compare}, we illustrate how the differences between our new mean free path methods (in blue) and the original $R_{\rm max}$ prescription (in black) compare to the sensitivity of future HERA observations. We compute the HERA power spectrum uncertainties using the \texttt{21cmSense} code \citep{Pober13,Pober14} with the default parameters (1080 hour survey, 8 MHz bandwidth, 82 channels), the ``moderate'' assumptions for foreground subtraction, and a calibration file designed to represent the HERA350 split core configuration (J. Pober, private communication). The top row in Figure~\ref{fig:D21_obs_compare} shows FFRT with and without MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$, and the bottom row shows \texttt{DexM} with and without MFP-$\epsilon(r)$. The transfer of large-scale power to smaller scales by our new MFP prescriptions appears to be large enough to be distinguishable by HERA given the assumed observing strategy, although we note that a better (but less physical) match may be possible with a smaller $R_{\rm max}$. This points to the importance of capturing the ionizing photon absorption process accurately in the interpretation of real data.
We note that the comparison between methods in Figure~\ref{fig:D21_obs_compare} is sensitive to our choice of model parameters. In our simulations, we have assumed $M_{\rm min}=10^9$\,$M_\odot$, but sources down to the atomic cooling limit ($\sim10^8$\,$M_\odot$) may still contribute. With less biased sources, the effect of absorption would be diminished. However, we also assume that $\zeta$ is independent of halo mass, which does not reflect the expectation from abundance matching of lower star formation efficiency in low mass halos due to feedback processes (e.g. \citealt{Furlanetto17}), and act to increase the bias of sources. Finally, our fiducial mean free path of $20$\,Mpc may be too high \citep{Becker21}, which would further increase the importance of absorption.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
Reionization models rely on careful modeling of both sources and sinks of photons. While the former has received a great deal of recent focus (e.g. \citealt{Mutch16,Furlanetto17,Park19,Mirocha20,Hutter21}), photon absorption has received much less attention (though see, e.g., \citealt{FO05,Choudhury09,SM14,Mao20,Bianco21,Wu21Island}). However, interpretation of future observations requires accurate, physically-meaningful models for photon absorption.
In this work we demonstrated two new methods for implementing the mean free path of ionizing photons in semi-numerical simulations of patchy reionization. These two methods, which we call MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ and MFP-$\epsilon(r)$, treat the mean free path as a smooth attenuation of ionizing photons, in contrast to the sharp barrier $R_{\rm max}$ that is conventionally employed. Both methods are derived from an analogy between the excursion set reionization calculation and the integrated flux received by a point in space. While the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ method can be applied to any semi-numerical reionization treatment as a simple modification of the ionization threshold, the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method relies on filtering the source field directly (e.g., the collapsed mass in halos), and thus should not be applied to the standard FFRT treatment in \texttt{21cmFAST}. However, we showed that a simple (but potentially ``risky'') modification of FFRT which computes a collapsed mass field via conditional Press-Schechter at the pixel scale of the simulation, which we call FFRT-P, appears to be a computationally efficient compromise that can be used with the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method to produce similar ionization topology as methods with explicit sources.
We demonstrated that our approach has substantial impact on 21 cm statistics, showing the importance of careful modeling of the absorption process for physical inferences from 21 cm surveys. The smooth mean free path treatments have two primary consequences for the 21 cm power spectrum. First, they generically suppress large-scale ($k\lesssim0.2$ Mpc$^{-1}$) power more effectively than $R_{\rm max}$ at a similar scale. This additional suppression comes about due to the attenuation of ionizing photons on scales \emph{below} $\lambda$, e.g. at a distance of $0.5\lambda$ one suffers from a factor of $e^{-0.5}\approx0.6$ attenuation. Second, our new methods deform the power spectrum far more smoothly and consistently with $\lambda$ compared to the sudden onset of $R_{\rm max}$ dependence once it is small enough (see, e.g., Figures~\ref{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps} and \ref{fig:D21_dexm_mfps}). The recent general adoption of the inhomogeneous recombinations prescription from \citet{SM14} in the \texttt{21cmFAST} and \texttt{21CMMC} public codes is in part due to the resulting redundancy of $R_{\rm max}$ in reionization parameter inference (see also \citealt{BP19}). In addition, we note that while we have used \texttt{21cmFAST} in this work, the fundamental idea of the approach -- incorporating uniform absorption when calculating the ionization field -- can easily be applied to other codes, such as e.g. \texttt{SimFast21} \citep{Santos10,Hassan16} or \texttt{SCRIPT} \citep{CP18,Choudhury21}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{8.0cm}{!}{\includegraphics[trim={1em 1em 1em 1em},clip]{xhi_rmax_mfp.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Evolution of the (volume-averaged) neutral hydrogen fraction assuming $\zeta=31.5$ and $M_{\rm min}=10^9$\,M$_\odot$, with $R_{\rm max}$ or $\lambda$ values color-coded similar to Figure~\ref{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps}. Top: FFRT-P+$R_{\rm max}$ method. Bottom: FFRT-P+MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method.}
\label{fig:xhiz}
\end{figure}
While we have focused in this work on the effect of the mean free path on the topology of reionization as measured by the 21 cm power spectrum, the \emph{progression} of reionization should also be regulated by the same absorption. The real space top-hat filter employed here suffers from explicit non-conservation of photons, particularly late in the reionization epoch when ionized bubbles overlap (e.g. \citealt{Zahn07}), but we can still assess this impact using the methods derived in this work. We ran a suite of additional \texttt{21cmFAST} simulations from $z=12$--$5$ assuming the same $\zeta=31.5$ as the \hbox{FFRT-P+MFP-$\epsilon(r)$} $\lambda=20$ Mpc model with $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle=0.5$ at $z=7.0$. In Figure~\ref{fig:xhiz}, we show the resulting reionization histories for the \hbox{FFRT-P+$R_{\rm max}$} (top panel) and \hbox{FFRT-P+MFP-$\epsilon(r)$} (bottom panel) methods adopting a series of $\lambda$ values with the same colors as Figures~\ref{fig:D21_ffrt_mfps} and \ref{fig:D21_dexm_mfps}. Bearing in mind the caveat regarding photon conservation, it is clear that the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method produces much more extended reionization histories at fixed mean free path scale, i.e. more ionized photons are required to ionize the Universe, and is generally more sensitive to the value of $\lambda$. The mean free path, however, is measured to strongly evolve with redshift at $z\lesssim5$ \citep{Worseck14}, and may evolve even faster during the reionization epoch \citep{Park16,D'Aloisio20}, so the curves in Figure~\ref{fig:xhiz} should not necessarily be interpreted as model predictions for the true $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle(z)$.
Both of our new mean free path treatments require only modest additional computation time compared to the default $R_{\rm max}$ prescription in \texttt{21cmFAST}. The most significant increase\footnote{The Fourier space filter in the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method requires a somewhat more involved calculation (equation~\ref{eqn:mfpfilt}) than the spherical top-hat, but this adds negligible computing time in practice.} comes from the additional filter scales that must be computed between $R_{\rm max}$ and the size of the simulation box $R_{\rm box}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:overtime}
\frac{t_{\rm MFP}}{t_{R{\rm max}}} \approx \frac{\ln{R_{\rm box}}-\ln{R_{\rm cell}}}{\ln{\lambda}-\ln{R_{\rm cell}}},
\end{equation}
where we assume that the minimum filter scale corresponds to the cell size of the simulation, $R_{\rm cell}$. This factor, $\sim$\,$1.1$--$2.1$ for the semi-numerical simulations presented in this work\footnote{As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dxdr}, the ionization contribution from scales larger than a few times the MFP drops off very rapidly. One could then truncate the filter scales well below the entire box size in most cases; thus equation~(\ref{eqn:overtime}) is a conservative overestimate to the required extra time.}, is small compared to the additional complexity of fully numerical radiative transfer approaches.
We note that the methods described in this work have assumed a spatially-uniform mean free path, but this may not be an accurate approximation in the late stages of reionization due to the interplay with the fluctuating ionizing background \citep{McQuinn11,Crociani11,DF16} or variations in the degree of post-reionization dynamical relaxation depending on the local reionization redshift \citep{D'Aloisio20,Cain21}. While the MFP-$\epsilon(r)$ method is not well suited to such fluctuations because the mean free path is built in to the excursion set filter, the MFP-$\bar{\epsilon}$ approach could in principle be employed in a manner similar to \citet{SM14} with varying $\lambda$ depending on the local physical state (e.g., density and ionizing background intensity). We will explore implementing a fluctuating mean free path into our new absorption prescriptions in future work.
Following the submission of this work, \citet{Becker21} performed the first direct measurement of the opacity of the IGM to ionizing photons at $z\sim6$ along the line of sight to luminous quasars. After correcting for the over-ionization of gas close to the quasars, they estimate a mean free path in the general IGM of $\lambda = 0.75^{+0.65}_{-0.45}$ proper Mpc (although the lower bound may be somewhat higher, see \citealt{Bosman21MFP}). This mean free path is much shorter than predicted by an extrapolation from measurements at lower redshift. Such a short mean free path implies that the reionization process was likely strongly regulated by absorption \citep{Cain21,Davies21}.
In the next decade, we expect that 21 cm experiments and other probes of the reionization era will begin to pin down the history and morphology of that process. Here we have shown that absorption should have a significant effect on the ionization field and presented efficient techniques to model it accurately. We hope that these and similar physical models will yield improved constraints from future observations.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Jonathan Pober for sharing his HERA configuration files for \texttt{21cmSense}, Andrei Mesinger for useful discussions, and the ENIGMA group at UCSB/Leiden for helpful comments. SRF was supported by the National Science Foundation through award AST-1812458. In addition, this work was directly supported by the NASA Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute cooperative agreement number 80ARC017M0006. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1636646 and 1836019 and institutional support from the HERA collaboration partners. This research is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\newcommand{\noop}[1]{}
|
\section{Introduction}
Artificial Intelligence (AI) covers different technologies for searching, reasoning, planning, problem solving, and learning with the overall aim of \enquote{automating intellectual tasks normally performed by humans}~\cite{francois_chollet_deep_2017}.
Its rise in popularity in recent years is mostly due to advancements in Machine Learning (ML), an area of AI focusing on algorithms and systems to identify rules and patterns in data based on statistical modeling techniques.
With more and more companies offering AI-powered products and using AI techniques to improve their internal processes, there is a need to build large, complex AI systems in a cost-effective and manageable way.
At the surface level, this may not seem like a new problem: AI systems are software systems too, so we can use well-known, established software engineering principles, practices, and processes to build such systems (e.g., separation of concerns, component-based encapsulation, and agile delivery).
However, recent studies show that the AI/ML domain possesses characteristics that make it distinct from other software application domains, such as an increased importance of data quality and management, unclear abstraction boundaries for complex models, and challenges in the customization and reuse of AI/ML components~\cite{amershi_software_2019,rahman_machine_2019,Sculley2015}.
Such characteristics seem to necessitate adaptations of principles, practices, and processes successfully used in other domains, or even the adoption of new, AI-specific ones~\cite{bosch_engineering_2021}.
A successful practice when building software systems in an iterative fashion is the awareness and management of technical debt~(TD)~\cite{RN2274}.
TD is a metaphor used to describe design or implementation constructs that may be expedient in the short term, but can make future changes more costly or even impossible~\cite{avgeriou2016managing}.
Looking at the differences between AI/ML and other application domains from the TD perspective, researchers from Google proposed in 2015 new TD instances that are specific to the development of AI-based systems~\cite{Sculley2015}.
Since this seminal paper, various research works from both academia and industry followed up with the documentation of additional TD items and antipatterns in AI/ML systems~\cite{agarwal2016making, breck2017ml,liu2020using}.
Despite these efforts, there is still no comprehensive conceptual overview of TD in AI-based systems.
It is unclear, for instance, whether these systems accrue more \enquote{traditional} TD than other types of systems, such as code, architecture, or documentation debt.
It is also important to understand if AI-specific TD types emerge and what their characteristics, associated antipatterns, and proposed solutions are.
Gaining such an overview would provide a foundation for future research, and support practitioners to better manage the maintenance and evolution of AI-based systems.
To characterize TD in AI-based systems, we therefore conducted a systematic mapping study (SMS), and collected and analyzed relevant papers on the topic.
Grounded in 21 primary studies, our contribution with this paper is the thorough analysis and discussion of the concepts of TD and antipatterns in AI-based systems.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Technical Debt}
Since its formulation by Cunningham in 1992~\cite{RN2274}, the definition of \textit{technical debt} has continuously evolved and broadened in scope.
Nowadays, it encompasses a vast range of concepts, artifacts, and processes~\cite{fairbanks2020ur}.
Among the current definitions of TD, a widely adopted one was formulated during Dagstuhl seminar 16162~\cite{avgeriou2016managing}.
Simply referred to as the 16162 definition, it specifies TD as \enquote{design or implementation constructs that are expedient in the short term, but set up a technical context that can make a future change more costly or impossible}.
To structure the knowledge on TD, different \textit{TD types} have been described, e.g. architectural debt, requirements debt, and test debt, allowing researchers and practitioners to effectively focus on specific technical issues where the debt metaphor applies~\cite{li2015systematic}.
Instances of such types vary considerably in nature, from suboptimal reuse of architectural components~\cite{verdecchia2020architectural}, to deferred testing~\cite{guo2011portfolio}, or the involvement of certain development communities~\cite{tamburri2013social}.
In this research, we embrace the 16162 definition of TD, and build upon the TD type taxonomies presented by Li et al.~\cite{li2015systematic} and Rios et al.~\cite{rios2018tertiary}.
\subsection{Antipatterns}
While design patterns constitute proven solution blueprints for specific problems, there is also the inverse concept of \textit{antipatterns}, i.e. frequently occurring suboptimal solutions~\cite{Brown1998}.
Developers may choose these solutions under time pressure, but antipatterns often appear due to insufficient expertise.
They can have immediate negative effects on quality attributes such as maintainability, performance efficiency, or reliability, but may also hinder the sustainable evolution of a system, leading to the accumulation of TD.
Antipatterns can exist at different levels of abstraction, such as code antipatterns, architectural antipatterns, or even project management antipatterns.
There is also the related concept of \textit{bad smells}, e.g. code smells~\cite{Fowler1999} or architectural smells~\cite{Garcia2009}.
Some authors keep these terms strictly separated~\cite{Khomh2009}, i.e. software smells are seen as potential indicators of bad quality that may require further investigation, while an antipattern is always supposed to be a bad practice that should be avoided.
However, similar to patterns, many antipatterns can also be context-sensitive and may be perceived as \enquote{bad} only in specific cases.
When collecting archetypes of suboptimal software practices, a clear distinction between the two concepts becomes less important and several studies have handled them uniformly~\cite{Fontana2016,Bogner2019-CSEQUDOS}.
For the purpose of this paper, we therefore do not differentiate between the terms \textit{antipattern} and \textit{smell}, i.e. we collect both concepts under the same umbrella.
In this sense, we treat e.g. code smells as antipatterns on the implementation~level.
\subsection{Related Work}
Technical debt and antipatterns have been the target of numerous reviews in different SE subfields and domains.
However, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no comprehensive secondary study focusing on these concepts in the area of AI-based systems.
TD has been studied in the context of databases~\cite{Albarak2018} and data-intensive systems~\cite{Foidl2019a}, but without a clear focus on AI or ML, as with Sculley et al.~\cite{Sculley2015}.
Nonetheless, several studies focus on general software quality aspects in AI-based systems.
Humbatova et al.~\cite{Humbatova2020} conceptualized a fault taxonomy for deep learning systems by analyzing GitHub repositories, StackOverflow posts, and conducting interviews.
While faults are not in the scope of our study, they can be related to TD and antipatterns in some cases, e.g. as symptoms of their existence.
Concerning the quality assurance of AI-based systems, several position papers discuss differences compared to \enquote{traditional} systems and highlight the need for adapted quality assurance techniques~\cite{Felderer2021,Santhanam2020}.
Some empirical studies also went further than this and distilled effective techniques for ML system engineering, e.g. Serban et al.~\cite{Serban2020} derived general AI system development best practices, and Siebert et al.~\cite{Siebert2020} provided guidelines for the quality assurance of such systems.
Lastly, the study that comes closest to the goal of our own research is a preliminary multivocal literature review by Washizaki et al.~\cite{Washizaki2019}:
they collected design patterns and antipatterns for ML systems from both white and grey literature.
However, they only identified eight antipatterns, seven from Sculley et al.~\cite{Sculley2015} and one from a company blog post, and did not provide any insights on how TD is characterized in AI-based systems.
With our study, we therefore fill this gap by providing a detailed characterization of TD and antipatterns in AI-based systems.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/SLR_process_overview}
\caption{Systematic mapping study process overview}
\label{fig:process}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:method}
In this section, we document the research design, which was rigorously adhered to during study execution.
We primarily followed the guidelines for conducting systematic literature studies in software engineering research by Kitchenham~\cite{Kitchenham2004}.
\subsection{Research Objective and Questions}
\label{sec:objAndRqs}
The aim of this research is to further the understanding of technical debt and antipatterns in AI-based software systems.
To refine this goal, we derived the following research questions (RQs), which guided our mapping study:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{RQ\arabic*:},leftmargin=*]
\item What are the characteristics of technical debt in AI-based systems?
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{RQ1.\arabic*:},leftmargin=10pt]
\item Which established types of technical debt have been reported for AI-based systems?
\item Does the nature of established technical debt types change in AI-based systems?
\item Which new technical debt types have emerged in AI-based systems?
\item Which quality attributes are affected by technical debt in AI-based systems?
\end{enumerate}
\item Which antipatterns have been reported for AI-based systems?
\item Which solutions have been reported to address technical debt and antipatterns in AI-based systems?
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Research Process}
An overview of the research process followed is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:process}.
The process started with the execution of a conservative automated search query via \textit{Google Scholar}, followed by an iterative forward- and backward-snowballing process, until theoretical saturation was reached.
Following the methodology by Wohlin et al.~\cite{Wohlin2014}, we based our search on a start set obtained via an automated search query executed on Google Scholar.
This set was then used for exhaustive bidirectional snowballing.
The use of Google Scholar allowed us to avoid bias in favor of any specific publisher~\cite{Wohlin2014}.
Further details of each research step are reported in the following subsections.
\subsubsection{Step 1: Automated Initial Search}
To gather an initial set of potentially relevant studies, we executed a conservative automated query on the \textit{Google Scholar} literature indexer.
The title-focused query was designed to encompass related literature focusing specifically on the topic under investigation, and is formulated as follows:
\begin{center}
\vspace{-8pt}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=sql, columns=fullflexible, caption={Automated search query}, numbers=left, label=list:query]
(*\bfseries ALLINTITLE*): ("technical debt" OR "antipatterns" OR
"antipattern" OR "anti patterns" OR "anti pattern" OR
"smell" OR "smells") AND ("artificial intelligence" OR
"machine learning" OR "deep(*\textvisiblespace*)learning" OR "intelligent"
OR "smart" OR "AI" OR "ML" OR "DL")
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
This query identifies literature containing in their title keywords referring either to \enquote{technical debt}, \enquote{antipatterns}, or \enquote{smells} (Listing~\ref{list:query}, Lines 1-3) and keywords referring to AI, or related synonyms and acronyms (Listing~\ref{list:query}, Lines 3-5).
The automated query was executed mid-June 2020, and yielded 90 potentially relevant studies. As we were not interested in publications regarding a specific timeframe, the publication date was purposely left unbounded in the query.
\subsubsection{Step 2: Application of Selection Criteria}
After identifying the set of potentially relevant studies via the automated query, we conducted a manual selection process. During this step, we evaluated the initial pool of studies based on pre-defined selection criteria.
A paper was selected as a primary study if it satisfied all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion ones.
We used the following criteria:
\begin{itemize}
\item[I1-] Publications reporting technical debt, antipatterns, or suboptimal software engineering practices
\item[I2-] Publications focusing on AI-based systems
\item[E1-] Non-English publications
\item[E2-] Publications for which the full text is not available to us
\item[E3-] Duplicates or extensions of already included publications
\item[E4-] Secondary or tertiary studies
\item[E5-] Publications in the form of editorials, tutorials, books, extended abstracts, etc.
\item[E6-] Non-scientific publications (i.e. grey literature)
\end{itemize}
The two inclusion criteria (I1, I2) were formulated to ensure that primary studies focused on the investigated topic, namely TD and antipatterns in AI-based systems, and hence provided relevant data to answer our RQs.
The exclusion criteria instead were designed to guarantee that data could be extracted from papers (E1, E2), without duplication or redundancy (E3, E4), and consisted of scientific literature (E5,~E6).
Given the fast pace at which the investigated topic evolves, we purposely included preprints during the selection process.
However, preprints needed to possess a sufficient level of quality (reviewed by all three researchers), to have already been cited by high-quality academic literature, and to be from reputable authors who published other studies in the field.\footnote{This design decision led to the inclusion of two additional papers, namely a white paper by Microsoft research~\citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary}, and a paper presented at the \textit{AAAI Fall Symposium Series: Artificial Intelligence in Government and Public Sector}~\citeP{lewis2019component}.}
During the selection, adaptive reading depth~\cite{Petersen2008} was used to efficiently assess potentially relevant studies.
To mitigate subjective bias, all authors independently applied the selection criteria for the 90 candidate studies.
Differences were jointly discussed until consensus was reached.
This led to the selection of five primary studies, i.e. the snowballing start set.
\subsubsection{Step 3: Snowballing}
To obtain a sound and encompassing set of primary studies, the automated search was complemented by recursive backward and forward snowballing~\cite{Wohlin2014}.
During this step, all studies either citing or cited by the primary studies were examined.
Similar as for the initial selection, the snowballing process was conducted by three researchers: in each round, all researchers independently suggested new primary studies to be included, i.e. studies which fulfilled the selection criteria.
Divergences were jointly discussed and resolved, after which the next iteration started.
Overall, it took four rounds of backward and forward snowballing until no new studies were identified.
Snowballing led to the inclusion of 16 studies, i.e. our SMS selection process led to the identification of 21 primary studies.
\subsubsection{Step 4: Data Extraction}
\label{sec:data_extraction}
In the next step, we systematically analyzed the primary studies and extracted data related to our RQs.
To gain a preliminary understanding, a data extraction pilot with four papers was conducted independently by all researchers.
Subsequently, the extracted data was jointly discussed, leading to the extraction framework used in this study.
Two researchers were randomly assigned to each primary study.
They independently extracted the data and agreed on the final extractions per paper in a consensus meeting, with the intervention of the third researcher when required.
The extraction framework is divided into one part for each specific RQ of our study (see Section~\ref{sec:objAndRqs}).
To \textit{characterize TD in AI-based systems} (RQ1), data needed to be extracted according to its four sub-questions.
For the recurrence of \textit{established TD types in AI-based systems} (RQ1.1), we identified types based on the TD taxonomies of Li et al.~\cite{li2015systematic} and Rios et al.~\cite{rios2018tertiary} (e.g. code, test, or architectural debt).
Using the same taxonomies, we also extracted \textit{variations of established TD types} (RQ1.2), i.e.
if the nature or scope of TD types changed in AI-based systems.
An example for this is test debt, as it extends in AI-based systems to testing models and data.
We also analyzed the primary studies for \textit{new TD types in AI-based systems} (RQ1.3), i.e. debt types which (i) are documented in the context of AI-based systems and (ii) cannot be traced back to established~TD~types.
Lastly, we extracted \textit{quality attributes affected by TD in these systems} (RQ1.4), which was based on ISO/IEC 25010~\cite{ISO25010}, with the possibility to extend it with additional identified attributes.
To answer RQ2 (\textit{antipatterns}), the primary studies were analyzed for recurrent suboptimal solutions in AI-based systems.
Such suboptimal solutions could be explicitly referenced as \enquote{antipatterns} (e.g. correction cascades~\cite{Sculley2015}), or reported as root causes of TD (e.g. unstable data dependencies~\cite{liu2020using}).
Finally, to answer RQ3 (\textit{solutions}), we extracted the solutions proposed to mitigate or resolve TD and antipatterns in AI-based systems.
Such solutions could be specific to a certain TD type or antipattern (e.g. model isolation to resolve entanglements) or general best practices to mitigate or prevent the introduction of TD in AI-based systems (e.g. periodically assessing assumptions during ML model evolution).
Note that the extractions did not have to explicitly mention \enquote{debt}, \enquote{antipattern}, or a specific quality attribute.
The decision if a passage implicitly describing these concepts warranted extraction was up to the researchers' interpretation.
\subsubsection{Step 5: Data Synthesis}
As a final step, the extracted data was harmonized (e.g. merging identical or very similar antipatterns), and then analyzed to derive answers to the research questions.
This analysis relied on open coding~\cite{jenner2004companion} to systematically identify recurrent concepts.
Further axial coding~\cite{jenner2004companion} was required to reduce the growing complexity of some emerging concepts (e.g. antipattern subcategories).
During the coding, emerging results were continuously discussed among the authors to keep codes and their abstraction level consistent.
Finally, summary statistics were created to discuss general findings and their potential implications.
For the sake of transparency and reproducibility, we make all study artifacts publicly available online\footnote{\url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4457216}}.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Our results are extracted from 21 primary studies \citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary}-[P21], which were published in conferences (12/21), workshops (5/21), journals (3/21), or distributed as white papers (1/21).
Since the appearance of the first paper focusing on TD in AI-based systems in 2015~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, we observed a growing publication trend until 2020\footnote{Year in which the primary study selection was executed.}.
Interestingly, a large number of primary studies were co-authored by at least one industrial practitioner (13/21), including nine papers authored exclusively by practitioners.
Google is the most recurrent company~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, breck2017primary, o2020common, polyzotis2019data, hynes2017data}, while other prominent examples include Microsoft~\citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary}, Amazon~\citeP{schelter2018challenges}, and IBM~\citeP{shrivastava2019dqa}.
The considerable involvement of industrial parties displays the industrial relevance of the topic, which has still to gain traction in academic environments.
In the remainder of this section, we present the results of our study, according to the four RQs guiding the investigation.
\subsection{Characteristics of TD in AI-based Systems (RQ1)}
\label{sec:rq1}
This section reports the results for the sub-questions of RQ1, aiming to characterize the nature of TD in AI-based systems.
An overview of the recurrence of all identified TD types is reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:tdtypes} (both established and new types).
Following we discuss the distribution of established TD types plus their variations, new types emerging in AI-based systems, and finally affected quality attributes.
Mentioned antipatterns are explained in more detail in Section~\ref{sec:antipatterns}.
\begin{figure}[hbpt!]
\centering
\hspace{-5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/TDtypes.pdf}
\caption{Recurrence of TD types in AI-based systems\vspace{-15pt}}
\label{fig:tdtypes}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Established TD Types and Variations (RQ1.1 \& RQ1.2)}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tdtypes}, infrastructure debt is the most recurrent established TD type (12/21), followed by architectural, code, and test debt (8/21).
Other types of debt, such as documentation~(6/21), people~(6/21), requirements~(4/21), and versioning debt~(3/21) are also reported, albeit less frequently.
Lastly, build (2/21), defect (2/21), design (1/21), and process debt (1/21) are only sporadically mentioned.
We observed that this distribution is mostly due to new engineering challenges related to AI-based systems.
Our primary studies link these systems to an inherently experimental development process, deep entanglement between architectural components and utilized data, and necessary data transformation steps between components.
Coping with such difficulties often leads to the introduction of TD, e.g. the evolutionary composition of AI pipelines may result in general-purpose components being precariously stitched together via \textit{glue code}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}.
Additionally, the data-driven nature of AI algorithms introduces novel difficulties for quality assurance, often manifested as suboptimal testing practices, such as under-tested or ill-tested functionalities.
Moreover, AI-specific variations or extensions of TD types, rather than their established scope~\cite{li2015systematic, rios2018tertiary}, are often used in our primary studies.
Specifically, out of the 61 established TD type extractions, 37 are such variations.
While some TD types occur unchanged in AI-based systems, re-interpreting several existing debt types is necessary to accommodate the new characteristics of these systems.
The most recurrent established debt types, namely infrastructure, architectural, code, and test debt, are also the types which frequently exhibit an extended or augmented scope in our primary studies.
Regarding \textit{infrastructure debt}, this TD type is extended with deficiencies related to the implementation and operation of AI pipelines as well as to the management of AI models.
In AI-based systems, this TD type often manifests in form of complex infrastructure comprising various AI pipelines~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, suboptimal allocation of resources to train/test AI models~\citeP{lewis2019component}, and weak AI monitoring and debugging capabilities~\citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary}, leading to major operations and reproducibility~issues.
\textit{Architectural debt} variations instead reflect the emphasis in AI-based systems on data, leading to a deep entanglement of architecture components with their underlying data.
This may introduce debt items such as complex and non-deterministic dependencies between architectural components and datasets~\citeP{lewis2019component}, hard to assess compositions of architectural elements~\citeP{liu2020primary}, or \textit{undeclared consumers}~of~AI~models~\citeP{belani2019requirements}.
Similarly, \textit{test debt} extends to data testing, ranging from naive omission of basic sanity checks to the lack of more sophisticated tests to assess data quality or distributions~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}.
In addition, new facets include suboptimal practices in testing AI models and pipelines.
Their deep connection to training data and the stochastic nature of some AI algorithms~\citeP{polyzotis2019data, breck2017primary} make these artifacts increasingly complex to evaluate.
\textit{Code debt} is shaped by the experimental nature of AI model development.
This frequently emerges in form of \textit{dead experimental code paths} in production code~\citeP{arpteg2018software} and the suboptimal refactoring of experimental models into deployable software~\citeP{o2020common}.
The algorithmic complexity of these systems also increases the likelihood of certain code deficiencies~\citeP{jebnoun2020scent}.
For \textit{versioning debt} as a less referenced TD type, we exclusively identified the AI-centric usage of the term.
In AI-based systems, this now includes the versioning of AI models and training/testing data, which is often done in suboptimal fashion, if at all~\citeP{arpteg2018software, schelter2018challenges, breck2017primary}.
Finally, documentation, people, requirements, build, defect, design, and process debt mostly appear in our studies according to their established scope, i.e. while such debt types also appear in AI-based systems, characteristics of AI do not have a prominent impact on their manifestation.
This highlights that numerous commonalities are shared with software systems not employing AI.
Missing documentation, insufficient developer skills, and unclear system requirements are all examples of TD which also frequently occur in non-AI software.
Slight variations for some of these TD types are the extension of documentation debt to features and assumptions on the used data~\citeP{matthews2020patterns}, of build debt to suboptimal dependencies of internal and external AI models~\citeP{liu2020primary}, and of defect debt to ignored issues related to the quality of model predictions~\citeP{breck2017primary}.
\subsubsection{New TD types in AI-based systems (RQ1.3)}
With this RQ, we wanted to synthesize new TD types important for AI-based systems, i.e. types not included in the taxonomies of Li et al.~\cite{li2015systematic} and Rios et al.~\cite{rios2018tertiary}.
Specifically, we found four such types of debt: \textit{data debt}, \textit{model debt}, \textit{configuration debt}, and \textit{ethics debt}, which we further~describe~below.
\textit{Data debt.}
The most recurrent new TD type regards suboptimal constructs around the data used in AI-based systems (16/21).
Specifically, this TD type refers to deficiencies related to the collection, management, and usage of data, both for training and production~\citeP{munappy2019data,hynes2017data,gudivada2017data}.
In addition to causing immediate issues, this TD type can also be latent, i.e. not manifesting itself immediately, but rather posing a risks for the long-term evolution of systems.
Commonly referenced instances of data debt are data quality issues, unmanaged data dependencies and anomalies, or poor data relevance.
Given their heavy reliance on data, this TD type can strongly impact AI systems, including reduced classification effectiveness, data loss due to \textit{premature aggregation}~\citeP{munappy2019data}, and compatibility~issues.
\textit{Model debt.}
The second most referenced new TD type is model debt (15/21).
This AI-specific debt type regards suboptimal practices in the design, training, and management of AI models~\citeP{breck2017primary,schelter2018challenges,Sculley2015primary}.
As such, model debt manifests itself as deficiencies occurring exclusively in model-related constructs. Most prominently, model debt originates from suboptimal feature selection processes, neglected hyperparameter tuning, and poorly engineered model deployment strategies.
Recurrent items of model debt are \textit{feature entanglement}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, \textit{hidden feedback loops}~\citeP{alahdab2019empirical}, \textit{unrecognized model staleness}~\citeP{schelter2018challenges}, and substantial differences between training and production performance, i.e. \textit{training/serving skew}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}.
As models constitute the logic kernel of AI-based systems, this TD type can have serious consequences, ranging from major challenges in maintaining a model, to severe deterioration of model~accuracy.
\textit{Configuration debt.}
This debt type (8/21) describes deficiencies around the configuration mechanisms of AI-based systems~\citeP{alahdab2019empirical,arpteg2018software,Sculley2015primary}.
Often, configuration debt arises when the complexity of e.g. dynamic feature selection, hyperparameter tuning, and data pre- and post-processing makes it difficult to efficiently outsource machine- and human-readable configuration files for these activities.
This encourages AI engineers to take shortcuts and to only consider the clean-up, restructuring, and commenting of configuration files as an afterthought.
While the lines of configuration for AI-based systems may even exceed the lines of source code~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, configurations are frequently not given the same level of quality control as code, e.g. reviews or tests.
Prominent instances of configuration debt include massive/complex, poorly documented (or simply undocumented), unversioned, or untested configuration files.
As such, configuration debt may have some touch points with e.g. infrastructure or documentation debt, but its explicit description in the context of AI still warrants its own TD type.
\textit{Ethics debt.}
One less referenced new debt type is ethics debt (6/21), which comprises deficiencies around ethical aspects of AI-based systems, such as algorithmic fairness, prediction bias, or a lack of transparency and accountability~\citeP{vakkuri2020just,matthews2020patterns,roselli2019managing}.
Specifically, ethics debt arises when socio-ethical concerns are deliberately or inadvertently neglected during the design or training phase of AI-based systems.
While this can go hand in hand with reduced model accuracy, the resulting systems may also satisfy all technical requirements while leaving one or more ethical concerns unaddressed.
This debt type can lead to ethical fallacies so deeply embedded into an AI-based system that they usually cannot be resolved with only minor data or software changes.
Instead, they may require a complete restructuring and retraining of AI models or major source code updates.
Depending on the relevant regulations, ethics debt can also have legal consequences.
\subsubsection{Affected quality attributes (RQ1.4)}
We extracted a total of 12 unique quality attributes impacted by TD in AI-based systems, for which the recurrence in our 21 primary studies is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:qa}.
\begin{figure}[hbpt!]
\centering
\hspace{-5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/QRs.pdf}
\vspace{-20pt}
\caption{Recurrence of quality attributes impacted by TD in AI-based systems\vspace{-12pt}}
\label{fig:qa}
\end{figure}
Overall, functional suitability is the most referenced quality attribute (18/21).
Specifically, the introduction of TD in AI-based systems leads to issues in the functional correctness sub-characteristic (18/21), which, given the data-driven nature of AI-based systems, can be cumbersome to detect and resolve.
Among the most mentioned reasons for this is diminished model accuracy, e.g., due to \textit{training/serving skew}~\citeP{breck2017primary}.
Maintainability is the second most mentioned quality attribute (16/21), with emphasis on the sub-characteristics modifiability (14/21), testability (13/21), and reusability (11/21).
In this case, we noted how TD frequently leads to quality issues specific to or caused by AI models, such as difficult model re-training or reuse, ripple effects on changes through harmful dependencies, or complex collections of scripts and pipelines that are hard to analyze.
Observability (8/21) as additional quality attribute represents the degree to which the runtime behavior of a deployed AI-based system can be monitored.
This quality attribute can be severely impacted by infrastructure and architecture debt.
Security and reliability are referenced equally often (7/21).
Security issues in AI-based systems often concern the sub-characteristics accountability (5/21) or confidentiality (4/21).
Reliability, by contrast, is most often related to maturity of AI-based systems, i.e. the degree to which the system meets expectations under normal operation.
Other quality attributes, such as performance efficiency (5/21), compatibility (4/21), and usability (1/21), are mentioned less frequently, i.e. are most likely less impacted by TD in AI-based systems.
Similarly, new quality attributes emerging in AI-based systems such as reproducibility~(4/21), fairness (4/21), transparency~(4/21), and responsibility~(3/21) are also not frequent.
We believe the growing attention to topics related to these quality attributes in academia and industry will probably lead to a higher recurrence in the near future.
Finally, the only attribute from ISO/IEC 25010 not mentioned at all is portability.
\begin{tcolorbox}
\textbf{Main findings (RQ1):} Infrastructure debt (12) is the most recurrent established TD type in AI-based systems, followed by architectural, code, and test debt (8). We identified four new debt types emerging in AI-based systems, namely data, model, configuration, and ethics debt. Functional suitability (18) and maintainability (16) are the most impacted quality attributes, followed by observability (8), security (7), and reliability (7).
\end{tcolorbox}
\subsection{Antipatterns (RQ2)}
\label{sec:antipatterns}
From the 21 primary studies, we extracted a total of 72~unique antipatterns for AI-based systems.
To organize this large collection, we formed six categories (with an additional level of subcategories for the larger ones), where each antipattern is assigned to exactly one category.
These categories, and associated number of antipatterns, are displayed in Table~\ref{table:antipatternCategories}, while Table~\ref{table:antipatterns} lists the 14 most prominent antipatterns mentioned in at least three publications.
The largest categories are \textit{model antipatterns} (29) and \textit{data antipatterns} (22), which together account for $\sim$70\% of all identified antipatterns.
The four remaining categories -- \textit{design \& architecture antipatterns} (8), \textit{code antipatterns} (5), \textit{infrastructure antipatterns} (4), and \textit{ethics antipatterns} (4) -- are all of similar size.
In the following subsections, we briefly present each category with some antipattern examples.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Antipattern categories, in parentheses: \# of unique antipatterns per (sub)category\vspace{-3pt}}
\label{table:antipatternCategories}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.2175\columnwidth}p{0.3265\columnwidth}p{0.296\columnwidth}}
Category & Subcategory & Sources\\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Model (29)} & Training (9) &
\makecell*[{{p{0.296\columnwidth}}}]{\hspace*{0.5pt}\citeP{Sculley2015primary,breck2017primary,matthews2020patterns,roselli2019managing}\newline\hspace*{0.5pt}\citeP{lwakatare2019taxonomy,munappy2019data,foidl2019risk}}\\
& Training/serving skew (6) &
\makecell*[{{p{0.296\columnwidth}}}]{\hspace*{0.5pt}\citeP{breck2017primary,matthews2020patterns,arpteg2018software,roselli2019managing}\newline~\hspace*{0.5pt}\citeP{lewis2019component,polyzotis2019data,lwakatare2019taxonomy,munappy2019data}}\\
& Features (6) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,breck2017primary,alahdab2019empirical,roselli2019managing,lwakatare2019taxonomy,belani2019requirements}\\
& Management (4) & \citeP{breck2017primary,matthews2020patterns,schelter2018challenges}\\
& Validation (4) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,breck2017primary,roselli2019managing,vakkuri2020just,lwakatare2019taxonomy}\\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Data (22)} & Management (7) & \citeP{breck2017primary,arpteg2018software,o2020common,polyzotis2019data,munappy2019data,gudivada2017data}\\
& Anomalies (6) & \citeP{hynes2017data,foidl2019risk,shrivastava2019dqa}\\
& Quality (4) & \makecell*[{{p{0.296\columnwidth}}}]{\citeP{Sculley2015primary,matthews2020patterns,hynes2017data,munappy2019data}\newline\hspace*{0.2pt}\citeP{foidl2019risk,gudivada2017data,shrivastava2019dqa}}\\
& Relevance (3) & \citeP{matthews2020patterns,roselli2019managing}\\
& Dependencies (2) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,liu2020primary,belani2019requirements}\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\makecell[l]{Design \&\\architecture (8)}} & Modularity (4) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,matthews2020patterns,o2020common,lwakatare2019taxonomy,belani2019requirements}\\
& Integration (2) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,alahdab2019empirical,lewis2019component}\\
& Technology adoption (2) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,alahdab2019empirical,schelter2018challenges,o2020common}\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Code (5)} & Recurrent in AI (3) & \citeP{jebnoun2020scent}\\
& AI-specific (2) & \citeP{Sculley2015primary,alahdab2019empirical,arpteg2018software,roselli2019managing}\\
\hline
Infrastructure (4) & -- & \citeP{breck2017primary,arpteg2018software,agarwal2016makingprimary,lewis2019component,lwakatare2019taxonomy}\\
\hline
Ethics (4) & -- & \citeP{breck2017primary,matthews2020patterns,alahdab2019empirical,vakkuri2020just}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Most referenced antipatterns (occurred in at least 3 sources)\vspace{-3pt}}
\label{table:antipatterns}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Antipattern Name & Category & Sources\\
\hline
\hline
Training/serving skew & Model & \makecell*[{{p{0.296\columnwidth}}}]{\hspace*{-2.5pt}\citeP{breck2017primary, arpteg2018software, roselli2019managing} \newline\citeP{lewis2019component, lwakatare2019taxonomy, munappy2019data}}\\
Data duplication & Data & \citeP{hynes2017data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data, shrivastava2019dqa}\\
Data miscoding smell & Data & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, hynes2017data, munappy2019data, foidl2019risk}\\
Null/missing data values & Data & \citeP{hynes2017data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data, shrivastava2019dqa}\\
Feature entanglement & Model & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, lwakatare2019taxonomy, belani2019requirements}\\
Dead experimental codepaths & Code & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, arpteg2018software}\\
Unstable data dependencies & Data & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, liu2020primary, belani2019requirements}\\
Unsound/missing metadata & Data & \citeP{polyzotis2019data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data}\\
Glue code & \makecell[l]{Design \&\\architecture} & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, lewis2019component}\\
Undeclared consumers & \makecell[l]{Design \&\\architecture} & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, lwakatare2019taxonomy, belani2019requirements}\\
Multiple-language smell & \makecell[l]{Design \&\\architecture} & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, schelter2018challenges}\\
Correction cascades & \makecell[l]{Design \&\\architecture} & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, matthews2020patterns, belani2019requirements}\\
Weak or missing monitoring & Infrastructure & \citeP{breck2017primary, agarwal2016makingprimary, lewis2019component}\\
Direct feedback loops & Model & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, lwakatare2019taxonomy, munappy2019data}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textit{Model Antipatterns.}
The largest group of identified antipatterns (29) describes deficiencies or suboptimal practices with AI models, mostly in the context of machine learning.
Often, these refer to the training, validation, or management of models, i.e. to specific activities in the model life cycle.
A concrete example is the training antipattern \textit{direct feedback loops}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, lwakatare2019taxonomy, munappy2019data}, which describes the unwanted state that a model impacts its own future training data selection.
This self-sustaining relationship may lead to wrong classifications and biased decisions, especially if feedback loops remain hidden or are not managed appropriately.
An example for a model validation antipattern is \textit{offline/online proxy metric divergence}~\citeP{breck2017primary, lwakatare2019taxonomy}.
Effectiveness of a production system is usually evaluated with metrics like user engagement or revenue (online), while models of AI components in such a system are validated with e.g. accuracy or mean squared error (offline).
If offline metrics are not sufficiently aligned with the online metrics, e.g. via correlation, system effectiveness may be severely impacted.
Lastly, a general model management antipattern is the absence of versioning and version control systems specifically for the model (\textit{no version control for models}~\citeP{breck2017primary}), which hinders sustainable evolution and potential rollbacks.
A different type of antipatterns in this category focuses on model features and their relationships.
An example of this is \textit{feature entanglement}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, lwakatare2019taxonomy, belani2019requirements}, which refers to the interdependence of different model features.
Adding, removing, or changing the distribution of one feature often has an impact on other features, therefore hindering incremental system improvement.
This has also been described as the CACE principle~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, i.e. \enquote{changing anything changes everything}.
A second example are \textit{epsilon features}~\citeP{breck2017primary, alahdab2019empirical}, which are features only leading to negligible model improvement.
Since every feature comes with costs for maintenance and evolution (especially when considering \textit{feature entanglement}), feature inclusion should be carefully considered based on merit.
Finally, a frequently mentioned type of model antipatterns is related to \textit{training/serving skew}~\citeP{breck2017primary, arpteg2018software, roselli2019managing, lewis2019component, lwakatare2019taxonomy, munappy2019data}.
This is the most recurrent unique antipattern and, in general, describes substantial model accuracy divergences in the production system when compared to the training accuracy.
Reasons for this can be different code paths to compute features in production, but also a non-representative or non-exhaustive training data set.
More specialized variants of this antipattern have been called \textit{distribution skew} or \textit{scoring/serving skew}~\citeP{polyzotis2019data}.
The divergence between training and serving accuracy can also emerge slowly over time, which is called \textit{data drift}~\citeP{lwakatare2019taxonomy, munappy2019data} and leads to \textit{stale models}~\citeP{breck2017primary,matthews2020patterns}.
\textit{Data Antipatterns.}
The second largest antipattern group ~(22) is related to deficiencies or suboptimal practices around the data of AI-based systems.
Since data is the foundation for machine learning models, such antipatterns can substantially diminish system effectiveness.
Many instances in this area are related to data quality or the existence of data anomalies.
Examples of bad quality are \textit{data duplication}~\citeP{hynes2017data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data, shrivastava2019dqa}, \textit{null/missing data values}~\citeP{hynes2017data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data, shrivastava2019dqa}, or \textit{data miscoding smells}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, hynes2017data, munappy2019data, foidl2019risk}, where an attribute is represented with an unsuitable data type or format.
Similarly, examples for anomalies in machine learning data can be an \textit{unnormalized feature}~\citeP{hynes2017data, foidl2019risk}, where values exhibit large variance, or very few \textit{extreme outliers}~\citeP{hynes2017data}, which may distort important aggregate values used by models.
While of both these subcategories can also be important for data-intensive non-AI systems, these antipatterns have been specifically described in the AI context.
Data relevance is another mentioned property that can be subject to antipatterns.
Selected examples are the \textit{emphasis on available data}~\citeP{matthews2020patterns} or the usage of \textit{overcurated data}~\citeP{roselli2019managing}, both of which can lead to \textit{training/serving skew}.
One of the larger subcategories focuses on data management.
Since it can be quite complex in some cases, an \textit{undocumented data collection process}~\citeP{gudivada2017data} may negatively affect the long-term evolution of an AI-based system.
Similarly, \textit{premature data aggregation}~\citeP{munappy2019data} during this collection process can destroy important data points that cannot be retrieved again.
A third example, which is frequently mentioned, is \textit{unsound/missing metadata}~\citeP{polyzotis2019data, munappy2019data, gudivada2017data}, i.e. a suboptimal or absent documentation and schema to describe the used~data.
Lastly, a smaller subcategory is related to data dependencies.
An example here is \textit{unstable data dependencies}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, liu2020primary, belani2019requirements}.
Consuming data from other systems as input signals for model features may initially speed up development.
However, if the external data is unstable and changes over time, these dependencies can have negative and hard to diagnose effects on the related ML component.
\textit{Design \& Architecture Antipatterns.}
We also extracted eight antipatterns related to the design and architecture of AI-based systems.
While it is one of the smaller categories, it contains several frequently mentioned antipatterns.
An example related to modularity is \textit{undeclared consumers}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, lwakatare2019taxonomy, belani2019requirements}, i.e. if the results of an AI component serve as input for a broad range of other systems or components.
These undeclared or silent consumers constitute hidden coupling, which can have negative and obscure side effects during software evolution.
Similarly, an antipattern where, instead of the output, the complete model is reused and slightly altered is called \textit{correction cascades}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, matthews2020patterns, belani2019requirements}.
Changes in the original model then may lead to unintended ripple effects cascading to the \enquote{corrected} downstream models.
In~\citeP{matthews2020patterns}, this is also described with the improper reuse of complete AI components or pipelines.
A second type of antipatterns is concerned with software integration.
The prime example here is \textit{glue code}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, lewis2019component}.
AI-based systems are often built with many generic packages or components, which are then connected with custom code, e.g. for data transformation or reading and writing data.
This not only makes it difficult to keep an overview of the system but glue code may also tightly couple the system to specific external libraries.
In the area of data collection and preparation, a specialized version of glue code is called \textit{pipeline jungles}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical}, i.e. the same stitching together but more on an architectural level and with ML pipelines.
Finally, a small subcategory regards technology adoption.
An example, not fully AI-specific, but still mentioned as a consequence of the nature of AI systems, is the \textit{multiple-language smell}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, schelter2018challenges}. While using Python or R for ML models, and other languages for non-ML components, may enable using the best frameworks or libraries for the task at hand, it also entails disadvantages in maintaining, testing, or handing over a component to colleagues.
\textit{Code Antipatterns.}
We generally identified two subcategories of code antipatterns: those specific to AI-based systems and generic ones that occur more frequently in these systems.
A frequently mentioned AI-specific example is \textit{dead experimental codepaths}~\citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, arpteg2018software}.
The influence of data science leads to an iterative and experimental development process for AI components, where several conditional branches exist, which increase complexity and may also be forgotten, resulting in dead code.
Examples of generic code antipatterns which occur more frequently in AI software are \textit{long lambda functions} or \textit{long ternary conditional expressions}~\citeP{jebnoun2020scent}.
\textit{Infrastructure Antipatterns.}
We also identified a small number of antipatterns related to the infrastructure of AI-based systems.
The most prominent example from this category is \textit{weak or missing monitoring}~\citeP{breck2017primary, agarwal2016makingprimary, lewis2019component}.
Using AI components leads to additional observability requirements, e.g. monitoring data sources or model accuracy to detect \textit{training/serving skew}.
Moreover, the black-box nature of AI components can make it difficult to perform root cause analysis without specialized tooling.
Another infrastructure antipattern is hence \textit{weak or missing debugging}~\citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary}.
As a last example, \textit{inadequate configuration management}~\citeP{arpteg2018software} describes missing or suboptimal tooling mechanisms to manage important model configuration, e.g., features, preprocessing settings, or hyperparameters.
\textit{Ethics Antipatterns.}
The last smaller category of antipatterns is concerned with ethical issues in AI-based systems.
The obvious example are \textit{biased models}~\citeP{breck2017primary, alahdab2019empirical}, i.e. models that have been created based on incomplete or irrelevant data or with a prejudice-inducing algorithm or process.
Such models not only produce inaccurate but also unfair results, which depending on the use case can have substantial negative societal effects, e.g. with predictive policing or recidivism models.
For such usage scenarios, it is especially important to measure and control the consequences of the respective AI system.
Failing to do so is described by the antipattern \textit{unmanaged social impact}~\citeP{matthews2020patterns}.
A final example in this category is \textit{undefined human accountability}~\citeP{matthews2020patterns}, i.e. when the role and responsibility of humans in AI-supported decisions is not clearly documented, allowing people to hide behind a~machine.
\begin{tcolorbox}
\textbf{Main findings (RQ2):} We extracted 72 unique antipatterns in six categories. Largest categories are \textit{model} (29) and \textit{data} (22). \textit{Design \& architecture} only consists of eight antipatterns, but many of them occurred several times. The antipattern which was mentioned the most is \textit{training/serving skew} (6).
\end{tcolorbox}
\subsection{Solutions (RQ3)}
From the 21 primary studies, we identified 46 unique instances of solutions.
Out of these, about a third of the instances explicitly mentions a TD type, another third mentions an antipattern, while the remaining third does not mention any specific TD type or antipattern addressed.
In particular, the last group contains advices of broad and generic nature (e.g. \textit{perform extensive testing}~\citeP{breck2017primary}) and specific methods typically implemented in a tool or framework (e.g. \textit{Data Quality Advisor}~\citeP{shrivastava2019dqa}).
Given the difficulty in categorizing solutions using a single dimension (TD type, antipattern, or specificity level), we focus instead on discussing the five solutions that are most referenced in our primary studies (Table~\ref{table:solutions}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Most referenced solutions (occurred in at least 2 sources)}
\label{table:solutions}
\begin{tabular}{lrl}
Solution Name & \# of Sources & Sources\\
\hline
\hline
Manage model configuration & 3 & \citeP{schelter2018challenges, arpteg2018software, jebnoun2020scent}\\
Use clear component and code APIs & 3 & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical, o2020common}\\
Remove unnecessary features & 2 & \citeP{Sculley2015primary, alahdab2019empirical}\\
Refactor the code & 2 & \citeP{liu2020primary, jebnoun2020scent}\\
Monitor deployed models & 2 & \citeP{schelter2018challenges, agarwal2016makingprimary}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textit{Manage model configuration} prescribes that configuration changes in AI applications should be tracked, reviewed, and possibly tested in the same way as code~\citeP{arpteg2018software}.
In this line, a suggested good practice is to externalize the configuration options from the code and to maintain them in human- and machine-readable files~\citeP{jebnoun2020scent}.
\textit{Use clear component and code APIs} relates instead to reducing design and architectural debt by encapsulating AI functionality in software components with clear required and provided interfaces~\citeP{alahdab2019empirical, o2020common}.
At the code level, wrapping black-box packages into custom APIs can address the \textit{glue code} antipattern~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}.
\textit{Remove unnecessary features} prescribes to reduce model debt by periodically examining if all input features of a model are still needed~\citeP{Sculley2015primary}, e.g. with so-called \enquote{leave-one-feature-out evaluations}.
Additionally, new features should not be introduced if they do not significantly contribute to the prediction performance~\citeP{alahdab2019empirical}.
\textit{Refactor the code} is a straightforward and generic solution to deal with design and code debt, e.g. in the form of code-related antipatterns~\citeP{jebnoun2020scent}.
While this is a general best practice, AI-based systems require collaboration with expert developers when refactoring is needed, e.g. to boost performance or re-implement complex ML algorithms~\citeP{liu2020primary}.
Finally, \textit{monitor deployed models} suggests that ML models and their prediction performance should be closely monitored after deployment, e.g. to identify and address \textit{training/serving skew}~\citeP{agarwal2016makingprimary, schelter2018challenges}.
\begin{tcolorbox}
\textbf{Main findings (RQ3):} We extracted 46 unique solutions.
The solutions either explicitly address a TD type or an antipattern, or present a general best-practice to resolve TD in AI-based systems.
The most referenced solutions are \textit{manage model configuration} (3) and \textit{use clear component and code APIs} (3).
\end{tcolorbox}
\section{Threats to Validity}
\label{sec:threats}
Several limitations have to be mentioned for our study.
\textit{Internal validity} is influenced by the applied scientific rigor and potentially hidden confounding factors, both of which may impact the consistency and correctness of the results.
Since selection, extraction, and synthesis activities of an SMS may rely partially on subjective interpretation, they may be prone to researcher bias.
Although we diligently designed and adhered to our SMS protocol and always assigned at least two researchers to each paper, other researchers may have achieved slightly different results with our protocol.
\textit{External validity} is concerned with the generalizability of the results.
With 21 final papers, our SMS can be regarded as comparatively small, which indicates that research on this topic is just getting started.
Moreover, many of our primary studies directly reference Sculley et al.~\citeP{Sculley2015primary} and build on their findings.
The majority of publications from industry is also from large software enterprises like Google, Amazon, or Microsoft.
Several results of our study are therefore heavily skewed towards Internet-scale ML systems.
As a consequence, reported facets of TD types or the relevance of certain antipatterns may slightly differ in other AI contexts.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we aimed at characterizing the notions of TD and antipatterns for AI-based systems by performing a systematic mapping study.
Our research questions focused on both established and new types of TD in these systems, but also on reported antipatterns and solutions.
We identified four new TD types emerging in AI-based systems (data, model, configuration, and ethics debt) and observed that several established types (e.g. infrastructure, architectural, code, and test debt) are frequently occurring, although their scope was extended to include AI-specific aspects, e.g., the management and monitoring of both AI pipelines and models to mitigate infrastructure debt.
We also identified and categorized 72 unique antipatterns, the majority of which relate to data and models.
Finally, we identified 46 solutions that can be used to reduce or prevent debt accumulation in~AI-based~systems.
For industry, our results can support AI/ML professionals to better communicate aspects of TD present in their systems, to raise awareness for common antipatterns, and to identify solutions to address both.
From a research perspective, our contribution provides an encompassing overview and characterization of TD and antipatterns that can emerge in the development of AI-based systems.
This study may also serve as a foundation for future research that both deepens our understanding of particular AI debt types and proposes more elaborate solutions to address them.
In this respect, we see potential for follow-up grey literature or interview studies in this area, as well as the development of tools and techniques to identify, address, or avoid specific AI antipatterns.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
As a long-established concept in quantum physics, supersymmetry (SUSY) finds applications in a wide range of fields from particle physics to condensed matter in both relativistic and nonrelativistic settings \cite{gol1989extension, ramond1971dual, neveu1971factorizable, sourlas1985introduction, baer2006weak}. In a nutshell, SUSY posits a fundamental equivalence between the two classes of elementary particles with distinct statistics. Mathematically, it maps the fermionic degrees of freedom to the bosonic ones and vice versa. From this perspective, they are equivalent and dubbed {\it superpartners} of each other.
While normally SUSY is conceived as a symmetry in quantum field theories, it as well applies to much simpler models of quantum mechanics such as harmonic oscillators or the hydrogen atom \cite{cooper1983aspects, cooper1995supersymmetry, kirchberg2003algebraic, gangopadhyaya2017supersymmetric}.
The SUSY Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ can be constructed from a generating operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ (also called the supercharge operator) which, for the harmonic oscillator problem, takes a remarkably simple form $\hat{\cal Q}=\sqrt{\omega}\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{c}$
where $\hat b$ ($\hat c$) denotes the bosonic (fermionic) annihilation operator. The corresponding SUSY Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\hat{H} = \{\hat{\cal Q}, \hat{\cal Q}^\dagger\} = \omega(\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{b} + \hat{c}^\dagger \hat{c}) \equiv \hat{H}_{\mathrm{b}} + \hat{H}_{\mathrm{f}}
\label{eq:susyosc}
\end{align}
then decomposes into two simple quadratic Hamiltonians: one for a bosonic oscillator ($\hat{H}_{\mathrm{b}}$) and the other for a fermionic one ($\hat{H}_{\mathrm{f}}$). When it comes to dealing with real bosons or fermions, a Hermitian form of the generating operator $\hat{\cal Q}=\hat{\cal Q}^\dagger$
(and accordingly, $\hat{H}=\hat{\mathcal Q}^2$) is useful, as also is the case for the present work.
Such a simple setting is readily amenable to accommodate multiple bosonic and fermionic modes, or in other words, systems of free (noninteracting) bosons and fermions (in the continuum or on a lattice) if the generating operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ involves the bosonic and fermionic operators to linear order \cite{lawler2016supersymmetry, attig2019topological}, as shown in the previous harmonic oscillator example and also will be demonstrated later. The resulting partner Hamiltonians (referred to as $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{b}}$ and $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{f}}$ for bosons and fermions, respectively) are isospectral in their one-particle excitations except for zero modes. Inclusion of zero modes in SUSY has, in addition, a topological aspect (referred to as ``Witten index'' \cite{witten1982constraints} and interpreted in several other contexts, e.g., see \cite{kane2014topological}) and has been studied to a great extent; however, that discussion is not relevant to this work.
Ground states of a quadratic Hamiltonian (bosonic or fermionic) garner special attention as they provide a fertile ground to trace several properties of the system, which they are part of, analytically. These states are also known as {\it Gaussian states}~\cite{wang2007quantum,weedbrook2012gaussian,adesso2014continuous,shi2018variational,Derezinski:2013dra}. The study of the von Neumann bipartite entanglement entropy plays a central role in the quantum foundations of statistical mechanics
\cite{deutsch_91,srednicki_94,rigol_dunjko_08,d2016quantum, gogolin2016equilibration,deutsch2018eigenstate,goldstein_lebowitz_06, popescu_short_06,tasaki_98,polkovnikov2011colloquium,vidmar2017entanglement,liu2018quantum,vidmar2018volume,hackl2019average,Vidmar:2017pak,bianchi2019typical,lydzba2020eigenstate}, in quantum information theory \cite{bennett1998quantum,eisert2006entanglement,Hayden:2006,Hayden:2007cs,Sekino:2008he,Hosur:2015ylk,Roberts:2016hpo,Fujita:2017pju,Lu:2017tbo,Fujita:2018wtr} and condensed matter dedicated to classifying novel states of matter, particularly those with topological quantum order \cite{kitaev2006topological,levin2006detecting, furukawa2007topological,yao2010entanglement, isakov2011topological,depenbrock2012nature, jiang2012identifying,gong2014emergent, roychowdhury2015z}. While measuring entanglement is numerically costly for a generic quantum state, it greatly simplifies for the Gaussian states \cite{sorkin1983entropy,peschel2003calculation}.
The main result of this work is a duality between the eigenvalues of reduced density operators in the bosonic and the fermionic system, {\it i.e.},\ the so-called entanglement spectra. For Gaussian states, these spectra are fully encoded in the eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda$ of the so-called restricted complex structure $J$, where $\lambda_\mathrm{b}\in[1,\infty)$ for bosons and $\lambda_\mathrm{f}\in[0,1]$ for fermions. In supersymmetric systems, the charge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$ provides an identification between the bosonic and the fermionic system, so that picking a subsystem on the bosonic side automatically defines a related subsystem on the fermionic side and vice versa. Our key finding is that, under identification, we have $\lambda_\mathrm{b}=1/\lambda_\mathrm{f}$ and $J_\mathrm{b}=-J^{-1}_\mathrm{f}$, where we use $\mathrm{b}$ and $\mathrm{f}$ to refer to the bosonic and fermionic structure, respectively.
Applying our results to examples, we also discuss consequences of the derived duality for the entanglement entropy in Gaussian states related by SUSY.
Though not always, entanglement entropy often turns out to be a sufficient measure (among others) of the entanglement information encoded in a quantum state \cite{horodecki2009quantum, laflorencie2016quantum, bengtsson2017geometry}.
In fact, in a number of strongly correlated systems, this quantity serves as a smoking gun to identify topological quantum order in the ground states.
Examples include Kitaev's celebrated model of Majorana fermions on a honeycomb lattice \cite{kitaev2006anyons}.
In earlier works \cite{attig2019topological}, the bosonic SUSY analog of this model has been realized and shown to inherit the topological properties from its fermionic partner. We will also regard this model here, as one of our examples to illustrate the aspects of entanglement dualities considering the SUSY-related Gaussian states.
Generally speaking, for noncritical ground states in $d$ dimensions (for both fermionic and bosonic systems), the entanglement entropy of a subsystem $A$ obeys the so-called ``area law'' (for a review, see \cite{eisert2010colloquium, laflorencie2016quantum} and references therein)
\begin{align}
{\cal S}(A) \propto L^{d-1} + \dots,
\label{eq:ent_area_law1}
\end{align}
meaning that, in the thermodynamic limit, the leading order contribution to the entanglement entropy of $A$ with the rest of the system scales with its surface area $L^{d-1}$ when $L$ denotes the linear dimension of $A$.
For critical states, however, the ellipses in \eqref{eq:ent_area_law1} can contain sublinear corrections ({\it e.g.},\ logarithmic corrections for free fermions), and for topologically ordered states, a universal constant called ``topological entanglement entropy.''
The identification provided by the supercharge $\hat{\mathcal Q}$ facilitates a natural connection between a subsystem in one lattice and a subsystem in the superpartner lattice. {\it A priori}, this identification does not warrant a local subsystem in one system to get mapped to a localized subsystem in its superpartner system. However, we will show that, even when well-localized subregions are identified of both lattices, the scaling of the entanglement entropy of the dual supersymmetric subsystem can be very different -- on the bosonic side, it can drastically exceed the area law exhibited by the original fermionic subsystem.
In summary, this study extends the concept of SUSY beyond a spectral mapping between (supersymmetric) quadratic Hamiltonians to discuss the general identification of fermionic and bosonic supersymmetric Gaussian systems, their subsystems, and entanglement spectra as implied by the supercharge operator. Exemplifying lattice models in one dimensions (1D) and two dimensions (2D), we investigate the locality properties of these identification maps and their consequences in the context of entanglement area laws.
In doing so, we employ the idea of {\it K{\"a}hler structure}, which brings the bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states within a unified frame to work in. A further merit of this approach lies in treating the involved geometric structures independent of their matrix representation in a given basis, as discussed at length, {\it e.g.},\ in \cite{hackl2019minimal,hackl2020bosonic,windt2020local}.
\\
The article is structured as follows: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:review-Gaussian-states}, we review the unified K{\"a}hler structure formalism to describe bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states and apply it to supersymmetric quadratic Hamiltonians, where a charge operator induces an identification map at the classical phase space level.
In Sec.\ \ref{sec:entanglement-duality}, we explore how the entanglement entropies in the bosonic and fermionic systems are related and introduce a general theorem on their entanglement spectra. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:discussion}, we summarize our key findings complemented by lattice models as applications and discuss future work.
\section{Gaussian states and supersymmetry}\label{sec:review-Gaussian-states}
In this section, we review the unified formalism that treats both bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states on the same footing. For this, we present a hands-on introduction to the formalism of\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}, which can be consulted for a more rigorous exposition. Other reviews of Gaussian states include\ \cite{weedbrook2012gaussian}.
\subsection{Bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states}\label{eq:Gaussian-states}
We consider a bosonic or fermionic system with $N$ degrees of freedom described by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. We can always find a basis of creation and annihilation operators which we denote as $\hat b_i$ and $\hat b_i^\dagger$ for bosons, and as $\hat c_i$ and $\hat c_i^\dagger$ for fermions, but we use $\hat a_i$ and $\hat a_i^\dagger$ in expressions valid for both bosons and fermions (see Table~\ref{tab:notations}). These operators satisfy the canonical commutation or anti-commutation relations
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
[][\hat{b}_i,\hat{b}_j^\dagger]&=\delta_{ij}\,, && \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\{\hat{c}_i,\hat{c}_j^\dagger\}&=\delta_{ij}\,. && \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}\label{eq:CCR-CAR}
\end{equation}
Out of these, we can construct a set of $2N$ Hermitian operators
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{q}_i=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{b}_i^\dagger + \hat{b}_i)\,\,\quad\hat{p}_i&=\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{b}_i^\dagger-\hat{b}_i)\,, && \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\hat{\gamma}_i=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{c}_i^\dagger + \hat{c}_i)\,,\quad\hat{\eta}_i&=\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}(\hat{c}_i^\dagger-\hat{c}_i)\,, && \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which satisfy the commutation or anti-commutation relations
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
[][\hat{q}_i,\hat{q}_j]&=[\hat{p}_i,\hat{p}_j]=0\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,[\hat{q}_i,\hat{p}_j]=\mathrm{i} \delta_{ij}, \hspace{-1mm}&& \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\{\hat{\gamma}_i,\hat{\gamma}_j\}&=\{\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\eta}_j\}=\delta_{ij}\,,\, \{\hat{\gamma}_i,\hat{\eta}_j\}=0. && \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For bosons, these operators are commonly called quadrature operators (generalized positions and momenta), while for fermions, they are called the Majorana operators.
Up to normalization, there is a unique state $\ket{0}\in\mathcal{H}$, such that $\hat{a}_i\ket{0}=0~\forall i$, which is called the vacuum state with respect to our choice of operators. An orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}$ can then be constructed by successively applying creation operators on $\ket0$,
\begin{align}
\ket{n_1,\dots,n_N}=\prod^N_{i=1}\frac{(\hat{a}_i^\dagger)^{n_i}}{\sqrt{n_i!}}\ket{0}\,,\label{eq:Fock-basis}
\end{align}
where $n_i\in\mathbb{N}$ for bosons and $n_i=0,1$ for fermions.
We can now collect the $2N$ operators to form the vector
\begin{align}\label{eq:quantization_map_quads_Majorana}
\hat{\xi}^a\equiv\begin{cases}
(\hat{q}_1,\dots,\hat{q}_N,\hat{p}_1,\dots,\hat{p}_N) &\textbf{(bosons)}\\
(\hat{\gamma}_1,\dots,\hat{\gamma}_N,\hat{\eta}_1,\dots,\hat{\eta}_N) &\textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,,
\end{align}
where we have the index $a=1,\dots,2N$ (later, we use Latin indices exclusively for bosons and Greek indices for fermions, but for now we use Latin indices for both). It is well known that, for both bosons and fermions, any operator $\mathcal{O}$ can be described as a power series in $\hat{\xi}^a$ or as a limit of such a series. For many physically relevant operators, this series will be finite and of low order. The canonical commutation or anti-commutation relations in terms of $\hat\xi^a$ read
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CCR_CAR_in_terms_of_forms}
\begin{aligned}
[][\hat{\xi}^a,\hat{\xi}^b]&=\mathrm{i} \Omega^{ab}\,, && \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\{\hat{\xi}^a,\hat{\xi}^b\}&=G^{ab}\,, && \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega^{ab}$ is called the symplectic form and $G^{ab}$ is a metric. With respect to our choice of basis in \eqref{eq:quantization_map_quads_Majorana}, they are represented by the matrices
\begin{align}
\Omega\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \id\\
-\id & 0
\end{pmatrix}\quad\text{and}\quad G\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
\id & 0\\
0 & \id
\end{pmatrix}\,,\label{eq:OmG-standard}
\end{align}
and will play an important role in later formulas.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.75}
\begin{tabular}{ p{1.7cm} p{3.2cm} p{3.4cm}}
\toprule
& {\bf Real basis} & {\bf Complex basis} \\
\colrule
{\bf Bosons} & Quadrature operators \newline
$\hat{\xi}_\mathrm{b}\equiv(\hat{q}_j,\hat{p}_k)$
&
CCR operators \newline
$(\hat{b}_j,\hat{b}^\dagger_k)$
\\
{\bf Fermions} & Majorana operators\newline
$\hat{\xi}_\mathrm{f}\equiv (\hat \gamma_j,\hat \eta_k) $
& CAR operators
\newline
$(\hat{c}_j,\hat{c}^\dagger_k)$
\\
{\bf Unified} & Hermitian operators $\hat{\xi}$ & Ladder operators $(\hat{a}_j,\hat{a}^\dagger_k)$ \\
\botrule
\end{tabular}
\ccaption{Overview of notations for operator bases}{Listed are real (self-adjoint) and complex operator bases for bosons and fermions, as well as a unified notation used throughout this work. For an $N$-mode quantum system, indices are in the range $j,k \,{\in}\, \{1,\dots,N\}$. The creation and annihilation operators, in a complex basis, satisfy \emph{canonical commutation/anti-commutation relations} (CCR/CAR).}
\label{tab:notations}
\end{table}
We define\footnote{
Here, we restrict to Gaussian states with $\braket{J|\hat{\xi}^a|J}=0$, {\it i.e.},\ the 1-point correlation function vanishes. However, the formalism extends to also include displacements $z^a=\braket{J|\hat{\xi}^a|J}$ for bosons, as explained in\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}.
} a Gaussian state $\ket{J}\in\mathcal{H}$ as the solution of\footnote{
Note that\ \eqref{eq:def-Gaussian} only fixes $\ket{J}$ up to a complex phase. This does not cause any problems when considering individual Gaussian states, where the complex phase is unphysical. However, if considering superpositions of Gaussian states $\ket{J}+\ket{\tilde{J}}$, we would need to parametrize explicitly how the respective complex phases are related.}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}(\delta^a{}_b+\mathrm{i} J^a{}_b)\hat{\xi}^b\ket{J}=0\,.\label{eq:def-Gaussian}
\end{align}
As shown in\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}, a solution of~\eqref{eq:def-Gaussian} exists only if $J^2=-\id$ and the following compatibility conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item For bosons, $G^{ab}:=-J^a{}_c\Omega^{cb}$ is a metric, {\it i.e.},\ symmetric and positive definite.
\item For fermions, $\Omega^{ab}:=J^a{}_cG^{cb}$ is a symplectic form, {\it i.e.},\ anti-symmetric and non-degenerate.
\end{itemize}
The matrix $J$ is called a linear complex structure.
\emph{In\ \eqref{eq:def-Gaussian} and the rest of this paper, we use Einstein's summation convention,\footnote{
All our equations with indices are fully basis independent and compatible with Penrose's abstract index notation\ \cite{penrose1984spinors}. In fact, we can even use complex bases, such as $\hat{\xi}^a\equiv(\hat{a}_1,\dots,\hat{a}_N,\hat{a}_1^\dagger,\dots,\hat{a}_N^\dagger)$ (see~\cite{hackl2020bosonic}).} where a sum is implied over repeated indices (index contraction). The position of the index indicates if it can be contracted with vectors $v^a\in V$ in phase space or dual vectors $w_a\in V^*$ in dual phase space. Objects with two indices are often written as matrices, where matrix multiplication is the same as contraction over adjected indices. This may require a transpose, {\it e.g.},\ $\Omega^{ac}J^b{}_c$ needs to be written as $(\Omega J^\intercal)^{ab}=\Omega^{ac}(J^\intercal)_c{}^b$ to make the indices $c$ adjacent.}
The above relations introduce for every Gaussian state $\ket{J}$ the object $G^{ab}$ for bosons and $\Omega^{ab}$ for fermions, such that we have in both cases a so-called \emph{Kähler structure}: This is a triplet $(G,\Omega,J)$ such that
\begin{align}
G^{ab}=-J^a{}_c\Omega^{cb}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \Omega^{ab}=J^a{}_cG^{cb}\,,\label{eq:GOmJ-relations}
\end{align}
the equivalence following from $J^2=-\id$. Moreover, we have $J\Omega J^\intercal=\Omega$ and $JGJ^\intercal=G$.
This definition of Gaussian states, unifying bosons and fermions, may appear surprising to readers more familiar with the definition of Gaussian states in terms of covariance matrices or Bogoliubov transformations. However, as shown in\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}, these definitions are fully equivalent, as we review in the following.
\subsubsection{Covariance matrix}
The covariance matrix of a quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ with $\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a|\psi}=0$ is defined as\footnote{Some authors use a different normalization or sign. The extension to states with $\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a|\psi}\neq 0$ is also straight-forward and explained in\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}.}
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{ab}=\begin{cases}
\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a\hat{\xi}^b+\hat{\xi}^b\hat{\xi}^a|\psi} & \textbf{(bosons)}\\
-\mathrm{i}\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a\hat{\xi}^b-\hat{\xi}^b\hat{\xi}^a|\psi} & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,,
\end{align}
{\it i.e.},\ the covariance matrix is exactly the expression that is not already fixed by the canonical commututation or anti-commutation relations. Given a Gaussian state $\ket{J}$ with associated Kähler structures $(G,\Omega,J)$, it follows from\ \eqref{eq:def-Gaussian} that we have the 2-point function
\begin{align}
C_2^{ab}:=\braket{J|\hat{\xi}^a\hat{\xi}^b|J}=\frac{1}{2}(G^{ab}+\mathrm{i}\Omega^{ab})\,,
\end{align}
To prove this, we define $\hat{\xi}^a_\pm=\frac{1}{2}(\delta^a{}_b\mp\mathrm{i} J^a{}_b)\hat{\xi}^b$, which depend on $J$. With this, we find $\hat{\xi}^a=\hat{\xi}^a_++\hat{\xi}^a_-$, and we have $\hat{\xi}^a_-\ket{J}=0$ and $\bra{J}\hat{\xi}^a_+=0$, due to\ \eqref{eq:def-Gaussian}. This implies
\begin{align}
C_2^{ab}=\braket{J|\hat{\xi}^a_-\hat{\xi}^b_+|J}=\begin{cases}
\braket{J|[\hat{\xi}^a_-,\hat{\xi}^b_+]|J} & \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\braket{J|\{\hat{\xi}^a_-,\hat{\xi}^b_+\}|J} & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
due to $\braket{J|\hat{\xi}^b_+\hat{\xi}^a_-|J}=0$. Finally, the commutator or anti-commutator above can be evaluated using\ \eqref{eq:CCR_CAR_in_terms_of_forms} to be
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-2mm}[\hat{\xi}^a_-,\hat{\xi}^b_+]&=\tfrac{1}{4}(\id+\mathrm{i} J)^a{}_c\mathrm{i}\Omega^{cd}(\id-\mathrm{i} J)^b{}_d\,,&&\textbf{(bosons)}\\
\hspace{-2mm}\{\hat{\xi}^a_-,\hat{\xi}^b_+\}&=\tfrac{1}{4}(\id+\mathrm{i} J)^a{}_c G^{cd}(\id-\mathrm{i} J)^b{}_d\,,&&\textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which in both cases combines to $\frac{1}{2}(G+\mathrm{i} \Omega)$ via\ \eqref{eq:GOmJ-relations}.
We can reverse this argument to use $C_2^{ab}$ (and thus the covariance matrix $\Gamma^{ab}$ contained in it) of a general state $\ket{\psi}$, with $\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a|\psi}=0$, to check if $\ket\psi$ is a Gaussian state {\it i.e.},\ $\ket\psi=\ket{J}$ and find $J$. For this, we first compute $G^{ab}=2\Re\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a\hat{\xi}^b|\psi}$ and $\Omega^{ab}=2\Im\braket{\psi|\hat{\xi}^a\hat{\xi}^b|\psi}$ and then invert\ \eqref{eq:GOmJ-relations} to compute
\begin{align}
J^a{}_b=\Omega^{ac}(G^{-1})_{cb}\,.\label{eq:J-from-G-Om}
\end{align}
One can then show\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic} that $J^2=-\id$ is necessary and sufficient for $\ket{\psi}$ to be the Gaussian state $\ket{J}$, {\it i.e.},\ a solution of \eqref{eq:def-Gaussian}. However, if $J^2\neq -\id$, $\ket{\psi}$ is not a Gaussian state.
\subsubsection{Bogoliubov transformations}
These transformations map Gaussian states into Gaussian states, hence, are also termed \emph{Gaussian transformations}. For a Gaussian state $\ket{J}$ annihilated by a set of annihilation operators $\hat{a}'_i$, {\it i.e.},\ $\hat{a}'_i\ket{J}=0$, the following transformation relates them to the original $\hat{a}_i$
\begin{align}
\hat{a}'_i=\sum_j(\alpha_{ij}\hat{a}_i+\beta_{ij}\hat{a}_j^\dagger)\,,
\end{align}
where the matrix elements $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$ characterize the transformation. Defining a Gaussian state $\ket{J_0}$ as the state annihilated by all $\hat{a}_i$, {\it i.e.},\ $\hat{a}_i\ket{J_0}=0$, we can use\ \eqref{eq:J-from-G-Om} and\ \eqref{eq:OmG-standard} to compute that $J_0$ is represented by the matrix
\begin{align}
J_0\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \id\\
-\id & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,,\label{eq:J0-standard}
\end{align}
from which we deduce the resulting Bogoliubov transformed state $\ket{J}$ with $J=MJ_0M^{-1}$, where the matrix $M$ is \cite{windt2020local}
\begin{align}
M=\begin{pmatrix}
\Re\alpha+\Re\beta & \Im\beta-\Im\alpha\\
\Im\alpha+\Im\beta & \Re\alpha-\Re\beta
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{align}
The matrix $M$ is a group element of the symplectic group $\mathrm{Sp}(2N,\mathbb{R})$ for bosons or the orthogonal group $\mathrm{O}(2N,\mathbb{R})$ for fermions, which induces the unitary representation of Gaussian transformations on the Hilbert space\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic}.
\begin{example}
The simplest bosonic Gaussian state is the ground state of the harmonic oscillator with Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\frac{1}{2}(\hat{p}^2+\omega^2\hat{q}^2)$ that takes the form
\begin{align}
\ket{J}=\frac{1}{\cosh{\tfrac{\rho}{2}}}\sum^\infty_{n=0}(-\tanh{\tfrac{\rho}{2}})^n\ket{2n}
\end{align}
with respect to the basis\ \eqref{eq:Fock-basis} and $\rho=\log{\omega}$. Its covariance matrix $\Gamma^{ab}=G^{ab}$ and complex structure as
\begin{align}
\Gamma=G\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
\omega & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\omega}
\end{pmatrix}\quad\text{and}\quad J\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \omega\\
-\frac{1}{\omega} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
with respect to the basis $\hat{\xi}^a\equiv(\hat{q},\hat{p})$.\\
The simplest fermionic Gaussian states are the basis states $\ket{J_+}=\ket{0}$ and $\ket{J_-}=\ket{1}$, which are also the only Gaussian states for a single degree of freedom. Their covariance matrices $\Gamma_\pm=\Omega_\pm$ and complex structures $J_\pm$ happen to coincide in the basis $\hat{\xi}^a\equiv(\hat{q},\hat{p})$ as
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\pm=\Omega_\pm\equiv J_\pm\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \pm 1\\
\mp 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{align}
\end{example}
In summary, this section has reviewed how bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states can be efficiently described in a unified formalism using the triplet $(G,\Omega,J)$ of Kähler structures. Physical properties, such as expectation values or entanglement entropies can be directly computed from them.
\subsection{Supercharge operator and supersymmetric Gaussian states}
We will now consider a system that contains both, bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. We denote the bosonic operators by $\hat{\xi}^{a}_{\mathrm{b}}$ and the fermionic ones by $\hat{\xi}^{\alpha}_{\mathrm{f}}$, where we use Latin letters for bosons and Greek letters for fermions. The commutation and anti-commutation relations then read
\begin{align}
[\hat{\xi}^{a}_{\mathrm{b}},\hat{\xi}^{b}_{\mathrm{b}}]=\mathrm{i} \Omega^{ab}_\mathrm{b}\quad\text{and}\quad\{\hat{\xi}^{\alpha}_{\mathrm{f}},\hat{\xi}^{\beta}_{\mathrm{f}}\}=G^{\alpha\beta}_\mathrm{f}\,,
\end{align}
while the bosonic and the fermionic operators commute $[{\hat\xi^a_\mathrm{b}},{\hat\xi^\alpha_\mathrm{f}}]=0$.
The SUSY transformation between the bosonic and the fermionic degrees of freedom can be generated by a Hermitian supercharge operator \cite{lawler2016supersymmetry}
\begin{align}
\hat{ \mathcal{Q}}=R_{\alpha a}\hat{\xi}^{\alpha}_{\mathrm{f}}\hat{\xi}^a_{\mathrm{b}}\,,
\end{align}
with a real-valued $R$. As mentioned already in~\eqref{eq:susyosc}, this supercharge defines a supersymmetric Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-3mm}\hat{H}&=\tfrac{1}{2}\{\hat{\mathcal{Q}},\hat{\mathcal{Q}}\}
=\tfrac{1}{2}h^\mathrm{b}_{ab}\hat{\xi}^{a}_{\mathrm{b}}\hat{\xi}^{b}_{\mathrm{b}}+\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{2}h^\mathrm{f}_{\alpha\beta}\hat{\xi}^{\alpha}_{\mathrm{f}}\hat{\xi}^{\beta}_{\mathrm{f}}\, \equiv \hat{H}_\mathrm{b}+\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}
,\label{eq:sym-hamiltonian}
\end{split}
\end{align}
which splits into a bosonic part $\hat H_\mathrm{b}$ and a fermionic part $\hat H_\mathrm{f}$. Their Hamiltonian forms are
\begin{align}
h^\mathrm{f}_{\alpha\beta}&= R_{\alpha a}\Omega^{ab}R^\intercal_{b\beta}
\,,\label{eq:sym-hamiltonian3}\\
h^\mathrm{b}_{ab}&= R^\intercal_{a\alpha}G^{\alpha\beta}R_{\beta b}
\,,\label{eq:sym-hamiltonian4}
\end{align}
which satisfy $h^\mathrm{f}_{\alpha\beta}=-h^\mathrm{f}_{\beta\alpha}$ and $h_{ab}^\mathrm{b}=h_{ba}^\mathrm{b}$.
Note that the full Hamiltonian's ground state energy $E_0=\mathrm{i} R_{\alpha a}R_{\beta b} G^{\beta\alpha}\Omega^{ba}=\mathrm{i}\tr (GR\Omega^\intercal R^\intercal)=0$ vanishes, as the bosonic and the fermionic contributions cancel each other.
The excitation spectrum of $\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}$ and $\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$ can be derived by diagonalizing the Lie generators $K_{\mathrm{b}}$ and $K_{\mathrm{f}}$, defined via the relations\footnote{Alternatively, one can also exploit the Heisenberg equation of motion leading to $\tfrac{d}{dt}\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{b}}^a=\mathrm{i}[\hat{H},\hat{\xi}^a_{\mathrm{b}}]=\mathrm{i}(K_{\mathrm{b}})^a{}_b\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{b}}^b$ and similarly for $\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{f}}^\alpha$.}
\begin{align}
[\hat{H},\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{b}}^a]=(K_{\mathrm{b}})^a{}_b\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{b}}^b\quad\text{and}\quad[\hat{H},\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{f}}^\alpha]=(K_{\mathrm{f}})^\alpha{}_\beta\hat{\xi}_{\mathrm{f}}^\beta\,.
\end{align}
One can show\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic} that these matrices are Lie algebra elements satisfying
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{b}}\Omega=-\Omega K_{\mathrm{b}}^\intercal\quad\text{and}\quad K_{\mathrm{f}}G=-G K_{\mathrm{f}}^\intercal\,,
\end{align}
which implies $K_{\mathrm{b}}\in\mathfrak{sp}(2N,\mathbb{R})$ and $K_{\mathrm{f}}\in\mathfrak{so}(2N,\mathbb{R})$. Using the relations\ \eqref{eq:CCR-CAR} allows us to compute them explicitly as
\begin{align}
(K_{\mathrm{b}})^a{}_b&=\tfrac{1}{2}\Omega^{ac}(h_{cb}+h_{bc})=\Omega^{ac} R^\intercal_{c\alpha}G^{\alpha \beta}R_{\beta b}\,,\\
(K_{\mathrm{f}})^\alpha{}_\beta&=\tfrac12 G^{\alpha\gamma}\left(h_{\gamma\beta}-h_{\beta\gamma}\right)
=G^{\alpha\gamma} R_{\gamma a}\Omega^{ab}R^\intercal_{b\beta}\,.
\end{align}
From this, it is evident that $K_\mathrm{b}$ and $K_\mathrm{f}$ are isospectral except for the degeneracy of potential zero eigenvalues.
The ground state of $\hat{H}$ is given by the tensor product
\begin{align}\label{eq:groundstate_ket}
\ket{\mathrm{GS}}=\ket{J_{\mathrm{b}}}\otimes\ket{J_{\mathrm{f}}}\,,
\end{align}
where the associated $J_{\mathrm{b}}$ and $J_{\mathrm{f}}$ are computed from the generators as\ \cite{hackl2020bosonic,bianchi2018linear}\footnote{ Note that applying a function $f(K)$, such as the absolute value, to a diagonalizable matrix $K=U^{-1}DU$, where $D$ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of $K$, is equivalent to applying $f$ to its eigenvalues, {\it i.e.},\ $f(K)=U^{-1}f(D)U$. }
\begin{align}
J_\mathrm{b}=\left|K_\mathrm{b}^{-1}\right|K_\mathrm{b}\quad\text{and}\quad
J_\mathrm{f}=\left|K_\mathrm{f}^{-1}\right|K_\mathrm{f}\,.\label{eq:J-from-K}
\end{align}
These formulas may be surprising at first sight, but they can be readily checked using a basis, where the individual normal modes of $\hat{H}$ decouple. In this basis, we have
\begin{align}
\hat{H}=\sum_i\frac{\omega_i}{2}(\hat{n}_i^{\mathrm{b}}+\hat{n}_i^{\mathrm{f}})\,,
\end{align}
where $\hat{n}_i=\hat a_i^\dagger\hat a_i$ are the normal mode number operators and $\omega_i$ are the one-particle excitation energies. Note that, due to $h^\mathrm{b}_{ab}$ being positive, all $\omega_i$ are positive, and we choose $\hat{n}_i^\mathrm{f}$, such that excitations increase energy. If we go into the associated basis $\hat{\xi}^a$, where $\hat{n}_i^{\mathrm{b}}=\frac{1}{2}\left((\hat{q}^\mathrm{b}_i)^2+(\hat{p}^\mathrm{b}_i)^2\right)$ and $\hat{n}_i^{\mathrm{f}}=\mathrm{i} \hat{\gamma}_i\hat{\eta}_i$, the matrix representations of the generators are
\begin{align}
K_\mathrm{b}\equiv K_\mathrm{f}\equiv\oplus_i\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \omega_i\\
-\omega_i & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,.\label{eq:spectrumkb}
\end{align}
In this specific basis, $J_\mathrm{b}$ and $J_\mathrm{f}$ assume the standard form from\ \eqref{eq:J0-standard}, which then implies\ \eqref{eq:J-from-K}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:SUSY-Hamiltonian}
The simplest supersymmetric Hamiltonian consists of one bosonic and one fermionic degree of freedom. The respective supercharge operator is given by
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}}=\hat{q}\hat{\gamma}+\hat{p}\hat{\eta}\,,
\end{align}
for which we find the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\hat{H}=\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\tfrac{1}{2}(\hat{q}^2+\hat{p}^2)+\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{2}(\hat{\gamma}\hat{\eta}-\hat{\eta}\hat{\gamma})\,.
\end{align}
(equivalent forms of $\hat{\cal Q}$ and $\hat H$ in terms of complex bosonic and fermionic operators are shown in the introduction). The associated Lie algebra generators are then given by
\begin{align}
K_\mathrm{b}\equiv K_\mathrm{f}\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{align}
and the associated ground state is $\ket{\mathrm{GS}}=\ket{0_\mathrm{b}}\otimes\ket{0_\mathrm{f}}$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Supersymmetric identification maps}\label{sec:susy-identification}
We introduced supersymmetric Hamiltonians through the supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$ as $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}+\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$, where $\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}$ and $\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$ have identical one-particle spectra. Both the bosonic and the fermionic part are described classically by phase spaces $V_\mathrm{b}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{2N}$ and $V_\mathrm{f}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{2N}$ (with the corresponding dual spaces denoted by $V^\ast_\mathrm{b}$ and $V^\ast_\mathrm{f}$), respectively, such that $V_\mathrm{b}$ is equipped with the symplectic form $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$, and $V_\mathrm{f}$ is equipped with a metric $G_\mathrm{f}$.
The respective other structure in each space, {\it i.e.},\ a metric $G$ on $V_\mathrm{b}$ and a symplectic form $\Omega$ on $V_\mathrm{f}$, is defined by the ground state $\ket{J}=\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}\otimes\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}$ of $\hat{H}$.
In this section, we now use the supercharge $\hat{\mathcal Q}$ to construct linear maps $L_1:V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{f}$ and $L_2:V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{b}$ between the two phase spaces, that identify the spaces in such a way that the symplectic forms and metrics are mapped onto each other.
Under the above assumption that $R_{a\alpha}$ is real, the supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}=R_{\alpha a}\hat\xi^\alpha_\mathrm{f}\hat\xi^a_\mathrm{b}$ induces the \emph{supersymmetric identification maps} $T_1:V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{f}$ and $T_2:V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{b}$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:identification_maps}
(T_1)^\alpha{}_a=G^{\alpha\beta}R_{\beta a}\quad\text{and}\quad (T_2)^a{}_\alpha=\Omega^{ab}R^\intercal_{b\alpha}\,.
\end{align}
These are related to the Lie generators noting $K_\mathrm{b}= T_2 T_1$ and $K_\mathrm{f}=T_1 T_2$.
Hence, $T_2$ maps the eigenvectors of $K_\mathrm{f}$
(in $V_{\mathrm{f},\mathbb{C}}$, the complexification on $V_\mathrm{f}$) to the eigenvectors of $K_\mathrm{b}$ with the same eigenvalue, and for $T_1$, the analogous holds:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
K_\mathrm{b} v_\mathrm{b} &=\pm\mathrm{i} \lambda_v v_\mathrm{b} &&\Rightarrow &&K_\mathrm{f} T_1v_\mathrm{b}= \pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_v T_1v_\mathrm{b}\\
K_\mathrm{f} w_\mathrm{f}& =\pm\mathrm{i} \lambda_w w_\mathrm{f}&& \Rightarrow && K_\mathrm{b} T_2w_\mathrm{f}= \pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_w T_2w_\mathrm{f}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If only the spaces $V_\mathrm{b}$ and $V_\mathrm{f}$ are given, each equipped with Kähler structures $(G,\Omega,J)$, then there exists a large class of potential identification maps;\footnote{Given an identification map $T_1: V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{f}$, we can define a new identification $T_1'=U_\mathrm{f} T_1 U_\mathrm{b}$, where both $U_\mathrm{b}: V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{b}$ and $U_\mathrm{f}: V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{f}$ need to preserve the respective Kähler structures. This implies that $U_\mathrm{b}$ and $U_\mathrm{f}$ form a representation of the group $\mathrm{U}(N)$. In our case, we also would like that $T_1$ maps $K_\mathrm{b}$ onto $K_\mathrm{f}$, which implies that the respective symmetry group will depend on the degeneracy of the one-particle spectrum. If $K_\mathrm{b}$ (and thus also $K_\mathrm{f}$) has $m$ distinct eigenvalue pairs $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i$ with degeneracy $d_i$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^m d_i=N$, the resulting symmetry group will be $\mathrm{U}(d_1)\times \dots \times \mathrm{U}(d_m)$. Only if the Hamiltonian is fully degenerate with $N$ eigenvalue pairs $\pm \lambda$, this will lead to the maximal symmetry group $\mathrm{U}(N)$ of possible identification maps $T_1'$.} however, the choice of $R_{\alpha b}$ fixes this freedom.
We can use the supersymmetric identification maps to construct normalized identification maps $L_1: V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{f}$ and $L_2: V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{b}$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:J1_J2_definition}
L_1=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2} T_1,\quad L_2=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2} T_2,
\end{align}
(where the form of $L_1$ was identified in\ \cite{attig2019topological}).
These have the property that their products exactly reproduce the linear complex structures \begin{align}
L_1L_2=J_\mathrm{f}\quad\text{and}\quad L_2L_1=J_\mathrm{b},
\label{eq:J1J2_JfJb}
\end{align}
of the ground state of $\hat H$.
To see this, it is convenient to work in the eigenbases of the generators $K_\mathrm{b}$ and $K_\mathrm{f}$. Let $v^{(\pm k)}\in V_{\mathrm{b},\mathbb{C}}$ denote a basis of eigenvectors of $K_\mathrm{b}$ with eigenvalues $\pm \mathrm{i} \lambda_k$. Then $\{T_1 v^{(\pm k)}\}$ is a basis of $V_{\mathrm{f},\mathbb{C}}$ diagonalizing $K_\mathrm{f}$. In fact, with respect to these bases $K_\mathrm{b}$ and $K_\mathrm{f}$ are represented by the same matrix. Accordingly, also $|K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2}$ and $|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2}$ are represented by the same matrices. From this follows, in particular,
\begin{align}
L_1&=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2} T_1=T_1 |K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2},\\
L_2&=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2} T_2=T_2 |K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2}\,,
\end{align}
and hence, we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
L_1L_2&=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2} T_1 |K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2} T_2\\
&= |K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}| T_1 T_2= |K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|K_\mathrm{f}= J_\mathrm{f}\,,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
L_2L_1&=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|^{1/2} T_2|K^{-1}_\mathrm{f}|^{1/2} T_1\\
&=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}| T_2 T_1=|K^{-1}_\mathrm{b}|K_\mathrm{b} =J_\mathrm{b}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the following, we use the identification maps to associate both linear observables and quadratic forms between the two supersymmetric partner systems.
For this, it is important to note that, since the identification maps and their inverses act on the phase spaces, {\it i.e.},\ they act on upper indices from the left, their corresponding transposes act on the dual phase spaces, {\it i.e.},\ on lower indices, as
\begin{align*}
&V_\mathrm{b}\xrightarrow{L_1} V_\mathrm{f}, && V_\mathrm{f} \xrightarrow{(L_1)^{-1}} V_\mathrm{b}, && V^*_\mathrm{b}\xrightarrow{(L_1^\intercal)^{-1}} V^*_\mathrm{f}, && V^*_\mathrm{f}\xrightarrow{ L_1^\intercal } V^*_\mathrm{b},
\\
& V_\mathrm{f} \xrightarrow{ L_2} V_\mathrm{b}, && V_\mathrm{b}\xrightarrow{(L_2)^{-1}} V_\mathrm{f}, && V^*_\mathrm{f}\xrightarrow{ (L_2^\intercal)^{-1} } V^*_\mathrm{b}, && V^*_\mathrm{b}\xrightarrow{ L_2^\intercal } V^*_\mathrm{f}\, .
\end{align*}
For example, let $\hat s=s_a \hat \xi^a_\mathrm{b}$ be a linear operator on the bosonic system. Then
\begin{align}
L_2(\hat s)=s_a (L_2)^a{}_\alpha \hat\xi^\alpha_\mathrm{f},
\end{align}
is the linear fermionic operator associated to it by the identification map $L_1$. Analogously, if $\hat r=r_\alpha\hat \xi^\alpha_\mathrm{f}$ is a fermionic operator, the identification map $L_1$ associates the bosonic operator
\begin{align}
L_1(\hat r)=r_\alpha (L_1)^\alpha{}_a\hat \xi^a_\mathrm{b}
\end{align}
with it. In this sense, the identification maps always identify corresponding pairs of eigenmodes of the SUSY Hamiltonian with each other: If we diagonalize the SUSY Hamiltonian as
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\sum_i \omega_i \left(\hat b_i^\dagger \hat b_i+\hat c_i^\dagger \hat c_i\right)
\end{align}
then, assuming that all $\omega_i$ are different, we always have
\begin{align}
L_1\left(\hat c_{i}\right) =\ee{\mathrm{i}\phi_{i,1}}\hat b_i,\quad L_2\left(\hat b_i\right)=\ee{\mathrm{i}\phi_{i,2}}\hat c_{i}
\end{align}
for all $i=1,...,N$, because of~\eqref{eq:J1_J2_definition}.
Also, due to~\eqref{eq:J1J2_JfJb} the complex phases are such that $\ee{\mathrm{i}\phi_{i,1}} \ee{\mathrm{i}\phi_{i,2}}=-\mathrm{i}$, since $J_\mathrm{b}(\hat b_i)=-\mathrm{i}\hat b_i$ and $J_\mathrm{f}(\hat c_i)=-\mathrm{i}\hat c_i$ as follows from~\eqref{eq:GOmJ-relations} and~\eqref{eq:OmG-standard} (expressed in the complex bases).
\begin{example}
The supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$ introduced in Example\ \ref{ex:SUSY-Hamiltonian} induces the rather simple identification maps represented by the matrices
\begin{align}
L_1\equiv \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix},\quad L_2\equiv \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Accordingly the Hermitian mode operators are identified as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_1(\hat \gamma)&=\hat q,& L_1(\hat \eta)&=\hat p\,, \\
L_2(\hat q)&=\hat \eta,& L_2(\hat p)&=-\hat \gamma\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\subsection{Application: supersymmetric Kitaev chain}\label{sec:Kitaev_1D_example}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_1d_spectrum.pdf}
\end{center}\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Spectrum of the Kitaev chain with open ends. The system is in a trivial phase for $|t/\mu|<1/2$, critical at $t/\mu=\pm1/2$, and topological otherwise, with edge modes appearing.
}
\label{fig:kitaev_1d_spectrum}
\end{figure}
In this section, we choose the well-known Kitaev chain\ \cite{kitaev2001unpaired} of $N$ sites with open boundary conditions as a concrete application for the formalism above and investigate the physical properties of the identification maps. In our construction, the supersymmetric partner of the Kitaev chain resembles the Kane-Lubensky (KL) chain \cite{kane2014topological}. We are interested in addressing the question: To what extent do the identification maps preserve the localization properties of operators, when mapping them from one system to its SUSY partner?
The form of the fermionic Kitaev chain Hamiltonian which we study is obtained by considering a real pairing, and setting its magnitude equal to the hopping ($t$) in the original model proposed in\ \cite{kitaev2001unpaired}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Kitaev_SUSY_Hf}
\hat H_\mathrm{f} &= \frac{\mu}2 \sum_{i=1}^N \big(\hat c_i^\dagger \hat c_i- \hat c_i \hat c_i^\dagger\big)
+ t \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \big(\hat c_{i+1}^\dagger \hat c_i - \hat c_{i+1}^\dagger \hat c_i^\dagger +\mathrm{H.c.}\big),
\end{align}
where $\mu$ denotes the chemical potential. A supercharge which generates this Hamiltonian as the fermionic part of $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\hat H_\mathrm{f}+\hat H_\mathrm{b}$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:Kitaev_1D_supercharge}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}} &= \sqrt\mu\sum_{i=1}^N \hat c_i\hat b_i^\dagger
+\frac{t}{\sqrt\mu} \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \left( \hat c_{i}\hat b_{i+1} + \hat c_{i}\hat b_{i+1}^\dagger \right) +\mathrm{H.c.}
\nonumber\\&= \sqrt{\mu}\sum_{i=1}^N\left( \hat\gamma_i \hat q_i + \hat\eta_i\hat p_i\right)+ \frac{2t}{\sqrt\mu} \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \hat\gamma_{i+1}\hat q_i\,
\end{align}
Its bosonic part resembles the KL chain, a well-studied model in topological mechanics \cite{kane2014topological}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Kitaev_SUSY_Hb}
&\hat H_\mathrm{b} = \frac\mu2\sum_{i=1}^N \hat p_i^2 +\frac{4t^2+\mu^2}{2\mu} \sum_{i=2}^{N} \hat q_i^2 +\frac\mu2\hat q_1^2 +2t \sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\hat q_i\hat q_{i+1}
\nonumber\\&= \frac\mu2\left(\hat b_1\hat b_1^\dagger+\hat b_1^\dagger \hat b_1\right)
+ \sum_{i=2}^{N}\left[ \tfrac\mu2 \left(1+\tfrac{2t^2}{\mu^2}\right) \left(\hat b_i^\dagger\hat b_i+\hat b_i\hat b_i^\dagger\right) \right.
\nonumber\\& \left.\qquad\qquad + t \left(\hat b_{i-1}\hat b_{i}^\dagger+\hat b_{i-1}\hat b_{i}\right) +\frac{t^2}\mu \left(\hat b_i\hat b_i\right) +\mathrm{H.c.}\right]\,.
\end{align}
Denoting the energy eigenmodes of the system with primed operators, the SUSY Hamiltonian can be diagonalized as
\begin{align}\label{eq:1d_Kitaev_H_diagonal}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\hat H_\mathrm{f}+\hat H_\mathrm{b} = \sum_{i=1}^N \omega_i \left(\hat{b}'{}^\dagger_i\hat{b}'_i+\hat {c}'_i{}^\dagger \hat{c}'_i \right).
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig:kitaev_1d_spectrum} schematically shows the spectrum of the Kitaev chain, which is in a trivial phase for $|{t}/{\mu}|<1/2$ and in a topological phase otherwise.
The bulk gap closes at the critical point ${t}/{\mu}=\pm1/2$ in the limit of large $N$. The trivial phase is featureless; all eigenmodes together form a bulk mode continuum. However, as the system enters the topological phase for $|{t}/{\mu}|>1/2$, an edge mode gradually separates from the continuum and stabilizes at zero energy (albeit with an exponentially small gap with $N$) as a telltale signature of the topological phase.
On the fermionic side, {\it i.e.},\ for the Kitaev chain, the edge modes are localized at both ends of the chain.
In contrast, on the bosonic side, {\it i.e.},\ for the KL chain, they are localized only at one end (here the left end) of the chain.
For completeness, we mention that, in the KL chain, there exists a nonlinear zero mode (soliton) that can reverse the location of the edge mode \cite{chen2014nonlinear}; however, that falls beyond the ambit of the present setting.
The localization of the edge mode at the boundaries of the chain is exponential, in the sense that, when writing the edge mode operator as $\hat c'_{N}=\sum_j \alpha_j\hat c_j+\beta_j\hat c_j^\dagger$ or $\hat b'_{N}=\sum_j \alpha_j\hat b_j+\beta_j\hat b_j^\dagger$, the quantities $|\alpha_j|^2$ and $|\beta_j|^2$ decay exponentially away from the concerned edge.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action_weak}
]
{\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_1d_ex1_fermion_site_transfer_log.pdf}}
\hspace{.03\linewidth}
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action_visualize}]{\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]
{figures/fig_kitaev_1D_chain.pdf}}
\hspace{.03\linewidth}
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action_strong}]{\includegraphics[width=.3\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_1d_ex2_fermion_site_transfer_log.pdf}}
\caption{Locality of the identification map $L_1$ and its dependence on the relative coupling $t/\mu$.
As schematically visualized in (b),
the plots show, for a system of $N=30$ modes, how $L_1$ associates the onsite operator $\hat c_{15}$ in the fermionic Kitaev chain \eqref{eq:Kitaev_SUSY_Hf} to the operator $L_1(\hat c_{15})=\sum_j\alpha_j\hat b_j+\beta_j\hat b_j^\dagger$ on the bosonic Kane-Lubensky chain \eqref{eq:Kitaev_SUSY_Hb}.
In the trivial phase, as plotted on the left in (a) for $t=0.35\mu$, the identification map preserves locality to a very high degree, namely, with an exponential decay of the coefficients $|\alpha_{j}|^2$ and $|\beta_{j}|^2$ with the distance $|k-j|$ (here $k\equiv 15$).
In the topological phase, as plotted on the right in (c) for $t=\mu$, the operator $L_1(\hat c_{k})$ can be non-local with a strong contribution from the boundary sites.
}\label{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action}
\end{figure*}
The appearance and localization of the edge modes have consequences for the properties of the identification maps.
In particular, they affect to what extent the identification maps preserve the locality of the onsite observables in a system when mapping them onto its SUSY partner, as visualized in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action}.
From above, we know that the identification maps exactly map corresponding eigenmodes of the partner Hamiltonians to each other, and that we can choose the relative phase factor such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:kitaev_J1J2_choice}
L_1(\hat{c}'_i)= \hat{b}'_i,\quad L_2(\hat{b}'_i)=-\mathrm{i} \hat{c}'_i\,.
\end{align}
Thus, at the point ($t=0$), where the individual chain sites can be chosen as eigenmodes of the partner Hamiltonians, the identification maps exactly associate the fermionic and bosonic chain sites one-to-one, maintaining their ordering.
This feature of locality of the identification maps is conspicuous throughout the trivial phase, except the onsite localization at $t=0$ now transforms to an exponential one (with a length scale falling with the spectral gap), as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action_weak} for a chain of $N=30$ sites.
In detail, in the trivial phase, the identification maps associate single site operators $\hat c_i$ and $\hat b_i$ with operators $L_1(\hat c_k)=\sum_j \alpha_{kj}\hat b_j+\beta_{kj}\hat b_j$, such that $|\alpha_{kj}|^2$ and $|\beta_{kj}|^2$ decay exponentially in $|k-j|$. Likewise, in the trivial phase, $L_2$ maps onsite bosonic operators to exponentially localized fermionic operators.
In the topological phase, however, the identification maps develop non-local features, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_1d_J1action_strong}.
Here, a fermionic site operator $\hat c_k$ ({\it e.g.},\ in the figure, $k=15$ in a chain of $N=30$ sites) when mapped to the operator $L_1(\hat c_{k})$ on the bosonic side, can acquire a significant component located at the left edge of the bosonic chain, which is the edge where also the bosonic edge mode is localized.
If we shift the original fermionic site to further right, the edge contribution to $L_1(\hat c_k)$ decays, and the localization of the resulting observable gains prominence. On the other hand, if we move the original site to the left, the edge contribution to $L_1(\hat c_k)$ starts dominating over the bulk coming from (bosonic) sites in the neighborhood of the $k$th site.
Instead of the map $L_1$, we may as well employ $L_2^{-1}$ to map the fermionic site operators to their bosonic counterparts. The observed behavior is similar; however, for $L_2^{-1}(\hat c_k)$, in the topological phase, the edge contribution at the left end of the bosonic chain dominates as $k\to N$, {\it i.e.},\ when the original fermionic operator approaches the right end of the chain.
The converse association of bosonic onsite operators with the corresponding fermionic observables via the identification maps $L_2$ or $L_1^{-1}$ behaves very similar:
In the trivial phase, they are exponentially localized as above, and in the topological phase, they exhibit similar non-local features.
However, here, both $L_2(\hat b_k)$ and $L_1^{-1}(\hat b_k)$ develop a dominant edge contribution when the original bosonic operator $\hat b_k$ approaches the left end of the chain. For $L_2(\hat b_k)$, the edge contribution appears on the left edge of the fermionic chain; for $L_1^{-1}(\hat b_k)$, it appears on the right edge.
This example demonstrates that the identification between the bosonic and the fermionic parts of a SUSY Gaussian state via the identification maps may or may not coincide with an identification based intuitively on some underlying (lattice) geometry of the SUSY Hamiltonians.
Whereas we observe agreement in the trivial phase of the SUSY Kitaev chain, in the topological phase, the identification maps behave vastly differently and disengage from notions based on the geometric intuition.
The duality relations of the next section will show that, whereas the geometrical appearance of modes can be distorted by the identification maps, their entanglement properties remain intimately related.
\section{Entanglement duality}\label{sec:entanglement-duality}
In this section, we derive how subsystem decompositions $V=A\oplus B$ behave under the supersymmetric identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$, which leads to a duality between the bosonic and fermionic (mixed) Gaussian states. We can also use this to relate the associated entanglement entropies.
\subsection{Reduced Gaussian states and entanglement}\label{sec:entanglement_gaussian_states}
Given a classical phase space $V\simeq\mathbb{R}^{2N}$, a subspace $A\subset V$ defines a physical subsystem if the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Bosonic:} The restriction of $\Omega^{ab}$ to the subspace $A$ is non-degenerate, {\it i.e.},\ has non-zero determinant.
\item \textbf{Fermionic:} The subspace $A$ is even dimensional.
\end{itemize}
Note that the bosonic condition also implies that $A$ is even dimensional, as any anti-symmetric odd-dimensional matrix has a vanishing determinant.
In practice, we choose a basis $\hat{\xi}^a=(\hat{\xi}_A^a,\hat{\xi}^a_B)$ that splits $V=A\oplus B$ into a direct sum, where $B$ is the complementary system to $A$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:system_complement}
\begin{aligned}
B&=\begin{cases}
\left\{v^a\in V\,\big|\, v^a \Omega^{-1}_{ab}u^b=0\,~\forall\, u^b\in A \right\}& \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\left\{v^a\in V\,\big|\, v^a G^{-1}_{ab}u^b=0\,~\forall\, u^b\in A \right\}& \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is called the symplectic complement for bosons and the orthogonal complement for fermions.\footnote{Here, we used the inverse matrices $\Omega^{-1}$ and $G^{-1}$, which are bilinear forms on the phase space (rather than its dual). In~\cite{hackl2020geometry,hackl2020bosonic,windt2020local}, they are denoted by $\Omega^{-1}_{ab}\equiv \omega_{ab}$ and $G^{-1}_{ab}\equiv g_{ab}$.}
We have the two bases $\hat{\xi}_A$ and $\hat{\xi}_B$ with $N_A+N_B=N$, such that the resulting matrix representations of $\Omega^{ab}$ and $G^{ab}$ take the forms
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Omega^{ab}&\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc|cc}
& \id &&\\
-\id & &&\\
\hline
&&& \id\\
&&-\id &
\end{array}\right) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{c|c}
\Omega_A & \\
\hline
& \Omega_B
\end{array}\right)\,,&&\textbf{(bosons)}\\
G^{ab}&\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc|cc}
\id & &&\\
& \id&&\\
\hline
&&\id& \\
&& & \id
\end{array}\right) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{c|c}
G_A & \\
\hline
& G_B
\end{array}\right)\,.&&\textbf{(fermions)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that this implies that the restrictions $\Omega_A$ and $\Omega_B$, or $G_A$ and $G_B$, respectively, reproduce the standard forms from\ \eqref{eq:OmG-standard}, {\it i.e.},\ the subsystems are themselves a bosonic or fermionic system consisting of $N_A$ and $N_B$ degrees of freedom.
When quantizing the subsystems $A$ and $B$, we can construct Fock spaces $\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$ as described in Sec.~\ref{eq:Gaussian-states}, such that the full Hilbert space is a tensor product $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_A\otimes\mathcal{H}_B$. In general, a pure Gaussian state $\ket{J}\in\mathcal{H}$ will itself not be a tensor product state with respect to this decomposition, which means that the subsystems are entangled.
It is well-known that the bipartite entanglement encoded in a general pure state $\ket{\psi}$ can be characterized by the spectrum of the mixed state $\rho_A=\Tr_{B}\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}$ that results from tracing over $\mathcal{H}_B$. If $\ket{\psi}$ is a pure Gaussian state $\ket{J}$, the reduced state $\rho_A$ is a mixed Gaussian state. It can be expressed in terms of the linear complex structure $J$ as~\cite{hackl2020bosonic}
\begin{align}
\rho_A=e^{-\hat{Q}}\,\,\,\text{with}\,\,\,\hat{Q}=\begin{cases}
q_{rs}\hat{\xi}^r\hat{\xi}^s+c_0 & \normalfont{\textbf{(bosons)}}\\
\mathrm{i} q_{rs}\hat{\xi}^r\hat{\xi}^s+c_0 & \normalfont{\textbf{(fermions)}}
\end{cases}\,,\label{eq:mixed_state}
\end{align}
with $q_{rs}$ is a $2N_A$-by-$2N_A$ matrix\footnote{Not to confuse with the quadrature operator $\hat{q}_i$, which carries at most one index.} given by~\cite{hackl2020bosonic}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
q_{rs}&=\begin{cases}
-\mathrm{i}(\Omega^{-1}_A)_{rl}\,\mathrm{arccoth}\left(\mathrm{i} J_A\right)^l{}_s & \textbf{(bosons)}\\[1mm]
+\mathrm{i} (G^{-1}_A)_{rl}\,\mathrm{arctanh}\left(\mathrm{i} J_A\right)^l{}_s & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\\
&=\begin{cases}
+(\Omega^{-1}_A)_{rl}\,\mathrm{arccot}\left(J_A\right)^l{}_s & \textbf{(bosons)}\\[1mm]
-(G^{-1}_A)_{rl}\,\mathrm{arctanh}\left(J_A\right)^l{}_s & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,.\label{eq:J-q-relationship}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here, $J_A$ is the restriction of $J$ to the $2N_A$-by-$2N_A$ subblock, representing the action of $J$ onto the subspace $A\subset V$, and similarly, $\Omega^{-1}_A$ and $G^{-1}_A$ denote the restrictions of $\Omega^{-1}$ and $G^{-1}$. The coefficient $c_0$ is given by
\begin{align}
c_0&=\begin{cases}
\tfrac{1}{4}\log\det\left(\tfrac{\id+J^2_A}{4}\right) & \textbf{(bosons)}\\ -\tfrac{1}{4}\log\det\left(\tfrac{\id+J^2_A}{4}\right) & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,.
\end{align}
It can be shown\ \cite{hackl2019minimal,hackl2020bosonic} that the eigenvalues of $J_A$ are purely imaginary and appear in $N_A$ conjugate pairs $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i$, where $\lambda_i\in[1,\infty)$ for bosons, and $\lambda_i\in[0,1]$ for fermions.
These relations have the consequence that, for Gaussian states, the rather complicated spectrum of $\rho_A$ simplifies so that it can be efficiently calculated from the much simpler spectrum of $J_A$ given by $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i$.
Specifically, the eigenvalues of $\rho_A$ are
\begin{align}
\hspace{-3mm}\mu(n_1,\dots,n_N)=\begin{cases}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{N_A}\frac{(\tanh r_i)^{n_i}}{\cosh r_i}\right)^2 & \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{N_A}\frac{(\tan{r_i})^{n_i}}{\sec{r_i}}\right)^2 & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{cases}\,,\label{eq:mu-spectra}
\end{align}
where $r_i=\frac{1}{2}\cosh^{-1}(\lambda_i)$, $n_i\in\mathbb{N}$ for bosons, and $r_i=\frac{1}{2}\cos^{-1}(\lambda_i)$, $n_i=0,1$ for fermions.
The entanglement entropy $S_A(\ket{\psi})=S_B(\ket{\psi})$ is computed as the von Neumann entropy $S(\rho_A)$ of the reduced state $\rho_A$, namely,
\begin{align}
S_A(\ket{\psi})=S(\rho_A)=-\Tr \rho_A\,\log{\rho_A}\,.
\end{align}
Calculating this quantity in practice is notoriously hard, as it requires computing the spectrum of $\rho_A$ that demands vast computational resources for large systems and appropriate approximations or truncation for infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces (in the case of bosons). However, if the state $\ket{\psi}$ happens to be a Gaussian state $\ket{J}$, we can exploit the relation between the spectra of $\rho_A$ and $J_A$ to find analytical formulas in terms of the restriction $J_A$ to the subsystem $A$. These restrictions correspond exactly to the symplectic or orthogonal decomposition $V=A\oplus B$ introduced at the beginning of this section. The formulas for the von Neumann entropies are given by\ \cite{sorkin1983entropy,peschel2003calculation}
\begin{align}\label{eq:entropy_functions}
&S(\rho_A)=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_A} s_\mathrm{b}(\lambda_i)& \textbf{(bosons)}\\
\sum_{i=1}^{N_A} s_\mathrm{f}(\lambda_i) & \textbf{(fermions)}
\end{array}\right.\,,
\end{align}
with
$s_{\mathrm{b}}(x)=\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)-\left(\frac{x-1}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{x-1}{2}\right)$ for bosons, and
$s_\mathrm{f}(x)=-\frac{1+x}{2}\log\left(\frac{1+x}{2}\right)-\frac{1-x}{2}\log\left(\frac{1-x}{2}\right)$
for fermions,
which can be unified by the single trace formula\ \cite{bianchi2015entanglement,hackl2020bosonic}
\begin{align}
S(\rho_A)=\frac{1}{2}\left|\Tr\left[\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{i} J_A}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{i} J_A}{2}\right)^2\right]\right|\,.
\end{align}
The formula in~\eqref{eq:entropy_functions} can also be used to compute the Renyi entropy of order $n$ if we replace $s_\mathrm{b}$ and $s_\mathrm{f}$ by the respective Renyi entropy functions~\cite{hackl2020bosonic}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:renyi_formulas}
r^{(k)}_\mathrm{b}(\lambda)&=\frac{1}{k-1}\log\left((\tfrac{\lambda+1}{2})^k-(\tfrac{\lambda-1}{2})^k\right)\,,\\
r^{(k)}_\mathrm{f}(\lambda)&=-\frac{1}{k-1}\log\left((\tfrac{1+\lambda}{2})^k+(\tfrac{1-\lambda}{2})^k\right)\,.
\end{align}
It follows from the above that a subsystem $A$ (bosonic or fermionic) of a system in a pure Gaussian state is not entangled with the rest of the system, {\it i.e.},\ it is in a product state with the rest of the system, if and only if $\lambda_i=1$ for all eigenvalues of $J_A$. In that case, we have $J_A^2=-\id_A$, and the subsystem is in a pure Gaussian state on its own. This is equivalent to $J(A)=A$, {\it i.e.},\ the full (unrestricted) linear complex structure mapping $A$ onto itself.
\subsection{Supersymmetric ground states and identification maps}
Above in~\eqref{eq:J1J2_JfJb}, we saw that $L_1$ and $L_2$ together encode the linear complex structures of both the bosonic and the fermionic part of the ground state \eqref{eq:groundstate_ket} of $\hat H$.
In the following, we will use $L_1$ and $L_2$ to identify subsystems of fermionic modes with subsystems of bosonic modes, and vice versa.
The maps $L_1$ and $L_2$ are the canonical choices for the identification maps because they preserve the Kähler structures of the fermionic ground state $\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}$ and the bosonic ground state $\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}$.
That is, if we consider the fermionic 2-point function
\begin{align}
C_{\mathrm{f},2}^{\alpha\beta}=\bra{J_\mathrm{f}}\hat\xi^\alpha\hat\xi^\beta\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}
=\frac12\left(G_{\mathrm{f}}^{\alpha\beta}+\mathrm{i}\Omega_{\mathrm{f}}^{\alpha\beta}\right)
\end{align}
and the bosonic
\begin{align}
C_{\mathrm{b},2}^{ab}=\bra{J_\mathrm{b}}\hat\xi^a\hat\xi^b\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}
=\frac12\left(G_{\mathrm{b}}^{ab} +\mathrm{i}\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}^{ab}\right),
\end{align}
then one can show that we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:G_preserve}
G_{\mathrm{b}}^{ab}=(L_2)^a{}_\alpha G_{\mathrm{f}}^{\alpha\beta} (L_2^\intercal)_\beta{}^b = (L_1^{-1})^a{}_\alpha G_{\mathrm{f}}^{\alpha\beta} (L_1^{\intercal\, -1})_\beta{}^b\, ,
\end{align}
as well as (dropping the indices for a better readability)
\begin{align}\label{eq:Omega_preserve}
\Omega_\mathrm{f}= L_1\Omega_\mathrm{b} L_1^\intercal= L_2^{-1}\Omega_\mathrm{b} L_2^{-1\,\intercal}.
\end{align}
Thus, the identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$ preserve both the symmetric and the antisymmetric forms of the Kähler structure and exactly map the bosonic and fermionic 2-point functions of the ground state onto each other.
Interestingly, we see that it makes no difference whether we use
$L_1$ and $(L_1)^{-1}$ or $L_2$ and $(L_2)^{-1}$ for this purpose. The reason is that both maps are closely related. In fact, since $J_\mathrm{f}^2=-\id$ and $J_\mathrm{b}^2=-\id$, it follows that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
(L_1)^{-1}&= -L_2J_\mathrm{f}= -J_\mathrm{b} L_2\,,\\
(L_2)^{-1}&= -J_\mathrm{f} L_1=-L_1J_\mathrm{b}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsection{Dual supersymmetric subsystems}
Since the identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$ preserve the Kähler structures, subsystems in one part (bosonic/fermionic) of a supersymmetric Gaussian state can be identified with subsystems in the other part (fermionic/bosonic).
If $A\subset V_\mathrm{b}$ corresponds to a bosonic subsystem, then both $L_1(A)$ and $L_2^{-1}(A)$ are even-dimensional subspaces of the fermionic phase space $V_\mathrm{f}$; hence, they correspond to a fermionic subsystem, as defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:entanglement_gaussian_states}.
If, on the other hand, $A\subset V_\mathrm{f}$ corresponds to a fermionic subsystem, then $L_2(A)$ and $L_1^{-1}(A)$ only correspond to a bosonic subsystem, if the restriction of $\Omega_\mathrm{f}$ to $A$ is non-degenerate. Following \eqref{eq:Omega_preserve}, this condition ensures that $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$ is non-degenerate as required for $L_2(A)$ and $L_1^{-1}(A)$ to yield a bosonic subsystem.
How does the subsystem which $A$ is mapped to depend on whether we use the identification map $L_1$ (and its inverse) or the map $L_2$?
If the subsystem $A$ is in a pure state, there is no difference; both identification maps identify $A$ with the same subsystem. For example, if $A\subset V_\mathrm{b}$ is a bosonic subsystem which is in a pure state, then we have $J_\mathrm{b}(A)=A$; thus,
\begin{align}
L_1(A)=L_1(J_\mathrm{b}(A))=L_2^{-1}(A).
\end{align}
However, for an entangled subsystem, we have $J(A)\neq A$ and are led to the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:comm_diagramm_subsystems}
\begin{tikzcd}
A_\mathrm{b} \arrow[r, "L_1"] \arrow[leftrightarrow]{d}[left]{J_\mathrm{b}} \arrow[leftarrow]{dr}[near start]{L_2} & A_\mathrm{f} \arrow[d, "J_\mathrm{f}", leftrightarrow] \arrow{dl}[near end]{L_2} \\ \tilde A_\mathrm{b} \arrow{r}[below]{L_1} & \tilde A_\mathrm{f}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Here, we have chosen $A_\mathrm{b} \subset V_\mathrm{b}$ as a bosonic subsystem, defined $A_\mathrm{f}=L_1(A_\mathrm{b})$ and denoted $\tilde A_\mathrm{b}=J_\mathrm{b}(A_\mathrm{b})$ and $\tilde A_\mathrm{f}=J_\mathrm{f}(A_\mathrm{f})$.
Whereas $A_\mathrm{b}$ and $\tilde A_\mathrm{b}$ ($A_\mathrm{f}$ and $\tilde A_\mathrm{f}$) define different bosonic (fermionic) subsystems, they are intimately related: $A_\mathrm{b} \cup \tilde A_\mathrm{b}$ ($A_\mathrm{f} \cup \tilde A_\mathrm{f}$) is the smallest subsystem containing $A_\mathrm{b}$ ($A_\mathrm{f}$) which is in a pure partial state, {\it i.e.},\ shares no entanglement with the rest of the system.
Furthermore, $A_\mathrm{b}$ ($A_\mathrm{f}$) shares the same amount of entanglement with the rest of the system as does $\tilde A_\mathrm{b}$ ($\tilde A_\mathrm{f}$). This follows from the fact that the restricted linear complex structures $J^\mathrm{b}_{A_\mathrm{b}}$ and $J^\mathrm{b}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}$ ($J^\mathrm{f}_{A_\mathrm{f}}$ and $J^\mathrm{f}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{f}}$) have the same spectrum.
To see this, consider the decomposition of the phase space into the direct sum $V_\mathrm{b}=A_\mathrm{b}\oplus B_\mathrm{b}$ according to \eqref{eq:system_complement}. We define by $P_{A_\mathrm{b}}$ the projector onto $A$ with respect to this decomposition:
\begin{align}
P_{A_\mathrm{b}}(A_\mathrm{b})=A_\mathrm{b},\quad P_{A_\mathrm{b}}(B_\mathrm{b})=0.
\end{align}
The restriction of $J_\mathrm{b}$ to $A_\mathrm{b}$ is then
$
J^\mathrm{b}_{A_\mathrm{b}}=P_{A_\mathrm{b}} J_\mathrm{b} P_{A_\mathrm{b}}.
$
Analogously, considering the decomposition $V_\mathrm{b}=\tilde A_\mathrm{b}\oplus \tilde B_\mathrm{b}$, we find that the projector onto $\tilde A_\mathrm{b}$ is
$
P_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}= - J_\mathrm{b} P_{A_\mathrm{b}} J_\mathrm{b},
$
and
\begin{align}
J^\mathrm{b}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}= P_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}J_\mathrm{b} P_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}=-J_\mathrm{b} J^\mathrm{b}_{A_\mathrm{b}} J_\mathrm{b}\,.
\end{align}
Since $J_\mathrm{b}^{-1}=-J_\mathrm{b}$, $J^\mathrm{b}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}$ and $J^\mathrm{b}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}$ are represented by similar matrices and, hence, have the same spectrum.
In fact, if $v\in A_\mathrm{b}$ is an eigenvector of $J^\mathrm{b}_{A_\mathrm{b}}$ with $J^\mathrm{b}_{A_\mathrm{b}} v=\pm \mathrm{i} \lambda v$, then $J_\mathrm{b} v$ is an eigenvector of $J^\mathrm{b}_{\tilde A_\mathrm{b}}$ with the same eigenvalue.
\subsection{Duality for Gaussian states and their entanglement}
In the previous section, we analyzed the structure of subsystems in supersymmetric Gaussian states. In particular, we discussed how the identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$ relate bosonic subsystems to fermionic subsystems and vice versa. We can now use this background structure to derive the following duality between bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states.
The setting is as follows. We consider a classical phase space $V\simeq \mathbb{R}^{2N}$ with Kähler compatible structures $(G,\Omega,J)$ and a choice of a subspace $A\subset V$ with $\dim A=2N_A$. We can associate two distinct quantum theories, namely, a bosonic Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{b}$ with Gaussian state $\ket{J}_\mathrm{b}$ and a fermionic Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{f}$ with Gaussian state $\ket{J}_\mathrm{f}$. In both quantum theories, we can construct a reduced density operator $\rho_A$ whose spectrum is determined by the restricted complex structure.
Crucially, however, the restriction of $J$ to $A$ is different depending on whether we consider a bosonic system and use a symplectic decomposition of the phase space or consider a fermionic system and use an orthogonal decomposition, according to \eqref{eq:system_complement}.
This is due to the fact that the $2N_A$-by-$2N_A$ subblock of the matrix $J$ associated to the subspace $A$ depends also on the basis elements that are not contained in $A$. In particular, we choose two different bases for the bosonic and fermionic case $\hat{\xi}_\mathrm{b}=(\hat{\xi}^A_\mathrm{b},\hat{\xi}^B_\mathrm{b})$ and $\hat{\xi}_\mathrm{f}=(\hat{\xi}^A_\mathrm{f},\hat{\xi}^B_\mathrm{f})$, such that
\begin{align}
\mathrm{span}(\hat{\xi}^A_\mathrm{b})&=A=\mathrm{span}(\hat{\xi}^A_\mathrm{f})\,,\\
\mathrm{span}(\hat{\xi}^B_\mathrm{b})&=B_\mathrm{b}\neq B_\mathrm{f}=\mathrm{span}(\hat{\xi}^B_\mathrm{f})\,,
\end{align}
where $B_\mathrm{b}$ and $B_\mathrm{f}$ are the respective bosonic and fermionic complements defined in~\eqref{eq:system_complement}.
Consequently, the restrictions of $J$ to the subspace $A$ can be different on the bosonic and the fermionic side, which therefore are denoted by $J_A^\mathrm{b}$ and $J_A^\mathrm{f}$, respectively.
Equipped with this, we can now prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}[Entanglement duality]\label{prop:entanglement-duality}
We consider a supersymmetric system with phase space $V\simeq V_\mathrm{b}\simeq V_\mathrm{f}$ equipped with Kähler structures $(G,\Omega,J)$, which simultaneously describe a bosonic and a fermionic Gaussian state, namely, $\ket{J}_\mathrm{b}\in\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{b}$ and $\ket{J}_\mathrm{f}\in\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{f}$. We now choose a subsystem $A\subset V$. This leads to two inequivalent decompositions of $V$, namely, $V=A\oplus B_\mathrm{b}$ and $V=A\oplus B_\mathrm{f}$, where the complementary subsystems $B_\mathrm{b}$ and $B_\mathrm{f}$ are defined in~\eqref{eq:system_complement}. The associated reduced states $\rho_A^\mathrm{b}$ and $\rho_A^\mathrm{f}$ are both Gaussian and fully described by the restricted complex structure $J_A^\mathrm{b}$ and $J_A^\mathrm{f}$, respectively, which satisfy the following relation:
\begin{align}
J_A^\mathrm{f}=-(J_A^\mathrm{b})^{-1}\,.\label{eq:entanglement-duality}
\end{align}
This implies that the eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i^\mathrm{b}$ of $J_A^\mathrm{b}$ are related to the eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i^\mathrm{f}$ of $J_A^\mathrm{f}$ via $\lambda_i^\mathrm{b}=1/\lambda^\mathrm{f}_i$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The decompositions $V=A\oplus B_\mathrm{b}$ and $V=A\oplus B_\mathrm{f}$ define projectors, such that $P_\mathrm{b}: V\to A$, $P_\mathrm{f}: V\to A$, $\bar{P}_\mathrm{b}: V\to B_\mathrm{b}$, and $\bar{P}_\mathrm{f}: V\to A_\mathrm{f}$, such that $\id=P_\mathrm{b}+\bar{P}_\mathrm{b}=P_\mathrm{f}+\bar{P}_\mathrm{f}$. The restricted complex structures are then defined as
\begin{align}
J_A^\mathrm{b}&=P_\mathrm{b} J|_A: A\to A\,,\\
J_A^\mathrm{f}&=P_\mathrm{f} J|_A: A\to A\,.
\end{align}
We need to show $J_A^\mathrm{f}=-(J_A^\mathrm{b})^{-1}$, which is equivalent to $J_A^\mathrm{f} J_A^\mathrm{b}=-\id_A$.
To show the latter, we take a vector $a\in A$ and calculate
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
-a &= -P_\mathrm{f} a=P_\mathrm{f} J^2 a =P_\mathrm{f} J (P_\mathrm{b}+\bar{P}_\mathrm{b}) J a \\
&= P_\mathrm{f} J J^\mathrm{b}_A a + P_\mathrm{f} J \bar{P}_\mathrm{b} J a= J_A^\mathrm{f} J_A^\mathrm{b} a+ P_\mathrm{f} J \bar{P}_\mathrm{b} J a\,.\label{eq:relation1}
\end{split}
\end{align}
The second term in~\eqref{eq:relation1} vanishes since, for an arbitrary vector $v\in V$, the inner product
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
G^{-1}(v,P_\mathrm{f} J\bar{P}_\mathrm{b} a)&=G^{-1}(P_\mathrm{f} v,J\bar{P}_\mathrm{b} Ja)\\
&=-\Omega^{-1}(\underbrace{P_\mathrm{f} v}_{\in A},\underbrace{\bar{P}_\mathrm{b} Ja}_{B_\mathrm{b}})=0\,,\label{eq:zero}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where we have used the relationship $G^{-1}(\cdot,J\cdot)=-\Omega^{-1}(\cdot, \cdot)$ following from~\eqref{eq:GOmJ-relations}. In matrix notation, we would write $G^{-1}(v,w)=(G^{-1})_{ab}v^aw^b$ and so on. That the inner product $\Omega^{-1}(\cdot, \cdot)$ in \eqref{eq:zero} vanishes follows from the definition of $B_\mathrm{b}$ in~\eqref{eq:system_complement}, and therefore, proves the identity in \eqref{eq:entanglement-duality}.
\end{proof}
At first glance, this result is a simple statement about restricting a complex structure $J: V\to V$ to a subspace $A\subset V$ in two inequivalent ways. However, its application to bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states implies a rather complicated relationship of the spectra $\rho_A^\mathrm{b}$ and $\rho_A^\mathrm{f}$ via~\eqref{eq:mu-spectra} and~\eqref{eq:entanglement-duality}, which can be made precise in the following corollary relating the restricted complex structures of the dual subsystems.
\begin{corollary}
Given a supersymmetric system with supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$, we have a supersymmetric ground state $\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}\otimes\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}$ of $\hat{H}=\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2$ and identification maps $L_1: V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{f}$, $L_2: V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{b}$, and their inverses $L_1^{-1}$ and $L_2^{-1}$, as above. Then Proposition~\ref{prop:entanglement-duality} implies the following.\\
Let $S\subset V_\mathrm{b}$ be a bosonic subsystem and $L(S)\subset V_\mathrm{f}$, with $L=L_1$ or $L=L_2^{-1}$, be a dual fermionic subsystem. Then the restricted linear structures $J^\mathrm{b}_S:S\to S$ and $J^\mathrm{f}_{L(S)}:L(S)\to L(S)$ of these two subsystems are such that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
(J^\mathrm{b}_S)^{-1} &= - L^{-1} J^\mathrm{f}_{L(S)} L\,, \\
(J^\mathrm{f}_{L(S)})^{-1} &= - LJ^\mathrm{b}_S L^{-1}\, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Let $R\subset V_\mathrm{f}$ be a fermionic subsystem and $L(R)\subset V_\mathrm{b}$, with $L=L_2$ or $L=L_1^{-1}$, be a dual bosonic subsystem.
Then the restricted linear structures $J^\mathrm{f}_R:R\to R$ and $J^\mathrm{b}_{L(R)}:L(R)\to L(R)$ of these two subsystems are such that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
(J^\mathrm{f}_R)^{-1} &= - L^{-1} J^\mathrm{b}_{L(R)} L\,, \\
( J^\mathrm{b}_{L(R)})^{-1} &= - L J^\mathrm{f}_R L^{-1}\, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Thus, the eigenvalues of the dual restricted complex structures are inverses of each other as implied by~\eqref{eq:entanglement-duality}, and their entanglement spectra are accordingly related by~\eqref{eq:mu-spectra}.
\end{corollary}
While our result applies to any identification where a bosonic and a fermionic phase space are related, supersymmetric systems with the identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:susy-identification}, are the prime examples where such an identification is naturally chosen.
The entanglement duality implies an intimate relation of the entanglement entropy of a subsystem with that of its dual subsystem because both the von Neumann entropy~\eqref{eq:entropy_functions}, as well as the Renyi entropies~\eqref{eq:renyi_formulas} are functions of the spectrum of the restricted complex linear structure.
For the simplest possible case, where the subsystems each consist of a single mode only, Fig.~\ref{fig:sf_sb_dual} shows the relation between the von Neumann entropy of the fermionic mode and the bosonic mode. Here, the restricted complex structures have one pair of imaginary eigenvalues, $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda$ for the fermionic and $\pm\mathrm{i} \lambda^{-1}$ for the bosonic system, which with the formula for the von Neumann entropies~\eqref{eq:entropy_functions} yields the relation plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:sf_sb_dual}.
Evidently, the bosonic and the fermionic entanglement become asymptotically equal when the corresponding modes approach a pure partial state, and consequently, the entanglement approaches zero ($\lambda \rightarrow 1$). In the opposite direction, however, the entanglement in the bosonic mode grows without a bound as $\lambda\to0$, whereas the entanglement in the dual fermionic mode tends to saturate at the maximal value of $\log{2}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figures/fig_sf_sb_dual_2.pdf}
\end{center}\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Entanglement entropies for dual subsystems each consisting of a single mode.
The solid line shows the entanglement entropy of a single fermionic mode for which the restricted complex structure has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda$.
Due to the entanglement duality \eqref{eq:entanglement-duality}, the restricted complex structure of the dual bosonic mode has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda^{-1}$, and the dashed line plots the resulting entanglement entropy.
}
\label{fig:sf_sb_dual}
\end{figure}
This relation between the SUSY partner single modes readily extends to multiple modes because, as is evident from \eqref{eq:entropy_functions}, the total entanglement entropy of a subsystem is given by the sum of the entanglement entropies over the individual normal modes of that subsystem. This is related to the fact, that a mixed Gaussian state always can be expressed as the product state of its normal modes, which are given by the eigenmodes of the restricted linear complex structure \cite{hackl2019minimal}. As a consequence of the entanglement duality, the identification maps identify normal modes with reciprocal eigenvalues of the restricted complex linear structures.
At this stage, it is an important question whether the entanglement duality is merely an interesting observation or to what extent it matters for physical systems.
In the following two sections, we therefore investigate the entanglement duality in two concrete applications. First, we consider the toy model of a supersymmetric system with two bosonic and two fermionic modes in Sec.~\ref{sec:two_mode_duality} before we then move on to the recently proposed SUSY Kitaev honeycomb model in Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D}.
Before proceeding, we note that mixed states that arise as a thermal state of a supersymmetric Hamiltonian also come under the ambit of our duality. In detail, we ask if a relation, like what applies to the mixed states arising from a reduction of a pure state to a subsystem $A$, holds for a thermal state of a supersymmetric Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}+\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$, {\it i.e.},\ $\rho=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\beta\hat{H}}=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\beta\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}}\otimes e^{\beta\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}}$. The following proposition answers this question in the affirmative.
\begin{proposition}[Thermal state duality]\label{prop:thermal-duality}
We consider a supersymmetric system with phase space $V\simeq V_\mathrm{b}\simeq V_\mathrm{f}$ equipped with Kähler structures $(G,\Omega,J)$, for which we have a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^2=\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}+\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$. The thermal state $\rho=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\beta\hat{H}}$ at inverse temperature $\beta$ is a tensor product of two Gaussian states $\rho=\rho_\mathrm{b}\otimes\rho_\mathrm{f}$ with associated restricted complex structures $J_\mathrm{b}$ and $J_\mathrm{f}$ related by
\begin{align}
J_\mathrm{b}=-(J_\mathrm{f})^{-1}\,,\label{eq:thermal-state-duality}
\end{align}
which exactly resembles the entanglement duality, but now applies to the whole system. This implies that the eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i^\mathrm{b}$ of $J_\mathrm{b}$ are related to the eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i^\mathrm{f}$ of $J_\mathrm{f}$ via $\lambda_i^\mathrm{b}=1/\lambda^\mathrm{f}_i$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Our identification of the phase spaces $V\simeq V_\mathrm{b}\simeq V_\mathrm{f}$ gives rise to a single Lie algebra generator $K: V\to V$ for the Hamiltonian $\beta\hat{H}$ from~\eqref{eq:sym-hamiltonian}. The spectrum of $K$ agrees with that of the bosonic generator $K_\mathrm{b}: V_\mathrm{b}\to V_\mathrm{b}$ as well as the fermionic generator $K_\mathrm{f}: V_\mathrm{f}\to V_\mathrm{f}$ defined as $(K_\mathrm{b})^a{}_b=\beta\,\Omega^{ac}h^\mathrm{b}_{cb}$ and $(K_\mathrm{f})^\alpha{}_\delta=\beta\, G^{\alpha\gamma}q^\mathrm{f}_{\gamma\delta}$, respectively. We can compare with~\eqref{eq:mixed_state} to identify that $\rho=e^{-\beta\hat{H}}/Z$ gives rise to $q^\mathrm{b}_{ab}=\frac{\beta}{2}h^\mathrm{b}_{ab}=\frac{\beta}{2}\Omega^{-1}_{ac}(K_\mathrm{b})^c{}_b$ and $q^\mathrm{f}_{\alpha\gamma}=\frac{\beta}{2}h^\mathrm{f}_{\alpha\gamma}=\frac{\beta}{2}G^{-1}_{\alpha\delta}(K_\mathrm{f})^\delta{}_\gamma$. We can invert~\eqref{eq:J-q-relationship} to find
\begin{align}
J_\mathrm{b}&=-\cot{\Omega q^\mathrm{b}}=-\cot(K_\mathrm{b}/2)\equiv-\cot(K/2)\,,\\
J_\mathrm{f}&=\tan{G q^\mathrm{f}}=\tan(K_\mathrm{f}/2)\equiv\tan(K/2)\,,
\end{align}
from which~\eqref{eq:thermal-state-duality} readily follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Application: two-mode system}\label{sec:two_mode_duality}
In this section, we study some consequences of the entanglement duality in a basic two-mode example where the SUSY Hamiltonian is given by a fermionic and a bosonic two-mode squeezing Hamiltonian. While this is a minimal example, it explains certain basic relations which are important for our analysis of a lattice Hamiltonian in the next subsection.
In particular, it highlights that almost maximally entangled fermionic modes are mapped to almost degenerate bosonic modes. This relation is central to the entanglement scaling in 2D systems discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D}.
Consider the following supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$, which is parametrized by real numbers $r_\mathrm{b}\geq0$ and $0\leq r_\mathrm{f} < \pi/4$, corresponding to squeezing parameters:
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}}=&\left( \cosh(r_\mathrm{b})\cos(r_\mathrm{f})-\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})\sin(r_\mathrm{f})\right) \left(\hat \gamma_1\hat q_1+\hat\eta_1\hat p_1\right)
\nonumber\\&+\left( \cosh(r_\mathrm{b})\cos(r_\mathrm{f})+\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})\sin(r_\mathrm{f})\right) \left(\hat \gamma_2\hat q_2+\hat\eta_2\hat p_2\right)
\nonumber\\&+\left(\cosh(r_\mathrm{b})\sin(r_\mathrm{f})-\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})\cos(r_\mathrm{f})\right)\left(\hat\gamma_1\hat q_2-\hat\eta_1\hat p_2\right)
\nonumber\\&+\left(\cosh(r_\mathrm{b})\sin(r_\mathrm{f})+\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})\cos(r_\mathrm{f})\right) \left( -\hat\gamma_2\hat q_1+\eta_2\hat p_1\right)\,.
\end{align}
It generates a SUSY Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_\mathrm{b}+\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}$ which consists of the two-mode Hamiltonians:
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_\mathrm{b} &=\frac{\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})}2\sum_{i=1,2}\left(\hat q_i^2+\hat p_i^2\right)+ \sinh(2r_\mathrm{b})\left(\hat p_1\hat p_2-\hat q_1\hat q_2 \right)\,,\\
\hat{H}_\mathrm{f}&=\frac{\mathrm{i} \cos(2r_\mathrm{f})}2\sum_{i=1,2}\left(\hat \gamma_i \hat\eta_i-\hat \eta_i\hat\gamma_i\right)+\mathrm{i}\sin(2r_\mathrm{f})\left(\hat\gamma_1\eta_2-\gamma_2\eta_1\right)\,.
\end{align}
The ground states of these Hamiltonians are two-mode squeezed states. Accordingly, the identification maps $L_1$ and $L_2$ are represented by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\tiny \hspace{-2mm}
L_1
\equiv\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b})-\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b})-\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) \\
0 & 0 & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) \\
\end{array}
\right),\\
\tiny \hspace{-2mm}
L_2
\equiv\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) \\
0 & 0 & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) \\
\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})-\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & \cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})+\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})-\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & -\sin(r_\mathrm{f}) \sinh (r_\mathrm{b})-\cos(r_\mathrm{f}) \cosh (r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:two_mode_J1J2}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
They lead to the complex structures
\begin{align}
J^\mathrm{b}
&\equiv\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & \cosh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & \sinh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) \\
0 & 0 & \sinh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & \cosh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) \\
-\cosh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & \sinh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
\sinh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & -\cosh (2 r_\mathrm{b}) & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
\begin{align}
J^\mathrm{f}
&\equiv\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & \cos (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & \sin (2 r_\mathrm{f}) \\
0 & 0 & -\sin (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & \cos (2 r_\mathrm{f}) \\
-\cos (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & \sin (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & 0 & 0 \\
-\sin (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & -\cos (2 r_\mathrm{f}) & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
which define pure two-mode squeezed states.
Let us now study how the identification maps act on the single site modes $(\hat q_1,\hat p_1)$ and $(\hat \gamma_1,\hat \eta_1)$, respectively. It is clear from \eqref{eq:two_mode_J1J2} that, when both the bosonic and fermionic squeezing vanish, {\it i.e.},\ $r_\mathrm{b}=0=r_\mathrm{f}$, these are trivially identified with each other. However, when either squeezing parameter takes a non-zero value, the identification maps will mix the modes $1$ and $2$.
Beginning with the bosonic mode $S=(\hat q_1,\hat p_1)$, we find it has the restricted complex linear structure
\begin{align}
J_{S}^\mathrm{b}\equiv \begin{pmatrix}0&\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})\\ -\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})& 0\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{align}
which has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i} \cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})$, signaling that, for $r_\mathrm{b}>0$, the mode is in a mixed Gaussian state due to its entanglement with mode $2$. Now we can use $L_2$ to associate this bosonic mode with a fermionic mode. Here, we need to consider that the fermionic observables $L_2(\hat q_1)$ and $L_2(\hat p_1)$ are not properly normalized Majorana operators. In fact, as a consequence of \eqref{eq:G_preserve}, we have
\begin{align}
\bra{J_\mathrm{f}} \left\{L_2(\hat q_1),L_2(\hat p_1)\right\}\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}
=\bra{J_\mathrm{b}} \left\{ \hat q_1, \hat p_1\right\}\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}=\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b}).
\end{align}
Instead, the properly normalized Majorana operators, which correspond to an orthogonal basis in the fermionic phase space, are
\begin{align}
\tilde L_2(\hat q_1) :=\frac{L_2(\hat q_1)}{\sqrt{\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})}},\quad \tilde L_2(\hat p_1) :=\frac{L_2(\hat p_1)}{\sqrt{\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})}}\,,
\end{align}
which we can use to calculate the restriction of $J_\mathrm{f}$ to this subsystem, {\it e.g.},\ to calculate its entanglement with the rest of the fermionic system. When calculating their commutator, we can make use of~\eqref{eq:Omega_preserve} to find
\begin{align}
&\bra{J_\mathrm{f}}\tilde L_2(\hat q_1)\tilde L_2(\hat p_1)-\tilde L_2(\hat p_1)\tilde L_2(\hat q_1)\ket{J_\mathrm{f}}
\nonumber\\&= \frac1{\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})}\bra{J_\mathrm{b}} \hat q_1 \hat p_1- \hat p_1 \hat q_1\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}=\frac\mathrm{i}{\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b})}.
\end{align}
Hence, the restriction of $J_\mathrm{f}$ has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}(\cosh(2r_\mathrm{b}))^{-1}$, as predicted by the entanglement duality.
The opposite identification of the fermionic mode $R=(\hat{\gamma}_1,\hat{\eta}_1)$ with a bosonic mode is completely analogous, but it additionally highlights an important effect in the limit of $r_\mathrm{f}\to\pi/4$. The restriction of $J_\mathrm{f}$ to $(\hat\gamma_1,\hat\eta_1)$ is represented by
\begin{align}
J^\mathrm{f}_R\equiv\begin{pmatrix} 0&\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})\\-\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})&0\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
which has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})$. Mapping $\hat\gamma_1$ and $\hat\eta_1$ via the identification map $L_1$, we obtain two bosonic observables which obey
\begin{align}\label{eq:commutator_on_bosonmode}
\bra{J_\mathrm{b}}\comm{L_1(\hat \gamma_1)}{L_1(\hat \eta_1)}\ket{J_\mathrm{b}}=\cos(2r_\mathrm{f}).
\end{align}
Hence, we need to rescale the operators
\begin{align}
\tilde L_1(\hat\gamma_1):=\frac{L_1(\hat\gamma_1)}{\sqrt{\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})}},\quad \tilde L_1(\hat\eta_1):=\frac{L_1(\hat\eta_1)}{\sqrt{\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})}},
\end{align}
to obtain properly anti-commuting quadrature operators, defining a bosonic mode. For these, we find
\begin{align}
\braket{J_\mathrm{b}|\{\tilde L_1(\hat\gamma_1),\tilde L_1(\hat\eta_1)\}|J_\mathrm{b}} =\frac1{\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})}\,,
\end{align}
showing that the restriction of $J_\mathrm{b}$ has eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\left(\cos(2r_\mathrm{f})\right)^{-1}$.
In the limit of $r_\mathrm{f}\to\pi/4$, the fermionic site mode $(\hat\gamma_1,\hat \eta_1)$ approaches maximal entanglement with the rest of the system, corresponding to an entanglement entropy of one bit, {\it i.e.},\ $\log{2}$ in natural units. Consequently, also its bosonic dual system approaches maximal entanglement. However, for the bosonic mode, this means that its entanglement entropy grows without bound, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sf_sb_dual}. At the point of $r_\mathrm{f}=\pi/4$, the fermionic mode $1$ would represent a fermionic subsystem which is maximally entangled with mode $2$. However, such a fermionic mode is not mapped to a valid bosonic subsystem by the identification maps. In fact, for $r_\mathrm{f}=\pi/4$, the identification map $L_1$ acts as
\begin{align}\label{eq:100}
L_1(\hat\gamma_1)&=\frac{\cosh(r_\mathrm{b})-\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})}{\sqrt2} \left(\hat q_1+\hat q_2\right)\,,
\nonumber\\
L_1(\hat\eta_1)&=\frac{\cosh(r_\mathrm{b})-\sinh(r_\mathrm{b})}{\sqrt2} \left(\hat p_1-\hat p_2\right)\,,
\end{align}
which are commuting observables, and thus do not define a proper bosonic mode (cf.~\eqref{eq:system_complement}), as also seen by the fact that~\eqref{eq:commutator_on_bosonmode} vanishes.
This example highlights how, in general, fermionic Majorana operators that generate an almost maximally entangled mode are mapped to almost commuting bosonic operators by the identification maps, which in the limit of maximal fermionic entanglement, thus, fail to define a bosonic mode.
The following Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D} showcases a peculiar consequence of this fundamental relationship between highly entangled fermionic modes and their bosonic counterparts in 2D.
\subsection{Application: supersymmetric Kitaev honeycomb model}\label{sec:Kitaev_2D}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}]{\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_lattice_fermion_boson_r.pdf}}
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev2d_entropies}]{\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_entropies_fermion.pdf}}
\subfloat
\label{fig:kitaev2d_entropies_dual}]{\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_entropies_dual.pdf}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{
Supersymmetric Kitaev honeycomb model:
The schematic visualization in (a) represents, on the left, the fermionic honeycomb Kitaev model~\eqref{eq:kitaev2d_Hf} and, on the right, the bosonic triangular lattice~\eqref{eq:kitaev2d_Hb} which are generated by the supercharge~\eqref{eq:kitaev_2d_Q}. The map $L_1^{-1}$ identifies fermionic subsystems with bosonic dual subsystems.
The plots below, in (b) and (c), show numerical calculations of the entanglement entropy of parallelogram-shaped subsystems on the fermionic side, and of their dual bosonic subsystems on the other side, for two different orientations of the hopping parameters $\vec j=(j_x,j_y,j_z)$.
For the numerical examples, periodic lattices with a total number of $N=45\times 45=2025$ unit cells were considered. The parallelograms of the subsystems contain $M=m\times m$ modes, {\it i.e.},\ $M$ unit cells of the honeycomb lattice, and are oriented such that they do not cut through links with hopping parameter $j_x$.
The fermionic entropies show good numerical agreement with the area law, which they are known to follow in the thermodynamic limit.
Depending on the orientation of the couplings $\vec j$ relative to the parallelogram, the dual entropies can follow the area law or a scale much faster.
}\label{fig:kitaev_2d_fullfigure}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we demonstrate consequences of the derived entanglement duality in the example of the celebrated Kitaev honeycomb model~\cite{kitaev2006anyons}, a spin model with characteristic bond-directional exchanges on the honeycomb lattice (Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}), and its supersymmetric extension~\cite{attig2019topological}.
In their gapped phases, both the fermionic and the bosonic lattice of this supersymmetric system exhibit the entanglement area law~\eqref{eq:ent_area_law1}.
Because the identification maps between the fermionic and the bosonic lattice behave local and preserve the shape of subregions of a lattice very well, one may expect also the entropy of these dual subsystems to follow an area law.
However, we show that, in mapping from fermionic subregions to bosonic ones, a peculiar phenomenon can arise where the entanglement entropy of the dual bosonic subsystems scales much faster than its pre-image in the fermionic lattice which follows the area law. This is attributed to the presence of almost maximally entangled modes in the fermionic subsystem.
The analytical solution of the Kitaev honeycomb model is achieved by recasting it in terms of non-interacting Majorana fermions hopping on the same honeycomb lattice (in the
background of a classical (static) $Z_2$ gauge field). The resulting fermionic Hamiltonian reads
\begin{align}\label{eq:kitaev2d_Hf}
\hat{H}_\mathrm{f} = -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^N \big( \hat \eta_i {\cal A}^\intercal_{ij} \hat\gamma_j -\hat{\gamma}_i {\cal A}_{ij} \hat\eta_j\big)\,.
\end{align}
Expressed this way, $\hat H_\mathrm{f}$ describes the hopping of Majorana fermions between the two types of sites of the honeycomb lattice (Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}), where each of the Majorana operators $\hat\gamma_i$ and $\hat\eta_i$ resides on one type of the lattice sites.
The $N\times N$-matrix $\cal{A}$ corresponds to the connectivity matrix of the lattice as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}, which we consider to be periodic. It involves the hopping strengths along the three bonds around each site of the honeycomb lattice, which we denote by $j_x, j_y, j_z$. The inequality $|j_x|\le |j_y|+|j_z|$ and its cyclic permutations together imply a gapless spectrum of $\hat{H_\mathrm{f}}$; otherwise, $\hat{H_\mathrm{f}}$ has a gapped spectrum.
While the phenomena discussed below can arise in both phases, for our numerical results, we will focus on the gapped phase below.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_spec2.pdf}
\end{center}\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Absolute values of the eigenvalues of the fermionic linear complex structure $J_A^\mathrm{f}$ on the Kitaev honeycomb lattice restricted to the subsystems of Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_2d_fullfigure}. The inset zooms in on the eigenvalues of the first case $\vec j=(2.5,1,1)$, which hardly fall below $|\lambda_i|\approx0.9$. In the second case $\vec j=(1,1,2.5)$, the absolute values decay exponentially with the subsystem size $M$, thus triggering the amplified scaling of the dual entropies in Fig.\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies_dual} up until the subsystem exhausts the full lattice of $N=2025$ modes.
}
\label{fig:kitaev_2d_Jspectrum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloa
{\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth,trim={0 0 0.02cm 0},clip]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_stack_fermion.pdf}}
\hspace{.05\linewidth}
\subfloa
{\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figures/fig_kitaev_2d_stack_dual.pdf}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Stacked plots of the mode-wise contribution to the total entanglement entropy, for the setup of Figs.~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies} and~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies_dual}, for the case $\vec j=(1,1,2.5)$.
The left plot refers to the fermionic hexagonal subsystems $A_\mathrm{f}$ and the right plot to the dual bosonic subsystem $L_1^{-1}(A_\mathrm{f})$.
The difference between the $(i-1)$th and $i$th line gives the contribution of the $i$th normal mode of the subsystem to the total entanglement entropy. Thus, the upper-most line coincides with the respective plot in Figs.~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies} and~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies_dual}. Note that, here, we have changed the horizontal axis to $\sqrt{M}$, {\it i.e.},\ the side length of the parallelogram-shaped fermionic subsystems. The fermionic entropy is dominated by the $\sqrt M$ normal modes that are almost maximally entangled and the bosonic entropy by their dual modes.
}\label{fig:kitaev_2d_stacked_plots}
\end{figure*}
A supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}=R_{\alpha a}\hat\xi^\alpha_\mathrm{f}\hat\xi^a_\mathrm{b}$ that leads to $\hat{H_\mathrm{f}}$ being identified with the fermionic part of the supersymmetric Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\hat{ \mathcal{Q}}^2$ is~\cite{attig2019topological}
\begin{align}\label{eq:kitaev_2d_Q}
\hat{\mathcal{Q}} =\sum_{i,j=1}^N \big(\hat \gamma_i {\cal A}_{ij} \hat{q}_j + \hat\eta_i \delta_{ij} \hat{p}_j\big)\,,
\end{align}
which implies a block-diagonal matrix representation of $R_{\alpha a}$. The bosonic part of this Hamiltonian
\begin{align}\label{eq:kitaev2d_Hb}
\hat H_\mathrm{b}=\frac12\sum_{i,j=1}^N \hat q_i \left(\mathcal{A}^\intercal\mathcal{A}\right)_{ij}\hat q_j +\sum_{i=1}^N\hat p_i^2\,,
\end{align}
corresponds to a triangular lattice of harmonic oscillators, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}, or in the appropriate classical limit, to a triangular network of balls and springs~\cite{attig2019topological}.
As previously mentioned, in the gapped phase, both the fermionic and the bosonic lattices of this SUSY Hamiltonian exhibit an area law scaling~\eqref{eq:ent_area_law1} in the entanglement entropy of lattice subregions.
Accordingly, Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies} shows good agreement of our numerical example with an area law scaling of the entanglement entropy.
There, we consider a honeycomb lattice which is periodic, with equal side lengths, comprising $N=45\times 45=2025$ unit cells, of two sites each, in total.
From this fermionic lattice, we cut out parallelogram-shaped subsystems of sidelength $m$, {\it i.e.},\ containing $M=m\times m$ unit cells, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f}, and calculate their entanglement entropy $S(\rho_A^\mathrm{f})$ with the rest of the lattice.
We compare two different combinations of the hoppings, $\vec j=(j_x,j_y,j_z)=(2.5,1,1)$ and $\vec j=(1,1,2.5)$, with respect to the orientation of the parallelograms.
These two orientations differ in the type of neighboring sites which the boundary of the parallelogram separates.
We emphasize that the absolute shape of the boundary is not crucial here; instead, what types of links (strong or weak) are separated leaves remarkable effects on the scaling of the entanglement entropy in the dual bosonic subsystem, as will be demonstrated shortly.
In detail, the boundary chosen here only cuts through links with hopping $j_y$ and $j_z$. Thus, in the first case, it only separates sites linked by the two weaker hoppings, whereas in the second case, it separates pairs of sites linked by the strong hopping.
Since the entanglement area law holds independent of the orientation of the couplings, Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies} shows that the fermionic entanglement does exhibit the scaling as predicted by the area law for both the orientations. The only visible difference is that, in the second case, due to the separation of strongly linked sites, the overall entanglement entropy is about three times larger.
However, one subtle difference between the two orientations which is not evident from the total fermionic entanglement entropy of the parallelogram subsystems is that, in the second case, when strongly linked sites are separated by the boundary of a subsystem, the subsystem develops a significant fraction of ``almost maximally entangled'' fermionic modes that scales as $\sqrt{M}$ for $M$ sites in the subsystem. However, as we shall see, these fermionic modes lead to a vastly different behavior of the entanglement entropy of the dual subsystems in the bosonic lattice associated with the original fermionic parallelograms by the identification maps.
In the periodic lattices considered here, the identification maps behave local in the sense that on-site operators in one lattice are mapped to exponentially localized operators on the supersymmetric partner lattice. Hence, the geometrical appearance of subsystems is well preserved when they are mapped to their dual subsystems in the supersymmetric partner lattice by the identification maps.
At first sight, this may seem to suggest that the entanglement entropy of the dual systems also should exhibit an area law scaling since the entanglement area relation of \eqref{eq:ent_area_law1} holds in both the fermionic and the bosonic lattice we consider.
However, Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev2d_entropies_dual} demonstrates, for the numerical example introduced before, that the entanglement entropy of fermionic subsystems and their dual bosonic subsystems can scale very differently: depending on the hoppings $\vec j$ with respect to the parallelogram subsystems, the dual entropy may scale in agreement with an area law scaling or they can scale much faster according to a ``super area law.''
How does this phenomenon arise?
First, let us note that, when the parallelogram in the original fermionic lattice only cuts links with weaker hoppings, the dual entropy follows an area law scaling. The higher scaling of the dual entropy appears when the parallelogram cuts through links with the strongest hopping.
This separation of strongly linked Majorona sites, however, heralds the presence of normal modes in the fermionic parallelogram which are (almost) maximally entangled with the rest of the lattice.
The presence of such modes is the reason for the observed peculiar scaling of the dual entropies.
In fact, the mathematical explanation for the observed amplified scaling of the dual entropies is rooted in the spectrum of the restricted fermionic linear complex structure $J^\mathrm{f}_A$.
Figure~\ref{fig:kitaev_2d_Jspectrum} plots the absolute values of the eigenvalues for the subsystems considered in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_diagram_f} for the two distinct orientations of the hopping mentioned before.
In the first case, where the parallelograms do not cut through any strong links, the eigenvalues roughly lie in the interval $0.9 <|\lambda_i|\leq 1$, as seen in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_2d_Jspectrum}.
As is evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:sf_sb_dual}, in this regime, the entanglement entropy of each of the eigenmodes of $J^\mathrm{f}_A$, {\it i.e.},\ the normal modes of the subsystem, is almost the same as the entanglement entropy of their dual bosonic modes. Thus, in the first case, the entanglement entropies for the fermionic subsystems and their bosonic duals are almost the same and follow the same scaling.
In contrast, in the second case, the spectrum of $J_A^\mathrm{f}$ exhibits a certain number of eigenvalues which are very small or almost zero. Note that the number of these pairs of eigenvalues $\pm\mathrm{i}\lambda_i$ that fall below $\lambda_i\lesssim 0.1$ corresponds exactly to the side length of the parallelograms, {\it i.e.},\ is half of the number of strong links which the parallelogram cut through.
The normal modes corresponding to these eigenvalues thus share almost maximal entanglement with the rest of the system, {\it i.e.},\ the complement of the region surrounded by the parallelogram.
In terms of their entanglement entropy, as discussed before and also evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:sf_sb_dual}, the fermionic normal modes approach the maximum value of one bit entanglement entropy as $\lambda_i\to0$ following~\eqref{eq:entropy_functions}, whereas the entanglement entropy of their dual bosonic modes diverges as $\lambda_i^{-1}\to\infty$.
As a result, the total entanglement entropy of the dual bosonic subsystem scales much faster with its subsystem size than the original fermionic system does.
This effect is visualized in Fig.~\ref{fig:kitaev_2d_stacked_plots}, whose stacked plots show the mode-wise contribution of the normal modes to the total entropy of the fermionic subregions and their duals in the bosonic lattice.
On the fermionic side, the individual contributions are bounded by one bit per mode; thus, their summed contribution still results in a growth linear in the perimeter of the parallelogram. However, on the bosonic side, the individual contribution from each normal mode continues to grow as the system size increases, resulting in a higher scaling of the entanglement entropy than that predicted by the area law.
Let us emphasize that the total number of low-lying fermionic eigenvalues scaling as $\sqrt{M}$ (with $M$ being the subsystem size) alone is \emph{not} sufficient to give rise to a ``super area law'' on the bosonic side but also that these low-lying values actually decay towards zero. If they were bounded by some $\lambda_{\min}$, such that $\lambda_i\geq \lambda_{\text{min}}>0$, the entropy of each dual bosonic mode would be upper bounded by $s_\mathrm{b}(1/\lambda_{\min})$, resulting again in the conventional $\sqrt{M}$ scaling of the area law.
The peculiar phenomenon observed above can be viewed as a direct physical instance of the minimal two-mode example in Sec.~\ref{sec:two_mode_duality} taking place at the edge of the subsystem:
Every time its boundary cuts through a pair of strong links (on opposite sites of the parallelogram cutout), the subsystem exhibits a strongly entangled normal mode (corresponding to an almost vanishing eigenvalue of the restricted complex structure).
These normal modes are highly localized at the edge of the subsystem and share no entanglement with any mode inside the subsystem but with those lying on the complement of the subsystem. In fact, the normal modes of the subsystem, which carry entanglement, form pairs with those from the complement such that each normal mode is entangled with exactly one partner (normal) mode of the complement.\footnote{These pairs are connected by the complex structure $J_\mathrm{f}$ of the ground state.}
The partner normal modes of the highly entangled subsystem normal modes are localized right outside the subsystem. Thus, a pair of partner modes (one inside the subsystem and one outside) forms a two-mode subsystem, localized in the immediate neighborhood of the boundary of the subsystem, which is not entangled with the rest of the system but in a pure two-mode squeezed state on its own.
The identification maps now map each pair of such fermionic normal mode partners to a pair of bosonic normal mode partners, one inside the dual subsystem and one outside. Due to the locality properties of the identification maps, their joint support on the bosonic lattice sites is closely related to the shape of the fermionic pair.
In this mapping, pair by pair, the same mechanism as discussed in \eqref{eq:100} takes place.
The Majorana operators of the fermionic subsystem normal mode are mapped to a pair of bosonic observables which are almost commuting, thus defining a highly entangled bosonic mode.
Such almost commuting bosonic observables need not be spatially separated on the lattice, but they can have equal support on the same lattice sites, as \eqref{eq:100} demonstrates: There, both bosonic observables have equal support on both of the two modes; however, one quadrature is proportional to $\hat q_1+\hat q_2$ but the other to $\hat p_1-\hat p_2$; thus, they commute.
Because of such localized and highly entangled bosonic modes, it is possible for the dual bosonic subsystems, despite being well localized, to exhibit a scaling of entanglement entropy that exceeds the area law of the original fermionic lattice. The entanglement area law assumes the subsystem division being a direct sum of individual lattice sites, {\it i.e.},\ in a bosonic system, the quadarature operators $\hat q_i$ and $\hat p_i$ either both belong to the subsystem or they both do not.
In contrast, the boundary between the dual bosonic subsystems and the rest of the (bosonic) lattice considered in this example may well separate different linear combinations of the onsite bosonic operators.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
In this article, we study the entanglement properties of bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states that are related via supersymmetry, in other words, belong to Hamiltonians which are supersymmetric partners of each other. After reviewing a unified framework to describe these states in terms of Kähler structures, we prove the main result of this article in Proposition\ \ref{prop:entanglement-duality}, which relates the bosonic and the fermionic entanglement spectrum of a chosen subsystem in a supersymmetric Gaussian state. The result is based on supersymmetric identification maps that are constructed from the supercharge operator $\hat{\mathcal{Q}}$. They enable us to uniquely identify subsystems both bosonic and fermionic, which we refer to as dual to each other. In Proposition~\ref{prop:thermal-duality}, we extend the said duality to include thermal states associated with supersymmetric Hamiltonians, for which we find the same relationship between the bosonic and the fermionic thermal states as for the reduced states in the subsystems.
The rest of the article illustrates this result and its implications in supersymmetric lattice models.
In particular, we investigate to what extent identification maps constructed from a \emph{local} supercharge operator preserve this locality, {\it i.e.},\ to what extent a local subsystem on the bosonic side is identified with a local subsystem on the fermionic side and vice versa.
This is important to explain why our abstract duality is of relevance when studying physical systems: It shows a simple relation between the entanglement of bosonic and fermionic subsystems that can both be thought local in a precise way.
The examples in this work suggest that, for SUSY lattice Hamiltonians, the locality properties of the identification maps are related to the boundary conditions of the lattice and the presence of edge modes.
For example, in the one-dimensional open chain of Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_1D_example}, the identification maps featured highly non-local behavior in the topological phase. However, in the same system with periodic boundary conditions (obtained by extending the supercharge \eqref{eq:Kitaev_1D_supercharge} to be translation-invariant), the identification maps behave rather local, even deep in the topological phase.
In the context of localized subsystems, a peculiar consequence of the entanglement duality is the appearance of ``super area law'' behavior in the entanglement entropy of bosonic subsystems dual to subsystems with certain shapes on the fermionic side, seen in Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D}. This phenomenon is related to the appearance of almost maximally entangled modes in the fermionic subsystem, for which the spectrum of the fermionic linear complex structure nearly vanishes. The entanglement duality then implies an unbounded growth of entanglement for the dual bosonic system.
Since it is well known~\cite{eisert2010colloquium} that the entanglement entropy associated with a ground state of a gapped and local Hamiltonian (bosonic or fermionic) satisfies an area law, this raises the question of how occasions where our entanglement duality relates an area law on the fermionic side with a ``super area law'' on the bosonic side for the respective ground states of a local supersymmetric Hamiltonian (such as the honeycomb model considered in~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D}) can appear. The answer to this question lies in the type of bosonic subsystem that arises under the duality for a fermionic subsystem with large entanglement.
We saw in Sec.~\ref{sec:two_mode_duality} how there can be an arbitrary amount of entanglement associated with a single bosonic mode due to choosing a subsystem that effectively partially separates a quadrature operator $\hat{q}_i$ from its canonically conjugate operator $\hat{p}_i$. Such types of subsystems are typically not considered in the context of studying area laws, and it is not surprising that the standard results on area laws for the ground states of gapped local Hamiltonians do not apply to them.
At this stage, it is a natural question to what extent such dual subsystems, identified by the supersymmetric duality as in Sec.~\ref{sec:Kitaev_2D}, should be considered a physical reality or a mathematical concept.
The answer will highly depend on the concrete physical realization of the model. For example, if the bosonic degrees of freedom were represented by photons, such a subsystem could at least in principle be probed by applying an appropriate sequence of Gaussian transformations (implemented by standard linear optics devices), as long as $\hat{q}_i$ and $\hat{p}_i$ are not fully separated, {\it i.e.},\ $[\hat{q}_i,\hat{p}_i]\neq 0$.
On the other hand, since the implementation of large squeezing, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:two_mode_duality}, is known to be very challenging, accessing the subsystems may well be physically infeasible.
In keeping with the study of topological properties of translation-invariant SUSY lattice Hamiltonians in arbitrary dimensions, a generalization of the identification maps to higher dimensional lattices certainly constitutes a promising avenue to explore. Here, we would like to highlight \cite{attig2017classical}, where a spin-fermion correspondence, very much in the same spirit of our SUSY map, has been worked out engaging three-dimensional lattice models as well. Entanglement properties of a three-dimensional generalization of the Kitaev honeycomb model have also been studied \cite{mondragon2014entanglement}. Other variants of three-dimensional Kitaev spin liquids exist \cite{o2016classification, eschmann2020thermodynamic} with entanglement properties hitherto unexplored; our dualities find a straightforward application therein.
\begin{acknowledgements}
RHJ gratefully acknowledges support by the Wenner-Gren Foundations.
LH gratefully acknowledges financial support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
KR thanks the sponsorship, in part, by the Swedish Research Council.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section*{funding}
J.J. acknowledges the financial support of the MINECO Project MOVELIGHT (PGC2018-099637-B-100 AEI/FEDER UE).
\section*{Disclosures}
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Respondent-level data, also known as microdata, are extremely important to many disciplines including social and behavioral sciences. However, these microdata sometimes contain
sensitive information about records in the dataset. Therefore, including such information in its original form in a released dataset could lead to identification of an individual and / or disclosure of private information. To avoid such privacy and confidentiality compromises while maintaining the usefulness of released data, data disseminators could opt to create synthetic dataset(s) based on models of the confidential data, where the sensitive information is replaced with synthetic values (\citet{Rubin1993synthetic, Little1993synthetic, ReiterRaghu2007}). Depending on the protection goals, data disseminators can choose between two flavors of synthetic data: if a subset of the variables is deemed sensitive, partially synthetic data containing synthetic values of these sensitive variables can be created and released \citep{Little1993synthetic}; if all variables are deemed sensitive, then fully synthetic data with every variable being synthesized can be created release \citep{Rubin1993synthetic}. See \citet{Drechsler2011book} for a detailed introduction to synthetic data for privacy protection.
Once synthetic data are generated, data disseminators perform two types of evaluation before their release. The first type is the utility evaluation of the synthetic data, i.e. how useful the synthetic data is for users. There are global utility measures, which focus on measuring the distance between the confidential data and the synthetic data \citep{Woo2009JPC, Snoke2018JRSSA}. There are also analysis-specific utility measures, which rely on specific analyses users might conduct and compare results obtained from the confidential data with those from the synthetic data \citep{KarrKohnenOganianReiterSanil2006}. Overall, the synthetic data research community has done extensive research on utility evaluation and several methods are widely-used, including the propensity score global utility of \citet{Woo2009JPC} and interval overlap analysis-specific utility of \citet{KarrKohnenOganianReiterSanil2006}.
The second type of evaluation is the level of privacy protection offered by the synthetic data, which is often in the form of disclosure risks evaluation. There exist two common disclosures in synthetic data: (a) identification disclosure, where intruder correctly identifies records of interest in the synthetic data using additional information through external databases; and (b) attribute disclosure, where intruder correctly infers the confidential values of synthetic records given the synthetic data. It is generally believed that only the attribute disclosure exists in fully synthetic data, while both types of disclosures are present in partially synthetic data \citep{Hu2019TDP}.
For identification disclosure risks evaluation of partially synthetic data, \citet{ReiterMitra2009} proposed estimation methods based on matching with available information from external databases. \citet{HornbyHu2020IR} recently reviewed the matching-based methods and extended them to multivariate synthetic data. The authors also created the \texttt{IdentificationRiskCalculation} R package for implementation \citep{IdentificationRiskCalculation}.
For attribute disclosure risks evaluation, \citet{HuReiterWang2014PSD} laid out a Bayesian framework for its estimation. For a record of interest, consider the most conservative scenario that the intruder knows all records but this particular record of interest. Next, the data disseminators create a collection of guesses for this record's confidential value(s), which includes the true confidential value(s). Data disseminators then proceed to estimate the posterior probability of each guess, conditional on the simulated and released synthetic data, all other records available to the intruder, and any other information. In this way, data disseminators are able to evaluate the posterior probability of guessing the true confidential value(s) correctly, compared to other possible guesses. The estimation process also utilizes the importance sampling technique to avoid fitting the chosen synthesis model on each possible dataset (containing the confidential values of all other records and the guess being evaluated for the record of interest) when approximating the likelihood in the evaluation process. \citet{HuReiterWang2014PSD} proposed the framework and presented the estimation detail with a particular synthesizer, the Dirichlet Process mixtures of products of multinomials. Other works using a similar framework also described the estimation detail with particular synthesizers \citep{Reiter2014framework, Paiva2014SM}.
While this approach to attribute disclosure risks evaluation is applicable to any Bayesian synthesizer, its computational details could be challenging to implement. In this work, we wish to review the general framework in a gentle and approachable manner, while provide illustrations with sample R scripts to several commonly-used Bayesian synthesizers, including a multinomial logistic regression synthesizer for categorical variables, a linear regression synthesizer for continuous variables, and a Poisson regression synthesizer for count variables. Moreover, we create the \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} R package for the implementation of these Bayesian estimation methods for attribute disclosure risks evaluation, if users choose these routines instead of writing evaluation scripts by themselves \citep{AttributeRiskCalculation}. We demonstrate how to use these routines from the \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} R package with applications to a Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE) sample, where multiple variables of different types are present.
Section \ref{intro:seq} provides a succinct review of the sequential synthesis approach, where multiple variables are deemed sensitive in a dataset and therefore to be synthesized. We take this commonly-used approach in synthesizing more than one variables in some of our illustrative examples. Moreover, the details of sequential synthesis are important to construct the Bayesian estimation methods for attribute disclosure risks evaluation, which are reviewed and discussed in this work.
\subsection{Sequential synthesis}
\label{intro:seq}
Sequential synthesis is a common technique to create synthetic datasets with more than one synthetic variable (e.g. \citet{kinney_reiter_reznek_miranda_jarmin_abowd_2011}). The general idea is that data disseminators can fit a series of conditional distributions of one sensitive variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume there are three variables, $({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2, {\bf y}_3)$ in a confidential dataset. Among them, ${\bf y}_2$ and ${\bf y}_3$ are deemed sensitive and to be synthesized, while ${\bf y}_1$ is considered insensitive and un-synthesized. Assume the synthesis order is to synthesize ${\bf y}_2$ given ${\bf y}_1$ first and then ${\bf y}_3$ given $({\bf y}_2, {\bf y}_1)$. The joint distribution of all variables can then be expressed in the product of the following series of conditional distributions:
\begin{equation}
f({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2, {\bf y}_3) = f({\bf y}_1) f({\bf y}_2 \mid {\bf y}_1) f({\bf y}_3 \mid {\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2).
\end{equation}
To start the sequential synthesis process, first choose a suitable Bayesian synthesizer for ${\bf y}_2 \mid {\bf y}_1$ (i.e. a synthesizer for ${\bf y}_2$ where ${\bf y}_1$ is used as a predictor) and fit it on the confidential data $({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2)$. Simulate synthetic values of ${\bf y}_2$ from its posterior predictive distribution using confidential ${\bf y}_1$, denoted as $\tilde{{\bf y}}_2$. Next, choose a suitable Bayesian synthesizer for ${\bf y}_3 \mid {\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2$ and fit on the \emph{confidential} data $({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2, {\bf y}_3)$. Simulate synthetic values of ${\bf y}_3$ from its posterior predictive distribution using confidential ${\bf y}_1$ and \emph{synthetic} $\tilde{{\bf y}}_2$. The resulting $({\bf y}_1, \tilde{{\bf y}}_2, \tilde{{\bf y}}_3)$ is one synthetic dataset.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{methods}, we describe the general methods to calculate attribute disclosure risks and then illustrate three Bayesian synthesizers with sample R scripts. We also review the use of importance sampling. Section \ref{package} gives an overview of the \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} R package. We then demonstrate the routines in the package with applications to calculating attribute disclosure risks of simulated synthetic data for a CE sample in Section \ref{app}. We end with Section \ref{conclusion} with a few concluding remarks. Sample scripts of using either the \texttt{rstanarm} \citep{rstanarm} or the \texttt{brms} \citep{brms} R packages to fit several Bayesian synthesizers are included in the Appendix for interested readers.
\section{Calculation methods and computational details}
\label{methods}
We describe the general approach to attribute disclosure risks calculation in Section \ref{methods:AR_cal}. We then illustrate the computational details for three Bayesian synthesizers in Section \ref{methods:computing}. In Section \ref{methods:importance}, we show the computational details for the importance sampling technique of the Bayesian linear regression synthesizer presented in Section \ref{methods:computing:2cont} for illustration.
\subsection{General approach to attribute disclosure risks calculation}
\label{methods:AR_cal}
Our description of the general approach is similar to that in \cite{HuReiterWang2014PSD}. Denote our confidential dataset as ${\bf y}$, consisting of $n$ individuals with $p$ variables. These variables will either be synthesized (${\bf y}^s$) or un-synthesized (${\bf y}^{us}$) in the released dataset(s) $\tilde{{\bf Y}}$. Note that ${\bf y}^{us}$ could be an empty set of variables in the case of fully synthetic data. We aim to calculate the probability of guessing the true confidential value(s) of some synthesized variable(s) for individual of interest, $i$, given synthetic data $\tilde{{\bf Y}}$ and any other auxiliary information the intruder may know. We divide the auxiliary information into knowledge of individuals in the dataset (denoted as $A$) and knowledge of the process of generating synthetic $\tilde{{\bf Y}}$ from confidential ${\bf y}$ (denoted as $S$). Let the set of knowledge the intruder has about ${\bf y}$ be $K= \{{\bf y}^{us}, A, S\}$. Therefore, the intruder aims to calculate the following probability:
\begin{align}
p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid \tilde{{\bf Y}}, K),
\label{eq:dist}
\end{align}
where ${\bf Y}_i^s$ is the random variable that represents the intruder's uncertain knowledge of the true confidential value(s) ${\bf y}_i^s$, and ${\bf y}^*$ is the intruder's guess for the true confidential value(s). Without loss of generality, we use $\mathbf{y}_i^s$ to represent the vector of synthesized variables, for the general case of multiple sensitive variables being synthesized. When only one variable is synthesized, $\mathbf{y}_i^s$ reduces to $y_i^s$. Using Bayes' rule, we rewrite Equation (\ref{eq:dist}) as:
\begin{align}
p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid \tilde{{\bf Y}}, K) \propto p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K) p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid K),
\label{eq:bayes}
\end{align}
where $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*,K)$ is the probability of simulating synthetic $\tilde{{\bf Y}}$ given guess ${\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*$ and intruder's knowledge $K$. $p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid K)$ is the chosen prior distribution for guess ${\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*$. In our presentation, we assume a uniform prior for $p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid K)$, which means that estimating the posterior probability of $p({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^* \mid \tilde{{\bf Y}}, K)$ becomes estimating the likelihood portion, $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K)$.
For $K$, we note that information about $S$, the synthesis process, can sometimes be publicly available, such as the synthesis models published in \citet{kinney_reiter_reznek_miranda_jarmin_abowd_2011}. As a worst case scenario, we will assume the intruder has extensive knowledge of the synthesis methods. Moreover, as a worst case scenario, we will assume the intruder knows the confidential values of synthetic ${\bf y}^{s}$ for all but record $i$. We denote this worst case knowledge be $K^w$.
Equation (\ref{eq:bayes}) with our worst case scenario of $K^w$ is $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$.
For notation simplicity, we work with one dataset $\tilde{{\bf Y}}$ and note that $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w) = \prod_{l=1}^m p(\tilde{{\bf Y}}_l \mid{\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ if $m > 1$ synthetic datasets are simulated. To estimate $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s={\bf y}^*,K^w)$, we use posterior parameter draws from fitting the synthesizer on the confidential data. Denote the collection of the model parameters as $\Theta$:
\begin{align}
p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w) = \int p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w, \Theta) p(\Theta \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w) d\Theta.
\label{eq:MonteCarlo}
\end{align}
Typically a Monte Carlo approximation would be used for estimating Equation (\ref{eq:MonteCarlo}). However, doing so requires fitting the Bayesian synthesizer on $({\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ for every guess ${\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*$. That is, the Bayesian synthesizer needs to be estimated on $({\bf y}^*, {\bf y}_{-i})$, a dataset consisting of the guess ${\bf y}^*$ for ${\bf Y}_i^s$ for record $i$ and confidential values for all other records, denoted by ${\bf y}_{-i}$. When multiple guesses are present for each record and multiple records need to be evaluated, this Monte Carlo approximation approach could be computationally expensive.
To tackle this computation challenge, we apply the importance sampling technique for the estimation of $g(\Theta) = p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ of Equation (\ref{eq:MonteCarlo}). Specifically,
\begin{align}
E[g(\Theta)] \approx \frac{1}{H}\sum_{h=1}^H g(\Theta^{(h)}) \frac{f(\Theta^{(h)})/f^*(\Theta^{(h)})}{\sum_{k=1}^H f(\Theta^{(k)})/f^*(\Theta^{(k)})},\label{eq:sampling}
\end{align}
where our distribution of interest is $g(\Theta)=p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ and for the $h$th posterior parameter draws $\Theta^{(h)}$, $g(\Theta^{(h)}) = p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w, \Theta^{(h)})$, where $H$ is the number of posterior sample draws of $\Theta$. Moreover, $f(\Theta^{(h)}) = p(\Theta^{(h)} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) = p(\Theta^{(h)} \mid {\bf y}, S)$.
Recall that our density of interest for $\Theta$ is $f(\Theta) = p(\Theta \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$. The importance sampling technique utilizes a convenient distribution, $f^*(\cdot)$, that is readily available and differs slightly from $f(\cdot)$. For us, this convenient distribution is $f^*(\Theta) = p(\Theta \mid {\bf y}, S)$, the posterior distribution of the parameters $\Theta$ after fitting the synthesizer on the confidential data ${\bf y}$. These posterior parameter draws are available from the synthesis process, and we can use them in the importance sampling step in Equation (\ref{eq:sampling}) for approximation of $p(\tilde{{\bf Y}} \mid {\bf Y}_i^s = {\bf y}^*, K^w)$ in a computationally efficient manner. The choice of $H$ needs to be large enough for a good approximation, but not too large and creates computational burden.
Next, we present the computational details for three commonly-used Bayesian synthesizers. In particular, we break down the process and show how to calculate $g(\Theta^{(h)})$, $f(\Theta^{(h)})$, and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ for each Bayesian synthesizer.
\subsection{Computational details for three Bayesian synthesizers}
\label{methods:computing}
We go through three examples to illustrate the computational details of calculating $g(\Theta^{(h)})$, $f(\Theta^{(h)})$, and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ for three commonly-used Bayesian synthesizers: a multinomial logistic regression synthesizer for categorical variables (Section \ref{methods:computing:1cat}), a linear regression synthesizer for continuous variables (Section \ref{methods:computing:2cont}), and a Poisson regression synthesizer for count variables (Section \ref{methods:computing:1count1bin1cont}).
\subsubsection{One synthetic categorical variable}
\label{methods:computing:1cat}
Suppose we are planning to release a single synthetic dataset of $n$ records, where we have synthesized one categorical variable ${\bf y}$ of $k$ levels. Further suppose that we synthesize this variable from a multinomial logistic regression synthesizer with a predictor ${\bf y}_p$. After Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation of the synthesizer on the confidential data, we obtain posterior parameter draws of $\Theta$. Synthetic values of ${\bf y}$ can be simulated from its posterior predictive distribution given draws of $\Theta$, resulting in a partially synthetic dataset of $(\tilde{{\bf y}}, {\bf y}_p)$. For our presentation, we consider ${\bf y}_p$ as binary or continuous for notation simplicity.
To calculate attribute disclosure risks for the $i$th record, we first create a collection of guesses $\{y_1^*, \cdots, y_G^*\}$, where $G$ is the number of guesses (for a synthetic categorical variable, each guess is a scalar). We ensure that the true confidential value for record $i$, $y_i$, is in this collection. For a categorical variable, it is reasonable to enumerate all of its possible levels as the collection, i.e. $G = k$, a strategy we take in our application to a CE sample in Section \ref{app:oneCat}.
To estimate the posterior probability of each guess in collection $\{y_1^*, \cdots, y_G^*\}$, we calculate the quantities of $g(\Theta^{(h)})$, $f(\Theta^{(h)})$, and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ to be used in the importance sampling step for the $h$th posterior draw of $\Theta$. Here our $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ is:
\begin{gather*}
g(\Theta^{(h)}) = \prod_{i=1}^n M(\Tilde{y}_i, {\bf p}_i^{(h)}),
\end{gather*}
where $\tilde{y}_i$ is synthetic value for record $i$, $M(\cdot)$ is the probability mass function (pmf) of a multinomial distribution, and ${\bf p}_i^{(h)}$ is the vector of probabilities for each level of $y_i$, calculated from $\Theta^{(h)}$. We can calculate this quantity with the following R code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
g_h = prod(p[h, y_syn])
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{p} is a $n\times (k-1)$ matrix, where $k$ is the number of levels, and \texttt{y\_syn} is the synthetic vector of length $n$. Note that since we are computing the density of one record at a time, we can obtain the probability associated with that category instead of using a call to \texttt{dmultinom()}
Next, our $f(\Theta^{(h)})$ and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ functions are:
\begin{align*}
f(\Theta^{(h)}) &= M(y_g^*, {\bf p}_i^{(h)}),\\
f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) &= M(y_i, {\bf p}_i^{(h)}),
\end{align*}
where $y_g^*$ is the guess being evaluated and $y_i$ is the true confidential value of record $i$.
These can be calculated with the following R code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_h = p[h, y_guess]
f_hs = p[h, y_i]
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{y\_guess} is the current guess being evaluated and \texttt{y\_i} is the true value of our variable for record $i$.
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{One continuous variable}
\label{methods:computing:1cont}
Now suppose we are planning to release a single synthetic dataset where we have synthesized one continuous variable $y$. Further suppose that we synthesize this variable from a normal synthesis model with no predictors and save our MCMC draws, $\Theta$.
We start by choosing some vector of guesses ${\bf y}^*$, ensuring that the true value for record $i$ is in ${\bf y}^*$. Then for each guess we calculate the quantities in our importance sampling estimation. In this case our $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ is:
\begin{align*}
g(\Theta^{(h)}) = \prod_{i=1}^n \phi(\Tilde{y}_i, \mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}),
\end{align*}
where $\Tilde{y}_i$ is the $i^\text{th}$ value of our synthesized variable, $\phi(x, \mu, \sigma)$ is the normal probability density function (pdf), and $\mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}$ are the $h^\text{th}$ elements of our draws $\Theta$. We can calculate this in R with the following code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
g_h = prod(dnorm(y_syn, mu[h], sigma[h]))
\end{Verbatim}
\texttt{mu} and \texttt{sigma} are $H$-long vectors of posterior draws and \texttt{y\_syn} is a vector of all the synthesized values. Next we get that:
\begin{align*}
f(\Theta^{(h)}) &= \phi(y^*, \mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}),\\
f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) &= \phi(y_i, \mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}),
\end{align*}
where $y^*$ is the guess being evaluated, and $y_i$ is the true value of our sensitive variable. The following R code calculates these quantities:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_h = dnorm(y_guess, mu[h], sigma[h])
f_hs = dnorm(y_i, mu[h], sigma[h])
\end{Verbatim}
\texttt{y\_guess} is the guess being evaluated and \texttt{y\_i} is the true value of our variable for record $i$.
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Two synthetic continuous variables (sequential synthesis)}
\label{methods:computing:2cont}
Suppose we want to synthesize two continuous variables ${\bf y}_1$ and ${\bf y}_2$ of $n$ records. According to the sequential synthesis strategy reviewed in Section \ref{intro:seq}, we first synthesize ${\bf y}_1$ with a linear regression synthesizer with no predictors, and next synthesize ${\bf y}_2$ with a linear regression synthesizer using ${\bf y}_1$ as a predictor. The sequential synthesis process creates a fully synthetic dataset of $(\tilde{{\bf y}}_1, \tilde{{\bf y}}_2)$.
To calculate the attribute disclosure risks for the $i$th record, we start with creating a collection of our guesses $\{y_{11}^*, \cdots, y_{1G_1}^*, y_{21}^*, \cdots, y_{2G_2}^*\}$, where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are the number of guesses for the confidential values of each variable, respectively. Therefore, there are $G_1 \times G_2$ number of guesses for the confidential values of the pair of synthetic $(\tilde{y}_{i1}, \tilde{y}_{i2})$. As before, we ensure that the true confidential value pair, $(y_{i1}, y_{i2})$, is in this collection of guesses. Unlike categorical variables where different levels are natural candidates for these guesses, for continuous variables, there are in theory infinite number of guesses available. We recommend creating the collection of guesses in the neighborhood of the true confidential value with a reasonable number of guesses. For example for $y_{i1}$, we can create a neighborhood interval of $[y_{i1} \times 0.9, y_{i1} \times 1.1]$ (i.e. within a 20\% radius of $y_{i1}$) and then select $G_1$ equally-spaced guesses from this interval. Similar approach can be applied to $y_{i2}$, resulting $G_1 \times G_2$ neighboring pairs for $(y_{i1}, y_{i2})$ as our guesses. We adopt this strategy in our CE application in Section \ref{app:twoCont}, with $G_1 = G_2$.
Now we proceed with quantities for importance sampling step. First, $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ is:
\begin{align*}
g(\Theta^{(h)}) = \prod_{i=1}^n \left(\phi(\Tilde{y}_{i1},\mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_1)\phi(\Tilde{y}_{i2}, \beta_{0}^{(h)} + \Tilde{y}_{1_i}\beta_{1}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_2)\right),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{y}_{i1}$ and $\tilde{y}_{i2}$ are the synthesized values of record $i$, $\Theta^{(h)} = (\mu^{(h)}, \sigma_1^{(h)}, \beta_{0}^{(h)}, \beta_{1}^{(h)}, \sigma_2^{(h)})$, and $\phi(\cdot)$ is the probability density function (pdf) of a normal distribution. $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ can be calculated with the following R code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
g_h = prod(dnorm(y_1_syn, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_syn, b0[h] + y_1_syn[i] * b1[h], sigma_2[h]))
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{dnorm()} is the normal density function, \texttt{y\_1\_syn} and \texttt{y\_2\_syn} are synthetic vectors for ${\bf y}_1$ and ${\bf y}_2$ of length $n$ respectively, and \texttt{b0}, \texttt{b1}, \texttt{mu}, \texttt{sigma\_1}, and \texttt{sigma\_2} are our parameter draws, all of length $H$.
Next, our $f(\Theta^{(h)})$ and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ functions are:
\begin{align*}
f(\Theta^{(h)}) &= \phi(y_{1g}^*,\mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_1)\phi(y_{2g}^*, \beta_{0}^{(h)} + y_{1g}^*\beta_{1}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_2),\\
f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) &= \phi(y_{i1},\mu^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_1)\phi(y_{i2}, \beta_{0}^{(h)} + y_{1_i}\beta_{1}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}_2),
\end{align*}
where $y^*_{1g}$ and $y^*_{2g}$ are the pair of guesses being evaluated and $y_{i1}$ and $y_{i2}$ are the true confidential values for record $i$. The following R code calculates these quantities:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_h = dnorm(y_1_guess, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_guess, b0[h] + y_1_guess * b1[h], sigma_2[h])
f_hs = dnorm(y_1_i, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_i, b0[h] + y_1_i * b1[h], sigma_2[h])
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{y\_1\_guess} and \texttt{y\_2\_guess} are the guesses currently being evaluated for record $i$ and \texttt{y\_1\_i} and \texttt{y\_2\_i} are its true confidential values.
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{Synthetic binary and continuous variables (sequential synthesis)}
\label{methods:computing:1bin1cont}
{\color{red} As I thought more carefully about this, I think if we are to do a sequential synthesis, the order is better with continuous first and binary second. I guess it is more important to show the methods for logistic regression synthesizer and its risk evaluation, as otherwise this case is not very different from the continuous case. Do you think you can update this section for continuous first and binary second, and also update Section 4 accordingly? }
Now suppose we want to synthesize a binary variable ${\bf y}_b$ and a continuous variable ${\bf y}_c$ of $n$ records. Further suppose our sequential synthesis strategy first synthesizes ${\bf y}_b$ with a model with no predictors, then synthesize our continuous with a normal model with the sensitive binary variable as a predictor.
We once again start with generating our guesses ${\bf y}_c^*$ and ${\bf y}^*_b$, ensuring the true values are within our guesses. In this case our $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ is:
\begin{align*}
g(\Theta^{(h)}) = \prod_{i=1}^n B(\Tilde{y}_{b_i},1,link(\beta_{0_b}^{(h)}))\phi(\Tilde{y}_{c_i}, \beta_{0_c}^{(h)} + \Tilde{y}_{b_i}\beta_{1_c}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}),
\end{align*}
where $B(\cdot)$ is the binomial pmf and $link(\cdot)$ is the chosen link function.
As we can see this follows the pattern of taking the product of the appropriate densities. Bellow is example R code for calculating this with $link(\cdot)=logistic(\cdot)$:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
g_h = prod(dbinom(y_b_syn, 1, logistic(b0_b[h])) *
dnorm(y_c_syn, b0_c[h] + y_b_syn[i] * b1_c[h], sigma[h]))
\end{Verbatim}
Our $f$ and $f^*$ functions in this example are:
\begin{align*}
f(\Theta^{(h)}) &= B(y^*_b,1,link(\beta_{0_b}^{(h)}))\phi(y_c^*, \beta_{0_c}^{(h)} + y_{b}^*\beta_{1_c}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}),\\
f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) &= B(y_{b_i},1,link(\beta_{0_b}^{(h)}))\phi(y_{c_i}, \beta_{0_c}^{(h)} + y_{b_i}\beta_{1_c}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}).
\end{align*}
The following R code calculates these quantities:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_h = dbinom(y_b_guess, 1, logistic(b0_b[h])) *
dnorm(y_c_guess, b0_c[h] + y_b_guess * b1_c[h], sigma[h])
f_hs = dbinom(y_b_i, 1, logistic(b0_b[h])) *
dnorm(y_c_i, b0_c[h] + y_b_i * b1_c[h], sigma[h])
\end{Verbatim}
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Synthetic count and continuous variables (sequential synthesis)}
\label{methods:computing:1count1bin1cont}
Our last example is creating synthetic values of a count variable ${\bf y}_{count}$ and a continuous variable ${\bf y}_{cont}$ of $n$ records. Our sequential synthesis strategy will first synthesize ${\bf y}_{cont}$ with a linear regression synthesizer with a predictor ${\bf y}_p$, and next synthesize ${\bf y}_{count}$ with a Poisson regression synthesizer using both ${\bf y}_{cont}$ and ${\bf y}_p$ as predictors. The sequential synthesis process creates a partially synthetic dataset of $({\bf y}_p, \tilde{{\bf y}}_{cont}, \tilde{{\bf y}}_{count})$. As before for notation simplicity, we consider ${\bf y}_p$ as binary or continuous.
As usual, to calculate the attribute disclosure risks for the $i$th record, we start with creating a collection of our guesses $\{y_{cont, 1}^*, \cdots, y_{cont, G_1}^*, y_{count, 1}^*, \cdots, y_{count, G_2}^*\}$, where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are the number of guesses for the confidential values of the continuous and count variables, respectively, resulting in $G_1 \times G_2$ number of guesses for the pair of synthetic $(\tilde{y}_{cont, i}, \tilde{y}_{count, i})$. The true confidential value pair, $(y_{cont, i}, y_{count, i})$, is included in this collection. We recommend the interval-based approach to select $G_1$ guesses for the continuous variable, discussed in Section \ref{methods:computing:2cont}. For the count variable, we could either exhaust all possible counts in the dataset (if it is not too large) or pick $G_2$ guesses from the neighborhood of $y_{count, i}$. Our CE application in Section \ref{app:1count1bin1cont} takes the first strategy since there are only 8 possible count values for that CE variable.
To proceed, we first have $g(\Theta^{(h)})$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\Theta^{(h)}) = \prod_{i=1}^n \Bigg (&&\phi(\tilde{y}_{cont, i},\beta_{0, cont}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, cont}^{(h)}y_{p, i}, \sigma^{(h)}) \\
&&P(\tilde{y}_{count, i}, link(\beta_{0, count}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, count}^{(h)}\tilde{y}_{count, i} + \beta_{2, count}^{(h)}y_{p, i})) \Bigg ),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\phi(\cdot)$ is the normal pdf, $\Theta^{(h)} = (\beta_{0, count}^{(h)}, \beta_{1, count}^{(h)}, \sigma^{(h)}, \beta_{0, count}^{(h)}, \beta_{1, count}^{(h)}, \beta_{2, count}^{(h)})$, and $P(\cdot)$ is the Poisson pmf. Note that since the predictor variable is not synthesized, its confidential value $y_{p, i}$ is in these calculations. Using $link(\cdot) = exp(\cdot)$, the following R code calculates $g(\Theta^{(h)})$:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
g_h = prod(dnorm(y_cont_syn, b0_cont[h] + b1_cont[h] * y_p, sigma[h])
* dpois(y_count_syn,
exp(b0_count[h] + b1_count[h] * y_cont_syn
+ b2_count[h] * y_p)))
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{dpois()} is the Poisson mass function, \texttt{y\_cont\_syn} and \texttt{y\_count\_syn} are synthetic vectors for ${\bf y}_{cont}$ and ${\bf y}_{count}$ of length $n$ respectively, and \texttt{b0\_cont}, \texttt{b1\_cont}, \texttt{sigma}, \texttt{b0\_count}, \texttt{b1\_count}, and \texttt{b2\_count} are our parameter draws, all of length $H$.
Next, our $f(\Theta^{(h)})$ and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ functions are:
\begin{align*}
f(\Theta^{(h)}) = &\phi(y^*_{cont, i},\beta_{0, cont}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, cont}^{(h)}y_{p, i}, \sigma^{(h)})\\&P(y^*_{count, i}, link(\beta_{0, count}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, count}^{(h)}y^*_{count, i} + \beta_{2, count}^{(h)}y_{p, i}))\\
f^*(\Theta^{(h)}) =&\phi(y_{cont, i},\beta_{0, cont}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, cont}^{(h)}y_{p, i}, \sigma^{(h)})\\&P(y_{count, i}, link(\beta_{0, count}^{(h)} + \beta_{1, count}^{(h)}y_{count, i} + \beta_{2, count}^{(h)}y_{p, i})).
\end{align*}
These quantities can thus be calculated by the following R code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_h = dnorm(y_cont_guess, b0_cont[h] + b1_cont[h] * y_p_i, sigma[h])
* dpois(y_count_guess, exp(b0_count[h]
+ b1_count[h] * y_cont_guess + b2_count[h] * y_p_i)))
f_hs = dnorm(y_cont_i, b0_cont[h] + b1_cont[h] * y_p_i, sigma[h])
* dpois(y_count_i, exp(b0_count[h] + b1_count[h] * y_cont_i
+ b2_count[h] * y_p_i)))
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{y\_cont\_guess} and \texttt{y\_count\_guess} are the guesses currently being evaluated for record $i$ and \texttt{y\_cont\_i} and \texttt{y\_count\_i} are its true confidential values.
With $g(\Theta^{(h)})$, $f(\Theta^{(h)})$, and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ calculated, we now proceed to describe the computational details of the importance sampling step.
\subsection{Implementation details of importance sampling}
\label{methods:importance}
Section \ref{methods:computing} illustrate with sample R script how to calculate $g(\Theta^{(h)})$, $f(\Theta^{(h)})$, and $f^*(\Theta^{(h)})$ for three different Bayesian synthesizers. As reviewed in Section \ref{methods:AR_cal}, once these quantities are calculated, the final step is to use importance sampling to approximate the posterior probability of each guess for record $i$, through Equation (\ref{eq:sampling}).
We present the implementation details of the importance sampling step with illustration to the two synthetic continuous variables example in Section \ref{methods:computing:2cont}. The implementation details for other synthesizers follow a similar structure and are omitted for brevity.
The following sample R script approximates the risk for one pair of guesses (\texttt{y\_1\_guess} and \texttt{y\_2\_guess}) for record $i$:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
f_k = dnorm(y_1_guess, mu, sigma_1) *
dnorm(y_2_guess, b0 + y_1_guess * b1, sigma_2)
f_ks = dnorm(y_1_i, mu, sigma_1) *
dnorm(y_2_i, b0 + y_1_i * b1, sigma_2)
denom = sum(f_k / f_ks)
for (h in 1:H) {
g_h = dnorm(y_1_syn, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_syn, b0[h] + y_1_syn * b1[h], sigma_2[h])
g_h = prod(g_h)
f_h = dnorm(y_1_guess, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_guess, b0[h] + y_1_guess * b1[h], sigma_2[h])
f_hs = dnorm(y_1_i, mu[h], sigma_1[h]) *
dnorm(y_2_i, b0[h] + y_1_i * b1[h], sigma_2[h])
post_prob[h] = g_h * (f_h / f_hs) / denom
}
post_prob = mean(post_prob)
\end{Verbatim}
Here \texttt{y\_1\_i}, \texttt{y\_2\_i}, \texttt{y\_1\_guess}, and \texttt{y\_2\_guess} are scalars for record $i$, while \texttt{y\_1\_syn} and \texttt{y\_2\_syn} are synthetic vectors of length $n$ all $n$ records and \texttt{b0}, \texttt{b1}, \texttt{mu}, \texttt{sigma\_1}, and \texttt{sigma\_2} are vectors of length $H$.
To compute the attribute disclosure risks for record $i$, we run the above script for $G_1 \times G_2$ guesses in the collection of $\{y_{11}^*, \cdots, y_{1G_1}^*, y_{21}^*, \cdots, y_{2G_2}^*\}$. The final posterior probability of each guess is scaled with the sum of $G_1 \times G_2$ guesses for re-normalization. This process is repeated for every target record. In addition to the posterior probability of the true confidential values, summaries such as how the confidential values rank among all the guesses can be reported as attribute disclosure risks.
\section{The \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} Package}
\label{package}
We have created and made public the \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} R package, which calculates attribute disclosure risks for synthetic datasets with the methods discussed in Section \ref{methods}. We describe how to use the package, specifically what the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function computes, the inputs it requires, and the outputs it produces. The following R code shows how to install the package
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
library(devtools)
install_github("RyanHornby/AttributeRiskCalculation")
\end{Verbatim}
The \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function in this R package computes the attribute disclosure risks for \emph{all} records in the synthetic dataset. Its outputs include the joint posterior probability matrix, the marginal probabilities each variable (if more than one variable is synthesized), the rank of the true value among the all guesses, and the absolute difference between the guess that has the highest risk, $y^{**}$, and the true confidential value: $|y^{**} - y_i|$. If focusing on one target record, the \texttt{AttributeRiskForRecordI()} function can be used to calculate these quantities. In addition to the regular outputs, it provides the ranks of all the values in the joint posterior probability matrix.
The dimensions of the joint posterior probability matrix depend on the number of synthesized variables. For example if only one variable is synthesized the output is a vector, while three synthesized variables result in a three dimensional array.
An example usage of the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function is below:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
AttributeRisk(modelFormulas,
origdata,
syndata,
posteriorMCMCs,
syntype,
G,
H)
\end{Verbatim}
The first required argument \texttt{modelFormulas} is a list of formula or formula like objects (for example \texttt{brmsformula} object in the \texttt{brms} R package \citep{brms}). The elements in this list should appear in the order they were synthesized. For example if ${\bf y}_1$ is synthesized with no predictors and then ${\bf y}_2$ is synthesized with ${\bf y}_1$ as a predictor, \texttt{modelFormulas} should be set to \texttt{list(formula(y1$\sim$1), formula(y2$\sim$y1))}.
The second required argument \texttt{origdata} is the confidential dataset in a data frame. The third required argument \texttt{syndata} is a list containing synthetic dataset(s).
The fourth required argument \texttt{posteriorMCMCs} is a list, in order of synthesis, of the MCMC draws from the synthesizer. The last required argument \texttt{syntype} is a vector, in order of synthesis, of strings corresponding to the type of synthesizer used. For example if the first sensitive variable is synthesized with a linear regression synthesizer without predictors and the second is a Poisson regression synthesizer, \texttt{syntype} should be set to \texttt{c("norm", "pois")}.
Optional arguments mainly allow customization of the guesses chosen by the user, of which the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function will compute attribute disclosure risks for. For example, the input \texttt{G} is the number of guesses (including the confidential value), and it has a default value of 11 for continuous variables. For categorical or count variables, the function will use all possible guesses for this variable in the dataset.
The value of $H$, the number of posterior parameter draws for the importance sampling step, can be modified with input \texttt{H} which has a default value of 50. The chosen $H$ should not exceed the number of available MCMC draws of $\Theta$ provided in argument \texttt{posteriorMCMCs}.
\section{Applications to a CE sample}
\label{app}
We apply our attribute disclosure risks evaluation methods to three applications to a CE sample, each corresponds to an illustrative example in Section \ref{methods:computing}. For synthesis, we use either the \texttt{stan\_glm()} function from the \texttt{rstanarm} R package or the \texttt{brm()} function from the \texttt{brms} R package to fit our synthesizers on the confidential CE data, which provide us with MCMC draws of the model parameters. Code used to synthesize the CE data are included in the Appendix. For illustration purpose, in each application we generate a single synthetic dataset.
Our CE sample comes from the 2019 1st quarter with $n = 5126$ consumer units (CUs). There are 5 variables in this sample with details in Table \ref{tab:CEvars}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{0.8in} p{0.8in} p{3.5in}}
\hline Variable & Type &Description \\\hline
Urban & Categorical & Whether this CU located in an urban or rural area (2 levels). \\
Race & Categorical & Race category of the reference person (6 levels). \\
KidsCount & Count & Number of CU members under age 16. \\
Expenditure & Continuous & Total expenditure last quarter. \\
Income & Continuous & Total amount of family income before taxes in the last 12 months.\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Variables used from the CE data sample.}
\label{tab:CEvars}
\end{table}
When calculating attribute disclosure risks for our applications, we use default $H = 50$ for the number of posterior parameter draws in the importance sampling step. For continuous synthetic variables, we use the default $G = 11$ guesses (the true confidential value plus 10 guesses in the neighborhood within a 20\% range of the true confidential value). This can be done with the following R code:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
y_i_guesses = seq(y_i*0.9, y_i*1.1, length.out = 11)
\end{Verbatim}
\subsection{Evaluation of synthetic Race}
\label{app:oneCat}
Our first application synthesizes categorical Race with a multinomial logistic regression synthesizer with the LogIncome (the logarithm of Income) as a predictor, see Figure \ref{fig:Race_utility} for the utility evaluation of the resulting synthetic dataset.
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Race_utility.png}
\captionof{figure}{Histogram of the confidential and synthetic values of Race.}
\label{fig:Race_utility}
\end{Figure}
To estimate attribute disclosure risks for each record in the synthetic dataset, we use the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function the following manner. We provide a list of one formula that describes our synthesis of Race given LogIncome,the confidential dataset (\texttt{CEdata}), the synthetic dataset (\texttt{CEdata\_syn\_cat}), and MCMC draws (\texttt{draws\_cat}). We use \texttt{c("multinom")} for the synthesizer type for categorical Race and the default value of $H$ (\texttt{H = 50})
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
One_Cat = AttributeRisk(modelFormulas = list(bf(Race ~ LogIncome)),
origdata = CEdata,
syndata = CEdata_syn_cat,
posteriorMCMCs = draws_cat,
syntype = c("multinom"),
H = 50)
\end{Verbatim}
Figure \ref{fig:Race_Prob} shows the density of the re-normalized probabilities of the true confidential values being guessed correctly for all $n = 5126$ records. The results show for majority of the records, its posterior probability is lower than the prior (i.e. randomly guessing among the guesses with probability of 1/6), suggesting low attribute disclosure risks in the synthetic dataset. Figure \ref{fig:Race_rank} shows the rank of the true confidential values among 6 guesses for all records. Most records have rank 2 (rank 1 is highest risk). We have an overall low attribute disclosure risks.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{comment}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Race_diff.png}
\captionof{figure}{Histogram of the absolute difference between the true value and the guessed value of Race with the largest posterior probability.}
\label{fig:Race_diff}
\end{Figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Race_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the posterior probability of correctly guessing the true confidential value of Race for all CUs. The vertical line shows the prior probability of 1/6.}
\label{fig:Race_Prob}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Race_hist.png}
\captionof{figure}{The rank of posterior probability of the true value of Race being guessed correctly, among 6 guesses, for all CUs.
\label{fig:Race_rank}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{One continuous variable}
\label{app:oneCont}
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
One_Continuous_risks = AttributeRiskCalculation::AttributeRisk(
modelFormulas = list(bf(LogIncome ~ 1)),
origdata = CEdata,
syndata = CEdata_syn,
posteriorMCMCs = draws,
syntype = c("norm"),
G = 11)
\end{Verbatim}
Our next application is based off the example we described in Section \ref{methods:computing:1cont}. We synthesize LogIncome with a normal model with no predictors, see Figure \ref{fig:Income_utility} for the results of this synthesis. Then we compute the attribute disclosure risk for each record in the resulting dataset. Figure \ref{fig:Income_Prob} shows the density of the probabilities of the true values being guessed correctly. From this we can see that the mean probability is slightly lower than simply randomly choosing from among the guesses (1/11). However, we may not be able to tell how risky this dataset would be just from this information.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_utility.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the confidential and synthesized value of LogIncome using a normal model with no predictors.}
\label{fig:Income_Prob}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the posterior probability of correctly guessing the true value of LogIncome. The vertical line shows the prior probability (the probability of guessing the true value by chance is 1/11).}
\label{fig:Income_Prob}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
{\color{red}Now that I asked you to expand the x-axis, it starts to look weird since it seems to suggest there could be negative absolute difference, which we know clearly is impossible. Any thoughts how to fix these? Maybe instead of computing absolute difference, we return actual difference?}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_true_hist.png}
\captionof{figure}{The rank of posterior probability of the true value of LogIncome being guessed correctly, among 11 guesses, of all $n = 5126$ CUs. Rank = 1 indicates highest attribute disclosure risk, and Rank = 11 indicates lowest attribute disclosure risk.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_diff.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the absolute difference between the true value and the guessed value of LogIncome with the largest posterior probability.}
\label{fig:Income_Abs_Diff}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
{\color{red} For the rank figures, can you help figure out showing all rank values on the x-axis?} {\color{green} Done}
The intruder might assume that the guess that has the highest probability would be the true value. Figure \ref{fig:Income_Abs_Diff} shows the density of the absolute difference of the true value and the guess that has the highest probability. As we can see from this figure the correct guess (difference of 0) is the most likely guess relatively infrequently. Furthermore we can see that guesses that are quite far from the true value are most frequently the most likely.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Evaluation of synthetic Expenditure and Income}
\label{app:twoCont}
In our second application, we first synthesize LogExpenditure (the logarithm of Expenditure) with a linear regression synthesizer with no predictors. Next, we synthesize LogIncome with another linear regression synthesizer using LogExpenditure as a predictor. Figures \ref{fig:income_expend_util2} and \ref{fig:income_expend_util1} present utility plots of the two synthetic variables, respectively. It is expected that LogExpenditure, being the first variable in the sequential synthesis process, has higher utility, since LogIncome is synthesized given \emph{synthetic} values of LogExpenditure.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_expend_utility2.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density plot of the confidential and synthetic values of LogExpenditure.}
\label{fig:income_expend_util2}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_expend_utility1.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density plot of the confidential and synthetic values of LogIncome.}
\label{fig:income_expend_util1}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
To estimate attribute disclosure risks for each record in the synthetic dataset, we use the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function the following manner. We provide a list of the two formulas describing the sequential synthesis process: first LogExpenditure and second LogIncome given LogExpenditure. We also provide the confidential dataset (\texttt{CEdata}), the synthetic data (\texttt{CEdata\_syn\_cont}), and MCMC draws (\texttt{draws\_cont}). Finally we provide the vector of synthesis type, \texttt{c("norm", "norm")}, our choices of $G$ for both continuous variables (\texttt{G = c(11, 11)}), and the value for $H$ (\texttt{H = 50})
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
Two_Cont = AttributeRisk(modelFormulas = list(bf(LogExpenditure ~ 1),
bf(LogIncome ~ LogExpenditure)),
origdata = CEdata,
syndata = CEdata_syn_cont,
posteriorMCMCs = draws_cont,
syntype = c("norm", "norm"),
G = c(11, 11),
H = 50)
\end{Verbatim}
Since there are two synthetic variables, we can evaluate the joint posterior probability of guessing the true confidential values of two variables. We can also evaluate their corresponding marginal posterior probabilities, as each marginal probability shows how likely the true confidential value of one variable is being correctly guessed. These marginal probabilities are important to allow us to evaluate how risky it is to correctly guess each individual variable, separately.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_Expenditure_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the joint posterior probability of correctly guessing the true value of both LogIncome and LogExpenditure. The vertical line shows the prior probability of 1/121.}
\label{fig:2d_Prob}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_Expenditure_hist.png}
\captionof{figure}{The rank of posterior probability of the true pair of values of LogIncome and LogExpenditure being guessed correctly, among 121 guesses, for all CUs.
\label{fig:my_fig}
\end{figure}
\end{multicols}
Figure \ref{fig:2d_Prob} is the joint posterior probability. It shows that almost all records have lower joint posterior probability than the prior (the prior is 1/121 since both variables have $G = 11$ guesses).
Figure \ref{fig:my_fig} shows the rank of the true confidential pair being guessed correctly among 121 guesses for all records (rank = 1 indicates highest attribute disclosure risks). The mode of the rankings is close to 60, showing overall low attribute disclosure risks for the entire dataset. Nevertheless, there are about 50 out of $n = 5126$ records ranked 1st, indicating high attribute disclosure risks for these records.
Moving to marginal posterior probabilities in Figure \ref{fig:marginal_Prob}, we can see that LogExpenditure has a slightly lower average chance of being guessed correctly compared to LogIncome.
Nevertheless, both variables have low attribute disclosure risks (lower than the prior of 1/11).
Figure \ref{fig:Income_Abs_Diff_marginal} shows the absolute difference between the true confidential value and the highest ranking guess, for LogExpenditure and LogIncome, respectively. On average, the true confidential LogExpenditure is about 0.9 from the highest ranking guess, while the true confidential LogIncome is about 1.1 from the highest ranking guess.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_Expenditure_marginal_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the marginal posterior probabilities of correctly guessing the true value of LogIncome and LogExpenditure, respectively. The vertical line shows the prior probability of 1/11.}
\label{fig:marginal_Prob}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_Expenditure_diff.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the absolute difference between the true value and the guessed value with the largest marginal posterior probability for both LogIncome and LogExpenditure.}
\label{fig:Income_Abs_Diff_marginal}
\end{figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Binary and continuous variables}\label{app:bin}
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
Binary_Continuous_risks = AttributeRiskCalculation::AttributeRisk(
modelFormulas = list(bf(Urban ~ 1),
bf(LogIncome ~ Urban)),
origdata = CEdata,
syndata = CEdata_syn,
posteriorMCMCs = draws,
syntype = c("norm", "norm"),
G = 11)
\end{Verbatim}
In our next application we synthesize Urban with a binomial model with no predictors. We continue to synthesize LogIncome with a normal model, where Urban is a predictor, see Figures \ref{fig:income_urban_util1} and \ref{fig:income_urban_util2} for the results of this synthesis. We start by evaluating the attribute disclosure risk of Urban. Since Urban is a binary variable it does not make sense to look at an absolute difference, so instead we will only focus on the probability of correctly guessing the true value. This can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:urban_Prob}. From this we can see that the average probability of guessing the correct value is just under 1/2. Looking at LogIncome and Figure \ref{fig:inc3_Prob} we see that the probability of guessing the true value is lower than random chance (1/11).
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_rural_income_utility.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the confidential and synthesized value of LogIncome using a normal model with Urban as a predictor.}
\label{fig:income_urban_util1}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_rural_rural_utility.png}
\captionof{figure}{Histogram of the confidential and synthesized values of Urban using a binomial model with no predictors.}
\label{fig:income_urban_util2}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_rural_income_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the posterior probability of correctly guessing the true value LogIncome. The vertical line shows prior probability (the probability of guessing the true value by chance 1/11).}
\label{fig:inc3_Prob}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Income_rural_rural_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the probability of correctly guessing the true value Urban. The vertical line shows prior probability (the probability of guessing the true value by chance 1/2).}
\label{fig:urban_Prob}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Income_rural_hist.png}
\caption{The rank of posterior probability of the true pair of values of LogIncome and Urban being guessed correctly, among 22 guesses, of all $n = 5126$ CUs. Rank = 1 indicates highest attribute disclosure risk, and Rank = 22 indicates lowest attribute disclosure risk.}
\label{fig:urban_hist}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Evaluation of synthetic LogExpenditure and KidsCount}
\label{app:1count1bin1cont}
In our final CE application, we first synthesize LogExpenditure with a linear regression synthesizer using a single binary predictor Urban. Next, we synthesize KidsCount with a Poisson regression synthesizer, using two predictors of LogExpenditure and Urban. Figures \ref{fig:kids_expend_util1} and \ref{fig:kids_expend_util2} present the utility plots of the two synthetic variables. As with sequential synthesis in Section \ref{app:twoCont}, the second synthetic variable would have lower utility than the first, exactly what we observe here comparing synthetic KidsCount to synthetic LogExpenditure.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_expend_utility_expend.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density plot of the confidential and synthetic values of LogExpenditure.}
\label{fig:kids_expend_util1}
\end{Figure}
\begin{Figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_expend_utility_kids.png}
\captionof{figure}{Histogram of the confidential and synthetic values of KidsCount.}
\label{fig:kids_expend_util2}
\end{Figure}
\end{multicols}
To estimate attribute disclosure risks for each record in the synthetic dataset, we use the \texttt{AttributeRisk()} function the following manner. We provide a list of the two formulas describing the synthesis, following the synthesis order. Moreover, we provide the confidential dataset (\texttt{CEdata}), the synthetic data (\texttt{CEdata\_syn\_count}), and MCMC draws (\texttt{draws\_count}). We also provide the vector of synthesis type \texttt{c("norm", "pois")}. Lastly we provide \texttt{G = 11} for the continuous LogExpenditure and \texttt{H = 50} for $H$.
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
Count_risks = AttributeRisk(
modelFormulas = list(bf(LogExpenditure ~ Urban),
bf(KidsCount ~ LogExpenditure + Urban)),
origdata = CEdata,
syndata = CEdata_syn_count,
posteriorMCMCs = draws_count,
syntype = c("norm", "pois"),
G = 11,
H = 50)
\end{Verbatim}
Figure \ref{fig:kids_guess} shows the density of the joint posterior probabilities for correctly guessing the true confidential pair. For most records, its posterior probability is lower than the prior of 1/88. The rank plot in Figure \ref{fig:kids_hist} shows a mode around 5. Looking at the marginal probabilities in Figures \ref{fig:kids_marginal_expend} and \ref{fig:kids_marginal_kids}, we can see that guessing the true value of LogExpenditure is actually more likely on average than randomly guessing. This may motivate data disseminators to change their synthesis models if this risk is deemed too large.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_guess.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the joint posterior probability of correctly guessing the true confidential pair of LogExpenditure and KidsCount. The vertical line shows the prior probability of 1/88.}
\label{fig:kids_guess}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_expend_hist.png}
\captionof{figure}{The rank of posterior probability of the true pair of values of LogExpenditure and KidsCount being guessed correctly, among 88 guesses, for all CUs.
\label{fig:kids_hist}
\end{figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_expend_marginal_expend.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the probability of correctly guessing the true value LogExpenditure. The vertical line shows prior probability of 1/11.}
\label{fig:kids_marginal_expend}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_expend_marginal_kids.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the probability of correctly guessing the true value KidsCount. The vertical line shows prior probability of 1/8.}
\label{fig:kids_marginal_kids}
\end{figure}
\end{multicols}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_diff.png}
\captionof{figure}{Density of the absolute difference between the true value and the guessed value with the largest marginal posterior probability for LogExpenditure.}
\label{fig:kids_diff_expend}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Kids_diff2.png}
\captionof{figure}{Histogram of the absolute difference between the true value and the guessed value with the largest marginal posterior probability for KidsCount.}
\label{fig:kids_diff_kids}
\end{figure}
\end{multicols}
Lastly for the absolute difference between the true confidential value and the highest ranking guess in Figure \ref{fig:kids_diff_expend} for LogExpenditure and Figure \ref{fig:kids_diff_kids} for KidsCount, LogExpenditure on average has a distance of 0.9, while KidsCount shows more than 3000 CUs are 7 count away from the highest ranking guess (the range for KidsCount is 8), indicating low risks.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{conclusion}
In this paper, we reviewed a general approach for calculating attribute disclosure risks using Bayesian estimation methods. For accessible presentation, we provided examples of several commonly-used Bayesian synthesizers with sample R scripts to illustrate the computational details of the estimation methods. We introduced the \texttt{AttributeRiskCalculation} R package for calculating calculate attribute disclosure risks in synthetic datasets, with several use cases to CE sample applications.
The estimation method we outlined in this work requires posterior draws of model parameters in the chosen Bayesian synthesizer(s). Common Bayesian MCMC estimation software usually provide posterior parameter draws in their output like \texttt{stan} or \texttt{JAGS} \citep{rstanarm, Plummer03jags:a}. However, other data synthesizers, such as classification and regression trees (CART), do not involve posterior parameter draws of synthesis models \citep{synthpopJSS}. How to evaluate attribute disclosure risks for these synthesizers is in important future research direction.
Another future research direction is the relaxation of our worst case scenario assumption of a very knowledgeable intruder. Such assumption could be too conservative in practice, although it is necessary for the purpose of efficient computation. Advancement of computation efficiency could afford more realistic assumptions of intruder's knowledge and behavior.
|
Subsets and Splits